Home/BlogNew Record High Temperatures and a Weird Month
July 2023 was an unusual month, with sudden warmth and a few record or near-record high temperatures.
Since the satellite record began in 1979, July 2023 was:
- warmest July on record (global average)
- warmest absolute temperature (since July is climatologically the warmest month)
- tied with March 2016 for the 2nd warmest monthly anomaly (departure from normal for any month)
- warmest Southern Hemisphere land anomaly
- warmest July for tropical land (by a wide margin, +1.03 deg. C vs. +0.44 deg. C in 2017)
These results suggest something peculiar is going on. It’s too early for the developing El Nino in the Pacific to have much effect on the tropospheric temperature record. The Hunga Tonga sub-surface ocean volcano eruption and its “unprecedented” production of extra stratospheric water vapor could be to blame. There might be other record high temperatures regionally in the satellite data, but I don’t have time right now to investigate that.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming…
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July 2023 was +0.64 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is well above the June 2023 anomaly of +0.38 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 19 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.06 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.12 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.50 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.28 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.22 | +0.74 | +0.02 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.27 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.25 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.17 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.60 | +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 | +0.56 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.32 | +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 | +0.24 | +0.16 | -0.13 | -1.44 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.25 | -0.03 | -0.38 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.39 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.06 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.87 | +0.53 | +0.91 | +1.43 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for July, 2023 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy of the unusual July conditions, 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†
Hey RLH – looks like you lost your bet. And BADLY!!
It has taken 3 years for that figure to occur. Do you think the rest of the year will see the same rise?
Still lower than some months in 2016.
This may be an ideal time to recall that one month is weather, not climate.
My only point was that you lost the bet.
Not with you.
Again … not my point.
Still lower than some months in 2016.
Do you think the rest of the year will see the same (or more) rise?
Every month warmer than this month? Of course not.
But don’t forget you’ve been pushing how weak this El Nino is, so it shouldn’t go close to 2015/16, right?
Anyway, the ENSO season runs from July to June, so the 2023-24 season is currently leading 2015-16 +0.64 to +0.02.
There goes your drinking tab for tonight.
Sure. Now say something climate related.
Sure, my arboreal friend. Find yourself a tree and climate.
Now say something climate related.
Sure, after you take the lead. Heads up – ENSO is not climate.
It’ll take a few days for Roy to update his UAH data. I’ll post the results then.
What results? To come up with results you first need to pose the question.
Doc- you are my go-to-guy for making sense of all of this. While I have an MS in Engineering and still am a Certified Energy Manager this stuff sure is complex. I await your next book. I just finished Dr Curry’s book which conveniently arrived in time for me to read in our 29June-4 July power outage caused by an 85mph derecho wind storm in Indiana where I live (we have lots of tall trees by powerlines here). Lastly the year 1988 is when AlGore made his big Senate Hearing with Hanson and the shut-off HVAC in the hearing room. That year I was transferred from KI Sawyer AFB near your old stomping grounds to “southerly” Chanute AFB, IL in February. In summer1988 midwest had a drought and I saw all the dead corn mid July in a sporadic belt from Illinois to Kansas City. That got my attention and I started eagerly reading all that I could. Keep up the good work
At least describe the bet for the rest of us?
Not Hunga Tonga
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga
Dr Spencer … radiosonde data shows no detectable increase in stratospheric water vapour concentrations.
And what would cause those concentrations to suddenly increase 18 months after the eruption?
Also Dr Spencer, you haven’t updated your graph in the intro.
done.
Also, the trend hasn’t yet gone up to 0.14C per decade.
It is sitting at 0.1347, so I assume you double-rounded.
I get 0.1351 (lines-t function in Excel).
Yes, I get the same using R. It’s possible that Antonin is starting from January 1979, rather than December 1978.
I’m just reading the gradient from the trend line and multiplying by 120 (months to decades). Should there be a difference? (honest question, not a slur)
It appears the old data has changed since last month. I re-downloaded and get the same value now.
Could someone suggest what statistical reason there might be for those changes?
Some satellite adjustments are re-calculated as new data come in. This can cause ~0.01 deg C changes sometimes compared to previous calculations.
Well, surprise, surprise.
This dramatic increase is due to the HTE. It now appears as is the effect has peaked, but the new El Niño is becoming more and more a factor.
Opinion transforms into fact before our very eyes.
Still waiting for your expert explanation of the mechanism behind your “HTE” …
Clint will again weasel his way out of his need to explain by asserting that we “wouldn’t understand” his superior thinking processes which no other scientist has yet been able to duplicate.
I would like to hear the contrarian explanation of how 150 MtH2O (which is only a ~0.001% increase in the entire atmosphere despite being a ~13% increase in the stratosphere) can cause the EEI to jump up to +1.97 W/m2 and cause such a dramatic response in the UAH TLT anomalies. And if 150 MtH2O can do that then why should we be so quick to dismiss the 1,100,000 MtCO2 increase as having an effect?
Because CO2 follows temperature on both short and long, time scales. Always has and data still shows this.
Interesting. So the law of conservation of mass works for H2O, but not CO2?
Interesting you would say this because that is precisely how Berry falsified AGW. His Physics Model uses the conservation of mass.
This GRAPH shows the sensitivity to outgoing longwave radiation to changes in the water vapour content of layers in the atmosphere.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/images/sens-wv-on-olr-vs-pressure-layer.jpg
The graph shows at a given increase of water vapor (0.3 kg/m2 or prmm) in the 100 150 mbar pressure layer (about 13.8 to 16.3 km altitude) causes a reduction of OLR of -5.56 W/m2 while the same change of water vapour in the near surface layer (0 to 0.11 km altitude) reduces the OLR by only 0.196 W/m2, assuming constant surface temperatures. In other words, the OLR is 284 times as sensitive to changes in the amount of water vapour in the 100 150 mbar layer as in the 1013 100 mbar near surface layer.
Therefore, the injection of water vapour into the stratosphere has 284 times the warming effect as the same increase of water vapour near the Earth’s surface. The graph was produced from calculations using the HARTCODE line-by-line radiative code.
Oops, the “0.196 W/m2” should be “0.0196 W/m2”.
The facts you presented are also one of the big reasons CO2 doesn’t warm the planet. CO2 DWIR increases evaporation. While this has almost no warming effect at the surface, the enhanced convection decreases high altitude water vapor which has a strong cooling effect.
The combination of this cooling with the CO2 warming effect from the widening of the 20 nm frequency bands cancel out.
The warming causes cooling theory again…
Nate once again shows true science denial. There’s no warming. It’s called evaporative cooling for a reason.
The energy coming from the low atmosphere gets transported high into the atmosphere by known convective processes. That is where the greenhouse effect of water vapor gets reduced by increased condensation and more solar energy gets reflected from the clouds produced
Science deniers like Nate are a hoot.
“Figure 4. Illustration of the breakdown of terms in the Bulk Formula (that determines evaporation rate) and their typical global average necessary to give a net average evaporation rate of a little under 0.3 gm/cm2 per day. A doubling of CO2 would bring about a blockage of 3.7 Wm-2 which is equivalent to variation of average global evaporation of about 4.2 percent if all this energy went into evaporation. In this case we could have a double of CO2 and no global warming at all. ”
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
Theres no warming. Its called evaporative cooling for a reason.”
Sorry Richard, enhanced evaporation only occurs as a result of warming.
This is quite a leap of non-physical ill-logic. But that seems to be your talent.
And as explained previously to you, I did the straightforward experiment with a ceramic IR heater pointed downward onto the surface of water in a bowl.
The water didn’t cool. It warmed. Considerably.
You are welcome to replicate it.
Your theory, silly as it was, is falsified, says Feynman.
Nate shows how little he understands science: “Sorry Richard, enhanced evaporation only occurs as a result of warming.”
No, evaporation occurs when you add energy. Warming is one way to do it but not the only way. Sigh.
“I did the straightforward experiment with a ceramic IR heater pointed downward onto the surface of water in a bowl.”
And I explained your mistake. You are adding energy to the system. It comes from your outlet and through those wires you want to ignore. Adding energy to any system will warm it.
That’s not happening with CO2 emitting DWIR from low in the atmosphere. The CO2 is energized by energy already in the atmosphere. You are moving it from the atmosphere to a water molecule on the surface. If the molecule of water evaporates it takes the energy with it. Nothing was warmed. And if that water vapor molecule now rises with a convection current, the entire system cooled.
“Nate shows how little he understands science:”
Richard you show the weakness of your argument you feel the need to substitute ad-hominems for facts and logic.
“No, evaporation occurs when you add energy. Warming is one way to do it but not the only way. Sigh.”
Let’s go over the science facts.
Lets ignore increased wind-aided evaporation, since wind is unchanged in your theory.
Water has a vapor pressure, which is a strong function of temperature.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/599/Water_saturation_pressure_C.jpg
When water temperature increases, the vapor pressure above the surface increases, and as it tries to equilibrate with the vapor pressure in the bulk atmosphere, the water must evaporate more to maintain the vapor pressure above the surface.
Sorry, Richard. There is no enhanced evaporation without an increase in temperature.
But as we see in the direct experiment, the water does increase in temperature. And then enhanced evaporation occurs.
Your theory doesnt hold water.
“And I explained your mistake. You are adding energy to the system. It comes from your outlet and through those wires you want to ignore. Adding energy to any system will warm it.
Thats not happening with CO2 emitting DWIR from low in the atmosphere. The CO2 is energized by energy already in the atmosphere. You are moving it from the atmosphere to a water molecule on the surface. If the molecule of water evaporates it takes the energy with it. Nothing was warmed. And if that water vapor molecule now rises with a convection current, the entire system cooled.”
False. In my experiment, the flux came from a surface that was emitting according to its temperature, emissivity as required by the SB law.
Just as any surface or substance does. The SB law doesnt care care whether the surface attained its temperature by energy from an outlet or wires or otherwise.
Surfaces are not intelligent, nor is emitted EM flux.
“Nothing was warmed.”
In the experiment the water warmed. Sorry Richard, your theory does not agree with experiment.
It is wrong says Feynman.
Nate,
Your “experiment” demonstrates merely that you have no idea what you are doing.
You have confirmed that water can be heated in sunlight – as I quoted Tyndall earlier, material that blocks radiation is heated as a result. You are a century and a half behind in your understanding.
The Earth has cooled, in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, and no mythical GHE had any effect on the cooling.
You don’t have to accept reality, and can choose to believe any weird things you like.
Good for you!
“heated in sunlight ”
Wrong, as usual. Sunlight has nothing to do with the discussion, now a week old.
It’s a chart by Friends of Fossil Fuels with no source link. I wouldn’t rely on anything they post.
No it’s not Hunga Tonga
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga
Dr Spencer,
The eruption of Hunga Tunga, while impressive, is not impacting the climate in any appreciable way. The warming from water vapor is cancelled by increases in aerosols.
It’s a nothing-burger.
A paper on this subject by a group led by Mark Schoeberl is in the works and will be published soon.
P.s.: Mark Schoeberl
Hunga Tonga produced much more stratospheric water vapor than did Pinatubo, but WAY less sulfate aerosols. So, it appears H.T. is a warming (not cooling) volcano… but by just how much remains to be seen.
I agree with you here. I’m wondering if we haven’t underestimated the radiative forcing of the significant increase in stratospheric water vapor. The 12m running average EEI from CERES is now up to an astonishing +1.97 W/m2 as of May 2023.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFTOA42Selection.jsp
Some have said HTE may have a large impact. What was low was SO2 which is a UV blocking chemical. But the normal volcanic process is to blow SO2 into the stratosphere where it blocks incoming UV, cools the surface for a time. SO2 then finds some rare water in the stratosphere and produces sulfuric acid which in turn destroys ozone which not only ends the UV blocking from the SO2 but also ends the UV blocking from Ozone.
Since HTE there have been changes to the ozone layer that is being written off as ”meteorological disturbances”.
Some scientists are suggesting that the SO2 didn’t go up with the HTE because of the explosion being underwater, so it could have gone up as primarily sulfuric acid and the typical SO2 would not be noted. Surges in surface warming have been noted a few years post El Chichon, Pinatubo, and Cordn Caulle. The effects from HTE may be on a different timeline due to its association with water during the surface eruption phase.
It would be interesting to see if there is anything to this.
Some resources:
https://tinyurl.com/4cs5evkm
https://tinyurl.com/3td3kxt6
And sulphate aerosol activity in the destruction of ozone may only be part of the story.
This study indicates that chlorine content, are too low for some explosive volcanoes by a factor of 20 to 40 or more.
and the relatively small VEI 3 Alaskan Augustine volcano result in a large chlorine infusion into the stratosphere. This stratospheric contribution is equivalent to 17 to 36 percent of the 1975 world industrial production of chlorine in fluorocarbons.
And of course chlorine is the most abundant dissolved element in ocean water.
forgot the study link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1685120
“The eruption of Hunga Tunga, while impressive, is not impacting the climate in any appreciable way”.
***
This from ark who is baffled by basic quantum theory and most other basic science. ark is suddenly an expert on Hunga Tonga wv in the stratosphere.
What other recent event could cause such havoc, with a heat dome parked over North America in May?
So tell me Gordo, you’re an expert on Quantum Theory, but don’t understand basic spectrometry? Wow, that’s actually quite impressive. Or is it that you watched “what the bleep do we know” and you now think you’re an expert on “Quantum Physics”? The latter would make more sense.
Exactly
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga
“Its too early for the developing El Nino in the Pacific to have much effect on the tropospheric temperature record.”
This is, indeed, a bit of a poser. Any guesses as to what the source of heat, or cause of heat distribution, is?
I’m thinking that it’s related to what’s happening in Antarctica.
The 12m running average Earth Energy Imbalance of +1.97 W/m2 as reported by CERES is almost certainly part of the causal chain. The question is…why is the EEI so high?
Anyway, yeah the 4m lagged ONI is only -0.1 so there should have still been a suppressive, albeit small, effect on the troposphere temperature. And yet here we are at +0.64 C.
I’m calling it. Those subzero predictions on the UAH 1981-2010 baseline we’ve seen in the blogosphere over the last couple of years were hot garbage.
Predictions which were likely based on a “GSM” which ain’t going to happen.
bdgwx, Antonin, please stop trolling.
The 13 mo. red curve has not been updated.
Good spot. It should be at 0.25
It looks like it has been fixed. Thanks Dr. Spencer!
Fixed.
Most likely a combination of the low Antarctic sea ice and a summer El Nino. Both of these are rare in the historic satellite data.
The increase in the anomaly is 0.68 C since January. Another example of the large changes in global temperature that occur naturally. Could this be a precursor to the AMO cycle phase change?
I also noted the sub-equatorial heat that has been fueling the El Nino formation appears to be cooling. Another strange event to add to the list. I didn’t expect to see this for another 6 months at least.
Arctic sea ice is continuing a slow recovery even as the global temperature increases.
A lot of interesting changes are afoot.
How could it be due to the El Nino when you swear blind by your 5-month lag?
It seems like your lag is to be called on when needed and discarded when expedient.
That’s why I specifically referred to a SUMMER El Nino. I do get a laugh when climate cultists prove yet again they are clueless.
There have been 8 other summer El Nino’s not including 2023 since 1979. That’s hardly what I’d describe as “rare”.
How many of them were Spring onset? I think 3 and none of those after a triple dip La Nina. We are in new territory.
So your lag doesn’t apply in summer … is that what you are saying?
If so, how so?
Different air currents (jet streams, etc) in the NH summer which is where much of the warming from EL Nino seems to occur.
I’m just throwing out a possibility here. I think the Antarctic is a bigger factor and maybe H-T may be as well.
I’ve been waiting to see a good tracking of the upper atmosphere water vapor from the volcano and haven’t seen any. Where did it all go?
I wondered about the sea-ice myself. But the Antarctic is in darkness at the moment, so surely a lowered albedo would mean that it is LOSING heat by radiation, rather than gaining heat by irradiation. Lowered sea-ice should cause the sea to warm when the Sun comes up again. Is there something wrong with this reasoning?
” surely a lowered albedo would mean that it is LOSING heat by radiation, rather than gaining heat by irradiation. ”
Good thought. But albedo change for visble wavelengths is not necessarily a change for IR wavelengths.
Both ice and seawater are nearly black in the IR, ie they high emissivity.
Interesting detail. Remind me not to bother taking an IR-adapted camera to the Antarctic if I ever make it there.
It’s not trivially obvious to me, then, how the ice-albedo feedback works. But it seems like we should not see sudden warming due to lower Winter ice cover, no?
ice albedo: with less ice and more open ocean, there is more heat gain by solar irradiation.
Yes, but my point was that in Winter the Sun is not up over Antarctica. Hence no solar irradiation.
True. So something else at work down there.
The areas where the sea ice has not formed is close to 60 degrees. There is sunlight even in the winter.
“Another example of the large changes in global temperature that occur naturally.”
This is the equal biggest 6 month change. The previous one was in April 1998.
It’s unusual for a big rise to happen in July, as the effects of El Ninos are felt in Spring. The biggest January – July rise previously was last year, with a rise of 0.33C, half the change this year.
I think both the last two years may be related to the sea ice change going on in Antarctica. Since it is winter in the SH this is the time where the sea ice should have the strongest effect. More heat is being released by the oceans and since SH sea ice is normally affected by solar energy even in winter, we could also be seeing a lower albedo.
Given that Antarctic sea ice is about 1.5million square kilometres below average and the surface area of the Earth is about 750million square kilometres I don’t see how such a small change in the amount of the planet that’s covered in ice can have such a big effect on global temperatures.
You do realize the 5m lagged ONI is -0.4 right?
Yes, which is why I specifically mentioned a SUMMER El Nino onset. We really don’t have enough data to know if the lag is the same.
Are you thinking the lag is shorter for the summer months?
Yes, I think the energy flow in the NH is stronger in the summer. This could reduce the lag.
Where is the AMO at right now? Can you link a graph?
The official AMO got no update since January because its source, the Kaplan SST series, wasn’t too.
I’ll make a graph 4u out of
https://tinyurl.com/AMO-out-of-ERSST-v5 (grrr, again this ‘d c’)
instead.
cu
This AMO is detrended. I normally use only the undetrended variant.
1. Jan 1856 – Jul 2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uRD2yHc0o1jFN1d2gShrbbHKI0KvrPCp/view
2. Jan 2010 – Jul 2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jXQoD-CH43MyMiKxAWfmZdMOhWGRVZ2s/view
Thank you Bindidon.
That’s pretty warm. Beat the previous July record (from 1998) by 0.26C.
Top ten July anomalies are
Year Anomaly
1 2023 0.64
2 1998 0.38
3 2022 0.36
4 2020 0.31
5 2016 0.26
6 2019 0.25
7 2021 0.21
8 2010 0.20
9 2017 0.17
10 2018 0.17
Still, the pause won’t change much. Starts in October 2014, so stays the same length.
Yep, +.28*C warmer than the previous 12 year ‘pause’ a decade ago.
Of the top 10 warmest July’s, 9 were since 2010. In fact all 8 July’s from 2016 – 2023 are in the top 10
We should look at both the ENSO and the AMO.
And both are in the positive phase now.
This is the reason for the warmth.
They are both factors, but something is to blame. Nature sure is interesting.
AMO has been high for decades..
Look at the detrended AMO:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uRD2yHc0o1jFN1d2gShrbbHKI0KvrPCp/view
and you see that despite detrended, AMO increases.
In fact, this ‘should not happen’ in a detrended time series, right :–)
Decadal averages:
1980s: -0.281
1990s: -0.137 (up 0.144)
2000s: -0.033 (up 0.104)
2010s: +0.122 (up 0.155)
2020s: +0.229 (up 0.107 – 36% of decade)
The four Julys of the 2020s are ranked 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th out of 45, the last three despite the three-year La Nina.
It couldn’t be that 99% of scientists are correct, and human driven greenhouse gas emissions are causing this? Surely, not?
So the UK met office is wrong with ascribing this recent weather (in the UK and in Europe) as being down to the placement of the jet stream and not CO2?
Wavering/more variable jet streams couldn’t have anything to do with the troposphere and surface oceans containing more energy (heat) than at any time previously on record (thermometers or ice cores)?
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00792-8
Dastardly scientists up to their own tricks again greedily hoarding the $100,000s of dollars they steal for their research and jobs, trying to stop the poor, impoverished fossil fuel companies making miserly 10s to 100s of billions of dollars in profits. Oh the injustice! How will they be able to continue to pay off people like Mr. Spencer?
Yes, when the Met Office says it’s CO2, people like Daveo will accept that happily. But when they say it’s something else, people like Daveo cannot grasp that – it does not compute.
You really do have comprehension issues, don’t you.
Apparently you believe decadal averages are about “recent weather”.
Are you suggesting that there has been a sudden and substantial increase in GHGs that would explain this large anomaly?
This might be another of Salby’s step changes. It is still too early to tell. Many here believe the ENSO’s cause the step-change. I think the peculiarity might be causing the step change and shows up initially as an ENSO.
Everybody thinks ENSO is a significant contributing factor to the step-change. It’s not unlike sin(x) being the cause of the step-change in y=x+sin(x). That’s what happens when you superimpose an oscillatory factor onto a more linear factor. The oscillatory factor is what makes the composite value rise in a stair-step manner.
I looked at that. That equation does not fit what we see.
It is not meant to fit what you see. It is meant to help you understand what happens at a fundamental level when you superimpose an oscillatory term onto a more linear term. Do you understand why sin(x) doesn’t stop y from increasing long term despite stopping it short term?
I do understand what the graph of y=x + sin x looks like. That doesn’t describe temperature.
Also, if you think it does, you must show how. That is what Berry did with his Physics model.
“I do understand what the graph of y=x + sin x looks like. That doesnt describe temperature”
Not sure in what way you think it is different? Obviously the real data is not as regular as sinx, but other than that…
Stephen, here is surface T data. Also shown with smoothing.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/offset:0.25/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60
Some steps apparent.
And here with a linear trend removed.
w.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/offset:0.25/detrend:1.0/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60/detrend:1.0
Only somewhat random oscillations remain. Not exactly a sine wave, but you get the idea…
whoops.
And here with a linear trend removed.
woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/offset:0.25/detrend:1.0/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60/detrend:1.0
Arrgh!
try that again.
Here with linear trend removed
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/offset:0.25/detrend:1.0/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:60/detrend:1.0
No, I do get the gist, and it doesn’t.
And your specific objection is…?
bdgwx says:
Everybody thinks ENSO is a significant contributing factor to the step-change. Its not unlike sin(x) being the cause of the step-change in y=x+sin(x). Thats what happens when you superimpose an oscillatory factor onto a more linear factor. The oscillatory factor is what makes the composite value rise in a stair-step manner.
—————————–
Thats true in the simplest case but it has been observed there are greater oscillations at play here as well. The PDO is an oscillation that demonstrates by observation a dominance of El Nino’s or La Nina’s depending upon the phase of the observation.
Additionally these ocean oscillations appear to be within a larger oscillation observed in ice core data of an approximate mean 700-900 year cycle with an amplitude of a mean of 2-3 deg C.
This is the problem with theories around natural systems of all sorts. there are too many variables so the vast majority of theories not built on solid demonstrable science end up failing.
The only correct way to describe current CO2 theory is that yes there is energy being absorbed in the atmosphere that if it caused an increase in radiation at the surface the surface would warm by 1C. Seems most knowledgeable scientists support that statement (without commenting on the likelihood of ‘if’ actually happening). But then enters the concept of feedback and most scientists around the topic work or have a hobby of trying to understand what the feedback will be.
I am good with that.
but as they say the devil is in the details.
Well, China is largest emitter of CO2.
We should have zero confident in whatever is reported from China.
The same could said about American MSM, but you can imagine something worse than American corporate news {it’s hard but try}.
May was apparent the highest Global CO2 level:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
But instead July being predicatively lower, maybe it jumped the shark. They will get around to reporting it.
But maybe it’s not CO2, maybe China has decided to broaden into emitting most amount methane or something.
China has a lower average temperature of about 8 C, and it reasonable to want to have a higher average temperature.
Alarming rise in atmospheric methane over the last two decades, links to tropical wetlands growing:
https://theconversation.com/rising-methane-could-be-a-sign-that-earths-climate-is-part-way-through-a-termination-level-transition-211211
Just one factor of many as we continue to ignore the very in-plain-view science and changing climates globally.
Thanks for the update.
Sunspots have been high for the start of the current cycle. Higher than the start of cycle #24, less than cycle #22 & #23.
The 13 month average has leveled off from 1998 to now. Not like 1980 to 1998 even though far more CO2 has been pumped into the air.
Looking forward to more reports sir.
Be safe. Several power companies have documented their wind and solar farms are less predictable than their gas/oil/coal or nuclear fuel powered stations. Brown outs are not predicted, but neither were last years outages in North Carolina.
The 13-month average is not climate.
15 years after July 1998 (ie. 25 years ago): -0.03
10 years since: +0.20
Only UAH has 1998 roughly the same as 2016 and 2020 . GISS, Had5 and RSS all seem to think that 1998 was unimportant.
Reminder – CLIMATE, not single years.
AQ,
Indeed. Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations.
Has no effect on anything at all, except the fevered imaginations of GHE cultists.
And don’t forget that the anomaly value is just a placeholder based on a baseline that Dr. Spencer keeps moving up (he has done this multiple times) to make the anomaly look smaller.
” … to make the anomaly look smaller. ”
Nonsense.
The first reference period was 1979-1998.
Later on, it was changed to the WMO standard (1991-2020).
Recently, UAH adopted WMO’s newest recommendation: 1991-2020
Like did Japan’s Met Agency for its surface data:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/download.html
and many others.
So what? Anomalies are a standard practice in climate science (and many other disciplines of science). And the baseline doesn’t matter nor the fact that it moves every 10 years. That’s also a common practice. It doesn’t effect the quality of the dataset or how it is analyzed.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
“These results suggest something peculiar is going on.”
It’s called anthropogenic driven climate change, which of course you know, but are paid off to create misinformation on. Carry on spreading your fossil fuel propaganda though. God forbid this or anything else will ever stop you – there is literally nothing that could.
I wish I was getting paid. Alas, no. And I wasn’t aware that slowly increasing CO2 causes a 1-month jump in temperatures. Can you point me to a publication explaining how that happens?
Did this temperature increase and correlation with CO2 increase just start occurring in July 2023? Or do you not know how to read your own graph that you conveniently continue to increase your benchmark temperature you use for temperature anomalies? (yes we all know how many times you’ve changed you baseline to make the anomalies look less).
I mean your own decadal averages have already been posted today:
Decadal averages:
1980s: -0.281
1990s: -0.137 (up 0.144)
2000s: -0.033 (up 0.104)
2010s: +0.122 (up 0.155)
2020s: +0.229 (up 0.107 36% of decade)
As per the source of your income: There is plenty of evidence of where you get your money.
1. How much did you get for your “White paper” for the fossil fuel think-tank Texas Public Policy Institute?
2. How much were the payments from Peabody Energy whose bankruptcy filings show you as a creditor? Well how much aside from the $4000 pay off to testify in Minnesota State?
3. How much did you end up getting from the direction made by the Heartland Institutes Joe Bast in the email leak? find independent funding for Roy Spencer, David Schnare, Willie Soon, Craig Idso, David Legates, etc.
4. What about your fees for appearances in Climate Hustle?
You might be “still waiting for that Big Check from Big Oil”, but you’ve certainly had your fair share of bank transfer and lofty PR they present you with.
Daveo, its quite interesting that youre stalking Dr. Spencer, on his blog, from the safety of anonymity. Youre quite the brave one, huh?
I bet you dont have a clue about any of the relevant science. Do you also have all the mental problems Greta has?
Speaking of mental health problems, there is an epidemic of a sociopathic denialism of what all data (even Dr. Spencer’s manipulated data sets) leads to within an age group of 60+ white males with money. Those are serious mental health issues plaguing our society.
daveo, I don’t agree with Dr. Spencer on a lot of things and I think UAH may be contaminated with cooling biases. But I am going to defend Roy against claims of data manipulation. I’ve seen no evidence that UAH has manipulated their dataset.
daveo…beggar off you alarmist azzhole. Learn some science and get off your alarmist religion.
Roy’s integrity is umimpeachable. He’s one of the few who can claim that.
Oh i actually came here to learn science. Wing place I guess eh…🤣
For those who are looking at this rationally, the huge spike suggests there are things other than just greenhouse gases that effect weather and climate. This is how agenda driven people often get caught up in their own talking points. Just to refresh, the mantra is that a steady rise in CO2 is causing a steady rise in temperature over a normally very stable atmosphere that doesn’t change very much without human influence.
There have been absolutely no warnings of tipping points creating positive feedback loops have there? Amplified polar warming leading to more rapid permafrost thawing than previously predicted (previously Earth’s largest carbon store/sink), melting sea ice (Antarctic sea ice extent now 7sigma below the mean) reducing albedo and melting glacial ice raising sea levels.
Only old frauds with vested interests continue to debate climate change. The rest of the scientific world has moved on to WTF is going to happen as a result of anthropogenic driven warming that is not just certain to happen – it is happening, right before your very eyes – well if they weren’t buried in the sand with the rest of your head.
So Daveo – you think this is a tipping point? It would be nice if you’d make a coherent point…
Most of us remember the climate alarmists telling us in 2012 after a precipitous unexpected drop in Arctic sea ice that there would be no Arctic ice by 2014. They were wrong.
You might yet be right. This could be the first sign of a tipping point. I really doubt it, and until there have been at least three months of unusual weather I’m not even going to entertain the thought that it’s to do with human emitted CO2.
I think it just shows that there is natural variability in the system we don’t understand. And I think it’s to do with HT because we are still getting very orange sunsets at 32S that are clearly caused by aerosol at high altitude based on how late after sunset they are. Apparently that happened after El Chichon too, but I was on the equator then.
Any chance this could have put carbonate into the stratosphere with all that water?
“I’m not even going to entertain the thought”. And there it is – zero interest in it even being a possibility. So, you might start entertaining it when? When we’ve reached +3C? +5C? Might be just a little late by then my friend.
” over a normally very stable atmosphere that doesnt change very much without human influence.”
Not really. Climate science is clear that there is natural variation, such as ENSO.
daveo…even the IPCC cannot prove anthropogenic warming never mind climat change. Here’s the proof relied upon by the IPCC…
1)19th century scientists like Tyndall and Arrhenius said it is so.
2)Humans began emitting more CO2 in the 17th century (Industrial Era) and the planet started warming circa 1850, therefore it is CO2 causing the warming.
The twits failed to grasp that the Little Ice Age ended circa 1850, meaning the planet needed to re-warm bu 1C to 2C.
There is not a shred of scientific evidence in IPCC reviewed papers that proves a trace gas like CO2 can warm anything. There is plenty of evidence to prove that a trace gas is limited in its contribution to warming in a mixed gas by its mass percent. That means CO2 is limited to a warming of 0.06% per degree warming of all the gases.
Science lesson? Why not? Have you ever heard of spectrometry? Well even if you haven’t, your eyes see it in action every day. Different matter absorbs different wavelengths of light, which controls the colour of everything you can see (because our eyes are evolved to view the peak radiation emitted from the sun), but also interactions between energy and matter you cannot see – say longer wavelength, lower intensity radiation emitted from the much cooler earth. Now we actually have copious amounts of data that show greenhouse gases (which if we did not have at pre-industrial levels would have likely meant no terrestrial life because it would be too cold) interact with this longer wavelength energy emitted from the Earth. I reckon even Doc Spencer might agree with that (unless he denies spectrometry too). If we increase these gases – say from burning fossil fuels – then more of that energy released from the Earth is trapped rather than radiating into space.
It’s actually really basic science that I’ve taught to children in grade 4 before – and they understood. Amazing how a bunch of old fogies with vested interests just cannot quite grasp the concept.
It is impossible to tell if you know the real facts or not. Once again, you are so caught up in political talking points that you are not making sense. You are confusing reflected visible light with thermal radiation. You seemed confused about the role of water vapor compared to CO2. You are not correctly describing the greenhouse effect. Do you know any real science, or just what the news media report?
Hmm… I see the grade 4 version was too difficult. Tough crowd.
Herein lies your problem Daveo.
You are teaching spectrometry in terms of kindergarten science.
CO2 has an infrared spectrum where it absorbs certain frequencies of radiation.
The characteristics ones in the IR band are both weak and very narrow compared to the whole range of IR. I have never looked at the microwave spectrum but expect it to be similar.
An analogy would be CO2 is like blocking one hole in a sieve when there are a million holes letting water through.
The height of the water in the sieve would barely be affected.
However if other factors change like increasing water vapour in the atmosphere equivalent to blocking tens of thousands of holes or increasing the energy input(adjusting the tap, faucet to Americans)would make a far bigger change.
“The characteristics ones in the IR band are both weak and very narrow compared to the whole range of IR. ”
Very narrow?
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/images/outgoing-radiation-thumb.png
“There is not a shred of scientific evidence in IPCC reviewed papers that proves a trace gas like CO2 can warm anything. There is plenty of evidence to prove that a trace gas is limited in its contribution to warming in a mixed gas by its mass percent. That means CO2 is limited to a warming of 0.06% per degree warming of all the gases.”
The one guy whose ‘integrity is umimpeachable’ says you are wrong.
Someone tell this robot to go back to the lab to get its brain fixed.
Been cool in the UK for six weeks now.never been above 16c in Northumberland, just managed 14c this morning. 3.45pm now a heady 15c not bad for the 4th of August, also above average rain fall, of course with your kind of reasoning, you can never be wrong.its weather nothing more,regardless of cause.
And yet the globe, as a whole, is record warm.
Dr. Spencer, Your data for the Lower Stratosphere shows no unusual excursion for the past several months thru June. Wouldn’t there be some “signal” of the HH-TH eruption in those data?
It’s a good question. I’ve been monitoring the water vapor in the stratosphere over the last 1.5 years since HH-TH. The water vapor has consolidated in the upper half of the stratosphere at 10 mb and above so the radiative forcing is originating from really high up in atmosphere. I’m not entirely sure what effect we should be expecting from RF that high up.
Jump down to the water vapor plots at the bottom at the following link.
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/qbo.html
Nothing significant happened in Dec 2021 /sarc
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/mls_h2o_qbo_profile_Equator.png
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/mls_h2o_qbo_lat_45S-45N_10hPa.png
Hunga Tonga Hunga Haapai?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami
RLH, If the recent warming were due to the effects of the HT eruption, where is the “significant” evidence of that impact in recent months? I suggest that the recent warmth is more likely to be the result of the massive spate of forest fires in Canada and elsewhere, which have pumped prodigious amounts of carbon black aerosol into the atmosphere. Not to forget, there’s a war going on in Ukraine, which has also lofted lots of smoke skyward.
I think the sudden reduction in marine sulfur emissions is a candidate as well.
“Carbon black aerosols” cause cooling, not warming.
“The full magnitude of the impact of smoke from seasonal fires in Central Africaand in particular, the potential climate warming from the absorp_tion by the black carbon component of the aerosolis underestimated by some climate models over the South-East Atlantic
…
Black carbon’s ability to absorb sunlight means it can play a pivotal role in heating the atmosphere, and play a significant role in the effects of climate change at regional and continental scales…”
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-climatic-impacts-black-carbon-aerosols.html
—
” BC solar absorp_tion became a central issue in climate change research when a synthesis of satellite, in situ, and ground observations concluded (2) that the global solar absorp_tion (i.e., direct radiative forcing, DRF) by atmospheric BC is as much as 0.9 W⋅m−2, second only to the CO2 DRF.”
https://www.pn*as.org/doi/full/10.1073/pn*as.1603570113
(remove “*”)
Oh, that’s a hoot Swanson!
Carbon in the sky is absorbing solar, so in your mind that means carbon is heating the planet.
I hope you’re trying for humor rather than science.
Yes, grammie clone, Black Carbon is a good absorber for solar insolation. That then heats the atmosphere, which reduces the cooling of the oceans and land surface by inhibiting vertical convection. That process could explain the recent warming of the oceans and the record high air temperatures in areas such as the SW US.
Of course, grammie clone is wedded to his claims that the HT-HH water vapor high in the atmosphere is the cause, with no evidence other than the fact that there is an increase in H2O at very high altitudes. That fact, by itself, proves nothing. Show us the evidence of warming at ground level or in the satellite record, airhead.
Child Swanson, you’ve got your “black carbon” both heating the ocean and cooling the ocean!
Get back to us when you can make sense.
grammie clone babbles again, still unable to provide any shred of evidence that the HT-HH water vapor has warmed the lower atmosphere above the normal range until the last data point in the UAH LT data.
Great plots! Thanks for the link.
bdgwx
I watched UAH’s 2.5 degree grid for the Lower Stratosphere (LS).
In the past year and till February this year, there have been various unusually warm or cold regions in the LS.
It’s hard to blame Hunga Tonga for such stark month-to-month variations.
Now, the LS grid is quiet again since a few months.
I was think we should be seeing a global response if we see anything at all since the water vapor dispersed homogenously within on a few months of the eruption.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Worse summer I remember in the UK and I was born in 1964. I think there is weather manipulation going on using Harp etc.
Next thing you’ll be blaming the Ashes on your own weather.
What has sport to do with climate?
Perhaps you could point me to Dr Spencer’s site rules which demand comments must relate to climate.
Retard.
Sorry to hear that.
Spare me the faux sorrow, retard.
Only joking, You can’t help yourself, can you?
Anybody who believes in something they cannot even describe (the GHE), and pretends they are not promoting religious or cultist dogma, is hardly a mental giant.
If you believe you can demonstrate that you are not, in fact, mentally retarded, go your hardest.
More laughter is unlikely to have any adverse effects on my quiet enjoyment of life.
Because of course you present as someone who enjoys life.
There are no rules hat would apply to you.
Yes, fellow Englander here (born in 1959). By far the worst July I can remember. We have a pool, and I always have to top it up every three weeks in summer. I haven’t had to top it up at all this summer…and today it overflowed.
Englishman in Switzerland here. We had some hot days in Spring but it’s basically been pouring down all Summer. Not so much air as a lake with slots in it. We even had a little fresh snow above 2,000m last week, the first time I’ve seen it in several years. I’m rather glad, as it happens, when one compares it to what’s been happening South of the border.
I blame the cricket team, me.
The reaction to Mt. Pinatubo was fast (1-3 months) and lasted for a while (about 3 years). Anyone wanting to “blame” the currect heat wave on a volcano erupting 18 months ago, will need to do some extensive theorizing.
Clint figures that all he needs is a name and his theory is complete.
(I think you’ll find the onset of cooling in the land-based record began more like 13 months after the eruption.)
Antonin, please stop trolling.
You won’t think that a month out of 522 really changes things very much, will you?
We all agree the world is warming. Having the warmest month toward the end is to be expected.
Do you have any hypothesis as to what caused this very warm anomaly?
As Spencer mentioned, the Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE) is a big player. Add in the ocean oscillations and you have the answer.
Which ocean oscillations?
The only one I regularly follow is ENSO. I saw AMO mentioned above.
ENSO and HTE correlate quite well with UAH values. Ill try to say more by this weekend.
So HTE is the cause? When was HTE?
End of 2021..
Why did it wait til mid 2023 to have this dramatic effect?
And all the reports that suggest it could cause warming rely on the GHE of water vapor.
That contradicts your beliefs.
Not only does the HTE rely on the GHE of water vapor, but it relies on it being so potent that a mere 150 Mt is the cause. I find it odd that people are so willing to accept that 150 Mt of H2O can have an effect this significant 18 months later but scoff at the idea that 38,000 Mt of CO2 injected over the same time period does anything.
Nate and bdgwx, the HTE is NOT caused by the “GHE of water vapor”.
Yep bdgwx is back into the strawman business.
In case anybody never noticed temperatures are lower the more humidity that is in the air. . . .except at night where its warmer.
Bottom line is water vapor only serves to make climate temperatures more moderate.
We have the UN claiming that ozone recovery is helping avoid .5C warming by 2066.
Nate is shooting holes in UNs claim in defense of his own mob’s territory.
And were we have bdgwx using smoke and mirrors to help Nate.
“Nate is shooting holes in UNs claim in defense of his own mobs territory.”
Nah. Just playing whack-a-mole with your claims again, which were based on you neither reading carefully nor comprehending what your source said.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519259
So you claim Nate.
And demonstrate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519656
You seem to talking about the confusing message of the UN on the topic of global warming.
If you want to straighten it out you need to explain how the UN’s action in curing some warming of .3 to .5C by healing the ozone layer has been accounted for by the IPCC.
” curing some warming of .3 to .5C by healing the ozone layer ”
There really seems to be no point to informing you of your misunderstandings, is there?
So now what you are saying in so many words that the UN headlining ”Ozone layer recovery is on track, helping avoid global warming by 0.5C” is confusing but its completely unadulterated bullshit?
rats. isn’t just confusing. . .
didn’t come through.
If one read only the short headline, and not the article they could be confused, yes.
That must’ve been your case.
If reading a headline gives you all you need to know, then there is no point in having articles, is there.
Headlines are short, and must summarize a complex topic. In newspapers, headlines are often written by editors, not the authors of the article, and it is not uncommon to find mismatches, particularly with complex science.
Here’s one found in a minute of looking.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/science/lk-99-superconductor-ambient.html
Title: “LK-99 Is the Superconductor of the Summer”
But read the article and you will find out that it may not be a superconductor at all.
You want to turn it into a massive conspiracy, and feed your grievances? Feel free. It’s what you do.
But I have no interest.
Your loyalty to the yellow journalism model is revealing Nate.
Auditors doing the annual financial reports of a corporation ensures any headlines in the report are consistent with the facts. Not only that but we also attempt to collect every brochure, every press release, and every other publication of the company and check them as well.
And we do this for the protection of the stockholders and the reputation of the company. It used to be that newspapers did the same thing.
But in this age a lot of companies have found out that profits are in the 15 second or less soundbite and eagerly embrace BS to keep the Goose laying Golden Eggs.
If you want your government to be that way vote accordingly.
Red herring. Auditors are neither journalists nor scientists.
Nate says:
”Red herring. Auditors are neither journalists nor scientists.”
thats right Auditors are professionals held by law to standards.
But it doesn’t stop there. If you or I lie to the government thats considered a felony. But when the government lies to us, well thats just politics. – Roman Balmakov, The Epoch Times
Held to standards?
Are auditors works published so anyone can read them and judge their accuracy?
That is the case for journalists and scientists. And that means they can be held to high standards.
The exception is scientists working for corporations…
You read the “The Epoch Times”?? Talk about yellow journalism!
Have you read it Nate. If so, Which article did you see as ”yellow journalism”?
Did you disagree with the quote because it was yellow journalism?
Nate says:
”Are auditors works published so anyone can read them and judge their accuracy?
That is the case for journalists and scientists. And that means they can be held to high standards.
The exception is scientists working for corporations”
————————–
Can be held to high standards when its to the benefit of the employer. . . right? there are no exceptions.
the only standards that exist for scientists is their own personal ethics and the demands of their employer. They have no clients to which they owe any legal duty to. So beware what you buy from them as you have no basis for relying on what they provide.
If you want to hire an engineer, or a doctor, or a financial advisor, or an accountant etc. you can and will have a broad basis of standards for which you can seek recourse for work that doesn’t meet those standards.
But the quote from Roman pretty much says it all about government and public institutions.
“Are auditors works published so anyone can read them and judge their accuracy?”
Apparently not.
That is the case for journalists and scientists. And that means they can be held to high standards.
Nate if you have any stock investments at all you receive notices of the availability of documents that auditors have audited that auditors have legal responsibility to meet standards.
When I speak of standards I am speaking of standards that are legally enforceable as any other standard is only adhered to by persons of high moral character.
And we can see all their data and how the got it?
Look basically you like the system that you use, that auditors have, and you think it basically works, even though there is sometimes still occasional fraud-Madoff etc.
I have experience with the system that science uses, and I think it basically works, and has obviously produced good science for decades, even though there is sometimes still occasional fraud.
I’m not going to bash your system, since I don’t have experience with it. but you seem ever ready to bash mine, though you don’t have experience with it.
You are incorrect about where my experience is. I have twice the experience at the intersection of science and policy than I had as an auditor.
And I don’t have a problem with how science works. The problem only assets itself when policy gets involved.
An excellent example of that is here in the first 7 1/2 minutes of this video.
Senator John Kennedy asks Secretary Mayorkas why a policy of a first safe third country hasn’t been adopted for folks claiming refugee status or political asylum where all but children are rejected if they didn’t seek asylum in the previous country.
Secretary Mayorkas claimed it would shut down the entire US asylum system.
Of course thats false. I wouldn’t shut down the asylum system it would just massively reduce the size of it and the cost to Americans because of all the lawyers and department personnel that would no longer be needed.
And that only came out after Mayorkas trying to claim that the US doesn’t have unilateral control over its own border policies.
So as usual we are looking at the reason being bureaucratic empire building and buying votes using tax payer monies.
“And I dont have a problem with how science works.”
You did earlier.
“the only standards that exist for scientists is their own personal ethics and the demands of their employer. They have no clients to which they owe any legal duty to. So beware what you buy from them as you have no basis for relying on what they provide.”
As ever you need to walk it back.
And you seem to have missed this point, when scientists publish, anyone can read and critique their work, not just their employers, also the scientific community, and their competitors. That is a powerful force.
Nate says:
” ”the only standards that exist for scientists is their own personal ethics and the demands of their employer. They have no clients to which they owe any legal duty to. So beware what you buy from them as you have no basis for relying on what they provide.”
As ever you need to walk it back.”
———————————-
I said I had no problem with what scientists do Nate. Here I am just pointing out you shouldn’t believe them until they provide proof.
I am not walking back anything.
The system by which science operates is fine. But if you want to believe them without proof. . .its advisable to not do that as thats not their job. Their job is to prove stuff not tell people what to do. We just got a huge lesson in that from Dr. Fauci.
Nate says:
”And you seem to have missed this point, when scientists publish, anyone can read and critique their work, not just their employers, also the scientific community, and their competitors. That is a powerful force.”
————————
Right and sometimes it takes a century or more to actually do anything. Sometimes longer. Which is fine. Science goes through that process in its own time. Having a large choir of sycophants is perfectly normal. . . but they aren’t part of the process of science. At football games yeah they are the 12th player. Sometimes though folks get in a rut and thats all they do. . . entertain themselves. Kind of goes hand in hand with the hedonism that is getting so popular.
It is a powerful force. And for a discovery to become a science fact it needs to be replicated by others.
You can see this at work with the room temperature ‘superconductor’ LK99, discovered recently.
Many attempts to replicate the claims, in a few weeks, have failed to do so. It appears to not be a superconductor.
thats right Nate. So far we don’t have an experimental design yet even to replicate the greenhouse effect. So it isn’t science by your definition and I agree.
You think Earth science isn’t science? How bout Astronomy?
We are unable to create stars or galaxies or another Earth and do experiments on them, but we are able to observed phenomena and test theories.
But nice at dismissing whole fields of science.
Nate Earth Sciences is a great scientific discipline.
But like all sciences some of the science is far better than the others and thats especially true when politics raises its ugly head.
So pack up your strawman and go home. You have nothing to offer here.
You always end up having to walk back your anti-science rants. Because they are plainly ignorant.
When science is made to order it does deserve a rant. But your attempt to turn that into an attack on science in general is reprehensible.
What I am attacking is the lack of quality controls of science used in some processes. If nobody attacks that one has no defense against totalitarianism.
Ask the folks who protested Stalin’s Lysenkoism and Lamarckism science theories. The Nazis and the science of Eugenics.
When you start trying to control people’s lives with half-baked science theories the line has been crossed. To avoid it you need to attack the institutions, their lack of independence, and their self interest and find ways to ensure higher quality science.
The institution of the Civil Service has been eroded for 5 decades in favor of non-independent science. Universities are NOT democratic institutions Nate. They are government funded but they are independent entities operating outside the democratic process with their own interests.
They are part and parcel to the Military Industrial Complex. Eisenhower in his speech where the MIC was coined, he also warned: ”Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
“But your attempt to turn that into an attack on science in general is reprehensible.”
So again, you try to walk back your erroneous complaints about the lack of quality control in science. “the only standards that exist for scientists is their own personal ethics and the demands of their employer.”
And now try to target only climate science.
“When you start trying to control peoples lives with half-baked science theories the line has been crossed. ”
Your complaints about science are not based in any actual facts about the science, but instead on your political concerns.
Thus your assertions about the poor quality of climate science can be understood for what it is:
Propaganda to advance your political agenda, and nothing more.
Nate says:
” ”But your attempt to turn that into an attack on science in general is reprehensible.”
So again, you try to walk back your erroneous complaints about the lack of quality control in science. ”the only standards that exist for scientists is their own personal ethics and the demands of their employer.”
And now try to target only climate science.”
———————————
Yes that is an attack on science but its not an attack on ALL science or the majority of science. It merely states the fact that quality in science isn’t nearly as high as it easily could be. that takes nothing away from well designed studies done by well qualified scientists that strongly hold an ethic to get it done right.
And no I don’t only target climate science. I target all political science including the political science in climate science.
Nate says:
”When you start trying to control peoples lives with half-baked science theories the line has been crossed. ”
Your complaints about science are not based in any actual facts about the science, but instead on your political concerns.
Thus your assertions about the poor quality of climate science can be understood for what it is:
Propaganda to advance your political agenda, and nothing more.
———————
thats absolutely correct. I am for people living without interference in their lives by the authoritarianism of a political/technological/institutional elite. And science is NOT polluted by my actions as I don’t produce any phony science.
I believe the technological elite should have a vote like everybody else. . . like me. . . and to express their opinions outside of work. . . like I do. But it should be kept out of their work. That’s a world and a philosophy I have lived within.
You are one choosing the totalitarian role of the technological elite over the supposedly dumb masses. Typically that ends badly for you. Kind of akin to alcoholism, tends to cause you to die early. . .like the Great American diet does.
You also need to understand that I don’t have a dog in the fight for anything but the best science.
I have spent a third of my life advocating for the use of science in policy making. The problem is the science community isn’t up to providing that science consistently.
They have a beautiful policy of academic freedom which encourages scientists to pursue what interests them.
But you also have personal interests in the way people build careers in science. Ladder climbers. That and institutional interests (ladder monitors if you will) in the maximum possible funding.
This structure is completely inadequate to provide the needs of policy. Its not the case it couldn’t be adapted the way the accounting trade was over a century ago was transitioned to a professional model. Same for medical doctors and other critical needs for expert advice and/or treatments.
Seems to me if one is going to treat the World it would be advisable to establish a professional approach to it so as it doesn’t get hijacked by special interests.
“thats absolutely correct. I am for people living without interference in their lives by the authoritarianism of a political/technological/institutional elite. And science is NOT polluted by my actions as I dont produce any phony science.
I believe the technological elite should have a vote like everybody else. . . like me. . . and to express their opinions outside of work. . . like I do. But it should be kept out of their work. Thats a world and a philosophy I have lived within.
You are one choosing the totalitarian role of the technological elite over the supposedly dumb masses. Typically that ends badly for you. Kind of akin to alcoholism, tends to cause you to die early. . .like the Great American diet does.”
Thus, we all understand now that your posts on science are simply propaganda, and can be safely ignored.
Good to know.
Nate I don’t advocate an opinion on science.
An auditor doesn’t need to be a scientist to know the difference between science and the opinion of a scientist.
To tell the difference all you have to do is ask for the evidence.
“Nate I dont advocate an opinion on science.”
Pffft!
“To tell the difference all you have to do is ask for the evidence.”
It has been quite consistently true that evidence shown to you is rejected, rarely with any sound scientific rationale. Mostly with hand-waving, made up ‘science’, philosophical mumbo-jumbo, or conspiratorial thinking. Depending on the weather.
Its all on display in this lengthy discussion in which you tried all the methods, but failed to reject the straightforward direct evidence for back-radiation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2023-0-38-deg-c/#comment-1516801
When you’ve got a political agenda to advance, contradictory evidence is just a low speed bump for you.
Nate says:
”To tell the difference all you have to do is ask for the evidence.”
It has been quite consistently true that evidence shown to you is rejected, rarely with any sound scientific rationale. Mostly with hand-waving, made up science, philosophical mumbo-jumbo, or conspiratorial thinking. Depending on the weather.
———————————
All you are doing is handwaving Nate there is no explicit evidence of anything you are claiming there being offered. No auditor would ever accept what you are saying there as evidence.
Nate says:
Its all on display in this lengthy discussion in which you tried all the methods, but failed to reject the straightforward direct evidence for back-radiation.
——————–
Well I do know that theoretically there is backradiation or something that meets all its ‘established’ criteria which is comprised of the temperature of an object.
But I have pointed out there is no evidence that cold object radiation is received by warm objects. I pointed out that Einstein proved that light bent around the sun instead of hitting it and us not seeing it. Your claims of backradiation being recieved by warm objects is built on your ignorance of the means of detection. At one point IR detectors had to be cooled to below the temperature of cold objects to detect them. Why would that be the case? Have you given it any thought as to what kind of technology in a detector would be in capable of measuring backradiation? And are you not visionary enough as to how that shortcoming could be dealt with by using detector within detectors (essentially mirrors) when combined with digital technology. Have you never reviewed the technology within the IR detectors you have. I have.
Now I am no record saying that there is no evidence one way or the other of the actual physics of a photon other than a mathematical meme for light quanta. I stand with Einstein on the issue that:
”All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question “What are light quanta?” Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
You are just another Tom, Dick, or Harry Nate.
“But I have pointed out there is no evidence that cold object radiation is received by warm objects. ”
That you are aware of, which tells us nothing.
This is a good example of you rejecting evidence based on made-up physics.
The real physics is Kirchhoff’s Law, which says a high emissivity object will abs.orb the radiation that is input to it.
Look it up and learn.
And its a law only because it has been confirmed by experiment many times.
Nate, I have also pointed out this argument is a bunny trail that amounts to nothing.
Photons are caught between 2 classical theories of wave energy and particle energy and are neither or both at the same time. Backradiation supports the idea they are particle energy as the same not saying they are. That leads inappropriately to support propaganda that this stuff from a cold object warms a warm object in violation of 2LOT. Yeah I realize you play a lot of games to try to argue that 2LOT isn’t violated because the ‘net’ goes the other way but you find it good propaganda to argue that it warms something when in fact that thing is constantly cooling.
Then you argue cooling the place that emissions goes to space that causes a forcing without explaining how that works when in fact something warmer is going to slow cooling more and something cooler isn’t going to do as much. All the arguments are incomplete and contradictory. Yeah I recognize some possibilities but possibilities often don’t amount to realities.
Auditors run into this situation constantly. Gee Mr. Auditor I have a deal in place. . . and the auditor replies lets see the evidence. Then when and if he gets the evidence he tests the evidence. Maybe you believe for political considerations science shouldn’t work that way and all you need is a theory, a proposed deal.
“Photons …” as I already made clear, are your distraction and a different topic.
Sorry you lost that argument. And it is pointless to rehash it with you.
The physical evidence for back radiation is absolutely clear in the example of the IR thermometer.
Yet even in this very clear cut case, you reject the evidence.
Thus we can deduce that when you ask for evidence, which is often, you have no intention of ever accepting it.
It is a ploy, a tactic, fraud, to avoid losing a debate on the facts.
Nate says:
”The physical evidence for back radiation is absolutely clear in the example of the IR thermometer.”
Nate if you want to make that argument fine. But to do it with physics you have demonstrate the exact construction and physics of the IR detector and not just wave you hand that the IR detector is proof. Thats just demonstrating how ignorant you are of what comprises science.
“the exact construction and physics of the IR detector”
which is quite beside the point that back radiation and its properties must be present to be detected.
The IR thermometer is also called a pyrometer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrometer
“A modern pyrometer has an optical system and a detector. The optical system focuses the thermal radiation onto the detector. The output signal of the detector is related to the thermal radiation j of the target object through the StefanBoltzmann law, the constant of proportionality σ, called the StefanBoltzmann
j^4=epsilon*sigma T^4”
It is undeniable that the detected radiation needs to come from the source, even when colder than the detector.
The device is based on the thermopile. Which has a passive near blackbody surface which emits and abs.orbs radiation.
“Thermopiles are used to provide an output in response to temperature as part of a temperature measuring device, such as the infrared thermometers”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermopile
Nate says:
”It is undeniable that the detected radiation needs to come from the source, even when colder than the detector.
The device is based on the thermopile. Which has a passive near blackbody surface which emits and abs.orbs radiation.”
Thermopiles are used to provide an output in response to temperature as part of a temperature measuring device, such as the infrared thermometers
———————————
LMAO! A thermopile detects its own temperature Nate. If it warms it computes the signal that would cause it to warm. If it cools it computes the signal that would cause it to cool.
All it needs to know is the ”net” emissions. You are just confused because you think that cold object is warming the warmer object.
“All it needs to know is the net emissions.”
Yes, which through arithmetic depends on the back radiation from the cold object.
You have lost on that one.
“You are just confused because you think that cold object is warming the warmer object.”
Nope. Never said that. It is a zombie strawman that never dies.
“Detects its own tmperature Nate. If it warms it computes the signal that would cause it to warm.”
Not quite. It detects the T difference between its front and back surfaces, thus determining heat flux.
Nate says:
Yes, which through arithmetic depends on the back radiation from the cold object.
You have lost on that one.
————————-
Nope you don’t even have to think photons. You know emission rate when the lens is closed. . .zero as it is in ambient surroundings. Open the lens and it cools. You don’t need to even think photons. From the information the scanner gives you you don’t even know the emission rate. You need one that also tells you ambient temperature to do your personal calculations. . . .thats not two opposing emitter calculations thats just a change in the temperature of the emitter.
Obviously you haven’t done much of this kind of work so why are you pretending to be an expert?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
You are just confused because you think that cold object is warming the warmer object.
Nope. Never said that. It is a zombie strawman that never dies.
——————-
You have been regaling us for years about the GHE Nate of cold objects warming warmer objects.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
August 14, 2023 at 8:51 AM
Detects its own tmperature Nate. If it warms it computes the signal that would cause it to warm.
Not quite. It detects the T difference between its front and back surfaces, thus determining heat flux.
—————
Oh gee now you agree with me. You disagree and then agree in the same post. Hilarious!
“Nope you dont even have to think photons. ”
And I don’t, you do. An only you.
You are quite confused.
Nate says:
It is undeniable that the detected radiation needs to come from the source, even when colder than the detector.
The device is based on the thermopile. Which has a passive near blackbody surface which emits and abs.orbs radiation.
————————–
Nate argues for the existence and necessity of photons by begging the question.
Sorry Nate we don’t know if photons work as described. We only know that are descriptions are consistent with Stefan’s and Boltzmann’s equation which were developed before they even heard of photons or knew anything about light quanta or that radiation was emitted in packets of energy of a given size. None of that is necessary to measure temperature and use Stefan Boltzmann equations. And thats your only argument for their existence.
“Sorry Nate we dont know if photons work as described. ”
Off topic. So you keep arguing against an argument I havent been making.
What is wrong with you?
Nate walks back the criticism he leveled at
August 13, 2023 at 11:12 AM
Yep, nothing wrong with that post, for which you had no rebuttal. Did you learn about Kirchhoff’s Law?
And it makes no mention of photons, because Kirchhoff’s law, just like the SB law, came well before the photon was discovered.
You’ve lost the argument, and your mind.
Nate said:
”which says a high emissivity object will abs.orb the radiation that is input to it.”
So now you are denying that involves photons?
You have argued that your cheap IR scanner counts the net photons received and emitted when all it actually does is compute the temperature of the sensor when exposed to another object.
And all you are doing here is offering an argument that begs the question.
“You have argued that your cheap IR scanner counts the net photons received and emitted ”
Nope. Net flux.
Either debate honestly or stop.
You are just claiming mathematics is science. Net flux of what? Net flux is all we ever have measured. We observe light then assume what it consists of via net flux. Yes it is a net flux but a net of what? Potential or actual photonic particles?
As a hobby years ago I took up audio, buying high end equipment, building speaker systems, and tuning it all for the best most live-like sound experience. Did it 90% as a hobby but got recruited by acquaintances to do some PA work part time. Soundwaves are interesting in how they can cancel out like the technology in noise cancelling headphones.
Your problem is we aren’t nearly advanced with light energy as we are sound energy in terms of how it works. You simply have adopted an opinion that has political ramifications and had tons of money stolen by lies from the government poured into mitigating it.
Really nothing different than the government lying about how the Covid 19 vaccine prevented transmission of the virus and used that to force people to take the vaccine.
Done playing whack-a-mole with your random BS. You are grasping at straws.
Back radiation exists. The debate is over.. The audience left. Now your opponent is leaving.. Goodbye Bill.
Yes Nate you characterized it exactly!
Its science by political declaration and fiat. Nothing more nothing less.
“science by political declaration and fiat.”
Bill ignores the lengthy debate on the science facts that we had, in which he failed, again and again, to support his opinion.
Thus he dishonestly pretends no debate took place!
Goobye Bill.
Nate mistakes blabber for science. Then he does what he always does. He repeats the blabber he got from his Daddy and by fiat declares the debate over.
Another possibility
https://michaelrlowry.substack.com/p/its-saharan-dust-season-but-wheres
Yeah maybe Nate can bring up the 150 year record embraced by the IPCC on African dust storms they used to build their CO2 hypothesis.
Again Bill has nothing of substance to say, but is a stalking mood.
I will stalk anybody who is for taking freedom away from people without cause. The whole CO2 thing is all about authoritarian rule by fiat. My first comments on CO2 after hearing from experts that CO2 is the culprit because its the only known change that could be causing it has absolutely nothing to do science at all. An argument from ignorance never is.
I was just giving you an opportunity to show how well scientifically supported the idea is that African dust storms haven’t changed over the 150/160 years.
You calling it stalking suggests you don’t know and you don’t want to recognize you don’t know.
“I will stalk anybody who is for taking freedom away from people without cause. The whole CO2 thing is all about authoritarian rule by fiat.”
Shocking. Another cranky political rant.
Explains why you need to reject science in this field.
Don’t you argue that the only science is independent science when you see a study by somebody who has a dog in the fight?
Oh thats right depends upon where the party loyalties lie.
“Dont you argue …”
No.
So you’re good with Exxon funded science?
If so we agree. Science is a process of sufficient documentation so as for the proof of the proposition to be replicated. Thus if the science is complete it doesn’t matter who does it.
Where it gets dicey is when somebody actually threatens to destroy the data rather than hand it over. . . then claiming its missing when ordered to hand it over. then it being a huge embarrassment for the government the whole thing gets whitewashed.
I would like to think that garbage isn’t still in the datasets used by the surface records. But have never seen any assurance it isn’t.
As Reagan said: Trust but Verify.
Corporate science is the lest likely to be vetted by peers and the public.
Tobacco smoke, Leaded gasoline, toxic emissions, certain medications. None of those carried health or environmental hazards according to corporate science.
thats a rather narrow minded view of looking at it.
Obviously in a nation where laissez-faire is an official policy, its going to be corporations making most of the mistakes.
But governments are far from immune being responsible for massive numbers of deaths. https://fee.org/articles/death-by-government/
Democide, genocide, mass murder, wars, abortion and climate action with the objective of depopulation.
And you expect to change that by picking a side?
Corporations operate under a public accountability standard to maintain their sales. To fix bad governments it often takes violence.
there really are no objective sides to the matter, only a choice between how to manage them so that we don’t end up putting all our eggs in a single basket.
“To fix bad governments it often takes violence.”
Nah, we can vote.
But it will only make a difference if you have good election controls.
A key tool of authoritarians is to attack and diminish democratic institutions.
the ability to freely speak ones mind is what prevents democratic institutions from becoming authoritarian.
Free speech FYI is not an attack. . . its called criticism.
Yep it was Hitler’s speech that riled up his brown shirts to do violence and intimidate until finally he was a dictator.
Hitler joined the brown shirts Nate. It was an existing paramilitary organization already with its objectives and they were violently attacking opposition groups like Antifa is doing today. So if you want a parallel example look to the left for the rising problem as folks should have done 100 years ago.
Sure, Jan 6 was Antifa…
Nate says:
”Corporate science is the lest likely to be vetted by peers and the public.”
Thats only true when the public hasn’t shown any interest.
Take accounting for example. They use intercorporate peer review.
Peer review only works when their is a competitive interest. In academic peer review that is hardly always the case. . . .to extent it can be appropriately disregarded as pal review.
that doesn’t occur when strict independence is in place such that one accounting corp doesn’t want to get undercut on pricing by another because of inadequate procedures.
There needs to be a fix for this in science offered for the purpose of public policy. One way of doing it would be putting the civil service in charge of peer review of papers submitted for public policy. Thats being done in some areas of public policy today and it works quite well. The process is transparent, open to public participation, and meetings are held with a combination of civil servants, university scientists of a variety of relevant disciplines, stakeholder representatives, and the public on one side of the table and the study authors and their study on the other side.
these panels keep uncertainty of science to a minimum. Rather than operating on the 50/50 principle that science in a narrow area should trump everything else, this provides an alternative to crowning public universities as the kings of the world.
It recognizes the cost/benefit feature that so often is ignored in politically-driven public policy.
I realize thats anathema to some who want to call ALL THE SHOTS, but its a big win for democracy.
Nate you accused Clint of not having a mechanism for HTE causing the warming.
I provided you a possible mechanism.
I realize that your side has a theory that supposedly negates the effects of ozone in blocking about 23 watts of UV radiation from reaching the surface via the same greenhouse effect you attribute to CO2.
So I gave you a reference to the changing size of the ozone hole here this July that is quite frankly pretty sobering.
Now you want to limit the conversation to the 4 corners of a post where no cause was mentioned? Why would you want to do that?
Nate says:
Sure, Jan 6 was Antifa
———————————
January 6 is a shame both for the action and its reaction.
Jacob Chansley get locked up for 41 months for getting a guided tour of the halls of Congress.
Ashli Babbit an unarmed Air Force veteran was shot and killed by the police without threatening any person.
One other protestor Rosanne Boyland died from being beat by police and/or trampled by the mob.
But all this wasn’t of the nature of a planned and executed Antifa attack where all the participants show up in uniform with weapons. Instead it was a riot without any paramilitary that earmarks hate groups.
Its just hate group propaganda that it was something different. The Nazis were good at that too.
“Peer review only works when their is a competitive interest. In academic peer review that is hardly always the case. . . .to extent it can be appropriately disregarded as pal review.”
It is a myth that Pal Review is common. In fact you are much more likely to be reviewed by a competitor.
Again, you like the system you are used to. You are less familiar with science’s system of checks and balances. I explained how and why, in my experience, it has been a good system, and works.
So what keeps 10% of the science being BS and the IPCC executives picking that 10%?
Having a system of peer review that has standards and always involves competitive interests keeps things not perfect but a lot better than not having it.
It also doesn’t take much shoddy science to have an impact.
Michael Chrichton who began his career as a scientist used experience in that in his novel ”State of Fear”.
You have one crappy study in support of a hot political topic where boatloads of money is available for further research and tons of other studies are funded on the premise the first study is solid. This has a huge effect on future science built on the bad study and represents a huge loss of resources that could have been better used than beating a dead horse.
” and the IPCC executives picking that 10%?”
Nah, the IPCC doesn’t pick and choose it like that.
Endless ignorant rants from an auditor with a political axe to grind.
Who cares?
Nate the IPCC politicians pick and choose what it wants in the summary for policy makers.
There is a lot of good science in the underlying volumes though the pick the shoddy stuff for the summary because it suits their objectives.
“There is a lot of good science in the underlying volumes ”
We are learning that whatever your initial assertions are, they will get walked back, because they are not factual.
Well you are just ignorant of political processes Nate.
The IPCC is a political process. When one talks about the IPCC one must refer to the IPCC conclusions on matters and whether they are actually supported by science or if they are mostly political.
IPCC likes to give the illusion that they are about science and thus the main body of work in their reports includes a lot of good science that is then ignored by the politicians as they cherry pick what they want to include in the summary for policy makers. Further up front what is allowed in the backing material must not contradict what is in the politically written summary (written by the politicians of the UN) if its contradictory it is removed. If it only discusses differences of opinion in quantity its allowed (and the individual nations control that with their non-independent institutions)
So yes the executive summary is a cherry picked version of the main body of work. I have worked in dozens of such processes that vary greatly as to the degree of political influence is allowed. The IPCC is one of the more politically influenced ones.
The science is carried out by scientists. The papers are published and can be critiqued by anyone, Roy, for example. The papers are reviewed and summarized by scientists for the IPCC report.
Its charts, data and analysis are what people here typically quote and use.
Nate there is a ton of critique going on with this stuff.
Fine. The papers don’t all agree with each other either. That is ordinary in science.
Which makes Judith Curry spot on about the uncertainty surrounding the GHE.
“The papers dont all agree with each other either.”
And Judith Curry does not represent all of them. She is one voice among many.
there are dozens of scientists in the same place Dr. Curry is from Roy here to Dr. Lindzen at MIT and Dr. Happer at Princeton.
And thousands of others that you need to ignore?
Why do I need to pay attention to every scientist when the only claim I am making is the science is unsettled and that the claims of the science being settled is a lie?
The repeated problem from you and others here with similar biases, is that you ONLY pay attention to contrarian voices, which represent an extreme minority of outlier opinion in the field.
Thus you will get a very slanted view of things, which pleases you because it confirms your biases.
It is the Fox News effect.
Now all you are doing here is appealing to authority and elitism.
A good 50% of people are skeptical of appealing to authority and your personal appeal for elitist authoritarianism.
It doesn’t matter to you that the vast numbers of clingers to the CAWG BS are paid in someway by the institutional complex that greatly benefits from defrauding the public and does nothing to speak against the frauds or punish the defrauders. And when they get uncovered these institutions quickly white wash it, erase websites, and essentially bury everything in the past that has lost credibility. Now in a sense they should get the stuff off the web but there is zero accountability for it in the first place. You have to be skeptic to get kicked off social media. Its 100% politics as expected.
” vast numbers of clingers to the CAWG BS are paid in someway by the institutional complex that greatly benefits from defrauding the public and does nothing to speak against the frauds or punish the defrauders.”
OK, Bill, take your crank conspiratorial BS elsewhere.
There is no conspiracy Nate.
Its the money. Dr. Lindzen recounted Kerry Emanuel’s plea to him to go along with the consensus in that it ”would be good for science”.
If you don’t think money for science is a motivator you are unbelievably naive or in for the money yourself.
We know that incentive to be the case for the motivation of the entire private sector. . . just that the individual entities of the private sector can’t force the public to buy their wares.
You don’t want to see that occur with politics combining with science. Or education as well or we will be producing a lot of naive children totally unaware of the ways of the world.
As I have repeatedly pointed out professional liability was established for the sole purpose of avoiding smart people from being corrupted by money and power.
Your side in arguing for the restriction of the rich argue that the amount of money they make isn’t necessary to provide the incentive that promotion is sufficient.
But all that is is a view from being a public sector employee and we all know that when a sector expands promotions expand as well.
this doesn’t require conspiracy. It is mind changing all by itself at the individual level where they convince themselves of what is right without any scientific proof.
“Its the money.”
Yep the fossil fuel industry and friends have plenty of it, and plenty of motivation to use it to influence Congress and the public.
Yep you characterized exactly Nate.
The oil companies to do business must pay the current extortion rate to prevent being put out business. You are starting to catch on Nate.
Its like the media companies bending to government censorship requests to retain their Section 230 exemption.
plata o plomo
” to prevent being put out business.”
Indeed profit is the primary driver, which may run counter to the public interest.
Yet they and you falsely project this motivation onto the scientists.
“It is mind changing all by itself at the individual level where they convince themselves of what is right without any scientific proof.”
Sure, scientists don’t need scientific evidence…
You have obviously convinced yourself of this pseudoscientific rationalization.
Nate says:
to prevent being put out business.
Indeed profit is the primary driver, which may run counter to the public interest.
Yet they and you falsely project this motivation onto the scientists.
————————-
The argument is that a promotion isn’t a profit. And of course the Communists argue that promotion is sufficient.
So what has science become here? A front for the Communist Revolution? It doesn’t matter if you pick capitalism or communism. What we have here is a quest for power, fame, and fortune. That is why the accounting profession demands complete independence both in fact and appearance.
The SEC requires publicly traded companies to be audited by independent auditors. But in science we do the opposite and with single funder funding even the peer review from different institutions is tainted.
I am not saying the people are evil they are just people. And with people you get a mixed bag. Both private enterprise and public institutions reward the rainmakers.
Nate says:
August 17, 2023 at 5:55 AM
It is mind changing all by itself at the individual level where they convince themselves of what is right without any scientific proof.
Sure, scientists dont need scientific evidence
You have obviously convinced yourself of this pseudoscientific rationalization.
“But in science we do the opposite and with single funder funding even the peer review from different institutions is tainted.”
No its not.
Nate its tainted not just with the appearance of a conflict of interest and a lack of independence.
Its tainted with an actual lack of independence and conflict of interest.
A lack of independence applies whenever the employee or the employer has a financial interest in the outcome. Not only is there a lack of independence there for the vast majority of institutions doing climate work its the biggest monetary lack of independence in history.
“Nate its tainted”
Unsupported opinion from someone with anti science agenda.
Worthless.
Not anti-science in any way shape or form.
Its anti-corrupt scientist.
“Not anti-science in any way shape or form.
Its anti-corrupt scientist.”
Sure thing Bill. But with this sort of comment, you make clear that there must be loads of corrupt climate scientists.
“vast numbers of clingers to the CAWG BS are paid in someway by the institutional complex that greatly benefits from defrauding the public and does nothing to speak against the frauds or punish the defrauders.”
So what percentage, in your expert opinion, are corrupt?
What percentage, in your expert opinion, have ‘convinced themselves of what is right WITHOUT any scientific proof.’?
Nate says:
”Not anti-science in any way shape or form.
Its anti-corrupt scientist.”
Sure thing Bill. But with this sort of comment, you make clear that there must be loads of corrupt climate scientists.
————————–
I think we probably think in common in many ways. They talk about the uniparty and this is related to that.
I see corruption arising not directly among scientists but instead it arises from large organizations. Institutions and Corporations where they hire rainmakers to grow the institution/corporation, pressure scientists to produce for them.
So actually the number of actually corrupt scientists probably mirrors that of other institutions like Corporate scientists and other groups of people operating without any enforceable standards.
No doubt there were a lot of accountants hawking for clients like carnival barkers before the profession promulgated standards and laws of accountability were put into place.
So I don’t believe scientists as a group is anymore corrupt than any other group of people working in similar circumstances.
“I see corruption arising”
Yes you ‘see’ it.
The rest of us will wait until we actually see it. You know with evidence. Then we will deal with it, as always, on a case by case basis.
In the meantime, science marches on.
And its system of funding, peer review, publication and replication will continue, because no better system has been developed.
Nate says:
Yes you see it.
The rest of us will wait until we actually see it. You know with evidence. Then we will deal with it, as always, on a case by case basis.
———————-
Who are you speaking for Nate (rest of us and we)?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
In the meantime, science marches on.
And its system of funding, peer review, publication and replication will continue, because no better system has been developed.
———————-
Obviously its the system of funding that is always the biggest problem that destroys independence so that will change. We have had a template for that for a long time its only been in the last several decades that model has been eroded due to elitist interests. But that’s how corruption creeps in and we have not been doing a good job of guarding the door.
My perception is the corrupt ”uniparty” is in deep trouble.
Peer review only needs to change for the introduction of science into the policy arena. When the topic is the sex life of an earthworm the current peer review works fine.
The rest is fine.
“Who are you speaking for Nate (rest of us and we)?”
Those of us without an axe to grind.
Those of us without a conspiratorial mindset.
Those of us who work in science, know scientists, have experience in with the system, and quite unlike you, actually know what we are talking about.
Look Bill, you can keep having your personal thoughts and opinions about this outside-your-lane stuff, but without evidence to show, it just sounds like cranky old man talk.
Nate says:
”Those of us without an axe to grind.”
——————-
Well that would be nobody. Human nature is human nature. If you don’t think you have an axe to grind just what do you think you are spending your time in here doing?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Those of us without a conspiratorial mindset.”
——————-
Just another one of your many strawmen Nate. We are talking about self interest. Human nature isn’t a conspiracy. You accept it and deny it at the same time pointing to ‘other’ groups as the conspirators and ignoring your own biases.
xxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Those of us who work in science, know scientists, have experience in with the system, and quite unlike you, actually know what we are talking about.”
————–
Some do some don’t. What we are talking about here is compliance with the scientific method. See below.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Look Bill, you can keep having your personal thoughts and opinions about this outside-your-lane stuff, but without evidence to show, it just sounds like cranky old man talk.”
—————-
You have been unable to describe in physical detail the greenhouse effect. thus you are not in compliance with the scientific method in your way of thinking.
“You have been unable to describe in physical detail the greenhouse effect. ”
Weird.
I don’t know where you have been, but it has been described here many times.
And several times you even claim believe it exists.
You can easily look up descriptions of it, if you cared to.
Either way, this is a YOU problem.
Liar!
Projection.
You miss a lot. And what you don’t miss, you get all confused. And what you do understand you don’t retain.
We discussed Manabe and Wetherald, 1967. Remember?
It has a perfectly good description, which you don’t have the prerequisite skills to understand, and thus reject. But again, that is not my problem.
M&W is a mathematical description. It is not a physical description based upon established physics.
What you need to do is explain M&W in a way that doesn’t rely upon the discredited 3rd grader radiation model.
So now Bill writes in M&W 1967 that the moisture content of the atm. depends upon atmospheric temperature “is not a physical description based upon established physics”.
What Bill now needs to do is explain why not to establish any Bill credibility & thus actually bring some discredit to M&W.
“M&W is a mathematical description. It is not a physical description based upon established physics.”
M&W solves a longstanding atmospheric physics problem, using math and laws of physics.
Bill thinks if you use math then you can’t be doing physics!
Ball4 and Nate I said it must be without relying on the discredited 3rd grader radiation model.
You guys haven’t demonstrated the physical mechanism for CO2 being a significant cause of temperature change.
Ball4 doesn’t think it matters. Nate disavowed the 3rd grader model and still doesn’t say what the model is that M&W based their physics on.
Bill 8:47 pm, in the satellite era precision, calibrated measured data has now demonstrated the physical mechanism for CO2 being a significant cause of planetary temperature change. “Significant” meaning at 95% confidence nature’s actual results for atm. added ppm CO2 are within the confidence intervals & measured along with changes in water vapor, other trace gases, aerosols etc.
Good example here of Bill declaring something that is plainly not true. Then doubling down, and blaming others.
Bill,
“You have been unable to describe in physical detail the greenhouse effect.
Me:
“I dont know where you have been, but it has been described here many times.”
Bill:
“Liar!”
Me: “We discussed Manabe and Wetherald, 1967. Remember?
It has a perfectly good description”
Bill: “M&W is a mathematical description. It is not a physical description based upon established physics.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml
for anyone who wants to verify that it is a physics model of the atmosphere’s GHE.
But on and on Bill goes with endless denial.
Ball4 says:
”meaning at 95% confidence natures actual results for atm. added ppm CO2 are within the confidence intervals & measured along with changes in water vapor, other trace gases, aerosols etc.”
Yep a few years in litigation support for competing models in financial due diligence disputes taught me how that works.
A huge Antarctic anomaly that is even affecting sea ice levels is a big part of it.
It coincides with an NH unusual warming.
My comments are not all getting through this morning. If this doesnt work, Ill try again later.
Several misconceptions about the GHE above. The warming effect is NOT due to water vapor. It is due to the disruptions to upper atmosphere winds. The effect is both oscillatory and temporary. It can be somewhat seen in UAH results as “waves”.
GHE should be HTE.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1518098
Would be great to get some experts to tackle the puzzle: What can cause so much warming so fast? It would seem something with high heat capacity would be to blame. Air, on its own cannot do this. Thermal energy from the sun can. So can thermal exhaust from the mantle of the earth.
This is a great scientific question. Dogmatic ideology that requires the answer to be gaseous carbon molecules needs to be set aside so better possibilities can be considered.
This is a weather effect.
Global air temperature is measured decades of time.
But experts should weigh in on predicting if it continues going up, staying the same and how long.
It seems this weather effect has effected hurricane- will that continue or will hurricane season start kicking in during main part of season in August and Sept?
The most common cause of large month-to-month temperature swings is small changes in the convective overturning of the troposphere, especially associated with changes in ocean surface evaporation and resulting condensational heating of the troposphere. These are mostly ocean-based. July 2023 seems to be more land-based, which might be a radiative effect. I don’t really know, just an educated guess.
Roy is an expert but he has integrity and claims he does not know for sure.
But he guesses it’s land effect.
It’s Summer in northern hemisphere, and it has the most land area.
Ah, what’s happening Australia… above, July +1.43
Hmm, don’t know what to make of that.
Did get flooding?
Google: australia flooding 2023
Apparently, yes.
Beats me.
I think they misreporting the Thermosphere cause I predicted it would be a lot warmer than it was in July.
But it’s likely I am wrong.
I did a back of the envelop calculation that 1 deg. C of extra heat in the atmosphere could be caused by just 12 hours of extra sunlight averaged globally. From that it would seem that 0.2 C could result from 2.4 hours sunlight that was “trapped” by some mechanism during the month, or about 4.6 minutes every day for the month of July. It seems that the normal energy balance of the earth is very stable from month to month.
Daily Sun: 02 Aug 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Solar wind
speed: 390.5 km/sec
density: 14.38 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 160
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 175 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.58×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.1% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.2%
The monthly sunspot number for July was 159.1 which
was slightly down from June number of 163.4:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
I got hurricane Dora but it’s going east like last one:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Daily Sun: 03 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 336.8 km/sec
density: 3.14 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 135
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 173 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.58×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.2% Low
48-hr change: -2.0%
The spike of less GCR is interesting.
And waiting for the big spot which was suppose to be
coming.
There is large spot coming from farside, though a larger
spot is also leaving the nearside.
I still think Aug will be weaker. But check what experts saying:
Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
-31 July – 26 August 2023
Solar activity is likely to reach moderate levels
(R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) on 31 Jul – 04 Aug. Activity for the
remainder of the outlook period is likely to be at low levels, with
a chance for M-class X-ray activity (R1). –
Well, Neutron Counts are now at moderate levels for a solar Max.
Daily Sun: 04 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 420.3 km/sec
density: 20.76 protons/cm3
{we are getting hit with solar flare which could soon follow
with couple more. Auroras can be seen well below US/Canada border
and these solar flares could push them further south in next couple
days}
Sunspot number: 122
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 163 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.58×1010 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.8% Low
48-hr change: -1.8%
The spike of less GCR is continuing. Apparently the big spot
came- and it doesn’t seem to me to be impressive. And other old spots are also coming to nearside, soon- but nothing seems showing up that make me doubt the idea that August will be weaker in terms of spot number. But these flares hitting Earth should add energy to the Thermosphere and neutron counts could stay low- and so, in this regard, Aug could likely equal [or exceed] July.
Daily Sun: 05 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 373.6 km/sec
density: 0.11 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 122
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 171 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.58×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.7% Low
48-hr change: -0.5%
It seems this is around lowest it’s been in
Solar 25 Max. This level would have low levels
of GCR if traveling to Mars. Though in past Solar Max
have had much lower neutron counts.
I am guessing we won’t have months of -5.0% or lower
during this solar Max. But if bumps up to 0.0 for days
of time it’s not much of issue- it’s the months of time
which has higher radiation effect upon the crew- which would
effect the crew lifetime of acceptable radiation exposure- it
would shorten an astronaut’s career time.
Regarding I said above, re, auroras:
“CME SPARKS STRONG GEOMAGNETIC STORM: As predicted, a CME struck Earth during the early hours of Aug. 5th. Sensors at the Canberra Magnetic Observatory in Australia measured a jolt of 22 nT to our planet’s magnetic field. The impact sparked a strong G3-class geomagnetic storm with auroras in the USA as far south as Arizona.”
“ANOTHER CME IS COMING: A magnetic filament connecting two sunspots erupted this morning, Aug. 5th (~0500 UT), hurling a CME into space. NOAA models predict a glancing blow on Aug. 8th. The impact could spark G1-class geomagnetic storms with a chance of escalating to G2 or G3 because Earth’s magnetosphere is already energized by last night’s impact. Keep reading. Aurora alerts: SMS Text “
Dora is still going.
In terms global warming cargo cult, I am surprised one in say climate change makes hurricane last longer:
Hurricane Dora Taking Unusually Long Pacific Voyage As ‘Ghost Of Eugene’ Brings Shower Chance To L.A.
https://weather.com/safety/hurricane/news/2023-08-07-hurricane-dora-tropical-storm-eugene-remnant-pacific
Yup, I got some rain and forecast is more rain tomorrow.
I wonder if Dora set a record for longest lasting Cat 4 and it started forest fires in Hawaii.
Daily Sun: 09 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 413.2 km/sec
density: 4.77 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 115
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 159 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.03×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.6% Low +0.1%
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
07 August – 02 September 2023
Solar activity is likely to reached moderate levels on 07 Aug,
primarily due to the remaining flare potential of Region 3386 as it
continues to rotate just beyond the W limb. Mostly low solar
activity is expected for the rest of the outlook period, with a
chance for M-class (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) activity after 17 Aug as
multiple active regions that have produced significant flare
activity are expected to return to the visible disk from the
Sun's farside.–
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
So, August less than July in terms of spot number, though Aug has been more “active” than July- Sun has effecting our thermosphere and reducing amount GRC. Or could say Aug added a bump to June and July
solar activity. My guess is Aug less, and Sept more less.
It seems to me, the Sept has 50% of having a spotless day and Oct a higher chance. And I guess Aug has less than 5% chance.
Daily Sun: 10 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 483.9 km/sec
density: 5.80 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 103
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 153 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.03×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.2% Low
Hurricane Dora is weakening.
Dora is the star of this hurricane season, so far.
Atlantic got nothing forecasted, my side has 30% chance of something
starting:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
It’s looking like a weak hurricane season
Roy (or any other person here who KNOWS the answer to my question),
I count 5 times since 1979 where the monthly average global temperatures peaked at a higher level than O.4 degrees above the baseline. How many of these 5 were NOT accompanied by an El Nino event? Thanks in advance for the answer.
Your question is moot, Russ, b/c in 2021 UAH raised its baseline +.15*C to use 1991 -2020 temps as the baseline. Using the old baseline, which includes the 1979 – 1990 years you allude to, there have been at least 13 years +0.4 above it.
I think you mean 0.6 above the baseline and I count 6 of them. Here they are and the corresponding 4m lagged ONI value.
1998/04: 0.62 : +2.4
2016/02: 0.71 : +2.4
2016/03: 0.64 : +2.6
2016/04: 0.61 : +2.6
2020/02: 0.60 : +0.3
2023/07: 0.64 : -0.1
So to answer your question. The 2020/02 and 2023/07 values were not accompanied by an El Nino event.
Pedantry. The 2020/02 anomaly was actually 0.598 C. So strictly speaking I probably should have excluded that one.
02/2020 was caused by a sudden stratospheric warming event and a weak El Nio. ONI was at 0.5. And the previous year was accompanied by ONI 0.7.
And there was a SSW in March as well.
Hunga Tonga:
https://original.newsbreak.com/@joe-herring-1723008/3107191904075-nasa-unprecedented-underwater-volcanic-eruption-likely-responsible-for-current-heat-waves?_f=app_share&s=a7&share_destination_id=NTk0OTMyNDMtMTY5MDkzMjgxODY5Mw==&pd=041cuRq5&hl=en_US&send_time=1690932818&actBtn=floatShareButton&trans_data=%7B%22platform%22%3A1%2C%22cv%22%3A%2223.29.0%22%2C%22languages%22%3A%22en%22%7D
“Measurements from the Microwave Limb Sounder on NASA’s Aura satellite indicate the excess water vapor is equivalent to around 10% of the amount of water vapor typically residing in the stratosphere, where this ‘excess stratospheric H2O will persist for years, could affect stratospheric chemistry and dynamics, and may lead to surface warming.'”
Your quote is taken from a denier’s blog. Now find me the source of his figure.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Now find me the source of his figure.”
And if he doesn’t? Are you going to throw yourself on the floor in a fit of temper? Maybe threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue?
Not retarded at all, are you?
aquerty…”Your quote is taken from a deniers blog. Now find me the source of his figure”.
***
This is what Roy means by bullying. The Internet is full of heroes who try to get away with attitudes that would get them in serious trouble on the streets.
If you are going to contribute to this blog then parks your attitude, your ad homs, your insults, and your demands. Address the science you Aussie iiit.
ps. your dismissal of the argument was based on the source being an alarmist. He was quoting NASA!!!
No he was NOT quoting NASA in relation to an increase by 10% of stratospheric water vapour – that was my point. It was INVENTED.
.
.
.
“attitude, your ad homs, your insults, and your demands”
There is nothing in that list that doesn’t apply equally to you.
And then you end with a slur against an entire country … THAT is bullying.
From the HTE paper (emphasis mine):
NASAs stamp of approval means little, except to the cult. So Ant now has to deny his cult headquarters!
Now, apparently, NASA is a denier source.
Actually here JPL and NASA are very closely adhering to GHE orthodoxy.
folks are upset though that anybody is admitting to natural causation. Didn’t Al Gore claim the GHE effect never changed until humans started making the masses better off?
Title: “NASA: “Unprecedented” Underwater Volcanic Eruption Likely Responsible for Current Heat Waves”
Text of NASA quote: ” the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat.”
See the difference folks?
As usual, they get confused by the science.
The warming effect is clearly seen, if one opens one’s eyes.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1518502
And effect tells you the cause?
Only if you understand the science.
First you have to stop denying the reality of the effect….
The science is the GHE of water vapor, which YOU claim does not exist.
That’s why this is so much fun!
Wrong Nate, the HTE is NOT caused by your bogus “GHE of water vapor”.
Oh you cite sources that that argue it causes warming by the GHE. However you don’t agree with your sources on the GHE.
That’s why this is so much fun!
Wrong again, tro!! Nate.
The source has it correct that HTE caused the warming. But the source got it wrong that the bogus GHE of water vapor was the cause. Your cult is STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes!
There are REAL mechanisms to explain the HTE.
And your mystery mechanism is described by which official source?
As expected. There is no mystery mechanism offered, that produces significant warming, other than the GHE, as described in all the papers on HT stratospheric water.
the jury is out on whether HTE is causing the unusual disturbances.
However, if we look through the satellite record we see climate responses from all the VEI 4 or greater volcanic explosions that last up to about 9 years mostly involving some degree of cooling for a short spell followed by an accelerated general warming trend.
I am not making much of it but it bears watching as we know our institutions are fully vested and married to not doing that except on behalf of the Montreal Protocol and claiming victory over air conditioner coolants. . . .as we see in the latest UN hype on the topic. . . .that Nate is denying on behalf of global warming.
Its an interesting topic as the huge cluster of major eruptions in the 1990’s had a role in igniting Nate’s pants on fire (along with the climategate mafia) and all of that has been laid at the feet of mankind despite the fact that Dr. Vulcan isn’t yet in custody and maybe mankind isn’t all that responsible as the UN claims.
“on behalf of the Montreal Protocol and claiming victory over air conditioner coolants. . . .as we see in the latest UN hype on the topic. . . .that Nate is denying on behalf of global warming.”
Referring to the post where Bill totally fails to read and comprehend his own source!
And consequently posts misleading nonsense….once again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519259
Naturally rather than rereading his source, he doubles down on his error.
Nate are you the only guy on this board that doesn’t understand that Volcanoes typically cool the globe before warming it?
SO2 cools the globe from its lack of transparency warming the stratosphere and cooling the surface. then as the SO2 breaksdown after finding extremely rare water in the stratosphere, 5ppm(takes a lot of time maybe the few years of cooling) and becomes acidic that destroys ozone and allows high energetic light to reach the surface at alarming rates.
But know the corruption of the institutions Nate proselytizes for focuses purely on the 3rd grader radiation model and the BS about albedo thermodynamic equilibriums to completely reverse the model which at best are partial feedbacks.
Bill, as usual you mix everything in a stew of confusion.
That has nothing to do with the ozone hole cause by CFCs and the UN repairing it, and whether that creates warming or cooling.
Apart from this, all the papers I have seen discussing HTE argue that its principle warming effect would be from the well known GHE of the extra water it put into the stratosphere.
Such as:
“This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL099381
Indeed there are still a lot of scientists that believe in the 3rd grade radiation model instead of the M&W theory. I posted elsewhere that this may take a long time to correct.
Fact is people love to flock to popular theories especially if they haven’t already attached themselves and invested in a different one.
Hmmm,
“No way in their own mind could they possibly be wrong about what they complain about so they just start pretending they were complaining about something else”
Nate is desperately trying to shift the UN’s inconsistencies on me.
Bottom line Nate all I am doing to showing those inconsistencies while occasionally noting that none of this adds up to any evidence.
We have the UN arguing greenhouse effects from multiple sources while at the same time claiming that warming is being curtailed by ocean uptake and that CO2 will warm the planet by 3 degrees or more if we don’t act immediately on the garbage propaganda emanating from the UN.
Maybe we can agree on that.
Bill, All your other grievances lead to rabbit holes of no interest to me.
Well thats no surprise facts have seldom been of interest to you, whether you have facts to support your case or you have facts to dispute others. Its more about being a good party member for you.
Good luck trying to bait others into nasty exchanges.
No baiting Nate. Just stating a fact.
Dr. Spencer, there are other weird phenomena going on at the moment as well, like the extreme marine heatwave in North Atlantic and unforeseen sea ice anomalies around Antarctica. Any possibility that these all are indications of the same thing? What’s your view on this?
It makes more sense to ask why the temperatures were so unusually low recently. 0.64 only seems unusually high because recent temps were unexpectedly low.
MM
The linear regression from 1979 suggests that the current UAH anomaly should be around 0.25C.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2023.6/every/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2023.6/every/trend
0.64C is huge. 0.4C above trend is as big as you would expect from a large El Nino.
Since the current El Nino has barely started the cause must lie elsewhere. It is unlikely to be CO2.
Perhaps this is what a tipping point looks like?
I believe a tipping point is a new set point, not a blip. The coming many months, past the approaching El Nino, will be required to see whether we have reached a “tipping point”. I’d be willing to bet we haven’t.
It’s not just the monthly temperature that is odd.
Atlantic sea surface temperatures are way above normal.
So are the energy imbalance and the Greenland surface melt.
Antarctic ice is way below normal extent.
The jetstream is unusually wavy.
Something is pumping a lot of extra heat into the system this year. I don’t know what, but a lot of scientists like yourself will be scratching their heads.
It will be interesting to watch the rest of 2023. If it is a blip, then we’ll go back to UAH anomalies between 0.25C and 0.5C. If it’s some systemic change then we’re into completely new territory.
Entropic man
I agree to what you wrote – except Greenland’s SMB:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hp59N2gopJ_0DYEcgH-XNWM0LsYO8b6E/view
I would understand you if 2023 would currently look like 2016, 2019 or 2012.
The SMB is way above such values for end of July.
ent…”The jetstream is unusually wavy”.
***
That’s your clue. The jetstream in essentially in the lower stratosphere. Ask yourself what has happened there recently that would mess with the jet stream?
hint: water vapour from Hunga Tonga.
Take out the *** before you use it. Melt extent way above normal through June and July.
https://nsid***c.org/greenland-today/
Gordon Robertson
The jetstream forms when warmer temperate rides up over the colder Arctic air and the incoming airflow is deflected eastwards by the Coriolis effect.
I don’t know a mechanism by which extra water vapour in the stratosphere would affect the jetstream.
In 2008 the biggest event of this century happened.
The Solar wind speed halved almost overnight.
Straight Zonal Flow of the jet streams ended.
Wavey Meridional Flow started.
All extreme weather events of any description are linked to this change in the behavior of our Sun.
Looks like I owe the RNLI 20.
Mark Miller
If you compare UAH anomalies to an ENSO record like the Multivariate ENSO Index
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
you will see that UAH follows ENSO: higher anomalies in El Nino phases, lower ones in La Nina phases.
We just ended a long La Nina phase, and so do UAH anomalies look like.
Thus, no quite so: 0.64 is currently unusually higher.
No, I didn’t mean above by 0.6 degrees, I said and I meant above by 0.4 degrees. And no, I did not mean the number of times the monthly average was above the base line by 0.6 degrees. I said and I meant the number of monthly average PEAKS that were above the base line by 0.4 degrees. And as I said, Roy’s chart shows 5 peaks that met that criteria. Not 6. And finally, the baseline I’m talking about is the one currently shown on Roy’s chart. I appreciate this zero line no longer represents the ‘relative’ average temperature between 1979 and present day, but I never said it did either, and I didn’t (and still don’t) think I even needed to.
Having said all that, I do appreciate your answer, bdgwx. Thank you. But I’ve read on https://www.climate.gov/enso that “A weak El Niothe warm phase of the El Nio-Southern Oscillation climate patterncontinued across the tropical pacific Ocean in July 2023.” Not true?
Russ
Why did you choose +0.4 as treshold anomaly value?
Bindidon,
You asked: “Why did you choose +0.4 as treshold anomaly value?” Good question, but my answer isn’t very esoteric I’m afraid.
I chose 0.4 because it was the lowest number with a horizontal line across the full width of the graph that had a distinctive and meaningful number of anomalously high peaks above it. I could have chosen 0.5 or 0.6 and still had equally distinctive and equally meaningful numbers of anomalously high peaks above them as well.
I was looking for a common cause for the anomalous peaks and knowing that atmospheric CO2 levels didn’t jive, I thought maybe El Nino events might explain them.
What do YOU think?
Russ
Thanks for the convenient reply.
I can only post a few remarks.
1. ENSO is clearly a climate driver: you need to observe not only El Nino peaks but La Nina drops as well.
*
2. Volcanoes also play a major role: The MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index)
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
shows, for example, that 1982/83 was the strongest El Nino since records began in 1871, but was completely obscured in all temperature records by the eruption of El Chichon.
*
3. It is not very good to keep fixated at the lower troposphere; surface records matter too.
Here is a superposition of UAH LT with NOAA’s and the Japanese Met Agency (JMA)’s surface records:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WlRq-I-I_XhKXmSwSuCzVarrNlc-um0H/view
You clearly can see that in the surface records, the El Nino peaks sensibly differ from those in the LT: 1998 for example was way lower.
This means that your 0.4 stat might suffer a lot when you move down to the surface :–)
*
Thus in the sum, only one thing is sure: as you wrote, CO2’s action has nothing to do with small scale events like ENSO peaks (and… drops).
Must be down to the Atlantic seas surface temperature anomaly of circa 1.2 degrees.
The Mediterranean sea also suffered a a large temperature anomaly in July too.
I’ve yet to see a coherent explanation for these sudden rises in sea surface temperatures.
What does this all mean for the Gulf Stream and the Beaufort Gyre is my question.
david…”Ive yet to see a coherent explanation for these sudden rises in sea surface temperatures”.
***
Anthropogenic warming is certainly not a coherent explanation.
How about more satellites and better measuring?
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.14 C/decade”
So back up to 1.4C/century…
1.4C/century is an acceleration.
The surface datasets show 1.2C in 140 years. That is 0.86C/century.
Yeah , thats 14 degrease p-er millennium , you should really worry now
So the the oceans should start boiling in a few thousand years, I suppose.
Some people are so gullible.
No climate scientist is suggesting that the oceans will go close to boiling.
.
.
.
And … “degrease” … oh dear.
AQ,
What scientists are you referring to?
When will the “warming trend” stop, and which peer reviewed papers explain when and why?
You are just making this stuff up as you go along, arent you?
Maybe your “scientists” should have a word with the UN chief, who recently said “July temperatures show Earth is in an ‘era of global boiling’.”
Obviously, you believe “boiling” does not mean “boiling”.
Maybe “warming trend” does not really mean “warming trend”? All a bit confusing.
Note your quote was in the present tense … “is … boiling”.
Do you honestly believe he is claiming the oceans are boiling NOW.
Or do you think perhaps he is using the word colloquially?
Have you never said about the weather “it’s boiling”?
Yes – a poor choice of phraseology, given that there are people like you ready to leap on every word spoken. But unless you can find a climate scientist who actually states that the oceans ARE boiling or WILL boil, it is YOU who is making it up as you go.
AQ,
An era of global boiling is what the man said. I agree, he was obviously mistaken. The globe is not boiling. He is obviously incapable of accepting reality, or just uttering obvious untruths for no particular reason at all. Rather sad that the chief of the UN is unable to articulate his thoughts clearly.
“Climate change is intensifying heatwaves, droughts, flooding, wildfires and famines, he warned, while threatening to submerge low-lying countries and cities as sea levels rise due to melting glaciers and increasingly extreme weather.”
Just more refusal to accept reality, or maybe he was speaking colloquially, and once again did not mean what he was saying, I suppose.
Climate cultists do the same – they claim warming results from slow cooling, that a warming trend will continue indefinitely unless it doesnt, but cannot give any reason at all for either outcome!
Maybe you could quote a “climate scientist” who actually says anything verifiable at all. Only joking – climate science is about as much a science as political science or social science.
Carry on wriggling.
Writing ‘degrease’ instead of ‘degrees’ is typical for German neofascists.
Binny,
And writing “blah blah” instead of something comprehensible is typical for . . . ?
Maybe a case of pot, kettle, black, do you think?
How about bobdroege’s description of the GHE –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Blah blah, or not?
Over to you.
” How about bobdroeges description of the GHE… ”
Flynnson is so dumb and dense that he didn’t even realize that bobdroege was doing nothing but to repeat exactly the nonsense that Flynnson himself had written years ago.
Swenson,
Have you heard of manners?
robert…don’t forget some 20+ years in the interval 1979 – 2023 was flat. There were sudden, unexplained brief period of warming like the sudden 0.2C warming following the decline of the 1998 EN. Also, a residual was experienced following the 2016 EN.
The same happened in 1977 and that led to the discovery of the PDO. Some scientists suggesting discarding the 0.2C warming in 1977 but fortunately real scientists came to the rescue.
When we’ve seen a fast and large uptick like this in the past, there has been a step change up in the temperature record. Wonder if this is another one.
The perfect storm
https://youtu.be/MmnNJalLdhI
Remember folks, we are talking 0.6C, a temperature we would not notice in a living room if we set the thermostat 0.6C higher, yet is claimed to cause catastrophic climate change.
Of interest to me is the response following the spike. In 1998, it was gone in a few months, but in 2016 it lingered for years.
1998 was followed by a strong La Nina, 2016 wasn’t.
Just as 2010-12 was not followed by El Nino (in fact it was La Nina “like” conditions), so temperatures stayed down (relatively speaking).
My gut tells me that this El Nino will be followed by another La Nina, making it similar to the early 70s when 5 years out of 6 were La Nina, with a strong El Nino in between.
But … my gut also tells me that bourbon is good for me.
There was no strong LN till 2008. Meantime, the trend had been flat for 8 years.
Which is what you’d expect in the immediate aftermath of the PDO switching negative – a slowdown followed by a return to the steady rise after a number of years. When the PDO again switches positive we would expect a faster than normal rise for a number of years followed by a return to the steady rate when the earth equilibriates.
AQ,
” . . .followed by a return to the steady rate when the earth equilibriates.”
No equilibrium, I’m afraid. The Earth has cooled – no equilibrium there. The IPCC agree that the atmosphere behaves chaotically- no equilibrium there, either!
What sort of equilibration do you imagine exists, and on what does your assertion rest?
I don’t believe you know what you are talking about, but others may draw their own conclusions, of course.
You should expect nothing re the PDO. It was only discovered in the 1990s and little is known about it. It was discovered when a sudden 0.2C warming occurred on the planet and no one had an answer as to what it was. Some scientists wanted to expunge it from the record.
Tsonis et al did a study into the different ocean oscillations like the PDO and concluded based on evidence that the planet warmed when the oscillations acted in phase and cooled when they were out of phase.
So within a couple of hours the discovery of the PDO has moved from 1977 to the 1990s. Interesting.
Antonin,
Gordon’s using a reconstruction of past climate.
I wonder if Gordon knows where they get the data for that.
Antonin, bob, please stop trolling.
Tony Heller shows how CO2 has gone as far as it can but how more water vapour can increase the temperature, which adds credence to what Doctor Spencer is suggesting with the under sea volcano spewing out unprecedented amounts of water vapour. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-zaQWAaPAg
I am a skeptic without an agenda. In fact, I am skeptical of some skeptics. My interest is in understanding the science, and possibly contributing my perspective. I do not like the politics involve on either side. That is why I can state that I am fascinated by this development. It is puzzling and very interesting. Every news channel has been going on about how hot it is and how many record temperatures there are, which I passed off as just more media hype. It turns out to be real. Is this the fabled tipping point, or just another odd event? Stay tuned!
It is not a tipping point, just a part of variability. But it is variability superimposed on a rising trend. WRT global temperatures, any tipping point would not be that noticeable, nor so absolute, nor so sharply defined temporally. Tipping points are more likely to be noticeable at the regional level, and in the effects rather than the temperatures themselves. Eg. glacial ice melt in Antarctica, or in a shutting down of the gulf stream resulting in a colder western Europe and a warmer everywhere else. The likes of Guy McPherson who claim an abrupt extinction-level tipping point when we finally get an ice-free Arctic have no idea what they are talking about.
AQ,
You wrote –
“But it is variability superimposed on a rising trend.”
The question is – what are causing thermometers to show higher temperatures?
Neither the atmosphere, nor any of its constituents, nor four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, has prevented the Earth from cooling to its present temperature from an originally molten state.
I don’t believe you have any explanation whatsoever.
If the “rising trend” is of recent origin, then it must be due to some cause – also of recent origin, which disqualifies things like CO2, which has been in the atmosphere in far higher concentrations in the past – without stopping the planet cooling.
What do think is causing this increased environmental heat (as reflected by hotter thermometers in some places)?
Various news media are claiming this to be both the warmest July ever and the coldest July we will ever see again. With the coming El Nino they probably will get another round of hysteria. After that, what will they say if we get a cool anomaly? Actually, if we get a cool winter, they will blame that on the jet stream. On the short term, August will be interesting.
Are you on bourbon again? A tipping point as described by Hansen would be catastrophic. It is the beginning of an alleged runaway greenhouse effect as described by Hansen.
Problem is, Hansen got that pseudo-science from Carl Sagan’s description of the Venus atmosphere which he alleged was caused by a runaway greenhouse effect.
Sagan was wrong. The Pioneer probes circa 1978 measured the Venus surface temperature at 550C and that’s way too hot to have been caused by a greenhouse effect.
The idea of a tipping point begins with a runaway positive feedback. There is nothing in the atmosphere can cause a positive feedback because there is nothing to amplify heat.
NOWHERE does Hansen talk of the possibility of the oceans boiling.
He talks of the POSSIBILITY of a rise of 20C MANY CENTURIES DOWN THE TRACK, and only IF WE BURN EVERYTHING and CO2 concentrations to 5000 ppm.
Amplification is only required for positive feedback in a CLOSED system. In an open system all that is required is RETENTION.
AQ,
Retention of what, pray tell?
Not energy, of course, because each night, the Earth’s surface loses all the heat of the day. plus a little bit of its interior heat.
Your understanding of amplification and positive feedback is sorely lacking, by the way.
It doesnt appear that you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about, and using upper case doesn’t help.
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE.
Don’t know about boiling oceans I just know that Hansen invented the climate version of a tipping point. He stole it from Sagan who believed the Venusian atmosphere formed due to some kind of positive feedback that is generally referred to as a runaway greenhouse effect.
So now you don’t know about boiling oceans, despite previously claiming that climate scientists were predicting that the oceans would boil away.
The oceans would evaporate instead of boiling as they would be heated from above, theoretically speaking.
Venus has over 200,000 times the density of CO2 than earth. Surface pressure is 92 atm at 96.5% CO2. Sunlight literally cannot escape. Surface heat leaves by convection.
Tim S
I’ve read that under the major atmospheric constituents on Earth (N2, O2, Ar, CO2), N2 is the lightest, then O2, then Ar, and finally CO2.
{ Note that H2O aka water vapor, though very present in the troposphere, is nowhere in such lists. }
Now if we suppose that originally, Venus had an atmosphere similar to Earth’s, and compare Venus’ and Earth’ masses (4.8673 vs. 5.9722 * 10^24 kg): could it be possible that Venus’ mass was too small for keeping gases link N2, O2 and Ar, which then all escaped over time?
Venus has an escape velocity of 10,360 m/s. Even the lightest gases would have to be extremely hot to have sonic velocity high enough to escape.
Thank you.
IIRC the mass of nitrogen and argon in Venus’ atmosphere is similar to Earth’s. It is a small % of Venus atmosphere because of the enormous amount of CO2.
The CO2 contains all the oxygen released when UV dissociated the water and the hydrogen escaped to space.
Here is a list of molecular weights (gm/mole):
CO2 44
Ar 40
O2 32
N2 28
H2O 18
CH4 16
Dry Air 29 – (weighted average)
H2 2
A tipping point would not, generally speaking, produce a sudden peak in temperature. If there were any simple way to spot it, it would probably show up as an inflection point on a curve – a transition from concave-down to concave-up. The problem with tipping points is recognising them at all until in retrospect. All the term means is a transition of some kind to a self-reinforcing change, for instance the appearance of a positive feedback.
If one showed up this dramatically, it would be very worrying. My guess – and a guess is all I have – is that something has caused short-term redistribution of heat that shows up in surface temperatures, possibly reinforced by the water vapour from Hunga Tonga.
That does not in itself mean the current spike could not CAUSE a tipping point, of course.
There’s a school of thought that our chaotic climate tends to settle at one of four stable strange attractors spaced about 5C apart.
These are Snowball Earth at 4C, icehouse glacial at 9C, icehouse interglacial at 14C and hothouse at 19C.
The climate may be becoming unstable as artificial global warming forces us away from the icehouse interglacial set point towards the hothouse.
EM,
I suggest that if you went to that school, you might ask for a refund. If an attractor is stable, by definition it is not strange.
You wrote “These are Snowball Earth at 4C, icehouse glacial at 9C, icehouse interglacial at 14C and hothouse at 19C.” The products of someone’s fantasy are not physically possible, given a relatively stable external heat source (the Sun), and a continuously declining internal heat source.
Expose a bowl of water to a heat source equivalent to continuous sunlight, and tell me you believe it will reach an unpredictable stable state of 4 C, 9 C, 14 C, or 19 C – due to chaos.
You jest, surely.
” not physically possible”
How bout glacial and interglacial periods? Impossible in your expert opinion?
I’ve mooted a similar idea in the past, that the climate may have metastable states between which it switches – ice-on/ice-off, etc. I don’t have the nous to argue for the idea, of course, being a weak and feeble software engineer rather than a scientific colossus. It would be worrying, if true, as the political goals of 1.5C, 2C and so on might simply not lie near a stable state. We might get 6C or nothing, for instance.
It would be interesting to know if there is a valid school of thought backing the idea.
elliott…”It would be interesting to know if there is a valid school of thought backing the idea”.
***
There was a study by Tsonis et al in which they examined the different ocean oscillations. The conclusion reached was that the climate warms when the oscillations are in phase and cools when out of phase. Based on that study, Tsonis concluded that we are wasting time following the anthropogenic meme and should be checking out variabilities in the oscillations.
Potentially interesting hypothesis, but the conclusion does not follow. An additional forcing could just move all the stable states up a degree or two.
Well it does appear likely that climate does vary a few degrees naturally over a multi-centennial pattern, with sun variability as the most likely suspect, and perhaps by up to one degree on a multi-decadal oceanic oscillation pattern and up to a bit more than half a degree on a sub-decadal ENSO pattern.
And of course it isn’t wise to assume that any of these oscillations depend wholly upon a proportional radiant forcing.
You also have ozone variability as a huge climate influencer.
The UN recently announced that recovery of the ozone layer expected from restrictions on human use of fluorocarbons will cause about a half degree of cooling over the next ~4 decades.
That of course means about a half degree of warming occurred from the huge increase in human use of fluorocarbons from the 1970’s to the peak of ozone depletion in the year 2000.
thats really shocking. There has only been about six tenths of degree warming in the satellite era!
Nah, source?
Nate is lying again!!!
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc
You’ve got to read the whole thing, Bill.
“the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, requires phase down of production and consumption of many hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs DO NOT directly deplete ozone, but are powerful climate climate change gases. The Scientific Assessment Panel said this amendment is estimated to avoid 0.30.5C of warming by 2100.”
From elsewhere:
“Depletion of stratospheric ozone over the past 30 years has caused both a positive radiative forcing at the Earths surface (due to increased UV penetration) and a negative forcing (due to reduced IR emission from the stratosphere to the troposphere). The consensus from current radiative models constrained by observed ozone trends is that the net forcing is negative and of magnitude −0.10 0.05 W m−2.”
Repairing the ozone hole will thus reverse this cooling influence, and produce a slight warming.
So what you are saying Nate isn’t denying what the UN said but that the UN lies to exaggerate what they want to happen in the world?
Surprise surprise!
Once again, another of your posts is proven erroneous…
Its not erroneous Nate.
Just read the UN Environmental Program pronouncement and tell me where any of your caveats are located.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc
I am just noting that one UN program is elbowing their way to credit with another UN program and all you are doing is pulling elbowing opinions from the elbowed program up to refute it.
Each group has it own buttered side of the bread and face no consequences whatsoever in promoting it.
Are you that feeble minded? My quote above is easily found in YOUR source Bill.
Nate your quote from the article only addresses the Kigali Amendment which is only a portion of the full Montreal Protocol so your quote refutes absolutely nothing.
“Nate your quote from the article only addresses the Kigali Amendment which is only a portion of the full Montreal Protocol so your quote refutes absolutely nothing.”
Bill, The quote makes absolutely clear that “HFCs DO NOT directly deplete ozone, but are powerful climate climate change gases.”
It is the GHE of the gases that produce warming according to this article, not the ozone hole itself.
Then: “The Scientific Assessment Panel said this amendment (Kigali) is estimated to avoid 0.30 to .5C of warming by 2100.”
Your claim that “The UN recently announced that recovery of the ozone layer expected from restrictions on human use of fluorocarbons will cause about a half degree of cooling over the next ~ 4 decades.”
is FALSIFIED.
Now, will you, as usual, continue in your denial and blaming of others, or take responsibility for your mistake?
So that doesn’t change anything Nate. Still CO2 only nets out to a net .1 degree warming over the past 100 years.
And thats the only point I made and you agree with it by your claims here.
I don’t agree with much of what the UN comes up with because obviously ozone blocks significant high frequency light and we don’t know what kind of effect that has on mean global temperature because of the chemical effects of UV light. Chemistry and gas laws are why water doesn’t only evaporate at above 100c.
Nate the headline is: ”Ozone layer recovery is on track, helping avoid global warming by 0.5C”
Are you claiming the UN exaggerates so much as to get your panties in a knot and is not to be trusted?
We may well be able to find some common ground on that.
“So that doesnt change anything Nate. Still CO2 only nets out to a net .1 degree warming over the past 100 years.”
So you were wrong and won’t own up to it.. But it doesn’t matter. Because of something else entirely that you want to argue.
Sounds familiar….
The title of the press release was somewhat confusing.
So you didn’t read the article?
Nate says:
”The title of the press release was somewhat confusing.”
You may have found it so. Which seems evident with your posts complaining about what I said.
The only point I was making is the consequence of cooling resulting from UN action on anthropogenic emissions (fluorocarbons). The consequence of course is that there would need to be anthropogenic emissions of fluorocarbons that created warming that is now going to cool.
It doesn’t really matter if the UN is trying to take credit for something that never occurred. . . .that just seems to be their MO to justify their existence and reflects directly upon their credibility.
I can state that for certain as one might have an excuse if the headline were coming from the media. But there is no excuse having it come from the UN.
So even with no excuse it clearly demonstrates the uncertainty which the UN readily embraces in promoting itself. But hey whats new. Teddy Roosevelt understood that nature of non-independent institutions way over a hundred years ago and Eisenhower skewered it upon leaving office. . . yet you not only forgive it. . .you try to blame it on the messenger. . .and unless somebody calls you on it you promote it yourself despite you being abundantly aware you have no evidence of its truth one way or the other.
“The only point I was making is the consequence of cooling resulting from UN action on anthropogenic emissions (fluorocarbons). ”
“No way in their own mind could they possibly be wrong about what the complain about so they just start pretending they were complaining about something else”
Nate says:
”The only point I was making is the consequence of cooling resulting from UN action on anthropogenic emissions (fluorocarbons). ”
”No way in their own mind could they possibly be wrong about what the complain about so they just start pretending they were complaining about something else”
———————
You are losing your mind Nate. The first quote was on the UN announcement. The second quote was on Swanson switching from ”energy” to ”thermal energy” and thinking that saved his bacon after effectively claiming ice cubes having no energy when in fact they have both energy and thermal energy and when you add ice cubes to coffee. . . .it would be a violation of the conservation of energy for any of that energy to disappear from act of throwing into a cup of coffee. Just goes to show how up you and Swanson are on physics.
This
The only point I was making is the consequence of cooling resulting from UN action on anthropogenic emissions (fluorocarbons).”
is you doing what you accuse Swanson of doing.
Getting called out on an error. Not admitting error. Then pretending you were actually arguing something else.
Obviously you are unable to recognize this regular pattern of behavior in yourself.
Nate says:
”Getting called out on an error. Not admitting error. Then pretending you were actually arguing something else.”
I can only respond to that charge if you tell me where I was being a hypocrite.
Near as I can tell you are talking about me reporting the UN claimed that fixing the anthropogenically caused issue with the ozone would save a half degree warming over the next several decades.
All I did was point out that if the ozone was caused anthropogenically that it must have happened mostly during the recent climate warming that the IPCC wants to blame on CO2 at a rate over 100%.
A clear indication that the ozone committee at the UN isn’t talking to the CO2 committee at the UN revealing their politics.
when its ”settled science” this isn’t supposed to happen.
Initial Bill getting it wrong:
“The UN recently announced that recovery of the ozone layer expected from restrictions on human use of fluorocarbons will cause about a half degree of cooling over the next ~4 decades.”
Then doubling down Bill:
“you need to explain how the UNs action in curing some warming of .3 to .5C by healing the ozone layer”
Finally revisionist Bill:
“The only point I was making is the consequence of cooling resulting from UN action on anthropogenic emissions (fluorocarbons)”
And this:
“All I did was point out that if the ozone was caused anthropogenically that it must have happened mostly during the recent climate warming that the IPCC wants to blame on CO2 at a rate over 100%.”
is also wrong.
Because as the article clearly stated, it is the removal of certain GHG that is supposed to avoid FUTURE warming:
“the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, requires phase down of production and consumption of many hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs DO NOT directly deplete ozone, but are powerful climate climate change gases. The Scientific Assessment Panel said this amendment is estimated to avoid 0.30-.5C of warming by 2100.”
And here:
https://www.state.gov/u-s-ratification-of-the-kigali-amendment/
“The Kigali Amendment calls for a gradual reduction in the consumption and production of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are potent greenhouse gases. Its global implementation should avoid as much as half a degree Celsius of warming by the end of the century.”
“GHG that is supposed to avoid FUTURE warming:”
Correction:
And prevented ADDITIONAL warming up to now and going forward from CFC gases that are ALREADY being reduced.
Nate says:
”you need to explain how the UNs action in curing some warming of .3 to .5C by healing the ozone layer”
Finally revisionist Bill:
”The only point I was making is the consequence of cooling resulting from UN action on anthropogenic emissions (fluorocarbons)”
——————————
Its all consistent. You just missed the 2+2 logical consequence that the UN did not state.
If the UN is going to offset climate change warming by .5C by curing an anthropogenically caused depletion of ozone. Then it must be the case that before that humans caused .5C warming by depleting ozone in the first place.
Its just kind of coincidental that there has only been about .6C warming since 1980. . . .and the effect was not detected until 1985 increasing until 2000.
Of course the guy at the UN writing the article had that fact fly right over his head. And it also apparently flew through your head ear to ear nonstop as well.
Certainly if they had actually put in the article that the half degree of cooling that would result from the fix was a half degree of warming from destroying ozone it might have been more apparent to you and them.
But thats the hilarious part! Keystone Kops all the way!
But I suspect Nate never took a class in logic so he will probably want that deduction peer reviewed. LMAO!
“If the UN is going to offset climate change warming by .5C by curing an anthropogenically caused depletion of ozone.”
“Then it must be the case that before that humans caused .5C warming by depleting ozone in the first place.”
So you give up on revising your previous errors. Now we are back to doubling down on them!
The article (and all other sources) clearly state that it is the GH gasses (CFCs, HFCs) that we emitted that are causing the warming, not the ozone hole!
Show any quote that agrees that it is the ozone hole itself that causes warming.
You are quite determined to get the facts wrong, it seems.
“Its all consistent. You just missed the 2+2 logical consequence that the UN did not state.”
Faulty logic.
They didn’t state it because it came from your imagination. Conveniently so.
Two things are happening.
1. CFC levels rose in the last century, stopped rising in ~ 2000 and are beginning to decrease.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/ocean-carbon-acidification-data-system/oceans/images/nhemispherecfcs3.png
2. Ozone in the stratosphere has been depleting in the last century. The ozone hole was observed in the 1980s. It has recently stopped deepening and is beginning to heal.
It is well known that CFCs are strong GHG.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Recent_growth_trends
They produce ~ 6 % of the current radiative forcing of all GHG.
Ozone is a GHG AND it also blocks UV rays. For global warming these two are CANCELLING effects. Its NET forcing is slightly negative according to the quote I showed you.
So if one were applying logic, they would attribute past GW to #1, and nothing or slight cooling to #2.
For some unknow reason you attribute past GW to #2.
That is not logical.
You are terrible at logic Nate.
If you remove CFC’s put their by humans and it causes .5c cooling influence on the earth’s surface. (thats the UN statement)
therefore:
The act of humans adding CFC must have caused a .5c warming influence on the surface. (my claim which you are denying because yo daddy didn’t say it)
“If you remove CFCs put their by humans and it causes .5c cooling influence on the earths surface. (thats the UN statement)
therefore:
The act of humans adding CFC must have caused a .5c warming influence on the surface. (my claim which you are denying because yo daddy didnt say it)”
Wow, we are back to Revisionist Bill. You now out
“by depleting ozone in the first place.”
Your premise above is wrong.
Correct premise from UN
If you end CFC emissions, there will be, 4 decades from now, 0.5c less warming than would have happened if we continued increasing CFC emissions after 1987.
Your therefore statement is thus not logical.
Auditors would remove that Nate.
Projections are not allowed in general. One cannot take credit for something that never happened. Thats bad enough. However, in the soundbite that fact isn’t even disclosed.
Why not just claim emissions would have quintupled and take credit for the prevention of 2.5 degrees of warming?
Of course after reading the article if one wants to recognize the taking of credit for something that never happened one doesn’t even know what has been actually accomplished.
I see that a lot in policy arenas where regulation failed to fix anything so they make up a number regarding what was prevented to give them something to take credit for and we are left totally not knowing if all the restrictions actually did anything. Its total BS! Its deceptive and the public is being conned.
That’s why auditors don’t allow the accrual of never earned income, nor any claims regarding whether it even exists as a likely possibility. Thats a standard of accounting! Its a standard because its deception is well understood by policy makers and it was made a standard. But when it comes to touting their own horn. . .gee thats different. Right Nate?
In general, projecting what auditors would have done in the place of scientists is pointless.
“taking of credit for something that never happened”
Sure you can quibble, but of all the GH gases, CFCs are the only ones whose emissions have been successfully reduced.
They can rightfully take credit for that.
Nate says:
”Sure you can quibble”
And you have zero basis for handwaving it away, but you do anyway. Are you one of the hogs with your face in the trough?
Standard Bill behavior when he loses another argument on the facts…
You didn’t offer any facts Nate.
You implied that CFCs are an important GHG but they aren’t.
We are left with zero understanding of the .5c cooling the UN claims to have saved. But no problem we have Nate here attempting to handwave it away.
Accountants in auditing financial records don’t allow such nonsense to be published about their results. . . .and you think its OK. Obviously your interest isn’t that of the public so whose interest are you looking out for?
Picked this up from another thread here on Dr. Judith Curry.
Dr. Curry lays the deception at the feet of the UN Environmental Program doing exactly what we are talking about them doing here.
If its too heart wrenching for you watch the whole thing. Check out the short piece starting at the 3 minute mark.
https://youtu.be/vVi01vJ4nxM
“We are left with zero understanding of the .5c cooling”
You claimed to have understood it. But I showed you that your understanding was incorrect.
Beyond that, I have no interest in helping you disentangle from all your confusions.
So whatever additional baiting you try, I’m done discussing it.
Nate says:
” ”We are left with zero understanding of the .5c cooling”
You claimed to have understood it. But I showed you that your understanding was incorrect.
———————————–
No how can one understand it. All I did was repeat their primary statement.
You took issue with their statement but you want to blame me.
I didn’t write it.
Nate says:
”Beyond that, I have no interest in helping you disentangle from all your confusions.
So whatever additional baiting you try, Im done discussing it.”
Yep this would be a good time to resign. You aren’t doing well at all.
since Nate is resigning I will leave it with this. Dr Curry does a good job explaining whats going on in the processes of todays science and at the UN with its the rampant corruption of science. She has experienced it first hand.
https://youtu.be/vVi01vJ4nxM
“These are Snowball Earth at 4C, icehouse glacial at 9C, icehouse interglacial at 14C and hothouse at 19C.”
I would say peak interglacial are at 17 C and in colder parts of interglacial they are about 14 C.
If snowball earth average temperature is 4 C, it’s got a pretty warm tropics.
In terms glacial periods they go up and down quite a bit, 9 C is around the coldest time our last glacial period got.
And it’s coldest known time, Earth has ever been.
It seems most of time of glaciation period is around 11-12 C and peaking in short time to around 15 C.
Still high pressure over Tahiti. Typhoon approaches east coast of China.
Date Tahiti (hPa)
3 Aug 2023 1017.00
https://i.ibb.co/8B3VtHH/5836fc48-9b6b-43d9-9444-6b74b7567fe5.jpg
Robertson’s ignorance & arrogance, once more shown in one little sentence:
” There was no strong LN till 2008. Meantime, the trend had been flat for 8 years. ”
What a ridiculous person.
You just need to look at MEI
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
and you immediately see that immediately after the 1998 El Nino, we had a strong La Nina.
It started in July 1998 with an index of -1.42 and lasted 36 months in sequence till June 2001.
Here is the historical sort for strong La Ninas (starting year, sum of indices below treshold):
1892: -54.67
1908: -52.22
1973: -48.71
2020: -46.80
1954: -40.45
1915: -38.97
1998: -37.66
During the UAH satellite era since December 1978, only the last La Nina (2020-2023, 34 months in sequence) was higher than 1998.
Meiv2 for Jun 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/08/meiv2.jpeg
Care to run your favorite OLS linear trend over all of the data in Meiv2?
Blindsley H00d
Thank you for confirming on this blog your sissyish, disingenuous tendency to insinuate things that are, as always, far remote from the truth.
You are such a poor person, able only to discredit and denigrate everything that you can’t technically, let alone scientifically contradict.
Here is another MEI data presentation
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Av4_ql0pe9ymZcg4KYpg91b47481GmT/view
far more understandable than your persistent, opinionated
– hiding of linking data points together – based on a ridiculous reason
and
– grading of climate time series as if they were some input to an electronic amplifier.
*
Oh I’m sure that your friends in the denial of warming (and in between, even of the GHE, n’est-ce pas) certainly will support you!
*
Care to develop a mathematical calculation of the difference between SRMs and CxRMs, Blindsley H00d?
I’m waiting for your superb demonstration.
All I said was ‘Care to run your favorite OLS linear trend over all of the data in Meiv2?” You see it run on other data. Why not Meiv2?
“Care to develop a mathematical calculation of the difference between SRMs and CxRMs”
Do you think that VPs excellent treatment on this very topic is wrong? That is what I’ll quote in any discussion on this topic.
P.S. SRM are non-gaussian. CxRMs are near gaussian. Do you dispute that?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/fig-2-low-pass-gaussian-ctrm-compare.png
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/fig-1-gaussian-simple-mean-frequency-plots.png
“Here is another MEI data presentation”
Care to run an OLS over the whole of that data source?
As in your favorite Excel.
https://imgur.com/HH218D9
Blindsley H00d
I repeat for the opinionated sissyish male:
” Care to develop a mathematical calculation of the difference between SRMs and CxRMs, Blindsley H00d?
Im waiting for your superb demonstration. ”
And don’t try to divert wrt Vaughan Pratt: the comparison has nothing to do with his excellent work, which bypasses ours by light years.
Why do you think that VP created his CTRM if it was not for more accuracy. He also deprecated SRM for the same reason.
I have been using his calculations since 2014.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
“The common use of jittering, sub-sampled single running means with all the distortions and ‘noise’ leakage that they imply. Any Engineer would be fired if they were to use or rely on such poor instrumentation/data summaries in their day to day work.”
Blinny: Do you dispute the SRMs are less accurate than CTRMs?
VPs own words
“too many people settle for a simple running mean, whose frequency response you would not wish on your worst enemy because of the nasty side lobes”
“July 2023 was an unusual month, with sudden warmth and a few record or near-record high temperatures. ”
Meh.. just a blip, one of the last gasps of a warm world. Enjoy it. Enjoy what’s left of the inter-glacial. Earth is cooler now than the Holocene Optimum, when the Arctic was periodically free of sea ice in the summer, & the tree line extended all the way up to the northern shores of Alaska/Canada. In addition, proxies show a long-term, approx. 3,000 year cooling trend that hasn’t been reversed by recent warming.
Oooh… typical WUWT blah blah.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Oooh typical WUWT blah blah.”
Are you claiming “blah blah” expertise, or are you trying to avoid admitting that you cannot actually describe the GHE?
Describing the GHE should be easy, given your “blah blah” expertise.
Oooh, the Flynnson stalker with his GHE syndrome is here again.
Binny,
You wrote
“Oooh typical WUWT blah blah”
Are you claiming “blah blah” expertise, or are you trying to avoid admitting that you cannot actually describe the GHE?
Describing the GHE should be easy, given your “blah blah” expertise.
Oooh, the Flynnson stalker with his GHE syndrome is here again. And in between is in such a morbid state of mind, that he now constantly repeats his all time redundant replies.
Binny,
You wrote
“Oooh typical WUWT blah blah”.
Are you claiming “blah blah” expertise, or are you trying to avoid admitting that you cannot actually describe the GHE?
Describing the GHE should be easy, given your “blah blah” expertise.
Roy, why dont you mention solar activity as a potential cause of the unusually hot weather? This solar cycle has been very unusual and a long way off the predicted activity. Solar activity was and is very high, which is known to effect our magnetic field and the GCR effect on cloud formation.
It is at least a correlation worth looking at – extra-ordinary solar activity and extra-ordinarily hot weather on earth.
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle.html
Despite being stronger than predicted, it is still below average. And it barely effects temperatures anyway. If it had any noticeable effect the 1950s would have been our warmest decade.
AQ,
A couple of points.
You wrote “And it barely effects temperatures anyway.”.
“Barely” is somewhat vague in scientific terms, I think you’d agree.
The other point is that you probably meant “affect”, but that’s only a guess on my part. I only mention your presumed sloppiness, due to your earlier patronizing comment about someone using a play on words.
I trust you can take what you dish out with the same aplomb as I would.
Carry on demonstrating your intelligence level.
It appears I have another stalker. I don’t recall offering assistance to Deniers Without Friends.
AQ,
A couple of points.
You wrote “And it barely effects temperatures anyway.”.
“Barely” is somewhat vague in scientific terms, I think youd agree.
The other point is that you probably meant “affect”, but thats only a guess on my part. I only mention your presumed sloppiness, due to your earlier patronizing comment about someone using a play on words.
I trust you can take what you dish out with the same aplomb as I would.
Carry on demonstrating your intelligence level, in this instance, babbling about Deniers Without Friends, and your recollections of something you didn’t do for people who didn’t exist!
How are you going trying to describe the mythical GHE?
Not too well, I imagine.
Someone here is in desperate need of attention.
AQ,
A couple of points.
You wrote “And it barely affects temperatures anyway.”.
“Barely” is somewhat vague in scientific terms, I think you’d agree.
The other point is that you probably meant “affect”, but thats only a guess on my part. I only mention your presumed sloppiness, due to your earlier patronizing comment about someone using a play on words.
I trust you can take what you dish out with the same aplomb as I would.
Carry on demonstrating your intelligence level, in this instance, babbling about Deniers Without Friends, and your recollections of something you didnt do for people who didnt exist!
How are you going trying to describe the mythical GHE?
Not too well, I imagine.
It is clearly not the only direct factor effecting our climate, but the Grand Solar Minima correlation with the cold periods in the last 1000 years, and the 1000 year warm periods correlating with high solar activity means we need to understand the impact of magnetic fields on our climate, if not individual cycles, higher levels of activity over a period of time.
And a sunspot number of 150 is not low. It is higher than many maximum over the last 200 years.
Fortunately there are many research teams investigating this topic – I track what they are reporting. Ultimately, all of our climate comes from the sun, its only about how it effects our climate.
For over 80 years until 2008 the solar wind was very strong.
This means our molten core is at maximum temperature.
The core is now trying to warm the mantle.
Trouble is ahead.
The crust is going to cool in the 2030s.
Lots of volcanoes and earthquakes are coming.
We are very cold by 2040.
What you try to explain I formally understand. But… where is in your mind any correlation between solar activity and LT temperatures?
Solar
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MKEUFu40Ol3Nk9Mqp1441CDA8696wQ4a/view
UAH 6.0 LT Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y4wuDHZ-tw7zZGQagxuX0b8OkWLneLKP/view
Top 10 in a sort of the UAH anomalies:
2016 2 0.70
2023 7 0.64
2016 3 0.64
1998 4 0.62
2016 4 0.61
2020 2 0.59
1998 5 0.52
1998 2 0.49
2017 10 0.47
2019 9 0.45
They hardly match peaks in solar activity, except if our understanding of it differs a lot.
I’m not seeing anything unusual about SC25 except that it is inconsistent with all those grand solar minimum predictions we’ve seen over the last decade or two.
bdgwx
Correct, but… it was not my point.
I just wanted to highlight the verifiable fact that peaks and drops in temperature records hardly are correlated to solar activity.
It’s NOT the Sun, huh :–)
Binny,
You wrote –
“I just wanted to highlight the verifiable fact that peaks and drops in temperature records hardly are correlated to solar activity.”
I agree. The sun is incapable of stopping the Earth from cooling (obviously).
Rises and falls in the temperature of thermometers are due to rises and falls of the environment surrounding those thermometers.
Nothing to do with any mythical GHE, CO2, H2O, or any other magical thinking.
My post was meant for Guy Warren.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Troposphere and surface temperatures are very different. For example, during hurricanes, satellites detect very strong infrared radiation from the troposphere, and the sea surface drops as much as 2-3 degrees C. The same is true in winter at high latitudes, when water vapor penetrates into the stratosphere. I suppose that in summer in high pressure zones over land satellites receive very strong surface radiation, but is it the temperature of the troposphere?
We can see that in the tropopause, at 100 hPa, there is a constant temperature of -80 C. There are no anomalies in the temperature of the troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2023.png
But there is a large rise in H2O at 10hpa.
Where this idea came from. This is misinformation. 10 hPa is the zone of ozone production by UVC. Even if water vapor were to get there, it doesn’t matter much. What does matter is UV radiation below 242 nm.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
“This is misinformation”
From NASA
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/mls_h2o_qbo_lat_45S-45N_10hPa.png
Ozone is naturally formed and destroyed by the following set of reactions.
http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/molsim/teaching/fall2008/ozone/Ozone%20website_files/Page603.htm
These reactions, proposed by Sydney Chapman in 1930, explain the presence of ozone in the stratosphere. Oxygen molecules can be photolyzed by UV radiation, forming oxygen radicals in reaction 1. In reaction 2, these reactive oxygen radicals can combine with an oxygen molecule to form ozone. M in this reaction is any third molecule: M absorbs heat from this reaction. The increasing temperature profile of the stratosphere results from this reaction. In reaction 3, ozone is destroyed by UV radiation, forming an oxygen radical and an oxygen molecule. Ozone can also be destroyed by combining with the radical, as seen in reaction 4.
So H2O is not a greenhouse gas then?
The source of infrared radiation in the stratosphere is only the Chapman reaction, which is a photochemical reaction. Negligible amounts of water can only heat up as particles take up the radiation released during this reaction.
Most of the energy radiating to space is IR. So all IR passes through the stratosphere.
You are not taking into account the low density of the stratosphere. In the stratosphere, gas behaves like in the atmosphere of Mars. Invariably, the lowest temperature is detected by satellites at 100 hPa. The temperature rises from the upper stratosphere due to the breakdown of an O2 particle by a photon with an energy below 242 nm.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_10_nh_f00.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t10_nh_f00.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
So adding extra H2O vapor or liquid/solid will not effect the transfer of IR though the stratosphere in any way?
No, because the stratosphere responds only to high-energy radiation, such as gamma rays, galactic radiation and radiation shorter than 242 nm. Water vapor and CO2 from the troposphere do not raise the temperature in the tropopause.
Ozone absorbs UVB radiation, which breaks down O3 molecules without raising the temperature. This means that ozone has a cooling effect on the troposphere.
Therefore, during times of strong sunshine, ozone can save you from skin cancer.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2021.png
Its also the case that water in the stratosphere can’t warm the surface in accordance with M&W’s mathematical theory of global warming. It is required that effect be in the troposphere and create a hotspot using convection limitation as the means. Since the stratosphere warms as it gets higher only believes in the 3rd grader radiation model still believes that will warm the surface.
Unfortunately largely due to the efforts of certain scientists promoted well beyond their Peter’s Principle level of competence probably about half the public and 3/4ths of the world’s scientists still believe that’s a viable model.
So how can it be that far more scientists are deceived than the public on a matter of science? LOL! Its a 3 letter word.
EGO. It may take a few generations to fix the problem.
“The pressure on the Martian surface reaches only 30 Pa (0.30 hPa) at the top of Olympus Mons, while at the bottom of the Hellas basin it reaches 1155 Pa (11.55 hPa); the average atmospheric pressure on Mars is 600 Pa. On Earth, such pressure prevails at an altitude of 35 km above the sea surface; this represents less than 1% of the pressure at the Earth’s surface (1013 hPa).”
The water vapor in the tropopause assumes the temperature of the tropopause, i.e. -80 C.
https://i.ibb.co/g3G1vnb/0b053cdf-ace6-4ae2-ba3b-6e252c9bffa1.jpg
There is H2O there though.
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/mls_h2o_qbo_lat_45S-45N_10hPa.png
I think that graphic pretty well sums up the effect of Hunga Tonga on the stratosphere.
Some seem to not understand that 10 hPa atmospheric pressure means an altitude around 26 km: that is above the lower stratosphere, and has no longer anything in common with the tropopause (between 70 hPa and 400 hPa).
And some are even so ignorant that they don’t understand what means ‘1 ppm’ in the H2O @ 10 hPa graphic they so proudly show everywhere, as it has to be compared with over 410 ppm CO2 at the same altitude.
By the way, the dark green in the graphic (1 ppm H2O) probably is due to the Hunga Tonga eruption (January 14-15, 2022).
binny is claiming that CO2 is 400 ppmv at an altitude with pressure = 10hPa which is about 29,000 metres or 29 kilometres.
Why not?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1518727
“By the way, the dark green in the graphic (1 ppm H2O) probably is due to the Hunga Tonga eruption (January 14-15, 2022).”
You don’t say. /sarc
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/mls_h2o_qbo_profile_Equator.png
binny is the type who, when witnessing Godiva ride naked through the street of Coventry would note that she was riding a horse.
Blinny: So how do you explain the +1 ppm to -1 ppm caption on the range?
Small but powerful Dora now a major Category 4 hurricane in the eastern Pacific
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/08/02/hurricane-dora-slated-rapidly-intensify-it-churns-eastern-pacific/
“HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – Hurricane Dora has continued to intensify and is now a major Category 4 storm as it churns toward the Central Pacific.
At 5 a.m. Thursday, Dora was located far from Hawaii in the eastern Pacific about 2,430 miles east-southeast of Hilo. It was packing winds near 125 mph and moving west at 18 mph.”
…
“Dora is expected to reach an area of increasing easterly shear by Thursday, and that could start a gradual weakening trend late Thursday into Friday.”
I’m still not expecting a record. But my expectation for 2023 has jumped up to 0.32 +/- 0.06 C. That gives 2023 about a 10% chance of a new record. The YtD average is 0.31 C. The record to beat is 2016 at 0.39 C.
Do you think the record will be set in the southern hemisphere? On the surface or in the troposphere?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2023.png
And here we have something interesting.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_SH_2023.png
I don’t know. I don’t track the values by hemisphere.
Whether this year will beat 2016 will depend on the El Niño. A strong EN will definitely top 2016. But this EN is having a tough time even getting above 1.0C. It’s trapped in the box!
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Yes, it is very interesting what happens to the temperature under the equatorial Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202308.gif
Very interesting, indeed! It explains a lot.
The official ENSO3.4 figure for the week ending Jul 28 is +1.2.
For the umpteenth time, this is not official, and even their own documentation recommends using other sources due to its old methodology.
If you call CDAS ‘unofficial’ also
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
It falls the most in the Pacific West. The Great Barrier Reef may be booming.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_sst-trend-7d_v3.1_seel_current.png
That coincides with the mild temps around the Philippines. Not much “heat trapping” there.
The probability of a very strong El Nino this year doesn’t seem very high to me:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Don’t forget that a few years have passed between the end of the strong La Nina in 2012 and the start of the strong El Nio in 2015:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
I wouldn’t wonder if something similar would happen after the even stronger La Nina we experienced from 2020 till beginning of this year.
How about next year?
“In 2020, regulations introduced by the IMO imposed strict limits on the sulphur content of marine fuels. The new rules lowered the maximum percentage of sulphur from 3.5% to 0.5% for all ships operating worldwide. ”
“Sulphur particles contained in ships exhaust fumes have been counteracting some of the warming coming from greenhouse gases. But lowering the sulphur content of marine fuel has weakened the masking effect, effectively giving a boost to warming.
Some researchers have proposed that the drop in SO2 as a result of the IMOs clean air regulations could be behind a recent spike in global sea surface temperature.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/
If you look at Nullschoolearth you can find a layer that shows Nitrous Oxides. You can follow the main shipping routes by the distinctive NOxx trails across the oceans.
The key bit is how small the percentage of ocean that is actually impacted by the NOxx emissions. Most of the ocean hardly ever if ever actually sees any ships.
I don’t know how well SOxx mix in with the entire atmosphere but if the effect is similar to NOxx then it won’t have much impact on SST.
I’m thinking the only way for SST to have the spikes in temperature being observed is if there is a reduction in cloud cover.
If there is a reduction in cloud cover then the SST spikes could be due to greater than usual sunlight reaching the ocean surface.
I don’t know where to find if there is less cloud than normal in the past couple of months.
There is no way to explain sudden SST spikes with the gradual CO2 emissions.
Ken,
Ocean surface “hotspots” are detected because of SST anomalies. The source of the heat is crustal heat flows. The hotspots wander erratically, and one hypothesis is that they are due to mantle plumes, and there are many papers examining this possibility.
Persistent hotspots are unlikely to result from increased sunlight, as the heat of the day is radiated away at night. Who really knows for sure?
The effect of CO2 is supposedly minor compared with H2O, and of course the atmosphere above the ocean contains about as much H2O as is possible.
If H2O had “greenhouse gas” warming properties, then one might think that the surface of the ocean would be hotter than an arid desert at equivalent latitude. This is demonstrably not the case.
Maybe the GHE is a myth.
“The source of the heat is crustal heat flows”
That seems unlikely. Why would there be an increase in crustal heat flows? Evidence required.
“then one might think that the surface of the ocean would be hotter than an arid desert”
One would think that if one ignored the tremendous heat capacity of the ocean.
Why would one do that if one was intelligent?
NOAA has developed a technique for raising the SST. They liberally switch between measuring water temperature in the water intake manifold of ships and the old bucket method. Whichever one reads highest is recorded by NOAA. Same with land temps. They move the thermometers closer to oceans where it’s warmer and ignore temps on mountains.
There is another effect. It turns out the sulfur also causes more soot. lowering the sulfur makes the combustion process more clean. Diesel trucks running ultra low sulfur fuel have amazingly clean exhaust. Visit a foreign country where they do not hydrotreat the fuel, and you will see the difference in smoke content of the exhaust.
In winter, the stratosphere over Antarctica reaches almost to the surface.
https://i.ibb.co/4PHWj0J/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-08-03-231914.png
A look at Antarctica’s sea ice extent shows that the hard drop is now weakening:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
Not the seasonal effect matters, but the difference between 2023 and all years before. Even the drop in 2016 wasn’t that strong.
What did happen there?
Not due to the air temperature (or CO2)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/uah-sopol.jpeg
thats correct! If you look at summer temperatures in the arctic they have cooled. The Arctic has warmed in the winter but no ice is melting in the winter. Conclusion: ice extent varies because of ocean current temperatures and low ice extent cools the oceans and high ice extent warms the oceans.
Could you please play marbles somewhere else?
You’re not interested in discussing anything, just showing the world your poor ‘5 year low pass’ graphics.
That correspond to VPs calculations. Not that you have any problem with him.
Not Vaughan Pratt is a problem here: your persistent stubborn lying is.
I don’t lie. Unlike you who can’t even get simple calculations correct.
Blindsley H00d
Show us on this blog where I couldn’t ‘even get simple calculations correct’.
Show us!
When you suggested that C3TM and C5TM did not have the same corner frequency.
The hard drop, as you put it, was likely in the archipelago, in ocean waters closer to South America than the central continent. There is no signs of warming on the Antarctic continent.
To put things in perspective, here’s a link from Ren, immediately above your post, showing an average temp of -66C at Concordia Station. The date in Polish is 4 Aug 2023. The low was -73C and the high -57C.
Concordia station is on the opposite side of the archipelago which extend northward. and is well inland.
https://i.ibb.co/4PHWj0J/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-08-03-231914.png
Concordia location can be seen on this wiki page…2nd photo down…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordia_Station
daveo…”So tell me Gordo, youre an expert on Quantum Theory, but dont understand basic spectrometry? Wow, thats actually quite impressive. Or is it that you watched what the bleep do we know and you now think youre an expert on Quantum Physics? The latter would make more sense”.
***
Is there a point to this mindless rant? You have not indicated what exceptions you have taken to my understanding of spectroscopy but, hey, that’s typical of an alarmist nimrod. Are you not the same g00f who was taking shots at Roy over him allegedly profiting from skepticism?
You represent a lower class of alarmists, one who can only take shots but has zero understanding of basic physics.
Basic quantum physics and spectrometry explain the greenhouse effect (and anthropogenically perturbed greenhouse effect – adding a shiit-tonne more GHGs and absorbing a shiit-tonne more energy) very succinctly. If you have any interest in comprehending science you know that.
reply to Elliot above…testing posting issue…
elliot…re tipping points…
***
It has never been explained by climate alarmist how the positive feedback works without a heat amplifier.
The tipping point occurred when Tipper left Al Gore
yes..Tipper and Al left a tremendous legacy of rooting out demonic phrases in rock songs. That was their specialty, listening to rock, not for the enjoyment, but to seek out inappropriate phrases. They are the types who would toke MJ but never inhale.
Actually, I’m not even a scientist and I can explain it. Water vapour, for instance, is a greenhouse gas. Add a forcing and the atmosphere warms. Warm the atmosphere and the amount of water vapour it carries will increase. Increase the water vapour and you increase the forcing. Increase the forcing and the atmosphere warms more.
Simple.
Can you then explain the effect of latent heat in the upper atmosphere? Is cloud and rain formation adiabatic? If so, what happens to the latent heat?
“Is cloud and rain formation adiabatic? If so, what happens to the latent heat? ”
If enough latent heat is released you get continued convection, which is how thunderstorms form. Ultimately the heat radiates to space as infrared radiation.
EM,
You wrote –
“Ultimately the heat radiates to space as infrared radiation.”
Exactly. All heat from the Earth does. From the interior, generated by man on the surface, absorbed from the Sun – all flees to space.
Hence, the progressive and inexorable cooling of the Earth.
Thus cooling the surface in order to form the vapor.
tim s…”what happens to the latent heat?”
***
According to some theories where deserts abut jungles, the dry heat produced when WV converts back to water droplets moves laterally to produce deserts.
Under adiabatic conditions, the latent heat of condensation results in a rise in temperature. Rain is a heat transfer mechanism.
Where do I start? Not quite at the beginning.
You wrote – “Warm the atmosphere and the amount of water vapour it carries will increase.”
Except when it’s really hot, of course. Like in an arid desert. Well, not only when it’s really hot. Even when it’s moderately hot.
The point is that the amount of water vapour (which some cultist believe is a “greenhouse gas”j has little correlation with temperature. Both the hottest places on Earth, as well as the coldest, are notable for their lack of water vapour in the atmosphere.
Simple? Cultists probably are.
Elliot, thanks for admitting you aren’t a scientist.
A molecule in the atmosphere that receives a forcing, such as from Sun, will increase its energy. That energy could then be transferred to other molecules. At some point, if the forcing continues, the atmosphere might reach a final T. There would be no more increase in T.
Now, it more molecules are added, the same thing happens. Everything reaches the same T, for the same forcing. Adding more molecules does NOT raise the final T.
A simple analogy is adding ice cubes to a cup of hot coffee that is at temperature T. No matter how many ice cubes you add, the coffee’s temperature will not increase. You’ve added energy to the coffee, but the temperature will not increase.
Also, be cautious about using the term “greenhouse gas”. That’s cult-speak. The scientific term is “radiative gas”. Earth is not a greenhouse.
Thanks again for being honest. Honest commenters are rare here.
Speaking of ignorance of science, grammie clone wrote:
No, in your bogus red herring, the energy per unit mass contained in the mixture of coffee and ice will be lower. The net energy will be the sum of the thermal energy in the hot coffee plus that represented by the ice cubes, including latent energy, which is a negative, since there’s a phase change which requires energy to proceed.
grammie clone still hasn’t made it past high school physics.
Energy has been added, but the temperature does not increase. You can use the ice to irradiate the cup, if adding mass confuses you. Still no increase in temperature.
I do not expect children to understand.
Adding radiant heat or reducing radiant heat loss, without changing the mass, is more relevant, and has a completely different result.
If the goal is to obfuscate and mislead people, then by all means add mass.
I don’t believe you and Swanson are purposely trying “to obfuscate and mislead people”, Nate. It’s more related to the fact that you don’t understand ANY of this.
My example to Elliott clearly explained that adding more mass to a system did not result in an energy increase. The mass would have to be at the right temperature to provide an energy increase.
I don’t expect children to understand.
grammie clone can’t understand that “adding ice cubes to a cup of hot coffee” means immersing the ice in the hot coffee. That’s not the same as placing the ice cubes around the outside of the cup. The result is going to be different than simply adding the IR radiation from the ice cubes to the external surface of the cup.
grammie clone’s analogy does not ADD ENERGY to the mass of the cup plus that of the ice.
Swanson, adding energy to a system adds energy to the system.
Science is hard for children, huh?
grammie clone still can’t grasp the basic fact that his scenario doesn’t ADD ENERGY to the coffee cup. Worse, the concept of Entropy escapes him as well. He will never make it thru high school physics.
“A simple analogy is adding ice cubes” and its a bad analogy, because it adds mass which changes the result entirely from the real situation of interest.
Thus it is DESIGNED to obfuscate and mislead people.
Child Swanson, now you’re claiming ice doesn’t have any energy.
It’s obviously time for your nap.
E,
Using your inexhaustible fund of knowledge, you should be able to quickly provide a description of the GHE, rather than trying to convince anybody that a hotter body can increase its temperature by absorbable energy radiated by a colder one.
What is the GHE supposed to do anyway? Make the globe hotter after allowing that same globe to cool for four and a half billion years?
You can’t or won’t say, will you?
Maybe you should just attack me personally, rather than explain why anybody at all should believe you claiming the existence of something that you can’t even describe!
Give it a try.
swannie…”Entropy escapes him as well”.
***
Can you explain entropy for us, Swannie? It’s likely like your definition of the 2nd law where heat can be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot.
grammie clone wrote:
Any mass of material has internal thermal energy as measured by it’s temperature. Add two masses at different temperatures together and the result would that the final temperature will reach some intermediate value based on the heat capacities of the two materials. Phase changes confuse things, such as the fact that energy is released when water vapor condenses or ice freezes. The opposite is true for melting ice, which requires energy addition to the solid.
So, mixing ice and hot coffee (that’s mostly water) results in the ice melting and the coffee cooling. The cooling will proceed until the water cools to the freezing point or all the ice melts. The point is that in this instance, the latent heat in ice is negative, as it cools the resulting mixture, reducing the thermal energy content of the mix.
E,
And adding two gases at different temperature results in the colder getting hotter, and the warmer getting colder.
CO2, H2O, oxygen, nitrogen – all act the same.
How does colder CO2 make a warmer object hotter?
Trick gotcha – it doesn’t. “Back-radiation”, if coming from a colder object, does not increase the temperature of a warmer object.
Now you might see why nobody has managed to describe the GHE so far. Maybe you might care to try, but you will be doomed to failure, like everyone else who thought they could. Look for a description on the internet, if you think it will help.
Very good, Swanson. You must have had your nap and consulted with an adult.
You now admit ice has energy. So when ice is added to the system, energy is added to the system. Energy is added but the temperature does NOT increase.
Who said children can’t learn?
They just have to have the right teachers….
grammie clone still doesn’t get it. Adding ice cubes to a cup of hot water means that you are adding mass to the container. The “cup of water” no longer exists, so you have not “added energy to the coffee”. The resulting amount of water is colder and thus has less energy per unit of mass than that of the initial cup of hot water, as you noted.
From a thermodynamic point of view, the now colder water has less available energy for conversion to another form because of Carnot limits.
E. Swanson says:
”grammie clone still cant grasp the basic fact that his scenario doesnt ADD ENERGY to the coffee cup. Worse, the concept of Entropy escapes him as well. He will never make it thru high school physics.”
Now Swanson claims that less ”available” energy is the equivalent of less energy. Arguing with these guys that flop like fishes in the bottom of the boat really is ridiculous. No way in their own mind could they possibly be wrong about what the complain about so they just start pretending they were complaining about something else and next week Swanson will be wrong again on the same point.
“No way in their own mind could they possibly be wrong about what the complain about so they just start pretending they were complaining about something else ”
Ha! Bill that is precisely YOUR MO.
Swanson, no matter how many times you change your story, you can’t change reality. Adding ice to a cup of coffee adds energy.
But, you’re such a child you will keep trying to pervert reality.
That’s why this is so much fun.
grammie clone repeats his display of ignorance:
He obviously can’t comprehend this:
British thermal unit
After adding the ice, the mixture cools. That’s not “adding energy”, it represents a loss of thermal energy as the negative latent heat of fusion of the ice is released.
grammie clone still hasnt made it past high school physics.
E. Swanson says:
”Adding ice to a cup of coffee adds energy.
He obviously cant comprehend this:
British thermal unit
After adding the ice, the mixture cools. Thats not adding energy, it represents a loss of thermal energy as the negative latent heat of fusion of the ice is released.
grammie clone still hasnt made it past high school physics.”
I guess Swanson believes ”thermal energy” is the one and only form of energy. Talking about failing high school physics!
Swanson, are you going to be here all week just to display your ignorance of thermodynamics?
You’re wasting your time. We already know.
Re: adding ice to water.
The bad analogy fallacy.
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/faulty-analogy.html#:~:text=This%20fallacy%20consists%20in%20assuming,alike%20in%20some%20other%20respect.
Hunter wrote:
So, what other “form of energy” is transferred by placing ice in a cup of hot water?
Yes the ice adds thermal energy to the coffee. . .unless of course the ice is at absolute zero which isn’t possible to achieve.
But we are just having fun with you Swanson as the claim you were disputing was ”energy” not ”thermal energy” after the ice with its existing thermal energy is added the ice may melt depending upon the existing temperature of the coffee and its environment and convert some of that thermal energy into latent heat energy.
As I have pointed out before you are a smart guy but you really lack the discipline to be a good scientist. But discipline is a learned trait so you can remain hopeful.
Hunter wrote:
No, the negative latent energy of the ice is released, causing the resulting mass of water to cool. As the ice melts, it loses the stored latent heat, there’s no conversion of sensible thermal energy into more latent heat.
However, entropy increases.
E. Swanson says:
”No, the negative latent energy of the ice is released, causing the resulting mass of water to cool. As the ice melts, it loses the stored latent heat, theres no conversion of sensible thermal energy into more latent heat.”
I can appreciate it must be a long long time since you actually boned up on latent heat. I am getting on in years too and sometimes find it necessary to refresh my memory.
In this case you are very wrong. Its just the opposite. Latent heat is the energy that holds the molecules apart. Evaporation of water absorbs energy from the surrounding water and uses that energy within the bonds between the molecules doing work, carrying that latent heat up in to the sky where they release that energy and the water condenses or freezes.
Melting ice is a process of absorbing energy without changing temperature. . . .not releasing it. You did get the coffee cooling right but if energy was being released into the coffee it would warm.
Hunter wrote:
So, it appears that Hunter now agrees that grammie clone was wrong when he wrote:
.
The coffee cools because thermal energy is being removed to melt the ice.
Nice try Swanson but no cigar.
Add ice to coffee and you are adding energy but the coffee doesn’t warm is true.
What happens is the ice is added and begins to melt. But the process of melting is increasing the volume of coffee while absorbing energy as both latent heat and sensible heat as the heat of the coffee warms the new coffee that was once ice which had less sensible put still positive heat before it was added.
Result the coffee has more energy than before the ice with its energy was added.
The unmelted ice still isn’t coffee.
and the coffee is cooler.
Hunter, the question involves mixing two different masses. The ice has both sensible heat (a positive) and latent heat from it’s freezing. The two terms have a different sign, thus the initial energy content is less than the sensible term alone. Mixing the ice with hot coffee will lead to melting the ice as energy is transferred from the coffee to the ice. If there’s enough ice, the temperature of the coffee will drop to 0 C and the ice will stop melting.
Sorry, I’m too lazy to bother doing the calculations, but I suspect that the resulting energy per unit mass (that’s both masses) will be the same. Go ahead, do the calculations yourself, instead of more of your usual hand waving.
Swanson before we can discuss this further you need to recognize your mistake.
Ice doesn’t contain ”latent heat from freezing”. All the latent heat from freezing is contained in the medium in which the ice was created as water when it freezes releases latent heat into the environment.
when an ice cube melts (with the ice cube containing no latent heat) the energy in the resultant coffee has both increased from the sensible heat that was in the ice and the coffee is colder because the resultant coffee has converted even more sensible heat to latent heat than the sensible heat it gained from the ice.
OK Hunter, I take your point. Water vapor has latent heat which is released when it condenses, liquid water has latent heat which is released when it freezes.
But, you wrote:
Think of it this way. Add enough ice to the coffee such that the mixture cools to 0 C, then remove the remaining ice. That part of the resulting mixture which is from the melting of the ice is at 0 C, so there’s no effect on the rest of the coffee. However the hot coffee portion of the mix has lost energy to melt the ice, thus there’s no more sensible energy remaining in the mixture. The mixture does still contain the latent heat which might be released by freezing, that hasn’t changed on a per unit mass basis. That says to me that adding ice to the coffee has not increased the energy in the product.
to have no sensible heat in the mixture you would have to cool it to 0k not 0C.
Then you would have neither sensible heat nor latent heat so you are way out of bounds here.
Yes, Hunter, there would still be some sensible heat down to 0 K, but below 0 C, the mixture would no longer be liquid and the heat of fusion would need to be removed for the water to freeze first. You are just playing games, where’s your added energy in my real world example?
Gee Swanson I thought you would have figured that out by now.
The added energy to the cup of coffee is the sensible heat in the ice cubes that were dumped into the coffee and melted, bringing about colder coffee with more total energy.
Increasing the mass in the final mix is not the same as adding energy. From thermodynamics, there will be less energy available for work as the final temperature will be lower.
You will do anything to be right, right Swanson?
You are right Swanson adding mass to the coffee is not ‘identical’ to just adding energy.
But it was implied in the challenge here to add ice cubes to the coffee thus the test demanded that mass be added. You denied that energy was added with the addition of the mass of colder icecubes.
What are you trying to get at here Swanson? That the only way to add energy to coffee is using CO2 death rays?
Your argument here is as silly as the spinner argument that the angular momentum of the moon in a rotation upon an external axis is the angular momentum of a dimensionless mass around the earth.
Hunter, What we have here is a heat transfer problem. Energy is transferred from the hot coffee to the ice. the result is less energy available in the mass of the coffee and more energy added to the ice to melt it. Doing the accounting as simple energy flows, as in the 1st Law, does not capture the fact that the coffee loses energy to the ice.
Of course, Hunter adds with another comment, ignoring the fact that the Moon does not rotate around a fixed external axis, it rotates around an internal axis at a constant rate.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter, What we have here is a heat transfer problem. Energy is transferred from the hot coffee to the ice. the result is less energy available in the mass of the coffee and more energy added to the ice to melt it. Doing the accounting as simple energy flows, as in the 1st Law, does not capture the fact that the coffee loses energy to the ice.”
—————————-
Now you are getting ridiculous. You have coffee (which is extract of coffee and water) and you have ice.
The energy of melting isn’t added to the ice it is added to the melted water. . . .its what makes the difference between ice and water.
So now the added water is coffee as the percent of water in the coffee isn’t specified. Like I said the spinner logic is flawed logic and is incorrect.
E. Swanson says:
”Of course, Hunter adds with another comment, ignoring the fact that the Moon does not rotate around a fixed external axis, it rotates around an internal axis at a constant rate.”
———————
You always find spinners denying rotations around an external axis. But the way you shift back and forth in your arguments just shows how flawed your logic is.
The same thing for the GHE or gee its backradiation. In response to the lack of evidence of backradiation (and 2LOT) it becomes ”its the sun” but then you run afoul of Stefan Boltzmann equilibriums.
Now we have you playing games with what coffee is and the difference between coffee and frozen water without coffee extract in it.
You are just a composite example of how all that stuff is argued in this forum by undisciplined but devious minds.
Melting sea ice decrease albedo. Creates less reflected (lost) energy to space and more absorbed energy by the earth (a heat amplifier). Add more heat, melt more ice. Another quintessential climate change positive feedback loop explained in 3 sentences. Yet Gordo, if you have no interest in learning – you won’t learn.
“This winters record-breaking snowfall has made summertime hiking, backpacking and mountaineering more challenging than usual, if not treacherous, around the Sierra Nevada and other California mountains. Sequoia and Kings Canyons National Parks, located near Mt. Whitney, have also issued warnings to backpackers of dangerous snowy conditions. And in northern California, a popular trail at Lassen National Park that usually opens by July is still closed because of snow.”
But this year is the ‘hottest eva’!
Nah, just a couple of months are, so far.
Snow and heat do not normally go together.
No?
Snow is water evaporated from a warm ocean.
The warmer the ocean the greater the evaporation, so the quantity of water vapour and hence the quantity of precipitation depends on the water temperature.
Whether the precipitation falls as rain or snow depends on the temperature over land, a different problem entirely.
But the heat cannot be present when the heat is present locally.
Can you show that extra transfers of energy occurred that extra water is evaporated and then deposited as snow elsewhere having travelled through 2 latent heat transfers and the troposphere?
Both latent heat transfers would have moved energy from the surface and deposited it to space so cooling the surface in the warm ocean.
…But the snow cannot be present when the heat is present locally….
“The warmer the ocean the greater the evaporation, so the quantity of water vapour and hence the quantity of precipitation depends on the water temperature.”
Not around the Persian Gulf, apparently. Or the Western Sahara Atlantic coast.
Maybe your explanation needs a bit of fleshing out.
It depends on other factors as well. like ocean currents, winds, and the location and direction of mountains. Here on the ‘wet’ coast of Canada, we seldom get snow at lower elevations.
“Both latent heat transfers would have moved energy from the surface and deposited it to space so cooling the surface in the warm ocean. ”
Yes, That’s normal. The latent heat released when the water vapour condenses and freezes ends up convecting upwards in the cloud and radiating from the tropopause.
What I’m addressing is the assumption that you get more snow if the climate cools and less if it warms.
IIRC snowfall onto Greenland has increased because more water vapour is being carried there. The surface mass balance is still negative over the year because melt volume has also increased.
Goodnght.
So you should be able to show where the extra water vapor cooled the surface.
A powerful typhoon in the East China Sea is effectively lowering surface temperatures. I wonder , what is the temperature of the troposphere in a hurricane? Higher or lower?
https://i.ibb.co/4YSKTdY/himawari9-ir-06-W-202308040450.gif
https://i.ibb.co/183c1q0/ct5km-ssta-v3-1-pacific-current.png
So is man-made global warming still grossly, massively exaggerated Dr Roy?
I have read through the comments on these posts throughout the years.
Despite high quality presentation of climate data, this place is full of obfuscation. Solar intensity, volcanoes, particulate emissions, a whole host of marginal theories are poured over endlessly. Some of them do have small impact of temperature variation. Some of them are maybes. Some of them probably don’t or have miniscule impacts.
But none of them – NONE OF THEM – come close to explaining the rapid and catastrophic increase in global temperature that we are experiencing. Only man made CO2 CH4 and N2O emissions since the industrial revolution do.
For human kind, that is the point. One primary cause. That is surmountable, if humanity were to come together.
Instead, a sea of obfuscation from people with huge egos who refuse to face the truth. Why do you reject the obvious? Because it has become associated with being ‘green’, a hippy, a socialist. It goes against the grain of this society.
‘But none of them NONE OF THEM come close to explaining the rapid and catastrophic increase in global temperature that we are experiencing. Only man made CO2 CH4 and N2O emissions since the industrial revolution do.’
Hogwash Jesse. No catastrophe is imminent except in the minds of true believers.
Increased air Temps are caused by warmer oceans.. warmer oceans by either increased insolation or increased geothermal.
A colder atmosphere cannot heat a warmer ocean.
Hypothesis: increased uvb insulation at the surface as a result of low ozone levels is responsible for the recent warmer oceans.
The irony here is incredible. So, you “believe” quantum theory and spectrometry when it comes to stratospheric ozone, but you “faff-it-away” when it comes to GHGs and infra-red radiation from the Earth causing the natural greenhouse effect and now the anthropogenically-perturbed greenhouse effect. Or am I getting that wrong and you “believe” science behind the natural greenhouse effect, but just not the anthropogenically perturbed part that has seen a near doubling in CO2 and a near tripling of CH4 since the industrial revolution (even though you “believe” in the science behind the human impacts on the stratospheric ozone).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66387537
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/world/americas/south-america-chile-heat-wave-winter.html
Two more oddities in a year filled with oddities.
Something genuinely unusual is happening to the climate this year.!
“The oceans have hit their hottest ever recorded temperature as they soak up warmth from climate change, with dire implications for our planet’s health”.
***
More proselytizing from the Church of Anthropogenic Climate Change. Not a shred of evidence that climates are changing, just consensus.
EM,
I believe that you will find that “climate” is the statistics of historical weather observations over a nominal period, often 30 years.
Climate is always changing.
Maybe you meant to say that something genuinely unusual (as opposed to doubtfully unusual) is happening to the weather.
The BBC seems rather confused, saying “While air temperatures have seen some dramatic increases in recent years, the oceans take longer to heat up, even though they have absorbed 90% of the Earth’s warming from greenhouse gas emissions.”
I suppose some diehard climate cultists might believe this, but they would be misguided and ignorant, wouldn’t they? Will you commit yourself to supporting that particular BBC utterance, and allow me to ask you a question or two, hoping to demonstrate that it is nonsensical?
This is how stratospheric winds rage in the Southern Hemisphere in winter.
https://i.ibb.co/ZTWxyYp/zu-sh.gif
By combining UAH’s LT 2.5 degree grid cell anomalies with the associated climatology (the 12-month baseline for the current reference period, i.e. 1991-2020), we can obtain the following top 10 of a descending sort of the absolute monthly temperatures:
2023 7 266.058 (K)
1998 7 265.797
2022 7 265.778
2020 7 265.723
2016 7 265.673
2019 7 265.667
1998 8 265.621
2021 7 265.618
2010 7 265.615
2018 7 265.587
*
Data source
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
wherein the files ‘tltmonamg.1978_6.0’ till ‘tltmonamg.2023_6.0’ contain the anomalies and the file ‘tltmonacg_6.0’ the 12-month climatology.
*
Who doubts about the accuracy of the numbers above is kindly invited to ask Roy Spencer what he means about them.
Addendum
I am talking above of course about the Globe’s absolute data.
What do you mean by ‘we can obtain…’. With your convoluted statistical procedures you might be able to claim that but we, including me, don’t agree.
So what you are saying here is essentially “there is no shred of evidence [that I can comprehend because I have not ability to understand even the most basic statistics and science] behind Anthropogenic climate change”. Clear…
Binny,
What does your analysis of historical weather statistics achieve?
A warm glow of self satisfaction, I dare say, but anything of practical value?
#2
Oh again this Flynnson stalker who never has anything valuable to say but always urges in saying something irrelevant
Binny,
What does your analysis of historical weather statistics achieve?
A warm glow of self satisfaction, I dare say, but anything of practical value?
#3
Oh again this Flynnson stalker who never has anything valuable to say but always urges in saying something irrelevant
So the 12 Month running mean
“ANNUAL CYCLE BASED ON 81001-110365 12-MON RUNNING MEAN”
does not have any errors or side lobes as VP claims.
“too many people settle for a simple running mean, whose frequency response you would not wish on your worst enemy because of the nasty side lobes”
Robertson
” With your convoluted statistical procedures you might be able to claim that but we, including me, dont agree. ”
I repeat for one of the dumbest, most arrogant posters:
” Who doubts about the accuracy of the numbers above is kindly invited to ask Roy Spencer what he means about them. ”
But people like you and a few others prefer to insinuate instead of asking the one who knows.
That is simply cowardice.
binny…” Who doubts about the accuracy of the numbers above is kindly invited to ask Roy Spencer what he means about them.
***
I am not questioning Roy, I am questioning your interpretation of Roy’s work.
” I am not questioning Roy, I am questioning your interpretation of Roys work. ”
But you don’t have the balls to ask him whether or not your ‘questioning’ (oho) makes sense.
Do you know why you don’t have them, Robertson?
It’s because you fear his answer.
I believe that Roy reads this blog and he knows all too well my opinion of using running means (of any sort) in calculations. Why do you believe that I have not made my position clear? Why do seem to agree with VP (when it suits you) but do not implement what he says?
VPs own comment on running means is
“too many people settle for a simple running mean, whose frequency response you would not wish on your worst enemy because of the nasty side lobes”
Do you dispute that?
VP continues
“The frequency response starts to look more reasonable as you cascade filters because the side lobes die down.
There are no side lobes with a perfect Gaussian filter, though there are very tiny ones with any finite-impulse-response (FIR) approximation to one. For a low-pass filter you could do a lot worse than a Gaussian filter.”
What does Vaughan Pratt’s perfect comment on simple running means in December 2013
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-420398
have to do with the computation of a 12-month climatology out of a 2.5 degree grid?
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
Why aren’t you still not able to do yourself this job, like did a few commenter on this blog, like e.g. Mark B, MrZ ?
*
Care to develop a mathematical calculation of the difference between SRMs and CxRMs, Blindsley H00d?
I’m waiting for your superb demonstration.
And I repeat: don’t try to divert wrt Vaughan Pratt: the comparison has nothing to do with his excellent work, which bypasses ours by light years (and let me add: especially yours).
*
Stop insinuating, Blindsley H00d. Start working instead.
So using running means (of any sort) is OK with you, even after VPs scathing observation on them?
“Care to develop a mathematical calculation of the difference between SRMs and CxRMs”
Unlike you, I will bow to the excellent observations of VP as mentioned elsewhere.
Why is it, do you think, that only climate science uses anomalies and running means? Unlike every other sciences who use accurate gaussian (or near gaussian) LP filters instead.
Blindlsey H00d
Care to develop a mathematical calculation of the difference between SRMs and CxRMs, Blindsley H00d?
Im waiting for your superb demonstration.
And I repeat: dont try to divert wrt Vaughan Pratt: the comparison has nothing to do with his excellent work, which bypasses ours by light years (and let me add: especially yours).
*
Stop insinuating, Blindsley H00d. Start working instead.
Unlike you, I will bow to the excellent observations of VP as mentioned elsewhere.
Why is it, do you think, that only climate science uses anomalies and running means? Unlike every other sciences who use accurate gaussian (or near gaussian) LP filters instead.
elliott…”Actually, Im not even a scientist and I can explain it. Water vapour, for instance, is a greenhouse gas. Add a forcing and the atmosphere warms. Warm the atmosphere and the amount of water vapour it carries will increase. Increase the water vapour and you increase the forcing. Increase the forcing and the atmosphere warms more”.
***
You are quoting from the Alarmist Handbook from Climate Alarm 101.
What is a greenhouse gas? It is allegedly a gas that can absorb IR and warm, then pass the heat onto adjacent molecules. Nothing wrong with CO2 absorbing IR, Tyndall proved that circa 1850. However, a real greenhouse does not warm by trapping infrared radiation but by trapping molecules of nitrogen and oxygen that have been heated by soil and infrastructure.
It is presumed first of all that such a greenhouse gas, like CO2 or WV is responsible for warming the atmosphere. A transfer of heat via colliding molecules is referred to as diffusion and the amount of heat transferred is directly proportional to the mass percent of the gas in a gas mixture, like the atmosphere.
Converted to temperature and based on the approx. 0.06% of Co2’s mass percent that translates to a 0.06C warming from CO2 for every 1C warming of the rest of the mixture, and that is for a doubling of CO2. The same figure can be worked out using the Ideal Gas Law.
The contribution of water vapour is similarly insignificant. It has more significance in the Tropics where the WV content can be as high as 4%, but overall, in the atmosphere, WV accounts for about 0.3% of atmospheric gases.
When you talk forcing you are talking climate model jargon. Can you explain how this forcing works at the atomic level? Climate alarmists don’t even bother going that low, they draw numbers out of a hat.
binny…”Blindsley H00d…Thank you for confirming on this blog your sissyish, disingenuous tendency to insinuate things…”
***
Teutonic bullying alert.
Gordon,
I support a sissyish, disingenuous commenter like Bindidon displaying a tendency to insinuate that the opinions of other commenters are worthless – without providing any support for his opinion.
Bindidon may not agree with Richard Feynman who 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.”, or he may not. Someone may value Bindidon’s opinion, I suppose.
Oh again this Flynnson stalker who never has anything valuable to say but always urges in saying something irrelevant…
Binny,
“Oh again this Flynnson stalker who never has anything valuable to say but always urges in saying something irrelevant”
Well, that’s a good explanation of the GHE, isn’t it? About as good as any other explanation to date.
Carry onl
“Richard Feynman who said It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.”
Swenson’s oft-repeated theory that the Earth should only ever be cooling simply doesnt agree with observations of the Earth having warmed significantly in the last 20,000 years, and more rapidly so in the last 50 y.
Oh well, his cooling theory, though he finds it so compelling, is most definitely wrong says Feynman.
And yet, ignoring Feynman’s wise advice, he keeps on pushing his thoroughly debunked theory!
there is no evidence the earth has warmed more rapidly in the last 50 years.
Its like sealevel is rising more slowly than it rose a few thousand years ago. Modeling links all this stuff together in the last 50 years and actually changes the temperature of the ocean as a consequence. So applied consistently the last 50 years isn’t even close to the historic rate of natural warming.
But no Nate is going to ignore the fact and come up with some anecdotal science from his hero Al Gore who already is totally discredited.
‘there is no evidence..”
When you run out of facts to support your narrative, just deny the data!
The data needs to be consistent. In this case with the sea level data. You can’t be having massive increases over time with sea level data and not have it occurring with temperatures too. Sea level rise was far higher coming out the last glacial.
Anyway the ice core data show sifts over about 3-400 years of 3 degrees repeatedly showing current change is pretty darned normal as much as Al Gore doesn’t want it to be.
“Swensons oft-repeated theory that the Earth should only ever be cooling simply doesnt agree with observations of the Earth having warmed significantly in the last 20,000 years, and more rapidly so in the last 50 y.”
No theory, Nate. Just the application of known physical laws to the Earth.
The Earth is mostly (>99%) a big glowing hot blob, a long way from the Sun.
If you want to believe it decides to heat up from time to time for no particular reason, be my guest.
Maybe you are confused by the fact that thermometers respond to a hotter environment by showing increased temperatures. I believe people like Dr Spencer are investigating the implications.
You may not accept things like the UHI, or refuse to believe that local observed temperature increases must increase the “global average” temperature, unless compensated by temperature falls elsewhere, but that is up to you.
Good luck with preventing reality.
“No theory, Nate. Just the application of known physical laws to the Earth.”
Selected laws are applied and selected facts are used to make a theory.
In your theory, you don’t include the energy input from the sun and output through the atmosphere, both of which have changed over time.
And this produces only cooling in your theory.
But it doesnt agree with the observed warming.
Your theory is wrong.
Oh well!
Yes I agree he is wrong. But also its wrong to say that CO2 is warming anything also for the exact same logic you are using here.
High convection in the eastern tropical Pacific. Eastern Circulation.
https://i.ibb.co/0X43FX1/2dd95606-4831-445d-b16c-e4236cfa30a5.jpg
Blinny: Are you still suggesting that C3RM and C5RM do not have the same corner LP frequency when using when using VPs calculations?
C3RM: 1.2067, 1.5478. Leakage 0.31% or -50.1 dB
C5RM: 1.0832, 1.2343, 1.4352, 1.6757. Leakage 0.0047% or -86.5 dB
Blindsley H00d
” Are you suggesting that… ? ”
” Are you saying that… ? ”
” Blinny now thinks that… . ”
” Blinny now claims that… . ”
*
This is the reason why I call you a sissyish person.
Germans would call you weibisch (wrongly translated into ‘efféminé’ or ‘effeminated’).
It’s an idiom that applies to a certain type of male and female individuals, all of whom share the same urge to constantly insinuate what others neither think nor suggest, let alone would assert.
Sounds a lot better to me than Antonin Qwerty’s “effing girl” because the phenomenon isn’t limited to women at all: for that you are the best proof ‘evah’.
And you’ll never stop being ‘weibisch’, Blindsley H00d. You are simply married to such behavior.
So which do you think is a robust statistic? Mean or median?
So you use sexist terminology just like AQ does.
Are you still suggesting that C3RM and C5RM do not have the same corner LP frequency when using when using VPs calculations?
You said previously that C3RM and C5RM do not have the same corner LP frequency when using when using VPs calculations. Are you still standing by that?
Blindsley H00d
As long as you repeat your sissyish trash, I’ll reply with the same answer.
*
Blindsley H00d
” Are you suggesting that… ? ”
” Are you saying that… ? ”
” Blinny now thinks that… . ”
” Blinny now claims that… . ”
*
This is the reason why I call you a sissyish person.
Germans would call you weibisch (wrongly translated into ‘efféminé’ or ‘effeminated’).
It’s an idiom that applies to a certain type of male and female individuals, all of whom share the same urge to constantly insinuate what others neither think nor suggest, let alone would assert.
Sounds a lot better to me than Antonin Qwerty’s “effing girl” because the phenomenon isn’t limited to women at all: for that you are the best proof ‘evah’.
And you’ll never stop being ‘weibisch’, Blindsley H00d. You are simply married to such behavior.
You said previously that C3RM and C5RM do not have the same corner LP frequency when using when using VPs calculations. Are you still standing by that?
So you use sexist terminology which is meant to provoke just like AQ does.
Depends where they are in the atmosphere. Low down I would expect them to warm it.
High up to cool.
Where does the heat disappear below the surface of the Pacific Ocean? Is it into the troposphere?
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202308.gif
The cold of the poles will appear somewhere.
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent, Standard Deviations: https://imgur.com/a/lBW9N3d
https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/the-mystery-of-the-missing-antarctic-sea-ice/
Arkady Ivanovich
Where do you have that graph from?
What I know from colorado.edu, watching sea ice extent for NOAA
https://tinyurl.com/NOAA-Antarctic-sea-ice-extent
is this:
https://i.postimg.cc/P5ZQZDtY/Antarctic-sea-ice-anoms-daily.png
which matches this quite good:
https://i.postimg.cc/KYCbWC6d/Antatctica-sea-ice-extent-Guardian.png
but not your graph:
https://imgur.com/a/lBW9N3d
I’m of course not talking about the difference between anomalies wrt 1981-2010 and those wrt 1991-2020.
I’m talking about how the 2023 line looks like in your graph compared to the other two.
But why is the air temperature not higher?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/uah-sopol.jpeg
“If those ice shelves were to collapse, as the Conger shelf in east Antarctica did in 2022, the gates would open for continental ice to flow rapidly into the oceans.”
Rubbish.Scaremongering and complete ignorance of physics. Floating ice holds nothing back at at all. It doesnt collapse, and about 90% is below the surface.
From time to time, the shelf fractures, as ice is rigid compared to the water, which is moving up and down with the tides. Vast chunks of ice break off, floating hither and yon, eventually melting. Panic about sea level rise is overdone – the Amazon, for example, constantly discharges vast volumes of water into the ocean without anybody worrying about rising sea levels.
A glacier is just a river of ice, and its outflow is solid, rather than liquid, water.
Good grief.
“It doesnt collapse … ”
“Vast chunks of ice break off, floating hither and yon …”
That is what people mean by the ice shelf ‘collapsing’.
“A glacier is just a river of ice …”
Not exactly.
Precipitation falls in a river basin … and within weeks or months, it flows to the sea.
Precipitation falls in a glacial basin … and within centuries or millennia, it flows to the sea.
The timescales are different.
There is also a difference in scale. Rivers and lakes are about 1% of the fresh water in the world. Ice is about 70% of the fresh water. HUGE amounts of water are held in glaciers, ice sheets, etc. If these melt and/or flow into the seas faster, it is like creating WHOLE NEW RIVERS from water that had been locked away.
Tim,
Yes, climate alarmists misuse words like “collapsing” because they sound more dramatic. Just like calling “slow cooling” heating.
Floating ice does not collapse. It can’t.
A glacier is a river of ice. Frozen water. Banging on about timescales doesnt change the fact that water falls on the solid surface in one form or another, and flows under the influence of gravity to a lower point – fast or slow.
Just like slow cooling is still getting colder, not hotter.
Rather than playing “silly semantic games” a la Willard, maybe you could tell me something I don’t know.
Your last effort to describe the effect of CO2 on thermometers was a bit lacking. “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”
Oh good – saying precisely nothing.
Good for you , Tim.
“Banging on about timescales doesnt change the fact that water falls on the solid surface in one form or another, and flows under the influence of gravity to a lower point fast or slow.”
You miss the point. Rain and rivers are balanced. When more water evaporates and more rain falls, more water flows in the rivers and back to the seas. This will never lead to measurable sea level change.
Snow and glaciers are NOT balanced. Snow that falls might melt and flow back to the ocean that year. Or it might stay frozen for 100,000 years. This can change sea level by 100+ meters as glaciers build up and melt away during ice ages.
Anyone should be able to understand this simple and important difference.
And as for “collapse”, you might check a dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collapse
2: to break down completely : DISINTEGRATE
4: to suddenly lose force, significance, effectiveness, or worth
Either of those apply to the ‘collapse’ of an ice sheet. Governments and stock markets and ice sheets can collapse without literally falling to a lower elevation.
There are two things you apparently didn’t know.
swenson…”From time to time, the shelf fractures, as ice is rigid compared to the water, which is moving up and down with the tides”.
***
Not only that, there are waves in that neck of the woods that are 100 feet high. When the glacier toe hits the ocean it keeps moving over the water and is just hanging there but partially submerged. If that hanging ice is rigid, as you say, meaning inflexible, and it is battered by 100 foot waves, it flexes and breaks eventually.
The sea ice referenced in the article actually protects the ice hanging over the water by buffering the wave action and extracting energy from the waves. When they move off, for whatever reason, the hanging ice is battered by the full force of the ocean.
ark…”Dr Caroline Holmes continues:
Wind patterns, storms, ocean currents and air and ocean temperatures all affect how much of the sea around Antarctica is covered by ice, and they often push and pull in different directions. This means it can be hard to link the behaviour of Antarctic sea ice in any particular year, or over several years, to just one factor”.
***
Caroline is confusing sea ice, which are ice floes, and static ice attached to glaciers on the continent. Ice floes in the Antarctic, as in the Arctic, are free to move, being driven by ocean currents and wind.
Captain Henry Larsen of the RCMP cutter St. Roch, was the first captain/ship to sail the NW Passage in both directions in the early 1940s. On the west to east excursion, it took two years because the ship was hemmed into the Canadian north shore by sea ice (floes). Larsen noted this to be a common occurrence because sea ice moves with wind and currents and is unpredictable. On the return voyage, east to west, they sailed through in 87 days.
It is known in Antarctica that ice shelves, which are the toe-end of glaciers thus attached to land ice, are protected by floating ice. The ice floes act as a buffer to protect the solid ice from the fury of Antarctic ocean waves. The sheer mass of ice floes takes the energy out of the waves when the waves are forced to lift the mass.
When the floe ice moves off, as it seems to be doing now, the exposed land ice is battered by waves up to 100 feet high and they fracture and break off as floating massive ice shelves.
None of this is related to warming/climate change, they are all natural processes. Therefore Caroline is full of it.
“There is a desperate need for more observations in the region, particularly in winter and under the sea ice and ice shelves, . . .”
Gee, desperately crying out for more government funding which will change absolutely nothing!
Who’d have thought?
“I’m talking about how the 2023 line looks like in your graph compared to the other two.”
This graph plots the departure in standard deviations of each data point from the 1991-2020 climatological mean. It shows that July 2023 Antarctic sea-ice extent was >5 standard deviations below the climatological mean.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Last year’s underwater volcano, “Hunga-Tonga” for short, was “unprecedented” in the modern era. The Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE) raised Earth temperatures. The immediate explanation was radiative warming from all the water vapor the eruption put into the stratosphere. But, that was only a guess, and it was wrong. Even some Warmists here know that can’t happen.
So, what caused the warming?
Throwing a rock into a still pond produces a ripple (wave) on the surface of the water. The ripple expands, making a larger and larger circle. The wave continues across the surface of the pond, slowly dissipating. If it hits a structure in the water, the wave will reflect, as we would expect. If the wave encounters another wave, it will add/subtract based on the laws of physics (Superposition).
But waves on the surface of a pond are 2-dimensional. The atmosphere is 3-dimensional. So it is necessary to imagine a wave formed by a perturbation in the upper atmosphere. The wave would be expanding into larger and larger spheres, instead to 2-dimensional circles. As with the wave on a pond, if the wave encountered a solid object, it would be reflected. If it encountered another wave, it would add or subtract, depending on the motions.
Most people are not familiar with the Polar Vortex. It plays a big role in how the HTE can warm the lower atmosphere. For the purposes here, consider the PV as a super-large hurricane, positioned high in the sky. A PV is sucking air off the troposphere and dumping it into the stratosphere. The PV acts as another cooling system for Earth. Closing off the PV effectively traps the warm air, restricting its flow to the stratosphere. Upper level waves can negatively affect PV much like wind sheer can negatively affect a hurricane.
This eruption was extremely interesting in the climate debate. The eruption was most definitely a “forcing”. Its effects lasted for about a year and a half. The effects warmed UAH Global by about 0.20-0.25C, average. The HTE will be an ongoing debate because the GHE cult is jealous that the eruption can do something CO2 cannot. But, the HTE is REAL, regardless of a never-ending debate.
The link provides the monthly UAH Global values since the eruption. Displayed in column form allows the impact of the HTE waves to be seen. The horizontal bar at the bottom is ENSO, with the reddish color coinciding with temps below zero and the bluish color coinciding with the temps above zero. You can see how ENSO adds to the effects of HTE.
https://postimg.cc/8FFtpjZF
Understanding how HTE would affect Earth temperatures allowed for the predictions over the last several months of abnormally high anomalies. Being able to predict correctly is important in validating the science.
Sorry, got the bar colors reversed.
Should be: The horizontal bar at the bottom is ENSO, with the bluish color coinciding with temps below zero and the reddish color coinciding with the temps above zero.
“But waves on the surface of a pond are 2-dimensional”.
***
One of the dumbest comment you have ever made. Why doe it require a 3-D graph to display waves on a surface?
I was going to let this slide till you attacked me below for no good reason. If you insist on being a jacka.s.s. you will get it back in spades.
It’s the outward motion of the ripple that is 2-dimensional, Gordon.
I knew you cult id1ots would not understand.
Is the source for this speculation your imagination? Or is their an actual real legitimate science source with supporting observations?
My “sources” are always REAL science and reality, Nate.
Your cult doesn’t recognize those as “sources”. You rely on nonsense, like passenger jets flying backwards, or people not knowing how to walk.
Yeah, so no sources. Just fiction.
Thats why this is so much fun!
There is a lot of talk about the ripples on ponds and the PV etc then:
“This eruption was extremely interesting in the climate debate. The eruption was most definitely a forcing. Its effects lasted for about a year and a half. ”
All we see is that was ‘interesting’.
So where is your warming mechanism explained?
Nate, the explanation of the HTE was for responsible adults only.
So, grammie clone, when did you become a “responsible adult”?
The ineffective flak from cult children like you serves as my bona fides, Swanson.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519355
This entire post reminds me of certain answers to essay questions on exams by students who never came to class and had no idea how to answer, but filled up the page with a lot of meandering nonsense with a smattering of technical words, in vain the hope that no one would notice that they never answered the question.
But I noticed.
Did you notice you have NOTHING in response?
I did notice that you didn’t answer my question. Where o where in that long meandering essay do you explain the mechanism for HTE warming?
This is quite entertaining.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519707
“Most people are not familiar with the Polar Vortex. It plays a big role in how the HTE can warm the lower atmosphere.”
Intriguing. Please do tell us how?
“For the purposes here, consider the PV as a super-large hurricane, positioned high in the sky. A PV is sucking air off the troposphere and dumping it into the stratosphere. The PV acts as another cooling system for Earth.”
How colorful..do go on.
“Closing off the PV effectively traps the warm air, restricting its flow to the stratosphere. Upper level waves can negatively affect PV much like wind sheer can negatively affect a hurricane.”
Interesting. Its seems we’re getting close to the explanation of how HT gets involved.
And?
“This eruption was extremely interesting in the climate debate.”
Oh wait. What happened? Is that it? Where’s the explanation?
Are responsible adults gonna get that later? In an email?
Very good Nate. You can’t go wrong quoting my exact words. It increases your ability to understand them.
Memorization helps also.
Clint is a frustrated teacher. He thinks we are impressed by his natterings.
Yes Gordon, I understand quite well that you have serious learning disabilities.
It is one of the reasons sports are entertaining.
This is Clint’s ‘and the agony of defeat’ moment.
Since we have the experts here in all things related to science, I have a question. There is lot of discussion about a tipping point. Is a tipping point also a critical point? Be careful, it could be a trick question.
Depends on how critical you feel, I guess.
James Hansen of NASA GISS was the first scientist to use the term tipping point wrt to climate. He referenced the meaning to the Venusian atmosphere where he reasoned that at some tipping point the Venusian atmosphere took off on a runaway greenhouse effect that could not be reversed. He predicted the same for Earth’s atmosphere if we did not drastically cut back on anthropogenic warming.
What else could it mean? If you have an object, even a ship on the ocean, and you push it past a tipping point, it falls over and cannot be righted by normal means. There is no other context in which such a drastic change can be described with reference to catastrophic climate change.
That’s what the debate here is about, between those who support the catastrophic meme and those who think it is nonsense.
Like the term “heat trapping gas”, tipping point, does not seem to have a precise scientific or mathematical meaning. Inflection point does not seem to work either. Merriam-Webster has this: “the critical point in a situation, process, or system beyond which a significant and often unstoppable effect or change takes place”, but that seems much more political than scientific.
Carry on.
Tim S,
Or “forcings”.
First thing that popped up for me – “Climate forcing measures the imbalance in the Earth’s energy budget caused by a perturbation of the climate system, ”
Completely meaningless. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. There is no “climate system”. Presumably, people really mean “the atmosphere”, without which there is no weather, and no climate at all!
All this rubbish about “energy budget” is just ignorant cultists trying to gain attention and funding.
Seems to have worked pretty well so far.
We are not talking about a dictionary definition but the definition related to global warming attached to ‘tipping point’ by James Hansen, the former leader of GISS.
When people use the term tipping point with regard to climate it is a reference to a runaway greenhouse effect, whatever that means.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04310w.html
Under the heading ‘Tipping Point’, Hansen elucidates…
Tipping Point
Earth is heated by sunlight and, in balance, reaches a temperature such that an amount of heat equal to the absorbed solar energy radiates back to space. Climate forcings are imposed, temporary changes to Earths energy balance that alter Earths mean temperature. Forcings include changes in the suns brightness, volcanic eruptions that discharge sunlight-reflecting particles into the stratosphere, and long-lived human-made greenhouse gases that trap heat.
Forcings are amplified or diminished by other changes within the climate system, known as feedbacks. Fast feedbackschanges that occur quickly in response to temperature changeamplify the initial temperature change, begetting additional warming. As the planet warms, fast feedbacks include more water vapor, which traps additional heat, and less snow and sea ice, which exposes dark surfaces that absorb more sunlight. Slower feedbacks also exist. Due to warming, forests and shrubs are moving poleward into tundra regions. Expanding vegetation, darker than tundra, absorbs sunlight and warms the environment. Another slow feedback is increasing wetness (i.e., darkness) of the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets in the warm season. Finally, as tundra melts, methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, is bubbling out. Paleoclimatic records confirm that the long-lived greenhouse gasesmethane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxideall increase with the warming of oceans and land. These positive feedbacks amplify climate change over decades, centuries, and longer
The predominance of positive feedbacks explains why Earths climate has historically undergone large swings: feedbacks work in both directions, amplifying cooling, as well as warming, forcings. In the past, feedbacks have caused Earth to be whipsawed between colder and warmer climates, even in response to weak forcings, such as slight changes in the tilt of Earths axis.
Hansen’s primary focus is on heat trapped by GHGs and fed back to the surface to further warm the surface. This is eesentially perpetual mpotion because it is an amplification of a heat source without a heat amplifier of some kind. In other words, the heat magically amplifies.
Hansen is a physicist and he must have studied some thermodyamics. However, the way the 2nd law is taught these days gives the impression that it is related to a vague notion of entropy. Modern scientists are simply not taught the basic meaning of the 2nd law, as stated by Clausius, that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder object to a hotter object.
Clausius introduced the notion of entropy as a means of measuring transformation from heat to work, or vice-vera. Some scientists today explain entropy is the heat ‘not’ available to do work.
He stated entropy in words as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat over a process at temperature, T. The interpretation of the 2nd law today, based on entropy, is so vague as to be meaningless, so we can forgive Hansen for not understanding the true meaning of the 2nd law, thus inferring that heated GHGs in the atmosphere that are colder than the surface can transfer heat back to the surface.
Hansen shows his ignorance of basic thermodynamics when he states that GHGs trap heat. The inference here is obvious. He is claiming that heat radiated from the surface is trapped by GHGs and somehow slows the dissipation of heat at the surface. Worse still, he infers that heat can be radiated back to the surface to raise surface temperatures beyond the temperature the surface is heated by solar energy.
These alleged properties of heat are an anachronism dating back to the 19th century. In those days it was roundly believed that heat could be transferred through air by heat rays. Bohr proved that theory wrong in 1913 when he revealed the connection between electrons and radiatied/absorbed EM.
Heat does not move between the surface and GHGs as heat via radiation. Therefore surface heat cannot be trapped. The alleged transfer of heat is smoke and mirrors. The surface cools immediately as it emits EM. It needs to be clear that the heat is already dissipated…poof…it is gone. The emitted EM holds no heat as we know heat, it can’t because EM is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and has no capacity to carry heat. EM can travel freely through a vacuum and heat cannot.
Therefore, any heat dissipated at the surface via radiation is gone the instant the EM is radiated. If GHGs absorb any of that radiation, they can only absorb about 7% of the total surface radiation. They can convert that EM to heat but that heat is not trapped, it is crated anew. Re-radiating that heat isotropically reduced its effectiveness even more and any portion radiated toward the surface represents a heat transfer from cold to hot. Therefore no heat is transferred.
Hansen’s use of the phrase ‘positive feedback’ is confusing. He is implying that feedback alone can produce amplification, an idea that would be ridiculed by any engineer who has to apply positive feedbacks in practice. Without some kind of amplification there can be no positive feedback.
He’s the formula for feedback, covering both positive and negative feedback.
G = A/(1 + AB)
G = overall gain
A = amplification factor (requiring an amplifier)
B = feedback factor
Feedback cannot provide amplification without an amplifier. The same applies to negative feedback. You simply cannot design a passive circuit to attenuate a signal using negative feedback without some kind of active device (transistor) in the circuit.
There is obviously a form of feedback used in servo systems but it is not the same kind of feedback we are talking about here which can help produce amplification. Even that type of feedback cannot work without active devices.
Animals are on the run. Plants are migrating too.1 I wrote those words in 2006 to draw attention to the fact that climate change was already under way. People do not notice climate change because it is masked by day-to-day weather fluctuations, and we reside in comfortable homes. Animals and plants, on the other hand, can survive only within certain climatic conditions, which are now
changing. ”
That is quite dumb.
Gordon, since you are describing feedback, please describe the difference between feedback and feedforward systems. Explain how that is different than a cascade control system. Finally, explain how any of that relates to the climate.
“Thats what the debate here is about, between those who support the catastrophic meme and those who think it is nonsense.”
I think Venus would catastrophically, cool, if at Earth distance from the sun.
Also if Earth had 3 atm of nitrogen, it would be a lot colder.
1 atm of nitrogen and oxygen at 15 C, is cold, but 15 C with 3 atm
would be even colder.
And of course the surface would get less sunlight- solar panels would be even less viable. And I don’t think it would improve wind energy, either.
Some time ago I pointed out that the temperature maps show so much dark red with a little temperature increase that they cannot get any redder so they will have to start drawing flames.
So here we go
https://youtu.be/3m8Dsr1xG8I
But the UK met office said that was all about the position of the jet stream. In Southern Europe and in the UK.
I am reaching the conclusion that climate alarm propaganda is a new form of mental illness.
From an article by pharmaceutical expert David Rasnick…
“Research is driven not by a desire to determine objectively whether a hypothesis is valid, but rather by the will to make hypotheses appear true….”
https://www.davidrasnick.com/ewExternalFiles/The%20Tyranny%20of%20Dogma.pdf
Gordon, you’re off topic, again.
Have you contributed significant funding to support this blog, or are you just bumming as usual?
My post is on-topic. Ask Roy how he is treated by his peers, where he is regards as an outlier due to his position on climate science. That’s what my post is about, ijits who hit on scientists like Roy because he has a different view o the science. I am trying to emphasize how this is prevalent on science across the board and not just in climate science.
Of your if you could read and comprehend you might have gotten that.
What does your lengthy off-topic theories on Hunga Tonga have to do with the blog? And why is my business suddenly your business? Beggar off.
Before you bo, what kind of energy is transferred by heat? You don’t have the scientific background to question me if you can’t answer such a simple question. In fact, you lack the intelligence to communicate with your betters, meaning people like me with a superior intelligence to yours.
I ran it by an eight year old recently and she giggled, thinking it a silly question. She knew the energy being transferred is heat but Clintella fails to grasp the obvious.
Sorry Gordon, but you’re off topic.
All your insults and false accusations won’t help you.
Have you contributed significant funding to support this blog, or are you just bumming, as usual?
clint the butt-kisser.
All your insults and false accusations won’t help you, Gordon.
Have you contributed significant funding to support this blog, or are you just bumming, as usual?
Whiny Clint and his ad hom attacks laced with insults. And he claims to have expertise in science.
Have you figured out yet that the Clausius entropy formula says nothing about disorder?
All your insults and false accusations won’t help you, Gordon.
Have you contributed significant funding to support this blog, or are you just mooching, as usual?
I don’t know why Gordon always brings his AIDS obsession to this forum.
All you need to know about Rasnick is that he made money off HIV denialism.
Large increase in solar wind power since early August. The jet stream will accelerate.
https://i.ibb.co/FVk2cQ8/onlinequery.gif
A hurricane in the eastern Pacific is heading east.
https://i.ibb.co/48mCVtp/mimictpw-epac-latest.gif
Sorry, is heading east.
is heading west.
The Polar Vortex took some serious hits from the HTE in early July, causing temperatures to rise. But it has now recovered. I found wind speeds of 300 mph this morning!
Right now, the PV is ferocious, but in the next 4-6 weeks it will be seriously weakened. REAL science is predictable.
What would you know about real science? You think heat is a transfer mechanism for energy but you cannot state which energy is being transferred. An 8 year old girl knows more about this science than you.
Now you are trying to lecture us on the polar vortex but you cannot explain how WV from Hunga Tonga affects it.
You found wind speeds of 300 mph this morning. I suppose you were up there in a balloon.
Saw PV wind speeds as high as 319 mph early this morning. This lady doesn’t want to give up.
Of course this means a lot of warm air is being cooled. I’m guessing the HTE is over. The only other additional forcing besides Sun is the struggling El Niño. It did manage to get above 1C, with a whopping 1.035C.
The second July monthly temperature dataset is out.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2023/08/july-global-surface-templs-up-0093-from.html
Sooner or later this will have to agree (in trend at least) with the satellite data.
Corrected to a common baseline the July TemplS and UAH figures are almost identical.
Moyhu has a comparative graph here.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
Except 2 out of 5 are flat (or nearly so) whereas the others are rising.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/pages/latest/T/mth1.png
Both satellite are flat (or nearly so).
My point is that the UAH July temperature increase is matched by at least one surface dataset. The warming is in the real world and not just an artefact of the UAH data.
Always nice to see confirmation.
Exactly Ent. The HTE was indeed REAL, as recorded by UAH Global.
Unfortunately, it has now dissipated. Not wanting to see any suffering, but it would have been interesting to witness the HTE at its peak combined with a strong El Niño.
I imagine those in the air conditioner industry would have liked to have seen it also….
No surface dataset currently published matches UAH.
July 2023 isn’t available yet for GISS land and the RATPAC-B surface radiosonde data; but we can look at how they agree until June:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OfHL6QmRVxS-W8y2OjREIsx3jfnTz0YV/view
Reminder: here one can see how RATPAC-B at 500 hPa agrees with UAH 6.0 LT land:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LgITui8Sm7EaWzOstUBL1ZyNRaOu5IQI/view
… and how RATPAC-B at 100 hPa agrees with UAH 6.0 LS land:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dx3Hf5LaTy-b2Qw9aboydfwPqCfcdgIs/view
Graphs (2) and (3) should be updated to contain 2023 data, but…
*
I have all C3RM and C5RM data; but who really needs it is kindly invited to download all the sources and generate himself the cascades.
Sources
RATPAC
https://tinyurl.com/RATPAC-B
UAH
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
GISS land V4
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts.txt
And still you persists with running means even though VP denigrates them.
P.S. Comparisons at 500 hPa and 100 hPa are not that useful.
P.P.S. What land mask did you use for UAH?
1. ” And still you persists with running means even though VP denigrates them. ”
I have all C3RM and C5RM data; but who really needs it is kindly invited to download all the sources and generate himself the cascades.
*
2. ” P.S. Comparisons at 500 hPa and 100 hPa are not that useful. ”
They are perfectly useful, Blindsley H00d!
But you manifestly are unable to explain why they aren’t, and hence simply claim what you are unable to prove.
*
3. ” P.P.S. What land mask did you use for UAH? ”
Who tells you I needed one?
You are so incredibly incompetent.
*
Stop, whining all the time, Blindsley H00d! Download the data and start working.
But you manifestly are unable to do the job, and keep endlessly stalking instead.
“I have all C3RM and C5RM data”
So why won’t you use them and display the results to us all. Do you now believe that VP was correct in his choice of CxRM over SRM every day?
“Who tells you I needed one?”
So you are comparing land/ocean figures with land only ones if no land mask is used.
” So why wont you use them and display the results to us all. ”
I’m waiting for you doing the job, so we can all see that you really know how to do it.
Until now… hmmmh.
*
” So you are comparing land/ocean figures with land only ones if no land mask is used. ”
I repeat, Blindsley H00d: You are so incredibly incompetent.
Why would I need land masks when Roy Spencer provides us with lots and lots of land-only data?
You are not only incompetent, Blindsley H00d: you are ignorant as well.
*
Will you now – yes or no – finally show us how good you are, and post graphs in which you display time series for RATPAC-B versus
– surface
– LT land
– LS land
with C3RM 60 and C5RM 60 instead of SRM 60?
Or are you actually unable to do the job?
Then please admit it instead of endlessly distracting, covering up and throwing dust in our eyes.
“I’m waiting for you doing the job”
Tantrum incoming.
“Why would I need land masks when Roy Spencer provides us with lots and lots of land-only data?”
But not under the url you quote as using.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519874
Blindsley H00d
And please stop manipulating the blog with your endless trials to present me as a person doubting about Vaughan Pratt’s technical skill, like in
” Do you now believe that VP was correct in his choice of CxRM over SRM every day? ”
You intentionally manipulate the blog.
By the way (1), I wrote a mail to Vaughan Pratt about Goodman’s appearance at Climate Etc in 2013 and his comments along the thread, and he replied that
– he no longer had any interest in such details, and attended many AGU meetings in which he talked about Global Warming
and
– could not understand why people like you keep so opinionated about cascaded running means, as if they would matter more than the data they run over.
*
By the way (2), I still await your mathematical comparison of CxRMs (with Pratt coefficients, of course) to SRMs.
Did you manage to start this nice little job?
VP has not changed his opinion on SRM being very much inferior to CxRMs.
Utqiagvik, Alaska, 71.3N 156.81W, hit TMAX= 76F and TMIN= 56F yesterday.
Deadhorse, Alaska, 70.2N 148.44W, hit TMAX= 84F.
Because of the permafrost that thawed there yesterday, what happens in Alaska does not stay in Alaska.
Deadhorse’s TMAX at 84F (28.9 C) on Aug 5
Here is the USCRN data for the station there:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/daily01/2023/CRND0103-2023-AK_Deadhorse_3_S.txt
Correct at +- 0.5 C, 28.4; but is that so unusual?
I see in my USCRN log, generated in 2021, TMAX is last column:
AK_Deadhorse_3_S 70.16 9.10 2016 7 13 18.20 21.70 19.91 7.80 28.60
AK_Deadhorse_3_S 70.16 9.10 2016 7 14 20.80 19.00 19.66 14.00 27.60
AK_Deadhorse_3_S 70.16 9.10 2015 6 21 18.50 18.15 17.80 10.30 26.70
” but is that so unusual?”
84F (28.9 C) on Aug 5 is. Peak TMAX at 70.2N in June or July is not unusual. By the end of the first week of August you’ve already lost ~1hr of daylight.
I appreciate the glass half full attitude, but this seems climatologically notable.
That’s 29C, it’s weather…summer weather.
The record for Alaska is 100F in 1915.
It’s summer weather on Mars.
Had to google to check:
“The warmest soil temperature estimated by the Viking Orbiter was 27 C (300 K; 81 F). The Spirit rover recorded a maximum daytime air temperature in the shade of 35 C (308 K; 95 F), “
So, you could walk around on Mars in a T-shirt, provided you could breath.
You need pressure to breathe.
If under enough water {providing the pressure] you don’t need a T-shirt. A fish can breathe if there is oxygen in the water.
But temperature is not a problem, other than there isn’t enough cold air to cool a human.
In vacuum you have cool the human body- and they use evaporative cooling with spacesuits.
So 50 K “air”/vacuum in lunar permanent shaded crater- is not temperature issue, other than boots on cold ground and gloves handling cold stuff.
Question to all:
Would you prefer using robust statistics to measure climate? Yes or No.
Define it.
What are Robust Statistics?
“Robust statistics provide valid results across a broad variety of conditions, including assumption violations, the presence of outliers, and various other problems. The term ‘robust statistic’ applies both to a statistic (i.e., median) and statistical analyses (i.e., hypothesis tests and regression).
Huber (1982) defined these statistics as being ‘distributionally robust and outlier-resistant.’
Conversely, non-robust statistics are sensitive to to less than ideal conditions”
https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/robust-statistics/
Are you so ignorant you didn’t already know this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_measures_of_scale
So you believe it is not currently being used?
Evidence?
Its being done some. But due to the lack of standards in the science community where those harmed have no recourse its not nearly as comprehensive as it should be. Certainly, scientists need to be given the latitude to have ‘free’ opinions on matters. I am in absolute support for that. However, the scientific community has absolutely no way of identifying what opinion is and what fact is other than experimentation.
Statistics is relied upon but all one needs to know about statistics is its half opinion/art and half mathematics. It is really only reliable when dealing with homogeneous widgets.
A typhoon in the western Pacific is blocked below the Japan Islands.
https://i.ibb.co/5FQhfQG/mimictpw-wpac-latest.gif
A hurricane in the eastern Pacific is moving rapidly westward.
https://i.ibb.co/NWSzsj8/goes18-wv-mid-05-E-202308070615.gif
RLH
G!ad to see that you are properly concerned about the statistics used to analyse climate data.
I trust you’ve read the GUM, the ISO guide to handling uncertainty in data.
https://www.iso.org/standard/50461.html
And thanks on their behalf for your 20 donation to the RNLI.
I wondered when you would pick that up!
Statistics are a whole other topic on their own. It is surprising on how little statistics (especially robust statistics) are used in climate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519874
“I wondered when you would pick that up! ”
I thought it polite to let you acknowledge it yourself as I did, twice. But it’s been several days now and you haven’t mentioned it.
Wrong.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1518577
Apologies, I missed it.
I was a biologist. Most of the statistics used in data analysis were invented to process biological data.
Statistics form the basis of most sciences. Most of them don’t use anomalies and SRM as the are considered WAY too inaccurate.
…they are…
Et Man: Do you have any idea of what robust statistics are?
eh just looks like natural variation in the ongoing .13C/deg trend
after all, what happened a few years ago? nothing of note, and yet nearly the same temp
but it’s always fun to see the usual suspects run around in circles screaming their demands to waste tens of trillions of our money trying to cool the planet by preventing emissions of a gas that had no measurable effect on the radiative balance since 2000
volcanic injection of H2O into the stratosphere might have some measurable effect but, always a bit skeptical of lingering effects from what is basically just a big cloud
still, you might convince me of (say) a dust-washing effect if there was a strong regional signal… but the strongest signal was in the Arctic
oh well
*13C/decade
“…a gas that had no measurable effect on the radiative balance since 2000”
Deniers will deny: https://imgur.com/a/YTwELk9
Ark, even you might laugh if you understood where that nonsense came from.
Source: NASA CERES EBAF-TOA All-sky Ed4.2 Net Flux
Exactly Ark. One of the hints is “Net Flux”.
Do you get it?
You know, in High School, if you didn’t believe in science we just called it failing.
Do you get it>
Ark, most cultists never mature past high school.
Get it.
Yes, JD*Huffman: fluxes do not add, and there is no lunar spin.
Science at its best…
(I forgot the ban, oh Noes.)
thats correct fluxes don’t add because voltages don’t add. And there is no lunar spin there is only a ”virtual” lunar spin as you can’t double count the ”virtual” spin portion of the angular momentum of a rotation on an external axis as another spin.
… and the Hunter boy still keeps arrogant enough to think he knows it better than thousands of scientists who therefore must have had it all wrong.
*
” … as you cant double count the virtual spin portion of the angular momentum of a rotation on an external axis as another spin. ”
No one thinks that way, Hunter boy. Except… you.
…thousands of climate scientists…
Who appear to be amateurs at most of the real sciences and statistics.
Well my comment on the measured back scatter is supported by this:
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
As I have said many times if anybody thinks that is done badly they should submit the experiment done right that demonstrates the effect they currently hold has a religious belief apparently.
Of course Bindidon won’t do that. His trade secret is to read between the lines of historic scientific text books.
And I am not sure if he still needs a lesson in what angular momentum around an external axis is comprised of as he is constantly trying to steal some of it to claim its angular momentum around an an object that shows no signs of having been perturbed relative to Bindidon’s chosen axis. And his evidence? reading between the lines of quotes of Isaac Newton.
Hunter boy seems to be a bit confused again tonight.
” Well my comment on the measured back scatter is supported by this: … ”
Measured back scatter? We did never discussed that, Hunter boy.
But nonetheless, here’s some alternative reading that might interest you, as it’s based on a far more complex experiment:
Experimental Verification of the Greenhouse Effect
Hermann Harde, Michael Schnell (2022)
http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Harde-Schnell-GHE-m.pdf
*
Also, one of the authors of the paper you proposed is well known to me, I discovered the name at the end of my reading:
” We would like to thank Prof. Øyvind Grøn (Institute of Physics, University of Oslo) for careful reading of the manuscript and fruitful comments. ”
He wrote a very interesting paper together with Knut Seip:
A New method for identifying possible causal relationships between CO2, total solar irradiance and global temperature change
Seip, Knut L. ; Grøn, Øyvind (2017)
https://tinyurl.com/Relationships-solar-CO2-temps
*
Not quite surprisingly, I saw in the near another paper:
Solar Cycles in 150 Years of Global Sea Surface Temperature Data
Jiansong Zhou, Ka-Kit Tung (2010)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/23/12/2010jcli3232.1.xml
Enjoy it!
Hunter boy
Now finally we come back to your eternal trial to manipulate the blog:
” And his evidence? reading between the lines of quotes of Isaac Newton. ”
Between the lines, Hunter boy? Really? Were you not one of those who endlessly try since years to misinterpret Newton’s own words?
Which translation of Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV do you want to see in which language? English (Andrew Motte, Ian Bruce), or French, or German, or Russian, or Japanese, or Italian, or … ?
I guess you’ll prefer English, maybe Bruce (2012)
https://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/newton/book3s1.pdf
There you find, on page 23 of 55, of course the same stuff as that published by all others:
” It is apparent by the first law of motion and Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Book I that Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes, Venus in around 23 hours, the earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the sun in 25 1/2 and the moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes. ”
” Truly because there is the monthly revolution of the moon about its axis : the same face of this will always look at the more distant focus of its orbit, as nearly as possible, and therefore according to the situation of that focus will hence deviate thence from the earth.
This is the libration of the moon in longitude: For the libration in latitude has arisen from the latitude of the moon and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.
N. Mercator has explained this theory of the libration of the moon more fully in letters from me, published in his Astronomy at the start of the year 1676. ”
*
Don’t tell me, Hunter boy, that you also belong to those ignoramuses who try to tell us that revolving with respect to the fixed stars does not mean to revolve anyway.
And don’t tell me Newton didn’t think of an internal axis when writing ‘about its axis’.
That would mean that you completely ignore how good he had understood Cassini’s work: that is perfectly visible in Mercator’s book published in 1676.
Of that bullshit I really have enough.
Bindidon says:
”Dont tell me, Hunter boy, that you also belong to those ignoramuses who try to tell us that revolving with respect to the fixed stars does not mean to revolve anyway.
And dont tell me Newton didnt think of an internal axis when writing about its axis.”
I seriously doubt that Newton didn’t get tripped up on the same point you did as his abilities to visualize were historic.
But OTOH he didn’t have Einstein’s relativity concepts to work with either so he had to make a choice. Perhaps his choice was influenced by his visionary discovery that spin is part and parcel to a rotation around an external axis.
But spin can’t be in two different places at one time and in no case, and this only came after Newton’s time, can you have a rotation around an internal axis without forces that will stop any existing additional spin that doesn’t have a force sustaining it.
Back to Einstein. Motion is relative to its connections and the appearance of motion is relative to the observer. Which do you think is more real? Well I guess if you consider yourself the center of the universe you will probably pick something different than I.
as to the experiments, it will take me some time to plow through them as my leisure time is limited. But glancing at the first one I notice its upside down.
Since one of the major objections to the 3rd grader model as per demonstrated by RW Woods was that the heating in the greenhouses was actually achieved equally by both the IR opaque and IR transparent greenhouses via the trapping of convection and not trapping of radiation.
Here by putting the earth plate above the cold plate convection is again trapped at the top of the greenhouse as demonstrated in the Vaughn Pratt experiment (he finally publicly posted his results) and where the heat would be most likely trapped being transported there by convection.
Worse the elevated ‘earth plate’ only warmed .1825 C per doubling. That eerily close to Roy’s results with his cloud analysis and paper he prepared on climate sensitivity recognizing he was measuring it in the atmosphere with water vapor and that result would be doubled or tripled in that case giving something like .37 to .55C sensitivity. . . .a large negative sensitivity. . . .and something we can just disregard with any reasonable stretch of the imagination.
Bindidon says:
” and the Hunter boy still keeps arrogant enough to think he knows it better than thousands of scientists who therefore must have had it all wrong.”
Bindidon if you are going to deem yourself qualified to speak for thousands of scientists you probably should ask them first if what they believe is based upon the convention of use within their field of astronomy vs a dedicated belief in the reality of the situation and that they believe that the perception of motion isn’t at all relative.
lol only posted this like 20 times now
Our new publication Radiative Energy flux variation from 2001 2020″ has brought to light a surprising result for climate science: the warming of the Earth in the last 20 years is mainly due to a higher permeability of clouds for short-wave solar radiation.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/
lol
From the American Institute of Physics:
I’m with them!
Of course you’re “with them”, Ark. You’re a fully-indoctrinated cultist.
But your cult does NOT accept that “topics should be traceable to standard textbooks”. Ice can NOT boil water, passenger jets do NOT fly backward, and atmospheric fluxes do NOT “balance”, all are verified from standard textbooks (First Principles).
What you see there (from the AIP) is blatant censorship and control of the narrative.
It’s a cult.
Peer review isn’t a standard of quality assurance.
Quality Assurance means its tested checked and replicated.
Peter Ridd has stated that 80% of Peer Reviewed Science is junk that is found to be false when subjected to any rigor of quality assurance.
So you’re seriously misguideed if you think peer review is any substitute for humble reasoning.
“So you’re seriously misguideed if you think peer review is any substitute for humble reasoning.”
I did not say that, did I? Besides, how are peer review and “humble reasoning” mutually exclusive?
Notwithstanding your appeal to authority, what I described is my process for separating the wheat from the chaff. You do as you please; it’s a free country.
ark…”Besides, how are peer review and humble reasoning mutually exclusive?”
***
Simple. Journal editors hand a paper to one reviewer and allow the reviewer to be the sole source of peer review. That’s not peer review, which means in essence that all peers should get to review the paper, thousands of them. Rather, the hand-picked reviewer may know nothing about the subject covered by the paper yet he/she gets to be the judge and jury on whether the paper reaches real peer review.
Some arrogant journal editors take it upon themselves to be judge and jury, rejecting a paper based on a personal bias. When Australian researcher, Barry Marshall submitted a paper proving stomach ulcers were caused by the bacteria H. Pylori, the journal editor not only rejected his paper, he claimed it to be one of the ten worst papers he has ever read.
Peer review as it stands now is not only a bad joke, it is seriously biased. Until recently, Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann sat as editors/reviewers on the Journal of Climate. What chance do you think a paper from a skeptic like Roy Spencer or John Christy would have of getting past those two gits?
Heck, even the head of Had-crut, Phil Jones, threatened in the Climategate emails to make sure papers from certain skeptics would not make it to the review stage.
Peer review isnt a standard of quality assurance. Especially when the peer group won’t allow discussions about the topic that are contrary to the accepted view.
ken…”Peter Ridd has stated that 80% of Peer Reviewed Science is junk that is found to be false when subjected to any rigor of quality assurance”.
***
When you add to that the information that most papers published these days have egregious errors that are never challenged, never mind amended, science is in trouble.
“We wish to discuss mainstream science.”
Wish in one hand, pee in the other – see which fills up first.
What a lot of self important wankers!
“Generally, we do not allow the discussion of theories that appear only on personal websites, self-published books, etc.”
They obviously don’t know the difference between a speculation and a theory.
What a lot of ignorant, censorious wankers!
lol
Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 20012020
by Hans-Rolf Dbal 1,* andFritz Vahrenholt 2ORCID
1
Am Langenstck 13, 65343 Eltville, Germany
2
Department of Chemistry, University of Hamburg, Papenkamp 14, 22607 Hamburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2021, 12(10), 1297; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12101297
Received: 1 September 2021 / Revised: 30 September 2021 / Accepted: 1 October 2021 / Published: 5 October 2021
thanks for the laughs, but clearly your replies are not a good use of my time, goodbye forever 🙂
td…”but the strongest signal was in the Arctic”
***
Ironically, the true Arctic is not covered by either sats or thermometers. One wonders how they determine it has warmed most.
The Arctic was coldest during the Little Ice Age. There are eye witness account of the ice extent from explorers between 1600 and 1850, trying to discover the Northwest Passage.
Conditions are pretty much the same during the Arctic winter when even icebreakers cannot get through mid-winter. Recently, A Russian ship built on the west coast of Russia was forced to sail to the east coast via the Suez Canal because the Arctic route was impassable.
–volcanic injection of H2O into the stratosphere might have some measurable effect but, always a bit skeptical of lingering effects from what is basically just a big cloud–
Generally, I agree.
Upper atmosphere is hot but lacks density so has no temperature.
Like space which lacks even more density.
Now, you add more density {temporarily}. It may not have a measurable effect.
But adding CO2 likewise has had “no measurable effect” and I tend to blame our lack of measuring ability rather than think it doesn’t have any effect.
I tend to think doubling CO2 level has some warming effect.
I don’t think we going to double CO2 and I don’t we going to a lot more the injection of H2O into the stratosphere.
It seems adding more CO2 would better- better plant growth.
If had 10 times more this “injection of H2O into the stratosphere”
It’s still doubtful it would have a measurable- but in times past, it seems we probably did have more than 10 times what we had.
Stronger solar winds accelerate the jet stream in the north, which becomes latitudinal.
The analogy happens in the southern Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/jwXfYRV/mimictpw-epac-latest.gif
https://i.ibb.co/cy8Y73Q/mimictpw-spac-latest.gif
Heavy frontal thunderstorms in eastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/XymjVv2/archive-3-image.png
posting problems…testing…
tim s…”Gordon, since you are describing feedback, please describe the difference between feedback and feedforward systems. Explain how that is different than a cascade control system. Finally, explain how any of that relates to the climate”.
***
Good-question, Tim, but first I need to check with the word police (Clint) to see how many words I am allotted.
The first thing you need to understand is that feed-forward and cascade control systems have nothing to do with the positive feedback referenced in climate circles. The term feed-forward is actually ambiguous since it’s more about anticipating an outcome than feeding control information forward, as opposed to back, as in feedback.
A simple example offhand is the control system in modern cars where you need to put the transmission in Park or Neutral in order to start the car. It’s a safety feature that anticipates a hazard should a person start the car in drive or another gear.
However, we need to understand the difference in feedback systems. There are two basic forms of control feedback: servo system feedback and the type that applies to climate systems, a feedback used to control an amplifier’s gain.
Sorry about that, continued in next post in succession. For some reason, the system is rejecting words that normally go through.
A servo needs the sign of a D.C voltage fed back to control a load. In this case the sign of the voltage is the important factor whereas in the other form of feedback it is the phase of an AC signal.
The usage of positive feedback is so ambiguous as applied by climate alarmists that it is not clear which kind of feedback is intended. It must be the amplifier-based feedback since they talk about an amplification, which is not rquired with a servo system feedback.
However, they don’t explain the mechanism by which this heat amplification takes place. Gavin Schmidt tried to explain it in a paper which engineer Jeffrey Glassman tore to shreds. Schmodt, with a degree in math, could not offer a correct equation to describe the feedback he was referencing.
Gordo,
It seems that incorrectly using mathematics is a frequent problem in climate science. Then you have a guy like Ed Berry, who presents a first-order linear differential equation that describes the natural flows of carbon, and they hate him for it. They hate the truth. dL/dt is equal to the inflows minus the outflows. That is an immutable fact. Instead of trying to falsify Berry’s solution, they attack him.
Mathematics shares with language the problem that you can write equations which look sensible, but do not describe reality. Berry’s is one such. It looks good but does not describe reality.
Perhaps the classic example is the Blackett effect published in 1947 which linked rotation, magnetism and gravity based on a small sample of astronomical data.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackett_effect
It turned out to be wrong, though it did inspire the James Blish “Cities in Flight” novels.
Stenphen P Anderson
Ed Berry is giving you a false narrative and is not so wonderful as you believe. He is isolating CO2 levels to just one part of the system and ignoring the big picture. If you take carbon from a source that is not part of the carbon cycle (fossil fuels dug up from the ground and burned) and add it you will increase the overall amount of carbon dioxide in the overall system. You will get more in the atmosphere, more in the ocean and more in the bio-system.
I tried to explain it to you but your brain seems closed tight. When you pull water up from some deep source you add to the overall water in the system. More in the air, oceans, rivers lakes.
That is conservation of mass. If you add material without removing it the amount goes up. His paper is not very good at all as he misses the larger view trying to focus just on atmospheric CO2. Wish that science mind you used to have would come back and you could analyze things logically.
“If you take carbon from a source that is not part of the carbon cycle . . .”
Fossil fuels, by definition, are carbon compounds which contain carbon originally sourced from the atmosphere. They are the remains of once living organisms.
Maybe you are referring to some other sort of “carbon cycle”?
Norman,
You obviously haven’t read Berry’s third paper. Nothing you said could be further from the truth.
Swenson
Fossil fuels were part of an ancient carbon cycle. They were removed from an active part of it until we dug it up and burned it reintroducing it to the carbon cycle.
Most of the ancient carbon cycle is locked up in chalk, limestone, etc.
Stephen P Anderson
Do you have a link to his third paper. I went to his website.
With this information he provides I am not sure why you think what I said is far from the truth. Are you using good logic with this conclusion?
Here:
https://edberry.com/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2-summary/
Look at figure 3 in the link. It shows human contribution quite high and everything increasing with it, exactly as I said. You take a source of Carbon (coal and oil) burn them to produce Carbon Dioxide and you are adding new carbon dioxide to the system that was not there before and all the sinks are increasing because of it. Just as I said. I need more logic than just saying I am far from the truth. His own graph and logic would support my point. I do not know what you point is you just keep saying Ed Berry proves AGW wrong but you really don’t know why it would. Not real logical of you. You lost your science mind lost in fanatic right-wing political belief with a vast majority of it lies and made up garbage. I think it is sad you went down that rabbit hole and reject logic over a twisted right-wing agenda based mostly on endless lies.
For people interested in actual climate: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/14/8/1244
Ken
Thanks, sounds interesting at a first glance. I’ll read it when I have some idle time.
But hmmmh, I see in the abstract:
” The 23 ka Milankovitch cycle has begun to reduce the winter insolation received at the surface of the atmosphere in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere starting in 2020. This results in extreme weather as the winter insolation reaching the surface of the atmosphere in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere decreases while the summer air temperatures increase. It heralds the start of the next glaciation. ”
That, Ken, is a bit brazen when you then read further:
” A brief outline is given of some of the climatic changes and consequences that may be expected in western Canada during the next 11.5 ka. ”
We are currently in the middle of all three (!!!) Milankovitch Cycles. Yeah, there isn’t only one of them.
‘The next 11.5 ka’ doesn’t mean the effects don’t happen for 11.5 ka.
The effects start now as climate slowly gets worse for human flourishing.
CO2 isn’t causing the recent warm weather events.
Good article, Ken.
My quick look leads me to think Harris is has tried to cover all of climate science in one paper and misses the mark at several points. While understanding the cycles of glacial advance and retreat are important, our immediate concerns are what is happening over only a few hundred years.
I think his discussion of the CO2 measurements on “Mount Kea” (which should be Mauna Loa?) a bit strange, since the location was originally selected to minimize local influences.
He screws up some of his references, such as:
Payet and Holmes…[47,48] which should be [52, 50]
and Christy…[49] which should be [51], etc.
Sorry, I think he needs to dig much deeper into the subject.
Thats fair Swanson.
But we have been asking for examples of the pro-CO2 keystone theory to also wade deeper into the subject with zero new results. There still isn’t a published blueprint of how the CO2 theory works. It is claimed to exist in proprietary climate models but we never see the logic or physics behind them.
My first job in the modeling sector were complete math and logic checks of the codes in such models to ensure each operation was correctly done and to itemize all parameters for review by experts.
there is no doubt in my mind such a review would be a game changer that would enliven debate substantially.
Hunter claims that:
There are one dimensional models which were published decades ago. Here’s a link to an older version of NCAR’s Single Column Model (SCM), which includes the source code.
https://www2.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/sccm/sccm.html
“…our immediate concerns are what is happening over only a few hundred years. ”
“But we have been asking for examples of the pro-CO2 keystone theory to also wade deeper into the subject with zero new results.
Well, we have warmed from a period which was called the little ice age.
Little ice Age is claimed it was local effect rather than global, but we warmed from about 13.5 to 15 C.
And is 13.5 C suppose to a “normal” global average surface temperature?
The global warming religion is Earth average temperature is 15 C, has it been revised to 13.5 C.
I think the immediate concern is 15 C average air temperature is a cold air temperature.
And generally wonder what global average temperature is needed to have a lot less desert regions in the world.
If we don’t want less deserts in the world- and reason we have over 1/3 land areas being desert and a shortage of forests, is because we are in an Ice Age.
But if we happy to live in Ice Age, it seems we should have ocean settlements, we don’t need to use so much energy trying to keep warm enough {and other reasons}.
” Ironically, the true Arctic is not covered by either sats or thermometers. One wonders how they determine it has warmed most. ”
Says the ignoramus who has not the least idea of how the (true) Arctic is covered by what.
UAH’s data goes up to 82.5 N; Earth being a sphere (yes, it matters when we need to calculate surfaces), the uncovered surface in the ‘true’ Arctic therefore is no more than 0.43 % of Earth, what hardly could matter compared to the ‘full’ Arctic starting at 60 N (was that not about 15 % ?).
*
And only people like Robertson are gullible followers of komrade EM Smith aka ‘chiefio’, the contrarian anti-authority they permanently appeal to, and really still believe his trash (dated 2009 or so) about only a few stations existing in the Arctic.
From 1979 till these days, about 900 GHCN daily stations (located in Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, UK – yeah, the one in Lerwick – and the US) reported data.
*
Just a little hint: while the average trend for all Arctic stations over their lifetime is 0.24 C / decade, the average trend for 1979-2022 is 0.48 C / decade (for UAH land-only: 0.23 C / decade, yeah: a lot less).
*
Keep wondering, Robertson! It’s one of the few things you do best.
Binny van der Klown, an authority on nothing, fails to grasp there is only one ‘reporting’ station in the Canadian Arctic. All the stations he conjures up are stations on paper that are not used to determine global temps.
Binny excels at publishing stats using obsolete data. He reports a trend of of 0.48C/decade which when added to the average winter temperature gives a scorching minus 64.52 C.
I would pay to see Binny announcing to people in the Arctic in March that it is actually warming, then see him run out of town on a rail.
The Sun is outputting more energy than they thought.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/technology/sun-blasts-out-highest-energy-radiation-ever-recorded-raising-questions-for-solar-physics/ar-AA1eRA6z?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=6eecbb28459c4197936f79fc18f5d2dd&ei=17
” The Sun is outputting more energy than they thought. ”
… but those who know it ‘better’ tell us all the time since years the Sunny Boy would be so quiet that we are already now quickly moving into a Grand Solar Minimum.
You have missed the point, as usual. The Sun has a mammoth range of frequencies at which it is out-putting energy. It may go quieter over part of that bandwidth and be out-putting more in another part.
The figure of 1300 and something w/m^2 at TOA is misleading. It’s an average across the entire bandwidth and tells us nothing about what is going on in any one part of the bandwidth of frequencies.
The 1300+ w/m^2 is interesting but of no practical value just as the global average is meaningless. It’s a ballpark figure that is abused by alarmists to make a point.
“You have missed the point, as usual.”
Yup.
Sun isn’t suppose the emit higher than X-ray and with “higher events”
it was know to do gamma ray: “Gamma rays have the smallest wavelengths and the most energy of any wave in the electromagnetic spectrum.”
So as understand it, X-rays from Sun don’t get thru our atmosphere and aren’t significant amounts in terms of a problem with space travel. Though gamma rays are a bit more of a problem in terms our atmosphere or space travel.
I was reading something which said gamma rays are due to GCR [high speed [near light speed] particle.
In terms of Grand solar min, a main thing about it, is the increase in GCR due to a less active sun.
And we haven’t had Grand solar min in our modern space age, though history is full of them and it appears to some people they are connected with higher volcanic activity on Earth.
Another way to say this, is the present Solar Grand Max is ending, and this Solar Grand Max was protecting us, from more volcanic activity. And also btw, protecting us from having more cloudy
weather {also}.
And also protecting us from having more gamma rays is another “theory”.
Its the van allen belts that prevent xray from reachein gearth surface.
Earth magnetic field is weakening so xray and UV penetration is greater than it has been.
Suns been really active the past couple of months too.
Well, X-ray to see your bones is more intense than any X-rays from Sun. And 100 meters of air will block a lot of x-rays from the sun.
Though the levels of X-rays from sun is not radiation problem on the airless lunar surface- though might be if not wearing a spacesuit- but then, just not wearing a spacesuit is the bigger issue.
The sun has have a lot sunspots in last couple months and a direct hit from solar flare is reduce by the van allen belts- though they also “break” the field lines and there is effect upon Earth surface when they snap. There hasn’t been much direct hits in last couple months, but there was large flare on farside of sun. If it had been on nearside at towards Earth, there would been, excitement.
Robertson
” You have missed the point, as usual. ”
No, Robertson, YOU did – as usual indeed!
I wasn’t talking about your ‘1300+ w/m^2’ fixation.
I talked about all predictions about SC25 becoming even lower than SC24.
Why are so so ignorant, Robertson?
Daily Sun: 08 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 450.9 km/sec
density: 5.52 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 101
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 170 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.19×10^10 W Warm
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×10^10 W Cold (02/2009)
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.6% Low +0.1%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991)
–THE CME MIGHT HAVE MISSED: A cannibal CME expected to hit Earth on Aug. 8th might have missed. It was never expected to be a direct hit. NOAA models suggested that only the flank of the CME might graze Earth’s magnetic field, so a miss comes as no surprise. A late arrival is also possible, so we are extending a minor geomagnetic storm watch (G1) into Aug. 9th. Aurora alerts: SMS Text–
–SPACEX TEARS ANOTHER HOLE IN THE IONOSPHERE: Last night, SpaceX launched 15 more Starlink satellites from the Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. En route to orbit, the Falcon 9 rocket tore a hole in the ionosphere. Dennis Mammana photographed the telltale red glow from Borrego Springs, CA:–
Once starship is flying, it should tear a lot more holes. And it will land first batch of crew to lunar polar region- soon.
Meanwhile, an Indian rover is going to nearest, yet to the lunar polar, somewhere around 24th of August 2023.
And Falcon-9 and Vulcan Centaur are going to try to put something on the moon before end of year. And also, Russians are giving it try.
In 2024, it will be more busy with Moon, and will 2025.
binny…re “PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
The daily motions of the planets is uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its daily motion”.
***
Clint whines about me being off-topic when he spent months talking incessantly about the Moon. On the other hand, I regarded the subject as on-topic in the sense that it exposes the inability of most alarmists to reason scientifically.
The reference above from Binny leads up to his claim about the Moon rotating wrt the stars. However, it says nothing about the Moon rotating about its own local axis, only about ‘its’ axis. The translation is a newer one but nevertheless contradicts what Newton stated about the Moon in terms that are easily translated. I claim ‘its axis’ is a reference to the Earth as its axis and here’s why.
Newton made three observations about the Moon…
1)it moves with a linear motion
2)the linear motion is bent into curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field.
3)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the Earth.
It is impossible for a body to move with a linear motion while keeping the same face pointed at an object and still rotate about a local axis. There is a simple proof. Consider a car moving on a straight highway with mountains to its left. The car is not rotating about a local axis. Now bend the road so it circles the mountains and the same conditions apply. The mountains are always on the left and the car has still not rotated about a local axis.
Newton spent literally no time talking about a rotation about a local axis. PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV is about the only place he mentions the Moon in that capacity in Principia and if the Moon did rotate about a local axis, you can bet Newton would have elaborated on the subject.
A proper translation of Newton would have noted that the Moon rotated wrt to the stars but not about a local axis, rather about the Earth. That motion is better described as re-orientation of the near face, which would satisfy 1), 2) and 3) above.
Gordon, you’re off topic, again.
This Moon issue was settled months ago. And, as usual, you weren’t any help.
Try to keep up. Focus.
“A proper translation of Newton would have noted that the Moon rotated wrt to the stars but not about a local axis, rather about the Earth.”
Now it is the translators who are wrong! More simply it is those who invent an ‘external axis’ who are actually wrong.
Richard…Newton’s work on this subject was cutting edge and no one interviewed him about it while he was alive. All they had to go on to translate his work in Principia, which was written in Old Latin, was the work of people like Cassini, who believed the Moon rotated exactly once per orbit.
Here’s something from Principia for your own logical analysis. Newton claimed…
1)the Moon moves with a linear motion
2)Earth’s gravitational field bends the linear motion into a curvilinear motion
3)the Earth keeps the same face pointed to the Earth.
The translators offer one sentence from Newton in Principia that vaguely suggests the Moon ‘revolves’ about it’s axis’. Newton used the statement in reference to planetary motion and there is nothing else in the entire works in which he addresses the rotation of the Moon about a local axis. It hard for me to imagine Newton not elaborating on such an important subject.
In Old Latin, the word for revolve could be translated as a change of orientation of the near face wrt the stars and that would fit Newton’s three points above. However, the translators were likely influenced by a pre-conception that the Moon rotates about a local axis exactly once per orbit.
One of the modern translators has revealed several major errors in translations. Seems reasonable to me they missed this on as well.
“curvilinear motion”
is you own word salad.
…is your own word salad…
I got curvilinear motion from Newton, it came from the translation in Principia. My phrase is curvilinear translation. Rectilinear translation is motion between A and B along straight lines whereas curvilinear translation is motion between A and B on a curved line.
The telling theme from your replies, however, is that you don’t want to engage in a physics discussion. I have no interest in winning an argument or playing a game of gotchas, I respect your analytical mind and thought maybe we could hammer out some truth from Newton’s Principia that the translators missed.
I think it’s a shame that you prefer to hide behind authority figures on this subject yet you have the courage to step up and challenge bad science re climate change/global warming issues.
Climatically ill
https://youtu.be/KoRkMuam-6o
Oh no! We’re all going to die!
Tell me something I don’t know.
When the Sahara had grasslands and forests, it was better Earth, but it wasn’t good time to live.
We are living in the best of times- and that over time period of 5000 years, Earth has gotten more inhabitable deserts, doesn’t subtract much from the current situation of it being the best of times.
The neurotic climate meme.
Most of the water in the atmosphere is now concentrated in the western Pacific. The typhoon sends water vapor into the stratosphere and lowers ocean temperatures.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/08/08/0700Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-186.61,14.83,372/loc=130.987,29.535
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/08/05/0000Z/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-240.33,21.46,1128
The hurricane is skirting Hawaii from the south.
https://i.ibb.co/5cWkDvH/goes18-wv-rgb-05-E-202308080815.gif
https://youtu.be/Z0e0SA8jjus
Residents of Alaska’s capital were undergoing an emergency evacuation as of Monday due to major flooding, which began due to a glacier lake outburst flood.
In this case the Suicide Basin, a side basin on the Mendenhall Glacier suffered a breach and the subsequent flood has washed away, and severely damaged homes all along the Mendenhall River.
According to FEMA, there was a less than 1 percent chance of “extreme” flooding like this occurring in that region of Alaska.
Scientists have predicted since 2021 that melted glaciers will increase the risk of flooding as climate change continues to worsen:
Increasing risk of glacial lake outburst floods from future Third Pole deglaciation
There’s a fairly spectacular gorge in the Alpine Rhein river not too far from where I live, carved out of soft sediments in a matter of days, I believe. It was created when a glacial dam gave way towards the end of the Wrm glaciation, and is up to a couple of hundred metres deep.
It was one of those instances of geological suddenness that would have upset Charles Lyell.
“It was one of those instances of geological suddenness that would have upset Charles Lyell.”
The following would have killed him…
Yes, it’s notable that the impactor theory of the K/T extinction encountered serious resistance from within the geology community precisely because it violated gradualism, the legacy of Lyell. It’s striking (sorry) that geologists seem tacitly to have reasoned that because Lyellian gradualism is true, therefore the Earth must have been immune to impact by an astronomical body.
The parallel with politically-motivated denialism is powerful: Because free-market fundamentalism is true, therefore radiative physics must be wrong.
Why are you spreading this propaganda about glaciers melting in Alaska? There is only about one month of summer in Alaska where ice can melt.
Here, read some science from a scientist who lives in Alaska and is familiar with Alaskan glaciers.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266037018_On_the_recovery_from_the_Little_Ice_Age
Ah yes, Akasofu 2010! Why am I not surprised that this is what passes for “science” to a person like you.
Akasofu’s prediction has failed spectacularly.
Akasofu assumed a linear trend of 0.05C/decade, of unknown cause, which he labels as “LIA recovery,” while disregarding what we know about the physics of the climate system.
His prediction is inaccurate because it’s not based on physics.
Is that the same glacier where they have discovered 1,000 year old tree stumps that prove the full extent of the glacier is less than 1,000 years old? Is that the one that proves it had to be hotter 1,000 years ago, and then there had to be a cooling period? Is that the same one that climate change “believers” don’t like to talk about?
Read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendenhall_Glacier, unless you’re JAQing.
Your link seems to answer the question to some extent, but not the larger question: Why was it so warm before CO2 increased?
“The Mendenhall Glacier has retreated approximately 2.5 miles since its most recent maxima during the Little Ice Age in the mid-1700s.[8]”
“Ancient forest uncovered
In 2012, tree stumps and logs with attached roots and bark appeared under the retreating glacier. They are in their original growth position, preserved under what was believed to be a protective gravel layer. By uncovering them, scientists learn about the ecosystem from before the glacier formed. They can determine trees’ ages when they died by looking at their preserved remains. One of the scientists, Cathy Conner, was reported as finding “The most recent stumps emerging from the Mendenhall are between 1,400 and 1,200 years old. The oldest are around 2,350 years old. Some have dated around 1,870 to 2,000 years old.”[11][16] “
You’re just JAQing off.
Good talking.
The fact is that you opened the question about the glacier. With a hint of sarcasm, I politely posed a series of questions that are difficult to answer for people who claim the earth is warmer than it has ever been and “ONLY” climate change can explain why. The tree stump evidence is pure science, and it came directly from your link that was supposed to act as some kind of accusation. It backfired!
Do you have a better explanation? There is nothing to argue about unless you don’t like the answer. Your rude deflection is all the proof I need that you are just another person using tricks and accusations to push an agenda with no intent to exchange honestly about genuine science.
Good Bye
“…people who claim the earth is warmer than it has ever been…”
No serious person would say that. Haven’t you ever seen these data? https://imgur.com/a/gxMOZq6
Why are you fixated on the “tree stumps” issue? The Mendenhall glacier is located in an oceanic climate environment in southern Alaska, so it isn’t surprising that tree stumps have been found as the glacier retreats: https://imgur.com/a/35hFoFG
What you see as “rude deflection” is simply impatience with your ignorance of widely known facts about this particular glacier.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
I just got back from Milano over the weekend. (I caught the train, before anyone starts – it’s only four hours away from where I live.) The damage to trees in the city is shocking. The gardens abutting the Castello Sforzesco are completely closed while they saw up the fallen trunks and drag them off. This does not impress me in the least, as fallen wood is a vital part of woodland ecosystems, but they are probably afraid that someone will sue them because he got faint at the sight of sap. In a couple of places the trunks have crushed the railings. There are trees of more than a metre in diameter that have been ripped clean out of the ground right next to main roads.
I said I was moderately grateful at the cold, wet Summer in Switzerland, but now I cast moderation to the wind. Italy really got hammered this last few weeks.
Robertson endlessly repeats the same trash about everything.
If it’s not
– his ‘N2/O2 absorb and emit’ syndrome, or
– ‘COVID19 was nothing like a pandemic, just a few old, sick people died here and there’, or
– ‘NOAA uses only 1500 stations’, or
– ‘There is only one station reporting in the Canadian Arctic’, or
– ‘Mayer’s treatise wasn’t about rotation, only about libration’,
etc etc etc, then it is his ‘fixed star’ syndrome.
Here we are again:
” A proper translation of Newton would have noted that the Moon rotated wrt to the stars but not about a local axis, rather about the Earth. ”
*
This is the basic principle of the widespread pseudo-skeptical attitude: to deliberately ignore everything that contradicts one’s narrative, if necessary by distorting the meaning of even an original document, e.g. by deliberately omitting an important point.
*
In ALL translations of Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV out of Newton’s original Latin text, you can read the very same stuff, here that written by Ian Bruce:
https://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/newton/book3s1.pdf
” Spots in the body of the sun return at the same place on the solar disc in around 27 1/2 days, with respect to the earth; and thus with respect to the fixed stars the sun is rotating in around 25 1/2 days. ”
Any person having a sane brain and a sound relation to scientific texts immediately sees that Newton, having written the sentence above, reasonably can’t have claimed that celestial bodies would ‘rotate wrt the fixed stars’, let alone that they would ‘orbit wrt the fixed stars’.
Rather, Newton manifestly understood that the spin and orbit PERIODS of observed celestial bodies must be computed wrt fixed points in space – in order to get observations independent of the rotational and orbital motions of the observers themselves.
And it is on this premise that one should read Newton’s preceding paragraph:
” It is apparent by the first law of motion and Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Book I that Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes, Venus in around 23 hours, the earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the sun in 25 1/2 [days] and the moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes. ”
It is known today that while Jupiter’s synodic rotation period is 9 h 55 min 33 sec, its sidereal rotation period is 9 h 55 min 30 sec. A small, but existing difference.
*
And even Milky Way stars aren’t as fixed as astronomers need.
At the end of his computation of the lunar spin period, Tobias Mayer took into consideration that the Vernal Point (the First Point of Aries), the star he used as fixed reference for the orientation of his 100 % selenocentric coordinate system, apparently moves around the Earth/Moon system in about 25,800 years, i.e. about 50 arc seconds per year, what creates a lunar spin period difference of round 6.8 seconds: that’s 0.0003 % of the whole period.
For us maybe an absolutely negligible difference, but not for experienced astronomers. No wonder that today, way farer distant pulsars are used as ‘fixed stars’ by those who observe smallest irregularities (so-called forced resp. free physical librations) within the lunar spin.
Bindi, you’re taking that out-of-context, again. Newton was talking about day/night, not “spin”.
You continually avoid the intro: “The daily motions of the planets is uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its daily motion.”
You’re doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results. Some people call that “insanity”.
Clint R
” Newton was talking about day/night, not ‘spin’. ”
Aha.
” The daily motions of the planets is uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its daily motion. ”
I didn’t ‘avoid’ this intro, Clint R. I didn’t need it. Only you seem to have missed it.
The intro says that
– all planets (*) have a ‘day’ (i.e. rotate about their polar axis during that day);
– the libration of the Moon (its optical wobbling) is due to its ‘day’ (i.e. the rotation about its polar axis).
You of course understand it differently, that is your right. This is your cult, an extremely small minority which is, on this blog dominated by pseudo-skeptical persons, hugely over-represented.
*
Now back to you: ‘day’ I understand. But… from where did you get that Newton was talking about any ‘night’ ?
‘Insanity’ you said? Hmmmmh.
*
Footnote
(*) With ‘planets’, Newton manifestly means more generally ‘celestial bodies’; otherwise, he never would have mentioned the Moon all the time in this Proposition XVII, would he?
binny…” The daily motions of the planets is uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its daily motion. ”
***
That’s right, but it’s daily motion according to Newton is curvilinear translation. That explains libration and a rotating Moon could not explain it. Libration is only a few degrees and there is no libration at either end of the major axis. In fact, it occurs only between the point where the semi=major axis meets the orbital path and where the major axis meets it. It’s max at the former and zero at the latter.
Since the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth during these periods it proves the Moon is not rotating about a local axis. Libration is a property only of the Moon’s elliptical, orbital path and has nothing to do with local rotation.
I laid this out in detail using trig and you offered no rebuttal. Libration is purely an artefact of a radial line tracking the Moon from the focal point where the Earth is found and the related view angle. It’s about the tangent line representing the instantaneous lunar motion and the radial line. It’s all explained by the trig relationships and the angles related to an elliptical path.
Meyer apparently couldn’t figure that out because he was hung up on Cassini’s error that the Moon rotates about a local axis.
” Meyer apparently couldnt figure that out because he was hung up on Cassinis error that the Moon rotates about a local axis. ”
Again and again: Robertson’s mix of arrogance and ignorance.
In Prop. XVII of Book III we read (translation by Ian Bruce, 2012):
” Truly because there is the monthly revolution of the moon about its axis : the same face of this will always look at the more distant focus of its orbit, as nearly as possible, and therefore according to the situation of that focus will hence deviate thence from the earth.
This is the libration of the moon in longitude: For the libration in latitude has arisen from the latitude of the moon and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.
N. Mercator has explained this theory of the libration of the moon more fully in letters from me, published in his Astronomy at the start of the year 1676. ”
*
Robertson still did not manage to grasp that Newton perfectly had understood what Cassini had done, and explained that to Mercator in 1675; the latter published Newton’s explanation one year later in his treatise (written in Latin, of course):
https://books.google.de/books?id=TqwsGvy3sMEC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en&source=gbs_atb&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Newton&f=false
Click on the [page 286] link, and… try to understand what Mercator wrote.
*
When will you FINALLY admit that Mayer restarted from scratch the work initiated by Cassini, a work which Newton was aware of, and fully agreed to?
*
Somewhere above, you claimed that Newton only spent a few lines about the lunar spin, and that if he had taken that serious, he would have developed it far deeper.
My answers:
– (1) Newton was, in addition to his Principia, busy during decades with an endless, fruitless competition with several scientists (Halley, Hadley among others) concerning the competition of longitudes at sea;
– (2) he knew that it would be a tremendous work: for the full computation of the lunar spin (period, axis inclination wrt the Ecliptic, selenocentric coordinates), Mayer needed 130 pages, Lagrange and Laplace over 200.
Why are you so reckless and disrespectful against all these people: Cassini, Newton, Mercator, Lagrange, Laplace?
You who are just a tiny little dwarf next to them!
binny…” the libration of the Moon (its optical wobbling) is due to its day (i.e. the rotation about its polar axis)”.
***
Libration is not a wobble, it is entirely a view angle issue. The Moon is not wobbling in its orbit.
The lunar day is a property of the lunar orbit, not a local rotation.
If the Moon did not rotate on its axis once per orbit of the Earth, the Moon’s day would be 365.25/4 days long.
Robertson
You still did not understand.
1. When I write ‘optical wobbling’, I mean an optical illusion, and not a physical motion.
2. ” The lunar day is a property of the lunar orbit, not a local rotation. ”
Means an absolute ignorant who did not understand what Newton wrote, but hundreds of physicists, mathematicians and astronomers very well did.
Why are you so dumb and so arrogant, Robertson?
Just goes to show that hundreds of physicists, astronomers, and mathematicians don’t have as many smarts as a street urchin.
Bin, You were doing well until here:
“Tobias Mayer took into consideration that the Vernal Point (the First Point of Aries), the star he used as fixed reference … ”
The Vernal Point is not a star, but is the spot where the ecliptic crosses the celestial equator. This changes not because the star moves or because the Milky Way rotates, but because of precession of earth’s axis.
Correct.
But that doesn’t change anything to what I wrote (it was translated from Mayer’s treatise, who certainly knew what he was talking about.
Do you know that his calculation of the lunar spin period in 1750 gave the same result till 5 digits after the decimal point as the recent LLR-based calculations?
The imaginary spin is exactly the same as the REAL orbital rate, since Moon is NOT actually spinning.
Yep these guys would spend their last dime betting on which shell the pea is under.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Binny van der Klown, an authority on nothing, fails to grasp there is only one ‘reporting’ station in the Canadian Arctic. All the stations he conjures up are stations on paper that are not used to determine global temps.
Binny excels at publishing stats using obsolete data. He reports a trend of of 0.48C/decade which when added to the average winter temperature gives a scorching minus 64.52 C. ”
*
Typical Robertson ranting.
Who is not able to technically contradict inevitably will start to polemically discredit and denigrate.
Rien de nouveau!
*
Let us compare UAH 6.0 LT NoPol (Arctic 60N-82.5N) with all GHCN daily stations available in the same latitude bands.
There were in the sum 1568 having (had) sufficient data, and their common time series starts in July 1873 (with… one poor little station, but this does of course not interest us here).
Of interest is that in 1979, there were 748 of them, and 863 in 2023.
38 Arctic Canada stations provided for data. How can that be!
*
Due to the anomaly based time series, the trends for 1979-2022 are much higher than the trend in absolute temperatures: 0.63 C / decade.
This is, as usual, due to the fact that all months are equally treated departures from the 1991-2020 mean of their respective month in the baseline.
*
Here is a chart for comparison to UAH 6.0 LT in the Arctic:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F8U0VkMnVCCpPxTiRUNpqirDVlaYdqeO/view
based on simple running means (SRM).
For opinionated persons, here is a variant showing the same data, but with a 60/50/39 month cascaded running mean (C3RM), which in fact has an active window corresponding to that of a 149 month simple running mean:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nKAX7Cf-yiYiIWRcwziPHFHp6IVF8eyK/view
It is clearly visible that the C3RMs radically exterminate small differences in the means which in fact are of great interest when we think that the means were constructed out of incredibly different sources.
The SRM similarity between UAH and GHCN daily at some peak and drop places , e.g. in July 2018, is simply amazing.
*
All that wonderful info is ideologically, without any scientific proof, discredited down to wriggles and distortions and gets scraped away by the cascades.
I personally have nothing against them.
I have, on the contrary, a lot against people like Blindsley H00d (aka RLH)
– elevating them up to the only valuable ‘near-Gaussian’ solution,
– claiming that Roy Spencer graphs are ‘not very scientific’, and
– discrediting me because I see no reason to keep fixated on them.
*
Interesting, by the way, is to overlay these two running mean techniques:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YddSAmCjIPzy3A0plDu6VvkFjJTLkSme/view
From this overlay we can see how small the overall, optically perceptible behavior of the SRM is compared to that of the C3RM.
Their trends in C / decade – compared of course within the smaller C3RM’s window (Mar 1983 – Nov 2020) – are quasi-identical, somewhat lower than that for the source (sorry for so many digits):
– source: 0.697 +- 0.053
– SRM: 0.655 +- 0.006
– C3RM: 0.654 +- 0.005
The comparison of linear fits is not very relevant, that’s evident.
But as will be shown in a later comment comparing 13 month SRMs and CxRMs for various sources, their polynomial fits up to higher orders (a comparison way more severe than with linear trends) also don’t differ much.
*
Now, at the end, back to genius Robertson.
He finishes his ranting with a wonderful
” I would pay to see Binny announcing to people in the Arctic in March that it is actually warming, then see him run out of town on a rail. ”
We see that Robertson still did not understand the difference betweeen cold/warm and colder/warmer.
Top five anomalies for UAH Arctic in March:
2016 3 1.25
2017 3 1.08
1996 3 0.76
2022 3 0.74
2019 3 0.74
… and for GHCN daily:
2017 3 2.35
2019 3 2.34
2014 3 2.28
2016 3 2.10
2022 3 1.86
Yes, Robertson! It’s cold in the Arctic in March.
But… less cold than earlier, as it seems.
*
I enjoy right now the Robertson ignoramus telling us that I once more had ‘the temerity to show the good UAH data and the ugly NOAA data in lock-step’…
Ha ha haah.
binny…”There were in the sum 1568 having (had) sufficient data, and their common time series starts in July 1873 …”
***
Read my lips…NOAA uses only 1 of those stations to represent all of northern Canada. NOAA admitted they use less than 1500 stations globally. If they use the 1568 you mention that would leave only 68 or so to cover the rest of the planet solid surface.
This is why I call you a Klown. You are using stations that are ignored by NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut and presenting an analysis that is your own personal analysis. then you claim your analysis is almost identical to that of UAH.
Robertson
You are this blog’s dumbest ignoramus, and above all a brazen, disgusting liar.
I think those epithets more refer to yo than anyone else here.
The whole point of low pass filters is to remove high frequencies (below the passband) which SRMs do not do.
That’s right, but a lot of people estimate trends based on monthly anomalies. Trends thus obtained aren’t physically meaningful.
Consider a function, the domain of which is {1,2,3,4,5,6} and the range is {2,4,6,8,10,12}.
The rise is 12-2 = 10.
Let {6,8} represent the base months Converting the function to monthly anomalies, we get {-4,-4,0,0,4,4}.
The rise is 4 (-4) = 8.
Um, no. Go back and do your math again. -Roy
Trends can be calculated for a given month, but not across all data. If the trends were valid across all data, then the monthly anomaly data would show July ’23 as the largest number in the TLT global data, but it does not. That means the trend across all data is lower than it otherwise would be.
The math:
2-6 = -4
4-8 = -4
6-6 = 0
8-8 = 0
10-6 = 4
12-8 = 4
The numbers are correct and the overall effect of anomalies in this case is to lower the trend.
It’s easy enough to set up a spreadsheet to illustrate the anomaly effect. Column A 1…n integers in sequence. Column B, 1…n “Y” values. Column C (column B – base number) – this should include multiple base numbers for each “month” to make the example more realistic.
Then set up a linear regression based on Column B, then Column C. Play with the base numbers. You will see the slope will be different between Column B and Column C depending on the choice of base numbers.
For example,
month Absolute Anomalized
1 1 -14
2 5 4
3 6 -9
4 5 4
5 15 0
6 1 0
7 7 -8
8 11 10
9 8 -7
10 14 13
11 12 -3
12 17 16
So this is for a 6 fake year, with each year containing 2 fake months. The base months are months 5 and 6.
The results are:
Linear Trend Absolute
1.06293706293706 1.59090909090909
Linear Trend Anomaly
1.35664335664336 -8.31818181818182
The slope (trend) is the leftmost number.
Jim,
The issue is not significant.
Certainly each month has a slightly different trend
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/1/7/1973-2023?trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1973&endtrendyear=2023
try different months.
But if you measure the trend for a 12 mo. average,
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/7/1973-2023?trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1973&endtrendyear=2023
It gives a negligibly different trend (1.84 C/dec) to the one obtained from using ALL months (1.83 C/dec)
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/all/7/1973-2023?trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1973&endtrendyear=2023
Thanks for that. I’ll take a look.
When I tried that with the simple 6 fake year data set above, I got this:
Linear Trend Yr. Avg.
0.457317073170732 3.27134146341463
Not the same as absolute or anomalies.
It’s certainly possible I’m missing something. These examples used the least squares linear estimate formula.
The NOAA website is a black box. I’m not sure exactly what it is doing. Does it use least squares linear regression? Or something else?
Seems to be least squares. I downloaded the 12 m. average data to Excel. Did a Least squares fit. It gives the same trend.
On WoodForTrees, the plot of UAH 6, which uses anomalies, is the same as when the data is averaged over 12 month intervals. IOW, the trend is the same for both cases.
No averaging:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/trend
12 month average:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/compress:12/trend
So, without the absolute temperature data, one can’t draw any conclusion if working only with anomalized data.
The absolute T contain the seasonal variation, which is not part of the trend we are after. We don’t want that to contribute to the trend.
If you make a 12 year set with only the seasonal variation, so 15, 1, 15,1, 15,1 etc. and do LS fit on it, what do you get?
Want it to be 0 trend, but is it?
Oh I didn t know about COMPRESS. That is handy. Different from running 12 mo mean.
Nate – using absolute temp data, the seasonality can be removed by using the mean of the months of a year. Then the trend calculation can be based on that. If the monthly base anomaly were published in the UAH dataset, we could back it out and get the absolute temps to work with.
Do you agree that seasonality is not the trend of interest? We don’t want the annual warming from winter to summer to add to the trend.
In your simulated data, when the seasonality is isolated, it seems to have a trend over the 12 y period, because the first point is 15 and the last is 1.
So if left in the data, it is contributing to the trend.
But I think we don’t want it to.
Nate, I do believe all the data points should contribute to the trend, from all seasons. If the 12 months of each year are averaged together, all the seasons are included, but there are no peaks and valleys from those variations within the year.
Using absolute temperatures, based on the 12 month average, will not necessarily yield a larger trend. The devil is in the details.
Nate – I guess another way to answer you question would be with another question: Do we live in an anomalized temperature environment or the absolute one? I would be more interested in the trend of the real, or absolute, one.
jim2,
The monthly absolute baselines are published.
Jan: 263.18 K
Feb: 263.27 K
Mar: 263.43 K
Apr: 263.84 K
May: 264.45 K
Jun: 265.10 K
Jul: 265.42 K
Aug: 265.23 K
Sep: 264.64 K
Oct: 263.95 K
Nov: 263.41 K
Dec: 263.19 K
The trend using anomalies is +0.135 K/decade. The trend using absolute temperatures is +0.138 K/decade. Part of the difference here is that I started the trend in January 1979 and ended it in July 2023 so there is an ever so slight high bias on the absolute trend due to the seasonal cycle. This is one reason why most of us prefer to compute the trend using anomalies.
jim2 says: . . . If the monthly base anomaly were published in the UAH dataset, we could back it out and get the absolute temps to work with.
UAH publishes a gridded absolute temperature dataset from which a global average can be computed. Alternately, I used this data to compute a monthly global anomaly baseline as per this post:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1041352
Among the issues with using absolute temperatures to compute trends is if the trend is not an integer multiple of 12 months, there will be a contribution from the cyclic seasonal variation. This cyclic component is nominally removed when using the anomaly values.
“If the 12 months of each year are averaged together, all the seasons are included, but there are no peaks and valleys from those variations within the year.”
Yes I agree. And averaging 12 mo of anomalies will work equally well, since tha average of the 12 baselines is a constant.
Thanks for those baseline numbers!
Here’s what NOAA says are reasons to use anomalies.
”
Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.”
“Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.”
“For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.”
Nate says:
” In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a regions average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations.”
Indeed!
The mountains have fewer layers of the M&W greenhouse effect over head compared to the valleys. Thus according to your theory less warming.
And my experience tells me that convection will have a negative feedback effect to lower the measured anomaly. . . .for a starter.
Bill, the difference being discussed there is the adiabatic temperature difference between different elevations.
False and off topic.
bdgwx doesn’t your favorite theory say ”the more layers of GHG above the surface the more the greenhouse effect?”
“an active window”
The active window is not of interest as it is the corner frequency that determines the main characteristics of an LP filter (other than the width of the active data trace).
The comparison to an 149 month SRM is therefore of no interest and is designed to confuse.
The main differences between the two traces shown are to do with the leakage and distortion that SRMs add.
Blindsley H00d urges to keep at top of the discussion – to such an extent that he even doesn’t take the time needed to correctly read the comment.
” The comparison to an 149 month SRM is therefore of no interest and is designed to confuse. ”
Where is that ‘149 month SRM’, Blindsley H00d? Where is it?
*
” The main differences between the two traces shown are to do with the leakage and distortion that SRMs add. ”
… says the 75+ years old, sissyish college boy, once more without any technical proof made by procdessing the same data!
Superficial words taken out of blogs and articles, and as usual: discrediting instead of contradicting.
Hello, Robertson LH… you have way more in common with Robertson than has anyone else on this blog.
“149 month simple running mean”
SRM means simple running mean. Id!ot.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1520473
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_average
“A major drawback of the SMA {SRM} is that it lets through a significant amount of the signal shorter than the window length. Worse, it actually inverts it. This can lead to unexpected artifacts, such as peaks in the smoothed result appearing where there were troughs in the data. It also leads to the result being less smooth than expected since some of the higher frequencies are not properly removed.”
Blindsley H00d
1. Don’t try to divert with ‘SRM’ being the same as ‘simple running mean’, I’m aware of that, Blindsley H00d.
2. I ask you again:
Where is my use of any 149 month SRM in any of my graphs, Blindsley H00d? Where is it?
*
Don’t tell me you didn’t even understand what I meant with
” … which in fact has an active window corresponding to that of a 149 month simple running mean: … ”
Here is a comparison of 60 month C3RMs with 149 month SRMs:
https://tinyurl.com/C3RM-60-vs-SRM-149
Do you understand it now? Do you now see that a 60 month cascaded triple running mean based on Pratt’s coefficients has the same active window as a simple 149 month running mean, what means that the CTRM has no data within these 149 months?
That does not seem to bother you much.
The reason probably is that while you daily bore us with your endless 5-year low pass stuff, you in fact never use such filter outputs as input in any software.
I do, Blindsely H00d: for example in my PSMSL evaluations. A 60 month CTRM has no sense to me.
You show things you yourself never use, and permanently, proudly teach us about statistics you yourself also never use.
*
And I further ask you:
Care to develop a mathematical calculation of the difference between SRMs and CxRMs, Blindsley H00d?
Im waiting for your superb demonstration.
I think I can wait for quite a long time.
You incorrectly said that I only had raised the inaccuracy of the SRMs.
What difference does a 149 month running mean width have to do with a 60 month C3RM’s corner frequency and hence its corner frequency?
…hence its passband…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1520530
Blindsley H00d
When will you finally understand that the time for your laborious, endlessly repeated hints is definitely over?
Stop talking, start working!
If you are not able to do the work: please admit it simply.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1520585
For people who think we’d have anything similar to Global Cooling in Europe
This is a typical situation we are faced with since years:
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/bf96ab49-65ba-4051-8cfb-ca3512ddd50c/28d0b5d4e428e4caa913a4698eee8802/faeccc4a-25e9-4842-9045-3ed1acccc98f.png?fm=webp
*
Each time we get a low pressure area (LPA) over the Baltic region, mostly boosted by a high pressure area (HPA) over the Acores (not visible on the picture), the same situation holds.
While HPAs turn clockwise, LPas turn counterclockwise.
The result is always the same: the two act like a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking cold air down towards us from the north.
With ‘us’ I mean UK which gets the coldest streams, and then France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany.
And in addition, if there is a HPA east of the LPA, another giant vacuum cleaner sucks air from the South up towards Scandinavia, which then gets gets pretty good warm, warmer than it is here in Germoney…
C’est la vie, nous dira-t-on.
Just like most ENSO patterns then.
Blinny does not understand how Low Pass filters work and what their corner frequency means in terms of their passband.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1520473
He thinks that C3RM and C5RM have different passbands as they have different active data windows. So much for his understanding of how LP filters are calculated and operate.
Blindsley H00d #2
When will you finally understand that the time for your laborious, endlessly repeated hints is definitely over?
Stop talking about you passbands, start working on a real SRM vs. CxRM comparison!
If you are not able to do the work: please admit it simply.
The actual distortion value of an SRM is very dependent on what outliers and frequencies exist in their windows. Thus no simple calculations will suffice. More than 2% is the typically assumed value.
It is well understood (by people who study this) that SRMs are very inferior to gaussian LP filters of the same corner frequency.
VP agrees with the last point.
Do you not know what a passpand is?
Blindsley H00d #3
When will you finally understand that the time for your laborious, endlessly repeated hints is definitely over?
Stop talking about your passbands, start working on a real SRM vs. CxRM comparison, instead of woefully dissimulating your inability to do the work behind blah blah like
” The actual distortion value of an SRM is very dependent on what outliers and frequencies exist in their windows. Thus no simple calculations will suffice. ”
Ha ha ha.
This is simply ridiculous. You have lots of time series on your desktop. Take three of them, and start working on the comparison, instead of throwing sand in our eyes.
Do you not know what a passband is?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1520585
More than 2% is the typically assumed value.
clintella…”Gordon, youre off topic, again.
This Moon issue was settled months ago. And, as usual, you werent any help.
Try to keep up. Focus”.
***
Yes…me and Dremt worked it out and you contributed insults and ad homs. Actually, I felt sorry for you. It was obvious you got the idea about Moon from somewhere but could not understand the physics. I was glad to help out and you got your nose out of joint and attacked me.
We all know by now that you have serious mental issues and we endure you as some kind of lap dog who snivels for attention. You got banned by Roy and managed to buttkiss your way back onto the blog and now you think he favours you somehow.
Poor Clintella, the deluded wannabee.
“This Moon issue was settled months ago”
No it wasn’t.
The Moon issue was settled months ago. Poor Gordon is STILL trying to understand what causes Moon phases. At one time, he thought they were due to Earth’s shadow!
And RLH STILL has no model of “orbital motion without spin”, unless he accepts Norman’s incompetent “moon walk”.
That’s why this is so much fun.
There is no valid model of “orbital motion without spin” because it doesn’t exist in practice.
A ball-on-a-string does not represent gravity in any way.
In addition to RLH’s inability to understand science, now he’s got “model envy”!
A ball-on-a-string does not represent gravity in any way.
RLH,
Would a rubber band/extension spring suit you?
In a gravity free environment, a pendulum bob given an impulse will travel in a circle, being subjected to centripetal force causing it to divert from its Newtonian First Law trajectory.
You could model the motion of a pendulum in a gravitational field with a spring, the bob will oscillate, but finally come to rest when tension on the spring is at a minimum.
Nature is lazy. Also chaotic – a double pendulum demonstrates this. Springs can be substituted for gravity and the behaviour is the same.
So a string, chain, solid rod will suffice, if you are not concerned that the reality is that the moon is moving away from the Earth ever so slowly. Gravity string stretches and gets weaker if it is not sufficiently strong to start with. Newton’s Cannonball explains how strong the string is, and what force is required to break it.
It also explains how the Moon can orbit the Earth keeping one face pointed at the Earth.
Much ado about nothing, but at least it diverts attention away from the indescribable GHE!
“Would a rubber band/extension spring suit you?”
No.
“Springs can be substituted for gravity”
No they can’t.
99.97% agreece
https://youtu.be/vVi01vJ4nxM
IPCC hates US oil companies but loves China coal companies.
China also imports a lot of oil. Importing oil makes more global CO2 emission than compared to a domestic oil production.
If you actually wanted reduce CO2 emission, you should have nuclear power cargo transport.
But rather than reduce CO2, all IPCC has effectively done is help increase CO2 emissions.
All UN has done is cause wars to continue and since China has bought
the corrupt UN whores, the UN [including IPCC] should be shipped to China.
Eben
That was a good video. Thanks for posting. When media has some alarmist Climate Change weather event I look at past weather and see it was just as bad.
Now there is a heat wave in the Southern region of the US and it is Climate Change but an even worse one took place in the 1930’s in a large part of the US and that could not have been from Global Warming. Heat waves are a product of a weather pattern usually a blocked atmosphere that creates a heat dome.
Curry made the mistake because she didn’t understand the physics. At least she admitted her mistake. She needs to understand the physics, so she won’t keep making the same mistakes.
He background is in geography.
“Her background…”
Her background is a lot more valid than yours.
Yeah, I only have a layman’s knowledge of geography.
As I said her background is a lot more valid than yours.
Clint R
You are wrong! She has a BS in meteorology and a PhD in atmospheric Science. Not sure why you posted that incorrect info. Have you found evidence to support your bogus claim that Nitrogen gas reflects IR? No I didn’t think so. Can you get anything right? I doubt it is possible for you.
Norman, your incompetence is amazing.
(Bold is my emphasis.)
Curry graduated cum laude from Northern Illinois University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in geography. She earned her geophysical sciences Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1982.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
She earned her geophysical sciences Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1982.
After making a complete donkey of himself, Norman has “left the building”.
Happens all the time….
Clint lies about (or just forgets) some ones qualifications.
Happens all the time.
RLH, your insults and false accusations are cult tactics. I’m used to them. They only indicate the fact that you have NOTHING.
Clint: You are the one who has NOTHING.
Clint R
There are other sources. Probably best to ask her since things conflict.
https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/403891/Dr.-Judith-Curry
Geophysical Science is not the same as geography. Here is a synopsis of the classes a person would take in this field.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/earth-sciences/study-here/undergraduate-degrees/natural-sciences/geophysical-sciences
She is much smarter than you will ever be Clint R. She also knows real science, something you will never know. You think Nitrogen gas reflects IR but will never ever provide evidence for you phony posting. Sad state with you.
Norman, the only conflict here is you denying reality, as usual.
You claimed: “She has a BS in meteorology and a PhD in atmospheric Science.
Which is clearly wrong. Her BS was in geography.
You won’t admit you were wrong, as Curry has done. You’ll live on in denial, falsely accusing others to cover up for your incompetence. Curry has shown more character than you can ever imagine.
What will you try next?
And yet Clint refuses to admit his misrepresentation.
“He(r) background is in geography.”
Her PhD thesis
“The formation of continental polar air”
Gee that does sound like Atmospheric Science!
Only Blinny would ignore what others have said about running means (including VP) and persist with the belief that they are the ‘best LP filter eva’.
Crazy high North Atlantic SST in July
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/Page%20Uploads/July%2023%20CB/SST%20Article/fig3a_era5_monthly_anomalies_sst_natlantic_july.png
as well as the whole the ocean
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/Page%20Uploads/July%2023%20CB/SST%20Article/fig1a_era5_monthly_anomalies_sst_60S-60N_july.png
You do know that anomalies are not normally considered to be robust statistics, considering that they are likely to be distorted by outliers.
(Temperature) Anomalies are simply the residual after removing the periodic annual and diurnal components by some defined process.
It’s just signal decomposition.
So you support the use of high quality LP filters to remove the yearly and daily orbital components?
Blindsley H00d
” You do know that anomalies are not normally considered to be robust statistics, considering that they are likely to be distorted by outliers. ”
Apart you above, who says that?
Show us a source.
Anomalies are unique to ‘climate science’. Show otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_statistics
“Robust statistics seek to provide methods that emulate popular statistical methods, but are not unduly affected by outliers or other small departures from model assumptions. In statistics, classical estimation methods rely heavily on assumptions that are often not met in practice. In particular, it is often assumed that the data errors are normally distributed, at least approximately, or that the central limit theorem can be relied on to produce normally distributed estimates. Unfortunately, when there are outliers in the data, classical estimators often have very poor performance, when judged using the breakdown point and the influence function”
” You do know that anomalies are not normally considered to be robust statistics, considering that they are likely to be distorted by outliers. ”
Thus, once more, you have to admit to have manipulated us by insinuating that other people might have written the same thing.
In fact, this is nothing else than your personal view.
The text you present deals with outlier removal in general, and has has nothing to do with anomalies.
*
You never heard about the use of anomalies in sciences, did you?
The term ‘anomaly’ (as a departure from a mean) originally stems from the medical context.
I have seen years ago a paper showing that the anomaly concept is used in landscape management as well.
What is correct, however, is that regardless where ‘anomaly’ is used as a shortcut for ‘departure from the mean’, it is from the linguistic point of view an unlucky use.
“Robust statistics seek to provide methods that emulate popular statistical methods, but are not unduly affected by outliers or other small departures from model assumptions.”
Anomaly in a time series as defined in climate science has no relationship to the medical use of the term.
So you do not consider that adding together multiple orbital parameters with other non-orbital factors will not produce outliers and model distortions.
Departure from a mean is a non-robust statistic in itself.
Was the landscape paper from years ago similar to removing a set of orbital factors mixed in with other non-orbital factors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_statistics
And by the way, Blindsley H00d: why should anomalies have anything to do with statistics, robust or not?
Anomalies are a procedure to remove seasonal dependencies such that all seasonal units are treated in exactly the same way.
Nobody prevents you from making your statistics on anomalies as well as on absolute data.
Anomalies (meaning departures from the mean – itself a non-robust statistic) are unique to ‘climate science’. Show otherwise.
Yeah here we go on about climate being different than weather and that while weather can be dramatic, even on a world wide scale, and such dramatic change in global mean temperature over a few weeks, months, years needs to be attributed to mankind emitting CO2 which we know based upon their own theory takes a century to do anything.
This mind numbingly ignorant.
Blindsley H00d
1. You don’t understand anomalies, just because you never processed any absolute data in order to obtain them.
You denigrate them for ideological reasons only.
2. And you don’t understand that peaks and drops in weather or climate time series are by no means automatically ‘outliers’.
Outliers in temperature records in the US I have seen thousands: for example, the abrupt transition from Celsius values to Fahrenheit values in earlier times, when a station was shut down and subsequently rebooted.
NOAA collaborators spent years in reviewing raw data because there is no way for fully automatic error correction in this case.
That is something fundamentally different from a peak in a time series resulting from the average of thousands of stations.
*
Ironically, your trials to let appear everything flatter in your 5-year low pass graphs, optically suggesting less warming with some success, are of no use because the trends of the 5-year low pass series generated out of the sources don’t differ much from those of the sources.
might actually be interesting, slightly, if one could tease out the natural climate change from the anthropogenic climate change.
“You don’t understand anomalies”
I understand them all too well and that they are created by climate scientists alone because very few of them understand robust statistics and how to use them.
“you don’t understand that peaks and drops in weather or climate time series are by no means automatically ‘outliers'”
Mixing together orbital characteristics, which are inherently sinusoidal, with things that are more random like pressure, humidity and wind speed/direction will tend to cause outliers in temperature measurements and weather.
The bottom few meters of the atmosphere, in its chaotic boundary surface layer, will only add to that tendency.
Everybody understands anomalies except Binny, who claims no one else understands them.
” I understand them all too well and that they are created by climate scientists alone because very few of them understand robust statistics and how to use them. ”
Did you read that, Robertson?
It is a 100 % attack on the work of Roy Spencer, who has been decades ago intelligent enough to understand how much anomalies matter for selectively removing annual cycles out of absolute data, what of course never could be achieved by using even cascaded running means.
Binny understands very well what anomalies are, Robertson.
He learned that by looking at how Roy Spencer did, and by subsequent doing, as do real engineers.
Neither Blindsley H00d let alone you did construct any anomaly-based time series out of absolute data.
The best for people like you two is therefore to keep silent, Robertson.
Yeah, but negligibly so.
Define negligible.
There is nothing statistically wrong with subtracting the 30 y climate average.
It simply contributes a small additional error, much smaller than the error already present in the absolute temperature.
If you think it is non-neglible, show us how.
Do you think that a statistic is better using medians rather than means, as the later is well known to be distorted by outliers.
Mixing together pure sinusoidal orbital factors with near random non-orbital ones (given the chaotic near surface layer of the atmosphere) is much more likely to produce outliers.
Means are standard statistics and are quite useful, as are medians. Each have their place.
The statistical properties of a mean and the difference of two means are quite manageable.
If the difference between two means of measurements is a quantity of interest in science, and it is in this case, than there is no reason, statistically, to avoid doing it.
“Mixing together pure sinusoidal orbital factors with near random non-orbital ones (given the chaotic near surface layer of the atmosphere) is much more likely to produce outliers.”
Off topic, and full of unsupported assertions.
Pure sinusoidal orbital factors are definitely subject to the use of high quality LP filters (i.e. they are repetitive/cyclic). Other non-orbital factors are less suspectable to such treatments.
“Means are standard statistics”
But not robust ones. i.e. they are susceptible to distortions from outliers.
There is also no reason to use the difference between 2 medians rather than 2 means and the 2 medians are less susceptible to outliers.
Again Median’s have their place, eg the income distribution has a very long high-income tail.
The highest incomes are ~ 100,000 times as large as the working class income.
So the mean and median can be very different.
That is simply not the case here.
And since we are averaging many independent local weather variations together, you have the central limit theorem at work in the global mean temperature.
Medians are well know not to be distorted by outliers or non standard distributions.
The income distribution with a very long high-income tail is an extreme not relevant to this data.
“Medians are well know not to be distorted by outliers or non standard distributions.”
And in this case, with this data, you havent shown any such distortion is significant.
Nate says:
The highest incomes are ~ 100,000 times as large as the working class income.
So the mean and median can be very different.
—————–
Yep the first thing to do is limit incomes in the entertainment industry to minimum wage because it promotes daydreaming and couch potatoes.
“you haven’t shown any such distortion is significant”
Therefore the results from using a median and a mean will not change the outcome at all (according to you). So there are no reasons not to use them.
If you cannot show evidence of distortion then your complaint is a red herring.
Using a median and a mean will not change the outcome at all (according to you). So there are no reasons not to use them.
Nate: Are you saying that regardless of it a mean or a median is used then the answer will be the same?
I’m saying that this is a non issue.
To be a non-issue they would have to be the same. They are not.
So Nate accuses all those who do use medians in climate measurements as wrong.
“They are not.”
Oh? Show us MONTHLY mean vs median temperatures with this issue. Then show us global monthly mean vs median temperatures with this issue.
Obviously you won’t be able to. Because the central limit theorem applies.
“So Nate accuses all those who do use medians in climate measurements as wrong.”
Imbecile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_statistics
Robust statistics seek to provide methods that emulate popular statistical methods, but are not unduly affected by outliers or other small departures from model assumptions. In statistics, classical estimation methods rely heavily on assumptions that are often not met in practice. In particular, it is often assumed that the data errors are normally distributed, at least approximately, or that the central limit theorem can be relied on to produce normally distributed estimates. Unfortunately, when there are outliers in the data, classical estimators often have very poor performance, when judged using the breakdown point and the influence function
Nate: Why do you assume that medians will hurt your case? Do you not accept that we are arguing about if robust statistics are less likely to be in error than non-robust ones?
“Show us MONTHLY mean vs median temperatures with this issue.”
I will shortly be changing from mean to median in my presentations. According to you this will not change much if anything.
RLH,
There are topics that are highly interesting to you.
Then there are topics that matter for climate science.
There is little overlap between these.
So far have been unable to show that this topic matters for climate science.
Until you have something to show, this is pointless.
“I will shortly be changing from mean to median in my presentations. According to you this will not change much if anything.”
Indeed.
You are expecting the results will be significantly different?
Why?
Will GW vanish? Will it significantly change trends?
You are the one saying that changing from mean to median will cause no or little change.
And yet you object to the change thus relying on ‘everybody else does it’ rather than an argued scientific statistical case.
You are expecting the results will be significantly different?
Why?
Will GW vanish? Will it significantly change trends?
I need to update this to the present and add trend significance metrics, but following from a previous iteration of RLH’s fixation on means/medians I generated trend data using hourly data for each of the USCRN stations per the link below.
The three cases are for “mean” defined as the daily (Tmax+Tmin)/2, “median” defined as the median of the 24 hourly temperature values for each day, and “average” defined as the average of the 24 hourly temperature values for each day.
If I recall correctly, these daily values were then used to calculate a monthly anomaly baseline which was subtracted from the series to generate a temperature anomaly series from which the trends were calculated. I later implemented a more sophisticated FFT-based algorithm to generate hourly anomalies intending to reduce the artifacts monthly baseline averages introduce, but I don’t think that was used for this table.
The result is that there are trend differences between the techniques which are not obviously significant, but I’d have to add confidence intervals to say that authoritatively.
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/uscrnSummaryTable
The mean uses all the data, the full distribution, while the median does not.
I see no scientific reason to not use all the data.
“I see no scientific reason to not use all the data”
So the reasons for robust statistics are not needed as far as you are concerned.
“Robust statistics provide valid results across a broad variety of conditions, including assumption violations, the presence of outliers, and various other problems. The term robust statistic applies both to a statistic (i.e., median) and statistical analyses (i.e., hypothesis tests and regression).
Huber (1982) defined these statistics as being distributionally robust and outlier-resistant.
Conversely, non-robust statistics are sensitive to to less than ideal conditions.”
“In statistics, the term robust or robustness refers to the strength of a statistical model, tests, and procedures according to the specific conditions of the statistical analysis a study hopes to achieve. Given that these conditions of a study are met, the models can be verified to be true through the use of mathematical proofs.
Many models are based upon ideal situations that do not exist when working with real-world data, and, as a result, the model may provide correct results even if the conditions are not met exactly.
Robust statistics, therefore, are any statistics that yield good performance when data is drawn from a wide range of probability distributions that are largely unaffected by outliers or small departures from model assumptions in a given dataset. In other words, a robust statistic is resistant to errors in the results”
Nate effectively argues that Tukey was wrong.
Mark B also thinks that Turkey was wrong in his papers.
Nate says: The mean uses all the data, the full distribution, while the median does not.
I see no scientific reason to not use all the data.
They both use all the data, they’re just different but related statistical estimation metrics that both have utility. Which metric is preferred depends upon the context. Without context it’s pointless to argue whether one is strongly preferred over the other.
What I’ve tried to demonstrate via the work linked above is that there is little meaningful difference in the context of calculating trends in station anomalies.
On general principles in this context (trend calculation of station anomaly data), the choice of mean or median matters if the shape of the distribution changes (as opposed to a shift or compression/expansion of the range) which is, at best, a second order effect in the station data that I’ve looked at.
Temperature is a measure of energy in the Earth system. The total energy is the MEAN energy times volume, and energy gained by the system is of interest for GW modeling.
If the temperature distribution is extreme, ie has a long tail at high T, then the Ts in the long tail (outliers) will simply be counted as higher than the middle in the calculation of MEDIAN, whereas how MUCH higher they are will count for the MEAN.
Thus the Median and Mean will differ.
The MEAN is a measure of the total energy in the system, while the MEDIAN may not be. Thus MEAN is physically more relevant.
When there is condensing humidity, i.e. dew forms overnight and evaporates in the morning, some of the system energy content is latent rather than sensible, so (average) temperature by itself is an imperfect proxy for system energy content.
This is one of the potential effects that can result in an asymmetric diurnal temperature probability distribution.
Again, the important point isn’t that one or the other statistics is better or worse, it’s that it doesn’t make a meaningful difference for temperature trend estimation.
Mark, of course. I left out water vapor to simplify the issue.
Im trying to explain why MEAN may be preferred.
Apply it to the ocean instead, where total energy content is of interest, and temperature is the sole measure of energy.
It may well be that the distribution of temperature is naturally non Gaussian. The mean is a measure of total energy. The median may not be.
Nate you actually have to measure the temperature.
Even today we don’t do that. And the ocean takes perhaps 1500 years or more to adjust its temperature at all depths and we sure didn’t measure it even a little bit 1500 years ago.
OK Bill. Now buzz off.
Nate doesn’t believe in the methods of science he just outlined in a thread above about how science is critiqued. So he says buzz off so he can avoid more critique.
Yes you butt in and try to change the subject of thread. Not interested.
So buzz off.
the argument is about how to measure how much the ocean has warmed. So my comment is on point. We have no idea at all beyond ruling out some wild numbers but we don’t even know.
“We have no idea at all beyond ruling out some wild numbers but we dont even know.”
Deniers deny.
Deniers deny the guessers.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
Choose N. Atlantic to see its absolute temperature if that makes you feel better.
Nate says:
”Crazy high North Atlantic SST in July”
Indeed! Witness the power of natural systems to modify the mean global temperature in a few weeks. And we have mo.rons trying to tell us this has anything to due to CO2.
The actual mechanism that causes CO2 to bring about such abrupt change in a only a few months is always left to imagine as no such mechanism can be determined.
bill…I would not be brave enough to swim in it without a wet suit. I tried off the coast of Vancouver Island in the Pacific on a rainy summer day and standing in the ocean up to my ankles was giving me an ice-cream headache. Took me forever to submerge aclimatize and dip into the water.
Having said that, there is a US female swimmer, Lynne Cox, who has swum in Antarctic water around 0C. She swam in the Bering straight as well.
https://www.nps.gov/people/lynne-cox.htm
A deep cold snap happens in January somewhere.
And we will have mo.rons trying to tell us this has anything to do with Winter.
“The actual mechanism that causes CO2 to bring about such abrupt change in a only a few months is always left to imagine as no such mechanism can be determined.”
Strawman.
The rise of CO2 is a cause for AGW, and as such it can make warm extremes more likely. It is not the cause of ENSO, other known natural variations, nor other anthropogenic effects on temperature.
Several plausible mechanisms have been proposed to explain the recent rapid ocean warming.
These include the drastic reduction in anthro SO2 aerosols over shipping lanes due to the mandated reduction of sulfur in ship fuels, the HT eruption and the GHE of its water deposited in the stratosphere, and the reduction in African dust over the oceans.
Science rarely has instantaneous answers to explain newly discovered phenomena. but given time it often does.
…The rise of CO2 is supposedly a cause for AGW…
Science rarely has instantaneous answers to explain newly discovered phenomena. but given time it often does.
The one thing was know instantaneously is that CO2 can NOT raise temperatures. That would be like saying bananas can raise temperatures.
Just silly nonsense.
Nah, no one is left here who takes your assertions seriously anymore.
Wrong again Nate. There are still some responsible adults here. Although we’re out numbered, it doesn’t make any difference because you cultists have NOTHING.
Nobody here buys your crap anymore. It has no value.
Nate, do I detect a little jealousy on your part?
You know, believing in a false religion is a choice. You do not have to remain ignorant. Reality is for everyone.
Your choice, of course.
And you are not good at reading people’s minds, or reading the room.
Your credibility here is zero. Maybe time to find a new blog.
nate…”The rise of CO2 is a cause for AGW….”
***
That would be about 0.06C since 1850.
Picked a random number close to 0?
Everybody is effectively picking random numbers because they pick random theories. Like CO2 as the climate control knob is a random theory.
Then there are those asserting random nonsense.
I agree Nate pulling the 3rd grader radiation model out of your arse without a demonstration of its ability to warm the surface is random nonsense
I havent brought up any GHE models in a while, stalker.
No one knows what model you are talking about. Last time we actually discussed a model, it was Manabe and Weatherald. If thats the 3rd grader model, then YOU were not ready for 3rd grade level material!
In the past 60 days you endorsed the 3rd grader radiation model. You also endorsed it when you claimed https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
was flawed and in error for not detecting the warming from the backscatter.
So Nate you are perfectly welcome to join the skeptics on this but don’t play games flip flopping back and forth.
So you keep saying but never quote me.
Well I can accept your current viewpoint of the 3rd grader radiation model being a crock of shiiit without any further critique.
Nobody but you thinks that paper is studying the GHE.
No its just studying the mechanism of the GHE believed by a huge percentage of scientists from Greta Thunberg to James Hansen.
And yet 1878 was similar to recent times as far as droughts go.
How uninteresting.
Droughts have occurred throughout recorded history. And no one has claimed otherwise.
Right on Nate calls BS on the media and the crooked scientists claiming otherwise.
Reconsider: Atmospheric Window and Transmitted Surface Radiation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU02-mvvGOM
I think he’s off-base in his reasoning that IR does not come from the solid surface but from a warm layer of the atmosphere. It’s obvious that the only transmitters in this layer of air are trace gases and the amount of radiation from those trace gases would be only a small part of the full IR spectrum, that must come from the solid surface.
The trace gases would be emitting only line spectra whereas the surface with its different elements would emit a full-scale, continuous IR spectrum due to divergent temperatures and materials.
The apparent path length of IR at the TOA is important here.
Hunter boy
1. ” Since one of the major objections to the 3rd grader model as per demonstrated by RW Woods was that the heating in the greenhouses was actually achieved equally by both the IR opaque and IR transparent greenhouses via the trapping of convection and not trapping of radiation. ”
Wrong, Hunter boy.
It seems to me that you never read Woods 1.5 (!!!) page long pamphlet about his experiment.
Do you know how Wood’s pamphlet ends?
” I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter… ”
{ Imagine if Arrhenius had written a 100 page article against the CO2 effect, Wood had been a fan of this CO2 effect, wrote 1.5 pages against Arrhenius’ paper, ending up with the same admission :–).
Oh Noes. }
He prettily failed experimenting: this was due to the fact that he covered both plates with glass, in order to prevent what he had guessed, namely that solar near-IR otherwise would disturb the experiment.
Exactly that is what Vaughan Pratt pretty good understood. And he repeated Wood’s experiment such that – among other things – Wood’s mistake would be avoided.
*
” Here by putting the earth plate above the cold plate convection is again trapped at the top of the greenhouse as demonstrated in the Vaughn Pratt experiment (he finally publicly posted his results) and where the heat would be most likely trapped being transported there by convection. ”
You also can never have read Vaughan Pratt’s experiment report.
Try to definitely go into the original:
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
and don’t forget to read
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf
as well.
*
Why Nasif Nahle found something different I don’t know, ask Roy Spencer, he very certainly knows.
Nahle surprisingly ALWAYS finds things different with regard to GHE and warming.
Binny,
Here is why RW Wood used a glass plate over both enclosures “When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 oC., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.”
As Prof Tyndall, many years earlier had realised, although transparent to visible light, rock salt and glass have different opacities to other frequencies of light. Tyndall called it “combing”
In his mountaineering travels, he noted “The beams of the sun, however, produce heat as well as light, and there are different qualities of heat in the sunbeam as well as different qualities of lightnay, there are copious rays of heat in a sunbeam which give no light at all, some of which never even reach the retina at all, but are totally absorbed by the humours of the eye. Now, the same substance may permit rays of heat of a certain quality to pass freely through it, while it may effectually stop rays of heat of another quality. But in all cases the heat stopped is expended in heating the body which stops it. Now, water possesses this selecting power in an eminent degree. It allows the blue rays of the solar beam to pass through it with facility, but it slightly intercepts the red rays, and absorbs with exceeding energy the obscure rays; and those are the precise rays which possess the most intense heating power.”
Tyndall, in “Heat, a mode of motion”, explains the necessity of RW Woods action – a fact which completely escapes amateur experimenters like Vaughan Pratt and others.
You can’t even describe the GHE, and neither can anybody else!
So much for claiming “evidence”! Evidence for something even you can’t describe?
Go on, make me laugh – try and describe this “greenhouse effect”.
binny…”Do you know how Woods pamphlet ends?
I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter ”
***
There is a simple explanation for that. Wood did not need to go any deeper, he was a renowned authority on gases like CO2. Neils Bohr consulted with him re sodium vapour. He knew, based on the properties of CO2 that it could not produce a greenhouse effect like a real greenhouse could warm air.
The theory in the day was that glass in a real greenhouse trapped IR and that trapped IR warmed the greenhouse air. Wood, an expert on IR and UV radiation could not see how that would work. He hypothesized the real heating agent was a lack of convection and set out to prove that, hence his experiment.
The Wood paper was written in 1909. In those days, the mechanism by which EM was absorbed and emitted by electrons in atoms was unknown. It was not till 1913 that Bohr produced that theory. Wood claimed that nitrogen and oxygen could not cool by radiating energy but he may have been wrong about that since the mechanism was unknown in 1909.
I have no doubt that Wood was correct in his explanation of the real GHE, that N2 and O2 absorb heat from the surface by conduction then transport it higher into the atmosphere via convection. He claimed that N2/O2 could not release the heat but we now know the reason, radiation is simply a poor means of cooling a gas.
Eventually, N2 and O2 should dissipate heat via radiation but meantime both cool due to moving to higher altitudes. However, the explanation for the real GHE makes far more sense than a trace gas being responsible for both heating the atmosphere and radiating all heat to space.
Bindidon I have freely acknowledged that CO2 among other things have an effect on climate.
Understanding causation of current climate hasn’t been demonstrated, not even close by any experiment. If it had that experiment would be detailed and discussed ad nauseum.
but hardly anybody with a braincell promotes any of the experiments you have discussed as a convincing argument for any climate change theory.
The only experiment that shows any possibility of CO2 causing some unstated surface warming are the US military experiments showing the rates of IR absor.ption of CO2 in their research on missile defenses. But thats heat in the atmosphere not at the surface. Pratts experiment shows that also. You can see a pittance of it in your upside down experiment. Its only by fiat that CO2 has become the keystone greenhouse gas. You have no idea of how much time I spent on ”keystone” theories about a whole variety of issues over the years all lacking scientific support. CO2 is no different.
As Tyndall wrote above “But in all cases the heat stopped is expended in heating the body which stops it.”, which almost everybody ignores.
CO2 absorbs IR, but so does all matter, to a greater or lesser degree, and heats – to a greater or lesser degree.
CO2 emits IR, as does all matter, and cools as a result.
For a certain pressure and heat input, Tyndall measured CO2 as intercepting 1750 times as many heat rays as oxygen and nitrogen
Given that only 4 parts per 10000 are CO2, CO2 intercepts less heat rays in total than do oxygen and nitrogen. Surprising to cultists, but reproducibly true nevertheless.
Inconvenient truth, I dare say.
–Bindidon I have freely acknowledged that CO2 among other things have an effect on climate.–
But what effect upon climate does it have.
I think doubling of CO2 could have a warming effect, but this hasn’t been measured, yet.
If it does have warming effect, what kind of warming effect, would the be?
What kind of warming effect which commonly suggested, is that doubling of CO2 level increases global water vapor.
And where on Earth does it increase water vapor.
It seems increasing water vapor above the tropical ocean is a bit insane.
And generally increasing water vapor over any and all the oceans seems somewhat dubious.
So, we could focus on the 30% of the world which is land areas, or more critical/significant in terms global warming is increasing water vapor in deserts in and near the tropics.
It’s know fact that higher levels of CO2 allows plants to be more drought resistant.
gb…”I think doubling of CO2 could have a warming effect, but this hasnt been measured, yet”.
***
Yes, but G&T estimated it using a formula for heat diffusion through a gas. As expected, a trace gas like CO2 cannot diffuse heat into a gas mixture like air other than a trace amount. They calculated for a doubling of CO2 that the contribution of CO2 would be around its mass percent, about 0.06C.
The Ideal Gas Law giveS a similar trace warming for CO2.
Some people continually dismiss mainstream science, and tell us about outlier experiments they are familiar with, then falsely claim that these are representative of all experiments on this topic.
What is “mainstream science” and why is it so?
It is established science tested and replicated many times by many scientists and builds on earlier established science.
In this case, the GHE builds on established optics, thermodynamics, and atmospheric physics and its predicted radiative forcing has been directly observed.
In contrast outlier science has not been replicated and often disagrees with established physics, and thus should be met with considerable skepticism.
It is typically a singular experiment that can only be correct if thousand of previous experiments, and well tested theories, were somehow wrong.
Yet we have people here who treat outlier science as if it has the qualities of mainstream science, and mainstream science as if it can be safely assumed to be fraudulent.
This is quite irrational.
Except in the case of climate science where papers that disagree with the consensus view are not accepted for publication. At all.
Established science. LOL. That’s a leftist propagandist term.
What do rightists like yourself call it?
Nate, your strong belief in your false religion is impressive, but lacks any connection to reality.
Your GHE nonsense is built on things like the sky warms the surface much more than Sun. It doesn’t get any better from there….
“Except in the case of climate science where papers that disagree with the consensus view are not accepted for publication. At all”
False. Roy gets his work published.
“Established science. LOL. ”
Stephen is poster child for this belief in outliers and dismissal of all those who disagree with them.
“Roy gets his work published”
But you have many times said you do not believe what he publishes (and now presumably NOAA/STAR).
nate…”It is established science tested and replicated many times by many scientists and builds on earlier established science.
In this case, the GHE builds on established optics, thermodynamics, and atmospheric physics and its predicted radiative forcing has been directly observed”.
***
Not a shred of evidence in thermodynamics or in atmospheric physics that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. In fact, the 2nd law of thermodynamics kills off the AGW principle that colder GHGs in the atmosphere can warm a warmer surface or atmosphere.
If you have such evidence, please present it.
“Not a shred of evidence in thermodynamics or in atmospheric physics that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. ”
Opinions like this are not facts, Gordon.
Dr. Spencer agrees with the idea of AGW and GHE. He just isn’t an alarmist and continually presents evidence that debunks alarmism and casts doubts about surface data and, therefore, models constructed based on faulty data.
Plus, I don’t believe most of the Climate Scientists are alarmists. It is mostly non-scientists posing as scientists, like the many leftist propagandists who post here.
Some people are so indoctrinated in bogus “mainstream science” that they actually believe passenger jets fly backward, ice cubes can boil water, an imaginary sphere can be meaningfully compared to Earth.
That’s not to mention the funniest part — they believe the sky can warm the surface more than Sun!
It’s a cult.
Clint R
Do they also believe nitrogen gas reflects IR?
Norman, will a 10 ft diameter solid sphere fit through a 3 ft wide door?
So what you’re now trying is to avoid your previous disaster. It won’t work. Reality always wins.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1520950
Clint R
I cannot fathom your point of how a large sphere trying to fit through a smaller door opening has anything at all to do with nitrogen gas reflecting IR. You do not make much sense at all.
On the Judith Curry point. It is not my error to correct. I got that information from this link.
https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/403891/Dr.-Judith-Curry
It is not my error to correct it would be either Wikipedia or this link. As I stated when there are two conflicting sources it would be best to ask her directly. She has her own blog.
Also even if she did get a BS in geography here PhD was in Geophysical Science. She is considerably smarter than you will ever be and she does not have to make up her own physics (with no support).
I guess there is no logic or evidence to convince you that nitrogen gas does not reflect IR. Believe what you need to, it is wrong and I find that you are so anti-science it is not worth the effort to educate you. I suppose you will just keep making stuff up as long as you post here.
Norman, you cannot admit you were wrong. You falsely attacked me but you can’t admit you were wrong. You’re now clogging the blog with endless keyboarding to cover your lack of character.
Judith Curry admitted she was wrong at a huge risk to her career. She left the cult. She has more character then you will ever have. She has character. You’re a cowardly worm next to her.
Clint R
Insults that come from a flea brain like you are not significant.
I posted my source. Deal with it.
You still have to provide real evidence nitrogen gas reflects IR. You divert and cover your ignorance and pretend like you are intelligent. Why do you need to pretend. You don’t know anything at all about science, evidence, logic. You pretend to but your posts really show how little you know and understand about science.
I wonder when you will come up with evidence that nitrogen reflects IR. I gave you an alternate link that claimed Curry had a BS in meteorology. So why do you claim I am wrong? I supplied you with evidence you supply nothing and have nothing. Pretender is what you are a real phony.
Your insults and false accusations won’t work Norman.
You stated that she had a BS in meteorology, but that is WRONG. Her BS was in geography.
You can never admit you’re wrong. That’s one of the reasons you can’t learn.
Her PhD (a higher and later degree) is in geophysical sciences.
Nah, no one is left here who takes your comical claims seriously anymore.
Are you trying to push back from your cult’s beliefs, Nate?
That’s good. You should be ashamed of all that rot.
Clint. All you do is toss ad-homs at people and real science.
But when you show your alternative ‘science’ it turns out to be a joke.
Maybe if you say nonsense like that enough you will believe it, Nate.
But, it will never become reality.
It’s like the nonsense your cult makes up, like passenger jets that fly backward.
Hmm
Clint R obsessed with someone’s point on perspective over passenger jet yet he comes up with nitrogen reflects IR because a 10 foot solid sphere can’t go through a 3 foot door.
If you did not come up with total nonsense points you might have valid criticism. As it stands you are not really in a “Driver’s seat” to call out anyone on anything. Mr. Clint nitrogen reflects IR because a 20 foot solid sphere can’t fit through a 3 foot door R.
Nate of course is correct about you and your posts.
I think Ball4 had it correct when he pointed out your posts are good for entertainment value. Certainly not for an reality or science based content. You have to understand science and logic before that is possible. Since you possess neither your posts are mainly for humor, wondering what nonsense claim you will make next that you can’t support.
Your endless blah-blah, insults, and false accusations won’t work Norman.
You stated that she had a BS in meteorology, but that is WRONG. Her BS was in geography.
You can never admit you’re wrong. That’s one of the reasons you can’t learn.
Clint R
I presented you with the source that stated she had a BS in meteorology. It is not my made up fiction like you use when you claim nitrogen gas reflects IR because a 10 foot sphere can’t fit through a 3 foot door.
I gave you my source. It is not something I made up.
If the source I gave is wrong it is on them not me. You have different sources making different claims. That does not change anything. You still don’t have logic and you don’t know any science. Those are not insults they are obvious facts. No one with any science would make the claim that nitrogen gas reflects IR and no one with logic would try to prove this false claim by associating IR to a solid sphere. This is evidence (not insult) that you do not know science and you are not a logical thinker. Both statements I make are correct based upon the evidence. Deal with it.
Sorry Norman, but your “evidence” is WRONG. Worse is you use it to falsely accuse me. Instead of admitting your mistake, you try to blame your source!
You have no character, and no understanding of the science. You believe ANYTHING your cult spews.
I’m content with that if you are.
Hey Clint R,
how big is a photon, you know they can go through two doors at the same time, right?
bob, please stop trolling.
re R.W. Wood, Pratt, and Nasif Nahle. Excellent comparison here with a mathematical proof…
note…there are odd hex strings throughout the article that I don’t understand. Seems to be an artefact or something.
https://principia-scientific.org/the-famous-wood-s-experiment-fully-explained/
This guy figures Pratt got too much water vapour into his experiment, possibly from using plastic wrap. Apparently WV dramatically increases the conductivity of heat through air after 40 to 50C.
binny…”1. When I write optical wobbling, I mean an optical illusion, and not a physical motion”.
***
Libration is not an illusion, it’s a view angle problem. At various times, an observer from Earth can actually see further around the Moon’s edge than at other times in its orbit.
Libration (longitudianl) occurs because the Moon’s orbit is a slight ellipse. If it was a circular orbit there would be no libration. As it stands, there are two points on the orbital path where the lunar orbit is the same as on a circle. That’s at either end of the major axis.
That’s because we are looking at the Moon straight on along a radial line at those points. On other points of the orbital path, the radial line takes on components like vectors representing a ball rolling down a ramp. There is a sine and cosine component for the radial line connecting the Earth centre to the lunar centre and that allows us to see a bit around the lunar edge at certain points on the orbital path.
Something for ClintR.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga
EM,
“The eruption of the HT volcano was unusual in that it also injected a massive amount of water vapor into the stratosphere. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so this injection of water will tend to warm the climate.”
Errrr, no.
Unfortunately for this dreamer, the atmosphere over the oceans, unsurprisingly, is laden with far more water vapour than arid deserts, but the oceans are far cooler than arid deserts given the same amount of insolation.
One cannot “warm the climate”, in any case. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. The writer is confused, ignorant, or a demented cultist. Nobody has managed to warm a thermometer using water vapour, CO2, or any other gas.
Try again.
Thanks Ent, but we already know about Andrew Dressler. They’re soooo desperate!
Last year’s underwater volcano, “Hunga-Tonga” for short, was “unprecedented” in the modern era. The Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE) raised Earth temperatures. The immediate explanation was radiative warming from all the water vapor the eruption put into the stratosphere. But, that was only a guess, and it was wrong. Even some Warmists here know that can’t happen.
So, what caused the warming?
Throwing a rock into a still pond produces a ripple (wave) on the surface of the water. The ripple expands, making a larger and larger circle. The wave continues across the surface of the pond, slowly dissipating. If it hits a structure in the water, the wave will reflect, as we would expect. If the wave encounters another wave, it will add/subtract based on the laws of physics (Superposition).
But waves on the surface of a pond are 2-dimensional. The atmosphere is 3-dimensional. So it is necessary to imagine a wave formed by a perturbation in the upper atmosphere. The wave would be expanding into larger and larger spheres, instead to 2-dimensional circles. As with the wave on a pond, if the wave encountered a solid object, it would be reflected. If it encountered another wave, it would add or subtract, depending on the motions.
Most people are not familiar with the Polar Vortex. It plays a big role in how the HTE can warm the lower atmosphere. For the purposes here, consider the PV as a super-large hurricane, positioned high in the sky. A PV is sucking air off the troposphere and dumping it into the stratosphere. The PV acts as another cooling system for Earth. Closing off the PV effectively traps the warm air, restricting its flow to the stratosphere. Upper level waves can negatively affect PV much like wind sheer can negatively affect a hurricane.
This eruption was extremely interesting in the climate debate. The eruption was most definitely a “forcing”. Its effects lasted for about a year and a half. The effects warmed UAH Global by about 0.20-0.25C, average. The HTE will be an ongoing debate because the GHE cult is jealous that the eruption can do something CO2 cannot. But, the HTE is REAL, regardless of a never-ending debate.
The link provides the monthly UAH Global values since the eruption. Displayed in column form allows the impact of the HTE waves to be seen. The horizontal bar at the bottom is ENSO, with the reddish color coinciding with temps below zero and the bluish color coinciding with the temps above zero. You can see how ENSO adds to the effects of HTE.
https://postimg.cc/8FFtpjZF
Understanding how HTE would affect Earth temperatures allowed for the predictions over the last several months of abnormally high anomalies. Being able to predict correctly is important in validating the science.
ClintR
Yes, I am familiar with all four major jetstreams, their origin due to the Hadley circulation and the factors influencing them.
Which is why I know you are talking bullshit.
Sorry Ent, but your false accusation merely reflects your desperation. You can see the HTE in UAH Global results. Well, that’s if you were able to think for yourself….
Seen any passenger jets flying backward lately?
grammie clone fails to understand that a 1 or 2 month blip in the UAH LT proves nothing about the connection with the HT-HH eruption, which happened more than 18 months ago. Since the effects would be strongest in the Stratosphere, not near the surface, where’s the proof?
Swanson is still trying to impress the “worthless one” that is no longer with us.
Poor Swanson, he can’t figure anything out by himself.
Swanson says:
”which happened more than 18 months ago.”
Well one cannot glean causation from a temperature record whether its CO2 or volcanoes. One can only look at the association.
Here is something of great interest. Compare the ozone hole size progression. (with the caveat that there is some interannual ozone hole variation) But this July has the largest at least since the year 2000 which is the year recognized as the peak of ozone depletion from anthropogenic emissions).
typically the ozone hole peaks in October each year.
Peak year of anthropogenic ozone depletion:
July 2000 https://tinyurl.com/e7yj4eja
July 2021 https://tinyurl.com/yc23u9a2
Eruption of Hunga Tonga January 2022
July 2022 https://tinyurl.com/4xvra36k
July 2023 https://tinyurl.com/bdfj67vr
bill..we banned CFCs because they were believed to be causing the ozone hole. Since we banned them, another hole has opened over the other Pole. There has been zero effect on the ozone holes.
It’s obvious that we are in deep do do if we don’t stop the alarmist ijits.
The last hole formed after El Chichon in 1982 and hit the record low ozone in 1994.
El Chichon sent up tons of Chlorine. Pinatubo a negligible amount.
HTE sent up an unprecedented amount of seawater into the stratosphere and mesosphere.
Sodium Chloride which is the most abundant mineral in seawater destroys ozone.
https://tinyurl.com/48zbucfp
UV also destroys water molecules and does so at TOA where the greenies claim the highest robustness of the greenhouse effect (coldest region of the atmosphere where water resides)
So since the IPCC claims ozone has a much larger greenhouse effect than its effect blocking UV maybe there is nothing to worry about. But at least we have an experiment in effect with the anthropogenic element regulated. How many lives it cost I don’t know. But if this informs us we can build a memorial to them.
Hunter, You repeat a fundamental error. The Tropopause is not TOA, but it is a very cold point in the atmosphere above which there’s very little water vapor. Above the tropopause, the temperature increases thru the Stratosphere. The term “TOA” is usually to locations above almost all of the atmosphere, perhaps hundreds of miles above the surface where satellites orbit.
As for the ozone hole, it typically reaches maximum loss in October. Looking at this animation which begins in 1979, it’s hard to see a long term impact from El Chichon, which produced lots of SO2 in 1982. Note that any chlorine from the El Chichon eruption would not have made it to the Antarctic by October 1982, since the volcano is a NH source. Where’s your evidence for tons of chlorine being lofted into the Stratosphere and impacting the Ozone Hole?
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter, You repeat a fundamental error. The Tropopause is not TOA, but it is a very cold point in the atmosphere above which theres very little water vapor. ”
—————————–
Swanson you are suffering from a bad case of the niggles.
I didn’t define TOA, I said the action was on the TOA. Water in all forms, clouds, vapor, ice, and liquid water make up about 90% of the TOA and that is where freshly released UV does it work destroying water molecules. Thats just a concern for your theory. So trying to build strawmans and red herrings that I was talking about even treatment of TOA by UV you are just full of shitt.
Swanson says:
”Wheres your evidence for tons of chlorine being lofted into the Stratosphere and impacting the Ozone Hole?”
HTE lofted 146 teragrams of water into the stratosphere. That water was seawater which is 3.5% sodium chloride.
And I guess you might want some evidence that salt can affect the ozone layer.
https://tinyurl.com/48zbucfp
The breakdown of molecules with chlorine is a slow process thus you won’t get an immediate effect like you would with water acting as a GHG.
So one might say HTE was yet another experimental test of the ‘classical’ GHE and again it didn’t pass the test.
Now we get to watch in real time what the effect of chlorine does to ozone and figure out how many of the 24 some odd watts of UV blocked by ozone gets released.
A good thing July at the southpole doesn’t have much sun. But come October the folks down there better be well prepared with a lot of sunscreen.
Hunter should read what he previously wrote:
Your latest reply jumped to the HT-HH eruption, slip sliding around your original claim about El Chichon and chlorine.
Then you claimed that:
But, you wrote:
Again, TOA is shorthand for “Above (or outside) the atmosphere”. Water “resides” mostly in the Troposphere and the coldest region with water is at the transition between the Troposphere and the Stratosphere called the Tropopause.
Swanson I was talking about the tropopause which is a region in the atmosphere where water begins to disappear whose virtual surface is exposed to UV from the sun.
If you want verification of any other details do your own research and come back and tell me I am FOS if you find anything.
Clint tries to repeat his ‘and the agony of defeat moment’.
Why?
Doubt.
You lads still have no science, I see.
You offer no mechanism for HT warming. it is just a poor attempt at fraud.
The only appropriate response to it is ridicule.
Nate,
There is no HT warming.
Try heating a thermometer using water at the same temperature as thermometer. Do it at night just for fun.
Ho ho ho.
Nate says:
”You offer no mechanism for HT warming. it is just a poor attempt at fraud.
The only appropriate response to it is ridicule.”
Ozone blocks alot of UV (double digit wattage amounts).
Also ozone if destroyed by any molecule that has a chlorine atom. Seawater is 3.5% by weight sodium chloride.
Check this progression out:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1521147
Bill,
In Clint’s essay he claims
“The Hunga-Tonga Effect (HTE) raised Earth temperatures.”
and then he claims to address this question:
“So, what cause the warming”
I don’t see any answer there. Can you point it out and explain it?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1519355
Bill gets first shot here. If he’s busy, I’ll respond later.
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel!
“Ill respond later.”
No you won’t. You had your chance and had no answers.
Nate you were concerned about the lack of a stated mechanism.
Why would you want to restrict the discussion to the 4 corners of a post that didn’t outline a mechanism?
Nate admits. “I don’t see any answer there. Can you point it out and explain it?”
Gladly! The explanatory paragraph, with emphasis:
I wasn’t aware of the NaCl/Ozone connection Bill Hunter mentioned. That would increase the HTE even more — a “perfect storm”!
Clint again posts his paragraph that says NOTHING about how the HTE produces warming.
Bill, it seems you can’t point out anywhere in Clint’s post where he explains the mechanism.
Clearly Clint is trying to con us, and failing.
No, you don’t offer an explanation nor a shred of evidence that the HTE ‘closes off the PV’ whatever that BS means.
Nate, I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. You would need both a science background, and an acceptance of reality, to understand.
Sorry.
Nate says:
”Clint again posts his paragraph that says NOTHING about how the HTE produces warming.
Bill, it seems you cant point out anywhere in Clints post where he explains the mechanism.”
———————————
Hmmmm, seems to me that this qualifies: ”Closing off the PV effectively traps the warm air, restricting its flow to the stratosphere.”
You are all about losing heat from the surface. If heat goes into the stratosphere we know that the surface cools. The opposite would also be true.
“Hmmmm, seems to me that this qualifies: Closing off the PV effectively traps the warm air, restricting its flow to the stratosphere.”.
Wow. The standards for what constitutes a good logical argument have really slid!
First of all he has not shown evidence that the PV has been ‘closed off’, whatever that even means.
Second he has not linked that in any way to the HTE, nor offered any explanation why they should be linked.
He seems to have left that part out of his essay.
It is some truly fine bullshit.
Yeah kind of looks like your argument for the GHE Nate.
I can agree on that.
Says Bill, who from time to time says he believes there is a GHE and AGW.
It is all quite puzzling.
Oh there is a GHE Nate. GHGs are a necessary element, but being a necessary element doesn’t mean they are a sufficient cause.
You just without proof believe they are alone sufficient and you have no evidence of that fact. In fact every attempt to prove it ends in failure. thats why you can’t produce any evidence supporting what you believe beyond the fact they are merely a necessary element.
“You just without proof believe they are alone sufficient and you have no evidence of that fact. ”
The flimsy excuses are getting weirder, Bill.
Indeed GHG are a necessary and key element of the GHE of the Earth.
But no one, certainly not me, has ever claimed CO2 is operating in isolation from the whole system.
The strawmen just keep on arriving, and the goal posts are in constant motion!
I didn’t accuse you of doing it in isolation. You just cherry pick the other stuff to do what you do.
ent…what else would you expect from an uber-alarmist like Dessler. If HT is producing the current warming it kills his catastrophic climate change meme.
Perhaps I should reject everything you write?
“You can’t believe this, it came from that denialist Gordon Robertson.”
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
This is getting daft.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-66461158
EM,
Just reality, whether you choose to accept it or not.
It’s summer and a bad season for forest fires. So was 1938 here in BC, in fact, it was worse.
The upside of melting glaciers: some “cold” cases will finally be solved.
https://youtu.be/JeIGJxznaUk
It’s more complex than that. Since glaciers are dynamic entities they eventually produce bodies they engulfed. Everest has been producing bodies that disappeared long ago and Everest is not suffering from global warming.
One of the more fascinating events was the discovery of climber George Mallory who disappeared in 1924 as he and a partner tried for the summit. Something went horribly wrong and both disappeared. Mallory’s body was discovered in the early 2000s, on the surface, on a gravel bed near the top of a precipice.
Bodies that disappear on a mountain are not necessarily engulfed in a glacier. Mallory had a bad fall that snapped the rope to which he was attached but he was nowhere near a glacier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mallory
“Everest is not suffering from global warming.”
Actually it is. Areas of the climb which were firm ice are now thawing in Summer and becoming unstable. The glacier on which base camp is sited is also becoming unstable and unsafe.
A,
So the glacier advanced after 1986, and then retreated again?
Happens all the time. Why do you think it is important enough to repeat here?
Do you believe it is connected to a GHE which you can’t describe?
In January there was an underwater volcano eruption. According to a NASA report, it increased moisture into the atmosphere by approx 13%. Being that water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas, thats huge. Id expect to have an effect of this summers heat temps until the atmosphere rings some of that moisture out.
Your thoughts???
testing…
binny…”Do you know how Woods pamphlet ends?
I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter ”
***
There is a simple explanation for that. Wood did not need to go any deeper, he was a renowned authority on gases like CO2. Neils Bohr consulted with him re sodium vapour. He knew, based on the properties of CO2 that it could not produce a greenhouse effect like a real greenhouse could warm air.
The theory in the day was that glass in a real greenhouse trapped IR and that trapped IR warmed the greenhouse air. Wood, an expert on IR and UV radiation could not see how that would work. He hypothesized the real heating agent was a lack of convection and set out to prove that, hence his experiment.
The Wood paper was written in 1909. In those days, the mechanism by which EM was absorbed and emitted by electrons in atoms was unknown. It was not till 1913 that Bohr produced that theory. Wood claimed that nitrogen and oxygen could not cool by radiating energy but he may have been wrong about that since the mechanism was unknown in 1909.
I have no doubt that Wood was correct in his explanation of the real GHE, that N2 and O2 absorb heat from the surface by conduction then transport it higher into the atmosphere via convection. He claimed that N2/O2 could not release the heat but we now know the reason, radiation is simply a poor means of cooling a gas.
Eventually, N2 and O2 should dissipate heat via radiation but meantime both cool due to moving to higher altitudes. However, the explanation for the real GHE makes far more sense than a trace gas being responsible for both heating the atmosphere and radiating all heat to space.
lot’s of internal service errors tonight
Robertson
” binny ‘Do you know how Woods pamphlet ends?
I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter’
***
There is a simple explanation for that. Wood did not need to go any deeper, he was a renowned authority on gases like CO2. ”
You are so dumb and brazen.
Lying all the time by magnifying the knowledge of a scientist you persistently appeal to the authority of.
Wood never has been an authority on gases like CO2. let alone onb far IR.
He was a renowned authority on light (visible light and its nearby frequencies, i.e. UV and near IR with a wavelength less than 5 microns and hence of solar origin.
*
” Wood claimed that nitrogen and oxygen could not cool by radiating energy… ”
Where did Wood ever claim that? Show your sources.
You are inventing stuff all the time: stuff you wouldn’t dare publish anywhere else than on this blog tolerating even the worst nonsense.
*
More nonsense:
” I have no doubt that Wood was correct in his explanation of the real GHE, that N2 and O2 absorb heat from the surface by conduction then transport it higher into the atmosphere via convection. He claimed that N2/O2 could not release the heat but we now know the reason, radiation is simply a poor means of cooling a gas. ”
Never would a science man like Wood be dumb and brazen enough to claim that a surface would heat a gas by conduction, as all atmospheric gases are perfect insulators, with a conduction factor weaker than that of solids by a factor up to 1000.
Binny,
” . . . as all atmospheric gases are perfect insulators, . . . ”
I don’t think so. Sunlight seems to reach the surface regardless. Up to 1000 W/m2 or so.
Pretty crappy insulation – doesn’t even keep warm at night in the desert!
Oceans Retain Methane: New Nature Study Finds Very Little Danger Of Methane Reaching Surface
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/10/oceans-retain-methane-new-nature-study-finds-very-little-danger-of-methane-reaching-surface/
–Dissolves in the ocean
In 2016, a paper published in the Reviews of Geophysics concluded that the annual emissions of methane to the ocean from degrading gas hydrates are far smaller than greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere from human activities and that most of the methane released by gas hydrates never even reaches the atmosphere. The methane often remains in the undersea sediments, dissolves in the ocean, or is converted to carbon dioxide by microbes.–
Well, we live in world with volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. And space rocks impacting the planet.
Also the average temperature of ocean is not changing much and no end of climate alarmist saying world’s on fire.
And if was, it might be different.
lots of internal service errors tonight
ent…from University of Ireland…
https://tinyurl.com/y9mjyzd2
This lab experiment corroborates the claim by Shula that radiation is a poor form of heat dissipation while conduction/convection is far superior.
The implication is that planets are warmer than they should be because radiation to space is inefficient. There goes the energy budget theory.
This lab experiment corroborates the claim by Shula that radiation is a poor form of heat dissipation while conduction/convection is far superior.
It is corroborated further here with an analysis of the Moon, which is warmer than predicted by blackbody theory. The same applies to all planets.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191106200724/https://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf
I have alleged this in the past while offering no proof. Here is the proof. The Earth is hotter than it should be and solar energy simply maintains this higher than normal temperature. Therefore, energy in versus energy out does not need to balance.
Gordon,
In my view, the Earth is exactly at the temperature it is – no more, and no less.
If anyone at all says it should be at some other temperature, they might properly address their ideas to the Almighty, who might well ignore their importuning.
Reality doesn’t care what we think.
Gordon Robertson
Shula only demonstrated that EMR does not emit much when the radiating material has an emissivity of 0.05. That is all one can conclude. To do more is very poor science.
When changing the emissivity from 0.05 to 9.95, the only difference is that energy transfer changed by 30%. To conclude otherwise is to ignore the facts.
RLH, emissivity ranges from 0 to 1.
Of course I realize you like to make up your own personal “science”.
Bright chrome has an emissivity of approximately 0.05. Paint has an emissivity of about 0.95 (the previous 9.95 was a typo/mistake).
Thanks for admitting your mistake, RLH.
I wish ALL of the cult could admit their mistakes….
RLH
30% in a good amount of change and will alter temperature to a noticeable degree as you can understand with the radiators from previous blog posts that you engaged in. If you reduce the radiant heat element the temperature of the radiator increase to the point it is now good for drying towels.
“If you reduce the radiant heat element the temperature of the radiator increase to the point it is now good for drying towels.”
Sounds like incomprehensible gibberish to me.
Reduced heat increases temperature? Maybe you really meant to say something else, but confused yourself.
Try again.
The actual temperature of the radiators is not in question, it is the change in radiant transfer that is interesting.
What would Earth be like if it was a lot warmer?
I would say Earth with average temperature 25 C, is a lot warmer.
If Earth had a global average surface temperature of 25 C, Earth would definitely be in Greenhouse global climate.
Earth’s had many greenhouse global climates, but is possible that they had average temperature of 25 C {or warmer}?
India’s average yearly temperature is about 25 C.
And there many small regions or countries with higher average temperature. Any tropical island paradise, would have higher average
temperature- Fiji is about 26 C.
A greenhouse global climate will always have a warm ocean.
The current average temperature of Earth’s liquid ocean is about 3.5 C. And warm ocean would much warmer than 3.5 C.
What would Earth be like, if the average temperature of the ocean was 10 C?
One question would be, would ocean with average temperature of 10 C have similar type of ocean temperature uniformity like our ocean which average around 3.5 C.
With our 3.5 C ocean, 90% of it, is 3 C or colder.
So, you have tropical surface water at around 26 C, and you have some deep ocean water as cold as about -2 C, but most of it is within few degree of temperature difference.
So if the average ocean temperature was 10 C, would most of it be also within a few degrees difference in temperature?
I’ve lost count of the number of regions which have experienced severe dry periods followed by severe wildfires this year. Many more than you’d expect in a normal year and spread around the world.
My intuition is that there’s a cause and effect relationship involved, though I’m not sure what.
“Many more than you’d expect in a normal year and spread around the world.”
And how many would you expect? 10, 100, 1000?
What’s “normal”?
Neither you nor anybody else can say – if you are required to justify your answer!
No offense intended, but nature is chaotic and unpredictable. That’s reality whether we like it or not.
So 1878, where droughts were in evidence world wide, is not of significance?
If so, then that certainly debunks the whole ‘warmer is better’ meme.
Or that recent events are driving wild fires.
Droughts were never a good thing for humans.
But the 1878 event was NOT driven by CO2.
Yes it is certainly true that bad weather related events have happened in history before the rise in CO2 of the last century.
And yet no one, certainly not me, have claimed otherwise.
So you try your classic strawman tactic again.
And it is quite boooring.
Nate admits that natural climate change is real.
Next step is get him to admit its poorly understood.
That’s the question.
How do your robust statistics help?
Can they distinguish between the extremes of the normal range of variation and causation.
Which of the 1878 and 2023 drought years were variation and which were causation?
Why would you trust non-robust statistics in climate?
“Can they distinguish between the extremes of the normal range of variation and causation.”
Yes. IQR (Inter quartile range) is considered to be less influenced by outliers and model assumption than Standard Deviation for instance.
“Which of the 1878 and 2023 drought years were variation and which were causation”
Well I think we can all agree that the 1878 event was not caused by CO2.
Since 1878 it seems the average temperature of ocean has warmed by about .1 C.
The ocean’s thermal expansion has been about 2″ or more.
If ocean were to warm by as much .5 C, it would large effect upon global temperature, but with .1 C increase this effect is lost in global variablity if talking periods of time less than 1 decade but over more 5 decades of time, it’s measurable.
The US and Canada have lost at least two towns to wildfires lately. Linton in British Columbia in 2021 and Lahaina in Hawaii in 2023.
How many towns were lost to wildfires in the 1878 drought?
I can’t find one.
“1877 Paris, Texas, the first of three fires that destroyed much of the town.
1877 Saint John, New Brunswick, fire destroyed 1,600 buildings.
1878 The Great Fire of Hong Kong destroyed 350 to 400 buildings across more than 10 acres (40,000 m2) of central Hong Kong”
1871 Chicago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chicago_Fire
The problem in the climate change narrative is of too many people relying on ‘intuition’ and then egregiously ignore the data that mostly goes contrary to intuition.
Yeah, the media is going nuts reporting on ‘record’ warm temperatures around the globe this year. Something unusual is going on; however, the case that its due to CO2 as the cause is not made. My intuition is that Hunga Tonga is a more likely cause.
“The problem in the climate change narrative is of too many people relying on intuition … My intuition is … “
This is from a guy who said about the GHE – “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”
So you claim that CO2 does something, but cleverly refuse to say what it is.
That’s clever, but completely useless.
Earlier, Norman (or somebody similar) wrote –
“In this case, the GHE builds on established optics, thermodynamics, and atmospheric physics and its predicted radiative forcing has been directly observed.”
Maybe he could at least describe this “GHE”?
Where has it been observed, measured and documented? What does it do?
Are you quite mad, or simply in the thrall of some cult leader?
Accept reality – the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a much hotter molten state!
Geez.
“Maybe he could at least describe this GHE?
It has been described for you many times. Obviously you don’t comprehend or retain information.
“Where has it been observed, measured and documented? What does it do?”
This has been explained for you many times. Obviously you don’t comprehend or retain information.
Your problem Nate, is that your explanations don’t “hold water”. Typically all your cult’s efforts reduce to:
1. Sun heats the surface. (True.)
2. Surface heats the atmosphere. (True.)
3. The atmosphere “re-heats” the surface. (FALSE.)
Clint R
YOU:
“1. Sun heats the surface. (True.)
2. Surface heats the atmosphere. (True.)
3. The atmosphere re-heats the surface. (FALSE.)”
I do not think most believe the 3rd point you posted. The atmosphere reduces the amount of radiant heat the surface loses. With the same solar input the surface will reach a higher steady state temperature than without the radiant “insulation” just as any other type of insulation will increase the temperature of a heated object (the insulation will not add new heat to the object, just lower the amount of heat lost). Not so hard but you will persist in not understanding it.
That’s why you can’t state a description of your bogus GHE. You have to keep changing things.
If you’re saying the atmosphere is insulation, like that in a house, then you’re correct. The atmosphere has the ability to hold thermal energy (see heat content/capacity). But that means N2 and O2 are doing the work, since that’s 99% of the atmosphere. CO2 is a leak in the insulation, since it can emit to space.
If you’re claiming CO2 is “radiative insulation”, that doesn’t work for 15μ photons. Such a low energy photon could not warm Earth’s 288K surface.
Either way, you lose.
What will you try next?
Norman,
One minor(?) problem.
The Moon has no “insulation”. Temperatures reach 127 C or so. Looks like your “insulation” prevents solar radiation from reaching the surface, doesn’t it?
About 35% of it, in fact, as measured by Tyndall and NASA. Some blockheads think that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it hotter!
You arent such a blockhead, are you?
Your description of the GHE as “a pile of blankets” makes you look a bit simple.
Throw “a pile of blankets” over a thermometer left in the sun, and watch the temperature drop.
You need a better GHE description, obviously.
Clint R
The 15 micron photons are not heating the surface to 288 K, the Sun is doing that. The CO2 is reducing the amount of heat the surface loses.
N2 and O2 do not reflect or stop IR, it goes through like a vacuum. The IR emitted by the surface is not at all restricted by these gases. They do not warm the surface they actually act to cool it by convection.
It is all based upon the well established (experimentally verifiable equation) radiant heat transfer equation you call bogus even though engineers use to all the time and have not found it yet to be bogus.
You believe calling something that works and is used and not found in error to be bogus makes you correct. Odd thought process there. You have yet to provide any evidence to support this claim or that nitrogen gas reflects IR. Neither of these false statements have been proven to be true but so far that does not stop you from trying to spread them.
Norman,
One minor(?) problem.
The Moon has no “insulation” Temperatures reach 127 C or so. Looks like your insulation prevents solar radiation from reaching the surface, doesnt it?
About 35% of it, in fact, as measured by Tyndall and NASA. Some blockheads think that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it hotter!
You arent such a blockhead, are you?
Your description of the GHE as “a pile of blankets” makes you look a bit simple.
Throw “a pile of blankets” over a thermometer left in the sun, and watch the temperature drop.
You need a better GHE description, obviously.
That’s right, Norman. CO2 can NOT raise Earth’s surface temperature. As people that understand this like to say, “It’s the SUN, stoopid!”
I don’t have time to teach physics to people that pervert walking around a table, but since you didn’t insult me, or falsely accuse me, in your last comment, I’ll give you a homework assignment:
Find the diameter (longest value) of a nitrogen molecule. (Reasonable estimate is fine.)
Its the SUN, stoopid!
Easily tested.
Temperatures have risen 1.2C since 1880. Using the SB calculation that increases outward radiation by a factor of (288.2/287)^4 or 1.016.
To cause that change would require a similar increase in the Sun’s output.
That would be 1360-(1360/1.016)=21.4W/m^2
Can you show that the Sun is 21.4W/m^2 brighter than it was in 1880?
Oops, wrong place.
The answer, of course is No, you cant.
Solar output has been almost flat, so it cant be changes in the Sun causing the warming.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
Couple of mistakes there Ent, as usual.
First, you can’t use the S/B equation like that. It only applies to an emitting surface. You’re still trying to treat flux as energy. Using it incorrectly you get bogus results, like your “21.4 W/m^2”.
Next, the “It’s the SUN, stoopid” is in reference to the GHE nonsense.
1. Sun warms the surface. (True.)
2. Surface warms the atmosphere. (True.)
“ITSS”
3. The atmosphere re-heats the surface. (FALSE.)
With the exception of solar Min/Max and flares, Sun is pretty constant. It’s called the “solar constant”.
Clint R
Your choice of words is strange “pervert walking around a table”. Not sure what drives your thought process.
You had asked for an example of orbiting without rotation. Your ball on a string is only rotating since the string and ball are connected. Your primary example you use to “prove” the moon does not rotate on its axis is ball on a string.
You can move around a table (don’t use the word walking) which would actually be like an orbit since you are not connected to the table.
You move around (not walk) the table without rotating your body. If the Moon did not rotate once on its axis per orbit people on Earth would see all sides of the Moon as you would find in my description (you asked for an example of orbit with no rotation). Have your wife sit on the table as you move around it without rotating on your axis. Shew will see the front of you, both sides and the back of you at some point in your journey around the table without rotating your body in any way.
Entropic man
I do not agree with your logic in calculating the change in solar input to achieve a change in temperature of 1.2 C
If you use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for Earth surface (an emissivity of around 0.95 in IR).
At 287 K the surface would emit 365.5 W/m^2
At 288.2 K the surface would emit 371.6 W/m^2
The solar input would only need to increase by 6.1 W/m^2 to cause this temperature change.
Norman, if you’re walking around a table, in a counter-clockwise direction, then your left side always faces the table. If you’re walking around the table trying to always face a distant point in space, then you’re perverting “walking”.
Why do you reject reality?
Norman
I may well have overestimated, but the same objection to ClintR’s claim applies.
The Sun’s output has not increased, so cannot be the cause of the observed warming.
EM,
If I noticed thermometers getting hotter, I’d look for a higher temperature heat source nearby. Radiation travels in straight lines, so the source of the additional heat shouldn’t be too hard to find.
What do you think is causing it?
Clint R
Maybe reread my post. I specifically said NOT WALKING because you are hung up on words. I said MOVE AROUND A TABLE. Can you grasp it when it is in all CAPS? Now do you understand or do you need a video?
It is an experiment on my part to see if all caps will work with your thought process. Time will tell.
Anyway if you move around a table without rotating the person on the table will see all sides of you. When you walk around the table you are rotating your body with your steps and you rotate once on your axis as you walk around the table. In the case of one rotation per orbit the person on the table will only see the same side of you.
I know it is hopeless for you to understand this. That is why I am not really trying. Just more or less trying to see if you can get a message when it is in all caps. If that does not work I can try others ideas that also will not work with you.
WRONG again, Norman.
And now you’re even trying to pervert the act of walking!
If you walk down a straight white line, your left side always faces the same direction. If you stop and rotate in place, your left side will face different directions when rotating (spinning). There is a difference between walking straight and spinning.
If the white line is curved into a circle, your same side will face the inside of the circle. You are NOT spinning, you are walking in a circle.
If you try to pervert walking by “moving” in a circle while always facing a distant point, you are both walking AND spinning. There are two motions involved.
Someone that knows how to walk around a table, the ball-on-a-string, and Moon are ALL “moving” (orbiting) without spinning.
How will you try to pervert reality next?
Clint R,
“Find the diameter (longest value) of a nitrogen molecule. (Reasonable estimate is fine.)”
It is 75,000 times smaller than the wavelength of a 15 micron photon from a CO2 molecule.
Pretty hard to hit a Nitrogen molecule with a CO2 photon.
Entropic man
You are correct in pointing out the change in the Sun’s output is not the cause for the warming. Clint R will not care, evidence does not matter to him.
He seems obsessed with a few favorite words. He was like that when he went by another posting name (“hilarious” was his word choice then).
Now it is “pervert”, “cult”, “reject reality”. He is about as repetitive as Swenson.
Good luck to you if you can use any form of evidence to alter Clint R’s opinions. I have tried many ways with multiple lines of evidence. He will ignore them. Also he will never explain anything, he just waits to insult and denigrate anyone he can on this blog, then he cries when the same treatment comes his way.
He will never explain why the Earth surface is warming. He will never provide evidence nitrogen gas reflects IR (but he thinks it has something to do with the size of a photon and he treats a photon like a solid object).
I long ago came to the conclusion that the only way to change ClintR’skins would be trepanning.
However there are lurkers out there who should know that his arguments are false.
Ent and Norman are a good pairing. Norman doesn’t know how to walk, and Ent believes passenger jets fly backward!
(Norman, did you do your homework yet?)
“It has been described for you many times. Obviously you dont comprehend or retain information.”
Here’s a few of the “descriptions” which you support –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better. ”
“Not cooling, slower cooling.”
The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.
Followed by –
“A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface””.
“Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”
“The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets.”
These have been provided by commenters such as Willard, Bindidon, Tim Folkerts, bobdroege etc.
Another expert claims that there is an earthen GHE, a planetary GHE, with one having a “temperature” of 255 K, one of 288 K, and another GHE with unspecified properties.
Now that you have made a laughing stock of yourself by supporting these nonsensical “description”, maybe you could try to provide your own explanation, and give everyone even more reason to laugh!
Your efforts to wriggle out of admitting you can’t describe the GHE are not making you look terribly clever, are they?
Maybe you need to try harder.
Because Earth is mostly covered by ocean, it can be much warmer than it is now.
Due to geological processes, it has been in Ice Age for millions of years.
But because it has ocean [which is cold] the cold ocean increases the average temperature higher as compared to a planet which is lacking an ocean.
Venus at Earth distance, lacks a ocean and would be colder than Earth is when it’s in this ice age.
And Earth at Venus distance would be a lot warmer, but be much colder than Venus.
If Mars had an ocean it would much warmer than it is.
It is guessed that Mars did have a liquid ocean, billions of years ago, when the sun emitted less sunlight then it does presently.
One could argue that past Mars liquid ocean were caused by a more geologically active planet, but Earth is currently, also is quite geologically active {probably geologically active than compared to when Mars had plate tectonic activity and when in had an liquid]. ocean}.
I would respond to your requests, Swenson
But I don’t speak Donkey.
Bumbling Bobby,
What requests are those?
Are you off with the fairies again – claiming that you can explain something you cannot even describe?
Here’s your “explanation” for something or other –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
That’s specious nonsense, of course, even allowing for the juvenile attempt at trying to appear clever. I should not have to point out that reducing the amount of sunlight reaching a thermometer makes the thermometer colder, not hotter.
You can disagree with people who actually understand physics, even NASA, but the reason that the maximum surface temperature on Earth due to sunlight, is less than 100 C, is due to the atmosphere preventing about 35% of solar radiation reaching the surface!
That sentence might be a bit long for you to comprehend, but don’t blame me if you are a bit slow. You still can’t describe the GHE, can you? Is it supposed to make the Earth hotter, do you think? Suddenly, after four and a half billion years of cooling? And, of course, only when the sun is shining brightly – not at night, in shade, when it’s snowing?
No wonder you can’t describe this GHE!
The average temperature of the whole Earth’s surface Donkey, not the temperature of selected places on Earth.
What part of that does your Donkey brain refuse to understand?
You seem to want a one sentence ‘description’ that explains all the relevant physics to people whose science backgrounds varies from high school to PhD. Sorry — that ain’t possible.
All of the sentences are more or less accurate as far as they go. All are bit you have taken out of context as if they were people’s full, complete explanation. If you want to understand, at some point you need to actually read a textbook or two, rather than extracting sentences and quoting them out of context. If you don’t know that physics (and don’t want to know the physics), no one can explain it to you.
Folkerts, if you can’t describe your bogus GHE, without circuitous rambling, then it’s bogus.
Tim,
“All of the sentences are more or less accurate as far as they go.”
Really? “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”
Is that more accurate, less accurate, or more or less completely inaccurate?
You bang on about “explanation”, but you can’t even describe what you are supposedly explaining. All you can do is complain that it is not fair that I keep asking for you to actually describe the GHE!
Here’s what you said –
“The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”
What is this “claim” in relation to? You don’t say. The GHE, perhaps? No answer. What is the direction of this slope? Up, down, sideways?
You mutter about a “full, complete, explanation”, which is irrelevant – you believe you can explain something that you can’t even describe.
Maybe you could describe what effect the GHE is supposed to have? How hard can it be?
The answer, of course is “No, you cant.”
Solar output has been almost flat, so it can’t be changes in the Sun causing the warming.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
“1. Sun heats the surface. (True.)
2. Surface heats the atmosphere. (True.)
3. The atmosphere re-heats the surface. (FALSE.)”
Misrepresentation. Heat flow must pass THROUGH the atmosphere.
The notion that it will be unaffected by the temperature of the atmosphere is illogical. In fact the atmosphere is acting as an insulating blanket for the Earth’s surface.
1. Furnace heats house.
2. House heats its attic insulation.
3. Heat flow out of house is reduced because of insulation.
Notice there is no need for the insulation to heat the house! So this is the usual STRAWMAN.
In that scenario, N2 and O2 would be the insulation. CO2 would be a leak in the insulation.
Thanks for debunking the GHE nonsense, Nate.
“In that scenario, N2 and O2 would be the insulation.”
The scenario is “Heat flow must pass THROUGH the atmosphere.” The scenario is heat in the form of radiation (thermal IR).
N2 and O2 allow easy passage for radiation; they are NOT insulation for radiation. (Like silver or copper allow easy passage for conduction of heat; they are not good insulation for your attic).
CO2 and H2O impede the passage of radiation; they ARE insulation for radiation. (Like fiberglass impedes the passage of heat by conduction; it IS good insulation for your attic).
Well foam insulation works by trapping air in the empty pockets of the foam.
However, those little air filled pockets don’t move. So building a theory on the basis of ”layers” in the atmosphere needs demonstration to be considered to be insulation.
A good place to start is in a box with GHG in it and see what happens.
And this is what happens: https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
Namely a greenhouse effect of any concern is not produced.
So you need a different argument Tim!
Folkerts, all your blah-blah just results in:
2. Surface heats the atmosphere. (True.)
So why all the blah-blah? What’s wrong with “short and sweet”, unless you’ve got something to hide?
Tim,
“CO2 and H2O impede the passage of radiation; they ARE insulation for radiation. (Like fiberglass impedes the passage of heat by conduction; it IS good insulation for your attic).”
Maybe you haven’t noticed the surface cools at night. The temperature drops, and slower cooling is still – cooling! An example of slow cooling is the Earth itself, which has been cooling for four and a half billion years – still glowing hot under 20 km or so of solidified rock.
At a guess, 20 km of rock (plus up to 10 km of water), is probably a better insulator than a bit f CO2 and H2O vapour! I know which one I would like to have between me and the heat from a thermonuclear explosion!
Are you describing the GHE as some sort of insulating effect of CO2 and H2O? You can’t actually describe the GHE, can you?
Sad.
Nate resorts to a pile of blankets – “In fact the atmosphere is acting as an insulating blanket for the Earths surface.”
Unfortunately, a pile of blankets which are insufficient to stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years! Some blankets!
Insulation can only change the rate at which a body hotter than its environment cools, not make it hotter. The Earth, being more than 99% hot enough to glow, is suspended in space, 300,000,000 km away from the Sun. Of course it’s going to cool!
As to your analogy, Buffon, using Newton’s law of cooling, calculated “By using in this sum only glass, sandstone, hard limestone, marble, and the ferruginous matter, one finds that the Earth sphere solidified down to its center in about 2905 years, that it cooled enough to be touched in ca. 33,911 years, and to room temperature in ca. 74,047 years.” At least he accepted reality, as did Newton, Fourier, Lord Kelvin, and many others who tried to determine the age of of the Earth by the rate at which it cooled.
Your internal heat source (furnace) runs out of fuel. The house cools.
Your brain is is overheated, and become addled. Let it cool down, and accept reality.
Only joking, reality doesn’t care whether you accept it or not.
When Swenson has no answers he returns to his favorite red herrings that say absolutely nothing about what is being discussed.
Even insulated things can cool. Just turn your insulated oven off, and it cools!
But being insulated makes your oven gets hotter and stays hotter when the heat source has been on, then it would get without insulation.
Don’t believe me, just turn it on with the door open!
And yes, the Earth has a heat source, the sun. And with the insulating effect of the atmosphere, the Earth gets hotter than it would get without the atmosphere.
These are quite simple concepts. But somehow you fail to comprehend them or retain them.
Now more red herrings please.
Its the pro-warming community that causes this Nate by not blueprinting the process to the degree that every component can be tested.
Last I heard the theory requires a lapse rate and that CO2 can change the lapse rate but not create one.
and you should be aware that insulation does create an analog to an atmospheric lapse rate with each layer of insulation.
the issue really boils down to convection being a huge negative feedback to a lapse rate, yet that doesn’t stop anybody from speculating about changes to the lapse rate like hotspots and such.
So in typical political fashion you find effects being stretched to their theoretical maximums and the negative feedbacks shrunk to zero and you want everybody to buy that BS
“or simply in the thrall of some cult leader?”
In the free and happy nation of China, they are required to listen
the thoughtless rambling of Pooh Bear.
And that is similar American’s Al Gore.
I can’t imagine the effort of listening to this, in order to save the world.
I wonder if Al dies during Joe’s term, will it be ordered that all flags are flown at half-mast?
Flags at federal buildings are be flown at half staff from the date of death to internment for any former vice president.
Quayle, Gore, Cheney, and Pence would all get this.
It is indeed a sad state of affairs that a considerable number of American children are unfamiliar with Proclamation 3044 of March 1, 1954.
The proclamation embodies a deeply ingrained ethos of respect, gratitude, and remembrance for those who have contributed to the nation’s growth. It reflects a tradition of honoring public servants not only for their official roles but for their enduring impact on the American story.
The ignorance of this proclamation shows a disconnection from the nuances of governance and civic duty and the importance of public service. It is also emblematic of a broader trend, where essential aspects of American history are overshadowed or altogether ignored.
Yes, but I was talking about all the flags.
A large increase in the temperature of the troposphere in the tropics is evident. This may have been influenced by the eruption of an underwater volcano, supplying large amounts of water vapor to the troposphere (in the tropics). This coincided with a weak El Nio. The effect of increased water vapor in the troposphere will be offset by a strong monsoon in India and the western Pacific.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/July2023/JULY_2023.png
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/global2/mimictpw_global2_latest.gif
Seems to be a lot of discussion about the injection of water vapor into the stratosphere causing warming for the next several years from its greenhouse gas effect.
The problem with that seems to be these folks are ignoring the basic theory and relying on the 3rd grader radiation model as does so many of our spinners in this forum do.
But the actual greenhouse theory is that increasing GHGs causes more emissions from higher in the atmosphere. . .where it is colder and thus limiting emissions to space.
The stratosphere though gets warmer with elevation so it wouldn’t display that effect. Combine that with complete silence from the CAGW crowd as to how that actually forces the surface leaves skeptics with absolutely nothing to criticize about the theory other than it is so poorly documented.
And of course after so many years of K. Trenberth selling the 3rd grader radiation model for global warming it took years to whitewash it from the internet but it has a life of its own in the minds of the folks indoctrinated by it.
Yes, water vapor in the stratosphere lowers the surface temperature, but it first finds its way into the troposphere, where it raises the temperature of the troposphere (not the surface), as happens during El Nino. During El Nino, the area of the warm Pacific surface increases, which causes a large amount of water vapor to dissipate into the troposphere and increase the temperature of the troposphere. All the time we are talking about the temperature in the troposphere and only the troposphere.
The Earth’s rotation may have caused water vapor to dissipate after the volcanic eruption along the equator.
https://i.ibb.co/Lxmn2Pr/cdas-sflux-ssta-global-1.png
“The stratosphere though gets warmer with elevation so it wouldnt display that effect. ”
Nope, the GH effect is reduced, but not zero. Because at the elevation of the water in the stratosphere, the temperature is still less than at the surface.
Nate you don’t even believe your own theory and now you hare coming up with exceptions to it without any sources. Since you have no sources for even how the mainstream theory works you are in here just belching up political points.
As usual, Nate is correct.
“In this region, the temperature increases with height. Heat is produced in the process of the formation of Ozone, and this heat is responsible for temperature increases, from an average -60F (-51C) at tropopause to a maximum of about 5F (-15C)”
From NASA
It doesn’t seem it would warm the tropics, but would cause a more uniform global temperature {which is global warming}.
thats the problem Bob.
When the stratosphere heats the surface cools. When the stratosphere cools the surface warms.
Additionally the current GHE theory applies that to the troposphere where water radiates the most. Increased CO2 starves the upper troposphere of heat and thus according to theory the surface has no other option but to warm because at that cooling level fewer emissions are going to space.
“Additionally the current GHE theory applies that to the troposphere where water radiates the most.”
Bad logic, Bill.
Why does that argue that it cannot apply above the troposphere, if water happens to be there?
That’s not true Bill,
It depends on what causes the warming, if it’s greenhouse gases the stratosphere cools, if it’s and increase in solar, the stratosphere warms.
Sorry
Nate says:
Additionally the current GHE theory applies that to the troposphere where water radiates the most.
Bad logic, Bill.
Why does that argue that it cannot apply above the troposphere, if water happens to be there?
———————————
What don’t you get about ”radiates the most”?
Meanwhile Bob makes another pointless point. Dullard.
No Bill,
I pointed out that you are full of it.
Maybe you should do a little research before you conclude something.
Maybe start with the fourth grade model of the atmospheric energy flows.
Thanks
I wasn’t aware that you also were done with the 3rd grader radiation model like Nate now seems to be.
Touche Bill!
“3rd grader radiation model like Nate now seems to be.”
Which is some model from Bill’s imagination that no one else uses.
“What dont you get about radiates the most?”
Doesn’t address the fact that your assertion
“The stratosphere though gets warmer with elevation so it wouldnt display that effect.”
is still wrong, and was based on bad logic!
In the mid naughts it was the most popular model on the internet with diagrams of it on many sites including Harvard University.
Now that you know it was bunk you should know that the majority of scientists still buy into it as we have seen on the forum until this month and we actually have a couple of defectors now.
Nate says:
”The stratosphere though gets warmer with elevation so it wouldnt display that effect.”
is still wrong, and was based on bad logic!
———————-
Now we are talking about the M&W theory explained as emissions getting higher and colder thus weaker creating the forcing. The genesis of the hotspot advanced by the growing non-3rd grader model bunch (not the Kevin Trenberth 3rd grader group)
But right of the bat if emission get higher in the stratosphere, then emissions get stronger. . . .oops!
“the majority of scientists still buy into it as we have seen on the forum”
Ha! They are not on this forum!
Mid oughts? OMG..
“But right of the bat if emission get higher in the stratosphere, then emissions get stronger. . . .oops!”
No oops if still colder than surface. And it certainly is!
Your assertion was wrong. Oh well!
Nate says:
”But right of the bat if emission get higher in the stratosphere, then emissions get stronger. . . .oops!”
No oops if still colder than surface. And it certainly is!
Your assertion was wrong. Oh well!
—————————-
But the forcing is less Nate that means it cools. If the forcing is the lack of cooling, higher in the stratosphere is more cooling and less forcing.
We have to keep working on this you have been inculcated to degrees you cannot even imagine.
“But the forcing is less Nate that means it cools. If the forcing is the lack of cooling, higher in the stratosphere is more cooling and less forcing.”
No. Bad logic.
The ADDED forcing from water injected into the stratosphere is less than it would be at the top of the troposphere, but not less than 0! Which is what it would be if NO water was injected into the stratosphere by the HTE.
Nate says:
”But the forcing is less Nate that means it cools. If the forcing is the lack of cooling, higher in the stratosphere is more cooling and less forcing.”
”No. Bad logic.”
”The ADDED forcing from water injected into the stratosphere is less than it would be at the top of the troposphere, but not less than 0! Which is what it would be if NO water was injected into the stratosphere by the HTE.”
———————–
The bad logic is coming from you Nate.
The theory is that the amount of radiation directly to space is determined by where in the atmosphere the emission directly to space occurs.
The theory goes if CO2 increases then the elevation of the emission directly to space will be less.
Thus this has been depicted as occurring the troposphere and the hotspot in the mid troposphere because in the stratosphere if the emission to space is higher it will be more emission to space erasing the imbalance of inadequate cooling. Yes it will be more both of what it was and and more than zero. But thats a good thing saying less warming or no additional warming.
If I am wrong about this you need to provide a blueprint of the GHE saying otherwise.
Within 5 years Water vapour will start to interact with Galactic Cosmic Rays again.
Instead of causing global warming ,water vapour will cause global cooling.
The cosmic rays start to get into the atmosphere again ,with the falling Solar activity.
Thick clouds for possibly 30 years .
Anthropogenic climate change denial pays well!
Helena, Montana. August 10, 2023.
The state of Montana was billed nearly $95,000 in total by the three expert witnesses the Attorney General’s Office utilized in the Held v. Montana climate change trial, two of whom the state never even called to testify.
Climatologist Judith Curry was one of the two expert witnesses who were never called to testify at the trial.
Curry billed the state through three separate invoices for a total of $63,999. She charged $400 an hour for 103 total hours of work for a total of $41,200; 102 hours of work done by a research associate at $200 an hour for a total of $20,400; and $2,099 for four plane tickets to travel from Reno to Helena and back for both weeks of the trial. It is unclear if the airline ticket invoices were paid by the state, as Curry said after the trial ended that she did not end up taking the flights.
On March 13, 2020, 16 young people filed a lawsuit in Montana state court challenging the constitutionality of Montana’s fossil fuel-based State Energy Policy and the “Climate Change Exception” in the Montana Environmental Policy Act. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the State Energy Policy and the Climate Change Exception violate the Public Trust Doctrine and constitutional provisions that protect the right to a clean and healthful environment, as well as their constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment.
It takes money and courage to fight perversion.
Good for Judith Curry and a pox on the 16 young people for wasting the state’s time.
Old cranks fight other things that cost money and won’t benefit them, like building new schools.
It’s a very big deal if you live in Montana and your tax dollars are paying Judith Curry.
At her December deposition, Curry confirmed that she had never conducted research or even reviewed scientific studies on Montana’s climate. Her credibility in these areas, Curry said, derived from her skills as a fast reader, and a “great Googler and finder of information” who is able to “assimilate a lot of information.” The state later decided not to call Curry to the stand and Montana’s legal team informed her the Thursday night of the first week of the trial.
The deposition demonstrated that Curry is not really acting as a scientist anymore, but more as someone with personal opinions, blogs, things that really undermine her credibility to testify in court.
Formerly a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Curry now runs a private weather forecasting company called Climate Forecast Applications Network. The company’s clients include electric utilities, energy traders in natural gas, and two petroleum companies, according to her deposition.
Curry’s shift towards denialism coincided with her career pivot towards private weather and climate forecasting for companies through her business, and away from original research and peer-reviewed publishing in academia.
Ark, this ain’t about science, as indicated by the bulk of nonsense you bring here. It’s about public opinion.
So hiring Curry is more for WOKE, than science. In WOKE, it’s not about who has the science, it’s about who has the most diversity.
“ain’t,” “WOKE”… are you sure you’re on the right sub-thread?
If you don’t think it’s a big deal to pay a PhD Climatologist $64K for doing only Google searches in preparation for a court trial, then, you clearly just fell off the turnip truck.
Once more Ark, for you people that can’t think for yourselves: It ain’t about science.
A paraplegic transvestite would be worth even more.
Chandrayaan-3, Luna 25, what’s next? Japan’s upcoming moon mission and more | List
https://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/post-chandrayaan-3-luna-25-whats-next-japans-upcoming-moon-mission-and-more-list-101691832383296.html
“Adding to this wave of activity, Japan is gearing up for the launch of the SLIM lander on August 26, merely three days after the anticipated Chandrayaan-3 landing.
Here’s an overview of the forthcoming lunar exploration programmes set to launch in the next couple of years, ”
Quite a list. I didn’t know about the SLIM lander launching on August 26.
GAO affirms NASA’s decision on Intuitive Machines’ $719M lunar contract
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/GAO_affirms_NASAs_decision_on_Intuitive_Machines_719M_lunar_contract_999.html
“In a recent move, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has endorsed NASA’s evaluation of the OMES III proposals, which subsequently resulted in a significant award to Intuitive Machines. The nod from GAO further reinforces the confidence in the selection process.”
…
“For those within the space industry and enthusiasts, the OMES III Contract’s intricacies provide an exciting landscape. The contract, defined as a cost-plus-fixed-fee indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, is tailored to bolster work associated with multiple space-related ventures. These include the Joint Polar Satellite System, NASA’s Exploration initiatives, and its In-space Services.”
Well, we don’t like “cost-plus” but if “cost-plus-fixed-fee indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract” is something like COTs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services
That has been working.
Anyways part of this is:
“A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch the IM-1 mission with the Nova-C lander built and owned by Intuitive Machines. The IM-1 mission will attempt to deliver a suite of science payloads to the surface of the moon for NASAs Commercial Lunar Payload Services program. Delayed from 3rd Quarter of 2022, December 2022, January 2023, March 2023, and June 2023.”
3rd Quarter Falcon 9 IM-1 Launch time: TBD
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
Anyhow, they have obviously have been “struggling”.
And once this test is done, then others will follow.
Falcon one rocket failed twice, and then we got Falcon 9.
I have always thought Mars crewed program should include a lot of robotic missions, and perhaps, Intuitive Machines will be a part of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWzLFR7XtkM
SpaceX Static Fire Aftermath, New Deluge Upgrade & Epic Moon Lander Showdown
Marcus says Russian are planning to reach lunar surface a day before India does. Also the Russian lunar lander is going operate a year or more at the south pole.
[[I don’t know where it’s going to land on south pole {ie how close to the pole, and etc}]]
Scientists wrestle with unknown force acting on particles
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/08/12/scientists-wrestle-with-unknown-force-acting-on-particles/#more-63587
“A clash of observation and basic science theory looms. The BBC tries to sound positive about it.
–Scientists near Chicago say they may be getting closer to discovering the existence of a new force of nature, says BBC News.–
They have found more evidence that sub-atomic particles, called muons, are not behaving in the way predicted by the current theory of sub-atomic physics.”
Linked from this, “An alternative view here: The STRONG FORCE Blows Up”
“Well, well, the mainstream is now admitting that experiments don’t match their predictions for the strong force. Not even close.
…”
They are peeing on your feet and telling you it’s new partickles
What? All of them?
https://www.reuters.com/science/odd-behavior-subatomic-particle-may-shake-up-physics-2023-08-10/
https://uk.style.yahoo.com/fifth-force-nature-scientists-fermilab-141536422.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/muon-mystery-deepens-with-latest-measurements/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/aug/11/scientists-fifth-force-nature
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics
RLH,
“On Thursday researchers announced the latest measurement milestone, which pins down the muons magnetic moment to an error of just one part in five million.”
Pfffft! A mere bagatelle.
Here’s the magnetic moment of the electron –
“The value of the electron magnetic moment (symbol μe) is −9.2847647043(28)10−24”
A wee bit more precise – (about 10^18 times more precise), I think you’ll agree. It might be the case that the researchers are finding what they want to find – I don’t know.
After all, some enthusiastic climate researchers claim MSL measurements to 0.01 mm, far less the thickness of a human hair!
I’ll wait for a bit, I think.
Muons are notoriously hard to pin down and measure.
gb…I have news for them, the force they are looking for is electrostatic force. Electrons carry a negative electrostatic charge, whatever that is. No one knows why one charge is negative while another is not so negative, or positive.
For example, a proof offered for relativity theory is that the Sun bends light due to its mass. Nonsense, it bends light because light has an electric and magnetic field which interacts with the Sun’s immense electric charge base.
It’s a bit early, but what the guess for Aug temperature.
It seems Clint R was closest guess for July.
I am going say +0.30 C.
It seems to me the lack hurricanes in Atlantic should have some effect upon global temperature and tend to think it’s downward.
Some might say to due to the dust.
Atlantic has no prediction of tropical cyclone activity for next 2 days, I got another tropical depression called, seven-e and 20% chance of another. Plus 60% chance of quickly following, Dora- which stopped being a hurricane. So Hawaii could get another hurricane. And seven-e might give me some rain.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
Anyhow, Sahara dust is blamed for lack of hurricanes, and for some reason we going to get less dust and more Atlantic hurricanes, soon.
I am not sure, that is the reason.
I am still guessing solar activity will lower in next two months:
Daily Sun: 12 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 398.6 km/sec
density: 1.98 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 105
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 153 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.98×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Low
–SOLAR CYCLE UPDATE: This website, Spaceweather.com, began in 1997 with the first stirrings of Solar Cycle 23 (SC23). The timing was right. In the years that followed, SC23 produced the strongest solar flare of the Space Age (X45), the infamous Halloween Storms of 2003, and multiple episodes of Northern Lights as far south as Texas and California. Could it happen again? New Solar Cycle 25 is heading in the same direction:
This summer, sunspot counts have hit their highest values in more than 20 years, sharply exceeding official forecasts and putting them squarely in the ballpark of Solar Cycle 23. It’s just like old times.
With Solar Max not expected for another year (or more), sunspot counts should continue to increase, further widening the gap between Solar Cycle 25 and its historically weak predecessor Solar Cycle 24. If, indeed, Solar Cycle 25 does leapfrog Solar Cycle 24 and land in the vicinity of Solar Cycle 23, we can expect at least 3 to 5 years of high solar activity in the years ahead. Stay tuned.”
I don’t think so.
Oh, dear.
Daily Sun: 13 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 410.2 km/sec
density: 0.70 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 61
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 148 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.97×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.1% Low
48-hr change:+1.4%
Don’t see any spots coming from farside. Spots don’t seem
to be growing. Spots are going to farside.
Chances are a spot or two will come from farside within a day or two.
But I thought spotless day wouldn’t happen within a month.
And it could happen, soon. Though days of spotless seems unlikely.
” Daily Sun: 13 Aug 23
…
Sunspot number: 61 ”
No idea from where your source gets that from.
*
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-EISN
seems to be more reliable.
*
Their Oulu Neutron Count report however is correct:
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
It’s increasing since a few days (middle chart); but over the long term, this keeps imperceptible.
https://www.spaceweather.com/
“https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-EISN
seems to be more reliable.”
It does not matter the number, most of sun on nearside is spotless.
There could be spots coming from farside which are coming- but I don’t see them, yet.
If rotate into view in next two days, it will not be spotless, if not the existing spots will rotate to the farside.
The other possibility is new spots will form on the nearside- such as somewhere in middle of sun, which is currently spotless.
But if doesn’t go spotless, unless a large spot(s) come from farside or grows in nearside, the count will low for several days.
Which is still a bit surprising [I guessed it would take longer].
Oh, I do see one coming- not so spotless. And it looks like it could be big.
So, looking at that older forecast:
Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
07 August – 02 September 2023
Solar activity is likely to reached moderate levels on 07 Aug,
primarily due to the remaining flare potential of Region 3386 as it
continues to rotate just beyond the W limb. Mostly low solar
activity is expected for the rest of the outlook period, with a
chance for M-class (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) activity after 17 Aug as
multiple active regions that have produced significant flare
activity are expected to return to the visible disk from the
Sun's farside. ”
So, got at least one moderate size from southern hemisphere coming from farside and it still will be on our nearside when these other show up after 17 Aug.
Whatever you tell in your long posts:
2023 08 13 2023.615 101 15.2 20 22
This, and nothing else, is how it looks like right now.
from:
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Daily Sun: 13 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 369.4 km/sec
density: 1.36 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 61
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 148 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.97×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.1% Low
48-hr change:+1.4%
I can barely see a sunspot coming from farside {it’s not counted or given a number, yet], And spots 3395 and 3394 are closest to leaving to the farside. Or within couple days these will leave and and spot on edge to farside, will be in the nearside and given number.
As we approach the 17th of August, and bunch of spots will have returned {they could stayed roughly the same, or become more active, or faded during the time spent on farside}.
There a big gap between 3397 [furthest from going to farside and the
and not yet numbered spot coming to nearside- or a guess is sunspot number will remain low for next few days.
A thing I didn’t mention are the coronal holes on the nearside- and possibility of more coming from farside.
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2023/13aug23/coronalhole_sdo_blank.jpg
And coronal holes seemed to me {I don’t know much about it} to be related snakes which explode causing solar flares. Example:
See a Solar Snake Slither Across the Suns Surface At 380,000 Miles per Hour
https://scitechdaily.com/see-a-solar-snake-slither-across-the-suns-surface-at-380000-miles-per-hour/
So could be getting bigger or more coronal holes and more snakes which explode coming from the farside.
Or sun could get more active in next few days regardless of low sunspot numbers
Still no 2 day forecast of cyclone activity in Atlantic side.
In East pacific {my side] got seven-e becoming Cat 1 hurricane Fernando- more than 1000 mile south of me. And it’s forecast is to strengthen for couple days and then weaken. And one following Dora, is Eight-E tropical depress which is about 1000 miles from Hawaii, and Dora is now a tropical storm more than 2000 miles past Hawaii.
Alsi there is disturbance with 30% chance forming a cyclone within 2 days, and that could come more towards Mexico {and maybe give me some rain}.
Daily Sun: 14 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 357.6 km/sec
density: 2.34 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 89
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 148 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.01×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.1% Low
Spot number 3403 formed in nearside and at higher latitude in northern hemisphere.
The spot I saw hasn’t got a number or maybe it’s mislabeled and suppose to be 3402. And it’s smaller then it seemed when it was at edge of farside. I also see another at edge of farside near equator in northern hemisphere- and it looks large. But spot 3394 will go to farside and 3395 will follow it.
Since 3403 grew fast, it might continue to grow bigger.
But spots are leaving and coming and spot number should remain low for couple days.
And we got 4 moderately sized coronal holes more or less “directly” facing Earth.
Atlantic side has two disturbances with 0% chance within 2 days.
Tropical storm Greg is forecast to remain a tropical storm and it passes Hawaii. I would guess it only causes rain for Hawaii {assuming it doesn’t turn into a major hurricane}.
The 30% chance become 80% {and might give me some rain}.
Daily Sun: 15 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 319.9 km/sec
density: 4.64 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 85
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 150 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.89×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.9% Low
3403 didn’t grow bigger, the spot on farside edge, is small than it
looked- but claimed it’s flare risk:
“INCREASING CHANCE OF FLARES: A new sunspot (AR3405) is emerging over the sun’s northeastern limb, and it appears to pose a threat for M-class solar flares. Just hours ago it produced a flare only percentage points below M-class.”
I also see another almost directly behind {a bit north} can’t see much of it {seem smaller than 3405 did}.
There is couple small non numbered spot in south hemisphere- they might grow].
Not spotless:) but going as guessed it would, but need couple months before seeing if guessed right [weaken dramatically- and maybe spotless day in month’s time].
Solar wind
speed: 289.1 km/sec
density: 4.28 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 16 Aug 23
“All of these sunspots have stable magnetic fields that pose little threat for strong solar flares.”
Sunspot number: 107
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 150 sfu
Updated 15 Aug 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.89×10^10 W Warm
Updated 14 Aug 2023
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.9% Low
“QUIET WEDNESDAY: The sun is peppered with sunspots–usually a sign of high solar activity. In this case, however, all of the sunspots have stable magnetic fields that pose little threat for strong. flares. NOAA forecasters say there is no more than a 1% chance of X-flares on Aug. 16th. ”
The small spots with no number, grew, with number: 3407 and 3406
And 3403 which first grew on nearside, “looks” like one of biggest spots on the nearside.
It seems spots further from Equator grow and those nearer equator, fade {maybe}.
Anyhow Aug 17 and later is suppose to bring old active spots to our nearside- I have some doubts.
But if happens, should have much higher spot number in 2 or 3 days
and more flares, possible.
We gaining hurricane possibilities in Atlantic
My side has just Hilary and she could be monster
Hawaii seems to have no worries, but it shouldn’t too
trusting of Hilary, though probably just quickly fade away and go nowhere.
Daily Sun: 17 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 319.4 km/sec
density: 6.51 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 140
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 160 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.63×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.2% Low
It’s 17th and farside old spots are no where in sight, new spots
grew on our nearside and there are the biggest spots.
But roughly things are going as expected.
Daily Sun: 19 Aug 23
Solar wind
speed: 482.8 km/sec
density: 7.27 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 112
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 151 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.49×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.2% Low
“QUIET WEEKEND: Although the sunspot number remains high, we should not expect any strong flares this weekend. All eight sunspot groups on the solar disk have stable magnetic fields, which are unlikely to explode. “
UAH Global for Jul 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/08/uah-global.jpeg
UAH Tropics for Jul 2023
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/08/uah-tropics.jpeg
The largest known asteroid impact structure on Earth is buried in southeast Australia, new evidence suggests
By Andrew Glikson
published about 17 hours ago
https://www.space.com/worlds-largest-asteroid-impact-structure-in-australia
linked from https://instapundit.com/
— This article was originally published at The Conversation. The publication contributed the article to Space.com’s Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.
In recent research published by myself and my colleague Tony Yeates in the journal Tectonophysics, we investigate what we believe based on many years of experience in asteroid impact research is the world’s largest known impact structure, buried deep in the earth in southern New South Wales.
The Deniliquin structure, yet to be further tested by drilling, spans up to 520 kilometers in diameter. This exceeds the size of the near-300-km-wide Vredefort impact structure in South Africa, which to date has been considered the world’s largest.–
“The latest evidence suggests Earth and the other planets in the Solar System were subject to intense asteroid bombardments until about 3.2 billion years ago, and sporadically since.”
hmm, one thing about exploring the moon would be nailing down that period, but this 3.2 billion seems to be a change {I thought it was older than that].
repost…
rlh…”There is no valid model of orbital motion without spin because it doesnt exist in practice.
A ball-on-a-string does not represent gravity in any way”.
***
Richard…it’s obvious that physics was not your major. You fail to grasp the significance of the BoS, it’s not a model of lunar rotation but an example of a body being forced to rotate about an axis without rotating locally. It’s the same as a car orbiting a track without spinning out, a wooden horse bolted to the floor of an MGR, an airliner orbiting the Earth at 35,000 feet above the Equator, or a locomotive running on a circular track.
What you should have claimed above is that no valid model exists with spin while keeping one side always pointed inwardly. Even though I have asked you several times for a scientific explanation of how the Moon can possibly orbit while spinning and still keep the same face pointed at Earth, you have ignored my appeals. It’s obvious you don’t have the proof even though we have provided proof it is impossible.
Appeals to authority are not science. Even NASA has not explained how it is possible for the Moon to rotate exactly once about a local axis per orbit.
“the BoS, its not a model of lunar rotation”
You got that right.
You just say that a thing comprising of parts can be treated the same way as the whole thing together. Quelle surprise.
P.S. The conventional explanation that the Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth explains everything without fail.
Wrong RLH. You have NO viable model of “orbital motion without spin”. The BoS does that.
So does Moon.
There is no such thing ‘orbital motion without spin’ except in very rare conditions.
Yes, Moon is indeed “rare”. We only have one.
Callisto, Ganymede, Phobos, Diemos, Metis, Adrastea, Amalthea, Thebe, Io, Europa, Pan, Atlas, Prometheus, Pandora, Epimetheus, Janu, Mimas, Enceladus, Telesto, Tethys, Calypso, Dione, Rhea, Titan, Iapetus, Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon, Triton, Proteus, and Charon.
That’s not even all of them.
bob, when you grow up, maybe you will learn the difference between “Moon” and “moon”.
Maybe….
Clint R,
Maybe one day you will realize that the Moon and all the moons I mentioned all keep the same face pointed to the inside of the orbit.
By the way, they are all tidally locked.
They keep the same face toward the inside of the orbit because they are NOT spinning. The bogus “tidal locking” is just more nonsense. Earth can NOT produce torque on Moon.
Clint R,
Man are you getting desperate.
“They keep the same face toward the inside of the orbit because they are NOT spinning.”
The direction towards the inside of the orbit is rotating, therefore the object orbiting is rotating.
“The bogus tidal locking is just more nonsense. Earth can NOT produce torque on Moon.”
Did you watch the Beanie Bubble movie?
That company now sells little beanies guaranteed to land on their feet.
I mean, I know how a cat does it, but an inanimate object?
Must be gravity putting a torque on it.
You need to come up with a more scientifically sound argument other than calling something “Bogus”
bob, your incoherent rambling is proof your don’t understand any of this.
But, I already knew that….
“Moon is indeed ‘rare'”
Lots of planets in the solar system have moons. Some of them are even tidal locked, same as the Earths Moon.
Earth only has one moon. It has a proper name. The moon’s proper name is “Moon”.
Moon is Earth’s only moon.
Clint R,
All your arguments are bogus.
The orientation of the Moon is towards the Sun when the Moon is full, and away from the Sun when the Moon is new.
The Moon changes its orientation by rotating on its axis.
Keeping the face pointed inward is not keeping the face pointed in the same direction.
That’s all you need to conclude that the Moon is rotating on its axis.
That’s because Moon is orbiting without spin, bob.
Clint R,
What part of
“The Moon changes its orientation by rotating on its axis”
do you fail to understand?
Rotating on its axis means it is spinning, nothing more and nothing less.
That’s why we know Moon is NOT spinning. The same side always faces the inside of its orbit.
The Moon has to spin to keep its face pointed to the Earth, as when orbiting the inside direction is not constant, it’s always changing.
Towards the inside of the orbit is a rotating direction.
Are you really this bad at science?
The simple ball-on-a-string proves you wrong, bob.
Clint R,
No it doesn’t.
The point of the ball attached to the string faces towards the inside of the circle the ball moves around, and like the Moon does not point in the same direction as the ball moves around the circle.
In other words, the ball rotates, just like the Moon.
On its axis.
Nope, if the ball were spinning, the string would wrap around it.
Clint R,
Not if the string is rotating at the same speed as the ball.
Which it is.
Do you know an adult who can splain it to you?
The string moves with the ball because they both have the same motion — orbiting. Neither one is spinning.
We already know you can’t understand this, bob. There’s no need for you to continue to show your ignorance.
“if the ball were spinning, the string would wrap around it”
The Earth is spinning on its axis, approximately 27 times as fast as the Moon’s orbit. So the string would wrap around it regardless.
There is no string attached to Earth, RLH. The string is attached to a ball.
It’s been 3 years now and you STILL can’t understand the simple model.
I predict you won’t be able to understand it in another 3 years!
That’s what “brain-dead” looks like.
Clint R,
Observe the string from its center, as a reference point.
You would see it rotate, but you have to pull your head out.
A “reference point” is nothing more that playing games, bobby.
Let me know when you’re ready to grow up and face reality.
“There is no string attached to Earth”
So what is the other end of a BOS attached to? Nothing?
You are swinging the ball-on-a-string around you, RLH.
It’s been 3 years now and you STILL can’t understand the simple model.
I predict you won’t be able to understand it in another 3 years!
That’s what “brain-dead” looks like.
Clint R,
“A reference point is nothing more that playing games, bobby.”
That should be
A reference point is nothing more than playing games, bobby.
First you need to learn to spell, then get back to me.
From the reference point I am standing on, the Moon is rotating on its axis.
So what is the other end of a BOS attached to (the end other than the ball)? Nothing?
bob, I’m not responsible for autocorrect. We all put up with it. Grow up.
Your observation from Earth is exactly why “reference points” mean nothing. You have to understand the motions involved, which you can’t.
“‘reference points’ mean nothing”
So saying that you have a point of view/refernece is wrong then.
RLH, if you’re the one holding the other end of the string, then it is indeed attached to NOTHING.
How do you rate yourself among the other “Spinners”:
1. One of the smartest
2. In the middle
3. One of the dumbest
“if you’re the one holding the other end of the string” and rotating 27 times as fast as it is ‘orbiting’, then the string will wrap itself round me quite quickly.
So, one of the dumbest then?
That’s what I thought, but sometimes it’s hard to tell with bob and bindi being so close.
The smarter Spinners have dropped out.
I am one of the logical ones. As anyone can see from the above.
All the non-spinners are detached from reality.
They may be smarter than me, but…
Robertson
” Even though I have asked you several times for a scientific explanation of how the Moon can possibly orbit while spinning and still keep the same face pointed at Earth, you have ignored my appeals. ”
This, Robertson, is once more the lie you repeated so many times.
You have been shown often enough how Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace computed the lunar spin.
*
1. I posted years ago a translation of Lagrange’s introduction to his Théorie de la Libration de la Lune’.
A translation by the way you didn’t read anything more of than the title, what has let you post in an incredibly dumb reply that Lagrange’s work had nothing to do with spin: that tells us everything about your inability to accurately read documents.
*
2. I posted years ago a link to a full English translation of Laplace’s ‘Trait de Mcanique Cleste’ in which he generalized Lagrange’s demonstration.
You ignored it; what else could you have done, as Laplace’s treatise is more complex than Lagrange’s, of which you already didn’t understand the least bit of.
*
3. Even Mayer’s much more understandable treatise you also didn’t understand anything of, though it was based on spherical trigonometry, and not on much more complex spatial differential equations of the second order (Mayer used them as well, but only to prove that Moon’s shape is of sufficient sphericity for his computations).
I tried to explain in numerous posts how he did the work
– starting from the measurement, with a self-made micrometer and a metronome, of the motion of a lunar crater on the apparent lunar disk as viewed from Earth
and
– ending at the selenocentric computation of an arc on the lunar sphere, allowing for the computation of both the lunar spin period and the inclination of the spin axis wrt the Ecliptic.
I tried to explain to you the point in his treatise where specific numbers in his computations decided upon which of the following alternatives is the right one:
– no spin, no inclination of the spin axis (wrt the Ecliptic);
– spin, no inclination of the spin axis – as supposed by Newton;
– spin, inclination of the spin axis.
You discredited and denigrated that as well, though keeping as always absolutely unable to technically contradict it; instead, you kept endlessly repeating your trivial, curvilinear stuff which is no answer to such complex matter.
*
Of course: you are not the only one who discredited and denigrated everything what did not fit your superficial narrative; a few others on this blog did as well.
*
Not ONE of you all would dare to post such nonsense anywhere else than on Roy Spencer’s blog, as you all know that, unlike here, you would be banned on other blogs within hours when repeating there your utter OMWAR (oh! recently: OMWS) nonsense.
Your centuries-old astrologers were wrong about Moon, Bindi. And, they’re STILL wrong.
Funny that, huh?
Newton is then included in your list, as it seems.
Funny that, huh?
Newton got it right, Bindi. You can’t understand his work. He’s talking about science and you’re talking about unicorns.
That’s odd, I have read all your links to Meyer, LaGrange and Laplace and not once did I encounter a calculation re lunar spin. I did find references to libration but not rotation about a local axis.
Heck, even Newton is barely translated as referencing it and I think he was translated incorrectly. Other claims he made about lunar motion contradict local rotation.
bill h…”And of course after so many years of K. Trenberth selling the 3rd grader radiation model for global warming it took years to whitewash it from the internet but it has a life of its own in the minds of the folks indoctrinated by it”.
***
The most recent theory has it that the Earth, and other planets, are warmer than they should be due to the limited ability of radiation to dissipate heat.
It has become very clear that radiation is very poor at dissipating heat at terrestrial temperatures whereas conduction/convection is about 260 times more effective.
Gordo displays his usual ignorance of the energy flows into and out of the atmosphere, writing:
Convection only moves thermal energy from the surface layers thru the Troposphere. There’s almost no convection above the Tropopause and thus convection can not move energy from upper layers to deep space. Convection requires that energy be removed at the top of the convection loop (his “dissipation”) and only radiation HT by GHGs can do that above the TP.
Moreover, it should be evident even to any pseudo-engineer that the amount of conduction as the heat source needed by convection to propagate it up to higher atmospheric regions, is extremely low.
A simple look at
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
explains us that all atmospheric constituents are worst conductors (air: 0.025 W/mK at 25 C, far less than even… water, let alone rock).
A non-radiative source for convection which matters much more than conduction is evapo-transpiration ,especially above the tropical oceans.
And, as you already wrote: the only way to return energy to space is radiation, and dissipating energy is sheer nonsense: energy can be transformed, but never disappears.
E. Swanson says:
”Convection only moves thermal energy from the surface layers thru the Troposphere. ”
Yes convection is an imprecise word. Diffusion is what causes CO2 to be uniformly distributed in the atmosphere along with all the other major component of the atmosphere. Diffusion like convection is the movement of molecules with their energies as is convection which is a rather undefined bulk motion of molecules.
so as to the point you are pursuing that CO2 will raise the mean level of radiation to space, be cooler, and thus radiate less.
It should be understood that the troposphere top (line between the troposphere and tropopause is established by temperature as well as altitude/pressure. This is the foundation of Dr. Lindzen’s theory of negative feedback. I am not aware of any better atmospheric scientists than Drs. Lindzen and Happer. An astronomer like James Hansen? Hansen was the leading star of the climate horde and he determined he was best suited as an activist in the same vein as Greta Thunberg the current leading star climate scientist.
HUnter wanders off topic, missing the entire point of my post. Gordo repeatedly throws out the word “dissipation”, but can’t bother to identify what he means by that. Gordo (and Hunter) refuses to admit that above the Tropopause, the atmosphere can only be cooled by radiation and the rising air in the Troposphere must cool before it can sink back toward the surface. What goes up must come back down in the HT loop.
Air molecules in lower atmosphere are like worst rush hour city traffic and at Tropopause it’s like country freeway low traffic and some cars are going at more than 200 mph.
Of course molecule velocity is speed of bullet or speed of sound- analogy breakdown in regard to humans and cars.
E. Swanson says:
”Gordo repeatedly throws out the word dissipation, but cant bother to identify what he means by that. ”
Dissipation is the act of breaking up and scattering or spreading widely. In the case of energy moving through the atmosphere you have radiation, convection, diffusion, and conduction.
xxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”Gordo (and Hunter) refuses to admit that above the Tropopause, the atmosphere can only be cooled by radiation”
—————-
Why just above the tropopause Swanson?
In general the atmosphere isn’t cooled by the surface and the only way to cool the atmosphere is by radiation to space.
ES,
The only way matter cools is by radiation. All matter above absolute zero emits infrared radiation. Unless more radiation is absorbed than emitted, the object cools.
Try and describe the GHE, and you might discover something about physics. Or maybe not.
Swenson steps in it again.
Three sentences, all wrong.
1) The only way matter cools is by radiation.
I am not sure, but have you heard of conduction and convection?
2) All matter above absolute zero emits infrared radiation.
A single hydrogen atom in deep space doesn’t, but that’s just a gotcha.
3)Unless more radiation is absorbed than emitted, the object cools.
What about a wire with electricity going through it, it emits more radiation than it absorbs, yet it heats up.
You are really not very good at this, but go ahead and speak Donkey.
bob d…if hydrogen in deep space does not radiate, how do we detect the massive number of hydrogen clouds?
Gordon,
Gas clouds are observed by radio waves, not infrared.
Nice try, but get out that old astronomy textbook, if you didn’t sell it for mad dog.
Bumbling Bobby,
The only way in which matter cools is by radiation – unless you have discovered some new physical laws.
A single hydrogen, if above absolute zero, emits photons. If it is not doing so, it is at absolute zero by definition.
A wire which is not absorbing more energy than it is emitting, will cool. You obviously don’t understand the physics involved. Most people don’t, and this becomes apparent under scrutiny.
You just arent the sharpest tool in the shed, as they say.
Here’s your description of the GHE –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Very erudite, in your opinion. Others may think otherwise.
bobdroege says:
”Gas clouds are observed by radio waves, not infrared.”
?????
A radio wave is an emission of EM (cartoonishly depicted as photons).
It doesn’t matter if its radiowaves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, UV, xrays, or gamma rays: All of these are light, and all of them are made up of photons. Photons are at work all around you.
bobdroege obviously doesn’t know (or doesn’t want to know) that all light with wavelengths shorter than visible light are infrared by definition.
His efforts to appear intelligent are somewhat lacking.
Yet Swenson makes up his own ‘facts’ and nobody from his tribe seems to care.
‘The only way matter cools is by radiation.’
‘A wire which is not absorbing more energy than it is emitting, will cool. You obviously dont understand the physics involved.’
‘all light with wavelengths shorter than visible light are infrared by definition.’
Hee Haww!
I guess, like the rest of us, they all have lowered their expectations for the truthfulness of Swenson’s posts.
Swenson,
A hydrogen atom in deep space is not at absolute zero if it is moving.
If its orbitals are in the ground state, the atom of hydrogen can’t emit photons.
“bobdroege obviously doesnt know (or doesnt want to know) that all light with wavelengths shorter than visible light are infrared by definition.”
Yes I don’t know this fact of Swenson physics, which isn’t true, by the way.
Take a long walk off a pier, say in Narvik, and when you hit the water, tell me you are cooling by radiation.
Nate says:
all light with wavelengths shorter than visible light are infrared by definition.
Hee Haww!
I guess, like the rest of us, they all have lowered their expectations for the truthfulness of Swensons posts.
——————–
Nope radiowaves and microwaves are a form of light below the frequency of IR.
Damn,
bobdroege obviously doesnt know (or doesnt want to know) that all light with wavelengths shorter than visible light are infrared by definition.”
I read this as wavelengths longer than visible light.
But it’s even more wrong, wavelengths shorter than visible light are ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays, which all have higher energies.
It’s hard to catch all of Swenson’s mistakes.
swannie…calling you obtuse would be an upgrade and a compliment.
Come on, Swannie, heat dissipation is apparent, it means a loss of heat, aka cooling. When the surface cools, it is dissipating heat by whatever means is available.
All I said in my post was that radiation is an inefficient means of heat dissipation. Because it is slow and inefficient, planets tend to be warmer than they should be. That alone explains the GHE.
Gordo, “all you said” was:
You use “dissipation” to refer to heat transfer and your ignorance of radiation HT is obvious. You’ve claimed that the rate of HT via radiation is proportional to the mass ratio, concluding that CO2 isn’t going to provide much HT because it’s only a small fraction of air. That’s a completely bogus conclusion as it totally ignores the physics of the emission/absorp_tion of GHG’s. The real world data from above the Tropopause shows that CO2 is a dominant source, facts which you insist can’t be happening.
Maybe there’s hope for you yet. You wrote:
So, what would YOU expect to be the result of increasing CO2 on a planet’s temperature? Wouldn’t it be that the planet would be even warmer than it “should” be?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Though agencies do their best to protect people with advanced notices, fire is fast and unpredictable. In fact, many survivors of the deadly fire in Lahaina, Hawaii, say they did not receive evacuation orders before the flames had closed in on them.
If you live in an area with anything greater than a “low” risk of wildfire, you should have a plan in place for what to do if that alert does come. It’s far better to “overreact” and leave immediately than to risk your life – and the lives of first responders.
That said, do not wait for an evacuation notice if you feel like a fire is approaching or like you could be in danger. Trust your gut and leave immediately.
https://imgur.com/a/1NjjWjw
The governor of Hawaii has officially blamed the fire on global warming. He has not ventured to explain how a 1C warming over 170 years could do that.
Critics have pointed out that sugar canes field no longer used were allowed to grow long grass which became tinder for a fire. The emergency sirens were not working and the fire departments had been cut back to the point they were ineffective.
The solar activity pumpers get so excited with every flare up,
but the average is only going sideways
https://i.ibb.co/Nx90XSM/number-s-1.png
Sideways, but not at the level you predicted it would last year…
Sideways, because it is at or near the peak, which is higher than the previous one.
Robertson’s usual mix of arrogance and ignorance
” For example, a proof offered for relativity theory is that the Sun bends light due to its mass. Nonsense, it bends light because light has an electric and magnetic field which interacts with the Suns immense electric charge base. ”
*
From an article written by Steven S. Shapiro und Irwin I. Shapiro, translated back from a translation in German:
” Theories about the deflection of light by mass have been around since the end of the 18th century at the latest. At the time, John Michell, an English clergyman and natural philosopher, argued that even light would not be able to escape from the sun’s surface if the sun were of sufficiently large mass.
Isaac Newton, to whom we owe the mathematical description of the gravitational force, seems to have devoted only a brief comment to the question of the influence of mass on the course of light rays at the end of his treatise on his treatise ‘Opticks’, published in 1704, with the statement, light particles would probably be influenced by gravity in the same way as conventional matter.
*
The first calculations on how light is deflected by a mass were published in 1801 by the German astronomer Johann Georg von Soldner.
Soldner had come to the conclusion that light rays from a distant star that pass the edge of the sun should be deflected by an angle of 0.9 arc seconds – about a quarter of a thousandth of a degree. That’s the same angle a CD appears at when viewed from about 30 kilometers away.
Soldner’s calculations were based on Newton’s laws of classical mechanics and gravitation, as well as the assumption that light behaves like fast-moving particles.
As far as we know, neither Soldner nor his colleagues have attempted to verify this prediction, and with good reason: such an attempt would have been well beyond the capabilities of 19th-century astronomical instruments. ”
*
Sounds a bit better than Robertson’s persistent misinformation about Einstein’s work, huh?
What about the gas lens that forms around all stars. Have you calculated what that will do? 0.9 arc seconds sounds about correct for that.
Blindsley H00d
Instead of asking ‘Have you calculated… ?”, do the job yourself, and show us your own results.
What value do you place on a gas lens centered on a star. It cannot be nothing.
Why would anyone want to invent theories when the solution is so obvious? EM is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. The Sun is a plasma of electrons and protons that have positive and negative charges. Charges interact with EM and vice versa.
Mind you, one day we may discover that gravity is related to the same charges. Newton was not privy to this information which was not developed re atoms till Bohr’s discovery in 1913. Einstein’s relativity theory that is trying to replace gravity as a force was developed 10 years before Bohr’s discovery. It is not plain as to why Einstein did not join in on the study of atoms and stuck to his inane theory based on the non-existent entity of time.
It is apparent that science is nowhere near where many scientists think it is. In fact, we appear to have been moving in the wrong direction since Bohr’s discovery. Rather than develop technology to enhance our ability to view atoms directly, we have sunk in a worls of thought-experiments and pure theory.
“It is not plain as to why Einstein did not join in on the study of atoms and stuck to his inane theory based on the non-existent entity of time.”
Uhhh….wrong on may levels. Shocking.
“Soldner had come to the conclusion that light rays from a distant star that pass the edge of the sun should be deflected . . . ”
I have come to the conclusion that you think that dissecting the past will enable you to predict the future.
Good grief, man – you can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
I have also come to the conclusion that it is not possible to determine whether your ignorance exceeds your arrogance, or vice versa. Go on, tell me how I could calculate which is true.
“Coming to conclusions” is another way of saying “guessing”.
Oh look… the dumb Flynnson stalker bores us again with his stoopid fixations on ‘dissecting the past’ and ‘describe the GHE, can you’?
Mental disease of highest order…
17 years after launch, NASA spacecraft could offer better image of sun’s mysteries
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2023/08/11/nasa-stereo-a-spacecraft-passes-close-to-earth-offers-research-potential/1841691789501/
“Aug. 11 (UPI) — On Saturday, NASA’s STEREO-A spacecraft will pass between the Earth and the sun for the first time since it was launched 17 years ago.
The Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory spacecraft was launched in 2006, along with a sister satellite called STEREO-B, with the goal of creating three dimensional images of the sun. ”
Was wondering about that. The article doesn’t say it, but they were in Earth/Sun L-4/5. The points 60 degree ahead and behind Earth, but one can orbit the points- at far distance, go to 90 degree or more, and roughly further they go away, the closer to return to earth. Also to they could go pass L-4/5 region and settle at L-3 [opposite side of sun- though one’s signal to earth could be blocked by the sun}.
Of course you have satellites at the 4/5 points which can relay signals, and not have sun block the signals from things behind the sun.
Why should people mine the Moon?
Why should people live on Mars?
They shouldn’t and they aren’t.
Though at some point in time, people might even they they shouldn’t.
NASA’s job is to explore space.
And there is no sense, in trying to prevent Americans from doing
what they want to do.
Is it a waste of money?
Nope.
Though I would say there has been a lot wasted time.
The Moon is not being mined, because there isn’t anything known
to be mineable.
Recently there is some argument that there may be mineable water
on the Moon.
What is mineable water?
People imagining and trying to mine lunar water and making it mineable lunar water. Which includes the possibility of going bankrupt, it’s imagined it will make a profit or people wouldn’t
do it {generally].
NASA task in terms of exploring the lunar poles, is to determine if
there might be mineable water on the Moon.
But one explore the moon for other reasons, also.
Exploration is generally about looking for something which you think there could be, somewhere. But often you find other stuff, also.
So NASA might find mineable water on the Moon. And might discover, other stuff. And there a lot stuff other than water, we want to find out regarding the Moon.
We when to the Moon to land humans and return them safely to Earth, before the soviet did this. And we found other stuff, which radically changed our reality.
One perhaps minor point, is we discovered that space rocks do actually hit Earth, and some imagine it killed the dinosaurs.
It turn wild speculation, into a science {which some may still call wild speculation:}.
Another reason, is NASA has been trying {and failing] to explore Mars for decades, because it imagine it’s the most habitable planet, other than Earth. And it was argued it was easier to explore with robotic missions as compared to the Moon {because you use it’s atmosphere to slow down]. But in terms getting human to Mars- well that seemed close to impossible. And going to Moon was not impossible- just hard to do.
Anyhow the best possibility of getting crew to Mars, is related to rocket designed to do this, which is call the super heavy Starship.
And now, we tested it.
But when planned to explore the Moon and then Mars, there was no starship. And one argue the goal to explore the Moon and then explore
Mars, “created” the present state of having a rocket that might be able to land crew on Mars {but it still needs to be tested}.
Sending crew to the Moon, is connected to testing the Starship.
It’s possible Starship could land crew on the Moon, and the starship can’t land on Mars with crew- but this will be tested by sending crew to the Moon.
And more exciting than just Starship is all the other competition {in US and in the world].
I would say the benefit of trying to send crew to the Moon, has already paid for going to the Moon. Or already worth the cost, even if no mineable water is found.
But finding that there is no mineable water has value in itself, but we could find mineable lunar water.
And it could be mined, fairly quickly. Or it might take a decade or more before anyone attempt it {and possibly goes bankrupt- I would quite happy if Chinese govt wants to try to do it- even if it’s wildly profitable}. It’s great, no matter who mines the lunar water- other NASA- which should and probably would be outlawed by Congress.
So, find mineable lunar water, then send crew to Mars and have a way to safely returning them to Earth at some reasonable point in time.
Exploring Mars will take decades of time-
so explore Moon quickly, and start Mars crew quickly and it will take more than a decade, probably many decades. But it’s dependent with what happening on the Moon while exploring Mars, and what happening with a lot things- what happening with artificial gravity stations in Earth orbit. What happening with suborbital travel on Earth- etc, etc.
Anyhow, it seems only argument is it will take too long.
And I would say, it’s taken too long- particularly in regards to lunar exploration. But now, is kind of perfect, all the world is going to explore the Moon- which is much better {more fun} than some kind of solo by NASA.
Some days ago, Willis Eschenbach posted an interesting article at WUWT about his inspection of possible effects on global temperature of the Hunga Tonga underwater eruption in Jan 2022.
His conclusion
” What do I conclude from this?
My guess, and its nothing but a guess, is as follows:
None of the above graphs, including Ryan Maue’s, show any immediate effects from the eruption. I suggest this is because estimates of the global effect of the injected water focus almost exclusively on the warming effects of the increase in downwelling longwave radiation from increased stratospheric water vapor. ”
*
His job was interesting because he took the trouble to examine all four atmospheric layers observed by UAH: lower stratosphere (LS), tropopause (TP), middle troposphere (MT), and lower troposphere (LT).
The only slight reproach one could level at him is that he limited himself to examining the global time series of these atmospheric layers instead of first looking at the monthly zonal reports published by Roy Spencer to see where the biggest deviations might lie.
For example, look at the LS report
https://tinyurl.com/26wyepxz
You can see in a sorted spreadsheet that the largest deviations are at the north and south poles, and you should probably search there more intensively.
*
The search becomes even finer if you take UAH’s 2.5 grad grid as the source and generate the grid as an image month by month, e.g. for November after the Pinatubo eruption:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Id_W_PkNvzMitD2EnID7mX-DxuhxwhX6/view
The same can be done for the time after Hunga Tonga.
This file contains links to graphics showing all months from June 2022 to July 2023:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1neBUEWdw_3FZYQzLlUMCt3_5o6JDQwd_/view
You can then do the same with the underlying layers, and if you choose the right delay from layer to layer, you might find more precise indications of a possible global change caused by Hunga Tonga.
Or, you could say no one knows based on the current knowledge of climate systems.
John Christy of UAH has indicated in the past that the climate systems is very complex and that scientists don’t have the answers to many issues. That is a refreshing response as opposed to the response of climate alarmists who deal with innuendo and consensus as the basis of ‘their’ science.
rlh…”the BoS, its not a model of lunar rotation
You got that right.
You just say that a thing comprising of parts can be treated the same way as the whole thing together…”
***
As I said, your specialty is not physics. You refuse to discuss the mechanics of lunar motion and I think that might be due to you finding that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
I have backed my claims with vectors and tangent lines, proving conclusively that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth. Tesla did it independently using a more sophisticated explanation using kinetic energies. Yet you, with a master’s degree cannot offer a substantive proof regarding how it is possible for the Moon to rotate exactly once per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
The mechanics of lunar orbit and rotation are simple. The Moon both orbits and rotates on its axis, once per orbit of the Earth.
Earth both spins and orbits. Moon only orbits.
Wrong.
So the Moon distorts the Earth’s land surface (see Earth land tide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide) but the Earth does not do the same to the Moon!
Gordon,
I’ve told you before, your tangent lines and vectors are rotating, proving that the Moon is rotating.
Not that the Moon is not rotating.
bob…doesn’t matter if the vectors are rotating as long as their relationship to each other is constant.
If you have the Earth at 0,0 on an x-y plane representing the lunar orbit with a radial line running from 0.0 through the lunar centre, and the radial line is tracking the Moon as it moves CCW, all points on the Moon represented by tangent lines to their respective orbital path will remain at the same angle (perpendicular) to the radial line. That is each point will always move perpendicular to the radial line.
That’s a fact based on the fact the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the surface. If the radial line skewers the Moon right through the near face, the radial line must remain in that position throughout the entire orbit in order to meet the conditions that the same side always face the Earth.
If you replace that radial line with a string and the Moon with a ball attached to the string, you have the lunar orbit. The motions are identical.
At any one instant, all points on the Moon are moving along paths tangent to the radial line. That describes curvilinear translation, not rotation about a local axis. The motion of the Moon is exactly the same as a ball on a string or a wooden horse bolted to the floor of an MGR.
Gordon,
First things first, curvilinear translation does not allow a change in orientation. So the Moon is doing more than curvilinear translation, because it is changing its orientation.
Guess what else it is doing.
It’s rotating on its axis.
Second things second, your radial line from the Earth to the Moon is rotating, so anything attached to that radial line must also be rotating.
Try drawing a free body diagram, all will be revealed.
“If you replace that radial line with a string and the Moon with a ball attached to the string, you have the lunar orbit. The motions are identical.”
Except that the end ‘connected’ to the Earth is not actually connected to it is it? Otherwise the string would wrap around the Earth very quickly.
Robertson
You wrote above lots of nonsense.
1. ” Thats odd, I have read all your links to… ”
No, you didn’t read all that, Robertson, because you never read documents but merely scan them for either presence of what you dislike or absence of what you expect.
” … Meyer (1), LaGrange (2) and Laplace (3) and not once did I encounter a calculation re lunar spin. ”
You never could have ever encountered anything the like because the documents were written in (1) German and (2) French.
*
2. And your lack of understanding German and French is the reason why I translated a lot of Mayer’s and Lagrange’s treatises.
Concerning Mayer’s, you were shown many times that his treatise contained the word ‘libration’ only ONCE:
https://tinyurl.com/5693at3k
but you always deliberately ‘forget’ what you do not want to see.
Lagrange’s introduction I translated extra for people like you:
https://tinyurl.com/ye5ay9hm
but as usual, you rejected the document as a whole.
*
3. Laplace’s ‘ Traité de Mécanique Céleste’ has been translated in English:
https://tinyurl.com/28pm9s7n
but you would never have been able to understand anything of it.
*
On page 16 you find the reference to Laplace’s computation on page 933:
CHAPTER II.
ON THE MOTION OP THE MOON ABOUT ITS CENTRE OF GRAVITY
Astronomical theory of the real libration of the moon
Differential equations of the motion of the moon about its centre of gravity.
*
But it is evident that, once arrived at page 933 and having to read:
” The moon, in revolving about the earth, keeps very nearly the same face towards us ; which proves that the mean rotatory motion is exactly equal to the motion of revolution, and that the axis of rotation is nearly perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. ”
you immediately would stop to read, because this is exactly what you want to ignore.
*
You misunderstand all the time why Lagrange and Laplace spent so much time with libration: their job has been to explain its real causes.
And you even wouldn’t be able to understand Mayer’s 100 times simpler spherical trigonometry, which helped him to successfully compute exact coordinates for numerous lunar craters.
Exactly what all astronomers before him couldn’t provide for – because they didn’t know how to get rid of the optical libration effects.
Bindi, did you know you could use those same differential equations to “prove” the ball-on-a-string was spinning in synch with its orbit?
See, you can have all the higher math you want but if your physics is wrong, your answer will be WRONG.
… says a poor guy with no knowledge in physics.
No physicist would be dumb enough to suggest that the Moon’s motion resembles that of a ball-on-a-string.
At best, this would have been done by an inventor who never managed to get a degree from any university.
Bindi, not only are you NOT a physicist, you’re not even able to understand the simple ball-on-a-string. It is NOT a model of Moon’s motion. It is a model of “Orbital Motion Without Spin”. It demonstrates that one side always faces the inside of the orbit — just like Moon.
You don’t have a suitable model of OMWS. You’ve got a terrible case of “model envy”.
Except that the string cannot be connected to Earth!
binny…”But it is evident that, once arrived at page 933 and having to read:
The moon, in revolving about the earth, keeps very nearly the same face towards us ; which proves that the mean rotatory motion is exactly equal to the motion of revolution, and that the axis of rotation is nearly perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic.
***
Laplace says nothing about rotation about a local axis, he states…”…which proves that the mean rotatory motion is exactly equal to the motion of revolution…”.
The question is, what does he mean by ‘mean rotary motion’? He says nothing about the frame of reference in which the Moon is allegedly rotating.
It is obvious that the near face rotates through 360 degrees during one orbital period but the rotation is not about a local axis. The rotation is about the Earth and wrt the stars. But it’s not actually a rotation per se but a re-orientation, which is typical of a body performing curvilinear translation around a circle or ellipse.
examples…a ball on a string, a car running around a track, or a wooden horse bolted to the floor of an MGR.
Robertson
You should try to read a few dozen pages of this paper by Laplace rather than base your arrogant and ignorant rejection of his work on a few ridiculous lines.
Your incompetence and your cowardice are absolutely endless.
CNN Credits Biden for Record High US Oil Production
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/13/cnn-credits-biden-for-record-high-us-oil-production/
I think Biden can claim he caused record high US oil production.
I seems to me, no one in the world can claim to done more to cause the war in Ukraine, then Biden’s weak and confused presidency.
And wars have always caused more oil production.
But important reason to want more oil production is to reduce the price of oil- and wars don’t do that.
There is only one cause for the war in Ukraine: the Russian Nomenklatura around Putin.
Europe and the US do their best to support Ukraine in keeping its freedom.
Should they fail, so there is few doubt that the paranoid Putin will try to destabilize the Baltic states, despite their NATO membership.
And perhaps use nuclear weapons.
Putin and also sizable number of Russians are paranoid and see the West as totalitarian Nazis who wish to weaken and destroy Russia.
Which has been common knowledge for decades.
Biden does not say much, but have you ever listen to him?
The reason the Russian are in Ukraine is obvious to anyone with half a brain. Armed Ukrainian nationalists ran off a democratically-elected president in 2012. Problem is, the president had been supported by many Ukrainians in the east, in the Donetsk area. They rightfully rebelled and Kyiv sent in units to suppress the rebellion. One of the units they sent in was the Azov battalion a pro-Nazi group whom the US COngress had already sanctioned due to their neo-Nazi beliefs.
In a democracy, you can’t run off a president because you don’t like what he is saying. Apparently, Binny does not believe in democracy and favours thugs who oppress democratic ideals.
What Robertson writes here is exactly the same as is posted on neo-Nazi blogs in Germany, France, Italy, Sweden.
No wonder: Russia is one of the greatest financial supporters of far-right parties, like the AfD in Germany, or the Rassemblement National in France.
Russia’s aim: to destabilize European countries.
Robertson is, viewed from Europe, a 100 % pro-Russia Fascist.
You are calling the US Congress neo-Nazi. That is my source, they rejected the Azov battalion as being neo-Nazi. Mind you, the Russians eliminated Azov in Mariupol.
No I’m not calling the US Congress neo-Nazi.
I call you a 100 % pro-Russia Fascist.
Aussie talks to an European:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rBlVnc_DEw&t=1s
Theories of Victory & Russian Political Stability – Interviewing Anders Puck Nielsen
Another tropical storm will pass Hawaii from the south. The winds will pick up again. Fire danger will increase.
https://i.ibb.co/nktHppb/pobrane.png
It doesn’t look like a strong El Nio.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/08/12/0000Z/ocean/surface/currents/orthographic=-129.39,5.09,699
Did you expect it?
Check out the end of the last strong La Nina in 2012
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
and how long it took ENSO to successfully launch the big El Nino in 2015.
Have you noticed that an OLS trend over all of Meiv2 data shows an actual decline?
Your reminder from history (111 years ago today). They were just wrong on the timeline for the consequences to be felt.
The Rodney & Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette.
August 14, 1912.
COAL CONSUMPTION AFFECTING CLIMATE.
“The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries.”
https://imgur.com/a/KOFNAtl
The atmosphere is no blanket.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2023.png
Pressure above 100 hPa provides a dense troposphere that moderates the Earth’s temperature and dissipates energy fairly evenly. As you can see, the Earth’s troposphere is very thin.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2023.png
In the year of our Lord 2023 this should go without saying.
When referring to the atmosphere as a “blanket,” the analogy is often used to illustrate its role in regulating Earth’s temperature. In this context, the comparison emphasizes the atmosphere’s ability to trap heat, much like a blanket retains warmth. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect, where certain gases, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor, absorb and re-emit thermal radiation. The analogy serves to elucidate the concept, albeit not meant in a literal sense.
This comparison draws attention to the delicate balance of gases in the atmosphere that helps maintain suitable conditions for life on Earth. While the atmosphere does not function precisely like a tangible blanket, the analogy aids in grasping the intricate interplay of atmospheric components and their impact on global temperatures.
Keep it simple:
1. Sun heats the surface. (True.)
2. Surface heats the atmosphere. (True.)
[The above is valid, and provides the basis for claiming the atmosphere is a “blanket”. Notice it’s all solar energy. Below is the bogus GHE.)
3. The atmosphere re-heats the surface. (FALSE.)
A blanket traps heated air molecules but not as well as glass in a greenhouse. Both physically trap molecules of air. The GHE heat trapping pseudo-science does not explain how air can trap air. In fact it can’t…heated air slides through cooler air like a hot knife through butter.
The current GHE hypothesis is based on an anachronism dating back to 1850 when scientists believed heat flowed through air as heat rays. Actually, it could not even flow through air so they claimed it flowed through an aether, an undefined entity.
The current GHE is based on the pseudo-science that greenhouses warm by trapping infrared energy. No one has explained how trapping IR increases the temperature of the air in a greenhouse. If it could, it would represent perpetual motion since IR would be used as a mechanism to increase energy by recycling it.
Wouldn’t that be great. Just install a tank of halite in a room where the tank holds CO2. Air molecules warm the tank and the warmed CO2 back-radiates IR which is absorbed by room air, warming it.
Holy pseudo-science, Batman.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/
How about using your own brain rather than trying to get me into a head-butt with Roy. I support Roy’s work and I respect his position as a professional. Obviously you don’t since you use his blog to spread alarmist propaganda.
Based on your flurry of posts from authority figures, you lack the scientific background to discuss the science. You have yet to rebutt anything I have posted using scientific logic.
How about reading Dr Spencer’s posts.
All you ever post here are opinions.
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one and they all stink.
You getting in a head-butt with Dr Spencer?
Yours and your fellow deniers combined IQ isn’t even half Dr Spencer’s.
A,
Oooooh! An appeal to authority – which doesn’t have a description of the GHE either!
Try harder.
” The atmosphere is no blanket.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2023.png ”
That’s really the very best.
Palmowski himself probably didn’t see that the image he posted a link to shows the atmosphere over the South Pole, so the worst example ever.
That’s where the theory belongs, a century in the past. The date, 1912, was one year before Bohr stood science on its head by revealing the true relationship between electrons in atoms and electromagnetic energy.
Apparently Ark likes old pseudo-science from unofficial sources. We cannot claim he is not eclectic with his bizarro theories.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
A,
Another attempted appeal to authority, is it?
Maybe you could say what you are trying to say, rather than posting irrelevant links.
Your link states “The greenhouse effect usually refers to a net increase in the Earths surface temperature due to the fact that the atmosphere both absorbs and emits infrared radiation.”
Usually? Not, of course, while the Earth’s surface cools over a period of four and a half billion years, obviously.
If you think you can describe the “GHE”, give it a try. Don’t imitate a slimy gutless Warmist worm, insinuating much, but admitting nothing. How hard can it be to stand up and say what you think?
Come on, your attempts at manipulating others into doing your bidding don’t seem to be terribly effective, do they? Keep trying if you must – it’s always entertaining to watch somebody getting more desperate in their attempts to keep reality at bay.
Carry on.
Clint R,
Go ahead and blame your incompetence on autocorrect, you still can’t get eighth grade science correct, so I assume you can’t spell at the eighth grade level either.
Proving a value of some physical property to be zero is actually pretty hard, and you are not up to proving the axial rotation of the Moon is actually zero.
You are not up to it for two reasons, one: you are bad at science, and two: it’s actually once per 27.321661 days.
bob has run out of ways to pervert reality, for today. So he’s now resorting to insults and false accusations.
He’s boringly predictable.
Clint R,
Well you are bad at science, you claimed a Nitrogen molecule could reflect a 15 micron photon.
No experimental evidence for that, I’m afraid.
And then it’s you that perverts science, seven ways from Sunday.
If you are insulted by the truth, so be it.
bobdroege,
Reflection is a phenomenon at an interface between two media. Nitrogen does indeed reflect a portion of photons of any given wavelength, such as 15 microns.
I’ll let you look up the relevant properties of nitrogen for yourself. You can work out the amount of reflection if you have all the appropriate data.
However, I doubt you have either the knowledge or inclination to do so. You might as well just keep on blabbering.
Have you improved on “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” as an explanation for a GHE which you cannot describe?
Swenson,
“Nitrogen does indeed reflect a portion of photons of any given wavelength, such as 15 microns.”
Really, how much of a portion?
Greater than 0.01%?
Got any experimental evidence you could link to?
Typical, coward reaction of the Flynnson stalker:
” Ill let you look up the relevant properties of nitrogen for yourself. You can work out the amount of reflection if you have all the appropriate data.
However, I doubt you have either the knowledge or inclination to do so. You might as well just keep on blabbering. ”
Why does he not himself look up ?
Because he is unable to find any data.
Dumb Flynnson polemic.
Bumbling Bobby,
Here’s what the WMO says –
“In total approximately 70% of incoming radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface while around 30% is reflected back to space and does not heat the surface.”
If you wish to claim that no 15 micron light is reflected by nitrogen, go ahead. If you say you have experimental evidence to back you up, I say you are lying.
As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” You seem to have the scientific method confused with mathematics. There are no scientific “proofs”.
All your folderol is irrelevant, if you cannot even describe this mythical GHE.
Care to try?
Swenson,
The amount reflected is done by the surface ice and the atmospheric clouds.
Not by the atmosphere.
It’s Clint Rs claim that Nitrogen reflects 15 micron IR.
He has not provided evidence.
The use of infrared telescopes in Astronomy from the Earth’s surface is evidence the atmosphere does not reflect IR.
I think you didn’t notice I didn’t ask for a proof, I asked for evidence.
You too, are blasting off, and have no evidence to support your spewage of lukewarm maypo.
“Obviously the statements by Clint were correct ”
So say the ignorant folk.
I saw that you had done Norman’s homework for him, bob. He owes you at least a “thank you”.
When he didn’t respond, I figured he had found out he was wrong (as usual) about nitrogen. That’s one of his tactics when proven wrong — hide for a day or so and come back like nothing ever happened. His other tactic is to explode in a tirade of insults and false accusations, as you’re doing now.
Your cult is so predictable.
Clint R,
Well since my research supports the fact that Nitrogen reflects little to none of the infrared from CO2, because the atmosphere is mostly empty space.
Solids do much better at reflecting than gases.
Bumbling Bobby,
“Nitrogen reflects little to none of the infrared from CO2, . . . ”
This is relevant to something, but you can’t say what, I presume.
Something to do with a GHE, maybe? What is the GHE supposed to do?
Can’t quite describe it?
What a pity!
bob, you’re good at deflecting. But, the issue is about REFLECTING..
A CO2 15μ photon can NOT pass through a N2 or O2 molecule. And since your “mostly empty space” atmosphere is 99% N2 and O2, but only 0.04% CO2, which molecule will be hit more often by a 15μ photon from Earth?
Clint R,
What a bunch of junk, you’re just blasting off.
Infrared goes right through Oxygen and Nitrogen.
Otherwise why build these
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_telescope
Here is the actual composition of the atmosphere by the actual volume occupied.
0.008 % Nitrogen
0.002 % Oxygen
0.0001 % other gases Argon, H2O, and others.
99.9 % empty space
Using all caps is like frothing at the mouth.
bob, you’re good at deflecting, and STILL at it. Go back and refresh yourself on the issue.
If the photon misses the molecule, it does NOT get reflected. That allows an infrared telescope to work.
What will you try next?
Clint R,
So what are the odd that the IR from CO2 misses the Nitrogen atom?
0.0000000002 %?
more or less?
Bumbling Bobby,
You made a really odd statement, accusing the WMO of being nearly as intellectually bereft as you. Maybe you can’t read, but the WMO states that around 30% is reflected back to space – by the atmosphere. It doesn’t even reach the surface, you nong
Heres what the WMO says
“In total approximately 70% of incoming radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and the Earths surface while around 30% is reflected back to space and does not heat the surface.”
If you wish to claim that no 15 micron light is reflected by nitrogen, go ahead. If you say you have experimental evidence to back you up, I say you are lying.
As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” You seem to have the scientific method confused with mathematics. There are no scientific “proofs”.
All your folderol is irrelevant, if you cannot even describe this mythical GHE.
Care to try?
“If you wish to claim that no 15 micron light is reflected by nitrogen, go ahead. If you say you have experimental evidence to back you up, I say you are lying.”
Clint is making the claim, and you are correct that he is lying.
Nate, where did I ever make such a claim?
“A 15μ photon would have too long a wavelength for both N2 and O2. It could not fit though, or be absorbed. Consequently, it would be reflected.”
“A photon with lower frequency can NOT transmit through a molecule with higher frequency. It gets reflected.”
Ok. So you now admit that this rule of yours was just made up fake physics, with nothing to support it?
This is what Clint R posted
“Sorry Norman, but thats incorrect.
A 15μ photon would have too long a wavelength for both N2 and O2. It could not fit through, or be absorbed. Consequently, it would be reflected.
Have you learned to walk yet?”
Swenson,
Maybe you could show me where the WMO or anyone else says that it’s the Nitrogen and Oxygen in the atmosphere doing any reflecting.
“You made a really odd statement, accusing the WMO of being nearly as intellectually bereft as you. Maybe you cant read, but the WMO states that around 30% is reflected back to space by the atmosphere. It doesnt even reach the surface, you nong”
I’ll remind you that I did not accuse the WMO of anything.
If you are joining Clint R in claiming Nitrogen or Oxygen can reflect IR, please provide some evidence.
Making it simple for the cult ignorant:
1. Nate supplies a quote and suggests it is mine, even though the quote is clearly not what I claim.
2. Then Nate supplies my exact quotes, and tries to make straw men out of them.
Then is no correction from Nate. No admission he was WRONG. No acceptance of responsibility.
He was proven wrong, yet he just keeps on tr0lling.
Your post Clint R
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/is-your-comment-here-not-appearing/#comment-1519543
Are you denying you made that post.
And denying you said
“A 15μ photon would have too long a wavelength for both N2 and O2. It could not fit through, or be absorbed. Consequently, it would be reflected.”
Your words, you can eat them if you like.
Brain-dead bob, I know you have trouble understanding, but Nate claimed I supported the opposite!
Nate is a tr0ll, and you are a tr0ll. The question is, which of you is the biggest tr0ll.
Clint R,
So you are claiming you did not claim Nitrogen or Oxygen reflects IR?
That was clearly in your post.
So insults are all you have, no science.
Again, try that physics textbook, and learn how light interacts with matter.
Brain-dead bob, I know you have trouble understanding, but Nate claimed I supported the opposite!
Nate rejects reality and you reject reality. The question is, which of you is the most brain-dead?
Burbling bobby,
If you want to believe that neither nitrogen nor oxygen reflect infrared light, good for you!
Luckily, your bizarre beliefs don’t change a single physical fact.
Maybe you believe that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, for all I know!
Carry on demonstrating your ignorance – I don’t mind at all.
Clint R,
So now you are claiming Nate claimed you were claiming O2 and N2 do not reflect IR light, but what, O2 and N2 transmit IR light?
So what’s your claim?
O2 and N2 reflect IR light?
or
O2 and N2 transmit IR light?
We’ll leave O2 and N2 absorb or scatter IR light for now.
Swenson,
O2 and N2 transmit IR light.
Transmission, Reflection, A, or Scattering, those are the possibilities.
If you believe transmission does not lead the pack, show some evidence.
Heres where Nate misrepresented me:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1522600
Thats why I no longer respond to his nonsense. Now that the worthless one has departed, Nate is the #1 tr0ll. Youre not far behind….
Clint R,
You misunderstand Nate’s post, when he said
“Clint is making the claim, and you are correct that he is lying.”
He wasn’t referring to the post that he was quoting.
He was referring to Swnenson’s quote in response to me.
“If you wish to claim that no 15 micron light is reflected by nitrogen, go ahead. If you say you have experimental evidence to back you up, I say you are lying.”
give it up you are losing.
So what’s your position on what happens when IR light and O2 and N2 interact?
Reflection?
Transmission?
Aword?
Scattering?
bob, you’re either dishonest or incompetent (or both?). Go back to the link and study Nate’s comment. Let’s see if you can figure it out and face the truth.
“1. Nate supplies a quote and suggests it is mine, even though the quote is clearly not what I claim.”
True. I misread Swenson’s post. Missed the “no”.
There, I stand corrected.
Now lets’ see if Clint can do it.
Admit that these two claims of yours are not supported by any evidence, and are just made-up.
“A 15μ photon would have too long a wavelength for both N2 and O2. It could not fit though, or be absorbed. Consequently, it would be reflected.”
“A photon with lower frequency can NOT transmit through a molecule with higher frequency. It gets reflected.”
Nate, you got caught blatantly misrepresenting me. You had to admit it. Now, you’ve started your tr0ll tactics again: “Admit that these two claims of yours are not supported by any evidence, and are just made-up.”
I don’t mind teaching you physics, but first you have to clean up your act and cease and desist with your cult tactics and nonsense.
Clint R,
Will you retract your claim that O2 and N2 reflect IR?
bob, are you STILL avoiding reality?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1522852
Clint R,
Right, I am rejecting reality.
You made this statement.
A 15μ photon would have too long a wavelength for both N2 and O2. It could not fit through, or be absorbed. Consequently, it would be reflected.
Do you need a physics lesson?
Well when you STOP rejecting reality bob, I’ll try to help you with physics.
Clint R,
Got any evidence to back up your claim that N2 or O2 reflect IR under any circumstances.
As usual, when you can’t do that your resort to all caps, insults, and accusations that I reject reality.
You got nothing, should I put that in all caps for you?
Bob you got any evidence they don’t.
We should be able to agree there are a lot of unknowns and uncertainty surrounding climate. But we can’t because you are bent on certain elements obtaining political powers by fiat of the people holding the bucks.
I see. Clint will not admit his errors. But demands it of others, because he knows others have integrity.
While he doesnt.
Tyndall figured this out 150 y ago.
“He noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque.
Tyndall’s experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation”
bob, please provide a link to where I said ” N2 or O2 reflect IR under any circumstances”.
You can’t, because that is NOT what I said.
This is how the cult works. Make false accusations knowing that most readers will not bother to check. So their perversions of reality stick. They do that because they have NOTHING.
And now we see Nate joining in, to further the perversion. I’ve already stated I will NOT explain physics to them until they can accept reality.
They will be here all day, making up more nonsense, so I have to end my responses. Someone has to be the adult here….
Nate says:
Tyndall figured this out 150 y ago.
”He noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque.”
the key word is ”almost”.
nitrogen and oxygen is how many times more common than CO2. something like 2,500 times?
How transparent is ‘almost’ transparent.
“nitrogen and oxygen is how many times more common than CO2. something like 2,500 times?”
He studied them at various partial pressures, up to 100 % of each gas.
Clint was explicit with his made up science:
A 15μ photon would have too long a wavelength for both N2 and O2. It could not fit though, or be absorbed. Consequently, it would be reflected.
A photon with lower frequency can NOT transmit through a molecule with higher frequency. It gets reflected.
Clint R,
Here you go, but you know I already linked to this post, and quoted you from this post.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/is-your-comment-here-not-appearing/#comment-1519543
Nate says:
”nitrogen and oxygen is how many times more common than CO2. something like 2,500 times?”
He studied them at various partial pressures, up to 100 % of each gas.
——————————–
Cool! In what increments of partial pressure and what were the differences in results?
Seems to me the discussion going on here between Clint and Swenson and Bob is how each results in a net effect with oxygen and nitrogen being about 2500 times as common as co2.
Thus the accuracy of Tindall’s equipment would need to be somewhere in the range of 99.96 accuracy to do the job. So Nate how accurate was Tindall’s equipment. According to you it was accurate enough to say nitrogen and oxygen was ‘almost’ transparent. But what is that in numbers with the appropriate range of error? that is if you want to put some science behind your statement and you just aren’t bellowing out your opinion.
Bill,
Absorbance isn’t the topic at this time, reflection is.
The fact that CO2 is more than a billion times more effective at absorbing IR than N2 or O2.
Using modern equipment, not Tyndall’s early work.
Maybe Clint is thinking of Raleigh scattering which causes blue light to scatter off nitrogen. Hence the blue sky.
But not red light, hence the red sun at sunset, or any light with longer wl, since its strength ~ 1/wl^4.
So no, 15 micron wl IR doesn’t scatter (or reflect) off nitrogen gas.
Nate oxygen and nitrogen absorb more blue light than other longer wavelength frequencies.
”As the size of the gas molecules of these gases is much higher than the wavelength of blue light, therefore, the blue color is scattered more when the light passes through these molecules.”
So Blue light has shorter waves, with wavelengths between about 450 and 495 nanometers. Red light has longer waves, with wavelengths around 620 to 750 nm. And of course CO2 absorbs at 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers so does that mean nitrogen and oxygen scatters those frquencies at 1/30th that of CO2?
“Nate oxygen and nitrogen absorb more blue light”
No. They scatter (reflect) blue light, they do not abs.orb it.
“As the size of the gas molecules of these gases is much higher than the wavelength of blue light”
Also wrong. Where did you get this nonsense quote?
It came from study.com
https://tinyurl.com/mryk3ukc
You can find it here also.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html
The second source is good, and say anything in agreement with
“As the size of the gas molecules of these gases is much higher than the wavelength of blue light:
which is obviously false.
Well since you agree with the latter source you have to agree with:
”The scattering from molecules and very tiny particles (< 1 /10 wavelength) is predominantly Rayleigh scattering. For particle sizes larger than a wavelength, Mie scattering predominates. This scattering produces a pattern like an antenna lobe, with a sharper and more intense forward lobe for larger particles.''
Notice how this:
“The scattering from molecules and very tiny particles (< 1 /10 wavelength) is predominantly Rayleigh scattering."
and blue light is what is scattered by nitrogen.
is saying the opposite of this silliness:
"As the size of the gas molecules of these gases is much higher than the wavelength of blue light"
So why don't admit that this last statement that you posted was erroneous?
Nate you said the second site was good.
It certainly has far more credibility than you do and it is discussing ”Mie scattering” that is relative to the frequency of the light and the molecule size. I was not talking about ”Rayleigh scattering” as you ignorantly claimed.
So if you want to dispute this you will need a reference supporting your opinion. I won’t hold my breath has you have a terrible record of being able to support your opinions.
So your first post was wrong. Now do you have a point anymore?
No Nate. This is from the second source which you said was good and called BS on what is written in the second source:
”The scattering from molecules and very tiny particles (< 1 /10 wavelength) is predominantly Rayleigh scattering. For particle sizes larger than a wavelength, Mie scattering predominates. This scattering produces a pattern like an antenna lobe, with a sharper and more intense forward lobe for larger particles.''
Like I said I won't hold my breath for you to come up with something to dispute this.
And so, you read some factoids, but have no point to make relevant to this thread. Which was about whether these two statements by Clint are correct, or just made up.
A 15μ photon would have too long a wavelength for both N2 and O2. It could not fit though, or be abso.rbed. Consequently, it would be reflected.
A photon with lower frequency can NOT transmit through a molecule with higher frequency. It gets reflected.
“For particle sizes larger than a wavelength, Mie scattering predominates.”
NOT relevant because nitrogen molecules are much SMALLER than the wavelengths of light being discussed!
Nate says:
And so, you read some factoids, but have no point to make relevant to this thread. Which was about whether these two statements by Clint are correct, or just made up.
——————-
Obviously the statements by Clint were correct as Clint didn’t claim that O2 and N2 molecules scattered more light individually than a CO2 molecule. He just pointed out that their are about 2500 times more of them.
You were the one who was wrong disputing the scattering.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”For particle sizes larger than a wavelength, Mie scattering predominates.”
NOT relevant because nitrogen molecules are much SMALLER than the wavelengths of light being discussed!
———————–
Well you need to quantify that Nate. Predominates means ‘more’, not zero.
Obviously the statements by Clint were correct”
So say the ignorant folk.
Nate says:
”So say the ignorant folk.”
We established who that was. You called the scattering of light being determined by molecule size nonsense. I proved you wrong and now you won’t admit it. Thats pretty ignorant.
“You called the scattering of light being determined by molecule size nonsense. ”
F*ck off, liar.
None of your posts make a bit of sense, nor contradict anything I’ve said.
Nate said:
”The second source is good, and say anything in agreement with
”As the size of the gas molecules of these gases is much higher than the wavelength of blue light:”
which is obviously false.”
Liar!
Quote the lie, and show us why it is a lie.
You already admitted to it being a lie Nate.
You said the 2nd source was good, it covered the molecule sizing and Mie scattering and most of all you haven’t come up with a source refuting the second source.
This is the wrong statement. And I made that clear. You got all confused, and falsely called me liar.
“As the size of the gas molecules of these gases is much higher than the wavelength of blue light’
Also wrong. Where did you get this nonsense quote?”
Show me your source that says its wrong.
You need a source to determine whether nitrogen molecules are larger than the wavelength of blue light????
Hmmmm so all you are is an obfuscator?
The only point I was making was that you were wrong claiming that the Clint was wrong about the diatomic oxygen and nitrogen molecules affecting IR.
I came up with that quote from Study.com and you denied that it supported Clint’s claims. You called by 2nd source OK while still denying Clint’s claims. I don’t know if the study.com source is wrong about those molecules or not and I am not going to look it up.
But what is clear is you are a lying POS willing to contort argues and pretend what may or may not be wrong about that quote has any relevance to the argument put forth by Clint.
As I see it Clint wiped the floor with you Nate. You have been incompetent in coming up with any scientific sources to refute Clint’s statements.
“you were wrong claiming that the Clint was wrong about the diatomic oxygen and nitrogen molecules affecting IR.”
False. You never showed a shred of evidence to support that.
You seem to be very confused.
“I dont know if the study.com source is wrong about those molecules or not and I am not going to look it up.”
So you call me a liar about basic facts that you don’t know and are too lazy to check?
I’m just very surprised that you seem to have no clue about the relative sizes of things like molecules and wavelengths.
Good now Nate agrees with Clint that O2 and N2 scatters IR.
Bill keeps on losing and confusing.
Nate is a flip flopper
Honest debate on the facts clearly doesn’t work for you. So you try all the loser alternatives.
there is no debate here Nate. all you have provided are your personal declarations without a shred of evidence in support of them.
Bad summary. Clint claimed something untrue, and we called him out on it. Asked for evidence. He showed NONE. You tried and failed to defend him, offering nothing to support his claims, except red herrings, and in the process demonstrated your basic science illiteracy.
there is no debate here Nate. all you have provided are your personal declarations without a shred of evidence in support of them.
word
“The synodic month, or complete cycle of phases of the Moon as seen from Earth, averages 29.530588 mean solar days in length (i.e., 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes 3 seconds); because of perturbations in the Moon’s orbit, the lengths of all astronomical months vary slightly. The sidereal month is the time needed for the Moon to return to the same place against the background of the stars, 27.321661 days (i.e., 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes 12 seconds); the difference between synodic and sidereal lengths is due to the orbital movement of the EarthMoon system around the Sun. The tropical month, 27.321582 days (i.e., 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes 5 seconds), only 7 seconds shorter than the sidereal month, is the time between passages of the Moon through the same celestial longitude. The draconic, or nodical, month of 27.212220 days (i.e., 27 days 5 hours 5 minutes 35.8 seconds) is the time between the Moon’s passages through the same node, or intersection of its orbit with the ecliptic, the apparent pathway of the Sun”
I allow me to remind those who are interested that in 1750 the astronomer, physicist and mathematician Tobias Mayer calculated the moon’s rotation around its axis with incredible accuracy.
At that time, Mayer published the following value:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lf5eVBfj1gDUiw3gXd8f8jF1cTsOuwxl/view
27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11 seconds, 49 sixtieths of a second
Converted in decimal days, this gives
27.321665 days
This value differs from the most recent value computed out of Lunar Laser Ranging data
27.321661 days
by 0.000004 days (i.e. 0.35 of a second).
*
No lunar spin denier on Earth can change that.
*
But it could also be a clue for some arrogant ignoramuses who discredit historical thermometers as a valuable tool for measuring temperature: simply because the tools Mayer used (a small telescope, a home-made micrometer accurate to one arcminute, and a metronome with a 1-second timer) are at best similar in accuracy to these thermometers.
The reason for Mayer’s extreme precision in calculating the rotation period of the Moon can therefore not lie in the measuring devices.
Rather, it was due to the numerous measurements that he carried out as well as to his excellent processing of the measurement data.
Bindi, he was calculating the orbital period. You get so easily confused.
Clint R
Your reply is dumb.
Because in fact, you perfectly know that Tobias Mayer calculated the lunar spin period AND the inclination of the lunar spin axis wrt the Ecliptic (i.e., the plane encompassing Earth’s orbit around the Sun).
You’re not confused, Clint R: You’re simply unimaginative.
The imaginary “spin axis” has also been debunked, Bindi. (Remember the pencil in a coffee cup?)
You couldn’t understand that either.
Clint R,
“(Remember the pencil in a coffee cup?)”
Did you poke yourself in the eye?
bobby,
Have you purchased Willard’s gibberish generator?
Maybe you could crank it up, and see what sort of GHE description it can generate!
Could it be sillier than yours – “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”?
Give it a try.
” The imaginary ‘spin axis’ has also been debunked, Bindi. ”
Debunked, Clint R?
Ha ha ha.
You mean of course: misunderstood, hence distorted, misrepresented, discredited and denigrated.
If you were at least able to show us ONLY ONE source SCIENTIFICALLY CONTRADICTING what hundreds of scientists have elaborated: then I would begin to understand you.
All you are able to present is your poor guessing, Tesla’s tiny pamphlet included.
Like you, the Tesla boy never bothered even a minute about trying to understand what Cassini, Newton, Mercator, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and their numerous successors did.
Swenson,
Nope, that ones yours.
“Could it be sillier than yours Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.?”
Mine always has the moar better moar hotter
Can’t keep your shit straight?
Bindi, simple experiments prove you wrong. THAT is science.
You reject that reality. THAT is cultism.
Did you miss the above?
“because of perturbations in the Moon’s orbit, the lengths of all astronomical months vary slightly.”
Warning of strong dry winds in Hawaii.
https://i.ibb.co/7k8VgPc/mimictpw-epac-latest.gif
Climate modellers are not providing any useful insight into why climate has changed. The ACCESS model produces unphysical nonsense that has no relationship to observations or even produces plausible projections.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/14/climate-modelling-in-australia/
Bill Hunter
I looked and read the experiment you linked to.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
They seem to have a legitimate experiment. they do measure back-radiation and they also measure a reduction of outgoing IR when pure CO2 is introduced. They did not any significant temperature increase on the back wall so they conclude the GHE is not correct.
There is one thing I could think of that could alter their experiment. They are using Styrofoam for the back wall. Styrofoam only has an emissivity of 0.6 so it means it will not absorb a significant band of IR.
I did more research and found this:
https://tinyurl.com/zvzteknc
If the link works it will be an IR spectrum of polystyrene.
Here is the IR spectrum of CO2
https://tinyurl.com/4pzu589
The polystyrene may not be absorbing much IR from the CO2 so it won’t increase the temperature.
They may try to use a highly absorbing IR paint for the back wall to ensure that the material used is not the issue.
The thermocouple in the back wall is painted black to absorb IR so that strongly suggests that the thermocouple makes up a portion of the surface of the back wall and thus there wouldn’t be a problem. Since the styrofoam is highly insulating it shouldn’t be cooling the thermocouple significantly.
But it might be a good point as one of my complaints has been how Trenberth in his budgets assumes all reflection/albedo of the earth surface is outside the region of earth’s IR frequencies. So I can appreciate your comment.
bill…I sense there is a problem with the thermocouples they are using, which are meant to detect heat, not IR. There is an on-going confusion that IR is heat, and vic-versa and that is simply not true.
The ‘thermo’ in thermocouple means heat, and thermocouples detect heat, like heated air molecules. They were never meant to measure IR, especially not at low levels.
Thermocouples measure what now Gordon?
Fluke much, or is there a different brand used in Canada?
Posting after too much Maddog?
Oooooh! A perfect plethora of gotchas from a donkey.
Have you worked out the difference between a non-existent GHE “description” and a non -existent GHE “explanation”?
You claim this infantile piece of nonsense is a “description” –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Maybe you should just stick to trying to annoy people. Your efforts at comedy might work in kindergarten, but I doubt anybody will pay you for them – even other SkyDragn cultists!
I could be wrong.
Swenson,
Which smart donkey posted this?
“bobdroege obviously doesnt know (or doesnt want to know) that all light with wavelengths shorter than visible light are infrared by definition.”
Oooooh! A perfect plethora of gotchas from a donkey.
Have you worked out the difference between a non-existent GHE “description” and a non -existent GHE “explanation”?
You claim this infantile piece of nonsense is a “description”
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Maybe you should just stick to trying to annoy people. Your efforts at comedy might work in kindergarten, but I doubt anybody will pay you for them even other SkyDragn cultists!
I could be wrong.
bobdroege obviously doesn’t know (or doesn’t want to know) that all light with wavelengths shorter than visible light are infrared by definition. Not the sharpest tool in the shed, is bobby.
Strange lad.
Here is your physics lesson Swenson, and you owe me fifty bucks.
Shorter wavelengths than visible light are ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays.
Infrared, microwaves, and radio waves have wavelengths longer than visible light.
Blithering Bobby,
Thank you for confirming that “Infrared, microwaves, and radio waves have wavelengths longer than visible light.” It took me a little effort, but I got there, didnt I?
Now, it is a matter of fact that radio waves, for example, are refracted and reflected by any interface between media of different refractive index. It gets more interesting. Total internal reflection is the reflection of electromagnetic radiation from the interface of medium with larger index of refraction, and a medium of smaller index of refraction.
Oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere have different indexes (indices?) of refraction, as does a vacuum.
If you choose not to believe that this is the case, you are free to do so.
You may also believe that oxygen and nitrogen are always at absolute zero, neither absorbing or emitting infrared radiation.
You are obviously a sandwich short of a picnic.
Swenson,
You get something backwards and you call me blithering.
Are you annoyed by my posts?
Or are you annoyed that I appear smarter than you?
Swenson made a mistake. Now Bob’s science argument is that because Swenson made a mistake everything he says is a a mistake.
Seems to me your mistake is far bigger than Swenson’s.
“Now, it is a matter of fact that radio waves, for example, are refracted and reflected by any interface between media of different refractive index. It gets more interesting. Total internal reflection is the reflection of electromagnetic radiation from the interface of medium with larger index of refraction, and a medium of smaller index of refraction.
Oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere have different indexes (indices?) of refraction, as does a vacuum.”
There are no ‘interfaces between media’ in the atmosphere, just well mixed gases. And the differences in index of refraction are negligible.
“The index of refraction of air is 1.0003, which is very similar to the index of refraction in a vacuum (1.0000), therefore, in most problems, these indices are used interchangeably.”
Thus, we may from time to time get real facts from Swenson, but not useful or relevant ones.
Bill,
“Swenson made a mistake. Now Bobs science argument is that because Swenson made a mistake everything he says is a a mistake.
Seems to me your mistake is far bigger than Swensons.”
Now when did I claim everything Swenson says is a mistake?
Gordon they painted the thermocouple black. If you put one in a room its going to measure the room temperature. They painted it black so it would warm from radiation and not reflect it. So it will warm from either contact with the air or via radiation from gases its not in contact with. Turns out the radiation from the CO2 didn’t increase the warming as per the 3rd grader radiation model it registered the same as when regular air was in the compartments.
A thermocouple is a sensor that measures temperature. It consists of two different types of metals, joined together at one end. When the junction of the two metals is heated or cooled, a voltage is created that can be correlated back to the temperature.
Gordon is right. Thermocouple doesn’t measure IR.
Painting a thermocouple probably interferes with the thermocouple’s ability to measure accurately.
I worked with thermocouples that monitored temperature on a ships propeller shaft main bearing.
There are three requirements for a thermocouple. First, the point of contact where the measurement of interest takes place must be the only contact point. The theromocouple will measure the temperature of the nearest point of contact to the detector (e.g. if there is a short). Second, the point of contact must be unobstructed by scale or dirt. It must be a clean contact. Solder is allowed and does not disturb the effect. Finally, the current flow in the wires must be zero, and therefore the length of wire is not important. This is most commonly accomplished with a Wheatstone bridge.
Ken,
Not really. Freeze a thermocouple sensor in a bowl of water, and the thermocouple, its connecting wires’ insulation, the dissimilar metals, any painted surface, will all be at the same temperature.
The response time will vary depending on how well the junction is insulated, as well as the @bsorbtivity of the junction. A single thermocouple has an uncertainty of +- 0.3 C or more.
Thermocouples are not well suited for accurate temperature measurements, but have obvious advantages compared with liquid in glass thermometers.
All a bit of a diversion, in any case. There is no GHE – nobody here is even prepared to say what the effect of the GHE is supposed to be! Here’s an attempt by Tim Folkerts – “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”.
Completely meaningless, isn’t it?
“Completely meaningless, isnt it?”
Well if you know we in Ice Age, and earth global temperature is going
to lower, you can hope, added CO2 will increase global temperature.
The problem is the cold ocean will simply suck up all the added CO2.
A better plan is live in the tropical ocean in ocean settlements- the tropics is always warm.
Or live on Mars, where it’s warmer than Earth.
Bill is probably talking about thermocouples (TC) detecting IR, because I introduced him to the Thermopile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermopile
It is an interesting device that uses two or more thermocouples to measure temperature gradient across a thin disk, exposed on one side to IR flux. The gradient depends on the NET heat gain or loss at the front surface of the disk.
From this heat gain or loss the IR flux can be determined.
Nate
The problem with your wiki link is that wiki is good for pseudoskeptical people if (and only if) it supports their narrative.
I therefore suggest this alternative source dedicated to (real) engineers:
https://www.omega.com/en-us/resources/thermocouples-principles-of-infrared-thermocouples
Binny,
A company advertising the excellence of its products (better than all the rest, of course) may tend to skew the truth just a wee bit, from time to time.
Maybe you could clarify this for me “Emissivity shows how much infrared energy a thermometer can put out at a time. IR thermometers with emissivity closer to 1.00 can read more materials than those with lower emissivity value”
Which materials cannot be “read” by a thermometer with a particular “emissivity value”?
Or do you think the wordsmith who wrote the advertising copy misunderstood what he was told, and nobody bothered to check his output?
Come on now, you can demonstrate how knowledgeable and helpful you can be, if you put your mind to it.
Hunter repeats his interpretation of the S&O experiment. But, he fails to take notice of the fact that the thermocouple also responds the temperature of the air in the back chamber. And, he ignores the other significant fact, that is, the rear chamber is heated by energy from a heated plate, which is maintained at “about” 100C, which heats the air via convection. Also, there’s forced convection from a small fan, which would tend to even out the air temperature within the rear chamber. There was also no attempt to compensate for the difference in the emissivity of the painted thermocouple vs one without paint.
Small wonder that the that the air temperature measured (Figure 5) is almost identical to that of the thermocouple (Figure 6). Don’t forget, the results from the IR sensor do show an increase in “back radiation” when the front chamber was filled with CO2.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter repeats his interpretation of the S&O experiment. But, he fails to take notice of the fact that the thermocouple also responds the temperature of the air in the back chamber.
—————–
Thats the point Swanson it doesn’t respond to the CO2 in the front chamber. We expect it to be fully responsive to the air in the back chamber and the front chamber if that chamber was actually warmer than the back chamber.
All we are proving here is that cold CO2 doesn’t warm stuff thats warmer.
Hunter wrote:
There’s no reason that the front chamber full of CO2 should be warmer than the back chamber filled with air, since the energy is supplied to the rear chamber. Convection would be expected to move the thermal energy from the rear chamber thru the thin film to the front chamber and thence thru the front thin film window and thru the walls to the room.
Hunter still doesn’t understand how S&O ran their experiment. They made a point of setting the temperature of the rear plate to “about 100 C”. They did not specify how they did this, but, if they did so continuously during each run, they obliterated any impact of the measured “back radiation” on either the heated plate or on their rear thermocouple.
In sum, they have not proved “that cold CO2 doesn’t warm stuff thats warmer” with their sloppy experimental efforts.
E. Swanson says:
”Theres no reason that the front chamber full of CO2 should be warmer than the back chamber filled with air, since the energy is supplied to the rear chamber.”
————————
Where are you seeing that to be the case Swanson? Figure 5 shows the front chamber considerably cooler than the back chamber as you say would be expected.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter still doesnt understand how S&O ran their experiment. They made a point of setting the temperature of the rear plate to about 100 C. They did not specify how they did this, but, if they did so continuously during each run, they obliterated any impact of the measured back radiation on either the heated plate or on their rear thermocouple.”
———————
Obliterated what? What you are saying isn’t making any sense. The ”sun” in this experiment is the black plate. The item the backradiation you expect to warm via the CO2 is the black thermocouple on the back wall.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Swanson says:
”In sum, they have not proved that cold CO2 doesnt warm stuff thats warmer with their sloppy experimental efforts.”
————————–
The only thing sloppy here is your interpretation of the experiment description and the objective. Not one mistake on your part but two dramatic mistakes as itemized above.
Hunter’s a funny guy. As I read his earlier comment, it appeared to me that he was claiming that the front chamber would be warmer than the rear chamber, thus my reply. Did you incorectly state the situation?
Then he wrote:
The difference is that the Sun has a constant temperature and rate of emission, whereas the rear plate does not. For example, if light is placed such that the initial temperature is 100 C temperature, what happens next? Well, the back chamber is at room temperature, thus the plate loses energy at some rate which will decline as the temperature of the rear chamber increases to ~48 C. If the placement of the light is not changed, the temperature of the plate will also increase. Lacking any guidance from S&O, we are only to guess what they did. That’s just one flaw in their paper and a critical one at that.
As for the rear thermocouple, I see no reason to claim that it’s temperature represents a good reference for the effects of back radiation from the front chamber. It is also directly impacted by the strong convection within the rear chamber caused by the plate’s being at ~55 C warmer than the air within the chamber.
You are the one who has presented mistaken interpretations of their experiment as you refuse to discuss the physics. Worse, you continue to ignore the experimental evidence from the IR sensors, which did indicate “back radiation” from the front chamber.
Sorry Swanson the description of the experiment was he adjusted the halogen light to heat the plate to 100c. He then ran the experiments.
so are you suggesting he constantly changed the input to the experiment during the experiment?
It is clear he adjusted the light with it on and air in the box.
Then for each run with either air or co2 in the box he turned the light back on and recorded the warming curves.
If he was as you seem to be suggesting changing the position of the light so as to keep the temperature at 100c just how did he obtain the warming curves from the ambient temperature of the room?
Do you think he wired up a railroad car to move the light slowly in from the next room at a different rate to repeat the desired temperature curves for the different gases? LMAO!!!
I think your suggestion is ridiculous. You are getting desperate to find something wrong with the experiment.
bill…you have to understand that Swannie thinks heat can be transferred cold to hot by its own means. When you deal with Swannie. it’s like Alice going down the rabbit hole.
I’ll bet even Alice knew that heat could not be transferred cold to hot by its own means. Even the Mad Hatter knew that. Come to think of it, Swannie is a lot like the Mad Hatter, described as follows in Wiki…”…the Hatter is characterized by switching places on the table at any given time, making short, personal remarks, asking unanswerable riddles, and reciting nonsensical poetry…”
Indeed no number of experiments that fail will convince Swanson as he bases his belief in science solely on what his daddy told him.
Hunter wrote:
No, they wrote:
They later mention their runs with the AL foil, stating:
They made no note about when the temperature was “about 100 C” during the runs with the metal plate and for the AL foil, they claim only an “average temperature” over some unspecified time period. Their runs lasted around 30 minutes, according to their graphs, at the end of which the gas temperatures are still increasing.
They used a hand held Fluke 62 Max IR thermometer to measure their plate temperatures. the reading depends on the placement and orientation of the device. Such devices have a cone of acceptance, so placement is important. The specs from Fluke state that:
The bottom line is that we don’t know precisely what they did. I think your conclusion that they just started each run at a 100 C temperature is unfounded, indeed, for the AL foil, they clearly state otherwise. You’ve suggested that the only way to solve a scientific question is thru experiments. But, experiments require careful execution and later must be documented so that others may understand the results or even replicate them. The S&O paper is rather amateurish and is not peer reviewed, so I think their results don’t prove what they (and you) claim.
Your complaints are like a caught fish flopping in the bottom of the boat Swanson.
The ”setup” involved adjusting the halogen lamp to get the black plate to 100C.
You suggested he moved the light to get the results he wanted.
S and O were about 150 y behind in their technique.
If they were truly interested in measuring heat flux with the required sensitivity, they would not use a single thermocouple.
They would instead use a Thermopile, which is much more sensitive to changes in heat flux, which was discovered 200 y ago.
Thermopile:
“When two wires made of different metals are connected to make a loop, and the two junctions between the wires are held at different temperatures, a voltage is produced and electrical current can be detected with a sensitive current meter. This is the Seebeck Effect, discovered by Thomas Seebeck in 1821. The effect is multiplied when there are more than two junctions in series in the circuit, with alternate junctions in close thermal contact with each other. By measuring the current, one can measure the temperature difference of the junctions. The Differential Thermopile was invented by Macedonio Melloni (1798-1854), an Italian physicist who worked in France and Italy. Melloni’s research dealt with thermal radiation, and he developed the thermopile to make quantitative measurements of the intensity of the radiation”
And then they would at least do as Tyndall did 150 y ago, to make a differential measurement of heat flux.
He used a steady heat source to zero out the heat flux into the thermopile when no heat abs.orbing gas was present in the tube, and thus measure only the tiny CHANGES in heat flux that resulting from the addition of gases of interest into the tube, such as CO2.
Nate if you can do the experiment better you should do it.
That way you might have some support for your viewpoint on this matter. So far you have never been able to point to any support.
No need.
The laws of heat transfer physics have already been thoroughly tested since the time of Tyndall.
Back radiation exists, as anyone using an IR thermometer can demonstrate, as we discussed.
Your confusion over these issues cannot be fixed.
Boy you build strawman like GM builds cars.
Nobody said backradiation doesn’t exist. What we said is only know that energy moves from hot to cold and thus backradiation can’t warm anything. So since you claim it does that kind of backradiation does not exist.
“Nobody said backradiation doesnt exist.”
Strawman? Not at all:
Bill sed:
“You are incapable of making a consistent argument because you have zero physical evidence of backradiation.”
And BTW,
When you say back radiation can’t cause anything to warm, this is proven wrong by the IR thermometer discussion.
If the IR thermometer detects a rise in temperature of a distant object, the sensor surface must have warmed.
That means it is detecting a rise in back radiation from the object, and as a result the sensor warms.
And BTW S&O agree:
“The IR backscatter was measured with the IR-detector placed behind the box (IR2) during heating with the Al-foil. The result is presented in Figure 9. After 40 minutes the backscatter in the rear chamber increased 17 W/m2 with CO2 in the front chamber.”
“When the thermopile in the IR detector is heated by abso.rbed IR radiation its voltage response increases. The detector HEATS UP and increases its voltage when irradiated by IR from CO2.”
Nate says:
”Nobody said backradiation doesnt exist.”
Strawman? Not at all:
Bill sed:
”You are incapable of making a consistent argument because you have zero physical evidence of backradiation.”
————————
Boy you are horrible at logic!!! A lack of physical evidence that something exists doesn’t mean that something doesn’t exist!!!
Take God for example.
Nate says:
”When you say back radiation cant cause anything to warm, this is proven wrong by the IR thermometer discussion.
If the IR thermometer detects a rise in temperature of a distant object, the sensor surface must have warmed.
That means it is detecting a rise in back radiation from the object, and as a result the sensor warms.”
Terrible logic again. The correct scientific conclusion isn’t that back radiation caused the sensor to warm. The correct logical and scientific conclusion is that the warm object caused the sensor to cool more slowly. You just jump in there and start planting in your religious belief system and extrapolate a cartoon teaching aid as fact.
Science is based in logic and facts not what you imagine in your brain. So why is the photon model used as a teaching aid? Because its consistent with the known effect and its effective at providing an image for the less gifted student.
Of course the problem comes in when that less gifted student starts rote believing everything he sees rather than critically thinking out the topic.
Bill,
Sorry but this is incorrect
“What we said is only know that energy moves from hot to cold and thus backradiation cant warm anything.”
Energy definitely can move from cold to hot.
bobdroege says:
”Sorry but this is incorrect
What we said is only know that energy moves from hot to cold and thus backradiation cant warm anything.
Energy definitely can move from cold to hot.”
Well Bob you have zero established credibility so no one should believe you. So prove it.
Sorry Bill, even your heroes, S&O, agree that you are wrong.
‘The IR backscatter was measured with the IR-detector placed behind the box (IR2) during heating with the Al-foil. The result is presented in Figure 9. After 40 minutes the backscatter in the rear chamber increased 17 W/m2 with CO2 in the front chamber.’
When the thermopile in the IR detector is heated by abso.rbed IR radiation its voltage response increases. The DETECTOR HEATS UP and increases its voltage when irradiated by IR from CO2.
Oh well!
We await some flimsy excuse.
“A lack of physical evidence that something exists doesnt mean that something doesnt exist!!!”
OK, Bill, then you do believe back radiation exists.
At the same time, you think there is zero physical evidence that it exists.
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!!!
Nate says:
”OK, Bill, then you do believe back radiation exists.
At the same time, you think there is zero physical evidence that it exists.”
Not exactly. I don’t think backradiation is necessary to explain everything we know about how energy moves.
As far as physical evidence is concerned. I haven’t seen any despite asking you repeatedly to come up with some. All you came up with was a thermopile being able to determine the temperature of a distant object. All that demonstrated was your ignorance about IR sensors.
If somebody hadn’t told you, you would also think that objects that appear red are actually emitting red light. But fortunately you escaped that one because no professor is that dumb.
Like every other argument I have heard about photons they all fall short of proving they actually constantly flow in every direction. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don’t. Perhaps the only thing photons actually do is provide a cartoon picture for every math term. Perhaps that is their only reason to be imagined.
That doesn’t mean that physical evidence doesn’t exist or that I believe such evidence will ever be found to prove backradiation being a fact or fiction.
Near as I can tell all it took to convince you was a cartoon depiction of it and some professor somewhere teliing you how he believed it worked.
You seem to think you have to have an answer for everything. Maybe you do as you need all that to extrapolate beyond the limits of science. A cartoon of the 3rd grader radiation model with photons you can blame for heating the surface.
“As far as physical evidence is concerned. I havent seen any”
This is just you saying stuff, Bill.
It is the essence of ‘argument by assertion’.
The reality is I showed you evidence based on actual Laws of physics, and logical principles such as Causality, for which you had no logical answers.
At some point, facts, logic, and evidence have to count, else you need to give up debating altogether!
Causality? You haven’t even put together a logical argument for causality that can survive a test of the 3rd grader radiation model.
You just whine about how every experiment that shows it doesn’t work per claims as being flawed. Where is your experiment showing it working?
Bill,
For radiative transfer between two objects, the equation is as follows:
Heat flux = emissivity * Stephan-Boltzmann constant * view factor *
the difference in the fourth power of temperature.
Basic thermodynamic, why do I have to prove it to you.
You can do your own homework.
That’s the only way to confirm that I am a credible source.
It may take you a while.
bob you have the wrong formula:
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah is the correct one.
Bill,
You are correct, I left the area off.
The equation you claim is correct shows the difference between two energy flows.
So you made my point.
There is an energy flow from cold to hot, as well as an energy flow from hot to cold.
Nope electricity, magnetism, water, all flow in one direction.
You need a working model to demonstrate that heat flows in two directions. Extrapolating it from the radiant potential of any object is where Nate fell on his own sword. In electricity potential determines flow and direction.
there may be photons flying everywhere which is a made up concept built on the assumption their is no medium in space as there is within the atmosphere upon which electrical potential can create a flow of energy.
So I am with Einstein on this topic.
”All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question “What are light quanta?” Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
Albert Einstein, 1951
It is on you to produce the proof that Einstein was wrong about you.
“Causality? You havent even put together a logical argument for causality that can survive a test of the 3rd grader radiation model.”
Gibberish.
You reject Causality? Why?
In the experiment you like, they find:
The IR backscatter was measured with the IR-detector placed behind the box (IR2) during heating with the Al-foil. The result is presented in Figure 9. After 40 minutes the backscatter in the rear chamber increased 17 W/m2 with CO2 in the front chamber.
And they agree with me that this requires:
“When the thermopile in the IR detector is heated by abso.rbed IR radiation its voltage response increases. The DETECTOR HEATS UP and increases its voltage when irradiated by IR from CO2.”
Sorry Bill, the back radiation caused the detector to warm.
If you reject Causality then you must think the detector warmed by happenstance!
Actually there is no evidence of that Nate.
Like with a greenhouse experiment say like Pratt’s where he used more thermometers.
He found the ceiling of his experiment gathered heat as it couldn’t convect past the solid barrier. Thats obviously to create some kind of minor warming effect back at the floor by warming the air.
So these effects wouldn’t seem to apply to a freely expanding atmosphere as nothing gets backed up. All M&W did was assume that happens.
I don’t have a position on the matter. I can see a lot of possibilities, probably a least a dozen. I just happen to judge that the 3C per CO2 doubling is highly unlikely.
If you want to change my attitude on that then you need to build a model that shows how cold air heats warm air. But S&O (and many others) shows that CO2 isn’t unique in warming the chambers. And we have gone over how IR sensors really work so you can’t claim backradiation/back scatter as being a unique transporter of heat.
I realize that you believe it does but you are simply jumping to conclusions and can’t demonstrate that it does.
Assertion:
“Actually there is no evidence of that Nate.”
So again, you reject straightforward evidence. But offer no actual rationale for doing so. Just off topic diversion.
Did the sensor put out a voltage without actually warming?
Does it warm, but without any cause?
Bill,
“Nope electricity, magnetism, water, all flow in one direction.”
I work with cyclotrons, and we have a meter that measured reflected power, or electricity flowing backwards.
So I have a working model for that.
Also I have a working model for radiation flowing both ways, in my kitchen I shine a flashlight on to my electric stove.
Another kitchen experiment with an electric stove, turn the stove on full power and observe the coils, then put a pot of water one, you will notice the coils get a brighter shade of red, indicating the temperature of the coils goes up.
Stay in your lane, isn’t that philosophy?
It sure isn’t science.
So you are denying that Clausius’ statement is wrong?
Do you have a science source because your imagination isn’t a credible source.
And yes I am very much aware of a number of interesting aspects of electricity where flow can be reversed and light can also. In the case of light it involves certain rare materials that are from the ‘potential’ perspective receptive to certain frequencies of light from a colder source. And from ‘photon’ perspective are more receptive to such light at those certain frequencies.
But there is no evidence of such unusual characteristics in the straight up blackbody model.
So indeed all of science is subject to some exceptions to the rule. . .or at the minimum have the appearance of being an exception to the rule. . . because the rules aren’t perfect.
Bill,
This statement is correct
“It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body.”
So is this one
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Of course this means
” As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’,”
Especially the net transfer of energy part.
Bob in short. . .the 3rd grader radiation model doesn’t work.
Bill,
Did the sensor put out a voltage without actually warming?
Does it warm, but without any cause?
Have no answers? That’s fine. Now you have your evidence that back radiation causes the detector to to warm.
No Nate the sensor does not warm when the target is cooler, it cools. . .it never warms unless the target is hotter than ambient.
“No Nate the sensor does not warm when the target is cooler, it cools. . .it never warms unless the target is hotter than ambient.”
If the target is very cold, then the sensor will be cooler than ambient temperature. If the target then warms, the sensor will also WARM.
That is what occurred in the experiment.
As S&O confirmed:
“When the thermopile in the IR detector is heated by abso.rbed IR radiation its voltage response increases. The DETECTOR HEATS UP and increases its voltage when irradiated by IR from CO2.”
“it never warms unless the target is hotter than ambient.”
is False.
When CO2 replaced air, the sensor warmed.
If you are referring to sealed box experiments Nate the sensor warmed insignificantly, well below expected from your backradiation theory, and the cause of that warming could well be from contact, conduction, and convection.
And you still lack any evidence of the effect being from radiation.
Though as I have frequently stated GHG’s are a necessary condition for a GHE but its not known to what degree they are sufficient.
It makes sense to me that the air temperature could increase slightly by radiative properties of greenhouse gases. . .but the theory claims its going to be the surface. . .and it seems from actual experiment rather than the imagination of scientists that the vast majority of energy escapes to space before warming the surface. . .as found by Roy and everybody else in their greenhouse experiments.
And as to the sealed box experiments they will allow some pressurization of the gas. In a freely expanding atmosphere you won’t see that effect.
“If you are referring to sealed box experiments Nate the sensor warmed insignificantly, well below expected from your backradiation theory, and the cause of that warming could well be from contact, conduction, and convection.”
Endless silly excuses to deny reality, Bill. Why?
According to S & O:
The IR backscatter was measured with the IR-detector placed behind the box (IR2) during heating with the Al-foil. The result is presented in Figure 9. After 40 minutes the backscatter in the rear chamber increased 17 W/m2 with CO2 in the front chamber.
It warmed no more or less significantly than it should have given that it received 17 W/m^2 from the CO2 back radiation. It is calibrated after all.
You don’t know that is less than theory, you just made that up, as you do when you lose an argument.
“It makes sense to me that the air temperature could increase slightly by radiative properties of greenhouse gases. . .but the theory claims its going to be the surface. . .and it seems from actual experiment rather than the imagination of scientists that the vast majority of energy escapes to space before warming the surface. . .as found by Roy and everybody else in their greenhouse experiments.”
Roy claims no such nonsense.
“actual experiment rather than the imagination of scientists”
The warming of the sensor by back radiation of CO2 that we discussed is an experiment.
Just as the warming of my IR thermometer’s thermopile sensor by back radiation is also an experiment, that anyone can replicate.
Neither one are someones’s imagination.
Nate says:
According to S & O:
The IR backscatter was measured with the IR-detector placed behind the box (IR2) during heating with the Al-foil. The result is presented in Figure 9. After 40 minutes the backscatter in the rear chamber increased 17 W/m2 with CO2 in the front chamber.
——————
Indeed there was a small amount of backscatter detected with an IR sensor.
And that fact has you completely lost in the sauce. Let me straighten it out for you:
The IR detector is detecting the energy captured by the CO2 as in Pratt’s experiment who also noted that backscatter/backradiation failed to warm the surface (the black plate in the S&O experiment and the surface of the greenhouse floors in the other experiments)
As all these experiments and all the people who understand what has happened in these experiments already know. Backradiation doesn’t warm anything. But as I stated above the CO2 capturing energy it would be expected to warm the CO2 gas which the IR sensor detected.
So where does that leave you? Still lost in the sauce?
Nate says:
Roy claims no such nonsense.
——————–
Roy also only found an extremely small amount of warming and Roy believes feedback is negative. As I said if you don’t get the expected warming from backradiation, as everybody finds, one needs to consider that the slight warming might result from contact or some change in convective heat loss instead. And if so all bets are off.
As ever Bill, when discussing technical stuff, you get confused and mix things up.
We were discussing the sensor, and the backradiation from CO2 heating the sensor, which S&O fully agreed was what happened.
So here is your response:
“Backradiation doesnt warm anything. But as I stated above the CO2 capturing energy it would be expected to as I stated above the CO2 capturing energy it would be expected to warm the CO2 gas which the IR sensor detected”
Where is the backradiation in there? The sensor is not in the CO2! It is in the back, and for it to detect radiation it had to get BACK there from the warm CO2 in the front.
No Nate an IR sensor can measure the heat its losing when the target is colder than ambient and it can measure the heat its gaining when the target is warmer than ambient. Nothing has to actually reach the sensor for the sensor to do that.
“No Nate an IR sensor can measure the heat its losing when the target is colder than ambient and it can measure the heat its gaining when the target is warmer than ambient. Nothing has to actually reach the sensor for the sensor to do that.”
‘When the target is warmer’ which it knows how?????
‘when the target is colder; which it knows how????
And if it changes from warmer to colder, the detector knows that immediately???
Again, you believe the sensor has magical ability to ‘know’ things about a distant object, while magically never receiving the EM flux that the SB law tells us was emitted by the distant object earlier, and contains exactly the information the sensor needs to have acquired.
Of course the rest of us, including your source’s authors, don’t require any such magical thinking to understand what’s going on here.
But for you being contrary to whatever Nate says is the primary objective.
Reality, facts, sense, credibility can all be sacrificed for this cause.
Nate says:
”Reality, facts, sense, credibility can all be sacrificed for this cause.”
Reality is the IR sensor in the backwall did warm and the heated Al plate didn’t. Seems to me the backwall was cooler than the GHG.
“Reality is the IR sensor in the backwall did warm” in response to back radiation it received from the CO2 source.
Thus your claim that back radiation cannot cause warming is falsified.
Nate there is so much wrong with that its hard to find a place to start.
But lets start with its NOT backradiation. Backradiation is the alleged radiation from a colder object to a warmer object.
The GHG (CO2) is warmer than the styrofoam backwall.
“But lets start with its NOT backradiation. Backradiation is the alleged radiation from a colder object to a warmer object.”
Uhh, that’s a new definition, and a moving of the goal posts.
“The GHG (CO2) is warmer than the styrofoam backwall.”
Doubtful, and irrelevant.
Look the sensor measures the ADDITIONAL radiation coming from the CO2, that wasn’t there with only air present. “After 40 minutes the backscatter in the rear chamber increased 17 W/m2 with CO2 in the front chamber.”
That is back radiation.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
Fig 5. The back wall is WARMER than the front with CO2.
Nate says:
Fig 5. The back wall is WARMER than the front with CO2.
————————
And the backwall didn’t warm in accordance with theory.
The fact that an IR detector separated from the front chamber by the rear chamber can detect some increase in CO2 emissions is to be expected as CO2 emits more than air. Thats why you use IR detectors from a distance rather than holding mercury thermometer in the rear chamber.
What you have to deal with is there is no significant changes in temperatures substituting CO2 for air anywhere.
See figures 5 and 6 for temperatures of co2, air, and rear wall.
So there might be backradiation or the potential for backradiation but there was no impact from either.
If cold objects could warm warmer objects Nate then you could argue that backradiation was more than just potential backradiation. But as you try to make it stand. . .it has no legs to stand on.
Seems that the argument over whether back radiation can warm things is over.
Now you want to talk about how MUCH it warms, and label it ‘insignificant’.
What the detector shows is that back radiation can warm things, and how much it warms things depends on the details of the setup.
But the details of the S&O setup are quite different from those in the atmosphere. In the S&O experiment, there are significant heat losses, and the ratio of heat transfer by convection and radiation are different than that of the atmosphere.
What did it warm Nate? And by how much?
It warmed the surface of the thermopile in the IR sensor.
It warmed it by a delta T that gives a 17 W/m^2 increase in SB flux, easily calculated.
You failed to say how much it warmed Nate.
You also failed to note that the IR sensor’s ambient temperature is the temperature of the room.
”Another detector is placed behind the box (IR2) and measures IR backscatter radiation via a 6 6 cm window in the rear wall”
That means the ambient temperature of the IR sensor was about 8C cooler than the front chamber.
“You failed to say how much it warmed Nate.”
No I didn’t.
Let’s summarize your assertions, and their evolution over a couple of weeks:
Initially
“You are incapable of making a consistent argument because you have zero physical evidence of backradiation.”
Has been falsified.
OK, but
“Backradiation doesnt warm anything. ”
I show you that it warms the IR sensor surface.
So you redefine it!
“But lets start with its NOT backradiation. Backradiation is the alleged radiation from a colder object to a warmer object.”
It seems you never met a goal post you couldn’t move when needed!
Suppose the IR sensor was mounted on the back surface so that it (the sensor) was warmer than the front of the box.
Is it your view that the detector would stop working?
Specifically, it would no longer be able to detect the 17 W/m^2 increase in back radiation, that came from CO2 replacing air?
Why?
Nate the author’s description of the experiment has the IR sensor mounted on the backwall, outside of the box, and it views the backscatter through a small window in the wall. See Figure 3.
”Another detector is placed behind the box (IR2) and measures IR backscatter radiation via a 6 6 cm window in the rear wall”
Thus the thermopile is at room temperature which is cooler than the front compartment of the box. Styrofoam protects the thermopile from heat of the back compartment and the halogen light.
Thus all you have said is either irrelevant or wrong.
Yes, we have been over all that, but that doesnt answer my question.
The IR sensor is designed to work over a range of temperatures. If it was inside the back, at the temperature of the back wall, is it your view that it would stop working, and be unable to detect the 17 W/m^2 increase in back radiation with the CO2 present?
Why?
Its obvious that you have no answer, Bill.
And you are obviously frustrated, and so you lash out at me everywhere else.
Nate you are wrong that IR2 warmed from back radiation.
Its outside the box, at room temperature, and colder than the gases in the front chamber. It should warm.
You apparently were confused by the author’s use of the word ”back scatter”. Yes we know there is a flow of radiation from a warmer surface to a cooler surface. So are you now obfuscating about your confusion? Appears so.
More distractions that evade answering my straightforward question.
It seems you have no idea how the IR detector works, even though we discussed it, and are unable to predict its results when in warmer ambient temperature than the source of radiation.
Or you do know how it works, and would rather not learn that it in fact would still work, and still could detect the change in backradiation of 17 W/m^2 when CO2 replaced air in the front.
Because, as we have all learned, the goal here is not for you to get at the truth.
Instead the goal is always to be contrary to Nate.
Now here’s a hint:
My IR temperature sensor, which uses the same thermopile as the IR sensor, WORKS JUST FINE when it is at a higher ambient temperature than the source of radiation.
It is able to detect the temperature of the inside of my freezer, when at room temperature. It is also able to detect the temperature increase, if I point it instead toward the inside of my refrigerator.
Thus, it is able to detect an INCREASE in radiation from a source colder than itself.
And we KNOW that when it detects an increase in radiation, it WARMS.
thats fine Nate. The design wizardly of modern IR detectors allow for IR detectors to detect both warmer and cooler surfaces.
But thats doesn’t mean the detector has to actually receive photons to do that. It only can be ‘thought’ of receiving photons because we really don’t know what photons are and to identify them as opposed to the science radiant heat transfer we need to know more than the surface is cooler or warmer.
You and others complain: ”how would the warmer surface know how much energy to send if it wasn’t receiving photons”. Thats an argument for photon from ignorance. Its a fallacious argument.
We don’t get to assume stuff because we are ignorant. Richard Feynman’s favorite person to pillory was such a person.
And of course you will not be admitting that you were wrong about anything warming by back radiation in this experiment.
“receiving photons because we really dont know what photons are”
Again you distract by bringing up photons. None of my arguments depend on them.
And what YOU dont know about photons is not equivalent to what science doesn’t know.
“wizardly”
IOW by magic, as opposed to well understood laws of physics.
Desperation mode.
“how would the warmer surface know how much energy to send if it wasnt receiving photons”
Supposed to be my quote? You made it up.
No Nate. You have knowledge of physics and then you have wizards that can use the law of physics and apply them in wizardly ways.
throw in the digital revolution with computing and you can do even more wizardly things that deceives the unimaginative.
But it does show progress that you are now disavowing the photon model as a necessity for an IR detector to work. That moves you into at least partial agreement with Einstein on the matter of photons.
I see you are desperate to change the subject.
“You have knowledge of physics and then you have wizards that can use the law of physics and apply them in wizardly ways.”
Sure. But you and they cannot get around the basic thermodynamics here. Which requires the surface of the device to warm in order for it to detect an increase in radiative flux.
Thus you cannot get around the fact that back radiation causes the surface of the device to warm.
We can be done now.
Nate says:
I see you are desperate to change the subject.
Sure. But you and they cannot get around the basic thermodynamics here. Which requires the surface of the device to warm in order for it to detect an increase in radiative flux.
Thus you cannot get around the fact that back radiation causes the surface of the device to warm.
We can be done now.
——————————-
You have to be kidding Nate. You lost this argument hands down.
1) there was no backradiation even detected. Backscatter does not equal backradiation. And the 17 watts detected was detected by a detector with an ambient temperature of the room which is colder than the front compartment. . . so its the radiation being emitted by the CO2 in the direction of a colder target.
And you still believe it proves backradiation can warm a warmer target after reading this experiment? ROTFLMAO!
“Backscatter does not equal backradiation. And the 17 watts detected was detected by a detector with an ambient temperature of the room which is colder than the front compartment. . . so its the radiation being emitted by the CO2 in the direction of a colder target.”
Well, when you say the radiation is ‘being emitted by the CO2’ then it should be obvious to you that is not ‘backscattered’ radiation.
Everyone else in the world calls the radiation emitted by CO2 back to the Earth ‘back radiation’.
In fact, there is no back scattering of IR from CO2, so their use of ‘backscatter’ is incorrect.
The rest of your post is bloviation and can be safely ignored.
Oh well, more whack-o-mole with your assertions.
S&O:
” Part of the emitted radiation (back radiation or backscatter) from greenhouse gases returns to the Earths surface and contributes to increased surface temperature”
Nate says:
S&O:
” Part of the emitted radiation (back radiation or backscatter) from greenhouse gases returns to the Earths surface and contributes to increased surface temperature”
————————
S&O are true scientists. He is discussing the traditional photon model, which while unproven, there is nothing wrong with it if you are disciplined and don’t assume stuff.
He obviously indicates it could be back radiation or backscatter. The point is his test shows that whatever it is it doesn’t warm anything already warmer than the molecules that are doing the emitting in that it did warm the cold sensor but didn’t warm the Al plate or the back chamber.
that of course sends a sharpened telephone pole through the heart of your theory.
“S&O are true scientists.”
Tee hee hee.
Theyre seemingly growing in stature because they are unable to do a good enough experiment to demonstrate that the First law of Thermodynamics is valid.
Hint: It is valid. They have lost some heat.
But luckily their commercial IR sensor is good enough to show it.
Im sorry that my IR temperature sensor and the S&O IR sensor both warm when exposed to back radiation, contradicting your beliefs.
But I do understand that by the sky-dragon-slayer code you need to keep arguing this point indefinitely, regardless of the evidence.
Nate says:
”But luckily their commercial IR sensor is good enough to show it.”
—————-
typical Nate strawman.
I don’t think anybody in here disputes that a warm object can warm a cooler object Nate. Be sure to keep your head soaked in gin.
and as soon as you find an IR sensor warming a warmer thermopile than the object from which the IR is emanating be sure to send a link to it to the rest of us.
Nate says:
“”Theyre seemingly growing in stature because they are unable to do a good enough experiment to demonstrate that the First law of Thermodynamics is valid.”
Sorry Nate before you can claim that the 1LOT is relevant here you must first demonstrate that the 1st compartment is cooling as it sends IR toward the cooler sensor.
You can play your silly games all day long but you can’t argue yourself out of a paper grocery bag.
“Sorry Nate before you can claim that the 1LOT is relevant here you must first demonstrate that the 1st compartment is cooling as it sends IR toward the cooler sensor.”
Ughh the whack-a-mole game continues.
The front compartment is being heated. It is not cooling. It is warming until it reaches a steady temperature.
1LOT applies because the detected 17 W/m^2 is a flux of energy. Unless you think this energy vanishes, it will result in warming.
And when I asked Seim about this he agrees that the 1LOT should apply here.
In fact inside the IR detector, where it the flux is not lost, it does result in warming!
“as it sends IR toward the cooler sensor.”
It appears that the IR2 sensor itself is actually INSIDE the box. He talks about their homemade thermopile:
“The advantage of this construction, compared to the IR detector used by us, was that the reference connection, with temperature T2, was placed outside the box at room temperature.”
And it doesnt matter, because it is designed to detect radiation when it is warmer than the source or cooler.
Nate says:
It appears that the IR2 sensor itself is actually INSIDE the box. He talks about their homemade thermopile:
The advantage of this construction, compared to the IR detector used by us, was that the reference connection, with temperature T2, was placed outside the box at room temperature.
And it doesnt matter, because it is designed to detect radiation when it is warmer than the source or cooler.
———-
You conveniently (for you) ignored the statement: ”Is the temperature increment with CO2 too low to be detected by a single thermocouple? ”
So the one inside the box recorded no increase in temperature. Outside the box with a thermopile and an amplified signal the temperature increased . . .as expected because it was cooler than the CO2 inside the box.
As to an IR sensor computing radiance from both warmer and cooler sources virtually all the digital models do that today.
For decades IR sensors couldn’t do that without a cryopack to cool the sensor. So what did they do to change that Nate. Have you not even bothered to look?
“So the one inside the box recorded no increase in temperature. Outside the box with a thermopile and an amplified signal the temperature increased . . .as expected because it was cooler than the CO2 inside the box.”
Uhhh. The discussion is about the sensor measuring a CHANGE in back radiation with the introduction of CO2.
That has nothing to do with the difference in temperature from inside to outside the box!
“As to an IR sensor computing radiance from both warmer and cooler sources virtually all the digital models do that today.”
Indeed. And the question is, what is the basic physics at work, that is revealed by this observation?
The same physics is at work to produce a voltage in a thermopile that was around in 1860 and used by Tyndall to detect radiative flux.
The physics requires that the front surface of the thermopile warms or cools when the radiative flux changes. This results in a temperature difference between the front and back surfaces. This is the Seebeck effect, discovered in early 1800s.
What is revealed by ‘an IR sensor computing radiance from both warmer and cooler sources’ is that back radiation from a cooler source can result in warming of the detector, when the cooler source increases its flux.
That is what happens when CO2 is introduced into the cooler section of the box, and increases its back radiation by 17 W/m^2.
The detector is able to detect this flux CHANGE, regardless of the ambient temperature.
The digital electronics simply aids in processing this data.
“This results in a temperature difference between the front and back surfaces. This is the Seebeck effect, discovered in early 1800s.”
Correction:
This temperature difference results in a voltage. This is the Seebeck effect, discovered in the early 1800s.
Nate says:
” ”So the one inside the box recorded no increase in temperature. Outside the box with a thermopile and an amplified signal the temperature increased . . .as expected because it was cooler than the CO2 inside the box.”
Uhhh. The discussion is about the sensor measuring a CHANGE in back radiation with the introduction of CO2.
That has nothing to do with the difference in temperature from inside to outside the box!
——————————
Nobody has denied that a modern electronic IR sensor can detect the temperature of cooler objects and compute all the photon model factors. this is a non-starter argument Nate and all you are doing is obfuscating.
The point is the experiment to test the 3rd grader radiation model sold for years to the public by scientists, the press, even Harvard University.
It found the claim and the propaganda used to scare the public to be bunk.
the only thing that matters in this experiment is did the cold CO2 cause anything to warm within an atmosphere. And it didn’t.
You can obfuscate all you want about being able to detect radiation from cold objects but none of it matters if nothing results.
“Nobody has denied that a modern electronic IR sensor ”
Yes its clear that you think it works by techno magic. No physics applicable.
How would you know that? I reviewed a tech paper on the design of one. You haven’t.
“this is a non-starter argument Nate and all you are doing is obfuscating.”
If you understood that the heart of this device is the thermopile, and you understood the physics at work in it, you would not be suggesting instead that the magic of digital electronics are responsible.
If you truly understood the basic physics at work in this device, you would not be suggesting that the my description of the basic physics at work in this device is obfuscation.
Jibber jabber Nate. Zero tech information. All you are doing is repeating what you have heard.
You are stuck on a photon model that you expect to get some warming from back radiation. No amount of experiments is going to give you any street smarts. You are completely inculcated by book learning and have no experience.
Show me the experiment that demonstrates that back radiation actually warms something and maybe we can move beyond this impasse of you ignoring the fact that 100% of the experiments on this have failed.
“You are stuck on a photon model ”
Still bringing up photons? Though I have never made my argument with them.
Are you truly that confused about who said what, when and why, or are just trying to misrepresent my arguments to gain some advantage?
“100% of the experiments on this have failed.”
A non-scientist’s opinion of science he doesnt understand, doesnt like, and wants to fail.
What’s that worth?
Nothing wrong with this one:
https://climatetverite.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Harde-Schnell-GHE-m-2021.pdf
Convection is minimized by the design.
Nothing wrong with this one so far:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/sitys-climate-models-do-not-conserve-mass-or-energy/#comment-1528343
Nate says:
”Nothing wrong with this one:
https://climatetverite.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Harde-Schnell-GHE-m-2021.pdf
Convection is minimized by the design.
Nothing wrong with this one so far:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/sitys-climate-models-do-not-conserve-mass-or-energy/#comment-1528343”
Neither represents a greenhouse effect Nate.
the first is upside down. Here convection is moving the heat gathered throughout the gas column to the top of the cylinder where it is physically trapped from moving higher. Vaughn Pratt found the same effect of heat gathering at the top of his greenhouse where it then passes through the glass electromagnetically and then off to outerspace via convection and radiation with convection taking the bulk of the heat to TOA, whereever that is.
An example of what convection does and no radiant greenhouse effect even attempted to measure in this experiment.
the second one fails also:
The freezer and refrigerator are colder than the sensor before being exposed and the sensor cools and doesn’t warm. To make it warm you would have to move it very quickly from the freezer to the refrigerator to get it to warm some. . .but still it doesn’t get as warm as ambient temperature of the sensor before being exposed. Pretty silly logic there Nate.
“Show me the experiment that demonstrates that back radiation actually warms something”
I did, I have.
“Neither represents a greenhouse effect Nate. Bla Bla bla…”
Ahh, the favorite Bill maneuver, shifting of the goal posts!
Making a mash-up of topics.
Is it purposeful obfuscation? Or are you genuinely that confused?
“Here convection is moving the heat gathered throughout the gas column to the top of the cylinder where it is physically trapped from moving higher.”
Wrong, the heat source is on the top. And there is a matching heated plate above that.
“The freezer and refrigerator are colder than the sensor before being exposed and the sensor cools and doesnt warm. To make it warm you would have to move it very quickly from the freezer to the refrigerator to get it to warm some.”
Yes, and that is what is done in the experiment.
“but still it doesnt get as warm as ambient temperature of the sensor before being exposed. Pretty silly logic there Nate.”
Moving of goal posts, again!
Nobody required it to be as warm as ambient temperature.
You only denied that back-radiation can warm something. Then you wanted the thing to be warmer than the cold source.
Fine
The sensor IS warmer than the freezer and the fridge.
Nate says:
”Wrong, the heat source is on the top. And there is a matching heated plate above that.”
From the study: ”In analogy to the
terrestrial radiation we define the propagation from the warmer to the colder plate as positive zdirection and as upwelling radiation, although our set-up is just upside-down to EASy.”
there they say the experiment is upside down re: the terrestrial GHE.
Obviously, heat trapped in the gas in the cylinder will propagate upwards by convection and diffusion. We know that CO2 captures light energy the key is what becomes of it from there. Does it propagate downwards or does it continue to propagate upwards eventually flying off into space.
If this experiment proves anything it propagates upward and only doesn’t fly off into space because the experiment has a lid on it.
Nate says:
”Nobody required it to be as warm as ambient temperature.”
Sure you do, you don’t have a ghe unless its warmer than ambient. The only thing you prove here is the freezer is colder than the refrigerator. You just want to take that information and try to extrapolate it to something else.
In short Nate what the Harde experiment shows is what is already know about radiant barriers.
reflective surfaces prevent the propagation of radiant heat from behind them to an open space by radiation. this is employed in the building industry to limit downward propagation of heat. they are ineffective in limiting upward propagation of heat.
I think the main point is that if not established that CO2 limits the upwards propagation of heat and certainly doesn’t do it at full potential. That’s consistent with Roy’s findings via at least 3 lines of evidence he has observed. Seems more likely to me that sensitivity is around .33 rather than 3.0. . .when you start looking at it like Manabe. . . but that ignores a number of other uncertainties all of which have been maximized by institutional special interests in the politically litigated environment.
Nate you deserve a lot of credit going to so much effort to show all of us here just how hardup the special interest institutions are in keeping their mitigation dollars flowing.
Nobody required it to be as warm as ambient temperature.
Sure you do, you dont have a ghe unless its warmer than ambient.”
Again purposefully mixing up all the topics!
At issue here was ONLY ‘can back radiation warm something?’. The GHE is a DIFFERENT more complex topic.
That is demonstrated. It even warms things that are warmer than the back radiation source (the sensor is warmer than the refrigerator, yet it got warmer).
QED
You have not rebutted this at all. You offer no science to counter this.
You just keep trying desperately to move the goal posts!
“there they say the experiment is upside down re: the terrestrial GHE.”
Obviously the real atmosphere structure cannot be created in a lab.
“Obviously, heat trapped in the gas in the cylinder will propagate upwards by convection and diffusion.”
“We know that CO2 captures light energy the key is what becomes of it from there. Does it propagate downwards or does it continue to propagate upwards eventually flying off into space.”
The heat source is at the top. The gradient of temperature in the gas is top warm, bottom cool. Even with heat added in the gas Thus there is therefore no upward convection being produced.
The heat transfer upward must be primarily radiative.
Nate says:
That is demonstrated. It even warms things that are warmer than the back radiation source (the sensor is warmer than the refrigerator, yet it got warmer).
-You just keep trying desperately to move the goal posts!
———————-
Incorrect, the sensor didn’t get warmer the IR sensor detects the ‘rate of cooling’, not warming when its targeted onto a cooler object.
So it is you trying to switch the goalposts from measuring temperature by a thermometer, which defines a GHE to voltage of an energy flow thats going from warm to cold by a electronic device that defines the Stefan Boltzmann law.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Obviously the real atmosphere structure cannot be created in a lab.”
then just as obvious we don’t know much about it.
“Incorrect, the sensor didnt get warmer the IR sensor detects the rate of cooling, not warming when its targeted onto a cooler object.
So it is you trying to switch the goalposts from measuring temperature by a thermometer, which defines a GHE to voltage of an energy flow thats going from warm to cold by a electronic device that defines the Stefan Boltzmann law.”
Temperature is regularly measured by the voltage in thermocouples. So that is yet another stooopidity.
In this case the sensor surface actually does WARM, as sensed by thermocouples attached to it.
A thermopile contains thermocouples.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
Obviously the real atmosphere structure cannot be created in a lab.
“then just as obvious we dont know much about it.”
I know, ‘we’ meaning Bill, doesn’t know anything when convenient.
Science on the other hand knows a great deal about the structure of the atmosphere from decades of observations with balloons, etc.
It should be obvious that the 100 km of atmospheric structure with troposphere, stratosphere, convection in the troposphere, clouds, weather etc. cannot be reproduced in a laboratory experiment.
What the Harde experiment is showing is SIMPLY that back radiation can warm.
As Roy Spencer noted in the recent article above,
The greenhouse effect does not produce its own heating effect, it reduces the net rate of cooling in the lower atmosphere, while providing net radiative cooling of the upper atmosphere.
And the evidence he gave:
All of this is well explained by a model of the radiative processes, for instance in every weather forecast model, and the model will create exactly WHAT IS OBSERVED. Without the GHE, you cannot explain the thermal structure of the atmosphere.
But I understand, it is not in your interest to ever accept evidence that fails to support your narrative. So the flimsy excuses seemingly never end!
The quotes on Roy’s statements disappeared. Here with quotes.
As Roy Spencer noted in the recent article above,
“The greenhouse effect does not produce its own heating effect, it reduces the net rate of cooling in the lower atmosphere, while providing net radiative cooling of the upper atmosphere.”
And the evidence he gave:
“All of this is well explained by a model of the radiative processes, for instance in every weather forecast model, and the model will create exactly WHAT IS OBSERVED. Without the GHE, you cannot explain the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”
Nate says:
”In this case the sensor surface actually does WARM, as sensed by thermocouples attached to it.”
Of course it does Nate. If the objects being targeted are warming (or you switch to a warmer target as you do from the freezer to the refer) the thermopile will warm up to the temperature of the target and it won’t warm more than the temperature of the target. Don’t you understand heat transfer at all? Are you also an Area 51 geek?
“the thermopile will warm up to the temperature of the target and it wont warm more than the temperature of the target.”
Then you finally agree that I have done this:
” Show me the experiment that demonstrates that back radiation actually warms something”
I think we’re done here.
No you are too inexperienced to realize that proves nothing.
A thermopile generates a voltage. Is it the net voltage being received from an object warmer than the thermopile? Or is it a voltage being generated by the cooling rate of the thermopile.
Bottom line light has a ‘wave’ frequency and low energy waves only serve to dampen high energy sources emitting high frequency waves.
To increase the energy of a wave you need a higher energy source emitting a higher frequency wave.
So there are devices that can detect both relatively high frequency waves and relatively low frequency waves. But your assumption that a low frequency wave will warm a higher frequency object is a violation of 2LOT.
So you are absolutely wrong about cold objects warming warmer objects and by extension you are completely wrong about ”back radiation” warming anything. In fact experienced scientists scoff at this idea. Trenberth got a lot of criticism for even introducing the concept of backradiation. But ol’ Nate he bit on it like a cod on an anchovy.
Bill, it is you that is wrong & not properly accomplished in thermodynamics. For any real process over time, dQ/T must be positive according to 2LOT. Cold objects EMR NOT warming warmer objects means dQ/T is NOT positive in the process over time so is ruled out by 2LOT. Since Trenberth’s work has dQ/T positive, the work is in accord with 2LOT.
Dr. Spencer showed experimentally that added icy cirrus EMR warms surface water at night confirming dQ/T positive in accord with 2LOT. Bill needs to learn that EMR is NOT heat.
“Or is it a voltage being generated by the cooling rate of the thermopile.”
Ha! You already stated that it warms.
Temperature difference between front and back produces a voltage. Cooling rate? Where’d you dream up that one?
“Bottom line light has a wave frequency and low energy waves only serve to dampen high energy sources emitting high frequency waves.
To increase the energy of a wave you need a higher energy source emitting a higher frequency wave.
So there are devices that can detect both relatively high frequency waves and relatively low frequency waves. But your assumption that a low frequency wave will warm a higher frequency object is a violation of 2LOT.”
None of that is science. As discussed, the device measures radiant flux by the temperature change of the detector.
“So you are absolutely wrong about cold objects warming warmer objects and by extension you are completely wrong about back radiation warming anything.”
Well you clearly stated that it warmed, when exposed to refrigerator, which clearly is colder than the sensor. And you were correct.
Now I guess you realize that agreeing with these plain facts runs counter to the party line, so you need to, as ever, WALK IT BACK.
Sorry not buying it.
Goobye Bill.
Nate says:
”Ha! You already stated that it warms.”
Yeah so what? I also pointed out that the thermopile was outside the box and colder than the front compartment and we know when that is the case the thermopile will warm from the voltage being captured since that voltage is higher than the ambient voltage.
But if the thermopile is warmer than the front compartment none of that is the case.
Nate says:
”None of that is science. As discussed, the device measures radiant flux by the temperature change of the detector.”
In a sense thats correct but the answer lies into how this is measured. The detector design I have seen uses a reflection device to determine what to measure. All it needs to know is what the net gain or net loss is. That is why older detectors could only measure net gain.
Nate says:
”Well you clearly stated that it warmed, when exposed to refrigerator, which clearly is colder than the sensor. And you were correct.”
You are using an electronic device detecting the net flow of energy from the device.
I have clearly pointed out to you and for some reason you don’t get it. That an insulation model can increase the temperature of an environment by providing insulation between two environments.
What it can’t do is as claimed by the 3rd grader model cause the temperature to rise above the level of the power source input i.e. the solar input. The 3rd grader model is a simplified model that has been claimed by physicists who should know better of being able to warm a surface to a value above the initial input.
Now if you abandon that, which I think you should, and adopt Joe Postma’s point of view only then can you make a insulation argument.
But you are still faced with physically and accurately identifying how the insulation actually works. I realize that M&W provided a mathematical model of R-values of the insulation but didn’t provide any proof the actual mechanism to achieve those R values. . .instead he passed the buck and said what he did was only ”applied physics” on what is marketed as settled science.
As an auditor I see what M&W did as an analogy of a bank scam where a computer program is created to defraud a bank of millions of dollars by scavenging mils off of interest rate rounding in many billions of interest rate calculations.
Of course M&W didn’t commit fraud as they are as taken in by the 3rd grader model as you are. . .its more the fault of special interests wanting the 3rd grader model to produce warming and not fully understanding the processes that go on in the atmosphere
Indeed if you do as you do and compare a planet with zero atmosphere to a planet with an atmosphere and use only blackbody S&B equations one can surmise an insulation value from the existence of atmosphere. . .making a claim that a greenhouse effect can exist to be true to some extent if no other processes are going on in this imaginary atmosphere. But its not true there are no other processes going on. Its possible CO2 could be causing cooling. But I don’t advocate any particular view. I am only interested in the science.
And the science that really interests me the most. Can easily be seen in ice core records that have temperature variations of up to about 3C occurring on a pattern of a few centuries. . .not yet explained.
Science is about 2,000 years old and data recorded over that 2,000 years shows climate change patterns changing throughout the science record. That was a big issue until Al Gore stepped in and started spreading money around and firing anybody who wouldn’t do as instructed. That wasn’t science that was corruption.
bill…I am not pretending to be an expert on thermocouples but from my experience with them, which is limited, they are used to measure heat. If you put a thermocouple in a room, it is the air molecules affecting the thermocpouple, hence the air temperature. The thermocouple would experience very little warming, if any, from IR radiation.
Unless you use a powerful IR source like a heat lamp, which are designed specifically to direct IR to a target, and have high temperature heating filaments, I don’t think you’d get much heating from the IR in the experiment.
You should investigate the zeroth law. Temperature is universal.
tim…you need to understand that the laws of thermodynamics are about heat and that temperature is a human-defined measure of heat.
The zeroth law is simply about thermal equilibrium. I don’t even think it should be included as a law, it is so obvious. It was added as an after-thought about 80 years after Clausius et all defined the 1st and 2nd laws.
I don’t think the zeroth law is translated as temperature being universal. It’s simply about thermal equilibrium between more than two states.
bob d…”Thermocouples measure what now Gordon?
Fluke much, or is there a different brand used in Canada?”
***
Fluke does not use a real thermocouple, just a device they call a thermocouple. The device is actually a semiconductor that reacts to infrared frequencies and produces a current which is relative. Then the current is used in a look-up table in the instrument to get an equivalent colour temperature worked out in a lab.
BTW, I know what Swenson meant when he said IR has a shorter wavelength. He really meant a lower frequency. I have talked to him many times about such matters and he clearly understands the difference.
Not only no, but **** no Gordon.
A k-type thermocouple produces a voltage correlated to temperature.
Do you even know anything within your claimed field?
Ooooooh! A zinger!
“Do you even know anything within your claimed field?”
That will no doubt cut him to the quick, won’t it? It might not make you look as intelligent as you were hoping, though.
How are you going with your description of the GHE? Does it have something to do with the cooling of the Earth from the molten state? Do you even know anything about it?
How hard can it be for a self proclaimed physics teacher?
Swenson,
Gordon probably won’t even read it.
Remember, I corrected you on the basic physics of light, say thank you.
Bungling Bobby,
You peabrain. You were refusing to accept that any light with longer wavelengths than visible red was, by definition, infrared.
I apologise to others for my subterfuge in manipulating you into admitting the truth, but needs must.
Next time you start treating infrared light as having some magical heating properties, particularity in relation to the non-existent GHE, you might remember what infrared light is – microwaves, radio waves, long wave infrared, short wave infrared, and so on.
You might wish to thank me for getting you to acknowledge reality, but I doubt it.
How is that “better explanation” for a GHE which you can’t even describe, going?
Not well? How sad.
bob…the k-type measures in the range of 750C to 1300C. Can you see any IR heating the sensor to that temperature, unless you placed the sensor close to the Sun? These kinds of thermocouples are used in proximity to a blast furnace to measure air temperature.
The k-type would not be used in an IR sensor for room temperatures for the simple reason it would not respond to such low-level IR.
Blast furnace temperatures are typically 1500C and the IR radiated from molten metals might be useful. It needs to be understood that temperatures measured in such a furnace also features super-heated air. That’s what most thermocouples measure.
IR sensors measure the frequency of radiation in the IR band. Frequency alone tells us nothing unless we can correlate it to temperature and that’s what IR sensors do. They have a built-in table of corresponding temperatures in memory.
Swenson,
This is what I don’t believe
“bobdroege obviously doesnt know (or doesnt want to know) that all light with wavelengths shorter than visible light are infrared by definition. Not the sharpest tool in the shed, is bobby.”
Then you change your tune, claiming you were using subterfuge
“You peabrain. You were refusing to accept that any light with longer wavelengths than visible red was, by definition, infrared.”
And
“Next time you start treating infrared light as having some magical heating properties, particularity in relation to the non-existent GHE,”
The heating that infrared does is not magical, go buy yourself something
https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/5661/SATCO-S4998.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7aHBneHjgAMVMgatBh1AcAbcEAQYAiABEgK3lfD_BwE
Gordon,
I didn’t say anything about IR and a k-type thermocouple.
Which works because a bimetallic junction produces a voltage and that is what the Fluke measures and converts to a temperature.
And you have the range wrong, I use them up to only 300 C, and I don’t work anywhere near a blast furnace.
https://www.google.com/search?q=k+type+thermocouple+range+chart&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS964US964&oq=k-type+thermocouple+ran&aqs=chrome.2.0i512j69i57j0i22i30l8.335270169j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Swenson,
By the way, here is the definition of infrared
“(of electromagnetic radiation) having a wavelength just greater than that of the red end of the visible light spectrum but less than that of microwaves. Infrared radiation has a wavelength from about 800 nm to 1 mm, and is emitted particularly by heated objects.”
bob, please stop trolling.
Earlier, another cultist got confused and wrote –
“When referring to the atmosphere as a “blanket,” the analogy is often used to illustrate its role in regulating Earths temperature. In this context, the comparison emphasizes the atmospheres ability to trap heat, much like a blanket retains warmth.
Unfortunately, if the GHE is supposed to result in additional heat, leading to elevated temperatures, then a blanket analogy leads to a completely opposite conclusion.
The atmosphere reduces the amount of insolation reaching the surface by around 35%, leading to lower temperatures – fairly obvious but beyond the limited comprehension of cultists.
In full sunlight, surface temperature on the airless Moon reaches 125 C or so, due to the extra sunlight, as opposed to less than 100 C on Earth.
Cultists try and cloud the fact that they cannot even describe the GHE by producing all manner of “analogies” to “explain” something they can’t describe! Oh dear, how sad.
“Cultists try and cloud the fact that they cannot even describe the GHE by producing all manner of analogies to explain something they cant describe!
Oh dear, how sad.”
It is a bit sad, so we have to help them.
The Gulf Stream increase the average temperature of Europe by about 10 C.
Europe’s average temperature is about 9 C, without the help of Gulf Stream Europe would have average temperature below 0 C.
Europe would almost be as cold as Canada or Russia- but 9 C is still pretty cold and 15 C air temperature is cold.
Mostly, the Gulf Stream makes Europe’s winter warmer.
In Canada or Russia [or even the US] air temperature can drop below -50 C.
Let’s see, Switzerland: “-41.8C* La Brvine (NE) 1,048 m above sea level 12 January 1987”
Sweden: “The highest temperature ever recorded in Sweden was 38 C (100 F) in Mlilla in 1947, while the coldest temperature ever recorded was −52.6 C (−62.7 F) in Vuoggatjlme in 1966.”
Montana: “On January 20, 1954, a temperature of -70 Fahrenheit was recorded at Rogers Pass on the Continental Divide.”
-70 F = -56.6667 C
And btw, Montana average temperature is about 6 C
swenson…a quote from another source…”…the comparison emphasizes the atmospheres ability to trap heat, much like a blanket retains warmth”.
***
Any trapping has nothing to do with standard AGW/GHE theory. Air traps heat by absorbing it at the surface and retaining it due to the major gases N2/O2 being unable to dissipate heat effectively via radiation alone. It works that way in a real greenhouse as well where air traps heat, all air, not just CO2 and WV. Normally, that heated air would rise but it can’t because the glass traps it.
There is nothing to trap heated air in the atmosphere even though alarmists claim there is, like the glass in a greenhouse. The heated air continues to rise into ever-reduced air pressure and temperature and dissipates it’s heat load naturally as it rises.
We now know that radiation is a poor means of dissipating heat therefore the atmosphere and oceans retain heat, making the planet warmer than it should be.
Gordon,
” . . . making the planet warmer than it should be.”
It’s exactly the temperature it is – no more, no less.
When the surface was molten, when the first liquid water appeared, when the average surface temperature was 50 C, no warmer or colder than it was.
Should a cooling cup of soup be warmer than it is? Should melting ice cream be colder than it is?
Should Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann accept reality?
Questions, questions!
swenson…I agree with you that Earth was much hotter in days gone by.
My reference to ‘hotter than it should be’ is related to the energy balance claimed by Trenberth et al. They claim energy in versus energy out is in balance but it’s not. Because radiation is a very poor heat dissipator, the Earth cannot get rid of the heat as fast as it is coming in, hence the so-called greenhouse effect, which we both agree is wrong as defined by alarmists.
Re a cooling cup of soup. If we sit it on a table it will cool much faster since convection and conduction are involved. If we put it in a thermos, it cools far more slowly because most of the heat dissipation is due to radiation.
https://judithcurry.com/2023/08/14/state-of-the-climate-summer-2023/#more-30374
State of the climate summer 2023
Posted on August 14, 2023 by curryja | 7 Comments
by Judith Curry, Jim Johnstone, Mark Jelinek
–A deep dive into the causes of the unusual weather/climate during 2023. People are blaming fossil-fueled warming and El Nino, and now the Hunga-Tonga eruption and the change in ship fuels. But the real story is more complicated.–
Excellent report by Judith Curry &Co, free of alarmism as well as of anti-alarmism.
gb,
From the link –
“A deep dive into the causes of the unusual weather/climate during 2023.”
They don’t seem to appreciate that climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations. Unusual weather produces unusual statistics by definition.
There is no such thing as “usual” weather. Weather is our description of the chaotic motions of the atmosphere, aquasphere, and lithosphere. Any changes in any of these, no matter how miniscule, can have completely unpredictable effects.
Any attempt to predict whether any better than a 12 year old using a nave persistence forecast is doomed to failure. Massive parallel supercomputers will not help.
As Mark Twain said “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”
The Krauts around me would say when looking at Flynnson’s endless, meaningless, reckless garbage:
” Sabbern, sabbern, sabbern…
Das ist des Flynnsons einzige Fähigkeit. "
*
Google’s translation tool suggests the following for English:
“Drool, drool, drool…
This is Flynnson’s only skill. ”
A little better, so far OK, although a synthesis of ‘aptitude’ and ‘attitude’ would be best.
Poor Flynnson, who seemingly has day after day nothing better to do than posting his incompetent trash.
Binny,
Are you insinuating that I was wrong about something? Maybe you could identify what it was, and let everybody have the benefit of your fact-supported correction.
I certainly appreciate being helped out if I am in error.
Or you could just keep endlessly whining, because you can’t justify your preoccupation with historical weather records. Telling everybody that it rained yesterday, or last week, or last year, is not a sign of incredible talent, and is of no practical use whatever.
You have said “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”, which is obviously untrue. Reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it colder, not hotter. Put a blanket between yourself and direct sunlight. Tell yourself that sitting in the shade is hotter than sitting in direct sunlight!
Don’t blame me because you prefer fantasy over fact. Maybe someone values your opinion of me, but not a single physical fact will be changed as a result of your opinion, will it?
Carry on.
binny…I have always suspected that you are a Frenchman living in Germany, since French seems to be your native language.
If you want to change climate, move. If want change the weather, wait a day or two.
But issue is improving weather forecast, if they did something about to dry grass in Hawaii and/or at least warned residents of possible dangerous grass fires, less people would be dead from the fires.
And since corporate news is so crappy, the government should do more than depend on the news, to give news.
Return of the Blob?
A,
What is your best explanation for The Blob?
Bear in mind that less dense water floats, no matter how small the difference in density.
Nothing to do with any GHE, I hope.
Magic, perhaps?
Ark is the type that is afraid of his own shadow.
The “Blob” is just another ocean oscillation. It comes and goes. We’re just now learning about all the major ocean oscillations, with the benefit of the Argo floats. The Argo program has only been around for about 20 years, and is just now covering much of the oceans. Wait until we have about 60-70 years of data. THEN, we’ll know something about ocean oscillations.
Is was only discovered in October 2013 so it is a little early to say it is an osculation.
…oscillation…
We know what you meant, the question is whether you were thinking of osculating with women or frogs sitting on lily pads by the water. I had to give up on the latter due to a jealous g/f and any women I still know wear garlands of garlic around their necks and carry silver crosses to ward me off.
Autocorrect got me.
Where did this come from, and who thinks it has any meaning?
“a large mass of water floating at the surface”
It is a area of warmer water. There is no difference in the water molecules, salinity, or anything except temperature.
There’s been another blog hanging around in the North Atlantic.
Low density, low salinity water draining off Greenland. Cold but buoyant.
There is some discussion about whether it is causing a weaker AMOC or is a side effect of the weakening.
Blobs hang around in the atmosphere as well. We had one parked over us in May of this year in North America while the rest of the planet appeared cooler than normal. A couple of summers ago, we had one parked over the Pacific Northwest for several weeks.
The Blob has mostly been rain in the UK, so one could say ‘nothing unusual’.
Having spent my formative years in Scotland my recollection of summer was moderate warming with big, fluffy clouds filling the sky. Arriving in Canada as a child it was a shock to my system to experience summers with clear skies and being very hot. For the first couple of summers I suffered from the heated terribly, experiencing sunburn on my lily-white hide.
Some people in the UK refer to sunburn as a suntan. I mean the kind of sunburn that turns the skin bright red and often raised heat blisters to areas exposed to the sun too long.
99.97% agreece
https://notrickszone.com/2023/08/15/there-is-no-climate-crisis-1600-scientists-worldwide-nobel-prize-laureate-sign-declaration/
Consensus has no role in science, for either side.
I agree on consensus but do you see a crisis out there? All I experience is weather. Pretty much the same weather as when I was a kid.
Consensus Schmoncensus
It is said about 25% of people are completely absent of a sense of humor
: )
Cybertruck Looks READY TO DELIVER!! Plus Why the Elon/Zuck Match Isn’t JUST Fun and Games!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6f0p5XGljk
“In a recent drone flyover, Joe Tegtmeyer (@JoeTegtmeyer) showed us NINE new Cybertrucks under wraps at Giga Texas and ready for what’s likely to be last minute testing prior to customer deliveries: so much for those vaporware claims!”
Which linked to from:
The unexpected way SpaceX is building the lunar Starship!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENOKuaernNo
WAI discusses Starship, and Bezos trying to start global internet which is like Starlink and he running of time for his US govt contract [rural access, etc]. Which suggest there might a rush to get New Glenn rocket flying. And talks all countries trying to land of the Moon
If you wanted an ocean settlement, how big and how cheap would the floating breakwaters need to be.
My simple answer is 20 meter in diameter balloon tank made with Titanium and filled with freshwater [which floats in seawater].
But you could make it smaller and could use Marine Aluminum rather than Titanium. And roughly Marine Aluminum is around 1/2 the price
as titanium and being smaller would be cheaper. It’s around 2.60 to $2.80 per kg or 2600 to $2800 per metric ton.
So make the same diameter of the starship, 9 meters in diameter and in terms section of length, 100 meters {about same height as Starship’s first stage].
9 meters is 354.331 inches or about 29.52758 feet.
100 meters is about 328.084 feet
And for ocean settlement you need about 2 km or over a mile of it.
Or twenty or 100 meter long sections
So, make wall thickness of 3 mm of high strength Marine Aluminum
with strength yield of 40,000 psi.
With Design Factor of 0.72:
Internal Pressure at Minimum Yield (psi): 26.6
Maximum Allowable Pressure (psi): 19.2
And we going use freshwater water at 10 psig
For 100 meter long: 22,895 kg of high strength Marine Aluminum.
Or per meter about 229 kg
and for 2 km {x 20} 457,900 kg or about 458 tons x $2800 =
$1,282,400 for material and 4-5 million added to make it or
about $6 to 10 million dollar per 2 km.
Or per meter: $3000 to $5000 meter
So mass of metal per 1 meter is 229 kg
And mass of freshwater within the metal per meter is about
63,500 kg or 65.5 tons.
So filled with freshwater is doesn’t float high in the ocean water.
But 100 meter length floats well enough float a 100 ton of weight- or per meter, about 1 ton of weight. If you stand on top of it, doesn’t sink.
If 100 people stand on 100 meter section, it sinks a bit.
And even small waves would go over it.
But waves should broken by it.
With 20 meter diameter one, would seem make better surfing waves, and I think if make ocean settlements near coastal cities, you would want to make very good surfing waves.
Also it seems 9 meter diameter wouldn’t work as well against large deep water waves.
RFK Jr the denier
https://youtu.be/oX4me44COck?t=1642
RFK Jr, is the only Democrat I trust at the moment. I read his book, “The Real Anthony Fauci” and he exposed Fauci for the fraud he is. It’s good news to hear he feels the same about climate alarm fraudsters.
The problem is, can RFK Jr, displace the current load of fraudsters running the Democratic Party? They blatantly stole the last election and no their leader, Biden, is being associated with major fraud in relation to his son, Hunter Biden.
“The Real Anthony Fauci is a 2021 book by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in which he critiques Anthony Fauci’s three decades of leadership of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. In the book, Kennedy offers misinformation about Fauci’s role during the HIV epidemic and the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and HIV/AIDS denialism and was described as ‘controversial’ by The Guardian and Publishers Weekly”
The Guardian is slowly become the US National Enquirer, a scandal-plagued misinformation rag.
Kennedy was dead on about Fauci’s role in the HIV debacle, if anything, he understated it. Fauci and David Ho tried to invent a test for HIV based on the PCR method for DNA amplification. When the PCR inventor, Kary Mullis, tried to explain to Fauci and Ho that PCR could not be used to amplify a virus that could not be seen on an electron microscope, Fauci arrogantly told him he was wrong.
After that, Mullis called Fauci a liar on several occasions for spreading that misinformation. Fauci was, in fact, perpetuating a falsehood created by Luc Montagnier that HIV could be identified based on RNA fragments that Montagnier associated with HIV, even though he admitted to having never seen HIV on an electron microscope.
In other words, no one had seen HIV as required by the Louis Pasteur Institute’s guidelines for identifying a virus, which was the gold standard at the time, and still should be the gold standard. The irony is that a member of Montagnier’s team, Barre-Sinoussi, sat on the LPI panel that developed the guidelines. She ignored her on guidelines while basking in the glory of being the first team to allegedly isolate HIV.
HIV causes AIDS. A fact you ignore at your peril.
https://www.pennmedicine.org/for-patients-and-visitors/patient-information/conditions-treated-a-to-z/aids-and-hiv
Gordon,
Sorry, but visual identification of viruses using electron microscopy is no longer the state of the art.
Read all about it
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1042/BC20070173
Roberson’s absolute level of ignorance: we real engineers can measure it by comparing his ridiculous posts with our knowledge and experience when he tries to talk about climate data.
But this is even far worse:
” In other words, no one had seen HIV as required by the Louis Pasteur Institutes guidelines for identifying a virus, which was the gold standard at the time, and still should be the gold standard. ”
And so does the Pasteur reality look like:
https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/protective-extracellular-matrix-underpins-hiv-infectivity?language=en
*
Why does such a difference exist between what Robertson writes on this blog and the reality?
Simply because EVERYTHING he posts on this blog comes solely from what he reads on contrarian blogs.
Robertson would never dare to post anywhere else anything that so thoroughly contradicts the reality.
Come on, Bob, that article was written by ignorant hackers. They claim…”…TEM has gradually been replaced by more sensitive methods, such as the PCR”.
More sensitive methods??? PCR does not detect a virus. The inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis confirmed that. He was adamant that PCR cannot identify a virus that cannot be seen on a TEM (electron microscope).
That’s why we are in such serious trouble these days as evidenced by the abject hysteria surrounding covid. The tests for covid using PCR are fraudulent and that means the vaccines are fraudulent as well since they are based on the same theories.
Even Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, although he claimed only to have inferred it, did not advocate PCR. It was used incorrectly by Fauci and Ho to amplify a so-called virus that could not be seen on an EM.
The clincher, however, is in Montagnier’s later assessment that HIV does not cause AIDS, that AIDS is a product of oxidative stress related to lifestyle, and the human immune system will easy handle HIV if it is healthy.
binny…”Why does such a difference exist between what Robertson writes on this blog and the reality?”
***
That’s the question I have been asking for some time. A member of Montagnier’s team, Dr. Barre-Sinoussi, sat on the panel at LPI that created the guidelines for identifying a virus based on the EM. Montagnier acknowledged that they used those guidelines but when they got to the EM stage they saw no virus.
Based on the guidelines she helped write, Barre-Sinoussi should have been satisfied there was no virus to detect. However, she did not offer a protest and helped Montagnier carry on with research into finding a virus that was not there. If you are desperate enough to find such a virus, you will find ways to find one, and that’s what Montagnier et al did.
Although Montagnier later inferred that certain strands of RNA were HIV, he offered no proof other than a very indirect inference based on retroviral technology which was essentially brand new at the time. There was not a shred of medical precedence upon which to base his claim. That has not bothered hackers since who used the same indirect technology to lock down much of the planet for two years over covid.
At least Montagnier later made amends by claiming HIV cannot harm a healthy immune system and that AIDS is actually oxidative stress related to lifestyle. The evidence supports him. Over 90% of AIDS deaths in North America and Europe involved two high risk groups: male homosexuals and IV drug users.
My concern is this. The sadly misinformed like you have bought into the pseudo-science that HIV causes AIDS and you have dutifully lines up like sheeple for your covid vaccines that have been proved to be useless at preventing covid.
rlh…”HIV causes AIDS. A fact you ignore at your peril”.
***
Your link article is propaganda of the worst kind. It’s along the lines of the climate alarmist propaganda that is currently infecting the planet’s mentality.
richard… Luc Montagnier, the scientist credited with discovering HIV, disagrees with you. He claimed that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system and that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle.
AIDS is an umbrella acronym for up to 30 opportunistic infections, most of them known NOT to be caused by a virus. So, the theory goes that HIV suppresses the immune system, even though no explanation has been offered as to how it manages that, and suddenly a person is vulnerable to up to 30 infections.
SUppose for arguments sake, that is correct. When the immune system is suppressed, how do those infections get into a person’s system? Several of the infections are known to be related to drug abuse, and one of them, wasting syndrome, in Africa and Haiti, was known to be caused by malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and infections lime malaria, until the WHO branded it as an AIDS infection.
Come on, Richard, you need to use some of that grey matter that earned you a Master’s degree. Lifestyle fits the 30 opportunistic infections to a tee while a viral infection that suppresses the immune system does not. People need to acquire those 30 infections and what better place than in a steam bath with males sharing multiple sexual partners while high on drugs, or IV drug users who are notoriously malnourished?
Gordon,
Stay in your lane,
That article was written by an expert in Biology, Biochemistry, and microbiology.
Definitely not your cup of tea.
It might be news to you, but all life forms are described by their DNA or RNA sequences, you just need that, you don’t need a picture.
And you might not be able to tell the difference in two different species by just looking at pictures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism
“Luc Montagnier, the scientist credited with discovering HIV, disagrees with you.”
Yes, and he has since gone completely off his rocker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
“In 2009, in a non-peer-reviewed paper in a journal that he had founded, Montagnier claimed that solutions containing the DNA of pathogenic bacteria and viruses could emit low frequency radio waves that induce surrounding water molecules to become arranged into “nanostructures”. He suggested water could retain such properties even after the original solutions were massively diluted, to the point where the original DNA had effectively vanished, and that water could retain the “memory” of substances with which it had been in contact claims that place his work in close alignment with the pseudoscientific tenets of homeopathy. He further claimed that DNA sequence information could be ‘teleported’ to a separate test tube of purified water via these radio waves. He explained this in the framework of quantum field theory.[17][2][18] He has supported the scientifically discredited view that vaccines cause autism and has claimed that antibiotics are of therapeutic value in the treatment of autism.[9]”
So when did you go off your rocker Nate and start making arguments from ignorance right and left?
Bill is still in stalker revenge mode..
Nobel Disease isn’t limited to old Nobel winners Nate. Ego can go to the head of anybody. Give them a diploma and they believe they are now omniscient. Certainly not a disease limited to the most gifted. Some anonymous bum on the street can actually believe he knows more than an Nobel laureate and make posts dismissing their theories.
But in true science theories are offered for the sake of inviting criticism. More than occasionally they can become politicized long before they are validated or disproven.
In the case of the AGW theory G&T questioned where its basis could be found within the frame of physics. . . and the nonsensical answer if given at all is in the form of the 3rd grader radiation theory as you have argued extensively in this comment section. And when cornered on that theory you argue its use is explained by M&W.
You give hints of it in your various answers above. Yes there is now warming resulting from changing from air to pure CO2, but there was a tiny response (from the cold sensor) which you without any evidence decide would be replicated in dozens of sectioned off chambers up through the atmosphere. You are like a young child clinging to his teddy bear.
” the 3rd grader radiation theory as you have argued extensively in this comment section.”
Where?
You keep applying a false pejorative term, ‘3rd grader model’ to some mysterious theory that no one is bringing up but you.
Among the models I have brought up are MW, 1967, which is a physics model, that uses laws of physics, differential equations, and observational data, to explain properties of the atmosphere and AGW.
You claim to have read it and understood it, but when you state that it is not based on physics, this reveals that you actually don’t understand it.
Maybe you think you do but have an extreme Dunning Kruger affliction.
So in the end, we have a BS misrepresentation of science from a non-scientist auditor with a political agenda.
Why should anyone take it seriously?
Nate again resorts to lying.
He knows what the 3rd grader radiation model is. Its simply the model where a given radiative flux transparently passes through the atmosphere and allegedly becomes trapped by that atmosphere first warming the surface then the atmosphere warms the surface more in an attempt to escape this trapping. It is what the S&O model replicates. Nate knows this, has no questions about this and here he admitted that the M&W model to all his knowledge is based on this model:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1527920
“He knows what the 3rd grader radiation model is. Its simply the model where a given radiative flux transparently passes through the atmosphere and allegedly becomes trapped by that atmosphere first warming the surface then the atmosphere warms the surface more in an attempt to escape this trapping.”
Nah. I have never suggested this is all there is to the GHE.
Suggested?
After spending at least 100 posts claiming variously S&O’s experiment was flawed then switching incorrectly to thinking some warmer surface was warmed?
How does that fit in with your excuse?
So I discuss the fact that back radiation can warm, and the evidence for it, then you infer that I think that is ALL there is to the GHE?
Bad logic there.
Particularly since we have discussed MW, which explains several other factors that are involved in the GHE.
Very poor logic there.
I will take that as an admission the straight up 3rd grader radiation model is bunk in your view.
Now all we need is an experiment to demonstrate that once you put a lapse rate in place with an freely expanding atmosphere that you can make the failed model to work.
“I will take that as an admission the straight up 3rd grader radiation model is bunk in your view.”
It is a strawman to keep suggesting that your cartoon version of the GHE is the real GHE theory.
This argument has been about whether there is physical evidence that back radiation can warm things.
There are laws of physics that require it.
There is experimental evidence for it, as I’ve showed you.
the limits of laws of physics Nate are at the margin of being able to demonstrate the effect.
I am patiently awaiting your specific explanation of the several other factors that are involved” in turning the 3rd grader model into a working model and how that might be demonstrated for all of us in here.
“I am patiently awaiting your specific explanation of the several other factors that are involved in turning the 3rd grader model into a working model and how that might be demonstrated for all of us in here.”
Read MW, or similar description of the real GHE. Understand it. Prereqs: Integral Calculus, Physics 1.
That is Assignment 1.
Nate fails to understand that calculus is a computation. With computations garbage in equals garbage out.
“Nate fails to understand that calculus is a computation. With computations garbage in equals garbage out.”
True, but what you label ‘garbage’ was simply the ordinary laws of thermodynamics.
Then you complained about the use of numerical integration to solve an atmospheric physics problem, erroneously thinking this is just math, not physics.
So you fail to understand what’s going in a science paper, and therefore declare that it doesn’t work.
True, it doesnt ‘work’ for you. But not because it is incorrect.
Nate says:
”True, but what you label garbage was simply the ordinary laws of thermodynamics.”
The only law of thermodynamics that addresses cold objects warming warmer objects is 2LOT which says it can’t be done.
So if you want to make that argument you will have to tell me which law that says a warm object must warm in the presence of cooler object.
“The only law of thermodynamics that addresses cold objects warming warmer objects is 2LOT which says it cant be done.”
Which is zombie strawman that never dies! I don’t know why this concept is so difficult for you guys.
Nobody in climate science is suggesting that is what is going on.
“So if you want to make that argument you will have to tell me which law that says a warm object must warm in the presence of cooler object.”
1LOT says that with a steady heat input, and a reduction in heat output, a layer will warm.
Nate says:
”1LOT says that with a steady heat input, and a reduction in heat output, a layer will warm.”
In radiation isn’t that limited to equilibrium with the watts received?
Yet the 3rd grader model so much endorsed by science and PhDs and general public; believes that cold objects can warm warmer objects anyway right? all you need to do is put a pile of bricks in a room with 20C walls and the bricks will warm to greater than 20C because the walls keep radiating 418w/m2 energy at the bricks and there is no where for the energy to go.
You actually believe that.
I am confused here because you keep saying there is more to it than the 3rd grader model that the public was conned with but you won’t say what that more is.
“1LOT says that with a steady heat input, and a reduction in heat output, a layer will warm.”
This is the key point. And you have not rebutted it.
In MW, the 1LOT is applied to each layer of atmosphere, and its heat input and output are considered to determine if it warms or cools.
Which is exactly what Roy Spencer is talking about when he says:
“All of this is well explained by a model of the radiative processes, for instance in every weather forecast model, and the model will create exactly WHAT IS OBSERVED. Without the GHE, you cannot explain the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”
But you think maybe Roy Spencer doesn’t understand that
“2LOT which says it cant be done.”?
Nate says:
”1LOT says that with a steady heat input, and a reduction in heat output, a layer will warm.”
This is the key point. And you have not rebutted it.
———————————–
Input is the key word. There 15C walls, ceilings, and floors emitting 390w/m2 aren’t going to warm a pile of bricks in the middle of the room to anything greater than 15C. So energy isn’t getting ‘inputed” when that’s the case.
this has been known for almost 2 centuries. Thomson and Clausius wrote 2LOT in the middle of the 19th century. A cue ball hitting an object ball can’t make the object ball go faster than the cue ball was going. These are fundamental principles regarding the transfers of energy between objects.
So you guys either missed out on basic physics or cheated on your exams or had somebody as ignorant as you for a teacher.
So, Bill, who are the “guys” that write 15C walls, ceilings, and floors emitting 390w/m2 ARE going to warm a pile of bricks in the middle of the room to anything greater than 15C?
Bill just made up some nonexistent “guys” that supposedly “missed out on basic physics or cheated on your exams or had somebody as ignorant as you for a teacher.”
“So you guys either missed out on basic physics or cheated on your exams or had somebody as ignorant as you for a teacher.”
Sure, Roy Spencer and all his meteorologist weather modeler colleagues have been getting it wrong all this time!
Glad you are here to splain it to us!
“Input is the key word. There 15C walls, ceilings, and floors emitting 390w/m2 arent going to warm a pile of bricks in the middle of the room to anything greater than 15C. So energy isnt getting inputed when thats the case.”
Quite a boring and irrelevant problem with everything at the same T.
What’s the point? To distract, mislead?
Now return to the problems being discussed, with their specific conditions.
In MW it is a heated surface exposed to a cold environment, with IR abs.orbing atmosphere in between.
Nate says:
”Sure, Roy Spencer and all his meteorologist weather modeler colleagues have been getting it wrong all this time!”
Taking a lot of liberty there. Roy has explained that is what he was taught and believes it makes sense but also recognizes there is a chance he could be wrong.
bill h…to Swenson…”…so are you suggesting he constantly changed the input to the experiment during the experiment?”
***
Bill…I only skimmed the experiment but I was not impressed by other matters. If time permits, I’ll go back and read it with more attention to detail.
For one, I did not like the term ‘back-scatter’. They are referring to back-radiation which has nothing to do with scatter, which to me, is the gas equivalent of liquid light refraction. Air molecules bend light out of its normal path whereas back-radiation is a reference to IR emitted directly by CO2 and WV.
Next, they seem oblivious to the fact that the emitting molecules are at a much lower temperature than the surface, sometimes 50C lower. They seem to be expecting a warming effect from such back-radiation, which will not be absorbed by the surface, based on the 2nd law.
As I mentioned before, I don’t like the idea of IR being detected by a thermocouple. That is possibly the reason they failed to detect the expected back-radiation.
Tyndall used a much more primitive thermocouple device but he did not offer specifics. He used it in a bridging setup with a galvanometer. Not clear to me what he was measuring since IR at the distance in his experiment would be very weak.
I also did not like their reliance on S-B. They seem to flit back and forth between theory and reality. I don’t think S-B has a direct application at the temperatures they are using, mainly because the S-B constant was derived for much hotter temperatures.
Then again, what the heck do I know?
“Tyndall used a much more primitive thermocouple device but he did not offer specifics.”
False and falser.
Gordon has no shame.
nate…evidence???
“Tyndall used a much more primitive thermocouple device but he did not offer specifics.”
Primitive maybe, but quite capable of discerning differences of thousandths of a degree with no problem at all.
From a 1907 bureau of standards publication, about thermopiles, “deflection of one scale division indicated a temperature 1.1 x 10^-6 degrees.” The face of the pile was 0.8 x 20 mm, where Tyndall’s was much larger, being designed for broad spectrum heat measurements.
People don’t seem to appreciate that the early experimenters generally designed, built (or had built) and calibrated their own equipment. Tyndall, for example, spent months (presumably part-tine) calibrating (nulling) just one galvanometer. He later commented on the impatience of young experimenters.
Researchers these days seem to believe the sometimes extravagant claims of equipment and service suppliers uncritically. Peer reviewed articles in prestigious journals are accepted as fact, and continue to be cited, even after the article has been retracted!
Unbelievable, but true.
swenson…I am playing the Devil’s advocate rather than trying to discredit Tyndall. I have accepted the idea that gases like CO2 absorb IR even though I have never seen a satisfactory explanation. Neither do I have an alternative explanation to explain the deflection in Tyndall’s galvanometer that varied with different gases in the tube.
I was very impressed with Tyndall’s experiment. I spent a great deal of time examining it in detail while following his subjective description and the very detailed diagram. He covered everything, proving to me he was an excellent scientist.
I am not questioning Tyndall’s experiment but I have a question regarding the thermopyle which would have been primitive compared to thermopyles today.
Furthermore, in Tyndall’s day it was believed that heat flowed through an ‘aether’ as heat rays. Based on that, Tyndall may have thought heat was reaching the thermopyle directly through the gas tube. He would not know the relationship between IR and heat in those days.
The only thing I questioned, based on my experience with thermopyles, was how such a thermopyle could accurately measure IR from a heat source on the other side of a glass tube sealed with glass on either end.
I have no argument with your point that thermopyles can measure heat, my question is related to how much a heat source at the far end of a gas-filled tube can generate IR to affect a thermopyle at the other end. If have no argument that a heat lamp placed close to to a thermopyle will activate it but that IR comes from an intense heat source that is focused on the target.
I gave an example with a large ring on an electric stove. If it is heated till it glows orange, you can feel a combination of super-heated air and IR when a hand is held close to it. However, pulling the hand back to about 2 feet, nothing can be felt. Tyndall’s heat source was farther away than two feet and it’s heat intensity was much lower.
“a glass tube sealed with glass on either end.”
Nope. It was sealed with rock salt. Which transmits IR well.
” Then again, what the heck do I know? ”
True and ‘truer’.
The pseudo-skeptical pseudo-engineer Robertson sometimes says intelligent things, at least about himself.
Had he really learned something, instead of boasting his imaginary vita like in ‘As I took a year in astronomy’, he would very probably say much less nonsense.
binny…I threw you a bone and like a desperate dachshund you ran to it.
You got ankle-bitten by Bindidog
Two more hurricanes will pass south of Hawaii, close enough to increase wind gusts on the islands. A third hurricane that is forming off Mexico will reach California.
https://i.ibb.co/wgdGck3/pobrane.png
It’s forecasted I could get rain this weekend and next Monday.
And in a week, we could lunar landers landing on lunar south polar region.
It seems likely FAA will delay next Starship test launch and soonest will be in Sept. And getting to orbit has around 50% chance.
The FAA delay may cause SpaceX, to again, shift attention back KSC, starship launch and then, perhaps get KSC starship launch before the end of the year.
If don’t have to shift to KSC, it seems likely Starship will get successful test launch of Starship this year, and then the shift to using KSC will related to increasing the Starship launch rate and be launching there before summer of 2024.
And once launching from KSC, it seems to launching from the ocean will become a priority. Things will be learned to allow this, and will allow more Starship launches. But seems a bit crazy to have ocean starship launch before the end of 2024.
Joe Btfsplk of the Lil Abner cartoons had a little black cloud that followed him everywhere.
https://lightlytethered.com/joe-btfsplk/
Quote of the weak
The degree of ones emotions varies inversely with ones knowledge of the facts, the less you know the hotter you get. Bertrand Russell
Per a new study, people who are less knowledgeable about the climate and environment are more likely to experience climate change anxiety (e.g., I find myself crying because of climate change) and distress compared to those more climatically, environmentally knowledgeable.
I feel because the public debate is doing such a poor job of enlightening us. We need an increase in reasonable public opinions. Life and death are constants regardless personal beliefs.
{sarc} News from the GAP (Global Anxiety Press) {/sarc}
https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2023/08/17/feux-au-canada-ordre-d-evacuation-pour-les-20-000-residents-de-la-principale-ville-du-grand-nord_6185664_3244.html
” The 20,000 inhabitants of Yellowknife, in Canada, received Wednesday evening, August 16, the order to evacuate by Friday at midday the main city of the Far North, threatened by a major blaze about fifteen miles from its walls. In all, more than half of the population of the territory is under evacuation order. ”
*
Thus, according to the dachshund genius – and with him, argusmanargus – the people who are the administrative origin of the order above are all
– less knowledgeable about the climate and environment
and hence will all
– experience climate change anxiety and distress
much more compared to those
– more climatically, environmentally knowledgeable.
Many thanks to the climatically, environmentally knowledgeable dachshund, who of course thinks that Yellowknife is ‘nothing unusual’.
Stop sticking your ankle biting butt sniffing snout into my posts
Certainly NOT before YOU stop doing the same to mine, dachshund.
binny…what do forest fires have to do with climate change? We know what causes most of them here in BC, which is weather-related lightning strikes. No climates have changed here in BC, same old, same old.
Bindebil is so efd-uped in his head he thinks there were no forest fires before human CO2 emissions
Words of a little-brained, primitive German ultra-right wing boy.
Who would ever care about that?
The only unusual thing about the Yellowknife fire is that the whole place is evacuating.
The fire was started by 6 children. Yeah, kids arson around.
Lots of fuel in the forest as a result of 100 years of fire suppresion everytime there was a bit of smoke.
Climate change? Not.
“Canadian wildfires have now burned almost 34 million acres of land, according to new data from the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFFC) as of Aug. 16.
Fires have been burning out of control across the country in 2023, making it Canadas worst wildfire season on record by far. Thick smoke drifting south from the fires has been an ever-present feature in parts of the northern United States, reducing visibility and air quality at times. Smoke even traveled as far as western Europe.
This year has continued to break records throughout the summer. Before 2023, the previous record for acres burned was just under 18 million, set in 1995. This year has almost doubled that total already.”
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/canadian-wildfire-season-continues-to-shatter-records-as-smoke-reaches-europe/1549176
Apparently there are kids all across Canada lighting fires this year.
“Apparently there are kids all across Canada lighting fires this year”
Apparently so.
Some people are more gullible than others…
Here in BC, the record year was 1938 for forest fires. Back East, they are having a lot of thunderstorms and unless you have seen the severity of such storms in Canada you’d never understand why so many fires have started in Eastern Canada.
Remember, 30 years is the range for climate change and one year does not a climate change make.
“Some people are more gullible than others”
Apparently.
Climate is constantly changing all the time. Less than 6,000 years ago the Sahara desert was a rainy grassland.
Obviously recovery from the LIA is going to create a changing climate Bindidon. Are you one of those who deny natural climate change? Did you actually grow up believing Al Gore?
As usual, the second dumbest, lest relevant post came from the Hunter boy, just after those of the dachshund :–)
What??? That means I’m in third place. I’ll have to try harder.
Ken
You are a bit too one-sided.
I am not.
I read many sources, from e.g.
https://thecountersignal.com/4-charged-in-yellowknife-for-arson-as-nearby-wildfires-remain-out-of-control/
till e.g.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/danielle-smith-is-concerned-about-arsonists-causing-wildfires-experts-are-more-worried-about-misinformation/article_ad0daa54-7a3a-5c0e-9fa6-400a87c78249.html
and try to construct something meaningful out of all them.
*
Years ago, there were heaviest wildfires in Australia, and eternal liars like Robertson tried to manipulate the blog with their ‘All due to arsonists’ claims, although numerous Australian firefighters have claimed the opposite.
*
No, no, Ken, you are 100 % right! No climate change visible anywhere so far.
Robertson made no such claims re Australia. More BindiKlown-lies.
You got ankle-bitten by Bindidog again
Robertson
Go back to that time, and read your insane ‘arsonist’ posts again.
Im a climate scientist. Heres how Im handling climate grief
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/08/17/im-a-climate-scientist-heres-how-im-handling-climate-grief/#more-63680
“Soon after that, I started taking weekends off to kayak near my home in Southern California and hike on the trails above Pasadena, and built a small bird garden on the porch of my apartment. I also started talking frankly to my colleagues about the emotional turmoil that is often sparked by working as a climate scientist today, and many others had similar stories. ”
Well, God took a rest on the seventh day.
And commands the Jews [the chosen people] to do the same.
But if you climate scientist, you might need 2 days off.
Problem with hiking in the boonies, if you are at all aware, is the anxiety of bear attacks, or even mountain lions and wolverines, which will attack anyone anywhere for no reason.
If you’re packing a 12 gauge shot-gun with double 00 buckshot, your anxiety is reduced to a misfire.
Hiking for 40 years having had a few bear encounters, none of which ended badly. No rifle was carried. The pepper spray always ended up in the bottom of the pack till I stopped carrying it.
Incidently there is an easy way to tell if bear shit is from a black bear or a grizzly bear.
Black bear poop smells like black berries and is full of half digested berries.
Grizzly bear poop smells like pepper spray and has bear bells mixed with it.
The worst wildlife experiences involve mad dog owners upset that I yelled at their unleashed (despite what the sign says) dog to keep away . Now is the time to carry.
ken…”Hiking for 40 years having had a few bear encounters….”.
According to a recent book I read, that is changing rapidly. As bears become accustomed to humans by raiding their garbage cans, etc., they lose their natural fear of humans. Once that happens, it’s just a matter of time before a hiker is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Another problem is legislation geared to preventing people from killing bears. It’s gotten so bad that people in Florida can’t hunt alligators, as a result, their numbers are rising rapidly.
There was a grizzly near Banff that killed several hikers. A kid was hurt near Christina Lake when a bear invaded his tent. That was unheard of in my day, I never feared bears or wild animals. That is changing. They are after the food these days and if a kid has food in his tent, it’s game over.
Problem with bar spray, as you know, is the wind direction. If it is blowing from the bear to you, it will more likely blind and asphyxiate you. I always thought that someone carrying bear spray should carry a respirator with them that covers the eyes and the nose. There are some smaller, portable types that would be easy to carry. That’s if you can call a ‘time out’ with the bear till you get it on and get the bear spray ready. Even then you never know if it will just make the bear madder.
“The worst wildlife experiences involve mad dog owners upset that I yelled at their unleashed (despite what the sign says) dog to keep away . Now is the time to carry.”
Are you suggesting arguments over the dog should lead to gunplay?
There are somewhat annoying people all over.
My leashed dog briefly stepped from the street onto the very edge of someone’s grass. The lady said with indignation, ‘don’t you see the sign?’ which said ‘keep your dog off the grass’.
I didn’t bother to tell her that the town owns the strip of grass adjacent to the road. Not worth it.
Maybe if I was carrying, I would have….
Nadya Swart brings on Dr J Christy
https://youtu.be/qJv1IPNZQao
A question could be, do we want our cold ocean with an average of about 3.5 C to cool to 3 C or warm to 4 C.
It might be an impractical question because our ocean is not going to cool or warm by .5 C.
But if it did, it would be a change in global climate.
NASA claims that more 90% of global warming is warming our cold ocean.
Perhaps climate modelers don’t understand to effect of more than 90%
of global warming, is.
If ocean were to warm to 4 C, Earth’s global temperature would have a more uniform global temperature.
And more uniform global temperature is global warming, and if ocean were cool to 3 C, global temperature would be less uniform and would be global cooling.
Like I said before, I don’t know how John gets the babes interviewing him.
The heaviest rainfall over the weekend will occur in the southern Sierra Nevada. Thunderstorms are already starting in Arizona.
blob:https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/d4ec1a74-7c32-4f08-8585-9bc2c80cf4b4
https://i.ibb.co/p03NwZC/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-08-18-145627.png
Hilary
https://i.ibb.co/vjVtX1R/goes18-ir-09-E-202308181025.gif
Like Hillary Clinton when John Christy was testifying at a hearing. He sat there, arms folded, glaring at John as if he had done something nefarious. All he was doing was telling the truth.
Actually he had.
The graph he presented claiming that the model runs had all overestimated warming showed none of the model runs which accurately projected the actual amount.
That graph was, at best, disingenuous.
Ent, Christy has more integrity in his little toe nail than you do in your entire body.
You’re an anonymous Txxxx (rhymes with “roll”) that claims passenger jets fly backward. You have NO regard for reality. You seem to thrive on perverting truth.
Entropic man says:
”Actually he had.
The graph he presented claiming that the model runs had all overestimated warming showed none of the model runs which accurately projected the actual amount.
That graph was, at best, disingenuous.”
Calling it Texas Sharpshooting would have been right on the mark though.
“Texas sharpshooting”
Exactly.
Christy wished to give the impression that climate models overestimated warming, to give the Republicans ammunition for their global warming denial.
He chose a subset of high forcing model runs which gave high rates of warming, warmer than observed.
He ignored the low forcing runs which matched the observed forcing and the observed rate of warming.
ent…”Christy wished to give the impression that climate models overestimated warming…”.
***
They do, all of them. You are the one defending climate. shysterism.
John told a story once of how he took sat data to a friend who was a climate modeler. The guy told him essentially, that he did not care, that his model was right.
Being intensely obstinate is a hallmark of climate modeling.
Entropic man says:
”He chose a subset of high forcing model runs which gave high rates of warming, warmer than observed.”
thats the point of texas sharpshooting. You fire bullets all over the wall then draw your target around the selection you choose and claim you hit the target.
Christy isn’t the one that spread bullet holes all over the wall. Fact is most of them totally missed the mark proving the uncertainty surrounding climate change without doing anything else. The IPCC may as well have shot themselves in the foot.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tyndalls_setup_for_measuring_radiant_heat_absorp.tion_by_gases_annotated.svg
He used the thermopile invented earlier by Melloni.
https://omeka.wlu.edu/omeka/items/show/176
When two wires made of different metals are connected to make a loop, and the two junctions between the wires are held at different temperatures, a voltage is produced and electrical current can be detected with a sensitive current meter. This is the Seebeck Effect, discovered by Thomas Seebeck in 1821. The effect is multiplied when there are more than two junctions in series in the circuit, with alternate junctions in close thermal contact with each other. By measuring the current, one can measure the temperature difference of the junctions. The Differential Thermopile was invented by Macedonio Melloni (1798-1854), an Italian physicist who worked in France and Italy. Melloni’s research dealt with thermal radiation, and he developed the thermopile to make quantitative measurements of the intensity of the radiation. Washington and Lees differential thermopile was made by E.S. Ritchie. The model with 20 pairs of junctions sold for $25.00 in the 1881 catalogue; for $40.00 you could get the 49 pair model.”
In response to Gordon..
I just have a note that modern thermocouple devices measure the voltage. They use a circuit to balance the voltage so there is zero current and then the length of the wire does not matter.
You are not telling me something I don’t know, that thermopyles respond to heat. IR is not heat although it can be converted to heat in a cooler target. Still, how much heat can be produced by a minimal amount of IR at a distance from the target?
Again, IR is not heat, both heat and IR have diametrically opposite properties. And as we have learned recently, IR is a very poor heat dissipator.
1869.
“The delicate heat-measurer, known as the thermopile, was used in this work, as in Mr. Huggins’ experiments for estimating the heat we receive from the stars. The moon’s heat, concentrated by the great mirror, was suffered to fall upon the face of the thermopile, and the indications of the needle were carefully watched.
[ . . . ]
Lord Rosse has been led to the conclusion that at the time of full moon the surface of our satellite is raised to a temperature exceeding by more than 380 (Fahrenheit) that of boiling water. Sir John Herschel long since asserted that this-must be so. During the long lunar day, lasting some 300 of-our hours, the sun’s rays are poured without intermission upon the lunar surface. No clouds temper the heat, no atmosphere even serves to inter pose any resistance to the continual down-pour of the fierce solar rays.”
OK, they were a bit out with the temperature (only about 127 C at maximum), but the reasoning about no clouds, lack of atmosphere etc., was correct.
Take your fanciest digital remote sensing thermometer, point it at the Moon, and see what it tells you. Only joking, an inappropriate instrument, unfit for that purpose.
19th century experimenters could sometimes work to remarkable standards of accuracy and precision. Reference gauge blocks, for example, are accurate to +- 0.05 um. Blocks are made about 25 nm shorter than nominal to allow for the wring film.
Most “scientists” these days have no real appreciation of metrology, nor the perseverance or patience to spend endless hours ensuring worthwhile results in general. That’s why I find it easy to smile at “climatologists” claiming MSL measurement to 0.01 mm, or surface temperature to 0.01 C – in a constantly changing, chaotic environment.
Still no description of the GHE, so no measurements possible, anyway.
Interesting as well
Melloni’s thermomultiplier
By Andrea Sella (2018)
https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/mellonis-thermomultiplier/3008435.article
*
Thermopile IR Sensor Applications
https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/amphenol_as_thermopile_ir.pdf
binny…the specs from Mouser indicate that the device has a ‘blackbody’ built in which absorbs IR and warms. The thermopyle then measures the warming of the blackbody. It doesn’t say anything about IR intensity and its sensitivity in that regard.
My point is that thermopyles don’t measure IR, they measure heat. The article confirms that. If you irradiate a thermopyle by itself with IR, it won’t respond unless you have a device like the blackbody mentioned by Mouser to absorb the IR.
I am going to have to look at the Tyndall experiment to see if he supplied info on the thermopyle application.
Robertson
Who cares about ‘your point’ ?
A few deniers like you.
One for the computer men.
https://people.well.com/user/bubbles/LilTEyes.txt
Sounds good :–)
I think increasing CO2 does have an impact on fire intensity that goes beyond any claims about global warming or climate change. If plants grow faster and fuller with increased levels of CO2, then there is more fuel for fire. This would seem to have more of an impact on grasses and undergrowth than evergreen trees. Have there been any studies on this effect?
Tim S
None found until now :–(
My weather forecast:
Fri: 97 and night low: 63 F
Sat: 91 and 67 F 14 mph wind chance of rain 40%
Sun: 71 and 66 F 20 mph wind chance of rain: 100%
Mon: 76 and 65 F 11 wind chance if rain: 50%
It doesn’t seem very windy- I get more wind without tropical storm watch. I imagine it’s not going rain, but it will instead do a lot of pouring.
Where is your climate model ???
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NkV8rQ1FdxY?feature=share
Reporting from Maui
https://youtu.be/EbMobONuPRw
nate…”Apparently there are kids all across Canada lighting fires this year”.
***
If you include Greta Thunberg and her ilk as kids, then why would you be so sarcastic as to suggest there is not more to Canadian wildfires than meets the eye? These loonies are slashing tires on SUVs, in an organized movement, while some are defacing works of art in galleries.
A group of young people were arrested in the US a while back for fire bombing property related to oil companies. What are a few forests to ijits like that?
One of those eco-loonies declared that humans don’t matter, it’s the planet that counts.
Basic fire precautions (including not having a flammable roof) save a Maui house.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/maui-homeowners-wildfires-property-upgrade-b2395872.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPh0xag6t4o
The Greenhouse Effect Reconsidered: From Fourier, Pouillet, Tyndall, and Arrhenius, to Manabe
This “trapping heat” nonsense won’t go away until ALL Skeptics start debunking it.
When the GHE cult mentions “trapping heat”, they are referring to photon absorp.tion, specifically a CO2 molecule absorbing a terrestrial 15μ photon. That happens, but it has NO impact on Earth’s surface temperature. Everything can absorb photons. Bananas can absorb photons. That does not mean bananas are “heating the planet”.
Earth’s average surface temperature is about 288K. A 288K surface (assuming unity emissivity, for simplicity) emits a peak-spectrum 10μ photon. Realizing that temperature is basically a measure of the kinetic energy of matter, as influenced by molecular vibrations, then the ONLY photons that can raise Earth’s average temperature must have a shorter wavelength (higher frequency) than the surface. The CO2 15μ photon can’t do it. Ice, with a peak-spectrum 10.6μ photon (even “hotter” than the CO2 molecule) can’t do it.
Skeptics need to learn the basics so they can argue effectively. Just hit the cult constantly with their own nonsense: Passenger jets do NOT fly backward, ice can NOT boil water, and a 15μ photon can NOT go through a N2 molecule!
Ice can NOT boil water ? Bindidork claims he can power a light-bulb with ice
I’m still waiting for a demonstration
You are such a dumb German stalker, dachshund…
Yes, Bindi is another one that doesn’t understand science. He can’t even understand the simple ball-on-a-string.
Oh… Clint R deliberately disguises the fact that the Eben dachshund can’t even understand the simple ball-on-a-string either.
*
Aaaah! Yes, I understand.
The dachshund of course is aware of Moon’s spin about its polar axis, but… is Clint R’s best friend with regard to Global Warming and GHE.
One hand washes the other: if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours, he he :–)
Bindi, I hope you understand that nonsense. I doubt anyone else does.
It’s almost like you’re just throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick….
Don’t try to kid us here, Clint R.
You perfectly understood what I wrote.
Yeah, that’s what I thought — you were just throwing crap.
All nice Clint R,
But the temperature of the emitting substance has nothing to do with whether or not the absorbing substance will absorb it or not.
bob, please stop trolling.
Clint R
You can’t understand GHE no matter how many times it is explained to you. You shut your brain down for some reason
Skeptics need the correct theory which you do not provide.
Bananas at 50 F put in a bowl at 75 F will result in the bowl cooling slower than if you put 32 F bananas in the bowl. If the bowl was heated it would have a higher temperature with the 50 F bananas as compared to the frozen ones.
Sorry Norman, but that doesn’t compute.
The fact that you can’t make a comment without insults and false accusations should tell you something. It should tell you that you’ve got NOTHING.
Clint R
I see your brain is still shut down. I can see it does not compute when it is most easy to understand. Open that dull mind of yours. You don’t have to be a blind man making up your pseudo science and trying to create a cult on Roy’s blog.
Science is much better than your cult ideas.
Norman, the fact that you can’t make a comment without insults and false accusations should tell you something. It should tell you that you’ve got NOTHING.
The truth is, you’re so ignorant bob had to do your homework for you!
Clint R
Are you still peddling that complete crap that you made up that IR can’t go through Nitrogen gas because of the size of a 15 micron photon???? Help me!
Nitrogen gas DOES NOT reflect IR. Provide any evidence that remotely supports such total crap (can even call it shit as it is). That is your homework assignment. You will not do it, you never do.
Norman, are you incompetent or ignorant, or both?
You’re both, until you can redeem yourself by linking to where I said “IR can’t go through Nitrogen gas.”
Let’s see you redeem yourself. (It won’t happen.)
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/is-your-comment-here-not-appearing/#comment-1519543
Correct bob, that’s my exact words.
Norman tried to pervert my words and you caught him.
Not much difference between
This
“IR cant go through Nitrogen gas.”
and this
“A 15μ photon would have too long a wavelength for both N2 and O2. It could not fit through, or be absorbed. Consequently, it would be reflected.”
So, do you have any evidence that N2 or O2 reflects IR?
Which is what you said.
Norman,
I refer you to Richard Feynmans’s lectures on physics, volume 1, section 33.
You can peddle any odd notions that you like. You may believe that the 30% of the Sun’s radiation reflected by the atmosphere is due to CO2, or some other cause, if you like.
I’ll stick with physical explanations, backed up by theory and experiment.
Fact over fantasy, any time.
Norman,
You are trying to explain something you haven’t described yet.
Describe the GHE – then “explain” its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling. If that’s too difficult, just explain why all of the heat of the day dissipates at night, GHE notwithstanding.
Maybe you could describe the GHE as insulation – insufficient to prevent eventual cooling.
How would that suit you?
As usual, Swenson (or better: Flynnson, as Swenson is the same person as Mike Flynn) persists in showing the level of his ignorance:
” Thats why I find it easy to smile at ‘climatologists’ claiming MSL measurement to 0.01 mm, or surface temperature to 0.01 C in a constantly changing, chaotic environment. ”
*
Well… I find it even easier to laugh loud at ignoramuses a la Flynnson who intentionally repeat their discrediting and denigrating nonsense, though having been corrected so often.
No one on Earth has ever measured any sea level anywhere at any time to 0.01 mm – except in Flynnson’s brain damaged by (1) dementia and (2) the manic urge to put down everything that doesn’t suit him.
*
Let’s take an example of a single tide gauge in the PSMSL data:
https://psmsl.org/
155; 21.306667; -157.866667; HONOLULU
Here is its data graph (corrected for subsidence, -0.6 mm/year):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sKh_6_FQCiLvjPZxvqT4YI6xYNzsi8YZ/view
As everybody can see, the deviations range between ~ +180 mm and ~ -200 mm.
And so do look all station data charts everywhere.
*
But from what reality then does genius Flynnson take his ridiculous 0.01 mm?
Simply from the fact that he has never been able let alone willing to understand the difference between
– data;
– the data’s linear trend;
– the linear trend’s standard error.
If we let a spreadsheet calculator compute the yearly linear trend, we obtain for the period 1905-2022
0.95 +- 0.04 mm/year
We see Flynnson deliberately misrepresenting the tiny standard error of a trend as a measure.
*
And for sure: like Robertson never will stop to tell us lies like ‘NOAA uses only 1500 weather stations worldwide’, the clever Flynnson boy never will stop to tell us lies like ‘climatologists claim MSL measurement to 0.01 mm’.
Yeah. That’s freedom of speech, isn’t it?
Binny,
0.95 mm? A thickish human hair is about 0.05 mm. The continent of Australia is moving NE at about 0.20 mm per day. Does this have any effect on MSL?
The geoid over Canada is changing at about 1 – 2 mm per annum, so pretending that MSL which is constantly changing due to basin shape changes, inflows and outflows, tides, unknown amounts of new material from mid-ocean ridges, can be usefully measured, is just ludicrous.
As well “However, only recently have the more substantial irregularities in the surface created by the global mean sea level (MSL) been observed. These irregularities are an order of magnitude greater than experts had predicted.”
You can see that the shape of the Earth is constantly changing, the WGS84 ellipsoid and the geoid differ from place to place – the maximum difference that I know of being more than 190 m.
Carry on with as many spreadsheets as you like. None of them change reality in any way, and certainly do not enable you to predict the future!
You need a crystal ball (or a bowl of chicken entrails) for that.
Flynnson keeps ignorant as he has always been.
The guy has no idea about things like vertical and horizontal land movements around tide gauges, how all that is measured, and how it influences sea level measurements.
He has no idea about GPS-based stations located in the near of tide gauges, which tell about glacial isostatic rebound or subsidence, but boasts here all the time.
Carry on, poor ignoramus.
Binny,
0.95 mm? A thickish human hair is about 0.05 mm. The continent of Australia is moving NE at about 0.20 mm per day. Does this have any effect on MSL?
The geoid over Canada is changing at about 1 2 mm per annum, so pretending that MSL which is constantly changing due to basin shape changes, inflows and outflows, tides, unknown amounts of new material from mid-ocean ridges, can be usefully measured, is just ludicrous.
As well (from ESRI) “However, only recently have the more substantial irregularities in the surface created by the global mean sea level (MSL) been observed. These irregularities are an order of magnitude greater than experts had predicted.”
You can see that the shape of the Earth is constantly changing, the WGS84 ellipsoid and the geoid differ from place to place the maximum difference that I know of being more than 190 m.
Carry on with as many spreadsheets as you like. None of them change reality in any way, and certainly do not enable you to predict the future!
You need a crystal ball (or a bowl of chicken entrails) for that.
Binny,
0.95 mm? A thickish human hair is about 0.05 mm. The continent of Australia is moving NE at about 0.20 mm per day. Does this have any effect on MSL?
The geoid over Canada is changing at about 1 2 mm per annum, so pretending that MSL which is constantly changing due to basin shape changes, inflows and outflows, tides, unknown amounts of new material from mid-ocean ridges, can be usefully measured, is just ludicrous.
As well “However, only recently have the more substantial irregularities in the surface created by the global mean sea level (MSL) been observed. These irregularities are an order of magnitude greater than experts had predicted.” –
You can see that the shape of the Earth is constantly changing, the WGS84 ellipsoid and the geoid differ from place to place the maximum difference that I know of being more than 190 m.
Carry on with as many spreadsheets as you like. None of them change reality in any way, and certainly do not enable you to predict the future!
You need a crystal ball (or a bowl of chicken entrails) for that.
noun: greenhouse effect; plural noun: greenhouse effects
“the trapping of the sun’s warmth in a planet’s lower atmosphere, due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet’s surface.”
What is the greenhouse effect?
The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earth’s surface by greenhouse gases. These heat-trapping gases can be thought of as a blanket wrapped around Earth, keeping the planet toastier than it would be without them.
“The greenhouse effect occurs when greenhouse gases in a planet’s atmosphere cause some of the heat radiated from the planet’s surface to build up at the planet’s surface. This process happens because stars emit shortwave radiation that passes through greenhouse gases, but planets emit longwave radiation that is partly absorbed by greenhouse gases” –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
According to these limited definitions, Venus has no Earth like greenhouse effects.
I would say definition of global warming is to cause a more uniform global surface air temperature, and Venus upper atmosphere is heated by sunlight and “has global warming” dues to it’s “ocean” atmospheric
gas rotating once every 4 to 5 days {above it’s rocky surface which has slowest known planetary surface rotation}.
So, Venus upper atmosphere is well mixed and creates uniform global surface air temperature.
gb…the old heat-trapping gases and the blanket analogy. It’s amazing how such otherwise literate people can spread such pseudo-science.
Once again, GHGs do not trap heat. The heat associated with the IR that heats the GHGs was lost at the surface. Therefore, the GHGs create heat anew and don’t trap it. Ergo, that new heat has nothing to do with surface heat being trapped.
There is no surface heat to trap and considering GHGs in total make up no more than 0.31% of the atmosphere, they don’t absorb a whole lot of surface radiation, which escapes directly to space (more than 90% of it).
We now know why the planet warms and it has nothing to do with a greenhouse effect. It’s related to the fact that radiation at terrestrial temperatures is highly inefficient at cooling the surface. In other words, the planet cannot get rid of the heat as fast as the Sun inputs it.
Gordon Robertson
Please stop with your made up science. (Not really science at all since science requires evidence).
You keep saying this false narrative over and over and it is getting really old. You can’t really be that ignorant of science can you?
I hope not.
YOU: “We now know why the planet warms and it has nothing to do with a greenhouse effect. Its related to the fact that radiation at terrestrial temperatures is highly inefficient at cooling the surface. In other words, the planet cannot get rid of the heat as fast as the Sun inputs it.”
All false. The Earth has a companion the Moon which is evidence you are peddling false reality.
The Moon cools very well based only on radiant energy and it also starts emitting just as much energy as it receives from the Sun during its daylit side. I am not sure you can be so ignorant please just stop a bit and think and consider. You are really wrong on this point and it is time to give it up. You will be a liar and most dishonest if you continue posting this material. Explain the Moon temperature cycle. If radiant energy is so ineffective at cooling then why does the Moon surface get super cold when in dark cycle? None of your ideas are good, I think they come from Gary Novak and he is really gone from any type of science knowldege.
Gordon Robertson
Now to put you to task. Explain this measured lunar temperature with you incorrect belief (it is just a belief and not at all science since you just make it up with zero supporting evidence, also the actual evidence shows it is not just a bad belief but an incorrect one).
https://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science#:~:text=The%20Lunar%20Thermal%20Enviroment,279.4%20%C2%BAF)%20during%20the%20night.
You make claims that you want to debate and want posters to show you are in error. Well the graph does just that so stop spreading false information. It does not help the science at all when you go off these phony tangents and pretend like they are some valid science. They are not!
Norman,
“The Moon cools very well based only on radiant energy and it also starts emitting just as much energy as it receives from the Sun during its daylit side.”
Just like the Earth, which is why both no longer have molten surfaces..
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE – all it does is result in cooling, by the look of it!
Feel free to describe a GHE which doesn’t result in cooling, while I have a good laugh at your effort.
Off you go now, give it a try.
norman…”The Moon cools very well based only on radiant energy and it also starts emitting just as much energy as it receives from the Sun during its daylit side”.
***
The Moon is also hotter than it should be and you guessed it, it’s because radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation.
Did you not understand the experiment by Shula and the Pirani tube? He proved that heat dissipation by conduction/convection is 260 times better than by radiation alone. In fact, he pointed out that a heated filament in a vacuum takes forever to cool because radiation is so poor at heat dissipation. We know that from a thermos bottle in which radiation is the main source of heat dissipation.
Put a cup of very hot coffee on a kitchen table and it cools enough to sip in 5 minutes. Put the same coffee in a thermos, where conduction/convection are suppressed, and it’s still hot 4 hours later.
The Earth is hotter than it should be, as are all planets, because radiation simply cannot cool them quickly enough.
Gordon Robertson
You have to do some thinking. Shula proved zilch! The Pirani Gauge intentionally uses a very low emissivity material to make sure radiant energy loss is reduced! The Moon also gets hotter because it has a two week day. Earth surface would also get hotter with a two week noon.
I do not think you have any type of open mind. The Earth has 3 heat transfer mechanisms working to reduce surface temp. Radiant energy removes about 36% of the surface energy. Convection and evaporation the remainder. That is the evidence. Your posts are nonsense and most unscientific. If the Earth surface had an IR emissivity of 0.05 you could compare it to a Pirani gauge. Earth emissivity for IR is around 0.96
“Earth emissivity for IR is around 0.96”
Which is only 30% less energy transfer than if it was indeed 0.05.
Convection and evaporation is around 70%.
Your 36% is widely different to 30%.
RLH
36% is for the Earth system. It is close to the radiator example but they are still different. With no atmosphere you have 100% radiant loss as with Moon. Gordon thinks radiant energy is not significant at Earth surface Temps. Made up nonsense that he got of a blog by a goofball Gary Novak who peddles crap on his blog.
norman…” The Pirani Gauge intentionally uses a very low emissivity material to make sure radiant energy loss is reduced!”
***
Norman…you never have understood what the Pirani gauge does. It is basically a glass tube with an electrically-heated filament. The tube can b evacuated to produce a vacuum or it can be filled with gas.
If the tube is evacuated and the filament is heated, it’s only means of heat dissipation is by radiation. If gas is introduced, heat dissipation is via radiation, conduction to the gas, and convection.
Ergo, the tube serves as a means of comparing heat dissipation via radiation alone or heat dissipation with a gas surrounding the filament.
Shula pointed out something very important. When the tube is evacuated and the filament heated, it takes a very long time for the filament to cool after the electrical current heating the filament is stopped. The meaning is clear, radiation alone is an inefficient means of dissipating heat.
If gas is introduced, the filament cools very quickly. That is proof alone that radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation. However, Shula put a number to it via his measurements. Conduction/convection. He proved that conduction/convection is 260 times more effective at cooling a surface.
“It is close to the radiator example but they are still different”
As are the values for upwards and downwards IR radiation.
Gordon Robertson
I am explaining it to you. You need to open your mind and think. You are obsessed with the false belief that radiant energy at Earth surface temp are insignificant.
Once again, if you would choose to listen, is that the filament chosen in the Pirani gauge is made of a material that is an extremely poor emitter of IR energy. Do you understand this point??
In the Pirani gauge the filament in a vacuum will cool very slowly because it is made of a material with an emissivity of 0.05. Do you understand the concept of emissivity??
Here this will help I would suggest you use this calculator to learn what emissivity means and how it determines radiant energy flow.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
This page has a radiant energy calculator near the bottom of this sight.
If you put in a value of 0.05 for the emissivity you would only need to add 39.1 Watts of energy to an area of one square meter to keep it at 100 C. It would cool very slowly. If the surface had an emissivity of 0.96 it would need 751 watts of energy to keep it at 100 C. It would cool much faster in a vacuum.
I do not think you are understanding emissivity and debating with you over the issue is most pointless until you do at least put some effort in understanding how this works.
— Gordon Robertson says:
August 19, 2023 at 6:00 PM
gbthe old heat-trapping gases and the blanket analogy. Its amazing how such otherwise literate people can spread such pseudo-science.
Once again, GHGs do not trap heat. The heat associated with the IR that heats the GHGs was lost at the surface. Therefore, the GHGs create heat anew and dont trap it. Ergo, that new heat has nothing to do with surface heat being trapped.–
I think the atmosphere and the ocean, traps heat. Traps or retains heat
retains:
1. continue to have (something); keep possession of.
“built in 1830, the house retains many of its original features”
2. absorb and continue to hold (a substance).
“limestone is known to retain water”
But my point is the Earth oceans traps 1000 times more heat and for
much longer time.
So I might say our ocean traps a lot of heat, and our atmosphere retains some heat.
Or top two meters of ocean retains as much heat as the Atmosphere.
And 200 meter depth our ocean surface retains as much heat as the atmosphere of Venus.
Mars atmosphere has more CO2 then than Earth’s atmosphere, Mars atmosphere retains a small amount of heat. Or each day the Mars atmosphere cools a lot.
But the point is it’s thought CO2 in Earth atmosphere, helps retain heat.
And the amount it helps, has not been measured, yet.
It’s safe to say that a doubling of CO2, has not helped trap much heat, yet.
And it’s not clear to me, how CO2 causes more global water vapor, but
if it somehow, did, it might trap more heat.
So, I am lukewarmer. A Lukewarmer that also knows we are living in an Ice Age.
gb…”I think the atmosphere and the ocean, traps heat”.
***
True. However, they trap heat via trapping it in molecule of air or molecules of water. Heat cannot be trapped via radiation.
The mechanisms of heat transfer are different. With conduction and convection, heat is transferred directly as molecules. A no-brainer…heat cannot exist without atoms/molecules. If you transfer heat by heating the molecules by conduction then moving the heated molecules via convection, you can move heat. Conversely, if you bottle the molecules up with glass in a greenhouse, you can trap heat.
Radiation is totally different. I cannot emphasize that enough, heat CANNOT be transferred as heat by radiation. The reason is simple, the process by which radiation is created requires an equivalent dissipation of heat. In other words, the radiating body loses heat that is replaced by radiation. Anyone who cannot understand this needs to read Neils Bohr on the relationship between atoms and radiation.
If a cooler body intercepts some of that radiation. it can reverse the process and cause that body to warm. That is not the same heat lost by the surface when the radiation was produced. Therefore that heat cannot be trapped. In essence, the newly created heat has nothing to do with anything.
It is claimed by alarmists that the newly created heat warms the atmosphere but G&T disproved that. Such a process is heating by diffusion. They offered a formula for diffusion which showed that a double of CO2 would warm the rest of the atmosphere no more than 0.06C.
Meantime, alarmists claim the new heat can be transferred back to the surface, again via radiation, to raise surface temperature. That contravenes the 2nd law since the transfer is cold to hot. It also represents perpetual motion since it is a recycling of heat to increase heat. Not allowed.
“Meantime, alarmists claim the new heat can be transferred back to the surface, again via radiation, to raise surface temperature. ”
This is simply wrong.
The ground or ocean surface is warmed by sunlight.
If air above ground or ocean surface is warmer, then the sunlight can heat ground or ocean surface to higher temperature {there is less heat loss- [or less surface cooling] to air above the surface]. It’s mostly a convectional/evaporative heat transfer from a surface to the surface air and evaporative is governed dryness of air and wind and a warmer ocean surface has higher vapor pressure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water
7th International EIKE Climate and Energy Conference
https://youtu.be/dBUNY8LPV_0
“Texas sharpshooting”
Exactly.
Christy wished to give the impression that climate models overestimated warming, to give the Republicans ammunition for their global warming denial.
He chose a subset of high forcing model runs which gave high rates of warming, warmer than observed.
He ignored the low forcing runs which matched the observed forcing and the observed rate of warming.
Ent, it would be the “low forcing runs” that were closest to reality because there is NO forcing f rom CO2.
Clint R,
But they have run models with no forcing from CO2, and those models show slow cooling, not the warming we have experienced, see the graph at the top of the page.
That’s right, CO2 can NOT raise the temperature.
No, that’s not what I said.
So you are saying that an average of all model runs would have overestimated global warming.
Yes. The CMIP5 model was published and researchers were then able to do what they wanted with it. Most of them were expecting and interested in the effects of higher forcing, so most of the runs modelled high forcing scenarios.
The actual forcings for the modelled period to the present were lower than expected, so only the minority of puvlished model runs which used lower forcing accurately projected the 2005-2023 temperature rise.
Thus the average of all runs is higher than the observed values.
I’m not sure what you expected. For the average of all runs to match observation would require the modellers to know the 2023 temperatures in advance.
So you are saying that modelers are not able to predict the future very well. So basing actions on their predictions would be wrong.
Define “very well”. The model ensembles define a temperature change band for the near future, within which the observed temperatures sit.
July 2023 fitted into that band.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/are-temperatures-this-summer-hotter
Yes, you should base actions on their predictions. Unless you prefer to to put your own political agenda first.
So modelers just model everything that COULD happen, and then claim that what DOES happen is covered by their assumptions.
ent…”He ignored the low forcing runs which matched the observed forcing and the observed rate of warming”.
***
John Christy has a degree in climate science. He did his grad studies under Kevin Trenberth. Because John has created temperature records that contradict Trenberth’s teaching, Trenberth hates him so much that he interfered in peer review of a Christy et al paper. Trenberth and Phil Jones of Had-crut are Coordinating Lead Authors on IPCC review and Jones threatened in the Climategate emails that he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that papers like John’s would not reach the review stage.
That’s the anti-science you defend.
I think John has likely seen through the nonsense about forcings, which are based on climate model jargon. John bases his claims on scientific data and he is well educated in the field of climate science, as is Roy.
EM,
So precisely what sort of “forcing” resulted both the Earth and the Moon cooling?
Low low low forcing, perhaps?
Yes, that’s sarcasm.
ent…”Christy wished to give the impression that climate models overestimated warming, to give the Republicans ammunition for their global warming denial”.
***
I take exception to you referring to John Christy in that manner. John is not affiliated with the Republicans, he is a scientist trying to be objective, and he pays his own way when he testifies so there won’t be a conflict of interest.
Another scientist mentioned here, Will Happer, was invited by the Republicans, especially Trump, to Washington as an advisor. The back-room boys overruled Happer and Trump because they did not think the voters would go for his recommendations.
John Christy has served as a lead author and a reviewer on IPCC reviews and he is clear that the reviews are stacked with the converted. That was in his day, nowadays they don’t even bother to invite skeptics.
Enough with your Irish bs.
Alas, the hero you worship has feet of clay.
The politically and scientifically objective person you describe would not have cherrypicked data to support a political argument.
Nothing wrong with Christy eliminating some outlier modeled data.
The IPCC has effectively been doing that from the start in cherry picking a mean path for mean global temperatures to arrive at the desired 3C warming per doubling of CO2 in order to express false certainty.
Now you are effectively whining about them not adequately featuring the likelihood of far more mundane effects. Like in saying its just as likely that we will only get 1.3C warming.
” Nothing wrong with Christy eliminating some outlier modeled data.”
In this case what you describe as outlier data was the runs which accurately forecast current temperatures. That is my point. Christy deliberately left out those to create a false message.
SOME models got it correct. Those are not the ones that the ‘always warming’ fraternity promoted previously.
If you spread the net wide enough but pull on only one corner then it is not surprising that one could accuse some of ‘cherry picking’.
SOME models got it correct. Those are not the ones that the ‘always warming’ fraternity promoted previously.
If you spread the net wide enough but pull on only one corner then it is not surprising that one could accuse some of ‘cherry picking’.
I’m not sure where the duplicate came from.
RLH
A science minister once complaining “I hate science advisors. When the evidence changes, their advice changes!”
When earlier models were run the most likely looking future path was RCP8.5. The models and the advice followed that path too.
After a couple of decades building renewables and trying to limit fossil fuel burn we are now closer to RCP6.0 and the advice is more optimistic.
So what you are saying is that early predictions about global T were way too high. Later ones are more realistic.
RLH says: So what you are saying is that early predictions about global T were way too high. Later ones are more realistic.
Entropic man seems to be saying that the emissions scenario used for the Christy presentation isn’t representative of what transpired. Using a non-representative emissions scenario is quite a bit different than “the model being wrong”.
I’m not clear what presentation is being discussed, so can’t meaningfully comment on the merit of that argument one way or the other.
What has been said is that some of the model runs were just plain wrong. Although no-one at the time was prepared to say that they were.
EM,
For some reason known only to yourself, you wrote –
“Christy wished to give the impression that climate models overestimated warming, to give the Republicans ammunition for their global warming denial.”
So? Maybe you don’t realise that facts don’t give a toss what you, I, or anybody else thinks.
What is “global warming denial”, in your opinion? Does someone value your opinion, and if not, why bother opining?
If you choose to slavishly believe in the existence of something you can’t describe, good for you. As Thomas Jefferson said “But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Don’t ask me to fund your belief, if you don’t mind.
The rainy season has arrived in the western US. Tropical storm in the Caribbean Sea.
Hurricane Hilary’s plume reaches southern California.
https://i.ibb.co/8xWWHmB/goes18-wv-rgb-09-E-202308200635.gif
https://idiod.video/oqo490.webp
I try to discuss science, but the cult responds with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. That’s all we need to know.
Let’s continue with the science:
Above, we discussed the bogus concept of “trapping heat”, at this link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1523892
Closely associated with that bogus concept is the equally bogus concept that “more energy always results in higher temperatures”. It sounds reasonable, like “trapping heat” sounds reasonable, but is easily disproved with the simple example of adding bricks to a box. Adding more same-temperature bricks to a box does not increase the box temperature. More energy is added, but the temperature does NOT increase.
Solar energy heats Earth’s surface, and the emitted IR from the surface can heat the atmosphere. That’s it. That’s the end. The energy in the atmosphere can NOT come back and re-heat the surface. Again, a simple analogy is helpful.
Water flows down a mountain stream due to snow melt. The flow of water can be used to drive a waterwheel, for useful work. The water from the waterwheel collects in a large pond. After the snow melt is over, the waterwheel quits turning. The water is still in the large pond, but can not be used to power the waterwheel. Thermodynamically, the entropy has increased. The water has lost its ability to do work.
That’s the same for the 15μ photons. They have lost their ability to heat Earth’s surface.
“Again, a simple analogy is helpful.”
If discussing the real science of the actual situation doesnt support your narrative, then switch to a bad analogy, and pretend it is a valid substitute for the real situation.
It isn’t. It is misleading, and good for obfuscation.
Yes Nate, even this simple analogy is way over your head.
Thanks for being such a great example of “reality denial”.
Yep Nate won’t recognize that the burden of proof is on him to prove that he believes CO2 will significantly warm the surface.
So he constantly plays the same game of shifting the burden of proof, throwing FUD, obfuscating, referring to unvalidated mathematical models from corrupt corporations and playing the corporate tobacco denial games that we always see from corporations wanting our money.
“burden of proof is on him”
Nah. Only math has proofs.
Science just has evidence. And we have plenty of that.
But I can’t fix people like Bill and Clint, who are determined to reject all evidence.
Nate,
Evidence for what, precisely?
Some mythical effect that miraculously sprang into existence recently on a date you can’t specify, doing something you can’t describe?
Saying you have “evidence” for something that you can’t even describe just makes you look silly.
ditto
“Some mythical effect that miraculously sprang into existence recently on a date you cant specify, doing something you cant describe?”
None of that is accurate or anything I’ve claimed. Pointless.
Yes you deny the effect you embrace when ever somebody puts a pile of bricks in a box or a room. At every turn where one is going to test your theory it fails and you make an excuse for it.
So put up your model or shut up.
BTW that would be a ”working” model. Not a match computation models that has no real world analog.
“So put up your model or shut up.”
Just did that. You don’t get it. Not my problem.
Nate a ‘working’ model would be one where you build an experiment then document the results and then develop the mathematics for installing in a computer model
Not one where you dream up effects and build a model.
Don’t you understand the difference?
This is your mistake:
“Solar energy heats Earths surface, and the emitted IR from the surface can heat the atmosphere. Thats it. Thats the end. The energy in the atmosphere can NOT come back and re-heat the surface. Again, a simple analogy is helpful.”
Do you want to make a silly argument, or learn the science?
All matter emits thermal radiation at all times depending on its temperature and spectrum. Period. Thermal radiation is energy that becomes heat on contact (avoiding the bad word). Heat transfer depends on the temperature difference to the fourth power, but is complicated by the possibility of different molecules having a different spectrum. Surfaces behave differently than gases, but all molecules emit at all times as described above,and therefore at different intensities and wave lengths. So yes, heat does come back to earth from a cold atmosphere to a warmer earth to SLOW the heat transfer from the earth upward. You will misquote that last sentence for your purposes, and I do not care. Here is the important part: The NET heat transfer is always from hot to cold. Always! But the RATE of heat transfer is slowed by radiation coming back from the cold air.
Thanks Tim S. You bring up some additional points that may need to be addressed in the future. But for now, could you clarify where you disagree with me.
I stated The energy in the atmosphere can NOT come back and re-heat the surface.
Do you disagree with that? Specifically, do you believe the atmosphere can raise Earth’s 288K average temperature?
Let’s assume the difference between the temperature increase from the sun and the temperature decrease from radiation to outer space is the surface temperature. To analyze that for one location would require zero wind. To analyze the entire planet is extremely complex to the point of being practically impossible. Despite those limitations, an increase in “active” gases (whatever you want to call them) will cause an increase in the temperature at the surface. Done! Some call that a heat trap. I do not. The heat simply escaped at a higher surface temperature.
Now all you have to do is factor in ocean effects, weather effects including cloud cover and latent heat transfer, and you have a model that does not work because all of those things are too complex. Argue that. Don’t try to argue that the basic science is wrong because it is correct.
I was hoping for a simple “yes” or “no”, Tim S.
But after sorting through all that rambling blah-blah, I’m convinced you believe the atmosphere can warm the surface. (Please correct me if I got confused in all the subterfuge.)
Are you then aware that your belief violates the laws of physics, specifically 2LoT?
It’s the temperature surface of ocean which causes the average temperature of 15 C.
The average global ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average surface temperature of tropical ocean is about 26 C.
And the warmer ocean that keeps land surface air from getting colder than it’s average [it’s global average is about 10 C- because ocean is warmer and covers 70% of the total global surface area].
So are we having fun yet? I am not going to reply to anyone who thinks they are being clever with nonsense, but I will answer the general case. Who am I to say what is true or not?
The basic question seems to be why do some people understand science and others do not? My theory is that it has less to do with intelligence and more to do with aptitude. I have known some some very smart lawyers and business managers who do not get science. It seems to come down to a combination of mechanical aptitude, abstract conceptual thinking, and math skills, along with logic as well. It seems that just reading the textbook is not enough.
Having graduated from a top level university, I can say there may be one other element involved in the knowledge process (Epistemology), and that is problem solving. The three-hour final exam is almost always open book, because the book will just slow you down. It is a test to see how you can apply what you learned to real life problem solving.
I will address one issue which is the 2nd law. I may be mixing my recollection with the 3rd law, but I do not recall it has much to do with radiant heat transfer. I remember it having much more to do with defining the context of the ratio of specific heats and the relationship between work, heat, and temperature for compressible fluids.
Carry on.
Tim,
Trying to be patronizing – “Dont try to argue that the basic science is wrong because it is correct.” is a bit silly, if you can’t even describe the “basic science” to which you refer.
Maybe you could explain what “basic science” you are talking about?
If you can’t, you might find that just telling people what they are allowed to “argue” about is not well received. I guess you are trying to imply that a GHE exists, but you can’t actually describe it in remotely scientific terms – measurement, documentation, experimental support, and so on.
You don’t really believe that you can describe the GHE, do you?
Perhaps ClintR is thinking of 1LoT.”Energy may not be created or destroyed.
A common GHE denial meme is that the GHE requires energy to be created to warm the surface, so the GHE is impossible.
EM,
You can’t describe the GHE, so blathering about any physics relating to it is both irrelevant and pointless.
Keep at it. Diversion is all you have.
Wrong again, Ent. As usual, you reveal your inclination to invent crap rather than to face reality. That’s why you claim passenger jets fly backward. You can’t face reality, so you make things up.
I have explained 2LoT many times. You’re so uneducated and immature you can’t understand.
To raise the temperature of matter, the kinetic energy of the molecules must be iincreased. That requires the incoming IR energy to produce a higher vibrational frequency in the molecules. That’s why you can’t boil water with ice cubes.
What will you try next?
Cint R,
You know vibrational states and average kinetic energy are different, and both contribute to temperature.
IT’s a straight forward calculation to determine which one is more important.
“That requires the incoming IR energy to produce a higher vibrational frequency in the molecules.”
No, the frequency stays the same, it’s the amplitude that changes with more energetic vibrational states.
bob is throwing crap against the wall, again.
He can’t support his claims because he’s got NOTHING.
Clint R,
You’re the one throwing crap.
I notice that you did not refute what I posted.
As usual.
Sorry bob, but I no longer waste time with people that make false accusations.
I live in reality. Most responsible adults do also. You, like several others here, never grew up.
Tim S
Excellent comment, perfectly on par with Rudolf Clausius’ 1887 treatise:
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
Translated from German:
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
…
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect
…
1. Subject of the investigation.
…
” What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one. ”
*
But as you know, Tim S, the majority of the people posting on this blog
– usually concentrate on pseudo-skeptical pseudo-science
hence
– reject Clausius’ 1887 work
and
– prefer to concentrate on what he wrote in 1854.
*
It won’t be long before the Robertson ignoramus takes to the stage and teaches you that you are ‘plain wrong’ :–)
That is fine, and others think that climate models are real and can predict the future, so the fake science door swings both ways.
Your CO2 powered heat amplifier theory will work as good as Bindidork’s ice powered light bulb
You two should team up
tim s…”That is fine, and others think that climate models are real and can predict the future…”
***
Problem is Tim, the lead authority on that, the IPCC, declared in the 3rd assessment, TAR, that future climate states cannot be predicted. However, the IPCC is not in the business of science and that did not stop them using unvalidated models to predict future climate states.
Expert reviewer, Vincent Grey, pointed out to the IPCC that unvalidated models cannot predict, so the IPCC slyly changed ‘predict’ to’ project’. Therefore, climate models cannot predict the future, as agreed by the IPCC.
So, what is a projection? The IPCC is not very clear on what is meant by projection. They mumble something about offering different scenarios that ‘might’ happen.
What it comes down to is that unvalidated models are nothing more than expensive toys used by unscrupulous people to create an imaginary scenario of climate gloom and doom, unless people do things their way.
Gordon,
“Problem is Tim, the lead authority on that, the IPCC, declared in the 3rd assessment, TAR, that future climate states cannot be predicted. However, the IPCC is not in the business of science and that did not stop them using unvalidated models to predict future climate states.”
Problem is, Gordon, that no, the IPCC did not predict future climate states.
Your misunderstanding is probably because you do not understand what a “climate state” is.
Yes, the models predict future average global temperature and other variables, but those are not climate states.
Bindidon says:
”that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one. ”
Clausius appears to get it.
However anybody who actually paid attention to the 3rd grader radiation model, the cold body never heats and the warm body does.
Need I say more?
Bill,
“Need I say more?”
I think you have said enough.
The third grader model you are referring to does not show temperatures.
Does that help?
You aren’t looking at the 3rd grader radiation model Bob
Bill,
I may be confused as to what you are calling the third grader model.
I had assumed it was the Trenberth diagram, or any other similar model.
Trenberth has lots of BS diagrams Bob
The one you want to find is the one that has the colder layer warming the warmer layer rather than the warmer layer warming the colder layer as specified by Clausius in Bindidons post here.
Linky?
Search here on:
”the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.”
Bill,
I’m searching in my refrigerator and I found a box of wrong.
bob doesn’t believe Clausius. Anything to protect his emotional investment in climate change.
Bill,
Clausius is on record saying there is a two way transfer of energy.
The heat transferred is the net.
Bob you are just obfuscating.
Clausius says (emphasis mine):
”it is known that not ONLY the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well.”
Saying ”radiates to” doesn’t says what the fate of that energy is. But we do know its less than what it lost in the direction of the cooler object so that there is no warming by the warmer object and that is proven by demonstration after demonstration using compartmentalized boxes and comparing them filled with GHG and non-ghgs.
If you think about it and can constrain yourself from extrapolating unproven solutions of math problems simply because yo daddy wants you to believe they are true because he wants to remain forever yo daddy. . .then it is simple to see the truth that the 3rd grader radiation model doesn’t work.
Bill,
No obfuscating from me.
Anyway the fate of the radiation is determined by whatever matter it encounters.
“is proven by demonstration after demonstration using compartmentalized boxes and comparing them filled with GHG and non-ghgs.”
You have to understand that the climate system is complicated and driven by an energy source.
I’ll leave the obfuscating to you.
But you have agreed with what I was saying in the first place, that there is a two way transfer of energy.
Thanks for confirming that I was correct, so I may assume you have a non zero confidence in my credibility.
Tim S,
Slow cooling is still cooling, not heating.
As Fourier said, all the heat of the day is lost at night, plus a little of the Earth’s interior heat.
Hence, the cooling of the surface over the past four and a half billion years.
Nobody can describe the GHE in any way that makes sense – including where this supposed “effect” may be reliably observed, measured, and documented.
As to your comment asking someone if they want to “learn the science”, I hope you are not proposing yourself as a teacher of the subject. I could point out a few egregious errors you have made, but I won’t – unless you claim that you are certain that you have made no errors at all, and can back up your assertions.
No offense intended, but I believe you are mistaken about a few things.
“Nobody can describe the GHE in any way that makes sense”
If Earth was completely covered by it’s transparent ocean, Earth average temperature would be much warmer than 15 C.
Earth current average ocean surface is about 17 C if no land it would have a higher average temperature than 17 C.
So it could have nice room temperature of 25 C or more.
Ocean warms.
Land cools.
In regards atmosphere and GHE.
Without an atmosphere the tropical ocean engine wouldn’t work as well.
Of course, the ocean would get a bit more sunlight with less atmosphere.
And with less atmosphere, solar panels would work a lot better.
If Mars was mostly covered with a ocean, it would be a lot warmer and
Mars thin atmosphere would make solar panels work a lot better.
gb,
As I said, nobody can describe the GHE in any way that makes sense.
The Moon provides an example of what you get without an atmosphere.
The atmosphere reflects about 30% of sunlight. The WMO states “. . . around 30% is reflected back to space and does not heat the surface.”, much to the chagrin of true believers, who believe that oxygen and nitrogen are exempt from physical laws, and do not interact with solar radiation – neither absorbing, emitting, refracting or reflecting light!
Oh dear. The non-existent GHE would have to depend on non-existent physics.
No wonder nobody can describe it.
“The Moon provides an example of what you get without an atmosphere.”
After humans are spacefaring, they will add an ocean to the Moon.
Lunatics don’t need an atmosphere, but add water to the Moon they will get water and electrical power from dropping water thousands of km. So they would want lots of water- more than they “need” because they should want endless amounts of cheap hydropower.
So if the Moon had ocean with global average depth of 1 km, the Moon ocean surface wouldn’t get hot but it would keep warm during the long lunar night. And the Lunatics could also go skiing.
tim s…”Here is the important part: The NET heat transfer is always from hot to cold. Always! But the RATE of heat transfer is slowed by radiation coming back from the cold air”.
***
You don’t explain how this works, you simply claim it as a fact. How is heat transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface? How is the rate of heat transfer slowed down?
Newton Law of Cooling claims that the rate of heat ‘dissipation’, not transfer, is governed by the difference in temperature between a surface and its environment. You are apparently confusing this with heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface, which violates the 2nd law.
Later, you claim a NET transfer is the important factor but there is no such thing as a net heat transfer. Heat can be transferred by its own means in one direction only, hot to cold.
What you are talking about is an incorrect theory offered by climate alarmists. They have claimed radiation from the surface is positive and back-radiation is negative, and as long as the surface radiation is greater than the back-radiation, the 2nd law is not contradicted. That is egregiously wrong since radiation is not heat and the 2nd law is about heat only.
Heat is not transferred from one place to another by radiation. Heat is lost in the production of radiation at a surface but if that radiation is encountered by a cooler body, new heat can be produced in the cooler body. The new heat is NOT the heat from the original surface.
That process is not possible from a cooler body to a hotter body. To understand that you need to understand quantum theory a la Bohr.
Gordon,
Cut it out with the nonsense
“Heat is not transferred from one place to another by radiation.”
Try this source, if you don’t like wiki, find a textbook.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
“Thermal radiation is one of the three principal mechanisms of heat transfer.”
Once again, Gordon is the most creative and sometimes amusing participant. I think he actually knows better, because he comes so close, but science is not a game of horseshoes where close counts. Most of the rest are a complete waste of time, but there may be others who read this site and think some of you are serious, so I do not mind amusing myself to spend a few minutes to set the record straight.
Carry on.
tim s…I am still awaiting your explanations for your so-called science. At least I explain my understanding in detail. If you have a problem with it just lay it out, I’d be glad to hear your version.
You may not like this, but it’s the big final exam question. The information is available, and there are different theories about how it works. Different people like different theories. One obvious fact is that there are many other factors beside radiant energy that affect temperature and climate. The various models are inherently inaccurate. Predictions (and projections) are difficult — especially about the future!
Tim,
You wrote –
” . . .different theories about how it works.”
About how what “works”? Certainly not any mythical GHE – nobody can even describe where it may be observed, measured or documented!
Do you have a “theory” about that, or are you just going to scuttle away like a cockroach exposed to the light?
Carry on.
tim s…”The information is available, and there are different theories about how it works”.
***
We skeptics have attacked all the available theories and exposed them as juvenile.
The GHE is based on the incorrect assumption that greenhouses warm by trapping infrared energy. Glass can trap all the IR it can trap but what is the mechanism by which that trapped IR warms the air in the greenhouse? That is never explained. Maybe you have the answer.
Wood proved in 1909 that the air in a greenhouse warms because heated air molecules are trapped by the glass (lack of convection). He did an experiment to prove it because he was an expert on the thermal properties of gases like CO2 an did not think the prevailing theory a la Arrhenius had merit.
AGW theory, a subset of the GHE theory, claimed that radiation trapped by so-called GHGs could be radiated back to the Earth’s surface to warm it beyond what it is warmed by solar energy. To make their claim they had to override the 2nd law which states that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder object to a warmer object. AGW contradicts that by allowing heat to be transferred from colder atmospheric air to a warmer surface.
To get around the 2nd law, alarmists claimed the 2nd law is not contradicted if a certain ‘balance of energy’ is positive. Note that Clausius stipulated in his 2nd law statement that heat can NEVER be transferred cold to hot by its on means. The same applies to any form of energy. No energy can be transferred by its own means from a lower potential energy state to a higher potential energy state.
By ‘balance of energy’, alarmists are claiming that radiation and heat are the same energy, and they are clearly not. As experts Gerlich and Tscheuschner pointed out, the 2nd law is about a summation of heat quantities, not a summation of energy per se. Radiation does not apply to the 2nd law therefore the alarmist balance of energy does not apply either.
Tim,
I’m glad you think you have “set the record straight”.
Without telling anybody what “the record” is, and what your definition of “straight” happens to be, you sound just like the usual cultist pretender.
Maybe you believe someone values your high opinion of yourself, but I’m reasonably sure that anybody you name is likely to deny vociferously that they give your opinions any weight at all.
Have you an opinion on the GHE, perhaps? Could you describe the GHE? Of course not, you might not be terribly knowledgeable, but you are probably cunning enough not to see more silly than you are!
Give it a try, if you wish.
Solar wind
speed: 618.8 km/sec
density: 1.93 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 104
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 151 sfu
Daily Sun: 20 Aug 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.26×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
48-hr change: -1.2%
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
14 August – 09 September 2023
Solar activity is likely to reach moderate to high levels over 17
Aug-03 Sep due to the expected return of multiple regions which
produced event-level flares on their previous rotations. Low levels
of solar activity are expected to prevail throughout the remainder
of the period. —
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
It seems Aug month will be around Feb/Mar monthly numbers, about 120 or less.
{which doesn’t “mean much”- average so far is about 114}.
And guessing Sept will likewise be about 120 or less.
Sounds like it’s going sideways
Solar wind
speed: 579.9 km/sec
density: 0.74 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 93
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 146 sfu
Daily Sun: 21 Aug 23
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.26×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
48-hr change: -1.2%
“A SUNSPOT BIG ENOUGH TO SEE FROM MARS: NASA’s Mars Perseverence rover looks at the sun once a day to check the air for dust. A dim sun = lots of dust. Over the weekend, the rover found a large sunspot. This animation shows the behemoth crossing the solar disk Aug. 17th through 20th”
So can see spot north hemisphere near equator on edge of farside and bigger spot is southern hemisphere and comes days later to nearside.
But spots are leaving from nearside- it will probably bump up sunspot number a bit. And maybe get some flare activity or it could fade, but I doubt will we get a spotless day in Aug, but I think there is good chance of getting a spotless day in Sept, and a few spotless days in Oct.
Solar wind
speed: 450.2 km/sec
density: 5.92 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 22 Aug 23
Sunspot number: 102
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 149 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.25×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
The “spot north hemisphere”, numbered, 3413 {moderate sized} arrived nearside and big spot seen from Mars has not arrived yet, and spots are leaving to the farside.
The view from didn’t seem to have much spots on disk- more could grow, and/or big spot could fade, but spot number for Aug will be low. I am guessing Sept and Oct will as low or lower, and a less active sun. And mostly, guessing, Nov will be really weak.
Solar wind
speed: 424.1 km/sec
density: 3.77 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 23 Aug 23
Sunspot number: 96
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 151 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.25×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
“M-CLASS SOLAR FLARE (UPDATED): Sunspot AR3405 produced an M1.1-class solar flare during the late hours of Aug. 22nd..”
The big spot seen from Mars, 3415 and looks bigger than AR3405, and is in southern hemisphere near equator. And 3405 is days from leaving nearside to the farside
Mars seen big spot, 3415 biggest then 3413 and 3405 are next largest spots on the nearside. And it was said 3415 and 3413 were “interacting” in terms solar flare activity before both came from the farside.
Or it seems two active flare spots entering, and other one AR3405 is leaving to farside in few days {but two small spots, 3404 and 3407 will leave sooner than 3405]
Ah, forgot include a quote from above:
“New sunspots AR3413 and AR3415 are magnetically connected, and pose a threat for complex”
Perhaps quite a threat.
But well here. We seem to be a near peak of Max of 25 solar cycle, though one could say, appears to be one of the peaks of the peak Max
of cycle. And at moment low spot numbers for a peak.
But as AR3413 and AR3415 get to point facing Earth {in or near middle of nearside] they could give Earth some fireworks. And I am guessing the firework could be notable event to mark the end of peak solar max 25.
Solar wind
speed: 498.4 km/sec
density: 10.91 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 24 Aug 23
Sunspot number: 99
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 147 sfu
“All of these sunspots have simple, stable magnetic fields that pose little threat for strong flares. The quiet is expected to continue.”
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.94×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.8% Low
48-hr change: +0.6%
“GEOMAGNETIC STORM WATCH (G1): A magnetic filament erupted near the sun’s southwestern limb on Aug. 23rd ”
Solar wind density is higher at moment.
Earth’s Thermosphere is less energized, presently.
Higher GCR {considering we at Solar Max- apparently near peak},
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
21 August – 16 September 2023
Solar activity is expected to be low with a slight chance for
M-class flare acitivity through the outlook period.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to be at normal to moderate levels 21 Aug – 06 Sep and
11-16 Sep. High levels are expected 07-10 Sep in response to
recurrent CH HSS influence.
Geomagnetic field activity is expected to be quiet 26 Aug – 05 Sep
and 09-13 Sep. Unsettled levels are expected 21-25 Aug, 06-08 Sep
and 15-16 Sep due to recurrent CH HSS effects. Active conditions are
expected 14 Sep due to a recurrent CIR ahead of CH HSS onset. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Going, as I guessed. But spot 3413 looks as big as 3415. And both look a lot bigger than any other spots on nearside. The view from Mars didn’t indicate other large spots coming soon and don’t see any- though obviously spots can grow [and 3413 looks like got bigger- but generally things seem more towards, fading].
Hurricanes, I got 2 which could form, Atlantic has some, and tropical storm Franklin, predicted to become hurricane {and could affect islands near Gulf/eastern US seaboard:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
Russia’s Luna-25 probe crashes on the Moon: Roscosmos
–The Luna-25 probe, Russia’s first Moon mission in almost 50 years, has crashed on the Moon after an incident during pre-landing manoeuvres, Russian space agency Roscosmos said on Sunday. Communication with Luna-25 was lost at 2:57 pm (1157 GMT) on Saturday, Roscosmos said. According to preliminary findings, the lander “has ceased to exist following a collision with the Moon’s surface”. “Measures taken on August 19 and 20 to locate the craft and make contact with it were unsuccessful,”–
https://www.spacedaily.com/
Chandrayaan-3 Lunar orbit update
by Staff Writers
Bengaluru, India (SPX) Aug 19, 2023
“The Chandrayaan-3 mission continues to make significant strides as its Lander Module has now achieved an orbit of 113 km x 157 km around the Moon. This crucial development was shared by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). With a keen focus on the anticipated soft landing on the Moon’s South Polar region on August 23, a second de-boosting is already planned for August 20.”
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Chandrayaan_3_Lunar_orbit_update_999.html
Top climate idiocy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdYBrdhHJIE
binny offers a quote from Clausius, re radiation…
“What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well…”
Clausius was wrong about this matter and his thinking represents a belief of his time that heat flowed through air as heat rays. There is no argument that radiation of two bodies can intercept each body equally but we know now that radiation is not heat and that radiation from a cooler body has no effect on a warmer body.
The electron was decades away from being invented and Clausius and others had no idea that radiation is produced by electron transitions in atoms. I am sure he and others would have been delighted to have that information and to understand B0hr’s theory of the relationship between EM and electrons.
Aha, chirp you alarmists, that means the 2nd law and entropy are also wrong. Not so. The 1st law, the 2nd law, and entropy are not based on atomic-level action. In fact, as Clausius pointed out, a knowledge of internal energy is not required as long as the initial and final conditions re temperature, pressure, and volume are known.
Since it was unknown in the times of Clausius, Tyndall, and even Planck, that radiation related to heat is dependent on electron transitions in atoms, we must forgive them their notions that heat is transferred both ways between bodies of different temperature by radiation. Planck lamented that had he known about electrons it would have made is work far easier.
After Bohr’s revelation that kinetic energy (in this case, heat) is lost as radiation by electrons as they down-transition, the theories had to change. In modern times, it is sacrilege to claim that heat can be transferred in both directions simultaneously while maintaining the veracity of quantum theory.
Gordon, who invented the electron?
You are good for some laughs, but not that good.
bob, please stop trolling.
All this “discussion” about cold rays, and all the rest, might be worth something – if it related to anything relevant, which it doesn’t.
Even the most ardent GHE supporters accept that the surface cools at night. Fast or slow, it makes no difference. And, at night, even when a low level inversion exists, where the atmosphere is actually hotter than the surface – the surface still cools!
No amount of appealing to the authority of Clausius (or anyone else) can change reality.
Still no description of the GHE, because it would appear to fly in the face of the fact that the Earth’s surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and does so every night. No heating from any supposed GHE at all.
Humans produce heat. Thermometers respond. End of story.
Well, it should be.
swenson…”No amount of appealing to the authority of Clausius (or anyone else) can change reality”.
***
The point I have tried to make is that Clausius had no authority on radiation because he had no idea what it is. Neither did any other scientist till 1913 when Bohr revealed the connection between electrons in atoms and EM.
BindiKlown cherry-picked a quote from Clausius in which Clausius quoted the belief of the day, that heat could flow through air (actually, an aether, whatever that is) as heat rays, whatever those are. I don’t blame Clausius, or Tyndall, Planck or any other scientist of the day who were trying to make sense of how heat was transferred via radiation.
Turns out, heat is not transferred at all, it’s a natural smoke and mirrors act in which energy transforms itself from heat to radiation and back to heat. The irony is that heat and radiation have nothing in common, hence the smoke and mirror act.
Another good act is how work gets transformed to heat, and vice-versa. Clausius was an authority on that as well, having contributed the U = internal energy part of the 1st law.
Having said that, Clausius was an authority on heat and heat transfer involving conduction and convection, even though he freely admitted he knew nothing about the workings of atoms. No one did, not one scientist anywhere till 1913, when Bohr put it all together. It was not till the 1st decade of the 1900s that atoms were investigated scientifically by Ruthrford, in particular.
Even at that, many scientists rejected Bohr’s findings and in the 1920s, after the theory gained acceptance, scientists, mostly theoretical scientist, argued amongst themselves over how electrons operated in multiple-electron atoms. Since the 1920s, we have been saddled with hypothesis after hypothesis, like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle and quantum spin.
Heisenberg tells us we cannot know anything about an electron because it’s exact position cannot be pin-pointed and other scientists tell us the electron spins on an axis. Why has no one since then challenged those assinine assumptions and found a way to verify exactly how electrons operate?
In a similar manner, the GHE was foisted on us in the 19th century and accepted as a non sequitar argument. No one has bothered to challenge that inane hypothesis to this day. You and I challenge it constantly but who will listen to us? I dare say that if Einstein or Feynman challenged the theory today they would be dismissed as deniers.
Gordon,
Time for some lessons, since you make two errors in one sentence.
“Heisenberg tells us we cannot know anything about an electron because its exact position cannot be pin-pointed and other scientists tell us the electron spins on an axis.”
First Heisenberg tells us that there is a limit to how much we can know about an electrons velocity and location, it’s not nothing.
It’s the product of the uncertainty in position times the uncertainty in momentum is less than or equal to Planck’s constant divided by 4pi.
And no, scientist aren’t saying the electron is spinning, they are saying the electron carries angular momentum. Quantum spin is just a quantum property that is analogous to spin, but they are not saying the electron is spinning like a solid object would, because the electron is not a solid object.
bob, please stop trolling.
Is that not simply wonderful?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12SvoOtPWgLKjrrxe9Xm_JmMBea1IhuCM/view
I love sidewaysing solar cycles! Absolutely!
So now trending downwards is sideways?
You are one of the most stubborn and humorless people on this blog and once again prove it to us with amazing power.
The two cycles are looking at each other beautifully sideways, but you are unable to see such things because you are exclusively fixated on downtrends.
So OLS lines that are lower to the right are not downwards trends?
” … but you are unable to see such things because you are exclusively fixated on downtrends. ”
You still do not seem to have understood.
Even Clint R behaves somewhat more intelligent than you.
Mainly because trends go up or down, not sideways.
You posted data that had OLS lines on it, not me.
“Mainly because trends go up or down, not sideways.”
Well the cosmos emit cosmic rays {particles, closer to speed of
light} and long duration exposure is counted towards radiation exposure.
Anyways, the theory is sun’s activity blocks a significant portions of these cosmic ray [or also called GCR [Galactic Cosmic Radiation].
Anyhow GRC are similar to particle accelerators which make protons get near speed of light and they collided other particles.
But GRC are mostly hydrogen protons, but also Helium and all other elements and they can be more energetic they what humans can make.
Or nature provide us with “natural” particles which go near light speed and hit our atmosphere creating cascade of particles including sub-atomic particles and muons.
“muons,
An unstable subatomic particle of the same class as an electron (a lepton), but with a mass around 200 times greater. Muons make up much of the cosmic radiation reaching the earth’s surface.”
–What is the velocity of a cosmic ray?
Most galactic cosmic rays have energies between 100 MeV (corresponding to a velocity for protons of 43% of the speed of light) and 10 GeV (corresponding to 99.6% of the speed of light).–
[Anyways, the sun doesn’t make much of such high speed particles
but long duration higher solar activity blocks more of it and blocks more if closer to Sun. Or at Jupiter distance the sun’s activity blocks less as compared to at Earth distance. And comes from all directions and so, if close to a planet, the planet can block 1/2 of it, if on planet more than 1/2. And Earth’s atmosphere blocks a lot of it {it, being particles going close to speed of light- rather than sub-particles and muons or whatever, results from these high velocity particle collisions.
But back to trends, recently, last couple of decades, due lower solar activity we are getting more GCR.
And it could get worse in next couple decades.
Also in terms of climate some imagine more GCR causes more possibility of cloud formation on Earth- and other things.
But I am more interested in the Crewed Exploration of Mars.
Clint R,
The point being, that models with the CO2 forcing are a closer match than those without.
The Keeling curve and the graph at the top of the page are one bit of evidence that CO2 rise is correlated with a temperature rise.
Correlation is NOT science, bob.
If you’re walking down the street and see a redbird fly over as a red truck passes, that does not mean one caused the other.
Your cult has many false beliefs. That’s what cults do. They have a false belief, like Moon is spinning, then they support it with nonsense like claiming passenger jets fly backward.
You fully support any and all such nonsense.
Clint R
The correction to your post is that you are the one peddling the false beliefs like the Moon does not rotate once on its axis as it completes an orbit around the Earth. If it did not rotate once per orbit a person on Earth would see all sides of the Moon. You are just wrong about this no matter how often you repeat it. Repeating wrong information hundreds of times does not make it correct. Repeating false information is what cults do, it is what you do. You are trying to forge a cult of like minded believers, only problem this is a science blog and most people on it have some science background and follow evidence. You don’t follow evidence you follow your beliefs. You believe a ball on a string represents the Moon in orbit. RLH has told you many times it does not. Evidence does not matter to one who is trying to create a cult of believers and you want to the be the leader of your own cult. Good luck, you won’t find many on this science blog who accept your Bullshit nonsense, a couple might. Most know you are an arrogant blowhard that makes up stuff (nitrogen gas reflects IR, fluxes don’t add, radiant energy from a colder body can’t be absorbed by a warmer one). On and on you peddle false made up ideas hoping you will be able to find a few cult minded people who don’t know science, don’t demand evidence, and do not think.
Norman,
I suppose you are trying to avoid admitting that you can’t describe the GHE.
Or have you given up claiming that a GHE exists?
norman…”If it did not rotate once per orbit a person on Earth would see all sides of the Moon”.
***
You can easily model the lunar orbit on Earth. Stand inside an oval while a race-car is running on the oval. Would you see more than one side of the car? As the car approached certain parts of the elliptical oval, you could see parts of the rear and front of the car, equivalent to lunar libration.
The point is, you would never see the far side of the car.
It could be noted that if the car went into a very slow spin, so it was completing exactly one rotation about its COG per orbit of the track, that you would see all sides of the car from inside the track, and it certain points the car’s rear end would be pointing in its direction of motion.
If you went into the stands and observed the car, then you could see all sides of the car, even though it is not spinning about a local axis. Same with the Moon.
It’s all curvilinear translation without local rotation.
Gordon Robertson
The racecar is rotating on its axis at the same rate it moving around the track. You can try it yourself walking around a table. Monitor your feet and body. To keep the same side of you toward the table you have to rotate your body as you move around the table and you have to rotate once on your axis as you walk completely around the table. You are making the same motion as if you stood in place and rotated. By walking around the table you are both rotating on your axis and moving forward. Please do this and explain to me how you are not rotating your body. Observe (science) what your feet are doing as you walk around the table. You will not be able to accomplish it without rotating your feet. If you move around the table without rotating your body the observer on the table will then see all sides of you. If the Moon did not rotate once on its axis per orbit you would see all sides of the Moon just as an observer on the table would see all sides of you if you circle the table without rotating your body. Please try it which is far more scientific than the cult minded Bullshit of Clint R. He is most annoying with his empty head and closed mind. Don’t be like him, he is a cultist not a science minded person. He makes endless unsupported claims that he does not even attempt to defend. Then he repeats his posts numerous times when you ask for evidence. Like a taunting parrot. Then he pretends he is the adult on the blog when he is most childlike in thought and attitude. Don’t be like him, use your mind, observe, think about what is going on.
Thanks for the great meltdown, Norman. We haven’t seen one in several weeks. I thought maybe you had grown up. But, I was wrong.
And as usual, there’s NO science. All you’ve got are insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. As for anything of substance, you’ve got NOTHING.
But, I did appreciate you admitting you STILL don’t understand the simple ball-on-a-string analogy. I try to keep my examples as simple as possible because I know your cult has no background in science, or appreciation for reality. But in science, it’s not always possible to get down to your level.
Clint R
Keep spreading your cult fantasy. How many people believe your made up crap?
You can’t grasp moving around a table without rotation, it confuses that lump of fat you think is a brain. A ball on a string is just rotation like a solid rod moving in circular path. Something the jello between your ears can’t process.
You are correct on one thing. Your cult has zero background in any science. I also accept you don’t appreciate reality as it goes against your cult beliefs.
The dumbest of your cult fantasies is you think nitrogen gas reflects IR and you believe (with zero support or evidence of any type) that the radiant heat transfer equation is bogus. Those are two of your really dumb made up points. We could go on but you will not get smarter. You keep peddling your cult mantras hoping to collect a few ignorant saps to your small and insignificant cult of you and I don’t know who else.
Norman, if all that dysfunctional rambling helps, then keep at it. Finding out your false beliefs are bogus can be a real emotional event. Reality can be a bitch.
It will get worse, so buckle up!
Clint R
You understand yourself completely but project your flaws to others.
YOU: “Finding out your false beliefs are bogus can be a real emotional event. Reality can be a bitch.”
Yes that is you. You believe nitrogen gas reflects IR and that the 15 micron photon is too big to fit through nitrogen (not sure what that crap even means). You think a valid and well used heat transfer equation is bogus without evidence or any valid proof except you stating it.
You do almost seem like you are crying when I point out the truth of your own self. Yes it is emotional for you to find out you really don’t know anything about science, geometry, physics and then it is pointed out to you by multiple posters who call out your shit posts.
Yes Norman, it’s a good meltdown — one of your best. And your seething rage and hatred is an added bonus. Well done. I suspect a lot of your resentment comes from jealousy. You’d like to understand the simple analogies, but you just don’t have what it takes.
As I said, it’s only going to get worse, so buckle up.
(I recommend you rant and rave here all night. It might be good therapy.)
Norman,
Describe the GHE.
Then I will tell you why your description is nonsensical. Gee, you’re going to keep your description secret, are you?
Hardly surprising, I suppose.
Robertson
” As the car approached certain parts of the elliptical oval, you could see parts of the rear and front of the car, equivalent to lunar libration. ”
WRONG as usual, Robertson.
You never will be able to show us such optical libration effects when the car does not spin about its axis in the same time as it is running on the oval.
Why can’t you refrain from posting your idiocies everywhere?
Bindidon there is no perfect rotation. All you want to be is the king of deciding what is allowable as an imperfection which makes you exactly what we know you think you are.
Bindi, you should know that you’re “off the reservation”. Your cult claims that the car is “spinning”. They have to, since it is the same motion as Moon.
You need to understand your cult nonsense better.
(Of course Realists know that neither the car nor Moon is spinning. There is NO axial rotation involved. The ONLY motion is “orbiting”.)
There is no such things as orbiting without axial rotation.
Moon says to RLH, “Hold my beer.”
(For the children that means Moon can prove RLH wrong, easily.)
Yes it could, if the Moon wasn’t rotating, unfortunately for those who don’t have a clue, the Moon is rotating.
On a local axis.
With the same period as its period of revolution.
Clint gives the Moon something it does not have in reality. Humanization. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/humanization
Yeah, Clint R believes the Moon has hands and can talk.
I shouldn’t have explained it for the children.
Clint R,
Can you stop rotating for a minute?
Clint R,
Correlation is a minimum standard to say one thing affects another.
Yes it is science, I don’t think you are qualified to say what science is and isn’t.
Bumbling bobby,
Correlation is not causation, no matter how to try to play silly semantic games.
No, it’s not “science”.
You might as well say that the atmosphere is responsible for four and a half billion years of cooling!
Or, even sillier, claim that because heat results from burning hydrocarbons, and CO2 also results from burning hydrocarbons, then CO2 (100% correlated to heat) causes the heat!
You really are a silly chap, aren’t you?
Not silly enough to claim that CO2 cause global warming, I hope.
So global warming is from the heat of combustion of fossil fuels?
You’re off of your rocker, and you are bad at math.
That’s assuming you have done the sums, but they don’t add up.
The Sun provides way more heat than all the man made heat from all of our activities.
Bumbling bobby,
Correlation is not causation, no matter how to try to play silly semantic games.
No, its not science.
You might as well say that the atmosphere is responsible for four and a half billion years of cooling!
Or, even sillier, claim that because heat results from burning hydrocarbons, and CO2 also results from burning hydrocarbons, then CO2 (100% correlated to heat) causes the heat!
You really are a silly chap, arent you?
Not silly enough to claim that CO2 cause global warming, I hope.
Swenson,
Correlation is science, I learned that in first year college chemistry.
Increasing CO2 causes global warming.
The first step to provide evidence for that is to show correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global average temperature.
We are past step one.
bob..I don’t see a reference to CO2 in Roy’s graph of global temperatures. Roy is on record as claiming he has no idea how much CO2 might affect global temperatures. I doubt if Keeling could have either, at least, if he had the same integrity as Roy.
That’s right Gordon, no reference to CO2 in the graph at the top of the page, unfortunately you don’t understand my comment.
I understood it better than you think. You are always pushing the meme that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the warming since 1850. Neither you or anyone else can prove that. Even the IPCC won’t claim it outright, they slyly infer it.
First of all,
Proofs are for math, distillation, and making bread.
There is plenty of evidence CO2 is warming the planet.
bob, you’re so indoctrinated by your cult that everything you see is “evidence” of your false beliefs.
Remember, you have supported falsities like ice boiling water and passenger jets flying backward. You are willing to pervert any reality to help your cult.
That ain’t science.
Clint R,
Now you are misrepresenting what I have posted.
You complain when you think I do that to you, but I don’t.
I have said Harrier jets fly backwards, and that passenger jets can’t keep up with the rotation of the Earth, so they move backwards, not fly backwards.
And it’s been proven you can boil water with ice, YouTube videos have been posted showing exactly that.
Talk about indoctrination of false beliefs, you got those in spades.
Exactly bob, you’re so indoctrinated by your cult that everything you see is “evidence” of your false beliefs.
Remember, you have supported falsities like ice boiling water and passenger jets flying backward. You are willing to pervert any reality to help your cult.
That ain’t science.
Clint R,
You are misrepresenting what I have posted, that ain’t science.
But you believe O2 and N2 reflect IR, yet you have no evidence for that.
Wrong bob.
You have supported the false concepts. That’s what you do. You try to pervert reality.
That’s why you’re such a failure — reality always wins.
Clint R,
You have not shown any of my beliefs to be false, or any of the ideas I support to be false.
You can keep trying, every now and then a blind sow finds an acorn.
bob, please stop trolling.
A bit of ‘uber-alarmism’ (ignoramus Robertson’s preferred diction)
From the French right+ wing newspaper ‘Le Figaro’:
” Heat wave: it is now necessary to reach 5,298 m altitude in Switzerland to have zero degrees
This altitude of the zero isotherm measured in our neighbors constitutes an absolute record since the beginning of the measurements in 1954, announced the Swiss weather services. ”
*
Be sure that if you post that at WUWT, at least 5 ignoramuses would answer:
” It was warmer a few thousand years ago! ”
Plus bête tu meurs.
Once again Bindebil seeing imaginary posts that nobody made
Once again, the Eben dachshund lies and keeps below the belt.
binny…”Heat wave: it is now necessary to reach 5,298 m altitude in Switzerland to have zero degrees…”
***
They omitted one salient point…in summer. Furthermore, the claim is based at 1954. There is no evidence that such a claim was not true prior to 1954.
We place thermometers in housings to shade them from the Sun. If you are climbing on Everest above 20,000 feet, even though temperatures in the shade are below zero, the direct rays of the Sun will warm you and the air to the point it is well above zero while not in the shade.
Besides, what official thermometers are there in the Alps, or any mountains in Europe, to officially record accurate temperatures. What you have in the article is some ijit recordings temperatures unscientifically.
I’d be willing to bet the recordings were made by Greta Thunberg and her friends.
Robertson
” Besides, what official thermometers are there in the Alps, or any mountains in Europe, to officially record accurate temperatures. What you have in the article is some ijit recordings temperatures unscientifically. ”
You are the blogs dumbest poster since your first post, and prove it once again.
The temperatures in the European Alps are recorded by stations exactly as accurate as anywhere else, you dumb ignoramus.
Why cant you refrain from posting your idiocies everywhere?
At what elevation are the thermometers located, and where? Your article claimed 5298 metres which is 17381 feet.
Mont Blanc is only 4809 metres which is 15777 feet. Your article claims…”Heat wave: it is now necessary to reach 5,298 m altitude in Switzerland to have zero degrees”. So you have to reach about 2000 feet above the peak of Mont Blanc to reach 0C.
And where exactly would that thermometer be mounted at 2000 feet in the air above Mt. Blanc? And where in Switzerland can we reach a land surface altitude of over 17,000 feet? The highest mountain in Switzerland has an altitude of 4,634 m = 15,203 feet.
Seriously, climate alarmists are becoming bigger liars as the years go by. Their lies go on…
“This altitude of the zero isotherm measured in our neighbors constitutes an absolute record since the beginning of the measurements in 1954”.
Who has been measuring temperatures at 2000 feet above Mt. Blanc since 1954?
Robertson
You are such an ignoramus…
This temperature at such an altitude (5298 metres) has OF COURSE been measured in a… weather balloon.
Never heard of the RATPAC radiosondes, for example?
Those which John Christy uses to confirm the accuracy of his satellite-based measurements?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LgITui8Sm7EaWzOstUBL1ZyNRaOu5IQI/view
As of today, SC25 is guaranteed to exceed the maximum of SC24 (116.4) at the end of the month.
Sorry: SC24’s monthly average maximum was 146.1, in Feb 2014.
You DO understand that the SC24 maximum of 116.4 is a 13 month average, right?
Of course I do.
But YOU didn’t mention it.
Given I said 116.4, I could have meant only one thing.
In which location on Earth? It’s currently -62C at the South Pole station with a wind chill of -76C.
Zharkova claims we should expect anomalies. The Sun does not operate according to human desires.
Robertson
You are the blog’s dumbest poster since your first post, and prove it once again.
Antonin Qwerty and I we are talking about the SUN SPOT NUMBER, you dumb guy, and not about temperatures at Earth’s surface.
Why can’t you refrain from posting your idiocies everywhere?
Twerpy is comparing the 13 month average , thats the right way to do it not monthly average, you are the dumb guy
And what have sun spots to do with anything? We are discussing it because Zharkova predicted that the current and upcoming solar cycles will lead to cooling till at least 2050. Both of you also push the meme about anthropognic global warming.
You two are discussing solar cycles in an attempt to discredit Zharkova and I am pointing out, as of today, that it is =62C at the South Pole. I have pointed out in previous posts that as long as the Earth’s axis is inclined at 23 degrees and the Earth maintains its current orbit, there won’t be any significant global warming/climate change.
It’s all tied together. Zharkova’s theory is likely still correct and by 2030 we should be experiencing much cooler weather.
I guess I should have dumbed it down considerably so you could see the connection. There is no guarantee of that, however, since I have dumbed the science down a lot for you and you still could not grasp it.
You still cannot grasp that an anomaly is simply a variation from a multi-decadal average.
Boy you are a liar. “In which location on earth” is NOT a response to anything I said. Why can’t you just admit you didn’t know what I was talking about.
And who said anything about Zharkova? When she first made her prediction she said NOTHING about climate, only the strength of the cycle. Then when she realised the denier clan was latching on to her prediction she republished with a climate prediction because she knew it would grab more attention. The original BS did not start with her.
And who said anything about Zharkova? When she first made her prediction she said NOTHING about climate, only the strength of the cycle. Then when she realised the denier clan was latching on to her prediction she republished with a climate prediction because she knew it would grab more attention. The original BS did not start with her.
aq…I never know what you are talking about because nothing comes out of you that is not gibberish.
Any discussion we have had on Roy’s blog re solar cycles has been related to climate. Skeptics have presented it as evidence the climate will likely cool in the future and alarmists have ridiculed that notion. The only time you talk about solar cycles is to ridicule the notion that they could lead to cooling.
In your most recent post, you are doing the same. Let’s face it, you would not post on solar activity if it was not to denigrate Zharkova’s predictions. Based on that, I felt inclined to remind you it is currently -62C at the South Pole. With all the raving about heat waves in the Northern Hemisphere, and your support of the anthropogenic warming meme, I simply wanted to remind you that the Earth’s tilt and current orbital location has produced temperatures of -62C at the South Pole, where currently there is no solar input.
“And what have sun spots to do with anything? We are discussing it because Zharkova predicted that the current and upcoming solar cycles will lead to cooling till at least 2050. Both of you also push the meme about anthropognic global warming.”
What have sun spots to do with anything?
Well, sunspots could knock out the electrical grids in the world.
It terms global climate, I have wondered what caused the cooling during the Little Ice Age.
I don’t think the Little Ice Age was a regional only effect, I count it as a global cooling event. Maybe not particularly more significant as to past periods of centuries of cooling, but significant mostly because it was the most recent global cooling event.
I would count the volcanic activity during the Little Ice Age as more of a factor then sunspots and what they indicate in terms the activity of the sun. And Zharkova is also saying sun’s activity could be related to volcanic activity on Earth.
A thing about Earth volcanic activity is 80% of it, is under the ocean. So, unseen volcanic activity in the past, and largely unseen activity at the present.
One might argue that it’s just the volcanic activity which has large effect upon our atmosphere- and thereby has better chance of it being noticed in past and in present- which has biggest effect upon global climate.
But I tend to think, global climate is about Earth’s ocean.
But anyhow, I don’t know why Little Ice Age was a cooler period, but general idea is it has to do with large land volcanic eruptions and many of them- and sunspots.
Of course if we have one large land volcanic eruption, that could be worse than a global nuclear war- and not have much to do in regards to global climate temperature. Or 100 cubic km of rock or water thrown into the atmosphere is not really much to with global temperature- it’s effect of years rather than decades or centuries.
Gordon … as you continue to lie.
If someone had said “today was our first spotless day of the cycle” would it have made sense for me to jump in and ask “in which location on earth?” ? You would have been the first to tell me what a ridiculous response that was.
And I’ll ask again … why specifically Zharkova? She at least was predicting 80% of last cycle. About half the numbskulls out there were predicting a Maunder-like minimum. In fact that’s what was originally meant by “grand solar minimum”, until they watered down the concept because they saw it wasn’t going to happen.
–And Ill ask again why specifically Zharkova? She at least was predicting 80% of last cycle. About half the numbskulls out there were predicting a Maunder-like minimum. In fact thats what was originally meant by grand solar minimum–
I think grand solar minimum has to include cycle 26.
But I am guessing in terms cycle 25, a lot depends on next few months. But even in next few month, it take more than 1 year, before the fat lady sings- and even then one could still have double peak like 24.
aq…”If someone had said today was our first spotless day of the cycle would it have made sense for me to jump in and ask in which location on earth? ? ”
***
You either lack the intelligence to have this conversation with me or you are lying to protect your motive for your solar cycle post.
I called you on your climate alarmist posts which are incessant. Your reaction is proof to me that I hit a nerve. Why would an alarmist comment on solar cycles unless he was trying to denigrate the theory?
I don’t care about solar cycles in particular, rather, like Swenson, I hammer away at bad theories. My reference to -62C at the SP, was along that line. You are promoting climate alarm and I am pointing to the reality.
Waaaaa! “As of today, SC25 is guaranteed to exceed the maximum of SC24 (116.4) at the end of the month.”.
The future has been guaranteed! Another mentally defective cultist believes something or other – which happens to be completely irrelevant to the mythical GHE, obviously.
No doubt life will go on.
tim s…”It seems that just reading the textbook is not enough”.
***
Textbooks are fairly useless unless you try to apply what you learn. You think you understand only to find out after some experience that your understanding was wrong. I have had to revise my understanding of basic electronics several times over the years. Sometimes, a light suddenly turns on for no obvious reason and a new insight is derived.
I find that is often what learning is about. You take in information, digest it, and without knowing why, suddenly a light goes on. And please, hold the jokes about light going on.
I would not want to have to write a textbook. It would be an daunting task, simply because no one has such a broad grasp of concepts in a field unless the textbook is about a specific subject on which the author has expertise.
I just opened up a textbook I had in 2nd year electrical engineering and randomly turned to the end of a chapter to check the References section. There are 5 references listed for one chapter. The first reference is lengthy and references three other books. Other references list books and papers. They also break the reference down to certain pages within those books.
That’s how textbooks are often written, the author(s) read other books. I still don’t understand how mechanical engineering texts can claim heat is transferred in both directions by radiation between bodies of different temperatures. If a person has even a basic understanding of quantum theory a la Bohr, it becomes abundantly clear that such a two-way transfer is simply not possible.
Obviously, the authors including that propaganda in a text have stolen the idea from other authors who have stolen the idea from other authors, etc. In other words, the meme has been perpetuated as a paradigm. For example, in electrical engineering texts, current is still indicated as flowing from positive to negative.
At least EE text authors concede that is a theory based on convention and not a fact with regard to electrons, the only charge carriers in a copper conductor. Even in a semiconductor, the only charge carriers are electrons even though modern EE texts claim that holes vacated by electrons in the valence shells of atoms can carry a charge.
The initial author of semiconductor hole theory, Shockley, offered a disclaimer in his book on the subject that he had conceived hole flow as a model only and that he did not intend to convey the message that holes were real and carried a positive charge. That message seems to have gotten lost along the way since modern authors freely refer to holes, which have no mass, as charge carriers.
I mean, if you dig a hole in the ground, does the hole have mass? Air in the hole certainly has mass but how can a hole have mass? It’s as bad as photon theory where the photon has momentum but no mass. Therefore, if an electron vacates a place in an orbital to move on to the next atomic orbital, does the place left behind, called a hole, have mass and carry a charge that can move in the opposite direction?
From my experience at university, we were tested on the lecture material, with the text as a back up. We were assigned problem sets from text books but in some cases, such as a course on linear algebra, the prof provided meticulous notes of his lectures that he handed out after each lecture.
That prof was one of the coolest profs I encountered. About 2/3ds way through the course, an engineer asked what we were doing, as in what are we supposed to be learning. The prof asked if he meant in that lecture or during the entire course. The engineer meant the entire course. Linear algebra was referred to fondly by engineers as ‘mystery math’.
The prof took it with good humour, explaining that we were not meant to understand the course, that it was all intended to be learned as we went along. We first had to learn the concepts and rules related to the matrices used to operate on and solve more than two equations with two or more variables.
If you opened a textbook on linear algebra that would not be apparent. You might spend an inordinate amount of time trying to learn a concept from a textbook that a prof could explain in short order.
norman…”The racecar is rotating on its axis at the same rate it moving around the track. You can try it yourself walking around a table. Monitor your feet and body. To keep the same side of you toward the table you have to rotate your body as you move around the table and you have to rotate once on your axis as you walk completely around the table”.
***
Racecars use special tires to grip the track so they won’t rotate about their COG/axis. If the grip is broken they spin out and begin rotating about their cog/axis. If the grip holds, they are simply performing curvilinear translation without rotation.
If I walk around a table, facing forward, not the table, keeping one side pointed at the table, my body is not rotating about a local axis.
Proof…if my left side faces the table and I extend my arms to the side, as I walk about the table the tips of my fingers trace out circles about the table as does my centre of gravity. All three circles are concentric and that means parallel to each other. The same applies to all parts of my body. Each part is moving along a concentric circle. Therefore, it is not possible for it to rotate about my COG at the same time.
To aid in visualization, take those circles, break them, and bend them back to straight lines. Now walk the straight line keeping the same side pointed at the table. Exactly the same motion but this time it is rectilinear rather than curvilinear.
Newton knew all this, he explained it in Principia, therefore he had to know the Moon does not rotate about a local axis.
Gordon Robertson
Look at what your feet are doing. You have to rotate your feet then your body to accomplish the task. If you do not rotate you feet or body you will continue in a straight path away from the table. With no rotation on your part you walk only forward. You have to rotate your body as you take a forward step to walk in a circle.
When a car goes around the curve the driver must turn (which is a rotation) in order for the car to make the curve. If the driver does not turn he will continue straight off the track.
If no rotation with forward motion you only move forward. I wish you would observe your feet. Don’t speculate on what happens, observe it. Tell my you can walk around the table without rotating your foot when you pick it up than the rest of your body follows.
Norman, you are confusing “spinning” with “changing direction”. The difference is clear if you understood vectors. But, we know your problems there….
“The difference is clear if you understood vectors”
Said by someone who does NOT understand vectors.
I do remember your “demonstration” of vector knowledge, RLH.
You stated that you understood vector addition, so I gave you a very simple problem. You couldn’t solve it. When I gave you the answer, you couldn’t understand that either!
You’re an empty vessel, RLH. Thanks for the reminder.
Said by someone who does NOT understand vectors.
Vectors are required for navigation on the oceans (and safe landfall).
Clint R
You change direction by some rotation. You and Gordon get confused when you have two motions taking place. You cannot understand rotation and moving forward. So to eliminate the confusion you both have, colder a square path around a table and not circular (which confuses you).
On the square path around a table you walk forward until you come to a corner. Now you just stand and rotate your body a quarter turn before continuing in a forward direction. Get to the next corner and another quarter rotation of your body. Then one more same thing. You do one final quarter rotation of your body and you have completed your path. You made one complete rotation of your body as you went around the table in a square path. The difference with a circular path is you rotate continuously as you walk. The square path is similar but it takes away the confusion of rotaing at the same time you move forward.
Wrong again, meltdown Norman.
An orbit is NOT a square. Study the simple ball-on-a-string.
What will you try next/
Clint R
I know you can’t understand two motions at once. You are not smart. That is why reducing to a square is necessary. Then even you could understand (I guess you are not able) that you are rotating as you move around the table and still keep just one side facing the table. I do not think I can grasp how little thought process you have. Sorry for assuming you might have a little thought process. I will admit being wrong in assuming you could think. Obviously you are not able.
Sorry Meltdown, but you have to keep it about science. You don’t get to make up your usual nonsense like a square orbit.
The ball is orbiting, held in place by the string just as Moon is orbiting held in place by gravity. Neither the ball nor Moon is spinning.
Reality is a bitch, huh?
(What time is your next meltdown?)
Clint R
I am finding your inability to think sad. I waste some time hoping you might have a little bit of thinking and reasoning but you show you have none. It is sad. I am sad for you. Rather than get frustrated with your obvious lack of any type of thinking (similar to Swenson) just kind of try to be as nice as possible to you once it is obvious you can’t reason or think.
To help you (since you are not able to do so on your own). The difference between walking in a circle and a square around a table it that in the circle you rotate a little with each step in stead of a whole quarter turn per corner. I did hope a light might shine in your darkened thoughtless mind but I assumed far too much from you.
You can observe your own feet waling in a circle around a table. Each step has a rotation. Not that you will observe it.
There is one hope with you is that you are not a real human (I question if Swenson is) but some AI a person is using to post on blogs. If that is the case we are not in any threat from AI at this time, you show zero thinking ability in any way.
So if you are an AI bot thanks for you lack of thought process. If a real human, sad is all one can state.
norman…” You cannot understand rotation and moving forward”.
***
It’s you, Norman, who doesn’t get it that the tires on the car, weighed down by the weight of the car, produce a friction with the track surface, and will not allow rotation about the car’s COG. If the car enters a curve too fast, and/or the friction is reduced due to water, and the friction is overcome, then the car can spin about its COG.
norman…”The difference between walking in a circle and a square around a table it that in the circle you rotate a little with each step in stead of a whole quarter turn per corner”.
***
Let’s build a a moving sidewalk like they have at airports but build it in a circle around your table. You stand on the device and it transports you in a circle around the table so there is no walking involved. You always have the same side pointed at the table and your body does not rotate around the spot on which you are standing.
However, your orientation changes constantly wrt to an external point of reference. You are confusing orientation in space with rotation about a local axis.
Now consider your square table. We build 4 separate moving sidewalks, one for each side of the table. As you approach the end of the first section, in order to keep the same side pointing at the table, you must rotate 90 degrees to get onto the next section. Same with the next two sections.
However, that represents rectilinear translation. With curvilinear translation, you don’t have the same problem.
Again, you are confusing rotation about a vertical line through your body with the entire frame of reference of your entire body re-orienting. Think of it as your body standing on an x-y plane with a z-axis protruding vertically through your body. With curvilinear translation and the moving sidewalk, the entire x-y plane is re-orienting constantly with you on it. You are not rotating about the z-axis, the entire plane is rotating wrt the centre of the table.
If you are the driver in the racecar, you are strapped in with a safety harness that will not allow your body to rotate. about such a vertical axis. In order to rotate about your COG, you’d need to be in a swivel chair that allowed your entire body to rotate. Even at that, the steering wheel would get in the way of the chair swiveling and you could not operate the gas pedal or the brakes, or steer the car.
With curvilinear translation, any change in direction is instantaneous. A curve is essentially an infinite number of straight lines tangent to the curve at any point. Therefore when you walk a curve you are always walking essentially in a straight line that is constantly re-orienting. The end result as you walk a circle is that your body re-orients through 360 degrees wrt the circle centre but locally, there is no rotation about a vertical axis through your body.
Gordon,
Fixed this for you
“The end result as you walk a circle is that your body re-orients through 360 degrees wrt the circle center and locally, there is rotation about a vertical axis through your body.”
Race cars have steering wheels so they can change direction or orientation, so they can travel around an elliptical track.
You don’t want to be Duddley Dorighting it down the backstretch.
bob, please stop trolling.
binny van der klown…”You never will be able to show us such optical libration effects when the car does not spin about its axis in the same time as it is running on the oval”.
***
I just did, you were not paying attention. Layout the oval like a typical ellipse with two focal points. Stand on one focal point as if you are the Earth. Facing down the major axis you see one side of the car at the end of the axis. All you see is the side of the car, none of the front or the back.
As you watch it turn the curve and head onto the straighter portion of the ellipse, you begin to see some of the front and the same side. As the car gets closer on the straighter portion you see more of the front until it reaches a point where you se more of the same side and less of the front.
Then you have to turn around to watch the car as it goes around the curve behind you. You see less and less of the front till the car reaches the interception with the major axis and all you see is the same side again with no view of the front or back. At those two ponts where the major axis meets the oval, there is no libration.
As the car rounds that curve and heads down the other straighter portion, you begin to see some of the back of the car and as it recedes into the distance you see most of the back and only a portion of the same side. Finally when the car reaches the far end of the major axis, down which you are viewing, you see the same side you saw at the beginning.
The changes in view angle are due to libration. However, you always see only the same side of the car. At certain points on the track you can see around the edge of the car and that is libration.
No spinning about a local axis at any time. The car is performing only a linear motion albeit along a curve with different degrees of curvature.
Another way of looking at it. The Moon just falls continuously towards the center of the Earth. However, you can see a bit more than the “bottom”, which is all you can see when you are directly “underneath” it.
When you are no longer directly beneath it, say at the horizon, you can see a little bit of the “sides”, about an extra 9% or so. You can also observe a bit of the other “sides” by looking from the North or South Pole.
Of course, the Moon also wobbles in three dimensions physically – for various reasons.
Nothing at all to do with global warming (which even Michael Mann has recently disavowed in favour of “weird weather”. He says “The same region gets baked day after day, or rained on day after day”. Gee. As if that’s never happened before!
So on with passionate “discussions” about anything except the mythical GHE.
Not a single fact will be altered in the process.
Swenson,
“The Moon just falls continuously towards the center of the Earth.”
Really, true, except the Moon falls away from the center of the Earth, for half of its orbit.
Did you learn that in Donkey school?
Bumbling bobby,
Don’t appear more silly than you need to. The Moon continuously falls toward the Earth. If you want to believe it is propelled in its orbit by celestial beings (pre Newtonian belief), feel free.
Don’t blame me if people laugh at your silliness.
Carry on braying.
Swenson,
Sounds like you are saying the Moon is getting closer and closer to the Earth.
So when is the impact?
No, seriously
Sometimes the Moon is 225,000 miles away, and then it is 251,000 miles away, would you say it’s falling towards the Earth as it moves away from the Earth.
bobby,
What part of “the Moon falls continuously toward the Earth” seems beyond your understanding? Maybe you have confused yourself by being unaware of the reasons for orbits being elliptical.
Newton was able to explain Kepler’s Laws regarding elliptical planetary orbits using his Law Of Universal Gravitation.
Your gotcha is both pointless and irrelevant. If you wish to dispute something I wrote, be a man and stand up for your disagreement.
Maybe this is all a bit above your pay grade.
Swenson,
Right,
This is what you said
“The Moon continuously falls toward the Earth.”
Is not true.
It moves in an ellipse with the Earth at one focal point.
With a major axis and a minor axis.
Once a month, the Moon is closest to the Earth, and then it moves away from the Earth.
Would you say the Moon is continuously falling towards the Earth when it is moving away from the Earth.
bobby,
The Moon falls continuously towards the Earth.
According to Sir Isaac Newton, and even some people at NASA.
You are obviously confused, as well as ignorant. All planetary orbits are elliptical, once again due to gravity – and chaotic into the bargain. The fact that the distance between the Moon and the Earth varies continuously, and you don’t understand why, just shows you don’t accept the validity of Newton’s Laws of Motion.
You keep asking me what I am saying. Maybe you are too thick to comprehend what I have written, about the Moon falling continuously toward the Earth. You don’t have to believe it. I am sure others refuse to accept reality, just like you.
I can see why you are confused, but I can assure you that the conservation laws relating to both energy and angular momentum are obeyed. If you can support an alternative explanation to the Moon being in free fall with respect to the Earth at all points in its orbit, I would be surprised.
Swenson,
Get a grip, the Moon is in free fall, that means the only force on it is gravity.
That doesn’t mean it is continuously falling towards the Earth.
swenson…”The Moon just falls continuously towards the center of the Earth”.
***
Yeah, it’s all about the Earth’s curvature at the altitude of the orbit. To remain in orbit, given the Earth’s curvature, which changes 5 metres vertically for every 8000 horizontal metres, the Moon must fall 5 metres for every 8000 metres it moves horizontally. Then it can remain at the same altitude and orbit the Earth.
It is also about the lunar momentum, which is linear and tangential. The Moon needs sufficient velocity to cover 8000 metres as it falls 5 metres. More velocity and it flies off, less velocity and it constantly loses altitude, then you know what.
I don’t like to call that vertical motion free fall or acceleration, which both suggest a sustained vertical motion and change of velocity. However, it is a vertical motion which I equate to pushing a car on a level surface and getting it moving. There is no way to accelerate the car once initial motion is achieved unless you have ten people pushing.
Let’s just hope that nothing flies into the Moon and decreases its linear momentum enough to start a free fall and acceleration. It will be ‘good night, Irene’ for us here on Earth.
Gordon,
Too late, the Moon is already in free fall, and is in fact accelerating towards the Earth.
Robertson
” The changes in view angle are due to libration. ”
Either you are plain dumb and guess, or you are brazen and lie, or both.
There is no libration in what you describe, Robertson.
Libration is a wobbling like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_21N3wcX8
Your car simply moves on the oval, what changes the view you have on it.
The car doesn’t wobble.
*
But for you it does, exactly like NASA uses only 1500 weather stations worldwide, and Einstein is wrong, and and and.
Binny,
And . . . and . . . – you still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
Keep whining about something else. Keep avoiding reality.
Reality won’t care.
Oh… that dumb, ignorant, condescending GHE stalker Flynnson again, himself avoiding any reality he doesn’t want or can’t understand.
So what.
Binny,
And . . . and . . . you still cant describe the GHE, can you?
Keep whining about something else. Keep avoiding reality.
Reality wont care.
Bindi, Moon does NOT actually make those movements. That video is a time-lapse of Moon as taken from one location. The “motion” is apparent, it is not really happening.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4768
Clint R
Don’t try to kid us.
You perfectly know that I’m aware of the fact that Moon’s optical librations are only apparent.
What you of course deny is that this effect is due to Moon’s orbital and spin motions having exactly the same time period.
You’ll always deny things like that, Clint R. It’s because of your sectarian ideology.
Wrong Bindi, as usual.
What I “perfectly know” is that you don’t understand ANY part of orbital motion. You can’t even understand the simple ball-on-a-string.
Librations are caused by the elliptical orbit of the Moon (that is not a circular one) that a BOS can never portray.
…and Moon’s tilted orbit, RLH.
And thanks for reminding us you STILL don’t understand the simple ball-on-a-string analogy.
A BOS cannot describe an elliptical orbit.
rlh…”Librations are caused by the elliptical orbit of the Moon (that is not a circular one) that a BOS can never portray”.
***
Just a minute now, Richard, we in science must not jump to conclusions. If the ball was turned in an elliptical orbit by somehow managing the string, and the orbit was large enough, provided we could make out the detail, we should see a slight libration.
I described that recently with a racecar on a track and how the view angle changed with position on an elliptical oval. It should be the same for the ball.
We could surely rig something up and computerize it so the BoS followed an elliptical orbit. Of course, the typical BoS would be too small to view directly so we’d need some time-lapse camera action. I am sure you’d see some libration.
As it stands the orbit of a B0S is essentially elliptical and corrected by the human twirler for the vertical, due to gravitational forces acting on the ball.
Show me how a BOS can describe an elliptical orbit.
“Show me how a BOS can describe an elliptical orbit.”
Take a ball on a string. Now impart motion it to create a roughly horizontal orbital plane.,
You are describing an elliptical orbit (or something close to it).
I’ll stick to just one force – the force of gravity, which describes the motion of the Moon pretty well. People who resort to analogies (generally Americans, as far as I can see), are either ignorant or incompetent, or believe their audience is.
The Moon is in free fall towards the Earth. If people want to believe this creates torque around a polar Moon axis, they are free to do so. It makes no difference at all to the observed facts, does it?
Still no description of the mythical GHE.
RLH continues to display his ignorance of the simple ball-on-a-string. Now, he’s trying to criticize the simple analogy because the ball would not have an elliptical orbit!
The analogy has NOTHING to do with Moon’s actual orbit. The simple analogy ONLY indicates “orbital motion without spin”. One side always faces the inside of its orbit.
Libration in longitude results from the eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit around Earth; the Moon’s rotation sometimes leads and sometimes lags its orbital position.
Without synchronicity of spin and orbit motions, no libration in longitude as we currently observe it.
Except Moon does NOT spin, Bindi.
Study the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. One side always faces the inside of its orbit because it is orbiting but NOT spinning.
Exactly, Clint R.
And that conversely is the reason why you won’t see any libration in longitude when studying ‘simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string’.
Binny,
Of course you will.
Your eyes are laterally displaced from each other. Each will see a little more of one side than the other. It’s called optical libration.
I see you realised libration in latitude is trivially easy to observe. Just adjust the orbital plane to be vertical.
Have you managed to come up with a description of the GHE yet? You previously “explained” the GHE thus – “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”
Is your description of the GHE similarly silly?
From your link…”The Moon always keeps the same face to us, but not exactly the same face. Because of the tilt and shape of its orbit, we see the Moon from slightly different angles over the course of a month. When a month is compressed into 12 seconds, as it is in this animation, our changing view of the Moon makes it look like it’s wobbling. This wobble is called libration”.
***
[Quote]”Our changing view (view angle) of the Moon ***MAKES IT LOOK LIKE IT’S WOBBLING***”[/Quote].
Also, the compression of a year into a 12 second computer animation combines both longitudinal and latitudinal libration together to create an ILLUSION of motion.
Do we have to explain further that ‘makes it look like’, in English, means it is an illusion?
BTW…the tilt of the lunar orbit, as Dremt pointed out, creates latitudinal libration, another illusion of motion.
Where is Dremt, BTW?
Stick with us skeptics Binny, we’ll set you straight yet.
Launching Rockets With Electricity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uMmVYYMcXU
The moon. Mass drivers.
Nobody wants it in their backyard.
“Space is really different than Earth”
Superconductivity.
Launching it from side of mountain.
🙂
Next up, probably, far more interesting:
Nautilus True Next Gen Space Telescope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7e3DaBBM44
Just a hint: when you write your smileys with two minus signs in sequence
:–)
they appear exactly as you want to see them.
:–)
Yeah, but I probably just keep on with 🙂
Or it’s just this blog and I do other blogs which
don’t have this problem.
Flynnson
” 0.95 mm? A thickish human hair is about 0.05 mm. The continent of Australia is moving NE at about 0.20 mm per day. Does this have any effect on MSL? ”
Instead of boasting, try to learn, for example by reading two of many articles and technical information sources:
https://www.sonel.org/-Vertical-land-movements-.html?lang=en
https://vdatum.noaa.gov/docs/datums.html#geoid
*
And whatever you might tell, sea level changes are measured by combining tide gauge data with GPS data in the near giving vertical (and where present: horizontal) land movement.
The best for you is to look at an evaluation of all tide gauges in Oz having sufficient data available:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EFIPTzVTNmKpLQHKMtx43NQQuhMM0O2N/view
As Oz’s coastal regions are dominated by subsidence, ignoring this vertical movement would lead there to a big overestimation of sea level changes.
The same occurs at the Eastern CONUS coasts.
*
The contrary happens within the Bothnian Gulf between Sweden and Finland (a region dominated by glacial isostatic rebound):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jZkZJoBTjlhVE_u2QO8oL2Ci1Dlf-MRq/view
*
You want to discredit and denigrate all that?
Feel free to do, Flynnson.
But don’t think you would impress me with your contrarian pseudo-scientific blah blah.
“0.95 mm? A thickish human hair is about 0.05 mm. The continent of Australia is moving NE at about 0.20 mm per day. Does this have any effect on MSL?”
If you don’t know, why not just say so?
You don’t seem to realise that continuous crustal movements occur on the sea floor, changing the shape of the ocean basins, and hence observed sea levels in relation to the land surrounding the basins.
Nobody can measure the vertical displacement occurring over about 70% of the Earth’s surface covered by ocean, nor that under kilometers of ice – Antarctica, for example.
Your faith in pseudoscience of the climatological variety is commendable, but misplaced. You can’t even describe the GHE, so talking about sea levels is as pointless as talking about the effect of orogenesis on the volume of the atmosphere.
I don’t really care whether you accept reality or not. Nor does reality itself.
Considering that GPS error is measured in feet, many feet, it is inconceivable that sats can measure altitude or horizontal position to any better than 30 feet.
It’s plain silly to think that a sat can measure sea levels to millimetre accuracy. So, when it is claimed ocean levels are rising so many mm, that is propaganda more than science.
It is cheek to suggest the oceans have a constant datum. We know that ENSO is based on the fact the ocean level between Tahiti and Darwin Australia varies up to a foot. Tidal forces due to the Sun and Moon are constantly affecting ocean levels.
Precision of a mean = measurement uncertainty * 1/ square root of sample size
Large sample sizes are why mean sea level values can be given in fractions of a millimetre.
You do know that the Moon’s orbit (one of the largest factors is sea level/height) is not considered a precise ellipse but is instead chaotic?
Differential GPS accuracy is several orders of magnitude better than unaided GPS which has errors on the order of what you suggest. That is, if one is able to compensate for systemic propagation errors (primarily ionospheric effects in GPS) using common mode rejection, measurements are much better than what you suggest.
Similarly satellite radar altimetry as employed in surface altitude measurements is effectively differential.
You do know that the Moons orbit (one of the largest factors in sea level/height) is not considered a precise ellipse but is instead chaotic?
Given that the tides are a bulge of water pulled from elsewhere in the ocean, and the bulge moves around the globe daily, I am surprised you would think it would have a significant impact on Global average sea level, which are heavily low pass filtered to study variation over months and years.
Sea level has been rising for 15,000 years. . . .and has accelerated and decelerated naturally at a rate not well understood.
“the bulge moves around the globe daily”
Having been a mariner for quite a time now, I can tell you that the height of the tides over the ground in any one place is at best a guess and requires a definite sonar check and correction before use.
RLH,
indeed. Generally naive persistence forecasts, based on past data.
Most places have two daily tides, some have one, some have four, and amphidromic points have none at all.
Tricky beggars, tides.
Sea levels can be even trickier. Marine fossils are found at altitudes over 6000 m.
Either seal levels dropped, or the mountains rose. If the mountains rose, what happened to the water which previously covered them? Did sea levels elsewhere rise, and by how much?
Due to the general conservation of crustal mass, the mountain uplift must have been compensated by corresponding depressions in the crust elsewhere, so sea levels actually fell! Is that right?
Current MSL to fractions of a millimeter with reference to any absolute datum?
No problems, climate scientists say so.
Swenson,
“Due to the general conservation of crustal mass, the mountain uplift must have been compensated by corresponding depressions in the crust elsewhere,”
Maybe there are subduction zones to compensate for mountain building.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction
You can lead a donkey to water, but can you make him drink?
Mark B
Thanks for your comment reminding me an interesting conversation I had a decade ago with a French woman busy in her country with highway planning and construction.
*
Re: construction, she told about heavy use of GPS on giant bulldozers scraping half a highway route at a time.
As I asked her about precision, she explained that not the precision of GPS itself would matter in the job, but rather that given by differential GPS units mounted on the corners of the bulldozer blades, which, surprising me at the time, provided centimetre-level accuracy.
This data was then matched live against that provided by the planning phase, the result of this match finally driving the bulldozers. Amazing.
*
Re: planning, she became very polemic against climate change ‘Skeptic’s, who permanently discredited a major tool used not only in her highway planning job, but also in mining and… even in reinsurance activities: interpolation.
She explained that all the people discrediting interpolation in temperature processing wouldn’t have a bit of a clue of how validation and verification processes are performed in such a domain.
The German language contains a word extra for describing people a la Robertson: ‘dummdreist’, a concatenation of ‘dumm’ (dumb) and ‘dreist’ (brazen).
*
He carefully eliminates, out of the sources he presents, all relevant data contradicting his personal narrative – like here:
” When selective availability was lifted in 2000, GPS had about a five-meter (16 ft) accuracy. GPS receivers that use the L5 band have much higher accuracy, pinpointing to within 30 centimeters (12 in), while high-end users (typically engineering and land surveying applications) are able to have accuracy on several of the bandwidth signals to within two centimeters, and even sub-millimeter accuracy for long-term measurements. ”
*
You must really be an absolute ‘idjit’ (his newest insult to me, since id-i-ot is now banned) to think and propagate the lie that a consortium like SONEL
https://www.sonel.org/?lang=en
responsible for the management of over thousand GPS near-gauge stations, would work with an accuracy of 30 cm when computing the land velocity around tide gauges.
*
But don’t wonder, people.
ROBERTSON still today thinks that relativistic corrections aren’t needed to accurately drive the GPS system!
And of course, Flynnson doesn’t have a clue of anything what is done in the sea level context, but discredits and denigrates all that with his usual, aggressive, incompetent, contrarian and pseudo-scientific blah blah.
Still no GHE, Flynnson?
” You do know that the Moon’s orbit (one of the largest factors in sea level/height) is not considered a precise ellipse but is instead chaotic? ”
I hope everyone will agree that when I see such a potent statement, I immediately ask its author to download the following data
1. PSMSL tide gauges
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
2. SONEL tide gauges GPS land velocities
https://www.sonel.org/-GPS-.html
and to generate the following graphics from them, of course extended by his own results showing us the huuuuge effect of this chaos:
A. PSMSL data together with Sat data evaluations
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YkJvOTEqJbecLFHUBpGpjChWnzA-u5xX/view
B. PSMSL’s Dangendorf (1900-2015) versus Sat altimetry (1993-2022)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xkdM6bd47s2WWraL2I6p2Nmz3g70JzNL/view
C. Consecutive PSMSL trends from 1900-2015 till 1995-2015
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dvz115qfZXH95nkoIXF091JJsaasaAEn/view
*
Small, wonderfully non-binding sentences can lead to truly unexpectedly difficult tasks, can’t they?
Binny,
“Small, wonderfully non-binding sentences can lead to truly unexpectedly difficult tasks, cant they?.
Can they? I can’t see any evidence, but if you say so . . .
The dumb, incompetent, superficial and boring stalker Flynnson can’t stop posting his redundant blah blah…
Crétin.
Binny,
Small, wonderfully non-binding sentences can lead to truly unexpectedly difficult tasks, cant they?.
Can they? I cant see any evidence, but if you say so . . .
How is that description of the GHE going?
climately ill
NASA climate scientist Kimberly Miner of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory & University of Maine: “I am in my mid-thirties, working at NASA as a scientist, and I already have five scientist friends with severe, emergent health challenges. They are all affected by overwork, exhaustion and extreme stress.”
https://i.postimg.cc/438Ny1zV/climate-anxiety-counseling.jpg
Do they have to do studies in statistics?
https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/central-tendency/
Poor darlings. Someone should dispense a teaspoon of cement, and tell them to harden up.
I wonder if you’re offered a glass of Kool-Aid with the counseling?
They need a red pill, extra strength , I ordered one for them, it’s on the way to NASA
https://i.postimg.cc/qM0hL5W0/redpill1.jpg
That’s what I call a pill.
absorp
option
It seems to me, the global climate cargo cult “unconsciously” {whatever that means] wants to live on Mars, and “consciously”
doesn’t want to live on Venus [or Venus orbit].
Venus orbit is better.
Is it a good idea, to live on Mars?
Generally, it seems, not really.
But in terms of being an isolationist, Mars has certain advantages.
Or Venus orbit could be called being part of the rat race or un-isolationist.
I tend to imagine it would have ancient Greek values. Farming and etc.
Due to Mars thin atmosphere {and no one would want a thicker one] Mars is neither, hot nor cold.
binny…”This temperature at such an altitude (5298 metres) has OF COURSE been measured in a weather balloon”.
***
That’s not what the article was leading us to believe. They reference the altitude in Switzerland, which suggests in the Alps.
Who cares what is measured in the atmosphere at 17,000+ feet? They have days at Everest base camp, at a similar atmosphere, where they can walk around in T-shirts. So, it is nothing new having warmer temperatures at that altitude.
Your article and your motives are based on propaganda. That’s why I call you an idjit.
Robertson
” Thats not what the article was leading us to believe. They reference the altitude in Switzerland, which suggests in the Alps. ”
Only dumb ignoramuses like you think so. Any intelligent person would have understood.
*
” Your article and your motives are based on propaganda. ”
Wrong, Robertson.
I have nothing to do with propaganda.
YOU are the absolute worst propagandist of untruths on this blog, claiming ad nauseam that GHE doesn’t exist, that COVID is not uncommon, that Einstein was wrong, that GPS doesn’t need relativistic corrections, that our Moon doesn’t spin etc etc etc .
Planes fly at an altitude in Switzerland which is higher than an mountains that exist there. I wonder why.
Binny,
If the GHE exists, you should be able to describe it.
Of course, you can’t.
Ergo, it doesn’t exist.
Feel free to respond by flying off at any irrelevant tangent you feel like.
Swenson,
Bindidon’s ability to describe the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with whether or not there is a greenhouse effect.
Except maybe in Donkey land.
The greenhouse effect existed even before there were humans or donkeys to describe it.
And it has affected the rate at which the Earth cooled since it was covered in molten rock.
Several times actually, there was more than one molten surface event.
bob, you avidly support the GHE which you can’t describe or even provide scientific evidence for.
Just like a good cultist.
Clint R,
The correlation between the Keeling curve and the graph at the top of the page is scientific evidence for the Greenhouse Effect, which has been described by myself and others on this site.
You are in denial, I suggest Lexapro.
If that doesn’t help, try Lithium.
As I would not rule out that you are having a psychotic episode.
Wrong again, bob.
Correlation is NOT causation. Earth is in a slight warming trend, but you do not get to choose what is causing it. Earth has seen pizza restaurants increase in number by many hundreds. If someone claimed pizza restaurants were causing global warming, at least they would have SOME science on their side.
We know from First Principles that CO2 can NOT raise Earth’s temperature. Your cult has NO science. You can’t even describe the GHE without violating the laws of physics.
We also know that your cult is willing to pervert reality to fit your false beliefs.
Clint R just always entertainingly and laughably leaves out the rest of the atm. opacity science story since we know from First Principles, satellite era observations, and experiments that CO2 can NOT raise Earth’s entire atm. temperature… but added PPM CO2 CAN raise Earth’s global lower atm. temperature while equally cooling Earth’s higher atm. regions.
Clint R,
Spare me your correlation is not causation bullshit, I’ve heard it too many times from too many deniers.
It’s a first and necessary step, correlation is required for causation.
Then you add the fact that CO2 is in the atmosphere and emits radiation towards the Earth’s surface, adding the energy from that radiation to the Earth’s surface.
‘
This energy is added to the energy from the Sun, and the result is an increase in the global average temperature.
That’s the reality you are denying.
Your first principles rant is just that, a rant.
And those of us who have passed a course in thermodynamics know that the greenhouse effect does not violate any of the laws of thermodynamics.
So where did you get your degree?
University of Phoenix or a crackerjack box?
That’s just one of your mistakes, bob. Solar does not add to back-radiation. You’re trying to reuse energy that has been downgraded. If that nonsense were true, you could turn on a light in a room full of mirrors and get enough energy to run a 100 MW power plant, or several!
You don’t understand any of this. Correlation is NOT causation. Adding many more pizza places does not mean they are “heating the planet”.
What will you try next?
Bumbling Bobby,
Are you now saying that the GHE which you still can’t describe was responsible for the Earth cooling from the molten state?
And then melting the surface again?
That might sound exceptionally bizarre, but I’m sure that you are so confused that you don’t realise what you are writing.
Maybe you could just describe the role of the GHE in surface cooling, over a four and a half billion year time-frame, and then move on to night time cooling.
How does that sound? Ridiculous? That’s because you are.
Just because you swab out the heads on a nuclear powered submarine doesn’t make you a nuclear physicist. A climate scientist, maybe.
Carry on.
Clint R
“Solar does not add to back-radiation.”
It doesn’t? That’s news to me, I guess you are back to your bullshit about fluxes not adding, which has been shown to be wrong in the simplest manner yet you continue to peddle the BS.
“Youre trying to reuse energy that has been downgraded.”
Tell me more about how energy can be downgraded, sounds like more BS.
“You dont understand any of this. Correlation is NOT causation. Adding many more pizza places does not mean they are heating the planet.
Did I say correlation was causation? No I did not, but it is a necessary condition, and there is a mechanism to connect two curves and it’s not pizza parlors.
Really, you are entertaining.
Swenson Donkey Kong,
“Are you now saying that the GHE which you still cant describe was responsible for the Earth cooling from the molten state?
And then melting the surface again?”
No, I didn’t say any of that, you really have a reading comprehension problem.
Flynnson
You wrote:
” If the GHE exists, you should be able to describe it.
Of course, you cant.
Ergo, it doesnt exist. ”
*
Why should I able to describe the GHE, Flynnson?
And why doesn’t it exist just because I’m unable to describe it?
It seems that each time you post, your dementia level increases.
*
Conversely, I can say to you:
” If the GHE doesn’t exist, you, Flynnson, should be able to disprove its existence.
Of course, you cant.
Ergo, it exists. ”
Do you see, Flynnson? If necessary, I can behave exactly as dumb as you.
*
Let’s go serious, although useless in your desperate case.
Why aren’t YOU, Flynnson, able to scientifically contradict scientists like
Dufresne & Treiner
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/link/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/download
or like
Harde & Schnell
http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Harde-Schnell-GHE-m.pdf
*
Why are you so arrogant, ignorant, aggressive, condescending, Flynnson?
Answer: because that’s all you can show us here.
And the one and only reason why you post your endless trash on this blog is that it is the one and only blog where you can do it without being banned within hours.
You are such a coward, Flynnson.
who described the GHE, Flynnson?
Binny,
You still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
Then you carry on, saying that I should be able to “disprove” what it is that hasn’t been described! Errrr, you need to tell me what it is you want me to “disprove”.
When you said “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”, you were confused, and trying to explain something you couldn’t describe.
Neither of the links you provide contain a description of the GHE, and you knew this, otherwise you would have quoted the GHE description.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, whether you accept it or not. The surface also cools at night, losing all the heat of the day, plus a little internal heat.
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE. You will just have to keep calling me arrogant, ignorant, aggressive, condescending, and cowardly, and hope that nobody will notice that you can’t even describe the GHE.
Try harder.
Flynnson
Stay the way you are!
Your incredibly stoopid posts are the very best proof of the existence of the GHE in this blog.
Keep it up, Flynnson!
We enjoy you more and more.
Binny,
“Your incredibly stoopid posts are the very best proof of the existence of the GHE in this blog.”
This would be the GHE that nobody can describe, would it?
[chortling at sauerkraut (apologies for the pun)]
Flynnson
#2 (and last)
Stay the way you are!
Your incredibly stoopid posts are the very best proof of the existence of the GHE in this blog.
Keep it up, Flynnson!
We enjoy you more and more.
Binny,
“Your incredibly stoopid posts are the very best proof of the existence of the GHE in this blog.”
This would be the GHE that nobody can describe, would it?
[chortling at sauerkraut (apologies for the pun)]
India on the moon! Chandrayaan-3 becomes 1st probe to land near lunar south pole
India just became the fourth nation to stick a lunar landing.
https://www.space.com/india-chandrayaan-3-moon-landing-success
And they did it, in the lunar southern polar region.
“Chandrayaan-3 was India’s second try at landing near the moon’s south pole, a largely uncharted region of immense interest to scientists and exploration advocates alike. The south polar region is thought to harbor large amounts of water ice, which, if accessible, could be mined for rocket fuel and life support for future crewed missions. The country’s first attempt at a lunar touchdown, in September 2019, failed when the Chandrayaan-2 lander crashed into the moon due to a software glitch.”
This and other robotic landers can determine whether there is billions of tons of water within polar regions, but we will probably require crewed landing to find mineable lunar water- find a region which has, say, a million tonnes of mineable lunar water.
Indias moon landing made history at a low cost
Published Wed, Aug 23 20234:41 PM EDT
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/23/india-chandrayaan-3-moon-landing-came-at-small-cost.html
Key Points
— Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Indias moon landing is the shoestring budget by government standards the country spent to achieve the mission.
The countrys Chandrayaan-3 spacecraft is the first vehicle to land near the moons south pole.
The price tag for the mission is on par with the lowest-cost private U.S. lunar lander projects.–
And:
“But that rivals even the most low-cost U.S. lunar lander missions in development. NASA in recent years turned to having companies compete for fixed-price contracts to build moon landers, under a program it calls Commercial Lunar Payload Services. The CLPS program has a maximum budget of $2.6 billion over 10 years, with 14 companies vying for mission contracts typically worth upwards of $70 million each.”
There is couple things about this- though I am not saying Indian lunar mission wasn’t amazing.
One is you could count India rocket as not proven {unlike Falcon 9 or even Falcon Heavy} and therefore one could count India lunar mission as a test payload, or pathway to prove the reliability of India rocket for use for more expensive payloads.
US is doing same thing with the Vulcan Centaur Peregrine:
“A United Launch Alliance Vulcan Centaur rocket will launch on its inaugural flight with the Peregrine commercial lunar lander for Astrobotic.”
Or other word for “inaugural flight” is test payload. Whereas:
Falcon 9 IM-1:
“A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch the IM-1 mission with the Nova-C lander built and owned by Intuitive Machines. The IM-1 mission will attempt to deliver a suite of science payloads to the surface of the moon for NASAs Commercial Lunar Payload Services program.”
Falcon-9 is one of most proven rocket- not vaguely a test payload- unless they switch it to Starship {:–)} or anything launched from first couple flights of Starship could count as test payload.
So, how India counts it’s launch cost is not clear, but they could count it as “free” and certainly not including the development cost of the rocket.
Next:
US spends .028% of GDP of 25 trillion {70 billion per year}.
US spend 70 billion or more, but NASA is as they said:
“Overall, NASAs budget dwarfs ISROs. In 2023, the U.S. agency received $25.4 billion in funding, compared to the Indian agencys budget of about $1.6 billion.”
Or US military spends far more than NASA does per year.
But satellite market dwarfs all Government spending, the global private sector plus all govt spending is is somewhere around 1 trillion dollars per year. US military and NASA are bit players in this.
What’s next for India’s Chandrayaan-3 mission on the moon?
By Sharmila Kuthunur
published about 3 hours ago
https://www.space.com/india-chandrayaan-3-moon-mission-what-next
“Despite the numerous craters and trenches that scar the region, India’s robotic Chandrayaan-3 spacecraft touched down softly as intended yesterday (Aug. 23) in its relatively flat landing spot between the Manzinus C and Simpelius N craters, located about 70 degrees from the moon’s south pole.”
I assume they mean 20 degrees from south pole, which is
about 606 km [376 miles]from south pole.
Gordon Robertson, Clint R
You cannot exist.
Your body temperature, 37C, remains warmer than your surroundings.
By your interpretation of 2LOT heat must flow from your body to your surroundings but nothing can flow from your surroundings into your body.
Your body must cool to the ambient temperature and you must die.
Your desperation is duly noted, Ent.
Humans don’t exist but passenger jets fly backward.
I would recommend you start accepting reality. You don’t have any choice.
Your inability to answer is also noted.
Using your terminology, to maintain your normal body temperature heat must flow from your cooler surroundings to your warmer body in violation of your strict interpretation of the 2LOT.
I await your explaination.
Entropic man says:
”Using your terminology, to maintain your normal body temperature heat must flow from your cooler surroundings to your warmer body in violation of your strict interpretation of the 2LOT.”
thats true if the body is dead. If its not dead the body is extracting energy from food and convertings some of that energy into heat keeping the body warmer than its surroundings. But I guess they didn’t teach you that in elementary school.
Ent, you need to link to where I ever said such nonsense.
Of course you can’t, because you’re just making crap up again.
ent…you are demonstrating a misunderstanding of the 2nd law. Heat in a room at 20C cannot warm a body at 37C. Raising room temperature to less than 37C body temperature only slows the rate of heat dissipation. The farther you get from 37C, the faster heat is dissipated. A naked body in a 0C atmosphere will lose heat very quickly, go into hypothermia, and die.
Blankets and clothing don’t warm a body, they simply slow the rate of heat dissipation. If you don’t eat to supply fuel, you can develop hypothermia in a room at 20C.
I am currently reading a book on survival by Les Stroud. He claims you can survive several weeks without food but only a few days without water. I presume that means being well protected from the elements. However, the longer you go without food the more other factors enter the equation like scurvy from lack of vitamin C. So, you may die of something else before your body temperature eventually reaches the hypothermia stage.
If you seal yourself in plastic or somehow prevent evaporative cooling, people have died from doing this.
gb…don’t know if you recall but there was a fad at one time where people wore rubber outfits to lose weight. Many of them did lose weight, from water loss and dying.
EM,
You wrote –
“Your body must cool to the ambient temperature and you must die.”
No, that happens after you die. You should be aware of the Krebs cycle, and the fact that living humans generate heat internally.
The body has only limited heat producing ability, and if you lay about in the desert at night, in sub-zero temperatures, you will probably be unable to maintain your internal temperature at a sufficiently high level, and, yes, you might die.
Then your body will radiate energy, and its temperature will drop to ambient, Newtons Law of Cooling applying.
No amount of mythical “back radiation” will keep you warm, of course.
You don’t need to thank me for helping you out.
Come on, you’re supposed to be a biologist. As Bill Hunter pointed out, we manufacture heat internally. Without food to supply calories we cannot maintain the 37C body temperature and it starts to cool.
This is an energy balance problem. If we expose ourselves to cooler temperatures the body loses heat through conduction, convection and radiation. If we cannot supply energy from within to heat the body at a fast enough rate, the body will lose heat faster than it can be produced. Eventually, body temperature will drop so low that we will die.
The body will continue to cool after death till it reaches the ambient temperature of its environment. If the ambient temperature is 20C it has to cool by 17C. If the ambient is 0C it has to cool by 37C.
The 2nd law is maintained, heat is transferred hot to cold. At no time is heat transferred to the body from a cooler temperature environment. At a healthy 37C body temperature, in a room at 20C, we are not receiving heat from the room, we are transferring heat to the room air. The only way you can warm the body externally is to submerge it in warm water at a temperature that exceeds body temperature. Or be in an environment where the air temperature exceeds 37C.
Gordon Robertson
We have your opinion on heat transfer and it is wrong. You can make any claim you want but you will not be able to provide any evidence at all of your claims.
The cold temperature affects the hotter temperature in heat transfer. You have never studied the material and do not know the equations.
The temperature of a cold room changes how much heat is transferred by the hotter body to the cold. The warmer the cold the less heat transferred.
If the room is 25 C your body can easily provide enough energy via metabolism to maintain body temp. In a room with a temperature of 0 C (without proper clothing) the body will not be able to produce enough energy to maintain body heat.
Energy transfer is a two-way process with both conduction and radiant heat transfer and Clausius himself has stated this.
Heat only transfers from hot to cold but NOT energy. A warmer room delivers back more energy to the body than the cold room so the rate of heat transfer is reduced.
Can you just stop with your bad science and poorly understood opinions.
Gordon Robertson
Here is the real heat transfer process and not the stuff you make up to sound smart. It does not make you smart to spout wrong ideas.
https://tinyurl.com/yhas3wwu
The equations in this paper are for heat conduction. You will see that the temperature of the colder one DOES indeed change the amount of heat that flows from the hot side to the cold side. If you increase the temperature of the cold side less heat is lost from the hotter side. Clausius would slap you in the face (they did that back then) for using his name in your distorted and twisted understanding of heat transfer.
I say quit while you are way behind. Quit reading blog science and learn the real material. You will be a much better skeptic.
Norman,
“If you increase the temperature of the cold side less heat is lost from the hotter side.”
As Newton’s Law of Cooling states.
Not Newton’s Law of “Heating” – its cooling, in case you hadn’t noticed.
Are you now trying to imply that the GHE which you refuse to describe is responsible for cooling?
Maybe you could describe the GHE, and explain the relevance of your statement?
norman…” You will see that the temperature of the colder one DOES indeed change the amount of heat that flows from the hot side to the cold side”.
***
Environmental temperature will affect the ‘rate’ of heat dissipation. I guess you can claim that a higher rate transfers more heat per unit time. That has nothing to do with the 2nd law, as Swenson pointed out, it is governed by Newton’s Law of cooling. Swenson astutely pointed out it is a law of cooling, not heating.
“I guess you can claim that a higher rate transfers more heat per unit time.”
No. Gordon once again confuses radiated IR energy with heat.
[GR]I guess you can claim that a higher rate transfers more heat per unit time.
[B4]No. Gordon once again confuses radiated IR energy with heat.
***
Duh!!! I am talking about heat dissipation and the ‘rate’ of heat dissipation via radiation is directly proportional to the temperature difference between a surface and its environment.
Obviously, I wrote transfers rather than dissipates. Still, your attempts at cherry picking miss the mark. If heat is dissipated at a higher rate, obviously more heat is dissipated per unit time.
Norman, you are lost in your own rambling word salad, again.
You’re mixing conductive and radiative transfers. You keep needing cold to heat hot, to fit your cult’s beliefs. You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice.
Cold can NOT raise the temperature of hot. But keep trying to pervert reality.
norman…”Heat only transfers from hot to cold but NOT energy. A warmer room delivers back more energy to the body than the cold room so the rate of heat transfer is reduced”.
***
Heat is energy. I am aware of the controversy over this but energy per se is only a definition. It obviously exists but no one knows what it is and the best human can do is define it as the ability to do work. However, there are various forms of energy and each must be specified. The energy associated with atomic motion is thermal energy which we call heat, for short.
Clausius called it heat as did Planck and Tyndall and that’s good enough for me. A focus of Clausius was the transformation of heat into work and vice versa.
And yes, all energy can be transferred only from areas of higher potential energy to places of lower potential energy. Hotter objects are at a higher potential energy than cooler bodies.
Norman, there is no way air at 20C can warm a body at 37C. I considered the fact that exterior skin temperatures may be cooler and I did an experiment to check it. Using a digital thermometer, I squeezed the tip between by fingers and it measured 34C. I held it against the skin on my wrist and it was about 33.5. I am wearing shorts and I held it against my quadricep and it measured 33C. It appears the difference between internal temperature and skin temperature (in a room at about 25C) is about 4C.
Don’t have a thermometer to check room temperature but I’d guess it’s around 25C right now in the house (it’s 20C outside). Smoke from forest fires is blocking the Sun somewhat.
Don’t know how you managed to distort thermodynamics so much but heat, by it’s own means, can only be transferred hot to cold.
… and energy by its own means can be transferred cold to hot or IR thermometers would be useless.
“and energy by its own means can be transferred cold to hot or IR thermometers would be useless.”
Not at all. You obviously don’t understand how IR thermometers work. The temperature of a TV set is far “hotter” than the IR it receives (yes, radio and tv waves are definitely in the “infrared” category), but it measures the “temperature” of the transmission anyway.
No amount of energy emitted by ice can be used to increase the temperature of even the tiniest amount of water.
No amount of energy from a colder atmosphere can increase the temperature of the smallest grain of warmer soil.
Use as many IR thermometers as you want.
Unfortunately for Swenson, an amount of energy emitted by ice WAS already used to properly experimentally increase the temperature of even the tiniest amount of Alabama nighttime surface water over water not exposed to the energy by Dr. Spencer confirming the earthen GHE.
Use as many comments as Swenson wants to show no GHE comprehension.
Ball4,
You can’t even do a decent appeal to authority! About as expected, as someone who claims that the GHE which they cannot describe, has had no effect for four and a half billion years!
No wonder you think it is too complex to even describe.
[what a whacker]
Gordon Robertson
In earlier posts you have defined all energy as heat, including the chemical energy on food which supplies the energy to maintain your elevated temperature
You have also promoted a strict early Clausian interpretation of 2LOT which does not allow any heat to flow from a lower temperature to a higher temperature.
This leads to one of only two conclusions.
1) It is impossible for you to maintain a body temperature above ambient temperature.
2) your interpretation of the 2LOT is wrong
ent…” In earlier posts you have defined all energy as heat, including the chemical energy on food which supplies the energy to maintain your elevated temperature
You have also promoted a strict early Clausian interpretation of 2LOT which does not allow any heat to flow from a lower temperature to a higher temperature.
***
I have never lumped all energy as heat. In fact, I have tried to explain the difference between heat as energy and other forms of energy.
In particular, I have offered the explanations of Clausius and Joule re the transformation of work, which is mechanical energy, to heat, and vice-versa. As Clausius explained entropy, it is about the transformation of heat to work and also a transformation of heat from a higher temperature to a lower temperature.
Clausius did not claim that heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body and neither have I. Clausius claimed uncompensated heat, which he defined as moving by its own means, cannot be transferred cold to hot.
Several times I have described fridges and air conditioners and how they transfer heat cold to hot. However, both rely on external power and a compressor to compress gases. The heat transfer is done through the compression and decompression of gases and power is required to drive a compressor to do that.
Clausius made it clear that he was talking about heat being transferred ‘by its own means’, that is, without outside influences.
I have also explained why it is not possible to transfer heat cold to hot via radiation using information that Clausius did not have available to him. That’s why I admire him so much, he talked about phenomena that had yet to be discovered and formulated laws from it.
b4 uses Roy to support his climate alarm and the rest of the time disses Roy’s views on AGW theory. That is a weird and selective appeal to authority.
Gordon,
Maybe you recall that Roy has posted on the fact that the theory of AGW and the Greenhouse Effect does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Correct bob, let Gordon search for that Dr. Spencer information & maybe learn something about 2LOT in the process. The earthen GHE produces entropy (near surface global atm. warming over nil earthen GHE) so is in accord with 2LOT.
—-
Gordon 6:31 pm has obviously incorrectly explained why it is not possible to transfer heat cold to hot via radiation using information that Clausius did not have available to him because Gordon does not understand EMR is NOT heat as defined by Clausius.
An example would be placing a room temperature 12oz. can of Coca-Cola in Gordon’s ~35F refrigerator compartment. If the warmer can was not absorbing radiated energy from the cooler surroundings (cold to warm), then the surroundings would appear to be 0K & the can would cool MUCH faster than observed.
bobdroege says:
”Maybe you recall that Roy has posted on the fact that the theory of AGW and the Greenhouse Effect does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.”
a greenhouse effect in accordance with the 3rd grader radiation model does violate 2LOT.
But your argument is based upon a physically undescribed atmospheric process that can’t produce a 3rd grader radiation model warming but potentially could produce one in other ways that have yet to be tested, or described.
So as G&T said the 3rd grader model which is the only model described on the internet over the years violated 2LOT is correct.
So G&T versus the claim that the greenhouse model doesn’t violate 2LOT; they replied then show us your model which never happened.
It has never happened here either. Unless you are ready to put up a model.
Bill,
That only means your third grader model of the greenhouse effect is wrong.
You might search the internet for a better one, maybe try RealClimate instead of Gin and Tonic.
??????
Real Climate is an exclusive blog that doesn’t allow dissenting opinions Bob. No wonder you are confused.
Bill,
It’s a blog devoted to empirical science, not opinions.
So of course dissenting opinions are not welcome.
You think opinions are valid science?
You might find empirical evidence for the modeled greenhouse effect there, though.
bobdroege says:
”Its a blog devoted to empirical science, not opinions.”
LMAO! Bob its opinion until somebody can demonstrate the greenhouse effect, whatever the mechanism. That blog doesn’t do anything like proving anything.
That is unless you can find someway to hook up flapping jaws to produce a greenhouse effect.
Bill,
Go ahead and laugh, those guys at RealClimate are both smarter than you and have published more papers than you.
They publish evidence, not proof.
Is that something you are confused about?
bob I fully bought into a greenhouse effect powered by flapping jaws. LMAO!
binny…” If the GHE doesnt exist, you, Flynnson, should be able to disprove its existence”.
***
Are you that obtuse?
–A brief pause while Binny looks up the meaning of obtuse.–
We have explained over and over why it doesn’t exist. The GHE is modeled on a real greenhouse and those who created the model got it wrong. That has been known since 1909 when R. W. Wood proved it.
The incorrect theory claimed that a greenhouse warms because radiated IR is trapped by the glass. Whereas it’s true that glass blocks IR of certain frequencies, that does not explain how the trapped IR can warm the air in the greenhouse.
Maybe you could explain it.
In the GHE theory, it is presumed that IR radiated by solar-heated infrastructure and plants can be recycled to raise the temperature of the objects radiating the IR. The theory claims that IR blocked by the glass is recycled to warm the greenhouse further. No one has explained how that works and from my perspective it appears very much like perpetual motion.
Wood, an expert on radiation from gases like CO2 did not think the theory was right, so he devised an experiment to prove that a greenhouse warms due to heated air molecules being trapped by the glass. That pretty obvious because opening doors and windows in a greenhouse cools it. Yes, there are windows in some greenhouses that can be opened to cool them. Some plants don’t like it when it’s too hot.
Meantime, alarmists have used the same bad theory to claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere trap IR in the same manner as the glass in a greenhouse. However, the theory is wrong for a real greenhouse therefore it is wrong in the atmosphere.
GHE kaput!!!
Gordon should become aware farmers have long used & are still using GHE theory so the theory works to raise temperature over no GHE as shown experimentally by Tyndall & confirmed by RW Wood et. al. long ago.
It is Gordon’s laughable theory that is kaput.
Ball4,
Which GHE theory is that, Ball4?
The assertion that the GHE only works when the Sun is shining brightly (as you said, not at night)? Or is it the GHE which cooled the Earth?
Maybe you could actually describe this fantasy GHE of yours. At the moment, you seem to be insinuating that objects warm up in sunlight, and cool at night. Most children already know that.
You need to actually say something new. Some say GHE is just another name for insulation, some say GHE is another name for slow cooling, and so on. If you are saying that GHE is another name for bright sunlight, why do we need a new name?
No need for a new GHE name for its comprehension unlike all Swenson’s new names.
Ball4,
So you haven’t really got a “GHE theory” after all, is that it?
Not surprising, seeing that you can’t even say which of your imaginary GHEs you are referring to. You can’t describe any of them, can you?
At least you agree that none of your GHEs have had any heating effect over the last four and a half billion years.
Pardon me while I laugh at your efforts to avoid reality.
bob ‘get along little’ droege…You need to be a cowboy to get that Bob…
“Then you add the fact that CO2 is in the atmosphere and emits radiation towards the Earths surface, adding the energy from that radiation to the Earths surface.
This energy is added to the energy from the Sun, and the result is an increase in the global average temperature”.
***
This is wrong in several areas.
The most obvious error is a contradiction of the 2nd law. Air in the atmosphere gets progressively colder with altitude. At best, it’s in thermal equilibrium with the surface then gets progressively colder. The 2nd law tells us that heat can never be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.
But wait…there’s more. The IR radiated back is a fraction of that radiated from the surface in the first place. In other words, when the radiation was produced that heated the GHEs, it indicated a loss of energy at the surface. That loss and other losses have to be made up before the same energy can be claimed to add to solar energy. There are so many losses in the loop that the back-radiated energy would be a spit in the ocean,
Next, the IR back-radiated would need to be in phase with the solar energy to add to it. It would help if it was in the same energy frequency spectrum but it’s not, it’s off to the side and represents a molehill compared to the spectral amplitude of solar energy.
Even worse, the concept of recycling heat to raise the temperature of the source is perpetual motion.
No perpetual motion in GHE theory, Gordon, the earthen GHE will stop when the sun stops.
The LW DWIR radiated by atm. does not need to be in phase with the solar energy to add to incoming SW since both light sources are incoherent just like Gordon.
Ball4 is one of the cult that openly claims ice can boil water.
‘Nuff said.
I’ll go with proper experimental evidence which is always evaded by Clint R commenting with just entertainingly laughable talk.
Ball4,
This would be “proper experimental evidence” supporting the claim that the energy radiated by ice can raise the temperature of water, would it?
You can’t even provide any evidence that you are not completely off with the fairies!
How are you going with the description of the GHE (apparently so complex that you think nobody can comprehend it, so you will keep it secret!)?
Not very clever, Ball4. People might believe you are living in a fantasy.
Keep trying.
Ball4 wrote –
“No perpetual motion in GHE theory, Gordon, the earthen GHE will stop when the sun stops.”
The sun has been shining for four and a half billion years, but your “earthen GHE” still resulted in cooling.
If the “earthen GHE” doesnt even stop things cooling in continuous sunlight, what’s the point of it?
Seems a bit strange, doesn’t it?
Not really. No worries Swenson 6:55 pm, the earthen GHE has been largely trapped four and a half billion years now and shows no signs of strangely escaping anytime soon.
Ball4,
” . . .the earthen GHE has been largely trapped four and a half billion years now and shows no signs of strangely escaping anytime soon.”
That sounds like meaningless gibberish. Are you trying to say that the “earthen GHE” is some sort of sacred object?
What powers does this object have?
[laughing at confused GHE worshipper]
Obviously none that Swenson can comprehend as can more astute commenters.
Ball4,
Just spouting more cryptic nonsense won’t help, will it?
You wrote before –
. . .the earthen GHE has been largely trapped four and a half billion years now and shows no signs of strangely escaping anytime soon.
That sounds like meaningless gibberish. Are you trying to say that the earthen GHE is some sort of sacred object?
What powers does this object have?
[laughing at confused GHE worshipper]
No magical powers, just good old fashioned experimental evidence that Swenson obviously doesn’t comprehend
Ball4,
Just spouting more cryptic nonsense wont help, will it?
You wrote before
“. . .the earthen GHE has been largely trapped four and a half billion years now and shows no signs of strangely escaping anytime soon.”
That sounds like meaningless gibberish. Are you trying to say that the “earthen GHE” is some sort of sacred object?
What powers does this object have?
[laughing at confused GHE worshipper]
There is perpetual motion when the GHE is extended to the AGW theory. According to AGW, heat can be recycled from surface to atmosphere and back, to increase the temperature of the surface.
What you and your fellow alarmists are suggesting is that heat created in GHGs by surface radiation can be back-radiated to the surface to increase its temperature. That is perpetual motion.
Furthermore, the GHE is built on the same theory. It is claimed that IR trapped by glass can be recycled to warm the greenhouse air.
Gordon,
“What you and your fellow alarmists are suggesting is that heat created in GHGs by surface radiation can be back-radiated to the surface to increase its temperature. That is perpetual motion.”
Not if the recycling is powered by the Sun.
Heat is not created by GHGs either.
Heat is transferred by radiation to the atmosphere from the surface, and some of it is transferred back to the surface by radiation.
It’s not 100% so it’s not perpetual motion.
Gordon,
“The 2nd law tells us that heat can never be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.”
That’s true, but in the case of the greenhouse effect its not by its own means, and what part of that do you not understand?
“The IR radiated back is a fraction of that radiated from the surface in the first place.”
Yes, but it’s a fairly large fraction, keeping in mind the heat transfer is still from hot to cold.
“Even worse, the concept of recycling heat to raise the temperature of the source is perpetual motion.”
No, it’s not, because there are still heat losses to space by radiation, and it’s constantly driven by heat from the Sun.
Baffled bobby,
“Yes, but its a fairly large fraction, keeping in mind the heat transfer is still from hot to cold.”
So you agree, but you want to give the impression that you really disagree, is that it?
Maybe you are one of the nutters who believe that a slow rate of cooling is really heating – resulting in increased temperature!
Go on, bobby, stick your neck out – describe the GHE. You could always say the GHE is just another name for insulation, sunlight, or something equally deranged.
Off you go, then, give it a try if you dont want others to think that you are all mouth and no trousers.
Swenson,
“Maybe you are one of the nutters who believe that a slow rate of cooling is really heating resulting in increased temperature!”
Maybe I do believe that, if you have two things going on at the same time.
Say you have a pot of water on a stove, and you set the flame to just heat the water such that it is just below the boiling temperature.
Then you put the lid on the pot, to stop the cooling from evaporation and convection, which slows the rate of cooling.
Then you note that the water starts boiling, indicating an increase in temperature.
Empirical evidence that slowing the rate of cooling causes a temperature increase.
You are not too bright to believe that is not true, or are you?
“Empirical evidence that slowing the rate of cooling causes a temperature increase.”
Complete nonsense, of course. Additional heat causes a temperature increase. If the pot is heating, it is not cooling. Slowing the rate of heat loss is obviously not resulting in cooling. You are either confused or slow.
Cooling is cooling. If the temperature goes up, that is not cooling – it is getting hotter!.
GHE cultists like yourself are unable to actually describe the GHE, so resort to all sorts of pointless “analogies”, pots of water on stoves being a popular one. Of course, the fact that a large active heat source, below the pot, is never mentioned.
Put an unpowered stove in the sun. Put a pot of water on it. Put a lid on the pot if you like. Wait for nighttime. Watch the temperature fall. Just like an object on the Earth’s surface.
You and your ilk are just both fanatical and ignorant.
Try another irrelevant analogy. Even better, try to describe the GHE. Your previous 17 word “explanation” – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” displays both ignorance and juvenile silliness.
Or accept reality – there is no GHE!
bob…”Then you put the lid on the pot, to stop the cooling from evaporation and convection, which slows the rate of cooling.
Then you note that the water starts boiling, indicating an increase in temperature”.
***
Yes, Bob, but putting lid on the pot increases the vapour pressure and that increased pressure causes the boiling. Also, the lid prevent heat from escaping, like glass in a real greenhouse.
Gordon,
“Yes, Bob, but putting lid on the pot increases the vapour pressure and that increased pressure causes the boiling. Also, the lid prevent heat from escaping, like glass in a real greenhouse.”
Not at all.
Increasing the vapor pressure increases the boiling temperature.
And right like I said, the lid prevents heat from escaping, thus lowering the cooling rate.
The planetary greenhouse relies on gravity to keep the atmosphere around the Earth, analogous to the glass roof of a real greenhouse.
bob d…”The planetary greenhouse relies on gravity to keep the atmosphere around the Earth, analogous to the glass roof of a real greenhouse”.
***
Yes, Bob, and how does air trap air molecules like the glass in a greenhouse. We know rising warmed air moves right through it like a hot knife through butter.
Did you get beyond elementary school?
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“The planetary greenhouse relies on gravity to keep the atmosphere around the Earth, analogous to the glass roof of a real greenhouse.”
Reaching into your fantasy world won’t help, you know. Here’s your “description” of the GHE –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
No mention of real greenhouse, glass roof, or gravity. You really don’t know what you are talking about. One minute, it’s stoves and pots, the next minute glass roofs – who knows wha5 your febrile brain will create in your next fit of fantasy?
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. Accept reality.
Gordon,
When did you learn to read, next week?
“Yes, Bob, and how does air trap air molecules like the glass in a greenhouse.”
Obviously I didn’t say air traps air molecules, I said gravity does the trick.
Swenson,
The Earth has warmed since the Cryogenian period.
When the Earth was nearly covered with ice.
Swenson,
Do you have some difficulty reading what I post?
“Complete nonsense, of course. Additional heat causes a temperature increase. If the pot is heating, it is not cooling. Slowing the rate of heat loss is obviously not resulting in cooling. You are either confused or slow.”
There was no additional heat in my scenario.
There is a heat input that matches the heat output.
The pot is heating and cooling at the same time, thus the temperature remains constant.
What part of that do you understand?
Rhetorical question, I see the answer is none of it.
bob…”Obviously I didnt say air traps air molecules, I said gravity does the trick”.
***
That’s even worse. Gravity does not prevent heated air from rising, although glass in a greenhouse can. Obviously, heated air has the energy to overcome gravity, to an extent. Eventually, the air will lose heat and come back under the control of gravity.
Gordon,
“Thats even worse. Gravity does not prevent heated air from rising”
Gravity keeps the atmosphere down with the planet.
You never did graduate from university, now did you?
bob, please stop trolling.
Well, nobody has provided a description of the GHE to date, but several supporters are now insinuating that the operation of the GHE results in cooling.
bobdroege even goes so far to ascribe the cooling of the Earth’s surface from the molten state to the GHE! He goes further to insinuate that the GHE also melted the surface again, after cooling it. Definitely an effect for all eons!
Norman has reinvented Newton’s Law of Cooling, and accepted that radiation from a colder body does not raise the temperature of a hotter.
Bindidon has given up completely, and says “Your incredibly stoopid posts are the very best proof of the existence of the GHE in this blog.”
I still await with interest for a description of the GHE which accords with reality. If that description claims that current theories about why bodies cool are all wrong, and cooling is actually due to the GHE, I will have a good laugh, before asking why the GHE supporter is dismissing current physical theories supported by experiment. Then I’ll probably laugh some more.
Nothing wrong with a bit of laughter from time to time.
Obviously, no commenter has provided a description of the complex earthen GHE to date that is dumbed down enough for Swenson to comprehend & never will given Swenson’s lack of pertinent education. Other commenters can comprehend just roll down all their car windows on a hot, calm, sunny day at high Noon with car engine off, to feel the formerly trapped GHE escape.
Those other more astute commenters are the ones laughing at Swenson comments, not with Swenson’s comments. Carry on.
Ball4,
So your description now is that “earthen GHE” is really another way of saying “hot calm sunny day”, is it?
Doesn’t seem that complex to me! Children know about the heating effects of hot calm sunny days. How do hot calm sunny days get “trapped”? Or have you got your “earthen GHEs” mixed up? Are you talking about the one that cools, the one that does nothing, or some other GHE which is really a name for something else?
I note that you have adopted some of my phraseology, and appreciate the flattery that the imitation implies. I doubt you can imitate my panache, but feel free to try.
Carry on.
b4…”Other commenters can comprehend just roll down all their car windows on a hot, calm, sunny day at high Noon with car engine off, to feel the formerly trapped GHE escape”.
***
And why does the car cool down? Because heated air molecules can escape and be replaced by cooler air molecules from outside. That’s not what GHE theory states, it claims, incorrectly, that IR is trapped, although they never do explai how trapped IR heats anything.
There is nothing in the atmosphere to prevent air molecules from flowing freely through it, it is called convection. No glass to trap air molecules but the alarmists are not obtuse to see that.
Air molecules cannot escape Earth Gordon, just like air molecules cannot escape the car with windows up.
Seems the IPCC thinks they can Ball4. Isn’t that what Roy’s latest post is talking about?
Dunno what the IPCC thinks, perhaps Bill can inform & quote exactly what “the IPCC thinks”.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Other commenters can comprehend just roll down all their car windows on a hot, calm, sunny day at high Noon with car engine off, to feel the formerly trapped GHE escape.”
So now GHE is just another word for “heated air”, is it?
Maybe you don’t realise that even heated air cools – all by itself. At night, for example.
Does your GHE cool by itself? Is that why you think the Earth’s surface cooled from the molten state? You sound a wee bit confused. Maybe you need to invent a few imaginary “experiments” to clear your mind.
Off you go now.
Swenson,
“bobdroege even goes so far to ascribe the cooling of the Earths surface from the molten state to the GHE! He goes further to insinuate that the GHE also melted the surface again, after cooling it. Definitely an effect for all eons!”
Nope, I did not ascribe the cooling of the Earth’s surface to the greenhouse effect, you have a reading comprehension problem.
And I did not insinuate the GHE melted the Earth’s surface again, but I do insinuate that you have a lack of knowledge concerning the episodes that resulted in melting of the Earth’s surface.
Bumbling bobby,
You just keep saying what you didn’t say. OK, then the GHE wasn’t responsible for the cooling of the surface. You didn’t say that either. You are very good at saying nothing at all, except to imply you did say something!
Come on bobby, man up and say something – even if it’s something really strange like “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” You did say that, didn’t you? Tsk, tsk, you slipped there.
Say something equally nonsensical – maybe something like “Several times actually, there was more than one molten surface event.” You could always say you were referring to volcanic eruptions, I suppose. You surely weren’t implying any connection to a GHE which you can’t actually describe, were you? Just blathering for no reason.
At least you admit that nothing – GHE, pixie dust, whatever – prevented the molten surface from cooling. As you said –
“The greenhouse effect existed even before there were humans or donkeys to describe it.
And it has affected the rate at which the Earth cooled since it was covered in molten rock.”
The Earth cooled. Got colder. It’s temperature dropped. A good thing you aren’t silly enough to claim that a GHE that you can’t describe, made the Earth heat up! Or maybe you are. You arent prepared to say anything that makes any sense, are you?
Keep moaning about what you didn’t say – it suits a whining denier like you.
[derisive snorting at gutless scuttling cockroach]
Swenson,
“Come on bobby, man up and say something even if its something really strange like Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better. You did say that, didnt you? Tsk, tsk, you slipped there.”
We have done that, right. Increased the CO2 in the atmosphere and temperatures got hotter, right.
Or are you denying the empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect?
Or do you think two things can’t happen at the same time?
Swenson,
Maybe you can man up and admit that the greenhouse effect has been described many times for you.
Man up and stop lying.
Your choice.
I think some think greenhouse effect is related runaway greenhouse effect {the hysteria from the likes of Al Gore} which doesn’t make any sense as the Earth has been much warmer in the past and we are currently in an Ice Age.
{and perhaps idea that two ice cubes can heat each other- and considering how much ice we have…}
We have been exposed to sci-fi fables about the GHE but we are looking for scientific fact.
Blathering Bobby,
You can’t describe the GHE. Nobody can. Here’s your “description” –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Not only completely wrong, but also completely wrong.
Others can make up their own minds.
Carry on.
Swenson,
This is indeed what I said
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better”
Completely wrong but for one thing.
It completely agrees with the evidence.
Now what did Feynman say?
Bumbling bobby,
Reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer does not make it hotter.
Increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer reduces the amount of radiation reaching the thermometer, resulting in lower temperatures, compared with the airless moon.
Both NASA and Tyndall assess this reduction as about 30% or so.
You don’t have to accept reality. If you believe that you have boiled water using ice cubes, or that are Napoleon Bonaparte – good for you!
If you can find someone at your level to agree with you – even better. I wish you both luck. You might need it.
[I really shouldn’t. He made me do it]
Have to remind the Swenson AGAIN, that air temperature must be measured in the SHADE to be accurate.
So his endless discussion of thermometers placed in the sun are rather pointless and misleading.
Swenson,
You can also heat a thermometer by convection and conduction.
You must know that right?
Maybe not.
“Both NASA and Tyndall assess this reduction as about 30% or so.”
No they don’t. Flynnson is confused.
The albedo of the Earth causes 30% of sunlight to be reflected.
Nate remains totally confused.
78w/m2 is the mean amount of solar radiation captured by the atmosphere.
239w/m2 is the total mean amount of solar radiation captured by the earth system.
78/239= .326
And gee shouldn’t we triple that 78w/m2 capture effect in the atmosphere for positive feedback? Yes, no, why?
that works out to (78*3)+(239-78)=395w/m2 perhaps we can allow 1watt/m2 for the M&W industrial age effect of CO2; but we might need to consider that maybe the mean temperature of the earth is biased high because of over representation of lowlands in the sampling. So maybe CO2 causes cooling.
The Greenhouse Effect explanation that wasn’t
https://youtu.be/TD49JaAvgHs
Hmm.
Can to raise the elevation that Earth radiates from?
It seems there is idea that 40 watts of 240 watts goes directly into
space.
So raise the 40 watts by making an artificial surface 1000 meter above the natural surface, thereby having the 40 watts being radiated
from higher elevation than natural surface,
But how about the other 200 watts?
It seems if add more atmosphere, it should work.
But if double the amount of atmosphere, Earth surface gets dimmer.
But if increase the average global temperature, the warmer air has lower density at the surface [As it would have lower density above surface air] and that should cause higher level where it radiates into space.
So, if thought CO2 warmed by any significant amount- that would work.
But there more obvious ways to warm the atmosphere- you don’t have a cold ocean.
And Earth has had much warmer oceans than we have in our Ice Age.
gb….”It seems there is idea that 40 watts of 240 watts goes directly into space”.
***
I would suggest that theory is wrong. We are concerned with heat dissipation at the surface. Once that heat is converted to IR, it is lost and whatever happens to the IR is meaningless. Trapping it does nothing.
However, playing that game. I’d say 200 watts worth goes directly to space and 40 watts worth is trapped. It appears climate alarm theory is the opposite of the reality.
“I would suggest that theory is wrong. We are concerned with heat dissipation at the surface.”
At surface, about 70% is a very transparent ocean.
It’s transparent to direct sunlight and indirect sunlight.
At noon when sun near zenith, it’s 1050 watts of direct sunlight
and 70 watt of indirect sunlight- a total sunlight of 1120 watts per square meters, 1120 watts of sunlight goes thru the top 1 mm of ocean surface, some which is scattered and passes back out of the ocean, the rest is absorbed, most of it’s absorbed in top 2 meter of ocean surface water. Ocean plants can absorb sunlight in order for them to live, down to a depth of 100 meter below the ocean surface.
At tropics, 80% of surface is ocean. The tropical ocean receives most of sunlight, and tropical ocean heat engine, dissipates the heat from the sun to rest of the world.
The spinning planet earth has equatorial bulge and the tropics is warmest region with highest height of the troposphere, this height allows more dissipation of heat to the rest of the world.
Are Earth heat budgets wrong?
Probably.
It seems to me, land surface radiate some significant amount directly to space and clouds do also. It seems one can roughly ignore the minor amount of land surface, but there seems to be a lot of clouds.
Hmm, this one indicates 10% from ocean and land bottom part and 20% is radiated to space from clouds:
https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/chapter/8-1-earths-heat-budget/
Well, the fact is that the Earth has managed to cool over the past four and a half billion years.
Any calculations disagreeing with facts are wrong.
Should be the end of the GHE fairytale, but there are those strange folk who claim that the Earth “should be” a different temperature to what it is. They point-blank refuse to accept reality.
Any object has the degree of hotness it has. It doesn’t matter how passionately you believe the temperature “should be” something else – it isn’t!
The UN can’t describe the GHE, but make a valiant effort to sound less than totally out of touch with reality –
“Burning fossil fuels generates greenhouse gas emissions that act like a blanket wrapped around the Earth, trapping the suns heat and raising temperatures.”
Well, CO2 in the atmosphere, plus four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight seems to have cooled the Earth, in fact. Additionally, all the carbon in “fossil fuels” came from the atmosphere, showing that CO2 levels were far greater in the past. Guess what – the surface cooled regardless!
Next thing the UN will be telling us that climate change is due to changing weather!
“The UN cant describe the GHE”
Nor can elementary teachers.
That doesn’t stop elementary teachers.
“Burning fossil fuels generates greenhouse gas emissions that act like a blanket wrapped around the Earth, trapping the suns heat and raising temperatures.
***
The UN should be prosecuted for spreading such blatant misinformation. Better still, just disband the useless organization.
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/
Tidal Lock or Sporadic Rotation? New Questions re Proxima and TRAPPIST-1
—
…
But as TRAPPIST-1 shows us in exhilarating detail, multi planet systems are not uncommon around this type of star, and now we have to factor in mean motion resonance (MMR), where the very proximity of the planets (all well within a fraction of Mercurys orbit of our Sun) means that these effects can perturb a particular planet out of its otherwise spin-orbit synchronization. Call this orbital forcing, which breaks what would have been, in a single-planet system, a system architecture that would inevitably lead to permanent tidal lock.
The results of this breakage produce the interesting possibility that planets like TRAPPIST-1 e and f may retain tidal lock but exhibit sporadic rotation (TLSR). Indeed, another recent paper referenced by the authors, written by Howard Chen (NASA GSFC) and colleagues, makes the case that this state can produce permanent snowball states in the outer regions of an M-dwarf planetary system. What is particularly striking about TLSR is the time frame that emerges from the calculations. Consider this, from the Shakespeare paper:
“The TLSR spin state is unique in that the spin behavior is often not consistently tidally locked nor is it consistently rotating. Instead, the planet may suddenly switch between spin behaviors that have lasted for only a few years or up to hundreds of millennia. The spin behavior can occasionally be tidally locked with small or large librations in the longitude of the substellar point. The planet may flip between stable tidally locked positions by spinning 180so that the previous substellar longitude is now located at the new antistellar point, and vice versa. The planet may also spin with respect to the star, having many consecutive full rotations. The spin direction can also change, causing prograde and retrograde spins.”
…–
How many German scientists agrrease
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/23/german-scientists-global-warming-a-corrupt-fear-mongering-scheme-headed-by-super-rich/
Thanks for link. There is an interesting link within the article but it’s in German. It refers to Clauser, a German scientist and part of the article reads…
“But Clauser has also dealt with a problem in this world: the climate. He proved that in the frequently cited computer models, the warming influence of CO2 is given too much weight compared to the cooling influence of clouds. They look so blindingly white from an airplane perspective because they reflect the sunlight and hardly let any of it through to earth. So it’s no wonder that we grab a warm jacket on the terrace when the clouds come.
***
“Clouds are made of water. The warmer it gets, the more moisture the air absorbs, especially over the oceans, which cover two-thirds of the earth. The warmer it gets, the more clouds form and reflect the sun’s radiation back into space. They act as a very powerful thermostat, more than compensating for the warming effect of CO2. Mother Earth has a parasol ready, which she puts up if it gets too warm.
According to Clauser’s calculations, the warming effect of CO2 compared to the cooling clouds is exaggerated by a factor of 200. This criticism of the computer models is more than justified when you consider that all their forecasts so far have been grotesquely wrong”.
****
The mainstream climate change narrative reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the global economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized in the form of pseudoscience and shocking journalism.
And Clausen not only accepts the gas CO2, he even makes propaganda for it. He is on the board of the “CO2 Coalition” of scientific heavyweights dedicated to educating the public about the need for this gas”.
testy
problems posting…
ball4…” and energy by its own means can be transferred cold to hot or IR thermometers would be useless”.
***
And what kind of energy is being transferred hot to cold b4? Clausius said it’s heat and so did Planck and Tyndall. Good enough for me.
Kinetic energy & EMR energy.
Clausius defined heat only as a measure of KE so Gordon should correctly make use of Clausius’ defn. and realize Planck showed EMR is NOT Clausius’ heat thus EMR energy can transfer both ways between objects in a vacuum.
Ball4,
Clausius knew nothing of the most rigorously tested theory of all time – quantum electrodynamics. Planck, likewise, died before quantum physics reached its current level.
The point is that regardless of semantics, energy from a colder body cannot transfer itself to a hotter, resulting in a loss of energy from the colder.
This would lead to the completely ridiculous situation where the colder body would get even colder, all by itself, having lost some of its internal energy, while the hotter body would get even hotter, having gained this energy!
People who think this happens are obviously mentally defective or climate scientists.
That’s easily proven wrong by experiment, Swenson. Thankfully your EMR energy transfer is NOT heat.
If Swenson’s comment were reality, our on avg. 98.7F eyes could not absorb radiated visible energy from a colder body which wrongly per Swenson cannot transfer itself to a hotter, resulting in a loss of energy from the colder. Ice water at 32F would then be invisible to our eyes.
Carry on. It’s so easy for Swenson to be wrong much of the time when ignoring experiment.
Ball4,
“Ice water at 32F would then be invisible to our eyes.”
And indeed it is, as is anything radiating in the infrared spectrum.
You are confused. Place your ice water in a darkened room, and then tell me you can see it.
Ah, you say you need a source of light in the visible spectrum to be able to see objects which are not hot enough to radiate colour themselves?
Go on, go outside on a pitch black starless night, tell me what you see. Everything about you is radiating IR, but you can’t even see your 98.7 F hand in front of your eyes!
Care to review your opinion?
Carry on (thanks for the imitation – you obviously appreciate my flair).
Not an opinion. That’s wrong again Swenson since proper experiments show ice water is not invisible as Swenson claims.
It’s a pity that Swenson makes little physical sense in comments but does provide much laughable entertainment on a science blog.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Thats wrong again Swenson since proper experiments show ice water is not invisible as Swenson claims.”
Of course ice water is invisible to the naked eye in darkness – it emits no visible light at all. That’s why the radiation from ice water is called “infra red”. Below visible red light.
Go on, show everybody your “proper experiments” which demonstrate how you can see infrared radiation from ice water with your eyes. You’re not not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
Just making stuff up as you go won’t make you appear any less mentally deficient than you are.
Try it, and see how you go,
b4…”If Swensons comment were reality, our on avg. 98.7F eyes could not absorb radiated visible energy from a colder body…”
***
There is no transfer of heat from a colder body to the retina of the eye, the retina works on an entirely different principle. Rods and cones in the retina respond to visible light frequencies and covert the EM to electro-chemical energy.
The EM absorbed by the retina must be from a source that is essentially much warmer than normal terrstrial temperatures. During the day, the source of the EM is the Sun. Other light sources, like incandescent lights have temperatures close to 3000C. Others like fluorescent lights have sources that produce an equivalent of very high temperatures.
Gordon, once again EMR is NOT heat.
Rods and cones in the retina cannot respond to visible light if they only 100% reflect/scatter light & don’t absorb any visible light emitted from a lower temperature source. Ice water really is NOT invisible as claimed by Swenson.
Ball4,
Your ice water emitting visible light has all the reality of bobdroege’s boiling water heated by ice cubes.
What sort of visible light does your ice water emit? Can I use this visible light to read a book at night? Or only an imaginary book?
How about ice water in a refrigerator? Will that light up the inside of the refrigerator, and let me throw away the electrically operated illumination?
You might be onto something there, Ball4. Between your ice powered lighting system, and bobdroege’s ice powered steam engine, many problems will be overcome.
Add your CO2 powered house heating system, and you will no doubt accumulate a vast fortune!
Yes, I’m having a laugh at your expense – others can suit themselves.
norman…”Here is the real heat transfer process and not the stuff you make up to sound smart. It does not make you smart to spout wrong ideas.
https://tinyurl.com/yhas3wwu
The equations in this paper are for heat conduction. You will see that the temperature of the colder one DOES indeed change the amount of heat that flows from the hot side to the cold side. If you increase the temperature of the cold side less heat is lost from the hotter side”.
***
You still don’t understand what is going on. In the article, which is a decent article on heat, they claim heat transfer depends on temperature difference just as in electrical theory where electrical current depends on the voltage difference between two points.
There is nothing in the article that claims heat can be transferred cold to hot, they are talking only about temperature difference. So, yes, if you make the environment colder in which a body resides, it will lose heat faster. That has nothing to do with a transfer of heat from cold to hot. Essentially, you are confusing heat dissipation with heat transfer.
Re Clausius. I am channeling him and he is delighted that I am carrying on his good work. He is aware of your derogatory claims about heat and suggests he’d like to slap you in the puss.
Gordon Robertson
I am not confusing anything. Energy transfer is two way! You can prove it to yourself if you have any science bone in your body with pool balls.
Heat transfer is a specific energy transfer which is stated as the energy that transfers from a hot object to a cold object.
You do agree with me that the temperature of the cold side alters how much energy is lost by the hotter side and that is good.
Please look at this and understand it. Do you own experiments in the real world with pool balls. Have on stationary and hit the cue ball straight on (no spin). Then try a ball in motion and toward you and hit it and see the energy exchange. Try different combinations to get a good idea of energy exchange.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
This article shows what happens in four cases of energy transfer.
When an object is stationary and hit by a moving one all the kinetic energy of the moving one is transferred to the stationary one. If the lower energy object is moving it will exchange its energy with the higher energy object. You can see this in the third example.
If the cold side has more energy it will transfer more to the hotter side than if it was colder just as in these heat exchange examples.
If you heat the hotter side and are losing less energy to the cold side (it is warmer) then the temperature will go up.
Think it through.
Air is like pool balls, if you heat pool balls, do pool balls go faster?
norman…”Heat transfer is a specific energy transfer which is stated as the energy that transfers from a hot object to a cold object”.
***
You alarmists like to hide behind the generic word energy because it allows you to apply energy in a convenient manner. If heat is a transfer of energy, what kind of energy is being transferred?
Elastic collision is not what we are talking about here. Elastic is simply a mode of collision in which bodies rebound off each other. The reference is purely to mechanical energy, not heat.
Heat transfer means what it says, heat is transferred as energy between bodies, or within a body.
“If heat is a transfer of energy, what kind of energy is being transferred?”
Thermal. EMR is NOT heat Gordon.
Ball4,
Thermal energy? Are you blathering again?
Go on – I’ll bet you can’t even define “thermal energy” as it relates to your mythical GHE.
Just plucking words out of the air (or off the internet) does not necessarily convince others that you actually know what you are talking about. By the way, are you still being coy about describing the GHE, or is it too complicated for anybody other one of your imaginary farmers to understand?
After all, Sir Isaac Newton managed to describe the effect of gravity in one sentence. You cant even say what the GHE is supposed to do, nor when it’s supposed to do it!
How sad is that?
Gordon Robertson
There are many flaws in your latest post. First one is that I am NOT an alarmist. Far from it. I like science, and want evidence. You provide many opinions but are very short on real evidence.
Here read this.
https://www.thermal-engineering.org/what-is-heat-in-physics-heat-definition/
That should answer your question “what kind of energy is being transferred?”
Read the link.
The fact, you ignore, remains. The physics is solid and based upon actual real world experiments and observations. The temperature of the cold object affects the heat transfer of the hotter object.
If the hotter object is then heated it will reach a higher temperature if the surroundings are warmer.
Ball4 gives you and example of the air temperature inside a car on a hot summer day. The amount of energy reaching the car interior and the outside surroundings is the same. The car interior is not receiving more energy but it is much hotter. With the hot car there is not an increase in input energy only a reduction of energy loss. With a heated object if you reduce the rate of heat loss it will get warmer (like the car).
With the Earth surface the GHE reduces the amount of heat the surface loses via radiant means (which for absurd thought process you falsely believe is insignificant because some crackpot named Shula incorrectly explains a Pirani gauge and all you can do is believe his BS blindly and totally ignore massive amounts of real world data showing his analysis is flawed and ignorant).
You cannot understand things because you do not know them. You are not the open mind you believe, you are an opinionated person who blindly believes all types of shit and crap you read but will not accept any real or good valuable information. The shit you consume has made your mind into an stink pile of garbage. It won’t stop you from the posts but I thought you should know the truth about your lack of any real science knowledge. You have a cobbled stink of shit you accept. Not sure why, you can’t see it for what it really is. Anyway I am certain nothing will change with you. You will not understand radiant heat transfer, you do not understand emissivity and continue to believe people like Gary Novak and link to his shit page.
Gordon Robertson
A lot of your posts sound a lot like a person who reads Gary Novak blog.
https://nov79.com/index.html
Norman,
Maybe you could actually describe the GHE, rather than being coy and just dancing around the subject, like the others?
Is the GHE supposed to have warming ability, and when and where is this supposed to occur?
As you may have noticed, the atmosphere does not prevent the surface cooling at night. A reduced rate of cooling is still cooling – the temperature drops.
Are you completely ignorant, or just being silly?
Interesting stuff “climate science”.
From a recent paper, clouds create “forward scattering” – apparently a form of “back radiation” – with the following result –
“The unique features of the Chajnantor Plateau include the strong forward scattering by broken clouds that often makes SW irradiance far exceed the clear-sky ceiling.”
The usual nonsense that clouds, GHGs, etc., somehow create more energy than non-attenuated sunlight, such as that which reaches the surface of the Moon.
However, “climate science” is nothing if not flexible. The paper goes on to contradict its previous assertion, saying –
“Cloud enhancement at Chajnantor does not increase the solar energy potential. Despite the intense, long, and frequent cloud enhancement events, they are unable to push daily irradiation beyond the clear-sky ceiling ”
So clouds either make SW irradiance “far exceed the clear-sky ceiling”, or they don’t.
Just like the indescribable GHE – either makes the planet cooler or warmer, apparently, depending on what you wish.
Some of these comments demonstrate the problem with poorly educated people who do not understand the difference between different modes of heat transfer. A further complication is the confusion about the relationship between different forms of energy such as thermal radiation and heat.
Conduction is the most basic form of heat transfer, but only really exists for liquids and solids. Conduction in the gas phase is described by the kinetic theory of gases and rarely occurs without some form of convection. Natural convection occurs with a temperature difference as little as 5 deg. C. Most air gap insulation attempts to prevent natural convection with a fiber such as goose down or fiber glass.
Convection from a compressible fluid (air) to a solid or liquid involves a thermal boundary layer where mixing occurs. It is the same as the shear boundary layer and thus the so called wind chill factor.
Radiant heat transfer is unique and complex because it involves many different factors and behaves differently in different systems. When people claim that it cannot be described or defined, they are admitting that they either have not tried hard enough or lack sufficient education and understanding. The basic principle of radiant heat transfer is that radiant energy is always active.
In the gas phase, all atoms and molecules emit at all times by their spectrum and depending on temperature. It is complex, but radiant energy removes heat energy when it leaves and becomes heat energy when it arrives at all times. Radiation is a transfer mechanism. The net heat transfer is therefore complex, but always is from hot to cold and represents the difference between what is absorbed and what is emitted.
Tim S,
You are full of it. As Feynman said, all physical processes with the exception of gravity and nuclear processes can be explained by the following –
An electron moves from place to place.
A photon moves from place to place.
An electron absorbs and emits a photon.
If you believe otherwise, I would be glad to hear your objections – supported by reproducible experiment.
If you claim that a GHE exists, you should at least be able to describe it.
You have no clue, and pretending you do is unconvincing, to say the least.
Glad to supply an objection, tiny little electrons don’t have enough mass to absorb photon linear and angular momentum. It takes the mass of the whole molecule (or atom) to conserve photon momentum and energy during absorp_tion process.
Since a GHE exists, it is easily measured and described except for Swenson left out in the cold. Pity.
Ball4,
Your objection is duly noted, and ignored.
You still can’t describe the GHE, except to say that it is responsible for the cooling of the earth over the past four and a half billion years.
You will no doubt wonder why people don’t seem to value your strange opinions.
Carry on.
No opinions Swenson, only experimental evidence which Swenson ignores.
Ball4,
Your objection is duly noted, and ignored.
You still cant describe the GHE, except to say that it is responsible for the cooling of the earth over the past four and a half billion years.
You will no doubt wonder why people dont seem to value your strange opinions.
Carry on.
b4…”…tiny little electrons dont have enough mass to absorb photon linear and angular momentum”.
***
Your tiny little brain thinks that. Since photons are defined as having no mass, whereas electrons do have mass, then a massless entity has no momentum.
The reality is that EM is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and neither field is known to have mass or momentum. The other reality is that electrons create EM, giving it a frequency comparable to the electron’s angular frequency. Therefore, when an electron encounters an EM field with a frequency similar to its angular frequency, it is affected by it. Momentum plays no part in the encounter.
You fail to grasp that a photon is a definition aimed at giving a particle nature to EM. It is convenient at times to describe EM as a particle although I prefer the word quantum. That’s because a quantum of energy could conceivably have a frequency whereas a particle with a frequency is plain silly. How these quanta form a wave with a wide range of frequencies is the question.
Einstein declared later in life that some people think EM is a particle whereas others think it is a wave. He claimed they are both wrong because no one knows.
“… then a massless entity has no momentum.”
Not for light. Experiments show photons exist in nature which are apparently unknown to Gordon. Photons can even be counted one at a time.
Gordon 7:22 pm confirms his lack of depth in the physics of light.
Photons possess linear momentum demonstrated in that light can exert radiation pressure, that is, transfer momentum to illuminated objects such as solar light sails. Momentum is momentum, a property complete in itself and as demonstrated experimentally not always the product of mass and velocity.
Photons have energy and from experiments do possess momentum (linear and angular). An expression for the energy hν of a photon is not its momentum. But from that expression, Gordon would be able to move beyond the rookie stage since it is possible to guess the expressions for photon linear momentum and angular momentum (to within dimensionless constants) by simple dimensional arguments. If the more astute know the answer, then don’t do this problem because it won’t teach you anything.
“He claimed they are both wrong because no one knows.”
If no one knows, then his claim that they were wrong may well be wrong.
Only joking – maybe?
The two slit experiment demonstrates that if you count photons going through one slit or the other, they act just like particles, and if you don’t count them, they go through both slits at once and create diffraction patterns, just like waves would.
Electrons show similar behaviour, but are usually treated as particles, and why not?
Feynman – “Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is – absurd.” I do. Nature also seems chaotic, whether Einstein liked it or not.
Dante wrote “all hope abandon ye who enter here”. Applies to understanding quantum mechanics too, I think. Reality just is what it is.
Still no support for a GHE, alas.
Swenson has so little understanding of relevant physics imagining “Still no support for a GHE, alas”. Pity.
Ball4,
Still no support for a GHE, alas. You haven’t even got the courage to say what you think this GHE does!
Just dance around the subject, like the rest of the mealy-mouthed reality deniers.
Keep dancing – you might be able to hire yourself out as an object of derision.
“You are full of it. As Feynman said, all physical processes with the exception of gravity and nuclear processes can be explained by the following
An electron moves from place to place.
A photon moves from place to place.
An electron absorbs and emits a photon.”
Gee according to genius Swenson, there are no atoms.
No atomic motion. No sound waves, no diffusion, no pressure of gases, no heat capacity, heat transfer by convection, or conduction, no steam engines, all of which involve such atomic motions!
Obviously he has not thought this through before posting.
As Feynman said, all physical processes with the exception of gravity and nuclear processes can be explained by the following
An electron moves from place to place.
A photon moves from place to place.
An electron absorbs and emits a photon.
Do you disagree? I don’t.
You went off on a frolic of your own, hoping that putting words in my mouth would somehow change reality, saying “Gee according to genius Swenson, there are no atoms.”. You can’t quote me saying that, because you just made it up!
You can make up as much stuff as you like – people who share your level of intelligence may even believe you. By definition, half of the population is below average intelligence.
Carry on
“Do you disagree? I dont.”
Of course you don’t. But you have no rationale for this belief.
You don’t include the context of Feynman’s words. Where is his quote anyway?
You have no reason to ignore all the phenomena that I mentioned, and Tim mentioned, that depend on MORE than your three items.
Specifically atomic motions and the properties of atoms. Ya Know, all that stuff in the Periodic Table.
Nate,
Take a bunch of atoms at absolute zero. Now tell me that you can even perceive them, without the three actions that Feynman quoted occurring.
Now listen to the laughter.
Not terribly clever, Nate. You should engage your brain before pounding your keyboard.
You can’t even describe the GHE, can you? Are atoms involved? What does the GHE do? Where?
Only joking – you have no clue, have you?
Carry on.
“Now tell me that you can even perceive them, without the three actions that Feynman quoted occurring.”
Ummm..
The point, oh clueless one, was that those three are not the ONLY properties that matter. The properties and motions of atoms and molecules also matter!
The context you conveniently leave out of his quote is this:
“There are only three basic actions needed to produce all the phenomena ASSOCIATED WITH LIGHT AND ELECTRONS”
Which of course leaves out a lot of things.
The phenomena is real and the actions and objects are consistent with the phenomena; but the actions and objects themselves have not been proven to be real. Their only usefulness is in extrapolating the proven phenomena associated with them. Cool objects warming warmer objects need not apply. Such warming can only occur in special circumstances and the 3rd grader radiation model isn’t one of them.
Nothing of importance to add, then?
Important? Your credibility isn’t important to you?
Blather and ad homs are not useful information.
Ad hom? Obviously you must believe that cool objects warming warmer objects is reality.
thats a violation of 2LOT.
Of course you are welcome to build a real working model and write a paper on it. But no all you are going to continue to due is cast ad homs at everybody who does make the attempt and fails to confirm your beliefs.
All off-topic Bill.
You have added nothing useful to the discussion of the topic in this thread. You are just here to stalk me.
I’m sorry you choose to have lengthy ultimately losing arguments with me, and develop a grudge as a result.
Nate says:
”Im sorry you choose to have lengthy ultimately losing arguments with me, and develop a grudge as a result.”
I am just being incredibly patient with you waiting on your working model for the greenhouse effect.
Go and read Manabe and Weathereld again, and come back when you understand it and can tell us what, specifically, they have gotten wrong.
Or go and find another of the MANY online resources that explain the REAL GHE to non-experts such as yourself.
Read it and tell us what specifically they have gotten wrong. And most importantly, why its wrong.
Until you have something specific to report, quit ur pointless bitching!
Oh I have read it Nate. And understand it. And understand its an unproven theory as has practically everything else proposed as a cause for our GHE.
Whether its Svensmark and cosmic rays, or that other person with changing magnetic fields, or its the pull of gravity varying or Manabe and Wetherald I consider them all has possibilities and I can add one myself but haven’t yet.
the reason I have one is based on experience in the solar industry, an occupation I had 50 years ago. But I haven’t added mine to the published list as I don’t have the time to pursue it and realize that proving it faces the same barriers all the others face.
But what I don’t get is your continued claims supporting the 3rd grader radiation model. That one is well debunked. Or are you clinging to tiny slivers of it between weak differences in temperature way beyond anybody’s ability to monitor or test to support your viewpoint that M&W have something better than anybody else?
“Oh I have read it Nate. And understand it. And understand its an unproven theory”
Then you admit you are not really waiting for a detailed theory from me.
Now go reread and tell us, specifically, what MW have done wrong, and why.
Or just quit ur generalized bitchin.
that would be incorrect as the forcing mysteriously arises from cold emissions being too cold.
The funny part is that is a terrible description of the discredited 3rd grade radiation model that doesn’t need any such weird behavior according the theory to work.
So while you still believe in the 3rd grader radiation theory since the S&O experiment is a demonstration of it and you keep trying to claim it proves the theory when it clearly does not and the author believes it didn’t either. . .the 3rd grader model doesn’t require M&W to work.
That leaves M&W without a physics-based warming theory and leaves you with the problem of explaining why the 3rd grader model needs the M&W model, a lapse rate, and a planet to experiment with to verify that it works.
this whole discussion has definitely entered the Twilight Zone.
“The funny part is that is a terrible description of the discredited 3rd grade radiation model that doesnt need any such weird behavior according the theory to work.”
Sure its 3rd grader, but with differential equations!
“That leaves M&W without a physics-based warming theory and leaves you with the problem of explaining why the 3rd grader model needs the M&W model, a lapse rate, and a planet to experiment with to verify that it works.”
So you don’t see the plain-as-day physics in the MW paper, but claim you understand it!
You seem determined to lose all credibility, and make yourself look more and more ridiculous.
To what end?
Nate says:
Sure its 3rd grader, but with differential equations!
So you dont see the plain-as-day physics in the MW paper, but claim you understand it!
—————————-
Yes its almost plain as day. What doesn’t work in bulk with a large temperature differential and complete IR opaqueness is alleged to work when you divvy up the temperature differential into miniscule differences and you then add up all those differences.
Seems you need a bit more logic than that.
And also that doesn’t explain the necessity of the lapse rate to make it all work. It seems its derived from the fact that CO2 cools the upper atmosphere but its alleged it can’t cool it enough. . .unless of course you add more CO2 to cool it more. Indeed I fail to see the logic there either.
It seems plain as day illogical to me. Can you add anything to clear it up? An experiment? Even something that explains the logic.
“What doesnt work in bulk with a large temperature differential and complete IR opaqueness is alleged to work when you divvy up the temperature differential into miniscule differences and you then add up all those differences.
Seems you need a bit more logic than that.
And also that doesnt explain the necessity of the lapse rate to make it all work. It seems its derived from the fact that CO2 cools the upper atmosphere but its alleged it cant cool it enough. . .unless of course you add more CO2 to cool it more. Indeed I fail to see the logic there either.”
So what you are saying here is that you, an auditor, don’t understand a physics paper.
Not particularly surprising.
But what is surprising is that you than take that lack of understanding, and extrapolate that a step too far: No one else understands it either.
Because the paper must be wrong!
Nate says:
So what you are saying here is that you, an auditor, dont understand a physics paper.
Not particularly surprising.
But what is surprising is that you than take that lack of understanding, and extrapolate that a step too far: No one else understands it either.
Because the paper must be wrong!
——————–
I didn’t say M&W was wrong assuming thats the paper you are talking about. I just pointed out that you don’t know why it might be right as you believe the M&W model is based on the 3rd grader radiation model as you stated here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1527920
And we know the 3rd grader model is bunk from here:
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
and from RW Woods experiment and Vaughn Pratt’s experiment.
that of course means you have no idea if it works or not either.
As I pointed out the M&W paper requires an atmospheric lapse rate and nobody can explain why warming would only occur in the presence of a lapse rate. IMO, Manabe perhaps assumed the 3rd grader model worked also as you have because he doesn’t explain it either.
You are not alone here. As even in 2008 and 2009 the 3rd grader model was being diagrammed right and left and I even found it on the Harvard University website in their physics department. Now with modern experiments debunking it (RW Woods experiment more than 100 years ago was just ignored) the entire web has had that model expunged. But no experimentally-demonstrated model has replaced it and the excuse is that a lapse rate is required.
“I didnt say M&W was wrong”
Bullsh*t.
You state the model doesnt not work. That means wrong.
“What doesnt work in bulk with a large temperature differential and complete IR opaqueness is alleged to work when you divvy up the temperature differential into miniscule differences and you then add up all those differences.”
And what you are denying is that integral calculus doesnt work!
You are just plain Stoopid.
Nate I am not at all like you extrapolating all over the place like a soup sandwich.
The 3rd grader radiation model doesn’t work. But M&W is an untested modification of a model that doesn’t work. Does that make it work?
I see no evidence of that. . .but I wouldn’t go so far as to claim it doesn’t work.
Whats your evidence the 3rd grader radiation model works? Extrapolation from the idea that photon particles are flying around carrying energy here and there?
You aren’t being very scientific with Woods’, Pratt’s, and S&O all showing you it doesn’t work.
“Whats your evidence the 3rd grader radiation model works?”
F*k off.
“And we know the 3rd grader model is bunk from here:
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf”
One experiment. There have been many others.
Here’s a followup experiment to S&O by another noted skeptic.
https://climatetverite.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Harde-Schnell-GHE-m-2021.pdf
They experimentally verify that back radiation from CO2 warms and can thus produce a ‘GHE’ in the lab.
Nate we already went over that link. We know heat diffuses and convects upwardly. CO2 absorbs almost all its going to absorb just meters from the surface and that will cause those molecules to rise and collide with non-ghg molecules.
So an upside down experiment will accumulate heat at the top of the experiment, but not at the bottom as your experiment shows us.
Vaughn Pratt’s experiment where he measured heat at the top of the boxes showed the same thing.
But what didn’t warm was the bottom surface of the box in your offered up experiment or any of the others.
Not only that Nate. But all of my passive solar energy projects I have build specifically takes advantage of convection and or mechanical scavenging of rising heat. Knowing this is an absolute requirement in being able to design such projects. So yes I know what you are talking about but you are talking about it doing something it doesn’t do.
Nate says:
” ”You are full of it. As Feynman said, all physical processes with the exception of gravity and nuclear processes can be explained by the following
An electron moves from place to place.
A photon moves from place to place.
An electron absorbs and emits a photon.”
Gee according to genius Swenson, there are no atoms.
No atomic motion. No sound waves, no diffusion, no pressure of gases, no heat capacity, heat transfer by convection, or conduction, no steam engines, all of which involve such atomic motions!”
Nate doesn’t realize that all his listed atomic motions are included in Feynman’s nuclear processes.
From a Feynman lecture on the matter:
”Finally, we have two other particles which do not interact strongly with the nuclear ones: one is a photon, and perhaps, if the field of gravity also has a quantum-mechanical analog (a quantum theory of gravitation has not yet been worked out), then there will be a particle, a graviton, which will have zero mass.”
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_02.html
Why not give up Nate? All you ever do is dig yourself a deeper hole.
As usual, you are trying and failing to mansplain physics to someone who actually understands it.
Nate you are blaming Richard Feynman of mansplaining to somebody who is here claiming they are superior to.
I provided you a lecture from Feynman that classifies everything in the three categories covered by Swenson and you accused him of leaving Feynman’s nuclear stuff out.
Grow up Nate. I am imagining you as an old forgetful 80 years old 3 year old.
Im saying YOU don’t know what Feynman is talking about, and just defer to his authority without knowing the context.
In any case, you are just stalking me.
Nate trying to obfuscate again.
You accused Swenson of ignoring ”Specifically atomic motions and the properties of atoms. Ya Know, all that stuff in the Periodic Table.”
And I provided you the lecture clearly shows that Feynman placed all those items into the ”nuclear” category as stated by Swenson.
Now you are lying for being not being up to snuff on what Swenson was saying and you employed an argument that was easy to prove as being like the total bunk you are always spreading around here.
tim s…”Some of these comments demonstrate the problem with poorly educated people who do not understand the difference between different modes of heat transfer”.
***
I presume you regard yourself as an educated person, however, you apparently lack the ability to respond to the modes of heat transfer I have described and defined. In other words, you are good at criticizing but short on offering scientific rebuttals.
With regard to radiation, it’s not complicated at all. I have applied it for years in communications systems and all it consists of is an electric field orthogonal, to a magnetic field with a frequency, both with the same frequency. There are stringent rules related to it. The filds should have the same frequency since they are produced by the same electron. Radiation is not complex and it does not behave differently in different systems.
—-
” The basic principle of radiant heat transfer is that radiant energy is always active”.
***
The basic principles of radiant energy were laid out by Bohr in 1913. Nothing has changed with his basic theory only the complexity of it developed for atoms with more than one electron. It seems to be you who is confused about it and the priciples laid down by Bohr.
There is a very good reason that radiant energy cannot be transferred between a colder body and a warmer body. Bohr specified it with a pertinent formula, E = hf. E is the difference in orbital energy levels over which an electron can drop and f is the frequency imparted to the energy quanta released.
For colder bodies, f is lower than in hotter bodies and the requirement for an EM quantum to be absorbed by an electron is solely dependent on frequency. If the frequency is too low the quantum will not be absorbed. It’s that simple, the EM from cooler bodies lack the frequency to be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body.
Yet all physical objects emit at all frequencies and temperatures per Planck experiments so Kirchhoff experimentally found out they also absorb radiation at those frequencies and temperatures.
Gordon once again demonstrates an acute lack of depth in the subject of light. EMR (light) is NOT heat Gordon.
Ball4,
No doubt why you claim that the GHE is responsible for the Earth having cooled since its creation, I suppose?
You wrote –
“Yet all physical objects emit at all frequencies and temperatures per Planck experiments so Kirchhoff experimentally found out they also absorb radiation at those frequencies and temperatures.”
The Earth obviously emitted lots of ” . . . frequencies and temperatures . . .”.t
Maybe you could tell me how many of each?
[laughing at the mentally afflicted is bad form]
Suppose? No that’s wrong again. But Swenson does get this correct: “lots”.
Ball4,
Well then, if the GHE wasn’t responsible for four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, what was?
You surely are not going to claim that the GHE makes things hotter, are you?
A four and a half billion years of reality says otherwise, but of course you don’t accept reality, do you?
[chortling at cultist hoist with his own petard]
“A four and a half billion years of reality says otherwise, but of course you dont accept reality, do you?”
And the last 20,000 years of warming says you are wrong.
Oh well!
“And the last 20,000 years of warming says you are wrong.”
So the GHE which you worship only started having an effect 20,000 years ago, did it?
Maybe you could describe this GHE of yours, which obviously has nothing to do with CO2, nor human fossil fuel consumption.
What did you measure this “20,000 years of warming” with? One of Michael Mann’s treemometers?
You really are a simple soul, aren’t you, just digging yourself deeper each time you try to wriggle awa6 from your last faux pas?
There is no GHE – you can’t even describe such a preposterous thing!
“So the GHE which you worship only started having an effect 20,000 years ago, did it?”
No, nor did I say any such thing.
The point, clueless one, is that the Earth has warmed over the last 20,000 years, which falsifies your pet theory that the Earth should only ever be cooling.
Feynman says your theory, no matter how much you love it, is wrong!
And in fact the Earth has accelerated its warming over the last century.
Thus your repeated assertions about the always cooling Earth somehow ruling out the GHE, are based on an entirely false premise.
Feynman, if he were around, would ask you to stop deferring to his authority in order to mislead people!
Nate says:
No, nor did I say any such thing.
The point, clueless one, is that the Earth has warmed over the last 20,000 years, which falsifies your pet theory that the Earth should only ever be cooling.
———————————–
Nate conflates the temperature of the atmosphere, an exceedingly tiny layer around the earth, with the temperature of the earth.
He extrapolates without any evidence from the exceedingly small to the whole without the need to stimulate a single brain cell.
He was doing the same in this comment section with the ocean earlier.
“Nate conflates the temperature of the atmosphere,”
False.
And stalker Bill again follows me around into threads without knowing what the topic of them is.
Nate you don’t know if the earth is cooling or warming. You only know that the atmosphere is warming.
the atmosphere is about one millionth the mass of the earth.
You have made the same mistake about the oceans. You don’t know if the ocean is warming but you claim it is.
Your own theory says essentially that if the atmosphere captures one watt of energy its going to extract 2 watts from the ocean causing the atmosphere to warm by 3 watts.
” You only know that the atmosphere is warming.”
FALSE. The Earth’s land and sea surfaces have also been warming.
“Nate conflates the temperature of the atmosphere, an exceedingly tiny layer around the earth, with the temperature of the earth.”
You seem utterly confused about what the main topic of this blog is.
Hint: it aint about the Earth’s core!
One would expect the earth’s skin to warm from a warming atmosphere.
But since you don’t know how the atmosphere is warming and can’t explain the mechanism; that means it could simply be a variation in how the earth is cooling.
“and cant explain the mechanism”
Yes we can and have done so many times.
Its rather hilarious that you don’t just have a link to an experiment that shows it works, and I have several links to experiments that shows it doesn’t work. Don’t you think?
Gordon, I will present you with something to ponder. If there is no radiation from the cold body returning to the hot body, how does the hot body know how much energy to transfer? What then is the significance of T to the fourth power? What is the reference point? Your theory seems to suggest that all radiating bodies exchange the maximum amount of energy at all times, and the temperature of the receiving body is not relevant. You might want to rethink that idea.
Oooooh! A perfect plethora of pointless gotchas!
As Richard Feynman said “Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is – absurd.”
If you can show me that you have made some reasonable effort to find the answers to your gotchas, and failed, I will do my best to help you to fill the gaps in your knowledge.
I believe you said you attended a good university. Did you study physics, and if so, was the area of quantum thermodynamics covered in any detail?
You really sound as though you are stringing words together, trying to appear as though you could support something as silly as the mythical GHE on some scientific basis, when of course you can’t.
Is my opinion correct, or can you actually describe the GHE?
Tim S makes a quite valid point.
And notice Swenson offers nothing to rebut it, other than his usual juvenile insults, and stringing random buzzwords words together, trying desperately to appear as though he knows something about these subjects..
‘Quantum thermodynamics’ Tee hee haw!
Nate laughs at Quantum thermodynamics.
He must be an old retired high school teacher.
Nate obviously didn’t take quantum thermodynamics seriously. He obviously takes pride in being a peabrain.
Just in case , heres the Wikipedia description –
“Quantum thermodynamics is the study of the relations between two independent physical theories: . . .”
In relation to quantum mechanics, Richard Feynman said “I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics.”, which cheers me up, because I don’t. However, it is one field where, as far as I know, every theoretical prediction of quantum electrodynamics theory has been supported by experiment to the limits of measurement.
Good enough for me.
Nate believes in a GHE which he can’t even describe. Good enough for him, I guess.
When someone, like Swenson, who has shown that he knows very little of either Thermodynamics or Quantum Mechanics, blurts out:
“I believe you said you attended a good university. Did you study physics, and if so, was the area of quantum thermodynamics covered in any detail?”
So in 20-21st century physics, there is Thermodynamics and then there is Statistical Mechanics which incorporates atoms and quantum into Thermodynamics.
It is obvious that Swenson is simply stringing together sciency words in a poor attempt to appear superior so as to belittle his opponent.
It is what he does, and it just makes him look ridiculous.
And here he mentions ‘quantum electrodynamics’ which is another sciency phrase, but is irrelevant to the discussion.
Nate accuses Swenson of stringing toghether sciency words.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-quantum-thermodynamics-revolution-20170502/
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1411728112
The science train left the station a long time ago for Nate.
Whenever Bill loses another argument with me, he stalks me, follows me around and lobs ad-hom grenades at me.
He is becoming quite predictable and boring.
THE POINT I made was that Tim S made a perfectly valid science argument.
Swenson, as usual, had no science rebuttal whatsoever.
Just attempted insults that involved buzzwords ‘quantum thermodynamics’ and ‘quantum electrodynamics’, neither of which have anything to do with the point Tim S made.
Swenson is free to try to make a valid scientific point using the latest research on ‘quantum thermodynamics’ or ‘quantum electrodynamics’ if that would help him.
But I won’t hold my breath.
No Nate. Tim asks valid questions to which you pretend to know the answers by referring to your overly inculcated state of mind.
Feynman’s and even Einstein’s questions here remain valid.
Einstein was frustrated by that saying “What are light quanta?” Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
Feynman recognizes the absurdities. Yet you seem ignorantly blinded to them.
The signs of conceit and elitism is completely manifest around here yet it doesn’t slow you or a large community of ego-driven scientists in the least.
There is a practical side to this. Each skeptical scientist will in practical measure of his area of expertise will choose a path to slowly gather more information for the purpose of advancing scientist. Dreamers like you will imagine truth and science as you have no role in the advancement of science. Your role in fact is more as an obstructionist clinging to myth and extrapolation. I suspect you are done with the thread above on the failure once again to demonstrate the 3rd grader radiation model.
I can’t tell if you are just confused or you are obfuscating. Very clearly you veer back and forth across both lines.
Inverse greenhouse effect – If you believe such thing
https://youtu.be/2iwXdGxyzYw
Solar wind
speed: 370.6 km/sec
density: 1.05 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 25 Aug 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 86
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 144 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.94×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.8% Low
48-hr change: +0.6%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991)
“Sunspot AR3415 poses a threat for M-class solar flares. It produced an M1.4-class flare on Aug. 25th at 0109 UT”
“GEOMAGNETIC STORM WATCH–CANCELED: Debris from an exploding magnetic filament on the sun (movie) will not hit Earth after all.”
Spot 3413 is biggest spot, but on the farside 3415 was biggest spot.
A moderate size spot coming from farside, and spots are going to leave nearside.
Non earth observation indicate other spots are coming- therefore, not likely to have spotless day within 2 weeks- but they could just fade away. I think 50% chance we will spotless day within 2 weeks.
Or don’t think the sun is going to get more active within 2 weeks.
Solar wind
speed: 379.7 km/sec
density: 1.51 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 26 Aug 23
Sunspot number: 75
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 139 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.72×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.3% Low
Solar wind
speed: 359.8 km/sec
density: 2.05 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 27 Aug 23
Sunspot number: 75
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 139 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.72×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.3% Low
“Sunspot AR3415 has a ‘beta-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for M-class solar flares.”
3413 is biggest spot. 3415 has skrunk more. And spot I saw on edge of farside, is small and also appears to fading.
I don’t see any spots coming from farside, and spot on nearside are going to farside. And big spot 3415 is right in middle of nearside facing Earth [and no one expecting much from it].
“A CME IS HEADING FOR MARS: The “mystery explosion” described below has hurled a CME toward Mars. A NASA model suggests it will hit the Red Planet on Sept. 1st. The impact will probably spark ultraviolet auroras on Mars and erode a small amount of the planet’s atmosphere.”
So, newest spot {small spot] could fade before it gets to middle and that might allow a spotless day to happen within 2 weeks.
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
21 August – 16 September 2023
Solar activity is expected to be low with a slight chance for
M-class flare acitivity through the outlook period.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to be at normal to moderate levels 21 Aug – 06 Sep and
11-16 Sep. High levels are expected 07-10 Sep in response to
recurrent CH HSS influence.
Geomagnetic field activity is expected to be quiet 26 Aug – 05 Sep
and 09-13 Sep. Unsettled levels are expected 21-25 Aug, 06-08 Sep
and 15-16 Sep due to recurrent CH HSS effects. Active conditions are
expected 14 Sep due to a recurrent CIR ahead of CH HSS onset. —
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
I typed above:
“And big spot 3415 is right in middle of nearside facing Earth [and no one expecting much from it].”
I meant to type 3413, rather than 3415
Solar wind
speed: 321.9 km/sec
density: 2.02 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 28 Aug 23
Sunspot number: 69
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 142 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.67×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.8% Low
The small spot, 3416 didn’t fade and probably remain during it’s time on nearside. So, less chance of spotless day within 2 weeks, and there appears to be something coming from farside and 3411 spot is going to farside, soon. Aug month sunspot will be a bit more than 100. Sept could be say, 120, but Sept and Oct will average around 100. And Nov below 100.
Or by sept, people will think 25 is going to be like 24, and like 24, think the second peak will be higher than first peak. I think second peak will be a lot lower than first peak.
Which I based it on, Zharkova’s work.
Or if vaguely close to my guesses of monthly sunspots, it seems to me we are about half way thru a Grand Solar Min.
Solar wind
speed: 351.8 km/sec
density: 3.42 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 29 Aug 23
Sunspot number: 68
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 142 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.67×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.8% Low
48-hr change: +0.3%
The “something” was a small spot, now numbered, 3417. which has two small spots {I would guess one of them might decay, soon {though might also grow, but looks like it was likely, a bigger spot].
And 3411 has gone to the farside.
So, we got: 3412, 3413, 3415, 3416, and 3417 {from right to left}. 3414 was tiny and disappeared.
Easy to see if any grow from nothing into numbered spot or they fade away while on nearside.
So need 3417 to fade to get a chance of spotless day [within 2 weeks] 3416 looks a bit bigger or stable [or not fading at all]. It seems a very small chance {less 15%} not that it matters.
Solar wind
speed: 319.4 km/sec
density: 2.00 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 30 Aug 23
Sunspot number: 82
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 142 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.42×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.0% Low
48-hr change: -0.2%
3412 is leaving nearside, 13,15,16, and 17 haven’t changed much and should 3418 named, soon
“Sunspot AR3415 has a ‘beta-gamma’ magnetic field that harbors energy for M-class solar flares.”
“There are no significant equatorial coronal holes on the Earthside of the sun. “
ball4…”Clausius defined heat only as a measure of KE…”
***
B4 distorts the words of Clausius to serve his own devious purpose. Clausius actually said…
“We will therefore start with the assumption that Heat consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies and of ether, and that the quantity of heat is a measure of the Vis Viva [KE] of this motion”.
That is ***the quantity of heat*** is a measure of the KE of the described motion. I am sure that’s what Tyndall meant as well when he described heat as a mode of motion.
I have pointed out several times that energy cannot be described because no one knows what it is. The best we humans can do is describe it based on its action. Therefore, we have devised a lame definition that energy is the ability to do work. However, such a definition is short-sighted in that work describes only mechanical energy.
We have been forced to describe different actions produced by energy and one of them is thermal energy which we call heat. Whereas heat can be transformed into work, and vice-versa, heat is most definitely a description of the energy associated with moving atoms while work is the motion of a mass to which a force has been applied. Heat has nothing to do with force.
Electrical energy, on the other hand, is about the motion of a sub-atomic particle, the electron, whereas chemical energy is about the release of energy in chemical bonds. Although that energy can be heat, it can also be light.
Kinetic energy and potential energy are merely descriptors that describe energy in motion or energy that is stored. They apply to all forms of energy. Therefore, when Clausius referred to the quantity of heat as a measure of KE, he was referring to the energy related to the motion of atoms, which he had already defined as heat.
He was saying, the more heat the greater the KE. That’s a no-brainer since the KE in question is heat.
Gordon 7:00 pm does confirm Clausius writing: “heat is a measure”. Gordon should then comment accordingly to have credibility. Heat is just a measure of total constituent vibrational KE in an object.
Again Gordon, your commenting goes wrong when you confuse EMR with heat since EMR is NOT heat. EMR transfers thermal energy both ways between objects in a vacuum producing universe entropy thus in accord with 2LOT.
Ball4,
Are you still claiming that the GHE is responsible for the Earth cooling since its creation?
Maybe it’s because ” . . . tiny little electrons dont have enough mass to absorb photon linear and angular momentum. “, as you recently opined? Is that the way the GHE works?
You say some ridiculous things, but you probably don’t realise it.
Carry on.
No. Experiments may appear ridiculous to those less astute & unaware of basic physics such as in usually laughable Swenson comments. Pity.
Ball4,
Are you still claiming that the GHE is responsible for the Earth cooling since its creation?
Maybe its because . . . tiny little electrons dont have enough mass to absorb photon linear and angular momentum. , as you recently opined? Is that the way the GHE works?
You say some ridiculous things, but you probably dont realise it.
Carry on.
Gordon,
They can’t even describe their mythical GHE, so they fly off at any bizarre tangent that they can, trying to divert attention away from the fact that nobody has managed to make anything hotter using CO2!
Ball4 claimed he had, just as bobdroege claimed he had boiled water using ice cubes!
Pardon me if I snigger long and loud.
It really is a pity but humorous that Swenson continues to ignore experimental evidence contradicting Swenson’s comments. No doubt that’s why Swenson sniggers. Carry on.
Ball4,
The contents of your fantasy are not “experimental evidence” in the real world.
How is your experiment (seeing infrared radiation from ice water with your naked eyes) going?
When can I expect to see your results?
[not quite rotflmao, but close]
The experiments show Ice water is not invisible Swenson. IR thermometers can be used to measure the mixture’s brightness temperature at 32F & even in the dark!
It remains a pity that Swenson understands so little of basic physics when commenting on a science blog.
Ball4,
The contents of your fantasy are not experimental evidence in the real world.
How is your experiment (seeing infrared radiation from ice water with your naked eyes) going?
When can I expect to see your results?
[not quite rotflmao, but close]
Global warming cargo cult wants neither hot or cold.
15 C air temperature is cold, they turn on their heaters when air 15 C or colder. They don’t make their heaters, it is sent by cargo shipment. They against making heaters, they are opposed to natural gas and electrical power.
The first cargo cults loved the US military, which brought them cargo, global warming cult only know their is more than two sexes, a and males tend to be toxic.
Anyways, the only planets neither hot or cold, are Mercury and Mars- both are male gods.
They have problems.
Hey, its so simple to do the experiment even Swenson can do it. Ask for a glass of ice water at a restaurant & report back whether it is invisible as Swenson claims.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Hey, its so simple to do the experiment even Swenson can do it. Ask for a glass of ice water at a restaurant & report back whether it is invisible as Swenson claims.”
Ah, I see – you were hoping nobody noticed that unspecified visible light source you had hidden up your sleeve! Well done!
Unfortunately, it won’t get you out of your predicament. No, your naked eye cannot see infrared radiation – only visible light, and ice water emits none of that. As a matter of fact, in the dark you cannot even “see” water, concrete or cabbages – and they all emit and absorb infrared.
You need another imaginary “experiment” involving hidden sources of radiation, a la Tim Folkerts.
Off you go now, try another illusion.
Swenson makes yet another laughable claim of only going into unlit restaurants and kitchens et. al. for a glass of ice water. Understandably Swenson ignores experimental results after bungling even a simple one. Carry on, readers enjoy inept science entertainment in comments by Swenson.
Ball4,
You wrote
“Hey, its so simple to do the experiment even Swenson can do it. Ask for a glass of ice water at a restaurant & report back whether it is invisible as Swenson claims.”
Ah, I see you were hoping nobody noticed that unspecified visible light source you had hidden up your sleeve! Well done!
Unfortunately, it wont get you out of your predicament. No, your naked eye cannot see infrared radiation only visible light, and ice water emits none of that. As a matter of fact, in the dark you cannot even “see” water, concrete or cabbages and they all emit and absorb infrared.
You need another imaginary experiment involving hidden sources of radiation, a la Tim Folkerts.
Off you go now, try another illusion.
By the way, Ball4 originally said “Ice water at 32F would then be invisible to our eyes.”, implying that he could see objects by their emitted IR, which is not true.
Eyes react to visible light – that’s why it’s called visible.
Ball4 refuses to accept that the temperature of an object below the point where is starts to radiate visible light is completely irrelevant to whether it can be seen in reflected or transmitted visible light. You can’t even tell whether you are looking at ice cubes or plastic replicas. How many people have burnt themselves on a stovetop, or a hot poker, which they could see quite clearly in visible light, but obviously couldn’t see the IR the hot objects were emitting?
He might be one of those people who firmly believe that they can feel “cold” being radiated by ice etc. No “cold rays” Im afraid.
Now just wait for the gotchas starting with “How come . . . “!
swenson…sniggering is fun. Even when one is aware it is dumb, it’s great fun. I’m having a good snigger myself.
b4…”Gordon 7:00 pm does confirm Clausius writing: heat is a measure.
***
Your p.a.t.h.etic attempts at terrohling are noted. I corrected you before by pointing out that Clausius claimed ***THE QUANTITY*** of heat is a measure of KE.
But carry on lying if it helps your recover from being wrong.
Yes Gordon, per Clausius’ defn.: “heat is a measure of KE.” Total KE. Use the term accordingly for credibility. And, again, remember: EMR is NOT heat.
Ball4,
I assume your comments are designed to support a GHE which you can’t even describe, or have you another reason for clinging to 19th century science?
This is the 21st century you know.
b4…your ability to understand physics is slim to none.
The KE in reference IS HEAT. It is called ***KINETIC*** energy because it represents energy in motion. The energy in motion is atomic motion and BY DEFINITION that motion is heat. Some kind of energy makes the atoms/molecules move and by definition that energy is heat.
If you had bothered to digest the statement by Clausius he makes that clear, he claimed that heat is the motion of atoms. He stated that clearly then he added that **THE QUANTITY*** of heat is a measure of KE.
I have explained this to you several times. Kinetic energy is only a descriptor that defines energy in motion. It tells you nothing about the kind of energy. So what possible energy could we be talking about other than heat?
Thermal. EMR is NOT heat.
Yes, again, per Clausius’ defn.: “heat is a measure of KE.” Total constituent KE not avg. KE. Temperature is also NOT heat.
Ball4,
Is this something to do with the mythical GHE? Or are you just trying to appear clever?
“Thermal EMR” is a meaningless term, without further explanation. What do mean by “Thermal EMR”?
I didn’t use the term.
If entertainment specialist Swenson was accomplished in atm. thermodynamics, then Swenson would have noticed, would know the GHE is not mythical, & would have understood thermal is short form of therm-odynamic intern-al energy for which the total is a measure of the constituent KE aka heat in the object.
Carry on since more astute readers enjoy Swenson gaffes and resulting entertainment.
Ball4 wrote “I didnt use the term [Thermal IR].”
I suppose an impostor called Ball4 wrote “Thermal. EMR is NOT heat.”
[derisive snort]
I did write Thermal. In answer to Gordon’s Q: “So what possible energy could we be talking about other than heat?”
I also wrote EMR is NOT heat. To help Gordon stop confusing the two.
Perhaps if Swenson were even a little bit accomplished in atm. thermodynamics, then Swenson would not commit so many entertaining reading & physics gaffes.
Earlier, I quoted Ball4, and wrote –
“Thermal EMR” is a meaningless term, without further explanation. What do mean by “Thermal EMR”?
Ball4 wrote “I didnt use the term.”
Then he wrote “I did write Thermal”. Well, that certainly clears that up – not.
Trying to follow the tortuous (not to say torturous) meanderings of GHE true believers’ so called minds, is an onerous task.
They will say something, deny they said it, then admit they said it but they really meant something else, or provide any number of bizarre explanations for appearing a little less than totally rational.
All just diversions to obscure the fact they can’t actually describe the GHE that they want others to uncritically accept. A cunning move, how can any realists examine something which has no description?
Oh well, at least Ball4 makes no presence at having any knowledge of the GHE.
That’s something.
Swenson says:
”Trying to follow the tortuous (not to say torturous) meanderings of GHE true believers so called minds, is an onerous task.”
No kidding. They only believe it because its a popular belief in the science community. They can’t fully explain it nor can they find anybody that can.
I recall a whole bunch of scientists posting creating a blog to respond to G&T. It amounted to nothing and devolved down to internal arguments over how the effect worked.
Eventually the only response became an attack on G&T’s claim of a violation of 2LOT, which G&T clearly aimed at the ‘net’ popular version of the 3rd grader radiation model already shown not to work.
So G&T challenged the responders to come up with a model that didn’t violate 2LOT and that led to complete silence.
The earthen GHE produces universe entropy so fully compliant with 2LOT, Bill. G&T had no successful argument against that circumstance.
Of course Ball4 there are ways of warming the climate that don’t violate 2LOT.
but where is the evidence your theory is right?
Even Bill can instrumentally test the theory. Instruments record the earthen atm. with current opacity at a higher brightness temperature (both clear sky and cloudy sky) than space looking up from Earth’s surface.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Even Bill can instrumentally test the theory. . . .”
Go on, man up, Ball4. Tell Bill what unspecified “theory” you are babbling about.
You can’t, can you? That’s why you just refuse to believe that the Earth has cooled since its creation, and that the surface of the moon actually gets hotter than that of the Earth (because there is no atmosphere to attenuate insolation by about 30%).
You live in a richly bizarre imaginary world, obviously.
Good for you.
Funny we aren’t even testing that with a global program isn’t Ball4? Do you suppose they don’t want to know the answer?
No global program is necessary, Bill. Though it could be done.
Wherever you happen to do the experiment the earthen GHE evidence you seek is found since the brightness temperature of our atm. is measured higher than that of space.
“Go on, man up, Ball4. Tell Bill what unspecified theory you are babbling about.
You cant, can you?”
Here, Swenson, maybe this will help answer all your questions. It is for people just like you and Bill.
https://img.thriftbooks.com/api/images/l/43eb6b7c263b321df9b51ed1b49fbc4414e45592.jpg
Ball4 says:
No global program is necessary, Bill. Though it could be done.
Wherever you happen to do the experiment the earthen GHE evidence you seek is found since the brightness temperature of our atm. is measured higher than that of space.
—————————
LMAO! It doesn’t take much to convince Ball4 of anything.
My current understanding is the claim is the earth is dimming causing more heat to be trapped by the upper atmosphere where CO2 is being accused of doing its dirty work. Yet you see no need for a science program to establish that as fact?
I simply see it another way. The ice core records show waves of warming and cooling at many different time scales. One can see variations of around 3C over periods of a few hundred years long before mankind started emitting CO2.
Why does nobody talk about that in your community? Why is there no program to verify the claims of your community? Sure it could well continue to warm for perhaps one or two hundred years and in that time we still won’t know why because of the lid you guys have placed on science. If its one tenth as important as you make it out to be one would think you would be the most vociferous for demanding a science effort to be placed on cause.
Al Gores claims of unprecedented warming doesn’t hold water. Dr. Syun Akasofu has written about this along with others. But he is ignored. Why?
Many years of dealing with special interests gives me the most adequate answer. They don’t want to know because they are getting what they want.
“Yet you see no need for a science program to establish that as fact?”
Bill not surprisingly is apparently unaware there exists a program needed to verify the claims of the community. That science program is continuing to measure added ppm CO2 attributed trends in atm. warming 24/7/365. Plenty of people talk about that in the community of which Bill chooses to remain unaware.
“Dr. Syun Akasofu has written about this along with others. But he is ignored. Why?”
He’s not being ignored, except by Bill who didn’t cite his work. Dr. Akasofu has many cited research papers.
“(Bill’s) current understanding is the claim is the earth is dimming…”
Bill’s current understanding is known to be faulty i.e. not supported by observations showing earth is not “dimming” (Bill term) in the satellite era.
If the earth isn’t dimming then there is no increased forcing. Your take is that the dimming forces global warming to counteract the dimming. I am talking about a global monitoring system to confirm the theory.
I don’t hear any voices calling for that from the doomsday believers. Must mean they are already getting what they want.
Observations (global monitoring system already in place) show the earth is not dimming AND there is increased forcing as I informed Bill. So Bill’s current understanding is known to be faulty i.e. not supported by satellite era measurements as already commented.
99.97% agreece
Greece Arrests Almost 80 Arsonist Scums as EUs Largest-Ever Wildfires Rage Across the Country
Greeces catastrophic wildfire has taken a disturbing turn as police authorities have arrested 79 individuals on charges of arson. These suspects are being held responsible for deliberately setting fires that have caused widespread devastation across the country.
Greece has witnessed several attempts by arsonists to spark new fires amidst the ongoing wildfires, perhaps in an attempt to blame it on climate change.
I am surprised they made it to jail alive.
pisode 2213 Scott Adams: How I Could Easily Program AI To Spot Fake News. It’s Pattern Recognition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdI8x4HE4fM
RFK, death of Prigozhin, and AI types.
And I just watched:
The Death of Prigozhin -The crash & its implications for Wagner, Africa, Ukraine & Russia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va3UtYl6PUs
Which mentioned the other people on that plane- and how ….
it would be to have all of them on the plane.
Earlier, Ball4 wrote –
” . . . the GHE is not mythical,. . .”. He just can’t describe it because someone might steal his intellectual property?
What a peanut!
SpaceX ignites Monster Booster! Are we ready for the second Starship Flight?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK9ZjtDqbfU
Looks like second starship test launch will happen in second week of Sept. And Rocket Lab is going quickly towards reusability. And Starlink factory gearing up.
So what happens if Starship launches and it gets to orbit?
It seems we have another starship launch this year. And in 2024 we doing refueling in orbit with starships. And New Glenn rocket will probably launch in 2024, and it’s going to work toward getting a reusable rocket. And I don’t see Starship or New Glenn delaying NASA’s lunar program.
The month is ending, what is guess Aug adjusted temperature difference?
My wild guess is +0.37 C
What do you mean by “adjusted”? What would we be adjusting the monthly anomalies for?
Seasonal adjustment
What?? The fact that they are anomalies mean they are already adjusted for seasonality.
Already adjusted is redundant- simply, “adjusted” should convey “already adjusted”.
It was not clear that you were talking about the actual anomalies because no one refers to them being “adjusted”. That implies a need to tweak them further.
And if you’re talking about redundancy, “adjusted” by itself is already redundant in your sense, given that this is what anomalies (or as you’ve called them, ‘differences’) means.
There is a reason for sticking to standard terms.
Lately, it seems we could get an unlimited amount of energy from geothermal energy, and therefore without being a spacefaring civilization, human could have tens of billions of living on Earth surface and not be a spacefaring civilization, though being spacefaring could allow trillions and for millions and billions of years.
But since human population are reaching point of collapse, having a cheap source of energy has little to do with “carrying capacity” of Earth, our population are set to crash with few decades and energy was 1/10th it’s current price, it is not factor in this happening. Crappy normal govt and crappy normal education and other stuff- including the thirst for endless wars, are instead “something” you regard as factors.
But we don’t know if Geothermal energy could be viable as cheap source electrical power and nor do we know if we can become a spacefaring civilization.
But it seems we might know if Geothermal energy could be game changer, and we find out any issues which might limit becoming space-faring civilization, within a decade or two.
There is no known shortage to fossil fuel use, though it seems likely China will run out of coal fairly soon- a few decades.
Many countries have reached peak, coal [though they have been small countries in comparison to China].
Though there endless amounts of natural gas, that can used by China.
Also in news lately, China is drill a very deep hole- and perhaps China in decade or two could have endless supply of geothermal energy.
Solar wind
speed: 526.4 km/sec
density: 3.58 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 01 Sep 23
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 77
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 140 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.07×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
48-hr change: -0.4%
“WEEKEND GEOMAGNETIC STORM WATCH: A geomagnetic storm watch is in effect for Sept. 2nd and 3rd when one and perhaps two CMEs (described below) hit Earth’s magnetic field. Neither impact will be major, but added together they could spark G1 to G2-class geomagnetic storms.”
Month of August spot number: 114.9
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
28 August – 23 September 2023
Solar activity is expected to be at low levels with a slight chance
for M-class (R1-R2 Minor-Moderate) activity throughout the outlook
period. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
So I guessed Aug would lower than July, and Sept will be low, and really crashing by Nov.
But compared to drawn red line and margins of it, monthly spot numbers have been since beginning above the drawn red line.
So in terms of guessing, what month will pass thru this line?
For Sept the monthly spot number would need to be below 85.9 average sunspots. And I think it’s unlikely to below 85 for Sept, more like 90 to 110 sunspots. But for Oct, it’s 88.3 and give it at most 50% chance it’s below 88, I tend to think it will again be in range 90 to 110. Nov the red line number is 90.6. And tend to think it will be around 50 and won’t get above 50 for months later. Though this Solar
Max 25 could have a month above 50 in the next few years.
Solar wind
speed: 529.9 km/sec
density: 25.35 protons/cm3 **
Daily Sun: 02 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 83
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 136 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.94×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.5% Low
** “WEEKEND GEOMAGNETIC STORM WATCH: A minor G1-class geomagnetic storm is underway on Sept. 2nd as Earth moves through a high-speed stream of solar wind. This storm is unrelated to two CMEs approaching Earth–one that left the sun on Aug. 30th, and another launched on Sept. 1st. ”
I would guess the high density of solar wind, is the leading edge of geomagnetic storm {or both}.
Anyhow, 3413 is leaving to farside, and don’t see any spot coming from farside.
Solar wind
speed: 456.7 km/sec
density: 8.39 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 03 Sep 23
Sunspot number: 77
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 136 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.82×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.5% Low
It looks like sunspot number will lower further
in next couple of day- spots are leaving and don’t any new spots
coming from farside, yet.
Spots numbered on nearside: 4313 and 4315 {leaving soon} then
4317 and 4318 approaching middle of nearside. And tiny new spot,
4319 which is about 3 days from going to farside.
Or small spot grew on nearside, and it might grow more before going to farside {or fade}.
The neutron count suggest the rest of sun could be more active, or spots could be coming, but not seeing anything, soon.
Let’s look at Thermosphere record:
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2022/03/23/what-is-tci/
When has it been near neutral or cool or cold.
Presently it’s getting somewhat near neutral
And back around 1970s or Solar Cycle 20, it had about 20 years
centered on 1970, where it had several years of cold, more years
being cool and near neutral. And no years of hot. And last time had
a spike of hot was 2004. Or from about 2004 it’s been like solar cycle 20, years of cold, some warm and near neutral.
It’s not at neutral yet. But what going to happen in next 6 month [which during the time of solar 25 max] Could go to neutral in Sept or Oct? And within say, 4 months, be cool?
Geophysical consequences of celestial mechanics
https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/01/geophysical-consequences-of-celestial-mechanics/#more-30418
…
“We first applied the method to the series of sunspot numbers. The series could be satisfactorily reconstructed from simply a (rather flat) trend and two components with periods 11 years (Schwabe cycle) and 90 years (Gleissberg cycle). More interestingly, these components allow one to construct a precise and robust model of solar activity and to predict (so far rather accurately) the ongoing sunspot cycle and beyond [ref 1, 2, 3].”
ball4…”Clausius defined heat only as a measure of KE…”
***
There is a good reason why B4 continues to lie about this. Clausius made no such statement and the one he made shoots holes in B4’s climate alarmist theories.
Clausius began by defining heat as the motion of ‘ponderable’ particles. Ponderable means having mass, or significance. Kinetic energy is that motion therefore Clausius is clear that heat is kinetic energy.
Clausius then goes on to claim that the QUANTITY of heat is a measure of KE. In other words, if there is more heat there is more kinetic energy.
B4 is clearly losing the battle of science and has resorted to moving the goalposts by lying through misquoting Clausius.
Gordon 8:18 pm once again confirms Clausius’ definition of heat writing: “heat is a measure of KE.”
More clearly, a measure of the total KE of the object’s constituent particles. Thus EMR is NOT heat & can transfer both ways.
Temperature being a measure of average KE of the object’s constituent particles at the location of the thermometer.
Gordon should properly comment & adhere to Clausius’ defn.s in future writing but there has yet been no indication Gordon is prepared to do so.
Ball4 says:
”More clearly, a measure of the total KE of the objects constituent particles. Thus EMR is NOT heat & can transfer both ways.”
Even more clearly EMR is not heat and ’emits’ in all directions. Using the word ‘transfers’ implies some kind of permanent arrival. . . which is something that doesn’t hold up well in atmospheric testing. It has an effect on cooling but the object that is cooling is still cooling and not warming.
and the problems only start there. There is the not small issue of mainstream theory that triples all the energy in the atmosphere as far as the surface goes.
Thus 100watt/m2 of water vapor lifting in the sky should cause a 300watt/m2 greenhouse effect. . .and with your claims of radiation adding you have to add the 78w/m2 or incoming sunlight captured by the atmosphere. 178w/m2 times 3 means the surface should have a mean emission rate of 534w/m2 from atmospheric molecules.
And of course we shouldn’t forget about the 161w/m2 of sunlight that hits the surface either.
So why isn’t the mean emission rate of the surface not 695w/m2? And have a mean temperature of 60C?
Why? Because Bill has some numbers that don’t add up correctly. If using TFK09, then make the numbers match the report & they will add up correctly. Bill will then find the mean emission will reasonably match measurements in the time period examined.