Home/Blog
The urban heat island (UHI) was first described by Luke Howard in 1833 for London, England. Urban area air temperatures are almost always warmer than their rural surroundings, especially at night. Thus, the average human experiences warmer temperatures than they would if they lived in wilderness conditions.
This has nothing to do with global warming, and would occur even if there was no long-term ‘global warming’. In fact, since over 50% of the Earth’s population now lives in urban areas (expected to increase to nearly 70% by 2045), the temperatures humans actually experience would continue to break high temperature records even without climate change. For reference, the following plot shows the increase in global population between 1800 and 2023.
Our new global gridded UHI dataset allows one to compute just how much warmth (vs wilderness conditions) the average person experiences merely because most people live where human settlements cause localized warming. The following plot shows my computed ‘demographic warmth’ (during June, July, and August) experienced by the average human and how it has changed since 1800. For comparison I’ve also plotted the area-average temperature departures from the 1885-1984 average of the land portion of the HadCRUT4 thermometer dataset.
What can one conclude from this plot? At a minimum it shows humans choose to live under warmer conditions just by living in densely populated areas — and increasingly so. I will leave it up to the reader to decide if it shows anything beyond that. Note that this does not include the effect of (for instance) the migration of the U.S. population from colder to warmer latitudes, which would show an additional source of demographic warming. The warming shown by the red curve is only for urban effects relative to wilderness conditions at the same location.
Now, don’t be confused about what this means regarding the UHI impact on the thermometer measurements — that’s a different subject. All this shows is an metric of human-centric experienced warmth, not a thermometer-centric estimate of how much warming from the thermometer network can be attributed to UHI effects. The UHI effect on air temperature is due to a variety of processes associated with human settlements, such as replacement of vegetation with buildings and impervious surfaces and generation of waste heat that change the daily energy budget of those locations. Our UHI dataset simply approximates all of those processes using population density as a proxy, a choice made for us by the fact that it is the best (and possibly only) long-term dataset that exists to analyze the UHI problem.
” it shows humans choose to live under warmer conditions just by living in densely populated areas and increasingly so.”
No surprise that they choose to live where the jobs are.
Economics trumps warming.
Dr. Spencer,
You should consider reading Berry’s Amicus Brief in Held v. Montana. It is a synopsis of Berry’s falsification of AGW.
edberry.com/amicus-brief/
lol
The American Meteorological Society (to which I think Dr. Spencer is a member) has accepted Dr. Berry’s abstract for their 37th Conference on Climate Variability and Change.
And thousands of others who disagree have also been accepted, but Stephen knows only one of these is right.
Nate you know that numbers of believers in science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Science need to be replicated, generally many times by many people before it is accepted as a fact.
An outliers work, by definition, has not been replicated. Until it is, it is not a fact.
Nate,
You know that science cannot be proved. It can only be falsified. You can have thousands of evidence and believers supporting your theory, but it only takes one to falsify.
and of course nate isn’t aware of any evidence in support of cagw proposition so his reply always to ask for evidence that the undetailed proposition is false. he has been well schooled by his handlers to avoid any specifics regarding how co2 is the progenitor of the greenhouse effect.
“your theory, but it only takes one to falsify.”
Sure, by an experiment. What experiment has Berry done to falsify the findings of all the others?
Berry like all others only have the numerous replication experiments that falsify the 3rd grader radiation model used to sell the ghe effects of ir blocking to the public. the whole lot of them haven’t described an experiment that establishes their personal theories as correct.
that goes for you also nate.
Nate,
Berry has presented three papers that falsify AGW. His first paper is a mathematical model with one hypothesis: carbon dioxide outflow is proportional to atmospheric concentration. The first paper falsifies that human carbon has a different turnover time than natural carbon and that all carbon spends a very short time in the atmosphere, not decades or centuries like many in climate science claim. The second paper mathematically demonstrates that most of the rise from 280ppm to now is substantially not due to man but nature. He mathematically falsifies the IPCC’s carbon cycle model in the third paper. He does this by applying his model to the natural carbon cycle in IPCC’s assessment and it works perfectly but the human carbon cycle doesn’t fit meaning they have two different sets of physics for human carbon and natural carbon. If you can falsify any of Berry’s hypotheses or mathematics, do so.
The esteemed physicist, William Happer, reviewed Berry’s papers and stated he can find no fault in the mathematics.
“Berry has presented three papers that falsify AGW. His first paper is a mathematical model with one hypothesis:”
As I noted Stephen, Theory doesnt falsify Theory. Only experimental evidence can do that.
As explained to you a dozen times, and never rebutted, Berry’s model ignores the key experimental evidence on ocean carbon chemistry.
Thus he gets the global carbon cycle wrong.
Here’s Feynman:
https://youtu.be/OL6-x0modwY
‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong’
Given the opportunity to explain this, Berry ducked, dodged and banned people who brought it up to him at his blog.
Nate,
In his third paper, he shredded the IPCC’s carbon cycle model using his model. Once he did that it was game, set, and match.
Nate,
No, you throw the Revelle Factor out as a red herring. That would be like saying he hasn’t rebutted the Porpoise Factor. Porpoises swim in the ocean, so he can’t be right. It is irrelevant, and you know it, that is if you have any understanding of math. His solution to the correct first-order linear differential equation is independent of any Revell Factor or any other factor.
“Nate,
No, you throw the Revelle Factor out as a red herring. That would be like saying he hasnt rebutted the Porpoise Factor. Porpoises swim in the ocean, so he cant be right. It is irrelevant, and you know it”
Poor analogy. The Revelle Factor matters a great deal, porpoises don’t matter at all.
It is well established that Revelle Factor increases the time it takes to sink excess carbon from the atmosphere to the ocean by at least a factor of 10.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelle_factor
Berry doesnt get it, so he ignores it. If you don’t understand science, then you believe it can be rejected. That is not the case.
Thankfully science carries on without you or Berry.
The Revelle Factor, the Purpoise Factor, and all other factors are implicit in the solution.
“The Revelle Factor, the Purpoise Factor, and all other factors are implicit in the solution.”
Makes no sense, Stephen.
As shown to you and explained several times before, Stephen, Berry type models were tried in the early 1950s, and indeed they did not show CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere.
Then over 60 y ago, Revelle discovered how ocean carbon chemistry produced a bottleneck for carbon to be sunk to the deep ocean.
And models then incorporated it, then clearly were able to PREDICT the rise of atmospheric CO2, that indeed was realized over the next 60 y.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf
I showed you this historical account from the American Institute of Physics, several times, and each time you ignore it and have no rebuttal.
https://history.aip.org/climate/Revelle.htm
Anyone trying to model the global carbon cycle should be ignoring what has been learned in that field over that last 60 years!
But that is what Berry has done.
Correction ‘should NOT be ignoring’
Nate,
It makes sense if you understand math. The solution to his equation is outflow is equal to the level divided by e-time. All those factors like ocean chemistry, temperature, turbulence, etc. etc. as well as land factors, etc. determine the e-time. All those factors are implicit in the e-time. Does it make sense now?
So Berry put his solution into the C14 bomb curve, which fit. He put his solutions into the IPCC’s natural carbon cycle, which fit. They didn’t fit the human carbon cycle, which implies the IPCC’s human carbon cycle is wrong. Nate, we all know nature can’t tell the difference between human CO2 and natural CO2, right?
Nate,
He didn’t ignore what’s been learned for 60 years. He showed mathematically that their carbon cycle is wrong. Read the paper. It is very simple.
“It makes sense if you understand math. The solution to his equation ”
There many different equations that apply to the physical world. Correctly modeling the a system with equations requires understanding the physical constraints of the system.
As I said, Berry’s equation was tried in the early 1950s, until it was discovered that the ocean carbon chemistry produced a bottleneck effect, which required the Berry-type equations to be modified to account for this.
You havent read the physics history article I posted. Nor the 1959 paper that developed correct equations that correctly predicted the rise of CO2 that was then observed over the next 6 decades. Berry was also unfamiliar with it.
Until you read them, and respond to them, you will not be able to make a convincing case.
Nate,
Well, you’re wrong. Berry’s equation is the conservation of mass. How is the conservation of mass wrong? That’s the same equation used in most atmospheric chemistry textbooks. LOL
By the way, you go on thinking anything you want. Berry is still presenting to AMS. The jig is up. You guys should go back to babies are bad for the planet.
“Berry is still presenting to AMS”
As are about 3400 other presenters. Plus their many thousand co-authors.
Essentially anyone who submits and pays the fee, will be accepted.
https://annual.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/2022/
Only a science outsider would be impressed by this.
“How is the conservation of mass wrong? ”
It is not wrong, but it is also not sufficient to describe the phenomena.
The mass can be transferred quickly or slowly, and in both cases is conserved. The time scale is determined by other factors.
Read the papers I cited and tell us what they have done wrong, Stephen.
Thus far all you are doing is saying ‘my guy must be right’.
Nate says:
Berry is still presenting to AMS
As are about 3400 other presenters. Plus their many thousand co-authors.
Essentially anyone who submits and pays the fee, will be accepted.
https://annual.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/2022/
Only a science outsider would be impressed by this.
——————————-
Nate tells us the strength of science is proportional to the amount of shadow banning that is in place at the presentation site.
Only a lunatic lefty would say that the conservation of mass isn’t sufficient to describe the conservation of mass.
The story here is that Stephen and Bill think contrarians must be right, even when they are not.
Contrarians are the heart and soul of science.
Let’s bypass the “WHERE THE JOBS ARE” argument:
Where do people go on vacation?
— Usually to a warm or hot climate, except ski bums, but who cares about them?
When do people go on vacation?
— Usually in the summer. While that may be most convenient for families with children, it is also true for individuals and couples with no children.
When people vacation in warm or hot areas, do they stay indoors during the day to keep cool with A/C?
— No, they often stay outside in the heat: Going to a beach, swimming in an outdoor pool, eating outdoors, walking on the hot pavement or walking outside on a nature trail.
When people retire, and decide to move, do they move to a warmer climate or colder climate?
— Here in SE Michigan, where the winters are much milder now than in the 1970s, everyone we know who left the state after retirement moved south. Usually quite far south. North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, California, Nevada and Arizona. Those now living in Nevada and Arizona have very high daytime heat in the summer months. But they don’t seem to complain. “It’s dry heat”, they tell us, and no big deal. I’m not sure I believe them, but that is what they tell us.
These observations lead to an obvious conclusion:
Most people like the heat and dislike the cold.
That means the mild global warming since 1975 has been good news for most people. Most of the post-1975 warming has been at night (TMIN), rather than higher daytime temperatures (TMAX) that Climate Howlers always scaremonger about.
Globa warming is good news for most people.
Living in an interglacial, as we are doing, is also good news.
More CO2 is good news for plants.
We should be celebrating the current climate.
“These observations lead to an obvious conclusion:
Most people like the heat and dislike the cold.”
Sure if you cherry pick older people, who live in a cold climate, and are ready to retire.
My observations apply to ALL people but I decided to avoid the people who live in cities because that’s where the jobs are argument in my comment.
Throughout history people have preferred warmer centuries over colder centuries.
I chose to focus on people who voluntarily go to warmer climates. It is rare for people to vacation in colder climates (except ski bums) or to move to colder, or even simila, climates after retirement.
I did not address the fact that MOST people prefer warmer climates. But the locations most people voluntarily choose for vacations does imply that most people prefer warm climates.
If you have any data or anecdotes to prove most people prefer colder climates, please present them. It is easy to be critical, but not so easy to be correct.
“Throughout history people have preferred warmer centuries over colder centuries.”
Which people? Northern Europeans? Given that most people experience less than one century, this is a bizarre claim.
Again this ignores the fact that people have lived in and agriculture worked well in a variety of climate zones.
I asked Nate to provide evidence that most people preferred colder climates, and he failed to provide any evidence. There was a potential debate that he chose to ignore because he had nothing.
Yep the limit of his argument is – some people live in colder climes.
a great example is US versus Canada. Canada has about 10 people per square mile and the USA has about 87 people per square mile.
Worse even though Canada has about a mean north-south depth 90% of Canadians live within a 100 miles of the US border and only 10% live in the remaining 90% of Canada. In fact its so bad that 70% of Canadians live south of Seattle, USA.
If we didn’t have fossil fuels the difference would be even more dramatic. As it is people are dying from the pressure being put on fossil fuels by radicals
“I asked Nate to provide evidence that most people preferred colder climates, ”
Where do I make that claim, Richard?
Many people prefer moderate climates. My father-in-law retired to Prescott, Arizona, which is mild in both summer and winter.
People live and have thrived in many climate zones.
Some of the most significant periods of human discovery have occurred in cold periods.
People generally don’t prefer the extreme cold of the arctic, or the extreme heat of places like Death Valley.
Having lived, briefly, in Houston, I can tell you that it’s heat index is unbearable. Same goes for most of the gulf coast.
I also lived a few years in Minneapolis, and loved it. Of course, I was then a young adult.
There are many reasons to live in areas of human concentration.
Dr. Spencer’s specific observation was about cities. Mr. Greene’s is more general.
As noted elsewhere, people most often vacation in the summer. This is a historic habit based on agricultural cycles and school schedules. Many people enjoy visiting snow areas, as they do beaches, but he question is why do they choose to live in concentrated areas which lead to higher temperatures.
The two are not related.
HVAC allows people to live in the miserably hot south in the summer because they can go inside to the cool air. (which contributes to making it hotter outside) There are also many benefits of such concentration – social activities – for the young both entertainment and meeting members of the other sex- , better medical care, access to food and material comforts.
I live 20 miles from the closest grocery store. It is quiet here.
Union Grove, NC I choose to live here because the benefits I name are outweighed in my consideration by the noisome crowds.
Nate says:
”No surprise that they choose to live where the jobs are.”
What came first? the chicken or the egg?
Jobs are self-existing things, and you just have to look through the forest to find where they live.
In the beginning there were no jobs, just people getting together to help each other survive (and mate).
Nate,
And thus was born the UHI.
If human growth patterns follow the logistic equation, then the population number and distribution at any particular time in the future is unknowable, if the equation enters chaotic territory.
And survival is what it is all about. . .build those shelters to protect us from those cold nights. Used to be you walked to work, now we are so spread out we add asphalt to make the commute faster and smoother.
Nate wants to regress back to low survival rates.
“Nate wants to regress back to low survival rates.”
Quote me say any such thing.
You didn’t have to say it explicitly. What politician ever does?
Nate refuses to commit himself to anything – that way he can whine continuously about being misquoted.
Typical SkyDragon cultist – all innuendo, implications, and a never ending stream of silly gotchas. None of these dummies can even explain the role of the GHE in the surface cooling a5 night!
All good fun.
Nate doesn’t realize that survival is job one. As Roy pointed out you can find that job in any forest.
But Nate is no doubt one of those who wouldn’t survive without having that having somebody tell him everyday what to do.
Bill if you have no point, then don’t post.
Nate,
And if he chooses to ignore your command, what then?
Oh dear.
nate fancies himself in charge of something. pretty sad when you consider he obviously isn’t even really in charge of himself being the fawning sycophant he is.
I’ll tell his mom…
Nate,
Or you could threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue!
In other words, you are completely impotent, and just being immature. Typical SkyDragon cultist tantrum throwing – assuming that any reasonable person would take any notice at all of your demands.
Keep it up. A bit of comic relief doesnt hurt.
Your mom is also very disappointed.
https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg
Fun colors:
https://www.statista.com/chart/28351/global-net-per-capita-migration-by-country/
I think this is very informative. Along with the outstanding work in climate science, we now have a study involving Anthropology as it relates to climate.
And it has a beginning, the end may not be in sight. Not only anthrpolgy and climate, but also living matter and climate in general.
Cold-blooded cyclone
The cyclones Siberian and Arctic roots will promote a drastic shift in temperatures across California as it travels down the West Coast next week.
These are great articles.
Another analysis idea…take your dataset and do the spatial average to see how much UHI contributes to the increased global average temperature. A plot of the value over time would be neat.
I did quick eye-ball estimate of the April 2023 graph and came up with about 0.02 C.
Based on a uhi of 2C and urban areas covering 3%
Of the US land area I get 2*0.03= 0.06C.
I used the following graphic.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/tuhi_apr_2023.150dpi-1.png
I then did some area weighted calculations based on that graphic. That’s how I came up with 0.02 C. 0.06 C isn’t a bad estimate either.
Bdgwx, the UHI averaged over the whole planet may add little to the actual warming. But, if all the temperature readings are recorded within the areas of UHI then then the global warming will be over stated.
Creating a silly example, if Hawaii temperature recorded was only recorded by thermometers by an active volcano how accurate would the temperature recorded be?
Right. That is the difference between the UHI effect and UHI bias. They are different concepts. The bias is when you use urban/rural stations as proxies for rural/urban grid cells.
What most people fail to recognize is that while the UHI effect is only ever positive the UHI bias can either be positive or negative depending on how the spatial averaging step is performed.
The most intuitive and obvious ways in which the UHI bias can be negative is if urban station relocated to rural grid cells or when the ratio of rural-to-urban station counts increases. According to Rohde et al. 2013 the bias is close to zero in their dataset, but if anything it is more likely to be negative than positive.
And finally it is important to note that many datasets mitigate the potential for the UHI bias contaminating their dataset by actually removing the UHI effect altogether. The advantage is that they have significantly reduced the chance of UHI bias contamination, but at the cost of reducing the overall warming since part of the real warming was removed.
Bdgwx, I wouldn’t trust many groups to remove the effect of UHI from the data sets. It’s why Dr Roy Spenser gets his research published because it’s new and unpublished theories on UHI.
The IPCC, if memory serves, referenced a source that dismissed the UHI as irrelevant, so if anything bolsters their wild claim that man is at fault and CO2 causes all issues.
Dr. Spencer’s dataset is consistent with the hypothesis that the UHI effect is insignificant on the global average temperature. Again…using his dataset I estimated a 0.02 C effect. Entropic Man was a bit higher at 0.06 C…still pretty small.
b,
Estimate away. You probably claim that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, by means of some effect that you cannot even describe in any way that agrees with reality.
Tee hee.
Using Dr. Spencer’s 2nd graph which shows humans experience 0.7 C of extra warmth and assuming those population’s cover 10% of the land or 3% of the Earth that gives us 0.7 * 0.03 = 0.02 C effect on the global average temperature. Different method…same result.
b,
Ah, I see. An assumption.
About as realistic as assuming that CO2 makes thermometers hotter.
It doesn’t, your assumptions notwithstanding.
Judging quality of life from weather station data may not be relevant.
If I hung a data logger on every New Yorker I would find that the average temperature of their surroundings is much less extreme than the Summer or Winter outside temperatures.
Almost every public building, house, office and apartment is air conditioned.
All that heat extraction must go somewhere.
The heat energy has moved into the buildings from outside and is being pumped back outside again. No new energy is being added, so I doubt that it makes much difference to the outside temperature.
“No new energy is being added”
It’s just magic! No energy required!
Work must be done to move the heat. (2LT).
Electricity is used to drive the air conditioners, which will generate some waste heat.
Is it enough to make a detectable difference to the uhi?
Perhaps someone here with air conditioning expertise might answer?
Some people here say that it is impossible to move heat from cooler to hotter. Would one of you care to argue that air conditioners are impossible? :–)
“Work must be done to move the heat”
That work will always show up as heat eventually.
Entropic Man, oh dear, you seem to be dismissive of waste heat adding to UHI but totally convinced that a minor rise of a greenhouse gas will bring about the sixth mass extinction, floods, boiling seas and crows flying backwards.
If you never worked in an office then you won’t comprehend the amount of heat that air con has to move to the exterior. Even during winter when I have worked late the amount of stored heat is very noticeable. Enough heat indoors for shirtsleeves even at midnight, whereas a winter jacket is needed to go outdoors. It’s not just the energy the air con needs it’s the thermal load that needs to be included in any assessment.
And btw you seem to have a very elitist view of New York to claim that every home has air con. You really think that the poor can afford air con? Even if half the homes have air-con that still not a trivial amount of energy across the whole of New York.
Anon for a reason, I did some back-of-the-envelop calculations for HVAC in office spaces. It is negligible. Even the total world energy consumption in a year is negligible and would only be enough to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by less than 0.0001 C and that prior to most of the energy eventually getting dispatched into the ocean. The new equilibrium state would be closer to a 0.000001 C rise temperature. Entropic Man is right to be dismissive.
Don’t forget the common indoor warmth that will leak out out the winter. That is very much non trivial.
…leak out during…
Bdgwx,
Show me the numbers like others and I do. All of the warming we have is due to energy consumption and deforestation. The CO2 byproduct has no warming effect whatsoever.
Yikes. I have a serious miscalculation. Not sure where I went wrong. But here is the correct values assuming 700 EJ of consumption. 99% of this eventually gets taken by the ocean leaving only 1% in the atmosphere. That is 0.01 * 700e18 j / (5.2e18 kg * 100 j/kg.C) = 0.001 C or a factor of 3 less than my post above. Did I accidently enter a e15 instead of e18 when doing the arithmetic? Who knows?
Nabil, if CO2 has no effect on the warming whatsoever then where is the energy that it traps going if not into warming the climate system?
bdgwx,
You are fantasising. CO2 does not trap energy any more than any other matter.
All matter emits energy. All. If this matter is hotter than its surroundings, it will cool.
Just like the Earth (more than 99% hot enough to glow), or a pot of boiling water placed in bright sunshine.
Your silly gotcha to Nabil only demonstrates your level of mental acuity. Heat cannot be stored or accumulated. Go on, try another gotcha.
Peabrain.
Nabil
You can research the numbers easily enough, so I’ll summarise.
Earth’s energy budget is about 10^24 Joules/year.
The year on year gain as Earth warms is about 10^22 Joules/year.
Humanity’s energy budget is about 10^20 Joules/year.
Humanity’s activities contribute 0.01% of the total energy budget and 1% of the observed warming.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1557274
” If the average human consumes 1500 calories each day, that translates to 6.27 106 joules per day. Relatively speaking, this is about the amount of energy required to run a car for 15 minutes. On a global scale, this translates to roughly 3.14 10^19 J per year”
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/stevens1/
Slightly different values.
Entropy Man,
You are incorrect by a factor of 100. Global warming is of the order of 10 Exp. 22 j, not 10 exp. 22 J per year. Please check your sources, otherwise forcing would be 25.5 w m-2. Annual energy production is of the order of 10 Exp. 20 j annually. Agree with you. But you have to add energy production over the years, between 1750 and now. You will find IPCC forcing of 2.6 w m-2 is of the same order of the cumulative energy production.
Nabil, 10e20 j/yr * 100 years = 1000e20 j. Of that only about 1% remains in the atmosphere. The other 99% goes into the ocean, land, and cryosphere. So that is back to 10e20 j that stayed in the atmosphere. 10e20 j / (5.2e18 kg * 1000 j/kg.C) = 0.2 C. That is the highest plausible value.
In reality energy production is probably closer to 7e20 j/yr. And we didn’t produce that amount every single year for 100 years. I think a more reasonable value is an average of 4e20 j/yr. And based on some googling about 70% of our production is wasted as heat so let’s drop that down to 3e20 j/yr. We are now down to 300e20 j which is about 0.06 C. Coincidentally (and I didn’t plan it this way) that matches Entropic Man’s estimate from his post above using Dr. Spencer’s UHI dataset. I estimated 0.02 C.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1556862
Nabil
The vast majority of the heat gain, 93%, is increasing the ocean heat content.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content#/media/File%3AOcean_Heat_Content_(2012).png
Note the units on the Y axis. These are zettajoules, 10^22 joules. The slope of the graph is about 0.83 zettajoules/ year
or 0.83*10^22 Joules/year.
That would make the total warming 100/93 *0.83*10^22 or 0.89*10^22 Joules/year or 0.89 zettajoules/year.
I wonder if you are confusing joules(J) and kilojoules (kJ).
I might rewrite my previous post:-
Earth’s energy budget 100 zettajoules/year.
Earth’s heat gain 1 zettajoule/year.
Humanity’s total energy budget 0.01 zettajoules/year.
bdgwx,
I am sorry to say that you have so many invalid assumptions. The atmospheric air mass as a whole loses heat and potential energy. Only the lower troposphere gains heat.
The global warming heat ends up in the ocean. More accurately, in the ocean mixed layer. Below that, the observed sea water temperature rise is statistically insignificant. When you do the math, the observed ocean heat atorage is of the same order of energy production.
Entropic Man,
Forget about Wikipedia, no one takes it in consideration in serious discussion or scientific papers. Also, forget about computer runs, We have enough observation of ocean temperature rise, and we go by it. It is the absolute truth.
RLH
I’m not referring to our metabolic heat production. That is the release as respiration of energy previously captured by photosynthesis. This has no effect t on Earth’s net heat content.
I am referring to our industrial heat production from fossil fuel burning, nuclear power etc. This is heat which contributes to Earth’s heat input and warming.
Nabil, I’m not sure which assumptions you think are bad. I assumed 7e20 j for energy production, 70% for waste heat, 5.2e18 kg for the mass of the atmosphere, 1000 j/kg for the specific heat capacity of air, and 1% for the residual energy that remains in the atmosphere. Do you have different numbers you want me to try?
EM: Want to figure out how much it costs (in energy terms) to produce those calories?
bdgwx,
The atmosphere does not gain heat. In fact it loses heat and potential energy. Saying that 1% of global heat goes to the atmosphere and that this 1% we should consider in the calculations is unsupported by mathematical proof. In my opinion it is an assumption.
Surface air temperature rise above sea water is equal to that of sea water, which may be calculated reasonably well by using surface water mass and heat balance. Over land, land air temperature rises is more, and it is dictated by air-water psychrometry. You can find sample calculations in one paper of mine:
https://doi.org/10.3390/e25010072
The question about air conditioners is fairly simple, but there are two answers. For small to moderate size units the heat exhausted at the condenser always exceeds the heat removed at the evaporator by precisely the total motor horsepower of the system including air movers. As the compressor ages, the refrigeration effect decreases and the power requirement increases by some amount. It is less efficient and more heat is generated.
For large units that use cooling towers, the heat is exhausted as water vapor that increases the enthalpy of air with only a small increase in temperature. For reference, oil refineries that exhaust thousands of gallons per minute of water vapor, yes minute, can produce local cloud cover in humid weather conditions.
Nabil, that is absurd. Ceteris paribus, if the atmosphere gains energy that means it warms. Similary if the atmosphere warms that means it gained energy. That’s the 1LOT. Most of the energy humans produce goes into the atmosphere. That means the atmosphere gains energy and warms because of it. The question isn’t whether it warms. The question is by how much. It turns out not by much. What definitely does not happen is the cooling of the atmosphere. That would violate the 1LOT.
” EM: Want to figure out how much it costs (in energy terms) to produce those calories? ”
Past my bedtime, but don’t let me stop you.
Goodnight.
So you don’t have the time. How surprising.
“In the United States in 2002 it required just over 12 Calories of energy inputs to produce one Calorie of food”
https://learn.uvm.edu/foodsystemsblog/2013/07/18/counting-calories-the-energy-cost-of-food/
In the US for example, the average energy consumption is ~ 10 kW/person.
In terms of human metabolism, it is about 50 W, all from food.
The ratio of food energy to total energy consumption, is ~ 50/10,000 = 0.5 %.
The ozone hole in the Southern Hemisphere continues to exceed the 2013-2022 average.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot_N20.png
An Arctic cyclone is descending over the UK.
In cities its noisier; and there is more air pollution.
But it would be wrong to conclude, that “humans prefer to live where its noisier and airquality is worse”.
Fritz,
It seems that given a choice between living where it’s noisier and air quality is worse, and where it’s quieter and air quality is worse, noise and air pollution wins, hands down.
People don`t prefer noise and air pollution.
Believe me.
Basic logical points are lost on Swenson.
https://mechanitec.ca/cop-explained-key-understanding-your-hvac-systems-efficiency/
Understand COP with relationship to HVAC (heating and cooling).
“they can be energy-intensive and contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.”
Nabil
How snooty of you.
Wikipedia is handy. You can find the same data from NASA, NOAA, Potsdam or in Nature. They all agree on the rate of increase in oceaǹ heat content.
For example, here
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42468-z
or here.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-022-00345-1
If you really want to continue this discussion as in a fully documented seminar or conference debate, I trust that you will provide properly peer reviewed references to support every statement you make.
Or we can chat on a blog like gentlemen.
Entropic Man,
In my early submissions of papers about climate, Wikipedia links were not accepted.
Very well. Please provide peer reviewed papers to support each statement you have made today. Do as I have done.
E,
“Peer reviewed papers”? Really?
What have “peer reviewed papers” to do with reality? Facts are not about “peer reviewed papers” or “consensus”. Facts are not open to “debate”. They just are.
Presumably, you believe in a GHE which you cannot even describe in any way that accords with fact.
Please feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong.
Eman needs the peer reviewers to know the facts.
E,
It doesn’t matter how many people agree about the Sun heating the ocean depths, it is a physical impossibility. Warm floats on colder water. The oceans are heated from below.
At a depth of 10 km, the crust is around 250 C, based on average temperature increase with depth. At that same depth, the ocean is around 3 C. Heat flows from hot to cold, as far as I know.
Heres a gotcha for you – which is hotter, 250 C or 3 C?
Go on, tell the ocean is warming the crust. If NOAA, NASA, or Potsdam support you, they are as mad as you.
Please show your calculations.
E,
What are you challenging, and why?
Which is hotter, 250 C (temperature of the surrounding crustal basin), or 3 C (the temperature of the water)?
If you wish to challenge my statements, show relevant measurements.
People who cannot even describe the GHE are well known for demanding “proof” and “equations” when they are trying to dodge and weave their way out of denying reality.
Are you one of them?
” well known for demanding proof and equations when they are trying to dodge and weave their way out of denying reality.”
Nabil is. You are.
E,
What are you challenging, and why?
Which is hotter, 250 C (temperature of the surrounding crustal basin), or 3 C (the temperature of the water)?
If you wish to challenge my statements, show relevant measurements.
People who cannot even describe the GHE are well known for demanding proof and equations when they are trying to dodge and weave their way out of denying reality.
Are you one of them?
You don’t seem to be disagreeing with anything I wrote.
“Since these deep microorganisms are inactive, you may be picturing them chilling under the seafloor! But, chilling is not exactly the right word, because their homes can be very hot! The deeper the microorganisms, the higher the surrounding temperature (Figure 2c). Why? Well, there is heat coming from inside the Earth. Sediments above the microorganisms are like blankets that trap heat, so the temperature increases. The thicker the blanket, the hotter the environment becomes. The temperature commonly increases by 2C every 100 m (however, in some areas, such as the Nankai Trough east of Japan, the temperature can increase by 10C every 100 m). By volume, half of the marine sediments on Earth have temperatures higher than 40C; a quarter are higher than 80C [4].”
https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2020.00070
So many blankets.
“At a depth of 10 km, the crust is around 250 C, based on average temperature increase with depth.”
Nah.
Under land, yes, because rock doesnt convect heat upward. Under ocean, No, because water does convect heat upward.
And the main issue is the average heat flux through the Earth’s crust is teeny tiny, < 0.1 W/m^2.
That aint going to heat the ocean significantly. Certainly not compared to the sunlight's input of ~ 200 W/m^2, about 2000 times larger.
Nate fails the physics exam yet again.
The bottom of the ocean averages about 15C colder than the surface of the land.
The ocean depth goes from 0 to almost 11 kilometers deep.
The earth’s crust from 5 to 50 kilometers.
The continental crust is the thickest crust.
Most of the heat from the core is conducted through the oceans by far. Heat loss on the continents is almost nil.
I suppose Nate’s estimate is from a borehole down the summit of Mt Everest. . .as far as he knows.
Bill again you mansplain to a physicist that he fails at physics, then offers no physics!
Physics is quantitative, but you make qualitative statements without showing evidence, links or anything. Which is useless.
“Most of the heat from the core is conducted through the oceans by far. Heat loss on the continents is almost nil.”
yes indeed nate you don’t know shiit about where core heat is going.
estimates are as i said 5 to 50 kilometer and the thickest crust is the continents. and no i can’t give you figures close enough to figure out how much core heat goes through the oceans as mining the bottom of the oceans has been prohibited.
“no i cant give you figures close enough to figure out how much core heat goes through the oceans”
Lacking that or any data, then clearly you cannot support your claim that
“Most of the heat from the core is conducted through the oceans by far. Heat loss on the continents is almost nil.”
Wikipedia:
“Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust.[22]”
Land is certainly not ‘nil’. And ocean is certainly not greater ‘by far’.
In the ocean the 101 mW/m^2 is still 2000 times less than the solar input.
Entropic Man,
IPCC 2013, chapter 2, section 2.3.2, says that between 2001 and 2012, the earth has accumulated 0.5 W m-2. That is about 8.0 x10e21 j in 11 years. It is in line with the Fig. 1 of England and Groeskamp 2022.
IPCC 2013, chapter 8, section 8.5.2, the total forcing through 2011 is (1.13 to 3.33) w m-2, typically averaged to 2.65 w m-2. This is equivalent to 4.3 x 10e22 j in more than 160 years. Figure 1 of England and Groeskamp 2022 gives 30 x 10 e22 J between 1950 and 2011 only. This is nearly 7 times the total heat in 61 years only. There is a huge discrepancies between IPCC report and the Figure. If my reading of the data available is correct, then there is a mystery here to be solved.
Entropic Man,
IPCC (2013), chapter 2, section 2.3.2, says that between 2001 and 2012, the earth has accumulated 0.5 W m-2. That is about 8.0 x10e21 j in 11 years. It is in line with the Fig. 1 of England and Groeskamp 2022.
IPCC (2013), chapter 8, section 8.5.2, the total forcing through 2011 is (1.13 to 3.33) w m-2, typically averaged to 2.65 w m-2. This is equivalent to 4.3 x 10e22 j in more than 160 years. Figure 1 of England and Groeskamp (2022) gives 30 x 10 e22 J between 1950 and 2011 only. This is nearly 7 times the total heat in 61 years only. There is a huge discrepancies between IPCC report and the Figure 1 of England and Groeskamp (2022). If my reading of the data available is correct, then there is a mystery here to be solved.
Nabil
I think you’ve got very confused over units and heat flow.
1 joule is a quantity of energy.
Watts measure power, the rate of flow of energy. Note that 1 Watt is an energy flow of 1 joule per second.
Energy flows in and out of Earth’s climate system are measured in Watts per square metre,ie the number of joules emitted or absorbed by one square metre each second.
Knowing the rate of energy flow you can calculate the amount of energy transported.
Offhand, 1 watt per metre squared averaged over the Earth’s surface is equivalent to 10^22 Joules per year.
The Earth’s energy budget was 240W/m^2 input and 240W/m^2 output. That’s about 10^24 Joules absorbed and then reradiated to space each year.
For the last 140 years this has changed. Input is still 240W/m^2, but output is 239W/m^2.
That is an imbalance of 1W/m^2. As a result the climate system is accumulating 10^22 Joules per year, mostly as increasing ocean heat content as discussed earlier.
Increase the energy content of a system and you increase its temperature, which is why the energy flow imbalance is causing global temperatures to increase.
Now you can see why I do not regard human energy emissions as significant.
Our energy output is about 10^20 Joules per year, an energy flow equivalent to 0.01W/m^2. Most of that heat ends up radiating to space.
Even if all that heat stayed in the system, it is only 1% of the 10^22 Joules per year that is accumulating. You can infer that the heat we are producing is nowhere near enough to explain the warming and some other mechanism(s) must be doing most of the work.
Entropic Man,
I heard of what you say before and I do not buy it. There is and can be no earth energy imbalance. This, however, is not the point. The point is why the figure of your link ( England and Groeskamp, 2022) shows astronomical heat storage in the ocean, in disagreement with IPCC report of 2013.
Global station and ocean temperatures have increased by 1.2C since 1880.
Global sea level has increased by 200mm and is currently increasing by 5mm/year.
Arctic temperatures are increasing while ice extent and ice volume are decreasing.
Biome boundaries are shifting to higher latitudes and higher altitudes
Glaciers are retreating.
Hurricane intensities are increasing.
This is not a complete list. There are multiple lines of evidence that the energy content of the climate system is increasing.
If the energy content of the climate system is increasing, more energy is entering the system than is leaving it.
There must be an energy imbalance.
NS said: There is and can be no earth energy imbalance.
Serious question…Do you reject the 1st law of thermodynamics?
Nabil
There are three independent ways to calculate the amount of energy accumulating.
You can start with ocean temperatures, ocean volume increase (aka rising sea levels) or the satellite radiation data.
I’ve done the three calculations myself, as have NASA, NOAA and many others. They all converge on 0.8 zettajoules/year.
If you have a physics background you should have no trouble duplicating these calculations yourself. If not, I can help you apply specific heat, thermal expansion coefficients etc.
Entropic Man,
The warming of the earth occurs at nearly 0.000001 c per hour. It is an infinitesimal thermodynamic transformation, from one state of equilibrium to another based on our thermodynamic understanding. Because they are states of equilibrium, there can be no energy imbalance. It is true that the the outgoing radiation has decreases. It is less now than in 1850. But the incoming and out going radiation in 1850 were equal. So are the incoming and out going radiation at this time.
We certainly observe changes on the surface, but this does not necessarily means that the earth energy out of balance, heat just relocates internally within the climate system. Now, heat of deforestation and fossil fuel energy are melting glaciers, warming the ocean, raising sea level, and more. I believe that ENSO is not natural, It is caused by us. Surface temperature extremes, flood duration increase, tropical cyclone count increase are all caused by us.
We have to do something about the climate. But we have to know how it occurs first.
EM,
You wrote –
“There are three independent ways to calculate the amount of energy accumulating.”
All of them complete fantasy, of course.
Heat cannot “accumulate”. If an object absorbs enough energy to become warmer (from a hotter source, of course), and as a consequence becomes warmer than its environment, it promptly cools down!
No amount of “calculations” or “equations” can turn fiction into fact.
You may not like the fact that the surface cools at night, or that is no longer molten, but that’s your problem.
You may not even believe that fully immersing a block of ice in hot soup will result in the soup cooling (in spite of the fact that the ice is emitting up to 300 W/m2 of IR), regardless of what your spurious calculations tell you, but the phenomenon still occurs.
You cannot even describe this fantasy GHE in any way that reflects reality, can you?
So carry on being fearful – according to Bindidon’s calculations, the seas will boil in less than 5,000 years! You might even agree with me, and judge that the chances of this happening are quite remote. Do you think this “warming” trend might actually stop? Do your “calculations” or “equations” support you?
All a bit silly, isn’t it? Look on the bright side. When the continent of Antarctica returns to its previous verdant state, would that not be beneficial? All the areas now afflicted with permafrost, containing the remains of animals and the flora on which they grazed, will return to their previous much warmer climate. What’s wrong with that?
Glass half full, half empty – or containing 150 ml? Take your pick.
em…”Energy flows in and out of Earths climate system are measured in Watts per square metre,ie the number of joules emitted or absorbed by one square metre each second”.
***
Speaking of confusion, the watt is a measure of mechanical energy, not heat. It is an equivalent measure of heat but it does not measure heat. The watt can be equated to work but not heat. Before we even begin to examine the problem there is a misunderstanding.
Radiation carries no heat and it can do no work in that form, therefore it cannot be measured in w/m^2. The heat and work inferred can only take place in a target or an emitting surface, provided the radiation is absorbed.
I know you likely regard this as being picky but unless you keep tract of heat and work as they actually occur, you get tangled in confused physics.
That has already happened in a major way with the current energy budget theory. Heat is transported from the surface 260 times better by conduction/convection than by radiation. Claiming radiation dissipates heat by itself is completely confused.
Gordon,
Heat is a form of energy, it’s totally fine to express heat in watts per meter squared.
Sunlight is perfectly capable of doing work.
Heat can’t leave the atmosphere by conduction or convection, radiation is the one that can do that.
Remember heat is a form of energy and as such can neither be created nor destroyed, therefor it can not be dissipated.
NS said: IPCC (2013), chapter 2, section 2.3.2, says that between 2001 and 2012, the earth has accumulated 0.5 W m-2. That is about 8.0 x10e21 j in 11 years.
First…that is strange wording. The Earth does not accumulate a W/m2. A W/m2 is the rate of accumulation per square meter. You have to multiple it by area and time to get the accumulated amount.
Second…assuming the rate is steady that would be 0.5 W/m2 * 510e12 m2 * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365.25 d/yr * 11 yr = 89e21 j. I think you’re off by 1 order of magnitude.
NS said: IPCC (2013), chapter 8, section 8.5.2, the total forcing through 2011 is (1.13 to 3.33) w m-2, typically averaged to 2.65 w m-2. This is equivalent to 4.3 x 10e22 j in more than 160 years.
How did you get 4.3e22 j here?
Bdgwx,
You just multiply it by surface area and the number of seconds in one year. Please see Entropic Man example. 1 w m-2 is equivalent to 1.6 x 10e22 j in one year. Then the total since 1750, 2.65 w m-2 (which is cumulative and includes the number of years) is equal. to 4.3 x 10e22 j.
Nabil.
You calculated the annual energy increase, 1.6*10^22 joules spot on.
Then you went astray.
To get the total accumulated energy over a period, you multiply the annual increase in joules by the number of years.
In your example a 1W/m^2 imbalance produces a heat gain of 1.6*10^22 joules.
If that was constant over the 273 years since 1750 the total energy gain over that period would be 273 * 1.6* 10^22 = 437*10^22 joules.
.
Entropic Man,
Sir, what makes you think that present annual forcing is 1 w m-2
annually? As mentioned earlier, it is nearly 0.5 w m-2 per 11 years per IPC report. That means 0.05 w m-2 annually. Say 0.025 w m-2 annually on average. In 160 (1850 through 2011), It is 160 x 0.025 x 1.6 x 10e22=6.2 10e22. You are off by a factor of 100 as we started this conversation.
“what makes you think that present annual forcing is 1 w m-2”
Loeb al(2021)
https://terra.nasa.gov/news/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
I’ve also checked their results by calculating the energy gain and imbalance myself using three independent methods.
If you’ve A Level Physics or equivalent you can do the same. All the specific heats, thermal expansion coefficients and other data is publicly available.
Entropic Man,
I am aware of the paper, and read it again. It is in line with IPCC report and my calculations above. Please read it again, It says 0.5 w m-2 per decade. By the way, the same values was observed by amatures. This is something that is undisputabe, and it is equal to energy production. Also, it casts doubt on the astronomical energy storage as presented by England and Groeskamp.
I think we are talking about different things. I’ve just been talking about the current value of the energy imbalance while you’ve been talking about its rate of increase over time.
Perhaps we can agree that the imbalance was 0.5W/m2 and is now up to 1.0W/m^2.
I’ve seen recent unpublished work suggesting that in 2023 it might be as high as 1.5W/m^2, so the increase is continuing.
Also, look here.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-01-19/net-zero-versus-real-zero-and-the-future-of-the-planet/
You can link to a Nature communication saying that the energy imbalance is increasing by 0.38+/-0.24 W/m^2/decade.
The decade old IPCC report that you referenced is no longer current.
The EEI according to CERES is now up to 1.5 W/m2 and 2.0 W/m2 for 36m and 12m respectively as of August 2023.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFTOA42Selection.jsp
Slightly on topic and speaking of Loeb…he (along with several others) helped with Hansen’s monthly email update released yesterday.
https://mailchi.mp/caa/how-we-know-that-global-warming-is-accelerating-and-that-the-goal-of-the-paris-agreement-is-dead
Given the increase in EEI and the e-fold decay time of 100 years he thinks the warming has already accelerated to as much as 0.4 C/decade and that the 1.5 C and even 2.0 C warming limits are already baked in.
Bdgwx
Ye Gods! No wonder the monthly temperature anomalies are off the chart.
Bdgwx
Oh dear. :–(
Hanson’s report makes very sobering reading. I already knew that 1.5C was unattainable, but if 2C is also inevitable, then we are in real trouble.
EM,
You wrote –
“Hansons report makes very sobering reading. I already knew that 1.5C was unattainable, but if 2C is also inevitable, then we are in real trouble.”
Oooooooh! Trouble!
What precise form of “real trouble” are we facing? Feel free to gaze deeply into your crystal ball. Can you name anyone who values your fearful subjective predictions, or do you live in hope?
SkyDragon cult alarmism at its finest.
EM, I know right. We simultaneously have a record high temperature and a record high EEI. Those expecting long term cooling are going to continue to be disappointed with their predictions.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1558050
There is no e-fold decay time of 100 years. Doesn’t exist.
An Arctic front is moving over the northeastern United States.
There will be a great deal of CO2 in the air in the area.
Bdgwx,
Your first operation is incorrect. It has to be on Fig. 1 of England and Groeskamp 2022, and it is not. Revise your calculations. There is not a strange wording, you should read Chapters 8 and 2 of ipcc report of 2013.
What am I supposed to be revising? I calculated the total accumulated energy over 11 years assuming a steady 0.5 W/m2 imbalance. I don’t see where I made a mistake.
You can not multiply by 11, because it is included in 0.5 w m-2. If you want to use annual calculation basis, then you should use 0.05 and not 0.5 w m-2.
Guys,you and Entropic Man, thank you for your research, input, and discussion. And please keep questioning even the experts in the field.
Our pleasure. Goodnight.
“Our”?
Have you appointed yourself official SkyDragon cult spokesman?
Maybe you could present the “official” GHE description on behalf of the others. I’m sure they’d welcome being able to scuttle away while you squirmed and prevaricated.
Maybe you just got a bit carried away with delusions of grandeur, is that it?
Postscript.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1676199534547046402
The latest CERES data record the latest 12 month energy imbalance rolling mean is 1.8W/m2 !
EM,
There is no energy imbalance. During the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s interior heat. I know you don’t want to believe it, but it’s true.
That’s why the surface is no longer molten, you see.
Unless you have another idea, of course. Not involving magic, I hope.
Maybe you could appeal to the authority of the peer reviewed fairy tale “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature”. One of the authors is a self appointed (no doubt peer reviewed) “climate scientist”, Gavin Schmidt, who is actually a mathematician.
Oh well, anybody can claim to be a “climate scientist”, and many do. They tend to use meaningless terms like “energy balance”, “forcings”, and “climate sensitivity”. SkyDragon cultists lap it up, being particularly gullible. Do you?
EM doesn’t realize that the energy imbalance is a plug figure to balance the models with the temperature monitoring system.
EM assumes the models are correct and even uses it to argue they are correct.
the question how would anybody detect the models failing using that level of astuteness? Its circular reasoning.
EM is a retired school teacher who says there’s a bunch of human carbon in the deep ocean. Then, he turns around and argues the Revelle Factor prevents the inflow of carbon into the surface ocean. Staggers the imagination.
stephen…it might interest you to know that Roger Revelle was a skeptic. He and the late Fred Singer wrote a paper shortly before Revelle’s death in which they cautioned people not to read too much into the anthropogenic theory.
That caused Al Gore to go ballistic, claiming that Revelle had been senile and that Singer had manipulated him. Gore had been a student of Revelle and had obviously misinterpreted what Revelle was teaching.
Swenson
“anybody can claim to be a climate scientist,”
Ironically I was a climate scientist. Working at King’s College, London in the early 1970s I measured average temperatures in Wales 5000 years ago. I used pollen grains in a peat bog as my proxy thermometer.
SPA: who says theres a bunch of human carbon in the deep ocean.
There is.
SPA: he turns around and argues the Revelle Factor prevents the inflow of carbon into the surface ocean.
It does.
SPA: Staggers the imagination.
Hardly. If you don’t understand what is going on then ask questions. Don’t just assume that because you don’t understand that no one else is able to understand. And don’t sell yourself short either. Just because you don’t understand now doesn’t mean you cannot learn.
EM,
“I measured average temperatures in Wales 5000 years ago. I used pollen grains in a peat bog as my proxy thermometer.”
Well, no, you didn’t measure average temperature anywhere. You assumed that certain characteristics of pollen grains represented the temperature in which they grew, without any basis except wishful thinking. You do realise that many things affect the growth of plants, don’t you?
About as bizarre as Michael Mann’s treemometers!
All irrelevant anyway. What’s your point – trying to support a GHE which you can’t even describe?
Not even a good try. More work needed.
bdgwx says:
SPA: he turns around and argues the Revelle Factor prevents the inflow of carbon into the surface ocean.
It does.
———————–
The hilarious part about that is from that, just like Al Gore, bdgwx believes he knows more than Dr. Roger Revelle about climate change.
BGDWX,
Human carbon can’t be more than a few percent of all the carbon in the deep ocean. But, you can’t have zero human carbon in the surface ocean and have all this human carbon in the deep ocean. It is physically impossible.
BGDWX,
Also, you’ll need to explain how human and natural carbon e-times differ between the atmosphere and surface and surface and deep ocean.
Nabil, look at your units. W/m2 is j/s.m2 so you have to multiple by seconds and square meters to get back to joules. There is 510e12 m2 of surface area and 60 s/min * 60 min/hour * 24 hour/day * 365.25 day/yr * 11 yr = 347133600 s in 11 years.
b,
Energy does not accumulate. Things heat up, then they cool down if they are hotter than the environment (outer space – nominally 3 K or so).
You disagree? You must be using SkyDragon cult physics.
Fail.
b,
Energy does not accumulate. If matter warms up, it can also cool down.
Just like the Earth has cooled from the molten state, and the surface loses all the heat it received from the Sun each night.
Maybe you don’t understand thermodynamics?
Stephen Anderson
“EM is a retired school teacher who says theres a bunch of human carbon in the deep ocean.”
There is a constant rain of organic matter from the upper ocean to the abyssal plain 2km below.
The carbon in that organic matter is from CO2 absorbed by photosynthesis near the ocean surface. Since 180ppm of the current 420ppm in the atmosphere is of human origin, 1/3 of that falling carbon is of human origin.
When respiration releases that carbon as CO2 the human carbon taken up at the surface is released into the deep ocean.
That is just the biological carbon pump.
There is also an inorganic carbon pump.
At high latitudes dense saline water sinks from the surface into the deep ocean. Again 1/3 of the carbon carried in solution as CO2, carbonic acid, bicarbonate or carbonate is of human origin.
EM,
You wrote –
“At high latitudes dense saline water sinks from the surface into the deep ocean.”
You forgot to mention that this phenomenon occurs at all latitudes.
You don’t believe the SkyDragon nonsense of water cooling at the poles, and magically flowing up hill and down dale, across magma exuding midi ocean ridges, around the surface of a sphere, to pile up at the equator, do you?
Now you are probably going to say that warm surface water flows from the equator to the poles, north and south, for no good reason at all. Maybe magical warm water magnets at the poles attract warm surface water, but repel cold water?
Sounds quite mad to me.
More “Game Changers” (and Failures) in Ukraine – From Starlink & Electronic warfare to Hypersonics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaWVrphbHXI
I didn’t realize the significant of Starlink in Ukraine and/or electronic warfare in general.
The real situation in the Ukraine has been totally denied by the media. In their David and Goliath story line they have underscored the Ukraine as David while completely ignoring the abject corruption in the country.
Zelensky, portrayed as the hero, is in fact a dictator who has done more to harm the Ukraine than help it. That was brought to light recently in the Canadian Parliament where he was honoured along with a Ukrainian Nazi supporter from WW II. The fact that a Nazi would show up to support Zelensky, a Jew, indicates how much Zelensky has caved in to the fascists who really run the Ukraine.
The Chinese militarys skyrocketing influence in space
8 Nov 2023|Ashley Lin
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-chinese-militarys-skyrocketing-influence-in-space/
“At the end of May, China conducted its first crew handover for its recently completed space station, Tiangong. That included Chinas first civilian taikonaut (astronaut). Alarmingly, Tiangong is expected to soon be the worlds primary space station with the International Space Stations decommissioning in 2030. Then the US and its partners may only operate commercial platforms under NASAs commercial low-earth-orbit destinations program.”
linked from: https://instapundit.com/
…
“It isnt news that space is integral to modern life. Advances in technology designed for space have been used to better understand human health and biology and for faster communication. The world relies on the satellite-provided Global Positioning System (GPS) for everything from navigation to environmental and agricultural monitoring. The military uses satellites for weather forecasting, surveillance, intelligence, communications, early warning, position, navigation and timing purposes. Theres potential for even more value, with space-based mining, manufacturing and solar energy generation among possible future breakthroughs.”
Maybe, ISS will be decommissioned by 2030. I would like it, if it was moved out of LEO, rather crashed into Earth.
Using Starship, we could save Hubble telescope and move into higher LEO orbit. And maybe when around 2030 when Chinese Station is failing we also take it out LEO, also.
“Chinas multiplying presence in the final frontier is part of a reawakening to the importance of space around the world. The fundamentals arent new. In 1970, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) noted the importance of space exploration, and China is one of a growing number of countries recognising the tremendous economic, strategic, military and political potential of activity in space. The annual number of payloads launched into orbit has increased tenfold in the past decade, and the global space economy is estimated to sit at US$469 billion, with yearly revenues from space 6.4% higher in 2022 than in 2021.”
I think things will really get going in 2024.
and saving ISS, might also done, even before 2030
The older parts of the ISS are 25 years old and getting close to the end of their service life. The same can be said of its systems.
To maintain the same station in operation would require replacing most of the modules and systems. It would be like grandfather’s broom which has had three new heads and four new handles.
Interestingly, the Russians are talking of reusing their own more modern ISS modules as part of their own new station.
Well, one problem with ISS is, it’s in a bad orbit. The 51 inclination causes more radiation. It takes more delta-v to get to compared to a lower inclination.
And Spacestations in low orbit need to be boosted due atmosphere
drag.
The newer private sector modules do have a plan to operate separate from ISS- though it’s questionable idea.
So, the plan is to de-orbit ISS- crash it into Earth.
Another idea is put it into a higher orbit. If you in higher orbit, you could change it’s inclination.
There are a lot arguments against this, which roughly boil down to high costs.
Starship is planning on lower launch costs.
So is every launch provider.
Though also, SpaceX has already lower launch cost with the Falcon Heavy. One could just look at the existing rocket of Falcon Heavy, or you wait for Starship and New Glenn rocket to start launching their rockets.
Since talking about 2030, everything could be quite different by 2026. Both Starship or New Glenn may launched 100 Starship and/or 100 New Glenn rocket by that year. Musk might give a much higher number by 2026, he might say by end of 2025 it will be over 100 and then doing more that 100 per year.
The ISS program in terms of total costs up to present is around 200 billion dollars. And as I recall the cost to de-orbit is somewhere around 4 billion dollars- though that cost could lower by quite a bit by 2030.
Suppose in instead tax payers paying more than 1 billion dollar, to de-orbit it, someone will to spend couple billion for it. Or instead tax payer paying to de-orbit, someone spends couple billion to save it.
A problem is it’s international, but in terms of other and all nations are any willing to pay to de-orbit it? And it could land on top of someone’s head.
So, I am thinking of something like a museum in some other orbit.
Also, if we going to be spacefaring, we probably want our homes to last more than 20 years. So, ISS could be “science” how do you make stations in space last 50 to 100 years?
In contrast, there is also the scrap value of ISS.
So in terms public opinion, if ISS is turned into scrap or it’s “kept
for another 50 years”, what would they vote for?
The problem is not just age, it is fatigue life. Already cracks are being found on some of the modules, with an increasing danger of air loss or structural faliure.
https://www.independent.co.uk/space/iss-cracks-space-station-international-b1911557.html
Like an aircraft, when you’ve used up the fatigue life you have to ground the vehicle. That means a reentry for the whole ISS, or at least the time-expired modules.
If you boost it into a higher orbit it will break up sooner or later and becomes 450 tonnes of space junk.
I realized I should google it and get newer numbers {it’s been over 5 years since I paid any attention to it}
So:
NASA planning to spend up to $1 billion on space station deorbit module
Jeff Foust March 13, 2023
https://spacenews.com/nasa-planning-to-spend-up-to-1-billion-on-space-station-deorbit-module/
{come to think of it, I think it was before Falcon 1 first successful test launch- but maybe not- it could around time falcon-9 started}
Not too long ago:
Heres How NASA Will Dispose Of The ISS
By
Ray Fernandez
Published Feb 5, 2022
“With an estimated cost of more than three billion dollars, the deorbit of the ISS will be a spectacular event. The station, known for being a beacon of international cooperation, will be pulled down towards Earth by three Russian Progress spacecraft until it reaches a point-of-no-return. The event will last several months, from June 2030 to Jan. 2031. The final crew will be on station until Sept. 2030. Then, the spacecraft thrusters will line up the ISS to its final target as it makes its final descent into an uninhabited region in the South Pacific.”
https://screenrant.com/nasa-plan-end-iss-how/
As usual, Robertson’s eternal, dis~gusting li~es.
Of course, the few million of Ukrainians who flew out of their country did that only because of the alleged dictator Zelenski and a few Ukrainian Nazis, and not because Ukraine was invaded by Russia and his so wonderful, plain democratic president Putin!
Here are those Ukrainian refugees currently registered:
Germany 1,099,905 September 30, 2023
Poland 961,215 September 12, 2023
Czech Republic 371,980 September 24, 2023
UK 210,800 August 1, 2023
Spain 190,380 September 24, 2023
Italy 167,525 September 1, 2023
Republic of Moldova 118,635 October 1, 2023
Slovakia 109,115 September 24, 2023
Romania 84,885 September 25, 2023
Bulgaria 54,715 October 3, 2023
Hungary 53,375 September 25, 2023
*
Robertson is obviously one of those disgusting ultra-right~ists who, like the neo-fascists in Germany, France and Italy, constantly lick Putin’s saliva and spread his propaganda even into parliaments – for the obvious, often demonstrated reason that these neo-fascists have obtained in the recent past very large loans from Russian banks.
The best example is the French ultra-right wing ‘Rassemblement National’.
You left out the figures for Ukrainian refugees that fled to Russia, and other Russia friendly countries
Belarus as of 8/23. . . . . . . . . . . 32,435
Russian federation as of 12/31/22 . .1,275,315
Turkey 10/23 42,875
Bulgaria 11/23 52,245
Serbia 9/23 4,175
The fact is by making the war a NATO proxy war, sympathy for Ukraine isn’t exactly on the upside.
This squabble is a centuries long squabble as is the war between Jews and Muslims. Ukraine didn’t help when the confiscated assets of the Russian Orthodox Church as a usurper religion.
At least in the middle east conflagration we clearly know who the terrorists are.
roy…”Economics trumps warming”.
***
True. But I guess it depends whether or not you are homeless. Here in Canada, younger people and the homeless seem to flock toward the warmer clime in Vancouver and Vancouver Island.
That’s not a knock on the homeless, I empathize with their plight. However, you can’t survive long in a Canadian winter where temps are well below 0C if you ar forced to live in a tent outside. It can be done but younger people lack the resources to purchase the cold weather gear required.
I know John Christy commented on something similar in Africa when he taught there. It was not cold that was the problem but lack of the fossil fuels that support life.
bdg…”Given the increase in EEI and the e-fold decay time of 100 years he thinks the warming has already accelerated to as much as 0.4 C/decade….”
***
You can’t do science by statistics alone. Hansen began his blethering in 1988. However, according to UAH, global temps were, on average, still below the baseline. So, you need to begin about 1998 when the anomalies begin to rise above the baseline. That’s a range of roughly 2.5 decades till present and during that time, there has been, on average, about 0.25C warming = about 0.1C/decade. That’s a lot closer to the trend stated by UAH over nearly 4.5 decades.
However, we really need to look closely at why there was an 18 year flat trend from 1998 – 2015 and whether that flat trend will continue at a lower average than +2.5C in the future.
Statistics cannot tell you that, nor can any climate model.
What is this meaningless blather about being above or below the baseline?
Hansen et al. and Mann et al. no longer agree on the science and heat in the pipeline. What do we do now!
NS, Hansen and Mann definitely agree on the science regarding EEI. What they may disagree with is the exact value of the EEI and exactly how much warming will result from it.
b,
They may agree on EEI, or the GHE, or TCR, or any silly SkyDragon cult jargon they like.
All fantasy.
GO on, get Mann, Hansen, or anybody else to describe the GHE in any way that accords with reality. They’re completely clueless. Mann is a known faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, and Hansen is a fantasist, convinced that “fossil fuels” are evil! Maybe his mother dropped a lump of coal on his head when he was small.
Hansen has a coal fixation, describing coal carrying trains as “trains of death”. Yeah, yeah, anybody disagreeing is anti-Semitic, I know.
The sun produces heat. Thermometers respond to it. People produce heat. Thermometers respond to that, too. CO2 produces no heat at all.
GR, neither EEI nor e-folding are statistical concepts. And what does baseline have to do with anything. I genuinely cannot see that have responded to anything I said.
What do you mean EEI isn’t a statistical concept? Isn’t it derived from an estimate on MEAN global surface temperature vs modeled MEAN global surface temperature? We know its not measured.
So since the two bases are statistical what do you do to wash out the statistics?
Sounds like a whole lot more B S than anything.
BH: What do you mean EEI isnt a statistical concept?
It is the 1st law of thermodynamics.
where is the proof bdgwx?
Bill Hunter
” What do you mean EEI isnt a statistical concept? Isnt it derived from an estimate on MEAN global surface temperature vs modeled MEAN global surface temperature? We know its not measured. ”
EEI is not measurable directly as one might measure the length of a stick with a ruler. It must be calculated as one might calculate the density of an object knowing its mass and volume.
You can calculate EEI by calculating the total energy entering the Earth’s atmosphere and subtracting the total OLR, based on the satellite measurements.
Alternately I have calculated EEI by three different methods. I used nothing more than ocean temperature and sea level data, specific heat and coefficient of thermal expansion tables, and a pocket calculator. No computer models required, just classical physics.
If you understand the concepts of specific heat and the coefficient of thermal expansion you can do the same yourself.
I can even give you a useful shortcut. To raise sea level by 1mm, the ocean volume must increase by 360 cubic kilometres.
EM,
Unfortunately, you are talking nonsense. You cannot even explain why the surface has become cooler than when it was molten. If you don’t like that, take a shorter time frame – surface coing at night.
The surface constantly emits radiation. It never stops. At night, the radiation flees to outer space, taking with it all the heat of the day. If it did not, the surface would just get hotter and hotter.
Your EEI is just SkyDragon cult jargon, and your calculations are a complete waste of time. You sure trying to convince people of the existence of a GHE which you cannot even describe.
Silly fellow – you are too gullible by half.
Entropic man says:
EEI is not measurable directly as one might measure the length of a stick with a ruler. It must be calculated as one might calculate the density of an object knowing its mass and volume.
You can calculate EEI by calculating the total energy entering the Earths atmosphere and subtracting the total OLR, based on the satellite measurements.
———————–
how the sources for that data EM. i know you read that but can you back that up with facts? we really don’t know with margins that are multiples of the eei.
Entropic man says:
Alternately I have calculated EEI by three different methods. I used nothing more than ocean temperature and sea level data, specific heat and coefficient of thermal expansion tables, and a pocket calculator. No computer models required, just classical physics.
——————
and how did you account for continental uplift?
one minute you say you can’t measure it with a stick and the next you are bsing us that you did just that. where are you calcs and underlying data to support them?
Bill,
Guys like EM avoid reality.
Nobody has ever measured the total energy emitted by the Earth. No such instrumentation exists, nor could it, in practice.
Likewise, no instrumentation can accurately measure energy received externally, nor that generated internally – let alone the amount of primeval energy being continually lost to the nominally colder environment of outer space.
EM refuses to accept that the crust is in constant movement in three dimensions, making sea level measurements pointless for his purposes. Not only that, but the geoid is constantly changing due to chaotic mass redistribution within the Earth’s interior, and resultant gravity changes.
NOAA gets this right, at least, and states “. . . the “height” of different parts of the geoid is always changing, moving up and down in response to gravity.”
EM is clueless, trying to fantasise a GHE which he cannot even describe, into reality.
Typical SkyDragon cultist. Wishful thinking, supported by fantasy.
Bill Hunter
There is a chain of causation here.
The energy imbalance is a measure of the net energy entering the climate system.
More than 90% of that energy is taken up by the ocean and increases the ocean heat content.
This increases the temperature of the ocean and causes it to expand.
The expansion leads to a rise in sea level.
Starting with the change in sea level or change in temperature you can back calculate to infer the change in ocean heat content. From the change in OHC you can infer the energy imbalance.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Go here and you will find sea level data and discussion of the factors which have to be taken into account.
For example you mentioned isostatic uplift.
EM,
You wrote –
“More than 90% of that energy is taken up by the ocean and increases the ocean heat content.”
Unfortunately for that line of thinking, the oceans have cooled since they first appeared as liquid water at boiling point.
During the night, the oceans lose all the heat of the day, plus a little of what enters the depths from below.
Try some other nonsense.
EM isostatic uptake is a guess. It is used as a plug figure to raise the sea level to an amount sufficient to match the models and you bought into it. You certainly didn’t use any measured dataset to arrive at the right number and you are just lying that you did.
Bill Hunter
Everything I use is open source.
See the University of Colorado or AVISO for sea level, isostatic uplift and related matters.
Any physics textbook will explain specific heat and thermal expansion and any manual of physical constants will give you the necessary values.
The calculations are simple. Should I treat you as a child and lead you through them by the hand?
EM,
You say the calculations are simple. So are you.
The surface cools every night, and your calculations cannot explain that.
You can’t even describe the GHE which your calculations are supposed to support.
The surface is no longer molten. It has cooled. Calculate that!
Lord Kelvin (possibly even smarter than you) calculated long and furiously, coming up with an age for the Earth which was completely and absolutely wrong. Another of this exceptionally gifted man’s statements in 1902 was “No balloon and no aeroplane will ever be practically successful.”
You are simply misguided. So was Lord Kelvin.
He went to his deathbed believing he was right. So will you.
Entropic man says:
Everything I use is open source.
See the University of Colorado or AVISO for sea level, isostatic uplift and related matters.
Any physics textbook will explain specific heat and thermal expansion and any manual of physical constants will give you the necessary values.
The calculations are simple. Should I treat you as a child and lead you through them by the hand?
—————–
Not necessary EM. Since we sample very little of the ocean depths we don’t know if the deep ocean is cooling or warming. And amazingly we don’t even trust the advanced deep dive data because it wasn’t warm enough so we added in some of the lesser and older warmer technologies to bring it up to expectations.
Then of course it appears you didn’t redo or verify any of the premises surrounding isostatic rebound. So why don’t you just stop lying that you examined the figures. Its obvious you didn’t hardly scratch the surface, literally.
bdgwx
Incredible but true: though having been corrected so many times, the Robertson ignoramus still resorts to his xyz years old, du~mb stuff:
” However, according to UAH, global temps were, on average, still below the baseline. So, you need to begin about 1998 when the anomalies begin to rise above the baseline. ”
*
He still didn’t understand yet that a baseline is an arbitrary construct, calculated out of the averages of absolute values during a given reference period: changing the reference period thus automatically changes the baseline.
*
I often tried to explain that to him with something like:
” UAH’s first reference period was the same as the one RSS still uses today: 1979-1998.
Suppose they would have also still have the old reference period in use, and would now, by January 2024, switch to e.g. 1999-2018.
Then, suddenly, the graph on top of Roy Spencer’s monthly temperature head posts would change from the old picture
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rn5BXUqcoXWEz7kVFmh35cIEILZnEaO9/view
to the new one
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sLvoNtuCoe-61-12QFhMXEXHn25pu4Em/view
Do you see the difference, Robertson? ”
*
The problem with people like Robertson is that they are terribly self-centered, overly opinionated, and never change their mind.
binny…”He [GR] still didnt understand yet that a baseline is an arbitrary construct, calculated out of the averages of absolute values during a given reference period: changing the reference period thus automatically changes the baseline”.
***
Binny would have us accept that the basis of temperature data based on anomalies of NOAA, GISS, Had-crut and UAH, is nothing more than an ‘arbitrary construct’. He trots out a reference to absolute temperatures but he still doesn’t get it that an anomaly is a deviation from such an average of absolutes, hence is directly related to them and not an arbitrary concept.
If such an anomaly is negative, it represents a cooling with respect to the baseline which represents the long term average. Binny fails to acknowledge such cooling believing that if a baseline plotted by UAH shows such a cooling that another data set with a different baseline would not show the same relative cooling.
That is wrong-headed thinking typified by climate alarmists. Binny thinks it is OK for NOAA to show an overall warming trend, with a relatively strong trend from 1980 til present, and that it shows the same thing as UAH, even though UAH shows no such definite trend. UAH shows clearly, a flat trend from 1998 – 2015 whereas NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut do not.
In fact, Binny specializes in fudging data to make it appear as if UAH and NOAA show similar trends, based purely on a statistical analogy.
Put another way, if NOAA uses a 40 year trend period from 1990 – present and UAH uses a 40 year trend period from 1980 – present, warming/cooling should be relatively in step. They are not.
At this page, NOAA plays with baselines ranges to send different messages. That’s the theme of their chicanery, misdirection. In one graph, the baselines is 1901 – 2000 whereas on their global map it is 1993 – 2022.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Meantime UAH shows a far different response over the same period from 1980 – present. See the bar graph at mid-page.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
UAH offers a 30 year trend on a global contour map that does not in the least resemble the NOAA product…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2008/nov2008/30-yearTrendMap.jpg
The CAGW mavens around here need to wrap their head around the fact that natural climate change occurs over all lengths of time. Daily, Weekly, Seasonally, Annually, Multi-annual, multi-decadal, multi-centennial, multi-millennial and on and on.
Bill Hunter
You need to realise that all the natural changes are measured and monitored. Together they add up to slow cooling of the climate, 0.5C in 5000 years or -0.01C/century.
None of them explain the 2C/century warming currently observed.
ent…recovery from the Little Ice Age explains it all, without resorting to a cockamamey theory about a trace gas gone wild.
Entropic man says:
”You need to realise that all the natural changes are measured and monitored. Together they add up to slow cooling of the climate, 0.5C in 5000 years or -0.01C/century.”
Like the dutiful sycophant EM is he is a LIA denialist.
EM, bottom line an LIA recovery would entail perhaps hundreds of years of feedbacks. For instance ice melting reducing albedo and causing more heating. . .gee I forgot EM’s upbringing he was taught that only CO2 can have feedbacks that last hundreds of years.
And of course nearly 300 years after nadir of the LIA we experienced a solar grand maximum creating two periods of rapid ice melt, one and the biggest in the 19th century and a smaller one in the 20th century with an increase in ice in between. That suggests to me the LIA drop was more dramatic than the solar grand maximum that revived the ice melt. But EM in denial of the LIA, and denial of the largest loss of ice sheets in the 19th century has been well fitted with horse blinders so he can’t see anything but what his handlers let him see with their reins on him.
Bill Hunter
I try to discuss science and you reply with sarcasm, ridicule, insult and tandarddenialist memes.
Clearly we are using different rules of debate.
Observers, please note. By his own behaviour Bill Hunter has discredited himself as a reliable source of information.
EM. when you promote a theory largely dependent on deep ocean heat exchange and you don’t adequately sample the deep ocean that theory isn’t based on satisfying science. continued warming due to loss of albedo is part of two different theories. one advanced by activist dr james hansen, astronomer. the other by dr. syun ichi akasofu, geophysicist.
do you also consider it to be science to cherry pick between theories?
Bill Hunter
Do you regard 3000 ARGO floats as inadequate sampling of the deep ocean?
If so, how many floats would be required? Please explain how you derived this number and show your working.
I’ll then show my own calculations.
Entropic Man, you claim that 3000 argo sensors are adequate to measure the ocean. The oceans are vast, and ever moving so no I don’t see how a paltry small number of sensors could be useful.
Or will you pretend that averaging the results will be meaningful.
Btw, enjoyed your comment about how people don’t emit any energy because it’s the plants that absorb the sun’s energy. Still laughing, so perhaps you might want to rephrase.
I struggle to distinguish the MWP and the LOW from the rest of the temperature decline since 3000BC.
What markers do you use to distinguish them?
Why do you think the LOW has a different cause to the rest of the decline?
To what temperature do you expect your LIA recovery to return?
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
EM the MWP was simply a warm period comparable to recent history. Wine production in the UK etc.
I see no reason to consider the LIA to be a one off or unusual event.
The ice core records are rife with 2 to 3C changes in temperature on a somewhat cyclical scale of somewhere around 800 years. LIA is just one that got recorded by means of measurement brought to us by increasing technology and science.
Anon for a reason.
Now I understand your name. It minimises your embarassment when you open your mouth and put your foot in it.
Research the concept of “net energy gain” and explain why it does not apply to heat released by human respiration.
Entropic man says:
Research the concept of net energy gain and explain why it does not apply to heat released by human respiration.
————————-
Huh? the population is growing and on average we are all getting fatter!
Did Robertson finally see the difference between anomalies based on
(a) the same UAH 6.0 LT absolute data but computed wrt the monthly means of 1979-1998
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rn5BXUqcoXWEz7kVFmh35cIEILZnEaO9/view
and anomalies based on
(b) the same UAH 6.0 LT absolute data but computed wrt the monthly means of 1999-2018
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sLvoNtuCoe-61-12QFhMXEXHn25pu4Em/view
*
No: he still didn’t see the difference.
Because otherwise he wouldn’t have written
” He trots out a reference to absolute temperatures but he still doesnt get it that an anomaly is a deviation from such an average of absolutes, hence is directly related to them and not an arbitrary concept. ”
*
How is it possible not to see the difference between two graphs based on the same absolute data but showing different anomalies because they were computed out of different baselines, themselves computed out of the monthly means of different reference periods?
*
How is it possible to overlook that for the very same absolute value (264.46 K) in April 1998,
– in the graph (a), the anomaly is a bit above 0.8 C (0.83)
but
– in the graph (b), the anomaly is a bit below 0.6 C (0.59)
hence the two anomaly departures from the very same absolute value differ by 0.24 C, depending on the reference period chosen ??
*
The reason is quite simple: while Robertson boasts with his brazen ‘but he still doesnt get it that an anomaly is a deviation from such an average of absolutes‘, he in fact is the one who still did not understand how anomalies work, and really are an arbitrary concept which changes every time you change the reference period they are originating from.
When Robertson doesn’t understand something (regardless what it is about) you can be sure that he endelessly will discredit and denigrate it.
*
And let’s by the way silently overlook the fact that when writing such a nonsense as
” At this page, NOAA plays with baselines ranges to send different messages. Thats the theme of their chicanery, misdirection. In one graph, the baselines is 1901 – 2000 whereas on their global map it is 1993 – 2022. ”
he even does not understand, in NOAA’s page
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
the further, fundamental difference between
– the 100-year period 1901-2000 used by NOAA to compute anomalies wrt that period
and
– the 30-year period 1993-2022 used by NOAA to compute linear trends for that period.
*
Who believes Robsertson’s persistently incompetent trash deserves it.
Let’s try to explain genius Robertson how baselines really look like in case of monthly time series, with as example UAH 6.0 LT and the two reference periods discussed above:
Mth | 79–98 | Mth | 99–18 | Diff
Jan | 262.93 | Jan | 263.22 | 0.30
Feb | 263.00 | Feb | 263.30 | 0.30
Mar | 263.20 | Mar | 263.46 | 0.26
Apr | 263.64 | Apr | 263.88 | 0.24
May | 264.26 | May | 264.46 | 0.20
Jun | 264.93 | Jun | 265.09 | 0.15
Jul | 265.23 | Jul | 265.42 | 0.19
Aug | 265.05 | Aug | 265.24 | 0.19
Sep | 264.38 | Sep | 264.66 | 0.27
Oct | 263.69 | Oct | 263.98 | 0.29
Nov | 263.19 | Nov | 263.43 | 0.24
Dec | 263.00 | Dec | 263.22 | 0.22
Avg | 263.88 | — | 264.11 | 0.23
*
The absolute monthly baseline numbers for the two reference periods were obtained from the evaluation of
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
(UAH LT’s 12-month 2.5 degree grid climatology, thus 72 * 144 cells, no data available for the 3 topmost and bottommost latitude bands).
*
Maybe the genius finally understands, maybe not…
binny is just blabbering now.
“Strong Evidence for My Prediction: CO2 Emission Spectrum”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y8uqeBRU9E
Please see what Mann says now:
https://michaelmann.net/content/comments-new-article-james-hansen
This is normal. If you’ve ever been associated with science you will know that scientists tend to agree on the main elements of a paradigm, while bickering endlessly over the details.
It doesn’t falsify the paradigm.
Agreement means nothing.
The indivisible atom, the wave theory of light, the luminiferous ether, the greenhouse effect . . . , the list goes on.
How are you getting on finding even a description of the GHE which agrees with reality?
Not too well, I assume. Maybe your paradigm needs a bit of a tune-up.
No where in there did he denigrate or even challenge the 1st law of thermodynamics (ie. the concept of EEI).
What he does is challenge whether the EEI is increasing and how much warming can be expected from it.
This is completely normal behavior of two scientists sparing over the details while agreeing on the fundamentals.
From Michel Mann (fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat) –
“. . . a steady warming of the planet and all of the impacts that come with it, which will continue until we bring carbon emissions to zero.”
And the seas will boil, and the land will melt . . . ! We are all doooomed!
Maybe he was confused, and didn’t really mean what he said? No end to the warming? What a peculiar person – he also seems to have a carbon fixation – doesn’t he realise that we are a carbon based life form?
Maybe he considers the oxide of carbon (carbon dioxide), (emitted by all humans) to be particularly noxious, and possessing magical powers to do harm, but is lacking scientific knowledge to know the difference between an element and its compounds. For example, common salt is composed of sodium and chlorine, but Mann seems unconcerned by the life threatening qualities of those elements.
Probably fantasises about a GHE which he worships – but of course can’t describe!
From Nabil’s link to Mann…”He [Hansen] has been a fundamental contributor to the advance of our science and a personal hero to me…”
***
I have always regarded Mann as a clown but he out-does himself here. The fact that he regards an astronomer cum climate modeler as a hero says it all.
Hansen is no doubt the biggest clown of all alarmists, being jailed as an activist with actress Daryl Hannah for protesting a pipeline project. I mean, what kind of ijit, as then head of NASA GISS, would allow himself to get into such a political conflict of interest? When the head of NASA wanted to get rid of him, the US government, lead by Al Gore, interceded and saved his job.
Hansen offered far-reaching predictions re anthropogenic warming circa 1990 if we did not immediately stop carbon emissions. Within 10 years he had changed his mind, blaming his earlier prediction on his computer model. Hansen clearly cannot be trusted as a scientist yet he has led governments into false beliefs about global warming/climate change.
bdg…”NS said: There is and can be no earth energy imbalance.
Serious questionDo you reject the 1st law of thermodynamics?”
***
If we are going to spout off about the laws of thermodynamics, let’s at least strive to understand them. Someone, somewhere, has dubbed the 1st law as a law of conservation of energy, which is only partly true. The law, in fact, only addresses the equivalence of heat and work, two forms of energy that are entirely different. It says nothing about energy in general, nor does it try to equate heat and work, which have different units of measurement hence cannot be deemed an equality.
Energy balance wrt the Earth’s so-called energy budget is only about heat. If you are going to call the summation of heat in and heat out an energy budget, why not call it what it really is, a heat budget? But, there’s a catch, heat does not flow directly in or directly out, in fact, heat does not flow into the system or out of it a all. Therefore, we are talking about radiation in and radiation out, where radiation is electromagnetic energy, which is not heat or anywhere close to being heat.
So, what we are talking about is not the 1st law, which is a summation of heat and work based on their equivalence, but not equality, but a more complex problem. Heat is produced in the surface and atmosphere when solar radiation is converted to heat. Those heated surface in turn produce a lower wavelength and strength of radiation in the infrared frequency range.
However, heat is dissipated at the surface by another mechanism than radiation, namely the direct conduction of heat to air molecules then the movement of heat away from the surface by convection. The alarmist energy budget fails to account adequately for the conduction/and convection by claiming it accounts for a mere fraction of heat dissipation by radiation. Furthermore, it claims a ridiculous amount of heat transferred back to the surface by trace gases in the atmosphere, so ridiculous that the amount of heat claimed transferred back is more than the original solar input.
Certainly, heat produced by incoming energy has to be re-emitted to space, or does it? And, how much? The Earth and other planets are hotter than they should be based on the amount of energy they receive. That extra heat is blamed on an mysterious greenhouse effect, comparing the atmosphere to a real greenhouse which is actually a glass house, when the atmosphere lacks the properties of a real greenhouse to trap heat. In fact, the atmosphere is equivalent a real greenhouse with no roof and no walls. A real greenhouse could not warm under such circumstances.
The Earth is warmer than it should be simply because the radiation claimed to cool the Earth is very poor at cooling it. If you are putting heat into a system faster than it can be dissipated, the system will warm. And if you retain some of that heat in the atmosphere and oceans, the planet will warm.
The heat comes from an atmosphere that absorbs heat from the surface and retains it for periods of time because it cannot radiate it away at terrestrial temperatures. Heat absorbed by the atmosphere and oceans in the Tropics is also distributed throughout the planet.
However, the heat convected from the surface is largely dissipated naturally as the convection molecules thin out with altitude. Also, it is lost naturally as air from the Tropics is distributd poleward.
In summation, the Earth does not get rid of as much heat as is created by solar energy therefore it warms. Nothing to do with trace gases.
Of course I do not reject the first law of thermodynamics, and I have no problem with what you have said. The only thing that is missing is the mechanical energy in the form of potential energy of the atmospheric air mass. It changes, and it is presently decreasing. In other words, the diameter of the atmosphere is decreasing, and as a result, the solar energy exchanged with the atmosphere and the earth is decreasing. This offsets the observed decrease in outgoing radiation.
The point that I want to convey is that the current science wrongly assumes that the mass of the atmospheric air only provides a structure for CO2 to regulate the climate. This is untrue, there is potential energy variation and a lot going on in the atmosphere that the current science ignores. Even though CO2 decreases in absolute value the adiabatic lapse rate and outgoing radiation decreases, the absorbed energy decreases equally, and there is no net energy imbalance. Carbon dioxide does not change climate.
Correct! I would only nit pick on the conclusion that CO2 does not change climate. The situation as is sits is we don’t know what the effects are. Dr. Lindzen expresses that emerging phenomena up in the atmosphere where CO2 is allegedly doing some dirty work disallows the effects from reaching the surface.
I have discussed this with the phase change of water overriding that effect (i.e. altitude isn’t the only determinate in phase change when you expect a hot spot to form there) which is an identical idea to emerging phenomena.
To warm the surface you need that hot spot which practically every scientist agrees about and you would need zero emerging atmospheric phenomena to counteract that.
Roy found negative feedbacks also. Models have not adequately explained observations. There is zero reason to not believe the uptake of energy into the oceans doesn’t have a role that extends out up to thousands of years. The LIA is not explained and such recoveries can be seen in the ice core records that non-independent scientists wave away as noise. As Dr Akasofu so brilliantly pointed out. You need to understand natural climate change to be able to identify anthropogenic climate change.
But instead the gulf of ignorance about natural climate change becomes the playground of politics and political incentives. Same as it ever was.
“The situation as is sits is we dont know what the effects are.” Hear, hear!
The IPCC admits this, and says it is not possible to predict future climate states.
bill…”I would only nit pick on the conclusion that CO2 does not change climate”.
***
Bill…like you, I want to see definite evidence and the only evidence I have seen that makes sense comes from two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
In their paper falsifying the GHE, they laid it out in quick fashion using a concept and equation I had not encountered before. The equation measures heat diffusion, a term that has been re-defined by alarmists as thermalization. Essentially, it covers the amount of heat a gas in a mixed gas can contribute to the mix.
If you have a mixed gas, the amount of heat that can be diffused into the gas by one of the gases is totally dependent on the mass percent of that gas. Since CO2’s mass percent in air is about 0.06%, a bit higher than its molecular percent since it is a heavier molecule, that 0.06% is the limiting factor for how much heat it can transfer into the atmosphere.
Alarmist, for reasons unknown, use a much higher value in the range of 9% to 25%, but none of them can explain the derivation of those numbers other than picking them from a hat.
BTW…if you apply the Ideal Gas Law to the same problem, you arrive at the same 0.06% diffusion of heat. The truth is, 99% of the heat in the atmosphere comes from nitrogen and oxygen.
Gordon Robertson says:
”The truth is, 99% of the heat in the atmosphere comes from nitrogen and oxygen.”
well even then perhaps CO2 is responsible for .04% of it. As I said it may go too far to say none.
Actually, the heat in the gaseous atmosphere comes from the Sun.
Without the Sun, the surface would be about 35 K or so (based on admittedly sparse flux measurements), and the atmosphere would be solid (and 35 K).
As far as I know, the temperature of the atmosphere depends on the average velocity of its constituent gases. This means that a sample of air purged of CO2, can have the same temperature as the air in a submarine containing 15,000 ppm CO2.
One study showed that exposure to 15,000 ppm for 42 days showed no psychomotor effects whatever. Other US military research supports this finding.
Maybe CO2 is not quite as poisonous and life threatening as some armchair experts would have us believe?
nabil… I was not aiming my comment at you but at bdg, who claimed your comment contradicted the 1st law. Sorry, for not making that more clear.
” However, the heat convected from the surface is largely dissipated naturally as the convection molecules thin out with altitude. ”
Such a du~mb stuff on this blog I can’t recall outside of Robertson’s posts.
Energy can’t ‘dissipate’ in the sense of ‘disappear’, Robertson.
It can be transformed. But it never disappears.
In what kind of energy does the ‘dissipated’ convected energy become transformed?
Binny,
Energy that leaves the Sun disappears from the Sun.
Energy that leaves the Earth disappears from the Earth.
Gone. Vanished. Never to be seen again.
Thats’s why the surface is no longer molten. You seem to misunderstand the conservation laws – and physics in general.
Carry on.
Flynnson’s usual trash. Simply discard.
Binny,
Otherwise, you’ll apply the electrodes, is that it?
Ooooooh! That’ll make facts go away, won’t it?
That was sarcasm, in case you were unaware.
swenson…good summation. And, yes, Binny cearly misunderstands the conservation laws and physics in general.
Heat can simply disappear, by reducing the kinetic energy of the molecules to zero or therabouts. The problem is not heat disappearing but your understanding of energy and what it is.
Energy, as humans understand it, is a human definition. There is definitely a phenomenon involved, energy does exist, but we humans cannot detect it or measure it as energy, we can only detect and measure the effect energy has on something like a mass.
Humans define energy as the ability to do work. What the heck does that mean? It is a vague assertion more than an actual explanation of what energy is. The truth is, we have no idea what it is, only what it does and what it can do.
Heat is defined loosely as the kinetic energy of atoms. What does that mean? It means that ‘something’ causes atoms to vibrate and zip around in a gas. If you increase that something, they vibrate harder and zip around faster. If you remove that something, they slow down. No one has any idea what that something is but they are awfully fast when it comes to offering slogans like ‘energy can neither be created nor destroyed’.
How the heck do they know that when they have no idea what is being created or destroyed?
Heat is unique with a gas in that it has a dependency on pressure and volume. Pressure is dependent on the number of atom of molecules in a gas, since pressure is the cumulative force exerted by gas atoms/molecules on the walls of a container.
Parameters in an ideal gas are described by the Ideal Gas Law but the ideal gas is not all that different than a real gas. The parameters involved are P, T, V, n, and R as in…
PV = nRT
If V is constant and since n and R are constants unless you add gas or remove it, then the IGL can be written as …
T = P (V/nR)
In other words, the temperature of a gas with constant volume and mass (n) is directly proportional to the pressure. Change the pressure and T has to change in proportion.
There are other factors. For this to apply in the long run you need to insulate the container so no heat can escape. If you change the pressure upwards and the temperature increases, the energy (heat) representing the temperature increase will escape through the walls of the container.
However, in the atmosphere, there is no container through which heat can escape. As altitude increases, pressure decreases and so does temperature. Mind you, P is decreasing because n is decreasing, due to the effect of gravity.
In a real container, reduced pressure would reduce T as well, but heat would be conducted through the container walls to keep the gas temperature at the ambient temperature of the environment.
There is no such heat replacement mechanism in the atmosphere other than incoming solar and heat from the surface. Therefore, as a heated parcel of air rises from the surface, it’s atoms/molecules disperse with altitude and the temperature drops automatically. That’s why the pressure at the top of Everest is 1/3rd the pressure at sea level, and temperatures drop in proportion.
It follows, that if the air parcel could continue rising to the vacuum of space, all heat would dissipate naturally.
During the day, in summer, with the Sun shining, people can survive at high altitudes on Everest with minimal clothing, but at night, they’d freeze to death with no solar to warm them. In winter, they’d freeze night or day.
For Putin’s cowardly butt-kisser Robertson, from German and French newspapers
” A German journalist was underhandedly paid by a Russian oligarch for his pro-Putin books
Documents from the ‘Cyprus Confidential Investigation’ reveal that Hubert Seipel, known for his pro-Kremlin positions, received
€600,000
from an offshore company linked to Russian billionaire Alexei Mordashov, a globally known Putin henchman. ”
*
How much do you get paid for your vile, persistent pro-Putin lies on this blog, Robertson? 600 US$ per post?
Binny,
Maybe you could write an anti-Putin book. Do you think anyone would pay you anything at all?
Pay an author 600,000 and they will write any fiction you want. Apart from a description of the GHE which reflects reality, of course.
That’s just a fairy tale.
Bindidon, you of course can point to the post where he praises Putin? If not then you are trying to discredit someone rather than using facts, reason & logic to counter their arguments.
You are very similar to the Micheal Mann, Andrew Dressler and other social activists who attack people to try and score points. You are not going to convince anyone who is undecided.
Why not concentrate on the article at hand which, to me at least, indicates that the urban heat island effect has corrupted the temperature record. So indicates that the claims of agw are over hyped.
Anon for a reason
Simply go back to March 2022 and read all comments he wrote.
There were so many of them!
How can you overlook such evidence?
Binny,
What is it that you don’t like about free speech? Or are people only allowed to say what you decide is allowable?
I support absolute freedom of expression.
Most people seem to fit Winston Churchill’s observation –
“Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
Satanists praise the Devil, I believe. Good for them.
Off you go now, swish your riding crop furiously, while you stomp about imperiously in your highly polished jackboots, dreaming of novel ways to torture those who challenge your edicts!
All a bit silly, isn’t it?
Flynnson’s usual trash.
Simply discard.
Binny,
What is it that you dont like about free speech? Or are people only allowed to say what you decide is allowable?
I support absolute freedom of expression.
Most people seem to fit Winston Churchills observation
“Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some peoples idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
Satanists praise the Devil, I believe. Good for them.
Off you go now, swish your riding crop furiously, while you stomp about imperiously in your highly polished jackboots, dreaming of novel ways to torture those who challenge your edicts!
All a bit silly, isnt it?
Go on Binny, tell people what they should ignore! I’m sure there are some even more dictatorial than you.
anon…”Bindidon, you of course can point to the post where he praises Putin?”
***
You won’t find such a post because I have never praised Putin. I have tried to defend his position as the leader of a nation rife with corruption from oligarchs who resemble the Mafia here in North America. As Gorbachev tried to point out, Putin, an ex-KGB agent, could have resorted to Stalinist techniques but, rather, he tried to follow a more democratic route.
If we don’t try to understand and communicate with Russian leadership we have no hope of preventing a possible nuclear annihilation. Why are we wasting our time and resources on some ijit like Zelensky whose claim to fame was being a TV actor. He is still acting and leading the Ukraine straight down the tubes.
HA HA HA HA HA. Wow, what a crazy perspective on Putin. Par for the course with Gordon.
Anon for a reason
” You are very similar to the Micheal Mann, Andrew Dressler and other social activists who attack people to try and score points. You are not going to convince anyone who is undecided. ”
Feel free to pervert what I write. I’m not a social activist, let alone would I be interested to score points.
And I don’t feel the need to convince you.
*
I indeed attack people like Robertson who discredit, denigrate anything what they dislike – without being able to technically let alone scientifically contradict it.
Feel free to believe his nonsense – be it about Einstein, astronomy, climate data, viruses, Putin’s (and NOT: Russia’s) war against Ukraine, and so on.
*
Now about
” Why not concentrate on the article at hand which, to me at least, indicates that the urban heat island effect has corrupted the temperature record. ”
I have concentrated on all what Roy Spencer wrote about that since beginning (but did never see your pseudonym at that time), and wrote many comments.
I spent weeks last year with generating charts in which time series for big US cities (Las Vegas, Tucson, Dallas, Boston, Nashville, Oklahoma, Seattle for example) were compared with time series for small corners (Pahrump, Cascabel, Norwood, Barren Lake, Paw Paw etc).
But I lacked the time needed to make the comparison stuff to an end.
*
I compared 130 pristine USCRN stations with over 900 stations around them (TMIN, TMAX):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13LI1iSprcVKHaayCuzKWSI0bT6_RayAC/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1___NSInXjjJ7vXT5rzcCsGF6iGccaH9U/view
the same without the 90 airports in the 900+
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RGwr8nFzrsodYvhvJgamXAhcOd3KnN3o/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qaU581pPZi9QPmQmrLYHxQCE0gx5aqPV/view
etc etc etc
but lacked the time here too for getting the job finished.
Anyway: why all that, as it gets denigrated by people like Robertson, Flynnson etc?
*
And what did YOU do?
Germany just released its demands for the Ukraine, a complete Russian withdrawal. A nation that started two major wars in the 20th century and who invaded other countries for no good reason, and who brutalized the citizens of those countries, now want another nation to do what they failed to do.
In light of that, I ignore your uninformed opinion on the Ukraine which is nothing more than a blind appeal to authority. Putin claimed he invaded for two reasons: one was to rid the Ukraine of Nazi-based tactical units, and the other was to establish order in the Donbass region to give Ukrainians a chance to determine their future in that region. He has done both and no more, yet the Western media continues to bleat about a full-scale invasion aimed at annexing the Ukraine.
I began calling you an ijit a few years ago based on your clear inability to understand basic logic. Your analysis of the Ukrainian situation continues your descent into full-scale dementia.
This has nothing to do with me admiring Putin or defending him. It is about digging for fact and weighing it against the utter propaganda we have been fed since the war began. The propaganda began well before the invasion when we were painted a picture of Russian ingrates in Eastern Ukraine causing trouble. Those so-called ingrates were Ukrainians who happened to speak Russian. They were protesting the ouster of a democratically-elected president by armed Ukrainian nationalists who supported the Nazis in WWII.
The Ukraine is corrupt and we continue to support their corruption.
Now the Nino 1.2 index will fall.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
From the top: “…the temperatures humans actually experience would continue to break high temperature records even without climate change.”
Everyone needs to take a deep breath and ponder that a few minutes.
Also, note the “hockey stick” graph of population growth.
Another comparison of UAH 6.0 LT Globe to surface series:
– Japan’s Met Agency (JMA);
– GISTEMP;
– NOAA.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiO9AyN6fwM3_miDFk15Tyby14Z-P7H1/view
*
JMA is known to have in a recent past published global anomalies with a trend for 1979-‘to date’ similar to that of UAH 5.6 LT.
Its current trend for Jan 1979-Sep 2023 is 0.18 C / decade: very probably quite near to what 5.6 would produce these days if it had not been shut down in 2017.
*
GISTEMP’s trend is 0.19 C / decade; NOAA’s is 0.18 C / decade.
These global land+ocean trends are way below those for their land-only series.
*
Of course, when you download data from NOAA’s Global Time Series, the graph corresponding to the data downloaded into your file doesn’t tell you that the reference period wrt which the anomalies are calculated is 1901-2000; but it is visible on the page:
” Please note, global and hemispheric anomalies are with respect to the 1901-2000 average. ”
and you see it in the downloaded data.
When ignoramuses a la Robertson look at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A-ED0TzlTqrpeOQuSO718fTS5bv5sC7k/view
they inevitably think that the comparison graph above is ‘fudged’ and should look like this instead:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yctJrUY6BlE70YMcCmtdi3R85-2ITukG/view
Why did JMA’s plot keep unchanged? Look at its original reference period…
Ten years ago, JMA was still at 1979-2000, and UAH had already switched from 1979-1998 to 1981-2010.
Maybe Robertson learns one day. Who knows?
Sources
NOAA
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land/all/1/1979-2023?trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1979&endtrendyear=2023
GISTEMP
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
JMA
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/list/mon_wld.html
UAH
https://tinyurl.com/4n4hnjtj (d c)
Robertson regards Binny as Binny van der Klown, someone who is far too comical to be taken seriously in a scientific sense. The analysis above by Mr. van der Klown is a testament to his Klownishness.
As we can see, Robertson has nothing more to offer than polemically discrediting and denigrating, as he lacks any ability to technically and scientifically contradict what I wrote.
*
He very certainly will never change his ‘opinion’.
Nothing new from an ignorant, pse~udo-skep~tical 360 degree blowhard thinking that
– time does not exist, let alone time dilation
– GPS does not require relativistic corrections to function properly
– our Moon does not rotate around its polar axis
– etc etc etc, the list is long.
He is partly excused because other ignorant people share his opinion on this blog, sometimes openly and sometimes covertly.
*
Anyone who credulously follows Robertson’s nonsense 100% deserves it.
Bindidon is anybody around here denying its warming?
So what do you think warming proves? that its warming?
test
NOAA reports that the planet just had its warmest October on record.
So far, 2023 is a record-warm year for the globe.
Yes, we got to see what two REAL forcings can do.
Now, we get to watch how the planet handles the abnormal warming.
Earth: “Hold my beer:”
DMT,
I suppose you’re also going to point out that the world’s population is the highest in recorded history?
Ah well, it’s a good thing that correlation is not causation, isn’t it?
On the other hand, humans produce a lot of heat and CO2. Which is more likely to result in hotter thermometers, do you think?
Just asking.
NOAA should send a delegation to Vancouver, Canada, the warmest part of Canada in winter. Over the past several weeks we have set records for cold weather in October and the last couple of days have been seriously cold by our standards. Meantime, the rest of Canada regard us as wimps because it is much colder in those parts of the nation in October.
The heat NOAA are talking about would not even be noticed in a living room heated by a furnace or electric heating. It is so imperceptible by humans as to be non-existent.
From the French newspaper Le Monde
” Hit by drought, the Mississippi River is invaded by salt and pollution
The flow of the world’s fourth-longest river has become so low that salt water from the Gulf of Mexico is flowing up its bed. Barge traffic is hampered and the economy threatened. ”
Oops? What’s happening in the US, this wonderful country, completely safe from the non-existent climate change?
Duh!!! When a river meets sea water, as in an ocean, there is a considerable exchange of fresh and salt water. Leave it to a French newspaper to mess up basic science.
Binny, you knucklehead, you wrote –
“Oops? Whats happening in the US, this wonderful country, completely safe from the non-existent climate change?”
Back in 900 – 1300 CE, there were mags droughts in North America which were far worse than anything since.
That’s climate change for you.
Are there laws against it in the US? You’re just being silly, because you can’t describe the GHE, aren’t you?
It wasn’t the mags I noticed as much as the CE in lieu of AD. I refuse to give in to the politically correct who insist on changing our nomenclature so we won’t offend non-Christians.
I don’t identify with any religious denomination, nor do I classify myself religious, other than in the strictest context of the word, which means ‘to be serious’. I’ll be damned, however, if I am going to allow any PCs to dictate to me re recognizing a courageous figure, Jesus Christ, who literally transformed the western world.
The very Romans who murdered him caved in circa 325 AD and became Christians themselves, under Emperor Constantine, who held the conference at Nicea which literally defined Christianity from that point on. Trouble is, he excluded any Christian who disagreed with him, which included Thomas, a disciple of Jesus who actually spoke with him regularly, and Mary Magdalene, who was a favourite of Jesus.
Nothing like a bit of arrogance when defining an authority, they even took it upon themselves to define God. It took a bit before Protestants got in on the act and defied Constantine’s Creed, leading to the multiple Christian movements we have today. I think Joan of Arc was the first Protestant.
On with the Crusades.
Ken
Nobody will disagree with you that the climate has changed naturally for 4.5 billion years (possibly excepting those who think the Earth is 6027 years old).
It is only in recent centuries that the climate has changed artificially.
It is called Anthropogenic Global Warming for good reason.
”It is only in recent centuries that the climate has changed artificially.”
thats an unsupported claim. To know that you would have to know how all natural sources have changed climate over time. And the models can’t duplicate even the 20th century changes.
Ken,
The problem is that climate is the statistics of past weather observations, technically speaking.
Quite apart from that, even if you see climate as general weather conditions (for example, Mediterranean climate), then you cannot definitely ascribe a shift from drought conditions to non-drought conditions, or the coming of the ice to the Antarctic continent, to the presence of a certain amount of gas in the atmosphere, can you?
How would you distinguish naturally occurring mega droughts from artificially induced mega droughts?
Any rise in temperatures associated with industrialisation, is pretty obviously due to man-made heat – unless you can show otherwise. Heat affects thermometers, not CO2.
What are your thoughts? If you mention the GHE, I expect you to be able to describe it in some way that reflects fact, of course.
“To know that you would have to know how all natural sources have changed climate over time. ”
Here’s the data.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/radiative-forcing-of-climate-between
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/02/humans-are-responsible-for-nearly-all-modern-global-warming/
All that is bogus Ent. See here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556460
E,
Forcings? What are they?
You wouldn’t be referring to a mythical “energy imbalance” implying heat can somehow accumulate, are you?
That would just be silly. If it were so, heat could be stored in a container during the summer, and released on demand during the winter! Free energy for all! Maybe you could provide details of these magical heat storing devices, but I doubt it.
You don’t seem to realise that it is completely impossible to prevent a body surrounded by a cooler environment from losing heat, and cooling.
That’s why the surface cools at night – it loses all the heat of the day, no longer receiving heat from the Sun. Off you go, produce an equation supported by your calculations – showing that the surface shouldn’t cool at night!
Or tell everyone that the Earth’s surface “should be” colder than it is!
Where did you come up with the concept of non-existent climate change? When was that a thing? Climate is always changing.
The part where most people fall off the wagon is the concept that climate change is entirely due to the false assumption of Carbon Dioxide emissions having a significant effect on climate. There is no artifact of carbon dioxide emission in any climate data.
As pointed out by Swenson, there has been droughts at least as severe as now that are evident in the geological record.
That Ken lacks humour is new to me.
Mais ce n’est pas grave.
What matters, however, is that educated people like Ken pay the least attention to constantly boastful people like Robertson and especially Flynnson.
Binny,
Are you appointing yourself as the arbiter of what matters to Ken?
Do you think people like Ken appreciate being told what to think? Of course you do – you are a typical SkyDragon cultists.
Let people think as they wish. Nature cannot be fooled – Feynman.
Just don’t expect me to pay for other people’s mistakes, or waste a good worry due to some doomsayers predictions.
Carry on.
Flynnson’s usual egomaniacal, irrelevant trash.
Simply discard.
Mags? Mega! Good grief! I’m slipping!
Again, a strong decrease in solar activity that will cause a strong ripple of the jet stream in the tropopause.
https://i.ibb.co/jDg6kcS/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
US National Weather Service Fairbanks Alaska
Heavy snowfall in the West and Central Interior tonight continues into Thursday daytime. Chances decrease for additional heavy snowfall from west to east Thursday afternoon and night. Winter Storm Warnings remain in effect for the expected heavy snowfall.
Five reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
Reason #5 — The bogus “CO2 insulates Earth”
Reason #1 discussed here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556460
Reason #2 discussed here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1557312
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
The bogus EEI, Earth Energy Imbalance, does NOT use units of energy. It uses units of flux. Flux is NOT energy. Whenever the cult mentions the bogus EEI, that means they don’t understand the basic physics.
Flux has units of “power per area” or “energy per time per area”. Power is not a conserved quantity, so certainly “power per area” is also not a conserved quantity. Flux “in” and flux “out” do not need to balance, and often don’t balance. A cone in space, with 5 times the area of its base, receiving 900 W/m^2 at its base will be emitting 180 W/m^2 at its final temperature. A flux of 900 W/m^3 does NOT equal 180 W/m^2. Flux “in” does NOT equal flux “out”.
To actually find Earth’s energy balance, energy in MUST be compared to energy out. “Energy” must be used, not flux.
But Earth’s energy seldom balances, as both incoming and outgoing energies constantly vary. That’s not a problem, as the laws of thermodynamics control temperatures. Weather is just one example of thermodynamics at work.
Yes its all bogus. I found the seminal source. Ohmura 2014 that compiles the literature and results of measuring the radiant properties of the atmosphere. Its not even close. For a started the 390w/m2 emission by the surface is bogus. Estimates of the various efforts since IPCC AR3 puts the actual emissions of the surface somewhere between 327w/m2 and 367w/m2 and equates albedo plus surface emissivity to be near 390w/m2 giving a true emissivity of the surface as being somewhere between .84 and .94
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281699569_The_Development_and_the_Present_Status_of_Energy_Balance_Climatology
And of course Trenberth which our self described AWG mavens around here kowtow to stated that his emissivity of unity (blackbody emissivity) for low to medium high clouds is just an assumption all designed to manufacture a CO2 greenhouse effect.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/78/2/1520-0477_1997_078_0197_eagmeb_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=pdf page 200
”The emissivity of the low and midlevel clouds is assumed
to be 1”
A aha moment…from your link….
“Energy balance climatology emerged from the 19th century thermodynamics and radiation research. Energy balance consideration offered an attractive intellectual ground to apply the conservation principle to a natural process. The climate system was often compared to the processes in a steam engine”.
I have been questioning the usage of w/m^2, a measure of mechanical energy, as applied to radiation. I am sure this has been queried by people over the years but I could find nothing on the subject till this statement in your link. It becomes apparent, that it emanates from people using analogies to mechanical entities where real work is being done.
Radiation is a form of energy but it can do no work or produce heat in that form. It must be converted to either mechanical energy or thermal energy to produce work or heat and even then, heat and work have nothing in common but an equivalence, they are never equal.
When surface radiation is claimed as w/m^2, the w/m^2 is a reference to heat loss, not the radiation produced. Even at that, the watt is a measure of mechanical energy, as in a steam engine, and not a measure of heat per se. Therefore, when back-radiation is claimed as so many w/m^2, it’s a lie because heat cannot be transferred from a colder region of the atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Some will argue that it doesn’t matter since the end result of the application of radiation to mass is the same. It does matter, however, when you are trying to analyze the process. With this kind of analysis it is critical to visualize the process accurately and not as a mathematical equation. When one gives properties to a form of energy that lacks the ability to have such properties one engages in misdirection.
***
“Although the achievements of the last 150 years are impressive, the present understanding of energy balance is far from sufficient. The main problem stems from the fact that the scientific community has not fully used the outcome of laboratory experiments and precision field observations”.
This was made apparent by Shula, who proved using the Pirani gauge that the effect of surface radiation as compared to conduction/convection was the opposite of what is claimed in the energy budget theory of Trenberth/Kiehle. Turns out that radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation whereas conduction/convection is 160 times better at cooling the surface.
Gordon Robertson says:
”With this kind of analysis it is critical to visualize the process accurately and not as a mathematical equation.”
Yes mathematical equations are Symbolic Idealistic representation (SIR) of something.
If you don’t have your Objective Physical reality (OPR) correct your equation is going to evaluate the wrong thing.
That might be OK sometimes but if you aren’t building, designing, engineering or inventing something. But to understand what you are dealing with to move to the next level of analysis of the OPR if of that thing you definitely have to a grip on what that is.
Students get very little of this kind of education. They learn tools and like giving somebody a hammer then everything starts looking like a nail.
I might go little further with the practical aspect.
Place a bowl of water on the surface. Now get one of the “equation experts” to tell you what the temperature of the water is!
They claim they can it do it for the Earth, of course, regardless of whether the surface is molten or -90 C. How hard can it be working out the temperature of a bowl of water?
I’m sure they will all claim that they can tell you what the temperature “should be”, because “energy in equals energy out”, doesn’t it? What a pack of dills!
bill…as an example, when I was in 1st year engineering, which is 2nd year university, I encountered a young Asian lady who had aced first year math and physics, getting 100% in each final exam. No small feat. To get through major exams like that without one single mistake is not something an average mind finds easy.
I was trying to make sense of the concept of a limit in calculus and I engaged her in a conversation about it. She freely admitted she had no idea what it meant, that she had passed her exams strictly on her ability to recognize and solve the problem solving techniques we had been taught all year. I tried a few other students and got a vacant look that suggested, “Why are you bugging me with this trivia”?
The concept of the limit is the basis of Newton’s derivation of calculus, yet you don’t need to understand it to use calculus to solve problems. In fact, you don’t need to understand any of the basic concepts of math or physics to solve problems or formulate theories about it. Alarmists have created a fictitious science based on the outright abuse of basic physics and mathematical concepts.
Of course, as you suggest, without a clear understanding of the basics you are simply groping in the dark. Ironically, it has taken years after my engineering studies to take an interest in the basics. In my own field of electrical/electronics, I have always taken a deeper interest in how things work but only recently have I begun to question physics in general.
I realize I am a pain in the butt to the more conventional but it is the lack of clear scientific rebuttals that drives me.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “I realize I am a pain in the butt to the more conventional but it is the lack of clear scientific rebuttals that drives me.”
You are not correct. I have given you several clear scientific rebuttals on many of your points. You reject most or ignore them.
Two glaring ones is your total lack of understanding of emissivity and what it means in radiant terms. You keep bringing up the Pirania Gauge as some sort of proof radiant energy is ineffective in transferring energy.
Another is your total lack of understanding of very basic chemistry of molecular vibration, what they are and dipole moments. I have given you many articles to read on the concept as well as an understanding of the branch of Chemistry that deals with IR Spectroscopy and how it relates to identifying the make-up of molecules. You ignore it all and then some. I want to correct your false idea that you are not given clear scientific rebuttals.
What drives you is an enormous ego (similar to Clint R and Swenson…genius in your own minds’ only…none of you has much knowledge of real science and usually reject it when you see it)
So says a guy who refuses to commit himself as to whether the GHE makes the Earth hotter, colder, or both simultaneously.
Some cultist. He can’t even say what he believes in.
binny…” time does not exist, let alone time dilation
GPS does not require relativistic corrections to function properly
our Moon does not rotate around its polar axis”
****
The reason I tend not to reply to your red-herring replies, with your fudged statistical analysis of temperature series, is explained by your failure to understand why I think time does not exist, that GPS units do not adjust for a fictitious time dilation, and the Moon does not rotate on a local axis. Even though I have explained each of these points in detail, and you have failed to supply evidence to the contrary, you persist in contradicting them based purely on an appeal to authority.
Your statistical analysis of anomalies and baselines is nothing more than a red-herring argument. You have completely ignored my point that no matter what the baseline may be for a particular series, if temperature anomalies are flat in one series they should also be flat in another series over the same time frame. If they are not, then what is the point of using anomalies?
For example, if NOAA uses a baseline of 1910 – 2000 and UAH uses a baseline of 1991 – 2021, if there is no trend from 1998 – 2015, both series should indicate that. In fact, they did, till NOAA retroactively fudged the SST to show a slight warming during that period.
Anomalies are calculated relative to a baseline and the degree of deviation should be relative in any baseline. That makes it clear that a flat trend over 15 years should appear as a flat trend in any baseline.
What you fail to grasp is that NOAA is furiously fudging the surface temperature record to show a linear trend from 1850 onward that simply does not exist. There has been warming but it occurred in steps, interspersed with periods of cooling and no trend.
The overall effect has been a warming of 1C since 1850, ON AVERAGE. That means some parts of the planet have warmed while other parts have cooled. Obviously, the parts that have warmed have done so to a slightly larger degree than the parts that have cooled.
Since most of this warming is a re-warming from the Little Ice Age, and not from anthropogenic sources, it makes sense that the Polar regions have warmed more IN A RELATIVE SENSE. There is definitely less ice in those regions, moreso in the Arctic than the Antarctic, since the Arctic is mainly ocean in the polar region and that produces far more warming in the 1 month of summer when much of that ice melts.
The northern polar region has warmed +5C in places but those regions move around from month to month and no one knows why. The only region in the Antarctic that has warmed is in the northern end of the Archipelago, which is closer to the tip of South America than it is to the South Pole. Therefore it is ocean currents warming that small region and not global warming per se.
Remember when he got confused about the Arctic sea ice and why every month except for September is irrelevant?
That’s not all Binny is confused about, in fact, it’s easier to list things he is not confuse about, but none come to mind. He is so confused that he lives in Germany while insisting on speaking French.
He thinks time is a mysterious entity that floats around and becomes associated with space. Problem is, no one can find that time because it exists only in the human mind. Einstein defined a 4-dimensional universe to describe a universe we experience only as 3-dimensional, and many accepted his fantasy universe simply because he was Einstein. Albert seemed to have forgotten that we humans invented time and defined it as a constant. Time as we currently know it based on the rotation of Earth which is a relative constant yet Einstein redefined time, based on a thought experiment, as a variable.
Binny believes that GPS systems need to correct for time dilation. He doesn’t get it either that the second is based on a constant and cannot vary. However, his big misunderstanding is related to how GPS systems work. There is nothing in a GPS system that can detect, measure, or deal with this mysterious time dilation. All the errors are due to relative motion of communications signals and inherent errors in the timebase, even if it is an atomic clock. Yes, there are errors in atomic clocks, albeit very small but cumulative.
Finally, Binny simply cannot understand what Newton said about lunar motion, nor apparently could the translator of his work from Latin. Newton said…
1)the Moon moves with a linear motion
2)that linear motion is bent into curvilinear motion by gravity
3)the Moon keeps the same side pointed at Earth throughout it’s orbit
Anyone with a lick of sense gets it that curvilinear motion is described perfectly by a car running around an oval track. At no time does the car rotate about its local axis, which is its COG, yet spinners like Binny insist that the car is actually rotating about its COG as it circuits the track.
To dumb things down, Clint introduced the ball on a string, to model lunar curvilinear motion. The ball is orbiting the operator and keep the same face pointed at the operator. It cannot rotate around a local axis because the string holds it in place, yet spinners like Binny insist the ball is rotating about a local axis.
Oh! How interesting!
Robertson being seconded by a spongebobbing ape…
When / where did I get ‘confused about the Arctic sea ice’, Ape?
And who decided that ‘every month except for September is irrelevant’, Ape?
*
I’m not confused at all.
And all twelve Arctic sea ice months matter, whether you like it or not:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PMvn4ydfFLWx9fEyJOv4dBVSiTnmFtTQ/view
Source
https://tinyurl.com/yc46bp29
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1554752
You still cant figure out that the Arctic is so cold during all the other months that there will always be new ice forming bingbong?
https://tinyurl.com/SpongeBobApe
” You still cant figure out that the Arctic is so cold during all the other months that there will always be new ice forming bingbong? ”
Of course I can, Ape:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
But… the spongebobbing ape still didn’t understand that if the Arctic was ‘so cold during all the other months’ the graph I posted above wouldn’t show these months showing all a decline since the beginning of the satellite era in 1979:
Jan. -0.43 (Mkm^2)
Feb. -0.45
Mar. -0.41
Apr. -0.39
May. -0.37
Jun. -0.48
Jul. -0.71
Aug. -0.77
Sep. -0.84
Oct. -0.83
Nov. -0.54
Dec. -0.44
Year -0.55
*
The ape is probably heavily influenced by those genial ‘skep~tic’s trying to tell us that since they discovered a flat trend for Arctic sea ice melting in September since 2007, nothing else can matter anymore:
https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2023/10/arctic-minquad-zero.png
That’s like reducing the lunar spin problem to the simple-minded ‘ball-on-a-string’.
*
What did you want to show with the link to comment 1554752? I hope you know it yourself at least.
If we’re discussing temperature in relation to sea ice, the months most relevant would be those where temperatures are close to the freezing point. When it gets super cold, water turns into ice. It happens because the tiny pieces of water slow down and stick together to make ice. You know, like the ice you see in your freezer. Is that clear enough for you bingbong? So whatever is causing the decline during the winter, spring, and fall months can’t be related to temperature (irrelevant).
When we talk about ice in the Arctic, we’re mainly interested in the months when temperatures hover around 32F. In really cold weather, water turns into ice because its tiny parts, called molecules, slow down and stick together. We see it as ice when this happens. If there’s less sea ice in the fall, spring, and winter, it might not be just because of the temperature. There’s something else happening, some other reason for the ice to be changing during those months. Is that clear enough for you bingdong?
Ape
” If theres less sea ice in the fall, spring, and winter, it might not be just because of the temperature. Theres something else happening, some other reason for the ice to be changing during those months. ”
It’s simply unbelievable that people like you come along and think that they can even begin to impress others with such trivial, silly-sounding sayings.
It’s hard to even laugh about it.
OK, what you write is less du~mb than Robertson’s and some others’ trash re lunar spin, time, GPS, time series and the like… but if you don’t have anything more to say, then why do you feel to do?
Its amazing that the seemingly straightforward explanation of how water freezes at 32F can be complicated for some! Im not sure how to simplify it further for you. x32F = melting. Hopefully, thats clear enough. You know what variables are right? Also, F stands for Fareinheit.
Ocean sea water in the polar regions freezes and melts at 28F.
This I know because I have measured it.
Still doesn’t take away my main point.
Spongebob Ape,
So you are saying the arctic sea ice only reflects light during September?
That’s ridonculus.
I’m saying any time the temperature goes below 28F, water turns into ice. It will always be that way. If declines are present during spring, fall, and winter, the main cause of the decline is not temperature, or at least not significantly. As you point out, light may cause melting, but that’s not temperature.
Robertson
” Your statistical analysis of anomalies and baselines is nothing more than a red-herring argument.
For example, if NOAA uses a baseline of 1910 2000 and UAH uses a baseline of 1991 2021, if there is no trend from 1998 2015, both series should indicate that. ”
*
Now you become even more ignorant than ever.
Why are you fixated
– on your personal invention of the necessity for surface time series to behave exactly like the UAH 6.0 time series for the troposphere?
– on NOAA, when I explained to you that not only NOAA differs from UAH but other surface time series like Had-CRUT, GISTEMP and the Japanese JMA as well?
– on this period 1998-2015, but keep ignoring the rest?
*
Look at the graph below, and try to finally learn, instead of thinking you know more than I about what we discuss here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jhAF_6xS8ZiSLlN6voeayJUc2RyxIggV/view
1. Do you see how good the LT/MT/TP fit is for 1998-2015?
Trends in C / decade
LT: -0.008
MT: -0.015
TP: +0.055
Surf: +0.134
*
But… if you expect from the surface to behave exactly as the lower troposphere for 1998-2015:
– why don’t you expect the surface to behave exactly as the lower troposphere for 1979-1997 as well?
– why don’t you expect the mid troposphere and the tropopause to behave exactly as the lower troposphere for 1979-1997?
Aren’t they, after all, displayed here in the form of anomalies wrt to even exactly the very same 30-year reference period – 1991-2020, like is btw JMA?
Trends in C / decade
LT: +0.161
MT: +0.087
TP: -0.056
Surf: +0.166
Why, do you think, does LT differ much more from MT and TP than from the surface during 1979-1997?
Do you see the green TP warming peak in 1982, due to El Chichon’s strong SO2 aerosols – a peak which totally differs from the cooling in LT?
*
” You have completely ignored my point that no matter what the baseline may be for a particular series, if temperature anomalies are flat in one series they should also be flat in another series over the same time frame. If they are not, then what is the point of using anomalies? ”
I didn’t ignore anything.
The red herring is on your side: it is the personal view of uneducated persons like you, who never downloaded any data from anywhere but endlessly boast with their pseudo-knowledge.
There is NO reason at all for surface to behave exactly like does the troposphere, exactly as there is no reason for the stratosphere or the tropopause to behave exactly like does the troposphere.
Why don’t you download the RATPAC-B 13-layer radiosonde data, and compare it to both the surface and the four UAH atmospheric layers, Robertson?
Answer: because you never would be able to do that.
*
But finally, I’m happy to see that you begin to learn: you at least stopped to compare NOAA data wrt 1901-2000 to UAH data wrt 1991-2020, claiming that NOAA is ‘0.8 above THE (!!!) baseline’, as you did last year:
” Take a look here at the NOAA global land and ocean bar graph and tell me ho there is a relationship between it and UAH data.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series
For one, NOAAs graph takes off on a distance linear trend from 1980 onward. The UAH graph is in a negative anomaly phase till 1997 then it is flat from 1998 – 2015.
The NOAA graph shows 8 years of global temps above 0.8C, including 2022, from 2015 2022, while UAH shows nothing close to that. UAH maxed out at 0.7C in 2016 and one year was 0.6C, the rest were 0.5C or below and recently, more typically around 0.3C. ”
I acknowledge the progress.
Data source
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
duplicate test…
This is what I mean, you produce these totally fudged graphs to represent surface temperatures which are nothing like the actual surface temperatures.
Here’s the actual Had-crut anomalies…
https://tinyurl.com/bdemwf7v
Note the angle of the straight trend from 1960 onward. It is very steep compared to the UAH trend from 1980 onward and is nothing like the fiction presented by Binny.
Here’s GISS…same thing…
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
NOAA….note their 0.33C/decade claim…
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series
However, the major obfuscation is the one presented by JMA, which Binny decided to use for some mysterious reason. I present this fiction only to illustrate the folly of trend lines. Note that the trend line for the period 1960 – 1990 does not even touch the data. A trend line supposedly represents an average of the data and that’s where trend lines can be terribly misleading.
JMA does not seem to understand the concep.t of baselines since they have superimposed a baseline of 1991 – 2020 on a data range from 1890 – 2023.
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
None of these graphs are remotely close to the nonsense presented by Binny, who creates his own fictitious calculations based on his fantasy world.
Check out this amazing satellite imagery, from our polar orbiting satellites. Do you see that wavy cloud street, extending from E Siberia to Norton Sound to the YK Delta, and down to the Aleutian Chain? If you follow along, that is approximately 900 nm miles, or 1035 miles long! It is very similar to “lake effect” snow showers which form in winter near the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/gPwsP2z/402904150-654052133574832-6897887011880077223-n.jpg
US National Weather Service Fairbanks Alaska
binny…”….educated people like Ken pay the least attention to constantly boastful people like Robertson and especially Flynnson”.
***
For the record, I have no issues with Ken or his POVs. I regard us as sharing similar sentiments re democracy and climate skepticism. Of course, I am on the same page as Mike Flynn, a great Australian orator.
Heavy precipitation is beginning in California, with snow in the mountains.
https://i.ibb.co/gMnc1bY/mimictpw-namer-latest-1.gif
So I’d like to take a moment to switch things up and see if I can get some really good statistical minds to weigh in on something that I have been discussing with a few of my numbers-minded friends…they were shocked ..some are still working the angle. It has to do with the Monty Hall Problem… many of you all know of it. Where the game show host offers a contestant 3 doors that hide 1 car and 2 goats. Contestant (C) picks one of the three doors (d) and Monty Hall (MH) shows C one of the two unpicked doors…which is always…and i mean always going to be a goat. M then asks C do you want to switch your choice or do you want to stick with your original d?
Situation1
The vast majority of the statistically minded folks all agree that the original choice of dn ( whether it was d1, d2 or d3) makes it a 1/3 outcome of winning the car. …and if the user decides to stick with that original dn choice they are ‘statistically’ locked into that. If however they decide to change their choice of d to the other remaining d,then their resultant outcome is now tied to 1/2. We all pretty much agree with this much on ‘paper’ but is it really ? This has always bothered me deeply since there are only 2 choices to be made after the first goat reveal so it should be 50/50…intuitively.
Situation2
Take this very similar situation where contestant2 C2 is only offered 2 doors by H. We all clearly see how this is a 1/2 proposition or one out of two.. or 50/50 to win the car….but in this case… C2 decides to flip a coin in order to decide their choice of D. That extra action, in this case specifically, does not at all change the overall probability of winning a car…. using a coin labeled D1 or D2 to decide on D1 or D2 instead of themselves picking the D1 or D2 changes nothing….if anything it truly randomizes the outcome if it is a ‘fair’ coin.
I don’t feel like I am off-base thus far with what has been stated. But now lets apply the facts of Situation2 to Situation1:
As is standard under Situation1…C1 is asked by H to pick a door C picks d2 and H opens d3 to show a goat ( H will always show a goat no matter what to leave C1 with only two doors left) . H asks C1 if they want to switch their choice from d2 to d1 and NOW C1 tells H that I am going to flip a coin to decide which door ( a different door or keep the same original door) The coin flip is a 50/50 fair coin and will pick the car 50 percent of the time ( or the goat if you really like goats but nobody’s judging) . the coin flip will land on d2 50 percent of the time…..or not…and after 100K simulations of this C1 will win the car 50 percent of the time.
the implication of this new twist shows that the original choice will be right 50 percent of the time…and not 1/3. But how is this ? How is it that just by flipping a coin before the final choice destroys the Monty Hall Problem…even if the coin flip picks the original door choice. Is there a scientific way of explaining this paradox in outcomes?
You certainly have presented the problem in a muddled fashion. Problems in statistics and probability usually follow a method and one of the themes related to odds is whether selections are done with replacement. In other words, if you are selecting from more than one element is the chosen element replaced in the mix after one is selected?
What you describe makes no sense. The contestant selects a door but you fail to say what was behind it. If it was the car, is that not game over? In that case we know there are goats behind the other two so why are you belabouring this? It is no longer a choice of anything unless you win by selecting a goat.
What you have here is fudged statistics as practiced by the likes of NOAA and GISS.
martin, the chances are the same in both situations. With two doors remaining, there is no advantage in switching. Both doors have the same probability — 50%.
There is an advantage to switching,
Imagine there were 10 doors, 9 goats and a car, you pick one, and Monte shows you 8 goats, now would you switch?
You’ve changed the scenario child. That’s because you can’t understand the simple problem.
Nothing new.
Yes I changed the problem to illustrate what is the better choice.
Another way to look at it is that before he shows a goat, which he always does, the probability of getting the car is 1/3.
After he shows a goat, the sum of the probabilities is still one, and showing a goat does not change the probability of the initial selection, so switching has to have a probability of 2/3.
Child, you have no more understanding of this than you do physics. Or orbital motion.
The two remaining doors have the SAME probability — 50% each.
I predict you’ll just come up with more nonsense, since you can’t learn.
Clint R,
I am amazed you don’t understand this.
Each door has a probability of 1/3, that doesn’t change when you reveal a goat behind one of the doors.
Maybe you could have one of your more intelligent friends to run a Monte Carlo simulation for you.
Or read this informative article.
https://statisticsbyjim.com/fun/monty-hall-problem/
I predict you’ll just come up with more nonsense, since you can’t learn.
Thanks for proving me right, bob.
You want to play the Monte Hall game with me.
I’ll always switch and you will always stay the same.
We’ll do it 100 times and see who has more goats.
The bet being the one with the most goats has to intercourse all the goats.
You want to try?
Simpler.
Play the game many times. 2/3 of time your first pick was a goat. He then shows you the other goat. In any of these cases, if you switch doors, you will see the car and win.
1/3 of the time, your first pick was a car, in these cases if you switch doors you see a goat and lose.
Thus by switching you win 2/3 of the time!
Neither of the kids can even understand the problem, it seems. No surprise.
Nate and bob, go 60 days without commenting here and I’ll explain it to you.
Nice try Clint R,
But you already explained how you got the wrong answer.
So I don’t need to wait 60 days for the wrong answer, and I am still waiting for your proof the Moon doesn’t rotate.
I proposed a bet first.
Take my bet and see who screws the goats.
“Take my bet and see who screws the goats.”
I wouldn’t bet – you obviously want to win. Just hope you don’t get too many ugly ones, although you won’t be looking at their faces, will you?
Here’s one for you, if you can get your mind off bestiality for a moment – does the GHE cause warming, cooling, or both simultaneously? Nobody seems prepared to say.
Swenson,
The GHE cools the stratosphere and warms the surface at the same time.
By radiative transfer of energy.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
The GHE cools the stratosphere and warms the surface at the same time.
By radiative transfer of energy.”
Except when night falls, of course, when the surface cools. Does the GHE heat the stratosphere then – by “radiative transfer of energy”? Don’t be a silly Billy, bobby!
Oh, and did the stratosphere heat up as the surface became cooler than four and a half billion years ago, when it was molten?
Tut, tut, bobby – you say that the GHE makes the surface hotter and colder at the same time – or different times? Or maybe you are trying to say that the surface gets colder, then hotter, then colder ad infinitum – just because! No GHE needed, is that it?
Pardon me for laughing at you. Maybe you can find some people to support you. You’re not the least intelligent person on the world, surely.
The GHE makes the surface warmer and the stratosphere cooler over periods of time longer than a day.
Does that make it clearer for you Swenson.
“Oh, and did the stratosphere heat up as the surface became cooler than four and a half billion years ago, when it was molten?”
Well, what made the surface molten, was a collision with the object that became the Moon.
How long did it take to cool after that event?
Not 4 1/2 billion years.
“Tut, tut, bobby you say that the GHE makes the surface hotter and colder at the same time or different times?”
Did I say anything like that?
Maybe get a Dick and Jane primer, might help your reading comprehension.
“Youre not the least intelligent person on the world, surely.”
No I am not, but you are giving that person a run for their money.
“The GHE makes the surface warmer and the stratosphere cooler over periods of time longer than a day.”
Four and a half billion years is a little longer that a day. The surface seems to have cooled. So did the stratosphere.
Go on describe this GHE of yours!
Of course you can’t, I know. Just taunting you.
Funny thing mikey flynn
You have no measurements of the stratosphere from 4 1/2 billion years ago.
Also funny is that you seem ignorant of the warming and cooling periods since then.
Tut Tut
Mikey Flynn,
“Go on describe this GHE of yours!”
First it’s not mine.
Secondly, repeatedly asking for your bowl of Maypo, when it has already been supplied makes you look like a four year old having a tantrum.
I can’t believe I’m agreeing with Nate on something. Of course, it is a simple math problem, not politics. He’s a bought and paid for leftist.
To fully understand the probabilities you have to go through every scenario. There are three doors. The prize can be behind any of the doors. Go through every scenario. Once you do you’ll see your odds are two thirds if you switch. I’m not going to write it out because it would take half a page.
No need to count anything:
> Pigeons repeatedly exposed to the problem show that they rapidly learn to always switch, unlike humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Yes Bobdroege there is an advantage to switching… BUT… if you were to flip a coin it has the same effect right? and that coinflip could pick your original choice 50% of the time right? and no matter what… if you simulated this 100k times you would still win the car 50% of the time. just pure statistics.
As I explained to my brother OIT and then MIT minded path…and all too logical… what if Monty showed you 100 doors…. and 99 were goats and 1 is a car… and you stuck with your original choice of door 33. you would be tied to a horrible outcome (unless you really liked goats)… it would always behoove you to change your pick on the final request….it puts you at 50/50 – to this we both agree…..
but you and I also agree that if they just flipped a coin on the final choice … it also produces a 50/50 outcome…. and you and I both know that if one was to flip a coin… it would pick your original choice half the time. (and the outcome would still be winning the car 1/2 the time)
Adding a coin flip changes the problem, however then it is
50% of the time gets 33% for sticking
and
50% of the time gets 67% for staying.
You are mixing up prior probabilities that don’t change when you add a coin flip.
Bob,
Put each scenario on a piece of paper. Start with three doors and put the prize in door number 1. Then have the person pick door 1 and open door 2. Then have him switch to door 3. Go, through all those scenarios where every time he switches. You’ll see that 2/3 of the time he picks the right door. Remember, the door with the prize is never opened by the host.
Bob… you are not following along… i too fell down that same path.. the coin flip MAKES it 50/50. you can’t offer anything that shows otherwise. Let me state what Chat GPT finally admitted… the bott was also very sold on the Monty Hall Problem and did not quite qrasp the nuance of the coin flip. it finally admitted that adding the coin flip to the final choice .. it made the odds 50/50… no matter what… even when the coin picked the contestants original choice. that to me bothered me…because as I explained to you before … if there were 100 doors…and I were to pick door 33… and stay with it through every reveal.. I know full well that i am locked into a 1 in 100 chance to win the car….( on paper) unless I switch in the end…. then I am 50/50 ..and seemingly better off… but as I added the ‘twist’ and chat GPT called it a twist of the original Monty Hall Problem… the coin flip does indeed make it a 50 50 outcome. I had it run several 100k simulations…. the math works.
but here is the issue I have…. if the math works out.. then the original Monty Hall Problem is false….. since 50 percent of the time the coin will indeed pick the car… and also it will pick the contestants original pick….therefore rendering changing ones choice irrelevant ..that is where I am driving this
The Coin Flip variant is already known:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty_problem
Thank you Cint R… I seem to have confused Gordon R some so I’ll let him re-read for comprehension… but I will add context here (just as you have done) it’s 50%… I think the article published by Marilyn VonSant (spelling ) that tried to nationally show that it is NOT 50% was wrong. As I am able to show how it is exactly 50% when an coin flip is involved…it is just pure statistics even if Gordon is not following the basics. v Maybe I need to un-muddle it for G R… a coin flip is one…or the other….not 2/3rds…or 1/3rds… it is ..over the lone run 50/50. and after explaining to chat GPT it too agrees… though it does say that what I explained is NOT the standard Monty Hall Problem since I added the twist of a coin flip before choosing.
What I don’t understand though is why does Chat GPT show a different outcome for 100K simulations of contestant 1 sticking with their original choice …and then later 100K simulations of contestant 1 using a coin flip for their final choice. the implications mean that the Monty Hall Problem is incorrect
Chat GPT showing a different outcome when you add a coin flip means the Marilyn solution is correct.
Bob… not so. Chat GPT ran 100k simulations of flipping a coin for the final choice of doors…. the outcome was 50/50.
This implies that the contestants coin flip picked their original choice 50 percent of the time. Now I get it… picking the ‘original’ choice half the time does not necessitate picking the car half the time. But giving that there are only two outcomes… a fair coin will even it out. there are only two doors… the coin flip makes it appear that there is a change of mind on which door to choose but in the end … it only happens half the time
It doesn’t matter if its a goat or a car. The ‘winner’ will not pay the taxes on the prize and goes home empty-handed.
Goatish is our government.
No need to ask a bit to get an incorrect answer, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/the-monty-hall-problem-there-is-no-correct-answer/
Somehow we tend to forget that the bot only reads what is written online.
Imagine if it stumbled upon what Bordo wrote!
Winds of gale force over the Bering Strait have to come from somewhere, right?
Well, that’s how the circulation blockage in the lower stratosphere over the western Bering Sea works.
https://i.ibb.co/0KXwD6H/402884394-655037196809659-2278927671386916883-n.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/zZshv0x/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f000.png
The strength of the solar polar magnetic field until November 7-November 2023.
https://i.ibb.co/rfWZFKD/Polar.gif
https://i.ibb.co/x322hrt/ises-solar-cycle-sunspot-1.png
In my opinion, the chart shows about a two-hundred-year cycle of activity.
https://i.ibb.co/FHcPBbD/ises-solar-cycle-sunspot-2.png
This study tells me that at least half of surface warming can be attributed to the UHI.
I’m no expert on data but I’m looking at GISS stations around nuclear plants. Mostly because I’m curious about license renewals, Limerick is a good one because it came on line around 86 and 90 for both units. The waste heat flux for 3 surrounding GISS stations varies from 500 W/sq.m. to 23 W/sq.m depending on distance. There has been about 1C of warming for this area. Now, they said it was because of increased GHG per the IPCC which IMO is lying to the NRC.
The NRC didn’t care. Just a blurb to make the environmental wacos happy. I can’t believe we have to put this crap in our science reports.
This study tells me that at least half of surface warming can be attributed to the UHI.
I’m no expert on data but I’m looking at GISS stations around nuclear plants. Mostly because I’m curious about license renewals, Limerick is a good one because it came on line around 86 and 90 for both units. The waste heat flux for 3 surrounding GISS stations varies from 500 W/sq.m. to 23 W/sq.m depending on distance. There has been about 1C of warming for this area. Now, they said it was because of increased GHG per the IPCC which IMO is lying to the NRC.
The NRC didn’t care. Just a blurb to make the environmental wackos happy. I can’t believe we have to put this crap in our science reports.
Sam Shicks
You might download
https://datasets.wri.org/dataset/globalpowerplantdatabase
and
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v4/
*
From the plant DB you could extract all US nuke and fossile plants, e.g.
USA,United States of America,Limerick,USA0006105,2277.0,40.2243,-75.5874,Nuclear, …
and give them an index describing their climate influence according to the plants’ installed power.
*
Then you could extract out of GHCN V4, for each plant, all US stations having a lifetime superior to that of the selected plant, and
– (1) located immediately in the near of the plants
– (2) located further away.
*
Finally, you compare for each plant the temperature trend averages computed for (1) and (2).
*
Better of course would be to have for each considered plant, in addition to the installed power, monthly time series of the energy generated :–)
Binny,
And if he doesn’t want to waste his time, what then?
Will you do it?
#2
Flynnsons usual, irrelevant trash.
Simply discard.
Binny,
How many people are leaping to obey you?
None?
Oh dear.
I already have. You might check out my twitter profile.
I have everything I need for all nuclear sites. EIA has a good link.
I actually work at one. I wish I could use nuclear plant meteorological data but it’s not mine to publish. Maybe someday the nuclear industry can produce an industry paper using site data.
Fun fact. If you took all the energy used in the USA 100 quadrillion btus per year and divided that up by a 1000 km x 1000 km area which is approximately the Eastern USA surface area, you get 3.346 W/m
That’s more than all the Greenhouse gas forcing to date which I think stands at 2.4.
Another interesting fact is that while a typical nuclear power plant may generate 1000 Megawatts or 1 Gigawatt of electricity and that electricity is distributed to an urban area, this only represents approximately 1/3 of the thermal power. 2/3rds or 2 Gigawatts gets rejected at the location of the power plant via cooling tower or lake. Most sites have more than one unit and all this heat is being rejected to rural areas. Not urban areas. I don’t see anyone at the IPCC talking about this.
Thanks for the reply but please post links to results (chart(s), data) here because I never had anything in mind with social media a la Facebook, Twitter etc etc.
*
Moreover, you mention something
” If you took all the energy used in the USA 100 quadrillion btus per year and divided that up by a 1000 km x 1000 km area which is approximately the Eastern USA surface area, you get 3.346 W/m. ”
that has few to do with what is discussed here: the direct influence of human activities on the temperature and humidity measurements 2 m above ground by weather stations.
This means that you may have to limit your analysis to horizontal waste heat transfer and leave the cooling tower effects to an analysis of the lower troposphere, where the waste heat they release rises to due to convection.
Your evaluation problem however still isn’t solved yet because many stations further away might be influenced already by densely populated cities in their near.
The best solution imho then is to
– download a US city data base, e.g.
https://simplemaps.com/data/us-cities
– calculate the waste heat generated by plants and cities
– add pseudo-city entries to the city database with an imaginary population whose waste would theoretically correspond to that of the plants
and then compare, for the last 50 years, the trends of stations near – cities
and
– pseudo-cities
to those located further away.
Bindidon & Sam, it’s any source of energy. Like you mention cities, towns, power plants. Also smelters, heavy industry would be an obvious addition.
Less obvious could be dairy farms. A cow produces 1400 watts of heat, for a sizable farm you have a very variable heat island.
If humans change the environment should that be included? In some ways it should because it’s deviating from the natural climate change. How much of a change does deforestation for a coal mine, as they have done in Germany, cause a change in the local data? Certainly the albedo has changed and the local humidity would also be affected. How about solar farms or reservoirs?
Just blaming CO2 seems like a lazy simplistic excuse.
Just a hint, off topic of course: when you write
” How much of a change does deforestation for a coal mine, as they have done in Germany… ”
I see, as a 70+ person living since 50+ years in… Germany, that you are not informed about what actually happens here with these stoopid brown coal (lignite) extraction areas, a nonsense that doesn’t come to an and due to both
– the Social Democrats, who want to save jobs despite all odds;
– the right-wing parties who, despite all odds as well, vehemently defend the prosperity of the electricity providers who operate the lignite-fired power plants.
*
1. It is not simply ‘deforestation’: the entire landscape is destroyed, including forests, fields, villages, farms, enterprises etc.
But…
2. All mining areas must be restored by law to nature after use by the providers, and this really happens (to my own surprise since decades).
An example
Years after begin
https://i.postimg.cc/vTysw-Wfz/South-of-Leipzig-1990.png
Years after end
https://i.postimg.cc/x1n3Nqy4/South-of-Leipzig-2010.png
Robertson’s newest trash and lies about my time series graphs
*
No, Robertson didn’t learn (as I recently wrongly supposed and willingly acknowledged).
And he can’t stop ridiculing himself with even more nonsensical, absurd posts in which he again and again discredits, denigrates and lies: he will apparently never be able to escape this pathological urge.
**
Some days ago I wrote about a comparison of UAH 6.0 LT Globe to surface series:
Japans Met Agency (JMA);
GISTEMP;
NOAA.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IiO9AyN6fwM3_miDFk15Tyby14Z-P7H1/view
It was really visible enough that my comparison focused on the sat era, and hence started in 1979.
*
But that didn’t stop ignoramus Robertson from denigrating this graphic in a completely incompetent way,
– by writing
” This is what I mean, you produce these totally fudged graphs to represent surface temperatures which are nothing like the actual surface temperatures. ”
– by deliberately comparing my graph with others that began in 1891, 1880 and even 1850, e.g. GISS V4:
https://i.postimg.cc/gJT840wc/GISS-V4-Globe-1880-2023.png
– and finally writing his ridiculous trash:
” None of these graphs are remotely close to the nonsense presented by Binny, who creates his own fictitious calculations based on his fantasy world. ”
How is it possible to behave so du~mb and ignorant, and to lie so brazenly?
*
Here is a graph comparing in anomaly form (wrt the mean of 1991-2020), four surface time series presented by Met Office, GISTEMP, NOAA and the Japanese JMA from 1900, together with UAH 6.0 LT from 1979:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13sYJaGwEpABSklsUUkmzisQ0mGKkilwx/view
{ We see here the reason why I added the less known JMA series to NOAA, GISS and Had~CRUT: JMA shows until around 1975 higher temperatures (probably due to their own COBE-SST2 data for sea surface) and therefore shows a correspondingly lower trend, what is usually welcomed by ‘skeptic’s.
Ten years ago, JMA was at the same level as UAH LT’s revision ‘5.6’ which was shutdown in 2017. }
*
We see also that for the sat era, UAH 6.0 shows for the LT warmer temperatures than the surface till around 2005, and lower ones later on: that is the origin of its trend being lower than that for the surface series (0.14 C / decade versus 0.18/0.19).
The lower troposphere is NOT the surface: this is visible when looking at the data provided since 1958 by balloon-borne radiosondes, which show a good agreement for both the surface and UAH’s lower troposphere / lower stratosphere series.
**
Whenever a dum~bie a la Robertson tries to discredit me: no problem, I have enough stuff at hand to reply.
What in my opinion however is disgusting is that such an arrogant and ignorant boy woefully discredits scientists – above all without having the least clue about what they do.
Look at the crap he writes…
1. ” Note that the trend line for the period 1960 – 1990 does not even touch the data. A trend line supposedly represents an average of the data and thats where trend lines can be terribly misleading. ”
I can’t recall having read such utter nonsense about trends.
Trends are computed worldwide in dozens of renowned engineering disciplines by using Gauss’ least square method which draws a path within a set of points (on a plane, in a room) such that the sum of square of the distances between points and path reaches a minimum.
What the heck could a trend (a rate of change) have in common with an average (a simple value) ?
JMA’s monthly time series from Jan 1891 till Sep 2023 has an average value of -0.454 C, and its linear trend for that period is +0.07 C / decade.
*
2. ” JMA does not seem to understand the concept of baselines since they have superimposed a baseline of 1991 2020 on a data range from 1890 2023. ”
Wow wow wow!
Imagine Roy Spencer being told by superteacher, superengineer Robertson that he doesn’t ‘understand the concept of baselines’ because he ‘superimposed’ a baseline of 1991-2020 on a data range from 1979-2023.
*
Yeah folks… that’s the superknowledge of superengineer Robertson.
And this poor undergraduate Bindidon really believed that baselines really would be computed out of that part of the data of time series located within a reference period, imagine!
Genius Robertson only needs to ‘superimpose’ them – c’est tout!
*
Freedom of speech, I love you :–)
Binny,
What are you on about?
If thermometers get hotter, it is due to more heat.
Where does this heat come from? CO2?
Maybe you have a graph which shows the origin of the heat, but I doubt it. Time for you to demand that anybody who disagrees with you is to be ignored!
Off you go now – issue your orders!
Dumkopf.
Flynnson’s usual, irrelevant trash.
Simply discard.
Binny,
You seem to be wasting your time. Nobody seems to be taking much notice of you. I wonder why?
binny…from [GR]… Note that the trend line for the period 1960 1990 does not even touch the data. A trend line supposedly represents an average of the data and thats where trend lines can be terribly misleading.
***
This was a reference to the JMA graph in which the trend line does not even touch the data but rises well above it. Of course, Binny completely missed my point.
If a trend line was a true average of data, it would follow the data and not be a straight line. Something like Roy’s red running average curve. When you apply a straight line trend to any data set, you misrepresent the true meaning of the data, unless there is a close one-to-one relationship between the data and the trend line.
As I have pointed out several times, if you apply the UAH 0.12C/decade trend to the UAH data, it misrepresents the data in places. However, UAH has no choice if they are to communicate in a scientifically accepted definition of global temperature which is based on straight-line trends.
During the range of UAH temps between 1979 and present, there have been lengthy periods during which the trend line does not represent the actual conditions. The trend from 1979 – 1998 does not represent the fact that the planet had cooled slightly due to volcanic aerosols. Following the 1998 EN extreme, the trend did not indicate the 18 year flat trend that followed, nor did it indicate the 6 year flat trend following the 2016 EN extreme.
Neither does the trend explain an abrupt 0.2 rise in the global average following the 1998 extreme and another rise following the 2016 extreme. A similar unexplained 0.2C rise occurred in 1977, leading to the discovery of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
” This was a reference to the JMA graph in which the trend line does not even touch the data but rises well above it. Of course, Binny completely missed my point. ”
Of course he didn’t!
Robertson is too uneducated, du~mb and opinionated to simply accept reality: trends are trends, and averages are averages. Basta ya!
And what is vile is that he never admits having been wrong, for example when intentionally misinterpreting my graphs.
*
This is by the way the umpteenth proof that Robertson never and never has been an engineer.
During my professional life, I dealt with a former colleague who behaved very similarly to Robertson – stubborn, opinionated, and also discrediting and denigrating everything he disliked.
But he would never have questioned the difference between a trend and an average, nor the usefulness of both.
A boasting ignoramus like Robertson would never have been employed by our company.
**
” If a trend line was a true average of data, it would follow the data and not be a straight line. Something like Roy’s red running average curve. ”
Robertson is so stubborn and incompetent that he solely rant against the linear trend in JMA’s picture, instead of looking at the rest:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png
If Robertson had a normally working brain and hence was able to look at the whole picture, he would have understood that the blue line is exactly the same kind of line as Roy Spencer’s 13 month running mean.
*
Anyone who credulously follows Robertson’s garbage 100% deserves it.
Whats your take on the mainstream surface temperature measurements? Do you think theres a significant bias associated with poor station placement, instrument change, and missing data? Can it be effectively dealt with through adjustments?
Regular winter in Scandinavia and Russia, severe cold in Scandinavia.
https://i.ibb.co/TmWrXC4/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-11-20-082759.png
The low from Britain is descending over western Europe, where it will bring more downpours, and Poland may experience snowstorms.
There will be waves of Arctic air west of the British Isles. Snow will reappear in the Alps. Some areas of the Alps may already have meter-thick layers of fresh snow.
On Friday evening, 17.11.2023, 1.2 meters of snow was encountered in St. Christoph am Arlberg.
Arctic Oscillation and Polar Vortex Analysis and Forecasts
November 13, 2023
https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation/
” Over the next two weeks, the predicted general pattern across Europe is troughing/negative geopotential height anomalies across Northern Europe and ridging/positive geopotential height anomalies across Southern Europe. This mostly zonal pattern will support
– normal to above normal temperatures across much of Europe including the United Kingdom (UK)
with
– normal to below normal temperatures mostly limited to Scandinavia the next two weeks. ”
Hopefully they’ll keep right. At the moment I don’t feel like these temperatures:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=02261&gid=02261&month=12&year=2023&metparaid=TNLD&period=4&ireq=true
https://i.ibb.co/9gnkw57/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
First day above 2C.
https://twitter.com/OceanTerra/status/1726342052961493328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1726342052961493328%7Ctwgr%5E487d31fb2c39ac5b16838b7d8dbc96924f79d16c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fclimate-environment%2F2023%2F11%2F19%2Fclimate-change-2c-temperature-heat-record%2F
Indeed a noteworthy mark. I expect UAH to be above 1C for November, and likely higher for December, January, and February.
+1C is not a bad bet.
We won’t see much drop until the warm air from the HTE cools and the El Niño fades.
ENSO is forecast to peak in January.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean
If this was a normal ENSO you would expect the highest UAH anomalies some time in the early months of 2024.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Yes based on that, I think 2024 will likely be warmer than 2023, although I have seen that some models are projecting La Nia conditions in the latter half of the year.
walter…I am more interested in the meaning of this fleeting warming. It certainly has nothing to do with a trace gas in the atmosphere.
Also, in my part of the planet, Vancouver, Canada, there is no sign of any kind of warming. Therefore, whatever warming is taking place is in an isolated part of the planet that has warmed enough to raise the global average by a trivial amount. Since Vancouver is in a region of Canada that usually has the mildest winter temperatures, it is saying something when temperatures here have been colder than normal.
Gordon Robertson,
I share your agreement with the observations. Here in Salt Lake City, I haven’t witnessed any unusual anomalies since the spike in July. November has been notably warm, registering approximately 6.4F above the normal range. However, we anticipate a significant shift this week as a strong cold front is expected, bringing maximum temperatures 15-20 degrees below the average. This is likely to result in a decrease in the monthly average. While the overall average will still tend towards the warmer side, it won’t be considered extraordinary by any means. For both of our regions, I am expecting a mild winter due to the strengthening El Nino.
Since the spike, I’ve been closely monitoring anomalies in the Arctic region, where long-term changes tend to emerge. Thus far, I haven’t observed anything particularly extraordinary (link provided below). While there was a spike in August, it remained lower than the peak during the 2015-2016 El Nino event and appears to be decreasing. Consequently, I anticipate the continuation of the 9-year cooling trend once the underlying mysterious phenomenon behind this subsides.
https://imgur.com/a/AovVQlv
The UAH reading for November obviously isn’t out yet but if Arctic sea ice extent is a reliable indicator, it has closely tracked with the last two Novembers.
https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover
walter… as I keep reminding anyone who will listen, our weather is almost totally dependent on the Earths orbit and its axial tilt and not on any trace gases in the atmosphere.
Any short-term changes in temperatures must be regarded as short-term changes in our planet’s oceans and atmosphere. As Clint has pointed out several times, the effect of dumping trillions of gallons of water into the stratosphere by the Hunga Tonga eruption, must be considered seriously as the cause of recent variations in global temperature.
Heavy snowstorm in northern Michigan. Frost in the northeastern US. Regular winter is already beginning there.
The polar vortex in the lower startosphere is broken up, and within a few days, winter will be calling across Europe for an extended period of time.
https://i.ibb.co/qrXTRdw/mimictpw-europe-latest.gif
Is eastern Australia threatened by drought due to El Nio? No. Is the Great Barrier Reef threatened? No.
http://www.bom.gov.au/radar/IDR00004.jpg?20231121102508
It’s hard to believe but Flynsson aka Swenson really managed yesterday to forget that he never and never was Mike Flynn:
Check out his comment on a guest article about DLR by Willis Eschenbach at WUWT…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/20/dlr-curiosities/#comment-3818580
*
” All matter emits infrared, if above absolute zero. If you want to call the IR emitted by the atmosphere “DLR”, “backradiation” or any other jargon term, fine.
Nobody at all has ever managed to describe the GHE in any way which agrees with reality.
For example, where may the GHE be observed, documented and measured? What is it supposed to result in heating, cooling, or perhaps both simultaneously?
Complete nonsense. The Earth has cooled since the surface was molten. The surface cools every night, losing all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths internal heat content.
No GHE needed. Just ordinary physical laws in action. ”
*
Many thanks to Willis Eschenbach for not having edited out this rare, delightful oddity.
He had anyway perfectly understood that snipping such nonsense away makes no sense at all:
” I said I’d snip such comments, but I realized that if I do, the authors will likely style themselves as martyrs rather than just common thread hijackers. So I’m gonna pass. ”
*
Yeah, folks. That’s Flynnson!
Bindi, are you seeking therapy for your obsession with celebrities? Fascination with celebrities is for kids.
Why not learn some science? Start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1559426
Willis reveals his ignorance of DLR by stating an argument against its transfer of heat from cold to hot, by its own means, does not contradict the 2nd law. He supplies no proof of that.
He then goes on to defend the greenhouse theory that trapping radiation in a real greenhouse is the cause of warming the greenhouse. No one has ever proved that trapped IR can raise temperature, the mechanism has never been explained at an atomic level. It is purely an assumption created by 19th century scientists long before the true relationship between radiation and electrons in atoms was implied by Bohr circa 1913, and subsequently proved.
Renowned scientist, R. W. Wood, in 1909, who was an expert on gases like CO2, doubted the theory, and being an avid experimenter, he performed an experiment to prove the heating of a greenhouse is due to all heated air molecules in the greenhouse being trapped by the glass. A recent experiment, by a computer programmer, claiming to have debunked the Wood experiment, has since been debunked by Nahle, in part, due to the use of plastic wrap in place of the glass used by Wood.
Two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheushner, examined the Wood theory recently and proved its accuracy, especially mathematically. G&T proved, using the equation related to heat diffusion, that a doubling of CO2 limited its heating ability to its mass percent in the atmosphere, about 0.06%.
That same 0.06% can be easily corroborated using the Ideal Gas Law. There is a vast difference between the 0.06% heating and the 9% to 25% heating effect claimed by climate alarmists.
Quantum fizzix of photons hasnt reached Willis Eschenbach yet
He still thinks he can add radiation willy nilly like beads on his abacus with no regards to wave length and temperature
Robertson once again shows the extent of his own mix of ignor~ance and arrogance.
1. ” Willis reveals his ignor~ance of DLR by making an argument against transferring heat from cold to hot on his own, which is not inconsistent with the Second Law. ”
Willis Eschenbach never wrote a single syllab about your stoopid, patho~logical fixation on heat transfer from cold to hot.
He didn’t write that anywhere. He mentioned radiation only.
*
2. ” No one has ever proven that trapped IR can increase temperature ”
Nobody has ever said that: This is also nonsense that results from your own ignor~ance and unwilling to learn anything.
It is simply stated that the infrared radiation intercepted – from molecules that are actually capable of doing so, not just in your ignorant brain – is infrared radiation that does not directly reach space.
But you, like your friends, de~ny the consequences of this fact (without being able to prove, as always, that it is wrong).
*
Some views of Willis Eschenbach I don’t share at all, e.g. about sea level.
But unlike you, I respect his technical skills, which you absolutely lack. 99% of what you post here is endless unscientific garbage.
And let me that you are a vi~le, despi~cable person when you insult Vaughan Pratt, a well knowledgeable, former Stanford University professor, as a ‘computer programmer’.
Compared to him, you’re a pea~nut at best. Even a trivial program you wouldn’t be able to write by your own, let alone complex software processing climate data.
It’s also an insult to Roy Spencer, who has visibly shown great respect for Pratt on his blog.
But who will be surprised at your insults?
That’s what Pratt is, a computer programmer. I was not ad hom-ing him, he programs computers.
Are you seriously that doltish?
And you are a vi~le, disgusting failure who pathologically urges in endlessly discrediting and denigrating so many people and their work because you never have been anything relevant in your life, nor were you ever able to successfully do anything.
You’re worth less than a pile of dirt, Robertson.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Youre worth less than a pile of dirt, Robertson.”
Well, that’s informative. Are you implying that you are worth more than a pile of dirt? Would that be a small pile, a large pile, or an intermediate size pile?
But enough ad hominism.
How are you going with finding a description of the GHE? If you can’t quite locate it, maybe you should look under a pile of dirt. Maybe a non-existent pile, to match your non-existent description.
You really are a funny chap. I laugh at you, anyway. Others may not.
Bin Sherlock Don
Aaah.
Finally, the dachshund comes here again.
Retourne bien vite dans ta niche, teckel, et ronge bravement to os…
I think Willis Eschenbach read the same 200 years old book Bindidong has and stopped learning right there.
Many 200 year old books make far more sense than either of them.
On the night of 21/22.11, the northeast of the US may experience severe snowstorms.
The polar vortex is starting to rage. It lets the low from over the Atlantic all the way to the Greenland Sea.
Air from the north is now free to flow into Europe.
We are seeing the first system deliver some healthy rainfall some parts of eastern Australia
This system will move through as the 2nd system comes up and energises further rain and thunderstorms in a broad area from NT down to SA, Vic and potentially Tasmania this will be Thursday til the end of the weekend as a trough moves through the eastern states and low develops east of Victoria.
A 3rd system is likely early next week and combine with the trough and easterlies to provide further showers and storms across the south east and east!
There is potential for a 4th upper system caught up in a trough not ruling it out yet first couple of days of December
This is what it means for further rain (not including the potential of the 4th system) for Australia.
Your Weather Channel – JWC
https://i.ibb.co/wgp9LqR/404277978-355623313815009-8953789954704894688-n.jpg
A cold front from the north is passing over the Great Lakes, which will bring a lasting winter to the area, with a possible “lake effect.”
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/H4bcTbZ/archive-6-image.png
testing failed post…I often move the reply down here while testing to save the trouble of trying to find the original post after it is rejected.
binny…In response to your point 1, Willis takes a shott in the article to which you link about people condemning heat transfer by radiation from cold to hot in the atmosphere. He actually stated that with his shott at the 2nd law. Can you not read?
As for point 2, the entire article by Willis is that back-radiation can warm the surface.
Air in a real greenhouse is claimed by alarmists to warm because surfaces in the greenhouse warmed by short-wave solar, in turn, emit short wave IR which gets trapped by the glass in the greenhouse. The inference here is that trapped IR is responsible for warming the greenhouse air. No alarmist has ever proved that possible and it makes no sense from a perspective of quantum theory or basic physics.
dup
R. W. Wood, on the other hand, proved that a greenhouse warms because the glass prevents all heated air molecules from rising. That theory can be tested by opening windows in the greenhouse, and doors, to cool it. In fact, that’s how the temperature is r.e.g.u.l.a.t.e.d in many greenhouses, by releasing a c.o.n.t.r.o.l.l.e.d amount of heated air molecules.
This theory goes all the way back to Tyndall, circa 1850, who rightly claimed the possibility of surface IR warming GHGs in the atmosphere. He thought it possible, based on the science of his time, that such trapped IR could raise the temperature of the atmosphere. He never proved how much warming would take place and he regarded any warming as beneficial, so he could not have expected a lot.
Bohr came along in 1913 and set all that theory on its ear. Tyndall, as well as his contemporary Clausius, were great scientists but neither of them had a clue about the reality of atoms and electromagnetic energy. They had an excuse, but you and your contemporaries don’t, when you continue to preach that a trace gas in the atmosphere can cause catastrophic warming and climate change.
That’s what Willis is doing. His braying about steel greenhouses et al only adds to his misunderstanding of the 2nd law. The recent link you provided to his article only deepens that misunderstanding and heat transfer in general.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/demographic-warming-humans-increasing-choose-to-live-where-its-warmer/#comment-1562760
That all you have, Binny, insults and ad homs? No science, just bad-mouthing?
The reference in part one to short wave IR should obviously be long wave IR.
No one that is reputable claims a greenhouse works by trapping IR.
They work by stopping the removal of heat by convection.
And we all know that.
So, explain ow the atmosphere ‘traps’ heat.
By absorrbing the infrared radiation and passing the energy to the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere by molecular collisions.
bobby,
You wrote –
“By absorrbing the infrared radiation and passing the energy to the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere by molecular collisions.”
Nope. Air purged of CO2 and H2O does not change its temperature at all. Expose it to appropriate IR, it gets hotter. Allow it to cool far enough, you can obtain liquid air, liquid oxygen, liquid nitrogen, etc..
On the other hand, rapidly compress any gas – oxygen, nitrogen, a mixture of the two, any gas at all – and you can raise the temperature to 500 C very easily. Even CO2 or H2O!
You don’t understand how any of this could possibly occur, do you?
Typical SkyDragon cultist – not all that bright.
Mikey,
All that has nothing to do with what I posted.
Bereft and bumbling Bobby,
What are you burbling about? Greenhouses? What’s the relevance to the oddly named “greenhouse effect”?
None at all – that’s what. Next thing you’ll be pointing out that heat affects thermometers.
No wonder the Navy didnt put you in charge of a submarine.
Tell me something I don’t know.
Greenhouses have nothing to do with the Greenhouse Effect.
The Earth was very cold several times in its history when glacier and ice covered everything almost to the equator.
Andres Celsius had 0 for the boiling point of water.
Do you know who changed the scale to have 0 as the freezing point of water?
How thermometers are calibrated.
Is that good enough?
The Earth was quite cold when it started to form.
How do you know, Bob?
Bumbling bobby,
“Quite cold”, was it? How cold was that?
Facts seem to indicate quite the opposite.
Real scientists even figure that the Earth is presently composed of more than 99% glowing matter. Who to believe?
Because it was formed from cold interstellar dust, at about 3K.
Bob,
Yes, interstellar material is often ~ 3 K
No, that is not the temperature when ‘the earth started to form’.
The formation of the earth occurred within the solar nebula, after the sun formed and the protoplanetary disk formed. At this time, the materials would have been relatively cool (say 200 – 300 K, but not 3 K nor 3000 K). Kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy (and some radioactive decay) would have quickly warmed the growing planetesimal, causing a molten hot surface.
Tim,
Thank you for your comment.
Bumbling bobdroege won’t believe you any more than he believes me.
He’s a strange lad.
Tim,
Parts of the Earth were formed before the formation of the Sun.
bobdroege,
And parts of your brain were never formed at all.
binny van der klown insists on insulting me because I claimed Vaughn Pratt is a computer programmer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughan_Pratt
“Vaughan Pratt (born April 12, 1944) is a Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, who was an early pioneer in the field of computer science”.
Duh!!!
He has taken several shots at me in the past for claiming NOAA was using only 6000 surface stations to determine global surface temps before slashing that number to less than 1500.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
From NOAA themselves…
“Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
Binny van der Klown lives in an alternative reality. In that reality, he tries to compare an experiment done by a computer programmer to an experiment done by a bona fide physicist, R.W. Wood, who was renowned for his expertise with gases like CO2, and preforming many experiments to boot.
Mind you, there is nothing to stop a computer programmer from disproving a world renowned physicist provided he knows what he is doing. Pratt apparently did not, substituting plastic wrap for glass. Wood had used glass and a plate of rock salt, which allows IR to pass freely, while Pratt substituted plastic wrap for the glass.
Lesson one. When attempting to replicate an experiment, replicate it. Do not change the parameters to suit yourself then claim the other wrong.
Lesson 2. When Linus Pauling proved that a 10 gram dose of vitamin C was beneficial to terminally ill cancer patients, a scientist at the Mayo Clinic reported no such result when replicating Pauling’s experiment. When Pauling called him to see what happened, the scientist, Moertell explained that he had used only 250 mg of C, which is 40 times lower than the dose used by Pauling. He also admitted that they had kept the patients on chemotherapy, even though they were terminally ill.
The lesson here is don’t listen to all the bs coming out of the medical community since much of it is similar bs to the Mayo Clinic lies.
The biggest threat to cancer patients is infection. Very quickly in patients undergoing chemotherapy, infection leads to fatal sepsis.
A good drug to maintain blood parameters is roxadustat, especially with diseased kidneys.
ren…one of the biggest problems with cancer patients is a lack of nutrition, especially vitamins like vitamin C. In our archaic medical systems, they prefer to poison a patient with highly toxic chemotherapy agents with the hope it will kill the cancer faster than it kills the patient. Meantime, they ignore the nutritional requirements of the patient because they believe that good nutrition interferes with their poisons.
During chemo treatment, patients are advised to stop taking vitamins and any foods that might interfere with their Draconian medicines. They don’t care that stopping vitamin C altogether leads to scurvy and that even the recommended daily allowance puts people in borderline (sub-clinical) scurvy positions.
Borderline scurvy + chemotherapy is a good combination for dying.
They could not give a hoot about nutrition or whether higher amounts of certain vitamins may be beneficial. Most doctors take a brief 6 month course in nutrition that is heavily laden with rhetoric and unproved assumptions.
Pauling and Cameron proved beyond a doubt that 10 grams of C a day greatly improved the mental and physical well being of terminally ill cancer patients. Some went into remission. A researcher at the Mayo Clinic claimed to refute their finding using a dosage that was 40 times lower while keeping patients on chemotherapy.
10 grams of C is considered a low dosage by modern standards, yet Moertell of the Mayo Clinic justified using a mere 250 mg, then claimed it did not work.
Duh!!!
Nutrition for cancer patients is a big problem. Severe depression also associated with chemotherapy almost completely takes away the appetite. The longer the battle with the disease goes on, the worse it gets, as the patient loses hope for a quick cure. Many people could live longer if it weren’t for depression and the lack of nutrients in the body.
That is what Pauling and Cameron reported in their study, that terminal patients regained hope and a sense of well-being hence lived longer. I would not think it worth living longer if a patient was in pain, depressed, and suffering. The again, the body is a wonderful mechanism when it comes to the desire to survive.
In one case, a patient not only felt better, he went into remission. After he regained stability, he stopped taking the extra vitamin C and the cancer returned. When the dosage of C was re-instated, he went back into remission. That is only one case but it is clear the vitamin C had something to do with it.
It follows that such treatment should be investigated but the medical establishment, for some reason, has been against the work of Pauling in the medical field even though he did 10 years of work in the field for the US government.
Another important fact is that the 10 grams of C was initially given by an IV transfusion, which allows the C to act much more quickly and effectively. Pauling stated at one time that it’s not so much the amount of C you take but the level of C you maintain in your blood that counts. Some people have taken over 100 grams via IV to treat poisons and other maladies.
I have never taken C intravenously but I do claim that, based on my experience, it works well against the flu and common cold. While taking high dosages of C, I have never encountered the debilitating effects of fever and general malaise associated with the flu or a cold. I can feel off enough to be aware that something is going on, like a swollen throat, but all the symptoms I formerly associated with the flu or cold are missing.
Go carefully.
Maximum recommended Vitamin C intake is 2g/day.
It’s not actively toxic, but high doses lead to abdominal pain, cramps, diarrhea ,headaches, nausea (and possible vomiting) and sleeping problems.
C’mon, Bordo.
For the nth time, computer scientist.
Not programmer.
Same thing wee willy. I took a year of computer science as part of my engineering studies and all we did was program. You cannot study computer science unless you can program and computer science at any level is about programming a computer.
Binny was trying to pass off the expertise of Vaughan Pratt, a computer scientist, as being comparable to that of R. W. Wood, a true physicist with such renown that Neils Bohr consulted with his expertise on sodium vapour gas. I was trying to point out that Pratt is essentially an amateur compared to Wood, much as the rest of us here are amateurs compared to Roy and John Christy on meteorology or climate science.
Wee willy…you cannot communicate with a computer unless you use a program but first you must learn the language in which a computer interacts with people, which is based on the ASCII code. Computer scientists/programmers tend to speak about high level languages like C, C+, Fortan, etc. but even a computer cannot understand those languages. It cannot even understand lower level languages like Assembler, or even machine code, written in hexadecimal.
A computer can only understand voltage, either +3.3 volts or +5 volts. or an absence of voltage, equivalent in binary code to a 1 or a 0 respectively. All higher level languages must eventually come down to 1s or 0s and a computer can only understand codes of voltage/no voltage related to voltages representing those binary codes.
Once you have your chosen language and use it to create a program, somehow that language must be translated to 1s and 0s, but then you have the problem of converting those digits to voltages or 0-level voltages. We have an entire subset of electronics, digital electronics, that deals with such a conversion.
In the old days, that was done by using your 1s and 0s in a machine that punched holes in a card. The cards were then fed sequentially through another machine in which light was shone through the cards as they passed by. Hundreds of those cards were required for even a small program. The on/off condition produced by light shining through the cards was converted to voltages by electronics in a another machine and the resulting voltage stream was fed to a computer for processing. Today, in digital electronics, such light pulses are used all the time to create the voltages equivalent to the 1s and 0s in a program.
Today, we use magnetic material to store the 1s and 0s on a hard drive or USB stick. Even though we store the bits as individual magnetic poles on a disk, it is not convenient to think in 1s and 0s, so we group them in units of 8 bits, a byte, or multiples of a byte. But even that is unwieldy, so we reference all binary data in units of 16, in the hexadecimal language, which is stored as bits from 0 to 15 (0 to F).
The letters A to F were introduced to cover values beyond decimal 9. So Decimal 9 in binary is 1001. Decimal 10, or A, is 1010, B is 1011, C is 1100, D is 1101, E is 1110, and F is 1111.
This is where the ASCII code comes in. Every number and every letter of the alphabet, in fact, every key on a keyboard, is covered by codes. For example, capital A = Ascii code 0x41 = binary 01000001. Lower case A = a = hex 0x61 – binary 01100001. The number 1 = hex 0x31 = binary 00110001. If you replace all those 1s and 0s with voltages, the computer understands it because it is designed to understand them. It has logic built into its core to decipher those voltages and to deal with them accordingly.
What computer science deals with is ways of making such a system more efficient. When you deal with a language like C++, which is nothing more than words that represent combinations (codes) of the 1s and 0s referred to above, but which needs to address far more complex issues in writing programs, like modularity, you are really dealing with programming a computer. Separating programming from computer science is ingenuous.
that should be Fortran not Fortan.
> Same thing
“Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.” -Edsger Dijkstra
C’mon Willard,
Computer scientist, programmer, who cares?
Sloppy amateur attempt at experiment to overturn physical laws.
Didnt work.
Boo hoo.
Mike Flynn,
Attempt?
Overturn?
Physical laws?
What are you braying about?
"C’mon, Bordo.
For the nth time, computer scientist.
Not programmer."
…and believer that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. So, he’s at least got something right.
The Backradiation Believer chimes in.
We both believe back-radiation exists, of course. We just both know that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again, once again misrepresenting what Vaughan said.
He said, "what it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should", referring to the Seim & Olsen experiment.
Leave it to DREMT to find someone somewhere on the internet with some sort of peripheral expertise who says something vaguely pleasing to him, and claim he must be the ultimate authority.
Its what he does.
Gaslighting Graham quote-mines again:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98571
While backradiation may not suffice to give a full picture of the greenhouse effect, Vaughan’s insistence on taking lapse rate into account leads nowhere if backradiation did not exist.
Gaslighting Graham is still trying to get into another you-and-him-fight game without understanding the basics.
Yeah, this was about ten years later than those comments.
In a recent reply, and many others, Binny spent 7/8th of the reply casting insults and ad homs. This is surely the sign of a brain that is limited in it’s ability to understand and apply science.
The gist of his reply is that he understands trends and averages even though he fails to grasp the import of a trend line missing data points by a long shot, as in the JMA graph. I am not just talking about a trend line through data missing points since that is the point of a trend line, being an average of data points. However, when used over a range of years, and that trend line completely misses certain data points which are all above or below the line, we must become suspicious as to the meaning of the trend.
A good example of what I mean can be found here on the UAH temperature series graph. The 0.12C/decade trend begins roughly at -3C in 1979 and progresses linearly to about +3C in 2023. It gives the impression of a gradual warming from 1979 – 2023 but that is far from the actuality.
The first 20 years from 1979 – 1997 is tricky because as John Christy pointed out, it contains a cooling from volcanic aerosols. He estimated the warming at about 0.09C/decade over that 20 years. Then John noted, a ‘true’ warming appeared with the 1998 super El Nino. Following that natural event the global average has seldom dipped below the baseline. Furthermore. a sudden 0.2C warming appeared in 2001 before flattening out till around 2015, when another super-EN appeared in early 2016.
Following that super EN, the trend once again went flat for 6 years. There are unexplained sudden spurts in the arming that have nothing to do with a linear trend.
Of course, in a simpleton’s mind, like that of Binny, who relies solely on number-crunching in a calculator or a spreadsheet, none of this scientific observation makes sense. Science is a foreign language to Binny, a Frenchman who lives in Germany.
This is the actual BOM rainfall forecast for the next seven days! Heavier falls in storms likely!
https://i.ibb.co/m5zB6Jb/404669819-356104980433509-5038276970833149535-n.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/19dkHCY/archive-2-image.png
An Arctic front in the Midwest will bring winter to the US. Winter in the US and Europe will begin on Nov. 25.
https://i.ibb.co/ctw6K1W/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-11-23-085127.png
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/6RNYNxN/archive-8-image.png
https://climateaudit.org/2023/11/24/mbh98-new-light-on-the-real-data/
Manns Other Nature Trick
Tricky boy, that Michael,Mann.
No wonder he has been characterised as a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.
It looks like he is simply a liar. Nothing he says should be taken seriously.
For some reason, he believes only a couple of trees in Canada can be an accurate temperature proxy for the entire Northern Hemisphere. And climate scientists defended him. And thats not even taking into account the fact that there were tree ring datasets (Briffa) that diverge showing sharp cooling past 1961.
ThE rEsUlTs HaVe BeEn VaLiDaTeD! > R3tarded f$cks.
Says a lot about climate science.
> only a couple of trees in Canada
Says a lot about your grasp of the issue, Walter.
Thank you for your kind words.
The trees from Quebec and California are heavily weighed into the proxy analysis.
Not really:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/03/mcintyre-mann-and-gaspe-cedars.html
Always “remember Yamal,” if you know what I mean:
https://climateaudit.org/category/proxies/yamal-and-urals/
Thank you for sharing those links, Willard. I’ll delve into them. I must acknowledge that my previous response was somewhat impulsive we all have those moments, don’t we? That being said, it’s crucial to address other issues, such as the calibration challenges within the surface temperature record when compared to proxy data.
One of which is the absence of assigned uncertainties in the surface temperature record, despite well-known complications like Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects, instrument changes, and gaps in data.
Additionally, there’s a notable issue with calibrating tree ring measurements, as they are influenced not only by temperature but also by factors such as precipitation, humidity, and CO2 concentration a realization that struck me as quite enlightening. This multifaceted influence contributes to the divergence observed between Briffa’s and Mann’s series. If I’m not mistaken, this divergence was acknowledged among the individuals involved in the Climategate emails.
> One of which is the absence of assigned uncertainties in the surface temperature record,
That is false, Walter:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/dyk/global-precision
As for UHI, read the main post again.
None of this matters for the current revival of the Serengeti strategy.
Since you seem to appreciate legal affairs, you might also like
https://climatecasechart.com/case/wegman-v-mashey/
Why are people still obsessing over the first MM paper, after dozens of more recent papers replicated and refined his basic findings?
MM derangement syndrome?
I agree that MM is deranged (as well as being a liar).
Nate,
Have you read Mark Steyn’s book?
walter… whatever happened to that case when Mann sued Steyn? Last I heard, Mann had called climate historian, Naomi Oreskes, because the judge had dismissed all but one of the witnesses Mann had offered.
Of course, Oreskes is famous for her study of 1000 scientists who were asked if anthropogenic warming was real. Apparently, 98% replied yes, but heck, even the hardest skeptic would have to answer yes to such a loaded question. Even I would have to concede that the 0.06% warming caused by CO2 is real.
She is also famous for stating that consensus is a valid form of science.
The question that was not asked was what is causing the warming.
Gordon,
Michael Mann was foolish enough to propose Naomi Oreskes as an expert witness in his support.
The judge dismissed her preposterous and pretentious claims to expertise of any sort at all.
The judge’s published reasons for the somewhat unusual rejection of Naomi’s supposed “expertise” makes for interesting reading. As do his reasons for rejecting another five of Mann’s “experts”. The judge accepted one of seven, IIRC, so he can’t be accused of complete bias.
Mann had a cunning legal strategy when he lost his last case – just refuse to accept the decision, refuse to comply with the court’s order, and flee the country.
Probably why Mann is characterised as a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat – and a role model for GHE believers!
“Probably why Mann is characterised as a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat and a role model for GHE believers!”
By climate science deniers.
Basically anyone who has been successful in climate science or in increasing awareness of it, needs to be knee-capped.
But not by any of the official investigations.
But such facts are easily be ignored by the Ignorati.
The most recent information I found (first link below) states that the lawsuit against Steyn & Simburg is still ongoing. Despite it being over 11 years, the legal proceedings persist in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
As you rightly note, it’s widely acknowledged that an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations will lead to some degree of warming. However, Orsekes and Cook took an extreme stance by suggesting that a majority of scientists believe CO2 is responsible for MOST or ALL of the warming since 1850. Science doesn’t operate by consensus, and historically, the most revered scientists were those who questioned prevailing views in their fields. Unfortunately, the climate change discourse was stifled early on by these individuals, making it difficult for anyone to question the narrative without facing serious consequences. It’s extremely like that the 97 percent consensus was employed as a propaganda tool.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/michael-manns-lawsuit-stumbles-on/
Nate,
You wrote “When you cant take down the science with facts, attack its messengers.”
What .science would that be? Social science? Political science? Domestic science? Climate science?
I hope you don’t think that banging on about the statistics of historical weather observations could qualify as science in any rational universe, do you?
If you don t believe that Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, you are perfectly free to do so. You can believe in the Tooth Fairy as well, if you like.
It’s a free world.
“If you don t believe that Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, you are perfectly free to do so. ”
Swenson makes clear that this issue is one of beliefs, not evidence.
Nate, as I said, if you don’t believe that Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, you are perfectly free to do so.
The facts are that Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.
If you wish to believe otherwise, of course you are free to do so.
If you want to believe that you can describe the GHE in any way that reflects reality, you are also free to do so.
Go your hardest. Dont blame me if you wind up beclowning yourself.
“The facts are that Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.”
Nope, you show none. So no credit. Just slander.
What MM did was not science. It was propaganda disguised as science and typical of most of the propagandist who post here.
What MM did was not science. It was propaganda disguised as science and typical of most of the propagandists who post here.
MM05a or MM05b?
Another fact-free post from Stephen.
“dozens of more recent papers replicated and refined his basic findings?”
using the new data uncovered by this article?
Mann was a very recent Ph.D grad when he did the Hockey Stick study and it was subsequently refuted. He subsequently went on to do some seriously questionable science, like fudging a study of Antarctica to show warming, a serious joke.
However, it’s his character that is now in question. That began with his involvement behind the scenes as revealed in the Climategate email scandal. Among other things, he…
1)was identified as the author of The Trick, a devious means of hiding declining temperatures, which the head of Had-crut, Phil Jones, bragged about using.
2)was interfering in peer review, urging his cronies to blackball reviewers who did not cooperate with their alarmist agenda.
3)engaged in misogynist behavior against Judith Curry when she decided to switch sides.
“And it was subsequently refuted.”
False. It was subsequently replicated, many times over.
Look you guys, I get it.
When you can’t take down the science with facts, attack its messengers.
https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/32886/1/PAGES2k_NGEO_inpress.pdf
If your arguments predominantly rely on appeals to authority, could you elaborate on why scientists with impressive credentials, as featured in Steyn’s book, concluded that the hockey stick graph was deemed as “fraud,” labeled as “the worst study ever,” and considered “an embarrassment to science,” among other criticisms? Many of these scientists were not classified as ‘deniers’.
Nate wants fact.
The US government appointed the National Academy of Science and an expert statistician to review the hockey stick study. They did so after Canadians MacIntyre and McKitrick hounded the IPCC to review the study and were stymied by an IPCC poobah, Susan Solomon, who essentially refused to be involved. She shuffled it off to Working Group 9, which was loaded with Mann’s cronies.
NAS found several issues with the study claiming it did not apply to 1000 years as Mann et al had claimed. They set a lower limit of 1600 and the IPCC subsequently changed their base to 1850. However, the main fault found by NAS was the 20th century where the blade was formed. Mann et al had used only pine tree bristlcone as their proxy and NAS ruled that inadmissible. Without the 20th century, the study had no foundation for their claim.
The statistician, Wegmann, agreed with the critique of M&M and added points of his own. He claimed that Working Group 9 of the IPCC, appointed to oversee the study, were nepotic. They cited only members of their immediate community and were all friends of Mann. Therefore their support of Mann et al was nepotic.
Any studies to which you refer that supported Mann et all came from friends of Mann.
The only comeback against Wegmann was a claim by Bradley of MBH that Wegmann had plagiarized him.
Duh!!! and Double-Duh!!! Wegmann was investigating him, an investigator appointed to do so. He had every right to quote him without acknowledging the source since, as Wegmann claimed, he had already cited him.
This is how dumb the MBH crew were. They not only botched the study they had no comeback against Wegmann and resorted to claiming plagiarism.
> The only comeback against Wegmann was a claim by Bradley of MBH that Wegmann had plagiarized him.
Wegman. Like here:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/?s=wegman
The claim is false:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2011/06/effect-of-selection-in-wegman-report.html
“why scientists with impressive credentials, as featured in Steyns book, ”
Such as?
Again, official investigations found no wrong doing.
His basic findings have been replicated.
You guys can’t undo the science, so your only option is to attack the person.
“Nate wants fact.”
But then what is offered up by Gordon? A diatribe with no links to sources.
So not fact.
Mann is quite obviously a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat.
If I have hurt his feelings, he could always sue me.
If he won, I could just follow his example, and refuse to comply with the court’s ruling.
That would be fair, wouldnt it?
“If your arguments predominantly rely on appeals to authority”
Not at all. I showed you a recent review article of many replicating papers. The findings in it confirm the hockey stick.
Mann gets a lot of attention for various reasons. He has his supporters and his detractors. One thing that cannot be denied is the fact that he is advocate. He cannot be taken seriously when he is interviewed on television and claims the “we” can and must stop climate change. He has dedicated his life to climate science and must know that 90% of emissions are outside the USA. Those outside emissions are beyond our control, and almost certain to increase. He is clearly advocating for policies that cannot have any real effect on climate except to throw everyone in this country into a panic. Since his level of activism is both dishonest and incompetent, one has wonder what he is really up to.
But Mike. But advocacy. But China. But alarmism. But activism.
Tim is having a slow one.
“Mann gets a lot of attention for various reasons.”
Because the science that grew out of his work has proven too difficult to take down.
Nate, have you ever served on a jury? The Judge will instruct the jury on how to evaluate evidence. One instruction is very important: If you believe a witness has lied, you may disregard their entire testimony.
Tim S,
I take the same view with a textbook. If I find factual errors early on, I tend to take the authors subsequent words with a large grain of salt.
Michael Mann is a proven faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat. Why anybody would believe anything he says without thorough verification is not really a surprise to me. There are. many gullible and unintelligent people around. People who passionately believe in a GHE that they cannot even describe in any way that reflects reality, for example.
No science involved.
I have served on a jury, and it was quite interesting. But as usual Tim, your point lacks specificity.
“Michael Mann is a proven faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.”
Shocking, more fact-free slander from Swenson.
You are fired from this newspaper.
Nate,
You wrote –
Michael Mann is a proven faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.
Shocking, more fact-free slander from Swenson.
You are fired from this newspaper.”
You don’t have a newspaper, only delusions of grandeur. You are completely impotent as far as I am concerned – which makes you a fantasist for believing otherwise.
If you don’t believe that Michael Mann is a proven faker, fraud, scofflaw, and deadbeat, maybe you should ask him to sue me! Although a guy like Mann, who claims he didn’t realise that he didnt actually win a Nobel Prize is unlikely to know the difference between slander and defamation – or libel for that matter!
Oh well, maybe your imaginary newspaper can use some imaginary funds to fund an imaginary lawyer for an imaginary “climate scientist” to defend his imaginary reputation.
How does that sound?
You don’t need to thank me.
Another opportunity to present evidence to support your slander wasted.
Your journalism degree is being revoked!
bobdroege wrote
“Funny thing mikey flynn
You have no measurements of the stratosphere from 4 1/2 billion years ago.
Also funny is that you seem ignorant of the warming and cooling periods since then.
Tut Tut”
I appreciate bobby’s flattery through imitation (I admit I’m shallow – I accept flattery from anyone), but I have to point out that one does not have to actually experience something to accept its reality. Geophysicists, geologists, physicists and the like believe the planet to be more than 99% glowing hot material. My personal observations and experience give me no reason not to accept this speculation.
bobby has stated that the Earth’s surface was never molten, but actually formed in a “quite cold” state. If bobby wants to believe that, good for him. He also implies that the planet, or the surface, or something, has had ill-defined “warming and cooling periods” since the formation of the “quite cold” surface or planet – or something.
The extent, and timing of these “warming and cooling periods” is left to the imagination. The reasons are no doubt buried in bobby’s ever changing fantasy.
I suppose this is all about blundering bob’s belief in some GHE – which seems to be responsible for “warming and cooling periods” applying to something or other – of unknown duration, extent, or magnitude.
Perish the thought that bobby can actually explain what he is trying to say. No SkyDragon cultist ever manages to express beliefs in any way that can be examined for truth.
That’s often the nature of cults – or religions.
Mikey,
“bobby has stated that the Earths surface was never molten,”
Why do you lie?
I never said the Earth’s surface was never molten.
“The extent, and timing of these warming and cooling periods is left to the imagination.”
That’s not true either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Shows there have been warming and cooling periods.
Bumbling bobby,
Wriggle away. Here’s what you wrote – “The Earth was quite cold when it started to form.”
I know, you are going to claim it heated up to the point where the surface melted. Sure, bobby, I won’t even ask how this was supposed to happen.
The fact remains, the surface has cooled since then. Your implication that the surface has cooled, warmed, cooled and warmed again (at least) for no reason that you can advance, is just another reason you were never offered command of a submarine.
You don’t agree with me saying “The extent, and timing of these warming and cooling periods is left to the imagination.”, and provide a couple of irrelevant links which obviously do not support you – otherwise you would have quoted something that supports your disagreement.
Of course , the “snowball Earth fantasy was proposed by Carl Sagan, trying to wriggle out of the fact that the Earth’s surface has cooled, liquid water exists and so on. Quite impossible – if a planet heating GHE has existed in the past.
In relation to Milankovitch cycles, their effect is speculative. The extent, and timing of these warming and cooling periods is left to the imagination.
I don’t even need to look at your your links to know that they support what I said.
You lose again.
Mikey,
Why do you lie about what I post.
Can’t make your argument using truthful statements?
Bumbling bobby,
Wriggle away. Heres what you wrote “The Earth was quite cold when it started to form.”
I know, you are going to claim it heated up to the point where the surface melted. Sure, bobby, I wont even ask how this was supposed to happen.
The fact remains, the surface has cooled since then. Your implication that the surface has cooled, warmed, cooled and warmed again (at least) for no reason that you can advance, is just another reason you were never offered command of a submarine.
You dont agree with me saying “The extent, and timing of these warming and cooling periods is left to the imagination.”, and provide a couple of irrelevant links which obviously do not support you otherwise you would have quoted something that supports your disagreement.
Of course , the “snowball Earth” fantasy was proposed by Carl Sagan, trying to wriggle out of the fact that the Earths surface has cooled, liquid water exists and so on. Quite impossible if a planet heating GHE has existed in the past.
In relation to Milankovitch cycles, their effect is speculative. The extent, and timing of these warming and cooling periods is left to the imagination.
I dont even need to look at your your links to know that they support what I said.
You lose again.
Mikey,
Go ahead and produce your evidence that the surface of the Earth was completely melted.
“Sure, bobby, I wont even ask how this was supposed to happen.”
Might have something to do with collisions with other bodies as the Earth grew to its current size.
“Your implication that the surface has cooled, warmed, cooled and warmed again (at least) for no reason that you can advance, is just another reason you were never offered command of a submarine.”
It wasn’t a topic of discussion the few times I was invited to the wardroom. I can think of several reasons the Earth warmed, cooled, and warmed again, but I think this is the first time you have asked for an explanation of that. You might try and google it. I have indeed offered such explanations but then you wouldn’t notice if I stapled it to your nose with a fried egg on top.
“Of course , the snowball Earth fantasy was proposed by Carl Sagan,”
Not Sagan, as I have previously told you, more the work of geologists rather than astronomers, Sagan was more interested in how Venus got so hot.
The evidence of a nearly complete glaciation of the Earth is something you can literally put your hands on, say out west in the USA, I hear it’s nice this time of year, or if you are across the pond, try Scotland.
“In relation to Milankovitch cycles, their effect is speculative. The extent, and timing of these warming and cooling periods is left to the imagination.”
You might try this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation#/media/File:Milankovitch_Variations.png
You are not too bright, but entertaining none the less.
Bobby buffoon,
You wrote “Go ahead and produce your evidence that the surface of the Earth was completely melted.”
Why should I? You are entitled to believe it wasn’t. As you said before, you believe it was “quite cold” when it was formed.
If you wish to believe the Earth warmed up, cooled down, warmed up, cooled down . . . , feel free.
You may even choose to believe in the existence of a GHE which you cannot describe, with outcomes that may result in planetary heating, cooling, or both simultaneously.
Bad luck Bobby, nobody else seems to value your opinions either. I don’t blame them.
Looks like you lose again.
“Why should I? You are entitled to believe it wasnt. As you said before, you believe it was quite cold when it was formed.”
Then I won’t be taking you seriously, goodbye.
“Why should I? You are entitled to believe it wasnt. As you said before, you believe it was quite cold when it was formed.
Then I wont be taking you seriously, goodbye.”
Good for you!
Am I supposed to care?
But you do seem to care Mikey,
You get so pissed when I tell you you are wrong.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“But you do seem to care Mikey,
You get so pissed when I tell you you are wrong.”
Asking yourself in the mirror whether I care whether you live or die might make you feel better.
I just checked my care meter – no, the needle hasnt budged. It seems that you are just not important enough for me to value your opinion.
You can tell me I am wrong as much as you like. I don’t value your opinion. You can’t even give me a reason why I should. How dim does that make you look.
Go on, tell me something else, and watch me laugh while I ignore it!
You are a funny chap, bumbling bobby. Keep me laughing – no adverse side effects from gentle laughter, so try not to make me laugh too hard – if you don’t mind, of course.
Oh, how sweet, you do care.
Give me your address so I can send you flowers.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote
“But you do seem to care Mikey,
You get so pissed when I tell you you are wrong.”
Asking yourself in the mirror whether I care whether you live or die might make you feel better.
I just checked my care meter no, the needle hasnt budged. It seems that you are just not important enough for me to value your opinion.
You can tell me I am wrong as much as you like. I dont value your opinion. You cant even give me a reason why I should. How dim does that make you look.
Go on, tell me something else, and watch me laugh while I ignore it!
You are a funny chap, bumbling bobby. Keep me laughing no adverse side effects from gentle laughter, so try not to make me laugh too hard if you dont mind, of course.
You also wrote –
“Oh, how sweet, you do care.
Give me your address so I can send you flowers.” Do you share Willard’s homosexual love for me? Send the flowers c/- Dr Spencer. Don’t stint yourself – demonstrate the strength of your passion! Or are you just another lying fantasist?
I’m still laughing at your limp-wristed insinuations!
More cataclysmic global warming reported…
https://tinyurl.com/4667j6pd
The winter that has begun in North America and Europe may be the longest winter in decades in these regions. A great deal of energy will be needed.
ren…after an unusually cold period in October, Vancouver, Canada is about normal for this time of year. It is currently 3C at 5 PM and is not expected to go below 2C tonight. We have a period of rain forecast, beginning Thursday and rain normally brings milder temperatures but never exceeding about 10C.
This thing bout global warming is seriously overdone. I remember as a child, playing soccer right through December and January, then taking a bus home after a game in a wet uniform. The climate around here is no different these days. The exception is that the Parks Board now closed the playing fields in December and January to save the turf. It got ploughed up pretty good playing soccer and rugby on it.
But, hey, the party poopers did not consult with the kids. I loved chasing a ball through mud and rain puddles and we had some good souls who came out in such conditions to referee the games and coach us.
Just noticed that the the WordPress spell checker does not know that the past tense of plow, is ploughed. Also, they don’t recognize the good word pooper.
wee willy…”Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. -Edsger Dijkstra”
***
That’s one of the most stoopid statements I have ever read, even from you. If computer science is not about computers, what is it about? Rocket scientists like Dijkstra become so embroiled in high level computer logic that they forget what it is that implements their theories.
I am not making that up. If you read books on programming languages like C++, the authors often get so embroiled in the high level concepts they completely forget a computer is required to run their programs. They seem to think you write a program, feed it into a compiler, and get an executable file, which they seem to think runs by itself.
I tried to explain this to you recently wee willy but you seem far too obtuse to understand the relationship I laid out between software and hardware. In a way, that is understandable because outfits like Microsoft go to great lengths to obfuscate the fact that a computer runs the programs. They have gone to great lengths to make everything appears as a file, even computer busses. No kidding, if you study Microsoft terminology, Windows runs everything without the slightest bit of help from hardware.
> If computer science is not about computers, what is it about?
Computation:
http://boole.stanford.edu/abstracts.html
Wonky Wee Willy,
Got the gibberish generators operating well, I see. Maybe you could program it to mention “computer” or “science”, if it is spewing out garbage supposedly relating to either term.
Or are you just copying and pasting irrelevant snippets from the internet to while away your idle hours?
I suppose, after having declared that computer science is not about computers, you’ll say that climate science has nothing to do with climate!
You’d be right, actually. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Precious little there, that could be called science.
I have to agree, climate science is about neither climate nor science. Your posted gibberish is equally relevant to climate science, wouldn’t you say?
Keep it up. I enjoy laughter, even at your expense.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Got the gibberish generators operating well, I see. Maybe you could program it to mention “computer” or “science”, if it is spewing out garbage supposedly relating to either term.
Or are you just copying and pasting irrelevant snippets from the internet to while away your idle hours?
I suppose, after having declared that computer science is not about computers, youll say that climate science has nothing to do with climate!
Youd be right, actually. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Precious little there, that could be called science.
I have to agree, climate science is about neither climate nor science. Your posted gibberish is equally relevant to climate science, wouldnt you say?
Keep it up. I enjoy laughter, even at your expense.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Got the gibberish generators operating well, I see. Maybe you could program it to mention “computer” or “science”, if it is spewing out garbage supposedly relating to either term.
Or are you just copying and pasting irrelevant snippets from the internet to while away your idle hours?
I suppose, after having declared that computer science is not about computers, youll say that climate science has nothing to do with climate!
Youd be right, actually. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Precious little there, that could be called science.
I have to agree, climate science is about neither climate nor science. Your posted gibberish is equally relevant to climate science, wouldnt you say?
Keep it up. I enjoy laughter, even at your expense.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Got the gibberish generators operating well, I see. Maybe you could program it to mention “computer” or “science”, if it is spewing out garbage supposedly relating to either term.
Or are you just copying and pasting irrelevant snippets from the internet to while away your idle hours?
I suppose, after having declared that computer science is not about computers, youll say that climate science has nothing to do with climate!
Youd be right, actually. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Precious little there, that could be called science.
I have to agree, climate science is about neither climate nor science. Your posted gibberish is equally relevant to climate science, wouldnt you say?
Keep it up. I enjoy laughter, even at your expense.
For any onlookers, Willard inevitably complains he cannot understand anything unless it is repeated several times. I do my best to help those those not as gifted as myself.
Monomaniacal Mike,
What are you braying about?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Got the gibberish generators operating well, I see. Maybe you could program it to mention “computer” or “science”, if it is spewing out garbage supposedly relating to either term.
Or are you just copying and pasting irrelevant snippets from the internet to while away your idle hours?
I suppose, after having declared that computer science is not about computers, youll say that climate science has nothing to do with climate!
Youd be right, actually. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Precious little there, that could be called science.
I have to agree, climate science is about neither climate nor science. Your posted gibberish is equally relevant to climate science, wouldnt you say?
Keep it up. I enjoy laughter, even at your expense.
For any onlookers, Willard inevitably complains he cannot understand anything unless it is repeated several times. I do my best to help those those not as gifted as myself. Unfortunately, the intellectually challenged of his ilk, are not pretending to be incapable of thought.
What are you braying about, Monomaniacal Mike?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Got the gibberish generators operating well, I see. Maybe you could program it to mention computer or science, if it is spewing out garbage supposedly relating to either term.
Or are you just copying and pasting irrelevant snippets from the internet to while away your idle hours?
I suppose, after having declared that computer science is not about computers, youll say that climate science has nothing to do with climate!
Youd be right, actually. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Precious little there, that could be called science.
I have to agree, climate science is about neither climate nor science. Your posted gibberish is equally relevant to climate science, wouldnt you say?
Keep it up. I enjoy laughter, even at your expense.
For any onlookers, Willard inevitably complains he cannot understand anything unless it is repeated several times. I do my best to help those those not as gifted as myself. Unfortunately, the intellectually challenged of his ilk, are not pretending to be incapable of thought.
Ah well, I should let him have the last word, as he insists on demonstrating his lack of comprehension.
Monomaniacal Mike?
ent…”Go carefully.
Maximum recommended Vitamin C intake is 2g/day.
Its not actively toxic, but high doses lead to abdominal pain, cramps, diarrhea ,headaches, nausea (and possible vomiting) and sleeping problems”.
***
The symptoms you describe are common if you exceed the bowel tolerance level, which is around 7 grams in a healthy person. However, if you are sick with the flu, and you exceed bowel tolerance, you have a sudden urge to hit the toilet, real fast. Following that, the symptoms of the flu abate quickly, in my experience. It’s not a night and day difference, I experience it as feeling better but not recovered. It may take a few days to get right over the flu.
Sore throats can follow but my experience with them is milder than I used to experience, when on occasion my throat would swell dangeruusly.
If you follow up with a similar dosage within 4 hours, it seems to kill most of the flu symptoms. The most remarkable aspect for me is the elimination of secondary infections which produce runny noses, etc.
One has to be careful. It’s not smart to take such high dosages and stop quickly. There is a rebound effect whereby the body is used to the high level and when one stops quickly, it keeps excreting at a high rate and you could conceivably reach scurvy level. Better to taper off slowly, better still, don’t taper off altogether and maintain a level of 1 to 3 grams daily.
I have never suffered headaches, nausea, or sleep issues, even if I take 6 or 7 grams just before sleeping. I imagine everyone will have different reactions.
Current minimum temperature in the northern hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/GH2dwtW/gfs-world-wt-t2min-d1.png
Severe snowstorm on the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/9Tmb6HH/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-11-26-154950.png
https://climateaudit.org/2023/11/26/mbh98-weights-an-update/
MBH98 Weights an Update
“In numerous ancient Climate Audit posts, I observed that all MBH98 operations were linear and that the step reconstructions were therefore linear combinations of proxies, the coefficients of which could be calculated directly from the matrix algebra (described in a series of articles.) Soderqvist’s identification of the actual proxies enables calculation of the AD1400 weights by regression of the two ‘glimpses’ of the AD1400 step (1400-1449 in the spliced reconstruction and 1902-1980 in the Dirty Laundry data) against the proxy network. The regression information is shown in an Appendix at end of this post”
If I am reading your post correctly, MBH not only did some fanciful proxy reconstructions they did some mathematical reconstructions that had nothing to do with the proxy data.
That would be nothing new from the proud author of ‘The Trick’. Mann thought it was cute to hide declining temperatures just as he thought it kosher to replace proxy temperatures with real temperatures to get the blade on his hockey stick. And to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age to straighten out the stick shaft. Of course, the IPCC went right along with his chicanery.
> And to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period
It was not, and it did not:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/09/more-climateball-at-climate-audit.html
MBH98 was and is incorrect.
2023 – 1998 = 25.
Does 25 occur in MBH98? If so, what was its importance?
M + B + H = 22.
The dummy becomes more obscure by the minute.
Maybe he really is insane and irrational?
As soon as he encounters something he does not understand, Monomaniacal Mike Flynn brays.
Monomaniacal Mike brays a lot.
The dummy becomes more obscure by the minute.
Maybe he really is insane and irrational?
Monomaniacal Mike brays again.
If you say so, Wee Willy Wanker, if you say so.
No one should get their ‘science’ from Climate Audit, RLH, it has a biased non-science agenda.
And once again, his principle findings have been replicated, as you can see in this recent review:
https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/32886/1/PAGES2k_NGEO_inpress.pdf
So this is like trying to take down the Theory of Evolution by showing that Darwin’s methods had some weaknesses, while ignoring the 150 y of confirming evidence!
C’mon people.
testing…not posting properly
wee willy…> [GR]If computer science is not about computers, what is it about?
[WW]Computation:
***
What do you suppose they use to do the computations? Maybe an abacus? Or perhaps counting on one’s fingers? Or maybe the trusty old stubby pencil with which we can break out the old log tables.
When I took my course in computer science, we were taught how to solve a problem using a computer.
As I tried to point out to you earlier, to speak to a computer we need to learn the language spoken by the computer. Or, at least, it needs to learn how we think. That field is called computer science for a good reason, it’s the study of learning how to solve problems using computers. Computation, on the other hand, is covered by the study of mathematics.
> What do you suppose they use to do the computations?
Who’s “they”?
Certainly not Vaughan, though nowadays there are proof assistants.
‘They’ is an obvious reference to the people you cited in your post about computations. Whoever is doing the computations needs to use a device to do their computations, unless they are counting on their fingers or using a stubby pencil. That device is often a computer, hence the study of computer science.
‘They’ is an obvious reference to the people you cited in your post about computations. Whoever is doing the computations needs to use a device to do their computations, unless they are counting on their fingers or using a stubby pencil. That device is often a computer, hence the study of computer science.
> “They” is an obvious reference to the people you cited in your post about computations.
“They” was Vaughan Pratt.
And no, he did not, though he used LaTeX to produce his formalism.
test
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/X3Kn1LP/archive-2-image.png
A stationary upper low in the north will provide further waves of frigid air over the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/hLhyQW5/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-11-27-111044.png
Solar flux cannot be averaged over the entire planet surface as a kind of a heat flux, because the radiative EM energy, when interacting with matter, does not input its respective energy in the surface.
–
Only a small portion of the not reflected incident solar flux’s energy gets transformed into heat and absorbed in inner layers.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The first graphic shows the distribution of ozone in the entire column of air in the atmosphere. A large excess over Kamchatka can be seen.
The second graphic shows how this affects the circulation in the stratosphere (the current polar vortex pattern). We can see that the polar vortex bypasses the ozone patch from the north and descends over North America, all the way to the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/2sW9zw5/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/gT4489r/gfs-z50-nh-f00.png
There is still a large ozone hole over Antarctica.
https://i.ibb.co/dPYb02S/ozone-hole-plot-N20.png
Another wave of very heavy snowfall in the Alps is forecast.
Apologies in advance, but I happened across this from Gavin Schmidt –
“Some of you will have heard of John Clauser because he was an awardee of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his role in the experimental verification of quantum entanglement. Some of you will have heard of him because the first thing that he did after winning the Nobel was join a climate denial organization and make some rather odd claims about climate science. And some of you will never have heard of him (in which case, feel free to skip this post!).
At no point in his long and, by all accounts, successful, career has he ever published a paper on climate”
Schmidt is obviously cracking up under the strain, after his demand that GRL retract an article by Nicola Scafetta disagreeing with some of Schmidt’s more bizarre claims, and getting his demand rejected! Schmidt even created a new jargon concept “random nature”! Didn’t help him.
Anyway, I note that Schmidt is off with the fairies again, claiming that there is a conspiracy involving people who deny that climate changes! A Nobel Prize winning physicist who does not subscribe to the mad ideas of Schmidt and his ilk, is dismissed because he has never published a paper on “climate”! This from Gavin Schmidt – undistinguished mathematician, and non-scientist. Climate is the historical statistics of weather observations.
Poor old Gavin. Obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed. In one interview, he blamed the failure of his models on people refusing to perform as his models required!
Swenson, I believe that Dr John Clauser disagreement is around the lack of rigour by the So called activists pretending to do science, so little people like Mann, Schimidt, Dressler and others. Clauses wouldn’t have been able to expand the knowledge of quantum entanglement without properly understanding scientific methodology.
Let’s face it, a lot of the alarmist methodology is Orwellian in nature, redefining words, organising mobbing, hiding data, and ignoring perfectly legal FoI requests. Whereas actual scientists like Dr Roy Spencer does make the data available.
Looks like a scientist can expand the knowledge of quantum entanglement while saying stuff:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/11/clauser-ology-cloudy-with-a-chance-of-meatballs/
Odd claim. Simply not true.
Weird Wee Willy,
You are right – scientists can say anything they like. Someone will believe them. Undistinguished mathematicians like Gavin Schmidt can claim to be “climate scientists”, and publish rubbish papers like “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature”.
John Clauser actual is a Nobel Laureate in Physics, unlike the fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann, who fraudulently claimed to be a Nobel Lareate (albeit for Peace, rather than anything remotely indicating intellectual ability).
I suppose that it is faintly possible that a physicist might know more about physics than a mathematician? Or might be preferred as an authority to a proven fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat?
Carry on, Willard. You are obviously more gullible and less intelligent than people like Schmidt – who can’t even convince the editors of GRL that he knows as much about statistics as he thinks!
Monomaniacal Mike,
The laws of the universe don’t depend on what Google or anybody else thinks. That’s the nice thing about science for some. As Richard Feynman said – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Cheers.
Willard,
You quoted Feynman “It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.”
I agree. Surrounding a thermometer with CO2 does not make it hotter. That’s your description of the GHE isn’t it? In your febrile imagination of course. What you actually gave as a description of the GHE was “Not cooling, slower cooling”.
Are you sticking with the outcome of the GHE being cooling of some sort, or do you think the GHE involves CO2 in some way that you can’t quite describe?
If this site allowed me to use the words idiot or fool, I would.
I suppose I will have to settle for pea-brained peanut, or something similar.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You agree that being a Nobel Laureate in Physics does not mean a thing right after appealing to John’s authority.
Consistency in posting should not mean consistently posting the same inane comments.
Cheers.
Whining Wee Willy,
Aliens must have stolen your brain waves while you were playing with yourself.
You wrote –
“You agree that being a Nobel Laureate in Physics does not mean a thing right after appealing to Johns authority.”
I’d ask you to quote me, but then I’d be valuing the opinion of a fantasist, quite detached from reality, wouldnt I?
Oh dear, Willard, if you asked me what I agreed with, and gave me good reason to respond, I’d tell you. But you didn’t, and you couldn’t, so I didn’t.
That would make you not just a loser, but a confused loser. Trying to tell people what they think is the mark of the true loser, who is too spineless (or thick) to be able to support their incoherent ramblings with fact.
[willard – the gift that keeps giving]
[ME, IN A MIKE FLYNN MODE] As Richard Feynman said It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.
[MONOMANIACAL MIKE] You quoted Feynman “It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.” I agree.
[ME] You agree that being a Nobel Laureate in Physics does not mean a thing right after appealing to John’s authority.
[MONOMANIACAL MIKE] if you asked me what I agreed with, and gave me good reason to respond, I’d tell you.
Whining Wee Willy,
You seem to be off with the fairies, muttering to yourself, so I’ll let you have the last word again.
Monomaniacal Mike,
Please, have the last word.
I insist.
An active low from the south brings rainfall to eastern Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/k0jRKWt/mimictpw-ausf-latest-1.gif
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/jVLfT0V/archive-3-image.png
I have commented elsewhere about the fundamental flaw in the climate change argument that “we” must take action when the USA is only a minor contributor. Per capita emissions are huge, but we are a relatively small country. India has about 4 times our population with only about 2/3 of our emissions and they are on the rise. Much of the Philippines and other rural parts of Asia have minimal if any electricity. Refrigeration in those hot climates is only a dream.
Most experts predict an increase in emissions beyond 2050. Petroleum producers can easily lower their prices to maintain their market share. The reality is that panic in this country will not have a significant global effect. Maybe the climate change “believers” should start being more honest. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
I am interested in the effect it will have on the believers when oil is no longer available and they are required to park their cars while a privileged few are allowed to drive around freely. Everything is a good idea until the time comes to implement the idea.
I don’t expect it will get that far. Here in Canada, the voters have begun a revolt against their champion of Green energy, Justin Trudeau. If the polls are to be believed, the Tories have suddenly taken a commanding lead. Of course, there’s no guarantee they won’t resort to the Green energy nonsense after lying their way into power.
Yours is a badly flawed argument.
If there is a climate crisis being caused by carbon dioxide emissions then everyone … no matter how small their contribution … must reduce their emissions.
The real argument is whether or not carbon dioxide emissions cause climate change and whether the climate change is a negative for earth and humanity.
The most persuasive evidence is that the CO2 a b s o r p t i o n spectrum is saturated. Even if CO2 concentration is doubled there will not be much further warming effect on climate.
Climate cycles are driven by the sun and moderated by ocean currents. There is no artifact of carbon dioxide emissions in any salient data. Proxy data shows its been warmer for most of the past 10k years as now.
Further, the proxy data suggests we’re in for serious and severe cooling cycle … if CO2 does cause warming then we’d best fling another lump of coal on the fire.
There is no imminent warming crisis and no need for anyone to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
I have commented elsewhere about the fundamental flaw in the climate change argument that “we” must take action when the USA is only a minor contributor. Per capita emissions are huge, but we are a relatively small country. India has about 4 times our population with only about 2/3 of our emissions and they are on the rise. Much of the Philippines and other rural parts of Asia have minimal if any electricity. Refrigeration in those hot climates is only a dream.
Most experts predict an increase in emissions beyond 2050. Petroleum producers can easily lower their prices to maintain their market share. The reality is that decreases in this country will not have a significant global effect. Maybe the climate change “believers” should start being more honest. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
https://tinyurl.com/the-bingo/but-china/
Wee Willy Wanker shows his gutless character. Hides behind pointless and irrelevant links, trying to make others believe that his IQ is larger than his shoe size – and his feet are quite tiny.
Willard does seem to be a bit light in his loafers – maybe he petulantly stamps his tiny foot because of his unrequited love for me?
Oh well, it’s all right Wee Willy – some of my best friends arent homosexuals.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn shows he does not clock on links.
That does not prevent him from braying about them.
Wee Willy Wanker shows his gutless character. Hides behind pointless and irrelevant links, trying to make others believe that his IQ is larger than his shoe size and his feet are quite tiny.
Willard does seem to be a bit light in his loafers maybe he petulantly stamps his tiny foot because of his unrequited love for me?
Oh well, its all right Wee Willy some of my best friends arent homosexuals.
Willard demonstrated his ability to utter complete inanities without realising how irrational he looks to others –
“Monomaniacal Mike Flynn shows he does not clock on links.
That does not prevent him from braying about them.”
Others might value the opinions of Wee Willy Wanker. I don’t.
Monomaniacal Mike brays again.
Yes, I might as well allow Wee Willy to have the last word.
yes…wee willy definitely suffers from obsessive-compulsive issues to name but one of many.
Bordo needs all the help he can get, even if it’s from the most monomaniacal crank around.
Willard
I’m guessing you, like me, recently had a quick visit to WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/20/dlr-curiosities/
Of course, the ignorant Robertson understood nothing of what Eschenbach wrote and, as usual, railed against GHE etc. – just like Don Quixote de la Mancha fought endlessly against windmills.
*
But of much greater interest was this comment:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/20/dlr-curiosities/#comment-3821497
This is the start of a long line of arrogant posts from Mike Flynn.
Yes, Flynnson probably didn’t want to appear as Swenson on WUWT and forgot that he doesn’t actually know who Mike Flynn is.
However, this didn’t help:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/20/dlr-curiosities/#comment-3820710
*
Flynnson is such a stûpid, stubborn guy…like Robertson, all of his knowledge comes exclusively from contrarian blogs and Wikipedia, a site they both discredit and vilify all the time – unless it fits their pathological narrative.
The so-called ‘ignorant’ Robertson explained in detail what he found wrong with Willis’ GHE analysis, especially related to the 2nd law. As usual, the ijit Binny replies with ad homs and insults and not a smattering of scientific reasoning.
Binny van der Klown has also been unable to refute Robertson’s analysis of Newton’s Principia in which Newton essentially confirmed that the Moon does NOT rotate on a local axis. Based on Newton’s analysis and his utter lack of reference to lunar spin, it would be impossible for the Moon to spin. However, the interpreters of his work were far too steeped in the thinking, based on presumptions, of Cassini, a contemporary of Newton but with a fraction of Newton’s scientific acumen.
Binny, with his fetish for authority-figures, cannot possibly reason for himself even though a child could grasp the logic in Newton’s observations…
1)the Moon moves with a linear motion…
2)that motion is bent into a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field…
3)the Moon always keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
If the Moon was moving with a purely linear motion and passing a child while keeping the same face pointed toward the child, the child would surely understand that the Moon was not rotating. If the same child was inside an oval while a car ran around the oval with the driver always facing the child, the child would surely understand the car was not rotating about a local axis.
Seems to me that children reason far better than the authority-dependent Binny van der Klown.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Yes, Flynnson probably didnt want to appear as Swenson on WUWT and forgot that he doesnt actually know who Mike Flynn is.”
You seem a bit obsessed with Flynnson, Swenson and Mike Flynn. I presume that you are annoyed because commenters are refusing to use the pseudonyms you have demanded they use.
What mental defect leads you to believe that I value your strange opinions?
If I choose, I will use any pseudonym I like, and there’s not a thing you can do about it!
I am curious though. Why are names so important to you? Are you a fan of numerology, perhaps, where adding numbers representing letters is supposed to give experts deep insights into the future?
Or are you just a little odd, and a sauerkraut (can’t help the play on words) to boot?
Monomaniacal Mike,
You say –
“If I choose, I will use any pseudonym I like, and theres not a thing you can do about it!”
Binny just did something about it.
Cheers.
Wimpy Wee Willy,
I’ll let you have the last word. Maybe someone values your opinion.
Thank you, Monomaniacal Mike.
It was not an opinion, but a statement of fact.
swenson…re Gavin Schmidt publishing papers on climate…
I don’t think Schmidt has published a paper on climate either. He write about it but his understanding of the physics involved relegates his understanding to the sci-fi category.
Schmidt was unable to explain positive feedback. Although he has a degree in math, he was unable to produce a formula to represent it. Yet Schmidt regularly programs climate models in which positive feedback is a significant player in the exaggerated warming the models produce.
He could not even explain positive feedback subjectively, m.u.m.b.ling something about ‘something’ in the atmosphere acting upon ‘something else’ can produce an amplification of heat. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics would immediately ask how heat can be amplified, as if it the input signal in an electronics amplifier that is amplified by a transistor.
troubleshooting…Roy…even plain English is big rejected with no insults or banned words included.
However, even in a transistor amplifier, no one gets something for nothing.
The operation is simple. Any amplification is a change in impedance between two circuits, not an increase in the number of electrons representing the input signal.
Therefore a small input signal between base and emitter can created a larger voltage drop across a resistor in the emitter-collector circuit. There is no increase in the actual input signal between the base circuit and the collector circuit, both circuits having separate current supply circuitry.
Hence, amplification in a transistor circuit is smoke and mirrors. Nothing is really amplified in the sense that the same smaller quantity suddenly becomes a larger quantity, out of thin air. Similarly, feedback in such a circuit involves taking a small portion of the larger circuits output signal and feeding it back to the input circuit. Depending on the type of feedback, the input signal is enhanced for positive feedback or decreased for negative feedback.
Still no something from nothing. However, Schmidt would have us believe that a positive feedback in the atmosphere can magically produce heat in the atmosphere or the surface. Schmidt apparently lives in a world of mathematical illusion like his brother Michael Mann at realclimate. Both are sad-sacks when it comes to basic physics.
“Still no something from nothing. However, Schmidt would have us believe that a positive feedback in the atmosphere can magically produce heat in the atmosphere or the surface. ”
That is not how it works. No heat is magically produced. The amount of heat entering from space remains constant while the amount of heat leaving to space decreases. The extra heat in the system is heat which entered the system but did not leave it.
Consider your bank account.
When your income and spending are equal, the rate at which money enters your account equals the rate at which money leaves so the balance stays constant.
When your income remains constant but your spending decreases, your balance increases because less money leaves your account than enters.
The extra money in your account has not been magically produced; it is money which has entered, but not left.
Similarly the extra heat in the climate system due to positive feedback is heat which has entered the system but not left it.
Consider the GHE. Oh, you can’t even describe it? How sad.
Maybe you just divert to irrelevancies like bank accounts.
Or say something particularly strange, like “Similarly the extra heat in the climate system due to positive feedback is heat which has entered the system but not left it.”
So how do you locate this “heat”? Maybe it is hiding in something? What happens when it “leaves”?
I hope it’s not been hidden in anything colder than itself – it will just vanish won’t it? Poof – gone – never to be seen again. You are really are a simple soul, aren’t you?
Research the uses of the transfer function outside electrical engineering.
trying to isolate offending word…
Amplification does not increase the number of electrons causing the amplification in a signal comprised of electrons
Roy…there is something seriously wrong with your system. Some posts simply disappear and when re-posted, they are marked as a duplicate post. If I add one word at the beginning, like ‘dup’, the post gets posted.
However, not every time. Sometimes I need to use an alternate browser, in which case, the post suddenly appears. You might ask me to check my browser but I never have a problem posting on another site.
The other night, I posted in plain English, no banned words, insults, or words containing letter combos like d-c, and I could not get a few sentences through out of a post with many sentences. I am sure this is a problem with WordPress rather than your site.
I think they may be using AI to scan the words entered and I know AI can be seriously unreliable in that respect. However, that does not explain disappearing posts, which suddenly appear with one letter altered in the original.
Right now, I am trying to post a paragraph heavy in technical terms. Perhaps WordPress regards me as a subversive discussing subversive science.
When that starts to happen, wait. Otherwise you get flagged as spam.
To make sure, in your case, wait a month.
Arctic air will not leave Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/nQyBWMp/mimictpw-europe-latest.gif
Forecast for Dec 12 at night
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20231212&daytime=night&iid=euro
Nothing out of the ordinary.
-2 C ins Warszawa on December 12! We will see in 2 weeks how it really looks like.
*
But we are finally happy about 3 cm of that kind of snow which doesn’t disappear after a few days.
This is happening here in northeast Germany for the first time since 2018, a year in which December/January/February was significantly less cold than in 2010, the last year in which the winter deserved this name (30-50 cm snow in February).
It’s getting a lot warmer here since then, Palmowski, but you carefully hide this.
When will it occur to you that the troposphere is so thin in winter in high and middle latitudes that it can’t hold heat. Only the oceans can sustain the temperature near the surface.
https://i.ibb.co/KFCF307/zt-nh.gif
I,
SkyDragon cultists don’t seem to realise that the troposphere is a wee bit short on thermal mass – compared with solid matter.
Even where the atmosphere has a higher temperature than the ground – at night, low level inversion, for example, the ground still cools.
GHE enthusiasts simply refuse to accept reality – substituting fantasy, loud shouting, and hand waving instead.
Silly, aren’t they?
Some might call them quite mad – if madness is defined as the inability to accept reality.
ren…Binny is confused. He is a Frenchman who thinks he’s German, or a German who thinks he’s Frenchman.
Palmowski
As usual, you reply has nothing to do with my comment, let alone would Flynnson’s boring, pathological urging to say anything when he actually has nothing to say.
Binny,
Maybe he has nothing to say because he has nothing to say.
Doesn’t seem to stop you, because . . .
Carry on.
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/f4sbwWR/archive-9-image.png
Heavy snowstorms are approaching central Europe. Snow in England.
https://i.ibb.co/C6RWvFj/hgt300-1.webp
Winter heavy snow for a week. No wind, no fossil fuels burning.
No electricity production
The storage batteries already empty, vehicles motionless houses freezing not even a water supply
Why?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Are you serious?
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20231214&daytime=night&iid=GR
No, he’s Christos.
Oh look! Swenson aka Mike Flynn tried to appear humorous, but of course he failed miserably, as he does in pretty much everything.
Binny,
I wouldn’t expect a sauerkraut to say anything else.
You said “Pretty much everything.” What did I not fail at?
troubleshooting a plain English problem…
ent…my bank account has nothing to do with positive feedback. It is a process that requires an amplifier in order to operate. The theory goes that you can control the amplification in an amplifier by feeding back part of the output signal to the input to add to or subtract from the the input signal.
continued…part 2
F.e.e.d.b.a.c.k i.s a m.e.a.n.s of c.o.n.t.r.o.l.l.i.n.g t.h.e a.m.p.l.i.f.i.c.a.t.i.o.n i.n a s.y.s.t.e.m that can a.m.p.l.i.f.y
this is how crazy it is becoming to post here. I have to enter dots in obviously good words in order to get a post through. There is absolutely nothing offensive in the sentence I posted but by itself, it won’t post.
Roy…I am wondering if the system you use to ban certain words is backfiring at times by banning legitimate words. Of course, it could be a problem with WordPress as well. I have used these word filters at other times and one has to be very careful applying them because computers use a logic that is very literal. In other words, when you set out to accomplish one thing, you often inadvertently accomplish another.
It’s like syntax errors in a computer program, especially in the compiler. A dot or a space in the wrong place can throw the compiler logic right off. The maddening thing is the compiler often won’t tell you where the problem lies.
Maybe it’s just me and my system, but it works fine elsewhere.
rest of post…
O.s.c.i.l.l.a.t.o.rs that rely on positive feedback represent a c.o.n.t.r.o.l.l.e.d form of the r.u.n.a.w.a.y e.f.f.e.ct. R.a.t.h.e.r than a.p.p.l.y.i.n.g a f.u.l.l o.u.t.p.u.t f.e.e.d.b.a.c.k s.i.g.n.a.l to the i.n.p.u.t of an a.m.p.l.i.f.i.e.r, the f.e.e.d.b.a.c.k is a.p.p.l.i.e.d to an o.s.c.i.l.l.a.t.i.n.g c.i.r.c.u.i.t in f.r.a.c.t.i.o.n.a.l a.m.o.u.nt.s, just e.n.o.u.g.h to s.u.s.t.a.i.n a c.o.n.s.t.a.n.t n.a.t.u.r.a.l o.s.c.i.l.l.a.t.i.o.n.
Oscillators that rely on positive feedback represent a c.o.n.t.r.o.l.l.e.d form of the runaway effect. Rather than applying a full output feedback signal to the input of an amplifier, the feedback is applied to an oscillating circuit in fractional amounts, just enough to sustain a constant natural oscillation.
Problem is, no alarmists can explain how PF can work in an atmosphere with no amplifier. It is simply not possible to apply positive feedback to heat in the atmosphere because there is no amplifier to create the runaway/tipping effect claimed.
All feedbacks in the atmosphere MUST be negative feedback systems, mainly because there are always significant losses. Roy gave some insight into this a few years back when he described climate positive feedback as a not-so-negative negative feedback. That is an ap.t scientific descrip.tion. However, Schmidt and other alarmists would have us believe there is a mysterious positive feedback in the atmosphere that can amplify heat without an amplifier.
You cannot argue this as an energy budget issue because the energy budget theory is seriously flawed. It fails to address the serious imbalance in mass percent of the gases involved. CO2 with a mass percent of roughly 0.06% cannot possibly produce the heat claimed in the energy budget theory.
Cool story, Bordo.
Pray tell how it works with natural cycles.
checking to see which words the system does not like…
oscillators
checking to see which words the system does not like…
oscillators
oscillating
checking to see which words the system does not like…
oscillators
oscillating
oscillation
checking to see which words the system does not like…
oscillators
oscillating
oscillation
c.o.n.t.r.o.l.l.e.d
runaway
effect
Got it, the system does not like the word c.o.n.t.r.o.l.l.e.d.
Contains “troll”.
Good catch there Swennie.
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/j5b6WzC/archive-4-image.png
SNOW IN HAWAII! It’s a winter wonderland right now at the summits of the Big Island with 5″ of new snow on the ground today along with subfreezing temps! Credit: Mauna Kea Weather Center
Mauna Kea Observatories
http://irtfweb.ifa.hawaii.edu/~irtfcameras/c168/last2h.gif