Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2024 was +0.80 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the May, 2024 anomaly of +0.90 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).
The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 18 months (record highs are in red):
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.13 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.09 | +0.17 | +0.00 | -0.10 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.17 | -0.13 | -1.43 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.26 | -0.03 | -0.37 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.40 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.07 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.88 | +0.53 | +0.91 | +1.44 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.70 | +0.88 | +0.51 | +0.86 | +0.94 | +1.54 | +1.25 |
| 2023 | Sep | +0.90 | +0.94 | +0.86 | +0.93 | +0.40 | +1.13 | +1.17 |
| 2023 | Oct | +0.93 | +1.02 | +0.83 | +1.00 | +0.99 | +0.92 | +0.63 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.91 | +1.01 | +0.82 | +1.03 | +0.65 | +1.16 | +0.42 |
| 2023 | Dec | +0.83 | +0.93 | +0.73 | +1.08 | +1.26 | +0.26 | +0.85 |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.86 | +1.06 | +0.66 | +1.27 | -0.05 | +0.40 | +1.18 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.93 | +1.03 | +0.83 | +1.24 | +1.36 | +0.88 | +1.07 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.95 | +1.02 | +0.88 | +1.35 | +0.23 | +1.10 | +1.29 |
| 2024 | Apr | +1.05 | +1.25 | +0.85 | +1.26 | +1.02 | +0.98 | +0.48 |
| 2024 | May | +0.90 | +0.98 | +0.83 | +1.31 | +0.38 | +0.38 | +0.45 |
| 2024 | June | +0.80 | +0.96 | +0.64 | +0.93 | +1.65 | +0.79 | +0.87 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for June, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days:
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
At 0.8C, still a record for June, by a long way, completing a full year of record breaking. Next was 0.44C is 1998.
Your own site has only +0.56 with one day to go.
Climate Reanalyser has +0.69 with five days to go (adjusted to UAH baseline).
I think CR is probably closest to reality.
HTE has been amazing.
Why am I not surprised?
The rollercoaster is going down Nick
Hans Erren
” The rollercoaster is going down… ”
You remind me of one of the biggest “specialists” of this blog, who three years ago claimed that the fact that UAH 6.0 LT in that year showed 10 months in a row lower anomalies than in the same months of the previous year was a clear sign of cooling.:–)
*
I tried to explain to him that when you store the UAH time series in a SQL database and select all previous years showing the same behavior, you obtain this:
1981
1982
1989
1992
1999
2011
*
Wacht alstublieft, meneer Erren. De achtbaanrit komt misschien sneller weer omhoog dan we denken.
Bindidon Don’t put all your hopes on a transient spike, as people did in 1998
Strange, but I remember this blog for years being full of deniers using the 1998 “spike” to confabulate spurious hopes of a “cooling trend”. Right up until about 2016, in fact.
Hans may be a big fan of the Moncton Paws.
Speaking of whom, where is our viscous Viscount?
Elliott Bignell says:
”Strange, but I remember this blog for years being full of deniers using the 1998 spike to confabulate spurious hopes of a ”cooling trend”. Right up until about 2016, in fact.
—————–
Wasn’t to be because nobody is looking at the right parameters. CO2 may be one but its not likely the largest one. there is too much natural variation in the instrument and ice core records for the pause to continue beyond 20 years and not show up as a cooling anomaly which requires 30 years.
the stage is now set for that to occur as the last time we were in this stage was 1940. I am not predicting that because obviously we still need to understand how much warming might be accruing from CO2 emissions, the unmeasured UHI, and human disruption of natural environments for agriculture and wood resources, not to speak of the poorly understood fluctuations of the solar dynamo.
As Dr. Syun Akasofu said if you want to attribute warming to humans you first have to learn how nature changes the climate. Milankovitch’s work identified many pulses of 20years, 100-400 years, and a large 2500 year pulse that amounted to about 35% the 100,000 year pulse.
Hunter boy
” Milankovitch’s work identified many pulses of 20years, 100-400 years, and a large 2500 year pulse that amounted to about 35% the 100,000 year pulse… ”
Your source please?
Called it!
Your ability to predict UAH TLT anomalies is impressive. I’d love to know what your method is.
Ouija.
It’s some more of that “Russian collusion” — Arkady Ivanovich….
Another monthly record. Warmest June by 0.36C. Here are the top ten warmest Junes.
Year Anomaly
1 2024 0.80
2 1998 0.44
3 2023 0.38
4 2019 0.35
5 2020 0.31
6 2016 0.21
7 1991 0.18
8 2010 0.18
9 2015 0.18
10 2002 0.17
And as Stokes says, this means there have now been 12 consecutive monthly records.
It’s also a record June for the USA, beating 2021 by 0.2C.
Looks almost certain that 2024 will be a record year. Anomalies will have to average about 0.1 for the rest of the year for that not to be the case. If it is a record this would be the first time in UAH history that there have been back to back records.
My own very simple regression model predicts 0.79 +/- 0.14C. Which would mean beating the record set last year, by over a quarter of a degree.
Bellman,
How hot will August be? Will more people die in New York from heat than 1896?
“The 1896 eastern North America heat wave was a 10-day heat wave in New York City, Boston, Newark and Chicago that killed about 1,500 people in August 1896.”
Not to worry, a recent paper co-authored by Andrew Dessler says “We estimate there are an average of 4,819 heat-related deaths per year and 31,625 cold-related deaths.”[in the US]
Maybe more heat would have resulted in less deaths?
Are you implying the existence of some heat creating effect but refusing to describe it? That would be silly, of course. Laughable, even.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Which paper? Refusing to say?
Silly sock puppet!
No warming at the surface above the equator and above 60 S. Decline in ozone over the southern polar circle.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2024.png
Still well above the land-based records. Climate reanalyser has +0.69 up to the 25th. The last 7 days (June 19-25) is only +0.56.
What baseline years?
UAH baseline.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-07-01a.gif
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-07-01a.gif
So pretty much what I said.
2023-24 ENSO season (Jul-Jun) +0.87, just pipping 2019-20 (which just failed to qualify for what would have been the weakest and shortest El Nino) on +0.38.
I think some people here on my side of the debate forget that these anomalies are not cause for celebration.
I don’t.
You weren’t one of the ones I was thinking of.
Fimbulvetr is not a climate optimum.
Could I have the English version please.
Its interesting, but nothing more,tiny numbers over a tiny time frame, with no historical data makes it a bit like book keeping.
[A copy with slight editing of my post on last month’s thread]
.
.
gbaikies regular solar reports seem to have gone AWOL.
There appears to be a pattern to their appearance and disappearance, but I cant quite put my finger on it.
June Update: Zharkova + 39%
For those who refer to the 22-year cycle, there seems to be a problem.
The North appears to have peaked a year ago, the SAME hemisphere which peaked early last cycle. (Albeit 4 months later than last cycle, 15% stronger, and not falling away anywhere near as quickly.)
The South is still rising, as it was doing this time last cycle.
There has been no switcharoo of the timing of the peaks.
This is the start of steady global cooling.
Water vapor from the underwater volcano reducing.The peak of
Solar cycle 25 about to finish.
El Nino actually finishing right now.
ENSO dropped below the El Nino threshold in early May.
How will you choose to measure your global cooling?
Relative to this peak, as you guys tried to do after 1998 and 2016, or relative to decadal averages?
What method do you use to determine assess whether it is warming/cooling?
How long do you expect the cooling to last?
How low do you expect the UAH TLT anomalies to go?
” The peak of
Solar cycle 25 about to finish. ”
Wooooaah.
SSN monthly
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view
SSN daily
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CQoF9NsU9LaT4V9xWBxkO5HM8K6KjTtN/view
*
Maybe you wait a bit before trump(et)ing with such claims you apparently are not so quite able to prove.
The cooling actually started in 2017, in Arctic, after the record of 2016. The global cooling will now slowly moove southwards for the next 30 years.
Choose Arctic here:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/research_tools/monthly_tseries/
Frank Marella Olsen
” The global cooling will now slowly moove southwards for the next 30 years. ”
Yeah, let’s look at it:
https://i.postimg.cc/zDKmTwCh/era5-0p5deg-arctic-t2-surface-anom-1951-2000.png
And let’s compare some intervals…
2015: 3.527
2023: 2.507
Diff: 1.020
1995: 1.369
1999: 0.338
Diff: 1.031
1981: 1.033
1987: -0.402
Diff: 1.435
I guess we may have to wait a few more years before we can be sure that your prediction is correct…
See btw my reply to Hans Erren above, it’s in the same vein.
“The global cooling with now…”
Coolistas are like the cult that predicted the date that the aliens will take them to their planet, then kept having to move the date…ever hopeful.
The UAH LT climate response has followed the solar cycle influence on the ocean as expected, up and down. In May 2022 I had predicted that the 1.5C ‘limit’ would be exceeded by the sun’s ocean warming effect.
Temperatures that rose with the solar cycle #25 ascension in 2022/23 are now in 2024 following the slight TSI decline from the SC#25 peak.
https://i.postimg.cc/LX3DHrPM/TSIS-and-CFSR-Daily-Jul-2-2024.png
Until last month 2024 CERES TSI was leading 2023, but larger sunspot areas in recent months have driven TSI downspikes and a lower average.
https://i.postimg.cc/504vmjXZ/Ceres-TSI.png
As TSI could float above the decadal ocean warming threshold for a few more years, there could be another solar-driven El Nino spike by ~2027.
> In May 2022 I had predicted
Citation needed,
My 2022 LASP Sun-Climate Symposium poster.
Thanks. Here’s what I can read:
Am I missing anything?
Willard, below the text you quoted, in red, is the line of interest:
It is likely the SC #25 tropical step-up will result in exceeding the 1.5C.
This was referring to the <a href="https://i.postimg.cc/7hvjBJz5/Solar-Cycles-and-Tropical-Step-Changes.png"sun-induced tropical step-up" mentioned earlier in the poster.
Alright. So in 2022 you predicted that there would be one 1.5C excursion during the Solar cycle 25, a cycle that started in 2019-12 and will end ca 2030.
That’s quite conservative!
The correlation coefficient between UAH monthly anomalies and the SSN is NEGATIVE 0.25.
Antonin, the proper order of things is as follows:
UAH LT lags the ocean by 2 months.
The ocean warms decadally when SN ≥95 & CERES TSI ≥1361.25 W/m2.
The ocean warmed in 2022/23 as SC#25 TSI climbed above the threshold, as described in my 2023 LASP Sun-Climate Symposium Poster.
I just tried out every lag between 1 month and 132 months (11 years).
The correlation coefficient varied between -0.21 and -0.41.
Bob Weber
Would you please find me your name in the list of presenters at the 2023 LASP Sun-Climate Symposium:
https://lasp.colorado.edu/meetings/2023-sun-climate-symposium/2023-scs-agenda/
“Bob Weber
Would you please find me your name in the list of presenters at the 2023 LASP Sun-Climate Symposium:”
https://lasp.colorado.edu/meetings/2023-sun-climate-symposium/2023-scs-poster-session/
Heads up … makers of posters are not presenters. The verity or otherwise of these posters is not endorsed by LASP, so using their name to justify his claims is deceitful. It is him and him alone. LASP supports the science of AGW.
“LASP supports the science of AGW.”
What “science” is that, Ant?
“Political Science”? “Astrology”? “Phrenology”?
It ain’t physics.
https://lasp.colorado.edu/meetings/2023-sun-climate-symposium/2023-scs-agenda/
Bob Weber, your 2022 poster paper is interesting, but I think you missed a few points. Your use of Loehle 2007 apparently missed the fact that his paper was deeply flawed. He messed up so badly that he produced a correction in early 2008.
Also, using trailing running means produces a time series which is time shifted relative to the original data. Simple running means also tend to introduce aliasing and phase inversion into the data. Your 109 year SSN series ending in ~2019 actually represents the average at a date 54 years earlier than shown. The comment same applies to the 30 year average of the HadSTv3, whee the end point should be plotted ~15 years earlier. You appear to plot them ending at 2019, though you aren’t clear about that. Your Figure 8 also appears to be using a trailing running mean of Loehle’s 2007 results.
Given those problems, I lost interest in the rest of your paper.
And deeply flawed may be an understatement. It defies credulity to think a self proclaimed expert in the material didn’t understand that the academic convention is that “before present” is anchored to 1950. And if that defies credulity imagine how inept the Energy & Environment reviews had to be to not catch that mistake. It gets worse. It has now been almost 17 years and E&E still hasn’t retracted the publication. If this isn’t an example of predatory publishing then I don’t know what is.
The verity or otherwise of these posters is not endorsed by LASP, so using their name to justify his claims is deceitful. It is him and him alone. LASP supports the science of AGW.
My poster presentations were accepted by the same committee that selected the oral presenters, so it is not deceitful for me to link to my own work which the LASP symposium organizing committee also selected for presentation amongst the other poster presenters.
As well, my 2018 AGU poster was accepted for presentation even though the AGU supports AGW. It is also not deceitful to use that poster.
It just so happens actual scientists like me being there too.
E. Swanson
My figure 8 (from the 2023 poster) is of the 110 year-average Multi-Messenger Cosmogenic Sunspot Number reconstruction provided by Leif Svalgaard, not of the Loehle 2007 timeseries.
Dr. Svalgaard had plotted Loehle and Moberg et al together which I had used as my figure one to make a point.
Your concerns about the trailing averages are noted but it doesn’t matter in the end as the physical relationship using the S-B equation bears out the value of the correlation relationship perfectly.
That time period was for 1890 to 2010, not ~2019.
“Accepted” does not mean “agreed with”. Just don’t pretend it is any more than your own claims.
“”Accepted” does not mean “agreed with”. Just dont pretend it is any more than your own claims.”
But those who claim the existence of a mysterious GHE, and refuse to describe it, think “agreement” and “consensus” can turn fantasy into fact, is that it?
You wouldnt claim that something exists, but then refuse to describe it, would you?
Only a fool would do something like that.
Antonin, I haven’t pretended anything here. Your disposition is unhealthy for science; are you an authoritarian censor?
One of the responsibilities of a scientist is to communicate their findings to other scientists and to the public, which is what I do.
Are you suggesting no one can or should say anything about climate that hasn’t been approved of by the UN or ‘climate central’ first?
If the UN or climate central doesn’t agree then it gets snuffed, right?
It just so happens that LASP (and climate science in general, the AGU, etc.) does have people with diverse opinions and open minds who are not all in lockstep with the UN and ‘climate central’, and who are not so insecure as you seem to be about hearing others’ opinions like mine.
Your point about my work being ‘accepted’ is therefore unimportant, because you take advantage of the ambiguous use of that word. I said my poster was accepted for presentation, and you claimed I pretended it was accepted by ‘climate central’. That’s called gaslighting Antonin.
I guarantee there are people among the ‘climate central’ crowd that wish I was never there to challenge them. Would you be one of them?
Weber wrote:
Dr. Svalgaard’s web page lists some 18 presentations during 2019. I looked at the main ones and did not find such a plot. Your paper included no references, so, where did you get that plot?
Since I don’t follow the conversations on Climate Central, I must assume that the replies you receive there have been justified, given your poor performance with your poster.
Various ENSO forecasts:
“ENSO-neutral conditions are present. Equatorial sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are above average in the west-central Pacific Ocean, near average in the east-central Pacific Ocean, and below-average in the far eastern Pacific Ocean. La Niña is favored to develop during July-September (65% chance) and persist into the Northern Hemisphere winter 2024-25 (85% chance during November-January).”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
“[The] El Niño event, which had persisted since boreal spring 2023, is likely to have ended.
It is more likely that La Niña conditions will develop by boreal autumn (60%) than ENSO-neutral conditions will continue (40%).”
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
“The chance of a La Niña developing in the coming season has increased. When these criteria have been met in the past, a La Niña event has developed around 50% of the time.
Climate models suggest that SSTs in the central tropical Pacific are likely to continue to cool for at least the next 2 months. Four of 7 models suggest SSTs are likely to remain at neutral ENSO levels, and the remaining 3 suggest the possibility of SSTs at La Niña levels (below −0.8 °C) from September.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
The Beijing Climate Centre has la Nina forming around September according to statistical models, but the heuristic models remain within ENSO-neutral.
http://cmdp.ncc-cma.net/eng/index.php?channel=92
Here are the IRI ensemble probabilities.
Season LaNina Neutral ElNino
JJA 13 83 4
JAS 32 64 4
ASO 44 51 5
SON 50 44 6
OND 55 39 6
NDJ 58 36 6
DJF 56 39 5
JFM 51 44 5
FMA 45 52 3
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-iri_plume
The forecast is for a peak of -0.65 which is a weak La Nina.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Its not difficult to see where this is going. Down, down, down. In a couple of years we will be having the same discussion that has been going on for decades. When is it going to start warming again. The only thing different is that the warm phase of the AMO is running out of steam. Tick tock, tick tock.
” The only thing different is that the warm phase of the AMO is running out of steam. ”
That is told since years and years by a poster nicknamed ‘Richard M’.
AMO is shown everywhere in his detrended variant, which lets it look a lot ‘cooler’ than temperature data.
Here is the AMO’s most recent data I can find.
Standardized monthly values of the Klotzbach and Gray (2008) AMO index from 1950-present
https://tropical.colostate.edu/archive_amo.html
Data download:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/175bXpfazXtanJj-JdowPaA6frB9nFJAF/view
If you see here anything ‘out of steam’, feel lucky with it.
For the time being I will go with this.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8uXlnpboAAKGP4?format=png&name=medium
Do you think the top is in?
Yes, for the next decade. After that who knows given the AMO and solar influence. We have to remember we are coming out of the LIA and hundreds of studies have identified long term impacts solar impacts. Throw in the CO2 effect and its a tossup.
Great. Thanks. I’ll bookmark this prediction.
Question…does your prediction consider the Earth energy imbalance and why it is positive right now?
bdgwx, the bogus Earth Energy Imbalance is an imaginary concept from the GHE false science.
Reasons the GHE is bogus:
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. Example: A cone in space, with 5 times the area of its base, receiving 900 W/m² at its base will be emitting 180 W/m² at its final temperature. A flux of 900 W/m² does NOT equal 180 W/m². 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.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
How would total energy work with a system that continuously receives and emits energy?
“Energy” is conserved child, “flux” is NOT conserved.
Get a responsible adult to explain it to you.
Riddle me this, Puffman –
Step 1 – Pure Denial
Is this all you got?
After all these years, you should be able to grok that watts don’t stand alone.
Wrong again, child. Watts that “stand alone” results in “power”. “Power” is different from both “flux” and “energy”. Power is energy/time, and Flux is power/area.
Maybe someday when you grow up, you will understand.
Riddle me this, Puffman –
Where’s the Earth in your universe where watts “stand alone”?
Ask your mommie to show you her toaster, waffle iron, and other appliances, all rated in Watts, child.
Now, it’s your bedtime….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
How does it felt to have lost two of your silly talking points?
Silly sock puppet!
denny
” For the time being I will go with this.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8uXlnpboAAKGP4?format=png&name=medium ”
*
No problem: that’s ESRL AMO in Wood For Trees:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo
ESRL AMO Index
Source: NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
Data URL: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/timeseries/AMO/
and thus I can download the raw data in a click without having to search which AMO variant Paul Clark chose:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/data/esrl-amo
*
And… here is the comparison with Colorado State U’s data (ESRL data was scaled up by factor 4 to get it at Colorado’s niveau):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MFHOw7W0b4IVBrXd4pAYJE_6GHz8-NNm/view
And… what do you see? Your choice (the red plot) shows even less ‘out of steam’, regardless which kind of mean you choose (simple running mean, cascade, polynomial…).
Unfortunately, the ESRL corner was based on Kaplan SST which was shutdown in January 2023. There is however a new variant based on ERSST5.
*
I can only say that AMO predictions showing a downturn as you expect are in between years old.
As these studies indicate we still have much to learn about multi decadal variability.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00268-7
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-022-00275-1
Oh… A few lines above you wrote
” Its not difficult to see where this is going. Down, down, down. In a couple of years we will be having the same discussion that has been going on for decades.
When is it going to start warming again.
The only thing different is that the warm phase of the AMO is running out of steam. Tick tock, tick tock. ”
You seem to quickly move the goalpost to keep right, huh?
Oh what about the persistent cool phase of the PDO?
Yeah, man. When I look at the chart at the top of this article, especially the red line, I just see one thing:Down, down, down. How could anyone not see that?
Yeah, man. When I look at the red line in the chart at the top of this article, I only see one thing: Down, down, down. How could anyone miss that?
DG,
Markets always need more suckers:
https://kalshi.com/markets/gtemp/hottest-year-ever
What are you waiting for?
No betting for me, Will, but I’m thinking that 2024 will end up as the second hottest year. A very close second. Actually, it seems likely to me that 2024 could end up being the hottest year in the satellite record but #2 in the surface temperature datasets.
It doesn’t really matter. 2023 and 2024 will be so close that it will be a virtual tie. It will be two consecutive extremely hot years. The third hottest year will be a very distant third.
Not to criticise, but what is the obsession with the calendar year? That particular sample has no special privilege of which I am aware. The fact that the 13-month running mean just peaked at over 0.4C above any previous high is surely the point of note.
Of course, Elliott. I was just responding to the Kalshi link which was entitled “Is this the hottest year ever?”. When you’re tracking climate change you’ve got to look at it in increments of time, and it’s natural to think in terms of calendar years. But you are absolutely correct, the extraordinary heat of the past thirteen months is most noteworthy regardless of which year ends up as the hottest.
It’s really hard to do any kind of measurement without using some kind of conventions, Elliott. Sometimes one needs them just to distinguish versions of a piece of code.
The point isn’t that years are sacrosanct, but that everyone uses them.
Trump will fix the climate on day one
True. He’ll just stop us measuring it!
LOL!!!
Actually, Nate, Trump has his own secret measurements. He keeps them pretty close to the vest, but sometimes he gives us a hint about them. As he told us last Thursday, under his his leadership, “We had H2O, we had the best numbers ever!”
Who could argue with that?
Found them.
Oh Nate, there is joke that is a true story. Governor Jerry Brown of California was giving a speech. He defiantly stated that if Trump takes down the satellites, the state of California will put up their own. I saw it CNN so it must be true.
The obvious irony is that the climate change believers do not like the satellite record. Surface observation will do just fine thank you.
I actually saw Jerry Brown during a very small-time social function. It must have been 1975 or 76 We did not speak, in fact he did not talk to anyone but the official politicians. There were maybe 20 people in total. He arrived with very light security and little fanfare. He was in a plain looking economy car (Dodge Dart?). There was a uniformed CHP officer driving and another one on a motorcycle. That was it. He stayed about 10 minutes to shake hands and then left.
Fortunately there are other scientific organs outside the US which he can’t shut down.
Tim S
” The obvious irony is that the climate change believers do not like the satellite record. ”
*
I fear you, like so many here, are confusing ‘satellite’ and ‘UAH’.
I can’t imagine that ‘climate change believers’ would ever disagree with RSS, as their temperature data often are higher than those measured at the surface.
That’s of course the reason why ‘climate change deniers’ reject RSS in favor of the ‘cooler’ series from UAH (and even NOAA STAR since its 180 degree turn).
Surprisingly, none of the ‘climate change deniers’ would ever disagree with RSS’ precipitation data.
Bindidon, you frame the question perfectly. There is UAH and RSS for satellite and a large number of other organization doing surface analysis. UAH and RSS use different methods to account for calibration drift and new satellites.
With so much interest in this, I would think that more organizations with ample resources would tackle this problem, and settle the question, but they do not. Why?
Would not be hard, all he has to do is make NOAA and GISS accountable for their climate fudging.
Nix Net Zero. Net Zero means a return to serfdom.
I read in the previous thread the usual coolista stuff:
” A tiny town located on Tasmanias Central Plateau just registered Australias first -10C of the year as southern Australia starts to feel the icy chill of a unusually strong mid-winter high pressure system. ”
Wooooooaah. Grrrand Coooling Ahhhead!
Some seem to simply forget that Tasmania’s Central Plateau is here and there at an altitude of about 1000 meters.
By the way, let us have a look at Tasmania’s lowest Tmins since beginning:
ASN00096033 ___LIAWENEE___________________ 2020 8 7 -14.2 (C)
ASN00095018 ___TARRALEAH_VILLAGE__________ 1983 6 30 -13.0
ASN00096003 ___BUTLERS_GORGE______________ 1983 6 30 -13.0
ASN00096021 ___SHANNON_HEC________________ 1983 6 30 -13.0
ASN00095001 ___BOTHWELL_(FRANKLIN_STREET)_ 1972 6 24 -12.5
ASN00096003 ___BUTLERS_GORGE______________ 1983 7 1 -12.5
ASN00093036 ___CAMPBELL_TOWN______________ 1972 6 24 -12.2
ASN00096033 ___LIAWENEE___________________ 2013 7 9 -12.2
ASN00093027 ___PALMERSTON_________________ 1972 6 24 -11.9
ASN00093014 ___OATLANDS_POST_OFFICE_______ 1972 6 24 -11.7
We see that such temperatures actually are not so unusual; especially because Liawenee is exactly on this famous Central Plateau, at 1057 meters.
*
However, we see also that all these temperatures below -10 C are recent. Not one night temperature below -10 C visible before 1972!
This means that Tasmania is over the long term certainly not warming at all:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DJWz-z83DfsgSx6U7J0bklTaRlBvZQTS/view
Tmin since 1900: -0.12 C / decade, Tmax: -0.09
And not even since the sat era in 1979: Tmin: 0.10, Tmax: 0.0.
*
No: it’s not warming everywhere, he he.
Is Australia in danger of warming.
https://i.ibb.co/PGQdfgz/gfs-T2m-aus-1.png
https://i.ibb.co/WvYMRNM/ventusky-pressure-20240702t1900-1.jpg
As always, I’m talking about decades and Palmoswki replies about days.
Thanks for the proof, Binny, that the planet is cooling.
If there is a big Atlantic Hurricane season as predicted, what effect will that have? Beryl is still Cat 5, but projected to weaken after Jamaica is hit hard.
Hurricane Beryl threatens Hispaniola and Cuba, and its eye will pass over Jamaica and hit Yucatn.
https://i.ibb.co/x5qTL7v/goes16-wv-rgb-02-L-202407021425.gif
Last year there was a massive hurricane that stayed mostly at sea. I saw a satellite image of a large area of cooler water in its path. Hurricanes cool the ocean and transport heat to the upper atmosphere. How significant is that effect?
And this shows its path:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at2+shtml/173539.shtml?cone#contents
This is his path.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/storminfo/
https://i.ibb.co/yFw3JW3/Screenshot-2024-07-02-23-12-45.png
Expect about the same number of tropical cyclones to form.
A higher proportion of them will become hurricanes so the number of hurricanes will be larger than normal.
They are more likely to exceed Category 3.
Expect more rain and more damage than in an average year.
This might be a good time to sell your insurance company shares.
This spike is most likely Tonga, as I see it. No other explanation FITS as well. Sulfate from boats too long ago, El Nino contribution is there, but timing doesn’t match nor does total energy (integral under this spike) match ocean response. Sun is a lower frequency. More like decadal is the highest frequency recorded in any proxy record. And solar forcing is not large in UAH data.
So TONGA based on:
1. Spike originated too Early to be El Nino based on long standing lag in UAH to Nino 3.4
2. To protracted to be El Nino based on long term average duration and relationship with end of El Nino in Pacific
3. Tonga sent up Unprecedented water vapor, it still exists today providing the mechanism for causing a spike.
4. Timing of spike matches Tonga eruption.
5. Water vapor is the main driver of greenhouse effect.
The HTE can still be seen in the Polar Vortex, although it is lessening. The atmospheric waves are no longer apparent, but the PV winds are still being slightly affected. Some have said the effects will last 2-3 years.
With the weakening HTE and the oncoming La Niña, we could see significant drops in UAH by the end of the year.
Clint July 2 2024: “The HTE can still be seen in the Polar Vortex”
Clint February 2 2024: “the Polar Vortex is operating normally again”
Thanks for quoting me correctly, barry.
That’s always a good way to learn….
It’s a good way to see that you make it up as you go along and thus contradict yourself.
There is no other scientific explanation. It has to be related to the millions of tons of water dumped into the stratosphere by Hunga Tonga.
The stratosphere is normally a very arid place, very little WV.
However, we must remember that the 0.8C is just an average. A slight skewing of temperature in one part of the planet could account for the average tipping upwards.
> There is no other scientific explanation.
Yes there is.
“Yes there is.”
Of course, you are going to refuse to divulge what it is, arent you?
Not terribly helpful. That’s your aim, isn’t it – to be as unhelpful as possible?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Using a silly HTML trick to write a verboten word might not be the best way to ask for a sammich.
“Mike Flynn,
Using a silly HTML trick to write a verboten word might not be the best way to ask for a sammich.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Are you going to divulge your silly HTML trick to use the T-word, Mike?
Willard,
I have not been here frequently, so sorry if I am missing your previous logic. Can you clarify what is the other viable explanation? I am definitely open to testing other ideas.
Aaron
Another thought experiment, is the only other deviation between the Nino 3.4 and the UAH is Pinatubo. So it seems that it takes something at the scale of a decent sized volcano to create an anomaly to a well behaved system (system: UAH lags Nino 3.4 by 5 Months and total energy is highly correlated between data sets such that positive correlate with positive and vice versa).
AS,
When you’ll tell us about your scientific explanation and if it does not amount to “but volcanoes,” I’ll see what I can do.
This still looks to me like some kind of instrument failure.
Yep. Worldwide thermometers got Covid, or something.
I agree.
Andrew
skeptical
” … some kind of instrument failure. ”
*
Are you serious?
Let’s compare UAH 6.0 land to the RATPAC-B land radiosondes which were inter-calibrated with UAH 5.x in 2008 at Vienna U, Austria, if I well remember.
1. UAH LT vs. RAT 500 hPa (5.5 km)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ayXrwM4S4KQfxQSrsHM7IInT4lhgnJed/view
2. UAH LS vs. RAT 100 hPa (16 km)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_juXJ0mfrFU6iO2Df-v5kXdGnr5q7eBz/view
*
The correlation between UAH LS and RATPAC at 500 hPa is less good since a few years than for the LT / 500 hPa pair; but when constructing a time series for the lower stratosphere out of no more than 85 balloons, you can’t expect the result becoming nearer to the average of no less than 9504 UAH grid cells than is shown in the 2. graph.
Should read
The correlation between UAH LS and RATPAC at 100 hPa …
What is the minimum value of UAH TLT that you would still consider instrument failure?
There is another possibility. The satellites are owned by NOAA and its not clear whether UAH gets the data straight from the satellites or via NOAA. If it comes via NOAA, they have the capability of running it through an algorithm before handing it over to UAH.
Cynical…but possible. I justify my cynicism based on my experience here in Vancouver Canada. This spring and early summer has been cooler than normal. Significantly cooler.
> Cynical…but possible.
Mr. Asshat never really told that to Roy’s face directly.O
One has to wonder why.
“Mr. Asshat never really told that to Roys face directly.O
One has to wonder why”
Maybe he didnt feel like it? Wonder away, dummy. I’m sure nobody at all cares about your “wonders”.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Mr. Asshat never really told that to Roys face directly.O
One has to wonder why”
Maybe he didnt feel like it? Wonder away, dummy. I’m sure nobody at all cares about your “wonders”.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You used the T-word.
That means you used your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.
“Mike Flynn,
You used the T-word.
That means you used your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.”
What are you babbling about? Is it anything to do with your refusal to accept the reality that there is no GHE?
What’s the T-word? Is it like the N-word, or the F-word?
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy’s mind is far below that of a simpleton. Why should Roy be concerned about my thoughts? I am not accusing him or UAH of chicanery, I am accusing NOAA of possible chicanery.
After all, if NOAA is an intermediary between the sat data and UAH, based on their past chicanery, it would not be beyond them to mess with the data before handing it over.
By chicanery I am referring to NOAA’s announcement that 2014 was the hottest year ever. Upon closer scrutiny, it was revealed that NOAA was claiming only a possibility that 2014 was the hottest ever, based on a 48% likelihood. GISS outdid their chicanery by claiming a 38% likelihood.
I have every bit of confidence in the integrity of Roy and UAH integrity.
Mr. Asshat feigns ignorance:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-upper-tropospheric-temperatures-corroborate-lt-temperature-trends/#comment-1676077
He’ll have to work a little harder for his conspiracy theory to take hold.
” There is another possibility. The satellites are owned by NOAA and its not clear whether UAH gets the data straight from the satellites or via NOAA. If it comes via NOAA, they have the capability of running it through an algorithm before handing it over to UAH. ”
*
Once more we see Robertson’s dumb ignorance and utterly arrogant lying.
If he had a bit of a clue through informing himself, he would know that NOAA’s satellite data is also used by NOAA itself in its STAR department.
And if he had just a bit of technical education, skills and experience, he would be able to compare UAH’s and STAR’s LT data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10MWqbxzBp-JVIi0O8fs4KibpF4WmKSHp/view
Linear trend for period: Jan 1981 – Dec 2023, in C / decade
UAH 6.0 LT: 0.149 +- 0.007
NOAA STAR LT: 0.138 +- 0.007
But he wouldn’t even know from where to obtain the data, let alone be able to fairly compare the downloaded time series using the simplest features of a spreadsheet calculator.
*
All what Robertson is able to do is to distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate and lie.
Anyone who credulously believes Robertson’s trash 100% deserves it.
The last temperature range oscillated around about 0.25C. It will be interesting to see where the new oscillation will occur. I am going to guess about 0.5C.
More like 0.2C. Take a look at the period prior to 2016, it featured an 18 year flat trend. The 18 years before 1998 were below the baseline.
CO2 warming cannot be explained by an 18 year flat trend.
“CO2 warming cannot be explained by an 18 year flat trend.”
Why does an 18-year flat trend for the temperatures of the lower troposphere exclude CO2 as a cause of long-term warming?
(Never mind that the trend for this period is indeterminate – failing to disprove the null doesn’t prove the null)
Because CO2 lags temperature in both short and long, time scales. And, Berry has shown that most of the CO2 increase is due to natural emissions
This reply does not respond to the question asked.
Same thing happened in the 1930s, what was the cause then?
Some have written those records off as pertaining to North America only which is as ridiculous as claiming the 400+ uear Little Ice Age occurred only in Europe. In the 1930s, there was little in the way of globality and many parts of the globe were not covered with thermometers as they are today.
> Same thing happened in the 1930s,
No it did not.
“No it did not.”
What didnt happen? Refusing to say? I don’t blame you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mikey, did you notice that your comment applies equally to Gordon’s comment? Why don’t you ask him what DID happen. Let me address your oversight for you.
Gordon,
“Same thing happened in the 1930s.”
What happened? Refusing to say? I dont blame you.
Mike Flynn
Mike Flynn,
What didn’t happen is you not using the T-word.
Did you exploit a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation again?
“Mikey, did you notice that your comment applies equally to Gordons comment? Why dont you ask him what DID happen. Let me address your oversight for you.”
You may do as you wish. Waste your time in whatever fashion you like, if it gives you solace. Should I be concerned?
[what a foolish person]
“Mike Flynn,
What didn’t happen is you not using the T-word.
Did you exploit a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation again?”
Thank you for your concern.
[snigger]
We have someone who spends ALL waking hours EVERY day posting here and continually refreshing the page talking about wasting time.
“We have someone who spends ALL waking hours EVERY day posting here and continually refreshing the page talking about wasting time.”
Good to know.
[snicker]
Keep snickering at yourself, Mikey. What have you done today Mikey that has nothing to do with using the internet? Then think how much more you could have done if you would just get up off your ass.
“Keep snickering at yourself, Mikey. What have you done today Mikey that has nothing to do with using the internet? Then think how much more you could have done if you would just get up off your ass.”
Thanks for your concern.
[snigger]
See how easier it is to make comments without using any word that requires you to use your HTML trick, Mike?
“See how easier it is to make comments without using any word that requires you to use your HTML trick, Mike?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Now you had to use your HTML trick, Mike.
“See how easier it is to make comments without using any word that requires you to use your HTML trick, Mike?”
Willard, please stop trolling. Or not, as you wish.
Please stop using your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation, Mike.
The strength of the solar polar field is trending downward. The latest data from 01.07.2024 shows that there has already been a change of polarity on the Sun.
https://i.ibb.co/YDrZh2t/Polar.gif
https://i.ibb.co/9vtrcnM/north.gif
https://i.ibb.co/nR0hpnf/south.gif
Clint R
You are absolutely right. Flux is rate of energy flow per unit of area.
For a constant area structure like the Earth, flux correalates exactly with energy flow.
Thus you can use flux as an indicator of energy flow in planetary energy budgets.
“Thus you can use flux as an indicator of energy flow in planetary energy budgets.”
What? Yet another proxy? Why not just use the energy flow as the energy flow?
All irrelevant anyway, isn’t it? The Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago. That shows that four and a half billion years of sunlight did not contain enough energy to replace that lost by the planet.
Measurements dating back to Fourier and earlier show the Earth loses more energy than it gains – currently about 44 tW. That’s called cooling.
Do you think calling energy flow “flux” will cause the Earth to magically get hotter? Only joking, of course you do!
Carry on denying reality. Still no GHE.
Only a significant increase in the mass of the troposphere can cause an increase in pressure over the oceans and ocean surface temperature. Earth is a water planet and its global temperature depends on the temperature of the ocean. Currently, the ocean surface temperature does not exceed 31 C anywhere, and the excess heat, due to the constant average pressure, causes an increase in evaporation, convection and clouds.
Ren,
Steady pressure does not cause temperature to rise, in the atmosphere or otherwise.
For example, “Surface temperatures under the polar highs are one of the coldest on Earth, with no month having an average temperature above freezing.” – Wikipedia.
Even at extreme pressure, such as under 10 km of seawater, temperatures are only around 2 C, due to heat coming through the crust from below, not from pressure from above.
Earth is a mostly glowing hot rocky planet, with a very thin film of liquid water of 70% of its surface.
The planet is still cooling, which it will continue to do as long as the interior is hotter than the surface.
Thanks Mikey for proving to the likes of Gordon that the ideal gas law does not counter global warming.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Thanks Mikey for proving to the likes of Gordon that the ideal gas law does not counter global warming.”
Your opinion is noted – and ignored.
[laughing]
You said temperature is not determined solely by air pressure, did you not? Ergo, you have proved what I claimed. Opinion does not enter into it.
You don’t have to do the whole job in one step.
Why not use solar flux to calculate the energy absorbed for each grid square, thus allowing for Sun angle and albedo variation between grid squares?
Then add up the energy absorbed by all the grid squares to get the total planetary energy absorbed.
“You said temperature is not determined solely by air pressure, did you not? Ergo, you have proved what I claimed. Opinion does not enter into it.”
Your opinion is noted, and discarded as having no value whatsoever.
Thank you for your pointless input.
[laughing at fool]
Sorry Ent, but that won’t work. You’re trying to treat Earth as a homogenous object, with constant temperature and emissivity. The error margins become ridiculous. That’s why the bogus “EEI” is ridiculous, especially when the “imbalance” is reported to two decimal places, with NO mention of error margin.
That ain’t science. But, it tricks many, which is the purpose….
The satellite method of calculating energy imbalance is
Solar insolation – albedo – outward longwave radiation.
That gives approximately 1 W/m^2 or 0.1% of the energy absorbed.
You can confirm this independantly. Over 90% of the total energy absor*bed by the Earth each year is absor*bed by the oceans. Of the approximately 10^24 Joules absor*bed each year 10^21 Joules becomes extra ocean heat content.
Once again the imbalance is about 0.01%.
Always nice to have independent ways of checking such measures as EEI.
EM,
You wrote –
“The satellite method of calculating energy imbalance is
Solar insolation albedo outward longwave radiation.”
Which is completely meaningless. Only reality deniers would think such a laughable exercise would provide any useful information.
Go on, explain the relevance to four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, or the mythical GHE which you refuse to describe in any valid way.
The “energy balance” is completely nonsensical.
A weather station at Liawenee registered a minimum temperature of -12.9C shortly after 6am AEST on Wednesday. This was Tasmanias lowest July temperature on record, beating the previous record of -12.5C from Butlers Gorge on July 1, 1983. Launcestons low of -3.1C on Wednesday was also its coldest July morning in seven years.
Wednesday mornings bitterly cold temperatures are part of a string of icy mornings that are snap freezing Tasmania this week, under the influence of an abnormally strong high pressure system. This high is so strong that it may challenge Australias maximum mean sea level pressure record in the coming days.
https://i.ibb.co/zxK1wwC/ventusky-wind-300hpa-20240703t0700.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/C93kB9F/ventusky-pressure-20240703t0700.jpg
“Bureau of Meteorology confirms rainfall records broken across NSW”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-22/bom-annual-rainfall-records-broken-across-nsw/101782404
Palmowski
See my recent comment upthread about Tasmania’s July temperatures:
By the way, let us have a look at Tasmanias lowest Tmins since beginning:
ASN00096033 ___LIAWENEE___________________ 2020 8 7 -14.2 (C)
ASN00095018 ___TARRALEAH_VILLAGE__________ 1983 6 30 -13.0
ASN00096003 ___BUTLERS_GORGE______________ 1983 6 30 -13.0
ASN00096021 ___SHANNON_HEC________________ 1983 6 30 -13.0
You are a really bad information source.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Thanks for the proof, Binny, that the planet is cooling.”
As far as I know of global cooling forecasts, there’s Valentina Zharkova’s grand solar minimum theory, but the current solar cycle has more sunspots than the previous one.
This blog has seen numerous claims of future cooling over the years, but none have proven correct. Nonetheless, I can respect forecasts that are, at least, supported by solid physical theories. What is yours, Gordon?
The Sun’s magnetic activity is weakening, and the number of spots does not correlate with the number of strong eruptions on the Sun. The average solar wind speed during this cycle is low, ranging from 350 to 500 km/s. It rarely exceeds 600 km/s. WSO Stanford observations confirm the weakening of the polar solar magnetic field.
https://i.ibb.co/MCRLMKT/number-of-c-m-and-x-clas.png
You people claim that high neutron counts is the ultimate cause of cooling from reduced solar activity. Neutron counts are DOWN this cycle.
Real-time Oulu NM count rate, updated every five minutes. Data for the last 24-hr is PRELIMINARY.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Thanks for clearly illustrating that the recent monthly averages have been significantly lower than for the peak of last cycle.
John W
” Gordon Robertson wrote:
‘Thanks for the proof, Binny, that the planet is cooling.’ ”
Robertson was of course trying to kid the blog, as always.
His pathological, egotistic reply was wrt what I wrote about Tasmania:
” This means that Tasmania is over the long term certainly not warming at all:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DJWz-z83DfsgSx6U7J0bklTaRlBvZQTS/view
Tmin since 1900: -0.12 C / decade, Tmax: -0.09
And not even since the sat era in 1979: Tmin: 0.10, Tmax: 0.0.
No: its not warming everywhere, he he. ”
*
Robertson becomes dumber and dumber.
**
Now for the ‘Grrrand Cooling Ahhhead’ syndrome, vehemently defended by Palmowski and some other geniuses: I recently wrote that SC 25 could be doing worse.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view
Conversely, a monthly comparison for SC 25 of four solar data sources
– SILSO Sun Spot Number
– Solar Flux radio 10.7 cm
– Bremen MgII composite index
– Inverted Oulu Neutron Count
gives this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oLwc2SSUqAxeJBCO8lVmjMbLIXUbRB8Y/view
Palmowski, Robertson and other ‘specialist’s can tell us whatever they want.
Confusion remains over “energy”, “power”, and “flux”, so some simple analogies might help.
Let’s start with only “energy” and “power”. Energy has units of “Joules”, and Power has units of “Joules per time”, which is also “Watts”. Note that Energy is a “quantity”, while Power is a “rate” (quantity per time). “Energy” and “Power” are NOT the same.
Most people are familiar with a car traveling at a speed, say 50 mph. That speed is a “rate” — quantity per time. No one, but a child, would believe that 60 mph is the same as 60 miles. Yet confusing “quantity” with “rate” is a common mistake in GHE “science”.
Quantities are typically “conserved”. That just means that things must “add up”, or be accountable. For example, if you purchase 5 apples at the store, you expect to arrive home with 5 apples. If one is missing, then it was either dropped, or eaten. Apples just don’t magically disappear. Apples are “conserved”.
But, “rates” are NOT conserved. “Rates” do not add or subtract like quantities. For example, if you drive 50 miles, stop, then drive another 50 miles, you have driven 100 miles. But, if you drive at 50 mph, stop, then drive again at 50 mph, you have NOT driven at 100 mph!
In physics, it’s very important to pay attention to the units. Otherwise, you just end up with nonsense.
So are you claiming that if water enters a tank through a pipe at 20L/h, and more water enters the tank through another pipe at 30L/h, and there are no other sources or sinks, then water is not entering the tank at 50L/h?
Predicted response: “You do not understand”
That’s NOT what I’m saying, Ant.
In your example, 20 l/h for 1 hour, then later 30 l/h for another hour, would NOT equal 50 l/h.
If you want another example, use the solid cone in space. The total surface area is 5 times the base. The base absorbs 900 W/m². With emissivity equal to 1, and at steady state, the surface is emitting 180 W/m². The flux-in does NOT equal the flux-out.
Flux is NOT conserved. The EEI is bogus.
Riddle me this, Puffman –
Why did you not reduce your equation to a common basis, pun intended?
Silly sock puppet!
Cult Leader Grammie clone has a bone in his craw (as usual). He forgets that the EEI being discussed is presented as “watts per m^2” averaged for the Entire Earth. Thus, each of the components could be converted to Joules by multiplying by the total area of the Earth and an appropriate time period, such as a year. The results for each component would be Joules per year, which one finds used sometimes for ocean heat storage discussions.
The trouble is, such numbers would be quite large to deal with, so the convention is simply “watts per meter^2” since many of the real world measurements use that metric. Besides, the fractions of each component would still be the same, so why make it hard to understand by requiring the large numbers associated with Joules when w/m^2 gives the same result? Silly boy!
Sorry E. Swanson, but that won’t work.
You would have to match each flux with the specific area and emissivity. Otherwise, you’re just making crap up to support your cult beliefs.
Oh, wait….
Clot R
I already know it won’t help your thinking. But in your case of water flow, if you had a 20 l/hrs flow and another 30 l/hrs flow, the two flows add and it would be equivalent to 50 l/hrs. Sorry your logic is so terrible!
Norman, my example considered the two flow rates at different times. The rates would then NOT add.
You will need a responsible adult to explain it to you.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2024-0-80-deg-c/#comment-1677258
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
What’s dimension analysis?
No, grammie clone, those numbers in Trenberth’s famous graph are global averages. There’s no way to dis-aggregate them without going back to the basic data and starting over. Said data already includes parameters such as the fractional area and emissivity so that they can be averaged effectively. Why would you think otherwise?
Clint R
Why do you separate the rates? With the Earth you have energy going in at a rate and leaving at a rate. If they equal the temperature does not change. If you alter either incoming or leaving rates your temperature will change. Really simple stuff. Your cone example is very poor when comparing to Earth since the receiving and emitting surface areas are the same.
All wrong, Swanson.
Trying to come up with an “energy budget” from satellite measurements is ludicrous. You obviously don’t understand ANY of the science. Your cult tries to come up with an average close to 240 W/m², because that comes from an imaginary sphere. But the imaginary sphere is at a temperature of 255K. Earth is at a temperature of 288K. Your cult claims Earth is emitting what a cold imaginary sphere emits!
But, it gets worse. Earth reflects a lot of solar. But the 240 W/m² is only infrared. Your cult omits the reflected energy, and calls the result an “energy budget”! Ludicrous.
It gets even worse, much more, but I’m busy for the next few hours…..
——-
[Norman, get a responsible adult to explain it to you. You’re all tangled up, as usual.]
Clint R
I think you need more than an adult to explain physics to you and what science is. You think your cult posts are science and then you think real science is a cult. No one can be as confused and mixed up as you seem to be. Somewhere your brain wires got crossed and you are no longer able to function as a rational person. I would like to help you but you just reject all evidence in favor of your cult opinions. It is sad but you are stuck wherever. Like Swenson and Gordon Robertson.
Clint R
Despite your opinion of E. Swanson, he would be the scientific one and you are the cult minded opinioned one who will never support anything. Do you understand that science is an evidence based study of nature? It is not your opinions and arrogant declarations based on how you feel about things (IR from a cold source will reflect off a hotter object and not get absorbed is one of your flawed opinions. It is based on zero evidence, no supporting observations, no experiments. You get this from blogs by crackpot geologists who really do not have much knowledge of the physics).
So go to this link. This is some of the data used to calculate a global average emission of IR and the average is around 240 W/m^2. You can deny the evidence all day long. I might be inclined to listen to your babbling if you would ever link to something that supports your cult opinions. To date you have not provided anything but your arrogant opinions. Much like Swenson and Gordon Robertson.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/resources/images/
“So are you claiming that if water enters a tank through a pipe at 20L/h, and more water enters the tank through another pipe at 30L/h, and there are no other sources or sinks, then water is not entering the tank at 50L/h?”
AQ refuses to describe the GHE in any valid manner, but instead diverts into bizarre pointless and irrelevant analogies.
The planet has cooled for four and a half billion years, and continues to do so.
Obviously, nothing at all prevented this cooling.
AQ finds himself totally snookered, hoist with his own petard, so to speak. As do all his ilk.
So Clint, is 20W of energy per hour over a square metre of earth from one source plus 30 Watts of energy per hour over the same square metre of earth from another source equal to 50W per hour over the same square metre of earth?
And if they are not the same square metre:
The first source supplies 20W of energy per hour over the first square metre and none over the second, for an average of 10W per square metre per hour.
The second source supplies no energy to the first square metre and 30W per hour to the second square metre, for an average of 15W per square metre per hour.
Are you claiming that the average over the 2 square metres is not 25W per square metre per hour? That is, are you claiming that it is not valid to add AVERAGE fluxes to get an average flux?
BTW … the higher order models DO account for varying flux over the earth’s surface. You are looking at the kiddy model, and still getting it wrong.
I wonder if E. Swanson was able to learn anything?
For some reason, I doubt it….
How can Puffman live in a house in which only one light is on?
Ant, your “problem” is very confusing.
For example, are you saying a surface is emitting or absorbing? “Over” is not very clear.
Maybe you could find someone that understands physics to help you phrase your question?
Otherwise, you sound like a cult id10t.
Grammie clone wrote:
Not from you, air head.
I however have learned the basics or measuring SW and LW radiation from space, having followed the progress of such measurements since the ERBE experiments. gremmie also ignores the efforts to make necessary measurements at the surface and within the atmosphere. These efforts have continued and have been improved over decades of work .
As suspected, “Swansn” hasn’t learned anything.
They can’t learn….
Clint – my wording is very clear. I am talking about neither emitting nor absorbing. I am talking only about the flux STRIKING a surface, regardless of what happens next. It is clear you don’t know how to respond.
AQ,
You wrote –
“So Clint, is 20W of energy per hour over a square metre of earth from one source plus 30 Watts of energy per hour over the same square metre of earth from another source equal to 50W per hour over the same square metre of earth?”
Ooooooh! Another stupid attempt at a gotcha!
Don’t look more idiotic than you have to.
Completely irrelevant, and pointless. You refuse to describe the GHE in any valid way, so trying to convince anybody that you are wise and knowledgeable is doomed to failure.
As to your witless gotcha, you may as well refuse to illustrate your intellectual brilliance by telling everyone how much energy is flowing through a random square meter of the Earth’s surface at any given time. Given that photons travel at the speed of light, and that there are about 413 CMB (Cosmic Microwave background) photons per cc, commensurate with a temperature of 2.73 K or so, how many photons commensurate with temperatures above and below 2.73 K also occupy each cc of space, and thus flow through a random square meter of the Earth’s surface?
You can refuse to answer, on any grounds you like. Obviously, fluxes do not “add” in any meaningful sense, unless the “fluxes” are composed of identical entities.
You don’t understand what I am talking about, do you? You refuse to accept that “climate scientists” are similarly clueless, and deny reality just like you.
Whenever you feel confident enough to reply Clint …
Puffman just wrote a comment admitting that your maths was correct.
He took the L!
If you walk at 2 kph from the back to the front of a train traveling at 60 kph, you will be traveling at 62 kph relative to the ground.
” ‘Rates’ do not add or subtract like quantities.”
Rubbish. Depending on context rates can indeed be summed.
A company owns a factory that produces 1000 cars a day. The company invests in a second factory that produces 1000 cars a day.
If we add these rates we get the correct answer for how many cars are produced per day by the company.
Sorry barry, but you’re making the same mistake as Ant.
A specific example can disprove a general concept, but a specific example can NOT prove a general concept.
It’s called “reality”.
The general concept you gave us was:
” ‘Rates’ do not add or subtract like quantities.”
That’s just been disproved with several examples.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Why did you have to find a bogus example just to show that you can’t mind your units properly?
Don’t worry barry. If you can’t come up with something valid, other cult children will cover for you.
Hey, Puffman, riddle me this –
One of your old sock puppet buys 100 Euros for 108 USD. Another of your sock puppet buys 108 USD for 101 Euros. Can you convince your sock puppets that you can’t tell if they lost money?
barry,
You are no doubt an exceptionally clever fellow (in your own opinion, at least).
You refuse to describe the GHE, but waffle on about anything else – trains, walking thereon, companies, factories, cars – and so on.
Others might not agree with your opinion of your cleverness. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and continues to do so, losing energy at a rate of 44tW or so.
Continue to deny reality if you like. Nature can’t be fooled, as Richard Feynman said.
No GHE.
“Hey, Puffman, riddle me this. . . .”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Only one forbidden word you can post by injecting an invisible HTML character?
Please, make an effort.
“Mike Flynn,
Only one forbidden word you can post by injecting an invisible HTML character?
Please, make an effort.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey Mike, riddle me this –
In one comment at you post one banned word using your silly HTML trick. In another comment at you post banned word.
Can you measure the flow of your usage of the silly HTML trick?
“Hey Mike, riddle me this
In one comment at you post one banned word using your silly HTML trick. In another comment at you post banned word.
Can you measure the flow of your usage of the silly HTML trick?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
It’s one banned word per comment, Mike.
“It’s one banned word per comment, Mike.”
Oh dear, you have appointed yourself Dr Spencer’s “Word Suitability Arbiter”, have you?
You do have delusions of grandeur, dont you? If Dr Spencer banned any words from appearing on his blog, they wouldnt appear, would they? If you want to accuse Dr Spencer of incompetence, go ahead – while I laugh at your silliness.
You might be stupid, but at least you’re a fool as well.
Willard, please stop trolling.
One banned word per comment is the solution to the puzzle, Mike.
What are you braying about, and why do you keep using a silly HTML trick to write forbidden words?
Willard,
Mikey is inserting HTML character #8204 (“zero width non joiner”) into his text. He is happy to lie about that because he doesn’t realise the codes can be seen if one knows where to look.
Power is energy per time. Flux as used in climate forcing is energy per time per unit area. In the context of the atmosphere fluxes do not add because flux is taken at a plane surface and the atmosphere is dynamic and three dimensional.
Other than that, the analogy of a moving car, train or whatever is not a flux, and to that extent the analogy does not work. The energy portion of the flux is variously disturbed as it move away the arbitrary reference plane so it really is not worth arguing about.
Carry on.
> flux is taken at a plane surface
Not always, but it doesn’t matter either way.
Try again.
Wonky Wee Willy,
There is no GHE. All this talk of fluxes is pointless.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and continues to do so.
Keep refusing to accept reality. Nature can’t be fooled, unlike fanatical GHE cultists.
Mike Flynn,
Every planet of the Solar system receives energy from the Sun. That energy can be estimated using the solar constant of that planet and the size of the planet. That solar constant is usually expressed as flux density. Geometric contortions like TS’ do not change the convenience of doing so.
Long live and prosper.
Wonky Wee Willy,
There is no GHE. All this talk of fluxes is pointless.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and continues to do so.
Keep refusing to accept reality. Nature cant be fooled , unlike fanatical GHE cultists.
The algebraic properties of a unit have nothing to do with your usual distractions, Mike.
“The algebraic properties of a unit have nothing to do with your usual distractions, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
You must know by now what is this month’s theme, Mike.
You’re using a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.
“The algebraic properties of a unit have nothing to do with your usual distractions, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
You repeated the same comment, Mike.
So not only you used your silly HTML trick, but you also inserted a space somewhere in your text.
“You repeated the same comment, Mike.
So not only you used your silly HTML trick, but you also inserted a space somewhere in your text.”
Thank you for your concern.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You used your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.
This is why you can publish forbidden words on the page.
Is that too hard for you to understand?
Hey England,
Have Fun At Work Tomorrow!
Get it? England doesn’t celebrate the Fourth of July. So they don’t get a day off. Plus they lost.
Let me guess: Went down on penalties?
I read above, without surprise:
” More like 0.2C. Take a look at the period prior to 2016, it featured an 18 year flat trend.
The 18 years before 1998 were below the baseline. ”
Ignoramus Robertson still does not (want to) understand that a baseline is an arbitrary construction depending of the reference period chosen to construct it.
Years ago already I explained to him that if, instead of accurately using WMO’s specifications for reference periods, Roy Spencer
– had kept till recently the old period ‘1979-1998’ to construct his baseline and the anomalies out of it,
and
– recently switched to a new period ‘1999-2018’,
the UAH chart would look different depending on the reference period used to display it because the baselines for 1979-2018 and 1999-2018 are themselves different.
He didn’t understand this because he never managed to actually read anything: instead, he just skimms through the texts to find something to smugly trumpet about.
*
But… this is so simple to understand!
Though UAH – for good reasons – does not publish absolute temperatures (even not at the 2.5 degree grid level), it is nevertheless possible to reconstruct them by combining the grid anomalies with the grid climatology (the 12-month grid baseline), and then performing a monthly, latitude weighted average of the grid.
*
Having the absolute data, it is then possible to compute any 12-month baseline out of it:
Baseline for 1979-1998 in K
Jan: 262.93
Feb: 263.00
Mar: 263.20
Apr: 263.64
May: 264.26
Jun: 264.93
Jul: 265.23
Aug: 265.05
Sep: 264.39
Oct: 263.70
Nov: 263.19
Dec: 263.00
Mean: 263.88
or
Baseline for 1999-2018 in K
Jan: 263.23
Feb: 263.30
Mar: 263.46
Apr: 263.88
May: 264.47
Jun: 265.09
Jul: 265.42
Aug: 265.24
Sep: 264.66
Oct: 263.98
Nov: 263.43
Dec: 263.22
Mean: 264.12
*
Now we can display the absolute data with the two baseline averages:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rE-LYwgMJyOI1bE5JJ2HHUX_NooIpLeo/view
and show the anomaly time series constructed out of absolute data and the two respective baselines, with a 13 month running mean:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nN316BRnvkmvBMl8jmMm0dpgUnvEizjR/view
*
And here is the point which Robertson (and maybe other, similarly opinionated posters) has always wrong.
Due to the lower average absolute temperature in 1979-1998, the (green) anomalies wrt the baseline are higher than those wrt 1999-2018 (purple).
As anyone can see now, writing ‘The 18 years before 1998 were below the baseline’ is simple nonsense when looking at anomalies wrt the older 1979-1998 baseline: 99% of the anomaly data since 1994 is… above it :–)
*
But Robertson never cares about any contradiction let alone correction.
He will continue to use his good old ‘pieces of paper’ instead, and feed us the same nonsense as always.
UAH LT’s grid data
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
*
Roy Spencer’s explanation about absolute vs. anomaly temperatures
UAH v6 LT Global Temperatures with Annual Cycle
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
Missing detail
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15FRQYhGwBccpdrg0UGAADh6DE588r8L5/view
Solar flux cannot theoretically be averaged over some area, because solar flux what it does is to interact with matter.
When solar flux is averaged, the new interaction result is very different from the actual one.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pray tell more about your “Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K) (1)” equation, Christos.
Willard,
“Pray tell more about your ‘Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K) (1)’equation, Christos.”
–
The Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]^1/4 (K) (1) equation, it is not mine.
The equation expresses the basic important insight that it is possible to theoretically calculate the planet average surface temperature Tmean from planet IR emission.
The Te is the first approach, which uses the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law, considering a planet as a warm sphere emitting the incident energy, as like that energy had been already storaged on the planet surface (which is not).
But it is all wrong approach, because S-B emission law is not an absor-p-tion law.
Also it is wrong because S-B emission law doesn’t describe the actual emission intensity the real matter does at its respective temperatures, which matter is consisted from atoms and molecules, the S-B emission law doesn’t work, that is why a correcting coefficient – the emissivity, was invented.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
That equation works using solar flux.
You just said this was impossible.
Please advise.
Willard,
“That equation works using solar flux.
You just said this was impossible.
Please advise.”
Please Willard, what is the question?
Because I am not so capable in idiomatic English.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
The question is why you’d use “Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K)” when it obviously uses solar flux and you said that this was not possible.
Willard,
Christos is pointing out (quite correctly) that it is simply delusional to imagine that you can calculate the temperature of an object by measuring the radiation falling upon it – if I have understood him correctly.
Do your strange semantic gymnastics indicate that you disagree, or are you refusing to say?
Mike Flynn,
Division and multiplication imply addition and subtraction.
Perhaps you should stick to comments using forbidden words with your silly HTLM trick?
Willard,
Christos is pointing out (quite correctly) that it is simply delusional to imagine that you can calculate the temperature of an object by measuring the radiation falling upon it if I have understood him correctly.
Do your strange semantic gymnastics indicate that you disagree, or are you refusing to say?
Mike Flynn,
Repeating your misunderstanding does not help.
Start with “S /4σ.”
Cheers.
Willard,
Christos is pointing out (quite correctly) that it is simply delusional to imagine that you can calculate the temperature of an object by measuring the radiation falling upon it if I have understood him correctly.
Do your strange semantic gymnastics indicate that you disagree, or are you refusing to say?
Christos does exactly that, Mike, so chances are you misunderstood.
Willard,
Christos is pointing out (quite correctly) that it is simply delusional to imagine that you can calculate the temperature of an object by measuring the radiation falling upon it if I have understood him correctly.
Do your strange semantic gymnastics indicate that you disagree, or are you refusing to say?
Of course you are, as your strange response indicates.
What you claim Christos denies, Mike, Christos does with his model.
Sorry if you can’t read equations anymore.
It’s been a while since your chemical engineering studies, right?
Willard,
Christos is pointing out (quite correctly) that it is simply delusional to imagine that you can calculate the temperature of an object by measuring the radiation falling upon it if I have understood him correctly.
Do your strange semantic gymnastics indicate that you disagree, or are you refusing to say?
Of course you are, as your strange response indicates. Keep diverting.
Mike Flynn,
“Te” represents effective temperature.
Over to you.
“”Te” represents effective temperature.”
Good to know.
Great, Mike.
Now, S represents the solar constant.
To those who propose alternate explanations for long-term warming aside from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, how do you account for stratospheric cooling?
John W, if you want to support your cult, maybe you could give us a viable description of your cult’s GHE.
I won’t hold my breath….
John W,
“. . . how do you account for stratospheric cooling?”
Because the stratosphere is further away from the Earth’s core than the troposphere, and closer to the 3 K or so of outer space?
The thermal gradient goes from hot to cold. However, at low pressures, the concept of temperature gets a bit wobbly. For example, the thermosphere is nominally very “hot” – 2000 C or so, but you’d still freeze to death if shielded from the Sun.
There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and continues to do so.
Feel free to refuse to account for that reality.
John W.
“…how do you account for stratospheric cooling?”
This isn’t my area of expertise, but have you considered humidity as a GHG? As the sun warms the sea surface, it releases a little CO2 and a lot of moisture.
https://localartist.org/media/StratCooling.png
The stratosphere is a very cold, dry place. The only warming there is due to a scarce amount of oxygen molecules being warmed by UV from the Sun. Calling that warming is like claiming the Arctic, at -60C, has warmed to -55C in places.
Same for cooling, how much colder can it get? Any cooling has to be related to a slight drop in UV intensity from the Sun.
Makes sense, Gordon.
You can see the effects of the sunspot cycle on stratosphere temps in the my last post. Unfortunately, consensus TSI composites don’t show much of a drop in the quiet sun TSI. Not that I trust consensus composites.
However, if you look at a my butterfly diagram of the sun’s longitudinally averaged magnetic field strength you can see that the field strength is fading, not just in the lower latitudes where sunspots live, but also in the poloidal regions. Solar activity is decreasing and there’s no reason to assume that UV would remain constant. The stratosphere would respond almost instantly.
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/images/Butterfly.png
The code to produce this diagram from synoptic data is on my website.
Good stuff, Robert. Not up on the sunspot activity, just some theories from Zharkova that seem sound.
What do you make of her theories?
I think Zharkova’s use of principal component analysis shows promise. That said, I think the two PC’s she developed were created using the same data that’s in my version of a butterfly diagram. It’s a very short dataset, so it might be a bit bold to extrapolate more than a few decades in either direction. Also, if memory serves, she’s trying to estimate values for 60 model parameters, so there’s a risk of over-fitting.
I’m also not convinced that everything about solar activity can be replicated in a harmonic model, so I wouldn’t expect her to be able to precisely predict every sunspot cycle. It’s the longer-term trends that are probably the most important thing to focus on.
Solar activity is declining, but we’ll have to wait and see if that develops into a grand minimum.
With the HT temperature spike seemingly on the wane, I do believe that we’re past the highest global temperatures that we’ll see for for a decade.
This prediction is not based on extrapolation, but on the earth’s delayed response to current solar activity. See my website, or:
https://localartist.org/media/SunspotPredictionExcel.xlsx
I saw Andrew Dessler on CNN last night. He started out very reasonably with the fact that we should prepare for unavoidable effects. Then he went off the rails stating that climate is a political issue because “the” fossil fuel industry has bought “the” politicians. I assume he was referring to the politicians he does not like. I would like to see him accuse Bernie Sanders of being bought off.
The most interesting comment was that wealthy people will not like paying poor people for things like air conditioning to cope with a hot planet unless “we” do something to stop it. Is that some kind of threat? They never mention the rest of the world.
He is correct that climate is political. The real problem with that is people like him who are not honest about any of the hype that drives the climate discussion.
Dessler is just another klimate klown. His form of science is utter trash. You won’t ever see Roy, John Christy, or Richard Lindzen on the fake news channel, CNN.
“You won’t ever see Roy, John Christy, or Richard Lindzen on the fake news channel, CNN.”
You have no interest in truth, do you, Gordon? You just fulminate whatever pops into your head.
Dr. Roy Spencer and Mark Hertsgaard debate man’s role in climate change on CNN’s Piers Morgan Live
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/bestoftv/2013/11/12/exp-pmt-roy-spencer-mark-hertsgaard-climate-debate.cnn
Richard Lindzen debates Bill Nye on CNN.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI8Q4WafQz0
John Christy is interviewed by CNN about climate change:
https://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051412
“You won’t ever see Roy, John Christy, or Richard Lindzen on the fake news channel, CNN.”
Do you enjoy being wrong or what, Gordon?
Hurricane Beryl roars by Jamaica after killing at least 6 people in the southeast Caribbean
https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-beryl-caribbean-jamaica-cayman-islands-774803fc70e187ea96e7df10f84d8a50
As tropical storm it’s path could reach Boca Chica.
I got 40% chance, of something happening, near me:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
gb…I did not know you were affected by Atlantic hurricanes in the California desert.
You don’t click the link:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Which indicates 60% chance {not 40%}.
Though not a 40 or 60% chance it will have anything to do with me, but it’s the first significant chance, on my side of pond, of something happening vaguely close to me.
Though it might hit Hawaii as it last year [a few times}.
Still looks a long ways off from Southern Cal.
aarons…”the only other deviation between the Nino 3.4 and the UAH is Pinatubo. So it seems that it takes something at the scale of a decent sized volcano to create an anomaly to a well behaved system…”
***
Good point, I knew about Pinatobu but I had not connected the obvious to Hunga Tonga. With the Pinatobu eruption in the 1990’s, it was volcanic aerosols that cooled the atmosphere significantly for several years. Hunga Tonga, by injecting millions of tons of water into the stratosphere, seems to have caused a warming rather than a cooling. The mechanism may still be unknown but there really is no better explanation for the warming. It is certainly not a trace gas, which failed to affect global temperatures for 18 years between 1998 and 2015.
Wee willy sputtered something about a volcano but failed to grasp your point just as he failed to offer an alternative answer to my claim that no other explanation for the current warming can be offered other than Hunga Tonga.
Wee willy is a true intellect among the denizens of the animal world, including tortoises and hares.
Mr. Asshat does not even realize that volcanoes usually have a negative effect, whereas this had a warming impact but remains a “bit player” (h/t Roy):
https://theconversation.com/global-temperatures-are-off-the-charts-for-a-reason-4-factors-driving-2023s-extreme-heat-and-climate-disasters-209975
He has no business here.
From my post…”With the Pinatobu eruption in the 1990s, it was volcanic aerosols that cooled the atmosphere significantly for several years”.
Is cooling not a negative effect on temperature?
My business here is to prevent alarmist ijits like you, who have no serious business here, from polluting the blog.
From Mr. Asshat’s post:
“I knew about Pinatobu but I had not connected the obvious to Hunga Tonga.”
It’s as if he does not know as much on the Little Ice Age as he pretends? Perhaps he should search for Mount Tambora’s eruption or why pirates disappeared.
It’s Pinatubo, BTW.
In any event, one of the largest eruptions of the past 300 years is a bit player in the scale we’re talking about:
https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming
Note: over the next five years.
Still, such events may not mean what our cranks want them to mean. For they introduce more variability than we actually are comfortable with. Anyone who has seen an unbalanced washing machine should know why.
“Still, such events may not mean what our cranks want them to mean.”
Of course, you refuse to be helpful in any way – by explaining what the events “mean”, for example. Just like you refuse to describe the GHE in any valid way.
That would make you a rather inept troll, wouldn’t it?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here you go –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq6T5BojXc8&t=84s
Cheers.
“Here you go ”
No i don’t. You’re an idiot.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I am not concerned with volcanic eruptions as the cause of the Little Ice Age. Each phase lasted 30 years or more and volcanic aerosols don’t affect climate more than a few years.
Glad to see that Gordo finally admits that he isn’t concerned with reality. But, we already knew that.
Weary Wee Willy,
“He has no business here.”
You have appointed yourself Dr Spencer’s Business Advisor now, have you?
Well done! The amount he pays you no doubt reflects his estimation of your value.
You really are a strange and quite delusional slimy grub, aren’t you?
Keep the laughs coming!
Mike Flynn,
Your silly semantic game is silly. You still might like:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
Vintage 2013.
Interestingly Mr. Asshat commented in the thread.
Wanna see it?
Weary Wee Willy,
“He has no business here.”
You have appointed yourself Dr Spencers Business Advisor now, have you?
Well done! The amount he pays you no doubt reflects his estimation of your value.
You really are a strange and quite delusional slimy grub, arent you?
Keep the laughs coming!
Mike Flynn,
“Appointed” – what are you braying about?
I can say whatever I please and you can’t do nothing about it.
Perhaps you could try to emulate Graham D. Warner and try to PSTer me again?
Silly sock puppet!
[Derisive snark.]
“I can say whatever I please and you cant do nothing about it.” Of course I can – I can laugh as much as I like!
Thanks for the flattery through imitation.
Obviously, you appreciate my general way with words, and the associated panache I exhibit on occasion. You can refuse to describe the GHE as often as you like, and I can laugh about that as well!
An all round laugh-fest!
[laughing at idiot]
You don’t seem to recall from whom you borrowed these square brackets, Mike.
Keep braying!
“I can say whatever I please and you cant do nothing about it.” Of course I can I can laugh as much as I like!
Thanks for the flattery through imitation.
Obviously, you appreciate my general way with words, and the associated panache I exhibit on occasion. You can refuse to describe the GHE as often as you like, and I can laugh about that as well!
An all round laugh-fest!
[laughing at idiot]
Every time you copy-paste your comments seem so satisfied with them that you must be imitating yourself, Mike.
Silly sock puppet!
“I can say whatever I please and you cant do nothing about it.” Of course I can I can laugh as much as I like!
Thanks for the flattery through imitation.
Obviously, you appreciate my general way with words, and the associated panache I exhibit on occasion. You can refuse to describe the GHE as often as you like, and I can laugh about that as well!
An all round laugh-fest!
[laughing at idiot, again]
Every time copy-paste comments seem so satisfied with them that must be imitating yourself, Mike.
Silly sock puppet!
Nobody going to the Moon:
NASA assessment suggests potential additional delays for Artemis 3 lunar lander
Jeff Foust July 3, 2024
https://spacenews.com/nasa-assessment-suggests-potential-additional-delays-for-artemis-3-lunar-lander/
“WASHINGTON As NASA pushes ahead with a crewed lunar landing on the Artemis 3 mission in September 2026, the agencys own analysis estimates a nearly one-in-three chance the lander will be at least a year and a half late.”
A 1/3rd of a chance.
…
The KDP-C also set a cost of $4.9 billion for HLS Initial Capability at the same 70% joint confidence level. That includes the $2.9 billion fixed-price contract to SpaceX, awards to SpaceX, Blue Origin and Dynetics in the earlier phase of the project and NASA project office costs. “
Anyways, it seems to me, SpaceX could start refueling in orbit efforts, within 2024.
But it also seems to me, Blue Origin could beat them to milestone of first refueling of any spacecraft in orbit, before SpaceX does.
Just like/similar Blue Origin claim of being first to recover a stage of rocket {a sub-orbital rocket} and I think Blue Origin could do this, because they want to do this, and refueling in orbit, is easier or quicker to do. And being the first to refuel in orbit, is good PR thing to “have”.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
This post has only touched on the ways that [Tropical Cyclones]s are getting more damaging. There are even more ways, such as changes in the tracks of TCs moving to higher latitudes, more frequent rapid intensification, or the slowdown of TC translation speed, all of which can also increase destructiveness.
When arguing against this, climate misinformers don’t necessarily propagate outright lies. Rather, their method of misinformation lies in the selective emphasis of certain facts that bolster their stance. For example, they will focus on statistics like the number of TCs (or, worse, landfalling hurricanes), emphasizing that we don’t see any trend while conveniently omitting that climate scientists don’t predict an increase.
And they fail to acknowledge the actual factors that are driving destructiveness, such as the increase of storm surge damage caused by sea level rise or the fundamental physics that tells us that TCs will produce more rain as the climate warms. This is classic cherry picking.
Instead of the selective offering of climate misinformers, you should look at all of the data. If you do that, it’s clear that hurricanes and other TCs are getting more destructive.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-change-is-making-hurricanes-09e
Our cranks don’t even quality as climate misinformers.
“Our cranks dont even quality as climate misinformers.”
Willard, please stop trolling. You’re dimwitted.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn?
You’re still using a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn?
Youre still using a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.
Cheers.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike,
You wrote:
“”Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn?
Youre still using a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.
Cheers.”
Willard, please stop trolling.”
Or did you?
“Mike,
You wrote:
“Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn?
Youre still using a silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.
Cheers.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Or did you?”
Willard, please stop trolling. You’re confusing yourself.
There is not a shred of scientific evidence connecting hurricane intensity to global warming. The stats show there were nearly as many Cat 5 hurricanes in the 1930’s as in the 2000’s. There may have been as many, or more, had there been satellites to detect them.
Rather than waving your arms in the air, how about scientific proof that modern hurricanes are stronger and caused by global warming?
“he stats show there were nearly as many Cat 5 hurricanes in the 1930s as in the 2000s.”
Data?
“There may have been as many, or more, had there been satellites to detect them.”
Best to look only at stats in the satellite era, since 1960s.
christos…”The Te is the first approach, which uses the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law, considering a planet as a warm sphere emitting the incident energy, as like that energy had been already storaged on the planet surface (which is not).
But it is all wrong approach, because S-B emission law is not an absor-p-tion law.
Also it is wrong because S-B emission law doesnt describe the actual emission intensity the real matter does at its respective temperatures, which matter is consisted from atoms and molecules, the S-B emission law doesnt work, that is why a correcting coefficient the emissivity, was invented”.
***
You are right about S-B. It is an emission law only. It also neglects any heat dissipation by conduction/convection.
The original Law was created by Stefan and it was a simple relationship between radiation intensity and the temperature of a surface, as in…
I = sigma. T^4.
Stefan had no interest other than the relationship between radiation and temperature, his point being that as temperature increased, the radiation intensity increased as T^4.
When I say intensity, I mean the same as in the standard relationship, E = hf. That is, as EM frequency increases the radiation intensity increases. Stefan knew that and had already predicted that an increase in surface temperature would produce an increased radiation intensity. Temperature and emission frequency/intensity are proportional.
However, E = hf led to the ultraviolet catastrophe, wherein as frequency increases, the radiation intensity would increase toward infinity. Planck solved that by presuming higher frequency energy was less likely and applied an exponential probability to the EM spectrum to get the current bell-shaped curve.
The original Stefan equation was based on the Tyndall experiment in which he heated a platinum filament wire electrically and noted the colours of the wire as the current was increased. Another scientist converted the colours to a colour temperature and that is what Stefan’s original equation is based on….the color of a heated body.
That excludes IR immediately. In fact, it excludes any temperature outside the range of Tyndall’s experiment which observed temperatures between about 500C and 1500C. Therefore the sigma in I = sigma.T^4 applies only to the range 500C to 1500C. Any other inference to temperatures outside that range is purely theoretical.
Then Boltzmann, a student of Stefan, became involved, resulting in S-B. Boltzmann’s work was purely theoretical, he devised a system of treating theoretical atoms/molecules as statistical entities. His goal was to prove the 2nd law and entropy statistically, and he failed. However, his statistical treatment of entropy is still used today even though it is wrong.
In the era of Stefan and Boltzmann, the atomic structure was unknown. Electrons were not discovered till 1898 and it was not till 1913 that Bohr formed a theory for the atom. Boltzmann’s work would have been unnecessary after the discovery of atoms and how they work. However, there are scientists today who insist on keeping the old theories alive, even though they have no real application today.
S-B is not used in modern IR meters. If it was reliable, it would be easy to program the equation into an IR meter but it obviously does not work. Instead, the frequency of IR, not the temperature, is detected by a semiconductor material and it is the effect the IR frequency has on a certain semiconductor material that determines the ‘calculated’ temperature of the target. The temperatures must be derived in a lab and stored in the device memory for reference to detected frequency.
If S-B applied, it would be easy to detect the incoming IR frequency and convert it to a colour temperature using S-B. It obviously does not work at terrestrial temperatures.
Thank you, Gordon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Also it is wrong because S-B emission law doesnt describe the actual emission intensity the real matter does at its respective temperatures, which matter is consisted from atoms and molecules, the S-B emission law doesnt work”
Yes it does work just fine when incorporating an emissivity factor.
And this is what is used, for example, to measure the sea surface temperature by satellite, which works very well!
And the emissivity of the ocean is very high.
“The sea surface emissivity in the infrared region is determined on the basis of data analyses. Net radiation, surface irradiance and other oceanographical and meteorological variables are measured throughout most of the year at the oceanographical observatory tower in Tanabe Bay, Japan. We have found that 0.9840.004 is a reliable emissivity value ”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02233853
We’re seeing the meltdown of the cult. It might have started when they realized they have NOTHING. They can’t come up with a viable description of the GHE.
That’s because the GHE is bogus. There are at least 10 reasons.
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
The equation — F = 5.35 X ln(C/Co)
Where Co is the reference CO2 concentration is ppm, C is the current CO2 concentration in ppm, and F is the radiative forcing in W/m^2
The equation is bogus. It is an example of “curve fitting”, combined with a perversion of physics.
Baskin/Robbins is a chain of ice cream stores. The chain started about 1950, and now has about 8000 stores, worldwide. Let’s “curve fit” that growth and claim it is “heating the planet”.
F = ln(S/So) = ln(8000) = 8.99
Now, let’s simply add units of W/m^2,
F = 8.99 W/m^2
And that is now proof that ice cream stores are heating the planet!
Hint for children: That ain’t science.
Clint R
Big Hint for you. Nothing you say on this blog is science. It is all your made up cult physics you get from crackpots on blogs.
Too bad you can’t see the hypocrisy in your many posts. You are actually the cult poster that has nothing. You reject real science in favor of crackpot blog versions (pseudoscience by definition).
You also have a child like mind. Your posts are very simplistic. You insult and denigrate posters like a child would do. If you read your own posts you might not believe how empty they really are.
Norman and silly willy are my two biggest stalkers.
Obviously, I’m doing something right….
“Big Hint for you.”
Norman, please stop trolling.
norman…why is it, in your mind, that anything resembling real science is issued by crackpots?
Norman’s example of a crackpot from ‘some’ blog…Peter Duesberg…inducted into the National Academy of Science for his discovery of the fist cancer gene. Awarded the California Scientist of the year plus numerous other awards.
Stefan Lanka…who discovered the first virus in the ocean.
Shula…who proved using a Pirani gauge that conduction/convection is 260 time more effective at dissipating heat from a surface than radiation. In other words, he proved the energy budget theory is wrong.
You’re a queer duck, Norman.
Gordon Robertson
Just because they had credentials at one time does not mean they are not crackpots. When a person makes claims way outside the accepted (which is based upon observation, evidence and experiments).
You still bring up Shula as a credible source. You keep bringing this clown up even though his point is very bad. I have explained to you countless times that the wire is made with low emissivity wire intentionally so that radiant energy is reduced to eliminate it as a source. You do not understand emissivity or anything about radiant energy. You have no real knowledge of any physics or Chemistry. You make up nonsense all the time and wonder why you are a crackpot. That is what crackpots do, just make up stuff.
HIV is a virus that destroys the immune system and causes death when the body can no longer fight infections that grow after the immune system is knocked out. Real scientists, ignoring Duesberg, have now come up with treatments that work and reduce the fatality considerably.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hiv-aids#:~:text=There%20were%20an%20estimated%2039.0,1.7%20million%5D%20people%20acquired%20HIV.
In this article the treatment for HIV is “There is no cure for HIV infection. It is treated with antiretroviral drugs, which stop the virus from replicating in the body.”
You never read more than what a crackpot tells you then you blindly believe it even when it is clearly shown your darling crackpot is wrong.
Gee, it should be very simple for Clint to find and link to evidence to back up his claims if they were true.
But he never ever does.
Thus we can safely ignore his bogus claims.
Nate, I clearly support my physics. I can explain things, but I can’t understand them for you.
You can’t find one time where I got the physics wrong.
All you have are your false accusations.
Clint R
Why must you blatantly lie?
Nate is totally correct about your posts and endless unsupported opinions you think are science.
YOU: “Nate, I clearly support my physics. I can explain things, but I cant understand them for you.”
This is a lie. You never support your physics (if you want to call it that, more like made up opinion).
Where is your evidence to support your claim that IR from a cold object will not be absorbed by the surface of a hotter object? You come up with poor arguments about photons adding to make higher energy photons
I find your “physics” all wrong. Just things you read from crackpot blogs that sound right to you but are not supported by any evidence.
I think it is correct that earth is currently at the apogee. My date and time application says earth is 95.51 miles from the sun. It will 91.4 million miles on January 3.
Another mistake. Try 94.51 miles.
Well, I guess that explains the temperature spike 🙂
Robert,
Subtle, very subtle.
“Apogee” applies to Earth/Moon. For Sun/Earth, the term is “Aphelion”.
And thanks for the reminder, Tim S. This is an important factoid for the “global warming” nonsense.
Earth’s elliptical orbit means there is considerable difference in distance to Sun between Aphelion (far) and Perihelion (close). The difference in solar flux is about 90 W/m².
Now, stop to think about this for a minute. Earth’s orbit causes an annual variance of 90 W/m², yet we never see a corresponding change in temperature. Yet the cult wants us to be panicked over an imaginary 1 W/m².
Just some more science to tweak the cult children….
And, of course, things are sometimes counter-intuitive –
“The northern hemisphere receives significantly less energy from the sun when the Earth is closest to the sun!
When the earth is closest to the sun, the northern hemisphere receives approximately 9% less energy from the sun than when it is farthest from the sun. Gotta love that axial tilt!” – according to a PhD geophysicist. Seems fair to me.
Opposite to the southern hemisphere.
The Earth still continues to cool, albeit very, very, slowly.
No GHE. Not even a teensy, weensy, one.
SpaceX Drops Some Incredible Starship News! What Will This Lead To?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CyuBTP6yj8
And some stuff about recent asteroid sample return.
It was another cold, icy morning across southern and central Australia with many areas covered in frost. https://i.ibb.co/djkVwmc/449714787-883612957141786-4535587314561364801-n.jpg
I guess CO2 has failed to warm Australia. Same old, same old. Even in Auckland, New Zealand, in winter, you get frost/ice in the morning even though the climate is sub-tropical. Mind you, by noon, it often rises to 15C.
Hurricane Beryl will pass over northern Yucatan and enter the Gulf of Mexico, where, as a tropical storm, it could reach southern Texas with heavy rainfall.
There you go, gb. You might get some rain to make the cactii grow. Maybe more and bigger peyote buds. I hear Death Valley is going to get a smidge hotter.
swenson…from Christos…”Christos is pointing out (quite correctly) that it is simply delusional to imagine that you can calculate the temperature of an object by measuring the radiation falling upon it if I have understood him correctly”.
***
Of course. Radiation emanates from a thin layer of surface atoms/molecules. Radiation can tell you that the Earth’s surface averages 15C but it can’t tell you the Earth has a core that is 5000C. It can’t tell you the temperature a few feet below the surface which is in excess of 15C and getting progressively hotter the deeper you go.
Winter temperatures in Australia will not rise because the Earth is farthest from the Sun in orbit in July. The difference between January and July is about 5 million kilometers.
https://i.ibb.co/D4Wx4C7/gfs-T2m-aus-1.png
Good point, Ren.
And we need to remember that as long as the Earth’s axis is tilted as it is, no amount of CO2 will prevent the Arctic freezing over in January and the Antarctic freezing over in July. In fact, the South Pole never gets above 0C, even in summer.
Some have brayed about warming in the Antarctic Peninsula, which reaches the latitude of South America. Big deal, the Antarctic continent is so cold that glaciers cannot possibly melt.
Also, since the Arctic has no solar input in winter, and temps reach down to -60C, the flow of that cold air to more temperate regions far to the south will continue to freeze that area in winter.
Weather sure is fun. Easily overrides any pithy (0.06C) warming from CO2.
Anthropogenic theory kaput!!!
Willard,
“The question is why youd use “Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K)” when it obviously uses solar flux and you said that this was not possible.”
–
The non-linearity of the S-B radiation law, when coupled with a strong latitudinal variation of the INTERACTED solar flux across the surface of a sphere, and with the planet rotational spin, and with the average surface specific heat, creates a mathematical condition for a correct calculation of the true global surface temperature from a spatially integrated infrared emission.
Jemit = 4πr^2*σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
Where:
Jemit (W) – is the INFRARED emission flux from the entire planet (the TOTAL)
r – is the planet radius
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Solar Irradiated Planet INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant ( the Rotational Warming Factor constant ).
N – rotation /per day, is planets rotational spin with reference to the sun in earthen days. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp – cal/gr*oC- is the planet average surface specific heat
Planet Energy Budget
When planet surface is in radiative equilibrium, planet energy balance should be met: Energy In = Energy Out
Jnot.reflected = Jemit
πr^2*Φ(1-a)S (W) – is on the entire planet surface the not reflected portion (the TOTAL not reflected) of the incident on planet surface solar flux
Φ – is the planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor (the planet surface spherical shape and the planet surface roughness coefficient).
a – is the planet average surface Albedo (Bond)
S – W/m^2 – the solar flux at the planet’s average distance from the sun.
πr^2*Φ(1-a)S = 4πr^2*σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) (3)
–
The Tmean.planet equation uses solar flux, because the stronger the solar energy upon the planet surface – the higher the planet average surface temperature (and it is an obvious observation).
The difference with equation (1) is that the solar flux is not averaged over the entire planet surface. Thus the (Tmean) is not the planet surface uniform temperature as the (Te) is, but the average surface temperature.
The equation (1) provides the instrument for transforming flux into temperature T = (S /σ)^1/4
It is valid on the uniform temperature surfaces.
Also it is valid for the infinitesimal small points at infinitesimal small instants of time (so we accept each point has its respective uniform temperature).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
All is best – except your Φ which is nonsense; this has been proven to you many times.
But like Robertson, Clint R and a few other stubborn boys, you never admit being wrong.
Κανένα πρόβλημα για μένα όμως!
Bindi, what makes you believe I can’t admit being wrong?
I once thought you might have some interest in science, but I admit I was wrong. I also make typos, from time to time.
See? I can admit being wrong, when I’m wrong.
But you can’t come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You’re wrong about Moon, but you won’t admit it.
> The Tmean.planet equation uses solar flux
Your equation uses multiplication, Christos. To multiply is to add many times. So in your equation fluxes add.
This is a fairly basic point.
Best of luck trying to defeat your own algebra.
Willard, I am not so capable in idiomatic English.
“Your equation uses multiplication, Christos. To multiply is to add many times. So in your equation fluxes add.”
What do you mean by that?
Because the equation (3) theoretically calculates the planets’ and moons’ average surface temperatures very much close to those measured by satellites.
Doesn’t that mean the equation is a good equation?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you for your question, Christos.
What I mean is that 2 x 3 means 2 + 2 + 2.
To multiply is to add faster.
An algebraic structure that is multiplicative is also additive.
It is really hard to write equations with entities that cannot add.
Willard,
“An algebraic structure that is multiplicative is also additive.”
–
I never said otherwise, didn’t I ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Thank you for your rhetorical question.
You actually did. Here:
> Solar flux cannot theoretically be averaged over some area
To average is to add a number of elements together, and then to divide that sum by the number of elements.
Your equation obviously does that.
In fact, the solar constant is itself an average.
July 8, Beryl may make landfall in south Texas.
https://i.ibb.cOno/GPQRR1T/ventusky-temperature-water-20240708t1800-29n91w.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/GPQRR1T/ventusky-temperature-water-20240708t1800-29n91w.jpg
Happy July 4th! Let’s keep the fun going —
More reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
The “33K” nonsense comes from the mythical, imaginary blackbody sphere. The mythical sphere is receiving the same average solar energy as real Earth, after albedo, of 960 W/m². We are not told if the mythical imaginary sphere is hollow or solid, or if it is spinning like Earth or always has the same side facing Sun. It’s all a mystery.
But in a steady-state condition the mythical sphere is believed to be emitting 240 W/m^2. So, using the S/B Law, the emission temperature can be calculated:
S = σT^4
T^4 = S/σ
T = [240*(10^8/5.67)]^0.25
T = 255K
Then, the mythical 255K is compared to Earth’s average temperature of 288K. The difference, 33K, as believed by the cult, is due to the GHE.
(You may sometimes see the difference as 33K, or 33°C, since Kelvins are the same as degrees Celsius. In Fahrenheit, the difference would be 59.4°F.)
The claim is then that Earth is 33K hotter than it’s “supposed to be”. Their math is correct, but their calculation is NOT linked to reality. Earth is NOT a mythical imaginary blackbody sphere. A large bullfrog can weigh 0.5 pounds. If you multiply 0.5 by a large enough number, say 2X10^25, that would make the bullfrog about the size of planet Earth. The math is correct, but the calculation is NOT linked to reality.
Earth is “supposed to be” the temperature it is, 288K. Comparing it to a mythical imaginary object ain’t science.
> Their math is correct, but
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Have you ever watched Games of Thrones?
July temperature anomalies in Ireland and the UK.
https://i.ibb.co/26Tm4N8/ventusky-temperature-anomaly-2m-20240708t0300-53n5w.jpg
Let me guess without looking, the anomalies are really cold for the time of year….
Yes!
I can prove that I am psychically linked to Ren’s mind. Every time Ren points to temperatures without saying what they are, I will guess if they are hot or cold.
I believe I will be able to read Ren’s mind correctly each and every time.
barry, how do we know you didn’t peek?
We can’t trust a cult child with your low credibility.
Let’s see you predict Ren’s next comment, before it appears, if you can actually read his mind.
Can’t do that, huh?
Grow up and get a life, child.
Successful predictions by climate science: https://youtu.be/QFEUezxK5Do
1/ Fossil fuel-burning will cause an increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide and that will cause a significant warming of the planet.
2/ The microwave emission of Venus could only be accounted for by a hot surface maintained by the greenhouse effect of a very thick atmosphere, and using the standard model predicted that Venus has a 50 bar surface pressure.
3/ Predicted atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations based on economic projections of how much co2 we would emit.
4/ Predicted that tropospheric warming would be accompanied by stratospheric cooling.
5/ Predicted Arctic amplification of warming.
Successful predictions by deniers:
1/
2/
3/
4/
5/
Did I get them all?
Ark, you can’t provide the physics to support 1 and 2. That’s why they are beliefs, not science.
3, 4, and 5 are somewhere between obvious and nebulous.
Let’s see the physics for 1 and 2. Otherwise you’ve got NOTHING.
Now, as a rough cross-check, we enter the Venus altitude-versus-atmospheric pressure graph at 1000 millibars (the Earth’s average sea level atmospheric pressure) and go up to intersect the altitude-pressure profile line, and across to the left axis where we find the corresponding altitude of 49.5 kilometers (31 miles). This altitude is only three kilometers (or six percent) different than we found from the temperature graph.
So, in spite of the surface temperature of Venus being on the order of 864 degrees Fahrenheit, there is a region in the Venusian atmosphere which approximates that of Earth with respect to temperature and pressure.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080205025041/http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
You can clearly see in the diagram of Venus atmosphere the troposphere, where a vertical temperature gradient acts. The graph also shows that the Earth’s troposphere is very thin compared to Venus.
You have no evidence to support your claims.
Climate model projections are not evidence.
> You have no evidence to support your claims.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
but also
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Here is the HTML Mike Flynn (Swenson) is inserting into his text.
He is trying to claim he is not doing it.
https://tinyurl.com/MikeFlynnBeingUntruthful
Interesting.
There is a D-word too!