Home/Blog
This blog received the following comment from our alarmist friend David Appell, freelance writer:
“Roy, nobody who is serious about climate change takes you seriously. You’re a denier who has made too many mistakes. No one who knows anything is going to bother commenting here–they upset you so much that all you can think to do is block them.
You long ago left the realm of science. As they say, science advances one funeral at a time. Nobody believes your time series anyway. You did that to yourself.”
As many here know, our UAH temperature dataset is used by researchers around the world, including those who believe the more alarmist narrative of anthropogenic climate change. It has been validated with global weather balloon data in multiple peer reviewed studies.
And I’m not sure why exactly I am a “denier”; that has always mystified me. I’m even part of the supposed 97% that believes the climate system is warming partly (maybe even mostly) from our CO2 emissions. John Christy and I even published a climate sensitivity paper that assumes ALL recent warming is from CO2 emissions.
Also, I routinely allow comments here from people who disagree with me on the science. Very few people have been blocked, and those from bad behavior.
So, I think David was just having a bad day. I imagine these are difficult times for freelance writers since everyone with internet access can now be one. He’s again talking about shutting down his pro-climate alarmism, pro-COVID vaccination blog, Quark Soup. Too bad. So, for those who might want to send wishes of moral support, he can be reached at david.appell@gmail.com.
You’re doing a great job Dr Spencer.
I second @Sam shicks remarks.
For me, the best thing you posted was “Projected temperature rise vs. observed results.”
That one post gave me a new way to approach people and changed the conversation from adversarial to “lets look at the data” Is the prediction accurate. {perhaps a jab at Al Gore’s “our kids will not know what snow is”}
Dr. Spencer, please keep up the good work others do not do and for armatures like me who can not do the work.
Kindly,
Me
If you dont believe in climate change when you are 20 you have no heart. If you still believe in climate change when you are 40 you have no brain.
CO2, long term issue, would like to see how that plays out. But right now. We have a weather, navigation, airtracking, communications, electronic countermesurs radar interference pattern forming in the gulf. How many radar emmitters are pointed at Milton right now? We’re adding energy to the system, no much but enough to destabalize it, the two storms are following the same track. Look at all the hurricane paths and catagories. This is not a natural jump, it’s too verticle of a jump in data. Something is wrong. Either the storms just doubled in strength in 10 months or there’s an error in the data. Y’all need to look into this, because it’s all y’all are supposet to be the experts, so I want some answers. What is going in in the Gulf of Mexico? I’ve lived here 40 years, and this year the patters are noticbly different this year than this time just last year.
What a sad individual this Mr. Appel.
Well done for taking the moral high ground Dr. Spencer. His comment was very nasty and your reply classy.
Kind regards,
Luca
In 2015 Roy wrote:
“Note that in the early part of the record, Version 6 has somewhat faster warming than in Version 5.6, but then the latter part of the record has reduced (or even eliminated) warming, producing results closer to the behavior of the RSS satellite dataset. This is partly due to our new diurnal drift adjustment, especially for the NOAA-15 satellite. Even though our approach to that adjustment (described later) is empirical, it is interesting to see that it gives similar results to the RSS approach, which is based upon climate model calculations of the diurnal cycle in temperature.”
Roy states that the choise of NOAA-15, the satellite showing the most pronounced cooling in the early 2000s,is purely empirical. While UAH data generally aligns well with other datasets, such as RSS, before 2000 and after 2005, it shows a significant deviation during the 2000-2005 period. To date, I have not encountered a compelling explanation as to why UAH should be considered more reliable than other data series for this specific interval.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18_AlgGr7tCmcIAz9OnV1jy4-JysUp8_UXZDkk3rK7U4/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XzgPcM8LNJxwOjzEltAqz0a31_aTnVOGfimv46bmTJo/edit?usp=sharing
Roy also claims that UAH trend “has been validated with global weather balloon data in multiple peer reviewed studies.” However, during the same periode, UAH data appears to poorly align with RATPAC-A balloon data:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1AKhnLxqiJLmAIKCb-o_AaomYQS5qHdmB-cEqGKZ5bKw/edit?usp=sharing
I believe a UAH version 7.0 update is overdue.
Is anyone claiming UAH is ‘more reliable’ than another dataset?
Data has errors and assumptions and even then, it’s not that unusual for two datasets measuring the same thing to disagree outside the known error bounds. Generally, the more data sets the better if your aim is to understand a complex problem.
Alarmists want there to be a clear link between fossil fuel use and global temperature increase, and to use that link to create market intervention measures to artificially curb fossil fuel use. I’ve yet to see any dataset that implies a sufficiently strong link to make decarbonisation a compelling argument. Since the science is ‘settled’ it’s now a political and economic argument, that keeps getting lost by alarmists. It’s not a scientific one (unless you want to play with risk-based arguments that only apply to climate systems and not to geo-political ones. If you don’t like that view, don’t spend time on blogs trying to educate people with science PhD’s, get yourself elected!
Dixon: Is anyone claiming UAH is more reliable than another dataset?
Yes. A lot of people have been making that argument for years.
Dixon: Alarmists want there to be a clear link between fossil fuel use and global temperature increase.
I have not made any such link – I just want to investigate what data we can rely on.
Data has errors and assumptions and even then, its not that unusual for two datasets measuring the same thing to disagree outside the known error bounds.
This means that not all datasets can be correct, leaving us uncertain about the true values. This is underlined by the fact that those involved acknowledge significant issues with temperature estimates due to satellite drift during this period. Furthermore, the independent measurements by radiosondes adjusted to match satellite temperatures, show the largest corrections during this same interval, as illustrated by this figure from Christy et al.2018.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/179UrBK3JDGx-P4XgzqlPbypRc3tPNm4ZTiAFHLzu1xE/edit?usp=sharing
Given this, I would expect Dixon to agree that we should exercise caution when interpreting temperature trends from satellites that include this problematic period. A trend calculated from data after 2005 is more reliable for estimating the current rate of warming. All the relevant datasets indicate that this trend is between 0.23 and 0.26C per decade.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XzgPcM8LNJxwOjzEltAqz0a31_aTnVOGfimv46bmTJo/edit?usp=sharing
Yes indeed it has:
”As many here know, our UAH temperature dataset is used by researchers around the world, including those who believe the more alarmist narrative of anthropogenic climate change. It has been validated with global weather balloon data in multiple peer reviewed studies.”
Sig: I never accused you of being an alarmist – I just stated their case as I see it. My opinion that’s all, but based on observations.
I do agree, it’s wise to treat all data with caution, and in accordance with the significance of the decisions being based on it. If global temperature was easy to measure and therefore ‘rely on’ for things like decarbonisation efforts, I doubt either of us would be making these comments on this blog.
For 30 years at least, Climate Science has tried to change the world on very flimsy data indeed. No matter the observational data set, warming is less, and slower, than originally predicted by the IPCC for the amount of CO2 humans are releasing and natural variability remains a big part of the ‘signal’ and very hard to explain based on our current understanding of the incredibly complex system that is climate.
I don’t really understand why anyone wants ‘better’ time series for climate. It’s just not that important in a suite of modern risks. If a doomsday signal was clear, we’d have acted. It’s not clear so we won’t. I visit here because I’m curious about climate drivers from past professional involvement in the field, not because I want to know an accurate 2-sigma temperature of the upper atmosphere.
And I occasionally comment hoping to sway the odd open-minded person reading towards adaptation and acceptance rather than futile alarmism. People who have lost hope are dangerous and I think a lot of climate commentary is politically motivated to target that despair. The billions of dollars of intellectual capital wasted on climate worries is a human tragedy.
Dixon says: “No matter the observational data set, warming is less, and slower, than originally predicted by the IPCC for the amount of CO2 humans are releasing and natural variability remains a big part of the signal and very hard to explain based on our current understanding of the incredibly complex system that is climate”
You are spreading a myth popular among deniers! Show me!
The following link shows an analysis of the climate model forecast vs. the different temperature series. Look at IPCC forecasts post 2000. These have predicted the global warming pretty well. And the warm years we have experienced so far in the 2020-ies do not make the fit any worse.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/
Where is the data supporting your claim?
The short term link between CO2 concentrations and temperature is obvious when you observe data : carbon dioxide variations follow temperature variations.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/detrend:3/from:1979/normalise
Dixon: The problem is that Roth taxes are based on who owns the account. That is usually going to be the parent since contributions are income limited. A child has little or no income and so cannot contribute to a Roth in their name.
That’s just patently false. If you look at the emission scenarios and temperature predictions from the inaugural assessment report in 1990 and compare to actual emissions and temperature observations you’ll see that if anything the IPCC actually underestimated the warming.
Trying to determine success of predictions in the manner you are suggesting just doesn’t hold water because the warming has not been identified as due to CO2. That’s not a claim it wasn’t, but to demonstrate it is one would have to have a model that more or less explained past variations both in the instrument record and in ice core records.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1980/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1980/plot/uah6/from:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1905/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend
Only then do you have a control model. But the truth is we have charlatans pretending climate doesn’t vary naturally, controlling the narrative, and being rewarded for doing so.
Paul Aubrin:
Yes, indeed, your woodfortrees graph shows that temp is driving CO2. I have never seen this before – why isn’t more made of this?!!?
Buzz and Paul:
And this graph from wood for trees shows a couple of things.
https://tinyurl.com/bdhyv6y5
1) that the warming trend for recent history hasn’t increased over the warming trend in the early 20th century, while CO2 was barely increasing.
and
2) that the modern trend for the UK Met model need to be be remodeled with climate models to erase the fact it was actually warming slower than the early 20th century.
Fact is both periods correspond to warming trends known to be the result of orbital forcing by jupiter, saturn, and uranus (with Neptune aiding only in the most recent 40 years. With an assist from a solar grand maximum that happened to be occurring at the same time spanning both periods.
https://flic.kr/p/2q9bU4r
Whether we like it or not the future portends the next 40 years being much less active as far as warming is concerned, perhaps some significant cooling depending on the mood of the sun. Solar brightness, and thus solar wattage, has been down the past 16 years and both 30 and 60 year means are beginning a decline.
Yes CO2 does trail the earth’s orbit from close to far from the sun twice a year and the CO2 increase is detectable following those excursions and it also follows the groupings of the outer gas giants.
Bill Hunter
So how much cooling do you think the reduced activity of the Sun since the 1960-ies has caused? It is really worrisome if the current observed warming trend has been dampened by the reduced solar activity, and a future reversal of the activity will come on top of the current warming trend!
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1j0Xeb21zFO31cKYYUKvnZxBlnC9izfD1OrZvz3ECXMo/edit?usp=sharing
Sig it seems really impossible to say because there does not appear to be a continued carefully calibrated measurement of the sun’s brightness (not how much is reaching earth).
But it does appear the changes have been small since short term highly calibrated spectral studies have been conducted.
What isn’t small in changes in insolation by virtue of an ever changing ellipticity of the orbit. There are several NASA sources supporting that and the IPCC ignores it.
Typical political corruption. The populace expresses concern about how much insolation the earth receives and they do a study on solar spectral analysis and give you the answer they want you to hear with zero explanation of the applicability of what they just told you. Its the classic case of political corruption treating the public like a mushroom farm. Keep them in the dark and feed them manure.
Note this chart that shows the effects of orbital variation on ice cores.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/temperatures-have-changed-for-800000-years-it-wasnt-us/
Bill Hunter says: Sig it seems really impossible to say because there does not appear to be a continued carefully calibrated measurement of the suns brightness (not how much is reaching earth).
Well, if we lack reliable data of the suns brightness and the amount of radiation reaching Earth over the past six decades, we certainly lack such data for the preceding 300 years. Therefore, your statements attributing warming trends to increased solar activity or short-term changes in Earths orbit, seems speculative at best.
You acknowledge that the influence of short-term orbital changes, caused by Jupiter, Saturn etc., has on insolation has not been measured. Yet you assert: What isnt small in changes in insolation by virtue of an ever changing ellipticity of the orbit. and claim NASA sources support this. I challenge you to cite a single credible, peer-reviewed scientific paper backing this statement. And please do not confuse this with long-term Milankovic cycles.
You reference the Greenland GISP2 ice core as evidence for short term cycles of orbital ellipticity. If so, please provide the specific calculated cycles. Without these calculations, your argument remains pure guesswork. Additionally, you do not even know how representative this ice core is of Greenland temperature, let alone global temperatures.
Heres what the creator of your graph, Prof. R. B. Alley, has says about its interpretation:
So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/#:~:text=Scientists%20reconstructing%20past%20Greenland#:~:text=Scientists%20reconstructing%20past%20Greenland
A more modern Greenland temperature reconstruction, based on SIX DIFFERENT ICE CORES, was published by Prof Bo Vinther in 2009. These do not show the same cyclicity.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1pYggxJjnQeFU2c3sCfO8uHb8Mx2M6LSxbaTrtTzwwuc/edit?usp=sharing
Sig says:
”Well, if we lack reliable data of the suns brightness and the amount of radiation reaching Earth over the past six decades, we certainly lack such data for the preceding 300 years. Therefore, your statements attributing warming trends to increased solar activity or short-term changes in Earths orbit, seems speculative at best.
You acknowledge that the influence of short-term orbital changes, caused by Jupiter, Saturn etc., has on insolation has not been measured. Yet you assert: What isn’t small in changes in insolation by virtue of an ever changing ellipticity of the orbit. and claim NASA sources support this. I challenge you to cite a single credible, peer-reviewed scientific paper backing this statement. And please do not confuse this with long-term Milankovic cycles.”
We don’t lack long term data of orbital forcing Sig.
The only thing that I have pointed out is I haven’t seen a comprehensive study that pins that number down. Why not ask for that paper from those being paid billions and trillions to mitigate climate change? They have all the money.
You caution me to avoid making a mistake about Milankovic? Actually my take has been built on exactly a paper on Milankovic.
https://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week12a/Berger_Reviews_Geophysics_1988.pdf
If you look closely at Figure 2 you will see a periodic orbital forcing that occurs irregularly but is approximated at every 2500 years. And if you use a ruler and the scale of the magnitude of the orbital forcing you will find it is about 30% of the total temperature change that shifts us from glacial to interglacial periods. By any paper that suggests how much climate has changed in the industrial revolution we are below the uncertainty level of it being 100% natural.
2500 years is definitely long term climate change, the paper is all about Milankovic cycles. Further the Alley paper shows such a variation as does every ice core covering the relevant periods along with as NASA says ocean bottom sediment studies.
Bill Hunter,
a) You claim that temperatures from a single ice core in Greenland are due to variations in Earth’s orbit. I show you that six other ice cores from Greenland do not show the same variations, so at best, the temperature fluctuations you refer to in one ice core are a local effect.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1pYggxJjnQeFU2c3sCfO8uHb8Mx2M6LSxbaTrtTzwwuc/edit?usp=sharing
b) You claim as “fact” that two periods of increasing warming trend in the 20th century are due to changes in Earth’s orbit. At the same time, you admit that we don’t have measurements confirming increased solar radiation for these periods. And when I ask for calculations of these changes, you have none to show.
c) You claim that sources at NASA support that the warming in the 20th century is due to orbital changes, but when I ask for sources, you have none to show.
d) When I ask for calculations of such short cycles in Earth’s orbit that you claim explain the developments in the Greenland ice core and the short-term changes in the 20th century, you refer to long-term changes in Earth’s orbit, which cannot explain any of these. A possible cycle of 2500 years is far too long to explain the changes you describe.
When I point out the lack of support for your claims about short-term fluctuations, your response is: “we dont lack long term data for orbital forcing, Sig.” That is irrelevant. The article by Berger that you refer to actually undermines your argument that the temperature increase over the last 100-150 years is due to natural causes.
Quote: “The long-term cooling trend which began some 6000 years ago will continue for the next 5000 years.”
That is, if it continues naturally. We know it is not, as temperature data from Greenland’s ice cores clearly show (see link above).
And it’s even more clearly shown by global temperature trends based on a more complete collection of proxy data.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1V-HMlQ7kItBJVq3Bqg3vtpH8XuZevCBKWnm08eIzEiU/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xrFfHhltHMTtMsUAv0tGInpw0Yc8JvLXczUqWX4zPmQ/edit?usp=sharing
Sig says:
”I show you that six other ice cores from Greenland do not show the same variations, so at best, the temperature fluctuations you refer to in one ice core are a local effect.”
——–
They look sufficiently similar. Your set still has a similar pattern of peak warming of up to 3c degrees occurring multiple times over the past 10,000 years. I blew up your graph created a 1.2c template and counted 23 events in the past 10,000 years.
You are just helping make the case that we may well be within a period of natural variation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sig says:
b) You claim as fact that two periods of increasing warming trend in the 20th century are due to changes in Earths orbit. At the same time, you admit that we dont have measurements confirming increased solar radiation for these periods. And when I ask for calculations of these changes, you have none to show.
—–
Not sure where I claimed anything as fact Sig. I am pointing out a correlation with planetary positions that will change the speed of earth in its orbit will influence how long the earth lingers in the 2 different zones closest and furthest from the sun.
There is no question there is a measurable effect in the correct direction warming has proceeded. My evidence of that will be forthcoming but will still lack quantification but will be presented in a manner of visual correlation for the purpose of incentivizing addressing this unaddressed issue.
Quantifying that change in speed, more which databases do exist, that affects the earth’s residence time and distance from the sun is the work that needs to be done to understand natural climate change.
You seem to be the one claiming that its an unnecessary thing to do. Why would you claim that ignorance of natural climate change should be what our institutions pursue?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sig says:
”A possible cycle of 2500 years is far too long to explain the changes you describe.”
and
”The article by Berger that you refer to actually undermines your argument that the temperature increase over the last 100-150 years is due to natural causes.”
and
The long-term cooling trend which began some 6000 years ago will continue for the next 5000 years.
and
the sources you provided:
————————-
None of your sources include computations of the claims of inadequacy Sig.
All they do is disagree wildly on effects via applying uncertified means of interpreting proxies and combinations of proxies. They aren’t starting with orbital variation numbers and applying ice and water vapor feedbacks on that forcing which they estimate as 1 part forcing 2 parts feedback.
The fact I presented was an equal rate of warming in the first part of the 20th century where CO2 is not the cause and you bring forth a bunch of stuff that could be construed as a denial of science regarding that earlier instrument recorded warming.
What I am interested in is:
understanding Milankovic using computer technology that was not available to Milankovic.
Its clear science has adopted the effects of Saturn and Jupiter to explain ice age conditions and haven’t updated Milankovic’s work in the process.
So basically your whole argument kind of boils down to Milankovic’s work is a piece of shit that you want to cherry pick from for the case to explain the ice ages but don’t want to consider shorter term variation that could explain the little ice ages and warmer periods.
That’s a BS argument any way you want to obfuscate about it.
So one could easily conclude that your eco-warrior zeal simply isn’t based in an appreciation for real science and smacks of an unstated agenda.
Bill Hunter,
Bill responds to my comparison of the Greenland ice cores by stating: They look sufficiently similar. Your set still has a similar pattern of peak warming of up to 3c degrees occurring multiple times over the past 10,000 years. I blew up your graph created a 1.2c template and counted 23 events in the past 10,000 years. You are just helping make the case that we may well be within a period of natural variation.
So why don’t you show your correlation? The reality is that the two data sets are not similar at all! The link provided clearly demonstrates that peaks and troughs on the GISP2 core – which you attribute to orbital variations (blue arrows) – do not appear in the composite of the six ice cores. Only the 8.2 ky cold spike is common, which is well-documented to be associated with a rapid sea level rise due to a large meltwater pulse. This was probably due to the collapse of the Laurentide ice sheet in North America. The 8.2 ky event is entirely unrelated to orbital changes.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vModkI4lL4f2gk-dmxktkMTlQFBoJw6eCw4F4L7ppZ0/edit?usp=sharing
Bill then says: Not sure I claimed anything as fact Sig.
Well, you explicitly stated: Fact is both periods correspond to warming trends known to be the result of orbital forcing by Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus.
Your remaining comments are just hand waving without any substantial documentation.
Sig says:
”So why dont you show your correlation? The reality is that the two data sets are not similar at all!”
Both graphs have themaximums for the MWP, Roman, and Minoan optimums plus the 8.2ky event.
The dates in different proxies are not expected to line up perfectly as the various means of dating the ice cores all have large margins of error in excess of 10%
You can easily see the same maximums to the right of your arrows.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sig says:
Bill then says: Not sure I claimed anything as fact Sig.
Well, you explicitly stated: Fact is both periods correspond to warming trends known to be the result of orbital forcing by Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus.
—————-
That statement is true. Check an ephemeris for the relative positions of the major gas giants (zodiac for most ephemeris,degrees for others) and their alignments in positions relative to speeding or slowing the travel of earth through its perihelion. If you want to ground truth that fact using the data from the Naval observatory.
Bill Hunter says: Both graphs have the maximums for the MWP, Roman, and Minoan optimums plus the 8.2ky event.
Nope, the last 7000 years have very poor correlation. Your Minoan is almost 1000 year off. And the 8kyr event has nothing to do with orbital cycles. Yes, there is a cool period around 500 AC between what you call Roman and MWP, but we know very well a reason for this; some very large volcanic eruptions during 6th century.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vModkI4lL4f2gk-dmxktkMTlQFBoJw6eCw4F4L7ppZ0/edit?usp=sharing
And furthermore, your MWP is not global, contrary to the expected signature of your orbital changes.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1U0MNe_i5lOE40jKT0JG1oMmNqCY8LmH-nsPCwgPXbGI/edit?usp=sharing
No, the statement that the warming trends in the 20th century are caused by the orbital changes is NOT true. It is purely a speculation your speculation.
slowing the travel of earth through its perihelion does not necessary lead to warming. Then Earth would speed up during aphelion, and presently that would mean cooling in the northern hemisphere. That is the opposite of what we actually observe; more rapid warming in the north compared to south.
You posted this in two places so I replied in the other place.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1688167
Sig: Roy also claims that UAH trend has been validated with global weather balloon data in multiple peer reviewed studies.
You may be referring to [Christy et al. 2018]: Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures used in climate research
When a significant shift in the difference-time-series is detected (by the simple statistical test of the difference of two segments of 24-months in length on either side of the potential shift) we then adjust the radiosonde to match the satellite at that shift point. In the sections below we shall use a t-test value of 3.0 to detect and adjust for a shift (C11). Each satellite will be utilized to generate the shift points according to its own time series, thus IGRA ADJ will be specific for each satellite dataset. Satellite time series will not be adjusted in anyway.
I’m not saying their methodology is necessarily wrong, but it does make me wonder.
Strange how NASA STAR agrees with UAH.
Sorry NOAA not NASA.
I have followed Roy Spencer’s blog for about 10 years, and also have a few posts myself.
To refer to Spencer as a “denier” is a gross violation. It is also wrong that he has an active policy of blocking critical posts. Now, of course, I have to make the reservation that I have not read the posts that he has allegedly blocked. But based on what else gets through of critical posts, I have difficulty accepting this. On the contrary, som days ago Dr. Spencer had a reckoning with all the unnecessary noise and discomfort that a small but very active click has caused on Spencer’s blog. No names are mentioned, but it seems to have helped. Based on my experience, Spencer is open to factual and well-argued criticism.
As soon as the “denier” name calling abuse is used it identifies the name caller as a useful pawn of the fund seeking cult who resorts to childish gaslighting instead of sane argument.
If memory serves, David Appell made many rude comments here some years ago. I took it on myself to respond in kind to him regularly. Now that he is gone, I seldom comment, enjoying the back and forth of those more knowledgeable than me.
Still this: I’m all for global warming. Warm is better than cold.
You can’t grow food in the ice and snow which is what those advocating against warming must be seeking.
Rune,
Historically, Spencer consistently denied that human activities were responsible for global warming, at least until 2010.
Example from a book 2007: He presents evidence that recent warming, rather than being the fault of humans, is a result of chaotic, internal natural cycles that have been causing periods of warming and cooling for thousands of years.
However, in more recent years, he has acknowledged that human emissions of greenhouse gases contribute to warming. Despite this, he continues to argue that the impact is minimal and not a cause for significant concern.
Example: Global warming is so slight, even if you believe the climate models which are currently running twice as hot as they should, global warming really is not quite enough for any human to feel in their life time. Heartland Institute 2018
This shift in stance mirrors the evolution of many former deniers.
As denying the impact of greenhouse gas emissions becomes scientifically indefensible, the argument shifts to downplaying the significance of their negative effects.
If he really has changes his views, then i ought to apologize to other scientists for his statement in a book from 2010: The Great Global Warming Blunder. How Mother Nature Fooled the Worlds Top Climate Scientists
However, my main criticism of Spencer is that he seems to struggle with separating climate science from his religious and political beliefs.
I believe it is well worth your time to look at this movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29QDGEJC1fg
Sig,
“As denying the impact of greenhouse gas emissions becomes scientifically indefensible”
On the contrary, as climate ‘scientists’ make Moreland more scientifically ridiculous claims such as the atmosphere heating the oceans, their fantasy land warnings become easier and easier to dismiss.
Psst . Slower cooling is not warming.
Siliggy: “As soon as the denier name calling abuse is used it identifies the name caller as a useful pawn of the fund seeking cult who resorts to childish gaslighting instead of sane argument.”
As soon as the “alarmist” name-calling is used it identifies the name-caller as an unserious person more interested in dismissing empirical reality out-of-hand and engaging in ideologically-based point-scoring than in examining the evidence in an honest manner and reaching scientifically valid conclusions.
Sig
It seems to me that like a lot of people on this blog, you refer to silently ignore contradictions, don’t you?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1686483
Bindidon
Se my reply above.
Sig
You persist in writing that
” However, during the same periode, UAH data appears to poorly align with RATPAC-A balloon data… ”
*
I repeat that UAH6.0 LT’s monthly LAND time series appears to align very good with RATPAC-B’s monthly time series at 500 hPa:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/136JiPLLcT3kZAbjmV7zJdPBqgyVlfuas/view
*
Moreover, UAH 6.0 LS’ monthly LAND time series appears to align very good with RATPAC-B’s monthly time series at 100 hPa as well:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_juXJ0mfrFU6iO2Df-v5kXdGnr5q7eBz/view
*
I would understand you better if the 85 RATPAC radiosonde set would consist of 60 units located on tiny islands and the remaining 25 would be on land, what would give a land/ocean ratio fitting the Globe.
Bindidion
You cannot use a 5-year running average when you want to examin what happens within a 6-years periode. If you use a 13-month average you see the “cooling” caused by using NOAA-15.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-WOCEt2Dqm1psD0tVr2BAmlCN03KCuSbAsBQk-tnGHQ/edit?usp=sharing
Sig
” I believe a UAH version 7.0 update is overdue. ”
OK, but then you have to say the very same about NOAA STAR TLT because their team recently operated a 180 degree turn, and is now quite similar to UAH 6.0:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10MWqbxzBp-JVIi0O8fs4KibpF4WmKSHp/view
Bindidion
Sorry friend, I think you have missed my point! I am not trying to tell you that one or the other of the satellite data series is correct or wrong. My point is that these series cannot be trusted between ca. 1999 and 2006.
I will address R_A and R_B below. But first the satellite data.
1. The fact is that RSS and UAH generally agree quite well but differ significantly between 1999 and 2006-ish. Post this period the trends are similar, but the difference is maintained. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ily9xiw15_UD_Bn-lsalTNDyIgxjJdpJaQLcLf4r28U/edit?usp=sharing
2. The difference is caused by the way they apply satellite drift correction. UAH changed to using only the NOAA-15 satellite for their 6.0-version. For their 5.6-version they used a different method, including NASA Aqua AMSU which maintain a precise orbit, and the results were more similar to RSS4.0.
3. Comparing UAH6 with HadCRUT5, although they measure different things, the trends are surprisingly similar prior to 1999 and post 2005. The difference arises between 1999 and 2005, when UAH started to rely entirely on NOAA15. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18_AlgGr7tCmcIAz9OnV1jy4-JysUp8_UXZDkk3rK7U4/edit?usp=sharing
4. In short, I do not trust the satellite series between 1999 and 2005, particularly those which rely excessively on NOAA-15 (UAH6 and possibly NOAA Star?). RSS is using a combination including a climate model. I pass no judgement on the reliability of the RSS data during the period in question.
5.The confidence in their data set is not helped by these statements by Christy/Spencer prior to the UAH6 and RSS4 revisions around 2016:
RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit,We have not used NOAA-a5 for trend information in yearswe use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit..
But, until the discrepancy is resolved to everyones satisfaction, those of you who REALLY REALLY need the global temperature record to show as little warming as possible might want to consider jumping ship, and switch from the UAH to RSS dataset.
UAH decided to jump the ship to NOAA-15 in version UAH6!
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17Se6gE4rjLhsFkMAtxnMP4OdkX1sxO1tM0bK2ykXCbg/edit?usp=sharing
The UAH6 shows a temperature gradient prior to 1999 of 0.14C/decade and 0.24 after 2005. This I believe is reasonable compared to other datasets. An overall gradient from 1979 to 2024 of 0.14 C/decade is not justified because of the uncertainty discussed above. The claims of a hiatus, and that the models predict twice the warming actually observed, are bogus. UAH6 rather suggests that that the current warming trend of 0.24 is in line with the model predictions, and that there appear to be distinct acceleration in warming since before 2000.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18_AlgGr7tCmcIAz9OnV1jy4-JysUp8_UXZDkk3rK7U4/edit?usp=sharing
Regarding RATPAC your illustrations are not suited to address the issue in question between 1999 and 2005. I notice your long-term trendlines cross a couple of times around this interval, suggesting that there are inconsistencies in the two datasets. However, your RATPAC-B trend post 2005, an increase of 0.55 C over 17 years or 0.32C/decade, support the indicated acceleration in warming from UAH6.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-VrJ11f_YtYl4OLAqy5vazYqiTN2VZM6SdJQtSbbSfE/edit?usp=sharing
Bindidion
You cannot use a 5-year running average when you want to examin what happens within a 6-years periode. If you use a 13-month average you see the cooling caused by using NOAA-15.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-WOCEt2Dqm1psD0tVr2BAmlCN03KCuSbAsBQk-tnGHQ/edit?usp=sharing
Bill says: You are very clearly not addressing the topic I am discussing.
Nice try! Once again, you’re attempting to deflect from the original point, which stems from your claim:
Fact is both periods correspond to warming trends known to be the result of orbital forcing by jupiter, saturn, and uranus (with Neptune aiding only in the most recent 40 years.
You claimed as a FACT that recent warming trend is caused by Earths orbital changes, a slow-down during perihelion caused by the gravitational influence of larger planets.
However, I have demonstrated, with the following illustration and calculations provided earlier, that you are wrong: A slow-down during the SH summer (at perihelion) and a corresponding speed-up during NH summer (at aphelion), will actually lead to cooler global temperatures, if detectable at all.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G1rR-RH3Nh1-FIQDgGYtaeMt_gsVG77ym-n4mVK4sxg/edit?usp=sharing
The source of the data is clearly shown on the figure.
Youre wrong, and youre twisting all around to avoid admitting it. Once weve settled this issue, we can move on to discuss the relevant TSI data.
Bill Hunter says: “Both graphs have the maximums for the MWP, Roman, and Minoan optimums plus the 8.2ky event.”
Nope, the last 7000 years have very poor correlation. Your “Minoan” is almost 1000 year off. And the 8kyr event has nothing to do with orbital cycles. Yes, there is a “cool” period around 500 AC between what you call “Roman” and MWP, but we know very well a reason for this; some very large volcanic eruptions during 6th century.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vModkI4lL4f2gk-dmxktkMTlQFBoJw6eCw4F4L7ppZ0/edit?usp=sharing
And furthermore, your MWP is not global, contrary to the expected signature of your orbital changes.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1U0MNe_i5lOE40jKT0JG1oMmNqCY8LmH-nsPCwgPXbGI/edit?usp=sharing
No, the statement that the warming trends in the 20th century are caused by the orbital changes is NOT true. It is purely a speculation – your speculation.
“slowing the travel of earth through its perihelion” does not necessary lead to warming. Then Earth would speed up during aphelion, and presently that would mean cooling in the northern hemisphere. That is the opposite of what we actually observe; more rapid warming in the north compared to south.
Sig says:
”Bill Hunter says: Both graphs have the maximums for the MWP, Roman, and Minoan optimums plus the 8.2ky event.
Nope, the last 7000 years have very poor correlation. Your Minoan is almost 1000 year off.”
——————-
thats not true the differences are within normal ranges of error
I estimate about a 440 year difference for the Minoan, a 120 year difference for the Roman, and a 150 year difference on the MWP.
The multi-proxy to the underlying data puts the Minoan at 970BC, the Roman at 30BC, and the MWP at 870AD
Using a ruler the Coalition graph has them respectively at 1400BC, 150BC and 1020AD. And these are timings of peak values with each of the periods lasting for a few hundred years.
A dating error of +-10% (using the most accurate method which I am not sure if they used or not) they are all within a normal range of difference.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sig says:
And the 8kyr event has nothing to do with orbital cycles.
————–
You don’t know that. First you have to use computers to determine what the effect on insolation actually is. . .then and only then can you say that.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sig says:
Yes, there is a cool period around 500 AC between what you call Roman and MWP, but we know very well a reason for this; some very large volcanic eruptions during 6th century.
——————-
Again you don’t know that.
Volcanic eruptions are known to cause cooling lasting about 2 years. . .not enough to affect climate change substantially which is a minimum of 20 years.
And there is great uncertainty if a given volcano will actually have a substantial effect.
Additionally there is a Saturn/Jupiter super cycle. I wasn’t going to say anything about that until I published as I discovered it on my own strictly by analyzing orbit data of the two planets.
But Nate found a wiki article that mentions it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_(astronomy)
This ~918 supercycle is going to be associated with major orbital climate effects caused by the other gas giants which also have a supercycle of a few thousand years also.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sig says:
”No, the statement that the warming trends in the 20th century are caused by the orbital changes is NOT true. It is purely a speculation your speculation.
”slowing the travel of earth through its perihelion” does not necessary lead to warming. Then Earth would speed up during aphelion, and presently that would mean cooling in the northern hemisphere. That is the opposite of what we actually observe; more rapid warming in the north compared to south.”
————————
Now you are just firing from the hip without thinking it out.
SPEEDING UP through the aphelion (the furthest point from the sun) would cause ”less cooling” not more cooling as you claim.
A 3rd grader learns that you get colder the longer you stay in the cold. . .the problem with 3rd graders is parents worrying they will forget or not pay attention.
Second, SLOWING DOWN through the perihelion (closest to the sun) causes more warming only carry some of the warming or cooling forward to the next cycle and the cycles will build and diminish in intensity over the period of the cycle and multiple cycles like this exist and further complicates the periodicity.
Pile on top of this the solar variations of the cycles that vary considerably themselves, changes in other gases like ozone, volcanoes (which you like to mention), and longterm feedbacks, ice melt and ice accumulation.
Bill Hunter says: SPEEDING UP through the aphelion (the furthest point from the sun) would cause less cooling not more cooling as you claim.
A 3rd grader learns that you get colder the longer you stay in the cold. . .the problem with 3rd graders is parents worrying they will forget or not pay attention.
——————————————————————
WOW! Youve just demonstrated a misunderstanding of how the different Milanković cycles interact. Currently, perihelion (when Earth is closest to the Sun) occurs in early January, during the Southern Hemisphere summer. Aphelion (when Earth is farthest from the Sun) takes place in early July, during peak summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
The larger ice-free landmasses in the Northern Hemisphere absorb solar energy more effectively than the ice-covered Antarctic and the vast oceans of the Southern Hemisphere. As a result, Earth’s temperature is about two degrees warmer during the aphelion phase compared to the perihelion phase, as reflected in UAH LT temperature data below.
A slowdown through perihelion and a speed-up through aphelion would lengthen the cooler summer in the Southern Hemisphere and shorten the warmer summer in the Northern Hemisphere, ultimately causing overall cooling exactly the opposite of what you suggest.
Month: deg.Kelvin
Jan: 263.18 Perihelion
Feb: 263.27
Mar: 263.43
Apr: 263.84
May: 264.45
Jun: 265.10
Jul: 265.42 Aphelion
Aug: 265.23
Sep: 264.64
Oct: 263.95
Nov: 263.41
Dec: 263.19
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1686483
Consequently, when you claim that the past warming trends align with Earths slower movement during perihelion, you are actually demonstrating that the warming IS NOT driven by these orbital changes.
A 3rd grader might reach the same conclusion as you did, but a seasoned researcher, well-versed in Milanković cycles, would not. Milanković proposed over 100 years ago that insolation at approximately 65 North is the critical factor influencing past climate changes.
Given this fundamental misunderstanding, your other arguments become rather trivial in comparison, so I will refrain from further comments.
Sig says:
A slowdown through perihelion and a speed-up through aphelion would lengthen the cooler summer in the Southern Hemisphere and shorten the warmer summer in the Northern Hemisphere, ultimately causing overall cooling exactly the opposite of what you suggest.”
—————
First:
A slowdown through perihelion (early January near Dec 22 NH winter solstice) will cause more warming in the northern hemisphere because the earth will spend more time close to the sun.
It will also cause more warming in the southern hemisphere (near the Jun 20 SH summer solstice) which occurs at the same time.
this effect is actually for half a year.
For the other half a year:
A speedup through aphelion (early July near the June 20 NH summer solstice) will cause less cooling resulting in a warmer summer in the northern hemisphere. (remember less cooling equals warmer)
Because the earth will spend less time further from the sun.
It will also cause a warmer southern hemisphere winter (near the june 20 SH winter) because of less cooling through the other half year.
That’s warming all around dude!! For the whole orbit.
Pointless, since Bill CANNOT demonstrate that these effects are significant. It is pure fantasy, not based on any calculation, which he refuses to do in any case.
Hunter says: ” A speedup through aphelion (early July near the June 20 NH summer solstice) will cause less cooling resulting in a warmer summer in the northern hemisphere. (remember less cooling equals warmer). Because the earth will spend less time further from the sun.”
—————————————————————-
You are dead wrong! As UAH LT temperature shows; the Earth’s average global temperature is coolest in January, when the Earth is closest to sun (perihelion) and the Earth receives most sunlight. That should tell you that it is the Earth’s ability to absorb energy from the Sun that is most important, not the relative small variation in distance.
Month: deg.Kelvin
Jan: 263.18 Perihelion
Feb: 263.27
Mar: 263.43
Apr: 263.84
May: 264.45
Jun: 265.10
Jul: 265.42 Aphelion
Aug: 265.23
Sep: 264.64
Oct: 263.95
Nov: 263.41
Dec: 263.19
From January, the temperature starts to warm up as the sunlight increases in the Northern Hemisphere. The global temperature peaks in July, when the Earth is furthest away (aphelion), about two degrees above the January temperature. Then it cools again towards the next time of perihelion in January.
The reason should be obvious, even for a 3rd grader. The NH summer, with it’s huge, ice-free landmasses, absorb significantly more of the energy from the Sun than the southern hemisphere, which is mainly covered by ice and water.
Shortening the northern summer will shorten this absorption time, and cool the earth. This is far more significant than the slight winter warming on the NH during perihelion.
This is basic Milankovic theory. It is exactly the reason why Antarctic ice cores show that the deep freezes occurred when the SH received maximum sunlight, while the warm interglacials coincide with high insolation in the north.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18xflc6VDBY8OPKRlJw58e-p9usWnJGhqNUNqM0zNFgA/edit?usp=sharing
Sig says:
”Hunter says: A speedup through aphelion (early July near the June 20 NH summer solstice) will cause less cooling resulting in a warmer summer in the northern hemisphere. (remember less cooling equals warmer). Because the earth will spend less time further from the sun.
You are dead wrong! As UAH LT temperature shows; the Earths average global temperature is coolest in January, when the Earth is closest to sun (perihelion) and the Earth receives most sunlight. That should tell you that it is the Earths ability to absorb energy from the Sun that is most important, not the relative small variation in distance.”
————————–
A young child will tell you its a good idea to run through the walkthru freezer rather than walk. But you can go right ahead and deny that if want.
And orbital variation only effects insolation. The ability to absorb radiation is a positive feedback to which ever direction the insolation variable is going. If its going warmer as it did over the past 40+ years melting ice will increase the effect. We know though that melting isn’t connected materially to the axial tilt and precession cycles because they move way too slow.
You already explained why the Northern Hemisphere is warmer than the Southern Hemisphere so you don’t need to go over that again. That has to do with 33% more land more efficiently heating from a given level of insolation and shrinking sea ice that is especially shrunk in the NH summer.
So what is the source of your temperature figures? Is this current temperatures for last year or is it the mean baseline spanning a few decades of push and pull of the orbital forcing?
Hunter says: The ability to absorb radiation is a positive feedback to which ever direction the insolation variable is going.
Answer: No! The lower albedo in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) compared to the Southern Hemisphere (SH) is primarily due to the distribution of landmasses. Suggesting that continental drift is a feedback mechanism driven by insolation is quite surprising. Landmasses in the NH have contributed to higher absorption of solar energy for at least 100 million years, while Antarctica has been ice-covered for about 35 million years, contributing to a higher albedo in the SH.
As shown in this graph, 800,000 years of proxy temperature data from ice cores clearly illustrate that high/low summer insolation on NH/SH favours GLOBAL WARMTH while low/high summer insolation on NH/SH favours GLOBAL COLD. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18xflc6VDBY8OPKRlJw58e-p9usWnJGhqNUNqM0zNFgA/edit?usp=sharing
Yes, warming caused by greenhouse gases like CO2, increased insolation, or other factors reduces albedo, acting as a positive feedback. This effect is more pronounced in the NH, at least as long as Antarctica remains ice-covered year-round.
Hunter says: : A young child will tell you its a good idea to run through the walkthru freezer rather than walk. But you can go right ahead and deny that if want.
Answer: I completely agree! The “walkthrough freezer” you’re referring to currently occurs during perihelion summertime in the SH when global temperatures are at their lowest. If Earth spends more time around aphelion, during NH summer, it gets warmer. These global daily temperature graphs clearly show this pattern. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G1rR-RH3Nh1-FIQDgGYtaeMt_gsVG77ym-n4mVK4sxg/edit?usp=sharing
The temperature data I referenced earlier came from the UAH Lower Troposphere dataset.
Hunter says: You already explained why the Northern Hemisphere is warmer than the Southern Hemisphere so you dont need to go over that again. That has to do with 33% more land more efficiently heating from a given level of insolation and shrinking sea ice that is especially shrunk in the NH summer.
Answer: Yes, but you don’t seem to fully grasp the implications. NH summer/SH winter acts as the “heater,” while SH summer/NH winter acts as the “freezer,” even though Earth is closer to the Sun during SH summer. Spending more time in the “freezer” (during perihelion, SH summer) cools the planet, which directly contradicts your claim.
About 10,000 years ago, during the Holocene Climate Optimum, perihelion coincided with NH summer, creating a warmer climate. In about 10,000 years, we will return to a similar situation.
Sig says:
Landmasses in the NH have contributed to higher absorption of solar energy for at least 100 million years, while Antarctica has been ice-covered for about 35 million years, contributing to a higher albedo in the SH.
As shown in this graph, 800,000 years of proxy temperature data from ice cores clearly illustrate that high/low summer insolation on NH/SH favours GLOBAL WARMTH while low/high summer insolation on NH/SH favours GLOBAL COLD.
___________________
you are all over the place like a soup sandwich.
you need to brush up on the word insolation that i am using.
total insolation is before any co2 or albedo effects or geographic effects. it is has been measured to vary considerably between 1360w/m2 and 1380watts/m2.
If you know that your contention boils down to total insolation doesn’t matter for global mean temperature.. Total BS. If you are just ignorant of the issue of varying insolation, rest assured nothing you said in that post has any effect on insolation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
sig says;
About 10,000 years ago, during the Holocene Climate Optimum, perihelion coincided with NH summer, creating a warmer climate. In about 10,000 years, we will return to a similar situation.
—————-
yes this also is a post insolation effect with a cycle estimated at 26,000 years but has nothing at all that affects total solar insolation.
Bill,
Again, you present a mix of claims without documentation!
It must have been a shock for you to discover that the Earth is actually colder at perihelion than at aphelion, the latter corresponding to summer in the Northern Hemisphere. This simple figure ruins your entire argument!
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G1rR-RH3Nh1-FIQDgGYtaeMt_gsVG77ym-n4mVK4sxg/edit?usp=sharing
Your arguments were based on the opposite: that the walkthrough freezer was represented by the summer half-year in the Northern Hemisphere!
Bill claimed: ” Fact is, both periods correspond to warming trends known to be the result of orbital forcing by jupiter, saturn, and uranus (with Neptune aiding only in the most recent 40 years). ”
What you claim to be a fact is actually an undocumented hypothesis, which turns out to be wrong!
A very simple calculation, tailored to a 3rd grader, shows it:
For simplicitys sake, lets say that Jupiter and Saturn extend Earths stay around perihelion by seven days, and shorten its stay around aphelion by the same amount. (This is, of course, far too much; I assume we can measure the delay in minutes and seconds, rather than weeks and days).
Winter Spring Summer Fall
Normal:
No. days: 91 91 91 91
Avg.temp: 13 14.5 16 14.5 Annual avg. 14.5
7-days delay caused by Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus:
No. days: 98 91 84 91
Avg.temp: 13 14.5 16 14.5 Annual avg.14.44
A longer stay in the cooler ” perihelion-phase ” will of course cause cooling, contrary to your claim!
I have not said that total solar insolation (TSI) does not matter. But when you are talking about global temperature, other things matters more much more. Like the distribution of the insolation on NH versus SH – with different level of absorption, much higher heat capacity of the vast southern oceans compared to the landmasses in the north, etc.
As this graph clearly illustrates, changing insolation in northern areas is far more significant than small variations in TSI. More than 800 000 years of glacial history should have told you that, and it is quite telling that you find this irrelevant.
I forgot to include this fig:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ydT1G2I9E48lvFcit9mFpHPaqg8TEeXGn3gP_Qm_AkQ/edit?usp=sharing
Sig what is the source of that graphic? I would like to read the methodology that was used to produce it and what the author state what it represents.
As we know total insolation for the globe does not change as a result of changes to axial tilt or axial precession but individual latitudes do.
axial tilt and axial precession are only 2 of 4 parameters that affects how much insolation is received at a particular latitude.
The only parameters that affect mean global insolation are changes to solar brightness, changes to orbit eccentricity, and perturbations to orbit parameters arising from other celestial objects.
You are very clearly not addressing the topic I am discussing.
The smoothness of the curve tells me with certainly neither of the parameters that determine global mean insolation were included in the study and you are just offering up what your daddy told you as an answer to a more complex question.
Is that due to your ignorance or is it that you are actively involved in obfuscating the science?
I withdraw my previous comments this seems to be more about a Swanson misinterpretation than any official hanky panky.
Oops wrong thread, disregard last post.
Bill Hunter,
Bill says: You are very clearly not addressing the topic I am discussing.
Nice try! Once again, you’re attempting to deflect from the original point, which stems from your claim: Fact is both periods correspond to warming trends known to be the result of orbital forcing by jupiter, saturn, and uranus (with Neptune aiding only in the most recent 40 years.
You presented this as a FACT, asserting that the recent warming trend is due to Earth’s orbital changes a slow-down at perihelion caused by the gravitational influence of larger planets. However, I have demonstrated, with the illustration below and calculations provided earlier, that your claim is incorrect. A slow-down during the SH summer (at perihelion) and a corresponding speed-up during NH summer (at aphelion) would actually lead to cooler global temperatures, if measurable at all.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G1rR-RH3Nh1-FIQDgGYtaeMt_gsVG77ym-n4mVK4sxg/edit?usp=sharing
The source of data is shown on the figure.
Youre wrong, and youre twisting all around to avoid admitting it. Once weve settled this issue, we can move on to discuss the relevant TSI data.
“and you are just offering up what your daddy told you as an answer to a more complex question.”
Sig, No worries. when an opponent has evidence and logic to back up his claims, and Bill can find no way to rebut it, this is his go-to insult.
Nope I only call that out when you can’t back up what your daddy told you, which for you Nate is business as usual. So here is a another pregnant opportunity to call me wrong on that for the first time.
Likewise Sig appears to be having an existential crisis for why he is in this forum.
He has engaged in a multi-post tirade denying that an extra watt of surface forcing actually causes temperatures global ”mean temperature” to go up in relationship to what it would be without that extra watt of forcing. Really weird.
Bill Hunters problem is that he just imagines things. He never documents his claims. Never because he is not able to. Science represents reality that can be measured he never refers to a single measurement.
a) Bill imagines that global temperature is highest during midwinter on NH, because the Earth is closest to the sun (perihelion). He ignores measurements showing this is the coolest period of the year.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G1rR-RH3Nh1-FIQDgGYtaeMt_gsVG77ym-n4mVK4sxg/edit?usp=sharing
b) Bill imagines that Uranus+ has slowed down the Earth during perihelion, so the NH wintertime is extended, and NH summertime is shortened. He shows no data supporting this claim.
c) Bill imagines that these orbital changes explain the recent warming trends, ignoring data that says it will have the opposite effect, if any.
d) Bill imagines that his imagined orbital changes will lead to an imagined extra watt of increased insolation, without checking the daily TSI measured by satellites. He probably does not know how to.
Now I expect an answer from Bill where he attacks my dad, corruption of science, mushroom farms etc. Maybe he also will imagine that bleaching of humans will kill virus in your lungs, higher sea levels will result in more seafront properties, or some other unscientific ideas he may have.
What I am pretty sure of is that his answer will not include any scientific documentation supporting his imaginations.
Sig says:
a) Bill imagines that global temperature is highest during midwinter on NH, because the Earth is closest to the sun (perihelion). He ignores measurements showing this is the coolest period of the year.
———-
Strawman! I never said that. I said that on average the earth has been spending more time at perihelion than aphelion.
And that since perihelion warms the globe more than aphelion as evidenced by your own numbers. Our global mean temperature is higher in 2023 compared to 1981.
b) Bill imagines that Uranus+ has slowed down the Earth during perihelion, so the NH wintertime is extended, and NH summertime is shortened. He shows no data supporting this claim.
It doesn’t have anything to do with hemispheres Sig. this is purely a global mean effect and it includes moving faster through aphelion during the NH Summer making for a shorter sidereal summer. . .but not necessarily a shorter calendar summer.
c) Bill imagines that these orbital changes explain the recent warming trends, ignoring data that says it will have the opposite effect, if any.
———————–
You haven’t provided any links to calculate the claim of an opposite effect either and you probably don’t have one except what your daddy told you.
d) Bill imagines that his imagined orbital changes will lead to an imagined extra watt of increased insolation, without checking the daily TSI measured by satellites. He probably does not know how to.
—————-
I am not even using TSI, TSI may be a variable that should be considered. . .that would mean it would be a factor in the remainder.
Sig says:
Now I expect an answer from Bill where he attacks my dad, corruption of science, mushroom farms etc. Maybe he also will imagine that bleaching of humans will kill virus in your lungs, higher sea levels will result in more seafront properties, or some other unscientific ideas he may have.
————–
You can always avoid that Sig by providing sources for your data and support for its relevancy. i.e. act more like a scientist than a carnival barker imploring people to come in and see the hairy woman but not even having a tent with a hairy woman.
Sig says:
What I am pretty sure of is that his answer will not include any scientific documentation supporting his imaginations.
———–
see above seems we are tied in this argument. You have nothing, I haven’t offered anything yet other than pointing you toward the US Naval Observatory, which should be sufficient if you can handle 6th grade math. the only difference between my claim and your claim is mine is solar radiation and yours is backradiation. . .only one of those can make something hotter.
Bill Hunter
A new reply from Bill exactly as I predicted: No documentation of his claims. None at all.
He says he previously has referred to US Naval Observatory. Is USNO saying orbital forcing is causing the current warming trend? When? Where? Please provide a link!
Bill says: Strawman! I never said that.
Yes, Bill said that when he compared speeding up during aphelion (NH summer) was like run through the walkthru freezer rather than walk. Fact is that the northern landmasses heat up much more rapidly than the southern oceans, and the global temperatures reach highest levels during NH summer (which happens to be around aphelion). The more days this situation lasts (broadens the peak on the figure), the higher the annual global temperatures will be. The quicker the Earth moves towards the cooler SH summer and perihelion, the lower global temperature will fall.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G1rR-RH3Nh1-FIQDgGYtaeMt_gsVG77ym-n4mVK4sxg/edit?usp=sharing
Bill says: And that since perihelion warms the globe more than aphelion as evidenced by your own numbers. Our global mean temperature is higher in 2023 compared to 1981.
This is a total nonsensical statement. During perihelion the Earth will always be exposed to more energy from the sun than during aphelion. Nevertheless, we have had periods of cooling, warming, glaciations and interglacials.
Bill says: It doesnt have anything to do with hemispheres Sig. this is purely a global mean effect and it includes moving faster through aphelion during the NH Summer making for a shorter sidereal summer. . .but not necessarily a shorter calendar summer.
The temperature trends, which is what we are discussing, have a lot to do with the hemispheres. Read Milankovic. The two hemispheres reflect and absorbs the energy differently, and the heat capacity is varying. If different stuff is exposed to solar heat, like new asphalt, water, black soil, green forest, desert, snow and ice, the temperature response is very different.
And no, I am not talking about NH calendar summer, but about the periode that the Earth axis favours high insolation on NH.
Bill, unless you are able to document or find serious scientific articles supporting your claim I believe you are wasting your time.
Bill says: Strawman! I never said that.
Yes, Bill said that when he compared speeding up during aphelion (NH summer) was like run through the walkthru freezer rather than walk.
———————
thats true.
But don’t you think you will get out of the freezer faster by running and thus be warmer than you would otherwise be if you walked? You have been arguing that perihelion is warmer, it is. I have not argument with that.
You are either hopeless confused or have some kind of mental problem where your brain jerks like your leg does when the doctor hits your knee with a toy hammer.
Bill Hunter
No, when perihelion coincides with SH summer it is the coldest period of the year globally, 2-3 degrees colder than the NH summer (at aphelion). You apparently do not grasp this simple fact, in spite of the graph I have showed you numerous times:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G1rR-RH3Nh1-FIQDgGYtaeMt_gsVG77ym-n4mVK4sxg/edit?usp=sharing
But I understand that it is very difficult to accept these simple facts, since they effectively and completely disprove your hypothesis.
Sig says:
No, when perihelion coincides with SH summer it is the coldest period of the year globally, 2-3 degrees colder than the NH summer (at aphelion). You apparently do not grasp this simple fact, in spite of the graph I have showed you numerous times:
But I understand that it is very difficult to accept these simple facts, since they effectively and completely disprove your hypothesis.
——————
No Sig I haven’t disputed your irrelevant fact. Fact is if the earth spends more time close to the sun than further away it going to provide more energy during the year to the earth. If you don’t believe that is going to warm the earth that’s your problem not mine.
Bill Hunter says: ” Fact is if the earth spends more time close to the sun than further away it going to provide more energy during the year to the earth. ”
Where your logic fails is that you believe the amount of global temperature change is purely a function of the energy that the earth receives.
The key factors impacting the temperature change are:
a) total energy absorbed by the earth
b) the heat capacity of the material that receives the energy
a) The SH contains almost three times more ice (on land and water) than the NH. Antarctica is white, high and cold, and reflects up to 90% of the energy to space. A lot more melting of the ice occurs in NH, and water pools on ice absorbs a lot more energy than pure white ice and snow.
b) The southern oceans have a lot higher heat capacity than the NH landmasses. The same amount of energy will increase water temperature by far less then for soil and vegetation. Land areas warm up much more quickly than the ocean.
Therefore, as the seasonal, global temperature data shows, the temperature gets highest when the earth spends its time in the NH summer. If you shorten this time, and replace it with the cooler temperatures during SH summer, the global temperature will be lowered.
If you were right, that it is the overall amount of insolation that matters, the global temperature would be highest during perihelion. It is not.
It is the distribution of the energy between the two hemispheres which is most important, exactly like Milankovic told us 100 years ago.
Sig says:
Bill Hunter says: Fact is if the earth spends more time close to the sun than further away it going to provide more energy during the year to the earth.
Sig says: ”Therefore, as the seasonal, global temperature data shows, the temperature gets highest when the earth spends its time in the NH summer. If you shorten this time, and replace it with the cooler temperatures during SH summer, the global temperature will be lowered.”
——————-
Well the fact is Sig you are mostly right and that’s evidenced by the fact that the earth isn’t warming as fast as it was between 21.5 thousand years ago to 10,000 years ago when the axis was going to maximum tilt. Today its moving toward minimum tilt.
But axial tilt parameter moves so slowly it only has about a 3rd place decimal effect on mean polar temperatures much less global temperatures 1981 and 2023. In other words it changes nothing important to what I have said.
You can continue to push the argument about where perihelion appears in the sky but over any 40 year period time it’s irrelevant. Over a climate change trend of 11,500 years it might be worth up to 4C for 65N and somewhat less at 65S.
Your continuing to argue the same point is just an exercise of you trying to insert a red herring into what I posted.
Bill hunter says: ” You can continue to push the argument about where perihelion appears in the sky but over any 40 year period time its irrelevant. Over a climate change trend of 11,500 years it might be worth up to 4C for 65N and somewhat less at 65S. ”
I am just trying to help you, so you do not keep embarrassing yourself by your lack of understanding.
I have showed you that both in the short term (annual variation) and in the long term (thousands of years), perihelion during SH summer means relative cooling. Longer time spent in a cooler phase, means more cooling not less. Less time spent in the warm phase, NH summer which today happens to be at aphelion, means less warming i.e. more cooling. Exactly the opposite of your claim.
I honestly do not believe that the short term orbital variations you describe have any measurable impact at all. But if they have, it will be in the direction of cooling. You claim the opposite, that it has a strong warming effect and explain the 20th century warming – without any trace of documentation.
The science community can safely relax. You will never be able to do the necessary calculations and documentation that will upend the current understanding.
Sig says:
”I am just trying to help you, so you do not keep embarrassing yourself by your lack of understanding.
I have showed you that both in the short term (annual variation) and in the long term (thousands of years), perihelion during SH summer means relative cooling.”
Sig it doesn’t mean cooling in the medium term.
You are using a longterm variation NH summer perihelion vs NH winter perihelion that takes >20,000 years to convert.
that is against 800 year, and 3,500 year eccentricity cycles where these cycles can repeat in a small sector of the sky multiple times in a row.
what you are claiming controls the process can only have a fractional effect on the medium term eccentricity cycles.
For the cycles listed above your alleged controlling cycle on has an effect against the maximum effect of those shorter term cycles
You are talking about can have a maximum effect of 1/25, and 1/13 respectively on those medium term cycles.
Your side has preached ignoring orbital forcing as been a 100,000 year cycle. But that is a complete rejection of Newtonian physics as it is also recognized that the eccentricity change varies with planetary movement and the planets don’t circle the sun in unison once every 100,000 years.
the number of permutations of 8 planets is 40,320. The number of permutations of decadal plus cycles is 24 with 4 planets. And none of this counts moons, comets, and asteroids. Milankovic seems to have found one of those permutations to have a cycle of 100,000 years among all those 24 permutations.
That would have been a great accomplishment 100 years ago when he did this considering the data and technology that was available then. It obviously needs to be elevated into the modern era where all the possible permutations are recalculated and their effects on earth’s speed and distance from the sun worked out.
” But that is a complete rejection of Newtonian physics as it is also recognized that the eccentricity change varies with planetary movement and the planets dont circle the sun in unison once every 100,000 years.”
Bill fails to do or show us any Newtonian physics.
What he does is Astrology-looks at where the planets are-but cannot show cause and effect, which is a requirement in normal science.
Nate says:
” ”But that is a complete rejection of Newtonian physics as it is also recognized that the eccentricity change varies with planetary movement and the planets dont circle the sun in unison once every 100,000 years.”
Bill fails to do or show us any Newtonian physics.”
I guess Nate thinks the 4 gas giant planets orbiting around the earth and the sun at different rates converts all their gravitation pull together from one direction and then pulls on the earth.
Hmmm, I don’t think you call that Newtonian physics. What kind of physics do you think it is that creates a linear forcing on the earth?
“I guess Nate thinks the 4 gas giant planets orbiting around the earth and the sun at different rates converts all their gravitation pull together from one direction and then pulls on the earth.”
No one is denying gravity. But you haven’t shown the effects of aligned planets is significant.
Then you cannot prove it affects Earths climate on the time scales much shorter than the known Milankovitch cycles.
So thats all folks.
well the multi-day difference in half orbit times is significant.
Bill Hunter,
You have two basic problems:
– you show no documentation of your imagined impact on temperature trends caused by short term orbital changes.
– you claim that the earth spending more time in the cooler SH summer/NH winter, and less time in the warmer NH summer/SH winter has a warming effect. Obviously, it will have a cooling effect, if any at all.
Put up or shut up!
“October 5, 2024 at 7:30 PM
well the multi-day difference in half orbit times is significant.”
Which your own source thoroughly debunked!
Nate it wasn’t debunked. It simply says the moon is responsible for the orbital forcing.
does it matter that much what it is that slows the earth down in its orbit so substantially and differently over the decades?
I just think its silly and ignorant to think its the moon which is only going to barely change the speed of earth in its orbit as opposed to Jupiter which can displace the sun by nearly 2 million miles on average every 6 years. Apparently you think the earth is completely invulnerable to any forcing from Jupiter. Weird!
“does it matter that much what it is that slows the earth down in its orbit so substantially and differently over the decades?”
FALSE!
The Moon’s orbit causes an artifact to appear in the measured times of aphelion and perihelion. At least you acknowledge this.
It is NOT evidence that the Earth has actually slowed in its orbit, nor changed the amount of insolation it receives.
“I just think its silly and ignorant to think its the moon which is only going to barely change the speed of earth in its orbit as opposed to Jupiter which can displace the sun by nearly 2 million miles on average every 6 years.”
Really ignorant and illogical assertions Bill.
There is nothing silly about the facts here. Which are that the lunar orbit produces an artifact in the measurement of the aphelion and perihelion of Earths orbit. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with a slowing or speeding up of half of its orbit and change in solar insolation!
” Apparently you think the earth is completely invulnerable to any forcing from Jupiter. Weird!”
For the 47th time, Bill, no one is denying that Jupiter experts gravity on the other planets.
That does not prove it can have whatever SIZE effect on Earth that you want it to have!
In science you cannot just assert that such and such cause will have such and such BIG effect. You have to show it, with real, not made-up, evidence.
Thus far you have failed to do that.
‘No one who is serious about climate change…’ well that’s a weird subjective comment. But frankly the whole rant is.
Thanks for all your long, hard work Dr Spencer, the world needs reason and data. Opinions are far easier to come by 🙂
Roy,
Still waiting for the lower stratosphere temperature update to include August 2024.
The August Solar F10.7 flux was so far above expectation; something must be happening in the stratosphere as a result.
Rapid Heating and ozone creation I suspect.
Joel O’Bryan
Dr. Spencer, reading many of the posts on your blog I get the feeling that many of these climate “experts” don’t even understand the basics. This whole “theory” is based upon an increase in CO2 resulting in warming that results in climate change. They one and only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through warming caused by the thermalization of 15 Micron LWIR. No one disagrees with that, that is the Green House Gas Effect. Basically, people believe that by vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the air with the energy consistent with 15 Micron LWIR, once can materially impact the kinetic energy of the remaining 2,499 molecules. Yes, I know when it is stated that way it simply sounds absurd.
Anyway, would you do a series of blog posts reviewing the basics, and start with this chart?
https://ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/greenhouse/radiationChart.png
It shows the absorption spectrum of the various green house gasses, as well as some Plank Curves. Things to note:
1) CO2 only absorbs and radiates a very narrow band of EM radiation between 13 and 18 Microns, Peak 15 Microns.
2) Plank Curves are assiciated with temperature, and as you can see, the cooler the temperature, the peak of the Plank Curve shifts towards the longer wavelengths.
3) The IR Spectrum absorbed by CO2 around 15 Microns is also readly absorbed by the far more abundant H2O, so with our without CO2 100% of 15 Micron LWIR is absorbed by the atmomsphere, ie it is saturated.
4) You can’t absorb more than 100% of energy, energy can not be created or destroyed, just changed in form.
5) You can go to SpecrtralCalc and see what temperatures are associated with what wavelengths.
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
6) You can also see at what concentration saturation occures using a gas cell.
https://www.spectralcalc.com/calc/spectralcalc.php
In order to intellegently address climate change, every observation would be addressed by asking “can 15 Micron LWIR cause that change?” That is basic science 101. If people are going to blame CO2 for climate change, they have to explain how it does that using the tools and graphic I’ve identified above.
>>>If people are going to blame CO2 for climate change, they have to explain how it does that using the tools and graphic Ive identified above.
It is not the task of the contributors to Spencer’s blog to teach people who can barely eat with a knife and fork without injuring themselves in the face.
These endless demands for evidence that the greenhose effect is real, and is an established scientific fact, appear like shouts and screams from an autistic person, not unlike Greta Thunberg.
> not unlike Greta
There is help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIP2vukNOPc
“These endless demands for evidence that the greenhose effect is real”
Who’s denying the Greenhouse Gas Effect? My entire suggestion was to develop and exercise in applied Green House Gas Effect.
Your ignorant response pretty much proves that Climate Experts doen’t even understand the basics.
Yes, the GHG Efect is real. Remove H2O from the atosphere and it will get real cold real fast. Simply sleep naked in a desert and then a rain forest for that evidence.
Removing CO2 from the atmpsphere would do absolutely nothing to change the energy balance. Once again, H2O absorbs the same wavelengths as CO2, and H2O is far more abundant.
Dr. Spencer, Rune Valaker provides all the evidence in the world that an elementary level explaination of the science is needed to inform these ignorant experts of the basics.
> Removing CO2 from the atmpsphere would do absolutely nothing to change the energy balance
Until we try on Venus there is this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
“Yes, the GHG Efect is real.”
Rather, it is an artifact of a fundamentally flawed assumption and so moves into fantasyland..
“Remove H2O from the atosphere and it will get real cold real fast. Simply sleep naked in a desert and then a rain forest for that evidence.”
Demonstrated here. Where did the h20 go? No h20 no oceans. The whole GHE model is built on a fantasy Earth.
CO2isLife
CO2isLife says: Your ignorant response pretty much proves that Climate Experts doent even understand the basics.
Talking about ignorance! Have you heard about feedbacks? If you remove the other GHG, and just keep H2O, the temperature will drop. Cooler air=> less H2O=> cooler air => less H2O => cooler air etc. and we get Snowball Earth. H2O-molecules have a short life span in the atmosphere. Have you experienced a hot, sunny day in September, followed by a cool night and the dew in the morning?
All you need to do is to look at what happened during the last 2 mill. years of glacials/interglacials. When the intensity of the sun was strongest in the southern hemisphere, where you have vast oceans and the best conditions for evaporation of water, then you have the deep ice ages. The warm periods occurred when sun intensity was highest in the north with less water and larger land areas.
Willard says:
September 5, 2024 at 7:09 AM
> Removing CO2 from the atmpsphere would do absolutely nothing to change the energy balance
Until we try on Venus there is this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
Willard, that is yet another great expample of sophistry to the nth Degree. Here is a clue, the earth doesn’t emit visible radiation. The one and only wavelength band that is relevant to the GHG efect is 12 to 18 Microns, 15 Peak. That is it. Visible and UV Radiation is 100% irrelevant to the GHG Effect. Dr. Spencer, this is just the most recent expample where you need to do a series posts addressing the extreme basics of the GHG Effect. These “experts” are making a fool out of themselves.
Sig says:
September 5, 2024 at 7:30 AM
CO2isLife
CO2isLife says: Your ignorant response pretty much proves that Climate Experts doent even understand the basics.
Talking about ignorance! Have you heard about feedbacks? If you remove the other GHG, and just keep H2O, the temperature will drop.
That is 100% False, and would be extremely easy to test in a lab. Dr. Spencer, Sig just provided an experment that could prove CO2 causes the warming as nonsense.
1) CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500 molecules, H2O can be 4 out of 100.
2) Both CO2 and H2O absorb the 15 Microns, you can use a Gas Cell on the Spectralcal Website to see that with or without CO2 an atmosphere with H2O will absorb 100% of 15 micron LWIR.
3) You can only absorb 100%, absorption is saturated by H2O, so adding CO2 won’t absorb any more. Energy can’t be created or destroyed.
4) H2O is great at absorbing and storing heat, that is why you can sleep naked in a rain forest. Try sleeping naked in a very dry desert where CO2 is the only GHG and there is no H2O and you will freeze. That is an easy experiment anyone can test on their own.
Dr. Spencer, Willard and Sig prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the ignorance of the climate “experts” is something that needs to be addressed. It is embarassing that people are so gullible and nieve to post such easly refuted nonsense on this blog.
Please help them live in the world of real science.
And so Life denies what he can see with an infrared camera, i.e. that CO2 is obviously a greenhouse gas. Perhaps has he forgotten to install Elliott’s plug-in? Here it is:
https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/tarderase/
That way, he’ll be able to see this experiment that focuses on measuring the infrared:
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?si=NirS2KAF6hFTtf7Z&t=276
We wish him luck with his other requests.
Adding a time stamp breaks the preview. Dang.
Where can we send bug tickets?
Willard says:
September 5, 2024 at 11:03 PM
And so Life denies what he can see with an infrared camera, i.e. that CO2 is obviously a greenhouse gas. Perhaps has he forgotten to install Elliotts plug-in? Here it is:
https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/tarderase/
That way, hell be able to see this experiment that focuses on measuring the infrared:
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?si=NirS2KAF6hFTtf7Z&t=276
We wish him luck with his other requests.
Dr. Spencer, I’m begging you to expose these sophist. Just look at what they post on your blog? It is 100% pure nonsense.
Anyone that understands even the basics knows that CO2 absorbs and emits 15 Micron LWIR. The GHG Effect is thermalizing outgoing LWIR. No one disagrees with that. The earth emits between 9.5 and maybe 16 microns, that is it. That covers the range between +100 and -100 Degree F.
Willard literaly linked a video showing a heating element of over 300 Degree F to demonstrate CO2 traps the heat. The earth isn’t 300 Degree F, it is 64 Degree F, they aren’t even dealing with the proper range of the spectrum. Allow people ton post such nonsense unclallenged aids in the misinformation that defines Climate change.
As I’ve said 1,000 times, if you want an experiment to run, you need a long pass filter that isolates 13 to 18n micron LWIR and a bucket of water. Willard literally uses a heating iron that most likley is emitting wavelengths near the visible range.
This chart tells you everything you need to know, and Willard is clearly posting sophistry to spread misinformation. This chard defines the physics that have to be addreessed when addressing climate change. CO2 can only cause warming and it is done through the thermalization of 15 micron LWIR. Undenianble Fact that Willard seems to ignore.
https://ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/greenhouse/radiationChart.png
A few minutes, Life decided to kick down this trifle below:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1686894
I would like to ask what the satellites over the equator show? Why do they not show any increase in temperature a kilometer above the equator.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_EQ_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JAS_EQ_2024.png
Has there been any increase in temperature above the 80th parallel since April.
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plus80n/daily/daily_ts_2024.png
UVB radiation in the troposphere, which is absorbed by water vapor, appears to be increasing.
This is likely to result in a decrease in summer cloud cover and an increase in sunshine over land areas.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2022.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
Satellites show the increase in the temperature of the troposphere over the equator in 2023 from March.
Studies have shown that water vapor exhibits structural absorption bands in the near-UV range, particularly in the 290-350 nm range. In this range, water vapor can absorb UVB radiation, which is important for understanding its role in the atmosphere.
Atmospheric impact:
Water vapor is one of the main components of the atmosphere that absorbs solar radiation, which has important implications for the Earth’s energy balance and climate modeling. As the water vapor content of the atmosphere increases, increased absorption of UV radiation is observed, which can affect local atmospheric conditions and ecological health.
CO2 exhibits absorption of radiation in the UV range, especially with wavelengths below 230 nm. Studies have shown that CO2 has absorption bands between 115 and 230 nm, which means it can absorb UVC radiation that does not reach the troposphere. Radiation up to 242 nm is absorbed by diatomic oxygen in the Chapman cycle in the stratosphere.
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is divided into three main sub-bands:
UVA: 320-400 nm
UVB: 280-320 nm
UVC: 100-280 nm
FYI, the earth doesn’t emit UV, it emits LWIR near 11 Microns on average. UV has nothing to do with the GHG Effect.
Actually UV does have GHG effect. Ozone and O2 absorb UV energy just as CO2 absorbs IR.
More UV when magnetic field is weaker … which may all on its own explain warming attributed to CO2 GHE.
See your own chart that you linked above for O and O2 absorption.
Ken says:
September 4, 2024 at 10:10 PM
Actually UV does have GHG effect. Ozone and O2 absorb UV energy just as CO2 absorbs IR.
More UV when magnetic field is weaker which may all on its own explain warming attributed to CO2 GHE.
OMG!!! O2 is now a GHG? Are you freekin kidding me? Absorbing INCOMING Short Wave UV now causes surface warming?
Note the “Atmospheric Window” centered around 10 Microns. That allows most LWIR emitted by the earth to leave unimpeeded. Note how most GHGs absorb BELOW 10 Microns (To the right longer wavelengths). If you understand that graphic, GHGs put in a floor for temperatures, they don’t add to warming. 100 degree F is associated with 9.25 Microns, so only things to the right of 9.25 micron apply to the GHG Effect. Most green house gasses only thermalize BELOW 10 microns, which is COOLER. JUst look at the bottom temp of the Stratosphere. It is about -80C, that is CO2 thermalizing outgoing LWIR of 15 microns.
I’m all ears, please explain.
Interesting, I never thought in detail how many things affect on how energy absorbs in the atmosphere. Thanks! The UV from the Sun, it’s variation and water high in the stratosphere are often missed in popular discussions even if taken into consideration in serious modelling. FYI Life, nobody said so.
I was accused of bias the other day. I responded by admitting that I have bias like every rational person. I then listed some of my biases. One of my strongest biases is for honesty.
I also have a strong bias for skepticism, which is not just saying no to everything, but asking relevant questions. I think curiosity is a good quality in scientists and all people. In that sense, I am also skeptical of many skeptic claims.
From my perspective, the wide and indiscriminate use of the denier accusation is both dishonest and often an attempt to stop people from asking important questions. That makes it doubly wrong to me.
Here is the question I ask David every time i come across his drivel on blogs:
Please show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
and usually add this:
Please note:
1-Evidence of warming, unusual weather, storms, floods IS NOT evidence that man’s CO2 is the cause.
2-Correlation is not causation
3-An experts assertion, governments assertion, consensus of experts, polls or majority belief are not evidence. They are hearsay.
4-Climate models are not evidence.
5-Warmest weather in 100 years means it was warmer 100 years ago when CO2 was lower.
6-If an event is NOT unprecedented, then you have to explain why whatever caused the earlier events is NOT the cause of the latest occurrence of that event.
Evidence is actual data PRO AND CON with reasoned analysis and logical conclusions while FULLY CONSIDERING OPPOSING evidence.
Here are my biases.
I am biased toward taste.
I am biased toward humility.
I am biased toward integrity.
I am biased toward competence.
I am biased toward objectivity.
I am biased toward truthfulness.
I am biased toward never being self-serving.
I am biased toward never speaking about myself.
Thank you.
Oh, and the consensus claim is that humans are the main cause of global warming. Not less than 50%. Not half-natural. Not even “perhaps 51%, who knows?”
Also, regarding alarmism, there was a note in that other thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1683155
Those who complain about the D-word should keep the A-word for themselves and stop promoting it in the Contrarian Matrix.
I am biased toward a lack of bias.
Thank you for the compliment Willard.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
You’re being too kind, dear TS, yet I must decline the compliment for your self-defeating pomposity remains inimitable.
Have you ever considered that the job of scientists is to answer the questions they ask, not to use them as gotchas?
Try it sometimes.
Evidence is lacking.
Sarcasm
“the consensus claim”
Science has nothing to do with the consensus.
Then explain why science advances one funeral at a time. Also, get real:
https://climateball.net/but-science#consensus
There a lot more non scientists than there are scientists, hence a lot more funerals.
There is a strong consensus that CO2 is increasing due to fossil burning and that it has a spectrum in the IR range that makes it a greenhouse gas. Beyond that, there is a very wide range of claims and counter claims, and an even wider difference of opinion about those various claims.
The claim of consensus is often used to hype the most extreme claims, and in that context (quote me correctly) it is dishonest.
Since there is a strong consensus that humans are the main cause of global warming, there is a strong consensus about weaker claims.
Claims such as “beyond that, there is a very wide range of yada yada” amount to mere denial. And to top that denial with “But CAGW” only gallops back to the central Bingo square:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw
CAGW is just a fun talking point for them.
Unless of course, it’s just a “reactionary” talking point.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1685822
Two questions, “Mack” –
How come you know Mike’s silly HTML trick to type the T-word?
Reactionaries are well-known for red baiting. You’re red baiting. Do you know how abduction work?
No, not the aliens’ type. The “inference to the best explanation” one.
Willard, if you do not like my responses, then you should not reply to my comments or quote me. I have provided advice to you and others in the past, but you reject my advice.
You know my opinion about your website. At best, it is not informative and serves no useful purpose.
Your use of stereotypes to characterize intelligent and often complex statements, in this forum that encourages free speech, is just wrong in every way. This is the 21st century. We are supposed to be inclusive and supportive of people who have different points of view.
You are entitled to your editorials, TS love. You are even entitled to feel entitled voicing them, even if that does not entitle you to room service. There is very little anyone can about this sense of entitlement – it must follow you wherever you go.
Your opinions about otters are even less relevant than those about yourself. They serve no real purpose than to situate a rhetorical stance in which you are a True Champion. When doing so you sell the idea that you are beyond any rhetorical stance, astute readers ought to reach for their wallets.
Nobody ought to buy anything from people full of themselves. Suckers still fall for their trick. I suppose confidence still sells.
Perhaps one day you will be able to contribute something constructive. Perhaps one day you will be able to invent a new contrarian talking point. I have faith in you, more than say gb.
When that happens, I want to be there. Just for you.
Are you still all in on SPY since last week?
Ta.
Dr. Spencer,
I think you’ve made the mistake of giving him the attention he craves.
P.S.- Isn’t the UAH dataset showing much more warming than the surface data sets? If anything those data sets have shown cooling.
WUWT embarrasses themselves, even more than usual:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/09/03/what-happened-to-your-wettest-summer-met-office/
Read the comments. You’ll get a good laugh.
It’s the wild west over on WUWT. The commenters there make even the worst offenders here look both tame and genius. In the monthly UAH update post I’m trying to convince to one of the frequently posters that plus (+) is a different operation than division (/) and that parentheses indicate priority for the order of operations. And as I recall this is for a guy who claims to be in a STEM field.
Who is David Appell? Never heard of him
Quite awhile ago, he posted here a lot. I was not sure if David Appell is his actual name.
Mr. Boland,
He was rather rude, regularly.
Be happy you missed his time here.
Best wishes,
He’s a PhD physicist I believe from SUNY. However, he is an alarmist. He didn’t like Dr. Spencer raising issues like climate sensitivity or UHI effect. If you go to his site, you will see he’s a propagandist. I suspect he’s received a lot of funds from Soros through the years. He sure hasn’t done any climate research.
Oh, yeah, I believe the last straw for Dr. Spencer was when he started question the integrity of the UAH data and Dr. Spencer and Christy because it wasn’t matching the surface data. I guess according to Appell, science has to agree.
There are ppl who become obsessed on public figures, Appell is one of them. He’s probably nice in some contexts, but a major disturbance in some non-alarmist blogs. He’s OCD or slightly on the spectre. Not an interesting person who has views and wisdoms.
His favourite is defining what is legit fandom, what is denial.
David Appell was a bad apple a decade ago, as shown here:
The Master Resource people are whores of the fossil fuel industry. (Yes, that certainly includes you.) – David Appell (@davidappell) | March 5, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
http://www.masterresource.org/ad-hominem-against-skeptics/ad-hominem-appell/
He is a hit-and-run driver whose meager background should suggest humility rather than hate toward climate realists.
The graphic shows a clear temperature drop in the stratosphere above a pressure of 2 hPa. In these layers of the stratosphere, only UVC radiation can raise the temperature. That’s why the temperature drops to the tropopause, although it seems that it should rise as the air density increases. The temperature drops to the tropopause because the shortest UV radiation is completely absorbed by oxygen. It follows that a drop in temperature in July 2024 means a drop in stratospheric ozone production, which ozone in turn absorbs most UVB radiation. The conclusion is that there was a significant increase in UVB radiation in the troposphere over the equator in July.https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JAS_EQ_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_EQ_2024.png
–Dark Oxygen Could Change Our Understanding of Habitability
The discovery of dark oxygen at an abyssal plain on the ocean floor generated a lot of interest. Could this oxygen source support life in the ocean depths? And if it can, what does that mean for places like Enceladus and Europa?
What does it mean for our notion of habitability? —
https://www.universetoday.com/168357/dark-oxygen-could-change-our-understanding-of-habitability/#more-168357
And:
” However, there are other ways dark oxygen can be generated without nodules. One of them is radiolysis.
Radiolysis is the breaking apart of molecules by ionizing radiation, and theres plenty of that in the vicinity of Jupiter. ”
Yes, there certainly is.
People who make assertions and ad hominem insults are not scientist or trying to advance science. They are followers a belief system which doesn’t allow them to challenge ideologies.
David Appell is one of them. If he were a proper journalist even, he would lead with questions about Roy’s dataset and why he thinks it is valid.
None of this is new. Galileo suffered this. William Harvey, King Charles I & II tutor and doctor discovered that blood circulates around the body in 1620. It took the medical profession 200 years to accept it. He was also an expert witness in Witch trials where climate change was blamed on women in the town or village and they were killed.
Bizarre. Many of us eagerly come here on the second or third of the month to see the shift, and I personally thank you for all that you do and say.
> If a doomsday signal was clear, wed have acted. Its not clear so we wont.
If the room is dark, the lamp is broken. The room is not dark. Therefore the lamp is not broken.
Or there is no lamp present. Therefore claiming the room is dark is only natural.
If the room is dark therefore the lamp is broken.
Danger danger will robinson, that does not compute.
There is no lamp. It is just your imagination.
This is not the room you are looking for.
Not looking for a room, just one honest man.
The cat in the box is dead.
The CCTV says otherwise.
The cat in the box is alive.
The cat in the box is adleiavde.
The CCTV is correct.
adleiavde
LOL
I give talks on climate change and our demand for energy (200+ over the last 7 years), researching carefully and objectively. I’ve come to the view that it does not matter whether our climate change (which is now obvious) is natural or manmade – there is nothing we can do about it either way.
Our world demand for energy of all types seems to be increasing at about 18,000 TWhrs/decade, with the Indian sub continent, Africa and S America all striving (understandably) to catch us up. The rate of installation of ‘renewable’ energy (primarily wind) seems to be no more than 3,000TWhrs/decade. So, every decade we are having to fill a shortfall of 15,000 TWhrs, with coal being dominant. So we are not even ‘treading water’ in our efforts to go ‘green’. To build and install much quicker is a challenge of material supply, labour and money.
To roll over in front of the hysterics, slashing our use of fossil fuels without substitutes being available, would lead to mass starvation and suffering, with the ‘poor’ taking the brunt. So we must keep on expanding our use of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, and if that does bring more damaging climate change we just have to put up with it and mitigate against the consequences as best we can.
When speaking to interested groups I bring up the atmospheric CO2 graph (Mona Loa records) saying, ‘Despite all the billions of research money, all the wind turbines and solar panels, all the pious speeches by politicians and scientists, all the international conferences (COP This and COP That), over the decades we have made not the slightest impression on the upward trend of that graph.’ It is a sobering observation.
If we measure the detrimental effect of climate change by human death rates, then the overall figures have plummeted, despite more extreme events, because our technology now sees them coming, be it cyclone, flood or tornado. And (ironically) COLD weather continues to be the biggest killer by far of all the various weather types.
So we are setting policy, funding and intellectual effort to something that, compared to war, poverty, health and famine, is a ‘non problem’. We should divert our resources to more worthy causes.
Keith Stevens, UK, Physicist, retired company director, engineering coatings industry.
Randall Carlson says there were ice sheets a mile thick over North America only a few short thousands of years ago; a blink of an eye in geological terms.
Climate change is real. Else the ice would still be here.
Thanks for some reality, Keith.
As you likely already know, when this warming trend ends, atmospheric CO2 will drop with colder temperatures.
“Ive come to the view that it does not matter whether our climate change (which is now obvious) is natural or manmade there is nothing we can do about it either way.”
We are in an Ice Age, and are going to remain in an Ice Age, but in the future, we could cool Venus, but there not much sense in cooling Earth, nor even having government controlling Earth global climate, at all.
Particularly when there far more important things government should do, like not have wars.
But we might cool Venus because we simply want the “free sunlight” of Venus orbit with having billions people living there wanting that sunlight’s energy which could otherwise keep Venus surface very hot.
Earth is not particularly good hub of our solar system, but as we continue to lower the cost of leaving the Earth surface, industry will move off world, to use the energy of the sun, and we make telescopes in space, to answer question are we alone in this universe- and answer question, where are they, why aren’t they here, already?
Though it’s possible they are here, and we don’t know it.
Keith Stevens, UK, Physicist, retired company director, engineering coatings industry.
The reason the current climate change – which is mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels & release of heat trapping greenhouse gases – boosts all heat waves is because small changes in the average of the distribution of temperatures yields huge changes in extremes.
Holding warming below 2°C is ambitions but still realistic. The ship has sailed on 1.5°C though.
As the Earth reaches its required energy equilibrium, with as much energy leaving the planet as entering, the global temperature will finally begin to plateau and will remain at around this level for about 10,000 years before starting, very slowly, to cool.
Finally, some context: The planet has warmed by 6°C since the last peak glacial, the first 5°C of warming rose at 1°C per 2000 years, the last degree took less than 100 years with most of that in the last 40 years.
Ark, that’s all just your cult beliefs. You can’t describe how CO2’s 15μ photons can raise the temperature of Earth’s 288K surface. Because it can’t happen!
You just keep repeating the same old nonsense, regardless of reality. Your beliefs would mean that you can boil water with ice cubes. You know that’s not possible, right?
So why do you cling to false science? Do you believe it makes you look smarter? Some people buy “smart” phones and “smart” cars believing they will appear smart. Maybe you should buy some “smart” toilet paper….
Arkady, do you really believe that the energy balance is constant from day to day, month to month and year to year? Do you really believe that it’s only co2 that is the driver for any change.
Do you really dispute the laws of thermo, and do you really believe that someone, somewhere holds that only CO2 affects temperatures?
Anon for a reason;
“do you really believe that the energy balance is constant from day to day, month to month and year to year?”
I did not say that did I. You are simply projecting. Here’s the twenty-four-year record of energy imbalance measurements showing that the relevant calculation is the long-run average: https://imgur.com/Zh0Hykk
“Do you really believe that it’s only co2 that is the driver for any change.”
No, I do not “believe” that CO2 is the “only” climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. There is ample physical evidence that the non-condensing greenhouse gases are the terrestrial atmospheric components most relevant to climate change.
CO2 is well-mixed and does not condense or precipitate out of the atmosphere at current temperatures, whereas water vapor and clouds respond rapidly to changes in temperature and pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precipitating out in a feedback response to the CO2 forcing.
The physics of the greenhouse effect and climate change have been well established for at least 200 years.
Sorry Ark, but you’re supporting your cult beliefs from cult sources. NASA CERES is where this EEI nonsense breeds.
It’s a meaningless value. It’s not even “energy”. They’re trying to balance flux, which does not balance.
Clint R
Are you one who believes that if you repeat your opinions enough times on a blog they will become scientific facts?
You: “Its a meaningless value. Its not even energy. Theyre trying to balance flux, which does not balance.”
Fluxes are in balance if an object temperature is remaining constant. Flux is amount of energy per unit time (the area only matters if it is changing, not happening with the Earth). It is a flow of energy. You have a flow in and a flow out. If these balance the temperature will remain the same.
No one can help you understand this fact. You are in denial of reality and think making up stuff is real.
Again you provide zero evidence for you claim that fluxes do not balance. You just repeat false points over and over regardless of what evidence is given you. Anyway carry on with your made up reality.
Norman, the reason you’re stalking me is because I destroy your cult beliefs.
But, it’s not really me, it’s reality that is destroying your cult beliefs.
Fluxes don’t balance. Go back and study my example of a cone in space. 900W/m² in does NOT equal 180 W/m² out.
More simply, since you don’t understand physics, “flux” is NOT “energy”.
What will you try next?
Puffman keeps denying SI units established by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.
Willard
The International System of Units (SI) defines flux in various forms, depending on the physical quantity being described.
Flux generally refers to the flow rate of a quantity through a surface. The SI unit of flux depends on the specific quantity in question (e.g., electric, magnetic, energy).
Energy flux refers to the rate of energy transfer through a given area per unit time. It is defined as the energy passing through a unit area perpendicular to the flow of energy per unit of time.
Archie,
The SI units have well established equivalences between energy and irradiance flux density. The relevant unit has the dimensions MT-3.
Mind one’s units properly makes any equivocation disappear.
Willard
Consistent with the terms I originally specified, and in alignment with my exact phrasing.
Archie,
I’m just waiting for Puffman to jump on “irradiance” to repeat his usual bit, so that I can remind him that exitance has the same units.
Please don’t tell him.
Willard
It is common knowledge that irradiance and exitance are two sides of the same coin, the radiative flux (energy per unit area) coin. They both describe energy transfer, but from opposite perspectives: incoming (irradiance) versus outgoing (exitance).
I wish you success in your endeavor.
You lack persuation there – what you said is like China has locked our future. IMO it’s also not interesting how little colder a glaciation was – we’re not living averages. New York under a mile of ice is not just 5C colder. What’s the life now we got an extra degree? I say it’s better not worse. The calamities are still extremely speculative, their pushers lack not the chutzpah but the credibility.
Persuade us. Don’t FUD. Don’t exaggerate. Don’t repeat. Don’t improve your words. Don’t cherry pick. We can forget Maldives, if it comes to it. We WILL if the choice is an energy poor future. That’s how the humanity works. ’96 months’, remember? That kind of a lie costs the souls. Dr hons theol Thunberg, ditto.
And ignore Clint R.
I quit reading comments on this page years ago. The signal-no-noise ratio is painfully low, unfortunately. If I enjoyed people squabbling endlessly and repetitively while talking over each other (or the written equivalent thereof), I’d watch The View.
With all the recent progress in AI, maybe in the future we will see AI-assisted commenting. For example, if a comment contains logical fallacies (e.g., ad hominem is extremely common here), the AI could add a tag to that effect, so I could filter it out. To assist commenters, the AI should be available on request to pre-examine a comment on to check what tags the AI will apply to it.
This David Appell fellow strikes me as very lazy, resorting to ad hominem and argumentum ad populum, instead of addressing your arguments with facts and logic. Arguing from logic is hard.
There has been progress in AI?
David Appell has been on various forums with a constant flow of bitter, often paranoid attacks on anyone who doesn’t support his views. When he started claiming that a hot summer could kill him I checked his bio. Funny how someone who is overweight & doesn’t exercise can’t see where the real threat is to his health.
If people can’t see the David Appells for what they are then it’s a shame.
David Appell was the biggest creep on this board until he got kicked out and Bindidong picked up his torch
Aaaah, the ankle-biting stalker is here again, and of course can’t refrain from spouting his dumb dachshund barking.
Weiter so, dachshund, weiter so.
Willard says:
September 5, 2024 at 11:03 PM
And so Life denies what he can see with an infrared camera, i.e. that CO2 is obviously a greenhouse gas. Perhaps has he forgotten to install Elliotts plug-in? Here it is:
https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/tarderase/
That way, hell be able to see this experiment that focuses on measuring the infrared:
https://youtu.be/rD2jnz_0MyA?si=NirS2KAF6hFTtf7Z&t=276
We wish him luck with his other requests.
OMG!!! Just look at what Willard posted. It is evidence that CO2 would COOL the atmosphere. His sophistry identified a video using a “Hot Plate” to show that CO2 Lowered the temperature, ie is trapped heat passing through a bag of CO2.
News flash, the earth isn’t 330 degree F, but the Thermosphere is. What does that mean? CO2 in the outer atmosphere would prevent heat from reaching the lower atmosphere. Wilard accidentially debunked CO2 causing warming. That literaly isn’t a joke. Watch the garbage video he posted as evidence to support his position.
Once again, understand this chart, and you understand everything you need to know, and you suddenly understand the “experts” are anything but.
https://ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/greenhouse/radiationChart.png
According to Life, an experiment that shows how CO2 is trapping heat is evidence that it would COOL the atmosphere. In a way, he’s right. Depending by what he means by atmosphere:
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/stratospheric-cooling-vertical-fingerprinting
Stratospheric cooling is indeed on the main prediction made by the theory of the greenhouse effect. It is almost as old as Manabe himself.
Alas, since CO2 is trapping heat, the idea that it would cool the atmosphere overall would deserve due diligence. And the contention that H2O alone is responsible for the greenhouse effect might fail to explain stratospheric cooling.
Perhaps Mack could chime in, with an explanation that the Earth has been cooling since the dawn of times?
Is that H2O in clouds or vapor?
Pick your poison.
Well clouds are not modeled.
Is there anything to support that denial?
Denial that is not relevant to Life’s point, BTW.
Williard, trust me, just stop. The thermosphere is heated from OUTSIDE. The INCOMING Radiation warms the thermosphere. If CO2 does “trap” the heat as your plastic bad and 300 Degree F “Hot Plate” experiment demonstrates, it would do just what the experiment that you highlighted, it would prevent heat from passing through it. Basically from your experiment imagine the plastic bag surrounding the earth. Incomeing heat would drop by 15 degrees as it heads towrds the earth. That is literally what is demonstrated in the video that your posted. Your sophistry backfired, and you don’t even understand the concepts expressed in the nonsensensical videos you post.
Trust me, just stop. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Life,
You can’t even recognize an infrared camera when you see one. You can’t even realize that you admitted that CO2 was trapping heat. And now you seem to be looking at the problem in the wrong direction: it’s not the entrance that matters (it just reduces the input), it’s the exit.
Which is why you ignore stratospheric cooling.
If I do stop, it’ll be out of mercy.
You might as well peruse Roy’s little memento:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Best of luck.
Willard says:
September 6, 2024 at 3:22 PM
Life,
You cant even recognize an infrared camera when you see one. You cant even realize that you admitted that CO2 was trapping heat. And now you seem to be looking at the problem in the wrong direction: its not the entrance that matters (it just reduces the input), its the exit.
Willard, please stop. Trust me, you just keep digging. I’ve always maintained that the GHG effect is do to the thermalization of OUTGOING LWIR. I’ve posted graphics of GHG absorption spectrums. That is all the data you need to understand.
CO2 thermalizes 15 micron LWIR. If you use an IR Camera you will see that dry ice at -80 C emits 15 Micron LWIR.
How do you address that? You show a video of CO2 absorbs SWIR being emitted from a “Hot Plate.” News flash, the earth is 64 Degree F, not 300. You are a pure sophist, or ignorant on a biblical scale.
[LIFE, OR IS IT AFRO SPARTAN?] CO2 thermalizes 15 micron LWIR.
[ALSO LIFE, ELSEWHERE] CO2 thermalizes 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micron LWIR. No one denies that.
Perhaps Life or Afro Spartan spoke too quickly. Perhaps also he still believes that 15 Micron won’t penetrate water. He definitely dodges the point about stratospheric cooling.
In any event, he still cuts short his rigmarole. Factoids can’t stand alone: they need to work within an explicit argument. So what is it, is it still the “black body of -80 C” thing?
That would need to be spelled out, even if Life or Afro Spartan repeated that line hundreds of times already.
“Stratospheric cooling is indeed on the main prediction made by the theory of the greenhouse effect.”
That is pure nonsense. A GHG absorbs and emits LWIR. That LWIR eventualy leaves the atmosphere. Depending on the density the GHG can either warm of cool. The thinner the air, radiation is the quickest way to remove energy from the system. The Stratoshere is thin and has 400 ppm CO2 just like the surface. The gaps behind molecules is huge compared to the surface and it is less likley to collide with another molecule, so it simply speeds the energy to leave the system literally at the speed of light. That is why higher CO2 could COOL the stratosphere. Also, look at where the strosphere bottoms out. It bottoms out at about -80 C. Guess what, that is the same temperaterature, wait for it, associated with 15 Micron LWIR.
Once again, physics limits climate change. You are trying to warm the oceans and cause global climate change based on a minute increase in a GHG that absorbs the very cold end of the spectrum. It is pure nonsense.
> That is pure nonsense.
Stratospheric cooling has been measured.
Alright. To get a flavor of Life or Afro Spartan’s looping, astute readers might wish to confer to the other thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1686612
Elsewhere in that thread he celebrates a touchdown by misreading a very small penetration depth of infrareds in water as an absence of penetration.
He’s one of yours, guys. Treat him well.
“”clouds are not modeled.”
Is there anything to support that denial?”
https://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/news/clouds-cover-consistency
“What makes cloud modeling hard is the wide range of relevant length scales from the microphysics of droplet formation and agglomeration that can lead to ‘rain’ to the vast turbulent motions in the Earth’s atmosphere which we call ‘wind.'”
It is just SO easy.
Willard says:
September 6, 2024 at 5:52 PM
> That is pure nonsense.
Stratospheric cooling has been measured.
Willard, what part of “That is why higher CO2 could COOL the stratosphere. Also, look at where the strosphere bottoms out. It bottoms out at about -80 C. Guess what, that is the same temperaterature, wait for it, associated with 15 Micron LWIR.”
Don’t you understand? You continually misrepresent and distort facts and comments. Any honest person wouldn’t need to misrepresnt things, but that is what sophists do.
Facts, heat moves by conduction, convection, and radiation. COnduction and COnvection are far more important in the lower atmopshere. As the air thins, radiation becomes far more important. In the thin stratosphere radiation dominates, so higher CO2 would help speed heat exiting the system. There is no H2O up there, so CO2 is the most important GHG. Also, my bet is the reason we are having the temperature spike is because the HT VOlcano did push H2O up into the stratosohere.
> It is just SO easy.
Agreed.
It is very easy to switch from clouds are not modelled, which is false, to clouds are hard to model, which would be hard to say if we did not model clouds in the first place.
“clouds are not modelled”
Show me where clouds are modeled in the real world. Actual modeled not generalized.
“What makes cloud modeling hard is the wide range of relevant length scales from the microphysics of droplet formation and agglomeration that can lead to ‘rain’ to the vast turbulent motions in the Earth’s atmosphere which we call ‘wind’.”
Just as chaos is easy to model, regardless of scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
> Show me where clouds are modeled
Read back the page you cited, Richard.
“Cloud physics is the largest source of uncertainty in the short term in predicting the climate”
Modeling uncertainty is just like predicting chaos.
“Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to errors in measurements or due to rounding errors in numerical computation, can yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general”
There are just four maxims, Richard. Once again you failed them all.
Climate is chaotic. We model climate. Deal with it, in a more responsible manner than by contriving imaginary goalposts like “actual modelled.”
“long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general”
But we model it anyway! SO Accurate.
People like Richard should only get life insurance from companies that do not model anything it can predict.
Contrarians who don’t pay with their wallets are not worth anybody else’s time.
Insurance companies do not model chaos.
https://www.floodre.co.uk/
Insurance companies cost of cover is mostly derived from past history (in order to make a profit).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1558667
After another Boeing letdown, NASA isnt ready to buy more Starliner missions
Boeing could earn nearly $2 billion more from NASA if it fully executes on the Starliner contract.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/09/after-another-boeing-letdown-nasa-isnt-ready-to-buy-more-starliner-missions/
Linked from https://instapundit.com/
NASA has agreed to buy 3 more, but it’s total contract is to buy 6, or the 3 more would earn “nearly $2 billion”.
SpaceX has already completed it’s 6, and is working it’s extended contract. Or:
“Since then, NASA has extended SpaceX’s commercial crew contract to cover as many as 14 Dragon missions with astronauts, and SpaceX has already launched eight of them.”
Or 6 left is present agreement, and NASA could in the future add more.
And NASA orginally agreed to buy 3 more from Boeing, and then will decide if NASA wanted 3 more {which amounts to “nearly 2 billion dollars”]
But Boeing may decide not to do the next 3 even though NASA has agreed to buy them, but it’s only after Boeing starts delivering the 3, that NASA moves to decide whether in will buy the next 3.
Dr Spencer wrote:
“…I’m not sure why exactly I am a ‘denier’; that has always mystified me.”
This video addresses some of the reasons: https://youtu.be/29QDGEJC1fg
Regards.
The fact that these people are so motivated to attack Spencer shows their frustration.
He likely knows that….
I think the video says more about you and the narrator than it does about Dr Spencer. It is not objective, balanced, or fair. Some would call that dishonest or propaganda. It has a very sarcastic tone.
His beliefs and opinions have evolved over time as the evidence and science has evolved. That is how science works, and it shows honesty on his part.
UAH as been revised over time. That is how science is done. Every legitimate criticism has been acknowledged and fixed — more science.
Dr Spencer is very open about his religious beliefs. He apparently is a member of the organization quoted. The partial quote from that organization seems to represent him, but his public statements and research publications demonstrate clearly that he believes increasing CO2 is human caused and is having an effect. That particular smear fails on its face.
“I think the video says more about you and the narrator than it does about Dr Spencer. It is not objective, balanced, or fair. Some would call that dishonest or propaganda. It has a very sarcastic tone.”
I don’t think so.
If you go public with your criticisms of the science and scientists then you had better be ready to admit you were wrong in the face of credible evidence.
Has Roy ever admitted to his faulty predictions over time and expressed any semblance of remorse? It appears not.
There is such a thing called “intellectual humility” and research has showed that as religious commitment increases, a lack of intellectual humility increases the risk for depression, anxiety, and doubts about ultimate meaning.
https://researchoutreach.org/articles/deeply-religious-people-intellectually-humble/
Must admit I wasn’t aware from what Dr Roy Spencer what his views were outside of his expertise on climate. To drag religion or politics into it is very dishonest.
If people really believe scientific facts are dependent on religion/politics then they really need to grow up.
The Nature-is-Healing hypothesis coheres more with the Cornwall Declaration credo that The earth, and with it all the cosmos, reveals its Creators wisdom and is sustained and governed by His power and lovingkindness than with recent concerns about a still hidden urban island effect in time series that compete with UAH. Time series that have been downplayed since the 90s by various *non-partisan* entities such as the Competitive Entreprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc.
And the claim that unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive manmade global warming is not far from pure denial. It is at least minimization, whether this declaration is honest or not, a question that only God could settle. Or TS, it should go without saying.
Anon: ” To drag religion or politics into it is very dishonest.
If people really believe scientific facts are dependent on religion/politics then they really need to grow up. ”
I couldn’t agree more. When Spencer signed the statement below it really was a sign of scientific immaturity:
“We believe Earth and its ecosystemscreated by God’s intelligent design .are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”
DMT,
You linked to a very interesting article.
I am a man of science who is also devoted to his religion. The assertion at the heart of the referenced research, that intellectual humility is negatively related to the strength of religious belief, is not factual in my experience.
I, and many of colleagues as well, believe that God often works through Man. God does not always act directly or miraculously but instead inspires, guides, or empowers individuals to carry out His purposes. We are instruments or agents of God’s plan, fulfilling divine intentions through our decisions, actions, and moral choices.
To that end, we humans have been endowed with unique intellectual abilities and curiosity to understand and interact with the physical world. These faculties are gifts from God, giving us the tools to improve the world, alleviate suffering, promote justice, and care for the earth.
Our curiosity to delve into the unknown, to question, and to seek understanding is the divine spark that drives progress and human flourishing. By unlocking the mysteries of the universe, we are not only gaining knowledge for its own sake but also positioning ourselves to more effectively contribute to God’s work on Earth.
All this to say that faith and intellectual humility must be positively correlated since both are essential to fulfilling God’s work. IMHO.
Maybe some people just need a lesson in reading comprehension and the patience or honesty to include the whole quote. For those who are too lazy to scroll up to the top:
[And Im not sure why exactly I am a denier; that has always mystified me. Im even part of the supposed 97% that believes the climate system is warming partly (maybe even mostly) from our CO2 emissions. John Christy and I even published a climate sensitivity paper that assumes ALL recent warming is from CO2 emissions.
Also, I routinely allow comments here from people who disagree with me on the science. Very few people have been blocked, and those from bad behavior.]
You just removed more credibility from yourself by drive-by-linking smearjobs in the worst style of the team Michael Mann vs. the honestly critical scientists.
You need to stop hate speech to persuade anybody than your own team. I regard Soencer’s high moral as an axiom. Any attack against that is a prove of the contrary.
See how persuading works? We don’t care about any arguments assuming corruption where there is none. You have to yield to win.
SOI values for 7 Sep, 2024
Average SOI for last 30 days 8.94
Average SOI for last 90 days 0.57
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
True faith is the belief that the Earth does not evolve with the Sun, that the distribution of radiation is constant, that the Earth does not lose the energy of its core. We don’t even have a clue what is happening now in the stratosphere in the tropics. https://i.ibb.co/WBs0Ff3/Polar.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_EQ_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JAS_EQ_2024.png
Our faith has no effect on the change of seasons and winter is imminent in the northern hemisphere, interesting because of the weak La Nia.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JAS_NH_2024.png
CO2 as a heavy gas probably increases the mass of the troposphere by a fraction of a percent, but what is the human contribution?
https://i.ibb.co/XZ9V3J7/zt-sh.gif
We don’t even know what this year’s ozone hole will be, which varies over a wide range every year, depending on the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot_N20.png
So do we know to what extent the Earth’s climate science is settled?
Shouldn’t the focus, for example, be on safeguards against tropical cyclones?
https://i.ibb.co/1fMVcb1/himawari9-ir-12-W-202409070300.gif
https://i.ibb.co/jDPTVjT/himawari9-ir-12-W-202409071030.gif
Due to the number of spots counted, solar activity is high, but due to solar wind speed and geomagnetic activity is low. There is nothing solid under the Sun.
https://i.ibb.co/1fj13NZ/plot-image.png
Palmowski should learn to observe data over longer periods of time:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oLwc2SSUqAxeJBCO8lVmjMbLIXUbRB8Y/view
A tropical storm is developing over Yucatan and will reach the southern US.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/storminfo/91L_geps_latest.png
You should observe over a longer period – warm seas, record warm, yet class 5 hurricanes not common. According to attribution science, the number were negative if there wasn’t greenhouse effect to make hurricanes more common and energetic and precipitative.
I like science, but I’m noting that most of the claims we hear are not really review science, and that most of science is not worth looking into.
That leaves us with a wicked problem with less than useful opinion from both non-scientists and scientists.
So what warmed the oceans two years ago? Who modelled it? If not robustly modelled, what we can say about the attribution models? Smoke and mirrors, weak confidence. In short, shitribution. Advocates writing FUD against optimists.
Is space hard?
Did God give us a Moon, so we could be spacefaring?
Is becoming spacefaring, hard?
Could Space Aliens be dumber than humans?
I think Star travel is hard- if you mean going light years of distance and want to do it, within say, 100 years.
And if you live in a star system like Sol.
But Sol has been better in the past and will be better in the future. But that was a long time ago, and it will be long time into the future.
So if God gave us the Moon to be spacefaring, Then He didn’t apparently, want us to be starfaring.
But one could restate this, and say God didn’t want starfaring civilization, interfering with Earthlings.
Or it’s hard to leave Sol, but it’s also hard to get to Sol- and no particular or apparent “reason” to go to Sol.
But if space alien were dumber than humans, they might “accidentally” end up in our solar system- maybe dead but still end up here, by mistake. And if they happen to be alive, no chance of leaving this place.
Maybe it’s our origin story, dumb space aliens, got trapped in Sol.
And they picked Earth, because it had a Moon
And apparently didn’t know Earth’s Ice Age, would colder, rather than warmer.
Gbaikie
There is no intelligent life on Earth, ourselves included.
We are the equivalent of a fungus gnat. They land on a mushroom, feed and rapidly reproduce until the mushroom is gone. The last generation then disperse in search of the next mushroom.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciaridae
Humanity is doing the same, turning resources into population until the resources are all gone. The only snag is that for us there is no next mushroom.
Space was “tonnes” of solar power- a lot of water.
And 55 mph speed limit only applies within 55 km of official/certified human settlement.
And there is nothing wrong with mining lots of sand/dust, there is a lot of dust in space.
On the contrary, humans build Turing-complete computers, humans are probably as intelligent as anything in our world can be, just reaching singularity that might or might not end us as biological creatures.
God is a hard concept, but I like to understand nature as a fully Pythagorean realistic system that leaves the supernatural out, so that we will not understand God with our logical means.
https://instapundit.com/
–NFL SEASON KICKS OFF WITH SURPRISING LAST-MINUTE TRADES:
● Alan Dershowitz Announces Departure from Democratic Party, Citing Anti-Zionist DNC.
● Democrats React to Dick Cheney Endorsing Kamala Harris and Expose Themselves in the Process.
UPDATE: More complete list of preseason and opening weekend trades found here: —
And:
–TO BE FAIR, THIS IS THE 21st CENTURY WE WERE PROMISED: The Moon is slowly drifting away from Earth and its beginning to impact us.
Slowly drifting away? Brother you have no idea what we were told the 21st century would portend!–
So New York Trumps get the Biden remains, wow.
And California Harrises get the Cheneys- but that’s not surpising.
“It is the second generation of ARM architecture intended for Apple’s Mac computers after switching from Intel Core to Apple silicon”
Apple changed from Motorola to Intel and then to ARM. Consistency is not their strong point.
” Consistency is not their strong point. ”
*
Who the hell is this tiny, absolutely insignificant, incompetent loser RLH who has the nerve to lecture the giant Apple?
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/P85Ar0aPDBdklTpu_Wf-ysOcbpg/appointments
Be careful not to make such arrogant remarks, Blindsley H00d!
Apple changed from Motorola to Intel and then to ARM. Are you going to refute that? And that they told all their supporters that each change was sensible?
It’s no secret Apple is mortal without Jobs, and that Apple consumers believe in esthetics which makes them rather faithful customers — as long as the esthetics remains.
ARM is just hardware, not a matter of beauty in 2024. Motorola at its time was part of the esthetic game.
Dr Roy,
As a non-expert who reads this blog to gain alternative perspectives, I’m a little unclear on your statement that you are one of those who believes “the climate system is warming partly (maybe even mostly) from our CO2 emissions”. I thought your standpoint was that global warming was caused mostly by natural factors.
If your standpoint is the former (ie global warming is mostly due to CO2 emissions), have you changed your position?
If your standpoint is the latter (mostly natural), has there ever been a period in known or estimated history when global temperatures have risen naturally as quickly as they have in the last 50 years? If so, in lay terms, what natural factors were responsible then and now for such a rapid rise?
jim karlock says:
Please note:
1-Evidence of warming, unusual weather, storms, floods IS NOT evidence that mans CO2 is the cause.
2-Correlation is not causation
3-An experts assertion, governments assertion, consensus of experts, polls or majority belief are not evidence. They are hearsay.
4-Climate models are not evidence.
5-Warmest weather in 100 years means it was warmer 100 years ago when CO2 was lower.
6-If an event is NOT unprecedented, then you have to explain why whatever caused the earlier events is NOT the cause of the latest occurrence of that event.
Evidence is actual data PRO AND CON with reasoned analysis and logical conclusions while FULLY CONSIDERING OPPOSING evidence.
Add to that list that every observation blamed on man made CO2 must be supported by the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecules.
Every observation such as warming of the oceans must be explained with this explaination. Vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere with the energy consistent with 15 micron LWIR warms the oceans. As we know that is nonsense because 15 Micron won’t warm water and if you can’t tie CO2 to the warming oceans you can’t tie CO2 to global warming and climate change.
https://ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/greenhouse/radiationChart.png
Sept 7 (Reuters) – SpaceX will launch its first uncrewed Starships to Mars in two years when the next Earth-Mars transfer window opens, Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk said on social media platform X on Saturday.
“These will be uncrewed to test the reliability of landing intact on Mars,” Musk said, adding if those landings go well, his space company will launch its first crewed flights to Mars in four years.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/musk-says-spacex-launch-first-uncrewed-starships-mars-two-years-2024-09-07/
It seems they send hundreds of starlink satellite, first. And what else would do with Starships but land them on the Mars surface.
And use the satellites as the Starship are landing on Mars surface.
I think they should land the Starship in deepest spot on Mars, Hellas basin- and even if it crashes, it’s scrap metal would be useful.
Thank you, gbaikie, for your response.
Also it should be noticed, that Earth’s 288K average surface temperature, it is actually Earth’s the annual average surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s about, 288 K in terms of it’s average annual global surface air temperature. And it appears it was about 1 K cooler about a century ago. And surface global air temperature is traditionally averaged over a 30 year time period.
But the average temperature of Earth ocean, does not vary much over century of time [or over much longer periods] and it’s averages about 3.5 C, and this cold ocean indicate that we are in an Ice Age. And if ever got as cold as, an average of about 2 C, then it’s possible that the global climate could be called a Snowball Earth.
And has to be much warmer than 5 C, not to be in an Ice Age.
Also, I will mention that, if Earth somehow did “an Al Gore”, the average temperature of ocean with all that ice somehow falling in it, very suddenly and dramatically and magically, then it should cool the ocean to about 2 C.
Thank you, gbaikie, for your response.
“It’s about, 288 K in terms of it’s average annual global surface air temperature. ”
Can you, please, provide a reference/references that 288K is average global air temperature.
Air temperature, and not the average global surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Air temperature, and not the average global surface temperature.”
Global temperature is supposed to be measuring surface air temperature in the shade. A white box which is 5 feet above the ground within natural environment {ie, not in a parking lot}.
The highest surface land temperature during hottest time of day can be about 70 C, and where sun is close to zenith {summer or regions nearer tropics where sun stays pretty close to zenith at noon] and clear sky, the ground temperature can be about 60 C. Or in terms of K: 70 C = about 343 K and 60 C = 333 K
With ocean, the top surface of ocean is about the same temperature as it’s surface air temperature in the shade.
And I will add what I always said, the average surface temperature of our ocean {70% of planetary surface] controls/rules/dominates global average surface air temperature. Or roughly ocean surface temperature, makes global average surface air temperature which is measured 5 feet in shadow in a white box.
Becauses it’s 70% and because the ocean has higher average temperature [it doesn’t cool down during the night].
And a bit different topic, but I am always saying it, is tropical ocean is Earth heat engine and warms the entire Earth surface air temperature, and it always [over millions of years] remains around the same temperature [regardless of all the glacial or interglacial periods].
This is a must watch video for anyone that wants to know the truth.
https://youtu.be/PYRYXhU4kxM?si=r69rWY11rrOXRbnv
String Theory is Climate Change and Global Warming. Eric Weinstein does a great job pulling back the curatin on what has happened to academia.
Climate Change is simply an admission card to the club. People that agree with it are the ones that agree 2+2=5, Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace, Love is Hate, and Ignorance is strength. They are the people that make 1984 reality.
That is why on this blog I can literally post a link to the actual physics behind CO2 and its one an only mechanism by which it can affect climate change and global warming.
This entire nonsense is about 1 out of every 2,500 molecules being being vibrated with the energy of a black body of -80 C causing catastrophic effects. That very molecule absorbs the same wavelengths as H2O, so the absorption of 15 micron LWIR is stturated in the lower atmospshere with our without CO2. 15 Micron LWIR doesn’t and won’t warm water, and on one has every bothered to test that in a lab.
Once again, watch this video and you will understand why you can host comments like I just did and get attacked by the “experts.” Climate Change proves we are now living in 1984, and the people that promote it are the vilians detailed in 1984 and Atlas Shrugged.
https://youtu.be/PYRYXhU4kxM?si=r69rWY11rrOXRbnv
There’s a journal devoted to beat and mass transfer. Let me know if you find anything interesting
http://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/international-journal-of-heat-and-mass-transfer
CO2isLife
You have greater than one misunderstanding per sentence in this
“This entire nonsense is about 1 out of every 2,500 molecules being being vibrated with the energy of a black body of -80 C causing catastrophic effects. That very molecule absorbs the same wavelengths as H2O, so the absorption of 15 micron LWIR is stturated in the lower atmospshere with our without CO2. 15 Micron LWIR doesnt and wont warm water, and on one has every bothered to test that in a lab.”
Atmospheric CO2 is being vibrated by the 15 micron photons from the emissions of the Earth at between -80 C and 50 C.
You get the saturation argument wrong, for example if a sponge absorbs all the spill water, is it saturated, or could it absorb more. CO2 emits almost as soon as it absorbs, allowing it to absorb more, as it transfers the energy to the rest of the atmosphere.
Water absorbs 15 micron photons and the added energy eventually increases the kinetic energy of the water.
Yes it’s been done in a lab, too bad I threw the spectrograms away, but others have done the same work.
Here you go Bob. Please explain where I am wrong.
https://ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/greenhouse/radiationChart.png
Pay special attention to the 310k-210k Plank Curves. -210k is basically the temperature CO2 absorbs and note how it peaks over 15 Microns. That isn’t a coincidence. -210K = -63C, or basically the temperature CO2 absorbs.
Note how the black Plank Curve peaks over the CO2 absorption Spectrum. Note the temperature = 210K or -63C.
That is all you need to know. 1 out of every 2,500 molecules absorbs the energy from a 210K or -63C BlackBody. Note, CO2 doesn’t absorb the full Blackbody spectrum, only a small fraction, so it is even less energy than reflected in that Plank Curve.
Now that we have undeniable facts, and agreement on the data, please explain how CO2 caused Global Warming using that data.
Once again, if you add ice to coffee, does it warm the coffee? Nope, CO2 simply adds -63C energy to the atmosphere. That is exactly why the stratospere bottoms out near -63C.
https://apollo.nvu.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter1/graphics/vert_temp.gif
CO2isLife,
It’s really simple, CO2 in the atmosphere does not absorb as a blackbody.
There is no temperature on your graph.
CO2 absorbs no matter what the temperature is.
bobdroege says:
September 10, 2024 at 8:26 AM
CO2isLife,
Its really simple, CO2 in the atmosphere does not absorb as a blackbody.
There is no temperature on your graph.
CO2 absorbs no matter what the temperature is.
That response is truly shocking, and is something I would expect from Willard.
1) I’m pretty sure I stated this in the post “Note, CO2 doesnt absorb the full Blackbody spectrum, only a small fraction, so it is even less energy than reflected in that Plank Curve.” Did you not read the post, or don’t you understand its meaning?
2) Do you not know how to read that graphic? Just what do you think 210k-310k means? Kilometers? That is degree Kelvin. As I stated, the 210k or -63C Plank Curve peaks right about the CO2 absorption. Just what do you think that means?
3) The only band of LWIR relevant to CO2 is 12 to 18 LWIR, peak of 15 Microns. That is the one and only band that ties CO2 to the GHG Effect. You clearly don’t understand the very basics of the GHG Effect.
Trust me Bob, your post just proved you and Willard are way over your Skis and should stop digging now that you have found youself in a hole. Trust me, anyone that understands the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule and how it ties to the GHG Effect now knows that you don’t have a clue, and are spewing nothing but nonsense. You don’t even know how to read the most basic of GHG Effect Charts. You just failed elementary school level GHG Effect understanding. You litterly exposed yourself as being clueless in your own post.
CO2isLife,
“Pay special attention to the 310k-210k Plank Curves. -210k is basically the temperature CO2 absorbs and note how it peaks over 15 Microns. That isnt a coincidence. -210K = -63C, or basically the temperature CO2 absorbs.”
No, that is not true, CO2 absorbs at any temperature.
“2) Do you not know how to read that graphic? Just what do you think 210k-310k means? Kilometers? That is degree Kelvin. As I stated, the 210k or -63C Plank Curve peaks right about the CO2 absorption. Just what do you think that means?”
That’s just a blackbody spectrum of the Earth’s surface.
The curve peaks where CO2 absorbs, yes that is true.
“Note, CO2 doesnt absorb the full Blackbody spectrum, only a small fraction, so it is even less energy than reflected in that Plank Curve.”
Is 70% to 85% a small fraction?
“Trust me, anyone that understands the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule and how it ties to the GHG Effect now knows that you dont have a clue, and are spewing nothing but nonsense. You dont even know how to read the most basic of GHG Effect Charts.”
So they teach quantum mechanics in elementary school?
I wasn’t in elementary school when I took quantum mechanics.
Did you take quantum mechanics?
Dr.Spencer you should do an entire blog post on this video. This helps pull the curtain back on the Climate Change Industrial Complex and how the Matrix really works.
https://youtu.be/PYRYXhU4kxM?si=r69rWY11rrOXRbnv
I found some of the comments hard to believe like the Government Banning Math to stop the progression of AI.
This is what I found. It looks like the meeting actually happened. People behind Climate Change, and those that know the truth and are going along to get along, are the ones that sat on their hands while or caused the world to devolve into Chaos of the 1930s.
https://x.com/pmarca/status/1736206207130710430
co2…I am normally onside with your views but I found the video to be far too dry and off the wall. If I got Weinstein right, he was defending Sabine Hossenfleder at one point and I have found her rants to be anti-science.
Since there is no direct measure of global average temperature, how do scientists test to verify that the estimates from satellites and ground thermometers are accurate?
Research calibration.
Thanks for your answer, but it is not exactly what I meant to ask.
Model development can be in 3 stages: conceptualization, calibration, testing. Data is needed for all 3 stages. My question is about the data. Calibration is not testing.
Models must be tested against data. There is no thermometer that measures average global temperature. We can only estimate it from thermometers placed at specific locations around the globe. The question I raise is how do we know the estimates accurately reflect the actual global average temperature when we cannot measure the global average temperature. It is kind of a chicken and the egg situation.
First, you have to define average temperature and what it means from the perspective of any person experiencing it directly. I have pointed out several times that temperatures here in the Vancouver, Canada area have been well below the current global average.
From my perspective here in Vancouver, although we’ve had our share of hot days, since early June, we’ve had more days that were cooler than normal.
There are truths working against any meaningful average. For one, we are hurtling through space at a tremendous rate and our axis is tilted in such a manner as to give us more, or less, sunlight at certain times of the year. One hemisphere is in winter while the other is in summer.
What does a seriously hot day in Darwin Australia have to do with someone in the Canadian Arctic with no solar input and temperatures around -50C? Yet you can average temps like that and declare an average temperature for the planet of 15C.
What does it mean? It’s not very comforting in the Arctic and Antarctic with no sunlight and temperatures at 050C to know the global average is 15C.
Here is how I define global average temperature. You divide the surface of the earth into many equal sized sections, and place a thermometer in each section. You add up all the temperatures and divide by the number of sections to get the average temperature. You decrease the size of the sections and increase their number. As the size approaches zero, the average approaches the average global temperature. Yes there are problems with mountains, valleys and other stuff, but this is the general idea.
We estimate a global average temperature from surface thermometers and satellite data. My question is this. Is there any testing to verify that the global average temperature we estimate is close to the global average defined above.
See http://GudMojo.com for a list of about 30 prominent scientists who are publicly on the record as skeptical of certain catastrophic global warming. The list includes:
* 4 Nobel Prize in winners in Physics or Chemistry *
* 5 Professor Emeriti at Princeton, MIT, GIT
Clarke’s Law.
If an elderly and distinguished scientist says something is possible they are probably correct. If they say it is impossible they are probably wrong.
remmons,
Here’s the Reuters list of the world’s top 1000 climate scientists: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-change-scientists-list/
I didn’t take the time to see how many from your list made it into the Reuters list. Given the political nature of your source I’m glad I didn’t.
So weight of papers written is a marker on how to determine whether they have something to say? That mode of thinking would make Robertson the authority on everything written on this website, And, we know that’s not true.
All of real climate science and actual data can be summed on one small piece of paper with the following:
Climate is driven by the sun.
Climate is moderated by ocean currents.
There is no artifact of carbon dioxide in any salient data.
The climate models are wrong, and, if the experiment doesn’t match the data then the hypothesis is wrong.
Ken
“Climate is driven by the sun.
Climate is moderated by ocean currents.
There is no artifact of carbon dioxide in any salient data. ”
Two out of three ain’t bad. The third one turns out not to be the case.
Ken,
Good to see you’re putting your degree from Dunning-Kruger University to good use.
“Two out of three aint bad. The third one turns out not to be the case”
Evidence required.
I’ve looked at data for floods fires droughts hurricanes tornadoes etc; the salient data. Maybe I’m missing something … but evidence is not there.
There isn’t anything to suggest CO2 is having an effect on climate.
The only exception might be argued in that the planet is greening because CO2 is plant food.
Thank you for the list. How many are publically on the record stating that it is CERTAIN that global warming will result in a catastrophy and that it is caused by mainly by humans?
Gudmojo is not my source. It is my website. My sources are strictly personal statements by the scientists listed. The statements are articles, videos, their own websites, interviews, etc. The are pretty much all well known skeptics. Many have endured having their reputations ruined by being branded deniers.
Anyone viewing GudMojo is invited to point out errors in the list of certain catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming skeptics or provide the names of scientists who are PUBLICALLY on the record saying that they are certain of catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The Tariff Act of 1930 (codified at 19 U.S.C. ch. 4), commonly known as the SmootHawley Tariff or HawleySmoot Tariff, was a law that implemented protectionist trade policies in the United States. Sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley, it was signed by President Herbert Hoover on June 17, 1930. The act raised US tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act
This act, bearing the names of the two Republicans who wrote it, has been passed under a Republican government. The consensus over historians and economists is that it turned a recession into the greatest one in financial history. That consensus includes monetarists.
Those who wish to elect a guy who promises to do the same ought to beware.
Willard, educate yourself. Simply read the Book FDR’s Folly. If you think a Trade Tariff during an era when trade represented a small fraction of the US Economy, you will believe anything.
Exports literally represented 10% of less. The US was still largely an agricultural economy. FDR literally paid farmers not to produce to increase the price of apples during an era when people couldn’t afford food. He paid farmers to not produce which forced many largely black sharecropers to lose their jobs. He had a 90% Tax Rate, constantly changing regulations, and literally trigered something refered to as the Roosevelt Recession. He literally increased taxes during the Depression.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2020/march/evolution-total-trade-us
Facts are, the US and Global Economy had had countless economic downturns and depressions prior to 1929 but there is only 1 GREAT Depression. Why was that? Cerainly not Trade. Europw, Canada and the rest of the world recovered long before the US did. Europe was at war and the US was still stuck in a Depression. Why? Because the insane politics of FDR literally added Great to the Great Depression. The Great Depression only ended when the Japanees forced the US to abandon the insane policies of FDR.
> If you think
Life imitates teh Gordon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
We should celebrate when economists reach any consensus.
Yep, the Biden Admin did suggest/threaten regulating math.
https://youtube.com/shorts/-I3B0Evf9Jc?si=R-QNKqjKOKlQyS68
Yep, Life has returned to spamming:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill
*This* is an example of regulating math.
Eric Weinstein comes from a long tradition:
https://gizmodo.com/the-eccentric-crank-who-tried-to-legislate-the-value-of-5880792
For this who miss the connection:
https://timothynguyen.org/geometric-unity/
The consensus view among economists and economic historians (including Keynesians, Monetarists and Austrian economists) is that the passage of the SmootHawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression
No one would disagree with that, it is the weight of the impact that is what matters. If you understand basic economics, Tariffs both help and hurt. Producers of the imported product benefited, and those that relied on imported inputs were hurt, so Tariffs would certainly “contribute” to some of the economic downturn…but to claim it as a major factor without confidering all the other factors is a complete and utter joke. BTW, did FRD reverse the SH Tariff? Nope, just like Bidend didn’t reverse the Trump Tariffs.
BTW Williard, you are so far out of your league, it is laughable.
“While FDR did not directly repeal the Smoot-Hawley Act, he effectively reversed its protectionist policies by signing the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, which gave him the power to negotiate lower tariffs with other countries, significantly reducing trade barriers and promoting international trade; this is widely considered a reversal of the Smoot-Hawley Act’s high tariffs.”
News Flash, he did so in 1934, the Depression ended in 1942-45. If the SH Tariff was cause, why didn’t the depression end when it was reversed? Your logic is truly laughable.
Life accepts that the tariff was a protectionist measure, and that this protectionist measure made the recession worse, He presumably quotes someone saying that FDR removed the protectionist measure. Then he blames the democrat president who having repaired the damages left by irresponsible conservatives.
Lionized by this absurd argument, Life then makes another sammich request.
We definitely need better contrarians.
Williard, you do understand that almost 100% of the entier world has protectionist policies againt the US? Europe, Japan, South America, Canada, etc etc etc all have highlhy punitive tariffs against the US. WHy aren’t they in a depression?
All products entering the European Union are classified under a tariff code that carries information on duty rates and other levies on imports and exports, any applicable protective measures (e.g., anti-dumping); external trade statistics, import and export formalities, and other non-tariff requirements.
https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/eu-import-tariffs
Willard you are so ignorant of even the most basic of facts it is laughable. Your inability to apply even basic logic is shocking.
Once again, the world has countless tariffs being applied against the US, why aren’t they in depression?
Life has a knack for asking incredulous questions that anyone could answer with rudimentary research skills, e.g.:
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/smoot-hawley-tariff-act/
It should also be noted that, around that time, more than 20% of the American workforce was in agriculture.
The potential weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) in response to anthropogenic forcing, suggested by climate models, is at the forefront of scientific debate. A key AMOC component, the Florida Current (FC), has been measured using submarine cables between Florida and the Bahamas at 27N nearly continuously since 1982. A decrease in the FC strength could be indicative of the AMOC weakening. Here, we reassess motion-induced voltages measured on a submarine cable and reevaluate the overall trend in the inferred FC transport. We find that the cable record beginning in 2000 requires a correction for the secular change in the geomagnetic field. This correction removes a spurious trend in the record, revealing that the FC has remained remarkably stable. The recomputed AMOC estimates at ~26.5N result in a significantly weaker negative trend than that which is apparent in the AMOC time series obtained with the uncorrected FC transports.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-51879-5
I think there was an error in the measurements. I’m afraid that satellite measurements w should also be corrected, depending on the drift of the satellites.
Seen Greta lately ???
https://youtu.be/58LTby8r2AU
Got no time for Greta and her views but this guy seems obsessed by her. He’s almost stalking her. I’m wondering if she showed up at his door, wearing a skirt and heels and said, ‘Hey big boy, let’s play, if he’d change his tune.
Hormones have a way of affecting men’s minds, similar to drugs. Hormonal reactions are usually mistaken for love and a man fascinated by a woman often criticize her while hoping secretly that the woman will take an interest in him.
Don’t know if the pre video commercials are the same but when I was viewing there was a guy in a commercial lamenting the lack of response from women who he had texted. He has no yet grasped that he is hormone-driven and if she did respond and she told him straight up she was not interested in anything physical, if he’d maintain his interest.
What’s this thing about texting anyway? It has to be one of the lamest forms of communicating I have encountered. I think a guy who texts a woman to arouse her interest needs a few lessons in how to go about it.
A higher CO2 content in ice cores samples may as well testify for a much colder temperatures at the times the ice was formed.
At very low temperatures the CO2 got freezed out of the air, had fallen on the glacier and had sequestered in the ice – thus a higher CO2 content in ice core samples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Properties:
Density
1562 kg/m3 (solid at 1 atm (100 kPa) and −78.5 C (−109.3 F))
1101 kg/m3 (liquid at saturation −37 C (−35 F))
1.977 kg/m3 (gas at 1 atm (100 kPa) and 0 C (32 F))
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What isotope it is also important. During periods of low solar activity at high latitudes, stronger galactic radiation produces more 14C from nitrogen. The geomagnetic cutoff is strongest at the equator and weakens toward the poles.
A weakening of the magnetic field over North America can be seen.https://i.ibb.co/qRcFS2L/cutoff.gif
christos…
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
It is already a very strong tropical storm. Cloud tops are radiating even at temperatures as low as -90 C, and this is already the stratosphere. Only a strong vortex can act like this.
https://i.ibb.co/51Hq2HW/goes16-ir-06-L-202409091257.gif
Wow!!!
Northern Australia may have a wet summer.
SOI values for 9 Sep, 2024
Average SOI for last 30 days 9.95
Average SOI for last 90 days 0.84
https://i.postimg.cc/CM9pPPXK/Australia-rainfall-Nov-2024-Jan-2025.png
Heavy rainfall is beginning on the southern coast of the US.
https://i.ibb.co/7ztDYXQ/goes16-ir-gom.gif
Im disappointed, the descriptor denier lacks the gravitas of heretic or apostate, now those are burn at the stake worthy aspersions. Denier is just too pedestrian. In any case, there are much bigger fish to fry than Dr. Spencer.
Carbon Emissions from Energy Production
China- 12,604 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (2022-2023 +6%)
USA- 506 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (2022-2023 -2.7%)
Dr. Spencer, I think I’ve stumbled upon a way to expose the climate activists that post on your blog. If you read my posts above, you will see that Willard and bobdroege will eagerly, entheusiatically, and voluntarilly expose themselves as expert sophists. Simply start a blog post addressing the most basic and foundational graphic and data related to CO2 and the GHG Effect. Just watch what they will post. They expose an ignorance of such biblical proportions it is truly astounding.
Simply start a discussion about this elementary school level graphic explaining the basics of the LWIR Absorption Patterns of GHGs and how they tie into temperature. They don’t even understand the basics. It is truly shocking.
https://ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/greenhouse/radiationChart.png
By doing so, everyone on your Blog will understand who is credible and who isn’t.
You should do what Google does, and everytime Willard and Bob post something have a disclaimer linked to their post identifying them as expert sophists that have demonstrated a shocking level of ignorance regarding the most elemantary of facts regarding the GHG Effect.
Water vapor near-UV absorption is an overlooked subject of core importance to atmospheric science. We constructed a cavity ring-down spectrometer with a bandwidth comparable to those of field UV spectrometers and determined water vapor absorption cross sections at 1-nm intervals in the 290- to 350-nm region. We also measured water vapor absorption cross sections at 0.05-nm intervals surrounding major absorption bands. We provide field evidence to support laboratory water vapor near-UV absorption measurements and present comparisons of the estimated optical depth spectra of ozone with those of water vapor for the standard U.S. and tropical atmospheres. Our findings suggest that water vapor near-UV absorption will significantly affect ozone retrieval from UV measurements, particularly in the tropical region. Incorporating cross-section data into a radiative transfer model, we estimated that the energy budget of water vapor near-UV absorption was about 0.26 W/m2 for the standard U.S. atmosphere and 0.76 W/m2 for the tropics. Since it was not thought that water vapor could have near-UV absorption, the effect of such absorption is not currently included in radiation and climate simulation models. Our work on water vapor near-UV absorption is expected to change the paradigm in atmospheric measurements from UV remote sensing observations and how atmospheric radiation and climate are modeled.
We found that water vapor near-UV absorption will significantly affect ozone retrieval from UV measurements, particularly in the tropical region. Incorporating water vapor near-UV absorption cross-section data into a radiative transfer model yielded an estimated energy budget (of additional absorption of solar radiation by the atmosphere) of 0.26 W/m2 for the standard U.S. atmosphere and 0.76 W/m2 for the tropics. Near-UV solar radiation induces photochemical changes in the troposphere and affects pollutant formation and atmospheric oxidant levels. Thus, water vapor near-UV absorption has impacts not only on atmospheric physics but also on atmospheric chemistry. Results of the current study are expected to facilitate field detection of water vapor near-UV absorption, enable assessment of the radiative and climate impacts of this absorption, and improve ozone retrievals.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JD030724
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
I wonder if there water vapor in Venus upper atmosphere {which has more UV].
If think of Venus a boiling pot, and doesn’t much spin, it seems Venus lack of water vapor, could be related to it.
Venus is getting water, as Venus of being impacted with space rocks.
Thanks Ireneusz Palmowski, did you ever measure if 15 micron LWIR can warm water? You are dealing with near UV (I would imagine that is simply the visible spectrum of Blue, Indigo and Violet), and I can see how those high energy very short wavelength ranges can warm water, and they penetrate water as well (that is why the oceans are blue afterall).
Anyway, while you are testing H2O, would you also test samples with H2O and H2O and CO2? My bet is they both will absord 100% of the 15 Micron LWIR associated with CO2. In that case, with or without CO2, 100% of the energy is thermalized in the atmopshere and CO2 adds absolutely nothing to the energy budget. Only when H2O is removed does CO2 alter the energy balance and that doesn’t occur until you are up near the stratosphere.
CO2isLife 2:46 pm, in assuming 100% of the energy is thermalized in the atmosphere and additional CO2 ppm adds absolutely nothing to the energy budget, you are assuming the atm. temperature profile does not change in the process. Emission from the atmosphere to Earth depends on emissivity (absorp_tivity) but it also depends on the atm. temperature(z) profile & that profile changes with any added IR active gas.
It is as unreasonable to expect an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to eventually result in some asymptotic value for infrared atmospheric surface irradiance as to expect it to increase indefinitely.
CO2isLife
You haven’t shown how that graph ties into temperature.
The graph shows CO2 absorbs infrared, so it actually supports there being a greenhouse effect.
bob, after all the time you’ve spent here, you’re still clueless.
We’re going to have to assume you can’t learn, so having NOTHING, you can only stalk.
Puffman, after all these years under various sock puppets that got banned, you still forgot to note that Bob has been mentioned by Life.
So you’re the one doing the stalking right now.
Wrong again, child.
I bring boatloads of reality. That ain’t stalking. You bring NOTHING.
YOU are a big stalker here, only beat out by gordon (word-count).
Life mentioned me too, Puffman.
NOTHING brings you here.
Bob, just curious, when the 3 Plank curves are labeled 210-310K, just what do you thihk that is referencing? Kilometers?
https://ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/greenhouse/radiationChart.png
Quick question, Life –
Did you get the graph from Clive’s post where he explains Doubling CO2 and basic physics?
This looks a lot like what you’re asking Roy.
Oh, and if you could tell us why you used another name to comment there, that’d be great.
CO2isLife,
It’s wavelength vs intensity for 3 temperatures of a blackbody.
What do you think?
Clint R,
“bob, after all the time youve spent here, youre still clueless.
Were going to have to assume you cant learn, so having NOTHING, you can only stalk.”
I’m glad that you didn’t put any of your fake science in your post so I don’t have to tell you that you are wrong.
Solar wind
speed: 392.8 km/sec
density: 1.02 protons/cm3
https://spaceweather.com/
Daily Sun: 10 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 213
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 215 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 32.05×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.3% Low
11 numbered sunspots. 1 leaving to farside, none coming from farside, yet.
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
09 September – 05 October 2024
Solar activity is likely to be at moderate levels
(R1-R2/Minor-Moderate), with a slight chance for X-class events (R3-Strong), throughout the outlook period. This is due to complex regions on the visible disk, as well as the anticipated return of complex regions.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is expected to be at normal to moderate levels.
Geomagnetic field activity is expected to range from quiet to G1-G2 (Minor-Moderate) storm levels. Enhanced activity to G1-G2 (Minor-Moderate) levels are likely on 10-11 Sep due to anticipated CME activity. Quiet to unsettled activity is expected on 09 Sep, 17-18 Sep, 28-29 Sep and 05 Oct, with G1 (Minor) levels likely on 26-27 Sep, all due to anticipated recurrent CH HSS occurence.
Mostly quiet levels are expected on 12-16 Sep, 19-25 Sep, 30 Sep and 01-04 Oct. —
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Sunspot number: 213 ???
Are you serious?
Sorry, I forgot the SILSO link:
https://tinyurl.com/yvyjw58w
This SILSO thing seems more reasonable, to me.
But the point is, I am using whatever, spaceweather.com says.
And don’t we all agree, sunspots don’t matter, anyhow?
What does this SILSO, say about neutron counts.
And if anyone tell me about neutron counts at Mars distance that would be even better. And/or Neutron from Earth orbit, preferable at GEO or not in a high inclination at LEO. {like the dumb, ISS is in}.
” What does this SILSO, say about neutron counts. ”
Why are you fixated on your neutron count? It is no more than one of many measures.
And as I explained to you:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oLwc2SSUqAxeJBCO8lVmjMbLIXUbRB8Y/view
All four sources show the same.
“Why are you fixated on your neutron count?”
That is sole reason I am following this solar cycle 25.
I have been interested in space exploration for quite a long time, and it’s an issue in regards to the amount GCR, and the needed shielding from it- for longer travel times.
It’s not much of issue in terms of crewed lunar exploration, as one can travel quickly to the Moon and it’s quite easy to shield against galactic cosmic radiation, in terms of living on a lunar base.
And if mining water {which is mining a lot of water- and selling it at profit] and/or living in some lava tube, then it’s a not issue at all.
Anyway, your graph indicates less GCR, which is given for any Solar Max.
But when does it start to go down, and far does it go down and how long?
Have we left the solar grand maximum, and are now in a solar grand minimum?
And long is the solar grand minimum going to last.
As said the issue of grand solar minimum is the part of cycle at Min.
Musk going to send non crew mission to Mars in two years, and in next Mars window [2.1 years, later] send crew to Mars.
Solar wind
speed: 352.8 km/sec
density: 1.55 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 10 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 147
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 215 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 32.00×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.3% Low
11 sunspot. 3822 grew on nearside. No spots coming from farside, yet.
Oh, dear, maybe soon, I will be spotless days, soon.
Again. But I will wait a day or two.
The 3822 spot might rapidly grow much bigger, or maybe, fade away.
Though the preferred lingo, I guess, is, rise further up, and/or submerge back into the sun.
I guess I should give the reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmx2iG0P3-s&t=7139s
Oh, yeah, “popping up to surface”.
Solar wind
speed: 415.5 km/sec
density: 14.85 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 12 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 179
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 207 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 32.00×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.5% Low
10 numbered sunspots. 3824 popped up on nearside. 3822 didn’t do any more popping or submerging. 3823 appeared close where it will go to farside in couple days.
There is suppose to be spots coming from farside {big/active ones} but I don’t see any coming from farside, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 505.9 km/sec
density: 0.33 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 12 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 160
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 207 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 32.00×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.5% Low
10 numbered sunspots. A couple spots will be leaving farside.
Still no spots coming from farside, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 462.1 km/sec
density: 0.37 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 13 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 160
“A new sunspot is emerging at the circled location. It is crackling with M-class (and already one X-class) solar flares.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 201 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 31.96×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.1% Low
9 numbered spot, and one coming from farside hasn’t given a number, yet. Not sure how many are leaving, say, 2 ??
Solar wind
speed: 402.8 km/sec
density: 1.97 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 14 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 127
“New sunspot AR3825 has a mixed polarity magnetic field that poses a threat for X-class solar flares.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 186 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 32.64×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.1% Low
7 numbered sunspots. Spot 3825 arrived, no other ones seem to coming from farside, yet and some are leaving to farside, it seems at least 1 and maybe 3. Within 2 or 3 days only 3 could leave. Or 3814 will take at least three days before it goes to farside.
It seems possible 2 will go within 24 hours and 3rd one leaves within 2 days.
Solar wind
speed: 465.4 km/sec
density: 1.77 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 15 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 136
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 172 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 32.74×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.0% Low
7 numbered spots. 3826 popped up on nearside. Still no spots coming from farside, 2 spots going to farside.
It seems NOAA experimental forecast will continue be alive thru the Sept month, but guessing Oct will put it on life support. Could be spotless days in Oct, but it seems very likely for Sept.
“but it seems very likely for Sept.”
Damn.
but it seems very unlikely for Sept.
Solar wind
speed: 458.1 km/sec
density: 3.82 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 16 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 68
“New sunspots are emerging at the circled locations.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 173 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 32.64×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.0% Low
5 numbered sunspots. As said above 2 sunspots are coming from farside. And don’t think any spots leaving within a day, And only 1 will leave in two days
Solar wind
speed: 558.6 km/sec
density: 3.37 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 17 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 103
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 170 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 32.61×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.1% Low
Tropical storm {expected to become Hurricane] Francine is near Boca Chica village Texas {Starbase}
2 distrubances have 30% and 40% chance of cyclone formation, both nearer to Africa, nearest to Africa has the 40%.
My side, Pacific, has 1 with 30% chance of cyclone formation.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Francine is Cat 2 hitting Louisiana, 1 of the two, disturbances became the tropical depression Seven, and 1 other chance was added giving 2 with 10% and 30%, and 30% is closer to Africa.
My side now has 70% chance to become depression in 48 hours.
Weather, here going to drop to 53 F at night and and in less than week, drop to 49 F at night. Or less than 10 C.
10 C is cold at night, but, I might not need to heat up my house, yet.
My side has tropical storm Nine-E, which forecasted to get “somewhere” close to me.
Atlantic, still got tropical depression, Francine, and tropical depression, Seven is forecast to become a storm.
The other disturbances, have 20% and 0% chance in 48 hours, and 20% is closer to windward islands.
Maybe CO2isLife looks at these two correlating papers, written by the same authors, and tries to grasp their contents?
(1) Absorption coefficient of water vapor across atmospheric troposphere layer
Peng-Sheng Wei, Hsuan-Han Chiu, Yin-Chih Hsieh, Da-Lun Yen, Chieh Lee, Yi-Cheng Tsai, and Te-Chuan Ting (2019)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6351392/
(2) Absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide across atmospheric troposphere layer
Peng-Sheng Wei, Yin-Chih Hsieh, Hsuan-Han Chiu, Da-Lun Yen, Chieh Lee, Yi-Cheng Tsai, and Te-Chuan Ting (2018)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174548/
*
The extreme similarity between Leleigh’s image (click on the right pic)
https://ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/greenhouse/greenhouse1.html
continuously posted by CO2isLife, and that visible at the two papers’ begin, is quite interesting, isn’t it?
Btw: note that both images rely on the same source (published long time ago by R.A. Rohde).
*
A bit disturbing however is the discrepancy between atmospheric absor~ption as depicted by Rohde’s image and the absor~ption wavelengths enumerated in the papers.
” Absorption bands of water vapor are considered to be in wavelength ranges centered at 71, 6.3, 2.7, 1.87 and 1.38 μm.
Those of carbon dioxide are centered at 15, 4.3, 2.7, and 2 μm. ”
*
It seems that CO2 (carbon dioxide) does NOT quite absorb/emit at the same wavelengths as H2O (water vapor), does it?
*
And that it doesn’t is definitely shown by a Spectral Calc comparison of H2O and CO2 (under consideration of their atmospheric abundance) in the wavelengths between 5 and 40 microns, at two different altitudes.
1. At the surface:
https://tinyurl.com/H2O-vs-CO2-surf
2. At an altitude of 5 km:
https://tinyurl.com/H2O-vs-CO2-5-km
*
At the surface, H2O’s maximal intensity is about 100 times higher than CO2’s; at an altitude of 5 km, the atmospheric abundances become very different.
But what finally matters in the comparison is not so much the maximal intensity; rather it is the sum of all intensity lines.
*
Why do the charts stop at 40 microns?
Simply because when you move to higher wavelengths resp. lower frequencies, the energy becomes negligible.
Bindi is confused, again: “But what finally matters in the comparison is not so much the maximal intensity; rather it is the sum of all intensity lines.”
Sorry Bindi, but it is wavelength that matters. You’re STILL believing more energy means higher temperature. You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
Any wavelength above about 10.2 μ is useless for raising the temperature of a 288K surface, no matter how many photons you have.
That’s just basic physics.
Speaking of basic physics, did you ever find a viable model of “orbiting without spin”?
That’s just basic impossible physics, Clint R 4:02pm. Just another humorous gaffe by Clint.
Any wavelength absorbed above about 10.2 μ must raise the temperature of a 288K solid surface as required by the 2LOT in any real process. Same is true for an ideal gas initially at 288K in a constant volume process absorbing radiated energy such as the atm.
Clint just likes to add humor to the blog constantly making basic physics mistakes; Clint’s gaffes are so funny to read.
NB: Observing “orbiting without spin” is our Moon as observed from Earth.
Why is this Clint R denial boy all the time fixated on photons warming the surface, ice cubes boiling water, lunar spin based on the ‘NASA cult’ and passengers flying backward?
Start reading papers, Clint R, and finally begin to learn all what you persistently ignore, instead of endlessly stalking us with your stubborn ‘cult’ mania.
Tragedy is when a blog participant makes a basic physics mistake; comedy is when Clint R comments consistently violate 1LOT and 2LOT.
Bindi, are you going to dodge the question?
You have all those “reading papers”, yet you don’t know what “orbiting without spin” looks like?
Why run from reality? You can’t win. Your cult makes you a loser.
Mixing the gross energy flows with the resulting thermodynamic, statistic net flow is like the Monty Hall problem that just makes some people idiots by forcing them to explain. Stop it. Ignore people who stuck in their thoughts.
2024’s unusually persistent warmth
Yes Ark, the HTE was/is a definite influencer.
I guess you have not heard of that really new thing called science. I mean, it’s only been around for 1000’s of years. You should look it up. And then get someone to explain it to you. No, not your classmates down at Dunning-Kruger University.
No credible scientist says HT can explain any significant part of the warming of 2023/24. if someone says that, they demonstrate that they are profoundly unserious.
Sorry Ark, but HTE has much more credibility than GHE/CO2.
HTE has correlation AND physics. GHE/CO2 has correlation but violates physics.
Yes, you should feel sorry because all you have are opinions.
This paper pours cold water on your “correlation AND physics”
Evolution of the Climate Forcing During the Two Years After the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai Eruption
Ark, obviously you didn’t understand my comment.
Your immaturity and ignorance can get you so confused I don”t know how to help you.
and there it is! Straight to the ad hominem reply.
Typical.
Figured Dessler would be a co-author.
Ark, are you so immature you don’t understand that when you give, you get?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1687454
A paper just published last week found an increase of 0.015 °C globally from the HT event (reasonably in-line with other estimates that are slightly positive or slightly negative due to aerosols counterbalancing water vapor). As far as I know there are no peer reviewed estimates that have much more than 0.05 °C contribution to global mean temperatures.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/37/17/JCLI-D-23-0437.1.xml
Would not expect a different guesstimate from climate alarmists. You certainly keep strange bedfellows. There are no sexual illusions in that just that you share the same ideas.
might I suggest that you take more of an interest in the science I am discussing.
Right now, you are busy building a negative case about me because you cannot obviously discuss science on the level I am offering.
Clint R,
It’s sad seeing you pretend to play at science. You haven’t read a peer reviewed science paper in your life. The deniosphere crap you read on the internet is designed to fool laymen like you. When will you learn?
Ark,
Is that a peer reviewed paper you linked above?
I’m talking about the Climate Brink link.
Ark, the way I read a “peer-reviewed science paper” is to first read the Abstract/Introduction. If there is a violation of the laws of physics, I’m done. If not, I go directly to the Conclusion. Again, if there is a violation of the laws of physics, the paper is rejected.
A cult does NOT get to pervert reality.
clint…so you can read can you? Come on…it’s a joke.
A lady friend, before taking a picture of me, asked if I showed up on a photographic film. She wanted to make sure I am not a vampire. Apparently not since I show up fine on older film. I wonder if vampires show up on the newer digital cameras?
So what would your reaction be if she had asked you that? I laughed and tried to get her back later.
Lighten up bro, we need energy to beat off the alarmist hordes.
ark…what difference does it make if a paper is peer reviewed or not? Is it not the science it contains that is important?
Reminding you of Barry Marshall, the Ozzie scientist who won a Nobel for discovering that duodenal ulcer are caused by the bacteria H. Pylori. When he first submitted his paper it was rejected by the journal editor before reaching the peer review stage. The editor claimed it was one of the ten worst papers submitted to him.
Had Marshall’s paper been accepted, as it should have been, and published, it would have benefitted the public much earlier than it did.
How much good science is being rejected by the klowns posing as editors and reviewers?
gordon, you don’t have any “lady friend”. That story never happened. You live in a fantasy world.
Get some professional help. Maybe you and Ken could get a group rate….
Can’t let the bitterness go, can you?
Clint says: ” Ark, the way I read a peer-reviewed science paper is to first read the Abstract/Introduction. If there is a violation of the laws of physics, Im done. If not, I go directly to the Conclusion. Again, if there is a violation of the laws of physics, the paper is rejected. ”
A rare confession that Clint suffers both from the Dunning-Kruger effect and Confirmation bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
ark…two quote from your link by Zeke.
1)the heat arrived much earlier in 2023 than it did in 2015…
***
Where did this heat arrive? It’s an average not intended to represent any one location.
—
Re what this means…
2)Though Ive already been wrong enough times about the global temperature trajectory over the past 18 months that who really knows at this point!
***
So, this alarmist can’t say what it means because he doesn’t know where it’s going. Not just an opinion, please offer a scientific explanation to back up your opinion.
How about you, Ark, care to say what it means and where it is going?
ken…”That mode of thinking would make Robertson the authority on everything written on this website…”
***
Gee, Ken, and I didn’t think you cared.
I wrote:
“So weight of papers written is a marker on how to determine whether they have something to say? That mode of thinking would make Robertson the authority on everything written on this website, And, we know thats not true.”
The point is, Ken, no one agrees with you anyway, so what’s with the ‘we’?
As Einstein put it when confronted with the news that 200 scientists disagreed with him, ‘it only takes one to prove me wrong’.
I have never claimed to be an authority on anything even though you seem to depend on authority figures like Will Happer. Whereas I respect Happer, I have supplied science to show where he has erred. You not only failed to rebut my proof, you took umbrage at me contradicting Happer.
You also took umbrage at me contradicting your claim that the Moon orbits the Sun. That suggests you are far to influenced by emotions to be objective.
co2…”Every observation such as warming of the oceans must be explained with this explaination. Vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere with the energy consistent with 15 micron LWIR warms the oceans. As we know that is nonsense because 15 Micron wont warm water and if you cant tie CO2 to the warming oceans you cant tie CO2 to global warming and climate change”.
***
I agree with you in principal but we must be careful with the science. I get what you are saying about 15um IR being unable to heat water, but what is the problem?
You can use microwave energy at a much lower frequency (longer wavelength) than IR and use it to heat water to the boiling point. The magnetron in a microwave oven is essentially at a very low temperature, even lower than the water it boils, and that appears to contradict the 2nd law. It doesn’t because it’s not about heat transfer, it’s about radiative power transfer. That is, the magnetron emissions are virtually coming from a hotter temperature than the boiling water.
So, what is the difference in science?
Starting with the magnetron in a microwave oven, it radiates high power energy by causing electrons to be circulated in a cavity at extremely high speeds and the electrons give off microwave radiation at sufficient power to agitate the weak molecular bonds in water. The agitation produces the heat.
Even though the magnetron body may be at a lower temperature than the water it is heating, the radiation emitted is equivalent to a higher temperature body.
The reason is that the electrons are accelerated in the magnetron by a high potential voltage of several kilovolts. That’s where the electrons get their energy.
Note that the speed of electrons has a lot to do with this.
With CO2, the electrons in the CO2 molecule are getting additional energy from the Earth’s surface via IR. Therefore, the electrons in the CO2 are at much lower energy levels than those at microwave frequencies in a magnetron. Furthermore, the energy in the electrons decreases with altitude, hence temperature.
You’ll find that a heat lamp can heat with IR because it’s frequencies are in the higher wavelength IR band. Also, the source of the IR is a heated electrical filament at several thousand degrees C. That is not the case with surface IR and definitely not the case with CO2 in the atmosphere whose radiation intensity decreases with altitude. Also, the higher the altitude of the CO2, the greater the losses at the surface due to the inverse square law.
That’s why IR from CO2 cannot heat anything on the surface. It has nothing to do with the 15um wavelength it is simply about temperature difference. It is not possible to transfer heat from a colder region of the atmosphere to a hotter surface, no matter how many thought experiments and re-definitions of the 2nd law are provided.
gordon, that is the most amount of nonsense yet. You’re clearly someone with NO knowledge of science. You just pound on your keyboard with no appreciation for reality.
Please stop clogging this blog.
clint…anyone with even a basic understanding of science should be able to successfully rebut my information if it is wrong. All you supply are insults.
However, insults run off my back like water off a duck’s back. Try actually proving me wrong.
The cult is still in denial about the HTE. Here is some recent data, supplied by Richard M.
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/h2o_MLS_vLAT_qbo_75S-75N_10hPa.pdf
You deny Earth’s natural GHE.
You deny that increasing CO2 concentration by 140 ppm since the pre-industrial era has enhanced Earth’s natural GHE.
Yet, you are adamant that an increase of less than 1 ppm in stratospheric water vapor (from your graph) is responsible for the warming seen the past 14 months.
Ark, CO2 can’t do what water vapor can do.
You need to study the relevant physics.
But, you don’t want reality, do you?
No, I’m happy with my Physics Bookshelf.
The upper low is over the Great Lakes, and there is a high in the southwest that pulls a tropical wave over Florida into Louisiana. This promises very heavy rainfall in the south.
https://www.accuweather.com/pl/us/new-orleans/70112/weather-radar/348585
Dr. Spencer, read the above posts. Many of the “Experts” that post on your blog don’t even grasp the very basics on the GHG Effect. Some even seem to challenge the authenticity of this graphic.
https://ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/greenhouse/radiationChart.png
That graphic is a great discussion point for a interview resume to screen out the sophists from the true experts. You shoud do a blog post on the basics of the GHG Effect and just let the sophists work their magic. They will expose themselves.
At its very essense, Climate Change is a physics problem, that is it. You have to understand the basic physics to understand anything.
For the nth time, there is one and only one defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change. That is the thremalization of 15 micron LWIR. It doesn’t “trap heat” it simply converts EM energy into kinetic evergy by taking LWIR and using that energy to trigger a vibration of the molecule. That in a nutshell is the GHG Effect.
From that, everything has to rest on that foundation. Problem is, CO2 is only 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere. 15 Micron LWIR is very low energy EM. Is it plausable that vibrating one out of every 2,500 molecules with very low energy LWIR can materially impact the kinetic energy of the remaining 2,499 molecules? The answer is no. You will also see that 15 LWIR doesn’t have enough energy to warm the oceans, and given the atmosphere over the oceans most likley contains H2O in it already, with or without CO2, 15 Micron LWIR will be absorbed fully.
The finger print of the impact of CO2 is seen only after H2O precipitates out of the atmsphere in the stratosphere. You will see that the Stratosphere bottomw out around -60 to -80 Degree C. Why? Because that is the temperature of thermalizing 15 micron LWIR.
Please do a post on this issue and use it as a method to separate the wheat from the chaff of posters, and expose the sophists and climate activists.
CO2isLife,
” That is the thremalization of 15 micron LWIR. It doesnt trap heat it simply converts EM energy into kinetic evergy by taking LWIR and using that energy to trigger a vibration of the molecule.”
Kinetic energy of molecules is heat, so you can say CO2 traps heat by absorbing IR, exciting molecular bonds and then transferring that bond energy to the other gases in the atmosphere.
“You will also see that 15 LWIR doesnt have enough energy to warm the oceans, and given the atmosphere over the oceans most likley contains H2O in it already, with or without CO2, 15 Micron LWIR will be absorbed fully.”
If the oceans absorb the 15 LWIR, then the oceans gain the energy of that IR, and it’s expressed as the temperature of the ocean.
“The finger print of the impact of CO2 is seen only after H2O precipitates out of the atmsphere in the stratosphere. You will see that the Stratosphere bottomw out around -60 to -80 Degree C. Why? Because that is the temperature of thermalizing 15 micron LWIR.”
15 micron LWIR does not have a temperature.
CO2isLife
” Many of the ‘Experts’ that post on your blog don’t even grasp the very basics on the GHG Effect. Some even seem to challenge the authenticity of this graphic.
https://ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/greenhouse/radiationChart.png ”
You behave a bit dishonest, don’t you?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1687423
Please first manage to technically contradict the post above, instead of arrogantly discrediting what others write.
It should be evident even to people like you that the graph posted by U Leleigh and even by the Chinese team is a bit outdated with regard to your allegation of any superposition of H2O and CO2 absorp~tion lines in the LW infrared region, isn’t it?
*
By the way: what kind of ‘expert’ are you exactly?
Bindi, you don’t have to be much of an expert to know that ice cubes can’t boil water.
You are obsessed with your cult’s nonsense. That’s why you can’t provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Like gordon, you have NOTHING.
Though enough absorbed radiation from those ice cubes can increase water temperature as demonstrated in Dr. Spencer’s experiments to cause boiling at 1atm. in Alabama at night.
A bit dishonest? Look at the graph, dishonesty in itself.
The entire blue part to the right should be in the same proportion as the far right red graph. They have amplified IR radiation grossly to fit it on the same graph, which is unscientific.
Gordon misses the graph maker told readers the graph is art & sunlight intensity adjusted to make the story more clear, except to Gordon.
“You behave a bit dishonest, dont you?”
Please explain. This graphic has everything you need to know.
https://ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/greenhouse/radiationChart.png
Just what did I post that was “dishonest?” I literally try to support everything I say with a link to supporting data, and that graphic is pretty solid evidence that by position is correct.
If I said something “dishonest,” please post the exact statement and let me address it.
CO2isLife you have posted a cartoon in which your source told readers: “blackbody spectra were adjusted to have the same height for ease in presentation.”
Your claim “Some even seem to challenge the authenticity of this graphic.” implies readers should not challenge its authenticity when your cartoon source even informs the cartoon is not authentic.
Your position is not correct. Yes, you should address it. A good start would be using the original piece by its author and explaining his adjustments.
Clint R
‘Bindi, you dont have to be much of an expert to know that ice cubes cant boil water.’
nobody says so
but water irradiated during the day cools more quickly in presense of cold objects such as the deep space and less quickly when there is something in between. This leaves the water warmer averaged over time. Enjoy.
Dr. Spencer, I think I’ve discovered a very simple controled experiment that any University Lab should be able to run.
Observation: Both CO2 and H2O absorb 15 LWIR, and its absorption is saturated within a close distance from the surface (you can test that in the gas cell available on SpectralCalc).
Hypothesis: With or without CO2, 15 Micron LWIR absorption is saturated, so CO2 is irrelevant in the lower atmosphere. You can only absorb 100% of 15 Micron LWIR, and H2O does that without CO2.
Experiment:
Control = Insulated Bucket of water with an open top and enclosed in an atmospheric controlled room which holds 415 PPM CO2.
Experimental Sample = Insulated Bucket of water with an open top and enclosed in an atmospheric controlled room which holds 0.00 PPM CO2
Have the celing of the atmospherically controlled room have an EM absorming Black Celing representing outerspace.
Warm the buckets to 120F/50C (basicallly the hottest the earth gets)
Measure that rate of cooling, and final low temperature.
My bet is that you will not be able to identify a difference between the rate of cooling or the final low temperature.
That simple experiment would go a long way to debunking CO2 can warm water and cause climate change. That fact that that controlled experiment hasn’t been run prety much proves people aren’t looking for the truth.
CO2 is life
This is just a more complicated version of Roy’s experiment, whose results you rejected.
No, what I described is a controlled experiment in a laboratory that isolates a single factor. Dr. Spensor’s experiment demonstrates that water vapor in the atmosphere can slow cooling. It does nothing to isolate CO2.
Not added water vapor. Dr. Spencer’s experiment demonstrates that added radiation from icy cirrus cloud from the nighttime Alabama atmosphere can measurably and theoretically show a higher temperature several inches deep in ambient surface water than nearby control water not in view of the added cirrus clouds.
His experiment wasn’t intended to isolate added radiation from CO2 ppm increase; its warming effect from absorbed added radiation over control water would be consistent with this experiment.
“Hypothesis: With or without CO2, 15 Micron LWIR absorption is saturated, so CO2 is irrelevant in the lower atmosphere. You can only absorb 100% of 15 Micron LWIR, and H2O does that without CO2.”
There normally isn’t much H20 in upper atmosphere, but is CO2 and CO is in upper atmosphere.
“Hypothesis: With or without CO2, 15 Micron LWIR absorption is saturated, so CO2 is irrelevant in the lower atmosphere. You can only absorb 100% of 15 Micron LWIR, and H2O does that without CO2”
Yes it is saturated in the lower atmosphere, but the point is that it is the whole atmosphere that matters here.
Because the upper atmosphere is where most of the radiative forcing takes place, which results in it warming. If the upper atmosphere warms, then each layer below it, which must cool to the upper atmosphere layers, will now also warm. The entire lapse rate curve shifts slightly warmer, even down to the surface.
Once ashore, the hurricane will move along the Mississippi River and what increases instability in the atmosphere.
ren…since the Mississippi is regarded as a meandering river, does that mean the hurricane eye will follow all the curves? Some Mark Twain-like humour.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/829923-a-humorous-treatment-of-the-rigid-uniformitarian-view-came-from
This is not out of the question, it is unlikely to move in a straight line.
I am joking, Ren. Sorry, I should have included a smiley, but sometimes in Canada we deliver humour with a straight face till the person gets the joke.
I get the joke. In Poland, rivers are also straightening out.
Humor as straight as Vistula.
Ken
“Evidence”
Here’s the DLR spectrum for a day in Winsconcin.
https://scienceofdoom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png
Note that the maximum occurs around 15 micrometres, the main emission wavelength of CO2.
Here’s an old friend, the OLR spectrum.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
Note the 50% drop in OLR around 15 micrometres, the wavelength at which CO2 absorbs and reradiates most intensly. You can match it to the reradiated IR at 15 micrometres in the DLR graph.
These are evidence that CO2 plays an active role in the greenhouse effect.
It’s past my bedtime. More tomorrow.
What that is showing is that CO2 is basically only GHG up at 70km. That has nothing to do with temperatures near the surface. CO2 and H2O overlap near the surface. You only get that dip at 15 Microns once you remove H2O from the atmpshere. BTW, up 70km the temperature is about -60 C, do there is no warming up there.
Co2,
Up there is where the radiative forcing takes place. If olr is reduced up there because of increased CO2, then the Earth has an energy imbalance, a net energy gain. That is exactly what is happening.
BTW, what is important is the marginal change in outgoing energy. What is important is the spectrum at 310 and then at 410 PPM. The change results in about 1.6 W/m^2 at 70km. BTW, pay attention to the 294K Black Body. That is 145 Degree C. The only range that happens is the thermosphere, and that is warmed by incoming radiation and COOLs as it approaches earth.
294K is 21C, not 145C.
Ent throws more slop against the wall.
But, as usual, he can’t explain how 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
An increase in thermodynamic internal energy from the absorbed 15μ photons explains the raise in temperature as required by the 2LOT in the real process & same for a 288K ideal gas.
Progress!!! B4 now admits internal energy is partly heat. Clausius, who defined U for internal energy in the 1st law claimed that internal energy is part heat and part work related to atomic vibrations. However, heat is required to cause the atomic vibrations.
Good work, B4, soon we’ll have to converted to a skeptic.
An increase in internal energy does NOT always mean an increase in temperature. Temperature corresponds to kinetic energy of molecules. And that kinetic energy corresponds to molecular vibrations, with higher frequency vibrations being able to increase kinetic energy over lower frequency vibrations.
IOW, it takes the “right kind” of energy to raise temperature. That’s why you can’t boil water with ice cubes, no matter how much ice you have.
Not partly, Gordon, the measure of total thermodynamic internal energy is Clausius’ heat so there is no heat (as experimentally proven by James Prescott Joule) or work entity in any massive object.
There is no hope for Clint R 7:42 am to be correct since that comment humorously goes against the 2LOT.
For any real process, 2LOT informs an increase in thermodynamic internal energy DOES always mean an increase in temperature over the isolated process time. Just another funny gaffe by Clint.
Cult children like Ball4 believe adding more ice to a pot of water can raise the water temperature because more energy has been added.
Children can be so funny.
No Clint R 8:45 am, now you’ve erroneously added mass with your own 15μ photons in your new example not just added thermodynamic internal energy from absorbing radiation from those 15μ photons.
Chalk up another humorous science gaffe for Clint R.
The amount of internal energy. in a quantity of ice is “Ei”. The amount of internal energy in a bucket of water is “Ew”. Now add the ice to the water. The total internal energy is then “Ei + Ew”. But, the temperature goes DOWN.
Even many children could understand this. But not cult children.
‘Even many children could understand this. But not cult children.’
Please stop feeding this process. Clint R thinks we’re children-like. That’s quite bad, not fixable.
ent…your 2nd link is a hypothetical graph. There is no way to determine Ir radiation at TOA from CO2 since the wv and CO2 emissions overlap.
Besides, if you accept the 18 W propaganda, that means CO2 absorbs 10% or less of surface emissions.
Gordon
Neither graph is theoretical.
The DLR graph is taken directlly from Ellington’s paper. The OLR graph is taken from the satellite data Ellington used, plotted using ModTran.
They were both measured in the same place on the same sunny day in Winsconcin. The DLR was measured from the surface and the OLR from orbit.
The only theoretical part is the red line on the OLR graph. This is the radiation from the surface, calculated from the SB equation for the local surface temperature.
The fun thing is that GHG theory predicts that SB radiation – OLR = DLR.
You can test this. Measure SB-OLR across the spectrum from the OLR graph. Plot the difference and you get the DLR graph.
Remember this is how you test a theory. Compare its predictions with observation and see if they match.
Yes, you are correct. The OLR and DLR graphs illustrate the combined effect of water vapour and CO2. Both vary considerably across the spectrum. Compare them with the absor*btion spectra, that CO2 is life linked, for the individual gases and you find that around 15 micrometres the dominant actor is CO2. Around 7 micrometres the dominant actors are O3 and H2O.
ent…”The OLR graph is taken from the satellite data Ellington used, plotted using ModTran”.
***
Not possible, Ent, the WV spectrum overlies the CO2 spectrum and shields it from the instruments. The graph is nothing more than an estimate.
No Gordon 3:21 am, incoherent photons cannot shield (Gordon term) other photons since those photons do not interact with other photons. They pass by and just wave at one another.
Gordon
In this example the surface is radiating about 430W/m^2.
Of that 36W/m^2 is absorbed by CO2, That is 36/430*100= 8.8%.
Of that, half is reradiated to space and half becomes downwelling longwave radiation.
The overall effect of CO2 is to reduce the outward longwave radiation by 18W/m^2 or 4.4%.
Entropic man
” Around 7 micrometres the dominant actors are O3 and H2O. ”
*
O3, dominant actor at 7 microns ???
There is no dominant O3 trace at about 7 micrometers; it is known that O3 has a strong peak at 9.6 micrometers.
This is best shown by having a look at Spectral Calc’s output for the wavelength range 5-20 microns at the surface (under consideration of their atmospheric abundance):
https://i.postimg.cc/vBzBmbhL/O3-5-20-micron-sbaa-surf.png
*
Looks strong! But a look at the intensity scale lets it look quite different.
A comparison to CO2
https://i.postimg.cc/Vs26LGBh/CO2-5-20-micron-sbaa-surf.png
and H2O
https://i.postimg.cc/FstrQfh5/H2-O-5-20-micron-sbaa-surf.png
makes it clear: while H2O’s intensity peaks at the surface at max ~ 5E-2 and CO2 is at ~ 1E-3, O3 keeps below 3E-8, i.e. ~ 34K times less than CO2 and 1.7M times less than H2O.
Bindidon I wonder if you’ve made the same mistake as CO2 is life. This is a graph of downwelling radiance.
You would expect maximum radiance at wavelengths where H2O and CO2 are absorbing and reradiating IR from the surface most intensely, around 15 micrometres. That’s what you see in the graph.
You would expect minimum downwelling radiance in the atmospheric window where most of the surface radiation is escaping directly to space, and that’s what the graph shows.
Nothing weird and nothing impossible, just the system behaving as expected.
Even Bindi caught Ent throwing slop against the wall!
Either Bindi is getting better or Ent is getting worse….
Since the troposphere in the tropics is warmer a kilometer above the surface, and this effect is not seen near the surface, it is logical that some of the sun’s radiation is retained in the upper troposphere and does not raise the temperature near the surface.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
Yes, it is very much logical.
Because on its way thru the atmosphere some of the solar light inevitably gets absorbed a kilometer above the surface, air is still thick enough to take in the most of absorbable by atmosphere energy.
ren…any gas molecule that intercepts solar energy at any altitude should absorb it. Any GHG molecule should absorb IR from the surface. However, gas molecules above the surface cannot radiate energy back to the surface because they are at a lower energy (cooler) than the surface.
Of course.
It seems that it is water vapor and particulate matter (micro dust) that can capture solar radiation in the troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JAS_EQ_2024.png
ren…there are a few million tons more water vapour to absorb heat in the stratosphere.
Yes, this is normal.
On average about 240W/m^2 enters the atmosphere and is absorbed by the system. Of that 169W/m^2 reaches the surface.
That leaves 240-169 = 71W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere.
Dug this article up for a friend and decided to post it again. It demonstrates the lengths to which alarmist politicians will go to smear a skeptic. They have gone so far today that any information that contradicts their propaganda is considered misinformation. They are putting pressure on the media and Internet outfits to block posts y skeptics.
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939326_283.pdf
In the article, Fred Singer explains how he co-wrote a paper with Roger Revelle cautioning people not to read too much into catastrophic global warming claims. The paper was smeared by associates of Al Gore who claimed Revelle was senile when he wrote it and that Singer had taken advantage of him. Singer sued and won.
As of 1991, Revelle and Singer did not think enough information was available to take action against anthropogenic gases. Today, there is no more information than in 1991. It’s all conjecture that has turned to hysteria.
The Cosmos Myth:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110807205947/ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/revelle-gore-singer-lindzen
Dr. Spencer, more evidence that you have sophists and climate activist posting on your blog. They don’t even seem to understand the basic graphcs they are posting as evidence above. This is the most recent one. It is an OLR Graphc (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) not a DLR (Downwelling). Just look at the Blackbody Temperture it is being measured against, 294k. If you use MODTRAN to relicate that grapic the settings would be “looking down” from 70km or higher. The only thing this graphic shows is that CO2 exists in the atmosphere at that altitude, and is still absorbing 15 micron LWIR. It has nothing to do with melting glaciers on the surface.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
The proper way to measure the energy impalance would be to do a DLR measurement from the surface and then again from the top of a mountain with a glacier, basically the troposphere. What do you find when you do that? As long as H2O is in the atmosphere, CO2 is 100% irrelevant. Simply use MODTRAN to test that theory. It is all math and has nothing to do with the “opinions” of the sophists and climate activists that post on your blog.
Read the post, you fool.
I put up two graphs.
This is the DLR for a sunny day in Winsconsin.
https://scienceofdoom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png
This is OLR for the same time at the same location.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
They are directly comparable.
Wrong Ent, those graphs are NOT comparable in any meaningful way. You’re trying to pervert reality, as usual.
The important “take away” from those graphs is that photons with wavelengths greater than about 10μ (or wavenumber less than 1000/cm) can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
This clearly shows “Zenith atmospheric Emmission.” Are you saying this is DLR? Once again, so what, this is looking down or up from the Zenith. Just what does that prove to you?
https://scienceofdoom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png
This graphic is clearly done from the Thermosphere looking down.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
Once again, just what are your trying to demonstrate? That the GHG Exists? No one denies that. The question is can changing CO2 from 310 to 410 cause warming of climate change in the troposphere dominated by H2O? That is done by looking at the diferential between a DLR Sprectrum from the surface and again from about 5 km where H2O precipitates out.
I don’t know this for sure, but I bet the Thermpsphere has a huge temperature range between day and night, and you are focused on about 1.6 W/^2.
Yep, look at the temperature range and you are worried about minute energy differences due to CO2. Really?
The temperature range in the thermosphere typically spans from around 500C to 2,000C (932F to 3,632F)
This is just more evidence Dr. Spencer that the “experts” that post on your blog don’t have a clue about the graphics they rely on. They are pure sophists.
CO2 is life
Zenith atmospheric emission is what is measured by an infrared spectrometer looking vertically upwards from the Earth’s surface. It is also called downwelling longwave radiation (DLR, DWLR or sometime just LWIR) It’s also called back radiation.
Whatever the name, it is infrared radiation emitted by GHGs or reflected by clouds and heading from the atmosphere dow
nwards towards the surface.
What the graphs show is a pattern of energy flow. Longwave radiation from the surface flows upwards through the atmosphere to space. Some of it is reflected by clouds or reradiated downwards by GHGs. The downwelling radiation is absorbed by the surface which becomes less cold than in the absence of the downwelling radiation. That is the greenhouse effect.
Using the graphs you can show that at this time and location the amount of outward longwave radiation to space measured by satellites is the upward surface emission minus the downwelling radiation measured at the surface.
Tell.me you’ve understood that and we can move on to discssing the effect of increasing CO2.
Once again, jsut what is this showing you?
https://scienceofdoom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png
1) H2O and CO2 literally absorb the same LWIR Spectrum (Note the H2O and CO2 Lines showing the range overlaps)
2) It shows CO2 and H2O absorb wavelengths outside the Atmospheric Window (So what?)
3) CO2 occupies the laft part of that grapic with CO2 and H2O absorbing 666 wavenumber 15 Micron LWIR.
4) Nothing this chart demonstrates addresses the marginal impact of 100ppm CO2.
Your chart literally proves nothing.
Go to Modtran and do marginal impact studies within the Troposphere, that is where things matter, and CO2 doesn’t impact anything in the range up to 5km because H2O dominates.
Entropic man
Maybe you might refrain from posting links to pictures like
https://scienceofdoom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png
dated 1996 and based on data recorded in 1991.
This picture is either hopelessly out of date or shows something completely different than what you want to show!
*
Just look at the H2O absorp~tion window: It not only includes CO2’s, which CO2isLife tactically illustrates.
It also includes 100% of the atmospheric window, which CO2isLife tactically hides (or doesn’t even perceive as an absolute problem).
If the picture were correct, we wouldn’t even exist, because no IR radiation would penetrate the atmosphere.
*
No: the dumb, stubborn, ignorant Pirani gauge blah blah won’t help here.
Bindidon
It is 1991 data, but it has the advantage of matching. Both graphs originate from Ellington(1996) and they show SB surface radiation, OLR and DWLR for the same day. It’s difficult to find matching data like that, with the opportunity to test energy budget theories directly.
If you have something more recent that does the same job, it would be interesting to compare them.
It does seem to have confused CO2 is life. Hopefully he’ll have learned a bit of physics.
You guys known you can replicate those graphics with MODTRAN…right?
Here is the link:
https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
The one and only issue is what happens to the change in outgoing W/M^2 in the lower troposphere when CO2 changes from 310 to 410ppm.
You will see that as long as H2O is present, CO2 is meaningless.
Once again, H2O and CO2 absords the same wavelengths. You can only absorb 100% of anything, and H2O does that.
What you will see, CO2 driven climate change depends on 1.3 W/m^2 being able to alter the climate of the entire earth. Simply change the cloud cover setting and you will see 1.3W/m^2 is well within the margin of error.
Bindidon
Sorry, I put this in the wrong place.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1687739
CO2 is life
At 15 micrometres the combination of H2O and CO2 does absorb 100% of the surface radiation and reradiates 50% of it downwards.
This does not mean that the downwelling radiation cannot increase. When the surface temperature increases the upwelling longwave radiation increases. The GHGs still reradiate 50% downwards so the amount of downwelling radiation increases in proportion to the increased upwelling radiation. GHGs are still reradiating 50% of the pie downwards, but 50% of a bigger pie.
Try using Modtrans to increase the surface temperature and observe how the downwelling radiation changes.
CO2 is life, Bindidon
We seem to be using different models of how longwave radiation and energy flow through the atmosphere. I want to think about this, so I’m off to bed and will continue tomorrow.
CO2 is life
At 15 micrometres the combination of H2O and CO2 does absorb 100% of the surface radiation and reradiates 50% of it downwards.
You completely miss the point. There is only100% to absorb. H2O absorbs 100%. The 100% absorption of 15 LWIR is reached very very close to the surface with our without CO2. The absorption is saturated. If I have one Mole NA and 10 Moles of CL, if I mix them I’ll only get 1 Mole NACL. I can keep adding CL, but it won’t change the amount of NACL that gets produced.
(Don’t tell Ent that all those 15μ photons can’t raise the temperature of Earth’s 288K surface. We don’t want him educated.)
ent…”At 15 micrometres the combination of H2O and CO2 does absorb 100% of the surface radiation and reradiates 50% of it downwards”.
***
Come on Ent, you’re an educated man, you can reason better than that. Explain scientifically how gases with average concentrations of 0.04% and 0.3% can block 100% of surface radiation at 15 um or any other wavelength.
This is all theory, it has never been verified by measurement. The instruments required simply don’t exist since there is no instrument with the bandwidth to measure flat across such a wide spectrum.
And what good is the back-radiated energy when it cannot be absorbed by a warmer surface?
Even if the energy could be absorbed, it can’t even begin to make up for losses let alone add to solar input. Ergo, no warming would be possible till the losses are made up.
ent…”We seem to be using different models of how longwave radiation and energy flow through the atmosphere”.
***
A better understanding of energy is required. The only energy flowing through the atmosphere is radiation, that is electromagnetic energy. perhaps after a good sleep this becomes more apparent to you.
Thermal energy cannot ‘flow’ through the atmosphere, it can only move through it via the bulk transport of air molecules via convection.
CO2 is life.
Sigh!
This is elementary stuff.
In the band between 13 and 17 micrometres CO2 and H2O absorb 100% of the upward longwave radiation from the surface. They then reradiate 50% upwards and 50% downwards.
In the example described in Ellington(1996) the upward longwave radiation is about 430W/m^2.
In the 13-17micrometre band the GHGs absorb 36W/m^2 and reradiate it. Half, 18W/m^2, reradiates upwards. The other half, 18W, reradiates downwards.
When you measure the effect you see that the outward longwave radiation is reduced by 18W/m^2 from 430W/m^2 to 412W/m^2 and the downward longwave radiation is increased by 18W/m^2.
Since 1991 the upward longwave radiation from the surface has increased by about 1.5%. In 2024 the absorbed radiation in our band is up from 36W/m^2 to 36.5W/m^2. DWLR has increased to
18.25W/m^2
With a climate sensitivity of 3 and a warming response of 0.25C/W/^2 that is a predicted warming of 0.375C since 1991. Observed warming is 0.6C.
Ent, you don’t understand any of this.
Your figures are all made up, based on your cult’s beliefs. Both the EEI and “climate sensitivity” are bogus.
Earth can be emitting energy, but still warming. Or, Earth can be emitting energy, and cooling. Solar input varies by about 90 W/m² in one year. Yet we don’t see such a drastic change. In fact, UAH reports an inverse correlation, ie, Earth is warmer with less solar and cooler with more solar. We don’t have enough data to make any meaningful statements about Earth’s energy balance. Your cult even tries to balance flux instead of energy! Like you, they don’t have a clue.
Like with the rest of your cult, I have no expectation that you will learn any of this. You believe passenger jets fly backward.
Entropic man
” I’m having to educate CO2 is life and Bindidon about energy budgets before I can even have a sensible conversation with them. ”
You don’t need to educate me about such stuff like
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1687811
You first should admit that trying to convince (pseudo-)skeptics with pictures showing H2O absorbing IR even within the entire atmospheric window is absurd – simply because they use the same kind of nonsensical information.
Doing that, you confirm their assumption that CO2 can’t add anything to what H2O has already done.
Yes: sigh.
*
But…
https://i.postimg.cc/FstrQfh5/H2-O-5-20-micron-sbaa-surf.png
https://i.postimg.cc/Vs26LGBh/CO2-5-20-micron-sbaa-surf.png
This is what must clarified in front of any energy budget discussion.
For data and pictures newer than
https://scienceofdoom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png
you’ll have to search by your own, I have enough to do with processing climate data.
EM,
Don’t tell Puffman that he has been banned multiple times on this site and always came back under various sock puppets, and let him cling to the idea that there are special photons.
He has concepts of plans for them.
This is like wading through treacle. I’m having to educate CO2 is life and Bindidon about energy budgets before I can even have a sensible conversation with them.
I would expect that of CO2 is life, but I thought Bindidon understood this stuff!
Entropic man,
Pardon the intrusion, but if your purpose is didactic, you may want to consider using Petty’s Figure 8.2, along with the associated description and exercise question:
https://imgur.com/a/yrQhZYQ
Arkady Ivanovich
My purpose is to have fun with the science, check what the scientists are saying for myself and perhaps even debate with the sceptics.
Thank you, this is just the sort of thing I’m looking for.
Thanks Ark, this is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.
Supposedly this Figure 8.2 is of two spectra taken at the same place/time, one looking down and one looking up. If that is true, then:
1. Does the flux balance? Does “flux balance” have any useful meaning?
2. Can the flux be converted to energy, in a way that means anything?
Arkady Ivanovich
My purpose is to have fun with the science, check what the scientists are saying for myself and perhaps even debate with the sceptics.
Thank you, this is just the sort of thing I’m looking for.
CO2 is life, Bindidon.
https://imgur.com/a/yrQhZYQ
Look at the ozone signal on Petty’s graphs. At that wavenumber ozone is saturated.
The upward radiance from the surface is 50 units, all of which is absor*bed by the ozone. 25 units is then reradiated upwards and 25 units downwards.
On the first graph looking down you see the 25 units of upward emission.
On the second graph looking up you see the 25 units of downward emission.
Between 12 and 8 micrometres is the atmospheric window, with very little GHG absorbtion. Looking down you see all the surface radiation reaching the aircraft. Looking up you see very little downward radiation, because hardly any of the outward radiation is redirected.
For the 15 micrometres band it is more complex because there H2O absorbing bands within the wider CO2 band.
“2. Can the flux be converted to energy, in a way that means anything?”
Are you asking if energy flux can be converted to energy? Please elaborate.
Whichever you prefer. The Figure 8.2 graphs have units of “mW/m²*sr*cm^-1”. The bogus “EEI” uses units of W/m².
Can either be used for “balance”?
Your supposed superior knowledge of Physics should carry you past this simple units conversions problem. But I digress.
By conservation of energy:
Energy In – Energy Out = Accumulation
If accumulation = zero, temperature is constant;
if accumulation > zero, temperature is rising;
if accumulation < zero temperature is falling.
Entropic man
” For the 15 micrometres band it is more complex because there H2O absorbing bands within the wider CO2 band. ”
This becomes a bit stubborn, doesn’t it?
Please show me definitely, in these two pictures describing absorp~tion/emission intensity as a function of wavelength, altitude and atmospheric abundance, where CO2 and H2O overlap in the range of 5-20 microns:
https://i.postimg.cc/FstrQfh5/H2-O-5-20-micron-sbaa-surf.png
https://i.postimg.cc/Vs26LGBh/CO2-5-20-micron-sbaa-surf.png
This is based on the newest data available: the HITRAN-2020 data base.
Ark, that can only mean your answer is “yes”.
Sorry, that’s wrong. Those units don’t “balance”. They’re NOT energy.
Bindidon
My apologies, I misunderstood.
I accepted CO2 is life’s word that there was H2O absor*btion in the 13-17 micrometres band.
If, as you show, there is no H2O absor*btion in the band, then all of the absor*btion in the 13-17 micrometres band is due to CO2 and CO2 is life is talking complete nonsense.
I hope he’s reading this.
So you don’t know how to do units conversions!
Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Solid Angle, Steradian, and/or Wavenumber?
Rhetorical question. I know you haven’t.
Ark, you’re not paying attention. False accusations don’t bother me. It just means you have NOTHING.
Fluxes don’t “balance”. A radiative flux is NOT the same as energy. Energy balances, but flux doesn’t.
I note that you never answer a question.
“A radiative flux is NOT the same as energy.”
The difference between the two is that Energy is a scalar quantity, whereas radiative flux is an energy transfer rate that depends on time and area.
“Energy balances, but flux doesn’t.”
A specific Energy Balance Equation is an application of the Law of Conservation of Energy, accounting for the energy inflow, outflow, generation, and accumulation within a defined system boundary.
Where did you learn such malarkey?
Will you ever provide one reference to a scientific text that supports your assertions? Rhetorical question; there isn’t one single reference that supports your opinion!
Now there’s antelope grazing
in range of my gun
Come opening weekend
you won’t see a one
They’ll vanish like ghosts
’cause somehow they know
But now they’re up to the
fence in the early dawn.
The low is still fed by two tropical waves.
The animation shows another tropical low approaching Florida.
https://i.ibb.co/9YvqMWQ/mimictpw-namer-latest-1.gif
“It appears Joe Biden is now the newest Democrat to jump ship and endorse Trump”
https://pjmedia.com/graysonbakich/2024/09/11/what-a-time-to-be-alive-biden-put-on-a-trump-hat-n4932450
linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Maybe he not getting his meds, anymore?
He doesn’t endorse him so your position is false.
My point is, maybe he not getting the “really great” meds.
Maybe he just doesn’t endorse him instead.
“‘really great’ meds”
Like those issued by the White House during the Trump era.
In his current mental state, Joe would endorse anyone.
Biden played up his cognitive issues to ensure that he remained the target during the Republican National Convention, then blind sided them by withdrawing which had been decided some weeks before. It’s obvious the GOP have no strategy vis-a-vis Harris/Walz which an earlier withdrawal would have allowed.
They don’t need a strategy re Harris/Walz. Both are bs artists. Harris has been a lame duck VP, much like Al Gore, who with his wife, Tipper, made a name for themselves looking out for Satanic verses in rock songs.
Biden made a fool of himself debating Trump then fought vigorously the notion of stepping down. Of course, as he does with climate alarm, he strongly denies the truth.
Walz lied about his military record in which he claimed to have served abroad. He was a failure as a governor. In a similar manner, Harris was a hypocrite as a lawyer and government official. She campaigned against the death penalty yet helped to enforce it. She fought vigorously to keep wrongfully convicted people in jail.
As VP, she helped illegal immigrants cross the US southern border and she has opposed oil production. She has been silent on other Dem policies that are killing the US.
> alarm
That counts as an A-word too.
I am an Eisenhower Republican and today’s GOP is unrecognizable to me.
It’s been a wild journey from “America is the greatest country ever, and you’re a traitor if you disagree!!!” conservatism to Trump’s “America is a filthy shithole, but perhaps, with hard work and a lot of deportations, we might rise to the level of Hungary” line.
Seriously. Why do MAGAs hate this country so much?
Ark, you obviously have closed your eyes to the increased perversion of society in the USA. And the REAL hatred comes from the Left.
Maybe take your blinders off?
Ark,
As usual, you have it back asswards. So, what is an Eisenhower Republican? What did he do that makes you admire his Presidency so much? Trump’s run for Presidency was in response to Obama’s Hope and Change Presidency; bigger government, open borders, weaponizing federal agencies, weakening our military, attacking the Bill of Rights, attacking our children. MAGA understands that making America great means reducing spending and debt, securing our borders, strengthening our military, shrinking federal agencies, protecting our children, and protecting the Bill of Rights. Trump was created by MAGA, not the other way.
“Trump was created by MAGA, not the other way.”
Okay, let me ask you this then: Since I had no idea we had to hide our pets from immigrants and that Kamala Harris was performing transgender surgery on immigrants; is happening before or after they give birth and execute their babies?
I am amazed at all the people here who talk endlessly about Biden and his (obvious) shortcomings.
Because it seems to me that none of them really noticed how desperately Trump lacked self-control halfway through the debate with Harris.
Immigrants eating Americans’ pets?
Is this the level you can expect from a real statesman during such a major debate about America’s future?
All I have seen is a more and more aggressive old man who cannot escape his catastrophically ridiculous claims.
Biden was *forced out* from the ’24 race because he performed worse than Trump. Joy did not perform much better, but will the assigned president nevertheless.
Pets is a *meme*. To keep the talk at the border czar that wasn’t much czar or border anything. Trump ran on the wall. Democrats ran on doubling down on the illegal immigration.
I hope this explains it a bit. The US is totally destroyed by the good people lying about politics, making Trump look like the better option!
Say it is not so, because it is.
> Democrats ran on doubling down on the illegal immigration.
At least you tried.
clint…”An increase in internal energy does NOT always mean an increase in temperature. Temperature corresponds to kinetic energy of molecules. And that kinetic energy corresponds to molecular vibrations, with higher frequency vibrations being able to increase kinetic energy over lower frequency vibrations.
IOW, it takes the right kind of energy to raise temperature. Thats why you cant boil water with ice cubes, no matter how much ice you have”.
***
Heat corresponds to KE, in fact, heat is defined as the KE of atoms. Temperature is simply a human invention to measure the relative level of heat. Actually, Clausius, who defined internal energy for the 1st law, claimed it is a summation of heat (thermal energy) and the work (mechanical energy) in the vibration of atoms in a mass. He specified that heat is required to activate the vibrations.
Yes, thermal energy, aka heat, is the right energy to raise temperature.
Sorry gordon, but you’re wrong again.
In thermodynamics, “heat” is defined as the transfer of energy from “hot” to “cold”. Typically, that corresponds to an increased temperature of the “cold”, and a decreased temperature of the “hot”. “Internal energy” is different. An increase in internal energy does not always result in an increase in temperature.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1687716
(I have no expectation that you will learn any of this. You can’t learn. You don’t even know what time it is.)
Gordon 1:01am: temperature is not heat. Clausius heat is defined as a measure of the total KE of atoms in an object.
Clint 6:03 am: Humorously since in thermodynamics “an increase in internal energy does not always result in an increase in temperature” violates 2LOT in any real thermodynamic process, such is only true in Clint’s faulty imagination, not in real experiments.
But then Clint R doesn’t do experiments thus Clint R is free to imagine any real process in science.
Ball4
To further confuse Clint R, there is one way to add internal heat without raising the temperature.
When you melt ice at 0C in a glass you add heat to break the bonds between H2O molecules. The extra heat become kinetic energy of the molecules in the liquid, but the temperature remains at 0C until the last of the ice melts.
The amount of latent heat used to melt the ice is surprisingly large. Adding the same amount again would increase the temperature of the water by 80C!
If you have a glass, some ice and a thermometer you can try this at home. Ain’t science fun!
Ball4 and Ent won’t be able to understand:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1687716
No Clint R, you humorously missed a minus sign. The massive object added has a temperature colder than the object to which it is added so the thermodynamic internal energy is reduced in the combination.
Clint’s faulty imagination is at work again but funny to read his comments.
Sometimes I actually feel sorry for the cult kids.
Here, poor Ball4 has imagined a “massive object”, where none was mentioned. Then, he demonstrated his ignorance of thermodynamics by claiming adding internal energy requires a minus sign!
I said he wouldn’t be able to understand, so Ball4 proves me right, again.
Ent,
“When you melt ice at 0C in a glass you add heat to break the bonds between H2O molecules. The extra heat become kinetic energy of the molecules in the liquid, but the temperature remains at 0C until the last of the ice melts.”
–
Interesting, how you add heat? What is the process of adding heat?
Can you describe a mechanism of adding heat?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Clint R 1:05 pm now forgets his own comment proving Clint wrong yet again: “where none was mentioned” even though Clint mentioned: “in a quantity of ice”.
Very funny new gaffe Clint; your status as top blog laughing stock remains intact.
Keep proving me right Ball4.
I can take it.
Christos Vournas
You don’t have to make any special arrangements to add heat to a glass of ice.
The last time I did this with my nephew I just left the glass of ice on the table and the heat from its surroundings was enough to thaw the ice.
b4…”Gordon 1:01am: temperature is not heat. Clausius heat is defined as a measure of the total KE of atoms in an object”.
***
Once again, KE does not reference any particular energy, it is only a descriptor for any energy in motion. When Clausius defined heat as the KE of atoms he was obviously referring to the sum of the internal heat and the internal mechanical energy (work) in atomic vibration. If you read him further, he defined internal energy as the sum of the heat is a body and the vibrational energy of atomic vibration.
Therefore the total KE in a body internally is KE(heat) + KE(work).
However, heat is the critical factor. As Clausius explained, heat added to a solid is used partly to increase internal vibration and partly to raise temperature.
We know that it true because heating a solid like iron causes it to expand. The overall increased vibrations actually cause the dimensions to increase.
Then, along came Einstein and tried to foist the propaganda on us that a steel ruler will change its dimension by traveling at speeds closer to the speed of light.
Yeah, pull the other leg, Albert.
Gordon 11:28 pm, your written words are very confused. To have any credibility at all, when referencing Clausius, write for clarity Clausius’ own translated words in his memoirs for any general thermodynamic process:
“I consider my original definition of (U) as representing the sum of the (measure of (the particles KE)) added to the quantity already present and of that expended in interior work, starting from any given initial state, as perfectly exact”
“the increase in the quantity of (the measure of (the particles KE)) actually contained in a body, and the (measure of (the particles KE)) consumed by interior work during a change of condition, are magnitudes of which we commonly do not know the individual values”
which in context resulted in Clausius’ eqn. for any thermodynamic process over time:
dQ+dW=dU
Entropic man says:
September 13, 2024 at 5:26 AM
CO2 is life.
Sigh!
This is elementary stuff.
In the band between 13 and 17 micrometres CO2 and H2O absorb 100% of the upward longwave radiation from the surface. They then reradiate 50% upwards and 50% downwards.
Ugh, what part of you can only absorb 100% don’t you understand? H2O saturates absorption, you done need CO2.
1 mole NA + 1 Mole CL = 1 Mole NACL
1 mole NA + 10 Moles CL = 1 Mole NACL
Adding more to a saturated system doesn’t change the outcome.
Returning to my original OLR graph.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
Look to the left of the CO2 band at wavenumber 500. The gap between the black OLR line and the red surface emission surface emission line above it is about 30 flux units, which is half what the H2O is absor*bing, 60 units.
Move slightly right to wavenumber 650 and the middle of the CO2 band. The gap is now 230 flux units, half the total absor*btion by CO2 and water, 460 flux units.
If the total absor*btion is 460 units and H2O is absor*bing 60 units, then CO2 is absor*bing 460-60 = 400 units.
The C02 is doing 400/460*100 = 87% of the absor*bing and H2O is absor*bing 13%.
In this band CO2 is absor*bing more than six times as much upward radiation as H2O and is clearly the dominant factor.
CO2 is life
Bindidon just made clear to me that there is no H2O absor*btion in the 13-17 micrometres band.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1687853
This makes my 9.50am post superfluous since without H2O absor*btion all of the absor*btion in the band is due to CO2 and you are mistaken.
Entropic man
” This makes my 9.50am post superfluous… ”
Yes.
In the same direction, let us look at the Spectral Calc picture generated for absorp~tion/emission of ozone aka O3, under the very same condtions as for H2O and CO2:
https://i.postimg.cc/vBzBmbhL/O3-5-20-micron-sbaa-surf.png
You see two enormous peaks around 9.6 microns, but… the scaling intensity indicated at the y-axis is nowadays 1.7M times lower than H2O’s, and 34M times lower than CO2’s:
https://i.postimg.cc/Vs26LGBh/CO2-5-20-micron-sbaa-surf.png
and
https://i.postimg.cc/FstrQfh5/H2-O-5-20-micron-sbaa-surf.png
*
Thus, all these old graphs you and Ivanovich are showing are perfect to explain, but no longer good enough to accurately compare.
*
By the way, here is a further Spectral picture including numerous gases intercepting at the surface terrestrial LW IR:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lq6rWXEhIGxLidt8NYrz2CpqjIMJBD1o/view
Of course, I couldn’t resist adding the brilliant IR interceptors N2 and O2 :–)
*
Anyone can add HFC and PFC gases not present in the picture but very well e.g. here, if present in the HITRAN2020 list as well:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/fluorinated-gases-f-gases
https://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
Before starting to plot:
– drop all gases out of the Species list you don’t want to be included, and include those you need
– click on Units and select ‘Microns’
– enter your lower and upper limits
– click on ‘Scale by Atmospheric Abundance’
– chose ‘linear’ in the ‘Scale’ selector
– select the ‘Altitude’ you need.
A 6 inch pizza has an area of 30 square inches.
A 9 inch pizza has an area of 60 square inches.
Eating 100% of a 9 inch pizza you are eating twice as much food as eating 100% of a six inch pizza.
When you add extra CO2 to the atmosphere it makes the absorption band wider and makes more energy available to be absorbed.
Today the band is four micrometres wide and CO2 absorbs 400 radiance units. In the past with less CO2 the band was only 3 micrometres side and only 300 radiance units were available.
In both cases the CO2 absorbed 100% of the energy available.
Increased band width means that 100% absorption gives you more DWLR as the CO2 concentration increases.
“When you add extra CO2 to the atmosphere it makes the absorption band wider and makes more energy available to be absorbed.”
So the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule actually change? Vibrational states are determined/impacted by the concentration? How? Especially considering it is only 1 out of every 2,500 molecules? Are you saying changing CO2 from 1 out of every 3,333 molecules to 1 out of every 2,500 alters the quantum mechanics of a molecule? I could see that maybe at high concentrations, but 0.04%?
Even if I agree with your point. H2O can be 4 out of every 100 molecules, and H2O also absorbs a wider band, in fact they absorb most of the LWIR SPectrum.
Once again, you can only absorb 100% and H2O does that. Simply go test it at MODTRAN.
co2…”So the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule actually change? Vibrational states are determined/impacted by the concentration? How? Especially considering it is only 1 out of every 2,500 molecules?”
***
This is what alarmists don’t understand. A gas with a concentration of only 0.04% cannot possibly absorb a significant amount of surface radiation. And it definitely has nothing to do with the quantum mechanics of surface atoms which have already dissipated their heat as the radiation occurs. Ergo, neither Co2 nor WV can trap heat or affect the rate of heat dissipation.
The rate of heat dissipation at the surface is totally dependent on the average temperature of all air molecules in contact with the surface. Since they are in thermal equilibrium for the most part no heat should be transferred. However, due to gravity and heated air molecules rising, the heated air is replaced by cooler air from above, allowing a heat transfer surface to atmosphere.
As you claim, there is only 1 CO2 molecules per 2500 molecules of N2 and O2. Just a sunlight penetrates those molecules, outgoing surface radiation penetrates the air molecules as well so much so that only less than 10% of the surface radiation is affected.
BTW…quantum mechanics applies only to the electrons of atoms in molecules. Talking about molecular vibration is ingenuous since all pertinent vibration is produced by electron orbitals, including the bonding molecules that connect atoms to make a molecule. The positive charge on the nucleus protons is important but it is a static quantity. The variable affecting vibration is all in the electron bonds. They are the only ones affected by heat and EM radiation.
CO2isLife,
“Ugh, what part of you can only absorb 100% dont you understand? H2O saturates absorption, you done need CO2.”
No such thing as saturation, both CO2 and H2O vapor still have plenty of molecular bonds in the ground state, able to absorb IR.
CO2 and H2O vapor both absorb, so both are working together.
If the surface gets warmer and emits more, the CO2 and H2O will still absorb most all of the radiation in the bands it can absorb.
opic man says:
September 13, 2024 at 11:30 AM
CO2 is life
Bindidon just made clear to me that there is no H2O absor*btion in the 13-17 micrometres band.
???? That isn’t even debaitable.
https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
You can also test that at Spectral Calc.
https://www.spectralcalc.com/calc/spectralcalc.php
It depends on the concentration and length of the Gas Cell, but both CO2 and H2O absorb between 12 and 18 Micron Peak 15. CO2 is more efficient than H2O but the both absord the same wavelengths…unless the computer is wrong…which it isn’t.
Entropic man says:
September 13, 2024 at 11:14 AM
Bindidon
My apologies, I misunderstood.
I accepted CO2 is lifes word that there was H2O absor*btion in the 13-17 micrometres band.
If, as you show, there is no H2O absor*btion in the band, then all of the absor*btion in the 13-17 micrometres band is due to CO2 and CO2 is life is talking complete nonsense.
I hope hes reading this.
What are you guys talking about. Yes, H2O does absorb between 12 and 18 Micron Peak 15. It certainly absorbs 15 Micron. That is demonstrated by every graph and using the Gas Cell at Spectralcalc.
At best you can claim that CO2 is more efficient at absorbing beween 12 and 15 than H2O, but they both absorb it. Absorption is dependent upon concentraiton and lenght of the atmosphere.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.meteo3/files/images/lesson3/absorptivity0304.png
CO2 does not just absorb at one 15 micrometer wavelength spike. Either side for several micrometers are other smaller spikes. The amount absorbed by the various spikes varies with CO2 concentration and the presence of other gases including N2, O2 and argon.
I’ll let the sceptic Clive Best explain the details.
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4597
Once again, go to SpectralCalc and use the GasCell Function. Yes, H2O absorbs in those ranges but yes CO2 absorbs more at a lower concentration and a shorter distance.
Either way, what is important. 12 to 18 Micron, peak 15 is to the right of the atmospheric window. What does that mean? To the left of the bottom of the atmospheric window are temperatures above 64F/18C. If you go to the right of the atmospheric windowds you are dealing with temperatures below 64F/18C. 15 micron is literally -80C, so CO2 is very eficient at absorbing outgoing radiation in very cold environoments. That makes since because H2O precipitates out below 0C, so practically, only CO2 exists anyways in those environoments, and all CO2 does is put a floor in the temperature, like it does in the stratoshpere, it doesn’t result in warming…unless adding ice can warm coffee.
https://skepticalscience.com/CO2_is_a_trace_gas.html
“CO2 makes up 390 ppm (0.039%)* of the atmosphere, how can such a small amount be important? Saying that CO2 is “only a trace gas” is like saying that arsenic is “only” a trace water contaminant. Small amounts of very active substances can cause large effects. “
john…I don’t read fiction from sites like skepticalscience. The leader of the group, John Cook, is an undergrad who passes himself off as a solar scientist. He does not work in science he is a cartoonist.
He created a bs analysis that offered the conclusion that 97% of scientists support the AGW theory. His analysis was royally panned by real scientists.
Note in the following link how Cook is wearing a Nazi uniform. Is this what you support?
https://climateaudit.org/2014/05/17/threats-from-the-university-of-queensland/
Cook’s identity left of physicist Lubos Motl.
https://australianclimatesceptics.com/?p=188
> an undergrad
https://crankyuncle.com/about/
This app could be useful for those who pay attention to the comment section of this blog.
John W
I suddenly see below your comment:
” Note in the following link how Cook is wearing a Nazi uniform. Is this what you support? ”
*
As always, ignoramus-in-chief Robertson posts links to what he has no knowledge about.
You just need to spend a few minutes in Google to discover that the source of the picture (of course locally) posted by the McIntyre boy is not 100% identifiable. It was probably posted at SKS in the comment section and quickly pasted by someone just before it was removed.
*
You find the same stuff at WUWT
https://wattsupwiththat.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/1_herrcook.jpg
at Jonova
https://joannenova.com.au/s3/jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/debunk/skepticalscience/1_herrcook-sml.gif
even at the harsh pseudo-skeptic site
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
and finally, also at a ‘religious’ site (hmmmmh)
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/papal-encyclical-global-warming-speaker-of-smooth-lies-and-rush.178092/page-19
*
The very best is to see how dirty it gets step by step when you look at the populartechnology site’s head post about the picture:
” Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). ”
This IS EXACTLY what the disgusting boy Robertson, as a friend of discrediting, denigrating and lying, 100% supports.
Thanks for the links. Being falsely labeled a Nazi online is one of the most damaging accusations someone can face. I sympathize with Mr. Cook.
This situation also exposes the irony in climate skeptics’ claims that the other side is silencing or discrediting them unfairly.
ent…”When you melt ice at 0C in a glass you add heat to break the bonds between H2O molecules. The extra heat become kinetic energy of the molecules in the liquid, but the temperature remains at 0C until the last of the ice melts”.
The amount of latent heat used to melt the ice is surprisingly large. Adding the same amount again would increase the temperature of the water by 80C!”
***
The scary part for me is that you are a teacher and you are filling kids heads with your pseudo-science.
It is not latent heat per se melting the ice, it is added, external heat. You asked Christos with great naivete, where the added heat comes from? Where else can it come from with a glass of ice sitting on a table when the ambient temperature is room temperature (20C). It comes from air molecules.
The latent heat part is a reference only to the external heat that serves to break ice molecule bonds while keeping the temperature relatively constant.
Of course, according to Clint, this is not heat. He has defined heat as a mysterious energy that is being transferred hot to cold. He won’t name the energy being transferred but he insists it is not heat. I keep asking him to name the energy being transferred but all Clint offers is insults and ad homs.
In a similar manner, you are talking about latent heat and how amazing it is, yet you appear to have no idea what it is. The latent heat of melting ice is the heat absorbed to enable ice molecules to break into a liquid. The heat with a glass of ice on a table must come from the room air molecules. However, latent heat in this situation only refers to the transition phase from solid to liquid.
You are an alarmist who is an alarmist out of sheer emotion. You have adopted a cause and you lack the science to support it. Of course, with skeptics like Clint supporting you it makes it more difficult for skeptics to get the real science message across.
gordon, you’re doing the same things again. You’re misrepresenting me and falsely accusing me. You’re doing the same things over and over, hoping for different results. That’s insane.
Nonsense from you: “He won’t name the energy being transferred but he insists it is not heat.”
That’s a complete fabrication. I have explained it to you several times. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. You have a hard time with “truth”.
More nonsense from you: “Of course, with skeptics like Clint supporting you…”
Another false accusation. I continually admonish Ent for his made-up crap, as I admonish you for yours. Neither of you can learn because you both are in cults — separate cults, but cults nevertheless.
You have a hard time with truth and reality. Please seek professional therapy. You’re a sicko.
More on latent heat, a subject that can prove controversial.
Latent heat is not a magical heat that appears from nowhere. Technically, it is defined for a change of state from solid to liquid, or liquid to gas. The terms applied are the latent heat of fusion and latent heat of evapourization. Both occur at only one temperature at STP, either 0C or 100C.
Both require the addition of external heat.
How about evapouration that takes place between 0C and 100C? I certainly does not take place at a certain temperature, it can occur at any temperature between the two limits. The degree of evapouration in between depends on the humidity, or the amount of WV in the air.
It would seem that latent heat applies only at the freezing point and boiling points of water. However, you will see people applying the latent heat of vaporization at temperatures between 0c and 100C.
Obviously, if solar energy is converted to heat in sea water, it can break the weak bonds holding water molecules together. As the bonds break, heat is released. According to the experiment of the scientist Joule, agitating water with a small paddle releases heat in the water. It would appear that the heat is a result of broken water bonds.
Some of the water molecules could conceivably escape as vapour and that would be a result of mechanical action rather than thermal action. it seems then that evapouration could conceivably be the result of another process than heat.
Gordon, I think this is backwards.
“Obviously, if solar energy is converted to heat in sea water, it can break the weak bonds holding water molecules together. As the bonds break, heat is released.”
I think evaporation creates the latent heat and evaporation releases it. That is one way heat is transfered out of the system. Water absorbs heat, evaporates, carries the heat to altitude, condences, and releases the heat at a higher altitude.
“Yes, when water condenses, it releases heat into the surrounding environment; this is because as water vapor turns back into liquid, the molecules become more organized, releasing energy in the form of heat.
Key points about condensation and heat release:
Latent heat: The heat released during condensation is called “latent heat”.”
Earth is a planet, like any other planet we know in solar system.
Neither Stefan, no Boltzmann said anything about planets being ideal blackbodies.
–
Hansen compared the theorized planet UNIFORM surface temperature
(the Earth’s EFFECTIVE temperature Te =255K) with the Satellite Measured Earth’s average surface temperature Tmean =288K.
–
Those temperatures, the planet UNIFORM surface temperature, and the planet AVERAGE surface temperature are different Physical Terms.
–
By Hansen’s idealized Formula, when considering a planet AVERAGE surface temperature, it cannot mathematically exceed the same planet idealized UNIFORM surface temperature.
–
Thus, Hansen resumed, the satellite measured Earth’s AVERAGE surface temperature Tmean =288K,
is at least +33Cwarmer than the theorized Earth’s UNIFORM temperature 255K.
–
The +33C had to be somehow explained. So it was attributed to the not existent (the very insignificant) the Earth’s atmosphere Greenhouse Effect.
–
Also, it was asserted, the above very confusing and very mistaken conclusion (the Earth having at least +33C (Greenhouse Effect), it was asserted the above was in full accordance with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT).
–
They ignored the INITIAL Fundamental Mistake, they had made.
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law cannot be used wise-versa. One cannot determine a surface temperature by simply measuring the radiative flux’s intensity falling upon it.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…the original Stefan equation had no emissivity parameter in it. It was strictly a relationship between the colour given off by a platinum filament wire heated electrically between the temperatures of about 500C and 1500C. Stefan did not care about emissivity, just the colour of EM given off, which indicated the frequency/wavelength (colour temperature). That gave him an idea of the ratio of temperature to EM intensity.
Stefan’s student was Boltzmann. He was a theoretician who applied probability theory to imaginary atoms in a gas and he would be the influence on Stefan re expanding the simply Stefan equation into the more complex and theoretical form it is in today.
In my opinion, Boltzmann was wrong in his theories. He started the theory that entropy could be stated using statistical mechanics, thus leading generations of scientists in the wrong direction. Entropy was defined by Clausius, who based it on the infinitesimal sum of heat quantities used up in a reaction. Boltzmann related entropy to disorder and for some reason his definition has been adopted by many.
Don’t worry, this isn’t the start of a new ice age. Earth is just showing off one of its cooling systems:
https://postimg.cc/WD3GNMvB
Will someone please explain the relavance of GHGs not being ideal Blackbodies?
Neither Stefan, no Boltzmann said anything about planets being ideal blackbodies.
The whole point is that the Blackbody represents the TOTAL energy.
A GHG will absorb and rediate A SMALL FRACTION of a blackbody.
Why is that important? That is important because when CO2 is matched againts a blackbody “THAT OVERSTATES THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT CO2 COULD ACTUALLY ABSORB AND RE-RADIATE.
By comparing CO2 to a BLackbody like I and others do, we are erroring to the high side of any possible effect CO2 can cause. The Blackbody represents a MAXIMUM, when in realty CO2 is only a small fraction of the total energy represented under a Blackbody.
> Will someone please explain the relavance of GHGs not being ideal Blackbodies?
Greenhouse gases are real.
You’re welcome.
Willard, you are completely missing the point. A blackbody represents a Maximum amount of energy represented by radiator. In this case the earth is the radiator and no it is not a Blackbody. The earth emits a spectrum consistent with a body of temperature 64F/18C. That is why the atmospheric window is centered around 9 Microns. 9 Microns is consistent with temperature around 64F/18C. The key point is that physics determines the GHG Effect. There is extremely little energy between 12 and 18 Microns Peak of 15, AND CO2 DOESN’T ABSORB 100% of IT. A blackbody OVERREPRESENTS the energy CO2 can contirbute to warming. That is the whole point, a blackbody OVERSTATES the possible affect of CO2 on climate change. BTW, the one and only defined mechainism by which CO2 can affect the climate is through the thermalization, ie warming, of the atmosphere. It can not cause cooling as defined by the vibrational states of a CO2 molecule. Vibrations can only cause warming.
> OVERSTATES
Not really, for that idealization is normalized throughout the spectrum.
A model is a model is a model.
CO2isLife,
“It can not cause cooling as defined by the vibrational states of a CO2 molecule. Vibrations can only cause warming.”
Yes it can cause cooling, that’s what is does in the stratosphere.
By emitting to space.
A black body, by definition, has uniform surface temperature.
Also a blackbody, by definition, is already warmed at some temperature body. When emitting, a blackbody has a steady temperature, which is supported by an unlimited inner energy source.
A blackbody is not supposed to get warmed by any kind of incident on it radiation. A blackbody, by definition, simply absorbs all incident on it radiation (it is a not reflecting body).
But that’s it. When a blackbody absorbs the incident on it radiation, by definition, nothing happens to the blackbody surface temperature.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, CO2 is life
Real world objects are not black bodies, they are known as grey bodies because they absor*b and radiate slightly less energy than an ideal black body.
This is allowed for in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation by adding the emissivity term.
For water you can measure absor*ption and emission and you find that they absor*b and radiate about 95% of the values predicted for an ideal black body. The emissivity for water is therefore 0.95. Factoring this into the SB equation allows you to calculate the real world behaviour of water.
And yes, physicists have sufficient wit to include emissivity in their calculations, though sceptics struggle with the concept.
Neither Stefan, no Boltzmann said a word about term emissivity.
They used a single coefficient “σ”.
Emissivity “ε” is a different coeffficient for every different surface.
Thus, there is the combained coefficient “ε*σ”, wich is different for every different surface.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Entropic man says:
September 14, 2024 at 10:20 AM
Christos, CO2 is life
Real world objects are not black bodies,
Ugh!!! Please explain how that is relevant to the GHG Effect, the earth’s IR radiation, and the CO2 molecule.
No one denies they aren’t blackbodies, I’ve explained that above. Please explain how you think that benefits your belief that CO2 is the cause of all climate change? Please put things in context. Note, anything less that a blackbody contains LESS energy to cause climate change with. That is the whole point. Not being a blackbody doesn’t help your case.
bobdroege says:
September 14, 2024 at 10:20 AM
CO2isLife,
It can not cause cooling as defined by the vibrational states of a CO2 molecule. Vibrations can only cause warming.
Yes it can cause cooling, thats what is does in the stratosphere.
By emitting to space.
I stand corrected, you are correct. My point was relevant to the CO2 molecule itself and near the surface where climate is affected.
In reality, CO2 does warm the stratosphere, that is why it doesn’t fall below -80C. It does help move energy out of the system, but the vibrating CO2 molecules prevent it from falling below -80C.
What case? Emissivity is what it is.
CO2isLife,
Thanks,
But CO2 does not warm the stratosphere, Ozone does that, CO2 cools the stratosphere.
Aren’t absorption and emissivity characteristics measured and recorded in HITRAN?
Ken
Do you mean something like this?
https://i.postimg.cc/vBzBmbhL/O3-5-20-micron-sbaa-surf.png
https://i.postimg.cc/Vs26LGBh/CO2-5-20-micron-sbaa-surf.png
https://i.postimg.cc/FstrQfh5/H2-O-5-20-micron-sbaa-surf.png
MODTRAN
SpectralCalc
Someone doesn’t seem to realize that the links I posted ARE from Spectral Calc:
https://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.msnbc.com/the-revolution-with-steve-kornacki
So if there’s one guy to blame for the MAGA craze (it too shall pass), blame Newt.
Newt was part of the story of how a New York Dem, won a republican presidential primary. But in terms of “MAGA craze” an significant factor related to this is the Trump Derangement Syndrome, one could blame Newt for causing it, but going so far as saying he “knowingly caused it” seems rather unlikely to me. I tend to think of pols as rather simple creatures, and not god like geniuses.
Blaming otters is an old tradition:
https://images.dailykos.com/images/574802/story_image/1350.png?1533664371
Source: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/8/1786532/-Cartoon-You-made-me-become-a-Nazi
Williard, people on the left find that funny? The immaturity is beyond words. Talk about out of touch, all you need to do is attend a trump rally so see how misguided that cartoon is.
You smear Trump Supporters and ignore the real risk threatening democracy. Pay attention to the party about risking everything to cross Democrats. That is the real threat, when you have 50% of America being dehumanized by one party that will destroy their lives to stay in power.
https://youtu.be/Trrp-tgKvR0?si=ykJP68GOHzMwN2Ej
I time stamped the part to listen to.
https://youtu.be/Trrp-tgKvR0?si=Eg9L9kRclR0JQLB4&t=1113
People literally live in fear of what Democrats will do to them. “People have to lie about their support for trump…if they do they put a large part of their life at risk.”
That is Fascism 101.
That’s not a knife. Here’s a knife:
https://www.rawstory.com/mary-trump-signaling-his-plan-always-projection/
Regardless what some people might think about CO2, one thing remains, namely that we measure since quite a while at numerous places a lot of radiative components, e.g.:
– downwelling SW
– upwelling SW
– downwelling LW
– upwelling LW
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/sitepage.html
*
For example, Fort Peck in Montana, USA:
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/ftpeck.html
with data:
https://gml.noaa.gov/aftp/data/radiation/surfrad/Fort_Peck_MT/
*
A plot of data for Sep 1, 2024:
https://i.postimg.cc/Gpn7btC4/Surfrad-Fort-Peck-MT-010924.png
As anyone can see, the surface does not stop emitting infrared at night, when the sunny boy does not shine.
You did not mention that conduction/convection is 260 times more efficient at removing heat than radiation. By night time, most of the heat has been dissipated by convection.
As usual, the pseudo-skeptic Robertson fool once more ‘forgot’ that his Shula/Pirani nonsense has been disproven and that convection is also a 100% non-sequitur in relation to what I wrote.
The graphs I posted links to, show data recorded by pyranometers and pyrgeometers (of course, devices that coincidentally have always been discredited by all pseudo-skeptics).
And to make this clear once and for all, the graphs above do not show heat, but… long-wave infrared radiation produced as the Earth’s response to short-wave solar radiation.
*
But like always, Robertson deliberately will ignore that his lies and nonsensical statements were contradicted, and repeat them ad nauseam, like the non-existence of time, GPS needing no relativistic corrections or even German courts having allegedly supported by ruling Lanka’s denial of the existence of the measles virus, etc etc etc.
SpaceXs Starship Plans Thrown Off Course! Whats Really Going On?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHdX7vvp-LI
Indeed, what is going on. A lot- and not enough.
An incomplete future launch list:
September 16 Falcon 9 Galileo FOC FM26 & FM32
September 18 Falcon 9 Starlink 9-17
NET September 25 Falcon 9 Crew 9
TBD Vulcan Certification Flight 2
October 7 Falcon 9 Hera
NET October 10 Falcon Heavy Europa Clipper
NET November New Glenn NG-1
TBD Vulcan Centaur Dream Chaser 1
NET Spring 2025 New Glenn EscaPADE
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
A lot of ones missing are the many falcon-9 starlink launch- I guess there is too many to list them.
And no one knows when Starship will launch.
My latest “theory” is starship 6 will launch before 5.
And I would say what we are “really waiting for” is the building enough Raptor 3 engine. And due to delay from FAA, it seems we are waiting for new launch tower to be completed.
Or critical path to NASA lunar crew landing is having 2 launch towers, and Musk will probably get 4 launch towers or more to actually do that crew landing on the Moon.
Other things within next 6 months:
Second ispace lunar lander planned for launch in December
Jeff Foust September 12, 2024
https://spacenews.com/second-ispace-lunar-lander-planned-for-launch-in-december/
?Resilience is just one of three lunar landers proposing to launch late this year or early next year on separate Falcon 9 flights. Firefly Aerospaces Blue Ghost 1 lander arrived at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for environmental testing in August ahead of a launch the company says is scheduled for the fourth quarter of this year. Intuitive Machines is also preparing for its second lunar lander mission, called IM-2, set for launch in December or early January.
The missions, though, will take different paths to the moon after launch. IM-2 will follow a direct trajectory, with a landing about a week after launch. Firefly said its Blue Ghost lander would spend a month in Earth orbit before going into lunar orbit for two weeks ahead of a landing attempt.
At the briefing, ispaces Ujiie said Mission 2 will follow the same low-energy trajectory as the first mission, with a landing four to five months after launch. “
CO2isLife
“You smear Trump Supporters and ignore the real risk threatening democracy.”
I would say this is threatening to democracy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3LjfmUDXbU
Wouldn’t you say?
Just good-old boys having a protest. Seriously over-analyzed by the fake news outlets.
Here in Canada, the truckers convoy protested covid vaccines being mandatory for some. Our government called them insurrectionists, suggesting they planned to overthrow the country. They froze bank accounts of the truckers and their supporters and made inflammatory statements.
Now our PM supports giving Ukraine long range weapons so they can attack Russia. Putin has already warned about that, claiming he will use nukes in retaliation.
We are on the bring of a nuclear war and you are splitting hairs while pushing propaganda about catastrophic climate change.
At least here in the province of BC, our Premier is showing signs of sanity. He is looking into getting rid of our carbon tax.
“I would say this is threatening to democracy:”
Really, have you bothered to watch the actual videos? Listen to the Jan 6th Committee’s deliberately misrepresent, obstruct, and conceal evidence? They repeatedly tell lies about a Cop being killed. They selectively targeted people to prosecute. They didn’t however prosecute the obvious agitators. Who were those people dressed like Antifa breaking the windows? Why weren’t they arrested. Who built the gallows? Why weren’t they arrested. Why hasn’t the FBI found the pipe bomber? Why didn’t Nancy Pelosi call in the guard and why would she have her Daughter there to film everything.
I guess you think the 51 Spies that Lied did so honestly even though the FBI had the laptop for a full year, and then the FBI worked to censor the news on social media.
You never cried when Democratic burned, rioted and looted for 4 years, and you don’t seem to care about the unequal application of the law, and the fact that the Democrats literally just pulled off a Coup and we now have a candidate that is running for president without ever getting a single vote.
Those are real threats to Democracy.
Endless lies promoted by the Media
https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1830239811417800877
Putin endorces Kamala
https://x.com/RaheemKassam/status/1831773281403170968
BTW, Putin knew there was no “Russian Collusion” and he remianed the Democrats to impeach Trump. Putin has a 2nd Hunter Laptop and there have been no leaks. Biden and Hunter aided Ukraine, Russia, and China develep CONVENTIONAL ENERGY Project and worked against domestic production and Biden approved the Nordstream and banned the Keystone and ANWR. Simply connect the dots.
The alignment and corruption of the FBI, CIA, NAS, Academia, Judiciary, Media, NGOs, and Big Tech against the America people is the greatest threat to democracy.
Rigging Debates
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/09/10/21-kamala-harris-false-claims-hoaxes-that-debate-moderators-did-not-fact-check/
Fascism = System over Individual
https://x.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1829494766276350173
Lawfare threatens America
https://youtu.be/HW3Ip9_k_zc?si=TLrheeyIh0kiHiJ6
Democrat’s hand selected and anointed candidate:
https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1829695627309064572
The result
https://x.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/1833729585181295034
Time Magzine actually detailed the Fascist blueprint to rigging the election. Blueprint to Tyranny.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Google “Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List (Updated)
By Sharyl Attkisson | August 22, 2024”
Link won’t post. A corrupt media is a real threat to democracy.
The media lies and gaslights everything
https://x.com/AnthonyScottTGP/status/1835053384862167196
2nd Assisination attempt on President Trump, and John W and others like him are obsessed with the False Flag Jan 6th Operation. They will believe anything, accept every hoax, fall for every False Flag, because they simply see what they want to see. If President Trump loses, Democrats may put him is prison. Want to end Democracy, that would do it.
For some reason Life left some details:
https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/trump-assassination-attempt-update-latest-news-2xpldkjcl
Who had a Republican-gun-nut-who-is-a-Haley-fan-but-voted-for-Donold-in-2016 on their bingo card?
CO2isLife,
There is no evidence to support the extremist idea that January 6th was a ‘false flag operation.’ There have been extensive investigations by the FBI and various congressional committees that have found the violence was primarily driven by supporters of Donald Trump, acting on his DISinformation and extremist rhetoric. Do you want to discredit the FBI?
Mitch McConnell also described January 6th as a ‘violent insurrection.’ His stance is very significant and is in alignment with the views of many politicians across the political spectrum.
Respectfully, your views strike me as extremist.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sen-mitch-mcconnell-rebukes-rnc-calls-jan-6-violent-insurrection
“The alignment and corruption of the FBI, CIA, NAS, Academia, Judiciary, Media, NGOs, and Big Tech against the America people is the greatest threat to democracy.”
Uggh, is there anyone you might be forgetting who may have already joined this ‘massive conspiracy’?
What about the Jewish space lasers? Taylor Swift? Disney? The KC Chiefs?
Remember, they are all out to get ya, CO2islife!
“If President Trump loses, Democrats may put him is prison. Want to end Democracy, that would do it.”
Right, because according to MAGA world, some people are above the law!
Recall how DT said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue, and people would still vote for him!
This seems to be more true than ever.
–LEO BEATS GEO: United Airlines bumps GEO operators off fleet for Starlink Wi-Fi.
United, which has more routes across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans than any other airline, plans to offer passengers high-speed, low-latency Starlink Wi-Fi for free.
Everything you can do on the ground, youll soon be able to do onboard a United plane at 35,000 feet, just about anywhere in the world, United CEO Scott Kirby said in a statement.
According to United, supported Starlink services would include live streaming, gaming and the ability to connect multiple devices at once under one user.
On the one hand, yay, progress. On the other hand, I usually dont even connect to existing aircraft wifi because I enjoy reading my book in peace.
Posted at 9:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds —
https://instapundit.com/
Also linked from:
NEO Surveyor: NASAs Next Leap in Asteroid Defense
By Jet Propulsion LaboratorySeptember 14, 2024
https://scitechdaily.com/neo-surveyor-nasas-next-leap-in-asteroid-defense/
“NASAs NEO Surveyor, an infrared space telescope, is under construction at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, aimed at detecting hard-to-find asteroids and comets that pose a threat to Earth.
Set for a 2027 launch, this spacecraft will operate from the L1 Lagrange point, using advanced infrared detectors to spot and track near-Earth objects, including dark asteroids and potential Earth Trojans. Its mission is enhanced by a collaborative effort across institutions, ensuring a robust approach to planetary defense.”
…
“Targeting launch in late 2027, the spacecraft will travel a million miles to a region of gravitational stability called the L1 Lagrange point between Earth and the Sun. From there, its large sunshade will block the glare and heat of sunlight, allowing the mission to discover and track near-Earth objects as they approach Earth from the direction of the Sun, which is difficult for other observatories to do. The space telescope also may reveal asteroids called Earth Trojans, which lead and trail our planets orbit and are difficult to see from the ground or from Earth orbit.”
Hmm, finding more Earth Trojans, would be cool, also.
HARMONY OF RESILIENCE (Violin cover) by Sarah Gillis | Rey’s Thttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD1ixTr4JWYheme by John Williams | Polaris Dawn
Linked from:
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/the-evening-pause/sarah-gillis-reys-theme/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD1ixTr4JWY
co2…”I think evaporation creates the latent heat and evaporation releases it. That is one way heat is transfered out of the system. Water absorbs heat, evaporates, carries the heat to altitude, condences, and releases the heat at a higher altitude”.
***
Evapouration is the result of water molecules breaking the bonds that hold them in liquid form. Therefore it is simply a description of that process. it doesn’t describe the underlying atomic process.
Ask yourself, how do the water molecule bonds get the energy to break apart? They are held together by weak hydrogen bonds, which are bonds formed by dipole action.
If you look at a hydrogen molecule it has one oxygen atom covalently bonded to two hydrogen atoms by electron bonds. In this case, the oxygen is not a molecule but a simple atom. The angle formed between the bonds is about 105 degrees. The oxygen end is relatively more negative than the hydrogen ends which is relatively positive. Therefore you have two dipoles with a common oxygen atom end.
If this interests you, look up electronegativity, a term coined by Linus Pauling to describe the affinity certain atoms have for attracting orbiting electrons. Put simply, oxygen has 8 electrons and hydrogen only one. Therefore the bonds formed between the O-atom and the H-atoms is a natural dipole. This is because, as the electron orbits both the O- and H-atoms, it spends more time at the oxygen end of the bonds, making it more negative than the H-ends.
If those dipoles in a water molecule interact with the dipoles in another water molecule, the negatives attract the positives and vice-versa. To break such a bonds, energy is required in the form of heat or EM. That’s because the electrostatic forces binding the water molecules needs energy to break them.
Remember, those bonds are electrons orbiting both the O- and H-atoms. If you give the electrons more energy, it affects the orbits and that affects the dipole bonds that are fairly weak compared to the O-H bonds. There is also vibration in the bonds and increasing the energy of the electrons in the bonds, likely causes the weak dipole bonds to break apart.
Breaking these bonds occurs right down to ice, where vapour can be formed via sublimation, where the solid ice converts directly to WV gas. It appears then, that direct sunlight on ice or snow can cause WV release.
Therefore, evapouration requires external heat or radiation (sometimes an electrical current) to break the hydrogen bonds to free the individual water molecules as vapour. Latent heat refers to the heat absorbed while the process is at a constant temperature. However, the latent heat must be supplied externally to produce evapouration.
With electrical currents, the stronger O-H bonds themselves can break to produce oxygen and hydrogen.
gordon appears to be confusing “phase change” with “dissociation”. He know NOTHING about the science. He just keeps pounding on his keyboard, obvious to reality.
Clint R 6:56 am sometimes does stumble into writing words that really do point out poor science in comments. Gordon’s 9:52 pm comment is really confused & scientifically incorrect writing in context:
“Evapouration is the result of water molecules breaking the bonds that hold them in liquid form.”
The process called “evaporation” is when, every now and then, a water molecule near the liquid water surface acquires enough kinetic energy in collisions with its fellow water molecules to escape their attraction. In that situation, freed up water molecules enter the space above the liquid.
Thus, evaporation depends on the state of the liquid not the state of the gas above the liquid.
both of you are merely describing the same process as Gordon.
”To make water evaporate, energy has to be added. The water molecules in the water absorb that energy individually. Due to this absorption of energy the hydrogen bonds connecting water molecules to one another will break. The molecules are now in the gaseous state; this is called water vapour.”
https://www.lenntech.com/water-chemistry-advanced-faq.htm#:~:text=To%20make%20water%20evaporate%2C%20energy,this%20is%20called%20water%20vapour.
Perhaps you can tone down your lack of knowledge some and try to learn something.
Sorry Bill, but I understand the chemistry. What we have to face is gordon’s incompetent rambling about things he doesn’t understand. Want an example:
“If you look at a hydrogen molecule it has one oxygen atom covalently bonded to two hydrogen atoms by electron bonds.”
He fills the blog with garbage like that incessantly.
From Google AI:
”When an oxygen atom is covalently bonded to two hydrogen atoms, it forms a water molecule, with the chemical formula H2O; this means one oxygen atom is connected to two hydrogen atoms through shared electron pairs, creating a covalent bond between them.”
I don’t know what the difference is and I suppose 99.9% of people who are not chemists know. But you might consider reviewing a lot of your own posts about how precisely you print something in here then consider taking a chill pill.
Bill, a hydrogen molecule does NOT have “one oxygen atom covalently bonded to two hydrogen atoms by electron bonds.”
gordon has incorrectly stated the situation, as usual. And you have obediently tagged along like an obedient puppy dog, now snapping at people that bring you reality.
Glad you’re joining his cult. He needs membership….
Bill 1:27 pm believes what he hears from his daddy without him providing any reliable support for the idea. Bill needs to consult a more informed, critical expert – you know, one with reliable equations backing the prose.
If I put a bowl of tap water right in the refrigerator, the water still evaporates, Bill. Though at a reduced rate from when the water was equilibrated with the 1bar room temperature
.
Evaporation is a cooling process as the avg. KE of the water molecules left behind decreases. Perhaps Bill can tone down his lack of knowledge some and try to learn something.
When an oxygen atom is covalently bonded to two hydrogen atoms, it forms a water molecule, with the chemical formula H2O; this means one oxygen atom is connected to two hydrogen atoms through shared electron pairs, creating a covalent bond between them.
Clint R says:
”Bill, a hydrogen molecule does NOT have one oxygen atom covalently bonded to two hydrogen atoms by electron bonds.”
—————————-
Clint seems to think there is a material difference between a ”bond” and a ”sharing electron pairs”.
As I see it you are trying to play some kind of ”queen’s english” game with Gordon. Sharing is like marriage like a bond. . .like your child.
Ball4 says:
”Evaporation is a cooling process as the avg. KE of the water molecules left behind decreases. Perhaps Bill can tone down his lack of knowledge some and try to learn something.”
And then Ball4 chimes in with something I wasn’t even talking about as if he actually believes he is telling me something I don’t already know.
You two are neck and neck for my nomination for the jerk of the month award in this forum. Don’t either of you have a better use for your time?
Correcting Bill’s faulty 1:27 pm comment is a decent use of time since to make water evaporate – energy does not have to be added contrary to his comment. Thermal energy can be subtracted as in the experiment I noted and water will still evaporate but at a slower rate and lower temperature than STP. I do understand name calling is Bill’s only available defense.
LMAO!
The only thing I posted at 1:27 was a quote from the website of a company in Holland that specializes in water technology.
And we have Ball 4 with his horrible reading comprehension skills attributing that to me, attacking the company as incompetent when he apparently as absolutely no credentials and no doubt never rose to a senior staff position in any science based profession.
Bill…thanks for your input. It helps to have a measured voice of reason when attacked by climate alarmists and their friends.
Bill now attempts to distance himself from his 1:27 pm link & laughs at it. Good move Bill. The blog remembers.
clint…”Nonsense from you: He wont name the energy being transferred but he insists it is not heat.
Thats a complete fabrication. I have explained it to you several times. I can explain it to you, but I cant understand it for you. You have a hard time with truth”.
***
Still no humour. You have never explained what energy is transferred, you have only inferred that internal energy is actually thermal energy. That’s only partially true since Clausius defined internal energy for solids as internal heat plus the internal work in vibrating molecules. Clausius had no problem referencing thermal energy as heat.
Therefore there are only two energy forms available to transfer: heat and work. Since the work related to vibrating atom in a solid cannot be transferred per se, that leaves only heat to be transferred. According to you, heat is then a transfer of heat.
Come on, Clint, cheer up and let’s have some humour out of you. If you are dour about science, and bitter, your image/ego gets in the way of the science.
gordon, I’ll let you handle the childish humor, as evidenced both above and below. But, I try not to laugh at people with mental sickness….
Get professional help.
Still no explanation from Clint as to what energy is allegedly transferred by heat. The deafening silence on that illustrates that Clint has no answer and is reduced to ad homs and insults.
As for clogging the blog, it is filled with similar outbursts from Clint, laden with insults and ad hominem arguments, which he liberally advances in lieu of real science.
I have urged Clint recently, in friendly terms, to lighten up and apply some humour but he only increases his volume of angry outbursts.
I don’t thinks CO2 can cool the atmosphere, there is only a fraction of the CO2 at sea level and it doesn’t do anything significant there.
As Ren has pointed out, the stratosphere warms when oxygen molecules absorb UV and warm. However, there are only a fraction of O2 molecules in the stratosphere compared to the surface, so there won’t be a significant warming. I am sure no human could survive there in shorts and a tee shirt without supplemental oxygen.
No one can survive above 8000 metres in a tee shirt and shorts, it’s far too cold. Also, no one can survive long above 8000 metres unless well acclimatized. The stratosphere is considerably higher than 8000 metres.
On the other hand, there is plenty of O2 in the troposhpere and we know it absorbs microwave radiation. Therefore it must be warming the atmosphere. I don’t see that source of warming mentioned in the GHE or AGW theories. Furthermore, if the O2 is warmed independently, CO2 and WV can’t transfer any heat in them to O2.
Now gordon is confusing “microwaves” with “microwave ovens”. Photons in the microwave band have “hottest” wavelengths about 100μ, which corresponds to a WDL temperature of about -405F, or -243C. Microwave ovens use photons in the same band, but the photons are “driven” unnaturally (the entropy is lowered by engineering and adding energy).
gordon, you don’t understand any of this and you can’t learn. Please stop clogging the blog, just because you have nothing else going in your life but pounding on your keyboard.
Get professional help, before it’s too late.
No confusion here, a microwave is a microwave. The definition is based on frequency, not intensity.
Once again, Clint, lacking any humour whatsoever, challenges me in a field with which I have considerable expertise, and makes a fool of himself.
The microwave spectrum is roughly 0.3 Ghz to 300 Ghz. A microwave oven operates at roughly 2.5 Ghz whereas oxygen in the atmosphere radiates in the 60 Ghz band. Cell phones operate between about 0.6 Ghz and 39 Ghz.
If you place a glass of water in front of a cell phone transmitter or in front of O2 molecules in the atmosphere, the water won’t warm, yet in a microwave oven, similar microwaves boil the water in a minute or so. What’s the difference?
Clint is arguing that 15um IR is significant because it is 15 um. It is far too weak in intensity to produce significant warming in GHGs, not only because it is weak, but due to the fact the atmosphere has only 0.04% of CO2. O2 on the other hand makes up 22% of the atmosphere, therefore has a far greater warming effect than CO2 or WV.
In a microwave oven, a magnetron is used to accelerate electrons to a very high speed and the resultant EM field they give off is in the microwave frequency range. However, it has a very high amplitude (intensity) compared to the microwave energy used in cell phones and O2 molecules.
Similarly, a radar signal when transmitted at 15,000 watts can make anyone standing directly in front of the transmitter very sick. The EM transmitted has enough power to affect the atoms in a human body. The returning wave, at a few microvolts can do no harm.
Clint does not understand the very basics of physics, but no big deal, let’s keep the humour going. Giggle, laugh, have a good time.
The planet effective temperature Te (the planet equilibrium temperature) is a first approximation temperature of the planetary surface.
The Te is a mathematical abstraction, the Te approximates planetary temperatures without-atmosphere, because of its original mathematical definition.
The Te formula assumes planets behave as blackbodies, which is a wrong assump-ion, because planets and moons actually are not blackbodies.
The theoretical blackbody is an already warmed at certain temperature surface.
A blackbody is not getting warmed by the incident on its surface EM irradiance, because a blackbody is defined without being a materialistic object.
So, there is not any atoms to interact with the incoming solar energy on the blackbody’s surface.
By definition, a blackbody absorbs all the incident on its surface EM radiation (by this implying that blackbody doesn’t reflect, by this implying that blackbody’s outgoing EM energy is purely determined only by its surface’s absolute temperature in fourth power).
There is not any mention of the incident EM energy somehow affecting (warming) the blackbody’s surface.
So, the Te is a mathematical abstraction, which can be considered only as the first (and very much erroneous) approximation of the planetary average surface temperature Tmean.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos wrongly comments: “The planet effective temperature Te (the planet equilibrium temperature) is a first approximation temperature of the planetary surface.”
Here Christos 1:22 am, in not having sufficiently read the blog relevant existing literature, has confused measured planetary surface thermometer kinetic temperature (Ts) with planetary surface avg. effective brightness temperature Te. This mistake is easy to make as both avg. ~288K for Earth (~215K for Mars, though much more sparsely).
Perhaps Christos can dig in, read, and understand the existing literature before making such mistakes again in commenting.
Thank you, Bindidon, for your response.
“Christos wrongly comments: “The planet effective temperature Te (the planet equilibrium temperature) is a first approximation temperature of the planetary surface.”
Correction:
It shooud read
“The planet effective temperature Te (the planet equilibrium temperature) is at first approximation temperature of the planetary surface.”
Thank you, again, Bindidon, for your help.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…if Ball4 says you are wrong, it usually means you are right.
B4 thinks heat does not exist as energy yet it can be transferred cold to hot by it’s own means.
An English idiom…’It went over his head’…
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/over-head
eg. Ball4 is a nice guy but science is way over his head.
Thank you, Gordon, for the English idiom:
“eg. Ball4 is a nice guy but science is way over his head.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ambipolar field??? NASA figures they have found a new field like gravity and the magnetic field.
https://phys.org/news/2024-08-scientists-sought-global-electric-field.html
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/14628
Wednesday, August 28, 2024
Earth’s ambipolar electrostatic field and its role in ion escape to space
Collinson & al. (2024)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07480-3
*
” Cold plasma of ionospheric origin has recently been found to be a much larger contributor to the magnetosphere of Earth than expected.
Numerous competing mechanisms have been postulated to drive ion escape to space, including heating and acceleration by wave–particle interactions and a global electrostatic field between the ionosphere and space (called the ambipolar or polarization field). Observations of heated O+ ions in the magnetosphere are consistent with resonant wave–particle interactions.
By contrast, observations of cold supersonic H+ flowing out of the polar ionosphere (called the polar wind) suggest the presence of an electrostatic field.
Here we report the existence of a +0.55 ± 0.09 V electric potential drop between 250 km and 768 km from a planetary electrostatic field (E∥⊕ = 1.09 ± 0.17 μV m−1) generated exclusively by the outward pressure of ionospheric electrons.
We experimentally demonstrate that the ambipolar field of Earth controls the structure of the polar ionosphere, boosting the scale height by 271%. We infer that this increases the supply of cold O+ ions to the magnetosphere by more than 3,800%, in which other mechanisms such as wave–particle interactions can heat and further accelerate them to escape velocity.
The electrostatic field of Earth is strong enough by itself to drive the polar wind and is probably the origin of the cold H+ ion population that dominates much of the magnetosphere. “
But the science is settled and doesn’t advance at all.
Blinny doesn’t trust a NASA url.
And as usual, the sissyish Blindsley H00d insinuates, distorts and lies.
So why post a new url that is not from the original authors?
” So why post a new url that is not from the original authors? ”
Regardless what it is about, you show always the same mix of incompetence and stubbornness.
*
In the post you yourself replied to, you see a link to
https://phys.org/news/2024-08-scientists-sought-global-electric-field.html
Scientists discover a long-sought global electric field on Earth
by Miles Hatfield and Rachel Lense, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
*
And in that article, you see among other information
” Understanding the complex movements and evolution of our planet’s atmosphere provides clues not only to the history of Earth but also gives us insight into the mysteries of other planets and determining which ones might be hospitable to life.
A research paper on this topic is published in the journal Nature. ”
A few lines later:
” ‘Something had to be drawing these particles out of the atmosphere’, said Glyn Collinson, principal investigator of Endurance at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the paper. ”
The ‘published’ anchor above lets you move exactly to the abstract I posted.
Apparently, you didn’t even care to accurately read the paper written by Hatfield and Lense.
*
Instead of stalking me unnecessarily all the time, Blindsley H00d, finally start correcting the obviously wrong cascaded running median plot that you repeatedly show in your charts:
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/uah-global.jpeg?w=1024
But as we all know, RLH, the man who ‘learned simple statistics’, would rather die crucified than admit he was wrong.
Can you at least acknowledge that I found the original authors and their url?
Blindsley H00d
My reply was dedicated to your LIE:
” So why post a new url that is not from the original authors? ”
What you found or didn’t: who cares, expect you whining sissyish lying girlie?
“by Miles Hatfield and Rachel Lense, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center”
My url directly points to their work hosted at NASA.
“Producers
Lacey Young (KBR Wyle Services, LLC)
Miles S. Hatfield (Telophase)
Rachel Lense (ADNET Systems, Inc.)”
Blindsley H00d
You are not even able to understand the difference between the people (Miles Hatfield and Rachel Lense) who wrote an article about science, and the people who actually did that science:
Glyn A. Collinson, Alex Glocer, Robert Pfaff, Aroh Barjatya, Rachel Conway, Aaron Breneman, James Clemmons, Francis Eparvier, Robert Michell, David Mitchell, Suzie Imber, Hassanali Akbari, Lance Davis, Andrew Kavanagh, Ellen Robertson, Diana Swanson, Shaosui Xu, Jacob Miller, Timothy Cameron, Dennis Chornay, Paulo Uribe, Long Nguyen, Robert Clayton, Nathan Graves, The Endurance Mission Team
You are such a desperately ignorant, stubborn, opinionated boy.
Shame on you, you simple statistics show-off!
Our oceans have waves, what if we got rid of all the waves?
In terms of climate climate- do we all die?
Yes.
A main factor of having ocean settlements, is to surf waves.
So, having waves, is important. And a tiny portion of the ocean could have billions of people living there, and still have lots of waves.
A pathway to having ocean settlements, is related to settlements on Mars, and more insignificantly in terms of where lot’s a people would want to live, Venus orbit, which could have the real estate for trillion of people, getting actual free electrical energy from the sunlight.
Getting solar energy on land or ocean of Earth, isn’t very good, compared to Mars- and Venus is much better than Mars.
Well, I got the POST-TROPICAL CYCLONE ILEANA. Which might do something- become tropical depression and then get somewhere near me, so have some weather effect, here. my weather is somewhat windy and nights in the cold 50s F.
In Atlantic there is 50% of change disturbance forming cyclone
and of southern eastern US coast {maybe it will go north a play with those wind mills which are killing a lot of whales.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Anyhow there going make some forecast within a hour or so.
And there is tropical depression Gordon, which is half way to Africa, and is forecasted to go north and becoming storm, and head more towards Europe/Africa. But basically, nowhere
Or so far, not an extreme hurricane season.
clint team up with Ball4 to et science back a couple of centuries.
[GR]If you look at a hydrogen molecule it has one oxygen atom covalently bonded to two hydrogen atoms by electron bonds.
[clint]He fills the blog with garbage like that incessantly.
—-
[clint]gordon appears to be confusing phase change with dissociation.
***
No, Clint, a quick check of the water molecule on the Net will reveal that it is one oxygen molecule covalently bonded to two hydrogen atoms. Some of the articles even explain the concept of electronegativity and how hydrogen bonds are formed.
Clint seems to be confusing the internal bonds that hold one water molecule together with the hydrogen bonds that hold multiple water molecules together.
Then Clint goes on to confuse dissociation with phase change. Dissociation is a process in which, generally, an ionic bond like NaCl breaks up naturally in a solvent like water. In water, NaCl breaks up naturally (dissociates) into the ions of Na+ and Cl-. This can happen with a covalent bond like HCl but with water it takes a lot of added energy to break the water molecule into H+ and OH- ions.
It is possible for water to self-dissociate but that action is not the basis of evapouration since the ions released are not water vapour. In the process of evapouration, external energy is required to raise the energy level of water molecules enough for the weak hydrogen bonds to break and allow water molecules to be released as water vapour.
===================
[b4]…Gordons 9:52 pm comment is really confused & scientifically incorrect writing in context:
[GR]Evapouration is the result of water molecules breaking the bonds that hold them in liquid form.
…The process called evaporation is when, every now and then, a water molecule near the liquid water surface acquires enough kinetic energy in collisions with its fellow water molecules to escape their attraction. In that situation, freed up water molecules enter the space above the liquid”.
***
B4 is somewhat confused in his thought experiments. Water molecules bonded with hydrogen bonds are not free to move around. Any water molecules breaking free are a result of external energy being absorbed by electrons in the oxygen and/or hydrogen atoms.
The hydrogen bonds that hold individual molecules together to form water, are formed by quasi-electrostatic dipoles based on electronegativity difference between the H and O atoms. The bond strengths are entirely dependent on the electron bonds, therefore any variation in electron orbital energy levels can break the bonds. The only way to do that is for the electron energy level to change.
It’s conceivable that an individual bond could be broken at a water surface for whatever reason, but that is not the primary method by which bonds are broken, which is electrons in the bonds absorbing heat or EM. Agitation of the water can break hydrogen bonds but that does not contribute a lot to wholesale evapouration.
gordon, if you’re spouting nonsense, it makes no sense to just spout more nonsense. But, you just keep spouting more nonsense.
Sicko.
“Any water molecules breaking free are a result of external energy being absorbed by electrons in the oxygen and/or hydrogen atoms.”
No Gordon that’s wrong, the KE of the molecule breaking free of the liquid & evaporating is already possessed by the H2O molecule in overcoming its attraction to the other water molecules. That KE escaping from the liquid is lowering the remaining liquid’s avg. KE thus evaporation is a cooling process for the water. Evaporation depends on the state of the liquid not the state of the gas above the liquid.
Please catch up, actually read, & understand a basic textbook on atm. thermodynamics.
b4…where is it getting the additional KE? Agitation of the water could do it, but there is no reason why hydrogen bonds in equilibrium should suddenly acquire the KE to break free. They would certainly do it en masse as required for evapouration.
clint becomes evermore woeful with his non-scientific responses. Guess he doesn’t have the scientific answers.
Gordon asks: where? As I wrote above from: collisions with its fellow water molecules. Please catch up, actually read, & understand the relevant section in a basic textbook on atm. thermodynamics.
Gordon,
Like Ball4 says, the water molecules are in constant motion, forming and unforming these hydrogen bonds linking water molecules into long chains.
Hydrogen bonds are rather weak and easily broken and reformed.
Gordon,
” This can happen with a covalent bond like HCl but with water it takes a lot of added energy to break the water molecule into H+ and OH- ions.”
Water molecules naturally disassociate into OH- and H+ ions, with the concentration of [H+] * [OH-] = 1.0 * 10^-14.
That is elementary acid base chemistry.
Not your strong suit.
b4…”If I put a bowl of tap water right in the refrigerator, the water still evaporates, Bill. Though at a reduced rate from when the water was equilibrated with the 1bar room temperature
.
Evaporation is a cooling process as the avg. KE of the water molecules left behind decreases. Perhaps Bill can tone down his lack of knowledge some and try to learn something”.
***
The normal fridge cabinet has blowers and temperature changes. It’s temperature is kept slightly above freezing (1.6C – 3.3C) and can vary upwards till re-cooled. Any change in environment variables will affect evapouration. Opening the door can drive the temperature upward.
An open dish of water left on a kitchen table absorbs heat from the room.
Abstract
We use reanalysis and observational data to link the lower stratospheric ozone regulation of the ultraviolet radiation (UV-B) component of solar energy to ENSO modulation. Results indicate that during ENSO extremes, the Walker Circulation (WC) and Brewer Dobson Circulation are related to lower stratospheric ozone alterations east of the date line over the Pacific. These in turn are linked to upper tropospheric anomalous dipole temperature patterns on either side of the equator. The ensuing changes in geopotential height values do not only drive equatorial zonal wind anomalies in the upper troposphere that are reversed at the equatorial surface, but also impact on the intensity of the South Pacific High circulation. When the WC is enhanced, a La Nina type of circulation is indentified but if the circulation cell is inverted, the anomalous circulation results in an El Nino. Though the anomalous lower stratospheric ozone peaks during austral summer it is significant throughout the ENSO lifecycle. Hence, ENSO structure and variability are mainly linked to the lower stratospheric ozone instigated internal dynamics of the Pacific atmosphere. The ENSO forcing most likely originates from the ozone related regulation of the incoming solar UV-B radiation rather than the Pacific Ocean surface.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05111-8
Fortunately the Fascist conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election result failed.
fascism
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
Now which party might that apply to?
Certainly not the party whose candidate has been described as Leftit, even Marxist.
National Socialist German Worker’s Party, care to explain what part of that is “Right Wing?”
Only the most gullible and ignoratant fool would think Fascism has anything to do with the modern “Right-WIng.”
Necesary for Fascism:
1) Totalitarian State where State, not the Market, is the Soluion
2) Government control of the necessities for life, Housing, Income, Food, ect
3) Corrupt elections
4) Political violence and Assisination
5) Politicization of the Judiciary
6) Politicization of the Law Enforcement
7) Politicization of the Security Forces
8) Government control of the Media, Education, and the Arts
9) Overt intimiation of political opposition and non-Party Members
10) Outlawing of Guns
11) Constitution that empowers the govenernment over the individual
12) Free Speech is violently suppressed
13) Right to Assembly is Outlawed
14) Religion is politicized or eliminated(ie Climate Change Cult)
15) Dehumanization of the political opposition
16) Rig primaries, debates, and elections so the party “selects” the person running for office (Majician’s Choice)
17) Selected leader is a fan of the current establishment
18) No Fascist in history ever argued for a) smaller government b) deregulation c) individual rights like Free Speech d) gun rights e) defending the Constitution f) defending an imparcial judiciary
Simply look at how the Democrats want to viod the Constitution and stack the Supreme Court. Simply read FDR’s “Second Bil of Rights.” It is pure Marxism 101, and yes, Marxism is Fascism. Karl Marx is resonsible for more deaths and murders and misery than am man in history. If there was no Marxism there would have been no Russian Revolution and National SOcialist German Worker’s Party. They are all versions of Socialism.
This is what Fascism looks like
https://x.com/BreannaMorello/status/1831658555310506047
What Fascism looks like, Media working to undermine the Constitution
The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com 2022/08/19 opinion libe…
19 Aug 2022 The real need is not to reclaim the Constitution, as many would have it, but instead to reclaim America from constitutionalism.
The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com Books Book Review
31 Aug 2024 Asserting that the Constitution, which is famously difficult to amend, has put the country in grave danger, Chemerinsky lays out what would …
Constitution: Is It Outdated? – The New York …
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com 1976/11/21 archives ne…
21 Nov 1976 1. To preserve, it is necessary to reform. Our Constitution enacted in 1947 retains the basic Legislative Article enacted in 1844. We have in …
More Fascism
Opinion | Biden’s Proposed Supreme Court Reforms
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com 2024/08/04 biden-suprem…
4 Aug 2024 President Biden’s announcement of critical reforms to address the flagrant unethical behavior and extreme abuses of the current court majority
Opinion | This Is How to Put the Supreme Court in Its Place
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com 2022/10/14 supreme-cour…
14 Oct 2022 I have written before about the ways that Congress could restrain an overbearing and ideological Supreme Court, using its powers under the Constitution.
Blue Print to Fascism: FDR’s Second Bill of Rights and Stacking the Supreme Court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights#:~:text=The%20right%20of%20every%20family,right%20to%20a%20good%20education.
Marxism/Fascism required pitting one group against another within the same culture to trigger a “Revolution.” Marx used Economic Classes, the haves and have nots. Today the Political Left used unlimited divisions in their Identify Political used to divide the Nation. They pit one American against another hoping for “Revolution.”
The Political Left uses a sign of a Fist as their chosen Symbol. Compare that to a Fascis, the symbol of Fascism, it is basically the same. The Left uses symbols of violence as their chosen symbol, that is Fascism. The Right Wing uses the American Flag, the symbol of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. Fascists are always Collectivists.
The Political Left uses a sign of a Fist as their chosen Symbol.
You mean this from this noted leftist?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/world/amid-chaos-and-gunfire-trump-raised-his-fist-and-projected-a-characteristic-image-of-defiance-1.6964920
Bwa ha ha ha!
Fascism is the System is in power, not the voter. Who does the system favor? Certainly not Trump. If Trump was a Fascist, the system would ensure he got elected. Fascism 101.
https://x.com/overton_news/status/1835101475501924650
Famous Quotes from Fascists applicable to today. Simply study who the Black and Brown Shirts were. Simply study how the burning of the Reichstag was used to benefit one party and destroy another.
Accuse the other of that you are guilty. Joseph Goebbels
That is why Fascists call others Fascist
Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime was Beria’s infamous boast.
The persecution of Trump is Beria’s #1 Tactic.
Rahm Emanuel – You never let a serious crisis go to waste….
Use a crisis to expand the power of Government.
“This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause”
https://youtu.be/VqVSt0_Zmuk?si=G4ki3EzAsIBQY-ym
Leftists cheered the rise of Lenin, Un, Castro, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min and Mao. Milions of Marxists gave their lives to create hell on earth.
The Black Book of Communism
https://ia801308.us.archive.org/28/items/BlackBookOfCommunism/TheBlackBookOfCommunism_text.pdf
Karl Marx is responsible for more deaths than any other man in history.
FYI,
“The partys socialist orientation was basically a demagogic gambit designed to attract support from the working class.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nazi-Party
In reality, the Nazi Brown shirts brawled with communists and socialists in the streets. They despised them.
The signature of Fascism is demagoguery. The blaming of the Other, the demonizing of the Other, for your country’s problems.
For the Nazis, the Other was the Jews, and the Slavs, and the deviants, the disabled, and anyone not German looking.
Who does that remind you of today?
For Trump is the dirty pet eating immigrants, especially those from sh*thole countries, like Haiti, even legal ones, who are poisoning our blood, a term he borrowed directly from Nazis.
The Fist of Opression, Abuse and Violence Defines the Political Left:
https://images.theconversation.com/files/347637/original/file-20200715-35-zfsplc.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Red_stylized_fist.svg/463px-Red_stylized_fist.svg.png
https://149608256.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Fist-poster-montage-600×563.jpg
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1266620612/vector/fist-male-hand-proletarian-protest-symbol.jpg
Once again, the Political Left uses a Symbol of Fascism, the Political Right uses a symbol of Individual Freedom.
The Fasces is the Symbol of Fascism:
The fasces, as a bundle of rods with an axe, was a grouping of all the equipment needed to inflict corporal or capital punishment. In ancient Rome, the bundle was a material symbol of a Roman magistrate’s full civil and military power, known as imperium.
The Symbol is a bunch or fragile Reeds representing each part of society. On their own they are easy to break and defeat, bound together in a totalitarian system they are expremely powerful and stong. Simply replace the individual reed that is easy to break with an individual finger. If you clentch those individual fingers into a fist you become a weapon, just like binding reeds.
Leftists don’t even seem to understand what Fascism is, and if they did, they would understand that they are the Fascists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum
CO2,
Traditionally, Right-wing meant: conservative, focused on order, tradition, maintaining the old hierarchy, religion.
While left-wing meant in favor of upending the usual order, old hierarchy, tradition. Ie they were in favor of progressive advancement in society.
Thus left-wingers were for overthrowing the monarchy in France.
nate…”While left-wing meant in favor of upending the usual order, old hierarchy, tradition. Ie they were in favor of progressive advancement in society”.
***
Nate…have no idea where you come up with these quaint ideas. The Left, in North America, and elsewhere, have been focused primarily of the working class and enabling them to get better wages and working conditions. Not one democratic Left movement has upended a government or even tried to do so.
Furthermore, the left has been involved in getting equal rights for women. The mob today referred as ‘the Left’ are nothing more than a disorganized rabble using propaganda like climate change to bring about undefined change. They are nothing more than whiners.
From here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum
Here we have a teacher, Ent, spreading propaganda. The Mind boggles with how much of this propaganda reaches the gullible minds of his students.
Fascism is a reference to a government that is in power and running a country. People trying to right a wrong are hardly fascists.
There is ample proof, based on the tracking of cell phone records, that thousands of people were involved stuffing ballot boxes. One democratic state has recently admitted it has allowed non-US citizens onto its voting list.
Well before this information became available, on election night, I was watching the results come in when suddenly the count was inexplicably stopped for several hours. Before the pause, Trump was leading in one state and immediately following the pause, Biden had suddenly taken the lead.
The explanation offered was that mail in votes from variations locations had yet to e counted. However, in any election where the count is fairly equal, one would expect that trend to continue with uncounted mail-in votes. Instead, there was a massive turn-around.
I had never seen that in a US vote, where counting was stopped for several hours. Furthermore, the election was during covid, and that was used as an excuse to prevent scrutineers from getting close enough to observe how the actual votes were being counted.
Ent comes across to me as someone who is terminally naive. Not only that, he comments from afar, in the UK, where aboriginals in North America are somehow regarded as super-heroes.
The current UK government are in favour of allowing the Ukraine to have long range missiles so they can strike deep into Russia. Like Ent, they too are terminally naive, failing to grasp the fact that one well-placed nuke could take out the entire island population.
Gordon
Odd that you interpret a statistical quirk of the counting system as a conspiracy.
Thinking of Georgia?
People get a postal vote if they have difficulty voting in person. They cannot travel to a polling station, are disabled or unable to get time off work. Such problems occur more for the poor than the well off and the poor tend to vote Democrat.
Add in the Republicans encouraging their people to vote in person and you can expect the postal votes to show a higher proportion of Democrat votes and the polling stations to have a higher proportion of Republican votes.
On the night the polling station votes were counted first and gave Trump a very narrow majority. Remember the Republican skew in the polling station vote. When the postal votes were then counted the Democratic skew in the postal votes pushed them over the line.
The difference was the famous 11,000 votes, microscopic in a state’s population. No need to invoke a conspiracy, just the normal working of the system.
Practically, we can already talk about the conditions of La Nia.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2024&month=09
For people who prefer honest, non-biased information:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
These are not facts, but speculation. Tropical rainfall in northern Australia is beginning.
This graph refers to the 1981-2010 average, if you haven’t noticed.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
This is the actual state of affairs.
Or better:
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
1. An upper-level trough is combining with tropical moisture to bring a cloud band with areas of rain to the tropics. Nightcliffe (Darwin, NT) saw 75 mm in the 24 hours to 9am ACST Tuesday, the wettest September day on record 🌧️
2. Onshore winds are bringing cloud and showers to the Queensland coastline
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
As an emblem, fasces made their way to the colonies in British North America. There, during the American Revolution, the fasces’ symbology as referencing strength through unity was adopted as a symbol of the united colonial effort against British rule
[…]
Since the original founding of the United States in the 18th century, several offices and institutions in the United States have heavily incorporated representations of the fasces into much of their iconography.
Federal fasces iconography
On the podium of the Emancipation Memorial in Washington D.C., beneath Abraham Lincoln’s right hand
The reverse of the Mercury Dime, the design used from 1916 until the adoption of the current FDR [gasp!] dime in 1945, features a fasces.
On the obverse of the 1896 $1 Educational Series note there is a fasces leaning against the wall behind the youth.
In the Oval Office, above the door leading to the exterior walkway, and above the corresponding door on the opposite wall, which leads to the president’s private office; the fasces depicted have no axes, possibly because in the Roman Republic, the blade was always removed from the bundle whenever the fasces were carried inside the city, in order to symbolize the rights of citizens against arbitrary state power
Two fasces appear on either side of the flag of the United States behind the podium in the United States House of Representatives, with bronze examples replacing the previous gilded iron installments during the remodeling project of 1950.
The Mace of the United States House of Representatives resembles fasces and consists of thirteen ebony rods bound together in the same fashion as the fasces, topped by a silver eagle on a globe
The official seal of the United States Senate has as one component a pair of crossed fasces.
Fasces ring the base of the Statue of Freedom atop the United States Capitol building.
A frieze on the facade of the United States Supreme Court building depicts the figure of a Roman centurion holding a fasces, to represent “order”.
The National Guard uses the fasces on the seal of the National Guard Bureau, and it appears in the insignia of Regular Army officers assigned to National Guard liaison and in the insignia and unit symbols of National Guard units themselves; for instance, the regimental crest of the 71st Infantry Regiment (New York) of the New York National Guard consisted of a gold fasces set on a blue background.
At the Lincoln Memorial, Lincoln’s seat of state bears the fasceswithout axeson the fronts of its arms; fasces also appear on the pylons flanking the main staircase leading into the memorial.
The official seal of the United States Tax Court bears the fasces at its center.
Four fasces flank the two bronze plaques on either side of the bust of Lincoln memorializing his Gettysburg Address at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.
The seal of the United States Courts Administrative Office includes a fasces behind crossed quill and scroll.
In the Washington Monument is a statue of George Washington leaning on a fasces.
A fasces features prominently in the regimental insignia and coat of arms of the United States Military Police Corps, as well as on the insignias of the 14th, 18th, and 42nd Military Police Brigades.
A fasces appears on the shoulder sleeve insignia of the US Army Reserve Legal Command.
Seated beside George Washington, a figure holds a fasces as part of The Apotheosis of Washington, a fresco mural suspended above the rotunda of the United States Capitol Building.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
Black Power, clearly.
Willard, you are so off base. “United We Stand Divided We Fall,” is the basis of America, but the union was to protect against foreign invaders and threats. The States United. To take that concept and imply that that symbol has the same meaning to America than a Fascist State is outrageous.
The US Organizations that use that symbol do so to protect a Nation based on the greatest Anti-Fascism document every written. Simply read the Bill of RIghts. It is all about protecting the Individual from the fascists. America was literaly based on Anti-Fascism.
To misrepresent the spirit of that symbol used here in the US is outrageous, and it demonstrates your ignorance is at a level rarely reached by individuals over the age of 6 months.
Life,
You said:
You simply forgot its roots in republicanism.
Next time, keep your chin up.
Besides, you are spamming. Try to write a maximum of ten comments per day.
Willard “You simply forgot its roots in republicanism.”
Once again, the US Republoicanism was to fight oppose an opressive government and create a nation based upon the most Anti-Fascism Document every written. You demonstrate a complete inability to understand context. American Republicanism was used to defeat Fascism. You seem to ignore that fact.
Fashism 101, it continues:
https://x.com/autumnsdad1/status/1835328653690888539
The silence of the left is deafening.
CO2…the republican movement occurred over 200 years ago. It was a good and courageous movement at the time but things have changed mightily since. Unless the Republican Party get that, and adjust, they are doomed to remain in opposition for the foreseeable future.
There is no good reason why, under the conditions, they are running neck and neck with incompetent Democrats. They need to adjust to the needs of the average US citizen and it is not happening. The Republican mentality is at least a century out of date. Even a small concession to modern values would go a long way for them.
Life,
You made more than ten comments today, and you still fail to grasp that the fasces was:
Op. cit.
You really should not offer an analysis that can be refuted the Wiki entry related to it.
Your whole schtick on fascism is also wrong. It might be preferrable to focus on the basics. First, spamming bad. Second, RTFM.
Another ‘hockey schtick’: the date of the grape harvest in Beaune (Burgundy, France) since 1354
https://i.postimg.cc/NGStvPcC/La-date-des-vendanges-Beaune-depuis-1354.png
As a lover of French wines for decades, I have long been aware of this through conversations with winemakers.
Grapes respond well to more CO2 in the air, along with the warming trend.
Notice how well the last 40 years coincides with UAH data.
Roles of Earths Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming: New Insights from Satellite and Surface Observations
‘the effect of the observed albedo decrease on Earths Global Surface Air Temperature (GSAT) since 2000’
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7418/4/3/17
CO2… a basic definition of fascism is a small group controlling the majority, basically related to economics. If the small group controls the economy, making themselves wealthy while the masses are restricted, that is right-wing, and has always been the definition of a right-wing capitalist.
If you introduce democracy into the mix, the general public has a certain say in certain matter, but one would have to be completely naive to think big business is not running the show. Corporations are essentially running democratic governments because the governments depend on them for jobs. If the governments don’t fall in line, the corporations threaten to leave, taking their money with them.
Today, corporations are dictating to the entire world how they should live.
Nazi Germany began with an Austrian paper hanger, the Bohemian corporal, who was disgruntled over the way Germany was decimated after WW I. He got himself thrown in jail where he wrote his book, Mein Kampf, which outlines his warped beliefs and a need for revenge. After release from jail, he surrounded himself with thugs, who ended up beating people who disagreed with them.
That’s the key to any government, democratic or otherwise. They need brute force to exist and that comes via armed people who will not hesitate to shoot anyone who challenges them with any vehemence.
Even at that, the paper-hanger managed to get himself elected in a democratic manner. He did not have a majority and needed to do some finagling behind the scenes to get power. Once in power, any semblance of democracy went out the window. He built concentration camps to house anyone who protested or whom he deemed not suitable to be free.
This is a perfect example of both fascism and the right-wing mentality. There is a counterpart in a fascism with a left-wing mentality, but the difference is slight. In Stalin’s Russia, people were formed into communes where they were brow-beaten to produce for the collective good. In essence, it was Stalin’s way of controlling the economy with a small group while terrorizing people to fall in line.
I don’t think for an instant that Stalin agreed with the Marx form of communism. He simply used it as a means of controlling Russians. However, in China, Mao saw Stalin as a hero because he thought he was legit. When emissaries to Russia brought back horror stories of what Stalin was really like, Mao refused to believe them. Mao had invested strongly in the Russian model and I guess it presented a tremendous loss of face to change course.
Nazi Germany was no different. Although people were relatively free to run business, they too were terrorized into following Nazi directives and their agenda. There was absolutely no attempt to run a socialist government or even the communists charade of Stalin. To either government, the word socialist was nothing more than a name.
Although the paper-hanger called his party a socialist party, like Stalin’s claim to be socialist in Russia, it was nothing more than a ruse to get legitimacy to their corrupt movements. By associating with the working class, they tried to give the impression they were nothing more than good-old workers trying to enable democracy.
Why so many US citizens associate with right-wing corporations is beyond me. Here’s an example. I was working for an electronics company and we had dirt-poor wages. Each Christmas we got a small bonus. One Christmas the boss called us together and explained how poorly they were doing and that no bonus was available that year. Then he took his family to Hawaii for Christmas.
I am neither right wing nor left wing because I consider it all to be a game. There is good and bad on both sides. Right-now, I am siding with the right-wingers even though I am not right-wing. I am doing it because those claiming to be left-wing are corrupt and they are perverting science in their zeal to use the corruption for a naive cause.
Similarly, using satellite data, Roy Spencer and John Christy of the University of Alabama Huntsville determined that the average temperature in August was 0.88 degrees Celsius higher than the 30-year average from 19912020.
Extreme heat is not just an environmental crisis, its a serious threat to our public healthand communities across the country are struggling to respond, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a news release.
What were facing today wasnt what we were experiencing 30 or 40 years ago. This is a different world we are in.
Challenging the IPCC
Climate is controlled by the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the amount of infrared energy emitted to space. These quantitiestogether with their differencesdefine Earths radiation budget, NASAs Clouds and the Earths Radiant Energy System (CERES) website states.
Since March of 2000, the NASA team has been collecting satellite data to examine the energy exchange between the Earth and space.
Using those measurements and a novel climate-sensitivity model derived from independent NASA planetary data, Nikolov and Zeller evaluated how Earths decreasing albedo impacted global temperature during the 21st century.
CO2 is an invisible trace gas that does not interfere with sunlight. Its believed to trap thermal radiation coming from the surface, but thats a misconception because the absorption of longwave radiation by CO2 and heat-trapping are completely different physical processes. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat-trapping is impossible in an open system such as the atmosphere, Nikolov said.
He added that while water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, it becomes visible when it condenses and forms clouds. And because clouds reflect solar radiation back to space, their impact on the climate is measurable and significant.
https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/sunlight-and-clouds-not-co2-drive-earths-climate-shocking-new-study-finds
CO2…extreme heat??? I suppose you are referring to days during summer when temperatures rise to between 30C and 50C.
Body temperature is 37C. So, up till just below 37C, the body can rid itself of excess heat (2nd law). It helped to have a powerful fan blowing on the skin to increase convection, however, toward 50C it becomes ever-more difficult to rid the body of excess heat. It would help to immerse oneself in a cool bath.
An interesting thing I read recently is that the body finds ways to survive in very hot environments. Experiments were done by people who were in environments so hot it became uncomfortable to bear the heat against one’s face, yet nothing serious happened to them.
Having said that, i have seen no evidence that the planet is significantly hotter than it is normally. By significant, I mean that extreme heat does not fit the profile. An average of 1C over 170 years is hardly extreme heat, as alarmists like to offer as propaganda to scare us.
…
‘Taking a sauna begins with having a wash (usually a shower), followed by a sit in the sauna room, the room being typically warmed to 80110 C (176230 F). Water is thrown on the hot stones topping the kiuas, a special stove used to warm up the sauna.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_sauna
” Experiments were done by people who were in environments so hot it became uncomfortable to bear the heat against ones face, yet nothing serious happened to them.”
Them being the Finns?
I am not so concerned with Finn’s getting a hot face from sitting in a sauna, it’s more their practice of rushing out the sauna and diving into a cold lake, or rolling in the snow. I think the experimenters were talking about an even hotter environment.
As a kid, in the heat of summer, I dove off a dock into a salt water inlet and nearly passed out from the shock. We had left the boat’s rope on the deck with an ore over it but it managed to break free. I volunteered to go after it and as I swam toward the boat, it occurred to me that I might not make it, due to the shock of hitting the water.
“I think the experimenters were talking about an even hotter environment.”
We did land people on the Moon, a long time ago, and surface can heat to 120 C, or it make your face 120 C, if looking at it. And of course Venus orbit sunlight could heat your face, much hotter than that.
I was thinking one could do a lot a lot swimming in Venus orbit, and could warm face under water but need a lot pressure to stop the water from boiling on your face. But with less pressure, say 1/5th an atmosphere one could under water, and water on your face in sunlight could boiling, and it wouldn’t be that hot.
Researching more on ambipolar field I came across the term cold fusion. Hot fusion involves very high temperatures where gases change into a 4th state beyond liquid, solid or gas. Cold fusion is a situation where electrons in a gas can be at a very high temperature but the associated atoms are not. At least, that’s my initial take, which is likely wrong.
In the following video, a guy is experimenting with cold fusion at home. The first things coming to mind is the generation of ozone by a high potential electric field. Sometimes, a high voltage coil will generate ozone at a low temperature whereas the high voltage current is very hot if directed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOV8kliF4eo&ab_channel=PlasmaChannel
I find it all interesting because air molecules appear to be shot into space by cold fusion at the Poles. But where does the atmosphere get high electric potential to cause the cold fusion?
Akasofu explained that in his book on the solar wind. It begins with high speed electrons and protons interacting with our magnetic field to generate very high voltages in our atmosphere.
Science is definitely not settled, nor is it anywhere near.
co2…”Karl Marx is responsible for more deaths than any other man in history”.
***
You have got Marx wrong. He did not force anyone to adopt his theories, especially in a manner where they did not implement what he had preached. Marx was not an evil man, he was a scholar who offered a theory aimed at making life easier for the working class of the 19th century. Even Wiki calls him a revolutionary socialist which is nonsense. He wanted nothing to do with socialism.
Those who did adopt his theories, albeit a false representation of them, were the ones responsible for all the murders.
Also, you have taken Marx out of context. He was upset with the capitalists of the day who thought nothing of running sweat shops and forcing children to work. People were sent to debtor’s prisons for falling into debt. Marx was actually good for the times since he preached giving the average Joe a break.
People have further misrepresented him today by equating him to socialism. He wanted nothing to do with it, he equated specialism to handouts from the wealthy to the poor, as practiced in his native Germany. Engels wanted to call their work socialism and Marx refused. So, when you hear Marx being called a socialist, you are hearing wrong.
Neither Russian nor Chinese communism had anything to do with socialism, which as practiced today is a genuine democratic movement. Yet, socialists are smeared as being commies or reds. I guess many Yanks regard us here in Canada as commies and reds but most of us want nothing to do with communism or the USSR. Chinese frauds.
We are very much into democracy, freedom of speech, and the election system.
Don’t confuse people like AOC and Bernie Sanders with real socialists. they are nothing more than wannabees who see nothing wrong with distorting science to achieve their goals. Real socialists were the backbone of unionism who fought for the wages and safety reforms we enjoy today in the workplace. In fact, I don’t see a lot of real socialists anywhere these days, they are all wannabees.
The connection of socialists to Russian and Chinese communism came from McCarthyists in the 1950s US. They were a paranoid bunch who dreamt up the ‘commie under every bed’ meme and went to far as to label Linus Pauling as a commie. Without hearing what he had to say, they withdrew his passport because he was anti-nuclear.
The FBI visited him to see how much he knew about the atomic bomb, When he asked him how he got the info about nuclear weapons he claimed he worked it out for himself. He was right and the McCarthyists were wrong, nuclear radiation is dangerous and Pauling finally got the message across by pointing out that pregnant women could give birth to deformed children.
ps. we should not be fighting these days between right wing and left wing. Any socialists I knew were fully in support of capitalism as long as it is fair.
I think many right wingers might agree that the unfettered corporate mentality is a danger to us all. Here in Canada, we encourage good corporate citizens, meaning they should behave in a manner that benefits everyone. Unfortunately, most corporations have a mandate only to maximize profits for their shareholders.
You talk about people working together to protect democracy, a prospect with which I agree. How many corporations do you know, especially operating on an international scale, who give a hoot about Joe Average or nationalism?
What has politics to do with the science?
Richard…CO2 was debating with someone over the US constitution. He commented that Marx had murdered many people and I disagreed.
I am not pushing Marx because I know little about him. I thought it was good that he stood up to the status quo of the day, who were brutal toward the working class and children. However, in the climate debate, there is a meme relating it to socialist values and claiming it has nothing to do with the right and I think that is wrong.
I know of two instances where uber-right wingers brought in carbon taxes and pushed the alarmist agenda. One was Schwarzeneggar in California, when he was governor, and the other was right here in the province of BC. An uber right winger brought in the carbon tax, and ironically, a left wing government is talking about scrapping it.
I agree that politics is not kosher here but it’s hard to escape it since the entire climate alarm position is political.
“the entire climate alarm position is political”
I agree with that.
Evil Fascism Today:
https://x.com/adamscrabble/status/1835455217443238190
Willard says:
September 17, 2024 at 8:55 AM
> No WWII
Come on, now.
Willard, are you completely ignorant of history?
1) No Marx, no Russian Revolution
2) No Marx, WWI would have been resolved totally differently
3) No Marx, no National Socialism
4) No Marx, FDR wouldn’t have pushed a Socialist Agenda keeping the US in a Depression while Europe was thriving
5) Without Marx, Russia would have been a different country leading into WWII
Marx gave us WWII, and greatly impacted WWI.
> WWI would have been resolved totally differently
Come on, now.
Nate says:
September 17, 2024 at 6:24 PM
Once again, the rest of the world quickly rebounded out of the 1929 Crisis, America didnt
Totally false. Where do you get these weird notions, CO2?
The Great Depression was worldwide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
You simply don’t know economic history.
In most countries, such as Britain, France, Canada, the Netherlands, and the Nordic countries, the depression was less severe and shorter, often ending by 1931. Those countries did not have the banking and financial crises that the United States did, and most left the gold standard earlier than the United States did.
“In most countries, such as Britain, France, Canada, the Netherlands, and the Nordic countries, the depression was less severe and shorter, often ending by 1931.”
Evidence?
And BTW, the choice to stay in the Gold standard and to add Tariffs (Trump’s favorite) was made by the R Hoover administration. Not FDR. Both made the Depression worse.
https://history-groby.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/5/6/29562653/the_great_depression_in_europe.pdf
Gordon Robertson says:
September 16, 2024 at 11:09 PM
co2Karl Marx is responsible for more deaths than any other man in history.
***
You have got Marx wrong. He did not force anyone to adopt his theories, especially in a manner where they did not implement what he had preached. Marx was not an evil man,
No Das Kapital No Russian Revolution, No WWII, No National Socialist German Workers’ Party, No Korean War, No Chinese Revolution, No Great Leap Forward, No Cultural Revolution, No Holodomor, No Viertnam War, No destruction of South and Central America, No CUbian Revolution, and the list goes on and on and on. Marx embrased class warfare and dividing countries against themseleves, pitting one neighbor against another. He had the benefit of knowing the history of the French Revolution so he knew the consequences of his writings. Evil with a smile is still evil.
Evil:
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1835763816979673208
> No WWII
Come on, now.
Willard says:
September 17, 2024 at 10:49 AM
> WWI would have been resolved totally differently
Come on, now.
Williard, are you truly that ignorant?
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/lenin-and-the-russian-spark
You had one chance, Life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II
We already covered how the Great Depression has been kicked off by two Republicans.
Williard Says:
You had one chance, Life:
During the worldwide economic crisis of the Great Depression in the 1930s, many people lost faith in liberal democracy and countries across the world turned to authoritarian regimes.
Point being? No kidding, FDR destroyed the US Economy, which did start under a Republican due to a Financial Crisis, but FDR turned a Financial Downturn into the Great Depression. Once again, the rest of the world quickly rebounded out of the 1929 Crisis, America didn’t. Why? Becuase they turned to FDR who tried to implement totalitarian socialism. He even had an Executive Order written for a 100% Income Tax. His frewuentlhy changing policies made it imposible for businessed to do long term planning, so FDR demonized the very people that would have ended the Great Depression.
Yes, Germany was upset with their post-War Treatment. Yes, the world looked at how weak FDR had made American, so yes, totalitarian states rose to power. What is your point? FDR made the US look so weak, Japan went on the offensive against us because there was no fear. Weakness attracts aggression.
> which did start under a Republican due to a Financial Crisis
Because Karl Marx existed, no doubt. Next blunder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
Again, that would never had happened had Karl Marx never existed.
Modern Day Marxism being exposed in film.
https://youtu.be/13loW7C5CcI?si=X2DHJrlt3oOD_SR9
“Once again, the rest of the world quickly rebounded out of the 1929 Crisis, America didnt”
Totally false. Where do you get these weird notions, CO2?
The Great Depression was worldwide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
Australia
1. An upper-level trough is combining with tropical moisture to bring a cloud band with areas of rain to the tropics. Nightcliffe (Darwin, NT) saw 75 mm in the 24 hours to 9am ACST Tuesday, the wettest September day on record 🌧️
2. Onshore winds are bringing cloud and showers to the Queensland coastline
Rain has NOTHING to do with temperature /sarc.
It’s nice when it rains after a long dry spell.
Oopsie
It’s sad to watch. They’re LITERALLY telling you to your face that they’re lying and y’all keep eating it up lol.
JD lies? That CANNOT be true. /sarc
Ark, are you some great “lie detector”?
Let’s see if you really are:
1. Do passenger jets fly backward?
2. Can ice cubes boil water?
3. Can 15μ photons from sky warm a 288K surface?
All questions can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no”, unless you have an agenda….
Sure, but first, answer me this. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer shits little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?
That’s my point, Ark. Your attack on Vance was all about your agenda. You have no interest in truth.
Keep proving me right Clint R
Sorry Ark, but that’s blatantly wrong. It is YOU that is proving ME right.
You can’t answer the simple questions. You can’t face reality, so you have to try to pervert reality.
What will you try next?
You keep proving me right Clint R
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
How come you never did the Poll Dance Experiment?
Why do you still cannot convert flux into energy?
Have you ever been in an igloo?
Do we spin a chicken to increase cooking speed or slow it down?
Keep proving me right.
Ark can’t deal with reality, so another child-of-the-cult comes in to help him.
Reality scares the children….
Hey Puffman, are you good at reality?
Let’s see if you really are:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1688239
Yes Cli keep proving me right.
That is fake news. I saw the interview. Dana Bash is not a journalist. She is a tool of the Democrat party. She was using classic propaganda tools and going out of her way to make accusations and twist his words. She knew exactly what she doing and it had nothing to do with seeking objective information.
“It comes from firsthand accounts from my constituents.” There was much more before that and after that about the real issue which was immigration and the problems caused by recent emigrants in one area of Ohio. He does represent Ohio in the Senate. For those who were paying attention, he did a good job of explaining the issues, and how that small community is just part of a much larger issue. He did not ever claim to have first hand or verified information. He was very clear that he was relating stories he got from people in person when he visited the area. His complaint was the only media presence was to interview politicians, and not to actually travel there and talk to people.
Actually she is quite a good journalist and generally fair in interviews, and should ask hard questions.. Recall she was the debate moderator with Trump Biden.
It is concerning that you cannot recognize one.
Meanwhile, just about everyone on both sides recognize that JD Vance is a Tool.
Look, the whole Springfield, Ohio thing is a racist lie, they are Legal Immigrants (Trump-Vance call them illegal, and are not eating dogs and cats.
It is pure demagoguery.
Trump “”The Democrats say, ‘Please don’t call them animals. They’re humans.’ I said, ‘No, they’re not humans, they’re not humans, they’re animals”
then proceeds to find examples of murders by illegal immigrants.
Not surprisingly , there are examples!
But no one ever asks: how many murders by citizens in comparison. What percentage of murders are by citizens? What percentage of crimes by illegal immigrants?
Nate, you know better. Dana Bash is on your side, and therefore completely partisan. She did the very famous softball with Kamala where she actually help with the followup questions, and then she made a fool of herself trying to smear Vance. Just admit that you like this sort of thing. Politics is a dirty game and the media are in the game.
All it means Tim, is that you cannot recognize a real journalist.
Look Vance doesnt need much assistance to score a lot of self-goals.
He’s already put off major constituencies, such as childless women.
I am shocked to discover that Nate is a partisan — shocked I tell you! All along I was thinking he might be an objective scientist who believes in science.
Yes, JD Vance is a heck of a guy:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/springfield-ohio-pet-eating-claims-haitian-migrants-04598d48
“How the Trump Campaign Ran With Rumors About Pet-Eating MigrantsAfter Being Told They Werent True”
CNN’s Dana Bash And JD Vance Clash Over Claims About Haitian Immigrants
10:49 “Dana the evidence is the firsthand account of my constituents who are telling me that this happened…”
11:17 “if I have to if I have to create stories so that…”
P.s.: https://youtu.be/djpTr5r0zMQ
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/jd-vance-trump-admits-creating-migrants-eating-pet-cats-and-dogs-story/
JD Vance admits he ‘created’ story about migrants eating pet cats and dogs spread by Trump during TV debate
The liberal media and people who are not very smart (polite description) think this is an effective smear. Intelligent people are able to take it in context and substitute the word “created” with the word “revealed” or the phrase “brought awareness to”. He never meant that he made it up. He clearly stated multiple times that people are telling him stories first hand. That is the context and that is what he meant. It is right there in the interview and in context. It is a perfect example of Dana Bash engaging in propaganda and trying to create a story rather than conduct an honest interview seeking information. She is the one “creating” something. It is media bias. The story is the immigration problem, not whether JD Vance was given accurate information in the first hand accounts from his constituents.
7 dogs that Obama ate
In his 1995 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” President Barack Obama described eating dog meat as a young boy in Indonesia a passage that went unnoticed until this week, when it went viral. Here are a few dogs the president has chowed down on more recently.
By BRIDGET MULCAHY 04/19/2012 02:40 PM EDT
https://www.politico.com/gallery/7-dogs-that-obama-ate?slide=0
Dog Meat Market
https://youtu.be/hqfcV40WET8?si=bzSlH7utnAfN1Lbd
Progressives will gaslight everything. Eating dog isn’t something that one should be shocked by. Sure we don’t eat it here in the US, but we’re not a 3rd World Country.
[Tim S] at 11:52 AM ” He did not ever claim to have first hand or verified information.”
[Tim S] at 2:49 PM “He clearly stated multiple times that people are telling him stories first hand.”
This is fun:
Having first hand information could mean that he saw it himself. I could have used better language in the same way that he could have used a better word, or maybe people can watch the video and make up their own mind. Just for fun, it might be interesting to note whether Dana spent more time commenting and accusing, or Vance, the guest, answering. Usually the guest is invited to answer rather than sit and listen to a lecture.
People “telling him stories first hand” means he didn’t see it himself. The operative word there is stories, and the word verified has a rather obvious meaning.
Have you got another strawman? Otherwise, carry on.
Tim S, I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Arkady, do not flatter yourself. I do not care what you think of me, my opinion, or your own understanding of the facts. As I have stated before, and I will state again, I am not here to win anything or engage in endless back and forth. My focus is on sharing my ideas and responding to what I read. If I respond, it is because I think I have to add. It is up to each reader to decide what makes sense and what does not. I offer my opinion and/or a reference, and then it is out my hands.
Good luck with your game. I do not care whether you win or not, and I do not care what side you are on.
Intelligence is a tool for achieving goals, but goals are not chosen intelligently.
or the phrase brought awareness to. He never meant that he made it up. He clearly stated multiple times that people are telling him stories first hand. That is the context and that is what he meant.”
Do you really want your party leaders, to use their very large loudspeakers to be amplifying internet rumors that are inflammatory racist tropes?
People like Trump and Vance are polar opposite to real decent conservatives such as John McCain, who famously corrected a rumor (spread by eg Trump) that Obama was not American but was an Arab, stating that
“No ma’am, he’s a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is all about,”
Cumulative response:
This one is easy. I am on record and will state again that Trump is unfit for office. I am willing to bet that the whole issue with Comey, McCabe, and the Love Birds was related to some very bad information in Trump’s FBI file with the conclusion that he is unfit for office. They probably have a very detailed analysis of his various problems. They also have no Constitutional role in deciding whether the people voted the right way.
Trump cannot stop behaving like a fool, because he is nuts. He makes it very easy for the liberal media to do their job of supporting Harris. Vance on the other hand is one of the most intelligent and emotionally stable politicians in office. His job is to clean up the mess Trump leaves behind.
The problem here is that Kamala Harris is also nuts. There is a very good reason they do not want her doing interviews. There is no good choice this year. I would take Hillary over Kamala, and that is saying a lot.
Dana Bash is fundamentally dishonest, partisan, and biased. She is also not the best interviewer at CNN. Jake Tapper is more skillful at smearing people and making it seem truthful.
“The problem here is that Kamala Harris is also nuts. ”
Based on what evidence, Tim?
Your judgement of Vance shows that you must be a terrible judge of character.
He has created more messes, than he cleaned up.
“Dana Bash is fundamentally dishonest, partisan, and biased. She is also not the best interviewer at CNN. Jake Tapper is more skillful at smearing people and making it seem truthful.”
Trump/Vance regularly tell very tall tales. Eg the Haitians in Ohio are not illegal.. For journalists to call this behavior out is fair.
Oh which network/reporters do you think are better, more honest?
tim s …”Trump cannot stop behaving like a fool, because he is nuts”.
***
What?? He’s nuts because:
1) he wants to make NATO members pay their fair share?
2)He wants to send illegal immigrants home?
3)he wants to talk to Putin and other leaders to fix the problem in the Ukraine?
He was in for 4 years and the US was in far better shape than it is now with:
1)police being defunded.
2)criminals being sprung from jail and being excused on the basis they had a rough childhood.
3)(a)men being allowed to access womens’ washrooms and dressing rooms because they think they are women.
(b)men being allowed to play on women’s sports teams or compete against them because they think they are women.
(c)children are being asked to determine their sexuality and in some cases, given sex change operations.
(4) every person from the Third World, including terrorists, can show up at the US southern order, get immediate access, and get supported.
(5)we need to stop driving cars using fossil fuels, for no good scientific reason, only that it is better for the planet.
I’ll take Trump any day over the current sorry lot who are destroying the country.
Nate has his opinion, and I have one that is different. Image that!
Yes Tim, you have opinions, but are unwilling to support them:
The problem here is that Kamala Harris is also nuts.
“He was in for 4 years and the US was in far better shape than it is now with:”
How quickly people forget 2020 and all that went down, and January 2021.
Is Trump to blame for Covid? No just his haphazard response to it.
Is Biden to blame for inflation? No considering Covids effect on supply chains, and inflation hit globally.
Okay Nate, it is now time to come clean. What is you position in the Democrat party? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY makes a statement of fiction like that unless they are a party member. This is recent history, Nate. We all lived through it. There was endless debate and discussion that the huge “stimulus” spending plans that the Democrats passed would cause inflation, but they did it anyway. Manchin and Sinema where tared and feathered for resisting.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/02/politics/manchin-sinema-democrats-biden-bill/index.html
How quickly they forget inconvenient facts.
“Trump signed off on the $2.3 trillion package from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., days after he expressed displeasure with the spending outlined in the omnibus and complained that the coronavirus relief measure should include direct payments of $2,000 per person, up from $600.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531632-trump-signs-relief-bill-despite-criticism/
“The relief legislation includes direct payments of $600 per adult and per child. The amount per adult is half the $1,200 payments that were provided under the CARES Act enacted in March”
There is no question that all the stimulus, from the whole world, contributed to inflation, but also that the US inflation rate was not as bad as in many other countries.
“Compared to the G7
The United States had the lowest inflation rate in the G7, which includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.”
“https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/sep/01/joe-biden/does-the-us-have-less-inflation-than-other-leading/
Politicians lie??? Go on!!!
If the Republicans admit to lying, that is a step in the right direction, However, the Democrats tell huge lies and carry on as usual.
They accidentally say it out loud. Whoops!
This might explain a lot of posts on Roy’s website.
https://www.xkcd.com/
A cartoon explains Roy’s website?
Once more we see how the opinionated Blindsley H00d ticks:
You write:
” … might explain a lot of posts on Roys website. ”
He intentionally misrepresents and distorts what you wrote with:
” … explains Roys website? ”
That’s the sissyish girlie ignoramuses like Robertson elevate up to a ‘statistician’.
RLH
Perhaps I overestimated your subtlety.
Perhaps I underestimated yours (and Blinny)?
Thank you.
The remnants of Gordon dissipated at 11 am AST September 17, 2024.
That is a statement from NOAA. It has nothing to do with the very prolific poster who makes excessively long comments on this board.
Otherwise, at the very peak of hurricane season, there is no tropical cyclone activity in either the Atlantic or Eastern Pacific regions. Is that climate change?
BREAKING NEWS
Gordon could get a new name later this week:
Disorganized showers and thunderstorms over the central tropical
Atlantic are associated with the remnants of Gordon. This
disturbance is forecast to interact with a non-tropical low to its
north while moving north-northeastward at 5 to 10 mph during the
next couple of days. Environmental conditions could become more
conducive for redevelopment later this week, and a tropical
depression or storm could form by this weekend while the system
moves slowly northward over the central subtropical Atlantic.
* Formation chance through 48 hours…low…20 percent.
* Formation chance through 7 days…medium…40 percent.
Pretty witty Tim, about half-witty.
Update:
* Formation chance through 48 hours…low…20 percent.
* Formation chance through 7 days…medium…50 percent.
If you tried to call the Mossad hotline today you probably got the following message: “Our apologies for not being available lately. We were paging people all day.”
Context:
https://apnews.com/article/lebanon-hezbollah-israel-exploding-pagers-8893a09816410959b6fe94aec124461b
Willard:
Say what you want about Israel, but they are geniuses at humiliating their Islamic enemies. They literally gave thousands of terrorists explosive pagers and used them to blow off their genitals [allegedly].
I’ve never heard of pagers exploding.
More likely an ‘own goal’ is being scored.
I’ve used lithium batteries in my models for many years. When they overcharge, overheat or otherwise self-destruct they ignite like a magnesium flare.
They do not explode.
Detonations like those seen in the videos would need something more than just a hot battery.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-planted-explosives-hezbollahs-taiwan-made-pagers-say-sources-2024-09-18/
And anyway this discussion becomes ridiculous because today, the Israelis have let explode talkie-walkies instead of pagers…
Hezbollah this morning: https://imgur.com/a/E4VSeVm
The flooding in Europe reminds of reading about 1315- 1317 Famine. Is this climate cycle going cold fast?
Floods Wipe Out Central Europe’s Grain a Food Price Surge Is Next
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE2V4IYL6Ro
Great Famine of 13151317
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315%E2%80%931317
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine#Europe
Years following the 1257 Samalas eruption (VEI 7/8, strongest eruption of the last 7000 years).
phreatomagmatic like Hunga Tonga
Ken
– You can’t compare a VEI 5/6 volcanic eruption to one at 7/8;
– You can’t compare an eruption starting at 150m below sea level to one starting at 4500m over sea level because aerosol production resulting from SO2 and ash is in the first case compensated by water vapor.
” Is this climate cycle going cold fast? ”
Why do you think so?
*
The current flooding in Southeast Europe (from Romania to Austria and South Germoney) is due to
– an extreme warming of the Mediterranean Sea
and
– repeated sequences of high pressure areas (turning CW) and low pressure areas (turning CCW) aspirating both a mix of cold air from North/Northwest and warm, very wet air coming from the Med sea.
Why do I think so? Because climate is cyclical and the last time that there was disastrous flooding and crop losses due to excessive rain was in the lead up to the little ice age.
Currently, climate doesn’t show any sign of cooling, except in very local regions, e.g. Southern Canada + Northern CONUS.
Half Siberia burns since years and you talk about cooling.
Hello Ken Robertson…
… and where the climate actually shows no cooling is, for example, the area where you live.
Below is a superposition of UAH LT data with the data from all available GHCN daily stations located in the 2.5. degree grid cell centred at 48.75N — 123.75W (near Deerholme, Vancouver Island):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rl5X4v9j1rxUPEXhACbJMtStaChCKBym/view
*
Trends for the grid cell, in C/decade
Since 1979
– UAH: 0.14 +- 0.04
– GHCN: 0.17 +- 0.05
Since 2000
– UAH: 0.24 +- 0.11
– GHCN: 0.28 +- 0.09
Since 2010
– UAH: 0.57 +- 0.25
– GHCN: 0.44 +- 0.22
*
Absolute temperatures show the same.
“climate doesn’t show any sign of cooling”
Sure.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-09-18.gif
Solar wind
speed: 454.9 km/sec
density: 1.18 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 18 Sep 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 140
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 170 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 32.77×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.1% Low
7 numbered sunspots, 1 leaving to the farside
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
16 September – 12 October 2024
Solar activity is likely to be at moderate levels
(R1-R2/Minor-Moderate), with a slight chance for x-class events (R3-Strong), throughout the outlook period. This is due to complex regions on the visible disk, as well as the anticipated return of complex regions.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is expected to be at normal to moderate levels.
Geomagnetic field activity is expected to range from quiet to G3 (Strong) storm levels. Enhanced activity to G1-G3 (Minor-Strong) storm levels are likely on 16-17 Sep due to anticipated CME activity. Unsettled to G1 (Minor) storm activity is likely on 26-29 Sep, 05-06 Oct and 10-12 Oct due to recurrent, positive polarity CH HSS occurence. Mostly quiet levels are expected on 20-26 Sep, 30 Sep, 01-04 Oct and 07-09 Oct. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Solar wind
speed: 453.6 km/sec
density: 2.71 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 19 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 106
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 163 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.53×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -9.8% Low
6 numbered sunspots. Newest numbered sunspots, 2 tiny spots {3820 and 3830} appeared close to going to the farside- in a day or two.
No spots are coming from farside, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 416.8 km/sec
density: 1.63 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 20 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 109
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 161 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.34×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -9.4% Low
6 numbered spot. 2 spots leaving and 1 coming from farside.
3831 appeared in middle of disk. And 1 unnumbered spot appeared about 3/4th of the way to the farside.
Solar wind
speed: 417.0 km/sec
density: 0.80 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 21 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 113
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 154 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.58×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.5% Low
7 numbered spots. No spots going to farside within 2 days.
no spots coming from farside, There a little spot [northern hemisphere] which might become a numbered spot [or sink].
Solar wind
speed: 421.3 km/sec
density: 1.65 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 22 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 117
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 158 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.58×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.1% Low
7 numbered spots. No spots coming from farside, No spot leaving to farside within a day.
Solar wind
speed: 348.1 km/sec
density: 1.53 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 23 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 114
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 163 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.21×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.0% Low
7 numbered sunspots. A spot coming from farside. No spots leaving to farside within 2 days.
Solar wind
speed: 471.0 km/sec
density: 15.96 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 24 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 224
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 167 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.26×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.0% Low
8 numbered sunspots. No spots coming farside or leaving the farside. though I don’t see from given picture, more spots connected to the emerging, numbered 3836, coming from farside- there might be.
Also:
Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
23 September – 19 October 2024
Solar activity is expected to range from low to moderate levels throughout the outlook period, with a varying chance for M-class (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) flares.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit, barring significant flare activity.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is expected to reach high levels on 23-26 Sep and 12-15 Oct, with normal to moderate levels expected for the remainder of the period.
Geomagnetic field activity is likely to reach unsettled levels on 25-26 Sep due to positive polarity CH HSS influences. Periods of active conditions are likely on 05-06 Oct due to another positive polarity CH HSS. Periods of active conditions are likely again on 10 Oct, followed by likely periods of G1 (Minor) storming on 11-12 Oct,
due to yet another positive polarity CH HSS.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
And back to: https://spaceweather.com/
“There are no significant equatorial coronal holes on the Earth-facing side of the sun. ”
Well it seems there are 5 not significant enough, ones, in equatorial regions.
Also:
“Emerging sunspot AR3836 looks interesting. It is large and morphologically complex, two signs of a potentially explosive active region.”
And:
“GEOMAGNETIC STORM WATCH (G1): A lopsided halo CME is expected to graze Earth’s magnetic field on Sept. 25-26. The impact could cause a G1-class geomagnetic storm. NOAA’s model predicts a strike on Sept. 25th; NASA’s model predicts the 26th. The difference gives a sense of the uncertainty in this low-confidence forecast.”
NASA gives a faster prediction, which because it’s fastest they can do, it is less accurate. And NOAA spends more time modeling it and maybe gets more data, and therefore, tends to be more accurate.
Solar wind
speed: 516.0 km/sec
density: 15.42 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 25 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 123
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 172 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.36×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.0% Low
8 numbered sunspots. 1 leaving to farside within a day. no spots coming from farside, yet.
The sunspot number of yesterday [224], makes no sense to me.
Just want to remind you guys that we are hurtling through space at about 30 km/second (29.8 to be exact). To put that in context, a car moving at about 100 km/hour is moving at about 28 METRES/sec.
Handy thing to stop and contemplate when you think you know everything and need a reality check. Or, when life becomes a bit much.
The average temperature around here in the day has dropped about 10C in a couple of weeks, which makes global warming pale in comparison.
Remember, the Earth’s orbit and its tilted axis control weather and seasons, not some insignificant trace gas.
We should not be praying about weather conditions and climate changing but that we don’t collide with a mass of significant size.
Please remind Clint R who does not believe that passenger jets can travel at 30km/second in any direction.
The Starship is still being tested, but would the FAA cease delaying it, it will accelerate to about 10 km/sec, refuel in orbit, then it’s second stage can accelerate about 6-7 km/sec.
Of course before that, SpaceX and/or Blue Origin would need to make refilling depot in orbit {Something NASA said wanted to do for more than 1/2 century and didn’t- due to the general delay of idiots- endless hordes of them}.
Ent understands so little science, yet sometimes gets it right. It’s like a blind squirrel sometimes finding a nut.
Indeed, I don’t believe passenger jets fly 67000 mph.
Listen to VDH talk about modern academia. That expains exactly how you get Climate Change and Global Warming and the corruption of the entire system. People that cancel, censor, and misrepresent don’t have solid arguements to stand on.
This pretty much captures everything, and helps expain why there are so many people that will defend such nonsense vigorously. Just look at the posts on this thread.
https://x.com/adamscrabble/status/1835455217443238190
These also provides insite:
https://youtu.be/Trrp-tgKvR0?si=jJYqkf2WTDa1TIRK
https://youtu.be/PYRYXhU4kxM?si=Ep0Tvl8ZxDn1vauc
Watch those videos and you understand the people promoting Climate Change on this blog.
Global Warming is Misinformation, The Russian Collusion is misinforfmation, Deplorables is Hate Speech, Hunter’s Labtop denial was misinformation, etc etc etc.
https://x.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/1836120894680502458
Rules for thee but not from me.
Endless misinformaiton from the left:
Google “Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List (Updated)”
Link won’t post.
Endless misinformation from the left.
CO2 currently there are a lot of efforts by foreign governments such as Russia using misinformation to influence our election toward Trump, who they clearly think is supportive of their aims.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential-election-influencers-trump-999435273dd39edf7468c6aa34fad5dd&ved=2ahUKEwiK0p2YoM2IAxWuFFkFHSx8H-gQ0PADKAB6BAgWEAE&usg=AOvVaw0-VlvuQSJ8-KHRs_vM2rwJ
This is quite real.
She was literaly the person behind the Russian Collusion Hoax
Hillary Clinton Calls to Jail Americans for Posting “Propaganda”
https://rumble.com/v5f9s6r-hillary-clinton-calls-to-jail-americans-for-posting-propaganda.html
Fashism 101
https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1836411228710662355
More Fascism, notice the pattern?
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1836130447539286220
Nate says:
September 18, 2024 at 1:44 PM
CO2 currently there are a lot of efforts by foreign governments such as Russia using misinformation to influence our election toward Trump, who they clearly think is supportive of their aims.
Nate, nothing Russia has done comes close to what you saw in the Debate the other night, or the NABJ Interview, 51 Intel Officers, Social Media Censorship, Russian Collusion Hoax, Lawfare, Mail In Ballots, Open Borders, etc etc etc etc.
BTW, Russia has a 2nd Hunter Laptop and nothing has been leaked. Russia knew the Collusion claims were a hoax…they did nothing to help Trump.
In other news:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/18/trump-election-georgia
“othing Russia has done comes close to what you saw in the Debate the other night, or the NABJ Interview, 51 Intel Officers, Social Media Censorship, Russian Collusion Hoax, Lawfare, Mail In Ballots, Open Borders, etc etc etc etc.”
Ummm…weird.
OMG! The most recent instance of election interference was AG Merrick Garland holding a press conference to claim that the Russians are at it again. Former Obama official Lisa Monaco was there to lend a juicy taste of political involvement. Are you kidding? This is the same old tired and thoroughly debunked Clinton playbook from 2016. Is there another Dossier? More recently we also had Hunter’s laptop in 2020 — look how talented these Russians are! I think they need to give it a rest. The only interest the Russians have in our elections is to cast doubt on the legitimacy of US elections and democracy in general. These fools are playing right into that strategy. Somewhere Putin is laughing.
Breaking News
Meanwhile it seems that the Iranians are backing Harris instead of Trump. I wonder why? The Biden Administration released all of the Trump sanctions.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/18/politics/iranian-hackers-trump-biden-campaigns/index.html
Iranian hackers sent unsolicited information they stole from Donald Trumps presidential campaign to people who were affiliated with Joe Bidens campaign over the summer, federal law enforcement officials said Wednesday.
“This is the same old tired and thoroughly debunked Clinton playboo”
Nah. As usual Tim is not up to speed on news. The dudes who were duped admitted that they were duped!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1688412
Nice spin Nate, but how often does Merrick Garland give a press conference? This time it was to inject himself into the political process and make a naked political accusation about the election. FBI Director Wray probably had better things to do with him than sit and listen to that.
Watch out, the Russians are coming.
Wait there was a movie in the 1960’s. The Russian sailors have captured the radio station and broadcast the following message:
Egermency, egermancy, everybody to get from streets!
So in your view, we don’t need to know that information we are seeing is coming direct from Moscow?
“naked political accusation about the election”
Hyperbole. Putin is not running for office here.
Perhaps Life worked on that project too:
https://gizmodo.com/donald-trump-homeland-security-report-antifa-portland-1849718673
A nice article succinctly summarizing the scientific basis for climate change and global warming.
https://rock.geosociety.org/net/gsatoday/archive/22/1/article/i1052-5173-22-1-44.htm
Most important, contrarians must show why the scientific basis of greenhouse gas warming is incorrect.
That is 100% pure sophistry and a strawman arguement. No one denies that a molecule with vibrational states triggerd by LWIR will warm. That is easly demonstrated in any lab.
The issue isn’t whether or not the GHG Effect exists, it does.
The one and only question is can CO2 which specifically absorbs 12 to 18 peak 15 Micron LWIR warm the atmosphere of average temperature 64F/18C?
15 Micron LWIR is consistent with -80C, and it won’t warm air of 18C. That is the point. You can’t warm coffee by adding the additional IR radiated from Ice.
The author of that article never once mentions the limitations of 15 micron LWIR, if fact 15 Micron LWIR and its relevance to CO2 IS NEVER EVEN MENTIONED.
Dr. Spencer you should do a post on the 3 vibrational states of CO2 related to 2.3, 4.7 and 15 Microns, and how only 15 is relevant to earth, and what temperature does 15 Micron represent.
These Journal Articals are pure sophistry.
“You can’t warm coffee by adding the additional IR radiated from Ice.”
So CO2isLife now tries to convince more astute readers that increasing the thermodynamic internal energy of a cup of liquid coffee with absorbed “additional IR radiation” won’t warm the coffee above control coffee thereby violating the 2LOT in that real process. Won’t work. There is no hope for CO2isLife to be correct.
CO2isLife hasn’t yet caught on that Dr. Spencer already has a post up on how added 15 micron icy atm. radiation is experimentally relevant to warming earth atm. and surface water above control water.
“15 Micron LWIR is consistent with -80C, and it wont warm air of 18C.”
You have been corrected about this false idea many times CO2. You just can’t learn.
“15 Micron LWIR is consistent with -80C”
What does that even mean?
The human body emits 15 Micron LWIR, no?
15 Micron LWIR is consistent with -80C
What does that even mean?
The human body emits 15 Micron LWIR, no?
LWIR and IR in general is associated with a temperature. That is why theyb always show the atmpospheric radiation against a blackbody Plank Curve. You can go to Spectralcalc.com and go to the Blackbody calculator. Enter the range 12 to 18 Micron, and look at what temperature is consistent with 15 microns. It will be -80C.
‘Is consistent with’ is meaningless in physics. Because warm and cold bodies emit 15 micron IR. And 15 micron radiation contains energy, and if abs.orbed by a body, will increase its internal energy.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of thermodynamics that you have CO2.
CO2isLife
Nate states you have been corrected on your understanding many times.
The -80C you state is only the PEAK emission band for a black body at -80C, also a black body at -80 C emits many bands other than 15 microns. It is not a logical or valid argument to use this understanding to make claims that CO2 is cold. CO2 only emits IR in a few select bands and would not be valid in determining the temperature of CO2. CO2 can be quite warm and will only emit in the 15 micron band (and if hotter in the shorter bands). It does not reflect its temperature. As it gets hotter it just emits more 15 micron band IR.
The CO2 in the air is not what is warming the surface. The Sun is the energy source. The CO2 acts as a radiant barrier. It lowers the rate of surface energy loss. It acts as any type of insulation. Roy Spencer has explained it numerous times on his blog. He generally simplifies it using a home in winter with and without insulation. With the same input energy the home with insulation will reach higher temperature than the one without.
Nothing is really complex about it. If you understand that adding more insulation to a heated house will keep it warmer than you will understand how CO2 will keep the surface warmer.
Sorry Norman, but you’re confused, as usual.
CO2’s 15μ photon can only be a “radiant barrier” to something at -80C. You don’t understand radiative physics, like the rest of your cult. And, you can’t learn.
You continue to believe the nonsense that fluxes simply add. But, you can’t understand that would mean ice cube could boil water.
Clint R
Talk about a stalker. I was attempting to talk to a more rational poster (CO2isLife) and here you have to butt in with your endless boring repetitions of false beliefs you think are true.
Your first false statement: “Sorry Norman, but youre confused, as usual.”
No you are ignorant and arrogant as usual. Nothing new here from you (not that there ever is)
Second False statement: “CO2s 15μ photon can only be a radiant barrier to something at -80C. You dont understand radiative physics, like the rest of your cult. And, you cant learn.”
I learn quite well. You lack understanding of any physics, you are a cult minded person that can’t learn. Attributing your flawed character to me is false. You are just jealous because you were born dumb and can’t tolerate that most people are much smarter than you can ever hope to be.
Third False statement: “You continue to believe the nonsense that fluxes simply add. But, you cant understand that would mean ice cube could boil water.”
Fluxes add get over yourself. You can’t understand this point even though it has been explained to you many times by many people. And the worst false statement that you keep bringing up is that fluxes adding means ice cube could boil water.
Not sure of how you logically come up with that really dumb statement. When you posted as (g.e.r.a.n) you had ice cooking a turkey. That was just as poorly thought out.
I have gone over you in detail about why ice won’t boil water and yet fluxes will add. It is a waste of time explaining anything to you. Talking to a wall would be more productive. You lack the intellect to logically think or understand.
Ranting and raving is NOT science, Norman.
You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes. You’re trying to make CO2 do things it can’t do. A radiant barrier can reflect the entire spectrum. CO2 only returns the 15μ photons. We saw an effective radiant barrier with the HTE. Surface temperatures rose accordingly. CO2 can’t do that.
You don’t understand any of this and can’t learn.
CO2isLife,
I did as you asked, and here are the results from spectracalc:
For T= -80°C, Spectral Radiance= 1.10107 W/m²/sr/m @ 15μ.
For T= 15°C, Spectral Radiance= 5.82995 W/m²/sr/m @ 15μ.
I still don’t know what you mean by “15 Micron LWIR is consistent with -80C.” As I’ve said, the human body emits 15μ LWIR, and body temperature is not -80°C.
Sorry Ark, but that article proves your cult has NOTHING.
The article makes claims about how the GHE nonsense is solid science, like Newton’s physics. Then it talks about how valid Newton’s physics have proved to be.
But, claiming the GHE nonsense is solid science is not done by unsupported claims.
You need to show how CO2’s 15μ photons can warm Earth’s surface. But, you can’t do that.
Maybe if you find another article you don’t understand?
Cli keep proving me right.
Glad to see you’re imitating me, Ark.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Cli, one who has the supreme self-confidence of ignorance is a rare find.
Not rare on this blog, Ark.
There are several here like you….
ark…proselytizing – the action of attempting to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
Your article is sheer proselytizing for the first 11 paragraphs of propaganda relating to how rock solid the greenhouse theory is inferred to be.
The first things that turned me off was the author’s credentials, an astrophysicist. People usually go into disciplines like astrophysics and geology because the courses are easy credits. That does not mean there no good astronomers, I am sure good academics go into the field out of interest, but I fear they also go into it because it’s easy to get a degree in that field.
Finally, around paragraph 12, he states his case…
“Trace polyatomic molecules such as water vapor, CO2, and methane have rotation, bending, and vibration degrees of freedom, and are quite effective at intercepting infrared radiation radiated by Earths surface and the atmosphere.
When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an excited state. At low gas densities, an excited greenhouse gas molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) reradiate an infrared photon, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming”.
Seriously amateurish explanation. For one, why does he refer to molecules as polyatomic molecules, which is redundant? That is the definition of a molecule, two or more atoms bonded by electron bonds. Also, quantum mechanics has nothing to do with gas molecules. It can explain how molecules are formed from atoms via electron bonds but QM is at a much lower level than the molecule.
Next, he presumes…does not prove…that the gases mentioned absorb sufficient surface radiation to produce significant warming of the entire atmosphere. This is a basic alarmist notion that can easily be disproved by the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation.
I have read all sorts of inferences about ‘thermalization’, a quaint theory that GHGs can heat the atmosphere. Why not call it what it is…heating? Sure they can, but the warming is insignificant. CO2 can produce no more warming than it mass percent, which is 0.06%. That converts to a 0.06C warming for every 1C warming of the atmosphere.
It stands to reason that N2 and O2, making up 99% of the atmosphere, are the primary warming gases.
Then the astronomer goes on to mess up basic quantum theory by suggesting that molecules absorb IR and get excited. There is no other particle in a molecule that can absorb IR than an electron and an electron is part of an atom, not a molecule per se. A molecule, by definition, is two or more atoms bonded by electrons, either by sharing electrons or donating electrons.
Molecules vibrate and rotate due to their electron bonding orbital arrangements. The name molecule is imply a name given to different arrangements/shapes of electron bonding orbitals.
One cannot explain the basic action of an electron in an atom at the molecular level. It’s plain that those who omit references to electrons don’t understand basic quantum theory and what it is about.
Ergo, to discuss the energy levels of molecules, one must discuss the energy levels of electrons in atoms, not some fictitious tale of vibrating molecules or excited molecules. Any basic course in chemistry is about electrons and electron bonds. Electrons get excited, not molecules per se.
Therefore, the astronomer is presenting a fictitious pseudo-science to back his proof of a greenhouse effect.
Gor… the first thing that turned me off about your comment is that you don’t seem to know that there are Noble Gases present in Earth’s atmosphere.
The rest of it is just a rehash of the same old misunderstandings, and wrong ideas that you’ve been corrected on many times before, but you refuse to learn.
Noble gases are gases made up of atom with a full complement of electrons in their valence orbital band. That makes it virtually impossible for them to form molecules, even though it had claimed to have been done.
Your point?
CO2isLife hasnt yet caught on that Dr. Spencer already has a post up on how added 15 micron icy atm. radiation is experimentally relevant to warming earth atm. and surface water above control water.
Please provide a link and I’ll review. 15 micron LWIR won’t warm water, and I’m sure he hasn’t run that CONTROLLED experiment.
Again, if the water doesn’t warm in the process as CO2isLife describes, then the 2LOT is violated.
To review experimental results with Alabama nighttime atm. adding icy radiation incident on surface water and the supporting theory, enter into the blog search box this string: experiment water
Ball4, just post a link. I’m sure it doesn’t prove what you claim. Once again, we are talking about isolating 15 Micron LWIR and measusing the marginal impact on water. Yes, a broad range of LWIR will slow the cooling of water because water is in the air and it radiates back 100% of the IR the water is radiating. Atmopsheric water could be considered a mirror for LWIR emitted by water.
Once again, the atmosphere holds H2O and CO2, you have to isolate the impact of CO2, and to do that you need a long pass IR Filter.
This site rejects links with certain letter combinations, even its own links. The search box is more general & will let CO2isLife find additional links that prove absorbed incident 15 micron LWIR will warm water above control water not in view of the 15 micron LWIR. Dr. Spencer was on that mission years ago. Learn from his experimental work.
“it radiates back 100% of the IR the water is radiating”
No, the earthen atm. is not a mirror & is at different temperatures than the surface water in each atm. layer. The atm. holds more than H2O and CO2 species. Again, CO2isLife’s position violates 2LOT as I’ve already explained so is impossible in nature.
Ball4 can’t ever support his bogus claims.
“Atmopsheric water could be considered a mirror for LWIR emitted by water.”
Except that liquid water abs.orbs more broadly over IR wavelengths.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_infrared_absorption_coefficient_large.gif
Liquid water red, water vapor green.
Notice liquid water abs.orbs readily around 15 microns.
Gotta admit arguing about the meaning of heat and temperature is fruitless if the participants or some of them don’t recall even the simplest concepts yet keep lecturimg as if they’re professors.
Dudes, don’t argue if you feel you are arguing with a brickwall.
Either one of you is thick and bricks won’t learn anyway.
Btw, temperature and entropy are rather nuanced concepts. Energy too, when thought closely. Better tone dowm.
eric…one of the more stoopid comments I have encountered on this blog. I say that because of the hit and run nature of your comment. You gave no examples and no proof they are wrong. Just an ad hom attack.
Temperature is a human invention, invented to track various heat levels. Those who designed thermometers used standard, natural phenomena, such as the freezing and boiling points of water. By observing the expansion of mercury in a vial due to heating, and dividing the length of expansion at STP into gradations, called degrees, they were able to track the relative warming in air or a substance.
Don’t believe this, check Planck on it, he states it clearly in his book on heat.
Entropy is another human invention by Clausius which he DEFINED as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat in a process at absolute temperature, T. He later stated it in mathematical terms as….
S = integral dq/T
It can be stated as the heat in a process not available to do work. Gibbs used it in his free energy (actually, free heat) as
G = H – TS
H is the enthalpy or total heat and TS is the result of integrating the Clausius equation and transforming. That means TS represents heat, you can see that TS is the heat lost.
Later, Boltzmann muddied the waters and redefined entropy, which he had no right to do. He was dealing in the world of statistics, assigning imaginary data points as if the represented real gas molecules. I regard the work of Boltzmann as setting science backward. The work he did with Maxwell on the kinetic theory of gases became superflous once the real relationship between gas molecules and electromagnetic energy were revealed by Bohr in 1913.
“Temperature is a human invention, invented to track various heat levels.”
No. Brickwall (Eric term) Gordon still hasn’t understood temperature is not Clausius’ heat.
“H is the enthalpy or total heat”
Brickwall Gordon is easily confused again since enthalpy H = U + pV where U is the measure of total thermodynamic internal energy of an object; neither U nor H is Clausius’ heat.
What’s this nonsense about Clausius heat? There is only one heat. Enthalpy, entropy, and internal energy reference the same heat.
read this, then take your foot out of your mouth.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Organic_Chemistry/Map%3A_Organic_Chemistry_(Smith)/06%3A_Understanding_Organic_Reactions/6.06%3A_Enthalpy_and_Entropy
Internal energy, as defined by Clausius is internal heat + internal work. However, you cannot add work or remove work from a system. You can only add or remove heat.
That’s why enthalpy is expressed as U + PV, it includes an expression of work (actually the sum of P.dV), since U expresses only the internal energy of a system at rest. U + pDV is actually the 1st law where Q = U + p.dV. Q in this case is called enthalpy.
Before re-inserting you foot, read this…
https://unacademy.com/content/neet-ug/study-material/chemistry/understand-internal-energy-and-enthalpy-in-thermodynamics/
Gordon claims erroneously: “Internal energy, as defined by Clausius is internal heat + internal work.” A search of Clausius’ “Mechanical Theory of Heat” (a collection of his memoirs) finds zero hits for the term: internal energy. So Clausius did not write what Gordon claims.
I already (11:20 am) pointed out to Gordon (or Brickwall – Eric term) Clausius actual words:
“I consider my original definition of (U) as representing the sum of the (measure of (the particles KE)) added to the quantity already present and of that expended in interior work, starting from any given initial state, as perfectly exact”
Again, enthalpy is H = U + pV which is not Clausius’ heat. Gordon links to a couple unnamed authors for those author’s heat. I’ll instead (and Gordon should too) as always go with Clausius’ heat. No matter what any other author subsequently wrote.
U being not only molecular translational kinetic energy but includes contributions from motions and interactions within molecules as well as from interactions between molecules.
Gordon claims: “You can only add or remove heat.”
James Prescott Joule experimentally proved there is no heat in an object therefore “you” cannot remove from (nor add to) an object something (like heat) that is not IN that object. Likewise, there is no work in an object.
Gordon obviously has a never-ending losing struggle to correctly understand and use Clausius’ heat. And especially to understand when any subsequent author writes a different heat definition.
And again Gordon, try harder to successfully remember thermometer temperature of an object is not Clausius’ heat.
entropy… Energy too…
Earth is nuclear reactor, smashed with high energy space rocks {big ones and a lot them, during Earth formation- though fewer and smaller, at this late stage}. Tidally force from the Moon and the big guy [our sun].
And we are in Ice Age, which is due to our cold oceans with average temperature of about 3.5 C.
And Earth’s orbit/relationship with the Sun, changes over long period of time, causing global warming and global cooling, called interglacial and glacial periods.
And our present interglacial period, called the Holocene period, has been a rather cold interglacial period, and some people have hope, it’s current 5000 years of cooling will turn around, and we could get as warm as past interglacial period, when our cold ocean was about 4 C or warmer, and sea levels were many meters higher than they are presently.
You are probably correct.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
Now, my question is this:
What caused the IR thermometer reading to warm up by 14 deg. when it went from clear sky to the cloud?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/direct-evidence-of-earths-greenhouse-effect/
Dr. Spencer asked the above question. Reflection and re-radiation of LWIR and SWIR from the cloud which is afterall H2O. H2O absorbs a large spectrum of IR. The clear sky doesn’t reflect the IR. BTW, the IR Thermometer is reading wavelengths, not temperature. The air next to the cloud is the same as the air in the cloud.
If you shine IR into a mirror, it will show that the mirror is hot, but it won’t be.
There is also the difference in altitude between the cloud and the clear sky focal point. Clouds can be modeled as lakes of water due to the considerable quantity of water droplets. Clear sky, on the other hand is simply 98% N2 and O2 molecules (vapour) which don’t radiate much in the IR band. So, what is the IR meter seeing when pointed at clear sky and why is it reading so low?
This was reported as well by atmospheric scientist, Craig Bohren. He recorded temperatures of -50C pointed at clear sky and -2C when pointed at clouds. How is that possible with WV and CO2 radiating at all altitudes. Seems the instrument is averaging different layers based on received frequencies. However, that would mean there are far colder temperatures than -50C.
I’d like to know this, if you point an IR meter at just air, horizontally, with nothing in the background, will it indicate the temperature of the air. I don’t think it will. If I’m right, what will it measure pointed vertically?
If the meter is pointed horizontally at a target, why won’t the air in between affect the reading?
Dr. Bohren’s text answers Gordon, note the distinction between thermometer kinetic temperature readings and brightness temperature readings from an IR thermometer:
“On a partly cloudy spring day we pointed an infrared thermometer at a patch of clear overhead sky. Although the air temperature measured with an ordinary thermometer was 20C, the temperature recorded by the infrared thermometer was a frigid -50C, not even close to air temperature. This is because an infrared thermometer measures brightness temperatures, which are lower or at most equal to terrestrial thermodynamic temperatures.
When we shifted the thermometer’s field of view from clear sky to an adjacent patch of cloudy sky the brightness temperature shot up to -3C. It is not plausible that two adjacent patches of sky differed in temperature by 47C, so the only possible explanation is that the emissivities of the two patches were different given that the reflectivity of clouds…and air for terrestrial radiation is small.
We have done this simple but dramatic experiment many times, always with the same result: clear sky is always radiatively much colder than adjacent cloudy sky. This difference lies mostly in the markedly different spectral emissivities of water vapor and of liquid water. Later that same day, after sundown, as clouds thickened, the overhead brightness temperature had increased to 2-3C even though air temperatures had dropped.”
BTW, why complicate things. This is a very very easy controlled experiment. One needs to isolate the independent variable, that being the 15 Micron LWIR Emitted by the low energy vibrational state of CO2, the other two being the higher energy shorter wavelength 2.7 Micron and 4.3 Micron vibrational states.
https://youtu.be/K6dSM_nDee8?si=EvPXRH6LlYv2EEQ2
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohammad-Jafari-29/publication/320780724/figure/fig3/AS:563138078535681@1511273988783/Vibrational-modes-of-CO2-a-triatomic-linear-molecule-and-their-IR-Raman-activities.png
One simply needs to purchase a long pass IR filter, isolate 12 to 18 Micron LWIR and apply it to a bucket of water and measure the temperature change. That is basically the shine light on a bean plant experiment everyone does in 1st grade. It is easy to do.
Go ahead. Report back with your results.
No need to buy an artificial long wave pass filter to model atm. irradiance. Better to employ the natural radiation from atm. ice in the form of added overnight icy cirrus cloud as did Dr. Spencer.
Dr. Spencer was able to isolate 12 to 18 Micron LWIR from added atm. ice and apply its irradiance to a bucket of surface water, measure, & analyze the ~6″ deep water temperature increase over a nearby control water shaded from the added icy irradiation. That is basically to shine overnight light from icy cirrus on a bucket of water experiment everyone can do in about 1st grade. It is easy to do.
Resulting data shows fully in accord with the 2LOT & theory for such a real process unlike CO2isLife’s view which is not in accord with 2LOT.
Ball4 says:
September 19, 2024 at 7:46 AM
No need to buy an artificial long wave pass filter to model atm. irradiance. Better to employ the natural radiation from atm. ice in the form of added overnight icy cirrus cloud as did Dr. Spencer.
How does that control for the effect of CO2? What is the humidity of the air, what is the air current, how dense is the cloud, what is the temperature of the cloud, etc etc etc? That is far from a controlled experiment. I’m begining to think that Climate Scientists don’t actualy understand the Scientific Method and how to design a controlled experiment.
Dr. Spencer was able to isolate 12 to 18 Micron LWIR from added atm. ice and apply its irradiance to a bucket of surface water
Was this dry ice? That is -80C and absorbs 15 Micron LWIR. Ice is far from 15 Microns. It emits around 10.5 Microns.
BTW, the reflecting IR radiated from water back to water will slow its cooling. I don’t see how the experiment you reference isolated 15 Micron LWIR. Also light from cirrius clouds in nowhere near LWIR.
Once again, why do people resist a simple controlled experiment? This about the simple bean plant study you did in 1st Grade. This isn’t rocket science.
BTW, here is another easy study: Done at Night to avoid visible radiation.
1) Greenhouse with Corn lowering atmosphereic CO2 below 410ppm
2) Empty Greenhouse with normal CO2
3) Greenhouses with varying levels of CO2 600, 800, 1200 etc ppm.
Measure the nightime temperature variation. The temperatures won’t vary between the greenhouses.
“How does that control for the effect of CO2?”
There was nil change in CO2 for either water overnight. So CO2 effect was controlled for equally for both.
12 to 18 Micron is not far from 10.5 Micron. Study up on spectroscopy if you really want to comment correctly on “light from cirrius (sic) clouds in (sic) nowhere near LWIR.”
CO2isLife is resisting a simple controlled experiment as Nate points out, not Dr. Spencer. The farmer’s greenhouse does not have the optical depth of the earthen atm., poor CO2isLife study choice. Try working to study with the real atm. measurements as does Dr. Spencer; a natural study choice.
Ball4 says:
September 19, 2024 at 12:52 PM
How does that control for the effect of CO2?
There was nil change in CO2 for either water overnight. So CO2 effect was controlled for equally for both.
12 to 18 Micron is not far from 10.5 Micron. Study up on spectroscopy if you really want to comment correctly on light from cirrius (sic) clouds in (sic) nowhere near LWIR.
Are you high on drugs? 10.5 Micron is 0.00C, 15 Micron is -80C. Huge difference.
Zero difference in temperature. 10.5 micron radiation has no temperature at all. That frequency is in radiation emitted from every mass including the sun. You need to further your studies in spectroscopy.
A clear sky can be warm or cool according to an IR thermometer. I have observed for example, when a dry air mass moves into the upper atmosphere in my area, the IR temperature of the sky will drop.
And that correlates to a drop in overnight temperature. The Earth radiatively cools more overnight in these cases.
This is how the jet stream way up high can change the T down at the surface.
Clint R
I already know you do not have enough thinking ability to understand what I will describe. My goal is not to convince you of anything of value as that is not a possible task.
I will demonstrate you point that “fluxes do not add” is false, misleading, and ignorant.
You attempt to prove this by mixing received flux and emitted flux as if they were identical. They are different and you set up a thought experiment attempting to make them identical to prove fluxes don’t add.
Here try to think. I know you won’t, you are most predictable.
Instead of a cone use a cube with six sides made of a highly conducting material so absorbed energy will quickly move to all areas of the cube.
So you illuminate one side of the cube with a flux of 600 W/m^2. Each side of the cube is one square meter.
With this one flux the emission will be 100 W/m^2 flux from each surface of the cube.
Now you can have each face illuminated with a 100 W/m^2 flux. Each of these fluxes adds and you have the same emission as with the 600 W/m^2 flux. You can have three 200 W/m^2 fluxes illuminated 3 sides and have the same result.
Here is where you ignorance is exposed. Now have one face illuminated with a 600 W/m^2 flux and another side also similarly illuminated. Now the emitted flux will have doubled to 200 W/m^2. The two 600 W/m^2 fluxes added. You can add another and keep going till all faces are illuminated by a 600 W/m^2 flux. All the fluxes add and you emit 600 W/m^2 from each face of the cube. With just the one flux you only emitted 100 W/m^2 from each face. The fluxes added. Change your story or stay ignorant. You and Gordon have these blind spots. You can’t understand fluxes adding and he can’t understand molecular vibrations and how the permanent dipoles of some molecules can produce and absorb IR. He is fixated on electrons only and can’t see any larger reality as you are with fluxes. You can’t understand that they can and do add.
norman…flux is a reference to an energy field measured over a square area. Only energy such as electromagnetic energy can be expressed in flux units since the flux is a reference to how the energy field is changing at any point within the area. Ergo, most energies cannot be measured using flux.
Once that energy reaches a solid surface and interacts with it, provided the EM came from a hotter source than the surface, and it is converted to heat, it is no longer a flux.
Flux is a shortened form of Newton’s fluxion, which is an instantaneous rate of change. If you plot a function, y, against x, you say f(x) = y, which is a straight line, since for each value of x, y is the same value. However, if y = f(x) = x^2, we have a parabola centred at 0,0.
If we want to know how y is changing at any point on the parabola wrt x, we write dy/dx = 2x. We call that a derivative today but Newton called it a fluxion. Also 2x is the slope of a tangent line to the curve at that point.
Aside…in calculus, with a function like y = f(x)= x^2, you get the derivative (fluxion) as follows. You take the exponent of x and move it in front of x, then subtract 1 from the exponent. This becomes 2x^2-1 = 2x^1 = 2x. There is a value dx/dx included but that = 1 in this case and is omitted.
The example above is for a curve but we can work this out for a 2-D surface or a 3-D surface. In a 2-D surface representing a flux field cut by that surface, we can calculate the flux of the field to represent how the field is changing at any point on the surface. However, a watt is a measure of mechanical energy (work) and there is no work being done by that radiation flux field.
As I have pointed out many times, EM cannot be expressed in w/m^2. When w/m^2 is used it is understood that the radiation is somehow related to heat, and it is not. The heat associated with the EM was lost at the instant the EM was produced by electrons in an atom.
Only the heating created when the flux interacts with electrons in the atoms of the surface can be expressed in w/m^2. In fact, only heat and work can be expressed in w/m^2. And even that is not an actual measure of heat, in calories, but an equivalent value for heat in units of work.
Expressing radiation in w/m^2 is based on an old belief that radiation is heat passing through the atmosphere as heat rays. At one time, it was believed that heat could be transported somehow as rays of energy. Therefore, 18th century physicists would have considered the flux in such an area as representing a flux field of heat.
Bohr proved them wrong in 1913, but it appears many modern physicists are still mired in mid 19th century physics beliefs. In fact, I find it scary that many physicists today are still mired in 19th century belief systems. Not only that, many modern physicists have gotten basic concept like entropy and the 2nd law wrong.
Gordon 10:45 pm now erroneously claims: “Ergo, most energies cannot be measured using flux.”
Gordon is on a roll being physically wrong lately. The total flux (over a certain arbitrary amount of time) of a property is the product of the number density of carriers of the property, the speed of the carriers, and the amount of the property each one carries.
It is possible, of course, to specify the flux of molecular kinetic energy in a certain time period because each molecule has a definite kinetic energy. This is a kinetic energy flux, and there is no need to relabel it incorrectly as a heat flux for which there is no molecular carrier to be found.
Molecules carry not only translational kinetic energy but rotational kinetic energy as well as vibrational kinetic and potential energies. Thus, the total energy flux is a well-defined physical quantity, and wherever the erroneous term heat flux is encountered, physically it should be correctly replaced by energy flux.
gordon, I didn’t waste time reading all of that nonsense. But, I saw numerous mistakes in what I read. For example: “However, a watt is a measure of mechanical energy (work)…”
WRONG! A “Watt” is a unit of POWER. And POWER is not energy. Just as flux is not energy.
You understand so little of this, yet you keep abusing your keyboard.
Please stop clogging the blog.
Norman, you can’t discuss science, because you don’t know any. So all you can do is insult, falsely accuse, and misrepresent. You have NOTHING, so you have to make things up.
As always, I’m willing to help you but only after you stop the childishness.
Clean up your comment, try to act like an adult, and try again.
Related
Cat ‘Stolen’ by Haitian Migrants in Ohio Was Actually Just in Cat Owner’s Basement
Just like all the fake voter fraud Trumpers did: “Well, whoops, I thought I definitely saw voter fraud but I must have been mistaken, my bad” as soon as they got put under oath. I can’t imagine being this fucking gullible.
“I can’t imagine being this fucking gullible”
I can.
Ark, are you still trying to be a “lie detector”?
You never finished your qualification exam:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1688219
Cli, are you still stalking me?
You never finished your digital exam:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1688226
“Stalking” is what cultists do, Ark. You run around trying to discredit people you hate. You are unable to face reality. You believe that your childishness makes up for your ignorance of science.
Wow.
And it, struck a nerve.
And it, hit a vein.
Cool it with the insults little buddy.
Ark if you can’t face reality, it’s your fault not mine.
Hey Puffman, have a dose of REALITY –
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/amber-thurman-death-georgia-abortion-ban-rcna171301
Perhaps Life has already spammed the forum where Mark commented:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/19/politics/kfile-mark-robinson-black-nazi-pro-slavery-porn-forum/index.html
Gaslighting by the Left:
https://www.politico.com/gallery/7-dogs-that-obama-ate
https://youtu.be/Xz8qYTwSEAI?si=ke3DqorDEU7vj7wk
All the left has is Gaslighting because this is their record to run on.
https://x.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1836796997057278191
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/04/biden-broadband-program-swing-state-frustrations-00175845
Life might appreciate Donold’s declaration:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article292749419.html
A great judge of character, that Donold!
This post is for he who thinks that (1) “ it’s easy to get a degree in” Astrophysics, and (2) doesn’t know the difference between an Astrophysicist and an Astronomer.
(1) The specific requirements for an Astrophysics degree may vary depending on the university, but a typical curriculum includes the following core areas:
Maths: Calculus I, II, and III; Linear Algebra; Differential Equations; Vector Calculus; Probability and Statistics.
Physics: Classical Mechanics; Electromagnetism (E&M); Quantum Mechanics; Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics; General Relativity (advanced level).
Astronomy & Astrophysics: Introductory Astronomy; Stellar Structure and Evolution; Galactic and Extragalactic Astronomy; Cosmology; Astrophysical Dynamics; Observational Techniques (telescopes, detectors, etc.); Planetary Science.
Computational and Data Science: Numerical Methods; Scientific Computing; Data Analysis and Simulation; Programming (commonly in Python, C++, or MATLAB).
Advanced Physics and Astrophysics Electives: High-Energy Astrophysics; Black Holes and Neutron Stars; Magnetohydrodynamics; Advanced Cosmology; Particle Physics and Cosmology Interface.
Laboratory Work: Physics Lab (experimental techniques in classical and modern physics); Observational Astronomy (hands-on experience with telescopes); Computational Labs.
Research or Capstone Project: Independent research or thesis in a specific area of astrophysics.
General Education Requirements (varies by institution): Humanities; Social Sciences; Writing/Communication.
(2) Astronomers primarily study the “what” (observations of space objects); Astrophysicists focus on the “how” and “why” (the physical laws and processes behind these objects).
Why waste your time explaining all this?
Everyone on this blog understood years ago that Robertson – like Tesla, by the way – never received any real scientific training at any university, let alone is or has ever been an engineer.
His skills are focused on misrepresentation, distortion, discrediting, denigration and lying.
Somewhere on this blog, if you have enough time, you might discover a post by Robertson that begins with:
” As I took a year in astronomy, … ”
This was his very best statement ever.
*
Not one of my former engineering colleagues would ever doubt things like time or the lunar spin; not one of them would ever discredit anyone comparing satellite data to surface weather stations, let alone would s/he write an incredibly stupyd post like this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1686713
“… never received any real scientific training at any university, let alone is or has ever been an engineer.”
Au contraire mon frére.
He proudly flaunts his degree from the Dunning-Kruger University where the typical curriculum provides students with just enough knowledge to make them dangerously confident. Here’s the list of required courses:
Intro to Electricity: Shocking Insights.
Circuit Design for the Overconfident.
Analog vs. Digital: Why Both Are Basically the Same.
Advanced Misuse of Multimeters.
Electromagnetic Waves: You Can’t See Them, So Don’t Worry About Them.
Power Systems: Plug It In and Hope for the Best.
Microcontrollers: Programming Without a Clue.
Capstone: Rewiring Your House for Maximum Bragging Rights.
Bindi, you’re going to have to leave gordon alone about lunar spin. That’s one of the few things he gets right.
You make yourself look childish when you keep mentioning it, having no viable model of “orbiting without spin”. If you don’t want to be just another cult child, either provide a viable model, or quit mentioning Moon.
binny…you mention engineering colleagues. I presume you are talking about sanitary engineering which is often conducted in sewers. Of course, you could have been a locomotive engineer or a garbage collector, often referred to as a waste collection engineer.
However, based on your acerbic posts I figure you may just be a cranky old man.
As predicted, ignoramus-in-chief Robertson perfectly confirmed what I wrote about his thorough lack of any technical skill which he merely compensates with nonsensical, sissyish remarks.
ark…good to see you are getting into some humour and not taking things so seriously.
The syllabus you have listed is for astrophysics related to aerospace engineering. There is a vast difference between such an engineering degree and the ordinary degree in astrophysics, or astronomy. Astronauts generally have an engineering degree and aerospace engineers must know about the physics of astronomy as well as Newtonian mechanics and advanced math.
I took a year of astronomy as an elective out of curiosity. Hardly any math other than very simple calculus and that was presented at a trivial level.
BTW…another elective was in psychology so beware, I have you figured out and I reckon you have an Oedipus conflict.
https://www.uvm.edu/~jbailly/courses/tragedy/student%20second%20documents/Oedipus%20Complex.html#:~:text=The%20Oedipus%20complex%20is%20a,happens%20at%20an%20unconscious%20level.
The amusing part for me was the first day of class. I could not get in the door of the lecture room. I managed to squeeze through the crowd to the prof to ask what was going on. He smiled and told me to wait a minute and he’d sort it out.
Then he got the attention of the crowd. He told them this was a class in astronomy, not astrology, and that it involved a lot of math and physics. There was a collective groan from the crowd and they filed out, leaving a classroom half full of us engineering types.
I figure Cassini and anyone who thinks the Moon rotates on a local axis were astrologers as well.
Gor… your post highlights how little you know about university studies and particularly about engineering.
First of all, I posted a curriculum not a syllabus. If you’d attended university you’d know the difference.
Second, saying that “ The syllabus you have listed is for astrophysics related to aerospace engineering” makes absolutely no sense. Aerospace Engineering focuses on the design, development, and testing of aircraft, spacecraft, and related systems. Astrophysics concentrates on the study of celestial bodies, the universe’s origins, structure, evolution, and fundamental physical laws, and is more theoretical and research-oriented delving into the universe’s mysteries.
Third, any graduate engineer knows that the Aerospace Engineering curriculum requires the study of Fluid Dynamics, Aerodynamics, Structural Mechanics, Propulsion Systems, and Material Sciences and Composite Materials, none of which I listed in my post.
” I figure Cassini and anyone who thinks the Moon rotates on a local axis were astrologers as well. ”
This includes Newton, of course:
https://tinyurl.com/Newton-Principia-Leseur
*
A genial annotation work by two scientifically well educated, French persons – i.e., the exact inverse of these boasting posters a la Robertson, Clint R, the DREMT pseudomod, the Hunter boy and a few others.
*
Translated from Newton’s original New Latin text by a dozen of independent translators in e.g. English, Italian, French, German, Swedish, Dutch, Japanese, Russian; among them Emilie du Chatelet (1745-1749), Prof. J. Ph. Wolfers (1872), and last not least by Ian Bruce (2012).
… and the very best is that all these astronomers, beginning with Tobias Mayer (1750), all computed the same period for the lunar spin, i.e. 27.32166 days – despite having used completely different observation tools and observation data processing methods.
*
Only thoroughly ineducated persons claim that ‘the astronomers did not understand that they were computing Moon’s orbiting period’, without of course being able to disprove what they discredit.
*
The same of course is valid for the computation since 100 years of the physical librations of the Moon – tiniest irregularities within the lunar spin.
Bindidon says:
This includes Newton, of course:
https://tinyurl.com/Newton-Principia-Leseur
*
A genial annotation work by two scientifically well educated, French persons i.e., the exact inverse of these boasting posters a la Robertson, Clint R, the DREMT pseudomod, the Hunter boy and a few others.
*
Translated from Newtons original New Latin text by a dozen of independent translators in e.g. English, Italian, French, German, Swedish, Dutch, Japanese, Russian; among them Emilie du Chatelet (1745-1749), Prof. J. Ph. Wolfers (1872), and last not least by Ian Bruce (2012).
————————
I have to give you credit Bindidon. You pour the smoothest and well aged bottlings of ”My Daddy told me so”. And I am impressed about how easily you can gulp down every last drop of it in one chug.
Bill is just mad that his ‘Daddies’ are not as smart as Newton.
Oh Newton was definitely really smart. But often students of smart people aren’t.
“…the DREMT pseudomod…”
To mention me is to summon me. Other than that, I’ve stopped commenting.
> Other than that, Ive stopped commenting.
False.
Not false. Under the other article, I was still just responding to you guys, who wouldn’t stop replying to me. If you keep responding to me, I’ll reply until you stop.
It’s quite simple. I’ve stopped commenting, so won’t be starting any new discussions. If people mention me, I’ll appear, though. If people keep responding to me, I’ll keep replying.
I’m entirely your problem. If you can’t let me go, I’m obliged to stay.
> Not false.
False.
If Graham D. Warner could stick to his pathetic “who wouldn’t stop replying to me” excuse instead, that’d be great.
Everything I said was correct, as always. If you keep responding to me, I’m obliged to reply. It’s only polite. Please, keep demonstrating the principle, making me more right with every response. I love to win arguments, so help me win yet another one.
> Everything I said was correct, as always.
False, and false.
Nate *never* mentions Graham D. Warner’s name.
So? A response is a response. He’s either talking to me or about me. Either way, it counts.
Thank you for proving me right, again.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] To mention me is to summon me. Other than that, Ive stopped commenting.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] A response is a response.
Indeed. No contradiction, inconsistency or problem.
"I’ve stopped commenting, so won’t be starting any new discussions. If people mention me, I’ll appear, though. If people keep responding to me, I’ll keep replying."
Was that difficult to understand? Is it hard to understand that under the other article, the discussion was ongoing? As the discussion was already underway, I kept replying to people. A response was a response. Same as here, now…Bindidon has summoned me, and now you’re here – obsessively responding to me – and a response is a response.
Thank you for proving me right, again.
> No contradiction, inconsistency or problem.
False.
Either Graham D. Warner only comments when his name is mentioned, or he also comments when he feels that people reply to him.
Can’t be both.
I explained the rules, and I’m sticking to them, as I have been since I announced my retirement from commenting.
That you are unable to understand, and couldn’t resist responding, was to be expected. Nobody is more obsessed with me than you.
Thank you for proving me right, again.
Test.
Yeah, you’re just trying to see what you can get away with. So, we’ll have to include that as a response. Otherwise, you give an inch, and they’ll take a mile…
(Vlad) To mention me is to summon me. Other than that, I’ve stopped commenting.
(Estr) Test.
(Vlad) Yeah, youre just trying to see what you can get away with.
…and, once summoned, a response is a response. Even “test”.
Graham D. Warner gaslights once more.
He’s still commenting.
If I was still commenting, I would be starting new discussions and posting wherever I pleased. I really am just appearing when mentioned, and then responding to those who can’t let me go once I’ve appeared. It’s you that’s keeping me here. You’ll probably respond again.
Pretty sure you would need to say DREMT three times to summon him.
Ah, another obsessive fan appears.
Graham D. Warner
Thank you for proving me right, again.
“Other than that, I’ve stopped commenting.”
Little Willy never could understand the most simple things. Oh well. I guess that’s why I won every single argument against him I ever had.
[ESTR] Wait! (*He moves away from Vladimir.*) I sometimes wonder if we wouldn’t have been better off alone, each one for himself. (*He crosses the stage and sits down on the mound.*) We weren’t made for the same road.
[VLAD] (*without anger*). It’s not certain.
[ESTR] No, nothing is certain.
*Vladimir slowly crosses the stage and sits down beside Estragon.*
[VLAD] We can still part, if you think it would be better.
[ESTR] It’s not worthwhile now.
*Silence.*
[VLAD] No, it’s not worthwhile now.
*Silence.*
[ESTR] Well, shall we go?
[VLAD] Yes, let’s go.
*They do not move.*
https://youtu.be/rhr3TzEknzY
Commiserations to the American Magic team who have just been eliminated from the America’s Cup.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=863QaQztrcM
Against the British in the final!
Yes. It will be interesting to see whether Italy or Great Britain will face the New Zealanders.
I’m afraid I’m a pessimist. My forecast is that Italy will challenge New Zealand and New Zealand will retain the Cup.
Watching paint dry would be far more interesting. UK teams fail at important sports like soccer.
Sure.
This is the infrared spectrum of water.
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1
Note the transmittance, about 30%, at wavenumber 700. This is the 13-17 micrometres band emitted by CO2. The surface film absorbs 70% of the CO2 emissions falling on it and let’s the rest through.
And here’s an experimental design you could modify.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0017931017312711
Basically it has a 1mm thick water film over a graphite block. If the IR does not penetrate the water film, then the water will warm more than the graphite and the graphite will not.
If some of the IR penetrates the water the graphite will warm as much of more than the water, as happens.
Point?
You can change the Wavenumber to Microns.
Observations:
1) H2O absorbs 15 Micron LWIR
2) H2O absorbs much of the sprectrum below the Atmospheric Window
What is the point of the post?
This is CO2, CO2 doesn’t have a dipole and is a very weak GHG.
It absorbs very very very very little spectrum.
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
Except in air where CO2 has peaks and relatively significant absorp_tion cross section at STP from about 1 micron to 0.2mm.
NB: CO2isLife link: “spectra…may differ in detail from measurements on FTIR instruments or in other chemical environments.”
CO2…actually CO2 is a linear molecule and has two dipoles, one on either side of the central carbon atom. It’s about electronegativity. The two O-atoms have a higher electronegativity than the C-atom, meaning with shared electrons, the electrons orbiting both favour the O-side of the bond, making that side of the C-O dipole more negative wrt the C-end.
I have never seen a satisfactory explanation for why such dipoles absorb IR. The water molecule has two dipoles as well and it absorbs IR better than CO2 even though it is not a linear molecule. It has a bond angle of about 105 degrees.
I have the feeling that the ability of CO2 and H2O to absorb IR comes down to a lower orbital energy level in their bonding electrons. With hydrogen and its lone electron there are about 7 orbital energy levels through which the electron can rise from ground state. If it reaches the outermost orbital, which it could by simply absorbing heat, the frequency of energy it emits when falling back to ground state is dependent on how many orbitals it falls through.
If the hydrogen electron fall from level 7 all the way to ground state it emits UV energy. However, if it falls 1 to 3 levels, it emits IR. I have a feeling that the bonding electron orbitals with CO2 and H20, when excited, don’t rise much and when they fall back, all they can emit is lower frequency EM. That would make sense at lower EM frequencies in the IR band.
Why that should be the case only with dipoles is not clear.
There is a lot of talk about molecular vibration being the reason but the vibration has two main sources. One source is the natural vibration due to electrostatic forces between the protons in the nucleus and the bonding electrons. However, that vibration would be a constant and would not change unless the electrons gain more energy and change the electrostatic balance.
The bonding electrons can gain energy by absorbing heat or radiation. Even in solids, there is vibration between the bonded atoms and that vibration is affected only by heat in the inner atoms of a mass. Of course, I have omitted electrical excitation since we are not talking about electric currents. Near the surface of a mass, EM radiation can change the energy level of electrons in bonding electrons by exciting them to higher orbital energy levels.
It’s the same with gas molecules like CO2 or WV. Radiation has no properties that will cause a molecular covalent bond to vibrate more, the radiation must first be absorbed by the bonding electrons. When they absorb EM, it affects their orbital kinetic energy, and the result is a jump to a higher energy level. Having gained more KE, the electrons put more stress on the proton-electron bond, causing a greater vibration.
Point?
At the emission wavelength of CO2 transmittance by water is 30%. 70% of the DWLR from CO2 is stopped in the surface film and 30% gets through to warm the water volume beneath.
The data says that your claim that 15 micrometres DWLR cannot warm the ocean is wrong.
The experiment confirms this. If DWLR cannot penetrate the water film,the water film would warm faster than the graphite block.
Ent, the “point” is that you don’t understand any of this, like your cult.
Like your cult, you’ve found another link you don’t understand. You don’t know the difference between DWIR and 15μ photons. You believe all infrared is the same.
In your link, the “experiment” warms water with “infrared”, and you believe that means 15μ photons can warm water. You don’t understand the science.
The “experiment” uses lasers and 500 Watt halogen bulbs for the sources! The “infrared” used is NOT 15μ photons. Lasers and 500 Watt halogen bulbs do not exist in the atmosphere.
You can’t understand any of this.
Hurricane Update
It ain’t over til it’s over, but we are just one week past peak season and things are very quiet. There are only three very weak areas of disturbance.
Tropical Weather Outlook
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL
200 PM EDT Thu Sep 19 2024
For the North Atlantic…Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico:
1. Central Subtropical Atlantic (Remnants of Gordon):
* Formation chance through 48 hours…low…30 percent.
* Formation chance through 7 days…low…30 percent.
2. Central and Western Subtropical Atlantic:
* Formation chance through 48 hours…low…10 percent.
* Formation chance through 7 days…low…20 percent.
3. Northwestern Caribbean Sea and Southeastern Gulf of Mexico:
* Formation chance through 48 hours…low…near 0 percent.
* Formation chance through 7 days…medium…40 percent.
https://theconversation.com/experts-predicted-more-hurricanes-in-the-caribbean-this-summer-where-are-the-missing-storms-238824
clint…”I saw numerous mistakes in what I read. For example: However, a watt is a measure of mechanical energy (work)
WRONG! A Watt is a unit of POWER. And POWER is not energy. Just as flux is not energy”.
***
I am dying to hear the other mistakes I allegedly made after reading Clint’s definition of power as not measuring energy.
All power measurements are measurements of energy. The watt is a unit of electrical energy measurement that has been defined as an equivalent to the mechanical energy power of James Watt’s horsepower.
Siemens defined the electrical watt in 1882 as the power developed when 1 ampere flows under the influence of 1 volt. The watt is a measure of the work done by an electrical current whereas a horsepower is the mechanical work done when a load is moved through a certain distance in a certain time.
It is important to understand that the watt was not defined till 1862, and even then, it was introduced as a measure of electrical power.
Also, in the electrical industry, a motor can be defined either in HP or in watts.
Watts measure either electrical or mechanical energy!!! However, the watt has always been an electrical equivalent of mechanical horsepower, albeit a fraction of a HP. There are roughly 746 watts in 1 HP. That is clearly understood if an electric motor replaces a horse for moving a load but not so apparent when the watt is used as a measure of heating.
I should have said above re the Siemens definition of the watt, that it is a measurement of 1 amp of current ***THROUGH a LOAD*** and driven by 1 volt.
In an electrical circuit, P = EI = E^2/R = I^2.R. Without a load, no current will flow and the power = 0. Even for a short circuit, power doesn’t mean a lot with near zero resistance.
It’s of interest that a with short circuit conditions, I (current) goes toward infinity while R goes toward zero. In order to have significant power drawn you need a significant resistance.
Having said that, a short circuit with a copper conductor makes the conductor very hot. If the current is large enough for the cross section of the wire, the conductor will explode like a fuse. But, can we equate that heat to power?
Power as we know it is a unit of work done over a period of time. Can we claim that useful work is done in a short-circuit? Don’t know.
gordon, a Watt is a unit of POWER. POWER is ENERGY/TIME. POWER is a “rate” — “energy per time”. Power is NOT energy, and energy is NOT power.
That’s short and sweet. No need for endless, tangled rambling.
[GR]”The watt is a unit of electrical energy measurement…”
***
We seem to be in agreement so far. However, what is being measured? With power, we are measuring the amount of energy over a time period. Claiming the power is simply a rate is ingenuous, it is a measurement of the change in energy per unit time.
Energy!!!
If you place a square meter frame in an electromagnetic field, so the radiation passes through it, and you want to measure that energy and how it is changing within that square metre, how would you do it? That’s what flux is about, the rate of change of an energy field over an area or surface area.
There is no way to measure the EM directly, you must convert the EM to another form to measure it. If you place an antenna array in the square area, the EM field affects electrons in an antenna, and you can measure the resulting electron flow as an electric current. Then you can measure the electric current produced through a resistive load, to determine the power in watts.
Again, the watt is a measurement of electrical power and has been declared as an equivalent in mechanical energy as the fraction of a mechanical horsepower.
However, you are measuring electrical energy, not the electromagnetic energy in the radiation. Therefore the power claimed for the EM field is not power related to it but power related to the electrical energy produced.
You cannot measure radiation in watts because there is no instrument that can measure EM as such. Furthermore, EM can do no work in its form as EM nor can it produce electrical current in that form. EM must be converted to another form of energy, and that is what is measured.
This argument is akin to a litre of gasoline, which when ignited, can supply enough mechanical power to drive the drive shaft and wheels in a car. Can we then say that a litre of gasoline in a container has power? No, it has a potential power but no power can be measured in its liquid form in a container.
There is a big difference between power and potential power. When we declare EM in w/m^2 we are saying it can initiate power in an electric circuit, where the power is a measure of electron charge flow. However, it can do nothing in its form as pure EM.
The S-B equation specifically states that EM leaving a surface is measured in power units. They make no effort to distinguish the EM, which has no power, from the heat dissipated as it was produced. The w/m^2 is a reference to the heat dissipated as the EM is created and not to the EM itself. That is not only presumptuous but bad science. Inferring a power that is not present is a lie.
I have anticipated the rebuttal, that energy is conserved. However, we don’t know what energy is and that it takes distinctly different forms. So we cannot lump energy as a single phenomenon and make a lump statement that all energy is conserved. If so many watts of heat are dissipated as EM is formed, the EM begins to dissipate immediately with distance over a square metre. That mean the energy per square metre dissipates on its own, even though the total energy is still the same. Eventually, although the total is still there, it will be diluted to the point it can no longer be classified as a viable form of energy.
Same with heat. As heated molecules rise from a surface in a gravitational field like Earth’s. the pressure drop and the heat dissipates naturally. Therefore the conservation of energy theory is a general idea formed before any of this was understood.
Once again, there is no way to measure energy directly for the simple reason that we have no idea what energy is. Ark argued the other day that heat flowing in a solid is a flux field, but again, we have no idea what heat is thus we cannot measure it directly. Although you can place an antenna array in an EM field to determine the effect it has on electric current in the antenna, there is no way to measure heat as a flux in a solid.
The only way to measure heat in a solid is to place a thermometer at different places along the path. Then, you are measuring a difference in something that is unknown. We call it heat but the thermometer is measuring only the effect the unknown energy has on the expansion of mercury, or something similar, in a thermometer vial.
The term ‘flux’ is a tenuous word used to indicate the change in an energy field of unknown origin. With an EM field, it is very difficult to measure it precisely over an area like a square metre. There may be arrays today based on microelectronics that can approximate such a measurement but normally an instrument like a grid-dip metre is used. It is a tuned device and only responded to individual frequencies or the peak of a broadband signal.
Modern meters that can detect the E-field (electric) and the H-field (magnetic) are good only over a narrow bandwidth. There are simply no instruments that can measure the full bandwidth of EM energy. Normally, that’s not a problem since no one is interested in the full bandwidth, only in discrete areas of it.
ball4…quote from Craig Bohren…
“This is because an infrared thermometer measures brightness temperatures, which are lower or at most equal to terrestrial thermodynamic temperatures”.
***
Brightness temperature is a tenuous term. It should actually be colour temperature, which is the colour of light given of by certain heated bodies at certain temperatures. That is the basis of the S-B equation as originally written by Stefan, the colours given off by an electrically-heated platinum filament and translated to wavelengths.
I don’t understand what is meant by ‘brightness’ temperature. If you point an IR meter at anything, it is detecting the frequency/wavelength of infrared energy. If our eyes had the requisite frequency detectors we might see that IR as a continuation of the colour temperature scale. Of course the colour would be below red and possibly a new colour.
So, if an IR meter is pointed at the sky, or even parallel to the surface so only sky is seen, what frequency/wavelengths is it detecting? Obviously, it can see only frequencies in the IR range, If it is pointed at clear sky, and reading -50c, what frequecies is it measuring to indicate that temperature?
I would say it is seeing an average of a relatively broad spectrum of IR frequencies ranging in temperature from below -50C right up to the ambient temperature. Of course, if it could be focused, using a filter, it might be possible to zero in on a particular altitude.
Bohren does not specify if filters or band limiters are being used, in fact, he seems to be saying he doesn’t know what the -50C means.
It is already apparent that the stratospheric polar vortex will be shifted over the Atlantic and air from Siberia will pass abover the Bering Sea far to the south US.
https://i.ibb.co/wcMpgYX/gfs-o3mr-05-nh-f00-1.png
The winter of evil is coming. Look at the thickness of the troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JAS_NH_2024.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
A surge of tropical moisture will produce rain over part of every Australian state and territory during the next week, with some places likely to see several months worth of rain in a few days.
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/rain-to-soak-every-australian-state-next-week/1889909?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=20240920_news_rain-to-soak-every-australian-state-next-week&fbclid=IwY2xjawFaKMpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHQxxlk9A1b0ybnpTC5YYglQJwTwDRdAt3HedeK5AkD1cHeWOBKXuXN78eg_aem_ZaQJu_1dh7Ks_5CQEWeSuw
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/09/24/0100Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-234.06,-29.06,727
As The MAGA turns:
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature of the MAGA Party.
Just another Hoax.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/doj-decides-not-charge-rep-matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation-rcna70839
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/15/politics/matt-gaetz-justice-department/index.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/02/15/matt-gaetz-justice-department-investigation/11264211002/
The moral bankrupcy the political left knows no bounds.
BTW, in California posting such nonsense would be illegal.
https://x.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1836518555648692570
It is really unfortunate that a major party relies on hoaxes to win elections.
“major party relies on hoaxes to win elections”
Like Hattians eating pets?
CO2isLife,
Try to keep up:
If only the cats were the only *story* JD and Donold fabricated:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/19/politics/fact-check-donald-trump-fictional-stories/index.html
What’s a MAGA party? MAGA is an acronym created by Trump as an electioneering slogan. And what is wrong with making the States great again? There is no known country called America, therefore MAGA is an incorrect reference to the US.
Are you claiming there are no sleezeballs in the Democratic party? How about Bill Clinton, who sexually harassed a young woman in the Oval office? And how about Hillary defending Bill over his numerous infidelities by blaming the women.
A MAGA party looks like this:
https://nypost.com/2024/09/20/us-news/inside-rfk-jr-s-secret-sex-diaries-including-the-codes-he-used-for-women-while-grappling-with-his-lust-demons/
CO2isLife,
You posted this:
∂μ/∂Q=0 IR inactive, which means the corresponding vibration does not result in a molecular dipole moment.
∂μ/∂Q≠0 IR active, which means the corresponding vibration does result in a molecular dipole moment.
So, yes. CO2 does have 3 IR active vibration dipoles.
See here in case you already forgot: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1688526
See also your own figure here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohammad-Jafari-29/publication/320780724/figure/fig3/AS:563138078535681@1511273988783/Vibrational-modes-of-CO2-a-triatomic-linear-molecule-and-their-IR-Raman-activities.png
which you apparently didn’t understand.
Ark, do you know that a 15μ photon can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface?
(HINT: It’s the same basic reason ice cubes can’t boil water.)
Both of which violate 2LOT in any real process so there is no hope for Clint R 8:04 am to be correct.
There is no single frequency band that can by itself warm the surface of the earth. The sum total of all the frequencies of energy radiating in the atmosphere result in 288K.
Climate change is driven by the sun and moderated by ocean currents. There is no artifact of Carbon Dioxide in any climate data. .
So, yes. CO2 does have 3 IR active vibration dipoles.
CO2 does not have a natural dipole.
Each CO bond in CO2 is polar, yet experiments show that the CO2 molecule has no dipole moment. Because the two CO bond dipoles in CO2 are equal in magnitude and oriented at 180 to each other, they cancel.
That is elementary school chemistry. H2O has a natural dipole.
Two things.
First, when you say “natural dipole” it should be a permanent dipole.
Second, CO2 unlike H2O does not have a permanent dipole. It does have 3 vibration-induced dipoles which are the Asymmetric stretch mode, and the Bending modes shown in your figure.
Note that the third column in your own figure plainly explains this.
CO2isLife wrote: “That is elementary school chemistry.”
If you’re genuinely interested in understanding the spectroscopy of greenhouse gases you’re going to have to move beyond elementary school chemistry.
Second, CO2 unlike H2O does not have a permanent dipole. It does have 3 vibration-induced dipoles which are the Asymmetric stretch mode, and the Bending modes shown in your figure.
Note that the third column in your own figure plainly explains this.
I’ve posted thousands of time that CO2 has 3 vibrational states at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns. No one denys that. Simply look at the graphics I post links to. As you mention, CO2, unlike H2O, is linear, and isn’t a perminant dipole. That is why it is such a weak GHG. H2O on the other hand is a Dipole, and has many vibrational states.
Water is a dipolar molecule. Water has the chemical formula H2O which is two hydrogen atoms attached to one oxygen atom. A water molecule has no overall charge. But there is a slight negative charge in the region of the oxygen atom and a slight positive charge near the hydrogen atoms. This is called a dipole.
CO2 has collision-induced dipoles in the Asymmetric and Bending modes.
Arkady Ivanovich says:
September 20, 2024 at 11:41 AM
CO2 has collision-induced dipoles in the Asymmetric and Bending modes.
What is the purpose of all this nonsense? CO2 is a very weak GHG, do you deny that?
1) It isn’t dipole
2) It has 3 narorrow vibrational states
3) Only 1, the 15 micron vibration, is relevant to the GHG Effect
4) 15 Microns is radiated by a blackbody of -80C
5) MODTRAN demonstrates that the CO2 signature isn’t even displayed until H2O precipitates out of the atmosphere up about 2 kms.
6) The effect of CO2 can see by the stratosphere having a temperatrue floor around -80C
Who cares if CO2 has “collusion-induced dipoles” meaning in thin air it has no dipole, what difference does it make? CO2 is a very weak GHG as demonstrated by the very narrow band radiation that it absorbs. It simply doesn’t absorb much radiation. That is a simple fact.
From the headline post:
Also…
It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s GHE. On average, it probably accounts for about 50-60% of the warming. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature (Clausius-Clapeyron equation). The GHE is controlled by the non-condensable gases, mainly CO2; the warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.
Entropic man
I apologize for my ‘teacher-like tone’ below.
*
Upthread you posted info about water vapor’s transmittance:
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1
This is, for different reasons, of no help at all.
1. The graph shown has to do with transmittance at wavenumbers; it would be much better to change the specification to absorbance on a micron-based x-axis (also inverting the x-scale would be appropriate), and to download the picture obtained.
Clicking on the right mouse button and selecting ‘Download picture’ is in this case useless: you merely download a grid cell. Alternatively, generate a snapshot and finally upload the picture so everybody speaks the same language:
Water vapor absorbance
https://i.postimg.cc/fbCb4nPr/IR-absorbance-microns-H2-O.png
Carbon dioxide absorbance
https://i.postimg.cc/5tSXxFXp/IR-absorbance-microns-CO2.png
*
Why is this still of no help?
Please have a look at the date of what you plot:
CO2: 1964; H2O: 1969 !!!
Entropic man, this is 55 resp. 60 years old, i.e. 100% deprecated data, to say the very least:
https://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/coblentz/desk-bk.pdf
*
By publishing such information, you naively open the widest possible boulevard for people like CO2isLife, Robertson, etc. to ridicule you, since they themselves always base their pseudo-skeptical views on similarly outdated data and graphs, like e.g.
https://ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/greenhouse/radiationChart.png
*
Please compare the outdated H2O / CO2 absorp~tion plots above to what is provided at Spectral Calc when using HITRAN2020’s most recent line -by-line data in the sub-post below.
Addendum
Two line -by-line comparisons of H2O vs. CO2 using Spectral Calc (under consideration of their respective atmospheric abundance)
(1) H2O vs. CO2 at the surface
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PSivJbIK3F0R-P9s_ju3Nme1FtU2CfR2/view
(2) H2O vs. CO2 at 5 km altitude
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LNvbkWSs9Gk–lMc0oB7vJBixxPxEqYx/view
You clearly can see that CO2isLife’s allegations a la
” Once again, H2O absorbs the same wavelengths as CO2, and H2O is far more abundant. ”
are utterly wrong because based on completely deprecated data sources.
You are clearly better equipped to debate this topic. I’ll leave it to you.
You clearly can see that CO2isLifes allegations a la
Once again, H2O absorbs the same wavelengths as CO2, and H2O is far more abundant.
are utterly wrong because based on completely deprecated data sources.
Where do you guys come up with this? Just what part of this graphic don’t you understand?
https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/sun-earth-planck-1.jpg
https://o.quizlet.com/xV1tLsaAY3-kBW28hBqtrA_b.png
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_PART5_GREENHOUSEGAS_files/image002.jpg
Simply go to MODTran and alter the H2O and CO2 in the lower Troposphere. You will see CO2 is irrelevant to the energy balance. Only when you remove H2O does the CO2 fingerprint appear.
CO2isLife
1. ” Just what part of this graphic don’t you understand? ”
I understand all parts of all graphics you show.
YOU don’t understand that all of them are based on deprecated data which is partly 50 years old.
The graphics posted in
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1688710
are based on recent data and are correct.
*
2. ” You will see CO2 is irrelevant to the energy balance. Only when you remove H2O does the CO2 fingerprint appear. ”
You are moving the goal post: I only wanted to show you wrong with your allegation:
” Once again, H2O absorbs the same wavelengths as CO2, and H2O is far more abundant. ”
*
It is absolutely evident that in comparison to H2O, CO2 plays a minor absorp~tion role… at the surface: its absorp~tivity is 100 times lower.
At an altitude of 5 km already, CO2’s and H2O’s absorp~tivity are equivalent.
That’s all.
Southern Ontario weather is crap.
Winter its too cold for H2O to have an effect.
Summer is too humid for CO2 to have an effect.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/09/jd-vance-demanded-that-blog-critical-of-demagogic-race-baiting-be-scrubbed-from-the-internet
Is that self-censorship?
A trip back in time:
[From NOAA’s description of the GHE] — “Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere), greenhouse gases absorb that heat and release it gradually over time, like bricks in a fireplace after the fire goes out.”
Here the perversion of reality begins. A firewall brick can easily have a temperature of 1000°F. The brick surface with a high emissivity would then be emitting about 24,000 W/m^2! We only receive 960 W/m^2 from Sun. Even the promoters of the AGW nonsense only claim the surface receives about 240 W/m^2. So they’re using the imagery of a firewall brick, that could be hot enough to cook meat, to scare the uneducated.
Heat does not move from cold to hot. Heat is ONLY from hot to cold. A cold sky can NOT heat a warm surface. A clear sky typically has a temperature way below freezing. Earth’s average surface temperature is about 288K. Below freezing temperatures cannot warm a 288K surface.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1162130
CO2 is well known to be a weak greenhouse gas, the hope of it doing any measurable amount of warming is related to it somehow increasing global water vapor.
We are in an Ice Age, which also well known.
The so called father of global warming, had idea that caused global warming or what causes Earth to leave the glaciation period was an increase of global CO2 level. Or what caused us to leave the glacial Maximum, and caused global sea level to rise over 100 meter, was CO2.
And he was proven, wrong.
Instead of CO2 somehow rising 20,000 years ago and ending the Glacial period, it’s now known it’s somehow related to how the Earth orbits the sun- or: wiki:
“Within icehouse states are “glacial” and “interglacial” periods that cause ice sheets to build up or to retreat. The main causes for glacial and interglacial periods are variations in the movement of Earth around the Sun.[24] The astronomical components, discovered by the Serbian geophysicist Milutin Milanković and now known as Milankovitch cycles, include the axial tilt of Earth, the orbital eccentricity (or shape of the orbit), and the precession (or wobble) of Earth’s rotation. The tilt of the axis tends to fluctuate from 21.5 to 24.5 and back every 41,000 years on the vertical axis. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
Doomsday Glacier story is back in the news. The planet is doomed.
Rudolf Clausius / Warm only flows to cold (under atmospheric conditions). Cold cannot become hot on its own.
Albert Einstein/ The transfer of thermal energy between photons and baryonic particles in a gas is nothing other than the Boltzmann transfer of thermal energy from gas particle to gas particle.
New studies show that electric vehicles are unsafe:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electric-vehicles-safety-infrastructure-barriers/
https://news.unl.edu/article/nebraska-tests-suggest-us-highways-are-not-ready-for-widespread-ev-use
https://apnews.com/article/electric-vehicles-crash-test-guardrails-nebraska-3ec299a7ad87d0f63a6dd9357f663fce
The point being missed here is the weight of the vehicles wrt current draw in the motor. Hauling these behemoths up steep hills causes the motors to draw tremendous amounts of battery current. Although some are now rated at 300 miles per charge, I doubt that includes driving through mountains and areas with a lot of steep hills.
Regenerative braking.
Yeah probably big time. They are like a big semi coming down a mountain pass.
“The facility has seen this problem before. In the 1990s, as more people began buying light-weight pickups and sport utility vehicles, the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility found that the then-50-year-old guardrail system was proving inadequate to handle their extra weight. So, it went about redesigning guardrails to adapt.”
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
New study shows that JD Vance is unserious:
https://www.alternet.org/jd-vance-tiktok/
Some might argue that JD’s not really lying.
He’s just fabricating stories.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch …
Climate change is driven by the sun and moderated by ocean currents. There is no artifact of Carbon Dioxide in any climate data. .
Keep denying:
https://www.theassemblync.com/politics/mark-robinson-bible/
https://benthamopenarchives.com/contents/pdf/TOASCJ/TOASCJ-11-44.pdf
A scandal erupting around Donald-backed Republican North Carolina gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson is a “gut punch” for Republicans in the Tar Heel State, according to former GOP Congressman Adam Kinzinger.
https://www.newsweek.com/mark-robinson-gut-punch-republicans-ex-gop-lawmaker-warns-1956705
And remember:
https://tinyurl.com/lev-20-10
Global climate is mostly about Earth’s ocean, which covers about 70% of the planet’s surface. And the tropical region of the ocean, is the heat engine of the world.
The volume of Earth’s ocean is about 1.3 billion cubic km and it’s average temperature is about 3.5 C.
In comparison the Earth troposphere which is 80% of mass of atmosphere, has a volume of about 6.6 billion cubic km. But it’s mass is less than 1/1000th of ocean water.
And in terms of it’s energy content, it’s related to it’s mass
-and the specific heat of it {or of air vs say the ocean water’s specific heat}.
And 1/2 of atmospheric mass is about 5.3 km above sea level.
So troposphere is about 20 km high and is 80% of mass of entire atmosphere, and first 5.3 km is about 1/2 of mass of entire atmosphere. And most of Earth’s creatures [and humans] are living below 5.3 km altitude. Except humans fly in airplanes higher than 5.3 km, normally traveling in an artificial environment. Though humans climb mountains, and Mt Everest- the highest mountain- is about 8.8 km high. [And birds also travel higher than 5.3 km elevation.]
[[Air temperature drops about 6.5 C per 1000 meter: 5.3 times 6.5 is 34.45 C. It’s cold up there.]]
Air density is about 1.2 kg at sea level and about 1 kg at 2000 meters and .74 kg per cubic meter at 5000 meter.
And half mass of atmosphere is about 1 kg per cubic meter
So tropics is about 40% of global area, south of it is 30% and north of it is 30%. And about 80% of tropics is the ocean, which is obviously at sea level {and land averages about 800 meters above sea level].
Now, with solar panel, you tilt it and face the equator {south if in northern hemisphere] to get the most amount of sunlight per day. In tropics the solar panels are level [not tilted]. Average land is level, as is the ocean.
One can human add angle to solar panels outside the tropics to get the most amount sunlight. But “naturally” tropic area gets most amount sunlight because on average it’s level.
Now atmosphere blocks [in various ways sunlight, which otherwise, if facing the sun, gets an average of 1360 watts per square meter. Whereas at noon when sun is at zenith and at sea level, and clear skies it’s about 1050 watts per square meter, but 3 hour before and after noon one is getting considerably less sunlight, due to lower angle of the sun, needing to go thru more atmosphere and blocking more sunlight. This is called peak solar hours- and it’s why solar panels don’t work to generate grid electrical power.
So at best one gets about average of 6 hours of usable of sunlight per day, and a electrical grid needs 24 hours per day.
And in addition, and more importantly, is that a transparent ocean adsorbs more energy from sunlight than any land surface.
Keep spamming:
https://nationalzero.com/2024/09/16/milo-yiannopoulos-is-so-back/
Ken
Long time ago in 2008, Horst-Joachim Lüdecke posted at EIKE (nowadays, reduced to something like the German WUWT) a harsh scientific contradiction to Gerlich and Tscheuchner’s GHE denial.
In the meantime, Lüdecke performed a pitiful 180-degree turn for political reasons.
Gutfeld!’ draws largest audience in program history with Trump appearance
‘Gutfeld!’ lands 4.9 million viewers with hourlong Trump guest appearance
https://www.foxnews.com/media/gutfeld-draws-largest-audience-program-history-trump-appearance
How does that compare to Kamala on Opra? The big news from that is that she will shot someone who breaks into her house. It turns out that most politicians including Democrats have carry permits.
It should be Oprah. My apologies to her many fans.
–On Thursday, Oprah Winfrey “interviewed” Kamala Harris during a livestream rally in Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Calling it an interview is generousit was more of an Oprah-produced campaign ad for Kamala, complete with a lineup of celebrities, likely brought in to boost viewership. The entire thing felt like an effort to use Oprah’s influence to deliver Harriss campaign message, not to have a serious discussion about the issues.
But it didnt work. Neither Harris, Winfrey, nor the celebrity guests were enough to attract much interest. Based on screenshots shared on X/Twitter, the event got barely 271,000 viewers on YouTube, and viewership on X ranged anywhere from 10,000 to just under 65,000 viewers. Its not entirely clear what other platforms she may have streamed the event through or what the actual viewership was, but even the New York Times only put the number at hundreds of thousands of viewers, which they say bolster[s] a strategy that Ms. Harriss campaign sees as crucial to reaching voters in battleground states and beyond in November.
But Trumps interview with Elon Musk on X had millions of people listening in and has accumulated over 278 million views.–
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/09/20/oprahs-livestreamed-interview-of-kamala-was-another-trainwreck-n4932694
Of course Trump and Elon broke the internet- and she doesn’t break anything.
For those who missed it, my channel guide says the 9/18/24 episode will repeat on Saturday night. It could be entertaining.
Just to make sure you get the memo, gb:
https://www.intomore.com/the-internet/scandal/this-anti-gay-activists-raunchy-gay-past-is-coming-back-to-haunt-him/
Next time, stay in your lane.
India has population of about 1.4 billion people and will grow to over 1.5 billion people.
It has land area of about 1/3 of China, and has average temperature, more than 10 C warmer than global average air surface temperature, and about 17 C higher than average temperature of China.
China population is crashing, as are many other counties populations, are going to crash, but most world population continue to grow and predicted to grow for decades, most these growing populations are in warmer parts of the world. Or total world population may get higher than 9 billion people in next few decade, but within 1/2 century total world population will lower, due to demographics and global trend of women having less children.
1000 km circle around Myanmar … warm enough to get two crops per year.
It’s like California which boost twice or more per year:
https://farmtogether.com/learn/blog/california-farmland-the-largest-food-producer-in-the-us
But two per year I thought is common, I think, in modern farming- but usually different seasonal crops within the year.
With India seasons are limited to wet and dry, as it is typical in tropics. And I guess, rice likes to be flooded.
Do you mean Burma?
Starting off in the west, an upper trough and tropical moisture will combine to bring widespread cloud, showers, rain and thunderstorms to parts of northern Western Australia and western Northern Territory with heavy falls and severe thunderstorms possible. Flood Watches are also current in parts of WA and NT.
CO2…”CO2 unlike H2O does not have a permanent dipole. It does have 3 vibration-induced dipoles which are the Asymmetric stretch mode, and the Bending modes shown in your figure”.
***
Don’t get me wrong, I am supportive of your arguments in general. However, it is not vibration that causes a dipole, rather it’s the other way around, vibration is a product of the electrons in a dipole. The dipole is actually an electron orbital binding atoms together.
I have already explained the cause of vibration which is electronegativity coupled with the natural electrostatic attractions. You have already used it in your explanation of the water molecule H-O bonds.
A dipole is named as such because it has two relative electrostatic poles, one negative and the other not-so-negative (relatively positive). Dipole refers to electric charge.
There is only one particle in an atom that can supply such a charge in bonds and that is the electron. There are no positive charges per se in a dipole since all charges involved are the negative charges of electrons. Although the positively charged protons in the nucleus are vital to the construction of atom, the actual bonds that hold atoms together as a molecule are comprised only of electrons.
The dipole charge difference is due to electronegativity where one atom is more electronegative than another. In CO2 and H20 the O-atoms are more electronegative than the C- or H-atoms and tend to cause orbiting electrons to spend more time on the O-end of the bond. As you have pointed out for water, that makes the 0-side of the bond more negative than the H-side.
The various vibrational modes depend on how the electrons forming the bonds are located and how much the electrons are excited by heat of EM.
There is little chance for some ignorant people to refrain from inventing things that are either based on pseudoscience or on what prevailed over a century ago.
*
The simplest, easiest approach:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/molec.html
*
A bit more complex, from the Technical University of Brauschweig, Germoney:
Physical Chemistry IV
Molecular Spectroscopy
http://www.pci.tu-bs.de/aggericke/PC4e/
Especially therein:
http://www.pci.tu-bs.de/aggericke/PC4e/Kap_III/Elektronischer_Uebergang.htm
” Like atoms, due to different configurations of electrons, molecules display several energy levels. They are characterized by spin (singlet, doublet, triplet,…) and by an angular moment, or, more precisely, by Lz which is the projection of this moment parallel to the axis of the molecule which represents a special direction. ”
*
Finally, an interesting article…
Real-time observation of electronic, vibrational, and rotational dynamics in nitric oxide with attosecond soft x-ray pulses at 400 eV
Nariyuki Saito, Hiroki Sannohe, Nobuhisa Ishii, Teruto Kanai, Nobuhiro Kosugi, Yi Wu, Andrew Chew, Seunghwoi Han, Zenghu Chang, and Jiro Itatani (2019)
https://opg.optica.org/optica/fulltext.cfm?uri=optica-6-12-1542&id=424746
*
For even some who love to ‘keep it simple, stupyd’, this is all evil from ‘the cult’, however.
Should read ‘Braunschweig’ of course. Damnd keyboard.
Why has Putin successfully turned the Republican party into useful puppets?
New study by an international team concludes that Wuhan market was the source of covid-19 outbreak.
https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2824%2900901-2
You either did not read the article or you have extremely poor research and reading skills. This took about 5 to 10 minutes to find. Maybe because I understand how to read research papers. There is no conclusion at all — just areas for more intense research as they hunt for the Holy Grail. Meanwhile, the lab leak theory explains everything including the failure of the Chinese government to allow a complete investigation. Even the WHO gave up on trying to find answers and criticized the Chinese. Here is what I found:
[Although the species identity of an intermediate
host between the likely Rhinolophus spp. (horseshoe
bat) reservoir of SARS-CoV-2-like coronaviruses and humans remains
unknown, our analysis informs this open question by
determining the mammalian species present in the market with
species and subspecies resolution. These results show that multiple
plausible intermediate hosts of SARS-CoV-2 were present
at the exact site within Wuhan to which COVID-19 was first
epidemiologically linked. It is not possible to conclude which of
these species may have been infected and/or introduced the
virus to the market from these data alone. Nonetheless, our
analysis provides a short and actionable list of species with
genotypic details.]
And there is more:
[our analysis cannot conclusively identify which species
may have shed SARS-CoV-2 in different samples from the
Huanan market. Similarly, the exact timing of when viral or host
genetic material were shed in the market environment cannot
be directly estimated. The samples sequenced from wildlife
stalls analyzed here were sampled 11 days after several other
stalls in the market, and SARS-CoV-2 sequencing read counts
were low in both qPCR-positive and qPCR-negative samples
from these stalls.]
The important phrases here are: remains unknown; this open question; plausible intermediate hosts; It is not possible to conclude which of
these species may have been infected; short and actionable list; cannot conclusively identify; cannot be directly estimated.
What part of: New study by an international team concludes that Wuhan market was the source of covid-19 outbreak do you not understand?
The market was not the source, and your study does not say that. They studied biological samples at the market without any conclusions.
Learn how to read context and not just look for key words.
Once again, you boldly argue just for the sake of argument, without making any sense at all. The study does not make ANY conclusions except that they cannot state what happened.
MARONE!
Now the guy thinks an opinion expressed as “most likely” is a scientific conclusion, when there are other statements from such organizations as the FBI, that it is most likely a lab leak.
Do you trust the BBC?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903
[“The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident,”]
[A joint China-World Health Organization (WHO) investigation in 2021 called the lab leak theory “extremely unlikely”.
However, the WHO investigation was deeply criticised and its director-general has since called for a new inquiry, saying: “All hypotheses remain open and require further study.”
Mr Wray’s comments come a day after the US ambassador to China called for the country to “be more honest” about Covid’s origins.
In his interview on Tuesday, Mr Wray said China “has been doing its best to try to thwart and obfuscate” efforts to identify the source of the global pandemic.
He said details of the agency’s investigation were classified but the FBI had a team of experts focusing on the dangers of biological threats.]
In scientific research, the term “most likely” is used to indicate a conclusion or outcome that has the highest probability of being true or occurring, based on the available evidence or data. It reflects the researchers’ confidence that, among several possible explanations or outcomes, one is favored due to stronger supporting evidence. This does not guarantee certainty, but it suggests that the conclusion is the best-supported hypothesis within the context of current knowledge and methods.
The phrase is often tied to probabilistic reasoning or statistical analysis, and it also acknowledges uncertainty, implying that alternative explanations or events, though less likely, are still possible.
I thought you said you understood how to read research papers!
Here is your statement:
[New study by an international team concludes that Wuhan market was the source of covid-19 outbreak.]
Now are you going to spin the word “was”?
Here is your statement: “ There is no conclusion at all“
I stand by every word in my comments. Your paper has identified species that could be the missing link, if more research is done to prove that connection. I have news for you. This has been going on for a long time. There is nothing new here except for a new look at old ideas that have not produced anything. At this time, the zoonotic link does not exist. Period!
“ Your paper has identified species that could be the missing link, if more research is done to prove that connection.”
The context of the study is to identify the market as the place of origin, not the particular species.
That’s the part you didn’t understand which is very clear here.
You still don’t see the fallacy in your argument or are too proud to admit it. Either way, not my concern.
Just to prove that my purpose is to exchange ideas rather than argue, I propose the follow correction to the introductory statement.
You can simply replace this:
New study by an international team concludes that Wuhan market was the source of covid-19 outbreak.
With a now correct statement:
New study by an international team [searches for evidence that the] Wuhan market was the source of covid-19 outbreak.
You made your purpose crystal clear from the beginning:
“You either did not read the article or you have extremely poor research and reading skills. This took about 5 to 10 minutes to find. Maybe because I understand how to read research papers.”
I have nothing else to say to you.
I will quote you. I don’t have the exact phrase, but it had something to do with having a battle of wits with an unarmed man. You reap what you sow. When in doubt, try being nice. More to point, you should just admit your mistakes early on, instead of going in deeper.
On this issue, Tim S, has made up his ‘expert’ mind. Doesn’t seem to need any real evidence.
“from such organizations as the FBI, that it is most likely a lab leak.”
Right wingers think the FBI is a bunch of leftwing jerks. Didn’t you get the memo?
Nate offers no facts to make his claim that his opinion of a zoonotic origin is better the actual experts who spend their lives working with the number one and most respected investigative organization in the world. No Nate, I did not get that memo. It is the reason that I blame Comey, McCabe, the Love Birds, and many others for abusing the high honor to work for the FBI. Current Director Chris Wray says that none of the people who where involved in the dirty dealings against Trump are still employed by the agency. I continue to have confidence in the FBI, and most importantly, I have no basis to doubt the expert of opinion of their science people.
> you should just admit your mistakes
TS identified none.
Here’s one:
[ANY] The study does not make ANY conclusions except that they cannot state what happened.
The study clearly has conclusions. They are written in the section called “Conclusions.” One of them clearly *state* something, and is not mere denial like ANY.
I will let TS find the most important one.
I am not here to win an argument. I am not here to state my opinion. I am simply pointing out facts.
For the record, and the amusement of many, the research paper under discussion does not make any conclusions about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Contrary to comments here, it does not even have a section titled “Conclusions”. The final section that would normally have that title says “Limitations of the study”. This is where they detail some of the reasons they are not able to make any conclusions or present any important findings.
It really is amusing that people are now posting nonsense about about a research paper they either did not read or do not understand. Comments about a section tile that does not exist are humorous at best.
“Nate offers no facts to make his claim that his opinion of a zoonotic origin is better the actual experts who spend their lives working with”
This is the opinion of many experts who have spent their lives working with viruses, such as those who authored the paper posted at the start of this discussion.
And I have previously showed you the assessment of the intelligence community as a whole, is non-committal.
“After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information, though, the IC
remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses
are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident.”
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-Summary-of-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf
“The market was not the source, and your study does not say that. They studied biological samples at the market without any conclusions.”
Here is Tim claiming he knows things that the experts clearly do not know.
I agree that the paper by itself is not establishing that the Market was definitely the origin, but their work adds to the evidence.
As they state:
“Extensive epidemiological evidence supports wildlife trade at
the Huanan market as the most likely conduit for the COVID-19
pandemics origin.”
And they cite review articles.
Nate is essentially correct, but there is more. A lab “event” or leak of a gain-of-function (GoF) experiment would explain everything without any other qualifications or limitations. It can not be proven one way or the other without access to the lab and the Chinese are stubbornly adamant that will not happen.
A whistle blower is highly unlikely. Some Chinese scientists who were seen to be cooperating with the outside suddenly “disappeared” from family and friends.
The zoonotic route is certainly possible, but currently impossible until the “missing link” of the intermediate animal is found. That was the intent of this study — to identify possible candidate animals.
Aside from the behavior of the Chinese government, the strongest evidence for a GoF experiment is the unprecedented efficiency of this virus, yes Gordon virus, right from the start.
No other virus in the history of viruses has started out this well. The original strain, that is still circulating in a greatly mutated form, behaved as if it was very well along adapting to human transmission. Some may recall that people would seem to get better after about 10 days, and then suddenly have a massive resurgence and windup in the ER.
That is what GoF does. It literally trains the virus to infect humans after multiple mutations in a petri dish over many months or years. None of the other SARS, MERS, or bird flu viruses have became efficient at human transmission because they are identified and controlled before they get a chance to mutate.
‘No other virus in the history of viruses has started out this well. The original strain, that is still circulating in a greatly mutated form, behaved as if it was very well along adapting to human transmission. Some may recall that people would seem to get better after about 10 days, and then suddenly have a massive resurgence and windup in the ER.
That is what GoF does.”
Maybe so. But I have also seen in articles the statement that the animal market is ideal for GOF because the virus can have many back and forth exchanges between human workers and animals.
For the record, we have gone from:
[ANY] The study does not make ANY conclusions except that they cannot state what happened.
and we have backtracked to
[NOT] The research paper under discussion does not make any conclusions about the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
Meanwhile, the authors conclude:
[BEYOND PURE DENIAL] These findings suggest some movement of infected animals from southern China to Wuhan, a trade conduit that could have also led to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. This result is also consistent with reports that Huanan market vendors sourced bamboo rats from Guangxi and Yunnan provinces. Movement of animal viruses such as these via the wildlife trade recapitulates the likely dispersal of SARS-CoV-1 from Yunnan to Guangdong and Hubei provinces.
After pure denial often comes sammich requests.
The WHO and many other organizations have concluded that the only way to understand the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is to investigate the Wuhan lab and the Chinese will not cooperate.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00283-y
[The World Health Organization (WHO) has quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing ongoing challenges over attempts to conduct crucial studies in China, Nature has learned.
Researchers say they are disappointed that the investigation isnt going ahead, because understanding how the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 first infected people is important for preventing future outbreaks. But without access to China, there is little that the WHO can do to advance the studies, says Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada. Their hands are really tied.]
Arkady Ivanovich
Any explanation for the 100% absence of the Wuhan lab in the paper you posted the link to?
Maybe you could read it: [But Chinese officials rejected the WHOs plans, taking particular issue with the proposal to investigate lab breaches.]
And there is more:
[Many researchers arent surprised the WHOs plans have been thwarted. In early 2020, members of then US president Donald Trumps administration made unsubstantiated claims that the virus had originated in a Chinese laboratory, and US intelligence officials later said they had begun investigations. The city of Wuhan is home to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a high-security lab that works on coronaviruses. Chinese officials questioned whether the virus originated inside the countrys borders.
Amid simmering hostility between the two superpowers, WHO member states requested in May 2020 that the agency put together a science-led effort to identify how the pandemic started. Although China agreed to the mission, tensions were high by the time the WHO group left for Wuhan, and engagement with China quickly unravelled after the group returned.
In its March 2021 report, the team concluded that it was extremely unlikely that the virus had accidentally escaped from a laboratory. But the inclusion of the lab-incident scenario in the final report was a key point of contention for Chinese researchers and officials, says Dominic Dwyer, a virologist at New South Wales Health Pathology in Sydney, who was a member of the WHO team.
That July, the WHO sent a circular to member states outlining how it planned to advance origins studies. Proposed steps included assessing wild-animal markets in and around Wuhan and the farms that supplied those markets, as well as audits of labs in the area where the first cases were identified.
But Chinese officials rejected the WHOs plans, taking particular issue with the proposal to investigate lab breaches. Zhao Lijian, the spokesperson for Chinas foreign ministry, said the WHO proposal was not agreed by all member states, and that the second phase should not focus on pathways the mission report had already deemed extremely unlikely.]
I made a mistake. I was responding to the wrong link. Mine has it, and his does not.
Sorry!
Tim S
Don’t worry, this happens all the time, especially to people posting out of a ‘smart’phone :–)
That has been the real story from the outset, that the virus is related to meat outlets in the Wuhan market. The level of sanitation in the markets is not exactly ER quality.
If it was a virus, they should have been able to isolate it using an electron microscope. That was the gold standard developed by the Louis Pasteur Institute in Paris until Montagnier’s team tried it on HIV and saw no virus. Having failed to isolate HIV physically he admitted to inferring it based on RNA found in a sample from a man with AIDS.
That same inferential method was the basis of the covid virus; Wuhan scientists admitted they had inferred it from samples taken from the lungs of those infected at Wuhan. The scientist who invented the RNA-PCR test for covid admitted the same, that he had not isolated a virus but inferred one based on the January 2020 report from Wuhan.
The RNA-PCR test was first invented by Fauci and Ho to allegedly amplify the HIV virus that could not be seen on an EM. The test is based on converting RNA, suspected of being related to a virus, to DNA, then using the PCR method to amplify the DNA. This is done over iterations of amplification and if the count of iterations passes a certain threshold, the victim is claimed to be positive for the virus.
The covid test does not test for a virus. The irony is that Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel for inventing PCR, was adamant that PCR could not be used diagnostically to identify a virus that could not be seen on an EM. He reasoned that if a virus could not e isolated using an electron microscope, it would still not be revealed after amplification.
PCR does not act like an optical microscope, it simple replicates strands of DNA.
There is a good chance that no one will ever know what killed the people at Wuhan. The sad part is the application of a test that does not test for a virus and thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, could have been misdiagnosed using that test. Furthermore, since the vaccine is based on the same RNA inference, there is no evidence that it had any effect at all. The long term damage caused by this gene manipulation concoction may not be known for decades.
There is no doubt that something extraordinary occurred, however, much of the hysteria involved epidemiologists making fraudulent claims based on computer models, stirring hysteria.
“The irony is that Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel for inventing PCR, was adamant that PCR could not be used diagnostically ”
Who cares, Gordon?
You keep making the same mistake, by thinking that one person decides what science will be able to do.
In this instance, the reality is that PCR has been taken way beyond what its inventor imagined, by many many scientists.
Exxon Knew: More Rebuttal (again)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/09/21/exxon-knew-more-rebuttal-again/
…
-My Rebuttal
To which I respond (expanded from my reply on social media):
To say that Exxon knew the truth back in the early 80s is a laughable fallacy. Effectively they built a primitive model that is characteristically similar to the erroneous modern climate models of today.
…-
Hmm, that any corporation, anywhere, knew anything, is impossible.
That they may have “known” CO2 might cause some warming at some point in time. That is saying nothing.
CO2 might cause some warming, but it’s a small amount and/or could take a very long time {centuries}.
But if try to determine how much within 100 years, it has to a small amount. And at the present time, it has yet to measured at all. And you left with “the most amount could it “might” increase global temperature, within unpredictable long period, like a century, is.
And one have allow that CO2 levels will double {or more}- which is not a given at this point in time.
It seems reasonable to me that China will run out of mineable coal before CO2 levels will double, unless China’s coal is mineable at the deepest depth- which not mineable, presently.
Anything is possible, but their economy is in the tank, and it’s not improving, and won’t, and they are dependent on importing coal from other countries.
Meanwhile, western govt have wasted trillions of dollar reducing Global CO2 levels, and they have failed to reduce global CO2 by any amount.
Or only known way is to use nuclear power- which has “worked” for decades, but there is no progress on this front.
“Corn ethanol is ethanol produced from corn biomass and is the main source of ethanol fuel in the United States, mandated to be blended with gasoline in the Renewable Fuel Standard. Corn ethanol is produced by ethanol fermentation and distillation. It is debatable whether the production and use of corn ethanol results in lower greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline.[1][2] Approximately 45% of U.S. corn croplands are used for ethanol production.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol
That’s kind of them, I should take the time look up what they say about burning wood for electrical power.
In countries not burning wood [or corn] and not spending huge amount of wind mills {to kill the endangered whales and massive amount of birds and bats] and solar panels [in order to create toxic waste, and create a lot CO2] and that it’s roughly it’s making it a battery, which give you electrical power when it’s not needed.
And also those countries not banning natural gas use and internal combustion vehicles.
What, things are they doing for electrical power, needs.
Or it seems to me, that India could/should focus on making cheap nuclear energy- like South Korea, already, did.
Of course, govt in general can’t build anything- which is a fundamental problem with making any nuclear power plants.
Or if a govt could build a rocket, we would have landed crew before 2010, on the Moon. NASA’s cost+ on a rocket said to cost less than 4 billion, and then SLS spend decades and cost +40 billion dollars, and only can launch once every 2 years {optimistically, speaking- and their latest news is the crawler news].
We beat the Soviets to putting a man on the Moon, due to the US private sector, and Soviet had 3 rocket companies building their rockets which were going to go to the Moon. Or Soviets weren’t stupid, and knew, competition is only way to get anything, done.
But they lacked the vast powerhouse of US private sector, and roughly, therefore, lost.
Anyhow, South Korea govt studied the problem, and figured it out, and their govt actually followed what was discovered. [Which was the important part of it- knowing is one thing, and doing is completely different thing as far as govt “action” is concerned.
So:
Asia’s Nuclear Energy Growth
Updated Tuesday, 27 August 2024
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/asias-nuclear-energy-growth
I doubt China will actually do as they have planned.
But anyhow:
”
Asia is the main region in the world where electricity generating capacity and specifically nuclear power are growing significantly.
In Asia there are about 145 operable nuclear power reactors, about 45 under construction and firm plans to build an additional 50-60. Many more are proposed.
The greatest growth in nuclear generation is expected in China.
In contrast to North America and most of Western Europe, where growth in reliable electricity generating capacity and particularly nuclear power has been limited for many years, a number of countries in Asia are planning and building new nuclear power reactors to meet their increasing demand for clean electricity. Currently about three-quarters of the reactors under construction worldwide are in Asia.”
Yeah, this happened!
[Tim S] You either did not read the article or you have extremely poor research and reading skills. This took about 5 to 10 minutes to find. Maybe because I understand how to read research papers.
[Me] Learn how to read context and not just look for key words.
[Tim S] Once again, you boldly argue just for the sake of argument, without making any sense at all.
[Me] MARONE!
[Tim S] Now the guy thinks an opinion expressed as “most likely” is a scientific conclusion…
there’s more…
[Me] In scientific research, the term “most likely” is used to indicate a conclusion or outcome that has the highest probability of being true or occurring, based on the available evidence or data. It reflects the researchers’ confidence that, among several possible explanations or outcomes, one is favored due to stronger supporting evidence. This does not guarantee certainty, but it suggests that the conclusion is the best-supported hypothesis within the context of current knowledge and methods.
The phrase is often tied to probabilistic reasoning or statistical analysis, and it also acknowledges uncertainty, implying that alternative explanations or events, though less likely, are still possible.
You left this out:
[Just to prove that my purpose is to exchange ideas rather than argue, I propose the follow correction to the introductory statement.
You can simply replace this:
New study by an international team concludes that Wuhan market was the source of covid-19 outbreak.
With a now correct statement:
New study by an international team [searches for evidence that the] Wuhan market was the source of covid-19 outbreak.]
And this:
[I will quote you. I dont have the exact phrase, but it had something to do with having a battle of wits with an unarmed man. You reap what you sow. When in doubt, try being nice. More to the point, you should just admit your mistakes early on, instead of going in deeper.]
Are you done?
This is my best answer to your misstatement about the research into the origin of SARS-CoV-2:
[I stand by every word in my comments. Your paper has identified species that could be the missing link, if more research is done to prove that connection. I have news for you. This has been going on for a long time. There is nothing new here except for a new look at old ideas that have not produced anything. At this time, the zoonotic link does not exist. Period!]
‘More likely’ is a statistical guess. There are places in science where it is applicable and places where it is not.
For example, NOAA claimed 2014 as ‘most likely’ (in other words) the hottest year ever. However, they offered only a 48% likelihood. GISS made the same claim based on a 38% likelihood. That is chicanery not science.
The IPCC offer such likelihoods, without supplying physical evidence to support it. Their most likely scenarios involve opinions based on consensus and climate models.
No one can supply direct proof that the electron exists as a physical particle. It was hypothesized in 1898 and 126 years later we have never seen one. However, we have scads of physical evidence to support the theory that the electron most likely exists. Doesn’t matter if it does exist, as hypothesized, there is something going on at the atomic level that supports the electronics, electrical, and computer fields as well as the entire discipline of chemistry.
We can see the effect of an electron beam on a cathode ray tube and in the electron microscope, but we cannot yet measure the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Confidence levels are tenuous at best. We can use them with particles like electrons because it does not matter if the theory is correct or not. However, when applied blindly by the IPCC et al, to declare a state of emergency re global warming/climate change, such offerings are mere speculation.
Just downloaded newest GHCN station daily data; here is a comparison to UAH 6.0 LT over CONUS (‘usa48’ in Roy Spencer’s monthly report):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15JkrRM_O1bxai_MwXhjAWI5bNEP4wKQ5/view
*
I remember with greatest pleasure the stupyd sayings of ignoramus Robertson about my NOAA/UAH comparisons when he had not yet understood how (1) anomalies removing the annual cycle and (2) reference periods actually work:
” He had the temerity to show NOAA and UAH in lock-step. ”
Wonderful. The pseudo-engineer at his best in years.
*
A zoom into the chart shows how incredibly similar two after all so thoroughly different time series actually are:
– one generated out of the 2.5 degree grid average of surface data recorded by about 4000 stations;
– one generated out of a weighted average of UAH’s MT, TP and LS layers (no direct sensing of LT since 2015).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CYx2364VkN1fACLeaYhNLqWQ8VPwrkRH/view
It’s amazing already to compare the drop in Dec 1989 (at the left) or the peak in March 2012 (at the right). But it’s even more amazing to look at how similar the 60-month running means are as well in so many months.
Got any explanation for why CFSR and UAH are so different since Dec last year?
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-09-20.gif
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/
He’s likely to respond with some incoherent rant about how NOAA has reduced the number of weather stations to 1,500 or so for monitoring global climate change.
Even if Gordon Robertsons claim were accurate, he’d still need to explain why geospatial interpolation cant be used to address the limitations of having less data. I’d love to hear that explanationit would be quite entertaining!
I’d be interested in how you claim to analyze chaos?
RLH,
GCMs simulate complex interactions. And by assimilating observational data, these models provide a more accurate representation of our current climate.
“GCMs simulate complex interactions”
Which don’t include clouds.
As usual, Blindsley H00d replies to a 45 year comparison with nothing else than a stupydly small 6 month nonsense.
It is at least 100% evident that if CFSR wouldn’t show a bit of cooling at the time series’ end, Blindsley H00d wouldn’t even have mentioned it.
As ignoramus Robertson told a few days ago: ‘Cooling is cooling’.
“a stupydly small 6 month nonsense”
So what do you think the next 6 months will bring?
CFSR is measuring at the surface. UAH is measuring the troposphere far above the surface. They do not need to agree. In fact during El Ninos, they can disagree by a lot.
“In fact during El Ninos, they can disagree by a lot.”
Are you saying that the current difference is just caused by El Nino?
Im saying what I said. Are you unable to read and comprehend basic English?
As I said, during El Ninos that can disagree by a lot.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1995/to:2000/offset:-0.55/plot/uah6/from:1995/to:2000
Bur during La Nina they agree quite well?
Do you have a point?
In strong La Ninas they also diverge.
Surface and LT detrended
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1995/offset:-0.515/mean:6/detrend:0.676/plot/uah6/from:1995/mean:6/detrend:0.464
binny…”I remember with greatest pleasure the stupyd sayings of ignoramus Robertson about my NOAA/UAH comparisons when he had not yet understood how (1) anomalies removing the annual cycle and (2) reference periods actually work:
He had the temerity to show NOAA and UAH in lock-step.
Wonderful. The pseudo-engineer at his best in years”.
***
As an engineer, we’d be skeptical of the reasoning behind anomalies when absolute temps don’t even come close to representing temperatures with the methods applied. Why would anyone want to remove an annual cycle when it is representative of the actual planetary condition?
I have been over reference periods and did not get a scientific response from Binny. I even quoted NOAA’s definition, with which Binny disagreed. A reference period (baseline) is a statistical average of global temps over a certain period against which absolute temperatures are compared to achieve anomalies. Frankly, I don’t see the point of the entire exercise.
As far as the 1500 stations come in, here it is, once again, directly from NOAA. Binny has presented no evidence that NOAA’s position has changed. NOAA has many global stations to choose from but for whatever reason, they choose less than 1500. I think GISS may have supplied the reason, they simply don’t have the resources to process more than 1500 stations per month.
Note…GISS and Had-crut get there data from NOAA. Therefore both are working with less than 1500 stations per month to get a global surface average.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
Even 6000 stations per month is hardly adequate when here in the province of BC, temperatures can vary up to 20C in an area 150 miles from Vancouver, Canada.
john w…”Even if Gordon Robertsons claim were accurate, hed still need to explain why geospatial interpolation cant be used to address the limitations of having less data. Id love to hear that explanationit would be quite entertaining!”
***
I guess you missed it, I have supplied my explanation several times in such detail that some posters here groan. I take that to mean a lack of comprehension is rampant. How can anyone claim to do science when they cannot concentrate while reading a few paragraphs I suggest those people stay away from electrical engineering or atomic physics where such comprehension is mandatory.
Anyway, if you divide 1500 surface stations into the solid surface area of the planet (about 150 x 10^6 km^2), it comes out to 1 thermometer per 100,000 km. How can an average be achieved with such sampling methods? There are rules in statistics governing the size of a sample to get a meaningful average. Surely, 1 in 100,000 does not meet that requirement for thermometer readings, especially when only two readings a day are averaged.
To make matters worse, NOAA synthesizes pseudo-stations by average real stations up to 1200 km apart. Then the real and pseudo-stations are homogenized to produce a fake average.
Gordon Robertson,
“Anyway, if you divide 1500 surface stations into the solid surface area of the planet (about 150 x 10^6 km^2), it comes out to 1 thermometer per 100,000 km. How can an average be achieved with such sampling methods? There are rules in statistics governing the size of a sample to get a meaningful average. Surely, 1 in 100,000 does not meet that requirement for thermometer readings, especially when only two readings a day are averaged.”
Temperature anomalies are utilized for this reason: they capture changes across extensive geographic regions.
Anyway, I’d like to know: what should be done alternatively to get a meaningful average? Without a reference point, it’s difficult to gauge whether your perceived problem has any significance or not.
can you answer this question? Not being able to is telling about your true understanding and/or intentions with regards to science.
Gordon,
” There are rules in statistics governing the size of a sample to get a meaningful average.”
What are those rules?
Is 1000 samples enough to get a reasonable average?
nate…your argument is old re the sats measuring from 4 km altitude, which is only halfway to the peak of Mt. Everest. They are quite capable of scanning to the surface using channel 5 but that feature is not used due to interference from surface microwave radiation interfering.
We know, due to the lapse rate, that the change of temperature with altitude is linear in the lower troposphere. If you measure accurately to 4 km, there does not seem to be a problem interpolating the rest, which has been verified comparing it to radiosonde data.
Besides, the sats scan 95% of the surface whereas surface stations cover less than 30%, and poorly at that. Furthermore, the AMSU units scan oxygen molecules which make up 22% of the atmosphere.
I don’t know if this can be done, but I’d like to see UAH use scans right to the surface to see how it compares to current data.
” As an engineer, wed be skeptical of the reasoning behind anomalies when absolute temps dont even come close to representing temperatures with the methods applied. Why would anyone want to remove an annual cycle when it is representative of the actual planetary condition? ”
*
Roy Spencer has explained so many times what Robertson still fails to understand:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/#comments
*
Robertson probably thinks he knows everything better than Roy Spencer and his UAH team.
*
2. ” I have been over reference periods and did not get a scientific response from Binny. I even quoted NOAAs definition, with which Binny disagreed. A reference period (baseline) is a statistical average of global temps over a certain period against which absolute temperatures are compared to achieve anomalies. Frankly, I dont see the point of the entire exercise. ”
*
Robertson either is dement or intentionally ignores all replies to his nonsense.
Here is one of my comments concerning Robertson’s inability to grasp why NOAA’s explanation for anomalies is much too simple:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1664818
*
You can’t discuss with people like Robertson: they discard all what you write and restart their nonsense from scratch as if you never had replied to him.
Massive AI energy demand is bringing Three Mile Island back from the dead
Microsoft will be the sole purchaser of energy generated from the refurbished site.
https://www.popsci.com/environment/three-mile-island-ai-microsoft/
“Power-hungry generative AI models are quickly making Big Tech sizable energy requirements even more demanding and forcing companies to seek out energy from unlikely places”
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
ark…” Russias army is 15% larger and they have reinforced the 20% of Ukrainian territory that they hold. Is the Republican Party responsible for those setbacks?
Mitch McConnell: Yeah, we took too long. All the Democrats were for Ukraine”.
***
Why would anyone be surprised? Russia, with their experience and military might could have crushed the Ukraine quickly had that been their intention. We saw what they did to the Nazis after holding them till winter then kicking their butts back to Germany.
All evidence points to what Putin claimed: that he wanted to eliminate the Azov battalion and their Nazi connection and take over the Dombass region to allow Russian-speaking people trapped there to determine their future.
The only reason this has not seen settled to date is the influence of armed Ukrainian nationalists who have the capability of threatening Ukrainian presidents. They forced the president in 2016 to honour, by law, Nazi war criminals, and in 2014, they fathered a coup that ran off a democratically-elected president.
I have no doubt that Zelensky, a Jew, is tolerated by them as long as he acts as puppet for them.
Speaking of Russia’s “experience and military might“…
… in accordance with plan(?)… sailors from the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier have been sent to fight in Ukraine, aka the meat grinder.
The about 1,500 ship’s crew was converted into a mechanized battalion called “Frigate” as part of the 1st Guard’s Tank Army.
It is well known that the training of sailors and that of (mechanized) infantry are interchangeable!
ent …”Regenerative braking”.
***
Ent…regenerative braking is like using a trickle charger on your car at night to top up the battery.
The current drawn from an electric motor going uphill cannot be significantly replaced using braking on the downhill side. Also, on a long trip, you don’t want to be riding the brakes.
Comes down to perpetual motion, you can’t get something for nothing. I doubt that regen braking could add more than 10% to the cars distance between charges.
I certainly hope that regen braking is not the sole means of stopping a car. If it fails, it could prove catastrophic.
“Vehicle size may be the largest factor in the effectiveness of regenerative braking for the simple reason that heavier vehicles have much more momentum and kinetic energy. ”
“Terrain also plays a large role here too, as uphill driving doesnt give you much chance for braking, but downhill driving will regenerate a much larger amount of energy due to the long braking periods. On long downhills, regenerative braking can be used nearly constantly to regulate speed while continuously charging the battery.”
“Model S drivers have reported recapturing as much as 32% of their total energy use while driving up and then back downhill. This would effectively increase a 100 mile cars range to 132 miles, for example. ”
https://electrek.co/2018/04/24/regenerative-braking-how-it-works/#:
By coincidence I got the chance to test drive a Tesla Model 3 around a large car park this afternoon.
Awesome acceleration, very smooth handling, effective regenerative braking and a level of systems integration which makes it considerably easier to drive than my 11 year old MPV.
I want one!
Batteries only last so long. I wonder how you’ll feel when you have to take out a significant loan to replace them?
Also, when you have the car repaired, it won’t be cheap. The technology is new and far more complicated than gasoline-driven cars. It’s not exactly the same as working on current cars. people will be blowing the cars up and injuring themselves.
It’s one thing working around batteries that have 12 volts and quite another working around batteries generating 400 volts. There have already been catastrophic fires from Li-ion batteries exploding. The recommendation is to park them outside and not in a garage adjacent to other vehicles.
john w…”Even if Gordon Robertsons claim were accurate, hed still need to explain why geospatial interpolation cant be used to address the limitations of having less data”.
***
In my area of Vancouver, Canada, elevation can change from sea level to 3500 feet on local mountains. Even in Greater Vancouver, there are rises in altitude of over 600 feet and temperatures can be several degrees different between sea level and those altitudes.
There are no thermometers on the mountains and when I contacted Environment Canada to ask why, I got a response expressing amusement as to why they should do that.
I would think it would be self-explanatory. EC has been renamed Environment and Climate Change Canada. In other words, they are the climate propaganda arm of the federal government re climate as is our publicly funded news outlet, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. If EC is going to check temperatures at sea level while ignoring surface temperatures at altitude, they are in the business of climate propaganda, not science.
That’s just in areas surrounding the city. As one progresses eastward along the US border to Abbotsford and Chilliwack, it gets progressively warmer in summer and cooler in winter.
Then about 100 miles east of Vancouver, at Hope, as the Trans-Canada hwy continues north, a newer highway, the Coquihalla splits off and goes slightly NE into mountains proper. The altitude increases to the Coquihalla Summit at 4000 feet. It’s wet on the southern side of the summit but suddenly it dries out on the northern side where a desert-like climate begins.
Meantime the Trans-Canada follows the Fraser River, which flows north, where it meets the Thompson River, which comes east from Kamloops. At that junction is found the Canadian town of Lytton, which records the highest temperatures in Canada in the summer and goes to the -30C range in winter.
So, Vancouver on the coast ranges from about 0C to 25 C on average and Lytton ranges from -30c to +40C. That’s all within 150 miles of Vancouver.
The area between Lytton and east beyond Kamloops is a pure desert climate. So, climates can vary naturally from a rain forest climate on the coast to a desert climate 150 miles NE.
How does one go about measuring such changes in temperature with one thermometer for every 100,000 sq. km? The area I just described is about 100,000 km^2 if extended a bit beyond the area I have described. How does one thermometer capture those variations in temperature which can range drastically from day to night and season to season?
EC does cover many of the areas I have described but obviously, NOAA does not use the data. They would prefer to take a temperature in Regina, Canada some 1200 km away and a temperature from Vancouver, and interpolate those temps to get a temperature for areas between.
“How does one thermometer capture those variations in temperature which can range drastically from day to night and season to season?”
As long as individual thermometers are reliable AND their anomalous readings are correlated over large spatial scales, there is nothing wrong with interpolating their ANOMALIES from their long-term averages.
The key word being ANOMALIES (not absolute values).
So, if one thermometer indicates an anomalously warm month at the top of a mountain, and another thermometer records a similar anomalously warm month in a nearby valley and another thermometer records a similar anomalously warm month 10,000 km away it is highly likely that the month was anomalously warm everywhere over a very large area.
I hope this helps you understand.
Likely (statistics) has nothing to do with it. I just laid that out in a local region where the reality is that real temperatures vary dramatically in a small area.
In case you missed my point, we are now debating a warming of about 0.5C while temperatures in my area alone can vary 5C to 10C, or more, in a single day between areas within 150 miles.
See my excellent response above.
Gordo,
I think you’re kind of looking at it wrongly. They determine a single temperature for the entire planet. For UAH, it is an average of inferred temperature data from a bunch of satellites that measure radiance from 0 to about 30000 feet. It would be abnormal and unnatural if that radiance didn’t fluctuate. Nature fluctuates. Nature is all about wave and cycles. We’re on an up cycle of natural temperature variation. This is good for people. These waves go in one direction for years, decades and even centuries and then reverse themselves. Be happy we’re living in a warming trend. Ignore all the hyperbole.
stephen…I am looking at my local experience as opposed to the claimed data for a global average. I don’t give a hoot what a statistics is claiming when my local experience belies it.
Weatherzone
The heaviest September rain in half a century has fallen over the Pilbara region of Western Australia overnight 🌧, with a widespread 80-120mm still to come for a majority of Australias desert areas over the next three days.
Climate scam, or at best “hoax” documented by ZeroHedge’s collection of PhDs calling for more Co2 and better science.
Apparently MSM news went back too far showing a much warmer planet.
Source:
https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/msm-journos-inadvertently-reveal-shocking-truth-about-global-warming
Good find, TC. I especially enjoyed:
https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1800265603007344936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1800265603007344936%7Ctwgr%5E7e0c3d1b327068f5e62c51d5207048579b40fbbf%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fweather%2Fmsm-journos-inadvertently-reveal-shocking-truth-about-global-warming
Key quote:
That’s a belief, Ark. But it’s NOT supported by science.
Beliefs ain’t science.
Keep proving you wrong, Puffman.
We can take it.
I like it when cult children like Willard imitate me.
They stalk me, but they have NOTHING.
Kids these days….
Clint R
Your beliefs certainly aren’t science!
Correct Ent, beliefs ain’t science.
Keep repeating that until you understand it.
Very good, Puffman.
Stick to childish stalking.
“In 2023, Earth’s average temperature reached 58.96 F (14.98 C), well below the average 96.8 degrees F (36 degrees Celsius) the study showed around 100 million years ago”.
***
They are obviously confusing global temps with the human body temperature.
So, we are coming up to a launch window from Earth to Mars.
If crew had launched to Mars in the Earth to Mars window before this one, what would space weather been like during the trip to Mars, at Mars, and trip back to Earth
from Mars?
The next window for simple hohmann transfer to Mars, which is the least amount rocket power or amount delta-v, needed to reach Mars from Earth, is:
2024.7387 9 26 2024
Which is Sept 26 2024. And arrives at Mars at:
2025.4474 6 11 2025
Which is June 11 2025.
But the window before this, was:
2022.6033 8 7 2022
August 7 2022, and arrives at Mars:
2023.3120 4 22 2023
April 22 2023
At August 2022, Solar cycle 25 had started about 2 years eariler, around Aug 2020, and at August 2022, the monthly sunspot number was, 74.6
amd a year later, on August 2023, the monthly sunspot number was 114.8.
But you would have arrived at Mars in April 22 2023, and April 2023 the monthly was: 97.6
Once at Mars by April 22 2023, your next return window to Earth is:
2024.5561 7 20 2024
July 20 2024
And crew would returned last July.
Anyways we aren’t going to send to crew to Mars in next window: Sept 20 2024.
It was planned that the New Glenn rocket would sent a robotic mission to Mars within the window, which can wider window if going faster to Mars
and using more delta-v to get there.
It’s currently scheduled:
” NET Spring 2025 New Glenn EscaPADE
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: Launch Complex 36, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station
A Blue Origin New Glenn rocket will launch a pair of identical spacecraft on NASAs Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers (EscaPADE) mission. The two satellites, named Blue and Gold, will make a roughly 11-month journey to Mars where they will then perform about an 11-month science mission while orbiting the Red Planet. Blue and Gold were manufactured by Rocket Lab over about 3.5 years and carry science experiments from the University of California, Berkeley. This launch of the New Glenn rocket will also feature a landing attempt on its landing barge in the Atlantic Ocean. Delayed from October 13.”
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
But if it were possible, sent crew in this coming window, would it a good time, in terms what will happen in terms of space weather, during this time.
And if sent in latter part of 2024. So gets there summer of 2025, and next wind back to Earth is:
2026.6914 9 9 2026 Or Sept 9 2026 leaves Mars gets back to Earth:
2027.4002 5 24 2027
Or returns to Earth, May 24 2027
But there other ways to go to Mars and return to Earth. A common thing mentioned is one return to Earth from Mars, by doing a flyby of Venus, and gravity assist back to Earth.
But that again is low delt-v way of doing and such low delt-v pathways are “rare”- Venus has to be in right place. But could just use the Venus distance rather than having a planet there
to give you some delta-v boost.
Or quite simply, once you got gas stations in Space, then you get more delta-v to use. Or could just have huge rocket like New Glenn rocket, sending a small payload, like EscaPADE.
As always, Roberson’s endless lies about the corner he lives in.
1. ” There are no thermometers on the mountains and when I contacted Environment Canada to ask why, I got a response expressing amusement as to why they should do that. ”
*
Firstly, Robertson very certainly never contacted anyone: he just invents here a response he himself never asked for.
He kidded the blog many times, e.g. allegedly having asked NASA about Moon’s rotation about its axis, but was never able to post NASA’s reply text.
*
Secondly, I have clearly shown many times that there are very well weather stations ‘on the mountains’, even two around Vancouver
CA001105658 49.3667 -123.0833 1128.0 BC N VANC GROUSE MTN RESORT
CA001103510 49.3833 -123.1833 930.0 BC HOLLYBURN RIDGE
In Canada, the GHCN daily station set has currently 6354 GHCN daily weather stations, of which 2940 have sufficient data for anomaly construction wrt the reference period 1981-2010.
Out of the 6354 Canada stations, 1253 are in British Columbia; 431 provide anomalies wrt 1981-2010.
31 of the BC stations are located at an altitude above 1000 meters, from 1890 meters
CA00117CA90 51.2333 -117.7000 1890.0 BC GLACIER NP MT FIDELITY
down to 1001 meters
CA001152850 49.4833 -115.0667 1001.0 BC FERNIE
And 10 of the 31 have data till right now in 2024.
*
2. ” EC does cover many of the areas I have described but obviously, NOAA does not use the data. They would prefer to take a temperature in Regina, Canada some 1200 km away and a temperature from Vancouver, and interpolate those temps to get a temperature for areas between. ”
This is such a stupyd lie propagated by Robertson on the basis of an old document dated around 2008, first Web Archive crawl in 2010, March 23:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100323000433/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
in which NOAA explained that of their 6000 stations at that time, 4500 were given up because they did not report data automatically but would manage to replace them by new stations.
In 2011, NOAA had 7280 stations, anyone can download the GHCN V3 station list and the data from the Web Archive.
*
Robertson has no idea of which stations are used by NOAA and indirectly by GISS in the GHCN V4 station set, which is itself derived from GHCN daily.
Instead, he distorts, misrepresents and lies as much as he can, regardless what it is about.
Anyone credulously believing Robertsons antiscience 100% deserves it.
Don’t know what it takes to get through your thick Gallic skull that NOAA uses less than 1500 stations globally and the GHCN database has nothing to do with that.
For example, in California, even though GHCN shows many stations, NOAA uses only 3 station, all near the ocean. They use 1 station to cover the entire Canadian Arctic, at Eureka, the warmest spot in the Arctic.
I have pointed out to you that 1500 stations, more than the number NOAA claims to use, works out to 1 thermometer per 100,000 km^2. I pointed out the area around Vancouver that amounts to 100,000 km^2, and that 1 thermometer is at Vancouver International airport, at sea level next to the ocean. All the rest listed in GHCN are not used.
One of the biggest jokes is Bolivia, a country with very high altitudes. Not one thermometer. NOAA synthesizes temps for Bolivia by using thermometers in adjacent countries. There are no thermometers in the entire Himalaya, at altitude, since no one could access the stations.
You still have not answered the question as to why both NOAA and GISS claimed 2014 as the warmest year ever based on a probability, which was a serious joke. NOAA claimed a 48% probability while GISS claimed a 38% probability.
You have not commented on Phil Jones, of Had-crut, a Coordinating Lead Author on IPCC reviews, admitting that he would interfere with the IPCC review process by blocking papers from skeptics. He also admitted to using the ‘trick’ of Michael Mann that hid declining temperatures. Mann himself was busy preaching the blocking of skeptic’s papers from climate journals while offering misogynist comments about female scientist Judith Curry, simply because she changed side.
I have always regarded you as a loud-mouthed schnook who excels at opening his big mouth and letting his belly rumble.
binny…”Firstly, Robertson very certainly never contacted anyone: he just invents here a response he himself never asked for.
He kidded the blog many times, e.g. allegedly having asked NASA about Moons rotation about its axis, but was never able to post NASAs reply text”.
***
It’s strange how much you profess to know about me. Even if I had posted NASA reply you would have claimed I forged it, or amended it.
Don’t know why you insist in dabbling in innuendo.
The Grouse Mountain resort is 2/3ds the way up the mountain and is the one at Hollyburn (aka Cypress). I was talking about the peaks of both mountains. I did not really care about the local mountains but the serious mountains in the Himalaya. Do you see a listing for a thermometer on Everest, Annapurna, or K2. If so, at what altitude?
I am surprised there is a thermometer on Grouse since there is no vehicle access. Only Hollyburn and Seymour have vehicle access.
I guess the EC contact knew nothing about them, which is not surprising since they are alarmists and care only about warmer sea level temps.
BTW…when are you coming out to check the thermometers for yourself? I’d be glad to show you around if you don’t mind traveling in my older fossil-fuel guzzling van.
The issue isnt that you are or are not a denier, its your supporters that are looking for any information that may suggest that the planet isnt warming due to anthropogenic CO2 production that is the issue. Not unlike Trump actually he says he isnt racist while validating racists. If that was not true, why do they support him?
The Ukrainian Economy at War (2024) – Defence Production, Energy & Endurance
Perun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiAWQ0h7g-g
And on it goes.
Kamala continues her dumb wars.
Ukraine is not dumb, but Russia surely is.
Tell that to Ukrainians, at least, those who have not fled the country. They left partly due to the war but also to escape Zelensky and his dictatorship.
Ukrainians left because they didn’t want to be bombed and tortured {and be cold and lacking food- which is another form of being tortured}.
No one likes being under artillery fire. And that is Russia’s main military doctrine.
Related
Mark Robinson’s campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, finance director, and senior adviser have all stepped down. Robinson’s campaign is in free-fall.
I did Na Zi that coming.
You might also like Mark’s new campaign manager:
https://www.404media.co/big-tech-clients-of-jacob-wohls-secret-ai-lobbying-firm-lobbymatic-say-theyve-never-heard-of-it/
Dumpster fire campaign update…
North Carolina Public Radio (WUNC) reports that Mark Robinson is down to just three campaign staffers. There were more resignations beyond the four senior campaign staffers named in yesterday’s announcement.
The three people left working on his campaign are two campaign spokesmen and a bodyguard.
The list of prominent departures includes: Conrad Pogorzelski, general consultant and senior advisor who’s worked for Robinson since his initial 2020 lieutenant governor campaign; Chris Rodriguez, campaign manager; Heather Whillier, finance director; Jason Rizk, deputy campaign manager; Patrick Riley, longtime director of operations; and political directors John Kontoulas and Jackson Lohrer.
Got tropical depression, Ten-E, on my side.
Also 10% chance of disturbance, doing something which might have some effect.
On Atlantic side, 40% chance cyclone formation {it’s close the Mexico]
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
Oh yeah, further west, central pacific has 60% chance of cyclone formation, and somewhere near Hawaii, and it might go in that direction.
Ten-E became hurricane John. Central Pacific lowered to 10% chance,
Atlantic, went to a Potential Tropical Cyclone NINE, and is thought to go up near Cuba. And 20% chance very near Africa
–China and Rocket Lab complete launches
September 21, 2024 3:11 pm Robert Zimmerman
Yesterday there were two more launches. First Chinas Long March 2D rocket in the very early morning hours lifted off from its Taiyuan spaceport in northern China, placing six satellites in orbit.
The satellites are part of a constellation for doing high resolution Earth observations. No word on where the rockets lower stages, using very toxic hypergolic fuel, crashed inside China.
Next Rocket Lab successfully launched five satellites for the French satellite company Kinis. This was the second of five planned launches by Rocket Lab to put the entire 25 satellite internet-of-things constellation into orbit. It was also the second attempt to launch, with the first experiencing a launch abort at T-0 seconds due to a ground-system issue.
The launch pace is beginning to heat up. There were four launches yesterday, two from China, one from SpaceX and one from Rocket Lab. The leaders in the 2024 launch race:
93 SpaceX
41 China
11 Russia
11 Rocket Lab
American private enterprise still leads the rest of the world combined in successful launches 109 to 63, while SpaceX by itself now leads the entire world, including American companies, 93 to 79.–
https://behindtheblack.com/
I hope no desert turtles were hit by that first stage.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
AI Datacenters More Than 600 Percent Worse for Environment Than Tech Companies Claimed
If these companies were one country, their actual emissions would rank them as the 33rd biggest emitter in the world.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/ai-datacenters-worse
–Course Overview
Communism was more than a new philosophy to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels when they wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848. They saw it as a brand-new way of life, a new civilization for the modern man and woman. The communist way of life was to represent a total liberation from all of history, which they saw as nothing more than struggle, exploitation, and suffering. Instead of building upon the past, they proposed that communism would focus only on the future, promising total social equality for all and sharing in a new stage of human societal evolution.
When measured against other social theories throughout world history, communism is more than just another a philosophical thought experiment. The beliefs and practices of communism were institutionalized in Lenins Bolshevik state, as experienced within the experimental and unprecedented development of the Soviet Union. For 74 years, the experiment held together. Communist regimes, at their peak, ruled more than one-third of the worlds population.
What happened? What really caused this giant experiment to decline and fall apart?–
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/communism-in-decline-from-sputnik-to-gorbachev
Linked from https://instapundit.com/
–NOW OUT FROM MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE VEJAS LIULEVICIUS, AT THE GREAT COURSES: Communism in Decline: From Sputnik to Gorbachev.
Well worth your time.
Posted at 5:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds —
Hmm.
But it’s silly and annoying.
How was it a great experiment, oh my mistake, a giant experiment.
{I was somehow reminded of the American experiment- people have rights and a government can’t infringe upon them.
YADA YADA.
So, it’s kind of like a giant medical experiment.
total social equality, and, one can use surgery to help with this.
So, everyone has “total social equality”- with one exception being, that if someone happens to say the wrong thing.
It seems to me UN has entire world population as their responsibility, and they would not argue at all against this, total social equality, formulation, and also never doing anything about the silly fantasy of world peace, but they do have other realistic things focus on.
If you have just won a revolution in Russia, deposing the Tsar system, how are you going to control the masses? You find a political ideology that meets your needs and impose it. The key word is ‘impose’, that is, not democratic.
Marx talked only theory, he offered no recipe for implementing it. He proposed a transformation of the human psyche but how do you bring that about without forcing people into a mold? That’s the greatest weakness in his plan, how to do that democratically. Ergo, he’s not to blame for ijits with guns who force people to comply.
You can’t in this day and age. Any viable communism would require intelligent, compassionate people who are fully aware. It would have to happen by mutual consent and that is not viable with the current state of human awareness. Won’t be happening any time soon.
Today, we impose political systems by lying to people and feeding them propaganda. Thinking for oneself is not encouraged. The recent covid hysteria and the current climate hysteria are examples of that.
stephen…”For UAH, it is an average of inferred temperature data from a bunch of satellites that measure radiance from 0 to about 30000 feet. It would be abnormal and unnatural if that radiance didnt fluctuate”.
***
I don’t agree that the temperatures are inferred, they are directly measured at 4 km by very accurate instruments that convert oxygen microwave emission to an electronic signal. They are no different than IR metres used to measure temperatures. As long as the AMSU units are properly calibrated, they should give an accurate temperature at 4000 metres.
Air temps don’t vary much at all based on lapse rate theory. If you consider temps at 8000 metres on Everest, and you are at that altitude with the Sun shining, it will warm you to an extent, however, at night, you’d freeze to death. We can’t confuse warming of a body due to solar energy with temperatures at altitude.
Here’s a lapse rate diagram…
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B9780128119891000142-f14-05-9780128119891.jpg
Any hot air thermals rising have to pass through these altitude zones and will cool accordingly.
Note that the air temperature drops about 6.4C/1000 metres. That should mean, at 8000 metres on Everest, the temperature has dropped by about 51.2 C, which is about right for night time temps on Everest. The left vertical column represents the altitude in km and you can see at 8 km, the expected temp is -30C. That will vary, of course with direct solar radiation and wind chill.
Now look at 4 km, where the sats are focused for channel 5. It indicates about -10C. However, the trend toward the surface is linear and one should be able to easily extrapolate the surface temp from that.
ent…the following required a lot of cobweb removal from my brain. Luckily it’s like riding a bicycle, you never forget although you may be a bit wobbly getting on a bike after years off them.
re regenerative braking from your post on September 22, 2024 at 2:54 PM…
It begins…
“Back in the Neanderthal days of internal combustion engine cars…”
***
So much for objectivity.
——
Then…
“It is important to realize that on its own, regenerative braking isnt a magical range booster for electric vehicles. It doesnt make electric vehicles more efficient per se, it just makes them less inefficient”.
***
Evasive propaganda. Regen braking is like a trickle charge. On cars, it might extend the journey to 130 miles on a 100 mile charge. That’s around a 20% increase and I doubt that is correct.
Regen braking has been around for a long time and is similar to dynamic braking for an electric motor. The difference is that one (regen) employs the motor as a generator during deceleration while the other (dynamic) simply slows the motor.
—–
then…
“Efficiency refers to how well regenerative braking captures lost energy from braking. Does it waste a lot of energy as heat, or does it turn all of that kinetic energy back into stored energy?”
***
These guys are bsing. Note how they avoid the question by refusing to give a concrete number.
They are turning the focus to efficiency rather than explaining the reality. It is simply not possible to convert all of the forward KE into stored energy for the simple reason that a tremendous amount of forward KE is required to brake the vehicle. That is done by reversing the connections of the electric motor converting it essentially to a generator.
‘Plugging’ is a braking device with common electric motors. Plugging refers to an intermittent reversal of a motor winding, which essentially changes the motor direction from forward to backward. I don’t imagine such shocks to a motor are good for it in the long term. That is essentially what regen braking is doing as well, they are reversing the motor direction to slow the vehicle, then claiming an advantage by using the motor as a generator to recharge the batteries.
Good in theory, not in practice. They make it sound so positive as a sales device, but every time you step on the brakes to reverse the motor a price has to be paid. Eventually it will cause failure.
One thing we were taught to do when solving electric motor problems was to scour the question first to see if we were dealing with a motor or a generator. They are both similar devices, with one being driven off a voltage supply while the other was driven by a prime mover (eg. diesel generator) and generated a voltage/current. Get them backwards and you lose marks, which is easy to do since the schematic diagrams are very similar.
So, in an electric vehicle, the motor is driven by batteries. If you are up to speed, and you want to brake, you reverse the windings on the motor and that slows the motor. As it slows it can be used as a generator, driven by the vehicle momentum.
I don’t need to point out the complex electronics controls required to make this work. By experience, I am aware how quickly solid state controls can fail and how difficult it can be to find out why they failed. When you suddenly change motor direction with motors running at 400 volts there are tremendous spikes in the voltage. Solid state does not take kindly to spikes in voltage and current and even old-fashioned mechanical relays eventually fail.
This is not an ideal situation as generators go since the motor speed is reducing rapidly therefore the current generated is reducing rapidly. The blurb above paints regen braking as some kind of magical source of battery loss recovery. It’s not because batteries cannot recover a charge quickly, If you force a charge on them they cannot handle they will heat and blow up.
That’s why normal cars have voltage and current regulators, to control the voltage and the amount of current running to the battery from the alternator. Ergo, only a portion of the voltage regenerated can be used to charge the battery ssytem,
Nor is it ideal to charge and discharge batteries rapidly. Simply put, there is a limit to how much power can be recovered per unit time.
Another problem is obvious. As you slow down, there is less and less current available to act as a braking device. Eventually, you won’t have any current and if you are going down a hill, tough luck. So, you also need standard brakes. There goes your KE solution to recharging. That is, you can’t get something for nothing, you cannot use regen braking to slow the car and recharge the battery significantly at the same time.
A motor is slowed down by reversing its magnetic field. With 3-phase motors all that is required is to reverse the current direction in one phase. The magnetic field is dependent on a complete circuit and if that circuit is broken, the magnetic field disappears and you have no more deceleration. I have no idea how they are dealing with that in EV’s but I am willing to bet it is inadequate.
Power brakes on a car depend on a power assist device that multiplies the mechanical power a human applies to a brake pedal. Anyone who has experienced a power assist unit cut out, when the motor stalls, knows how hard it can be to decelerate a vehicle with ordinary brakes. I am wondering what happens on EVs when certain features fail.
Seems to me that EV designers are willing to let people die and be injured while they work out the bugs.
rethinking what I said above…”…every time you step on the brakes to reverse the motor a price has to be paid”.
It did not make sense to me that a car would rely only on regen braking to stop. I looked it up and sure enough, they also used hydraulic brakes.
In start and stop situations, the hydraulic brakes would be used a lot and when coming to a full stop they would be required. This adds more complexity to the electronics and increases the likelihood of system failure. Also, whenever the hydraulics are used, the KE cannot be used for recharging since it is lost in mechanical braking.
Thanks, but I’ll let you eco-alarmists put your lives on the line while they iron out the kinks while I drive my ancient fossil fuel beast.
We are not ready for EVs and forcing them on us is ingenuous. Don’t get me wrong, electric motors are highly efficient and powerful when used in simpler applications, However, the complexity required in EVs is above and beyond modern technology and they are using us as guinea pigs till they figure it out, if they ever do.
You prefer a vehicle which struggles to achieve 30% efficiency and has no backup when the hydraulic brakes fade or fail on a mountain road?
Engineer indeed!
And don’t mention fires. I once passed a motorway pileup which caught fire The worst thing was not the smell of burning diesel but the stench of roast pork.
ent…how about addressing the points I made about what regen braking is, rather than what it’s hyped to be. They make it sound like a perpetual motion device.
My ‘struggling’ vehicle, as you put it, will go close to 500 km on a full tank. I don’t push it like that because it has a fuel pump sitting right in the gas tank and depends on the gasoline to cool. Then all I have to do is a hit a gas station, fill up and carry on my way. An EV would have to stop twice for lengthy period to go that 500 km.
I can drive to Calgary, Alberta, some 971 km in about 14 hours and about 2 fillups. I take it easy, not into rushing. It could be done driving straight through in about 10 hours, according to Google, but that depends on road conditions, traffic, and being able to maintain 100 km/hr. Google does not tell you that requires speeding in places.
Anyway with an EV, and the considerable mountain grades encountered, it would likely take you several days, with costly motel stays. And you’d have to plan your trip to stay near EV chargers. And let’s pray you don’t break down. Try finding an EV mechanic.
Right now it eems inexpensive to recharge the battery. That’s because they make their money selling and repairing fossil fuel vehicles. Do you seriously think it will remain inexpensive if they ban fossil fuels?
I once passed the shells of two semis that had collided head on. I guess one of them fell asleep. That’s the only fire I have ever seen involving vehicles.
Like I said, we are not ready for EVs.
An electric motor is a device for converting battery charge into kinetic and potential energy.
Regenerative braking turns some of that kinetic and potential back into battery charge.
Since only about 30% of the energy used is recycled the process is 2LOT compliant. Only an “engineer” like yourself would suggest otherwise.
ent…this is not an emotional debate, I have laid out an explanation of regenerative braking, as an expert on electric motors, and explained its limitations. This is nothing new for EV’s the concept has been around for a long time.
There are three basic ways to slow a motor (brake it) and they all involved reversing the field windings in the motor to run the motor in reverse. Regen braking is only one and it is identical to dynamic braking with the exception that it uses the motor in reverse as a generator.
The idea of recharging batteries on the run is not new either. Fossil fuel based vehicles have been using it all along, the alternator recharges the battery, driven by the motor. The load is light on a battery once the motor starts yet it takes an alternator, at 30 amps, some time to top up the battery after 600+ amps is drawn from it to start the car. How quickly can regen braking charge batteries?
As I said, the current drain on a car battery is light compared to the starting current draw. An EV is drawing current from its batteries much faster, especially going up hills, and there is no way regen braking can make up a significant amount of that battery loss.
The sense I get, after years in the field, is that the process is far too complex and will likely be fraught with problems. There is a rush to push EVs and when things get rushed, mistakes get made. Furthermore, there are not enough mechanics trained in the field and that will likely be an issue for decades to come.
I predict that EVs, in the short terms, will be prohibitively expensive re maintenance and repair. I think it is imperative to stop the eco-looney movement to give us a chance to resolve issues over decades rather than years. The rush to zero carbon emissions is an emotional issue, not one based in hard science.
“and there is no way regen braking can make up a significant amount of that battery loss.”
The same amount of work is required to speed up a car as to slow it down again. To get a 1000 kg vehicle going 10 m/s you have to add 50,000 J of KE; to stop the car, you have to remove 50,000 J of KE. To drive up a 20 m tall hill adds 196,000 J of GPE; driving back down the hill removes 196,000 J or GPE. The processes are not 100% efficient, so you lose some energy to heat in each case. But electric motors and generators are pretty efficient. Even of you get back only 50% of the energy through regen braking, that is a ‘significant amount’.
More than 80% of Australia could see rain this week as a surge of tropical moisture spreads across the country, causing wet weather from the Kimberley to Tasmania.
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/rain-to-soak-most-of-australia-this-week–heres-where-it-will-fall/1889919?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=20240923_news_rain-to-soak-most-of-australia-this-week–heres-where-it-will-fall&fbclid=IwY2xjawFeFLRleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfg72NX1pIC11NTGMEzkWRWDCiaoSodIbcIvTAVNVUjvKlaD1qh9kMcl8g_aem_7nPmf4EdMXLeeq_sMOPdXQ
Bindidon wrote:
“ Arkady Ivanovich
Any explanation for the 100% absence of the Wuhan lab in the paper you posted the link to?”
Maybe this:
1/ The peer-reviewed paper focuses on the science, not hot takes, and it tests hypotheses with evidence.
2/ It didn’t test the “people who disagree with us are lying and people who agree with us are telling the truth” hypothesis.
3/ The lab leak hypothesis has repeatedly failed testing. It is inconsistent with the evidence base, and unscientific to suggest that you can substitute leading questions and speculation for actual data.
4/ The fact is that the evidence is only consistent with zoonotic origin. That doesn’t change because politicians and conspiracy theorists misrepresent the evidence base and sow doubt in the scientific method to serve their own agenda.
5/ Proponents of the lab leak hypothesis should write up their own analysis and submit to it Cell.
It seems that the BBC and FBI among many others disagree with your rather narrow view of the available science.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903
[FBI Director Christopher Wray has said that the bureau believes Covid-19 most likely originated in a Chinese government-controlled lab.
“The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident,” ]
The most important quote is this:
[In his interview on Tuesday, Mr Wray said China “has been doing its best to try to thwart and obfuscate” efforts to identify the source of the global pandemic.
He said details of the agency’s investigation were classified but the FBI had a team of experts focusing on the dangers of biological threats.]
When they say the details are “classified” that means they do not want the Chinese to know how they found out. They have evidence they cannot reveal. Sometimes it means that the people who revealed the information would be in danger if their identity, or even the information itself was revealed.
The probability of a pathogen such as Covid-19 leaking from BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs like Wuhan is very low. I can only think of one example. A technician was exposed to smallpox, and they were isolated before they could infect anyone else.
The zoonotic route is much more common. SARS, MERS, bird flu, AIDS, monkey flu, swine flu; they are all animal diseases which recently managed to jump into people.
There’s also evidence of a few previous cases of Covid-19 in rural China along the routes used to supply Hunan market, which would would falsify the lab release hypothesis. It is what you would expect of a virus evolving the ability to infect and spread among people by repeated exposure to animal carriers.
Entropic man, you have an interesting comment, but you have mixed up different types of viruses with different properties. I agree that a lab leak would require human error, but that is the point. It helps to explain why the Chinese do not want to cooperate.
The other problem is that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist in nature. Nobody is claiming that it came directly from nature. It required an intermediate animal or a gain-of-function (GoF) experiment. The best evidence to explain the extreme efficiency in producing COVID with the very first strain is GoF.
Some of the viruses you listed do not need an intermediate animal. They come direct form nature and are highly infectious. On the other hand, the first SARS, MERS, and various other virus have not been successful at human disease in the same way as COVID. That makes SARS-CoV-2 not just unique, but unprecedented. It was able to spread as a aerosol days before symptoms developed. That is very good evidence for a GoF lab leak.
The politics of GoF is an entirely different issue from whether or not is can explain the entire story. The correct statement that the virus was not genetically engineered, does not eliminate GoF which is very different.
tim s ….”The other problem is that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist in nature”.
***
It doesn’t exist anywhere as far as physical isolation is concerned. The virus is inferred based on a method developed by Luc Montagnier for HIV. Montagnier is on record as admitting he never saw HIV on an electron microscope. That is ironic in the sense that his institution, the Louis Pasteur Institute devised the EM poof method used as a gold standard till 1983 when Montagiers inferential method came into vogue.
Also, a member of his team sat on the LPI panel that created the gold standard. I guess the dreams of sugar plums (a Nobel) got to her head and she conveniently decided to ignore the fact that no virus was visible on the EM slide.
When SARS was first claimed by a Scottish researcher, her paper was rejected by peer review since the EM slides she presented were deemed inadequate. The claim was that the particles in the image could be any virus particle. There are viral particles that resemble a virus but they are not.
Gordon, you are nuts. The entire virus was sequenced by the Chinese in the beginning and now by many others. That was a controversy early-on that a Chinese scientist released the information sooner than the government wanted. The speculation is that they wanted to be first on the market with a vaccine. Yes, those are real as well.
The sequence was needed for the mRNA vaccine, which is a new technology, but a genuine vaccine.
Everybody already knows you are nuts, but some new readers could get the mistaken belief that your posts represent reality.
Have fun!
It probably originated at Winnipeg Lab. Stolen and taken to China where it escaped or was deliberately inflicted.
Wuhan isn’t the only lab doing gain of function research.
Or maybe there is no virus. The Wuhan scientists who issued the first report in January 2020 claimed they did not physically isolate a virus but inferred it based on RNA taken from lung samples of infected people. There is no proof that RNA is associated with a virus.
It’s not so strange to claim there may be no virus. Circa 1915, there was a pellagra outbreak in the southern US states. A young health official sent to investigate concluded almost immediately that the problem seemed to e diet-related. He was ignored for over 20 years while the medical community investigated a viral or bacterial cause.
It was not till 1937 that vitamin B3 was discovered and associated with pellagra.
I am not claiming there is no virus behind covid only that no virus has been physically isolated. The test for covid is based on a theory not on an isolated virus. The test does not detect a virus, it infers a virus. If the inference is wrong, all this covid hysteria is for naught. Also, the vaccine is useless.
There is no proof that the bird flu comes from birds or that the swine flu comes from pigs. We are living in times where the medical community has far too much power and no one to oversee them. They can arbitrarily fire a doctor for being skeptical or ruin a researcher’s career for the same thing.
“Or maybe there is no virus.”
Wow.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE/NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL
Updated Assessment on COVID-19 ORIGINS (UNCLASSIFIED)
I understand the poorer countries to become more industrialized and the poorer countries to become richer.
I understand the poorer countries to rise their standards of living to the levels of the richer ones.
What I dont understand, the richer countries to lower their standards of living.
Of course the poorer contries may succeed to become richer and richer then the currently rich countries.
I dont understand why the currently richer countries should willingly become poorer? Why they should lower their currently the still higher standards of living?
And to do all this for no reason!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Well obviously the rich and wealthy are the ones demanding it. After all like the MIIC, the CIIC mostly benefits the elites running the institutional/industrial complexes.
thats why the Neo Cons are supporting the democrats. They don’t see eye to eye on much beyond the source of the dollars supporting the swamp.
Got an election coming up with all the swampers on one side and all the anti-swampers on the other.
For the swampers they don’t care about if a country is rich or poor they just care about who is rich and who has their hands on the levers of power.
Lets not forget that just prior to WWII the two sides acting the same made a pact to divide Poland up between them by force.
christos…another problem…the wealth in poorer countries will never reach the poor. It will fall into the hand of unscrupulous dictators who will keep it for themselves.
Rather than making a fool of itself in the climate arena, the UN would be better doing its job and ridding poorer countries of the dictators. However, the dictators are part of the UN.
The UN, with its IPCC, is a bad joke.
OK here are the results of my latest reasonableness test for orbital forcing warming over the period 1/1981-1/2024 using UAH as the temperature increase.
Primary (pre-feedback) orbital solar forcing ~.94w/m2
Warming per UAH .65C
Expected warming with ECS at 1.7:
orbital forcing: .32C
Remainder: .33C
Expected warming with ECS at 3.0:
orbital forcing: .60C
Remainder: .05C
Assumptions? Calculations? Show your work.
the calculations are explained in the threads on the topic above. Haven’t you been paying attention? If not why all the criticisms?
Bill, here you claimed a specific number, 0.94 W/m^2 of solar forcing.
If you cannot show us how you got this, as all scientists must do, then we will have to assume that you just made it up…
And looking back thru this thread, I see no calculation you have shown to arrive at this 0.94 W/m2 of forcing.
It appears Sig is correct:
“Bill imagines that his imagined orbital changes will lead to an imagined extra watt of increased insolation”
It appears to you that additional solar forcing would not warm the NH summer???? Thats sig’s position. Hilarious!!
And while I didn’t do the calculation on this thread I explained how it worked and provided a reference by which to calculate it.
Its like not hard like 6th grade mathematics. Can you handle that?
BTW, Do you know what a reasonableness test is?
“And while I didnt do the calculation on this thread”
Yep. And yet you claim it is 0.94 W/m2.
In science one needs to show the work. Obviously you cannot.
So all we can conclude is that you made it up!
So you don’t know what a reasonableness test is huh?
Its basically the same philosophy as to what the public has been given in terms of information as has been given for CO2. Both are the results of reasonableness tests but fall well short of actual proof of increases in radiant forcing. One advantage my test has is there is no question that solar forcing works as advertised but there are real questions as to whether backradiation works as advertised as every demonstration I have seen has come up nil.
“Its like not hard like 6th grade mathematics. Can you handle that?”
Apparently it is not like 6th grade mathematics, otherwise you would (presumably) be able to show it to us!
There is nothing reasonable about making up a fictional solar forcing.
Bill, the ENTIRE premise of your claim rests on your ability to show us why and how there is a significant solar forcing.
So it should tell you something that you need to pull a number out of your ass.
It should tell YOU that you have no idea whether this forcing is significant, or even if it is positive or negative.
Nate says:
”Apparently it is not like 6th grade mathematics, otherwise you would (presumably) be able to show it to us!”
—————-
I can give you absolute assurance it is.
Nate says:
”There is nothing reasonable about making up a fictional solar forcing.”
——————-
There is nothing in the 6th grade level of mathematics that doesn’t have a scientific stamp of approval on it. Its their figures not mine.
Nate says:
”Bill, the ENTIRE premise of your claim rests on your ability to show us why and how there is a significant solar forcing.”
——————
Seems to me that is a lot more problem with your theory than my theory. We don’t doubt gravity as much as we doubt the ability of CO2 to significantly warm the atmosphere much less the surface. Milankovic laid all this out and currently its being obscured for political reasons. I wouldn’t be surprised that every copy the activists have been able to get their hands on got burned.
Nate says:
”Apparently it is not like 6th grade mathematics, otherwise you would (presumably) be able to show it to us!”
—————-
I can give you absolute assurance it is. Obviously a reasonable test is designed only to set boundaries and not provide a complete examination of every vector.
Nate says:
”There is nothing reasonable about making up a fictional solar forcing.”
——————-
There is nothing fictional about gravitational acceleration and there is absolutely nothing fictional about orbital eccentricity variation being determined by the alignment of planets.
Further the idea that eccentricity, and therefore planetary alignment, varies at a rate of 1/100,000th per year is pure fiction.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
You also have the reference to the Berger paper that shows several short period climate cycles due to orbital forcing.
At any rate the short term patterns and the short term climate variability discovered by Milankovic and documented in that Figure 2 of the Berger paper are real and is attributable to planetary positions as itemized in the source I gave you above.
Nate says:
”Bill, the ENTIRE premise of your claim rests on your ability to show us why and how there is a significant solar forcing.
So it should tell you something that you need to pull a number out of your ass.
It should tell YOU that you have no idea whether this forcing is significant, or even if it is positive or negative.”
—————–
LMAO!
It could be the 17th century and if Newton’s Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathematica being accepted was dependent upon showing it to you and convincing you. . .science would have been set back indefinitely. As it is you may well be cropping back Milankovic’s claim to fame by being one of those not bothered by the unavailability of his work to keep the 1/100,000th per year incremental 100,000 year cycle myth afloat and deflect from the real natural climate change that Milankovic discovered.
“It could be the 17th century and if Newtons Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathematica being accepted was dependent upon showing it to you and convincing you. . .science would have been set back indefinitely.”
Bwa ha ha ha!
It WAS dependent on his showing it and convincing others! Thats what his Principia was all about, Bill!
Your comparison of yourself to Newton, is…ludicrous.
Bill Hunter,
The issue is not whether the solar insolation on Earth changes as the eccentricity changes. The issue is how much the short time eccentricity changes ( which you imagine Uranus+ is causing) , if any, and the possible impact on global temperature, if any.
In the discussion so far, it is obvious that you ignore the 100-year-old lessons from Milankovic, and 800 000 years of glacial history extracted from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores. These say that varying axial tilt is the predominant factor influencing global temperature and climate.
Furthermore, you are breaking the law. The 400-year-old Kepler second law tells us that if the pull from the other planets is slowing the relative movement of the Earth around the Sun, they simultaneously have to move Earth further away from the Sun, thus reducing insolation/time unit.
And you still present no documentation, just imagination.
Sig says:
”In the discussion so far, it is obvious that you ignore the 100-year-old lessons from Milankovic, and 800 000 years of glacial history extracted from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores. These say that varying axial tilt is the predominant factor influencing global temperature and climate.”
Well if you have a source that calculates this great. I have a source the 70’s that reviews Milankovic and says axial tilt is only 25% of the effect. Precession 10% and eccentricity 50%. they threw in CO2 at the remaining 15% but that would be a feedback so one should adjust them all accordingly to 29%, 12%, and 59% respectively. Right now I am going with that one, but that isn’t how I did my reasonableness test so this argument doesn’t apply to what I posted.
Sig says:
”Furthermore, you are breaking the law. The 400-year-old Kepler second law tells us that if the pull from the other planets is slowing the relative movement of the Earth around the Sun, they simultaneously have to move Earth further away from the Sun, thus reducing insolation/time unit.”
Thanks, I posted this to get some feedback.
I will give it some thought. Probably will take a while but your comment here is actually what I was looking for.
Sig what Google AI says on this is:
Yes, perturbations of orbits by other planets do violate Kepler’s 2nd and 3rd laws, as these laws are based on a two-body system where only the gravitational interaction between the central star and the orbiting body is considered, and any additional gravitational influence from other celestial bodies will cause deviations from the perfect elliptical orbits described by Kepler’s laws; however, in most cases, the deviations are relatively small and Kepler’s laws still provide a very good approximation of planetary motion.
How do you arrive at this:
Primary (pre-feedback) orbital solar forcing ~.94w/m2 ?
CO2 concentration in 1981, 340ppm.
CO2 concentration in 2024, 420ppm.
∆F = 5.35ln(420/340) = 1.13W/m^2.
At climate sensitivity 3.0 and warming sensitivity 0.25C/W the temperature rise becomes 0.94C.
UAH6.0 showed 0.66C over the same period. Not a bad match when you factor in the lag.
CO2 works well as an explaination.
Orbital forcing doesn’t work at all as it has been decreasing the temperature at 0.001C/decade for the last 5000 years.
https://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
EM, your link doesn’t support your calculations.
Bill Hunter,
You can check this paper from Exxon Research Lab from 1982, where they calculated the effect of CO2 increase on temperature.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BZgmJ0y7pgV50qaK1vcSIlRSHL3XggptpvVLmnVTF1k/edit?usp=sharing
You can also read this spectral analysis of outgoing radiation from the Earth.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553#:~:text=Published:%2015%20March%202001.%20Increases%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from#:~:text=Published:%2015%20March%202001.%20Increases%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from
..or watch this experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo#:~:text=Experiment%20showing%20the%20absoption%20of%20infrared%20radiation%20by%20carbon%20dioxide.
…or read about John Tyndalls eksperiment 150 years ago.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/108868?seq=7
sig you posted the same post in two places again. Reply is here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1689573
Bill Hunter: How long extra time does Earth spend around perihelion due to Uranus++? And how much shorter is the aphelion time? Days?
“There is nothing fictional about gravitational acceleration and there is absolutely nothing fictional about orbital eccentricity variation being determined by the alignment of planets.
Further the idea that eccentricity, and therefore planetary alignment, varies at a rate of 1/100,000th per year is pure fiction.”
These are words and this is pure handwaving.
Whereas real science id not. It gives quantitative answers and explains how they are found.
Whereas you give a quantitative answer 0.94 W/m2, which sounds impressive, until we find that it is just made up!
That makes it not science, that makes it
fraud.
You’ve been asked now several times where this number came from. And you say it is easy to find, 6th grade math. Now its someone else calculated it.
But for no apparent reason, are unable to show us!
It is time to show us, or admit this is total fraud.
Nate says:
These are words and this is pure handwaving.
Whereas real science id not. It gives quantitative answers and explains how they are found.
Whereas you give a quantitative answer 0.94 W/m2, which sounds
impressive, until we find that it is just made up!
———————
Well one can say the same thing about the claim that doubling CO2 will warm the surface by 3 degrees. I could have told you the sun was 5,600 degrees and will warm the surface by 16,800 degrees from radiating 5,600 degrees at the earth and having 3 to 1 sensitivity. All we know is that CO2 will warm one degree up above the surface and you have given us the claim it will warm the surface by 3 degrees.
Where is the difference?
Nate says:
”That makes it not science, that makes it
fraud. Youve been asked now several times where this number came from. And you say it is easy to find, 6th grade math. Now its someone else calculated it.
But for no apparent reason, are unable to show us!
It is time to show us, or admit this is total fraud.”
Well if you apply it consistently the same way it would be a fraud if they weren’t evidence it was true. Where is you evidence for CO2? Or admit it is a fraud.
I gave you more than you gave me I gave you the link to where you can calculate the orbit speeds of earth and you can apply it to the difference claimed as what the difference is in insolation between perihelion and aphelion.
If you gave me that much for CO2 I would go do it instantly.
Its high time you start being consistent with your skepticism rather than continuing to play a game where you can change the rules anytime you want.
”
Well one can say the same thing about the claim that doubling CO2 will warm the surface by 3 degrees.”
Well No, because there is actual science backing up that claim, and thus it has an error bar.
But thanks for acknowledging that your numbers are simply made up, and not science at all!
But you have no calculations on how it warmed the surface nor any experiment that shows it does. And you haven’t asked for any, and you haven’t responded to my requests for them even if you don’t care to see those. So why do you want to see mine?
Bill Hunter,
You can check this paper from Exxon Research Lab from 1982, where they calculated the effect of CO2 increase on temperature.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BZgmJ0y7pgV50qaK1vcSIlRSHL3XggptpvVLmnVTF1k/edit?usp=sharing
You can also read this spectral analysis of outgoing radiation from the Earth.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553#:~:text=Published:%2015%20March%202001.%20Increases%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from#:~:text=Published:%2015%20March%202001.%20Increases%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from
..or watch this experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo#:~:text=Experiment%20showing%20the%20absoption%20of%20infrared%20radiation%20by%20carbon%20dioxide.
or read about John Tyndall’s eksperiment 150 years ago.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/108868?seq=7
Sig says:
Bill Hunter,
You can check this paper from Exxon Research Lab from 1982, where they calculated the effect of CO2 increase on temperature.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BZgmJ0y7pgV50qaK1vcSIlRSHL3XggptpvVLmnVTF1k/edit?usp=sharing
——————
doesn’t look like the author’s work. Who did the ”21st Century Study”?
One can’t determine anything without some sources.
Sig says:
You can also read this spectral analysis of outgoing radiation from the Earth.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553#:~:text=Published:%2015%20March%202001.%20Increases%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from#:~:text=Published:%2015%20March%202001.%20Increases%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from
————————–
this tells me nothing and never would without including water vapor into the equation since water vapor deposition of heat into the atmosphere is highly influenced by temperature change.
As it is all it is giving me a look at the puny elements and there is no way to tell where the heat was transferred. . .to space, to water, to the surface. Plus it attributes the most change to methane. Seems reasonable that if things get warmer methane will go up.
Sig says:
..or watch this experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo#:~:text=Experiment%20showing%20the%20absoption%20of%20infrared%20radiation%20by%20carbon%20dioxide.
or read about John Tyndalls eksperiment 150 years ago.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/108868?seq=7
——————-
Just more of the same. We know CO2 absorbs heat and in the case of the candle that heat is going up, not down, as all heat does by basic physics.
I have acknowledged a GHE. After all GHGs are necessary to warm the surface to the same temperature as the air. The question is when did that happen and is the climate we measure the same temperature as the surface.
Without GHG the air would be hotter than the surface by contact with the surface and no efficient path for that heat to go back to the surface or radiate to space.
The Seim and Olson experiment results are consistent with that outcome.
Understand I don’t make up science as I go. I don’t extrapolate stuff that has multiple potential outcomes. You seem exceedingly easy influenced not just with some kind of unstated mode of warming the surface that fails every test. Sure it might work if you had a small vacuum gap between the surface and the atmosphere eliminating that contact but obviously that doesn’t exist and you would still have to deal with the potential of saturation and the uncertainty of CO2 being able to change the lapse rate.
Its these uncertainties that you see a lot of people intuitively questioning whether you are manufacturing heat out of nothing. Obviously if it were GHG that warmed the atmosphere you would have something. But with physical contact there is no need to warm the atmosphere by radiation and the surface may already be as warm as the atmosphere.
Bill Hunter says: One cant determine anything without some sources.
Hey, sounds like you are describing your own writings! Never any scientific sources, no documentation, just your imagination. Here you have a link to the paper from Exxon (are you saying they are mistaken?): 1982-Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf (insideclimatenews.org)
Bill says: As it is all it is giving me a look at the puny elements and there is no way to tell where the heat was transferred. . .to space, to water, to the surface.
You have apparently either not read or not understood the paper. It is precisely written in the heading outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 .
And furthermore:
” We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate. ”
Bill says: Just more of the same. We know CO2 absorbs heat and in the case of the candle that heat is going up, not down, as all heat does by basic physics.
Precisely, Co2 and other GHG absorb heat in the atmosphere, and less heat escapes to space.
Bill,
Are you saying that your fraud is somehow justified because mainstream climate science is fraud?
Pullleez!
Anyway good to know that your claims are BS and can be safely ignored.
“”But you have no calculations on how it warmed the surface nor any experiment that shows it does. ”
False. You know better, Bill. The calculations have been done in several papers, which have been shown to you. More recently the calculations are down in GCM models, which are published.
This is real science, not made up science that you are trying to pass off as real science.
Nate says:
Are you saying that your fraud is somehow justified because mainstream climate science is fraud?
Pullleez!
———–
No Nate I wasn’t doing that. You were. You were defining scientific fraud in a way that applies to mainstream science. I wouldn’t do that. You did.
And you are wrong. Gravity is real science.
“I gave you more than you gave me I gave you the link to where you can calculate the orbit speeds of earth and you can apply it to the difference claimed as what the difference is in insolation between perihelion and aphelion.”
No, Bill. You didn’t. You claimed a specific number for the forcing, 0.94 W/m2, which implies you calculated it.
You never explained how you arrived at this number. We now know it was made-up, pure fiction, fraud.
You did not deny it. Instead you tried justify it by what you think other scientists have done.
Sorry, that is piss pour excuse!
Nate I said it was a result of a reasonableness test. And told you it was calculated on observations of the change in speed of the earth through the major axis of the orbit. That seems a lot simpler for one to understand than M&W and how CO2 warms the atmosphere.
“And told you it was calculated on observations of the change in speed of the earth through the major axis of the orbit. That seems a lot simpler for one to understand than M&W and how CO2 warms the atmosphere.”
Oh? so now we are back to ‘it was calculated’.
Either it was calculated or it wasn’t.
If it was calculated, then you can show us the work you did or someone else did, with a link to that, and the assumptions that went into it.
So please show us that.
If you cannot, then admit that it was not calculated at all, and you just made it up.
Wise to pull the band-aid off quickly.
Nate says:
”If it was calculated, then you can show us the work you did or someone else did, with a link to that, and the assumptions that went into it. So please show us that. If you cannot, then admit that it was not calculated at all, and you just made it up.”
Sorry Nate I am not going to show my calculations, since they are mine, until I publish them. I told you how to do it go do your own. It would be silly to say I made them up because its not true. You tend to believe a awful lot of stuff that isn’t true, so I am not surprised.
“Sorry Nate I am not going to show my calculations”
As expected.
So they have been ‘6th grade math’ that we could easily do, but you are unable to show us.
Then they were calculations that ‘other people did’ but you are unable to point them out to us.
Now we are back to they are YOUR calculations that you did, that gave us the result, 0.94 W/m^2.
But NOW you cannot show us how you found it, because these are top secret calculations and you’d have to kill us!
So we will have to wait, indefinitely, until you ‘publish’ the 6th grade calculations.
Bwa ha ha ha ha!
Nope you won’t likely have to wait much longer.
We can plainly see from your many varied responses in this thread that there is no calculation of the 0.94 W/m^2 that you have done.
I am not going to fault you for being an auditor who cannot calculate planetary orbit perturbations.
But your ongoing deception, possibly self-deception, are worthy of criticism.
It means your posts cannot be taken seriously.
Nate says:
”We can plainly see from your many varied responses in this thread that there is no calculation of the 0.94 W/m^2 that you have done.”
Correction: there is no calculation of the 0.94 W/m^2 that I have posted.
In fact there is no posting by you either of the effects of gravity on the speed of the earth in its orbit around the sun when in fact we know beyond question there are such effects.
The laws of gravity cannot be denied. I have given you several sources that clearly state the planets are responsible for variations in how much insolation the earth receives from the sun. And you have responded with no calculations whatsoever.
And where would one start to come up with such calculation?
Would one not start with data demonstrating differences in speed? I even gave you a source of that information Nate.
Why can’t you come up with a calculation of your own?
“The laws of gravity cannot be denied.”
An no one here is denying it. What is being questioned is that gravity of a single planetary pass or alignment, should produce a significant solar forcing.
But you claimed it would be significant. You claimed it could be calculated with 6th grade math. You claimed it would produce a 0.94 W/m^2 of extra solar forcing.
You have shown nothing to support any of these claims.
And as a retired auditor, it is extremely unlikely that you would discover something about planetary orbit perturbations that has not been previously found or published in three centuries by people with the mathematical skill (which is well beyond 6th grade level) required to do the calculations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_(astronomy)
Nate says:
” ”The laws of gravity cannot be denied.”
An no one here is denying it. What is being questioned is that gravity of a single planetary pass or alignment, should produce a significant solar forcing.”
—————————-
So is your denial based on a calculation are are you just handwaving like a science denier. And how in the world do you base it on a single pass? What happened to your nudging theory? Does it just disappear for the purpose of convenience?
Seems to me that your warming nudging theory is built on the gradual melting of glacial and sea ice along with gradual ocean heat uptake. I am not in disagreement with you on that.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1690027
Nate says:
”And how in the world do you base it on a single pass? What happened to your nudging theory? Does it just disappear for the purpose of convenience?”
You are pushing the single planetary alignment theory, not me.
——————-
That has never been true. I didn’t find the effect until I found the effect of Jupiter and Saturn combined.
Nate says:
”Because I am well aware that the perturbations that have been described from Newton onward are of the many small nudges over many orbits type. And as I have explained to you many times, that produces very slow long cycles of the Earths orbital parameters that actually appear in the data for Earths orbit.”
thats true. For the 3500 year cycle of the 4 gas giants there are about 900 nudges.
For the 42 years which is a much smaller effect there have been about 14 nudges. And ”very slow” isn’t a scientific term its a relative term. I would say that 14 nudges is very small compared to over 900 nudges.
And that doesn’t include all the other objects in the universe. Like the moon nudges the planet either closer to the sun or further from the sun about 25 times a year. thats about 87,000 additional nudges in 3,500 years favoring the dominant mode at the time. Those are indeed very small nudges due to the orbit rate being so fast (~28days) but they would favor the dominant mode. Even comets and asteroids get in on the fun along with the moon’s of the other planets. Its small nudge cornucopia! Its just that the biggest slowest rotating objects have the largest effect.
So essentially all you are doing is blabbering what you believe to be very small but you have no idea of what that equates to in terms of global mean temperature.
So once again what is the basis in your denial that orbital forcing is a major player in the climate change? Astrology? Your fortune teller? What your daddy told you?
and you claimed above to have all these nudges documented in the data for the earth’s orbit. Gee how about a link to that source?
“For the 42 years which is a much smaller effect there have been about 14 nudges.”
Why? Are there 14 planetary alignments during a 42 year period?
This is pure fantasy. The planets do not behave that way. They are all over the place during a 42 y period.
“So essentially all you are doing is blabbering what you believe to be very small but you have no idea of what that equates to in terms of global mean temperature.”
Jupiter is by far the largest perturber on Earth. But its mass is 1/1000 that of the sun, and its closest approach to Earth is 4 x that of the sun.
By Newton’s law of gravity, this gives a maximum force of Jupiter that is 1/16,000 that of the sun.
And Jupiter orbits the sun in 12 years, so each time Earth orbits the sun, Jupiter is in a different place. And in 12 years its NET perturbations on the Earth will be much much smaller.
For Saturn the force is 1/250,000 that of the sun. So its addition to Jupiter’s pull is negligible in any single alignment.
For Uranus it is 1/(7.5 Million) that of the sun. So its addition to Jupiter and Saturn is extremely negligible in any single alignment.
So essentially all you are doing is blabbering about these very tiny perturbations that you believe, without a shred evidence, to be significant. And you have no idea of whether their short-time scale effect on global mean temperature would be measurable or significant..
Yet you claim that they would anyway.
Nate says:
”Why? Are there 14 planetary alignments during a 42 year period?
This is pure fantasy. The planets do not behave that way. They are all over the place during a 42 y period.”
————————–
See you are already learning. So much for the single pass theory you were holding that minimized the effect. Now you realize they are all over the place.
Now we can move to the fact that all over the place is a result of rather consistent orbit periods meaning that while you get small variations in those periods they all have a common denominator like you may have learned in the 4th grade if you were paying attention.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
Nate says:
”And Jupiter orbits the sun in 12 years, so each time Earth orbits the sun, Jupiter is in a different place. And in 12 years its NET perturbations on the Earth will be much much smaller.
For Saturn the force is 1/250,000 that of the sun. So its addition to Jupiters pull is negligible in any single alignment.”
———————
Indeed Nate. If you boil it down to the hour or minute there is practically nothing there.
But here you need a little 12th grade physics, even if the math stays in the 6th grade.
As you may recall the sun itself has near zero effect on the speed of the planet because its pull is near perpendicular to the path of the planet.
But once each orbit the earth is heading almost directly toward one of the other planets, or any number of them if they are lined up in the sky properly it has a significant effect on earth’s speed. For instance
You are just throwing out meaningless numbers calling the effect minimal without even doing all the math necessary and coming up with a relevant figure as to the climate effect.
If that doesn’t spark any interest in you. . .scientifically you are dead dead dead. . .like a flat earther. You have the information, you reject it without analyzing it and continue on the flat earth path your daddy set you upon.
But once each orbit the earth is heading almost directly toward one of the other planets, or any number of them if they are lined up in the sky properly it has a significant effect on earths speed. For instance”
Oh? Show us a calculation that confirms this!
We know you won’t, because this is again just handwaving
“You are just throwing out meaningless numbers calling the effect minimal without even doing all the math necessary”
This is hilarious, since I gave you actual calculated numbers, and you give NONE, again.
Yet mansplain that there will be a significant effect, again offering no evidence
But the reality is that you are clueless.
Nate says:
”This is hilarious, since I gave you actual calculated numbers, and you give NONE, again.”
You didn’t calculate the temperature effect at all. Or even the distance traveled. All you did was give a relative force of individual planets compared to the sun.
To get the distance you need to factor in the time element to get the acceleration and then how long that acceleration is applied.
Don’t you even know high school physics?
The best analogy is you have been trying to sell variation in the eccentricity of the planet as a one handed clock with 100,000 years with the hand of the clock ticking the seconds off uniformly.
what I am saying is this clock has numerous hands with 8 planets, lots of moons, a few comets, and uncountable numbers of asteroids. Further all the objects have speed changes going on. There are differences from one ephemeris to the next. to pin this down you need more than a hand wave.
I have been working with just the 4 most identifiable ones with the slowest orbits. You can see the short term ticking of climate variation in the ice cores and in the instrument record. During the Holocene the other orbital variations are only detectable over thousands of years. So its all eccentricity variation of time and distance and its solar spectral brightness (around which another cloud of uncertainty resides). CO2 during the ice core era is only a feedback only if it amounts to anything.
Since those short term variations are representations of global temperatures eccentricity variation affects the equator most of all.
You can see that in an insolation chart where you flatten out the curves to get mean insolation based on the angle to the sun.
I have been working with a clock with 4 hands. And you are right its all over the place. those 4 hands the most impactful hands cycle through the clock in a cycle of about 3,500 years. I still maybe a few hundred years off on that cycle as its difficult to lay out how much speed effect is laid down in a half cycle and that affects the ratios that you need to bring the planets close together in prime constellations that promote the largest speed differences.
so yes this multi-hand clock isn’t linear at all. And you have already essentially admitted to that. So the question is how big is it? You aren’t giving an answer. All you are doing is hand waving. You haven’t quantified anything.
Again a wall of words and hand waving from Bill.
But no math, no physics, no calculations offered, to support his claims of a significant temperature effect.
Then he moans “You didnt calculate the temperature effect at all.”
How pathetic.
I can find the effect of an alignment of three planets on the speed of Earth in its orbit as it points toward the aligned planets, it is < 1 m/s. And I can show how to calculate it with college level physics.
Earth's average orbital speed is 30,000 m/s. So this is a TINY and negligible change.
In 6 years, Jupiter is now on the opposite side of Earth's orbit, so its tiny velocity effect, which is by far the strongest, will be reversed.
So what does that accomplish over a 42 y period?
And again, I ask, how many such alignments are there in a 42 year period?
We know it will be no more than one.
Nate says:
”Again a wall of words and hand waving from Bill.
But no math, no physics, no calculations offered, to support his claims of a significant temperature effect.
Then he moans ”You didnt calculate the temperature effect at all.”
How pathetic.”
————————-
Indeed its a pathetic story of institutional corruption. You have two one hundred year old hypotheses of climate change. You politically choose to spend billions on promoting one of them and you completely ignore the other. And here you are right here right now cheerleading for that corruption.
Nate says:
”I can find the effect of an alignment of three planets on the speed of Earth in its orbit as it points toward the aligned planets, it is < 1 m/s. And I can show how to calculate it with college level physics.''
Would that not be 1 m/s2? After all its an acceleration. did you forget that the force of gravity results in an acceleration?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x
x
Nate says:
''In 6 years, Jupiter is now on the opposite side of Earth's orbit, so its tiny velocity effect, which is by far the strongest, will be reversed.''
——————
Wrong again! Jupiter would be the only one of the four on the opposite side, thus since Jupiter makes up more than half the acceleration it would only partially reverse the speed. Only when all four got on the other side would the effect be reversed and we are talking about an 80 year cycle here with only 4 hands on a clock. By then Jupiter will have visited the warming side up to 6 times. thats your speed nudges from a single planet over 80 years.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x
x
Nate says:
''So what does that accomplish over a 42 y period?''
—————
Nate remains befuddled.
“Indeed its a pathetic story of institutional corruption”
No its Bill throwing out chaff to distract from his STILL not provided calculations!
You are living in an alternate reality where you can do science..
In this reality, it is obvious that you can’t.
If you show me your calculation finding significance, I will show you mine finding insignificance.
‘In 6 years, Jupiter is now on the opposite side of Earth’s orbit, so its tiny velocity effect, which is by far the strongest, will be reversed.”
Wrong again! Jupiter would be the only one of the four on the opposite side, thus since Jupiter makes up more than half the acceleration it would only partially reverse the speed”
You are saying ‘wrong’ then basically agreeing.
I find Jupiter contributes more than 90% of the force and thus acceleration.
And that results in a tiny negligible effect. Now 6 y later 90% of that is cancelled. We are left with 10% of an already tiny negligible effect.
Again such tiny effects can have an impact if repeated thousands of times over 10s of thousands of years.
And that is evident in the data.
There is no calculation or data to support the short time orbital perturbations with climate significance.
Nate says:
”You are saying wrong then basically agreeing.
I find Jupiter contributes more than 90% of the force and thus acceleration.”
No I didn’t agree. The force on earth by jupiter varies considerably. First, the distance to earth from jupiter varies each year from a mean distance of 4.2au to 2.2au.
Second, if you include how long the individual planets stay in a sky sector factoring in how long the acceleration placed on the planet will stay in place the comparative speed increase will be much much closer than the number of Newtons implies.
And if it were really negligible why are their such large shifts in time spent on the 2 sides of the orbit dependent upon the position of these planets?
“distance of 4.2au to 2.2au.”
FALSE.
Earth orbits at 1 AU.
Jupiter (Wikipedia)
“Aphelion 5.4570 AU
Perihelion 4.9506 AU
Semi-major axis 5.2038 AU”
So on average their closest approach would be at 4.2 AU. And a minimum of 3.95 AU ~ 4 AU.
“And if it were really negligible why are their such large shifts in time spent on the 2 sides of the orbit dependent upon the position of these planets?”
Circular logic. You assuming your conclusion is true.
Where is the evidence?
Where is your calculation?
“Second, if you include how long the individual planets stay in a sky sector factoring in how long the acceleration placed on the planet will stay in place the comparative speed increase will be much much closer than the number of Newtons implies.”
Well, Jupiter provides 91% of the small velocity change ~ 1 m/s out of 30,000 m/s.
Jupiter moves 30 degrees around its orbit every Earth year.
So what you have is this ~ 1 m/s boost moving around Earth’s orbit 30 degrees every year, and on the other side a ~ 1 m/s reduction moving around 30 degrees per year.
In 6 years they have moved 180 degrees and begin cancelling the earlier changes.
Saturn provides 8.6% of the force. So less than ~ 0.1 m/s out of 30,000 m/s.
Nate says:
FALSE.
Earth orbits at 1 AU.
Jupiter (Wikipedia)
Aphelion 5.4570 AU
Perihelion 4.9506 AU
Semi-major axis 5.2038 AU
So on average their closest approach would be at 4.2 AU. And a minimum of 3.95 AU ~ 4 AU.
—————-
You are right I did make a mistake not thinking it out. What i meant to say was that roughly Jupiter is either 4.2 au or 6.2 au from earth depending upon whether earth was in conjunction with Jupiter or if 6 months later it was in opposition.
Nate says:
”And if it were really negligible why are their such large shifts in time spent on the 2 sides of the orbit dependent upon the position of these planets?
Circular logic. You assuming your conclusion is true.
Where is the evidence?
Where is your calculation?”
——————–
Here. The dates of crossings of the semi-major axes provided by USNO here: https://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/Earth_Seasons
Please do check the math.
I forgot the calculations link for previous post: https://flic.kr/p/2qkmGkE
Nate says:
Second, if you include how long the individual planets stay in a sky sector factoring in how long the acceleration placed on the planet will stay in place the comparative speed increase will be much much closer than the number of Newtons implies.
Well, Jupiter provides 91% of the small velocity change ~ 1 m/s out of 30,000 m/s.
————-
I haven’t checked your math but that should be an acceleration. i.e. one meter per second squared.
there are a lot of seconds in 6 years. Hundreds of millions. Of course the effect on orbit speed varies from maximum to zero back to maximum negative giving the different effect at both aphelion and perihelion seen in the USNO data.
But when perpendicular, like the sun virtually is full time, there is no effect on orbit speed but the effect is applied as a difference in distance of earth from the sun (at conjunction and opposition)
And yes Jupiter can slow its own effect but these effects are not slowed in lockstep like a clock with a single hand. The gas giants represent 4 hands on the clock and it takes Neptune or example 83 years to cancel its effect.
And as you can see from the calculation above it seems like to have resulted in the bumps seen in the temperature record over the past 80 years. But quite honestly I am unsure of some of the premises that science takes for granted. They have a tendency to measure something once and assume that’s what it is all the time.
Nate say:
Saturn provides 8.6% of the force. So less than ~ 0.1 m/s out of 30,000 m/s.
—————–
But you haven’t considered how much longer Saturn applies the acceleration. Jupiter’s period of acceleration means jupiters orbit period effect is less than 1/6th that of Saturn so the ratio between Jupiter and saturn ratio is much closer.
Interesting data on time between peri and ap. Your calcs ok.
But the Navy gives a different, quite reasonable, explanation, and it has nothing to do with changes in Earth’s orbital speed.
https://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/apsides
“Nate say:
Saturn provides 8.6% of the force. So less than ~ 0.1 m/s out of 30,000 m/s.
But you havent considered how much longer Saturn applies the acceleration.”
Saturn orbits in 29.4 years. So the 0.1 m/s velocity nudges are moved around the orbit ~ 12 degrees per year.
Even if they sum, which I don’t think they do, this still amounts to ~ 1 m/s, which is again cancelled 14.7 y later.
Nate says:
”Interesting data on time between peri and ap. Your calcs ok.
But the Navy gives a different, quite reasonable, explanation, and it has nothing to do with changes in Earths orbital speed.
https://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/apsides”
You probably should have fact checked that. the remnant moon at the end of a half orbit would at most move the earth 5,800 miles. . .and only that much if it was perfectly timed to get the maximum effect.
But even a one day delay in the earth arriving at the next semi-major axis would be a displacement of ~400,000 miles. God only knows what apprentice that got to write that explanation. By necessity it has no references. the more you talk about it the sillier it will sound.
“Because perihelion and aphelion are defined by the distance between the center of the Sun and the center of the Earth, the Earth’s position in its monthly motion around the Earth-Moon barycenter greatly affects the time of perihelion and aphelion. Due to the fact that the position of the Moon doesn’t repeat from year to year on the same date, neither does the position of the Earth with respect to the Earth-Moon barycenter. This produces what appears to be a quasi-random variation in the dates of perihelion and aphelion.’
Your source experts are right. You misunderstand their explanation, and overestimate your own expertise.
“the remnant moon at the end of a half orbit would at most move the earth 5,800 miles. . .and only that much if it was perfectly timed to get the maximum effect.”
But even a one day delay in the earth arriving at the next semi-major axis would be a displacement of ~400,000 miles.”
And that 400,000 motion is perpendicular to the 5800 miles discussed above. Not directly comparable!
So you are not considering the geometry of the problem.
You need to remember Occam’s razor: When what an expert says does not make sense to YOU, the simplest explanation is that it is because you are misunderstanding them.
Nate says:
the remnant moon at the end of a half orbit would at most move the earth 5,800 miles. . .and only that much if it was perfectly timed to get the maximum effect.
But even a one day delay in the earth arriving at the next semi-major axis would be a displacement of ~400,000 miles.
And that 400,000 motion is perpendicular to the 5800 miles discussed above. Not directly comparable!
—————
No its not. The 400,000 miles is along the earth’s orbit. Each day delay or early arrival represents 400,000 miles of travel along the orbit path due to variations in speed. the moon imparts as you pointed out above 2,980 miles impact on the earth as the radius of its barycenter, cancelling out with each rotation of the moon in les s than a month. thus the maximum remnant from each partial rotation is a delay or early arrival by 2,900 miles or about 10 minutes. Compare that to several days resulting from the planetary influence of 400,000 miles per day.
“thus the maximum remnant from each partial rotation is a delay or early arrival by 2,900 miles or about 10 minutes”
Wrong! You are failing to understand the geometry of the situation. I do, and the explanation from your source makes perfect sense.
The question is how much does the Earth move in the direction of the major axis in one day when it is passing perihelion? It is much less than 400,000 miles.
When you fail to understand the science described by the expert, you come to a hasty conclusion that the expert must be wrong.
And most often, as in this case, you are the one who is wrong.
Nate says:
”The question is how much does the Earth move in the direction of the major axis in one day when it is passing perihelion? It is much less than 400,000 miles.”
thats pitiful Nate.
The earth moves in an orbit of its barycenter in about 28 days due to the moon’s influence. the radius of the barycenter is 2900 miles.
That means the circumference of the barycenter is 18,221 miles. It completes an orbit in about 28 days. Meaning the earth is moving around that barycenter at a rate of 651 miles a day.
Meanwhile the earth is 93,000,000 miles from the sun. That means the circumference of the orbit is around 584,000,000 miles. with one revolution of the orbit per year that means the earth is traveling the orbit at a mean velocity of 1,600,000 miles per day.
If the variance of half an orbit is around 4 days. Thats 6,400,000 miles. a speed change of 651 miles a day for 4 days is
2,603 miles. That leaves one heckuvalot of change in distance to be accounted for.
If you have any scientific explanation for that discrepancy post it. All you are doing is showing more clearly how the public is being misinformed. Keep up the good work finding that good stuff. One would think somebody whispered that in the ear of a new green navy recruit with all of a degree in literature who got assigned to some admin support role and he wrote it up as told.
I seriously doubt anybody with any substance would have bought into that without a whole lot more support.
“All you are doing is showing more clearly how the public is being misinformed.”
By your Navy source? Riiight.
You are too hasty in assumming that experts must be a.Stupid or b.Conspiring.
When the much simpler more plausible option is
c. You are misunderstanding them.
Rule out c. before jumping to implausible conclusions
Well do you have a better explanation Nate. Or are you just going 100% for ”my daddy told me so?”
“If you have any scientific explanation for that discrepancy post it.”
As I already explained, you are comparing miles in one direction with miles in a perpendicular direction. Not comparable.
At aphelion, the orbital path which the barycenter follows, begins to get closer to the sun. But the speed of the barycenter in the direction of the sun, is teeny tiny compared to the orbital speed. We can figure out what it is.
And it is probably close to the speed of the Earth, ” moving around that barycenter at a rate of 651 miles a day.”
Using the ellipse equation and Earths eccentricity, I find that in the first day after aphelion, the orbit gets 220 miles closer to the sun.
This could easily be cancelled by the Earths orbital motion around the barycenter of 651 miles/day if properly aligned. So this means in certain years there could be a day or two of delay or advance in the apparent aphelion or perihelion, simply due to the lunar orbit, consistent with your sources explanation.
Nate says:
”As I already explained, you are comparing miles in one direction with miles in a perpendicular direction. Not comparable.”
—————
who said it was Nate?
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
x
x
x
Nate says:
At aphelion, the orbital path which the barycenter follows, begins to get closer to the sun. But the speed of the barycenter in the direction of the sun, is teeny tiny compared to the orbital speed. We can figure out what it is.
——————–
Indeed we can. This will start to give you some info on how this actually works. Meanwhile I am plugging along learning as I go.
We see the orbital speed varies between aphelion and perihelion when in the perfect Kepler world they would be the same. thus these perturbations are effects of the sum of the gravity of all the objects within the reach of gravity and combined based upon their masses, distances, and the timing of finding a neutral point where their relative positions on longer change which of course is never.
There is an obvious gravitational movement imparted on the earth and other planets from orbital perturbations that have been used to discover new planets because of their significance.
You have claimed that this is an orbital forcing effect by the moon on the motion of the earth.
Fine if that causes an orbital forcing effect on the amount of sunlight we receive that can indeed be called orbital forcing and we are in agreement about the impacts.
But we know this varies considerably and not in time with just the moon.
Milankovic figured out that it would hit a minima about once every 100,000 years. And it would conversely hit a maximum also about every 100,000 years (of course not at the same time as the minima)
Thats fine I have no argument against that as I haven’t calculated the ideal positions of the planets yet. I just know they don’t replicate in a 1,000 years but they can get close enough to account for Milankovic’s 2,500 year cycle that comprises 30% or more of the 100,000 year maximum, according that Figure 2 in the Berger whitewash paper on Milankovic that left out a whole passel of important facts to global warming. Those facts can be seen the Hays paper. but I already went over that.
the argument that the orbital forcing that comprises Milankovic eccentricity variable is decidedly not linear.
I am going to show you that right now.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As you can see in this graphic the sun is zinging around in large deviations from the center of its barycenter at various years over the past 80 years due to the gravitational pull of the planets around it. https://i.sstatic.net/VSleF.gif
Here we see how the suns barycenter radius changes from approximate 15% of the radius of the sun (in 1949/50 and 1990/91) to about 185% of the radius of the sun (in 1998/2000 and 1980/82 on different sides of the sun).
the difference that earth moves is based upon an exponential function of the radius of earth’s orbit compared to the radius of the orbit of the planets.
But this, with some unidentified residual, determines how much the earth moves through its orbit with respect to the sun establishing the elliptical orbit.
Now at my early point in researching this it appears that a very significant portion of orbital eccentricity variation occurs within this 80 year plotting of the solar barycenter.
With respect to Jupiter alone the earth’s exponential gravitation acceleration around the barycenter varies by + or – 30 to 40% of the solar variation. this is based on the sun being a mean 5.2au from jupiter and earth being 1.0 au creates the exponential effect of gravitational acceleration to vary by +or – 34% to 42%
Of course multiple planets could increase that significantly.
Since the variation in solar barycenter motion is about 1,500,000 miles with all the planets and objects that would put the earth distance from the sun variation at least around 67% to 85% based on Jupiter alone.
If it is 67% that would represent the 7% difference in insolation over that 80 year period which would result in about 17w/m2 difference in absorbed solar radiation from the distance effect alone ignoring changes in solar brightness.
Now this is just an annual difference that matches the claimed current eccentricity of the earth whatever the year was they calculated that.
But its also a speed difference over the amount of time that the sun is closer versus further way with further away being favored as to half orbit solar exposure.
so this is suggesting to me that our orbit changes shape and the concept of a semi-major axis point in one direction is simply a conceptual residual from unknown influences on earth’s orbit and may be a very weak, like the minimum ellipticity of the orbit. But once set to degrees, minutes and seconds in the sky earth’s passing of it is a routine calculation that probably is occasionally fact checked as being on the correct longitude mark wrt the stars. . .like navigators have been doing since the 16th century.
Meanwhile the earth’s elliptical orbit is in constant perturbation and probably actually bears little true fidelity to Keplers ideal orbit he derived mathematically. Such perturbations need not apply to Kepler’s laws.
this whole concept is growing by the day in my mind as I deal with small details. Certainly if this has been fully studied as claimed by all you spinners, certainly you can find a copy of Milankovics book or a complete mathematical study of this phenomena using the known rules of gravity.
Meanwhile its clear to me that orbital forcing is the primary force of nature that has created climate change during the satellite era. However, significant long term climate change does come from axial variations and may include solar brightness variations when they occur over longer periods of time. And of course anything that lowers feedback would make more room for CO2. . .while at the same time decrease the effectiveness of it overall.
Nate says:
”Using the ellipse equation and Earths eccentricity, I find that in the first day after aphelion, the orbit gets 220 miles closer to the sun.”
Well good for you the problem is the moon moves the earth in an orbit around a barycenter located 2,900 miles away from the center of the earth. That changes the earth’s position with respect to the sun by 5800miles.
that works out to a difference in the earth being about .0000004% difference wrt to distance to the sun.
Whereas we can see the planets move the earth wrt to the sun by around 1%max and about .1%min
The moons motion around the earth changes solar insolation by about .0000004% that works out to an effect on 240 watts/m2 of about .0001w/m2. 651 miles per day is a pittance compared to the
mean >1,500,000 miles per day the earth is traveling in its orbit.
Sorry Bill, but another gish gallop and a big wall of words is not going to distract from the fact that the evidence you presented for the Earth’s slowdown and speedup in its orbit, has been thoroughly debunked.
That leaves your theory as pure unsupported speculation.
“Using the ellipse equation and Earths eccentricity, I find that in the first day after aphelion, the orbit gets 220 miles closer to the sun.
Well good for you the problem is the moon moves the earth in an orbit around a barycenter located 2,900 miles away from the center of the earth. That changes the earths position with respect to the sun by 5800miles.
that works out to a difference in the earth being about .0000004% difference wrt to distance to the sun.
Whereas we can see the planets move the earth wrt to the sun by around 1%max and about .1%min”
Obviously you are unable to comprehend the simple geometrical facts presented by your own source, and clearly explained by me.
As you previously seem to understand, the Earth moves around the barycenter at 650 miles per day.
If the Earth in its orbit around the barycenter, at happens to be moving away from the sun at the time of its Aphelion, at this 650 miles/day, then that is more than enough to CANCEL the 220 miles/per day that the barycenter has moved toward the sun!
Thus, for those with at least average intelligence, that means the Earth will be still be increasing its distance from the sun AFTER the normal time of aphelion.
The aphelion will appear to have been DELAYED, by more than 1 day, consistent with the explanation given by your SOURCE!
Nate says:
”Using the ellipse equation and Earths eccentricity, I find that in the first day after aphelion, the orbit gets 220 miles closer to the sun.
Well good for you the problem is the moon moves the earth in an orbit around a barycenter located 2,900 miles away from the center of the earth. That changes the earths position with respect to the sun by 5800miles.”
How funny. Nate quotes himself and then pats himself on the back for the quote. ROTFLMAO! https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1690929
Nate the ”ellipse equation” doesn’t work for perturbations. Perturbations change the ellipse and according to Milankovic does so for up to 3 to 4 degrees celcius about once every 2,500 years. All you are spouting off about you are ignorant of the facts. I have give you the references for this and you just ignore them and make stuff up. Milankovic acknowledges that roughly 1.2C of that variation is due to unpredictable changes in ”internal stochastic mechanisms” (perhaps stuff like ENSO). Thus since we may eliminate some those more apparent ISMs by smoothing the warming over 30 years, what we are looking for astronomically once every 2,500 years is at least 1.8c natural variance from orbital forcing. . .per Milankovic. I didn’t make that up like you make stuff up or hear from your Daddy without any scientific support.
The variance of that basic ellipse caused by these perturbations are calculable by barycenter models. They show the sun being moved by the planets approximately 2 million miles. Could be more or less based upon your ”nudge” theory changes to eccentricity.
The earth will be moved more or less than that. The variance on that 2 million miles will depend upon the position of earth in the orbit around the sun.
The difference in distance from the center of the solar system barycenter differs by + or – 1AU by the mean radius of earths orbit. That will have a large impact on how much earth moves with respect to how much the sun moves. As you know the force of gravity is not a linear function.
Your lunar influence on earths distance to the sun relatively speaking is very small.
So stop being a lunar-centric lunatic.
And distance is only one factor. The speed factor is another one. That varies also due to the influence of the planets. The distance factor goes from zero to the maximum effect with each orbit and how fast the earth moves is also affected by that gravity being maximum when the gravity vector from the solar system barycenter is parallel to earth’s orbital path and zero when perpendicular.
Here is the output of a barycenter model on the movement of the sun.
I would guess thats its a simplified one based upon the assumption of circular orbits of the planets and their mean distance from the sun. The image claims its to scale.
Meaning most likely it has greater variation due to changing distances of the planets from the sun.
One that would show the different effects on earth due to its annual mean 2AU difference from the sun to the solar system barycenter would be a second level barycenter model.
https://i.sstatic.net/VSleF.gif
http://la.climatologie.free.fr/soleil/oscillation-sun.png
And of course here is the absolute killer of your argument:
http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html
This gravity simulator breaks down the influence of the individual planets. Review them. They only include the moon as part of the earth/moon system. But the earth’s orbital influence is ranked #5.
the moon might provide a variance up to 5,800 miles distance from the sun but the total distance provided by the planets on the sun’s barycenter motion is almost 2,000,000 miles and the influence of earth’s orbit distance from the sun will cause a large variation on the influence upon earth.
A review of Milankovics work suggests that the variance could be as much a 6 to 7.5 degrees C globally. That’s documented in Hays, et al 1976 as a proportion of ice core records with eccentricity variation at 50% of total and decidedly being a global effect.
Move it to 59% by allocating Hays CO2 effect as a feedback and you come up with as much as 7 to 9 degrees C. Of course thats based upon the biased findings of the day. The actual sensitivity is just a guess. https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
That sensitivity will vary wildly if we include the correct version of Milankovic into the equation for our current astronomical variation. Eventually global climate can be nudged more or less very slowly via the albedo effects axial variation. But first we need to toss out the phony silence, make Milankovic’s book available to the public, and pursue this issue with integrity.
Our institutions have done a horrible disservice feeding manure to us for far too long. I would guess its the result of concern by huge international corporations to distract us from what is really affecting us as pretty much laid out by RFKJr, Tulsi Gabbard, and Donald Trump. On top of huge corporate funding of the institutions, feeding us poisons, killing us with endless wars, stealing our jobs while only being concerned about enforcement of intellectual property rights and trying to suppress the outrage over all of that. We will see what this election decides but be aware this is only going to grow.
“Nate the ellipse equation doesnt work for perturbations.”
And I am not using it for perturbations. Neither did your USNO source when they explained the lunar effect. So you are quite confused, as always.
It has been explained clearly that this is an ARTIFACT of the Earth-Moon orbit.
The Earth’s true motion is an ellipse with tiny sinusoidal oscillation superimposed due to the Earth-Moon orbit.
As I explained:
“Using the ellipse equation and Earths eccentricity, I find that in the first day after aphelion, the orbit gets 220 miles closer to the sun.
(Neglecting the Moon orbit)
But, this 220 miles of movement toward the sun, could easily be cancelled by the Earths orbital motion around the Earth-Moon barycenter of 651 miles/day (you calculated!) if properly aligned (so that the Earth is moving away from the sun).
This means that for a day or two after normal Aphelion, the Earth will continue to get FARTHER from the sun.
So this means in certain years there could be a day or two of delay or advance in the APPARENT aphelion or perihelion, simply due to the lunar orbit, consistent with your the USNO explanation.”
And, no, you don’t know better than either me or the USNO!
“Perturbations change the ellipse and according to Milankovic does so for up to 3 to 4 degrees celcius about once every 2,500 years.”
False, Milankovic never found that!
Then you want to change the subject completely away from the Earth’s orbit, to the sun’s orbit of its barycenter.
Going down yet another astrological rabbit hole.
I will not follow.
“calculable by barycenter models. They show the sun being moved by the planets approximately 2 million miles”
Is it your view that Earth orbits this solar system barycenter?
And thus gets 2 million miles further away from the sun?
That is not the case. The Earth orbits the Earth-Sun barycenter, which is near the sun center.
We know that because we know that satellites orbiting the Earth do not orbit the Earth-Moon barycenter, which is 3000 miles above the center of the Earth!
Just imagine if the ISS orbited that point, it would crash into the Earth!
Bill Hunter says: Well if you have a source that calculates this great. I have a source the 70s that reviews Milankovic and says axial tilt is only 25% of the effect. Precession 10% and eccentricity 50%.
Percentages of what exactly? Are these referring to the amplitudes of the climate variations or the factors triggering major climatic changes?
I find this an interesting and important issue, and took the time to consult an actual data source; the temperature history from the Dome ice core (at the bottom), compared to the three main M-cycles and the calculated insolation at 68N for the last 300 000 years.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1XYvUyWwb5-SoDEAq-xjH384xB7HB0DBObVNnAlfoFYo/edit?usp=sharing
First, let me clarify: When I said varying axial tilt is the predominant factor influencing global temperature and climate, I was referring to both the inclination (obliquity) and, more importantly, the direction of the tilt (precession).
Over the last 300 000 years, eccentricity has varied between high levels (200 000 years ago) to the very low levels we experience today.
WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS the deglaciation periods occur when perihelion coincides with NH summer.
WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS the glaciation periods are initiated when perihelion coincides with SH summer.
The axial cycles cause peaks and troughs in solar forcing at 68N, and it is clearly observable from the data that precession plays a key role in these changes, regardless of high or low eccentricity.
The eccentricity does not control the direction of these changes, but rather acts as an amplifier.
Sig says:
”Percentages of what exactly? Are these referring to the amplitudes of the climate variations or the factors triggering major climatic changes?”
=====================
Its not the factors as the factors are different. Changes to the orbital path is the only variable that affects insolation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x
x
Sig says:
”I find this an interesting and important issue, and took the time to consult an actual data source; the temperature history from the Dome ice core (at the bottom), compared to the three main M-cycles and the calculated insolation at 68N for the last 300 000 years.”
====================
At 60N I would expect that your axial variations are dominant as that latitude would vary tremendously over the course of a year how much sunlight it would receive.
https://media.streets.mn/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/insolation-latitude-NOV-500×349.jpg
that chart is current insolation. How much heat the earth retains in those regions is heavily modified by ice extent thus the 60N and 60s latitude hump would cause even more annual variation of temperature than the variability shown on the chart.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x
x
Sig says:
”WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS the deglaciation periods occur when perihelion coincides with NH summer.”
=================
Which hemisphere? Seems to me loss of sea ice isn’t a deglaciation though it may be a factor in deglaciation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x
x
Sig says:
”WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS the glaciation periods are initiated when perihelion coincides with SH summer.”
================
This isn’t a point of study for me right now. All I can note is that axial tilt variation occurs over a 41,000 year cycle and that would imply 3 full cycles for one stadial/interstadial cycle. So I am not quite buying what you are selling. Seems to me you have a good deal more work to do to support that hypothesis.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x
x
x
Sig says:
”The axial cycles cause peaks and troughs in solar forcing at 68N, and it is clearly observable from the data that precession plays a key role in these changes, regardless of high or low eccentricity. The eccentricity does not control the direction of these changes, but rather acts as an amplifier.”
To me your drift is off course as when we are closer to the sun, time and distance wise, it applies for both hemispheres and both summer and winter regardless of the difference in orientation between summer and winter.
One can argue that the regional effect will vary but more insolation is just plain and simple more insolation everywhere.
Anyway we are supposed to be ignoring axial changes as they move too slowly to be a factor in the modern global warming. Seems thats true AFAIK.
The lie is that we are supposed to also ignore eccentricity changes. One can easily see that is not at all consistent with the motion of the planets that NASA attributes eccentricity changes to. One can argue what the proportions are but one cannot argue that modern warming is beyond eccentricity change alone. . .as has been argued but not properly examined. I discovered the smallest 20 year cycle simply by examining the weather data. Years ago a fisherman told me it was a 20 year cycle but I hadn’t recalled that and though it was more like a 34 year cycle of ocean oscillations. Turns out though its a combination of several cycles and I discovered that this year that those cycles correspond to planetary motion wrt to the sun.
And its not a small piece of the action. How that plays into cycles longer than 3350 years is something I haven’t even looked at. But it makes sense that when you get that far out the axial parameters are no longer too long to consider.
Earth’s average surface temperature is much higher than Moon’s average surface temperature.
Earth’s average surface temperature is much higher than Moon’s average surface temperature, because Earth rotates very much faster than Moon.
Actually Earth rotates 29,5 times faster than our Moon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Have you eliminated other variables such as the atmosphere and the leak is heat sink?
There’s also the problem that 70% of the Earth’s surface is smooth ocean while the Moon’s surface is rough regolith. By your own logic the Moon should be warmer than the Earth because the Moon reflects less radiation.
Sigh!
“Ocean heat sink”
Ent, what makes you believe oceans are “flat”?
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
–
The other variables, the earthern atmosphere, is very thin, that is why it doesn’t make any difference when we theoretically calculate earth’s average surface temperature without atmosphere.
By the way, the theoretically “eliminating” any planet’s surface temperature commenced with the theoretical effective temperature definition implementation.
The earth’s waterly surface has cp =1 cal/gr*oC which is five (5) times higher than moons regolith surface which has cp =0,19 cal/gr*oC.
–
The 70% of the Earth’s surface is smooth ocean while the Moon’s surface is rough regolith.
–
Yes, but for Earth, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Europa and Ganymede the
Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor “Φ” is very much close
to the Φ =0,47
All the six the above mentioned celestial bodies reflect solar light very much close to a perfectly smooth spherical body.
–
The Moon would be warmer than the Earth because the Moon reflects less radiation.
–
Yes, Moon reflects less solar energy, because
Moon’s Albedo is a =0,11 vs Earth’s a =0,306
Nevertheless, Moon is on average much colder than Earth, because Moon rotates 29,5 times slower, and, also, moon’s regolith has
cp =0,19 cal/gr*oC, which is five (5) times smaller, than that of earth’s.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Clint R says:
September 23, 2024 at 10:37 AM
“Ent, what makes you believe oceans are flat? ”
The Irish Water Skiing Championship had to be abandoned when they couldn’t find a lake with a slope.
Ent has obviously never been on a open ocean.
Clint R
Child, Christos and I are not discussing waves. We define “Smooth” as in low surface roughness.
The ocean surface is smooth in the sense that a mirror is smooth. Above the critical angle it reflects most of the light that falls on it.
The moon is made of regolith which is rough enough that it is not reflective, absorbing 89% of the light falling on it regardless of angle.
Sorry Ent, but you’re wrong again.
Christos is discussing”, but you are “stalking”.
And, as usual, you don’t understand any of the science. Look up “Brewster’s Angle” and “Snell’s Law”.
Vournas is wrong as always
{sarc} Anyone with a healthy brain knows that our Moon does not rotate: it only orbits the Earth. {/sarc}
“It is well-known that the global temperature is higher in July and lower in January. It is also well-known *why* this is true. The short answer is that continents heat up and cools down more than oceans. The vast majority of land is in the northern hemisphere. The global temperature swings turn out to depend more strongly on the warming & cooling of the land, than on the warming & cooling due to distance. ”
(emphasis added)
Yes, exactly, there are temperature swings because continents heat up and cool down more than oceans.
I think, Tim, you say that when Earth is at Perihelion, and Earth is closer to the sun, Earth is tilted towards sun with the Southern Hemisphere’s vast oceanic waters, and, therefore, the Global temperature is lower.
And when Earth is at Aphelion, and Earth is farther from the sun, Earth is tilted towards sun with the Northern Hemisphere’s prevailing continental land, and, therefore, the Global temperature is higher.
So, we have the annual swings in Earth’s Global temperature.
So, it is an established fact that Earth emits more IR outgoing EM energy, when its Global temperature is higher.
And it happens so when Earth is at its farthest on its orbit around sun, when Earth is at Perihelion.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Annually the Earths energy solar input varies about
90 W/m during a calendar year.
So, we have the annual swings in Earths Global temperature.
Earths average surface temperature is 2.24 degrees C higher when the Earth is much farther from Sun (Aphelion).
The global temperature swings turn out to depend more strongly on the warming & cooling of the land, than on the warming & cooling due to distance.
So, we are witnessing a 2.24 degrees C annual swings in global temperature.
–
–
A natural thought begs the question:
What were the global temperature swings ~ 11000 years ago at Holocene’s Optimum.
Were they higher than 2.24 degrees C ?
Of course they were higher, and they were much-much higher, because continents heat up and cools down more than oceans.
The vast majority of land is in the northern hemisphere. The global temperature swings turn out to depend more strongly on the warming & cooling of the land, than on the warming & cooling due to distance.
But about 11000 years ago the distance played a very significant role, because Earths energy solar input also varied about 90 W/m during a calendar year.
About 11000 years ago in January, Earth was much farther from Sun (Aphelion). In July, Earth was much closer to Sun (Perihelion). And the difference in solar flux between those two extremes was also about 90 W/m.
So we have the proofpoint here:
When the global annual temperature swings are higher, then the global average temperature inevitably is lower.
So, at times of Holocene Optimum, instead of the allegedly said sweet warm global climate, there was a much-much colder global climate, than what we have in our era.
Also, since then, Earth is experiencing a slow, 11000 years long continuous orbitally forced WARMING PATTERN.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Said by a Frenchman living in Germany who lacks a healthy brain.
christos…good analysis. My reference to a Frenchman was aimed at Binny, not you.
If Vournas was not a 100% GHE / AGW / global warming denier, the dumb Robertson of course would have agreed to my comment:
” Vournas is wrong as always
{sarc} Anyone with a healthy brain knows that our Moon does not rotate: it only orbits the Earth. {/sarc} ”
instead of openly butt-kissing Vournas and discrediting me.
Vournas says:
” About 11000 years ago in January, Earth was much farther from Sun (Aphelion). In July, Earth was much closer to Sun (Perihelion). And the difference in solar flux between those two extremes was also about 90 W/m.
So we have the proofpoint here:
When the global annual temperature swings are higher, then the global average temperature inevitably is lower. ”
Which proofpoint? What we clearly can see from ice core temperatures (Antarctic) is that when the global temperature swings are higher AND the perihelion is in JANUARY, then the global average temperature at its LOWEST. When the swings are higher AND the perihelion is in JULY, then the global temperature is at its HIGHEST.
Yr BP N65Jul S65Jan N65-S65 Temp.anomaly
10000 469.44 433.59 35.85 -0.8 Perh. in July
20000 420.64 454.36 -33.72 -9.39 Perh. in Jan
125000 485.71 410.29 75.42 1.55 Perh. in July
137000 415.52 479.93 -64.41 -7.69 Perh. in Jan
The insolation values (W/m2) are average for July at N65 and average January at S65.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
RFK Jr., who is currently fighting to *remove* his name from the ballot in swing states, just asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency order to *restore* his name to the ballot in New York. Lead counsel is Jed Rubenfeld.
https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky.social/post/3l4th36zevx2b
RFK Jr. is not all there.
He says he wants the cake and eat it also.
Or going a pathway he thinks gives him highest chance to effect US policy and/or become the US president.
Could you use at least a paragraph to explain why he is not?
He wrote an excellent book which revealed Anthony Fauci for his lack of integrity. Fauci ruined the career of Dr. Peter Duesberg out of sheer spite, by withholding funding from him. Duesberg claimed that HIV could not possibly cause AIDS, and Fauci took umbrage over his claim and ruined his career.
It was Fauci who introduced the RNA-PCR test for HIV, which is used today for covid. The inventor of PCR, Dr. Kary Mullis, told him he could not use PCR in that manner and Fauci told him he was wrong. Someone with Fauci’s arrogance would find a way to ruin a scientist’s career out of spite.
RFK Jr. has done us all a favour by revealing shoddy science.
btw…Mullis called Fauci a liar several times in public and it appears Fauci did not want to take him on in court. Wonder why?
Why sue a fool?
All it does is give them a spurious credibility.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1689068
Mullis had a severe form of Nobel Disease:
” Paul Nurse, co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, warned later laureates against “believing you are expert in almost everything, and being prepared to express opinions about most issues with great confidence, sheltering behind the authority that the Nobel Prize can give you”
The Strongest Atmospheric River on Record for the Gulf of Alaska?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/09/23/the-strongest-atmospheric-river-on-record-for-the-gulf-of-alaska/
“The atmospheric river currently over the Gulf of Alaska may be the strongest on record in that area.
The latest model runs show extreme values of the key measure of atmospheric river strength, vertically integrated moisture transport (IVT), which describes how much water vapor is being moved over a period of time.
Below is the map of IVT for this morning, with values exceeding 1900. I have personally never seen anything like it.”
BC gets a taste of California.
No such thing as an atmospheric river, the term is a climate alarmist propaganda metaphor. I prefer the much friendlier version we have dealt with in Vancouver since the weather originates in warmer climes. We call it the Pineapple Express.
Well, if someone wants to make argument that “global warming” causes
more Pineapple Expresses, it might interesting.
I would tend to guess, that since we in an Ice Age, we could get more of them.
But they fill the dams in California- or it’s good. As is having more CO2 in the atmosphere, particularly, if going to have about 9 billion people on Earth.
https://earth.nullschool.net
Set height at 250 hpa to get jet stream.
Unfortunately doesn’t provide IVT.
Current information doesn’t look unusual.
ent….”CO2 concentration in 1981, 340ppm.
CO2 concentration in 2024, 420ppm.
∆F = 5.35ln(420/340) = 1.13W/m^2.”
***
Care to explain the derivation of your fake equation? No one, anywhere has derived a causal relationship between CO2 and atmospheric warming.
Mhyre et al (1998)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98GL01908
Happer and Wijngaarden
Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases (abstract)
https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098
tim f…”The same amount of work is required to speed up a car as to slow it down again. To get a 1000 kg vehicle going 10 m/s you have to add 50,000 J of KE; to stop the car, you have to remove 50,000 J of KE. To drive up a 20 m tall hill adds 196,000 J of GPE; driving back down the hill removes 196,000 J or GPE. The processes are not 100% efficient, so you lose some energy to heat in each case. But electric motors and generators are pretty efficient. Even of you get back only 50% of the energy through regen braking, that is a significant amount”.
***
Tim…I have outlined my reasoning based on my experience with motors. Also, I am not arguing against the regen technology but against the way it is presented to convince the public that electric is the way to go. It is highly propagandized to sell this climate change nonsense.
An example given for a small car with a 100 mile range between charges is an extension in mileage to 130 miles. That’s about 23% and that is under ideal conditions (no hills or starting/stopping).
It should take the car about 1 hour to cover that distance and that is plenty of time to recharge the batteries to an extent. You simply cannot add current to batteries at the same rate you withdraw it. If you are starting and stopping in traffic it’s another matter. As I stated before, it takes much longer to charge a battery than it does to draw current from it.
If you drew a very high current from a battery it would discharge quickly, If you reversed the process with the same discharge current, the battery would blow up. Batteries can supply a high current because they already have a surplus of electrons, Recreating that surplus chemically is a much slower process.
Also, the old axiom of you don’t get something for nothing comes into play. The amount of current drawn from batteries to power a relatively heavy vehicle cannot be recharged quickly by a generator driven by the same vehicle as it slows down. As I understand it, the regen braking system only generates current when the brakes are applied. The EV may also use an alternator but it’s the same thing…getting around perpetual motion no-no.
Furthermore EVs do require a standard hydraulic braking system since the regen braking effect diminishes as the vehicle slows down. Also, regen braking won’t give the required fast stopping required in an emergency, hence the hydraulic brakes.
I rather like the idea of dual independent braking systems.
As an engineer you will be familiar with the concept of single point failure. Safety critical systems should have backups.
Aircraft have backups on the backups.
Your old van has no backup braking system at all.
Doesn’t that make you nervous?
Gordon Robertson: “No one, anywhere has derived a causal relationship between CO2 and atmospheric warming.”
Really? The scientific community is so out of touch that they’ve supposedly wasted centuries researching a relationship that doesn’t even exist? It’s hard to fathom how thousands of experts could miss something so obvious. But here comes the great Gordon Roberston, ready to enlighten us all! What a groundbreaking perspective!
It’s not the scientific community I am referencing it is climate alarmists, many of whom have no education in climate science or even physics.
I am claiming that if you scour the IPCC reviews, as I have, you will find zero evidence to support the theory that a trace gas like CO2 can warm the atmosphere significantly, let alone catastrophically.
The proof they claim comes in two forms:
1)19th century scientists proved CO2 can trap infrared energy. I have no problem with the claim but none of them proved that 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere can warm it significantly by trapping surface radiation and converting it to heat.
Arrhenius tried circa 1896, but the science he based it on has since been surpassed by Bohr in 1913 when he revealed the real relationship between EM radiation and electrons in atoms. In 1896, the electron was yet to be discovered. Even Planck knew nothing about them and lamented the fact that electron theory would have made his job infinitely easier. The oscillators upon which he based his theory are electrons orbiting atoms and emitting at discrete frequencies.
When Tyndall revealed the IR trapping properties of gases like CO2, and Arrhenius laid down his theory on warming by CO2, nothing was known about the relationship between heat and radiation. Both believed heat could flow through air as heat rays. The IPCC and it’s alarmist reviewers apparently still believe that is true.
2)The other theory is that humans began emitting CO2 circa 1750 during the Industrial Revolution, and the accumulation of the emissions began warming the atmosphere by 1850. There is one major fly in that ointment, the Little Ice Age. The 2nd phase of the LIA occurred around the same time as the Industrial Revolution. In fact, a peak in the cold occurred around 1790 during the Dalton minimum. After that minimum, the planet started rewarming.
The crooks at the IPCC have conveniently written off the LIA as a phenomenon affecting Europe only. That’s how obtuse they are in the IPCC. They think Europe can cool by 1C to 2C over 400+ years while the rest of the planet remains unaffected. But, when Europe starts re-warming, they blame it on a trace gas.
Come on, John, if you have decent intelligence you must eventually get it that you are backing a losing cause.
john…in return, perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us as to exactly how a trace gas can warm the atmosphere significantly, let alone catastrophically.
Ken provided a link to the sceptic Dr. Happer’s paper which goes into considerable detail.
Happer and Wijngaarden
Dependence of Earths Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases (abstract)
https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098
Sorry Ent, but your interpretation of that paper is WRONG.
It starts by accepting the CO2 nonsense:
CO2 is included with H20, as if they both have the same radiative effect. But, they don’t.
There is not any catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
Still the natural CO2 sinks are mostly removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The cause of CO2 rise is not a 100% anthropogenic.
So it is a complex phenomenon.
The CO2 rise is very small. It is beneficial for the global greening the food chain. The CO2 rise is not affecting the global warming, because the global warming is an orbitally forced very long natural process.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“I am claiming that if you scour the IPCC reviews, as I have, you will find zero evidence to”
False. Lots of evidence cited by IPCC. It takes real effort for you to miss it, Gordon.
Just Google “Direct observation of CO2 radiative forcing”, you will see several papers reporting this.
Sorry Nate, but those papers are only beliefs. Beliefs ain’t science.
CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise Earth’s 288 K surface temperature. That would be like boiling water with ice cubes.
Clint R
“CO2s 15μ photons can NOT raise Earths 288 K surface temperature. ”
This is only your belief. You have produced no evidence for this and I found none myself in a search.
In the past you have put forth bogus arguments about LOT violation. Do you have anything better?
Wrong again, Ent.
I have explained it numerous times. It’s just basic radiative physics and thermodynamics. Ice cubes can’t boil water, no matter how many ice cubes you have.
You don’t want to understand because you can’t accept reality. You actually claim passenger jets fly backward. You have no interest in science or reality. Your agenda is all you care about.
“Sorry Nate, but those papers are only beliefs. Beliefs aint science.”
Nope they are measurements, which are not beliefs, and are science.
Obviously you are confused, Clint. And nobody buys your crap.
Nate, a natural warming trend is NOT evidence that CO2 can warm Earth’s surface.
No one expects you to understand.
“You actually claim passenger jets fly backward.”
Clint R seems to believe that attacking others with irrelevant distortions makes for a valid and persuasive argument.
JW, your incompetence and immaturity speak for you.
But keep stalking me. You might learn something.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Why do you accuse JW that he’s stalking in his own thread?
Unexpected snow in South Africa. Another ice age???
Rising Tree Cover Loss Amid Increasing Forest Fires.
Data on forest fires reveals that they now consume at least twice as much tree cover as they did 23 years ago. In this context, “loss due to fires” refers to the direct loss of tree canopy cover caused by both natural and human-ignited fires.
Fire is also making up a larger share of global tree cover loss compared to other drivers like mining and forestry. Fires only accounted for about 20% of all tree cover loss in 2001, they now account for roughly 33%.
Climate change is a key factor driving the increase in fire activity, as rising temperatures dry out landscapes, creating conditions that are more favorable for larger and more frequent forest fires.
‘Climate change is a key factor driving the increase in fire activity’
Data shows no trend in number and severity of fires that can be attributed to CO2. Your 23 year claim is bogus. https://ourworldindata.org/wildfires
Climate change is a key factor driving the increase in fire activity: https://ibb.co/JqBD6HG
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A new pilot project by BC Hydro will explore how to enable the electricity stored in medium-duty and heavy-duty battery-electric vehicles to be pushed back to the grid. The electric utility says this is Canadas first vehicle-to-grid pilot project for such vehicles.
With such added capabilities, this could be used to provide electricity to schools, community centres, hospitals, and police and fire departments during power outages from natural disasters and other emergencies. It is also cleaner and potentially more flexible compared to the use of diesel generators.
Examples of such larger vehicles not light-duty passenger cars for two-way charging include buses and cargo trucks. BC Hydro states it has already successfully tested a 60 kW charger connecting a Lion Electric school bus from Lynch Bus Lines, with the typical bus battery holding 66 kW of electricity, which is enough to power 24 single-family, electrically-heated houses for about two hours.
According to BC Hydro, if 1,000 battery-electric buses are used for two-way charging, they could power 24,000 homes for two hours. Over the coming years, TransLink, BC Transit, and private bus operators are expected to grow their battery-electric bus fleets significantly.
Chris O’Riley, the president and CEO of BC Hydro, states that two-way charging capabilities could eventually be expanded to cars, which are parked 95% of the time on average. Moreover, over the coming years, the proportion of battery-electric vehicles in BCs overall vehicle population is expected to grow drastically.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/bc-hydro-two-way-charging-battery-vehicle-pilot-project
Even if someone could come up with a scheme of two-way charging that does not impair the readiness of the vehicle to operate, the problem of wear and tear that results charging and discharging a battery is going to drive up the maintenance costs to unsustainable and undesirable levels.
This scheme is right up there with a medical breakthrough involving with hernia transplants.
Ken
” Even if someone could come up with a scheme of two-way charging that does not impair the readiness of the vehicle to operate, the problem of wear and tear that results charging and discharging a battery is going to drive up the maintenance costs to unsustainable and undesirable levels. ”
100% agreed.
This EV histeria in Germoney is simply horrifying.
“scheme of two-way charging that does not impair the readiness of the vehicle to operate, the problem of wear and tear that results charging and discharging a battery is going to drive up the maintenance costs”
Of course. So you have to be compensated if you join such a service.
Perhaps by charging your vehicle at a deep discount.
It’d be cheaper to build a nuclear power plant.
2,041,835 homes in BC
1000 busses do 24000 for two hours
1000 busses do 240000 for 0. 2 hours
1000 busses do 2400000 for 0.02 hours
I look forward to staying warm for 0.02 hours when the big one comes.
(HAMM) They will never be able to create a credit card that gives cash back.
(CLOV) Sure they will. *Shows one, right next to where Hamm lives.
(HAMM) A few bucks will not feed me.
(CLOV) To feed you was not the point.
(HAMM) We should go crypto instead. Cheaper.
(CLOV) Now you know what to do with your cash back!
Leading with Truth in this Age of Consequences.
Ark, you must enjoy being laughed at.
Want some “brutal honesty” about the climate? CO2 can’t warm Earth. It can only help plant growth. The more, the better.
CO2 can’t warm Earth…but the sun shining thru more well mixed ppm CO2 can warm Earth near surface atm. thermometers in climate length periods. Clint R has bad case A.D.D., just can’t stay focused enough to complete his sentences.
Cli… from the headline post:
You are on the wrong blog.
Ark, maybe you missed the part where one of your major cult leaders (Gavin Schmidt) ran from Dr. Spencer?
Cli… Maybe you missed this part:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1688960
Where you said that this paper: https://countercurrents.org/2024/09/important-climate-mitigation-information-from-the-phanerozoic-eon/
Was a “Good find”
Key quote from the paper:
Again, you’re on the wrong blog!
At the risk of repeating myself:
That’s a belief, Ark. But it’s NOT supported by science.
Beliefs ain’t science.
“The rise, impact and damage from extreme weather events plus the maths of carbon budgets shows we are rapidly running out of time”
Evidence required.
Quote
III. SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES FOSSIL FUELS, CO2 AND OTHER GHGs WILL NOT CAUSE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING AND EXTREME WEATHER
A. Reliable Science is Based on Validating Theoretical Predictions With Observations, Not Consensus, Peer Review, Government Opinion or Cherry-Picked or Falsified Data
B. The Models Predicting Catastrophic Warming and Extreme Weather Fail the Key Scientific Test: They Do Not Work, and Would Never Be Used in Science.
C. 600 Million Years of CO2 and Temperature Data Contradict the Theory That High Levels of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming.
D. Atmospheric CO2 Is Now Heavily Saturated, Which in Physics Means More CO2 Will Have Little Warming Effect.
E. The Theory Extreme Weather is Caused by Fossil Fuels, CO2 and Other GHGs is Contradicted by the Scientific Method and Thus is Scientifically Invalid
Unquote
Source: https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lindzen-Happer-Koonin-climate-science-4-24.pdf
Start here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
About your “source” … https://www.desmog.com/co2-coalition/
The UN IPCC is government controlled and thus only issues government opinions, not science.
Anyone that trusts UN on any subject is a fool. If you have any dout see General Romeo Dallaire for his experiences in Rwanda.
Ad hominem is just a great way to avoid the truth. desmog is nothing but Ad Hominem.
About your source https://www.desmog.com/co2-coalition/
Ayuh.
CURRICULUM VITAE
William Happer, Ph. D
I am a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University.
I began my professional career in the Physics Department of Columbia University in
1964, where I served as Director of the Columbia Radiation Laboratory from 1976 to 1979. I
joined the Physics Department of Princeton University in 1980.
I invented the sodium guidestar that is used in astronomical adaptive optics systems to
correct for the degrading effects of atmospheric turbulence on imaging resolution. I have
published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, am a Fellow of the American Physical
Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences and the
American Philosophical Society.
I served as Director of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy from 1991
to 1993. I was a co-founder in 1994 of Magnetic Imaging Technologies Incorporated (MITI),
a small company specializing in the use of laser-polarized noble gases for magnetic resonance
imaging. I served as Chairman of the Steering Committee of JASON from 1987 to 1990.
I served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Emerging
Technologies at The National Security Council in the White House from 2018 to 2019.
I am the Chair of the Board of Directors of the CO2 Coalition, a non-profit (501 (c)(3)
organization established in 2015 to educate thought leaders, policy makers and the public
about the vital contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and our economy.
Steven E. Koonin
I am a University Professor at New York University, where I hold appointments as a
Professor of Information, Operations, and Management Sciences in the Stern School of
Business and a Professor of Civil and Urban Engineering in the Tandon School of
Engineering.
In 2022 I joined the Hoover Institution as a Senior Fellow.
I served as Undersecretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy from May
2009, following my confirmation by the U.S. Senate, until November 2011.
Prior to joining the government, I spent five years, from March 2004 to May 2009, as
Chief Scientist for BP, p.l.c.
From September 1975 to July 2006, I was a professor of theoretical physics at Caltech
and was the institute’s Provost from February 1995 to January 2004.
I was a director of CERES, Inc., a publicly traded company pursuing genetically
enhanced bioenergy crops, from 2012 to 2015 and have been a Director of GP Strategies since
2016.
My memberships include the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Council on Foreign Relations. I am a former member of
the Trilateral Commission. I am a member of the JASON advisory group from July 1988 to
May 2009, and from November 2011 to present, and served as the group’s chair from 1998 to
2004.
23
I have served as an independent governor of the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore
National Security LLCs since July 2012 and of the Sandia Corporation from 2016 to 2017 and
was a member of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board from 2013 to 2016.
I hold a B.S. in Physics from Caltech and a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics from MIT
and have been a Trustee of the Institute for Defense Analyses since 2014.
Richard Lindzen, Ph. D
I am Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science Emeritus at MIT. After
completing my doctorate at Harvard in 1964 (with a thesis on the interaction of
photochemistry, radiation and dynamics in the stratosphere), I did postdoctoral work at the
University of Washington and at the University of Oslo before joining the National Center for
Atmospheric Research as a staff scientist.
At the end of 1967, I moved to the University of Chicago as a tenured associate
professor, and in 1971 I returned to Harvard to assume the Gordon McKay Professorship (and
later the Burden Professorship) in Dynamic Meteorology. In 1981 I moved to MIT to assume
the Alfred P. Sloan Professorship in Atmospheric Sciences. I have also held visiting
professorships at UCLA, Tel Aviv University, and the National Physical Laboratory in
Ahmedabad, India, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, and the Laboratory for Dynamic Meteorology at the University of Paris.
I developed our current understanding of the quasi-biennial oscillation of the tropical
stratosphere, the current explanation for dominance of the solar semidiurnal and diurnal tides
at various levels of the atmosphere, the role of breaking gravity waves as a major source of
friction in the atmosphere, and the role of this friction in reversing the meridional temperature
gradient at the tropopause (where the equator is the coldest latitude) and the mesopause (where
temperature is a minimum at the summer pole and a maximum at the winter pole). I have also
developed the basic description of how surface temperature in the tropics controls the
distribution of cumulus convection, and led the group that discovered the iris effect where
upper level cirrus contract in response to warmer surface temperatures. I have published
approximately 250 papers and books. I am an award recipient of the American Meteorological
Society and the American Geophysical Union. I am a fellow of the American Meteorological
Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences.
I have served as the director of the Center for Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard,
and on numerous panels of the National Research Council. I was also a lead author on the
Third Assessment Report of the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the report
for which the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
“Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov can be considered the villain in Fyodor Dosteovsky’s ‘Crime and Punishment’. He ruins the lives of those around him, and any acts of atonement are false. He does not want salvation.”
Derp
Don’t ask questions if you can’t handle brutal and honest answers.
David Goldstein’s starts the Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics chapter of his book “States of Matter” with the following:
Science isn’t for pussies.
That’s why your cult can’t handle science, Ark.
charlie chicken had an acorn fall on his head and run around screaming, ‘the sky is falling, the sky is falling’.
The Charlie Chicken who wrote this nonsense is into hysteria and she and her ilk can supply no scientific proof to back their hysteria.
Neither can Ark, and that’s why he succumbs to posting such trash.
> charlie chicken
That’s the A-word in disguise.
***
> run around screaming, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
Again the A-word in disguise.
***
> The Charlie Chicken
And again.
***
> is into hysteria
Again.
***
> hysteria.
And once more, with more feeling.
Tim S
You wrote on September 23, 2024 at 10:23 PM
” … Everybody already knows you are nuts, but some new readers could get the mistaken belief that your posts represent reality. ”
*
Thank you for this.
Many of this blog’s commenters will be pleased with your clear, unambiguous opinion on Robertson’s posts, and of course, I am too except for the emphasized ‘new’, however.
This is not a minor point; please apologize for the lengthy explanation.
*
Lets take a look at two of his favorite ‘areas’ in two sub-posts: climate data and viruses.
I intentionally omit other points like the existence of time, the lunar spin, Russia’s war against Ukraine, etc.
1. Robertson >< climate data
I guess that few historical readers will be impressed by Robertson's claims like
" They use 1 station to cover the entire Canadian Arctic, at Eureka, the warmest spot in the Arctic. ”
and other similar nonsense. One station for 4 Mkm^2 ???
*
However, the situation becomes quite different, in my opinion, when Robertson’s allegations address topics where the reader’s intuitive disagreement with his allegations is less likely, if not simply absent – for example due to a lack of knowledge.
Because while the nonsense above is quite obvious, the following two examples look perfectly acceptable at first glance by contrast:
” For example, in California, even though GHCN shows many stations, NOAA uses only 3 station, all near the ocean. ”
and
” One of the biggest jokes is Bolivia, a country with very high altitudes. Not one thermometer. NOAA synthesizes temps for Bolivia by using thermometers in adjacent countries. ”
*
Who would think that Robertson is here inventing in even a worse manner than did his source, the blogger E.M. Smith aka ‘chiefio’
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
because he apparently lost this link and his good old paper notes?
*
And why should one trust a comparison of Bolivia with its surroundings, made years ago by the ‘Uberalarmist’ Bindidon, more than Robertson’s unproven allegations?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/125hoAWPb-C9t1X4WCUuBrQxBBvaxowap/view
Of course does Bolivia have weather stations (23 in GHCN V3 in 2019, 36 in GHCN daily nowadays); of course do stations located at low altitudes exist there (lowest of V3’s stations: 134 meters, median: 413, highest: 4054).
{ For apparently political reasons, there were no temperature reports to NOAA’s GHCN team between ~ 1985 and ~ 1995; but Berkeley Earth has the full data, however – because they have own, independent sources. }
” They use 1 station to cover the entire Canadian Arctic, at Eureka, the warmest spot in the Arctic.
Robertson is partly right, its just not worth the effort to sort through the BS to find the factoids.
It is the only station. Which begs the question of how he would know its the warmest spot in the arctic when its the only spot where measurements are taken. Hence the BS.
Ken
” It is the only station. ”
Are you now suddenly becoming exactly as dumb as Robertson?
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/campaigns/50-years-environmental-action/history-photos/eureka-weather-station.html
https://weather.gc.ca/forecast/canada/index_e.html?id=NU
Ellesmere Island is Canada’s northernmost and third largest island, and the tenth largest in the world. It comprises an area of 196,236 km2
Ken
I see: you aren’t as dumb nor as brazen and reckless as is Robertson.
But your real experience in the domain we discuss here is exactly the same as Robertson’s: it is simply inexistent.
*
1. I have shown many times in the last years that the temperature time series generated out of the data provided by
– NOAA’s Climate at a Glance (CaaG);
– NOAA’s most recent monthly GHCN station set (V4), used by both CaaG and GISS;
– NOAA’s daily GHCN station set (the origin of V4)
are not very different.
*
2. Thus, considering GHCN daily as a compatible superset of CaaG and GHCN V4 can’t be very wrong.
*
3. The GHCN daily station set consisted at my latest download time 2 weeks ago of ~ 128,000 units, with ~ 41,000 of them measuring temperature.
Within the latter, 6354 are located in Canada.
*
4. The Arctic begins at 60N: for all atmospheric as well as for all surface series.
*
5. There are for the entire period 1900-2024, 407 GHCN daily stations located in the Canadian Arctic. The stations are located in the following Canadian Provinces: NT, NU, QC, YT.
After cleanup of all stations with spurious data, lacking a baseline for 1991-2020 etc etc, 153 stations remain (NU: 56, NT: 43, YT: 44):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e_l5c1khfnpA_mUBNc-62y2BJ5udI7Yd/view
Of course, not all 153 stations have data till now: only 59 of them are active this year.
*
6. If we generate a time series with absolute data out of these 153 stations, we obtain this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PJFd1wAxL1-bl7s4oAWbUPMw1DSDz1pE/view
*
7. If we generate a time series with anomaly-based data wrt the reference period 1991-2020 out of these 153 stations, we obtain this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e86I_JOrnka4MhGtSdVwH0XcXbeZnXZo/view
*
8. If you don’t understand the difference between (6) and (7), ask Roy Spencer and his UAH team; I’m tired of explaining that all the time to people doubting everything.
*
9. Trends in C / decade
– for absolute data
— 1900-2024: -0.3 +- 0.1
— 1979-2024: +0.67 +- 0.69
– for anomalies
— 1900-2024: +0.23 +- 0.02
— 1979-2024: +0.54 +- 0.08
*
These trends fit the entire Arctic; UAH’s land-only trend for the Arctic is 0.25 +- 0.02, and UAH’s trend for the Canadian Arctic certainly will also be half that of its raw surface data.
Ken
Last night I wrote
” … and UAHs trend for the Canadian Arctic certainly will also be half that of its raw surface data. ”
After having generated a quick approximation of UAH 6.0 LT over the Canadian Arctic, I see that I wasn’t ‘quite wrong’:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HI6_IIHkzwtO5kRma_WvtW8jnK2kL2XR/view
Trends in C / decade for 1979-2024
– surface: +0.54 +- 0.08
– LT: 0.26 +- 0.06
2. Robertson >< viruses
Robertson's endless misrepresentations and lies about viruses is the main reason why his incompetent blah blah is dangerous – and by far not only for those new to this blog.
The reason for me might well be due to most of the readers being (very) conservative US persons, possibly more open to contrarian arguing.
*
Who among all silent readers on this blog would, for example, doubt Robertson's lie when he writes about the HIV virus:
" It doesn't exist anywhere as far as physical isolation is concerned. The virus is inferred based on a method developed by Luc Montagnier for HIV. Montagnier is on record as admitting he never saw HIV on an electron microscope. "
Who of them all would ever search for any contradiction to this lie, and quickly find e.g.
HIV TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROGRAPH (Date: 1983)
https://globalhealthchronicles.org/items/show/6892
and, by extension, to search for more virus electron microscope micrographs, e.g. in
RKI / National Reference Centres and Consultant Laboratories
Electron Microscopy images of viruses and bacteria
https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/infections/Diagnostics/NatRefCentresConsultantLab/CONSULAB/EM-Tab_en.html
*
Finally, no reader of this blog who is not familiar with the triple Lanka measles virus trial in Germany will ever be able to recognize Roberston's ongoing lies in the interpretation of the three judgments, no matter how long s/he follows the discussions here.
To recognize these lies, you need
– access to all three rulings;
– the ability to understand them.
Only with that understanding will you be able to contradict him, e.g. when he claims that the paragraph 114 in the sentence formulated by the Justice in the appeal court
OLG Stuttgart, Urteil vom 16.02.2016 – 12 U 63/15
https://openjur.de/u/892340.html
does not belong to the ruling but is merely 'a plaintiff's claim formulated by his reps'.
Maybe he can explain to me how you isolate a virus with an electron microscope.
bob….the EM does not isolate the virus, it confirms that a virus has been isolated. If you claim a virus isolation and it cannot be seen you are a fibber. At no time did Montagnier claim to have isolated HIV, he only claimed to have inferred it. However, he did claim that his inferential method is as good as physical isolation and that produced disagreement from the likes of Lanka and Mullis is about.
Duesberg did not claim there is no virus, he simply pointed out that the virus cannot infect enough T-cells to destroy an immune system. He also claimed, no virus is detected in several forms of opportunistic infections listed under the AIDS umbrella.
According to the Louis Pasteur Institute method, you take the viral sample and inject it into a sugar solution which is graded by density. Then you centrifuge the sample and if a viral material is present it will show up in a known density range. If that happens, you remove the material at the dark band and prep it for an EM by creating a very thin slide in the range of 100 nm. Anything thicker, and the electrons in the EM have a problem penetrating it.
The idea in a TEM is to shoot electrons through the material and project the resulting image onto a micrograph. Once the micrograph is formed, it must be visually scanned for viruses of known size and that’s why a micrograph requires a scale included to indicate the size. The first thing I noticed about Binny’s micrograph is the lack of a size marker. Therefore the particles claimed to e viruses could be anything.
Again, when Montagnier followed this procedure developed by his own institute, and on his team was a member of the LPI board who created the standard, he saw no virus. Therefore, I suspect this micrograph of Binny’s is a fraud.
Think about it. If Montagnier’s team saw no virus, and he was awareded a Nobel for his work, how do others find a virus? They are obviously frauds or incompetent.
The RNA-PCR test was developed by Fauci and Ho in an attempt to amplify the mass suspected of being HIV because they could not see it. The same test is used for covid…and why?? Because they cannot see it on an EM.
That prompted Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR method, to inform Fauci that PCR cannot be used to amplify a virus that cannot be seen on an EM. Of course, this fraudulent test is still used to infer covid.
binny…contradiction to a lie?? Montagnier is on video, available on the Net, admitting he saw no virus. I have posted a link to the video in this blog.
It is painfully obvious that you lack the comprehension to read coverage of the Lanka trial and come to an objective conclusion. That does not surprise me since you normally take an obtuse approach to science.
Lanka lost in the lower court, and won when he appealed to the Supreme Court. That’s all anyone needs to know. He posted a prize of 100,000 Euros to anyone who could prove the measles virus exists, using one scientific paper. The lower court allowed a summmay of points from different papers and the Supreme Court overruled them. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s team failed to prove any photos of HIV were in the correct size range.
How do you tell one virus from another on an electron microscope image?
One has difficulties identifying bacteria by images, that’s why when you sterility sample shows growth, you send it off to be sequenced, so you know exactly what you are dealing with.
More tomorrow about Robertson’s virus incompetence and Lanka lies.
Time to drink a few glasses of our wonderful 2019 Hermitage, 100% syrah.
*
Especially re: Lanka, it’s incredible to see Robertson writing about the three Lanka cases as if he never had been contradicted:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2024-0-88-deg-c/#comment-1687479
I think he knows better. He has fun making various claims to get people to react. He always dances around the real answer, but not actually. Sometimes he posts correct information, maybe my mistake.
The real answer??? Are you arrogantly claiming you have the real answer? If so, prove it and offer a real scientific reply.
Here’s a dead simple question Tim, what is time? A decent scientific answer would be, ‘I don’t know’. Maybe if Einstein had asked himself that question and gone into it, he would not have regarded time as ‘the hands on a clock’.
So, there you have it Tim, define time for me and prove I am wrong. I claim it does not exist, prove to me that it does. Not interested in the opinion of an authority figure, just your analysis. I figured out for myself why it does not exist, let’s see you figure out how it does exist.
But Einstein did define time as the hands on a clock, then he proceeded to analyze, and I mean analyze via thought-experiments, not prove, that time is real and can dilate. If it cannot dilate, and it can’t, and if real bodies won’t contract in length as they approach the speed of light, then his theory of relativity is wrong.
It is beyond me why modern scientists regard Einstein’s relativity theory as replacing Newtonian mechanics. They have nothing in common. If you press said scientists they immediately modify their claim to be only at the atomic level. Even then, the coverage of atomic level science by quantum theory and relativity is totally vague and cannot be visualized. I am sure that when and if a device is developed to measure at the atomic level, Newtonian mechanics will be re-instated by the groupies.
Proof. Quantum theory is already based on the Newtonian interaction of particles electrostatically. The only real difference is in Bohr’s stipulation that electrons must reside in quantum orbitals. That stipulation is based on properties of electrons wherein they only absorb and emit at discrete frequencies. And electron theory in practice is well-covered by Newtonian mechanics.
” I claim it does not exist, prove to me that it does. ”
You already lost this challenge Gordon, when I asked you to prove that YOU exist, and you failed.
“Einsteins relativity theory as replacing Newtonian mechanics. They have nothing in common. If you press said scientists they immediately modify their claim to be only at the atomic level.”
Actually, it is the opposite, they will claim relativity is apparent only on very large length scales.
This shows the depth of your confusion about these issues, Gordon.
Gord is just a random word generator.
“Gord is just a random word generator.”
+100
I laughed at this.
Ken
” Gord is just a random word generator. ”
No.
He is a fundamental contrarian who exclusively picks up pseudo-science out of contrarian blogs, and endlessly distorts, misrepresents, discredits and denigrates anything what doesn’t fit his stubborn, egomaniacal, scienceless and incompetent narrative.
*
You yourself are credulously believing his nonsense e.g. about weather stations in the Canadian Arctic:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/#comment-1689329
ent…”Clint R
CO2s 15μ photons can NOT raise Earths 288 K surface temperature. ”
***
Clint is right. 15 um IR is emitted by a surface at -80C, The IR wavelength of the surface (presuming 15 C, or about 288K) is about 10 um.
The 2nd law is specific about that. Heat cannot be transferred, by its own means, from a surface at -80c to a surface at 15C. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a surface at 15C emitting IR that can be absorbed by a surface at -80C.
“Clint is right. 15 um IR is emitted by a surface at -80C, The IR wavelength of the surface (presuming 15 C, or about 288K) is about 10 um. ”
False, the Earth’s surface emits and abs.orbs over a broad range of wavelengths at all temperatures, including 15 micron IR.
Nate, there Is only a slight chance CO2’s 15μ photon will be absorbed. But, even if absorbed, it can NOT raise Earth’s 288K temperature. Like your cult, you don’t understand radiative physics and thermodynamics.
And, you can’t learn….
The 2LOT demands that an absorbed “CO2’s 15μ photon” raise Earth’s near surface thermometer median 288K temperature in that isolated real process, so there is no hope for Clint R and Gordon to be correct that it won’t. Gordon just needs to refer to his often-quoted Clausius eqn. for entropy to learn to correct Gordon’s mistake.
Accomplished scientists and engineers also know time exists because of entropy consideration in any real process so Gordon’s comment figuring out time “does not exist” is also known be faulty.
Ball4 joins Nate to prove me right, again.
Like their cult, they don’t understand radiative physics or thermodynamics.
They believe in nonsense that would result in ice cubes boiling water.
And Dr. Spencer’s experiments (and 2LOT) also prove Clint R humorously wrong about ice cubes boiling water. Dr. Spencer even used ice cubes! As well as the nighttime atm. in Alabama to no avail with these two.
Funny, there is no hope for Clint R and Gordon to be correct; each so far batting 0 for 1000 in the blog science fair.
Ball4, obviously you didn’t understand Roy’s experiment. Which makes sense, as you can’t understand any of this.
Keep proving me right.
It’s not even very hard to show Clint is just upset at being wrong all the time reading no further than the Dr. Spencer experiment’s blog post title: “Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still”.
Clint can’t understand the “Cool Object” is water ice and the “warmer object” is liquid water at STP. Funny, non-scientist Clint can’t even get past reading the title for understanding the physics.
“Nate, there Is only a slight chance CO2s 15μ photon will be absorbed.”
Evidence to support this declaration?
We know you won’t have any. Because you are just here to tr.oll.
“But, even if absorbed, it can NOT raise Earths 288K temperature.”
Again, evidence for this nonsensical statement?
Photons contain energy. If it is abs.orbed, then that energy must add to the internal energy of the body. If you think not, then YOU will need to explain where that energy went.
And remember photons are massless, so no bricks need apply for the job of substituting for a photon!
This has all been explained before, but cult kids like Ball4 and Nate can’t learn. When I take the time to explain, they simply pick out phrases to misrepresent science.
If they agree to not comment here for 30 days, I will address their issues and answer their questions. But, they can’t stop stalking. They seem obsessed with proving me right.
I can take it….
Nate
If you observe Clint R you will clearly see he will never support any of his claims. It is because he got them from crackpot blogs, it is made up unsupported nonsense. He does not care. You are correct, he is not the least bit interested in any truth or science. He loves to provoke other posters. It is what he does.
I have asked him many times to support his made up claim that a 15 micron photon will not be absorbed. He never supports it. Just makes the same claims over and over like a broken record. He is still most annoying and there is nothing that can be done. In other names he has been banned but he returns under new name but same formula. Provoke people and beg for some insult.
You and me both know he can’t defend any of his made up opinions with evidence and we both know he will never provide any. He thrives on attention. He loves when people respond to his posts trying to correct his crackpot blog “science” that is about all you get from him.
I do try to correct him so people can discern what science is and is not. Clint R is zero science lots of arrogance and mouth. He is not capable of change.
Gordon is like that as well. You can give Gordon mounds of evidence over long periods of time and he ignores it all and posts his redundant nonsense for several years. These two fight with each other but they have the same mind. I think Clint R is highly jealous of Gordon because Gordon has typing skills. He has none and Gordon’s long posts make him feel inferior.
Norman, you can’t provide a link to where I said “15μ photons can’t be absorbed”.
As usual, all you have are insults and false accusations. Somehow you cultists believe if you hate enough you can change reality. That’s what assassins believe….
But, keep stalking me. I enjoy your ongoing meltdown.
“This has all been explained before, but cult kids like Ball4 and Nate cant learn”
Once again no evidence in support of your nutty claims will be offered.
Thus your claims can be safely ignored.
“15 um IR is emitted by a surface at -80C, ”
That is thermal radiation emitted in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
Not to be confused with the 15um photons emitted by the bonds between C and O atoms in CO2 molecules. These are at 15um because the vibrating bonds emit photons containing a specific amount of energy.
The same 15um photons are emitted when a bond is excited regardless of temperature. You see the same emission line in the CO2 spectrum whether the CO2 is in the tropopause at 220K, at the surface of the Earth at 288K or in a jet exhaust at 1700K.
Sorry, Ent, but those bonds are comprised of orbiting electrons and higher temperatures drive the electrons to higher orbits where their KE increases, their velocity increases, and their orbital frequency increases.
S-B is based on the electrons orbiting platinum atoms. As an electrical current is increased through the platinum filament, the atoms heat up and emit progressively higher frequencies of EM. It is the same process as in CO2 molecules and their bonds. Ergo, electrons are electrons and always behave like electrons.
Isn’t a surface at 288K capable emitting 15 um IR ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes. Earth emits a full spectrum of IR frequencies, not just 15 um.
The 15 um spectrum is heavily saturated.
And as measured ppm CO2 is added to the atm., the surface emission spectrum moves to lines not as saturated by increasing measured median Tse a bit.
Heavily saturated is like heavily pregnant.
The atmosphere is not saturated, it can still absorb more CO2 because there are still CO2 molecules in the ground state able to absorb more IR.
“And as measured ppm CO2 is added to the atm., the surface emission spectrum moves to lines not as saturated by increasing measured median Tse a bit”
This is false. CO2 doesn’t alter its chemical and quantum characteristics.
Too, H20 is already absorbing what CO2 does not.
“The atmosphere is not saturated, it can still absorb more CO2 because there are still CO2 molecules in the ground state able to absorb more IR.”
It doesn’t matter. Its so heavily saturated that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere will only further reduce direct thermal radiation to space by 3Wm-2. This is in a system where GHE is 340Wm-2 so its too small to make any significant difference.
As Ball4 points out, more CO2 widens the notch, telling us that CO2 absorption is not saturated.
Saturation advocates get things backwards.
Ken
Look again at your link.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098
In Figure 4 Dr Happer shows how a doubling of CO2 causes warming.
Compare the black line (400ppm) with the red line (800ppm). Note how the CO2 band is wider in the red graph as the extra CO2 extends the range of frequencies being absorbed.
Dr Happer calculated that the doubling increases CO2 absor*btion by 3W/m^2.
This: “And as measured ppm CO2 is added to the atm., the surface emission spectrum moves to lines not as saturated by increasing measured median Tse a bit” … is false is incorrect, Ken 12:03 pm.
As other commenters point out, there is no need for CO2 to alter its chemical and quantum characteristics as air temperature profile changes along the Planck function curve for each line.
In addition, air emissivity can change as a function of that T(z). Too often writers on saturation of consequences miss effects of atm. air profile T(z) changing with increased ppm CO2 or, indeed, any added IR active atm. gas.
Well tropical ocean surface is about 300 K and 300 and 288 K emit 15 um IR but one could ask where does it go, and very tiny amount it goes straight up. And most goes sideways.
But most energy from the tropical ocean is evaporated/convectioal heating and most of that goes straight up {which is related to the tropical ocean heat engine warming the entire world.
And issue of equatorial bulge is significant factor related to the tropical ocean heating rest of the world. And the fact we are in Ice Age, also also a factor.
Or a lot of our world is dry and cold.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
We at Deutsche Bahn are driving forward electric mobility – not only on the rails, but also on the roads. Therefore, we are using modern electric buses at more and more locations in Germany.
– Green bus fleet in Frankfurt’s route network
– Electric buses for Schleswig-Holstein
– A pilot project for replacing diesel
– Running on electricity in Bavaria
– Green local traffic in Bocholt
https://nachhaltigkeit.deutschebahn.com/en/measures/electric-buses
Germany generated electricity from the following sources: 27% wind, 24% coal, 12% nuclear, 12% natural gas, 10% solar, 9.3% biomass, 3.7% hydroelectricity.
Dreams of green … aren’t.
50% renewables is a good step along the way.
Mind you, it makes the UK and the USA look embarassing.
Why do you think full conversion to renewable energy should have happened already, Ken, as if the energy sources of a country can turn on a dime?
All past energy transitions,the ramp-up of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, have each required several decades.
Nate,
“All past energy transitions, the ramp-up of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, have each required several decades.”
–
They all were economically beneficial transitions.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Please include the price hikes on electricity due to demand.
Ken
The facts do support your position. I think it is a very good thing to have multiple sources of power (wind, solar) but both are unreliable when most needed.
In the Spring and Fall months wind is generally strong and can supply a lot of the customer electric needs. The Summer the wind can be calm for several days (when consumers need power the most to keep their homes live able) also in very cold winter months. Solar is only viable during the day but in cold winter and hot summer power is required at night.
Here are two power electric power pools. Fossil fuels still make a huge contribution to electric power. If you removed them there would be massive blackouts in large areas for long periods of time.
https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time–market-data/operations-displays/
https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards
There is not any significant power storage systems in place to cover for low wind and night conditions. In ERCOT the power storage is an ambitious 0.3%. There are no major plans to build massive electric storage systems. There are a few ideas but nothing really being built. Until this process starts then wind and solar will not be viable systems of electric power even if they can provide 50% in the spring and fall. They don’t provide that in the summer or winter periods.
If environmental groups are serious about a transition, they need to start building, not just talking about, reliable systems of massive electrical storage. Without this it is a very distant dream or we will enter a period of no very unreliable electricity. Not sure our type of Civilization will survive such a condition.
Ken
” Germany generated electricity from the following sources: 27% wind, 24% coal, 12% nuclear, 12% natural gas, 10% solar, 9.3% biomass, 3.7% hydroelectricity. ”
*
Your data needs clearly an update: nuke in Germany has been shut down because we lack long time storage for nuke waste (all selected sites were rejected due to imminent contamination of the ground water).
*
Below is a chart comparing the different primary sources on a net basis, i.e. minus their respective self-consumption.
{ This means for e.g. nuke: the energy costs of Uranium mining, yellowcaking and shipping, conversion into U3F6, enrichment up to minimum 3.5% U235, rod construction, installation, replacement and reprocessing in La Hague (France), waste storage, vitrification and ultra-long storage of highly radioactive nuclear waste. }
https://i.postimg.cc/qMdY4QP9/Germany-Net-Electricity-Generation-in-2023.png
Especially biomass…it means burning trees. They like to kid us into thinking the wood burned is scrap but here in BC they have been caught exporting whole logs for biomass.
This is how desperate are the propagandists in the eco-looney realm. When one of their leaders was asked about burning trees, he looked stunned and had no answer.
Besides, I don’t believe the figures. With 37% dependent on wind and solar, most Germans would be freezing in the dark when the wind was not blowing hard enough or the Sun was not shining through the clouds. Ergo, Germans like to bs. a lot.
christos…not only have we benefitted financially, we have also benefitted technologically and with longevity.
” Besides, I don’t believe the figures. With 37% dependent on wind and solar, most Germans would be freezing in the dark when the wind was not blowing hard enough or the Sun was not shining through the clouds. Ergo, Germans like to bs. a lot. ”
Here again, you see Robertson’s completely contrarian brain.
He ‘doesnt believe’.
But don’t think he would ever ask anyone if he is wrong.
What a dumb ass.
Only one thing worse than German bs, is Franco-German bs, at which Binny, a Franco-German, excels.
Solar cycle 25 is now guaranteed to reach or exceed Zharkova +50% at the end of the month.
I wonder when she will concede that she was wrong.
She has not made outlandish predictions, only that it should start cooling toward the end of the decade and remain colder till about 2050.
Re your alarmist brethern…where is the catastrophic warming predicted by Hansen in 1988? Where is the end of the world predicted by Greta Thunberg and her ilk for the early 2020 decade? Where is there any proof of climates changing significantly, never mind catastrophically?
Zharkova predicted that SC25 would be weaker than SC24 by 20%.
Instead SC25 will be at least 20% stronger than SC24.
(Waiting while you show your lack of maths ability by claiming that this makes SC25 only 40% stronger than Zharkova’s prediction, instead of 50%.)
Zharkova’s paper does NO independent research on the effect of solar activity on global temperatures. All she has done is cherry-picked claims from other papers, while ignoring those that say the opposite. Apparently she believes research means googling. Her original paper made no mention of climate effects. She added this in because she could see the interest she was garnering from deniers.
Please provide actual temperature predictions from Hansen for the mid 2020s.
I pay no attention to what Thunberg or Gore say. I listen only to climate scientists. I wouldn’t have a clue what her claims are, nor do I care.
You can find his three scenarios from 1988 here (fig. 5.4)…
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/?q=book/export/html/141
In the article, they claim the blue curve is the closest estimate based on our fossil fuel emissions. However, it claims a 1C warming since 1960 whereas the actual warming since 1850 is only 1C. Then again, Hansen and GISS don’t mind bending the truth to serve their alarmist meme.
For example, Hansen changed his mind on those scenarios by 1998, blaming the error on his computer rather than the programmer. These days, he has apparently reverted to his s from the past. Also, GISS reported 2014 as the hottest year ever based on a 38% likelihood.
Ant, I am sure you are a good guy at heart but you need to look more closely at the propaganda from your authority figures.
The best thing I took away from the article was the quote from Yogi Berra that I had heard before…
“predictions are hard especially about the future”
More on Hansen and GISS…
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/hansens_anniversary_testimony/
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/correct_the_corrections_the_giss_urban_adjustment/
The globe has indeed warmed by 1C since 1960, and by about 1.1C since 1850. Not sure why you believe that is an issue.
Gordon,
How about seeing species expand their ranges beyond their preindustrial range.
Armadillos in Chesterfield MO as I have observed recently.
Possum on the half-shell anyone?
What’s September number going to be.
What is your guess?
I think [or guess] October will be lower than September.
It should have started going down a few months ago … if the satellites actually measured surface temperatures.
The Polar Vortex is packing its bags. Wind speeds are way down. The formation at North Pole continues, but won’t have much effect for weeks.
The PV equinox transition is already in the September anomaly, so we shouldn’t see it.
The water vapor in Stratosphere lingers, opposed by the developing La Niña. I don’t expect much change for September UAH Global — maybe a slight upward bias.
COVID is back in the news with some very misleading and simply incompetent reporting from the news media. This is the report causing the uproar:
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(24)00901-2
This is nothing more than a refinement of old news form old samples collected in 2020 at the Wuhan animal market. Some of these collected samples contain SARS-CoV-2 virus material mixed with animal material. The study put more detail into the source and identity of this material. Once again, these are old samples getting a more refined analysis.
The study does not link the various sources of the individual biochemicals to each other. It says very clearly that they did not, and cannot do that. They can only show that the samples are mixed. That does not stop various media from claiming that they did make a new discovery.
There is a very obvious and simple explanation, that someone visiting the market with a COVID infection could cough, sneeze, or physically contact various surfaces with their hands after blowing or wiping their nose. Bingo! Now the samples are mixed with human and animal sourced material that can never again be separated or quantified by source. How simple is that? It is also possible that the sample collectors were not careful.
In another comment above, a DNI report from July 2021 was posted. It was apparently posted to the internet in October 2021. The document property says created 10/29/2021 7:20:11 am. Here is a more modern update from June 2023 — still old, but more recent. It is important to note that these assessments are only possible with classified information from confidential sources. The Chinese government is not cooperating. Have fun!
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Report-on-Potential-Links-Between-the-Wuhan-Institute-of-Virology-and-the-Origins-of-COVID-19-20230623.pdf
> This is the report
That’s actually a research article.
***
> a DNI report
An elided four-pager providing no empirical evidence whatsoever.
Tim S
Until recently, I also supported the idea that Sars-Cov-2 originated in the P4 laboratory in Wuhan.
But after having read
A Critical Analysis of the Evidence for the SARS-CoV-2 Origin Hypotheses
James C. Alwine & al. (2023)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10117112/
I’m no longer that sure.
The authors conclude with this:
[Given the currently available evidence, the two plausible possibilities for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 are not equally likely. Continuing to frame them as such does us all a disservice, dilutes our efforts, and misdirects resourcesonly serving to weaken our ability to respond to future pandemics.]
In other words, “get off my lawn there is nothing to see here”. That is a direct admission of bias given that other organizations with classified secret information see it just the opposite way.
There are two important questions: If the Chinese have everything to gain, and nothing to lose with a zoonotic origin, why are they blocking further investigation? Why was this virus so very well adapted to humans from the start?
[TS READS] Based on the scientific data collected in the last 3 years by virologists worldwide, hypotheses 1 and 2 are unlikely. Hypotheses 3 and 4 cannot be ruled out by existing evidence. Since hypotheses 1 and 2 support the lab leak theory and hypotheses 3 and 4 are consistent with a zoonotic origin, the lab leak- and zoonotic-origin explanations are not equally probable, and the available evidence favors the latter.
[TS INTERPRETS] In other words, “get off my lawn there is nothing to see here”.
Tim S
As Willard unambiguously pointed out, you behave here exactly like those I call the pseudo-skeptics a la Robertson: you intentionally left out what matters, by the way distorting and misrepresenting the article’s conclusion such that it fits you personal narrative.
” In other words, ‘get off my lawn there is nothing to see here’. ”
This is exactly your message, Tim S.
Bindidon,
As a friend of Willard, you behave here exactly like those I will call the science-fakers. There is a long list of people who intentionally leave out and/or criticize what doesn’t fit their narrative. This is called propaganda.
By claiming this one paper, which is really a political call to action, represents the only legitimate source of information, you are distorting and misrepresenting the importance of the articles conclusion.
You are no better than Willard and his website which is really just a child’s game. There are many other points of view that completely defeat the conclusion these authors have reached. To claim in effect, that all other research except their own is invalid and “dilutes our efforts, and misdirects resourcesonly serving to weaken our ability to respond to future pandemics”, is the height of anti-science hypocrisy.
Science is about skepticism which means keeping the door open on every theory. Favoring one theory over another is human nature. Everyone has their favorite theory. That is called bias. Claiming that another theory “misdirects resources” is a naked claim of anti-science bias. It is not a scientific conclusion and does not belong in the concluding remarks of any legitimate science paper.
I do have a personal narrative, and this is it. Once again, there are two important questions: If the Chinese have everything to gain, and nothing to lose with a zoonotic origin, why are they blocking further investigation? Why was this virus so very well adapted to humans from the start?
This is not a science problem to see who has the most clever theory. This is an investigation of real events that actually happened. An investigator has to focus on what is wrong and what doesn’t look right, not what theory seems the most appealing. The investigation has to follow the leads to the missing facts. This is reality, not theory.
[TS] Science is about skepticism
[ALSO TS] This is not a science problem
Thank you Willard. How do you respond to everything so fast? Anyway, there is hope for your educational process. The investigation into the origin of COVID-19 which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus is currently a mystery. An investigation is very different from a science study. Concrete facts are essential.
The zoonotic route is impossible until the missing crossover animal link can be found. It currently does not exist, and is absolutely necessary to establish a zoonotic origin. The theoretical science is important in the mission to find the link, but the link is the issue, not whether it is theoretical possible or even most probable. Continued failure to find the link is a problem for its proponents.
The lab leak is easy. It cannot be demonstrated let alone proven without the cooperation of the Chinese Communist Party or a very brave whistleblower who is willing to risk the lives of themself, and the lives of their families. Other scientists who have cooperated with much less information have “disappeared” from family and friends.
https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/global-affairs/the-lab-leak-the-missing-scientists-the-coverup-piecing-together-what-really-happened-in-wuhan/news-story/122d7cab3d2db39103d75085edb85195
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/top-chinese-economist-who-criticised-xi-is-latest-in-long-list-of-disappearances/ar-AA1rg82F
TS always has great sources. First, Bryant:
https://www.skynews.com.au/the-team/bryant-hevesi
And the other bit about a group chat? Absolutely priceless. All this to buttress this pure denial:
[PURE DENIAL] The zoonotic route is impossible until the missing crossover animal link can be found.
Relevance galore! Contrarian science in inaction! Let’s remind him:
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(24)00901-2
According to TS, all these findings are absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.
False claims about theoretical science might be amusing to some indeed.
Sadly, Willard may actually believe that he, and he alone has solved the mystery. I should not have to post this, but people such as Bindidon and others may think that he understands the subject matter.
The crossover animal does not exist at this time. Theoretical animals linkages, mixed material samples from raw swabs of material exposed to the ambient atmosphere, and other hypothetical possibilities are not evidence of a connection.
If the missing crossover animal was positively identified by scientifically valid methods, it would be international news of epic significance and impact. Someone might even win a Noble Prize. A post on the internet from a confused person does not meet that standard.
There are further questions about Willard that I will leave unstated.
TS’ mind probing only reflects on him.
Just for astute readers’ amusement, they ought to wonder if he has ever wondered why the Chinese government would be happier if the virus came from the wet market:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/07/13/proximal-origins/#comment-219646
There is hope that one day TS gets up to speed on Covidball.
Expect the Covid hoax to be in the news for an entire generation — follow the money.
Pfizer is already flooding the radio ads with scare tactics. According to their nonsense, Covid has now mutated into an even more deadly form. BUT, they have the “vaccine”….
Tell all the families of the people who died from Covid that it was just a hoax!
You are starting to sound like Alex Jones who ‘told’ all the Sandy Hook families that their children didnt get killed.
False claims about theoretical science might be amusing to some. Claiming that a deadly disease is a hoax goes well beyond that into the realm of dangerous information. I am opposed to censorship, so I will just advise everyone to get their medical information from a licensed medical doctor, and not the internet.
Vaccination is one of the most important advances in modern medicine. The technology is very technical. The human immune system is complex and diverse. It is understandable that people who have a problem with understanding basic science might fear having “chemicals” injected into their arm. Once again, get your advice from a licensed medical doctor who is responsible for your healthcare, and not the internet.
Nate and Tim S, people die from flu season every year. Nothing new.
Maybe you don’t understand that almost any death was attributed to Covid during the “crisis”. Even lightning strikes and motorcycle accidents. Did you get tricked?
” almost any death was attributed ”
Clint says stuff, again without a shred of evidence to back it up.
Child Nate, I’m not going to waste time finding and re-posting all the links I’ve already posted. Especially for someone that has NO interest in learning.
Now, if you are willing to go 60 days without commenting here, to show your sincerity, then I might be interested in furthering your education.
“Im not going to waste time”
Of course not. We know your time is very valuable, and you never have time to support your nonsense claims with real evidence.
Thus, we know your claims are simply BS, and can be safely ignored.
ent…” In Figure 4 Dr Happer shows how a doubling of CO2 causes warming….Dr Happer calculated that the doubling increases CO2 absor*btion by 3W/m^2″.
***
The key word is ‘calculated’. Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both well versed in thermodynamics, calculated the same doubling of CO2 to provide no more warming that 0.06C. That produces a conundrum because if a doubling of CO2 accompanies a 1C warming, only 0.06C came from CO2. That fact is verified by the Ideal Gas Law. So, where did the other 00.94C come from. We all know it was a rewarming from the Little Ice Age.
I like Will Happer, especially what he said about global warming/climate change, that it is a scam. He said he’d settle for hoax, but preferred scam.
The things is, Happer calculated the effect of CO2 using Hitran and on their site they claim…”HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere”.
How does one predict and simulate? The IPCC were forced to change ‘predict’ to ‘project’, when it was pointed out by an expert that models cannot predict.
Later…”It must be emphasized that the parameters that exist in HITRAN are a mixture of calculated and experimental. Often the experimentally determined values are more accurate than the calculated ones, and vice versa”.
In other words, Hitran is a hit or miss set of data that cannot be relied upon, especially with trace gases like CO2.
” In other words, Hitran is a hit or miss set of data that cannot be relied upon, especially with trace gases like CO2. ”
Here too we see Robertson#s absolutely contrarian brain, programmed to distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate and lie.
He should better have a humble look at of what HITRAN was made about, in… 2014:
REFERENCES and SOURCES for HITRAN
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Updated/ref-table.pdf
How is it possible to be as dumb, stubborn and opinionated as is Robertson?
Ah, yes, another major appeal to authority by Binny. He is suggesting that if so many authors contributed to Hitran it must be right.
I can see why he, as a Frenchman, moved to Germany. The Teutonic mentally better suits his closed-mindedness. Must also be a northern European thing. As we go further south to Greece, we find that Christos is very open-minded.
Said with great humour, BTW.
HITRAN emerged from US military projects to design a missile which would home on the exhaust of a jet engine or detect the exhaust of an ICBM in flight.
For that they needed detailed information on the emission and absor*btion spectra of gases in the atmosphere, and in rocket and jet exhausts.
This was in the 1950s and 1960s, long before your climate conspiracy and necessity required good data. As military research considerable resources were spent and HITRAN data was classified for many years.
In brief, HITRAN is the best.
christos…”Isnt a surface at 288K capable emitting 15 um IR ?”
***
A good question and I am just beginning to look into it. I offered the temperature at which 15 um is emitted based on the Wien’s displacement law.
From wiki…”In physics, Wien’s displacement law states that the black-body radiation curve for different temperatures will peak at different wavelengths that are inversely proportional to the temperature”.
If you have an IR spectrum representing a blackbody radiator, then the Planck curve would show 15 um centred on a spectrum at -80c. That’s the temperature at which 15 um IR would be radiated. Based on Wien, the average surface temperature on Earth would radiate at 10 um, not 15 um, since 10 um corresponds to +15c.
Of course, neither Earth’s surface nor the atmosphere represent a blackbody radiator. All of the nonsense of 15 um appears to be based on speculation by climate alarmists who don’t understand basic physics.
Temperature and EM radiation are directly related. A 15 um windows, whatever that means, can only happen at an altitude where the temperature is -80C (193.15K). Even at that, the metaphor of an atmospheric window is ridiculous.
Gordon is again mistaken, the atm. “window” region importantly around 8-12micron band in wavelength is radiation from Earth’s surface thermometer median ~288K where transmissivity thru the entire atm. often exceeds 0.6 so is not from Gordon’s mistaken altitude at a temperature of -80C.
Again, Gordon is wrong since EMR does NOT have a temperature. Mass has a temperature.
ball4…”The 2LOT demands that an absorbed CO2s 15μ photon raise Earths near surface thermometer median 288K temperature in that isolated real process…”
***
The 2nd law says nothing about that, it only claims that heat cannot be transferred, by its own means, from a colder object to a hotter object. It says nothing about 15 um photons. In fact, when he wrote the law, Clausius knew nothing about photons or electromagnetic energy as understood in the day, and that is why he and other luminaries of the day fumbled the explanation of how heat can be transferred through air. They thought heat somehow converted to heat rays.
However, Clausius did insist that heat transfer through air must obey the 2nd law. That was the genius of the man, although he was in the dark about atomic structure and the existence of their electrons, he knew intuitively that the fundamental concept was correct, that heat cannot be transferred by its own means, from cold to hot.
Bohr’s 1913 hypothesis that an electron’s KE in an excited state is converted to EM as the electron returns to a lower energy state, tells us that KE as heat is lost when this conversion to EM takes place. Bohr also told us that this transitional conversion takes place at only one frequency and that the same frequency of energy is required to excite the electron.
That makes it very clear that an electron in an atom at +15C cannot absorb the IR from a body emitting at -80C. That’s because the frequency of radiation for 15 um (19,986,163.8666667 Mhz) does not match the frequency required for absorption at the 10 um wavelength (29,979,245.8 Mhz).
I understand this intuitively from having worked so long in electronics. If I had a receiver set up to receive a 29,979,245.8 Mhz signal, it would totally reject a signal of frequency 19,986,163.8666667 Mhz, The reason is resonant circuitry designed to reject frequency not in their pass band. Somehow, electrons orbiting an atom use the same kind of pass band rejection.
Don’t know exactly how it works, but intuitively it makes a lot of sense because the orbiting electron exhibits the same kind of harmonic motion upon which band pass filters are designed. Essentially, the band pass filter is based on electron oscillations in a circuit.
Even with modern devices like air conditioners, where heat appears to be transferred cold to hot by it’s own mean, but it is not. The overall effect is to change the state of a gas, after it absorbs heat at a lower pressure/temperature, to a high pressure/high temperature liquid by compressing it and increasing the temperature further. As a high pressure liquid, the heat contained is vented to a warmer atmosphere in a radiator.
As Clausius put it, the heat cannot do that by itself. It needs the assistance of electrical power, a compressor, and various apparatus to accomplish the goal. Nothing like that in the atmosphere as far as I know.
“The 2nd law says nothing about that…”
Gordon, skip the prose, just write out the 2LOT entropy change eqn. in Clausius own notation as you have done many times. Properly integrate that eqn. over t1 to t2 duration of the absorp_tion process for an Earth surface absorbed 15micron photon. Done? Good.
What do you know! Gordon just learned: “The 2LOT demands that an absorbed CO2s 15μ photon raise Earths near surface thermometer median 288K temperature in that isolated real process…”.
Way to go Gordon, real world universe entropy showed a positive increase t1 to t2. Now show your work to Clint R.
Sorry, B4, the 2nd law is not about radiation as EM but about heat. We are talking about the transfer of heat that is contained in the motion of atoms, internally and externally.
If I apply the entropy equation, S = integral dq/T, I have to do it at one temperature, T. Therefore, I have to measure each differential quantity of heat and sum those quantities. Entropy is more an idea than a reality.
With radiation, I have no heat to sum. There is no heat in EM radiation, the heat was lost as the energy was created. In order to get any heat back, I have to convert the EM back to heat by having the Em absorbed by electrons in atoms and exciting them. In the excited state, they gain KE from the EM, and the higher KE state is heat. That’s provided the electrons can absorb the EM.
All the 2nd law can do is tell you if a heat transfer is possible. Entropy, as a measure of heat, can only be applied locally, to tell you how much heat is lost at a radiating body. We could measure that as an integral at the radiating body by suppressing conduction/convection and observing the temperature difference. In fact, that’s how Clausius described it. He said we cannot measure internal processes just the initial and final temperatures.
So, if I have a lump of ice, I can observe it till it all melts, but there won’t be a temperature change till it all melts. Meantime, I can stick a thermometer in a mass at room temperature nearby and see if it warms due to radiation from the ice.
You are suggesting that a body radiating 15 um radiation at -80C can send energy to a body at +15C and warm it.
“If I apply the entropy equation, S = integral dq/T, I have to do it at one temperature, T.”
No.
Temperature(t) from time t1 to t2 is a function of time so Gordon cannot properly take T (temperature) out from under the integral for delta S during the time it takes for the process described as: “The 2LOT demands that an absorbed CO2s 15μ photon raise Earth’s near surface thermometer median 288K temperature in that isolated real process…”.
Taking a non-constant T varying in value out from under the integral from t1 to t2 is a mistake made by a complete rookie. Try again Gordon.
Experimental evidence and compliance with 2LOT in the above real process demands an entropy increase meaning delta S be positive for the process of: “a body radiating 15 um radiation at -80C can send energy to a body at +15C and warm it.”
Gordon’s “suggesting” is mostly physically correct, way to go Gordon, except that the radiation does not have a temperature at -80C since EMR is NOT temperature (or heat), a rookie mistake frequently made by Gordon.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Deadly blackouts that killed hundreds of people across Texas in 2021 – which have been widely blamed on failures to properly insulate gas pipelines – may have had a more nefarious cause, a new lawsuit alleges.
Over the past three years, a wave of new data – and lawsuits – have made the case that the outages were, in fact, a result of market manipulation by some of Texas’s biggest fossil fuel companies.
[…]
CirclesX attorneys charged that the harm to Texans had happened long before that legislative process began. Its suit comes on the heels of courts in Oklahoma and Arkansas finding market manipulation by pipeline companies during Winter Storm Uri as well as a wave of other suits that allege manipulation in Texas.
It also follows widespread, bigger-picture allegations of market manipulation and racketeering by the oil and gas industry – like the July lawsuit by the city of Baltimore that argued oil and gas driller pioneer had illegally conspired with foreign governments to inflate the price of oil and gas.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4896585-texas-gas-manipulation-lawsuit-uri/
Media Confirms the Earth Is Not Abnormally Warm, Rather It Is in Its Coldest Period in 485 Million Years
8 hours ago Anthony Watts
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/09/25/media-confirms-the-earth-is-not-abnormally-warm-rather-it-is-in-its-coldest-period-in-485-million-years/
Why is it the coldest?
Cause we in Ice Age which started 33.9 million years age, and it’s called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
And Ice Ages are rare. It might colder than Earth has ever been, but there is uncertainty about the distant past, so 485 million is a safer number to give. Or one would have difficulty disproving the 485 million number as compared say last 1 billion years [or something}.
Anyhow, Earth is cold, particularly in the last 100,000 years, the Holocene interglacial period has been a cold interglacial period.
But why?
It largely due the antarctic continent being where it is.
That is short answer. But also many other reasons are given- they are not as significant, or “largely explains it”.
27 extinction events in that period, including 5 mass extinctions.
Yeah, this really “proves” it.
nate…” I claim it does not exist, prove to me that it does.
You already lost this challenge Gordon, when I asked you to prove that YOU exist, and you failed”.
***
First, you need to define what is meant by ‘YOU’. That comes down to self image or the image in the mind of the beholder, both of which are corruptions of reality. Whenever an image is present, reality is excluded either partially or wholly.
You know I exist for the simple reason I am responding to you. I know I exist for the same reason. The very philosophical question you are asking is a product of the same distorted brain that thinks time exists.
Yes, Einstein had the same problem. We can forgive him that because psychology was in its infancy when he developed his theories on relativity. Also, time was a tenuous subject due to a lack of universality or even a local time reference. It is harder to forgive those today who blindly accede to his theory simply because he is the legend called Einstein.
Einstein has essentially become a cult figure, even in science. It is impossible to criticize him without groupies waving their arms and calling you nuts simple because you question him.
As far as relativity being applicable only for long-distances that makes as little sense as the other (atomic perspective). Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, summed up Einstein’s relativity theory perfectly. He claimed it is not even a theory but a collection of thought experiments, none of which can be proved.
All of Newton’s physics can be easily proved in the macro world whereas none of Einstein’s theories can be or have been proved. Some have claimed to verify Einstein with tenuous claims based on vague experiments. But what are any of them proving? They claim to prove that time dilates but how does one prove that time dilates when it cannot even be proved to exist?
Much nature operates according to solar periods and that includes clocks. We developed clocks to track the apparent motion of the Sun in the sky. We developed the second from such observation and the notion of past and future from mental functions which are imaginary. It is our ability as humans to store information mentally that leads to both past and future. There is no time element in either except for the time element we invented and have imposed on our thought processes.
One of the current Einsteinianisms is that GPS systems account for time dilation. I know that is sheer nonsense because I know how the electronics works in the systems and no known electronics device can detect time never mind detect a change in it. All electronic instruments that measure intervals are based on clocks that are synchronized to Earth’s rotation.
I also know that what is being mistaken for time dilation is a problem in relativity between the speed of the satellites and the relative speed of the EM signals they send and receive.
Louis Essen put that theory to rest when he claimed any apparent time dilation can be put down to errors in the atomic clocks themselves. Yes, according to the inventor of atomic clocks they have errors in them. The errors may be very small, but in the context of time dilation, that puts the errors in the same ball park.
Think it through, Einstein’s theory is based on the speed of light. Satellite move at a tiny fraction of that speed so any velocity related to sats when plugged into the relativity equation would give a tiny number for the ratio of it to the speed of light.
However, the signals sent back and forth, although traveling at the speed of light, give a noticeable delay when traveling from sat to ground station and back. An adjustment needs to be made for the relative speeds of the sat wrt the ground station which has nothing to do with time per se. The EM signals are real energy moving through the atmosphere and are subject to interference.
Time comes into it only when you need to measure the period between when the signal is sent and when it is received. Although period, as an interval, is real, it represents an energy interval, not a time interval. The time interval is related to our invention (clock) aimed at keeping tract of the intervals.
To be clear, such an interval has no measure until we humans give it one.
Please stop clogging the blog with your drivel.
Ken
As long as a reasonably thinking and writing person like you continues to perfectly support Robertsons incompetent nonsense like
” They use 1 station to cover the entire Canadian Arctic, at Eureka… ”
with similarly incompetent nonsense like
” Robertson is partly right, its just not worth the effort to sort through the BS to find the factoids.
It is the only station. ”
you definitely should not expect him to ‘stop clogging the blog with [his] drivel’.
Eureka is the only weather station to cover all of Ellesmere Island, which is the high arctic in Canada.
Ellesmere has a permanent population of about 120 people. Did you think there’d be dozens of weather stations?
Federal government tried to close Eureka as a cost saving measure; its got no real value except to collect high arctic climate data that no one really cares about.
> High Arctic Weather Stations, managed by the Monitoring and Science Division, Prairie and Northern Region of Environment Canada, began as the Joint Arctic Weather Stations. The plan for a network of Arctic weather bases was approved by the US on 12 February 1946, and on 28 January 1947 Cabinet formally agreed to participate. Between 1947 and 1950, five sites were selected and built jointly by Canada and the US (at Eureka, Isachsen, Mould Bay, Resolute and Alert) to provide the data required for the understanding and prediction of meteorological phenomena on a hemispheric scale and, more specifically, to improve weather predictions for North America. The meteorological data collected is also used by forecasting offices, airlines, northern shipping, climatology studies and research.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/high-arctic-weather-stations
Ken
” Eureka is the only weather station to cover all of Ellesmere Island, which is the high arctic in Canada.
Ellesmere has a permanent population of about 120 people. Did you think thered be dozens of weather stations? ”
It seems you can’t escape your private meaning. That’s not reasoning: that’s ‘robertsoning’.
*
Why the heck should I think
” … there’d be dozens of weather stations’ on Ellesmere” ?
Unlike you, I have a list of all GHCN stations in the Canadian Arctic, sorted by latitude.
*
Ellesmere is not Canada’s only high Arctic place. Just have a look at Google Maps, and you see a lot of what anyone would name ‘high Arctic’.
Here is the list of all stations above 70N, and which contributed to the time series until at least end of 2023:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mGIHLIpCOteoRbDCrcbfJ2Zj8AbS0Dmr/view
There are even more stations there but I don’t show them: their lifetime ended earlier than right now, and they thus only contribute to the historical time series.
Here is a map.
https://weather.gc.ca/forecast/canada/index_e.html?id=NU
ALERT CLIMATE 82.50 -62.33 65.0 0.600
EUREKA 79.98 -85.93 10.0 0.281
ISACHSEN (AUT) 78.80 -103.55 58.0 0.386
GRISE FIORD CLIMATE 76.42 -82.90 45.0 0.333
Alert The Dr. Neil Trivett Global Atmosphere Watch Observatory is an atmospheric baseline station. It only monitors Atmosphere for chemicals such as Ozone and CO2.
Isachsen Station operated from April 3, 1948, through September 19, 1978.
GRISE FIORD is airport weather station.
Mould Bay. In early 1997, the decision was made by Atmospheric and Environmental Services of the Government of Canada to close the Mould Bay weather station. Status is ‘closed’.
All the rest are South of 75 … arctic but not high arctic.
You were one click away from this:
https://weather.gc.ca/provincialsummary_table/index_e.html?prov=NU&page=hourly
Please stop clogging the blog with your misinformation.
Ken
You are not at all informed about which stations did report in which period, let alone do you know that a location can host more than one station.
*
” Isachsen Station operated from April 3, 1948, through September 19, 1978. ”
” Mould Bay. In early 1997, the decision was made by Atmospheric and Environmental Services of the Government of Canada to close the Mould Bay weather station. Status is ‘closed’. ”
*
Could you please stop boring me with such pseudo-knowledge?
Here is what I see in the data.
*
1. Isachsen
CA002402600 78.7833 -103.5333 25.0 NU ISACHSEN
CA002402604 78.8000 -103.5500 58.0 NU ISACHSEN (AUT)
CA002402600 1948 1978 31 NU ISACHSEN 67-30 78.78 -103.53 25.0 -0.516
CA002402604 1957 2023 67 NU ISACHSEN (AUT) 78.80 -103.55 58.0 0.386
*
2. Mould Bay
CA00250M001 76.2333 -119.3500 2.0 NT MOULD BAY CS
CA002502G00 76.2333 -119.3167 12.0 NT MOULD BAY CAMP
CA002502700 76.2333 -119.3333 12.0 NT MOULD BAY A
CA002502700 1948 1997 50 NT MOULD BAY A 66-24 76.23 -119.33 12.0 0.117
CA00250M001 1997 2024 28 NT MOULD BAY CS 66-24 76.23 -119.35 2.0 0.127
No data for CA002502G00 NT MOULD BAY CAMP (only 1993-1997), eliminated.
*
3. Grise Fiord
CA002402345 76.4167 -82.9500 2.0 NU GRISE FIORD
CA002402346 76.4167 -82.9000 43.0 NU GRISE FIORD
CA002402351 76.4167 -82.9000 45.0 NU GRISE FIORD CLIMATE
CA002402351 2007 2024 18 NU GRISE FIORD CLIMATE 76.42 -82.90 45.0 0.333
No data for CA002402345 NU GRISE FIORD (1973-1977), eliminated.
No data for CA002402346 NU GRISE FIORD (spurious trend), eliminated.
What’s your problem with Grise Fiord station located at an airport? It has half the trend of NU ALERT CLIMATE.
Maybe you have a look at this?
https://tinyurl.com/Grise-Fiord-AP
Automatically discrediting stations near airports is no more than poor pseudo-skeptic WUWT blah blah.
*
Finally, let me tell you that none of us should decide where ‘high Arctic’ begins.
“You know I exist for the simple reason I am responding to you. I know I exist for the same reason. The very philosophical question you are asking”
is no different from your time question.
I know it exists because I can observe things consistent with its existence.
Expand on that. What are you observing that makes you think your observations are consistent with time as an actuality.
I am not messing with you, I’d like to know what it is you are observing.
Events line sunrises, (s), are observed to take place at regular intervals. Other events, like swings of my clock pendulum, (p), take place at much shorter intervals.
Thus, we observe many (p) events taking place during one interval of (s) events.
There is an observable consistent ratio of the intervals between (s) events and (p) events.
This is consistent with the existence of time, which can be measured with (p) events.
So, the time interval between (s) events is measured to be 14,400 (p) events in duration.
Response Gordon?
Or will you just return in a month to repeat your claims, as if no one ever challenged them?
Solar wind
speed: 452.6 km/sec
density: 2.49 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 26 Sep 24
https://spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 160
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 174 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.37×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.5% Low
8 numbered sunspots. 1 spot leaving within a day, no spots coming from farside, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 357.2 km/sec
density: 2.01 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 27 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 189
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 181 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.53×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.0% Low
10 numbered sunspots.
Solar wind
speed: 305.2 km/sec
density: 2.83 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 28 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 122
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 186 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.49×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.5% Low
9 numbered sunspots.
Solar wind
speed: 335.7 km/sec
density: 3.53 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 29 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 148
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 195 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.42×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.0% Low
9 numbered sunspots. One leaving. None coming from farside, yet
Solar wind
speed: 469.2 km/sec
density: 1.77 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 30 Sep 24
Sunspot number: 154
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 197 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.30×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.0% Low
9 numbered spots. One going to farside. None coming from farside, yet.
“The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit reached
high levels on 23 Sep, and normal to moderate levels on 24-29 Sep.
Geomagnetic field activity reached active levels on 23 and 26 Sep,
and G1 (Minor) storm levels on 24-25 Sep, due to the passage of CMEs
(23-25 Sep) and the influence of a positive polarity CH HSS (25-26
Sep). Quiet to unsettled conditions were observed over 27-29 Sep.
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
30 September – 26 October 2024
Solar activity is expected to range from low to moderate levels. R1-R2 (Minor-Moderate) events are likely, with a slight chance for R3 or greater events, throughout the period.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit, barring significant flare activity.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is likely to reach high levels on 12-15 Oct, with normal to moderate levels likely to persist throughout the remainder of the period.
Geomagnetic field activity is likely to reach active levels on 30 Sep due to negative polarity CH HSS influences. Active levels are likely on 05-06, and 10 Oct due to positive polarity CH HSS influences. Periods of G1 (Minor) storming are likely on 11-12, and 22 Oct due to positive polarity CH HSS influences. —
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Solar wind
speed: 411.2 km/sec
density: 0.57 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 01 Oct 24
Sunspot number: 150
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 214 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.10×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.8% Low
9 numbered sunspots
Solar wind
speed: 395.7 km/sec
density: 0.08 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 Oct 24
Sunspot number: 196
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 245 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.01×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.1% Low
11 numbered sunspot. A large sunspot is coming from farside side {and will be numbered}. 3834 is leaving, near it, appear new spot, 3846 which will leaving in couple days. The highest number 3847 recently came from farside. And big spot coming will probably be 3848.
Solar Cycle Progression
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Month September number: 141.4
Blue line March, 2024, Smoothed Monthly: 141.3
Solar wind
speed: 342.5 km/sec
density: 0.50 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 03 Oct 24
Sunspot number: 194
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 245 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 33.08×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.1% Low
10 numbered sunspots.
Hurricane Helene heading to northern Florida, will effect Florida tomorrow.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
” Hurricane Helene is now forecast to reach catastrophic Category 4 strength by the time it makes landfall in Florida on Thursday, …” CNN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3DCxJ7pUv8
“Historic Helene Heads to Landfall…”
Probably a Cat 3
Does atom have temperature ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
One atom has momentum and kinetic energy.
Lots of atoms can have a temperature, which is derived from their average kinetic energy.
You’ll find a more detailed discussion here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases
–
So, it is obvious, atom doesn’t have temperature.
Consequently, neither electron has temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No.
christos…it makes sense in a gas, if the total average KE is temperature, a measurement of heat, that it is the sum of individual atoms and electrons. After all, an average implies a sum.
If an individual electron gains KE, then it is the sum of those electron KE increases that is heat and is measured by the human invention of temperature.
We know the speed of light is a universal constant.
–
The time is growing though, when the speed of light in a medium lessens. And it lessens significantly.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…I was thinking about that recently.
It was not known, when Einstein claimed the speed of light is a constant, that light is emitted by excited electrons in atoms as they transition to a lower energy level. Higher orbital electron speeds produce higher frequencies of radiation.
That means an electron emitting UV radiation is moving faster than one emitting IR radiation. It’s not clear, according to Bohr’s theory of electron transitions, how radiation is produced during a downward electron transition, but clearly, the frequency of the emitted radiation is related directly to the orbital speed of the electron.
That means light from a source, like the Sun, is a complex sum of individual radiation frequencies. It seems highly unlikely that each source quantum is moving at the same speed as the others.
We really don’t have a decent model with which to compare light. The closest I can visualize is EM radiation from an antenna but the parallels are not there. Electrons emitting the EM in an antenna are all free electrons and are not bound to an atom, therefore electron transitions are not involved. The principle is there re EM radiation because electrons in a conductor (antenna) emit the same EM as an electron transition, albeit at a much lower frequency.
In an antenna, multiple frequencies are not radiated as such. Rather the information containing multiple frequencies to be sent is encoded (multiplexed) on a common frequency carrier signal. Therefore we don’t have millions of individual frequencies encoded into what we call light. I am wondering if light, made up of those millions of frequencies of EM can move at the same speed.
Of course, the individual speeds would be very high and would move relative to each other, but how do we know they all move at the same speed.
It may be an illusion, as light is collected by the eye, that the individual quanta (photons) are moving at the same speed.
Gordon, of course it is not explained yet.
And how it comes solar light has a continuous spectra? What it is that is emitting a continuous spectra?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bad week for NYC Mayors.
Rookie mistake. Eric should have waited to be in the Supreme Court.
Alternatively:
https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/wyden-investigation-of-kushner-firm-continues-new-letter-outlines-affinity-partners-fee-structure-lack-of-return-to-investors-questionable-deals-with-foreign-governments
What’s 157M between friends?
GFS predicted this development ten days ago … a Cat 4+ hitting the gulf coast on or around Friday … and the storm did not yet exist!
Hurricane Helene: https://ibb.co/18PcCcQ
Hurray for science!
“GFS predicted this development ten days ago a Cat 4+ hitting the gulf coast on or around Friday and the storm did not yet exist!”
Wow, where can we see that?
The first to highlight this prediction was Dr. Ryan N. Maue at Weather Trader.
On September 17 he wrote:
Followed by:
Ark, I predict you don’t have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Hurray for reality!
I am eagerly awaiting Clint R’s presentation of his brand-new viable model of ‘orbiting without spin’.
I am 100% sure it is a mega-surprising, phenomenal extension of the ‘ball on a string’ that was already, according to the unanimous opinion of experts worldwide, a breakthrough.
What a privilege it is to have such brilliant minds like Clint R and Gordon Robertson sharing their wisdom with us! Who needs science when we have their unmatched intellect lighting our way?
Bindi and JW, put up or shut up.
Like your cult, you have NO science. Your cult beliefs ain’t science.
john…you guys in the peanut gallery sure make a lot of noise.
The AI models predicted it as well.
Yes. The denser the medium the slower the speed of light.
Light travels fastest in a vacuum and then slower through a transparent gas, glass or water.
This is why you get refraction.
You can see other consequences too.
Search for Cherenkov radiation.
Cherenkov radiation. Interesting. Thank you, Ent.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bindidon
Aren’t you worried about flooding in southern Germany?
Anyone want to do a millimeter of rain to a decimal place of centigrade scale/ratio?
Centigrade?
“Centigrade” was changed to Celsius 76 years ago, and I haven’t heard anyone use the word for at least 40 years.
Just how old are you matey?
I still see and hear it used all the time. Do you live in a hole?
No, I live in the exact opposite of a hole, ie. not the US or UK.
Centrigrade is what it is, Celsius is a silly name to honour the inventor. In the electrical/electronics field, frequency was cycles per second, which it is in reality. Then they changed it to Hertz.
Similarly, magnetic flux density was changed to Gauss and a newton of magnetic force per amp per metre is now a Tesla. But…a tesla is also a weber/m^2.
But, hey, let’s not make things easier. The weber, a unit of magnetic flux is named after Faraday’s law but credited to Weber.
What kind of ijits would take self-explanatory terms and rename them with a non-explanatory name to honour a scientist?
Ant lives in a hole in the ocean.
“The ovens are in centigrade and the measuring cups are in the metric system.
Stephen Humphries, The Christian Science Monitor, 2 Dec. 2022“
“The Celsius scale is a type of centigrade scale.”
I wonder what it would be like to be so afraid of change.
Like a prison, I suspect.
ant…what is the wisdom in changing a self-explanatory term like cycles per second to a vague word like hertz?
stephen…I use centigrade all the time. That’s what it is, a scale divided into 100 parts.
It tells you a lot about temperature which is based on two natural set points, the freezing and boiling points of water, and the effect they have on the expansion of mercury in a vial. The difference in centigrade is divided into 100 equal gradations.
That was the definition of temperature till Boltzmann and Maxwell messed it up by relating temperature statistically to the energy of gas molecules. It was a mistake to redefine temperature based on such a vague (statistical) analogy.
Gordon
Now you’re talking about a unit which changed 94 years ago.
Boy you must be old.
AQ: Celsius is a type of centigrade scale.
Celsius is the unit. Centigrade is the scale. 100 degrees between freezing and boiling.
What nonsense. You’ve taken that from a random website in a google search and just accepted it as fact. Yes, centigrade literally means a scale divided into 100. But it was THE OLD NAME of the UNIT which has now been called Celsius for 76 years.
Perhaps don’t trust a christian “science” site.
RLH
And just like the name, the the freezing and boiling points of water have not been part of the definition for 76 years.
“what is the wisdom in changing a self-explanatory term like cycles per second to a vague word like hertz?”
Talk about a faux controversy. Get a life, Gordon.
Yes: I am concerned about the desolate situation of the people who live there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Germany_floods
But also in Austria, Northern Italy, etc etc.
*
And conversely, I’m happy that this repeated and extreme rainfall did not happen in the small region around us.
https://i.ibb.co/Xynbdmz/Screenshot-2024-09-26-19-48-10.png
Tim S
Your quiet hurricane season was an illusion.
Perhaps you should be careful what you wish for.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckgmx8vm8pnt
Your rude comment reflects on you, not me. The comments I made were factual. For a period of 2 or 3 weeks during peak hurricane season the activity was weak. That is a fact. Unlike some other people, I do not try to predict the future.
Thanks for letting me know that I now have free parking inside your head.
Perhaps he missed the context of the forecast which was given.
At this point one could say it’s been a “normal” hurricane season. And could get more active in what remains of the season.
Just for fun, do you know why the condition for hurricane formation and development has improved and why it was unfavorable for the last few weeks?
“The reason behind this surprising lull is that an unusually warm layer of air in the upper atmosphere has increased stability, making it harder for storms to form. The West African monsoon, typically a prolific generator of tropical waves, has shifted northward, often steering potential storms into less favorable environments. Meanwhile, Saharan dust, more prevalent than anticipated, has been working overtime to suppress storm development.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimfoerster/2024/09/10/unexpected-lull-challenges-predictions-for-rest-of-hurricane-season/
tim s…Ent is becoming increasingly rude, even hostile, as are you, as your alarmist propaganda crumbles. I can understand Ent’s dilemma, he is a teacher and he will have to face the mocking of his students when his propaganda is exposed.
After doing a search, it seems that this is the offending comment:
[The remnants of Gordon dissipated at 11 am AST September 17, 2024.
That is a statement from NOAA. It has nothing to do with the very prolific poster who makes excessively long comments on this board.
Otherwise, at the very peak of hurricane season, there is no tropical cyclone activity in either the Atlantic or Eastern Pacific regions. Is that climate change?]
I do not see anything that suggests some kind of illusion (or delusion), and I did not make a wish either.
Tim S
Ask yourself what was your subtext. Many such comments are intended to convey the unspoken message that the forecasters got it wrong and therefore AGW is wrong too.
Typical examples include
Look, this year’s minimum Actic ice extent was not a record.
Look, it was cold today.
Look, this year was cooler than last year.
Look, there was a pause in temperature increase during the 2000s while CO2 continued to increase.
If you can assure me that no such subtext was intended, then I shall apologise.
“Otherwise, at the very peak of hurricane season, there is no tropical cyclone activity in either the Atlantic or Eastern Pacific regions. Is that climate change?”
This is what I find offensive. You take normal short term variation in a stochastic process, hurricane formation, and jump to the conclusion that a long term global process is not happening.
Entropical man is here 100% right when writing:
” You take normal short term variation in a stochastic process, hurricane formation, and jump to the conclusion that a long term global process is not happening. “
To both of you. This is precisely what is wrong with stereotypes and the most vicious of all mindless accusations: “You’re one of those people!” Nobody else here on this board represents me! Nobody else’s quote represents me. No quote that I did not make is fair game to smear me with.
This is the problem right here! You People! You are the ones making trouble! You are the ones with the mindless agendas!
Look in the mirror! Look at what you have become!
For those wishing to have a rational and honest discussion, this is the question. Is that (lack of hurricanes) climate change?
The conventional answer seems to be yes. It is not a rhetorical question or a dog whistle for people to jump in with accusations about some kind of agenda.
Many think that hot oceans cause hurricanes, but it is much more complex than just that. The “experts” claim there will be fewer but stronger hurricanes in the future. I do not know if that is true or not, but that is the conventional prediction.
The further question of whether odd events are “evidence of climate change” will have to wait until enough time has passed for a statistically significant analysis, since hurricanes are still notoriously difficult to predict. The current state of the forecast models is that they do a very good job of forecasting the direction and speed of movement. They are not as good at predicting formation potential and strength as they progress.
The life cycle of A hurricane is straightforward.
A hurricane begins as a tropical wave moving from Africa into the Eastern Atlantic. The warm water warms the air and starts it convecting. As it rises the Coriolis force starts it rotating.
If the water temperature exceeds 27C the system builds into a tropical storm and then into a hurricane.
The hurricane gains intensity, harvesting more heat from the warm water it moves over as it travels Westward. When it reaches land or moves North the supply of heat cuts off and it weakens.
Hurricanes are sensitive to wind shear, the difference in wind velocity at different altitudes. If the wind at altitude is too fast , the convection pattern is disrupted and the storm dispersed before it can become a hurricane.
Because the weather systems that begin the process are not regular you cannot accurately predict the formation of each hurricane far in advance, that’s why it’s called stochastic. You can estimate how many hurricanes might form in a season.
What effect will climate change have?
In a warmer climate sea temperatures reach 27C earlier in the year and cool later. This gives a longer hurricane season and more opportunities for hurricanes to form. This would be expected to increase the number of hurricanes.
In a warmer climate you get stronger windshear. A smaller proportion of storms survive to become hurricanes. This reduces the number of hurricanes.
The longer season and greater windshear tend to cancel each other out so the number of hurricanes each season is expected to stay roughly the same.
In a warmer climate sea temperatures are higher and more heat is available to amplify hurricane intensity. Those hurricanes which form are more likely to become damaging high category storms with higher windspeeds, heavier rainfall and higher storm surges.
Finally, and I’m not sure this was anticipated, hurricanes are more likely to become slow moving. They reach land and then stop. Instead of spreading rainfall over a large area it all gets dumped in one place and you get severe flooding.
In summary, climate change is not expected to change the number of hurricanes. It is expected to make the average hurricane more intense and more damaging.
As you say, small sample size limits the ability to be sure of these trends in real time. Currently we see the expected trend by inspection, and statistical significance is increasing as sample size increases.
binny…”Unlike you, I have a list of all GHCN stations in the Canadian Arctic, sorted by latitude.
*
Ellesmere is not Canadas only high Arctic place. Just have a look at Google Maps, and you see a lot of what anyone would name high Arctic.
Here is the list of all stations above 70N…”
***
Poor old Binny, he just cannot grasp that NOAA uses only a few GHCN stations. In fact, they indicated the number, ‘less than 1500’ globally, down from 6000.
In Binny’s delusion, NOAA carefully sifts through more than 100,000 GHCN stations monthly to create their surface temperature record. Where they get the man-power and funding to do that is overlooked by Binny.
ken…”Please stop clogging the blog with your drivel”.
***
I don’t know what your problem is with me but why don’t you man up and deal with it? Your snide comments are obviously prompted by an inferiority issue.
We agree on many things like climate alarm, the truckers’ convoy, and so on, yet you keep sniping like a child. If you have a problem with what I am saying then respond scientifically and show me where you think I am wrong.
I suspect your angst has something to do with my scientific rebuttal of Will Happer’s science. He seems to be your sole authority figure yet you cannot defend it. So, in lieu of an intelligent, scientific rebuttal, you resort to childish insults.
Please stop clogging the blog with your drivel.
Thats it thats all.
There is the saying dazzle them with brilliance or baffle them with bullshit. You’re obviously of the second school of thought.
Its not insult to point out that you are clogging the page with meaningless drivel.
ball4…”Temperature(t) from time t1 to t2 is a function of time so Gordon cannot properly take T (temperature) out from under the integral for delta S during the time it takes for the process described as: The 2LOT demands that an absorbed CO2s 15μ photon raise Earths near surface thermometer median 288K temperature in that isolated real process.
Taking a non-constant T varying in value out from under the integral from t1 to t2 is a mistake made by a complete rookie. Try again Gordon.
***
The integration does not involve temperature, it involves infinitesimal quantity of heat, q, which is specified in the equation as the differential dq. So the integration is from q1 to q2, not T1 to T2. We are looking for the total heat removed from a system due to an irreversible process.
Clausius specified for entropy that the integration occurs at a constant temperature. He actually specified a heat bath where T remains constant. Therefore, T can be removed from the integration, leaving an integrations of heat quantities.
Again, entropy = S = integral dq/T
and S = T (integral dq)
Here dq is the differential and T is a constant, as specified by Clausius.
—-
“Experimental evidence and compliance with 2LOT in the above real process demands an entropy increase meaning delta S be positive for the process of: a body radiating 15 um radiation at -80C can send energy to a body at +15C and warm it.”
***
The 2nd law stipulates only the direction that heat can be transferred. Entropy, the mathematical version, does the same. Clausius specified that entropy is zero for a reversible process and +ve for an irreversible process (no such thing as negative entropy which would be a transfer from cold to hot, by its own means). Entropy specifies direction but adds the quantity of heat transferred.
Again, both the 2nd law and entropy address heat transfer only, they do not have anything to do with radiation. Also, heat is not transferred physically by radiation, it is lost when radiation is produced and gained ***IF*** the radiation is absorbed by another body. Therefore entropy applies only to the heat lost in the emitting body.
—-
“Gordons suggesting is mostly physically correct, way to go Gordon, except that the radiation does not have a temperature at -80C since EMR is NOT temperature (or heat), a rookie mistake frequently made by Gordon”.
***
This is B4s attempt at getting to me. It was me who proved to B4 that radiation is not heat, and finally he has realized that and claimed it as his own idea.
Perhaps B4 could explain, now that he understands, why radiation is measured in watts/m^2 if radiation is neither temperature nor heat. The watt is a measure of electrical energy, by definition, which has an equivalence in mechanical energy as the horsepower. Radiation has neither an electric current nor a mechanical property, so why the use of watts?
“Again, entropy = S = integral dq/T”
No Gordon. T is not constant, T in a general thermodynamic process is a function of time over the duration of that process. S is a thermodynamic variable, called entropy per Clausius, with the property that S time derivative is Q/T. Infinitesimal rate of change in entropy for an ideal gas process (with Cv independent of temperature) then generally is dS/dt = Q(t)/T(t).
Gordon mistakenly takes T out from under that last general integral.
“The 2nd law stipulates only the direction that heat can be transferred.”
No Gordon, as you’ve been told countless times EMR is NOT heat.
“It was me who proved to B4 that radiation is not heat …”
No Gordon, you are mistakenly still claiming EMR is heat as I just pointed out.
Radiation is not heat nor temperature, radiation can be measured in watts/m^2 since radiation is neither temperature nor heat & which can be measured energy per sec per m^2.
Gordon 9:28 pm continues to make rookie mistakes.
Even though Clausius defined entropy and stated clearly that T is a constant, B4, who claims heat does not exist as energy, claims Clausius is wrong.
B4 does not understand the meaning of T in the entropy equation. Clausius explained T as the temperature of the heat source from which the heat dq is drawn and that the temperature of the source must remain constant.
If T was variable it would be written as dT. Then you would need a double integral which clearly makes no sense in this context.
—
“[GR]The 2nd law stipulates only the direction that heat can be transferred.
{B4}No Gordon, as youve been told countless times EMR is NOT heat.
***
B4 seems to be getting more incoherent as he raves through his response. However, B4 continues to rave that ‘EMT is not heat’.
—-
The B4 tops off his rave with the contradiction…”Radiation is not heat nor temperature, radiation can be measured in watts/m^2 since radiation is neither temperature nor heat…”
***
The watt was defined as the work done by an electric current.
—
“[GR]It was me who proved to B4 that radiation is not heat
[B4]No Gordon, you are mistakenly still claiming EMR is heat as I just pointed out”.
***
B4 becomes frighteningly incoherent, continuing to rave that EMR is not heat. I pointed that out to him long ago and he continues to mutter it as an incoherent mantra.
Gordon 10:18 pm humorously & incorrectly writes: “Clausius defined entropy and stated clearly that T is a constant”
Clausius: “T and p are chosen as independent variables“.
Nowhere does Clausius take T outside the ds integral as a constant which is mistakenly done by Gordon: “S = T (integral dq)”.
—–
Gordon: “If T was variable it would be written as dT.”
Clausius: “For a perfect gas… ds = cdT/T + ARdv/v”
—–
Gordon’s comments fall apart yet again. Gordon should quote Clausius directly not make up words Gordon claims Clausius wrote.
Again, Gordon tries his best to convince readers EMR is heat writing: “The 2nd law stipulates only the direction that heat can be transferred.” Uncritically accepting that heat is in motion was a sure route to Gordon’s befuddlement.
ant…”Gordon
Now youre talking about a unit which changed 94 years ago.
Boy you must be old”.
***
Hey…Newton was a good buddy of mine. He used to bounce his ideas of calculus off me.
That’s why I know Isaac did not claim the Moon rotates on its own axis. I tried to tell that to the interpreter but he was a friend of Cassini and went with his silly idea.
” Thats why I know Isaac did not claim the Moon rotates on its own axis. I tried to tell that to the interpreter but he was a friend of Cassini and went with his silly idea. ”
*
And as always, the 360 degree incompetent ignoramus Robertson continues his 360 degree lying about Newton, the Moon, NOAA’s stations, HIV, Lanka’s measles distraction, GPS, Einstein, Russia’s war against Ukraine, etc etc.
Newton has explained exactly that he endorsed Cassini’s computation of the lunar spin and of the inclination of the spin axis wrt the Ecliptic.
*
1. Original text of Newton’s Principia in (new) Latin, commented between 1739 and 1742 by two French ecclesiastical scientists residing in Rome:
https://tinyurl.com/Newton-Principia-Leseur
2. Newton’s Principia has been translated in several languages by several independent translators, most recently in 2012 by Ian Bruce:
http://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/newton/book3s1.pdf
(Page 744, i.e. page 23 in the pdf file)
*
Robertson has been told this probably 20 times; but he never minds about contradictions, and restarts each time his nonsensical stuff from scratch.
*
Anyone credulously believing Robertson’s nonsensical lies 100%
deserves them.
The translators clearly got it wrong. They did not have Newton to verify their translation and went on nonsense from Cassini.
I have quoted several times from Newton who clearly said…
1)the Moon moves with a linear motion.
2)the linear motion is converted to curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field,
3)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
There can be no argument…not even by you…that Newton’s description represents curvilinear motion with no local spin.
It is equally obvious that a car running on an oval track has the same motion and is not spinning about a local axis unless the tries lose grip, allowing the car to spin. We have often used the ball on a string that has the same motion or a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a merry-go-round so it cannot possibly rotate on a local axis.
ant…”The globe has indeed warmed by 1C since 1960, and by about 1.1C since 1850. Not sure why you believe that is an issue”.
***
That means it warmed only 0.1C between 1850 and 1960, even though CO2 levels increased 50% since the pre-Industrial level of 270 ppmv till today. Let’s look at that.
I don’t put much stock in wiki article on climate since they are known to favour only the alarmist view. However…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
The first graphic we see is the estimated emissions of CO2 between 1960 and now.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg
Surprisingly, the claimed increase is relatively linear with a change of 6 decades and an increase from about 320 ppmv to 420 ppmv. That’s 100 ppmv divided by 6 decades to get roughly 16.6 ppmv/decade. If the increase was exponential as claimed, the graphic would need to use logarithmic gradations along the vertical axis to get a straight line similar to the one they call a curve.
First question, why is it so linear when the IPCC keeps peddling the bs that it is increasing exponentially? Also, why would the increase suddenly become non-linear in the 21 decades before 1960?
What happened between 1750 where the IPCC claims the global concentration was 270 ppm and 1960, when they claimed 320 ppmv? That’s an increase of only 50 ppmv over 210 years, or 21 decades. So, we are to believe that CO2 increased only 50 ppmv/21 decades = 2.4 ppmv/decade.
That means, even though CO2 is claimed to have increased 50% since 1750, only about 5% of that increase came before 1960, the rest coming between 1960 and now.
There is an excellent collation of scientific papers by Ernst Beck that show various levels of CO2 that seriously contradict the IPCC claim and that of Keeling curve linked to above, that claims only measurements at an active volcano as actual global amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf
Then suddenly, in 1960, for no explained reason, the CO2 concentration increased at a rate of 16.6 ppmv/decade.
I smell a rat, an IPCC rat. You can see some rat dropping in the wiki article in the diagram under ‘Anthropogenic CO2 emissions’. At the footnote indicated under the diagram you can see a reference (41) to Houghton and Nassikas. Houghton of course is a climate modeler who was the first co-chair of the IPCC, getting that position due to his close friendship with UK PM Margaret Thatcher, who started the warming hysteria at the IPCC.
Houghton is partially responsible for leading the IPCC into the direction of climate modelling while abandoning mainstream physics. That’s why the IPCC is so hung up on future climate states as projected by climate models. Antone interested in real physics would be disappointed trying to find any in IPCC reports.
I like how you keep moving the conversation elsewhere so I don’t find your response for ages.
The actual CO2 rises by decade:
1960-70: +9 ppm
1970-80: +13
1980-90: +16
1990-00: +15
2000-10: +21
2010-20: +24
(2020-23: +7)
That corresponds pretty accurately with your graph. How about you use the graph to figure out the change from 1960 to 1990, and then 1990 to 2020. Clearly eyeballing it doesn’t work for you.
And you believe (50ppm)/(150ppm) is only 5%. How bad can this get.
ant…You claimed only a 0.1C warming from 1850 to 1960. Does that stack up with 50 ppmv versus 150 ppmv overall?
If you insist on living in a glass house it’s better not to throw stones.
Firstly, there is an approximate 30 year lag between CO2 concentrations and the temperatures they cause. So 1960 temperatures are based on c1930 concentrations.
Secondly, there are many other factors which affect temperatures, such as aerosols and ocean circulation. You pretend that scientists are claiming that CO2 is the only thing that affects temperatures, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Thirdly, by selecting 1850, you are choosing a time when temperatures happened do be (relatively) high, and by choosing 1960 you are picking a time when temperatures happened to be relatively low. You cherry pick high points from the past and low points from the near-present to make your comparison.
Natural variation swamped the slowly rising trend when the rate of increase was small. That still happens, but only on time scales less than a decade instead of the multi-decade variability of the past.
.
.
NOW … how did you get 50/150 to equal 5%?
“In Binnys delusion, NOAA carefully sifts through more than 100,000 GHCN stations monthly to create their surface temperature record. Where they get the man-power and funding to do that is overlooked by Binny.”
Gordon Robertson must think NOAA is still using pencil and paper to average numbers. News flash: they actually use algorithms to process large datasets! Welcome to the modern age!
John W
Robertson is just too dumb to understand that NOAA and their supposedly only 1500 stations play no role in my comments about the Canadian Arctic. I just did monthly averages of data from ‘GHCN daily’, and didn’t use any official NOAA data based on the monthly GHCN V4 series .
He only needs to see “GHCN” and he blindly charges the red NOAA muleta like a stubborn bull in a Spanish corrida.
*
It is also typical of the ignorant Robertson that he never actually reads the text you write, but only skims it to look for terms that help him identify old, already posted nonsense and then repost it, sometimes even unchanged.
This can be seen, for example, in the fact that for years he has repeatedly talked about the 100,000 stations that NOAA supposedly uses to calculate temperatures, but that number has increased over the years to 120,000, and of these only 40,000 measure temperatures (the rest only measure rain, wind, snow, etc., etc.).
He almost never builds a contradiction into his nonsense, but starts everything from scratch (this can be seen, for example, in his repeated, blatant misrepresentation of the Lanka measles rulings of German judges in the Stuttgart and Karlsruhe courts, despite my clear, unambiguous contradictions based on the judges’ rulings available to everyone in German).
*
He apparently harbors a completely uncontrollable hatred of NOAA.
Most likely he was employed by a company that was a subcontractor to NOAA and that fired him at the urging of NOAA employees for his continued incompetence.
john…when Jehovah’s Witnesses came to my door, I learned quickly that trying to have a rational discussion with them was futile. You are the equivalent of them in the science arena. All you have are authority figures, albeit corrupt authority figures.
NOAA claimed 2014 as the hottest year ever using a 48% likelihood. GISS claimed the same with only a 38% likelihood. Are you so gullible that you can accept that chicanery without flinching? Are you so gullible that you willingly accept any garbage thrown at you by authority figures?
I am trying to inform you of the facts and you can’t even be bothered to confirm or deny what I say. All you have are insults and ad homs.
NOAA has admitted to using less than 1500 surface stations to calculate the global land surface record. If they have all the technology you claim, why would they not use the more than 100,000 stations in the GHCN record?
“If they have all the technology you claim, why would they not use the more than 100,000 stations in the GHCN record?”
Because they don’t need to.
The internal variation in the global temperature data sets a limit on its uncertainty. There’s no way to do better than +/-0.06C on a global annual temperature mean no matter how big your sample size.
1500 stations is more than enough.
–Posted on September 26, 2024
HEPPA Solaris meeting in Leeds, UK
General information and photos
Program of the oral talks
My presentations
Terrestrial temperature, sea level and ENSO index variations linked with solar and volcanic activity view ppt here
Links of eigen vectors of solar magnetic field with the indices of solar activity in sunspots and flares view ppt here
—
https://solargsm.com/
Solar polar field strength as of 2024.09.18.
https://i.ibb.co/r4n9DL4/Polar.gif
https://i.ibb.co/wYx8k7k/north.gif
https://i.ibb.co/cThSJX0/south.gif
I haven’t gone over what she said, yet- but she hasn’t posted in awhile, and probably get around it. As for graphs of northern and southern solar polar strength. Crickets from me, but is that what she talking about or something?
Yes, it refers to the strength of the solar magnetic field. Models show that in the next cycle the waves it detects will be in opposite phases. This trend is evident in the observations.
“The summary curve calculated for the next millennium predicts further three grand cycles with the closest grand minimum occurring in the forthcoming cycles 2627 with the two magnetic field waves separating into the opposite hemispheres leading to strongly reduced solar activity.”
cycles 26 – 27
If someone completely fails to describe the near future (which by the way has now become the present since a while), but cannot accept that s/he was wrong, s/he will automatically try to extrapolate this failure to a more distant future.
” (which by the way has now become the present since a while),”
Well we are not thru the solar max 25 cycle, yet. It possible she is correct.
we will see what happens in October.
I look at the Stanford WSO observations and I think they show a trend.
http://wso.stanford.edu/
https://i.ibb.co/n3RpdRc/Dipall.gif
..the closest grand minimum occurring in the forthcoming cycles 2627 with the two magnetic field waves..
cycles 26 27
—
Yeah, that’s what she says.
But you saying not now. Why aren’t we considered to be in grand minimum right now, and been in it for couple decades?
Are you saying we don’t have a clue [in terms modern measurements of what a grand solar min, is like, at all??
That’s right.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m^2 (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)^1/4 /4σ ]^1/4
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)^1/4 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4 ]^1/4 =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2(150*1*1)^1/4 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4 ]^1/4 =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )^1/4 =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
288 K, is measured by thermometer fields Christos, not satellites. Anyone, such as Christos, can use a fudge factor Φ in an eqn. to get the known beforehand answer.
The problem for Christos is always ignoring the IR opacity of a planetary atmosphere. If Christos did not do so, then there would be no need for Φ.
Where is this thermometer field that measures 288K? The only one I know of has 1 thermometer per 100,000 Km^2 for solid land. The other field for the ocean involves submersible units that spend most of the time under water.
What is the IR opacity of a planetary atmosphere?
Sure, it’s fairly obvious Gordon needs to ask about “the IR opacity of a planetary atmosphere” when not being accomplished in meteorology. That’s easy enough to solve, Gordon, sign up, pass a course at a local college.
They will also explain where & how Gordon’s local hourly temperature weather reports get their information.
David Appell accuses anyone who objects to spending trillions to “prevent climate change” of valuing money in their pockets over the climate apocalypse that they imagine to be coming.
What they don’t get is that the entire country is brought down by this wasteful spending. People who live in poorer countries experience more disease, more crime, more poverty, more starvation, more homelessness, and more of all the ills to which humans are vulnerable to. This wasteful spending has to stop. It hurts us all.
Above, we see Ball4 and gordon arguing about “entropy”. Clearly neither understands the subject, so there’s no reason to try to jump in and help them.
But, for responsible adults here’s “entropy-made-simple”:
As “energy” is a measure of the “ability” to do useful work, think of “entropy” as a measure of the “inability” to do useful work. The energy is there, but it cannot do as expected.
I like to use ice as a simple example. Everyone knows what “ice” is. Ice emits about 300 W/m², or 300 Joules each second. So in one hour, 1 m² of ice would emit about 1,080,000 Joules. Now, one liter of water takes about 2,590,000 Joules to boil (going from room temperature to boiling). Ignoring entropy, that would mean 2.4 m² of ice could boil one liter of water.
But, as responsible adults know, ice can NOT boil water. Entropy can NOT be ignored. It’s the same for 15μ photons from CO2. They can NOT raise Earth’s 288k surface temperature. Entropy can NOT be ignored,
Note Clint’s funny magic trick attempt switching from adding mass to not adding mass without telling the reader. It’s not the same for added massless 15μ photons from CO2. They are required by entropy eqn. to raise Earth’s 288k surface temperature in that real process.
Entropy can NOT be ignored but Clint R then humorously ignores entropy in his real process adding 15μ photons from CO2 absorbed in Earth surface.
Again, entropy is a measure of heat, not radiation. Remember B4, radiation is not heat.
Entropy is not a measure of Clausius’ heat, Gordon, they have different units. Check your work has consistent units before commenting.
Gordon is partly correct though since radiation is not heat. Gordon should use his new found physics consistently in future comments – that is after checking his units are consistent.
clint…”As energy is a measure of the ability to do useful work, think of entropy as a measure of the inability to do useful work. The energy is there, but it cannot do as expected”.
***
Not “energy’ per se, but a specific form of energy called heat. That’s the way Clausius defined entropy and it was Clausius who invented entropy.
It was Gibbs, an admirer of Clausius, who integrated entropy into his free energy equation but he should have specified the energy as heat. It’s apparent why, his formula indicated that the free energy is a sum of enthalpy and entropy, where enthalpy is the total heat in a system and entropy is the heat lost, leaving a ‘free thermal energy’ of enthalpy – entropy.
This confusion dates back to the 1850s when Clausius defined internal energy. He was clear that it was the sum of internal heat and internal work, but Thompson talked him out of it and to only use the word ‘energy’. Seems Gibbs was affected by Thompson’s obtuseness.
However, we need to look more closely. The Gibbs free energy formula is…G = H – TS
The TS comes from the Clausius entropy definition of S = integral dq/T. Since T is a constant, we can remove it from the integral sign to give….
TS = integral dq.
Once integrated we have the “total heat” transferred which = TS.
That leaves no doubt that the TS refers to the total heat transferred. To subtract that heat from the whole, which is enthalpy, then enthalpy must be a reference to total heat. Therefore G = free energy = the free heat left over once heat has been used up in a process as entropy.
If you search the Net you will see enthalpy in a convoluted form with p.dv included. That is, many refer to enthalpy as total heat and others convolute the meaning by including an internal work factor.
That is a reference to work done internally and was addressed by Clausius in his definition of internal energy that was adopted for the 1st law of thermodynamics. He explained that internal energy is a sum of internal heat and internal work, where the internal work is related to the vibration of atoms.
However, internal work cannot be added to and subtracted from internal energy, only internal heat can be so affected. You can do work externally, like compressing a piston to compress a gas, but there is nothing you can do work-wise to change the internal vibration of atoms. Only heat can do that.
You can add heat and remove heat but you cannot do the same with work. The p.dv expression often seen in the enthalpy factor is obviously a change of volume at constant pressure. Where does anyone ever see a case where volume changes and pressure remains constant? It’s not possible unless gas is removed as the volume changes. Therefore, p dv is not clear as to its intention. Obviously a partial differential is required such a p.dv + dp.v.
If you do work on a system by changing the volume thus increasing the pressure, you do affect the heat internally but I have never seen Gibbs applied as such. it’s usually geared toward chemical reactions where the internal energy change is related to heat.
Therefore Gibbs free energy must be a reference to heat, not a generic energy per se. That is clear from the TS term which is a summation of heat quantities therefore enthalpy must be a reference to total heat to keep the equation terms the same.
That fact messes with the minds of Clint and B4 since neither thinks heat exists as energy. They prefer the generic word energy without specifying what energy is involved. That work in science fiction but not in real science.
Clint gets himself tied in knots over this fact. He claims heat is not energy but a transfer of energy. When I ask what energy is being transferred, he goes ominously quite, since the only energy it could transfer is heat. Therefore, according to Clint, heat is a transfer of heat. No Nobels for Clint anytime soon.
Gordon 7:35 pm makes yet another mistake since T is not a constant in Clausius’ eqn. for entropy dS/dt = Q(t)/T(t).
Enthalpy is NOT Clausius’ heat in a system, Gordon, the pV term in defn. of enthalpy is not Clausius’ heat.
Much of the rest of Gordon’s comment falls apart after these rookie mistakes.
b4…”Enthalpy is NOT Clausius heat in a system…”
***
B4 becomes increasingly more incoherent as he now claims there are different kinds of heat. First, he denies that heat exists, that it is only a transfer of energy. Now he claims there is heat but different kinds.
Soon he will be raving that EM is not heat.
Clausius’ heat is not a transfer of energy, Gordon. Look it up. Use it in comments.
clint…”As energy is a measure of the ability to do useful work, think of entropy as a measure of the inability to do useful work. The energy is there, but it cannot do as expected”.
***
Energy is defined as the capacity to do work, not the ability. All in all, I regard that as a wrong-headed definition as it is tantamount to stating we have no idea what energy is. However, we know it exists, whatever it is, and exists in different forms.
Potential energy has a capacity to do work but kinetic energy is energy doing work as it moves. In the case of heat, energy takes the form of ‘something’ that causes atoms to vibrate, or move. In the case of gravitational energy, something causes a mass to be attracted to a larger mass.
Entropy is not a measure of the inability to do work, it is a measure of heat produced in an irreversible process. The heat expended means the mass from which it was released lacks that heat to do useful work.
The cult children rush in to prove me right, as usual.
So, let’s keep the science going:
The energy from ice has entropy too high to raise the temperature of ice. It is said to be “unorganized”. The energy is there, but it can’t be used to boil water, or even to warm water. The entropy is too high. The energy is not organized.
Another simple example:
A perfectly insulated box contains a brick. Both the box and the brick are at a temperature of 100F. Another brick, also at 100F is then added to the box. The temperature does not change. More energy has been added to the box — more photons are flying in the box — but the temperature does not change. Ten more 100F bricks are added. Many more photons are zipping around in the box, but the temperature does not increase. More-of-the-same does not lower the entropy.
It’s the same with Earth. If more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, more 15%mu; photons are then flying around. But Earth’s 288K surface temperature is not raised. The entropy of the photons is too high. The energy is unorganized.
As usual your bad analogies get science wrong.
As I said:
Remember photons are massless, so no bricks need apply for the job of substituting for a photon!
When are you going to figure out this simple reality?
Now tell me I’m in a cult, can’t learn, I wouldn’t understand, bla bla bla.
You got that, Nate. You’re in a cult, can’t learn, and can’t understand.
Bricks are mass, photons are energy. You would need many years of adult supervision to understand.
But, keep proving me right. I never get tired of being right.
“Bricks are mass, photons are energy.”
Good. Now just need some basic logic skills to apply these facts to your problem.
Do you have any?
Child Nate, the bricks supply the photons. It’s about the photons, not the bricks. As usual, you understand none of this, and you can’t learn. You’re just throwing crap against the wall, again.
What will you try next?
If you want to add photons, as would be the case in all the GHE debates, then add photons.
There is no reason to add bricks, other than a strong desire to obfuscate. Which plainly you have.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Announced this week by [Donald], the collection consists of two pieces. One is called “Fight Fight Fight” and is priced from $499, and the other is the “Victory Tourbillon.” The latter is claimed to be made from solid 18-karat gold, with 122 diamonds and a tourbillon automatic movement. It’s priced at a nice, round $100,000-about three times the price of an equivalent Rolex Submariner-and, yes, crypto payment is available.
The watches are claimed to feature “premium, Swiss-Made materials and intricate details,” but so far as we can tell, the Fight Fight Fight uses a movement by Japanese company Seiko, while the Victory Tourbillon has a movement alleged to be partially built from Chinese components.
It gets better. In what quickly starts to resemble the tweet-riddled fever dreams of the extremely online, the watches are produced by a company called TheBestWatchesonEarth LLC, which is based in Sheridan, Wyoming, and, despite no watchmaking history to speak of, has a license agreement to use [Donald’s] name for its timepieces.
“We also accept Bitcoin as payment!”, the […] website yells, as if handing over actual dollars to a company who admits the images of the timepieces “are for illustration purposes only” isn’t enough to raise an eyebrow.
https://www.wired.com/story/trumps-dollar100000-watches-are-the-most-tragic-celebrity-watch-yet/
When will we have Donald’s Weather Station project?
https://www.wired.com/story/trumps-dollar100000-watches-are-the-most-tragic-celebrity-watch-yet/
You just edited it!
Made you look. Which is good, as there’s better:
Op. Cit.
What Willard posted about Trump’s watches could easily be edited, with a few changes, to perfectly describe Trump himself in comparison to his electors.
SpaceX Unexpectedly Reveals New Plans! Flight 5 Ready For Launch!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpMXqdZJ9GI
Sending crew to Mars before Trump finishes his term of US president?
” Sending crew to Mars before Trump finishes his term of US president? ”
implies
” … if Trump can begin his term of US president! “
Nobody is going to Mars
I was hoping we might send Binny.
You “know” this … how?
Bindidong escaped over the Berlin wall in the wrong direction, If he was piloting a space ship to Mars he would get lost and landed on Venus instead
Venus is better than Mars. Even the planet is, but you be better off in orbit. Planet Venus cold, if living in the sky, living on rocky surface is like living on most of Earth’s rocky surface which thousands meter below the ocean surface. Heat one thing but also there is a lot of pressure.
“Venus is better than Mars.”
But let’s talk about Mars, everyone say Mars is cold {and dry}
of course Moon is “colder”, some might mention the Moon is hot, but Moon is neither hot or cold, it’s a vacuum. And Mars is also a vacuum, not as good a vacuum as the Moon, but one could improve the vacuum of Mars, fairly easily.
During Apollo, it’s missions made the Moon have less of vacuum, and if you do a lot more on the Moon, it’s going also reduce the lunar really good vacuum [it better vacuum than what ISS flies thru- so it could get far worse a vacuum that what ISS flies thru]. But like Mars, one make better vacuum fairly easily on the Moon- so it’s not much of a issue.
Also said, wrongly, a lot, is that Mars wouldn’t get much solar energy for solar power. But better than Earth in terms generating electrical power for grid electrical power.
Now if on the Planet Venus, you could have as bad as on Earth.
Obviously if trying to live on Venus rocky surface, that obviously far worse than Earth- but that is the least of the problems. But if in the upper atmosphere, it’s issue how and where you fly in the atmosphere, it seems possible one could fly so as to have a lot solar energy {getting constant and more watts per square meter} as compared to Earth distance. But it’s sort of like reverting to the Age of Sail- you in wind, and trying to be anchored against the wind or going against the wind, could be a problem.
And accurate Venusian weather prediction would tend to be needed.
Advantage of Moon or Mars is you have access to a freezer.
One can have a “natural” freezer or refrigerator, which does not require electrical power- easy to keep things cold. But making stuff cold quickly, “could” require more energy to actively cool anything as compared to Earth. A reason you want water, water makes it easier to cool stuff {as it does on Earth. Or trying to make nuclear reactor on Earth without using water is hard and it’s same problem on Mars {it’s worse, at least on Earth one could air cool it, but on Mars it’s given you going to mine the Mars sky as we mine the sky on Earth- so you will also have Mars air to use on Mars.
And btw making usable Mars air pressure will generate heat, and one need to cool it and could use water the cool it down and to compress it more.
binny…”…for years he has repeatedly talked about the 100,000 stations that NOAA supposedly uses to calculate temperatures, but that number has increased over the years to 120,000, and of these only 40,000 measure temperatures (the rest only measure rain, wind, snow, etc., etc.).”
***
I have never had an interest in GHCN where 90% of the data has been removed or fudged since 1990. My argument has never been about your use of GHCN data. My argument is that NOAA is corrupt and are climate alarmists.
NOAA knows about GHCN, they own it. If NOAA wanted to, it could use all of the GHCN data judiciously but the thing you miss in your naivete is that NOAA is corrupt. NOAA are climate alarmists and they have no interest in real data that does not meet their propaganda. That’s why the synthesize (fabricate) data rather than use actual temperatures.
In 2014, NOAA claimed that year as the warmest year ever, based on a 48% likelihood. That is out and out corruption as far as science is concerned. The standard confidence level in science to claim something as true is 90%, preferably 95%. But why would any scientific outfit use a 48% likelihood unless they are corrupt and why would they use a statistical evaluation when they have real data?
Is it not obvious, the real data is not showing the catastrophic warming they need as alarmists.
In 2013, when the IPCC declared a 15 year warming hiatus between 1998 and 2012, NOAA re-evaluated (fudged) the sea surface temperature record and amended it to show a slight trend. Again, why would anyone do that?
NOAA has been politically corrupt under their former leader since at least 1998. He knew about the corruption taking place in the Mann hockey stick study, where they clipped off proxy data that was showing a decline in the 1960s and replaced it with actual temperature data. yet he said nothing. In other words, NOAA participated in the chicanery along with NASA GISS. The current head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt runs an alarmist site, realclimate, with Mann.
When Mann’s trick of hiding declining temperatures was revealed in the Climategate email scandal, Schmidt defended his buddy Mann in an article on realclimate. He wrote ‘the trick’ off as a misunderstanding. Clearly, GISS defends their alarmist buddies.
“But why would any scientific outfit use a 48% likelihood unless they are corrupt and why would they use a statistical evaluation when they have real data?”
Perhaps a more familiar example will help you understand.
Suppose a poll is taken for an election on successive weeks.
The results of the poll are:
WEEK 1: 520/1000 for Candidate A (52%)
WEEK 2: 500/1000 for Candidate A (50%)
WEEK 3: 550/1000 for Candidate A (55%)
WEEK 4: 570/1000 for Candidate A (57%)
WEEK 5: 540/1000 for Candidate A (54%)
WEEK 6: 490/1000 for Candidate A (49%)
The *measured* support was indeed strongest in Week 4.
More people in the survey did indeed support Candidate A in Week 4 than any other week. We are 100% certain.
But there is a margin of uncertainly due to polling (about 3% in this case) because only a sampling of voters were asked . If you had to say when the support as TRULY strongest, the BEST, MOST LIKELY answer is “Week 4”. But it could fairly possibly have been Week 3 or Week 5. We could apply statistical analysis to figure out the the odds that Week 4 was indeed the highest support.
Global temperatures are a ‘poll’. No one measures every spot every moment. 2014 was indeed the warmest measured year up to that point using their ‘polling methodology’. 100% sure. But because there is statistical uncertainty due to the measurements and due to the sampling of locations, there is a statistical margin of uncertainly as to whether it was TRULY the warmest.
Be serious, Tim. NOAA and GISS have claimed 2014 as the hottest year ever based on likelihoods of 48% and 38% respectively. Do you seriously think that is kosher?
Gallop polls cannot be claimed to be accurate since the sample size is far too small per population. You cannot compare opinion polls to a science where there are thermometers and satellite AMSU units to accurately measure temperatures. Since NOAA and GISS use thermometers why do they need to use statistical theory to make a claim?
There is only one answer, both are climate alarmists.
Check the UAH graph for 2014 and you will see it is nowhere near a record. 2013 had a quick spike but even it was nowhere near a record.
“Gallop polls cannot be claimed to be accurate since the sample size is far too small per population. ”
Taking a random sample of 1000 items from a set of 1,000,000 is just as good as a set of 1,000 out of 1,000,000,000. The size of the large group does not matter (in any significant way, as long as it is much bigger than the size of the sample). [You COULD have legitimately argued political polls don’t get good random samples, but you didn’t.]
“Since NOAA and GISS use thermometers why do they need to use statistical theory to make a claim?”
Because a) those temperatures are STILL just a sample of the temperatures around the world at specific times and locations, and b) thermometers have some intrinsic uncertainty. This is clearly a case where statistics must be used.
You need to brush up on the scope and the application of statistics.
“Do you seriously think that is kosher?”
Actually, I think it shows remarkable candor. They could have legitimately claimed it was the warmest year ever based on their data. That is 100% true. But they go in to admit that intrinsic uncertainty in the data means they cannot be 100% sure it was ACTUALLY the warmest year.
(Of course, politicians and news reports will often lose such subtle details, making the reports sound much more certain than the original scientific claims.)
Gordon,
“Be serious, Tim. NOAA and GISS have claimed 2014 as the hottest year ever based on likelihoods of 48% and 38% respectively. Do you seriously think that is kosher?”
I don’t know if I can eat that with my cheeseburger, but
It means that within the uncertainty of the global average measurement, there are at least 3 years withing that uncertainty, and the one they picked was the most likely of the at least three.
And I am not sure if you understand that UAH and NOAA/GISS are measuring different things.
–CHANGE: Air France plans to connect entire fleet to Starlink Wi-Fi.. Air France said Starlink would enable ground-like ultra-high-speed connectivity, enabling passengers to play video games online, stream TV and access other services requiring a low-latency connection via LEO satellites orbiting much nearer Earth than GEO.
Posted at 9:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds
https://instapundit.com/
–Why SpaceXs Chinese rivals can turn around faster if rocket launches fail
While SpaceX faces lengthy paperwork for each launch approval, flexible regulations in China allow aerospace firms to rebound faster–
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3279783/why-spacexs-chinese-rivals-can-turn-around-faster-if-rocket-launches-fail
Well, they are small rockets.
And Starship is huge- and they want to make it bigger.
Though compared to Sea Dragon, which I believe NASA even thought a little bit about, SpaceX’s Starship is quite tiny.
ken…”There is the saying dazzle them with brilliance or baffle them with bullshit. Youre obviously of the second school of thought”.
***
And you have not proved that, in fact, all you have done throw insults.
There is another say, ‘put your money where your mouth is’. You have claimed I am bsing…prove it.
In fact, what are you doing here commenting as a skeptic when you cannot discuss the science objectively? All you have is a misunderstanding of Happer’s thought experiment based on Hitran.
I have carefully offered a critique of Happer’s work, which I regarded as supportive of the alarmist AGW theory, but you lacked the understanding of science to objectively critique my comments. I am a true skeptic, offering science to back my skepticism, and you attack a fellow skeptic with innuendo, insults, and inappropriate comments.
I have been skeptical of Happer’s work but I think his heart is in the right place as a skeptic. I am sure he would not offer nasty comments if I critiqued his work online. He would strive to prove why he is right.
This all began when you claimed the Moon orbited the Sun, not the Earth, even though the article to which you linked claimed the Moon orbited the Earth. I replied to you scientifically pointing out your gaffe and since then you seem to have taken umbrage with that.
Science should not be about emotion, or whether you like someone or not. It should be objective and based on fact.
There is nothing to prove; its just drivel.
There is no making of pearly gates from mud fences. Its just drivel.
A Floridian once said that climate change and rising sea level will give us more oceanfront property, right?
I did not believe him then, but recently I understand what he meant. He may be right. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1sjGvMieCROiG6FaE5-tSk2C_QPKl-sX6FvsTxVZ9h8o/edit?usp=sharing
sig…big difference between rising sea levels and flooding due to a hurricane or a storm.
There is zero evidence that sea levels are rising significantly. A few milimetres, maybe.
Gordon says: There is zero evidence that sea levels are rising significantly. A few milimetres, maybe.
Ignorance.
There are plenty of INDIRECT evidence.
Glaciers all over the globe are melting, including the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Where do you believe the water ends up? https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1YkmFeZWotk3oUa4rMXSxGZt3J80rxDJmM_vDmjx92sQ/edit?usp=sharing
Oceans are warming, as evidenced by thousands of Argo-buoys. Dont you know that this leads to water expansion?
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qIFzXQkwnPGqBbFpFVyOK85teJbHIYAtK5zCLN5uu1E/edit?usp=sharing
Ocean mass is increasing, as measured by GRACE satellites:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vZsCGnX67T3H4PV_t2vTGzFo2w9TIbSyOySLHcsVyMc/edit?usp=sharing
And there are DIRECT measurements.
From hundreds of tide gauge stations around the word, like this one from Miami, Florida:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/16BRAypp_L9CcltTDpRjymU2M4pqffleGJaVia-bY0Qk/edit?usp=sharing
From satellite altimetry measurements, showing about 110 mm since 1993 and 4.5 mm/year over the last 14 years:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1vw9FPxFa-LMtapmdVcmQy8d4kBIQnQamOHr0gGxSPAg/edit?usp=sharing
And you can watch it with your own eyes, if you believe nothing else:
https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cdx9n4ekp0do
Zero evidence?
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Sig
Robertson is no more than a boasting, ignorant polemicist who is unable to find any data about anything, let alone to download, process and present it using e.g. a spreadsheet calculator.
He is a gullible follower of contrarian blogs concentrating on denial of everything. All he is able to do is to distort, misrepresent facts and to discredit and denigrate people showing these facts.
*
SIG is 100% right.
*
I’m working a a layman since years among other things on sea level evaluations based on the PSMSL tide gauge data base and SONEL’s vertical land movement data.
Here is a comparison of my most recent evaluation (from spring 2023) to what professionals did with tide gauge data, and to satellite altimetry since 1993:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Or0jeeNG9Or1dPvxzb48QtrsUgeNE8GJ/view
*
Evaluations taking vertical land movement into account are only useful for a comparison of tide gauges to sat altimetry.
For the people living for example in coastal regions with high subsidence (sinking land areas around the gauges), only raw data measured by tide gauges in their near really matters.
An example: US East coast, descending sort of trends (in mm/decade).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_6AK2n4COIqqXYgt1ppABSU8aASUQCQz/view
While the sea level trend for Bar Harbor in Maine fits the global sat altimetry value for 1993-2022, the regions around Grand Isle, Rockport and Galveston might well expect higher rise.
Here and there, the rise will be higher where an acceleration is visible in the tide gauge data.
*
Source
https://psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
https://www.sonel.org/-Vertical-land-movements-.html
sig…still no MEASURED evidence, and how does one go about measuring exactly how much the oceans have risen? During ENSO events, the Pacific rises a foot between South America and Australia due to wind currents alone. Globally, wave actions varies from a few inches to over 100 foot waves. How does one measure that variability to within a few mm without a healthy bs factor?
All you have provided is speculative evidence and conjecture.
How about this? For 400+ years, during the Little Ice Age, ocean levels dropped due to water being retained as ice on land. Since 1850, that ice has been slowly melting yet alarmists like you claim that melting is due to a trace gas in the atmosphere. Not only that, CO2 was out-gassed from the frigid ocean waters that expanded in surface area during the LIA.
Talk about ignorance.
Since 1800, sea surface level has risen between 0.2m and 0.3m. That 20cm to 30 cm or 200 mm to 300 mm. That’s a few mm to me since the mm is a tiny measure that alarmists blow out of all proportion as they do a fraction of a degree C warming.
That’s between 8 inches and 11 inches over 225 years and most of it is obviously due to rewarming from the LIA, which started to fade around 1800.
binny needs a dictionary…
“Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone’s argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution”.
Gordon says sigstill no MEASURED evidence, and how does one go about measuring exactly how much the oceans have risen?
As I pointed out, there are several independent methods: Volume added due to loss of ice, which can be independently estimated. Temperature increase of ocean water leading to thermal expansion following physical laws. Measurement of increasing ocean mass by GRACE satellites. Documentation of increased flooding and erosion of coastal areas, particularly noticeable on the US East coast, e.g. in Charleston, SC.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/147761/rising-seas-in-charleston#:~:text=Relative%20sea%20level%20in%20Charleston%20has%20risen%20by,inch%20%283%20centimeters%29%20every%202%20years%20since%202010.
Citations: On average, Charleston saw 10 to 25 tidal floods per year in the 1990s. There were 89 such events in 2019 and 69 in 2020, he said. In other words, the city now sees tidal flooding every 4 to 5 days.
Both problems are amplified by sea level rise. Relative sea level in Charleston has risen by 10 inches (25 centimeters) since 1950, with an acceleration to 1 inch (3 centimeters) every 2 years since 2010.
https://sealevelrise.org/states/south-carolina/#:~:text=The%20sea%20level%20around%20Charleston,1%20inch%20every%202%20years.
There is ample evidence that sea level is rising, without depending on direct measurements of the actual height.
Gordon says: All you have provided is speculative evidence and conjecture.
Do you consider tide gauge measurements speculative? That is an old and straightforward measurement it just takes many measurements over a longer period to establish a reliable trend. And many more stations to get a global perspective.
However, it takes only one outside Miami to demonstrate an accelerating sea level rise, which obviously has nothing to do with the end LIA 200 years ago. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/16BRAypp_L9CcltTDpRjymU2M4pqffleGJaVia-bY0Qk/edit?usp=sharing
And the different, independent methods also give similar consistent answers. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SUJpzjkdg7pFXSHh6WsCScETD0g88qgjMY0_L6LRH6Y/edit?usp=sharing
And more importantly, you have provided absolutely no argument for questioning the reliability of the calculations of sea level rise.
When considering Earth’s average surface temperature behavior as a
“black box”.
And when comparing it with the rest planets, also considered as “black boxes”.
And when they all (Earth included) appear with the same average surface temperature behavior…
There is the only conclusion:
Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t have any significant influence on the Earth’s average surface temperature.
So, there is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Global measured spatial and temporal thermometer temperature median 288K, global measured planetary brightness temperature 255K.
Christos just needs to do the arithmetic better.
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
–
Ball4, do you know what “black box” means ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes.
With one thermometer per 100,000 km^2, over both land and oceans, I would strongly suspect the 288K figure.
Spatial in your context means 1 thermometer/100,000 km^2.
Gordon,
At one thermometer per 100,000 sq kilometers, that would be 5100 thermometers going into the average.
Do you think that is enough, if not, why not?
Gordon
“With one thermometer per 100,000 km^2, over both land and oceans, I would strongly suspect the 288K figure. ”
A chance to show that you are more than a mouth and no trousers.
Define the area per thermometer necessary to provide reliable global mean temperatures.
Show your working.
Just for fun, to show how ignorant of everything Robertson actually is.
Years ago, I divided UAH6.0 LT’s 2.5 degree grid into 256 parts, generated a time series out of only the 256 grid cells located in the middle of the parts, and compared the series to the full UAH Global series shown in Roy Spencer’s monthly report.
This the February 2024 re-edition:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UlobgSX7gJuW4900BupXPfdYrgHU8Wqn/view
Linear trends, in C / decade for Jan 1979 – Jan 2024
– full grid: 0.1454 +- 0.006
– 256 cells: 0.1436 +- 0.007
As anyone can see, the difference between the two (of course latitude weighted) averages isn’t very big, is it?
And the time series made out of no more than 256 cells means:
one satellite O2 microwave sensing per… 12.93 million km^2.
Good comments, Christos.
Make America Kind Again.
https://youtu.be/RuWS2HKHKlg
Economically precarious folks in little-known brittle places, after decades of corruption and predatory delay, are left to fend for themselves when the insurance dries up, credit is maxed out, and their communities are worn out from rebuilding time and again.
No one cares about these people. The media has already brushed them aside to focus on the more metropolitan areas. The people who need the most support will be forgotten because they didn’t have the financial ability to get the support to begin with. Many don’t have insurance or a nest egg.
Living in low-lying flood-prone areas should be restricted. Let nature take its course, and no one gets negatively impacted.
There should be no such thing as poverty in this day and age. We have the means to fix it but not the will.
Those proposing to fix it, like the Democrats, are going about it all wrong. They are corrupting science and spreading other falsehood to con people into supporting their schemes to end poverty. They think justice can be achieved by making it easy for criminals to avoid jail and they are handcuffing police to prevent them dealing with criminals.
However, among the Democrat leaders are wealthy businessmen, and they think the solution to their inability to get cheap labour is opening the borders to illegals immigrants who will work for next to nothing. That solution is allowing criminals and terrorists to enter via the southern border which has been propped open by the Dems under the guise of humanity.
Ironically, Canada is being blamed by the uninformed for allowing the 9/11 terrorists to enter the US. Anyone who is informed knows the terrorists were allowed into the US legally and had trained on flight simulators, in the US, to teach them how to fly jet aircraft.
The warming/climate catastrophes are fake news geared to scaring people to follow an agenda. In other words, those proposing such nonsense regard the rest of as being too stoopid to see through the chicanery. George Soros, a champion of the politically correct, is busy buying up news outlets to further the fake news.
Hurricane Helene Fatality Total: 120; 753 remain missing.
North Carolina Fatality Total: 46; 600 remain missing.
ball 4…”Clausius heat is not a transfer of energy…”
***
So-called Clausius heat ***IS*** energy. He defined it as the kinetic energy of atoms. However, ‘kinetic’ means only that the energy is in motion.
Clearly, the energy in motion is thermal energy, aka heat.
B4 seems to think there is a ‘Clausius’ heat and another form of heat. No wonder alarmists are so confused.
He defined it as a measure of the kinetic energy of atoms, Gordon 9:00 pm. Please use Clausius’ words, not your own befuddlement.
No he didn’t, you are misquoting Clausius, a common theme in your posts.
You even steal my own postings and claim them as your own. I claimed for the longest time that EM is not heat, going to far as to explain why, and now you have stolen it and claimed it as your own. Problem is, you use it in a schizoid manner, completely out of context.
In the 1875 version of the Clausius book, on page 45 of 435, he states the following…”…the QUANTITY of heat is a measure of the vis viva (aka KE) of this motion (referring to atomic motion)”.
What he’s saying is that a quantity of heat, say 100 calories, is a measure of the KE, mainly because the KE is actually mechanical energy which has an equivalent as heat. We must remember that a calorie is the amount of heat required to raise a cc of water by 1C and the calorie can be stated as an equivalent in joules, according to Joule the scientist.
That does not explain what heat is as energy (no one knows that) but Clausius is only trying to state a definition of heat in terms of the KE of atoms. We must also remember that KE is not a statement of energy per se in that it is a generic term that can apply to any energy in motion.
The purpose of the chapter is to establish the equivalence of work and heat. He claims that is heat produces work then the heat has transformed itself into work, and vice versa. What we have here is a transformation of one energy into another.
Now Gordon mistakenly claims “you are misquoting Clausius”; that won’t work since I’ve quoted Clausius’ translated memoirs verbatim to make a point where Gordon’s words for Clausius “What he’s saying” are physically inept.
To be physically correct & without befuddlement, Gordon’s comments just need to abide by Clausius’ defn. of heat on that p. 45 quoted where heat is only a measure of something physical.
Gordon then writes: “the heat has transformed itself into work”
That didn’t take long. Here Gordon slips back into paranormal befuddlement, a measure of something cannot “transform itself into work”.
Remember, Gordon, that Clausius defn. p. 45: “…the QUANTITY of heat is a measure of the (total) vis viva (aka KE) of this motion (referring to atomic motion)”.
Interesting! Anything changed since 2012? This is the summary of your book, which can be found on Amazon, especially the second paragraph.
“The Great Global Warming Blunder unveils new evidence from major scientific findings that explode the conventional wisdom on climate change and reshape the global warming debate as we know it. Roy W. Spencer, a former senior NASA climatologist, reveals how climate researchers have mistaken cause and effect when analyzing cloud behavior and have been duped by Mother Nature into believing the Earths climate system is far more sensitive to human activities and carbon dioxide than it really is.
In fact, Spencer presents astonishing new evidence that recent warming is not the fault of humans, but the result of chaotic, internal natural cycles that have been causing periods of warming and cooling for millennia. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily to be feared; The Great Global Warming Blunder explains that burning of fossil fuels may actually be beneficial for life on Earth.
As group-think behavior and misguided global warming policy proposals threaten the lives of millions of the worlds poorest, most vulnerable citizens, The Great Global Warming Blunder is a scintillating expos and much-needed call for debate.”
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A healthy river should be sinuous, free flowing and replete with wildlife. In Britain, however, 97% of rivers are fragmented by artificial barriers like weirs. Now, there is at least one artificial barrier for every 1.5km of stream in the country. And for centuries rivers have been slowly canalised – or artificially straightened – to stop water from flooding and spilling onto farmland and houses.
But removing a river’s natural meanders has, in fact, achieved the opposite effect. Instead, it’s disrupted the flow of rivers and degraded aquatic habitats, water quality and heightened flood risk. As the poor health of Europe’s rivers and streams continues to make news – due to dwindling wildlife, sewage pollution and agricultural runoff – communities are turning towards natural solutions to restore their rivers.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240918-how-restoring-rivers-natural-curves-can-prevent-flooding
Another edit. You should really put quotes from articles in quotation marks. That is that they are for.
None of the words you use are yours. They are directly lifted from the article.
> Another edit.
False.
At least the drivel posted by Robertson is his own.
Some rivers are being restored with natural flood management techniques (NFM), such as leaky woody dams, tree planting and beaver pens. One idea is to add wiggles back into rivers, streams and tributaries. Across the world, from the Netherlands, the US and the UK, rivers are slowly being re-wiggled, to return them to their natural course. And, in the UK, the rewards are starting to pay off, with fish, birds and invertebrates flocking back to rivers in Cumbria and West Sussex
Op. Cit.
If there is one poster on this blog who should really refrain from stubbornly criticizing others for ridiculous details like quotation marks, it is Blindsley H00d aka ‘RLH’, who puts everything in quotation marks that is not his, but… often enough ‘forgets’ to cite the source.
He only has to go back thread after thread on the blog to be convinced of this fact.
jim2…”David Appell accuses anyone who objects to spending trillions to prevent climate change of valuing money in their pockets over the climate apocalypse that they imagine to be coming”.
***
There used to be Jim who posted here, can’t recall the last name.
There was a climate modeler, the late Stephen Schneider, who offered thoughts from his own mind questioning whether it was ethical to lie to people about climate change…
He mused for Discover magazine in 1989…
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 4548, October 1989.)”
He concludes…”Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both”. Nice the way he inserts ‘effective’ in lieu of lying.
The Jim to whom I refer was Jim C, I think. The first time I heard the acronym CAGW was in his posts, where CAGW = catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Yes, CAGW is a denialist meme, invented by a denialist.
Make America Kind Again. part deux.
“It will be months or years to put us back together again.”
This is an incredible opportunity to lead by example. Show grace. Show mercy. Show these people what America really is about. Where we take care of our friends and our neighbors, regardless of their gender, who they love, the color of their skin, or who they vote for.
climate debils in Germany
https://youtu.be/ZResbDgj8b8
This is currently making the rounds in the denial-sphere on the heels of worst-case-scenario-come-to-pass hurricane Helene:
Derp
Ukraine’s Ammo Depot strikes – How Complacency (and drones) Destroyed Russian Bases
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkwP727sAxg
Perun
— 5 hours ago
Ammunition availability can make all the difference in a war, but only if it makes it to the troops on the front, rather than being destroyed in storage. —
The Russians have been in there for a couple of years now and the fake news media is presenting the Ukraine as beating the crap out of the Russians. All the Ukraine are accomplishing right now is getting a lot of Ukrainians killed.
Zelensky is a comedian, literally, he was a TV comedian before getting elected. He thinks he is still funny but he is now a dictator who has shut down the media and who has hounded anyone who opposes him. Time to cut this ijit off and force him to negotiate in good faith.
The fake news outlets have painted this as an unwarranted Russian invasion. For years, they ignored the oppression of Russian-speaking Ukrainians as the Kyiv government treated them badly. Finally, in 2014, the Kyiv mob, represented by armed nationalists ran off a democratically-elected president and the West regarded that as kosher. Putin felt they were shoving it in his face, which they were, and reacted. Now the fake news is whining and crying foul.
It’s all there, gb, from reliable sources, look for it.
Elon Musk wants to put people on Mars by 2030. Don’t count on it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-plan-colonize-mars-dont-count-on-it-2024-9
“Red tape is the biggest hurdle of all
Metzger said the biggest barrier Musk will face in achieving his timeline may be dealing with regulators rather than technical hurdles.
“The biggest challenge will probably be getting mission launch approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),” he said.”
Yes this is correct. And it’s nothing new, it’s always been the problem.
The article also gives other problems:
“Engineering challenges
The primary challenge with any mission to Mars is timing. Space agencies time their missions in windows when Mars and Earth are closest roughly every 26 months to save fuel and money.
SpaceX is planning to launch five uncrewed Starship rockets to Mars in the first window in 2026, according to Musk.
Because Starship uses most of its fuel to get into orbit, the giant spacecraft must be refueled in space to reach Mars.
Metzger estimated that each Starship would require at least four refueling flights. This means that SpaceX will need to launch a lot of rockets in a very short period of time and perfect technologies such as Starship-to-Starship docking and fuel transfer between two spacecraft.–
This is not much of a problem. For thing 3 of the 4 will be LOX.
NASA problem with doing fuel depots over the decades, has been “red tape” AND NASA wanted liquid Hydrogen to be stored
at depot. Which was stupid. It’s so stupid you might call it caused by “red tape”. If NASA had focus on “making it easy” rather than “making it harder” they could have had LOX depot in orbit, decades ago.
One could an advantage of LOX/LH2 is you have less reason to store LH2 in space, instead of 1 to 4, it’s 1 to 6 with LOX/LH2. Or if were interest in using LH2, you can more easily not worry storing LH2 on orbit, or not storing it orbit very long.
Liquid Methane requires a temperature of 111 K, LH2: 30 K, and LOX: 183 K.
It’s much easier to store LOX, and you launch the LOX first, and last one is Liquid Methane. Or don’t store liquid Methane at all, just transfer it to the starship just before it heads to Mars. And doing same thing with LH2/LOX, would easier, 6 stored, 1 transferred before it’s used.
But there is transfer time involved, and Methane could be transferred, quicker.
Nobody is going to Mars
How would I do it with existing rockets?
I would use falcon heavy to put artificial gravity station in LEO, then send crew to it with falcon-9 and test the station for couple months in LEO. The station would be second stage of falcon heavy with crew section with total length of about 20 meter, so 10 meter radius to spin and it first do lunar level gravity, work up to Mars artificial gravity. Once tested, refuel the heavy falcon second stage, and put it in lunar orbit. Then use heavy falcon rocket to put crew in lunar orbit. and mate it’s second stage with dragon crew to the artifical station giving a 20 meter radius spin, and test it in lunar orbit. And unconnect it, send more falcon heavies to refuel both second stages, and send crew and station to mars, re-mate them, and go to Mars with Mars artificial gravity station and dragon crew vehicle.
From lunar orbit to Mars, I would not need much delta-v. And with all this testing, the tests might not give “results” which would make seem reasonable to go to Mars. But assuming things work out, when go to Mars, do they stay in Mars orbit, do they go a Mars moon, or try to land crew on the surface with a dragon crew capsule.
I will see if anyone thinks dragon crew could land on Mars.
“SpaceX announced in 2017 that propulsive landing for Dragon 2 would no longer be developed and landing legs would not be added to the Dragon 2 capsule. The end of propulsive landing development means a Dragon will not be able to land on Mars, and the Red Dragon program has been put on the back burner.”
So I need a Red Dragon to land on Mars surface- which is not made yet.
Anyhow, I would test artificial gravity before going to Mars.
Could Starship Fly Without This? And SpaceX’s Incredible Recovery!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVcEnJbHjp4
Starship AND Space Gun.
What you use a Space Gun for is putting rocket fuel in orbit.
Or SpaceX and/or Blue Origin make gas stations, and the gun is a competitor in terms rocket fuel delivery to orbit. It could a lot cheaper than even what Musk promises in terms of dollars per kg to LEO
Hurricane Isaac is going to Iceland:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
Tropical storm Joyce is going in same direction but not going far. And got 80% of cyclone formation which about 3/4 of way to Africa.
Nothing happening on my side or the central Pacific.
Not much of hurricane season so far, but some think it could pick up in Oct.
“Not much of hurricane season so far, but some think it could pick up in Oct”
So next month? OK.
bob d…”At one thermometer per 100,000 sq kilometers, that would be 5100 thermometers going into the average”.
***
Bob, you are using the entire global surface area, try 1500 thermometers. Land surface area is about 150,000,000,km^2. Divide by 1,500 and you get 100,000 km^2.
Gordon
You haven’t answered my question. How many station should we use for global averages?
1500 stations sampling twice a day give an annual sample size of n = 1,095,000.
That is a large enough sample to give 95% confidence limits well below the +/-0.6C imposed by internal variation in the data.
1500 stations is already sufficient. You won’t get better data by using more.
I repeat my comment…
Bindidon said on September 29, 2024 at 4:50 PM
Just for fun, to show how ignorant of everything Robertson actually is.
Years ago, I divided UAH6.0 LTs 2.5 degree grid into 256 parts, generated a time series out of only the 256 grid cells located in the middle of the parts, and compared the series to the full UAH Global series shown in Roy Spencers monthly report.
This the February 2024 re-edition:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UlobgSX7gJuW4900BupXPfdYrgHU8Wqn/view
Linear trends, in C / decade for Jan 1979 Jan 2024
full grid: 0.1454 +- 0.006
256 cells: 0.1436 +- 0.007
As anyone can see, the difference between the two (of course latitude weighted) averages isnt very big, is it?
*
Thus the UAH 6.0 LT time series made out of no more than 256 of 9504 cells means one satellite O2 microwave sensing per… 12.93 million km^2.
Gordon,
But you said land and ocean
“With one thermometer per 100,000 km^2, over both land and oceans, I would strongly suspect the 288K figure.”
And you didn’t answer the question.
What if you took all the stations available, and randomly removed one station at a time until the average temperature start fluctuating, what number of stations would you have?
The point being is that you don’t need 5100 stations or even 1500, more like less than 100.
This work has been done-
ball4…”Ive quoted Clausius translated memoirs verbatim to make a point where Gordons words for Clausius What hes saying are physically inept.
To be physically correct & without befuddlement, Gordons comments just need to abide by Clausius defn. of heat on that p. 45 quoted where heat is only a measure of something physical.
Gordon then writes: the heat has transformed itself into work
***
No, you did not quote Clausius you posted a doctored comment to offer your idea of what heat is. He does not say that heat is a measurement of something physical, that is your cherry-picked obfuscation of what he said.
Clausius contributed U = internal energy to the 1lot. That is, the 1st law is about energy as heat and work. He defined internal energy as internal heat (energy) + internal work (energy) but he was talked out of listing both and using the generic energy word by a lesser scientist.
There is absolutely no doubt that heat is energy and how some modern dweebs got to redefine heat as a measure is typical of modern science where egos and stoopidity prevail over intelligence. Student graduating from modern universities obviously lack the ability to think for themselves.
Gordon incorrectly writes: “(Clausius) does not say that heat is a measurement of something physical”
Clausius: “… heat is the measure of their vis viva.”
So easy to prove Gordon wrong since Clausius’ vis viva (KE of an internal particle) is something physical & can be measured and/or calculated.
In his befuddlement, Gordon then goes on to write “Clausius contributed U = internal energy” using Gordon’s words since nowhere in Clausius’ memoirs is Gordon’s string “internal energy” found.
Clausius: “it will not suffice to have an appropriate name for U”.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Donald […] on Sunday admitted that he refused to pay his workers overtime, leading to a massive pushback.
[Donald], who made a similar comment recently about how he “hated” paying overtime to his employees, went even further over the weekend at a rally in Pennsylvania. At that same rally, the former president put forth a policy idea that many critics compared to legalizing “The Purge.”
At another point during the swing-state event, [Donald] said, “I hated to give overtime. I hated it. I shouldn’t say this, but I’d get other people in. I wouldn’t pay.”
Republicans against [Donald] said it was “a rare moment of honesty” for [Donald].
“[Donald] admitted he stiffed his workers,” the group added.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-stiffed-workers-overtime/
The left accuses him of being a poor business man and how he has filed bankruptcy many times but then accuses him of not wanting to pay overtime to his workers. OK, so which is it? He needs to keep his costs down while running a business so he can make a profit. I’ve been to several Trump properties. They’ve been very well run and the employees seemed happy and glad to work for the Trumps. Almost all had worked for him for over 20 years. Not sure the narrative.
Trump made a great point during the debate about their administration, about leftists. No one gets fired. If they do a poor job they usually get promoted.
> a poor businessman
That depends on how you define *businessman*:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-archives-missing-trump-administration-records/story?id=90834006
Are fraudsters and charlatans good businessmen?
That’s the reason so many attendees leave Trump rallies after about the first 15 minutes. They are paid to attend, required to stay at least 10 minutes, and take a photo of the start to prove they attended. Soon as the Venmo transaction hits their account, paid attendees get up and leave, while he is drooling on himself at the podium.
Interesting comment…
“The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy.”
– Bertrand Russell, 1952
A link posted for me by Clint, many years ago, when he was a skeptic.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150309014329/http://spinonthat.com/CO2.html
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
“Now, if you had one really violent day,” [Donald] said. “Like a guy like Mike Kelly, put him in charge,” he continued, gesturing to Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Mike Kelly. Congressman Kelly, put him in charge for one day. Mike, he’s a great Congressman. Would you say, Mike, that if you were in charge, you would say, ‘Oh, please don’t touch them. Dont touch them. Let them rob your store’?” [Donald] said. Let all these stores go out of business, right?’ They don’t pay rent that the city doesn’t. The whole – it’s a chain of events. It’s so bad. One rough hour, and I mean real rough, and the word will get out and it will end immediately. End immediately.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-wants-police-really-violent-for-a-day-migrants-1235116074/
All it takes is one night and long knives.
Maybe we don’t want to lose our country like you’ve lost yours. That’s OK with the left. You don’t care if it all burns down into a pile of ashes as long as you’re standing on top declaring yourselves Kings of the Pile.
Maybe xenophobia serves as a catalyst for fascism:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-proudboys/
Maybe it is not mere aesthetic posturing anymore.
Proud Boys didn’t burn down Minneapolis.
Proud Boys didn’t occupy Seattle and displace local government.
Proud Boys didn’t storm Congress. I don’t know what to call the actions on 6 Jan 2021 but an insurrection or storming Congress isn’t an accurate description.
You’re wrong. Again.
Punching hippies and whataboutism are troglodytes’ second nature:
https://angrywhitemen.org/2024/09/26/penn-law-professor-will-speak-at-white-nationalist-conference/
I don’t know if you’ve watched a British produced Netflix series called Pinky Blinders but the writers of that show understand Fascism and the roots of Fascism. Maybe you should watch it if you haven’t. Fascism sprang out of socialism and Marxism. Its roots are deeply entrenched in the left. The Marxists got nowhere in Western Europe, Great Britain, or the US so up sprang Fascism. I didn’t realize there was such a strong Fascist movement in Great Britain in the 1930’a that was tied closely to the Nazis. But the writers of Pinky Blinders did. The Fascist Party in Great Britain in the 1930’s is strikingly familiar to a political party in America today. It ain’t MAGA.
I prefer:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/proud-boys-leader-sentenced-22-years-prison-seditious-conspiracy-and-other-charges-related
Will can feel safe now that the Proud Boys are locked up.
Very few are.
“Proud Boys didnt storm Congress. I dont know what to call the actions on 6 Jan 2021 but an insurrection or storming Congress isnt an accurate description.”
We have all seem the video.
So in your view, Ken, beating police guarding the capital with all kinds of hard objects, pushing them back, and then bashing in the doors and windows of the capital to gain entry, causing Congressmen and Senators to run for their lives, then continuing to beat the police, pushing them back to gain entry into the Senate and House chambers, is not ‘storming Congress’??
If that were your house they were bashing in to get inside, no one would fault you for shooting them.
In fact one person was shot, yet that was faulted by many on your side.
Mars is a unique case, which can help to clear everything up
Because, by a pure natural coincidence, the planet Mars’ satellite measured mean surface temperature
Tsat.mars = 210K is the same as the planet Mars’ the theoretical calculated effective temperature (not corrected)
Te.mars = 210K
******************
Ok
By moving planet Mars from its orbit at 1,52 AU distance from the sun, by moving Mars to Moon’s and Earth’s orbit distance from the sun at 1 AU,
by moving Mars, to Earth’s-Moon’s orbit, by doing so, the above condition for Mars
Te.mars = Tsat.mars
is always right
**************
Now
Te.earth = 254K
If Moon had Earth’s Albedo, Te.moon would be
Te.moon =254K
If Mars had Earth’s Albedo and Moon’s (and Earth’s 1AU) distance from the sun, the Mars’ “would be” average surface temperature
Te.mars1AU = Tsat.mars1AU =254K.
Mars’ cp = o,18 cal /gr*oC
Earth’s cp = 1 cal /gr*oC
N.earth = 1 rot /day
N.mars = 0,9028 rot /day
******************
Mars and Earth are both smooth surface planets (Φ =0,47)
and…the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
Ok
Let’s apply the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, to calculate (via Mars) the Earth’s without-atmosphere the average surface (Tmean) temperature
Tmean.earth.
Tmean.earth /Tmean.mars1AU =
= [ (N.earth*cp.earth) /(N.mars*cp.mars) ]^1/16
Tmean.earth /254K = [ (1*1) /(0,9028*0,18) ]1/16 =
= (1 /0,1625)1/16 =
= (6,15369)1/16 = 1,120266
Tmean.earth = 254K * 1,120266 = 284,57K
or
Tmean.earth = ~ 284,57K
**************************
planet Earth’s measured Tsat.earth =288K
the two numbers differ only by 1,2%.
Thus we have derived Earth’s average surface temperature (by comparison) from an airless planet Mars.
**********
So, there is not any +33C
Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect on Earths surface.
The +33C figure comes from a very much mistaken mathematical abstraction.
The currently observable global warming is a natural process caused by the Earths position while orbiting sun, it is the so called the ORBITAL FORCING.
There is nothing we can do to reverse the ORBITAL FORCING.
It is a natural process.
We shoud adapt
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Global measured spatial and temporal thermometer temperature median 288K, global measured planetary brightness temperature 255K. Not abstract, all data measured over time with reasonably enough precision instruments & calibration.
Christos just needs to do the arithmetic better.
Sorry Ball4, but the 255K is NOT measured. It is a calculated value from an imaginary sphere.
You’ve taken the bait, again….
255K is theoretical using Stephan Boltzmann.
Guys, there are precision, calibrated instruments on several satellites that measure the real Earth’s global spatial and temporal planetary 255K at their orbit. Measured & reported ~255K in the published literature as early as around 1972, you are way… WAY behind in your studies. Get with the program.
Sorry Ball4, but beliefs ain’t science. We know you believe all that, but it’s NOT factual.
Now, link to some site concerning satellites that you BELIEVE supports your nonsense. But, the reality is there are NO satellite measurements that support Earth’s surface has a 255K temperature.
Funny but satellites don’t orbit Clint’s “Earth’s surface” at the L&O surface. Thermometers are used for that ~288K median measurement. And planetary 255K measurements are not beliefs.
Planetary measured & reported ~255K in the published literature as early as around 1972 from satellites; humorously Clint remains by choice way… WAY behind in his studies.
Ball4, you’re talking in circles again.
That’s because you’ve got NOTHING, as usual.
This is the OLR measured by the ISIS satellite over the Sahara in 1971. It shows radiance at different wavelengths and the temperature at which each part of the spectrum was emitted.You
https://paos.colorado.edu/~fasullo/1060/jpg/spect.lw.jpg
Using the lapse rate of 9C/km you can infer the altitude at which each part was emitted.
Surface emission roughly follows the 320K contour The black line shows the actual emission to space once the GUYs have absor*bed their cut.
On the left of the graph above 17 micrometres is the area affected by rotational absor*btion by H2O. The emission temperature is about 270K and the altitude is 320-270/9 = 5.6km.
Between 13 and 17 micrometres majority of absor*btion is by CO2. The emission temperature is 220K and the altitude is 320-220/9 = 11.1km.
Between 8 and 13 micrometres the atmosphere is transparent to IR except for the O3 notch and surface radiation reaches space with no absor*btion, emitted at the surface temperature of 310 to 320K and at zero altitude.
Below 8 micrometres the absor*btion is by CH4 and vibration modes of H2O. The temperature range is 270-220C and the altitudes 5.6 to 11.km.
Some of the above was directly measured, some inferred, but it is all measurable using the correct instruments and it all matches between Turkey and observation. If you sceptics want to be taken seriously you need an alternative theory which successfully predicts the observed numbers.
Ent, you don’t appear to even understand the issue. The issue is Earth does NOT have a 255 K surface temperature.
But, that’s a good rambling dissertation nevertheless….
Well, Clint R can get something right; that’s correct Earth L&O surface measured kinetic temperature is ~288K not 33K lower at the satellite measured planetary temperature of ~255K. Can’t laugh for once at that comment from Clint.
Ken
Ball4 is correct on his “Brightness” temperature of the Earth. It is measured by satellites. The Outgoing longwave global average IR is around 240 W/m^2. Brightness temperature is defined as the temperature of a blackbody that would be emitting at 240 W/m^2.
This comes to around 255 K.
Here is some facts for you to consider. It is not just theoretical.
The surface emits and average of 390 some W/m^2 but only about 240 W/m^2 leave the Earth. The GHG act as radiant barrier keeping the surfaced warmer under solar power than without such a barrier.
Skepticism of the GHE is for the cult minded Postma followers and crackpots. Not good skepticism at all and facts show how bad it is.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1539
“Skepticism of the GHE is for the cult minded Postma followers and crackpots. Not good skepticism at all and facts show how bad it is.’
This is the crux of the matter.
Current GHE is 340 Wm-2 and raises surface temperature from theoretical 255 to actual 288K.
Doubling CO2 from 420 to 840 ppm will reduce direct thermal radiation to space (aka GHE) by 3 Wm-2. CO2 spectrum is heavily saturated.
The argument that 3Wm-2 added to the current 340Wm-2 is going to cause a climate crisis is specious and ridiculous.
Atm. (GHE) raises Earth’s global median surface temperature from theoretical and instrumentally measured ~255K to actual thermometer measured median ~288K depending on climate length time period observed and/or calculated.
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
“Thermometers are used for that ~288K median measurement.”
–
Please, Ball4, would you like to provide reference/references for “Thermometers are used for that ~288K median measurement.” ???
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
To better acquaint yourself with our atm. kinetic temperature measurements obtained from the “vast amounts of atmospheric data available today” and their agreed median from below sea level to the upper atm. regions, start with reading and skimming through the publication: U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976.
After that, head to your local college library and ask the librarian.
Ball4 evades the issue, again.
Hansen at al(1999)
You can download the pdf here.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha03200f.html
EM, that’s a paper about temperature change. It discusses thermometer “global mean temperature” (GMT) but as far as I could find doesn’t put a number on GMT. Do you have one that does?
Of course I anticipate that deniers like Vournas and Clint R won’t accept the global average temperature computed by Berkeley Earth, let alone would the 360 degree denier Robertson.
I don’t care about what deniers think.
They are unable to technically contradict but instead distort, misrepresent data, and polemically discredit, denigrate people who compute that data.
*
This is Berkeley Earth’s most recent report:
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2023/
and this is their most recent evaluation including the year 2023:
https://berkeley-earth-temperature.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
*
Therein, you find the global average of all singular baselines wrt the monthly means of the reference period 1951-1980:
Estimated Jan 1951-Dec 1980 monthly absolute temperature:
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
12.23 12.44 13.06 13.98 14.95 15.67 15.95 15.78 15.19 14.26 13.23 12.49
(I spare us the tedious CIs which don’t change anything here.)
The average of all 12 months is: 14.10 C. That was the global mean temperature for the period 1951-1980 (287.25 K).
*
Now we add, to each month of the global monthly average, the respective anomaly wrt 1951-1980 in the year 2023 (rounded to two digits):
Mon: absol 51-80 + anom 2023 = absol 2023
Jan: 12.23 + 0.82 = 13.05 (C)
Feb: 12.44 + 0.92 = 13.36
Mar: 13.06 + 1.13 = 14.19
Apr: 13.98 + 0.95 = 14.93
May: 14.95 + 0.85 = 15.80
Jun: 15.67 + 0.98 = 16.65
Jul: 15.95 + 1.14 = 17.09
Aug: 15.78 + 1.21 = 16.99
Sep: 15.19 + 1.33 = 16.52
Oct: 14.26 + 1.26 = 15.52
Nov: 13.23 + 1.27 = 14.50
Dec: 12.49 + 1.23 = 13.72
The mean of the absolute values for the 12 months in 2023 is then 15.19 C.
In Kelvin: 15.19 + 273.15 = 288.34 K.
As said: whether or not simple-minded deniers can’t get such a thing doesn’t interest me at all.
Bindi, that’s about as big a false accusation as gordon and Norman make about me.
Where have I ever denied Earth’s surface temperature is about 288K?
Let’s have a sincere retraction, unless you’re too corrupt to be honest.
I’m not interested in whether or not you accept this 288 K, Clint R.
Fact is that you deny the results of science like the astronomy of the last 3 centuries and discredit and denigrate astronomers as astrologers: that is enough.
Well Bindi, for someone “not interested”, you just make a totally inaccurate false accusation.
You are angry because your ancient astrologers misled you. So you try to take your frustrations out on me. It’s not my fault you have no knowledge of science and fall for such nonsense.
I’ve tried to bring some reality to you, but reality only makes you angrier.
binny…”…deniers like Vournas and Clint R wont accept the global average temperature computed by Berkeley Earth, let alone would the 360 degree denier Robertson”.
***
Just to remind you, Judith Curry distanced herself from the Berkley study, after participating in the original, because she felt the leader was fudging data. In other words, he was not presenting the original data, but data fudged to suit his alarmist agenda.
Ball4
As the paper describes, anomalies are changes in temperature relative to a baseline. Thus a global annual average temperature anomaly of 1.0C is 1.0C above the chosen baseline.
To calculate a baseline you take the mean of all the true temperatures from your stations over your chosen period and calculate their mean. In this case the chosen period is 1951_1980 and the true valu for the global annual mean was 14.0C or 287K.
Current years show anomalies around 1.0C above the GISS baseline of 14.0C, hence current temperatures are around 15.0C or 288K.
You had to report the arithmetic, not the paper authors. The U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976 authors do the arithmetic work for Christos & show their methods. Giving him results of their work all along the standard atm. T(z) profile including median T(0) in their time period.
Ball4
As the paper describes, anomalies are changes in temperature relative to a baseline. Thus a global annual average temperature anomaly of 1.0C is 1.0C above the chosen baseline.
To calculate a baseline you take the mean of all the true temperatures from your stations over your chosen period and calculate their mean. In this case the chosen period is 1951_1980 and the true valu for the global annual mean was 14.0C or 287K.
Current years show anomalies around 1.0C above the GISS baseline of 14.0C, hence current temperatures are around 15.0C or 288K.
Gordon Robertson
Berkeley Earth was set up with finance from the Koch brothers to generate a new remperature dataset from scratch and prove the existing datasets wrong.
It then produced results comparable to all the others.
The different reactions to this were interesting.
The leader of the project chose evidence over belief and moved from sceptic to consensus.
Judith Curry chose belief over evidence and chose to reject the study when it didn’t say what she wanted to hear.
As usual, Robertson behaves once more exactly like what he is – a disgusting liar:
” Just to remind you, Judith Curry distanced herself from the Berkley study, after participating in the original, because she felt the leader was fudging data. ”
*
Emeritus Curry never felt that anyone at Berkeley Earth ever fudged any climate data.
This is what the all-time gullible liar Robertson cherry-picked from the contrarian blogs that persistently discredit and denigrate all providers of climate data from NOAA to NASA/GISS, Met Office, BoM to BEST and even JMA by deliberately misrepresenting not only their results but even the criticisms of them by honest but naive skeptics like Judith Curry.
*
How much Judith Curry ‘distanced herself’ from Berkeley’s result you see in her excellent critique:
Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released
Posted on October 20, 2011 by curryja | 960 Comments
by Judith Curry
https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/20/berkeley-surface-temperatures-released/
*
Furthermore, if she had developed such alleged distant skepticism against Berkeley Earth, she never would have published such a detailed description of Berkeley’s work by Rohde, Hausfather and Mosher on her blog:
Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data
Posted on February 9, 2015 by curryja | 1,178 Comments
by Robert Rohde, Zeke Hausfather, Steve Mosher
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/
*
But not only do these uninformed and misinforming contrarian blogs offer a source for Robertson’s urging to misrepresent.
You just need to look at the incredible mix of incompetence and aggressiveness of 95% of the posts following the two head posts above: senior TV weather reporter Watts wouldn’t host anything different.
Heil freedom of speech, n’est-ce pas?
Ball 4
Hansen at al 1999 describes how to do the baseline temperature calculation. I doubt anyone has actually published the full calculation they did in house, but both the code and the raw data are available online. Christos could run the baseline calculation himself.
Gordon Robertson
This might affect you directly.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/30/24258333/hurricane-helene-quartz-chip-mining-north-carolina-spruce-pine
The quartz from these mines is currently the only quartz pure enough to make Czochralski crucibles, used to make silicon wafers for chips.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/czochralski-process#:~:text=The%20Czochralski%20(CZ)%20method%20is%20a
ent…thanks for link.
Not worried, I thought they were going to claim the quartz was used in semiconductors but it turns out the quartz is used to make crucible in which silicon is melted.
I am sure they will adapt, and if they don’t, the Chinese will take over.
“And how in the world do you base it on a single pass? What happened to your nudging theory? Does it just disappear for the purpose of convenience?”
You are pushing the single planetary alignment theory, not me.
Because I am well aware that the perturbations that have been described from Newton onward are of the ‘many small nudges over many orbits’ type. And as I have explained to you many times, that produces very slow long cycles of the Earth’s orbital parameters that actually appear in the data for Earth’s orbit.
There is no evidence from anywhere for very short time-scale perturbations as you have claimed.
Your strong desire to find something that has been neglected by science to account for GW is not sufficient.
That is not a substitute for real math and science.
My skepticism is not over the GHE like the unscientific posting on this blog. It is more about using weather disasters to promote a narrative.
Here:
https://news.vt.edu/articles/2024/09/hurricane-helene-climate-infrastructure-disaster-expert.html
Helene was a bad disaster for people living in the Southeast USA.
The claim that this one was enhanced by Climate Change does not seem to fit in with a longer term analysis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_wettest_tropical_cyclones_in_the_United_States
This shows some very heavy rainfall in times that were much cooler and yet massive amounts of rain fell with them.
One could state an opinion on the matter suggesting warmer air can potentially hold more water leading to more rainfall or warmer ocean temperature could intensify a hurricane but that is not supported by long term data. If one had 10,000 years of data would this slight increase in global temperatures show any overall pattern of increasing rainfall from hurricanes?
> does not seem to fit in with a longer term analysis.
Citing a Wiki entry does not replace that longer term analysis.
Here’s what an analysis should look like:
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/you-will-not-escape-the-climate-crisis
There are two links, one under “makes them more destructive” and one under “here.”
Willard
I am reading Andrew Dessler post. I do not think it is very good thinking on his part. I think he is more fanatic than scientist.
Here:
“For example, in 2011, Hurricane Irene hit the New York region with a storm surge of around 1.5 meters; existing flood infrastructure was able to handle that and there was little damage. Just a year later, Hurricane Sandy hit the New York region with 2.75 meters of storm surge, overwhelming flood infrastructure and leading to damages of $62B.
This is classic non-linearity, where you get zero damage until a threshold is passed (somewhere between 1.5 and 2.75 m) and then damages increase exponentially.”
I have strong doubts that damage would increase exponentially. More than likely it would reach some peak and then taper off as once something is damaged it is damaged and higher surge will not mean exponentially more damage. I would like less hype and more science but I do not expect that from a fanatic, he reminds me of Hansen. Says things to generate attention to himself. Trying to be a somebody by having the loudest shout.
On the rain. The speed of a hurricane can have a huge impact on rain amounts in any given region.
I do know the concept that warmer air holds more water vapor but actual amounts of rainfall have other variables. That is what the article I linked to shows. Hurricanes of the past (long before the era where every bad weather event, every flood, fire, windstorm, blizzard, tornado, etc is now because of man-made climate change).
Willard
This article is the science I find more gratifying.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/hurricanes-frequency-danger-climate-change-atlantic
True science, not so sure of anything but continue to observe.
Researchers have found methods of finding evidence of past hurricanes. The researcher noted that hurricane activity varies from decade to decade and there does not seem to be more hurricanes today than in the cooler past.
Willard
If Andrew Dessler were a good scientist (not a fanatic who seeks fame and fortune that comes with it) he would include this information of his assessment of disasters from Tropical Cyclones.
https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/economics-and-demographics.html#:~:text=From%201970%20to%202020%2C%20the,people%2C%20or%20approximately%2046%20percent.
Coastal counties have greatly increased in population. Many more houses in the path of destruction from tropical cyclones meaning much more costly damage.
Good science looks at as many variables and information as possible to form the best conclusions. Dessler seems to leave out that many more people are moving to coasts when he talks about financial destruction from tropical cyclones. His type of science is one I do not like. Seeking the Truth is the hallmark of good science even if it is not what you want it to be.
Norman,
You still point at data as if it replaced analysis. It does not counter the facts which are virtually certain:
Sea level is rising because humans are heating the planet. Climate change will increase Tropical Cyclone’s rainfall. Hurricanes get more intense as climate warms.
The exact number of cyclones is secondary. The exact amount of damage they will cause is best left to our insurers. Not honest jokers.
It’s clear that hurricanes and other tropical cyclones are getting more destructive, and your 2021 newsie, just like your epilogues on how scientists ought to behave, are duly noted.
“Hurricanes get more intense as climate warms”
Yet this year is set to see less hurricanes overall.
Yet number is not intensity overall.
Alarmists have nothing else but innuendo related to natural weather.
Here in my area of Canada, a couple of years ago, we had a highly unusual heat dome parked over us that encompassed half the province and the entire state of Washington state in the US and half of the state of Oregon, south of Washington. In Oregon, Portland, about 50 miles inland, had temperatures in the 40C range while on the coast it was a moderate 20C.
The climate alarmists and their propaganda wing had a field day turning that into evidence of catastrophic climate change. However, NOAA, alarmists themselves, identified the phenomenon accurately as being caused by La Nina.
A few months later we had major flooding in my area of Canada and once again, the climate alarmists had a field day. Once again, NOAA identified it as a La Nina event. One area in particular, about 50 miles east of Vancouver along the US border was flooded badly, wiping out homes and farms. When the truth emerged, the flooding was blamed properly on government neglect. They had failed to upgrade dikes along a border river common to the US and canada, and dikes had broken, allowing water to flood the area in Canada.
As long as I can remember, dating back to my childhood, we’ve had major flooding in parts of our area every few years. Ironically, we’ve had on-going droughts in other parts of the province. Severe weather, from floods, to rainstorms, to hurricane level winds, etc., has been a way of life for us, We coped fine but these days the weather events have become a harbinger of climate catastrophe.
Despite the degree of flooding in our area, it pails in comparison to weather-induced flooding in other parts of Canada and the US. While visiting Regina, Canada, on the Canadian prairies, a thunderstorm dumped so much water on the city in an hour that the fields west of Regina surrounding the airport were turned into a lake. I am not exaggerating, as far as the eye could see, the entire area was under water.
I used to eat breakfast in the south end of Regina and while talking to a waitress I told her I had just driven by Lake Pasqua (Pasqua being the name a N-S perimeter road, then at the extreme west of the city). She told me there is no lake along Pasqua Avenue, to which I replied, ‘there is now’.
One of the only hills (all man-made) in Regina is the hill created by tunneling under the railroad. It probably dips 10 to 15 feet below the tracks, It was filled with water from a flood caused by no more than an hour’s rainfall from a thunderstorm.
I say to those alarmists, get real, and get a grip on yourselves. Your hysteria is unwarranted and you are only serving to create panic without reason.
https://climate.ncsu.edu/blog/2024/09/rapid-reaction-historic-flooding-follows-helene-in-western-nc/
norman…”Ball4 is correct on his Brightness temperature of the Earth. It is measured by satellites. The Outgoing longwave global average IR is around 240 W/m^2. Brightness temperature is defined as the temperature of a blackbody that would be emitting at 240 W/m^2″.
***
You claim the measure is an ‘average IR’ and is ‘around 240 w/m^2’. Then you point out that the brightness temperature of a blackbody is measured by satellites.
How do instruments on satellites measure a blackbody temperature, when there is no such thing as a blackbody? And how do instruments measure a power related to heat and work from EM?
Nothing is measured, it is estimated based on an old theory that no longer applies. ‘Brightness’ temperature is a misnomer, the instruments don’t measure brightness they measure frequency. ‘Colour’ temperature is a better name because at least colour has a frequency.
We need to move on from old technology. I delineate old from new with the Bohr’s discovery in 1913 of the relationship between EM/IR and electrons in atoms. Prior to 1913, the beliefs related to radiation were all wrong and that includes blackbody theory, statistical mechanics, and so on.
Planck’s basic quantum theory was good but still highly hypothetical. He knew nothing about electrons when he created the theory, and although it was a good guess, it was incomplete by a long shot. Even Einstein’s photoelectric theory was good although he mislead people by hypothesizing that quanta (later photons) had a physical effect that forced electrons off a surface. That led to the notion that massless photons have momentum and it is wrong.
There was good science done before 1913 but not much at the atomic level. Rutherford had made great strides with the atomic nucleus between 1898, when the electron was discovered, and 1913 when Bohr discovered his relationship, but he could not put it all together. Newton’s work was great and is still unchallenged even though a few misinformed people think it has been replaced by Einstein’s relativity theory, even though both fields have little in common. There was a lot of great science before 1913 but not at the atomic level.
So, why are we still pushing blackbody theory which was hypothesized circa 1850, and turned out as a misrepresentation of atomic actuality? Kircheoff knew nothing about atomic structure. The 2nd law still stands because it was an accurate statement of any energy transfer.
BB theory is based on an incorrect assumption that blackbodies emit as well as they radiate. That implies the Sun, at 1 million core temperature and 5000K surface temperature absorbs all the frequencies it emits which is absurd. The original BB theory by Kircheoff referred only to bodies in thermal equilibrium but modernists have extended that to all blackbodies under all conditions without a shred of proof.
That’s why you read in modern mechanical engineering textbooks that heat can be transferred two way between bodies of different temperatures. That contradicts the 2nd law and Bohr’s theory but the theorists don’t care that they are polluting the minds of students. Nor do electrical engineering texts that infer electrons flow positive to negative based on a silly thought experiment from the 1920s.
I am not claiming that radiation cannot be captured by instruments and converted to another form of energy to measure its relative strength, I am claiming only that we must take care to understand what it is we are implying. However, claiming that one instrument can accurately capture and measure the surface IR radiation is a claim that has not been carefully thought out.
An average IR measurement tells us nothing, it is simply an average of all IR frequencies entering an instrument’s bandwidth to produce a voltage, telling us nothing about the EM energy. Also, the w/m^2 claim is not a measure of IR but a measure of the electrical energy to which it is converted. The IR is subject to the 2nd law and can only be transferred one way, from hot to cold.
Gordon, although blackbodies do not exist, blackbody radiation does exist so the satellite precision instruments can be calibrated to measure the planetary global 255K. This was known more than 50 years ago.
Gordon’s thesis falls apart again.
b4…I am concerned about you, your replies are becoming more and more incoherent. Blackbodies don’t exist but blackbody radiation does exist???
The other day you claimed there was such a thing as Clausius heat.
Please tell me it isn’t so.
Of course it isn’t so. Gordon, you even quoted Clausius’ heat correctly at 5:58am: “heat is a measure of the vis viva (aka KE) of this motion (referring to atomic motion)”. Stick to Clausius’ defn. of heat in your comments, especially those on 2LOT.
Gordon is astonished to learn blackbody radiation exists to calibrate instruments even though there are no blackbodies! Evidently Gordon just remains behind in his studies relevant to this blog.
stephen…”Fascism sprang out of socialism and Marxism”.
***
That is ironic because Marx detested socialism, so much so, that he refused his co-authors (Engels) desire to name their philosophy socialism.
Socialism in the days of Marx was the practice by which wealthy Germans offered hand-outs to the poor. He hated that practice because it completely ignored the actuality, that people were kept in poverty by the wealthy. He thought the system needed to change, and it has, largely due to socialists and their fight through unions.
Unionists are portrayed today as fat cats who are greedy. That is largely due to union corruption and the desire of staunch capitalists to join unions only for the money, also due to right wing propaganda. There were also slackers who joined unions for easy money and the protection unions offered. I have never worked with such a slacker since every unionist I encountered had a good work ethic.
Unions began because company owners were means and dishonest. The early unionists said, ‘to heck with you’, pay us fair wages and give us decent working conditions or we will strike. In other words, they demanded fair treatment. The question is, why did they have to put their lives on the line to e treated fairly?
It was not easy to strike in those days. Employers immediately tried to replace the strikers with scabs, anyone who crosses a picket line to do the work of the strikers. The employers hired thugs to beat the strikers and in some cases to kill them. That is a true indication of the resentment between them.
In the days of Marx, children were forced to work, even in coal mines where their smaller bodies could access areas an adult could not reach. These children were often beaten at the whims of adult supervisors.
I have no interest in Marx or his work but I wonder if his critics even begin to understand the conditions in those days. Do you agree with sending children down coal mines or putting people in jail for owing money? Do you agree with conditions that keep workers at a poverty level while endangering their lives due to non-existent safety conditions?
There are a very few unionists who are communist sympathizers but I dare say that none of them could tell you what Marx was about. Most I encountered were simple lovers of democracy who wished to carry on the work of pioneers and keep the capitalists honest. None of them had anything against corporations or businessmen making a fair profit. However, they drew the line at anyone making excessive profits at the expense of the working class.
In the US, you have a major problem right now with illegal migrants being brought in by company owners who will not a pay a fair wage to US workers. In one small area there are 10,000 Haitian immigrants, making it impossible for US workers to find work. Do you think that is fair?
My description of unionists may sound like a dark dogma but it was far from that. I am talking about genuinely normal people who went home after work and did what many of the rest of us did. I learned a lot about US unionists at conferences and I am glad to say I thoroughly enjoyed them as good human beings. No one will ever convince me that the US is a bad place.
Don’t know how anyone can argue with unionist reasoning and resolve.
bob d …”What if you took all the stations available, and randomly removed one station at a time until the average temperature start fluctuating, what number of stations would you have?”
***
Bob…I have presented in detail the temperature variation in a 100,000 km^2 area around Vancouver, where temps vary widely between the coast and those areas which are largely a desert climate. I am talking a 20C difference summer and winter.
If I stick one thermometer in Vancouver, at sea level, representing the 100,000 km^2 area, it does not even begin to give me a ball park average never mind a scientifically accurate measurement.
BTW…the average is fluctuating widely as it is without removing any thermometers. And don’t forget, each temperature anomaly is related to local temperature variations and not to other areas.
For example, in the Arctic, there are locales that change month to month wrt temperature. Some of those locales give anomalies that are +5C above the average for their locale. meantime in the Antarctic, anomalies are showing temps -4C below average for those areas.
A global average tells us nothing about our planet.
The global median temperature tells us about the climate on our planet but cannot possibly capture the consequences of climate scale global temperature changes on human health, wealth, and happiness.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
[Melania] has barely been seen on the campaign trail this year. One of the few times she has appeared at a political event, she’s received a six-figure paycheck – a highly unusual move for the spouse of a candidate.
The former first lady spoke at two political fundraisers for the Log Cabin Republicans this year, and she was paid $237,500 for an April event, according to [Donald]’s latest financial disclosure form. The payment was listed as a “speaking engagement.”
[Donald]’s latest disclosure form said [Melania] was paid by the Log Cabin Republicans for the April fundraiser. But it’s a mystery who actually cut the check: Charles Moran, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, told CNN earlier this month the group did not put up the money for her to speak, and the disclosure form did not give any more information about the source of the payment.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/23/politics/melania-trump-speaking-engagements/index.html
duplicate
bob d …”What if you took all the stations available, and randomly removed one station at a time until the average temperature start fluctuating, what number of stations would you have?”
***
Bob…I have presented in detail the temperature variation in a 100,000 km^2 area around Vancouver, where temps vary widely between the coast and those areas which are largely a desert climate. I am talking a 20C difference summer and winter.
If I stick one thermometer in Vancouver, at sea level, representing the 100,000 km^2 area, it does not even begin to give me a ball park average never mind a scientifically accurate measurement.
BTW…the average is fluctuating widely as it is without removing any thermometers. And don’t forget, each temperature anomaly is related to local temperature variations and not to other areas.
For example, in the Arctic, there are locales that change month to month wrt temperature. Some of those locales give anomalies that are +5C above the average for their locale. meantime in the Antarctic, anomalies are showing temps -4C below average for those areas.
A global average tells us nothing about our planet.
Gorson,
“A global average tells us nothing about our planet.”
Time to get out of the hole you dug for yourself.
A global average tells us a lot about the global climate.
Ken,
“Current GHE is 340 Wm-2 and raises surface temperature from theoretical 255 to actual 288K.”
Let’s see:
Te – is the theoretically calculated the planet or moon uniform surface temperature (the effective temperature).
Te = [(1-a) S /4σ ]^1/4 (K) (1)
where
a – is the average surface Albedo.
S – W/m^2 the solar flux at the Planet’s or moon’s average distance from the sun.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
For Earth:
Te = [(1-0,306) 1.362 /4σ ]^1/4 = 255K
+340 Wm-2
Ts = {[(1-0,306)1.362+340] /4σ }^1/4 =
= (1.285 /4σ)^1/4 = 274K
Ts = {[(1-0,306)1.362+340*4] /4σ }^1/4 =
= (1.285 /4σ)^1/4 = 317,5K
Ts = [(240+340) /σ ]^1/4 = 318K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Te is not the theoretically calculated average surface temperature, it is the theoretically calculated uniform surface temperature (the effective temperature).
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ge_magnitude_volokin_rellez_2193-1801-3-723_springerplus_2014.pdf
From your source:
Den Volokin = Ned Nikolov
Lark ReLlez = Karl Zeller
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/19/scientists-published-climate-research-under-fake-names-then-they-were-caught/
Thank you, Arkady, for your response.
“From your source:
Den Volokin = Ned Nikolov
Lark ReLlez = Karl Zeller
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/19/scientists-published-climate-research-under-fake-names-then-they-were-caught/ ”
–
Arkady, have you read the research ?
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ge_magnitude_volokin_rellez_2193-1801-3-723_springerplus_2014.pdf
Why would “scientists” disguise their real names?
Especially ones who are nothing more than forestry workers.
“Arkady, have you read the research ?”
Yes, I’ve read it, although it’s been a few years now. If I remember correctly they deduced a total atmosphere heating effect of 90K.
Their “atmospheric thermal effect” for Earth is defined ~90K above that of, or relative to, our airless moon: “the Moon receives on average 54 W m-2 more net solar radiation than Earth, but it is about 90 K cooler on average than our planet.”
“Combining Earth’s observed global surface temperature with results from the new analytic model reveals that the total thermal effect of our atmosphere is about 90 K or 2.7 to 5 times stronger than currently assumed.”
Yeah, it is evident they aren’t careful to state relative to what baseline is used throughout their own paper. Here they mean a different baseline than currently assumed – the baseline of the lunar surface Diviner brightness temperature “relative” is used for the R in their 90K RATE.
Something be wrong with your calculations.
See the Earth Energy Budget diagram here:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/what-is-earths-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows/
Ok, Ken.
NASA Earth Energy Budget.
Now, please, what would be your calculations ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos: Ts = [(240+340) /σ ]^1/4 = 318K
The SB Law relates radiant exitance and only radiant exitance to a temperature. It does NOT relate the radiant flux received by a body to a temperature. 240+340 is NOT the radiant exitance of the Earth’s surface. The radiant exitance of the Earth’s surface is about 390 W.m-2 yielding 288 K. Sans the GHE ceteris paribus the radiant exitance would be 240 W.m-2 yielding 255 K.
Thank you, bdgwx, for your response.
“The SB Law relates radiant exitance and only radiant exitance to a temperature. It does NOT relate the radiant flux received by a body to a temperature. 240+340 is NOT the radiant exitance of the Earth’s surface. The radiant exitance of the Earth’s surface is about 390 W.m-2 yielding 288 K. Sans the GHE ceteris paribus the radiant exitance would be 240 W.m-2 yielding 255 K.”
–
So, “The SB Law relates radiant exitance and only radiant exitance to a temperature. It does NOT relate the radiant flux received by a body to a temperature.”
“Sans the GHE ceteris paribus the radiant exitance would be 240 W.m-2 yielding 255 K.”
Ok, I agree, SB Law does NOT relate the radiant flux received by a body to a temperature, but there is also the 240 W.m-2, where it comes from then ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Confusion remains about these two flux values, 240 W/m² and 340 W/m².
Even though it has been explained before, it’s worth explaining again.
The 340 W/m² comes from dividing the solar constant by 4 — 1360/4 = 340. It is a bogus value as the calculation assumes flux is energy.
The 240 W/m² is the calculated flux emitted by an imaginary sphere at a temperature of 255K. It is a bogus value as it has NO relation to Earth.
So, any time you see either of the two values, beware.
Keep proving bdgwx right, Puffman.
Christos, per Wild et al. 2016…
**Surface Budget
+160 W.m-2 from incoming solar
+342 W.m-2 from downwelling IR
-82 W.m-2 from latent removal
-21 W.m-2 from sensible removal
-398 W.m-2 from radiant exitance
The net is +1 W.m-2.
**Top of Atmosphere Budget
+240 W.m-2 from incoming solar
-239 W.m-2 from radiant exitance
The net is +1 W.m-2.
Ok, I agree, SB Law does NOT relate the radiant flux received by a body to a temperature, but there is also the 240 W.m-2, where it comes from then ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
And then specifically the 240 W.m-2 comes from integrating the solar constant S = 1360 W.m-2 around a sphere with radius 6.378e6 m^2 and then dividing by Earth’s area of 510e12 m^2 and multiplying to 0.7 to compensate for Earth’s albedo.
Here is how the integration is performed resulting in 5.5e24 j in one year. And then 5.5e24 / 510e12 / (3600 * 24 * 365.24) * 0.7 = 240 W.m-2. Note that I include the S/4 shortcut as well to prove that the results are the same and that S/4 is indeed for a spherical Earth despite Joe Postma’s (and others) gross misunderstanding of basic geometry.
https://i.imgur.com/nJBemeK.png
So, SB Law doesn’t apply ?
Where the alleged +33C greenhouse effect has gone then ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos: So, SB Law doesnt apply ?
The SB law does NOT apply to fluxes that are NOT radiant exitances.
The SB law does apply to fluxes that are radiant exitances.
Therefore the SB law does NOT apply to neither the 240 W.m-2 incoming solar flux at TOA nor the 160 W.m-2 incoming solar flux at the surface.
However, the SB law does apply to the 239 W.m-2 radiant exitance at TOA and the 398 W.m-2 radiant exitance at the surface.
Don’t hear what isn’t being said. It is not being said that ingress fluxes don’t matter. They do since they (in compliance with the 1LOT) constrain what the radiant exitance must be.
Also, to be pedantic even when using the SB law on radiant exitances you have to mindful of the rectification effect. The rectification effect is the error that is introduced when using average radiant exitances as opposed to doing the full integration. It turns out the Earth has a relatively small rectification effect on the order of around 6 W.m-2 per [Trenberth et al. 2009].
bdgwx,
“Therefore the SB law does NOT apply to neither the 240 W.m-2 incoming solar flux at TOA nor the 160 W.m-2 incoming solar flux at the surface.
However, the SB law does apply to the 239 W.m-2 radiant exitance at TOA and the 398 W.m-2 radiant exitance at the surface.”
–
So, somehow, there is a 240 W.m-2 incoming solar flux at TOA.
And there is a 160 W.m-2 incoming solar flux at the surface.
–
–
Solar EM energy doesn’t “go” to the planet dark-side area. It is the planet rotating, and, while rotating, there is always half of the globe faces the sun.
Solar energy only interacts with the matter it is fallen on, solar energy doesn’t interact when the surface is out of view, solar energy doesn’t interact when the surface is on the planet’s dark -side area.
Thus, we cannot average the incident on a planet solar energy’s interaction result with the planet surface matter, we are not justified to average it over the entire planet surface, because solar EM energy interacts with surface only on the solar lit side area.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
bdgwx remains so confused because he believes in the nonsense from the cult. He relies on people like Wild, Loeb, and Trenberth, who together don’t have a clue about the relevant physics. They believe Sun only provides 160 W/m² to Earth!
Such nonsense! But, it tricks the children.
Puffman keeps proving bdgwx right.
Next he’s gonna try to pretend that the Earth can emit more than it receives.
” They believe Sun only provides 160 W/m to Earth!”
It’s around that at Earth surface. That is one reasons solar energy is viable for powering an Electrical power grid. Earth surface also get a lot of indirect sunlight [compared to direct sunlight].
Of course Germany and UK don’t get 160 Watts per square average per day, or 160 times 24 = 3840 or 3.84 Kw watts per average day. The worse place on Mars gets more than that, but not Germany or UK. So, the about 160 watts includes both direct and indirect sunlight. And Germany and UK don’t get 160 watts of indirect and/or direct sunlight per day but places closer to equator do, some places a lot more, like say Southern California [or almost anywhere in California}.
Of course they know the atmosphere absorbs sunlight also, but if include the atmosphere absorption, UK and Germany don’t get as much as 160 watts on average, either.
Wrong again gb.
Flux is NOT energy and can NOT be treated as energy. You’ve been on this blog long enough you should have learned that by now.
You can’t go to Mars if you don’t understand the basics….
Christos: So, somehow, there is a 240 W.m-2 incoming solar flux at TOA.
Correct. At least to the extent that this is the average power flux.
Christos: And there is a 160 W.m-2 incoming solar flux at the surface.
Correct. At least to the extent that this is the average power flux.
Note that 240 W.m-2 – 160 W.m-2 = 80 W.m-2 and is the amount taken by the atmosphere.
Christos: Thus, we cannot average the incident on a planet solar energys interaction result with the planet surface matter, we are not justified to average it over the entire planet surface, because solar EM energy interacts with surface only on the solar lit side area.
Sure you can. It is simple 5.5e24 / 510e12 / (3600 * 24 * 365.24) * 0.7 = 240 W.m-2.
What you cannot do is take this 240 W.m-2 and abuse its meaning by plugging it into the SB law or in some other way assuming that the power flux is the same at all points and all times. That is an example of an invalid use.
What we can with incoming or outgoing power fluxes that are not strictly radiation fluxes is multiply them by area and time to get to the total ingress/egress energy over that spatial and temporal domain. That is an example of a valid use.
Sorry bdgwx, but you’re still beating that dead horse.
Solar flux at TOA is the solar constant. Your cult can’t change that. The 160 W/m² is pure cult nonsense. You can’t average flux. It isn’t a conserved quantity. Flux doesn’t simply add/subtract.
You can’t accept physics because it debunks your cult beliefs.
Sorry.
–Clint R says:
October 1, 2024 at 6:15 PM
Wrong again gb.
Flux is NOT energy and can NOT be treated as energy. Youve been on this blog long enough you should have learned that by now.
You cant go to Mars if you dont understand the basics.–
Well, on Earth’s surface, the solar flux is the strongest, when the sun is at zenith and it’s clear sky.
In Germany or UK the sun never is at zenith, it’s never at zenith in California, either, it’s only possible in the tropics.
When sun at zenith and clear sky, it’s about 1050 watt per square meter of direct sunlight and 70 watts per square meter of indirect sunlight- at sea level elevation.
When sun is not at or near zenith the solar flux is less, and solar panel with will convert less solar flux into electrical power.
There is something called solar peak hours, it’s related to what I am talking about.
bdgwx: “What you cannot do is take this 240 W.m-2 and abuse its meaning by plugging it into the SB law or in some other way assuming that the power flux is the same at all points and all times. That is an example of an invalid use.
What we can with incoming or outgoing power fluxes that are not strictly radiation fluxes is multiply them by area and time to get to the total ingress/egress energy over that spatial and temporal domain. That is an example of a valid use.”
–
I agree.
–
The effective temperature Te of an airless celestial body is supposed to be higher than the measured average surface temperature, because Te is a uniform surface temperature.
Two identical bodies emitting the same amount of IR EM energy, the less temperature differenciated body should have the higher average surface temperature Tav.
Thus the theoretically calculated Te should be higher than the measured Tav, because planets and moons surfaces have very much differenciated their surfaces’ temperatures.
Table of data
………..HORIZONTAL…………..1 GRAPH……..2 GRAPH
Planet..Warming factor… Φ……(Tsat /Te)….(Tsat /Te.correct)
…….(β*N*cp)^1/16
Mercury…0,895……….0,47…….0,773………..0,934
Moon……0,998……….0,47…….0,815………..0,982
Earth…..1,368……….0,47…….1,134………..1,365
Mars……1,227……….0,47……. 1…………..1,207
Ceres…..1,4535………..1…….. – ………….. – ..
Io……..1,169………..1………1,156………..1,156
Europa….1,264……….0,47…….1,072………..1,294
Ganymede..1,209……….0,47…….1,028………..1,242
Calisto…1,147………..1………1,169………..1,169
Enceladus.1,341………..1………1,340………..1,340
Tethys….1,315………..1………1,292………..1,292
Titan…..1,1015……….1………1,1086……….1,1086
Triton….1,158……….? ………1,297. ?……..1,297 ?
Pluto…..1,116………..1……..1,189…………1,189
Charon….1,218………..1……..1,265…………1,265
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
the theoretically calculated Te temperatures should be higher than their respective measured Tsat,
but they are not – see table of data above.
–
Because the faster planet or moon rotates – the higher is the solar energy input – the higher the average surface temperature.
It is the solar irradiated planet surface rotational warming phenomenon.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
More than 40 trillion gallons of rain drenched the Southeast United States in the last week from Hurricane Helene and a run-of-the-mill rainstorm that sloshed in ahead of it – an unheard of amount of water that has stunned experts.
Thats enough to fill the Dallas Cowboys stadium 51,000 times, or Lake Tahoe just once. If it was concentrated just on the state of North Carolina that much water would be 3.5 feet deep (more than 1 meter). Its enough to fill more than 60 million Olympic-size swimming pools.
Thats an astronomical amount of precipitation, said Ed Clark, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations National Water Center in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. I have not seen something in my 25 years of working at the weather service that is this geographically large of an extent and the sheer volume of water that fell from the sky.’
https://apnews.com/article/rainfall-helene-carolina-tennessee-georgia-climate-change-flood-fcba634e14a0ffa1a8e1fa85d7e2b390
Up above, a very confused Ken demonstrates his ignorance of science:
“Current GHE is 340 Wm-2 and raises surface temperature from theoretical 255 to actual 288K.”
Wrong! The “340” is the solar constant divided by 4. It has no real meaning, as you can’t treat flux as energy.
“Doubling CO2 from 420 to 840 ppm will reduce direct thermal radiation to space (aka GHE) by 3 Wm-2. CO2 spectrum is heavily saturated.”
Wrong! More CO2 INCREASES emission to space. And “saturated” is just more nonsense. Is poor Ken believing more CO2 can’t be added to the atmosphere? Or is he believing more photons can’t be added to atmosphere? He doesn’t know what he believes….
Clint R
You just can’t get it right and continue to mislead yourself! CO2 in atmosphere will NOT and I repeat will NOT increase emission from the Earth surface! It will reduce the net heat loss from the surface and will allow it to reach a higher temperature under solar heating
Your unscientific posts are nearly as bad as Gordon’s made up rambles. True you won’t ramble for hundreds of words but your posts are poor science!
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
[JACK KIMBLE] I haven’t seen much coverage of last night’s Vice-Presidential debate in the liberal media. This doesn’t really surprise me as JD Vance absolutely destroyed Walz. I dont see how voters can vote for the Democrats after that debacle despite the biased moderators trying to help the Democrats.
[ALSO JACK] Sorry, I had an intern send this out at 7am instead of 7pm. Ill resend tonight
The biggest waste of money in the history of science
https://youtu.be/LlUBDlSJp_A
I do understand this guy.
I am happy to see that you finally start to recognize that some of your statements some years ago where very wrong. Thys guy may not have picked up your resent change of mind.
Just one example of your earlier statements:
“My theory is that a natural change in cloud cover has caused most of the recent warming. Temperature proxy data from around the world suggests that just about every century in the last 2,000 years has experienced warming or cooling. Why should todays warmth be manmade, when the Medieval Warm Period was not? Just because we finally have one potential explanation CO2?”
https://web.archive.org/web/20110228034540/https://www.drroyspencer.com/
” More CO2 INCREASES emission to space. ”
Only people ignorant, dumb and stubborn enough to
– deny the lunar spin in favor of a primitive, nonsensical ‘model of orbiting without spin’,
and to
– discredit a dozen of historical and hundreds of contemporary astronomers, physicists and mathematicians as ‘astrologers’ – just because all obtained during centuries the same result, despite having used completely different observation tools and observation data processing methods,
can write such utter nonsense.
*
1. Whenever IR photons emitted by Earth at wavelengths between 5 and 20 microns hit any gas able to absorb them (H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, fluorides etc) they are subsequently re-emitted in all directions.
Re-emitted IR Photons with an incidence angle less than that of the tangent from their maximal re-emission altitude (~ 50 km) to Earth’s surface (86.6 degrees) can’t escape to space.
Thus, only a tiny bit more than half of the re-emitted photons reach outer space.
The rest will collide again with absorbing and re-emitting gases or hit Earth.
*
2. The higher the re-emission altitude, the lower the temperature of the re-emitting gas molecules, and hence the lower the re-emitted energy compare to the energy of the photons reaching outer space directly from Earth’s surface.
*
In the sum, the energy re-emitted by IR-sensitive gases like CO2 can never be as high as that directly emitted by Earth.
*
This is denied, re-denied and re-re-denied by ignoramuses.
That’s correct Bindi, adding more CO2 increases emission to space. Thanks for quoting me.
It’s that simple. Endless rambling in circles doesn’t add to your credibility. You should have learned that from gordon and Norman.
To add to your credibility, you need substance. For example, do you have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, yet?
As I said above:
This is denied, re-denied and re-re-denied by ignoramuses.
Clint R and Robertson being as usual this blog’s two best examples.
Bindi, you can make all the false accusations you want but the fact remains you have NOTHING.
Where do I have physics wrong?
Where is your viable model of “orbiting without spin”?
You’re all foam but no beer.
Clint R
I ask you for the last time:
1. Where is your viable model of ‘orbiting without spin’ ?
2. Where is YOUR scientific disagreement with Tobias Mayer’s paper, in which he calculated, using incredibly primitive tools (a tiny telescope with a homemade micrometer and a metronome) and spherical trigonometry, the same value for the lunar spin that physicists all over the world calculate today by analyzing data on the distance of the moon measured by laser using the most modern data processing techniques?
*
Why do we never see any scientific proof of your ‘model’, let alone a scientific contradiction to Mayer’s 1750 results?
Bindi, you’re just going in circles here. I’ve asked you for months for a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, but you don’t have one. The reason you don’t have one is because you know NOTHING about orbital motion. Now, you’re trying to crawfish out if answering.
That’s what frauds do.
Clint R
Don’t waste our time with ‘my’ model: it doesn’t exist.
Why do we never see any scientific proof of your model, let alone a scientific contradiction to Mayers 1750 results?
Bindi, you’re just going in circles here. Ive asked you for months for a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, but you have no model. The reason you don’t have one is because you know NOTHING about orbital motion. Now, you’re trying to crawfish out if answering.
The scientific proof for my model involves physics. It’s been explained before. If I need to explain it again, go 2 weeks without commenting anywhere on this blog, and I will explain it again.
Sure, “orbiting without spin” as viewed by the modeler is confirmed by Clint R’s view of the ball while he’s spinning a ball on string.
To put it more clearly than the ever-nebulous Clint R, this means that he has nothing to show for it and is deliberately deceiving the blog.
bdx…”bdg…”The SB Law relates radiant exitance and only radiant exitance to a temperature”.
***
Radiant exitance is another words for radiant emission. I know of no other emission from a surface that is not due to radiation.
There are two version of the law, one by Stefan alone and the other with Boltzmann, a student of Stephan. The only valid law is the one by Stefan, which is based directly on an experiment by Tyndall, making it the only one of the two backed by experiment. The other, with Boltzmann is highly theoretical in that it is based on Boltzmann’s dalliance with statistical theory.
Stefan’s version is based on Tyndall’s experiment where he heated a platinum filament electrically, increasing the current to produce rising temperatures in the filament. He varied the filament temperature between about 500C and 1400C and as the temperature increased, the filament glowed different colours. Those colours were used by another scientist to determine the equivalent colour temperature of the emitted radiation and using that relationship the ratio of temperature to EM radiation intensity was determined as having a T^4 relationship.
Note that below red there is no indication of colour and no way to determine the relationship accurately above or below the visible spectrum.
Stefan had already estimated the relationship to have a T^4 ratio and used the Tyndall values as confirmation. However, later studies revealed that the equipment used by Tyndall had underestimated the relationship significantly due to limitations in the equipment available in the 19th century. For whatever reason, the T^4 relationship was never amended.
More to come.
The other S-B equation was written mainly by Boltzmann and is based on a sheer statistical, theoretical fabrication of the work of Clausius on the 2nd law and entropy. This version contains Boltzmann’s statistically derived constant which must differ from the original Stefan constant which involved only a radiation and temperature references.
Boltzmann tried to prove the 2nd law and entropy statistically and failed. He was so depressed over this failure that he took his own life, yet many modern scientists have adopted this fabrication as he left it, while ignoring the genuine work of Clausius.
Both Kircheoff and Boltzmann operated exclusively from thought experiments. However, Boltzmann misunderstood the Clausius definition of the 2nd law and entropy to mean that a transfer of heat via radiation required work to be done. Therefore, he incorrectly presumed that radiation exerted a pressure and he referenced it as a ‘radiation gas’, that could exert a force on a piston. In fact, he defined the pressure as being 1/3 the energy density.
Later, Einstein made the same error. He presumed that since radiation causes electrons to leave a surface, there must be some sort of force (hence momentum) required. It was not till years later that Bohr discovered the real relationship between radiation and electrons in atoms on the surface and demonstrated how the EM is converted to KE by electrons and it is the KE that causes the electrons to gain the energy, not a momentum in the absorbed EM.
Boltzmann knew nothing about the real relationship between heat and radiation as discovered by Bohr in 2013. Nor did Kircheoff. It is vital to understand that both Kircheoff and Boltzmann were both working in the dark and their theories are based in pseudo-science.
It does not bode well for modern science that so many error have been accepted as fact by scientists who simply accept what they are told as undergrads.
No Gordon that’s about all wrong, required lab courses confirm what students “simply accept what they are told as undergrads”.
Gordon must have skipped those lab courses.
I did have a beef with a lab instructor in an EE lab when he told me a linear curve created by current versus voltage could be displayed on an oscilloscope. What they were doing was applying a voltage to represent a current through a resistor. So, the scope was displaying a voltage versus a voltage.
I don’t recommend arguing with profs and/or lab instructors, they can make life difficult for you.
gordon, you’ve confused “entropy” with the “S/B Law”.
You’ve completely lost it.
Get therapy.
The usual predictable ad homs from wannabees. Clint fails to grasp the relationship between entropy and S-B because he does not understand the related history.
Clausius created the concept of entropy, basing it on heat transfer re the 2nd law. Boltzmann tried to apply statistical methods to prove the 2nd law and entropy statistically and failed. Some ingenuous wannabee scientists adopted Boltzmann’s definition of the 2nd law and entropy, including Planck, and unfortunately, that’s where Clint got his misinformation. Same with Ball4, apparently.
That’s where the confusion developed re entropy as a measure of disorder, from the statistical inference of Maxwell and Boltzmann.
Sorry gordon, but you’ve confused “entropy” with the “S/B Law”.
That’s because you don’t understand any of it. That’s not an insult, that’s reality.
Get therapy.
After explaining the relationship between entropy and S-B, something that can be easily verified, Clint fails to grasp that it was Boltzmann, the B in S-B, who equated entropy to S-B. Of course, being unaware of the history, Clint continues to misrepresent science.
And if you understood any of it you’d be able to prove scientifically why I am wrong. But you have proved you can’t explain any of it so you resort to ad hom and insults.
Clint is a legend, in his own mind.
Gordon thinks he is smarter than Boltzmann and Planck, and all others that followed them and proved them correct, such as Einstein, who explained Brownian motion and the Blackbody radiation formula of Planck, using the Statistical Mechanics developed by Boltzmann.
Since Earth’s total atmospheric greenhouse effect is ~ 0,4C, how much could the 0,04% CO2 content’s in atmosphere participate in that ~ 0,4C greenhouse forcing?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Your calculations don’t agree with instrumental 33C earthen GHE measurements, Christos. You need to go back and do better homework.
christos…the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation indicate that the amount of warming is limited to its mass percent…about 0.06% of the atmosphere. That means CO2 can contribute no more than 0.06C per 1C warming of the atmosphere.
The Ideal Law is a mixture of several different scientists and their gas laws. One of them is Dalton and he contributed the law of partial pressures. It states that the total pressure of a gas is the sum of the pressures (partial pressure) of its gases. The pressure each gas exerts on the walls of a container is proportional to the number of atoms/molecules in the gas which is their mass percent.
CO2 is a slightly heavier molecule than N2 or O2 therefore its mass percent is slightly higher than its concentration of 0.04%, however, its mass percent is only 0.06% of the entire atmosphere and the amount of pressure it exerts is 6/100ths of the pressure of the entire gas mass. We need to convert that mass proportionately to the temperature.
The IGL is…PV = nRT
We need to assume the volume (V) of the atmosphere is constant and the number of molecules (n) is constant. Then we can write the IGL as…
P = (nR/V).T
with the values in the brackets all constants. Immediately we can see that P is directly proportional to T, which is proved by the lapse rate for the troposphere which is a straight line.
Dalton’s Law tells us that the total pressure of the atmosphere is the sum of the partial pressures of each gas. Since T is directly proportional to P, then the temperature contributed by each gas must be the sum of the temperatures contributed by each gas.
It’s obvious that N2/O2 contribute 99% of the heat. Since CO2 has a partial pressure of 0.06% of the atmosphere then the temperature it contributes is limited to the same percentage. That is, for a rise in temperature of 1C for the atmosphere, CO2 can contribute only 0.06C.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner calculated the temperature CO2 can contribute using the heat diffusion equation and got the same value. Diffusion means the amount of heat one gas can contribute to a mixture of gases. Some people today incorrectly refer to heat diffusion as thermalization.
Lab tests show that Gordon and G&T who “got the same value” are wrong about atm. “P is directly proportional to T, which is proved by the lapse rate for the troposphere which is a straight line.”
Gordon should not simply accept what he is told without testing. Observations show actual lapse rates are not necessarily the dry adiabatic straight-line rate in the troposphere. That line is merely the demarcation between stable and unstable air. Gordon doesn’t understand N2,O2 are numerically dominate in the atm. wherein CO2 and other IR active gases are radiatively dominate.
Gordon can verify this for himself by doing a lab test. On a hot, clear, calm summer afternoon, the temperature of an asphalt road in Arizona may be 40C or higher. If Gordon is standing on such a road, his feet will be at 40C but his nose is measured 35C (or less) by weather reports. The distance from Gordon’s feet to his nose is of order 1 meter. Thus, the lapse rate is order 5C/m or 5000C/km, 500 times Gordon’s wrongly assumed straight line dry adiabatic lapse rate. Thus Gordon’s incorrectly analyzed straight line is not found in testing.
Like Christos, Gordon needs to do better homework.
B4 advises us that the lapse rate is simply a demarcation between stable and unstable air, ergo the difference between convection and non-convection. The lapse rate is measured in degrees C per metre of altitude which is hardly a measure of convection.
Once again, B4 offers up pseudo-science to complement his ad hominem attack. Then he compounds it by comparing the lapse rate to heated air rising from an asphalt highway in Arizona. Obviously, B4 has no idea what lapse rate means.
Not only that, B4 thinks there are different types of heat. Even that he compounds by claiming that heat is not energy but a measure of energy. It took a long time for me to educate B4 to the fact that radiation is not heat. Now that the light has gone on, B4 claims that truth as his own illumination.
The wonder of it all is how this catastrophic warming scam can persist with such scientifically-challenged support. Obviously, it is not about science but a political agenda which is distorting science in order to support their scam.
“The Great Global Warming Blunder”, a must-read book for politicians, journalists, academics… and David.
A quote from the hypocritical Einstein, who obviously did not practice what he preached…
“Einstein once said: If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists about the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one principle: dont listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds. For, he continued, to the discoverer in this field the products of his imagination appear so necessary and natural that he regards them, and would have them regarded by others, not as creations of thought but as given realities.
That applies aptly to not only Einstein himself but the entire era of Boltzmann, Planck, et al through the post Bohr theorists like de Broglie, Heisenberg, Dirac, et al. They applied theory to electrons and atoms where it did not belong, a sheer fiction.
Einstein advises us not to pay attention to the words of theorists but to their deeds. Ironically, Einstein’s words suggest time can dilate when time was defined as a constant based on the rotation of the Earth wrt the Sun.
Bohr was a theorist too but his model of the atom still holds and is taught as the basis of electronics and electrical theory as well as chemistry, even though he applied it only to hydrogen. Unfortunately, even Bohr succumbed to the distortion common to the human mind and began braying about electrons communicating between themselves, the basis of entanglement theory.
Ironically, Einstein abandoned Bohr’s sci-fi, claiming essentially that an idea with no physical proof to back it is unsound. Then he produced an equally unsound theory of relativity with no physical reality to back it namely because time has no existence and time is the basis of his space-time continuum.
Physics is in a mess today thanks to scientists who gullibly accept what they are taught. I met one physics professor who obviously could think for himself and he confirmed that time is an invention of the human mind. One modern physicist who understand that Einstein’s time does not exist. Hopefully there are more who can help restore physics to an ordered science.
I have some residual faith in Clint since he understands that the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. I have faith that he will eventually become more objective provided he can rid himself of his current ego issue that are blocking his objectivity.
gordon, the longer you resist getting help, the worse your illness will get.
Get professional help, soon.
Appears obvious that I am not the one with the problem.
I’ve pointed out countless times that Climate Science isn’t a real science and doesn’t follow the scientific method. Peter Thiel makes my point in spades. If you have to add “science” to the name it isn’t a real science. Physics, Chemistry, Math, Engeneering doesn’t need “science” in the name to fool people.
This is a must watch video.
https://youtu.be/p-Jr9171Sfg?si=u-t3BEjg1KfatVKs
Of course you don’t Nate. You are anti-science while fully understanding the impact of planetary movement on solar system barycenter and how a planet with a mean 1AU orbit going around that barycenter is going to vary its distance from the sun.
If you go down that rabbit hole you will have to acknowledge that orbital forcing is a major factor to deal with in natural climate change. You perverters of science have tried to cover that up by not addressing it headon which speaks loudly as to a hidden agenda that has nothing whatsoever to do with science integrity.
Until it’s dealt with carbon nonsense is just that.
The earth’s orbit changes robustly from all 4 outer gas giants. Your analysis is less than high school level focusing strictly on the relative gravitational force, ignoring how long that force is applied. Its a half-assed look at the issue.
However the barycenter theory is relatively easy to see.
Lets look at the relative effects of Jupiter with a given mass, given rotation rate over 12 years.
Its effects are a major part of the barycenter movement. A Newton rule is that gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, in this case the radius of the orbit.
It is 5.2 au to the sun.
5.2 squared is 27.04
Earth thus varies a mean of + or – 1au from the sun (actually a bit more than that due to the ellipticity of the orbit.)
4.2 squared is 17.64 a 35% increase in gravitational force from Jupiter on earth versus the sun.
6.2 squared is 38.44 a 42% reduction in gravitational force from Jupiter on earth versus the sun.
Do you think that would result in a material difference in the distance of the earth from the sun or not?
If not show your math.
“Do you think that would result in a material difference in the distance of the earth from the sun or not?”
If you have to ask, then that should tell you that you lack evidence, as we already know.
We’ve been over this before, Bill. Jupiter’s force on Earth is maximum 1/16,000 times that of the sun.
But go ahead and calculate the size of its effect on solar insolation…or if not, just make it up as you did last time!
David Appell: “Roy, nobody who is serious about climate change takes you seriously.”
That says more about those who are serious about climate change than it does about Roy.