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.
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.
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.
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
‘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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
–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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Our oceans have waves, what if we got rid of all the waves?
In terms of climate climate- do we all die?
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.