Home/BlogMetop-C Satellite Added to Our Processing
With this update, we have added Metop-C to our processing, so along with Metop-B we are back to having two satellites in the processing stream. The Metop-C data record begins in July of 2019. Like Metop-B, Metop-C was designed to use fuel to maintain its orbital altitude and inclination, so (until fuel reserves are depleted) there is no diurnal drift adjustment needed. Metop-B is beginning to show some drift in the last year or so, but it’s too little at this point to worry about any diurnal drift correction.
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2024 was +0.64 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the October, 2024 anomaly of +0.75 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged temperature trend (January 1979 through November 2024) remains at +0.15 deg/ C/decade (+0.21 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 23 months (record highs are in red). Note the tropics have cooled by 0.72 deg. C in the last 8 months, consistent with the onset of La Nina conditions.
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.06 | +0.07 | -0.19 | -0.41 | +0.14 | -0.10 | -0.45 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.07 | +0.13 | +0.01 | -0.13 | +0.64 | -0.26 | +0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.18 | +0.22 | +0.14 | -0.17 | -1.36 | +0.15 | +0.58 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.12 | +0.04 | +0.20 | -0.09 | -0.40 | +0.47 | +0.41 |
| 2023 | May | +0.28 | +0.16 | +0.41 | +0.32 | +0.37 | +0.52 | +0.10 |
| 2023 | June | +0.30 | +0.33 | +0.28 | +0.51 | -0.55 | +0.29 | +0.20 |
| 2023 | July | +0.56 | +0.59 | +0.54 | +0.83 | +0.28 | +0.79 | +1.42 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.61 | +0.77 | +0.45 | +0.78 | +0.71 | +1.49 | +1.30 |
| 2023 | Sep | +0.80 | +0.84 | +0.76 | +0.82 | +0.25 | +1.11 | +1.17 |
| 2023 | Oct | +0.79 | +0.85 | +0.72 | +0.85 | +0.83 | +0.81 | +0.57 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.77 | +0.87 | +0.67 | +0.87 | +0.50 | +1.08 | +0.29 |
| 2023 | Dec | +0.75 | +0.92 | +0.57 | +1.01 | +1.22 | +0.31 | +0.70 |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.58 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.95 | +0.81 | +1.17 | +1.31 | +0.86 | +1.16 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.26 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.77 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 |
| 2024 | May | +0.78 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.05 | +0.22 | +0.53 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.37 | +0.64 | +0.91 |
| 2024 | July | +0.74 | +0.86 | +0.62 | +0.97 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.06 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.76 | +0.82 | +0.70 | +0.75 | +0.41 | +0.88 | +1.75 |
| 2024 | Sep | +0.81 | +1.04 | +0.58 | +0.82 | +1.32 | +1.48 | +0.98 |
| 2024 | Oct | +0.75 | +0.89 | +0.61 | +0.64 | +1.90 | +0.81 | +1.09 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.88 | +0.41 | +0.54 | +1.12 | +0.79 | +1.00 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for November, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:
How very inconvenient, indeed, but I’m sure we’ll keep on creating narratives that ignore the facts and praise our wonderful anti-woke ideology, my dear rich fellows.
…and so it begins.
Is the Metop-C data now included from 2019, or just from this month? There are very small differences between the anomalies published this month, but only about 0.01 or 0.02C.
Assuming no big changes prior to 2023, this is the second warmest November. Ten warmest Novembers in UAH history are
2023 0.77
2024 0.64
2019 0.42
2020 0.40
2016 0.34
2017 0.22
2015 0.21
2009 0.14
1990 0.12
2018 0.12
My projection for the year rises slightly to +0.765 +/- 0.055C, and it’s even more certain that 2024 will be the warmest on record, beating 2023 by at least 0.3C. December would have to be -3.5C for the record not to be beaten, so I think it’s a fairly safe bet.
https://i.imgur.com/L5bJBER.png
What matters is the trend which says something about the future, maybe. Your projection about what a bunch of numbers will add up to and then average out to, it’s just arithmetic.
I want o know why it’s not as hot as the 1930s. Can someone answer that?
Did it warm as fast to the 1930s as it has to these last couple of years?
Why, if the climate is changing so much, has nothing changed where I am?
The bugs are all the same. We seem to see more Canada geese than years ago, but I think that’s about manmade ponds and subdivisions, not climate.
Come to think of it, I have’t seen a praying mantis or a katydid for several years, but I’m pretty old and haven’t been looking for them lately.
You guys spend your time looking at a bunch of charts and tables. I’ve created some of those for business purposes. I can get them to look the way I want them to look to prove my point, to get the loan or the investment. Do your charts and tables do that , too?
Metop-C data are included since July 2019.
Thanks. I think it’s quite reassuring that adding an additional satellite has so little effect.
We begin the descent down the slide. In a few months, we will reach the negative anomalies.
Surely global warming has truly stopped this time.
For at least the next five years or even beyond.
My sunspot model predicted that warming stopped in 2016 and that GST will decline slightly until at least 2030. Other models I’m working on show that warming will resume ~2050 and will peak ~2100. Then it’s on to the next cool period in 2400.
Here’s the spreadsheet version of the sunspot-based model described on my github page.
https://localartist.org/media/SunspotPredictionExcel.xlsx
No it won’t. Although it’s a fairly meaningless term, average global temperature will continue to rise. However, CO2 has a very small influence on rising temps. The world will continue to warm up from the LIA, but it will eventually stop and go into reverse. How much the nations of the world will have wasted on solar/wind farms and mitigation for CO2 generally, future generations may prefer not to know.
” In a few months, we will reach the negative anomalies. ”
And?
Anomalies are departures from an arbitrary chosen period: currently, 1991-2020.
A few years ago, the period was 1981-2010; as the absolute temperatures were cooler than those in 1991-2020, the older anomalies were higher by 0.14 C on average.
And even longer ago (around 2010, if I well recall), the period was 1979-1998, showing even lower temperatures than for 1981-2010.
Hence, the anomalies of the current absolute data but computed wrt 1979-1998 are even higher, about 0.20 C:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZxaTF5NPsaEOGapZKxngrAwvjQrFxgzS/view
*
P.S. I generate now graphs using Encapsulated Postscript.
Negative anomalies make alarmism more implausible, right?
No. Negative or positive values by themselves are irrelevant to degree of change. They are referenced to a semi-arbitrary baseline. Move the baseline up by 2 degrees C and every anomaly will be negative, but the warming trend will be completely unchanged.
” Negative anomalies make alarmism more implausible, right? ”
By posting this poor nonsense, you confirm that you didn’t even understand what I wrote above, namely that anomalies are arbitrary values 100% depending on the reference period they were computed out:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZxaTF5NPsaEOGapZKxngrAwvjQrFxgzS/view
You don’t understand how anomalies actually are obtained, do you?
Here are the absolute values of both anomaly series you see in the graph above:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T8pZ260c43-lzC-WZ4GI_oogyb-jHMvg/view
Think about it.
Phew, I’m glad the temperatures always go down so fast after an el Nino.
Temperatures will drop even further with the help of La Nina that is about to begin.
We have had a few El Ninas this century – when has the temperature gone down?
No doubt. And I have no statistical analysis to determine that this peak was unusually wide. But it FEELS exceptional, doesn’t it? The biggest drop after an el Nino in the UAH record is after the 1998 el Nino – a shade over one full degree Kelvin. It’s a small sample, so anything we infer from it has to be taken with a pinch of salt, but if the same drop were to happen now it would JUST make it into the negative range. I’d hazard that it won’t drop that far this time, and that the moving average will not make it below zero at all now. We’ll know in a few months.
Assuming UAH continues in the same vein, eventually today’s anomalies will be negative just from the decadal change of baseline.
The water wapor from Honga Tunga is about to dissapear from the atmosphere now, so we will likey see a huge drop in the temperatures the next months and years.
And which observational water vapour data did you examine to corroborate that view?
Using data from NASAs Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS):
Before the Eruption:
Stratospheric water vapor levels were stable, with seasonal and interannual variations minor.
During the Eruption:
The eruption injected approximately 150 teragrams (150 million metric tons) of water vapor into the stratosphere, increasing global levels by ~10% (MLS dataset). This unprecedented injection formed concentrated layers of water vapor and aerosols up to 4244 km altitude (MLS dataset and ESA Sentinel-5P).
After the Eruption:
Elevated water vapor levels persist and are projected to remain for years due to slow removal processes (MLS dataset). These levels may affect atmospheric chemistry, potentially impacting ozone and contributing to short-term surface warming (MLS dataset).
Summary:
The eruption caused a substantial and lasting increase in stratospheric water vapor, with ongoing implications for atmospheric processes and climate that science should be open to learn from. My view, this is a decade scale event and we are seeing a negative feedback pull down a bit. Perhaps the increased albedo from increased noctilucent cloud activity from increased water vapor in stratosphere has a minor cooling effect. Also some of the water vapor is likely gone.
The eruption increased the stratospheric water vapor concentration by about 0.15 ppm.
barry
As I wrote somewhere below, most people are fixated on the injection of water vapor because they read stuff confirminmg their personal opinion that all warming is of natural source.
They deliberately ignore the fact that together with the water vapor, also huge amounts of SO2 reached the stratosphere, as is done during each eruption, regardless where it takes place.
Schoeberl, M. R., Wang, Y., Taha, G., Zawada, D. J., Ueyama, R., & Dessler, A. (2024). Evolution of the climate forcing during the two years after the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 129, e2024JD041296. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD041296
Key Points
The 15 Jan. 2022, Hunga eruption increased aerosols and H2O in the southern hemisphere stratosphere and then dispersed throughout 2022/3
Stratospheric water vapor, ozone, temperature, and aerosol optical depth contribute to the change in downward radiative fluxes
Hunga produced a global decrease in radiative of less than ∼0.25 W/m2 over the 2 yrs period
Around the time the Schoeberl paper was submitted, Andrew Dessler, one of the co-authors, wrote the blog post linked below. It includes a video by Schoeberl that showed the time evolution of the stratospheric aerosol cloud and water vapor. It makes apparent that the aerosols settled out essentially to baseline in the year and a half or so following the eruption while the water vapor dispersed, but did not return to baseline at the time of the paper’s submission.
My intuition is that, while there may have been little change in forcing over the period covered by the paper, whatever warming effect from the water vapor is more persistent than the cooling effect and plausibly had a significant impact in unusual warmth since mid-2023. I don’t know how to quantify that and, disappointingly, haven’t seen any commentary from people like Schoeberl or Dessler who might have such skills. There does seem to be a sense that a lot of climate scientists are a bit puzzled by the warmth of the past year or so and I haven’t seen much quantified discussion of why persistent stratospheric water vapor is or isn’t a suspect.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-climate-impact-of-the-hunga-tonga
A new small or large ice age is on its way if establishment takes place below minus one degree Celsius, according to my interpretation of the technical analysis.
Please translate from Swedish if you want to read.
Alvar Nyen, technical analyst for 30 years, Sweden, Scandinavia
https://alvarnyren.wixsite.com/aidtrade/post/mina-klimatmodeller-54
You should change permission rights on your site:
” Error: Forbidden
Your client does not have permission to get URL /aidtrade/post/mina-klimatmodeller-54 from this server. ”
*
Anyway: are you aware of the fact that even when using the current, quite low anomalies wrt 1991-2020, the least anomaly since start in 1978 12 was
1984 9 -0.67 (C)
i.e. 40 years ago
and that we still have a warming trend of 0.15 C / decade, which will at best go down to 0.13, when the end of HTE’s alleged warming and la Nina’s expected cooling will add?
You’re such a clown, blindly assuming those numbers are completely accurate without even mentioning a margin of error.
Krokodile
You are even less than a clown: you are a coward.
Simply because when you write:
” blindly assuming those numbers are completely accurate without even mentioning a margin of error. ”
you don’t even have the balls to address this claim to the blog’s owner, who – despite having been asked for years ago already – never was willing to add this ‘margin of error’ to his monthly reports:
vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt
Do you see the trend line at the end, krokodile?
*
Personally, I always add the standard error when posting trend comparisons, unless I’m replying to a comment where adding that information simply doesn’t make sense.
*
For you: the trend info as I wish it to be published by Roy Spencer since years, e.g. for the Globe since Dec 1978, in C / decade:
0.1519 ± 0.0063
*
Are YOU, krokodile, able to post such information? If so, why don’t you, instead of keeping polemic?
*
By the way, since when have you been posting here? I don’t see any “red krokodile says:” before this fall of 2024. Why?
“0.1519 0.0063”
You think standard error is accuracy?
” You think standard error is accuracy? ”
Stop boring me with your superficial blah blah, krokodile.
You were the one who mentioned ‘margin of error’.
*
Try to learn about margin of error, standard error and confidence interval – and leave me in peace.
https://www.usu.edu/math/schneit/StatsStuff/Inference/confidenceintervals.html
You NEVER actually used any of these concepts at any moment in your life, and merely replicate stuff you picked up out of some contrarian blog.
red krokodile: You think standard error is accuracy?
If by accuracy you actually mean uncertainty then yes. See JCGM 100:2008 details.
bdgwx
From your source (page 6, section 3.3.2):
“a) incomplete definition of the measurand;
b) imperfect reaIization of the definition of the measurand;
c) nonrepresentative sampling the sample measured may not represent the defined measurand;
d) inadequate knowledge of the effects of environmental conditions on the measurement or imperfect measurement of environmental conditions;
e) personal bias in reading analogue instruments;
f) finite instrument resolution or discrimination threshold;
g) inexact values of measurement standards and reference materials;
h) inexact values of constants and other parameters obtained from external sources and used in the data-reduction algorithm;
i) approximations and assumptions incorporated in the measurement method and procedure;
j) variations in repeated observations of the measurand under apparently identical conditions.”
Taking note of f), it would be impressive for these microwave sensors to have a resolution limit of 0.0063, which is being suggested.
Taking note of f), it would be impressive for these microwave sensors to have a resolution limit of 0.0063, which is being suggested.
First…your most recent post here has nothing to do with your original question.
Second…that is NOT what is being suggested. What was said is that the standard uncertainty (or error) of the trend is 0.0063 C.decade-2 and Bindidon is correct.
I should point out that the standard uncertainty of the trend here does not incorporate the component of uncertainty arising from correlation. When you factor this in, like say by using an AR(1) model, the figure is actually closer to 0.05 C.decade-1 which corroborates the [Christy et al. 2003] type B evaluation.
“Firstyour most recent post here has nothing to do with your original question.”
Even though my post contains information directly from your source?
“Secondthat is NOT what is being suggested. What was said is that the standard uncertainty (or error) of the trend is 0.0063 C.decade-2 and Bindidon is correct.”
No. Uncertainty and error should not be used interchangeably because they are different concepts. As highlighted in your source:
(page 36, section B.2.19):
“error (of measurement)
result of a measurement minus a true value of the measurand”
(page 2, section 2.2.3):
“uncertainty (of measurement)
parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand”
red,
Nobody except you suggested the trend to 2 decimal places was ‘accurate’.
There is a trend here of putting words in other people’s mouths. For example:
[To Bindidon] “blindly assuming those numbers are completely accurate.”
The assumption was all yours.
Perhaps you’ll start hitting the mark if you comment to add to understanding, instead of the hopelessly ill-aimed snipes.
False, barry. Read Bindidon’s first reply to me.
Global
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2024/12/03/uah-mean-and-median-global-for-nov-2024/
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2024/12/03/uah-mean-and-median-tropics-for-nov-2024/
I’ve been watching some of the Yong Tuition videos on YouTube and read his paper. Blinny and I think Dr. Spencer suggested the guy doesn’t know what he is talking about. They need to watch more of his videos and read his papers.
November is marginally lower than anything in the last 15 months, but still higher than any other reading except for 2 of the peak months in 2016 during the Godzilla El Nino. The mystery and the drama continues.
The reduction by around 0.1 C is pretty inconclusive. It’s possible this is purely a reaction to the end of El Nino and movement into La Nina conditions. If so, that means the Hunga Tonga warming effect is still strong with no signs of letting up.
The water vapor image in the upper troposphere seems to agree with this view. No obvious changes this year.
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/h2o_MLS_vLAT_tap_75S-75N_146hPa.png
OTOH, this change could be a sign the Hunga Tonga effect is starting to wane. It will likely take a couple more months before we know.
That is an interesting theory. Why did the effect take more than a year to start, or show any effect, and then show a very strong effect over just few months?
Tim, the eruption also put a lot of SO2 into the atmosphere. This is a cooling gas. The combination of La Nina with this gas balanced the warming effect of the water vapor and cloud reductions.
Since the SO2 is a heavier gas its effect peaked after about a year. As it faded away in early 2023 we also moved from La Nina into El Nino. That’s what caused the warming to take off that summer.
All speculation. Lacking quantitative predictions, this is just guesswork.
So Nate, how is that different than climate modeling? If you assume that all warming of the last 40 years is 1005 due to greenhouse gases, then the models are correct. Otherwise, they are wrong. Guesswork!
Nate just can’t accept his religion is false. However, even predictions are speculative as well. But hey, let’s give one a try.
Most of the statements about Hunga-Tonga put the warming effect at 4-6 years. Taking the midpoint would have it ending around 2027. AMO phase are said to be 30-35 years, again using the midpoint with the last phase change starting in 1995, would put its next phase change in 2027 also. So, let’s go with 2027 as the most likely place where real cooling will begin.
As for tracking these, I think the upper troposphere water vapor content is is a good check on the HTe. If it returns to normal, I think we can assume the warming effect should be over.
Arctic sea ice is a good way to check the AMO. When it starts to increase I think we can assume the AMO is in transition. Of course, we also have the AMO index.
“If you assume that all warming of the last 40 years is 1005 due to greenhouse gases, then the models are correct.”
Still clueless about how models work, eh?
Richard,
You are still applying ‘correlation must = causation’.
For example you assume without any knowledge, that the so2 and H2O effects have the same magnitude.
Science is quantitative. None of this is.
But, OTOH, there are papers analyzing the magnitude of the Hunga Tonga cooling/warming.
You need to read them.
Just for info
1. Here is AMO (of course undetrended – the detrended variant is useful only to show AMO’s cyclic behavior).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14PFIMXmIhVQ__yL8oIP7_hrF5LcujGiB/view
*
2. Here are Arctic…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a3H9FSIKDdinzVSs9ayhAKgiVwaH1IbC/view
… and Antarctic sea ice extent charts
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H2vjQnA0wlA9X6MBE2bO9etnGlHx8zyf/view
*
So we have a clear idea of what is told about.
Nate says: “Still clueless about how models work, eh?”
I usually know that I am on to something when I get an answer that is 100% (not 1005) insult and 0% substance. Climate modelling is validated by simply throwing out the ones they do not like. If they “predict” (hindcast) the recent warming, then they say “see they work”. Not surprisingly, they all agree (consensus) after they throw out the ones that are “wrong”. Some might call that cherry picking, but for Nate that is considered having a clue.
“I usually know that I am on to something when I get an answer that is 100% (not 1005) insult and 0% substance.”
An obnoxious dolt would thus believe they are wise.
Tim makes ignorant insults of climate modelers.
Then moans that he is being insulted.
Classy guy.
If you mud wrestle a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig likes it. I will attempt to take the high road. It is no secret that climate models are calibrated against measured data. The success or failure depends on the ability to model actual changes. Gavin Schmidt himself claims that is how he determines which ones are reliable. I do not see the controversy with stating the reality of climate modelling. The real-world effects in the atmosphere are extremely subtle. If someone has that magical differential equation that predicts warming, I would definitely be interested in seeing that.
“f someone has that magical differential equation that predicts warming, I would definitely be interested in seeing that”
The high road would be learning about climate models before repeating ignorant denialist talking points.
I read a book about the historical development of climate models. They are like weather models, complex sets of differential equations, informed by measured properties. Their solutions must reproduce the correct global circulation pattern. They do. Then they need to reproduce the past climate record, among other things.
Far from guesswork.
“It is no secret that climate models are calibrated against measured data.”
Some do, most (predictive/hindcast models) don’t.
Where did you learn this factoid? Probably you don’t remember.
[factoid: an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact]
“Tim S says: It is no secret that climate models are calibrated against measured data.”
Hansen’s climate model projections have held up pretty well for 40 years since publication. Sato’s early results have been out for 50 years.
They clearly had predictive value which is really difficult to attribute to random chance.
My good friend, barry, seems to be a bit confused. He writes this:
[It is no secret that climate models are calibrated against measured data.
Some do, most (predictive/hindcast models) dont.
Where did you learn this factoid? Probably you dont remember.
[factoid: an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact]]
He seems to be confusing the word “against” as in a comparison versus the word “with” which would imply use within. The other problem is the often used tactic of taking a sentence out of context. Simplistic thought can be expressed by a single sentence. More complex or detailed concepts usually require several sentences together.
Here is the full quote which I think I can prove if I search for a link:
“It is no secret that climate models are calibrated against measured data. The success or failure depends on the ability to model actual changes. Gavin Schmidt himself claims that is how he determines which ones are reliable.”
The follow-on question is, if that is the only criterion, how is that not simply cherry picking the ones he likes?
Tim,
‘Against’ wasn’t the key word, your key word was ‘calibrated’.
Most predictive OAGCMS are not calibrated to (or against or with) observed temperature data, whether intrinsic to the code or post-adjusted. Nor are these models redesigned with the purpose of increasing their fidelity to observed temperature.
Any confusion sprouts from your terminology.
Thank you barry. I should have used the word compare instead of calibrate. This post from Gavin Schmidt took at least 2 minutes to find:
“… it is because appropriate comparisons between models and observations are the only way to see what we need to work on and where there are remaining problems …”
Here is the link:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/spencers-shenanigans/
Here is the full quote:
“One final point. I dont criticize Spencer (and Christy before him) because of any tribal or personal animosity, but rather it is because appropriate comparisons between models and observations are the only way to see what we need to work on and where there are remaining problems. The key word is appropriate if that isnt done we risk overfitting on poorly constrained observations, or looking in the wrong places for where the issues may lie. Readers may recall that we showed that a broader exploration of the structural variations in the models (including better representations of the stratosphere and ozone effects, not included in the McKtrick and Christy selection), can make a big difference to these metrics (Casas et al., 2022).
Spencers shenanigans are designed to mislead readers about the likely sources of any discrepancies and to imply that climate modelers are uninterested in such comparisons and he is wrong on both counts.”
“So Nate, how is that different than climate modeling? If you assume that all warming of the last 40 years is 1005 due to greenhouse gases, then the models are correct. Otherwise, they are wrong. Guesswork!”
It’s your usual MO, Tim, start with ridiculous hyperbole, then when called on it, walk it all back.
It is no secret that climate models are calibrated against measured data. The success or failure depends on the ability to model actual changes. Gavin Schmidt himself claims that is how he determines which ones are reliable.
Notice nothing in there about “100% due to greenhouse gases”. Nothing in there about models being guesswork.
After all of the insults and claims of hyperbole from Nate and barry, these are the words of Gavin Schmidt from the link I posted above:
comparisons between models and observations are the only way to see what we need to work on”
Well, of course. But that doesn’t substantiate what you were implying earlier.
“Climate modelling is validated by simply throwing out the ones they do not like.”
That is so far removed from the truth that it’s hard to know where to start. And it is so obviously laced with prejudice that it seems like there’s no point even starting.
You may – or may not – be referring to the CMIP6 ensemble of models, where a portion of them were considered to be running too hot. Their inclusion in IPCC AR6 increased the range and average climate sensitivity. Soon after, the modeling community (lead online by Gavin Schmidt) discussed a portion of the CMIP6 models that they assessed ran too hot for future projections.
This can be spun many ways, and people have. One way to spin it is that the climate modelling community, including stalwarts at realclimate, cautioned that the IPCC future warming projections were too high. Pretty cool behaviour for ‘alarmists’.
Then there is your spin, if this is indeed what you are referring to.
But who knows what you are trying to say. The goalposts aren’t solid.
The remedy? Read sources for understanding, not advantage.
https://bookcafe.yuntsg.com/ueditor/jsp/upload/file/20220518/1652835870524078994.pdf
Those who are paying attention should now see that Nate and barry became so caught up in their game of insults, and argument for the sake of argument, that they lost sight of reality. Climate modeling may not be pure guesswork as I stated way up in the comments, but they are not pure science either. It does not matter how sophisticated, complex, or detailed, the fact remains that models have to be checked against measured data. Gavin Schmidt calls it a comparison. They are not pure science, and they do not work strictly from basic scientific principles, data, or facts. We now have an admission from barry that some of the models went too far in trying to scare people about the very serious nature of warming, so they finally had to be rejected.
My advice to both of you is to quit trying to be clever and focus on reality. Most people appreciate comments that are intelligent and informative. Many such as myself are offended by comments that are just pure hype.
“Climate modeling may not be pure guesswork as I stated way up in the comments”
Glad to hear it.
“but they are not pure science either. It does not matter how sophisticated, complex, or detailed, the fact remains that models have to be checked against measured data.”
Gee, you think if there is an interplay between theory and experiment/observations then that is not science?!
You have some weird, ignorant ideas.
That is a basic feature of all sciences.
Highly successful weather models start from physics based sets of differential equations, solved on a computer, but always with input from observations, and always informed by comparison between predictions and observation.
Most people can understand this is a science, called meteorology.
“Tim S says: . . . It does not matter how sophisticated, complex, or detailed, the fact remains that models have to be checked against measured data. . . .”
That’s rather the point of models in science. That is they are simplified representations of “the real world” that are believed to capture the gist of the entity being modeled.
“We now have an admission from barry that some of the models went too far in trying to scare people”
Models don’t have motives. Your twaddle is getting even more fatuous.
You had the opportunity to read some source material on what you appear to be groping at saying. To learn something of the topic so that you could fashion some cogent ideas. But you stuck with spin. How dull.
“Most people appreciate comments that are intelligent and informative.”
Intelligent people read source material before shooting their mouths off. The link is still there if you want to up your game.
test
aha…global cooling is upon us.
Yet again. Surely THIS time it won’t be so temporary?
How low do you expect it will go? And for how long?
Dunno, but I’ll make three predictions.
Recent global high temps will be eclipsed within the next 20 years
Long term global warming will continue if GHGs accumulate
‘Skeptics’ will downplay the warm records and emphasise the following cooler temps, even while the trend rises
I don’t agree with any of them. 20 years will prove either of us right or wrong.
All three have already occurred many times. 50+ years for global temps and C02, 20+ years for skeptics.
So I’m betting things will continue as usual if CO2 rises (absent a cataclysm like a meteor kicking up dust for a decade). I’ll lay down US $1000 I’m right on all three, but happy just to go with CO2 and global temps.
You feeling confident, RLH?
RLH,
“I dont agree with any of them. 20 years will prove either of us right or wrong.”
Are you going to sing the same song in 2044?
“Are you going to sing the same song in 2044?”
20 years to get there.
“The… anomaly for November, 2024 was +0.64 deg. C … down from the October, 2024 anomaly of +0.75 deg. C.”
Indeed.
It did feel a tad chillier out there the past month.
A tad chillier for some, a tad warmer for some. Averages are weird.
Of course, just +0.64C. Why actually not take the latest observation as baseline? SO 0C anomaly and then everybody can be happy we are back to normal after experiencing a little ice age in the 80’s.
Let’s base it on simple science, say the Kelvin scale. Roughly translating, last month’s anomaly was 288.79 C above the gold standard baseline of absolute zero.
There, no more arbitrary baselines.
barry, why are you wasting space and oxygen?
You ordered a dish of let’s not be serious with your comment. If you’re dissatisfied you can keep the tip.
Does spaceflight have anything to do with global warming? Is there a correlation between global warming and spaceflight that may have to do with the loss of oxygen from our delicately balanced ecosystem? There is no replacing the oxygen lost to space that I’m aware of. or any other elements that may be important for that matter.
Just thinking out loud.
Some people still seem to link the recent temperature peak in the lower troposphere to the Hunga Tonga eruption.
It was told that the injection of 150 Mt of water vapor into the stratosphere would result there in a temperature drop perceptible down to its lower layer (LS), what in turn would cause a corresponding temperature increase in the lower troposphere (LT) above us.
*
Let’s compare the two. It is best to separate the hemispheres, as they often experience anomalies in opposite directions during the same month, which then cancel each other out.
1. LS vs. LT in the NH
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Uf95ZYz7czGH5ygBrml0_z496YMFkXHo/view
2. LS vs. LT in the SH
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aj7q0u3y07zZAkE68tSVSlWBxN84BD9T/view
*
If we now look at the huge peaks in LS corresponding to the relatively small drops in LT (El Chichon 1982 and Pinatubo 1991), and compare these two eruptions with HTE in 2022, we see nothing the like.
Sources: Roy Spencer’s monthly zonal reports for LT and LS
So want to agree that
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/h2o_MLS_vLAT_tap_75S-75N_146hPa.png
is real?
It’s real and it corroborates the the 150 MtH20 estimate for the additional water vapor. To put this into perspective since the HT eruption about 10,000 MtCO2 has been added to the stratosphere.
Why is there no extra h2O in 2022 and 2023, and then suddenly it appears in mid 2024?
So the increase is what it is.
Yes indeed, the increase is what it is: a totally overestimated effect, mainly supported by a few articles which discussed only water vapor, while keeping aerosols silent. No wonder.
And Nate’s remark is a perfect addendum.
Nate: Are you suggesting the H20 increase is not important?
Speaking for myself it seems that some people overinterpret its importance without enough information, knowledge and careful consideration.
Causes and relative impacts of the drivers of recent high temps are still being investigated, as much as some would like to wrap it up in a neat HT bow.
Barry: So the H2O increase is just accidental?
Why do you believe CO2 is the main driver of recent warm temperatures?
What is the ratio between H2O and CO2?
Are you saying the H2O and CO2 are greenhouse gases that cause warming?
Yes. Strange how a increase in one is important but not in the other.
Why do you think that one is important but not the other?
You do, not me.
Another non-HTE possibility: record low global albedo due to a decline in low-altitude cloud cover: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq7280
“You do, not me.”
Did someone tell you that? I couldn’t see anyone saying so in the comments.
Donald,
I looked at global sea ice for 2023 and 2024, per the comments in that paper. It has been lowest in the record by a considerable margin in 2023 and 2024. Cursory glance corroborates at least the premise for this factor.
https://zacklabe.com/global-sea-ice-extent-conc/
You seem to have missed the top paragraph from your link:
“NOTE: Trends and variability in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are affected by very different atmospheric/oceanic/ice processes and are in opposite seasons! Caution is advised for assessing any statistics of global sea ice levels (i.e., combined Arctic and Antarctic).”
“You seem to have missed the top paragraph from your link”
Nope. And I didn’t need the reminder anyway.
Lowest extent anomalies for each hemisphere occurred over roughly the same period (August to October/November). But the point is that global sea ice coverage was at record lows for much of the last 2 years of extraordinarily high global temps.
That means less albedo reflecting solar energy and warmer global temps.
Just another factor that may have contributed.
barry
Even the author doesn’t seem to understand how anomalies work.
For anomalies, it doesn’t matter at which altitude your measure, let alone in which hemisphere because anomalies are always departures from local absolute values.
*
Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
*
You can’t add temperatures at sea level to those from a mountain and then build anomalies out of them; nor can you add land and sea surface temperatures, or from different hemispheres let alone absolute Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent/area.
Only averaging of anomalies wrt local data makes sense.
Perhaps, Bin, but the point about opposite seasons (min/max at different times of the year for each hemisphere) is relevant. Particularly when talking about albedo, as there were fewer hours of daylight when the Antarctic hit its lowest anomalies (2023 and 2024 saw the two lowest Winter maximums). Though there is about 10 hours of daylight on average at 50S during September, usually the month of maximum extent in the Antarctic, it is a relatively narrow strip of sea ice circumnavigating the continent, even at maximum.
The paper Donald links estimates 15% of the unusual warmth in 2023 (above what can be explained by el Nino and the long-term trend) was due to albedo change from reduced ice cover. The rest to reduced cloud cover.
I think it will be some years before it is clarified.
barry (cntnd)
I have to correct myself.
The author of course did very well understand – otherwise he wouldn’t have shown the global anomaly data.
Rather it was the pseudoskeptic de service who didn’t :–)
*
What the author mean was rather the nonsense you obtain when averaging Arctic and Antarctic absolutes:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2bJET93LIapPeGamT_5LczIs5rnj_Wt/view
“Did someone tell you that?”
No.
“Only averaging of anomalies wrt local data makes sense.”
Only if those anomalies take the same amount of energy.
barry
” Perhaps, Bin, but the point about opposite seasons (min/max at different times of the year for each hemisphere) is relevant. ”
Of course it is!
But again: only when considering observed values, but not when working with deseasonalised departures from local, respective means – if built out of the same reference period, however.
*
The best example is the set of zonal UAH time series: you can average Northern Extratropics, Tropics, Southern Extratropics alltogether and obtain the same series as the original Globe series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D6RXo4v9AvvJXSdzpOK8Ef2qF0N_2jTU/view
*
If I hadn’t drawn the original blue series as a dashed line, you would see the red mix behind it. The difference in the trend (0.0002 C/decade) is actually due to the low accuracy of the UAH data – only 2 digits after the decimal point.
*
But no one doing professional work would even globally average tide gauge anomalies: this is first done ‘locally’ in the great ocean basins.
“is actually due to the low accuracy of the UAH data only 2 digits after the decimal point.”
So, not +/- 0.0063C as you said above.
You keep widely missing the mark, red. The uncertainty of the trend and the online data to two decimal places are not the same thing.
“Did someone tell you that?”
You did. Continuously.
As usual, the pseudoskeptic de service doesn’t show any technical competence, and urges in posting nonsense instead.
*
When I write
” 0.1501 +- 0.0063 ”
this is what I computed by using the linear estimate function of a spreadsheet calculator; if I tell it to print numbers with 2,3,4,…,n digits after the decimal point, it simply does.
If I tell my software to generate a time series with 2,3,4,…,n digits after the decimal point, it simply does.
*
But… when I write
” The difference in the trend (0.0002 C/decade) is actually due to the low accuracy of the UAH data only 2 digits after the decimal point. ”
I mean UAH’s own output.
*
It seems that like the other pseudoskeptics (especially Robertson), you don’t even look at the documents Roy Spencer posts links to, at the beginning of his monthly LT temperature reports.
Otherwise, you would have noticed that in all these documents, all floating point numbers (anomalies, trends) are printed with only 2 digits after the decimal point.
*
If you continue to post such dumb trash in reply to my comments, I’ll add you to the mute list of Elliott Bignell’s Tarderase: so I then don’t have to read that trash anymore.
test
Solar wind
speed: 462.8 km/sec
density: 2.15 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Dec 24
https://spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 126
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 185 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 29.86×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.2% Low
Has sun’s magnetic field flipped, are we past the peak?
Why not?
After all, that would confirm the prediction made last year by McIntosh & alii about SC25’s peak in fall 2024:
https://helioforecast.space/static/sync/icme_solar_cycle/cycle25_prediction_focus.png
Solar wind
speed: 517.2 km/sec
density: 7.14 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 01 Jan 25
Sunspot number: 162
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 218 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 25.80×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.5% Low
Thank you Roy for sharing these with every one.
NASA will never be the same with new administrator, Jared Isaacman!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3NbgyK0j4Y
Ellie in Space
We need to remember that NASA is not the problem, it’s the alarmist views of their climate arm, NASA GISS, that is the problem. A former head of NASA wanted to get rid of alarmist James Hansen and someone from the Democrat government stepped into bail him out, likely Al Gore.
Isaacman is apparently in cahoots with Elon Musk with whom I have no real issues re his views. However, he seems somewhat flaky when it comes to his climate views, tending to e somewhat alarmist. I wonder if Isaacman is also an alarmist.
NASA’s space program was likely held back by climate alarmists in the former Democrat government due to their hysterical views on anthropogenic warming. I hope NASA is now freed up to do decent space exploration.
Watched a video the other night on a space shot to Pluto. NASA actually referred to Pluto as a planet and when you see a close up shot of it, it closely resembles the other 8 planets. It has been declassified as a planet due to a theoretical loophole which has no evidence to back it.
Just want to draw attention to books by Roy advertised at top of page. I felt a somewhat swayed by alarmist reports on Roy’s site that he was now a luke-warmer and some even advocated that Roy was in agreement with their alarmist views.
Roy is a scientist and I have never expected him to agree with my more skeptical views. I also appreciate him allowing me to express my views. In fact he does not agree with me on many things and has said so. I am OK with that since maintaining an image and fostering an ego, are not conducive to the awareness required to do science. Image and ego cannot operate in the awareness space required for objectivity.
Just the same, it’s good for me to read the intros for these books and find that Roy is not swayed by the modern false consensus that alarmist science is confirmed.
The books…
The Great Global Warming Blunder
“The Great Global Warming Blunder unveils new evidence from major scientific findings that explode the conventional wisdom on climate change and reshape the global warming debate as we know it. Roy W. Spencer, a former senior NASA climatologist, reveals how climate researchers have mistaken cause and effect when analyzing cloud behavior and have been duped by Mother Nature into believing the Earths climate system is far more sensitive to human activities and carbon dioxide than it really is”.
An Inconvenient Deception
“Al Gore’s new movie An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power is reviewed for its accuracy in climate science and energy policy. As was the case with Gore’s first movie (An Inconvenient Truth), the movie is bursting with bad science, bad policy and some outright falsehoods. The storm events Gore addresses occur naturally, and there is little or no evidence they are being made worse from human activities: sea level is rising at the same rate it was before humans started burning fossil fuels; in Miami Beach the natural rise is magnified because buildings and streets were constructed on reclaimed swampland that has been sinking; the 9/11 memorial was not flooded by sea level rise from melting ice sheets, but a storm surge at high tide, which would have happened anyway
The inevitable Disaster
“After major hurricanes Harvey and Irma made landfall in the United States in 2017, and as Hurricane Florence approaches the Carolinas in 2018, there have been renewed calls to do something about global warming. The popular perception that landfalling hurricanes in the U.S. are becoming more frequent or more severe, however, is shown to be incorrect”.
Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People
“This book draws on decades of climate research to explain why the threat of anthropogenic climate change has been grossly exaggerated. Global warming and associated climate change exists – but the role of humans in that change is entirely debatable. A little-known aspect of modern climate science is that the warming of the global atmosphere-ocean system over the last 100 years, even if entirely human-caused, has progressed at a rate that reduces the threat of future warming by 50% compared to the climate model projections. To the extent warming is partly natural (a possibility even the IPCC acknowledges)…”
As long as Roy is saying that AGW is overblown you can forgive him for saying that it exists?
I guess the facts of the matter are less important than the messaging…
Barry: So the H2O increase is just accidental?
Are you saying CO2 is the main driver of recent warm temps?
No.
Me neither.
Are we done putting words in my mouth yet? Because I can mirror your bad habit as long as it takes to cure you.
Your attempt to confuse things does not go well.
I am tired of having to tell you that I didn’t say what you imply I said. You do it constantly. It is odious, miring the conversation in your mischaracterisation of others’ comments. From now on I will return the favour whenever you do it, hopefully curing you of the habit.
barry
Don’t waste your time with Blindsley H00d, it’s useless.
As with Blinny,
Why not Barry, Tambora lenghened the little ice age by approx two years,therefore it is reasonable to assume a mass ejection of H20 would have some effect temperatures.
According to my calculation the global trend now rounds up to +0.16 C/dec
Misleading. Your calculation is being inflated by the recent outlier event.
red krokodile says:
“Misleading. Your calculation is being inflated by the recent outlier event.”
Nope. The trend is the trend, using all available data.
David,
To accurately estimate a long-term trend, you need to account for the noise in the dataset. Around seven years ago, John Christy did this by adjusting the UAH dataset to remove the effects of volcano-induced cooling and ENSO variability.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-017-0070-z
David Appell
Are you 100% sure to have read Roy Spencer’s post about the transition from 6.0 to 6.1?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2024-truncation-of-the-noaa-19-satellite-record/
Trends for Dec 1978 till Sep 2024, in C / decade
6.0: 0.1576 +- 0.0065 i.e. 0.16
6.1: 0.1501 +- 0.0063 i.e. 0.15
Bindidon says:
December 5, 2024 at 2:19 PM
David Appell
>> Are you 100% sure to have read Roy Spencers post about the transition from 6.0 to 6.1? <<
Including the full v6.1 data, which wasn't available when I made my original post, the total trend is now
+0.15 C/dec
More significant digits aren't justified.
BTW, 10 years ago, Nov 2014: the total trend was +0.11 C/dec.
There's been strong warming since. Very surprising warming. Just as predicted. El Nino years are getting warmer, La Nina years are getting warmer, Neutral years are getting warmer.
It's getting warmer.
NOAA changes its methods and trend increases by 0.003 C/decade
Skeptics say fraud
UAH changes its methods and trend decreases by 0.007 C.decade
Skeptics say good work
After Dr. Spencer’s recent postings about UHI why would anyone have any confidence in NOAA anything?
Thank you so much for demonstrating the point.
No need for skepticism when it’s Dr Spencer, eh?
Ozone blockade over the Bering Sea will cause another stratospheric intrusions in the US.
https://i.ibb.co/j3LQTPY/gfs-toz-nh-f96.png
https://i.ibb.co/sbzQLj7/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f096.png
Try this view
https://bsky.app/profile/hankgreen.bsky.social/post/3lcnk34tomc2w
Current snow cover in the northern hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/87pSYwj/gfs-npole-sat-seaice-snowc-d1.png
A continuation of the lake effect on the Great Lakes.
Interesting study out of Germany, suggesting a possible, non-HTE cause of the unexpected heat in 2023-2024: lower albedo due to a decline in low altitude cloud cover.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq7280
Interesting indeed, thanks.
Snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere (in numbers)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A3Uy377a89yXvDV1k91I38UtaMquwlTX/view
Current week: 48
Current surface: 40.17 Mkm^2
1981-2010 mean: 40.07 Mkm^2
So what.
Source: Rutgers’ Snow Lab
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/wkcov.nhland.txt
So what?
A simple trend line suggests a decrease of about 12% over the entire period.
That’s what.
Signor Professore
1. You aren#t the only one on Earth who is busy with trends:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R5CSSdlMh2SiqMcntu5mTL1lcooYLOLv/view
2. Simple trends are what they are.
3. Next time you could first ask me what I actually meant by So what?, right?
Yeah…watch it Prof, around here, when it comes to statistics, Binny is a legend in his own mind.
Binny still doesn’t understand an anomaly, or the meaning of an associated baseline, but he is a legend in his own mind when it comes to trend lines.
All right.
What do you actually mean by So what?.
My ‘So what’ was thought as a hint to the coolistas who pick up all the time tiniest hints on cold temperatures, more sea ice or snow and try to interpret them as signs of global cooling.
NH’s snow cover meanders since year around its mean calculated for 1981-2010.
*
By the way, writing as you do
” A simple trend line suggests a decrease of about 12% over the entire period. ”
is exceptionally OK here because for the NH snow cover, trend schemes more espousing the data tell similar things.
*
But often enough it’s not very helpful, e.g. when looking at Arctic sea ice:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17M0d8_WgygYLyzjKYCb-0E5_7we0Cds5/view
The green line is, as you have clearly shown above, what you want to tell us.
But the blue and the red plot tell something quite different, what you first realize when looking at them or when you compute the linear trend since 2010 and 2015 rather than only since 1979!
Trends for the Arctic sea ice extent anomalies, in Mkm^2 / decade
– 1979-2024: -0.51 +- 0.01
– 2010-2024: -0.16 +- 0.10
– 2015-2024: +0.26 +- 0.18
Yeah.
My apologies.
Your hint went over my head.
Re trends over different periods.
The r-squared values help distinguish which trends are meaningful.
The 2015-2024 trend is unlikely to be as statistically significant as the other trends. Therefore it deserves little comment.
” The 2015-2024 trend is unlikely to be as statistically significant as the other trends. Therefore it deserves little comment.”
Nor does the 2010-2024 trend show this either then, with an R^2 of 0.02.
For flat trends, R^2 is of no use anyway.
I prefer to trust higher order polynomials published by the spreadsheet calculator.
As always, ignoramus Robertson is able to no more than to polemically doubt and discredit instead of technically disproving.
Not to mention that you can’t argue with people who ‘forget’ everything that was answered to them and hence each time restart their insane nonsense from scratch again.
*
If Robertson had a working brain, he would of course understand what Roy Spencer wrote in 2016:
UAH v6 LT Global Temperatures with Annual Cycle
March 3rd, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
*
And he would also understand that what I write in this blog about anomalies and show in diagrams like
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zMrnVDsGrI63WWKdlKmt2ez_RWvNpyag/view
or
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VGc_PD3FJOJDA6aG0284owAym0XjAOgn/view
is exactly the same as what Roy Spencer explained and of course has nothing in common with NOAA’s trivial explanations for anomalies, which are actually intended for retarded simpletons like… Robertson and his credulous followers.
barry…”As long as Roy is saying that AGW is overblown you can forgive him for saying that it exists?”
***
Roy has never said how much AGW adds to warming. Heck, even I concede the possibility that AGW is a factor but I have scientifically limited it to 0.06C per 1C warming.
Climate modelers don’t use science, they simply pull a warming percentage from a hat. They have ‘inferred’ that CO2 provides 9% to 25% of current warming which varies with the amount of WV present. There is no science to back that inference. The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation certainly do not agree with the inference.
“Heck, even I concede the possibility that AGW is a factor”
First time I think I’ve ever heard you say that.
I seem to remember you supporting anyone arguing AGW wasn’t real – arguing to help them about how radiation is absorbed.
I don’t think you once ever in those conversations sais directly that the GHE is real.
“but I have scientifically limited it to 0.06C per 1C warming.”
Are you actually saying that for every 1C the planet warms, 6% of that warmth will always be due to anthro CO2? Is the cause of the other 94% just as fixed, or is that variable?
barry…I said that 6/100th of 1 degree warming ‘might’ come from CO2. Putting it as 6% of all warming since 1850 makes it appear that CO2 is responsible for far more warming than the alarmist propaganda claims.
Their claim of 9% to 25% suggests that between CO2 and WV, about 1/4 of all warming since 1850 is due to anthropogenic gases, for lack of a better word. According to my sources, the Ideal Gas Law, and the heat diffusion equation, the 1C warming since 1850 is 94% due to a recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Alarmists, led by the IPCC, are ignoring the IGL, suggesting the cooling applied only to Europe. That comes from some sort of voodoo science where a cooling of 1C to 2C over 400+ years was localized to 2% of the Earth’s surface area while the rest was unaffected. The IPCC have not offered an explanation as to how that is possible thus we are left with only one explanation for a 1C warming since 1850, human produced CO2.
I have voiced my opinion on the GHE, that it is nothing more than an attempt to apply childhood logic to a complex problem. The GHE theory has nothing to do with a real greenhouse warming and it comes from unfounded science related to infrared emissions as the root cause of not only warming but to an explanation of how the Earth remains in thermodynamic balance with incoming solar energy.
The IPCC has relied on this immature logic since the first co-chair of the IPCC, John Houghton, a climate modeler, steered the IPCC in that direction and away from observable science. Climate models rely solely on the Navier-Stokes equations which operates solely on bulk fluid flow. Air can hardly be regarded as a bulk fluid in most instances since they are based on Newton’s work related to real fluids like water. Newton described fluids, yet Navier-Stokes is being applied in climate models as if air is a fluid which obeys Navier-Stokes at STP.
I guess that’s where alarmists got the term ‘atmospheric river’. They are describing a flow of molecules as air, and perhaps some droplets of water as condensed WV, as a river, which describes the motion of closely bound water molecules. The term, atmospheric river, is shoddy science aimed at creating hysteria.
My interpretation of the warming claimed to be represented by the GHE is that most heat is absorbed from the surface via direct contact with air molecules. As those molecules are warmed, they rise, taking surface heat with them. However, they cannot retain the heat indefinitely since the air is rising into lower pressure regions constantly, and as the pressure reduces, the heat is lost naturally due to lowered density.
This is a unique situation in the universe whereby a gravitational field orders the pressure of air surrounding the planets vertically. To understand this, one must go to the atomic level and understand the atomic basis of heat, temperature, and pressure. The Conservation of Energy law and the idea that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, came from an era (the mid 1800s) before it was discovered what an atom is or how it works in bulk with other atoms, especially in a substance like air.
In the case of the atmosphere, the real bulk flow is atmospheric gases absorbing heat from the surface and transporting it high into the atmosphere. The effect of surface radiation has been completely exaggerated as a cooling agent. The notion that a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere is the only means of dissipating surface heat to space is about as silly as it gets.
gordon, you said:
“0.06C per 1C warming”
I might have made a mistake assuming you understand what ‘per’ means.
“Their claim of 9% to 25% suggests that between CO2 and WV, about 1/4 of all warming since 1850 is due to anthropogenic gases”
You don’t know what those values refer to: that is the range of estimated CO2 contribution to the static greenhouse effect. It’s got nothing to do with relative contribution over time.
“Their claim” – stop being so fuzzily tribal. Whose claim?
“Alarmists, led by the IPCC, are ignoring the IGL, suggesting the cooling applied only to Europe.”
Regionality of the LIA is based on proxy temp records and other observational indicators), not on pure theory about gas. You are ignoring data.
You’re the guy who is forever telling us how cold it is in your part of the world despite global warming. How does [your take on] the IGL explain that?
“Alarmists, led by the IPCC, are ignoring the IGL, suggesting the cooling applied only to Europe. That comes from some sort of voodoo science where a cooling of 1C to 2C over 400+ years was localized to 2% of the Earths surface area while the rest was unaffected.”
Let’s see what the IPCC actually says:
“Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the twentieth century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation….”
So is your take on this dishonest or ignorant? Or do you think accurately describing the views you reject is too bothersome when you have a “2%” soundbyte?
“The GHE theory has nothing to do with a real greenhouse warming and it comes from unfounded science related to infrared emissions as the root cause of not only warming but to an explanation of how the Earth remains in thermodynamic balance with incoming solar energy.”
Well hullo! You’re back to denying the GHE.
You took less than a day to completely contradict yourself.
“My interpretation of the warming claimed to be represented by the GHE [etc]…”
flatly rejects what you said only a few hours ago:
“Heck, even I concede the possibility that AGW is a factor”
Have a great day.
barry
” You’re the guy who is forever telling us how cold it is in your part of the world despite global warming. ”
Last winter I have explained to Robertson the difference between his gut feeling about a few colder days in October 2023 near his home
CA001105658 BC_N_VANC_GROUSE_MTN_RESORT___ 2023 10 25 -9.0 (C)
and the reality equally shown by both GHCN stations in, resp. UAH LT above the Vancouver region (a 2.5 degree UAH grid centred at 48.75N-123.75W, near Deerholme on Vancouver Island):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_SKqWFK_07ShBwvT0wTf2HqalJRoiyKg/view
*
All he was able to reply was to doubt the existence of any GHCN station located on Vancouver’s Grouse Mountain at an altitude of 1100 m (he very probably never has been there).
*
You can’t argue with people who keep all the time polemically doubting and discrediting – instead of technically disproving.
Not to mention that you can’t argue with people who ‘forget’ everything that was answered to them and hence each time restart their insane nonsense from scratch again.
“you can’t argue with people who ‘forget’ everything that was answered to them and hence each time restart their insane nonsense from scratch again.”
Indeed. Gordon’s ideas about AGW and what people have said here are mostly fictional, and nothing will prise him from these errors of the 1st kind. No chance for a proper conversation when you have to correct so many repeated misapprehensions.
Gordon,
Too bad you don’t understand the limitations of the Ideal Gas Law.
Like in the atmosphere, CO2 can transfer energy to O2 and N2 through collisions.
And the Ideal Gas Law is limited to those transfers and not to transfers out side of the volume of the gas.
Up your game, we are on to your tricks.
And they are not very clever.
Climate modelers don’t rely on solid scientific data; instead, they seem to randomly estimate warming percentages. Their inference that CO2 accounts for 9% to 25% of current warming lacks scientific support and contradicts principles like the Ideal Gas Law and heat diffusion equations. https://doramasflix.to/
Earth (in our times) at Northern Hemisphere winters is closer to the sun. So, the winters at Northern Hemisphere are warmer.
This is an orbitally forced natural phenomenon, which makes planet Earth into a millennials long, slow warming pattern.
The excess heat planet Earth gained was mostly consumed on sea-ice melting processes. It was consumed as latent heat.
This century, when there is a much less sea-ice left to get melt, the natural warming pattern’s excess heat is consumed less on the sea-ice melting, and it is more “available” to rise Earth’s temperature.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“I Wore the Juice”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Greater_Pittsburgh_bank_robberies
Cumulus, stratus or stratocumulus then?
“This is an orbitally forced natural phenomenon, which makes planet Earth into a millennials long, slow warming pattern.”
Currently the orbital forcing is a millenia long cooling trend
It has been estimated that the Earths oceans will boil in a billion years
But first Earth would be covered with an opaque H2O very dense cloudiness.
Earths average Albedo will rise from the present ~0,3 to about ~0,7 which is a cooling feedback factor.
On the other hand, the future opaque atmosphere will rise Earths solar irradiation accepting factor Φ, from its present value of
Φ ~0,47 to its maximum value of Φ =1.
The rising of the solar irradiation accepting factor Φ is therefore a warming feedback.
But, lets hope for the best, who knows, maybe everything will be settled well lets wait and see.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It has been estimated that the Earths oceans will boil in a billion years”
While “boiling oceans” is a dramatic simplification, the idea is in line with the scientific understanding of Earth’s long-term fate under the Sun’s gradually increasing brightness as it ages. It is expected to become ~10% more luminous over the next billion years.
“ But first Earth would be covered with an opaque H2O very dense cloudiness.
Earths average Albedo will rise from the present ~0,3 to about ~0,7 which is a cooling feedback factor.”
This is only partially true. As the Earth warms, increased evaporation will indeed lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere, but water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas and increasing it would initially lead to more warming rather than cooling.
Clouds can have a cooling as well as warming effect depending on the type and altitude of clouds. Low clouds may reflect enough sunlight to offset their IR trapping and downwelling emissions resulting in a net cooling effect, while high clouds are less reflective and trap and emit IR resulting in a warming effect.
“ On the other hand, …”
As I’ve told you before, the drag coefficient for a sphere in a viscous fluid flow and Fresnel reflection are unrelated phenomena because they arise from fundamentally different physical principles and domains.
Yes, Arkady,
“As Ive told you before, the drag coefficient for a sphere in a viscous fluid flow and Fresnel reflection are unrelated phenomena because they arise from fundamentally different physical principles and domains.”
–
Of course they are, but they have the features of analogue.
Both phenomena deal with energy flow interacting with surface matter.
Both deal with the shape, and with the roughness of surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Here on Earth 1, an object with a drag coefficient of 1 presents greater mechanical resistance to a fluid flow than an object with a 0.47 drag coefficient.
I your world, an object with a drag coefficient of 1 presents less resistance to light absorp_tion than an object with a drag coefficient of 0.47.
Arkady,
“Here on Earth 1, an object with a drag coefficient of 1 presents greater mechanical resistance to a fluid flow than an object with a 0.47 drag coefficient.
I your world, an object with a drag coefficient of 1 presents less resistance to light absorp_tion than an object with a drag coefficient of 0.47.”
–
Why, the
(1 – a)S (W/m2) is the not reflected portion of the incident SW solar EM energy on the planet cross-section disk.
For Φ(1 – a)S (W/m2) , when Φ =1 there is more solar energy absorbed, than when Φ =0,47 .
Thus when Φ =1 , it presents a greater resistance to the light flow than an object with Φ =0,47 .
So, the Φ has an analogous to the drag coefficient 0,47 behavioral feature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas,
“Why“?
For starters, drag coefficient applies to the macroscopic behavior of an object in a moving fluid, while Fresnel reflection applies to the microscopic interaction of EM waves at a material boundary.
It’s almost like the difference between Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics. I say almost because, while Quantum Mechanics transitions into Classical Mechanics at macroscopic scales, drag coefficients and Fresnel reflection do not transition into one another under any circumstances, they remain separate phenomena.
Second, you wrote “ (1 – a)S (W/m2) the not reflected portion of the incident SW solar EM energy on the planet cross-section disk.”
So, if you believe the two phenomena are analogous, why did you not use the drag coefficient of a flat plate?
Lastly, when Φ =1, 70% light is absorbed, and when Φ =0.47, 32.9% light is absorbed. Therefore:
Christos,
The observations show that the abs.orbed solar flux is ~ 240 W/m2, on average, the same as the emitted average IR flux.
In your theory the average abs.orbed flux is 0.47*(1-0.3)*340 W/m2 = 112 W/m2.
This is very far from agreement with observations.
To do science, one has to be willing to test your theories against observations. And if they don’t agree, then the theory is wrong.
“Observations” do NOT show that “absorbed solar flux is ~ 240 2/M^2”. There are NO actual measurements of ASR. It is all assumptions, based on false beliefs.
To do science, one has to be willing to test your theories against observations. And if they don’t agree, then the theory is wrong. It gets even worse for the CO2 cult. They have NO viable theory!
Observations do NOT show that absorbed solar flux is ~ 240 2/M^2″
Usual unsupported nonsense from Clint.
You can’t show something that doesn’t exist, Nate. As usual, you’re off in some fantasy universe.
You believe that computer-generated, hodgepodged, colorized nonsense means something. All it means is you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Your cult remains confused about that “240 W/m^2”. That value comes from an imaginary sphere. It has NO meaningful relation to Earth.
“You cant show something that doesnt exist, Nate.”
Thus Clint cannot support his nonsense, because the measurements do exist:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/20/3/jcli4018.1.xml
One of many such papers describing such measurements by multiple satellites.
Undoubtedly Clint will claim, without rationale, that they’ve done it wrong!
Did you find another source you don’t understand, Nate?
That paper says NOTHING about Earth’s actual value of outgoing flux at TOA. You’re just throwing more crap against the wall.
What will you try next?
(If you were really interested in science, you’d avoid anything from Loeb. He has no clue about radiative physics.)
“That paper says NOTHING about Earths actual value of outgoing flux at TOA.”
Weird, given that your original complaint was about abs.orbed solar radiation!
Noted satellite remote sensing expert Clint (sarc) seems unable to comprehend the relevance of the measurements in the paper to ASR.
There really is no fix for stooopid.
Thank you, Arkady,
“In your world, an object with a drag coefficient of 1 presents less resistance to light absorp_tion than an object with a drag coefficient of 0.47.”
–
(1 a)S (W/m2) is the not reflected portion of the incident SW solar EM energy on the planet cross-section disk.
Φ(1 a)S (W/m2) , when Φ =1 there is more solar energy absorbed, than when Φ =0,47 .
–
Notice, it is not Φ*S, but it is (Φ*S – Φa*S).
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You exhibit fear or dislike of the truth; an unwillingness to come to terms with truth or facts.
Thank you, Arkady,
“You exhibit fear or dislike of the truth; an unwillingness to come to terms with truth or facts.”
Sorry, I am being blocked out.
Arkady, when I delay answering, it is not because of my unwillingness…
Thank you, Nate,
“In your theory the average abs.orbed flux is 0.47*(1-0.3)*340 W/m2 = 112 W/m2.”
–
We cannot average solar flux over the entire Globe, because at every given moment there is a single hemisphere being solar irradiated.
Also, the 0.47*(1-0.3)*So W/m2 is not absorbed, it is the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux.
Notice, what solar energy is not as SW EM energy reflected, it is not necessarilly entirely absorbed as heat.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Also, the 0.47*(1-0.3)*So W/m2 is not absorbed, it is the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux.”
I’m sorry. If the light is not absorbed and not reflected, where does it go?
It is “reflected” as LW EM energy, because when incident, it gets transformed from SW into LW and goes out too.
“We cannot average solar flux over the entire Globe, because at every given moment there is a single hemisphere being solar irradiated.”
The single hemisphere being irradiated also experiences 12 hours of darkness every day. So we certainly can determine the average solar flux recieved over a 24 hour period.
And we need that to balance the energy losses by IR emission, which are continuous during a 24 hour period and averages to 240 W/m2.
Here is a recent measurement of it:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/polr_c.gif
Your theoretical daily solar input needs to balance the measured daily emission, on average.
If you don’t like this way of accounting then show us how you do it.
Thank you, Nate.
“The single hemisphere being irradiated also experiences 12 hours of darkness every day. So we certainly can determine the average solar flux recieved over a 24 hour period.
And we need that to balance the energy losses by IR emission, which are continuous during a 24 hour period and averages to 240 W/m2.”
“Your theoretical daily solar input needs to balance the measured daily emission, on average.”
–
The non-linearity of the S-B radiation law, when coupled with a strong latitudinal variation of the INTERACTED solar flux across the surface of a sphere, and with the planet rate of rotation, and with the average surface specific heat, creates a mathematical condition for a correct calculation of the true global surface temperature from a spatially integrated infrared emission.
Jemit = 4πr^2σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
and
Jemit = πr^2 Φ(1 – a)S
Where:
Jemit (W) -is the INFRARED emission flux from the entire planet (the TOTAL)
r – is the planet radius
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Solar Irradiated Planet INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant ( the Rotational Warming Factor constant ).
N – rotation /per day, is planets rate of rotation with reference to the sun in earthen days. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp – cal/gr*oC- is the planet average surface specific heat.
a – is the average Albedo (dimensionless).
Φ – is the solar irradiation accepting factor (dimensionless).
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you are simply repeating the theory, while not dealing with the issue of energy balance. Nor are you comparing your theoretical values to the observations.
If your theory cannot be tested against observations then it is NOT science.
Thank you, Nate.
“If your theory cannot be tested against observations then it is NOT science.”
–
–
We have the NASA satellite measured for planets and moons their respective, the precisely measured, the average surface temperatures (Tsat) and the average surface Albedo (a).
Also we use as a method, the planet temperatures comparison.
Lets see:
For Mercury a =0,068 Te =440K Te.correct =364K Tsat =340K.
The Mercury’s very small Albedo doesn’t explain the
Te – Tsat = 440K -340K = 100C very large difference.
For Moon a =0,11 Te =270,4K Te,correct =223K Tsat =220K.
The Moon’s very small Albedo, also, doesn’t explain the
Te – Tsat = 270,4K -220K = 50,4C very large difference.
For Mars a =0,250 Te =209,4 Te.correct =174K Tsat =210K.
For Mars, the Albedo a =0,250 doesn’t explain the
Te – Tsat = 209,4 -210K = -0,6K very small difference.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate
You just need to drop Vournas’ still 100% unproven Φ manipulation off his equations and all gets well.
*
Vournas’ Φ is exactly the same kind of pseudoscience as Robertson’s nonsense about 1500 NOAA stations worldwide in 2024, or Blindsley H00d’s claim that medians are always better than means.
None of them would be ever able to prove what they claim when using own data processing.
They all rely own own guesses, contrarian blogs or… Wikipedia.
Christos,
It does not matter what your theory predicts for other planets.
The question I am asking is how can your theory account for Earth observations?
As I showed you, the observations find the outgoing LW radiation averages 240 W/m2.
Your theory has the non-reflected SW is 112 W/m2 on average.
This would produce a large energy imbalance, and cannot satisfy conservation of energy, unless the Earth is rapidly cooling, which it clearly is not.
Thank you, Nate.
“Christos,
It does not matter what your theory predicts for other planets.”
–
Why, the other planets are being observed and measured very well.
The planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON. All planets and moons are inevitably subjected to that Universal Phenomenon.
Earth is a planet – Earth is subjected to the Universal Phenomena.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Again, you evade the issue here. If your theory fails to account for the observed energy output from Earth, then it is wrong.
Obviously, you have no rational explanation.
barry…”You dont know what those values refer to: that is the range of estimated CO2 contribution to the static greenhouse effect. Its got nothing to do with relative contribution over time”.
***
Those ***ESTIMATED*** values are a major basis of climate models and one reason they are projecting far too high. Another major reason is the inappropriate usage of amplifying positive feedbacks that do not exist in the atmosphere.
My 0.6C warming from CO2 is based on sound and proved science as per the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation.
—-
“Regionality of the LIA is based on proxy temp records and other observational indicators), not on pure theory about gas. You are ignoring data.
***
A pure theory about gas??? The IGL is an established relationship between pressure, temperature and volume in any gas and the atmosphere is a gas. The heat diffusion equation is an established equation that measures the amount of heat that can be transferred from one gas to another or from one gas to many other gases in a gas mixture.
The IGL is a basis in science. It meets the requirements of the scientific method. Both the IGL and the heat diffusion equation reveal clearly that in any gas mix, the amount of heat one gas can transfer to another is limited to its mass percent. CO2 has a mass percent of roughly 0.06% in the atmosphere so figure it out.
***
Since 1850 there has been very little observations other than in Europe. So, the IPCC is claiming a cooling in Europe only based on data from Europe only.
Really, Barry, you might try being somewhat skeptical of your authority figures. The IPCC have been revealed to be cheaters…
1)they have a mandate to find only evidence of anthropogenic warming, Why??? A scientific study would require that all evidence be studied. They have dismissed a perfectly good explanation for the warming, and why? Rewarming from the Little Ice Age makes perfect sense but the IPCC have conveniently dismissed the LIA as a phenomenon local to Europe only.
2)In their reviews, they use 2500 reviewers to review various papers on alarmist anthropogenic warming. Skeptical papers are not reviewed. Before the main report of 2500 reviewers is released, a Summary written by 50 politically-appointed Lead Authors is released to politicians as the official findings. Then the report written by 2500 reviewers is amended to reflect the Summary.
The IPCC are cheaters who are spreading climate alarm through chicanery and pseudo-science.
—-
]IPCC]”…However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation.
[Barry]So is your take on this dishonest or ignorant? Or do you think accurately describing the views you reject is too bothersome when you have a 2% soundbyte?
***
Did you conveniently ignore the ‘may’ in their pseudo-science? And speaking of dishonesty and ignorance, did you conveniently ignore the point I made about Europe cooling 1C to 2C while the rest of the planet was unaffected? Give me another instance where that has happened on Planet Earth.
“Those ***ESTIMATED*** values are a major basis of climate models and one reason they are projecting far too high.”
This is bone-headedly wrong. Emphasis on bone-headed. Atmospheric models are not built from percentages! They arise from physics equations. That estimate is a result of modelling, not part of its coding.
You really are very ignorant about nearly everything to do with AGW.
“Since 1850 there has been very little observations other than in Europe. So, the IPCC is claiming a cooling in Europe only based on data from Europe only.”
Then why did they list New Zealand, Patagonia and other places outside Europe where there was cooling at various points during the LIA?
…Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the twentieth century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia.
And why did you ignore these countries in the quote I gave you on LIA from IPCC?
This is how you operate, isn’t it? The IPCC states places outside Europe that were cold during the LIA, contrary to your belief they only mention Europe. And your brain just filters that out, doesn’t it? As if the words don’t exist.
And it gets worse. Your mind has completely forgotten that most of the LIA data is from proxies of temp and other indicators, including for Europe. How many thermometers do you imagine they had to draw on for temperatures in the 16th and 17th centuries? The prevalent method for estimating temperature changes in this period is glacier advance and retreat.
And yet you make up a story that only Europe is touted as being cold during LIA, because only places with thermometers got included. Well guess what? The LIA only happened in Central England for the first 150 years according to your dribble. And this means the LIA did not start until 1659.
Think proxy data is useless? Well there goes the MWP. And there goes the rest of Europe for the LIA up until the late 18th century.
Sheesh, use your brain, Gordon.
You misunderstood what I said about IGL. Can’t be bothered correcting you about that.
barry…”Well hullo! Youre back to denying the GHE.
You took less than a day to completely contradict yourself”.
***
I contradicted nothing, all along I have claimed is that the GHE is fiction. Lindzen agrees, he thinks essentially that the GHE is hypothesized as a simplified fairy tale aimed at the gullible.
That’s not to say there is no warming effect, there is, however, it has nothing to do with a real greenhouse hence the name greenhouse warming is a misnomer. The fact that it is still employed suggests a desire by some to confuse the listener or the reader.
I did not claim a greenhouse warming I claimed a rewarming due to recovery from the Little Ice Age. I did acknowledge that some of the warming could be related to anthropogenic gases but I limited that to 0.06C per 1C atmospheric warming.
The term anthropogenic warming is misleading as well since it is a tenuous warming that varies greatly with location. The inferre3 GHE is actually a simplified analogy of the science behind atmospheric warming. I have never denied such warming I simply cannot relate it to the warming in a real greenhouse that has somehow been transferred to the atmosphere.
I would not mind so much if the GHE theory applied to a real greenhouse but it does not. The GHE infers that a real greenhouse warms due to trapped infrared emission whereas it really warms due to the trapping of heated air molecules by the greenhouse glass.
The IR blocking theory is an anachronism dating back to the 1800s, well before the relationship between heat and infrared energy was understood. During the 1800s, it was theorized that heat flowed through the atmosphere as ‘heat rays’, a fanciful idea of how heat was transferred through mediums like air. In other words, heat and what is now known to be electromagnetic energy, were confused at one time as being one and the same. Unfortunetely, some modern scientists are still labouring under the notion that IR and heat are the same energy.
That is the basis of your GHE theory, that heat as heat rays is trapped by glass in a real greenhouse. IR is not heat. The real heat is contained in air molecules and as they try to rise, the glass blocks the molecules physically.
The AGW theory further compounds the misunderstanding by claiming that GHGs in the atmosphere absorbing surface radiation affects the rate of surface cooling. Not possible. The moment the IR is created at the surface, the associated heat is lost. That is, the infrared energy is created at the expense of thermal energy, therefore trapping IR has no effect on surface heat or the rate of heat dissipation.
Gordon says: “I contradicted nothing, all along I have claimed is that the GHE is fiction.”
Gordon also says: “Heck, even I concede the possibility that AGW is a factor”
AGW is based on the GHE. You contradict yourself with these statements.
I think you’re losing coherence generally, old bean.
“Lindzen agrees, he thinks essentially that the GHE is hypothesized as a simplified fairy tale aimed at the gullible.”
Lindzen agrees that doubling CO2 should raise the surface temperature 1C absent any other feedbacks – in line with the mainstream view. This is the ‘greenhouse effect’ we’re talking about, and don’t now pretend you only have a problem with the name of it. Go argue with a kindergartener that it’s not a real greenhouse. The adults are fully aware, thanks.
“That is the basis of your GHE theory, that heat as heat rays is trapped by glass in a real greenhouse.”
Rot. We’ve all discussed how it actually works here long enough to dismiss your comment here as unhinged.
You mischaracterise not some, but EVERYTHING about AGW, what the IPCC says, and what I think.
You get everything wrong.
So, have you yet noticed that the IPCC said Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia were cold during the LIA, as Europe was? Or are you going to keep pretending they didn’t?
Gordon,
There are so many things you can read on the LIA. Countless studies, review papers. They are not monolithic in their conclusions. Some suggest global cold, most suggest regional or only focus on one region.
Here is an article that’s worth a read, capturing the uncertainties fairly succinctly.
https://www.historicalclimatology.com/features/the-good-bad-undefined-little-ice-age
barry…a post of desperation??? The author, Heli Huhtamaa, is a historian, not a scientist, and she is a climate alarmist to boot.
***
Her arguments against the LIA are pathetically naive.
1)”The heterogenous spatiotemporal characteristics of the LIA can be primarily explained by the probable trigger of the climatic phase: volcanic aerosol forcing…”
***
Surely a joke. Since when could volcanic aerosols depress global temperatures more than a year or so?
———
2)”One common criticism of the LIA as a concept is that current climate change is not comparable to the LIA. Indeed, the LIA and anthropogenic warming are not comparable climatic phases in terms of the extent or magnitude of the change, partly due to the different drivers of these changes. Whereas the LIA was to a great degree triggered by volcanic forcing, the current climatic change is caused by rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations…”
***
She misses the most obvious argument pro the LIA, that current warming is a result of re-warming from the LIA. She presumes that the current anthropogenic theory is correct but she lacks the scientific understanding to see that. Like a good alarmist, she believes that a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere can cause catastrophic warming.
Also. she dismisses the LIA as a ‘concept’. That must be the frustrated historian emerging. Another climate historian, Naomi Orestes, shredded three dead skeptics, ensuring they would have no chance to defend themself. This is the same nimrod who claimed 98% of scientists agreed with the AGW theory, based on a sample base of 1000 scientists. She worded the question so no good scientist could disagree.
The author attacks the LIA from a purely statistical basis based on proxy data. She, a historian, argues that the proxy data analysis is inaccurate. Duh!!!
How about the actual evidence from people who lived through the LIA?
1)The Thames River froze over between 1607 and 1814 so severely that they held ice fairs on the ice.
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Thames-Frost-Fairs/
“During the Great Winter of 1683 / 84, where even the seas of southern Britain were frozen solid for up to two miles from shore, the most famous frost fair was held: The Blanket Fair. The famous English writer and diariest John Evelyn described it in extensive detail…”.
The ocean frozen off England for 2 miles??? That’s cold in anyone’s books.
2)Rivers and dikes in Holland froze over so badly that ice skating was invented.
https://tarnmoor.com/2024/06/19/the-little-ice-age-in-holland/
3)The Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps advanced so far it wiped out established farms and villages in its path.
https://erlebnis-geologie.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Chamonix_Eng3_compressed.pdf
4)the Northwest Passage was so clogged with ice no ship could sail through it, even in summer.
5)North Americans as far south as modern day Florida and Texas experienced famine due to crop failure.
6)Vikings relocated from southern Greenland, where they had been farming, further south to the east coast of North America.
Put the anecdotal evidence together with proxy data and I think you have good evidence that the LIA existed and was as severe as claimed.
The timing of the cold periods in Europe and North America were different. Even the anecdotal evidence you produced is temporally heterogenous.
Europe was cold from about 1600 to 1850, but Greenland was abandoned by the Vikings before 1500 (if you attributing that exodus to a cold period).
China in the 17th Century was marked by both hot and cold weather.
Pueblos of the American Southwest experienced drought during the European ice age. The oral accounts match the dendrochronological records.
Japan recorded warmer than usual Summers while Europe was gripped by cold.
And the proxy record from other parts of the world show cold periods at markedly different times.
Sure, you can cherry-pick your anecdotes to confirm your beliefs.
When are you going to acknowledge that you were wrong the IPCC consigned the LIA only to Europe? I’ve quoted them assigning it to countries outside Europe and you’ve gone quiet about that, but got noisier in general. Has it caused some cognitive dissonance?
The IPCC were wrong, data from New Zealand proved it to be global, as for time scales ,all climate changes suffer time lapses, even today the Northern Hemisphere has warmed more than the Southern hemisphere,
The author of that article is a historian of past societies as they were affected by climate. You know – someone who researches the anecdotal evidence you mentioned.
Christos Vournas,
You should just admit that your confusion about the GHE is due to your misreading and misinterpretation of the Volokin & ReLlez 2014 ( a/k/a/ Nikolov & Zeller) paper (https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723).
[You:] “The non-linearity of the S-B radiation law, when coupled with a strong latitudinal variation of the INTERACTED solar flux across the surface of a sphere, and with the planet rate of rotation, and with the average surface specific heat, creates a mathematical condition for a correct calculation of the true global surface temperature from a spatially integrated infrared emission.”
[Volokin & ReLlez:] “The non-linearity of the SB radiation law coupled with a strong latitudinal variation of the absorbed solar flux across the surface of a sphere creates a mathematical condition that precludes in principle a correct calculation of the true global surface temperature from a spatially integrated radiative flux.
Also:
[You:] “So, there is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.”
[Volokin & ReLlez:] “Combining Earth’s observed global surface temperature with results from the new analytic model reveals that the total thermal effect of our atmosphere is about 90 K or 2.7 to 5 times stronger than currently assumed.”
Test
Arkady, why have you stopped? Do you get blocked too?
Christos Vournas,
“Arkady, why have you stopped?”
I’ve said all I needed to say. It’s your turn.
It seems that barry has been drawn into Gordon’s game. Who is winning? How does one judge this type of competition? Does barry really understand the game?
Bring on the big bucket of popcorn!
Clouds are used to ‘correct’ all ‘measurements’ to fit in with reality as it happens.
Nate and Ark try to debunk Christos’ theory with endless nitpicks. They don’t realize that if they applied a single fact to their CO2 nonsense, it would go away. But, they prefer their false religion over reality.
15μ photons from the sky can NOT warm a 288K surface. Believing otherwise indicates an ignorance of both radiative physics and thermodynamics.
“To do science, one has to be willing to test your theories against observations. And if they dont agree, then the theory is wrong.”
Only thing Clint was correct about.
But if people in his cult fail this test, he calls it a ‘nitpick’.
Sorry Nate, but I’m not in any cult. Cults are for kids. You’re projecting, again.
You don’t have ANY science. What will you try next?
“Sorry Nate, but Im not in any cult.”
True. Your group is more of a confederacy of crackpots.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2024-arctic-report-card-arctic-has-second-warmest-year-record-2024
According to the Arctic Report, 2024 is on track to be the 2nd-warmest year on record. Temperatures in the Arctic have risen more sharply compared to global temperatures – a phenomenon known as “Arctic amplification” of climate change.
When including the impact of increased wildfire activity, the Arctic tundra region has shifted from a carbon sink which it has been for millennia into a carbon dioxide source, while also remaining a methane source.
The 2024 Arctic Report is prepared by an international team of 97 scientists from 11 countries.
The first instance of a prediction of Arctic Amplification dates back to Svante Arrhenius’s work in 1896, when he noted that higher latitudes would experience more significant warming from an increase in atmospheric CO2 due to the sensitivity of the Arctic’s albedo to temperature changes.
Arrhenius told us that the heat balance at the poles, particularly in the Arctic, would be more affected by changes in greenhouse gases than in other regions.
Well he was wrong about CO2.
We know that from very basic physics.
” We know that from very basic physics. ”
Yeah.
Sounds like
” We know from very basic physics that the Moon does not spin about its polar axis. ”
Same level of ignorance and denial.
Bindi, thanks for reminding us of your ignorance and denial.
You have no understanding of physics, so you can’t understand the vectors acting on Moon. You can’t even understand the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string, so you’re lightyears away from understanding vectors.
And when it comes to Earth’s temperature, you don’t even understand what “temperature” is. If you understood temperature, you would know that to increase temperature you must reduce entropy. But, if you can’t understand a simple ball-on-a-string, you can’t understand entropy.
But keep entertaining us with your juvenile comments.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2024/2025-global-temperature-outlook
The Met Office outlook for 2025: in top three warmest years on record
The so-called global average temperature is often reported with high precision, but the actual measurements used to calculate it don’t have two-decimal accuracy!
Do you even read the articles before you post? It’s quoted in the very short excerpt in the post above anyway.
“The average global temperature for 2025 is forecast to be between 1.29C and 1.53C (with a central estimate of 1.41C) above the average for the pre-industrial period (1850-1900).”
The final result will have an uncertainty value attached to it. Last year’s global temperature (UK Met Office) had an uncertainty of +/- 0.12 C.
Did you discover climate science last month or something? You have a lot to learn.
Also, familiarise yourself with the Law of Large Numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
While every roll, every round of cards has wide variability around the expected odds, many rolls/rounds of cards converge on the expected value.
IOW, the larger the number of samples, the smaller the inaccuracy.
It’s why casinos aren’t worried whenever someone wins.
Yes, I read the article, and my comment pertains to the following:
“This follows on from the record-breaking 1.45C in 2023, the previous warmest year on record.”
Sample size is effectively 1 for each measurement because atmospheric air temperature is a constantly changing quantity. Each measurement represents a unique snapshot of the conditions at that moment.
No, your concern was that UK Met Office reported results with high precision to two decimal points. Yet they also reported the uncertainty to two decimal places, which was quoted in the post that preceded your comment. You didn’t notice it then and you’re ignoring it now.
“Sample size is effectively 1 for each measurement because atmospheric air temperature is a constantly changing quantity”
Be sure to let casinos know that house odds aren’t guaranteed because of the huge variability in individual results.
Alternatively, learn about the Law of Large Numbers. And learn it properly. It will assist your understanding of the results and uncertainty.
The wiki entry is a good start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
House odds are based on fixed probabilities, whereas air temperature measurements are subject to systematic inaccuracies. Your analogy is grossly inappropriate.
You’re quite wrong: The Law of Large Numbers proves that as the sample size increases, the sample mean tends to get closer to the true mean, improving the accuracy. This theorem also accounts for inaccuracies in the temperature readings.
But you’ve replied three times and continued to ignore the fact that UK Met Office gave the uncertainty to two decimal places, contradicting your original post.
So now you’re just being argumentative.
“air temperature measurements are subject to systematic inaccuracies”
Do you even know what you are typing? Systematic errors are skewed in the same direction. So explain how this is present in temperature readings for the surface global temperatures.
Otherwise I recommend you refrain from using terms you don’t understand.
The Law of Large Numbers may not apply to under sampled data.
“More formally, the LLN states that given a sample of independent and identically distributed values, the sample mean converges to the true mean.”
“The Law of Large Numbers may not apply to under sampled data.”
Obviously. Tell me, do you think a sample of, say, 5 million measurements geographically spread over most of the planet, and roughly equally spread over 365 days is sufficient to establish an annual global temperature? If not, let’s see the math.
“….given a sample of independent and identically distributed values…”
Can you explain to us what “identically distributed values” are, RLH?
“So you think a sample of, say, 5 million measurements geographically spread over most of the planet”
Most? Most of the globe is Ocean. > 70%.
What is the sampling density over the Ocean?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/optimum-interpolation-sst
0.25 degrees
Nate: Every day?
Why are you asking questions about coverage RLH? Did you introduce the idea of undersampling without having a clue if it applies?
Still looking forward to your explanation of what identically distributed values means. Surely you quoted that bit with some idea in mind?
Under sampling applies in time as well. As you should well know.
“identically distributed values” means equally distributed which is not the case in either day/night or North/South hemisphere (unless you know different).
So we can compare two completely different sets of global temperature data to see how well the Law of Large numbers does in providing accurate results.
https://tinyurl.com/2xlnymkl
Satellite and surface data. No overlapping data sources, no overlapping methodologies. Completely independent.
And the results are very, very similar. Nearly every annual departure is in the same direction. The magnitudes vary – they are measuring two different slices of global temperature – but the sign of interannual change correlates extremely well, and the non-stationary behaviour (trend) is very closely matched.
So what is the complaint? That 2023 was only the likeliest hottest year ever and the institutes compiling and ranking the data didn’t emphasise the uncertainty enough?
I didn’t see anyone complain that the uncertainty wasn’t given in UAH’s post on 2023 being the warmest year on record.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/
As I said above, skeptics have double standards.
Who did discuss the uncertainty in the UAH post on 2023 annual temperature? It was the so-called ‘alarmists’, who mentioned what it was, and didn’t throw wild and ignorant accusations out.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1586291
RLH,
“identically distributed values means equally distributed”
No, that is not what it means. Try harder.
“Under sampling applies in time as well. As you should well know.”
Gee, if only I had indicated that I knew that earlier in our discussion…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1695652
Try reading for comprehension rather than advantage.
“identically distributed values means equally distributed”
So you quoted that hoping it meant even spatiotemporal coverage.
“Nate: Every day?”
Yes, where are you going with this?
Arkady, i would take some of the met offices statemnts with a pinch of salt.having myself built weather stationsin Northumberland UK (although as an amateur) since 1957 i think they have vivid imaginations at times
The Met Office, founded in 1854, uploads daily weather observations from all over the world into a high-resolution atmospheric model containing more than a million lines of code and running on a Cray XC40 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray_XC40) supercomputer. The Met Office science is reviewed by external independent experts in the fields of climate science, meteorology, oceanography and numerical weather prediction.
You?
Test
–
The fossil fuels burning, the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, do not rise Global temperature.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: Public hearings on the request for an advisory opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. THE HAGUE, 13 December 2024
Hearings were held December 2-13, 2024, to determine the obligations of States under international law to protect the climate system; 96 States and 11 international organizations presented oral statements. The Court of Justice will issue an advisory opinion in 2025.
Apropos…
As his career “advanced”, Krugman became one of the worst economists and snottiest writers imaginable. Thank goodness he has written his last column for the ghastly New York Times (that endless extoller of irrational climate change alarmism). His stench is now gone. In any case, no one is going to pay any attention to the pompous windbags at the International Court of “Justice”.
He got the bit about climate predictions right. Warming was predicted decades in advance, and most predictions were close to the magnitude, or at least within the uncertainty range.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL085378
Compare that with ‘skeptic’ predictions of cooling.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/a-look-back-at-very-bad-predictions-of-global-cooling/
….
This next link is for fun, from 2013 so we can see these cooling predictions from 11 years ago, while the ‘pause’ was on.
https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/denier-weirdness-collection-of-alarmist.html
I also link it because our old friend Salvatore gets a mention.
Dazzling display of coolista cock-ups.
The met office founded in 1854. uploads dailly weather observations from all over the world? That does not stop them making silly statements, and using temperature data from old badly sited stations in the UK, where once there were green feilds ,now there are housing estates ,car parks and all manner of population over spill. Stevenson screens are not much use if your measuring temp in hundreds of a degree, they are one trick poneys.my array covers a small area of less than 500square mtrs, and i can get a different reading from every instrument spread out over that small area. some times as much as a few degrees centigrade,my neighbour who callibrates the computers on tree harvesters,cant believe they still use a thermometer in a box on a static site.
“o you think a sample of, say, 5 million measurements geographically spread over most of the planet”
Most? Most of the globe is ocean. > 70%.
What is the sampling density over the Ocean?
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m2K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m2(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m2K⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m2(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m2K⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the theoretically calculated one and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If your calculation is for “Earths Without-Atmosphere” then why do you use the Earth with atmosphere albedo of 0.306? Earth without an atmosphere would not have the same albedo.
I note that you have not answered Nate’s and my questions above either so I expect you to evade and deflect again.
Thank you, Arkady.
“If your calculation is for “Earths Without-Atmosphere” then why do you use the Earth with atmosphere albedo of 0.306? Earth without an atmosphere would not have the same albedo.”
–
Please tell us what is “Earth’s Without-Atmosphere” albedo?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s not 0.306, so why do you use 0.306 if your calculation is for “Earths Without-Atmosphere?”
Test
Arkady, “Earth without an atmosphere would not have the same albedo.”
Should I explain to you, of all people, Arkady, the why?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas,
Please be serious.
The paper by Volokin & ReLlez 2014 that you plagiarized here https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1695585 uses 0.136 for Earth without Atmosphere albedo.
So, answer the question, if your calculation is for “Earths Without-Atmosphere” then why do you use the Earth with atmosphere albedo of 0.306?
Is it because your equation is bogus and has to be fudged twice to back into the answer you want?
Test
Arkady, the paper by Volokin & ReLlez 2014 that you plagiarized, not me plagiarized, but you, Arkady, plagiarized.
The worst deniers are those who deny even the most obvious evidence.
Anyone can see that Vournas copied text from Volokin/Rellez (aka Nikolov/Zeller), changed the text here and there, and pasted it here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1695585
*
That’s Robertson’s usual modus operandi, by the way.
Christos,
It does no good to keep repeating your theory, while ignoring the fact that it fails to agree with key observations of the Earth. It is thus falsified.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1695586
Nate,
“It does no good to keep repeating your theory, while ignoring the fact that it fails to agree with key observations of the Earth. It is thus falsified.”
–
First give up the +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect. Only then you would be able to understand how much erroneous the models are.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Irrelevant to your theory being falsified.
There is no way for 112 W/m2 solar input to the Earth , according to your theory, can produce 240 W/m2 of measured output.
You are simply living in a fantasy world where facts don’t matter.
I know: this is ‘not quite’ the right place to publish a link to a secret concert by Parastoo Ahmadi, one of those incredibly courageous Iranian women who dare to defy the mullahs, those cowards who have been terrorizing them for 45 years.
https://youtu.be/oYcaDHEnhbU
Enjoy!
Wrong music video Bindidwrong
https://youtu.be/xgq_ZNH7vBE
What else could one expect from the primitive trumping dachshund other than an incredibly stupid reaction to this wonderful Iranian music, sung by a woman who loves her country and who was already arrested by the mullahs’ henchmen today because of this unfortunately audience-free concert?
Bindidong thinks of himself being so special he is entitled to post any off topic crap he steps in on internet
The First Conclusions
Conclusions:
1). The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results. The theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean) are almost identical with the measured by satellites (Tsat.mean).
Planet….Te…..Te.correct…..Tmean…Tsat.mean
Mercury..440 K….364 K…….325,83 K…340 K
Earth……….255 K….210 K…….287,74 K…288 K
Moon…..270,4 K….224 K…….223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars……..210 K…..174 K…….213,11 K…210 K
2). The 288 K – 255 K = 33C difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses. The Earths atmosphere is very thin.
There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K.
****
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Satellites don’t measure surface temperature, but at about 650hPa, 4km above the surface.
Just another reason your equation is useless.
?
https://www.wdc.dlr.de/sensors/airs
?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/
??
Vournas wrote:
*
You wrote:
*
What should someone reply other than a reference to AIRS?
The atmospheric infrared sounder on the AIRS mission satellite has problems seeing through heavy clouds. While it can measure surface temperatures in ideal conditions, it isn’t used for ascertaining global temperatures like UAH does for the troposphere.
The AIRS mission also carries an AMSU instrument, but it is unable to get a clear measurement of surface temperatures for the reason laid out in the article Ark linked.
IOW, while these sensors ‘can’ measure surface temps, they cannot provide a reliable set of data for global temperatures due to various limitations. These instruments perform better measuring atmospheric temps.
“What should someone reply”
Try this: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-upper-tropospheric-temperatures-corroborate-lt-temperature-trends/
ark…”The paper by Volokin & ReLlez 2014 that you plagiarized…”
***
You are using the same pathetic misdirection used by Bradley (of MBH …hockey stick) to divert attention from the fact you are wrong and Christos is right. Bradley used it to divert attention from Statistician Weggman’s agreement with McIntyre and McKittrick that the statistical methods used in MBH was wrong.
Same with your whiney buddy Binny, who whines about the Moon rotating on a local axis but can provide no scientific proof. In lieu of proof, he resorts to authority figures who can provide no proof either, other than a mis-translation of Newton.
A man should never lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do.
Indeed: Robertson is an obstinated liar who deliberately ignores having been corrected many times, and each time resorts from scratch to the never changed nonsense he keeps in his notes.
Neither was he able to understand my explanations posted here years ago about how Tobias Mayer computed the lunar spin period in 1750, let alone is he able to remind how many English, Italian, French, German, Swedish, Dutch and Russian persons translated Newton’s Principia between 1729 and… 2012, and to understand that they very certainly did not mis-translate him.
*
His endless urging to lie, lie and lie can be show at any time:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1695505
*
You can reply as often as you want
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1695538
He will restart his lies one week or one month later, as if you hadn’t written anything.
*
Robertson reminds me of Kurt, the now deceased dement uncle of my lady Rose, who over 10 years ago endlessly lectured over all sorts of things, but had forgotten a day later that we had unequivocally contradicted him: he repeated always the same nonsense as before.
ark…”Satellites dont measure surface temperature, but at about 650hPa, 4km above the surface”.
***
That statement reveals your ignorance of satellite telemetry. The sats use channel 5 to receive surface data and it is capable of detecting oxygen emission all the way to the surface. However, the surface emits some microwave radiation which interferes with the data and it is intentionally cut off at a higher altitude. That is not the fault of the instruments which are quite capable of detecting right to the surface.
The notion that sats measure only at 4 km altitude is too inane to comment on. They also measure above 4 km on channel 5 with 4 km representing the peak channel signal amplitude.
“AMSU channels 1, 2, and 15 are considered ‘window’ channels because the atmosphere is essentially clear, so virtually all of the measured microwave radiation comes from the surface. While this sounds like a good way to measure surface temperature, it turns out that the microwave emissivity of the surface (its ability to emit microwave energy) is so variable that it is difficult to accurately measure surface temperatures using such measurements. The variable emissivity problem is the smallest for well-vegetated surfaces, and largest for snow-covered surfaces. While the microwave emissivity of the ocean surfaces around 50 GHz is more stable, it just happens to have a temperature dependence which almost exactly cancels out any sensitivity to surface temperature.”
Microwave sounding units can make much more precise measures of temperature if the emissivity is in discrete bands that can be tuned for, as is the case with atmospheric gases, rather than the variable, broad spectrum emissions of the surface.
First of all, satellite telemetry does not mean what you think it means.
Also, where do you think the AMSU ch5 weighting function peaks?
*
I would say that this shows for the umpteenth time Robertson’s inability to write even simplest things about science.
*
It is easy to show that Arkady Ivanovich is plain right here, by evaluating UAH LT’s 12-month 2.5 degree grid climatology
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/tltmonacg_6.1
Jan 263.18 (K)
Feb 263.27
Mar 263.43
Apr 263.84
Mai 264.45
Jun 265.10
Jul 265.42
Aug 265.23
Sep 264.65
Oct 263.95
Nov 263.41
Dec 263.19
and averaging the months, giving a global average of about 264 K.
This is 24 K less than the global surface average.
Below the tropopause, we ca assume a linear lapse rate of 6.5 K / km.
Means that the average height of UAH’s measurements in the lower troposphere is 3.7 km, what corresponds to an atmospheric pressure of 640 hPa.
Finally, a comparison of UAH 6.1 Globe land to RATPAC-B radiosondes at 700 hPa:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V1Lpo6ooVl7-WKs16ZA20pXT8gkFFzoE/view
*
What matters is not what data satellites can deliver. What matters is what of their data is useful wrt a given task.
Thank you, Bindidon,
“Anyone can see that Vournas copied text from Volokin/Rellez (aka Nikolov/Zeller), changed the text here and there, and pasted it here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1695585 ”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
You have no reason to thank me: what I have written was merely intended to 100% confirm Arkady Ivanovich’s statement that you were a plagiarist of these two authors, by copying and editing their original text without even mentioning your source.
Thank you, Bindidon,
“You have no reason to thank me: what I have written was merely intended to 100% confirm Arkady Ivanovichs statement that you were a plagiarist of these two authors, by copying and editing their original text without even mentioning your source.”
–
Please, Bindidon, “you were a plagiarist of these two authors,” you did not name those two authors, who exactly they are, and you did not mention anything about what exactly I copied and edited of their original text.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Spatiotemporal means ‘belonging to both space and time or to spacetime.’
Repeatability is essential for all of science.
It means of space and time and has broad usage, including geographical and temporal coverage for atmospheric and surface temperature.
“A spatiotemporal analysis of the relationship between near-surface air temperature and satellite land surface temperatures using 17 years of data from the ATSR series”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD026880
Now we’ve cleared that up, you were hoping identical distribution meant even geographical and temporal coverage of the Earth’s surface.
That’s not what identical distribution means. You quoted it. Perhaps you should investigate.
What is identical between once a day land surface and once every 9 days ocean measurements?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_and_identically_distributed_random_variables
If you read this and keep talking about spatiotemporal distribution, then we know you refuse to learn anything. Except that you are not only wilfully but stubbornly ignorant.
I ask again, what is identical (or symmetrical) between once a day land surface and once every 9 days ocean measurements?
Also I ask,
“Identically distributed means that there are no overall trends the distribution does not fluctuate and all items in the sample are taken from the same probability distribution.
Independent means that the sample items are all independent events. In other words, they are not connected to each other in any way;
knowledge of the value of one variable gives no information about the value of the other and vice versa.”
What in the above shows global temperature series exhibit those qualifications?
Daily not every 9 days.
Relevance to decadal trends?
Daily is just the ocean surface (via satellite) not the whole Ocean via buoys (Argo). (The whole ocean is nearer to 2 degree C than the thin surface layer which considerably varies over the globe).
“I ask again, what is identical (or symmetrical) between once a day land surface and once every 9 days ocean measurements?”
Ask all you like. The question will still be utterly irrelevant to the statistical meaning of “identical distribution.”
“Identically distributed means that there are no overall trends the distribution does not fluctuate and all items in the sample are taken from the same probability distribution.”
So you’ve finally glommed that identical distribution refers to statistical variance in the values, not spatiotemporal symmetry? We’ll see.
As the discussion was about annual temperatures we don’t have to worry about the trend of those annual departures.
If you knew anything about this issue in relation to the law of large numbers your contrariness would find better purchase in the notion of the independence of the variables.
There, I’ve helped you try to make barry wrong. Follow this line of reasoning for a more relevant and interesting “rebuttal.”
So the land and the ocean are from the same probability distribution? Give me a break.
In terms of probability distribution land has more variance than sea surface temperatures, and sea surface variance is more symmetrical.
They are thus
factored separately
and then combined to achieve a global average. Grids may contain land or sea surface or both, but the data for each are treated independently before combining, and then weighting appropriately for each grid. SSTs and LSTs follow similar seasonal patterns, and they both follow the long-term warming trend, confirming that they are appropriately coupled. The seasonal lag for SSTs is immaterial for ranking annual global averages, as the time periods (12 months) are regular, excepting leap years, which have a negligible impact.
The law of large numbers apply for both, of course. A combined total of 5 million+ measurements per year.
These factors among others contribute to the current ~ 0.12 C annual temperature uncertainty.
“The law of large numbers apply for both, of course.”
In your view. Based on nothing.
“In terms of probability distribution land has more variance than sea surface temperatures, and sea surface variance is more symmetrical.”
Thus they are NOT the same probability distribution!
That’s right. And they are processed separately and anomalised before being combined into a monthly global average.
You keep wanting to find something wrong. You are the clearest example of the epithet ‘contrarian’.
You didn’t understand what identical distribution was, but you quoted that anyway thinking you had made a point. You resisted finding out the true meaning yourself and had to be dragged to the light.
You thought spatiotemporality didn’t apply to geographical space and time. You wanted me to be wrong about that and you found a quote that suited your contrarian purpose.
Now that you finally understand what you quoted, you’ve slid smoothly – and without acknowledging you were initially mistaken about it, because contrarians can never be wrong – into implying something is wrong because the probability distribution is different for SSTs and LSTs.
And once again you have zero interest in finding out if this matters or if it is accounted for in the global temperature product. You just keep believing you’ve found the gotcha, which is all you are interested in, and you keep believing that you know something.
If you came to this with genuine inquiry I would not waste time commenting on you, I would talk about the topic. Instead I’m going to call out your vapid nay-saying for what it is.
To bring all this together, RLH:
Weighted averages account for the uneven distribution of land an sea surface.
The different probability distributions between land and sea surface are normalised by anomalising the data so that the different distributions are compared relative to a common baseline, making them compatible for averaging. The different variance doesn’t matter as the SSTs are within the bounds of the land probability distribution.
Spatial variability is accounted for by gridding the surface and weighting the grids so that low density samples are not underrepresented.
LLN assumes no bias, which is not the case for the measurements of SSTs and LSTs, so homogenization and calibration processes occur to account for this, and for the different issues between land and sea surface measurement biases – before averaging.
Finally, all this is factored in the uncertainty analysis.
Despite the differences in distributions between land and sea temperatures, the LLN applies because the calculation involves combining a sufficiently large number of independent and representative samples from both the normalised distributions. The key is that the data must collectively represent the true underlying global temperature pattern. Through weighting, normalization, and statistical adjustments, the differences in distributions are accounted for, enabling a robust global average temperature to be derived.
And we know that the LLN, as well as these other steps to normalise the data works because products that use completely different arrays of measurement source and processes match very closely.
For example, the annual time series profile for satellite and land based global temperature are very closely matched. The same is true when comparing only land or only sea surface. 95% of the time, all the different constructions show the same direction of annual temperature change from one year to the next.
The averaging process works well enough that uncertainty envelope for each different construction of the global average overlap with each other.
“Daily is just the ocean surface (via satellite) not the whole Ocean via buoys (Argo)”
The T and heat content of bulk ocean is a different variable from Earth surface T, and well removed from daily weather variation.
Of interest is to measure its quarterly to decadal change. 9 day sampling is quite sufficient for this purpose.
Why is that a problem?
RLH thinks ARGO buoys are the only instrument measuring SSTs?
There are also floating surface buoys and fixed buoys, which give daily readings, as well as ships.
Some global temperature products incorporate these as well as satellite retrieval for SSTs.
As we know, all these GT products using different arrays of data sources produce very similar results. They provide a good check on each other, and verify that each product does a good job at capturing global and global SST temperature departures.
“Why is that a problem?”
‘Feels like’ is a closer view of what is really happening as it covers other things than temperature (and it is only given in whole degrees).
“RLH thinks ARGO buoys are the only instrument measuring SSTs?”
Argo in ONE source of ‘global’ temperature.
“Feels like is a closer view of what is really happening as it covers other things than temperature (and it is only given in whole degrees).”
Huh? Where do you get that idea?
So no sampling problem that you can specify?
” ‘Feels like’ is a closer view of what is really happening as it covers other things than temperature (and it is only given in whole degrees)”
You’re thinking there are problems without testing them. Does that matter much?
Let’s do a first order test.
Let’s have a year’s worth of global surface temperature measurements from 2 sets of co-located instruments. 5 million measurements each.
One set of instruments records temperatures to tenths of a degree (set A), the other set only to whole degrees (set B). Let’s say the probability distribution after anomalising the values to a common baseline is +/- 20C.
What’s the difference in the uncertainty of the average for each of the sets?
We take the number of measurements, the spread of the distribution, the standard deviation, and we factor in the rounding for both data sets. The comparative uncertainties of the mean are:
Set A = +/- 0.0052 C
Set B = +/- 0.0066 C
(I can take you through the calcs, but I don’t know how to write some of the symbols on this site, so it would be long-winded and unwieldy)
That’s the law of large numbers at work, providing an uncertainty range that of a higher resolution than the actual measurements. I find this to be intuitive to understand, so I tend to imagine it shouldn’t be difficult to understand for most people
Is this the total uncertainty in the real world, assuming 5 million annual measurements?
No, the actual uncertainty of annual mean GST is a couple orders of magnitude larger (+/- 0.12). I stated some of the reasons for that above (but I don’t know how to calculate for those – way above my abilities).
If you think any of this is wrong, you need to explain why with specificity, not hedge at things you haven’t taken the time to properly consider.
barry
A propos LIA: I’m sad of discussing this complex stuff with professional cherry-picking ignoramuses a la Robertson.
*
Here are some links to interesting papers
Calendar-dated glacier variations in the western European Alps during
the Neoglacial: the Mer de Glace record, Mont Blanc massif
Melaine Le Roy & al.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Melaine-Le-Roy-2/publication/272818238_Calendar-dated_glacier_variations_in_the_western_European_Alps_during_the_Neoglacial_The_Mer_de_Glace_record_Mont_Blanc_massif/links/5a16da91a6fdcc50ade5ef82/Calendar-dated-glacier-variations-in-the-western-European-Alps-during-the-Neoglacial-The-Mer-de-Glace-record-Mont-Blanc-massif.pdf
*
Glacier maxima in Baffin Bay during the Medieval
Warm Period coeval with Norse settlement
Nicolas E. Young & al.
https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/sciadv.1500806
*
The 1600 CE Huaynaputina eruption as a possible trigger for
persistent cooling in the North Atlantic region
Sam White & al.
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/18/739/2022/cp-18-739-2022.pdf
*
Northern European summer temperature variations
over the Common Era from integrated tree-ring density
records
Jan Esper & al.
https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2012/03/Esper_2014_JQS.pdf
*
An interesting picture made at U Mainz, Germoney I saved a while ago:
https://i.postimg.cc/CL4KVfqW/Climate-in-northern-Europe-reconstructed-for-the-past-2-000-years.png
barry (cntnd)
I can’t post the rest, it’s blocked.
Thus:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/147SUTO0PHtoiSIsHs2ElaXd73vnK6AoV/view
That’s some effort, Bin. Thanks. I skimmed the papers. Here we can read detailed explanations of findings and their methods and the associated uncertainties. This stuff is interesting, not the two-dimensional cherry-picking.
Gordon would not guess that I’m not 100% convinced the LIA was regional though I think it most likely. Our conversations never get interesting enough to delve into uncertainty.
What is identical between once a day land surface and once every 9 days ocean measurements?
Test
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt
Oops?!
The dynamic IP locking apparently isn’t the only change in the behavior of the blog’s server: I didn’t notice that ‘dc’-based post blocking has been removed…
For the coolistas: forecast for Werchoyansk, Northeastern Siberia for the period 24-12-2024 till 31-12-2024:
https://i.postimg.cc/kX8Txg8s/Werchoyansk-forecast-for-24-31-12-2024.png
Sounds really good :–)
The LIA was an inevitable temporary phenomenon.
Winters in Northen Hemisphere coincide with Earth’s Perihelion.
We have warmer winters in our times for about 4000 years now.
So Earth is continuously experiencing a millennials long warming pattern.
During the LIA period the sea-ice cover lessened enough so to open larger water areas. The LIA was an inevitable temporary phenomenon.
” The freezing point of seawater decreases as salt concentration increases. At typical salinity, it freezes at about −2 C (28 F).”
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater
So, sea-water is still liquid at −2 C, when the sea-ice melts
at 0 C.
So, when the sea-ice lessened, the air temperature became cooler.
–
Earth, nevertheless, continued at the LIA period to accumulate more heat in oceanic waters. And, when the accumulated heat overcame the LIA phenomenon, the air temperature started rising again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
More speculation presented as fact.
Sounds really good 🙂
Solar Cycle 25 – prediction v reality
https://youtu.be/M1bYE1SPnC0
I wonder if Zharkova will change her prediction for a Maunder minimum style quiet sun by 2030?
“This summary curve also indicated the upcoming modern grand solar minimum 1 in cycles 2527 (20202053)…
This discovery of double dynamo action in the Sun brought us a timely warning about the upcoming grand solar minimum 1, when solar magnetic field and its magnetic activity will be reduced by 70%. This period has started in the Sun in 2020 and will last until 2053.”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243#d1e302
Site didn’t format properly.
“This summary curve also indicated the upcoming modern grand solar minimum 1 in cycles 25-27 (2020-2053).”
barry
*
A comparison of SILSO’s monthly SSN for SC 23/24/25 including the December estimate (EISN):
https://tinyurl.com/4dk7xury
Same for SILSO’s daily data, including EISN till today Dec 19:
https://tinyurl.com/53kxxhjd
*
Wait and see…
barry (cntnd)
Again fighting for comment publishing…
The best to look at is Geosphere Austria:
https://tinyurl.com/4r8xxvbv
Here it is what I meant:
Because of the Earths present orbit eccentricity, the solar irradiance differens is about 7%.
There is 7% more solar energy on the Southern Hemisphere summers (where by the oceanic waters the energy absopption occurs), compared to the Northern Hemisphere much cooler summers.
The winter solstice and Earths Perihelion are only 14 days appart (December 21 and January 4 respectivly).
When Earth is at Perihelion (January 4) and Earths axis is still tilted towards sun almost as much as at solstice. It is the near solstice period on Earths orbital movement.
The analogue of the summer solstice occurs at June 21, but two weeks later, at July 4 it is much hotter, because Earth is still close to solstice and Earth continues getting warmer.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Here’s a study that demonstrates systematic error in unventilated temperature measurements. The magnitude of the error predictably correlates directly with the amount of incoming solar radiation, so it will not average it with increased sample size.
test
Can’t post the link.
Remember before the internet, when people believed that a lack of access to information was the root of ignorance? Yeah, it wasn’t that.
What are you insinuating?
https://ibb.co/w6RTZMj
Remember before the internet, when people thought ignorance stemmed from a lack of access to information? Bloom’s Taxonomy reminds us that true learning goes beyond acquiring information – skills like understanding, applying, and analyzing remain essential, no matter how easily information is available.
Georges, C.; Kaser, G. Ventilated and unventilated air temperature measurements for glacier-climate studies on a tropical high mountain site. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2002
Here it is:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002JD002503
Thanks.
This post is in response to your comment on December 14, 2024, at 12:42 AM.
About the law of large numbers with respect to annual global GST?
Firstly, what is the sample size of weather stations in this study, and what proportion of global weather stations would this apply to if the results are generalised?
Secondly, is there a skew between the different measurement systems on an annual basis? The paper discusses the daily bias, with a brief mention of a slight difference in bias between the wet and the dry season.
Thirdly, my question would be: what would be the difference to the global result and the uncertainty if high altitude stations were removed from the analysis of the global mean?
Fourthly, if there is an annual bias, would this affect the analysis of global rankings – the originating topic of discussion – if the bias were consistent?
(If your point is that the LLN applies poorly to data that is skewed, that’s already been well acknowledged and discussed above)
1) The study used hourly observations from two stations over a 19 month period. The results are applicable to unventilated sensors located in similar high radiation, low wind environments.
2) Yes. The errors persisted throughout the 19-month observation period. Seasonal variations (wet vs dry seasons) influenced the magnitude of the bias but did not eliminate the systematic nature of the error.
3) Difficult to answer because uncertainty is an ignorance width. If systematic errors like those described in this study are widespread, the global average inherits them. Removing high-altitude stations might reduce some uncertainty in the global mean, but you’d still have to account for systematic errors in other regions.
4) Same answer as for #3.
If the skew is consistent annually then there is no impact on the rankings. Each year’s global average would be skewed the same. This was not discussed in the paper, which focussed almost entirely on daily bias (with respect to ablation monitoring).
The uncertainty for each annual GST would only be widened (I guestimate) by 10 thousandths of a degree. That is, the LLN would mean that this skewness would have negligible impact on precision. I would imagine that high altitude stations (above 4000 metres) could be no more than 0.5% of all weather stations in the HadCRUt5 database, and less than 0.3% of total annual global measurements (incl SSTs) for that data set.
But the point is whether the LLN applies. It does, as the sample size impacts on the applicability. 5 million + measurements per year will not entirely eradicate the effect of any unaccounted for biases, and the lack of completely independent data (measurements are correlated in space and time), but the sheer size of the sample means that these effects will not dominate, and indeed will be massively be reduced in terms of representing the true mean temperature.
Nevertheless, there is a 2-order magnitude of difference between the uncertainty assuming identical distribution (no problems with data), and the actual uncertainty which takes into account the factors discussed above.
Global temperature compilers do not ignore the problems with the data, and factor these into their processing, as well as the uncertainty of the results, which were quoted above near the beginning of this discussion.
As an aside, the issue with auto/non-auto ventilated sensors for high altitude temperature measurements will have no impact on the long term trend (unless there is a change from one to the other at some point, in which case there will be a barely noticeable impact). It would have an impact on the ranking of annual averages and their uncertainty, but that impact would be to several decimal places.
“but youd still have to account for systematic errors in other regions”
This is what homogenisation attempts to do, and the uncertainty analysis includes these issues.
Do we have any idea if this work is successful? Yes we do. Compare the satellite-derived global temperature records with surface-only temp records, with global temp records that combine these and other data sources, and the results – even from data sets with completely independent and completely different type of data sources – have exceptional correlation. Not perfect, but extremely good.
The annual rankings will be skewed by systematic errors. Seasonal variability (differences in dry and sunny periods) will amplify the errors in unventilated sensors, making the annual mean more susceptible.
In your post, you are conflating two distinct concepts: uncertainty and error, specifically the SEM (standard error of the mean). SEM decreases with increased sample size because it reflects random sampling variability, but systematic errors persist regardless of sample size because they are environment-dependent. Consequently, uncertainty stemming from systematic errors adds in quadrature (U_total = sqrt(u_1^2 + u_2^2 + + u_n^2)). This is particularly relevant especially when aggregating measurements from different regions with varying systematic biases.
RE: As an aside, the issue with auto/non-auto ventilated sensors for high altitude temperature measurements will have no impact on the long term trend (unless there is a change from one to the other at some point, in which case there will be a barely noticeable impact).
This depends heavily on the magnitude and nature of the error. There may be multiple sources of systematic error, each behaving differently depending on their environmental drivers.
Even if you are correct that these errors do not produce a spurious trend, the issue remains that these measurements do not represent the physically correct air temperature. This compromises the accuracy of conclusions drawn from the data.
Imagine an analysis of a high-altitude glacier site showing an increase in above-freezing days over several years. Researchers might attribute this to warming driven by reduced albedo. But, if unventilated sensors are overestimating daytime maxima, the actual number of above-freezing days could be much lower, and the warming might instead be driven by another factor.
Barry, homogenization algorithms assume that neighboring stations provide accurate data. If those stations have systematic errors, the homogenization process simply transfers that uncertainty into the adjusted dataset.
The strong similarity between the datasets you mentioned is attributable to the use of relative temperature anomalies and the statistical strength of averaging.
My comment on the treatment of systematic biases refers to:
“If systematic errors like those described in this study are widespread, the global average inherits them.”
There are indeed systematic biases of various kinds in the measurement systems. They are not ignored but actively hunted.
The paper you provided is not a standalone. There are thousands of studies over decades of research identifying, analysing and correcting issues like different instrument type, changes and degradation, non-uniformity of spatiotemporal coverage, relocation of instruments, UHI etc. Systematic error is not ignored. You are arguing that either they are ignored, or that the uncertainty doesn’t cover them. I wonder if you have dived deeply enough into the literature to be better informed than the researchers who address the issues.
These issues are the major reason that the uncertainty is at least two orders of magnitude wider than the uncertainty assuming no systematic errors.
“The strong similarity between the datasets you mentioned is attributable to the use of relative temperature anomalies and the statistical strength of averaging.”
Satellites don’t measure temperature. Yet the sign of annual change and the similarity in trends are closely matched. Greater than 95% of annual departures are of the same sign. The variance in satellite anomalies is higher (specifically global lower tropospheric temperature), which is attributed to the different properties being measured.
I can’t say whether the treatment of these issues is sufficient to warrant a 0.12 C uncertainty. I’m no expert. But it seems to me that neither are you, as you don’t seem to be aware of the work on them, much less audited them.
“The variance in satellite anomalies is higher (specifically global lower tropospheric temperature), which is attributed to the different properties being measured.”
The primary reason is that LT is more sensitive to ENSO fluctuation than the surface.
I wouldnt say that systematic errors are ignored. But, I believe they are poorly understood.
The study above demonstrates how systematic errors can be detected and corrected: by using repeated measurements from closely located weather stations in more controlled conditions, with highly similar setups.
Homogenization algorithms improve statistical precision but not accuracy. These algorithms rely on time series from weather stations that are often far apart and located in varying environmental contexts (e.g., different topographies, elevations, and microclimates.
Re: Satellites dont measure temperature.
Correct, but they measure microwave radiation, the intensity of which is directly proportional to the physical temperature of the atmosphere. These measurements are then processed using the radiative transfer equation to derive temperature proxies, which are subsequently converted to relative temperature anomalies.
“I wouldnt say that systematic errors are ignored. But, I believe they are poorly understood.”
How do you know this? From years of researching, or belief?
“Homogenization algorithms improve statistical precision but not accuracy.”
When subsets of global data are used to test that, the results are extremely similar. This is one of many different tests for accuracy. (I’ve seen good correlation with a subset of only 60 weather stations (for land-only global) )
For rankings to be affected there needs to be persistent error. This, too, is investigated in many ways.
“[Satellites] measure microwave radiation, the intensity of which is directly proportional to the physical temperature of the atmosphere. These measurements are then processed using the radiative transfer equation to derive temperature proxies, which are subsequently converted to relative temperature anomalies.”
Not directly proportional, but temps are indeed inferred from the relationship between radiance brightness and temps, and you are helping make the point you missed.
The correlation between surface and sat is excellent. Not perfect, but remarkably good for two completely different measuring systems measuring completely different properties with completely different issues.
https://tinyurl.com/Global-temps-mean-12
Top two time series are satellite.
Apologies, time series got mixed converting the URL.
https://tinyurl.com/Global-temp-mean-12-take-2
Top 2 are sat now.
We can see the greater variance for sat most easily in el Nino years.
“When subsets of global data are used to test that, the results are extremely similar. This is one of many different tests for accuracy.”
No, it’s not. High correlation reflects precision, not accuracy.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/19/systematic-error-in-climate-measurements-the-surface-air-temperature-record/
“Before inclusion in a global average, temperature series from individual meteorological stations are subjected to statistical tests for data quality. [13] Air temperatures are known to show correlation R = 0.5 over distances of about 1200 km. [14, 15] The first quality control test for any given station record includes a statistical check for correlation with temperature series among near-by stations. Figure 6 shows that the RM Young error-contaminated temperature series will pass this most basic quality control test. Further, the erroneous RM Young record will pass every single statistical test used for the quality control of meteorological station temperature records worldwide. [16, 17]”
In Figure 6 of the article, you can see a correlation value of 0.91 with the temperatures recorded by the sonic anemometer (the accurate reference).
“High correlation reflects precision, not accuracy.”
Fair enough, that’s true.
Subsetting data is used to test for and improve accuracy. Reanalysis data and satellite data are also used for global and subsets to test for and improve accuracy, as well as test homogenization methods.
https://academic.oup.com/climatesystem/article/3/1/dzy003/5056434?login=false
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2297
https://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/~alexeyk/Papers/KentKennedy2021.pdf
https://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf
for example
The last one is about UHI. Each official global temperature record deals with UHI bias independently. This sample list is tiny.
A test of accuracy I already mentioned was from using different arrays of data, and even completely different data source TYPE to compare. I posted the graphed comparison for satellite and surface temps, which do not have any bias errors, instruments or measured properties in common. This is another fair test for accuracy.
ERA5 reanalysis compared to GST data sets.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fqj.4803
“by using repeated measurements from closely located weather stations in more controlled conditions”
Like similar relative humidity? That gives degrees of difference in temperature!
What happens to climate if a bolide like Apophis passes through the atmosphere without striking the earth?
Apropos ventilated vs. not ventilated
Comparison of Ventilated and Unventilated Air Temperature Measurements in Inland Dronning Maud Land on the East Antarctic Plateau
Morino & al. 2021
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/38/12/JTECH-D-21-0107.1.pdf
” Surface temperature measurements with naturally ventilated (NV) sensors over the Antarctic Plateau are largely subject to systematic errors caused by solar radiative heating. ”
*
It’s not so long time ago that some incompetent boy tried to show that building the mean of temperature measurements would show wrong results compared to building their median value…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iEdxm4i1JxbVPOa_ZA5GVR1Er8OE2GY2/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AaxFh4QW5DTv7KH42H9DmSFGl68qJYRh/view
Yea Bindi, we know you have no clue.
No need to keep reminding us.
He’s a silly tr0ll.
Interesting, Bin. That study corroborates the one red posted, regarding ventilated weather stations on ice fields. I don’t know how many Antarctic weather stations contribute to the global average (for HadCRUt5), but there are 267 automated stations that perform daily readings across the continent.
Interesting to see that the krokodile replies to a person like Clint R, who
– denies centuries of real science about Moon’s motion
and
– discredits hundreds of astronomers, mathematicians and physicists,
by name calling me a ‘silly troll’.
*
But… who knows?
Maybe the krokodile himself belongs to those who are simple-minded enough to deny the lunar spin just because our Moon shows us the same face every day.
Seems to me this site is inhabited by self-appointed experts on both sides of the spectrum.
The planet surface theoretical effective temperature (Te) equation, what it does, it uses the S-B equation to derive planet uniform surface temperature from the incident solar flux.
The (Te) is a mathematical abstraction.
The New (Tmean) equation uses the mathematical abstraction (Te) to calculate the planets and moons average surface temperatures very much close to those measured by satellites.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It makes no sense to keep promoting a theory which has been falsified by Earth observations.
Thank you, Nate, for your response.
Planets do not behaive as blackbodies, if it what it is you say.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nope. not the issue. Go back to where I commented and you stopped responding, and read.
Thats like the pan calling the kettle black, like those who continue to say todays climate is unusual, when historic records say it is not. It may only be badly understood.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq7280
A recently published paper postulates that global warming itself is reducing the number of low clouds, resulting in less sunlight getting reflected back into space. “If a large part of the decline in albedo is indeed due to feedbacks between global warming and low clouds, as some climate models indicate, we should expect rather intense warming in the future.”
GMST rise acceleration may occur due to the following combination of mechanisms:
1/ a drop in albedo from a reduction in lower altitude clouds.
2/ a drop in albedo from reduction in sea ice extent.
3/ El Niño developing during 2025.
4/ Sunspots peaking in the current cycle (predicted for July 2025).
5/ Lower sulfur aerosols from reduced emission of sulfur dioxide from international shipping.
6/ Slowing down of AMOC.
That (the belief that warming would cause fewer clouds) makes no sense, thermodynamically.
Just more cult beliefs instead of physics.
As is your wont
https://ibb.co/PW0zzqf
Glad to help, Ark.
https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Classical-Thermodynamics-Gordon-J-Van/dp/0471829331
Just as I thought:
P.s.:
https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Dynamics-Clouds-Precipitation-Wang/dp/1107005566
Sorry Ark, but “may” ain’t science. It’s belief.
But good job skipping over the textbook to rely on cult papers.
First, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics (3rd Edition) by G.J. Van Wylen and R.E. Sonntag is an introductory textbook appropriate for advanced high school and early undergraduate college students.
I don’t need to waste my time referring back to it, but if you tell me where within its 14 chapters and 730 pages you were misinformed, I will gladly pull it off the bookshelf and explain it to you.
Second, in scientific communication the use of the word “may” is critical because it reflects the inherent uncertainty and probabilistic nature of scientific knowledge. Unlike laymen, who often expect certainty in explanations, scientists recognize that most findings and predictions are contingent on evidence, assumptions, and the limitations of current knowledge.
Sorry Ark, but you’re STILL confusing science with beliefs.
If a 10 pound bowling ball is dropped from a 40 story building and lands on your head, you are free to believe it “may” not hurt you.
Good luck with that….
Concession accepted.
No chapter or page number, just empty assertions then.
Your contrived “bowling ball” scenario is intellectually lazy and proves you cannot distinguish between deterministic outcomes and probabilistic reasoning.
Such a bore.
Yes Ark, that simple example helps you understand the difference between science and beliefs. Learning is just one small step after another.
Don’t be ashamed to admit that you got your “simple example” from watching Saturday morning cartoons. I’m guessing “Looney Tunes” and/or “Tom and Jerry.” Suits you.
The first step is admitting, and then it’s one step at a time.
“Second, in scientific communication the use of the word may is critical because it reflects the inherent uncertainty and probabilistic nature of scientific knowledge.”
Oh the irony.
What is an example of this irony in the literature or on this board?
The alleged CO2 caused global warming theory is based on the earth’s surface the alleged (S-B emission) outgoing IR energy being increesingly blocked.
That theory considers all the incoming solar energy going out,
Energy in = energy out
with no delay.
It doesn’t consider planet surface solar energy accumulation, only the alleged (the “obvious”) outgoing IR emission intensity being increesingly blocked.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“That theory considers all the incoming solar energy going out,
Energy in = energy out
with no delay.”
No it doesn’t.
It doesn’t what?
No ‘no delay’ in it. Energy can accumulate.
Meanwhile you still cannot explain how energy input can be much much less than measured output.
Thank you, Nate:
“No no delay in it. Energy can accumulate.
Meanwhile you still cannot explain how energy input can be much much less than measured output.”
–
Energy incident = Energy outgoimg (it is the radiative energy equilibrium concept).
“Energy incident” – it is the SW EM energy Solar flux at TOA (top of the atmosphere) ~ 1362 W/m2.
“Energy outgoing” – it is the SW EM energy reflected (specularly and diffusely) + LW EM energy “reflected” + Heat (absorbed and then emitted) ~ 1362 W/m2.
–
The ‘LW EM energy “reflected” + Heat (absorbed and then emitted)’ it is the not reflected portion of the SW EM energy Solar flux:
Φ(1 – a)So = 444 W/m2.
Thus, it is the portion of the incident Solar flux’ EM energy that gets interacting with surface matter.
It is the ‘LW EM energy “reflected” + Heat (absorbed and then emitted)’.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The LW EM energy reflected + Heat (absorbed and then emitted) it is the not reflected portion of the SW EM energy Solar flux:
Φ(1 a)So = 444 W/m2.”
Now take this input and explain how it leads to the observed average LW output, which is 240 W/m2.
No handwaving please.
Thank you, Nate, for your response.
“Now take this input and explain how it leads to the observed average LW output, which is 240 W/m2.
No handwaving please.”
–
The 444 W/m2 is not an input. Input is the Heat, which gets absorbed, and then, later, it gets LW emitted too.
–
The 240 W/m2, I think you take it from the satellite measurements.
–
Nate, I cannot explain everything you know better. If you know better, please explain it to me.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Indeed you cannot.
That is why your theory does not work.
444 W/m2 is your instantaneous non-reflected flux (abs.orbed solar) received in a disk of area pi*R^2. But the total surface area of the Earth is 4*pi*R^2.
Thus Earth receives 444/4 W/m2 flux on average for its whole surface. Which is 111 W/m2.
This is way too small to account for the 240 W/m2 LW emitted by Earth.
Thank you, Nate,
“444 W/m2 is your instantaneous non-reflected flux (abs.orbed solar) received in a disk of area pi*R^2.”
–
–
The 444 W/m2 is not absorbed, it is not SW reflected, but it is not absorbed.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Only a part of 444 W/m2 gets degraged into Heat and absorbed.
So, the absorbed is less than 444 W/m2.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“So, the absorbed is less than 444 W/m2”
Which makes your theory’s lack of agreement with observations worse.
The 240 W/m2, I think you take it from the satellite measurements.
Nate, I cannot explain everything you know better. If you know better, please explain it to me.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is well understood. The albedo is 0.3. The global average absorbed solar is (1-0.3)*1360/4= 240 W/m2 which equals the outgoing global average LW radiation.
Nate, you’re still confused about that “240 W/m^2”.
First, it is not an “observed” value. It comes from a calculation for an imaginary sphere. It has no meaning to anything real.
For example, you don’t even know where that imaginary “outgoing global average” is supposedly measured. You’re trying to compare two different values, neither of which is real.
It is regularly observed:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/polr_c.gif
Facts are not your friends.
Sorry Nate, but that is nothing but nonsense. It illustrates nothing more than your confusion and ignorance. To create that “flat Earth”, they have to distort land and ocean areas plus eliminate the polar regions. It’s a computer-generated, colorized conglomeration of pure nonsense from NASA.
“To create that flat Earth, they have to distort land and ocean areas plus eliminate the polar regions”
However they present it, the data is what was observed, which debunks your claim that it’s not observed!
Science knows how to translate between a flat and spherical mapping of data.
As done here:
https://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var_id=t2&ortho=1&wt=1
Why can’t you?
Indeed measuring ”absorbed” SW should give you LW emitted. But that says nothing about what equilibrium temperature should be because that is an uncalculated number based upon the unknown emissivity of the LW.
Roughly 200w/m2 is emitted by the atmosphere which has little to do with the surface emissivity that may be a little bit better estimated but is still heavily debated WRT to what the GHE actually is as the atmosphere has two modes of warming the surface.
This is a topic where Nate will go non-scientific real quickly.
This is where the GHE becomes something other than a GHE.
Related to https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1695828
Arctic sea ice extent as of December 21 is the lowest for this time of year in the entire satellite era record, which goes back to 1978, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
This may be just a temporary dip, but with the winter solstice now past, there’s less time for new ice once it forms to grow thicker before the spring melt begins in a few months.
Since early October, the growth of Arctic sea ice has been slower than usual.
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph
There isn’t only the Arctic on Earth.
Build the global sum of sea ice extent… and you obtain this (in anomaly form wrt 1981-2010):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
For the first time since May, global sea ice recovered up to above the 10 year mean, and follows now back to the 2022 path.
Define usual.how do we know what is usual or Arctic sea ice extent.
±2σ
Related to https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1695890
Every point on a great circle of the Earth’s surface has an antipode; consequently Arctic and Antarctic are antipodes of each other. But that’s where the similarities end. Combining their sea ice extents into a single metric obfuscates the region-specific trends, dynamics, and implications of global warming.
1/ The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land while the Antarctic is a landmass surrounded by a vast ocean.
2/ They have opposite seasonal cycles.
3/ Arctic sea ice extent is strongly susceptible to positive feedback loops like the ice-albedo effect and changes in ocean circulation. Antarctic sea ice extent is affected by interactions between stratospheric ozone depletion, shifting circumpolar wind patterns, ocean currents, and ocean stratification.
4/ The Arctic has warmed more significantly and more consistently than the Antarctic.
Sea ice extent trends should be considered over periods of a century.
Here is a paper on Sea Ice Extent that considers proxy data. As you can see there is a lot of variability over time that makes picking one year rather specious.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aba4320
Your reply is a clear non sequitur and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the context of my original post. My post focuses on the current record-low Arctic sea ice extent for December 21 within the satellite era (1978-present), emphasizing recent trends and their implications for short-term Arctic sea ice behavior.
By bringing up century-scale trends and proxy data variability you completely sidestep the specific issue being raised, offering a tangential argument that is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
You must learn to read for context instead of focusing on picking apart individual words for the sake of argument and engage with the actual point being made rather than shifting the goalposts.
P.s.:
The inability to read for and understand context is an indication of poor critical thinking, inadequate reasoning habits, or emotional factors such as defensiveness or the desire to “win” an argument.
The context of arctic ice extent is multi-centurial, perhaps even multi-milennial. Making any kind of assumptions on climate based on ~ 50 years of ice extent data is absurd due to the shortness of the record.
I am ‘shifting the goalposts’. Your playing field is much to small for the ‘game’. Playing football on a tennis court doesn’t work and neither does making comprehensive assumptions on only 50 years of climate data.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2024JD041625
A major new study by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah University of Science and Technology finds that, since the pre-industrial era, the observed average climate in the Middle East and North Africa “has warmed by 1.5°C and is on the brink of exceeding 2°C.”
Also, “As global warming progresses to 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0°C, the average temperature over the MENA land is projected to increase by 2.3°C ± 0.18°C, 3.0°C ± 0.22°C, 4.6°C ± 0.26°C, and 6.1°C ± 0.31°C, respectively.”
Adaptation measures: Ski Dubai is an indoor ski resort; Surfbase will be Dubai’s first all-year-round indoor surfing spot; Palm Islands are three artificial archipelagos built for residential living.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1695994
So, Ken posted a link to this paper supposedly because “The context of arctic ice extent is multi-centurial, perhaps even multi-milennial. Making any kind of assumptions on climate based on ~ 50 years of ice extent data is absurd due to the shortness of the record.”
He obviously didnt read his own source.
The study presents evidence indicating that the export of Arctic sea ice increased dramatically around 1300 CE, peaking in mid-century, and then declined abruptly in the late 1300s.
The study underscores the significant impact that rapid changes in Arctic sea ice dynamics can have on global climate patterns.
Also, literally, from the paper’s introduction:
I’ve told Ken to read for context, not just key words. He actually should just read.
Test
ark…”The reduction in the Arctic sea-ice cover observed in recent decades is considered a leading indicator of climate change (1)”.
***
A lot of climate alarmists are making that claim without providing objective science to back it.
Also, they fail consistently to point out that the statement has veracity only in the brief Arctic summer. The rest of the year, it’s business as usual, as the Earth’s orbital trajectory reduces then stop solar input for most of the year.
The amount of sea ice in the Arctic summer is a moot point considering by mid-winter the ocean has frozen to a depth of 10 feet.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1695994
So, you’re saying that Ken’s a climate alarmist. I see.
What does little and no solar energy in the Arctic have to do with Ken?
You built a strawman from the opening sentence of the introduction in Ken’s paper. Get a clue!
ark…”My post focuses on the current record-low Arctic sea ice extent for December 21….”
***
From your post…
“In 2023, the global mean temperature soared to almost 1.5K above the pre-industrial level, surpassing the previous record by about 0.17K. Previous best-guess estimates of known drivers including anthropogenic warming and the El Nio onset fall short by about 0.2K in explaining the temperature rise. Utilizing satellite and reanalysis data, we identify a record-low planetary albedo as the primary factor bridging this gap”.
***
In other words, they are guessing.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/2024-12-29/jimmy-carter-declassified-obituary
RIP – James Earl Carter Jr. (October 1, 1924 – December 29, 2024)
IMHO, Jimmy Carter was one of the best US presidents ever. He governed in a day when Democrats were essentially honest, well before the party was taken over by the politically-correct and morally corrupt individuals like Clinton.
Carter’s Achilles heel was his honesty, his decency, and intelligence.
But he mentioned peanut farming during his election campaign, which obviously was more important to him than nuclear accidents.
ark…”First, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics (3rd Edition) by G.J. Van Wylen and R.E. Sonntag is an introductory textbook appropriate for advanced high school and early undergraduate college students”.
***
This must be Clint’s authority source and the reason he is so confused about heat and entropy.
The first thing that stood out is how much they plagiarize the work of the greats from the 19th century like Clausius and Joule. They blatantly steal their work while failing to acknowledge the source. Worse still, they change the original work to suit their modern nonsense.
The equivalence of heat and work are stated without reference to the original author, the physicist Joule who stated the equivalence circa 1840.
The statements about the 1st and 2nd laws barely acknowledge Clausius, who contributed the definition of internal energy in the 1st law, the definition of the 2nd law in words, and the definition of entropy, which has its basis in the summation of heat quantities. They do relate him to the 2nd law albeit briefly and incorrectly but in their discussion of internal energy, they fail to mention him at all. They accept the 1st law verbatim but fail to acknowledge the Clausius statement that internal energy is a sum of internal heat and internal work.
Their definition of heat is thoroughly confusing and I am sure that’s why Clint is so confused about the meaning of heat and entropy.
“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across the boundary of a system at a given temperature….”.
In the next paragraph, they contradict themselves by claiming that…”Heat, like work, is a form of energy transfer…”.
Therefore, they are distinguishing heat from energy. Earlier in the book, when defining energy, they could not do so, claiming it is essentially undefinable, which is true. Yet here they are claiming that energy is being transferred as heat. If it is mechanical energy, it seems they think it is kosher to define it as work but only at a boundary.
The point is, even if we do not understand what energy is, we must distinguish one form of energy from another. Energy cannot simply be lumped under the umbrella of generic energy since energy takes various forms. The words we use to describe those forms, like heat and work, depend on what is involved in a particular form of energy.
For example, heat involves the motion of atoms. We cannot simply claim that motion does not exist within a mass then suddenly appears at a surface. If we touch a surface and it appears to be hot, does that mean the same heat is not present within the mass? If heat is a measure of energy transfer, is that energy not also transferred within the mass?
Clausius had no problem defining internal energy as both internal heat and work. That makes sense. If you add heat, say via the flame of a torch, the internal heat rises. As it does, the work represented by atomic motion increases as well.
Come on. If you consider an atom vibrating in a mass, the degree of translation of the atom about a neutral point is used to measure the work done by that atom. Clausius understood that clearly even before atomic structure was understood. If you add heat to the mass, the atom gains energy and its translation increases, increasing the work it is doing.
It appears that modern scientists have become thoroughly confused by the obfuscation presented by quantum theory and statistical mechanics. That is little wonder considering the obfuscation presented in textbooks like this.
They vascillated on the definition of time, admitting it is based on the rotation of the Earth but is now defined based on the transition period of an atom. Ironically, the second used with the atomic definition has the same length as the second defined by the Earth’s rotation.
The moral of the story is that students who rely on textbooks for their understanding of science can rise no further in the application of science. Had luminaries like Newton and Clausius relied solely on textbooks, we’d still be mired in 16th century physics.
Same textbook om entropy…
“In fact, the question What is entropy? is frequently raised by students, with the implication that no one really knows!”
***
You can tell the authors are excited about their statement since they use an exclamation mark.
Ironically, Clausius knew what entropy means since he defined it in words as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat in a process at a constant temperature. The authors fail to acknowledge Clausius as the author of entropy, they provide only the Clausius inequality.
Clausius defined entropy under two condition. One condition was related to reversible processes where he claimed entropy = 0. That means the total heat transfer during such a process is zero.
The other condition is an irreversible process where the heat transfer must be greater than zero. That statement is intentionally an outcome of the 2nd law and invented to quantify the heat transfer as being in one direction only, from hot to cold.
Unfortunately, Clausius made a brief statement related to the conditions present in a irreversible process which relate to disorder. During an irreversible process, the matter involved disintegrates from an ordered collection of atoms into a disordered collection. Furthermore, the collection cannot be transformed from the disordered state to the ordered state.
Boltzmann incorrectly applied statistical methods to this statement, creating a falsehood that entropy is a measure of statistical disorder. In the textbook, the authors unwisely open that can of worms, muttering about the disorder without qualifying it.
As a textbook groupie, Clint has fallen under their spell, and has become utterly reliant on it. He has lost the ability to think for himself and to see through this pseudo-science.
“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across the boundary of a system at a given temperature”
It works for science. Once heat is transferred, it can be converted to external work, or internal potential energy, so it makes no sense to say the heat is still present in the material.
nate…if there is no heat in a mass, it has to be at absolute zero (-273C).
It’s silly and serious semantics to claim heat in a substance is energy and only becomes heat at a surface. We know heat is energy and it is named as such to distinguish it from other forms of energy.
We are concerned with what causes atoms in a mass to vibrate harder when heat is applied. And we are concerned with the fact that when heat is removed from a mass, all the heat, the atoms stop vibrating altogether. What other energy causes atoms to stop vibrating within a mass except the removal of heat?
Obviously then, a mass does have heat. As long as it’s atoms are vibrating, it must have heat. Temperature is a human device invented to measure the relative levels of heat. The definition of temperature became obfuscated when statistical mechanics redefined it to suit their needs. In other words, heat is real and temperature is a human invention.
Some modern scientists have become seriously anal, tripping over themselves with their imposed philosophies that make no sense. They use generic energy inferences when it suits them, ignoring the energies such as heat that have already been well defined for a long time.
I mean, this notion that heat exists only at a surface as the same energy that is claimed to be internal energy reaching that surface from within is about as silly as it gets. It is pure semantics, a redefinition that makes no sense.
I have already asked Clint the obvious question. If heat is only energy in transit, then what energy was it before it was being transferred? This flipping back and forth, redefining energy on the run, is pseudo-science.
We don’t yet know what energy is. It’s a concept but a concept with a reality that we cannot define. When we talk about energy, we are talking about ‘something’ that causes actions, however, energy produces different actions and we have names for those actions. Therefore, energy is not energy per se, but a range of actions produced in different ways.
Gravitational energy causes masses to accelerate toward the source. Electrical energy causes electrons in the atoms of conductors to move from areas of higher electron density to areas of lower electron density. Magnetic energy, like gravitational energy, causes certain elements like iron to accelerate toward the source.
Mechanical energy causes entire masses to move and the resultant distance the masses move we call work. Thermal energy causes atomic masses (atoms) to move and the resultant vibrational atomic motion within a mass we call work. Electromagnetic energy can also cause electrons within atoms to move if the EM is absorbed by the electrons. That action can produce heat in a mass.
Therefore, specific energies produces specific actions and each type of energy is named based on that action. For that reason, it is silly to single out heat and redefine it to something it is not.
“Its silly and serious semantics to claim..”
Again this definition works and has been verified again and again by scientists and engineers for a century.
I have explained how heat transferred is not conserved internally in a body, yet you ignore that problem.
Your issue with this is purely semantic.
Gordon Robertson,
Your stream of consciousness posts are difficult to follow. To engage effectively, could you consider adopting a more scientific/engineering style of writing that emphasizes precision and clarity?
Since the scientific revolution, science has emphasized quantifiable, measurable quantities.
Heat is measured via calorimetry. And calorimetry only measures the amount of heat transferred into or out of substances. It is not measurable inside a substance.
In thermodynamic theory, going back to Clausius, heat is Q, and it is only ever defined and quantified as the amount of heat transferred.
Since it cannot be measured and quantified in a substance, and theory does not quantify it in a substance, then defining it as a transferred energy makes perfect sense.
Adaptation measures…
Former Trump adviser Robert C. O’Brien says the quiet part out loud.
Appearing on Faux News from this weekend O’Brien said the following:
https://youtu.be/0XuwEYzAWkY?t=318
A MAGA sez “because as the climate gets warmer..”
WTF?
Climate Scientists are Very Confused
https://youtu.be/P6EMJlt_Dsw
“Welcome to 2025. Unfortunately climate change didn’t go away. Instead, the situation is worse now than ever before.”
“Climate Scientists are Very Confused”
Nah. Just click-bait for climate skeptics.
https://www.axios.com/2024/12/16/climate-change-records-surprise-scientists
This was well illustrated by a show of hands at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Washington in December.
Science is hardly worth pursuing if everything is already understood.
She often has hyperbolic titles, like ‘I don’t believe the second law of thermodynamics’
Bill,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1696002
“measuring absorbed SW should give you LW emitted.”
You mean, I presune, “measuring SW reflected should give you LW emitted.”
What I would like to comment is that the LW emitted doesn’t originate from the SW absorbed.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com