Home/Blog2024 Sets New Record for Warmest Year In Satellite Era (Since 1979)
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2024 was +0.62 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down slightly from the November, 2024 anomaly of +0.64 deg.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged temperature trend (January 1979 through December 2024) remains at +0.15 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
As seen in the following ranking of the years from warmest to coolest, 2024 was by far the warmest in the 46-year satellite record averaging 0.77 deg. C above the 30-year mean, while the 2nd warmest year (2023) was +0.43 deg. C above the 30-year mean. [Note: These yearly average anomalies weight the individual monthly anomalies by the number of days in each month.]
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 24 months (record highs are in red).
| 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 | +0.53 | +1.12 | +0.79 | +1.00 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.62 | +0.76 | +0.48 | +0.53 | +1.42 | +1.12 | +1.54 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for December, 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:
Happy New Year.
Same for you he…
Very strange – and slightly worrying that the new record exceeded the previous record by such a large margin.
While alarmists like you may find it concerning, for unbiased and objective individuals, it’s an opportunity for learning and a reminder that the science isn’t as settled as popularly claimed.
Unbiased and objective individuals would seek to explain the seemingly huge jump in warming indicated by Ranked Annual Averages.
Science is always settled unless contradictory evidence of the same quality comes along but then real science changes.
So given this new temperature data trend – what changes need to be made in climate science and by who?
So, what did you learn from the latest yearly data?
What was it about the latest data that specifically reminded you that the “science isn’t as settled”?
Why did the phrase “slightly alarming” indicate to you that professor P is an “alarmist”?
Boy was that nonsensical
I noticed that many climate alarmist are telling people they are worried as if that is supposed to mean something.
CERES may show even further reduction in clouds. Climate alarmist will try and link that to CO2 induced warming because when all you have is a hammer, you get paid by the nail.
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.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2024JD041625
Note that the Saudis get paid by the barrel!
GHG AGW is a slow continuous phenomenon. Transient temperature excursions have nothing to do with AGW from GHGs. It is ridiculous to contend otherwise. and ICPP AR6 chapter 12 section 12 reveals essentially no extreme weather trends outside natural variation for everything except temperature, although it would not be unexpected or alarming that some small trends do occur. Certainly the benefits of burning carbon fuels are so great as to be almost beyond our ability to appreciate, and far offset any of these proposed minor extreme weather variations (excluding temperature). and it is true CO2 is a green gas that is greening the planetThe plants and animals love this recent human intervention. And the true global ECS is about 2 C, which has been grossly over evaluated for over 40 years by the AGW alarmist propagandists in and out of academia.
“Certainly the benefits of burning carbon fuels are so great”
But what if the benefits of renewable energy are even greater?
Fossil fuels are often dirty, producing emissions and solid wastes harmful to human health.
They are non-renewable, and when they do become scarce, without alternatives in place, they will produce economic havoc.
And as we saw in Europe and the Middle East, fossil fuel supplies can be used as political weapon.
If carbon fuels could be replaced economically or practically, fine. I would love to see it, and leave CO2 levels at their current “perfect” value(430 ppm). But they cannot be, and will not be. The only benefits of “renewables” is the reduction of CO2 emission. Everything else is much, much worse. The costs (including subsidies)have been, and will continue to be astronomical. Reliability and practicality…terrible. And the switch to renewables at this high cost has produced virtually no corresponding effect in temperature rise, but a tremendous increase in energy prices. This is an eco fantasy, not a practical alternative.
And carbon fuels are in no danger of running out for over a century. We have still not reached peak oil. It is renewable options that are unreliable, and they are extremely wasteful of resources, leaving tremendous waste products(including CO2), especially after they wear out in 10 to 20 years.
Europe is in their predicament BECAUSE of ridiculous “renewable ” eco energy policies. They refuse to “frack” for available methane locally, which reduces CO2 per megawatt hour by a factor of 2 over coal plants….but then use coal AND buy expensive methane from others…and destroy their Nuclear energy capability which France has shown to be extraordinarily successful. If solar power IS a practical alternative in some regions, then it will flourish naturally, but Europe cannot rely on solar during the winter or at night…which is when heating power is essential.
Renewable energy replacement is “easy” for those who don’t actually have to do it or pay for it, but like talking about it, and how inexpensive renewables WILL be. And if China and India continue to increase coal burning, forget any hope of CO2 emission reductions.
I understand the desire and eventual need to reduce warming trends, but don’t try to argue “renewables” provide greater benefit.
Therefore, achieving a “NetZero” carbon emission agenda within several decades is not only operationally
unobtainable, impoverishing and debilitating, but unnecessary. A “NetConstant” or “NetReduction” global
carbon emission agenda would be a more realistic and effective approach over many decades, with a “NetZero”
in global CO2 emissions realized on the order of centuries, concurrent with realistic (and affordable) advances
in technology and climatological forecasting.
‘at their current perfect value(430 ppm).’
How do you know what is perfect? Human civilization flourished for millenia at 280 ppm.
“The costs (including subsidies)have been, and will continue to be astronomical.”
You are not up to date on that.
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2024/photovoltaic-plants-with-battery-cheaper-than-conventional-power-plants.html
carbon emission agenda would be a more realistic and effective approach over many decades”
I tend to agree. Historically our ramping up of the exploitation of new enery sources (oil, hydro, nuclear, natural gas) has required around 3 decades.
Not centuries.
Nate thinks so-called “renewable energy” is clean, when it is at least as dirty as using fossil fuels. In fact, mining lithium, other rare earths, turning them into useful products, etc. is in fact dirtier.
He also thinks living pre fossil fuel days was “human civilization flourished for millenia at 280 ppm”. The whales disagree, as does anyone with common sense.
“In fact, mining lithium, other rare earths, turning them into useful products, etc. is in fact dirtier.”
Dirtier?? Evidence?
Lithium is not a rare earth.
test
” The costs (including subsidies)have been, and will continue to be astronomical.
You are not up to date on that.”:
Don’t trust info from press release projections.
Show me any real world power company switching to “cheap solar/wind” (without subsidies and mandates) in order to increase profits? If what you say is true then un-subsidized and un-mandated conversion to solar/wind will happen naturally, and the price for users will decrease. I don’t see that happening anywhere…in reality just the opposite happens. Can you name one instance? Nothing would make me happier than to be convinced that what you say were true. But it seems to me to be TOTAL Eco-fantasy, not reality. Personal Solar power with batteries can work for smaller households in some warm year-round sunny regions. But the price is at least $15k + $10K installation and must be replaced in about 10-20 years. This is not terrible (and admittedly somewhat promising), but not cheap, especially for third world countries.
” “perfect” value(430ppm) “:
The word perfect was in quotes to indicate something of a jest…obviously this is subjective. Prove 430ppm is not perfect. The winters in the mid-west in 1850 were terrible. Nine times as many people die of cold exposure than exposure to heat even today. The world is greening today. I like more days of clear sunny blue sky. The point is that 430ppm is a perfectly reasonable value of CO2.
” 3 decades “:
Historically we change to new energy sources without gov. mandates and subsidies only because it makes engineering and fiscal sense, not because of a “Net-Zero in 3 decades” Eco-fantasy. At tremendous cost only 13% of electrical power is now generated by solar/wind! And only 20% of energy production is electrical! with an additional 65% being the direct burning/heating by carbon fuels.
A wind/solar Net-Zero in less than a century is a very expensive fantasy.
“If what you say is true then un-subsidized and un-mandated conversion to solar/wind will happen naturally, and the price for users will decrease.”
That has happened. The price of unsubsidized utility scale solar, fell below the $1/Watt benchmark for competiveness severals years back.
See Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in this report from Energy Information Agency.
Click on Full Report.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/
The final annual figure was pretty much locked in over the last couple of months, but it’s still astonishing to see how much of an outlier it is in the graph. Most other data sets are not going to show as much if a discrepancy between this year and last year, though that’s more because they started with 2023 being somewhat warmer than UAH.
Compared with other spikes this still seems very different to me. Starting earlier and cooling less rapidly. I still think we’ll have to wait and see what happens in 2025 before we have a clue as to what’s been happening the last two years.
Compared with other spikes this still seems very different to me
`Because its not real
https://youtu.be/BXfudZK1DEQ
https://youtu.be/VrJiU9BOEBI
There appear to be two warming influences at the present time. The increase in high altitude water vapor and the decrease in clouds. In 2021 December was at 0.16 C and was also in La Nina conditions. This puts the warming influence between .4-.5 C.
I think 2021 will be a reasonable year for comparison over the next 5-6 months. We can see if these effects are dissipating by comparison.
The thicker Sun blocking clouds will come back when galactic cosmic rays can penetrate our magnetosphere again.
Mostly the 2030s.
Very clear, Richard M.
The HTE is slowly dissipating, as indicated by the link you provided months ago:
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/h2o_MLS_vLAT_qbo_75S-75N_10hPa.pdf
There are indeed “warming influences”, just not CO2. CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface.
The H-T Volcano had a slight cooling effect, and it ended by the end of 2023:
MR Schoeberl et al, (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
David will discover the truth eventually. His denial and similar denials from the climate cult will disappear along with the HTE warming.
Richard, can you point out the errors in the cited publication?
Ad hom rejections of legit science won’t make your case.
Sorry Nate, climate pseudoscience is nothing but a cult. You won’t find any real science in their sermons.
Then we can safely ignore your science-free rants.
Appell religiously refers to his cult’s nonsense paper, not understanding the first 5 words of the abstract: “We calculate the climate forcing”
“Calculating climate forcing” is cult nonsense. It’s all false beliefs stacked on false beliefs. It all started with Arrhenius claiming he could add CO2 and create energy.
That ain’t science.
“‘Calculating climate forcing’is cult nonsense”‘ sez the person who did no calculation but arrived at a conclusion anyway!
All you guys offer is correlation ‘must equal’ causation, which certainly ain’t science!
Clint R says
“CO2s 15μ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface.”
The second law of thermodynamics is about a thermodynamic system that starts and ends in a state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, that means no macroscopic flows. The earth’s atmosphere is not such, and the second law says nothing immediately about it. On the other hand, the concept of local thermodynamic equilibrium does apply in many atmospheric scenarios. It is generally accepted that, when local thermodynamic equilibrium prevails, and the flows are not too large, then the local time rate of entropy production is positive. That is a kind of version of the second law.
No sensible person, not even warmists I guess, will try to say that “CO2s 15μ photons CAN warm a 288K surface”. What reasonable people say is that an influx of CO2s 15μ photons can slow the cooling of a 288K surface. For us, the question is ‘by how much’? The answer is ‘not enough to have a noticeable effect on the climate’. That’s where the controversy is.
Nate,
CO2 is correlated to temperature. It has been through all the historical data and real-time. CO2 has lagged temperature on both long and short, time scales.
Stephen, of course warming causes outgassing, eg from the ocean or soil. Which increases atmospheric CO2.
But not nearly enough to account for the rise of the last century.
The causality can be reversed. There can be an increase in CO2 due to something other than temperature.
In the 20th century it was due to emissions.
Nate,
Yes, not enough. Humans account for about 30 ppm of the rise (at most), nature 100 ppm. Also, the GHE is thermodynamically improbable.
“Yes, not enough. Humans account for about 30 ppm”
Stephen, You dont listen or learn and keep rehashing this argument that has been debunked here dozens of times.
Go back and read!
Meanwhile you cannot explain how a temperature increase of 1 degree K can cause a 50 % rise in CO2. See Henry’s Law for CO2 in water.
And given that all reservoirs (ocean, land, air and bio) are sinks for CO2 and show an increase in CO2 concentration, that leaves you no source for it other than fossil fuels.
So you are believing in a magical fantasy.
Chris, 2LoT does NOT require a “state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium” The law applies all the time, in every situation. Thats why it’s a LAW. So 2LoT definitely applies to Earth, ALL the time.
You’re correct that no “sensible person” would say that CO2 could warm Earth, but Warmists are not sensible people. They definitely believe CO2 can warm the planet. Ever heard of “back-radiation”? That’s how they claim CO2’s 15μ photons can warm the 288K surface. Heck, some here have even tried to compare atmospheric CO2 to a laser. They believe because a CO2 laser can etch steel, then CO2 can heat the planet. That’s why we know they ain’t scientists.
And, “slowing the cooling” is not warming. One person that used to regularly clog this blog claimed that CO2 “slowed the cooling” at night so when Sun came up in the morning, Earth would reach a higher temperature than if the cooling had not been “slowed”. He didn’t realize Sun is always warming the planet. He was confused about day/night, possibly believing Sun was not warming the planet during his night. Go figure.
Straw man argument Nate. You’ve already provided the source of the CO2 and then supposedly debunked it when Berry or Salby have done no such thing. They don’t propose a source or cause of the natural CO2 increase, only they have shown that it can’t be from fossil fuels. The Equivalence Principle is a law of nature. CO2 from fossil fuels and nature are identical. Their etimes are the same.
Strawman? Hardly. You clearly suggested that T rise of 1K caused the Co2 rise of 50 %. But have no rational explanation. Nor can you rationally explain the source of CO2. Nor can you account for the T rise.
But keep on believin in magic.
Hi Clint R. Responding to
“Chris, 2LoT does NOT require a state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium The law applies all the time, in every situation. Thats why its a LAW. So 2LoT definitely applies to Earth, ALL the time.”
The law is a law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is about processes in bodies that start and end in internal states of thermodynamic equilibrium, or in bodies local thermodynamic equilibrium. For some bodies, it doesn’t even make sense to specify their temperatures. Then the law doesn’t apply.
“Youre correct that no sensible person would say that CO2 could warm Earth, but Warmists are not sensible people.” Agreed for most warmists. Some are quite sensible though still deluded.
“They definitely believe CO2 can warm the planet.” I am not talking immediately about warming the planet. I am talking about warming the condensed matter surface of the planet.
“Ever heard of back-radiation?” Of course.
“Thats how they claim CO2s 15μ photons can warm the 288K surface.” I am talking about the sensible ones. They don’t claim that added CO2s 15μ photons can warm the 288K surface. They claim that added CO2 slows the cooling of the surface enough to result in warming of the planet.
“Heck, some here have even tried to compare atmospheric CO2 to a laser. They believe because a CO2 laser can etch steel, then CO2 can heat the planet. Thats why we know they aint scientists.” They are not the sensible ones.
“And, slowing the cooling is not warming.” I engaged in a bit of loose language there. By ‘slowing the cooling’ I mean contributing negatively to the overall rate of removal of energy, by radiation, conduction, and evaporation from the condensed matter surface. In that sense, enough ‘slowing the cooling’ will actually warm the planet. A small ‘slowing of the cooling’ will be substantially opposed by negative feedback, so that there will be practically no noticeable rise in temperature. I am saying that the latter wins, contrary to the beliefs of the sensible warmists.
“One person that used to regularly clog this blog claimed that CO2 slowed the cooling at night so when Sun came up in the morning, Earth would reach a higher temperature than if the cooling had not been slowed. He didnt realize Sun is always warming the planet. He was confused about day/night, possibly believing Sun was not warming the planet during his night. Go figure.” Too complicated for me to figure.
“A small slowing of the cooling will be substantially opposed by negative feedback, so that there will be practically no noticeable rise in temperature”
Evidence?
Don’t concede high altitude water vapor without satellite data. You’re going to make Dessler and Soden vert happy if you do.
Interesting. I still think a warmer planet is a better planet, with fewer people dying from the cold.
And CO2 undoubtedly is greening the planet.
There doesn’t seem to be any data showing extreme weather events increasing in number, though there does seem a lot of attribution of weather events to climate change which seems closer to Scientology as actual science.
“Global warming already driving increases in rainfall extremes: Precipitation extremes are affecting even arid parts of the world, study shows,” Nature 3/7/16
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-already-driving-increases-in-rainfall-extremes-1.19508
“Increased record-breaking precipitation events under global warming,” J Lehmann et al, Clim. Change 132, 501515 (2015).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-015-1434-y
Evidence for more extreme downpours:
Papalexiou, S. M., & Montanari, A.(2019). Global and regional increase of precipitation extremes under global warming. Water Resources Research, 55,49014914. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR024067
Here we show that, worldwide, the number of local record-breaking monthly temperature extremes is now on average five times larger than expected in a climate with no long-term warming.
– Coumou, D., A. Robinson and S. Rahmstorf, 2013: Global increase in record-breaking monthly-mean temperatures. Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0668-1.
All of those links just indicate Earth is in a warming trend. That’s all.
Learn some history man, there has been no increased precipitation in the UK, not even close to historic records.there are vast amounts of data that prove the past was wetter and warmer, high water levels from flood events are marked on bridges and buildings all across Europe and the UK, church records record thousands of deaths, whole towns and villages washed away.climate did not start in 1850 or 1979 so why the obsession with those dates?
Ian, the UK is 0.02% of global surface area and uniquely situated in N Atlantic currents.
“church records record thousands of deaths, whole towns and villages washed away.”
Yes we have always had damaging floods, especially before dams and levees etc were constructed.
The question is whether the odds of extreme events changed in certain regions.
David, it is all superficial, and does not bear scrutiny once you dig into historic events,in Europe and Ancient China,
How can a tiny addition ‘trace’ gas’ have any effect?
Each part per million of that ‘trace gas’ in the atmosphere represents approximately 7.82 gigatonnes of that ‘trace gas’.
Focusing on 400+ parts per million or 0.04 percent of the atmosphere underestimates just how much ‘trace gas’ is circulating in the atmosphere.
CO2 is required for all life on Earth, but it can’t raise Earth’s temperature.
Clint,
Yes, GHE is improbable. Not impossible, but improbable. Also, the physicist Yong Zhao, has shown that albedo is probably not emissivity is not 0.95 but much lower around 0.61.
Sorry, emissivity not 0.95 but probably around 0.61.
GHG AGW is a slow continuous phenomenon. Transient temperature excursions have nothing to do with AGW from GHG’s. It is ridiculous to contend otherwise. and ICPP AR6 chapter 12 section 12 reveals essentially no extreme weather trends outside natural variation for everything except temperature, although it would not be unexpected or alarming that some small trends do occur. Certainly the benefits of burning carbon fuels are so great as to be almost beyond our ability to appreciate, and far offset any of these proposed minor extreme weather variations (excluding temperature). and it is true CO2 is a “green” gas that is greening the planet…The plants and animals love this recent human intervention. And the true global ECS is about 2 C, which has been grossly over evaluated for over 40 years by the AGW alarmist propagandists in and out of academia.
There is no section 12 in chapter 12. I wonder if you meant Chapter 11. But then that states “It is an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and/or intensityof some weather and climate extremes since pre-industrial
time, in particular for temperature extremes.”
The summary you quote is only made so that people like you may quote it to support the extreme weather argument. But if you actually read the report you see there are no upward trends for nearly all extreme weather events outside of natural variation, or they are insignificant, EXCLUDING heat waves[but then 9 times as many people die of cold exposure than heat exposure… so global warming is saving lives in that case!]. My statement above is verified, and compelling.
[I guess I miss-remembered the chapter number …regrets!]
It seems the graph cannot be enlarged by clicking on it, Roy.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2024_v6.1_20x9-scaled.jpg
Thanks, Nate, but that’s just through November.
Ok good point.
If you right click on it and ‘open in new tab’ you get the higher res version.
The common appeals to increased stratospheric water vapor and reduced clouds/aerosols have missed the important causative action.
People should not be surprised by the 2024 anomaly as it should already be known that the lower troposphere lags the ocean sea surface temperature by several months.
The 2024 SST average was higher than in 2023.
In 2024 solar irradiance was higher than in 2023, with both years being the highest TSI years in over thirty years.
The ocean warming since 2022 was predicted by me as a function of solar activity above a decadal ocean warming threshold, and it happened.
https://i.postimg.cc/GmTgSCrM/Decadal-Warming-Steps-since-2000.jpg
The 2024 UAH LT anomaly is thus simply following the solar cycle influence on the ocean. The LT anomaly will fall again as the SST declines, following the solar cycle decline. In fact it has already started to do that towards the end of 2024.
Bob, No one really knows how TSI has changed over 30 years. There isn’t consensus on the consensus composites of spaced-based sensor data.
The differences in instrumental composites are fairly minor, not important here. If by “consensus” you expected ‘exactly the same’, why?
The CERES composite reveals that in SC#25 the sun has emitted 23 W/m2 more irradiance by the 60th month than in SC#24. The CERES composite is comprised of SORCE and TSIS-1 TSI data from 2003-2018, and from 2018-now, respectively, managed by Dr. Greg Kopp of LASP since 2003.
He knows what he’s doing.
https://i.postimg.cc/6pTD6F62/Tale-of-2-Cycles.jpg
The rapid rise of this cycle delivered 23/4/5 = 1.15W/m2/year more to the climate in the last five years since this cycle started than SC#24.
Find a stronger climate driver from the past five years if you can.
Your ‘no one knows’ attitude is wrong. It’s not the 1990s anymore.
TSI is well correlated with sunspots. “No one really knows,” seems a little exaggerated.
Both step-ups in sst align better with El Ninos than TSI.
Both step-ups started after TSI exceeded the threshold, just before the El Nio in both cycles shown.
Bob, so a highly nonlinear response ro solar input. Why?
You cherry pick the last 2 El Ninos.
1997 was at solar minimum.
Changes in solar irradiance just aren’t that important over decadal timescales. From the IPCC 6AR WG1 TS.2.2 p67:
“Since 1750, changes in the drivers of the climate system
are dominated by the warming influence of increases in
atmospheric GHG concentrations and a cooling influence
from aerosols, both resulting from human activities. In
comparison there has been negligible long-term influence
from solar activity and volcanoes.”
You can also get an approximation for solar irradiance influence from the Stefan-Boltzmann law for the planet:
S=cT^4
where S=solar irradiance, c=constant (albedo, emissivity, SB constant) and T=temperature (surface temperature or brightness temperature, it doesn’t much matter). Then for T=288 K and S=1360 W/m2
dT/dS = T/4S = 0.05 K/(W/m2)
[K=kelvin]
Appell indicates his confusion about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The relation between temperature and flux is NON-LINEAR, not linear.
He still won’t understand….
Clint, for small variations the linear approximation Appell does is perfectly valid. If the sun should start fluctuating so much that the approximation no longer is enough we are all dead anyway…
David, you genuinely believe that the albedo of the planet has stayed the same? That is so adorable.
Thomas P, if you’re trying to cover up for Appell’s incompetence, you better pack a lunch….
For example, explain his “4” nonsense.
CLINT asks for understanding: “For example, explain his 4 nonsense.”
THEORETICAL:
dS/dT = 4cT^3 = 4c(T^4/T) = 4S/T
DT/dS = 1/(dS/dT) = T/4S
… exactly as stated
EMPIRICAL:
Set c = 0.287
When S = 1360, T = 288.044
When S = 1361, T = 288.097
Delta(T) = 0.053 K for a 1 W/m^2 increase.
… exactly as stated
Bob,
The impact of the solar cycles on temperature is easy to check. Smashing the cycles 10-24 to test if there is a systematic increase of global temperatures at the time of the highest solar activity clearly shows that the impact is at best minor. ENSO episodes dominate.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Of7yZ4zPw26ptxB0CqKHkwmJwhZfhgszYsw9O7tdmgk/edit?usp=sharing
Am I missing something?
ENSO isn’t a causative mechanism – it’s an empirical observation, based quite substantially on SST.
My interest in Bob’s work is that he seems to have a predictive mechanism for ENSO based on solar output that makes intuitive sense. That doesn’t make it right necessarily, but it does make it worth investigating.
Unfortunately main-stream climate science was happy to say ‘CO2 did it’ and has ignored proper measurements and thorough understanding of solar activity. Far too many paid scientists seem happy with the idea that oceans are warmed by the air above when they should be worrying about the photons hitting that top meter or so.
No long-term TSI (and ideally broken down by wavelength and global location)? Then you have no real data to aid first principals understanding. That forces Climateers to average day/night/seasons until there is no real signal left to study: except CO2 vs Air Temp which of course tracks quite well because warming water outgasses CO2. They have to correlate fairly well.
ENSO is a cyclic tropical atmospheric/ocean phenomena. It predictably drives a response in global T and other weather variables.
The sun’s cycle is 11 y. That the solar cycle is driving ENSO, with a 3-5 y period, is not intuitive, nor is there an identified mechanism
Dixon,
Yes, you are missing something.
This graph clearly shows no noticeable correlation between sunspots or solar activity and global temperature over the last 15 solar cycles. Therefore, Bobs claim that the high temperatures in 2023/24 can be explained as a function of high solar activity has no basis in the observations from previous solar cycles. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Of7yZ4zPw26ptxB0CqKHkwmJwhZfhgszYsw9O7tdmgk/edit?usp=sharing
Bob states: “In 2024, solar irradiance was higher than in 2023, with both years being the highest TSI years in over thirty years. The ocean warming since 2022 was predicted by me as a function of solar activity above a decadal ocean warming threshold, and it happened.”
However, since short-term temperature variations are closely linked to ENSO (El NioSouthern Oscillation) phases, this indicates no clear connection between ENSO and solar activity.
Sig: “This graph clearly shows no noticeable correlation between sunspots or solar activity and global temperature over the last 15 solar cycles.”
This isn’t quite right. There is a small correlation between solar activity and global temperature as shown, for instance, in Foster/Rahmstorf 2011.
Bob’s issue is that his thesis is based on only the last two solar cycles (24 and 25). If one looks at earlier solar cycles, cycle 24 stands out as noticeably weaker most any cycle of the 20th century and that solar irradiance has generally been on a downward trend since the last half of the 20th century.
The peak of solar cycle 25 did contribute to the record high UAH TLT for 2024, but likely not very much compared to other drivers.
Mark B,
Thank you for referencing Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), which strongly supports my observations. F/R state: This confirms that the influence of ENSO is greater than that of volcanic forcing and much greater than that of solar variation,
However, their analysis covers less than three solar cycles. I examined sunspot data spanning 15 solar cycles alongside HadCRUT4 global temperature records starting from 1850. I excluded temperature data for the two years immediately following major volcanic eruptions to minimize their impact. Since solar cycles vary in length, I normalized the time scale by expressing each cycle as a percentage of the duration between sunspot minima.
Sunspots/TSI and the corresponding temperature impact should be closely aligned for all 15 cycles (F/R assumes 1 month delay). A clear positive temperature deviation would be expected to show up around solar maximum in the combination curves. It does not. This tells us, like F/R stated, that the variable TSI effect is totally overwhelmed by other factors(ENSO).
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Of7yZ4zPw26ptxB0CqKHkwmJwhZfhgszYsw9O7tdmgk/edit#slide=id.p
Furthermore, if ENSO were driven by solar cycles, a systematic temperature pattern corresponding to sunspot activity would be evident. Yet, no such correlation is observed. This indicates that El Nio and La Nia events are independent of solar cycles.
So yes, there is no noticeable (= easily seen) correlation between sunspots and global temperature. The small impact of the TSI-variation is overwhelmed by other factors.
You are right that “solar irradiance has generally been on a downward trend since the last half of the 20th century”. And cycle 24 was the weakest in more than 100 years. However, the reality is that the excess radiation in C25 is less than 0.04 percent higher than in C24. It is apparent that the minor TSI variations are insignificant relative to other factors.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SgAuAvx8O4e6ngL3LJ2X0JordaL8hk3Sh_ud8kn38WU/edit?usp=sharing
The cyclone that will hit the U.S. Midwest is visible in the tropopause.
https://i.ibb.co/jMNqQ55/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072-1.png
Robert Cutler.
Could you explain how we don’t know how TSI changes?
It would seem to me that knowing how much energy we are recieving from the sun would be a fundamental variable in the climate models. I always assumed that it was measured and factored in.
Surely it is easy to point a spectrophotometer towards the sun and measure the amount of energy at each wavelength wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum and do a simple calculation to work it out?
The hard bit would be modelling how each frequency interacts with the atmosphere and Earth’s surface.
Mark, TSI can’t be measured from earth. There were early attempts to measure it from mountain tops, and from balloons, but the amount of data collected is small, and not without its own controversies.
Satellites were launched in the late 70’s, but the lifetime of a satellite is about one solar cycle, and all of the various satellites don’t agree, and there’s also a gap in time that was the result of the shuttle disaster.
There are different groups that have used different techniques to create a single composite record of the satellite data. These composites don’t agree.
For a bit more info jump to chapter 8 on this web page. This same info is often found in various peer-reviewed papers.
Long-term TSI reconstructions from proxy data (e.g.14C isotopes) have their own set of problems and vary widely. The IPCC uses a TSI reconstruction with the least amount of variability. You can probably guess why.
Sorry, Forgot to include the link.
https://www.heritage.org/climate/report/the-unreliability-current-global-temperature-and-solar-activity-estimates-and-its
Heritage Foundation is a political advocacy enterprise, a poor source for unbiased science.
Anything from science papers?
Heritage Foundation attempts to counter the nonsense from political groups like the IPCC. But, too often they fail because they haven’t taken the time to learn the basic physics.
Nate,
Almost all your links are from leftist activist organizations. From Nature to IPCC, leftist.
Hardly.
“There are different groups that have used different techniques to create a single composite record of the satellite data. These composites don’t agree.”
A comparison of these composite records of TSI would be helpful to see how significant these differences are.
Barry, This recent paper provides a good comparison.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/
ad7794
Of the composites that the authors didn’t put together themselves for the purposes of the paper, the living and legacy composites are quite similar other than at the beginning of the record, 1979 and 1980, where ACRIM and SOLID have higher TSI than PMOD.
Other than that, the records agree very well on the phases of TSI change, with slight disagreements in TSI output, owing not only to relying on different composites of instruments, but also on their different objectives in compiling the data.
I don’t see any evidence from these disagreements that we ‘know nothing’ about TSI, and the fact that the phases line up extremely well with SSN suggest that they are good estimates of TSI.
Lets formulate for the Planets Temperatures Comparison THE INITIAL AXIOM.
For two completely identical planets (or moons), which may differ only in size, their respective average surface temperatures (T1) and (T2) in Kelvin, relate as the fourth root of their respective fluxes (Flux1) and (Flux2) in W/m^2:
T1 /T2 = [ (Flux1) /(Flux2) ] ∕ ⁴
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Roy, what do you suppose is causing this protracted temperature spike? The extra 13% water vapour in our normally dry stratosphere resulting from the Hunga Tonga submarine volcanic eruption seems too big a possibility to ignore. What do you think from your vantage point?
I can’t believe the tone of the posts The peak was horrendous and in no way reflected a sudden non existent massive rise in Co2 so the only culprit has to be Hunga Tonga. Also despite that peak falling nicely, people seem to be suddenly panicking where they weren’t when it was higher
Alarmists live every day terrified of some imaginary scam. One day, theyll look back from their deathbeds and realize they spent their entire lives panicking over nothing. Truly tragic but also kind of funny.
Average global Water vapor has been increasing more than twice as fast as possible from just average global temperature increase.
It takes a lot of heat to evaporate water.
The failure to define or describe the most significant event in the history of the satellite record is a glaring failure of science. None of the climate models came even close to predicting this. After more than a year of effort by the best minds in the business, yes, business, of climate prediction, there is no solid explanation. The three most prominent climate predictors, Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann, all claim it is not a “tipping point”. Incremental increase in CO2 is not to blame.
That has not stopped the climate change media from making the most of this. If you wanted proof that climate change is real and already happening, this is it. We have surpassed 1.5 C and beyond. In case anyone thinks this is temporary, we were reminded by the official CNN climate expert, Bill Weir, that 2024 was not only the warmest year in the history of the earth, but it was also the coldest year we will ever see again.
“official CNN climate expert, Bill Weir”
That’s so funny. I can’t stop laughing.
2024 was the warmest in Earths history, that has got to be one of the dumbest statements ever made , and Bill expects to be taken seriously?
I’m willing to bet that Bill Weir did not say what y’all are saying he said. I’m willing to bet he said it was the warmest year in the instrumental record.
If you have a good link with the opposite, you should bet me now, and produce it later. I’ll check the original quotes of course.
Let’s say $100 US?
I’ll check this thread for any takers over the next week.
Xx
”
The failure to define or describe the most significant event in the history of the satellite record is a glaring failure of science. None of the climate models came even close to predicting this.”
Ugh. Just the usual hyperbole and misinformation from Tim.
Gee I thought the ‘pause’ was the most significant event. What makes this, so far brief, warm excursion significant-er?
Climate models are not designed to predict yearly T variation, only long term trends. For example, they do not predict or know next year’s ENSO states.
And Bill Weir is simply a reporter, not a scientist or climate expert.
Nate, thank you for the compliment. I can always tell what bothers you by the part you leave out. You did not reply directly because people might read the whole thing, and see your comment in context. The ‘pause’ as you state is your problem, not mine. I did not comment on that.
Sometimes a coherent thought requires more than just a sound bite. Here is what you left out:
[After more than a year of effort by the best minds in the business, yes, business, of climate prediction, there is no solid explanation. The three most prominent climate predictors, Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann, all claim it is not a “tipping point”. Incremental increase in CO2 is not to blame.]
I can see why some folks might be embarrassed about Bill Weir, but he is not “simply a reporter”. His official title is Chief Climate Correspondent. He is the face of climate science on CNN. He reports on the science, not just human interest. He presents himself as an expert. There are other science experts in the media making bold statements. CBS News has an entire department making up climate news.
Bill Weir is a reporter who has interviewed climate scientists, who are indeed experts. That does not make Bill Weir an expert, as you claimed, so as to tarnish the actual experts.
The media regularly gets science wrong. And they tend to exaggerate weather phenomena.
I have no idea what ‘tipping points’ you refer to.
Hansen for several years has been predicting climate change acceleration, due to aerosol pollution reductions.
What you declare a ‘glaring failure’ of climate science is, rather, a feature of an active field of science research: the fact that not everything has already been explained.
Nate, according to Bill Weirs wiki page he has a degree in creative writing. So yes you are correct that Bills input on Climate Change should be ignored as overhyped rants of an activist. Bit like Hansens views ought to be gauged by his employment. He worked in a agency that was having it’s budget being reduced by 90% and just so happened to find an invisible
Bogeyman to save his job.
In reply to Anon for a reason’s calumnious comment about Dr. James Hansen:
Education.
BA with highest distinction (Physics and Mathematics), University of Iowa, 1963.
MS (Astronomy), University of Iowa, 1965.
Visiting student, Inst. of Astrophysics, University of Kyoto & Dept. of Astronomy, Tokyo University, Japan, 1965-1966.
Ph.D. (Physics), University of Iowa, 1967.
1-long-paragraph bio
Dr. James Hansen, formerly Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is an Adjunct Professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, where he directs a program in Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. His early research on the clouds of Venus helped identify their composition as sulfuric acid. Since the late 1970s, he has focused his research on Earth’s climate, especially human-made climate change. Dr. Hansen is best known for his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in the 1980s that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1995 and was designated by Time Magazine in 2006 as one of the 100 most influential people on Earth. He has received numerous awards including the Carl-Gustaf Rossby and Roger Revelle Research Medals, the Sophie Prize and the Blue Planet Prize. Dr. Hansen is recognized for speaking truth to power, for identifying ineffectual policies as greenwash, and for outlining actions that the public must take to protect the future of young people and other life on our planet.
Arkady,where did I say that Hansan was uneducated? I didn’t, so why the straw man argument from the peanut gallery?
I did question Hansan motivation, which can lead people to be blindsided by facts and have an almost religious like faith in their position. There is a multi billion dollar industry that is pursing a radical green agenda.
I’m still open minded about the issue. What about you?
Yeah, you should keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.
“He worked in a agency that was having its budget being reduced by 90% and just so happened to find an invisible
Bogeyman to save his job.”
If you are talking about NASA cuts in the mid 70s, when
Hansen moved from studying the atmospheres of other planets back to the atmosphere of Earth, when climate change research was ramping up. A wise move.
Around 1980 he stuck out his neck to measure and explain the 20th century climate record, AND to boldly predict that the amount and timing of the warming in the 80s 90s 2000s and beyond, including the spatial pattern of the warming and the opening of Arctic ocean. His predictions proved accurate.
This is in sharp contrast to the predictions of many climate skeptics after 2000 of flattening (Roy) or cooling, which have not come to pass.
It will be interesting to see what the next few months brings.
It may take longer than “the next few months” and it won’t be particularly interesting, but we’re already well into the start of the next Monckton Pause.
“It may take longer than ‘the next few months'”
And if it does?
Dr. Spencer, in 2010 (~fifteen years ago) you wrote:
Since the PDO has been in a negative phase since 2017 while Global LT temperature anomaly has risen by 2X during that period; do you suppose this indicates that climate sensitivity is greater than you anticipated?
Regards.
Except neither you nor anyone else can know if the current rise reflects a sustained increase or just a temporary deviation.
Wait for few months more to find out.
That is not the question.
The question is about Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, https://ibb.co/w7CmvVg, whether temperature data for the period 2010-2024, combined with a persistent negative PDO, contradict his lower-sensitivity hypothesis.
Or put another way, is his model of the strength of anthropogenic forcing relative to natural variability due for a revision?
This is how 2025 is going to go.
Only took 3 innocuous and scientific comments for Roy to block me again.
Roy is afraid.
David,
Maybe not. Many of us have been having problems posting from our usual IP address. I can only post on my mobile network.
Testing.
Roy blocks me because he’s afraid of what I have to say.
Then stop talking nonsense David.a little constructive thought or curiosity might not come amiss.dont need to be an Oxford Don to come to the conclusion that the climate has improved but still has a long way to go to catch up with earlier warm periods, how long will this recovery last?. no one knows,it may continue for centuries as it did many times in the past,or it may end withing your lifetime, such is the nature of climate.we do not wind the clock that makes those changes.
‘Roy’ doesn’t block you, Appell.
Use the TOR browser which doesn’t transmit the dynamic IP addresses allocated by the server of your Internet provider.
And by the way, Appell: no one is ‘afraid of what [you] have to say’.
You overestimate your relevance by dimensions.
David A,
He blocked you because you arrogantly insulted him.
Concorde was nixed as a mass form of transport at least partly over concerns about the impact of it’s emissions in the upper atmosphere.
Where is the concern over rocketry?
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/196aqq7/orbital_launches_by_year_19572023_new_record_in/?rdt=51042
Dixon, Concorde was prevented from flying supersonic over land due to the sonic boom. That cost more than its competitors. The second issue was the crash at the French airport due to a small bit of rubbish causing catastrophic damage. The fleet was grounded during the investigation and then no one wanted to fly on Concorde due to the risk.
There was never any issue due to emissions. So your revisionist view is just plain Willard. Nothing to do with rockets either.
Hello, Anon.
Is there something you’d like to tell me.
Dixon
Are you really worried about a few rocket launches?
How about adding up all the B-52, B-1 and B-2 flights that partly exceed 50,000 feet?
Even a Bombardier Global Challenge 7500 can reach an altitude of about 43,000 feet while crossing the North Atlantic.
The only thing that worries me about climate is how much public money people like you think should be spent trying to understand it and the damage its done to the reputation of scientists.
My point about Concorde is based on old research which pointed out that fuel oxidation products (including water vapour) at cruise altitudes could have significant climate impacts. The fact that the US had the market on commercial passenger aircraft was not lost on those promoting Concorde. This was decades before the tragic Paris crash called time on the, by then obsolete design.
And it wasnt a worry it was a suggestion to look at rockets as a possible cause for unexpected departures from the mean in apparently predictable variables. Thats complex because of the inertia in so many climate variables. Yes, I suspect aviation has a significant impact on climate. Id have had a lot more respect for climate scientusts if they had all given up global air travel when video conferencing became a thing. Id also point out there are big differences in the altitudes we are talking about here but you must know that. Thats why some of us are so convinced that HT must have had an effect on global climate.
Oh how interesting…
Dixon complains about the occasional travel of scientists but is wonderfully silent about
– the billionaires who use their jets every day, sometimes only flying a few hundred kilometers
– the military that flies all over the world all the time
– mass tourism, which causes about a million times more than what scientists, billionaires and the military alltogether manage.
Interesting, really.
***
By the way: interesting too is that after having been able to send a couple of comments using Firefox, I got the next one blocked, causing a ‘403 Forbidden nginx’ output by
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-comments-post.php
This here was sent once more using TOR, a browser which does not communicate the dynamic IP addresses allocated by our providers.
Dixon, aviation does effect the climate. The most noticeable day was sadly September 11th when the majority of planes where grounded. Scientists noted the daylight was brighter, which means even without the visible contrails a portion of the sunlight is reflected away from the ocean & ground.
Of course this could be seen as a positive.
Just bobbing through the posts above, I find it interesting that very few people here are now in denial of the warming and its effects, which most of us now can see and feel.
This contrasts to the outright denial of reality that we saw in previous years and even decades.
Progress is slow, but continuous, when reality starts to bite.
So, according to you, the future is always going to be warmer than the past!
Not every year will be warmer than the next, because there are short-term drivers of global temperature that fluctuate, but in the long run, absent any cataclysmic event like a meteor strike or cascading volcanic eruptions, as long as atmos CO2 increases, so will global temperature.
I’m willing to make a bet on it, but no skeptic is willing to take me up yet.
Glad to see you use the word “reality”, Nail.
The reality is CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature.
And the two related facts below sound even more realistic:
– No real scientist claims that 15 mu photons increase the temperature of the Earth;
– Only perverse ignoramuses like Clint R. intentionally misrepresent real science, no matter what field – beginning with… the mix of physics, math and astronomy introduced by no less than… Isaac Newton.
Bindi, it’s a NEW YEAR. Why not grow up and end your insults and false accusations?
Your hatred of reality is keeping you from learning. You don’t want to be like gordon and the rest, do you?
Climate pron
https://youtu.be/Xi90AI6aw6Y
The ugly truth is seen from the bar plot – the average is not average. Wild manipulation trying to lower the actual warming data. Shame, doc!
The temperatures of upper surface waters of Earths oceans (say, from surface to 100 m depth) must necessarily reflect changes in incoming/outgoing energy exchange at Earths surface similar to that of GLAT. These measurements automatically account for changes in (a) stratospheric water vapor absorption/GHG effects, (b) any changes in tropospheric and stratospheric SO2 concentrations, (c) any tropospheric cloud coverage temporal and spatial variations, and (d) any subtle changes in solar insolation at TOA.
A color contour plot of globally-averaged temperature anomaly data from the network of Argo ocean floats from 2004 through 2024 is available at https://www2.whoi.edu/site/argo/impacts/warming-ocean/ ). Note that the color scale is for “anomaly” delta-temperatures ranging from -0.17 (deep blue) to +0.17 (deep red) C.
I was gratified to find an EXCELLENT CORRELATION of the Argo-based ocean near-surface (0-100 m depth) temperature anomalies to the variations in UAH satellite-based temperature anomaly data as presented by Dr. Spencer in the above article. That is, in comparing each datasets phasing of periods of relative warming versus relative cooling.
Using either the UAH GLAT dataset or the Argo dataset, there is no evidence of any time-correlated influence from the January 2022 Hunga-Tonga eruption and its asserted injection of a massive amount of water vapor into the stratosphere.
Note that Argo-based contour plot reveals the average ocean near-surface (0-100 m depth) water temperatures over the period of 2022 (the year year following the H-T eruption) were actually less than during the two-year period of 2019 through 2020 preceding the eruption. Ocean surface waters are generally considered to be at nearly uniform temperature from the surface down to about 100 m depth. This well-mixed layer arises from wind-driven surface waves and convection currents which distribute solar heating and enhance nighttime heat loss over this depth.
Furthermore, this synchronization of variations in both UAH GLAT and Argo-based global average ocean surface temperature anomalies over the period of 2004-2024 (20 years of data) indicates there is no discernible time delay between the two parameters.
https://corp.oup.com/news/brain-rot-named-oxford-word-of-the-year-2024/
“Brain rot” named the Oxford Word of the Year 2024 following a public vote involving more than 37,000 people.
Oxford University Press defines “Brain rot” as “the supposed deterioration of a person’s mental or intellectual state, especially viewed as the result of over consumption of material (now particularly online content) considered to be trivial or unchallenging.”
But brain rot is not just a linguistic quirk. Over the past decade, scientific studies have shown that consuming excessive amounts of junk content – including sensationalist news, conspiracy theories and vacuous entertainment – can profoundly affect the brain.
Research reveals that social media consumption can reduce grey matter, shorten attention spans, weaken memory, and distort core cognitive functions; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/mkorte
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2025/01/climate-models-earth/681207/?utm_medium=offsite&utm_source=flipboard&utm_campaign=all
“From the 1970s on, people have understood that all models are wrong”
Gavin Schmidt
And yet they can be useful, as he noted.
“all models are wrong”
Stopped clocks are correct some times!
RLH, here’s another cherry pit for you to choke on:
“For nonscientists, coaxing useful information from climate models requires professional help.”
Seek professional help.
Arkady relies on stopped clocks.
Stopped quotations are often wrong, and can be used to try to deceive, as you do here, RLH.
The original quote that Schmidt is paraphrasing, was ‘All models are wrong, but some are useful’. It is simply stating that models are not reality, and thus cannot ever perfectly match reality. But they can usefully capture the main features of reality.
Science deniers like to leave off that last part of the quote, to mislead.
Nate relies on stopped clocks. They are useful also.
Cliches are not evidence.. or even an argument.
Says you.
Says me too.
Cliches are not evidence.
Neither are ad hominem, waffle, assertion and any blather that is not corroborative.
P.s.: https://ibb.co/VMPM9F7
Arkady, as long as the blinkers have been removed then science is useful. Sadly with many the only answer is CO. Or it’s the majority affect with everything else being downplayed.
You have to consider the motivation and the backers of the research.
‘Skeptics’ often suggest, erroneously, that they can read the minds of scientists and know their hidden motivations.
Meanwhile the clearly stated motivation of corporations, profit, is ignored. Even when they reluctantly admit, as ExxonMobil did, that their own internal research, which showed fossil fuel emissions cause climate change, was hidden for decades from the public, so as not to harm profits.
Anon for a reason
All the potential forcings have been considered. Most are neutral or slowly cooling.
The only two having much effect at present are the cooling effect of aerosols and the warming effect of increasing greenhouse gases.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/exploring-the-drivers-of-modern-global
Anon for a reason, feel free to bloviate about “the motivation and the backers of the research” behind the following two reports.
From 1971:
From 1979:
Nate,
That’s a terrible thing for a Corporation’s motive to be profit.
Nah, capitalism is fine. Oligarchy, where govt policy is designed by corporations for corporations, not fine.
At the moment thats where things appear to be headed.
https://www.livescience.com/space/the-moon/what-temperature-is-the-moon
Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster.
–
.https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It was mistakenly asserted, that no matter how fast a planet rotates (all other things equal), a planet absorbs the same exactly amount of heat.
It is the GREATEST MISTAKE !
Because a faster rotating planet ABSORBS LARGER AMOUNTS OF HEAT !
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Evidence?
Thank you, Nate,
“Evidence?”
“Rotisserie, also known as spit-roasting, is a style of roasting where meat is skewered on a spit a long, solid rod used to hold food while it is being cooked over a fire in a fireplace or over a campfire, or roasted in an oven. This method is generally used for cooking large joints of meat or entire animals, such as pigs or turkeys. The rotation cooks the meat evenly in its own juices and allows easy access for continuous basting.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotisserie
“Evenly” and “faster” are incongruent concepts.
Need your physics and math, Christos.
The amount of SW reflected is unrelated to rotation rate.
Remove Earths atmosphere then what happens.
Arkady Ivanovich
Interesting article.
One of his references claims that the Middle East and North Africa have experienced significant warming since the pre-industrial era.
These two maps of global weather station coverage from the late 19th and early 20th centuries reveal minimal, if any, observation stations in the region through 1950.
https://postimg.cc/w7WshvKD
https://postimg.cc/47Cf6CN6
Its peculiar why Ark would endorse such a study. Credibility is important.
Ark is not comfortable with the reality of uncertainty.
Why is Trump threatening to invade Greenland?
Obviously he is betting on continued GW.
Sorry, Trump supporting coolistas.
It’s mainly just Dump being a moran as usual. But yes, he is obviously banking on ice-loss making Greenland’s resources easier to access.
Because sea ice extent might allow shipping through the arctic. 14 days from Europe to Asia, much shorter than Suez route.
Because Russia depends on GIUK gap to deploy its Navy. Greenland is already a significant problem for Russia.
Because China is trying to get a foothold in the Arctic and Greenland is its best opportunity if it loses grip on Canada’s government.
https://arcticportal.org/shipping-portlet/shipping-routes#:~:text=Cargo%20shipping%20services%20around%20the,along%20the%20Arctic%20shipping%20routes.
From your link:
“Global climate change and melting sea ice, offers more and more opportunities for international transportation networks.
Notably, the trend of receding ice cap around the North Pole could possibly make the Arctic more reliable for scheduled navigation, at least during the summer months.”
Two weeks ago you threw a tantrum over me saying the same thing!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1696003
Sea ice extent has been generally decreasing since 1400. I object to your alarmism about the decrease observed just in the past year.
Too, the website I linked to is highly speculative. There is not now any trans-arctic shipping in existence because sea ice extent is not going away anytime soon.
Too, we don’t know why there was abrupt sea ice extent in 1300s. It could happen again tomorrow. No evidence exists for either solar or volcanic forcing.
FYI, the US already has a military base in Greenland. Perhaps Trump forgot.
You’re the one who’s alarmed. All I’ve done is present the measurements.
There’s one easy solution, don’t look at the data if it upsets you.
The point Trump is making is that if USA is going to own and operate Thule instead of the government of Greenland or Denmark, then perhaps Greenland should be part of USA.
Nuts..
Its not the first time USA has offered to buy Greenland.
Not nuts at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_the_United_States_to_purchase_Greenland#:~:text=In%201946%2C%20the%20United%20States,island%20%22a%20military%20necessity%22.
Sure it’s nuts.
The fact that he has threatened (or not ruled out) the use of military or economic force, on Denmark and Panama, , two countries who have done nothing to us, in order to acquire there sovereign territory, is absolutely nuts in today’s world.
He is bonkers.
He sure is.
It’s mainly Republicans being catfished by Russia
Sen. Tom Cotton, Russian stooge on idea to buy Greenland? https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2022/01/15/sen-tom-cotton-russian-stooge-on-idea-to-buy-greenland
ICYMI in 2019: https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c2018djo
He understands the strategic importance of Greenland and the Panama Canal, something Carter didn’t understand nor does Biden. I know he’s floated the idea of buying both and when questioned by reporters about the use of military to seize them does not rule it out. Why would he rule that out? He will be the Commander in Chief of the United States.
What zany is here that contemplates the idea of the US “seizing” the territory of other nations?
I wonder what the percentage of such zanies exist in the US. Because if it’s a significant fraction, then Trump has a standing militia.
I’m pretty sure he has at least 1500 militia ready to do his bidding since the pardons.
Specifically, what zany is here contemplating the US “seizing” the territory of non-hostile nations? The Panama canal is in Panamanian territory and ownership, and the US amicably ceded its joint control a quarter century ago and has friendly relations with Panama. Greenland has never been part of US sovereignty, and has been a province of Denmark for a very long time.
This sort of extremism is unusual. The third reich also had its supporters, on much the same grounds. National exceptionalism.
Its cooling off again. Not good.
Happy New Year, everybody. Still no appreciable cooling. Could be a step change?
What will you say if it indeed gets colder in the next few months?
I will say it is cooling since 2024, but it’s not statistically significant.
Another bullshit paws.
There will be another record year, just not for a while.
I will say it makes sense-we understand how global temp responds to changes in ENSO.
What will be interesting is whether the mid latitude oceans will continue to be warmer than 2 years ago.
https://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/ElNino.vs.aerosols.pdf
Global
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2025/01/09/uah-mean-and-median-global-for-dec-2024/
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2025/01/09/uah-mean-and-median-tropics-for-dec-2024/
More physical evidence that atmospheric CO2 is the principal driver of Earth’s climate.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-024-01610-2
“The study also shows an unexpected end to the icehouse period around 294 million years ago”
When human caused CO2 was SO important.
Arkady,the cold was responsible for the low concentrations of atmospheric C02. C02 levels only recovered as the planet began to warm,C02 did not drive the warming.
Ian Brown, I prefer the paper’s explanations which are based on high-precision geochronology (resolution ~50,000 years)…
1/ Low atmospheric CO2 prevalent in the Visean stage which, exacerbated by ~3% lower solar luminosity, caused icehouse conditions. These conditions were maintained by enhanced chemical weathering as “collision between Laurasia and Gondwana in the Carboniferous led to the uplift of the Greater Variscan (Hercynian) mountain plateau.”
2/ Rapid CO2 rise due to decreased weathering by early Permian as Pangea steadily drifted into the northern hemisphere, coincident with the “eruption of at least four different LIPs,” particularly the Skagerrak-Centered LIP (SCLIP) dated to 297 ±4 Ma.
P.s.: You haven’t designed any bridges I should know about, have you?
This is old news. Cold ocean water can hold more CO2. Warming oceans release CO2. CO2 reacts to ocean temperature.
Ark,
I’m not sure that’s science.
stephen p anderson, if you (or anyone else) question the scientific validity of my conclusions derived from this peer-reviewed paper, I expect a critique of specific methodological flaws, misinterpretations, or data inconsistencies.
Unless you have relevant expertise and can demonstrate where the research fails to meet scientific standards, such dismissiveness diminishes you more than it diminishes me.
“unexpected end to the icehouse period around 294 million years ago when large-scale volcanic activity triggered a rapid rise at least on geological timescales in atmospheric CO2, and Earth became warmer and drier”
No, no, no say the armchair ‘paleo experts’ here, volcanoes didn’t raise CO2 levels. It had to be the warming, which must’ve come first!
Give me a break.
Yet all large volcanic eruptions since records began have caused cooling.
Geology can tie CO2 rise at several periods to volcanoes. Once emitted it persists for a long time.
The cooling is caused by SO2 emitted which does not persist in the atmosphere for a long time, a couple of years.
Ian Brown, I’m invoking Brandolinis Law on your broad sweeping statement.
So where is the climate and temperature short term variability during that long period of time,it must have existed,we know since 10.000 bc there have been many such changes, even 40.000 years ago parts of North America were ice free, and people walked out of Asia, hence the physical resemblance between Inuits and some Asian communities ,i was taught this at school some 70 years ago, ps,i dont build bridges, too easy.
What part of high-precision geochronology (resolution ~50,000 years) did you not understand? Cheese and rice!
Anytime I see a study with 19 co-authors, I smell a rat. This paper is obviously written by a group of converted undergrads.
No proof here, Ark, just more alarmist conjecture.
You never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, do you?
It is official now! I was watching the CNN coverage of the fires in Los Angeles, and Michael Mann made time for an interview. He went into great detail explaining that the fires are “definitely” the result of drought caused by climate change. It is a dry year. He got that part right. He did not mention that last year was a wet year. He did admit that the wind storm is a natural condition that is common this time of year.
The real irony is that he was followed by a series of reports from reporters on scene, including Anderson Cooper himself, explaining that the fire was jumping from house to house — rooftop to rooftop — in a fully urban area. So there you have it. Climate change is causing roofs to catch on fire. Who knew?
Not to be outdone, Bill Weir arrived on scene talking about “climate adaptability”. This is actually humorous as he explains that it was a wet year last year with lots of plant growth and now a dry year — all because of climate change. Some of us would just call that variability in the weather.
I need to mention that Michael Mann is a brilliant and honest scientist who would never intentionally try to mislead the public. If there is any error in his statements, it is an honest mistake on his part.
The fire damage is caused by negligence mismanagement of resources and incompetence
https://youtu.be/VFMGEb15FQo
Does Michael Mann not know that drought have come and gone in the West for hundreds of thousands of years? Does Michael Mann not know that the American Indians used to do controlled burns to control wildfires? Does Michael Mann not know that the climate has always changed? Does Michael Mann not know that he is a disgraced scientist who has no credibility? Does CNN not know this?
The Sierra Club and Greenpeace crew are probably toasting marshmallows over the fires, thrilled for the perfect excuse to push their climate hysteria sales pitch.
“Does Michael Mann not know that drought have come and gone in the West for hundreds of thousands of years?”
As he’s written about drought in his paleoclimate research, I would think so. Perhaps he is not the one having trouble understanding the issue.
Well, if he’s such a paleoclimate expert then he knows the climate has always changed.
Rural weather station in Southern California:
https://postimg.cc/47hgHmzg
*sub-urban*
I wonder how many temperature records are being broken in that part of the USA? Will any of the weather stations down wind be used to add to the hot weather records
The usual ‘nothing to see here, move along’ from deniers, as unprecedented fires again devastate the West.
And in the middle of the conflagration, we have Trump offering not help, not prayers, but his assessment of who to blame:
Yep, people he hates.
What a mensch!
Trump is only trying to illustrate what happens with utopian lab experiments like California.
Leftist elites are rarely subject to the consequences of their ideology. However, there might be a few in the LA area who feel its tinges.
Nante, wildfires have always occurred in the west.even during the little ice age they occurred. Using words like unprecedented is silly when you have no evidence to back that up.
The 5 largest recorded fires by area in CA occurred since 2018. This one is likely be the most destructive to structures.
Also at 53 sq miles, this one is the largest in history for LA county.
Sure Stephen, it was their politics that caused the combination of extreme dryness and extreme winds in their communities.
Fire departments are designed to handle one or two fires at a time in a town, not thousands.
Show your evidence that the dryness or the winds are extreme. Have you ever been to Southern California? Have you seen old movies from the 1920’s and 1930’s that were shot in Southern California? It’s a dry place. That’s why the old Spanish Missions were made out of mud. And, it’s also windy because it’s near the Pacific Ocean and LA is on the windward side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. They call it windward for a reason, Nate. Your hyperbole is nothing more than hyperbole.
Nate,
Last year, 2024, LA recorded the highest amount of rainfall for a two-year period. Also, insurance companies have been refusing to re-write policies because of the wildfire risk and the over regulation by California. This isn’t something that hasn’t been anticipated.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna186801
“Exceptionally dry conditions and strong Santa Ana winds have fueled the dangerous fires in Los Angeles.”
“Flames were fanned by ferocious winds whose gusts exceeded 100 mph in some places on Tuesday”
”
Southern California has been abnormally dry for the past eight months. The last time Los Angeles logged more than one-tenth of an inch of rain was in early May.”
Nate, do some research. The history of the west coast is one of drought and fires that would burned all year long. This was before humans started putting them out. Valid scientific studies show that the last hundred years have been unusually wet. California is returning to normal with extended drought periods that last in the range of 5 to 20 years. This is not climate change by any stretch. It is also is not mismanagement. Talking points on either side do not have any validity for what is a natural event due to random chance events. The source of these fires (the location and ignition source) is under investigation.
Tim, yes no one is denying that So. Cal is drought prone.
Yet the records are what they are. LA county had the second driest year on record, the first was 2017.
The 5 largest CA fires by area on record have happened since 2018.
Climate change warmth has exacerbated the drying during usual drought periods.
“The source of these fires (the location”
In my New England metro area there are one or more home fires somewhere just about every day. Last Fall after a dry summer we had brush fires.. But the don’t lead to the kind of conflagration, with entire community’s destroyed, that we saw in LA.
Your claim is contradicted by data from NOAA’s Climate at a Glance. The precipitation trend for the October – December period shows no change over time, and there is no evidence of worsening drought conditions during drier periods. The link below provides the data.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/city/time-series/USW00023174/pcp/3/12/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2024
The reality is that hydroclimatic weather whiplash has always been a normal part of Southern California’s climate.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-06-13-nc-780-story.html#:~:text=The%20drought%20of%201862%2D65,of%20the%20natural%20catastrophes%20ahead.
“there is no evidence of worsening drought conditions during drier periods”
Not measuring worsening drought. But it does agree this year is one of lowest rainfall.
For drought select Drough Severity Index.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/107/pdsi/1/12/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2024
For Southwest region. Same result for West region
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/107/pdsi/1/0/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020
Clearer drying trend when all months included.
Interesting small differences between
https://web.archive.org/web/20241125043019/https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt
and
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt
For example
Archive
2024 10 0.73
Today
2024 10 0.75
… and many many other places :–)
The only reason there might be a similarity is abject cheating by NOAA. There is simply no way to compare sat telemetry, which covers 95% of the entire planetary surface, with NOAA surface stations with one thermometer covering 100,000 km^2 on average.
A very interesting article – I had been looking forward to the December satellite data which shows the continuing downward trend after the peak in 2023. It makes total sense that the sharp uptick was due to the Hunga Tonga Hunga Ha’pai eruption and now that all that extra water vapour is precipitating out of the atmosphere – the short term peak is exposed for what it was – water vapour forcing! As for the California fires – we go through regular bushfires in Australia which are predictably due to large fuel loads after wet years, then drying over the summer months, then a high wind day with ignition either from lightning, arson or stupidity and including house to house transmission as well as through the forests. There is no reason to claim it is due to climate change when our worst fire ever in Victoria was 1851 when a quarter of the state burned.
I’ve just started reading this blog and have a couple of questions. Why is 1979 the starting point for the graphs? Is there any usable data before 1979? Thank you.
The satellite data start in 1979. -Roy
Yet more cooling…some 0.15C below the 2024 average. Could the next Little Ice Age be nigh?
tim s…”I need to mention that Michael Mann is a brilliant and honest scientist who would never intentionally try to mislead the public. If there is any error in his statements, it is an honest mistake on his part”.
***
Hope your tongue does not get stuck in your cheek, Tim. Good humour.
Mann has been nothing more than a clown prince for the eco-alarmist set. Only a fake news outlet like CNN would bother to consult with him.
nate…”…we have Trump offering not help…”
***
Trump was talking about water mismanagement in California in relation to the fires. This is a state with drought issues the past century at least yet they likely have the highest water consumption for frivolous entities like swimming pools and car washes.
Trump was talking constructively about re-routing water from the northern pacific states down to California rather than it being dumped into the ocean. Such a concept is being blocked by eco-alarmists who think, for some reason, it will interfere with smelt hatcheries. Not too long ago, the same eco-loonies wanted logging banned because it interferes with the habitat of the spotted owl.
A think to be noted is the areas with the fires have manicured, green laws which require a lot of water. The lawn are well cared for but the fire fuel, like dried vegetation, goes unattended. When a fire breaks out, there is abundant tinder dry vegetation to fuel it.
We had the same problem in Canada. The town of Jasper burned down long after the federal government had been advised by experts that the forests were being neglected re a build up of dead wood, which is a fire fuel. Calls were made to clean up the forests around Banff and nothing was done.
Jasper is in a federal park and people are required to pay a fee to visit in the park. The justification is that the money is required to pay for forest services. Appears it was used for something else.
There were reports that firefighters were hampered fighting the California fires due to a lack of water. That was subsequently denied by fake news outlets like CNN.
This fire thing is an annual event in California yet apparently nothing has been done to combat it. The main reason is that Yanks have a problem paying taxes and when you don’t want to pay taxes you can’t have the services required to combat these fires. We are currently sending them water bombers from Canada along with other firefighting tools.
There was plenty of water avaolable in S CA, Gordon. Trump is blowing hot air without facts, as usual.
christos…”Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster”.
***
True.
Also, the Moon does not rotate at all, therefore it heats up on one side for 14 days while the other side is cooling. That heating/cooling is due to the lunar orbit not lunar rotation.
Also, Earth has an atmosphere and oceans that store heat.
A lot of people don’t like Fox News but I have found Fox is necessary to get the other side of stories. Does not mean the other side is unbiased or accurate but it is the other side which fake news outlets like CNN stifle regularly.
CNN has been front and centre denying a problem reported that fire hydrants have run dry. CNN had their star reporter, Anderson Cooper onsite denying the problem. In fact, he had hand-picked fire chiefs claiming it was not an issue.
Here we have governor Newsome admitting there is a serious problem with water delivery.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-gov-newsom-orders-independent-investigation-after-hydrants-run-dry-we-need-answers
I wonder how CNN and other fake news outlets will cover this up?
“The LADWP was initially pumping aqueducts and groundwater into the system, but demand was so high that there wasn’t enough to refill three 1-million gallon tanks in the hilly Pacific Palisades that help pressurize hydrants”.
No surprise when people are likely using it to water lawns, fill swimming pools, and wash their cars.
More..LA Country cut it’s budget that affects fire-fighting…
“The Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) chief warned a month ago that a near $18 million budget cut had plunged it into “unprecedented operational challenges” which would hamper its ability to respond to large-scale emergencies like wildfires”.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/la-fire-sounded-alarm-budget-cuts-impacting-wildfire-response-memo
Trump recently shot off his mouth about Canada becoming the 51st state. He thought he was being funny and reaching through to discontented Canadians who might like to join up. The thing he fails to grasp is that 90% of Canadians have absolutely no interest in joining the US. We regard that notion as a major step backwards. If the US wants to join Canada as a new territory, we might consider that.
CNN:
“Hydrants in fire-ravaged Pacific Palisades went dry early Wednesday, prompting an outcry from residents. While there is plenty of water in Southern California reservoirs to fight the fires, the logistics of getting enough of it to Pacific Palisades and at the rate firefighters need to control these blazes have been difficult, according to water officials.”
https://edition.cnn.com/weather/live-news/los-angeles-pacific-palisades-eaton-wildfires-01-08-25#cm5oh0o8j00283b6n2j292zu7
I looked at one video of Anderson Cooper reporting onsite, and he said the hydrants ran out of water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L45PLpkfvgM
“Hand-picked fire chiefs.” Quite the conspiracy. Maybe the fire chiefs are saying things you’d prefer not to hear. Certainly CNN is not denying that water ran out. And certainly D Trump has made it a political issue.
barry picks one sentence from Cooper’s brain-dead reporting in which he claimed to have talked to one fireman who said there is no water in that particular area.
All Cooper is doing is walking around like an ijit saying…”oh, oh, look at this, and oh, oh look at that”. What is he doing there, he is an anchor?
The LA mayor just fired the fire chief because she reported to Fox News that the LA fire department is under-funded. No kidding, that goes to the point where they don’t have water to fight this fire.
It’s time they sent Newsome and his Democrat propagandist packing.
There are far too many eco-loonies having their way and it’s time we told them to eff off.
What do ‘eco-lonies’ have to do with the water shortage in the Pallisades?
“CNN has been front and centre denying a problem reported that fire hydrants have run dry.”
So I found a CNN article reporting it with a few clicks.
Your nonsense is regularly exposed by a quick google you are regularly too lazy to do yourself before ranting.
And it took one search term to find a fact check on the issue.
https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/why-did-pacific-palisades-water-hydrants-run-dry
Political posturing is inevitable, as is the reaction to it from people who are more interested in grinding axes than informing themselves.
“The LA mayor just fired the fire chief because she reported to Fox News that the LA fire department is under-funded.”
That didn’t happen, either.
What cesspools of dross are you getting your info from? Facebook, where your preferred views are spoon fed you?
Victor Davis Hanson calls California a Green New Deal, DEI hydrogen bomb. Newsome has been bombing dams and releasing fresh water into the ocean to protect this small smelt fish, and also he has prevented the creation of fire breaks and brush removal from nature areas and around residential areas, as I said, a utopian lab experiment gone wrong. If Pacific Palisades has no water to fight fires, then no one in California has water to fight fires. The high winds are not extreme or new, ask anyone from the area. Nothing has changed except utopianist policy. This is what geniuses like Nate and Barry want. They want electric cars, no drilling, no mining of coal or natural gas stoves. Who is going to suffer? Poor people. There will be mass starvation and privation. Totally unncecessary.
Right on, Stephen!!!
At last sanity prevails,the LA disaster was totally avoidable, weather forecasts for the area were 100% accurate. and nothing was done untill it was too late.same old story,years of neglect, it reminds me of the Australian fires a few years ago.same forest management neglect, then when the inevitable happens scapegoats are found,but do they learn? Not untill nature does the job for them,
“the LA disaster was totally avoidable”
Monday night quarter-backing in full flow. A number of experts have said that there would have been catastrophic damage even if more fund were made available to firefighters and for ramping up water availability.
“Totally avoidable” said the guy wielding a pitchfork.
“DEI”
Ugh.
DEI doesn’t control weather.
There was plenty of water available in So. California.
Urban fire depts and water distribution systems are not set up to handle thousands of homes on fire at once.
We are looking at a situation that is just completely not part of any domestic water system design, said Marty Adams, a former general manager and chief engineer at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power”
You guys are extremely gullible. Will believe any crap spooned out for you by right wing talking heads.
Stephen makes a lot of wild claims, without showing the sources.
They can be safely ignored.
A FUNDAMENTAL misconception!
It was mistakenly asserted, that the not reflected portion of the incident on surface EM energy gets entirely absorbed in inner layers in form of heat.
But only heat is what SPONTANEOUSLY DISSIPATES from a surface in form of EM energy.
The incident EM energy what it does is to interact with surface matter.
The EM energy doesn’t get transformed spontaneously into heat.
The amount of EM energy degraged to heat depends on the surface’s distinguished features (the planet speed of rotation and the average surface specific heat).
Also, it was mistakenly asserted, that a faster rotation doesn’t affect the amount of absorbed heat.
It is a GREAT MISTAKE !
Because a faster rotating planet ABSORBS LARGER AMOUNTS OF HEAT !
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You are again making up fake physics to suit your narrative, Christos.
Nate,
Specific example of what he is making up so we can discuss.
He keeps claiming that SW not reflected energy is not all abs.orbed and converted to thermal energy (heat), but is instead magically converted directly to emitted IR.
There is no physics to support this. According to real physics, IR is emitted only from heated materials, eg blacbody radiation.
There is no physics to suggest that a faster spinning object reflects less SW or abs.orbs more.
He’s observed that planets or moons with higher spin have higher temperatures. He has hypothesized that higher spin results in higher temperature. What’s wrong with that?
Already explained.
There is another reason, related to emission.
Thank you, Nate.
“He keeps claiming that SW not reflected energy is not all abs.orbed and converted to thermal energy (heat), but is instead magically converted directly to emitted IR.”
–
It is converted directly to ‘reflected’ IR.
–
“…IR is emitted only from heated materials,”
Yes, of course.
–
“There is no physics to suggest that a faster spinning object reflects less SW or abs.orbs more.”
–
The faster spinning object doesn’t reflect less SW.
The faster spinning object ‘reflects’ less LW.
Because while converting the SW not reflected into IR, there is more EM energy degraded to heat and absorbed in inner layers.
–
Thank you again.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Stephen!
(The faster spinning planet doesnt reflect less SW.
The faster spinning planet reflects less LW.
Because, when faster spinning, the SW EM energy into LW goes towards the longer waves side of the spectra, so the transformation process is more intense, so there is more EM energy degraded into heat, and so there is more heat absorbed in inner layers.)
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The EM energy reflection is not a pure 100% SW frequencies EM energy.
When EM energy reflection it is a more or less intensive the EM energy frequencies transformation.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“is converted directly to reflected IR.”
Again not by ordinary physics.
Show us a legitimate science source to support this claim.
Thank you, Nate.
” “is converted directly to reflected IR.”
Again not by ordinary physics.
Show us a legitimate science source to support this claim.”
–
Please, tell us, what science says, why EM energy gets only partly reflected?
And, on the other hand, why EM energy is not entirely absorbed?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Please, tell us, what science says”
You are telling us what you think the science says, and I’m asking you to back that up by showing us your source for that information.
If you don’t have one, then we can know that it is just science fiction.
People arguing politics and cracking jokes, meanwhile an area the size of San Francisco is decimated, the death toll is climbing, and those alive are fleeing and losing everything, but go off about politics. Unreal!
Keeping the people of the City of Angels in my prayers.
“The Lord himself goes before you and will be with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.” Deuteronomy 31:8
Ark,
Unfortunately, it is leftist utopian ideology that has significantly contributed to their problems. That is not to say these wildfires would not have occurred without their dumb decisions but much less probable.
Name specific decisions that have significantly contributed to their problems.
Ark,
Refer to my January 10, 8:28 pm post above.
So you’re parroting Victor Davis Hanson. You don’t actually know anything first hand. Got it.
Yes, I’m parroting him. You’re a genius. How’d you figure that out? He does live there by the way.
There is a difference between parroting and speaking with understanding.
That will work Arkady.it was bound to happen sooner or later,giving the random nature of wildfires, and what appears to be a total lack of forest management, they new conditions were ripe for wild fires,with a gale force wind forecast and large areas of tinder dry fuel on the ground, was the grid shut down ? If not why not, fires do not start themselves.in the UK we have a flooding problem made worse by poor management,drains blocked,rivers and streams silted up ,add on population growth, the building on flood plains because some one decided it was safe to so, under the premise of ,it has not flooded in my lifetime.will anything change? I doubt it considering none these events are new.and no one in power did any thing but sit on their backsides ,Nero all over again,all that is missing is the fiddle.
Significant contributing factors to the wildfires:
1. Diversion of fresh water into the San Joaquin Delta.
2. Insurance Companies canceled policies due to high risk. (Indication of problem)
3. Poor forest management.
4. An antiquated infrastructure causing hydrants to run dry.
5. Budget cuts by the mayor and previous government officials not prioritizing risks that were obviously illuminated by risk assessors.
6. Fire chief dedicated to creating and supporting a culture of DEI in the fire department.
7. Vaccine mandates pushed out a large number of experienced firefighters.
8. Donated fire fighting equipment to Ukraine.
9. Fires started by arson perpetrated by a homeless person.
That’s what Trump said. Why do you believe him?
Why don’t you believe him? Oh, I forgot, he told 20 thousand lies. You leftists counted them.
Has he ever told the truth? Name one.
Name one? Really? That’s your response? So you believe Biden did a better job or Clinton or Harris would have been a better choice?
So you agree that Rump never tells the truth.
No, I don’t agree. He speaks a lot in hyperbole but you leftists don’t understand that. His first supposed big lie was that they spied on him, meaning Obama. Of course, he was right.
Check out the BBC on Trump.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csytgg
“Why does Donald Trump seem to have such a problem with the truth?”
You need to stop watching the BBC.
Facts don’t work for Stephen. It’s better if he doesn’t hear them.
You left out 100 mph Santa Ana winds in a fire-centric eco-system.
In such conditions, once a fire starts nothing can stop the resulting ember storm.
Same as Lahaina.
Santa Ana winds are nothing new. They’re always there.
“Typically, about 10 to 25 Santa Ana wind events occur annually”
Always is doing a lot of lifting there.
So, show your evidence the Santa Ana winds are different this year than any other year. Or any year in the past 5000 years.
Why would that make a difference?
The claim is that the Santa Ana winds and drought due to climate change caused the fires, not bureaucratic policy and spending decisions such as not collecting fresh water, or allowing communities to clean brush around urban areas or create fire breaks.
Trump does not believe in Climate Change.
Santa Ana winds are often there,
in the wet season.
This year, so far, there has been no wet season, normally starting in October.
It is that combo, extreme dryness, plus strong Santa Ana winds that drove small brush fire in the hills rapidly down into town like a blast furnace.
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/timelapse-videos-capture-rapid-spread-of-the-palisades-fire-229064261614
Plus extra brush growth from last year which was quite wet.
More wild claims lacking evidence or sources from Stephen.
Seems that he hears some opinions spouted by MAGA talking heads, and he passes that off as facts.
Sorry DEI doesn’t affect weather.
RLH,
Wildfires are a tough thing. We had wildfires here in Gatlinburg, Tennessee a few years ago. Gatlinburg had good equipment, experienced firefighters, plenty water, but it still almost burned the entire town. It happened in the Winter during a dry spell when a couple of underage teenagers went smoking in the woods and tossed their cigarette butts. No one blamed it on climate change. Crap happens. The left are the ones who blamed the California Fires on climate change. They politicized it, not us. We only pointed out their stupidity.
The only person who is stupid is Trump.
You need to see a therapist. Your perception is distorted.
Trump derangement syndrome is a thing.
Get over it.
I’m not the only one who thinks so. We can’t all be wrong.
See Charles Mackay’s book: ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds’ 1841.
Yes, you can all be wrong.
“Gatlinburg had good equipment, experienced firefighters, plenty water, but it still almost burned the entire town.”
And yet you are sure that in LA it must have been DEI, and incompetence!
Everybody paying attention is aware that climate has always changed and always will. The mistake is blaming it on burning fossil fuels. The only human contribution to average global temperature increase is the human contribution to increasing water vapor (which is a greenhouse gas). Water vapor has been accurately measured since Jan 1988 by NASA/RSS using satellite-based instrumentation (no uncertain HEI effect). The total increase in water vapor is about 1.4 % per decade which is substantially (about 60 %) more than possible from just planet warming. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com)
Dan,
I have a problem with the whole Greenhouse Effect. I believe it is thermodynamically improbable. And, is therefore much less than proclaimed, possibly one or two tenths of warming. Not a degree of warming. The problem is there is no way of determining that I see.
Radiation heat transfer analysis does not violate 2L.
UAH6.0 2024 global temperature is 0.34 C above the next highest year, which was 2023.
All the major global surface temperature datasets have 2024 and 2023 ranked first and second warmest years. Here are the differences between the two years.
GISS: 0.11
NOAA: 0.10
Had5: 0.08
JMA: 0.08
RSS Dec 2024 data not yet out.
UAH is a standout for the size of the departure over the previous hottest year, whereas the surface records increase over the previous hottest year is not so extraordinary compared to other record-breakers.
Who cares about fake, interpolated surface data.
Scientists need data to verify or test there models.
You got better data?
The U.S. Climate Reference Network began operations early in this century, which isn’t a long time ago.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/why.html
Even without the December report, all of the MSU TLT anomaly series (UAH, RSS, NOAA STAR) are up a lot more over the 2023 record than are the surface temperature products. It’s not just UAH.
Mark,
While the LT seems to be more sensitive to el Ninos in the global temp record compared to surface, 2024 is a startling departure (at least for UAH, haven’t checked the others). I wonder if the response of the LT this year might eventually lead to a better understanding of the cause/s.
Stephen P Anderson (and RT the Russian-state media outlet formerly known as Russia Today), politicizing the tragedy brought by wildfires ripping through Los Angeles, insinuated a connection between the Klamath River area dam removal project and Los Angeles County’s recent water shortage troubles: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696505 .
The truth is that…
I hope that the next meteor really destroys everything. I don’t want future archaeologists to know we were saying stuff like this.
I didn’t mention anything about the Klamath River dam.
Oh yeah, so this is Trump Russia propaganda. You do know the Marxists are who the Democrats pledge to?
That’s what Victor Davis Hanson is talking about here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696505
Protip: read the content before parroting it.
Yeah, he was talking about policy. Those four dams could have been used to supply water to Southern California for one. You can’t collect water if you bomb the dams. LA gets a third of its water from Northern California. Palisades Reservoir ran out of water.
His whole point was why are we removing water reservoirs in a state that is perennially short on water?
Wrong!
The water stored in the dams, located more than 500 miles away from Los Angeles County, was primarily used to spin a turbine and generate electricity. The dams’ reservoirs were used to supply water to firefighting forces fending off wildfires, but only in that region, not in Southern California.
But they could have if they had a reservoir. The current aqueduct is 223 miles long. Also, they need to get the new dam going on the San Joaquin River. Been on hold 10 years, mostly under Newsom.
You’re all over the map. Just admit your authority figure Victor Davis Hanson doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground and move on.
I’ll give you a couple of examples of properly managed places: Florida and Israel. Of course, California is not going to do that. It might endanger some clam.
Ark,
These aren’t the first run away wildfires in California in the last 10 years and Newsom has been getting rid of reservoirs and insurance companies have been leaving the state.
Trump tells the truth. Never.
Newsom has been getting rid of insurance companies?
Just like DeSantis in Florida right?
stephen p anderson, beware of Brain Rot:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696329
DeSantis hasn’t been getting rid of any insurance companies. There’s all kinds of insurance companies in Florida even after all the hurricanes.
The problem in Florida is they are requiring Condos to increase their maintenace and repairs to prevent what happened to the condo in Miami.
Florida’s insurance crisis is the result of several factors, including hurricanes and litigation, that have caused home insurance companies to pull back, leave the state or even go out of business. Homeowners in Florida face some of the highest home insurance rates in the nation, with dwindling coverage options.
Where have you been the past 10 years?
From here
https://www.insurance.com/home-and-renters-insurance/home-insurers-leaving-florida
Testing (yet again)
Dan Pangburn
Global average temperature has risen by 1C since 1988.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/01/2024-hindsight/
As you know from your physics that would increase the water content of the atmosphere by 7%.
7% in 36 years is 1.9% per decade.
The 1.4% per decade you quote is not only possible, it is probably conservative.
Found a paper that says models predict an increase. The observations are showing that the actual increase is somewhat less than the models.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0702872104#:~:text=Data%20from%20the%20satellite%2Dbased,explained%20by%20climate%20noise%20alone.
If I had to make a criticism, it’d be that the period of observation is rather short.
From the paper:
“The SSM/I trend over 19881999 is larger than the mean of the model distribution of forced trends, in part because of the effects of the large observed El Nio event in 1997/1998 (Fig. 1A), which is close to the end of the trend period”
I didn’t mention anything about the Klamath River Dam.
https://klamathrenewal.org/faqs/
See here.
Newsom is more interested in placating local Indian tribes and environmental groups than supplying the people of California with water.
Trump is more interested in lies.
Remember 2016 when firefighters from across the state rushed to Gatlinburg to battle the mega wildfire only to find the hydrants were running dry?
You do know why? Many of Tennessee’s power lines are attached to poles above the ground. I said before, wildfires are a tough thing. Stop blaming it on climate change.
Tennessee is taking action to control wildfires.
https://www.tn.gov/agriculture/forests/landowners/services/firebreak-installation.html
I have not said a single thing about climate change vis a vis the L.A. fires. But since you brought it up, I will take a look at the data because unlike you, I believe that overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another.
I’m not sticking my head anywhere. I choose to live in a state that has a budget surplus, low taxes, is proactive, and believes in the Bill of Rights. What about you?
I split my time between Texas and Wyoming. Dad used to say that we like to be hot in the winter and cold in the summer.
That’s funny. The whole utopian promise is a lie.
The Utopian Promise I was raised with refers to the concept associated with the 17th-century Puritan settlers’ vision of creating a perfect or ideal society of harmony, justice, and moral purity. The promise was fueled by religious aspirations, the belief in a divinely guided mission, and the idea of America as a “New World” offering unlimited potential for human progress.
Ark,
They even had leftists back then. The USA is the greatest country that has ever been but still not good enough for the utopianists. They would just as soon see it all burn down into a pile of rubble as long as they’re standing on top of the ashes declaring themselves King of the Ashes.
Yes, paranoia (excessive suspicion, irrational fear, and the perception of threats or conspiracies) has been present throughout human history.
Herodotus, Nero, King Richard III, Salem Witch Trials, boogeymen and secret societies; and that’s just since we started keeping records.
Oh come now, Ark, how can we have content-free conversations if we meaningfully define everything?
It is quite evident that water vapor is a True greenhouse gas.
The Hunga Tonga volcano pumped billions of cubic meters of water into the atmisphere in January 2022, leading to this amazing spike in average temperatures.
Soon we will see a precipitous drop in global average temoerature.
This will most likely result in many Grand Solar Minimum groupies to say,” it is finally happening”.
The planet endured centuries of Nini Ice Age cold spells. Now for 150 years or so we have been warming,NATURALLY, through routine cycles. The 10th through 13th Centuries were warmer than today. If no believers, explain working farms on Western Greenland, Vineyards on the Thames,palm trees on Southern Ireland, tree stumos on the edge of Arctic Ocean and the Bristlecone Pine forests recession downward in Bishop California area.
The more we study, the more we learn.
Lake Nipigon impact site from 12,980 or so years ago, the megafauna die off in same epoch and relief carvings in Gobekli Tepe.
We are just a big rock away from anothet big reset.
Quit blaming people for everything.
We are not that imoactful.
All 8 billion or so people, most of which have minimal carbon footprints could all fit, socially distanced 6 feet apart in little Massachusetts at 8500 or so square miles.
This would leave the 195,000,000 or so square miles of Earth void of humans.
We aren’t that important of a player in climate activity as that huge ball of super heated hydrogen bombarding our atmosphere with 1370 btus per sq meter constantly.
Any small variations in Solar output has major impacts on our little blue ball.
Get over yourselves people. We are only this populated because of Natural warming cycles, aspirin and penicillin.
One VEI 8 eruption could send us spiraling into hellish circumstances.
If that happens, we will be digging up lsndfills for fuel to stay warm.
“Quit blaming people for everything.”
Teenagers worry about blame. Adults act responsibly.
Teenagers worry Barry because you bombard them with propaganda, time to take of your crown of thorns and hemp vest,you nor anyone on this planet caused the climate to change.
So say science deniers. Where is your science to back that up Ian?
For changing the subject you get a box of lemons, Ian.
“Quit blaming people for everything.
We are not that imoactful.”
Oh Noes, the blog’s scanner still is deranged.
Reply thus via pdf on Google Drive…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ct0baHoLOqRzSo11aJpXa-oSNwdc9puC/view
It is a PARADOX:
Earth’s average 288K, Earth’s effective 255K, 288K – 255K = 33K.
paradox
a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true
There is nothing self-contradictory about the difference between Earth’s effective and surface temperature. You are fuzzy on the meaning of the word you all-capped.
Thank you, barry,
“You are fuzzy on the meaning of the word you all-capped.”
–
What the 33K is?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, barry,
You are fuzzy on the meaning of the word you all-capped.
What the 33K is?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Are you not familiar with the scientific understanding that the atmosphere affects the global energy budget at the surface?
It’s why the average surface temperature of Venus is hotter than Mercury, despite being nearly twice as far from the sun and having a much higher albedo than Mercury.
For those who think a planet’s rotation speed appreciably affects its temperature, Venus spins at a much slower rate than Mercury.
For those who think the pressure of the atmosphere is the cause, one merely has to be a scuba diver to know that a tank of air at twice the pressure of Venus at the surface is no warmer than the ambient air temperature on Earth.
Atmospheric science has the best explanation for the difference between effective and surface temperature.
barry is comparing apples and oranges.
The atmosphere of Venus is based on a measured 450C surface temperature. Also, Venus has a very dense atmosphere as compared to Mercury which hardly has any atmosphere at all.
One cannot compare air pressure to water pressure. Water molecules are bound by weak hydrogen bonds to form the viscous fluid we call water. Since the molecules are bound together, they have an actual weight which builds up with depth.
Air molecules are not related as such and a column of air has no weight as weight is understood. Certainly, one could sum the weight of individual air molecules but that summed weight cannot act as a cohesive weight as we understand weight. That’s because air molecules do not act cohesively as does water molecules.
If a column of air had weight, then the air molecules above our heads at 15 lbs/in^2, when summed over a square foot would have a weight of 15 lbs/in^2 x 144 in^2/foot = 2160 pounds. Talk about having a weight on one’s shoulders.
Hurricane-force winds are another matter. In those winds, the air molecules are moving at over 100 mph and they do act en masse, using our entire bodies as surfaces on which to exert such a force.
https://en.meteorologiaenred.com/How-hurricane-force-winds-impact-the-human-body.html
“Those of category 1 are already more than enough so that the skin of the cheeks already moves and makes you lose your balance. If you get hit directly in the face, breathing difficulties are usually quite significant. Imagine if they are category 5 winds … With that force, they could make us fly without any problem”.
If a vertical column of air had the same effect, we would surely notice it. However, the air molecules, while affected by gravity, also have their own momentum in various directions including upward. otherwise, air molecules would collect to depth o the surface. Water does not work in the same way.
Gordon,
You’re bringing the oranges to the table. I’m not talking about water pressure, just atmospheric pressure.
The differences between Venus and Mercury are components of reasoning to make a point. I’m not sure you understood the argument. You didn’t address it at all.
barry…”Adults act responsibly”.
***
Some examples of Barry’s adults acting responsibly…
1)defunding police and setting dangerous criminals free without bail.
2)allowing men into women’s washrooms and allowing men to compete on womens’ sports teams simply because the men think they are women.
3)encouraging children in elementary schools, long before they have developed sexual feelings, to identify as a sex other than the sex they were given at birth.
4)creating a hysteria that the atmosphere is being warmed catastrophically by a trace gas.
4a)using unvalidated climate models to project unrealistic warming after announcing in IPCC TAR3 that future climate states cannot be predicted.
5)creating an energy budget for Earth based on theorized inputs and outputs of heat.
6)creating a fake greenhouse tale that in no way resembles the heating of a real greenhouse. In this fairy tale, real glass in a real greenhouse is replace by trace gases in the atmosphere that cannot possibly surface trap heat.
7)inventing a fake greenhouse effect that has raised Earth’s average temperature 33C from an Earth’s fake estimated temperature of an Earth with no atmosphere and no oceans to an Earth with oceans and atmosphere where the temperatures are averaged using 1 thermometer every 100,000 km^2.
I see a lot of exaggeration and a bunch of assertions or implied assertions in your remarks. Common traits of adolescents.
Listing the talking points does not make them any more credible.
There is a lot of debate and discussion about the fires in LA. I cannot find any discussion about the possible effects from global greening of the planet due to increasing CO2. The alarmists have to stick with their narrative about warming and climate change. The deniers have to stick with their narrative that there is no effect — nothing to see here. No other considerations are ever mentioned.
Everyone seems to avoid the obvious, that more plant growth means larger and hotter fires. Bill Weir of all people was talking about the effects of wet years followed by dry years, but no mention of the possible effect of CO2 on plant growth rates. It takes water to make plants grow. CO2 is also essential, and if there is more growth, it should also grow faster during the wet years.
There are billions of dollars of research funding going into the climate study industry. Why are there no studies on this effect?
There is no change in amount of precipitation in the data since records started being kept in Los Angeles.
There is nothing to indicate the fires are due to climate change. The winds and the fires have always occurred in Los Angeles area.
The concept of larger hotter fires because plant growth being faster seems prima facie absurd. No insult intended.
The discussion is that there are lots of action items that Los Angeles could have taken before the fires … clearing dry brush being just one item.
Too there is systemic problems with governance and the DEI ESG policies that have really contributed to the scale of the disaster.
Its not climate change and its not due to greening of the earth.
Here are two interviews of interest:
Tucker Carlson and Michael Shellenberger Break Down the California Fires
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdvqSncd4FY
Los Angeles Fires – the Latest Updates! Live with Evacuee Mark Groubert! Viva Frei Live!
https://rumble.com/v68dl17-los-angeles-fires-the-latest-updates-live-with-evacuee-mark-groubert-viva-f.html?e9s=src_v1_cw&playlist_id=watch-history
“There is nothing to indicate the fires are due to climate change. The winds and the fires have always occurred in Los Angeles area.”
Because there were wildfires before people existed, therefore people are can’t start wildfires?
No one claims climate change causes fires to start. Hotter temperatures mean quicker drying of foliage after rains, increasing the risk of fire. California temps have increased. Rainfall hasn’t.
Tree cover loss due to fires has increased in California. Fires are getting worse because the conditions for them to start and burn on are increasing.
There you have it. I do not know these people, and it is not a setup. They walked right into it on their own, and stepped in it up to their ankles.
Clean your shoes! I cannot wait for Nate to come along and spin this with statements I never made.
Defend the narrative! They are so consumed with talking points that they do not realize how foolish they are. It seems that the concept the more fuel causing a bigger fire with more heat is not as simple as I know it to be. If you are cooking on a gas stove and you want more heat, do you turn the gas up for a bigger flame or turn it down?
I could go on about the synergistic effect of temperature on vegetation pyrolysis, but that would be rubbing it in. In effect it is a runaway exothermic reaction. More heat causes a faster reaction which causes more heat — the temperature rises dramatically. Claiming that ambient temperature has any effect on this process is absurd. The only effect of weather related temperature and humidity on plants in a fire is related to moisture content.
I am done here. Goodnight.
Who knows what Tim is crowing about….
So Nate, are you a fire mechanism denier? Since you seem determined to direct you comments to poorly educated people, I will explain.
One of the few solids that burn is carbon. Coal fired power plants have crushers that break it down to a dust so it will burn faster and more completely.
All other fires require vapors. The burn rate of a fire is often controlled by the rate of vapor formation — typically from liquids. Vegetation is no different. The process of turning solid into vapor is commonly referred to as pyrolysis. As I explained above, heat (temperature) increases the rate of vapor formation. More vapor means faster burning if air (oxygen) is available. Faster burning means more heat to sustain a high temperature and therefore produce more vapor. Beyond that, it is similar to understanding the greenhouse effect. It requires some level of education and intellect to put it all together.
Have fun creating confusion and pushing your agenda!
Relevance here?
See kiln-dried firewood.
Okay, not done. This is too much fun. With this alternative browser, I can go a lot faster if I do not reply to the sub-comment, but start a new comment instead. This is fun:
[The concept of larger hotter fires because plant growth being faster seems prima facie absurd. No insult intended.]
– No insult needed, you seem perfectly capable of insulting yourself.
LOL Tucker Carlson is a comedian who has made millions teasing people that he is making serious comments. Tucker is one of the smartest people in the news business, and he knows his audience is gullible.
[The discussion is that there are lots of action items that Los Angeles could have taken before the fires clearing dry brush being just one item.]
– It is the oil content in sage brush that makes it so flammable, and why the moisture content is not as important as with other plants. Do some research!
Here is another one:
[Tree cover loss due to fires has increased in California. Fires are getting worse because the conditions for them to start and burn on are increasing.]
– See the paragraph above about the oil content of the sage brush that grows in this semi-arid desert landscape. The trees are only at higher elevation in the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains.
Not enough information. The conditions for ignition and continued burn of fires in California have gotten worse over time. What has sage brush to do with that?
The elefant in the room is Environmentalist activism which includes DEI and ESG factors.
Business Continuity Planning is about preparedness and mitigation strategy that prevents or minimizes loss when disaster strikes. The environmental lobby has prevented clearing brush, prevented building berms and firebreaks, interfered with maintenance of electrical and water infrastructure, and undermined the fire department abilities.
It is obvious to me, even as a non-expert, that there is no way to prevent fires in a fire-centric ecosystem but there is a lot of effort that could have been done prior to the fire to prevent the apocalyptic scale of the disaster in LA. Business Continuity culture has been pointedly ignored in California due to poor government policies. Some go so far as to say its been done deliberately by green anti-human attitudes.
We can argue about the effect of CO2 on the brush and whether the drier conditions over the past 25 years are factors … but the claim of climate change due to anthropocentric forcing is not supported by any data supported evidence.
“The environmental lobby has prevented clearing brush, prevented building berms and firebreaks”
So you say. Evidence?
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/01/13/california-forest-management-hotter-drier-climate/
“but the claim of climate change due to anthropocentric forcing is not supported by any data supported evidence.”
Of course it is. What a silly comment.
Spectral observations of CO2 in the lab confirm it absorbs infrared radiation at Earth’s surface and atmospheric temperatures
CO2 concentrations have measuredly risen in the atmosphere
Anthropogenic emissions account twice over for the atmospheric increase over time
The world has warmed while CO2 increases, and the rate of warming has increased as atmos CO2 accumulation has increased
The lower stratosphere has cooled while the troposphere has warmed – a signature of GHG warming rather than other causes
This is only a tiny fraction of observed evidence for anthropogenic global warming. There is multitudes of “data supported evidence.”
“The Blue Marble” is a famous photograph of the Earth taken on December 7, 1972, by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft en route to the Moon at a distance of about 29,400 kilometres (18,300 mi). It shows Africa, Antarctica, and the Arabian Peninsula.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble
–
There is no visible atmosphere on the “Blue Marble” photographs, because Earth’s atmosphere is very thin.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
But you can see clouds, which are part of the atmosphere.
They reflect light, not absorb it.
Irrelevant to the point. No atmosphere, no clouds. It is visible.
The part that is unmodeled (but instead parameterized) is unimportant?
Are you saying you don’t understand the point being discussed?
If you want to start a new topic, make a new thread.
So the part of the energy being reflected is unimportant?
Clouds reflect solar light. Due to presence of clouds Earth’s Albedo is a ~ 0,3.
Without clouds Earth’s Albedo is a ~ 0,08.
Moon’s Albedo is a ~ 0,11
Mercury’s Albedo is a ~ 0,08.
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. It is there, but it is a very thin atmosphere.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth’s atmosphere is 480 kilometers thick.
“Very thin” meaningless label.
The atmosphere is thick enough to produce weather. Which is capable of producing drastic temperature variation.
Consider the temperature atop Mt Everest, with much of the atmosphere below it, vs. the Dead Sea in Israel, below sea level, at roughly the same latitude.
Whereas on the Moon temps atop mountains are no different from on the plains.
Nate,
“Consider the temperature atop Mt Everest, with much of the atmosphere below it, vs. the Dead Sea in Israel, below sea level, at roughly the same latitude.
Whereas on the Moon temps atop mountains are no different from on the plains.”
–
At the top of Mt Everest the air is very rare. Warmed on the surface air cannot rise too much, because it is more dence than upwards, because of the gravity.
–
The warming is an ORBITALLY FORCED NATURAL PHENOMENON!
–
Please visit – Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The point that you are trying hard to miss is that the atmosphere matters. It is thick enough to produce a much warmer surface.
Of course the atmosphere matters.
It is cold now in Athens Greece, because cold winds from the North made us cold.
When in the midday the solar rays warm us, but as soon as sun is gone, it is cold again.
It is winter, so the duration of day is much smaller, and there is not enough time for sun to warm us properly.
It is +6 oC at night and +13 oC at late midday.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Reminder for those suggesting climate change cannot have increased fire risk in CA.
This Drought Index data clearly shows worsening conditions in the last 25 y in the Southwest Region. Similar result for Western Region.
The index incorporates both rainfall and temperature, which influences drying of fuels.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/107/pdsi/1/0/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020
Any comment on the obvious periodicity in the below
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/image.png
Yes. I can comment:
In this case the periodicity is statistically non-significant.
Only the trend line is significant.
This is something that armchair experts fail to understand.
You can test this yourself by applying the same filter to randomly generated data. There will always appear to be some form of periodicity – but it is a mirage. It has no meaning.
In really simple terms, it is akin to defining a trend based on just two data points. The apparent “trend” will exist, but is meaningless.
“Only the trend line is significant.”
And if the trend in the future is negative, what then?
“This is another claim of weather variability as evidence of climate change.”
Climate change is a fact with plenty of other evidence.
The warming and drying of the Southwestern USA, as a consequence of AGW was predicted back in 1981. Based in part on paleo records
The drought index data during the instrument period since 1890s are consistent with that prediction.
“And if the trend in the future is negative, what then?”
Absent any other cause for long term cooling and CO2 emissions increase, then that would put a significant dent in AGW.
Short term cooling deviations are an expected result of other, short-term drivers. These are not statistically significant trends. The only stat sig trends we have are of warming.
Anyone feeling confident enough about future long term cooling to make a bet with me? US$1000 under agreed on conditions. I’m confident I’ll win. ‘Skeptics’ aren’t confident enough about their views to bet on long term cooling.
Barry,
I will bet 1 dollar that 2025 is cooler than 2024.
and 1 dollar that 2035 is cooler than 2024.
That will be a wash.
That’s a no, bob. My bet, as I said, is about long-term cooling.
Here’s what I would bet. I bet the 15 years 2025 to 2034 will be warmer than the ten years 2015 to 2024.
I would hope this would attract some skeptics, because we’ve just had the two hottest years consecutively, and the previous decade contains the 3 hottest years on record, as well as being the warmest decade in the instrumental record.
Surely the odds of a cooler decade ahead is pretty good if AGW isn’t real!
Also, I’m guessing most of us will be alive to collect in 2035.
See Fallen Leaf Lake.
Trees grew on the bottom of the lake, 380 foot deep, during a drought.
The remains of the trees are still standing on the bottom.
Can current ‘dry’ conditions be blamed on AGW climate change? Not.
More hot air, Ken.
This is another claim of weather variability as “evidence” of climate change. California has a history of droughts going back as far as the oldest Giant Sequoia trees — thousands of years. The tree rings from those old trees is the evidence. Severe droughts last for many years at a time. They are normal for California. That last 100 years or so have been unusually wet.
Science studies show that the current sea level rise started in the middle of the 19th century. Yes, it is moving at a higher rate over the last few years, but that kind of change in rate has happened in the early 20th century as well.
Once again, CO2 is increasing and it is having an effect, but it is not the only influence on weather and climate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696721
Here is some expert opinion.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research/climate-change-resources/faq-climate-change-california#:~:text=The%20last%20two%20decades%20underscore,as%20atmospheric%20rivers%20(ARs).
“Scripps researchers have found that the number of wildfires could grow significantly over the next 40 years. With an increase in summer temperatures, the area burned by wildfires has risen fivefold from 1972 to 2018. Warmer summer temperatures and climate-driven aridity are likely to fuel more wildfires in the future. One Fourth Assessment model predicts that large wildfires (greater than 25,000 acres) could become 50% more frequent by the end of the century if emissions are not reduced, and the average area burned statewide would increase 77 percent.”
Tim S
” Science studies show that the current sea level rise started in the middle of the 19th century. Yes, it is moving at a higher rate over the last few years, but that kind of change in rate has happened in the early 20th century as well. ”
I’m not interested in any CO2 discussion. Only in measurable facts.
*
Where are the sources for your non-committing claims?
Hopefully something more substantial than the usual WUWT head posts by SLR deniers like Middleton or Hansen!
*
I work on PSMSL’s tide gauge and SONEL’s vertical land movement data since years.
Here are graphs showing sea level data from tide gauges and satellite altimetry processing by different groups – and myself as a layman.
1. The data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Or0jeeNG9Or1dPvxzb48QtrsUgeNE8GJ/view
2. The change in rate in the data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dvz115qfZXH95nkoIXF091JJsaasaAEn/view
It is easy to see how the tide gauge trends change over time, from about 1.5 mm per year for 1900-2015 up to about 3 mm per year for 1995-2015, which means that tide gauge measurements and satellite altimetry show the same trend for the satellite era.
*
The correspondence between tide gauges and altimetry is best shown when comparing Dangendorf’s results and sat data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xkdM6bd47s2WWraL2I6p2Nmz3g70JzNL/view
Data sources
PSMSL tide gauge data
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
SONEL GPS station data
https://www.sonel.org/-Vertical-land-movements-.html
Scripps researchers have found that the number of wildfires could grow significantly over the next 40 years. With an increase in summer temperatures, the area burned by wildfires has risen fivefold from 1972 to 2018. Warmer summer temperatures and climate-driven aridity are likely to fuel more wildfires in the future. One Fourth Assessment model predicts that large wildfires (greater than 25,000 acres) could become 50% more frequent by the end of the century if emissions are not reduced, and the average area burned statewide would increase 77 percent.
The projections made in this quote are based on fairy dust and unicorn farts. The only ‘evidence’ to support the ‘claim’ is the rather specious statement that ‘area burned by wildfires has risen 5 fold from 1972 to 2018’ … leaving out all the rest of the US wildfire data and paleontological record previous to 1972. Its cherry picked data.
Its simply more of the useless alarmism that is interfering with rational planning. The government uses this kind of crap science to deflect away from their responsibility in preventing disasters like the LA fire from getting so far out of control.
There is no evidence to support the claim that the size and number of fires now is out of the realm of natural climate variability.
There was a major fire deficit during the 20th century. Reasons for which are explained in the paper:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1112839109#:~:text=The%20decline%20in%20fires%20during,spread%20of%20many%20forest%20fires.
Your source:
“In earlier periods, changes of this scale were driven by climate; in the past 200 y, human behavior has played a much larger role. Fire suppression practices have greatly reduced fire, whereas global warming has increased the probability of fire. A widening gap, or fire deficit, therefore exists between actual levels of burning and expected levels of burning given current climate conditions”
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/statewide/time-series/4/tmax/4/9/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=1950
Ken, the maximum daytime summer temps have increased 4 deg F over the last few decades, due to climate change.
C’mon, you cannot deny that this T increase should result in drier foliage during dry periods?
I want to be careful here because I do not know how this error happened. The post by Bindidon is wrong in reaction to my very correct statement. The polite response is that it is an honest error and not an attempt to fool people. Using “10 year running means” as an attempt to refute changes in the data is just wrong in every way.
The fact is that between 1930 and 1951 see level rose by about 70 mm (7 cm or about 2.75 inch). It was not until 2003 or maybe 2006 that the same 70 mm of increase occurred. Most of that rise occurred after 1994. That is the point that variability happens in the natural world and labeling everything as climate change does not represent reality.
There was almost no sea level rise in the 1960s and 1970s. Clearly, these effects of short term rate changes in sea level rise can be completely erased by data smoothing as Bindidon attempted to do.
Look at the data from NASA:
https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/Podaac/thumbnails/JPL_RECON_GMSL.jpg
Tim, that sea level data looks very much like the temperature data.
Global temp and sea-level have a similar flat trend mid 20th century.. as expected.
No surprise.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=CSIROData/ssh_church_extended&STATION=global_sea_level&TYPE=i&NPERYEAR=1&id=someone@somewhere
Church and White tide gauge plus satellite altimetry.
quote Ken, the maximum daytime summer temps have increased 4 deg F over the last few decades, due to climate change.
Cmon, you cannot deny that this T increase should result in drier foliage during dry periods? unquote
The graph is interesting. I would suggest ‘average temperature’ would be more appropriate than ‘max temperature’ as a gauge. There is a lot of year to year variability in either measure.
Higher T doesn’t equate to drier foliage. See Amazon for details.
Higher T data for California probably only shows is that there is less precipitation. Recall there has to be enough precipitation for the foliage to grow before it is dried out. I would suggest the years of lower precipitation are a greater indicator of fire risk than T.
Dry is Dry. Higher temperatures aren’t going to make already dry foliage drier.
The article I posted suggests there is more fire risk when there is drought but it also shows there is now a massive fire deficit, as in there should be more fires, because of human activity that prevents fires from breaking out.
The human influence is a much greater factor than either drought or temperature in fires like the one in LA.
Look up kiln dried firewood.
It is removing moisture from the wood to make it burn efficiently. Requires months at room temp, but is sped up at higher temps.
Nate,
If droughts have been in the West for hundreds of thousands of years and a researcher at UC Irvine has published extensively about it, then how is climate change the problem?
There’s no logic here. It’s like saying that because species went extinct long before humans came along, how can humans be responsible for the extinction of any species?
Drought severity and frequency responds to climate change. Weather is random, climate isn’t, or Summer would be colder than Winter half the time.
The Polar Vortex is being short-circuited by a high-pressure system.
Some real global warming….
Ah, the polar vortex again. What a handy excuse. Has it been changing in the same direction for the last 50 years?
Child, your comment reveals your ignorance of the science, as usual.
More people are catching on. but we have still ways to go to get the rest
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/13/monday-mirthiness-cnn-freaks-because-polls-show-most-people-dont-think-climate-change-is-responsible-for-the-la-fires/
CNN made a silly interpretation of google searches and WWUT enjoyed the show.
Eben took it all a bit too seriously. I guess the title of the article didn’t land with him.
I imagine that a whole bunch of other searches went down in number as Californians focussed on news of the fires.
Checked google trends for searches in the US with the terms “wildfires climate change.”
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=wildfires%20climate%20change&hl=en-GB
Oh look, a sudden peak in January after 12 months of not much.
You can spin that many ways. Possibly as cretinously as CNN did.
Climate change is beginning to upend insurance markets around the country.
Homes built in hazard areas can be built accordingly — Fire retardant materials, water/wind capable, tornado shelters, etc.
Responsible adults have known this for some time.
Its not climate change that is the looming threat; its that cost of assets have risen and the amount of assets located in risk prone areas has increased dramatically that have made insurance uneconomical.
As an example, a hundred years ago almost no one lived in Florida. No one gave a damn if a hurricane made landfall. Now there are a million homes at risk. This is what is driving insurance out; its not climate change.
A spoof of Ark’s insurance fears:
https://xkcd.com/3037/
LONG TERM is at least 100 years.
Bollocks. The phrase is malleable to context.
1: occurring over or involving a relatively long period of time
seeking long-term solutions
2
a: of, relating to, or constituting a financial operation or obligation based on a considerable term and especially one of more than 10 years
long-term bonds
b: generated by assets held for longer than six months
The classic climate period is 30 years, defined by the WMO.
I’ve offered a bet that the world will warm over the long term, and as you have been one speaking of future cooling, I am very happy to agree on a period that is less than 30 years so we can collect before we die.
Shall we discuss terms?
No.
It is worth reading https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/92/6/2010bams2955_1.pdf before discussing 30 years.
While probing the utility of the classic climate period may be interesting, I don’t believe it is interesting for you except as an attempt to score a point.
What I am happy to discuss is a mutually agreed period on which we could make a bet based on AGW. But you’re not interested in that either, so no worries.
Barry does not wish to conclude that 30 years is arbitrary at best, so no worries either.
I’ve said before that baseline choice is quasi-arbitrary, but why would I make a different conclusion to the paper about the classic 30-year period?
It seems you didn’t read your own source.
“The standard WMO climate normal is a useful, albeit imperfect, metric. Indeed, no metric can be perfect by definition. Climate change, and in particular significant nonzero trends in climate time series, renders the standard WMO climate normal less useful. For use as a reference period average for computing climate anomalies, climate normals retain their usefulness despite climate change, although updating the reference period can lead to dramatic changes in the anomaly values (and their interpretations). Climate monitoring centers should proceed with caution if and when base periods are changed for computing real-time anomalies.”
Your attempt at point-scoring has not made me forget what you contended:
“LONG TERM is at least 100 years.”
Your source offers no support for that.
Arctic Ice Extent has been generally declining since 1400.
‘Long Term’ should perhaps be considered on the order of a thousand years.
Given Milankovitch is 40k years … maybe even a thousand years is ‘short term’
30 years isn’t long enough to discern any meaningful trends in climate.
Since 1400?
Data?
We have cycles in climate that are at least 60 years, so 30 years seems short term.
Data
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aba4320
“A cycle of period ~60 years has been reported in global mean temperature of the earth (Schlesinger, M.E. and Ramankutty, N., 1994, Ogurtsov, M.G., et al., 2002, Klyashtorin, L.B. and Lyubushin, A.A., 2003, Loehle, C., 2004, Zhen-Shan, L. and Xian, S., 2007, Carvalo, L.M.V., et al., 2007, Swanson, K.L. and Tsonis, A.A., 2009, Scafetta, N., 2009, Akasofu, S.I., 2010, D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2010, Loehle, C. and Scafetta, N., 2011, Humlum, O., et al., 2011, Chambers, D.P., et al., 2012, Ldecke, H.-J., et al., 2013, Courtillot, V., et al., 2013, Akasofu, S.I., 2013, Macias, D., et al., 2014, Ogurtsov, M., et al., 2015)”
Which graph shows a general decline in sea ice since 1400?
What happened to the LIA?
The Milankovitch cycles put us on a long term cooling trend.
A sustained positive energy imbalance does not require an external forcing.
So you admit there are cycles, but only those that are thousands of years long.
“Plenty of ash but no phoenix.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpRl-0fR2mw
stephen p anderson says:
January 11, 2025 at 12:11 PM
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696547
“He’s observed that planets or moons with higher spin have higher temperatures. He has hypothesized that higher spin results in higher temperature. What’s wrong with that?”
Thank you, Stephen.
–
LinK: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Venus has very slow rotation period of 243 Earth days.
Do you expect its surface temperature to be low?
Thank you, Archie, for your response,
“Venus has very slow rotation period of 243 Earth days.
Do you expect its surface temperature to be low?”
–
We have all kinds of planets and moons in our solar system.
Let’s first formulate for the Planets Temperatures Comparison
THEINITIALAXIOM.
For two completely identical planets (or moons), which may differ only in size, their respective average surface temperatures (T1) and (T2) in Kelvin, relate as the fourth root of their respective fluxes (Flux1) and (Flux2) in W/m2:
T1 /T2 = [ (Flux1) /(Flux2) ] ∕ ⁴
–
The method followed:
We used for analysis all on planets and moons available data to help identify three separate major parameters.
–
The temperatures comparison process:
In order to gather the data, we first used the satellite measurements, which can be compared and reconsider, so to speak, by looking at how the certain deflections in temperatures are shared between planets and moons with similar features.
–
LinK: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
arch…the surface temperature of Venus was measured at 450C. Obviously, something else is causing such extreme warming and would be independent of rotational speed.
Christos, what would the temperature of the surface Venus be with your model. Can you show us the result?
Yes, barry, please visit the pages:
Venus’ T comparisons | cristos-vournas.com
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446393385/452371292
And
Venus’ Tmean 735 K | cristos-vournas.com
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446393385/446364348
Thank you, Chrstos. I’ll quote your results here:
“Tmean.venus = 258.87 K [without atmosphere]
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.venus = 735 K, measured by satellites.
What we see here is that planet Venus has a strong greenhouse warming effect due to the greenhouse gas CO2 96,5 % high content in the Venus’ atmosphere.”
Which of course means that the GHE cannot be ignored for the Earth. Declaring that it is neglible because the Earth’s atmosphere is thinner than Venus’s, is not a quatitative assessment. It is just a feeling.
A lot of confusion here, as usual.
High temperatures on Venus are not due to solar, or its rotation. They’re caused by vulcanism. There are puddles of lava on Venus surface!
So, as on Earth, we can ignore the GHE nonsense.
Io is far more volcanically active than Venus, with constant, widespread eruptions and lava flows, and yet its average surface temp is -130C.
Io is just as irrelevant as is Venus.
Venus’ atmosphere has 280.000 (two hundred eighty thousands) times more CO2 molecules on the ground level that Earth’s atmosphere has.
Whatever influence the CO2 on the surface temperature, it is 280.000 times less on the Earth’s surface compared to Venus’ surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s too naive a conclusion, Christos. For examples, the influence on temperature must also account for optical depth, emission profiles at different pressures, and whether there are factors not common to each planet (such as abundant water vapour) that might enhance or mitigate the pure radiative forcing.
Lets continue the Venus/Earth comparison :
Atmosphere of Venus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Height Temp. Atmospheric pressure
(km) (C).(atm)
0 .. 462 92.10
5 .. 424 66.65
10 . 385 47.39
15 . 348 33.04
20 . 306 22.52
25 . 264 14.93
30 . 222 9.851
35 . 180 5.917
40 . 143 3.501
45 . 110 1.979
50 . 75 1.066
55 . 27 0.531 4
60 . −10 0.235 7
65 . −30 0.097 65
70 . −43 0.036 90
80 . −76 0.004 760
90 . −104 .. 0.000 373 6
100 −112 .. 0.000 026 60
Venus has a runaway atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Albedo a = 0,76 (Bond), S= 2601W/m2
(1 0,76)*2601 W/m2 = 624 W/m2
Earth Albedo a = 0,306 (Bond), So = 1361 W/m2
(1 0,306)*1361 W/m2 = 945 W/m2
Lets compare:
Earth 945 W/m2 1 atm., CO2 0,04%, 14 (C)
Venus 624 W/m2 0,235 atm., CO2 96,5%, -10 (C)
Venus
624/945 = 0,66
0,235*96,5 = 22,68
0,66*22,68 = 14,97
Earth
945/945 = 1
1*0,04 = 0,04
1*0,04 = 0,04
Lets continue the Venus/Earth comparison :
14,97/0,04 = 374 times more CO2 but the temperature is -10(C)
**************
Venus’ atmosphere has 280.000 (two hundred eighty thousands) times more CO2 molecules on the ground level than Earth’s atmosphere has.
Whatever influence the CO2 on the surface temperature, it is 280.000 times less on the Earth’s surface compared to Venus’ surface.
*************
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Unless you know how to calculate the GHE, your claims about is magnitude are not credible.
ark…”Climate change is beginning to upend insurance markets around the country”.
***
There is no scientific proof of any significant climate change throughout the planet.
Climate has a natural variability. In the US and Canada during the 1930s, the western interiors (prairies) of both countries experienced drought conditions for a decade. The drought was accompanied by a record number of heat waves in that decade and modern era heat waves are miniscule compared to that record.
California alone has experienced drought conditions for a couple of hundred years yet modern droughts are blamed by some on a scientifically unprovable ‘climate change’. No climate change, the drought are business as usual for California.
Gor… Geographical cherry-picking is a disingenuous strawman that signals your lack of understanding of the coin of the realm.
https://ibb.co/2nvnzZq
In science, the accepted currency include evidence, hypotheses, theories supported by empirical data, repeated testing, independent verification, statistical significance, model predictions, falsifiability…
Glad to see you attempting to define “science”, Ark. But remember, science is NOT beliefs. There is no viable theory if it violates the laws of physics.
The GHE nonsense started in the 19th century. They didn’t even know what a photon was in those days.
Gor…
Acknowledging historical droughts in California does not contradict the reality that modern droughts are influenced by anthropogenic climate change. Climate change does not negate historical drought variability, instead, it shifts the baseline, making droughts more intense, longer-lasting, and more frequent.
Here’s how it works:
1/ Rising temperatures accelerate soil moisture evaporation, making dry conditions more severe and persistent.
2/ California relies heavily on snowpack for water. Warmer temperatures reduce snow accumulation and cause earlier melting, contributing to water shortages.
3/ More persistent high-pressure ridges that block rainfall from reaching California (Remember the “Ridiculously Resilient Ridge?” https://www.alabamawx.com/?p=193514). More recently, the last time it rained more than 0.1 inches in Los Angeles was May 5, 2024.
Modern droughts are not simply “business as usual” but are more severe and prolonged due to human-induced changes to the climate system.
Now Ark, there you go again.
I just recognized you for trying to understand that science is NOT beliefs. And, you come up with “human-induced changes to the climate system”!
Earth is in a warming trend, and you’re believing it is caused by CO2. Yet you have NO science to back it up. Beliefs ain’t science, and a whole bunch of beliefs still ain’t science.
Why is earth in a warming trend?
How long are the cycles?
Sig asks: “Why is earth in a warming trend?”
It’s called “natural variability”.
Various natural events can affect Earth’s temperature. There are lots of theories about changes in orbits, solar, albedo, etc. The most recent example is the HTE which caused an increase in temperatures now going on 3 years.
Solar – cooler over the last few cycles than the middle of the 20th century
Orbitally – Earth has been in a slow decline to glaciation for 10,0000 years, continuing over the next tens of thousands of years
HTE – research indicates a modest contribution to recent warming, or even a net cooling from aerosols, and that the radiative effect was mostly diminished by the end of 2023
You yourself said the effects of HTE were finished quite a few months ago, Clint.
It was the atmospheric waves portion of the HTE that are finished. The water vapor in the stratosphere still lingers, although slowly dissipating.
You won’t be able to ever understand barry. You’re a child of the cult. You have NOTHING.
How, in your opinion, does the increase in stratospheric water vapour cause warming at the surface, Clint?
barry, everyone knows the stratospheric water vapor increased Earth temperatures. Even NASA, that bastion of climate cultism, has admitted as such.
Water vapor, unlike CO2, has a very complex molecular frequency range, able to emit almost a full spectrum. Get an adult to explain it to you.
“Get an adult to explain it to you.”
I already know, but I was curious about your opinion, child. I guess it’s too hard for you to admit water vapor provides a greenhouse effect.
Clint,
You are obviously not able to answer my simple question: Why is earth in a warming trend?
You said “Its called natural variability. Which natural variability?
– HTE cannot explain a warming trend over the past 100+ years.
– orbital changes have cooled the earth over the past 7-8000 years and it is continuing
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ydT1G2I9E48lvFcit9mFpHPaqg8TEeXGn3gP_Qm_AkQ/edit?usp=sharing
– solar activity has decreased over the last few cycles
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SgAuAvx8O4e6ngL3LJ2X0JordaL8hk3Sh_ud8kn38WU/edit?usp=sharing
You simply has no answer.
Why, over a very long period of time, has Earth been in an Ice Age.
Or similar question, why has average temperature of the entire oceanic surface, been so cold over a very long period of time.
barry — Yes, water vapor can cause global warming, but CO2’s 15 μ photons can not. You claim you already knew the answer to your question. That’s an admission you’re just trolling. Thanks for that admission.
Sig — I answered your simple question, helpfully explaining with examples. Even your cult’s IPCC admits there is “natural variability”. “I can explain it to you, but I can’t comprehend it for you.” It’s not my job here to answer everything about the climate. I’m only here to counter the cult nonsense. And that’s an easy task since you have no science.
” Water vapor, unlike CO2, has a very complex molecular frequency range, able to emit almost a full spectrum. Get an adult to explain it to you. ”
What a bunch of nonsense, based as usual on a prehistorical document dated around the 1990s and certainly based on even much, much earlier radiation data.
The current data source for absorptivity / emissivity is HITRAN2020.
Using the SpectralCalc site, you can present the lines for H2O and CO2 between 5 and 20 microns (the frequency range around the atmospheric window (7.5 till 12.5 microns) relevant to terrestrial IR emissions.
*
1a. H2O and CO2 at the surface
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12n5AfTesNpaIiSlISAGUTCYDH2DaD3Tu/view
1b. CO2 alone at the surface
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gs_moI0J0HfqtzqPsbJowiE2XyxBM8Yw/view
When comparing the two images, we see that though all gas intensity lines are scaled wrt their atmospheric abundance, H2O absorbs at the surface roughly 20 times more than CO2.
2. H2O and CO2 at 10 km altitude
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CHRs4G7IAyWoFDKGPZjH4fA0fSk9JRbb/view
While CO2’s absorption capacity goes down to 40% compared to the surface, H2O’s goes down to 0.5%.
3. H2O and CO2 at 20 km altitude
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b3cDDiSI2mLAO0wPuZe-MbkGX7U05KId/view
Now CO2’s absorption capacity is at 10% compared to the surface, and H2O at… 0.005%.
*
This is known to any scientist working in the area.
And not one of the posters writing on this blog would be able to contradict these scientists when they claim that CO2 plays a role in the climate system.
Not one!
*
Clint R is moreover absolutely unable to accept that not one scientist claims that CO2’s (or H2O’s) reemissions toward the surface would warm it.
What causes warming is that H2O and CO2 absorb IR emitted by Earth, and thus contribute to less energy directly reaching outer space.
Source
https://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
For example:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J9iYwlo2Wo5wfU8GmzzniH2rU3U5iSKw/view
Bindi pops in to offer his false accusations, rambling nonsense, and links he can’t understand.
Nothing new.
The cult kids don’t like “natural variability”. They believe mankind is stronger than nature. Go figure.
We have three examples of “natural variability” now occurring:
1) La Nina
2) The Polar Vortex
3) HTE
How the three interact in the next 10 days will affect January UAH results.
Right now, the result would be a warming over December. Let’s see what nature says….
Any cycle that is not ~60 years long is apparently acceptable.
We have this from Bindidon:
[Clint R is moreover absolutely unable to accept that not one scientist claims that CO2s (or H2Os) reemissions toward the surface would warm it.
What causes warming is that H2O and CO2 absorb IR emitted by Earth, and thus contribute to less energy directly reaching outer space.]
This seems like a confusing statement. Is there a better way to phrase that? Are you an Energy Budget denier? What does 340.3 W m^-2 Back Radiation from “greenhouse gases” mean to you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Tim S
You are confusing two completely different things:
– my (umpteenth) reaction to Clint R’s nonsense about CO2’s IR 15 micron backradiation (which OF COURSE doesn’t warm the surface even a tiny bit, nor does that of H2O);
– that part of Earth’s energy budget dealing with energy transfer from the atmosphere to the surface in relation to solar input and terrestrial output in respond to the former.
What you wrote isn’t the result of reasoning: it’s rather that of robertsoning.
“water vapor can cause global warming, but CO2s 15 μ photons can not.”
As usual Clint just declares his own ‘truths’, no facts or evidence ever avaliable to back it up.
No logic either: he claims 15 micron photons from CO2 cannot cause warming, oh but 15 microns photons from a CO2 laser can melt steel.
That ain’t science!
Some of the biggest mistakes in the GHE nonsense are in the areas of “radiative physics” and “thermodynamics”. We see that again with the comments from Bindi and Nate.
And the mistakes are repeated in NASA’s bogus “energy budget”:
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
The bogus EEI, Earth Energy Imbalance, does NOT use units of energy. It uses units of flux. Flux is NOT energy. Whenever the cult mentions the bogus EEI, that means they don’t understand the basic physics.
Flux has units of “power per area” or “energy per time per area”. Power is not a conserved quantity, so certainly “power per area” is also not a conserved quantity. Flux “in” and flux “out” do not need to balance, and often don’t balance. A cone in space, with 5 times the area of its base, receiving 900 W/m^2 at its base will be emitting 180 W/m^2 at its final temperature. A flux of 900 W/m^3 does NOT equal 180 W/m^2. Flux “in” does NOT equal flux “out”.
To actually find Earth’s energy balance, energy-in MUST be compared to energy-out. “Energy” must be used, not flux.
But Earth’s energy seldom balances, as both incoming and outgoing energies constantly vary. That’s not a problem, as the laws of thermodynamics control temperatures. Weather is just one example of thermodynamics at work.
” A cone in space, with 5 times the area of its base,”
Red herring.
Hint: if Ein-Eout = 0 then Ein/A -Eout/A = 0 also!
No one knows why Clint cannot wrap his feeble mind around this simple arithmetic.
Wrong again, child Nate.
The cone example illustrates that flux does NOT balance. You can’t understand that, so you claim “red herring”.
What will you throw against the wall next?
Wrong.
The area over which Ein and Eout is measured is the same, the Top of Atmosphere surface area.
Do the hard arithmetic yourself, if you can!
“Do the hard arithmetic yourself, if you can!”
There is no hard math for H2O/clouds, just parameters.
Conservation applies to the total energy, not necessarily to the instantaneous rates (fluxes) of energy entering and leaving the system.
For the Earth’s energy budget, Energy in – Energy out = stored Energy.
If there is an imbalance between energy flux in and energy flux out it contributes to a change in the total energy stored in the system.
The difference does not disappear. It contributes to a change in the total energy stored in the system.
Energy conservation requires that energy in and energy out at TOA must be equal: this is the First Law of Thermodynamics.
But the 1st law does not consider energy over time, which is where flux (eg, W/m2) comes in.
First law deals with total energy, not the instantaneous rate at which energy flows. Classic thermodynamics deals with bulk states, not flow rates or rates of change, but provides the framework for the study of transport phenomena like heat transfer, fluid dynamics, mass transfer and electromagnetism.
“But the 1st law does not consider energy over time, which is where flux (eg, W/m2) comes in.”
1LOT says net energy input = work + increase in internal energy. All of those can be time dependent.
You know how bad barry’s rambling about thermodynamics is when even Nate can correct him.
Meanwhile Clint has no rational answers to explain why dividing both sides of an equation by a constant makes the equation wrong..
He’s so misunderstood!
Gbaikie,
It is well known among geologists that weathering of rocks removes CO2 from the atmosphere. It is also well known that 50-60 million years ago the CO2 content in the air was 1500-2000 ppm, 4-5 times higher than the present level, and the global temperature was at least 10 degrees C warmer than today.
Plate tectonics and collision between the Indian and Eurasian plates formed Himalayas 60 million years ago and increased erosion and weathering of the rocks. This led to a gradual decrease in CO2 content and cooling.
Around 35 million years ago the Antarctica was separated from Australia. The Antarctic circumpolar current was formed, and glaciation around the South pole started.
About 3-2.5 million years ago the seaway connection between North and South America was closed and changed the ocean circulation in the North Atlantic. In combination with the lowered CO2 level to 300 ppm, this led to the start of glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere. With permanent ice around both poles we entered what we define as an ice age.
Astronomers tell us that during the last 50-60 million years the solar energy output has increased by about 0.5% and is the highest since the insipience of the solar system. Despite of this, the earth went from a hothouse 50 million years ago to the current icehouse. This should tell any learned person that changing properties of the earth and its atmosphere, together with orbital variations, are the main drivers behind climate changes, and not the minor variations in solar energy output.
Clint,
No, you did not answer my simple question and continued with your scientific nonsense. You mention some factors causing climate to vary, like orbits, solar and albedo. Yes, all these factors may cause both warming and cooling. But you do not describe nor document the current impact of these.
I showed you that both orbital variation and lower solar activity currently have a cooling effect, if any at all.
“1LOT says net energy input = work + increase in internal energy. All of those can be time dependent.”
Changes ARE time dependent, but the 1st Law does not consider this. It is other branches of science under the umbrella of classic thermo that deal with that.
Specifically, classic thermo does not deal with time-related changes. Time-dependent change is analysed by the branches of science I mentioned above.
Heat engines have heat flow inputs converted into work and output heat. 1LOT and 2LOT apply.
A “greenhouse Earth” is a period during which no continental glaciers exist anywhere on the planet. Additionally, the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (such as water vapor and methane) are high, and sea surface temperatures (SSTs) range from 28 C (82.4 F) in the tropics to 0 C (32 F) in the polar regions. Earth has been in a greenhouse state for about 85% of its history.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
An Icehouse Global Climate is much rarer in Earth’s history- but for last 33.9 million years, we have been in one, and last 2 million years it’s been the coldest.
And during this coldest time, a tropical/grassland ape, left Africa and could live in more hostile and colder regions of the world, due to it developing technologies- which included the use of fire,
— Sig says:
January 20, 2025 at 12:52 PM
…
Astronomers tell us that during the last 50-60 million years the solar energy output has increased by about 0.5% and is the highest since the incipience of the solar system. Despite of this, the earth went from a hothouse 50 million years ago to the current icehouse.
…
A Hothouse global climate is likewise rather rare in terms amount time they occur in Earth’s history. And they tend to have very warm oceans.
Our Icehouse global climate had average ocean temperature as high as about 6 C, and Hothouse global climate would have to be much warmer than 10 C.
Tes, Nate, the laws apply, but classic thermo does not deal with flow rates.
“The laws of thermodynamics deal with energy changes of macroscopic systems involving a large number of molecules rather than microscopic systems containing a few molecules. Thermodynamics is not concerned about how and at what rate these energy transformations are carried out, but is based on initial and final states of a system undergoing the change.”
Clint says:
“Power is not a conserved quantity, so certainly “power per area” is also not a conserved quantity….
To actually find Earth’s energy balance, energy-in MUST be compared to energy-out. ‘Energy’ must be used, not flux.”
He is wrong, but I thought it might be useful to name what he seems to be referring to. Calculating energy over time and area only adds to the complexity of the analysis, it doesn’t change the laws of physics. Incoming and outgoing energy must balance (or something must change to achieve equilibrium) regardless of which units are used.
I think what you are getting at is that heat transfers that happen too fast don’t allow equilibrium to be reached. In heat engines, the gas likely doesn’t reach internal thermal equilibrium, so thermodynamics can only give an approximation to the temperatures and pressures reached.
Nevertheless, I think 1LOT, which is conservative of energy, always applies.
So input heat flows are always accounted for in work flows, internal energy changes and output heat flows.
Simpler than that, Nate. I’m trying to clarify Clint’s objection. It doesn’t have much to it.
The 1st Law ALWAYS applies – that’s not the issue. The issue is a misunderstanding that because certain quantities are not conserved (area/time), that equations with these units can’t be used for energy balance analysis, on the premise that ‘energy is conserved,’ and perhaps a sense that classic thermo is concerned with equilibrium states, while flux is more concerned with change, and flux values are more malleable to circumstance (such as geometry, surface properties etc).
It’s seems Clint believes that because individual, local flux values within a system can be different to the total incoming energy to the system, then flux cannot be used to determine energy balance between incoming and outgoing.
But that’s not true, and the resolution is simply more sophisticated math. This is where classic thermo sits back, holding the umbrella for statistical thermodynamics, such a radiative transfer. Clint doesn’t seem to understand that the branches are complimentary, and that flux is still an expression of energy that is subject to !LoT.
I think it is even simpler.
We can measure the daily energy input to and output from the whole Earth in J and it comes out to ~10^23 J. Or we can divide this by the surface area and by seconds in a day to find the energy input per second per m^2 and it comes out to 240 W/m2.
The latter is a unit that meteorologists and atmospheric physicists are used to and often measure locally.
And the satellites measure flux.
Nate describes to us what his daddy told him. But he can’t provide any evidence of the claim.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
red krokodile, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, please carry on.
DREMT Impersonator, eternally begone. You disgust me (and I know it’s you, Arkady).
Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team,
Any chance you might come out of retirement?
Arkady’s act of impersonation has summoned me to this thread, so I may hang out here a while now, and those who dislike me should thoroughly blame Arkady for that. He brought me here, and if he does it again, I’ll be back again. So that’s my number one message to anyone who doesn’t want me here – blame Arkady for impersonating me, and ask him not to do it again.
In answer to your question, no…retirement from here has been way too productive a period for me to consider coming back permanently. I’ve just got so much more done with my life! And had so much more time to spend with my family. Best decision I ever made.
Welcome back DREMT!
For those that don’t know, DREMT worked long and hard to debunk the “moon rotation” nonsense.
And he was successful, at least to responsible adults.
I respect your decision and wish you all the best in your retirement. Your services will be missed.
Someone Made Graham Do It.
“Someone Made Graham Do It.”
Yes. If not for Bindidon’s trolling, this subthread wouldn’t exist.
Sounds more and more like a not very well hidden appearance by walter rh 03…
*
It’s always amusing to see people calling me a tr0ll while supporting the real ones who deny basic things like the GHE and… even the lunar spin.
Weiter so, 03!
Bindi, when you have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, then you can talk.
Otherwise you’re just another uneducated cult child.
If not for Puffman’s baiting, our sock puppet would not PSTer using a silly HTML trick to bypass a ban.
Thanks Clint R and red krokodile!
Test
Snowstorm on January 21 in southern Alabama.
Arctic blasts are always fun… This one will bring accumulating snow from Houston, Texas, to Wilmington, NC, from Monday through Wednesday.
Snow in New Orleans…
The Totally Real and Very Serious Science of Energy Imbalance
The totally made-up Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) does NOT use units of real energy like proper physics would. No, it uses units of flux, which obviously isn’t energy, because everyone knows that energy stops being energy the moment you divide it by time and area. Any time those pesky scientists mention EEI, it just proves they don’t understand the basic physics that I invented in my backyard.
Flux, you see, has units of “power per area” or “energy per time per area.” And since power isn’t a conserved quantity (because reasons), clearly, “power per area” isn’t conserved either! So, guess what? Flux-in and flux-out don’t need to balance – and in fact, they never do. Take, for example, a magical cone floating in space with a base area of 1 and a top area of 5. If it receives 900 W/m^2 at the base, it will radiate exactly 180 W/m^2 from the top. You see? 900 does NOT equal 180, so clearly, flux-in does NOT equal flux-out. Case closed. Physics is canceled.
And here’s the kicker: If you really want to find Earth’s energy balance, you must use real energy, not some silly “flux” nonsense. Yes, total energy. Always energy. Never flux. But since Earth’s energy is constantly fluctuating (because the sun, clouds, and oceans are totally inconsiderate like that), Earth’s energy almost never balances anyway. No big deal! The laws of thermodynamics still work, and that’s why we have weather – which I’m sure is doing just fine without flux.
So, let’s just ignore all that “flux” stuff and stick to proper energy units – because when in doubt, it’s better to pretend that rates of energy transfer have nothing to do with energy balance.
Flux in does not have to equal flux out.
The Earth receives 480 W/m^2 over the lit hemisphere, all while emitting 240 W/m^2 from its entire surface area, all the time, while the Earth slowly rotates. That is in "balance", but 480 does not equal 240.
The reason it works is that the surface area receiving the flux is half that of the surface area emitting it. So energy balances, but not flux.
Moment by moment, it’s 480 in and 240 out (flux).
Of course, most average the incoming over time, making it 240 in and 240 out, because over time the whole Earth’s surface receives the sunlight.
But, that no longer represents the correct physics. You can do it, mathematically…but it no longer represents a spinning ball in space lit from one side by the Sun. It’s more akin to a flat surface, with one side always facing the Sun, with all the oceans and land masses arranged on that side facing the Sun. So that all the land and oceans are receiving sunlight continuously, at a reduced rate of 240.
In other words, it’s "Flat Earth" physics to say it’s 240 in and 240 out.
Simple enough.
IIRC in a year the Earth system absorbs 1.2 * 10^24 Joules and reradiated slightly less.
The energy imbalance is 5.1*10^21 Joules.
Those figures are not known with any accuracy. That’s why they use flux, it confuses the children.
The error margin on absorbed solar may be as bad as +/- 10%. So the bogus “energy balance” is much worse since its all based on guesses.
Just one more aspect of the hoax that ain’t science.
There are multiple checks made on the values. The satellite measurements of incoming solar radiation, upwelling infrared radiation from Earth, and reflected solar radiation are just the beginning of the systems in place to check these values, which include ocean heat content measurements, surface temperature measurements, satellite derived measurements of sea ice, sea level, atmospheric temperature and with airborne radiosondes, temperature and humidity profiles to discern how energy is being stored in the atmosphere over time.
Then there are the ground-based sensors measuring incoming and outgoing radiation, the eddy covariance towers tracking sensible and latent heat flux over large ecosystems, and satellite retrieval of SSTs linked to ocean heat storage.
Ocean heat content is the most crucial data to test the energy imbalance inferred by TOA measurements, and it is consistent with the estimated values. Same with land surface measurements, sea ice and sea level.
So no, it is not based on “guesses,” but your knowledge of Earth’s energy balance certainly is.
barry, you have replied extensively to comments I have written to Nate, without apparently reading them. Did you not notice the whole discussion I just had with him where I made it perfectly clear that I am not talking about EEI, the Earth’s Energy Imbalance, and haven’t been throughout?
When I say “flux values do not need to balance” for the Earth I’m not referring to minor differences relating to an energy imbalance, I’m talking about the difference between the number 480 and the number 240. 480 does not equal 240, but in terms of the energy involved (joules), it balances, because the surface area over which the 480 W/m^2 is received is half that of the area over which the 240 W/m^2 leaves.
You need to read through all my comments from the beginning barry, and try to pay more attention to what I’m actually saying, rather than what your prejudices lead you to believe I’m saying.
The correction has already been made, so it would not make any sense to start a new thread.
“The Earth receives 480 W/m^2 over the lit hemisphere”
The hemisphere does not receive that. That is only the spatial average flux.
Many locations in the hemisphere are experiencing much less or more.
Averaged over 24 h, both hemispheres receive 240 W/m2.
And this matters because the energy output is also 240 W/m2
Neither averaging over space nor time is a problem, when the objective is to determine whether the Earth is in long term energy balance, or not.
“The hemisphere does not receive that. That is only the spatial average flux.”
Yes, the lit hemisphere receives 480 W/m^2 averaged over its surface.
“Many locations in the hemisphere are experiencing much less or more.”
Obviously.
“Averaged over 24 h, both hemispheres receive 240 W/m2.”
A subtle and devious switch from talking about a spatial average to a temporal one. Point deliberately missed. Typical Nate. Entire response is in the wrong place so as to get the last word on the thread. Once again, typical Nate.
“Neither averaging over space nor time is a problem, when the objective is to determine whether the Earth is in long term energy balance, or not.”
240 in, 240 out is “Flat Earth” physics, as explained.
Assigning a derogatory name ‘flat earth physics’ ain’t a scientific argument.
You guys fail to point out any consequence to the analysis of energy imbalance of averaging the energy received over a day.
And obviously have no problem averaging over a hemisphere as if it were flat!
The “scientific argument” was already made, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696932
Without addressing it, you automatically concede. Thanks.
“And obviously have no problem averaging over a hemisphere as if it were flat!“
I’m not averaging over a hemisphere “as if it were flat”. You can take into account all the different angles involved, the answer still comes out as 480 W/m^2.
“Of course, most average the incoming over time, making it 240 in and 240 out, because over time the whole Earths surface receives the sunlight.”
But, that no longer represents the correct physics.”
False assertion lacking evidence or logic.
The time averaged flux of 240 W/m2 is just as correct physics. And better suited to comparing with the emitted flux which is itself a time average.
These are just complaints of no consequence.
m not averaging over a hemisphere as if it were flat. You can take into account all the different angles involved, the answer still comes out as 480 W/m^2.”
Just as the time averaged global flux accounts for!
There is no flat earth involved, just averaging!
Nate, the Earth is (roughly) a sphere lit on one side by the Sun, slowly rotating. With 480 in, 240 out, you’re at least acknowledging that reality because you are not averaging the irradiance over surface area of the Earth that is not receiving that irradiance, in that moment.
With 240 in, 240 out, you’re averaging the irradiance over surface area of the Earth that is not receiving that irradiance, in that moment. The unlit hemisphere. That’s treating the Earth as though it were a flat surface, with all the land and oceans on the side continuously facing the Sun. There is no distinction between night and day. Just a continuous, reduced 240 W/m^2 input that doesn’t correlate to anything we experience in reality.
240 W/m^2 is the output. It doesn’t correlate with anything to do with the input.
“Thats treating the Earth as though it were a flat surface”
Not at all. The 240 W/m2 arises from considering all angles of incidence, which varies BECAUSE it is a sphere, as you yourself stated.
“240 W/m^2 is the output. It doesnt correlate with anything to do with the input.”
Of course it does! Even you can figure out that 480/2 is 240.
Much ado about a factor of 2.
Again, no consequence offered.
I can also point out that the measurements are never a single snapshot of the lit Earth. They are always an average of many measurements with different weather and clouds.
“The 240 W/m2 arises from considering all angles of incidence…”
…no “angles of incidence” on the unlit hemisphere, Nate. That’s the point. It’s unlit. No sunlight is incident upon it.
“Of course it does! Even you can figure out that 480/2 is 240.”
Yes, Nate. 480/2 is 240. Well done. I’m not sure your “of course it does!” follows logically from “480/2 is 240”, but there you go.
“Again, no consequence offered.”
The consequences of looking at the energy budget in real time could be that our entire understanding of it is completely transformed. How would we know until we try? The consequence of looking at the 480 input averaged temporally to 240 is that we are no longer looking at the physical reality of a round Earth, lit from one side by the Sun, turning slowly, in real time. Instead we’re looking at something that doesn’t exist.
“I can also point out that the measurements are never a single snapshot of the lit Earth. They are always an average of many measurements with different weather and clouds.”
Who’s looking for a single snapshot? We need continuous monitoring.
Huh, this is an argument of assertion about whether it is more proper to average over one hemisphere or two.
The point is being lost. Flux is not conserved and energy is. Voila.
Why this matters is anybody’s guess.
It’s not “argument by assertion” that only one hemisphere of the Earth is lit at any one moment. That’s the reality, so why pretend otherwise?
The difference is that night and day exists. Averaging temporally removes that. Why do people think it’s OK to remove reality from the physics?
“240 W/m^2 is the output. It doesn’t correlate with anything to do with the input.”
Correlation is the wrong concept.
The output must *equal* the input, unless one believes in magic.
Hence the name, energy balance model.
The energy (joules) balances either way, Little Willy. That’s not the issue, and never has been. Listen to barry:
“Flux is not conserved and energy is. Voila”
“The energy (joules) balances either way”
Yep, that is the the energy budget. It is J in and J out. That is what we need to determine the balance of over the long term, to compare with climate models.
Same as your home budget. $ in $ out. $out, goes on all month. While $in comes in one or two chunks at regular intervals. In the end the balance is all that matters.
Same for the Earth’s energy budget.
Your fallacy is that the day/night cycle is being ignored. Nobody is pretending that it doesn’t exist!
Sorry, you tried, but failed to invent an actual problem here.
You have failed to respond to the points I raised in my previous response to you, Nate. Coming along later to respond to something I’ve said to someone who has no idea of what is even being discussed won’t do it, I’m afraid. Until you respond, my arguments remain unchallenged.
“It’s not “argument by assertion” that only one hemisphere of the Earth is lit at any one moment.”
But it argument by assertion to say that the energy balance model must be calculated this way instead of averaging incoming radiation over the whole sphere.
The point is that flux isn’t conserved and energy is. That’s the basis for the ‘argument’. And Clint’s misunderstanding is that therefore you can’t use flux units to assess the energy balance of Earth. He is wrong about that, of course.
“You have failed to respond to the points”
False. When asked for a consequence you just repeat that some vague unknown thing is being missed.
But your premise, that day/night cycle is being ignored is false! Obviously the night is factored into the energy budget.
By now it should be clear that this argument is over.
Nate and barry: when you average the insolation over the entire planet, you are applying the insolation to a hemisphere of the planet that is not receiving it in that moment. Yes or no?
False. There is no ‘applying’ of sunlight to the dark side. This is simply a calculation of the average flux received, and thereby the average energy recieved per day by the Earth.
Doing such a calculation is NOT equivalent to pretending that there is no diurnal cycle.
Look up diurnal cycle and climate change and you will find many articles. But that is a different issue from EEI, which is the subject of this thread. And you already agreed that EEI is calculated correctly by a time average.
So this argument is over. Find a real issue.
Graham keeps trying to misunderstand a very basic problem. When he says that “480 does not equal 240” he forgets to mention that the energy balance model does not allow him to state that 480 equals 240.
A few more years on this and he’ll be able to mind his units properly.
Sorry Little Willy, but 480 W/m^2 received over the hemisphere DOES equal 240 W/m^2 emitted over the entire sphere, in terms of energy (joules). A few more years of basic mathematics and you’ll be approaching sub-normal intelligence.
Nate, the correct answer is “yes”. I’ll await a response from barry before continuing.
“480 W/m^2 received over the hemisphere DOES equal 240 W/m^2 emitted over the entire sphere”
Graham D. Warner concedes he has no real argument.
Good.
To help barry, the key part of my question was “in that moment”. In real time, the planet is continuously receiving sunlight over only the lit hemisphere, and emitting from its entire surface. So, of course, the very act of averaging the sunlight received over the entire sphere immediately distances the situation from that reality. Night and day is, naturally, scrubbed away entirely, averaged away over the time period. How can anyone suggest otherwise?
I don’t know, but nothing about this place surprises me, any more.
“So, of course, the very act of averaging the sunlight received over the entire sphere immediately distances the situation from that reality.”
Weird erroneous thinking.
Each location has a different time-dependent solar flux over a day. Integration over time gives the energy recieved.
It is perfectly logical to measure flux over 24 hours for each location, and average.
“It is perfectly logical to measure flux over 24 hours for each location, and average…”
…and in doing so, removing night and day from the equation and distancing ourselves from the reality that the Earth is slowly rotating, receiving sunlight on one hemisphere only whilst emitting from the whole sphere.
“and in doing so, removing night and day from the equation”
False. Night and day is accounted for in the average over time.
” and distancing ourselves from the reality that the Earth is slowly rotating”
Only you suffer from that delusion.
Suppose you have a list of numbers, with a range of values. You then replace every number with the average of the list. The total remains the same, but you have removed the range of values.
Averaging temporally removes “night” and “day”.
So look at the list.
The average serves a different purpose.
Your 480 is also an average.
You are stuck in a rut and can’t get out.
The 480 is a spatial average, not a temporal one. It involves looking at the problem in real time. Emphasis on the “real”. It acknowledges that the Earth is only receiving sunlight on the lit hemisphere at any one moment, whilst emitting from the whole sphere. It doesn’t remove “night” and “day”.
It’s closer to reality than the 240. That ought to be seen as a Good Thing.
Averaging insolation over the whole sphere is not denying the reality of a diurnal cycle any more than averaging insolation on the lit side of the sphere is denying the reality of angle of incidence.
Both averages set aside the fact of variance in flux at different locations to enable ease of computation. To say this ‘denies reality’ is an absurd objection to what is simply a mathematical construct.
Useful statistical averages are as normal to understanding things as tying your shoelaces.
If you can demonstrate any material difference to Earth’s Energy Budget analysis that arises from using one average and not the other, please explain, DREMT. Otherwise I don’t understand the point of your objection. The diurnal cycle is most definitely still reflected in the spherical average of insolation, or the value would not be half the insolation value for the lit side only. We’re dividing by two to account for twice the area. This shouldn’t be at all controversial.
If we were talking about the energy budget of night vs day, then your objection would have teeth. But Earth’s energy budget is typically calculated over years.
Finally, the intercepted solar energy is redistributed across the entire surface due to rotation, atmospheric and oceanic mixing and thermal conductivity. Averaging insolation over the entire surface better reflects the energy distribution over time.
barry, for the second time:
When you average the insolation over the entire planet, you are applying the insolation to a hemisphere of the planet that is not receiving it in that moment. Yes or no?
No screed. No essay. A response simply with the word “yes” or “no”, please.
And while we wait, your post is a rehash of the arguments made by Nate, which I have already responded to.
The only thing new was this:
“Finally, the intercepted solar energy is redistributed across the entire surface due to rotation, atmospheric and oceanic mixing and thermal conductivity. Averaging insolation over the entire surface better reflects the energy distribution over time.”
Which is patently false. Tracking the system in real time would obviously “better reflect the energy distribution over time”. Averaging insolation over the entire surface is the complete opposite of that. Not only is it not “in real time”, it actually smears away the differences of “night” and “day”. Tracking in real time, which is necessitated by the 480 in, 240 out, would show the “intercepted solar energy” being “redistributed across the entire surface due to rotation, atmospheric and oceanic mixing and thermal conductivity” as it actually happened. How could that not “better reflect the energy distribution over time”!?
“When you average the insolation over the entire planet, you are applying the insolation to a hemisphere of the planet that is not receiving it in that moment.”
Sure. If you are taking a snapshot at an instant in time, that’s what you’re doing.
But Earth’s Energy Budget isn’t calculated from a snapshot, and so this notion doesn’t apply.
“How could that not ‘better reflect the energy distribution over time’!?”
Great! Let’s make the time one year.
What is the average insolation in W/m2 of the entire surface of the Earth in one year?
Nobody is talking about a “snapshot”, barry. It’s continuous monitoring in real time vs. taking the measurements over time and then averaging them, thus removing “night” and “day” from the equation.
“What is the average insolation in W/m2 of the entire surface of the Earth in one year?”
240 W/m^2. But you’ve completely missed the point, because this value doesn’t tell you anything about any of the things you brought up, e.g:
“intercepted solar energy…redistributed across the entire surface due to rotation, atmospheric and oceanic mixing and thermal conductivity.”
Monitor it in real time for a year. Then you would see such redistribution occurring as it actually happens, and learn something about it. Instead of just averaging over the time period to get a value which essentially tells you nothing and doesn’t even correspond to the physical reality of a planet that is slowly rotating whilst one hemisphere is constantly illuminated.
But you don’t need to see how solar energy is distributed via those functions if you’re determining a global energy budget just from Ein/Eout. Nor did I say it was necessary to do so. I just said that the smearing of solar energy over the globe over time is better reflected by the average insolation over the whole sphere.
I still don’t know what your actual objection is. If we were talking about calculating flux differences between day and night, you’d have a point.
Your last comment suggests that ignoring the diurnal cycle ignores the fine details. But you haven’t said why that matters for the purpose of calculating Earth’s energy Budget, which is an average over multiple years.
As you yourself said, average insolation for a year is 240 W/m2. So it seems you have an issue with something that no one is talking about. We’re talking about EEI, aren’t we?
“But you don’t need to see how solar energy is distributed via those functions if you’re determining a global energy budget just from Ein/Eout. Nor did I say it was necessary to do so. I just said that the smearing of solar energy over the globe over time is better reflected by the average insolation over the whole sphere…”
…and I explained why you were wrong. If you’re now saying the only new point you brought up was something of a red herring, then fine.
My point is that 480 in 240 out is far closer to reality than 240 in 240 out.
“No screed. No essay. A response simply with the word yes or no, please.”
But only ‘Yes’ accepted, even though it makes no sense!
He has made clear that he only wants to hear agreement with his weird nonsensical notions, Barry.
He has no intention of listening to counterarguments of others.
This was the question:
When you average the insolation over the entire planet, you are applying the insolation to a hemisphere of the planet that is not receiving it in that moment. Yes or no?
Since at any moment the planet is only receiving insolation over the one hemisphere, of course the answer is “yes”.
This question wasn’t even meant to be controversial. It was going to progress to other questions, but these guys can’t even bring themselves to give a simple, honest answer to the first one!
Barry,
You have raised many valid points such as
”
Averaging insolation over the whole sphere is not denying the reality of a diurnal cycle any more than averaging insolation on the lit side of the sphere is denying the reality of angle of incidence.”
“it seems you have an issue with something that no one is talking about. Were talking about EEI, arent we?”
“But you havent said why that matters for the purpose of calculating Earths energy Budget, which is an average over multiple years.”
But he simply ignores them. Standard DREMT.
“When you average the insolation over the entire planet, you are applying the insolation to a hemisphere of the planet that is not receiving it in that moment. Yes or no?”
Wrong. It is quite simple.
The energy input to Earth does not occur in one moment.
Averaging over 24 hours matches the reality that all sides recieve sunlight over THAT period of time.
In order to determine the solar energy input to the whole Earth, one needs to account for the solar input to the whole Earth over a day.
This should not be controversial
“But he simply ignores them. Standard DREMT.”
Nate continues to try and make it personal. I ignored nothing, you had already raised all of those points and I had already responded. I don’t see the point in responding again, just because barry hasn’t bothered to read my responses to you.
“Wrong.”
False.
“It is quite simple.”
Indeed.
“The energy input to Earth does not occur in one moment.”
Nobody is saying it is. What is being said is that the energy input to Earth occurs in real time, to only one hemisphere, whilst it rotates.
“Averaging over 24 hours matches the reality that all sides recieve sunlight over THAT period of time.”
Over 24 hours, the reality is that the Earth is continuously receiving input to only one hemisphere, whilst it completes one full rotation.
“In order to determine the solar energy input to the whole Earth, one needs to account for the solar input to the whole Earth over a day…”
If you average over the day (or longer) you immediately remove diurnal variation. Real time wins. I believe someone here has mentioned that reality always wins.
You also never responded to these perfectly valid points:
“Averaging insolation over the whole sphere is not denying the reality of a diurnal cycle any more than averaging insolation on the lit side of the sphere is denying the reality of angle of incidence.
Both averages set aside the fact of variance in flux at different locations to enable ease of computation. To say this denies reality is an absurd objection to what is simply a mathematical construct.
Useful statistical averages are as normal to understanding things as tying your shoelaces.”
And in particular, you did not respond to this question:
“If you can demonstrate any material difference to Earths Energy Budget analysis that arises from using one average and not the other, please explain, DREMT.”
Key words “material difference” and “Energy Budget”. Address them specifically.
If you cannot answer this question, then we will all understand that the argument is over.
Nate dodges a response to my obliteration of his points by demanding I repeat myself. Classy.
OK, if you want, I will repeat myself.
“Averaging insolation over the whole sphere is not denying the reality of a diurnal cycle any more than averaging insolation on the lit side of the sphere is denying the reality of angle of incidence.”
Sure. Averaging insolation on the lit side of the sphere does indeed remove the variation in angle of incidence same as averaging insolation over the whole sphere does indeed remove the diurnal variation. An ideal dynamic energy budget would factor in the angles of incidence too. I’m just simplifying because 480 in, 240 out vs. 240 in, 240 out is easier to understand as a concept.
“If you can demonstrate any material difference to Earths Energy Budget analysis that arises from using one average and not the other, please explain, DREMT.”
I can’t think of a more profound difference to the energy budget than replacing static averages with dynamic, real time figures. Can you? As to what might arise from such a change, who can say, until it’s tried? As I already said.
Nice try, but a non-answer and ignorant of what EEI is. The EEI is obtained by looking at the energy input to the whole Earth and energy output from the whole Earth. Because it is so variable over location, weather and time, it can only be measured by averaging over months or years.
So your suggestion cannot possibly improve analysis of EEI.
Nor is it possible to measure, since satellites cannot measure a snapshot of one hemisphere. Their measurements of ASR and OLR are accumulated over time from small regions which they pass over, eventually giving global coverage.
Nice try, Nate, but where have I once mentioned the energy imbalance? How can I have shown ignorance of the imbalance when I’ve not even been talking about it?
My point is that 480 in, 240 out is far closer to reality than 240 in, 240 out, to the extent that the latter is akin to “Flat Earth” physics.
Lame. Again only you think averaging changes the physics.
“where have I once mentioned energy imbalance”
The discussion started with
“The Totally Real and Very Serious Science of Energy Imbalance”
Your first posts mentions
‘energy balances but not flux’
FYI several of us pointed out that the daily energy input or output to Earth which is in J/Earth-surface-area/day can be expressed as J/m2/s with no change in physics.
Just different units!
Nate, it’s not my fault if you can’t follow a discussion.
Arkady wrote a post mocking Clint R’s original post about EEI, but in it he seems to be expressing snark at the idea that flux values for input and output don’t need to balance. As if he found that idea ridiculous. So, I gave an example of the Earth, where the flux values don’t need to balance, to set him straight. Then I thought I would add my own point about the 240 in and 240 out being much further from the reality than the 480 in, 240 out.
That has been my point all along. I have not been talking about the energy imbalance at any point, including in my first post. I started to incorporate the energy budget into my comments because you two seemed to want to talk about it. But, not the energy imbalance specifically.
To help Graham D. Warner, two hints:
A watt is a joule per second.
A sphere is four times its shadow.
“I have not been talking about the energy imbalance at any point, including in my first”
Then you took a left turn. Both Barry and I understood the topic to be how tp calculate EEI.
So sounds like you have no problem calculating EEI through a temporal average.
But you still try to label it ‘flat earth physics’.
Why? Just tr.olling climate science?
Yeah.
Nate, you not following the discussion is your responsibility, not mine.
I’ve made my thoughts on EEI clear in other discussions, but it’s not what this one is about…at least, not for me.
480 in, 240 out is far closer to physical reality than 240 in, 240 out. Either discuss that, or stop responding to me.
“An ideal dynamic energy budget would factor in…”
But we’re not talking about a “dynamic” energy budget that estimates how heat is distributed within the system. We’re talking about EEI, and for that you only need IncomingSolarRadiation – (ReflectedSolarRadiation + OLR).
“I can’t think of a more profound difference to the energy budget than replacing static averages with dynamic, real time figures.”
But you can’t explain why this method would be preferable to a TOA radiative energy balance in order to derive EEI over time, or why averaging insolation over the whole surface would make any material difference to EEI.
“As to what might arise from such a change, who can say, until it’s tried?”
You might be interested to learn that there is plenty of research on energy distribution that includes a range of data from oceans, atmosphere, precipitation and other modes of heat transport. For example:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml
And if you bother to click on the link you will see a familiar energy budget diagram that includes many more fluxes than the three required to assess changes in the Earth’s energy balance relative to ASR.
‘Skeptics’ tend to scoff at these energy budget models, so who knows whether you’ll appreciate what has been achieved with “dynamic, real time figures.”
“So, I gave an example of the Earth, where the flux values don’t need to balance, to set him straight.”
The total flux at TOA does need to balance, just as total energy needs to balance (or something must change).
240 W/m2 X 2A = 480 W/m2 X 1A **
The fluxes do balance, even though the values next to the units are different. Flux is not a conserved quantity, but conservation of energy still applies.
IRL, of course, there is an imbalance that has caused global warming over the long term. This imbalance can be expressed in terms of flux or total energy, as we’ve seen above.
** 480 W/m2 insolation TOA yields 120 W/m2 averaged over a sphere. I’ve been assuming that 480 W/m2 accounted already for angle of incidence and represents the total average flux on half the sphere. In this regard, it is the same calc as for our plate in space scenario of yore.
barry, you have replied extensively to comments I have written to Nate, without apparently reading them. Did you not notice the whole discussion I just had with him where I made it perfectly clear that I am not talking about EEI, the Earth’s Energy Imbalance, and haven’t been throughout?
When I say “flux values do not need to balance” for the Earth I’m not referring to minor differences relating to an energy imbalance, I’m talking about the difference between the number 480 and the number 240. 480 does not equal 240, but in terms of the energy involved (joules), it balances, because the surface area over which the 480 W/m^2 is received is half that of the area over which the 240 W/m^2 leaves.
You need to read through all my comments from the beginning barry, and try to pay more attention to what I’m actually saying, rather than what your prejudices lead you to believe I’m saying.
Yes, we are talking about EEI and you are not. I pointed that out a while ago.
I also pointed out that flux is not a conserved property well before you did, and couldn’t understand why you kept banging on about it.
“When I say ‘flux values do not need to balance’ for the Earth I’m not referring to minor differences relating to an energy imbalance, I’m talking about the difference between the number 480 and the number 240.”
I know. But total flux into and out of a system is a direct expression of the 1st law and does need to balance (or something must change – eg. heat content). This is nearer to the point of contention of the conversation you dropped in on.
Of course, you don’t have to get involved in that part of the conversation, but likewise we don’t have to abandon it just because you have a particular interest.
As far as I understand the contention, Nate (or someone) pointed out the TOA flux imbalance, Clint said flux isn’t conserved therefore can’t be used to assess Earth’s energy imbalance, Nate argued that at TOA the area is the same so you can treat flux as Ein/Eout, Ark lampooned Clint’s post, and you chimed in supporting the notion that flux isn’t a conserved property by demonstrating the difference between actual insolation on the sunlit side and the total area outgoing.
Clint is right about flux not being conserved, and Nate is right that TOA flux works perfectly well as an analogue to total Ein / Eout, and therefore can be used to assess EEI.
Flux is not conserved because it is a derivative of energy, not total energy, and local flux can be variable within the total energy environment.
From this premise Clint asserts that flux can’t be used to assess EEI, but he is wrong. In fact, we actually require the element of time to determine what the earth energy imbalance is from one period to another. Classical thermodynamics is not sufficient to give us the answers we seek, so we turn to statistical thermodynamics in the form of radiative transfer.
Total flux, or the sum of fluxes at TOA is a direct expression of the 1st Law, and can indeed be successfully used to estimate Earth’s energy imbalance (which has been broadly corroborated using other data, such as ocean heat content, surface and atmospheric temperature, glaciers and sea ice changes, sea level, and other in-system changes that reflect or can be impacted by EEI).
barry, if you can’t be bothered to read through the discussions you jump in on, why are we even bothering?
480 W/m^2 in, 240 W/m^2 out is scenario one. In this scenario, everything is looked at in real time. The insolation falls only on the lit hemisphere, moment by moment, just as in reality. Moment by moment, the outgoing flux is leaving from the entire sphere. This is going on, constantly, in real time, as the Earth slowly rotates. The 480 and 240 values are “total flux”, whatever you mean by that. Energy (joules) balances.
240 W/m^2 in, 240 W/m^2 out is scenario two. In this scenario, nothing is happening in real time. The insolation is being averaged over time as well as space, so that it is reduced even further than 480 W/m^2, to 240 W/m^2. We are thus further from reality than in scenario one. The 240 and 240 values are “total flux”, whatever you mean by that. Flux values (W/m^2) and energy (joules) balances.
My point has been, always was, and always will be that scenario one is closer to a representation of reality than scenario two.
OK?
FYI for the whole Earth the global average flux in is ~ 240W/m2, in real time.
So that flux ~ balances with the same output flux.
Incorrect, Nate. In real time, the input is 480 W/m^2, over only the lit hemisphere. You don’t average irradiance over surface area of the object that is not receiving that irradiance. In real time, half of the Earth’s surface area is not irradiated.
480 W/m2 is not THE flux hitting Earth. It is simply the average flux hitting a selected subset of the Earth.
“You dont average irradiance over surface area of the object that is not receiving that irradiance.”
Sure you can. There is no such rule.
Every part of the Earth is receiving a different flux at one time. You arbitrarly choose to look only at the a selected hemisphere.
But to rationally compare with the output from the whole Earth it makes perfect sense to measure the input to the whole Earth.
So in the plates scenario, you would have been happy for me to say the blue plate receives 200 W/m^2 from the Sun, and emits 200 W/m^2?
OK, then.
If that was the specified whole surface average, sure.
“Every part of the Earth is receiving a different flux at one time. You arbitrarly choose to look only at the a selected hemisphere.
But to rationally compare with the output from the whole Earth it makes perfect sense to measure the input to the whole Earth.”
Is it really arbitrary, in real time, to look at the hemisphere which is actually receiving the energy?
Does it really make “perfect sense”, to “measure the input to the whole Earth” in real time when, moment by moment, only the lit hemisphere is receiving the input?
Or are you just getting desperate?
Regardless, the monitoring of fluxes everywhere on Earth over time is the goal, to determine the net gain or loss and compare with models.
Find a real issue.
How about if I raise an issue, and you don’t find it worthy of discussion, you simply don’t respond to me – instead of arguing about it for days on end?
Yep, no point in continuing. Gbye.
To barry (if he’s reading)…
…there might not be any written rule that irradiance should only apply to the surface area irradiated, but there is basic logic and common sense. If I shone a little spotlight on my hand, and calculated the irradiance, would I include the surface area of the other side of my hand, in the shade of the light!?
Of course not.
For some reason, climate science wants to do that for the Earth though, no matter what. Even if you mention “real time”. They still want that irradiance value as low as possible.
“there might not be any written rule”
Bwa ha ha!
I just need to stop responding to DREMT, else this argument will never stop.
But the problem is DREMT. You just can’t stop yourself from responding to ME, again, and again, after we end the discussion.
Obviously you know you cannot win on the plain facts, so you play your little childish games–pretending its a response to Barry.
An no it is not logical for determining if a body is in equilibrium to ignore one side of the body!
I wasn’t pretending to respond to barry, Nate, I was writing a comment for his benefit. I’d rather talk to him than you, because he doesn’t seem to hate me so much.
I would add (to him) that if I really wanted to I could say the Earth receives 960 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2, and still the energy balances. I only go for 480 W/m^2 averaged over the lit hemisphere as a compromise.
But, it’s unlikely you guys will ever meet me halfway on anything.
“For some reason, climate science wants to do that for the Earth though, no matter what. Even if you mention ‘real time’. They still want that irradiance value as low as possible.”
I thought you understood that it’s perfectly reasonable when determining EEI over time to integrate insolation over the entire sphere.
I’m afraid that’s true regardless of whatever fixation you have with realtime/instantaneous radiative dynamics.
“My point has been, always was, and always will be that scenario one is closer to a representation of reality than scenario two.”
Fine. And we already agree that flux isn’t conserved, so the conversation should be over.
But then you say something strange, like “They still want that irradiance value as low as possible,” implying some capriciousness or bias or fudging, and I realize that you don’t really understand that integrating the insolation for ease of computation is a valid way to proceed for EEI.
And then you say you’re not interested in EEI, just ‘reality.’
Ok, the diurnal cycle is real.
Are we resolved, then?
“I thought you understood that it’s perfectly reasonable when determining EEI over time to integrate insolation over the entire sphere.”
As Entropic Man pointed out, for EEI there’s actually no need. Just look at the total energy values in joules, for whatever time period you choose. But, be aware of the limitations in the recording of such values. It’s been a while since I looked into it, but if I recall correctly, CERES cannot actually directly measure the imbalance accurately. It can, more accurately, track changes in the imbalance.
“I’m afraid that’s true regardless of whatever fixation you have with realtime/instantaneous radiative dynamics.”
I’m afraid I’m fixated on reality, and in moving human understanding as close to it as possible.
“Fine. And we already agree that flux isn’t conserved, so the conversation should be over.”
If you’re happy to agree that scenario one is closer to reality than scenario two, then yes, the conversation can be over. I think we could greatly improve our understanding of weather and climate by tracking the system in real time a la scenario one, using more realistic values for solar input at various locations. I don’t think it’s a crime to suggest a dynamic, real-time energy budget, even if it might be nigh-on impossible (at the moment) to implement it.
"I don't think it's a crime to suggest a dynamic, real-time energy budget, even if it might be nigh-on impossible (at the moment) to implement it."
It's not a crime, it's just deaf to what the conversation was about and thus became argumentative rather than expository.
Work has already been and is being done assembling data from heat reservoirs to provide more detailed energy budgets, as exemplified in the link I provided above. It will be a very long time before we have monitoring systems capable of real-time (eg, hour by hour) tracking of energy flows through the Earth's climate system.
There are, in fact, representations of real-time (30-minute to 6-hour resolution) energy flows in the climate system, which include the diurnal cycle and seasonal change. They are called climate models. I don't think they are a crime, either, but they seem to excite controversy.
barry, I’m not the one who’s been deaf to what the conversation is about. I explained it to Nate, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697172
but this is the part of Arkady’s comment I was specifically responding to:
“Flux, you see, has units of “power per area” or “energy per time per area.” And since power isn’t a conserved quantity (because reasons), clearly, “power per area” isn’t conserved either! So, guess what? Flux-in and flux-out don’t need to balance – and in fact, they never do. Take, for example, a magical cone floating in space with a base area of 1 and a top area of 5. If it receives 900 W/m^2 at the base, it will radiate exactly 180 W/m^2 from the top. You see? 900 does NOT equal 180, so clearly, flux-in does NOT equal flux-out. Case closed. Physics is canceled.“
Seems to me like he is making fun of Clint R for arguing that flux isn’t conserved. So, I chimed in to set him straight. It really isn’t conserved, and the Earth can be a great example of that. Then I added the point I wanted to make…but, you and Nate are blinded by your pre-conceived ideas (prejudices was the word I used earlier) that I must be here to cause trouble, I must be here to support every word Clint says, I must be here to be argumentative, I must be here to challenge mainstream climate science. But, it is possible for me to just make a simple point. You and Nate are not obliged to respond to me…but if you choose to, make sure you respond to what I am saying, not what you choose to think I must be saying.
Just because you’ve been talking about EEI doesn’t mean I’m obliged to, either. Arkady’s post contained more than just that, and I’m free to pick and choose which bits to respond to…and, before you say, “we’re free to carry on talking about EEI”…sure you are, but you’re not talking to each other, are you? You’re both just responding to me, challenging me, arguing against every word I say because “DREMT must be wrong”.
Coming back here has been a great reminder that I made a good decision to leave, in the first place. What a waste of time! The things you guys are prepared to argue…like Nate saying that even in real time, the input flux is still 240 W/m^2…how can anyone say that with a straight face!? You queried why I made that comment about climate science seemingly wanting to always keep the irradiance figure as low as possible…that’s just my experience posting here! The amount of pushback I’ve received for suggesting 480 in and 240 out over the years has been nothing short of staggering. Sure, this place might not be representative of “climate science” but some of you guys sure like to pretend you stand for it.
Anyway, that’s my rant for the day.
Ark was mocking Clint for arguing that because the flux values aren’t the same, that therefore fluxes can’t be used to obtain an energy balance.
Had you confined yourself to personally preferring the radiative balance of the diurnal cycle, or pointing out that flux is not a conserved quantity, then you would have attracted less interest.
But you implied more than just that with “Flat Earth physics,” and other value judgements, like inferring something nefarious with “finding the lowest value.”
That’s on you, not on anyone else. You’re not neutrally explaining physics.
I’ve read back through the comments and what I see is your argumentativeness, not illumination. Nate was quite right to point out that flux is already integrated over one hemisphere, so what’s the difference with integrating it over two hemispheres?
Your answer – the ‘reality’ of the diurnal cycle is missing, and the implication is that this is somehow important, but you never explained. Apparently you dream of someone one day coming up with detailed, real-time energy budgets. But come on, you didn’t enter this conversation with that in mind, nor is that something you actually care about. That was a rationalisation that formed under repeated replies.
Contrary to your very first comment on this matter, there is a 1st Law relationship between TOTAL flux in and out and TOA. Nit-picking on this has relied on subdividing area. Here you were arguing the original point – which is already agreed – that flux isn’t a conserved quantity. Alternatively, as you’ve also agreed, the 480/240 flux does balance when accounting for area.
None of us have learned anything new in this conversation.
DREMT, I also benefit from taking time away from this forum – a bunch of grum.py old men muttering and yelling at each other, for the most part.
You haven’t learned anything new because you’re not really listening, barry.
Arkady wasn’t just mocking Clint R for what you say. Read what I quoted. He seemed unaware that flux is not conserved. It reads like he is mocking Clint R for suggesting that flux is not conserved.
The difference between averaging over one hemisphere and two is so enormous, so fundamental, that it’s extraordinary you would be so flippant about it. Average over one, it’s just a spatial average. Average over both, it’s a spatial and temporal average. You’re no longer in real time. You have moved further from reality. I already explained that ideally you would not average spatially, either. It’s just to keep the argument simple.
You keep agreeing that flux is not conserved, but then keep bringing up some nebulous concept you define as “total flux”, where apparently it seems like flux very much is conserved! You won’t explain yourself properly on this though, you keep it to vague statements such as “when accounting for area”. Once again, barry, 480 and 240 are “total flux”. There is no further “accounting for area” needed. And your comment about 480 in yielding 120 out was very much wrong!
I did enter the conversation with a dynamic energy budget in mind, and it is something I care about, barry. Stop judging me with your preconceived ideas.
“Average over one, it’s just a spatial average. Average over both, it’s a spatial and temporal average.”
A Watt is a joule every second. Every single value we’ve mentioned is a spatial and temporal average, whether it’s over one hemisphere or two.
And your criticism that averaging over the entire area is less like reality is entirely irrelevant for the purposes we are talking about. You’re saying stuff about ‘reality’, when nothing we have spoken about is ‘real’. All of it is statistics and averaging.
Regarding total flux balancing:
Our previous argument about plates is entirely rooted in the 1st law. Where was your argument about fluxes not needing to balance then? No, you understood that even when using units deriving time and space, there still needed to be an energy balance. We argued for months with that as our agreed premise, trying to demonstrate to each other that our concepts and math provided that thermal equilibrium.
You used to understand that the sum of fluxes had to be zero (or the system changed temperature). What happened since then?
See, barry? You haven’t learned a thing.
Scenario one does not involve a temporal average. It’s in real time! It’s as far from a temporal average as it’s possible to be. It only involves a spatial average.
Scenario two involves taking the real time insolation values and averaging them over the course of (at least) twenty-four hours. It involves a spatial and temporal average.
And, nothing has changed. Please don’t try to pretend I am denying conservation of energy. The blue plate receives 400 W/m^2 and emits 200 W/m^2. Last I checked, 400 does not equal 200. But, energy balances, due to the surface area receiving vs the surface area emitting. Flux is not conserved, energy is. It’s the same situation, with one crucial difference – the BP is not a slowly rotating sphere. With emphasis on the rotating part of that. The rotating part, with the Earth, means that we have this difference between how we can look at the energy flows. We can have scenario one, or scenario two.
In my work I analyze data that is measured as a function of time or space or other variables. Often it is useful to average over time or the other variables to reduce noise to help ‘see’ the signal of interest
What I am trying to say is temporal averaging is completely normal in science. Because it’s useful.
It appears that DREMT is unable to accept that science has valid reasons for doing such things, weirdly insisting that it is ‘moving further from reality’, which is vague, and makes absolutely no sense to scientists or engineers.
Nate is back again, trying to pretend I’m making some criticism of the very concept of averaging! The things they say just get so silly…
“Im making some criticism of the very concept of averaging!”
Yes you have making a value judgement that temporal averaging is ‘further from reality’ and therefore inferior in some vague way.
The ‘Flat Earth’ label came from Joe Postma. It fell flat with Roy Spencer and other skeptics.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/
“Yes you have making a value judgement that temporal averaging is ‘further from reality’ and therefore inferior in some vague way…”
…no. It’s painfully simple. There are two different ways of looking at insolation to a rotating planetary body, and one way is closer to the reality of the situation than the other.
That’s it.
Which is your feeling. And why does that qualify as science?
Nate: “…you have making a value judgement that temporal averaging is ‘further from reality’ and therefore inferior in some vague way”
DREMT: “no…”
You’re not judging that averaging over the whole sphere is inferior in some way. Ok. This is now clarified.
“It’s painfully simple. There are two different ways of looking at insolation to a rotating planetary body, and one way is closer to the reality of the situation than the other.
That’s it.”
Ok. The beginning and end of your point is that observing the radiative environment of the diurnal cycle is closer to reality. You are not trying to argue anything more than that. Understood.
Good. As this is irrelevant to what was being discussed (the EEI, flux balance), we can wrap this up now.
No Nate, not a feeling. It’s a fact, and I’ve successfully explained why, to anyone open-minded enough to listen.
barry, averaging the insolation over the entire sphere is scenario two, and it is indeed inferior to scenario one, because two is obviously further from a representation of reality than one. As you agreed, earlier, with your “fine” comment. My comment of “no” to Nate is to make him understand that my comments are not a criticism of the concept of temporal averaging, generally, as he was trying to pretend.
If you don’t think my point had anything to do with Arkady’s comment then you haven’t been paying attention, again. He mocked the idea that flux isn’t conserved, and deserved to be picked up on that. None of you lot were going to do it.
DREMT, you’re just repeating things I’ve already said, both before you did, before Ark got sarcastic, and then in this comment thread in comments you directly replied to. You’ve advised me to read your comments. Please take your own advice.
“If you don’t think my point had anything to do with Arkadys comment then you haven’t been paying attention, again. He mocked the idea that flux isn’t conserved, and deserved to be picked up on that. None of you lot were going to do it.”
Ahem!
barry: “The issue is a misunderstanding that because certain quantities are not conserved (area/time), that equations with these units cant be used for energy balance analysis..”
barry: “The point is being lost. Flux is not conserved and energy is. Voila.”
You even quoted me saying that last line!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697095
If your issues were only that flux is not conserved and the radiative balance that represents incoming radiation on one hemisphere is closer to reality, then this conversation should have been over ages ago.
But you keep making up issues, like applying the radiative environment of the diurnal cycle is ‘better’. But it is not better just because it is a closer representation of reality. This is like saying I need to make front and centre the difference between a CEO’s and a secretary’s wages in order to determine the cost in total wages to my business.
You need to stipulate a purpose to say whether one method is preferable to another, and rejecting averaging because it is less ‘realistic’ is a callow argument. As I said way upthread, using averaging is as common as tying your shoelaces. No one is impressed with the invocation that doing less of it is better just because it gets closer (but still far from) granular reality. Without stipulating a purpose for averaging or not, this is empty rhetoric.
I need a new batter for my baseball team. There’s a guy hits 0.300 average. But my pal DREMT pointed out that he was struck out twice in his last game. That’s the reality. Should I base my decision on the reality or the average, DREMT? Which statistic gives me the best information?
You were never going to reply to Arkady’s comment to set him straight about flux not being conserved, barry. I’m aware of what you said elsewhere, but the fact is you guys rarely deliver corrections directly to each other. Else you would be arguing with Nate, in this thread, instead of just me, since you’ve already agreed that scenario one is a better representation of reality than scenario two. Nate doesn’t think so. You disagree, but you won’t argue with him about it. You’ve not directed a single comment to him in this entire thread. It’s all just, “argue with DREMT, argue with DREMT, everybody argue with DREMT, DREMT must be wrong, multiple people need to be involved in a week long back and forth for whatever comment he makes, no matter how obviously correct he is”.
The reality we’re trying to represent is a slowly rotating planet, in space, continually illuminated over one hemisphere by the Sun, whilst it spins.
In scenario one, we average the insolation over only the lit hemisphere, in real time, acknowledging that at every moment the planet is emitting from the entire sphere.
In scenario two, we average the insolation over the entire sphere. We can only do that by moving away from real time, and further from the reality we’re trying to represent.
1) One is closer to realiity than two.
2) It doesn’t even matter what we apply this to. I tried to point out that an energy budget with dynamic real time figures could lead to far greater understanding of weather and climate than our existing budget with its static averages…and I’m not sure how that can possibly be disputed (certainly it hasn’t successfully been disputed here). But, it’s not even necessary to understand that. It doesn’t matter what the consequences are of choosing one over two, one is closer to the reality we are trying to model, understand, approximate, whatever the right word is. So, it has to be preferable. Right?
3) So, why does climate science insist so much that the incoming flux to the Earth is 240 W/m^2!? It doesn’t even help with EEI, because as Entropic Man pointed out, you can just look at the total input and output in joules. So, can somebody please explain to me what is climate science’s obsession with 240 W/m^2 as the input? What purpose does it serve? In what way does it illuminate…anything!?
Yes (https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696929), I was mocking Clint R for what he wrote here https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696921 .
Cheese and rice!
Nate: you have making a value judgement that temporal averaging is further from reality and therefore inferior in some vague way
DREMT: no
Youre not judging that averaging over the whole sphere is inferior in some way. Ok. This is now clarified.”
Pfft! When DREMT says No, this is patently FALSE.
From the start, with ‘it is Flat Earth physics’.
IOW wrong physics!
That’s not a value judgement, bwa ha ha!
Then it morphed into, ‘its better for understanding the diurnal cycle.’
And it has oscillated ever since.
After the ‘No’ above, he wasted little time before contradicting himself:
“barry, averaging the insolation over the entire sphere is scenario two, and it is indeed inferior to scenario one”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697325
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696972
Your link does not refute mine. It does not even address it. Nor was I even posting that link to respond to you, Arkady. It was to gently steer Nate away from his false accusations and misrepresentations, and back onto the topic at hand.
Then, what’s your beef with me? Why do you keep using my name?
You seemed unaware that flux is not conserved. I set you straight.
Ha Ha Ha!
Of course flux is not conserved. Only energy, mass and momentum are conserved. So?
“Flux, you see, has units of “power per area” or “energy per time per area.” And since power isn’t a conserved quantity (because reasons), clearly, “power per area” isn’t conserved either! So, guess what? Flux-in and flux-out don’t need to balance – and in fact, they never do. Take, for example, a magical cone floating in space with a base area of 1 and a top area of 5. If it receives 900 W/m^2 at the base, it will radiate exactly 180 W/m^2 from the top. You see? 900 does NOT equal 180, so clearly, flux-in does NOT equal flux-out. Case closed. Physics is canceled.“
Sure seems like you were unaware that flux isn’t conserved. Reads like you are mocking Clint R for suggesting just that.
Obviously a very good parody, then.
Unfortunately, in that paragraph, you were just making a fool of yourself, and not Clint R.
So, you just wanted to insult me then.
No, just correct you. Mission accomplished.
Why don’t you start a new thread and post your “correction” instead of hiding all the way back here?
Let’s have a proper discussion if your so inclined.
The correction has already been made, so it would not make any sense to start a new thread.
“No Nate, not a feeling. Its a fact, and Ive successfully explained why, to anyone open-minded enough to listen.”
The success would be judged by the convincing, which is lacking. And both Barry have explained several times that temporal averaging is simply a useful method of data analysis. It does not change reality, misrepresent reality, nor flatten the Earth.
But you just won’t listen.
Nate, you can respond to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697325
or concede.
Up to you.
“So, can somebody please explain to me what is climate sciences obsession with 240 W/m^2 as the input? What purpose does it serve”
This has been explained to you a dozen times. Obviously you didn’t pay attention.
240 W/m2 is the average global flux received by the Earth.
It can easily be converted into Joules input to the Earth in a day. Note that J/Earth-area/day is also a flux unit!
But the former units are more recognizable and useful for comparison to average flux output OLR.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
I’ve addressed these comments several times. You are just repeating yourself.
“…comparison to average flux output OLR”
For what purpose? Monitoring EEI?
Already dealt with by Entropic Man. Just look at the total amount of joules.
So, again…why bother with this 240 W/m^2?
“So, againwhy bother with this 240 W/m^2”
Not a bother at all. It is a standard unit in radiative heat transfer.
No, I didn’t mean “why bother with W/m^2?”
What I meant was, there’s no need to use 240 W/m^2 as the input just to monitor EEI. Since with EEI you can just look at the total number of joules in and out over your chosen period. No need to worry about area if you’re using the same area for the input as the output.
Which means the question still remains, why does climate science insist on using 240 W/m^2 for the insolation? What purpose does it actually serve?
“What I meant was, theres no need to use 240 W/m^2 as the input just to monitor EEI.”
Same answer, nothing wrong with using these units, which BTW, are also the units of the direct satellite measurements.
“No need to worry about area if youre using the same area for the input as the output.”
Good point, as long as the flux measurements are nearly the whole Earth, they can be simply averaged.
Now explain to Clint
DREMT,
When writing my last comment I typed out:
“Please God don’t prove my apprehension correct that you will make the next ‘issue’ that I didn’t address Ark directly.”
I deleted it before posting because I didn’t want to be too antagonistic.
But I was right. You elected to make this about personalities rather than the point. You actually think that me not directing comments on the subject to Ark is a worthy criticism. You keep making an issue of non-issues.
I didn’t misinterpret Ark’s comments. You did.
You are welcome to read upthread where Nate and I had a disagreement of sorts:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696960
And drop the accusations of closing ranks.
“one is closer to the reality we are trying to model, understand, approximate, whatever the right word is. So, it has to be preferable. Right?”
Wrong. My 0.300 batter struck out twice last game. This is reality. Are you honestly going to tell me that I should ignore the average and make a decision based on the last result? Or that I should reject this excellent batter because he occasionally strikes out? Granular reality has less useful information than the average here.
For the purpose of investigating an EEI, the diurnal cycle is not a useful or informative complication to include in the assessment.
“So, can somebody please explain to me what is climate science’s obsession with 240 W/m^2 as the input? What purpose does it serve? In what way does it illuminate… anything!?”
Working in joules only gives you a static im/balance.
Know what’s real? Time. Classic thermo isn’t interested in time rates (this was part of the argument I had with Nate). Flux gives more information than joules.
Know what else is real? Energy flows are continuous. Flux expresses this, not joules.
Working in w/m2 also addresses variation within the climate system – this was part of your argument about flux not being conserved.
Working in W/m2 we can assess the different energy flow rates over that cone in space Clint mentioned. Joules is much less helpful when exploring that geometry.
You can certainly use joules for EEI, but you have to specify a particular time – so you have to subdivide temporally anyway.
In short, flux is far more malleable and useful to inquiry.
Ark knows that flux is not conserved. You misinterpreted the sarcasm. No one else did. Perhaps making your entry point a mocking comment wasn’t the wisest choice?
Again…I’m not talking about the units.
How can I put this in a way you’ll understand?
The only use that you’ve come up with so far for the 240 input is in monitoring EEI…but there’s no actual need to use 240 as you can just instead compare total incoming in joules to total outgoing in joules, over whatever period you choose.
So what is climate science’s fixation with claiming 240 as the input? What actual purpose does it serve?
I get 240 as the output. After all, it’s approximately the same value whether in real time or averaged over time. But 240 is not the input. It’s not a value that tells us anything of any use.
“I’ve addressed these comments several times. You are just repeating yourself.“
I’ll let the readers decide for themselves if you have actually addressed any of the points in the comment I linked to.
barry…please explain why you are now arguing as if the issue is whether we use joules or W/m^2? And, I’m not a sports man so the specifics of your analogy are lost on me. Perhaps just don’t argue by analogy, and actually try relating directly to what’s being discussed.
I’ll just reiterate:
The reality we’re trying to represent is a slowly rotating planet, in space, continually illuminated over one hemisphere by the Sun, whilst it spins.
In scenario one, we average the insolation over only the lit hemisphere, in real time, acknowledging that at every moment the planet is emitting from the entire sphere.
In scenario two, we average the insolation over the entire sphere. We can only do that by moving away from real time, and further from the reality we’re trying to represent.
Both scenario one and scenario two involve W/m^2.
Can you please (for the sake of my sanity) just confirm that you agree scenario one is closer to the reality than scenario two?
“For the purpose of investigating an EEI, the diurnal cycle is not a useful or informative complication to include in the assessment.”
But I’m not talking about any of this as being “for the purpose of investigating an EEI”, am I, barry? As you already know.
Is scenario one or scenario two a better representation of reality, barry? Not, “for the purpose of investigating an EEI” but for the purpose of representing the reality of the situation we’re trying to model!
“Ark knows that flux is not conserved”
He does now. Whether he did before, or not, who knows? All we have to go on is the fact that he wrote a whole paragraph mocking Clint R for explaining how flux is not conserved. Is mocking someone for something you agree with them on a normal thing to do, do you think?
“The reality we’re trying to represent is a slowly rotating planet, in space, continually illuminated over one hemisphere by the Sun, whilst it spins.”
No, it isn’t. The model we are discussing is Earth’s radiative energy budget over time, specifically the balance at TOA.
Sorry, but you don’t get to unilaterally change the topic in order to prove your point. We all know flux is not conserved. Case closed.
“Can you please (for the sake of my sanity) just confirm that you agree scenario one is closer to the reality than scenario two?”
I’ve already said so. But that’s not what you want from me. You want me to add, “and therefore scenario one is the better method.” But depending on the purpose, that is not the case.
I provided several examples besides the baseball one of averages being more useful than granular detail. Did you miss them? Eg, if I want to know the average wage of my workers, making the difference between the CEO and the secretary front and centre is useless. If I want to design a bus that will accommodate most sizes of people, the reality of 7 foot people and 2 foot people isn’t of any use. I am not going to tailor my seats to accommodate 7-foot people. That level of granularity is useless to my decision-making.
I’m building a dam for a city. I want the average rainfall over several years and seasonal averages to reckon on capacity, and data on extreme rainfall events to engineer sufficient sluice capacity. I also need to know the average evaporation rate for the area to design the catchment. The rainfall tally for December 12 2010 is of no use to me. Nor do I need to know the diurnal cycle for rainfall. The evaporation rate of the first week of February, 2013 is useless information until it is tied into an average. That level of detail is useless for the purpose.
I want to know the population-wide obesity trend to inform health policy, so I take average BMI over time. The BMI of John Doe, Castlereagh Street, Minneapolis is of zero use for this purpose. He is simply not representative.
Road expansion, building design, energy systems, kitchen products, telecommunications, hydrology management, transport infrastructure – all these are designed based on multiple sets of averages: traffic volume, wind load, energy usage, ergonomics, network latency and data usage, stream flow and ice melt, average human height range etc etc etc.
How do you not understand that often the average is more informative and useful that the granular details? We build our societies and and their trappings on these statistics. I’m flabbergasted you don’t understand that.
Ark is an engineer. I was not confused by what he meant. You were, you’ve been straightened out. Is there anything of value left to discuss?
‘Scuse the format errors.
“Ark is an engineer. I was not confused by what he meant.”
He claims to be one, with fifty years experience. In which case, if he wants to appeal to his own authority, he should use his real name so his qualifications can be verified. Otherwise he’s just another random anonymous keyboard warrior. So, what did he mean in that specific paragraph, barry? He is mocking Clint R, in that paragraph, for explaining that flux can be conserved. Why would you mock somebody when you agree with them? What is the parody of in that specific paragraph?
So you disagree with Nate, and agree with me that scenario one is closer to reality than scenario two. Thank you. I’ll expect you to be arguing with him soon, then. Your waffle about averages providing better information than the granular detail in certain situations is understood. Now explain what I asked in the comment I linked Nate to. What value does the 240 W/m^2 average provide to climate science?
Sorry, should have been “flux is not conserved”.
By the way, barry, you and Nate have thoroughly laid waste to the straw man that I’m criticising temporal averaging generally. In your case you’ve totally obliterated the straw man that I’m arguing averages cannot provide useful information. Those straw men are utterly annihilated, and not even a single shred of straw remains in existence.
Back to my actual arguments, and I’m criticising climate science’s use of the 240 W/m^2 average for insolation specifically. As I’ve repeatedly and rhetorically asked, what useful information does it provide climate science? The answer is none, I already know that, I just wanted to see if you would come to the same conclusion.
“Im criticising climate sciences use of the 240 W/m^2 average for insolation specifically. As Ive repeatedly and rhetorically asked, what useful information does it provide climate science?”
Which has been clearly and repeatedly answered.
1. There is absolutely nothing wrong with expressing the total energy input to Earth per day in convenient units of W/m2. Which makes it 240 W/m2.
2. It is the average global flux received.
3. It is the units of the satellite observations, and climate models.
4. It is directly comparable to the average OLR, which enables calculation of both radiative forcings and EEI.
“The answer is none”.
This is you not knowing what you are talking about yet declaring nonsense anyway.
“1. There is absolutely nothing wrong with expressing the total energy input to Earth per day in convenient units of W/m2. Which makes it 240 W/m2.”
It means abandoning real time, and moving further from reality than scenario 1. So it depends what your aim is. If the aim is to accurately reflect reality, then there is “something wrong with it”…but this is besides the point of what I’m asking you. I’m asking you what is the use of the 240 figure.
“2. It is the average global flux received.”
See my response to 1).
“3. It is the units of the satellite observations, and climate models.”
Which could be expressed using other units.
“4. It is directly comparable to the average OLR, which enables calculation of both radiative forcings and EEI.”
The comparisons needn’t be made with the 240 figure. You can compare total incoming and outgoing energy, in joules, over your time period of choice.
I appreciate what you’re saying is, it’s somewhat more straightforward to use the 240 figure for the comparisons. What I’m countering that with is that since it’s not strictly speaking necessary to use the 240 figure, even when looking at EEI over time, then what is the 240 really bringing to the table? It makes some calculations easier. Oh well, let’s abandon reality in favour of that, then…
“What Im countering that with is that since its not strictly speaking necessary to use the 240 figure, even when looking at EEI over time, then what is the 240 really bringing to the table? It makes some calculations easier.”
You’ve answered the question.
“Oh well, lets abandon reality in favour of that, then”
Again, averaging is just a method of analyzing data, useful for the goal in mind.
There is no abandoning of reality. In fact the real time data, if measured, is not destroyed. Still available for your analysis!
“You’ve answered the question.”
I sure did. That’s that, then.
First of all, use a measured value when doing an energy balance.
“Which means the question still remains, why does climate science insist on using 240 W/m^2 for the insolation? What purpose does it actually serve?”
It matches the area emitting, so you have to use the input over that area.
So you have three possibilities
pi*r^2
2pi*r^2
or 4pi*r^2
So you use the measured irradiance and divide by 4.
“I’m criticising climate science’s use of the 240 W/m^2 average for insolation specifically. As I’ve repeatedly and rhetorically asked, what useful information does it provide climate science?”
This has been answered many times already.
Matching surface area for incoming and outgoing flux makes the calculations for energy budget simpler. (This is also closer to the method just using joules for energy balance)
No useful information is lost when averaging this way for this purpose. When examining deviation from global equilibrium, the diurnal cycle is an unnecessary complication. Steady-state solar input is better reflected by a global average than instantaneous variation.
Climate models that are concerned with long-term global changes average the diurnal cycle out to assist speed of computation (this matters when resources are limited), and/or to direct available processing capacity to a particular aspect that doesn’t require the diurnal cycle. Other GCMs that apply the diurnal cycle may be more concerned with regional analyses.
As always, the best method depends on the purpose.
Itis still not clear to me whether you have an issue with using W/m2 over joules, or with averaging incoming flux over the whole sphere.
Outgoing flux is subdivided into reflected and emitted components, and each varies over the long term (emitted flux decreases due to GHG increase, ice cover decreases, clouds may increase or decrease). Working with flux gives a handle on these separate long term changes, and averaging all flux globally makes it easier to compute total change over time, without losing any useful information needed for the task.
In climate studies joules are more useful for determining energy storage, such as ocean heat content. But when assessing continuous flows of energy, then flux units are easier to work with. Eg, we can state the average solar constant in simple terms: 1360 W/m2. If we work in joules we are required to also stipulate a timeframe. Not so with a unit that expresses rate.
You use the best metric for the job. Flux is superior to bulk energy amounts for analysing steady-state energy balances.
Let’s do a practical test, DREMT. I’m going to use W/m2 for a calculation. You can use joules. You can alternatively do the same calculation applying insolation to only one half of the planet. Let’s see
1) If the answers are different
2) Which is the most efficient method
Let’s say we want to compare the effect of albedo on solar energy absorption, with an albedo of 0.30, and an albedo of 0.31. You’ll need a time frame, so lets make it the difference between one year and the next.
I start with 1360 W/m2 solar constant. I’ll leave it to you to convert that into joules (per year). That can be your starting point. Let’s see how many steps are needed.
(1360 / 4) 340W/m2 over whole sphere
(1 – 0.30) X 340 = 238 W/m2
(1 – 0.31) X 340 = 234.6 W/m2
238 – 234.6 = 3.4
Difference in energy absorption is 3.4 W/m2
Done.
And if I want to convert that to temperature, I will divide that flux difference by the Stefan Boltzmann equation X TOA temperature cubed. I can go a step further and account for emissivity. All this is easily done working with flux values.
Do you think you can work out the difference more efficiently using joules or, or by accounting for the diurnal cycle?
And when converting to temperature, is it going to be easier for you or for me? You’re welcome to show why using joules is a better idea.
Forgot to include the temperature difference result. Hopefully these symbols work…
ΔF / 4σT³ = ΔT
Where F is the flux and T is temperature of the TOA, and assuming blackbody, to keep this simple.
3.4 W/m2 / [4 X (5.67 X 10⁻⁸) X 255³] ≈ 0.90 K
TOA is 0.90 K different in temp one year to the next.
I’d be curious to see how many steps it would take to figure that out using joules.
(If the symbols worked, I got them from here, and tested them here. Choose ‘html code’)
Tsk, fixing that first equation:
ΔT = ΔF / 4σT³
barry, Nate already gave the answer that the only value the 240 W/m^2 for insolation has to climate science is in making the calculations easier for EEI/energy budget. I think that says it all.
In answer to your question, my dispute generally is with using scenario two rather than the more realistic scenario one. Both scenario one and two use units of W/m^2 rather than units of joules. My comments about using total joules in and out over the time period used apply only to looking at EEI over time. My point there was that even when looking at EEI over time, it is not necessary to use the 240 W/m^2 figure. It only makes calculation easier.
With your calculations you’re missing something quite important. Temperature is based on the output. So you would calculate any differences in the Earth’s effective temperature by looking at differences in the outgoing flux.
Generally speaking though, obviously to calculate for scenario one you would be dividing the solar constant corrected for albedo by 2 instead of 4. However, this has to be in real time and looked at in real time over the course of the time period.
“With your calculations you’re missing something quite important. Temperature is based on the output. So you would calculate any differences in the Earth’s effective temperature by looking at differences in the outgoing flux.”
The outgoing flux is inherently included in the equations, based on the Ein = Eout balance. 238 W/m2 is 254.5 W/m2. I rounded up for simplicity and because 255 W/m2 is commonly quoted. The albedo calc fully accounts for all solar radiation absorbed, and thus what must be emitted to balance Ein/Eout.
That is another virtue of using flux instead of bulk units like joules. The units aren’t conserved but the 1st law is inherent in the math, and is a fundamental component of the S/B law.
First Law can be expressed:
ΔU = Q – W
But for a purely radiative system there is no work, which leaves us with:
ΔU = Q
In radiative equilibrium Qin = Qout
The S/B law gives us the relationship between temperature and flux.
If Qin increases, the receiving surface/system must radiate more energy to balance. In the albedo calcs, Qin decreased because of greater reflectivity. S/B gives us the temperature difference.
No doubt you’ve already figured out that for these types of inquiry, flux is a more efficient and malleable metric than joules. And the diurnal cycle was no use to us here. In a different context either of these could be preferred.
There is a reason efficiency is prized – fewer steps means fewer potentials for calculation error.
But I think I’m beating a dead horse here. If you want to keep trying to ride it, best of luck.
You are certainly flogging various straw horses, barry.
If the only value the 240 W/m^2 brings to climate science is in making calculations easier, I’m happy to conclude that all of my arguments remain undefeated.
“all of my arguments remain undefeated.”
Ahhh yes, the comfort of self-delusion..
Nate’s always like this when he loses a massive, fundamental argument to a better man.
Self-sooth as much as you need to.
See what I mean?
The argument was over when barry conceded scenario one was closer to reality than scenario two.
Yet, Nate must be Nate…(didn’t he say he was leaving the discussion about five times already?)
Baiting again?
Obviously you are unsatisfied with the outcome of this argument.
Now kindly go off and tr.oll elsewhere.
Nate’s projecting again.
DREMT,
“However, this has to be in real time and looked at in real time over the course of the time period.”
Instantaneous or averaged over a time period.
240, 480, and 960 are all averaged over time periods.
You asploded by gibberish meter, please send me a new one.
You have to start with the one that is measured.
One would think that was obvious when doing an energy balance.
bob, if you’re not going to bother to read a discussion through from the beginning, don’t bother to comment.
DREMT,
My point for you is that your argument is irrelevant to climate science.
And I did read the whole discussion.
There is no measurement of 480 W/m^2 for the lit side of the Earth.
Or maybe you could link to where you got the 480 W/m^2 from?
Dremt,
I read the whole discussion and even quoted you.
480 is not measured and nobody in climate science uses it in an energy balance.
If you’ve read the discussion then you’ll either be Team Barry or Team Nate.
Team Barry agrees with me that scenario one more closely represents reality than scenario two. They attack the straw man that I don’t think there’s any useful information to be gleaned from averaging, generally, and apparently a new straw man that I’m saying joules are superior in some way to W/m^2.
Team Nate does not agree with me or Team Barry that scenario one more closely represents reality than scenario two. They attack the straw man that I’m criticising the concept of temporal averaging, generally.
Of course, Team Barry never argues against Team Nate, despite their direct, fundamental disagreement.
Once you’ve picked your Team, bob, I will expect your first course of action to direct a criticism at either barry or Nate, depending on which team you picked. If you do that, you’ll have performed one of the necessary tasks for me to begin a discussion with you. Otherwise, I’m not wasting my time.
Thank you.
Bob,
Here is one of the things Barry said that I fully agree with. And willing to wager he still agrees.
Averaging insolation over the whole sphere is not denying the reality of a diurnal cycle any more than averaging insolation on the lit side of the sphere is denying the reality of angle of incidence.
Both averages set aside the fact of variance in flux at different locations to enable ease of computation. To say this denies reality is an absurd objection to what is simply a mathematical construct.
Useful statistical averages are as normal to understanding things as tying your shoelaces.”
…and my response:
“Sure. Averaging insolation on the lit side of the sphere does indeed remove the variation in angle of incidence same as averaging insolation over the whole sphere does indeed remove the diurnal variation. An ideal dynamic energy budget would factor in the angles of incidence too. I’m just simplifying because 480 in, 240 out vs. 240 in, 240 out is easier to understand as a concept.“
But, apparently, bob has already read all this, anyway. He needs to pick his Team, and make his first comment critical of either Nate, or barry. That is the first requirement.
And here is one of my posts on that point.
“Again, averaging is just a method of analyzing data, useful for the goal in mind.
There is no abandoning of reality. In fact the real time data, if measured, is not destroyed. Still available for your analysis!”
DREMT weirdly thinks analyzibg data to answer a scientific question ‘abandons’ reality.
He is of course bonkers.
Poor Nate just cannot help himself with the misrepresentations and insults.
No misrepresentation at all.
DREMT did say “Oh well, lets abandon reality in favour of that, then”
Throughout this thread, Bob can find he has argued that globally averaging the flux means we:
are using “flat Earth physics”
“remove reality from the physics”
“No longer represents the correct physics”
“removing night and day from the equation”
then he moves on to saying averaging is moving us:
“further from reality”
but later returns to it:
“abandon(s) reality”
Our observations NEVER capture ‘realty’. And that’s ok. Because in no case do we need or want that.
There is always a reality of interest.
For example: Thermodynamics seeks to explain macroscopic observations like pressure and temperature, which are useful to predict. These are the reality of interest.
NOT measuring the location and velocity of every molecule, which is useless superflous information that would be costly to acquire and store, is not ‘abandoning reality’.
It’s misrepresentation Nate. You said:
““Again, averaging is just a method of analyzing data, useful for the goal in mind.
There is no abandoning of reality. In fact the real time data, if measured, is not destroyed. Still available for your analysis!”
DREMT weirdly thinks analyzibg data to answer a scientific question ‘abandons’ reality.”
I don’t think there is anything wrong with averaging, generally, analysing data, generally, or answering a scientific question, generally. So, please stop pretending that I do.
What I think is that scenario one is closer to a representation of reality than scenario two, and that scenario two (and the 240 W/m^2 figure in particular) tells us nothing valuable. barry has already conceded the former, and you have already conceded the latter by agreeing that the only thing of value the 240 W/m^2 brings is in making calculations simpler.
“I dont think there is anything wrong with averaging, generally, analysing data, generally, or answering a scientific question, generally. So, please stop pretending that I do.”
Your quotes speak for themselves. Your whole point in this thread seems to be that there IS something wrong with averaging in this case. But you have failed to show that.
Oh well!
“scenario two (and the 240 W/m^2 figure in particular) tells us nothing valuable.”
Totally FALSE! The value has been thoroughly explained to you explained many times by Barry and me. You ignore these, and continue making this vacuous assertion!
My quotes, in full context, do indeed speak for themselves. Ive made myself clear, and Im correct. Thank you.
Self appraising your own posts in isolation misrepresents the entire discussion, as if it were one sided.
It wasn’t.
Happy just to let people read through and decide for themselves.
bob has a team to pick, and a comment to write to either Nate or barry, as the first requirement.
Not sure why Nate has returned.
Don’t mention me or misrepresent my posts again, if you don’t want me to return and correct your BS.
Dremt,
You miss my point entirely.
You can’t average the insolation over the lit half of the Earth, because those measurements are not being made.
You are about to get a major award for the longest irrelevant thread.
Dremt,
“bob has a team to pick, and a comment to write to either Nate or barry, as the first requirement.”
I do not work for you, but if you wish to employ me, my regular rate is 52 US dollars per hour with a four hour minimum.
bob, you are desperate to talk to me. Not the other way around. I ignored your first comment completely, but you didn’t take the hint.
If you want to engage in a discussion, you can do as I asked. If not, off you pop.
“Don’t mention me or misrepresent my posts again, if you don’t want me to return and correct your BS.”
I didn’t misrepresent your posts, Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697450
“[Quoting me] What I’m countering that with is that since it’s not strictly speaking necessary to use the 240 figure, even when looking at EEI over time, then what is the 240 really bringing to the table? It makes some calculations easier.”
You’ve answered the question.”
You clearly agree there that “the 240” really only brings “to the table” making calculations easier. barry said the same, e.g:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697487
“Matching surface area for incoming and outgoing flux makes the calculations for energy budget simpler.”
It’s all up there in black and white.
“You clearly agree there that the 240 really only brings to the table making calculations easier. barry said the same”
I had stated other values of it. YOU only agreed with one. And that was sufficient.
Your prior statement that it had NO value was then wrong.
Look, you’ve just not come up with any substantial reason for science NOT to express the energy input to the global area each day as 240 W/m2. And thus use this to answer a real science question about EEI.
That there are other, less convenient ways to express it, is not sufficient reason.
You didn’t find any other uses of the 240 figure. Here’s what you said about it, with my point by point rebuttal:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697449
I’m perfectly prepared to accept that the only actual use it has is in making calculations easier. If that’s it, then my point remains unchallenged. It’s of (pretty much) no real value.
As for the problem with using it…scenario two is further from reality than scenario one. Hence all my comments about moving further from reality, abandoning reality etc. They all follow directly from accepting that premise is correct.
Simple, really.
Further, EEI is something of a red herring. We’re only really interested, with EEI, in the total joules in vs. total joules out over a certain time period. So, surface area becomes irrelevant. The question of whether scenario one or scenario two is closer to reality is then also irrelevant to it. So discussing EEI, generally, brings nothing to the table. It’s besides the point, which is more fundamental than that.
Dremt
“bob has a team to pick, and a comment to write to either Nate or barry, as the first requirement.”
“Once youve picked your Team, bob, I will expect your first course of action to direct a criticism at either barry or Nate, depending on which team you picked. If you do that, youll have performed one of the necessary tasks for me to begin a discussion with you. Otherwise, Im not wasting my time.”
I can’t pick, there is no difference between the two positions.
Use 240 or 480 for an energy balance, either way you get the same answer.
And I didn’t know you were the King of England.
Apologies your Majesty.
-backs out of the room while repeately curtsying.
“You didnt find any other uses of the 240 figure.”
FALSE. I gave you 4 reasons. My statement that YOU only agree with one of them was correct.
“Im perfectly prepared to accept that the only actual use it has is in making calculations easier. If thats it, then my point remains unchallenged. Its of (pretty much) no real value.”
Bwa ha ha!
So you admit there is a value. Then irrationally declare that is pretty no real value.
Obviously scientists strongly disagree, because it is used
“As for the problem with using itscenario two is further from reality than scenario one. about moving further from reality, abandoning reality etc. ”
Again completely absurd. Averaging does not destroy the original data. It is still there for you to learn all you want about the diurnal cycle.
But averaging does facilitate answering questions about the EEI by reducing unwanted noise. So that is an added value, which you choose to ignore.
Nate, read my last two comments to you more carefully, then try again. Try not to just knee-jerk react before you actually take in what is being said.
“Further, EEI is something of a red herring. Were only really interested, with EEI, in the total joules in vs. total joules out over a certain time period. So, surface area becomes irrelevant.”
Wrong. As has been explained several times, Joules/global-area/day is one unit. J/m2/s = W/m2 is another perfectly valid and more convenient unit.
Just a unit conversion!
Scientists and engineers get this. You don’t, because you are neither.
Oh well!
EEI is a red herring, Nate. So, why do you keep going on about it?
“Averaging does not destroy the original data. It is still there for you to learn all you want about the diurnal cycle.”
Are you saying the data exists for scenario one, or not, Nate? Only earlier you made it quite clear that it was not currently possible to measure it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697165
It us your hypothetical case of hemispheric snapshots that we have been dicussing. Not how it is currently done.
Beside the point.
However captured, it can be analyzed in real time or by averaging.
You are acting like the data currently exists to analyse the system in real time a la scenario one. Yet earlier you were saying it is not currently possible to record such data. Start making sense.
Find a real issue.
“I gave you 4 reasons”
You listed 4 points and I trashed them all. You had no response…and I linked to the comment in which that occurred. This is why I told you to read the comments I made more carefully, before reaponding. You write knee-jerk reactions without paying attention to what is being said.
The 240 figure really brings no useful information. It has no intrinsic value. That it makes calculations simpler really isn’t going to cut it. And, you know that.
Since if this topic really wasn’t worth discussing, you wouldn’t have been here for the last two weeks.
“The 240 figure really brings no useful information. It has no intrinsic.”
Thoroughly debunked.
Kindly stop posting unsupported rubbish.
Obviously you NEED to keep this zombie argument going.
Maybe ask yourself why.
“Thoroughly debunked”
Nate, if you’re just going to flat out lie, what’s the point? I’m the only one of us linking to your supposed “debunking”, and I’ve shown that you had nothing. I responded to all four points and you had nothing in return.
And it takes (at least) two to keep a discussion alive. Why don’t you look at your own motives?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697692
We are in garbage time of the game.
Go for your last-word garbage points.
First of all, you did not come up with four different “uses” or “values” or “worthwhile bits of information” that the 240 W/m^2 provides. You had a list of four points, but they all relate to only one “use”. Which basically boils down to “making calculations simpler”. All anyone needs do is click through the links:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697681
and see for themselves.
Here is a comment from barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697424
Waxing lyrical about the value of averaging and the useful information it can provide, giving numerous examples, as if I was ever arguing that this wasn’t the case! The discussion (basically) runs like this:
DREMT: The 240 W/m^2 value is a useless (and misleading) figure for solar insolation.
BARRY and NATE: Averaging is fine! Averaging is useful! I can’t believe you are attacking the concept of averaging! Look at all these examples of how averaging can provide useful information…
DREMT: I was never actually arguing the opposite about averaging, but OK, what useful information does the 240 W/m^2 provide?
BARRY and NATE: [tumbleweed]
Just watched Trump’s speech.
America is about to inaugurate the President it deserves.
Is someone a little jealous?
4 years of chaos and a President who loves himself more than anything else, even the constitution he is sworn to uphold. What could possibly go wrong?
Its not Trump that is the problem. Our enemies are legion including Islam, WEF, and China. A strong leader like Trump is needed.
Jim Ferguson et al discuss 51st state: https://rumble.com/v6aua9g-should-trumps-america-annex-canada-yes-im-being-hyperblic-saturday-night-pa.html?e9s=rel_v2_pr
“A strong leader like Trump is needed.”
You call Trump ‘strong’?
Looking more and more like it will be the $TRUMP presidency. One long grift.
You call Trump strong?
Given the alternatives … Biden Harris Clinton Obama Clinton Saunders Newsom … Yes.
It really bothers me that these people are the best candidates a nation like USA can come up with. Trump stands head and shoulders above the pack.
Did most people vote for divisive culture war executive orders?
I don’t think so.
What happened to China is spying on us with Tik Tok? And Chinese tarriffs?
I can tell you: Trumps billionaire friends objected.
Despite the currently no less than 14 incumbent female governors (5 Reps, 9 Dems), we have to understand that the US is still not ripe for a female US president.
I don’t believe the issue is U.S. voters being misogynistic, if that’s what you are suggesting.
The real issue are the beliefs and reasoning that underlie the party the candidate, regardless of their gender, represents.
For one, the left seems to have increasingly potrayed white, heterosexual men as enemies to diversity.
This became clear to me in May 2020 during the protests following George Floyds murder.
There was no clear evidence that racial prejudice was the primary motive behind the incident, yet the left-wing media seized on the situation and portrayed it as if it were. Their motivation for this was obviously to amplify the narrative of racial oppression.
Red,
Are you black? No. Then who are you to to judge how black people felt about it?
Let’s ask black republican senator Tim Scott
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/18/police-still-stop-me-pass-justice-act-senator-tim-scott-column/3214395001/
“I, like many other Black Americans, have found myself choking on my own fears and disbelief when faced with the realities of an encounter with law enforcement.”
I like Senator Tim Scott’s bipartisan proposals, but he and the media are wrong in framing this incident as racially motivated.
That argument appeals more to emotions than facts and is counterproductive.
When people realize there is no solid basis for the claim of racial motivation, their support for legitimate movements advocating for the rights of diverse groups diminish, which sows division.
This is exactly what happened with BLM. Public support declined over time:
https://www.axios.com/2023/06/14/black-lives-matter-support-blm-survey
Did you read his article? The point is that quite often black/brown people have a different experience with police.
But conservatives quite often dont believe things are real until they experience it themselves.
The idea of defunding police, has thankfully lost support.
But I believe reforming police is still supported.
How do you know I’m conservative, Nate?
Yes, I read the article, and it supports my point that George Floyds murder was weaponized to amplify the narrative of racial oppression by police. It linked purported disparities in the treatment of Black and Brown communities to Floyds murder, presenting it as an example of such disparities when there is no conclusive evidence that it is.
As for the differences in treatment among Black and Brown individuals, a likely explanation is their statistically higher representation in violent crime rates. There is evidence showing that biases and stereotypes, shaped at least in part by these statistics, influence how police interact with individuals from these demographics.
red, when Democrats have fronted two different women to vie for the presidency and the Republicans have nominated exactly zero, I don’t see why you would present this as being a problem on the left.
“It linked purported disparities in the treatment of Black and Brown communities to Floyds murder, presenting it as an example of such disparities when there is no conclusive evidence that it is.”
It was such an egregious policing failure, that it sparked large protests, but based also on the collective experience of black people, which you obviously don’t have. The article listed several others killed by police.
”
individuals, a likely explanation is their statistically higher representation in violent crime rates”
Here you are assuming no bias, iow assuming your premise must be true!
Barry,
Have you read my comments? I stated that the real issue lies in the beliefs and reasoning of the left. The gender of individual candidates is irrelevant.
“Here you are assuming no bias, iow assuming your premise must be true!”
What else could explain the alleged mistreatment of Black and Brown people by police?
Are you implying that police have an inherent vendetta against people of color? That seems illogical, especially given the increased sensitivity of today’s political climate.
Red,
Your claim of ‘no bias’ makes no sense, given the experiences of people of color, and statistics of which drivers get randomly pulled over, or arrested.
Nor am I saying it is ‘only bias’ at work.
“Have you read my comments? I stated that the real issue lies in the beliefs and reasoning of the left. The gender of individual candidates is irrelevant.”
Have you forgotten that we’ve had alternating Dem and Repub presidents for the last 30 years?
Clearly Democrat presidents are electable.
It’s not yet demonstrated that female presidents are electable in the US. Mostly because few have made it to the nomination. Should
I presume that it is the beliefs and reasoning of the Republican party faithful that have prevented this?
You can blame the Democrat Party leadership. They had a clean winner in Gavin Newsom, but he was not even allowed to speak at the convention. When questioned about that he said, “I did what they asked me to do.” It was the Democrats who suspended the democratic process to appoint the most radical left-wing candidate available. Kamala Harris is an incompetent loser, and that is why she lost. She could not answer simple questions without a teleprompter. Her friendly interviews did not help to hide what the public could see. Polling shows that people who hate Trump voted for him any way.
They went for broke thinking Trump could be easily defeated. Hillary Clinton made that same mistake 8 years ago. It was hers to lose, and she did.
Newsom was not a clear winner – Harris was polling better than him.
And specifically what Democratic process did the Dems suspend after delegates had voted for Biden and he accepted the nomination?
There was no way to re-run primaries at that late stage, both logistically and legally. Delegates changed their votes for Harris, as is their legal right.
Preferential voting could have obviated the mess made when Biden agreed to rescind his candidacy. It’s fashionable to criticise him for not stepping down earlier, or for not sticking to the will of the delegates *cough* I mean people, but I blame the US electoral system.
It is a little different than folks down under. It is called a brokered convention. The delegates are released to vote for whomever they want. They keep voting for the best candidate, not necessarily the one Nancy Pelosi likes. Biden was kicked out before the convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention
That was just a quick test post and it worked! The comments are open again. The story is finally coming out. It was Pelosi. Whatever she said got Biden to quit and they have spoken to each other since. The Harris campaign was designed by Pelosi, and she deserves the credit. The was ample time to allow valid candidates to apply, meet some kind of threshold, and undergo a voting process by the Biden delegates who would be release from their pledge. Instead they were instructed to support Harris and Newsom was not allowed to speak.
Well I did a bit of googling and it seems Newson endorsed Harris and had been campaigning for her after Biden stepped aside.
“In the early phase of the reformulated Harris campaign, Californias governor has made just a handful of social media posts and public statements in support of the new Democratic nominee”
https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2024/08/gavin-newsom-kamala-harris-campaign/
This is all happening before the convention. Check the date of that article. And this one.
https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2024/08/gavin-newsom-democratic-convention-kamala-harris/
So you’ve got this yarn about Pelosi pulling all the strings and Newsom being sidelined, mto his chagrin.
But you got the polling wrong. And it seems you may have got the rest wrong. Please corroborate what you got right, because I’m pretty skeptical right now.
Gonna hold your feet to the fire here, Tim.
Biden drops out July 21, 2024.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2024/07/21/biden-endorses-harris-president-2024/1071721586809
Newsom endorses Harris on the same day.
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/22/gavin-newsom-kamala-harris-endorse-california
Yeah, I’m going to need some half decent source corroborating that Newsom was gagged at the convention a month later, and that him saying he “did what they told him to do,” relates to the candidacy in any way.
Cos I reckon you’re being played by someone.
Gee Pelosi had political power and influence, and wielded it,
just as when Harris, was angry and expressed it,
Tim has negative reaction to women doing these ordinary ‘man’ things.
Fact: Biden withdrew almost immediately after he had a private meeting with Pelosi. She admitted in an interview they have not spoken since. Others had urged him to withdraw before that. Pelosi was the final one.
Fact: Newsom did not speak at the convention and was quoted in the media that he did what they asked.
Fact: There was no reason or excuse for not having a brokered convention on short notice.
Fact: Harris never held an open press conference as candidate for POTUS.
Fact: Trump will talk to any media at any time they ask a question.
Fact: People who hate Trump voted for him.
Fact: Harris ran an energetic and aggressive campaign, but almost exclusively from a teleprompter.
Fact: The USA is a majority Democrat and left leaning country, but Trump won the popular vote in a hotly contested election.
Opinion: Nancy Pelosi is fundamentally dishonest, scheming, and evil to the core.
Opinion: The original plan was to have Biden get reelected and then force him out to get Harris sworn-in. The debate performance forced their hand. They all knew Biden could not serve, but did nothing about it during the Primary season. Biden was in much worse shape then his public performance going back at least a 2 years, and they all knew it.
I need to clear up some of the confusion from barry. When Newsom says he did what they asked, that would seem to include following orders to endorse Harris immediately. Was Newsom really actively campaigning for Harris?
Polling numbers between Harris and Newsom from the public are not really important. The important questions are who could prevail in an open convention floor debate without teleprompters, and who could beat Trump?
“Nancy Pelosi is fundamentally dishonest, scheming, and evil to the core.”
Wow. Tim has been taken-in, hook line and sinker, by extremist right-wing propaganda.
“For the better part of two decades, Republicans have targeted Ms. Pelosi, the most powerful woman in American politics, as the most sinister Democratic villain of all, making her the evil star of their advertisements and fund-raising appeals in hopes of animating their core supporters. The language and images have helped to fuel the flames of anger at Ms. Pelosi on the right, fanned increasingly in recent years by a toxic stew of conspiracy theories and misinformation that has thrived on the internet and social media, with little pushback from elected Republicans.”
NYT ‘Pelosi, Vilified by Republicans for Years, Is a Top Target of Threats’ 10/30/22.
Nate, thank you, thank you, thank you. You make me look good. Every time I think maybe you are capable of a spirited debate you do something like this. I have seen better from you. Using a NYT editorial to apply a silly and juvenile stereotype is really amazing. This is a classic trash piece from the NYT. You need better taking points.
I am not sure what is going on with barry. Is he playing people as fools, or is he the fool himself? You seem to be falling into that mold.
Well informed people will realize my comment about Nancy is a high compliment. Effective politicians who know how to use the power of their office are not nice people.
One episode comes to mind. I do not remember the year, but AOC was organizing some kind of revolt or uprising. The details are not important, but she was getting press coverage and popular support. Then she had a private meeting with Speaker Pelosi. That was the end of it. Nobody will ever know what was discussed except that it certainly was not nice and it ended the uprising. Just like Trump, Pelosi knows how to use power and it often involves some kind of threat.
We do not know what Pelosi said to Biden. Do you think it was something motivational appealing to his patriotism or some kind of threat? Why are they no longer speaking to each other?
Tim,
If you think being exposed as an easy mark for extremist propaganda, makes you look good, you are living in a fantasy world!
It was a NYT NEWs article related to Pelosi’s husband being attacked, by someone, who was taken in by ‘Pelosi is an evil monster’ propaganda, as you were. It detailed the facts of the years long marketing effort by right-winhers to brand Pelosi this way.
Nate can be a really nasty person when he is losing the argument. So it was an insult and not just a dumb comment? I am now compared to a deranged homeless person?
Stereotypes are dumb. Insults come from losers. Nasty insults mostly come from people who have lost their self respect. That is especially true on a forum such as this where intelligent and technically minded people (some of us anyway) participate.
You have my sympathy Nate. Get well.
Yet a completely appropriate response to this indefensible vitriol.
“Nancy Pelosi is fundamentally dishonest, scheming, and evil to the core.”
And no, I was not saying you are violent or deranged.
I’m saying this kind of ginned up hatred has led to people being violent.
Tim,
“Fact: Newsom did not speak at the convention and was quoted in the media that he did what they asked.”
If it’s in the media, I shouldn’t have to ask twice for you to corroborate it.
Your track record is not great, so I’m not going to do this for you.
Otherwise, I think it’s hot air.
“Fact: There was no reason or excuse for not having a brokered convention on short notice.”
Sure there was. This absolute rendition from you is unreasonable.
Tim S: “Opinion: Nancy Pelosi is fundamentally dishonest, scheming, and evil to the core.”
Also Tims S: “Insults come from losers. Nasty insults mostly come from people who have lost their self respect.”
It was a tough gig for Democrats. Biden was effective as president in his first term, but useless in public. He was the best candidate to beat Trump in 2020, but he should have rejected a second term long before the debate ruined his chances for good.
Harris already had been endorsed by the people in 2020. Time was short when Biden stepped down. There were no choices that were all good. You could try reading about it from better sources than whatever trough you’re feeding from. A brokered convention would have wasted another month of campaigning, and the nominee – which would almost certainly have been Harris – would have been even further on the back foot than she was. Yes, it would have been more Democratic, at least superficially, but in reality it would be the donors and power brokers that would have had most influence on the nomination, not American voters.
Dems were damned either way when Biden stepped down late. There was some naturalness to handing over to the VP, but there was no way forward from there that was ideal.
Barry is still struggling with all of the content:
[Tim S: Opinion: Nancy Pelosi is fundamentally dishonest, scheming, and evil to the core.
Also Tims S: Insults come from losers. Nasty insults mostly come from people who have lost their self respect.]
This quote addresses the whole issue:
[I am not sure what is going on with barry. Is he playing people as fools, or is he the fool himself? You [Nate] seem to be falling into that mold.
Well informed people will realize my comment about Nancy is a high compliment. Effective politicians who know how to use the power of their office are not nice people.]
More help:
Evil, adjective
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful.
“the evil effects of a poor diet.”
“Well informed people will realize my comment about Nancy is a high compliment.”
I ignored that patent nonsense the first time. Repeating it doesn’t make it any more honest.
Without substantiating things it’s just waffle. I’ve since looked for the Newsom quote. You got it wrong. And no, it’s your job to prove yourself right.
I do not want barry to feel bad. The fact that he seems to think politicians are noble and respectable people is very revealing. Even the admirers of Nancy Pelosi will comment about how tough and forceful she is in private.
Nonetheless, I am absolutely certain that Newsom made that statement about doing what he was asked to do. My best recollection is that it was a live network interview at the convention — possibly with Jake Tapper on CNN. The point is that he was not allowed to speak. He was there in person and did not speak.
Maybe barry should have just let it go, because I found a quote and video that is even better. He is laughing out loud with sarcasm as he says this:
“We went through a very open process, a very inclusive process, it was bottom-up. I don’t know if you know that, at least that’s what I’ve been told to say…A 30-minute convention? Between a tweet and another tweet.”
Have fun with this:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/08/23/gavin_newsom_laughs_about_dnc_switch_to_harris_a_very_inclusive_process_thats_what_ive_been_told_to_say.html
I am not done. I just had a thought. Think how much fun it would be if the Love-Gov, Andrew Cuomo, was still in the game. It seems that he was expelled. He was caught with dual penalties of illegal use of hands and a personal foul. That can end a person’s career — even a politician. The down will not be replayed.
The temperature of a system, including Earth, is governed by the balance of energy gained versus energy lost. “Energy-in” and “energy-out” are not static energy quantities but fluxes that describe the rate of energy flow into and out of the system, meaning they represent dynamic rates, not fixed energy values. Energy fluxes describe the flows that determine energy balance.
Energy is continuously redistributed by Earth’s fluid systems -the oceans and atmosphere- such that the climate system remains approximately in energy balance at all times. There is no situation where energy can be balanced if fluxes do not accurately describe the flow that determines this balance. The total energy input and output are calculated by integrating these fluxes over relevant times and areas.
~20% of solar irradiance is absorbed by the atmosphere, ~30% is reflected or scattered back into space by the atmosphere and surface, and the remaining 50% is absorbed by Earth’s surface, including both the land and oceans, though unevenly distributed across the planet.
Between latitudes 40N and 40S, more energy is received from the sun annually than is lost to space, while poleward of these latitudes, the net energy balance is reversed. Without heat transport by the atmosphere and oceans to redistribute this imbalance, regions beyond 40N & 40S latitude would become increasingly cold and ice-covered, while equatorial regions would grow unsustainably hot.
Sorry Ark, but you’re making the same mistakes as in all of “climate science”.
First, “flux” is NOT “energy”. Confusing flux with energy is somewhat like saying speed is the same as distance.
Second, and even more important, temperature increase is NOT guaranteed by an increase of energy. Temperature increase requires an increase of energy, but it HAS TO BE the “right kind” of energy. Entropy is involved. An increase in temperature must be accompanied by a decrease in entropy.
For example, consider an insulated box with a brick inside. The brick, the box, and the air in the box all have a temperature of 100F. A second brick, also at a temperature of 100F is added to the box. Energy was added, but the temperature does not increase. The entropy stayed the same.
If the temperature of the second brick had been 200F, the temperature of the system would increase, as entropy was decreased. If the temperature of the second brick had been 50F, the temperature of the system would decrease, as entropy was increased.
First,
“An increase in temperature must be accompanied by a decrease in entropy.” Is wrong! This is not a general thermodynamic principle; only applies in certain contrived conditions.
Second,
Whether the temperature of the “second brick” is 200 or 50, the change in entropy of the system is the same, an increase of ~12% of the product of mass and heat capacity of each brick.
Sorry Ark, I sometimes forget you don’t understand the relevant science. I shouldn’t have used the word “entropy”. Let’s just use the term “right kind”, for the type of energy needed to raise temperature.
Remember, the issue here is about raising temperature, and the fact that just adding any kind of energy is not sufficient. To raise the temperature of a system, the “right kind” of energy MUST be added.
Notice that in all three cases of adding bricks only the brick with the higher temperature could raise temperature. In all three cases, energy was added to the system, but only the brick with the “right kind” of energy could raise temperature.
It doesn’t matter how much energy is added, if it’s not the “right kind”, the temperature won’t increase.
Does that help?
You must be exhausted from all the tap dancing and back pedaling.
You should stay away from terms and concepts you don’t understand like entropy and heat transfer.
You need to man up and admit you were wrong and move on.
Heat flow:
dQ = mCdt
Entropy Change:
ΔS; = mC∫dT/T = mC ln(T2/T1)
Answer:
ΔS;≥0 in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.
Does this help? https://ibb.co/XS1PgXY
Ark, finding stuff on the web you don’t understand ain’t science. It’s childish behavior, just like your memes.
Let’s make it even simpler for you. Here’s something you can do in your own kitchen:
Fill a glass with water and put a thermometer in it. When the thermometer has equalized with the water, note the temperature, probably about 70F.
Now, add an ice cube. Note the drop in temperature. Energy was added, yet the temperature dropped. That’s called “decreasing entropy”.
The total entropy change for your process is the sum of the entropy changes of the water and the ice.
ΔStotal = ΔSwater + ΔSice.
The water loses heat to the ice, a decrease in entropy.
ΔSwater = – dQwater/Twater
The ice has two contributions. First the ice melts absorbing heat at constant temperature.
ΔSmelt = dQmelt/Tmelt; where Qmelt is proportional to the latent heat of fusion of ice and its mass.
Then, after melting, the water from the ice warms contributing an additional entropy increase.
The result is that the overall entropy of the system increases according to the second law of thermodynamics. The system loses thermal energy because the heat is used for the phase change rather than increasing the temperature. The decrease in temperature is a result of latent heat absorp_tion, not a violation of thermodynamic principles.
This is elementary stuff, don’t you know?
The most likely reasons why you will not admit that you are wrong may be Cognitive Dissonance, Identity Protection, Dunning-Kruger Effect, Misunderstanding of Science, or Emotional Attachment to your Beliefs.
I discarded Confirmation Bias and Social/Emotional Influences because you seem to be the only person with such bizarre beliefs.
I also discarded Mistrust of Authorities because you never provide any sources in support of your beliefs. Note that and Amazon link to a 700 page textbook is not a citation.
Ark, you don’t need all that blah-blah word-salad just to agree with me. Here’s the condensed version:
Energy was added, yet the temperature dropped. That’s called “decreasing entropy”.
Opps, that was the wrong copy/paste.
Here’s the correct version:
“…the temperature of the system would decrease, as entropy was increased.”
[Clint R at 11:08 AM] Energy was added, yet the temperature dropped. That’s called “decreasing entropy”.
[Clint R at 1:10 PM] Energy was added, yet the temperature dropped. That’s called “decreasing entropy”.
[Clint R at 1:18 PM] Opps… “…the temperature of the system would decrease, as entropy was increased.”
I accept your concession. Now, go back and read my 11:40 AM post, maybe you’ll learn something.
Yes Ark, I’m happy to correct my typos.
You seem to be catching on to the science. Are you ready to admit that just adding energy to a system is not always sufficient for an increase in temperature?
Like I said, concession accepted.
Having debunked your violations of the second law of thermodynamics in your two concocted kitchen experiments: yesterday at 11:21 AM that “An increase in temperature must be accompanied by a decrease in entropy,” and today at 11:08 AM that dropping an ice cube in a glass of water results in “decreasing entropy,” let’s hope you’ve learned the most important finding.
The two bricks, as well as the water and ice, exchange heat through fluxes.
Once you setup the problem with the appropriate magnitude and direction of fluxes the answer becomes obvious (for some of us).
Remember that energy does not stop being energy the moment you divide it by time and area.
QED
Ark, don’t keep playing your kiddie games.
Just answer the simple question: “Are you ready to admit that just adding energy to a system is not always sufficient for an increase in temperature?”
Puffman, are you ready to admit that energy does not stop being energy the moment you divide it by time and area?
As has been pointed out a dozen times before, the moronic brick analogy is irrelevant to radiative heat transfers, with NO MASS transferred.
Attention whore Clint again seeks negative attention by repeatedly posting nonsense.
Child Nate is in full meltdown.
Must be his nap time….
We can always tell when you’ve lost an argument because you start with the insults. Never fails!
Sorry Ark, if you believe reality is an insult.
Sorry for your loss.
Atmospheric CO2 rise is now exceeding IPCC 1.5C pathways.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/forecasts/co2-forecast-for-2025
The hardcore denialists are looking pretty ridiculous at this point.
Donald Trump to declare federal government recognizes two sexes male and female
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/01/20/trump-executive-order-transgender-male-female/77835545007/
Only applies in America.
God created man and he created woman. He didn’t create any other genders. Thia fact applies everywhere.
Sol you believe in the Bible created in the middle ages by priests.
There is as much evidence ‘for’ as ‘against’ the existence of God. Make your choices wisely.
Human gender is all about biological. Any suggestion otherwise is loony tunes.
The bible is a book that accounts for the history of God’s people. Lots of wisdom to be found in the experience of 4000 years of people. Nobody believes in a book written by men even as the words found in that book are of great value.
Which God is that?
See Nicene Creed for details.
1. God only exists in the minds of those people who believe in its existence.
2. For decades, human gender has no longer just been a biological, but also a social, even societal matter.
The existence of God is clear to anyone who wants to live a life of selflessness and humility. This truth has been known since the story of Adam and Eve, who disobeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden.
Their desire for divine knowledge may have brought them short term satisfaction, but in the long term, they continued to live lives lacking true purpose and meaning.
Whether this story happened literally is irrelevant to me. What matters is the message: humanity’s natural sin is the tendency to feed the ego. The pursuit of power, wealth, etc. leaves you unfulfilled, prone to grudges, manipulation, power struggles, and vindictive anger.
But, when you center your life around something greater than yourself, it is incredibly liberating. The burden of your ego begins to fade, and healing becomes possible.
This is not to say that God’s followers are free from sin. They sin all the time because they are human.
One challenge on a person’s healing journey is encountering people who lack faith and exhibit arrogance, hostility, etc. It becomes clear that they have not accepted God into their lives and remain slaves to their egos.
This realization can falsely lead you to the belief that you are superior, which can subsequently set back your healing process.
This is where one needs to practice empathy and pray for those individuals.
Which God is that?
The God described in the Bible.
God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
Respectfully, you are focusing too much on the concept of God rather than the essence of faith.
ken…”The God described in the Bible. God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth”.
***
My mom was the religious one in the family and made me go to Sunday School. My Dad was the Devil’s Advocate, pointing out quite correctly, that the Bible was written by humans, not God.
If Moses was alive today, and he went into the mountains, returning with tablets containing the ten commandments, and he claimed they were given to him by God, everyone would look at him and say, “yeah, right”.
I am not putting down the notion of a Creator, in fact, that notion makes far more sense to me than evolution theory. Newton thought so too as have several other scientists. I am just not going to place my faith in a Bible written by humans, especially one put together by a Roman emperor in 325 AD with his hand picked Bishops who had the temerity to exclude Gospels from Thomas and Mary Magdalene.
Proof of that comes from the Nag Hamadi scrolls discovered during the 20th century in Egypt. They included Gospels left out of the Bible in 325 AD at Nicea, one of them being the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas, aka Doubting Thomas, was a disciple of Jesus, and claimed his gospel was direct quotes from Jesus, who tended to talk in parables.
According to Thomas, Jesus told him that all we humans need is already inside at birth. To me, that is a powerful statement. The Gospel of Thomas has been corroborated by religious scholars and predates other Gospels like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which were all written in Greek by scholars. Neither M, M, L or J had the education to write the Gospels and that is a well-known fact.
Ah yes, Trump issuing directives that curtail people’s freedom of expression. Because Americans totally need the government to step in and tell everyone what their gender is. Conservatives hate government intervening in people’s personal lives? That fundament of modern Republicanism is always swept aside when they decide it’s necessary to step on freedoms that they don’t like.
Well put.
red krok…”Donald Trump to declare federal government recognizes two sexes male and female”
rlh…”Only applies in America”.
***
1)Richard has his geography wrong, America is a continent. No country called America. The US constitution defines the country name as the United States ***OF*** America. The meaning is clear, the country named the United States is in the continent of America.
When Trump renames the Gulf of Mexico, in a childish petulance, he is actually naming it the Gulf of America, after the continent of America. I agree with him that Denali should be renamed to its proper title, Mt. McKinley.
2)There are only two sexes anywhere on the planet. Only a blithering, politically-correct ijit would think otherwise, based on a definition provided by blithering, politically-correct ijits.
The context meant, USA America.
There may well be only 2 sexes, but changing, on the fringes, between them is not impossible.
richard…I know what you mean re a possible continuum between male and female but that has nothing to do with sex or sexual identity.
Let’s not forget that the main purpose of males and females is to procreate the human race. Two men with male tackle cannot do that by themselves. Nor can two women, unless they have donor sperm from males.
I have this question. If someone has such a condition how does that person have an awareness of what it means to be more female or more male? There is no way to determine that identity unless sexual fantasies are involved. In other words, a person is turned on by the thought of being a different sex.
Ask yourself, what does it mean to be male in a psychological sense and how does that differ from what it means for a woman to be female? How would you describe to another human what it means to be male in a psychological sense?
Sexual feeling is the basis of this transgender nonsense. Take the sexual feeling away and what do you have to lean on to determine sex? In fact, sexual feeling is the entire basis of the LBGTQ movement. I have nothing against people doing what they like behind closed doors but I object strenuously to anyone trying to make that a mainstream part of life. Or, worse still, coercing children to determine their sex.
That is not a good enough justification for allowing men with male tackle to enter a woman’s washroom, or play on a women’s sports team. To me there is no such thing as transgender, only people indulging sexual fantasies.
In your definition of America, is Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica and Argentina included in that America. They are all part of the continent called America.
“is Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica and Argentina included in that America.”
only in Trump’s mind.
The notion that sexes can be changed on the fringes is a nihilist thinking that encourages the notion that pedophiles, grooming gangs such as those plaguing UK and elsewhere, and other degenerates of that ilk, should be accepted as normal even as the views are intrinsically false and anti-human.
That’s quite a leap…
Not everybody is like you. So why not live and let live?
There are two continents, North America and South America.
Some should seek a geography refresher.
“agree with him that Denali should be renamed to its proper title, Mt. McKinley.”
Who the hell cares? Is that what people voted for?
Pointless culture wars?
It matters.
Canada is on territory that was bought and paid for by the blood, sweat, and tears of soldiers who fought, and too often died, in wars that were intended to protect the rights and freedoms we currently enjoy.
The notion that the territory is somehow unceded by the First Nations that inhabited the area is nonsense. No one living here, including First Nations people, would ever accept a First Nations government.
Same applies to USA and Marxist attempts to erase history and rename landmarks like Mt McKinley.
“n 1975, the state of Alaska requested that the mountain be officially recognized as Denali, as it was still the common name used in the state and was traditional among Alaska Native peoples. This change action was repeatedly blocked by members of the congressional delegation from Ohio, the home state of the mountain’s presidential namesake.”
MAGA ain’t for states rights?
The best view on the Trumping boy’s egomaniacal ignorance and stupidity: Denali National Park, ‘More than a Mountain’
https://www.nps.gov/dena/index.htm
The Trumping boy spouted already in 2015 he would rename it back in McKinley, just after Obama’s decision, which was intended to show respect for the indigenous people of Alaska.
Dans seulement deux ans, nous aurons les Midterms, et alors on verra de nouveau plus clair!
binny…”God only exists in the minds of those people who believe in its existence”.
***
Same with evolution theory, the Big Bang theory, black hole theory, and anthropogenic warming theory. All are based on belief systems.
I don’t indulge in belief systems since beliefs are just another way of saying I can’t prove something but I think it is true. Having said that, I am leaning to Creation theory of my own making. I don’t see how something as wonderful as life just happened and when I look at basic atomic theory and how the entire universe depends on protons, neutrons and electrons, in well-ordered arrangements, I don’t see any other explanation than an entity creating it.
I stop short of trying to define the entity.
I don’t think any human brain has the ability to understand at that level, however, the brain can see the immense order involved, and where there is order, there has to be intelligence involved. I don’t see how anyone can miss that nor do I see how anyone can deliberately shut it out and blindly go with a a fabricated theory like evolution.
“Same with evolution theory, the Big Bang theory, black hole theory, and anthropogenic warming theory. All are based on belief systems.”
Science theories are testable and fasifiable.
Religion is neither.
Science deniers like to mix them up.
Exit Paris climate scam on day one
Too late. Coal ain’t coming back. The momentum toward renewable energy is unstoppable.
Sorry Nate but Germany re-opened coal-fired power plants when their natural gas got restricted.
Coal made a quick recovery from the nonsense.
AI means energy demand will double.
Renewable can’t do it. Even if you include hydro as renewable.
BC just built Site C dam. It took 30 years and more just to get the project started. The power is already fully utilized.
No one wants the landscape littered with wind turbines and solar panels plus all the connective grid infrastructure. Never mind the cost versus coal, nuclear, oil, and gas turbines.
We were talking about the US, which exited Paris.
“No one wants the landscape littered with wind turbines and solar”
Do people prefer the choking smog they have in Shanghai and Mumbai? Or the landscape scarred by coal removal and fracking?
quote Do people prefer the choking smog they have in Shanghai and Mumbai? Or the landscape scarred by coal removal and fracking? unquote
You should stand outside a clean coal plant.
What is that?
“What is that”
Removes impurities like sulfur, lead, arsenic, and mercury from coal emissions.
The only output is CO2, H2O, and Oxygen … just like you.
“Although coal-fired power plants are cleaner than they used to be, they are still bad news for the environment and human health. A recent study concluded that coal emissions contribute to 10,000 premature deaths in the United States each year”
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a4947/4339171/?
I’d be interested to see that study.
Roger Bezdek says fossil fuels is 200:1 Benefit Cost including societal benefits. That includes coal.
” Removes impurities like sulfur, lead, arsenic, and mercury from coal emissions.
The only output is CO2, H2O, and Oxygen just like you. ”
*
Ken’s naivety is absolutely amazing.
He should try to translate
https://www.bund.net/fileadmin/user_upload_bund/publikationen/kohle/kohle_stickoxid_emissionen_gutachten.pdf
And he would then probably better understand the extent to which he was manipulated.
*
What we should not forget, however, is that electricity generation is only one of many sources and not the highest at all: transport, industry and buildings surpass it by far.
For whom the bells tolls:
“No one wants the landscape littered with wind turbines and solar panels plus all the connective grid infrastructure.”
I happen to love it, looks like free money to me.
Looks as if Clint R has just discovered the First Law of Thermodynamics.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697070
He’s fixated on it now.
Ark, responsible adults recognize your tactics as those of a desperate cult child.
Please continue….
The 1st Law is interesting in that Clausius defined the U = internal energy component, yet he was talked out of stating in full as he wished.
He defines internal energy in his work as the sum of internal heat and internal work, where the internal work is the vibration of atoms in a solid. However, we know it takes heat to increase that vibration therefore the 1st law is clearly a relationship between external heat and work, as stated, and internal heat and work.
Somehow, the 1st Law was incorrectly expanded by some as the Conservation of Energy law. The only energies conserved in the 1st Law are heat and work therefore the 1st Law cannot be a general energy law.
No, Gordon, Clausius expression of the 1st law regarded heat and work as transferred properties between systems. The internal energy of a system U is changed by a temperature difference between the system and its surroundings that come into thermal contact, and by work is an energy transfer resulting from macroscopic forces acting across the system’s boundary (pressure, mechanical work).
In Clausius formation ‘heat’ does not exist if there is no temperature difference. There is no internal ‘heat’, there is only internal energy, and the notion of heat is fully a transfer process. Same with work, so this:
“He defines internal energy in his work as the sum of internal heat and internal work, where the internal work is the vibration of atoms in a solid.”
Is very wrong.
“Somehow, the 1st Law was incorrectly expanded by some as the Conservation of Energy law. The only energies conserved in the 1st Law are heat and work therefore the 1st Law cannot be a general energy law.”
Clausius: “The energy of the universe is constant.”
(Die Energie der Welt ist konstant.)
While Clausius did not contemplate other modes of energy transfer in his work on the 1st Law, he did in later work (eg radiative transfer), and definitely held that the 1st Law was about conservation of energy.
Expansions of understanding of energy transfer neither invented the basis for the 1st Law nor abrogated it. Conservation of energy predates Clausius, and he explicitly based his development of thermodynamics on it.
ark…”Energy-in and energy-out are not static energy quantities but fluxes that describe the rate of energy flow into and out of the system…”
***
Why do alarmists deal only with radiation? Fluxes apply only to radiation, they are not a factor in heat flow in a solid or a liquid, or between solids and liquids by direct conduction or convection. I know some people present the heat flowing through a solid as a flux but that has no application to what you are talking about.
That’s why energy in does not equal energy out in the Earth’s system. Solar energy, as EM, enters the atmosphere and collides with all gas molecules in the atmosphere. Some solar EM gets through and when absorbed by the surface, it creates heat in the surface. That heat is not a flux per se, but a flow of heat in the surface, both solid surface and oceans.
Air in contact with the surface is also heated by direct contact, moreso at the Equator than more northerly latitudes. The heat in the air molecules (all of them) moves via convection. Neither heat in the surface or moving via convection is available for radiation, therefore it cannot be classified as energy out.
That’s why the Earth is warmer than it would be without oceans and an atmosphere and that is the true greenhouse effect. As such, it is completely ignored by alarmists who have a myopic obsession with radiation.
“An increase in temperature must be accompanied by a decrease in entropy…”
***
Makes no sense. Clausius defined entropy both in words and mathematically. In words, he stated it as the ***SUM*** of infinitesimal changes in heat in a process at a temperature, T. To ensure the definition, he claimed that heat should be drawn from a heat bath to ensure constant T.
Mathematically, he defined entropy as S = integral dq/T. So, if you have a small change in heat, dq, in a process, to get the entropy, you must sum all of the differential quantities at that temperature, T.
That is possibly why entropy is difficult to visualize. I find it easier when used in the Gibb’s free energy equation…
G = H -TS
H = enthalpy, the total heat in a system.
TS = the T and S from the entropy equation after integration and transposition.
Therefore, G = free energy is actually free heat.
Gibb’s is telling us that the free heat in a process is the total heat minus the heat lost, which is measured by the entropy equation. It is obvious then that entropy is a measure of heat lost in a process, or the heat ‘not available’ to do work.
It’s equally obvious that the more heat lost the greater the entropy. Of course, if you vary the temperature, you move away from the Clausius definition.
This article claims the opposite, that entropy increases with increasing temperature. That makes more sense to me.
https://tinyurl.com/mr37dkvy
At TOA, the interface with space, there is ONLY radiative heat transfer. That is where the Earths energy imbalance is determined.
Gor… Fourier’s Law of heat conduction within a material or between materials in contact:
Gor… “An increase in temperature must be accompanied by a decrease in entropy…
***
Makes no sense.
Yes, tell your fellow denier that: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696974
nate…”Do people prefer the choking smog they have in Shanghai and Mumbai? Or the landscape scarred by coal removal and fracking?”
***
There are ways to deal with the byproduct of smog without banning fossil fuels. Shanghai and Mumbai have the problem because there is little or no desire to do anything about it.
The current notion of zero fossil fuel emissions has nothing to do with pollution control, but an evil excuse to further an unspoken agenda. It is well documented that the UN has been trying since the 1960s to implement a universal tax to deal with issues like poverty. Whereas that could be a noble cause, the means of bringing it about are pure evil in that the lies supporting the cause are evil.
Sure Gordon, people with different views than you must be evil!
nate…”Same with evolution theory, the Big Bang theory, black hole theory, and anthropogenic warming theory. All are based on belief systems.
Science theories are testable and fasifiable.
Religion is neither”.
***
I did not mention religion but I have proceeded on the basic definition of the word religious, which means ‘to be serious’. I don’t think one can be serious and have a belief system. That is not meant as knock on people who have belief systems, it is a fact that comes only through enlightenment. Awareness, a basis of intelligence, is the diametrical opposite of belief.
Enlightenment is shrouded in mystery in Eastern religions like Zen Bhuddism and I don’t know why. It is simply the sudden realization, due to awareness, that the human mind has somehow become dependent on conditioned thought processes and has forsaken the natural intelligence one always has available to them.
You say that scientific theories are testable and falsifiable. How can that be claimed of evolution theory where the basis, abiogensis, cannot be explained. Abiogenesis is an inference that life can somehow spring forth from lifeless molecules like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc., when they are mixed by fluke in primeval muds.
A group tried to do that in the 1950s and all they got was a puddle of ooze. No life. They concluded that the conditions required to produce the ooze could not support life.
What we call evolution today is actually genetics, and that cannot be applied to more than one species at a time. The major claims of evolution theory, like humans evolving from ocean mammals has never been proved. No one has ever explained how ocean mammals with gills and fins, can evolve into humans walking erect with lungs on two feet.
You and I are here today because two cells united in our moms. No one has a clue to this day how that works to grow a complete, healthy body, let along produce life in it. I feel you have to stop and see how wonderful that process is and get it that it’s not possible for the intelligence behind that process, and built into the DNA of the cells involved, to occur by chance.
As far as the Big Band theory, it is nonsense. The thing bugging me most about it is the effrontery of theoretical scientists trying to push it on the naive as an actual theory. The idea that all the matter in the current universe began in a bang, out of nothing, is too absurd to comprehend,never mind take seriously.
There is simply no evidence to support that theory, black hole theory, or anthropogenic warming theory.
Darwin’s theory of Evolution didn’t include abiogenisis. It was and is all about the origins of different species.
“There is simply no evidence to support that theory, black hole theory, or anthropogenic warming theory.”
Bullsh*t.
The predictions of the Big Bang theory were the red shift increasing with distance. These were observed and confirmed. Other predictions confirmed later. Still some mysteries.
Black holes imaged recently and their predicted gravitational effects, including gravity waves, confirmed.
AGW, loads of evidence brought up here, often by Roy Spencer.
Nate
You wrote upthread:
” Too late. Coal ain’t coming back. The momentum toward renewable energy is unstoppable. ”
I don’t believe you. Just look at the coal export from Australia, especially to India.
And… please don’t forget that electricity is only 20% of the energy needed worldwide; thought the amount of EVs for private persons raises, we are light years away from banning fossile energy from e.g. trucks, ships, airplanes, let alone from industry and… buildings.
***
But the reply to your comment, posted by the 360 degree denier Clint R is far worse:
” Sorry Nate but Germany re-opened coal-fired power plants when their natural gas got restricted.
Coal made a quick recovery from the nonsense. ”
*
This is so dumb… typical for deniers who exclusively base their information on contrarian blogs like Gosselin’s German TricksZone.
*
Indeed: the sudden lack of natural gas due to the Russian war against Ukraine led to a restart or sutdown delay for 7 coal and 7 lignite units.
What Clint R deliberately keeps silent about is that these units were shutdown by end of March 2024.
Clint R actually prefers to rely on fake info rather than on true facts.
*
1. During his campaign, the Trumping boy was repeatedly lying about Germany’s energy production, claiming that
– Germany puts up wind turbines everywhere and the wind didn’t blow as hard. And if they had continued this process, Germany would be bankrupt now;
– Germany, after a failed phase-out of fossil fuels, has resorted to building a new coal-fired power plant every week.
I could watch such Trump lies in original on the German TV.
*
2. Germany moves year after year away not only from fossile primaries for electricity production but also from nuclear power.
This is a spreadsheet documenting the percentages of primary energy use in gross electricity production since 2009 (i.e., including internal energy consumption):
https://i.postimg.cc/1t7Gzgdt/Public-brutto-electricity-production-in-Germany-in-primary-percentages.png
And these images below show the net electricity production percentages obtained out of primary sources for 2022, 2023 and 2024:
2022:
https://i.postimg.cc/j54gbhBK/Public-net-electricity-production-in-Germany-in-2022.png
2023:
https://i.postimg.cc/0jtV6y8B/Public-net-electricity-production-in-Germany-in-2023.png
2024:
https://i.postimg.cc/yx9fVh3n/Public-net-electricity-production-in-Germany-in-2024.png
*
But, for Clint R, this is all wrong because originating from ‘the Cult’, as does originate ANY data he doubts or dislikes: only what matches the ‘ball-on-a-string’ is accepted.
Coal is done in the developed world.
Status of the Paris Agreement as of January 2025: https://ibb.co/5Lt7BLC
Out: USA, Iran, Libya and Yemen.
In: everyone else.
Only four countries that have any sense. Pathetic.
Only four countries that think the same. Really?
The four countries with ‘strong’ leaders.
The U.S. is withdrawing. The other three have signed, but not ratified.
U.S. leads again.
The last time the US withdrew from the Paris Agreement CO2 concentration was at ~414.21.
By the time this second withdrawal becomes effective CO2 concentration will be ~428.3.
That puts us at about a 7 on the scale: https://imgur.com/a/WlvOOvy
ark…”Gor Fouriers Law of heat conduction within a material or between materials in contact:
The heat flux obtained from the thermal conduction is directly proportional to the size of the temperature gradient and opposite to it in sign”.
***
I have no problem with that, it’s the definition of flux that is in question. The word flux comes from Newton’s fluxion, which is essentially the 1st derivative of a changing field. We now call it a derivative, the 1st derivative of a function to be precise. From your post re Fourier, in a solid, the flux is obviously the rate of change of thermal energy in a cross section of the mass in which heat is flowing. As I implied, that does not apply to the problem we are discussing of an energy budget, which is far more complex.
How would one go about accurately measuring such a flux in a solid other than through sheer estimation?
I was responding to this statement from you…
“Energy-in and energy-out are not static energy quantities but fluxes that describe the rate of energy flow into and out of the system
We can’t call those fluxes because they have never been precisely measured across an area, only estimated based on the S-B equation and the inverse square law over the 93 million miles between the Sun and Earth for input. We have no way of measuring the IR output from Earth.
How would you go about measuring electromagnetic energy intensity over a square metre? In electronics communications, we measure it using a meter and antenna, but the resultant measurement is not EM but a proxy for it. The EM affects electrons in the antenna causing them to flow, and the metre measures the resultant current. From that we have to estimate the EM field intensity over a square metre.
When Trenberth-Kiehle issued their energy budget they admitted it was sheerly hypothetical. They could offer no measured values.
The thing you need to consider is that the energy budget is a purely hypothetical concept, just like the Big Bang theory and evolution theory.
The problem is compounded in that incoming solar takes variable amounts of time to leave the system. Also, there are processes involved including thermal conduction and convection.
I am offering my own theory that heat is dissipated within the system and there is no need to account for it. Energy in versus energy out is true only in a system where there is a one to one relationship between them. Our Earth system is far more complex than that with intangibles like gravity, that orders atmospheric pressure with altitude in a negative fashion.
I fear the process is far too complex to be clearly understood.
Consider electric vehicles: Its no secret China wants to dominate the global market. Today, it accounts for more than half the worlds electric vehicle production. But over 450 electric vehicle battery companies have announced they are moving to America or expanding factories here since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act many of them leaving China to do so. It would be a national embarrassment to cede this entire industry back.
And we stand to lose more than jobs or pride. The United States electricity demand will grow 15 percent over the next decade because of new data centers, factories and transportation. If the Trump administration forces the loss of wind, solar and other clean energy jobs, well lose access to the technologies that help make up our energy mix. Monthly utility bills will rise, and brownouts and blackouts will become regular experiences.
The administration is also deluding itself if it believes drill, baby, drill will create a jobs boom. The United States is already the worlds largest oil producer and gas exporter. A combination of tepid oil prices and subdued market demand has left many industry leaders weary of making major investments to increase output.”
NYT ‘China Will Be Thrilled if Trump Kills Americas Green Economy’
Yes, Biden/Harris left the country in a mess.
Fortunately, we’re now “unburdened” by those buffoons.
“Yes, Biden/Harris left the country in a mess.”
Really?
Yup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RklGvn8SQZY
Nope. Mind you, it will go down from here.
BREAKING: Trump suffers FIRST MAJOR LOSS of his presidency
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNTjsfPw5TY
VIOLENT Criminal Pardoned by Trump INSTANTLY ARRESTED Again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MaxaJCmCdQ
No sequitur from Clint. I guess he didn’t read the post.
Nate Says
The administration is also deluding itself if it believes drill, baby, drill will create a jobs boom. The United States is already the worlds largest oil producer and gas exporter. A combination of tepid oil prices and subdued market demand has left many industry leaders weary of making major investments to increase output.
It is all about the spread between production cost and the wholesale price you can get that determines profit. By opening up access to lower cost oil/gas areas Trump is betting that investors would be interested. It will lower both production and wholesale cost, but the key is the spread. Lower energy costs generlly create jobs, even if it is not in the energy sector.
And you naively believe that this will go towards creating jobs instead of lining corporations profits. Evidence?
The NYT would love to see Communist China dominate the the world economy for electric cars that was created by Democrats in the Green New Deal. Trump thinks people should be able to purchase the car they prefer. I think it is called Capitalism. Let the Europeans buy the Chinese cars if they want. For us, if war breaks out, it does not sound like a good idea to let the Chinese throw the kill switch that is hidden in the software, so they suddenly make all of the cars stop running and shut us down. Everything coming from China has to be assumed to be some kind of spyware.
Trump thinks people should be able to purchase the car they prefer. I think it is called Capitalism”
No one suggested otherwise.
“let the Chinese throw the kill switch that is hidden in the software”
But why does Chinese owned Tik Tok suddenly need protecting? Cuz our oligarchs like it.
“The NYT would love to see Communist China dominate the the world economy for electric cars that”
No we would like this obviously growing industry to have domestic competitors.
Stopping that would be like in 1850 saying let Europe build the trains.
Or 1890, let others build light bulbs and the electric grid.
It is short-sighted.
Gor…
I responded to your assertion that: “ Fluxes apply only to radiation, they are not a factor in heat flow in a solid or a liquid, or between solids and liquids by direct conduction or convection.”
I wrote: Fourier’s Law states that the heat flux obtained from the thermal conduction is directly proportional to the size of the temperature gradient and opposite to it in sign.
1/ Regarding your comment about fluxion:
In my fifty years in engineering, not once has anybody confused flux which is precisely defined in modern physics as the flow of a quantity through an area, with fluxion which is a term from 17th-century Newtonian calculus referring to the derivative.
As we round the first quarter of the 21st century don’t you think it’s time for a software update?
2/ How would one go about accurately measuring such a flux in a solid other than through sheer estimation?
Surely you jest! You measure it the same way that Fourier measured it in his very famous experiments. Only difference is, better accuracy, and better knowledge of the thermal properties of materials.
You should study Fourier’s experiments.
3/ The Earth’s Energy Imbalance is inferred from satellite measurements of TOA radiative fluxes such as NASA’s CERES program. These satellite estimates are constrained and validated by independent observational datasets, including changes in ocean heat content (the dominant energy sink), cryospheric contributions (e.g., ice sheet and glacier mass loss), surface and atmospheric warming trends, and other factors like changes in land heat storage.
This process is complex and requires integrating diverse data sources while addressing significant uncertainties; but if it was easy anybody could do it.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/CERES_NETFLUX_M
4/ “my own theory that heat is dissipated within the system”
Hogwash! Earth is a closed thermodynamic system. If excess heat never leaves the system it will continue to heat up unconstrained; the excess energy doesn’t simply “dissipate,” it exits the system into the vacuum of space.
ark…”In my fifty years in engineering, not once has anybody confused flux which is precisely defined in modern physics as the flow of a quantity through an area, with fluxion which is a term from 17th-century Newtonian calculus referring to the derivative”.
***
1/Flux is always defined as a rate of change of the amount of ‘something’ through an area. A static flux has no real significance, although some people refer to the static magnetic field of a magnet as flux. At the same time, it is referred to as a flux density, which describes the number of flux lines per unit area.
Why would you talk about a magnetic flux if there was no way to state the strength of the field? Although magnetic flux is regarded by some as a constant, it is actually ‘something’ flowing out of one end of a magnetic and back into the other end. That’s why we talk about magnetic circuits having a magnetomotive force. There is an equivalent magnetic current to go with that force.
Here’s a separate article that discusses it…
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Physics_(Boundless)/22%3A_Induction_AC_Circuits_and_Electrical_Technologies/22.1%3A_Magnetic_Flux_Induction_and_Faradays_Law
“Magnetic Flux
The magnetic flux (often denoted Φ or ΦB through a surface is the component of the magnetic field passing through that surface. The magnetic flux through some surface is proportional to the number of field lines passing through that surface”.
note…that’s phi or phi B in case it is lost during the post
If that flow is constant then the derivative of the function is 0, indicating no change in intensity. If the flux is changing, the derivative will have a value other than 0.
Ergo, flux is the same as fluxion, a derivative.
2/”You measure it [flux] the same way that Fourier measured it in his very famous experiments. Only difference is, better accuracy, and better knowledge of the thermal properties of materials”.
***
And how did he do that? Did he saw the material in half and measure the heat flux at each point of a cross-sectional area? And if he had, what could he possibly measure since heat flows electron to electron in an atom?
In the days of Fourier, atoms were a murky hypothesis and the makeup of an atom was entirely unknown. Fifty years later they still had no idea how heat was transferred through air, reasoning that it flowed as ‘heat rays’. Nothing more is known today about how heat flows across a surface in a solid, simply because we cannot measure at the atomic level.
3/”The Earths Energy Imbalance is ***inferred*** from satellite measurements…”
Like I said, it’s not measured directly.
4/”Earth is a closed thermodynamic system. If excess heat never leaves the system it will continue to heat up unconstrained; the excess energy doesnt simply dissipate, it exits the system into the vacuum of space”.
***
Your answer reveals a lack of understanding of what heat is. It is the energy associated with atomic motion. That motion can be external, like atoms moving in a gas, or internal, with electrons jumping back and forth between orbital energy levels.
Heat is energy. As energy, it can produce work, which is mechanical energy, but it can also operate as just energy. We have no idea what energy is but it is an entity, like heat, that can cause mass to react in certain ways, both externally and internally. It can cause a solid to expand in size and removing it can cause the mass to shrink in size.
As just energy, heat in the atmosphere, causes the gases of the atmosphere to expand, lowering their density. That causes heated air to rise through cooler, more dense air. However, as the heated air rises it rises into an ever decreasing gas pressure. That gas pressure produces an ever decreasing temperature, meaning the air into which the heated air rises is colder.
Therefore as air with more heat rises, it expands and cools naturally.
Locally, this is an isochoric process, meaning the temperature and pressure vary in direct proportion (constant volume). In other words if there are less air molecule as altitude increases, the pressure decreases therefore the temperature must decrease. Since temperature is a human invention to measure relative heat levels, it means heat has simply disappeared from the system.
Gor…
1/ This puts the final nail in your case because Magnetic Flux is fundamentally different from Heat Flux.
Magnetic flux is a scalar (see equation 22.1.1 in your link) while heat flux is a vector. Also, magnetic flux is not a flow like heat flux.
Flux ≠ Fluxion. QED.
2/ How did Fourier measure Heat Flux, you ask?
Given that Q = -k dT/dx, he measured the temperature gradient (dT/dx), looked up the thermal conductivity (k) of the material, plugged them into the Fourier equation, and voila, he inferred the heat flux!
3/ Yes, I always invoke the scientific definition of the term “infer.” Look it up: https://www2.mpia-hd.mpg.de/~calj/inference.html
4/ More confusion.
First you say that rising warm air expands, then you say that it rises at constant volume (isochorically).
The actual process is not isochoric, but an adiabatic expansion.
ΔU = Q W, where Q=0 and W>0 so that ΔU<0.
Another insight gleaned from this process is that the warm air molecules exchange kinetic energy for potential energy as they gain altitude, as is required by the principle of conservation of energy.
ΔU = Q – W
nate…”The predictions of the Big Bang theory were the red shift increasing with distance. These were observed and confirmed. Other predictions confirmed later. Still some mysteries.
Black holes imaged recently and their predicted gravitational effects, including gravity waves, confirmed.
AGW, loads of evidence brought up here, often by Roy Spencer”.
***
The red shift/blue shift means nothing. It presume stars are moving away from and/or toward an epi-centre where the BB allegedly occurred. However, the universe ***we know*** is a fraction of the size of the actual universe and we have no idea what the shifts indicate as far as motion is concerned.
There is another part to the theory that the temperature of the universe is about 4K. They have claimed that ***HEAT*** as being left over from the BB.
These physicists are cranks who should be required to return their degrees. There is no way to determine a temperature for the universe since their is no way of measuring it. The radiation they are measuring is not heat, it is electromagnetic energy. The least they could do is study Bohr’s theory that relates EM to electrons in matter.
Any matter left over from the alleged BB would have cooled to 0K long ago. No matter could hang onto the heat in a space where the temperature is regarded as 0K. The background radiation they are using obviously comes from another source.
***
There is no such thing as a gravity wave.That quaint notion is part of the fiction of
continued from above…
There is no such thing as a gravity wave. That quaint notion is part of the fiction of quantum field theory a load of wishful thinking that has no proof.
How does one image a black hole? There is no light there hence nothing to image. Because their is an absence of light, rather than trying to find out why, wannabee scientists are claiming there is a super-dense phenomenon there which absorbs everything, including light. I think a grade-schooler might offer a better explanation.
How about something diverting light rather than absorbing it? Light has an electric and a magnetic field therefore another strong field of some kind could divert it from our instruments.
When I studied astronomy, a black hole was defined as the result of an exploding star (super-nova). The star, at end of life, is theorized to follow one of three steps…
1)to explode in a super nova, after expanding to a red giant then collapsing.
2)to retract into a super dense neutron star
3)to retract further into a black hole.
No one as yet has explained any of the three steps, as to how they can happen. As far as step 2, no one has explained how neutrons stick together to form a super-dense mass.
Step 3 is even worse. No one has explained how conditions move past the neutron star to an invisible mass that can absorb light and all mass.
***
I have seen no evidence to support the AGW theory and Roy is non-commital on the subject. I respect Roy’s POV on the subject but at no time has he confirmed the theory. In fact, he has been measured by claiming he does not know what effect anthropogenic gases could have on warming. Good enough for me.
I have challenged alarmists to explain why the Little Ice Age is not claimed as the cause of warming due to re-warming. The IPCC have stuck their heads firmly in the sand, claiming the LIA occurred only in Europe. That is one of the dumber explanations from them.
gordon,
the LIA isn’t a cause of anything, it was caused by something.
if you want to make a case that post-1900 global warming is a “rebound” from the LIA, you need to identify the mechanisms that caused the LIA, and explain why they are elastic is such a way that they needed to ‘rebound’.
Also, you need to take a properly skeptical view of the notion that LIA was global or regional. Instead, you’ve staked out a position that appears to be based on preference rather than serious inquiry.
Roy is on record multiple times here saying the greenhouse effect is real, and that anthropogenic emission should cause some warming, all else being equal. His departure with mainstream views is regarding the degree of warming WRT to increased CO2, NOT to the fact of warming.
For example:
“The latest NASA AIRS instrument has actually measured the decrease in IR energy from the Earth as CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. This is observational evidence that an increased greenhouse effect reduces the rate of loss of IR energy to outer space, which should lead to some warming…
Finally, just because the greenhouse effect exists does not mean that global warming in response to increasing carbon dioxide will be a serious problem…”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/
And:
“The total amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years has upset the radiative energy budget of the Earth by only 1%. How the climate system responds to that small ‘poke’ is very uncertain. The IPCC says there will be strong warming, with cloud changes making the warming worse. I claim there will be weak warming, with cloud changes acting to reduce the influence of that 1% change. The difference between these two outcomes is whether cloud feedbacks are positive (the IPCC view), or negative (the view I and a minority of others have).”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/
That’s correct, barry. Roy doesn’t attack the GHE nonsense with physics because physics is not his area of expertise. He attacks from his knowledge of climate and weather. That’s what a scientist should do — stay within your area of expertise.
I prefer attacking with physics because, like when using nuclear weapons, there’s nothing left….
But physics is definitely not Clint’s expertise, as we see from his endless physics confusions:
He claimed the far and near sides of the Moon have the same velocity! He claimed a blackbody can perfectly reflect light. He claimed an orbiting moon has no angular momentum. He claimed force and velocity vectors can be summed. On and on…
Child Nate, I often refer to your childish behavior. And you cant wait to prove me right.
Here, you throw out a number of things you don’t understand, in some desperate effort to falsely accuse me. If a responsible adult did not understand a comment of mine, he would provide a link to it and specify exactly what he didnt understand. That way I could easily help.
But, cult kids can’t behave responsibly.
But Clint, you have made all those claims just as Nate said.
You did claim the near side and the far side move with the same velocity, so the Moon left orbit shortly after it solidified and has long since left the solar system.
Oh snap, I just saw the Moon a few nights ago.
You have made these irresponsible claims many times, no need to link to hundreds of posts, it has become a meme.
Gordon,
“The IPCC have stuck their heads firmly in the sand, claiming the LIA occurred only in Europe. That is one of the dumber explanations from them.”
Why don’t you try reading the reports? Because they do not claim the LIA was only confined to Europe.
And to simple put it, gravitational collapse is what causes neutron stars to form after a supernova. Didn’t you pay attention in Astronomy class?
Wrong bob. As usual, you can’t support your false accusations.
Tagging along with Nate’s childish incompetence just means you’re childishly incompetent. But unoriginal.
Clint, Roy doesn’t attack the GHE, he defends it, over and over, and laments that skeptics who disbelieve are injuring the skeptic camp.
Roy Spencer: “Please stop the ‘no greenhouse effect’ stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. I’ve blogged on this numerous times.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
barry, from the same link:
“I understand and appreciate that many of the things we think we know in science end up being wrong.”
Now quit playing childish gotcha games and learn some science.
Called anyone a “lying dog” lately?
No, that epithet really only fits you, dear.
And here you go again. After pretending that Dr Spencer “attacks” the GHE, you try to hold on to some remnant of your utterly fallacious words with a quote from him on uncertainty in general.
Why do you keep behaving like this?
When you change your ways I will amend my view.
Sorry barry, but you can’t change.
Your mind is so perverted you actually believe you’re smart because you can insult and falsely accuse others.
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
Clint,
If I can post the links where you made those four claims, will you leave for a month?
Nate’s “accusations” are true.
You can’t do that bob.
So I get to ignore you for a month.
Clint,
One at a time then.
So you then admit that the far side of the Moon and the near side of the Moon move at different velocities, and thus it directly follows that the Moon rotates on its own internal axis.
So we can end the Moon nonsense.
You’re trying to pervert reality again, boob.
Sorry Clint,
It’s you that perverts reality.
If the Moon is not spinning, then the whole universe is revolving around the Moon.
Einstein disagrees.
Clint,
It’s not your fault that I have a deep loathing for lies. And it is not my fault that you so patently deploy them.
When you claim Roy “attacks” the GHE, and I quote him clearly attacking skeptics for rejecting it, that should be the end game.
But instead you quote mine from the source I provided for that information, like this:
“I understand and appreciate that many of the things we think we know in science end up being wrong.”
To try and support your patently false assertion.
The reason that the epithet you reminded me of is so fit for you is apparent just by quoting a bit more of your cherry-picked paragraph.
Roy Spencer: “I understand and appreciate that many of the things we think we know in science end up being wrong. I get that. But some of the alternative explanations I’m seeing border on the ludicrous.”
Number 1 on Roy’s list of ludicrous alternative explanations is rejection of the greenhouse effect, which I quoted for you.
The fact you deliberately inverted Roy’s meaning by omitting the final sentence is exactly why I hold you in the contempt you richly deserve. Your deceitfulness has no limit. I am glad what I said a couple of years ago stings you, and that you bring it up from time to time. That means that, just possibly, there is hope you will become honest.
“we have no idea what the shifts indicate”
YOU have no idea. But physicists do.
Plus the microwave background radiation. Light emitted from the Big Bang, then red shifted by the universe’s expansion.
‘There is no such thing as a gravity wave’
A crank denying observable facts. Why should we believe you?
The example of bricks-in-a-box always gets amusing responses. So, let’s go for more.
The perfectly insulated box contains a brick at 100F. The box, and the air in the box, are also at 100F. A second brick is placed on top of the first brick. The second brick is identical, except it has a temperature of 200F.
Responsible adults would realize that, after a time, both bricks would be close to 150F, since they are identical, and no energy can leave the box (system). The two bricks would tend to equalize in temperature, so that there is no longer heat transfer.
At the instant the second brick is placed on the first brick, there is a temperature difference of 100F. Call this situation State 1. Note the temperature difference would be able to produce work, as a thermocouple placed between the two bricks would produce an electrical current.
After a time, the bricks would have the same temperature. Call this situation State 2. Note that there is no longer a temperature difference. There is no longer a way to produce work.
So the system went from State 1 to State 2, losing the ability to do work. In thermodynamics, the system entropy increased. Note that the system energy remained the same. Entropy increased, but energy remained constant. In State 1, the system contained order (the temperature difference). But in State 2, the system was disordered.
Let the fun begin….
Nothing wrong with the above, except for a small niggle about heat transfer to the total environment, not just to the 1st brick. But the general principles are sound.
The scenario that I remember causing dispute was the difference before and after the 2nd brick was introduced.
IIRC your argument was that energy was added to a system without changing the temperature. How this related to flux on plates and the GHE is anyone’s guess, as these systems are closed.
barry, you’re so confused, as usual.
I presented two different scenarios (different comments). In the first, the brick added was the same temperature as the system. Energy was added, but the temperature remained unchanged.
In the second scenario, the brick added was twice the temperature of the system, and after some time the system equalized as entropy increased.
I don’t expect you to understand.
I’m not confused. You just repeated what I stated for the first scenario.
You also got an answer to your latest thought experiment. Did you have anything to add?
Clint,
What happens when you add energy but no mass to a closed system?
Depends on the energy and the system, bob.
But then you would have to understand the basics, huh?
Clint, what if it is a brick in a cooler and only energy is added then?
Take the plastic wrap off of your physics book before you answer.
[Clint R January 20, 2025 at 11:21 AM] If the temperature of the second brick had been 200F, the temperature of the system would increase, as entropy was decreased.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696974
[Clint R January 24, 2025 at 4:21 PM] So the system went from State 1 to State 2, losing the ability to do work. In thermodynamics, the system entropy increased.
[Me] Youre welcome!
Ark, I already explained the first comment was a typo. And that should have been obvious from my previous comments.
But keep using it as your pathetic attempt to misrepresent me, since you have NOTHING.
You’re welcome!
The problem with your scenario is that there is no such thing as a perfectly insulated box.
Highly insulated – yes. But perfect? -no.
Heat will therefore always leak out of the box. Your scenario of a situation where temperature can remain constant without any “help” is physically impossible.
Think about it. Whatever the composition of the box, there will be a temperature gradient within the wall.
And where there is a gradient you have conduction.
Where you have conduction the temperature of the box must slowly increase.
i.e. the system is not confined to just the interior and your line of reasoning fails.
That was fun.
It’s okay to assume no losses in a “thought experiment”.
But it’s NOT okay to distort reality as in the GHE hoax, where they claim Earth is an imaginary sphere.
Well they don’t, that’s just your uneducated, immature, and ignorant bull.
Ever since they found an ancient forest under the Harding ice field dating to the mwp, Im just not that worried about climate change. Thank God the little ice age was short lived.
I wonder if the conditions that led to LIA could happen again.
A genuine climate crisis if it suddenly got cold again.
Testing.
https://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
The LIA was part of a longer term cooling trend. We cooled 0.5C in 5000 years as we moved off the Holocene Optimum sweet spot towards the next glacial period.
We then rebounded 1.6C in 150 years and are now 1C warmer than the Holocene Optimum.
Somehow near term cooling looks unlikely.
“Somehow near term cooling looks unlikely.”
Noted.
5000 years ago, they bought their thermometers at Walmart.
That’s good to mention, since otherwise folks will think it’s all just beliefs….
Just have a look at this list:
https://tinyurl.com/Volcanos-LIA
and look at the year sequences here and there.
Push Gordon overboard.
the map clearly shows a waterfall – but not how high the waterfall is – or if it is really there.
Only if you can’t read a Topo Map.
If you could read a topo map then you’d know where you are.
Your story is full of holes.
The “story” is about uncertainty you dimwit.
Heisenberg makes no mention of rubber rafts.
Your story is nonsense.
So, you didn’t get the memo informing you of the difference between statistical uncertainty and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Statistical uncertainty can be attributed to incomplete or imprecise information, limitations in our measurement tools, and errors in the map or navigation; it can therefore be reduced. Heisenberg uncertainty is not reducible by better measurements or enhanced methods since it is an inherent property of nature.
Navigating uncertain waters demands vigilance, preparation, and timely intervention to avoid disaster. Enjoy the ride!
“the map clearly shows a waterfall but not how high the waterfall is or if it is really there.”
Happy to continue with a blindfold and your fingers in your ears?
Gas is the new coal
https://youtu.be/8z3FayJS8BM
The amount of UK electricity generated from fossil fuels fell 22% year-on-year in 2023 to the lowest level since 1957, Carbon Brief analysis reveals.
The 104 terawatt hours (TWh) generated from fossil fuels in 2023 is the lowest level in 66 years.
Isaac Asimov January 14, 1989
https://youtu.be/o6tSYRY90PA
Yes, Asimov was a prolific writer of science-fiction.
Is someone a little jealous?
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696959
The First Conclusions
Conclusions:
1). We have written the theoretically exact the planet mean surface temperature equation as a very much reliable theoretical formula:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) (3)
The theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean) are almost identical with the measured by satellites (Tsat.mean).
2). We shall now compare the theoretically calculated Earth’s (without-atmosphere) the average surface temperature (Tmean) with the satellite measured one, the (Tsat), because we are very much interested to estimate the magnitude of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
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
The planet mean surface temperature New equation is written for planets and moons WITHOUT atmosphere.
When applied to Earth (Without Atmosphere) the New equation calculates Earth’s mean surface temperature as 287,74K, which is very much close to the satellite measured 288K.
3). Thus for the planet Earth the 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
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.
……………………
Also, there is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earths surface.
Because we have written a Universal Equation which is valid for all planets and moons in solar system.
Earth is a planet, thus when the Equation calculates for Earth’s surface the mean surface temperature Tmean = 287,4 K and the satellite measured the Earth’s average surface temperature
Tsat =288K,
Then there is no room for any significant atmospheric greenhouse effect, much more there is not any +33 C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface,
and there cant be any other significant warming because the new theoretical Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation (Tmean) and the followed calculations dont allow it.
–
Oh? Did you fix the abs.orbed flux not matching the emitted flux problem?
Vournas
Remove your Φ.
This is nothing more than a scientifically 100% unproven manipulation by you, and everything looks again as always.
Two planets (or moons) at the same distance from the sun the Tsat temperatures comparison.
There are not two completely identical planets (or moons) in the solar system, they are all having large differences – so there are not completely identical planets or moons at the same distance from the sun.
We have though distinguished that two Jupiter’s moons – the Io and the Callisto – have some very similar of the major parameters.
And, yes, both of them – Io and Callisto – both of them are the planet Jupiter’s moons, so they are at the same distance 5,20 AU from the sun.
At that distance (5,20 AU) the solar flux’s intensity is 50,37 W/m2.
Also, both of them – Io and Callisto – both of them are very rough surface celestial bodies. Thus for both, one of the major planetary surface parameters – the Solar Irradiation Accepting FactorΦ = 1 .
Table of data:
……..”Bond”…N Spin…Average.cp..(N*cp)..(N*cp)^1/16..Tsat …….Albedo….rot/day..cal/gr*oC…………………….K..
Io……0,63…..0,5559…..0,145….(0,0806)…(0,8544)….110
Callisto..0,22…0,0599…..1,0……(0,0599)…(0,8387)..13411
What we have noticed is that planet Jupiter’s moons – Io and Callisto – they differ in their Albedo (a), in their Spin (N) and in their average surface specific heat (cp).
But when (N*cp)1/16 – the differences in Spin (N) and in average surface specific heat (cp) – their products in sixteenth root (in the case of Io and Callisto) are quite close to each other.
Io(N*cp)^1/16 /Callisto(N*cp)^1/16=(0,8544)/(0,8387)= 1,0187
or 1,87 %, which means their parameter’s (N*cp)^1/16 values are very much close.
Therefore, the only major parameter, the only significant difference is the difference in “Bond” Albedo. For Io a = 0,63 and for Callisto a = 0,22
According to the INITIAL AXIOM:
T1 /T2 = [ (Flux1) /(Flux2) ] ∕ ⁴
Callisto Tsat /Io Tsat = 134K /110K = 1,2182
Solar Flux on Callisto (minus Albedo) = (1 – a)S = (1 – 0,22)S = 0,78 SW/m2
The same on Io = (1 – a)S = (1 – 0,63)S = 0,37 SW/m2
[(Flux on Callisto)/(Flux on Io)] ∕ ⁴ =[(0,78 S)/(0,37 S)] ∕ ⁴
= (2,108) ∕ ⁴ = 1,2049
When compared the
T1 /T2 = [ (Flux1) /(Flux2) ] ∕ ⁴
1,2182 and 1,2049 – they are almost identical.
1,2182 /1,2049 = 1,011 or only 1,1 % difference.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Unless you fixed the glaring energy imbalance in your model, it is still wrong. As discussed with you before, and never answered.
Now is the right time to enjoy a very old Turkish proverb:
” When a clown enters a palace, he does not become its prince; rather, it’s the palace that becomes his circus. “
Speaking of yourself are you?
You would know, huh?
BlindsleyH00d knows exactly who I’m talking about, but as always he pushes for unnecessary distraction.
Sounds like you were.
Sounds like Blindsley H00d is too much a cow~ard to write what he himself actually means, thus prefers to keep stalking me.
Unlike Blindsley H00d, I am not a cow~ard.
*
I meant the great, genius ‘creator of the Gulf of America’, a ‘man’ convicted of fel~ony by a jury, and bad enough to suggest that clemency can wipe out the crimes of a brutal riot of his own making.
Aand who during his campaign claimed, among other things:
– he would end the Russian war against Ukraine in a day;
– the Germans were bringing a new coal-fired power plant in the grid every week;
– etc, etc. (the list is ‘as long as a day without bread’, the Frenchies would say).
No – you are just a cow.
P.S. I agree with you about Trump.
Even a fool can be right,sometimes.
Yes, every now and again Trump says something true.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697356
“ Unfortunately, in that paragraph, you were just making a fool of yourself, and not Clint R.”
Nice guy.
Yes, thank you.
He Dremt, how’s it going? LTNS.
Hey Gordon, how are you?
I’ve been enjoying my retirement from commenting. Lots more time to spend with my family and I’ve been way more productive. After the current discussion ends, up-thread, I’ll definitely be back to “retired” again as it’s reminded me why I left in the first place!
Al Gore is still going strong. Here he is speaking at Davos this week.
https://youtu.be/i0LAPZoUHEE?t=35
That’s for an EEI of 1.072 W/m^2.
THE number is a lot bigger if you translate it into the equivalent energy of kitten sneezes
I think Al Gore’s “Doomsday Clock” ran out about 6 years ago.
But, he’s still funny….
Good to see that Al Gore’s ability to strike a nerve, hit a vein, with the denialist community hasn’t diminished one bit. His continued prominence frustrates opponents because it ensures the climate conversation remains active and urgent, despite their efforts to discredit or derail it.
Al and Greta should go on tour — The “Gore and Greta Comedy Show”.
Al Gore has single-handedly exposed the buffoonery at the basis of anthropogenic warming.
When Gore’s professor at Harvard, Dr. Roger Revelle, teamed up with Dr. Fred Singer in a paper that cautioned the public not to read too much into the anthropogenic warming theory, Gore went ballistic and insinuated that Revelle had been senile when he co-wrote the paper. Furthermore, he claimed that Singer had taken advantage of his senility by coercing him into signing off on the paper.
Singer sued and won in court. In fact, testimony from Revelle’s daughter was key, that Revelle had been sound of mind when he co-wrote the paper.
On another occasion, Gore got James Hansen off the hook when the head of NASA wanted to fire him for his political activity that once got him thrown in jail for protesting the Keystone Pipeline. Gore, as VP was a well-known admirer and supporter of Hansen.
When he came out swinging in support of the MBH hockey stick, he cemented his reputation as a buffoon.
Gore has helped immensely in making it clear that the anthropogenic theory is nothing more than a politically-motivated gambit aimed at diverting public attention away from an ulterior motive. It has also made him very wealthy.
Hey, maybe Ark will join them.
Prevaricating again, huh?
1/ There is no evidence from news reports or court records indicating that Al Gore personally accused Revelle of senility or claimed that Singer had coerced him into signing the paper. The primary dispute was between Singer and Justin Lancaster, Revelle’s former student.
2/ There is no substantiating evidence in available records for your claim that Vice President Al Gore intervened to prevent NASA from terminating Dr. Hansen due to his political activities, including his arrest during a Keystone Pipeline protest.
It is noteworthy that in 2006, Dr. Hansen alleged that NASA administrators attempted to influence his public statements about climate change. However, these events occurred during the George W. Bush administration, prior to the Keystone Pipeline protests, and there is no evidence linking Vice President Gore to any intervention in this matter.
In 1991, Revelle agreed with a statement about needing more evidence on AGW. Nothing wrong with that at the time, when it was unclear if GW was a real long term trend.
But 34 years of GW later, it is clear that the main predictions were correct. His statement is no longer valid.
Where is this energy trapped?
Trapped is shorthand for the process that slows the escape of radiation to space. This in/out radiative imbalance causes more heat to be stored in the Earth’s climate system.
It appears January UAH results will be warmer than December.
The HTE continues. It is slowly dissipating, but may linger for several more months:
https://postimg.cc/N2M9PfwC
The La Niña tried to warm up the first weeks in January, so may result in less cooling:
https://postimg.cc/pmwnsHrR
The Polar Vortex is being attacked by a high pressure system, reducing its effectiveness:
https://postimg.cc/bZ8T3kBm
All three examples of Natural Variability may result in UAH Global increase over December. Maybe as high as 0.80C?
Good work, Clint. Good to see you are on the ball with this info. Almost as good as when you were into the Moon stuff.
ark…re Asimov and the GHE…
He makes an utter fool of himself in this 1977 video with his explanation of the GHE. He claims the old lie that IR trapped by glass in a real greenhouse is heat, therefore he is under the impression that heat and IR are the same.
That’s an anachronism dating back to at least 1850, when scientists believed that heat move through air via heat rays. In 1850, the notion that trapped IR is heat would have made sense.
Fast forward to 1913, when Bohr discovers the real relationship between IR/EM and heat. To be fair, Bohr knew by 1913 that an atom like hydrogen was made up of a single proton as nucleus with one electron orbiting the proton. The electron was not discovered til 1898.
Til 1898, no one knew about electrons and protons in the makeup of atoms therefore scientist before that were only guessing about the relationship between heat and radiation. Not so after the electron was discovered in 1898. Brilliant work by Rutherford, who mentored Bohr, lead the latter to discovering the actual atomic shape and composition.
Using hints from Planck’s quantum theory and then known relationships between the hydrogen atom and it’s discrete emission/absorp.tion spectra, he worked out the relationship between the orbiting electron in hydrogen and how it was responsible for those discrete variations related to electron orbital energy levels.
That discovery instantly nullified the quaint notion that heat moved through space as heat rays. Apparently, Asimov is not up on his quantum theory, he seems to think IR is heat, and trapping IR causes a greenhouse to warm. In fact, it is the trapping of all heated air molecules by the glass that causes the warming as they try to rise.
According to Bohr, in order to emit EM/IR, the electron must shed kinetic energy while dropping back to a lower qauntum energy state. That kinetic energy is heat, therefore by the time any CO2 molecule can absorb IR radiated from the surface, the surface heat has already been dissipated.
Ergo, there is no heat to trap.
Those arguing that the heat created by CO2 when it absorbs no more than 10% of surface IR, can significantly warm the atmosphere, are not aware of the Ideal Gas Law or the heat diffusion equation. Both make it clear that CO2, with a mas percent of 0.06% of the atmosphere can add no more heat to the atmosphere than 0.06C for every 1C warming of the atmosphere.
The IGL and heat diffusion equation also make it clear that nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere, are responsible for a highly theoretical 33C warming. If anyone wants to talk about a GHE, they must become aware that only nitrogen and oxygen could cause such warming. Then again, they’d be ignoring the effect of the oceans.
They would also be ignoring the fact that such warming has no relationship to the actual warming mechanism in a real greenhouse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz1g55H6XgA
You know what’s anachronistic? Talking about “Fluxion“.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697141
Not so. An anachronism is a fable being perpetuated based on an age-old belief. Nothing wrong with Newton’s fluxions even though they are close to 400 years old. Same with much of Newton’s work. In fact, his fluxionx are the basis of modern calculus.
From Merriem-Webster… “One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a person or practice that belongs to an earlier time”.
The modern greenhouse theory, as described by many, is that infrared energy blocked by glass in a greenhouse causes the air in the greenhouse to warm. That is based on the old belief that radiation (now known to be EM/IR) is heat. Bohr proved that any associated heat is lost as the EM/IR is generated, therefore, wrt the surface there is no heat generated. Ergo, nothing there to trap.
An anachronism is something that is out of place in terms of time, such as an object, idea, or person appearing in a period where it does not belong historically. It does not mean a “fable” or “age-old belief.”
I’m not going to waste my time debating you on whether a glass greenhouse operates in the same manner as the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. Point me to a specific reference in support of your position and I will gladly read it and comment on it.
ent…” The LIA was part of a longer term cooling trend. We cooled 0.5C in 5000 years as we moved off the Holocene Optimum sweet spot towards the next glacial period.
We then rebounded 1.6C in 150 years and are now 1C warmer than the Holocene Optimum”.
***
Your abuse of statistics is worthy of note.
You claim a cooling of 0.5C since the Holecene Optimum yet during the LIA, the planet is estimated to have cooled 1.5 C. That is significant cooling compared to your 0.5C estimate.
It’s interesting that you seem to dismiss a 1C to 2C cooling while emphasizing a fabricated 1.5C warming since 1850. You seem to dismiss a relationship between the 400+ year LIA cooling and the 1.6C alleged warming.
The IPCC is famous for this kind of convenient science. It does not suit their AGW mantra to have the planet rewarming at the same time. Neither do they explain how a trace gas can cause a warming of over 1C.
The IPCC represent a political farce. Their chicanery and and perversion of science knows no bounds.
Somebody please push him out of the boat.
“yet during the LIA, the planet is estimated to have cooled 1.5 C.”
False. But do show us where you got this idea.
Nate
You need no more than searching for ‘LIA cooled 1.5 C’.
The Little Ice Age was 1.0-1.5 °C cooler than current warm
period according to LOD and NAO
Adriano Mazzarella and Nicola Scafetta (2018)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02320
(The tab appears with a wrong identifier but the contents are correct.)
*
For years, Scafetta has been a committed advocate of numerous theories according to which cooling and warming are solely due to fluctuations in solar radiation.
*
If there are 1,000 articles showing that the LIA was mainly confined to northeastern America and Europe, and only one claiming the LIA was global, you can be sure that an ignoramus like Robertson will highlight the exception.
Of course, during the centuries of the LIA there were severe cooling periods all over the world; but none was as extreme as what Europe experienced.
And what people like Robertson completely ignore is that northwestern America experienced an extreme cold period right during the MWP.
You need no more than searching for LIA cooled 1.5 C.
“The Little Ice Age was 1.0-1.5 C cooler than current warm
period according to”
is not the same thing as what Gordon said, which was
LIA cooled 1.5 C.
Which was obviously from the prior period.
“The LIA was part of a longer term cooling trend. We cooled 0.5C in 5000 years as we moved off the Holocene Optimum sweet spot towards the next glacial period.
We then rebounded 1.6C in 150 years and are now 1C warmer than the Holocene Optimum.”
This description is quite consistent with reconstruction from the 12k database. See the key figure here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1V-HMlQ7kItBJVq3Bqg3vtpH8XuZevCBKWnm08eIzEiU/edit?usp=sharing
Ant the paper from 2020 by Kaufman et al. here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
From the paper –
The GMST of the past decade (2011-2019) averaged 1C higher than 1850-1900. For 80% of the ensemble members, no 200-year interval during the past 12,000 years exceeded the warmth of the most recent decade.
Kaufman showcases his lack of proficiency in statistics.
Their statement no 200-year period was as warm as the most recent decade is only valid within the limits of the available temporal resolution.
Each data point has a temporal resolution of 164 years in the 12k database. By averaging over such a long interval, you obscure decadal or sub-century temperature extremes that might rival or exceed recent warming.
The study reports an uncertainty range of +/- 1.5C for GMST during the warmest period of the Holocene. This range implies that variability within decadal or sub-century time scales could have been much greater.
Decadal-scale warming could have reached up to 3.2C above the baseline during a warm peak and the remainder of the period could average -0.2C (3.2C – 0.2C/2 =1.5C).
We simply don’t know, making it unjustified to claim that the nature of modern warming is unprecedented.
Here red krokodile cherry-picked a quote from the paper in order to misrepresent the study’s findings. He then launched an ad hominem attack on one of the authors with a critique that relies on speculative and fallacious assertions.
An unbiased and objective quote is as follows:
The findings of the study underscore the extraordinary nature of recent warming, particularly in light of the long-term climatic trends of the Holocene. While a minority of methods indicate potential precedents for current temperatures, the overwhelming majority support the notion that the recent warming is historically exceptional.
Intellectual dishonesty undermines his credibility.
Sorry Ark, but the reality of uncertainty is neither speculative nor fallacious. In fact, characterizing uncertainty is one of the stated main goals of Kaufman et al.’s study.
Uncertainty represents the range of possibilities that cannot be confidently resolved. If we had systematically recorded global temperatures 6.5 ka with modern instruments, it is entirely plausible that periods within a 164-year interval could have experienced decadal or sub-century peaks of much hotter temperatures than 2011-2019. This is precisely what the uncertainty range of +/- 1.5 C in the reconstruction implies. Such unresolved variability could mean:
– The claim that modern warming is unprecedented would be false if similar extremes occurred in the past and were smoothed out by low-resolution proxies.
– The mechanisms responsible for possible extreme warming events during the Holocene could still be in play today, warranting more scrutiny on the claim that current warming is predominantly anthropogenic.
We KNOW significant temperature variability can occur within a century. The globe cooled from World War II into the 1980s. From July 2023 to April 2024, UAH satellite data warmed by 1.1C.
Sorry Krokodile, you are making your own strawman which you are trying to snap.
Kaufman says: “For 80% of the ensemble members, no 200-year interval during the past 12,000 years exceeded the warmth of the most recent decade.”
That is an objective comment based on the resolution of the datasets at hand. He is not claiming that there has not been an occasional decade in the past with higher average temperatures than the recent one. Of course, there are uncertainties, and Kaufman is addressing them using various approaches.
Then Krock says: We simply dont know, making it unjustified to claim that the nature of modern warming is unprecedented.
Oh yes, we do have data that clearly suggest that current warming is unprecedented over the last 10,000 years.
The Kaufman paper shows temperature trends for both hemispheres and at different latitudes. These trends clearly align with what Milankovic told us a century ago the northern regions are cooling due to reduced summer insolation. The largest temperature drop is occurring in the Artic.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xrFfHhltHMTtMsUAv0tGInpw0Yc8JvLXczUqWX4zPmQ/edit?usp=sharing
Greenland ice cores provide much higher resolution. As the figure shows, even the Greenland temperature is approaching the Holocene maximum (from Vinther et al., 2009).
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SIJ-75WG-jXt_MQ88rmDUkMdMc4XK-P5tVAa2QjoxQQ/edit?usp=sharing
In contrast, the recent warming is affecting the entire globe. Considering that UAH data shows that global temperatures have risen by a whopping 0.6 deg. C just in the past two decades, there is no doubt that the current global warming has reversed the cooling over the past 6,000 years.
Sig,
That is an objective comment based on the resolution of the datasets at hand. He is not claiming that there has not been an occasional decade in the past with higher average temperatures than the recent one.
How can that be deemed an objective comment if its simply the result of a constraint?
Greenland ice cores provide much higher resolution. As the figure shows, even the Greenland temperature is approaching the Holocene maximum (from Vinther et al., 2009).
Vinther et al. did not append an instrumental temperature record to their Holocene reconstruction. Their temperature record is derived entirely from oxygen isotope ratio data in ice cores.
Sorry red krokodile, but the reality is that you don’t seem to understand the difference between the meaning of uncertainty for laypersons and scientists.
For non-scientists, uncertainty is often associated with lack of knowledge, as in your comment that “We simply don’t know.” For scientists, however, uncertainty is a well-defined, quantifiable range of possible values based on evidence.
Kaufman, et al, carefully accounted for uncertainties by taking a multi-method ensemble approach, and reported that long-term trends, and conclusions about the unprecedented nature of modern warming, remain robust despite these uncertainties. They explicitly addressed the limitations of the datasets and ensured transparency in presenting their findings (Table 2 and Supplementary information).
Ark, they are quantifying uncertainty for their multi-century means, NOT the standard deviations within those means, which is what I am discussing.
Their claim that modern warming is unprecedented is statistically unjustified because they are implicitly assuming that past warming never exceeded today’s levels without having the resolution to confirm or deny this possibility.
You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, yet you don’t even understand my argument. If you’re going to challenge my position, at least engage with what I’m actually saying.
This is the last thing I’m going to say on this subject.
If decadal-scale warming spikes of comparable magnitude to modern warming were common, they would likely leave a detectable imprint in the reconstructions; yet no significant evidence for such spikes is found. This supports the conclusion that modern warming is exceptional in its sustained magnitude and rate.
Although the study’s uncertainty estimates apply to multi-century means rather than decadal-scale variability, this does not undermine the robustness of its conclusions, and it’s intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.
But we don’t know that: you’re just assuming.
Let it be known I’m intellectually dishonest for pointing out the dataset’s limitations.
No. You’re intellectually dishonest for leaving out the following portion in your original quote from the paper:
The specific quote I selected from the paper formed the basis of my critique, which focused on temporal resolution, not their multi-method approach. You just misunderstood.
Sahara day-night temperature duration (January 2025).
“The expedition lasted several days in January, just after New Year’s Day, and all the scientists stayed in tents in the desert. It was quite far from a residential area and they chose to set up the… their headquarters. The conditions were difficult, but they had the full support of the local workers. During the day the temperature was around 30C-35C, but at night it did not exceed 5C.”
Link:
https://www.msn.com/el-gr/news/other/%CE%B1%CE%AF%CE%B3%CF%85%CF%80%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82-%CE%AD%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%B7%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%82-%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%B3%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%B5%CF%82-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1-%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%87%CE%B1%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CF%87%CF%81%CF%85%CF%83%CF%89%CF%81%CF%85%CF%87%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CF%84%CF%89%CE%BD-%CF%80%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%B5%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%AF%CF%89%CE%BD-%CF%84%CE%BF-%CF%8C%CF%83%CF%84%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%BF-%CE%B3%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%BC%CE%BC%CE%AD%CE%BD%CE%BF-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1-%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%B7%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC/ar-AA1xVCqF?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=0bfc5aa3e40241d1adfdaf1a7e6bda7e&ei=76#
What’s that all about Christos?
Sorry, as I see now the “msn.com” doesn’t translate mechanically. It is the link to the “During the day the temperature was around 30C-35C, but at night it did not exceed 5C.”
I posted the link, because Nate always asks for references…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not what I asked for.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1697463
Still no answer for this key problem.
Just hoping it goes away is not doing science.
Why did Trump fire a whole bunch of govt agency Inspector Generals?
These guys are not political appointees. Don’t make policy. Just do oversight of agencies for taxpayers.
The are supposed to be independent.
And why did he not give Congess the required 1 month notice and rationale?
https://apnews.com/article/trump-inspectors-general-fired-congress-unlawful-4e8bc57e132c3f9a7f1c2a3754359993
Nate
It is Trump. He does whatever he wants and the MAGA idiots attck any who dare question their Lord!
Interesting.
Renewables in the electricity market reduce costs to the customer.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/an-explanation-of-how-renewable-energy
Trump’s attempt to promote fossil fuels instead of renewables will raise electricity prices for American consumers.
Oops.
Roger Bezdek says Fossil Fuels are 200:1 Benefit Cost ratio. This includes societal benefit.
American Slavery was 15:1 Economic Benefit Cost. Slavery is net negative.
If you ask AI about renewable Benefit Cost all you get is a word salad about fossil fuel subsidies, Marxist climate change claptrap, and green nihilism.
Germany pays 32 cents (euro) per kwh for renewable. Plus a trillion tax payer euro to subsidize energy to industries that cannot compete. Germany shut down nuclear and is now going back to coal.
Australia pays 40 cents AU per kwh for its ‘renewable’ power. Australia is among the largest coal and uranium producers in the world. Going renewable is nonsense.
California didn’t get a rate increase when it went ‘renewable’. The power companies were forced to absorb the cost. End result was billion dollar fires caused by electrical equipment failure due to lack of maintenance. Lives lost. Insurance bankrupt. Power outages whenever the wind blows so the power company won’t get sued for starting fires. These are hidden costs.
Power prices aren’t going up because of promotion of fossil fuels over renewables.
Can you explain why the highest % renewable electricity states, which also happen to be Red states, have such low electric rates?
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/an-explanation-of-how-renewable-energy
Obviously something else is going on related to salaries and cost of living.
Ken
1. ” Germany pays 32 cents (euro) per kwh for renewable. ”
Who replicates misrepresentation of facts and misinformation propagated by liars becomes also a liar.
*
I know nothing about the US, and am not at all interested in developing any knowledge about this corner.
Thus about California and other Northamerican corners you can tell all you want: I can’t and won’t verify it.
*
But when you come to Germoney, I immediately see that you vehiculate sheer misinformation (mostly coming from the Germany-based pseudoscience site TricksZone owned by Pierre Gosselin, one of WUWTWatts’ best friends).
No, Ken we don’t pay 0.32 for renewables. 0.32 per kWh has been our 19% VAT including, total price for electricity – until 2022, as Russia started its war against Ukraine (you know, this bad country with over 50% Nazis).
And the contribution to financing the feed-in of electricity from renewable energies by private sources was 16%, same as the VAT; electricity tax plus submission to the municipalities were 10%, net grid costs were 28%. The naked price for the electricity generation mix was 30% of the 0.32 .
*
France has been very very proud for keeping electricity prices at an incredibly low level – but this is long time ago, and was due to the facts that (a) tax payers actually paid comparatively more for the kWh than the consumers and (b) France just begins to include nuclear plant dismantling and waste storage into consumer prices.
The kWh price jumped in France from 0.12 in 2011 up to 0.26 resp. 0.28 planned for this year.
***
2. ” Germany shut down nuclear and is now going back to coal. ”
This is also a pure lie.
Look at this:
https://i.postimg.cc/1t7Gzgdt/Public-brutto-electricity-production-in-Germany-in-primary-percentages.png
and this
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qWBy7FGYQSTn5IYILWyoa1rO3Wc6hnLB/view
This, Ken, is the reality, and you won’t change it.
Electricity prices Europe says Germany pays 39 cents …
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics#:~:text=After%20a%20sharp%20increase%20during,semester%20of%202024%20(24.3%25).
” Electricity prices Europe says Germany pays 39 cents… ”
And? What the hell does that have to do with my reply to your lies?
It means that renewable is not affordable. As per the rampaging out of control example of costs in Germany.
Global statistics in an easy chart:
https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1481986/cost-of-renewable-energy-versus-fossil-fuels-worldwide-forecast?__sso_cookie_checker=failed
From another statistics based source:
“Fossil fuels dominate the global power supply because until very recently electricity from fossil fuels was far cheaper than electricity from renewables. This has dramatically changed within the last decade. In most places in the world power from new renewables is now cheaper than power from new fossil fuels.
The fundamental driver of this change is that renewable energy technologies follow learning curves, which means that with each doubling of the cumulative installed capacity their price declines by the same fraction. The price of electricity from fossil fuel sources however does not follow learning curves so that we should expect that the price difference between expensive fossil fuels and cheap renewables will become even larger in the future.”
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
The reducing cost of renewables was easily predicted a couple of decades ago. This isn’t just a result of subsidies (which the f/f industry also enjoys), but of nascent technologies becoming cheaper as the R&D and infrastructure around them improves.
Renewables is the smart market for new energy investors.
Let me know when you have a prospectus and 5 years of dividends without any government subsidies.
Renewable is a scam. Stay well clear of anyone telling you otherwise.
Nigel Farage exposes net zero scam:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uONtdMLMo5k
You keep saying stuff without backing anything up. How about you tell me the cost of f/f energy once government subsidies are factored in, for example?
No, you’ll offer a youtube short of a politician making assertions while waving off a statistical analysis.
Boring. Give us something to work with more than soundbytes.
Don’t read this, whatever you do.
“Despite pressures on financing, global investment in clean energy is set to reach almost double the amount going to fossil fuels in 2024, helped by improving supply chains and lower costs for clean technologies, according to a new IEA report.”
https://www.iea.org/news/investment-in-clean-energy-this-year-is-set-to-be-twice-the-amount-going-to-fossil-fuels
And keep away from Forbes, that bastion of communist ideology.
“Renewable power has a superior risk/return profile over fossil fuels both in periods of volatility and under normal conditions. The report, Clean Energy Investing: Global Comparison of Investment Returns said that listed renewable power portfolios have outperformed listed fossil fuel portfolios in all markets and that the cost of capital remains lower for renewable energy companies than fossil fuel companies.
The report just published by the Centre for Climate Finance at Imperial College Business School and the International Energy Agency says that renewable power generated significantly higher total returns over the last ten years, at 422.7% against 59% for fossil fuels or over 7 times the return. Over five years the performance is lower but still more than 3 times higher than fossil fuels. In addition, according to a statement from Imperial, “Annualised volatility was lower than fossil fuel portfolios in the Global and Advanced economies and higher than the fossil fuel portfolios in China and Emerging Markets & Developing Economies.” ”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/feliciajackson/2021/03/19/global-renewables-investment-return-7-times-higher-than-fossil-fuels/
Alternatively, don’t be a fossil.
“How about you tell me the cost of f/f energy once government subsidies are factored in, for example?”
Roger Bezdek says fossil fuels is 200:1 Benefit Cost ratio.
Alex Epstein says life span is doubled, famine eradicated, billions lifted out of poverty, population soared to 8 billion. That makes fossil fuels energy really cheap just on societal benefit no matter how much alleged government subsidies.
I can’t find anything that even suggests there is any benefit cost ratio to renewable. Ask AI and all you get is a word salad about green BS including the phantom government subsidies for fossil fuels as if that has anything to do with renewable benefits. Even Warren Buffet says renewable makes no sense without massive tax payer subsidy.
You cannot make any financial case for renewable energy. Everywhere its implemented its causing huge costs that are destroying the economies that are being supplanted. UK Germany Australia California; all of them are paying huge actual and huge societal costs.
Renewable is a scam.
Is it because this person Bezdek doesn’t provide the comparable numbers for f/f and renewable subsidies that you won’t provide a link to something he has written, or is it because you don’t know how to copy paste a link?
And why should I favour Bezdek’s view over other experts? Your replies presume that I should.
But come now, please give us a link to Bezdek’s trailblazing work so that I can see how he arrives at his cost/benefit analysis. It is at odds with other work, so should be interesting!
“phantom government subsidies for fossil fuels”
Ken, how are we going to have a serious conversation if you outright deny facts?
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52521-energytestimony.pdf
You better believe I read this, so don’t be cutting corners.
I’ve got some free time right now, so I can afford to express my disappointment at any dishonesty I see, and I will call it out, Ken.
That’s an invitation to lift your game.
Are you prepared to provide corroboration for what you’re saying here, or are you going to continue to make substance-free assertions?
What’s the latest research this Bezdek fellow has done on our interest here?
you can watch Bezdek make his case here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdJnPbn_Bgs
Barry, you need to read your paper again.
I got as far as figure 1. 25% of tax preference goes to fossil fuels and 70% to renewable. The huge elefant in the room is that fossil fuels provide 80% of the energy while renewables only provide 5%. So a hugely disproportionate share of tax preferences (aka subsidies) are going to renewables.
If tax payers knew there would be a revolt.
Your paper is a collection of gobbledygook where numbers are being incorrectly compared.
Your claim that fossil fuels get subsidies implies that more money goes into fossil fuels than is produced is rather specious too. Here in Canada there is a program of have and have not provinces that get equalization payments. Alberta has Canada’s oil business and its paying subsidies to all of the have nots on the basis of royalties from oil and gas. The concept that more money goes into oil and gas becomes rather obviously disingenuous because the amounts going to equalization is billions of dollars.
Alberta can only sell to USA because there is not enough pipelines elsewhere so there is a discount to the price.
“Your claim that fossil fuels get subsidies implies that more money goes into fossil fuels than is produced is rather specious too.”
Thanks for the straw man, but no thanks. You cooked this up out of nothing.
So you cut corners: “I got as far as…”
And you got it completely wrong:
“Fossil fuels accounted for most of the remaining cost of energy-related tax preferencesan estimated $4.6 billion, or 25 percent.”
That’s on page 3. Renewables got 59% of tax preferences.
That doesn’t include $600 million in direct grants for f/f on page 9. Renewables got $2.1 billion.
But YOU come up with:
“I got as far as figure 1. 25% of tax preference goes to fossil fuels”
Lazy and incompetent, Ken.
Yep, renewables get more subsidies than f/f. But not the extreme figures you made up.
And these costs should be factored into a cost benefit analysis. Guess what?
I’ve already checked out Bezdek’s work, knowing you would not post a link to a substantive document. I’m not watching a youtube video. He assesses CO2 accumulation as a net positive in the cost/benefit analysis (eg, plant fertiliser greening the planet), and that global warming won’t have any negative impacts. So it’s not that he ignores emissions-related impacts, he just rates them completely opposite to pretty much every other economist. I checked his ‘work’ at the non-governmental panel on climate change, if you want to follow up. He wouldn’t keep a job in any insurance agency.
Meanwhile, the effect of subsidies on renewables has already proven the worth by increasing infrastructure and developing R&D that have improved the technology while reducing the costs of production.
Fossil fuels enjoyed government subsidies for decades, and that is partly why they were cheaper until recently. F/f is still subsidised, but renewables now get greater subsidies in developed countries.
Don’t worry, no country is going to decimate their economy and ruin their energy supply with aggressive emission reductions policies. For a crew that reject ‘alarmism’ the skeptics clutch a lot of pearls.
“Lazy and incompetent, Ken”
You may be right. However I don’t waste my time on junk. Your paper is garbage.
There is no case to be made for ‘Renewable’ as a replacement for Fossil Fuels. The damn-fool pressing for ‘renewable’ is going to cost trillions to any economy that gets suckered.
“However I don’t waste my time on junk. Your paper is garbage.”
The Congressional Budget Office is a non-partisan authority on US spending that Congress relies on above any other department accounting govt spending. Both parties routinely cite their figures when haggling over finance legislation.
You were perfectly happy to cite a (non-existent) figure from the CBO document, but when corrected you decided it was ‘garbage’.
And what reference do you offer in return on subsidies? Nothing.
Bye.
“The Congressional Budget Office is a non-partisan authority on US spending that Congress relies on above any other department accounting govt spending.”
That explains a lot of why the document is unreadable.
The graph at figure 1. is not supported by the information previous to it. The document is deliberate gobbledygook and I’m not interested enough to sort through the verbiage.
I don’t have one single source to support my view that ‘renewable’ is a financial nightmare when trying to justify replacing fossil fuel with it. i wouldn’t trust a single source even if there were one. My view comes from reading papers and watching video over a rather long period of time; not from just one paper written by bureaucrats who have an interest in obfuscating the facts.
Here are some of the videos:
Jo Nova – How to Destroy a Perfectly Good Electricity Grid in Three Easy Steps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHX-Ib3Q5Q
Climate Euphoria, Climate Hysteria: Insights from the German Political-Media Complex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euk2vgAZDTk&t=641s
PG&E $25 Billion Settlement Calpocalypse 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WAB5cflHBI
Nigel Farage on the Green Energy Revolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Wo2ZxXzR8
Wind Blowing Nowhere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZrRJO-PMpo
“Nigel Farage” is political hack. No reason to believe what he claims.
Roger Bedzek said such things as a paid consultant of fossil fuel industry. He and others lost their Minnesota case arguing for a low social cost of carbon.
YouTube. Where you can find lots of fact free videos, on eg how to get free energy out of water.
Doesn’t matter if you have a dozen fact free videos, or blog articles, they are still not reliable sources, Ken.
You need to look up legit sources, like the Energy Information Agency, EIA, or DOE, which have analysis of costs of various sources of energy.
And again, I asked, why are there a number of windy states that have 50% or more renewable energy, but low electricity prices (Iowa, N. Dakota, OK, Texas, etc)?
binny bundtcake…”If there are 1,000 articles showing that the LIA was mainly confined to northeastern America and Europe, and only one claiming the LIA was global, you can be sure that an ignoramus like Robertson will highlight the exception”.
***
The point is this, what evidence…anywhere….suggests that a tiny area of the planet like Europe can cool drastically while the rest of the planet does not? We are not talking a slight cooling, the Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps extended so far it wiped out long-established farms and villages in its way.
Once again, Binny Bundtcake reveal the source of his scientific acumen…authority figures. He thinks that a good measure of scientific fact is the number of papers released on a subject and/or the number of people who agree with something.
His good buddy, Stupidb, is too busy pushing people out of boats to comment rationally.
Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”
~ Einstein
Einstein’s relativity was apparently proven wrong by a single experiment in 2011.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_OPERA_faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly
Most physicists were skeptical because so many other experiments disagreed.
Sure enough, within the year, the results could not be replicated by other groups repeating the experiment.
Then the original experimenters discovered the likely technical error.
So Einstein’s relativity was still correct, afterall.
But his notion that a single experiment could prove him wrong was an oversimplification.
“He thinks that a good measure of scientific fact is the number of papers released on a subject and/or the number of people [experts] who agree with something.”
As opposed to what?
Facts backed by replicable data.
Quality Assurance due to testing checking and replicating.
Glad you agree that after a number of papers replicate a finding or find supporting evidence, and other experts read these papers and find them convincing, are you assured about a scientific fact.
There is a replication crisis in science.
I think it was Peter Ridd that said 80% of peer reviewed science literature is junk that cannot be replicated.
The number of peer reviewed papers has no legitimacy as a measure in determining whether the presented material in the paper is factual.
There has to be a process of quality assurance involving testing checking and replicating by people whose financial prospects do not depend on the outcome.
Climate Change is just one area of science where the replication crisis is severe.
With all of the talk about hot summers, winter is still the season with the highest human death rate. This link will probably require a subscription:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/cold-weather-deaths-winter-mortality?
> the reality of uncertainty
Welcome back, Walter!
barry….[GR]”He thinks that a good measure of scientific fact is the number of papers released on a subject and/or the number of people [experts] who agree with something.
[Barry]As opposed to what?
***
As opposed to the scientific method which requires scientists to proceed in an orderly faction to reach conclusions. Then, the conclusions can be challenged using the same method.
Today, the scientific method has gone out the window as certain scientists band together to forward consensus while discrediting anyone who disagrees with the consensus.
The anthropogenic theory is such an example. Whereas Tyndall did stellar work, circa 1850, to prove that certain gases like CO2 can absorb infrared energy in certain frequency bands, no one has ever proved, using experimental evidence with the scientific method, that the trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can warm the atmosphere significantly.
In fact, basic scientific laws such as the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation prove that CO2, at 0.04% of the atmosphere, can heat the atmosphere by no more than it’s percent mass, which is roughly 0.06%. Both laws were arrived at through experimentation and the scientific method, yet they are cast aside to enable the unscientific consensus behind both the GHE and AGW theories.
The significance of the 0.06% percent mass is the relationship of pressure to temperature in a gas. At constant volume and mass, temperature is directly proportional to pressure, another relationship arrived at via the scientific method and experiment.
Pressure is also directly proportional to mass since pressure is the sum of the forces of all atoms/molecules on a container wall. We presume that mass and volume are relatively constant in the atmosphere or in any gas in a container. So, with CO2 at 0.06% mass, and temperature being directly proportional to pressure, then for a 1C rise in a gas temperature, the CO2, at 0.06% mass can input no more than 0.06C of the 1C warming.
The nonsense about thermalization, an alarmist term that infers CO2 warmed by surface radiation can significantly warm the atmosphere, is disproved by the heat diffusion equation, which calculates the amount of heat a gas at 0.06% mass can transfer to a much larger volume. Ironically, the heat diffusion equation supplies the same 0.06C input to the atmosphere by CO2.
That’s direct proof from experimentation, Barry, yet the alarmist AGW community is claiming a warming factor for CO2 between 9% and 25%, depending on the amount of water vapour present. That’s partly why models are reading so high, the warming power of CO2 is far too high, from 15 to 42 times too high.
“As opposed to the scientific method which requires scientists to proceed in an orderly faction to reach conclusions. Then, the conclusions can be challenged using the same method.”
Doing research and submitting your work for review is orderly. Accumulating evidence through multiple groups doing multiple tests on the same topic, and then submitting the work for peer review is orderly.
Replicating an experiment is good for verifying the methodology and the results. But a stronger test of conclusions is to pursue the same line of inquiry with different methods to see if the conclusions hold up.
Now, you say the LIA was a global phenomenon. To corroborate this I think you’ve offered one source, or one author.
What is ‘orderly’ about relying on a single source for your views? Isn’t the orderly – the skeptical – way to proceed to read widely on a topic instead of rejecting everything that doesn’t agree with your view?
Because that is what you are doing.
Without investigating the research you summarily dismiss it. And you do it lazily – any science that doesn’t comport with your view is automatically phony research.
Your argument offers nothing more than a consensus view is phony, and a maverick view is true.
No analysis of the view you reject, just rhetoric.
And the usual laundry list of unrelated complaints.
So why don’t you examine the research on the LIA, and point out the errors and problems in the research that estimates the LIA was more of a regional phenomenon?
Just for once forego the fulminating and actually demonstrate that the research is wrong. Show us the mistakes.
barry…once again, you have talked around my responses. WRT the LIA, I asked a pertinent question. How does one explain Europe, with a tiny fraction of the planet’s surface area, cooling by 1C to 2C over 400+ years while the rest of the planet was unaffected? Near London, UK, where the Thames River meets the ocean, the ocean itself was frozen to an extent of 2 miles from land.
Can you supply evidence that such a condition in Europe is possible without the rest of the planet being affected as well? And for 400+ years?
—
“Replicating an experiment is good for verifying the methodology and the results. But a stronger test of conclusions is to pursue the same line of inquiry with different methods to see if the conclusions hold up”.
***
No Barry, in science, experimentation is the only means of doing science. All the talk and all the agreement accomplishes nothing no matter how orderly it may appear. That’s especially true in climate science, where experimentation has been replaced by consensus, using unvalidated climate models to infer outcomes.
In TAR (3rd assessment), the IPCC stated boldly that future climate states cannot be ‘predicted’. They went ahead anyway and began predicting future climate states using unvalidated models. It was not till expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, forced their hand by advising that unvalidated models cannot predict future states. Hence, the IPCC changed ‘predict’ to ‘project’.
That limits the IPCC to offering different scenarios for future climate states but their claim that the planet will, could, or might warm by a certain amount is a bold lie.
Unvalidated models cannot do science. The only way to use a model in science is to validate through experimentation, or designing a circuit and validating the model outcome, which is essentially the same thing. No climate model has ever been validated, especially wrt to the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
—-
“Without investigating the research you summarily dismiss it. And you do it lazily any science that doesnt comport with your view is automatically phony research”.
***
What science does not agree with my views? State it and demonstrate how that so-called science cancels out science developed since the times of Newton.
BTW, I have never claimed my views are correct, I have merely submitted them to challenge others to prove me wrong. I know some of you presume I am wrong but not one of you has proved it using the scientific method or even scientific logic. Any alarmists I have encountered are merely regurgitating pseudo-science from authority figures.
I have specifically used laws like the Ideal Gas Law and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. All you alarmists offer are obfuscations of those laws.
For example, one alarmist claim is that the 2nd law refers to a NET exchange of energy between bodies of different temperatures. The law says no such thing and nowhere did Clausius refer to a Net energy exchange while developing the 2nd law. He was very specific that “heat” (not a generic energy) could flow, by it’s own means, only from hot to cold.
Unfortunately, he was a bit wishy washy about that flow with radiation but in the end he stated that heat transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law. He can be forgiven that uncertainty since like all other scientist of his day he had no idea how heat was transferred between bodies via radiation. They all believed that heat flowed physically via heat rays through space.
In fact, no heat is ever transferred physically as heat between bodies, and no heat is ever transferred between a colder body and a warmer body by it’s own means. The idea that heat is transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures is just plain silly. Heat transfer between such bodies requires a 2 step process where heat is converted to radiation, then the radiation can be transferred back to heat at a distant body provided the receiving body is colder.
Alarmists today have pounced on that misunderstanding to produce a cockamamey theory that heat is transferred via radiation as a Net flow between bodies. That’s all you alarmists have, valid laws butchered to suit your pseudo-scientific theories.
Even Einstein was not beyond such chicanery. He had to redefine time to offer his relativity theory. Time cannot be redefined in science since it is based on the rotational period of the Earth, which is close enough to constant to be considered that. Ergo, time cannot dilate, hence Einstein’s theory is wrong.
Gordon,
Here we go again with your misunderstanding of the IPCC.
“In TAR (3rd assessment), the IPCC stated boldly that future climate states cannot be predicted. They went ahead anyway and began predicting future climate states using unvalidated models.”
The IPCC did not predict future climate states.
You have not the clue as to what a climate state is.
I’ll tell your for my usual fee, 50 bucks.
Yes, Gordon, I can cite numerous papers on the LIA and regionality, as I’ve done before.
As I said, instead of fulminating, please provide your evidence that it was a global phenomenon, from more than one source that follows the scientific procedure.
I’m afraid your belief that regional change must always equal global climate change is not the corroborative evidence that we both agree is sufficient. There is a distinct dearth of experiment behind your view, for example. Rather than have a double standard on the scientific method, how about you offer up some proper science on the subject?
Jevons Paradox is trending? I hadn’t heard the term used since I took ECON 101 in the 70s!
1/ Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta assembled four war rooms of engineers to determine how a Chinese hedge fund managed to release an AI game-changer (DeepSeek) that may already rival its own technology. The potentially groundbreaking, open-source tech has called into question the gargantuan AI investments made by American companies and has put Meta’s AI-dedicated team on high alert.
2/ Shares of some independent power producers fell sharply Monday amid a broader selloff in technology and AI infrastructure stocks. Shares in companies with significant nuclear and gas generation fleets in unregulated markets were particularly hard-hit.
3/ DeepSeek’s success “calls into question the significant electric demand projections for the U.S. [as] AI represents ~75% of overall U.S. demand forecasts through 2030-35 in most projections,” investment bank Jefferies’ power and utilities research team said in a Monday note.
4/ The conversation has quickly turned to Nvidia. It’s not every day that a company goes from relative obscurity to being worth more than the combined stock markets of England, France, or Germany! It now faces an unprecedented convergence of competitive threats that make its premium valuation increasingly difficult to justify.
Pattern matching is not in itself AI, though it may be used to implement part of AI.
January 29, 1980, 45 years ago today: Some basic facts from the head of Exxon’s Science and Technology Department.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration was 358.76 ppm then. It is now 424.69 ppm.
Yes Ark, Exxon has done a great job of keeping the planet green.
Drill, baby, drill.
For the first time in my life I felt an earthquake
https://youtu.be/H7XbjimFifg
I am concerned about my friend barry. He is upset with me. In a comment string above, he accused me of being dishonest and worse, with some very rude and offensive comments. He challenged me to prove my assertion about Gavin Newsom being upset with the process at the DNC Convention.
I did the research, but did not get any reaction or response. Here it is barry, in case you missed it:
I do not want barry to feel bad. The fact that he seems to think politicians are noble and respectable people is very revealing. Even the admirers of Nancy Pelosi will comment about how tough and forceful she is in private.
Nonetheless, I am absolutely certain that Newsom made that statement about doing what he was asked to do. My best recollection is that it was a live network interview at the convention possibly with Jake Tapper on CNN. The point is that he was not allowed to speak. He was there in person and did not speak.
Maybe barry should have just let it go, because I found a quote and video that is even better. Newsom is laughing out loud with sarcasm as he says this:
We went through a very open process, a very inclusive process, it was bottom-up. I dont know if you know that, at least thats what Ive been told to sayA 30-minute convention? Between a tweet and another tweet.
Have fun with this:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/08/23/gavin_newsom_laughs_about_dnc_switch_to_harris_a_very_inclusive_process_thats_what_ive_been_told_to_say.html
Yep, as I said, you got it wrong. I’ll quote you.
“They had a clean winner in Gavin Newsom, but he was not even allowed to speak at the convention. When questioned about that he said, “I did what they asked me to do.”
The quote is incorrect, it doesn’t refer to the Democratic convention, and it doesn’t demonstrate that he was not allowed to speak at the convention.
He was referring to the ‘process’ months earlier that got Harris nominated, which he made fun of. The rest of your interpretation is hot air.
If his sarcastic remarks confuse you, the actual convention was 4 days, not 30 minutes.
I looked up the quote halfway through our conversation because you didn’t substantiate what you said. Now that you’ve finally gone back and checked, do you acknowledge he wasn’t speaking about the Democratic convention, and thus didn’t say he was gag?
To clear up some of your misconceptions.
Newsom did indeed endorse Harris by tweet on the same day she was nominated, and continued to endorse her. Maybe they blackmailed him? Let’s jam on this and come up with something juicy.
I didn’t call you dishonest for this topic. I suggested you had been conned. You’re welcome to read back for what I called BS on.
Yes, you can blame climate change for the LA wildfires.
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/climate-change-increased-the-likelihood-of-wildfire-disaster-in-highly-exposed-los-angeles-area/
25 Lead Authors. 7 Review Authors. 57 Pages. 31 Figures. But the 14-word TITLE of the World Weather Attribution study is all you need to know:
Climate change increased the likelihood of wildfire disaster in highly exposed Los Angeles area.
No you cant,the climate has barely changed over the centuries , it was just as hot and dry in the 17th century,if you build wooden houses surrounded by tinder dry woodland,sooner or later you are going to get burned.its the nature of the beast.
Note that houses with solid clay tiled roofs and brick built structures did NOT burn.
The problem with brick is its worst case scenario during an earthquake.
We’ve known the story of the three pigs. House of bricks is best. Except for earthquakes.
Except in the rest of the world where brick is the most common – even in earthquake areas.
Arkady Ivanovich
I am fairly skeptical of anything coming from the attribution studies people. At this time it is a computer generated potential and I am not sure how they arrive at the percentages given.
They claimed the extreme drought in Texas in 2011 was the result of Climate Change and yet they have not had such a drought since.
You seem to have a good mind for science, but hope you have some can at least challenge this type of study as being a valid science. To me it is not. They can say whatever they want.
My challenge on these models (they only seem to work in hindsight, find a bad weather event and attribute that one to climate change with gibblygook stats and blah blah blah statistics that are not well explained at how they were arrived at).
Norman,
“I am not sure how they arrive at the percentages given.”
The study determines its figures by comparing the frequency of extreme fire weather index days (a calculation from historical weather parameters such as temperature, humidity, precipitation, wind speed, etc.) in todays climate (1.3C warmer than 1850-1900) versus the pre-industrial climate.
The calculation, however, is based on two flawed assumptions:
1: No measurement uncertainty in historical data
2: The likelihood of extreme fire weather increases proportionally with the global temperature anomaly.
#1 is unrealistic. Nothing in the real world is measured with perfect accuracy. Pre-industrial thermometers, barometers, and other instruments were far less precise than modern ones. Any uncertainties in these measurements accumulate and propagate through the final result, potentially leading to a significantly larger error in the final probability ratio calculation.
With regards to #2, local temperatures do not follow the global average. The USCRN thermometer in Santa Barbara has recorded an almost negligible warming trend of just 0.002C/decade from September 2008 to December 2024, while the global average temperature anomaly is warming at a rate of 0.35C/decade over the same period, according to NOAA.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/sensors.htm?stationId=1529
I forgot to convert my trend from Fahrenheit to Celsius.
The corrected warming trend for Santa Barbara USCRN is 0.0011/decade, which is even smaller than previously thought.
Norman,
1/ There is rarely, if ever, a singular cause for any complex event. Attribution is the process of evaluating the relative contributions of the multiple causal factors with an assignment of statistical confidence.
2/ There are two classes of approaches to event attribution, those relying on the observational record, and those that use model simulations.
3/ The WWA study is the third published analysis of the influence of climate change on the LA Fires. The first two by UCLA and IPSL-CNRS (France) were published January 13.
4/ All attribution studies, so far, have found that the thermodynamic imprint of climate change is present in the form of a longer dry season which increases the probability of the fire season overlapping with the Santa Ana winds.
5/ “ they only seem to work in hindsight”
It’s easy to believe that a warming planet could contribute to wildfires. But the mistake Ark, and his article, makes is believing the warming is caused by CO2.
From the article: “Human-induced climate change is increasing wildfires in many regions of the world…” And: “Combining models and observations, we find that human-induced warming from burning fossil fuels made the peak January FWI more intense…”
There is no science to support CO2 can cause warming.
Clint R
There is significant science evidence to support the claim that additional CO2 added to the atmosphere will act as a radiant insulator and allow solar heating to slightly increase the Earth’s surface temperature.
I have given you actual measured values showing this to be the case. You never can understand it and “sweep it under the rug” with blanket false statements claiming I do not understand the graphs I link to. If you could possibly open your mind and accept the possibility your ideas are not correct there could be hope for you. As it stands there is no hope for you and no evidence will be able to change the closed mind that you possess. Like Gordon Robertson you have a closed mind that will not respond to evidence. Nothing can be done about it. You two keep posting wrong ideas and seem like you will continue for some time.
16 years without a domestic air crash. Then, 9 days into a new administration, a military helicopter runs into a commercial jet killing 67 people. Looks like Pete Hegseth picked the wrong week to quit drinking.
We need hearings and an investigation into Hegseth; this type of incompetence cannot stand.
Would you like to comment on the article?
I think it is a very important topic!
Ancient forest uncovered by melting ice in the Rocky Mountains
Link:
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/news/weather/severe/ancient-forest-uncovered-by-melting-ice-in-the-rocky-mountains
Straightforward enough.
5000 years ago the Rockies experienced a few centuries of natural warming and a forest grew. Then conditions cooled and ice covered it.
Now the climate is at least as warm as that warm period and the ice has melted. In due course the forest will grow again.
Thank you, Ent.
Our Blamer-in-Chief, after an extensive investigation, has determined that DEI is to blame for the helicopter-plane collision.
Seriously, though, this accident illustrates that we need experts in the govt, not just political loyalists to the President, to investigate, get at the truth, to not hide it from us, and to fix whatever problems exist.
I watched Trump’s news conference after the air crash.
He’s an embarrassment to his office.
ent…”Hes [Trump’s] an embarrassment to his office”.
***
I won’t disagree, but at least he did not sexually harass a young female intern into having sex with him in the Oval Office. And Trump’s wife Melania has not come out whining about his infidelities, as did Hillary, blaming the women for leading Lying Willie astray.
No, he just bragged. on air, about sexually assaulting women/girls.
Bragged in private (recorded) about abusing women – grabbing their genitals – and twice found by a jury to have sexually abused.
What Bill Clinton has to do with this no one but Gordon knows.
Don’t forget he bragged about invading girls dressing rooms.
“Bragged in private (recorded)”
which was subsequently broadcast widely.
“Our Blamer-in-Chief, after an extensive investigation, has determined that DEI is to blame for the helicopter-plane collision.”
This could be a headline from The Onion. I had to check, in case you were just being funny.
If I am allowed to be technical and rational, I have put my investigative skills to work. The FAA published ceiling for helicopter route 4 on the river in the area of the approach to Runway 33 is 200 feet. That is a hard ceiling. Aircraft (helicopters) using that published route must remain at 200 feet AGL or less.
Runway 33 does not appear to have an ILS approach. The published RNAV (GPS) RWY 33 approach shows that the Visual Guidance Fix (VGF), intersection IDTEK, has an altitude of 490 feet. It is located 1.4 nautical miles (NM) from the runway threshold. This is just on the other side of the river. It contains this note: Cross IDTEK, fly visual to airport along depicted track 334 to Rwy 33. The glide slope is 3.1 degrees. A 260 foot tall tower is identified just north of that fix. It appears the commercial flight was on a visual approach, but the altitude and position would be close to that for the RNAV approach. Modern navigation systems would likely provide glide slope information to the pilots.
Houston, we’ve had a problem! Someone was at the wrong altitude. Published reports based on ADS-B data put the collision at about 400 feet MSL. Field elevation is 14 feet so that is AGL as well.
In the Washington Post (100% pro-Trump) you read today in the head page
” Deadliest aviation accident since 2001 grips Washington as Trump blames Democrats, DEI for disaster ”
*
But in a subarticle on the left entitled
” A deadly ‘mistake’: Focus on Army Blackhawk chopper after shocking D.C. crash ”
with below it the link
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/jan/30/deadly-mistake-focus-army-blackhawk-chopper-shocki/
you read
” Mr. Trump’s position that the helicopter appeared to be at fault in one way or another matches video accounts that spread across social media and TV news late Wednesday and throughout Thursday. Despite warnings from air traffic controllers, the military aircraft appears to have flown directly into the jet, causing a fireball and sending the remnants of both aircraft into the frigid Potomac River.
The incident provides an immediate test for Mr. Hegseth, the military veteran and former Fox News host who has been on the job as defense secretary for less than a week. He faced intense criticism from Democrats who said he was not qualified for the job.
On Thursday morning, Mr. Hegseth tried to embrace his role as the face of the Pentagon. He posted updates on the situation on social media and later appeared alongside Mr. Trump at the White House. Like the president, Mr. Hegseth spoke of a “mistake” on the military side.
Mr. Hegseth described the mission as “routine annual retraining of night flights on a standard corridor for a continuity-of-government mission.” He said all three soldiers on the helicopter were “fairly experienced” and were using night-vision goggles at the time of the crash.
“We anticipate that the investigation will quickly be able to determine whether the aircraft was in the corridor and at the right altitude at the time of the incident,” Mr. Hegseth said. “It’s a tragedy. A horrible loss of life for those 64 souls on that civilian airliner and, of course, the three soldiers in that Black Hawk.
“There was some sort of an elevation issue that we have immediately begun investigating at the DOD and Army level,” Mr. Hegseth said. “Army CID is on the ground investigating. Top-tier aviation assets inside the [Defense Department] are investigating to get to the bottom of it so it does not happen again because it’s absolutely unacceptable.” ”
*
That seems to be a bit nearer to the truth, doesn’t it?
Apos
I mean of course the Washington TIMES.
It seems insane that the ‘normal’ helicopter route would have it missing collisions with frequently landing jets by 150 feet or so.
The preliminary evidence indicates the helicopter was above its maximum altitude for the area.
Remaining questions are:
1) Was the crew wearing night vision goggles? (They indicated they had the plane in sight.)
2) What was the competence level of the crew?
We’ll get much more info when the “black boxes” are recovered.
I see that people like Clint R are much more interested in posting their opinion than reading what they answer:
” He said all three soldiers on the helicopter were “fairly experienced” and were using night-vision goggles at the time of the crash. ”
*
And what people like Clint R don’t have a bit of a clue about, just like Hegseth himself: night vision goggles are no help at all in exactly those circumstances that led to the tragedy.
Due to the extreme number and intensity of the light sources around the plane they flew blindly and straight into, they simply had no chance to see it – because of the goggles’ extremely amplifying difference between light and dark.
So when they were asked by the tower if they “saw the plane”, they obviously didn’t mean the plane the tower asked them about, but the one after it.
*
Almost a few days after he was pushed through by politicians completely devoted to the cruel Trumping boy, one wonders how they could even appoint someone known as a rapist and drunkard as Secretary of Defense.
They’re all going to be wondering a lot soon.
Bindi, the fact that you can’t comment without insults and false accusations only identifies you as a childish cultist.
From the Washington Post:
1. ” Helicopters flying along Potomac frequently pose dangers to passenger jets
Corridor for helicopters intersects with the flight path where an Army Black Hawk and an American Airlines jet crashed Wednesday. ”
*
” On Tuesday night, just 24 hours before a deadly collision between a military helicopter and a regional jet at Reagan National Airport, a different passenger jet coming in for a landing at the airport alerted the tower it had to abort. The reason: risk of possible collision with a helicopter.
A similar situation played out less than a week earlier, on Jan. 23, when a flight from Charlotte suddenly pulled out of its approach at National. ”
*
And there are people who endlessly try to discredit the airport’s tower because there were less controllers at crash time than expected, or even, like the cruel Trumping boy, to link this disaster to FAA, the Democrats etc etc.
Disingenuous and dishonest, to say the least. Shame on them all!
In the context of the tragedy
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/S0xksWbOZgxzoI6Bnec7fQ–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTE4MDA7aD0xMDEy/https://media.zenfs.com/en/newsnation_articles_600/b41a67daf131448d49344bf6845748cc
One more voice:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-im-former-faa-safety-211349895.html?guccounter=1
First thing Trump said after the mid-air collision was not to express sympathy for the people on the flights or their families, but to blame DEI policies, suggesting with his usual bizarre rhetoric that non-white, non-male, non cis-gendered people are more likely to be incompetent.
His press secretary has taken the cue for bizarreness:
“Do you pray that your plane lands safely… or do you pray that your pilot has a certain skin colour.”
I pray that she did not imply that you can wish for competent pilots or black pilots.
It’s hard to blame the Trump administration for pointing the finger instead of bringing the nation together over this tragedy.
On January 20 the FAA director stepped down after pressure from Elon Musk. Rather than replace him, Trump fired the Transport Security Administration and notified members of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee that their services were no longer required. He also froze the hiring of new air traffic controllers. Maybe he was worried there were some trannies in the mix.
It’s not known if these decisions contributed to the crash, but some the people who could figure that out have just been fired.
I wonder if Trump will start to wonder if gutting important US services is such a good idea.
Probably not. All these moves over the last 2 weeks are completely in line with a dictator feathering the political nest.
Testing
barry…aka the Artful Dodger…
“…please provide your evidence that it was a global phenomenon, from more than one source that follows the scientific procedure”.
***
A while back, when I claimed there had been a flat trend from 1998 – 2012, you asked for proof. When I gave you a direct citation from the IPCC, you artfully dodged the evidence by claiming that 15 years was too short to be of significance.
Now you are dodging again. I have asked you repeatedly to provide evidence, based on our current climate history, of an instance where a small part of the planet, Europe, cooled by 1C to 2C over 400+ years while the rest of the planet was unaffected.
You are dodging the issue by asking a preposterous question. You are asking me to prove the opposite of scientific fact. There is no evidence that any part of the planet can cool by 1C to 2C over 400+ years while the rest of the planet remains untouched. Yet, you are asking me to prove that Europe alone did not cool 1C to 2C.
But, hey, that’s how you climate alarmists operate. You formulate theories based on pseudo-science then try to prove them via consensus.
that’s a lot of waffle to avoid providing evidence for what you claim. Your incredulity that one part of the world can’t experience the same temperature change as the rest of the world is not the standard of the scientific evidence you described. You can’t even produce any research that corroborates this view.
Why you have to waffle instead of deal plainly I do not know. But I can guess.
You are lazy, and unwilling to risk that you might spend effort to find very little or nothing that corroborates your view that the LIA was a global, rather than a regional phenomenon.
There ARE parts of the world that have not warmed since 1900. I can easily show you the evidence.
But you keep putting the onus in the wrong place.
It’s your claim. Back it up. Back it up with the kind of science you described was valid. You’re not a researcher, so your own views are irrelevant. Cite some expert research on the matter, please.
Otherwise your view will be consigned to the dustbin.
barry…you’re talking like a loser of a debate. You cannot answer a basic scientific question posed to you because you know you are wrong. Ironically, you accuse me of waffling.
We are talking about Europe, where the Thames River mouth froze 2 miles into a salty ocean. In the French Alps, the Mer de Glace glacier expanded so far, it wiped out long established farms and villages in its path.
The planet is estimated to have cooled by an AVERAGE of 1C to 2C over 400+ years, meaning certain parts obviously cooled more. However, there is cooling, and then there is cooling. The idea that the ocean froze 2 miles from land and that a glacier wiped out farms and villages suggests a major, serious cooling, and it is scientifically unreasonable to assume that happened only in Europe.
Here in Vancouver, Canada, we are warmed by ocean currents, giving us a relatively mild winter climate. Even at that, it dips to -18C occasionally in mid-winter due to Arctic air descending on us. On the other coast, with no warming, it gets very cold, but nowhere along the east coast in populated areas does the ocean freeze out to 2 miles.
You are completely underestimating the extent of the cold produced by the LIA.
It’s hypocritical – you set a standard for good science but don’t apply it when asked to.
Just to remind what you said:
“experimentation is the only means of doing science”
“which requires scientists to proceed in an orderly faction to reach conclusions. Then, the conclusions can be challenged using the same method”
So others need to follow this method, just not you. And you’ve said it yourself.
“I have never claimed my views are correct, I have merely submitted them to challenge others to prove me wrong.”
And you have been provided with numerous research papers that test and experiment, and examine actual data. This you summarily brush off in favour of promoting views that neither know nor care if they are correct.
You’re no devotee of science. You are a science denier.
Wonderful!
In winter it is cold. We have natural gas coming to our houses – we burn gas and get warm.
Interesting, This routine is changing now. They will built many gas powered electricity generators.
Generators will burn gas, produce electricity.
We shall have in our houses heat pumps. So we shall operate the heat pumps with electricity from the gas powered generators.
And… get warm.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Three factors play an important role in the efficiency of a heat pump:
1. Refrigerant
The efficiency of a heat pump is significantly influenced by the refrigerant used. A refrigerant that evaporates quickly and hardly loses any heat contributes to a higher efficiency of the heat pump. Many heat pump manufacturers are now increasingly using natural refrigerants, e.g. propane (also “R290”), as these achieve even higher energy efficiency and are also more environmentally friendly.
The efficiency of the heat pump or the refrigerant plays a particularly important role when a heat pump is used in an old building or less well-insulated existing building, as it has to use more energy there than in an energy-efficient house, for example.
2. Temperature difference
The difference between the temperature inside the house and outside also affects the efficiency of a heat pump. If the outside temperatures are very low, it has to use more energy to maintain the desired heat inside. As a result, the efficiency of the heat pump can decrease at very low temperatures. However, it is important to note that modern systems are specifically designed for use in colder climates and perform well even at low temperatures.
Proof of this is Scandinavia, which has the highest heat pump rate in Europe, showing how effectively this technology can be used even in cold regions.
3. Flow temperature
The flow temperature also influences the efficiency of a heat pump. A low flow temperature of 35 degrees, which is similar to that of underfloor heating, leads to an even higher efficiency of the heat pump because less energy has to be applied. In contrast, a higher flow temperature of 60 degrees with smaller radiators in an old building achieves slightly lower efficiencies.
**
And anyone who thinks s/he can simply install a heat pump without first replacing the old radiators with something modern like underfloor heating is just stupid.
binny…”And anyone who thinks s/he can simply install a heat pump without first replacing the old radiators with something modern like underfloor heating is just stupid”.
***
Either that or Binny is stupid.
Underfloor heating in concrete is usually electrical and the losses to the concrete floor are significant. Even if the concrete floor has water pipes, the losses are significant since both electrical and water must heat the concrete and maintain the temperature.
On a first floor of a wood frame, floor heating would most likely be electrical, and usually on one floor only, like a kitchen floor. Underfloor heating is simply impractical. If it’s electrical and a conductor break due to wear, the entire system must be dug up in concrete to replace it. With a wood floor, the heating is in an electrical pad, which obviously is a fire hazard.
The heat pump efficiency itself depends on how far into the earth the transfer probe can be inserted. The deeper you go, the hotter the Earth’s surface gets, hence the temperature difference. The options are a borehole or a trench. Obviously, in colder regions with permafrost extending from a few metres to a 100 metres below the surface a trench won’t work. You won’t get much heat from frozen ground, the only solution being to drill a borehole well below it.
An efficient system should be able to extract heat from ground that is even 1C warmer. The question is, how much heat can be extracted, and in colder climate, not enough can be extracted to warm the facility to a comfortable temperature. Therefore, auxiliary heat is required, and you guessed it, usually from fossil fuel.
In summary, you can’t get something for nothing, and the 2nd law applies. With a refrigeration or air conditioning system, heat is extracted from an area into a low pressure gas. That low pressure gas is converted to a high pressure, high temperature liquid by a compressor which requires power to run it. The heat created by compressing the gas is vented to the outside world at a higher temperature. Obviously, the closer the outside air gets to the vented heat temperature, the less heat will be transferred.
In other words, it is the compressor and refrigerant that are responsible for the heat extraction, since heat does not flow naturally from cold to hot.
Same with a heat pump, albeit in reverse. The greater the difference in temperature between the ground probe and the room requiring heating, the more heat will be transferred.
You can’t get a break anyway from our local Hydro company. They have a minimum charge and the only break you get is averaging your consumption over the year in a monthly payment.
This statement from Bindidon is confusing at best:
[The efficiency of a heat pump is significantly influenced by the refrigerant used. A refrigerant that evaporates quickly and hardly loses any heat contributes to a higher efficiency of the heat pump. Many heat pump manufacturers are now increasingly using natural refrigerants, e.g. propane (also R290), as these achieve even higher energy efficiency and are also more environmentally friendly.]
The latent heat of vaporization that is most important property of a refrigerant. It is completely opposite of “evaporates quickly and hardly loses any heat”. That quote seems to represent a low latent heat. Is that what you meant there?
The energy cost of operating a refrigeration system (run in reverse flow as a heat pump) is entirely in the compressor and air movement fans. The performance is primarily in the latent heat. High latent means good performance, low latent heat means poor performance. Period.
Ironically, the reference to propane as being efficient is true, but precisely because it has a very high latent heat. It is second only to Ammonia, and substantially better than ANY commercially available refrigerant. The problem with propane is that it is flammable. Refineries use it, but I doubt it is allowed in an occupied building.
Find a refrigeration thermodynamic chart and study it. It is complex and requires knowledge of basic thermodynamics at a minimum. You will see clearly the importance of latent heat in a refrigeration or heat pump system.
The latest plane crash appears to be an in-flight explosion or failure of some kind. It was already on fire when it hit the ground. A stall does not usually cause a nose dive. Last Summer there was a plane in Brazil that stalled (suspected icing) and was seen spinning down to earth.
Engine failure is often survivable. The engines are designed to contain a compressor or turbine blade failure.
This is total speculation, but a medical flight might have oxygen on board.
The biggest issue for most people in the election was inflation.
But today Trump, who guaranteed he would bring down prices, imposed huge inflationary tariffs on our allies and largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico.
“The dumbest trade war in history” says the Wall Street Journal.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-tariffs-25-percent-mexico-canada-trade-economy-84476fb2
Reminds me of an internet meme:
“I never thought leopards would eat MY face,” sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party.
Responsible adults understand what Trump is doing, and that the WSJ isn’t what it used to be.
But at least the cult children have their “internet memes”.
As so often, it is great mystery what Clint is trying to say.
Let’s give Trump credit for his geopolitical expansionist agenda, not ruling out taking Greenland by force, and intent on ownership of the Panama Canal. If he can acquire Canada, eventually the government coffers would start filling. Perhaps the new revenue streams could reimburse Americans for the extra they’ll have to pay for imports with huge tariffs. And it would help pay for mass deportations, and the rehiring of thousands and thousands of bureaucrats that are currently being purged – unless Trump is doing that to dismantle the the FBI, the DoJ, the Inspector Generals office etc. There could be some big savings by defunding law enforcement and oversight.
It’s incredible to imagine that his followers actually believe him every time he says foreign countries pay tariffs on US imports. Are they really that ignorant, or does he just believe they are suckers?
There are two issues that you have failed to address and lump you in with the rest of the perpetual liars.
Trump asked government of Canada to stop:
-Immigration of people that cause terrorism (we don’t want them here either).
-Fentanyl (and other illegal drugs such as Marijuana (which is legal in Canada)) that are causing huge problems in Canada too.
The perpetual liars in our government and our media would have you believe its a trade war and that Trump wants Canada as 51st state. It is neither.
Trudeau is making it worse by proroguing parliament. The result is that there might be an election in May. The 4 year law says its supposed to be in October. There are hints the Liberals might call the tariffs cause to call an emergency and not hold an election until October 2026, the maximum under our constitution.
My fear is that we may have to figure out how to remove a totalitarian government that won’t call an election at all.
Our dollar went down to 69 cents last week; that is 5 cents in a month.
“and other illegal drugs such as Marijuana (which is legal in Canada)) that are causing huge problems in Canada too.”
Could you elaborate on why you believe marijuana is causing significant issues?
Have you ever been in any situation with pot heads when a functioning brain is required?
Yes, not all users fit the lazy, sluggish-thinking stoner stereotype.
I’ve met productive stoners. They use the substance responsibly and it helps with their creativity and focus.
Learn to understand sarcasm, Ken. If dear leader can joke about Canada being the 51st state, so can I.
https://apnews.com/article/canada-trump-tariffs-trudeau-trade-opposition-border-5d3dbbb4a701bb1676ee588bfbf2396a
Although, he keeps saying it and the ‘joke’ seems to be wearing thin.
https://apnews.com/article/canada-trump-us-state-131dcff58a8f56116765f160d9f35460
Luckily, Trump has ruled out military force on Canada, but leaves the option open for Greenland and the Panama Canal.
” “I’m not going to commit to that,” Trump said, when asked if he would rule out the use of the military. “It might be that you’ll have to do something. The Panama Canal is vital to our country.” He added, “We need Greenland for national security purposes.” ”
Can you believe that, Ken? That the leader of the free world has just suggested he might take Greenland and the Panama Canal by force.
I’d love to see you spin this. I gave it my best shot.
(That last sentence was more humour, by the way)
So I looked up one of your big issues, Ken. The flow of fentanyl into the US from Canada.
The US and Canada between them have seized a total of 16 kilograms of fentanyl at the Northern border per year over the last 3 full fiscal years (not accounting for different fiscal year periods).
Compared with 9359 kg per year on average at the Southern Border.
And compared with 240 kgs per year on average from interior and coastal influx.
https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-securite/seizure-saisie-eng.html
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/drug-seizure-statistics
Unsurprisingly, flow from Canada is 0.2% the amount from Mexico (0.17% of total influx). It’s not perfect, but it’s also not a big issue. Canada already polices illegal exports (and imports). The Trump administration is patently using this as a pretext.
I’ll leave it to you to provide good sources and statistics for the big problem of terrorism coming in from Canada. Hopefully not a flipping youtube video.
Sure… it must be his concern over drugs from Canada.
“Despite calling for the death penalty for drug dealers, president Donald Trump pardoned Ross “Dread Pirate Roberts” Ulbricht, the man behind the seminal online drug marketplace Silk Road, which facilitated the sale of over $200 million in illegal drugs and other illicit goods using bitcoin.”
Two life sentences plus 40 years without the possibility of parole was ridiculous. I agree with Trump. The amount of time he served was probably about right.
Here is illegal immigration numbers. Most of Northern Border are article 8.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters
Here is Trump Executive order
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-duties-to-address-the-flow-of-illicit-drugs-across-our-national-border/
You’ll notice the statement “fentanyl is so potent that even a very small parcel of the drug can cause many deaths and destruction to America families. In fact, the amount of fentanyl that crossed the northern border last year could kill 9.5 million Americans”. Its already a big problem in Canada too. The fact of Marijuana being legal to grow here makes it much easier to conceal drug labs from Police.
When the plebs discover they can vote for cake and circuses … red krok is much more interested in ensuring his access to pot than in the immediate threat of tariffs to the country. And he still wonders why I think marijuana is causing significant issues.
The 51st state is a joke but a lot of people here in Canada are thinking its a good idea. We’ve had a second round of Trudeau governments, PET and JT, both of which have been extremely destructive to the nation. I don’t know if being part of USA would solve the problem but there appear to be a lot better checks and balances than exist here what with our activist judges being part of the perpetual liars club. Its a plausible joke but we must remember grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
If it were about the length of his sentence, he should have gotten a commutation.
But he got a Full and Unconditional Pardon, which conveys the message that he was wrongfully convicted.
Ken, you said there is a concern about terrorism coming over the Northern border. Where is the data? Why did you move the goalposts?
Because the Northern border is not a conduit for terrorism.
“You’ll notice the statement ‘fentanyl is so potent that even a very small parcel of the drug can cause many deaths and destruction to America families. In fact, the amount of fentanyl that crossed the northern border last year could kill 9.5 million Americans.’ Its already a big problem in Canada too.”
The amount of heroin seized by Canadian border security last fiscal year could kill 894 million Americans. Their American counterparts seized 36 kilograms, compared to Canada’s seizure of 89,000 kilograms. But Trump needs a pretext, so Canadian successes are buried and the small amount of fentanyl is the red-button rhetoric.
Or should Canada be imposing tariffs on the US for their terrible stats WRT heroin smuggling? That would seem logical, right?
Or the fact that 70% of guns used by Canadian criminals were smuggled into Canada from the US, and gun-related deaths and crime have tracked the growing influx? Now there’s a juicy pretext for Canada to slap tariffs onto the US.
Fentanyl is a big problem in Canada because its increasingly being made there. It’s almost all being sold locally, because the Mexican stuff is cheaper.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fentanyl-produced-in-canada-1.7275200
So you’re quoting stats from Trump’s whitehouse and you’d like Canada to be part of the United States. Fascinating. From the Whitehouse link:
“Canada has played a central role in these challenges, including by failing to devote sufficient attention and resources or meaningfully coordinate with United States law enforcement partners to effectively stem the tide of illicit drugs.”
This is the kind of substanceless pap which people swallow whole. The US and Canada continually coordinate to stem the flow of cross-border contraband. There are multiple agreements and joint programs. The current US administration looks to be mimicking Trump’s level of BS. Let’s not rely on that lot for the unvarnished truth.
Canada has imported a huge radical Islam problem. We don’t want them here.
Canada has imported a huge Khalistan independence movement too. We don’t want them here either.
Our government has gone ‘woke’ and is allowing anyone from anywhere to enter Canada regardless of whether they are willing and able to integrate into Canadian society. Too often they are not willing and able, instead too obviously seeking to impose on us the same values as the shithole country they came from.
Too pretend these issues are not a problem for USA too is absurd.
How many terrorists are crossing into USA from Canada?
One is too many and here we have one: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/pakistani-national-charged-plotting-terrorist-attack-new-york-city-support-isis
Actual numbers are found under the heading: Terrorist Screening Data Set Encounters: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics
Thank you for providing a statistical source. Let’s maintain the standard.
“How many terrorists are crossing into USA from Canada?
One is too many and here we have one…”
… who was captured by Canadian security, who had been surveilling him, before he got within 10 miles of the border.
A great example of US/Canadian security cooperation.
Most of the ‘terrorists’ (suspected or proven) encountered at the Northern border are Canadians, whose presence on the terrorist watchlists is as a result of US/Canada cooperation. As with drug smuggling there are multiple cooperative efforts between the intelligence and security forces of both countries. You know the 5-Eyes agreement, for example?
Perhaps you could list the recent acts of terrorism in the US from failures at the Northern border. Perhaps the Whitehouse web pages might have that information?
No, facts and figures get in the way of rhetoric. The Trump administration will smear anyone and any institute and any country as a pretext for their agenda. And you will buy it, and defend them with comments like ‘one terrorist is too many.’
How about “One gun is too many”? Should Canada not be imposing sanctions on the US for their execrable and continued failure to prevent illegal weapons smuggling into Canada?
So the stock market has taken a nosedive in celebration of the trade wars Trump has initiated.
The price of eggs is up. So much for his promises to bring prices down “from day one.”
Now he’s saying that there’s going to be some inevitable pain.
What a grifter. The federal coffers will feel none of the pain.
Gordon, here is a summary of the LIA from Encyclopedia Brittanica:
“Little Ice Age (LIA), climate interval that occurred from the early 14th century through the mid-19th century, when mountain glaciers expanded at several locations, including the European Alps, New Zealand, Alaska, and the southern Andes, and mean annual temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere declined by 0.6 C (1.1 F) relative to the average temperature between 1000 and 2000 ce. The term Little Ice Age was introduced to the scientific literature by Dutch-born American geologist F.E. Matthes in 1939. Originally the phrase was used to refer to Earths most recent 4,000-year period of mountain-glacier expansion and retreat. Today some scientists use it to distinguish only the period 15001850, when mountain glaciers expanded to their greatest extent, but the phrase is more commonly applied to the broader period 13001850. The Little Ice Age followed the Medieval Warming Period (roughly 9001300 ce) and preceded the present period of warming that began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Geographic extent
Information obtained from proxy records (indirect records of ancient climatic conditions, such as ice cores, cores of lake sediment and coral, and annual growth rings in trees) as well as historical documents dating to the Little Ice Age period indicate that cooler conditions appeared in some regions, but, at the same time, warmer or stable conditions occurred in others. For instance, proxy records collected from western Greenland, Scandinavia, the British Isles, and western North America point to several cool episodes, lasting several decades each, when temperatures dropped 1 to 2 C (1.8 to 3.6 F) below the thousand-year averages for those areas. However, these regional temperature declines rarely occurred at the same time. Cooler episodes also materialized in the Southern Hemisphere, initiating the advance of glaciers in Patagonia and New Zealand, but these episodes did not coincide with those occurring in the Northern Hemisphere. Meanwhile, temperatures of other regions of the world, such as eastern China and the Andes, remained relatively stable during the Little Ice Age.
Still other regions experienced extended periods of drought, increased precipitation, or extreme swings in moisture. Many areas of northern Europe, for instance, were subjected to several years of long winters and short, wet summers, whereas parts of southern Europe endured droughts and season-long periods of heavy rainfall. Evidence also exists of multiyear droughts in equatorial Africa and Central and South Asia during the Little Ice Age.
For these reasons the Little Ice Age, though synonymous with cold temperatures, can also be characterized broadly as a period when there was an increase in temperature and precipitation variability across many parts of the globe.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age
I can easily cite research papers to corroborate.
This isn’t ‘science by consensus’, this is simply the reporting of the scientific results to date, pooled from from multiple institutes and research groups around the world.
Your demand to have a conjecture of yours disproven is irrelevant to that body of knowledge, which is what you have to address “in an orderly fashion,” to make a credible contribution to the conversation.
Trump Unleashes Irrigation Water In California, on farmland, Out of Season, for No Purpose (January 31, 2025)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/31/us/trump-water-california-central-valley.html
SACRAMENTO, California – President Donald Trump declared victory on Friday in his long-running water war with California, boasting he sent billions of gallons south – but local officials say they narrowly prevented him from possibly flooding farms.
“Today, 1.6 billion gallons and, in 3 days, it will be 5.2 billion gallons. Everybody should be happy about this long fought Victory! I only wish they listened to me six years ago – There would have been no fire!” he said in a post on his social media site.
Local officials had to talk the Army Corps of Engineers down after it abruptly alerted them Thursday afternoon it was about to increase flows from two reservoirs to maximum capacity – a move the agency said was in response to Trump directing the federal government to “maximize” water supplies.
Before the Corps ratcheted down its plan, local authorities scrambled to move equipment and warn farms about possible flooding, said Victor Hernandez, who oversees water management on one of the rivers, the Kaweah in Tulare County. He said the Corps gave him one hour notice on Thursday.
“I’ve been here 25 years, and I’ve never been given notice that quick,” Hernandez said. “That was alarming and scary.”
Yes Ark, water is useful for putting out fires.
California Leftists don’t get it.
And never will….
Trump tries to micromanage (f*k with) things that locals and the experts should handle. Because HE knows better!
I can’t stress enough how absolutely retarded this is. The current round of wildfires is, effectively, dealt with. They have things under control, and they aren’t in need of extra water for it anymore. It isn’t quite over, but they’re not in emergency mode anymore.
And the worst f***ing part? The absolute most retarded thing about all this? That water isn’t even going to LA. LA is 200 miles away. In all likelihood, it’s going to flow right down into the f***ing ocean. He sent the army in to dump water into the f***ing ocean, to fight a wildfire that’s already almost over.
I was curious about the libertarian wing of the Republican party in light of the new tariffs. Libertarians – and many conservative Republicans have been opposed to them on the basis that they hurt the consumer, distort market realities, that government should not regulate winners and losers, and that it encourages trade wars that exacerbate all the above.
I didn’t know that last September Rand Paul introduced a bill to give the power of making tariffs into the hands of congress.
https://www.paul.senate.gov/dr-rand-paul-celebrates-constitution-day/
This included congressional approval for tariffs based on security reasons, which Trump has flagrantly used without real cause, especially in the case of Canada.
Rand Paul has his opportunity. Republicans own all three houses of government and he’s not happy about the tariffs.
However, most of the Republican party have become flunkeys and quietly dropped their free trade values.
barry, you cult children should not try to understand geopolitics. Just finding something on the web doesn’t mean you understand all of the ramifications.
Trump is not against Canada. He’s against the effeminate incompetence that has festered there.
For example, if Trudeau actually does leave office, watch the tariffs go away.
Shhh. Let an adult speak.
The Ronald Reagan Foundation puts it eloquently.
“…at least since Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has been philosophically inspired by free trade. President Reagan, in a 1988 Thanksgiving address, decried protectionism and said, “One of the key factors behind our nation’s great prosperity is the open trade policy that allows the American people to freely exchange goods and services with free people around the world.” Both Presidents Bush continued the embrace of free trade as an ideal, even as they oversaw policy exceptions.
One reason for this embrace was the intimate connection between free trade and three other pillars of a conservative approach: a market orientation, a commitment to limited government, and a belief in responsible internationalism. One need not argue the theoretical nature of such a linkage; one need only look at the experience of the Trump administration for a vivid empirical demonstration of how the policies interact…”
And goes on to describe the failure of Trump’s steel tariffs.
https://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-institute/publications/is-the-gop-still-the-party-of-free-trade/
“when the steel program and other protectionist policies drew retaliation from foreign trading partners against U.S. farmers, the Trump administration responded with $12 billion of subsidiesand has announced plans for more. The protectionist approach expanded the role of the government in the economy and moved away from principles of limited, predictable governance.
The international effects have been no less severe. To rationalize the imposition of steel protection, the Trump administration had to declare publicly that numerous NATO and other defense treaty partners (e.g., Japan and Korea) posed a national security threat to the United States. Both this claim and the adversarial approach inherent in blocking a partners exports have significantly strained relations with key allies, have undercut the idea of the United States as a responsible leader, and have thus diminished American standing in the world…
…To the extent that President Trumps protectionism is based on the anticipated benefits of blocking trade, experience is likely to shine an unforgiving light on the policy. As but one recent example, recent studies have found that the steel and aluminum tariffs cost Americans $900,000 per job saved or created, while washing machine tariffs cost $815,000 per job…”
…This alternative path, of course, has its own perils. It would require open disagreement with the leader of the party. To bring voters along, it would require open discourse about the importance of trade and the damage that trade barriers can do. But in this moment, more so than at any in recent memory, being the party of free trade requires actively fighting for free trade in both word and deed.
If they choose to avoid such confrontation with their own president, Republicans can still call themselves the party of free trade. But no one will believe them.”
barry…you continue to waffle over the LIA extent.
The first thing we need to consider about your source is its veracity. Many information outlets today have a serious alarmist bias (CBC, BBC, The Guardian). Wiki has used the uber-alarmist, William Connelly, as an editor, and he has single-handedly ensured the alarmist narrative gets posted, while rejecting input from skeptics. Connolly was a regular at realclimate and a staunch supporter of the alarmist meme.
Although Britannica is usually reliable, their views on climate science have become pro alarm. They offer lip service to the LIA, confirming it in part, then introduce doubt by offering nonsense that it might have cooled differently at different times in different parts of the planet. They offer no hard proof of that, just conjecture.
Your source (Britannica) confirms that the LIA was global but they too waffle over the extent and degree…
“Cooler episodes also materialized in the Southern Hemisphere, initiating the advance of glaciers in Patagonia and New Zealand, but these episodes did not coincide with those occurring in the Northern Hemisphere. Meanwhile, temperatures of other regions of the world, such as eastern China and the Andes, remained relatively stable during the Little Ice Age”.
Of course they did not coincide, the Northern and Southern Hemispheres have different seasons. And, where is the explanation of how they would not coincide?
Again, I ask, how is it possible for cooling to be so extensive as to massively change glacier extents globally yet alarmist authority figures are claiming these changes were independent of each other?
What is the mechanism? Where is the scientific proof this has happened before?
As we saw with the hockey stick lie, proxy data is unreliable. One reason is that proxy data from the entire globe is not available. Where it is, we are at the mercy of scientists who interpret it as they see it based on their particular bias. We saw that with ice core samples in Antarctica where experts like Jaworowski disagreed with other experts.
Also, there is little in the way of human reports globally. The main eye-witness reports come from the civilized areas of Europe, where people actually lived through the LIA.
We also have reports from North America from about 1600 AD onward. The NW Passage was so full of ice in summer, that sailing through the Passage was impossible, from either end. There are also reports of freezing weather as far south as modern day Texas and Florida. There is documented evidence of famines due to crop failures.
That means we are left with scientific common sense which makes it clear, based on scientific history, that it was not possible for Europe to cool to the extreme extent it did while the rest of the planet did not.
if proxy data and anecdotes are unreliable, why do you cite them?
There is no consistency to your methodology.
Since 1900 a large portion of the North Atlantic hasn’t warmed, Eastern Antarctica hasn’t warmed.
While the United States has warmed since 1900, Alabama and a handful of other states have no statistically significant warming trend.
After denying proxy data, you’re now going to blame thermometer data aren’t you? Even though these parts of the US have non-warming trends while the rest of the US does (including with UAH). Even though these regions have no warming trend.
There, the world does not operate uniformly even when the is a global warming trend for more than a century.
Regional differences are real.
The Encyclopedia Britannica is not alarmist, they just report the preponderance of scientific evidence.
And that evidence comes from the scientific literature, which applies the scientific method. I’m not going to link bunches of papers for you, because you are just going to wave them away without even skimming them.
You’re a denier, pure and simple. You don’t know if your view is correct, but any evidence to the contrary is just assigned a bias and you can sit back content your view has not been tested.
You are anti science.
barry…re Trump…
I wanted to see him get in because the Democrats were eroding democracy. I have no regrets although I knew he was capable of his current immaturity re tariffs. I just did not get it how immature he can be and how disloyal to a good ally.
Trump is seriously immature, to the point of pouting. Hopefully, the Democrats will get it, as have the Liberal Party in Canada, that their agenda was unpopular and needed to go.
It comes down to so-called Progressives in each government who have taken it upon themselves to impose Draconian belief systems on the rest of us. Many regard Progressives as left wingers but they are not. They are the misguided politically-correct (woke) who think they can correct the woes of society through legislation. This has led to outright sexual perversions being introduced as normal.
If we are going to correct wrongs re racism and so on, it needs to come from a transformation in the awareness of all humans. That includes the woke crowd and the LBGTQ, who think sex is important.
I am sure there are legitimate cases where male and female cells get mixed up, producing men who look feminine and females who look masculine. Woke-ness in that respect is not about such aberrations, it is based on sexual feelings that are driven by sexual fantasies.
The Progressives want to forgive criminals and set them free while censuring police through defunding. That is serious naivete. They want to enforce equality, and their obsession with transgender issues, by mandating legislation.
That is basically why Trump is in power. He squeaked in and his support came from US voter who feel let down by the Progressives.
The same is true here in Canada. The Liberals have admitted they need to reconsider their Green initiatives, and other issues, since Canadians simple don’t want them.
Clint claims Trump is trying to overcome an effeminate incompetence in the Canadian government. I would be inclined to agree but you cannot claim that of Canadians in general, who are known to be a hardy breed, perhaps harder than their US counterparts in many ways.
In WWI, Canadians volunteered en masse to fight in Europe and they did the same in WW II, while the US sat on its hand during the early stages of both wars. To be fair, some US citizens did cross into Canada to volunteer.
In WWI, it was the Canadians who turned the tide of the war with valiant efforts in the latter stages, such as Vimy Ridge, once the Canadian military leaders were able to break away from the colonial mentality of British military leaders and guide the Canadian troops to a different, saner way of fighting.
Trump doesn’t understand that you don’t want to mess with the average Canadian. The leaders may be wusses, but the Canadian heart is very much still there. Canadians will never lay down to his tariffs and he can forget about us becoming the 51st state. We would regard it as a major step down to join the US in its current incarnation.
What Trump has done is galvanized us into action. He has awakened the sleeping dog. Never again, will we trust the US with our welfare.
The Democratic party doesn’t have a single agenda. There is dissent and disagreement within. Something the Republicans are shamefully without. The Democrats behave like democrats, Republicans are flunkeys to Trump. But we get mixed views on Gaza and Israel within the Democratic party.
Therefore there are social progressives that push their agenda, and others who push back. The Dems may have ended up going too far with identity politics. But that does not define the party – except in the eyes of the ignorant right, who have cloven to the endless rhetoric from conservatives, who are just as strident, and with less morality to back them up.
From healthcare to crime to the border, climate change and policing, there are actual debates and divisions within the Democrat party. For almost all of these, moderates in the party have prevailed.
But the Republicans? Very very few speak against Trump, and there are certainly no factions that stand in contrast to his policies.
Democracy died in the GOP when Republicans became spineless in the face of Trump. Right now the administration is making all the right moves to bring more power and purse strings to the executive. They are running a blueprint for dictatorship.
Democracy is alive and well in the Democratic party. It’s certainly not perfect, but far closer to the American history of democratic activity in government. Trump’s Republican party – there’s no better term for it – are closer to fascism than any Republican party before.
I found Trump’s first term entertaining from my vantage point, though he did a lot of damage. This time I’m genuinely worried. It’s hard to look past the fact that he openly suggested he might use force to Greenland and the Panama Canal. That’s not clever politics, that’s not Trump being crazy, those are reckless, dangerous words. And he is launching economic hardship on middle and lower economic America with his tariffs, which will fill his war chest while foreign countries pay precisely zero for them. His continual lying about this plays his base for suckers. He is grossly unfit for that office.
“What Trump has done is galvanized us into action.”
Gee if even Gordon is persuaded to oppose MAGA that tells you that Trump’s attempt to f*k with our friendly neighbor will backfire.
“In WWI, it was the Canadians who turned the tide of the war with valiant efforts in the latter stages, such as Vimy Ridge.”
I have never seen any assessment of WWI that would support this statement. Sure Canada punched above its weight, but it was still a very small contribution. Vimy Ridge was a success even though it was a minor event in WWI. Vimy was important only from a Canadian perspective in being the first time an all Canadian Division went into the fray.
wiki: “The Germans did not see the capture of Vimy Ridge by the Canadian Corps as a loss. Contemporary German sources viewed the action, at worst, as a draw, given that no breakthrough occurred following the attack”.
“Trump doesnt understand that you dont want to mess with the average Canadian. The leaders may be wusses, but the Canadian heart is very much still there. Canadians will never lay down to his tariffs and he can forget about us becoming the 51st state. We would regard it as a major step down to join the US in its current incarnation.”
I spent time in Canada’s military. Your assessment is way wrong. The people that joined Canada’s army in WWI are an entirely different critter from average Canadian today. The average Canadian at age 18 is already so fat and out of shape as to require weeks of remedial training just to get him up to basic recruit standards.
Ye Gods, I’ve been reading about unappointed, unelected Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The ‘department’ is possibly an illegal entity, and is staffed by people who have commercial government contracts (eg, Musk himself). Musk is also staffing it with employees from his own companies.
So they’ve been going into the Treasury and other congressionally authorised financial institutions demanding they hand over the keys. When the directors refuse, Trump has put the directors on leave.
So Elon Musk now has access to the payment systems of trillions of dollars of public money, like social security, and also has the personal details of recipients, which is highly classified, compartmentalised information.
No one elected him, congress did not approve him, and this ‘department’ looks much more like a gang of goons breaking down doors for Trump.
Project 2025 is coming along very nicely. The Trump administration is gutting the bureaucracy, defunding the police, getting rid of dissenters and watchdogs, scooping up as many government purse strings as it can, and raising massive tariffs to fill the purses, while gathering more and more power to the presidency.
This sort of stuff only used to happen in Russia, Europe and Asia.
And South America…
Well, never thought I’d see it in the US.
Forgot to include the DOGE website.
While DOGE has been accessing things it shouldn’t access, it’s transparency is…
https://doge.gov/
A single web page with the title and a slogan.
“Department of Government Efficiency
The people voted for major reform.”
That’s it. There’s nothing else.
Even the title is Orwellian.
For a short while the webpage sported the Dogecoin icon, a currency Musk has been in trouble about, as he’s promoted it, potentially for insider trading. (The Dogecoin icon replaced the logo on the Twitter app for a short while)
That’s right, a government ‘department’ promoted a digital currency favoured by its chief on its official government website.
https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/21/24348908/doge-has-an-official-government-website
Clowns in jackboots. What a circus.
We get 4 more years of panicked ramblings like this, from the cult kids.
Have plenty of popcorn on hand, it’s going to be fun.
The chaos already sparked by Trump is popcorn city. After the funding freeze shut down social security access in random places, Trump rescinded his own order a couple days later.
Some part of me is fascinated by this crazy, hopelessly ill-managed start to a president’s term. Some part of me is thoroughly entertained.
But this time there is no one to hold Trump back, and he isn’t holding the crazies around him back. His worst impulses won’t be checked, and their agenda to increase the power of the presidency will be terrible for American democracy.
Watch this space, Clint. Keep the popcorn handy, it’s going to be a bumpy ride. The pain is going to get a lot worse.
The chaos and pain are all yours, barry. You can’t deny all your desperate spewings here, joined by Nate, Bindi, and others. Your beliefs are being destroyed and there’s nothing you can do about it. Reality always wins.
You’re a cult child, and calling everyone a “liar” just proves that.
Here’s just a little reality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E16UpzXY2ok
Elon Musk, the bastion of sober reporting. Yeah, I’ll wait to hear from a responsible adult.
Yes, it is all in Project 2025 plans, which during the campaign Trump disavowed, said he had nothing to with, and did not agree with.
Thus he blatantly decieved and misled the voters.
His power grabs are acceptable to MAGA because he is doing things with that power that they like: doing damage to the people, policies and institutions they hate.
But it will come back to bite with the next President.
I was thinking the comparisons with Hitler fall down because Trump isn’t sending untermenschen off to concentration camps.
I just learned that he is planning to send 30,000 undocumented immigrants to Guantanamo Bay.
The fascist bingo card is filling up.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is real.
I totally agree. It resides in the MAGA movement.
There was probably a German phrase in the 1930s equivalent to ‘derangement syndrome’ to excuse all that went down.
Looks like agents in the FBI who fail a political purety test will be fired: they had the audacity help prosecute violent Jan 6ers who beat up police.
Just as the nominee FBI head testified that agents would be protected from political retribution.
Reminds me of the Soviet purges with each new leader!
In December of 2016 President Obama authorized FBI Director Comey and his band of dishonest thugs (17 “unexplained” errors on official court filings) to spy-on and disrupt the incoming president. That is how we got here. The Democrats did not learn their lesson. Under the direction of the very political and possibly corrupt Merrick Garland, they attempted to disrupt Trump’s reelection.
The people have voted. The Democrats could have offered a reasonable candidate. They did not. Kamala Harris is a train wreck. Now we all suffer. I blame the Democrat Party. As very many responsible party members have said, they need new leadership and policies that align with the moderate views of average people.
Endless excuses are used to justify the unprecedented power grabs that are unfolding before us.
“In December of 2016 President Obama authorized FBI Director Comey and his band of dishonest thugs (17 “unexplained” errors on official court filings) to spy-on and disrupt the incoming president.”
There is zero evidence that Obama did any such thing.
And yes, people are trotting out any excuses for Trump’s extraordinary overreach. It’s not 2016 any more, Virginia.
Here you go barry. Do not bail out this time. This is real, but you are excused for not being informed. It took me some time to find this for you. None of the liberal media will touch this or the dossier. It hurts too much. The Peter Strzok field notes are real. I was off by one month. It was January 2017. The “meeting notes” memo from Susan Rice is a lie. She said they “went by the book” and Obama did not approve anything.
Peter Strzok quotes President Obama as follows:
[P: These are unusual times
P: Make sure you look at things + have the right people on it
P: Is there anything I shouldnt be telling transition team?]
The right people were the ones who made 17 unexplained errors.
Have fun:
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/24/explosive-new-fbi-notes-confirm-obama-directed-anti-flynn-operation/
[The handwritten notes, which were first disclosed in a federal court filing made by the Department of Justice on Tuesday, show President Obama himself personally directed former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to investigate Flynn for having routine phone calls with a Russian counterpart. He also suggests they withhold information from President Trump and his key national security figures.
The handwritten notes from fired former FBI agent Peter Strzok appear to describe a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting between Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Comey, Yates, and then-national security adviser Susan Rice. The meeting and its substance were confirmed in a bizarre Inauguration Day email Rice wrote to herself.]
“Here you go barry. Do not bail out this time.”
When have I bailed out? there are a half-dozen outstanding replies on points I made above, by the way.
let’s repeat what you said:
“In [January of 2017] President Obama authorized FBI Director Comey and his band of dishonest thugs… to spy-on and disrupt the incoming president” – this is based on the Federalist website and the investigation of Mike Flynn.
Obama did not order an investigation into Flynn that was already underway for 5 months. The FBI opened a case on Flynn in August 2016.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf [page 2]
No smoking gun here, chief. But I recognize the ultra partisan lore, as well as the easily discredited ‘evidence’.
Obama is on record saying to do it by the book, and asking whether he should inform the Trump transition team. Obama deferred to his intelligence briefers, he didn’t direct them.
Trump was advised by the FBI of the investigation the next day, and that he was not a target.
It was a few days ago that I posed the question whether barry is playing people as fools, or is he the fool himself? This latest response seem to suggest it is both. The document is real. If you bother to look at the link in the article, it contains an official court identification number.
Case 1:17-cr-00232-EGS Document 231-1 Filed 6-24-20 Page 1 of 1
The document speaks for itself. Use your expert investigative skills to Look it up. It was located in the FBI files and released to the court as the result of a court order. It is assumed to be authored by Peter Strzok, and written in his handwriting.
The only conspiracy here is people such as barry who claim to be about science and truthyness (sic), but they actually have a strong agenda and like to play the projection game where they project their motive on to others.
What escapes you about the fact the FBI had already been investigating Flynn and the other three team Trump guys for 5 months prior to the date the Federalist website decided that Obama supposedly ordered it?
If you are referring to the numerous links to a paywalled item, perhaps you could furnish a link to a free version. I’m sure the notes are genuine. I’m pretty sure the Federalist ‘interpretation’ of them is incorrect. The dates do not match.
And why did The Federalist decide to hide this explosive information that no one else has verified behind a paywall? Why haven’t they published it for the world to see?
I’ve got a theory….
Surveillance of Michael Flynn?? How heinous!
The convicted felon who was fired for lying to the VP and FBI about his Russia communications? And who as Nat. Security Advisor to the campaign was simultaneously working as a lobbyist for the Turkish govt?
Pulleez!
Now we have dumb and dumber responding. How do you guys explain this?
P: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?
Hillary and others got security briefings about suspect employees. Trump got a full-on investigation that was specifically hidden from him and targeted at him with fake evidence in the dossier. Does the name Mueller mean anything?
Dishonest and corrupt people love to brag:
Comey in an interview about the Flynn investigation: “It was a new administration so I decided to send a few guys over.” Corruption always works better if you do not suspect a trap is being setup.
Anyone paying attention and reading various official investigative reports knows the top level of the FBI was corrupt. Comey, McCabe (who now has steady job at CNN), and Strzok where on a mission to disrupt the new president, and Obama was in on it.
Nate and barry present themselves and being grossly misinformed and use that as a basis to express outrage. Whether they are playing people as fools, or they are the fools does not matter. The facts are available in the public record.
“P: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?”
And this is your evidence that
“In [January of 2017] President Obama authorized FBI Director Comey and his band of dishonest thugs… to spy-on and disrupt the incoming president”
Are you serious? He is asking them what to do. They are advising him.
Why are you ignoring the fact that the FBI started investigating Flynn and the others 5 months before this meeting took place? How can Obama possibly have initiated the investigation in this January 2017 meeting when it was already underway in August 2016?
This anachronism fatally undermines your (and the Federalist’s) theory. I guess that’s why you continue to avoid responding to it.
When Tim’s opponents poke holes in his posts, he doesn’t fill the holes, he just declares them ignorant.
None of this whataboutism is any sort of defense or excuse for the Project 2025 insanity going on right now.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/musk-says-doge-halting-treasury-020337006.html
Unelected non-government oligarch defunding programs and firing people in the same casual manner that he tweets?
WTF?!
Wake up people!
Musk has issued a well-researched sober report based on the hours his team has spent investigating the treasury, and released it all in a 40-word tweet. How’s that for transparency?!
Apparently Treasury officials are corrupt. No doubt it’s time to clean house and replace them with independent appointees who also happen to be completely loyal to Trump.
Thank God we have Musk to tweet us the truth.
These comments about Trump have become comical. In no particular order:
Rubio met with Panama officials. They have agreed to not renew the Chinese deals and make new deals with USA.
Mexico has agreed to put troops on the boarder for security. The tariffs are on hold.
Canada is negotiating, but in my opinion they may not be as smart as Mexico about making deals.
Musk is a genuine genius. let’s see what happens.
Rubio says USAID has programs that “work against” our national security and other interests. It is very likely to continue to do useful work after they are removed.
Calm down and stay tuned.
Breaking News:
Canada is negotiating. The tariffs are paused. Stock futures are up. Life is back to normal.
“Musk is a genuine genius. lets see what happens.”
He was a bold business man. But lately he has behaved quie erratically, like a power-mad nut-job.
And he fails at constitutional law.
He claimed USAID would be shuttered at his request.
That would be illegal. Only Congress can close a government agency that they created.
And Tim, what will China do if we end all foreign aid to Africa and the rest of the developing world?
I believe they will fill the vacuum.
And Musk makes a huge amount of his money in China.
Tim S
“Musk is a genuine genius. lets see what happens.”
Maybe so, but it does not mean he is a good person. He could be using his genius for selfish ambition and waiting to see what he does is not a good tactic. One should keep a close watch on any one in power changing things. Their actions may benefit themselves at the expense of many others.
Credit where it’s due – Trump has paused tariffs on Mexico after getting an agreement to get 10,000 troops deployed there. He got the same thing done in 2019 – 15,000 Mexican troops. This doubled the amount of border apprehensions.
In 2020, border apprehensions were back to what they were, and “gotaways” were back to pre-2019 numbers.
These numbers were significantly larger under the biden administration.
We are, of course, setting aside any humanitarian considerations here.
As for Canada, Trump claimed credit for a major program Canada had already announced last year, but appears to have exacted a concession from Canada in the form of a ‘fentanyl czar.’ I think they mean someone who oversees law enforcement rather than a drug kingpin.
tim…no genius would put a driver-less car on the road.
Also, a genius would not associate himself blindly with far-right causes. There is always something amiss in a person, genius or nor, who lacks the compassion to see the struggles faced by the poor and disenfranchised.
Trump is crowing..
But the 10,000 Nat guard to the 2000 mile border? Whoop de doo!
Same thing was done for Biden earlier last year with no such bullying.
The Canadian offer was essentially the same one made in December.
Trump blinked. He saw the stock market tanking and finally listened to concerns on price rises.
Maybe the next President will hand the keys to the US Treasury and control of all its spending to another highly successful business man, George Soros.
He’s very smart. Let’s see what happens.
test
testing
barry…”And South America”
Is that a reference to Texas and Florida, or the real South America, which is part of the continent of America?
Can you not see the confusion inherent in referring to the US as America?
No one is confused about this. Not even you are confused, you’re just nit-picking.