Home/BlogUPDATE: Since commenter Nate objects to my inclusion of the Corn Belt graph (yes, it is a small area), please go to the actual article link at Heritage.org where 2 out of the 3 graphs I provide are for global average temperatures. But also remember that we are being told (through the National Climate Assessment’s authors’ belief in climate models) that U.S. agriculture is at risk from warming and drying– the first claim is mostly wrong, and the second claim is (so far) totally wrong. I’ve blogged on this before, folks.
I was asked by Heritage Foundation to write an article on the exaggerated global warming trends produced by climate models over the last 50 years or so. These are the models being used to guide energy policy in the U.S. and around the world. The article is now up at Heritage.org. As a sneak peek, here’s a comparison between models and observations for the U.S. Corn Belt near-surface air temperatures in summer:
How does the analysis change if we include 2023 in the series? Presumably the current peak would push us closer to the model means.
“I was asked by Heritage Foundation to write an article on the exaggerated global warming trends produced”
Kinda like if James Hansen was asked by Greenpeace to write an article on the imminent melting of the polar ice sheets…
Also, if you seek out small regions, < 1% of the globe, that are not warming as fast as the global average, it is no surprise that you can find them.
Just as you can find small regions that are warming faster than the average.
So I fail to see the significance.
Previously people pointed out the cooling effect of increasing irrigation in the summertime corn belt.
.
“if you seek out small regions, < 1% of the globe, that are not warming as fast as the global average, it is no surprise that you can find them."
Now say why the USA corn belt is in them.
As I did say:
Previously people pointed out the cooling effect of increasing irrigation in the summertime corn belt.
Now you say why Europe is warming faster than average?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/europe/land/12/12/1850-2023?trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1970&endtrendyear=2023
“Kinda like if James Hansen was asked by Greenpeace to write an article on the imminent melting of the polar ice sheets”
Nate,, please stop trolling.
You go first.
Nate, please stop trolling.
I will if you will.
Of course that would eliminate 98% of your posts.
Nate says:
”Just as you can find small regions that are warming faster than the average.”
Hmmm, so your argument is that 50 years of global climate changes is really just randomly applied regionally? That doesn’t sound like an outcome for a globally uniform perturbance.
But one can’t seem to help noticing that one climate model is actually fairly close to the corn belt answer. What I would be questioning Nate is why the climate models are in as much disagreement as they are.
Pulling out my trusty ruler I see that observations are only .08C different than one climate model. But that climate model is .7C different than the warmest climate model. That is almost 9 times the variation is found in the models than there is comparing observations with at least one model.
Its also noticeable that even that model (1.9c) is higher than the ecs computed for global observations at as I recall 1.7c. UAH has it at 1.4c globally.
That places the cornbelt even closer to global observations than to the coolest model. there is something very wrong here with the models.
One thing I notice is that the highest model I see is a China institutional model predicting 4.5C per 50 years.
Yeah I bet they have our interests at heart. Don’t you think so Nate? I know DEI and international cooperation is the order of the day. Or should it be the ”epidemic of the day”?
Maybe they should increase the number of models out there to see if we get an even wider range of model variance or God forbid one that challenges an assumption common to all the models.
Another strategy would be to find different environments to see if correlations with local climate types (e.g. farming states with large water budgets) differ from other regions with unique profiles. . .like say the Sahara Desert with less water evaporation. . .some ocean regions with more water evaporation. Maybe that will tell us something. Seems to be a good approach that Roy is following here. Maybe we can get him a big grant to pursue his great work here and his UHI findings into a wider array of looks at the underpinnings of climate science.
That certainly seems to be in order considering how much in disarray the models are.
“Hmmm, so your argument is that 50 years of global climate changes is really just randomly applied regionally? That doesnt sound like an outcome for a globally uniform perturbance.”
Strawman. Nobody in climate science predicted globally uniform warming.
Regions have different climates for various reasons: latitude, ocean influence, ice sheet influence, global circulation pattern, etc.
It should be no surprise that they respond differently to climate change.
“Pulling out my trusty ruler I see that observations are only .08C different than one climate model. But that climate model is .7C different than the warmest climate model. That is almost 9 times the variation is found in the models than there is comparing observations with at least one model.”
Are climate scientists claiming they can accurately predict regional climate change yet? I don’t thinks so.
The amount of forcing added by GHG are know fairly well, thus predicting how much thermal energy will continue to be added to the system is not that difficult.
But predicting how that added energy will be distributed on the global surface, with 90% stored in the ocean, is much more difficult. Particularly with uncertain changes in the global circulation.
Nate says:
”The amount of forcing added by GHG are know fairly well, thus predicting how much thermal energy will continue to be added to the system is not that difficult.”
the spread of the models is ridiculous. obviously they know nothing about the effects of that added energy.
most of it is apparently just flying off into space to never return like Charlie stuck on the MTA for the want of a nickel.
“the spread of the models is ridiculous.”
According to who? Someone who really has no interest in learning why it is challenging.
Nate nobody said it wasn’t challenging. there are a lot of challenges in life. successfully running a farm is challenging. they sure don’t need advice from a gaggle of folks who obviously can’t read a thermometer.
Nate,
What’s your evidence that the climate is perturbed and not operating withing historical variability?
Let’s Make America Whiting Again!
Stephen,
Have you been to this blog before?
There is lots of evidence. One of the most compelling, IMO, is a 1981 study of the historical global temp up to 1980. It showed that over the previous century the natural variations (noise) and possible Anthro warming (AGW) kept the T within a 0.5 C envelope.
Then they accounting for projected rise in CO2 from human emissions, and the increased GHE, and modeled the T over the coming decades.
They found that the global temperature would increase over the next several decades. They predicted that “the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century”
Basically they were saying that the GW up to 1980, was not distinguishable from the natural variation, but would be by 2000.
They predicted how much T would rise in the coming decades, that the N. Hemisphere would warm faster than the S. Hemisphere, that the Arctic would warm the fastest, that Arctic sea ice would decline significantly in the 21st century, opening the NW passage, and that West Antarctica would warm faster than the East.
All of these predictions agreed with observations, within uncertainty, over then next 4 decades.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
https://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/1880-1920base.png
https://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/zonalT.png
https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/hires/2020/5ee752d2d61cf.jpg
In science, making specific, accurate predictions is very convincing.
Nate says:
Stephen,
Have you been to this blog before?
There is lots of evidence. One of the most compelling, IMO, is a 1981 study of the historical global temp up to 1980. It showed that over the previous century the natural variations (noise) and possible Anthro warming (AGW) kept the T within a 0.5 C envelope.
——————
Notice how Nate is trying to cover for the hockey stick shape that was began in 1911 and occurred for 4 decades (36 years) by averaging it into a century and then he is all over the last 43 years as definite signs of a brand new perturbation.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf
It seems they are trying now to cover that up and reinvent global warming beginning in 1980.
Well maybe he is right. We will have to wait until 2081 to find out though.
But as they say ”liars figure and figures lie” and its advisable to be skeptical until this actually starts resulting in something we should be concerned about. So people with more resources than they need look for things to spend money on; others with too few don’t have that luxury.
“Notice how Nate is trying to cover for the hockey stick shape that was began in 1911 and occurred for 4 decades (36 years) by averaging it into a century and then he is all over the last 43 years as definite signs of a brand new perturbation.”
Bill obviously missed something in my post, so I’ll repeat it:
The paper showed that over the previous century the natural variations (noise) and possible Anthro warming (AGW) kept the T within a 0.5 C envelope.
In California and Las Vegas, we have noticed increased temperatures where there is irrigation. Logical response due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere. Wonder why irrigation works differently in the corn belt? Also, since irrigation is a small portion of the corn belt region, I would be surprised that it has a noticeable effect.
“In California and Las Vegas, we have noticed increased temperatures where there is irrigation. Logical response due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere.”
Heat index maybe.
Of course the increased temperatures are all over the West.
In general when the ground and plants are wet the solar heat has to go into evaporation of it, and less for warming.
Present actual evidence and Nate goes into instant reality denial.
nate…”Kinda like if James Hansen was asked by Greenpeace to write an article on the imminent melting of the polar ice sheets”
***
The first thing I wondered when Roy mentioned you is why he’d bother replying to a low-life alarmist like you. The insulting reply you supplied above is what I mean by ‘low-life’. Roy was polite enough to respond to you in an article and all you can do is supply a smarmy, insulting reply.
It also reveals the quality of your mental faculties which, through my experience in dealing with you, I regard as being somewhat lacking. Roy is a professional and offered you a professional reply which you don’t deserve. You respond by shooting down a well thought out reply by challenging his sponsor.
You are nothing more than a major creep.
It seems you are missing the boat, Gordon.
Both James Hansen and Roy Spencer are climate scientists who have moved into political advocacy.
Both the Heritage Foundation and Greenpeace are known for their forceful political advocacy.
Both Hansen and Roy were being asked to write a piece that advances the the agenda of the respective organizations.
So what’s your problem?
Nate seems you are the one with the problem. Go ahead get it off your chest.
Gordon needs to explain why he thinks this comparison is unreasonable.
I live in the corn belt. There is not a lot of irrigation in the corn belt. You can drive by a dozen fields before you might see one with a watering system. And, I rarely see that system running unless the conditions are dry. I doubt it has any effect whatsoever on temperature trend.
I also have a rural station about 20 miles from me with data since 1900. It shows slightly cooling highs and slightly warming lows. The average trend is flat.
From my viewpoint, Roy’s data is exaggerating the warming from observations.
It does feel a bit like cherry-picking — just one part of the US for just one season. Is this “typical” for other regions and other seasons? Or was this result chosen for the article because it was exceptional? The heading for the section is “Summertime Warming in the United States”, but the only data is for one region.
Also, the Surface-Air Temperature graph from the Heritage article stops with 2022 (even though the graph says data was accessed jan 10, 2024), which again feels like cherry-picking. If 2023 was included, suddenly observations align (at least temporarily) with the predictions and the trends would be closer to the same.
“It does feel a bit like cherry-picking just one part of the US for just one season.”
Why is the USA corn belt in that set for that period?
Well, a cynic might imagine the summer corn belt was chosen because it best illustrated a desired conclusion.
A more trusting person might assume it was a random or typical region.
Only Dr. Roy can answer why that region was chosen. Or why the 2023 data was left off. (For example, maybe the 2023 model results simply are not available yet.)
“a cynic might imagine the summer corn belt was chosen because it best illustrated a desired conclusion.”
A cynic might conclude that you are unable to come up with a reason why the area in question is so affected.
But … I just came up with THREE reasons:
1) it was cherry picked because it is unusual
2) it was randomly unusual
3) it actually is typical
So far you have three times posted similar cryptic remarks. If you have a point, go ahead and make it.
Is it possible that the farmers in the Corn Belt have a particular interest in how weather and climate will affect their crops?
Tim Folkerts
I do consider you a valuable source of good physics information and I like your posts.
I would like to point out, having read the whole article, Dr. Spencer explains the choice of the Corn Belt. It is of great concern if Climate Change could damage food production, hence why he chose this area of concern.
In the article he does two graphs on Global Observed Temperatures vs Model predictions. One is surface temps the other is the Troposphere as a whole. Both Global observed are lower than model temperatures.
Dr. Spencer does bring up some good points. He is what I call a real skeptic. He does not need to deny science at all (like some posters on this blog) but does bring up alternative natural factors that could also contribute to warming. He does not deny that CO2 would have an overall warming effect. His point is that it is not scientific to use models that do not match observation as a valid source to make Global Policy.
Hope that clears it up. It is a good article. I believe it is worth your time to read it and consider the points brought up in the article.
“explains the choice of the Corn Belt. It is of great concern if Climate Change could damage food production, hence why he chose this area of concern.”
California is the largest producer of agricultural products in the US. And it has a very high climate warming trend.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/statewide/time-series/4/tavg/3/8/1950-2023?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1974&endtrendyear=2023
It has been shown that the temperature increases in California are concentrated in urbanizing areas and irrigated valleys.
In contrast, Zion National Park does not show any noteworthy trends.
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/zion-national-park/lowest-temperatures-by-year
Nate says:
California is the largest producer of agricultural products in the US. And it has a very high climate warming trend.
—————————
yes and we still have the best weather in the nation DESPITE much more warming.
California also still is the biggest state production.
but when it comes to feeding people the cornbelt states as a group is way more important than California.
nate is just firing from the hip as he always does. devotes all his time to spouting off and very little or no time at doing the research to come up with a relevant and supportable comment. here all his shots completely miss the target. . .and no support will be forthcoming.
As long as they have water. The issue is what happens to it in the future if projected warming and drying continues.
The entire history of California is punctuated by drought Nate.
Thats why when talking about California precipitation it is always characterized as ”when it rains, it pours”
Drought as usual ended last year in California after a year where it poured and filled California reservoirs to 124% compared to the historic average.
We also use it a lot faster these days. Water in California has been a huge political issue for well over a 100 years. That sparked the building of huge amounts of infrastructure to subsidize agriculture. Much of California agricultural land is actually in dried up lakes that resulted from agricultural expansion.
Lake Tulare in the San Joaquin valley was once the largest lake in the US west of the Mississippi river. Its demise led to the largest water projects for water storage in California. Rich agricultural lands in the Sacramento San Joaquin delta are surrounded by dikes to prevent annual flooding and keep the water flowing toward the sea and California’s largest water projects to divert water. Politics has either frozen or greatly reduced continued development of water infrastructure in this area for over 80 years.
Understanding water in California is what many careers rely upon. We don’t need amateurs mischaracterizing it. But indeed it is a fat and attractive target to manufacture a crisis around. And that’s all politics needs is a manufactured crisis.
” We dont need amateurs mischaracterizing it.”
True.
I could say that about many of your posts on physics. But will it stop you? No.
I haven’t mischaracterized anything you have been able to point out.
I have questions you can’t answer, but beyond that I don’t hold any personal opinions on the matter as you do.
the first thing to point out is I am still waiting for and experiment you are aware of that shows that Seim and Olson made a mistake in showing that the GPE doesn’t work when the green plate is CO2.
So far that puts the entire GPE theory of how the GHE came about in the category of having been refuted. If you have anything at all that supports your continued belief in that by all means post it. Of course I have asked you to do that many times and you don’t seem able to comply.
“I havent mischaracterized anything you have been able to point out.”
Quite humorous, Bill.
It seems you willfully forget the numerous times you have had to walk-back your erroneous assertions involving physics and other science for which you have serious knowledge gaps.
You made a valid point that we don’t need amateurs mischaracterizing the facts.
That is known as ‘mansplaining’.
And you do it constantly.
Nate is having all kinds of trouble pointing out anything.
How about you believing lines between particles in the moon can both change direction and not change direction at the same time?
Nah.
Remember because of your shameless tendency to fabricate your opponent’s arguments, for you the rule is:
No Quote No Credit.
Now Nate is denying he ever said that the moon’s orbit was a translation. He is such a liar!
What part of No Quote No Credit do you not get?
Yes, it is cherry picking but the worst part is starting at the peak of the global cooling scare in 1973.
I live in the Midwest near a rural station that shows a century’s worth of data. The trend is down over the last century. It would show a warming trend since 1973.
Not sure why the year 1973 was chosen since there are a lot of stations in the Midwest that go back to the early 1900s.
” a rural station”
One station? Cmon.
“Cmon”.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Nate doesn’t like reality. I guess I should have mentioned my one station is repeated all over the Midwest. About the only places with a warming trend over the last century are big cities.
C’mon folks! We’ve been told that the U.S. Corn Belt, which supplies a large amount of grain to global markets, is at risk from climate change. The models are taken verbatim in the National Climate Assessment. Warming has been a small fraction of what models “predict”, and drying of the Corn Belt has been flat-out wrong (precip has a small upward trend). GO TO THE HERITAGE ARTICLE… 2 of the 3 charts are for global conditions. Ignore the Corn Belt chart if you don’t like it.
> a fraction
Until now, which is a smaller fraction of the range of what is being projected. And the projection is usually over bigger areas.
Regional models of the Corn Belt predicts higher evaporation levels, which is the main driver of production loss. Weaker summer storms is one story I heard. Have you checked the observations for that?
For over 10 years I have consulted with the leading grain market evaluation company on the Corn Belt. I am very familiar with changes there. Continued upward trends in corn yields, presumably driven by technology, show no sign of negative impacts from “climate change”. Long-term precipitation trends there are upward. I’ve blogged on these issues many times, e.g.: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/10/global-warming-be-damned-record-corn-soybeans-wheat/
Thanks, Roy:
“What I found was that there might be a small long-term decrease in yields due to climate change, but it is far exceeded by technological advancements that increase yields.”
Sometimes I think contrarians simply rely on people not doing the reading.
Yep some lazy people stop reading the moment they think they found what they were looking for:
”In fact, based upon studies of the dependence of corn yield on CO2 fertilization, the negative climate impact is even outweighed by the CO2 fertilization effect alone. (More CO2 is well known to fertilize, as well as increase drought tolerance and make plants more efficient in their water use).”
Obviously, Roy has included burning fossil fuels in the category of advances in technology. LMAO!!!
If there’s a moving goalpost, Gill will miss it.
ROFL!
Willard! Read more, spout less.
Roy,
Do you agree that regional T trend prediction is much more difficult than global?
Nate, Roy generally doesn’t participate in debates with dishonest people. If you have something to offer that say shows the 3rd grader radiation model to work by using CO2 as a green plate, then by all means bring it forth.
But as Dr. Sung in his lectures have pointed out a key element that the big mistake in applying the GPE to our climate system is in the way they physically disconnected the atmosphere from the surface.
If you could provide for a ”vacuum layer” between the bottom of the atmosphere like Eli details and Swanson experimented with. . .it seems then and only then the circumstances are sufficient for the 3rd grader model will work.
But I am still waiting for evidence on that or any other experiment that makes it work.
Understanding just how climate works involves getting all those models on the same page and get it matched up with the earth’s heat content. I am sure they use all sorts of means of doing that already. After all if you are going to effectively fight a war, especially for minds, you need to get your fodder all neatly aligned in rows and pointed in the same direction.
[NATE] Do you agree that regional T trend prediction is much more difficult than global?
[GILL] If you have something to offer that say shows the 3rd grader radiation model to work by using CO2 as a green plate, then by all means bring it forth.
Willard wants to stick to apologies rather than science.
Gill wants you to fall for his bait over which he takes no position.
“Nate, Roy generally doesnt participate in debates with dishonest people. ”
I notice he has not engaged with you, Bill, nor any of the sky dragon cranks here who regularly express anti-science views.
Dr. Spencer has brought this up about the corn belt on several occasions. Richard Linzen and William Happer believe CO2 increase is a net positive. We appear to be within the historical temperature variability of the last several interglacials. We don’t have a global warming problem. We have a global cooling problem.
“Dr. Spencer has brought this up about the corn belt on several occasions. Richard Linzen and William Happer believe CO2 increase is a net positive. ”
These three are outliers among the thousands of climate scientists.
Why are the outliers right, while all others are wrong?
So here is another outlier: James Hansen. He thinks sea level will rise much more this century then most other climate scientists.
Must he be the one who is right?
There is a difference of opinion between scientists because the science isn’t there yet. . .just as Dr. Revelle said 34 years ago. When the science is there. . .experts don’t disagree.
There is a difference between cranks that make an effort, and Gill who recycles his talking points of the moment wherever he goes:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1606103
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Dr Spencer:
The 36 month running average EEI as of November 2023 is 1.56 W/m², much greater than the 0.6 W/m² quoted in your article.
Here’s the graph of EEI and UAH LT Globe data: https://imgur.com/a/P3iCtWg
P.s.: How do we know climate change is caused by humans? https://youtu.be/J1KGnCj_cfM
A,
We don’t, in any useful sense.
Cherry picking. All your video did was show CO2 has increased. The real question for determining whether we are causing climate change is based on water vapor feedback. Multiple studies show the feedback is negative. That’s why there is no tropical hot spot.
Negative water vapor feedback counters the small warming from CO2. Hence, man is not responsible for any warming. That’s where you end up when you consider all the science.
I don’t see how you conclude that water vapor feedback is negative.
1/ As global temperatures rise, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor per the Clausius Clapeyron equation, intensifying the greenhouse effect and contributing to further warming. This positive feedback loop amplifies the initial temperature changes.
2/ Water vapor is a condensable greenhouse gas whereas CO2 isn’t.
3/ Humans have dug up carbon that Earth took millions of years to sequester underground and pumped back into the atmosphere in just a couple of centuries.
A,
It’s pretty simple.
Before the surface cooled enough for liquid water to form, all the water on Earth was in the atmosphere. Work out the percentage of H2O in the atmosphere if you like.
In spite of the highest concentrations ever (EVAH!), the planet obviously continued to cool.
No CO2 to amplify, you might say? Obviously, there were vast amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere in eons passed. Otherwise, the enormous fossil fuel reserves of today could not exist. All the sequestered carbon came from the atmosphere!
So in spite of high concentrations of CO2, and even higher concentrations of H2O, the planet cooled anyway. I’ll bet that not one of the models is based on reality. All fantasy and wishful thinking. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Water is found in greenhouses, pretty obviously. What’s the significance?
Humans are putting back into the atmosphere a small part of what Nature took out in the past (and continues to do so in the present).
No GHE to be seen.
CERES cannot measure Earth’s energy imbalance, it’s not accurate enough! So, CERES is adjusted (the “EB” in EBAF) to agree with deep-ocean warming, which given the uncertainties in the Argo data can only be deduced over the long term. I have a published reference to the 0.6 W value in the article.
Dr. Spencer,
Assume your 0.6 W/m² is in the ballpark (which I contest), that is 9,650 exajoules of annual energy imbalance. For scale, global consumption of primary energy in 2022 was ~600 exajoules.
The take home message is that the energy imbalance is real and material. I would even venture to say that it’s a leading cause of the UAH LT Globe data trend shown here https://imgur.com/a/P3iCtWg.
Yet, you ignore my point that the energy imbalance is trivial compares to the natural flows of 235-245 W m-2 in and out of the climate system. Even if the 0.6 W value is off by a factor of 2 (or even 3) it is STILL smaller than the UNCERTAINTY in natural energy flows! Why compare it to human energy production??? That also pales in comparison to natural energy flows!
“Why compare it to human energy production??? “
I did say for scale.
“…it is STILL smaller than the UNCERTAINTY in natural energy flows!”
The point is that EEI is positive, regardless of how badly you want it to not matter, and as you say in your article: Temperature Change Is Caused by an Imbalance Between Energy Gain and Energy Loss.
A,
The Earth currently loses energy at a rate of about 44 TW. Slow, but steady. Cooling.
As regards the surface and solar heating, as Fourier noted, during the night the surface gives up all the heat of the day. As winter gives up all the heat of the summer, and as has been noticed, the surface temperature drops rapidly in the presence of a total solar eclipse (the GHE might go to sleep in the absence of sunlight, do you think?).
Overall, the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, whether your peculiar calculations say it “should” have – or not.
There are no thermometers calibrated in “should be” degrees of hotness. Even the Australian BOM is reduced to saying temperatures “feel like” something hotter, if thermometers aren’t indicating a number preferred by GHE enthusiasts!
Believe what you wish. It looks like depending on models for support might not be the wisest course of action.
Radiative flux does NOT balance. This is one of the many mistakes in “climate science”. Flux is NOT energy. Energy balances, flux does not.
Even the imaginary sphere does not have flux “balancing” — 960 W/m² in does NOT balance with 240 W/m² out.
Making the assumption that the in/out fluxes can be estimated, and Earth’s actual surface area can be estimated, the errors might result in something like — EEI = X +/-20X Joules. Which is in agreement with Dr. Spencer’s Even if the 0.6 W value is off by a factor of 2 (or even 3) it is STILL smaller than the UNCERTAINTY in natural energy flows!
[And I always laugh at Ark’s value to two decimal places!]
“Yet, you ignore my point that the energy imbalance is trivial compares to the natural flows of 235-245 W m-2 in and out of the climate system. Even if the 0.6 W value is off by a factor of 2 (or even 3) it is STILL smaller than the UNCERTAINTY in natural energy flows!”
Misleading. Hardly a fair comparison.
The comparison should be to the natural variation in the NET energy input, which should average to 0.
The 0.6 W/m2, now 1.4 W/m^2, is the measured imbalance overaged over several years.
You need to compare to, say the monthly natural fluctuations in the energy balance, seasonally adjusted, which will obviously be much much smaller.
For example in the CERES data the monthly NET variations has a st. dev. of 0.7 W/m^2.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022JD036686
Nate asserts:
”The 0.6 W/m2, now 1.4 W/m^2, is the measured imbalance overaged over several years.”
Nate just makes up stuff to make his points with. He has been asked for proof the energy imbalance is measured. He ignores the request and continues to assert the claim.
I think that is essentially means Nate is a liar.
“Nate just makes up stuff to make his points with. ”
Bill is projecting.
Even when I obviously provided a link to the source, Bill shamelessly lies and claims I made it up!
And as Roy Spencer noted:
” From the observed rates of warming of the deep ocean it is straightforward to compute that the current energy imbalance is only about 0.6 W/m2″
Roy is wrong on that. One has to understand the ocean circulation that keeps the ocean bottom cold before one can assign values to the bottom half of the ocean. Its any easy calculation if you assume there are no changes to the temperature gradients to the bottom of the ocean. But the fact is the Gulf Stream runs northward to replenish sinking surface water and its a world wide situation with such currents in all the oceans. One only need to look at the great convective atmospheric looks and you will see something similar to what goes on in the ocean. They even have a name for the one in the Atlantic as it has such a prime role in affecting Arctic sea ice.
****
There are very few deep-ocean temperature measurements to estimate trends. From what exist, the deep-ocean (lower half) has been estimated to be about 0.01 deg. C total warming in recent decades… essentially zero relative to the error in the estimate. We included it in our model we published: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-023-04634-7 — Roy
Also if it were true such a calculation was reliable there would be a whole lot less interest in building Deep Argo.
Looks like Gill has a new post just for him:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/how-much-ocean-heating-is-due-to-deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/
“Roy is wrong on that. One has to understand the ocean circulation that..”
Neither the paper or your quote are supporting your case that his quote above is wrong, Bill.
See his next article.
That depends upon what you mean about being wrong. The calculation that science is using is trivial. Roy is simply redoing the calculation and finding less than half the imbalance.
I didn’t say he was wrong about the imbalance being wrong.
Roy did claim to show its likely the number you want to promote for whatever strange reason is pretty darned unlikely. After all he no doubt has data access and the computer time to process the data.
My comment is strictly with regards of uncertainty arising out of vast and very important areas of the ocean not even being measured. Unlike the atmosphere where the entire atmosphere is fully measured and significant controversy remains. Only the top half of ocean is measured.
Perhaps all Roy did was actually estimate the part of the ocean actually measured and didn’t extrapolate the measurement to the bottom half of the ocean.
All I know is you are mounting another argument like you always do without any scientific reasoning behind it beyond you parroting out the official narrative and kowtowing to authority.
As to Roy’s next article. He is debunking a position I never held.
But he may have missed on this also.
https://today.usc.edu/how-undersea-carbon-reservoirs-once-helped-superheat-earth/#:~:text=The%20undersea%20carbon%20reservoirs%20released,greenhouse%20gases%2C%20exacerbating%20climate%20change.
Gill is a gift that keeps on giving:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-678958
Not that there is any claim there, except perhaps agrammatical incredulity.
He held a theory circa 2019. Doesn’t he recall it?
“That depends upon what you mean about being wrong”
As usual Bill needs to walk it back…
I don’t expect Roy to know everything about everything. . .unlike what Nate and willard think about what they know.
there obviously is a scientific mystery here to be solved. Why is the ocean below the thermocline about 1C. That means between its surrounds of a molten core and an atmosphere/ocean surface at 15C it manages to stay 14C colder.
We agree that things are supposed to be the same mean temperature as their surrounds. That has been beaten to death. But why is the ocean not following that rule? 14C is a huge number in relation to estimated climate change over the past half million years.
Obviously there must be a dynamic process cooling it.
I do expect Gill to argue from his ignorance.
It is infinite, yet he did all the things!
your projecting willard.
that was gavin’s argument to john stossel. we looked at the sun, we looked at volcanoes, etc. it has to be co2!
“there obviously is a scientific mystery here to be solved. Why is the ocean below the thermocline about 1C. That means between its surrounds of a molten core and an atmosphere/ocean surface at 15C it manages to stay 14C colder.”
Not a mystery. Roy explained that bottom water is formed by water descending at the poles, which is near freezing.
And he showed that geothermal heat from the ‘molten core’ is too small to significantly warm the ocean.
And there is no convection downward from the warm surface.
And the conduction downward from the warm surface is negligible.
There is no energy imbalance. There can be no energy imbalance based on the laws of thermodynamics. The observed decrease in outgoing radiation is countered by a decreases in the exchanged energy with the atmosphere because it’s diameter shrinks in the process. Energy in is equal to energy out at all times.
> There can be no energy imbalance based on the laws of thermodynamics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index
“Energy in is equal to energy out at all times.”
Science deniers say the darndest things!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
After reading the article in full, I can state that it is well written, informative, and based on sound scientific analysis. Speculation about the causes for the uncertainty and apparent discrepancies in the science is clearly identified as the authors opinion.
Well done Dr. Spencer!
Relevant literature
Mueller et al. 2016 DOI 10.1038/nclimate2825 Cooling of US Midwest summer temperature extremes from cropland intensification
Lin et al. 2017 DOI 10.1038/s41467-017-01040-2 Causes of model dry and warm bias over central U.S. and impact on climate projections
Alter et al. 2018 DOI 10.1002/2017GL075604 Twentieth Century Regional Climate Change During the Summer in the Central United States Attributed to Agricultural Intensification
Zhang et al. 2018 DOI 10.1002/2017JD027200 Diagnosis of the Summertime Warm Bias in CMIP5 Climate Models at the ARM Southern Great Plains Site
Qian et al. 2020 DOI 10.1038/s41612-020-00135-w Neglecting irrigation contributes to the simulated summertime warm-and-dry bias in the central United States
Coffel et al. 2022 DOI 10.1029/2021GL097135 Earth System Model Overestimation of Cropland Temperatures Scales With Agricultural Intensity
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
No.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Srsly, Mike.
Leave bgdwx alone.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Still here, Mike?
So be it. Here is a recent paper:
Using Large Ensembles to Examine Historical and Projected Changes in Record-Breaking Summertime Temperatures Over the Contiguous United States
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF003954
Willard, please stop trolling.
Another paper, Mike:
Observed and projected changes in absolute temperature records across the contiguous United States.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061441
Another pointless and irrelevant link, Willard?
Only because you don’t seem to care much about Roy’s post, Mike.
Have another one:
Human influence on frequency of temperature extremes
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8497
Cheers.
Simulations? Optimal fingerprining method?
You are really a gullible wee chap, aren’t you?
Have you managed to figure out how the Earth has managed to cool over the past four and a half billion years? Oh wait! I forgot!
According to you, the greenhouse effect results in “not cooling, slower cooling”. That’s about right, I guess.
Why is it called the greenhouse effect?
Carry on.
Delightful display of ignorant incredulity, Mike.
Another cookie:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/60/12/JAMC-D-20-0285.1.xml
Do continue to play dumb!
Wiltard,
You link a lot of supposed scientific papers that are nothing but propaganda, horsecrap, and speculation.
Troglodyte,
Your reactionary claptraps on a thread about a hit piece underwritten by the Heritage Foundation are duly noted.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
I have a question for those who might object to this sort of communication that downplays the fear. What is the value of getting people all worked up about a potential problem, that we have virtually no control over? The rest of the world will do what they want, not what we tell them they should do. Does it really make sense to force people into electric vehicles if we still make most of our electric power with carbon fuels?
The real hype is not just exaggerating a problem that may not be very serious, but telling people that we must take action to stop it when we really cannot.
I am reminded of a manager who was frustrated about slow progress to solve a problem. He instructed a large meeting of people who trying to work the problem intelligently to “do something, even if it is wrong”. Nobody in the room thought that was a good idea.
> that we have virtually no control over?
That reminds me of this joke:
http://markephair.com/ejokeday.html
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
TS is the one doing the pulling here. His solemnity barely hides it.
And he indeed is begging the question!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike,
Humans have control over what they do.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
One of the things they can control is how much CO2 they dump in the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
P1. Humans have control over what they do.
P2. One of the things they can control is how much CO2 they dump in the atmosphere like theres no tomorrow.
I will let you draw the conclusion.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wrong name, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wrong again, Mike.
Here is a better example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/new-article-on-climate-models-vs-observations/#comment-1604757
Willard, please stop trolling.
Next Friday is Groundhog Day. If it sees its shadow, does that mean that climate change is real and already happening? Is that the kind of evidence that will convince the public? Some guidance from the believers is needed.
If you want articles on why the NASA GISS global surface temperature data shows fake warming I suggest you look at the many posts here. Tony generally shares the programs he writes for anyone to peruse.
https://realclimatescience.com/#gsc.tab=0
Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9
So far, in my research, I have corrected the two mistakenly assumed observations.
–
1). A planet reflects the incident solar SW EM energy not only diffuselly, but also specularly. The specular reflection was neglected in planet
Energy in = Energy out
equation, and thus the specularly reflected SW EM energy was mistakenly considered as part of the “Energy in”.
–
2). When solar irradiated, a planet surface not only reflects and absorbs the incident SW EM solar energy, but at the instance of the SW EM solar energy incidence, a planet also emits (LW) EM energy.
–
Thus, the at the instance of the SW EM solar energy incidence, the by planet surface emitted (LW) EM energy was mistakenly considered as “Absorbed”.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So we have proven – There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Where does it leads us then?
It leads us to a very simple thought:
Since there is not any significant atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface, the ~1,5 oC warming observed doesn’t happen due to the human activities (the fossil fuels burning).
The ~1,5 oC can only be explained by the orbital forcings.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
At the instant of solar SW EM energy incidence on the planetary surface, the surface responds not only by reflecting some of the SW EM energy, but also by transforming some of SW EM energy into the LW emitted EM energy.
Thus, alongside with the SW EM energy reflection process there is also the LW EM energy emission process.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
After the tropical storm made landfall in Australia convection continues unabated.
https://i.ibb.co/wNZJVPM/himawari9-wv-rgb-07-P-202401260600.gif
The “warming hole” in the Central US is due to rain. There is a paper describing this. I will look it up again if anyone is interested.
In Roy’s heritage.org paper, a concluding paragraph asks Why Do Climate Models Produce Too Much Warming? One might suspect they share a common weakness and I suggest it’s in not realizing thermal gradients might also depend upon greenhouse gases. As mentioned in an earlier thread, models with widely varying functions describing radiation and convection yield CO2 doublings of 0.84K +/- 0.04K when boundary temperatures are considered independent variables and 2.78K +/- 0.79K when they are not. The latter reflect current modeling uncertainties. As to clouds, feedbacks, …, whatever their roles might be, are they not implicitly encompassed in models based on existing boundary values for flux and temperature?
Paul,
It is not a common weakness, it is a common wrong science between the models. Definitely, based on my published climate related work.
As of January 24, top seasonal snowfall amounts at official NOAA snow stations include Juneau, Alaska, with 89.7 inches (7.5 feet); Anchorage, Alaska, at 87.7 inches; Marquette, Michigan, at 63.2 inches; and Buffalo, New York, where 52.9 inches of snow has piled up.
Most winters, 49 U.S. states have measurable snow with Florida being the exception. Measurable snow has been recorded in Florida in at least six of the last 14 winters, and, similar to this winter, snow flurries have been recorded in the Sunshine State most years.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/all-50-us-states-have-reached-snowy-benchmark-this-winter/1616236?fbclid=IwAR1LAGjzderyIzkiDoj9jtlN9E2KQsOLXcSgXjY6HnxXT4aiLFiBlhppbIk
Nate, in your earliest comment you try to dismiss Dr Spencer work by saying that the area he investigated was less than 1% of the earths surface.
All the weather stations that have recorded record temperatures & wind speeds only measure the weather in a cibic meter. So adding all of those weather stations together result in a measuring less than 0.000,1% of the global atmosphere. By your own argument we should be ignoring those results as well.
Or are you the one cherry picking?
If the surface temperatures of the Earth is 0.000,1% of the global atmosphere, dear Anon, how much percentage is the Corn Belt?
If you could share your data and code, that’d be great.
What percentage of the actual air does point samples make?
Ask Anon.
It’s his squirrel.
Willard, please stop trolling.
RLH, I’m sure there are some sensors that are placed correctly that would be representative of a larger area. But in the UK the Met Office does seem to be quoting some very unrepresentative locations for their records, is too of hills for the wind speed, down the runway for air temperatures etcetera.
Urban heat is another source of unrepresentative recording. So for people like Nate to claim that large homogenous areas are not representative is a bit silly. Of course if you are aware of any research that proves that weather measurements are not affected by topography, fauna, urbanisation etc then please post a link……
“I’m sure there are some sensors that are placed correctly that would be representative of a larger area”
By chance probably even though that is unlikely.
“All the weather stations that have recorded record temperatures & wind speeds only measure the weather in a cibic meter. So adding all of those weather stations together result in a measuring less than 0.000,1% of the global atmosphere. By your own argument we should be ignoring those results as well.”
Very ignorant.
You really think that temperature varies significantly from one cubic meter to the next? Or even one hundred square kilometers on the surface, to the next?
Weather is correlated over many kilometers. So sampling on scales just under that typical correlation length is sufficient.
From a global climate perspective we should ignore them. They are not representative of the global climate and lacks standardization across regions and nations. Its fine for building databases say in ArcGIS or QGIS that one could look at and ponder what to do about all the various microclimates and data empty locations. Its tempting to think about having a filled in system of monitoring but its probably impossible considering that it would be managed literally by a herd of cats.
Focusing on satellite technology is certainly the way forward. There you have representation and relatively consistent standards managed by a relatively small numbers of managers. Going with surface stations to monitor climate is so backwards. It would be like forget about satellite aids to navigation lets go back and man all the lighthouses.
From a Climateball perspective most Team Science players should ignore Sky Dragon cranks.
why? Isn’t a sky dragon crank somebody who believes our climate is caused by something different that it really is?
If so that would include you Willard.
Gill wants to debate, but he has no tournament experience.
LOL!
willard’s style of debate is to concede every point. That’s what they taught him at his alma mater, The Saul Alinsky Institute for the Criminally Insane.
Gill’s drunken patzer style shines through.
“Focusing on satellite technology is certainly the way forward. There you have representation and relatively consistent standards managed by a relatively small numbers of managers.”
Or not.
The disagreement on the ‘standard’ to analyze the satellite data gives long term trends with much higher uncertainty than that of the surface trend analyses.
Errors at a small fraction of surface T sites, leads to a negligible and partly cancelling changes to global average T.
While a mistake in the calibration or analysis of the satellite data, by one of the (few) managers leads to a large discrepancy in the global T.
Thus we have one analysis team UAH, reporting a long term LT trend of 0.14 C/decade.
https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
And another team, RSS, reporting 0.216 C/decade, which is 54 % higher.
https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Nate says:
”Errors at a small fraction of surface T sites, leads to a negligible and partly cancelling changes to global average T.”
And you have no idea at all how many small errors there are, how unrepresentative they are, or how many stations might be afflicted with them. . .but you make the claim anyway.
“And you have no idea at all how many small errors there are, how unrepresentative they are,”
Nor are you telling us how many have significant errors. You are just asserting, without a sound rationale, that satellites must be better.
Lets put it this way to somebody who has never conducted a survey and obviously knows nothing at all about doing one.
The first thing you do is find a representative population.
oops the surface station network doesn’t even pass the first step!
> Lets put it this way to somebody who has never conducted a survey
Added to Gill’s CV.
One does lots of things where they are an accountant Willard. But of course you would know nothing about that either.
Actually various types of surveys are a primary method of obtaining valuations that accountants must do to provide evidence of the value of assets. those skills served me well when I moved into consulting and policy analysis as perhaps a third or more accountants do. I conducted some public opinion polling as well as a policy analyst. But when doing that we brought in specialists in public policy polling to assist with the formulation of questions and selection of means on how to approach the target constituency. All this work was important to get right because the client needed the information to develop their business. You don’t want to end up with Dewey Wins!!
That doesn’t help you in the consulting business.
You can make fun of it all you want as all it proves is you don’t know what you are talking about. You probably believe all that accountants do is keep the books sitting in a corner with eyeshades and running a tally sheet.
Gill never really designed surveys as an accountant.
But as a Climateball veteran he sure needs to shine his own medal when harping about representativeness!
Willard only believes he knows what accountants do to verify the value of assets on financial statements. Its actually pretty complex. At one time it was much easier because you could record your assets at the price you paid for them. . .but not always did that mean they were still worth that.
Gill believes that I’m interested in his CV because he only pretends being an accountant whereas my work might be easier if I listed what he did not pretend having done.
And once again he glosses over a very simple point – he claims some kind of authority over an elementary concept of statistics.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The wide models range itself is a proof they have no predictive capability whatsoever, if they did they would be all showing the same thing not a shotgun blast like spread.
the amazing thing about it is that people don’t see it as a scam it is
Eben, nothing would change their minds as they don’t want to accept that they could be wrong. There is an interesting book written “Thinking fast and slow” about this sort of issue.
The scientific method is supposed to reduce this type of mis-thinking. If anything the evidence from 2019 shows that group think has replaced reason and logic on an epic scale.
> the evidence from 2019
You mean, Donald’s insurrection?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Belief perseverance: Belief perseverance (also known as conceptual conservatism) is maintaining a belief despite new information that firmly contradicts it. Such beliefs may even be strengthened when others attempt to present evidence debunking them, a phenomenon known as the backfire effect (compare boomerang effect).
Yes Ark, the cult continues to believe even with all the new information. Such beliefs may even be strengthened when others attempt to present evidence debunking them, a phenomenon known as the backfire effect (compare boomerang effect).
Ark is just fishing for equal treatment. He wants a science output insurance program that pays scientists for their crop not coming in too.
“Belief perseverance (also known as conceptual conservatism)”
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Belief perseverance: Government policy limiting warming to 2c then when realizing that might not materialize and not seeing any significant harm from the warming that has occurred, deciding we should set the limit at 1.5C
Thats perseverance without a clearly stated objective.
the government has already recognized that their narrative is deficient.
Still waiting on the answer to Roy’s 5 questions:
The Five Big Questions
1) Is warming and associated climate change mostly human-caused?
2) Is the human-caused portion of warming and associated climate change large enough to be damaging?
3) Do the climate models we use for proposed energy policies accurately predict climate change?
4) Would the proposed policy changes substantially reduce climate change and resulting damage?
5) Would the policy changes do more good than harm to humanity?
This post by Roy is demonstrating that obviously the answer to 3 is no.
Its more correct to say that proposed policies are based on increasing awareness that AGW has happened, has had noticeable consequences, and appears likely to continue with greater consequences.
There are no noticeable consequences. One has to be a complete bonehead to not realize you have to weigh both the positives and negatives of global warming. The boneheads that think there is are negative consequences of warming simply don’t have enough sense to pay attention to the much larger rewards.
“There are no noticeable consequences.”
In your rather biased opinion.
I would be happy to listen to your list of consequences, the reasons why you view them that way and what sources you use.
I can see why a wealthy person might be willing to throw a few million dollars at raising the cost of emissions. It might make them feel good and not hurt them at all financially. but that is a well known negative consequence of a representative government where people with money and power can force everybody to chip in to their personal charities through the force of law.
so its OK for you to express that you aren’t for that or for that and give your reasons why on that too.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1589839
Master baiter Bill…
It appears Nate and Willard can’t think of any consequences that have arisen out of the modern warming. Very clearly there have been massive benefits.
It appears Gill can run up and down the Contrarian Matrix –
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
“3) Do the climate models we use for proposed energy policies accurately predict climate change?”
Other research indicates they have been reasonably accurate.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
Testing
Dr Spencer says: For over 10 years I have consulted with the leading grain market evaluation company on the Corn Belt. I am very familiar with changes there.
Farmer John says: It’s a beautiful thing.
Wqw Ark, that’s a tear-jerker! We need to outlaw ice cream. All this warming correlates exactly with the creation of “Big Ice Cream” — hockey stick correlation, even. Baskin-Robbins, Haggen-Daz, and others are heating the planet.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Arkady Ivanovich
I’ve read many sceptics claiming that the uncertainties are too big, but I’ve never seen them backing up the claim.
Three factors determine uncertainty; measurement resolution, sample size and the variability of whatever you are measuring.
Consider an annual global anomaly temperature.The
Measurement resolution
Before electronics measurements were taken using calibrated mercury thermometers with a measurement resolution of +/- 1C.
Sample size
The precision of a sample mean is the measurement resolution*1/√sample size. This the mean of 100 station temperature readings would have a precision of 1*1/√100 = +/-0.1C
For a global annual anomaly mean using twice daily readings from 1500 stations sample size is 1500*2*365 = 1,095,000.
Precision of the mean is 1*1/√1,095,000 = +/-0.001C.
Variability
Statistically you can calculate the spread of the data in your sample, the standard deviation and 95% confidence limits for your mean. For example the 2023 global average anomaly for GiISS was 1.17C+/-0.06C.
Putting them all together, the main source of uncertainty intemperature is the natural variability. Knowing that you can design your system accordingly. The standard for global annual anomalies is a mean with a precision of at least 0.01C and an uncertainty limited by the natural variability of the climate. For this 1500 stations sampling twice a day is sufficient.
Ent, did you know Earth is in a natural warming trend?
Actually we are in a natural cooling trend.
The Holocene Optimum ended 5000 years ago and Earth has spent the time since then cooling naturally towards the next glacial period.
https://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
So you’re no longer an alarmed Warmist?
That’s good.
Look at the graph, ClintR.
The slow natural cooling trend ended in the latter 1800’s to be replaced by a rapid artificial warming trend.
Sorry Ent, but it’s NOT artificial.
It’s a REAL natural warming trend.
Clint R
Data, please.
What is causing the natural warming you claim? Show your numbers.
E,
“Actually we are in a natural cooling trend.”
Due to the operation of the mythical GHE, presumably? Only joking.
There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Accept reality, if you choose.
And the mean as an average tells you what about the distribution of the samples?
For EEI the estimate for 2019 was 1.12 W/m^2 +/- 0.48.
Independent measurements of energy flux from satellite data, ocean heat content, ocean temperature and sea level rise all confirm this figure.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
“Independent measurements”? Loeb and NASA, independent??
Sorry Ent, but Loeb is an un-scientific cult leader as you can find. Want proof?
The first sentence of the abstract: “Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) is a relatively small (presently ~0.3%) difference between global mean solar radiation absorbed and thermal infrared radiation emitted to space.”
They’re trying to subtract fluxes — treating flux as energy!
Clint,
About as silly as adding temperatures.
Al Gore must have been doing this when he said the interior of the had millions of degrees. He was right. Keep adding degrees, and you can get as many as you want.
Just like “fluxes”. Add the total flux from a million square meters of ice at say 200 W/m2, and you’ve got 200,000,000 Watts! How much energy is that!
Now try and use it to heat a teaspoon of water.
What a pack of dreamers!
Mike Flynn,
How many lights are there around you right now?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good, Mike. Now, add another lamp.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good, Mike.
Now, why is there more light in your room out of a sudden?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Interesting explanation for Corn belt climate change
https://www.science.org/content/article/america-s-corn-belt-making-its-own-weather
A good comparison might be between the corn belt and the California central valley. I am not a farmer, but I am pretty sure there is very little irritation in the corn belt region. By contrast, there is almost no rain in California in the summer and everything survives on irrigation. There are also areas that are irrigated in the western states by well water. Does that make a difference? Does it matter whether the water comes from rain, wells, or surface water? Rain is a latent heat transfer process.
Dr. Spencer, l like your summary, but the details have devil’s in them.
Additionally the even distribution through the whole range means the result are deliberately predetermined , you can almost draw a straight line through the ends, in real science the models would cluster in lumps.
You don’t need to know anything about climate modeling to figure out these modelz are totally fake.
Those 36 model runs probably involved 500 scientists.
Who decided what their results should be?
Who paid them to falsify their data?
Who ensured that none of the 500 had an attack of conscience and betrayed the conspiracy?
I find it easier to believe that the models are genuine, than that there is a worldwide conspiracy of thousands of scientists to generate a false narrative.
As Benjamin Franklin said, “Three can keep a secret, it two are dead.”
Ent, cult pressures can be extremely strong. For example, you claim that passenger jets fly backward, and your entire cult supports that nonsense. (Except Norman, but he’s just learning cultism.)
Five hundred scientist can be wrong. Some of the people can be wrong some or most of the time. It is us, the rest of the world, that cannot be wrong all the time (uncle Abe). The new unusual experience with this fictional climate science is that We have no access to their computers or allowed to cross-check and validate their work.Their wrong work has thus remained to this date and may continue if we do not get involved. Dr. spencer shows based on observations just the tip of a problematic iceberg.
Other fields show final products that the public cannot dispute such as rockets, hydrogen and nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors, etc. But not a single product is out there that works on the concept of the greenhouse gas effect. Because the concept is the common to all of the computer models, they all show wrong results. The concept has to be wrong. No greenhouse gas effect exists and regulating CO2 is wrong and unaffordable.
> not a single product is out there that works on the concept of the greenhouse gas effect
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Refrigerator
This link is to a refrigerator that has nothing to do with GHGE. Did you have in mind another link instead?
Willard,
Your description of the “greenhouse effect” –
“Not cooling, slower cooling”.
Please stop trolling.
Nabil,
You responded to Willard –
“Did you have in mind another link instead?”
Willard has an endless supply of irrelevant links. His stated objective is to make people waste time. If Willard provides a link, it will be a waste of time even looking at it, in general, unless you feel the need for some light comic relief.
I agree with you that there is no greenhouse effect, and that heat production is causing recent elevated temperatures – in general. Widespread volcanic activity either above or below sea level can cause surface temperatures to either rise or fall depending on the nature of the events, whether aerosols were released into the atmosphere, their quantity and composition, chaotic air currents and all the rest.
Anyone believing that they can make temperature predictions any better than a 12 year old is probably dreaming.
You clicked Willtard’s link ? you must be new here
Nabil,
Since products don’t “work on” concepts, I thought it would be simpler to simply show you that a simple refrigerator abides by the same physical laws as the greenhouse effect.
Willard, please stop trolling.
How about a heat pump, Mike?
“How about a heat pump, Mike?”
How about it, silly Willy?
How about your shirt, Mike?
E,
You wrote –
“Those 36 model runs probably involved 500 scientists.”
Or more. All obviously incompetent, or fraudsters. Either they didn’t know what they were doing, or they did.
Is it criminal or simply unethical to take public money for pretending to be able to predict the weather better than a 12 year old?
Refusing to accept reality en masse does not need a conspiracy. Just gullibility and laziness.
There is no GHE. The world has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, whether 500 scientists accept it or not. Facts dont care about what scientists think.
Nabil Swedan wrote:
” Five hundred scientist can be wrong. ”
Ha!
Those who regularly deny in this blog both the GHE and the lunar spin can now be happy.
Their friend Nabil Swedan finally confirms what they’ve been thinking for years: If ‘five hundred scientists can be wrong’ about the GHE, then why shouldn’t other ‘five hundred scientists’ who have calculated this lunar spin since centuries be just as wrong?
“In 1931, a booklet was published titled Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (Hundred Authors against Einstein, Israel et al. 1931) featuring many of those ill-informed contributions.”
Around 121 scientists contributed. Them or Einstein? Who do you believe?
Facts don’t care about experts or consensus. The Royal Society’s motto “Nullius in verba” pretty much sums up the scientific method.
Mike Flynn,
I point at
“Nullius in verba”
and I point at
“The Royal Society’s motto”
That is all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nullius in verba essentially, ‘take no one’s word for it’, is apt for the Royal Society. Are they not the crowd who issued the false prediction that lead to covid hysteria? The same ones who currently preach climate alarm.
Maybe that’s the joke. The Royal Society issues lies about science under the justification that no one should take their word for it, Rather apt, n’est-ce pas? Sort of Monty Pythonesque.
I’ll bet Binny can’t pronounce ‘c’est la vie’ correctly.
I think that may have been the time Einstein pointed out that it took only one of them to prove him wrong.
Taking Nullius in Verba is first and foremost never to believe Bordo at face value. So I’ll take the other side of the bet. “C’est la vie” is fairly easy to pronounce.
The point is, Binny, the 95% who agree that humans are causing global warming could be wrong as well. In fact, they are.
binny…”shouldnt other five hundred scientists who have calculated this lunar spin since centuries be just as wrong?”
***
They are wrong.
Robertson
If there was only one person here who lacked the technical skills (let alone the scientific training) to discuss greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, and above all the lunar spin: that would of course be you, ignoramus Robertson.
*
Et en ce qui concerne
” I’ll bet Binny can’t pronounce ‘c’est la vie’ correctly. ”
il faut être un crétin absolu de votre genre pour proférer pareille imbécillité.
ent…”Those 36 model runs probably involved 500 scientists”.
***
It’ just as likely that climate modelers are not scientists at all but mathematicians dabbling in science. Climate models are more about math and computers than hard science. No hard scientist would ever claim that CO2 has a 9% to 25% warming effect or that amplifying positive feedbacks exist in the atmosphere.
> No hard scientist would ever claim that […] amplifying positive feedbacks exist in the atmosphere.
Here is one:
https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2014/09/11/texas-and-the-on-again-off-again-el-nino/
Not that it should matter much for our Nullius in Verba guy.
“Thunderstorm storm activity has to respond to that and move from where it normally is in the western pacific back to the east, says Neilsen-Gammon.”
According to his crystal ball, of course. A 12 year old could predict the future equally as well, and at far less cost.
Mike Flynn,
NG is a hard scientist.
NG said that amplifying positive feedbacks exist in the atmosphere.
Bordo is just saying stuff once again.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Heat production, regardless of its source, warms the surface, not carbon dioxide. Regulating CO2 is thus wrong first and unaffordable measure second. Politicians love it because it is a tax, a sensible tax, in the name of environment.
No matter how it is presented, Nabil, it about cheating and lying, supported by the justification that it’s for the good of the planet. The idea that a trace gas like CO2 can cause the predicted catastrophe is based on some kind of lunacy, not science.
The planet effective temperature Te (the theoretical estimation of the planet average surface temperature) –
–
It was a very hasty and a very aproximate estimation of the planet average surface temperature.
–
And it was a huge scientifical mistake to build upon that very hasty and very aproximate estimation, to build upon it the entire Greenhouse Warming Effect theory about the Fossil Fuels Burning being the reason of the observed Global Warming.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth has been in Ice Age, which aren’t common for Earth.
Snow is common on Earth. Ice sheets aren’t. We in an Icehouse global climate, because we got an Ice sheet, first in Antarctica, and next in Greenland, and most the time, other than during brief interglacial periods, we have other ice sheets.
These interglacial periods are caused changes in Earth’s orbit, which are usually referred to as Milankovitch cycles, cause he pointed than out about century ago.
Icehouse global climates have a colder ocean, and a colder ocean sucks up more CO2, or tend to have lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
In addition to all our Ice Sheets, we also have a lot desert regions.
We have a lot deserts, because to world is drier. A warmer world is wetter. A warmer world also has a warmer ocean {always} and our ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C.
A warm Earth, is called a greenhouse global climate, it’s ocean can 10 C or warmer. That’s a very warm and wet, Earth.
But if our ocean was say 5 to 6 C, evenually we would get rid of ice sheets and our deserts. Sea levels would significantly higher simply due thermal expansion {but it would evenually get rid if our ice sheets- CAGW- the end of our cold and dry world.
The game is playing out as expected.
Donald Trump will win the Republican nomination because the nomination is determined by the hardliners, and the Republican Right will vote for him regardless of anything he does.
He will then lose the election The election will be won by whoever attracts the independents and the moderates, who will not vote for a convicted criminal.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Trump lost the last electron through massive cheating exploits by the Democrats. They fear going through this again so much that they have lined up a slew of law suits they hope will send Trump to jail. They are also illegally trying to prevent him running i certai states based on charges for which he has never been tried.
I am surprised he beat Desantis so readily and I wonder what Haley was doing in the race.
You fail to grasp Ent, that the Democrats are currently serious scumbags. Not all of them. Kennedy is an old-time Democrat but he has been forced to run as an independent because the current scumbags who run the party know he will not put up with their chicanery.
Trump lost the last ‘electron’…
“AI!”
If Trump doesn’t win, we will have an endless string of Democratic Presidents, Open Borders, DEI Cranking out endless worthless degrees, unchecked spending, and our children will watch the end of America. The current trends are simply unsustainable. Simply look at the South Side of Chicago and San Francisco and you see America’s future. Hope you like it. Democrats will burn America to the ground just so they can rule over the ashes.
If Donald wins, Muricans will have fascism.
A small price to pay for troglodytes!
When Donald was President we didn’t have universities wanting to exterminate Jews.
And antisemitism has long been a yardstick for measuring fascism.
As when for example, France and Italy were fascist.
You have chosen the weirdest time to say that, gb:
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230214-fascism-is-already-there-in-israel-says-jewish-professor-of-the-holocaust/
Prescient!
Willard that over year old.
It’s, I know history.
And what I am seeing, is a has been bureaucrat.
Yes, gb – those who know about the silly criteria you just cooked up to save your Strong Man figure knew about Bibi’s machinations before last October.
Newer:
–On this, the 79th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the Holocaust Remembrance industry stands as a colossal failure. Holocaust Remembrance Day, it turns out, successfully transfixed eyes on the rear-view mirror and diverted attention from the dangers 10 feet in front of us. And, truth be told, the rear-view mirror is growing a bit foggy, as well. Less than a century ago, the leading intellectuals of Germanythe most highly educated nation on earthinitiated, participated in, or acquiesced to mass murder on a previously unimaginable scale. And only weeks ago, intellectuals in America, Europe, and elsewhere waxed lyrical over the rape, torture, mutilation, murder, beheading, and kidnapping of innocent Jews. —
https://graboyes.substack.com/p/the-hollowness-of-holocaust-remembrance
Flailing:
The 2023 Israeli judicial reform is a set of five changes to the judicial system and the balance of powers in Israel that was proposed in January 2023. The intent of the measures is to curb the judiciary’s influence over lawmaking and public policy by limiting the Supreme Court’s power to exercise judicial review, granting the government control over judicial appointments and limiting the authority of its legal advisors.[1] The effort was led by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice Yariv Levin and the Chair of the Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, Simcha Rothman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform
Does that ring any bell?
“When Donald was President we didnt have universities wanting to exterminate Jews”
Tee hee hee.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the golden period, when Trump was running all the universities.
No, wait, that’s the Right’s fantasy future.
And just to clarify, what we had before 2023, was conservatives complaining about the lack of free speech on college campuses.
In 2023 they got more free speech on campuses, but not the kind they were looking for!
So naturally they want it stopped.
Free speech has limits. Calling for criminal acts should not be tolerated.
And it does: The President of Harvard was forced to resign for failing to say it was her responsibility to disallow calls for violence while trying to make exemptions for that.
Should be cut and dried. Don’t you agree on that?
Gill haz the best buddies:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/31/rightwing-activist-christopher-rufo-ties-scientific-racism-journal
Funny that Christopher did not pursue the various examples of plagiarism in his billionaire’s buddy’s wife:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/wife-of-billionaire-who-pushed-for-harvard-presidents-ouster-apologizes-for-plagiarism-in-dissertation
She resigned because of various factors, including poor communication skills.
I just think the Right (and sometimes the Left) are all too happy to censor when they don’t agree with the message.
Its not a communication problem Nate when people are screaming on campus for violence against the jewish people and the administration takes zero action. They don’t suspend anybody, put anybody on probation, they don’t even speak against it.
The point here is that leadership demands action when people go beyond a freedom to express their opinions as long as that doesn’t venture into the area of calling for violence or other crimes.
this is a felony and its a felony to commit violence against people or property.
the students involve should all be suspended and the non-students banned from the campus. . .with all evidence turned over to the authorities for prosecution.
Willard says:
”Gill haz the best buddies”
Willard puts on parade the skills he learned in obtaining his Associates of Arts degree majoring in stalking and doxing at the Saul Alinsky Institute for the Criminally Insane.
Obviously many of his fellow students also work for the Guardian as they obviously play the same game.
I fail to see how Rufo had much to do with Gay’s resignation. He was after for sometime the plagiarism charges against her. But that had little, if anything to do with her eventual resignation.
Further the January 3rd article in Aporia that Rufo is getting branded with isn’t racial in any way. Science might be racist as they improperly label what an IQ test actually tests for.
this comment pretty much sums it up:
”Practicing IQ tests will improve scores obtained in such tests as you become a better “test-taker”. However, an impact on your actual intelligence will be negligible.”
> when people are screaming on campus for violence against the jewish people
Gill prefers calm explanations:
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/us-man-allegedly-beheads-father-calls-for-violence-against-federal-employees-on-youtube
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
From Dr Willliam Gallus at Iowa State University
John Brent McLaughlin it took a ton of detective work to find out why Spencer’s plot differs so much from the others. He for unknown reasons is showing mid-troposphere temps in the tropics. From what I read, it is very well known and articles have been written on the models struggling most at this level in the tropics, where warming should be smallest if due to human factors. My chart I posted is for the entire globe at the surface where we, of course, actually live. Climate models actually have the opposite problem in polar regions where they are not showing enough warming compared to observations. I guess one has to read the fine print when people create charts of temperature trends. At least charts like Spencer’s help us to know where the most work is still needed to reduce errors in our models.
*************
NO, it’s NOT for the tropics. It is global, just as labeled. There is no “fine print” suggesting otherwise. -Roy W. Spencer
wee willy…”> not a single product is out there that works on the concept of the greenhouse gas effect
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Refrigerator ”
***
Wee willy slithers deeper into the primeval muds making up his mind.
Where in a greenhouse or the atmosphere is a compressor compressing a low pressure gas into a high pressure liquid, as in a refrigerator?
C’mon, Bordo.
Does your fridge have a door?
What about house insulation?
The temperature inside a house stabilises when the rate of heat input from the central heating equals the rate of heat loss through walls,roof and windows.
Adding loft insulation, double glazing and cavity wall insulation all reduce the rate of heat loss to the outside.
The central heating puts the same amount the same amount of heat into the house, while less heat is lost. The temperatures rises until the extra heat loss to the outside due to the increased temperature gradient cancels out the effect of the insulation.
Sounds very like the greenhouse effect.
Ent, if you want to go with that description of the GHE, then you’re on the right track. It’s the non-radiative gases (N2 and O2) of the atmosphere that act as insulation. You are, correctly, letting CO2 off the hook. Radiative gases emit energy to space. Non-radiative gases “trap heat”.
Now if you can only learn that passenger jets do NOT fly backward….
> Non-radiative gases trap heat.
Which is why we call them non-radiative in the first place, Puffman.
But you forget the part where you make these gases shoot cold rays on the surface.
Willard is beginning to admit that the global mean temperature is the central canard of the anti-progress, anti-population, pro-technocracy, global corporatist movement.
He didn’t mean global mean temperature at all!!! He is concerned that the surface is radiatively connected to the atmosphere!! Which of course we know would be the case with or without CO2 and that without CO2 none of us would be here.
They have no model capable of warming anything. Their central model the 3rd grader radiation model has been shown not to work by several experimenters and they have none that have shown it to work beyond maybe playing with solid metal plates out somewhere in outerspace. Where no atmosphere at all exists.
You can see the con with the first bit of information fed to us: Namely the temperature of a blackbody earth with zero atmosphere that would only receives filtered radiation, filtered to the level of our current atmosphere. Remove that impossible and manufactured scenario of the atmosphere both being there and not being there at the same time and the GHE instantly drops to 10.5C
If that isn’t a con job I don’t know what is.
This is like Nate and the rest of the spinners claiming that a line drawn between particles of the moon can both change direction and not change direction at the same time. . .all in an abiding interest in denying that the moon’s orbit around the earth is NOT a rotation.
Gill believes that his opinions interest anyone.
ROFL!
“This is like Nate and the rest of the spinners claiming that a line drawn between particles of the moon can both change direction and not change direction at the same time. ”
My stalker Bill is on another grievance parade.
After getting caught red handed AGAIN fabricating my arguments, and finding no quote to support his BS, he doubles down.
Bill is quite shameless.
Nate again lies that he never said the moon’s orbit was a translation.
Quote me ‘claiming that a line drawn between particles of the moon can both change direction and not change direction at the same time.’
If not, then we will know who is the liar.
a translation is where a line through the particles of the moon does not change direction.
a rotation is where a line through the particles of the moon do change direction.
For years you have been claiming the moon rotates on its own axis while it translates around the earth in an orbit.
That means you believe that a line through any two particles of the moon both changes direction and does not change direction at the same time.
Gill fails to produce a quote, throws another bait.
Why quote it? He has been arguing that point in here for 5 years. Producing a quote isn’t going to change anything in here. Its impossible anybody here ever didn’t notice.
Area Auditor Wonders – Why Give Receipts?
LOL!
“For years you have been claiming the moon rotates on its own axis while it translates around the earth in an orbit.”
Yes it is a combination motion, similar to the General Plane Motion described in Madhavi.
“A general plane motion can always be considered as the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
“That means you believe that a line through any two particles of the moon both changes direction and does not change direction at the same time.”
No it doesnt. Thoroughly dum.
Combination motion? What is that? 2 motions or one motion?
What do words even mean?
Do words mean anything?
What is the meaning of “word”?
Are there a priori concepts?
What is the nature of happiness?
What it is the is the greatest achievable good?
What is man’s ultimate end?
What is colour?
What is sound?
What is so-and-so?
What are the conditions for its realization?
What is the point-of-doing-a-thing?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
nabil…”But not a single product is out there that works on the concept of the greenhouse gas effect”.
***
Not even a real greenhouse!!! The GHE as defined could not work in a real greenhouse. That’s why the famous alarmist, Joe, pointed out that we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
The GHE is based on the quaint and anachronistic idea that trapping IR will warm a real greenhouse. That idea originated in the 19th century when scientists, unable to understand how heat could be transferred by radiation, hypothesized ‘heat rays’ as an invisible mean of transferring it. The idea is that trapping those heat rays warms the greenhouse.
Although Bohr found the real answer in 1913, there are those today who seem to prefer the 19th century version. Bohr proved that radiation is produced by electrons in atoms as they transition to lower energy orbitals.
Since any related heat is dissipated as the radiation is produced, no heat can be transferred by the radiation. Heat can be produced in a cooler object by re=converting the radiation back to heat, but that is not the same heat as in the source, therefore no heat is essentially transferred.
The GHE is based on the notion that a trace gas in the atmosphere that can absorb IR, acts the same as glass in a real greenhouse, hence warming it. However, glass traps 100% of heated air molecules in a well-sealed real greenhouse whereas CO2 traps no more than 7% of surface radiation. You’d have to break 93% of the glass in a greenhouse to get a similar effect. Then how much heat would it trap, if the theory was right, which it is not?
ark quoted one farmer in Kansas who claims in his 60 hears 2023 was the worst drought he’s seen.
A quick look at the drought history in the region shows he is full of corn.
https://www.drought.gov/states/kansas
Scroll down to ‘Historical Drought Conditions in Kansas’ then select the 1895 – present tab. It’s plain that the worst droughts in Kansas were in the 1930s and ’40s followed by the 1950s. 2023 is a lightweight contender.
Bordo should help his thousands of readers a little more:
https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/ks/
And that’s notwithstanding that it is now known that the Dust Bowl was in part man-made:
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/dust-bowl-climate-change
So yeah – teens know more about that than our cranks who spend their days repeating their talking points.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The use of Fossil Fuels Burning to produce energy and the Global Warming Phenomenon are two separate issues.
–
The use of Renewables (Solar, Wind) to produce energy and the Global Warming also do not relate to each other.
–
The use of Fossil Fuels Burning to produce energy and the use of Renewables (Solar, Wind) to produce energy are both the very much economically related issues.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Entropic man wrote:
“Arkady Ivanovich
I’ve read many sceptics claiming that the uncertainties are too big, but I’ve never seen them backing up the claim.”
I always try to distinguish the true skeptics from the deniers.
1/ True skeptics seem to rationalize the uncertainties by alluding to the spread in the assessments of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) published over the past hundred years or so.
2/ Deniers on the other hand just follow the playbook given to them in the American Petroleum Institute’s Action Plan of 1998:
3/ The deniers want the public to equate the uncertainties you enumerated with uncertainty in the science itself. Some deniers are nefarious enough to follow the API’s playbook, others have been bamboozled by it and believe that climate science has not advanced in the ~200 years since James Croll’s day.
4/ Last but not least, and we can discuss further if you’re so inclined, variability and uncertainty are quite different though often confused. Variability is a phenomenon in the physical world that can be measured, analyzed, and in some cases explained, whereas uncertainty is an aspect of knowledge.
P.s.: Speak of the [ECS] devil and Sabine appears: https://youtu.be/4S9sDyooxf4
Yes, I find that you need precise use of vocabulary to distinguish between variability and uncertainty.
The limit of precision of a measuring instrument is uncertainty. The amount of spread of a sample variable either side of the mean is variability. The confidence limits of a mean are uncertainty.
Variability is a property of the parameter you are sampling, and is independent of technique. Uncertainty is a measure of your confidence that your sample mean is a good representative of the reality your sample is intended to measure.
I was taught a useful technique to distinguish uncertainty and variability.
Take a large dataset such as temperature anomalies and divide it into random samples of different sizes.
Continued.
Calculate the confidence limits of each mean as a measure of its uncertainty.
Plot the confidence limits, the uncertainty, on the vertical axis versus the sample size on the horizontal axis.
You get a rectangular hyperbola. At very small sample sizes you get a very large uncertainty, which decreases rapidly as sample size increases. With continued increase in sample size the line flattens. It levels out when the variability in the reality equals the uncertainty due to sampling technique.
The graph serves two useful purposes Firstly it confirms the amount of variability in the raw data.Secondly, it tells you the maximum worthwhile sampling effort.
There is no point taking extra samples once you hit the variability limit, because the uncertainty will not improve.
Gordon Robertson makes this mistake regularly. He complains that 1500 high quality stations is too few to give reliable global anomalies. In fact 1500 stations is the minimum number required to reach the variability limit. Thus the 2023 GISS anomaly was 1.17C +/- 0.06C. That +/-0.06C is due to variability and would not improve it you increased the number of stations beyond 1500.
Dr Spencer makes a similar mistake with the Argos sea temperature data. He assumes that the sample size is too small and gives too large an uncertainty. In fact 3000 floats is enough to reach the variability limit and extra floats would not improve uncertainty any further.
Ultimately the question becomes “How little uncertainty do you need?
Consider global anomalies.
Consider GISS. The uncertainty in global annual temperature is +/-0.06C. The decadal trend is 0.18C/decade +/-0.06C.
Is the trend real or just random variation?
The larger the uncertainty,the more years of data up need to confirm that the trend is real. If the uncertainty is small enough that the trend becomes statistically significant in a reasonable time, that is good enough.
For the temperature data the uncertainty is small enough that 15-20 years of data is enough to confirm the trend. Ditto for ocean heat content, sea level rise and most of the other climate parameters.
The sceptic claim that uncertainty is too large to allow confidence that climate change is happening is a straw man, which they cannot support.
Ent, you’re working awfully hard to build that straw man. Most REAL Skeptics know that Earth is in a natural warming trend. There is on-going debate about how much, but clearly UAH shows warming since the 1970s.
Your cult claims the warming is due to CO2. That’s where the nonsense starts.
“Most REAL Skeptics know that Earth is in a natural warming trend. ”
If you KNOW that the warming trend is natural you should be able to provide clear evidence showing what processes are causing the warming, where the energy is coming from, measurements of the energy flows and a proper energy budget.
I eagerly await your detailed explanation, your evidence and your calculations.(sarc.off)
Ent, the laws of physics are valid, until you can prove differently. Earth is responding to natural energy flows, until you can prove differently.
You don’t get to make up crap to support your cult beliefs. You did just that by claiming, repeatedly, that passenger jets fly backward. You are willing to twist, distort, and pervert both science and reality, if necessary.
Even Norman has disclaimed your nonsense. THAT should tell you something….
“Ent, the laws of physics are valid, until you can prove differently. Earth is responding to natural energy flows, until you can prove differently. ”
Which laws of physics?
Which natural energy flows?
You can’t make a scientifically valid case for natural warming by KNOWING.
You need a mechanism. You need measurements to confirm it. You need an energy budget.
You have none of these. Without them you have no scientific case and no-one will listen to you.
Incidentally, as the proposed of an alternative to the generally accepted AGW hypothesis the burden of proof is on you.
Give me your hypothesis, your mechanism, your measurements and your calculations. Based on your data I can then set out to disprove them.
Until then I can only note that the measured natural processes we observe only input enough heat to cool the Earth slowly, not enough to produce the observed warming.
You go on about science, but you don’t practice it. Let’s see you debate this as scientists do.
Ent, maybe you missed this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/new-article-on-climate-models-vs-observations/#comment-1606189
The same observation was made by Horowitz and the FISA Applications. 100% of the “errors” went against Trump. Attempted Fraud doesn’t follow a normal curve, it will be biased towards the desired outcome. What Dr. Spencer discovered is fraud, tax payer funded, fraud, and combine this finding with the Ivy League Presidents’ Testimony and it is long overdue to overhaul funding for our Universities. Do a study of the political affiliation of the Non-STEM Staff and you will find it overwelminly skews towards Marxist Democrats. That isn’t by accident, it is institutionalized and systematic discrimination against Conservatives. Time to reform Science and Higher Education Funding.
Political affiliation tends to correlate strongly with education and intelligence.
The better your education and the higher your IQ, the more likely you are to be liberal rather than conservative.
I suggest that the key skill is in critical thinking. This encourages proper analysis of political arguments and allows one to spot the flaws.
There is no discrimination against conservatives. Instead they self-discriminate. Conservatives are more likely to embrace evangelical religions, conspiracy theories and other irrational belief systems. They are less likely to become academics, particularly in STEM subjects.
ET, you live in a fantasy land. Talk to any Conservative that works at a University and they describe an unbelievably hostile work environoment. Even if your point is valid, which it isn’t, any leader at a center for higher learning would know that they should individually ensure that there is a political diversity, and they don’t. They even run people like Larry Summers out for simply asking common sense questions. If Larry Summers, a liberal, is run out of Harvard for being too open minded, what do you think happens to the average Conservative?
I don’t know where you got the idea that Larry Summers was a liberal.
A quick glance at his CV suggests that he was racist, sexist exploitative, polluting and took kickbacks from industries he was supposed to regulate.
EM, please stop trolling.
“I was asked by Heritage Foundation to write an article on the exaggerated global warming trends produced by climate models over the last 50 years or so.”
Dr. Spencer, develop a systematic way to remove sites that are materially impacted by the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor and you will find no warming anywhwere. I’ve already done that by isolating the hot and cold dry deserts. When you isolate the deserts you will find no warming. Antarctica is an easy one to see that theory in practice. The other question that needs to be adressed are the temperature trend differentials. CO2 evenly blankets the globe wiht a constant “backradiation.” The laws of physics of the CO2 molecule do not change depending on the location. CO2 can not explain the temperature trend difference between the N and S Pole, N and S Hemi, US and Europe, Land and Sea, etc etc etc. If CO2 as the cause of warming, there would be parallel shifts in the temperature graphs, not changes in slope. Common sense science 101.
I was asked by Heritage Foundation to write an article on the exaggerated global warming trends produced by climate models over the last 50 years or so.
In other words Dr Spencer was presented with the desired conclusion and asked to write an article to support it.
Actually that is the firest part of the Scientific Method, they made an observation that wasn’t explained, and asked Dr. Spenver to EXAMINE AN OBSERVATION. Sorry ET, you fail Science 101.
If Dr. Spencer doesn’t regurgitate Entropic’s climate propaganda then he must be wrong.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Newsflash, errors in unbiased studies folow a normal distribution. There are even tests to determine if models pass this essential test.
4.2.1.4.
The random errors follow a normal distribution.
Anderson-Darl
Shapiro-Wilk Test Sectioning Test
Ryan-Joiner Test
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
I seriously doubt any of those climate models would pass all the statistical tests to qualify as a valid model.
Best Linear Unbiased Estimation
Simply ask the climate models to post the results of all the validation tests and I’m 100% sure they will fail.
The climate models do not form a normal distribution. Their properties are not random, but determined by the research interests of the groups who run them.
ET, not only do you fail Science 101, you fail Statistics 101. The sample doesn’t need to be normally distributed…but the error does. Central Limit Theroem 101. The errors have to be normally distributed, why wouldn’t they be?
Afraid not.
There are three common misconceptions about The Central Limit Theorem and you’ve fallen for all three.
1)The theorem applies to random sampling of any variable and that repeated sampling of the population will produce a normal distribution. False.
2) The theorem ensures that random sampling leads to the emergence of a normal distribution for sufficiently large samples of any random variable, regardless of the population distribution. This is false, especially in cases such as an ensemble of climate model runs which is non-random.
3) The theorem leads to a good approximation of a normal distribution for sample sizes greater than around 30. This is unjustified. Even if correct, a sample of 36 model runs is far too small.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Why have ALL climate models over-estimated the trend while not one single model underestimated it?
I see a massive collective manufactired bias in the models.
Some of the models did underestimate the warming to date.
The models cover a range of possible futures with different amounts of forcing, some with more and some with less.
The models which most accurately forecast the present had an amount of forcing built in which best matched the forcing which actually occured.
Go to the Climate Lab book website and read the article Comparing CMIP5 & Observations.
Sorry about the lack of a link. This site won’t allow me to post it.
Alex,
Climate models are not made to guess regions. And by regions I am not referring to the Corn Belt. Murica The Great is only a region on the Earth scale. If you can’t see that it only covers 6% of the land, blame Mercator!
Also, the models you have in mind are made to see far away in the future. Not what will happen next year, but in 75 years. That involves Big Computation. To make sure their simulations end in reasonable time, they make simplifying assumptions.
So far we’re very lucky.
So yeah – what can be referred to as JC’s Trick is disingenuous at best. You might as well wonder why UAH systematically lowballs temperatures.
Willard,
UAH do not systematically lowball temperature, they observe it. And observation is the absolute truth. Based on my published climate related work, I am definitely sure that the underlining science is wrong. There can be no other explanation for the inability of many climate models to perform.
Nabil,
“Observing” may not mean what you make it mean:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/global-temperature-in-the-air-up-there/
Based on your denial of thermodynamics in this thread, the concept of “work” may not mean what you make it mean either!
“keeps saying that his product (UAH) agrees with balloon data better than the RSS product.”
Don’t forget that NOAA/STAR agrees with UAH.
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2023/04/19/noaas-star-has-fallen/
DR. JOHN ROBSON
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
John Robson holds a Ph.D. in American History from the University of Texas at Austin and has worked as a historian, policy analyst, journalist and documentary filmmaker for three decades. He has been examining the climate change issue for many years, including both the science and the policy debates.
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/about-us/
Willard, please stop trolling.
What has Mercator to do with the Earth’s surface which is nearly a sphere?
Mercator is a map projection used for naval charts.
Instead of a globe it lays out the Earth’s surface as a rectangle.
The big advantage is that you can easily measure the compass course to your destination from the latitude and longitude grid.
The big disadvantage is that at high latitudes the map exaggerates East-West distances. Countries at high latitudes appear to be much wider and of much larger area than in reality.
Mercator is not useful for area calculations at all. You know, like climate and temperature.
Models have underestimated the warming in certain regions and heat reservoirs. For example, the warming in the cryosphere and especially Arctic sea ice was severely underestimated.
bdgwx,
Models that either underestimate or overestimate at random are completely useless.
Show me a model that starts with a molten Earth surface, and after four and a half billion years, replicates the present. Then demonstrate that it is based on known physical laws – not just a fluke.
Only joking – there is no such model. The so-called “climate models” are the product of ignorance driven by wishful thinking.
Fell free to provide some facts if you disagree.
Two plausible explanations are:
a. The models are profoundly wrong. The AGW hypothesis is false.
b. The natural variation cycles are cooling while CO2 emissions are causing warming. The models only estimate warming from CO2 emissions and don’t account for natural variability at all. … In which case its time to throw another lump of coal on the fire.
b. is correct.
The models do not show much change due to the effect of natural variation cycles because they average out almost zero and therefore have no long term effect on the warming trend.
The IPCC estimated that increased CO2 is causing 106% of the observed warming because the warming effect of CO2 is overcoming a slow cooling trend due to other natural effects.
EM,
Thermometers respond to heat, not any silly GHE – which you can’t even describe, can you?
The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equations suggests otherwise. Both produce a figure of 0.06% warming for CO2 not 106%.
It appears the IPCC estimation is sheer propaganda.
> The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equations suggests otherwise.
No they do not.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The advocacy arm of the Heritage Foundation, the powerful conservative thinktank based in Washington, spent more than $5m on lobbying in 2021 as it worked to block federal voting rights legislation and advance an ambitious plan to spread its far-right agenda calling for aggressive voter suppression measures in battleground states.
[…]
Heritage Action, whose board includes the Republican mega-donor Rebekah Mercer, is set up as a 501(c)4 under the US tax code which exempts it from paying federal taxes. It operates as a dark money group, avoiding disclosing the sources of its total annual revenue of over $18m.
In the past two years the organization through its public messaging has echoed [teh Donald’s] lie that US elections are marked by rampant fraud. A private plan prepared by Heritage Action last year set out a two-year, $24m election integrity strategy.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/13/heritage-foundation-voter-suppression-lobbying-election-action-plan
Where’s Gill?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Here is a better example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1606200
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Oh, Mike. You know where this is going:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/05/heritage-foundation-dark-money-voter-suppression-laws/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/16/two-anonymous-425-million-donations-gives-dark-money-conservative-group-a-massive-haul-00067493
Thank you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You said the magic words, Mike Flynn:
https://accountable.us/project-2025-gets-massive-funding-boost-from-far-right-groups-leos-dark-money-network/
You realize you’re in my thread?
“You realize youre in my thread?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Alright, Mike, you’ll never get it so one last:
https://leonardleo.org/about-leo/
Like who cares Willard. What is he really for? Nothing wrong with running organizations that fight for causes. I have been doing that for decades, mostly retired now.
You have your favorite charity trying to shut down free speech and you have shown a willingness to dox and stalk your opponents. Is Leo doing any of that kind of shady work that you are doing? If so where is the evidence?
Gill throws in the “but is it legal squirrel”:
https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-scotus-elections-nonprofits-discrimination
Quite a Monday Morning Auditor we got there. LOL!
“Alright, Mike, youll never get it so one last: ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good boy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
The use of Fossil Fuels Burning to produce energy and the Global Warming Phenomenon are two separate issues.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Energy production and global warming are the same. They are identical, nearly 1.65 W m-2. Please do the math.
That turns out not to be the case.The
The energy output of our civilization is about 10^20 Joules/year.
The energy imbalance required to produce the observed rate of global warming is 10^22 Joules/year.
Human energy output is two orders of magnitude too small to explain global warming.
If you want to explain the observed warming without using increased CO2 and human energy output is way too small, you need to find another way for the climate system to accumulate 10^22 Joules/year.
Suggestions welcome, as long as you can provide supporting data.
Ent,
You only used energy production for one year and not the cumulative energy production over the years. You need to multiply by a factor of nearly 100, and the numbers do match. Global warming=energy production.
Ent,
Also, 1.65 W m-2 is energy term, of the order of 1E22 J, it is not a power term 1E22 J/yr. Please see IPCC AR5, chapter 8.
Nabil,
Even if the 100 year accumulation was 10^22 J, and none of it dissipated, you cannot gain 10^22 J EVERY YEAR that way.
In agricultural greenhouses they used glass cover.
–
A glass has a property to be transparent to solar light.
–
This property glass has is a two ways property.
The glass cover for agricultural greenhouses is transparent for solar light coming in, but also it is transparent for the solar light going out.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The glass cover for agricultural greenhouses is transparent for solar light coming in, but also it is transparent for the solar light going out. ”
This turns out not to be the case.
The incoming solar light is visible and the glass is transparent to it.
Some of the visible light is reflected and leaves through the glass, which is transparent to it.
Most of the outgoing light is infra-red radiation emitted by the soil and other materials inside the greenhouse. The glass is opaque to infra-red radiation. The effect of this is to raise the temperature inside the greenhouse until the rate of loss of heat by conduction to the atmosphere matches the rate of energy input from the incoming solar light.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“Some of the visible light is reflected and leaves through the glass, which is transparent to it.”
–
That is exactly. Glass’ property to let EM energy throu or not letting it throu works from the both sides of the glass.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
But the process is not symmetrical.
The energy flowing into the greenhouse is entering as visible light in the 400-700 nanometre band. The glass is transparent to this band. This is absorbed by the soil inside the greenhouse.
The soil radiates infrared radiation which is mostly reflected off the glass and reabsorbed, the glass being opaque to IR.
The absorbed energy raises the temperature inside the greenhouse. The temperature rises until heat leaves the greenhouse by conduction at the same rate it entered as sunlight.
“But the process is not symmetrical.”
–
No, the process is not symmetrical. That is why those who live in houses with windows getting sun in, those houses are much warmer inside.
EM,
I suppose this magical one way insulation effect is summed up by your description of the GHE as “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets” – obviously magical transparent blankets!
Real blankets, of course, keep the Sun out, and people under them cooler. Just look at the heavy fabric of Arab tents and shade structures. I suppose you have read the paper showing that the heavy dark woollen robes worn by Bedouins keep them cooler than light clothing?
As to glass enclosures letting energy in, but not letting it out, the steel shipping container can reach recorded temperatures of 60 C – without resorting to your nonsensical solar blanket mechanism.
Maybe you could change your GHE description to “The greenhouse effect is a shipping container”!
You really have no clue, do you?
“The glass cover for agricultural greenhouses is transparent for solar light coming in, but also it is transparent for the solar light going out. ”
This turns out not to be the case.
The incoming solar light is visible light and the glass is transparent to it.
Some of the visible light is reflected and leaves through the glass, which is transparent to it.
Most of the outgoing light is infra-red radiation emitted by the soil and other materials inside the greenhouse. The glass is opaque to infra-red radiation. The effect of this is to raise the temperature inside the greenhouse until the rate of loss of heat by conduction to the atmosphere matches the rate of energy input from the incoming solar light.
A greenhouse is mostly about having warmer conditions at night, in parts of world where freezes at night, they are useful. One also warm a greenhouse so doesn’t freeze at night.
It’s mostly about preventing convectional heat loss in regions where “natural greenhouse effect” doesn’t keep it warm enough at night.
Because we are living in an Ice Age, and an Ice Age has a cold ocean.
Our ocean averages about 3.5 C.
And in Greenhouse global climate, the ocean average around 10 C.
Or there would less need of a greenhouse, in a global greenhouse climate.
EM,
You wrote –
“The glass is opaque to infra-red radiation.”
More than 50% of sunlight is infrared. How does it get through the glass into the interior?
Only joking. You dont understand how greenhouses work, nor why greenhouse heaters are needed in cold climates.
Completely irrelevant in any case. The planet has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and the surface does so in the absence of sunlight. Trying to argue a mythical greenhouse effect into existence is like trying to convince people that unicorns exist because you can describe one!
You said “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets”. Glass blankets, or some other type?
” More than 50% of sunlight is infrared. How does it get through the glass into the interior? ”
Typical incompetent, brazen blah blah a la Flynnson.
The Flynnson tr0ll isn’t even able to understand the basic difference between near and far IR.
Glass lets near IR thru, Flynnson tr0ll, and blocks far IR.
Even Robertson would understand that.
Does the Flynnson tr0ll still think that putting CO2 between the sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
Cela ne m'étonnerait guère.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Does the Flynnson tr0ll still think that putting CO2 between the sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?”
What are you babbling about?
That is the position of GHE proponents, who seem to think that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases surface temperatures!
As a matter of fact, that was your original description of the GHE, when you wrote on several occasions “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” Eventually, you realised that this was just silly, and tried to change your tune, writing “I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
So you wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”, several times – without realising you were actually doing it, is that it?
Maybe you could try for a description of the GHE which doesn’t include the nonsensical proposition that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (that is, between the Sun an$ a thermometer) makes the thermometer hotter!
Only joking, you haven’t got the faintest notion about the mythical GHE, have you?
Carry on arguing with yourself about CO2. it’s good for a laugh, anyway.
Typical incompetent, brazen blah blah a la Flynnson.
The Flynnson tr0ll isnt even able to understand the basic difference between near and far IR.
Glass lets near IR thru, Flynnson tr0ll, and blocks far IR.
Even Robertson would understand that.
–I HOPE NOT: Martian lake confirmation brings hope sediment samples may reveal past life. Or at least that its limited to past life.
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2024/01/26/Mars-Perserverance-sediment-samples-life/2951706300511/
Related: Why I hope theres no life on Mars.–
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a3778/4294346/
Linked by: https://instapundit.com/
I don’t get the eagerness to find life on Mars- whether long dead or active.
It not important and will prevent Mars exploration and any human settlement on Mars.
It’s important to find life if there, as it would be problem you shouldn’t ignore. Whereas finding advanced intelligent life would be interesting, but likewise, dangerous. But it’s unlikely life on Mars could find us, whereas advanced intelligent life, probably already know we exist. Though if there is or was life on Mars, it’s probably already had some effect upon life on Earth. So could lead to better understanding of life on Earth. It could have caused mass extinction and alteration of life on Earth. Or Earth life could cause Mars mass extinction or alteration in it’s past.
But seems more likely Mars life will have little effect life on Earth, the problem is the potential small risk of this.
Whatever might be happening with the “warming hole” over the central US, grain production is doing well.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273274/total-us-grain-production-from-2001/
The warming hole in the US cornbelt is at least partly the result of the robust US grain production. Models either do not parametrize land use changes in this region well or do not take any inputs related to it at all. In other words models often assume no land use changes in this region which is obviously going to be problematic.
bdgwx,
I agree. Climate models are completely pointless.
Mike Flynn,
You are right. Your comments are absolutely ridiculous.
Willard, please stop trolling.
–NASA Wants to Put a Massive Telescope on the Moon
As part of the Artemis Program, NASA intends to establish all the necessary infrastructure to create a sustained program of lunar exploration and development. This includes the Lunar Gateway, an orbiting habitat that will enable regular trips to and from the surface, and the Artemis Base Camp, which will permit astronauts to remain there for up to two months. Multiple space agencies are also planning on creating facilities that will take advantage of the quiet nature of the lunar environment, which includes high-resolution telescopes.–
https://www.universetoday.com/165397/nasa-wants-to-put-a-massive-telescope-on-the-moon/#more-165397
Looks like global warming is helping global grain production, too.
https://projectblue.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Market%20Intelligence/cereals-oilseeds/Grain%20Market%20Daily/2021/05%20May/20%20May/Stocks%2020%2005%202021%20GMD.PNG
Earlier, Entropic Man made the bizarre statement –
“Incidentally, as the proposed of an alternative to the generally accepted AGW hypothesis the burden of proof is on you.”
There is no “generally accepted AGW hypothesis” that Entropic Man is prepared to state.
There seems to be some implied, yet unstated, notion that a mythical GHE exists, which cannot be observed, documented or measured, but which makes thermometers hotter. If Entropic Man is instead saying that man-made heat is responsible for the observed rise in temperatures at various times in various locations, he could just say so, rather than being obscure.
There is no GHE, and even its believers find themselves unable to describe it in any coherent way.
What a joke!
Yes, Entropic Man.
But the process is not symmetrical.
No, the process is not symmetrical. That is why those who live in houses with windows getting sun in, those houses are much warmer inside.
–
When EM energy interacts with matter, some energy gets absorbed as HEAT (trapped) and there is always a time-delay for that (trapped) HEAT energy to get transformed again into EM energy, to get transformed into the IR outgoing EM energy.
–
When there is an obsticle (a wall, a soil, a glass window, an atmosphere of any kind, a WV cloud and etc…), when there is an obsticle to the EM energy transmission in and out of a system, there is always a time-delay which is caused by the EM energy being trapped in form of HEAT.
–
The more EM energy is trapped in form of HEAT – the higher is the temperature of the matter.
–
–
So when there is an obsticle for the EM energy to pass thru (it may be of any kind), less EM energy gets in the system, but, also, less EM energy leaves the system.
–
I do not argue about the trace gas content CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, what I do not agree with is the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric greenhouse effect.
There is not +33 oC greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
–
–
Also there is the very powerful the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon we should take in consideration.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes I agree the earth’s GHE is NOT 33C. . .at best its about a 1/3rd of that and it could be zero or even a bit negative.
That number is derived by an inconsistent calculation fundamentally and arbitrary choosing to fudge the numbers with different applications of Stefan Boltzmann equations by blatantly playing with the emissivity parameter. That alone should be sufficient to not believe a word of what comes out of the IPCC summary for policymakers along with a significant amount of work accepted into the IPCC processes. Often studies don’t reveal all their underlying assumptions to an extent that their work can be replicated. the entire Climategate scandal was a glimpse of what is going on behind the scenes but hardly captured more than a tiny sliver of the amount of corruption that is at work there.
That number is derived by an inconsistent calculation fundamentally and arbitrary choosing to fudge the numbers with different applications of Stefan Boltzmann equations by blatantly playing with the emissivity parameter.
Wild Bill, you’re making this much harder than it has to be.
The “33K” comes from comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere. The imaginary sphere receives the same solar as Earth, after albedo — 960 W/m². At equilibrium the imaginary sphere would be at a temperature of 255K, emitting 240 W/m².
That imaginary 255K is then compared to Earth’s average surface temperature, 288K. That’s why the “33K” is nonsense, and is one of the reasons the GHE is bogus.
It’s an energy flow problem.
If you compare the energy reaching the Earth from the Sun with the energy leaving the surface by convection, radiation and evaporation there is a mismatch.
At mid-latitudes about 60% more energy leaves the surface than arrives from the Sun.
You mentioned 240W/m^2. That’s the amount of sunlight you would expect at 45N.
At the same latitude the surface loses 70W/m^2 by convection and evapotransporation. It also loses 320W/m^2 by radiation. These are not just theoretical calculations, they are measurements.
Ent, what are you babbling about?
None of that makes any sense.
— Entropic man says:
January 29, 2024 at 3:19 PM
Its an energy flow problem.
If you compare the energy reaching the Earth from the Sun with the energy leaving the surface by convection, radiation and evaporation there is a mismatch.
At mid-latitudes about 60% more energy leaves the surface than arrives from the Sun.”
A lot this is related to tropical ocean heat engine- though one assume this solely, has to with a atmospheric effect
Re: “Its an energy flow problem”
Or of course most of Earth is covered by ocean. So you have the ocean being warmer than the Land. The ocean surface being dominant surface of Earth and warmest surface, controls global surface air temperature.
And have Gulf Stream keeping Europe warmer, which is well known about.
It didn’t have to be flux.
You could say that 1m^2 at that latitude receives 7.5 billion Joules of heat from the Sun and emits 12.25 billion Joules.
The problem for those like yourself trying to explain Earth’s surface temperature without using the greenhouse effect is that you need to explain where that extra 4.5 billion Joules comes from.
Just more babbling — not making sense.
EM,
As Fourier said, during the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s interior heat.
He had enough command of the subject to have a physical law named after him.
“The law of heat conduction, also known as Fourier’s law, states that the rate of heat transfer through a material is proportional to the negative gradient in the temperature and to the area, at right angles to that gradient, through which the heat flows. We can state this law in two equivalent forms: the integral form, in which we look at the amount of energy flowing into or out of a body as a whole, and the differential form, in which we look at the flow rates or fluxes of energy locally.” – Wikipedia.
You can apply Fourier’s Heat Equation if you like. You will discover that the Earth has cooled, and must continue to do so for quite a long time.
No GHE,
Gavin Schmidt has posted a few objections to my article on his blog with the title, “Spencer’s Shenanigans”. (I kinda like the way that rolls off the tongue.) But I’ve got to say,… Gavin, I know you are smarter than this. I *will* be responding (not that it’s a difficult task). He’s made it too easy. Here’s his post:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/spencers-shenanigans/
I wonder is Gavin has gotten up the courage for an in-person debate yet?
Last time, he wore running shoes….
Is it courage that makes you comment here after having been banned a few times already, Puffman?
Still waiting for your skies-shoot-cold-rays theory…
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey, Mike Flynn!
Have you started your own blog like Roy asked you years ago?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Schmidt has performed a dainty lateral arabesque, while performing Gavin’s gavotte.
Part of this diverting display is to use patronising phrases like “A better comparison would . , . “, which would, of course, support Gavin’s fantasies. Or saying “Comparing climate models to observations is usually a great idea, . . .”, unless, of course, they don’t support what you are selling.
From an interview “Dr. Schmidt is the head of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and one of the countrys top climate scientists. He acknowledges most climate models fall short of precise predictions.”
The problem according to the self proclaimed “top climate scientist”? People! The interview headline “Gavin Schmidt: The problem with climate models? People.”.
Gavin whines about cherry-picking, but refuses to accept that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years! No cherry-picking there! He can’t describe the GHE, and simply scuttles away like a cockroach if pressed to explain why he is impersonating a scientist!
Even the IPCC stated that prediction of future climate states is not possible, but Gavin just keeps dancing around gaily, blaming his incompetence on people, Big Oil, deniers, Republicans, – and anti-Semites, possibly?
Hopefully, his ability to count paper clips and coffee cups in his office is better than his ability to predict the future.
I was able to find the video, from years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTcrgOmlhPY
Yep he ran out of there like a scared rabbit.
The body language comparison is amazing. Roy is calm relaxed and sitting up. Gavin is hunched over with his arms on the desk and seems very stressed.
You should have seen the runner taken by Gavin when Lindzen offered to debate him one on one. I have trouble telling Gavin apart from his buddy Michael Mann.
Gavin is onto something. All of his postings and communications are objective and professional. He states his position very clearly and back it up with science. When the contrarians are using insults and stereotypes instead of sticking with the science, it is a good sign they are nervous. And why should they be nervous if it really is all about the science? What are they up to? It seems to me that advocacy is more important than science to some of these folks.
Yes Gordon, you have a point. Both of those guys always seem like they are selling something rather than presenting an objective analysis. There is a good contrast in style between most of the skeptics (even some who post here) and the advocates for climate change hysteria. The skeptics can demonstrate that there is uncertainty in the data, analysis, and simulation results related to climate. This is compared to people like Gavin and his buddy Michael Mann who are clearly pushing an agenda that first requires a scientific conclusion which simply does not exist.
There is valid science to claim that increasing CO2 should have an influence and contribute to the greenhouse effect (official name) in the atmosphere that is primarily due to water vapor. As Dr Spencer and other experts have clearly demonstrated, it is not possible to accurately quantify that effect in the real atmosphere. The wide variation in the model results proves that point. People like Gavin defy that reality and attempt to use data massaging (math is his field) to obscure the facts. Then they use a tactic called projection where they accuse others of what they are doing.
Willard,
“He states his position very clearly and back it up with science.”
No, he isn’t even a scientist. An undistinguished mathematician at best.
He can’t describe the GHE, and calls the outputs of sloppily written computer programs with pre-determined outputs, “experiments”.
He no doubt has many ignorant or gullible supporters like you.
Keep worshipping.
Yes Mike Flynn, you have a point. Our Most Serious contrarian always seems like he’s selling something rather than presenting an objective analysis. There is a good contrast in style between most of the Team Science (even some who post here) and the advocates for inactivism. Contrarians can whine to no end. This does not contrast with Junior or Judy or Nic or Tony or JC who are clearly pushing an agenda that first requires a scientific conclusion which simply does not exist.
I do not see cherry picking. The long term summer temperature trend may be used for comparison with climate models, if the trend is equal or greater than the observed global temperature trend.
“The full multi-model mean and spread is 0.26C/dec [0.16,0.46]”
This is much higher than what is observed.
Dr Spencer, I think you are on to something. All of your postings and communications seem objective and professional. You state your position very clearly and back it up with science. When the opposition is using insults and stereotypes instead of sticking with the science, it is a good sign they are nervous. And why should they be nervous if it really is all about the science? What are they up to? It seems to me that advocacy is more important than science to some of these folks.
The advocacy is related poorly measured “global CO2 emissions”.
And no government has done anything to control global CO2 emissions though they have wasted trillion of dollar public money saying for many decades they can control global CO2 emission.
It’s advocating for corporate and governmental corruption.
Dr Spencer I look forward to that.
The key point to me is whether the models used by the IPCC are the same as your 36 or not.
Have they really removed the biased models?
Gill throws in the “but is it legal squirrel”:
https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-scotus-elections-nonprofits-discrimination
Quite a Monday Morning Auditor we got there. LOL!
Looks like the parser decided to poast the comment after all:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/new-article-on-climate-models-vs-observations/#comment-1607077
Ah well.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
That is all.
Talking about ‘dark money’, shall we get into the funding of the uber-alarmist site Desmogblog by a convicted money launderer?
What about your whataboutism, Bordo?
“What about your whataboutism, Bordo?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Here’s a better example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/new-article-on-climate-models-vs-observations/#comment-1607376
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Dr Spencer
Please can you give more detail on this sentence from Chart 1 in your article:
“Figures have been adjusted to align trends starting in 1979”.
Please can you explain this process and the justification for it?
kb…Roy does not normally reply to posts this far into a post. However, I would think he has adjusted for the fact that the UAH record did not begin till 1979 and the range presented begins in 1973.
Surely the start date for both data series should be the same ?
The model and measured plots should both start in 1979 to be compared in this way.
So I’m afraid I don’t understand.
It’s important to clear up this point because it is being picked on as evidence of fiddling the method to make the plot come out the way he wants.
He computes the ordinary linear regression line for each timeseries and then anchors the starting point at the same value. The amount he had to add (or subtract) to the trend line to make that happen is the same amount added (or subtracted) from the time series itself. I do the exact same thing in my own chart.
https://i.imgur.com/KroWoiw.png
Thanks bdgwx
Do you know this for a fact ?
There is a danger that he has not added or subtracted the same amount from each point on the time series (plural).
If he has simply forced the two trendlines through the same intercept, then he would cause errors in the slopes of the trendlines.
So are you absolutely sure he has not done this ?
Roy has a Ph.D., I am sure he knows what he is doing. He is an expert on the satellite AMSU units and that is no small feat, having honed his skills at NASA. The math involved is complex.
[BORDO, TEN MINUTES LATER] You are truly a buttkiss, wee willy.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/new-article-on-climate-models-vs-observations/#comment-1609338
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
nate….”Both James Hansen and Roy Spencer are climate scientists who have moved into political advocacy.
Both the Heritage Foundation and Greenpeace are known for their forceful political advocacy.
Both Hansen and Roy were being asked to write a piece that advances the the agenda of the respective organizations.
So whats your problem?”
***
Here’s my problem. Roy is not a political activist whereas Hanson was such an activist, a former head of NASA wanted to fire him. He was overridden by someone in Washington, likely Al Gore.
Hansen openly engaged in political activity, being arrested at one time, with actress Daryl Hannah, for protesting the Keystone pipeline project. Lumping Roy in with this kind of alarmist riff-raff is a direct insult.
If an outfit like Heritage asks Roy to contribute an article, or even Hansen, that’s entirely different. It does not mean that either Roy or Hansen sanctions the organization, and even if they do, it’s not political activism.
The late Patrick Michaels, a prominent skeptic, was charged by alarmists as receiving support from Western Fuels. When asked about it, Michaels claimed he lacked the funds to keep up with the propaganda of Hansen who was being directly supported by the US government, likely through his buddy Al Gore. Western Fuels, who had an interest in the writings of Michaels offered to fund him and he accepted.
Why shouldn’t he? They had interests in common re global warming propaganda but that did not mean Michaels had to lie or do anything deceitful. On the other hand, when Hansen was head of GISS, they quietly changed 1934 from being the hottest year in US history to 1998. When caught by Steve McIntyre, they changed it back. They also announced 2014 as the hottest year ever based on a 38% likelihood.
When you start comparing Roy to scumbags like that, I object.
ent…”Most of the outgoing light is infra-red radiation emitted by the soil and other materials inside the greenhouse. The glass is opaque to infra-red radiation. The effect of this is to raise the temperature inside the greenhouse until the rate of loss of heat by conduction to the atmosphere matches the rate of energy input from the incoming solar light”.
***
Can you supply proof that trapped IR raises the temperature of air molecules? What is the mechanism? Since IR is not heat, how does it produce more heat? Also, 99% of the molecules in the air cannot absorb IR at terrestrial temperatures.
I have tried to explain that such a theory is an anachronism dating back to the 1850s, when scientists believed that heat traveled through air as heat rays. Those alleged heat rays have since been identified, by Bohr, in 1913, as infrared radiation. Bohr disproved the incorrect theory that IR carries heat.
The Good scientists of those days, including, Clausius, Tyndall and even Planck, could not understand how heat moved via radiation. They knew that a hotter body close to a cooler body could warm the cooler body and they theorized that heat could flow through space as heat rays. They were wrong, and understandably so.
It was not till 1913 that Bohr issued his theory that has proved correct, as far as we know. He had noted studies done on hydrogen, where other scientists who had measured discrete frequency radiation and absorp.tion by hydrogen. That was his clue that something in atoms radiated only at discrete frequencies, most of them being well outside the IR frequency range.
Using Planck’s quantum theory, in which EM energy only radiated in discrete quanta, which he quantified with his h-parameter, as in E = hf, which equates radiation amplitude to its frequency, he laid out a theory that electrons radiated and absorbed EM provided they were restricted to discrete orbitals.
E = hf can be written E2 – E1 = hf, where E2 is an upper orbital energy level and E1 a lower energy level, in electron-volts. ‘f’ is the frequency, which is related to the orbital velocity of an electron, and h is Planck’s constant.
Note…there is no reference to heat in the radiation formula. EM contains no heat.
According to Bohr, as an electron transitions from energy level E2 down to level E1, it must give up energy and the amount it gives up is not variable from E2 to E1, it is a quantum of energy output in a single burst. Bohr’s stipulation required there be no in-between energy levels between E-levels.
The electrons drops from a higher level of KE to a lower level and must give up velocity, which means losing frequency. It also mean losing energy related to heat, although it’s silly to talk of one electron as having heat. Heat is related to the energy change in bazzillions of electrons acting at once.
If the energy given up is in the IR frequency range, heat is lost as the IR is produced, Therefore radiated IR is carrying no heat. So, how does it warm the air in a greenhouse?
It can’t. If it encounters a cooler object it can be absorbed and have its energy transformed back to heat. There is nothing in the greenhouse that is cooler than the radiating body, therefore there is nothing to absorb it. Even if the 0.04% CO2 in the air could re-absorbs it, there would be no significant warming.
R.W. Wood wrote his opinion on this in 1909, 4 years before Bohr produced his theory. So, Wood knew nothing about how IR was produced, but even he thought the theory was wrong, that trapped IR warmed a greenhouse. He concluded, through experiment, that greenhouse air warms due to air molecules being trapped by the glass. That means the greenhouse warms due to a lack of convection.
ent…”Entropic man wrote:
Arkady Ivanovich
Ive read many sceptics claiming that the uncertainties are too big, but Ive never seen them backing up the claim.”
***
I have backed it up several times, although I have never referred to them as uncertainties, but as pseudo-science.
If we are talking about models, there are two basic fallacies included in them that cause them to read far too hot.
The first fallacy is that CO2 has a warming factor of 9% to 25%, depending on the presence or absence of water vapour. I have claimed those numbers are drawn from a hat since there is not a shred of scientific proof to back them. The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation both peg the warming factor for CO2 at 0.04% in a mixed gas at 0.06%.
The second fallacy is that the atmosphere has an amplifying positive feedback. Such positive feedback requires a gain element (amplifier) and the atmosphere has no such means of amplification.
Gavin Schmidt, who programs climate models for GISS is thoroughly confused about amplifying positive feedback, referring to it as a means of amplification in one article.
Even in an electronic amplifier that uses positive feedback, the feedback element does not amplify, it is the amplifier that amplifies. All the feedback element can do is add to the input signal.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The infrared activity of carbon dioxide gas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eI9zxZoipA
Silly willy found another link he can’t understand.
That “test” was done with 4.4μ photons. That higher frequency photon is emitted by Sun. So silly willy’s silly video means It’s the Sun, stoopid”
Puffman has found another minute not to write his treatise –
On the Radiative Proprieties of Non-Radiative Gases
I eagerly await the part where he describes them as shooting cold rays from the skies!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 473.8 km/sec
density: 2.60 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 30 Jan 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 48
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 140 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.71×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Low
Ready for another montly sidewas move . no activity increase in 13 month
I am interested in how they draw average line. It seems this month’s sunspot number will lower it. It’s been constantly rising but is flattening a bit.
And it seems blue drawn averaged line has to fall significantly, and soon -like in the next few months.
If it does that is seems to “break” NOAA recent prediction and it supports, Zharkova’s prediction.
Whereas going sideways for next few months, doesn’t seems do anything much, and NOAA recent guess is still alive and well.
What do you say?
It is 13 month average , so the line is 7 month behind
https://i.postimg.cc/jj9V9XTN/oi24.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/ZqqZXndk/0124107.jpg
So was including Dec 22, and next month the earliest would be Jan 23,
and Jan is up a lot from Dec.
Our Jan will be close to Dec 23.
So will flatten or go up a bit.
I didn’t know that, but it was, *roughly*, what thought it was.
So I think coming months are going to be lower. And removing Jan 23
and Feb 23 be earliest, by itself goes in that direction.
Or need a significantly higher Feb 24 to balance {make flat] the lower Feb 23.
Or past indicates falling, And I am guessing in near future it’s falling {effecting average more}.
But for average to go up in next few months, our near future needs to go up a lot {or not just go sideways}.
So different question when does blue cross the red line?
It doesn’t seem likely within 3 months.
And between 3 and 7 months or “never”.
Any way you see the blue line not crossing red line by AUG 2024, and
Zharkovas prediction being correct despite it not doing this?
Of course also interesting to ask some similar question in regard to NOAA latest forecast
I thought I look at NOAA weekly forecast:
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
29 January – 24 February 2024
Solar activity is expected to be low to moderate
(R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) levels on 29-31 Jan due primarily to the
flare potential of Region 3559. Low levels are expected on 01-11
Feb. An increased chance for moderate (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) levels
is possible on 12-24 Feb as Region 3559 rotates back onto the
visible disk. —
Which roughly what I am guessing. And doesn’t seem to align with their solar cycle prediction.
A comment for a comment:
https://www.axios.com/2020/01/24/taylor-swift-politics-miss-americana-donald-trump
is the only way antisocial cranks can learn anything.
Who is Taylor Swift?
An NFL groupie.
Troglodytes’ kryptonite.
travis Kelce kryptonite!
Solar wind
speed: 432.9 km/sec
density: 4.79 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 31 Jan 24
Sunspot number: 53
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 135 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.69×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.8% Low
Jan monthly spot number is 123. And blue line curved down a bit:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
With smoothed monthly value of 124.3 for July 2023 and June 2023 was smoothed monthly value of: 125.2
So to turn it around it seems need Feb to be 123 + 33 = 156.
But for turn around by Mar 2024 it’s a bit easy. Say got 140 in Feb
it would need another +140, to then turn around.
But my guess is Mar monthly spot number is going to less than 140
If Feb Was only 120, than it take a lot more for Mars number to turn it around.
For Feb to cross red line, Feb spot number has to be below 97.3
And for Mar to cross it, below 99.3 And for Apr: 101.4
I am guessing it’s likely to cross red line in next 3 months and stay
below it. But it would need fall a lot further for blue line to reach near red line in 3 to 4 months. Anyhow:
Solar wind
speed: 364.5 km/sec
density: 1.90 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 01 Feb 24
Sunspot number: 75
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 135 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.28×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.5% Low
Got more spots:
Solar wind
speed: 453.4 km/sec
density: 3.23 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 Feb 24
Sunspot number: 113
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 137 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 17.86×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.9% Low
But Thermosphere dropped below 18×10^10
And lower Neutron Counts
3571 is biggest sunspot and just came from farside- it could grow bigger, perhaps. Others seem weak. Or as I look at it, 3571 is probably going to prevent me from getting my spotless day- anytime soon. But I was interested in how low the Thermosphere would go.
And it seems possible to me, the lower Thermosphere might more about Earth than solar activity.
Dr Spencer, related to your comment here:
http://tinyurl.com/roy-spencer-on-models
Ark, you appear to be missing the point. CO2’s 15μ photon can NOT warm a 288K surface.
The GHE is a bogus concept for Earth.
Earth’s average temperature of 288K emits a spectrum with the peak energy having photons of about 10μ wavelength. Lower down the spectrum is the 15μ photon, which is absorbed/emitted by CO2. The cult believes that the 15μ photon is reemitted by CO2, returns to Earth, and causes warming.
CO2 does absorb/emit 15μ photons, and some are directed to Earth (called “back-radiation”). But those low energy photons can NOT raise the temperature of the 288K surface.
To emphasize the point that CO2 cannot raise the temperature of a 288K surface, consider the photon at the peak energy emission from an ice cube. That photon has a wavelength of about 10.65μ. The ice photon is hotter (shorter-wavelength/higher-frequency) than the CO2 photon. If you believe CO2 can warm the 288K surface, then you must believe ice cubes can make it even hotter!
Believing that CO2 can warm the surface just indicates a lack of understanding of radiative physics and thermodynamics.
Puffman, riddle me this –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1591843
Why are you still kicking the can down another thread?
Clint R
Maybe “Cult minded” believe CO2 warms the hotter surface but scientists do not think this. CO2 reduces the rate of cooling so that solar input will cause a higher steady state temperature.
Yes Norma, you’ve regurgitated that nonsense before. To you, Sun warming your locale during the day Is evidence of the bogus GHE. In reality, it’s evidence that “It’s the Sun, stoopid”.
Of course, everything you see is evidence of your cult’s nonsense. If you can’t see it, you make it up, like your “square orbit”.
Clint R
Question for you (you don’t have to answer). Why do you think your posts are scientific when you call a scientifically verified effect (GHE) bogus? You do so without any evidence to support your claim.
So do you think your posts are not Cult minded when you make declarations that go against established science and you are unable to provide any evidence at all to support the claims?
Clint R
Another issue, which confirms you are indeed a liar (not sure why you do this, you know you are lying but do it anyway…mostly to provoke and annoy…very very childish behavior of you!).
You put in quotes square orbit as if it is something I said. You just clearly are lying about that and I have corrected you more than once. You act like a small brat child that lies and cries like a whiny baby when people tell him of his poor behavior.
Clint R
You are not intelligent enough to understand science but explain to me why the air in a car is hotter (considerably) than the same air outside a car in the Sunshine?
Do you have an answer for this Mr. Cult minded poster? No you don’t , you can’t understand how that is possible since both air inside and out of the car are receiving the same solar input.
You can’t understand GHE because you can’t understand how the air in the car gets so much hotter than air outside when both are in the sunshine.
Norman,
The temperature in a closed steel shipping container in sunlight can reach 60 C.
The GHE has nothing to do with it.
You can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
Maybe you could try describing the role of the GHE in the four and a half billion year cooling of the Earth. If that’s too hard, describe the role of the GHE in heating the interior of a closed shipping container in the sun, to up C.
Or you could keep blathering, implying the existence of a GHE which you can’t even describe!
Carry on.
Norman, you actually started out sounding like an adult. I don’t mind answering responsible questions.
You asked: “Why do you think your posts are scientific when you call a scientifically verified effect (GHE) bogus?
The GHE IS bogus. Here are just some of the reasons:
Five reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
Reason #5 — The bogus “CO2 insulates Earth”
More reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #6 — The bogus “Climate Sensitivity”
Reason #7 — The bogus “More energy always means higher temperature”
You started out responsibly, but you quickly reverted into your childishness. If you want to keep it on science, I’ll be glad to help clarify any of the above, or answer questions. Leave your insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations in the garbage can. It’s time to grow up and face reality.
Clint R
It would seem you have great difficulty in word comprehension.
Asserting something is bogus is an opinion. If you give detailed scientific reasons and evidence then it becomes more than an opinion. Currently I just see a list of opinions with zero evidence.
Why do you think this is science.
I have spent time giving you evidence against your opinions but you reject evidence and only repeat your opinions. Your opinions and using the word “bogus” are not science. You have never understood science.
Clint R
First, here is the definition of your word choice “bogus”
“bogus
adjective
not genuine; counterfeit; spurious; sham.”
Let us pick your number 3.
“Reason #3 The bogus EEI”
Here is a science article, one that is based upon evidence (measured values). So why would it be bogus? You offer nothing to support this opinion at all.
Here:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1539
Maybe you disagree with the conclusion but that would not mean it is “bogus”. Your proclamation is without merit.
Read the article then explain why you use the word bogus. What is it based upon?
The rest are similar. Just your opinions with no justified evidence to support any of the claims.
I can go through them but it would be quite the waste if you do not take the time and effort to provide evidence of why you call the EEI bogus.
Well Norman, your interest in science got trumped by your immaturity. I don’t respond to tr0lls using insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Grow up.
Norman says:
”Here is a science article, one that is based upon evidence (measured values). So why would it be bogus? You offer nothing to support this opinion at all.”
The science article is not measuring EEI. It is measuring changes in outgoing radiation.
You can have a perfect (which this is not but lets pretend) measurement of OLR. From that you can estimate how much change has occurred with EEI, but only if you have a perfect monitoring system of how much energy is in the system and how much that has changed.
And of course even if you have a perfect measurement of changes to atmospheric heat content and the surface you might be able to calculate a change to the EEI. But you still don’t know how much EEI is because you don’t know how much was baked into the system before you started monitoring.
And how much was baked in is known as long term feedbacks that can play out over many centuries. For example in the form of a LIA recovery.
that was the big boner in Gavin Schmidt’s argument to john stossel. He said we looked at sun and that wasn’t it, etc. But he was lying. His agency has constantly harped on thousands of years of feedbacks being the most important reason we have to act now. ice is going to melt, glaciers are going to fall into the ocean, the sea ice is going to disappear, etc. If all that happens then it has to happen in reverse also. These guys think they are so smart yet they say such dum-b things.
And he also lied about looking into orbital change. There are no calculations of orbital change. Even Milankovich’s calculations have been lost. . .like Phil Jones losing the raw data so his processing of the temperature record still in use could be examined in response to court demands he hand it over.
Fact is we can’t trust anything in the longterm surface record one time handled by Phil Jones. And we can’t even argue what the periods are that Milankovich claimed as there is no source of how he determined that either. In fact, when Trump took office there was a panic that he would start destroying the historic record. Seems to me to be a great example of Freudian Projection.
You simply cannot look at it in any other way. He is right there lying to John Stossel and the public even more blatantly than Anthony Fauci.
Bill Hunter
The reason I was posting to Clint R was that he uses the word “bogus”. He can’t understand what he is presenting is opinion and not evidence.
I have tried to get this poster to realize that but it seems an impossible task.
He rejects any and all evidence I offer, I consider him a science denier like Gordon Robertson and Swenson.
They offer endless opinions but reject any and all evidence that shows their opinions wrong.
The change in the OLR was what was the point in the article. Things change when there is some imbalance and needs to be corrected.
Like a balance. It can be balanced by two weights. If you add a little weight wot one side it will have an imbalance.
Norman, until you can behave as an adult, I can’t help you. Both Swenson and Bill have made good points, yet you reject them. Your cult beliefs ain’t science. There are no square orbits. Earth has no “real 255K surface”. Ice can NOT boil water. Your list of false beliefs goes on and on.
Your belief in the bogus “EEI” is easily debunked by First Principles — Different radiative fluxes do NOT add/subtract, and flux is NOT energy, and your flux is only a wild guess with no error range. That ain’t science. You are unable to grasp any of that.
You constantly display your immaturity with your insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Grow up.
What Gill needs is a model of Puffman’s theory.
Everyone wants to see the skies shooting cold rays!
Norman says:
”The reason I was posting to Clint R was that he uses the word bogus. He cant understand what he is presenting is opinion and not evidence.”
Certainly estimating a minimum change in the EEI by adding up what you know is fine. But its bogus to offer it up as what the EEI is when you have no idea whatsoever what it is. To know what it is you would have to know everything that has occurred over at least the last 1500 years.
So while you may be invested in global climate change as we all have been by the force of law; at a minimum you would appreciate some honesty in exchange and its not difficult at all to see how a major split is occurring in politics.
The energy of the 10.65 micron photon cannot just disappear without trace.
If it is absorbed by the “288K surface”, that surface will be a bit warmer than it otherwise would be.
That certainly sounds valid, KB. It fits with the consensus, for sure. And, it fits with an intuitive approach. That energy must go somewhere, right? And if it gets absorbed, it means the surface has more energy so the temperature must increase, right?
Unfortunately, consensus and intuition fail due to science. Here’s why:
Let’s start with “intuition”. If the surface is warmed by the photon from ice, then more ice photons should warm it even more. Enough ice photons, and you could boil water! Surely you don’t believe ice can boil water? “Intuition” doesnt always align with science.
Photon absorp.tion is based on compatibility between the target surface molecules and the arriving photon. The photon will either be transmitted, absorbed, or reflected. In the case where a photon has a wavelength too long (frequency too low), it will be reflected.
The phenomenon of photon reflection is easily observed with visible wavelengths, as we are seeing the reflected photons from objects. Photon reflection is even more common with longer wavelengths, we just can’t see it.
In some cases it is even possible that a low energy (low frequency) photon could be absorbed by a surface that has a higher average molecular frequency. In that case, the photon could actually lower the surface’s temperature, if it could be measured.
So ice can NOT boil water and CO2s 15μ photon can NOT raise Earths 288K surface temperature.
But, this is “climate science”. And in climate science, your beliefs are more important that science.
> If the surface is warmed by the photon from ice, then more ice photons should warm it even more. Enough ice photons, and you could boil water!
Zeno would be proud.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
kb…what is electromagnetic energy? It is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. It has a frequency where the electric field frequency equals the magnetic field frequency. You can think of it as two sine waves at 90 degrees to each other propagating through space but in reality it’s more like sound pressure waves.
Go back to the atom with an electron orbiting at very high speed in a higher energy orbit when the electron suddenly drops to a lower orbit. It must give up kinetic energy which is related to its agular speed as K = 1/2mv^2. Instead of v we would use w for angular frequency.
The orbiting electron has an electric charge which creates an electric field. For whatever reason, Bohr stipulated that an orbiting electron does not create a magnetic field but I question that. Obviously, when it transitions to a lower energy level it released an electric field and a magnetic field. That is a property of an electron…it has an electric field and when it moves it creates a magnetic field. If the electron is oscillating, the EM field it creates has the frequency of the oscillation.
There is no other derivation for an EM field in an atom or a molecule. The only particle with a charge that is moving at significant speed, is the electron.
If it slows down as it drops to a lower orbit it must release that energy as electromagnetic energy. No one knows how it does that but if you insist on using the photons model, the energy released is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field with a frequency related to the angular frequency of the electron.
How would that look moving through space? I see it as a series of vibrations of an EM field. If the wave is represented by a sine wave, that means the field strength increases from zero to a maximum, back to zero, then to maximum in the opposite direction. Somehow, the field is vibrating as it propagates through space.
No one really knows why it propagates and some have hypothesized that some kind of invisible medium is required to interact with the EM, which is often called an aether. There is no proof that such a medium exists.
If you consider an EM field produced by a radio antenna, it is produced by an alternating electric current running back and forth in an antenna. As a single cycle occurs, the electron current increases sinusoidally from zero, and as it does, both the electric and magnetic field intensity produced increases in step till a maxima is reached. When the current reverses, the same thing happens.
If that field has a frequency that excites an electron in a cooler body, the electron absorbs a portion of the field which is an accumulation of bazillions of individual photon fields. It would be absolutely mind-boggling to describe such a field from a source like the Sun since there are billions of them.
So, if that field meets a surface, only a few of the frequencies will be absorbed, but who can tell what happens to the frequencies not absorbed. Obviously, in the visible spectrum, our eyes are excited by the reflected frequencies. I presume it’s much the same in the IR band as well.
More bs. from the peanut gallery. The author of your piece, a photographer, is obviously one of the converted, who believes, without a trace of evidence to support him, that the EEI exists. He also believes the other bs. about anthropogenic warming, again, without a shred of evidence that an energy imbalance is being caused by a trace gas.
There is no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that the Earth has an energy imbalance. There is not even evidence to support the hypothesis that energy in must equal energy out for all situations involving energy.
We have many such quaint offerings from pundits that carry no proof.
-Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. No proof for all situations.
-The 1st law of thermodynamics is the law of conservation of energy even though it applies to only two forms of energy, thermal and mechanical.
-If you keep adding energy to a mass it’s temperature will rise indefinitely. More nonsense.
No one has ever observed or measured energy that closely for the simply reason that energy cannot be measured. We have no idea what it is or to where to find it, so we can measure it. All we can do is measure the effect produced by the energy acting on a mass.
We cannot measure radiation in watts because radiation by itself cannot do work, and a watt is a measure of doing work. The watt is a measure of a force acting on a mass over a distance per unit time. A watt is not even a direct measure of heat, it is an equivalent measure based on an equivalence, not an equality, between heat and work. Yet here we have people, like the author of the article, attributing units of power to a trace gas.
When Trenberth and Kiehle came up with the concept of an energy budget, they readily admitted they had no physical evidence to support the theory. One of their fellow alarmists, Pierrehumbert, estimated that without emission from the planet, Earth’s temperature could rise to about 800,000C. That is insane for the simple reason the Earth’s mass would disintegrate after a temperature rise of a few thousand C.
These theorists have simply no concept of how things work at the atomic level. If you heat a mass enough, the electrons binding the atoms together will become so excited they will simply break bonds, some flying off. I don’t know how far they will fly or if they will all fly off, but we know that heating any metal to a few thousand C will cause it to melt into a puddle, producing a slag that cannot be recovered if the melt cools.
It takes several thousand degrees C to melt steel but what would happen if we heated a mass the size of the Earth with the available EM at 93 million miles while stifling radiation outwardly? We simply don’t know. Much of the extra heat would penetrate into the mass and that is likely what is happening, particularly into the oceans.
There is simply no evidence that radiation in versus radiation out is having any effect.
> The author of your piece, a photographer,
Bordo “Nullius in Verba” Rogertson hath spoken!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SpaceX: DOD Has Requested Taking Over Starship For Individual Missions
Brian Everstine January 30, 2024
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/spacex-dod-has-requested-taking-over-starship-individual-missions
–We have had conversations and it really came down to specific missions, where its a very specific and sometimes elevated risk or maybe a dangerous use case for the DOD where theyre asking themselves: Do we need to own it as a particular asset SpaceX, can you accommodate that? he says.
Weve been exploring all kinds of options to kind of deal with those questions, he says.–
I can’t imagine it could be legal problem.
It could be a political problem, though.
Bill Hunter,
“Yes I agree the earths GHE is NOT 33C. . .at best its about a 1/3rd of that and it could be zero or even a bit negative.
That number is derived by an inconsistent calculation fundamentally and arbitrary choosing to fudge the numbers with different applications of Stefan Boltzmann equations by blatantly playing with the emissivity parameter. ”
–
Thank you, Bill.
Well, no one knows Earth average surface air temperature, and guys over century, ago, didn’t either.
What causes the nights to be warmer, is mostly our ocean. And the ocean is where most of the sunlight is absorbed.
Earth is somewhat similar to ideal thermal convective sphere in the sense that absorbs a lot of the sunlight. No other planet absorbs as much or is as vaguely similar to ideal thermal convective sphere. Cause they, don’t have oceans.
Atmospheres reflect a lot of sunlight, and they absorb a significant amount of sunlight. Venus huge atmosphere reflects a lot more than Earth’s atmosphere and roughly get twice Earth distance sunlight.
And despite getting twice as much sunlight it’s huge atmosphere absorbs a lot less than Earth does.
Though if put Earth at Venus distance, Earth would warmer and have a lot clouds, might be able to reflect more than Venus does. But if reflected the same amount at Venus does at Venus distance from Sun, Earth absorb more sunlight, because it has an ocean, but it seems to me, likely Earth would reflect a lot more sunlight than Venus does.
Venus has a very strong greenhouse warming effect.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It has large atmosphere which makes it’s rocky surface quite dim. The atmosphere is heated by strong sunlight in upper atmosphere which rotates about every 4 to 5 days
gb…I would think the lower atmosphere, at least, is heated by the surface. 450C is pretty hot. The upper atmosphere will be heated as well by the Sun and that should make for an interesting atmosphere.
gb…the surface temperature of Venus is about 450C, which means it is heated internally and not by a greenhouse effect.
If you have 1 atm of atmosphere at 70 C, at lower at level, such as 2 atm, the 2 atmosphere pressure will be warmer.
Simple lapse rate.
It could heated by internal heat, as a possible theory, that might be right.
The atmosphere can also be heated by past impactors- a large atmosphere such as Venus could stay pretty warm for a long time.
But I tend to think it’s upper atmosphere is heated by Sun’s intense sunlight, and it’s widely said the Venus acid clouds are a greenhouse gas.
I think it’s silly to call it greenhouse gas, in similar way they call O3 a greenhouse gas. But I agree both have ability absorb and transfer heat {though neither involve IR radiant energy}
gb…we are talking 450C, not a swing of a few degrees. There is no other source of such a surface temperature other than internally. There is also sulfur in the atmosphere, a sure sign of volcanic activity.
“gbwe are talking 450C, not a swing of a few degrees. ”
In troposphere the average velocity of air molecules is about the same, what changes air temperature is more molecules within volume [such as, per cubic meter}.
So air is warmer where it’s denser, and higher is less dense and lower is more dense.
So 10 km up from sea level has air much colder and less dense but it’s average velocity about the same or going a little faster.
Or coming down from 10 km and air gets a lot warmer. Roughly 70 C warmer.
With Venus the air can have very high density.
You could talk the pressure, but having more molecules going same velocity in same volume is hotter air. More molecules in volume going the speed of a bullet is hotter.
Of course in upper atmosphere, say above the stratosphere, they going a much faster speed than a bullet, some are going close to suborbital velocity.
gb…we’re sill talking 450C on the lower end of the atmosphere and a far hotter Sun than Earth experiences on the upper end.
–Gordon Robertson says:
February 1, 2024 at 2:51 PM
gbwere sill talking 450C on the lower end of the atmosphere and a far hotter Sun than Earth experiences on the upper end.”
I would note we have not explored Venus much. And that Venus is closest and easiest planet to explore. Though an advantage of Mars is it’s easier {less delta-v} to leave- but we haven’t returned anything from Mars yet.
Though we have rocks [meteorites] from Mars, and none from Venus.
Yes and it is confirmed via Roy’s estimate of the mean sky temperature. Even if you resort to blackbody calculations there is no way that backradiation is 333w/m2 as claimed by Kevin Trenberth.
Trenberth admits its a plug figure in his budget which gives it zero credibility considering the wide ranges of estimates among the various budget items.
Its probably more in order with the LT temperature found by Roy and he has done a number of sky looking experiments over the years as well. That would put the temperature seen by the surface at about 265k and the radiation from that at about 280w/m2. That makes for 50w/m2 and viola you have the GHE! 390 to 340 and a source for an increase in atmosphere temperature which of course 50watts/m2 equals roughly the 10C ghe.
I do not consider a planet as a blackbody.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Does what you ‘consider’ really matter?
What, do you think, do I trust more:
– what you guess
or, for example
https://www.astro.uvic.ca/~jwillis/teaching/astr201/maths.6.planet_temperature.pdf
It is amazing what Binny consider’s to be evidence. Christos is talking about reality and Binny is referencing a theoretical analysis of a theory that has pretty well been put to rest by anyone with any sense.
BB theory dates back to 1850, some 63 years before Bohr discovered the real relationship between radiation and matter. Being old does not make a theory invalid but when new information comes along that proves it wrong, why is it still referenced as valid?
The innermost planet is Mercury.
Anyone want to guess it’s average global surface temperature?
Bindidon says:
”Does what you consider really matter?
What, do you think, do I trust more:”
Well I can’t help if if you choose to bury your head in the sand. Trust but verify is the term here. Just trust without the verification is simply reckless.
As far as my take is concerned, 25 years of training tells me to verify. What I find, however, instead of verification is a difference in opinion among a wide range of experts. Almost all of science is about opinions. Nobody is out there doing research on the mainbody of science because there is no interest in doing so because there is no difference in opinion.
Sometimes you have stick by your own values. Namely if you are a true liberal like myself, I do care about the impacts of getting it wrong for others rather than simply just thinking about what is good for me and my community. Its a small community of people genuinely doing that. Lots of people give lip service to it but few devote 25 years of their working life to it.
As an accountant I am charged with reconciling divergent opinions. Sometimes thats not possible so the proper response in that case is ensure my reports very clearly outlines all material issues in dispute across the board by qualified people.
I do that consistently. I recognize the possibility of a CO2 greenhouse effect because a good number of experts think there is one. I also recognize that what we think is a greenhouse effect may not even be one based upon wide error bars all over the place in the estimation of the effects of grey body emissions among many other issues.
I have little doubt that the satellite services are by far a better method of estimating global temperatures. For one thing they measure the atmosphere either at or much nearer to where even your source you linked to above is where the energy of the GHE is contained. And where it is contained is in the cloud zone of the atmosphere. But the hotspot that is supposed to emerge from new atmosphere forcing is missing in the clouds. that leans toward the suggestions of Akasofu, Easterbrook, Lindzen, Monckton, and Spencer among others who either project negative feedback and or feedback from a forcing that a change occurred before we were monitoring hotspots in the atmosphere.
I am not concluding anything, just pointing out where the science has been leaning more toward over the 18 years I have paid attention to this issue. Heck the Bush Administration started out on board with this stuff. Today there is practically no Republican support for it. thats a huge shift that is occurring among policy makers who have listened to scientists for their entire careers.
Its just the way it is Bindidon. Your position is gradually losing adherents. It is fully understandable when a profession doesn’t police itself and weed out the ridiculous stuff. . .I can’t hardly begin to list the failed predictions. Highways being underwater, polar bears going extinct, the arctic being summer ice free by 2013, the model predictions, more hurricanes, a meters of sealevel rise, it goes on an on. How can you expect to hold your position in face of a rout. . .its not a game for the Ol alma mater.
” Its just the way it is Bindidon. Your position is gradually losing adherents. ”
Ha ha ha…
Maybe you ask the blog manager if he would like to start a survey about it!
How many do you think would be more likely to trust your constant brash, long-winded and superficial boasts than my regular data analysis reports, or my references to scientific results that you denigrate without any technical skills let alone scientific competence?
Ask him, Hunter boy – if you have balls enough to do!
Lol! a blog survey?
bindidon its a foregone conclusion that people afraid the world is on the path to doomsday are far more likely to post on a blog. thats the first kind of sampling error you want to avoid.
look at ufo blogs. they have very few ufo deniers.
Gill is eyeing Jesse’s job:
https://www.mediamatters.org/climate-deniers/fox-news-jesse-watters-cites-debunked-claim-argue-climate-scientists-fabricated-us
He surely has more Climateball experience than Jesse!
Bill…I am smelling a rat in the blackbody and S-B theories. I have no problem with Stefan and his findings since they are based on a valid experiment performed by Tyndall. Stefan was no slouch either when it came to experimentation, having performed some excellent experiments aimed at isolating conduction/convection from radiation so he could measure the actual radiation from a body.
However, he relied heavily on the experiment by Tyndall in which he heated a platinum filament electrically till it glowed (500C to 1500C) different colours, which another scientist translated to colour temperatures. From that Stefan was able to confirm his T^4 relationship.
Boltzmann was something else altogether. He was a student of Stefan and for some reason he drifted off from experimentation and got involved in highly theoretical work based in statistical analysis. His aim was to confirm the 2nd law and entropy statistically and apparently he failed at both. Clausius was actually the initiator of the statistical approach but he abandoned it to Maxwell and Boltzmann while he continued to study heat and entropy directly.
Wouldn’t you know that the scientific community decided to back the remote, obscure theories of Boltzmann on heat and entropy while essentially ignoring the work of Clausius, and embracing the equally remote theories of Einstein over Newton.
My understanding is that S-B has become equated with blackbody theory, which makes sense since Tyndall’s experiment with temperatures ranging from about 500C to 1500C could be associated with a theoretical blackbody. However, there is no way that terrestrial temperatures like 15C can be equated to the same relationship. S-B shows a radiation of 315 W/m^2 for ice and Trenberth’s back-radiation is just as ridiculous, being grater than solar input.
Grlich and Tscheuschner, in their paper disproving the GHE, calulated th surface area of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere and concluded there was no way they could represent a blackbody.
I agree Gordon. There is so much money, power, and influence going on here.
I have to laugh about the one time director of the IPCC during the Hockey Stick heydays. the guy wrote gigolo novels and ran a science institute whose biggest annual project was to enter winning new rose varieties into the biggest rose festival in the world for festival awards. But the biggest reward is something else.
Its a festival that attracted thousands of wealthy dowagers from all around the world swooning over the new rose varieties. . .eager to fanny up to a young dark handsome man and open up the purse.
The first co-chair of the IPCC, Houghton, was appointed largely on his relationship with UK PM Margaret Thatcher. He was a climate modeler and started the IPCC down that path, ignoring the actual hard science.
Thatcher’s interest in the global warming meme was related to her war against the UK coal miners. She regarded the IPCC and it’s creator the UN as a vehicle for dealing with the coal miners. I guess she figured that by making coal emissions a bad thing she could use it against them to shut down the coal industry.
Thatcher had a degree in chemistry and an advisor suggested she use her technical expertise in the field to baffle the hoi polloi at the UN, which she did, hence, the IPCC. The UN had been looking for a vehicle for universal taxation and voila. Nothing to do with science, all politics.
wee willy…”Gavin is onto something. All of his postings and communications are objective and professional. He states his position very clearly and back it up with science. When the contrarians are using insults and stereotypes instead of sticking with the science, it is a good sign they are nervous”.
***
They are to a limited mind like yours. I have posted several instances of where Gavin shows his amateurish understanding of basic physics.
I posted a link to an exchange between Gavin and engineer Jeffrey Glassman. Gavin had written an amateurish paper trying to explain positive feedback, in which he inferred that PF amplifies signals. He has a degree in math, yet he could not produce a mathematical series to represent the amplification using PF.
This is more than irony. PF is a major reason why models show an extreme warming and the guy programming them for NASA does not understand positive feedback.
On realclimate, Gavin defers to Raymond Pierrehumbert as the resident physics expert. I find Pierrehumberts views on physics to be quite humourous.
You are truly a buttkiss, wee willy.
Bordo “Nullius Non Verba” Rogertson chimes in with…another rant void of any argument whatsoever.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“No one has ever observed or measured energy that closely for the simply reason that energy cannot be measured. We have no idea what it is or to where to find it, so we can measure it.”
Do the following experiment:
1/ Go outside and find your electricity meter.
2/ Write down the instantaneous reading, likely in kWh.
3/ Go back to your computer and report the reading.
4/ Repeat steps 1 – 3 above.
5/ Discuss your results and write a conclusion.
A Kwh meter does not measure energy directly, it measures a combination of electrical voltage and current. We call it energy but humans like to use meaningless names for many things.
Energy is what drives the current, we call it electromotive force, but energy is not a force per se. In the electrical field, we seldom use the word energy.
Voltage is the EMF minus the internal voltage drop in the generator/battery, but voltage is not energy nor is current, which is a stream of electrons driven by the EMF. If you put a high impedance meter across the terminals of a battery, so it does not draw current, it is measuring the EMF. If you add a resistive load and measure it again, you are measuring the voltage. The voltage will read lower since there is a voltage drop internally in any power source.
We call energy the capacity to do work but work is defined as a force acting on a mass over a distance. Energy is what causes the force to operate, it is not the force itself.
From Britannica…”The work done on a unit of electric charge, or the energy thereby gained per unit electric charge, is the electromotive force. Electromotive force is the characteristic of any energy source capable of driving electric charge around a circuit”.
EMF is a ‘characteristic’ of an energy source, but it is not defined as energy. Therefore your Kwh meter measures energy but not directly.
Any watt-meter has two components. A coil across the circuit being measured and a coil in series. One coil detects the voltage and the series coil detects the current. Combined, they give the power. Measured over a time interval, it is called energy consumption but neither coil measures energy per se.
As I said, we don’t know what energy is and we cannot measure it directly. A Kwh meter measures energy indirectly.
You are arguing nomenclature.
1kWh = 3,600,000 Joules of energy.
My itemized electric bill specifies an Energy Charge, and that’s good enough for me.
Do you not pay your electric bill because “We have no idea what” energy is?
“Do you not pay your electric bill because “We have no idea what energy is?””
Arkady, please stop trolling.
What is a joule of energy other than a definition. Can you describe physically a joule of energy?
Your appeal to authority knows no bounds. Now we have power utilities defining energy as whatever it is they deliver. Does that help us understand what energy is?
At a hydro dam, water is guided down chutes by gravity to drive turbines on a generator. Water is called the prime mover in this case, since it is the force of water accelerated by gravity that drives the turbines. If it’s a diesel generator driving the turbines, the diesel is the prime mover.
So, what is gravity? We know it is energy, by definition, but what is it? Figure it out and you’ll surely get a Nobel.
So, gravitational energy produces a force through falling water and that force drives the turbine on an electrical generator. The turbine armature has windings on it that turn inside a magnetic field, to keep things simple. That action produces an alternating current in the armature windings and eventually that current reaches our homes.
On its way into our homes it goes through two coils in a meter which measures voltage and current and calculates it as power…… P = EI in watts, but still no time factor.
Inside the meter, a disc is turning, driven by the current and it drives gears that turn the little indicators in the meters. That’s what the utility calls energy, the power consumed over a time period and recorded by dials that progress based on the amount of current passing through them per unit time.
Does that clarify the meaning of what energy is? Not for me. The use of the word energy by power utilities is misleading. Certainly, energy is involved but the meters measure electrical current and voltage, not energy. Energy is what produces the voltages and currents and cannot be measured directly.
“What is a joule of energy other than a definition. Can you describe physically a joule of energy?”
A joule represents the amount of energy transferred when a force of one newton is applied over a distance of one meter in the direction of the force.
I swear I read somewhere that you said you were an engineer.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “No one has ever observed or measured energy that closely for the simply reason that energy cannot be measured. We have no idea what it is or to where to find it, so we can measure it. All we can do is measure the effect produced by the energy acting on a mass.”
I think you missed this. Please read and reconsider you post.
https://resources.pcb.cadence.com/blog/2022-joules-mechanical-equivalent-of-heat-a-conversion-factor
Joule kind of found a way to measure mechanical energy that is converted to heat energy in water and he got a very good number for the conversion.
Have you heard of a bomb calorimeter? You can use this device to determine how much chemical energy is released by a substance when burned.
Did you know you can convert electricity to heat in water. Have you ever heard of a water heater. You can get a very precise measure of electrical energy by knowing the electrical energy going into the water heater and determining how much energy it takes to heat the water to a given temperature.
I don’t think they taught you any thermodynamics in your engineering classes. It is possible you took electrical engineering but they must not have even touched on thermodynamics. You are stating that a really well established science doesn’t know how to measure things. Energy is very easy ot measure by its effects, one is how it heats water.
Norman,
You wrote “I dont think they taught you any thermodynamics in your engineering classes.”
Please stop trolling.
norman…”Joule kind of found a way to measure mechanical energy that is converted to heat energy in water and he got a very good number for the conversion”.
***
We studied an entire semester of thermodynamics in a course called physical chemistry.
I have referenced Joule on many an occasion and I have pointed out that his equation offers an equivalence, not an equality. Although his relationship between work and heat is presented as an equality, the units for heat (calories) and work (joules) are different, hence not equal. That was pointed out by Clausius in his work.
The heat produced by agitating water is not a direct result of the mechanical energy of the paddle, it is a result of weak hydrogen bonds holding the water molecule together being broken and releasing energy as heat. Some will claim I am splitting hairs but not so. I am only trying to look at the actual mechanisms involved.
Look at it. Water molecules are bonded together to form water by a weak hydrogen bond that is similar to the dipoles in CO2. Due to the electronegativity difference between oxygen and hydrogen, the water molecule forms a form of dipole. With one part positive wrt to the other the positives attract the negatives and vice-versa, The result is liquid water. By agitating the water, the bonds break easily, releasing heat.
BTW..Joule would have known nothing about that mechanism in 1840. The electron was not discovered till 1898 and the relationship between electrons and the nucleus was unknown till 1913 when Bohr hypothesized it.
It’s not as if the paddle is producing heat directly, it is merely contributing to an action that breaks weak electron-based bonds.
Wrt to the bomb calorimeter, please note the reference to calorie. It is not rebranded a bomb watt-ometer. Heat is still measured in calories which are defined as the amount of heat required to raise a CC of water by 1C. Joule discovered a work- equivalent in watts, and that equivalence is strongly represented in the work of Clausius. However, he was careful to point out that no equality exists between work and heat, only an equivalence.
Re electricity and heat, you are not converting electricity to heat, you are doing the same as the paddle, agitating the water so it releases heat. An immersion heater produces heat when electrons moving through it collide with other electrons in the heater structure. Then heat is transferred to the water. In electrolysis, electrons moving through the water break up hydrogen bonds, releasing heat.
Thank you, Gordon.
The thermal energy (heat) produces work, but it is not 100% efficient…
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-i-the-urbanization-characteristics-of-the-ghcn-stations/#comment-1439578
ark…”[GR]What is a joule of energy other than a definition. Can you describe physically a joule of energy?
[ARK]”A joule represents the amount of energy transferred when a force of one newton is applied over a distance of one meter in the direction of the force.
I swear I read somewhere that you said you were an engineer”.
***
Your definition sheds no light on what energy is. It is loosely defined as the capacity to do work therefore some lump it in with the same definition for work, which it is not.
Energy is a cause, work is a result.
You gotta pay attention. A joule is a human definition, defined as the amount of work done by a 1 newton force when it moves a mass by 1 metre. The watt is defined, at times, as 1 joule/second.
My feeling is that whoever created these definitions was an ingrate Frenchman PO’d by the British imperial system. From Wiki…” In slightly more fundamental terms…
1 joule is equal to 1 newton metre
…and, in terms of SI base units…
1Joule = 1 Kg (m^2/s^2)
This is flaky. The joule has two different definitions, one with no mass specified and the other with a mass specified plus a time measure.
Because a joule is associated with the movement of a mass by a force, hence work = mechanical energy, it is based on the horsepower. At least, that’s how it all began, when James Watt estimated the amount of work done by a horse lifting a certain weight in a certain time.
Had there been no time factor, the measure would have simply been foot-lbs (work), which would indicate the number of pounds moved over 1 foot. In this case, the pound represent the amount of force applied. With a joule, the force is in newtons and the distance in metres, or a Newton-metre (N.m).
There is nothing thus far that describes energy. Both the joule and the ft-lb are measures of work, since work = force x distance. This definition is kind of dumb since there is no mass specified. It is presumed that a 1 Newton force can move any mass over 1 metre. The amount of work done over that metre surely depends on the mass as well. After all, if I was applying the force, the amount of work I’d actually do would depend on whether I was pushing a car over 1 metre or a small box filled with books.
Seems to me someone has goofed with the definitions.
However, using the watt or the horsepower, we can calculate the work done over a period of time but we must first specify a weight for the mass, if it is done within the Earth’s gravitational field. Therefore 1 HP is required to move 550 pounds by 1 foot in one second.
Did anyone notice how ‘power’ is suddenly substituted for work? In other words, if we move a mass by applying 1 lb of force over 1 foot it is called work but if we move a specified weight over a specified distance in 1 second, it become a horsepower. By definition, there is also 746 watts in 1 HP.
A guy at the local gym used to deadlift 550 pounds by at least 2 feet. Was that power or work?
More obfuscation. A Newton is defined as a force that would give a mass of 1 Kg an acceleration of 1 m/s^2. So, how can it also be defined as a unit of work when it acts over a distance on an unspecified mass, as in Newton-metres?
Gordon Robertson, rather than your self-indulgent and pointless meanderings, a true engineer would simply summarize my last three comments thus.
1/ Consider a house that has a floor space of 2800 ft² and an average height of 10 ft at 5000 ft elevation where the standard atmospheric pressure is 12.2 psia.
2/ Initially the house is at a uniform temperature of 50° F.
3/ Now the electric heater is turned on, and the heater runs until the air temperature in the house rises to an average value of 70° F.
4/ Determine the amount of energy transferred to the air assuming:
(a) the house is airtight and thus no air escapes during the heating process, and
(b) some air escapes through the cracks as the heated air in the house expands at constant pressure.
5/ Also determine the cost of this heat for each case if the cost of electricity in that area is $0.18/kWh.
Q.E.D.
Transferred to the air by conduction/convection or by radiation?
You are still missing my point, which suggests you are built too close to the ground and it is all going over your head. You have a heat source transferring heat to the air in a room and 99% of the heat will be transferred by conduction/convection because radiation has no effect on nitrogen and oxygen which make up 99% of the air.
Heat is defined as the energy associated with motion in mass, namely the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules. We can only measure the effect thermal energy has on air molecules by using a thermometer. The mercury thermometer responds to air molecules colliding with the a glass bulb filled with mercury. As the mercury warms, it expands up a capillary tube and it’s height is measured by graduates beside it that are based on and calibrated to to set point: the freezing and boiling points of water.
Therefore the degree of warmth in the room is measured by mercury expansion which has nothing to do with the energy causing it all in that its action cannot explain the energy involved.
What is that energy and how can we measure it directly as that energy? That is the question. No point printing Q.E.D if you have not answered the question and obviously not even understood it.
Hint: we have no idea what energy is therefore we cannot measure it as energy. We can only measure the effect this unknown has on mass. So, when the Hydro company sends you your electricity bill and calls it energy, refuse to pay for something that cannot be explained. Ask them where the energy is located and if they tell you it the current drawn by appliances then ask them why they don’t state that.
Science is riddled with such inconsistencies.
So what are the answers to my questions Mr I am an engineer?
I have given you the answer several times, we humans have no idea what energy is and we cannot measure it directly. Your convoluted reply does not address either point. You simply presume a hydro utility understands the meaning of energy, while they are actually describing a flow of electrical current that is driven by an unknown energy source.
I learned at university that a student must give the answer the profs require on an exam, otherwise the student fails.
christos…”The thermal energy (heat) produces work, but it is not 100% efficient”
***
Clausius explained that. A certain amount of heat is lost when it is used up internally causing atoms and molecules to vibrate.