Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2024 was +0.85 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up from the June, 2024 anomaly of +0.80 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.21 C/decade over global-averaged land).
The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 19 months (record highs are in red):
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.13 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.09 | +0.17 | +0.00 | -0.10 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.17 | -0.13 | -1.43 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.26 | -0.03 | -0.37 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.40 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.07 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.88 | +0.53 | +0.91 | +1.44 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.70 | +0.88 | +0.51 | +0.86 | +0.94 | +1.54 | +1.25 |
| 2023 | Sep | +0.90 | +0.94 | +0.86 | +0.93 | +0.40 | +1.13 | +1.17 |
| 2023 | Oct | +0.93 | +1.02 | +0.83 | +1.00 | +0.99 | +0.92 | +0.63 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.91 | +1.01 | +0.82 | +1.03 | +0.65 | +1.16 | +0.42 |
| 2023 | Dec | +0.83 | +0.93 | +0.73 | +1.08 | +1.26 | +0.26 | +0.85 |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.86 | +1.06 | +0.66 | +1.27 | -0.05 | +0.40 | +1.18 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.93 | +1.03 | +0.83 | +1.24 | +1.36 | +0.88 | +1.07 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.95 | +1.02 | +0.88 | +1.35 | +0.23 | +1.10 | +1.29 |
| 2024 | Apr | +1.05 | +1.25 | +0.85 | +1.26 | +1.02 | +0.98 | +0.48 |
| 2024 | May | +0.90 | +0.98 | +0.83 | +1.31 | +0.38 | +0.38 | +0.45 |
| 2024 | June | +0.80 | +0.96 | +0.64 | +0.93 | +1.65 | +0.79 | +0.87 |
| 2024 | July | +0.85 | +1.02 | +0.68 | +1.06 | +0.77 | +0.67 | +0.01 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for July, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days:
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
no comment.
just thought i would snatch top of the list while i can.
The empty drums makes most noise
Please turn down your volume.
jealous huh?
Two things create major high frequency excursions in L trop historical data, ENSO and Mt Pinatubo eruption. This most likely isn’t El Nino, because too big a spike compared to Pacific excursion, too long duration, and timing- it arrived too early. It is highly correlated in time with the Tonga eruption that ejected abundant ghg. For me, it’s most likely Tonga water vapor causing this based on correlation in time and the viable mechanism that water vapor causes warming and we got sharp increase in warming. If true, then Give it a few years and it will retreat from high back to long term warming trend, and in hindsight probably be obvious. Modern science is so into “we know” that they are often not open to “the new”. This is a great new event in himan history and I am open to learning from Tonga.
Mostly reasonable, Aaron, except “It is highly correlated in time with the Tonga eruption that ejected abundant ghg”
Is it highly correlated?
Here is the data I used. Jan 2023 Tonga eruption peaked. A few weeks to months to spread water vapor and increase the mixed ghg globally (mixed as it still exists now). UAH spike goes positive in February (probably not the eruption yet) and goes up exponentially from there. Where do do you see an inconsistency? I am very open to understanding this once in a lifetime event. It’s not like we have precedent so curious what you think. IMHO because this requires trapping longwave radiation not just albedo like sulfate aerosol cooling at Pinatubo, I’m surprised it was so fast. I think El Nino probably also contributed via some constructive interference between warming processes.
I agree with you Aaron, 100%. It’s quite obviously Tonga (certainly, CO2 doesn’t do peaks!).
While I have your attention, can you tell me what you think of the decreased cloud cover over the past 40 years – resulting in an increase in ‘sunshine duration’? This is shown in the British Met Office’s data. 2003 was a massive rise of 23% over 1980 (in sunshine duration over the UK). More generally, the rise is about 10% over 40 years. UK warming happens to be 10% over the same period…coincidentally (anomaly rise of 1.4 deg c).
“Jan 2023 Tonga eruption peaked.”
No, the large eruption happened in Jan 2022.
Thus your correlation is not obvious.
It’s 22 and you are correct. Next let me look at my actual excell sheets and revert. I integrated the Nino 3.4 and uah with tonga to factor in lag with el nino. But clearly i was different here. Jenkins paper was even 22. Thanks for pointing out.
I expected a further reduction.
Perhaps the underwater volcano is very long term warming.
Not very likely.
See:
https://phys.org/news/2024-07-disputes-hunga-tonga-volcano-role.html
So let me get this straight. A complex model can not constrain sulfate albedo forcing and its a huge source of uncertaintyin climate prediction, and we have never seen a 10% spike in water vapor the dominant ghg from an eruption. Jenkins et al predictions are for years of warming above 1.5C. That actually happens and we see unexplainable warming in L Trop lasting longer than an ill timed El Nino. Somehow a new model provides multiple working hypothese, this one is based on partial data from satellites predicts cooling and it somehow supercedes the actual spike in temperature data? Man, I am just not smart enough to follow because I’d at best say there are multiple models. Almost like that source article has an agenda or something.
Can this model explain the mid year warming in the N mid latitude oceans, that happens from time to time, 2013-2014, 2019-20, 2022-2024?
https://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/ElNino.vs.aerosols.pdf
” Perhaps the underwater volcano is very long term warming. ”
Then you should have observed that in the cooling of the lower stratosphere months ago.
Did you?
Clint R will be joining us shortly to hand wave about the HTE as well.
It could go down.
Cultist don’t want to say it’s from CO2 levels.
And a spike for few years, is not global temperature.
Global temperature is 30 years of global air temperature.
Or one minute of the ocean average temperature.
Our cold ocean which averages, about 3.5 C {they have not really measured it, yet {nor for that matter, global average surface air temperature].
If our cold ocean increased by .5 C, then, if measured correctly, it’s an increase of global average temperature.
But we would still be in Ice Age.
And in recent past- last million years- the ocean has been warmer than 4 C, and we have been in Ice Age for 33.9 million years, and it’s been the coldest in last couple million years.
Sounds like the ABCD theory. Anything But Carbon Dioxide.
Interesting. In previous El Nino years, the cool down was already well underway by July.
In the surface records, the mid-latitude ocean continues to be unusually warm.
So the warmth appears to be continuing.
Coolistas only hope is the coming La Nina.
But it is projected to be a marginal one at best.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
That depends
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
NOAA predicted a very strong La Nina for 2022-23. It didn’t qualify as moderate.
You are showing one model out of the 14 shown and averaged here:
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
Something strange is going on. Originally, I was convinced that El Nio superimposed on long term warming explained the rapid temperature spike, but we’ve been stuck here in the 0.8-0.95 range for almost a year.
Not unusual at all. The same thing happened in 1998. This is about as far below the 2024 peak as July 1998 was below the 1998 peak, albeit at about 0.4 higher. In ’98 we got a drop in September, and the big drop wasn’t until November.
Fair point. Thanks for clarifying, AQ.
But not in 2016
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2015/to:2017
And both 1998 and 2016 were very strong El Ninos, while this one was not.
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.21 C/decade over global-averaged land).”
The warming over land has accelerated.
The warming over land has accelerated? as population growth and urban expansion have, along with the growth of solar farms,these all must have an effect,considering we are talking small numbers in hundredths of a degree.
“as population growth and urban expansion have, along with the growth of solar farms,these all must have an effect,”
For the lower troposphere?
UAH LT temps are centred at about 3km altitude. UHI and solar farms aren’t going to have much of an effect up there.
Well it matched the surface records in one respect … a slight warming over June. But the surface records were about 0.2 lower for both months.
July 0.1 lower here
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/m1-gta-2014-2024-07.gif
I don’t understand … you have UAH falling instead of rising.
For the non-satellite records it seems to show what I said … all but one showing a slight uptick.
I’m showing the surface reanalysis data for July being 0.1 lower than previous July. Thats all.
Also, all others go to June only.
I guess Mr Spencer will have to adjust his baseline every 5 years now to preserve the illusion.
All this time, he has simply followed the WHO’s recommendations to change the reference period in a timely manner.
RSS, for example, is still based on the completely outdated period from 1979 to 1998, which the UAH abandoned over a decade ago in favor of the WHO recommendation at the time (1981-2010).
And the JMA surface time series was shifted from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 at about the same time as UAH.
*
I see the same problem with NOAA’s G02135 sea ice extent series, which should have moved to the newest reference period as well.
What do you see as the benefit of continually changing the baseline?
Consistency between models is not one, as you would get that by leaving it where it was.
Mr. Qwerty,
I see no point in changing the baseline if one is looking for consistency in comparisons.
If one wanted to extend the baseline, to cover a longer time period, I could understand that.
But not just moving it over.
LG
I agree. The only reason I can see for shifting the baseline is to create an illusion of stability.
Interesting to see that Gordon, who a number of years back insisted in a conversation with Apple (or whatever his name was) that the baseline should cover the entire period of data, is silent on this issue of shifting the baseline.
Antonin Qwerty
” What do you see as the benefit of continually changing the baseline? ”
Imho, a real baseline must be constructed out of as much recent data as possible.
There are techniques that can be used to extend a baseline created from, for example, 1951 to 1980 to more recent periods. However, the anomalies generated from such baselines for more recent data have something virtual about them.
Not sure what you mean by ‘virtual’. The change since that baseline time is very real.
It would be nice if all the climate reconstructions could agree on a common baseline. I would suggest 1980-1989 as a period when both most paleoclimatological and instrumental datasets have a robust record. This would simplify comparisons between the sets.
It would be instructive and helpful if Dr. Spencer added the original 20-year baseline to the grid, and its corresponding values on the right hand vertical axis.
I was not expecting it to remain this hot for so long.
This means the 13th consecutive monthly record, beating the July record set last year by 0.21C.
This would also make this July the warmest month globally in absolute terms.
Will be interesting to see surface data later this month.
Interesting to compare this with last year’s report for July
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2023-0-64-deg-c/
Lots of mention then about how unusually war it was then. Now a year on, and a July 0.2C warmer, and we’ve become so used to the record temperatures it’s hardly worth commenting on.
Here’s the top 10 warmest July’s
1 2024 0.85
2 2023 0.64
3 1998 0.38
4 2022 0.36
5 2020 0.32
6 2016 0.26
7 2019 0.26
8 2021 0.21
9 2010 0.20
10 2018 0.18
Interesting to note that 2020 and 2022 where warmer than the El Nino year of 2016. In fact every year from 2016 – 2024 is in the top 10, apart from 2017 (which is in 11th place).
Bellman
I just looked at the top 10 of your anomaly sort for the July month.
Sometimes, absolute time series and the anomaly series derived out of them are similar.
But this here is really amazing: it is the top 11 of the absolute UAH temperatures reconstructed out of anomalies and climatology.
2024 7: 266.27
2023 7: 266.06
1998 7: 265.80
2022 7: 265.78
2020 7: 265.73
2016 7: 265.68
2019 7: 265.67
2021 7: 265.62
2010 7: 265.62
2018 7: 265.59
2017 7: 265.58
*
The extreme similarity is probably due to July being the warmest month.
I’ll compare other months when I have some idle time.
A few months ago, I plotted every July temp (surface – UK) from the British Met Office data. There has been NO increase in July temps since 1959 (65 years!). January temps saw a considerable rise. Back 10 years ago, the Met Office stated.
“The UK will see hotter, drier summers, and warmer, wetter winters.”
So I looked at that. Summers in the UK are NOT hotter and drier (at all!), but winters are warmer and wetter. So the Met Office was only half right (half wrong). That’s standard for the UK met Office, as anyone here in Britain will testify. We have had dire warnings as to what UK summers will be, but it’s been totally wrong. We do have day spikes, but our air is so much clearer than it was, that that is inevitable. We have seen a rise of 10% in sunshine duration (less cloud), with 2003 seeing a huge rise of 23% of sunshine duration over 1980.
”
There has been NO increase in July temps since 1959 (65 years!). ”
That’s not what the MO shows.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/actualmonthly/7/Tmin/UK.gif
About a degree warmer than the peak in the 1940s.
First of all, that’s the mean minimum, but that aside, you’ve fallen for the Y axis trick. Look at the data itself. What was the temp in July 1959? What is it now?
Sorry, wrong graph. Here’s July mean temperatures.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/actualmonthly/7/Tmean/UK.gif
Not sure what trick you are talking about. It’s pointless looking for individual years to claim that summers have not warmed.
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5324
Were Clive right we would observe an increase of sunshine hours over UK that would correlate with the actual and continual increase in average temperature anomalies. Solar cycles obviously do not corroborate that. Which may explain why Clive needs to include a CO2 term anyway in his model.
“Will be interesting to see surface data later this month.”
Results from NOAA and GISTEMP both show this being a record breaking July, but only by a few hundreds of a degree above last year’s record. So a statistical tie.
Still, the good news is that Australia has cooled down, so the “pause” so all the graphs showing a pause there will be extended when this is published on WUWT.
BOM has it about the same as last month … +0.7C.
The Bureau of Meteorology updated their AUGUST RAINFALL FORECAST sometime yesterday (1/8/24),
likely in response to the Stratosphere Warming Event over Antarctica.
With such an abrupt phenomenon occurring,
“forecast models” are once again “in shock”,
after originally suspecting a drier than average August based on historic modelling.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JAS_SH_2024.png
https://i.ibb.co/vdB3WwM/gfs-t100-sh-f00.png
Please point out in your first graph where a prediction for Australia is indicated.
Fortunately, the ocean does not “boil over.”
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/coraltemp_v3.1_global_current.png
I don’t know why the scale is up to 40 C when it is known that the surface temperature of the open ocean will never exceed 31 C with the current mass of the troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_EQ_2024.png
Some don’t like anomalies and prefer absolutes.
Why not? À chacun(e) son goût.
*
If we reconstruct, for UAH 6.0 LT, the absolutes back from the monthly sums of anomalies plus the average of the corresponding monthly grid climatology and sort the results in descending order, we obtain this as top 20:
2024 7: 266.27 (K)
2023 7: 266.06
2023 8: 265.93
2024 6: 265.90
1998 7: 265.80
2022 7: 265.78
2020 7: 265.73
2016 7: 265.68
2019 7: 265.67
2021 7: 265.62
2010 7: 265.62
1998 8: 265.62
2018 7: 265.59
2017 7: 265.58
2016 8: 265.55
2023 9: 265.54
1998 6: 265.54
2020 8: 265.53
2017 8: 265.53
2002 7: 265.52
Source: UAH 6.0 LT’s 2.5 degree grid data
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
and therein
– all tltmonamg* files (anomalies)
– tltmonacg_6.0 (the 12 month climatology aka baseline)
Something interesting I noticed on last month’s update 2024/06 is how many of the monthly anomalies changed from previous update 2024/05. Of the 545 months from 1979/01 to 2024/05 237 or 43% of them where different in the June update vs May update. The changes were all small being only 0.001 C or 0.002 C in magnitude. Note that I obviously used the 3 digit file for the comparison. Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying anything nefarious or fraudulent is going on here. Far from it. I bring this up because it is often stated that UAH is more trustworthy because they don’t change past values which is easily falsified.
bdgwx
Let me add that Roy Spencer never told that past values in the UAH time series would never be changed.
Keeping everything unchanged is impossible because sometimes you have to modify a posteriori grid cell values because
– you have detected some anomalies (here in the word’s real, original sense) in satellite readings which call for recomputing the values of all monthly values affected by the correction;
– you want to introduce additional data provided by satellite readings you had no access yet until now.
*
The same holds of course for any surface time series which must be changed when you acquire data from e.g. weather stations or tide gauges or vertical land movement data coming from GPS sources which were not considered yet.
Yep. Totally agree. Neither Spencer or Christy have said past values would not change. I actually think of a few reasons why they have change.
AIUI, The UAH gridded base average and anomaly data are posted in hundredths of a degree K, not thousandths. What “3 digit file” are you referring to?
I suppose bdgwx refers to a rather unknown file:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0.txt
And anyway: when you build monthly averages of 9504 anomaly cells containing characters representing numbers with 2 digits atdp, you very certainly will prefer to use floating points, won’t you?
Here is the Monckton Pause update for July. At its peak it lasted 107 months starting in 2014/06. Since 2014/06 the warming trend is now +0.38 C/decade. That is a lot of warming for a period that was used by many to declare that the warming had stopped.
Definitive cooling will occur in about 6,000 years, when the perihelion shifts to March and ice cover in the north increases. Until then, we will see various climatic changes.
The warming trend over the first half of the period of record is +0.14 C/decade.
The warming trend over the second half of the period of record is +0.22 C/decade.
Exactly, bdgwx.
And the increase in CO2 over the period caused that?
I’m just reporting what the data says here. Nothing more.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Global surface temperatures have been on a tear since June 2023, shattering prior records by hereto unforeseen margins (0.3C to 0.5C above prior monthly records) in the latter half of 2023 and more modestly (0.1C to 0.2C) so far in 2024. All in all, we saw 13 new records set from June 2023 to June 2024, the second longest streak of new monthly records in the modern era (after the super El Nino event of 2016/2017).
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/second-warmest-july-ends-a-13-month
And CO2 caused how much of that?
Ask over there:
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/
Report.
RLH
“And CO2 caused how much of that? ”
Probably none.
Remember Roy’s argument. The long term increase in CO2 is causing a long term warming trend in the UAH data of 0.13C/decade.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2025/every/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2023.5/trend
That brings the trend to anomaly 0.25C as of June 2023.
The “New Group” of temperatures in the past year are 0.6C warmer than the long term trend.
Something as yet unidentified, but probably not CO2, has boosted temperatures by the equivalent of four decades of AGW in one year.
Willard does not answer the question.
RLH
Because of course you have such a great record for answering questions.
BTW – have you ever considered talking directly to someone instead of addressing them in the third person? It adds to the feeling of how evasive you are.
RLH
Willard gave you a compliment. He assumed that you could read a link and infer your answer from it.
Perhaps he overestimated you.
“have you ever considered talking directly to someone instead of addressing them in the third person?”
Yes certainly AQ, CO2 caused how much of that recent change?
“you could read a link and infer your answer from it.”
I read the link and found it just said that CO2 caused everything.
He told you to ASK OVER THERE. He did not say you will find the answer on that page. Should we add comprehension to your growing list of deficits?
Now We Know Exactly How Israel Assassinated Hamas Chief, and I’m Laughing Inappropriately
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2024/08/01/now-we-know-exactly-how-israel-assassinated-hamas-chief-and-im-laughing-inappropriately-n4931247
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Skip to the chase:
Ascertain which room Haniyeh used during his stays there.
Slip a remote-detonated bomb under his mattress.
Ascertain when Haniyeh was back in Tehran.
Make bomb go boom while Haniyeh slept.
So, briefly, had a quick start to going to heaven, blood on ceiling, windows blown out, and a clean up at aisle 9.
Don’t forget to clean up the remains of the dead babies in the other rooms.
Reporting device still broke.
Andrew
What anomaly range would you consider not broken?
bdgwx,
Since this is not my field of study, I am not competent to give such numbers. However, that doesn’t mean the reporting device isn’t broke. Since there is no explanation for what is presented on this graph by its producers, I can only conclude that nothing meaningful can be derived from it.
Andrew
Then how do you know it is broken?
bdgwx,
I don’t know with absolute metaphysical certitude that a device is broken. I have concluded its broken based on the information provided and lack thereof not provided.
Andrew
Is that information limited to the UAH TLT anomaly value only?
Or do you have additional information that can be provided.
I have no other “information” than what is presented by this blog.
Andrew
I guess don’t have much choice but to dismiss the claim that UAH TLT is broken at least in the way you have insinuated.
Thus, according to Bad Andrew, any institution measuring anything unusual that it can’t explain inevitably used a broken device.
Right?
Sorry, but if I undersgtand you well, this is then the craziest and worst kind of suspicion I have ever come across.
Compared to you, fundamental deniers like Robertson and Clint R seem rather harmless.
Bindi,
You are being deliberately obtuse. I believe you understand that the graphic being discussed here is a highly concocted data product. To present such a graphic and then state it can’t be explained means no one knows what it’s supposed to be.
Andrew
P.S.
And if you are honest, you’ll recognize this climate back and forth is about competing BELIEFS about how the world works.
Let’s at least try to stay honest.
Andrew
All other temperature measuring institutions presenting time series currently have no explanation for what exactly happens (when did we for example experience a massive underwater volcano eruption since 1979?).
But genius ‘Bad Andrews’ perfectly knows that everywhere on Earth, all devices are broken.
*
” Let’s at least try to stay honest. ”
Yeah. Please start doing: I feel way more honest than you, Sah.
Bad Andrew,
You don’t think what thermometers show is ‘concocted’ do you?
Cuz this graph over the last year agrees pretty well with what ordinary thermometers located all over the Earth’s surface show.
Maybe you think its the Earth that’s broke, then?
“what thermometers show”
What is presented to us is a concoction, yes. Thank you for bringing that up.
Andrew
Why?
Meanwhile, Down Under, things are off the charts:
Antarctic temperatures soar 50 degrees above norm in long-lasting heat wave
While I have your attention can you repost the link to your experiment with the bell jar and the green plate effect?
Here it is:
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
Awesome. Thanks. There is an article on WUWT that has similarities with your experiment. The experiment being discussed over there confirms that cold radiating bodies can be a cause of warm bodies getting warmer. Unsurprisingly, this has triggered the usual suspects over there and with people casting doubt on the experiment.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/07/31/the-effect-of-a-colder-solids-thermal-radiation-on-a-warmer-solid-exposed-to-sunlight/
bdgwx
” The experiment being discussed over there confirms that cold radiating bodies can be a cause of warm bodies getting warmer. ”
No wonder!
This has been explained already in 1887 by no less than Clausius, as I wrote for the first time on September 25, 2017 at 8:41 AM on this blog.
Here is a translation of Clausius’ original treatise, written in German, discovered at that time by my German lady Rose:
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect
…
1. Subject of the investigation.
…
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
*
Of course, the one or the other stubborn denier certainly will have no problem in inventing some pseudo-argument against even Clausius knowledge!
*
Historical source
DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
Braunschweig, 1887
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
bdgwx, I saw your post on WUWT back on 1 August, but it appears to have now been deleted. Did I miss it, or do they really not like our US First Amendment?
I’m not sure which post you’re referring, but none of my posts have been deleted AFAIK.
Update on Starship/Superheavy at Boca Chica
https://behindtheblack.com/
…
“The article at the link however provides a lot of information about the construction of the second launch site at Boca Chica, as well as the future Starship prototypes to be launched. The next flight, the fifth, will use what SpaceX is calling its Block 1 version of the spaceship. The sixth flight will also fly this version. The seventh flight however will fly what SpaceX dubs its Block 2 verison, incorporating many upgrades and changes based on the previous test flights.
This information suggests several things. First, SpaceX wants to do three more orbital test launches in the near future, likely before the end of this year. Whether the FAA will allow such a thing remains unknown.”
“It turns out that this Southern Hemisphere warming spike is, in turn, driven by a huge anomaly over Antarctica that has resulted in temperatures around 28C above normal for large regions of the continent.”
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/second-warmest-july-ends-a-13-monthAgain,
SSW over Antarctica is perceived by satellites as an increase in surface temperature.
https://i.ibb.co/19YYj1N/zt-sh.gif
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbbe1f173-ba37-4cfd-bcb3-b234502cc672_1200x550.png
The graph above shows a sharp jump in Southern Hemisphere temperatures from zero anomalies, coinciding in time with the SSW.
https://i.ibb.co/WtqrMXQ/ventusky-temperature-2m-20240802t0600.jpg
The current high temperatures are only on the Antarctic continent. The Southern Ocean is well below average. And the continent occupies only one-sixth of what UAH refers to as the “South Pole”.
Further, the Antarctic continent is only 1% of the earth’s surface.
Thirdly, high temperatures in Antarctica occupied only one third of July. Another third of the month was well below average.
So, no … you are cherry picking again.
Earlier Forecast Of A Summer From Hell in Germany Just Isnt Materializing. July Comes In Near Normal!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/01/earlier-forecast-of-a-summer-from-hell-in-germany-just-isnt-materializing-july-comes-in-near-normal/
“German annual rainfall anomaly. Germanys been getting wetter not drier.”
Global warming is suppose to get wetter.
–n March, 2024, experts like biologist Mark BeneckeIs warned that climate change was coming to a head this summer for Germany, predicting unprecedented heat in 2024.
June in Germany came in near normal, and now according to the DWD, July 2024 has also been rather variable , with consistent summer weather simply refusing to materialize.
The brief periods of warm weather quickly got interrupted by showers and thunderstorms.–
It is already apparent that the heat forecasts for August will not come true. High solar activity will soon trigger a latitudinal jet stream in the North Atlantic.
https://i.ibb.co/GQ48SHk/ventusky-temperature-2m-20240810t1200-51n7e-1.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/GQ48SHk/ventusky-temperature-2m-20240810t1200-51n7e-1.jpg
” It is already apparent that the heat forecasts for August will not come true. ”
So, won’t they?
Again: bookmarked because your Ventusky predictions always were wrong, Palmowski.
Here is a much, much more reliable source whose predictions mostly are way better than yours:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240810&daytime=day&iid=euro
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240810&daytime=night&iid=euro
*
You are all the time inventing temperatures much colder than reality, but NEVER admit having been wrong.
Good to see you admitting that your prediction for a weak cycle was wrong.
Interesting that you can find a reason for cooling whether solar activity goes up or down.
It’s not just Ventusky.
https://i.ibb.co/KxZvtQK/hgt300.png
gbaikie
” … predicting unprecedented heat in 2024. ”
Didn’t occur till now, compared to earlier years.
What did occur at a really tremendous rate was rainfall and extreme flooding beginning with spring this year – but… only in Germany’s southern regions, Austria, Northern Italy and Switzerland.
In Northern Germany where I live, nada.
Welche Latitude hat Ihre Heimatstadt?
(Das Wort fr Latitude kenne ich nicht.)
You just need to ask Google Translate
https://translate.google.com/?hl=en&sl=en&tl=de&text=latitude%20and%20longitude&op=translate
53 N
Thanks. Not clear about the ambiguity of the hyphenation … is latitude “Breiten” or “Breitengrad”?
“In Northern Germany where I live, nada.”
Well, I was wondering does Northern Germany manage it’s waterways, better than Southern Germany?
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Extreme heat kills over 175,000 people a year in Europe, where temperatures are rising quicker than the rest of the globe, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) European branch said Thursday.
Of the some 489,000 heat-related deaths recorded each year by the WHO between 2000 and 2019, the European region accounts for 36 percent or on average 176,040 deaths, the WHO said.
https://phys.org/news/2024-08-extreme-year-europe.html
“A study across 854 cities in Europe found that cold-related deaths were around ten times higher than heat-related ones”
https://ourworldindata.org/part-one-how-many-people-die-from-extreme-temperatures-and-how-could-this-change-in-the-future#:~:text=A%20study%20across%20854%20cities,higher%20than%20heat%2Drelated%20ones.&text=A%20detailed%20study%20across%20England,two%20orders%20of%20magnitude%20higher.
Thanks, Ken – interesting report:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
Kennui seems to have missed “mostly due to “moderate” rather than extremely cold conditions,” which indicates that it’s more an economic problem than a climate one.
“This means most temperature-related deaths happen in moderately cold conditions, not on extremely cold or hot days. Its not because the mortality risk in this zone is the highest, but the amount of time spent there is.”
Nate
” It’s not because the mortality risk in this zone is the highest, but the amount of time spent there is. ”
Thanks, I had overlooked this little sentence.
“Kennui seems to have missed mostly due to moderate rather than extremely cold conditions, which indicates that its more an economic problem than a climate one.”
Ditto
Here’s the Copernicus surface data for July.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/second-warmest-july-ends-a-13-month
It shows the second highest July monthly average on record. Before the sceptics get too excited, may I point out that the only reason that July 2024 is cooler than July 2023 is that July 2023 was so ridiculously high.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-08-01.gif
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-08-01.gif
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
SSN up to 131 for Feb 2024.
I’m now going to predict 142.5 plus/minus 7.5 for the maximum.
131.1
What will August sunspot be?
No idea.
But it only needs to average 79 for the SSN to rise again in February.
It needs to average 173 for the SSN to reach 135 in February.
If it can manage to average 170, 160, 150, 140, 130, 120 for Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan then the SSN will peak at 147 in July.
That is NOT a prediction.
Still no fix the satellite tilt
Proof for your implication please. Both that it is tilting, and that tilting would make a difference.
On August 5, a tropical storm will hit Florida hard. There will be floods.
https://i.ibb.co/Sxp5nwq/ventusky-wind-500hpa-20240804t2300-28n82w.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/MD8Dmqm/ventusky-wind-500hpa-20240806t0000-30n82w.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/vZgTd5K/ventusky-rain-3h-20240807t0900-33n79w.jpg
The Global Warming is an orbitally forced natural phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That turns out not to be the case.
We moved off the Holocene Optimum sweet spot 5000 years ago and were cooling naturally towards the next glacial period.
Now that natural cooling trend has been overwhelmed by the artificial warming trend of AGW.
Thank you, Ent.
There is not any artificial warming trend of AGW.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
Once again you are mistaken.
https://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
The blue line on the graph shows temperatures during the last glacial period.
The green line shows the Holocene.
The red line shows AGW.
Thank you, Ent.
“We moved off the Holocene Optimum sweet spot 5000 years ago and were cooling naturally towards the next glacial period.”
–
5000 years ago it was much colder. The sea level was lower, the Aigean Civilization fluorished then.
Now, it is warmer, the sea level is higher, many ancient (sites) cities are under the water.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is spelled “Aegean”.
Remember that Greece and much of the Mediterranean are on a tectonic plate boundaries. IIRC most of the submerged cities you mention are underwater because they sank, rather than because sea level rose.
Do you have scientific evidence that the European climate was cooler 5000 years ago?
Thank you, Ent.
“Do you have scientific evidence that the European climate was cooler 5000 years ago?”
Of course. How people were transferred to British Islands then, if the Channel were not frozen in winters at those distant times?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Boats?
There is archaeological evidence of an 8000 year old Mesolithic boatyard off the East coast of England.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/oldest-shipyard-0012465
It’s 11 metres underwater, on a coast which has been sinking at 1.5mm/year since the ice melted. Sounds about right for a boatyard which was at sea level 8000 years ago.
I find it ironic that Dr. Roy’s own data contradict his climate change skepticism (denial).
Here’s a link to some of my recent comments on the effects of climate change:
https://youtu.be/bDgb82OzFZA
Your comments always are welcome.
Dr. S.
Thank you, Dr.S.
Here is a link to my site “The planet surface rotational warming phenomenon”.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There is no proven link between the observed modest warming and the AGW hypothesis.
The current large step up in Troposphere temperature anomaly cannot be explained by slow increase in CO2 concentration.
“The current large step up in Troposphere temperature anomaly cannot be explained by slow increase in CO2 concentration.”
Strawman argument. Find one credible scientist who claims that the recent temperature spike was solely caused by increasing CO2 concentrations. It was the recent El Nio, superimposed on the positive energy imbalance.
Ken
“There is no proven link between the observed modest warming and the AGW hypothesis.”
Nor will there be. Science doesn’t do proof. It does evidence. There is considerable evidence that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the global warming over the last 140 years and that’s as much as you will get.
Entropic man says:
”Nor will there be. Science doesnt do proof. It does evidence.”
———————
Thats just pure word salad EM. Proof is sufficient evidence obtained by the scientific method and science does proofs.
You just don’t have such evidence so you are playing word games as opposed to actually offering sufficient evidence trying to convince people to accept your declaration of ”lots of evidence” without even defining or demonstrating what you mean.
Words like ”lots” and ”considerable” are not science words EM
Entropic man says:
”There is considerable evidence that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the global warming over the last 140 years and thats as much as you will get.”
There is considerable evidence God exists also, but one cannot claim that considerable evidence amounts to proof or sufficient evidence.
There is no demonstration of a CO2 greenhouse effect. Nate thought he had one but it turns out that M&W theory is scientifically only thought to be ”conditionally” operational.
Conditioned upon if and only if it can be shown that the lapse rate can change from the addition of CO2.
There is no evidence of that occurring. All the evidence you claim doesn’t include that essential proof.
Seim and Olson demonstrated that common air traps heat equally as well as radiative gases and warms the heating surface just as much as does pure CO2. . .precisely because the Seim and Olson experiment was performed in a saturated radiative environment as would be true for any non-modified environment near the surface. Non-modified would be using a trick to remove convection for example by filling a container with a vacuum making it a non-atmosphere into which you can’t introduce co2 at all.
One could certainly easily manipulate such an environment and no doubt that has been done, but the results haven’t ever seen the light of day as most likely the experimenter didn’t want it known.
You can’t convince anybody of adequate evidence that CO2 is still capable of additional warming since reaching a state of material saturation.
So CO2 has a chance of being established statistically.
But to determine it statistically one has to understand planet movement and the solar dynamo that affects the amount of insolation the earth actually receives and the water feedbacks that result from those changes so as to have a control model that deals with natural changes. that hasn’t been done as there is a not small problem with ocean heat take up, once denied by the warmists and now embraced by it in a desperate attempt to explain missing heat.
So no, you nor anybody else possesses adequate evidence to do any of that. If they did they could be heroes to the global socialist totalitarians.
but due to the lack of evidence these heroes of the global socialist totalitarians are in real danger of going down in history like Dr. Josef Mengele, maybe worse as he went down as a villain in history for forced experiments on people in a vain attempt to prove his theories correct.
Another gish gallop from ignorant Bill.
“Conditioned upon if and only if it can be shown that the lapse rate can change from the addition of CO2.”
Nope. He still doesn’t understand anything about the MW paper.
All that coming from Nate who can’t even explain how the physical mechanism of the GHE works.
Proof of that is in his criticisms of Seim and Olson where he can’t fathom how it would be possible for common air to achieve the same results in a GPE like experiment using gases as the plates. All he can do is exclaim their experiment was flawed but he can’t explain how as he desperately clings to the failed 3rd grader radiation model.
“criticisms of Seim and Olson”
Been over the realproblems with it several times, as did Swanson.
You accept any flimsy results that support your POV.
Not interested in repeating these discussions again.
I am perfectly aware that you are willing to deny science at the drop of a hat and instantly adopt unproven science as established fact because yo daddy instructs you to; but none of that does one thing at all to establish your AGW theory or M&W theory as fact.
As I keep saying stop bringing blabber mouth claims forward as fact as you just did in your most recent post and simply bring forward what you consider to be adequate proof for our examination.
Endless bile and pent-up grievances from Bill.
As enticing as that is to revisit, no thanks!
nate just threw in the towel. obviously he is recognizing he can’t support his position with science by claiming that science can’t ”prove” anything. . .as did entropic man also.
now the only question is how long Americans are going to put up with this green corruption.
FYI
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/
Explains this truth.
So what does Nate do to prove that CO2 is the cause of the climate change we have seen?
He supports the proof that there is no political justification for actions taken to curb CO2.
Guess we are done here and we can ignore anything Nate ever says again.
Kindly take your master-baiting elsewhere.
Why? What is your purpose of posting in this forum?
You advance claims but are you completely unwilling to defend them.
Worse you attack others doing exactly what you are doing. Thats really rude.
Then you attack me calling me an astrologist because I brought up some well recognized but unquantified facts about Milankovitch theory while you parroted political rhetoric about the impact of the rotation around the sun of the other planets via gravity on earth’s climate.
Science isn’t about baiting or lies or politics. Yet that is your stock in trade.
“You advance claims but are you completely unwilling to defend them.”
Given that you and I have had many lengthy debates, during which I have provided many papers and data sets, this statement is patently absurd.
i am talking about a science discussion, not a debate where you just claim everything as a fact without evidence via the scientific method.
Look at the graph people. This is no longer a ‘spike’… this is now an obvious step-up! I’ve been saying for months that there is something seriously wrong with the data but most people just choose to ignore what’s right in front of their faces. The only other person saying that something is wrong is ‘Bad Andrew’ and he is getting a hard time for saying it.
You’re a pack of lemmings. I really feel sorry for you if you can’t understand that this obvious step-up shouldn’t be there.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-08-01.gif
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-08-01.gif
Speaking of step up:
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator500.gif
When will we have better contrarians?
There are no straight lines in climate. There are however sine waves (of varying periods).
In contrarians’ minds, there are lots of straight lines. More so when they correspond to Paws.
There are no perfect curves in nature either.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1671162
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1664824
Then Eboy can’t believe that this is real:
https://imgur.com/a/Ky0DAO1
Sceptical
Indeed it shouldn’t be there. Nothing in our existing knowledge suggests that a sustained jump of 0.6C in a year is possible. That is equivalent to several decades of AGW all at once.
Unfortunately it’s real. It is showing in the ocean data, the land data, the satellite troposphere data and the radiosondes. A simultaneous identical error in all the different instruments is unlikely. This is either real, or the conspiracy is even deeper than the denialists suggest.
As to its cause? We’ve had a year to collect data and any papers will take at least another year to reach publication.
Until then Zeke Hausfather’s reaction is as good as any.
“Gobsmacked!”
“Unfortunately its real.”
Entropic,
I don’t think your statement is true. “It” only exists on colored graphs and animations.
Andrew
Sorry, Andrew, but those graphs and animations reflect an external reality.
So does an electrocardiogram.
Be careful. Denying data you don’t want to believe can get you killed.
“Denying data you dont want to believe can get you killed”
Ent,
Thanks for the warning.
Believing in data that isn’t true can also get you killed.
Andrew
Yeah, so my fuel gauge always reads full, so I’m going to go ahead and drive through this desert, because I never run out of gas.
Andrew
Andrew
“Believing in data that isnt true can also get you killed. ”
So you check.
The land data comes from stations running Stevenson screens or equivalent temperature sensors.
The ocean data comes from ship based thermometers, buoys and the Argos network.
The satellite data infers atmospheric temperatures from microwave emissions of oxygen molecules.
The radiosonde data measures atmospheric temperatures directly using balloon based thermometers.
The only thing they have in common is the environment they all measure. When four independent measuring systems agree on the same pattern you can be reasonably sure that the pattern is in the environment they measure.
Better yet, I brought a fuel gauge expert with me and he says that he’s gobsmacked that I never run out of fuel.
Andrew
Sorry, Ent.
Land, ocean, and atmosphere are different environments.
Andrew
Andrew
“Land, ocean, and atmosphere are different environments. ”
Indeed they are. They are also part of the larger climate system and there is considerable heat exchange between them.
They are connected. Any change in one of the three tends to be reflected in all of them.
The classic example is the ENSO cycle in which changes in heat uptake in the Pacific Ocean drive temperature changes on land and in the atmosphere around the world.
Skeptikal and Eben,
Where is your evidence that the UAH satellite data is malfunctioning? If that’s the case, how can it be reproduced by surface measurements?
It can be reproduced by radiosonde data.
Is it reproduced by the surface data?
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-08-01.gif
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-08-01.gif
Certainly not when the ‘impartial observer’ intentionally chooses the flattest and lowest surface temperature time series of all.
RLH,
Here’s the latest temperature data from all surface datasets at Moyhu.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
Oh, oh… Look at the arrogant stuff posted above:
” Look at the graph people. This is no longer a ‘spike’… this is now an obvious step-up! I’ve been saying for months that there is something seriously wrong with the data but most people just choose to ignore what’s right in front of their faces. ”
…
” You’re a pack of lemmings. I really feel sorry for you if you can’t understand that this obvious step-up shouldn’t be there. ”
*
It’s incredible.
I would understand this arrogant blah blah if it had been supported by irrefutable evidence based on concrete data analysis.
But… no, it isn’t. Not at all. Just a bit of vague, non-committing guess, that’s all.
What the skeptical guy writes looks exactly like what Robertson, Clint R and a few other geniuses write: that the Moon doesn’t spin just because it shows us always the same face, and proudly tell us ‘You fail to grasp the obvious’.
In both cases the same kind of discourse: polemically discredit instead of factually contradict.
*
There is one sentence that deserves attention in this strange ‘step-up’ sub-thread. It’s what Ken wrote:
” It can be reproduced by radiosonde data. ”
Exactly, Ken.
*
Though the IGRA2 radiosondes are spatio-temporally quite different from satellite-borne sounding devices and report much less homogeneous data than the latter, we nevertheless can compare their data at an atmospheric pressure of 700 hPa, what is at an altitude of roughly 4 km, quite on par with UAH LT.
*
Here is a comparison of UAH LT Globe (land, of course) to the average of over 1400 IGRA2 radiosondes located in 182 countries around the Globe:
https://tinyurl.com/UAH-LT-vs-IGRA2-700-hPa
You just need to look at
– the IGRA2 anomalies in 2024 which even bypass those of UAH;
– how good the polynomials fit at the end of the series they compare.
*
Source for IGRA2
https://tinyurl.com/IGRA2-radiosondes
gbaikie,
“But we would still be in Ice Age.
And in recent past- last million years- the ocean has been warmer than 4 C, and we have been in Ice Age for 33.9 million years, and its been the coldest in last couple million years.”
Scientists are concerned about the rate of temperature change and its negative environmental impacts, such as more intense heatwaves, melting ice, and an invigorated hydrological cycle. See Hansen et al. (2023), who revised their ECS estimates upward.
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889
How much of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is below sea level?
–Hi Luke, thanks for your question!
An answer to your question can be found in the recent BEDMAP2 (an ice bed, surface, and thickness dataset for the Antarctic Ice Sheet) paper.
In terms of area:
5.50 x 10^6 km^2 (or 5,500,000 km^2) of ice is grounded below sea level.
The total area of the ice sheet is 12.295 x 10^6 km^2 (or 12,295,000 km^2).
Therefore, ~45% of the ice sheet, in terms of area, is grounded below sea level.
However, a great volume of ice remains above sea level. This ice, above flotation point, contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 57.9 m.–
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/question/much-antarctic-ice-sheet-sea-level/
Clint R
It wasn’t Hunga-Tonga.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2024JD041296
Plain Language Summary
The Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha’apai (Hunga) submarine volcanic eruption on 15 January 2022, produced aerosol and water vapor plumes in the stratosphere. These plumes have persisted mostly in the Southern Hemisphere throughout 2022 and into 2023. Enhanced tropospheric warming due to the added stratospheric water vapor is offset by the larger stratospheric aerosol attenuation of solar radiation. Hunga induced circulation changes that reduce stratospheric ozone and lower temperatures also play a role in the net forcing. The change in the radiative flux would result in a very slight 2022/3 cooling in Southern Hemisphere. The Hunga climate forcing has decreased to near zero by the end of 2023.
“It wasn’t Hunga-Tonga”
So what caused the unexpected rise for so many months?
My guess:
“Hunga induced circulation changes that reduce stratospheric ozone”
Too, the earth magnetic field is weakening somewhat.
Those two factors would mean deeper penetration by UV and higher frequencies. Wouldn’t that mean higher troposphere temperatures?
RLH
Nobody knows.
To produce a jump of 0.6C in temperatures would require the net energy flux to increase by about 2.4W/m^2.
None of the usual suspects have increased by anything like that much.
RLH
Jan-Jun 2024 was 0.72 higher than Jan-Jun 2023.
Jan-Jun 1998 was also 0.72 higher than Jan-Jun 1997.
The only reason 2016 didn’t do the same is that the previous year was also an El Nino, albeit a weak one. The rise there was “only” 0.41.
Further, this year’s event was boosted by a positive IOD.
1998 had a negative IOD, and was preceded by a positive IOD in 1997, so the difference there was not as great as it could have been.
So nothing surprising or unexpected here. You’ll get your fall shortly, and we will continue with a slow but steady long-period rise punctuated by short-period anomalies. And of course you will use 2024 in the same way as you previously used 1998 to claim a “pause” – the denier method.
“You’ll get your fall shortly”
So you don’t accept that these temperatures will continue ‘forever’.
I just stated what will happen. I will not be repeating something which was stated so unambiguously, just to satisfy your need to say something when there is nothing to say.
it was most likely in part ht for the early late 2023 spike as the ozone depletion outlived the aerosol cooling effects and water vapor effects returned to normal in the first half of 2023. however, that effect has disappeared in 2024.
i say in part because there is an ongoing solar max together with warming from all four gas giants in the best arrangement in about 2000 years since the Roman Optimum.
DO explain how the gas giants can possibly warm up. Please supply relevant calculations.
The calculations over time are complex because the motions are complex. However they are predictable. And the pull of gravity is predictable from any position.
Milankovitch spent a good portion of his career working on this without the benefit of computers yet in the computer age there is no known effort to duplicate or verify his work.
The main point is that within Milankovitch theory the only theory that matches the main underlying assumption of CO2 theory that climate doesn’t change without a change in radiant forcing on the surface. . .which within Milankovitch theory means in totality gravitationally induced changes in eccentricity with some potential assists from water/ice feedbacks coming from axial tilt degrees with relationship to geography/polar effects.
So you haven’t heard me say how much, you have just heard me say that when all the planets are aligned in a particular area of the sky they are going to have stronger effects than otherwise.
A no brainer.
If you align the direction of force by gravity from multiple objects over the many years the gas giants take to orbit you clearly have a climate level perturbation without any change in solar brightness at all. NOAA even recognizes this and has forever. this is also the only currently recognizable explanation for centennial scale and above oscillations seen in longterm proxy records like ice cores that sits right dead center in the Milankovitch bailiwick.
But one can equally notice a several correlations to these motions with planet alignments that show up in the temperature record.
And if as it seems these effects also tend to influence the suns brightness then you have two factors working in tandem at times.
Then if you allow for the fact that science thinks it knows what the ice and water feedbacks, especially per known atmospheric window closing/M&W effects of water vapor lapse rate changes, as a feedback to radiant forcing you potentially could predict climate only with anthropogenic/volcanic/tectonic contributions yet to figure out.
And yes indeed, I completely 100% endorse your call for an effort to quantify these effects. IMO, we aren’t doing climate science without it.
They admit the increased temperatures due to water vapor. They have to! Water vapor provides a “wall”, as compared to CO2’s ineffective line spectrum. CO2’s 15μ photons can’t raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
But, they completely ignore considerations due to the Polar Vortex.
It’s almost as if they have an agenda, huh?
Sometimes cranks who deny the greenhouse effect also admit that there is a greenhouse effect.
“…cranks…”
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
If it was not Hunga-Tonga that caused the latest leap in global temperatures what was it?
Yeah … great “science”.
“If Ted Cruz is not the Zodiac killer, who is?”
Just make up anything you want and stick it in that sentence … proved.
Thought was interesting, and maybe pertinent.
https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/historic-solar-storm-new-radiation-belts-earth.amp
Cycle 25 update in correct perspective
https://i.postimg.cc/MxSpky39/Clipboard011.jpg
or this but it is slightly behind
https://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
Thanks for re-confirming that this cycle is significantly stronger than the last, and MUCH stronger than Zharkov’s prediction.
And as last cycle gave us no cooling, it seems that nonsense is also off the table.
” … and MUCH stronger than Zharkovs prediction. ”
Indeed…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view
Of course, there is no doubt that SC 25 is a lot weaker than SC 23 and its predecessors till SC 19 – even than SC 20, which had its 13 month smooth maximum at 157:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16RTHCQU9_w4Ls9C4Y9etZ6uIiXACJcMc/view
However, July’s monthly SSN at 196.5 and a 13 month smooth at 134.5 was a bit interesting :–)
The first couple of days of August has had sunspot number over 250, could August be over 200 sunspots?
How much will August, be?
The 2nd was 240.
Solar wind
speed: 341.8 km/sec
density: 2.24 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 03 Aug 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 232
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 247 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 24.49×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.4% Low
13 numbered sunspots. One should leave, maybe 2 more, probably not,
none can seem coming from farside, yet. Though 3777 last came from farside. And 3778 appeared on nearside close leaving to farside side- not sure which spot it is, but within 3 day whatever it is, will have left.
“SUNSPOT COUNTS HIT A 23-YEAR HIGH: The sun is partying like it’s 2001. That’s the last time sunspot counts were as high as they are now. The monthly average sunspot number for July 2024 was 196.5, according to the Royal Observatory of Belgium’s Solar Influences Data Analysis Center. This eclipses every month since Dec. 2001:”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1681373
That was https://www.spaceweather.com/
August 2 2024
And above it, August 1
In simple average, the 3 days: 254.3
A bit over 250
Let’s the Sun rest for a little while:
2024 08 01 2024.583 259 17.9 25 32
2024 08 02 2024.586 240 24.3 23 27
2024 08 03 2024.589 220 18.1 17 19
We all need to gather strength after we have exerted ourselves for a long time.
I am more interested in Earth’s thermosphere and the amount cosmic rays reaching Earth. And the creation northern lights from the CMEs and other effect from them.
Recently they forecasted we going to a nice show from CME due to, so called, cannibal CMEs, but apparently it didn’t give much of a show.
Anyhow the sun activity has lowered our cosmic rays a bit, which also suppose to reflect the amount cosmic ray within entire solar system, but directly oe more immediately they effect radiation of crew on ISS and lifetime radiation to airline pilots.
In terms sun’s currently max activity so far, if crew had gone, they would have gotten moderate amount radiation- if they didn’t enough radiation shielding. But if we had a Starship if could carry a lot extra water, have lot’s radiation shielding AND crew would not need to recycle and thereby drink their piss. And we put human sewage to Mars surface- it’s probably magical stuff.
Solar wind
speed: 368.9 km/sec
density: 2.39 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 217
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 245 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 24.61×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.2% Low
12 numbered spots. None left, 3 are leaving. And large spot coming from farside and will be numbered.
Solar wind
speed: 452.3 km/sec
density: 2.65 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 194
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 241 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 24.81×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.9% Low
10 numbered sunpots, one coming from farside. Another 3 are going to farside
There are couple smallish coronal hole near equator
On my side, I got hurricane, Carlotta, which is still going nowhere important, and two Disturbances, both with 60% of being someone.
And in Atlantic, got tropical depression, Four, which forecasted to leave nowhere land of Cuba, and head towards Florida, and become a tropical storm. And it eventually, interfere with KSC launching rockets into space.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
In the Australian region, the number of tropical cyclones has declined over recent decades. I suspect that the inclination to expect more hurricanes (or tropical cyclones) with rising temperatures may be incorrect.
Of course, there is evidence that we might be experiencing fewer, but more destructive events.
Number of tropical cyclones in Australian region with peak wind speed of 225+ km/h:
1975-1999: 1 (Orson 1989)
2000-2024: 6 (Inigo 2003, Ingrid 2005, Monica 2006, Marcus 2018, Darian 2022, Ilsa 2023)
A cyclone forms when the sea is warm enough and is disrupted if the windshear at altitude is strong enough.
Sea temperatures are increasing, so the season is longer and more cyclones form. Windshear is also increasing so a smaller percentage survive.
Higher sea temperatures make the surviving cyclones stronger.
The prediction is that we will see about the same number of cyclones, but their average strength will increase.
They are also more likely to become slow moving when they reach land. The coastal region they hit then gets even more rainfall.
“Of course, there is evidence that we might be experiencing fewer, but more destructive events.”
Dollar here in Canuckstan has depreciated so the ‘value’ of my house has more than tripled. Nothing else has changed; my house is still located in a small town where nothing is going on to increase the actual value of my house.’
So if a hurricane were to strike now it would be interpreted as a ‘more destructive event’ than it would have been 20 years ago because the cost of damage would be triple.
Its clearly not climate change that is causing ‘more destructive events’
Ken
Could you please read again
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2024-0-85-deg-c/#comment-1681441
No one is interested for the moment in your ultra-privileged Vancouver Island corner.
Ken
You KNOW that damage is always expressed in real terms for making such a comparison.
“You KNOW that damage is always expressed in real terms for making such a comparison.”
I know no such thing. Damage is expressed in terms understood by actuaries working to determine what an insurance company would have to pay out. That means damage from a hurricane here on Vancouver Island would be triple what it was 20 years ago and that doesn’t include the population growth factor.
Vancouver Island doesn’t often experience hurricanes. Earthquakes is the big risk here. Same point applies.
I am quite sure actuaries know how to normalize. In fact I am willing to go even further and say that they do it better than any honest joker. And what actuaries observe is that the companies they are working for are starting to lose money.
In contrast to contrarians and cranks, it is really hard for insurers to deny a phenomenon that causes them to lose money.
Well one of two Disturbances, became Tropical storm Daniel, it seems to me, Daniel and Carlotta are going to get married in the middle of nowhere:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
And depression Four is making some progress, in leaving Cuba.
There is nothing else happenning in the Atlantic. And other disturbance on my side has lowered to 70%.
Oh, Four is now, tropical storm Debby, and could a Cat 1 when hits northern Florida, but going to be effecting all of western part Florida- starting before Sunday
“Debby could drench the state with over foot of rain in some areas, according to the National Hurricane Center. Flash and urban flooding as well as some isolated river flooding will all be possible through Wednesday morning.
The center warned that some parts of the state will face tropical storm or hurricane conditions on Sunday. Some areas could see up to between 3 and 5 feet of storm surge.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/weather/2024/08/03/tropical-storm-debby-florida-storm-tracker/74655074007/
Rocket launches:
August 4 Falcon 9 Starlink 11-1
Launch time: 12:24 a.m. PDT (3:24 a.m. EDT / 0724 UTC)
Launch site: SLC-4E, Vandenberg Space Force Base, California
So, that is on my side.
NET August 4 Falcon 9 Cygnus NG-21
Launch time: 11:02 a.m. EDT (1502 UTC)
Launch site: SLC-40, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida
And it’s weather includes lightening for 3 days, wind of 20 mph on Sunday and Monday
weather:
https://tinyurl.com/mssxcpmd
If you look at the number of sunspots then the solar cycle is strong, but the strength of the solar magnetic field is trending downward. Therefore, the number of X-class flares on the Sun is decreasing. A serious consequence could be a decrease in ozone production in the stratosphere.
https://i.ibb.co/BnNzjt1/Polar.gif
Maps of deviations represent total ozone deviations from the 1978-1988 level estimated using TOMS data. for all areas except the Antarctic, and from the pre-1980 level estimated using Dobson data over the Antarctic.
https://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/ozone/images/graphs/gl_dev/current_1.gif
Currently, the least ozone in the total column is on the south side of the equator.
https://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/ozone/images/graphs/gl/current_1.gif
The graphic shows a decrease in temperature in the upper stratosphere above the equator, which means a decrease in ozone production in this layer. In this region, only UVC in the Chapman cycle raises the temperature.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_EQ_2024.png
Let’s compare the number of days with a geomagnetic storm per year since 1932. The decline has been pronounced since 2008.
https://i.ibb.co/1dM32NF/number-of-days-with-a-ge.png
Now correlate that with annual global temperatures since 1932, and let me know what you come up with.
In the equatorial region, where there is less ozone, UVB radiation increases, which heats water vapor over the equator. This causes a disruption of the belts in the southern hemisphere along the equator. The 30-day SOI has dropped below -8.
SOI values for 3 Aug, 2024
Average SOI for last 30 days -8.54
Average SOI for last 90 days -2.77
Daily contribution to SOI calculation 0.24
Palmowski
Antonin Qwerty asked you:
” Now correlate that with annual global temperatures since 1932, and let me know what you come up with. ”
Why do you endlessly come up with your SOI values which don’t have anything to do with global temperatures?
Still waiting, ren, for your bivariate analysis of mean global temperature vs solar activity since 1932.
Why is everyone trying to stir Clint into action? Note how sane the conversations have been without Flynn-Clint-Dremt tr011ing team, and Gordon who I don’t put in quite the same class as the other three. Only two are ruining that now, and they are non-events.
Yes Ant, science and reality can ruin your cult beliefs.
Maybe you should go hide under your bed, like Elliott does?
Ahh, the “reality” tr0ll1ng has returned.
There is so much “science” to unpack in your comment.
Ant, I’m aware you don’t want any science, so I honor your wishes.
If you should ever change, start here:
Reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”.
The equation — F = 5.45 X ln(C/Co)
Where Co is the reference CO2 concentration is ppm, C is the current CO2 concentration in ppm, and F is the radiative forcing in W/m^2
The equation is bogus. It is an example of “curve fitting”, combined with a perversion of physics. The equation has NO derivation from First Principles.
Baskin/Robbins is a chain of ice cream stores. The chain started about 1950, and now has about 8000 stores, worldwide. Let’s “curve fit” that growth and claim it is “heating the planet”
F = ln(S/So) = ln(8000) = 8.99
Now, let’s simply add units of W/m^2,
F = 8.99 W/m^2
And that is now proof that ice cream stores are heating the planet!
Hint for children: That ain’t science.
There is no curve fitting to get the logarithmic dependence of temperature on CO2. It is explained entirely by the velocity distribution of atmospheric gases. Try looking that up instead of bugging me with your ignorance. There has been nowhere near enough of a CO2 increase to even attempt a curve fit. We’ve only had 0.6 of a doubling.
Ant says there is not enough CO2 for a “curve fit”!
Of course, he’s just grasping at straws, as with his bogus “logarithmic dependence of temperature on CO2” and “velocity distribution of atmospheric gases”.
Ant proves me right, again.
As predicted, you refused to research it. Face it, you are WAY out of your depth here. You have still not indicated where you “learned” your physics.
Sorry Ant, but I don’t “research” crap.
Your cult beliefs can’t hold up to basic scrutiny. You can’t support nonsense from First Principles. All you’ve got are insults and false accusations.
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
As usual, when asked for proving something wrong, Clint R responds with something having nothing to do with what he was asked for, and writes, for the umpteenth time:
” Your cult beliefs cant hold up to basic scrutiny. You cant support nonsense from First Principles. All youve got are insults and false accusations.
Keep proving me right. I can take it. ”
Is it possible to behave more tricky, trivial and ridiculous?
No.
Bindi, you need both a competent translator AND a responsible adult to help you make a meaningful comment.
I won’t hold my breath….
Clint R has no science. Just nonsense.
I know I’m on target when the cult kids attack.
I know I am on target when the cult kid Clint attacks
AND admits that he doesn’t do research
AND repeatedly refuses to engage with questions about his education in physics.
Now, back to the science that you introduced but were so desperate to escape from:
The velocities of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are distributed normally about the mean. In the normal distribution, the dependent variable (probability density) has an exponential dependence on the independent variable. So the independent variable has a logarithmic dependence on the the dependent variable. I’ve told you before why velocity of CO2 molecules is important, so call on that amazing memory of yours and your self-administered “education” in science to fill in the gaps.
Ant, velocities of CO2 molecules can NOT raise the temperature of Earth’s 288K surface. Do you know why?
You suffer from your cult disease of not being able to accept reality, yet you keep throwing crap against the wall.
What crap will you throw next?
“Do you know why?”
I’d love to hear your explanation. Please enlighten us, Professor Clint R.
JW, let’s see what crap Ant can throw out.
If you can’t lap it up, then maybe you’ll appreciate some reality.
But, based on your history here, you’ll need a responsible adult to explain it to you.
Clint
I didn’t say that the velocities themselves raise temperatures.
I guess you’ve never heard of the Doppler effect.
Independent research always beats guessing. Perhaps you should try it. Go on! Learn the thrill of real learning!
Sorry Ant, but the Doppler effect has NOTHING to so with warming Earth’s surface.
Remember, you’re trying to show how CO2 can raise surface temperatures. So far, you’re a massive FAIL.
No that’s not what I’m trying to do Clint. I am responding to your claim about the logarithmic response, and you know it.
And again, I didn’t saying the Doppler effect causes warming, and you know it.
You are a liar, and you ………..
Sorry Ant, but you’re wrong again.
You’re trying desperately to defend your cult’s nonsense, but you’re failing. The reason is it can’t be defended. It ain’t science. That frustrates you so you then lash out and call me a “liar”. Whenever a cultist calls me a “liar”, I know I’ve won.
So we can move on to the next reason the GHE is bogus:
Reasons why the GHE is bogus.
Reason #2– The bogus “33K”
The “33K” nonsense comes from the mythical, imaginary blackbody sphere. The mythical sphere is receiving the same average solar energy as real Earth, after albedo, of 960 W/m².
But in a steady-state condition the mythical sphere is believed to be emitting 240 W/m². So, using the S/B Law, the emission temperature can be calculated:
S = σT⁴
T⁴ = S/σ
T = [240*((10^8)/5.67)]^0.25
T = 255K
Then, the mythical 255K is compared to Earth’s average temperature of 288K. The difference, 33K, as believed by the cult, is due to the GHE.
(You may sometimes see the difference as 33K, or 33 °C, since Kelvins are the same as degrees Celsius. In Fahrenheit, the difference would be 59.4 °F.)
The claim is then that Earth is 33K hotter than it’s “supposed to be”. Their math is correct, but their calculation is NOT linked to reality. Earth is NOT a mythical imaginary blackbody sphere. A large bullfrog can weigh 0.5 pounds. If you multiply 0.5 by a large enough number, say 2X10^25, that would make the bullfrog about the size of planet Earth. The math is correct, but the calculation is NOT linked to reality.
Earth is “supposed to be” the temperature it is, 288K. Comparing it to a mythical imaginary object ain’t science.
We’ll move onto your next reason when you have dealt with the first reason WITH SCIENCE.
“Whenever a cultist calls me a liar, I know Ive won.”
Yes you have successfully achieved what tr0lls desire more than anything else.
To irritate others, and thereby gain negative attention.
[AQ] Why is everyone trying to stir Puffman into action?
[PUFFMAN] Yes Ant, science and reality can ruin your cult beliefs.
[AQ] Ahh, the reality tr0ll1ng has returned. There is so much science to unpack in your comment.
[PUFFMAN] Ant, Im aware you dont want any science, so I honor your wishes. If you should ever change, start here: […]
[AQ] There is no curve fitting to get the logarithmic dependence of temperature on CO2. It is explained entirely by the velocity distribution of atmospheric gases.
And then after mutual provocation Binny piles on.
Nobody “tries” to stir Puffman into action. Everybody still does.
Ausgerechnet Willard, der uns mit seinen ständigen, nutzlosen Repliken auf Swen~son aka Mike Flynn seit Monaten gehörig auf den Geist ging, meint er müsste unbedingt den Oberlehrer mimen.
Das hat uns allen echt gefehlt.
Smile emoji.
Two minus signs instead of one between ‘:’ and ‘)’ are helpful:
:–)
☺️
Entropic man
If you like real emojis, access this link
https://www.quackit.com/character_sets/emoji/emoji_v3.0/unicode_emoji_v3.0_characters_all.cfm
copy one of them into the upper window of
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
and paste the lower window’s result into the blog’s editor, e.g.
😎
ja ja ja
here is yours
☭☭☭
Judith Curry
An interview with John Stossel.
http://www.transterrestrial.com/2024/08/03/judith-curry-5/
Well, the big money isn’t in the peons that write silly stuff, it’s bureaucracy that gives them the crumbs.
It’s similar to corporate new medias, though mostly power and going to dull social events- in the crowd.
It’s nothing new, one could claim it’s getting worse, but show me the data, if you want to make that case.
Hunga Tonga volcano: impact on record warming
https://judithcurry.com/2024/07/05/hunga-tonga-volcano-impact-on-record-warming/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7GN96BUCEo
“So why do scientists like Gavin Schmidt argue, without evidence or knowledge, that the Tonga volcano could not have been responsible? If the effect were cooling, the volcano would be blamed without a second’s hesitation, but significant natural warming undermines the message that warming is the fault of our emissions.”
Clint
I have seen no one but you provide a non-GHE-based “HTE” effect. Certainly no qualified scientist has done so.
How about you use your vast “knowledge” on this topic to present a paper for peer-review, where you explain how “a wave did it”.
Ant, I’m flattered by your obsession with me. But I’m only here to debunk the GHE nonsense.
How about you provide the science as to how CO2’s 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface?
Clint
Looks like I posted this in the wrong thread.
Nevertheless, have you noticed that even your fellow deniers (as in RLH’s Curry article) are blaming the anomalous warming on the greenhouse effect associated with water vapour.
You are a stand alone dissenter, and you are NOT a scientist.
I am not a denier. I just note what others say. Are you saying that Curry, Roy, et al are not scientists?
You note what pre-selected people say because they say what you want to hear. You ignore people who say what you don’t want to hear.
Heads up – neither of those two people deny the greenhouse effect.
” neither of those two people deny the greenhouse effect.”
Just not that it alone is responsible for the recent rise in temperatures.
Ant, the HTE did what the bogus GHE can NOT do. It “trapped” enough spectrum to actually affect surface temperatures. The full H20 spectrum contains much higher energy photons than the 15&mu: photons.
And, that doesn’t even include other HTE consequences such as affecting the Polar Vortex.
“It ‘trapped’ enough spectrum …”
Clearly scientific language is not your forte.
Now – please explain HOW this happened. What was the mechanism if it wasn’t the greenhouse effect? Make sure to provide a citation from a qualified scientist.
You continually make unsubstantiated claims about WHAT happens, but never explain HOW. And when someone asks, you try to escape by telling them they won’t understand.
RLH
As usual, you respond to half the comment, as as shield from the other half.
Ant, maybe you didn’t read the next sentence — “The full H20 spectrum contains much higher energy photons than the 15μ photons.”
It may be your ignorance of science is showing….
“half the comment”
The relevant half.
Just not that CO2 alone is responsible for the recent rise in temperatures. If it is, show so.
“You note what pre-selected people say because they say what you want to hear. You ignore people who say what you dont want to hear.
Heads up neither of those two people deny the greenhouse effect.”
Pot calling Kettle ‘Black’.
What is the H20 spectrum, Clint?
Oh wait … you mean the H2O spectrum!
Apparently you believe a water molecule consists of 20 hydrogen atoms. You even duplicated this error to prove it wasn’t a typo.
And you call this “science”.
Heads up Clint … you already said last year that water vapour had NOTHING to do with your little HTE.
Only a child would be so confused by a simple typo.
Grow up Ant, then learn some science.
It’s not a “simple typo” if you do it twice.
You have presented barely any science. And the little bit you have presented … you don’t seem to understand that you are supporting the greenhouse effect. If you don’t agree with that, then explain your MECHANISM, without resorting to “you won’t understand”.
RLH
Relevant to what? Are you claiming the other half wasn’t relevant to YOUR comment that I was responding to? Or is relevance defined by what you feel comfortable responding to?
Relevant to CO2 not being responsible for the latest rise. Unless you can show otherwise.
Sorry Ant, but it’s just a simple typo. A typo carries over in a copy/paste.
I shouldn’t have to explain such basics to you.
Clint
All you had to say was that you have no mechanism in mind, and that your comment is a direct contradiction of your statement last year that your “HTE” has nothing to do with water vapour.
RLH
Your comment that I was replying to was:
“I am not a denier. I just note what others say. Are you saying that Curry, Roy, et al are not scientists?”
Both halves of my response were directly applicable to your comment.
AQ: So you have no ‘relevant to CO2’ conclusion for it not being responsible for the latest rise.
What is “the latest rise”? Rise in what?
If you mean the elevated temperatures of the past year, they were due to the El Nino and the positive IOD, with possible minor contributions from other factors. That is not an acceleration in global warming.
This variability coming from various sources makes global temperatures swing up and down about the baseline. It will always be there. And you will again be wetting your pants in delight when it transiently heads the other way.
CO2 is increasing the baseline, hence indirectly causing extremes to be more extreme.
Very simple really. I challenge you to find me claiming anything different to this. And of course I have said nothing you didn’t already know. Perhaps don’t ask straw man questions which imply beliefs that aren’t there.
Now … I’ve scratched your itch … how about you respond to the other half of my earlier comment.
“Ant, the HTE did what the bogus GHE can NOT do. It trapped enough spectrum to actually affect surface temperatures. The full H20 spectrum contains much higher energy photons than the 15&mu: photons.”
Oops, did Clint admit that a GHE is possible?
Indeed he did. Notice how he has declined to provide a mechanism for his version of “trapping”.
He also doesn’t realise that a large fraction of his higher energy photons are past the crossover point (at about 3 microns) in the sun vs earth emission spectra, after which increasing concentrations actually lead to cooling. He doesn’t seem to understand that 15 microns being close to the wavelength of earth’s peak emission and a long way from the wavelength of the sun’s peak emission is what causes the problem.
But scientists don’t have to worry … he won’t be coming up with a non-GHE “trapping” mechanism any time soon. Instead he will keep chanting his “you don’t understand” mantra, and admitting that he is not a responsible adult by claiming we need a responsible adult to explain it to us yet not providing an explanation.
Children, radiative reflection definitely works, if it’s the entire reflection, as in most of the spectrum. The 15μ photons are an insignificant part of the spectrum returning to Earth. The HTE works, but your CO2 GHE does NOT work.
You cult children understand NONE of the relevant science.
“radiative reflection definitely works, if its the entire reflection, as in most of the spectrum”
A totally meaningless sentence.
Reflection off what surface?
Would you prefer “back-radiation”, Ant?
Like your cult, you can’t accept reality so you have to attempt to twist, distort, confuse, insult, and obfuscate.
You have zero evidence that CO2 had caused temperature rise and not the other way around. There is lots of evidence that temperature causes CO2 rise.
> You have zero evidence
Step 1 – Pure Denial
Troglodyte is in good form today!
Clint
I asked you … off what surface?
“So why do scientists like Gavin Schmidt argue, without evidence or knowledge, that the Tonga volcano could not have been responsible?…”
The premise of this question is false for a start, and there is plenty of scientific testing and discussion of the impact HT has had on recent (last 2.5 years) global temps, which suggests a minimal influence.
Here’s why the question is a false premise:
“Schmidt listed several plausible causes of the anomaly the El Nino effect, reductions in cooling sulphur dioxide particles due to pollution controls, fallout from the January 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcanic eruption in Tonga, and the ramping up of solar activity in the run-up to a predicted solar maximum…”
source of this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z
“Step 1 – Pure Denial
Troglodyte is in good form today!”
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
“U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said during a speech in Belem, Brazil, on Saturday that the price tag for a global transition to a low-carbon economy amounts to $78 trillion in financing through 2050.”
It would cheaper to send Janet and all the other climate cultists to Mars
Everything You Need To Know About India’s Moon Missions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv0YTtEcKVU
It seems to me once we have gas stations in orbit, it will be easier [cheaper] for India to send crew to the Moon.
Tropical Storm Debby will strengthen before making landfall in northern Florida on Aug. 5 and along the US east coast reaching New York.
https://i.ibb.co/mbkkZ05/ventusky-rain-3h-20240810t1500-39n75w.jpg
Tropical storm Debby threatens South and North Carolina.
https://i.ibb.co/gZqfcXN/ventusky-rain-3h-20240807t2100-34n78w.jpg
When will Debby do Dallas?
Boo
Is that B O’clock??
Mind if I smoke while you eat?
Yes, but be mindful of the impact of secondhand smoke, rather than downplaying it as the Heartland Institute does.
Whoosh,
If you didn’t know, I was quoting Debbie.
Sorry Bob, you’re one up on me. I haven’t actually seen it.
People may die in the floods. In many areas, 200 to 300 liters of water per square meter will fall in four days.
I got 2 tropical storm and 1 depression. And our 70% of disturbance is back again to 80% of cyclone formation.
Daniel is 13.4 N and 130.4 W going +15 N and 128 W and Carlotta going to 21 N and 127 W
And I don’t know if they will get married- whether attracted, repelled, or will ignore each other.
The tropical depression, FIVE-E at 15.8 N and 112.9 W, going south and not going far or lasting very long
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Over in Atlantic is the more important, Debby tropical storm. And Atlantic got a
10% chance of disturbance, near Windward islands, or similar place as one that formed a cat 5 earlier this year which went over to Texas.
Debby was forecasted to be a Cat 1
Oh btw:
SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket launches Cygnus space station cargo ship from Cape Canaveral
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-nvTp0Ia0I
–JOE ROGAN GOES LIVE ON NETFLIX AND LIBERALS LOSE THEIR MINDS:
Lets be clear: Joe Rogan is NOT a conservative. And hes never been anywhere close to being a conservative. Ever. In fact, if you ignore the medias coverage and focus instead on what Rogan actually believes, hes a liberal man who identifies as a conservative man.
And Id even go further: If hed hosted The Joe Rogan Experience in the 1990s or 2000s, Rogan wouldve been by a ridiculously wide margin the single most leftwing man in American media: He supports gay marriage, increased social safety nets, drug legalization (and how!), abortion, and universal basic income. He even backed Bernie Sanders for president. His ideology isnt exactly The Way Things Ought to Be, Part II.
This is why hes such a useful barometer of how far to the left everyone else has gone: Only on a planet thats completely fallen off a cliff could a leftwinger like Rogan appear to be a conservative simply because he likes MMA, works out, wasnt a fan of mandatory COVID vaccines, and thinks its unfair for men to fight women.
But Rogans biggest crime and the reason the liberal media will never forgive him is that hes not hostile to conservatives.–
https://instapundit.com/
I am far more left than Joe Rogan.
He seems a bit conservative, to me.
A true Lefty, would be a space cadet, and lot more things.
This wouldn’t be true, +100 years ago.
And cargo cultist, want to live on Mars, but they don’t know it.
Little I know of him he seems to be a hawker of other people’s conspiracy theories and other gossip.
Like the Chinese virus, was made in a chinese lab, but now, it’s true or most likely- rather than some stray bat or live animal markets.
Why rename the virus? Are you running politics for someone?
The lab-leak theory is not most likely. There is zero hard evidence for the origins of SARS COV2
Anyhoo, Rogan gives air time to a lot of nonsense. He’s hardly alone.
Hurricane #Debby will hit the southeastern US tomorrow. It will move slowly and bring extreme rains to a large area. Rainfall of 100 to 250 mm (4 to 10 inches) is expected on many places (and even more arround Savannah), potentially causing major damage. See rain accumulation from HRRR model on the next 2 days: https://www.ventusky.com/?p=29.56;-82.06;6&l=rain-ac&t=20240806/0600 🧐💧‼️
Radar Tampa
It will rain all day, all night and tomorrow.
https://www.accuweather.com/pl/us/tampa/33602/weather-forecast/347937
The wicked witch of the west is worried.
To sum it ut
– Hiatus is over
– we are at a new high “platou”
– world is at its hottest
– linear trend is accelerating
and rest of you can speculate as much as you want about el Nino, solar activity, volcanos or whatever. Still cannot change the fact also this dataset shows world continues to heat up.
To be clear, the average acceleration is only 0.05C/decade/decade.
Currently.
Indeed. It will continue to swing between between about +0.015 and +0.035 until we have enough data for it to settle down to a stable positive value (many decades from now). The current value of 0.05 will not be sustained.
Is this a scientific statement or conjecture?
How can scientists falsify non-conjectures?
The acceleration in the data is easy to calculate. The value of 0.05 is not a conjecture. The other values are what the acceleration has generally varied between so far.
This has been an interesting el Nino, in the Confucian sense. Its peak has a broader profile than any on the record so far. Just reading off the graph, that puts the running average at about 0.25K above that for the 1998 peak, with no sign yet of levelling off. Presumably it has to come down some time. Can all this heat really come from a normal el Nino plus the reduction in sulphur from shipping?
“This has been an interesting el Nino, in the Confucian sense.”
So you are saying that recent El Nino data does not correspond to earlier years?
Hard to say with my skills, which are limited to
reading off the graph by eye. It certainly looks different to the small subset of previous peaks on the graph.
Whenever RLH starts with “So you are saying …” what follows is almost never what you are saying.
Nate dos not answer the question.
RLH
Nobody asked Nate a question.
Hope that helps.
Add in the HTE and you get your answer, Elliott.
Please explain the link. I won’t hold my breath, ignoramus.
JW, didn’t your parents teach you to respect adults, especially if you want something?
You’ve got so much to learn….
Can you please explain what you think the link is between the PV and the HTE?
Notice my use of the p-word.
The massive eruption produced atmospheric waves that circled the globe several times. Before dissipating, these waves (existing in lower stratosphere) disrupted the Polar Vortex. That prevented thermal energy from being effectively moved into the stratosphere, until the PV could reform. Then, another wave would arrive, and the process repeated until the waves had all dissipated completely.
” The massive eruption produced atmospheric waves that circled the globe several times. Before dissipating, these waves (existing in lower stratosphere) disrupted the Polar Vortex. ”
*
Typical pseudo-scientific HTE blah blah: the Polar Vortex is being disrupted since several years, long long time before the Hunga Tonga eruption.
Bindidon
More than just disrupted several times a year … it completely disappears every summer.
So apparently Clint believes that the northern polar vortex can somehow transfer its disruption to the south pole at the end of its winter then have it transferred back in time for their next winter
It does this so that not only is the disruption still there one year after the eruption, but also somehow much stronger.
He also doesn’t seem to realise that the effect of a disrupted polar vortex is cold air reaching lower latitudes from the poles, not warming.
.
.
.
NorVort in January: Hey SouVort, could I ask you to hold onto something for me till next winter?
…. deafening silence
NorVort in March: Hey SouVort, could I ask you to hold onto something for me till next winter?
… I’m not very strong at the moment. Ask me again later.
SouVort in May: Hey NorVort, were you asking me something?
… I’m not very strong at the moment. I’ll get back to you later.
SouVort in July: Hey NorVort, were you asking me something?
… deafening silence
My guess is Ant is more confused than BIndi. But that may be because Ant spewed more.
So again no details Clint, as expected. Your brain needs a rest after dreaming up your previous fiction.
Yup, Ant is the more confused.
0 <= Bindi Confusion <= Ant Confusion < (Clint Confusion)^-1 < t^-1
for arbitrarily large t.
Confucius say “RLH velly confused”
Often deliberately so. He is good with the feigned obtuseness and deliberate ambiguity. It’s his way of avoiding making any concessions, which he can’t make out of a false sense of pride.
Yes, false pride comes before the Fall. And it’s August already.
I’m afraid that falls flat (for two reasons) on those of us living in Australia.
You leftists are all about psychological games and propaganda. You try to use Science as a weapon to advance your agenda. If you are real scientists like you profess, why don’t you try falsifying your hypothesis? That’s why real science does instead of trying to browbeat anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Stephen,
We tried falsification, it didn’t end well.
You mean the same way you people try to falsify your “god” hypothesis?
Good point, sport. My apologies.
Stephen – Falsificationism is actually a philosophical position about science rather than a scientific doctrine. It is true, however, that many scientists and most lay followers of science see it as a valid doctrine. The problem arises when denialists present their own deliberate refusal to understand complex science as a falsification. In fact, any science actively being developed has observations which are not yet explained under current theory. If there weren’t, it would no longer be a field of active scientific pursuit.
Nor is the maximally naive view, that a single “falsifying” finding should lead to the abandonment of an entire, fruitful body of knowledge, of any use. In very many fields a test of statistical significance is used, for instance, and this comes with the necessary corollary that with enough replications a few findings will fail the test, ipso facto.
There are many points at which the body of understanding around AW yields opportunities for falsification. Stratospheric cooling, polar warming, alpine warming, measurement of back-radiation, changes in species ranges… All such data fail to falsify, when viewed properly in aggregate. A glacier or two might grow because of increased precipitation, but the overall trend is entirely consistent.
People like Elliott don’t understand that if your beliefs violate the Laws of Physics, then your beliefs ain’t science.
“Confucius say ‘RLH velly confused'”
Confucius never said that.
You are clearly firmly located on the spectrum.
A joke can not take he!
AQ: You a Doctor now?
Nobody in the world needs a doctorate to judge the degree of stubbornness and humorlessness of a person.
AntOnan SQwirty sense of humor
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2024-0-85-deg-c/#comment-1681181
That’s not a joke.
Here’s a joke:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2024-0-85-deg-c/#comment-1681350
A joke is what Trump calls a fact to everybody else.
So Eben, will you be proving that the satellite is doing something unusual any time soon? Surely you don’t go around making baseless claims …
“Here’s a joke:”
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
Fisheries in the Adriatic being impacted as climate “becomes tropical”:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/04/adriatic-warming-sea-italy-fishers-mucilage-microalgae
Very interesting, but so what?
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere, water vapor and 30% albedo not warmer.
The ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t and violate GAAP and LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render “extra” GHE energy from a surface BB impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam.
Believe = religion
Think = opinion
Know = science
Heres what I know.
You??
Water vapor, clouds, ice, snow create 30% albedo which makes the Earth cooler not warmer.
W/o GHE there is no water and Earth goes lunarific, a barren rock ball, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark refuting a warming GHE.
TFK_bams09 GHE heat balance graphic and ubiquitous clones dont balance plus violate LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render a surface black body and its extra upwelling GHE energy impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
On my side [eastern pacific] got four tropical storms. All are going towards or crossing 20 degrees N. All getting nearer to others. Emilily seems like it could some effect upon my area. But I wondering what happens when tropical storms get near each other.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
The great red spot feeds of smaller storms on Jupiter.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-mystery-of-jupiters-shrinking-great-red-spot-might-be-solved
Well, now got two tropical storms, rather than 4.
Carlotta is post- tropical cyclone and Daniel is remnants of Daniel
or what thought could be a marriage, didn’t unite them.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
In terms of Fabio and Emilia tropical storm, Fabio coming fast, and
Emilia is moving slow.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
If you are aged 30 or more, then 50% of all human fossil fuel emissions happened during your lifetime.
https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:7widwi4mbmc67v6purqbq7sg/bafkreig6fop5yizowbtd76vf33udqx3yddwmkjiz574j5vbayf3mzwvsge@jpeg
https://bsky.app/profile/infobeautiful.bsky.social/post/3kyyphpq7td22
In yet another nonsensical load of hot air, apparently Nancy Pelosi thinks the likeness of Biden should be carved onto Mount Rushmore.
Why do so many clowns get elected to high office in USA?
Trump said the same thing about himself four years ago.
Are you also thinking of him when you ask that question?
Trump could actually be on Rushmore. He was and will likely be a good President for USA.
I am Canadian. I have no ‘dog’ in the US election. Right now, Trump is your best bet.
HAHAHA – you’re a comedian!!
Funny how the Right talk tough about cracking down on crime but are prepared to let a convicted felon be president.
In fairness, Kennui’s trying to sell teh Donald to an Aussie, so…
“The Donald” or “The Don” is reserved in Australia for the greatest cricketer of all time. Could we please not sully his name by using it on that POS.
“HAHAHA youre a comedian!!”
What could possibly go wrong? I’ll remind you that we in Canada have Trudeau as Prime Minister.
Who you vote for really matters.
Is Trudeau a convicted felon?
Antonin,
In the US, the Don may refer to Don Corleone, one of the most notorious fictitious gangsters in the Mafia.
> Could we please not sully his name
Teh Donald ain’t the Donald, and I don’t see why I should promote his trademark.
“…Kennui…”
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
“Aside from SpaceXs Elon Musk, arguably the biggest advocate for human Mars exploration has long been Mars Society President Robert Zubrin. An aerospace engineer by training, Zubrin has been preaching the gospel of colonizing and making commercial use of the red planet for decades now.
Unfortunately, since the era of NASAs Apollo Program, human astronauts have not ventured beyond earth orbit. Zubrin hopes that will soon change. He remains convinced that the key to humanitys future is in exploring and eventually settling and even terraforming Mars.
If anybody had told me in 1969 that Id be 72 and there wouldn’t be colonies on the moon or Mars, I would have thought they were nuts, Zubrin, author of The Case for Mars and The New World on Mars, told me last week here in Copenhagen, where he was an invited speaker at a conference on astrobiology.”
Bypass Moon, Use SpaceXs Starship To Go Directly To Mars, Says Zubrin
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2024/08/05/bypass-moon-use-spacexs-starship-to-go-directly-to-mars-says-zubrin/
Well we still can’t put 10 tons on Mars surface.
We have “always” been able to put 10 ton on the lunar surface.
NASA has not explored Mars. NASA hasn’t explored the Moon.
Back in 1960’s some NASA guy thought there could be water in the lunar polar region.
There appears to be a lot of water in the lunar polar region, but we don’t much idea of how much mineable lunar water in is in lunar polar region. We also don’t know how much mineable water is on Mars.
You can dig for gold anywhere on Earth, the ocean has vast amounts of non mineable gold, put you have to find mineable gold to mine gold.
Of course you mine iron, and get fair amount of gold. So, to get gold you to find something which is mineable- even if it’s iron.
And we know of nothing mineable on Mars or the Moon- because no one has looked.
Well, one might say Mars sky could be mineable, or CO2 and N2 is mineable and one just get billion of tons of Mars water, if you mined a large portion of the Mars sky. But doesn’t take much of sky, to get enough water for NASA astronauts ti drink.
But this is mostly minable CO2. Mars needs mineable Mars water- you have to make lakes of water on Mars, but Mars water to be mineable.
Nobody is going to Mars
Never, ever say nobody.
A nobody, could become a somebody.
Or a nobody is “something”.
An AI could be going, for example.
I think 1 million people on Mars is not particularly important, but 5000 in Venus orbit, would be significant.
And Martians “need”, quite badly, to use Venus orbit.
And anyone mining space rocks, also.
“Nobody is going to Mars”
Is that you offering?
Nobody
When is the question.
Eben
Thanks Nobody. So when are you leaving?
Mars is a gravity hole. Even if Mars were made of solid gold it is not worth colonizing.
Do explain what a “gravity hole” is. It does have meaning in the proper context. In this specific context, is it a scientific term or is it a Ken term?
“Mars is a gravity hole.”
As are all bodies, planets and moons. See Newton.
It’s from a Larry Niven short story called “At the bottom of a hole.”
The solar system is being harvested for its resources, from asteroids etc. Mars is regarded as useless because it is too hostile to be worth colonising and anything mined on Mars has to be lifted out of its gravity hole at considerable extra cost.
The story concerns an asteroid miner who ends up stranded on Mars at the bottom of its gravity hole after an accident.
“a Larry Niven short story”
Yeah, that’s probably where I picked up the term. I am a fan of Niven’s writings.
–Antonin Qwerty says:
August 5, 2024 at 10:02 PM
Do explain what a gravity hole is. It does have meaning in the proper context. In this specific context, is it a scientific term or is it a Ken term?
RLH says:
August 6, 2024 at 2:42 AM
Mars is a gravity hole.
As are all bodies, planets and moons. See Newton.–
The Sun is gravity hole.
It’s not a good gravity hole- and I think could explain Fermi paradox, but Earthlings, seem to like it.
Space is big, and you need gravity hole in order to move fast enough to get anywhere, in reasonable time period.
Mars is not a good gravity, due to location and it’s weak. Venus is much better, and nobody in living on planet, unlike Earth.
The closest Planet to Earth is Mercury, in terms of time- 104.5 days with simple, and not simple can be a shorter distance and less time.
Venus is closest to Earth, in other ways, we went to it, in 2 months, because we wanted to get close to the sun, and we bounced off Venus to get even closer, and in less than a year, we get the closest we planned on getting to the sun- though might be an extended mission, if funded.
“I am a fan of Niven’s writings.”
Because fiction is SO scientific.
“Because fiction is SO scientific.”
‘Science Fiction’ please.
Because fiction is SO scientific.
Do you have any argument with the description of Mars as being a ‘gravity hole’?
A “gravity hole” is a location on the earth (or other planet) where the gravitational force is lower than for the rest of the planet due to a reduced density below. An entire planet CANNOT be described as a gravity hole.
Anton
If you read the story you’ll see that gravity hole is slang used by the asteroid miners for large gravity wells, ie. planets. Like any other hole they are easy to fall into and difficult to climb out of.
“Do you have any argument with the description of Mars as being a ‘gravity hole’?”
See Newton.
Sorry … not interested in science fiction since I was a kid. Too many believe what they read is real or possible. Like UFOs and aliens having visited earth, “shape shifters”, seeing ghosts and dead people, 2012, the Matrix, going back in time, ESP, hyperspace, teleportation, …
Oh dear! I have not seen anything posted from Gordon for several days.
Is he unwell?
Has he been banned?
Or, as has been rumoured, he has gone back to school and is busy studying for his science exams?
Please pass on hugs and kisses from his favourite nurse.
Sorry. Can’t help. But this recent item from the Vancouver Sun dealing with the heat wave may be relevant:
“… It also asked residents to check on vulnerable people, including seniors, people who live alone, those who have pre-existing health conditions or mental illness including substance-use disorders, as well as those who are experiencing homelessness or have limited mobility.”
He said he might ban himself because he “fully supports Swen*son.”
This is despite him being attacked by Flynnster countless times.
“NO … let him hit me … AHHHHHHH … NO, please don’t stop …. AHHHHHH …. this is such a positive for me …. AHHHHHHHH …. you are such a good pal Mikey …. AHHHHHHH ….”
All four of you – please stop t-word-ing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9yhQRfVdS8
Raptor 3 Unveiled, Starship 30 Prepares for Launch, and Starbase Expands | Starbase Update
All quite informative.
Apparently have not test fired the Raptor 3 engine yet.
And it seems to me without doing that, it not yet gone to crazy production levels on Raptor 3.
The production levels of 1 and 2 are similar Soviet Union rocket engine production in terms numbers of engine built. But no one has ever tested engine firing like SpaceX.
gbaikie
Just wondering if you know how many observations Spaceweather take each day for their sunspot count?
SILSO takes a couple of dozen each day from around the globe. But Spaceweather puts out their figure so early in the day that it seems they report on the first observation they get. There doesn’t appear to be any update to the count as the day progresses.
Spaceweather changes number every day, and have done it couple hours ago, it’s 189, but they also change there picture of sun once a day and that going happen soon. And I tend to wait for picture which indicates number of spots which make up the daily number. Of course how they count depends all locations viewing the sun and picture is just from one location {and assume it’s the same location every day- if for some sense of “fairness” or something, they change locations each day, it wouldn’t be something I would appreciate- it would just seem to make it more confusing.
Barring cloud and night, every location sees almost exactly the same view of the sun at any time. The difference in the view between one side of the earth and the other is only 0.3 minute of arc … the angle the sun rotates in 30 seconds.
Locations MUST change each day due to weather. That is half the reason SILSO adjusts their counts at the end of each month. Sunspot numbers change over the course of a day, and they would like their count to represent the same time each day (not sure what time). But changing weather around the world shifts the average reading time each day.
You didn’t actually answer my question though. Does Spaceweather use many observations each day or just one?
I have roughly 12 hours daytime all year, and UK have longer days in summer and shorter in winter. I am at 2 hours past midnight, so. no sunlight, whereas UK has sunlight. And I guess, somewhere in Canada, as in eastern Canada, it has sunlight.
But perhaps one should look a sun, only when it’s higher in sky, and there is less of Earth’s atmosphere in the line of sight.
I don’t know their rules.
Soooo … you’re in Mexico?
gbaikie
Your SpaceWeather site isn’t reliable at all with regard to the daily Sun Spot Number.
There is one really reliable source, ant that’s SILSO’ daily Estimated Sun Spot Number
https://tinyurl.com/SILSO-EISN
which is fixed one for all at each month’s end.
–gbaikie
Your SpaceWeather site isnt reliable at all with regard to the daily Sun Spot Number.–
Tell me something that I don’t know.
Solar wind
speed: 419.3 km/sec
density: 2.10 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 189
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 247 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 25.58×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.7% Low
8 numbered sunspots, none coming and none leaving.
And it seems to me NOAA experimental forecast is healthy at the moment.
I got two tropical storms on my map:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Emilia, is suppose to briefly turn into a Hurricane, and she going a bit faster, in the general direction of tropical storm, Fabio, and movement is slowed slightly. And remain a tropical storm and reach, 120 W, 20 north, late Wednesday, Emilia by late Wednesday will return to being tropical storm and be quite close to Fabio [near 120 W, 20 north.
And I am wondering their marriage.
It should noted that NOAA forecast of Fabio, ends on Wednesday, and Emilia continues on to late Friday as Tropical storm.
So Fabio’s future seems to end on late Wednesday and Emilia continues on. And all in the middle of nowhere.
Though 120 W and 20 N, could a place to launch rockets and/or have an ocean settlement.
People are nationalistic and interested in politics.
So this could a nation that focuses on launching rockets into space, and also surfing. It could be center of the world in surfing.
And I was thinking of how to cheaply launch rockets from the ocean, I would start with something about 30 meters in diameter, which could float thousands of tons, launch a rocket like the Starship.
The surfing should be at least 1 km from it. And could have people living in between, them.
But I like small towns, and I think population living there should less than say, 8000. Though one could another town, a couple km away from it. Whether it’s of same nation or not, is political issue.
Here is the Spaceweather 10.7 cm radio flux data:
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/forecast-prevision/solar-solaire/solarflux/sx-5-flux-en.php
I am recording the daily medians. It has surged again today (the 6th). With these values, I am surprised the sunspot count is not even higher.
Monthly averages of adjusted daily medians – strongest months:
SC24
1. 166
2. 154
3. 154
4. 153
5. 152
SC24
1. 203 (last month)
2. 191
3. 191
4. 182
5. 177
Average for last 10 days: 243
“Soooo youre in Mexico?”
Mexico is closer to 12 hour day all year.
But Southern California in hottest region of the world, is fairly close to Mexico. Some Mexicans might think that they still own California, but Mexico has far more Mexicans, than California does.
And some California Mexicans maybe, are fleeing California as much everyone else is.
It’s long drive to top of northern California, and I am going to drive it fairly soon, I got go to Vancouver island, for a clan together together, they do it every 9 years and I didn’t get to them before, save one time, anyways just getting out of California is long part of the drive. Going with my brother and going drive constantly and week later, drive constantly back. It too much work, but I got to do it.
My little sister, going to take a plane, as she has only 5 days, and can’t take a week.
If we only had cheap suborbital travel, it would take less than 1/2 hour. Not counting time get to and from launch site, and not having hyperloop, it could add 4 hours each way.
And with planes it getting airports and etc that also takes of large chunk of the time.
Southern California is nowhere near the hottest place in the world.
San Diego averages only 25C max in mid summer. Los Angeles’ average gets to 29.
Even in the US, Phoenix averages 41C in July. No comparison.
Death Valley (where less than 1000 people live) is NOT “Southern California”.
Cairo’s average gets to 35C, Bangkok 35C, Monterrey 36C, Alice Springs 37C, Rangoon 38C, Bahrain 39C, Muscat 40C, Khartoum 42C, Baghdad 44C.
Some of Southern California deserts are the hottest in world, and I live in one of them.
But all deserts are hot and cold, but they don’t have a high average temperature.
Cities can have a high average temperature due to Urban Heat island effect. Apparently Urban Heat island effect are different, Indian say they cause fog and/or don’t cause higher temperature. India of course has huge population which is still growing and average yearly temperature is about 25 C.
Where I live the yearly average temperature is about 17 C, and Europe’s average temperature is about 9 C. And China is about 8 C.
And the 2 largest countries in the world it’s about -3 C. Most of Canada’s population live in warmer parts, near the US border.
Most of Canada is cold and dry, if it was warmer, it could have more deserts, or more likely, more Ice sheets. Vancouver Island is wet and warm, but complain about being too dry. in summer it can stop raining and get month or so of clear weather. I had had rule that with 2 weeks of sunlight, it was warm enough to go swimming. But I use to swim in a lake that was always warm, it didn’t need sunlight to swim in.
California’s existence depends of it’s dams, Southern California wouldn’t exist without water.
And you got crazies, who are “against having dams”- they protest, like climate cultist do. And been upset much longer than, when global warming was invented.
Photos of Rhone glacier taken 15 years apart show magnitude of change – and attract denialist abuse for having taken them.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/06/it-made-me-cry-photos-taken-15-years-apart-show-melting-swiss-glaciers
Are you aware that in many places around the world, tree stumps have been uncovered by retreating glaciers? The age of these stumps by scientific dating methods is typically in the range of 1,000 to 4,000 years old. It seems rather common that glaciers and build and retreat over time for reason other than changes in CO2, or any other human influence.
Indeed. The idea that only CO2 can drive climate is a straw man widely discussed among sceptics.
I see no reason why other factors might not cause glaciers to advance and retreat on shorter timescales.
What really intrigues me is the way in which the retreat of larger glaciers is uncovering tree stumps from 100,000 years ago during the Eemian interglacial.
These are glaciers which have been in place for a whole cycle and are now retreating further than at any time during the Holocene.
Ent, you non-science types need to understand there ain’t no “tree stumps from 100,000 years ago”.
I thought Elliot was trying to make a comment about recent warming. The relevant question is whether this is new glacial retreat caused by human activity or something “natural”. The even more interesting question is whether those 100,000 year old stumps were first revealed within the last few thousand years and then covered up again by the natural cycle of glacial advance and retreat, or now just for the first time? I do not know the answer, but it does seem like something worth considering.
Depends where you look and the behaviour of individual glaciers.
A low altitude, low latitude glacier might retreat and advance several times during the Holocene and uncover vegetation of several ages. A high altitude high latitude glacier may have persisted since the Eemian and uncover nothing from the Holocene at all.
The oldest example I found was at the bottom of the Camp Century ice core on the Greenland icesheet. It showed that the ice sheet thawed twice since the onset of the Ice Age, 1 million years ago and 2.4 million years ago.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2021442118
I am only drawing attention to the scale and speed of one specific retreat. Anecdotal evidence, if you like. The overall picture of glacial retreat due to anthropogenic warming is rather clear. Attributing an individual case of retreat to the overall trend less so.
The photo record validates the aging process.
Both for humans, and glaciers….
A tropical depression from over Cuba has turned into a monster that will flood the east coast with hundreds of litres of water all the way to New York.
” … a monster …”
My god! Ireneusz is turning into an alarmist!
HUNDREDS of litres!! Wow!!
100 litres spread over a 100 km by 100 km region will cause a torrent of water 0.1 picometres high! Oh the humanity!
Glub, glub…
Oops – divided by 10 instead of multiplying.
That should be 10 picometres.
I hope Americans know how to swim.
To add further perspective, a standard bath tub holds about 300 litres.
Never heard of a scientist who has no feel for the size of a basic unit of measurement.
In South Carolina, rainfall totals will exceed 300 litres per square metre in large areas by 10 August.
The National Weather Service in Charleston has issued a
* Flash Flood Warning for… Beaufort County in southeastern South Carolina… Berkeley County in southeastern South Carolina… Charleston County in southeastern South Carolina… Colleton County in southeastern South Carolina… Dorchester County in southeastern South Carolina…
* Until 1030 AM EDT Tuesday.
* At 244 AM EDT, Doppler radar indicated heavy rain across the warned area. Between 4 and 10 inches of rain have fallen. Flash flooding is ongoing or expected to begin shortly. The flash flood threat is expected to continue for the next several days as Tropical Storm Debby slowly crosses the area.
HAZARD…Flash flooding caused by heavy rain.
SOURCE…Radar indicated.
IMPACT…Flash flooding of small creeks and streams, urban areas, highways, streets and underpasses as well as other poor drainage and low-lying areas.
* Some locations that will experience flash flooding include… North Charleston, Mount Pleasant, Summerville, Goose Creek, Hanahan, Walterboro, Saint George, Edisto Beach, Givhans Ferry State Park and Ladson.
PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS…
Turn around, don’t drown when encountering flooded roads. Most flood deaths occur in vehicles.
Be especially cautious at night when it is harder to recognize the dangers of flooding.
Be aware of your surroundings and do not drive on flooded roads.
Thanks ren for continuing to highlight the perils of a warming climate.
Americans, ironically, still use imperial measurements.
For their benefit there are 1000 litres in 1 cubic metre. 1 litre per square metre is 1mm of rainfall. 300 litres per square metre is 300mm of rainfall or 12 inches
12 inches of rainfall from one storm is enough to cause considerable flooding.
Ent, you non-science types do well with simple units. But you run into problems when the units are complex.
For example, the GHE cult doesn’t understand why you can’t simply add fluxes. “Watts per square meter” has them really confused.
Clint R
You should accept you are the one who is so confused by units! You think fluxes cannot add at a surface. Strange conviction based only on your belief. You understand two flows of gallons per minute will add. Two 10 gpm water flows to a tank will add water at the same rate as one 20 gpm flow. The flows add just as two 150 W/m^2 reaching a 1m^2 surface will add the same eneegy to the surface as one 300 W/m^2 flux. Plese study real science instead of wasting ebeyone’s time posting your made up opinions all the time. Other than DREMT I am thinking no else really cares about your babble!
Sorry Norman, but you’re confused again.
Don’t fret, your cult is just as confuse,. so you’re not alone. Like you, not one of them understands thermodynamics or radiative physics. (And now we’ve learned they don’t even understand angular momentum!!)
So, let’s try this again. I’ll make it as painless as possible.
Flux is NOT a simple concept that can be treated like gallons of water. Not only are the units Energy per Time per Area, but the Energy is in the form of photons! So you’re trying to simply add things that don’t simply add.
Think of the unit, “dozen”. If the quantities are the same, such as a dozen apples, then they can be simply added. For example, 2 dozen apples added to 2 dozen apples is 4 dozen apples. No problem.
Now, add 1 dozen apples to 1 dozen elephants….
Clint R
You are not making an intelligent argument. It is not good at all. You falsely believe a hot surface wii not absorb lower energy photons. Expirment and established physics say you are wrong. A handful of crackpots on blogs agree with you. None of them provide evidence for their incorrect views. You get your science from crackpots and want people here to accept the garbage ideas. Not going to happen. Give valid science or experimental evidence. Only DREMT cares about your opinions.
Sorry Norman, but I didn’t say anything about a “hot surface”. You don’t even understand the issue you raised. You’re just throwing random crap against the wall.
Then you start with the childish insults and false accusations.
No wonder you can’t learn.
Clint R
“(And now weve learned they dont even understand angular momentum!!)”
No, we have found out that Clint R doesn’t understand angular momentum, he provided the wrong formula and doesn’t know angular momentum is a vector.
Clint thinks angular momentum is a scaler.
Clint should go back to school.
bob jumps in to pervert reality, again. He has no respect for truth and honesty.
It’s a “cult” thing….
Of course he doesn’t understand that angular momentum is a vector – that would require him to have undertaken a physics course. There is no evidence he went to university.
Clint R
Your reasoning ability seems very poor. I really don’t know the logic you are using to compare photons to something that would be different like apples and elephants. Also I did not say just gallons of water. I said gallons per minute which is comparable to energy per time.
Photons are all bits of energy moving through space. A high energy photon will convert to energy of matter when it is absorbed. So will a low energy photon. They are both bits of energy. The flux just gives you an amount of energy that all the photons together have. They don’t have to add to each other, the energy adds at the absorbing surface. All the energy that can be absorbed will then convert to energy of the surface. I really can’t follow your illogical unscientific babble. Can you recruit DREMT to translate your gibberish, he believes bad ideas but does seem a little more logical than you are showing. Get off the alcohol and give a coherent post. Your drunken rants are a bit hard to process as they really make no sense. You really have not taken any physics have you?
As usual, the cult kids converge to pervert science and reality.
All three, Ant, bob, and Norman, couldn’t answer the last easy physics problem correctly.
They can only resort to attacking me. Which just proves me right — They’ve go NOTHING.
Clint R,
Let’s see you post the correct formulas for angular momentum then.
I’ll wait.
You could easily google it.
What, no google fu today?
Clint R
Your little problems are horrible. They are poorly described and difficult to attempt to understand what you are requesting.
But still you just run off when asked for evidence.
You are one of the top posters that “pervert science and reality.”
Other than your opinions on things what science have you presented?
When posters ask you for evidence for your mocking posts you offer zero.
When people send you links and articles on science you loudly claim “YOU GOT NOTHING!”. Why do you feel you need to be respected when you endlessly mock and ridicule other posters. You only give your opinions on topics, never facts or evidence. I would change my very low opinion of your knowledge if you would start supplying evidence for any of your claims. You have not done so to date and it does not seem likely in any future.
Which question is that Clint?
I have provided you with the real science, complete with a description or a strong implication of the mechanisms involved. You on the other hand have NEVER suggested a mechanism, because you can’t. It is YOU who resorts to attacking me out of an inability to provide such a mechanism, as can be seen directly in the your comment I am replying to now.
Yes, I always have to laugh at that!
The cult is really fired up to pervert science and reality. Norman’s rambling comments are getting longer and longer. bob is still confused about angular momentum. And Ant is doing an impression of Kamala — no one can understand his/her point.
They must want some more science:
Reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
The bogus EEI, Earth Energy Imbalance, does NOT use units of energy. It uses units of flux. Flux is NOT energy. Whenever the cult mentions the bogus EEI, that means they don’t understand the basic physics.
Flux has units of “power per area” or “energy per time per area”. Power is not a conserved quantity, so certainly “power per area” is also not a conserved quantity. Flux “in” and flux “out” do not need to balance, and often don’t balance. A cone in space, with 5 times the area of its base, receiving 900 W/m² at its base will be emitting 180 W/m² at its final temperature. A flux of 900 W/m² does NOT equal 180 W/m². Flux “in” does NOT equal flux “out”.
To actually find Earth’s energy balance, energy in MUST be compared to energy out. “Energy” must be used, not flux.
But Earth’s energy seldom balances, as both incoming and outgoing energies constantly vary. That’s not a problem, as the laws of thermodynamics control temperatures. Weather is just one example of thermodynamics at work.
Clint gets caught using the wrong equation for angular momentum, and doubles down with his flux is not energy lies.
Flux is power per area. Here is what Wiki says:
“The watt (symbol: W) is the unit of power or radiant flux in the International System of Units (SI), equal to 1 joule per second or 1 kg⋅m ⋅s . It is used to quantify the rate of energy transfer. The watt is named in honor of James Watt (17361819), an 18th-century Scottish inventor,”
And Clint R responds with personal attacks when he is shown to be wrong.
> To actually find Earths energy balance, energy in MUST be compared to energy out.
Which is what energy balance models do.
Just like Puffman’s, the hint is in the name.
Silly willy and bob are in a flux over their inability to understand radiative flux.
A simple question will reveal their ignorance of physics —
A body in space is emitting 500 W/m². How much energy is emitted, in Joules?
Clint R,
Not enough information in your problem.
It depends on the area, which you have not provided.
Not only the area, but also on the time. Clint really has no idea about the conversion between these units.
Silly willy typically responds to me in minutes. But this time, he’s either “left the building”, or is waiting for someone else to answer first.
bob answers, throwing his cult under the bus. Then Ant joins in. The simple physics question forced the kids to accept some reality.
Yes, there is more info required, since flux is NOT energy. You must know the EXACT area and the EXACT time.
That’s why the “EEI” is nonsense. And just one of the many reasons the GHE is bogus.
HAHA – you’re now trying to pretend your mistake was deliberate.
Quite sad.
The length of a day or year is known.
The surface area of the earth is known.
The surface area of the sun is known.
And if the average temperature of the surface changes then there MUST have been an imbalance between either incoming and outgoing radiation (very little energy leaves the earth by other means), or between the surface and the ocean.
HAHA – youre now trying to pretend your mistake was deliberate. Sad.
The length of a day or year is known.
The surface area of the earth is known.
The surface area of the sun is known.
And if the average temperature of the surface changes then there MUST have been an imbalance between either incoming and outgoing radiation (very little energy leaves the earth by other means), or between the surface and the ocean.
Wrong Ant. There was no mistake. The question was purposely posed to force you to accept reality. You can’t stand reality. That’s why you use so many insults and false accusations.
As far as your statements about “time” and “area”, you forgot the word EXACT.
That’s why the “EEI” is bogus. I don’t think you can understand that because it involves physics.
Prove me wrong.
Clint R,
“Prove me wrong.”
Been there, done that.
bob, you’re one of my childish stalkers that continually claims I’m wrong.
Here’s a challenge for you: Pick out your very best example of me being wrong about physics. (Typos don’t count.). Pick out your best example, and support it with a link to where you believe I was wrong. Then I will either admit you’re correct or explain why you’re wrong.
Put up, or shut up. You get ONE shot. Don’t blow it.
> Put up, or shut up.
Puffman goes for Step 2 – Sammich Request
Clint R,
Easy enough.
The formula for angular momentum is not mvr.
It is
“The three-dimensional angular momentum for a point particle is classically represented as a pseudovector r p, the cross product of the particle’s position vector r (relative to some origin) and its momentum vector; the latter is p = mv in Newtonian mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
Is that good enough, do you want a textbook source for the equation for angular momentum.
bob, “mvr” is the “magnitude” of the vector. That is the value under discussion. The “direction” has no relevance to the discussion. You just don’t understand physics.
From your own source — L=2piMfr²
Your own source proves me right.
Do you understand that equation is “L=mvr”? Or do I need to explain that also?
You had your chance and you failed. From now own, any time you claim my physics is wrong, it will be nothing more than you throwing crap against the wall.
Clint R,
You are still wrong, mvr is not the magnitude of the vector for angular momentum.
That would be mvr sin theta
You forgot to specify that it is the cross product, not the straight multiplication.
Keep scrambling your physics is still wrong.
Clint R,
Furthermore, here is the value of the angular momentum of the Moon, which you said was zero.
Approximately 2.9×10^34 kg.m^2/s
Sorry bob, you had your chance but blew it.
Your own source proves me right.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2024-0-85-deg-c/#comment-1682166
Clint challenges: “Pick out your very best example of me being wrong about physics.”
There are many excellent examples, but let’s just go with an obvious recent example:
“AM is “mvr”. Moon has no “r”, since there is no physical attachment. “r” equals zero, so “mvr” equals zero.”
Physical attachment is NOT needed for angular momentum. EVERY SINGLE PHYSICS LINK AGREES.
“the orbital angular momentum is the angular momentum about a chosen center of rotation. The Earth has an orbital angular momentum by nature of revolving around the Sun”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
“Even if the particle is not rotating about the origin, we can still define an angular momentum in terms of the position vector and the linear momentum.”
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics
“The Earth has orbital angular momentum by reason of its annual revolution about the Sun ”
https://www.britannica.com/science/angular-momentum
“For an orbit, angular momentum is conserved, and this leads to one of Kepler’s laws. For a circular orbit, L becomes
L = mvr”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html
“We will first introduce the concept of angular momentum for a point-like particle of mass m with linear momentum p about a point
S , defined by the equation
L = r p”
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-01sc-classical-mechanics-fall-2016/mit8_01scs22_chapter19.pdf
Explain why you think an attachment is needed when no one else thinks so.
Clint R,
Your equation only works if the position vector is perpendicular to the velocity vector, which in the case of the Moon only occurs at the major and minor axes of the Moon elliptical orbit.
That’s the difference between a cross product and normal multiplication, the angle theta.
I know you can’t admit that you are wrong, but everyone with a bit of a physics background can see.
Other things you are wrong about include the rotation of the Moon, how radiation interacts with matter, and that the greenhouse effect is real and results from the interactions of light and matter.
First off Folkerts, you need to link to my EXACT words, not your opinion of what I said, and NOT taking something out of context.
Then you need to leave your semantical tricks in the garbage pile. For example —
1. do you agree the angular momentum for a ball-on-a-string is “mvr”?
2. do you agree that sin90° is 1?
3. do you agree that the magnitude of a vector is its scalar value?
These are yes-or-no questions.
BOB: mvr is not the magnitude of the vector for angular momentum.
That would be mvr sin theta
CLINT: Your own source proves me right.
No, his source says:
In the case of circular motion … L = mvr
This simple analysis can also apply to non-circular motion …
L=r⊥mv,
where r⊥=rsin(θ)
The sin(theta) factor IS part of the definition. Bob is right; Clint is wrong.
********************
Also, when Clint accepts L=2pi Mfr^2 as the angular momentum for a circular orbit, he is accepting that orbits have angular momentum. Oops!
Those ARE your exact words, Clint!
“AM is mvr. Moon has no r, since there is no physical attachment. r equals zero, so mvr equals zero.”
Are you accepting you are wrong here? If so, we can move on to your NEW claims.
Folkerts avoided the simple yes-or-no questions, and continues to take me out-on-context.
And bob now wants to try other things he believes I got wrong since his “best” example failed.
That’s why I’ve learned not to waste time with these cultists. They have no interest in science or reality.
Clint avoids his own challenge!
“Pick out your very best example of me being wrong about physics.”
I did.
“you need to link to my EXACT words”
I did.
“continues to take me out-on-context.”
Nope! It was exactly in context.
The moon DOES have orbital angular momentum
Angular momentum does NOT need a physical attachment.
Clint R,
I know I found you wrong on angular momentum.
So I moved on the other things you get wrong.
Flag me for piling on.
You make it too easy.
Folkerts says he linked to my exact words, but he didn’t. What he says doesn’t match with reality. But, he doesn’t care. He’s in a cult.
And bob is now claiming I’m wrong even though his source proves me right. But, he doesn’t care. He’s in a cult.
That’s why I won’t waste any more time with these cultists. They have no interest in science or reality.
“AM is mvr. Moon has no r, since there is no physical attachment. r equals zero, so mvr equals zero.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1681780
Those ARE your exact words. You ARE wrong.
Here is another exact quote. “Then I will either admit youre correct or explain why youre wrong.”
We are still waiting for your explanation of why all of physics is wrong and you are right. Of why everyone else calculates the angular momentum as 2.910^34 kg.m^2/s but your cult-of-one says it is 0 kg.m^2/s.
You FINALLY provided a link to my comment, Folkerts.
FINALLY.
Why did you claim earlier you had provided the link when you hadn’t provided it? Incompetence? Dishonesty? Immaturity?
In science, you don’t get to just make claims that are obviously incorrect. It’s easy to look back up and see you had not provided a link before 4:57 AM.
And what I said in the comment is correct. Moon has ZERO angular momentum. You can come up with a calculation using mass, speed, and radius, but it has no meaning without a physical attachment. The equation for distance traveled is d = rt. So the mis-application of that equation means I can run 10,000 miles in 1 hour, right? Here’s the calculation — 10000 mph * 1 hour = 10000 miles.
The calculation is correct, but that ain’t science.
Clint R,
“You can come up with a calculation using mass, speed, and radius, but it has no meaning without a physical attachment.”
There is a physical attachment, it’s called gravity.
“but it has no meaning without a physical attachment.”
False. This is only true in Clint’s Cult-Of-One.
As shown in the multiple links I provided, angular momentum has meaning and importance even without physical attachment. Conservation of angular momentum is a basic, uncontested idea in physics. Your hypothesis destroys conservation of angular momentum
You keep telling people to ‘learn some physics’. You won’t be able to find even one physics source that agrees that ‘attachment’ is part of the definition or angular momentum.
The cult kids are at it again.
Folkerts continues to avoid answering the simple questions: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2024-0-85-deg-c/#comment-1682200
And both Folkerts and bob are confused about “physical attachment”. Obviously neither understands the simple physics.
Funnier yet, both have provided links that prove me right. Folkerts provided a calculation for Moon’s bogus angular momentum based on “mvr”. And bob provided the equation that results in “mvr”.
They just keep proving me right, but I can take it.
Clint R,
The equation you use, mvr, does not give the vector direction of angular momentum.
So it is incorrect.
For two reasons, one angular momentum is a vector, and has both magnitude and direction, and second, it’s the crossproduct, which reduces to multiplication only when angle between the vectors is 90 degrees.
Only a cult member would make such elementary mistakes.
Your own source proves me right, bob. Folkerts did the same from different source. And your continuing confusion about angular momentum proves you can’t learn, as I’ve stated.
Keep proving me right.
I can take it.
Cllnt R,
You’re still wrong.
My source says it’s a cross product, you still claim it is normal multiplication.
You claim angular momentum is a scalar, that’s wrong, it’s still a vector.
You seem obsessed with proving me right, bob.
Please continue.
I can take it….
Clint R,
You gave the equation that results in a scaler, but angular momentum is a vector, how do you figure out the direction of the angular momentum vector.
Are you going to tell me the right answer or throw crap against the wall?
Rumours of drought are overly exaggerated?
More water in one place, less water in another.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/05/climate-change-denial-congress
Surely there are more? Surely Signore Trumpolini wouldn’t permit any of his unthinking Fascist minions to hold a non-party opinion.
To cult children like Elliott, if someone denies that they’re a “denier”, then they’re a “denier”.
That means at least 77 Senators and 335 in the house haven’t done their homework.
Note the vast discrepancy between politicians and public. On the horns of the distribution, three times more of the public are very concerned than do not “believe” in the science at all. The US public overwhelmingly accepts the science now.
There is also a strong correlation between scientific literacy and acceptance of the science. Which is perhaps not surprising.
I can’t resist asking.
What percentage of Senators and Congressmen might be described as scientifically literate?
It wasn’t always this bad. Turns out that Congress was aware of and actively engaged with climate change back in the 1960s.
https://grist.org/science/lost-history-climate-1960s-clean-air-act-supreme-court/
I particularly like the Adlai Stephenson quote.
The trouble with Americans is that they havent read the minutes of the previous meeting.
An extremely good question, and one for which I do not have an answer to hand. It is my understanding that the proportion is rather low, the field being dominated by legal and business types, but I can’t back it up with figures.
The problem here is that the vast majority of people, politicians included, believe that variability in seasonal weather is evidence of climate change. The vast majority of news anchors have precisely zero science education and continue to push the narrative that if the current weather pattern is not the same as last year, then that is evidence of climate change. In that sense, if understanding the statistical nature of weather patterns makes a person a “denialist”, then that may actually be the more scientifically defensible position.
You reap what you sow. When the hysteria about climate is based on bad science, then denialism should follow.
The qualitative effect of increasing CO2 due to fossil burning is that some level of surface warming should occur. Any attempt to quantify that effect by climate models or any other method involves a substantial amount of speculation. Is that science?
Scientists Made Contrarians Do It.
Meanwhile, TS roams through the Climateball Bingo, from “But Denier” to “But Science” by way of “But Modulz”:
https://climateball.wordpress.com/the-bingo
The answer to his silly rhetorical question (“is that science”) is yes: science is just a bunch of conjectures we haven’t refuted yet.
So there you have it Elliot. Do you agree with Willard? Does he represent your view of the science?
There you have it, ladies and gents.
The very best champion for team contrarians, at least in his own mind, does not even know about Karl Popper.
I find it a little difficult to parse, but the idea that science is just “a bunch of conjectures we haven’t refuted yet” is very Popperian. I would accept it broadly, yes. I would leave out the “just”, and add that Popper’s is only one of the intelligible models of science.
“The very best champion for team contrarians, at least in his own mind, does not even know about Karl Popper”
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
Before making landfall again in South Carolina, Debby will strengthen again and the pressure in the centre will drop to 992 hPa.
https://i.ibb.co/wR7wftP/ventusky-pressure-20240808t0300-33n79w.jpg
Derby has become a model of a modern hurricane, not very high windspeeds bur a lot of water. It is also slow moving.
As a result it has become a conveyer belt picking up water vapour from the warm Atlantic, dumping it as rain on land and then going back for more.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-new-attack-on-kamala-harris-is-literally-gibberish
Trumps New Attack on Kamabla Harris Is Literally Gibberish
“Donald Trump unveiled his newest plan of attack against Kamala Harris on Monday night: misspelling her first name.
The former president has made several attempts to undermine his surging presidential election rival, including by questioning her racial identity. Hes also road tested a series of nicknames including Lyin Kamala, Laffin Kamala, and Crazy Kamala, but now appears to be going in a different direction.”
Looks like ‘,la’ is the way to go.
Solar wind
speed: 393.5 km/sec
density: 4.15 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 07 Aug 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 222
“Sunspots AR3780 and Ar3772 have beta-gamma-delta magnetic fields that harbor energy for X-class solar flares.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 270 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 25.58×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.6% Low
8 numbered sunspot, one unnumbered spot is coming from farside, none are leaving to farside within a day.
No idea what Sunny boy is doing today:
2024 08 05 2024.594 213 18.0 28 37
2024 08 06 2024.597 246 25.3 31 35
2024 08 07 2024.600 313 46.4 6 7
SC 24’s daily maximum was at 220.
Strrrange thinnngs happpen.
Solar wind
speed: 366.8 km/sec
density: 2.40 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 08 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 242
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 303 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 25.73×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.2% Low
“HERE COMES THE STORM: NOAA forecasters are predicting a G2-class geomagnetic storm on Aug. 10th when a CME is expected to hit Earth. It was launched by one of multiple explosions between sunspots AR3774 and AR3777 on Aug. 7th. A second CME might be coming as well.”
9 numbered sunspots, one coming from farside. one going to farside.
Solar wind
speed: 407.6 km/sec
density: 2.44 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 09 Aug 24
Sunspot number: 337
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 336 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.04×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.4% Low
8 numbered spot. I don’t why they did not number a large spot which came from farside, yet.
“Sunspots AR3781, AR3780, AR3774, and AR3777 all have beta-gamma-delta magnetic fields that harbor energy for X-class solar flares.”
3780 is large starting to be directly facing Earth
There is not any +33C Greenhouse Warming Effect on Earth’s surface.
It is a huge scientific mistake.
The entire greenhouse warming from Earth’s atmosphere is some ~0,4C.
In conclusion, the 1,5C Global Warming observed since predindustrial period (1850) can only be explained by natural orbital causes.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Except that the main orbital variation that affects climate, the axial tilt, is moving TOWARDS ice age conditions, albeit very slowly. And in the last 175 years, axial tilt has changed by only about 0.03 degrees out of a maximum variation of 2.4 degrees.
Although the secondary effect, orbital eccentricity, is moving in the other direction (away from ice age conditions), it has changed in the past 175 years by only 0.5% of its total variation.
The other two effects, axial precession and apsidal precession, have a MUCH smaller effect on climate.
You really should check the numbers before making spurious claims.
Antonin Qwerty
” You really should check the numbers before making spurious claims. ”
You expect here from Vournas exactly the opposite of his daily modus operandi.
This might be named the Φ syndrome.
Thank you, Antonin.
From Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Milankovitch Cycles
The climatic event was probably a result of predictable changes in the Earths orbit (Milankovitch cycles) and a continuation of changes that caused the end of the last glacial period.[citation needed]
The effect would have had the maximum heating of the Northern Hemisphere 9,000 years ago, when the axial tilt was 24 and the nearest approach to the Sun (perihelion) was during the Northern Hemispheres summer. The calculated Milankovitch Forcing would have provided 0.2% more solar radiation (+40 W/m2) to the Northern Hemisphere in summer, which tended to cause more heating.
(emphasis added)
Milankovitch wrongly assumed the not reflected portion of solar flux is totally absorbed. Whereas what solar energy does is to interact with surfaces matter.
Also, Milankovitch neglected the very much stronger
influence from the Southern oceanic waters accumulating properties.
Milankovitch ignored the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Milankovitch accented on the axial tilt variation, which produce a comparably small difference.
But it is the precession of the equinoxes that is the major climate changer.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No it is not. No peer-reviewed paper says that.
Antonin,
“in the last 175 years, axial tilt has changed by only about 0.03 degrees out of a maximum variation of 2.4 degrees.”
And it is true, axial tilt has a minor effect on the current climat change.
Antonin, please visit my site:
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Why would I want to visit a site with more unsupported unscientific spurious claims? Perhaps if you post a copy of your physics PhD.
Antonin,
“The other two effects, axial precession and apsidal precession, have a MUCH smaller effect on climate.
You really should check the numbers before making spurious claims.”
Also,
“Why would I want to visit a site with more unsupported unscientific spurious claims? Perhaps if you post a copy of your physics PhD.”
Antonin…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not sure what you believe copy-pasting my comment achieves. It’s already there to see.
The lengths of the ice age cycles average 100000 years, with a range of 40000 years. No 23000 or 26000 cycle there.
But we are still in an ice age…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2024-0-85-deg-c/#comment-1681435
You KNOW what I mean by the “ice age cycles”.
Feigning ignorance is a tr011 technique.
> There is not any +33C Greenhouse Warming Effect on Earths surface.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
There is 33C GHE on earth surface. This is a big deal.
340 Wm-2 GHE leads to 33C or about 1C per 10 Wm-2.
Any positive feedback making the climate unstable should already be evident and its not.
Doubling CO2 to 840 ppm results in further GHE of 3Wm-2. Proportionately that should lead to about 0.3C warming.
Conclusion: climate crisis narrative is a scientifically false claim.
Ken believes: “There is 33C GHE on earth surface. This is a big deal.”
Ken admits he’s NOT a Skeptic. That explains his frequent attacks on real Skeptics.
Of course, his admission also reveals his ignorance of physics.
Puffman admits that he cannot distinguish between being a contrarian and being a crank.
Since he’s a crank, his lack of discernment is rather self-serving.
Ken
I hope you’ll permit some pedantry.
The CO2 forcing is logarithmic, not linear. Each doubling adds about 4W/m^2. Going from 1ppm to 2ppm adds 4W/m^2. Going from 280ppm to 560ppm or from 420ppm to 840ppm adds 4W/m^2.
Each unit of CO2 added causes less warming than the one before. It is non-linear. You cannot just divide the 340W current forcing by 33C and get 10W/degree warming effect.
In practice the warming effect of forcing is about 4W/m^2/C in the current climate.
“Doubling CO2 to 840 ppm results in further GHE of 3Wm-2. Proportionately that should lead to about 0.3C warming.”
Your forcing is about right, perhaps a bit low. The warming effect is definitely too low The current estimates are 4 W/m^2 per CO2 doubling and 4W/C warming effect. The direct effect of each doubling should be 4/4= 1C warming.
You’ve neglected climate sensitivity. Feedbacks such as increased water vapour amplify the warming effect of CO2. Estimates vary between 1.5 and 9, with most calculations close to 3.0. That would amplify the warming from 1C/doubling to 3C/doubling.
Check that against reality. In 140 years we’ve seen half a doubling and 1.2C warming, crudely that’s about 1.2*2=2.4C/doubling.
Finally there’s lag. The ocean acts as an enormous heat sink. It takes about 25 years for increased sea temperatures to fully reflect increased forcing.
That means that current temperatures were caused by late 1990’s CO2 concentrations. 395ppm or 0.4 of a doubling. That is crudely equivalent to 1.2*10/4=3C/doubling.
I’m afraid that theory and observation match. The physics predict about 3C warming per CO2 doubling and that is what we are seeing.
Your 0.3C/ doubling is too low.
Ent know his cult’s nonsense. He doesn’t understand physics, science, or accept reality, but he knows his cult’s nonsense.
Ken doesn’t know anything….
Clint R
I disagree with Ken’s argument, but I respect his willingness to debate the science.
You should learn from his example.
Ken wasn’t debating any “science”, Ent. He was spouting his crackpot beliefs, which are nothing more than a take off of your cult’s nonsense.
Being too incompetent to think for himself, he’s what is known as a “useful id10t”.
Puffman reached Step 3 – Saying Stuff
Using the I-word, to boot.
“Youve neglected climate sensitivity.”
Any positive feedback (aka climate sensitivity) making the climate unstable should already be evident (from the 340Wm-2 GHE already happening) and its not.
There is nothing in any data that is suggesting ‘climate sensitivity’ is factual.
Ken: 340 Wm-2 GHE leads to 33C or about 1C per 10 Wm-2.
Ken: Doubling CO2 to 840 ppm results in further GHE of 3Wm-2. Proportionately that should lead to about 0.3C warming.
Careful.
You are conflating radiative response with radiative force. Those are different, albeit related, concepts. The 3 W.m-2 value (RRTM says 4 W.m-2) is the force. Specifically it is the perturbation in the EEI. DWIR change, however, is a response. For example, if the ECS is 3 C at both the surface and atmosphere then the radiative responses would be sblaw(291 K) – sblaw(288 K) = 16.5 W.m-2 and sblaw(281 K) – sblaw(278 K) = 14.8 W.m-2 for UWIR and DWIR respectively. Note that the UWIR response is higher than the DWIR response. There are important implications behind that fact, but I’ll leave that for another discussion.
The salient point here is that your 0.3 C per W.m-2 ratio is based on the DWIR response whereas the 3 W.m-2 figure is for the force so you can’t take a metric meant for a response and apply it to a force. I’ll also add that the response isn’t static anyway. Different incremental steps in warming yield different radiative responses due to the 4th power relationship between temperature and radiant exitance so taking any temperature and dividing it by DWIR is going to be misleading anyway at least in the context in which you were trying to use it.
Now bdgwx brings up the “ECS” nonsense. It’s a little out of order, but…
Reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #6 — The bogus “Climate Sensitivity”
“Climate Sensitivity” is the term used for the fudge factor, since a fudge factor is needed to cover up for the discrepancy between the GHE anti-science and reality. (“ECS” is “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity”, just sounds more science-y.) It is pure nonsense.
In the cult’s false science, the bogus “CO2 forcing equation” predicts the imaginary additional flux due to adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. For example, currently the claim looks like this:
F = 5.45 * ln(C/Co) = 5.45 * ln (420/280) = 2.2 W/m².
Then, the cult perverts the S/B equation to get about 0.7°C of warming. Since this current natural warming trend is now about a full degree, the cult claims the feedbacks add the difference. See, they can’t lose! No matter what occurs, they just adjust their “climate sensitivity”. That’s why there is so much discussion about what the “climate sensitivity” is. They don’t have a clue. That ain’t science.
And, as we see here, the cult children hungrily gulp it all down.
> There is nothing in any data
Step 1 – Pure Denial
Contrarians don’t always accept the greenhouse effect, but when they do they sometimes deny that the greenhouse effect has any effect.
Climate sensitivity is a broader concept that encompasses more than just the impact of increasing GHG concentrations. It also includes the effects of natural perturbations (e.g., volcanic eruptions and variations in solar radiation) along with their respective feedback mechanisms.
Clint Rs comment at 2:43 pm suggests that he views climate sensitivity as being limited solely to GHGs. This strongly suggests a lack of familiarity with mainstream climate literature and implies that his ‘skeptical’ position is not based on a thorough understanding of the topic but rather on anti-science.
That’s WRONG, JW.
The ECS nonsense is directly linked to the GHE/CO2 nonsense.
You don’t understand any of this, but like a good cult child you’re willing to throw crap against the wall.
“> There is nothing in any data
Step 1 Pure Denial
Contrarians dont always accept the greenhouse effect, but when they do they sometimes deny that the greenhouse effect has any effect.”
Show me the data (beyond the 3Wm-2 per doubling of CO2). You can’t because it doesn’t exist. Even the 3Wm-2 is too small to measure.
The graph at the top of this page should be proof enough that there is a lot more going on in our climate than CO2 emissions. Else temperature would be going up, more or less, in logarithmic lockstep with increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
The very fact of the huge increase in temperature anomaly in the past year ought to be proof enough that CO2 driven AGW hypothesis is false.
“The very fact of the huge increase in temperature anomaly in the past year ought to be proof enough that CO2 driven AGW hypothesis is false.”
No. The very fact of the huge increase in temperature anomaly in the past year ought to be proof enough that CO2-only driven AGW hypothesis is false.
But no one claims that, so it is a red herring. CO2 is only one of many factors.
> Show me the data
Step 2 – Sammich Request
God life is easy for contrarians. All they need is to say less stuff than cranks.
“Conclusion: climate crisis narrative is a scientifically false claim.”
Yes, everyone knows it’s scam to take money for everyone.
And US govt can’t provide good roads, or good water. Some might be more concerned about their lousy forest management, homeless, and other things {governmental racisms, out control intel, etc…}.
Step 3 Saying Stuff
By chance gb is there to say out loud the bit that Kennui would like to keep quiet.
–Step 3 Saying Stuff
By chance gb is there to say out loud the bit that Kennui would like to keep quiet.–
So, Kennui is Ken?
But, saying stuff.
I was wondering if one had to live on Mars to actually get drinking water.
Also, not going to have forest fires on Mars.
In terms of Intel, it seems a Mar government will use less money on it.
> I was wondering if one had to live on Mars to actually get drinking water.
So, yeah.
Saying stuff.
Yeah.
And China uses about a trillion tons of water per year. As does India.
Antonin Qwerty says:
”Except that the main orbital variation that affects climate, the axial tilt, is moving TOWARDS ice age conditions, albeit very slowly. And in the last 175 years, axial tilt has changed by only about 0.03 degrees out of a maximum variation of 2.4 degrees.”
Please supply relevant calculations. Fact is Antonin, axial tilt has no direct effect on radiant forcing/insolation. It might aid feedback and ice extent but so far I don’t think anybody has shown the calculations for that. If you have some please post them.
Antonin Qwerty says:
”Although the secondary effect, orbital eccentricity, is moving in the other direction (away from ice age conditions), it has changed in the past 175 years by only 0.5% of its total variation.”
Again Please supply relevant calculations.
There you go.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/milankovitch-cycles-paleoclimatic-change-and-hominin-evolution-68244581/
If that’s above your pay grade, try here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
The basic principle is simple.
Midsummer solar insolation at 65N latitude exceeds 530W/m^2. All the ice melts in Summer. You get an interglacial period like the present climate.
Summer insolation drops below 530W/m^2. Snow and ice from the Winter persist through the Summer and build up year on year to form ice sheets. You get a glacial period.
EM the principle may be simple but like the effects of CO2 on the surface there are no calculations of how that happens and what the quantified effect is. The source you provided seems to be more about anthropology than climate science.
And all you did was pluck some climate myth with no support off an anthropology report ”it has changed in the past 175 years by only 0.5% of its total variation.”
if you look at figure 2 of this article you will see that Milankovitch data shows a natural ”orbital variation” of 3.5C at a period of ~2,500 years.
https://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week12a/Berger_Reviews_Geophysics_1988.pdf
Bill
Figure 2 is about variance not temperature. I’m not clear how you pulled temperature data from it. Your 2500 year cycle is 50 times smaller than the 100,000 year cycle.
IIRC the direct effect of orbital variations on insolation around 65N is actually quite small, 5W/m^2. That is a temperature difference of 1.2C. Feedbacks such as ice albedo then amplify the temperature change to 5C.
Your 2500 year cycle would produce a change of 0.1W/m^2 or 0.025C. Too small to be detectable over the internal variation.
A 5C temperature change is equivalent to a 20W/m^2 change in surface energy flux. If you look at my second link you will see that most of the variation is between 520W/m^2 and 540W/m^2.
Entropic man says:
”Figure 2 is about variance not temperature. Im not clear how you pulled temperature data from it. Your 2500 year cycle is 50 times smaller than the 100,000 year cycle.”
The scale on the right has the 100,000 year cycle at about 10^1.2 and the 2,500 year cycle about 10^.8. thats a difference of roughly 2.5 times, not 50.
Plus that is verifiable via the ice core records.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/
I bet your pardon. The 2500 year cycle shows a variance of 10^0.8=6.3 and the 100,000 year cycle has a variance of 10^1.8 =63. The longer cycle only has ten times the variance.
But why are we discussing variance and how did you get from variance to temperature?
Look again EM. You are looking at the 200-500 million year ”techtonic cycle”. It is 10^1.8. The 100,000 year orbital cycle is 10^1.2.
Oops, you’re right. I can’t even read a logarithmic scale without a cup of tea.
We’ve gone down a rabbit hole of irrelevance here.
Figure 2 is not measuring temperature, it is using analysis of variance of the temperature record as a means of detecting cycles.
It works too. It detected the three Milankovich cycles.
I have a bit of a problem with your 2500 year cycle. It should show clearly in the Holocene temperature data, but if it’s there it is smaller than the confidence limits.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
Ent,
“The basic principle is simple.
Midsummer solar insolation at 65N latitude exceeds 530W/m^2. All the ice melts in Summer. You get an interglacial period like the present climate.
Summer insolation drops below 530W/m^2. Snow and ice from the Winter persist through the Summer and build up year on year to form ice sheets. You get a glacial period.”
The summer insolation when drops below 530W/m^2 the difference is gained at the lower latitudes then.
When globe seen as a TOTAL, it is the same amount of solar energy received.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Entropic man says:
”Weve gone down a rabbit hole of irrelevance here.
Figure 2 is not measuring temperature, it is using analysis of variance of the temperature record as a means of detecting cycles.
It works too. It detected the three Milankovich cycles.
I have a bit of a problem with your 2500 year cycle. It should show clearly in the Holocene temperature data, but if its there it is smaller than the confidence limits.”
First off its not my 2500 year cycle. This comes from a guy who has reviewed various works of Milankovitch and others.
And if I apply this to the various estimates of how much variation there has been globally one can do the conversion.
So I have seen global variation stated as 15C from top of warmest interglacial to bottom of the last glacial. Since we don’t know if we are at the top of the current interglacial thats the best one to operate from.
I have also seen 9C. And you post one that suggests the current interglacial optimum was at +4C.
But what do we come up with those 3 reference points as a 2,500 year variation?
A 100k year of 15C corresponds to a 2.5kyear of 6.3C
A 100k year of 9C corresponds to a 2.5kyear of 3.6C
A 100k year 4C corresponds to a 2.5kyear of 1.6C
Its interesting how the 4C model was developed via blackbox climate modeling that can only be devalidated by actually living through a future 1.6C natural variation. . .and can only be validated by living through about 5 thousand years without one.
But note we haven’t yet even reached the 1.6C level.
As to your reference. Many scientists see that as an outlier promoted by those fearful of CO2 and/or dependent upon the fear of CO2. I see they use the glacial standard of 4C top to bottom but they aren’t showing the 1.6C proportional response that other proxies show as being around 3.6C.
What is central east antarctica telling us today about relative temperature change? Is that antarctic deamplification?
Hunter guy wrote:
If your “guy” is Berger, let me remind you once again that you should read more carefully. The graph in Figure 2 was copied an earlier paper, Mitchell 1976. Have you read that one?
Couldn’t find the Mitchell paper, nor could find a copy of the Milankovitch book.
Wow I guess Swanson doesn’t have them either.
So what is your concern Swanson?
Might be hard to find, maybe start searching libraries.
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Canon+of+insolation+and+the+ice-age+problem&i=stripbooks
I am not interested in a 1998 ”edited” version Bob.
Bill,
Also listed in my cite was the 1941 original, alas that is not available through Amazon either.
Might want to take a trip to Belgrade.
But then you don’t really care, do you?
Its just amazing how much this stuff is being repressed. Right at the heart of the so-called biggest issue of our times the main text of climate change isn’t available.
But the science community is like a herd of cats, very difficult to keep on the Chiseling Trail.
Here is a sample:
It appears to me that the >.6 C deg warming seen 1904 to 1946 was due to the 3 major gas planets on the warmside of earths orbit accelerating earth through perihelion and decelerating it through the aphelion exposed earth to additional days close to the sun.
Changes in earths inertia is without question a climate change variable not yet accounted for by the IPCC.
https://spaceengine.org/articles/discovery-of-neptune-theory/
During that period Neptune lingered on the cool side of the orbit.
https://tinyurl.com/3r3z3v9f
In the most recent warming period. 1982 thru 2024
https://tinyurl.com/3r3z3v9f
Neptune was on the warm side along with the other three and produced a another >.6c degree warming with perhaps a bit less than .05 additional warming for Neptune to join the party for that period.
But there are other potential causes for Neptune contributing so little.
1) Sunspots, known to brighten the sun, have been in decline in the recent period and were increasing in the earlier period.
https://flic.kr/p/2qc9LRx
The atmosphere does not cooperate with ocean in the ENSO cycle. The reason may be the high temperature of the troposphere (not the surface) over the equatorial Pacific.
Latest Southern Oscillation Index values
SOI values for 7 Aug, 2024
Average SOI for last 30 days -9.22
Average SOI for last 90 days -3.11
Daily contribution to SOI calculation -6.56
Monthly average SOI values
May 3.93
Jun -4.89
Jul -5.83
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_EQ_2024.png
Currently, there is strong blocking of the southern polar vortex in the lower stratosphere by excess ozone, which affects the jetstream circulation.
https://i.ibb.co/8xXbYzH/gfs-t100-sh-f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/WB1y71w/gfs-z100-sh-f00.png
Is there testing to prove that the global themperature calculated from thermometer data and your satellite data accurately estimates the actual global average temperature?
The word you are looking for is calibrated. And yes, temperature measuring instruments are calibrated.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Kevin Roberts, president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, will delay publication of his forthcoming book in the wake of a media firestorm sparked by Democratic criticism of the Heritage-led initiative Project 2025, RealClearPolitics is first to report.
Notably, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, a friend of Roberts and the Republican nominee for vice president, wrote the foreword of that book entitled “Dawn’s Early Light.”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/08/06/heritage_president_to_delay_book_publication_after_project_2025_firestorm_151403.html
Is this self-censorship?
Today August 7, the day/night duration is the same as late April, say 28.
Today the day/night temeprature is 35C/25C
Late April it was 20C/10C.
–
Please explain on the basis of Earth’s greenhouse effect the so much the temperatures differencies.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> Please explain
Step 2 – Sammich Request
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
A strange question.
I don’t think the greenhouse effect is relevant to those numbers. They most likely reflect the fact that there is a lag between the date of maximum insolation and maximum temperatures. The lag is typically about 20 days but depends on location, proximity to water etc.
If there is a greenhouse effect of +33C it should be relevant to both
the late April’s 20C/10C and to the early August’s 35C/25C
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“If there is a greenhouse effect of +33C it should be relevant to both
the late Aprils 20C/10C and to the early Augusts 35C/25C”
Still strange.
Why is it not relevant?
Without it, the numbers would be:
-13/-23 and +2/-8
” If there is a greenhouse effect of +33C it should be relevant to both the late Aprils 20C/10C and to the early Augusts 35C/25C ”
*
Nonsense.
It’s the same nonsensical discourse as the claims that if sea level rise exists, it should be everywhere the same.
Like sea level changes are due to many, everywhere differently overlapping causes, their global average measured at tide gauges during the satellite era shows the same trend as that measured by satellites:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xkdM6bd47s2WWraL2I6p2Nmz3g70JzNL/view
The same applies for the global greenhouse effect which can greatly differ from place to place but not on a global average.
*
That’s by the way the reason why pseudo-skeptics discredit ALL averaging processes.
Which ‘average’ is that and why?
Most people are below average , Bindidong is one of them
Thank you, Bindidon.
“The same applies for the global greenhouse effect which can greatly differ from place to place but not on a global average.”
–
Please what differencies might be there for the +33C global average greenhouse effect?
Here are some places for an approximate distribution of those differencies:
Uganda
Sudan
Egypt
Greece
Austria
Poland
Sweden
Iceland
Well, you may as well use places on globe of your own choice.
Notice, the more North you go – the smaller the area on the Globe, so be cautious about it.
Now, it is up to you to approximately distribute the +33C on the globe.
You may start with a local +100C greenhouse effect and – at other place – it may lower to almost 0C greenhouse effect.
But approximately it should give you on average the +33C figure.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Blindsley H00d: stop asking, start thinking.
No one can locally distribute the differencies of the average
+33C greenhouse effect,
because the +33C greenhouse effect doesn’t exist in the real world.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I note that the average daytime temperature of the Moon is 380K and the average night time temperature is 120K.
Overall average is 250K.
https://planetfacts.org/temperature-on-the-moon/
The figures for the Moon without an atmosphere and the Earth without a greenhouse effect are close together, 250K and 255K.
Makes that 33K greenhouse effect warming much more credible.
Thank you, Ent.
unar surface temperature:
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.e36b4f91ee071cdda6d34d7992d85ff0?rik=EysXZ%2bZPBaxAVA&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.eike-klima-energie.eu%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2016%2f12%2flunar-surface-temperature1.jpg&ehk=yA7oClMaobL1na3wjZwnO1gUFJ%2f2bvjSS6e0YmC0qsE%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
The lunar surface avr. temperature -77C (Diviner)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
Our sources disagree.
Mine says that the Moon’s surface averages 250K. When you compare the Moon’s 250K with the Earth’s 288K the difference is 38K, due to the presence of the Earth’s atmosphere.
I explain 38K of warming due mostly to the greenhouse effect.
Your source says that the Moon’s average surface temperature is 198K. The atmosphere therefore warms the Earth by 90K.
This leaves you with the larger problem.
How do you explain why Earth is 90K warmer than the Moon?
Ent says: “The figures for the Moon without an atmosphere and the Earth without a greenhouse effect are close together, 250K and 255K.
Makes that 33K greenhouse effect warming much more credible.”
Let me help you with that, Ent.
“Makes that 33K atmospheric (and oceans) effect warming much more credible.”
Earth’s oceans and atmosphere make the difference. It ain’t CO2.
Thank you, Ent.
“How do you explain why Earth is 90K warmer than the Moon?”
–
I explain it because there is also the very powerful the solar irradiated planet surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.
Earth and Moon are at the same distance from the sun, and, therefore, Earth and Moon are solar irradiated with the same intensity flux, because at Earth’s and Moon’s distance from the sun,
the So = 1.361 W/m^2 (So – it is the Solar constant – the solar flux at the Earth’s average distance from the sun).
We shall first compare the Earth’s and Moon’s the average surface temperatures
(for equal average Albedo a=0,306
themean surface temperatures
Tmean.earth = 288K
vs Tmean.moon = 206,7K)
because Earth and Moon share the same intensity solar flux
So = 1.361 W/m^2 , and therefore it makes the comparison most simple.
So we shall have:
Tmean.earth /Tmean.moon =
= 288K /206.7K = 1.3933
and the comparison for Earth and Moon,
their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root:
[ Earth(N*cp) /Moon(N*cp) ]^1/16=
= [ (1*1) /(0,0339*0,19)]^1/16 =
= (155,42)^1/16= 1,3709
where
N.earth = 1 rot/day
N.moon = 0,0339 rot/day
Earths cp = 1 cal/gr*oC (oceanic waters, and land mostly wet)
Moon’s cp = 0,19 cal/gr*oC (dry lunar regolith)
When we compare the results (1,3933) and (1,3709) we recognize that they are almost identical!
It is a demonstration of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
Planets’ and moons’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
(Tmean.planet.1) /(Tmean.planet.2) =
= [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ]^1/16
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
Doesn’t work. The Earth’s albedo is 0.3 while the Moon’s is 0.11.
Recalculate.
Thank you, Ent.
“Christos
Doesnt work. The Earths albedo is 0.3 while the Moons is 0.11.
Recalculate.”
For Moon T =220K
[ (220K^4)*(1 -0,3) ]^1/4 =
For avr. surface Moon T =220K
{ [(220K^4) /(1 -0,11)]*(1 -0,306)] }^1/4 = 206,7 K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
Still not working very well. You earlier source said that the Moon’s average temperature was -77C or 196K.
Now you are calculating that it should be 220K.
月球 – 维基百科，自由的百科全书 (wikipedia.org)
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9C%88%E7%90%83
表面溫度最低平均
最高赤道100 K220 K390 K85N[3]70 K130 K230 K
चन्द्रमा – विकिपिडिया (wikipedia.org)
https://dty.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE
Surface temp. min mean max equator 100 के 220 के 390 के 85N[५] 70 के 130 के 230 के 230 K[8]
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
“Which ‘average’ is that and why does it matter?”
Blinny can’t answer that.
No problem in answering your dumb questions, Blindlsey H00d.
Why do you ask? Search for answers instead.
— Christos Vournas says:
August 8, 2024 at 8:18 AM
Thank you, Ent.
How do you explain why Earth is 90K warmer than the Moon?
I explain it because there is also the very powerful the solar irradiated planet surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.–
You also have to allow for the Lunar surface near perfect insulation.
The top of lunar surface can be over 120 C, and 1 meter deeper it is -40 C.
Also Earth’s tropical ocean surface warms the polar regions, which only somewhat related to Earth’s rotation.
Thank you, gbaikie.
The Polar latitudinal areas’ role.
A planet absorbs only a small portion of the incident SW EM energyW/m2 as heat.
Some of that heat gets transported to the poles.
The planet average surface temperature (Tmean) is fundamentally determined by the Radiative energy balance’s quantitative magnitude (on how much EM energy enters and leaves the planetary boundaries):
Energy in = Energy out.
The Polar latitudinal areas’ participation in Planet Radiative energy balance is very insignificant.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The Polar latitudinal areas participation in Planet Radiative energy balance is very insignificant.”
Earth absorbs a lot energy from the sun, Venus doesn’t, nor any other planet or moon.
Polar region is insignificant in comparison to amount of energy absorbed by the tropical ocean.
Also polar region exports vast amounts of cold water, and imports a lot of warm surface waters- Polar region is not a radiant thing, though atmospheric heat from the tropical ocean surface does warm the polar region.
“Why do you ask?”
To get what your definition of ‘average’ is.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/average-vs-mean-vs-median-vs-mode/
“it’s better to use the word mean to distinguish from other things that might be casually referred to as ‘average’ values in a general sense (meaning values that are the most representative or common within the set).”
As always, Blindsley H00d keeps showing general statements instead of referring to real differences in averaging:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n1XsuuPoLUhMvtZg9SJoLPE4CX7Gc9Ss/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iEdxm4i1JxbVPOa_ZA5GVR1Er8OE2GY2/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BhgrAn-eVrX9JZUhr_y4ceVWAKsXtqml/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_F00TcPvlRBk4NQ8GR_Q6cdhUtQ4CUIQ/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AaxFh4QW5DTv7KH42H9DmSFGl68qJYRh/view
*
And the very best is that we all will enjoy once more Blindsley H00d’s newest UAH LT temperature anomaly chart showing again his wrong computation of the cascaded triple 12/10/8 month running median.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/uah-global-1.jpeg
Why does the median show the flat areas?
Fabio is post tropical cyclone. And tropical storm Emilia charging away NW at 18 mph
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
Went from 4 to 1 and Emilia going to continue to go nowhere until end of weekend.
Might give some surfing waves to California.
Emilia is post-tropical depression, Fabio seemed to have made Emilia movement west northwest, faster, and going 12 mph, now- [before, she disappears].
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Tuktoyaktuk and Aklavik, N.W.T. [North West Territories], each broke their previous records for hottest August temperature, seeing temperatures reach 29.3C and 32.3C, respectively, on Tuesday.
Inuvik, N.W.T., also reached a new August record with the thermometers hitting 32.7Conly one-tenth of a degree away from their all-time hottest temperature. Temperatures are forecast to break that all-time record on Wednesday, however.
Fort McPherson, N.W.T., broke their all-time hottest temperature record on Tuesday, reaching a scorching 34.3C.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/news/weather/forecasts/sweltering-temperatures-in-northern-canada-northwest-territories-are-breaking-records
Starliner: Astronauts might be stuck until FEBRUARY!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LemQxlmhgzA
Earlier discussion:
Safe Is Not An Option
August 5, 2024 Rand Simberg 39 Comments
http://www.transterrestrial.com/2024/08/05/safe-is-not-an-option-7/
I like Ellie’s numerous facial expressions.
NASA considering returning Starliner astronauts on Crew Dragon
Jeff Foust August 7, 2024
https://spacenews.com/nasa-considering-returning-starliner-astronauts-on-crew-dragon/
“OGAN, Utah NASA is evaluating options to have the two astronauts who flew to the International Space Station on a Boeing CST-100 Starliner spacecraft return instead on a SpaceX Crew Dragon in early 2025, given questions about the safety of Starliner.
At a Aug. 7 briefing, NASA officials said they expect to decide around the middle of August if it is too risky to have astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, who arrived at the station two months ago on Starliner, to return on the same spacecraft. That would require them to stay on the station while Starliner performs an automated undocking and return to Earth. “
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Repeating false and [contrarian] claims about climate science makes them seem more credible – including to people who accept the science and are alarmed by the climate crisis – new research has found.
[…]
Jiang’s research found repetition influenced the perceived truth of climate-[contrarian] claims even among people who were most alarmed about climate change.
The paper concluded: “Do not repeat false information. Instead, repeat what is true and enhance its familiarity.”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/aug/08/repeating-climate-denial-claims-makes-them-seem-more-credible-australian-led-study-finds?CMP=aus_bsky
Spreader of boring lies … No peanut butter ‘sammich’ for you.
Kennui reminds us why he earned his nickname:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
“Kennui…”
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
A very unusual polar vortex in the south. Anomalies from excess ozone are blocking the polar vortex to such an extent that it has split into two centres.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_sh_f00.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_sh_f00.png
Two low centres will merge over the south-eastern US. There will be a lot of rain.
Northwest Passage is open.
https://nsid*c.org/arcticseaicenews
Remove asterisk before linking. D*C effect!
As I wrote earlier, high solar activity has triggered a latitudinal jet stream, as can be seen in the animation below. This means more rain fronts in western and central Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/82P46qy/mimictpw-europe-latest.gif
Debby’s center is still over South Carolina, which means a flood threat in North Carolina. https://i.ibb.co/Qk2KZbq/goes16-vis-swir-04-L-202408081347.gif
The cult is suffering from all the science. That means we should continue….
Reasons why the GHE is bogus.
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
There are two basic attempts to describe/define the bogus GHE. One involves direct warming of Earth’s surface by CO2. The other involves indirect warming (slowing the cooling) by CO2 acting as insulation. The discussion here is about the first. The “insulation” nonsense will be discussed under Reason 5.
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 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.
You are still falling into the trap of believing that a 15μ photon emitted by a warm body is somehow different to a 15μ photon emitted by a cooler body. There is no difference. Therefore there is no way a surface can “decide” to absorb one or the other.
Put another way:
Here (for example) is a 13μ (or pick any arbitrary frequency) photon.
That is the only information you have.
You do not know its origin. You therefore do not know the temperature of the body that emitted it.
Therefore you cannot make assumptions about what happens when it encounters an arbitrary surface.
Sorry pp, but you’re WAY off.
The surface needs no information about where the photon came from. The absorp.tion is determined by whether or not the wavelength of the photon is compatible with the surface. If the photon is not compatible with the surface, it will not be absorbed.
Even if a 15μ photon is somehow absorbed by a 288K surface, it could not raise the temperature, as its frequency is below the average frequency of the surface.
Puffman keeps spamming is unphysical crap.
Last time was
…five days ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2024-0-85-deg-c/#comment-1681464
On the previous thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680238
Puffman will keep spamming until someone falls for his bait.
“Even if a 15μ photon is somehow absorbed by a 288K surface, it could not raise the temperature, as its frequency is below the average frequency of the surface.”
Completely wrong.
The “average frequency of the surface” is meaningless.
Allow me to help you. Briefly:
The TOTAL emission of the surface is described by the STEFAN BOLTZMANN LAW.
Whatever the temperature of the surface, the PLANCK RADIATION LAW describes how the the intensity of this radiation varies with frequency.
The intensity peaks at the frequency described by the WIEN DISPLACEMENT LAW. This peak frequency varies with the temperature of the surface but is otherwise of little practical interest for this discussion.
You seem to have become obsessed with this peak frequency.
Obviously this is all new to you, pp. But that’s okay. This can be a learning opportunity.
“Even if a 15μ photon is somehow absorbed by a 288K surface, it could not raise the temperature, as its frequency is below the average frequency of the surface.”
That’s completely correct.
The “average frequency of the surface” is full of meaning. It relates to the surface’s temperature, as the vibrational frequencies of the molecules correspond to the kinetic energies. And the average of all the kinetic energies is what we call “temperature”, as measured by a thermometer.
So to raise the temperature of a surface, the arriving photons must have a higher frequency than the WDL photon frequency.
Of course it’s up to Puffman to keep spamming the talking points of a drunk physics’ crank.
Up to a point, it goes without saying.
In the past, he got banned for that behavior.
Multiple times, in fact.
Clint,
“The average frequency of the surface is full of meaning. It relates to the surfaces temperature, as the vibrational frequencies of the molecules correspond to the kinetic energies.”
Nope, temperature is related to the average kinetic energy of the molecular vibrations, which goes with the displacement of those vibrations, not the frequency.
Do I get a kewpie doll for finding another bit of physics you get wrong.
Before ignoring you bob, I’ll give you one more chance —
The average frequency of the surface is full of meaning. It relates to the surface’s temperature, as the vibrational frequencies of the molecules correspond to the kinetic energies.
Don’t blow it again….
Clint R,
Each molecular bond vibrates with a specific frequency, the energy of those bonds is determined by the amplitude of the vibration.
In a quantum harmonic oscillator, the energy levels are quantized at equally spaced values(1). The energy is constantly switching between kinetic and potential energy, and the average will be 1/2 the total energy(2). A diatomic molecule vibrates somewhat like two masses on a spring with a potential energy that depends upon the square of the displacement from equilibrium(1).
from
A link I can’t post, thanks to shovel fabric.
Its not surface that is being warmed. It is atmosphere from earth surface to top of atmosphere that is warmed due to reduction in direct thermal radiation to space.
“So to raise the temperature of a surface, the arriving photons must have a higher frequency than the WDL photon frequency.
This sounding more and more bizarre.
Using your own argument, there plenty of photons arriving from a cooler source which exceed the WDL frequency.
Don’t believe me?
Take two PLANCK RADIATION curves for two different surfaces with different temperatures. Overlay them. Plenty of photons are available from either surface with frequencies that will exceed the WDL frequency of the other.
I have serious doubts that you understand this topic.
I’ve already covered this, pp. The surface doesn’t know where the photons came from. A high energy photon from a colder surface could be absorbed by a warmer surface. But, it still would not be able to raise the temperature of the surface because the surface is emitting equal photons.
But, there is an interesting thought experiment about this very issue. If there were a mechanism to allow higher energy photons from a colder surface to be absorbed, while preventing higher energy photons from being emitted, then the average kinetic energy would increase, raising the temperature. But, that mechanism does not exist in nature.
Many decades ago, that thought experiment was considered a problem for the 2LoT. But, about mid 20th Century, Claude Shannon discovered “Information Entropy”. So adding the mechanism was not a violation of 2LoT, since Clausius stated “cold cannot warm hot, by its own means.“.
I think we are getting somewhere.
It is true that the cooler surface cannot “warm” another surface to a temperature above that of the cool surface. But that doesn’t mean it has no effect at all.
Consider this. You are floating in outer space with no heating source. You will eventually die because you lose radiation and your body temperature approaches absolute zero. However, you have the option of floating next a “cool” which is maintained at a steady +20 C. You may still eventually die but your body temperature will approach some value well above absolute zero. i.e. you will end as a “warmer” corpse than otherwise. That is because you benefit from the photons from the “cooler” body.
The same with the surface temperature. It benefits from the presence of cool CO2, cool H2O and cool liquid water droplets in the atmosphere above.
PP, there are too many problems with considering an unprotected human in space, beyond temperature — lack of oxygen and vacuum, just to mention two. So, let’s consider a large chunk of meat.
If the chunk of meat started at body temperature, about 37C, then another object at 20C would not help. The chunk of meat would quickly drop well below freezing, say -50C. At that temperature, the 20C object is the “hot”. It could provide some amount of warming, depending on proximity.
So your example is not relevant to Earth, as cloudless sky temperatures are about -50C, but Earth’s average surface temperature is about 15C. A -50C sky won’t be warming the 15C surface. Remember your own words: “It is true that the cooler surface cannot “warm” another surface to a temperature above that of the cool surface.”
https://youtu.be/_kGiCUiOMyQ
John F. Clauser won the Nobel prize in physics in 2022. A few months later he came out as a climate change denier. He believes that climate change is a total myth. Oh dear.
Does he actually deny climate can change or just the CO2 nonsense?
There’s a BIG difference, but your cult can’t understand that.
Did Puffman listen to the episode?
I bet NOT!
Remember Clarke’s Law.
If an elderly and distinguished scientist says something is possible they are probably correct. If they say something is impossible they are probably wrong.
Debby will cause flooding in Virginia.
https://i.ibb.co/pbGMjk1/goes16-ir-04-L-202408081832.gif
The following is related to Dr Spencer’s post on April 23rd, 2024 titled Unnecessary Net Zero, Part II: A Demonstration with Global Carbon Project Data.
New research from Cornell seems to show a significant weakening of land and ocean carbon sinks, with implication that decarbonization must accelerate.: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12447
ENSO updates/forecasts
BoM
“ENSO is likely to remain neutral until at least early spring. Three of 7 climate models suggest the possibility of SSTs reaching the La Niña threshold (below −0.8 °C) by October. The remaining 4 models suggest a continuation of ENSO-neutral throughout the forecast period.
The ENSO Outlook remains at La Niña Watch. La Niña Watch does not guarantee La Niña development, only that there is about an equal chance of ENSO remaining neutral or La Niña developing during the remainder of 2024.”
NOAA
“ENSO-neutral is expected to continue for the next several months, with La Niña favored to develop during August-October (70% chance) and persist into the Northern Hemisphere winter 2024-25 (79% chance during November-January).”
JMA
“It is more likely that La Niña conditions will develop by boreal autumn (60%) than ENSO-neutral conditions will continue (40%).”
Beijing Climate Centre [Graphic only]
Starship is ready to fly again, SpaceX says
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/starship-is-ready-to-fly-again-spacex-says/ar-AA1ou6p3
Flight 5 Starship and Super Heavy are ready to fly, pending regulatory approval, SpaceX said in the post on X (formerly Twitter).
…
“The Starship vehicle, which comprises the Super Heavy booster and the Starship spacecraft, took its first test flight in April 2023 and flew most recently in June 2024. Each flight has met an increasing number of technical objectives, taking the vehicle closer to the day when it will fly astronauts and cargo to the moon, Mars, and beyond.”
When are going to the Moon with crew.
Robotic stuff is important, too. But rather pointless, without sending crew.
Nobody is going to Mars
In short term, we should find out, if Starship works, and/or how well it works.
One could look at whether Starship is better the Falcon-9 {the most successful rocket that has ever flown. One also has other rocket companies which might make a better rocket than falcon-9, the most obvious is the New Glenn rocket, which is supposed to be first launched within a couple months.
Both rockets [SpaceX’s and Blue Origin’s] are needed for crewed lunar program, or without something like it, we are not going to send crew to the Moon within 10 years.
If Congress wanted to increase NASA budget [which all it’s done to date, is decrease if you count inflation to the dollar] they could change that, easily.
Other than work better than falcon-9, the other thing is will SpaceX or blue Origin make a fuel depot in LEO, and largely mean a gas station which will sell rocket fuel in LEO.
If get gas station in LEO, we should get gas stations in lunar orbit and places like Venus and Mars orbit. But even if just had gas station in LEO which operated for 5 to 10 years, that could start market for water in space. Of course minning lunar water, also does this.
And if there is market for water in space, one could people minning space rocks.
Great! I think I met him once when I went to a Creed concert.
Should have got his autograph.
It can be seen that the weakening of the southern polar vortex began in the upper stratosphere and gradually reached the surface.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JAS_SH_2024.png
ENSO remains neutral.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202408.gif
As opposed to all the voters who are switching over to Harris.
The planet average surface temperature cannot be associated with any particular EM energy emission spectrum.
Because we simply do not know the surface’s particular points the emission temperature.
And because two planets with the same average surface temperature may emit dramatically different amounts of EM energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Also, two planets with different average surface temperatures may emit the same amounts of EM energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Here is where we are:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/yes-the-greenhouse-effect-is-like-a-real-greenhouse-and-other-odds-and-ends/
**Works pretty good for a partially assembled engine :)**
SpaceX President And Elon Musk Hit Back At ULA CEO For Comments On Starship’s Raptor 3: ‘Works Pretty Good For A ‘Partially Assembled’ Engine’
https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/08/40279896/spacex-president-and-elon-musk-hit-back-at-ula-ceo-for-comments-on-starships-raptor-3-works-pretty-g
But it is unbelievable. But nice to see the picture of test firing.
Due to the motion of the ocean -the laNina has been delayed
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Test
A simple and inexpensive way of reducing urban heat: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/16/mirror-roofs-cooling-homes-freetown-sierra-leone-extreme-heat
Temperature dropping
https://wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/hausteingfsprognosenta2mglobal1808bis25082024neuerjahrestiefstand-e1723967181485.jpg
What is the horizontal line at 0.5 supposed to represent?
70% of Sicily in danger of desertification; tourists continue to pile in demanding water.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/19/the-land-is-becoming-desert-drought-pushes-sicilys-farming-heritage-to-the-brink
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/uah-global.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/uah-tropics.jpeg
How is the 12-month median lower than ANY month of the last 13?
How is the 12-month mean lower than ANY month of the last 15?
How does taking 12-month averages cause you to lose almost 18 months at each end instead of just 6?
And why are your projections of falling temperatures accompanied by commentary but your projections of rising temperatures are accompanied by silence?
Antonin Qwerty
Do you possibly misunderstand the plots, which aren’t simple but rather triple cascaded averages (means in green or medians in red)?
*
Look for example at the cascaded time series with median computation:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kA1AusJboS2RB1yAt97W9MYgsxTSuFEV/view
*
The end of the first column in the cascade is the median of ‘2023 8’ till ‘2024 7’ in the source: 0.900.
The end of the second column in the cascade is the median of ‘2023 5’ till ‘2024 2’ in the first column: 0.805.
The end of the third column in the cascade is the median of ‘2023 3’ till ‘2023 10’ in the second column: 0.393.
And so are all of them above, computed in the same way.
The same happens of course when you build means instead of medians.
*
Here is the correct representation of cascaded means versus cascaded medians:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1umE0x_ObQqkafV33CqwRkzXHwMVQWJEJ/view
*
Despite the obvious differences, mean and median cascades have extremely similar polynomials within their active windows:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ec1sjMvW6IsqTa_YINtRyQDl1kbEPHSQ/view
” And why are your projections of falling temperatures accompanied by commentary but your projections of rising temperatures are accompanied by silence? ”
Simply because Blindsley H00d aka ‘RLH’ is like Ireneusz Palmowski a 100% opinionated coolista.
These two guys report only about cooling.
” And why are your projections… ”
I forgot to add that Blindsley H00d intentionally deceives his readers.
What he represents in his graphs has nothing to do with projections in the original sense (continuing a sequence of data beyond its end) because unlike running means, Savitzky-Golay filter outputs always start with their source and end with it.
The impression of a projection is unduly reinforced in the eyes of the reader by the fact that Blindsley H00d – intentionally – always omits the Savitzky-Golay filter output at the beginning.
I overlooked this:
” How does taking 12-month averages cause you to lose almost 18 months at each end instead of just 6? ”
When using a simple, centred running average with a 12-month window, you lose 6 month in front and 5 months at end.
When using the cascaded 12-month variant with a centred 12/10/8 cascade specified by coefficients computed by StanU Emeritus Vaughan Pratt, you lose 6+5+4=15 months in front and 5+4+3=12 months at the end of the time series.