2015 will be the 3rd Warmest Year in the Satellite Record

December 3rd, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Way back in June, John Christy and I called 2015 as being the warmest year on record…in the surface thermometer data. Given the strong El Nino in progress, on top of the official thermometer data warming trend, this seemed pretty obvious.

Of course, everyone has their opinions regarding how good the thermometer temperature trends are, with periodic adjustments that almost always make the present warmer or the past colder.

But I’m not going there today…

Instead, I’m going to talk about our only truly global dataset: the satellite data. With the November 2015 data now in, it’s pretty clear that in our UAH analysis 2015 will only be the 3rd warmest year since the satellite record began in 1979. Based upon my calculations, this will be true no matter what happens in December (barring Armageddon).

Here are the yearly rankings, for which I assumed the December 2015 anomaly will be +0.40 C (click for full-size):
UAH-LT-El-Nino-year-rankings

The years are displayed with the warmest on the left, and the coldest on the right. The color coding and arrows have to do with El Nino years, discussed below.

Will 2016 be a Record?

What is interesting is to consider the possibility that 2016 will indeed be a record warm year, even in the UAH (and probably RSS) satellite data. This is because the second year of El Nino year couplets is almost always the warmest, and 2015 is only the first year.

In the plot above I have color-coded the four previous major El Nino year pairs: 1982-83, 1987-88; 1997-98; and 2009-10. In three of those (all except 1987-88), the second year was much warmer than the first year. This means there is a good chance that 2016 will be a record warm year.

But as 1987-88 shows, it’s not guaranteed….

If the current El Nino unexpectedly fizzles in the next few months – OR – if this El Nino transitions unusually rapidly into a strong La Nina (like the 1987-88 event), then 1998 might not be beaten for the warmest year. Mother Nature is full of surprises, and I still believe she is mostly in control.

If I simply average the previous four El Nino events together as an estimate of what will happen next year, then 2016 would be 0.25 C warmer than 2015. This would cause it to edge out 1998 as the record warmest year by 0.02-0.03 deg. C.

But I’m not making any bets.


456 Responses to “2015 will be the 3rd Warmest Year in the Satellite Record”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. ehak says:

    Then 2015 sure leads over 1997. Even in the Spencerized TMLT 6,0betasomething.

    You’d better be hoping for a record in 2016. If not you will have bigtime problems explaining the difference between RSS water vapor and your modeled temperature index.

    • actually, it is the RSS water vapor that depends upon modeling assumptions (e.g. the shape of the vertical profile of water vapor is assumed to not change).

      We have no such assumptions.

      Read my many posts on water vapor if you want to understand why the total integrated water vapor doesn’t have to match tropospheric temperature.

      • ehak says:

        Well. Do you apply different weighting functions across the globe?

        • no, the same weighting function. The O2 (absorber) content of the atmosphere is essentially the same everywhere, and the absorption coefficient is nearly invarient with temperature, so the ~54 GHz weighting function remain essentially unchanged.

          But at the 22.235 GHz channel used for integrated water vapor, the absorber (water vapor) varies tremendously, and so does the weighting function. So, total integrated water vapor retrievals just assume a static weighting function shaape.

          • ehak says:

            So you are assuming the same height for the different layers in the atmosphere for the whole planet. That is a model.

            One example of what that leads to: Temperature trend north of 60 deg for UAH 5.6 after 1979: 0.43 C/dec. Version 6.0betasomething: 0.23. Surface for Hadcrut4 is 0.46.

            How could that happen with no change in atmospheric model assumptions?

            You seem to know that the RSS water vapor measurements are in error. Why then have you not corrected that? RSS tpw has been used in in IPCC reports and all.

            (We do not “assume” a height for the temperature measurement, any more than a radiosonde temperature measurement at 10,000 ft altitude “assumes” a height of 10,000 ft….it is a direct result of the physics. And if you read about the relationship between boundary layer water vapor — which dominates TPW — and deep-tropospheric temperature, you would know that the trends do not have to agree. That is, in turn, separate from the TPW retrieval assumption regarding the water vapor profile shape. You seem to know some buzzwords, but don’t understand the concepts. -Roy)

          • mpainter says:

            Ehak, who are you and why do you use the Tor exit router?

          • Nate says:

            Nice plot.

            And it nicely illustrates something that you may not have intended. Compare the first years of the El Nino pairs to each other. These are years we would expect to be similar.

            82 -.3
            97 -.01
            09 .11
            15 .26

            We see a clear trend in these and no hiatus.

          • Nate says:

            Left off 87 because it is in a triplet 86-88

      • D-C says:

        Roy,

        Increasing the % of water vapor causes the temperature gradient (that has nothing to do with any lapsing process) to become less steep. Because radiative balance will be maintained with the Sun, this means that the supporting temperature at the base of the troposphere becomes lower as the thermal profile rotates about a pivoting altitude which might be close to 4Km.

        This is supported by my published study of temperature/precipitation correlation which showed water vapor cools the surface.

        You only have to consider Venus to realize that the GH conjecture is crap. The Venus surface receives a mean of less than 20W/m^2 of direct solar radiation – that’s a measured fact. The temperature varies between 732K and 737K, warming gradually by 5 degrees during the 4-month Venus day and cooling 5 degrees at night, not unlike Earth’s surface. After all, it would have to cool somewhat at night, so it must warm again the next Venus day, whether or not you agree with the 5 degree quantification.

        To support mean surface temperatures you would need variable flux with a mean of well over 20,000W/m^2. You can’t get that by any process, because the solar flux at TOA is far less and the atmosphere cannot act as an amplifier of energy. Backradiation cannot supply thermal energy that causes the surface temperature to rise each Venus morning.

        So, Roy, why do you continue to try to bluff your readers with the conjecture that direct radiation “explains” a planet’s surface temperature? It doesn’t. You know where to read about what physics does explain the temperatures in the troposphere, surface, crust, mantle and core of planets and satellite moons. I’m right Roy, and you can’t prove me wrong, not even for AU $10,000.

      • David Appell says:

        Roy: Will you release your code so we can see your assumptions?

        Or at least your algorithms. RSS has released their algorithms….

        • Roy W. Spencer says:

          UAH Version 5.6 code has been available for years from NCDC. Version 6 code will be made available when the paper is published.

          • Eli Rabett says:

            Years is a bit of a reach. A few years (three) more accurate, but the pea appears to have been moved, so where is the v5.6 code?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Eli Rabbett…”Years is a bit of a reach”.

            It’s been years since Gerlich and Tscheuschner kicked your butt over your lame rebuttal to their paper on the greenhouse effect.

            How did you manage to confuse infrared energy with heat when you claimed they had been describing a radiative model where one body was radiating against another and one body was not radiating?

            Had you forgotten the 2nd law of thermodynamics limits heat transfer to one direction, from the warmer body to the colder body. Of course both bodies were radiating, it’s just that heat is not infrared energy.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Eli Rabbett…”Opinions differ”

            Josh…there is absolutely no difference of opinion in physics between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy. They are two different forms of energy. You climate alarmists have made an egregious error by presuming IR and heat are the same energy.

            Thermal energy obeys the 2nd law and IR does not. The 2nd law is about heat, as G&T had to inform you. You cannot sum net energies using IR and claim that satisfies the 2nd law.

            The 2nd law is clear, heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body without compensation. There is no such compensation in the atmosphere.

            Are you ready to admit your error and come over to our side?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Gordon,

            EVERYTHING obeys the 2nd Law — entropy increases!

            If you want to take a macroscopic view (classical thermodynamics), then radiation is a form of heat = energy transfer. Macroscopically, this transfer is always observed to be from hot to cold. And the macroscopic version of the second law is obeyed. All microscopic details are ignored (Just like macroscopicially conduction is always from hot to cold.)

            If you want to take a microscopic view (statistical mechanics), then radiation is photons flying both ways. Some of these photons do end up going from colder regions to warmer regions, but more go from warmer to cooler — that is the probabilistic, statistical nature of the universe. And the microscopic version of the 2nd law is obeyed. (Just like conduction involves SOME collision where energy is transferred from an atom in a cold object to an atom in a warmer object, but more collisions transfer energy the other way).

            There is much more that could be said here, but ultimately, you have too narrow a view of the 2nd Law and thermal energy. SOMETIMES kinetic energy is thermal energy (eg random motions of gas molecules) and some times it is not (organized motion of a bullet). SOMETIMES EM energy is thermal energy (eg a “photon gas inside a cavity) and sometimes it is not (a laser beam).

          • Eli Rabett says:

            Tim, try breaking your head against Loschmidt’s paradox. There are actually times when entropy does not increase. Short times, but times none the less.

            Be careful though

            http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/01/there-are-times-that-try-bunnys-brains.html

          • D'J'C says:

            Eli Rabett

            The only situation in which entropy stays the same and does not increase in an independent natural process is when there is already a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, because that state is, by definition, the state of maximum entropy. I have extended the work of Josef Loschmidt, proving it from thermodynamics, verifying it with 21st century experiments with centrifugal force and using it to explain heat transfers which enable our understanding of temperatures in tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores of all planets and satellite moons. You should read it sometime.

          • Eli Rabett says:

            Here is a hint, the Earth, the atmosphere, the surface and the oceans are not in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Right now the energy inflow exceeds the outflow by a few W/m2.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Tim Folkerts “EVERYTHING obeys the 2nd Law entropy increases!”

            Tim…entropy is only one part of the 2nd law. Clausius was clear that entropy is the summation of infinitesimal changes in heat, dq, at the temperature, T, at which the change takes place, over an entire process.

            If the process is reversible, the integral is zero and so is the entropy. Otherwise, the entropy is +ve. Clausius added that most natural processes are not reversible.

            Radiation is not a form of heat, radiation is electromagnetic energy and heat is thermal energy. They have different derivations and different properties. Heat is essentially the energy associated with atomic/molecular motion.

            With regard to radiation being photons flying in two directions, with more flying in one direction than the other, that theory is not covered by the 2nd law. Nor does it describe heat transfer per se. Heat is transferred by infrared energy but the heat does not move from the bodies involved in the transfer.

            Heat is a phenomenon particular to the local atoms in a substance. It is not transferred as a substance between bodies, when the heat lowers in one body due to IR emission it increases in the other body due to IR absorption. Obviously there is a one to one relationship between IR and heat but IR is not heat, therefore it is not dealt with by the 2nd law.

            The 2nd law makes it clear that heat can only be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body without compensation. Put another way, the only way heat can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body, as in a refrigerator, is by supplying external power to drive a compressor to compress refrigerants.

            No means of compensation is available in the atmosphere.

            I freely admit I have a lot to learn about heat and subjective treatment of heat is hard to come by. I get the impression that many modern physicists have learned their theory via math and don’t know how to describe the physical reality. Quantum theory has compounded that through its obfuscations.

            In a substance like iron, heat is transferred by valence electrons and as far as I know that has nothing to do with IR. In an insulator, heat is transferred by phonons. A phonon is the equivalent of a photon, as far as I understand, but it applies to energy transfers between atoms through atomic vibrations..

            The transfer is apparently done through the vibrations of atoms in their covalent bonds. That vibration can only take place between energy quanta with specific properties.

            Going back to radiation, Bohr claimed that electrons in atomic shells will only accept energy of a specific frequency and intensity. From what I understand, that’s the reason heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body, the cooler atoms lack the radiative frequency and intensity to raise the electrons in a warmer body to a higher energy level.

            An increase in heat requires those electrons to reach higher energy levels.

            I have the impression that climate scientists who have applied Boltzmann and Planck to heat transfer have over-stepped their bounds. Boltzmann and Planck apply well to stellar atmospheres operating at very high temperatures but inferring that heat transfer on our planet can be covered by radiative laws is very incomplete.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Eli Rabbett…”opinions differ”.

            Eli…I have been thinking about my hostility toward you and I feel it is unjustified. So I apologize.

            I have my dander up about you over what I have perceived as hostility from you toward skeptics, especially G&T. Hitting back solves nothing.

            I think the only way forward in science is for us to acknowledge our differences and to find common ground. I can’t go that far…yet…with the likes of Schmidt and Mann, but you seem to be an amiable type in your posts here. At least, I have not found you going out of your way to be obnoxious.

            Your blog is another matter and I wish you’d find a way to be more scientific and less prone to trashing everything skeptical.

            I wont hold my breath but I think you have the capability. I don’t at times so I am being hypocritical. 🙂

      • D'J'C says:

        Roy – Empirical evidence shows water vapor cools:

        Means of Adjusted Daily Maximum and Daily Minimum Temperatures

        Wet (01-05): 30.8C 20.1C

        Medium (06-10): 33.0C 21.2C

        Dry (11-15): 35.7C 21.9C

        [source]

  2. ehak says:

    1997 was the 7th warmest at the time. And 1998 was almost 0.5 C warmer than 1997.

    RSS Water Vapor:

    http://i.imgur.com/ZvYfvYi.png

    • see my previous comment…unless you are only on output mode today.

      • mpainter says:

        Ehak, at this point you should identify yourself. Who are you?

        • according to his IP address, “ehak” is using a Tor exit router to avoid his identity or location being detected. I’ll just assume he’s the usual Soros-funded troublemaker.

          • ehak says:

            Wellwellwell Roy. A conspiracy.

            Hilarious.

            (well, you are conspiring with others who set up the Tor routers for people like yourself, so, yeah…glad you can at least admit it. -Roy)

          • geran says:

            Ehak, how can I get in contact with Soros? I’m thinking about a little “double-dipping”. My Big Oil monthly checks have dropped off a little due to depressed oil prices. I could use another check for awhile, and I’m sure i could impress Soros with some imaginative pseudoscience. For example: “Mankind is dumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere, the planet is getting heavier! At some tipping point, the gravitational attraction to the Sun will yank Earth out of its orbit and pull us into itself! The polar bears won’t like that at all.”

            (How’d I do?)

          • mpainter says:

            Ehak, why do you use a Tor exit router? I assume your purpose is to hide your location. Correct?

          • mpainter says:

            So ehak is publicly funded: grants from NASA, NOAA, NSF. Wellwellwell.

          • David Appell says:

            Roy Spencer wrote:
            “Ill just assume hes the usual Soros-funded troublemaker.”

            Can you list all your own funding, now or in the past? From the George C. Marshall Institute, and for being on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, and any other outside income along these lines?

            (My time with Marshall Institute was donated, as is my time for Cornwall Alliance. My statements of financial interest are available from the State of Alabama. Care to share what Green-type “news” outlets have paid you for what you do, David? -Roy)

          • geran says:

            Davy, there you go with the “income” thing again. Your fixation almost makes you appear jealous…

          • David Appell says:

            Spencer brought up payments, not me.

            What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

          • geran says:

            Wow, that’s quite a stretch! You should try some creative writing, like say, science fiction.

            Oh, wait…

          • David Appell says:

            So Spencer can make insinuations about funding, but he can’t be expected to answer any about his own funding?

            Sorry, not.

          • geran says:

            Davy, when it comes to “funding”, size matters. I guess you are not happy with yours.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @David Appell “Can you list all your own funding…”

            Who cares, the real question is whether his data is correct or not. I think it is since NASA and the American Meteorological Society awarded medals to Roy and John Christy for excellence re their work on NOAA sat data.

            You should be asking why NOAA has slashed 5000 surface station from a global pool of 6500 and are using climate models to interpolate and homogenize the remaining 1500 station data to fill in the 5000 missing stations.

            That’s sheer scientific misconduct but it seems to be OK with you.

            Also, NASA is being hounded for rewriting the historical temperature record to what they think it ‘should be’. NASA gets it’s data from NOAA.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon: Who cares about funding? Clearly Roy does, making accusations….

            If Roy is so worried about funding, let’s see him give us his own funding sources.

            I predict he won’t. Too much to hide.

            (Read my response to your initial question, above. -Roy)

          • geran says:

            Davy, YOU are the one that is worried about funding. So, go ahead and publish all your funding for the last 5 years.

            (I promise not to laugh, publicly.)

          • Eli Rabett says:

            You should be asking why NOAA has slashed 5000 surface station from a global pool of 6500 and are using climate models to interpolate and homogenize the remaining 1500 station data to fill in the 5000 missing stations.

            Gordon, since BEST (> 39K stations) and the International Surface Temperature Initiative (even more) have increased the number of surface station records used and get the same result, that is a really damp squib.

            There remain many things questionable about the satellite series.
            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00131.1

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Eli Rabbett…”Gordon, since BEST (> 39K stations) and the International Surface Temperature Initiative (even more) have increased the number of surface station records used and get the same result, that is a really damp squib”.

            Josh…your reply does not address the scientific misconduct of NOAA.

            Note in the following that Judith Curry reveals the BEST study shows the pause from 1998 onward but that it is hidden.

            Perhaps you did not read the article by Judith Curry, who was a member of the BEST study, in which she revealed that the study was flawed.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/uh-oh-it-was-the-best-of-times-it-was-the-worst-of-times/

            “In Prof Currys view, two of the papers were not ready to be published, in part because they did not properly address the arguments of climate sceptics.

            As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: This is hide the decline stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.

            To say this is the end of scepticism is misleading, as is the statement that warming hasnt paused. It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled.”

            Also…”But although Prof Curry is the second named author of all four papers, Prof Muller failed to consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month, when the peer review process had barely started, and to issue a detailed press release at the same time.

            He also briefed selected journalists individually. It is not how I would have played it, Prof Curry said. I was informed only when I got a group email. I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did”.

        • springer says:

          Kyle Hilburn

          • mpainter says:

            What affiliation? Please and thank you.

          • mpainter says:

            Remote Sensing Systems supported by grants from NASA, NOAA, NSF.

            One Kyle Hilburn employed there since 2003. MS meteorology FS.

            Is this correct, ehak?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @mpainter ..”Remote Sensing Systems supported by grants from NASA, NOAA, NSF”.

            It seems to me the purpose of forming RSS was to disprove the UAH data. Seems they ended up corroborating it.

            If you look at the graphs on their site the colours are bright oranges and reds. Think they are trying to imply something?

          • David Appell says:

            “Seems they ended up corroborating it.”

            Maybe for the LT. But not for the MT, where their numbers differ significantly.

          • springer says:

            Ah. I didn’t know RSS was funded by NOAA, NASA, and NSF. Another solid bit of evidence. The clincher AFAIC.

            Kyle’s initials are KAH. Unimaginative using them backwards. Means he really wants to get caught. Anagrams are also common among those who want to get caught. Someone smart has to go some trouble to figure it out and that’s a way of seeing that someone cared enough to do it.

            He left RSS in August 2015 and probably did a DBA “KAH Engineering” with backwards initials EHAK.

            EHAK appeared on the intertubes shortly after Kyle left RSS.

            Hardly anyone in the world obsesses over “RSS water vapor” and a few other esoteric metrics he used and defended arguing with me on Judith Curry’s blog over Karl 2015 shenanigans. Only “EHAK” and Kyle Hilburn to be precise.

            Kyle was at RSS for 12 years straight out of college. The only job he ever had. Being highly defensive of it is a natural emotion.

            Pretty sure that’s our guy. Spencer might know more about how and why he left RSS and will probably know some pointed questions to ask to further confirm.

          • mpainter says:

            Good detective work.

          • mpainter says:

            Do you suppose that he could have snagged some funding for himself? He presents the right political posture.

          • Kevin O'Neill says:

            Yes, great detective work.

            America’s founding fathers would be proud. You might remember them as Silence Dogood, Publius, Philo-Publius, Novanglus, et al.

  3. 2016 will not be s warm as 2015, and 2017 will not be as warm as 2016 etc.

  4. This nonsense of AGW ends before this decade is out. Done.

  5. Stephen Richards says:

    My concern is what happens when the satelites fail. It would be a golden opportunity for gavin to bend the data every which wau but lose

    • David Appell says:

      Do you really think UAH doesn’t adjust data?

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi David Appell,

        Of course, they adjust the data. The question should be: Why were the adjustments made and is it based on empirical (i.e. facts not speculation) analysis? The same question should be asked to regarding all data-sets with the understanding that by Occam’s razor the data-set requiring the least and/or no adjustments or assumptions made will likely be the most accurate.

        Have a great day!

        • David Appell says:

          The same questions apply to surface data. Yet everyone here seems to think adjustments to the surface data are fudging, while adjustments to the satellite data aren’t.

          UAH and RSS actually use much more complicated algorithms than do those who measure the surface. UAH won’t share their algorithm or code, but RSS has:

          “Climate Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (C-ATBD)”
          RSS Version 3.3 MSU/AMSU-A
          Mean Layer Atmospheric Temperature
          http://images.remss.com/papers/msu/MSU_AMSU_C-ATBD.pdf

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi David Appell,

            Thank you David for the reply. You state:

            “The same questions apply to surface data. Yet everyone here seems to think adjustments to the surface data are fudging, while adjustments to the satellite data arent.”

            Agreed. They’re both likely fudged. Imo, the problem remains that we live in a world of instant gratification so for too many data is like some bauble they find on the beach, a portent or yet another claim made by others that is accepted without thinking because thinking requires work and most people haven’t the time to spend investigating every claim someone or some institution makes. In fact, to actually know the validity of the data one would have had to conduct the experiment themselves which still requires some faith. Anything short of that requires enormous faith. You go on:

            “UAH and RSS actually use much more complicated algorithms than do those who measure the surface. UAH wont share their algorithm or code, but RSS has:”

            True. In fact, as your link suggests spectral clarity of atmospheric emissions reduces as atmospheric pressure increases near the surface making satellite surface data more problematic. Of course, direct surface measurements have plenty of their own biases including historically consistency of measurement time (for example, taking temp measurements at the same time ever day and not hours apart), location (like planting a thermometer close to some heart source like a building, furnace etc.), or various attempts at historical revisionism now apparently being investigated by Congress.

            There seems to be a real shortage of unfiltered raw measurement. One can find innumerable temperature graphs covering periods thousands of years prior to even the invention of the thermometer, but direct unfiltered data representing only direct unaltered measurement of even recent history might require a significant investment of time to discover. Despite all the above…

            Have a great day!

            There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

            ― Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi

          • David Appell says:

            “Theyre both likely fudged. Imo,”

            You’re wrong. The adustments are done for perfectly valid scientific reasons.

            How would you correct for the known biases?

            Have a superduper day!

          • Dr No says:

            Hi David,

            You can see where JohnKl and others are heading.

            Their fig leaf of an argument that there is a pause operating is soon to be blown away – exposing for all to see their considerable embarressment.

            In a desperate attempt to maintain some dignity they will now clutch at the next pathetic argument – namely that all the data is corrupted (surface and satellite data) to the extent that we can never know what global average surface temperatures are doing. Never mind that terrestrial ice is melting at ever increasing rates and sea levels are rising because of thermal expansion.

            Of course, these observations and measurement could all be fictitious too. Probably invented by Al Gore and the World Government in waiting!

            What a laugh. Use data sets to construct their paltry arguments and then ditch them when they don’t behave. Even I would not stoop to such evil.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi David Appell,

            You stated:

            “Youre wrong. The adustments are done for perfectly valid scientific reasons.”

            Who said adjustments aren’t done for perfectly valid scientific reasons? Are you saying all of them are? Adjusting satellite data for say orbital drift makes perfect sense was the methodology used to do so valid? What was used as a check on their deduced correction? As to surface data, much of this data goes back over a hundred years collected by people of all sorts, do you really believe everything done by everyone involved over a century was for “perfectly valid scientific reasons?” Roy already provided a prior post that investigated surface data collected over the last century. As Gordon Robertson pointed out below the temp measurements were often only made twice a day and at varying times. To claim all temp measurements made over the last century and their adjustments are perfectly valid scientifically begs the question? How do you know? Were you there when they were made? Did you participate in groups involved with the collection from over a century of time? Knowing human nature what do you think?

            Btw, for clarity by fudged I don’t mean they’re all corrupt. Merely, that human conjecture and guesswork may be involved that may affect accuracy of readings, not that the potential doesn’t exists for it.

            Have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Dr. No,

            As usual your rant is appears so full of conjecture, denial and delusion you’ve really lived up to your moniker once again. You state:’

            “Their fig leaf of an argument that there is a pause operating is soon to be blown away exposing for all to see their considerable embarressment.”

            Btw, the is “embarrassment” and yes you should be. The satellite data indicates current temps lower than 1998 but overall trend is up, a sort of pause in respect to the rapid 1997-8 increase (which was adjusted). Heavily adjusted surface data suggests a continual rise for over a century just ask Jama. Do you distrust the satellite data? Do you believe it’s corrupt, except when it shows temp increases? You further rant:

            “namely that all the data is corrupted (surface and satellite data) to the extent that we can never know what global average surface temperatures are doing.”

            Why would the fact that difficulty exists in comprehensively measuring global temperatures mean that all data sets are corrupt? Do you think genius or just spew disdain? It is interesting that you admit we can never know what global average surface temperatures are doing. In which case, why do you expect anyone to rely without question on such data? You go on:

            “Never mind that terrestrial ice is melting at ever increasing rates and sea levels are rising because of thermal expansion.”

            Arctic ice appears to have diminished but not as much as me predicted, I have friends who regularly travel to Alaska who have indicated such and data exists to reveal the same. Antarctic sea ice (which is terrestrial ice) is EXPANDING. Provide evidence that sea levels are rising any faster than the 10-12 inches per century already claimed to be observed. As to the bogus ever-increasing-rates, prove that sea ice has diminished more than say the 18th century, the Norman Conquest or say even the first half of the 20th century. Were you their to measure it? Did you time travel? Like fabricating data, or just intellectually dishonest? You further rant:

            “Of course, these observations and measurement could all be fictitious too. Probably invented by Al Gore and the World Government in waiting!”

            Is that what you’ve been thinking? Well Al Gore did admit his scientifically illiterate support for Ethanol subsidies to be absurd, but you’ve taken an interesting turn. You state:

            “What a laugh. Use data sets to construct their paltry arguments and then ditch them when they dont behave. Even I would not stoop to such evil.”

            Oh! You must mean like supporting the satellite data-sets when they reveal warming (and they do) but then ditching them in favor of surface data sets when they don’t agree. You’re no virgin in this regard. As to stooping for all I know you may be the best moral limbo dancer around. Btw, I don’t reject all the data including the satellite data, I simply don’t accept it without question, skepticism and with an undimmed commitment to ditch any aspect of the data proved to be in any way proved unreliable.

            Have a great day!

          • David Appell says:

            “Do you distrust the satellite data?”

            How can anyone trust the satellite data, when UAH won’t release their code or their methodology?

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, Dr No. There is no pause, as ocean heat gains clearly attest.

            In any case, 18.x years is not long enough to make conclusions about climate change, as Carl Mears of RSS wrote in Sept 2014:

            “Does this slow-down in the warming mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is no longer valid? The short answer is no. The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation. This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.

            “The truth is that there are lots of causes besides errors in the fundamental model physics that could lead to the model/observation discrepancy. I summarize a number of these possible causes below. Without convincing evidence of model physics flaws (and I havent seen any), I would say that the possible causes described below need to be investigated and ruled out before we can pin the blame on fundamental modelling errors.”

            http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

          • Dr No says:

            Hi JohnKL,

            Thanks for your responses.
            (BTW, have you read “The Congo Affair” yet? a ripping yarn)

            You write:
            ” The satellite data indicates current temps lower than 1998 but overall trend is up, a sort of pause in respect to the rapid 1997-8 increase (which was adjusted). Heavily adjusted surface data suggests a continual rise for over a century just ask Jama. Do you distrust the satellite data? Do you believe its corrupt, except when it shows temp increases?

            A simple question: Do you believe the globe is warming? YES, NO or I CAN’T TELL.
            I believe the globe is warming.

            “Why would the fact that difficulty exists in comprehensively measuring global temperatures mean that all data sets are corrupt? Do you think genius or just spew disdain? It is interesting that you admit we can never know what global average surface temperatures are doing. In which case, why do you expect anyone to rely without question on such data?

            Another simple question: Do you believe that the surface temperature record is reliable? YES NO or I CAN’T TELL
            I believe it is reliable.

            “Arctic ice appears to have diminished but not as much as me predicted”
            Hooray! An admission that something is happening. Whether it was predicted or not is irrelevant.

            “I have friends who regularly travel to Alaska who have indicated such and data exists to reveal the same. ”
            Hooray! You obviously have some stringent data quality checks in place. Let me know who they are so awe can use them to verify trends elsewhere around the globe.

            “Antarctic sea ice (which is terrestrial ice) is EXPANDING. ”
            Sea ice is terrestrial ice? ?? I’m sorry, we scientists distinguish between terrestrial (or land-based) ice and sea ice. Melting of the land-based ice contributes to sea level rise. Melting or freezing of sea ice contributes nothing, ZERO, ZILCH!

            “Provide evidence that sea levels are rising any faster than the 10-12 inches per century already claimed to be observed”

            Geeze! What sort of question is that? Do you mean you want me to show that the observed rate of sea level rise is is greater then the observed rate of sea level rise? What do you mean by “claimed to be observed”? Denying facts again are we?

            As to the bogus ever-increasing-rates, prove that sea ice has diminished more than say the 18th century, the Norman Conquest or say even the first half of the 20th century. Were you their to measure it? Did you time travel? Like fabricating data, or just intellectually dishonest?

            What?? Is that an argument? Are you saying we should disbelieve the present day observations because we dont have any from the past? And you accuse me, Dr No, of intellectual dishonesty !

            “Of course, these observations and measurement could all be fictitious too. Probably invented by Al Gore and the World Government in waiting!” “Is that what youve been thinking? ”

            No. It was an attempt to get inside your head. It obviously went straight over it.

            As to stooping for all I know you may be the best moral limbo dancer around.
            Not quite. My prosthetics limit my movements somewhat.

            Btw, I dont reject all the data including the satellite data, I simply dont accept it without question, skepticism and with an undimmed commitment to ditch any aspect of the data proved to be in any way proved unreliable.

            Ha ha ha! I thought so. In other words: I chose which facts suit my prejudices and nobody can stop me.

            BTW, I bet you havent given a straight answer to the simple questions above.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi David Appell,

            You stated:

            “Youre wrong. The adustments are done for perfectly valid scientific reasons.”

            Later to someone else you state:

            “How can anyone trust the satellite data, when UAH wont release their code or their methodology?”

            David such a display of COGNITIVE DISSONANCE or perhaps something else. Either you know the adjustments are made for perfectly valid reasons or you don’t. Which is it? Do you even know? How about over 100 years of surface data collection, processing and reporting? Any clue?

            Btw, you also indicated elsewhere that RSS does share their algorithm.

            Have a great day!

          • mpainter says:

            And we are supposed to trust someone who adopts a rabbit persona that refers to itself in the third person?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @David Appell “Do you really think UAH doesnt adjust data?”

        There’s no need to. They have billions and billions of oxygen data points to sample in a single position of the scanner. All they need to adjust for is natural variations in sat orbits and so on.

        That’s not the same as covering the globe with 6500 land surface stations and slashing them to 1500 stations, a la NOAA. Why are you hung up on trivial adjustments to sat data when NOAA ignores it’s own sat data and brazenly puts out pseudo-scientific, climate model adjusted tripe in lieu of real data?

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon, please study the science. UAH must correct for satellite orbital decays, instrumental heat, and other factors.

          UAH won’t release their methodology, but RSS has:

          “Climate Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (C-ATBD)”
          RSS Version 3.3 MSU/AMSU-A
          Mean Layer Atmospheric Temperature
          http://images.remss.com/papers/msu/MSU_AMSU_C-ATBD.pdf

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yep, and they do an extremely good job at those correction.

            Their trend over the USA basically matches the trend of the pristine evenly-spaced data of USCRN.

            Well done UAH ! 🙂

            Still a slight warming bias though.

          • David Appell says:

            “Yep, and they do an extremely good job at those correction.”

            How do you know? The truth is, you have no idea, because you aren’t capable of understanding the scientific details.

            “Their trend over the USA basically matches the trend of the pristine evenly-spaced data of USCRN.”

            Why should surface trends agree with LT trends?

          • David Appell says:

            “Seriously, how difficult is it to place a temp sensor somewhere that digitally records temperature data every brief range of time say a second and store the number digitally. Youre right to complain about daily temp data sets comprised of only two readings, not very comprehensive is it, either in regards to geography and/or time?”

            What do you do when the instrument breaks, and isn’t replaced for 3 months?

            What do you do when the first guy reads the thermometer at b am, and his replacement reads it at 9 am?

            What do you do when a thermometer is replaced by a newer termometer, but they two thermometers do not quite agree when placed side-by-side?

            What do you do when the guy reading the thermometer is reassigned to other duties, and no one reads the thermometer for 4.5 years?

            What do you do when the hard drive of the computer that holds the data crashes, taking with it 15.3 years of data that was never backed up?

            What do you do when a flood ruins all the temperature data on paper from 1911 to 1929?

            What do you do when funding runs out for the guy assigned to read the thermometer every day at 10 am and 5 pm?

          • David Appell says:

            Andy: You have no idea of the quality of UAH’s work, since they won’t release their code or methodology.

          • AndyG55 says:

            What could cause surface trend to diverge from LT trends over time.?

            Except data manipulation, of course.

          • mpainter says:

            What do you do? You rely on satellite data. If you have good sense. And you’re not trying to save the world from itself.

          • AndyG55 says:

            What David is actually telling us, is that as the surface warms up, it no longer warms the troposphere as much.

            Interesting concept, hey !

            I would love to see the peer-reviewed paper that proves that one. 😉

          • AndyG55 says:

            I have a very good idea of the quality of UAH’s work.

            It is well validated by its almost exact trend comparison over the USA.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Come on rotten Appell.. Please explain the mechanism, with peer reviewed literature, whereby the lower troposphere warms at a LOWER rate than the surface temperature.

            This is actually against all CO2 warming physics, no matter how bizarrely wrong that is.

            Awaiting your coherent response. 🙂

            oh dear.. he seems to have found a rock to crawl under.

          • barry says:

            “I have a very good idea of the quality of UAHs work.

            It is well validated by its almost exact trend comparison over the USA.”

            Comparison with what? The surface records?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Do try to keep up, Barry !

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @David Appell …”UAH must correct for satellite orbital decays, instrumental heat, and other factors”.

            Does it comes as a surprise to you that electronic equipment has to be calibrated before use or during use? That’s good science, to ensure your equipment is not adding artifacts to the readings.

            Compare that to NOAA where they could use 6500 surface stations globally as is and make data sets from them. NOAA doesn’t do that. On their site they admit to slashing reporting stations from 6500 to 1500, and to using interpolation and homogenization in climate models to fill in the missing 5000 stations.

            The excuse given by NOAA is that it’s easier to deal with 1500 stations on a certain day of the month rather than the 6500.

            BS. The truth is that the 6500 stations of actual data are not showing the warming trend desired by NOAA and their owners, the US Government. They can adjust for that in a fudged climate model program.

            I have not seen you comment on that pseudo-science, David, and I take your silence as agreeing with it.

          • barry says:

            “It is well validated by its almost exact trend comparison over the USA.”

            2007 is 0.5F cooler than 2006 in the USCRN data, but 0.2C warmer than 2006 in the UAH V6.0 data. NOAA ClimDiv is a better match for USCRN than UAH v6.0. for annual variation, matching the 2006 to 2007 drop, as well as the sign of change for each annually averaged anomaly.

            (ClimDiv has a lower trend than USCRN for the 10-year annually averaged period. Perhaps they have eliminated the warming bias you allude to?)

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi Gordon Robertson,

          You make very good points about the NOAA data, but can’t satellite data stand for improvement? Concerning adjustments you say:

          “Theres no need to. They have billions and billions of oxygen data points to sample in a single position of the scanner. All they need to adjust for is natural variations in sat orbits and so on.”

          In fact, there’s more to this story as well. Apparently, near surface data requires more interpretation and possible human conjecture as the spectral lines are less clear than higher regions. This and other related problems may or may not compare well to the surface problems, UAH admitted once to around 10 adjustments in their data-set it may be more now, but there always remains the potential for error. On the whole I agree with your sentiment, satellite data has several advantages over surface data.

          1. Comprehensive global coverage not limited by land or easily accessible by human surface accessibility.

          2. Less likelihood of human error since fewer individuals are required to gather, store and process the data on a global basis. Moreover, data is collected mechanically/electronically by satellites and relevant equipment. Therefore, less likelihood of wide swings in data collection timing, procedures etc. However, satellite equipment failure and the continual need to replace old satellites with new ones that must fill the same orbital niche seems to me a potential source of much difficulty.

          3. Good possibility that technological innovation can address the technological problems addressed above regarding satellite data collection. Surface data collection can be improved as well, but it appears that many of the surface data collection problems involve human bias and not technology. For example, I mentioned above the inconsistency in temperature data collection especially in regards timing. This could easily be addressed technologically but would require some investment of capital and less human interference, which might not go over so well for many. Seriously, how difficult is it to place a temp sensor somewhere that digitally records temperature data every brief range of time say a second and store the number digitally. You’re right to complain about daily temp data sets comprised of only two readings, not very comprehensive is it, either in regards to geography and/or time?

          Have a great day!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @JohnKL “..near surface data requires more interpretation and possible human conjecture as the spectral lines are less clear than higher regions”.

            I don’t thunk (that’s my brain thunking from 32 bit code to 16 bit code)…I mean don’t think the telemetry on sats relies on spectral lines. They are gathering microwave emissions from oxygen in specific frequency bands ‘near’ a set of oxygen absorption spectral lines, but I don’t pick that up as meaning the sharpness of the spectral lines is an issue.

            Absorption spectra certainly wouldn’t give you the required radiance for an AMSU unit to detect the emissions. As you know, absorption spectra are holes in a spectra. I am guessing they are using the region of spectral absorption as a marker only.

            I have read several articles on AMSU units, including RSS, and they are very ambiguous as to how the theory works. I know this from microwave theory, you cannot detect microwave emissions from oxygen in an absorption region. They must be using the region around the spectral lines, not the spectral line region itself.

        • ehak says:

          AndyG55:

          Try this: What UAH TMLT and RSS TLT are telling us is that the tropospheric water vapor increases albeit no temperature increase in the troposphere.

          Some very interesting atmospheric physics going on.

          • geran says:

            “Some very interesting atmospheric physics going on.”

            Yeah, ehak, it’s called “thermodynamics”. It’s not a course offered in pseudoscience.

  6. JohnKl says:

    Hi Roy,

    You state:

    “But Im not making any bets.”

    With your knowledge many would expect you to be climate bookie extraordinaire, but I don’t blame you for keeping it close to the vest.

    Have a great day!

    • Dr No says:

      Hi JohnKl,

      But Im not making any bets.

      Why not? According to the graph, the chances of2016 being a record year are, roughly, 3/4 or 75%.
      Reasonable odds for a $1 bet would then be:
      For a new record: $1.33 or greater
      For no new record: $4 or greater

      (as a check for the numerically challenged, over 4 such events you might expect to outlay $4 on a new record and get back $1.33 on 3 occasions = $4. i.e all square
      or outlay $4 on no new record and get back $4 on 1 occasion, again all square)

      If you were to offer me more than $1.33 for a new record that would be a tempting bet to make. I have never met a skeptic who was able to offer me any odds whatsoever – no matter how sternly they don’t believe it will ever happen. Richard Lindzen springs to mind.

  7. Werner Brozek says:

    The present RSS average after 11 months is 0.341. It is just barely in third place edging out 2005 at this point which was 0.331 after 12 months. However the 2010 second place average of 0.468 is also totally out of reach.

    • ehak says:

      1997 and 2009 are better when comparing 2015.

    • David Appell says:

      Werener, what is the statistical significance of these claims?

      • Werner Brozek says:

        Werner, what is the statistical significance of these claims?

        If we assume that the average for RSS is +/- 0.1 95% of the time, then the present third place for RSS could be anywhere from third to ninth place. (0.241 to 0.441)

        1 {1998, 0.550},
        2 {2010, 0.468},
        3 {2005, 0.331},
        4 {2003, 0.32},
        5 {2002, 0.315},
        6 2014: 0.255
        7 {2007, 0.253},
        8 {2001, 0.246},
        9 {2006, 0.231},
        10 {2009, 0.222},
        11 2013 0.218

      • David Appell says:

        Werner: That’s not a correct assumption for RSS.

        You need to CALCULATE the error bars, and the statistical significance, via well-documented methods. See, for example

        “Statistical Issues Regarding Trends,” Tom M.L. Wigley
        http://nimbus.cos.uidaho.edu/abatz/PDF/sap1717draft37appA.pdf

        You need to include autocorrelation, too.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          @David Appell…”Statistical Issues Regarding Trends, Tom M.L. Wigley”

          Is that the same Wigley from Climategate scandal fame?

        • Werner Brozek says:

          You need to CALCULATE the error bars, and the statistical significance, via well-documented methods. You need to include autocorrelation, too.

          Feel free to do it! I am not up to it.

          • David Appell says:

            Werner: Glad you finally admitted your can’t do the math (which has, frankly, been apparent for some time now).

            I’ll keep pointing this out whereever I see your numerology posted.

          • geran says:

            Davy, it appears Werner is inviting you to entertain us with your “statistics”. Please proceed, that is often the funniest part of your routine.

        • AndyG55 says:

          I wonder, will the rotten Appell be so finicky about error bars when Gavin et al post their massively manipulated 2015 “hottest heifer” fabrication?

          With nearly half the land data and most of the ocean data made up, the error bars should be HUGE.

  8. Dennis says:

    I say this as something to consider. 87/88 had Modoki followed by traditional El Nino.

  9. David Appell says:

    “Way back in June, John Christy and I called 2015 as being the warmest year on record…in the surface thermometer data.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but most people live on the surface, don’t they?

      • David Appell says:

        Are those islands on on the surface?

      • David Appell says:

        The average depth of the troposphere is about 17 km. The lower 2 m is an extremely small percentage of the UAH number for the LT. It’s much better measured by surface stations.

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          David shrieked, “Correct me if Im wrong, but most people live on the surface, dont they?”

          OMG. Earth’s climate takes place not in the lower 2 meters of the troposphere, but primarily in the troposphere as a whole. So it would make sense to measure our climate farther up in the lower troposphere to avoid UHI effects.

        • David Appell says:

          I know where climate change takes place (the heat goes mostly in the ocean). Doesn’t deny the fact that we humans live and farm on the surface of the planet, not a few kilometers above it.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            The oceans heat the atmosphere, not vice versa. A colder atmosphere cannot heat a warmer ocean (2LOT) Are you schooled in physics at all?

          • David Appell says:

            90+% of the trapped heat goes into the ocean. It spreads from there.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Trapped heat… roflmao !!

            Come on.. use the blanket analogy.. I love a good laugh. 🙂

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Right…..in your alternate universe

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @David Appell “90+% of the trapped heat goes into the ocean”

            How do you trap heat? Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules. In a greenhouse, higher heat levels are due to highly agitated atoms that have received energy from the Sun via the soil. Glass in the greenhouse traps atoms, and I suppose you could claim the glass traps heat, but where is that trapping mechanism in the atmosphere?

            As I have pointed out before, if GHGs in the atmosphere are to be compared to a greenhouse, one must compare the 1% of the atmosphere that is GHGs to the glass in the greenhouse.

            If a greenhouse has 100 panes of glass, you would have to remove 99 panes of glass to get the equivalent of the 1% of the atmosphere that is GHGs. How much heat would a 100 pane greenhouse trap with 99 panes removed?

          • geran says:

            Of course Davy will not understand. He doesn’t not understand the basic physics. He just keeps eating the IPCC crap and wonders why he keeps gaining weight.

          • FTOP says:

            That is the comedy of the pause busting exercise by Karl. Showing the earth is still warming based on SST proves it is NOT man, but the sun that determines global temperatures.

            The zealots don’t get that. The top skin surface of the ocean could never heat up enough to impact ocean temp. The sun heats the ocean, and the ocean heats the atmosphere.

            30 years of failed physics within climate science leading to Climategate, arguments over .002 degrees Celsius and constant hand waving.

            Limiting the variable to CO2 concentration, AGW proponents need to show how a gas at any temperature present in the atmosphere can warm a salt water mixture.

            Lacking this evidence, the rest is all confirmationally biased anecdotal hand waving.

          • David Appell says:

            Why doesn’t a warmer atmospheric surface heat the ocean surface?

            If you have a pot of water, and you warm the air right above the water’s surface, are you claiming the water at the surface won’t warm?

          • mpainter says:

            Air above the ocean is cooler than SST, David. Did you forget?

          • rah says:

            Yes David everyone knows that an El Ninos, and Hurricanes, don’t release thermal energy into the atmosphere and ultimately a lot of it to space but instead traps it. that the fog one sees on bodies of water are actually trapping the heat in the water and not releasing it. LOL!

    • mpainter says:

      Ha, you’re wrong. Most live in the troposphere. Remember your goof last week?

      David Appell: “Correct me if I’m wrong, but no one lives in the troposphere”

      I quoted from memory, so correct me if I’m wrong.:-)

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      @David Appell…”Correct me if Im wrong, but most people live on the surface, dont they?”

      True, so why are most surface station not on the surface but in the atmosphere? Why are only two readings taken a day?

      And why are there barely any stations on the oceans, which cover 72% of the Earth’s surface area.

      • David Appell says:

        What says stations are only read 2 times a day?

        Do you wish to provide funding for more? That’d be great.

        Would > 2 readings a day make a difference?

        “And why are there barely any stations on the oceans, which cover 72% of the Earths surface area.”

        Because cheapstake politicians won’t fund more. I’m glad you think that should change.

  10. mpainter says:

    Region 1,2 is the key. Watch the Peruvian fish catch for the next month. If fishing shuts down, we will see the spike.

    • David Appell says:

      Why is that region key?

      Most scientists seem to look at the Nino3 and Nino4 regions, and especially their combination Nino3.4:

      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst8110.for

      • mpainter says:

        Are you sure? The term El Nino comes from Peru; the fishermen coined it.

        ENSO is about meridional overturning ocean circulation. Lots of scientists don’t know that. But lots of scientists know very little outside their fields. Big problem: they don’t know that they don’t know. Thus climate scientists.

        • David Appell says:

          No, ENSO isn’t about meridional overturning ocean circulation!!

          {snort}

          That’s the concern in the Atlantic ocean, not the Pacific ocean, and it’s not due to ENSO.

          Wow are you dumb, painter.

        • mpainter says:

          Appell, I am indebted to you for this unequivocal demonstration of your ignorance about climate. Allow me to quote Roy Spencer from his July 20, 2015 post:

          “What is necessary is to have non-radiative forced variations in global-average surface temperature sufficiently large that they partly overcome the noise in the data. The largest single source of this non-radiative forcing is El Nino/La Nina, which correspond to a global-average weakening/strengthening of the overturning of the ocean.”

          I knew this as a part of my education. It has to do with oceanography, you see.

          Once again, much thanks for helping me demonstrate your fundamental ignorance of climate science, snort and all. Makes my day 🙂

      • aaron says:

        David, IIRC the 97/98 super el nino was further east than the current one. Probably more intense westerlies and relatively clear skies affect how much heat is transferred to from the ocean to the troposphere and where it goes.

  11. Sven says:

    Mpainter is talking about MOC and for some ressons Appell starts talking about AMOC

    http://people.oregonstate.edu/~schmita2/pdf/S/schmittner07agu_intro.pdf

    “The meridional overturning circulation is a system of surface and deep currents encompassing all ocean basins. It transports large amounts of water, heat, salt, car- bon, nutrients and other substances around the globe, and connects the surface ocean and atmosphere with the huge reservoir of the deep sea.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

    • mpainter says:

      For a more complete treatment of the subject, see eastern boundary current, Humboldt Current (Peru Current), Eckmann Effect (or Eckmann Drift or pump), upwelling, Anarctic Convergence (or solar boundary zone), or see a good basic text in oceanography. Do not see a climate scientist, unless it’s for amusement. Excepting those who take the trouble to inform themselves on all aspects of climate, like our host, who shows a complete grasp of the multiple issues involved with climate studies. He is a rarity.

      For an example of the typical AGW type, see David Appell.

      There is a quasi El Nino effect west of Africa. This also involves meridional overturning circulation. Has to do with the weakening/strengthening of the Benguela current and the associated upwelling. It’s effects are not so widespread as ENSO.

      • mpainter says:

        Correction: not “solar boundary zone” but polar, also Anarctic polar front

      • mpainter says:

        For a more complete understanding of how meridional overturning circulation modulates ENSO events, see Walker Cell circulation. This is the atmospheric half of the coupled atmosphere/ocean overturning that determines ENSO events.

    • geran says:

      Yeah Sven, I noted the same thing. It was funny to watch Davy in his typical role as the “confused expert”!

  12. David Appell says:

    Carl Mears, RSS, Sept 2014:

    “Does this slow-down in the warming mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is no longer valid? The short answer is no. The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation. This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.

    “The truth is that there are lots of causes besides errors in the fundamental model physics that could lead to the model/observation discrepancy. I summarize a number of these possible causes below. Without convincing evidence of model physics flaws (and I havent seen any), I would say that the possible causes described below need to be investigated and ruled out before we can pin the blame on fundamental modelling errors.”

    http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

    • AndyG55 says:

      Poor Carl.. has too much scientific self-respect to start adjusting and manipulating RSS, so he is left trying to talk his way around it.

    • mpainter says:

      Well, now, David finally found himself some satellite data that he likes.

      From now on, nothing but temperature data from RSS for David, and I’m glad, so glad, that he finally took my advice.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Since 2001, End of Large El Nino effect.

        Trend RSS = -0.0047C/year

        Trend UAH = -0.0018C/year

        See, there’s that slight warming bias in UAH again. 🙂

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      @David Appell…”The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation”.

      Based on that explanation I’d say Mears is pretty confused. Either that or he is in denial, even regarding what his own satellite data is telling him.

  13. AndyG55 says:

    Come on rotten Appell.. Please explain the mechanism, with peer reviewed literature, whereby the lower troposphere warms at a LOWER rate than the surface temperature.

    This is actually against all CO2 warming physics, no matter how bizarrely wrong that is.

    Await your coherent response. 🙂

    • Ross Handsaker says:

      Yes Andy. If we are looking at the impact of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, where it is said to absorb more outward long-wave radiation, it is changes in troposphere temperatures which are critical rather than surface temperatures. As greenhouse gases absorb OLR and radiate in all directions, not just downwards, the troposphere should be warming faster than the surface.

      • jimc says:

        Oops. I don’t follow that one (troposphere should be warming faster than the surface). Can you elaborate (in simple terms, I’m no climatologist).

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @Ross Handsaker..”If we are looking at the impact of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, where it is said to absorb more outward long-wave radiation, it is changes in troposphere temperatures which are critical rather than surface temperatures”.

        Sounds like the fictitious hot spot that has never been found.

  14. Dr No says:

    Hi JohnKL,

    For some reason I have been forced to reply via the crappy page.
    Anyway, thanks for your responses.
    (BTW, have you read “The Congo Affair” yet? a ripping yarn)

    You write:
    ” The satellite data indicates current temps lower than 1998 but overall trend is up, a sort of pause in respect to the rapid 1997-8 increase (which was adjusted). Heavily adjusted surface data suggests a continual rise for over a century just ask Jama. Do you distrust the satellite data? Do you believe its corrupt, except when it shows temp increases?

    A simple question: Do you believe the globe is warming? YES, No or I CAN’T tell.
    I believe the globe is warming.

    “Why would the fact that difficulty exists in comprehensively measuring global temperatures mean that all data sets are corrupt? Do you think genius or just spew disdain? It is interesting that you admit we can never know what global average surface temperatures are doing. In which case, why do you expect anyone to rely without question on such data?

    Another simple question: Do you believe that the surface temperature record is reliable? YES No or I CAN’T TELL
    I believe it is reliable.

    “Arctic ice appears to have diminished but not as much as me predicted”
    Hurray! An admission that something is happening. Whether it was predicted or not is irrelevant.

    “I have friends who regularly travel to Alaska who have indicated such and data exists to reveal the same. ”
    Hurray! You obviously have some stringent data quality checks in place. Let me know who they are so awe can use them to verify trends elsewhere around the globe.

    “Antarctic sea ice (which is terrestrial ice) is EXPANDING. ”
    Sea ice is terrestrial ice? ?? I’m sorry, we scientists distinguish between terrestrial or land-based ice and sea ice. Melting of the land-based ice contributes to sea level rise. Melting or freezing of sea ice contributes nothing, ZERO, ZILCH!

    “Provide evidence that sea levels are rising any faster than the 10-12 inches per century already claimed to be observed”

    Geeze! A simple google sea level rise should open your eyes.

    As to the bogus ever-increasing-rates, prove that sea ice has diminished more than say the 18th century, the Norman Conquest or say even the first half of the 20th century. Were you their to measure it? Did you time travel? Like fabricating data, or just intellectually dishonest?

    What?? Is that an argument? Are you saying we should disbelieve the present day observations because we dont have any from the past? And you accuse me, Dr No, of intellectual dishonesty ! Now I am ranting.

    Of course, these observations and measurement could all be fictitious too. Probably invented by Al Gore and the World Government in waiting!
    Is that what youve been thinking?

    No. It was an attempt to get inside your head. It obviously went straight over.

    As to stooping for all I know you may be the best moral limbo dancer around.
    Not quite. My prosthetics limit my movements somewhat.

    Btw, I dont reject all the data including the satellite data, I simply dont accept it without question, skepticism and with an undimmed commitment to ditch any aspect of the data proved to be in any way proved unreliable.

    Ha ha ha! II thought so. In other words: I chose which facts suit my prejudices and nobody can stop me.

    BTW, I bet you havent given a straight answer to the simple questions above.

  15. richard verney says:

    This is an interest article that I need to look at in more detail.

    My bet is that whilst 2016 will be a warm year, it will not break 1998.

    As we all know, there is some lag between the warming surface ocean temperatures and the time when the consequence of this appears in the atmosphere. Based upon previous discussions, I had thought that this years strong El Nino would be picked up in the last few months of 2015 and the first 4 months of 2016.

    Accordingly, I thought that this years current strong El Nino was just beginning to get picked up in the satellite data when the October anomaly was released. However, now that the November anomaly is now in, that remains questionable.

    It looks to me that whilst the 2015/16 El Nino is a strong one, it is not shaping up to exceed the Super El Nino of 1998. So whilst I still expect the first four months (or so) of 2016 to be warm, I do not consider that they will be sufficiently warm to bust the 1998 year long figure.

    But more materially, the question is whether this current strong El Nino will result in only a short lived spike (say at around the 1998 anomaly level, or even possibly exceeding it), or will there be a long lasting step change in temperature coincident with it.

    One interpretation of the satellite data is that temperatures were essentially flat from launch to the run up to the Super El Nino of 1997/98, and following that El Nino they have been essentially flat to date. It is just that there was a one off and isolated warming event coincident upon the Super El Nino of 1997/98.

    So the question is whether there will be another step change in temperature coincident with the 2015/16 strong El Nino, or will the 2015/16 El Nino do no more than leave a temporary short lived spike in the data set? Will the temperatures fall with a following La Nina and then re- stabilise at about the 2001 to 2003 anomaly level?

    If temperature do re-stabilise at the 2001 to 2003 anomaly level, then by 2019, as AR6 is being formulated and written, the ‘pause’ will be over 21 years in duration and the discrepancy between model projections and observation (based upon RSS and UAH) will be even more damning.

    Today, the daily Mail carried an article that suggested that there may be a link between El Nino and long term temperature change. So that is apt to consider when considering the implications of the current strong El Nino. See:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3345158/Is-El-Ni-o-linked-global-warming-Cooler-conditions-Little-Ice-Age-caused-increase-extreme-weather-says-study.html

    • ehak says:

      Compare 2015 to 1997 and 2009. No increase from October to November in those years in this Spencerized TMLT v6.0 betasomehting. Actually a small decrease.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      @richard verney “…there may be a link between El Nino and long term temperature change”.

      Old news, Richard. Years ago, Tsonis et al explored a century of data from of all ocean oscillations, including ENSO, which is controlled by the PDO. They concluded that the various oscillations acted in conjunction at times and at other times opposed each other. While in conjunction, global temps increased and the opposite occurred while they were out of phase.

      This article is misinformed. They claimed:

      “This was followed by a cooler phase between 1150 and 1500 CE, known as the Little Ice Age…”

      The LIA did not end till 1850 and during it’s span global tempos were 1C cooler. As you can imagine, with a global cooling of 1C, glaciers expanded, one in France expanding across a valley and wiping out a town.

      Astronomer Syun Akasofu has claimed the IPCC erred by not including that 1C cooling in their pre Industrial Era base for global warming. The IPCC knew about the LIA because they referred to it in the 1990 review.

  16. ehak says:

    Roy did not seem to be all too happy with the increasing RSS water vapor:

    https://i.imgur.com/ZvYfvYi.png

    Let’s do this real simple. Just place RSS TLT Ocean and RSS tpw in the same graph. The SSM/I tpw is ocean only (but it does not make a big difference with land-ocean):

    http://i.imgur.com/IInkQx0.png

    Might be clearer with a 12 month running mean:

    http://i.imgur.com/6znlz9x.png

    Highly correlated. But the TLT does not keep up with tpw increase during the latest years. There is also a lag where water vapor increases and decreases before TLT. So the big difference to the end (October this year that is) is a bit misleading. But it should give a clear indication of where TLT is (or should..) be heading.

    Anyhow. This is another indication that there is something wrong with RSS TLT and UAH TMLT. But the difference was clearly smaller in UAH TLT v5.6.

    • I have posted on the RSS total precipitable water (TPW) vapor trend before, and have discussed ad nauseum how

      (1) it is indeed definitely tied to SSTs,

      (2) but is increasing much faster than expected from constant RH, suggesting a problem with the TPW retrieval assumption of a constant specific humidity profile shape in the context of a warming trend, and

      (3) how free tropospheric temperature doesn’t have to warm as fast as the surface temperature…it all depends upon changes in precipitation microphysics, which are not well understood.

      The bottom line is that boundary layer vapor is not a proxy for tropospheric temperature…but it is a pretty good proxy for SST.

      So please learn something about the issue, “ehak”, and stop making it sound like boundary layer vapor (which is basically what TPW is) somehow tells us what free-tropospheric temperature should be doing.

      • ehak says:

        Guess what Roy just concluded.

        That TLT/TMLT is not a good proxy for surface temperature. That also means you cannot use the TLT/TMLT to judge the reliability of surface temperature indices.

        At long last. There it was. Tell Lamar Lysenko.

  17. JohnKl says:

    Hi Dr. No,

    You write so much non-sense and my time is limited. You state:

    ““As to the bogus ever-increasing-rates, prove that sea ice has diminished more than say the 18th century, the Norman Conquest or say even the first half of the 20th century. Were you their to measure it? Did you time travel? Like fabricating data, or just intellectually dishonest?…What?? Is that an argument? Are you saying we should disbelieve the present day observations because we don’t have any from the past? And you accuse me, Dr No, of intellectual dishonesty !“

    Dictionary: adverb ev·er \ˈe-vər\: at any time: at all times: to a greater degree. Your statement apparently didn’t just refer to present day conditions. You go on:

    “A simple question: Do you believe the globe is warming? YES, NO or I CAN’T TELL.
    I believe the globe is warming.”

    What does belief have to do with the data or lack there of? Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is warming and have claimed so in the past. You go on:

    “Another simple question: Do you believe that the surface temperature record is reliable? YES NO or I CAN’T TELL
    I believe it is reliable.”

    Really? Your buddy David Appell doubts the UAH data sets and the surface data at different times. You go on:

    “Sea ice is terrestrial ice? ?? I’m sorry, we scientists distinguish between terrestrial (or land-based) ice and sea ice. Melting of the land-based ice contributes to sea level rise. Melting or freezing of sea ice contributes nothing, ZERO, ZILCH!”

    The Antarctic ice contains both since the ice sheet goes way beyond the coastlines in many parts. You state:

    “Geeze! What sort of question is that? Do you mean you want me to show that the observed rate of sea level rise is is greater then the observed rate of sea level rise? What do you mean by “claimed to be observed”? Denying facts again are we?”

    Denying what fact? I didn’t observe it increase, did you? Oh! You must mean absurd credulity in just believing what others have claimed without question. University of Colorado already admits to adjusting sea levels higher based on un-supported assumptions that sea-levels have risen. I’ll have more to write about later, time constraints and all.

    Have a great day!

    • David Appell says:

      “University of Colorado already admits to adjusting sea levels higher based on un-supported assumptions that sea-levels have risen.”

      Really? That group said they adusted sea level data, and that their assumptions weren’t justified?

      That’s a first. Where can I read this?

  18. JohnKl says:

    Hi Dr. No,

    Correction, my statement should have read:

    “University of Colorado already admits to adjusting sea levels higher based on un-supported assumptions that the sea-basin has increased in size.”

    For the record, the relative shifting of continents at this time cannot much effect sea level given conservation of mass (the continents remain the same size) and the fact that water finds it’s own level, despite the bizarre claims of the University of Colorado. Btw, remember you wrote:

    “Never mind that terrestrial ice is melting at ever increasing rates and sea levels are rising because of thermal expansion.”

    Not according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. It shows a downward trending but fluctuating, arctic ice mass.

    https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

    Moreover, the term “ever increasing” means the ice melt at all times increases which is patently absurd. Again I’ll add more later.

    Have a great day!

    • David Appell says:

      University of Colorado already admits to adjusting sea levels higher based on un-supported assumptions that the sea-basin has increased in size.

      Since the plates are being pulled apart, why isn’t the ocean basin expanding?

      • mpainter says:

        David needs a snorkel.
        David, when one basin expands, the other has to contract.
        But it’s isostasy that U of Colo figures, not plate tectonics. I explained this to you before. Such problems you have with science.

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi David Appell,

        It probably would have been better to state the University of Colorado admits to adjusting sea levels higher based on the assumption that the world’s sea basins have increased in size and that they have never provided evidence of the same.

        Have a great day!

  19. JohnKl says:

    Hi Dr. No,

    You state:

    “Ha ha ha! II thought so. In other words: I chose which facts suit my prejudices and nobody can stop me.”

    No. To put it plainly so that even Dr. No can understand it, I am not compelled morally, ethically or in any other way to either accept or reject claims presented to me unless empirically proven. You may feel that you are, which suggests deeper issues with the Dr.

    You stated:

    “BTW, I bet you havent given a straight answer to the simple questions above.”

    Dr. No your synapses just don’t fire like they used to. How can one answer a question before it’s asked? Let me just, state so Dr. No clue will understand, the satellite data including UAH and RSS seems to me likely to be correct in indicating some warming. The data suggests warming of approximately <.5 deg C warming over last 35-6 years. Do I BELIEVE it as you ask? Well I don't take it as absolute truth if that's what your asking, all such data-sets are subject to error and revision. It could be entirely bogus, and I refuse to stake any claim to it. The RSS, UAH and other datasets themselves don't agree perfectly among themselves and the surface data conflicts significantly with both, why do you seem to feel the need to compell loyalty to them?

    Have a great day!

    • Dr No says:

      Hi JohnKl,

      “Do I BELIEVE it as you ask? Well I don’t take it as absolute truth if that’s what your asking, all such data-sets are subject to error and revision. It could be entirely bogus, and I refuse to stake any claim to it.”

      Your replies confirm my original claim – In a desperate attempt to maintain some dignity they will now clutch at the next pathetic argument namely that all the data is corrupted or insufficient to the extent that we can never really know what global average surface temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, sea levels or terrestrial ice are doing. What a cop out!

      “I am not compelled morally, ethically or in any other way to either accept or reject claims presented to me unless empirically proven.”

      This is a typical ignorant, recalcitrant response I have heard many times. What, pray tell, empirical evidence do you need ? Let’s face it – nothing will suffice because you are psychologically and emotionally committed to denial.
      Or maybe you are a frog sitting in beaker of water that is slowly being heated. Good luck.

    • Norman says:

      JohnKl

      I think you are winning the debate with your good points. Dr. No seems to want to upset your equilibrium but your responses are measured and reasonable. Best of all is you rely most on empirical data…the heart of science. Keep on keeping on!

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi Norman,

        Thanks. It’s interesting, I wonder if whoever hides behind the Dr. No label by playing the character long enough eventually morphs psychologically into the role. Hopefully, it’s not too late to retrieve whatever is there. Would’ve made for a great Twilight Zone episode. There has been stories drawn along such lines.

        Have a great day!

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi Norman and Dr. No,

        Just a point of correction to a previous post. Earlier I mentioned the Antarctic ice sheet was expanding. To be correct while it has expanded recently, it’s very doubtful the ice sheet expands now since it will be Summer in the Southern Hemisphere in a few weeks.

        Have a great day!

        • Slipstick says:

          JohnKL,
          For the sake of accuracy, if you are referring to sea ice extent, Antarctica has been running close to the average in the satellite record since August; any “gains” over the last couple of years have disappeared. Arctic sea ice, by the way, is running well below average; in fact, its maximum extent in 2015 was the lowest in the satellite record.

          http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

          and

          http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

          • geran says:

            Slip, for the sake of accuracy, levels sometimes are above, and sometimes below, the average. That’s why it is called an “average”.

            Also, Arctic is NOT “well below average”, it is within 2 standard deviations, which is considered “normal variation”.

            Your obvious bias adds to your humorous persona.

          • Slipstick says:

            geran,
            To assuage your pedantic sensibilities, I shall rephrase. Arctic sea ice extent, by the way, was more than two standard deviations below average for 8 weeks this year; in fact its maximum extent for 2015 was the lowest in the satellite record. The extent is currently less than 32 of the last 36 years. Feel better?

          • geran says:

            I always feel better after a hearty laugh, courtesy of your pseudoscience.

            http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

          • Slipstick says:

            You must have missed this notice at the bottom of the page you cited:

            Please notice, that the sea ice extent in this plot is calculated with the coastal zones masked out. To see the absolute extent, go to this page.

            The page referred to:
            http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

          • Slipstick says:

            Also, regarding the Arctic sea ice, the absolute extent has been below average for more than 3-1/2 years.

          • geran says:

            You must have assumed I missed the notice. Bad assumption! The chart I linked to is the way DMI used to present the Arctic extent. They changed to another method of representing the extent because the old method makes the Arctic recovery appear too healthy.

            See, Slip, a few years ago the Arctic was losing sea ice. Warmits were orgasmic. They rallied around that single fact as absolute proof the globe was in meltdown. They completely ignored the fact that Antarctic sea ice was increasing. The Arctic was losing, and the Antarctic was gaining, but total global sea ice was staying normal.

            These oscillations happen frequently, its just that we dont have long-term satellite data. Ocean oscillations are thought to be the cause. In fact, some folks believe that we are shifting into a period where the Arctic will be gaining and Antarctica will be losing. So, in a few years, the Warmists will be rallying around the unprecented losses of Antarctic sea ice. And, of course, they will ignore the Arctic gains.

            Warmists are predictable.

            I now return you to your pseudoscience, where all global sea ice is already gone, the ice sheets and glaciers are completely melted, and sea levels are 200 feet higher than last week!

          • geran says:

            “Warmits” was actually a typo, but I like it!

          • Slipstick says:

            geran,
            Why is it that when data does not conform to your beliefs you either ignore it or attack its integrity? In actual science, theory is hypothesis confirmed by observation, not the other way round.

          • geran says:

            Slip, you need to ask yourself that question. And, answer it without being “slippery”.

            You’re the one that is always twisting and “spinning” the facts.

          • Slipstick says:

            geran,
            I “spin” nothing. My opinions are the result of a careful evaluation of ALL of the evidence, whereas your opinions are supported only by “cherry-picked” data and arguments so full of logical holes as to be laughable, all filtered thorugh the tissue of your preconceptions. The insecurity of your position is evidenced by your incessant insults and denigration of anything or anyone in conflict with your beliefs.

          • geran says:

            Slip says: Arctic sea ice, by the way, is running well below average

            Slip says: I spin nothing.

            Within 2 standard deviations is NOT “well below average”. Slip, you do not recognize your own “spin”.

            That’s why you’re so hilarious!

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Slipstick,

            Thank you for the information.

            Have a great day!

        • Slipstick says:

          geran,
          The Arctic sea ice extent spent part of the year more than two S.D.’s below average and had the smallest maximum in the sample, I consider that “well below”. You’re arguing a semantic point on a subjective label; that’s a pathetic debating technique.

          Since you raised the subject of spin, consider the following:
          “They changed to another method of representing the extent because the old method makes the Arctic recovery appear too healthy.” Pure baloney and implying a recovery that does not exist. That’s spin with a strawman cherry on top.

          • geran says:

            Nope, here is your exact quote: “…is running well below average…”

            You were talking about now, not back in the past. Your words are here, hard to “spin” away from that.

            Hilarious!

            You always do this to yourself. You think you’re such an expert, but you always get something WAY wrong. I remember once when you said that a photon only has two pieces of information, momentum and energy. When I told you it also has wavelength/frequency, you didn’t respond!

            Hilarious!

            Next joke, please.

          • Slipstick says:

            geran,
            Your silly nitpicking notwithstanding, I stand by my statement of “…well below…”.

            I did not respond to your contention regarding the photon out of politeness (I guess we’re beyond that now), because it is a demonstration of ignorance or misunderstanding. The photon does have only two pieces of information, momentum and energy. The wavelength and frequency (which are the inverse of each other in relation to the speed of light) are determined by the energy and convey no additional information.

          • Werner Brozek says:

            The photon does have only two pieces of information, momentum and energy. The wavelength and frequency (which are the inverse of each other in relation to the speed of light) are determined by the energy and convey no additional information.

            By that argument, we only need energy since momentum is automatically defined once we have energy. E = hf, p = h/wavelength.

          • geran says:

            Hilarious.

            “The wavelength and frequency … convey no additional information.”

            You slipped up again, Slip! Wavelength/frequency conveys some important information. In fact, the energy of an emitted photon is dependent on wavelength/frequency, (Planck relation of quantum physics). And, wavelength also has to do with whether or not the photon will be absorbed.

            But, you don’t understand how it works. That’s why you believe back-radiation can heat Earth’s surface. You are again lost in your confusion, and now must try to spin your way out. So, go for it!

            (Oh, and the bit about you not responding, “out of politeness”. That was especially funny. More, please.)

          • Slipstick says:

            Werner,
            That is true in “empty” space, since a photon has no rest mass; however, in interactions, a photon does have a relativistic momentum.

          • Slipstick says:

            geran,
            I realize that you are desperate to believe that, somehow, a photon conveys the temperature of its source, to justify your belief that “back-radiation” is not possible. Unfortunately, that is simply not true. Since your acceptance of fact is restricted by your beliefs, you will undoubtedly dispute the following; but I will say it one last time. The energy, frequency, and wavelength of a photon are not separate pieces of information; they all convey the same single piece of information, the energy change that produced the photon. They are simply different ways of expressing the same thing, related by the Planck constant and the speed of light. For visible light, you could even throw color into that list.

          • geran says:

            Slip says I realize that you are desperate to believe that, somehow, a photon conveys the temperature of its source, to justify your belief that back-radiation is not possible.

            You realize wrong, Slip. (Do you ever get anything right?) I never said that back-radiation was not possible. That’s how you try to spin things. I have said that back-radiation from atmospheric CO2 can NOT heat the Earth, as described by the IPCC. A 15 photon is severely limited in its ability to raise the temperature of a target surface on Earth. There is nothing mysterious or sinister about back-radiation, since everything that has a temperature emits back-radiation. The last banana you ate was emitting back-radiation. An ice cube emits back-radiation. The idea that back-radiation can heat the planet is ludicrous. Its like saying there are too many bananas on Earth! They are going to overheat the planet, melt the icecaps, and boil the oceans! Its pseudoscience!

            Slip says The energy, frequency, and wavelength of a photon are not separate pieces of information; they all convey the same single piece of information, the energy change that produced the photon.

            Your age and your birth year are separate pieces of information, although you can calculate one from the other. You previously claimed that momentum was a piece of information. Now, you leave it out. But, I accept your attempted clarification, since there is no need to argue semantics. You seldom admit your mistakes, but at least you seem to understand that what you said was incorrect.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Slipstick and geran,

            The energy density of a wave is proportional to the square of it’s amplitude. Given the frequency/wavelength, amplitude, coherence, etc. a pretty good picture of the temperature and/or energy required to emit said radiation can be obtained. If you don’t believe me just ask a microwave engineer. They know the energy required to make a given material emit high amplitude microwave radiation. Or they’d loose there jobs!

            Have a great day!

          • geran says:

            Yeah John, but I try to keep it simple. When you mention “density”, you are getting into 3 dimensions, which then leads to magnetic fields, which then leads to Maxwellian equations, which then leads to div/grad/curl math!

            I’m trying to convert Slip away from his pseudoscience, not fry his brain!

            🙂

  20. JohnKl says:

    Hi Dr. No,

    You state:

    “Your replies confirm my original claim – In a desperate attempt to maintain some dignity they will now clutch at the next pathetic argument – namely that all the data is corrupted or insufficient to the extent that we can never really know what global average surface temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, sea levels or terrestrial ice are doing. What a cop out!”

    The data does appear to me insufficient to make a definitive claim, but that’s not evidence of corruption. Perhaps only in the mind of the Dr. You further rant:

    “This is a typical ignorant, recalcitrant response I have heard many times. What, pray tell, empirical evidence do you need ? Let’s face it – nothing will suffice because you are psychologically and emotionally committed to denial.
    Or maybe you are a frog sitting in beaker of water that is slowly being heated. Good luck.”

    Let’s take the accusations one at a time. Ignorant? I’m definitely ignorant of many things related to how temperature data and information is accumulated, processed and reported. Even if I had an advanced degree in this field I would claim the same thing, unless perhaps I was involved specifically in projects related to the same. Unless you have been involved with UAH, RSS and or over 100 years of surface data collection your ignorance must be likewise quite immense. From my perspective, your problem remains that despite your pretentious show of feigned knowledge your often appears flawed. Ignorance and arrogance hardly seems like a great combination.

    As to being committed psychologically and emotionally to denial, that seems rich coming from someone with the moniker DR. NO! You close:

    “Or maybe you are a frog sitting in beaker of water that is slowly being heated. Good luck.”

    Maybe we all are if your AGW doom scenarios ever pan out ( extremely unlikely ) but apparently your main response seems to be making snide comments on a website under a disguised name.

    Have a great day!

    • mpainter says:

      “your main response seems to be making snide comments on a website under a disguised name.”
      ####
      That fairly well sums up Dr. NoName.

    • Dr No says:

      Hi JohnKl and mpainter,

      “Maybe we all are if your AGW doom scenarios ever pan out ( extremely unlikely )””

      You are contradicting yourself if you claim the global warming scenarios are “extremely unlikely”. On what basis do you arrive at the “extremely unlikely” adjective? If you are as dispassionate as you claim, then you would not be making such a claim. Surely if the data (as you claim) is insufficient, you cannot take sides.

      “..but apparently your main response seems to be making snide comments on a website under a disguised name.”
      Yes, I confess to being a bit snide. It is difficult living up to my evil persona at times.

      • Ryan Shaffer says:

        “You are contradicting yourself if you claim the global warming scenarios are extremely unlikely. On what basis do you arrive at the extremely unlikely adjective?”

        The basis I would claim this on is the fact that virtually all of the IPCC models have significantly overstated the amount of warming…

        Here is a nice synopsis put together by Roy Spencer’s cohort, John Christy…

        https://www.google.com/search?q=christy+models+ipcc&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=620&tbm=isch&imgil=87Mbl7q5tPznYM%253A%253BQsOXZBh7afilJM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.masterresource.org%25252Fdebate-issues%25252Fjohn-christy-climate-scientist-on-nepa%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=87Mbl7q5tPznYM%253A%252CQsOXZBh7afilJM%252C_&dpr=1.25&ved=0ahUKEwi1xMHS_sXJAhWCuYMKHcf_AJEQyjcIJQ&ei=yIJjVrVAgvOOBMf_g4gJ&usg=__HwacR8vMnPHsFAA9it14s_V5pBM%3D#imgrc=87Mbl7q5tPznYM%3A&usg=__HwacR8vMnPHsFAA9it14s_V5pBM%3D

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi Dr. No,

        You state:

        “If you are as dispassionate as you claim, then you would not be making such a claim. Surely if the data (as you claim) is insufficient, you cannot take sides.”

        Frankly, I’m not all that dispassionate, as Mencken claimed:

        I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant.
        H. L. Mencken

        That said I don’t recall claiming to be dispassionate, perhaps in a momentary lack of consciousness. In fact, I can be quite biased so much so that maybe I shouldn’t hold public office:

        It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
        H. L. Mencken

        You go on to ask:

        “You are contradicting yourself if you claim the global warming scenarios are extremely unlikely. On what basis do you arrive at the extremely unlikely adjective?”

        Two reasons stand clear. The scientific laws of nature and the historical record for the last 130-150 years or so.

        First several scientific laws preclude runaway warming including the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Kirkoff’s Law, Planck’s Radiation Law and for the heck of it I’ll throw in the Stephan Botzman equation. Dr. Roy Spencer claimed on his website sometime ago and the Stephan Boltzman equation made a run-away green house effect very unlikely. If you wish to argue the Stephan Boltzman equation check in with Roy. To state my skepticism quickly, the relatively cooler atmosphere cannot WARM the surface but merely slow the rate of radiative cooling, since by by definition a cooler object emits less radiative energy in any finite period of time than a warmer object. Btw, for the record while the radiative energy of an emitting object corresponds to frequency or inversely wave-length, the energy density of a wave corresponds to the square of it’s amplitude. So amplitude is involved in energy transfer as well. Given the fact that atmospheric gasses emit radiation in all directions, a fraction of which gets re-directed toward the surface and that the surface almost invariably proves warmer than the atmospheric gasses, little if any opportunity exists for GLOBAL WARMING. If you wish to claim they can delay cooling enough to show up as a higher average temperature on global temp data-set fine, but I see little evidence of it increasing peak temperatures. In fact, evidence exists that our atmosphere REDUCES peak temperatures on the planets surface, more on this later. Kirkoff’s Law suggests that a good radiative absorber is also a good emitter. Which explains why, for example, the two Martian moons have been measured cooler than the Martian surface. It is believed by scientists that Phobos for example is made largely of CARBON! Imagine that. Scientists claim carbon cools the surface of the Martian moon Phobos when in a solid moon state but warm Earth’s atmosphere as a gas. The lunar surface has a relatively low albedo but and has a surface temperature that peaks at about 120-3 degrees Celsius, which is also the temperature of Earth Satellites in orbit. The moon has little measurable atmosphere if any. The Earth surface, covered by an atmosphere comprised mainly of Oxygen and Nitrogen, but also ample greenhouse gasses like H2O, CO2, & CH4, is typically far cooler than that, the hottest Earth surface temperature was recorded ~201 F in Death Valley 1972 (black top, road temp) some time ago if I remember correctly.

        The historical record doesn’t look good for warming hysteria either. The oil boom began around 1875. CO2 was measured at 280-300 ppm in the 1880’s and today falls around 400ppm. So what happened with all that extra 80-100 ppm of carbon over 130-145 years? Did the seas boil over? Did the ice-caps melt and the Russians predicted in the early 20th century when the fretted over the diatomes found in arctic waters? Well the global population grew from ~1.3 billion people then to ~7 billion now, the earth became greener according to comparisons made by military aircraft over many decades starting in the first half of the 20th century, and the highest temperature recorded at Death Valley in 1913 of ~ 134 degrees F has never been surpassed! Which is fascinating enough. You would think even if no green-house gasses had been added the temp record would have been broken somewhere along the line. The CO2 levels at the time likely fell between 280-300 ppm (mentioned earlier) and ~315 ppm recorded when Mona Loa first measured atmospheric CO2 levels in 1958.

        In any case, people can disagree but as regards a runaway temp increase due to CO2 it would defy history, logic and even the IPCC. Why? Well they claim the warming effect of additional CO2 lessens over time. Which is why they sport the claim that a doubling of CO2 raises global temps 2 degrees celsius. Each doubling requires double the CO2 previously attained. I will write more soon.

        Have a great day!

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi Dr. No,

          Allow me to correct my post above.

          Since the 1880′s atmospheric Co2 levels increased about 120 parts per million not just 80-85 ppm.

          Another statement should have read:

          “Did the seas boil over? Did the ice-caps melt as the Russians apparently suggested in the early 20th century when they fretted over the diatomes found in arctic waters? Roy posted old Russian claims sometime ago.”

          Have a great day!

  21. JohnKl says:

    Hi David Appell,

    You stated:

    “Youre wrong. The adustments are done for perfectly valid scientific reasons.”

    Later to someone else you state:

    “How can anyone trust the satellite data, when UAH wont release their code or their methodology?”

    David such a display of COGNITIVE DISSONANCE or perhaps something else. Either you know the adjustments are made for perfectly valid reasons or you don’t. Which is it? Do you even know? How about over 100 years of surface data collection, processing and reporting? Any clue?

    Btw, you also indicated elsewhere that RSS does share their algorithm.

    Have a great day!

    • Eli Rabett says:

      It took over thirty years to get a peak at UAH and RSS algorithms let alone the code. Adjustments made and explained are much different from secret sauce.

      • mpainter says:

        Yep, especially Greenland because of Arctic amplification. I’ll explain that term if you like.
        There is a record of a wedding in Hvalsey Church in 1408. That is the last word from the Greenland Norse. I hope that some found refuge in Iceland.

        • mpainter says:

          Nested wrong.

          • mpainter says:

            They forgot about Arctic amplification. tsk, tsk. Those AGW types, why can’t they remember the basics?

          • David Appell says:

            Their conclusion is based on observations.

            “In the new study, the scientists sampled boulders left by advancing glaciers over the last 1,000-some years in southwest Greenland, and on neighboring Baffin Island, which the Norse may also have occupied, according to newly uncovered evidence. Glacial advances during the Little Ice Age have wiped out most evidence of where the glaciers were during the Norse settlement. But Young and his colleagues were able to find traces of a few morainesheaps of debris left at glaciers’ endsthat, by their layout, they could tell predated the Little Ice Age advances. Using newly precise methods of analyzing chemical isotopes in the rocks, they showed that these moraines had been deposited during the Viking occupation, and that the glaciers had neared or reached their later maximum Little Ice Age positions between 975 and 1275. The strong implication: it was at least as cold when the Vikings arrived as when they left. “If the Vikings traveled to Greenland when it was cool, it’s a stretch to say deteriorating climate drove them out,” said Young.”

            http://phys.org/news/2015-12-undercuts-idea-medieval-period-global.html#jCp

          • mpainter says:

            But,it is not “a stretch to say that deteriorating climate drove them out”
            When your science falls short, extravagant statements will not make up the difference.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @Eli Rabbett…”It took over thirty years to get a peak at UAH and RSS algorithms let alone the code. Adjustments made and explained are much different from secret sauce”.

        Why don’t you go after Phil Jones for refusing to release Hadcrut data? Steve McIntyre at climateaudit went so far as to apply for an FOI request to the UK government to get the data, and Jones, a Coordinating Lead Author at IPCC reviews, partnered with Kevin Trenberth, was seen in the Climategate email scandal trying to subvert the FOI.

        He asked McIntyre why he should release the data to him so Mac could make a fool of him as he did Mann with the hockey stick.

        That’s the point Phil, to ensure you are not pulling a hockey stick and enabling the IPCC to offer faulty warming data.

        Why are you so hung up on the code? It’s obvious. You and your alarmist buddies want to use your lack of understanding of basic physics to smear the code as wrong, even though it’s not. You and your buddies went hard after tiny errors in the sat orbits that were within the stated margin of error and affected only the Tropics.

        • David Appell says:

          So you only like code requests when they come from data you disagree with?

          Can’t Spencer and Christy at least publish a peer reviewed paper (like Karl et al did) before they release their data and talk about it in front of Congress?

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          It’s always good to refresh ourselves with the truth. Here is Climategate email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann, marked “For Your Eyes Only”:

          “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.[2/2/2005; 1107454306.txt]

          What absolute despicable human beings these creeps are.

    • David Appell says:

      John:

      Karl et al published their methodology when they released a new version of the data.

      Spencer and Christy have not. Why?

  22. DJC says:

    You cannot deduce anything from what happens in a particular year. You need something like 60-year moving averages to take out the effect of the superimposed 60-year cycle. Then you find that the rate of warming is decreasing slightly in the long-term, leading up to a long-term maximum within 100 years before about 500 years of cooling.

    Whatever has and will happen to temperatures has nothing to do with carbon dioxide levels.

    Nobody here has been able to write out a simple calculation showing why the mean temperature of the ocean surface is what it is, bearing in mind that incident radiation is very variable. Hence, nobody here can in any way what-so-ever place any validity upon the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture.

    I have been able to calculate it using a totally different paradigm not involving radiation – just using the Second Law of Thermodynamics as the foundation stone of the hypothesis.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      @DJC ” Then you find that the rate of warming is decreasing slightly in the long-term…”

      All you need to do is superimpose the UAH anomalies on an absolute scale with full degrees on the vertical axis. It’s hard to differentiate the anomalies from a straight line with no trend.

      Don’t know if this link will work but if it does, see figure 5.

      https://web.archive.org/web/20100430000147/http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html

      Note that the x-coordinate would be the 1980 – 2010 global average.

      Much ado about nothing.

      • DJC says:

        See the graph in the Appendix here and note the negative gradient in the green line which represents the rate of increase of temperature.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon: There’s no need to superimpose any graphs or guess at the trend — it can be calculated.

        For UAH, the total linear trend is +0.11 C/decade.

        • DJC says:

          When you take out the effect of the superimposed 60 year cycle (by using 60 year moving averages) the rate of increase was about 0.06C/decade a hundred years ago and is now just under 0.05C/decade. Anything else is cherry-picking, though, if your graph goes back to the MWP there is no warming at all. Furthermore, you have no proof that 500 years of natural cooling will not start this century, as it did after the MWP.

          It’s all natural and you’ll get AU $10,000 if you’re the first to the physics I present to be wrong and produce a study similar to mine but showing opposite results with water vapor warming to the extent of about 20 degrees for each 1% (as the IPCC implies) so that you show rain forests about 50 degrees hotter than deserts, as could be deduced from the IPCC implication that water vapor does most of the 33 degrees of warming that gravity has already done by forming a temperature gradient as the state of maximum entropy.

  23. CO2isPlantFood says:

    Even the Science Guy admits It was warmer in the middle ages in Europe. How much warmer?

  24. People do not want or like opinions that differ from what they believe when it comes to the climate especially if presented based on the historical climatic record and items that can be attributed to why the historical climatic record is the way it is.

    I have taken this approach and have presented a comprehensive theory on this manner which is far superior to AGW theory and I feel my thoughts will be proven correct before this decade is out.

    I am not going to put the theory here (I think everyone knows where I am coming from ) but my website climatebusters.org can provide more information if any one is interested.

    • DJC says:

      Your hypothesis does not have the status of a “theory” in physics. Neither does mine. But, unless your hypothesis is in accord with established theories of physics, it is wrong. Unless it can explain temperatures on all planets it is wrong. Unless it can explain energy flows on all planets it is wrong, because the laws of physics apply throughout the Universe.

      According to the laws of physics, entropy tends towards a maximum. That leads to the obvious conclusion that, in a force field, unbalanced energy potentials dissipate and so the mean sum of (PE+KE) tends towards being homogeneous, and thus there is a temperature gradient formed in any force field (proven to exist in a centrifugal force field, for example) and that is the one and only reason why planetary surfaces are hotter than the planet’s radiating temperature. It has nothing to do with back radiation, and thus nothing to do with CO2.

      “The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

       Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

      • Norman says:

        DC failure on your part. A hypothesis based upon one’s interpretation of existing physics laws will still need experimental data to confirm it. You will do nothing to prove any of your material. You sight other people’s experiments but you do not understand the nature of their experiments or how it fits your incorrect worldview. Do some actual research, some real experiments to prove your points. You offer “thought experiments” now go do some real science. Roy Spencer has done them, what is stopping you?
        Invest your time more wisely. Why post your endless theory on various climate blogs? It wastes valuable time and effort you could be using to build and design experimental apparatus to actually test your ideas. You claim some person already did it. Have you ever heard of verification?

        • DJC says:

          What interpretation? It’s your interpretation that I have “interpreted” physics. I don’t. I just use it. You can use it too to prove me wrong and make a submission for the AU $10,000 reward. Where’s your study showing water vapor warms?

          • Norman says:

            DC

            I have already posted a study on water vapor to counter your study. You have completely ignored it so why would I continue to waste time with a stubborn person like you?

            The gist of it was that areas with water vapor have considerably less solar energy reaching the surface (because of cloud formation) and I linked to global solar energy maps (you can do it yourself).

            Also who has claimed water vapor warms? Who has claimed Carbon Dioxide warms the surface? The only claims made is that these gases redirect the energy stream leaving the surface and hence keep the surface warmer than without the gases but in no way do they warm. I have linked many times to actual measured values of downwelling IR and they are always less than the IR emitted by the surface so these gases would not warm. They just do not allow the surface to cool as quickly when the solar energy is gone so that the surface stays warmer than it would without the gases. You are aware of the Moon’s average temperature correct?

          • geran says:

            Norman says: “They just do not allow the surface to cool as quickly when the solar energy is gone so that the surface stays warmer than it would without the gases.”

            IR does not “slow the cooling”, Norman. I know you do not understand radiative heat transfer, but maybe you can understand a practical approach.

            Suppose what you are saying is true. Suppose IR could “slow the cooling” of Earth’s surface during the night so that it would be slightly warmer the next day. Say, it could make a difference of 0.01F. So, after 100 days, the Earth would be a full degree warmer. After a year, the Earth would be 3.65F warmer. After 20 years, the Earth would be 73F hotter!

            There would be no need to “adjust” temperatures, Norman!

            Hint: Stay away from pseudoscience, it just makes you look stupid.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            The content of your post was why I had earlier asked if you had any higher level science. My post would only look “stupid” to a person who has very little scientific background but a super ego that makes him think all his thoughts are true and pure.

            Do you have a concept of equilibrium? Do you know what this means in the Chemistry world? I doubt you do. With your grade school level of scientific understanding it is not possible to explain any concept to you as it makes no sense to you and makes you laugh in a hilarious fashion, it tickles your insides. I do avoid responding to your posts because of your lack of any higher science knowledge and your inability to learn what you do not know.

            You are content to believe you are the smartest person on the blog and all others are mindless fools and I am more than content to allow you this state as you must need this emotional state. There is nothing I can link to, post or in any way change your mental state and you seem not to want to. Please open a physics book and read a little. Thanks!

          • geran says:

            Norm, some folks just love their pseudoscience….

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            I think pseudoscience has more science knowledge than you possess. Go learn some real science and then you may know how to apply the word correctly (pseudoscience).

            I really do not know why you reject learning science to such a high degree. You won’t even look at a physics textbook. You will not learn the meaning of equilibrium. There are many valid science sites on the Internet which, for some unknown reason, you refuse to read.

            geran why do you hate science so much? Did you get bad grades in school when you had to take general science? Your hate of learning is as grandiose as your ego.

          • geran says:

            Norman says: I do avoid responding to your posts

            I agree. Endless non-sensical, angry, vapid rambling is not really much of a response.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            I can see not only do you lack any scientific training, it seems you also must have failed English class as your last post demonstrates and inability to comprehend written text or read something that is not there. Whichever you prefer, it seems obvious you can’t read very well and that would probably explain why you do not understand scientific material.

            You state “Endless non-sensical, angry, vapid rambling is not really much of a response.”

            Point out what would be non-sensical, angry or vapid rambling in my posts to you.

            Read some real science books it will benefit you greatly, then when you debate with people you will at least understand what they are saying.

          • geran says:

            Norm, are you taking your medications as prescribed?

          • DJC says:

            Norman

            Your study is not based on anything remotely like the logical methodology in my study which shows the more moist regions have both lower mean daily maximums and also lower mean daily minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitude and altitude, all such regions being at least 100Km from oceans and large inland bodies of water which may affect temperatures.

            Then you say GH gases “keep the surface warmer” which is quite contrary to my observations in the study. But yours is only a hand-waving assertive statement anyway without one iota of proof based on any physics.

            How does the surface get warm in the first place, Normy Boy? Where are your calculations that are contrary to those in this comment that shows why the radiation reaching Earth’s surface is nowhere near enough to explain the observed temperatures.

            In that you, Norman, and Roy and anyone who believes the radiative forcing hoax CANNOT explain the observed surface temperatures and how the surface gets the required thermal energy, you cannot then expect to be able to claim you know what would happen where water vapor is in higher concentrations than elsewhere. Furthermore, empirical evidence (yes, Norman, those “experiments” with thermometers and rain gauges that you always advocate must be done) proves you wrong.

          • geran says:

            Norm, notice that in all of your rambling comments, you were never able to address the actual science. All you could do was sling your slop. You lied about my science background. You tried to attack me personally, but you could never attack my science. You threw a tantrum and slung your slop. Thats what pseudoscience does to a person. It destroys your ability to think for yourself. It makes you look like a ranting 12 year-old.

            Hopefully, you learned something from this.

          • Norman says:

            geran

            You make this claim “but you could never attack my science.” What science do you present? I have not seen any unless science is posting the word pseudoscience and hilarious which you do most frequently.

            You also state: “Norm, notice that in all of your rambling comments, you were never able to address the actual science”

            I have linked you to several science web sites but you ignore them like a rotten food, real science is painful to your mental state.

            You make this ridiculous claim “You lied about my science background.”

            Really, you don’t understand equilibrium and you think I am lying about your science background? Who are you trying to fool?

            Your post: “Suppose what you are saying is true. Suppose IR could slow the cooling of Earths surface during the night so that it would be slightly warmer the next day. Say, it could make a difference of 0.01F. So, after 100 days, the Earth would be a full degree warmer. After a year, the Earth would be 3.65F warmer. After 20 years, the Earth would be 73F hotter!”

            Demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the concept of equilibrium (the word equilibrium must be why you think my posts are rambling since you do not know what this concept means).

            I am quite correct you do not know science you don’t understand any scientific posts so they look like crap to you.

            Remember you posted to me (I was responding to DC) I do like to ignore your posts when I see them as you have no science to contribute just mindless taunts and worthless points (ice heating a turkey, dumb is what dumb posts).

          • geran says:

            Norm asks: What science do you present?

            geran responds: As I mentioned, you do not understand radiative heat transfer. So, I explained in terms that I hoped you would be able to understand. I gave you a realistic example that would sink your boat, but you did not get it. If the Earth were actually warming over a period of time, it would be evident. There would be no need to adjust temperature readings. There would be no need to argue over which system/methodology was best for measuring temperatures. So, your claim that back-radiation slows the cooling is probably something you learned from pseudoscience. You cannot produce equations that demonstrate such an effect. You do not understand the physics of photon absorption. Slows the cooling sounds good to you, so you go with it. You cant present the science that verifies it. It is your feel good belief. But, it is WRONG.

            Norm says: I have linked you to several science web sites but you ignore them like a rotten food, real science is painful to your mental state.

            geran responds: Norm, web sites may or may not be actual science. You have to be able to discern. A solid background in science helps with discernment. Because you do not have a science background, you have to rely on links, and they get you in trouble.

            Norm says: you dont understand equilibrium

            geran responds: I understand equilibrium. You have no basis for saying that. It is possible that you are the one that does not understand it. You probably cant even correctly relate equilibrium to slows the cooling in less than 100 of your own words, with no links.

            Norm says: I do like to ignore your posts when I see them as you have no science to contribute just mindless taunts and worthless points (ice heating a turkey, dumb is what dumb posts).

            geran responds: You do not get the ice baking a turkey example because you do not understand the physics involved. Ice can NOT bake a turkey. The example is my way of pointing out how ludicrous the AGW pseudoscience has become. Atmospheric CO2 emits 14.7 photons, and ice has a peak wavelength of about 10.7 . So, ice photons are actually hotter (more energy). My point is that if CO2 can heat the planet, then ice cubes should be able to bake a turkey. Of course, neither is true, yet you choose to believe CO2 warming is valid. Selective choosing of facts is pseudoscience. Its just dumb.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            I have given you valid equations from valid sites. You choose not to comprehend them (you are a troll anyway so what people reply to you really does not matter).

            The equation:
            q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac (3)

            where

            Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)

            Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)

            Ac = area of the object (m2)

            From the link:
            http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

            The equation clearly demonstrates that as the surroundings get warmer or close to the hot body temperature the energy loss goes down (the q i.e. heat transfer by radiation is less, the hot object cools slower!!).

            I have posted this to you in the past. It is a waste of time to post it more than twice. Either understand it or don’t.

          • geran says:

            Norman, the more you comment, the more you prove me right.

            The final destination of the heat energy is space, which is close to absolute zero. (Tc ~ 0K) The equation is valid, but your application produces an invalid conclusion. (Space is NOT “slowing the cooling” of the planet!)

            All of your insults reflect back on you, and demonstrate your lack of understanding, immaturity, and blatant bias.

            Thanks for taking the time to make my point for me.

        • Norman says:

          geran,

          Maybe? Maybe you are starting to understand what scientists are saying. Probably not. But hope is eternal.

          You are completely correct! Space is not slowing down the cooling and that is why the Moon’s average surface temperature is far below Earth’s, it radiates freely to space and the equilibrium temperature will be based upon the energy received minus the energy radiated.

          Now why is the Earth’s average surface much warmer than the moon? Because the surface does not radiate directly into space!! The atmosphere absorbs a portion of this energy and directs it back to the surface slowing the cooling. I have hope you might grasp this very simple concept but then you will post again and destroy all hope that you have any potential to learn!

          • geran says:

            Well, interesting! I explained that your precious linked equation proves nothing about “slowing the cooling” of Earth’s surface, so now you want to move the goalposts to the Moon!

            Hilarious.

            Heat energy from both the Earth and the Moon moves into space via radiative heat transfer. Earth has much, much more of an atmosphere than does the Moon. Consequently, the Moon’s blackbody temp is about 15K hotter than Earth’s, not the other way around. You are likely confusing surface temp with blackbody temp.

            So, now where will you go? Which moon or planet?

            (Your comedy is very entertaining, more please!)

        • Noman says:

          geran

          You are not capable of rational thought are you.

          For some reason you believe this:
          “Well, interesting! I explained that your precious linked equation proves nothing about slowing the cooling of Earths surface, so now you want to move the goalposts to the Moon!”

          How exactly did you prove the equation does not slow down the Earth’s surface rate of cooling? You claimed outer space was around 0K and your point? The GHG in the atmosphere absorb and reemit radiation and some of this radiation returns to the surface. IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTYEM GOOFUS!! You can’t logically understand this simple idea.

          With GHG in the atmosphere the surrounding environment in the equation is NOT OUTER SPACE!! IT is the atmosphere above the surface!! The only place the radiation leaves the Earth system is that the TOA. Why do you think the Earth’s surface is warmer than its blackbody temperature?

          • geran says:

            Norm preaches: “The GHG in the atmosphere absorb and reemit radiation and some of this radiation returns to the surface. IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTYEM GOOFUS!! You cant logically understand this simple idea.”
            ——–

            For emphasis (typo corrected): “IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTEM GOOFUS!!”

            Norm believes, with all his little heart, that heat is NOT LEAVING THE SYSTEM. That is why he believes, with all his heart, in his little brain, that the globe is warming. Heat IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTEM!.

            Notice the ALL CAPS. Notice the name-calling. Notice the TWO exclamation points.

            Norm is absolutely convinced that heat IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTEM. He is completely dedicated to his pseudoscience.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Norman and Geran,

            Not to get in the way of your debate, but Geran has a point. A cooler atmosphere radiates energy to a relatively warmer surface. The radiation adds to the internal energy of the surface molecules upon absorption, but it doesn’t increase internal energy because in any finite time period the surface emits more energy than it receives. The rate at which the surface emits energy does not decrease because it absorbs more energy, therefore the “rate of cooling” by the surface does not slow because it absorbs energy radiated from the atmosphere. However, since the surface molecules have absorbed additional energy it would theoretically take longer for it to radiate away all of it’s internal energy than if it had not received the additional energy radiated from the atmosphere. Hope that helps.

            Have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Norman and Geran,

            Perhaps a better way to state the effect of atmospheric radiation on the surface would that it theoretically helps the surface maintain a given temperature longer all other factors being the same.

            Have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Norman and Geran,

            After consideration, it’s probably safer to say atmospheric radiation cannot slow surface radiation emissions but can slow the rate it cools. You can ignore the previous post.

            Have a great day!

          • geran says:

            Hi John–Sorry I didn’t see your comment until today.

            You said: “The radiation adds to the internal energy of the surface molecules upon absorption…”

            You’re exactly correct, and that is the point the pseudoscientists can not understand–“UPON ABSORPTION”.

            Certainly, feel free to join the fun!

    • DJC says:

      All climate change – yes ALL – is 100% natural and has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. It’s obvious that rising CO2 levels have not affected temperatures this century, and there is absolutely no valid physics that any of you can produce to show why climate should be affected by CO2.

      The global mean temperature varies in cycles that appear to be regulated by planetary orbits and variations in solar intensity, cosmic rays etc which probably also relate to planetary orbits. For example, the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit has a cycle of about 100,000 years which is thought to relate to the spacing of glacial periods, this being because the annual mean distance of the Sun varies over that 100,000 year cycle. There are numerous cycles, but the two dominant ones in the space of a few thousand years have periods of about 1,000 years and 60 years. Both were rising in the 30 years to 1998, but now we have slight net cooling for 30 years, and probably about 500 years of long term cooling due to start within 100 years.

      Solar intensity can also vary because of variations in cloud cover. Reflections from clouds affect the albedo by about 20%. For each 1% change (for example to 19% or 21%) there is a temperature change of about 0.9 degree. So all the climate change in the last few thousand years could have been due just to such changes in cloud cover. Clearly there are also other changes in sunspot activity, and you have to ask yourselves whether than could well explain the 1,000 year cycle. What regulates these long term cycles in sunspot activity? Well, the only things that are “regular” are planetary orbits, and it could well be that planetary magnetic fields which reach to the Sun have some effect on sunspots and possibly cosmic rays intensities which, in turn, may affect cloud formation.

      It’s ALL natural and you have no proof that it could not be.

    • David Appell says:

      “here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
      – Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
      http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875

  25. Nick Stokes says:

    “how good the thermometer temperature trends are, with periodic adjustments that almost always make the present warmer or the past colder”

    Maybe UAH adjustments aren’t so periodic, but they are large when they come. I have plotted here Two UAH versions from this year (6.0beta4 and 5.6), and also current GISS vs a GISS version from four years ago (earliest I could find on wayback), from 1979 to now, with a running 12-month smooth. GISS is much more stable. Both are plotted set to the UAH anomaly base of 1981-2010.

    • mpainter says:

      GISS is more stable?
      See the alterations in GISS reported by Professor Emeritus Friedrich Karl Ewert. Tantamount to fabrication. GISS is notorious.

    • barry says:

      Cumulative adjustments to UAH since 1994 (UAH vB) amount to +0.1C/decade for global lower tropospheric temp trends. Have any of the global surface data sets undergone such large trend adjustments over successive revisions?

      If not, then one could say that the global surface records are more ‘stable’ through various revisions.

      (Out of interest, I checked the difference between HadCRU3 and HadCRU4 for the period 1979 to May 2014 (where HadCRUt3 data ends). From the largest revision to HadCRU data, there was a change in trend of 0.02C/decade)

    • barry says:

      Has GISS GLOBAL surface temp data undergone revisions that changes the trend by anywhere near 0.1C/decade since 1979?

      • Werner Brozek says:

        Has GISS GLOBAL surface temp data undergone revisions that changes the trend by anywhere near 0.1C/decade since 1979?

        When I started my posts with the pauses on various data sets, GISS was flat since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to November)
        See:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/crowdsourcing-a-temperature-trend-analysi/

        Now, that same period is 0.0043/year, so at least this time period is a bit under half of 0.1/decade.

      • barry says:

        Thanks for the reply. That would seem to buttress Nick’s point. GISS has been more stable than UAH through revision. Also considering that it’s a shorter time period in your analysis. I imagine that if the previous GISS version had been run from 1979, the trend difference would be less (caveats apply).

  26. David Appell says:

    Carl Mears of RSS:
    “A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets.”

    http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

    • mpainter says:

      Well, now, Mears will just have to pay closer attention to Roy’s posts on the subject. Has a few things to learn, has that Mears fellow.

    • michael hart says:

      Does that mean that you’re now going to move your plague to a site not hosted by someone who produces satellite temperature measurements?

      • lewis says:

        Michael Hart:

        I hope not – the humor associated with him would be missed.

        • rah says:

          Seems to me that “surface data sets” over satellites are the gold standard for alarmists for surface temps. But when it comes to sea levels they believe satellites are the gold standard and ye ald tide gauges are less than reliable.

          • ehak says:

            Even Spencer recognizes that the TLT/TMLT data cannot disprove the validity of the surface data.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203356

            Perhaaps that will spill through to Christy in Congress.

          • mpainter says:

            Are you still in Santa Rosa, or have you relocated?

          • barry says:

            AFAIK, satellite retrieval of sea level data (measuring the distance between the sea surface and the satellite instrument) is much less problematic than inferring temps from radiance measurements throughout the atmosphere. Though both have problems with swapping to different satellites and orbital irregularities, the difference between measuring the distance from a two-dimensional surface and winnowing temps for a band of the three-dimensional atmosphere from a number of channels that cover a deeper swathe would have to be at least an order of magnitude in complexity.

          • mpainter says:

            Problems. NASA gives an accuracy of 33 mm for Jason data. Please explain how SLR of 1-3 mm/year (variously estimated) is credible
            especially in view of the fact that NOAA Mean Sea Level charts show no SLR for 30 years for gauges situated on stable coasts.

            On the other hand, satellite temperature data obviates the problems that beset surface temperature datasets:
            1. coverage, 2.UHE 3.reliability, 4. Integrity questions.

          • barry says:

            33m? Could you cite something published for this?

            All data sets and method are imperfect. Asserting superiority of the satellite temperature record doesn’t make it so, and looks to me like favouritism, for some reason. There are great difficulties, which is why trend revisions since 1994 to UAH amount to a change in decadal trend of 0.1C. That’s more than surface trend changes since 1979.

            I see no reason to think that the satellite temp records, which have similar instrumental problems (orbit decay/drift, multiple satellites) to sea level retrieval, but have the added confounding problems of inferring values from proxy data (radiance), and have trouble extracting horizontal temperature zones bands from several channels that measure bands are much deeper, should be any more accurate than surface data. Both sources and processes have significant, and different, problems to overcome. Sea level retrieval is, relatively, much less complex.

          • barry says:

            “33m?”

            33mm.

          • mpainter says:

            See NASA Jason 3 website where 33 mm accuracy is explicitly given.

            “favoritism for some reason”
            Yes, for crissakes, for the reasons that I cited. What’s wrong with you?

          • barry says:

            You listed the benefits but none of the known issues. Seems pretty selective to me. And your 4th reason was a giveaway.

            Issues – calibration of different satellites, orbital decay, orbital drift, poorly constrained depth of radiance measurements winnowed from several channels, and a host of others. Nick Stokes posted a more detailed review of the issues on this thread or the previous.

            The surface records have their benefits and issues as well, of course. Pros: Measure air temperature directly, much longer record, are confined to a band of atmosphere (within 2 meters of the surface) that is shallower than satellite retrieval by 2 orders of magnitude, have more independent institutes processing the data to compare, revise data more often. Cons: data gaps, instrument changes, movement of station locations, TOB, UHE and others.

            Simply listing the pro/con for either doesn’t make an argument for superiority. I tend to pay attention to what the experts say (including the satellite temp compilers).

          • barry says:

            Confirmed Jason 3 will be accurate to 3.3cm. That would be for one reading. As in the surface records, the law of large numbers apply. Current technology has accuracy of 5mm over 10 days. Over a year that will be much finer.

            Comparing a deviation of 3.3cm with temperatures derived for the lower trop from an atmospheric column, obtaining radiance measurements from the surface and through the stratosphere, still seems to me that the sea level records have much finer resolution (and only one channel to work with instead of several to extrapolate a deep horizontal band and then infer temps).

          • mpainter says:

            Integrity, as in the activists at the NOAA lack. That counts for me, if not for you. Also at GISS, the child of the most notorious of alarmists: James “boil the oceans” Hansen.

            Regarding the 33 mm accuracy of Jason data, this is the caveat on the data offered for use. The idea that multiple passes improves the accuracy of the data is drivel. How long will wave and tide stand still for your multiple passes? You don’t come across as too awfully bright. Other AGW idiots have claimed that NASA doesn’t know what it’s talking about in its 33 mm accuracy specification. Here is what NASA says: their goal is to improve the accuracy to within 25 mm.
            It is the Jason 3 data that used to derive SLR. Does that tell you anything?

          • barry says:

            “Integrity, as in the activists at the NOAA lack. That counts for me, if not for you.”

            I think they are all doing their best to account for biases in the data, as are the satellite temp compilers. From what I’ve read of Dr Spencer’s posts, I would think he agrees. I set no store in these conspiracy ideations, regardless of which side of the fence it comes.

            “It is the Jason 3 data that used to derive SLR. Does that tell you anything?”

            Jason 3 hasn’t launched yet. Yes, your reference to its “data” tells me something.

            Are you familiar with the law of large numbers? Essentially, the greater number of measurements, the better the accuracy.

            http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LawofLargeNumbers.html

            This premise applies to all the data sets we’ve discussed. Sea level accuracy is already several orders of magnitude more precise that lower tropospheric temps at initial retrieval. Both take millions of measurements, and both go through adjustment processes. Sea level retrieval is based on a far more accurate measurement system than tropospheric temperatures, and the adjustment process is not as complex.

            Curious to note that you favour the (near) global coverage for the satellite temp record, but don’t list this as a positive for the sea level data set, compared to relatively far more sparse tide gauges – especially if only considering those along stable coastlines.

          • mpainter says:

            Right, Jason 3 launch is delayed so we are such with Jason 2 for a bit longer.

            Guess what Jason is calibrated against?
            Against what the NASA website calls “ground truth”. And what is ground truth?
            It is a TIDAL GAUGE.
            Two, as a matter of fact: one offshore California in the Santa Barbara Channel and one offshore of Corsica. Jason is corrected according to sea level as given by these “ground truth” tidal gauges. It’s all on the NASA website.Search NASA Jason accuracy.

            Two tidal gauges. Now what were you saying about tidal gauges and lots of data points?
            And altimeter surveys being superior to tidal gauges?
            Time to learn up.

          • barry says:

            As part of that assessment, it was also possible to estimate the time span needed to measure a long-term trend with a 1 mm per year precision. For the global average, the required time span was found to be slightly more than 2 years, with 12 years being long enough to reduce the statistical error down to 0.1 mm per year.

            http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2025/20130336

            Greater number of measurements reduce the error.

            Calibration is a vital part process for all the data sets we are speaking of.

      • barry says:

        “As part of that assessment, it was also possible to estimate the time span needed to measure a long-term trend with a 1 mm per year precision. For the global average, the required time span was found to be slightly more than 2 years, with 12 years being long enough to reduce the statistical error down to 0.1 mm per year.”

        http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2025/20130336

        Greater number of measurements reduce the error.

        Calibration is a vital part process for all the data sets we are speaking of.

  27. Roy,

    Do you have any comment on Nick Stokes’ comparison of relative size of adjustments over four years to GIS and UAH? He mentioned it above, lost in the chatter.

    http://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html

    “Maybe UAH adjustments arent so periodic, but they are large when they come. I have plotted here Two UAH versions from this year (6.0beta4 and 5.6), and also current GISS vs a GISS version from four years ago (earliest I could find on wayback), from 1979 to now, with a running 12-month smooth. GISS is much more stable. Both are plotted set to the UAH anomaly base of 1981-2010.”

    Larry Kummer

  28. DJC says:

    Here are the calculations using the (incorrect) IPCC net flux of 390W/m^2 into the surface, where we assume that the variable flux that contributes to the 390 figure applies to five equal zones that receive 20%, 60%, 100%, 140% and 180% of the mean of 390W/m^2. This is far more realistic than using 390 for the whole globe including the dark side. Now, using the on-line Stefan-Boltzmann calculator at tutorvista.com (and all the flux, because the reflected component has been deducted) we get blackbody temperatures as shown below …

    20% zone (78W/m^2) – 192.6K
    60% zone (234W/m^2) – 253.5K
    100% zone (390W/m^2) – 288.0K
    140% zone (546W/m^2) – 313.5K
    180% zone (702W/m^2) – 333.6K

    Mean temperature 276.2K (less than 3C)

    Firstly, the IPCC et al incorrectly assumed they could include the back radiation and so their energy diagrams show a net of 390W/m^2 into the surface, a slightly fudged figure I would suggest anyway, and one which ignores the outward radiation. But, note the temperature for 100% is 288K (they fluked it right with 390 – or did they?) – just what they wanted for the mean temperature.

    But, even when they incorrectly added back radiation (which does not penetrate the ocean surface and so cannot warm it) they still “forgot” the T^4 relationship in S-B, effectively treating the Earth as a flat disc receiving uniform flux day and night. Pierrehumbert made the same mistake.

    When we insert realistic variation into the flux (as above) we get a far colder (and unrealistic) mean temperature, and we always will – that’s a mathematical fact. And we should not have added the back radiation anyway.

    Do you now see how gullible you have all been to accept the whole incorrect paradigm that radiation to a planet’s surface explains the temperature? It doesn’t, and that’s blatantly obvious on Venus, because how could the atmosphere deliver the required 20,000W/m^2 or more to explain the Venus surface temperature when the incident solar radiation even at TOA is only about an eighth of that? Because radiation does not determine the temperature, radiation from CO2 is irrelevant.

  29. DJC says:

    Published paper confirms it’s all wrong:

    http://atlatszo.hu/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/article.pdf

    “7. Conclusions

    “It is amazing that the global warming community and GCM modelers could debate CO2 greenhouse effect based AGW issues for decades without having the slightest knowledge about the true IR atmospheric absorption and the related physical laws.

    “According to the simple-minded or classic view of the greenhouse effect the global average greenhouse temperature change may be estimated by the direct application of the Beer-Lambert law moderated by some local or regional scale weather phenomenon (R. Pierrehumbert, [2], A. Lacis, [1], A. P. Smith,[24], H. deBruin,[17], J. Abraham et al.,
    [25] ).

    “This is not true. If the Aτ constant, then there is no AGW, there is no climate sensitivity and there is no H2O feedback of any kind. All non-radiative atmospheric processes are contributing to one overall purpose, namely to keep the extropy (Aτ) constant and convert as much SW radiation to LW radiation as possible while maintaining the radiative energy balance and the minimum gravitational potential energy.

    “The dynamics of the greenhouse effect depend on the dynamics of the absorbed solar radiation and the space-time distribution of the atmospheric humidity. The global distribution of the IR optical thickness is fundamentally stochastic. The instantaneous effective values are governed by the turbulent mixing of H2O in the air and the global (meridional) redistribution of the thermal energy resulted from the general (atmospheric and oceanic) circulation.
    Greenhouse effect is a global scale radiative phenomenon and cannot be discussed without the explicit quantitative knowledge of the global characteristics of the IR atmospheric absorption and its governing physical principles.”

  30. Bob Weber says:

    It was TSI in 2015. It order, from high to low, http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tss/sorce_tsi_24hr.csv

    2015, 1361.4512
    2014, 1361.3966
    2013, 1361.3587
    2012, 1361.2413
    2011, 1361.0752
    2003, 1361.0262
    2004, 1360.9192
    2010, 1360.8027
    2005, 1360.7518
    2006, 1360.6735
    2007, 1360.5710
    2009, 1360.5565
    2008, 1360.5382

    Sep, 1361.1063
    Oct, 1361.3139
    Nov, 1361.3688

    TSI was also higher for most of October and November, compared to September, driving Nov/Dec temps upward:

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png

    https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/figure-2-global-temperature-anomaly-update-2014-2015-nov-um.gif

    2016 will NOT be a record year as there will be no long outstanding solar cycle TSI peak like Feb 2015. Enjoy it while lasts, solar minimum is on the way… It took 6-7 years for TSI to drop to it’s lowest levels in 2008, and UAH temps followed. SSTs have a similar dip for 2008, tracking TSI. Easy to see the temp drop here into 2008:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2015_v6.png

    Every bit of the increase in temps since 2008 is from the rise on TSI during SC24. Even though it’s the lowest SSN cycle in 100 years, SC24 was (and is) still potent.

    It’s TSI. It’s the Sun! 😉

    • DJC says:

      Yes it is the Sun as I have been saying for years. Variations in cloud cover can of course affect the portion of the solar radiation that is effective (because it is not reflected by clouds) but that’s the only significant qualification. There is an apparent correlation between Earth’s climate cycles and the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets as seen here – that may well be what regulates these natural cycles. My comment above explains why carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it all, and the radiation shown in Energy Budgets does not explain the mean surface temperature, so that proves all AGW conjectures to be wrong. Tell Roy for me, will you?

  31. Norman says:

    geran,

    No on the medications. Are you reading any science material. I would think that you reading some science would be much more valuable to yourself than what I am doing. You really do not know anything about science and cover the lack of with mindless posts that you consider hilarious.

    Crack open a book and learn. At least work to understand the concept of equilibrium. Thanks. Hope you do well in your studies. You choose to respond on a science blog, it would be nice if you actually learned some. Good luck!

  32. Bob, I saw your earlier post 100% correct.

    This is what we will be up against in my opinion. Mainstream will be in denial of solar as being the main determinate of the climate and will come up with excuses just as they have for the pause in global warming now 18+ years.

    Global temperatures will be heading lower before this decade is out. I know if they do the two reasons that will be given by mainstream is the earth went from an El Nino condition to La Nina , and if volcanic activity picks up then they will say that is also the reason and they will not link the increase in volcanic activity to prolonged minimum solar conditions.

    This is why at the unset of the cooling later this decade unfortunately for my theory, and yours it is going to begin at the same time prolonged minimum solar conditions become established once again combined with when this present El Nino ends and a La Nina begins.

    So what to do is to see if ENSO is being superimposed on solar variability, by evaluating the spike in global temperatures with this current El Nino (assuming volcanic activity is normal) with the decline in global temperatures with the pending La Nina.

    If both the spike and decline in global temperatures is lower then recent previous ESNO events then a reason for this has to be looked for (beyond ENSO) and this is where my argument(yours) of a decline in solar activity along with more favorable Milankovitch Cycles and a weakening geo -magnetic field come into play.

    Also my argument that the earth has been and still is in a decline in global temp. overall since the Holocene Optimum, will be taken more seriously.

    If those reasons are brushed aside at that point then some other explanation will have to be given and I can not think of any alternative explanations.

    The test will be on.

  33. DJC says:

    You’ll never prove anything with temperature data, Salvo. There is only one way to beat the hoax in the long run (about 15 to 20 years) and that is to point out over and over again that their physics is incorrect and that there is an alternative explanation based on the laws of physics which correctly explains all temperatures in tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores of all planets and satellite moons. Their physics cannot be correct because they cannot explain the mean surface temperature with correct radiation calculations. The reason is simple: the lower troposphere and the surface are supplied with far more thermal energy from non-radiative processes than by radiation: they just didn’t realize this, because they just didn’t understand entropy.

  34. DJC says:

    You will never prove anything with temperature data, Salvo. There’s only one way to beat the hoax in the long run (about 15 to 20 years) and that is to point out over and over again that their physics is incorrect and that there is an alternative explanation based on the laws of physics which correctly explains all temperatures in tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores of all planets and satellite moons. Their physics cannot be correct because they cannot explain the mean surface temperature with correct radiation calculations. The reason is simple: the lower troposphere and the surface are supplied with far more thermal energy from non-radiative processes than by radiation: they just didn’t realize this, because they just didn’t understand entropy.

    There’s no valid explanation other than what I have written.

  35. Toneb says:

    Geran says:

    “Suppose IR could slow the cooling of Earths surface during the night so that it would be slightly warmer the next day. Say, it could make a difference of 0.01F. So, after 100 days, the Earth would be a full degree warmer. After a year, the Earth would be 3.65F warmer. After 20 years, the Earth would be 73F hotter!”

    You are wayyyyyyy to high with the effect GHG’s have on surface warming.
    Norman is correct and indeed they DO “slow cooling” and NO I’m NOT arguing empirical science with you, an obvious “Dragon-slayer”.

    For those that want to get with the real world and not deny it and live in one of their own invention.
    See:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4YSwajvFAY

    Let’s do your calculation with realistic values.

    If we come down several orders of magnitude and say 0.0001C so that after 100 days the Earth would be 0.01C warmer, after 1000, 0.1C warmer. Or around 0.36C/decade.

    • geran says:

      Hey Toneb!

      You say you don’t want to argue “empirical” science. Me either. So, how about some hard science, from first principles? For example: “How does CO2 back-radiation slow the cooling of Earth’s surface”? Remember, actual science (laws and associated equations) ONLY.

      Thanks.

      (PS I don’t identify myself as “Dragon-slayer”, but if attaching labels is important to you, in your pseudoscience, go for it.)

  36. dennis burns says:

    short term data with long term projections….pure conjecture…just check out the radical temps in the early fifties..

  37. D'J'C says:

    Please read this comment and, if you have genuine questions, I will answer them on my blog which is linked from that comment.

  38. JohnKl says:

    Hi Dr. No,

    Allow me to correct my post above.

    Since the 1880’s atmospheric Co2 levels increased about 120 parts per million not just 80-85 ppm.

    Have a great day!

  39. Norman says:

    DJC

    You state: “Norman

    Your study is not based on anything remotely like the logical methodology in my study which shows the more moist regions have both lower mean daily maximums and also lower mean daily minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitude and altitude, all such regions being at least 100Km from oceans and large inland bodies of water which may affect temperatures.”

    Have you tried using the free humidity calculator?
    http://www.humcal.com/index.php

    With it you can put in different variables to see certain outcomes. You can try it. Click on %RH tab and put in 10% (for an arid area) and then put in 40 C for the temperature and on the other column click on enthalpy. With this tool you can compare the relative energy of two air masses (given here as joules/gram). With this setting I get the value of 52 J/g for enthalpy. To get the same 52 J/g value for 90% RH air you have to go much colder…if you put 20 C in the temperature you get an enthalpy value opf 53.7 J/g.

    So what does all this mean? It means your logical methodology is very incomplete. You are forming a conclusion that moist air cools the surface but are not taking into account all the factors involved. On another thread I pointed out to you that moist areas surface receive a lot less solar energy because of cloud formation. Now with this calculator it would seem to show that dry dessert air of 10% RH at 40 C has the same energy content as 90% air at 20 C. The cooler air of the moist areas may actually contain more energy than the dry air so the simplistic conclusion that moist air cools is not really valid as the cooler air may actually hold more energy.

    • D'J'C says:

      How do you, Norman, know what I’m taking into account when you haven’t read the study? You can read the methodology of my study and the physics which explains the result (which physics is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics) in the paper linked from the ‘Evidence’ page at http://climate-change-theory.com as I have no intention of wasting more than 90 seconds answering you here, Mr anonymous Norman who is unqualified in physics. But you are entitled to submit an attempted refutation of the argument pertaining to entropy maximization – just send your comment to my blog that is linked from the above website.

    • D'J'C says:

      One of these days, Norman, for your own sake, not mine, I hope you learn to read what someone has actually written in any paper or study to which you have been referred, rather than respond based on your naive assumptions about what you think the document might say.

  40. D'J'C says:

    PS Norman: You pointed out to me “that moist areas surface receive a lot less solar energy because of cloud formation” That’s very nice of you Norman: I’d never noticed clouds. /sarc

    But the solar flux of 168W/m^2 is insufficient on average to explain the observed mean temperatures of low sunlit clouds, let alone shaded areas on the surface. The shaded regions receive so little radiation under thick cloud cover that you must be wondering (or you ought to be) how on Earth the surface temperature still rises on a very cloudy morning. Of course you’ll find out how in my paper.

    Only people like Pierrehumbert ignore clouds when it’s “convenient” to calculate the assumed temperature without GH gas (that is, without clouds) still based on 30% albedo – of which two thirds is due to clouds that wouldn’t be there. Those clouds are very inconvenient things, Norman, for hoaxers like yourself. There’s no “33 degrees” of warming being done by radiation, and there’s nowhere near enough radiation reaching the surface of Earth or Venus to explain why it warms each morning.

    Fiddle on with your fictitious, fiddled physics. Your water vapor won’t get to observed mean temperatures by absorbing the small amount of radiation that is available. Nor is the temperature determined by heat capacity: it is determine by specific heat and the acceleration due to gravity, the solar constant, the albedo and things like that. Molecules of one gas colliding with those of another will affect the temperature of the other regardless of the heat capacity thereof.

    • D'J'C says:

      Norman:

      I’m only interested in answering persons who understand entropy maximization and thermodynamics, and who have studied my writings, perhaps having genuine questions. After all, I’m only human and, whilst I fully understand what is happening both at the molecular level and the macro level, I may not have described it words that everyone can understand. What I wrote to David Appell in this comment applies, at least in part, to yourself. Future discussion should be on my blog, but comments merely describing your own conjectures without any evidence of having read and understood my paper etc will not pass moderation.

  41. Norman says:

    DJC,

    Better information for you (I know it won’t sway you since you pride yourself in a closed mind).

    You have all these claims that areas that are wetter are cooled by water vapor and stick to this.

    I found this information page that really demonstrates you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. You and geran should form a group of the “know nothing about science and will refuse any information that challenges what they know is right”

    http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/singapore.html

    That link is for Singapore. It gives the monthly total solar energy received the average temperature (day/night combined) and the rainfall all in a real easy to view format.

    Here is one from Alice Springs Australia
    http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/alice-springs.html

    If you look at both these links together you will see that when the two locations are receiving the same amount of solar energy that Singapore is considerably warmer.
    (If you can’t see it look at December for Singapore and June for Alice Springs). With very similar levels of solar energy input Alice Springs is about 13 C colder than Singapore.

    Also all these graphs clearly show that the solar energy is the primary driver of temperature at any location. When the solar energy is less the temperature goes down. Your theories are complete crap. You can look at many cities around the world and prove yourself wrong. You are so wrong it is no longer funny and this evidence is the proof and you should pay me the $10000 you promise if anyone can prove your hypothesis garbage. With these links I have done just that. Do you need my mailing address to send the check to?

    • DJC says:

      Norman

      It’s your comprehension, Norman, that is sadly lacking and causing all the confusion you demonstrate. I never said solar energy does not drive temperatures: obviously it’s colder in winter. I said direct solar radiation reaching the surface is not what determines temperatures. Do you think 20W/m^2 of solar radiation reaching the surface of Venus is what raises its temperature each Venus morning?

      I’ve been in Alice Springs when its 43C. Singapore very rarely gets above 32C because it has a rain forest climate and is surrounded by oceans. If you had read my study you would realize that altitude plays a part and I deliberately avoided locations within 100Km of oceans because oceans have a stablizing effect which is very obvious in Singapore. But Alice Springs is one of the locations in my study.

      Who the hell do you think you are, anyway, citing two cherry picked locations when I did a far more comprehensive study that you don’t deign to read? I’m sure you know more chemistry than I do, as I only did First Year University Chemistry, but I studied for four years Distinction Level physics at Sydney University, and you did nothing like that. This is all about physics – entropy – thermodynamics. You have NEVER faulted anything in my hypothesis because you don’t deign to read it, let alone try to understand it. I will only answer questions now on my blog – genuine questions which indicate an understanding of the hypothesis. The conditions for the reward are on the blog.

      • Norman says:

        DJC

        I have read your hypothesis more than once and have commented numerous times why I think you are not correct with your thinking.

        So you don’t like my choice of cities. Doesn’t matter if you want look at any city yourself with the link I provided, it will prove you wrong whatever city you make. Your claim is that moist cities are cooler because water vapor acts as a coolant of the surface. Not really Doug, you are wrong. Here are two more cities which are not near a coast which show your hypothesis and conclusion incorrect. If you do not like my choice you have several wet/dry cities to choose from. The link is global. Your study DID not include solar energy reaching the surface. These links do. When you take this variable into consideration your hypothesis falls on its face.

        Las Vegas, Nevada VS Huntsville, Alabama. Neither city is near a coast.
        http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/las-vegas-nevada.html
        http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/huntsville-alabama.html

        Now be a good scientist DJC and look at both links. Look at Solar insolation to these two cities on the monthly basis. Look at temperature. Look at rainfall amounts and take in all the variables.

        If you do this you will see Huntsville is warmer than Las Vegas all but 3 months. Huntsville is receiving less insolation than Vegas but still has higher average temp (high/low). Only in the summer months when Las Vegas receives considerably more insolation does its average temperature exceed Huntsville. So with the surface of Huntsville receiving less energy it still is warmer for most months. This case definitely destroys your study. You can do other sights. I have with the same results. Dry areas are cooler than wet ones when the insolation is similar. Your ideas are wrong, sorry it hurts your ego but that is the reality here and if you are honest and look you will see that this is the case.

        • D'J'C says:

          Norman

          Apparently you don’t like my random choice of 15 inland tropical locations on three continents using 30 years of temperature and precipitation records. Well then, select 15 yourself, following the methodology in my study, avoiding those like Singapore that are within 100Km of oceans (which of course regulate temperatures) and making adjustments for altitude based on appropriate lapse rates.

          But even the cherry picking you did yielded you no fruit. The Sun passes almost directly overhead in Singapore twice a year (around March 21 and September 21) and over Alice Springs once around 21 December. At that time it can make dry Alice Springs (where I’ve been) over 42C, but rarely makes moist Singapore (where I’ve spent a couple of weeks) over 32C. Singapore has lower altitude also.

          In the hottest month when the Sun passes directly overhead, the mean temperature for dry Alice Springs is very nearly 30C whilst for moist Singapore it is less than 29C. This hardly supports the implication by the IPCC that there is about 20 degrees of warming for each 1% of water vapor.

          So, Norman, your brief comments here are nothing remotely near the comprehensive study of mine with its sound methodology and far more data. Yet, laughably, it is you who always insists on empirical evidence which, in this case, backfired on you.

  42. Norman says:

    DJC

    So why does Singapore stay about the same temperature year round?
    http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/singapore.html

    Go to this graph and it will show exactly why. Singapore receives about the same amount of solar energy year round.
    Solar energy and surface meteorology

  43. geran says:

    Norman is a “Trapper”! He believes the atmosphere is trapping heat.

    Hilarious!

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203702

    • Norman says:

      geran,

      So sorry you are incorrect. “Norman” is not a “Trapper”. I do not believe the atmosphere traps heat. I believe GHG redirect the flow of radiant energy to a degree and this energy will slow the rate at which the surface cools. Nothing more nothing less. If you actually took the time to study material you might learn something but science is a pain to you so it is far easier to ignore evidence and reality and live in your dream world. Dream on, the illusions your mind generates seem to make you the happiest human on the planet! As everything is hilarious to you. Are you sure you are not taking mescaline while you post?

  44. geran says:

    Norm, you are all over the board. You cant even own up to what you say on this thread. You have corrupted yourself.

    You say the heat is not leaving the system. Translation, the atmosphere is trapping heat.

    IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTEM

    Then, you seek to insult and impugn me.

    Hilarious.

    PS Im sorry you flunked eighth grade again. Dont take it out on me. I tried to help. Remember, I was the one that explained a double negative to you. (Do you want the link?)

    PPS I don’t agree with everything Doug says, but he has 20+ times the knowledge of physics that you have. At least he understands CO2 does not keep heat from “leaving the system”.

    Hilarious.

  45. Norman says:

    geran,

    I actually have a college degree in Chemistry and currently work in as a labtech.

    I think you might have to wait until you come down from your high to properly read a post.

    What I actually said: “How exactly did you prove the equation does not slow down the Earths surface rate of cooling? You claimed outer space was around 0K and your point? The GHG in the atmosphere absorb and reemit radiation and some of this radiation returns to the surface. IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTYEM GOOFUS!! You cant logically understand this simple idea.”

    You interjected your own word choice to my pronoun “IT”. The “IT”, if you read the previous sentence, would be the radiation that is reemitted by GHG. They absorb radiation given off from the surface and then reemit some back to the surface…this is the “IT” that is not leaving the system and I further pointed out it will only leave via the TOA (except at the poles, some radiation leaves directly from the surface to space at the poles). It is not “Trapped” it is moving about being absorbed, turned to heat, reemitted etc, until it eventually leaves our Earth system.

    So if you are grounded now how did I corrupt myself? Is self corruption when another poster comes up with his own understanding then claims it is what I had said?

    • Norman says:

      geran,

      The flaw may be with how I present information. Yet it could be the way you interpret it. The problem you have is your goal is not trying to determine what someone is saying, you would rather pick out pieces and then try to use these to humiliate or try to upset the person you have chosen as a target.

      What I write is correct. What you understand is the nature of the flaw. When I say the radiation is not leaving the system (to clarify although you still won’t want to understand it unless you can manipulate it somehow to make it look ridiculous) “IT is not leaving the system”…This is a claim about the energy that is redirected and going back to the Earth’s surface. This radiant energy is not leaving the system while it is moving back to the surface. A very correct concept. I am really sorry you struggle with it so much. I really do not know what arrangement of words I need to use so you can understand what I am saying. Communication is a two way street. I have to try and be clear but you also have to try and understand what my point is.

      Yes the energy that was redirected will eventually leave the system just not while it is redirected. There is energy entering and leaving the system on a continuous basis. Energy that was emitted by the surface is heading in the direction of outer space but then it is absorbed by a GHG molecule and some of the energy will be sent back to the surface. This energy is not leaving the system at this time although other radiant energy that was not absorbed will leave the system. Go ahead and do what you must.

      • geran says:

        Norm says: “The flaw may be with how I present information.”

        Yes, Norm, in fact, “terribly flawed”. Want an example?

        IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTEM.

        it eventually leaves our Earth system.

        You can’t spin your way out of the emphasis implied by ALL CAPS.

        But, keep the humor coming.

        • Norman says:

          geran,

          It is most obvious you did not read my post in reply to your accusations of my inability to communicate.

          Too bad you want to remain ignorant, it is a choice you like to make.

          Take care, have a nice day.

          • geran says:

            Absolutely NO science, just eighth-grade level blather: “Too bad you want to remain ignorant, it is a choice you like to make.”

            Norm’s famous linked equation, that he was so sure proved his point, blew up in his face. Heat energy continuously moves to space from Earth’s surface. It does not stop in the middle of the sky for a rest!

            The reason I took so long with Norman is that as many people as possible need to see what AGW pseudoscience looks like. It is not a pretty sight.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            I was hoping you might quit responding to me. You do want to provoke (troll goal). Not sure why.

            You reflect yourself in your own words.
            This is a highly accurate assessment of your posting nature.
            “Absolutely NO science, just eighth-grade level blather:”

            I have seen very little science with any of your mind numbing posts, maybe you use the word photon or give a wavelength of light in your posts that is about all. No science no links no understanding. Endless posts with no information only trying to provoke whoever you target today.

            These posts of yours are so incredibly childish like when you post these words: “Heat energy continuously moves to space from Earths surface. It does not stop in the middle of the sky for a rest!”

            Now why do you type such nonsense and foolishly attempt to attribute this to me? What are you reading that I post. I really can’t fathom how you can be so pointless and dense (except I can since you are a mindless troll who thrives and delights when you get under anyone’s skin). I said, clearly and more than once, GHG redirects energy. It does not stop it or trap it, it keeps moving just in a different direction going to the surface instead of space.

            Can you link to one of your post that contain any real science? Do you have any equations? Do you know what equilibrium means in the science world? Thanks in advance, I doubt you will be able to link to one as your mind is a science void filled only with a troll brain with troll agenda and motivation. Definitely you are far from the science world.

            I hope I fed you troll food with this post. Taste good to your mindless emotional brain. I like to make you happy.

          • geran says:

            Norm says: “I was hoping you might quit responding to me.”

            I bet you were, Norm! You would love to expound endlessly about your pseudoscience, without having to deal with reality.

            You live in DENIAL. In your mind, you refuse to admit how stupid your quotes are:

            IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTEM.

            it eventually leaves our Earth system.

            You cannot spin yourself out of this one. Your pseudoscience is exposed for all to see, and it is NOT a pretty site.

            Your confusion is hilarious, and your immaturity only amplifies the amusement.

            More, please.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            So basically you are saying you will ignore my challenge to you, is that correct?

            “Can you link to one of your post that contain any real science? Do you have any equations? Do you know what equilibrium means in the science world?”

            Also, your choice of words are designed to provoke (and feed your troll personality) not educate. Here is an example: “Your confusion is hilarious, and your immaturity only amplifies the amusement.”

            What benefit does this bring to the blog except to provoke and feed your troll needs?

            I hope you take up the challenge of linking to any post you have made that has science in it.

          • geran says:

            Norm, if you are sincerely interested in learning actual science, here’s what I would recommend.

            1) Apologize to this blog for all of your insults.
            2) Avoid any further insulting.
            3) Admit that you are confused in your pseudoscience, as demonstrated on this thread.
            4) Learn to think for yourself.

            If you undertake these 4 efforts, I will be glad to help you to understand why the AGW/CO2 nonsense is pseudoscience.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Norman, I feel for you. I haven’t had time to read everything ion detail, but overall you are correct.

            NORMAN: “The equation:
            q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ac (3)”

            Yep

            GERAN: The final destination of the heat energy is space
            Nope, not in context. The “final destination” of many of the IR photons is indeed the atmosphere. Those photons and that energy is the focus atm.

            NORMAN: “The GHG in the atmosphere absorb and reemit radiation and some of this radiation returns to the surface. IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTYEM ”
            Again, in context, “it” is “some of the radiation that was absorbed by the GHGs” That energy is not leaving the system .. at least not leaving directly from the surface to space.

            GERAN: “Heat energy continuously moves to space from Earths surface. It does not stop in the middle of the sky for a rest!”
            Actually, IR photons absolutely DO stop in the atmosphere. The energy from the photon “rests” with the absorbing molecule for awhile, eventually moving on by colliding with other molecules or getting emitted as an IR photon in a random direction (including sometimes back to the surface).

            As Norman said, Communication IS a two way street. I found his writing perfectly clear with only a tiny bit of effort to look at context.

          • geran says:

            Perfect, now it really gets funny. (I’ll just do one for now.)

            Tim says: “Nope, not in context. The final destination of many of the IR photons is indeed the atmosphere. Those photons and that energy is the focus atm.”

            I had explained to Norm that Earth’s excess heat energy ends up in space. Tim is trying to argue with that. But, of course he cannot, but watch how he tries to play “word games”.

            First Tim says: “Nope, not in context.”

            He wants so hard to be able to disagree with me, and support Norm, his flailing partner in pseudoscience.

            Then, Tim says: “The ‘final destination’ of many of the IR photons is indeed the atmosphere”.

            So, it isn’t, but it is. Hilarious. He is rambling. He doesn’t agree with me, but he does agree with me.

            Then, Tim says: “Those photons and that energy is the focus atm”.

            ???

            Hilarious.

            (More later.)

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            I’d reply, but you didn’t actually say anything that was not already addressed.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            From the content of your last post to me I take it you will not accept my challenge to you and link to any of your posts that contain actual science.

          • Norman says:

            Tim Folkerts,

            Thanks for the post!

          • geran says:

            The fun continues:

            Tim says: “Again, in context, it is some of the radiation that was absorbed by the GHGs That energy is not leaving the system .. at least not leaving directly from the surface to space.”

            Tim tries so hard to support Norman’s nonsense, without supporting Norman’s nonsense. This is the “spin” that we get from pseudoscience. He is trying to play “lawyer”, focusing on wording. He tries to twist, spin, and obfuscate. He is so far from the scientific method that he loses credibility.

            “That energy is not leaving the system..at least not leaving directly from the surface to space.”

            Spin, spin, spin.

            Tim says: “Actually, IR photons absolutely DO stop in the atmosphere. The energy from the photon rests with the absorbing molecule for awhile, eventually moving on by colliding with other molecules or getting emitted as an IR photon in a random direction (including sometimes back to the surface).”

            Again, he’s trying to support the pseudoscience, while not supporting it.

            “…eventually moving on by colliding with other molecules or getting emitted as an IR photon in a random direction (including sometimes back to the surface).”

            First, it is “absolutely DO stop”, then it is “moving on”.

            And, notice Tim conveniently fails to mention photons moving into space. He mentions “random direction”, and specifically “back to the surface”, but somehow forgets “space”.

            Hilarious.

          • geran says:

            Norman asks: “From the content of your last post to me I take it you will not accept my challenge to you and link to any of your posts that contain actual science.”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203831

          • geran says:

            Tim says “Id reply, but you didnt actually say anything that was not already addressed.”

            So he replies, but he doesn’t think he is replying! Hilarious.

            Climate clowns never seem to run out of material.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            The post you linked to has no science content within so you fail.

            Does this help?
            http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html

            Will you confess the truth? Do you belong to a group of fellow trolls that run some strange troll page? You go on various blogs and find targets. You make some provoking comments to get some form of reaction. Then you copy and paste the reaction post on the troll page and you and fellow trolls vote on which reaction is the best and award the appropriate trophies (digital ones) to the winners.

            Is this what your posts really are about because they have zilch for science. Since you have been trolling on this blog for some time are you elected King of the Trolls?

          • geran says:

            Norman rants: “The post you linked to has no science content within so you fail.”

            In Norman’s upside-down world, if he thinks I failed, then i succeeded.

            (I once ended a comment to Norm with “QED”. He had no clue what that meant! He has no clue how funny he is either.)

          • D'J'C says:

            Well Tim, go back to this comment and pat your soulmate Norman on the back – it will make you feel good. Funny how you didn’t pat “BigWaveDave” on the back here when he wrote …

            “Because the import of the consequence of the radial temperature gradient created by pressurizing a spherical body of gas by gravity, from the inside only, is that it obviates the need for concern over GHGs. And, because this is based on long established fundamental principles that were apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhDs, it is not something that can be left as an acceptable disagreement.”

            You can submit your refutation, Tim (and anyone else) at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com where no one has as yet in any way rebuked the actual physics in my hypothesis pertaining to maximization of entropy as you will see from the comment thread.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            I know you can’t or won’t (no troll points in the effort) but I will attempt.

            This link shows direct empirical evidence for a GHE.
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html

            check the two boxes for upwelling and downwelling IR and plot a graph and read the instruments used in getting the data on the link.

            You probably will not accept this as evidence but if you want to do science then provide evidence that counters this. Get measurements from somewhere that prove their is not downwelling IR.

            You do not have to accept a GHE but I would like to see what evidence you have for rejecting it. Thanks.

          • geran says:

            Norm says: “You probably will not accept this as evidence but if you want to do science then provide evidence that counters this. Get measurements from somewhere that prove their [sic] is not downwelling IR.”

            Norm, you are so confused. I don’t know of anyone that thinks downwelling IR from the atmosphere does not exist. I don’t even know of any pseudoscientists that believe that! So, I have no idea what confused point you are trying to make.

            (Norm is the “Eveready bunny” of confused pseudoscience. He just keeps going, and going, and going, and…..)

            More humor, please.

        • geran says:

          Here’s just some of the reasoning why AGW/CO2 nonsense is pseudoscience.

          Situation A–Consider two identical bricks. Both have the same mass (weight) and composition. The first brick is at a temperature of 100. This brick is in a perfectly insulated enclosure. Now, add the second brick, which is also at a temperature of 100, to the enclosure.

          Does the temperature of the rocks in the inclosure then rise to 200 (100 + 100)?

          Of course not!

          100 + 100 = 200 WRONG

          100 + 100 = 100 CORRECT

          Pseudoscientists try to tell us “back-radiation” causes warming. They say “You are adding heat to the system, so temperatures MUST go up”. Well, in situation A, we are “adding heat to the system”, by adding the second brick, but the temperature does NOT go up.

          Situation B–Consider the first brick is at 100, but the second brick, when added to the enclosure (system) is at a temperature of 70.

          Does the temperature of the bricks then rise to 170?

          Of course not!

          100 + 70 = 170 WRONG

          100 + 70 = 85 CORRECT

          We have added heat to the system, but the temperature of the first rock goes DOWN!

          Folks that can think for themselves probably already see where I am going with this. Earth’s average surface temperature is about 288K. Earth’s average troposphere temperature is much colder, say about 270K. Pseudoscientists try to tell us that the atmosphere can warm the surface.

          288K + 270K => 558K (Or at least enough increase to “boil the oceans”!)

          WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

          288K + 270K => Cooling of Earth’s surface. The atmosphere cools the surface. The atmosphere constantly cools, the Sun constantly warms.

          This has just been a simple logic example. But, actual laws of physics (thermodynamics, heat transfer, and quantum theory) also disallow the AGW/CO2 hoax, as is constantly being pointed out to the “Trappers”.

          Enjoy the humor of the pseudoscientists, they’re the only pseudoscientists you’ve got! (With apologies to Joe Bastardi.)

  46. geran says:

    Norm says: “I actually have a college degree in Chemistry and currently work in as a lab tech.”

    Norm, if you actually think your degree in Chemistry means anything, then why are you working as a labtech? Many high school graduates can be easily trained (two weeks) to be a labtech. Many moons ago, I worked for a major electronics company. They would hire people off the streets to train as technicians (circuit board assemblers). It does not take much knowledge to do basic tasks.

    Norm says: “I think you might have to wait until you come down from your high to properly read a post.”

    More eighth-grade rambling and attempted insults.

    Norm says: “IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTEM”.

    Then, Norm says: “…it eventually leaves our Earth system.”

    Norm, you are still all over the board. You are going in at least two different directions at the same time. You are terribly confused.

    Norm asks: “So if you are grounded now how did I corrupt myself?”

    By claiming to be something you are not. By false accusations. By getting angry when someone points out areas of your confusion.

    But, you are funny!

    • D'J'C says:

      It’s a pity geran that you, with your intelligence, don’t realize that what I’ve written on my blog (which you could study for less than 10 minutes and not be able to fault) is right after all. You argue with Norman about radiation, but radiation is not what it’s all about. It is entropy maximization which explains all temperatures in tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores of all planets and satellite moons.

      Wouldn’t you like to understand why what I say is correct. The best way to learn is to read, study and inwardly digest – then do a similar study to mine (or at least spot check the data I have listed) and try to fault the physics. If you post a comment on my blog which shows that you have studied the material it will pass moderation and I will reply for all the world to see and watch any subsequent debate.

      Is anyone else competent enough in their understanding of entropy maximization to debate my hypothesis at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com so we don’t annoy Roy, because he only got an “A” in thermodynamics and all this is over his head.

  47. rah says:

    Wouldn’t it be kinda weird for the warmest year ever to be one when both the poles have been gaining ice and the highlands of Scotland have been reported to have retained more snow patches over the summer than previously recorded?

  48. mpainter says:

    Not a bit weird because the AGW crowd has figured out that global warming causes global cooling, you see. This remarkable fact is certified by 97% of global warming scientists, you see. So don’t be so snotty. The thought police know what to do with your type.

    • D'J'C says:

      To mpainter, geran and others who realize even Lukes are wrong come and have a serious debate – see this comment above. Roy, you can just watch secretly as it will be too embarrassing for you – I understand.

      • Norman says:

        DJC

        I read your reply to my posts above. You do not look at the links and you certainly are not investing time to understand what is being presented. Las Vegas and Huntsville are not “cherry picks”. Look at the available information!

        Your study did not include how much solar energy the surface receives in any of you locations you get this information with actual measurements. There are solar insolation studies of the globe for the sake of establishing solar energy in locations. It is not about how much solar energy could reach one of the cities in your study. It is about how much solar energy is actually reaching those locations. You have not taken this in to account at all in your study and will not do it now even though I have provided you with a data source so you can fill in this variable. Your study is a very simplistic. You need more variables like how much solar energy is actually reaching the surface. Also you have to realize air with high humidity contains a lot more energy than air at low humidity so if the temperatures are the same the moist air has stored a lot more energy. Temperature alone will not tell you how much energy is stored in a system and as a physics major you should know this (heat capacity).

        http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/alice-springs.html

        Use the tool in this link to do a better more realistic study that covers a huge variable you ignore.

        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
        Also use this tool as it shows you directly the effect solar radiation has on temperature. A direct correlation. This also has empirical proof of greenhouse effect if you check downwelling IR when you plot a graph.

  49. Norman says:

    geran,

    Your post above is a classic Strawman argument. (the post with the 100 degree rocks).

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
    (definition of strawman)

    I have not read any scientist involved in climate research that has said that the colder atmosphere is warming the surface directly or adding energy to it in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (atmosphere loses energy to warm the surface).

    I have not seen any energy budget yet that shows back radiation higher than upwelling surface IR.

    Look at this link and check the boxes IR upwelling and downwelling IR and then plot the graph (you have a few different locations to observe). Explain, from the graphs, where it shows the atmosphere warming the surface.
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=dra&date=2015-12-09&p5=dpir&p6=upir

    The situation is not even remotely comparable to your brick analogy.

    Here would be a much better example. Take a 100 degree brick in outer space and measure how long it takes to cool. Plot a graph of this. Now get the same brick back to 100 degrees and surround it with an insulating shell that only allows a portion of IR from leaving immediately. Now measure the rate the brick cools and plot it and you will see that the brick in the insulated structure will cool slower. If you have two bricks in outer space. One surrounded by an insulation and one not and you add the same quantity of energy to both, which brick do you think will be warmer when you measure it?

    • geran says:

      Norm, just one more of your dips into your pool of confused pseudoscience.

      Typical values of downwelling IR are about 250-270 Watts/m2. And, your confused pseudoscience claims that that “heat” is warming the surface, or in your twisted mind, “slowing the cooling”.

      Ice at 25F emits about 290 Watts/m2. So, if you have 10 square meters of ice, you would have about 2900 Watts. It takes about 2500 Watts to bake a turkey.

      Why can’t you bake a turkey with ice?

      If you study really hard for 8-12 years, you might be able to answer that question. And, if you can ever answer it correctly, with the proper physics, you will know why downwelling IR can NOT warm the Earth, or “slow the cooling”.

      But, until that happens, more humor please.

      • Norman says:

        geran,

        Most often the atmosphere GHG will only slow the cooling. I suppose under the right conditions, such as a temperature inversion with thick radiating clouds then the atmosphere could actually warm the surface a bit (if the inversion temperature was higher than the surface).

      • Norman says:

        geran,

        geran: “Ice at 25F emits about 290 Watts/m2. So, if you have 10 square meters of ice, you would have about 2900 Watts. It takes about 2500 Watts to bake a turkey.”

        “Why cant you bake a turkey with ice?”

        For one the watts from the 10 square meters would not all focus on the turkey. It is diffuse radiation that is going in all directions from the source. Also as the ice gives off energy it cools and will give off less energy each second and continue to do so unless a new source of energy warms it back up.

        Downwelling IR of any type will definitely slow the cooling. Please note a real physics concept. Temperature is determined by the energy content of an object and its heat capacity. Radiation emission is based upon the material and its temperature (only a blackbody will radiate at the maximum for a given temperature).

        Here is the situation.
        You have an hot object in outer space. It will cool at the rate determined by its physical characteristics and only via radiation emission.

        If another body in the vicinity is also hot, some of the energy of this body will reach the first body and add some energy to it. It will now cool at a slower rate than in the first situation.

        Physics in a nutshell. (with a single hot object located in outer space away from any star)

        Situation 1) No energy is added to this object:
        Result 1) Object cools at the rate determined by Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

        Situation 2) Energy is added to the object but at a rate less than the radiation leaving the object.
        Result 2) Object still cools but at a rate determined by the NET ENERGY flux (Energy Out – Energy In)

        Situation 3) Energy is added to the object at a rate equal to the rate energy is leaving the object.
        Result 3) Object temperature does not change, it is at an equilibrium state. Neither cools nor warms.

        Situation 4) Energy is added to the object at a rate greater than the rate energy is leaving the object.
        Result 4) Object temperature rises and will continue to rise until it reaches a temperature where the outgoing energy is equal to the incoming energy and it will remain at this temperature and reach a new equilibrium temperature.

        I hope I presented the data well enough so that it does not appear to be rambling. I really do not have much control over how you take in the information and process it, I am hoping by presenting it in easy to follow steps that I will be fairly clear to your ability to process words on a screen.

        • geran says:

          Norm says: For one the watts from the 10 square meters would not all focus on the turkey. It is diffuse radiation that is going in all directions from the source. Also as the ice gives off energy it cools and will give off less energy each second and continue to do so unless a new source of energy warms it back up.

          Norm, you get to “focus” the ice any way you want. You also get to add more ice if the turkey is not baking fast enough. You can have 100 square meters if you want. (Almost 30,000 Watts!) So, no your answer is incorrect.***

          Norm says: Downwelling IR of any type will definitely slow the cooling.

          Nope. Study photon absorption. Your answer is incorrect. You havent a clue.

          The rest is, of course, your usual pseudoscience, mixed with some actual science that you hope to corrupt.

          Hilarious.

  50. Norman says:

    geran and DJC,

    The problem with both of your thought lines is that neither of you understand what is being said by the people supporting a GHE (including Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts). You use the Strawman arguments from the PSI group that are making the claim that GHE means a cooler atmosphere is warming the Earth’s surface. They ignore the Earth is not a closed system, it has a constant energy input. They really have little understanding of GHE. Probably would help if you really understood the concept before you claimed it was wrong and look at the empirical evidence (I have provided links to make the task easier).

    What you claim the GHE is (atmosphere warming the surface) is wrong and I still would like you to provide a source from the climate science community that is saying this. The presence of GHG will lead to a warmer surface (in a non closed system like Earth) than a surface would be without the gasses but the gases are not directly heating the surface. They are (the GHG’s) slowing the energy loss and with a constant input you will have a warmer surface than you would without GHG’s. Roy has explained in numerous times with home insulation. Have a constant heat source furnace. One house has good insulation the other has none but thin walls and then see which house reaches a higher equilibrium temperature and nothing else has changed but the rate of energy loss. The furnaces produce the same level of heat energy to both houses and they have identical area to warm.

    • geran says:

      Norm is practicing his pseudoscience again–false accusations, mis-interpretations, and seemingly endless rambling.

      Hey Norm, you forgot to include the name-calling this time! Never leave out the name-calling, it adds to the humor.

      • Norman says:

        geran,

        I have to stop any name calling with you except the correct term, troll. You get troll points for every insult or name-calling directed against you on a post. I have no desire to let you be the King of the Trolls.

        • geran says:

          Is that what they are teaching these days in eighth grade? No wonder you know nothing about science….

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            Sorry your insults will not get you the troll points you seek. I guess you have to find a new target or your friends on Trolls.com will send you packing as the big loser!

          • geran says:

            Norm, a simple ice cube destroys your whole pseudoscience. And, you don’t even know it!

            Hilarious.

  51. Tim Folkerts says:

    Norman,

    The amusing thing is that most of the accusations geran makes incessantly — not understanding the physics, using name-calling, focusing on words — apply to his answers. As you noticed, he has no clue about radiation, not how it applies to the earth’s climate. A classic example of the Dunning-Kurger Effect. 🙂

    FWIW, here are a few specific corrections/clarifications to address his “two brisk example”, in case you run into this or similar arguments that pop up regularly

    This brick is in a perfectly insulated enclosure.
    of course, there are no perfectly insulating enclosures — ie no heat moves from one place to another. We could come close with a vacuum between the brick and the enclosure. But we would also need a perfectly reflecting surface (emissivity = 0) inside the enclosure. This ensures that radiation cannot carry energy from the brick to the surroundings.

    BUT! Since the object is radiating 100 C radiation (his example) the reflecting surface is reflecting back 100C radiation. The brick “sees” 100 C radiation coming from every direction.

    “Now, add the second brick, which is also at a temperature of 100, to the enclosure.”
    Adding another 100C brick does not add any radiation. The brick blocks some of the radiation from the wall, and REPLACES it (rather than ADDING TO it).

    “Situation BConsider the first brick is at 100, but the second brick, when added to the enclosure (system) is at a temperature of 70. … We have added heat to the system, but the temperature of the first rock goes DOWN! “
    This shows several fundamental misunderstandings. First, there is no clearly defined “system”. However, whether the system is “Brick A” or “everything within the enclosure”, in neither case is “heat” added to the system. In the first case, heat (the flow of energy due to temperature differences) is REMOVED from Brick A, not added. IN the second case, “thermal energy” is added to the system, but since the average thermal energy per atom is less than before, the temperature will go down.

    [In fact, I now think this fundamental inability to distinguish “thermal energy” from “heat” from “rate of heating” will make it impossible for geran to figure this out with a few more years of physics. ]

    Rather than addressing more of his errors, let me give a better example. SITUATION A: The enclosure is now a blackbody @ 100 C. A brick at any temperature will eventually come to 100C if left in the enclosure long enough, due to radiation to/from the enclosure and the brick.
    SITUATION B: the walls of the enclosure are now at 3K (-270 C) but I focus the light from a few hot (~ 3000 K) filaments at the brick. With a little fiddling with the currents to the filaments, I could get the brick to 100C again. SW radiation will be arriving from the filaments as fast as LW radiation is leaving to the enclosure.
    SITUATION C: the walls of the enclosure are brought back to 100 C, but the filaments are kept in place. SW is still being absorbed, but LW is not being lost (since the brick and wall are both 100 C).
    The only possible outcome will be for the brick to warm due to the increased “backradiation”!

    PS. yet another mistake/strawman by geran is to simply add the temperatures. If he knew anything about radiation, he would know that the combination of wall radiation (which could warm the brick to 100 C by it self and filament radiation (which could also warm the brick to 100 C by itself) would not be 100 +100 = 200 C. It would also not be 373K +373K = 746 K. it would be approximately 373 * 2^(0.5) = 443 K.

    • geran says:

      ((Replies are in double parentheses.))

      The amusing thing is that most of the accusations geran makes incessantly not understanding the physics, using name-calling, focusing on words apply to his answers. As you noticed, he has no clue about radiation, not how it applies to the earths climate. A classic example of the Dunning-Kurger Effect.

      ((I love it when the pseudoscience promoters pull out the Dunning-Kurger Effect! It makes them feel so special. They get that quick rush of superioritythat warm fuzzy feeling. What they dont realize is that they are broadcasting that they have lost the argument.))

      FWIW, here are a few specific corrections/clarifications to address his two brisk example, in case you run into this or similar arguments that pop up regularly

      ((Did Tim mean “two brisk example [sic]”, or “two brick examples”, or “too brisk examples”? With these “superior” types, you just never know!. Tim is going to teach Norman how to combat science using their pseudoscience! Are you taking notes, Norm? Does it get any funnier?))

      This brick is in a perfectly insulated enclosure.
      of course, there are no perfectly insulating enclosures ie no heat moves from one place to another. We could come close with a vacuum between the brick and the enclosure. But we would also need a perfectly reflecting surface (emissivity = 0) inside the enclosure. This ensures that radiation cannot carry energy from the brick to the surroundings.

      ((Hilarious! Talk about grasping at straws. Hey Tim, its my thought experiment. And, it is a perfectly insulated enclosure. Try to keep up.))

      BUT! Since the object is radiating 100 C radiation (his example) the reflecting surface is reflecting back 100C radiation. The brick sees 100 C radiation coming from every direction.
      Now, add the second brick, which is also at a temperature of 100, to the enclosure.
      Adding another 100C brick does not add any radiation. The brick blocks some of the radiation from the wall, and REPLACES it (rather than ADDING TO it).

      ((Tim gets himself further confused here. First, he is making all kinds of assumptions, trying to prove me wrong. He is in MY thought experiment, but making false assumptions so he can spin the results. Tim chooses to believe that I am talking about the bricks being in a vacuum. Nowhere did I mention vacuum. It is convection and conduction that allows for the equalization of temperatures between the bricks. Tim totally missed it. His confirmation bias leads him once again into the pseudoscience abyss. Norm, are you taking notes?))

      Situation BConsider the first brick is at 100, but the second brick, when added to the enclosure (system) is at a temperature of 70. We have added heat to the system, but the temperature of the first rock goes DOWN!
      This shows several fundamental misunderstandings. First, there is no clearly defined system. However, whether the system is Brick A or everything within the enclosure, in neither case is heat added to the system. In the first case, heat (the flow of energy due to temperature differences) is REMOVED from Brick A, not added. IN the second case, thermal energy is added to the system, but since the average thermal energy per atom is less than before, the temperature will go down.
      [In fact, I now think this fundamental inability to distinguish “thermal energy” from “heat” from “rate of heating” will make it impossible for geran to figure this out with a few more years of physics. ]

      ((Here Tim, already confused, tries to claim there is no system. Hey Tim, the system is the enclosure, duh. Then, he starts playing with words again. He tries to imply my example is not accurate because I used the phrase adding heat. He missed the fact that I first wrote the phrase in quotes. I was specifically using terminology used in pseudoscience. Tim is still grasping at straws.))

      Rather than addressing more of his errors, let me give a better example.

      ((Translation: Tim cannot find any errors, so he will attempt to make them up in his own example.))

      PS. yet another mistake/strawman by geran is to simply add the temperatures. If he knew anything about radiation, he would know that the combination of wall radiation (which could warm the brick to 100 C by it self and filament radiation (which could also warm the brick to 100 C by itself) would not be 100 +100 = 200 C.

      ((I was trying to make it easy for Norm to understand. So, I put, in ALL CAPS, right next to the erroneous calculation, the word WRONG! Tim was so blinded by his confused pseudoscience, he could not see the word WRONG. Unbelievable!))

      ((Tim is even funnier than Norm. Are you taking good notes, Norm?))

    • Norman says:

      Tim Folkerts

      Thank you so much for your post! It is like wading through an endless field of unscientific weeds with all their views based upon nothing but the imaginations of their own thought process (DJC and geran) and then you thankfully post and I can be refreshed that someone at least has studied some real science and can understand the basic concepts. A nice plant in the field of weeds.

      • geran says:

        Norm, a major part of your humor is your inability to write well. You don’t seem to understand sentence structure at all. Here’s an typical example of how write:

        “Hi, my name is Norm and I am a great scientist and I know this because I can find a lot of links on the internet and that makes me very smart because mostly I can understand about half of what they are saying at least the parts that are not too scientific and don’t have a lot of technical words that I then have to search to find if they can help me to find out what I don’t know about the parts I didn’t understand before and then I can be a super-scientist and know where to find the links that I do understand without the other section of trying to explain how things can be so hard to find.”

        Another aspect to your humor is you have no clue how funny you are.

        Keep entertaining us!

        • Norman says:

          geran,

          Still no troll points for you (I know you really need them).

          Purpose of many links so that people interested can look up the basis of claims I make. Have you ever written a research paper in a college science course? If you have then you will also know that in order to get a passing grade you must support your claims with evidence from acceptable sources. If you do not like this approach then just don’t read my posts. I will continue to provide links as supporting evidence to any claims I may make in any of my posts.

          • geran says:

            NOTHING you wrote here has anything to do with what you are attempting to respond to. You are just rambling again.

            Hilarious.

  52. Norman says:

    geran,

    Your post way above:
    “Norm says: You probably will not accept this as evidence but if you want to do science then provide evidence that counters this. Get measurements from somewhere that prove their [sic] is not downwelling IR.

    Norm, you are so confused. I dont know of anyone that thinks downwelling IR from the atmosphere does not exist. I dont even know of any pseudoscientists that believe that! So, I have no idea what confused point you are trying to make.

    (Norm is the Eveready bunny of confused pseudoscience. He just keeps going, and going, and going, and..)

    More humor, please.”

    Great you accept downwelling IR is real. Now tell me in a scientific context of what happens to this energy when it hits the Earth’s surface? How does it affect things? Why do you think this? What is the empirical evidence you have to support your claims?

    My evidence is the equation (which has been actually tested and verified, it is established physics) of rate of heat loss when you have two radiating bodies. You saw the equation do you claim this equation is bogus, invalid, incorrect? If you believe this to be the case what is your evidence to support it? If the equation is correct then you are incorrect in your belief that back radiation does not do anything to the surface. The equation states the effect of back radiation is to slow down the rate of cooling, what supporting evidence do you present to reject this equation?

    • geran says:

      Norm, you don’t seek science, you seek more pseudoscience. That’s why you raved when Tim mentioned Dunning-Kruger. You thought that was sooooo cool! The reality is it just makes Tim sound like a ninth-grader. You sound like an eighth grader adoring a ninth-grader.

      Hilarious.

      If you really are interested in learning science, I am willing to help. You cannot explain why you could not bake a turkey with ice. You flail around with excuses like:

      For one the watts from the 10 square meters would not all focus on the turkey. It is diffuse radiation that is going in all directions from the source. Also as the ice gives off energy it cools and will give off less energy each second and continue to do so unless a new source of energy warms it back up.

      Let’s itemize your stupid responses.

      1)For one the watts from the 10 square meters would not all focus on the turkey. It is diffuse radiation that is going in all directions from the source.

      Norm, the heat energy from the sky is also diffuse radiation. I allow that you can arrange the ice cubes anyway you want. I allow that you can have more ice. You can have 10 times more wattage from ice that we get from back-radiation. You still can NOT bake a turkey. In fact, you can NOT even raise the temperature of a room-temperature turkey one degree. And, you can’t explain that using the laws of physics!

      2) Also as the ice gives off energy it cools and will give off less energy each second and continue to do so unless a new source of energy warms it back up.

      What a stupid statement, in so many ways! You are saying it takes “a new source of energy” to make more ice!!!!

      That’s what “pseudoscience” does to one’s brain. (Are you paying attention Tim?)

      Norman, you have no idea how hilarious you are!

      • Norman says:

        geran,

        The statement I made is not stupid. It might be in your lack of ability to process information presented to you. Consider this possibility if you you could.

        “Also as the ice gives off energy it cools and will give off less energy each second and continue to do so unless a new source of energy warms it back up.

        What a stupid statement, in so many ways! You are saying it takes a new source of energy to make more ice!!!!”

        I think you might be the only person I know who could take what I wrote and conclude I meant you need a new source of energy to make more ice. Ice will not stay at 25F if new energy is not being absorbed by it. If you put a block of ice in outer space away from any source of energy it will not remain 25 F which is still quite warm when compared to absolute zero.

        I understand you have this need to insult and call my statement “stupid”. It might help if you understood what I am saying. I know you will not put any effort in trying to find out what someone is saying.

        • geran says:

          Norman, you have no idea how hilarious you are!

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            I wish you would not prove me so correct all the time. It is hard to remain a humble science minded person when replying to anyone of your posts.

            I stated you would not put any effort in trying to find out what someone is saying and I was completely correct. I think I might go 100% correct with any predictions I make about you as you might be the most predictable poster I have ever responded to. Are you a human or a program? I am starting to wonder. I think you would fail the Turing test.

            The program (who goes by geran on blogs) has the primary words in every response no matter what material is presented. Pseudoscience and hilarious. To throw off a human it will put the word funny in once in a while. So far it does not seem to be capable of following an argument or developing a clear line of reason.

          • geran says:

            Hey, ‘humble science minded person”, here’s a “clear line of reason [sic]” for ya:

            Norm says: IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTEM.

            Then, Norm says: it eventually leaves our Earth system.

            (Hilarious!)

  53. Toneb says:

    “The amusing thing is that most of the accusations geran makes incessantly not understanding the physics, using name-calling, focusing on words apply to his answers. As you noticed, he has no clue about radiation, not how it applies to the earths climate. A classic example of the Dunning-Kurger Effect.”

    Correct Tim: and Again I must support Norman.
    Geren is just an example of a “dragon-slayer” – denying empirical science and thinking he’s the genius that’s spotted that the “Emperor is naked”. Clue: he’s not ….
    We see this of course with DG (AKA the greatest genius never acknowledged).

    Denying that back-radiation warms the Earth’s surface by reducing it’s rate of cooling is bizarre if only because it takes place commonly in observable weather.
    Ever noticed a frosty evening when the frost melts as cloud comes over? No? Amazing if so.
    What’s doing that?
    Back- radiation from the cloud … which may well be 10’s degrees colder than the surface.
    It is the NET FLOW of energy that has to be considered.
    The (in the above case) net flow is from the ground to the cloud. But yet the ground warms?
    Where’s the flaw in that?
    It is simply that the ground has an enormous reservoir of energy and will always radiate that to the cloud (warming the cloud) BUT the ground’s rate of cooling is SLOWED such that the balance is interrupted and the interface between ground/air exhibits a rise in temp from THE HEAT FLUX below until a new balance is attained.
    Simple thermodynamics that anyone without a raging
    Dunning-Kruger (not Dunning-Kurger, Tim) syndrome would grasp and accept that the world’s experts in such matters are either
    a) NOT stupid.
    Or.
    b) NOT scamming the world.
    Or,
    c) Both

    PS: Try it yourself with a thermometer set on a concrete surface during a clouding over calm, frosty night, why don’t you? I’ve seen/measured the effect countless times. Even from High level Cirrus cloud 6 miles up at a temperature AROUND -30C.
    Same thing happems with other GHG’s … but is obviously (?) not as easily observable.
    Your hand-waving does not science make. Observation does and you CAN do it simply enough.
    AGAIN I ask a “Dragon-Slayer” on here to read your hosts’s own work on that very thing…

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/

    Unless at O Kelvin, all matter radiates, all the time. An exchange of energy takes places between adjacent matter. Anything that is excited by IR wavelengths (GHG’s for instance) warms and re-radiates. Some is incident on the ground and is absorbed by it. The ground does not know that IR energy has come from a colder object.
    Analogy:
    Imagine a large water tank – An outlet pipe is taking water from it at a rate of 10gal/hour, and the tank holds 100gals. It will empty in 10hrs. Now couple a smaller tank to the large one and feed in 1 gal/hr, whilst the large tank is still being drained at 10gal/hr.
    What happens?
    The large tank still empties (cools) as it is loosing 9gal/hr BUT because of the smaller (read colder) tank feeding into it, it drains in 11 hrs – SO SLOWING ITS RATE OF EMPTYING (read emitting to space – cooling).

    Oh, and if you note me from my responses to mpainter then you’ll know I refuse to get dragged down the “rabbit-hole” with such – so you waste your breath with a reply.
    I’ll turn up on the next thread.
    By for now.

    • geran says:

      Hey again, Toneb!

      Well, you managed to get it all in–“Dragon Slayer”, “Dunning-Kruger”, mis-representation, and even some samples that indicate you are clearly confused.

      Your water-flow-tank example does not apply to radiative heat transfer. Like the pseudoscience crowd, you do not understand photon absorption.

      But, I always enjoy the humor.

      • geran says:

        Toneb, here’s another example to show how funny pseudoscience can be.

        Drop a small marble from the top of a 40-story building. It will take about 5 seconds for the marble to reach the ground. During that 5 seconds, the marble is accelerating toward Earth until it reaches a maximum velocity.

        So, during that 5 seconds, would a “Trapper” claim that the atmosphere is “trapping the marble”?

        If they believe the atmosphere “traps” heat energy, then, to be consistent, they must also claim the atmosphere is “trapping” the marble.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Tony, Here is a better water analogy.

      A tank has a 1 gal/min being added from a hose, but also has a hole near the bottom. The water level rises until the water is flowing out as fast as it is flowing in. We have reached a steady state. (AKA sunlight and no atmosphere, with water in the tank representing internal energy and depth representing temperature.).

      Now put that tank within a second, larger tank with a similar hole. The water in the 2nd, outer tank will rise, creating ‘backpressure’, which in turn slows the water flow out of the first tank. Eventually the flow rates will reach a new steady state with the inner tank higher then it was before. (AKA adding an atmosphere around the earth.)

      No laws of thermodynamics are broken (either for the water analogy or the earth). The water into the first tank still comes from the hose alone. But the mere presence of the 2nd tank makes the hose able to fill the first tank higher, even with no flow of water from the outer tank to the inner tank. The outer tank merely creates a temporary imbalance.

      • geran says:

        Tim, that is desperately “creative”, as in “science fiction”.

        In Earth’s ACTUAL system, the “outer tank” is space.

        Try again!

    • Eli Rabett says:

      Spencer had a nice experiment illustrating this a few years ago. Did no good

  54. Norman says:

    geran

    What is the evidence you have to support your position that the energy given off from ice could not bake a turkey? The energy density (watts/meter) given off by ice is far too low to bake a turkey as the energy needs to exceed the energy given off by the turkey. But if you concentrated the energy of enough ice why couldn’t it. It is just a matter of the joules being absorbed. If you supply enough energy fast enough what would prevent it? NOTE: I am not saying ice could bake a turkey, I am asking you to present evidence that it could not. Do you see what I am asking?

    Did you know that sunlight can melt rock? In normal energy flow the solar energy reaching earth is too diffuse to melt rock. `1360 watts/m^2 is not enough energy concentration to do it. Direct solar energy will heat a rock up until the rock is radiating away as fast as energy is incoming from the sun. But you can concentrate solar energy far above what a normal square meter will receive.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0_nuvPKIi8

    So if concentrated solar energy can melt a rock if you could concentrate all the energy given off by a large amount of ice why would it not be able to bake something. It is just currently know one knows how to concentrate the diffuse energy given off by ice to focus it upon a smaller area. The Sun’s distance makes the incoming light all parallel which allows the ability to focus it. The energy coming of ice is going in random directions and a mirror or lens can’t focus it to a point or spot and concentrate the available energy.

    • geran says:

      Norm, it is not that hard to understand.

      Okay, for an eighth-grader, maybe it is that hard to understand. So, ask your Mommy to help you.

      Just bake a turkey with 10 square meters of ice (~2900 Watts). If it appears there is not enough ice, add another 10 square meters of ice (total 5800 Watts). As I said, add more ice if you need it.

      Are you telling me you cannot bake a turkey with 5800 Watts, even with your Mommy helping? A conventional oven can easily bake a turkey with 3000 Watts.

      You might want to ask yourself why Wattage, radiating from ice, cannot bake a turkey.

      But you would then have to ask yourself why the atmosphere cannot heat Earth’s surface.

      And, we know you cannot question your cult beliefs.

      Sad.

      (But, even sad-sacks can be funny.)

      • Norman says:

        geran,

        I only continue to reply to your posts because of hope eternal. I always and hopeful you are more then a troll and really do want to debate or discuss science (which would seem to be the reason to post on a science blog). I really do not see what purpose you have in posting.

        You complain that others insult you. What are you doing with your posts? “Okay, for an eighth-grader, maybe it is that hard to understand. So, ask your Mommy to help you.”

        What does that comment do for you? Does it make you feel more important or valuable. I really do not see how that pertains to a discussion of radiation physics.

        As I stated in the post above yours (which apparently by your response you chose not to read). You could not bake a turkey with a planet size of ice because the amount of energy reaching the turkey would not be sufficient. It seems you think “bigger is better” but if you have more ice it will not mean more radiation from this ice will reach the turkey surface. My point was if you concentrated the diffuse radiation (which is not possible with our current abilities in science and may never be a possibility) and directed it all at the turkey you would have more than enough energy to bake the turkey. No more amazing then microwaves (photons have far less energy per photon than IR) cooking food. If you concentrate energy you can then use this to cook with. What do you think the heating element of your Mother’s oven is doing? It is concentrating electrical energy in the element with enough energy to get it to very high temperature. Open you mind or don’t. I still hope for you. It dwindles with everyone of your posts but it will always be there. I still have hope for Doug as well. Someday you may really want to learn science but until that day we must endure your childish posts with their grade school insults.

        • geran says:

          Norm, if you would review all of your comments on this thread, you would find that your insults FAR exceed any that I have written. The fact that I have to continually point out obvious facts like this is a reflection of your immaturity. So, if you don’t want to be called an “eight-grader”, don’t behave like one.

          Also, if you are concerned that I am making you look like a fool, I am no competition compared to how you do that to yourself:

          IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTEM.

          it eventually leaves our Earth system.

          Now, for some science FACTS:

          FACT 1: The IPCC/GHE/CO2 pseudoscience claims back-radiation from the atmosphere is about 300 Watts/sq. meter. And, the further claim is that the back-radation is “warming the planet”, which has an average surface temperature of 288K.

          FACT 2: Ice emits about 300 Watts/sq. meter.

          FACT 3: We know from physics that ice can NOT raise the temperature of a dead bird (turkey) from 288K to a higher temperature. And, there are easy, verifiable tests that can be done to confirm that ice can NOT raise the temperature of a turkey from a temperature of 288K to a higher temperature. And, this fact remains valid even if have 100 square meters of ice (30,000 Watts, or 30 kW)!

          FACT 4: Just as ice can NOT “bake” a turkey (even raise the temperature one degree), atmospheric back-radiation can NOT raise Earth’s average temperature.

          You do not want to deal with FACTs 2, 3, and 4. You would prefer to try to “spin” your way out of the hole you are in.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Norman, here are the missing facts.

            Fact 5. The sun provides about 160 W/m^2 to the earth’s surface. This would be able to warm the surface to ~ 230 K, absent any other inputs of energy inputs.

            Fact 6. The 160 W/m^2 of sunlight can shine right through the atmosphere, ie that radiation can be ADDED to the ~ 300 W/m^2 of back-radiation from the atmosphere. This total of 460 W/m^2 would warm the surface to approximately 300 K (to achieve 460 W/m^2 of thermal radiation generated by the surface.

            This the combination of the “ice radiation” with the “sun radiation” is more than enough to warm the surface. There are lots of other factors (solar energy into the atmosphere, evaporation, etc), but the net result is that 288 K is a perfectly plausible final result.

            No one is saying that radiation from the cool atmosphere by itself could warm the surface to 288K. No one is saying the radiation from the sun by itself could warm the surface to 288K. but since BOTH of these are in play, together they are more than sufficient.

          • Norman says:

            Tim Folkerts,

            Thanks for the clarifying post.

            With geran he must be a rigid stickler to word choice. I am not sure he can really work to understand what someone is saying but he picks up on some phrase or way you might say something and attacks this like it means something. Maybe the word choice or arrangement of word is not precise enough for him but he can’t think what a person might be saying and gets so stuck on how they said it and then goes “See See this is why you are wrong!” without considering it is not wrong but maybe poorly worded.

            On mine that he continues to harp on (even after I took the time to explain it to him differently…does not seem to matter with him).

            “It does not leave the system” “it eventually leaves the system”
            He does not follow what is being written very well and blames his lack of ability on all but himself.

            You understood it. The radiation that would have left the system (had GHG not been present) does not leave the system at that time frame. I said it might eventually leave but that is not so clear to him. The returning energy is absorbed by the surface and then reemitted at some point. Technically it is not the same exact photon but it is still the same energy leaving. It is hopeless to try and explain things to him or clarify a position. He wants so much to prove his stance is the right one he will not work or put out any effort to attempt at understanding what a person might actually be trying to say.

            This is a blog not a formal debate or a research article. There may be some sloppy language used but then at least allow the person the chance to clarify when you don’t understand the point. Is that too much to ask?

          • geran says:

            Tim’s pseudo-Fact 5. Tim confuses energy with photon flux.

            Tim’s pseudo-Fact 6. Sorry Tim, you cannot add energy to photon flux. (You might want to check your units.)

          • geran says:

            Norm, one of your most hilarious rambles. (And, you have some that are hard to beat!)

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Norman says: “So if concentrated solar energy can melt a rock if you could concentrate all the energy given off by a large amount of ice why would it not be able to bake something.”

      Sorry, but this really IS impossible (but not for the reasons geran wants to give). Concentrating energy in this way would violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

      Proving it mathematically is a bit tricky, but maybe this will convince you. Suppose you have some object @ 0 K you want to warm with radiation from 273K ice. The best you could possibly do is to completely surround the object with ice. For example, you could surround a brick using ice that forms a hollow sphere with an inner radius of 1 m. You could “add more ice” by making the sphere 2 m in diameter. This would give 4x as much ice, but because of the inverse square nature of radiation, each square meter would provide 1/4x as much radiation as before. The net effect is exactly as much radiation from any situation where the brick is completely surrounded. Any attempt to “focus” the radiation will simply block some of the radiation that would have gotten to the brick and replaced it with an identical amount of radiation.

      [PS Geran may think this supports his position, but it doesn’t 🙂 ]

      • Norman says:

        Tim Folkerts,

        I do agree that it is impossible to actually do, but the energy given off by the ice (if it could be concentrated as if some how it was given off the ice surface in straight lines away from the surface rather than in random and diffuse fashion…then you could use a lens or mirror to focus it as is possible with the parallel solar energy) if all the energy of a large area of ice were focused upon the turkey it would add energy to the turkey at a rate faster than the turkey could get rid of it and warm it. You can take infrared energy and by focusing it in a tight beam (IR laser) cut steel or other material. The IR photons are the same but they add energy to the material at a much faster rate than can be emitted to cool. IR photons given off by ice are still energy. Under real world conditions they are diffuse and impossible to focus just as GHG emissions cannot be focused to use as an energy source.

        This article claims that a solar furnace laser was actually able to generate a beam of energy that exceeded the Sun’s surface energy, which would seem impossible but the claim is they have done this.

        From the article: “The energy output of this concentrated beam was measured at 72 watts per square millimeter, compared with 63 watts per square millimeter generated at the sun`s surface. Sunlight hitting the Earth has an energy of less than one- 1,000th of a watt per square millimeter.”

        Source of quote:
        http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-08-30/news/9003130003_1_non-imaging-optics-solar-system-solar-energy-research-institute

        If you can concentrate solar energy to exceed what is given off the surface of the sun, could you not imagine being able to concentrate all the energy given off by ice and focus all this into a small area to heat a turkey. The article indicates you can concentrate energy in excess of the surface that is giving off the energy initially.

        I might be wrong in my thinking, I am just throwing out the idea to get feedback and increased understanding. Thanks.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Norman, Actual scientific info about that “concentrated sunlight” is pretty minimal. I suspect there is more to it than the newspaper article discusses.

          Basically, it is almost certainly another version of Maxwell’s Demon. Sure, it is possible to “concentrate sunlight”, jsut like it would be possible to sort cool gas molecules to one side of a wall and warm gas molecules to the other. This would reduce the entropy of the gas and have heat move from cool to warm .. but only at the expense of an even greater increase in entropy somewhere else.

          I suspect if you dug deep enough to find the actual scientific papers, they would clarify what was happening and we would find a relatively mundane answer does not violate the 2nd law.

  55. Norman says:

    geran writes: “Hi JohnSorry I didnt see your comment until today.

    You said: The radiation adds to the internal energy of the surface molecules upon absorption

    Youre exactly correct, and that is the point the pseudoscientists can not understandUPON ABSORPTION.

    Certainly, feel free to join the fun!”

    So in your science (supported by some empirical evidence of course) what happens to the IR radiation that is heading back to the surface from the atmosphere. Your good buddy DJC says it is pseudo scattered (whatever that means?) but he offers no empirical evidence. No experiments to prove this statement just faith in a mathematicians derivations.

    So what does geran think happens to IR energy that is moving from the atmosphere and impinging upon the surface?

    • geran says:

      Norm, if you are sincerely interested in learning actual science, heres what I would recommend.

      1) Apologize to this blog for all of your insults.
      2) Avoid any further insulting.
      3) Admit that you are confused in your pseudoscience, as demonstrated on this thread.
      4) Learn to think for yourself.

      If you undertake these 4 efforts, I will be glad to help you to understand why the AGW/CO2 nonsense is pseudoscience.

      • Norman says:

        geran,

        A “copy and paste reply”? Really.

        So does that mean you do not want to answer the question I asked of you?

        “So what does geran think happens to IR energy that is moving from the atmosphere and impinging upon the surface?”

        • geran says:

          Sheesh, Norm! Do I have to explain everything to you?

          Read very carefully the “copy and paste”. See if you can figure it out all by yourself.

          Take as much time as you need.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            I have heard third time is a charm. So you will you or will you not answer the question I have asked? Will you even answer the question I just asked?

            Ignoring a question is generally a sign that you do not have an answer and prefer to avoid it by bringing up points that have no bearing upon the question. Nice tactic. So does it mean you will not answer the question I asked?

          • geran says:

            Norm, you don’t have a very good history. I won’t go into all of your deficiencies, as they are evident on this thread. So, you should try to reform yourself. I have provided you with the recommended course of action. I don’t mind helping you move ahead, but I have no interest in watching you get farther behind.

          • Norman says:

            geran,

            Either you do not have an answer to the question or you just won’t answer it.

            What do my perceived personality flaws (at least from your perspective) have to do with your ability to answer a basic physics question?

            So here it is again. You accept that backradiation from the atmosphere is real and exists. It is real IR energy. Now this energy is moving from the atmosphere to the surface.

            Something will happen to this energy. Will it now be absorbed by the surface? Reflected away?

            If absorbed by the surface what happens to this energy? If reflected or scattered what becomes of it? Do you have any empirical data to demonstrate what is happening to this energy and why?

          • geran says:

            Norm, until you TRY to learn some actual science, my only interest is in busting your pseudoscience. You are the enemy of science, and you have lost credibility on this thread.

            Heres how you can start to redeem yourself:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203831

  56. Norman says:

    geran,

    What I would like more from you than “If you undertake these 4 efforts, I will be glad to help you to understand why the AGW/CO2 nonsense is pseudoscience.”

    I am not so interested in your opinion of why AGW/CO2 is nonsense. I am much more interested in what you believe happens to the back radiation emitted by the Earth’s atmosphere when it reaches the Earth’s surface.

    Would you be so kind as to offer your view of the interaction between Earth’s surface and back radiation?

  57. Norman says:

    geran,

    My questions to you are actual science. What happens to the downwelling IR when it meets the Earth’s surface.

    You make the claim “I am an enemy of science” but you won’t answer some simple questions. Why is that? Why do you dodge around the questions asked with negative assertions about my knowledge or me. I already stated the questions asked are not about me.

    If anyone else is still on the thread don’t you think you are starting to look like a phony? You come on all tough and proud but when asked simple questions you hide for cover.

    Why are you so afraid of sticking your neck out and answering some questions?

  58. Norman says:

    geran,

    I am getting it loud and clear. You are a phony with no science background and you come on this blog to stir up crap for you own weird amusement. I hope others can clearly see this about your posts. I will stand by the science I know and keep learning and stay away from clueless individuals like yourself.

  59. geran says:

    Norm rants: “I am getting it loud and clear.”

    Finally!

    (Norm, it doesn’t appear the medications are still working. Maybe call your doctor?)

  60. Norman says:

    geran,

    You are a moron.

  61. Eric says:

    There is also the possibility that 2014 was the first El Nino year and 2015 will be the second. In that case 2016 should be much cooler as La Nina kicks in.

  62. Norman says:

    geran,

    Your hero, Joseph E Postma, may not know as much as he thinks he does.

    http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/01/21/atmosphere-not-insulation/

    In this article he makes the claim that insulation does not make a heating object hotter.

    This article directly contradicts your superstar.
    http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/uts/essay1.pdf

    From the linked article quote: “The temperature of the glass envelope normally reaches between 100C and 300C, but temperatures can be greatly increased if the glass is being insulated, which reduces any heat loss.”

    I think maybe you should rethink what you think you know before you rant against the bulk of scientists.

  63. Norman says:

    geran

    I guess physics is not your strong point. Are you a boneheaded moron or just a simple moron?

    I am not sure which one you are. You may just be too boneheaded to understand anything or just too simple minded to grasp concepts.

    I guess the quote is too much for your limited resources.
    “From the linked article quote: The temperature of the glass envelope normally reaches between 100C and 300C, but temperatures can be greatly increased if the glass is being insulated, which reduces any heat loss.

    There is one thing that might break you from the cultish programming you received from the PSI group, do your own experiment. Wrap a light bulb in insulation and see if the glass surface temperature gets hotter than with no insulation. Too much effort for the bonehead and it will prove your faith is false and that would crush the meaning for your existence.

    • geran says:

      I’m rolling over with laughter on this one.

      The filament of a 60 Watt incandescent light bulb is WAY hot, say about 2500 C. So, the filament is trying to heat the glass to that high temperature. If you restrict convection and conduction from the glass, guess what? The glass temp rises.

      As always, you have no clue of the actual science. So, all of your attempted insults only add to the humor.

      More, please.

      • Norman says:

        geran,

        So the Sun is 10,000 F and trying to heat everything to this temperature. Why does not restricting energy flow do the same to a surface? Why do you think restricting conduction and convection are the only ways to restrict energy loss.

        Your hero Joseph Postma maybe has never used a thermos bottle. It does not just restrict energy loss by conduction and convection but also has a mirrored inner surface to stop outflow of radiant energy. Maybe the people who waste their time with a mirrored surface in the thermos bottle should stop doing it because the mighty Joseph does not think radiant energy flow can be restricted. Go Joe!

        • geran says:

          Norm, nothing is working out for you. Have you noticed that every road you take into pseudoscience is blocked by facts. Amazing how that works, huh?

          Now, you’re trying to insulate the Sun, while thinking that conduction and convection are the only means of heat transfer, and while stealing coffee out of Joe’s thermos!

          Hilarious.

  64. Norman says:

    geran,

    I do have to admit being wrong about you. You are not a bonehead moron. You are an egghead but scrambled. Your last post was a scrambled egg of information. You took in some of what I said and mixed it up and now you are funny. A funny scrambled egghead is a good description of geran. But science. NO!

    • geran says:

      So, you don’t like for your scrambled rambling to get re-scrambled?

      Norm says: “IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTEM.”

      Then, Norm says: “…it eventually leaves our Earth system.”

      More humorous scrambling, please.

  65. Norman says:

    geran,

    Did you get permission from your Master Joseph E Postma to answer my question of what happens to the downwelling IR when it strikes the Earth’s surface? I know you are but a humble disciple of the mighty one so I am hoping he will allow you to speak freely instead of commanding thee to copy and paste thine own words over and over awaiting permission to post freely.

    Have you ever read anything on multi-layer insulation (used for cryogenic applications on the Earth and for prevention of temperature swings in outer space).

    • geran says:

      Hilarious.

      Norm, you seem really, really infatuated with Joseph. I guess its that groupie attraction so common with adolescents, huh?

      Youll likely outgrow it someday.

      • Norman says:

        geran,

        I know Joseph told you to say that. Do you have a blown-up photo of him in your bedroom so you can gaze with wonder at your hero and get inspiration for your empty and mindless posts that generally are just copy and paste of some previous post you thought was so amazingly clever that you just have to repeat it 1000 times if someone will let you. I should go back and see how many copy and pastes you have on this thread. Not a real original thinker are you. An empty head that is closed makes for a happy blissful mind. Thinking hurts definitely learning takes some effort. You have chosen the easy path which is demonstrated with your numerous copy and paste posts and your inability to find new words besides “hilarious” and “pseudoscience”. Maybe change it up once in a while to show some sign of effort. Not promising though.

        • geran says:

          Hey Norm, here’s another “copy/paste” for your collection:

          Norm says: IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTEM.

          Then, Norm says: it eventually leaves our Earth system.

          Yup, it’s more of your PSEUDOSCIENCE!

          HILARIOUS!

  66. Norman says:

    geran,

    To help simplify my question there are three choices.

    Downwelling IR can be (Either A,B or C or some combination) by or through the Earth’s surface:

    A) Transmitted

    B) Reflected

    C) Absorbed

    Since it is known that IR will not transmit through ground or water I think we can both agree to eliminate this choice so now it just leaves two. What will you pick?

  67. geran says:

    Norm, you must redeem yourself before I am willing to help you out of your confusion:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203831

    • Norman says:

      geran,

      I think this exchange with you has run its course. You refuse to answer the question I asked. Not really interested in your help as I do not consider you to be much of anything in the science world. I would much rather get valid data from actual science sources which you will not look at. I think you and Cotton are of the same mental frame. Think you know it all, will not listen or reevaluate what you think you know, and will not correct all the science flaws in your current thinking with real valid tested science information. Cult thinkers both of you. Have fun and enjoy the blissful existence in fantasy land now I will return to some real scientists to learn and grow. Thanks for nothing you have been of no value or help. Hope you do not respond to any other posts I might put on this blog. I will not respond to yours.

      I may reconsider if you might answer the question. I know you won’t though. One thing about your personality, it is highly predictable.

  68. ȫ says:

    ̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ӭλҵվseoerǰҵSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/

  69. ׳ɼ says:

    ׬̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510

  70. ׾ says:

    ׬̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510

  71. ţ says:

    ׬̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510

  72. Anonymous says:

    ׬̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510

  73. κұؽ says:

    ̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ӭλҵվseoerǰҵSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/

  74. Anonymous says:

    ̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ӭλҵվseoerǰҵSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/

  75. Ҷʾ says:

    ׬̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510

  76. ߶ȼ says:

    ̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ӭλҵվseoerǰҵSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/

  77. ֹ says:

    ׬̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510

  78. ʿ says:

    ̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ӭλҵվseoerǰҵSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/

  79. Doug Schaefer says:

    Dr. Spencer, your work on UAH TLT among others is most appreciated. Assertions by others that there is been no T increase since 1998 are incorrect for any other starting time, to the present.

    Will you defend your careful work against such misrepresentations? I certainly hope so.

Leave a Reply