UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for January, 2016: +0.54 deg C

February 1st, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

NOTE: This is the tenth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here. Note we are now at “beta5” for Version 6 (hopefully the last beta before submission of the methodology for publication), discussed more below.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2016 is +0.54 deg. C, up from the December, 2015 value of +0.45 deg. C (click for full size version):

UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2016_v6

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 13 months are:

YR MO GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2015 01 +0.30 +0.44 +0.15 +0.13
2015 02 +0.19 +0.34 +0.04 -0.07
2015 03 +0.18 +0.28 +0.07 +0.04
2015 04 +0.09 +0.19 -0.01 +0.08
2015 05 +0.27 +0.34 +0.20 +0.27
2015 06 +0.31 +0.38 +0.25 +0.46
2015 07 +0.16 +0.29 +0.03 +0.48
2015 08 +0.25 +0.20 +0.30 +0.53
2015 09 +0.23 +0.30 +0.16 +0.55
2015 10 +0.41 +0.63 +0.20 +0.53
2015 11 +0.33 +0.44 +0.22 +0.52
2015 12 +0.45 +0.53 +0.37 +0.61
2016 01 +0.54 +0.70 +0.39 +0.85

We are now approaching peak warmth in the tropics due to El Nino conditions. Only time will tell if warming continues for a few more months, or whether January was the peak.

The global image for January, 2016 should be available in the next several days here.

The new Version 6 files (use the ones labeled “beta5”) should be updated soon, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tmt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/ttp
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls

Changes with the “beta5” version

We had been concerned that the LT temperature trends over land were too warm compared to the ocean. One hint that something might be wrong was that the trends over very high elevation portions of the Greenland ice sheet and the Himalayas were much colder than the surrounding regions (see Fig. 4 here). Another was discontinuities in the trend patterns between land and ocean, especially in the tropics.

We determined this is most likely due to a residual mismatch between the MSU channel 2 weighting function altitude on the early satellites versus the AMSU channel 5 weighting function altitude on the later satellites. We already knew AMSU5 peaks lower than MSU2, and had chosen Earth incidence angles in each to get a match based upon theory. But apparently the theory has some error, which we find equates to about 150 meters in altitude. This was enough to cause the issues we see….land too warm at low elevations, too cold for elevated ice surfaces.

We therefore changed the AMSU5 reference Earth incidence angle (from 35.0 to 38.3 deg.) so that the trends over Greenland and the Himalayas were in much better agreement with the surrounding areas. We also find that the resulting LT trends over the U.S. and Australia are in better agreement with other sources of data.

The net result is to generally cool the land trends and warm the ocean trends. The global trends have almost no change from beta4; the change mostly affects how the average trend in 2.5 deg. latitude bands is ‘apportioned’ between land and ocean. Here is the new LT trend image for the period January 1979 through January 2016:

lt_trend_beta5

An alternative solution would have been just to intercalibrate the satellites over land and ocean separately. Experiments with this, however, showed what we consider to be a unacceptable amount of spurious features in the resulting trend maps. We therefore opted to change what we believe to the the cause of the problem — an improper choice for the AMSU5 reference Earth indidence angle to match MSU2, and then none of the processing code would need to be changed.


3,077 Responses to “UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for January, 2016: +0.54 deg C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. mpainter says:

    Thanks for the update, Dr. Spencer, and especially thanks for keeping us up-to-date on your V6 beta work. This is science as it should be done.

    If the Pacific continues to cool, this could be the spike and we should then see a plumet in the index. The Pause extends toward its 20th year. I dont relish the prospect of a La Nina. The last was horrifically bad for my neck of the woods: killing drought, weeks of 100+ degree heat. Which the alarmists blamed on AGW, naturally (to them La Nina = AGW, or so they pretend).

    • Bill Laurune says:

      Always great to get the first comment in, eh? Do some name calling (alarmist) and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of dishonesty (pretending).

      Call me an alarmist. I call myself a parent. I have two children who will live on this planet many years after I’m no longer around to watch out for them, and I worry that rising temperatures will cause all sorts of chaos and poverty due to mass migration, infrastructure damage, and ecological ruin.

      And I’m not pretending about anything. I understand about noise in data and probability distributions. The trend is not only clear enough in the temperature data, but reinforced by other data such as melting glaciers and migration of species to higher elevations and latitudes.

      • geran says:

        “Call me an alarmist.”

        Okay, you’re an alarmist.

        • Dr. Mark H. Shapiro says:

          Dear Bill,

          Don’t be deterred by the negative comments from the deniers. The satellite data actually are in reasonable agreement with all the other temperature data that shows unmistakable global warming. Notice that Dr. Spencer never shows a least-squares fitted trend-line to his data. The reason is that if he did so (as I have done) it would show a positive slope consistent with all the other temperature data.

          Sincerely,

          Dr. S.

          • Bill Laurune says:

            The temperature anomaly is running insanely hot right now. It won’t move a least-squares fit all that much, but those who draw a line from a favored starting point to the current reading are going to learn something.

        • mpainter says:

          Bill, Shapiro says that its okay to make neurotics of your children because Roy Spencer has neglected to apply the least squares method to the UAH plot. Thirty years hence, when temperatures have declined and your poor offspring, tormented by their demons, ask you why you you infected them with your own neurotic impulses, you can explain to them that some guy named Shapiro said it was the right thing to do.

      • mpainter says:

        Bill Laurune, I would say that you are one of the gullible who has swallowed the rubbish. Here is the truth:

        1. There is no warming this century. See the UAH update above. An El Nino spike has been trumpeted as warming by the AGW crowd. That’s baloney. In fact, La Nina follows and the “pause” continues.
        2. Sea Level is steady; tidal gauges on stable coasts show no rise in sea level.
        3. Climate sensitivity is so little that any anthropogenic effect is lost as noise in natural variability. Atmospheric CO2 is entirely beneficial; the biosphere has greatly benefited from its increase.

        Do not let the modern-day witch hunters panic you. Be cool, and set your children a good example, lest they become neurotics too.

        • Paul Hahnel says:

          1. “There is no warming this century. See the UAH update above.” The UAH update above clearly shows from 2001 -2015 (which is this century) at least a +.3*C rise in temperature. 2001 was at +.05*C and the 2015 is +.35*C. How is that ‘no warming’?
          1. “An El Nino spike has been trumpeted as warming by the AGW crowd …”. All AGWDeniers use the 1998 El Nino spike as “proof” there has been no warming for 18 years. Why is only the 1998 El Nino good but now the 2015/16 El Nino is not good?

          • Richard M says:

            First 1. You are doing exactly what mpainter stated, attributing warming to AGW when it is clear it is due to El Nino.

            Second 1. Any trend from 1998 includes BOTH the El Nino and the following La Nina which balances out any effect on a long term trend. Any trend that ends now only includes the El Nino. We won’t know the real trend until after the coming La Nina balances out this El Nino.

            Simple enough for ya?

          • Paul Hahnel says:

            Rihard M. your comment makes no sense as the 1998 El Nino was last century, not this. mpainter claimed there was no warming “this century’. This century is 2001 – 2016. Clearly according to the UAH graph this planet has warmed by +.3*C this 21st century. So mpainter is wrong, the planet has warmed this century.

            And you again miss the point on #2. mpainter uses the 1998 El Nino as a starting point for his no warming claim but then states the 2016 El Nino means nothing at all. He can’t have it both ways. If 1998 is meaningful, then so is 2016. And thats the only way he can make his claim, by starting at 1998. If he starts at 1997 or 1999 (instead of 1998) there is no way he can claim no warming for that length of time.

            Simply look at the UAH graph.

          • mpainter says:

            Paul, you are obviously a neophyte and a confused one, to boot. HotWhopper beckons, Paul. Go there, you will find the happiness that you seek.

          • Mike M. says:

            Paul Hahnel,

            “Simply look at the UAH graph.”

            There is no trend to be seen in the graph. I base that on looking at the graph.

            You are imagining things. I base that on analysis. Linear regression gives a slope of 0.027 +/- 0.051 K/decade; i.e., nothing. The error bar is 2 sigma assuming uncorrelated noise; so that underestimates the possible error.

          • mpainter says:

            To gain a better understanding of the temperature anomaly record, study the UAH plot above. Note the step-up at circa 2000-2002. This connects two flat trends about 0.25-0.3 apart. There is your warming. Your trend lines are artificial and in fact, spurious. A step-up is not a trend.

          • Tom McHugh says:

            Cherry picking is spurious. I did not pick the 2000 through 2015 time period. Go ahead and plot the trend for the full satellite record of 1979 through 2015. The warming trend matches well with the land and ocean warming trend.

          • mpainter says:

            Tom, You seem rather thick. Here, I’ll try again:

            To gain a better understanding of the temperature anomaly record, study the UAH plot above. Note the step-up at circa 2000-2002. This connects two flat trends about 0.25-0.3 apart. There is your warming. Your trend lines are artificial and in fact, spurious. A step-up is not a trend.

          • Richard M says:

            Paul, you are confusing which El Nino I was referring to. Since your comment referred to the 21st century I thought you would realize I was referring to the current El Nino. Let’s look at the trend from 2001 until the end of 2014 which removes the current El Nino effects.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2014/trend

            Notice that the trend is downward. Now, add in the effect of the current El Nino

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to/plot/rss/from:2001/to/trend

            Notice that the trend is now almost flat. I realize this isn’t UAH data but you would see the same general change in a UAH plot. Also notice there is no warming this century as mpainter pointed out. Over time the 2015-16 El Nino will mean nothing at all, because it will be balanced by La Nina. AGW supporters are using it to claim warming that isn’t real. As I stated we won’t know where we are at until we have experienced BOTH the El Nino and the La Nina that will follow.

            Think of an El Nino as going up a hill and the La Nina as going down. We are most of the way up an El Nino hill right now which puts us at a higher elevation. However, once we traverse the La Nina downhill period then we can measure where we are at relative to the starting point.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike M. says:
            “There is no trend to be seen in the graph. I base that on looking at the graph.”

            Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

            Are you afraid to do the calculations?

          • Mike M. says:

            David Appel,

            Are you unable to read? I wrote: Linear regression gives a slope of 0.027 +/- 0.051 K/decade; i.e., nothing.

          • Tom McHugh says:

            mpainter, Typing nonsense once is bad enough, but you repeated it word for word. Do you understand anything about trend lines? Do you not understand that a thirty year period is normally considered the minimum required for determining trends? Do you understand anything about real climate science?

          • mpainter says:

            Yes, I understand about trend lines, do you? They are artificial constructs. What does the data tell us, through our observations?

            That there is a step-up, as I stated. Do you deny the step-up? If you do, I claim superior powers of observation.

            A step-up is not a trend. Nor can CO2 explain the step-up. A good reason for some to pretend that its not there.

          • Tom McHugh says:

            Okay mpainter, You just keep making it obvious that you don’t have a clue about climate science, but you just enjoy trying to attack people that do understand AGW.

          • mpainter says:

            Tom,well you might flee because it only gets worse. That step-up is the signal of increased insolation, due to a reduction in cloud albedo globally. See John McLean, 2014, Late Twentieth Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover. CO2 is kinda left out on a limb. Adios, AGW.

          • Donald says:

            Mike M.,

            You wrote the following: “Linear regression gives a slope of 0.027 +/- 0.051 K/decade; i.e., nothing.”

            How did you calculate this, using which data set and time frame? Because using UAH 6.0 beta with periods starting between 1979 and 1985 until today, I calculate that the per decade trend slope ranges between +0.11C and +0.13C per decade.

          • Mike M. says:

            Donald,

            I was responding to Paul Hahnel, who, in taking issue with the claim that There is no warming this century”, wrote: “The UAH update above clearly shows from 2001 -2015 (which is this century) at least a +.3*C rise in temperature.”

            For the entire UAH data set, I get 0.115 +/- 0.016 K/decade. Most definitely a significant trend.

          • Donald says:

            Mike M.,

            gotcha, that makes sense. Although you could as easily have pointed out that comparing 2001 to 2015 average temperatures is just silly – though I’m not sure whether that was a sincere observation on Mr. Hahnel’s part, or sarcasm… he _was_ responding to mpainter after all.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Paul Hahnel…”mpainter uses the 1998 El Nino as a starting point for his no warming…”

            According to the UAH 33 year report, 1998 was the year ‘true’ warming started in the satellite data record. Prior to the massive spike in 1997/98, the UAH record had showed temperatures below the 1980 – 2010 average except for a few brief flurries above it.

            If you look closely at the UAH graph, the 0.3C warming you mention happened all in one year, 2001. That’s hardly a signature of AGW.

          • Donald says:

            Gordon,

            You seem to imply that what you characterize as an “all in one year” jump in “warming”, even if accurate, somehow argues against AGW (“hardly a signature of AGW”). However, the warming signal in the temperature anomaly products has been described (by AGW proponents) as being on the order of tenths of a degree _per decade_ (0.1-0.2C / decade) whereas the annually averaged temperature anomaly values show variability of up to 5 times that for each _year_. That means that any inter-annual average swing, from observation, could dwarf _by a factor of 50_ the proposed warming signal over the same period.

            So yes, the jump that you have observed in the UAH product is actually completely consistent with a warming trend on the order of 1 or 2 tenths of a degree Celsius per decade.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Appell…”Are you afraid to do the calculations?”

            The IPCC did calculations using many peer reviewers and called the period from 1998 – 2012 a warming hiatus. What is it about hiatus you don’t understand?

            And, yes, people trained in reading graphs can do a good visual approximation. In the case of the UAH graph, it’s dead easy due to the glaring offsets that keep the trend flat.

            This is basic calculus. In engineering math classes we were trained to do calculations by inspection. Visual inspection was an acceptable answer in an engineering exam as long as the symmetry was obvious.

            Of course, people who live in the pseudo-world of statistics often fail to understand that statistics must be applied within a context. A visualization of the data helps tremendously when applying statistics. In fact, anyone who applies statistics without a context to explain the statistics is a fool.

            If you take the data from 1979 – present and apply a trend line to it, the line shows a definite positive trend. That does not explain the context. The reality of the data, based on a global average from 1980 – 2010 is that 2/3ds of the data is below the base line, showing a definite cooling. Therefore, much of your trend line over the entire range is a recovery from cooling, not true warming.

            As the UAH 33 year report makes clear, true warming did not begin till late 1997 when a super El Nino drove global temps higher in a few months than any other force in the past century. Even with that spike, and a subsequent spike in 2010, the trend since 1998 has been flat at around 0.25 C above the baseline.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Donald…”…the warming signal in the temperature anomaly products has been described (by AGW proponents) as being on the order of tenths of a degree _per decade_ (0.1-0.2C / decade)…”

            I could live with that provided there was a steady-state increase in atmospheric CO2. However, a jump of 0.25C in one year is a discontinuity that cannot be explained by a steady state increase of 0.1C/decade. A trend line representing such data would have a clear step in it.

            The IPCC announcement in AR5 contradicts that 0.1C/decade, however. They claimed a warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012, which is over a decade with a steady-state increase in CO2.

            Another jump of 0.2C was noted in 1977 and it was labeled the Great Pacific Climate Shift. That became known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Certain scientists have tried to expunge that jump from the records retroactively, claiming it could not have happened.

            The fact is we’ve had at least 0.4C of unexplained warming and it occurred in brief spurts about 25 years apart. There’s nothing in AGW theory to explain that.

          • Donald says:

            Gordon,
            You wrote the following: “I could live with that provided there was a steady-state increase in atmospheric CO2. However, a jump of 0.25C in one year is a discontinuity that cannot be explained by a steady state increase of 0.1C/decade.”

            Yes, that was my point. There are very clearly other factors, some of which are cyclic, affecting monthly average temperature anomaly measurements. These other factors quite clearly overwhelm any underlying warming trend over shorter periods of time.

            A “jump” of 0.25C in any single year is to be expected, as would drops of similar magnitude in other years, and these would be independent of the underlying warming signal. Nobody (well, aside from random internet posters) has ascribed specific monthly or yearly increases of any type to the underlying warming signal.

            This is subtly different from the argument that the record warm recent years are at least partly the result of the underlying warming trends: you will note that in the big announcements at the end of the year, Karl and Schmidt were careful to attribute the record warmth to a strong El Nino _on top of_ the warming signal – not to the warming trend alone.

            As for the “jump” up – where in the UAH product do you see this? Here are annual averages for the past 20 years from 6.0 beta:
            1996 -0.011
            1997 -0.009
            1998 0.482
            1999 -0.018
            2000 -0.020
            2001 0.115
            2002 0.213
            2003 0.184
            2004 0.078
            2005 0.200
            2006 0.116
            2007 0.162
            2008 -0.098
            2009 0.100
            2010 0.340
            2011 0.032
            2012 0.066
            2013 0.137
            2014 0.184
            2015 0.266

            There were many jumps, both up and down, in this record: up by 0.5 in 1998, down by 0.5 in 1999, up by 0.33 from 2000 to 2002, down by 0.3 from 2005 to 2008, up by 0.21 in 2010, down by 0.31 in 2011.

            How is this _not_ consistent with a smaller, longer term, positive trend, overlaid by higher frequency, larger magnitude, yet shorter term effects?

          • markus says:

            got to laugh at attempts to dismiss the warming trend as due to El Nino when deniers have been exploiting the 1998 el nino for years

          • Donald says:

            Markus,

            I don’t think using “denialist” is any more helpful than “warmist” or “alarmist” – those terms don’t add anything to the duscussion, and people stop listening once you use them

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Donald…”As for the jump up where in the UAH product do you see this? ”

            Donald, I am looking at the UAH graph on this site.

            If you read the UAH 33 year report it is explained in there. There was little or no warming from 1979 – late 1997 when the El Nino struck, It drove the global average higher in a few months than any other force in the past century. Then the global average subsided below the baseline, which was essentially back to the norm.

            Circa 2001, the GA rose abruptly again to about 0.25C and remained there till about 2008, when it plunged. The average from late 97 – present has remained around 0.25C.

            That kind of action cannot be explained by a one to one correspondence with CO2 levels.

            You talk about a warming hidden behind the cyclical nature of the GA and you quote Schmidt. What I think of Schmidt cannot be printed here. I think the guy is a horses ass. There is no hidden warming signal, that is a notion of Kevin Trenberth, who is currently in denial about the cessation of global warming.

            Schmidt got in an exchange with engineer Jeffrey Glassman in which Glassman took him to task for Schmidt’s failure to understand the mathematical basis of feedback. Also, Schmidt et al have arbitrarily given CO2 a warming effect between 9% and and 25%. That is ludicrous.

            Schmidt is a mathematician and I regard his intervention into climate science as highly unwelcome to someone like me who appreciates real physics.

          • Donald says:

            Gordon,

            I asked where in the data that I provided above you see this jump – referring to someone else’s analysis doesn’t answer the question. The data are right there. Have at it.

            BTW, you made this statement: “late 1997 when the El Nino struck, It drove the global average higher in a few months than any other force in the past century. Then the global average subsided below the baseline, which was essentially back to the norm”

            What do you mean by that, specifically? It sounds like a simple observation: the 1997 El Nino caused a temporary jump in UAH anomalies, after which the temps subsided to the “norm” – as evidenced by the drop in 1999 back down to even cooler temperatures than were recorded in 1996 and 1997. This sounds suspiciously like what I was describing, although your definition of the norm possibly excludes any underlying warming trend. It is not, however, consistent with your earlier characterization of warming occurring in 2 “brief spurts.”

            You also said the following: “Circa 2001, the GA rose abruptly again to about 0.25C and remained there till about 2008”.

            Again, this is not borne out by the data; as you can see in the UAH data I listed above, the UAH annual anomaly dropped back down to 0.078 in 2004 and 0.116 in 2006. It did not, as you claim, remain at or about 0.25C above the baseline. I assume you are doing some kind of line fitting here, but it is clear you are not looking directly at the actual data – and any line fitting on the order of 6 or 7 years is going to be effectively meaningless due to the magnitude of year to year natural variations.

            Again, I will point out that the purported warming trend is supposedly on the order of 0.1-0.2C per decade; given that inter-annual variability dwarfs the theorized signal, line fitting within decadal time periods wont tell you anything about the warming claims, either in support or in opposition.

        • Paul Hahnel says:

          mpainter ‘note the step up from 2000-2002’. So you mean the temperature rose, went up, ‘stepped up’ from 2000 to 20002 in the UAH chart then? You disproved your own self. LOL

          Richard M – you posted two RSS graphs, not UAH. Why? Probably b/c you didn’t want anyone to see the rise in temps that woodfortrees shows for UAH lower trop 2000-2014 or 15.

          • mpainter says:

            Yet the trend is flat starting in 98. Of course, you can’t see that, I know. All you can see is the latest El Nino spike.

          • Tom McHugh says:

            mpainter, Please, by all means, look at all of the UAH and RSS data that is available since they started in 1979. If you can be truthful, and have an open mind, you will see the undeniable positive trend for both data sets that are not far off the positive trends of all of the other major data sets.

          • mpainter says:

            All the datasets show the step-up, Tom. You need to use your eyes.

            And sure, you can draw your trend line and connect one end of the time series with the other. But the difference is in the step-up. I have done my best to help.

          • Richard M says:

            Paul, woodfortrees uses UAH 5.6. This article is about UAH version 6 which more closely matches RSS than it does the old version. Try to keep up.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Paul Hahnel…”you didnt want anyone to see the rise in temps that woodfortrees shows for UAH lower trop 2000-2014 or 15″.

            Please be serious, woodfortrees is an amateur site where amateurs can create graphs with any trends they like. Changing a few parameters can change the slope from negative to positive.

            Mind you, climate models excel at that.

          • markus says:

            A step up is exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see with AGW.

            Of course it isn’t going to go up smoothly when there are irregularly timed El Ninos and La Ninas and solar cycles. It’s going to appear to go up in spurts.

            Expect another one to occur. And another. And then you can be super confused as to why the trend out to 2050 increased while we all know it was caused by AGW

          • mpainter says:

            Right, the spike is nothing, the step-up is the big event. Will there be another step-up such as the one that followed the ’99 La Nina? That is the feverent hope of the global warmers but it seems unlikely. For one thing, that circa 2001 step-up was due to increased insolation, not CO2. See McLean,2014, Late Twentieth Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover.

        • Paul Hahnel says:

          mpainter – LOL, and now you change your story to 1998. You claimed ‘no warming this century’. You even proved yourself wrong so now the goalposts change eh?
          And not to mention that UAH shows lower troposphere warming since 1998 also but you’ll deny that too. B/c all you can see is that 1998 El Nino spike.

          • mpainter says:

            You are an idiot. No warming since 98 means no warming this century. Typical lame brain AGW type, you are. It really is amazing that someone like you imagines to comment on science. Or anything.

          • Tom McHugh says:

            You are embarrassing yourself mpainter.

          • mpainter says:

            Do you pity the poor fellow, Tom? See my next comment, below.

        • Paul Hahnel says:

          mpainter – You’re like that little yelping dog aren’t you? UAH (even proven by your own words) shows warming this century, woodfortrees shows UAH warming this century, and even going back to 1998 now that you’ve tried to disclaim those words, yet you keep barking and yelping ‘the trend is flat’. Poor little lost puppy.

          You should learn how to read a graph lil’ doagie.

          • mpainter says:

            A second demonstration of the uncomprehending confusion in the mind of this poor fellow, whom I now take pity on. May others do likewise.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Paul Hahnel…after the embarrassment at skepticalscience, where they were caught impersonating a physicist, and rumoured to be dressing up in Nazi paraphernalia, the SS crowd seems to have descended on Roy’s blog.

            Wonder why?

        • Paul Hahnel says:

          Richard M – so why don’t AGWDeniers include the La Nina years after 1998? You state, and i quote “Over time the 2015-16 El Nino will mean nothing at all, because it will be balanced by La Nina.”
          Wasn’t the 1998 El Nino balanced by the La Ninas following, just like as you claim for 2015/16?
          So you’re stating the 1998 El Nino means nothing at all too obviously b/c it was balanced by La Ninas. So why keep pretending it means something?

          • Richard M says:

            Paul, any trend chart that starts before 1999 includes the La Nina Years. I don’t claim the 1998 El Nino means much as far as the trend goes, in fact I’ve telling you the exact opposite. It has no effect on the trend. It is alarmist who keep claiming it has a big effect on the trend.

            I think you need to read comments a little more carefully. You are making quite the fool of yourself.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Paul Harnel…”So why keep pretending it (98 EN) means something?”

            It means something because it drove global temps higher in a few months than any other force had in the past century. If you don’t think that means something you are yet another alarmist twit.

        • Paul Hahnel says:

          Richard M – Yours and painters disingenuous pretzel logic continues. You both claim the 2015 El Nino is balanced out by the following La Ninas but you don’t use that same analysis for the 1998 El Nino. Why don’t the 3 La Nina years following 1998 balance out that El Nino and make it meaningless exactly like your claim for this years?
          You don’t b/c that disproves your fake “pause” so you trumpet the 1998 El Nino as warming and the start of something, then turn around and say the 2015 El Nino isn’t anything. You’re both laughable in your sad double talk.
          If the 2015 El Nino followed by La Ninas is meaningless then so is the 1998 El Nino followed by La Ninas according to your own circular logic. You both say it over and over again. Time for you to admit it.

          • Paul Hahnel says:

            Richard M – woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2011/to:2015

            is it a trend Richard? looks like +.2*C from RSS for the past 5 years.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Paul H…”You both claim the 2015 El Nino is balanced out by the following La Ninas but you dont use that same analysis for the 1998 El Nino”.

            Of course we do. We are all claiming there has been no net warming since late 1997. That could only happens if cooling is cancelling warming.

        • Paul Hahnel says:

          And more bs from you Richard M – mpainter uses 1998 for a start point simply b/c its the highest anomaly he can find. He doesn’t average it out or ‘include'(and btw you are using that word incorrectly in your reply) anything, he ‘eyeballs’ it from 1998 only b/c any other yearsof choice completely disproves his whole spiel.
          Dr Spencer’s UAH graph clearly shows that, except of course to you AGWDeniers.

        • Paul Hahnel says:

          Gordon R – Of course you all do, everyone knows that. You all use the 1997-98 El Nino spike as your starting point. Thanks for being honest about it.
          Unfortunately Dr Spencers UAH graph disproves your claim of no warming since late 1997 b/c the chart shows late 1997 temp at less than +.2*C and the Jan 2016 temp at +.54*C – a difference of around +.4*C. Even the running mean is up above +.3*C, so whichever way one wants to look at it the planet has warmed since 1997.

          But no matter, back to your reply about ‘… not using the same analysis for 1998’ and ‘Of course we all do”. You obviously didn’t follow Richard M’s conversation and line of illogic. Richard M claimed the 1998 El Nino spike is meaningless b/c of the La Ninas that followed it. And he has to use that for his argument in order to make the 2015/16 El Nino is also meaningless illogical argument.
          So thanks again for your truism that you all use it as the starting point. Again, everyone knows that except, it seems, Richard M.

          • mpainter says:

            There is a flat trend in the UAH dataset of eighteen years, your confusion notwithstanding. You apparently have swallowed the rubbish spouted by those who are trying to make the pause go away. Your ill-informed comments are the result of your gullibility. Your unpleasant nature is not doubt a result of your upbringing.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Paul Hahnel…”Gordon R Of course you all do, everyone knows that. You all use the 1997-98 El Nino spike as your starting point”.

            The IPCC use 1998 as a starting point as well. In the AR5 report they claimed a warming hiatus since 1998. They were claiming a positive trend before 1998 then suddenly no trend.

            This is not rocket science, or a plot. It’s a fact that the 1998 El Nino threw the climate system into a tizzy. If we picked 1998 out of a hat you might have a point but there was a physical event that year which drove global temps relatively sky high in a very short period of time.

            Furthermore, after it struck, the global average rose about 0.25C and stayed there.

            I don’t think anyone knows what is going on but the temperatures since 1998 have not been predicted by any model and they cannot be explained by AGW.

      • Aaron S says:

        Did you know that sea level was 6m higher last interglacial warm phase? Sort of takes the assurance that warming is man made away and shows humans WILL have to deal with climate change.

        • David Appell says:

          Thanks — that shows you where we are going, 6m of sea level rise. Good to know.

          Lots of people are going to lose land, housing, and cities. Who will pay for all that?

          • mpainter says:

            You will, David, and the rest of the AGW suckers. I’m going to start a campaign, like Jerry Lewis and his Cystic Fibrosis scam. My fee will be 90% and I will pyramid the operation, with all hands on the take. We will shake down the true believers and wind up with BILLIONS.

            The trick is to frighten people, and then show them pictures of children who are about to be drowned/felled by tropical fever/kidnapped by climate refugees/eaten by invasive species/sucked into the ether by force five tornadoes. Also polar bears, lots of those, looking forlorn and abandoned.

            I will fund the big time alarmists like weepy Bill McKibbon to make sure that the pot gets stirred. BILLIONS, Appell. And I offer you the honor of being the first sucker. Send your check to mpainter, pronto, and be the first to get the poster with the orphaned polar bear cubs. BILLIONS!!

          • Aaron S says:

            Dave,
            Will paying the solar god by subsidizing a unrealistic technology help pay for human migration? I think we are going to avoid a minor transgression or parasequence… but just like daily peak temperature lag the max daily insolation, there is no surprise if natural climate change lags orbital peaks…. the very minor warming last century could all be natural.

          • richard says:

            “Lots of people are going to lose land, housing, and cities. Who will pay for all that?”

            so prices should be falling in these areas,

            let me know where and i’ll go in and pick em up for a snip.

      • Phyte On says:

        Please list all the climate disasters that frighten you over the next 50 years? Be specific, measurable, time bound, descriptive? Where and what will happen in next 50 years that frighten you over the next 50 years?

        What (and where) exactly is going to change in next 50 years that we have not experienced in the last 50 years?

        Also, please explain how we can actually reverse and control the climate to avoid these awful climate changes we haven’t seen in last 50 years?

        Just claiming doom and gloom without any specifics seems a bit alarmist if you ask me.

        Why are you so frightened?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @BillLarune…”Call me an alarmist. I call myself a parent. I have two children…”

        So you feel it’s OK to scare your children based on pseudo-science that is corrupt to the point of being scientific misconduct?

        Take a look at the graph upon which this article is based. It is based on NOAA satellite data and the data sets are made by Roy and John Christy, both of whom were awarded medals for excellence from NOAA and the American Meteorological Society for creating the data sets.

        You don’t need to have expertise in mathematics to see there has been no trend since 1998, simply by visually filling in the peaks and valleys on the red line. The current El Nino warming is not going to exceed 2010 or 1998 based on what we see already and even with the EN warming there is no trend.

        NOAA has ignored it’s own sat data and focused on the surface record, which it has heavily manipulated to show warming. NOAA freely admits to having slashed 5000 surface stations globally, from a pool of 6500 and to have applied the remaining 1500 station data to climate models to infer temperatures globally for the missing 5000.

        Duh!!

        NOAA no longer gives a precise global warming temperature they give them with confidence levels. They gave a 48% confidence level to their claim that 2014 was the warmest year ever. That means you could flip a coin to determine whether it was the warmest year or not.

        Why do you accept such pseudo-science when they UAH data plainly shows that the NOAA surface interpretation is political bs?

        Ask yourself this: if NOAA has access to data from 6500 stations globally, which represents only 27% of the planet’s surface, why has it forsaken that data to deal in statistical analysis.

        I’ll tell you why, you can lie better with statistical analysis.

        • Paul Hahnel says:

          Gordon – UAH doesn’t measure surface temperatures so it can’t plainly show anything about NOAA surface temps. You’re the one posting political bs posting political bs.

          • mpainter says:

            Surface datasets are corrupted by AGW zealots. For reliable data on the global temperature anomaly, see the UAH plot above.

            In fact, the step-up at circa 2001 is the result of increased insolation via reduced cloud albedo globally. See McLean,2014.
            Climate sensitivity is close to 1K. Atmospheric CO2 is entirely beneficial, the more the better. Mind your manners.

          • markus says:

            surface datasets have been independently verified by the BEST project

          • mpainter says:

            Best products are subject to the spurious warming of faulty siteing, homogenization practices, infilling (see Watts et al, 2015). Best also carries the taint of denying that siteing is a source of spurious warming (Mosher, Hausfauther, Muller).

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            #PaulHahnel “Gordon UAH doesnt measure surface temperatures so it cant plainly show anything about NOAA surface temps. ”

            The sats are NOAA sats and they can scan microwave radiation from surface oxygen far more efficiently than thermometers can cover surface temps. By switching frequency bands, they can detect oxygen microwave radiation at various altitudes, including the surface layer.

            In the old surface thermometer system, there were close to 6500 thermometers measuring surface temperatures, most of them over land. Land accounts for only 27% of the planet’s surface area so those thermometers are covering barely 1/4 of the planet.

            On top of that they measure a high and a low temp which is averaged. The sat scanners sample bazillions of oxygen molecules per stationary position of the scanner as it sweeps, and overall, they cover 95% of the planet’s surface area.

            I said old surface system, which has been scrapped by NOAA. NOAA dropped 5000 stations from the 6500 and replaced them with synthesized temps from a climate model. They used 1500 real temps then interpolated them using a climate model, based on position, to synthesize the missing 5000 stations.

            It’s called scientific misconduct and NOAA, along with NASA, is currently being investigated by the US Congress.

        • Paul Hahnel says:

          Miss Manners – you didn’t respond to the fact that UAH measures molecules 25,000′ in the air, not surface temps but you did go on a good short little conspiracy theory rant. And as if UAH hasn’t had 2-3x’s the corrupted temp data changes as your surface datasets conspiracy theory claims.

          Also Miss, we’ve already had more than 1K increase in temp w only a 40% increase in CO2. Are your maths slipping too in your climate sensitivity theory? I’m guessing your conjecture is that the algorithm is maxed out in your world.

          Still laughing about your step-ups, in a nice way though. Step ups in temperature are not rises in temp, nothing like that, they’re just ‘step-ups’.

          • mpainter says:

            Poor, uninformed global warmers know nothing and spout ignorance and misinformation. Paul, you well illustrate that. You say:

            “you didnt respond to the fact that UAH measures molecules 25,000′ in the air,”

            ###

            MSU/AMSU measures microwave radiance, from the surface to the atmosphere, not only at “25,000 feet”. You poor boob. The internet is there, why do you make no attempt to inform yourself?

            Concerning the warming previous to 1950, not even the IPCC attributes that to AGW. The reason why is fairly obvious: in the last half of the 19th century, anthropogenic CO2 was 2-3 ppm. In the second decade of the 20th century, it was less than 20 ppm. Only the foaming alarmist hype attributes warming previous to 1950 to AGW. But there is a lot of foaming alarmist hype that’s been spewed on the wall. Thus the Paul Hahnels of this world.

          • mpainter says:

            Concerning the step-up circa 2001, it’s obvious and anyone who is not blind can see it. It’s true AGW types tend to discount it, they don’t like it because that 0.25-0.30 step-up is 80% of the and CO2 cannot explain it; in fact the only explanation is the increased insolation of the latter part of last century (due to decreased cloud albedo globally). And that’s the main reason that the AGW types don’t like it. They ignore it.Laugh away.

          • mpainter says:

            Correction: ..up to 80%of the warming..

          • mpainter says:

            Another correction:..from the surface to the _stratosphere_..

          • mpainter says:

            Concerning climate sensitivity, the estimated CS for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 _alone_ is put at about 1K. The remainder of any estimates above that 1K is due to hypothetical positive H2O feedback. This is where AGW falls flat on its face because the hypothetical positive feedback does not happen, as per the obvious observations: compare the dry Sahara with the humid tropics.

            I should say that climate sensitivity estimates are largely guesswork, not to taken seriously by a serious scientists. For one thing, the issue is one that is irresolvable: how many angels can dance etc.

          • mpainter says:

            Regarding conspiracies, hardly that when the clowns publicly declare their intentions and perform their perversion of science: the temperature dataset manipulators I regard as more like cultists than scientists; cultists who are desperately trying to prop up a collapsed hypothesis to buy time against the evil day when the movement collapses and a deceived public starts asking hard questions and demanding answers.

            So laugh away. Laugh like a cackling hyena if that makes up for your lack of science, brains, and breeding.

      • richard says:

        Bill,

        stop worrying then. It’s all just a scam.

    • miker says:

      Alas it looks like the UAH vX global pause is no more.

      This pause has ceased to be. It’s expired and gone to meet its maker. It’s an ex-pause .It’s kicked the bucket. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If it hadn’t been nailed to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies. It’s shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!!

      • geran says:

        miker, thanks for showing how little you understand the facts.

        • mpainter says:

          I think miker is starting to understand that his concoction of science and alarmism does not sell very well to skeptics, who tend to be better informed than the gullible types who inhabit HotWhopper.

      • DEC says:

        Excellent !

        What’s the bet that some fool will continue to claim the pause still exists?

        King Arthur: You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine!
        Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?
        King Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard. You’ve got no arms left!

        • bit chilly says:

          don’t know about the pause, but it sure looks a lot chillier in certain areas of the world than it usually is. now where is this warming we are talking about ?
          https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/hottest-year-evah-update-unheard-of-snow-in-vietnam-saudi-arabia/#more-20177

          • barry says:

            The sinking ship rolls in the weather. The bosun finds himself on the high side, for a moment out of the water, and yells to the crew that everything is fine. When the ship rolls and he’s in water up to his knees he shouts out that there is another part of the deck that’s not submerged. As long as he can see some part of the deck that’s not submerged as the ship gets tossed, he believes they’ll be in port in the morning.

          • mpainter says:

            Do you often fret over the AGW alarmism, Barry? I commiserate with you. You need a fresh perspective.

          • barry says:

            I never fret about global warming. I see the point is lost on you. Perhaps your ‘alarmism’ mantra occludes your intellect. Sort of like a tic.

            Here it is in plainer terms.

            Global warming does not mean that cold weather will never happen.

            Inferring the opposite is probably the most bone-headed ‘argument’ on the general subject.

          • mpainter says:

            Barry, global warming is beneficial. Now, if Ma Nature would only stop fooling around and do what the AGW crowd says she should, according to their logarithms. But, alas! No warming for almost two decades.

          • barry says:

            From name-calling to avoiding the point. At least the order is novel.

        • Smokey says:

          DEC,

          To help you understand this, here are a few basic facts:

          1. Regarding global temperatures, there is nothing happening now that did not also happen before the rise in CO2. Temperature parameters have been exceeded in the past, repeatedly, and by a much greater degree.

          2. CO2 has a warming effect. But it is far from linear. Almost all the warming occured within the first few dozen ppm. CO2 could double from current concentrations, but the rise in temperature caused by CO2 would be too small to measure with current instruments.

          3. Not one scary/alarming prediction has ever come true. No exceptions.

          4. Despite the rise in CO2, there has been no acceleration in global T, thus falsifying the CO2=AGW hypothesis. (This refers to measurable AGW, per the climate Null Hypothesis: if there is no measurable change, that hypothesis has not been falsified).

          5. From the 1940’s to the ’70’s global T was flat to slightly declining.

          6. The current global warming event is no different from prior events. Temperature rises during the Holocene have gotten progressively lower. The trend is down.

          7. Even a year ago the “pause” was universally acknowledged by all sides of the debate.

          8. No database or system is more closely scrutinized than satellites. RSS and UAH people watch everything the other one is doing. There is total transparency. Satellites provide the ‘gold standard’ of temperature data, while most surface stations are from 2ΒΊC to 5ΒΊC out of tolerance.

          9. Radiosonde balloons corroborate satellite measurements. Land based measurements are the outliers.

          10. On all time scales, from years to hundreds of millennia, βˆ†CO2 follows βˆ†temperature. Changes in temperature do not follow changes in CO2.

          Draw your own conclusions…

          • markus says:

            the pause is dead mate, at some point you are going to have to admit the scientists were right all along and the world continues to warm. Then you are going to have to either admit it’s due to AGW or find some other excuse.

            The latter is going to be quite difficult

          • mpainter says:

            Good science is on the side of the skeptics. AGW advocates can offer no evidence that the warming is not due to natural variability.
            The present El Nino spike is temporary and the imminent La Nina will extend the “pause”.

        • DougCotton says:

          “Whats the bet that some fool will continue to claim the pause still exists?” writes DEC.

          Yep – like Roy Spencer with his valid temperature data that will show it exists this decade and next. Make sure you keep building roads, paths and air conditioners near those weather stations.

      • Richard M says:

        The pause still exists and will never go away. It may not get any longer for several months (or even a couple of years). You see, a pause actually has start dates and end dates. There are many pauses which first became statistically important in the summer of 2013 and has continued up through 2015.

        • miker says:

          Yes David, you are quite right.

          The survival threshold for the pause for the old version (6.0v beta 5) for January 2016 was 0.52 C. For the new version, according to the revised data for 2015 ,the limit became 0.55 C.

          Alternatively it survived by the skin of its teeth because October 2015 was moved down from 0.43 C to 0.41 C for the new version. If it had gone down to 0.42 C the pause would have died.

          Consequently there must be scenes of much merriment in the denial community as the pause, despite it being in an induced coma in intensive care, has lived on.

          The merriment will of course be short lived as a figure less than 0.14 C is required to it survive another month. Short of a massive volcanic eruption or the sudden offset of an ice age , I think it is safe to say farewell to the pause. May the Hiatus’s Soul Rest In Peace.

          The only caveat, is that the full data for beta 6 is not yet available and maybe there is a possibility that the pause may rise from the dead once this is published.

          There are however ominous forebodings as Roy mentions above significant changes are afoot for regions such as Australia.

          The trend for Australia changed from 0.16 to 0.24 per decade going from versions 5.6 to 6. This deeply upset the local denial community as this figure was over twice as large as the widely criticized (by the same deniers) official BOM ACORN value.

          So it will be interesting to see , hot off the press, what the very latest trend value will be for OZ.

        • miker says:

          Richard M,

          What pauses are you referring to?

          What are the start and end dates for the pauses and the corresponding estimates of the significance (unbiased confidence levels in the trend)?

          • mpainter says:

            Miker, what warming are you referring to? For reliable global temperature anomaly, see UAH January update above.

          • miker says:

            mapinter,

            I haven’t mentioned warming in any of my comments above. I think your are getting me confused with Mike M or alternatively you are hallucinating again.

          • mpainter says:

            Ah, then you agree that there has been no warming. You must have studied the UAH plot above. I congratulate you on your astuteness.

          • ehak says:

            mpainter says:

            “For reliable global temperature anomaly, see UAH January update above”

            Even Spencer disagrees with you. MSU/AMSU is not a good proxy for global surface temperature

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

          • miker says:

            Mpainter,

            Yes i agree that there has been no warming. Warming woukd be an understatement for the recent increases in UAH temperatures. As the last 4 months have been records for their respective months, I was thinking a more apt description would be more along the lines of frying.

            Finally from your inane comments,it has become abundantly clear that like Gordon below, you need to be fish slapped with a halibut, Preferably frozen.

          • mpainter says:

            Feeling a little thick today, Kyle?
            AGW is not confined to the surface. You need to bone up on the doctrine lest you be seen as a backslider, tsk, tsk. Go read the instructions again, paying special attention to atmospheric and stratospheric effects. Also, the radiative flux and its particulars. Goodness, gracious, did you not learn all of this in your ten years at RSS? Did you not sit at the feet of the sage Carl Mears?

          • miker says:

            Mapinter, you should also ensure you should have autorotation turned on if you are using a tablet. The UAH plot could easily be misinterpreted if you are holding the tablet upside down.

            Likewise if you have a computer, make sure the monitor is not inverted.

          • mpainter says:

            Ah, ha! You finally confess. I figured you for a fish-slapper. And, you tried to pass yourself off as a scientist,tsk,tsk.

          • Richard M says:

            Miker, I thought I made it clear. A pause has start and end dates. Hence, there was a pause that started in September 1996 that went to September 2013. It was 17 years without any warming. After that time each new month had a variation of the pause. Current pauses now extend up to around 18 years and 9 months (statistically significant pause is between 22 and 23 years).

            Most alarmists don’t understand the relevance of the pause and think when one cannot be computed for the current month that will mean the pause is over. Wrong. It is a period that extends beyond the Santer et al (2011) definition of the time period required to see “human effects”. That is 17 years for 95% of the climate model trends. Any period of 17 years meets their criteria and hence is a falsification of climate models. None of the past pauses are going to go away. As any scientists knows, it only takes one example where a theory fails to falsify the theory.

            Do I even need to mention that even if a small set of pauses disappears for a few months at the peak of this El nino, a new set of pauses are likely to appear as soon as La Nina shows up? It is quite likely some will extend over 20 years even before La Nina completes.

          • mpainter says:

            Hilburn, you are disgusting, the way you repeat your lies even after have been outed in them. Concerning your link above, you tried that at ClimateAudit and got excoriated by the host.

            In your link, Roy Spencer does not refer to MSU/AMSU as a proxy for anything.

            I urge everyone to follow the links provided immediately above by ehak so that they can see for themselves what a contemptible person this ehak HIlburn is.

          • ehak says:

            mpainter: Warming of the troposphere is not confined to AGW. Warming of the atmosphere would be higher if the reason for the warming was increased solar insolation.

            You missed again mpainter.

          • mpainter says:

            You need to explain, Hilburn. Otherwise you make no sense. You do want to make sense, don’t you?

          • miker says:

            Mpainter,

            Yes how perceptive of you. I come from a long line of fish slappers. My late grandfather from Trondheim in Norway was the first to pioneer the method for administering the treatment for psychosis.

            It has now come back into fashion and there are a number of pioneering studies examining the effects upon all kinds of mental derangement. These studies are examining the effects of the type of fish and length of treatment required. There are also double blind studies using a rubber fish as a control. It looks like it might to have potential to replace E.C.T. for many conditions.

            You should look it up on the internet and see if you can find a clinic involved in the studies where you can obtain treatment for your derangement. Hopefully you wont get the rubber fish. My recommendation is for a clinic that uses flounder (as this a apt description of your modus operandi) maybe in conjunction with E.C.T .

            There is hope for you , despite appearing to be immune to logic, with enough time and treatment you may be able to return to being a productive member of society.

            There is a youtube video demonstrating the therapeutic uses of fish slapping here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8XeDvKqI4E.

            Now talking about studies involving a control, I wish the real time experiment conducted here on earth examining the effects of CO2 upon climate had a control planet (which also could be used if the experiment on earth turns out to go horribly wrong in the long term).

            The only control planet that seems to be available of a similar size to earth and that has a significant amount CO2 in the atmosphere is Venus. Oh well if things turn out bad we can send an advance party of hairdressers, telephone sanitizers accompanied by climate deniers on a one way trip to Venus to see how things are faring there.

          • miker says:

            Richard M,

            Now that you have clarified things. Let me get this right, you have cherry picked a data set (UAH) from all the other data sets and are now cherry picking the start and end dates! This is putting the pause on a triple bypass.

            So taking the UAHv 6.4 data for September 1996 until September 2013 the unbiased p value of 0.068 is just above 0.05 so it is an excellent choice but it doesnt quite reach the 95% confidence level.

            This is an unbiased estimate and if we used a serial correlation technique as the data is autocorrelated then the uncertainties would be much greater. The Durbin-Watson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin%E2%80%93Watson_statistic_) statistic is 0.33 which means that serial correlation is large and the uncertainties have to be adjusted upwards significantly.

            I will leave it to you as an exercise to calculate the biased uncertainties (a good place to start with is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkb2vEa5Ku4_ but the significance of your data doesnt look good. Let me know how you go.

            There are others who are even more blatant and cherry pick UAH regions as well as the above to produce a 4 cherry pick quadruple bypass in an attempt to keep the patient alive.

          • mpainter says:

            How long have you had these urges to slap people with fish? Have you sought therapy?

          • miker says:

            mpainter again you have been perceptive. How can one be so unaware of ones own deficiencies and display such insight into others.

            Like with all things you can overdo it. Yes I do have a tendency to overslap when faced with overarching stupidity.

            I am indeed currently receiving treatment where I get see patients with slowly increasing mental deficiencies and have to restrain myself to what is necessary and no more. mpainter being the most intractable case of floridly delusional grandeur I have yet encountered could be my final test. If you dont mind this can written up as a paper to be submitted to Lancet. I will redact your name of course and refer to you as just Painter M. But if you want me to use your full name I will be happy to .You can finally get your name on a scientific paper but beware it might feed into your delusions.

            Your other psychiatric diagnoses , such as your masochistic need to being ridiculed which I am, sad to say, I am rather enjoying, are treatable conditions . In particular your obsessive compulsive need to post inane comments in web sites like this one is also treatable with fish slapping.

            We might end up going through the entire DSM IV . We could be here for a long time.

        • mpainter says:

          Well, fish-slapper, you certainly have a problem. Cant help you, there. Sorry.

          • miker says:

            mpainter.

            You certainly can’t help yourself. My offer still stands of a good fish slapping but you will need to give me your preference. The price of cold water fish like trout and salmon has skyrocketed lately( see http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/ntrout.asp) so I may have to charge a lttle extra for these.

          • mpainter says:

            Fish-slapper makes no more pretense at science. Now he is happier, doing what best suits him. But keep him away from matches, for chrissake.

          • miker says:

            Fish slappee (aka mpainter),

            First the science as you requested. As the temperature rises I must remind you , that the average temperature for the past 6 months from August to January has been the hottest on record for both sets of satellite data for this period. Those who have even the most basic Excel skills can confirm this in conjunction with http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt and the latest set of UAHv5 data when it is released in the next couple of days.

            Now for the ridicule, which may be more effective than science for those amongst us that are immune to logic.

            As a consequence of the above satellite data that is revered by many, my services will be in demand to deal with mass outbreak of depression amongst the denial community, especially for those grieving the imminent death of the pause.

            I will be now be offering group therapy sessions, however.it may depend on the availability of giant grouper .

            Fish slappee, you clearly need help with the transition from denial to acceptance as you, unfortunately like many. are stuck in the anger phase .

            Your last comment regarding matches was also intriguing. You may have heard of the concept of projection, where ones own fantasies and perversions are projected onto the therapist. I urge you once again to take on the therapy generously offered before your fantasy is played out. I can reserve one giant grouper for your own personal use.

          • mpainter says:

            Thus slap-happy fish-slapper. Is this guy running loose somewhere?

          • miker says:

            One thing I am in awe of is the prolific output of mpainter. As the global temperatures have increased his output has likewise increased. There appears to be a correlation, but as to causation, it is not that clear.

            One of the problems mpainter is likely to encounter, with all this time at the keyboard, is a repetitive strain injury to the wrist. This may result in his other favourite solo pursuit (sometimes referred to as meat slapping, as distinct from fish slapping) being curtailed which fortunately could prevent him going totally blind.

            However it has become abundantly clear that overuse of his wrist in his quest for relief, may already have damaged his eyesight. Accordingly when he views the graph at the top of this blog, he somehow perceives the overall trend since 1979 to be downwards.

            I knew there had to be an explanation.

          • mpainter says:

            “Accordingly when he views the graph at the top of this blog, he somehow perceives the overall trend since 1979 to be downwards.”

            ###

            Thus our slap-happy visitor from the fish-slapper society.

          • miker says:

            mpainter, on a more serious note, for a change.

            Looking at the graph at top of UAH temperatures, what do perceive is the average trend from 1979 to present.
            1.Increasing,
            2.decreasing or
            3.flat?

            Alternatively if you are going to run with a step up argument via McLean then bring it on.

      • David Appell says:

        I find that the “LT pause” is hanging on by the very slimmest of margins:

        http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-ted-cruz-pause-is-on-life-support.html

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @miker…”Alas it looks like the UAH vX global pause is no more”.

        I am sure you were ripping off Monty Python after the 1998 and 2010 El Ninos as well.

        • miker says:

          Gordon,

          Yes if was aware of anyone silly enough at the time to generate such rubbish, I would have given them the full on Monty Python treatment including slapping them on the face with a fish.

          This may be the procedure of last recourse to knock some sense into the promulgators of this nonsense. A halibut is recommended for the severe cases.

    • bit chilly says:

      always seems to be the same for me. whenever there is a particularly warm period anywhere in the world i am in the wrong place to appreciate it.despite the global moniker it surely must be regional hot spots averaged out that give the impression of extra global warmth.

      what i want to know is when is the east coast of scotland going to get an anomalously warm month ? i will be here for a good while now and would like to think we are deserving of some of this extra warmth πŸ™‚

    • David Appell says:

      Painter wrote:
      “This is science as it should be done.”

      So you’re OK with adjusting model parameters by hand?

      • mpainter says:

        I’m okay with the way UAH do their science. Aren’t you?

        • David Appell says:

          No, I don’t think their model parameters should be adjusted by hand to force their model to give the output they want.

          I can’t fathom why anyone would be OK with that.

          • mpainter says:

            Sure you can. Intercalibrations are required and the UAH approach is empirical. Roy Spencer has explained this on numerous occasions. But you make a show of wrinkling your nose at this.

            Go to your quarks, David, there’s a good boy.

          • geran says:

            Davie, you will NEVER like anything that UAH produces unless it shows catastrophic warming. Anything less, and you will find fault. You will criticize and accuse. That’s just the life you have chosen. It’s no one’s fault but your own.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @Appell…”So youre OK with adjusting model parameters by hand?”

        You still here?

        Thought you’d be back with your impersonators at skepticalscience, sitting in the front row, wearing your Nazi uniform.

    • mpainter says:

      Well, the blob is reported to be gone. The temperature anomaly may be expected to plummet. There is no joy in globalwarmerville, the mighty El Nino has struck out.

    • jimbo says:

      Make it simple for all even the non scientist. Stick a trendline through the whole data set or make it 10 year rolling averages instead of the silly 18month rolling average.

      And what do we get folkes…doesn’t take a atmospheric scientist to see that trend.

      If you want some science on it. Spectroscopy has existed for over 100years and 100% CO2 and other GHGs absorb energy at the spectrum range emitted from the earth. Therefore we increase the amount of GHGs we increase the trapped energy in the atmosphere…things get warmer and more unstable in the troposphere.

      If you can’t “believe” that then you must also not believe that the atmosphere plays any role in trapping heat and making our planet liveable. Ok now take the Planets Mercury and Venus. Mercury as next to no atmosphere. Nightime temp: -170degC, daytime: +427degC. Venus – Nightime temp: 460degC, daytime temp: 460degC

      People that don’t want to recognize this very clear science have vested interests. And those interests are not very long term

  2. MikeN says:

    Do you have a writeup of this adjustment? How is it different from ‘We adjusted it to get an answer that looked right?’

    • That’s being worked on for our journal article submission. Like most things I post here, this information is out of the goodness of my heart and in the spirit of public outreach and to foster discussion, and doesn’t represent peer-reviewed science. (BTW, the modelers routinely adjust some of their parameterizations until they get an answer that “looks about right”….requiring gridpoint trends to have good spatial continuity is not an arbitrary requirement.)

      • ehak says:

        This one:

        “(BTW, the modelers routinely adjust some of their parameterizations until they get an answer that β€œlooks about right”

        Well that is what MSU/AMSU is: modeled tropospheric temperature.

        And this:

        “But apparently the theory has some error…”

        Theory = model.

        Is that wrong? Nope. But it is very strange to deny it.

        • mpainter says:

          Hilburn, you are rather obvious: you imagine that there’s scientific value in making a nuisance of yourself. Your ambition is to emulate David Appell, it seems. No difference between a model and a theory? You are confused, but that’s to be expected.

        • mpainter says:

          Then a model is a theory, right? And a GCM is a theory, right? I think some distinction is called for. But let’s not quibble over semantics. I have seen your arguments before. I can’t agree.

      • DougCotton says:

        Roy

        I also write “out of the goodness of my heart” and am not paid a cent for doing any of the research I do. There’s a comprehensive explanation in this comment which I would recommend you and your readers study and, more importantly, think upon.

      • David Appell says:

        Roy: Which parameters do other modelers “routinely adjust” “until they get the answer that “looks about right'”?)

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        @Roy…” Like most things I post here, this information is out of the goodness of my heart …”

        And we thank you for that Roy, it is much appreciated by students of science even though trolls from skepticalscience try to elbow their way in.

        Don’t forget the difference. You allow the trolls to post here whereas realclimate and SS (appropriate initials) do not allow skeptics freedom to post on their sites.

  3. geran says:

    Finally, some heat is showing up! I was beginning to wonder. We know that the ocean is releasing a lot of heat, but where was it going? I suspected someone was “trapping” all that heat! πŸ™‚

    I expect February UAH to also be above +0.5C. And probably March and April will be above +0.4C, especially with the spring warming in NH. But, then it gets interesting…

    • DEC says:

      Reminds me of that song by Dusty Springfield:
      “Wishing and hoping and thinking and praying ..”

      • Lewis says:

        I hadn’t thought about it before, but that’s exactly what the AGW alarmists are doing except they’re using government force to inflict their faith on others.

        • David Appell says:

          They are using science. You should try it sometime.

          • mpainter says:

            Got to be quarks, Lewis, or its no good, you see.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Appell…”They are using science. You should try it sometime”.

            I doubt if you’ve been to university and studied the scientific method, let alone grade school. Has no one told you about the scientific method, which rules out AGW and climate models?

            I have not seen one shred of evidence in your unwelcome comments that reveal you have any idea what the scientific method means.

      • DougCotton says:

        “Wishing and hoping and thinking and praying .. that it will get hotter so we can keep our jobs promulgating the carbon dioxide hoax based on fiddled fissics. About 350 climate jobs are being lost at the CSIRO in Australia.

    • David Appell says:

      How do we know the ocean is releasing a lot heat?
      Data/

      • geran says:

        Davie, here’s some actual science for you: “…the warming of the sea surface works to decrease the atmospheric pressure above it by transfering more heat to the atmosphere and making it more buoyant.”

        Now, you can reject the actual science and cling to your pseudoscience, as always.

  4. Nigel Harris says:

    It will be interesting to see where it goes next. If LT temperature behaves during the 2015-16 El Nino like it did during the 2009-10 El Nino, we’ve probably reached about the maximum temperature we’re going to see. But if it follows a 1997-98 type of pattern, then the blue line could reach right to the top of the chart.

  5. ehak says:

    Re problems over land:

    http://i.imgur.com/ZuQwe76.png

    This is RSS. What will UAH v6beta5 be like? Anyhow this does not make sense. Suddenly after 1998 the thousands of land stations are supposed to wrong/biased?

    Very unlikely. The problem is located somewhere else

    • mpainter says:

      The surface data needs a cleanup. The SST, especially. Do that, and then let’s compare. Right now, it looks like about half of the surface warming is spurious. Maybe more.
      Satellites for me, thank you.

      • Ross says:

        Then mpainter goes out into space then for temperatures measurements after that. No room to go but up to pretend his c-o-o-l. Gotcha mate.

      • ehak says:

        To my knowledge land measurements do not include sea surface temperatures.

        mpainter thinks otherwise.

        But if mpainter prefers satellites for sea temperatures, he can of course check what Spencer thinks of satellite measurements of SST vs in situ:

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/somethings-fishy-with-global-ocean-temperature-measurements/

        Fishy. In situ too low. That is: with no adjustment for the engine intake to buoy transition.

        For land measurements it is very odd to think they were ok before 1998 but not after. Even Watts poster found no change between their “good” and “bad” stations after 1998.

        • richard verney says:

          Does anyone seriously think that land measurments were OK prior to 1998?

          The land based thermometer record has become so terribly bastardised by endless adjustments/homeginisation that are repeated and repeated time and time again that it is incapable of serious scientific study.

          The land based thermometer record is a constantly shifting feast. There is relatively sparse global coverage, the majority of the sites are poorly situated (heck even in the USA the vast majority of sites are poorly situated as the surface station project survey identified), and the time series is never comparing like sourced data with like sourced data.

          For example, if one wishes to ascertain how temperatures may have changed since the 1880s, then one should review data extracted only from the stations that were reporting in 1880 and have a continuous reporting log from then to date.

          Ditto, if one wishes to see how temperatures have changed since the 1920s, one should only use data extracted from the stations that were reporting in 1920 and have a continuous record since that data. Ditto for 1940 etc.

          Instead station come in and drop out such that at no time is one ever comparing like data with like data. Sometimes a few hundred stations are used (say back in the 1880s), at other times say up to 6000 stations (say around 1950s), and more recently back down to around 2,500 stations.

          What use is such a record when the input data is constantly varying over time? How can serious scientific research be carried out on such a record. It is a joke, but given the vast sums spent and wasted , not a funny one.

          • ehak says:

            verney’s urge was to focus on something quite different than the period after 1979.

            Please explain the agreement between RSS land and land measurements before 1998 verney. Because of fraud? Did some communists move all the thermometers to unsuited locations after 1998?

            If you want to see a shifting feast, look no further than UAH MSU. v6 now up to beta5. And that even without changing input data.

          • mpainter says:

            Where have you been, Hilburn? The egregious fiddling with the surface datasets has been extensive and well documented. Do you deny the barrage of reports on this?
            I’ll take satellite, thank you.
            The “keepers” of the surface datasets will not clean up their act anytime soon. They are too busy warming the data (AGW, you see).

          • ehak says:

            Show the fiddling with the data I used mpainter. Obviously after 1998 that is.

          • mpainter says:

            It’s been shown, Kyle Hilburn, twelve-year former employee of RSS, aka ehak (hak being the reverse initials of KAH), and you simply pretend that it hasn’t. Do you imagine that you have any credibility here?

          • ehak says:

            Simple mpainter. Show how the land data I used is corrupted after 1998. Obviously not corrupted in the period 1979 -1998.

            You having delusional ideas concerning who I am does not help your credibility either.

          • mpainter says:

            You are tiresome. What “land data I used”?

          • ehak says:

            mpainter: Incapable of paying attention? Berkeley Earth. Go ahead. Show how those data are corrupt after 1998

          • mpainter says:

            When RSS requests a continuation of funding, how will they justify it Hilburn? Don’t you think that their funding should be cut? You perhaps should go to NASA with Mears to corroborate his claims that the RSS data is simply unreliable. Because surface datasets prove it.

            Or perhaps Mears will wait to see if he is charged with violations of the Data Quality Act. That way he can get an attorney and clam up.

            Or maybe Mears hopes that the denizens of the NOAA will be charged. Interesting times, right? Who are the crooks? Is it Mears, who hooks public funding and produces rubbish, or is it the surface data cooks? Maybe someday we shall know.

          • ehak says:

            mpainter lost it again. Your claim is that Berkeley Earth data are corrupt after 1998.

            Show us mpainter.

          • mpainter says:

            Hilburn, you are making things up. Your regular practice? I never made any claims about Berkeley earth. Never used the expression. However, I am aware that Steven Mosher denies that there is any siteing problems with US data stations. I consider this to be unscientific, indeed, anti-science. I am also aware of specific criticism of BEST technique of fabrication and homogenization of data. I agree in principle with the critics. I have little regard for Steve Mosher as a scientist, although I consider him a fair representation of the self-interested type who has an oar in the AGW stream.

            Interesting that you seem so ready to take up the cudgels on behalf of Steven Mosher & Co. Have you been in communication with him? Is he the one who has sicced you on Roy Spencer and UAH?

          • ehak says:

            mpainter in trouble. Siting problems after 1998?

            Not according to Watts’ poster. Same trend for good and bad stations after 1998.

            But clear difference between for AMSU land and land thermometers. You obviously cannot explain that.

            And I really like it when you expand your paranoid delusions. Interesting case study.

          • mpainter says:

            You have tacitly admitted that you are Kyle Hilburn. The question is why do you come snarling and snapping at Roy Spencer’s ankles. Also,why do you take of the cause of BEST? Is it because they are your neighbor? Let’s hear your explanation.

      • bit chilly says:

        sst definitely . pelagic fishing boats were giving temps up to 4 degrees less than that shown by noaa for areas of north east atlantic last summer. i will take readings from people that need to detect temp changes in the sea for their living over those provided from a desk that need those temps to be as high as they can be for their living.

        • mpainter says:

          Hilburn ehak, did you see this 4 over actual measurements.

          • ehak says:

            Still incapable of differentiating land and sea mpainter? And I sure do trust buoys more than fishing boats.

          • mpainter says:

            Hilburn, you seem unaware that surface data includes both, or that others can read and see how you have the habit of twisting and even inventing meaning. Great, Keep it up.

          • bit chilly says:

            ehak obviously has not seen the equipment on a state of the art pelagic fishing boat. http://fishingnews.co.uk/2015/12/new-boat-western-viking/
            equipment as up to date as it gets.

          • bit chilly says:

            i will trust the fishing boats equipment. considering some of the spurious “data” transmitted from argo bouys,including one supposedly hundreds of miles inland in north africa ,i know who is more reliant on accuracy every single day .

        • ehak says:

          bit chilly trust SST from fishing boat.

          Excellent. Make a SST temperature index with those data. And publish. Or if that is too much; publish a report that shows buoy temperatures are wrong based on SST from fishing boats.

          • bit chilly says:

            some bouy data are incorrect ,not all. what impact does this have on the data set as a whole ? i know for a fact that stated temperatures that were not derived from bouys were 4 degrees c higher than the physical temperatures in areas of the north east atlantic and areas of the north sea during the northern hemisphere summer past. why that was i have no idea. best you take it up with noaa or whoever else provides the data.

            i have no need to generate a sst index. i am quite happy knowing that the accuracy and veracity of these data sets is not what it is claimed to be by any of the organisations that create them. if a government organisation tells me an area of the atlantic has surface temps of 16c and a physical reading in that area says it is 12 c then i know there is a problem. who knows ,maybe someone gt an algorithm wrong πŸ™‚

          • ehak says:

            bit chilly:

            Publish your results. From where, the readings from your fishing boats, the readings from bouys etc. You can even start here!

          • mpainter says:

            Where I live, the NOAA NWS consistently forecasts lows of 4-6 higher than my two thermometers read, and these both calibrate precisely at 32F/0C. This is their “pin-point” forecasting.They must use a climate model of the latest AGW specifications to achieve their egregious forecasts. Their nearest station is about ten miles away, at a small airfield. It consistently registers overnight lows some 2-4F over my two thermometers.

            And don’t say to me “publish your results”. I just did.

          • ehak says:

            mpainter just published results.

            Showing consistency of the nearby temperature measurements compared to his own.

            mpainter just said that those measurements can be trusted. Congratulations.

          • mpainter says:

            Does any be else construe my comment as ehak/hilburn does?

      • David Appell says:

        What evidence says the surface data needs a cleanup?

        • Rob Honeycutt says:

          The evidence that it doesn’t conform to their ideologically motivated expectations. Adjustments here, good. Adjustments there, bad.

        • DougCotton says:

          “What evidence says the surface data needs a cleanup?”

          The fact that, for the 3% of the globe that it represents, it shows far greater warming than satellite data that covers most of the globe. As you say, the oceans are releasing heat so they must be cooling. Stick a few weather stations out there floating on the waves and sending data via satellite: wouldn’t suit would it – might not show enough warming.

          The problem is smart David, we don’t have uniform radiation striking a flat blackbody surface with steady flux night and day, equator to pole, thus supposedly creating a blackbody temperature of 288K with a combination of net input equal to just the right (but wrong) 390W/m^2 to get that BB temperature.

          Variable flux in a real world with that mean would produce less than 5C as a mean and it’s wrong to count the back radiation. But it’s useless trying to teach gullible people like yourself correct physics. You worship James Hansen and soak up the false physics as it makes you money writing as a journalist about physics about which you have no clue.

    • DEC says:

      Exactly!
      The satellite-model worshipers here have yet to come to grips with this glaring problem.

      • Mark Luhman says:

        DEC humans only occupy 3% of the earth surface and that is where most of out thermometer exist, yet somehow how they are suppose to tell us something about the rest of the 97% of earth, add on we change land characteristic where we live, we increase surface area and we artificially heat that 3%, and yet you somehow think it a gold standard in measurement, then you add on 40% of the time our data collection methods fail, and yet it a gold standard, lastly we move stations and change measurement methods and we do not keep a continuous comparison record to see what kind of bias we have interdicted. To me climate scientist know as much about unforeseen variables as the NFL does about trying to measure the pressure of footballs in a play off game, neither make the least attempt to control the variables and don’t get me on the measure of the ocean using Argos, bucket and engine mainlands. Looking at all the data and understanding the what they can do to measurement at this point and time a honest person can only state that is looks like in the last 200 years the temperature has gone up and at this point and time God only know what direction it really going, anyone else proclaims other wise is a moron or and idiot and at my age I have little toleration for either and anyone digging in my wallet to cure the climate non problem belong in asylum of a mass grave, not that I wish harm to anyone but stupid people kill far to many people long before they kill themselves. Life without fossil fuels is short and hard, if you want to live that way fine go ahead. forget about steel, except what you can smelt with charcoal, forget about electricity, forgot about light at night except what you can get out of tallow and wood. and if you think cutting trees down with flint ax is going to heat you home in a cold northern winter good luck. Don’t force the rest of us to follow you fantasy.

      • DougCotton says:

        “Exactly” Mark.

        Forcing fallacious fictitious fiddled fissics fantasties.

    • Mathius says:

      EHAK, what makes you so certain the problem in your graph if accurate is divergence is strictly a satellite issue?

      Especially with available evidence of data manipulation in the surface temperature record.

      • ehak says:

        Which available evidence of data manipulation of land stations after 1998 but not before 1998?

        You cannot present any such evidence. The data and methods are available used by BEST are freely available.

        • mpainter says:

          The documentation of spurious warming is freely available. For example, see Watts et al.

          • ehak says:

            You mean the Watts poster that showed no change between bad and ugly stations after 1998?

            Sure explains the divergence. Not.

          • mpainter says:

            The spurious warming explains the difference, all right: about 50% above actual, as per the Watts paper. But siteing flaws are not the only problem with the surface datasets. There has been deliberate adjustments and fudging of the data for the last five years in the desperate attempt to erase the “pause”.
            For temperature, I’ll take the satellites, thank you.

          • ehak says:

            You did not get it mpainter. That so called spurious warming was before 1998. After 1998 no change between bad and ugly. You are referring to a poster that contradicts your claim.

          • mpainter says:

            Hilburn, is it your claim that the surface datasets have not been adjusted/fudged/coojed/whatever? Is this your position?

          • mpainter says:

            Cooked, not coojed.

          • ehak says:

            mpainter: Of course alle datasets can be adjusted or homogenized. In Berkeley Earth that makes very little difference. If anything after 1979 homogenized data reduces the trend:

            https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/figure-1-homogenizationgloballand.png

            So please tell us mpainter what kind of datafiddling for these land data can produce series in agreement with MSU/AMSU before 1998 but not after?

          • bit chilly says:

            mpainter, surely you do not disbelieve that the temperature can be the same 1200 miles away if an algorithm says so ? oh ye of little faith /

          • mpainter says:

            Yep, faith. Hilburn will carry the sacraments to the high priest at the altar. He’s your boy, not me.

          • Mack says:

            There’s no flaws in the Paws, Hilburn.

          • ehak says:

            You missed it bit chilly. Raw not higher trend than homogenized. Rather the opposite.

            But if your qualms are re infilling: why the change after 1998? Besides, what method for infilling that is best can be checked. Infilling with the hemispheric average is not better than kriging.

          • bit chilly says:

            i agree. how about we forget about infilling and kriging and stick to exactly what we can physically measure . that would work for me.

          • ehak says:

            bit chilly:

            You cannot choose not to infill. When using temperatures from at gridbox the measurements from that gridbox infills the whole box. Including areas with no measurements within that box. When making a mean from those gridboxes to get a global or hemispheric mean you infill areas with no measurements with the global or hemispheric mean.

            That is the worst infilling method.

          • mpainter says:

            Absolutely you can choose not to fabricate data. You have swallowed the justification of the data fabricators. Like Mosher. Hilburn, your approval of surface data fabrication combined with your vehement posturing against satellite temperature data tells us all that we need to know about you. You should do some tree-ring climatology. It would fit you to a T and you would love it.

          • ehak says:

            mpainter: If you think interpolation is unacceptable fabrication for data, have a chat with Spencer & Christy about their MSU/AMSU data. You endorse a product where interpolation is used.

            For my part: I agree with them. That is a better method for infilling. Or fabrication as you prefer to call it.

          • mpainter says:

            Do accuse them of fabrication? Spencer and Christy? You give no substance to your accusation and you lack credibility.

            Call it interpolation, but that is just soft-peddling of fabrication. To be clear, I regard infilling and homogenization as fabrication. It is invented data. The result, in the hands of those that you find common cause with, is more spurious warming. This in addition to the spurious warming of the siteing problems.

            There is no question that the keepers of the surface datasets are desperate in their attempts to erase the pause.
            The crut3 plot against crut4 demonstrated this clearly.

            Give Mosher my amiable regards.

          • ehak says:

            bit chilly:

            Only 1200 km? That’s nothing compared to infilling with the hemispheric mean. There we have thousands of km

          • ehak says:

            mpainter continues his accusations vs Spencer and Christy for fabrication:

            “Call it interpolation, but that is just soft-peddling of fabrication.”

          • mpainter says:

            I refer everyone to my above comments. No need to say anything more about Kyle Hilburn’s tactics

          • bit chilly says:

            sorry i was not crystal clear there ehak. i mean stop infilling altogether. those grid boxes are man made constructs in an attempt to solve a problem. they are a poor solution and in no way representative of what is happening either in the atmosphere or oceans.

            stick to what we can measure. extrapolation has to be the worst method possible to make judgments on what a chaotic system is doing at any point in time.

          • ehak says:

            bit chilly:

            You prefer to stop infilling altogether.

            Trouble is: when you make an average of readings from different locations you perform infilling. Gridding is a method to avoid wrong weighting for areas with many measurements vs areas with few measurements. Example continental USA vs Northern Canada.

            If you do not address that problem your results will be very wrong. With a simple average of all readings with no area weighting you actually infill with an average where areas like USA and Europe will influence the result too much.

            A solution is to use bigger equal sized grids that covers most of the land areas. Like gistemp.

    • Kristian says:

      ehak says:
      “Suddenly after 1998 the thousands of land stations are supposed to wrong/biased?”

      Well, something apparently happened, didn’t it?
      http://woodfortrees.org/graph/crutem3vgl/from:1978/compress:12/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1978/offset:-0.02/compress:12
      http://woodfortrees.org/graph/best/from:1978/compress:12/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1978/offset:0.16/compress:12

      ehak, the problem is ALL in the surface records. They’ve been pushed ever upward, especially post 1997, because that’s when the “Pause” started, and the AGW proponents don’t like that one. So they have to adjust reality to fit with their agenda.

      This is how practical politics work. And I’m afraid you will simply have to live with us knowing about this fact of life …

      • mpainter says:

        How about it Hilburn/ehak. No response to these WFT graphics so thoughtfully presented by Kristian?

      • mpainter says:

        I would call your attention to the divergence between crutem 3 & 4. Can you see it? Also the agreement of RSS and crutem 3 this century. Any comments?

        • ehak says:

          Better coverage in crutem4.

          If mpainter wants to argue for no need to have good coverage he will remove the claim that MSU/AMSU is better because of better coverage.

          Go ahead mpainter.

          • mpainter says:

            Did they add some more spurious warming? Is that your “better coverage”?

            When the “keepers” of the surface datasets clean up their act and their data, then you will have a valid comparison with satellite temperature datasets. But not before, not now.
            Make mine satellite, thank you.

          • Kristian says:

            Yes, so that “better coverage” in CRUTEM4 only started to work in 1998? Is that what you’re saying, ehak?

            You do see it’s the exact same divergence pattern between C3 and C4 as there is between BEST and RSS, don’t you?

            And what “better coverage” are you talking about? Seems like you’re implying that before, there was no coverage whatsoever and after, there was all of a sudden full coverage in the Arctic region, say between 60-90N. Not so, ehak. There are a few extra stations here and there. Whose warming rates all seemingly for some reason started going bananas only post 1997, not before.

            What permillage of Earth’s total land surface do you think those extra stations cover? And so how much do you think they will have had to warm in those couple of jumps post 1997 in order for UEA’s CRU to justify an upward shift in their global average of ~0.1 degrees in 1999 and then another one around 2005 of an extra ~0.05?

            No, ehak. This is not about the station data itself. Or the coverage. The “better coverage” argument is only a cover-up, a smokescreen, an excuse. This is about what the agencies do with that data after it has been collected. THAT’S when the extra warming is being generated. You know, back in the war room.

          • ehak says:

            Sure is better coverage in crutem4:

            http://www.realclimate.org/images/crutem4.jpg

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/cru4-maps.gif

            But you can fix this Kristian. Make your own temperature index and remove the extra stations in crutem4. Sure will give a much more trustworthy temperature index.

            But you do have your conspiracy theories. Good news is: can be checked: See how the data have been changed for the same stations in crutem3 vs crutem4.

          • mpainter says:

            Hilburn says he is also well fooled. And, no, Phil “Nature trick” Jones would never fiddle with the data. Nor would James “boil the oceans” Hansen. Nor any of their associates. Far be it from them to fudge, fiddle and fix, says ehak Hilburn.

            Big problem, ehakhilburn, nobody believes you.

          • Kristian says:

            ehak,

            You have yet to answer the following: Why did the “better coverage” only start working on the added warming post 1997?

            Also, you claim CRUTEM4 is better than CRUTEM3 due to “better coverage”. Well, that “better coverage” is all in the NH, isn’t it. So why do we see the exact same pattern of added warming post 1997 in the SH as in the NH?
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/c3-vs-c4-sh-b.png
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/c3-vs-c4-nh-b.png

            You will note the much larger anomaly range in the NH, which means that the post-’97 lift in the SH is actually at least as significant relative to the mean anomaly as in the NH:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/c3-vs-c4-sh.png
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/c3-vs-c4-nh-c.png
            (Graphs tuned to provide same overall visual (not absolute) anomaly range.)

            So you will have to explain two peculiar circumstances, ehak:

            1) Why a substantial lift due to “better coverage” only post 1997?

            2) Why a substantial lift post 1997 due to “better coverage” at all in the SH?

          • ehak says:

            Kristian asks: “Why did the better coverage only start working on the added warming post 1997?”

            Because there were more measurements before. Less measurements after 1998. Both south and north. Besides: the difference in the south is not so large as you try to believe.

            This is well documented Kristian.

            http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem4/CRUTEM4_accepted.pdf

            Figure 1.

            Your theory is that the measurements were changed on a massive scale. A global conspiracy including all the meteorological institutions around the world.

            All you have to do now is to show some proof of that. In the meantime we can do a check for your delusional theories. Fast check for differences:

            http://woodfortrees.org/graph/crutem4vgl/from:2009/plot/crutem3vgl/from:2009

            Bigger differences in some months, typically in autumn, winter and spring. Large difference in November 2010. Let us pick that for the two series. From where does this difference come?

            http://i.imgur.com/AhVjtpb.gif

            The main reason for the difference is high temperatures in northern Canada and Russia where there are no measurements in crutem3. There are some boxes that changes from 3 to 4, but that goes both ways and cannot explain the difference (which is your conspiratorial theory.)

            Your turn Kristian. Show us the massive data manipulation.

            Or if you do not like this, stick to Berkeley Earth. Even more stations and a better method for infilling.

          • mpainter says:

            Nice try, ehak Hilburn, but the compared plots speak for themselves. You are merely sifting for the gullible. That activity will be more productive at HotWhopper, or SKS. You’re wasting your time here. And looking foolish, to boot.

          • mpainter says:

            Also, Hilburn, it doesn’t help your credibility to play the messenger-boy for Steven Mosher, who has his own problems in that regard.

          • markus says:

            q. why are deniers such conspiracy theorists?

            a. because they can’t argue on facts so have to resort to arguing from hidden motives by shadowy actors

      • ehak says:

        Other land datasets have the divergence from TLT land. Even Crutem3 with many missing gridcells in areas with most warming:

        http://woodfortrees.org/graph/rss-land/to:2014/compress:12/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.21/compress:12/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1998/to:2013/offset:-0.21/trend

        Kristian has to to is to demonstrate how this massive fraud happened. After 1998.

        • Kristian says:

          I don’t have to “demonstrate” anything, ehak. There’s nothing to demonstrate. When you see the massive upward adjustment post 1997 made between C3 and C4, do you seriously think that’s the first and only of its kind?

          These people want to get rid of the “Pause”. And that’s why they adjust. Up, up, up. Simple as that. There’s nothing physical about it.

          Here’s what’s physical, a direct physical connection, “tlt” and “OLR at the ToA”:
          https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/olr-vs-tlt.png

          There’s nothing significantly wrong with the satellites, ehak. CERES corroborates their temperature product splendidly. I’m sorry if this circumstance disappoints you …

          • David Appell says:

            Kristian: Did you read Roy’s post or not???

            THEY ARE DOING ADJUSTMENTS BY HAND.,

          • ehak says:

            Ceres is not a temperature index Kristian.

          • Kristian says:

            ehak,

            Did I say it was?

            But you do know about the connection between temperature and radiation, don’t you …?

          • ehak says:

            Kristian thinks a better insulated objected must radiate more. Sure does under the insulating layer. But not on the outside of the insulation.

            All you show is that the warming cannot be explained by more solar insolation (higher solar output and/or less clouds).

          • Kristian says:

            ehak says, February 4, 2016 at 5:47 AM:

            “Kristian thinks a better insulated objected must radiate more. Sure does under the insulating layer. But not on the outside of the insulation.”

            You’re such a clown, ehak.

            Your problem is that you don’t look at the available data before spouting your “theoretical” nonsense. Same with the CRUTEM3 vs. CRUTEM4 thing. “Better coverage” in the NH. Yes, then why is the same thing happening to the data in the SH, where there is no “better coverage”? And why only post 1997? Specifically during that abhorred “Pause” that you so badly want to get rid of?

            Yes, a better insulated object will radiate less out, as a consequence of a (conceptual) larger flux of radiation back in.

            The problem is that we don’t see this happening. Here’s the total DWLWIR ‘flux’ from the atmosphere to Earth’s global surface as estimated by CERES, 2000-2015:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/ceres-dwlwir.png

            Not really an upward trend, is there? Pretty much UAHv6 and RSSv3.3 tlt, only slightly more negative over time.

            At the same time, here’s Earth’s global surface heat loss through radiation (its ‘net LW’) according to CERES, 2000-2015:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/ceres-net-lw-sfc.png

            It has grown considerably LARGER over time (by almost 1.5 W/m^2 in 15 years). Which means it sheds its heat via IR more and more effectively as time goes by. Which does not point to a progressively strengthening radiative insulation, ehak. It points to a progressively weakening radiative insulation of our planet’s global surface.

            While this is all going on, Earth’s global surface apparently, again estimated by CERES, absorbs a larger net solar radiant flux (solar heat, ASR), not a smaller:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/ceres-asr-sfc.png

            What these data shows, ehak, is that any surface warming, if there is any, cannot be caused by an “enhanced rGHE”. Because it evidently isn’t enhanced. In fact, quite the opposite. And this even as the total concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere went up by 8.4% (2000-2015).

            The surface now (in 2015) cools more effectively through IR emission than before (in 2000), not less effectively, partly due to a lessening global atmospheric DWLWIR ‘flux’. Which sure doesn’t point to a warming troposphere over the period in question.

          • ehak says:

            Kristian: Do not let go of your crutem3 vs crutem4 claims (your CERES ramblings are just incredible – like what does increased heat loss from the surface mean if not increased surface temperature? Increased IR from the surface without warming of the surface? Utterly bizarre).

            Repeat: The coverage in the SH increases from 3 to 4. and the change is not so big as you think it is. The land area in SH is also much smaller than NH so a smaller change in number of observations will count more than in NH

            NH: Clearly better coverage. Northern Canada and Russia in particular. You can get the data yourself. Calculate crutem4 with all extra stations in crutem4 removed. According to your fraud theory the difference between such a dataset and crutem3 will the same as between full crutem4 and crutem3.

            There is your challenge Kristian. Show us.

          • Kristian says:

            ehak,

            “(your CERES ramblings are just incredible like what does increased heat loss from the surface mean if not increased surface temperature? Increased IR from the surface without warming of the surface? Utterly bizarre).”

            Hahaha! You’re just priceless! You don’t understand even the simplest thermodynamical principles, like what ‘net LW’ is, do you, ehak? ‘Net LW’ is the radiant HEAT. From a surface perspective, the Q_out …

            What is better insulation supposed to do? It’s supposed to DECREASE the warm object’s heat loss, in this case the global surface of the Earth. And so, let’s see if you’re able to put two and two together: If the heat loss isn’t decreasing, but rather INCREASING, is the insulation then getting better or worse …?

            The only bizarreness here is your blatant, utter denialism of common physical principles, ehak. Because they don’t fit with your dogma.

            The AGW idea specifically claims that the warming of the surface by an “enhanced rGHE” will come as a result of a DECREASE in the radiant heat loss (‘net LW’), through an INCREASE in total atmospheric DWLWIR to the surface. The heat loss is decreased and so it must warm to increase it BACK to where it were, to restore the balance between in and out (assuming the heat in (from the Sun) stays constant, which it doesn’t …). However, if the heat loss increases BEYOND where it were, then there will be cooling rather than further warming. That would defy the whole idea about “radiative forcing warming”.

            Well, ehak, as CERES shows you, the total atmospheric DWLWIR to the global surface ISN’T increasing. It’s decreasing. And so, as a part result of this, the radiant heat loss from the surface is INCREASING.

            Let’s see once again if you’re able to think this through for yourself. If the surface is warming (and, yes, the global surface indeed warmed from 2000 to 2015), but the DWLWIR is not increasing (rather the opposite) and the surface heat loss through IR is going UP, then it goes without saying that the warming of the surface has got exactly NOTHING to do with any hypothetically strengthened “atmospheric radiative forcing” on the surface. Simply because … it isn’t.

            The radiant heat loss simply isn’t reduced. And the “back radiation” simply isn’t enhanced.

            So what caused the general warming of the global surface from 2000 to 2015? Well, the ASR went up (according to CERES). So that contributes a bit. But not enough. Other surface heat losses besides the radiant one? Yup. Evaporation and conduction. Overall convective efficiency. This is all about dynamic surface processes, basically the oceans, mainly through the ENSO process, but also related surface phenomena like “The Blob”.

            “Repeat: The coverage in the SH increases from 3 to 4.”

            No. This is bullshit talk simply designed to avoid dealing with the glaring problem at hand: The “better coverage” argument is purely a NH one, and yet there is the same pattern of a sudden mean level rise in temp anomaly post 1997 in the SH as there is in the NH going from C3 to C4. And it all for some inexplicable reason starts only when the “Pause” starts. Not before. Funny that, isn’t it? Before 1997 there is a general rise anyway, both versions agree, so why adjust? But after, the rise halts. In C3. Which of course cannot be. And hence the “upgrade” to C4.

            “There is your challenge Kristian. Show us.”

            Hehe, there is no challenge. You’ve got nothing, ehak. I’ve already shown you how the C4 “upgrade” is a bogus upgrade.

          • ehak says:

            Long bizarre rambling from Kristian. CERES surface LW has increased. You said so. And that is correct. That means the surface temperature has increased.

            Now back to your crutem4-fraud theories. Show how the difference between crutem3 and crutem4 is not due to added observations.

            We both know you cannot.

          • Kristian says:

            You being unable to grasp what I’m talking about doesn’t make it a “bizarre rambling”, ehak. It’s only your cognitive dissonance speaking. Your CD reduction processes furiously at work.

            One more time, especially for you: The global surface of the Earth did warm from 2000 to 2015. But during that very same time, the surface also simultaneously strengthened its cooling ability through IR emission. You hear? It wasn’t weakened, ehak. It didn’t even stay constant. It was strengthened. And substantially so. Also, the DWLWIR went down, not up. Which means one thing, and one thing only: The surface warming CANNOT have been a result of a “radiative greenhouse effect” growing ever stronger as the atmospheric CO2 concentration grows. Because evidently it isn’t … It has to be caused by something else. Period.

            You said of the OLR at the ToA (which is basically Earth’s heat loss to space, directly equivalent to the ‘net LW’ (the radiant heat) from the surface up) that it shouldn’t increase even if the troposphere warmed. Why? Because the troposphere was “better insulated”, and that’s why it warmed.

            Well, then how come ‘net LW’ (the radiant heat loss) from the surface is allowed to increase as it warms? If this is also getting warmer because of “better insulation”? Then your whole postulated warming mechanism is effectively rendered completely useless, after all. Because that’s what it’s supposed to do: reduce the heat loss to force warming.

            Do you see where I’m getting with this? Read the bolded paragraph above once more, then maybe you’ll begin to understand. You cannot have it both ways, ehak. Sorry to disappoint you.

            Everyone with a sound, open, scientific mind reading what I write here and seeing my accompanying plots knows I’m right about the thermodynamics, about the CERES data and its implications for your beloved “AGW hypothesis”, and about the whole CRUTEM3 vs. CRUTEM4 deal. And all reading your posts here know you’ve got nothing left but vitriol. In fact, you never really had anything except your ready-made talking points. No substance, only pure, empty rhetoric.

            It just goes to show you are nothing but a troll πŸ™‚

            You still refuse to (properly) answer my two questions about C3 vs. C4 (evasive action is all we get):

            1) Why a “better coverage” rise in C4 above C3 only post 1997-98, when C3 goes flat? And why in sudden jumps? Why not before? Why not gradually all the way from the mid 70s? What’s the physical explanation in your mind?

            2) Why do we see a jumplike rise in C4 above C3 also in the SH, not just in the NH, post 1997, when in the SH there is no “better coverage” argument to be made? And why is this rise at least as significant in the SH as in the NH relative to the mean anomaly range? And again, why not before 1997? What’s going on?

            Can you answer these questions in an adult fashion, ehak? Or are we done here …?

          • ehak says:

            Kristian:

            Now it is you turn to answer your own questions. I have answered them already. Now it is your turn. In an adult fashion is also ok.

            Will be interesting. Especially after you stating this:

            “The global surface of the Earth did warm from 2000 to 2015.”

            You call that corroborated by CERES. Warming was the name.

          • Kristian says:

            Dum dee dum …

            ehak, it is for you to answer these questions. Because you is the one making the claim that “better coverage” is the simple reason why C4 rises above C3 after 1997, not me.

            Here’s your “better coverage”:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/crutem4-coverage-vs-c31.jpg
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/map-stations-c3-to-c4.png
            (“The blue dots show locations of the 176 stations that were removed in the transition from CRUTEM3 to CRUTEM4. The red dots shows the location of the 628 stations that were added.”)

            As any sane person will conclude from this, in the SH the “better coverage” argument is moot. And yet, the C4 mean temperature rises above the C3 mean temperature in the same manner in the SH as in the NH. Post 1997.

            “Will be interesting. Especially after you stating this:

            The global surface of the Earth did warm from 2000 to 2015.

            You call that corroborated by CERES. Warming was the name.”

            ehak, the world was in La Nina conditions in 2000 and in El Nino conditions in 2015. Of course the global surface of the Earth warmed between the two:
            http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/offset:-0.02/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/offset:-0.02/trend

            As you can see, there was also warming from 2000 to 2014, but much less pronounced. Because then we only had ‘near-El Nino’ conditions.

            Here’s the ‘CERES corroboration’ for you:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/pausen.png

            You can try and deny it, but the data speaks for itself πŸ™‚

          • markus says:

            Kristian probably also thinks the moon landing was faked and insists 9/11 looked like a controlled demolition. Some people just want to believe, despite the evidence.

        • ehak says:

          Those adjustments are about getting better coverage. Very simple.

          Can you perhaps alos show us how the data has been changed in Berkeley Earth after 1998?

          • David Appell says:

            Define “better.”

            Better according to what objective criteria?

          • ehak says:

            More is better. More measurements and more coverage is better. And that is most critical for the gridded datasets like crutem/hadcrut.

          • Rob Honeycutt says:

            How much better could it possibly be when the uncertainties in the satellite data are 5X greater than they are in the surface station data?

            http://skepticalscience.com/pics/rss_ensemble_box_rg.png

          • mpainter says:

            The two MSU/AMSU datasets agree very well. Show us the uncertainty in that agreement, please and thanks.

          • ehak says:

            mpainter thinks the two MSU/AMSU datasets agree very well.

            Actually there are more than two MSU/AMSU datasets. Not that impressive agreement. UAH’s different MSU/AMSU versions don’t even agree very well. The agreement between RSS TLT and UAH TMLT v6.beta4 is not that impressing either. There are some interesting differences.

          • mpainter says:

            Well now, Dr. Spencer says that his V6 agrees fairly well with RSS. But you say that he is wrong and that people should believe you. As in fat chance.

          • ehak says:

            mpainter is sure RSS and UAHv6 agrees well. Calls Spencer.

            Why not check. Have to stick to beta4 for now. Hard to keep up with all the changes.

            UAH TMLT land vs RSS Land:

            http://i.imgur.com/N2Mvpou.png

            RSS higher in the late 90ies and lower in the last years. Differences in diurnal drift adjustments? Perhaps this is fixed in beta5?

            Ocean:

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

            This time UAH dropping below RSS after 1998. Looks like a step change at the time for NOAA15. Differences in inter-satellite calibration?

            mpainter can of course be impressed by this. I’m not.

          • mpainter says:

            Of course your not impressed. But others can see for themselves and judge for themselves. You give no thought to your own credibility. Suits me.

    • Turbulent Eddie says:

      ehak,

      There are uncertainties with all the data sets.
      And I’m not arguing for GISS by any means.
      And UAH-lt shouldn’t necessarily track the surface.

      But if you look at BEST/GISS/UAH for land only,
      GISS & UAH-LT agree and vote BEST off the island
      .

      • Olof R says:

        Turbulent Eddie,

        You can’t use Gistemp dTs. It is a global 2m air temp index, not a pure land index. If you use a land mask on Gistemp, the trend becomes 0.267 C/dec during the satellite era, just like BEST land, and UAH v6 trend will diverge from it after 1998 as well..

        Btw, have you found any temperature index, surface or upper air, that track (verify) UAH v6 TLT or RSS TLT trends during the AMSU period (1998-now )? I have not…

        • Turbulent Eddie says:

          You cant use Gistemp dTs. It is a global 2m air temp index, not a pure land index.
          ???
          GISSTEMP dTs represents:
          Means Based on Land-Surface Air Temperature Anomalies Only (Meteorological Station Data, dTs)

          It is a pure land index

          LOTI is the “Land Ocean Temperature Index”.

          • Olof R says:

            Yes, Gistemp dTs is based on meteorological station data only, but coastal and island stations are extrapolated over oceans (stretched thinly of course). If you use a land mask you will get a similar trend as the other pure land indices, that already are land masked..

        • Turbulent Eddie says:

          Btw, have you found any temperature index, surface or upper air, that track (verify) UAH v6 TLT or RSS TLT trends during the AMSU period (1998-now )? I have not

          I do see the divergence you note during this period.

          But, I’m not extremely confident of any of the measurements ( Land, Ocean, Raob, or MSU ).

          • Olof R says:

            Well, if you really want a hiatus, you have to trust AMSU channel 5 only, or more specifically channel 5 onboard NOAA-15. The nearby AMSU-channels 4 and 6 do not suggest a pause, according to NOAA STAR..
            So, nothing else verifies channel 5, not even channel 5 as interpreted by UAH 5.6
            Everything else is wrong, of course.. πŸ˜‰

          • Olof R says:

            Yes, notice that the TMT trend of NOAA STAR is 70% larger than that of UAH v6. If you replace UAH TMT with STAR TMT in the UAH v6 TLT formula you get a trend of 0.187 C/decade for 1979- now.
            However, also STAR AMSU Channel 5 has a flat trend..
            Replace the dubious channel 5 with a weighted average of channel 4 and 6, and the pause disappears..
            Or use solely channel 4 which is a TLT in itself..

          • ehak says:

            As I understand this Star use RSS diurnal drift correction. Po-Chedley’s diurnal drift correction differs and produces higher trend.

            Spencer can of course correct me on this.

          • Kristian says:

            Olof R says:
            “Yes, notice that the TMT trend of NOAA STAR is 70% larger than that of UAH v6.”

            Don’t be disingenuous. The trend given is from 1979 to 2015, not from 1998 (or 1997) to 2015, and you know that. You also know that you were specifically asking for the period 1998-now, the “Hiatus” or “Pause”.

            You wrote:
            Btw, have you found any temperature index, surface or upper air, that track (verify) UAH v6 TLT or RSS TLT trends during the AMSU period (1998-now )? I have not

            Yes, NOAA STAR TMT and TUT both track (verify) UAH v6 TLT and RSS tlt trends perfectly during that period. I also pointed you to HadCRUt3 which does the same …

          • Olof R says:

            Kristian,
            You don’t seem to notice the answers you get elsewhere..
            Why should I use Crutem3 or Hadcrut3 to veryfy the pause? Is it scientifically sound to use an inferior discontinued temperature series, remove all the new stations, remove the highly motivated ship/buoy correction in Hadsst3, etc?

            Regarding TLT and TMT, if you have read what I’ve written, it all boils down to that nothing can verify the pause in AMSU channel 5 trends from UAH, RSS, or STAR (not even channel 5 by UAH v5.6)

            NOAA Star have produced AMSU-only series (from Nov 1998 to Dec 2011) for all AMSU-channels. Here is a poster (there is a paywalled paper with the same title):
            http://satelliteconferences.noaa.gov/2013/docs/Tuesday%20Poster%20Session%20Final%20Posters/T38_WenhuiWang.AMSUA%20Only%20Atmospheric%20Temperature%20Climate%20Data%20Records.NOAASatelliteMeeting2013.pdf

            Notice the trends in the lower right graph
            If you apply those values in the UAH v6 TLT formula you get the trend 0.042 C/dec
            Channel 4, a TLT in itself, has the trend 0.120 C/dec
            Make a reconstructed Channel 5 by interpolating channel 4 and 6 (the coefficents should be about 0.6 and 0.4 deduced by their weighting functions), which gives a trend of 0.094 C/dec. Put that value in the TLT formula and you get the trend 0.130 C/decade. 0.12-13 C/dec doesn’t suggest a pause.

            Something is obviously wrong with channel 5, and I suspect that the longest serving AMSU 5 onboard NOAA-15 is the main culprit. As a further evidence we can play with the channel trend values in Tsan Mo’s (2009) study of NOAA-15. The trend (1998-2007) of channel 4 is 0.15 C/decade higher than that inferred by the v6 TLT formula..

          • Kristian says:

            Olof R says, February 4, 2016 at 5:39 AM:

            “Kristian,
            You dont seem to notice the answers you get elsewhere..”

            And you don’t seem to notice my replies to those “answers”.

            “Why should I use Crutem3 or Hadcrut3 to veryfy the pause?”

            Because it is the better temperature series. It agrees well with the troposphere which agrees well with CERES OLR, both N and S of 55 degrees northern latitude. HadCRU (and GISS) simply invent extra warming that simply isn’t there north of this parallel to make it seem there is continued “global warming”, in order to further a preset agenda. This is completely obvious if you just look at the data:
            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/why-gistemp-loti-global-mean-is-wrong-and-hadcrut3-gl-is-right/
            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/why-gistemp-loti-global-mean-is-wrong-and-uahv6-tlt-gl-is-right/
            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/uah-v6-vs-ceres-ebaf-toa/

            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/pausen.png

            You clearly don’t want to look at the data. All you want is for AGW to be true, data or no data.

            “Is it scientifically sound to use an inferior discontinued temperature series, remove all the new stations, remove the highly motivated ship/buoy correction in Hadsst3, etc?”

            H4 is not “superior” just because they tell you so, Olof. Please stop being such a sheep. You need to take a good look at what they’re actually doing.

            For instance, why is CRUTEM3 and 4 tracking each other so well both in the NH and in the SH from 1970 up until 1997-1998, before 4 all of a sudden decides to make a jump up and stay significantly elevated above 3? Why is this happening not just in the NH, where there is the famous “better coverage”, but also (and just as much) in the SH? And why not before 1997-98 …?

            Also, HadSST2 saw a sudden spurious warming of ~0.09K across the 1997/98 transition, just when UKMO switched between data sources. You see this artificial lift quite clearly against all other global SST datasets. Yet it has never been corrected, not even so much as mentioned by the Hadley Centre or anyone else. The error was simply and silently carried over from HadSST2 to the new and “improved” HadSST3.

            Is this “scientifically sound” practice, Olof?

            “Regarding TLT and TMT, if you have read what Ive written, it all boils down to that nothing can verify the pause in AMSU channel 5 trends from UAH, RSS, or STAR (not even channel 5 by UAH v5.6)”

            Dear me. Take this with the UAH, RSS and STAR teams, Olof, if you consider this such a problem and such an flaw. You simply cannot handle the fact that the troposphere isn’t showing any sign of warming since 1997-98, can you?

            And the CERES EBAF ToA OLR product totally verifies the satellites’ tropospheric temperature evolution since 2000. Are you calling the precision of the CERES radiometers into question? Or the whole idea of tropospheric temperature vs. LW emission flux to space?

          • Olof R says:

            Kristian, I understand that you really miss the old “flat” indices.
            Crutem3 with its spurious cooling bias due to poor Arctic coverage and double weight to SH land in the global index.
            Hadsst2 with its spurious cooling caused by a shift in the proportion of buoy vs ship measurement, which effectively cause a cooling bias of 0.048 C between 1998 and 2001, when buoy measurements go from 50 to 90% of the total..

            Also, OLR is not a temperature index. In the short term i may reflect temperatures in the upper troposphere that radiates directly to space. However, in the long run it is supposed to be relatively flat, with a small decrease that reflect the AGW-induced trapping of heat in the global system. I doubt that the satellite measured TOA imbalance is accurate enough to detect those small longterm changes. What is the accuracy, +/4 W/m2 or +/- 7 W/m2?

            I also notice that you try with some authority arguments.. Well, in that case I trust Carl Mears, who says that the trends of TLT satellite measurement are uncertain, about five times more uncertain than surface indices.
            And the single largest intersatellite uncertainty is the merging of MSU 2 onboard NOAA-14 and AMSU 5 onboard NOAA-15. from Mears et al 2011:
            “[31] Examination of the differences between TMT from MSU channel 2 on NOAA-14 and AMSU channel 5 on NOAA-15 shows a long-term trend difference, with NOAA-15 cooling at a rate of 0.2 K per decade relative to NOAA-14 over the July 1998 to December 2004 period of overlap. This trend difference is not present for the other channel pairs, including, to our surprise, TLT, and is more than 2.5 times larger than the trend difference for any pair of MSU satellites with more than 18 months of overlapping observations. This trend difference is too large to explain using the difference between the MSU and AMSU TMT weighting functions. It is about 100 times larger than the trend difference simulated using HadAT data over the overlap period. The cause is not known and could be a drift in calibration in one or both of the satellites that is not explained by our calibration error model (equation (3)). Since we do not know which satellite is closer to being correct, we treat this drift as an additional source of uncertainty. It is unlikely that the drift is caused by errors in the diurnal adjustment because the magnitude of the drift is similar for land-only and ocean-only averages, which is unlikely to be the case for errors in the diurnal cycle.”

        • Kristian says:

          Olof R, try this:
          https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/pause-manifest.png

          HadCRUt3 is it. Strongly corroborated by CERES.

      • David Appell says:

        Eddie: UAH and RSS aren’t meant to track the surface.

        • Kristian says:

          Yes, they are. The troposphere is not meant to move anywhere without the surface moving there first. So any significant discrepancy between the two over more than just a year or two is indeed suspicious.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      @ehak…”This is RSS”.

      It’s actually RSS versus BEST, a mythical statistical fairy tale that has been debunked by one of it’s co-authors, Dr. Judith Curry.

      Where did you get that graph, at wood-for-trees? It certainly has no likeness to the RSS graph, which parallels the UAh graph.

      • ehak says:

        Really. Curry has debunked BEST.

        Please tell me where she has done that.

        Should anyone trust someone who does not know where to get RSS data?

  6. RW says:

    Thanks for the update. Looks like this El Nino is really getting going now. It will be interesting to see what it does next month.

    • Turbulent Eddie says:

      El Nino seems to be fading, but the global temperatures seem to lag the effects by a few months.

  7. Thanks, Dr. Spencer.

    The pages at http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ and http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-january-2016-0-54-deg-c/
    are not showing the temperature graphic.

    Anyway, I was able to update your graphic in my pages.

  8. Also, the December 2015 value was 0.44 deg. C, not +0.45 deg. C.
    See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-dec-2015-0-44-deg-c/

    Thanks again, the information you make available is very valuable.

    • Werner Brozek says:

      Also, the December 2015 value was 0.44 deg. C, not +0.45 deg. C.

      Almost every monthly value for 2015 is different from what was given last month. Last month, the 2015 12 month average was 0.266. Now, that same average is 0.264. For the 12 months of 2015 as given a month ago, see my post in section 3 here:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/27/final-2015-statistics-now-includes-december-data/

      • Richard Barraclough says:

        If you calculate the least-squares regression line by using the Beta4 version, together with January’s anomaly of 0.54, then the Pause has indeed disappeared. Not reduced in length by a couple of months, but vanished entirely.

        To be sure, we must wait for the Beta5 dataset to be downloaded, but according to Dr. Spencer, the overall trend is not significantly different in his latest version.

        You can still find a Pause in the RSS dataset, at least for the next couple of months

        • Lewis says:

          Pause is gone.

          Good, I was hoping the earth would continue to warm and we could be done with Ice and Snow, the growing season will be longer and we will need less energy to keep us warm and dry.

          Otherwise, it will get colder, the oceans will retreat as the ice packs advance, the growing season will get shorter and there won’t be enough energy to keep us all warm.

          • David Appell says:

            And who cares about the 3 billion people who live in the tropics, right?

          • mpainter says:

            Their governments care, and they are working hard on providing their citizens with modern benefits. Which means energy. Which means electricity, infrastructure, etc. And fossil fuels.

            Thus these underprivileged can enjoy air conditioning, clean energy and cooking (indoor pollution from wood or such fuel is a killer), and generally better lives.

            And David Appell gashes his teeth at this while mouthing concerns about their welfare. Thus David Appell.

          • David Appell says:

            They deserve electricity. But the haven’t caused much global warming — the people of the US & UK have caused more than anyone. Morally, we therefore ought to be the first to clean up the waste we’ve spewed.

          • mpainter says:

            Good. We will get the global warmers to fork over, as action commensurate with their beliefs. Is that your thinking, David?

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, those who have caused the most climate change should (1) clean that waste up, (2) lead in installing clean energy, and (3) paying for the damage their wastes have created.

            It’s no less than we’d expect for a polluting neighbor down the street….

          • Mathius says:

            It sounds to me like David Appell approves of global wealth redistribution and is using global warming to justify that shift in wealth.

            Now if only the believers lead by example…

          • Mathius says:

            David Appell, does this also mean we should get a refund from all these poorer countries that grow more crops from increased CO2 due to our emissions?

            Gotta be fair to everyone.

          • Mathius says:

            Could you imagine the consequences of India and China cleaning up after their act and paying their dues to the rest of the world for what they caused? My goodness! Talk about a major life crisis for their poor!

            I can only hope the lunatic talks remain talks.

          • mpainter says:

            Let’s start with you David. Please calculate you annual carbon footprint and fork it over to, ah, someone in the Andaman Islands. Tell him compliments of mpainter.

          • David Appell says:

            Last time I calculated my carbon footprint, it was 60% of the average American’s.

            But individual actions aren’t the solution — that’s part of the problem. The solutions must happen on the institutional level.

          • David Appell says:

            “We will get the global warmers to fork over, as action commensurate with their beliefs. Is that your thinking, David?”

            Americans are the energy hogs of the world.

          • mpainter says:

            To their great benefit, thanks for the plant food, America. Our pleasure, Mr. Under nourished third world person struggling for a better existence.

          • David Appell says:

            People aren’t plants.

            And what crops are being produced are mostly inferior as food:

            Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein. Its going to be fairly universal that well be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and its not just protein its also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.
            – University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
            http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/10/crop-nutrition//2014

            “We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
            — “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
            http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/06/1415181112

            “Suitable Days for Plant Growth Disappear under Projected Climate Change: Potential Human and Biotic Vulnerability,”
            — Camilo Mora et al, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015
            http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002167

          • mpainter says:

            Yes, your studies that prove CO2 is bad for plants. Now your task is to make people believe them.

            Question: Do you charge by the hour or by the job? My guess is by the hour, with no guarantee that anyone will believe you.
            You are unclean and base.

          • David Appell says:

            I go by the studies. You deny them.

          • bit chilly says:

            david, how much warming has there been in the tropics ? and how much is expected ? not a lot of either from what i can gather.

          • bit chilly says:

            david, did you read any of those links you posted. you forget to mention the positive effects mentioned and the biggest factor is they all rely on continued warming in line with modeled projections. now how likely is that considering the model/reality divergence problem we had at the moment ?

          • mpainter says:

            Good question, bit chilly. I do not believe that Appell reads his links. He seldom shows any familiarity with them. Quite strange.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            @Appell…”And who cares about the 3 billion people who live in the tropics, right?”

            Or who troll here from skepticalscience.

            What do you call a climate alarmist at the bottom of the ocean?

            A good start.

      • David Appell says:

        Werner: How are you getting numbers to 3 significant digits when UAH only provides their numbers to 2 significant digits?

  9. Paul Hahnel says:

    Interesting that your Jan 1998 El Nino temperature is at +.48*C and your Jan 2016 El Nino temp is at +.54*C. This years El Nino temperature is ahead of your 1998 version.

    • Werner Brozek says:

      As well, the 1998 12 month average for both UAH and RSS was virtually the same as the January 1998 anomaly. So if history repeats itself, 2016 will set a new record, at least with UAH so far.

    • Werner Brozek says:

      Also, this time, the December to January jump was 0.09. In 1997/1998, that jump (from beta4) was 0.23. Does this have any significance?

      • Kristian says:

        Of course it does.

        Why would global temps necessarily continue to rise now as they did in 1998 past January, when taking into consideration how the two ENSO events have affected them over the last few months:

        1997/98 (tlt gl, UAHv6)
        Sep 0.045 0
        Oct 0.097 +0.052
        Nov 0.093 -0.004
        Dec 0.260 +0.167
        Jan 0.491 +0.231
        – – –
        Feb 0.665 +0.174
        Mar 0.482 -0.183
        Apr 0.742 +0.260

        2015/16 (tlt gl, UAHv6)
        Sep 0.250 0
        Oct 0.425 +0.175
        Nov 0.329 -0.096
        Dec 0.443 +0.114
        Jan 0.54? +0.1

      • Richard M says:

        This is likely the key difference. 1997 saw a huge increase coming out of early La Nina conditions. 2015 came out of weak El Nino conditions. As a result the momentum was much stronger in the 97-98 El Nino.

        I expect this will show itself in the coming months. The warming will be lower and end sooner. Of course, this may also lead to a weaker La Nina.

  10. DougCotton says:

    Roy and others – I suggest you read about the THREE MAJOR MISTAKES in CLIMATOLOGY TEXTS as summarized in this comment.

  11. Curious says:

    Can Dr Spencer give his opinion on the divergence of balloon radiosone and satellite temperature measurements since around 2011?

    • Richard M says:

      There is no global radiosonde network. What are you referring to?

      • mpainter says:

        Richard, from Wikipedia: there is, globally, over 800 radiosonde stations that collect data daily.

    • curious says:

      They used balloon data to test the satellite readings because balloon-borne thermometers and satellites both measure temperatures in deep layers of the atmosphere — comparing apples to apples.

      “There is a 94 to 98 percent correlation between the satellite data and the different balloon datasets,” said Christy. “The more difficult statistic to measure, the overall trend in the lower troposphere, agreed so well it was difficult to estimate the error bars.”

  12. DougCotton says:

    Roy – Battery Powered towns – This could be worth an article

    There has just been aired on ABC TV in Australia a fascinating documentary about battery powered homes and developments, concluding with discussion about an Australian invention that I believe will turn the energy market on its head.

    Australia is the world “testing ground” for battery storage of solar generated power. There’s even a whole community being built with thousands of dwellings in Western Australia, with every house solar powered and huge community lithium ion battery banks.

    But the innovation that struck me is an invention by an Australian of a new zine bromine battery that uses a fire-resistant gel (rather than a liquid) and these batteries are expected to be built into future buildings (normal and high rise) as insulating wall panels, presumably saving the need for insulation bats and of course saving space.

    It does seem inevitable that, with lower battery costs, solar power will become cheaper than grid power in Australia, possibly within two or three years I think. It is already possible to get a solar panel and battery pack for about US $7,000 and so homes can use their own solar power at night and on cloudy days.

    Of course there’s nothing to be achieved by reducing CO2 output because correct physics proves carbon dioxide cools a little rather than warms, but I like the idea of saving money. An interesting software package enables you to sell surplus battery-stored power back to the grid just when the instantaneous price is best. This happens when there is sudden demand on the grid (and Australia’s Eastern grid is the largest in the world) and coal-fired power stations cannot gear up quickly enough, although gas and hydro power stations can and they get paid premium prices when this happens.

    • DougCotton says:

      Footnote:

      Some details about existing ZINC BROMINE BATTERIES …

      “The predominantly aqueous electrolyte is composed of zinc bromide salt dissolved in water” [source]

      The Australian invention uses a gel instead, so flexible panel batteries can be built for use within building walls.

      Small versions of the zinc bromine gel battery can be used in mobile phones and can be charged in just a few minutes.

      The market for these will be huge, and so costs should come down also.

      • crakar24 says:

        I watched that Doug, the price is still out of the reach of the common man I get 24 cents per kw now, why spend 15k to get the same thing. Also most solar systems are on grid due to gov regs

        • DougCotton says:

          The users interviewed only took less than about 5% of their requirements from the grid. I agree that current prices are a little too high for most, except for the offer at under AU $10,000 (US $7,000) in South Australia including batteries. We spend about $3,000 a year in our home, so I consider $10,000 to $12,000 capital would be worthwhile, being recouped in perhaps five years after spending a little for grid power. Remember too that one firm is offering a lease or rental agreement for the equipment.

  13. Steve Ta says:

    I’m surprised to see that the west antarctic peninsula seems cooler in the LT trend image – I thought it was fairly well established that the peninsula had warmed significantly more than most of the antarctic.

    • sod says:

      Looks like a pretty serious problem to me. Expect version 7.8.c soon.

    • Kristian says:

      The Antarctic Peninsula basically hasn’t warmed at all over the last 30-35 years. That’s conveniently ‘overlooked’ (as in never mentioned) by the Climate Establishment. Notice how they always talk about that massive warming over the last 50 or 60 years:
      https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/a-case-to-prove-a-point-the-claims-of-major-ongoing-antarctic-peninsula-warming/

      • Turbulent Eddie says:

        Very good.

        Most of the station data series have big holes in them which are massaged together. Further, nearly all the stations are on the coast line and the SSTs of the Southern Ocean indicate cooling, not warming.
        Further, there is a lot of natural variability of the sea ice. When sea ice is thick, the overlying surface receives much less oceanic heat. When the sea ice is thin or broken, much more oceanic heat is available. There’s no particular physical reason to believe that a narrow peninsula, surrounded by cooling waters, should exhibit a warming trend.

        • mpainter says:

          Also, latest study from NASA (Zwolle,2015) shows Antartica to be gaining mass this century. So much for the Antarctic panic mongering. Turns out that the GIA adjustment in previous studies had been way exaggerated. The truth is coming out, bit by bit, despite the frantic efforts of the global warmers to suppress it.

          • David Appell says:

            Lots of scientists cautioned about this finding. And it contradicts a paper Zwally co-wrote juat a few years ago.

          • mpainter says:

            An investigator is not entitled to use new information and improved data?

            The old Zwolle passes, but the new Zwolle is blasphemy, right David? New information and better data be damned, right David?

          • mpainter says:

            By the way, Steve McIntyre posted a review of the literature on Antarctic mass balance studies on December 3 last year. An excellent and thorough analysis in the usual style of the author. He discusses Zwolle, among others. He also makes it clear that faulty GIA (glacial isostatic adjustments) were used in the earlier studies. Most informative.

          • David Appell says:

            It’s “Zwally,” not “Zwolle.”

          • mpainter says:

            How right you are! My homemade name derivative got stuck in place of the actual. Zwally, folks, not Zwolle. Thanks for the correction.

      • mpainter says:

        Yep, good post. West Anarctica is fascinating, with its high accumulation rates and high loss rates. No permafrost beneath the glaciers, instead there are water saturated sediments (permafrost is over 1,000 meters depth in sediments of the lower Lena river of Siberia). The huge Larsen ice shelf is inexplicable in terms of its origin: the narrow scythe-like West Antarctic peninsula. It’s sudden disintegration is likewise unexplained. Also, thin crust, high geothermal flow. None of these peculiarities are explained, AFAIK.

      • David Appell says:

        Kristian: Do you think every region of the globe has to change monotically at the same rate for AGW to be true?

        There’s also a patch in the N Atlantic that’s colder than almost all others….

        • Kristian says:

          Appell asks:
          “Kristian: Do you think every region of the globe has to change monotically at the same rate for AGW to be true?”

          No. But then again, I’m not the one suggesting that the Antarctic Peninsula is currently warming – due specifically to AGW – at a higher rate than almost any other region on Earth, now is it?

        • bit chilly says:

          that patch is the amo moving into the cool phase david, 30 years of north atlantic cool phase to come. there goes any hope the met office had for a warming trend for northern europe in the coming decade.

          • David Appell says:

            Meanwhile, the PDO recently flipped to its positive phase.

          • mpainter says:

            Vain hope, David. All indices are turning a lovely shade of blue.

          • David Appell says:

            False — the PDO flipped positive (warm phase) around summer of 2014. It’s still going strong.

            Data:
            http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

          • Richard M says:

            David, the PDO is always positive during an EL Nino. Really, you didn’t know this?

          • David Appell says:

            Richard M says:
            “David, the PDO is always positive during an EL Nino.”

            False.

            It wasn’t positive for the 2010 El Nino.

            Really, you didnt know this?

          • bit chilly says:

            nope , pdo flipped cool several years ago david.small warming or cooling periods during the two phases have happened before. as the amo is now going cool as well the next few years of climate debate will be interesting.

            i think long term both the pdo and amo will show further cycles of differing amplitude over longer periods of time. the problem today like much of the climate debate is we just do not have the data to cover the periods of time required to make any significant judgements. it is all opinion and speculation.

            the scientific method will win out in the end,it is just unfortunate the timescales involved will see all those currently interested long gone before the wheat is sorted from the chaff.

          • Richard M says:

            David, early in the 2009-10 El Nino the Pacific took a positive PDO configuration (1/2010). It didn’t last long since the overall PDO tries to return to a negative state faster when in the -PDO phase.

            If it wasn’t for the blob we would likely be seeing this right now as well.

          • bit chilly says:

            the blob is no more richard, although it does appear to have a doppleganger appearing in the southern hemisphere πŸ™‚ .i think we will now see a switch to prevailing la nina’s as what excess heat was stored in the oceans looks to have left with the non descript el nino we just had .

      • ehak says:

        But the part to the east in Queen Maud land seems to be warming fast according to UAH.

        Funny that. The land measurements does not show the same warming.

        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_250km_Trnd112_1979_2015_9999__180_90_0__2__CE/amaps.png

        The Peninsula does not have the highest warming after 1979. Actually the tip (where you have checked) has no warming after 1979.

        Happy to confirm the land measurements Kristian?

      • ehak says:

        Another aspect of this:

        Kristian says O’Donnel et al (including McIntyre) was wrong and Steig et al was right. Not the strong warming over the Peninsula after all:

        http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/02/odonnell-et-al-2010-refutes-steig-et-al-2009/

  14. sod says:

    I am still wondering about the trend. did the cooling meme vanish?

    http://davidappell.blogspot.de/2016/01/ted-cruz-your-18-years-of-no-satellite.html

    • Richard M says:

      What part of El Nino don’t you understand?

      • David Appell says:

        Richard: What part of La Ninas don’t you understand?

        • Richard M says:

          I understand we will soon get another La Nina that will balance out the current El Nino just like happens after all strong El Nino events. The pause will very likely resume and will quickly surpass 20 years. Will you then admit AGW is at most a small effect?

          • David Appell says:

            Really? Australian’s Bureau of Meteorology: “Based on the 26 El Nio events since 1900, around 50% have been followed by a neutral year, and 40% have been followed by La Nia.

            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

          • mpainter says:

            Never. The Appell types will never abandon their alarmism. The very thought of doing so deranges their minds.

          • David Appell says:

            It is hardly alarmist to quote the Australian Bureau of Meterology on historical data for El Ninos.

          • mpainter says:

            I addressed my comment to Richard M, not you, unclean one.

          • David Appell says:

            Doesn’t matter — you’re just as wrong.

          • geran says:

            This is another perfect example of how Davie plays pseudoscience.

            Above, Richard M stated: “I understand we will soon get another La Nina that will balance out the current El Nino just like happens after all strong El Nino events.”

            Davie objected to that. He linked to the BOM page and quoted “…around 50% have been followed by a neutral year, and 40% have been followed by La Nina”. So, Davie was unwittingly confirming that Richard M stated!

            But, it gets worse for Davie. The very link he displayed contains this:

            “Close to the equator, the surface of the Pacific Ocean has now cooled by 0.5 C since the El Nino peaked in late 2015. Below the ocean surface, cooler than average waters now extend into the central tropical Pacific Ocean.”

            All that “cooling” going on, that Davie cannot see.

            Hilarious.

          • mpainter says:

            Right, geran, good spot. Appell does not seem to care about what sort of impression he makes.

          • Richard M says:

            David shows his dishonesty. Note I stated STRONG El Nino and David responds with nothing to do with STRONG El Nino events. Look at 2010, 1998, 1983 and 1972. Yup, every one followed by a La Nina.

            Why is it that AGW alarmists are always so dishonest?

    • Turbulent Eddie says:

      I suspect there is still a negative trend since 1998 ( though that may not last through April, when, for the 97/98 El Nino temperatures peaked ). But Spencer and Christy have been pretty consistent in claming not that there’s not warming, but that the Hot Spot has not appeared.

      Why no Hot Spot?

      It could be a result of the cooling Eastern Pacific oceans. I looked at the RATPAC stations excluding the Eastern Pacific and there is a very slight intimation of a warm spot.

      It could also be a fundamental failure to capture the process of atmospheric change. RF, anyway, conceives of forcing at the top of the troposphere. But RF is nuanced, occurring for every layer within, not just for the troposphere as a whole. Most of the forcing occurs for the lower half of the troposphere and very little occurs for the upper half of the troposphere. I accept the theory which says convection should transfer the imbalance, but perhaps something’s wrong. And the Hot Spot is part of the negative feedback ( the ‘Lapse Rate Feedback’ ). So warming is supposed to cause the Hot Spot, but the Hot Spot is supposed to cause cooling. Perhaps timing or precedence of process are screwed up some how.

      • David Appell says:

        According to my spreadsheet, there is one and only one month which, if cherry picked as the starting point, gives a negative slope to the present: December 1997, for which the slope is -0.00002 C/decade.

        The R^2 for that fit is 4.0e-11.

        Let’s see how Werner will hay from this.

        PS: This may change as adjustments to months prior to Jan15 are posted.

        • sod says:

          thanks for the work.

          Sceptics will stick to the cooling trend then…

        • Richard M says:

          It is irrelevant. Ending a trend during an El Nino is just cherry picking. The fact the pause has lasted this long into the El Nino is an indication that we’ve been cooling. If this continues then the cooling will become even more evident once the coming La Nina kicks in.

          And no, skeptics cannot cherry pick. That’s just the way nature works.

        • Richard Barraclough says:

          According to the Beta 4 figures I downloaded, the slope has gone positive even from the “last month standing”, December 1997. I get a positive slope of 0.001 deg C/decade from then.

          Perhaps one of us is more up to date on the various adjustments, but when the promised Beta5 figures become available, we’ll know for sure

      • David Appell says:

        Re: hot spot

        “Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2),” Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 054007.
        http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/article

        Here’s the relevant figure from that paper:

        http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/05/14/a-global-warming-fingerprint-confirmed-upper-troposphere-warming/

        • Turbulent Eddie says:

          Yes, K is for Kriging

          May not be valid for RAOB ( assumes homogeneity ) and not maintained

          Here are RATPAC and MSU variants through 2015

          No Hot Spot.

        • David Appell says:

          What’s wrong with kriging?

          • mpainter says:

            It gives temperature 4 above the actual. That’s what’s wrong with kriging.

            Of course, no fault in that if you are David Appell.

          • Whats wrong with kriging?

            Kriging assumes a homogeneous distribution.

            If you examine the RAOB data, the UAH data, and even the land/ocean data, you’ll see plenty of variations within the spacing raob station spacing that indicate INhomogeneity.

          • David Appell says:

            Kriging does not assume a homogenous disribution. If there was homogeneous distribution, kriging wouldn’t be necessary.

          • geran says:

            Davie, if you have to resort to Kriging to find any warming, you have lost the data battle. But, you already knew that, you just won’t admit it to yourself.

          • David Appell says:

            temperature 4?

            Is that like ice 9?

          • David Appell says:

            “if you have to resort to Kriging to find any warming, you have lost the data battle.”

            Why?

          • geran says:

            Davie asks “Why?”

            Davie, in pseudoscience, if the data do not fit your agenda, it is then necessary to “adjust” the data. Kriging is a useful tool, if used correctly. But, if used incorrectly, it becomes a tool to support the religion of AGW.

            Thanks for asking.

          • Kriging does not assume a homogenous disribution.

            ESRI:

            “Kriging is based on regionalized variable theory, which assumes that the spatial variation in the data being modeled is homogeneous across the surface.”

          • bit chilly says:

            david, assume your kitchen in your house is the planet. the oven is on, the fridge is on, the freezer is on and you are making toast. you split it up into grid boxes that individually contain the different appliances and you only have temperature measuring equipment in the toaster and oven grid boxes.

            these are the figures you use in your calculation to get an average temperature for your kitchen. note, if you cannot stand the kriged heat in the kitchen it is maybe best to get out.

            the above example can be reversed for those of a catastrophic coming cooling persuasion.

  15. David Appell says:

    Warmest January in the UAH records, following the warmest Oct, Nov and Dec. Warmest 15-yr period. Warmest 30-yr period.

    May change slightly as adjustments to months prior to Jan15 come with the full dataset.

  16. Turbulent Eddie says:

    “Warmest January in the UAH records, following the warmest Oct, Nov and Dec. Warmest 15-yr period. Warmest 30-yr period.”

    Yes. And you’re alive and well ( though gaining too much weight ), to hyperventilate about it.

    There is warming but not climate change. Why? because neither warming, nor CO2 change the forces that generate motion which causes climate. People who study the atmosphere understand this.People who are motivated by political agendas make up all kinds of fantasies, but they are false.

    So there’ll be some warming, but not much and not for long. ( Remember, the singularity is at hand, and humans are less and less valuable, meaning they won’t be around for much longer ).

    • mpainter says:

      Big secret that the AGW crowd will never admit to: geography determines climate, not CO2. And geography does not change.

      Concerning the warming, it was a step-up circa 2000-2002. The trend lines superimposed over the last thirty five years of data are artificial: a step-up is not a trend.

      • Donald says:

        mpainter,

        that seems like an odd claim to make: do you know anybody who claims that the configuration of continents does not have an effect on climate? Anyone who disputes, not just the effects of an open polar ocean or the effects of North and South America joining, but who dispute that these attributes have any effect on climate?

        • mpainter says:

          Key words: climate change.
          Where have you been and what climate change? Has geography changed?..nope.
          Has climate changed?…nope.
          The AGW crowd is trying to hype an incremental global temperature anomaly into

          CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

          Who is fooled? Not me.

          • David Appell says:

            “Has climate changed?nope.”

            This kind of stuff is why you have no credibility here.

          • mpainter says:

            “The AGW crowd is trying to hype an incremental global temperature anomaly into

            CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

            Who is fooled? Not me.”

            Appell is fooled, among others.

          • Donald says:

            mpainter,

            So your point is not that the AGW crowd disputes the relevance of geography on climate, but rather that they also believe that CO2 plays a part in climate… I’m not sure why you think this is news.

            As for your claim that climate has not changed (and is, I suppose, not in the process of changing) this really depends on how you define what is meant by climate change, and whether the recent changes in heat content meet your threshold for whatever definition you are using.

          • David Appell says:

            The AGW crowd is trying to hype an incremental global temperature anomaly into CLIMATE CHANGE!!!”

            Incremental in what way?

            We’ve had about 1/8th – 1/10th of the warming from recent glacial-to-interglacial oscillations, which saw 2 miles of ice over Chicago.

            10 percent of an inverse ice age. And the warming won’t stop here….

          • Mathius says:

            You guys do realize the point mpainter was trying to make right?

            The climate in Dallas today… is no different than the climate in Dallas 75 years ago.

            Why? The warming the earth has seen has been very subtle. Likely unrecognizable without instruments to record such small changes.

            So no. Climate has not changed for Dallas. Expect the same stuff there today as there was 75 years ago. Straight and simple.

          • Lewis says:

            Malthus etc make the point that the climate is now similar to what it was 75 years ago. Exactly so.

            To reiterate, without the delicate instruments for measuring minute differences, we wouldn’t know the difference. Seriously David, you want us to believe that 1/10 of a degree difference (you pick c or f) in temperature is climate change!

            Bah.

            Additionally, the alarmists want others to join them in punishing the evil doers – whoever they are – which will be whoever they oppose politically.

            Sacrificing virgins will do in a pinch, I expect.

          • DougCotton says:

            There’s no science in what you write, Lewis. You don’t know why the physics that lukes and warmists use is wrong, whereas I do know and, in addition, I have used the Second Law of Thermodynamics to explain what does happen.

          • Ball4 says:

            Doug has incorrectly used 2LOT; has only faulty assertion with no proof by atm. test. His website is to be avoided.

          • DougCotton says:

            There is absolutely no relevant testing done by Hansen, Roy Spencer, Pierrehumbert or any IPCC authors, as explained here Ball4.

          • Ball4 says:

            Testing on Earth atm. in absence of IR-active gases is impossible Doug, could be a good reason there are no such tests.

        • mpainter says:

          Donald, let’s see you declare that CO2 determines climate.

          • Donald says:

            mpainter,

            You seem to be stuck in a false dichotomy. Of course CO2 affects climate: GHGs in total have a far greater effect on our current environment than does the current geographical structure of the oceans and land masses.

            Does CO2 “determine” climate? Nobody in their right mind would suggest such a thing. Do you actually believe that “the AGW crowd” has that as some kind of tenet of faith?

            Here is a question for you: what evidence would you accept as reasonable proof that climate _is_ changing, at least more so than could be explained by changes in geography?

          • mpainter says:

            Donald, what climate sensitivity? If H2O is not a positive feedback, there is no problem. No one seems to really know, all one great big ?

            But the alarmists wail and gash themselves with knives before the altar, just in case the worst might happen.

            And here you come, saying that maybe yes but maybe not. And then you say

            “at least more so than could be explained by changes in geography.”

            You reveal your numbed neurons, the victims of CO2 on the brain.

          • David Appell says:

            Water vapor is obviously a positive feedback. The only question is determining how much.

          • Donald says:

            mpainter,

            you seem to be responding to someone who is not posting on this site… or at least, not my posts.

            If you want to seem to be responding in good faith, you should at least try not to misrepresent your interlocutors’ statements.

            Specifically, I did _not_ say “maybe yes but maybe not”. I did explain how you presented a false dichotomy. If you disagree that you did so, you could have chosen to defend the phrasing of your question, instead of galloping off in your preferred direction, regardless of my response.

            So again, I will ask: “what evidence would you accept as reasonable proof that climate _is_ changing?”

          • mpainter says:

            You are in na na land asking me to give you na na replies.

            Let’s turn it around. What evidence would you accept that climate sensitivity was close to 1?

          • boris says:

            mpainter I’d like to point out that in his post Donald stepped away and said “No one says that CO2 is the main driver…” Which is exactly the whole point of the debate and the reason for great big meetings of UN VIPs and sweeping regulatory action by the EPA that threatens economic chaos as the Industrial Nations stop “polluting with CO2” If anybody really cares about CO2 they should be screaming at the top of their lungs to streamline the regulatory burden and approval process to construct nuclear power plants.

          • Donald says:

            Boris,

            Now _you_ have caught the bug. You wrote the following:

            [Donald stepped away and said No one says that CO2 is the main driver ]

            To be very, very clear, I did not write the words, in quotes, that you attributed to me. You just invented words, and stated that I wrote them.

            Is there something about this site that attracts intellectual dishonesty?

            Now, it is possible you were never taught the proper methods to quote, paraphrase or refer to others’ ideas – so I will give you a pass.

            However, if you were trying to paraphrase me, you would do well to try to figure out the difference between whether CO2 “determine”s climate and CO2 being “the main driver…” (your words, and you did not even specify what you were positing CO2 was the main driver _of_)

          • Donald says:

            For some reason, the double quotes were dropped from my last post:

            That should have read, with double quotes before ‘No’ and after ‘driver’:

            [Donald stepped away and said “No one says that CO2 is the main driver” ]

          • mpainter says:

            Climate sensitivity = 1

            That’s all, folks. End of farce.

          • David Appell says:

            1 what? Climate sensitivity is not a unitless number.

          • geran says:

            Davie, the units are “Hiroshima bombs per parsec squared”.

            Sheeeesh, and you’re supposed to be an expert in pseudoscience!

      • David Appell says:

        painter wrote:
        “Big secret that the AGW crowd will never admit to: geography determines climate, not CO2.”

        And how does geography explain this observation?

        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

    • David Appell says:

      What does “the forces that generate motion which causes climate,” mean? Like as in F=ma? It sounds like gobbleygook.

      • Turbulent Eddie says:

        What does the forces that generate motion which causes climate, mean? Like as in F=ma? It sounds like gobbleygook.

        Climate is largely determined by the flow of air masses.
        The motion of the atmosphere is described by the Primitive Equations.
        The forces which cause these motions are pressure gradient, gravity, and friction. The pressure gradient is established by the deficit of net radiance at the poles and the surplus of net radiance for the tropics. These things won’t change very much if at all.
        Now, in the vertical, it’s conceivable to me that the effect of RF being greater in the lower troposphere than the upper troposphere could change things some what. But that change is not large and not from zero ( there is necessarily already a large transfer of energy in the vertical ).

  17. Lewis says:

    For all you alarmists: why do you come to this blog? Why not leave those who don’t believe alone with their fantasies? Why come here and proselytize? Does your religion require it of you? Are you considered a better person for it? Does it put you in line for bishop or some such?

    • Donald says:

      Lewis,

      I hope you are not claiming that Dr. Spencer is providing this blog as a place of refuge from scientific fact and debate.

      I expect that Dr. Spencer is a scientist exactly because he values the pursuit of knowledge, which requires that there be a healthy debate of differing opinions.

      • Lewis says:

        Donald,
        Is your last name Trump?

        Is Dr. Spencer an alarmist? But by your statement you prove, as too many do, that you can’t read.

        Try again.

        • Donald says:

          Lewis,

          Did you not challenge alarmists (whoever they are) to explain their motivations for coming to this blog?

          From your most recent comment, it would seem like you want an honest answer now, I cant speak for all those alarmists, but I expect they come for the very reason the Dr. Spencer provides the blog: to discuss the data, to provide their own analyses, and to challenge the analyses of others in the hope of finding and sharing at least a small spark of truth.

          I might ask, in light of Dr. Spencers likely rationale as a scientist for hosting this forum, why you did not question non-alarmists motives for coming to this blog, and why you did not characterize non-alarmists positions as religiously based but I suspect it is because you believe that this is a place that belongs to non-alarmists, and that your questions were really thinly veiled requests that those outsiders leave.

          Am I really that far off?

          • Lewis says:

            Exactly so.
            Alarmists come here and attack those who don’t believe as they do. Proselytizing would be the word. Fine. But then they generally get mad when those they attempt to convert refuse to be converted or to even accept the other religion.

            If it was a straight question answer dialogue, that would be great, but it is not. There are many personal attacks associated with the alarmists.

            The only reason I come here is to watch the temperature plots Dr. Spencer so generously generates and to read a little about weather and climate from those who study it much more than I.

            When politics enter into it, then I feel invited to join in.

          • Donald says:

            Lewis,

            I can certainly understand that, but, being new here, I have also observed that personal attacks seem to be being initiated from all sides; heck, even in your initial post (setting aside that the word “alarmist” is itself pejorative) you imply that those you label as “alarmist” also hold beliefs that are not rational, but religiously based, and that they also hold the belief that _their_ interlocutors are irrational (leave them “alone with their fantasies”).

            For a post putatively based on decrying bad tone and personal attacks, you managed to shoehorn quite a bit of those very same problems into quite a small space.

      • David Appell says:

        Well said, Donald.

    • Tom McHugh says:

      Lewis, If a group of people are in a leaky lifeboat. Is it okay if the people that refuse to see the water filling the lifeboat, not have to help bail?

      • Lewis says:

        Tom,

        I almost appreciate your comparison, but it doesn’t.
        No one here is in any danger, except perhaps Doug, and he only from himself.

        I take it you’re saying the alarmists/true believers are trying to save those of us who don’t believe as they do. Which, I believe, is what I accused them of: proselytizing.

        Personally, I don’t, and wish certain others would return to their street corners and placards.

        • DougCotton says:

          But you, Lewis, still support the alarmists’ conjecture that back radiation helps the Sun to achieve higher surface temperatures by transferring thermal energy from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface.

          Whilever Lukes fail to look into the correct thermodynamics that explains all temperatures in all planets, as explained here, they do nothing but support the fraudulent IPCC physics and, in effect, support the “precautionary” action policy.

          There’s a US$7,000 reward for proving me wrong, but noone who has read and understood the paper has even tried because they realize it is correct, and several physicists have agreed it is correct. Be the first to prove me wrong, Lewis!

    • Donald says:

      Lewis,

      Did you not challenge “alarmists” (whoever they are) to explain their motivations for coming to this blog?

      From your most recent comment, it would seem like you want an honest answer – now, I can’t speak for all those alarmists, but I expect they come for the very reason the Dr. Spencer provides the blog: to discuss the data, to provide their own analyses, and to challenge the analyses of others – in the hope of finding and sharing at least a small spark of truth.

      I might ask, in light of Dr. Spencer’s likely rationale as a scientist for hosting this forum, why you did not question non-alarmists’ motives for coming to this blog, and why you did not characterize non-alarmists’ positions as religiously based… but I suspect it is because you believe that this is a place that ‘belongs’ to non-alarmists, and that your questions were really thinly veiled requests that those outsiders leave.

      Am I really that far off?

      • Lewis says:

        You’re repeating yourself.
        Get new material.

        • Donald says:

          Lewis,

          Actually, I mistakenly replied to the wrong post, so I thought the initial response got eaten up by the internet.

          Once I realized the mistake, there was (as far as I can see) no way to delete the rogue post. Is there a function for that, do you know?

  18. Mike M. says:

    Paul Hahnel,

    You wrote: “Simply look at the graph”.

    I think you are imaging things. I see nothing like what you claim in the graph. How did you arrive at your conclusion.

    I’d run the analysis myself if I could figure out what file to download, what is in each column, and how the file is formatted.

    • Paul Hahnel says:

      Mike M – Just saw your question/comment. The statement was about 1998 being cherry picked to show a ‘pause’. Simply by using 1997 or 1999 as a starting point disproves that. You could plot it or you can use Dr Spencer’s UAH graph. Using the x y axis 1997 & 1999 were both around or below +.1*C. 2015 is around +.4*C. The planet has warmed during the so called ‘pause’ and that can be clearly seen simply by choosing the year before or behind 1998.

  19. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    “We therefore changed the AMSU5 reference Earth incidence angle (from 35.0 to 38.3 deg.) so that the trends over Greenland and the Himalayas were in much better agreement with the surrounding areas.”

    I’m surprised to learn that you can change parameters at will, and that adjustments are made by eyeballing the data.

  20. michael hart says:

    Monday, February 29 is a leap-year day.

    Who thinks Davis Appell and the global warmers will stop talking dog shit on this day?

    In your dreams.

    • michael hart says:

      Oh, sorry, David Appell. I misspelt your name, though not your intentions.

      • David Appell says:

        Do you have any comments related to the science?

        • geran says:

          Davie, you keep asking for science, but then you reject it. It’s like you are afraid of it. “Science-phobia”!

          • David Appell says:

            I”ve never seen you offer any science here. You’re just another like painter, who seemingly hang around here all day, responding with nothing but snark.

            No scientific comment whatsoever. What do you get out of all that?

          • geran says:

            Davie, I refute your pseudoscience with science. You cannot see science. It is invisible to you.

            For example, pseudoscience claims that atmospheric CO2 “traps” heat. Actual science does not agree. Actual science considers CO2 a “conductor” of heat. It does not “trap” heat, it “conducts” heat.

            Does a river “trap” water?

            You have “science-phobia”.

          • mpainter says:

            David cannot do science. He does links.

          • David Appell says:

            I link to science.

            I’ve never seen you link to anything, let alone the science, which is largely beyond you.

          • David Appell says:

            “For example, pseudoscience claims that atmospheric CO2 traps heat. Actual science does not agree. Actual science considers CO2 a conductor of heat. It does not trap heat, it conducts heat.”

            CO2 absorbs IR from the Earth’s surface. It then re-emits IR in a random direction. Some of those emissions are downward. = global warming.

          • mpainter says:

            Nope. CO2 thermalizes the 15 micron band and transfers the heat to other air molecules. This happens too quickly for emittance, within ten meters of the surface (saturation level).

            AGW = cooking the data

            The cooks are the cultists/keepers of the surface data who have been driven to desperation by the “pause”. For reliable temperature datasets see the UAH plot above.

            For examples of CAGW mentality, see quarks.

          • ehak says:

            mpainter has a very interesting theory:

            “Nope. CO2 thermalizes the 15 micron band and transfers the heat to other air molecule”

            The water molecules in the uppermost 15 micron skin have no contact with water molecules under that skin layer.

            Somebody put an insulating layer between the skin molecules and molecules below.

            And/or perhaps mpainter thinks air is a much better conductor of heat than water?

            This is FUNNY!

          • geran says:

            More pseudoscience from Davie: “CO2 absorbs IR from the Earths surface. It then re-emits IR in a random direction. Some of those emissions are downward. = global warming.”

            Davie, check your pseudoscience links and see if you can find a river that flows uphill

            (That should keep him busy for several billion years!)

          • mpainter says:

            Stay tuned, folks this is gonna be good, ehak has just stepped in it.

            Concerning the thermalization of the 15 micron band, what science do have to refute that? Please and thank you.

          • mpainter says:

            Still no reply from ehak.

          • mpainter says:

            Still no reply from ehak. πŸ™‚

  21. Jimmy Jones says:

    I have been reading these comments and have a burning question. When does mpainter sleep? I scrubbed his comments from the last couple of Roy’s posts and then ripped the time stamp off and sorted. The guy is on practically 24 hours a day. And this is not including all the posting he does at Climate Audit and WUWT and likely other sites. Could mpainter be a cyborg sent from the future to ruthlessly badger science? Or is he just being paid per post and good at his job? Or serious obsessive compulsive disorder coupled with insomnia? mpainter, can you help me out here?

    at 12:05 AM
    at 12:08 AM
    at 12:18 AM
    at 12:59 AM
    at 1:10 AM
    at 1:21 AM
    at 1:44 AM
    at 1:44 AM
    at 1:48 AM
    at 3:08 AM
    at 3:40 AM
    at 3:51 AM
    at 4:00 AM
    at 4:02 AM
    at 4:09 AM
    at 4:18 AM
    at 4:22 AM
    at 4:39 AM
    at 4:57 AM
    at 5:08 AM
    at 5:33 AM
    at 5:37 AM
    at 6:24 AM
    at 6:32 AM
    at 6:48 AM
    at 6:51 AM
    at 7:12 AM
    at 7:18 AM
    at 7:43 AM
    at 7:50 AM
    at 7:56 AM
    at 7:59 AM
    at 8:01 AM
    at 8:27 AM
    at 8:29 AM
    at 8:35 AM
    at 8:37 AM
    at 8:47 AM
    at 8:48 AM
    at 8:49 AM
    at 8:57 AM
    at 9:16 AM
    at 9:16 AM
    at 9:24 AM
    at 9:38 AM
    at 9:42 AM
    at 9:43 AM
    at 9:44 AM
    at 10:00 AM
    at 10:16 AM
    at 10:18 AM
    at 10:22 AM
    at 10:31 AM
    at 10:36 AM
    at 10:39 AM
    at 10:40 AM
    at 10:49 AM
    at 10:59 AM
    at 11:00 AM
    at 11:33 AM
    at 11:45 AM
    at 11:55 AM
    at 11:57 AM

    at 12:00 PM
    at 12:11 PM
    at 12:11 PM
    at 12:21 PM
    at 12:32 PM
    at 12:34 PM
    at 12:38 PM
    at 12:42 PM
    at 12:52 PM
    at 1:07 PM
    at 1:34 PM
    at 2:07 PM
    at 2:26 PM
    at 2:34 PM
    at 2:55 PM
    at 2:58 PM
    at 3:15 PM
    at 3:19 PM
    at 3:36 PM
    at 3:50 PM
    at 3:50 PM
    at 3:58 PM
    at 4:25 PM
    at 4:32 PM
    at 4:46 PM
    at 4:47 PM
    at 5:12 PM
    at 5:22 PM
    at 5:25 PM
    at 5:34 PM
    at 5:34 PM
    at 5:35 PM
    at 5:45 PM
    at 5:49 PM
    at 5:52 PM
    at 5:54 PM
    at 5:58 PM
    at 6:12 PM
    at 6:17 PM
    at 6:19 PM
    at 6:25 PM
    at 6:41 PM
    at 6:44 PM
    at 7:24 PM
    at 7:32 PM
    at 7:39 PM
    at 7:36 PM
    at 7:42 PM
    at 7:43 PM
    at 7:44 PM
    at 7:57 PM
    at 8:04 PM
    at 8:08 PM
    at 8:20 PM
    at 8:24 PM
    at 8:26 PM
    at 8:36 PM
    at 8:38 PM
    at 8:49 PM
    at 8:50 PM
    at 8:51 PM
    at 8:53 PM
    at 9:04 PM
    at 9:33 PM
    at 9:42 PM
    at 9:54 PM
    at 10:03 PM
    at 10:15 PM
    at 10:17 PM
    at 11:39 PM

    • mpainter says:

      Jimmy Jones, yes it’s been a busy day, see what a busy fellow I am.

      • Jimmy Jones says:

        mpainter,

        You didn’t answer the question. When do you sleep? How
        do you manage to post 24 hours a day (on multiple web sites?).

        I am really curious.

        JJ

        • mpainter says:

          You first. Identify yourself, location, and affiliations. Then me. If not, then get lost.

          • Jimmy Jones says:

            Sure, my name is Mikkel Jensen (not the famous underwear model unfortunately). I am a graduate student at Chalmers but am currently on a visiting fellowship at Ohio State. I study chemistry.

            So, mpainter, who are you and how do you manage to post 24 hours a day on multiple climate sites?

          • Lewis says:

            Chemistry he says.
            Must be easy stuff to have so much time to do the analysis of mpainter’s posts.

      • Lewis says:

        Mpainter,

        If you were busy, you wouldn’t be here posting so much.
        Obviously too much time on your hands.

    • TheFinalNail says:

      The quantity is there in spades; how’s the quality bearing up?

      Let’s hope mpainter isn’t spreading him/her self too thinly.

      The last thing we want to see is someone burning out.

      TFN

    • Dr No says:

      Ja, an interesting case study.

      I would venture to guess that mpainter is:
      White
      Male
      Over 60 years of age
      Retired or unemployed (maybe made redundant)
      Maybe an ex-geologist or ex-engineer or ex-teacher
      On medications which cause insomnia
      Under weight
      Maybe in a wheelchair or has some incapacity
      Maybe lives alone

      In my capacity as Dr No, permit me to recommend:
      More alcohol
      More women
      More singing and dancing

      and to hell with the consequences. Life is too short.

      • mpainter says:

        German, not Nippon? Another confused fellow. Best go see the movie again, ja?

        • Jimmy Jones says:

          So you are definitely online now mpainter. You made an offer, so I answered your question, so go ahead and tell.

        • Dr No says:

          I am adopting my Carl Jung persona for this particular problem.

          Now tell me, how many of my 9 conjectures about you were correct ?
          I will keep the answer secret in the interest of Doctor-patient confidentiality.

    • David Appell says:

      I’ve wondered this too…..

  22. TheFinalNail says:

    Each of the past 4 months (Oct-Jan) has set a new warmest monthly temperature record for that respective month in this latest version of the UAH v6.0 data set.

    Given the estimated 4-6 month lag in satellite TLT response to el Nino warming, it seems that this pattern is set fair to continue for a further 2-4 months.

    Therefore it seems reasonable to expect that 2016 will beat 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite TLT record. Talk of ‘the pause’ may shortly need to be set in an historical context: ‘The Pause That Was’ is catchy .

    It’s a bad show when, in order to find a pause in a global temperature data set, you have to carefully select not only the start date, but also the end date. Hardly a compelling argument in support of the ‘global warming has stopped’ brigade.

    TFN

    • mpainter says:

      Not if the “Red Blob” continues to shrink. If so, the anomaly will plummet. Bye bye little boy, hello little girl. Then will you hear wails of despair and gnashing of teeth.

      • Jimmy Jones says:

        Still waiting . . .

        mpainter says:
        February 2, 2016 at 4:37 PM

        You first. Identify yourself, location, and affiliations. Then me. If not, then get lost.

        • mpainter says:

          Septuplets, all with given names starting with m. Various degrees in the natural sciences. Various locations around the globe. After a family conference and a poll, the decision is final (5-2) that no more personal information is to be given. Sorry.

          • Jimmy Jones says:

            I assume that you are joking about the septuplets,
            but nice to know there are seven of you. So you
            must be being paid? I can’t imagine 7 people working
            for nothing.

            Considering your output, seven people is a surprise.
            I sort of figured two, at most 3. Since the posts are
            so redundant and devoid of substance, they would be easy
            to pump out. You must have other sock puppets on other sites.
            Do you stick to climate, or dabble in other fields.

            Breaking your promise in public will probably make it hard to sleep tonight. I wonder how you will pass the time . . .

          • mpainter says:

            Poor unhappy fellow. You should stick to chemistry. Climate science is full of twists and turns and you would be very miserable. For example, SST is determined not by ghg, but by insolation. Your climate scientists will swear to you that it is the atmosphere that warms the ocean. But if you have any intelligence, you will one day wise up. Think on how unhappy you will be when the truth comes home. Best blog with the chemists, and stay away from climate science.

          • David Appell says:

            What effect does surface atmospheric warming have on SSTs?

          • mpainter says:

            SST determines air temperature, David. What’s the dogma on how increased atmospheric CO2 warms SST? I know it, let’s see if you do.

          • David Appell says:

            SSTs are a forcing on air temperatures from below (and they themselves are forced by air temperatures from above). But these air temperatures are also forced from above…..

            HadSST3 finds that the trend of SSTs over the last 30 years is +0.14 C/decade.

          • mpainter says:

            Except water is opaque to LWIR. It’s like an energy mirror. Either through latent energy or radiation it is returned instantly. Big problem,no way around. However, if you wave your arms, you can warm SST with CO2. But ya gotta really wave them hard and fast, like a bird. Not for short, fat fellows like you.

          • Ball4 says:

            Water several inches deep is not opaque to LWIR as the test by Dr. Spencer detected the night time added cirrus clouds LWIR by thermometer at that depth.

          • David Appell says:

            mpainter says:
            “Except water is opaque to LWIR. Its like an energy mirror.”

            The data clearly show your claim is false:

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

          • mpainter says:

            Get back to your quarks, unclean one. Ball4, I have had my fill of your ignorant drivel long ago. The LWIR is absorbed within 5 microns of the interface as per radiation absorbency measurements. This is verified at numerous studies posted variously about the internet. Go play with Appell and his quarks.

          • Ball4 says:

            The test by Dr. Spencer is not drivel mpainter.

          • David Appell says:

            “The LWIR is absorbed within 5 microns of the interface as per radiation absorbency measurements.”

            And yet, the Earth’s outgoing spectrum at the top of atmosphere clearly does not show any wavelengths for which the energy radiated is zero:

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

            Let’s see you explain this in light of your claim. Should be good.

          • DougCotton says:

            Ball4: The test by Dr Spencer showed the well-known fact that water vapor slows radiative surface cooling that takes place mostly in the afternoon and early evening. The other thing that water vapor does is reduce the temperature to which the surface is raised in the morning, as explained here thus making more moist regions cooler than drier regions at similar altitude and latitude, as data confirms.

          • Ball4 says:

            “..water vapor slows radiative surface cooling..”

            Agreed as Dr. Spencer’s test data indicated. Doug now realizes his book is wrong where he claims water vapor cools i.e. wv does not increase radiative surface cooling. And Doug now realizes by writing this that resonant scattering can not exist.

            “The other thing that water vapor does is reduce the temperature..”

            Doug just agreed the opposite! Which is it really Doug? You will need a test to sort it out , Dr. Spencer already has one. Doug miscalculated the wv in the column for wet, dry and medium and got the wrong result as shown by satellites actually measuring column precipitable water.

          • DougCotton says:

            Nope, Doug agreed with standard physics that radiation (such as from water vapor) slows the rate of surface cooling which is itself by radiation. He did not agree that this changes the supported minimum temperature for the day (which water vapor lowers) or the maximum temperature for the day which water vapor also lowers because it reduces the lapse rate. Get your facts right Ball4. Your ignorance of what my paper is about just gets you tied in knots as you fail to think outside the climatology square.

          • Ball4 says:

            Ok, put Doug down as water vapor both slows surface cooling and increases surface cooling. In this way Doug cannot lose nor win. Smart play for Doug.

            Except that the test by Dr. Spencer already proved the correct science play is added atm. water radiation increases temperature over control in compliance with 1LOT and 2LOT.

          • DougCotton says:

            Yeah, sure. And where there is 4% water vapor above a rain forest it’s been warmed 4 times as much as a drier region with only 1% WV. /sarc

    • Richard M says:

      The reason for the records is likely due to this El Nino peaking a little earlier than the 1997-98 El Nino. If I’m right then we are seeing peak temperatures right about now.

      What is strange about this alarmist excitement about El Nino warming the atmosphere is that it means the Earth is cooling. If more energy is released into the atmosphere (and then to space), it means we will have stronger cooling when La Nina shows up.

      Is that what you dudes really want to see? I know, you’re hoping for another step up like the one that happened after the 1998-2000 La Nina. I think you are going to be disappointed.

  23. Marcel D says:

    mpainter, you are pathetic. You said you would tell Jimmy Jones who you were if he told you, and then broke your word. You have no honor.
    I think *you* should get lost. Then get some sleep.

    mpainter says:
    February 2, 2016 at 4:37 PM

    You first. Identify yourself, location, and affiliations. Then me. If not, then get lost.

    • mpainter says:

      Well, well, Marcel D has lost some skin off his nose. Tsk, Tsk, that reprobate painter family, the way they skin the noses of the innocent.

      • Mack says:

        You only need to mime your reply to the climate clown, Marcel…..Painter. πŸ˜‰

        • Mikey Suttish says:

          Ummm, so Marcel makes a valid point about mpainter backing out on his promise to some poor grad student and suddenly Mack is calling Marcel a “climate clown”? Am I missing something? Has Marcel posted hundreds of incendiary posts somewhere about climate science like mpainter? What makes him a clown?

          At least Marcel isn’t a gutless worm like the mpainter posse who slinked away on a promise to a grad student brave enough to question his ability to post responses on multiple climate sites 24/7.

          Did anybody else notice how Mack only posts directly after mpainter? Is Mack another mpainter sock puppet? mpainter suggested that there are acutually 7 people already posting under that name so that they can get 24/7 covergage on Dr. Roy, WUWT, ClimateAudit, etc. Mack has yet to write an original sentence, rather simply issuing enthusiastic grunts for mpainter’s arugments. Classic sock puppet.

          So, to summarize:

          1. mpainter is dishonest and has broken a clear promise in public
          2. mpainter is not a single person, but multiple people responding in a coordinated matter around the clock
          3. the mpainter posse uses additional fake posters to back up the claims of the original fake posters

          • Mack says:

            Another paranoid,cross-eyed,conspiratorial wacko with some sort of “sock-puppet” mentality. Your brave grad student and the rest of his class mates are the real sock-puppets, manipulated by sock-puppet teachers, who are in turn govt sock-puppets.

          • Lewis says:

            Anyone who is afraid of right wing speakers on campus or the Koch’s money is definitely a puppet.

  24. Greven says:

    Speaking of “adjustments” here… how about some of yours, Dr. Spencer. The new and improved v6.0 versus v5.6:

    Year M v6.0 (diff) v5.6
    1998 1 0.49 (+.02) 0.47
    1998 2 0.67 (+.02) 0.65
    1998 3 0.48 (+.06) 0.42
    1998 4 0.74 (+.08) 0.66
    1998 5 0.64 (+.08) 0.56
    1998 6 0.56 (+.05) 0.51
    1998 7 0.50 (+.06) 0.44
    1998 8 0.51 (+.07) 0.44
    1998 9 0.44 (+.11) 0.33
    1998 10 0.40 (+.11) 0.29
    1998 11 0.12 (+.04) 0.08
    1998 12 0.24 (+.05) 0.19
    avg: 0.48 (+.06) 0.42

    Year M v6.0 (diff) v5.6
    2015 1 0.27 (-.09) 0.36
    2015 2 0.17 (-.13) 0.30
    2015 3 0.16 (-.09) 0.25
    2015 4 0.08 (-.08) 0.16
    2015 5 0.28 (-.04) 0.32
    2015 6 0.33 (-.02) 0.35
    2015 7 0.18 (-.06) 0.24
    2015 8 0.27 (-.05) 0.32
    2015 9 0.25 (-.13) 0.38
    2015 10 0.42 (-.15) 0.57
    2015 11 0.33 (-.14) 0.47
    2015 12 0.44 (-.11) 0.55
    avg: 0.27 (-.09) 0.36

  25. Mike M. says:

    David Appel,

    Are you afraid to read? I wrote: “Linear regression gives a slope of 0.027 +/- 0.051 K/decade; i.e., nothing.”

    • David Appell says:

      Mike: You are, sadly, wrong.

      In fact, the linear slope for the full UAH LT dataset gives +0.12 C/decade.

      At least, until they do more adjustments.

      • DougCotton says:

        But when you take out the effect of the 60 year cycle the long-term warming has been close to 0.05 degree / decade since the Little Ice Age and the rate is not increasing. A graph is in my 2012 paper (Appendix) linked from the Evidence page on my website. About 500 years of cooling should start after the next 30 years of warming which is due to start about 2028 to 2030.

        There is no valid physics that proves carbon dioxide warms and there’s a AU $10,000 (US$7,000) reward for the first to prove me wrong, subject to conditions on my blog where none of the first 1,200 viewers have even tried to refute what is said.

        • Ball4 says:

          The test on the night atmosphere by Dr. Spencer last northern summer proved Doug is wrong. The reward is simply a hoax.

          • David Appell says:

            “The reward is simply a hoax.”

            Not at all surprising. If Cotton had any real breakthrough, he’d submit his work to a peer reviewed publication. But he’s afraid.

          • DougCotton says:

            Go to this comment.

          • DougCotton says:

            It’s already in my book on Amazon entitled “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” and so a paper would breach copyright. Reviews of the book read …

            5.0 out of 5 stars

            Valid physics well supported by empirical evidence. Excellent and ground-breaking.

            “The fallacies in the greenhouse conjecture are exposed rigorously and backed up by a comprehensive study (in the Appendix) which compares rainfall and temperature data for locations on three continents. The study concludes convincingly that the wetter regions do indeed have lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than dry regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. This supports the hypothesis in the book which shows that so-called “greenhouse gases” (mostly water vapor and a little carbon dioxide) do in fact reduce the lapse rate and thus lower the “supported” temperature at the surface. In other words, water vapor cools and so does carbon dioxide, the latter by only a minuscule amount.

            “The book discusses how and why surface cooling slows down almost to a halt in the early pre-dawn hours as the supported temperature is approached. This slowing down process is well known, but the concept of the supporting temperature (due to a temperature gradient autonomously induced by gravity) was not understood, even though this “gravito-thermal” effect was originally proposed in the nineteenth century. Modern day physics can now be used to prove the Loschmidt effect is indeed a reality, as this book shows.

            As a physicist, I can honestly say that the physics is indeed mainstream and valid in all respects. It discusses the maximum entropy conditions that evolve as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium is approached, and then goes on to develop a real break-through hypothesis of “heat creep” which, when we consider what happens on Earth and other planets with atmospheres, we see must be the process which explains how the necessary energy gets into the surface of Venus to raise its temperature during its sunlit period. Indeed all planetary temperature data, even that below any surface, can be explained by the hypothesis in this book, which is indeed a totally new paradigm that completely demolishes the old greenhouse conjecture that was based on mistaken understanding of the laws of physics.

            “I would expect “warmists” and “lukes” alike to attack the reviews of this book, but the astute reader will realise that is just their normal mode of approach to all such matters. To them science matters not – just their vocation or other pecuniary interests in maintaining the status quo. They would do well to consider the final comment in Chapter 1: “One wonders how many lives may have been saved had such funds been devoted instead to humanitarian aid.”

            1 Comment 15 of 25 people found this helpful.

            ——–

            5.0 out of 5 stars

            Essential reading for an understanding of the basic physical processes which control planetary temperatures.

            DougCotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.

            John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)

          • Ball4 says:

            A book review is not a test Doug. The test by Dr. Spencer proves your book is wrong.

          • DougCotton says:

            Ball4: Nope. The test by Dr Spencer showed the well-known fact that water vapor slows radiative surface cooling that takes place mostly in the afternoon and early evening. The other thing that water vapor does is reduce the temperature to which the surface is raised in the morning, as explained here thus making more moist regions cooler than drier regions at similar altitude and latitude, as data confirms.

          • Ball4 says:

            “..water vapor slows radiative surface cooling..”

            Agreed as Dr. Spencer’s test data indicated.

            “The other thing that water vapor does is reduce the temperature..”

            Doug just agreed the opposite! Which is it really Doug? You will need a test to sort it out. Doug miscalculated the wv in the column for wet, dry and medium and got the wrong result as shown by satellites actually measuring precipitable water.

          • DougCotton says:

            Doug is not proved wrong by Dr Spencer. Standard physics cited in Doug’s first paper shows why Dr Spencer is right, but it has nothing to do with the heat creep hypothesis for reasons explained in this comment. The only problem around here is Ball4’s ignorance as to what my papers are all about.

          • DougCotton says:

            Well David Appell, prove your point by submitting a refutation here based on what is said in the paper. If I can’t prove you wrong and I don’t pay, then you can talk about it being a hoax with some evidence on your side and the satisfaction of knowing you out-argued me, which you’ve failed to do so far.

          • Ball4 says:

            Since Doug now agrees the Dr. Spencer test is correct wv increases temperature, Doug’s paper’s that show water vapor decreases temperature i.e. cools need a major rewrite. I’ll look at them again when Doug writes he has issued the corrigenda.

          • DougCotton says:

            Water vapor (as it increases) reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient (AKA lapse rate) so that the whole plot of temperature against altitude rotates about a (roughly) central location, this leading to lower supported temperatures in the surface.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Water vapor (as it increases) reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient (AKA lapse rate)..”

            Gradient reduces by increasing the atm. temperature above the surface due wv condensation Doug, not reducing T. Unless the surface balance changes the intercept, there is no effect on surface Tmedian by only a slope (gradient) change.

          • DougCotton says:

            Yeah sure, Ball4 /sarc

            And how much more radiation would Earth then emit than it receives?

            Jack up the surface end of the temperature-altitude graph and make the gradient less steep at the same time (LOL) !!!!

            Thus make the upper troposphere tens of degrees hotter than without water vapor ???

            Pull the other leg, Ball4.

          • DougCotton says:

            And we note that Ball4 says there is no effect on surface Tmedian” due to increases in greenhouse gases like water vapor. Where is that “33 degrees” of surface warming claimed by the IPCC coming from then? Well I know of course, as it is explained in my paper, but you have just wiped it out in your pseudo science.

          • Ball4 says:

            “And how much more radiation would Earth then emit than it receives?”

            None.

            “Thus make the upper troposphere tens of degrees hotter than without water vapor ???”

            No.

            “Where is that 33 degrees of surface warming claimed by the IPCC coming from then?”

            The sun due to the optical depth of Earth atmosphere.

            Doug’s untested website, book and papers are to be avoided until they are brought into compliance with atm. test by appropriate corrigenda.

      • Donald says:

        David Appell,

        Actually, the slope for v6 beta rounds to 0.11C per decade, not 0.12 … And v5.6 rounds to 0.14C per decade.

        • David Appell says:

          No, it doesn’t. The slope for v6beta5 is +0.1154 C/decade, if you want to include insignficant digits. Rounds to +0.12.

          • Donald says:

            Hmmm… I had it pegged at 0.1149, unless I’m still using beta 4…

          • jerry l krause says:

            Hi David,

            Anyone who considers even a thousandth of a degree C as meaningful doesn’t understand the limitations of actual observations. And it only rounds to 0.12 because you are considering the insignificant digits.

            Have a good day, Jerry

          • Donald says:

            Hi Jerry,

            I don’t think David suggested that the thousandth of a degree _was_ meaningful; he just showed those digits as the result of the slope calculation, and since the slope did not equal a full 1/100th degree C/decade, he first showed his longer result in order to support his rounded value.

            Did he do wrong?

        • mpainter says:

          Yep, he did wrong. There is no slope; there are two flat trends connected by a step-up of 0.25-0.3 at circa 2000-2002. This step-up is evident in the UAH updates. See this month’s above.

  26. Noel Darlow says:

    Two things posters need to know.

    1. Short-term variability easily swamps the long-term signal but – by definition – cancels out over the long-term. The rule of thumb is that periods of less than 35 years or so are not considered relevant to the long-term trend. The “pause” may be interesting as an example of short-term variability but it’s a real, rookie howler of an error to try to talk about such brief periods of time in the context of climate change.

    Take your largest bag. Fill it up with spanners until you can’t even zip it shut. That’s how dumb it is.

    2. Science really isn’t like anything most people are used to in their daily lives. In ordinary life you can have an opinion on just about anything. Not in science. Science is a search for objective truths; subjective opinions are neither here nor there – particularly when they come from unqualified individuals who are not actively engaged in a research career in a relevant field.

    There is a simple principle which everyone must follow: the limits of what one can reasonably claim about matters of science are defined by the set of published papers which have not yet been refuted.

    That’s all there is to it. The great debate of science takes place in the literature not on internet blogs. There is no way to get around that so don’t waste your time (and everybody else’s time) trying.

    • mpainter says:

      Stop driveling on the thread, please and thank you.

      • Noel Darlow says:

        You wouldn’t insult people in real life the way you do on this thread. Try talking about the science – remembering rule 2 above – and stop talking about other people.

        • mpainter says:

          Your whole comment is an insult to the intelligence. I returned the favor with interest. Bald assertions and appeal to authority given in a superior tone is not science in my book. The peer review in climate science is a colossal failure, and I have taken the measure of it in full disgust. Go to Climate Audit where the failures of peer review are dissected with each post and laid out in plain sight. But you don’t, do you? You avoid that, as do most of the AGW crowd. Your AGW science is a foul stench in my nostrils.

          I would heartily welcome the opportunity to tell you this face to face, and more to boot.

          Furthermore, you cannot be competent in climate science by being an expert in one field. That is the blind leading the blind because climate is a multi-disciplinary field. I have dealt with the so-called experts, and many do not impress.

          I challenge you to go Climate Audit and read up on the latest dismantling of “experts”. Dare you?

          • DougCotton says:

            Yes, and unless you really understand thermodynamics and the process of maximum entropy production by way of dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials, you will never understand what happens regarding planetary temperatures and heat transfers in tropospheres, crusts, mantles and cores throughout the Solar System.

            Heat transfer theory lies wholly within the realm of physics. How many qualified physicists were called upon to review the early claims of James Hansen and Co, namely that “cold” back radiation helps solar radiation to raise the temperatures of the already-warmer surfaces of Earth and Venus each planetary day, compensating for nightly cooling?

          • Noel Darlow says:

            Sorry I don’t wrestle with pigs. I’d only get covered in mud and the pig likes that.

          • Mikey Suttish says:

            Dear Noel,

            You should know that you are not having an honest scientific debate with some man named mpainter.
            You are engaged in a political campaign devoid of
            any scientific content against a group of posters
            that collectively sign in as mpainter. None of
            them know squat about climate science (as if that
            is not clear to you), and they also spawn additional
            “sock puppet” comments to bolster their own
            non-scientific spew. Beating them is like finding
            the queen in the 3 card street hustle game. It would
            be trivial if both players where playing fair, but
            in fact it is impossible because the mpainters are
            more corrupt than the street hustlers would stoop to.

          • Dr No says:

            mpainter – As your advisor I must urge you to calm down.
            I suspect you are increasing your blood pressure by letting such issues upset you.
            Remember, the whole world is not involved in a conspiracy against you and THE TRUTH.

          • DougCotton says:

            Here come the “last resort” type responses from Noel Darlow that are so typical of people like him who don’t understand the science and have been completely bluffed and/or brainwashed because of their lack of understanding of physics – thermodynamics and entropy in particular. When they are asked straight forward questions about the greenhouse hypothesis they can’t answer, because the fact is that they don’t even know the detail in the energy budget diagrams, Pierrehumert’s gold standard text and the IPCC “explanations” on their website.

            Answer the questions Noel Darlow (which are reasonable ones to ask) about the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture that you are promoting, for if you can’t answer such questions and defend your “science” then I suggest you have moral issues to address regarding what you promulgate.

            Start with THE QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS towards the end of my blog.

            To save my time in future, I shall link to this comment everyone who promotes the false physics that claims carbon dioxide and water vapor warm Earth’s surface by most of 33 degrees.

            So thanks Roy. I’ll try to keep future comments to one line links to previous ones, for I’ve said it all and completely rubbished the greenhouse “science” whilst being the first in the world to correctly use physics to explain how the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient forms and, more importantly, how the required thermal energy then gets into the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus to raise the temperature each planetary morning, as is observed even with thick cloud cover blocking the solar radiation. The “eight molecule” thought experiment explains both.

          • mpainter says:

            I guess Noel Darlow won’t be visiting Climate Audit.

        • DougCotton says:

          Noel Darlow – go to this comment and the one above it.

          First and foremost, a scientific hypothesis must conform with established laws of physics. The radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture does not do so because James Hansen lacked sufficient understanding of entropy and thermodynamics, as did all the climatologists he convinced to follow him. The reasons for my saying this (and the correct physics) are here in an hypothesis developed directly from the “supreme” law – the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

          I’m sorry, but it’s only published in my peer-reviewed (by physicists) book (on Amazon) and my peer-reviewed (by physicists) on-line paper linked here but, probably within 10 years, someone of influence will “own” the hypothesis and publish same, thus shattering the greenhouse.

          I quote (with modifications in square brackets) …

          “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 [climate change] is in disagreement with Maxwell’s [assertions (without proof) about Loschmidt being wrong] then so much the worse for Maxwell’s [assertions]. 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)

          • Noel Darlow says:

            This is exactly why we have science: to weed out the snake-oil salesmen who claim an expertise they do not have.

            PS: Books do not get “peer-reviewed”.

          • DougCotton says:

            Yes indeed. Hansen is just such a snake oil salesman selling pseudo science that most definitely is not in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

            You obviously don’t understand the thermodynamics, so you are among those who were easily bluffed by the deliberate corruption of climate science, using false physics, pal-review systems, threats to journal editors, misleading government leaders etc.

            No doubt you reap some financial reward, salary or compensation for your promulgating of the greatest hoax and fraud the world has ever seen – one that is costing countless lives and causing immeasurable poverty.

          • DougCotton says:

            And you are not in a position to judge my expertise relating to the specialized field of thermodynamics which is highly relevant. I however can judge the lack of expertise in thermodynamics as seen Hansen and the ring leaders who never have been qualified in physics. Heat transfer processes are entirely within the field of physics, not climatology.

          • DougCotton says:

            And Noel Darlow and Dr Nonsense:

            The radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture (adding back radiation to solar radiation) is easily seen to be wrong, as in this comment and the following one.

    • DougCotton says:

      “The rule of thumb is that periods of less than 35 years or so are not considered relevant”

      Not a good rule of thumb when there is an obvious superimposed 60 year cycle. You should use a 60 year moving average, and that shows the long-term (1,000 year) cycle still increasing by about 0.05C/decade, but likely to max out this century. The graph showing this rate of increase is in my 2012 paper linked from http://climate-change-theory.com

    • DougCotton says:

      Well I’ve refuted all the climatology papers that claim back radiation can be added to solar radiation and the total used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to explain the surface temperatures of planets like Earth and Venus. That means all papers about AGW that claim back radiation from cold carbon dioxide transfers thermal energy into a warmer surface, thus helping the Sun to raise the temperature each sunny morning. (Trouble is, the temperature also rises under thick cloud cover.)

      Do you seriously expect journal editors to now about-face and publish something like this comment by “Thinker” which I have copied from another climate blog ….

      “Carbon dioxide is not the cause. All the IPCC, Trenberth and NASA energy budget diagrams (and the computer models) clearly imply that back radiation can be added to solar radiation and the total (after deducting non-radiative losses) used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to obtain the surface temperature.

      “We can see that this conjecture is false just by considering a location like Singapore which is close to the Equator and has a tropical rain forest climate with more than twice the average concentration of the greenhouse gas water vapor.

      “On a clear day around noon in April or September the solar radiation reaching the surface could be easily two-thirds of the Solar constant lets say at least 800W/m^2. Well deduct about twice the average loss by non-radiative processes, reducing the net to about 600W/m^2 for which the black body temperature is 52C. This could easily on its own explain the maximum temperature (which is virtually always less than 34C) because the average solar radiation during daylight hours is a little less. But, if we add the backradiation (which could easily be another 600W/m^2 because of the high humidity) we get temperatures above 100C. Hence its totally wrong to do so, and physicists have explained why such back radiation is mostly just pseudo scattered.”

      • Ball4 says:

        “Ive refuted..”

        Doug’s claim is proven wrong in the test data by Dr. Spencer.

        Assertions are not a test Doug. Cut and paste from another blog is not a test either.

        • DougCotton says:

          Roy Spencer’s test is proven wrong in this comment and the one above it.

          • Ball4 says:

            A comment is not a test Doug.

            Nothing wrong with Dr. Spencer’s test, I’ve substantially replicated the pertinent results as have many others. Doug should try doing some testing to learn about nature.

          • DougCotton says:

            I agree – his test proved a standard result in physics about which I wrote in my 2012 paper. It just has nothing to do with what warms the surface to the observed temperatures in the first place. That ain’t back radiation helping the Sun.

          • Ball4 says:

            Yes, good you now agree Doug that water vapor increased temperature over control water in the test by Dr. Spencer – it ain’t helping the sun at night.

          • DougCotton says:

            Go to this comment and the one after it Ball4 as you are tied in knots with your own figures.

          • Ball4 says:

            A comment is not a test Doug, and I have tests agreeing with my conclusions. Where are Doug’s tests? Nowhere.

            Your linked comment is wrong as usual Doug. The 102 didnt make it to space Doug, it returned, folks that have actually learned the material and passed a college course in atm. thermo. 101 would know the 102 stays in the system thus:

            Usual Non-radiative cooling out . 102W/m^2
            Usual Non-radiative cooling in . 102W/m^2
            Total out 364W/m^2 about as measured.

            And the 363 total out (upwelling IR) 10C max. high noon T was the actual measured at Desert Rock.

          • DougCotton says:

            “Usual Non-radiative cooling in” writes Ball4

            An interesting little piece of pseudo physics if ever there was such.

          • Ball4 says:

            Proven by observation and atm. test Doug. Evaporation and equal condensation are the water cycle, updraft thermals and equal downdraft thermals are from local density variations from surroundings. All non-radiative processes fully accounted for in the 324 as observed in the mid-80s over ~5 yr.s

    • Mack says:

      @ Noel Darlow
      “The rule of thumb is that periods of less than 35yrs or so are not considered relevant….it’s a real, rookie howler of an error to try to talk about such brief periods of time in the context of climate change”
      Yep, Noel,you just conflate (whether intentionally or thru unintentional mindless,indoctrinated thought) “climate change” as in natural climate change, with “climate change” as in AGW.
      Climate change(natural) would more likely have your “rule of thumb” period of about 100yrs.
      AGW “climate change” ? Nah, sorry, ~PAWZZ..big time PAWZZ, CO2 emmissions thru the roof, models thru the roof, but, say it after me…PAWZZ.

    • bit chilly says:

      utter bollocks.post modern science has little time for refutation of others work unless there is a conflict with ones own work. very few papers are ever retracted. even worse many papers full of mistakes go on to be cited again and again,sometimes establishing a paradigm of nonsense over time.

      the cause of stomach ulcers is a case in point. in field with far less variables than climate where these mistakes should theoretically come to the fore fairly rapidly.

      the problem with science currently is there are various cabals at the head of all the disciplines .to go against the grain with these people means you do not get a job in the discipline.

      for me this is an issue for academia in general,where people that are not worth two bob in old money manage to weasel their way into tenure and cling onto it by getting support from others of the same ilk. in private industry most of these types are weeded out very early in their careers and either move into management of switch careers altogether.

      • David Appell says:

        “the problem with science currently is there are various cabals at the head of all the disciplines .to go against the grain with these people means you do not get a job in the discipline.”

        If you have science showing AGW is wrong, then present it instead of whining about cabals etc. Cabals have never held back science — the truth always comes forward.

        So let’s see your evidence — the world will beat a path to your door.

        • bit chilly says:

          david, i have already stated that science will win out in the end. it always does.my current position on the cagw theory is the data does not support the hypothesis .

          be sure to let me know when a human causal signal can be found in global climate change .until then i will maintain my ignorant ill informed position based on the basic tenet of what physically occurs in the global climate versus what was posited to happen.

        • DougCotton says:

          Let’s see your evidence David Appell of vortex cooling tubes that don’t cool, and thus prove my hypothesis wrong.

    • JohnKl says:

      Noel Darrow states:

      “There is a simple principle which everyone must follow: the limits of what one can reasonably claim about matters of science are defined by the set of published papers which have not yet been refuted.”

      Science is and always has been about the facts and laws of nature not about what someone does or does not publish. Claims and refutations are published all the time. You may follow whatever rule you like, but rational folk will decide for themselves. One need not limit their minds to published claims and the limited experience of others. You also state:

      “Science is a search for objective truths; subjective opinions are neither here nor there particularly when they come from unqualified individuals who are not actively engaged in a research career in a relevant field.”

      Fine, so how do you separate the wheat from the chaff? Scientifically it is observation aka empirical evidence, whether published or not. There exists nothing wrong with opinion as long as it’s based on objective fact. There exists plenty of published theories that have not stood the test of time without alteration. From what I’ve read General Relativity Theory cannot explain all relevant phenomenon. Whether published or not theory is not scientific knowledge but speculation.

      You assert:

      “The great debate of science takes place in the literature not on internet blogs.”

      Debates of all kinds can take place anywhere. Science remains about the facts and laws of nature.

      Have a great day!

      • Norman says:

        JohnKl

        Another excellent post! Facts, data and empirical information to support or reject hypothesis on how things interact.

        Science is not assertions without proof or evidence. I do think one should default to the established science (hopefully based upon valid experiments done by honest researchers) until evidence will disprove it.

        Misunderstanding current science does not quality for a refutation of it as so many bloggers believe. A lot of objections with the GHE are based upon invalid understanding of the concept and arguing points not made by the theory. The GHE does not state, and never has, that a cold atmosphere raises the temperature of a warmer surface in violation of the 2nd Law. It claims that with back radiation and solar input the surface of a planet with GHG will be warmer than one without such gases as they are able to redirect IR energy back to the surface which is not possible on a planet without such gases.

        • DougCotton says:

          But you still can’t use the GH conjecture to explain Earth’s surface temperature, let alone that for other planets.

        • DougCotton says:

          Norman wrote “The GHE does not state, and never has, that a cold atmosphere raises the temperature of a warmer surface in violation of the 2nd Law.”

          Yes it does, Norman. Just read the energy budget diagrams. The 288K is “explained” using Stefan-Boltzmann black body temperature for 390W/m^2. But that 390W/m^2 includes 324W/m^2 of back radiation which is thus assumed to be raising the surface temperature along with far less solar radiation. Furthermore, variable flux (such as it is) with a mean of 390W/m^2 (even if it were right to include back radiation, which it isn’t) would only yield a mean temperature at least 10 degrees colder.

          Bother!

          • Norman says:

            DougCotton

            You really cannot grasp the GHE and so attack it with a vengeance because it frustrates you.

            You make this claim: “But that 390W/m^2 includes 324W/m^2 of back radiation which is thus assumed to be raising the surface temperature along with far less solar radiation.”

            The 324 W/m^2 cannot raise the surface temperature and it is never assumed that it is raising the surface temperature. The surface is losing energy at the rate of 390 W/m^2.

            I can show you empirically how the GHE works and fits actual measured values but you will have to spend a little time looking at things that go against your belief.

            The first thing you can do is go to the same link I have tried to get you to look at. This will be simple. Click the link I provide and click the boxes Solar Net radiation and combination of air temperature and surface temperature (dome or case)
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html

            You will clearly see in many plots that the solar energy is what causes the surface temperature to rise (but not always the air temp). Absolutely no “heat creep” hypothesis needed to explain it.

            Also go to the same link and put in downwelling IR and air temp.
            Now go to a Stefan-Boltzman calculator and start seeing how backradiation is close to air temperature values (in winter you can have inversions where the air above is a few degrees warmer than the surface air temp). I am using a measured value for sky emissivity of 0.732 I am sure this is variable and will be different in different locations but it will be close enough to show you how the process works.

            On Feb 2 Bondville, Illinois plot at 6 AM (before the sun is up). the Downwelling IR is measured at 250 W/m^2, the air temp is measured a little above 6 C. In the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator if you put in 0.732 for the emissivity and then the 250 W/m^2 and have it calculate for temp you get a temp of 4.85 C. Very close to the air temp. The air is radiating around 250 watts/m^2.

            If the surface is losing 390 W/m^2 why does it matter what source is replacing this lost energy? Be it internal vibrations of molecules below the surface that can still supply energy to the surface or from downwelling IR. Really does not matter and you have zero proof but some paper that this IR pseudo scatters. It is a fantasy at this time. No evidence to support it.

          • DougCotton says:

            Yes the false “science” of the GHE does frustrate me because of the lives being lost due to the hoax, the starvation caused, the poverty and the sheer waste of money that could have alleviated such poverty, starvation and loss of life.

          • Ball4 says:

            Doug reveals political interest drive his incorrect science. To support your cause Doug, issue corrigenda to bring your physics into compliance with atm. test.

      • Noel Darlow says:

        No you are flat wrong. Rational people may not decide for themselves. That’s the whole point.

        It is not rational to presume to criticise a highly specialised field of science if you are not qualified and the level of expertise required is a research career in the relevant field. Nothing less. Without that you won’t even know what you don’t know. You won’t have any context to judge anything even assuming you could follow dense, technical arguments apparently written in some impenetrable foreign language. You will not actually be able to “debate” anything.

        It is also not rational to ignore the literature which represents the best that we know at any given moment in favour of specious waffle from bad sources which are engaged in what amounts to vanity publishing. There is a good reason why these people write internet blogs not scientific papers.

        As I’ve already mentioned, this is how science separates the wheat from the chaff. An idea must be presented as a formal, detailed, technical argument for publication in a scientific journal. Peer-review provides a basic sanity check but the real test is how well a paper stands up to post-publication scrutiny.

        Science is not static. Refuting ideas is a part of the process and anything is fair game – even General Relativity – but any refutation must be made at the same level of argument as the original idea ie with a detailed, technical scientific paper. That’s how science is done. The rules are the same for everyone and no exceptions are made for anyone. If you don’t believe me you can ask our host on this blog.

        • Noel Darlow says:

          Not sure if it’s clear but above is a reply to:

          JohnKl
          February 3, 2016 at 3:07 PM

          • mpainter says:

            Have you been to Climate Audit, Noel?
            Spend about a month perusing the archives there and you will not feel so proud about your “highly specialized field of science”, I promise.

            But Noel will never go there. I can promise that, too. He is afraid of what he might find there. And he fears the censure of the cult.

          • Lewis says:

            Mpainter,

            Visited climate audit.
            What a treasure of subjects.
            Thank you.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Noel,
            “but any refutation must be made at the same level of argument as the original idea ie with a detailed, technical scientific paper”

            You are absolutely right, I perfectly agree.
            Now, please give us a link to any “technical scientific paper” which demonstrates that AGW really exist.
            Maybe you are not aware that you are asking the very same rules that have been highly ignored in most (if not all) those “peer-reviewed” papers that demonstrates the AGW existence (someone called them “pal-reviewed” for this; the climategate emails say all about this definition).

            One detail: I’m just an engineer, but I NEVER based any of my own designs on the methods similar to those used to compute the current global average temperature and I would never do that.
            To be explicit, measure ancient temperatures at the level of precision of tenth of degrees using trees or any other proxies is just silliness and homogenizing few infinitesimal-area-temperature-spots to get a global temperature matrix and then averaging it, is just silliness too.

            I’m not an expert in the field, but I’m not an idiot.

            One other comment about your point:
            before a science is not still well defined (such as climatology), no one is an expert in the field, just because that field doesn’t still exist.
            This should be the reason most of the IPCC “experts” aren’t climatologists indeed, they just defined themselves that way.

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • mpainter says:

            Massimo,
            Congradulations on an excellent comment. I hope Noel responds. Let’s see if he does.

        • Norman says:

          Noel Darlow

          I will have to disagree with you and side with JohnKl on this point.

          Refutation will not be a counter technical argument (unless you are DougCotton). It will be an experiment or a test that proves the current theory false. Read up on Popper.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

          JohnKl’s views are much closer to Popper’s view of science than your own. You think expert debate and knowledge are what prove an idea. No sir. It is experimental evidence. Climate scientists need to provide empirical evidence for their claims. It really does not matter if they are able to get their peers to agree with their article, it will be the empirical evidence that proves the hypothesis true and useful not agreement among peers. Fight on JohnKl. You understand well what Science is!

          • Noel Darlow says:

            Any experiment or test which can prove a current idea wrong must be presented in the form of a technical paper. If the author does not posses the technical expertise to do that, or if the work is not in fact original or significant, we can safely ignore it. The rules of the game are fair and they are the same for everyone. No exceptions are made for anyone.

            Ask the host of this blog. Dr Spencer certainly has some original opinions about climate but he is too professional to attack the fundamental culture of science as you have.

            I have very clearly stated that expertise is not sufficient to “prove” an idea. In fact, I did not even mention proof at all. I talked about arguments which, to the best of our knowledge, appear to be scientifically valid at the time. However, all scientific ideas remain open to amendment or outright rejection as our knowledge expands (specifically by the publication of further papers).

            Expertise is a requirement to *propose* an idea – sure. I couldn’t write an original and significant essay on ancient Babylonian sewerage systems unless I’ve actually studied the subject and done some original research.

            However, expertise doesn’t *prove* anything. Pay attention now because this specifically is the source of science’s power to reveal truths about an objective reality: no single person is allowed to claim that they have proved anything about anything. The scientific community (ie people with relevant experience in the same field) provides the “proof” by, over time, failing to refute the idea in question.

            Incidentally, I agree that peer review is not proof. It’s just a basic sanity check to weed out anything which is obviously wrong. That’s all.

            Human’s are really, really bad at objectivity. You could say that the pinnacle of all our cultural achievements is the practice of science with its requirement for the highest possible standard of argument and insistence on community validation. Without that, anyone could get up on their hind legs and make the most outrageous of claims. Some still do.

          • mpainter says:

            Noel Darlow,
            Have you been to Climate Audit yet?

            Have you ever been to Climate Audit?

          • Norman says:

            Noel Darlow

            Not sure if you are aware of this information so I will link it to you.

            http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

            Basically the point is how peer-review is failing. It started as a good concept to weed out the garbage but it no longer is up to the task. Publish or perish has damaged the integrity of the system.

            The article states: “Peer review should be tightenedor perhaps dispensed with altogether, in favour of post-publication evaluation in the form of appended comments. That system has worked well in recent years in physics and mathematics. Lastly, policymakers should ensure that institutions using public money also respect the rules.”

            It is not just a small problem and a few bad apples.

          • Norman says:

            Noel Darlow

            Here is a link of contributions made by outsiders of the established group. JohnKl is correct in his understanding and the evidence determines it to be so.

            http://www.sis-group.org.uk/silver/newgrosh.htm

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi Noel Darlow,

          Thank you for responding to my post. However, you appear to have made errors and I hope you reconsider your claims. You state:

          “No you are flat wrong. Rational people may not decide for themselves. Thats the whole point.”

          Wrong, it’s your point and perhaps shared by Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., but not my point. If rational people should not be free to decide for themselves, who should? The irrational? Or do you mean irrational people with a high degree of training and years experience in some endeavor? Are you playing a game? You go on:

          “It is not rational to presume to criticise a highly specialised field of science if you are not qualified and the level of expertise required is a research career in the relevant field. Nothing less.”

          Really? So if a highly specialized physicist with impeccable credentials tells you that the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation doesn’t exist and you should ignore it and many like minded academics with impeccable reputations take on similar rhetoric you would not be critical? Many people were sterilized against there will decades ago by so called experts in the field of eugenics that rested their claim on the Biogenetic Law ( not to be confused with the Law of Biogenics ) or ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny ( The biogenetic law is a theory of development and evolution proposed by Ernst Haeckel in Germany in the 1860s. It is one of several recapitulation theories, which posit that the stages of development for an animal embryo are the same as other animals’ adult stages or forms ). It has since been disproven by advances in sonar imaging. Nevertheless, these concepts set the mark for many 19th century political movements including those of Nietzsche and others culminating in the Nazi era of the 1930’s and 1940’s. Should the un-educated masses and those un-tutored ( in pseudo-science ) have simply yielded their lives and property to such madmen unless they had a better sounding theoretical piece of gibberish to sell? Not to be outdone in irrelevancy you state:

          “It is also not rational to ignore the literature which represents the best that we know at any given moment in favour of specious waffle from bad sources which are engaged in what amounts to vanity publishing.”

          When did I make any statement that one should or should not ignore literature? Please explain this statement. It appears to be a straw-man. You further state:

          “As Ive already mentioned, this is how science separates the wheat from the chaff. An idea must be presented as a formal, detailed, technical argument for publication in a scientific journal. Peer-review provides a basic sanity check but the real test is how well a paper stands up to post-publication scrutiny.”

          A scientific idea should be presented as a formal, detailed, technical argument for publication and review and ideally in a scientific journal, but no law exists mandating the procedure, nor should there be. Scientific discoveries are frequently made by individuals outside the ivory-tower of academic peer review and their work imo does not require an academic imprimatur. Peer review would do well to provide a sanity-check but there exists no guarantee that the individuals involved will be any more honest or clear headed as other individuals outside there sphere of influence. Ultimately, repeated testing and the work of many people from different fields will weigh the speculative claims of academics and others as their validity. You go on:

          “Science is not static.”

          Who said it was? You go on:

          “Refuting ideas is a part of the process and anything is fair game even General Relativity but any refutation must be made at the same level of argument as the original idea ie with a detailed, technical scientific paper.”

          Fine assuming the original idea is a) detailed, b) original, c) technical, and d) scientific one should address the claims made at the level of competence required to address the claim. However, if the claim made directly contradicts a well tested fact and/or law of nature it automatically violates several of those conditions. You close:

          “The rules are the same for everyone and no exceptions are made for anyone. If you dont believe me you can ask our host on this blog.”

          Let’s hope so. The integrity of the process should be maintained and that requires constant vigilance, not merely parroting that it is so will not do that. Trained and skilled academic professionals frequently make errors and sometimes dishonestly in the past ( Java Man comes to mind ) and no one should be excluded from examining their claims.

          Have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Correction my statement should read:

            “The integrity of the process should be maintained and that requires constant vigilance, merely parroting that it is so will not do that.”

            Have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Correction:

            My statement should have read:

            “It has since been disproven by advances in embryonic research and imaging ( not necessarily sonar).”

            Even evolutionists have had to recant:

            http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_15

            Have a great day!

          • FTOP says:

            Scientists are also the most susceptible to the fallacy from “appeals to authority” (see consensus)

            From wiki
            “In 1923, leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[19] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s to the 1950s, this continued to be held based on Painter’s authority,[20][21] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[22][19] Even textbooks[19] with photos clearly showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24[22] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.[23]

            As Robert Matthews said of the event, “Scientists had preferred to bow to authority rather than believe the evidence of their own eyes”.[22]”

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Noel Darlow and everyone,

            I referenced Java Man in the previous post. It should have refunded Piltdown Man ( apparently a complete fraud ) in which Arthur Smith Woodward, Director of the Natural History Museum of London and Charles Dawson, a medical doctor and amateur paleontologist, announced the discovery of a mandible and part of a skull. Dawson supposedly recovered the specimens from a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. Tha jawbone appeared simian-like except the teeth which showed wear similar to humans rather than apes. However, the skull appeared quite human. While some experts, such as Boule and Henry Farfield Osborn, objected to associating the ape-like jaw with a human skull the CONSENSUS opinion of the world’s greatest authorities was that Piltdown Man was an authentic link in human evolution. By 1950 a method of dating fossils based on the amount of fluoride absorbed by bones from the soil became available. When the Piltsown bones were tested, they discovered that the jawbone contained practically no fluoride and thus not a fossil and judged to be no older than about a year from the date it was supposedly found. However, the skull contained significant amounts of fluoride and deemed a few thousand years old rather than the 500,000 years old originally claimed.

            After a thorough and critical examination they discovered that the bones had been treated with iron salts to make them look old and scratch marks on the teeth indicated they had been filed. A modern ape’s jaw and human skull had been doctored to resemble an ape-man and the forgery fooled the supposed experts. Source of information Dr. Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record.

            Free rational and ethical inquiry please, a small cadre of closeted experts cannot properly alone vet the creative minds of untold millions seeking the Truth in there capacities.

            Have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi FTOP,

            Thanks for the information!

            Have a great day!

        • FTOP says:

          You may want to review the “quality” work by Mann, Treberth, Hayhoe, Jones. There are quite a few e-mails available that further illuminate their embracing of the high ideals you reference.

          They are the leaders in the field that you so revere. Although some have also carry the moniker of “a disgrace to the profession”.

  27. Brad says:

    I’ve decided not to read the comments on Dr. Spencer’s blog as it has been overtaken by the rantings of a lunatic.

    • bit chilly says:

      that is a bit harsh brad. i find the blog interesting and informative. the comments section may not be for everyone though πŸ™‚

  28. Clarke Robsen says:

    These comments are great. The mpainters posse gets called out for posting 24 hours a day and responds by posting till the middle of the night and then switching names. Ooops, busted! That is the problem with posting 1000 repetitive comments a month, you can’t hide behind a new name because everyone recognizes it. Just ask D-C.

  29. Gil Gregson says:

    So which of the mpainters is this? You should start putting a number after your name. Like mpainters(3) or whatever.

  30. mpainter says:

    It doesn’t matter which one I am. Get over it.

  31. Werner Brozek says:

    RSS came in at 0.663, a new January record. Its pause is still over 18 years, however it will disappear in February if February is 0.88 or higher. Should February not be above 0.88, then it will disappear in March based on Nick Stokes’ work here:
    http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/the-fleeting-pause.html

    (If the January anomaly exceeds about 1.3C, the Pause is gone. This is unlikely.
    If the Jan and Feb anomalies exceed on average about 0.77C, the curve will be above the axis. For reference, the Dec anomaly was 0.543C. I think this is quite likely.
    If the first three months exceed 0.59C on average, that would suffice to extinguish the pause. That is barely above the December value, and I think very likely indeed.
    If Jan-April exceed 0.5C, that will also suffice.)

    • Richard Barraclough says:

      Correct Werner.

      If the next 2 months remain at the same level (0.663), the RSS pause shortens by 2 months in February, and disappears completely in March

      It can even drop to 0.57 for the next 2 months, and the Pause will still disappear.

      I’m going to miss all those WUWT posts from Monckton, but perhaps he will develop a new theme??

    • geran says:

      Werner, helpful hints:

      1) You need to get out more.

      2) Never listen to Stokes.

      3) You need to get out more.

      You’re welcome.

      • Werner Brozek says:

        (Never listen to Stokes.)

        His graphs and error bars are factual. I can use his information for Hadcrut4.4 and UAH6.0 but not WFT since that is way out of date. I could even verify the present negative slope for RSS at 18 years and 8 months before it appeared on WFT.

    • David Appell says:

      Werner — why isn’t your “pause” getting any longer? It’s been at 18+ years for a long time now….. All it’s doing is sliding forward, which the world warms behind it.

      • Werner Brozek says:

        (Werner why isnt your pause getting any longer?)

        It will, once the present El Nino turns into a La Nina. But I know it will disappear for many months, perhaps even a year. Just be patient.

        • mpainter says:

          Could see a plummeting of the global anomaly this month if the Red Blob continues to shrink. Then there will be wailing and gnashing of the teeth.

          The great hope of the global warmers is for another step-up as seen circa 2000-2002. That will not happen. Instead the pause will get worse and perhaps a cooling trend.
          AGW RIP.

        • Richard Barraclough says:

          Unlikely!

          Two or 3 months at these levels, and the anomaly would have to drop suddenly by over 0.5 deg for the Pause to reappear within the next year.

          Of course, it IS possible, but I wouldn’t want to bet on it happening

          • bit chilly says:

            i would bet on it happening . the fact there is any pause at all during the period when the highest level of co2 emissions have taken place would normally raise suspicions that there may be a problem with the co2 warming hypothesis .in this post normal era apparently not.

          • mpainter says:

            For reliable data on the global temperature anomaly, see the UAH plot above.

  32. coturnix says:

    Warming over the north hemisphere looks almost like a k=3 wave, though not exactly.

  33. AndyG55 says:

    Regional match of the satellites against the ONLY pristine surface data.

    Close but a bit higgledy, as you would expect from different data sets and methods.

    http://s19.postimg.org/uuy2ft3jn/Combined_USA_temperatures.png

  34. Norman says:

    DougCotton,

    You should not have copied a post from this person called “Thinker”
    He is an idiot and will lead you down the road to ruin.

    What the goofball “Thinker” said: On a clear day around noon in April or September the solar radiation reaching the surface could be easily two-thirds of the Solar constant lets say at least 800W/m^2. Well deduct about twice the average loss by non-radiative processes, reducing the net to about 600W/m^2 for which the black body temperature is 52C. This could easily on its own explain the maximum temperature (which is virtually always less than 34C) because the average solar radiation during daylight hours is a little less. But, if we add the backradiation (which could easily be another 600W/m^2 because of the high humidity) we get temperatures above 100C. Hence its totally wrong to do so, and physicists have explained why such back radiation is mostly just pseudo scattered.

    What magic hat did this poster pull the crap that backradiation could easily be another 600 W/m^2 because of high humidity??!! This is such poor and unreasoned physics why would you humiliate this joker by copying his worthless post?

    One actual measured sky emissivity for Omaha NE was around 0.732
    From this paper:
    http://www.ceen.unomaha.edu/solar/documents/SOL_26.pdf

    To get this fantasy number of 600 W/m^2 from the atmosphere the temperature would have to be around 73 C!! With warm air of 30 C the backradiation would be at most 350 W/m^2 (in the ballpark of the energy budgets for downwelling IR).

    Really a poor choice of posters to choose from. The “Thinker” is a big Stinker and smells up whatever blog you pulled that pile of poop from!

      • Mack says:

        That IPCC publications link says “cannot be displayed” on my computer, David.
        Perhaps the IPCC are ashamed to make it public.

      • DougCotton says:

        David Appell writes: “In no way does 600 W/m2 of sunlight reach the ground”

        You display your lack of understanding of all those energy diagrams and the calculations involved, David Appell, which relegates you way down in my level of respect.

        Of course there can easily be 600W/m^2 when the Solar constant is more than double that and, without clouds, the albedo is roughly halved, so less than 40% gets absorbed or reflected when the Sun is directly overhead on a clear day in the tropics, as happens twice a year there. Show me your calculations, rather than your assertive statements.

      • Norman says:

        David Appell

        You are wrong on this point and should reconsider your position. the IPCC budget is what happens when you spread all incoming solar radiation upon every square meter of Earth’s surface. It is not a real amount, it is useful in a budget diagram but it is not the same as reality.

        Hope this link goes. This is a winter time solar flux in Nevada and it is very close to 600 W/m^2.

        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_56b3379441f07.png

        If this does not work then go to this link and check off Net solar box.
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_56b3379441f07.png

    • DougCotton says:

      Water vapor sends back radiation in proportion to its concentration and also as a function of temperature. So 600W/m^2 is certainly possible in a moist tropical region around noon when you consider that the global mean is 324W/m^2 and that mean includes nights and polar regions.

      But, let’s see now, suppose we use just 324W/m^2 and add that to the 600W/m^2 of solar radiation. So we have 924W/m^2 which, according to you and your heroes at the IPCC, can be used to give a black body temperature of … wait for it … 358K or 85C. You have a problem, Norman and other lukes and warmists.

      • Norman says:

        DougCotton

        NO the “Thinker” knows nothing and is leading you down a false understanding. 600 W/m^2 is not even slightly possible on Earth regardless of the concentration of water vapor. For the temperature of the tropical air (say even 40 C which would be high).

        To get a flux of 600 W/m^2 from 40 C air you would have to have an emissivity of 1.1. Not a possibility. If you look up charts for the emissivity of water vapor you will find it is always less than 1 maybe closer to 0.7 but it is very variable but going to full saturated air will not make it emit more than 1. Thinker is a Stinkcer.

        You also seem to lack understanding of Stefan-Boltzmann equilibrium.
        The 600 or so Watt/m^2 would not establish an equilibrium temperature of 85 C because it is not continuously at this flux. It only reaches this high of flux for a short time of day. In order to use Stefan-Boltzmann to find and equilibrium temperature you need to find the constant flux (which is given in the links I sent you).

        It is 600 watts/m^2 for a short time that will raise the temp but then it is dark for a long period with no energy input. David Appell was suggesting that to you. It can reach 600 but that is not the constant flux you would use to calculate a surface temperature.

        • Norman says:

          DougCotton,

          You: “You have a problem, Norman and other lukes and warmists.”

          No Cotton, the problem is with you. You torture physics to try and make some absurd points then claim I have a problem. The problem is not my understanding. I have grasped the concepts and understand what is being said (not that I always did but I keep learning). You do not and twist physics to try to make things it doesn’t say.

          You torture Stefan-Boltzmann law with out regard to the effort that went into finding it. All the long hours of experiments and research and you do not even understand how it works or how to use it properly.

          Sad!

          • DougCotton says:

            Nope. It is the likes of James Hansen who “torture” physics, supposedly explaining a 288K surface temperature by adding in back radiation to get a net input of 390K which, because the Earth is not flat and does not receive any such flux, let alone receive uniform flux day and night from equator to pole, just simply does not explain a mean temperature even within 10 degrees of that 288K.

          • DougCotton says:

            “You torture Stefan-Boltzmann law”

            Who do you think you are Norman? You who did not even reach second year physics in any university, telling me with a degree majoring in physics and math, substantial post graduate study in thermodynamics, several first-in-the-world breakthroughs in the field, numerous students in physics over the last 50 years – you, Norman, telling me that I am wrong in only using the input flux to determine the temperature attained in a blackbody. And you say this Norman, not because of anything you’ve read in any physics documentation, but because you “think” you should deduct the outward flux. Hilarious!

      • DougCotton says:

        You see Norman (and others) according to the IPCC conjecture that radiation can be compounded, we only need two separate clouds each emitting 300W/m^2 of back radiation and we then have 600W/m^2. /sarc

        But I’ll settle for a total of 324 + 600 = 924W/m^2 producing 85C. Do you have some explanation for that Norman? How do you explain the global mean (based on adding the backradiation) of 390W/m^2 producing 15C if 924W/m^2 doesn’t produce 85C. After all, the tropics have significant total area and thus contribute quite a bit to the global mean. But here we are using up 924W/m^2 and only getting about 32C for a typical daily maximum in Singapore instead of the black body temperature (as used by the IPCC for 390W/m^2 when “explaining” 288K) so I trust you understand that you are completely tied in knots over this one.

        And that’s what happens Norman when you don’t pay due diligence in checking and thinking about what you are being brain washed into believing with no evidence and no experiments to support the GH conjecture – just blind faith. Sooner or later you will realize that I’ve been right all along, because the heat creep hypothesis is not affected by these dilemmas that radiative forcing concepts run into.

        • Norman says:

          DougCotton,

          Are you serious?

          YOU: “How do you explain the global mean (based on adding the backradiation) of 390W/m^2 producing 15C if 924W/m^2 doesnt produce 85C. After all, the tropics have significant total area and thus contribute quite a bit to the global mean. But here we are using up 924W/m^2 and only getting about 32C for a typical daily maximum in Singapore instead of the black body temperature (as used by the IPCC for 390W/m^2 when explaining 288K) so I trust you understand that you are completely tied in knots over this one.”

          Doug I already explained this to you once. The radiation of 924 W/m^2 is only for a short period of time and it will raise the temperature of the surface. But you can’t just use pure radiation explanation for surface temperatures as you already know that as the surface temp rises from additional energy, the air above starts convection which removes energy from the surface at a fairly rapid rate (much quicker than conduction). As the surface temperature rises so also does the outgoing IR. The convected energy does not leave the Earth system but warms the upper troposphere and eventually makes its way to colder areas via giant Hadley Cells of moving atmosphere keeping them warmer than they would be without such motions.

          Stefan-Boltzmann is an equilibrium temperature. It is the temperature radiation will achieve in a vacuum once the entire material receiving the radiation reaches an equilibrium temperature. If the Earth’s surface would receive a continuous flux of 924 W/m^2 and have no other means of cooling the surface (no convection, evaporation, or conduction) it would eventually (depending upon the material receiving the radiation and its heat capacity) reach 85 C but not the instant the surface was hit with this energy. You have a very long, long way to go before you understand radiation physics. I suggest you take time out and study some as Ball4 has suggested with you on another thread of taking the time to understand atmospheric physics. I think you must have forgotten most of what you learned in physics in your youth because you are clueless with your understanding of radiation physics!

          • DougCotton says:

            And so now you realize, Norman just how wrong was James Hansen in assuming the 168W/m^2 of solar radiation + 324W/m^2 of backradiation less 102W/m^2 of non-radiative cooling (net 390W/m^2) would raise the surface to the blackbody temperature 288K.

            You are right in saying he is wrong partly because the Sun doesn’t have time, but he’s mainly wrong because you can’t add backradiation. However you look at it, either adding backradiation makes the tropics far too hot, or it is not enough anyway to explain surface temperatures in regions having the mean temperature.

            In that Hansen made a huge mistake, we can dismiss the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture as false.

            Now Norman, when are you going to admit your mistake about deducting outward radiation?

  35. Jimmy Jones says:

    Wow, mpainters! One would think that being exposed as
    as a posse of dishonest fake posters you would try to adapt a bit and switch some of your posts to other sock puppet names like Mack, but I guess you aren’t that clever. Your gang of snarky posters went right back into 24/7 spew mode even after you showed that you are dishonest trolls.

    I have a job and a life, so I couldn’t engage. But scrolling through the posts I see that your gang still didn’t manage to come up with any original material. Just the usual diversions of dressed up insults. There are a few more one liner Mack-ish insults, so the time stamps below are probably not a full record of your senseless bile.

    So, mpainters: the question remains, when do you all sleep?
    You seem to missing a colleague in India to take up the slack when the New World and European mpainters nap.

    February 3, 2016 at 1:00 AM
    February 3, 2016 at 1:14 AM
    February 3, 2016 at 1:25 PM
    February 3, 2016 at 2:18 AM
    February 3, 2016 at 7:23 AM
    February 3, 2016 at 9:16 AM
    February 3, 2016 at 9:20 AM
    February 3, 2016 at 9:36 AM
    February 3, 2016 at 9:48 AM
    February 3, 2016 at 11:24 AM
    February 3, 2016 at 11:31 AM
    February 3, 2016 at 11:35 AM
    February 3, 2016 at 11:40 AM
    February 3, 2016 at 12:10 AM
    February 3, 2016 at 1:35 PM
    February 3, 2016 at 1:42 PM
    February 3, 2016 at 1:55 PM
    February 3, 2016 at 2:17 PM
    February 3, 2016 at 2:19 PM
    February 3, 2016 at 2:26 PM
    February 3, 2016 at 2:58 PM
    February 3, 2016 at 3:29 PM
    February 3, 2016 at 4:41 PM
    February 3, 2016 at 6:41 PM
    February 3, 2016 at 6:47 PM
    February 3, 2016 at 6:53 PM
    February 3, 2016 at 7:16 PM

    • mpainter says:

      AGW cult member hard at work, doing what he knows best: gnashing his teeth at the hated deniers.

      • Mack says:

        Agreed mpainter, fascinating how this AGW cultist won’t accept there are just 2 separate blokes commenting. The same sort of malady that afflicted the poor basstids at Deltoid….now dead Doltoid. They blather on about “sockpuppets”….strange form of paranoid delusion.
        His dentist would be quite busy fixing those gnashed teeth too.

    • Phyte On says:

      Jimmy, you are very frightened about AGW. Can you please describe specifically what frightens you the most about AGW over the next 50 years? Be specific. Stop the generalized doom and gloom and vague forecasts. Be accountable and measurable.

      This isn’t snarky. It’s just an obvious question. Why are you so frightened by AGW?

  36. Norman says:

    DougCotton

    Your claim is false and misleading. I would hope you would do better!

    You: “And thats what happens Norman when you dont pay due diligence in checking and thinking about what you are being brain washed into believing with no evidence and no experiments to support the GH conjecture just blind faith.”

    I have posted a link for you several times that you refuse to look at. It contains evidence of GH effect. Unless you take the time to look at the link quit posting false statements.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html

    David Appell has also linked you to measured spectrum of IR leaving the Earth from satellites and it shows lots of missing IR energy. You are most dishonest when you claim that there is no evidence and there are several experiments to back it up. CO2 is proven to absorb some IR wavelengths. A fact! CO2 will emit IR. Fact! Stefan-Boltzmann equation is based upon numerous experiments. Emissivities are derived by actual measurements of emitting materials. You are very wrong and incorrect to post this nonsense (no evidence). Evidence surrounds you and is given to you in links. Ignorance is your problem so don’t accuse me of being brain-washed and believing something without evidence. Your phony “heat-creep” conjecture is something you want people to believe with no evidence, no support, no data, no tests. Strong evidence is does not exist at all (deep ocean temperatures much colder than surface….isothermal tropopause when convection has halted, temperature inversions at night when cold out, total proof sun is what warms the surface with actual measurements).

    You need to get a new career. You are wasting your time promoting a ridiculous unproven idea rejected many times and totally with zero proof from YOU. You can link to some tests and misrepresent how vortex tubes really work but that is not the same as you doing any experiment!! Have you tried your 16 radiators yet???

    • DougCotton says:

      Norman

      I have responded to every single point you make over and over again, and yet you completely fail to read and comprehend what I am saying, even if you don’t agree. I just wonder why it is that you keep repeating yourself so much, forcing repetitive answers from myself, answers which are already covered in my papers, website, video and book. I am not going to keep wasting my time as I also write on several other climate blogs (necessarily under different names) and social media climate threads by the hundreds.

      You need to think about the ramifications of the fact that those regions on Earth that do indeed receive direct solar radiation of over 800W/m^2 around noon on clear days in the tropics do not get anywhere near the 95C that I calculated using greenhouse false and fraudulent science – as in my first comment today.

      To repeat what I have already explained to you many times:

      Measured spectrums of IR leaving the Earth are totally irrelevant to the heat creep hypothesis, and, in any event, outward radiation is always between 99.5% and 100.5% of inward radiation. Variations do not control climate: natural climate change causes these half-a-percent fluctuations above and below zero. There is no net trapping by IR-active gases. Nitrogen, oxygen, argon and all molecules are warmed by conduction and convective heat transfers which, in physics, include thermal diffusion. In other words, heat is transferred by molecular collision with the surface and other air molecules. IR-active (GH) gases are the only ones that can radiate some of all this thermal energy in all air molecules out of the atmosphere, thus acting like holes in the blanket, and that’s why real-world data shows more moist regions are cooler. Radiation only ever causes heat transfers from warmer to cooler regions, so that going downwards to warmer regions does nothing in the way of adding thermal energy to warmer regions or the surface, because its electromagnetic energy only ever becomes electron energy, never kinetic energy in the target, and so an identical photon is re-emitted as the good professor explained on page 24 here.

      You’ve heard it all before many times, and I’ve also showed you many times that there are hundreds of experiments and a wealth of other evidence supporting the heat creep process. But still you don’t think, because you just automatically assume I must be wrong – and that’s because you are too gullible when it comes to physics, and you lap up the “backradiation helps the Sun to warm the surface” garbage which I have also shown you before just doesn’t work in hot regions.

      • Norman says:

        DougCotton

        I clearly answered in easy to follow terms your ludicrous and very unreal calculations.

        YOU: “You need to think about the ramifications of the fact that those regions on Earth that do indeed receive direct solar radiation of over 800W/m^2 around noon on clear days in the tropics do not get anywhere near the 95C that I calculated using greenhouse false and fraudulent science as in my first comment today.”

        My poor misguided friend. I will try again.

        1) You cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann equilibrium calculations alone when other heat transfer mechanisms are in operation (such as convection, conduction and evaporation). So why do you do this?

        2) Objects do not instantly heat to their maximum temperature in a radiation flux. A short period of high flux will not cause the surface to instantly reach it maximum equilibrium temperature.

        3) Also what you do does not make sense. Your logic circuits are shorted out. YOU: “So, instead of the 24-hour global mean of 168W/m^2 we have an extra 651W/m^2 to add to that 390W/m^2 which is the net mean. But the Stefan Boltzmann calculations for what is now 390+651 = 1041W/m^2 is 368.1K which is about 95C.”

        The 390 W/m^2 is not the net mean it is how much energy the surface is losing!!! In your totally bungled attempt at physics what you would add is 651 as the solar flux to the 340 W/m^2 which would be back radiation for a total of energy into the surface of 991 W/m^2 but the surface is losing energy at the rate of 390 W/m^2 so this value is NOT (repeat NOT) added to the energy being absorbed by the surface! You would take the downward flux of 991-390 (MINUS the 390) to get a total increase to the surface of 601 W/m^2. This flux for a blackbody temp will get to 46.85 C which is normal temp for a desert area in summer or close to the equator.

        • DougCotton says:

          Norman writes “You cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann equilibrium calculations alone when other heat transfer mechanisms are in operation (such as convection, conduction and evaporation). So why do you do this?”

          You miss the WHOLE point, Norman.

          Of course I know that, but James Hansen didn’t. I am just showing that if you calculate temperatures the way Hansen et al do you get totally unreal values and so the whole radiative forcing GH conjecture is just as wrong.

          You are wrong on point 3 no matter how many times you repeat ‘NOT’ in capitals. I showed you how the 390W/m^2 is calculated including back radiation and solar radiation. It is what a surface receives that determines its temperature, if that temperature is not already made hotter by some other non-radiative process, which is what happens on Earth and Venus etc.

          You are also wrong in deducting outward flux when determining temperatures using S-B. At equilibrium with a true blackbody flux in = flux out, so would you claim a net of zero causes the temperature to be whatever it is? So use your algorithm with mean flux and show how you get the mean surface temperature.

          The more you write Norman, the more I have to correct your basic mistakes in physics, which is because you are not qualified in such and have probably studied less than 10% of what I have studied in the field, especially in thermodynamics and radiative heat transfer. An apology is in order from you, thanks, for the mistakes I have had to outline above so that you don’t confuse silent readers.

          I have told you many times, Norman, you would do well not to assume I’m wrong, but rather to study hard and think deeply about what I have explained until you finally realize it is totally correct, except of course when I use Hansen’s methods deliberately to expose his errors.

          • Norman says:

            DougCotton,

            I have to disagree with most your points. The big one is how you are using values. You use the average energy budget in (which is the total energy received by the sun spread out to every square meter of Earth’s surface) and out, which is the global mean temp radiatiating temp spread out over every square meter of Earth’s surface (estimated at 390 or so W/m^2) and you use these in specific locations to prove the climate scientists do not know what they are doing. It is not a correct approach to take to disprove a hypothesis. If you want to use specific data for a given location you would have to add the specific energy flows of that location.

            In your mind, those who prove that a radiation flow is what explains a warmer surface, are wrong for creating a global energy budget. I think they still might have a valid point as that all other energy transfers (conduction, convection, evaporation) move energy around the system but it does not leave the system (Earth). The only way for energy to leave the Earth system is by radiation.

  37. Brian D says:

    Boy, the RSS numbers for the high latitudes of the N. Hemisphere were off the chart at 3.3degC. That beat out Jan 1981 which was at 2.58 degC. While the N. mid-latitudes were at 0.18degC. The AO was quite negative for a time in January, so I assume that played a role in this. Seems the Far East has been especially hit hard.

  38. DougCotton says:

    ROY!

    It’s as simple as this to PROVE that the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is wrong, so you need to consider the alternative paradigm I have developed from correct physics

    The Trenberth, IPCC and NASA energy budget diagrams very clearly imply that back radiation (324W/m^2) can be added to solar radiation (168W/m^2) and then, after deducting non-radiative losses (102W/m^2) the net total of 390W/m^2 supposedly explains the mean surface temperature of 288K using Stefan Bolzmann calculations, which anyone can do if they Google “Stefan Boltzmann calculator” and select the one at tutorvista.com. In fact, because the solar flux is variable, a mean of 390W/m^2 would not produce a mean temperature much above freezing point.

    Now, if you use the assumption that back radiation can be included to determine the mean, then you must apply this concept for every point on the globe. There are, however, places receiving not the mean solar radiation of 168W/m^2 but over 800W/m^2 of solar radiation. This is because the solar constant is actually about 1366W/m^2 and, without clouds on a clear day, less than 40% is absorbed or reflected, thus leaving at least 819W/m^2 in tropical regions where the Sun passes directly overhead at about noon. So, instead of the 24-hour global mean of 168W/m^2 we have an extra 651W/m^2 to add to that 390W/m^2 which is the net mean. But the Stefan Boltzmann calculations for what is now 390+651 = 1041W/m^2 is 368.1K which is about 95C.

    Hence there is something very seriously wrong with the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture, and that is because radiation reaching the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus is not the primary determinant of the surface temperature. A totally different paradigm explains reality and the required thermal energy is supplied by non-radiative processes as is explained on my website and in my linked papers, video and book.

    • Mack says:

      No good shouting at Roy, Duggie boy. He now has your duck-mode defence system in place.

      • mpainter says:

        Doug does that periodically. He bold prints hoots at ROY once or twice each post. I’m convinced he suffers from a form of dementia.

        • Mack says:

          Don’t think it’s dementia,Painter…just terrible confusion….won’t listen to anyone…and throws watts/sq.m around like a drunken sailor.

      • DougCotton says:

        You two suffer from a lack of understanding of thermodynamics and entropy maximization. I don’t know why you bother to write such responses without reading the comment or thinking about the ramifications of what is correctly explained. You won’t get the AU $10,000 reward for proving me wrong with such comments completely lacking any scientific discussion.

        • gbaikie says:

          Doug-
          I assume that what you think is that the core temperature of planet has something to do with the atmosphere’s temperature [and/or ocean temperature]
          I don’t think that Earth being mostly very hot rock with a thin cooled crust has much to do with the temperature of atmosphere and oceans- though I suspect there is some effect- particularly in regards to warming the oceans.

          There is a lot wrong with idea of the greenhouse effect theory- it claims all warming or cooling is caused by gases in the atmosphere. So this religion of the greenhouse effect
          denies any other causal factor.

          There is one aspect of this wacky religion which is issue
          I would like to address, and that is the general assumption
          that humans can control global air temperature.

          Now the emphasis of this religion is that human have controlled the global air temperature and this control will be the doom of all life on the planet Earth.
          And the emphasis is this control is due to greed of stupid humans, that needs parental control of government to prevent the doom of all life on Earth from this greedy and unthinking behavior.
          But my point is the idea of being able to control
          the air temperature of Earth.
          And according the greenhouse effect theory because what is controlling the air temperature is a trace gas, this relative small quantity, it can be relatively easy to control.

          So my question is according to your “theory”, is there any way to control the air temperature of Earth?

          • gbaikie says:

            While I wait for your answer, I thought I would answer my question according to how I see the issue.
            Because I tend to be impatient, and suspect you will not give a speedy response.

            Now first of all I don’t think Earth’s atmosphere is too hot,
            nor will it get too hot. Or I don’t think it would be good idea to decrease global average temperature.
            But I have some interest in idea of changing the environment of other planets- though don’t much interest in specifically changing the air temperature.
            So I don’t think there is any need to change the air temperature of Venus or Mars. And since Moon has no air, it can’t be change, and generally think it’s bad idea to add air
            to the Moon in order to give it an atmosphere.

            The Ancients used to believe the universe as perfect, and I sort of agree with sentiment- loosely speaking. But I think it would be more perfect with humans in it- I am not an isolationist, generally.
            So the universe is actually heaven- and it’s “my kind of heaven”- crazy and wonderful. Though not saying this heaven doesn’t have it’s hellish aspects. If want to focus on Hell
            one could find a lot of it.
            And I am not very content with your present progress of entering heaven. It’s a mixed bag of variety of issues of
            the progress and stagnation. The main problem is we have assigned the role of exploration of space to governments and governments are failing [as is typical] to move very quickly towards exploring our solar system- particularly in regards to our Moon.
            But as said above, I am a impatient- generally.

            So the Moon has near prefect vacuum and this is very desirable, good for a variety of mining and manufacture.
            Mars has a fair amount of CO2, and one needs CO2 to grow plants- so good place to farm and have settlements.
            Both Mars and Moon have small gravity well- if Earth had such same gravity well, we would have made more progress in exploration. They are easy to leave or land on them- and suborbital travel would be easier than Earth’s air travel.
            Venus has same type of largish gravity well as Earth, so that’s the main problem of Venus. But when Earthling get to the point of leaving Earth at a low cost, then same technology probably could be applied to landing and leaving Venus.
            Now, finally to the point, Venus has a lot sulfuric acid as clouds in it’s atmosphere. And we make around 100 million tons of sulfuric acid on Earth- because it’s very useful. So with Venus a major resource would be mining it’s sulfuric acid of it’s clouds.
            And I think if we depleted the amount of sulfuric acid of Venus clouds, this would result in lowering the air temperature of Venus.
            Now I don’t think such lowering of Venus air temperature is an important goal, rather it merely is consequence of doing something. One problem is it will require centuries to lower the air temperature if one removed all the sulfuric acid. Or one might lower the air temperature by some other means which are quicker way to lower the air temperature- if it would condense to sulfuric acid and thereby make it more efficient to mine the sulfuric acid- but even that might require a lot of time.

            With Mars many people imagine that added atmosphere and greenhouse gases would make it’s air warmer. Which I think is a false hope and really difficult to do. So hard to do, and it would not increase the air temperature. Or the effect would be to make Mars effectively colder.

            Instead with Mars, I would add water [billions or even trillions tons of it] to surface the tropical region of Mars. Water gives a more uniform temperature and can provide
            enough pressure one can swim using scuba gear rather than spacesuits. And one could grow water plants or have submerged greenhouses. So sort of like cartoon of life of Aquaman. And less crushing pressure as one would have on Earth- one can dive 3 times deeper on Mars.
            And keeping water warm enough could done various way- could include clear ice surface, and involve aspects related to
            solar ponds.

  39. DougCotton says:

    Roy, this paper may help you realize it’s all wrong in the IPCC world …

    “After scrutinizing this model and the corresponding planetary radiation balance we state that

    “(a) this globally averaged energy balance model is flawed by unsuitable physical considerations,

    “(b) the planetary radiation balance for the Earth in the absence of an atmosphere is fraught by the inappropriate assumption of a uniform surface temperature, the so-called radiative equilibrium temperature of about 255 K …”

    • Mack says:

      Well that’s a start, Duggie boy, You’ve given us a link to somewhere other than your wacko, wonderboy website..Cotton inc., source of all matters spiritual and educational.
      I might even deign to click on that one.

  40. Norman says:

    DougCotton,

    Tim Folkerts had a good example of the effects of backradiaton.

    Using a similar line of reasoning. If you have a one square meter black-body surface in outer space away from any other radiation sources (only heat transfer possible is radiation) and have a 500 W/m^2 flux hitting its surface the equilibrium temperature for this surface will be 306.4 K or 33.25 C.

    Now take that same surface (again in a vacuum so radiation is the only possible heat transfer) and put it inside a large spherical area that has an ambient temperatre of -3.45 C or 300 W/m^2 flux. The 1 m^2 black-body surface is radiating at 300 W/m^2. Now project upon this surface the 500 W/m^2 additional flux. What happens at equilibrium temperature. If I read your idea, the surface would absorb 200 W/m^2 of flux from the radiant source of 500 W/m^2 and reject the other 300 W/m^2 in pseudo-scattering so it would only reach a temp of 33.25 C.

    My view is that the two radiations would add so you would have 300 W/m^2 plus 500 W/m^2 for a total emission of 800 W/m^2 from the surface at a temp of 71.49 C.

    Only an experiment can determine which of us is correct and you can argue endlessly but it won’t make your position more true or real.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Norman ponders: “If I read your idea, the surface would absorb 200 W/m^2 of flux from the radiant source of 500 W/m^2 and reject the other 300 W/m^2 in pseudo-scattering so it would only reach a temp of 33.25 C.”

      Actually, I think he might argue that all 500 W/m^2 from the “hot, intense” source would be absorbed and all of hte 300 W/m^2 from the cooler sphere would be pseudo-scattered. (Although I hate to predict what he might say, since very little of his claims correspond to any textbook physics.)

      Norman further muses: “Only an experiment can determine which of us is correct and you can argue endlessly but it wont make your position more true or real.”

      The thing is, these sorts of calculations are done every day by chemical engineers who need to figure out how warm did parts of furnaces and chemlical plants will be. They are quite successful using the “textbook radiation laws” found in engineering and physics texts. They don’t resort to ‘pseudoscattering” yet Chem E’s have been succeesful for decades

      • bit chilly says:

        having spent 15 years in the industrial ceramics industry working with a variety of different materials i know those textbooks did not always help. you get some very strange heat flows at times when firing materials up to 1700 c.

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi Norman and Tim Folkerts,

        Thanks for your posts, allow me to pose a question for either one of you. If so called back-radiation can be summed so easily, why do Earth geostationary satellites and the lunar surface reach similar peak temperatures? Let me see if I can explain this properly. Both the lunar surface and geo-stationary satellites receive at various times the full solar constant ~1365 w/m^2 and neither has any meaningful atmosphere. Earth geo-stationary or geo-synchronous satellites usually orbit in the exosphere. However, Earth geo-stationary satellites receive much larger amounts of Earth emitted ( and reflected solar ) radiation than the lunar landscape. Call it back radiation, whatever, it’s not summing up the same way. Both the lunar surface and geostationary satellites typically peak around 150 deg C. While material differences may make some difference, similarity in temperatures suggests another explanation. Please note I do have other potential explanations in my mind, but I’d like to hear your explanations first. Thank you and…

        Have a great day!

        • gbaikie says:

          –Earth geo-stationary or geo-synchronous satellites usually orbit in the exosphere. However, Earth geo-stationary satellites receive much larger amounts of Earth emitted ( and reflected solar ) radiation than the lunar landscape. —

          Earth’s exosphere reaches to about 800 km above earth surface.
          The region between 100 and 1000 km is call low earth orbit.
          geo-stationary or geo-synchronous satellites are in high earth orbit. Geostationary is: “approximately 35,786 km
          A geostationary orbit (GEO) is a circular geosynchronous orbit in the plane of the Earth’s equator with a radius of approximately 42,164 km (26,199 mi) (measured from the center of the Earth). ”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit
          Generally geo-synchronous are same as geo-stationary, but one have satellites behave similar to this- the Russian use such an orbit, and it costs of lot energy [or more correctly, rocket delta-v] to get to GEO from Russian high latitude launch site [GEO is around equator or near 0 inclination- and changing inclination at 35,000 km from Earth require a fair amount of delta-v.]
          Anyways it’s a polar orbit, called Molniya orbit:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit
          And it does spend some time in LEO- though majority of the time at a high earth orbital distance.

          –Call it back radiation, whatever, its not summing up the same way. Both the lunar surface and geostationary satellites typically peak around 150 deg C. While material differences may make some difference, similarity in temperatures suggests another explanation. Please note I do have other potential explanations in my mind, but Id like to hear your explanations first. Thank you and–

          In terms of at LEO, GEO or the lunar surface, one has earthshine, which is reflected sunlight. Earthshine will slightly increase the temperature at the lunar surface- but more significantly it add lumination.
          Back radiation does not increase the temperature of things in Earth’s orbit or on Earth.
          But what we actually talking about is IR radiation- and the the intensity of IR depends upon the temperature of a surface. The sunlit side of the Moon is roughly 120 C, and the side during night is about -150 C. So near zero IR from the lunar night side [at surface it’s small amount and the more distance from it, the less it gets to a square meter of area].
          Earth is mostly ocean, and it’s about 25 C, the land surface can be warmed up as much as 70 C, but these are small part of earth and only this warm for a few hours of the daytime. Could make a difference if flying over it when in LEO, but the reflected sunlight is a bigger factor causing any warming.
          During the night, Earth’s warmest region is the tropical ocean and about 25 C. And in terms of top of troposphere,
          one has lapse rate of 6.5 per 1000 meter, and top of troposphere is about 18,000 meters. 18 times 6.5 is 117.
          And 25 minus 117 is -82 C.
          So it’s about like a huge wall of ice miles away, causing warmth. Or as said it’s mostly about Earthshine causing warmth. Or the full moon would cause more warmth from IR- whether in LEO, GEO or orbits near the Moon.

          • DougCotton says:

            There is no maximum around 150C for the Moon – show me your source.

            The Solar constant varies up and down by about 3% due to the Earth’s eccentricity, and the maximum blackbody temperature it could achieve is about 397K or 124C, this explaining the Moon’s maximum temperature.

            I seriously doubt that the 150C temperature is correct for a satellite either. However, temperatures in the thermosphere can get above that, although molecules are very far between. I assume this happens because of the Planck function of solar radiation producing some warming beyond the mean. Maybe some molecules also get super-hot in the exosphere and may warm the satellite by conduction, but I still doubt the somewhat rounded figure of 150C. Reflection from the Earth cannot warm it more than the original direct solar radiation.

          • DougCotton says:

            Try this link for Moon temperatures …

            “When sunlight hits the moon’s surface, the temperature can reach 253 degrees F (123 C). The “dark side of the moon” can have temperatures dipping to minus 243 F (minus 153 C).”

            See also this site.

          • DougCotton says:

            Correction: See also this site where NASA gives a round figure of 250F (about 121C) as the maximum Moon temperature.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi DougCotton,

            This site indicates max lunar temps of 200C!

            http://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/how-did-lunar-astronauts-survive-the-extreme-temperatures-on-the-moon/

            However, most I’ve looked at indicate 123C approximately. Nevertheless, if I remember correctly I think I recall 150C from somewhere, but I cannot find it now.

            You stated:

            “Reflection from the Earth cannot warm it more than the original direct solar radiation.”

            I did not make such a claim. In fact, my question asked for why satellite temps and lunar surface temps should be similar if so called back radiation can be easily added to direct solar radiation ( i.e. Stephan Boltzman )?

            Have a great day!

          • gbaikie says:

            I was quoting and not saying moon surface or things on lunar surface have max temperature of 150 C. But things on the moon or GEO could reach that temperature, IMO.

            In terms of average Max temperature from NASA:

            –Maximum Temperature (K) ~410K (small equatorial craters)–
            http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml

            ~410 K = ~136.85 C

      • DougCotton says:

        Yes, I would use the textbook calculations also, as I did in fact refer to in Sections 2,3,4 and 5 of my 2012 paper which explained the mechanism by which every one-way pencil of radiation obeys the Second Law – a mechanism which physicists in the 21st century now fully understand following the work of the brilliant professor who proved pseudo-scattering occurs. The temperatures in the tropics provide experimental evidence of such also.

    • geran says:

      So, our super-pseudoscientist Norman is going to heat an object from two other objects (sources). The first “source” is at a temperature of 33.25C. The second “source” is at a temperature of -3.45C. And, he expects the heated object to achieve a temperature of 71.49C!

      Hilarious.

      • DougCotton says:

        Yes of course Norman can do that in his pseudo world where, if one small electric radiator only raises an object to 40C in Norman’s world, four such radiators would raise it to 170C even though he hasn’t done the experiment to prove his point, and even though he knows the importance of doing experiments and continually preaches such to us. In fact I have done the experiment and did not get above 45C.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        The “hilarious” thing is that Geran can be be so smug and so mistaken simultaneously. (And then even more hilarious that Doug jumps in to support Geran.)

        Geran says: “The first source is at a temperature of 33.25C.
        No.

        Short explanation: just because an object is receiving 500 W/m^2 of incoming radiation does NOT mean that the radiation is coming from a 33.25 C object.

        Longer Explanation.
        Suppose the 1 m^2 blackbody surface is surrounded by a large blackbody shell. There are any number of ways the shell could deliver 500 W/m^2 to the inner surface. For example, we could have the whole shell radiating 500W/m^2 = 33C

        Or we could have some sort of checkerboard pattern with:

        50% @ 250W/m^2 = -15C &
        50% @ 750W/m^2 = 66C

        50% @ 1000W/m^2 = 91C
        50% @ 0W/m^2 = -273C

        1/16 @ 8000W/m^2 = 340C
        15/16 @ 0W/m^2 = -273C

        1/10,000 @ 5000000W/m^2 = 2791C
        9,999/10,000 @ 0W/m^2 = -273C

        All of these provide 500 W/m^2 to the inner surface. All of these will raise the inner surface to 33 C. But all have vary different spectra and all have very different amounts of the shell providing radiation.

        In particular, the last one has very intense radiation (including considerable amounts of visible light) coming from a very small fraction of the shell @ 2791C. Imagine perhaps a few tiny light bulb filaments against the cold background of outerspace. This is VERY different from the diffuse thermal IR (with no discernible visible light) that would come from an entire shell @ 33C.

        *NOW* we are ready to add the radiation. We start with 99.99% of the shell radiating 300 W/m^2 @ -3.5 C. If the other 0.01% is at -273C, then the inner surface will receive 299.97 W/m^2 and again warm to -3.5 C (0.01C cooler than before if you want to be precise). However, if that last 0.01% is at 2791C, the total absorbed light will be 500 W/m^2 + 299.97 W/m^2 = 71 C.

        RECAP
        0.01% @ 5,000,000 W/m^@ 2791C + 99.99% @ 0 W/m^2 = -273C
        –> 500 W/m^2 absorbed at the inner surface
        –> 33 C

        0.01% @ 0 W/m^2 = -273C + 99.99% @ -3.5 C
        –> ~300 W/m^2 absorbed at the inner surface
        –> -3.5C C

        0.01% @ 5,000,000 W/m^@ 2791C + 99.99% @ -3.5 C
        –> ~800 W/m^2 absorbed at the inner surface
        –> 71C C

        Note that this is indeed very much like earth — weak radiation coming more almost all directions + very strong radiation coming from a very specific direction.

        *********************************

        I’m sure Geran & Doug will sputter and try to hand-wave their way around this, but in the end they will not be able to refute a single number.

        It would sure be nice if one or the other of them were teachable, but I am not holding my breath. But at least the other diligent readers will be able to see the proper way to add the radiation.

        • DougCotton says:

          The “very strong” radiation from the Sun delivers only a mean of 168W/m^2 as the energy diagrams show and that has a blackbody temperature of about 233K which is about -40C. Back radiation (324W/m^2) is actually effectively a little stronger on average than mean solar radiation, but solar radiation well exceeds back radiation when and where the Sun is overhead on clear days.

          Stefan Boltzmann computations are based on the integral of Planck functions, but such functions relate to a single natural source of blackbody radiation and have modal frequency values that are proportional to the source temperature. So two sources at very different temperatures produce Planck functions which barely even overlap and have two separate and quite distinct peaks.

          Hence the sum of the radiation has nothing at all like the shape of a single Planck function, and so Stefan Boltzmann calculations for the sum are totally irrelevant and inapplicable.

          In practice, only whichever source is effectively the hottest (after attenuation due to distance and absorption) plays a role in determining temperature, but only if the existing temperature due to other non-radiative heat sources (and cooler radiation sources) is cooler than the temperature which the radiation could achieve.

          As we saw in the Singapore calculations, when the Sun is directly overhead around noon on a clear day in April or September the solar flux reaching the surface could be up to about 800W/m^2 this being about 60% of the total of about 1366W/m^2 reaching the Earth and known as the Solar constant. (Normally, on average, about 48% to 50% reaches Earth’s surface, but without clouds it can be 60%.)

          But if we use the James Hansen algorithm that entails adding back radiation into the Stefan Boltzmann calculations we get absurd temperatures up around 95C and so it is clearly incorrect to do so. Singapore has maximum temperatures close to 31 or 32C and minimums close to 25 or 26C virtually every day and night of the year, cloudy or clear. Hence the mean of 15C calculated by the James Hansen algorithm (as shown in energy diagrams) cannot be correct. That’s not to say the actual mean is not about that: it’s just pointing out that the calculations leading to that figure are incorrect.

          In fact, because the solar radiation is variable, you would need a mean of over 450W/m^2 coming from a Sun at just over half the distance away.

          Radiation reaching the surface of planets like Earth and Venus is not the primary determinant of the temperature.

          [I write this for silent readers who will observe that Tim Folkerts is unteachable and will now respond with either a “last resort” comment or another imaginary example for which he has no empirical evidence.]

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Hence the sum of the radiation has nothing at all like the shape of a single Planck function, and so Stefan Boltzmann calculations for the sum are totally irrelevant and inapplicable.”

            You are almost on to something here!

            It is indeed quite true that the shape of the combined INCOMING radiation from two sources is quite different from the OUTGOING radiation of the surface being heated.

            The thing is … the SB calculation only applies to the OUTGOING radiation. It only depends on the temperature of the surface. If a BB surface is radiating 300 W/m^2, it will be -3C. If the surface is in a steady-state condition, it makes no different whether incoming energy is from a 2 pi steradian hemisphere @ -3.5 C surfaces, or a tiny fraction of a steradian @ 5500 K, or from a 300 W/m^2 electric heater inside the object. Or 150 W/m^2 from an electric heater and 150 from a -46 C hemisphere. or 132 from an electric heater and 168 from sunlight.

            ALL OF THESE WILL WARM THE SURFACE TO -3 C AND ALL WILL RESULT IN THE SAME SPECTRUM AND THE SAME 300 W/m^2 BEING RADIATED FROM THE SURFACE. (Does anyone seriously object to this result???)

          • DougCotton says:

            The temperature to which a body is warmed depends upon the incoming radiation or other non-radiative sources of thermal energy. The outgoing spectrum is a result of the temperature attained. You cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for a combination of two radiative sources which, when added, do not have the shape of a standard Planck function.

            In any event, in the case of far more than three quarters of Earth’s surface, the non-radiative heat input has already raised or maintained the surface temperature well above that to which either the solar radiation or the atmospheric radiation could do at that location. Hence the radiation received at the surface is irrelevant in these regions.

            Icebergs will not raise the temperature of a surface which is already, say, 10C. Nor will solar radiation of 350W/m^2 (more than twice the mean) and nor will both lots of radiation together. Until you do the experiment I have done with four radiators and get close to 170C rather than the 45C that I got, why should I be persuaded otherwise, especially when standard physics (including the Second Law) makes it perfectly clear that for every one-way independent pencil of radiation heat transfer only ever occurs when that radiation is from an effectively warmer source than the target. The effective temperature of the 350W/m^2 of Solar radiation (without any focusing or magnification) is about 7C and so it won’t raise a surface temperature that is already 10C.

          • DougCotton says:

            “Does anyone seriously object to this result???)”

            Yep. Because Singapore does not get up to 95C even though there could be solar radiation of 800W/m^2 and backradiation about half that. Maximum temperature is usually not above 33C.

          • DougCotton says:

            “Does anyone seriously object to this result?”

            Yep, Neither the -40C solar radiation or the other colder source can decrease entropy.

            “Does anyone seriously object to this result?”

            Yep, the Earth’s surface is not a black or gray body. You seem to conveniently “forget” about non-radiative heat transfers. A true black or gray body has no such heat transfers in or out.

            So you can’t determine the Earth’s surface temperature with Stefan Boltzmann calculations. That was Hansen’s huge mistake.

            As is clearly implied in energy budget diagrams (IPCC, NASA, Trenberth) the mean surface temperature (288K) is supposedly explained by adding mean solar radiation (168W/m^2) less non-radiative surface cooling losses (-102W/m^2) plus supposed input of thermal energy by way of 324W/m^2 of radiation from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. The net sum of this radiation, 390W/m^2, if it were uniform night and day (which it obviously is not) would raise a blackbody to 288K. But, because of the fact that the temperature achieved is proportional only to the fourth root of the flux, and because the solar flux is very variable (from zero at night up to about 800W/m^2 where the Sun is directly overhead around noon on a clear day at some latitude in the tropics) the actual mean temperature would be at least 10 degrees cooler. But that is not the only mistake. If it were correct to add the atmospheric radiation to get the mean temperature, then you would need to show that all temperatures everywhere can always be correctly calculated by adding the atmospheric radiation to the solar radiation. So consider those places like Singapore in the tropics that can receive up to about 800W/m^2 of direct solar radiation on a clear day when about 60% of the solar constant radiation (1362W/m^2) gets to the surface because albedo is less in the absence of clouds. If we then add over 324W/m^2 of atmospheric radiation (probably really more in such warmer-than-average regions) we get blackbody temperatures around 95C. Yet in Singapore the daily maximum is nearly always 31C or 32C and the minimum 25C or 26C virtually every day and night of the year, whether cloudy or clear. The atmospheric radiation at night could not explain the minimum, and if you also include it by day you get absurd temperatures around 95C. Hence there is something seriously wrong with the whole radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture which Hansen based entirely upon the assumption that atmospheric radiation helps the Sun to raise the surface temperature each morning. There is a totally different paradigm which does explain all observed temperatures, but this is not the place to discuss such.

        • geran says:

          Tim, you never let us down.

          I took the numbers from Norman’s pseudoscience. So, if you must defend his pseudoscience, you must defend his numbers.

          Which, you can’t!

          Hilarious.

          • geran says:

            And, Tim, for more laughs, why don’t you also try to defend some of Norm’s other hilarious pseudoscience:

            1) Cabbages emit visible light
            2) Energy does NOT leave the system, but it leaves the system
            3) You can bake a turkey with ice

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Geran, stick to the point. I don’t intend to follow every wild goose chase you try to distract us with. I am addressing one specific issue here — understanding the nature radiation from various sources and how they can be added. Don’t worry about vegetables atm. πŸ™‚

            You did indeed take Norman’s numbers, but you then misinterpreted them. After an opportunity to learn, you STILL misinterpreted them.

            So a simple question for you (and Doug). Is 168 W/m^2 of radiation from sunlight distinguishable in any way from 168 W/m^2 of radiation from a 233 K surface, or are then both identical “233 K radiation”?

          • gbaikie says:

            “So a simple question for you (and Doug). Is 168 W/m^2 of radiation from sunlight distinguishable in any way from 168 W/m^2 of radiation from a 233 K surface, or are then both identical 233 K radiation?”

            The sunlight is direct and is from a blackbody of about 6000 K. If you magnify this sunlight is can heat to 6000 K. Or lots of people magnify sunlight and melt bricks. Google it:
            “magnify sunlight melt brick”

            The radiation from something which is 233 K will be indirect light and can only warm something to 233 K- though one can convert the energy into another form of energy and use that energy to power laser or something. Or I mean one can not magnify it like sunlight.
            So this is proof that it’s different. But one measure this difference by determining their blackbody spectrum.

            Now if you go further from the Sun and therefore have a weaker solar flux, this light also can melt bricks if magnified- or it continues to have signature of the sun.
            Now the wattage of UV, visible light and infrared of the sun is measured by it’s ability to heat something- the joules of heat created by the wavelength. So in sense these wavelengths are equalized because one wants a system of comparison.
            So 10 watts per square meter of UV light should heat water by same amount as 10 watts of IR- assuming both are equally absorbed by the water. So there is there is a “manufactured” sameness of watts vs watts, but a 1/10th of the radiation white hot chunk of metal might equal the heat of 1 chunk of red hot chunk of metal, but 10 of these red hot chunk does not heat to same temperature as the 1/10th of one white hot chunk of metal.
            So they would heat water by same temperature- as the assumption is the water is cooler.

            So in terms of heating something it matters what it’s blackbody spectrum it has and it matter whether it’s directed light or not. Now if have a very very large object
            which was say 2000 K and one was say 50 million km from it, it’s infrared light would be directed light [weak, but directed]. Say it 1 million km in diameter. And if one was only 1 million km from it, it’s obviously more intense, but it would not all be directed light. Or stuff normally doesn’t emit directed light at normal distances. And to warm a surface to say, 233 K or higher, requires directed light.

          • DougCotton says:

            Tim asks: “Is 168 W/m^2 of radiation from sunlight distinguishable in any way from 168 W/m^2 of radiation from a 233 K surface, or are then both identical 233 K radiation?”

            Of course they are different. Aren’t you aware of Wien’s Displacement Law? The original source temperatures are very different, and so the modal frequencies are very different. How do you think scientists determine the temperature of a distant star from the very weak radiation that is received?

          • DougCotton says:

            And a blackbody in Space will be warmed to 233K by either the 168W/m^2 of solar radiation or the radiation from a very close iceberg (or meteor) at 233K if we can assume the body is smaller than the iceberg and is effectively a black cavity with the only opening facing the Sun or the iceberg.

          • geran says:

            Tim, both gbaikie and Doug answered your question before I got to it, and they are both correct. But, let me add to their answers:

            This concept of “adding fluxes” is widely misunderstood. Clearly Norman is confused, as indicated by his statement (paraphrasing) that 500 Watts/m^2 added to 300 Watts/m^2 is always equal to 800 Watts/m^2. Lukewarmers believe that back-radiation adds to solar insolation to warm the Earth more than the Sun can by itself. And, some take the confusion to the extreme of creating their own system of pseudoscience.

            But, in reality, all “Watts” are not the same. For example, a typical desktop computer requires about 500 Watts. So, could you run that computer by shining five 100-Watt light bulbs on it?

            The correct answer is “no”. The “Watts” are “different”.

            Now to the question of back-radiation vs. direct solar. If you have the same amount of each, say 168 W/m^2 as in your question, are they the same? The correct answer is “no”. They have different sources and consequently different spectra. And, it follows, that the photons are not identical. Just as all “Watts” are not the same, all “fluxes” are not the same. (Again, both gbaikie and Doug made this point.)

            To explain fully would require a course in quantum physics. You would need to completely understand Wien’s Law, Planck’s Law, and the particular process as to how photons are emitted and absorbed. In both emission and absorption phenomena, the temperature of the surface is important. That is a fact often ignored by pseudoscience.

            I think something else that confuses many is trying to apply “black body” physics to the real world. A black body is a fictitious concept. It is a learning tool, but it does not exist in reality. A theoretical black body absorbs ALL photons, regardless of wavelength. You cannot purchase such an object!

          • DougCotton says:

            Yes geran. I’ve summed up the pseudo science in the huge errors that James Hansen made here. In case you don’t get to it before it’s deleted in Wikipedia, I’ve copies it into another comment here.

          • DougCotton says:

            So, Tim Folkerts, here again are the huge errors that James Hansen made and you have been gullible enough to believe because of your lack of understanding of advanced physics.

            Copied from Wikipedia talk …

            As is clearly implied in energy budget diagrams (IPCC, NASA, Trenberth) the mean surface temperature (288K) is supposedly explained by adding mean solar radiation (168W/m^2) less non-radiative surface cooling losses (-102W/m^2) plus supposed input of thermal energy by way of 324W/m^2 of radiation from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. The net sum of this radiation, 390W/m^2, if it were uniform night and day (which it obviously is not) would raise a blackbody to 288K. But, because of the fact that the temperature achieved is proportional only to the fourth root of the flux, and because the solar flux is very variable (from zero at night up to about 800W/m^2 where the Sun is directly overhead around noon on a clear day at some latitude in the tropics) the actual mean temperature would be at least 10 degrees cooler. But that is not the only mistake. If it were correct to add the atmospheric radiation to get the mean temperature, then you would need to show that all temperatures everywhere can always be correctly calculated by adding the atmospheric radiation to the solar radiation. So consider those places like Singapore in the tropics that can receive up to about 800W/m^2 of direct solar radiation on a clear day when about 60% of the solar constant radiation (1362W/m^2) gets to the surface because albedo is less in the absence of clouds. If we then add over 324W/m^2 of atmospheric radiation (probably really more in such warmer-than-average regions) we get blackbody temperatures around 95C. Yet in Singapore the daily maximum is nearly always 31C or 32C and the minimum 25C or 26C virtually every day and night of the year, whether cloudy or clear. The atmospheric radiation at night could not explain the minimum, and if you also include it by day you get absurd temperatures around 95C. Hence there is something seriously wrong with the whole radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture which Hansen based entirely upon the assumption that atmospheric radiation helps the Sun to raise the surface temperature each morning. There is a totally different paradigm which does explain all observed temperatures, but this is not the place to discuss such.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Geran admits: “The correct answer is no. The Watts are different. ”

            Very good. The whole point of the rhetorical question was to hopefully hear you say this.

            Now go back to your own statement: “ The first source is at a temperature of 33.25C. The second source is at a temperature of -3.45C. “
            As you now recognize, not all watts as the same. The second source was indeed 300 W/m^2 of diffuse “-3.5 C Watts” coming from all directions from a large, cool blackbody surface.

            But now focus on the first source. *IF* the 500 W/m^2 was indeed from a large, diffuse 33 C surtface you would have had a point. There is no way to add the energy from two such sources. Adding the second diffuse source would necessarily block the photons from first diffuse source. You get one OR the other, and an object absorbing such radiation cannot possibly get more than the 500 W/m^2 from the warmer source.

            But what if the 500 W/m^2 is from a tiny, intense, hot source. What if the “Watts are different”? Then it doesn’t block the first source (other than a minuscule amount). This “different” sort of 500 W/m^2 radiation can indeed be added to the diffuse radiation. Now we can have one AND the other! Now we CAN have 800 W/m^2 and we CAN have 71C as a result.

            Or stated another way:
            * if the watts are coming from partly -3C surfaces and partly from 33C surfaces, the final temp of the exposed surface will be between -3C and 33C
            * if the “watts” are coming from partly -3C surfaces and partly from 3000C surfaces, the final temp of the exposed surface will be between -3C and 3000C. There is no reason that 71C should be at all remarkable in this situation.

            ********************************

            Read that again, keeping in mind that you all agree that there are indeed “different kinds of watts”.

          • geran says:

            Tim, you are so wrapped around the axel trying to unravel your own pseudoscience that it seems you like being incorrect.

            (My comments indicated by “>>>”.)

            “Geran admits” >>>Incorrect. I’m not “admitting” anything. I answered your question. Your choice of phrasing indicates delusion.

            “Now go back to your own statement:” >>>Incorrect. I already indicated that was using values from Norman’s example of pseudoscience.

            “As you now recognize, not all watts as the same.” >>>Incorrect. There is no “now” involved. I have been saying such things for years. You are trying to craft the wording again. You are desperate.

            *IF* the 500 W/m^2 was indeed from a large, diffuse 33 C surtface you would have had a point. There is no way to add the energy from two such sources.” >>> You agree with me. You finally got something correct.

            But what if the 500 W/m^2 is from a tiny, intense, hot source. What if the Watts are different? >>>What if “ifs and buts were candy and nuts”? You are grasping and flailing, desperately trying to support your pseudoscience.

            * if the watts are coming from partly -3C surfaces and partly from 33C surfaces, the final temp of the exposed surface will be between -3C and 33C
            * if the watts are coming from partly -3C surfaces and partly from 3000C surfaces, the final temp of the exposed surface will be between -3C and 3000C. There is no reason that 71C should be at all remarkable in this situation. >>>What if empty beer cans instantly turned into solid gold?

            “Read that again, keeping in mind that you all agree that there are indeed different kinds of watts. >>>No, you read your nonsense again and realize that you cannot support Norman’s pseudoscience. Which is where this conversation started.

          • gbaikie says:

            –But what if the 500 W/m^2 is from a tiny, intense, hot source. —

            If tiny and producing and emitting 500 watts per square meter
            it’s very hot. Or something the size of pin head [which could be quite large- depending what is meant by tiny] would have to be highly energized.
            For example if tiny is another word for a molecule, a CO2 molecule absorbs near infrared light [from the sun] and it also adsorbs longwave infrared. H20 gas absorbs more sunlight, but CO2 absorbs a small portion of sunlight.
            So energy from shorter wavelength would make the tiny “hotter” than the longer wavelength.

            Also in terms of point of light from tiny, a droplet of water simply has more molecules, eg:
            “1 drop x (1 mL / 20 drops) x (1 g / mL) x (1 mole / 18.01 g) x (6.022×10^23 molecules / mole) = 1.7×10^21 molecules ”
            https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090413123841AAP8lWw
            Or millions of trillions more. So if molecules in droplet of water emit 1/trillionth of the wattage of single molecule it would a more intense point of light.

            Another to consider is something like lightning- which is air highly energized. If lightning a mile away from you it’s mot going to heat much, but if near you it will:
            “Lightning does produce heat which can be felt, depending on how close you are to it. It would have to strike within a few yards of you. Thanks! ”
            http://www.chacha.com/question/can-you-feel-heat-off-lightning
            Hmm I wonder how watts per square meter, one gets from a molecule of air heated?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Geran says: “But what if the 500 W/m^2 is from a tiny, intense, hot source. What if the Watts are different? >>>What if β€œifs and buts were candy and nuts”? You are grasping and flailing, desperately trying to support your pseudoscience.”

            Geran, look back at the original thought experiment. Or go back even farther, to the real-world situation that inspired it.

            There *IS* a single small bright source of radiant energy (500 W/m^2 in the gedanken experiment or the sun in the original real-world situation. These watts *ARE* different from the radiation that would be received from a 33 C hemisphere.

            To this *IS* added a broad, cool hemispherical radiator (the -3 C shell in the gedanken experiment or the atmosphere in the real-world).

            Rather than “grasping and flailing”, I am accurately describing the situation. You are the one trying to cling to an interpretation that corresponds to neither Norm’s thought experiment nor to reality.

        • DougCotton says:

          Roy and any who want to know what really happens …

          In general, as seen in every planetary troposphere, and as pointed out by Nikolov and Zeller, Dr Hans Jelbring and others, there is an equilibrium temperature gradient formed by gravity acting on individual molecules. The process is explained in my 2013 paper linked here and also in the eight molecule experiment that I outlined in a recent comment on an earlier thread.

          This means that surface temperatures on Earth are primarily determined by the existence of this stable equilibrium temperature gradient, as the above scientists realized, although they did not get as far as explaining the required energy transfer mechanism which is what I called heat creep.

          The thermal plot builds up going towards the surface and core, being anchored in the stratosphere or upper troposphere of a planet due to radiating layers that, on average, achieve radiative balance with the Sun. The probability that I am wrong about this is millions to one against, based on the “coincidences” issue explained in an earlier comment.

          Such effective radiating temperatures from Earth outwards in the Solar System are all below 0C, but tropospheric temperatures can be hotter than Earth on a planet like Uranus (about 20 to 30 times further from the Sun) because the troposphere is much higher and so the temperature builds up more.

          Where the thermal plot of temperature against altitude meets the surface we have what I called the “supporting temperature” which is what we see on Venus (about 732K) and Earth (about 282 to 284K) and solar radiation (when the Sun is nearly directly overhead) will raise that temperature in a small portion of Earth’s surface, bringing the mean to about 286 to 288K. This is temporary daily energy that usually dissipates in the late afternoon and early evening. After that the cooling rate slows in the early pre-dawn hours (did you ever wonder why?) because the supporting temperature kicks in and so any further cooling requires that the whole troposphere cools equivalently, maintaining the temperature gradient.

          The next day the opposite occurs as the whole troposphere warms back up by absorbing new Solar energy equivalent to what was radiated out the previous night. Downward natural convective heat transfer processes (that include thermal diffusion) transport the new thermal energy to lower warmer altitudes and into the surface and this “heat creep” (for short) restores thermodynamic equilibrium with its associated temperature gradient.

          That’s all folks – all you need to know, because carbon dioxide radiation is not warming the surface – heat creep is.

    • DougCotton says:

      I read your first line and laughed to myself Norman, reading no more. Tim Folkerts is unteachable.

      Are you going to admit your mistake, Norman in deducting 390W/m^2 of outward radiation (which was from a surface at only 15C, not the much hotter one we were talking about) in determining the effect of the solar radiation plus backradiation in the tropics or not, Norman?

      Do you still think that you, without qualifications in physics, know more than the good professor who explained the pseudo scattering process on page 24 of his paper about the mathematical physics of blackbody radiation?

      What we deduct, Norman, is the backradiation of 324W/m^2 because it is pseudo scattering and has no extra warming effect. Hence we have an “experiment” for you Norman, just by going to Singapore, taking out a thermometer around noon on a clear sunny day in April or September and noting that, although there is about 800W/m^2 of solar radiation reaching the surface, the temperature is only 32C. Furthermore, at night, it does not fall below 25C which is far more than the back radiation could achieve.

      In short, Norman, as I have told you many times, using the James Hansen cum IPCC algorithm of working out the mean surface temperature by adding mean solar radiation (168) and backradiation (324) and deducting non-radiative losses (102) and getting 168+324-102=390 and then getting the blackbody temperature for 390W/m^2 as being 288K (15C) is crap, for the simple reason that the algorithm does not work virtually anywhere on the Earth’s surface when we use specific measurements for a given location. If it doesn’t work all over the globe for particular locations (and it’s way out) how the hell could it give a valid mean?

      Radiation reaching the surface of a planet like Earth or Venus is not the primary determinant of the surface temperature. Hence radiation from carbon dioxide does not help the Sun to warm the surface. A totally different paradigm does correctly explain all temperatures. It’s here where you are welcome to ask genuine questions after reading the linked website and papers, and perhaps watching the video.

      • Norman says:

        DougCotton,

        Find me a sunny day in Singapore to even find data?

        YOU: “Hence we have an experiment for you Norman, just by going to Singapore, taking out a thermometer around noon on a clear sunny day in April or September and noting that, although there is about 800W/m^2 of solar radiation reaching the surface, the temperature is only 32C. Furthermore, at night, it does not fall below 25C which is far more than the back radiation could achieve.”

        I am looking at actual weather data for Singapore in April and I do not see any sunny days!

        http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/WSSS/2015/4/13/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Singapore&req_statename=Singapore&reqdb.zip=00000&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=48698

        I am not sure Singapore has much sunny days. This chart shows it is mostly cloudy.
        http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/singapore.html

        Average of over 50% clouds each month with low average solar flux.

        • DougCotton says:

          Fine, Norman, well when there’s thick cloud cover in Singapore there’s virtually no solar radiation reaching the surface and the back radiation (say, 324W/m^2) dominates and raises the surface temperature to 2C does it? Funny how the minimum is still about 25C and the maximum at least 30C on cloudy days. I’m saying that without even looking at the data to which you referred. Was I right?

        • DougCotton says:

          Did you miss the second paragraph? I asked, are you going to admit your mistake, Norman? You just sidetracked with a red herring about there being 50% cloud cover in Singapore. There’s also 50% sunshine then, now isn’t there? The daily maximums are from 30C to 33C and the daily minimums from 24C to 26C for virtually every day of the year, now aren’t they Norman – whether cloudy or clear, hail, rain or shine?

          So are you going to admit your mistake Norman about deducting outward radiation when determining the temperature using inward radiative flux in Stefan Boltzmann calculations?

    • DougCotton says:

      If two very close bodies are radiating towards each other in a vacuum, the only effective transfer of thermal energy is from the warmer to the cooler, and such heat transfers cease when the temperatures become equal, which is very approximately half way between the two initial temperatures. That’s the law – the second one.

  41. John Finn says:

    And what if there is a 3rd body say, for example, the sun which is constantly radiating energy towards the 2 bodies.

    • DougCotton says:

      Two such bodies like Earth and Venus receiving solar radiation will respond independently. See my summary comment just posted above.

  42. Norman says:

    DougCotton,

    I have been doing some real world calculations using actual measured values. Please follow the logic before concluding it is false. It will not agree with you but that does not mean it is wrong. If Tim Folkerts reads this post maybe you can check my reasoning to see if it is valid.

    Go to this link: Singapore solar average energy per month
    http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/singapore.html

    Using this conversion link.
    http://www.wind101.com/misc/sun101net/

    February has an insolation of 5.13 kWhr/m^2/day which equates to 213.75 W/m^2 (this would be the total radiant energy reaching the surface of Singapore in February night and day cycles included so it can be used to calculate equilibrium temperatures). If Singapore was a blackbody (not sure of its emissivity) its temperature from avialiable solar flux would be -26 C. In February the average temp of Singapore is 27 C
    http://www.climateandweather.com/weather-in-singapore

    Now if you add downwelling IR to this mix and it can add to the total flux (what you do not believe but I am willing to demonstrate with real world measured values). If you have the solar inupt measured at 213.75 W/m^2 for February and now add 324 W/m^2 as the downwelling component. You end with 213.75 + 324 = 537.75 W/m^2 added to the surface. If you put this into the Stefan-Boltzmann Calculator you get an equilibrium temperature of 38.85 C. This is about 12 C higher than the actual measured average but now you add evaporation loss and convection and you can explain the real world temperatures by back radiation. The other forms of heat transfer can remove energy from a hotter surface to keep it at a lower equilibrium temperature but they will not warm a super cold surface from -26 C all the way up to 27 C as they do not add but remove energy (evaporation and convection).

    • DougCotton says:

      Well, Norman, evaporative losses plus thermals are shown as 102W/m^2 so your 537.75 is reduced to 435.75W/m^2 for which blackbody temperature is only about 23C. Furthermore, Norman, unless you admit and apologize for your mistake in saying that the outward radiation has to be deducted to be consistent, Norman, in accord with what you yourself wrote that we need to do, you now need to deduct the outward radiation of at least 390W/m^2, bringing it down to 45.75 W/m^2 for which the blackbody temperature is -105C.

    • DougCotton says:

      And Norman, I was not talking about evaporative cooling and convective heat transfers upwards: I was talking about the correct physics developed from and based upon the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as in my paper, as you should have guessed – a process which is increasing entropy. Do you have some problem with a process that is increasing entropy, Norman? Oh sorry, I forgot you have no qualifications in physics and did not even do Second Year Physics at university, so you probably don’t know what entropy is. Why is it that you think you can teach me physics, Norman?

      I have already pointed out your error in what is pretty basic physics Norman when you claimed that, to work out the temperature achieved by a certain inward radiative flux we had to deduct the outward flux first. Are you going to admit to the silent readers that you made this huge and very basic error Norman? Are you going to consider apologizing for wasting my time in having to point out your error, Norman?

      • Norman says:

        DougCotton,

        The logic is too scrambled up above to begin to apologize for anything. I was objecting to you adding 390 W/m^2 to the downward flux to obtain an equilibrium temperature. I was objecting to your use of a short term spike in energy to use it to determine an equilibrium temperature. Your claim was that a few hours of 800 W/m^2 flux could create and equilibrium temp of 70 C and then you added 390 to this to get at temp in the 90 C range. You can’t calculate an equilibrium temperature with a short flux since real world objects take time to heat up.

        • Norman says:

          DougCotton,

          Just totally scrap the debate we were having up the thread. It is hopeless to untangle and try to get things right.

          I can continue with the Singapore question.
          We have some known measured values and then some unknown unmeasured values (at least ones beyond my ability to find).

          I am using the month of February for this study as I have already calculated values in this month.

          Singapore Solar energy flux for February is 213.75 W/m^2 (this is a totalized amount averaged out over night and day…it is how much energy from the Sun Singapore will receive). It can be used to determine the equilibrium temperature of Singapore (using a short term high solar flux will not determine an equilibrium temperature as a lot of initial energy is used in heating up so much mass…turning on an 800 watt heater will not heat objects up to the equilibrium temperature as soon as the heater is turned on).

          So the available solar flux to Singapore will achieve an equilibrium temperature of -26 C.

          The average February temperature (equilibrium temperature) is 27 C. So the real world surface emission at Singapore would 460 W/m^2. The surface is receiving 214 W/m^2 from the Sun yet has to gain enough energy to be able to continuously radiate 460 W/m^2. DougCotton comes up with “heat creep” to resolve this problem. I say you do not need to come up with anything. You only have to change an assumption you have made (which is not currently been established by any physics experiments that I am aware of). You assume radiation fluxes cannot add into a surface. If you change this assumption to open the mind that it is possible that radiation fluxes can add you now can resolve the problem with radiation and other forms of heat transfer.

          I do not know how much the backradtion is at Singapore. Since the air is warm and cloudy the back radiation value probably is higher than the 333 mean given by the energy budgets for the globe. But choose a number the balance will be between the two unknown quantities (no measurements for either). I will try 380 W/m^2 backradiation.

          Now you add 214 W/m^2 + 380 W/m^2 = 594 W/m^2 flowing down into the surface (from Sun and backradiation). Downward flux. The upward flux is an established measured value of around 460 W/m^2. This energy is leaving the surface and will not add to it but be subtracted from it. Now you have 594 W/m^2 striking the surface and you have 460 W/m^2 leaving the surface. This leaves 594-460=134 W/m^2 energy that must be removed by other processes to balance the total energy of the location (Energy In-Energy Out must equal to maintain and equilibrium temperature). 102 W/m^2 is the global average for energy lost from surface via convection, conduction and evaporation. Because of the warmer surface at Singapore the other heat energy flows may be larger and the 134 W/m^2 attributed to them is not so unrealistic. It could also be the backradiation is actually a smaller value than 380 I used. The two unknowns makes a valid calculation for this area not possible but it looks like Ball4 did one for you on a previous thread.

          You can see radiation can explain the observed surface warming if you allow the radiation fluxes to add at the surface. You say they can’t and I do not accept this.

          The experiment at PSI clearly demonstrated that radiation fluxes DO ADD. Two Spotlights on a target led to a higher equilibrium temperature than one did. If radiant fluxes do not add it would not matter if you had one, two or any number of spotlights on the target because you do not accept fluxes add. But the experiment definitely shows that fluxes DO ADD to create a higher equilibrium temperature.

          • DougCotton says:

            “Scrap the debate” Norman????

            That’s a “last resort” comment if ever there was one. Your argument against my proof was based entirely on your false claim, Norman that we should be deducting the outward radiation before using the remaining net flux in Stefan Boltzmann calculations. That is pseudo physics dreamed up by you and no one else that I know of, Norman. A classic!

            It is quite clear that a flux of over 800W/m^2 on a clear day when and where the Sun is directly overhead is over 630W/m^2 more than the global mean flux of 168W/m^2. That extra 630W/m^2 pumps up the calculations from 15C to over 90C when those calculations are done the same way, Norman.

            When are you going to admit your error regarding your claim that outward flux should be deducted? The IPCC don’t deduct it. It was your only “argument” against my refutation of the GH conjecture which thus stands.

            In any event the GH conjecture is wrong because it ignores the gravitationally induced temperature gradient which is a direct corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

            Even when I told you it ignores that law because of what is explained in my paper, you, Norman, rambled off with discussion of net radiation in and out of the surface – nothing to do with what I was talking about. Read the paper, Norman!

          • DougCotton says:

            I have explained,Norman, why the PSI experiment got a slightly higher temperature (less than 10 degrees above what the second brighter light could achieve on its own) because of the rate of cooling, but the point is that the temperature was nowhere near what was calculated by adding the fluxes and bunging the total into Stefan Boltzmann calculations. No physicist who knows his stuff would do that – but you think you can because James Hansen assumed he could (without consulting people who work in the field) and you and generations of climatologists have been gullible enough to believe. Ihave done the four radiator experiment and got 45C – just like PSI – a little warmer because cooling is restricted by the warmer air molecules – but not 170C.

            Unless and until you do the four radiator experiment and get close to 170C why should anyone here believe the GH conjecture, Norman.

            Radiation doesn’t work like that, Norman. All the radiation between the warmer surface and the cooler atmosphere is doing is effectively transferring thermal (kinetic) energy out of the surface, thus making it harder for the Sun’s radiation to warm it, not easier.

          • DougCotton says:

            Dear, dear me!

            Norman carefully demonstrated that there is energy balance at the surface. Well, Norman, all the energy budget diagram do that. So what?

            Then you deduce from this energy balance …
            “You can see radiation can explain the observed surface warming”

            Well Norman, I don’t “see” anything such thing in your computations of energy balance that comes up with a temperature. All I see is 134W/m^2 going into the surface for which the blackbody temperature is … wait for it …
            220.48570360818994 K Norman!

          • DougCotton says:

            Then Norman writes: “213.75 W/m^2 (this is a totalized amount averaged out over night and day)

            I’m sure it is a 24 hour mean Norman. So you can double it for a mean flux in the day just for starters. Hence it should not surprise you that, in the middle of the day when there is a break in the cloud (the situation I was talking about) the solar radiation could be about 800W/m^2 as I said, that being about 60% of the solar constant at TOA because about 20% is absorbed and about 20% (maybe less without any clouds) is reflected.

          • DougCotton says:

            Norman suggests Ball4 did a calculation on another thread. Yep, he did a calculation that was out by over 400W/m^2 regarding energy balance at the surface, as I pointed out on that thread.

          • Ball4 says:

            Doug – My balance agreed with measurements. Your statement is unfounded. A statement is not a measurement.

        • DougCotton says:

          My calculations were correct, thank you. Read again more carefully. And yes it should happen in a few hours. Have you ever walked on a hot black asphalt road in bare feet? Was it anywhere near as hot the night before? In any event, if there is not enough time then the calculations of the mean of 15C is wrong because there’s not enough time.

          • Ball4 says:

            “…the calculations of the mean of 15C is wrong because theres not enough time.”

            The calculations for climate 15C (~288K) are over 4 to 10 years Doug, that is enough time to observe steady state was reasonably achieved.

            Doug writes about the ideal lapse of -g/Cp about -9.8K/km – even that it is the state of max. entropy (lol). One of the dangers of deriving this lapse is that is so often mistaken for what the lapse rate in the atm. is or should be & for which Doug has fallen hook line and sinker.

            Consider Doug’s aforementioned black asphalt. Not only are the actual lapse rates not necessarily the DALR, lapse rates near surfaces (within a meter or so) can be hundreds or even thousands of times larger. Doug can verify this himself on the closest patch of black asphalt on a hot summer clear afternoon.

            The temperature of a hot asphalt road may be 40C or higher. If Doug is standing on that road in the sun, his feet at 40C, he might be sniffing air at 35C (or less). That’s a distance of about 1meter. So lapse of 5C/m or 5000C/km, nearly 500 times the DALR. Doug’s nearly sacred 9.8K/km notwithstanding.

  43. Slipstick says:

    The NET transfer of energy is always from the warmer to the cooler. Energy is continuously transferred between radiating bodies irrespective of temperature.

    • DougCotton says:

      Yes electromagnetic energy is transferred both ways. That does not mean it is thermalized, and it isn’t unless the target is cooler than the effective (attenuated) temperature of the source. The amount of electromagnetic energy that is converted to kinetic energy in a cooler target is related to the area between the Planck curves, this calculation having been used by engineers and physicists for over a century.

      • DougCotton says:

        For the physics see Sections 2 to 5 of my paper published on several websites in March 2012 and study the main cited reference regarding blackbody radiation.

        • Slipstick says:

          Unfortunately, the physics in your “paper” does not correspond with reality. It is based on half-truths and unsupported beliefs concocted to rationalize your misunderstanding of the physical world, the Laws of Thermodynamics in particular.

          If what you believe is true, than the production of ultra-cold molecules, such as by the machine you so prominently on your website, would be impossible, since the only matter in the system that could absorb the energy released as the molecules cooled is the molecules themselves and, if the energy is not absorbed, the system violates conservation. This internal contradiction negates your model.

          • DougCotton says:

            You have to do better than that, Slipstick.

            You don’t even know what is in my paper. Test yourself by drawing the heat creep diagrams from memory with the axes correctly labelled. I bet you can’t, because only those who read the paper and take the necessary time to understand it will remember those diagrams because they understood them.

            Regarding centrifugal force, most of the kinetic energy in the molecules approaching the central region becomes potential energy you clot.

            You really don’t understand even school boy physics such as what happens when you throw a stone upwards. I suggest that you keep out of this discussion of physics which is obviously way over your head. I don’t write stuff that violates the laws of physics, thank you. Frankly I find you arrogant and insulting with no concept of the experience that I have had with physics for over 50 years now.

          • Slipstick says:

            I agree that your model is based on schoolboy physics and note that your response ignores the question of conservation which invalidates it.

      • Rick says:

        Doug, because the temperature of a material is proportional to the average kenitic energy of its molecules, and the KE distribution of the molecules goes from zero to extremely high, half of the molecules have a KE less than the mean.
        This means that radiation from a high KE molecule in a colder source can strike a low KE molecule in a warmer sink and raise its KE. This would raise the average KE, and temperature of the warmer material.
        How does this violate the second law?

        • DougCotton says:

          The Second Law relates to macro quantities of matter, sufficiently large for us to be able to measure temperature. See my paper which explains how there can indeed be macro heat transfers from cooler to warmer regions in a force field, provided entropy is increasing.

          • Rick says:

            Doug, I was referring to your comment that if the target is warmer than the source that the radiation is not thermalized in the warmer target. I explained the mechanism for the average KE of the warmer target to be higher due to the presence of a cooler body nearby.
            I don’t see how a force field enters into it.

          • DougCotton says:

            Well Rick you will see how a force field enters into it if you spend an hour studying my 2013 paper or 43 minutes watching the video presentation, both linked from http://climate-change-theory.com and the “average KE energy” (that is the temperature) cannot be raised beyond what the supply of thermal energy raises it to. If solar radiation can only raise the surface to, say, 7C in some location, back radiation that is equivalent to 2C (as is 324W/m^2) cannot raise the temperature above 7C. You only have to think about the fact that it is hotter than Earth at the base of the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus (where there’s no solid surface and no direct solar radiation from the Sun that is 20 to 30 times further away) to recognize that I’m correct in saying radiation does not determine such temperatures at the base of tropospheres or in any solid surface there.

  44. Pangolina says:

    What is the sense of always discriminating everybody having a meaning different from yours, mpainter?

    Why aren’t you willing to accept different views of the same thing? That’s an easy job.

    It’s a bit too simple, for example
    – to reduce warming since 1979 to a so called “step up around 2000”, or
    – to consider El Nio as being by definition a primary cause of warming, instead of alternatively considering it as a possible consequence of that warming, be it anthropic or not!

    Other people well have the right to see all this from another point of view, for example this one:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LNxEjeGwgeM/UvSxz2sFtbI/AAAAAAAAFCo/pC8PnGr0eDM/s1600/MonthlyRSS.gif

    And having a look (I deliberately restrict the discussion to satellite data) to RSS’s plot:

    http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

    and comparing the global trend (.124 C/dec) with the north pole’s (.323, i.e. 2.5 times stronger): is that “warmism” in your eyes?

    Moreover, Roy Spencer did not publish his data for Jan 16 yet (the files for 5.6 & 6.0beta still end with Dec 15), so I rely on Carl Mears’ data. Here is it:

    2016 1: 0,624 (glob); 1,067; 0,720; 0,061; 2,280 (north pole); -0,945; -0,138; 0,831; 0,417.

    While all this january’s data looks perfect and is typical for an El Nio phase, a brute force anomaly increase in the north pole area of over 2.5 C whithin just one month (!!) at least should be worth to be put a little bit in question, isn’t it?

    A world in which every meaning deviating from mpainter’s by more than one is that of a warmist: sorry, but that is really too simple with regard to the complexity of what actually happens.

    • Pangolina says:

      Wow, surprise when posting from Germany, lots of special chars dropped off the stream, what a pity that this stupid problem still exists :-((

    • Massimo PORZIO says:

      Hi Pangolina,
      not sure what you want to highlight with those graph linked, but the first one (the animated one, to be explicit) is the more honest because it reports the coefficient of determination (R^2).
      Maybe you know or you don’t know what it means, anyways here is the definition:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination

      No one with a little of statistic knowledge would use those graphs for really establish where the climate is going to.
      The problem is that with the current temperature measurements precision, no one should argue about where climate is going to, it’s probably much better toss a coin: head it goes up, tail it goes down.

      Have a great day.

      Massimo

      • Pangolina says:

        Many thanks Mr Porzio, but…

        … wouldn’t it have been more convenient first to ask what I mean, instead of feeling the redundant need for teaching me? What a strange attitude!

        Moreover, what in the world allows you for any doubt about the honesty of the RSS team around Carl Mears?

        Do you really think such people would ignore about standard error deviation, R^2, 2sigma and the like, just because they didn’t publish the error associated to their trend computation? Wow.

        Maybe some info will convince you about the accuracy of the info accessed by my post’s second link, e.g.:

        http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,2,4,1,444%5D

        Or what about visiting Kevin Cowtan’s trend computer at York:

        http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

        and once there, selecting RSS starting by 1979, giving

        Trend: 0.124 plusminus 0.063 degrees C/decade (2sigma)

        Last not least: is the temperature uncertainty problem really due to a lack of measurement precision?

        Or is it rather due to a too broad distribution of the measured values around the trend computed using ordinary least squares, what Cowtan expresses as “statistical uncertainty” ?

        *

        (Sorry for avoiding all these spec chars I see when editing at home, but which unfortunately disappear once stored at Roy’s site).

      • Pangolina says:

        Interesstingly, few people seem to have noticed the patient and silent work done since years by JMA, the Japanese Agency for Meteorology.

        Of course: they compute anomalies and trends based on surface equipment (using even own devices for SST), what looks per definitionem like heresy for quite a plenty of posters writing here.

        Nevertheless, some of them certainly might be able, at least for a couple of minutes, to keep away from their dramatic antiwarmism syndrome.

        These people might then look at this:

        http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/temp_map.html

        and there
        – click on “Annual”
        – select for example the starting year “1990”, and
        – click on “+1 year” till 2015 arrives.

        An interesting trip… I did it over the whole range by starting with 1891.

        But the best of all indeniably was to switch in one step between 1998 and 2015.

        • Massimo PORZIO says:

          Hi Pangolina,
          first of all, I apologize if I let you understand that I want to teach you anything, in fact I wrote:

          “Maybe you know or you dont know what it means”
          Just meaning that I don’t know who you are.
          I’m an absolute ignorant in meteorology and atmospheric physics and statistic is a particular field of mathematics that I don’t really like at all. Mostly because I personally experienced a lot of situations where it has been used the wrong way.
          To be clear, with that I don’t pretend to say that statistics is not a good scientific tool, but just that you must know what you do when you work with it.
          Just to say, Steve McIntyre is a good example of a real statistical engineer and scientist for me. He is one who seems to well know what he is doing with it.

          I still remain by the skeptics side with those values of R^2, for showing any AGW those graphs means nothing for me.

          What really impress me is how you could rely on the last link you posted (the one about the Japanese JMA).

          How could one rely on those data which show information back to 1891, when the temperatures, at those tomes, were taken with the resolution of one C and only for the daily minimum and maximum values?
          Do you noticed that still at least 1950 the oceanic temperature points changes monthly?
          For me that means that at least until that years those measurements were done by sailing ships, so who could rely on those data?
          Who calibrated those thermometers?
          And I suspect that the same apply for the successive years until the advent of the Argo buoy network.

          I seen lots of graph more or less impressive in their graphics which (for me) are a good demonstration of how information technology engineers are great artists in presenting their works, but if you believe that presenting in a good fashion the very same bad data it can convince me that we are able to really measure the temperature trends in last century you are on the wrong way.

          Have a great day.

          Massimo

          • Pangolina says:

            And here let me add, Mr Porzio, that it is obviously your right to prefer Mr McIntyre’s opinion to others’.

            But this Climate Audit site I stopped to visit for longer time ago: I’m sad of all these people who think they possess the “Very Truth” and discard everybody else’s opinion as being that of “warmists”.

            A few minutes ago I read, on this site, a guest comment (from a person called Nicholas Lewis) containing:

            <>

            And that without even one scientific statement of proof? Wow.

            I immediately left the corner (and do so as well when linked to a post of e.g. Dana Nuccitelli at Skeptical Science, who also thinks to possess the “Very Truth”).

            Regards

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Pangolia,
            it seems something went wrong with the excerpt about Nicholas Lewis comment, I can’t read it I see just

            Could you please re-post it?

            About:
            “But this Climate Audit site I stopped to visit for longer time ago: Im sad of all these people who think they possess the Very Truth and discard everybody elses opinion as being that of warmists.”

            As I already said, I don’t really like statistic because it’s easy to be misused (I professionally used it for some project in the past, but just for checking the work done, never to predict anything indeed) and I read Steve McIntyre’s articles because I found his points of view rational, but I don’t read the posts of his commentators just because I’m not entitled to evaluate their opinion about the statistical details, because my knowledge about statistic is very marginal.

            Again have a great day.

            Massimo

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Ehm… It seem that the minor sign followed by the major sign is something a special character for this editor.
            Anyways, Pangolina if you look at your former post there is no Lewis’ excerpt.

  45. ehak says:

    Even Spencer disagrees with your claim that MSU/AMSU is the most reliable measure for global temperature.

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

  46. Billyjack says:

    I have read through the comments and the noted the posts by Appell whose diatribe espousing the talking points of the various websites that only serve to promote the dialogue of the religion of global warming in order to provide another government vehicle for theft and corruption. I suggest that the other posters take Thomas Paine’s advice “to argue with someone who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead”.

    • Pangolina says:

      Does that mean that you start from the assumption that all people promoting the inverse, e.g. CO2 sience, the Heartland Institute, Peabody Energy, the Idso family and the like are by definition free of “theft and corruption” ?

      Jesus what a naive view on the world… Who could help you?

    • Toneb says:

      “Jesus what a naive view on the world Who could help you?”

      Yes indeed it’s a bizarre upturning of logic required in order to fit the evidence to a biased point of view.

      And no, Mark Twains’ “never argue with an idiot as he’ll drag you down to his level and beat you by experience” does it for me.

      There really is no arguing whilst retaining of ones sanity with people who say empirical physics is wrong and/or the world’s expert’s are wrong because “I” know better. ….. and anyway they just want to form a socialist world government and take my tax dollars.
      Really?
      OK then, goodbye and sweet dreams my friend (insert any of many on here and elsewhere).

      • DougCotton says:

        People “who say empirical physics is wrong” are those like James Hansen who incorrectly claim back radiation can be added to solar radiation and the total used to explain the surface temperature. There’s a AU $10,000 reward for you ToneB if you can explain the temperatures at the base of the tropospheres of Earth, Venus and Uranus with correct calculations based on radiation. There’s no solar radiation there on Uranus anyway, nor any surface – so let’s see shall we?

        • gbaikie says:

          –People who say empirical physics is wrong are those like James Hansen who incorrectly claim back radiation can be added to solar radiation and the total used to explain the surface temperature. Theres a AU $10,000 reward for you ToneB if you can explain the temperatures at the base of the tropospheres of Earth, Venus and Uranus with correct calculations based on radiation. Theres no solar radiation there on Uranus anyway, nor any surface so lets see shall we?–

          Other than the lack of definition given by the religious fanatics, what does back radiation mean.
          I google it and get:
          “People also ask
          What is back radiation?

          Background radiation is the ubiquitous ionizing radiation that people on the planet Earth are exposed to, including natural and artificial sources. Both natural and artificial background radiation varies depending on location and altitude.”

          So is back radiation the same a background radiation?
          I assume if talking about background radiation one could be referring to clouds, or the surface radiation.
          But it seems for the religious, that back radiation refers to just to radiation of greenhouse gases.
          The Science of Doom, says:
          “First of all, what is back-radiation ? Its the radiation emitted by the atmosphere which is incident on the earths surface. It is also more correctly known as downward longwave radiation or DLR”
          http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
          And atmosphere is the gases:
          “the envelope of gases surrounding the earth or another planet. ”

          So scienceofdoom says it’s the gases. But other might assume this includes stuff within the atmosphere: dust, clouds, or whatever- one even include the skin surface as in the atmosphere.

          If back radiation just means radiation from gases of the atmosphere, then the amount warming caused by these gases seems uncertain. I am fairly certain that radiant effect of gas molecules isn’t causing 33 K increase in average temperature. But I am as certain that clouds do cause warming effect at the surface of earth, and clouds are in the atmosphere. Likewise I am certain that cloud in Venus cause increase in air temperature [by convection- rather than radiant transfer of heat].

          • DougCotton says:

            You can be totally “certain that radiant effect of gas molecules isnt causing 33 K increase in average temperature.”

            If carbon dioxide were able to warm the surface of Venus it would have to be over 350 degrees hotter than the surface out there in the Venus atmosphere, based on its emissivity of about 0.19.

          • gbaikie says:

            –DougCotton says:
            February 18, 2016 at 3:49 AM

            You can be totally certain that radiant effect of gas molecules isnt causing 33 K increase in average temperature.

            Yes I can be.
            Yes even the believers don’t really believe that these gases alone cause the warming- despite the greenhouse effect theory making this claim.
            Or most are aware that the Gulf Stream causes warmth which is unrelated to greenhouse gases. Or that land changes would alter local temperature- nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
            Or theory’s claim is only greenhouse gases cause any warming- and everyone knows it’s wrong.
            It’s similar to Marxism- it’s never worked. Though some believers think Cuba is nice. Why they think forcing people to live on the State plantation is nice, should be enough to question their ethics/sanity.

            –If carbon dioxide were able to warm the surface of Venus it would have to be over 350 degrees hotter than the surface out there in the Venus atmosphere, based on its emissivity of about 0.19.–

            Well as you are aware, temperatures at Venus at the elevation of 1 atm pressure, are not very warm. But it is a bit on warm side- or average air temperature equal to highest air temperature on Earth.
            So with the nearly pure CO2 and since it’s not cold, one can know that CO2 doesn’t cause cooling.

            Also another factor not mentioned, is that greenhouse gases are suppose to cause hot spot in upper atmosphere of Earth.
            And there is not such hot spot with Venus.

            But anyhow as I have mentioned before [many times] the reason Venus is warm is because the sunlight heats the droplet of the clouds of Venus.
            Or “the surface” of Venus is the cloud layers which begin at about 30 km and go up as high as 70 km in elevation.
            And Earth’s sea level pressure on Venus is at around 50 km elevation.

    • geran says:

      Pangolina and Toneb, yes, it is naive to believe that government is free of “theft and corruption”.

      • Pangolina says:

        This is EXACTLY what I don’t. You simply suppose me to do. Huge difference…

      • Toneb says:

        No mention of the science there I see.

        Scientists do what scientists do.
        Politicians do what politicians do.

        The former discover stuff and report to the latter – who then need to act on what the former informs.
        I do not conflate the two.
        That is something I find that “sceptics” do not get.

        • DougCotton says:

          Yes well you don’t understand the first thing about entropy or radiative heat transfer, and you can’t answer questions like this. You’re nothing but a trumpet calling on authority.

      • geran says:

        P & T, if you think you are desperate now, just wait about 6-8 months!

        πŸ™‚

  47. sod says:

    Even wattsup had to admit that the pause is gone:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/06/the-pause-hangs-on-by-its-fingernails/

    New line of defence: only close to zero warming.

  48. Pangolina says:

    Interesstingly, few people seem to have noticed the patient and silent work done since years by JMA, the Japanese Agency for Meteorology.

    Of course: they compute anomalies and trends based on surface equipment (using even own devices for SST), what looks per definitionem like heresy for quite a plenty of posters writing here.

    Nevertheless, some of them certainly might be able, at least for a couple of minutes, to keep away from their dramatic antiwarmism syndrome.

    These people might then look at this:

    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/temp_map.html

    and there
    click on Annual
    select for example the starting year 1990, and
    click on +1 year till 2015 arrives.

    An interesting trip I did it over the whole range by starting with 1891.

    But the best of all indeniably was to switch in one step between 1998 and 2015.

    • Massimo PORZIO says:

      Pangolina,
      measurements has nothing to do with simulations or adjustments, read my post above about that graph you linked again.
      For a long time from 1891 the temperatures were taken on daily basis for maximum and minimum values, rounding them to the higher C.
      One engineer which has to match his work with reality, never would use the methods used to made those very “graphically impressive Internet climate games”.

      I repeat myself, if you believe to redeem a skeptic with those interactive graphics, you are absolutely on the wrong way.

      Have a great day.

      Massimo

      • Pangolina says:

        Sorry Mr Porzio: I of course have read your post, I didn’t see you having developed there any really interesting argument.

        The discussion about how reliable or unreliable are surface data (especially the SST corner)hat got a bit oldy inbetween, and the holds for me concerning the controversy about the accuracy of satellite data.

        I prefer to respect the work of all engineers at NASA GISS, NOAA, Hadley Centre, CRU, JMA, RSS and UAH, independently of their results.

        I trust the sum of all this work rather than to decide which “church” is the right one!

        Be sure: I’m not interested in “redeeming” anybody.

        Regards

        • Massimo PORZIO says:

          Hi Pangolina,
          “I of course have read your post, I didnt see you having developed there any really interesting argument.”

          Really? So do you trust to graphics based on mixing apple and oranges?
          Because the old way of getting temperatures data were not thought to be used for any climate analysis.
          So shouldn’t be used for that. To be explicit it’s not so different than building “mannian hockey sticks” mixing tree proxies and true temperature measurements (admitting that really exist a state of the art in collecting such “true world averaged temperature” data).

          Instead, I think that it’s very important know from where data come from and how they were collected along time.

          “I trust the sum of all this work rather than to decide which church is the right one!”

          I’m not a so called “good believer in God”, that I don’t “trust” any scientific church indeed. I don’t want “trust” in any science, I prefer understand science.
          Anyways, it is significant that you wrote about scientific “church(es)”, there is only one way to unmask the “priest liars”, it’s skeptically analyze their “sermons” instead of trust them and discharge those who can’t scientifically explain their “truths”.

          Anyways, have a great day.

          Massimo

          P.S.
          Off topic, I’m just an innate curious: Pangolina refers to the mammal anteater pangolin?

  49. Norman says:

    DougCotton,

    I will link to graphs of a few real world measured temperatures and radiation fluxes to show you why “heat creep” is not important and how radiation and other forms of heat transfer can fully explain surface temperatures and why fluxes really do add.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_56b661436521e.png

    This graph is of Solar Net, IR net and Total Net (combine total solar net and IR net). I also have the surface temperature (which would be the case temperature measuring the upwelling IR and the air temperature).

    The analysis, you hopefully will consider before rejecting it out of hand, is that at night the Net energy is negative so the temperature is dropping. Then when the Sun rises the temperature starts to climb. The Total net is less than the Solar net because the IR is still negative…the surface is radiating away more energy than is resupplied by backradiaton. The Total net peaks out around noon. The temperature is rising the whole time but has not reached and equilibrium temperature. If the Total Net would continue the equilibrium temperature would get to 16.6 C (it is rising until the net energy starts dropping). As it is the temperature for the duration of the positive Net radiant flux achieved a temperature of a little over 8 C.

    I think that is a huge mistake you make in your calculations of real world surfaces. You can’t go to an equilibrium temperature for a given flux unless it lasts long enough to heat up all the material involved. The missing energy you were complaining about to Ball4 is stored as kinetic energy within the material.

    • DougCotton says:

      You made a huge mistake in claiming that we should deduct outward radiation when determining temperatures using Stefan Boltzmann calculations.

      When are you going to admit your error Norman and apologize for the confusion you cause silent readers with your pseudo science?

      • Ed Bo says:

        Doug:

        If you would ever actually take a real thermodynamics class, one of the first things you would learn is how to perform an energy balance calculation on the system in question (control mass or control volume), noting all of the inward and outward power flows. If some of those flows are temperature-dependent, you can then solve for temperature.

        When are you going to admit your error Doug and apologize for the confusion you cause silent readers with your pseudo science?

  50. Norman says:

    DougCotton

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_56b66a1941e99.png

    This real world measured value proves your claim that GHE violates 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and that I do not understand the 2nd Law are not correct. Your claim is falsified with real world empirical data.

    The Upwelling IR is greater than the Downwelling IR (at least in most cases this is true, a cloudy night where the surface is colder than the clouds via inversion the downwelling IR could warn the surface but would be an exception). Because the Downwelling IR is less than the Upwelling IR it can’t warm the surface. It can lead to a warmer surface when combined with solar input.

    Second Law is not violated by GHE and the graph proves it.

    • DougCotton says:

      Norman

      In a previous comment I proved that the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is wrong, pointing out that, where the Sun is directly overhead, greenhouse calculations yield surface temperatures around 95C. Your only response was to make a completely false statement, namely that we should deduct the outward radiation from the incident radiation when using Stefan Boltzmann calculations. That is incorrect, so are you going to admit your error, Norman?

      You then made another error, assuming that the Second Law applies to a combination of independent processes. It doesn’t. It applies to every single process and only to interacting (not independent) systems. Edit Wikipedia if you think I’m wrong.

      “Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.” [source]

      The greenhouse conjecture ignores the gravitationally induced temperature gradient which is a corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as I have shown here. AGW is thus refuted completely.

      So when are you going to admit your mistakes, Norman?

      • Ed Bo says:

        Doug:

        High-school kids can understand the difference between peak and average levels in a cyclic process. Why can’t you?

        • DougCotton says:

          The peaks play their part in determining the mean. Furthermore, if the algorithm used does not correctly explain some observed temperatures, then the mean is wrong.

      • Norman says:

        DougCotton

        I have already stated the debate above was so twisted and distorted in logic I have zero desire to return to it.

        I have linked you to measured empirical data that you completely ignore. I have explained each of your points and why they are wrong.

        Do you really hate truth and empirical data that you refuse to acknowledge and understand it?

  51. Norman says:

    DougCotton

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_56b66a33b6c02.png

    A more detailed graph of Total Net radiation. Negative at night so surface cools. Positive with sun so surface warms.

  52. Norman says:

    DougCotton

    A few more graphs just of some greater detail.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_56b66a440a584.png

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_56b669c3aab4b.png

    Real world data proves you do not need “heat creep” Backradiation alone can explain the higher surface equilibrium temperature reached than if only solar input where considered. The GHE data is real and mearuseable. Heat creep has no measured data.

    You need to deny real physics to conclude GHE is not real. You must claim (without actual experiment) that the measured backradiation does nothing to the surface energy balance. Real world experiment shows multiple radiation fluxes add to produce higher equilibrium temperature.

    • DougCotton says:

      Calculations that quite incorrectly add back radiation yield temperatures around 95C where the Sun is directly overhead. Hence you have empirical evidence that backradiation is pseudo scattered and does not transfer heat from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface, which would be in violation of the Second Law. This comment is continued in the first five sections of this paper.

      When are you going to admit and apologize for your errors, Norman?

      • Ed Bo says:

        Doug:

        Why aren’t nighttime temperatures at -270C, when there is zero incoming radiation?

        When are you going to admit and apologize for your errors, Doug?

        • DougCotton says:

          Ed Bo:

          If and when you come to understand what is in the paper, cite it verbatim in context and prove it wrong with correct physics and empirical evidence.

          Answer this: Why do all planetary tropospheres exhibit close to a -g/cp temperature gradient and yet get down to the just the right temperature at just the right altitude where there is radiative balance with the solar radiation? How does the base of the troposphere (or the mantle) “know” what temperature it should be, or how far away or bright is the Sun?

          • Ed Bo says:

            Doug:

            Ever hear of the difference between a stable and an unstable lapse rate? Basic meteorology, yet you seem absolutely unfamiliar with it!

          • DougCotton says:

            My paper discusses such in detail and explains the consequent natural convective heat transfer away from the surface or region which has temporary excessive energy, be that the surface or the upper troposphere.

        • DougCotton says:

          “Why arent nighttime temperatures at -270C, when there is zero incoming radiation?” The reason is in my paper.

          Why does nighttime cooling slow right down on a calm night in the early pre-dawn hours? The answer is in my paper.

          Why is the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus hotter than Earth? The answer is in my paper.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Doug:

            As usual, you miss the point completely. The reason a tropical location does not hit 95C when the sun is high over head is the same reason that it does not go to -270C instantly when the sun goes down. There is substantial thermal capacitance, as Norman realizes but you do not.

            The earth spins fast enough and there is enough thermal capacitance in play that no part of the earth’s surface ever gets close to steady state temperature for a given instantaneous solar insolation value. (Contrast this to the moon, which with a much longer day/night cycle and very little thermal capacitance affected, comes close — but does not quite reach — what would be steady state temperature values.

          • DougCotton says:

            The mean solar radiation is 168W/m^2 and that cannot explain a mean surface temperature of anything above -40C. You would need variable flux with a mean above 450W/m^2.

            Radiation to the base of a planet’s troposphere (or any solid surface there) is not the primary determinant of the temperature.

      • Norman says:

        DougCotton

        Your statement is so false and misleading: “Calculations that quite incorrectly add back radiation yield temperatures around 95C where the Sun is directly overhead.”

        How dishonest do you have to be to cling to your false and disproven idea?

        Your calculation of 95 C for radiation overhead is so false and wrong that only a madman would think he calculated correctly.

        Why do you refuse to click on the links I posted for you?

        Ed Bo is so right! You are so lacking in physics knowledge that you do not understand heat capacity and lag. Does water boil the instant you put a pot of water over a fire? Fire is far above the boiling point of water so with your sickly tortured understanding of physics the water should boil the instant the pot is put in the fire.

        Why in any form of reason would you conclude that an equilibrium temperature is reached as soon as 800 W/m^2 is present.

        • DougCotton says:

          No Norman. The calculations use exactly the same method as James Hansen used to “explain” the mean surface temperature. Yes the answer 95C is not in accord with observations, but that is because James Hansen’s method is wrong. So too is your assumption that outward radiative flux should be deducted before using Stefan Boltzmann calculations to determine the surface temperature. At least James Hansen knew you are wrong on that point Norman. When are you going to admit this error, Norman?

          • Norman says:

            DougCotton

            Why are you “moving the goalposts” when I am clearly pointing out “heat creep” is not needed to determine the surface temperature and I have shown it with real world empirical data.

            Why are you bringing up James Hansen calculation and claiming he did it wrong when you do not even link to his process so I can view it and discern what he did on my own?

          • DougCotton says:

            Show me your answers to the questions that stump lukes and warmists which are relevant to this issue.

        • DougCotton says:

          “Why in any form of reason would you conclude that an equilibrium temperature is reached as soon as 800 W/m^2 is present.”

          I don’t assume it: James Hansen did, and that’s another reason why his radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is wrong.

          • DougCotton says:

            PS: The heat creep hypothesis in my paper has nothing to do with radiative balance or Stefan Boltzmann calculations, so none of this discussion proves it wrong. I’m just demonstrating that (if you work out temperatures in exactly the same way in which James Hansen did when he was calculating what the GH conjecture implies the surface temperature should be) you get answers which are not supported empirically. Hence no experiment measuring such temperatures is going to prove the GH conjecture right. There is no experiment anywhere that does so. Try me!

            Anyway, first things first, Norman. When you thought you could prove me wrong with false physics I pointed out your error in assuming that outward flux is deducted before doing Stefan Boltzmann calculations. When are you going to admit your error, Norman? I am not proven wrong with your false physics.?

          • Norman says:

            DougCotton,

            I have linked to a lot of empirical graphs that you ignored. Do you want me to link you to them again? Will it matter?

            YOU: “James Hansen did when he was calculating what the GH conjecture implies the surface temperature should be) you get answers which are not supported empirically. Hence no experiment measuring such temperatures is going to prove the GH conjecture right. There is no experiment anywhere that does so. Try me!”

            Both Ball4 and I have used actual empirical measured data to demonstrate to you that the GHE is real and works quite well to describe real world surface temperatures. What more are you looking for?

  53. Ed Bo says:

    Doug’s theories are based on the foundational idea that the conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy is entropy-increasing and therefore irreversible.

    Let’s look at this idea (again!).

    Consider the earth in its elliptical orbit around the sun. At the aphelion, it is at its furthest distance from the sun, and therefore it possesses its maximum gravitational PE.

    For the next half year, it gets closer to the sun, reducing gravitational PE and gaining kinetic energy as its orbital velocity increases, until it reaches the perihelion.

    Then for the following half year, it gets further from the sun, increasing gravitational PE and losing kinetic energy as its orbital velocity decreases, until it reaches the aphelion again.

    The second half of this cycle does the exact reverse energy conversion of the first half. This completely reversing exchange has been repeating for literally billions of cycles now.

    This is ironclad proof that the conversion of gravitational PE to kinetic energy is completely reversible, and therefore NOT entropy increasing.

    This further means that ALL of Doug’s theories, which are based on this idea, are COMPLETELY WRONG!

    Doug, it’s time for you to pay up the $10,000! I’m happy for it to go to charity, but you are morally obligated to pay it.

    • DougCotton says:

      “the conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy is entropy-increasing”

      Incorrect and never stated in my paper.

      “conversion of gravitational PE to kinetic energy is completely reversible, “

      Correct but not disputed in any way, shape or form in the paper. Either cite what is actually said with copied quotes in context, or disappear as this seems out of your depth.

      Read what people who understand the physics say here.

  54. Ed Bo says:

    No, Doug, you can’t weasel out of this one! In a previous thread, I asked you explicitly and repeatedly if this was the case, and you even mocked me for asking the question, given that you considered it so obviously true.

    You repeatedly use expressions like the one above in this thread: “the process of maximum entropy production by way of dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials”, explicitly in the context of the conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy. And without that maximization, there is nothing to your theories.

    When are you going to write the check, Doug?

    • DougCotton says:

      No I did not. I very specifically stated that the sum of (PE+KE) remains constant. I also correctly said that entropy increases as unbalanced energy potentials diminish. The diminishing involves a redistribution of PE and KE which leads to a state of maximum entropy when all unbalanced energy potentials have completely dissipated.

      This process of entropy increasing as the energy potentials dissipate is standard physics and is irreversible because entropy is increasing. For example, an isothermal state in a gravitational field has unbalanced energy potentials because there is more molecular gravitational potential energy at the top whilst mean molecular kinetic energy is homogeneous.

      It’s not hard to understand Ed Bo, but it helps if you read the paper rather than assume you think you know what it says.

      • Ed Bo says:

        You don’t even realize how completely you are contradicting yourself. When you say there is a “redistribution of PE and KE which leads to a state of maximum entropy”, you are automatically claiming that a conversion between PE and KE increases entropy. There is no way around it!

        And your second paragraph repeats the same claim about the process increasing entropy! Unbelievable!!

        When are you going to write the check, Doug???

        • DougCotton says:

          i am not automatically claiming any such thing. When temperatures even out in a horizontal cylinder entropy is increasing and KE is being redistributed. What’s wrong with your comprehension of the word redistributed?

        • DougCotton says:

          Go to this comment Ed Bo.

  55. Norman says:

    DougCotton

    I looked up at what you keep harping about.

    From the post above: “3) Also what you do does not make sense. Your logic circuits are shorted out. YOU: So, instead of the 24-hour global mean of 168W/m^2 we have an extra 651W/m^2 to add to that 390W/m^2 which is the net mean. But the Stefan Boltzmann calculations for what is now 390+651 = 1041W/m^2 is 368.1K which is about 95C.

    The 390 W/m^2 is not the net mean it is how much energy the surface is losing!!! In your totally bungled attempt at physics what you would add is 651 as the solar flux to the 340 W/m^2 which would be back radiation for a total of energy into the surface of 991 W/m^2 but the surface is losing energy at the rate of 390 W/m^2 so this value is NOT (repeat NOT) added to the energy being absorbed by the surface! You would take the downward flux of 991-390 (MINUS the 390) to get a total increase to the surface of 601 W/m^2. This flux for a blackbody temp will get to 46.85 C which is normal temp for a desert area in summer or close to the equator.

    I will agree my secondary explanation is weak and poorly presented. Your calculation is horrible. Add 390 to 651

    That is not the point of my complaint with your calculation. If you had 1000 W/m^2 flux for a short time you still could not use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to determine an equilibrium temperature for a surface. What you are calculating is an equilibrium temperature in a continuous flux of radiation. How long does it take for a surface to reach an equilibrium temp?
    It would depend upon the mass involved and the material heat capacity.

    • DougCotton says:

      Of course 390W/m^2 is also what comes out of the surface. The energy budget diagrams are in balance, you clot.

      What warms the surface is what goes in. That, according to energy diagrams, is 168 + 324 – 102 = 390 and I hope by now you know what each figure is. If not, read the first comment again because it was all there.

      When are you going to admit your error Norman? There’s no deduction of outgoing radiation by James Hansen and you’d have a net of zero if you were right.

  56. Norman says:

    DougCotton

    Proof that your calculating ability is crap and you need to go back to school to relearn how to properly solve problems. It is not I who need to apologize to you, but you must apologize to everyone for wasting their time with your endless posting and working hard to misguide the poor gullible posters like your twin in thought, geran.

    Okay, once again empirical data that you hate with a passion and refuse to look at.
    http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.html

    This is a graph of actual moon temperatures.

    The graph is for one lunar day (breaking down the moon’s rotation into a 24-hr cycle. The moon takes 29 days 12 hours to complete. It is around 708 Earth hours. In the graph the 6 hour period it takes to go from the low temp to its peak temp takes 177 earth hours (One moon hour seems to equal 29.5 Earth hours). The time in a constant flux takes over 7 eather days to reach. With your method no long time delay is considered in calculations.

    • DougCotton says:

      Not with my method, Norman: it is James Hansen’s method I am using to show why he’s wrong, which you have now confirmed he is.

    • geran says:

      Here’s some of Norman’s hilarious pseudoscience.

      Enjoy!

      1) Cabbages emit visible light
      2) Energy does NOT leave the system, but it leaves the system
      3) You can bake a turkey with ice
      4) 300 W/m^2, from an object at -3.45C, plus 500 W/m^2, from an object at 33.3 C, will raise the temperature of a third object to 71.5C

  57. DougCotton says:

    In order to “explain” a mean surface temperature of 15C James Hansen has to use figures like 95C for regions receiving 800W/m^2 of direct solar radiation because that 800W/m^2 contributes to the mean of 168W/m^2 and likewise the 95C contributes to the mean of 15C.

    If you decide that the Sun can indeed only warm to perhaps 40 degrees less in hot places, and maybe 10 degrees less in, say, the coolest non-polar places, then you are going to get a mean significantly below 15C and thus you prove the GH conjecture wrong.

    It is wrong anyway because you have not done an experiment to prove that the radiation from four radiators can be compounded in much the same way that Hansen wrongly assumed solar radiation and back radiation can be added.

    We don’t need any such radiation calculations to explain surface temperatures far more accurately on all planets. We just need to understand the gravito-thermal effect and the resulting downward natural convective heat transfer processes which, in physics, include thermal diffusion – “heat creep” for short.

    It’s all explained complete with diagrams here.

  58. Norman says:

    DougCotton

    The test done here proves you wrong and me correct.

    http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-ROSS-Experiment.pdf

    One spotlight increased the temperature to an equilibrium temperature for that additional radiant energy. When another spotlight was added the equilibrium temperature increased above what just one spotlight achieved. The two fluxes added more energy to the tape than one alone could do.

    You are very wrong in your logical thought process here:
    “In order to explain a mean surface temperature of 15C James Hansen has to use figures like 95C for regions receiving 800W/m^2 of direct solar radiation because that 800W/m^2 contributes to the mean of 168W/m^2 and likewise the 95C contributes to the mean of 15C.

    The global energy budget diagrams would never have a real world addition of 800 W/m^2 flux at some point. The purpose of the budget is to eliminate the complexity of all the various individual fluxes and how they each flow. There is only the 168 W/m^2 value. It is taking all the radiant energy that hits the Earth’s surface and spreading it to every square meter of the Earth’s surface to get a constant flux to be used in Stefan-Boltzmann equations. I really do not think you have the ability to understand the concept of the Energy Budget and I do not think it is possible for me or anyone else to explain it to you. You will see these silly flaws in the budget because you do not understand and never will understand what it is doing and why it is used. Most the skeptics on this blog cannot comprehend the concept of it. You are one who never will and it is pointless to go on about it.

    What I have done instead was to use real world empirical data to show how radiation and other heat transfer mechanisms are all that are required to explain a given surface temperature and your “heat creep’ is not needed and is a waste of time and pointless and your Ego needs some day to realize you have just wasted the last few years of your existence chasing a fantasy that does not exist. No doubt you spent a lot of your youth looking for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

    • DougCotton says:

      I have responded to you about the PSI experiment in an earlier comment today. Search “PSI”

      The IPCC simplification falsifies everything, because variable flux in the real world cannot achieve as high a temperature as a steady flux with the same mean falling on an imaginary flat Earth 24 days every day and night.

      Real world variable flux with a mean of 390W/m^2 does not produce 15C mean – it produces a mean surface temperature of only about 1C to 3C at most because temperature achieved is only proportional to the fourth root of the flux. Besides, you agreed the Sun doesn’t have enough time in the day to reach equilibrium temperature anyway. So all AGW is wrong.

      Until PSI produces a temperature that compounding the flux gives in S-B calculations, or you do likewise with four radiators producing not 45C (as I found in my experiment) but 170C I rest my case because you have no experimental evidence that back radiation and solar radiation can be added to get observed temperatures when the total is used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations.

      And when are you going to admit your error, Norman, that you were wrong in assuming that outward radiation is deducted before doing such Stefan Boltzmann calculations?

      • Norman says:

        DougCotton

        I have no clue what you are trying to say with this comment:
        “Real world variable flux with a mean of 390W/m^2 does not produce 15C mean it produces a mean surface temperature of only about 1C to 3C at most because temperature achieved is only proportional to the fourth root of the flux. Besides, you agreed the Sun doesnt have enough time in the day to reach equilibrium temperature anyway. So all AGW is wrong.”

        The 390 W/m^2 flux is a calculated amount based upon the global average temperature of 15 C. They did not calculate the mean flux with the average. I believe they took a global average temperature based upon the known measured temperatures and then calculated what the flux of energy would be for a 15 C globe.

        Are you obsessed with this point that I have already gone over???
        “And when are you going to admit your error, Norman, that you were wrong in assuming that outward radiation is deducted before doing such Stefan Boltzmann calculations?”

        I have already explained it and yet you keep bringing it up as a distraction to your failing idea that is not valid. Heat creep is a failure so you just keep repeating this point about me admitting I am wrong. End it already and move on.

        • DougCotton says:

          No Norman. Yet another mistake on your part when you wrote …

          “The 390 W/m^2 flux is a calculated amount based upon the global average temperature of 15 C”

          The question is, Norman, how do we explain the mean global temperature with correct physics?

          You need to read up on climatology, as I know more than you.

          James Hansen and their group measured radiative flux from the Sun and the atmosphere (means of 168 and 324W/m^2) and added them to get …

          168
          324
          ___
          492W/m^2

          OK so far? Agree with 492?

          Then they measured the evaporative cooling and the thermals to get a total of 102W/m^2 and deducted it …

          492
          -102
          ____
          390W/m^2

          See Norman, it’s all by experiment. The trouble is, they were adding the solar radiation and the back radiation and we have just seen with the PSI experiment and my 4 radiator experiment that we don’t get the calculated temperature using the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations.

          Hence the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is soundly refuted Norman as I have been saying for over 5 years. Back radiation cannot be added, and the solar radiation on its own is way too weak to explain 15C.

        • DougCotton says:

          “I have already explained it” What? Where? Explained why you made the error and apologized?

          Tell me Norman, if there is uniform flux of 1,100W/m^2 striking a blackbody, what is the outward flux and what is the temperature at equilibrium in degrees C? Prove to silent readers that you understand this physics.

      • Norman says:

        DougCotton

        YOU: “ntil PSI produces a temperature that compounding the flux gives in S-B calculations, or you do likewise with four radiators producing not 45C (as I found in my experiment) but 170C I rest my case because you have no experimental evidence that back radiation and solar radiation can be added to get observed temperatures when the total is used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations.”

        I have already explained the 4 radiators. They are very low wattage heaters. You ignore adding backradiation into your calculation. If you did not do this your 4 radiator experiment (which you will not publish) will make perfect sense as to why it does not get to 170 C.

        On the PSI test. He totally calculates the fluxes incorrectly. When done properly (as I have already done but you ignore).

        The ambient temperature in the PSI test is 18 C. The flux is at 407.4 W/m^2.

        You turn on the first spotlight and it raises the temperature to 30 C. The new output for the tape is 478.87 W/m^2. If you add the backradiation (which you will not do but if you do the equations make complete sense). 478.87-407.4=71.47 W/m^2

        The first spotlight adds 71.47 W/m^2 to achieve an equilibrium flux of 478.87 W/m^2.

        For some reason when you perform this calculation you think the one spotlight (which only can emit a total of 150 joules/second) can produce a flux of 478.87 W/m^2 on its own. This crazy notion takes place on those who do not add backradiation. Your spotlight is now creating more energy than it could possibly emit. However you reason it, the light can only add a total of 150 joules/second to the tape and no more and that would only happen if you concentrated the entire energy of the spotlight onto the tape.

        So the second light by itself will raise the temperature to 36 C.
        The tape now emits at a flux of 517.9 W/m^2. You might believe that this one light is able to deliver 517.9 W/m^2 to the tape but I disagree. I think the spotlight will deliver 517.9-407.4=110.5 W/m^2.

        Now with proper understanding you can combine the three radiations together to get a sum of radiations which would be 407.4 + 71.47 + 110.5 for a total energy flux to the tape of 589.37 W/m^2. Since the temperature is no longer rising at this flux you can consider it an equilibrium radiation. The tape is receiving 589.37 W/m^2 and if the temperature is no longer changing it would mean it has to be radiating away 589.37 W/m^2 to maintain the equilibrium temperature. Plugging into the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator you get a temperature of 46.15 C.

        And what did the experimenter measure with the combined spotlights? 46 C. What more logic do you need? If you add the energy fluxes everything in this experiment makes total sense and calculates correctly and even gives the actual measured value of the two spotlights on at the same time. The fluxes add the temperature reaches the correct amount. None of the spotlights has to produce more energy than would be possible for them.

        • DougCotton says:

          So, Norman, you can’t work out the temperature of a blackbody receiving 1100W/m^2 (as I asked above) and you still don’t understand why you were mistaken in deducting the outward flux when doing S-B calculations, as I pointed out several times.

          In Hansen’s magical world the solar radiation (168W/m^2) warms the surface to -40C and then the backradiation pumps up the temperature by 55 degrees to 15C – or so he claims. The extra three radiators, or the extra lamp apparently don’t have such a dramatic effect. You don’t present any Stefan Boltzmann calculations – instead you invent your own “add on” physics never to be found in any physics texts until Norman writes one.

          You’ve completely and utterly satisfied me Norman that you haven’t a clue as to how engineers and physicists make use of Stefan Boltzmann calculations. You can’t answer a simple question about 1100W/m^2 of input and you still add back radiation (which is pseudo scattered) and deny that you made a huge error when you deducted outward radiation before using the net in Stefan Boltzmann calculations. Suffice it to say that no engineer or physicist would do that, or add back radiation.

          In any event, radiation calculations are totally irrelevant to the valid thermodynamics which explains planetary surface temperatures correctly, and you never did show quantitatively how the solar radiation supposedly warms the surface.

        • DougCotton says:

          Norman writes (regarding the single spotlight which raises the temperature to 36C on its own) …

          “You might believe that this one light is able to deliver 517.9 W/m^2 to the tape but I disagree.”

          Well I disagree with you Norman. It has to deliver at least 517.9W/m^2 plus extra to compensate for simultaneous non-radiative losses. Otherwise the thermometer would not read 36 degrees, Norman. That’s physics. That’s how engineers and physicists use Stefan Boltzmann calculations. That’s what you obviously don’t understand and so invent your unique “add on” conjecture.

          “Add on” to what Norman? Are you saying that if the initial temperature was zero it would only get to 10 degrees; if it was 15C initially it would only get to 25 degrees, or something similar? As geran would say, hilarious!

        • DougCotton says:

          In all your calculations with the spotlights Norman you forgot to explain (and add) the energy losses by conduction between the tape and the air. Big mistake! The rate of such losses increases with the temperature difference, and the extra energy must come from the spot lights initially. So go back to the drawing board and quantify these losses.

          And Norman, there’s no problem regarding the spotlight delivering, say 600 watts per square meter that is focused by its parabolic mirror onto an area that may be only a tenth of a square meter. All that takes is 60 watts.

          The ambient temperature is irrelevant. Do the four radiator experiment several times with different ambient temperatures, Norman. No one will believe your breakthrough “add on” radiation hypothesis until you back it up with experiments that are repeatable and which confirm your guesswork for different ambient temperatures. If you wish, repeat the PSI one several times – indoors, outdoors, hot days, cold days whatever.

          Experiments, Norman, don’t come back until you’ve done the experiments.

          My hypothesis is confirmed with hundreds of experiments, as well as temperature data from several planets and a study of what happens in the real world.

          • DougCotton says:

            Oh, and Norman it’s not an equilibrium state until the nearby ambient air also rises to the temperature of the tape by conduction. Then the ambient air will be supplying all the required radiation to do the job, won’t it Norman. And the spot lights will be doing … well … nothing. /sarc

            On the other hand, if they keep delivering those fluxes well, guess what, it will get hotter still due to all the trapped “heat” Norman, especially if you do the experiment in a closed room.

        • DougCotton says:

          Roy

          Here is a paper explaining why the GHE on Venus is a myth.

          “6. Alternatively, the delay that a molecule of carbon dioxide causes to the emission of electrons and
          photons, after having absorbed a photon, is measured in attoseconds (as), i.e. 10^-18 of a second;
          consequently, there is no way for the atmospheric carbon dioxide stores energy for periods longer than 20
          5 as. (ref. 12 and 13)

          “This analysis demonstrates that the ―greenhouse‖ effect on Venus is a myth.”

    • DougCotton says:

      There’s no reason why all those expensive computer models could not apply James Hansen’s algorithm of adding back radiation and using S-B to calculate temperatures in every square kilometer of the globe. They probably have and they have computed a mean down around zero and scrapped that model because it didn’t suit their agenda, especially when it also showed temperatures around 95C in the tropics.

      What they should have scrapped is the whole radiative forcing paradigm because that is what is wrong.

      How the hell do you think you could use that radiative forcing paradigm to explain how the required thermal energy gets down to the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus and makes it hotter than Earth there, even though it is 20 to 30 times further from the Sun? There’s no solar radiation getting down there, and so no back radiation from such, and no surface either, or any convincing evidence of overall planetary cooling.

    • DougCotton says:

      The PSI experiment proves me right, Norman, as does mine with four radiators. The PSI combination achieved less than 10 degrees more than the brightest lamp (the second one) could do on its own.

      That is nowhere near the temperature that S-B calculations give for the combined flux, so you have made yet another serious error Norman, which you should admit.

      The reason there was some small warming is because the thermometer is not a blackbody and so it receives some extra thermal energy by convection and conduction from surrounding air molecules that have initially been heated to higher temperatures when they were closer to the lamps than the thermometer was.

      It’s not hard to understand the result of the experiment when you understand thermodynamics, and it proves the GH conjecture wrong.

  59. Ed Bo says:

    Norman:

    The author of that PSI experiment knows even less than Doug (but Doug doesn’t know enough to catch even his most basic errors). The paper goes off the rails before it even starts. In the first section he states:

    “The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is accepted as a scientific law of physics and is widely used in climate science. A consequence of this law is that raising the temperature expressed in Kelvins of an object by a factor of the fourth root of 2 causes that object to emit double the irradiative flux of the original temperature.”

    He did not add the proviso that emissivity must remain constant for this to be true, but that would be true for blackbodies and graybodies, and many common substances are graybodies in the thermal infrared range, so we will let that slide.

    But then he states:

    “The converse of this law implies that doubling the power of radiation heating an object will cause the temperature to increase by a factor equal to the fourth root of 2.”

    No!! This is not true in general at all, at certainly not close to true for his experimental setup.

    To calculate the expecte steady-state temperature (and the author was not careful enough to explicitly state that was what he was talking about, but it’s probably what he meant), you have to account for all of the power inflows and outflows, including the temperature-dependent ones, then solve for the temperature that makes the total outflows equal to the total inflows. You learn this by the second or third week of an introductory thermo course.

    In general, this temperature will not even be close to what he states it would be. However, there is one very special case for which it is true: no conductive or convective losses, and radiating to an ambient of absolute zero. This special case happens to be true for the earth/atmosphere system in the vacuum of space (the 3K background radiation ambient is trivially different from 0K).

    However, for experiments in an ambient of ~300K and 1 atmosphere, conductive and convective transfer dominates over radiative transfer. The author does not account for these at all. So of course, his device will not increase as much in temperature as it would have in a vacuum, due to the very large conductive/convective losses.

    So that is fatal mistake number 1 he made.

    The second key mistake he made is confusing power flux density with power. The 1st Law calculations for steady-state temperature I explained above use power, not flux density. He uses flux density, which is completely incorrect. There is one very special case where you can get away with this, and that is where all of the flux densities are uniform over the entire surface, as is the case with spherical symmetry. In this special case, you can divide out the surface area from all of your calculations.

    But the experiment is not remotely like this. The lights at best illuminate only half of the surface, and with the curvature of the surface, the effective illumination is only one-quarter. He utterly fails to take this into account.

    So that is fatal mistake number 2 he made, and it is not worth delving any deeper.

    Doug’s evaluation of that experiment is even more hysterical. He says:

    “The reason there was some small warming is because the thermometer is not a blackbody and so it receives some extra thermal energy by convection and conduction from surrounding air molecules that have initially been heated to higher temperatures when they were closer to the lamps than the thermometer was.”

    So Doug thinks that a light bulb warms the air through which the light passes more than the dark surface that absorbs the light! Any schoolkid knows this is not true! And he claims he understands more about thermodynamics than anyone else in the world and is advancing the science!

    • Norman says:

      Ed Bo

      Thanks for the informative post. I had one class in physics many years ago and majored in Chemistry but I do like science and learning. I am trying to up my level of understanding of GHE and how it works.

      Since you have actually taken College level courses in thermodynamics can you inform me if radiation fluxes add? I strongly feel they do and the backradiaton is super significant for real world heat transfer applications. If the PSI test is done in very cold air I would believe the thermometer would be much cooler than if it has an ambient temperature of 18 C. If the room was warmer then my view would be that the thermometer would end at a higher temp. Just from my own experience it takes more energy to heat a cold object than a warm one so it certainly makes it seem as if the ambient radiation is being added to objects. I may have to run some experiments but as you point out, any experiments on radiation in an open environment with other heat transfer methods will not give valid results and subject to all types of interpretation. I would just wonder if you have sources that you can link to to demonstrate that radiation fluxes do indeed add together. All the online thermodynamics equations I find deal only with two objects, a hot and colder one. The do not have examples of multiple heaters with various outputs and how that will affect a target object.

      Thanks. I want to learn and get things correct, my primary goal.
      I am old fashioned. I still believe in Objective Reality and the scientific method can aid humans in finding this reality.

      • DougCotton says:

        “I am trying to up my level of understanding of GHE and how it works.”

        It doesn’t work – never has, never will. What happens is a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as explained in my blog and in my linked websites, papers, videos and my book. Towards the end of that blog are the “questions that stump lukes and warmists” and, when you realize that they can’t be answered, and that the surface temperature cannot be explained with radiation calculations, then perhaps you might start to realize that I have been right all along. Bye Norman.

      • Ed Bo says:

        Norman:

        Of course radiation fluxes add. If you don’t think so, you don’t agree with the First Law of Thermodynamics! It’s a necessary consequence of conservation of energy.

        Very early in your first thermo class, you will see an equation something like:

        dU/dt = Sum (PowerFlowsIn) – Sum (PowerFlowsOut)

        with dU/dt being the time rate of change of internal energy of the system in question. This is simply the 1st LoT expressed in differential form. Doug apparently does not believe this.

        In keeping your personal financial accounts, do you believe that income “fluxes” add? That is, if you got a second job, do you believe you could add its income to that your first job? Of course you do, because accounting is based on “conservation of money”. (Note that your outflows — spending and taxes — may also increase.) This is really no more complicated, but Doug cannot understand it.

        • Norman says:

          Ed Bo,

          Thanks again. It is what I think happens but I do not have enough thermodynamics background to verify. In Cotton’s steak test with heaters the temperature only goes to 45 C. But then a lot of energy could be getting lost via convection in his set-up. Too many variables and not enough controls. Yes the energy would have to be conserved but Cotton will claim his pseudo-scattering phenomena that I had never before heard of in any physics I took nor have found any mention of it in any radiation thermodynamics online text-books.

          Thanks again.

          • DougCotton says:

            You will find this 21st century science Norman, not in textbooks (that are always decades behind) but summarized on page 24 in the brilliant professor’s paper Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation to which I have referred you many times. Ed Bo should also take note of what geran and I are saying about it, and you could have read about it in my 2012 review-type paper. And that is why you can’t add backradiation and, even if you do, you don’t correctly explain the surface temperatures of Earth or Venus, let alone temperatures in the Uranus tropopshere. Here endeth the lesson.

          • DougCotton says:

            Go back to this comment Norman after these 34 comments of yours on this thread.

          • DougCotton says:

            Go now to this comment Ed Bo.

        • DougCotton says:

          Go to this comment Ed Bo.

      • geran says:

        This is hilarious!

        Norman has found another pseudoscience advisor.

        Ed Bo says: “Of course radiation fluxes add.”

        Ed and Norm, if that were true, in the general sense, your houses would have burned down long before now.

        Hint: The science of “adding fluxes” requires an understanding of quantum physics.

        Hilarious.

        More, please.

        • Ed Bo says:

          Radiation fluxes in opposite directions also subtract.

          It works regardless of whether you analyze as waves or quanta.

          Engineering textbooks have explained this well for 100 years now. You obviously have never looked at one.

          • geran says:

            (Norm, it appears you have definitely found a suitable “pseudoscience advisor”.)

            Ed Bo instructs: Radiation fluxes in opposite directions also subtract.

            >>>Possibility of absorption only applies to photons that strike matter, duh.

            Ed Bo instructs: It works regardless of whether you analyze as waves or quanta.

            >>>The only way to make sense of that statement would be if Ed meant to write particles instead of quanta. But, it is always so hard to make sense out of pseudoscience.

            Ed Bo pontificates: Engineering textbooks have explained this well for 100 years now. You obviously have never looked at one.

            >>>Ed would not want to wager much money on that statement. (Its called talking through your hat.) As with all pseudoscientists, hes all bluster and bravado, lacking substance.

            Ed, it’s “half-time”, and I will be returning to the game, but don’t let that stop your hilarious comments.

          • Ed Bo says:

            OK, let’s look at my introductory heat transfer text from my days studying engineering thermodynamics at MIT:

            Heat Transfer, by J.P. Holman, copyright 1963 – 1976

            In the chapters on radiation heat transfer, there are many multi-body exchange problems, with diagrams on pages 321, 323, 325, 326, and 327 of “four body” problems showing how the various fluxes between each body (six bi-directional paths) add and subtract.

            It’s time for you, like Doug, to make a charitable contribution to live up to losing your “wager”.

          • geran says:

            Okay, Im interpreting your MIT bluster as you are willing to wager. Congratulations on standing by your flailing hopelessness. No one wants to be called a phony.

            Im thinking about $75,ooo, if that sounds good to you. (I am in the market for a new boat this summer, and after legal fees and taxes, I would like to clear $40,000.) If you want to wager more, of course, I would be agreeable. (If that is too much for you, maybe MIT could offer some assistance. Norman cannot contribute anything, for obvious reasons.)

            The wager is based on your statement Engineering textbooks have explained this well for 100 years now. You obviously have never looked at one.

            So, all I have to do is prove that I have “looked” at one such book, and I win. I accept.

            Please publish your email address here, or if you want to keep it private, authorize Dr. Roy to forward your email address to me so that we can get this set up. Our attorneys can work out the legalities privately.

            I know you will eagerly accept, because you dont want to be called a phony, fraud, charlatan, or worse.

          • geran says:

            No guarantees. but I might name the new boat “Ed BOat”.

          • Ed Bo says:

            I just explicitly cited a 50-year-old textbook that shows exactly what I claimed — that these flows are additive. (If they were not, the 1st LoT would not be valid…)

            It is common in these texts to use network analysis by analogy to electric circuits, with the radiative flows between objects equivalent to current flows between circuit nodes, with the flows definitely being additive, as in an electric circuit.

            I don’t want your money, but if you were a man of honor, you would make a substantial charitable contribution now.

          • geran says:

            So, Ed, are you backing down from your bluster?

            You seemed so sure of yourself, much like your student Norman. You had all of the “answers”. But yet, you knew your house was not on fire.

            You know it all, but when your pseudoscience hits the fan, you run.

            Hilarious.

          • DougCotton says:

            Yeah sure – the photons collide in mid air and push their opponents back again. /sarc

            Engineers calculate the difference in the S-B values and that is represented by the area between the Planck functions. Everything else resonates (rather like standing waves) and only the surplus between the Planck functions is thermalized and only in the cooler target.

        • Ed Bo says:

          I’ve already backed up my assertion with specific examples, formally cited. So I’ve already proved my point.

          You’ve done nothing except bluster. What would you consider proof of your point, anyway? Finding a solitary textbook that doesn’t include any examples like the one I’ve cited? Sorry, doesn’t cut it.

          Anyway, I’m dying to hear your logic as to why the summing of radiative fluxes would lead to a thermal runaway that would “burn my house down. Let’s consider the case of a solid object with black spray paint which has over 95% absorptivity in visible, SWIR, and LWIR, with both sunlight and ambient LWIR radiation on it.

          This should be fun!

          • DougCotton says:

            How about you do the four radiator experiment that I did and found only a 5 degree rise, not over 100 degrees as per adding fluxes in S-B.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Did you do the experiment in a vacuum, so the target would have no convective losses?

            Did you ensure there would be virtually no conductive losses from the target, by hanging it from a thread or similar?

            Did you ensure 4Pi-steradian coverage of the target from each source?

            I thought not…

          • DougCotton says:

            No need to do any of that. All such factors like that are automatically taken into account by selecting the distance at which 40C is attained. Experiment, my friend, experiment! Five degrees is nothing like 100 or more degrees that calculations give you when you incorrectly add fluxes. My result is statistically significant and proves you wrong.

      • DougCotton says:

        Go to this comment Norman.

    • DougCotton says:

      Ed Bo (Roy, Norman and others)

      It is well known that Earth’s atmosphere does absorb some incident sunlight and energy diagrams indicate about 20% is absorbed. That is mostly because it has water vapor which we can assume is present in the PSI experiment. Also, if you have ever used spot lights you would have to agree that the frame of the lamp does become hot after a reasonable period, certainly well above 40C, so there would of course be conduction from it. Another reason that I have previously pointed out (in agreement with you) is because the rate of non-radiative heat loss increases with the temperature gap between the tape and the ambient air.

      In general I agree entirely with your criticism of the PSI experiment which is typical of the pathetic and incorrect science they promulgate, especially when authors like Postma think that they can explain Earth’s surface temperature with solar radiation reaching it. That can’t be done by anyone, yourself included, because radiation reaching a planet’s surface is not the primary determinant of the surface temperature where there is a significant atmosphere and gravity produces a stable equilibrium temperature gradient as it acts on molecules and maximizes entropy.

      No-one can answer the “questions that stump lukes and warmists” towards the end of my blog and that is why the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false.

      • DougCotton says:

        The overall point that I made was that radiation cannot be compounded and, even in a vacuum, the target will not get significantly hotter than the temperature to which the brighter lamp raises it.

        I have also spoken about my experiment with four electric bar radiators. One was placed at a distant where it raised a piece of steak (with a steak thermometer in it) to 40C. I then introduced three more identical radiators placed at the same distance as close to each other as possible, but, whilst I did get 45C in the steak, the point is that the resulting temperature is nothing remotely near what could be calculated using the incorrect assumption that all the radiation can be added together in the way in which climatologists add solar radiation and back radiation and think that the sum (less non-radiative losses) produces a mean 15C surface temperature. The figures they use are 168+324-102=390 and the blackbody temperature for 390W/m^2 is 288K. (LOL)

        • Ed Bo says:

          Doug:

          Right now the James Webb Space Telescope is undergoing testing in a giant vacuum chamber. At incredible expense, they are supercooling the walls of the chamber with liquid nitrogen and helium to get the walls down to about 20K and eliminate the greater radiation that higher-walls would create.

          They also have banks of incandescent lights in these chambers to simulate sunlight.

          They obviously believe the power of the LWIR flux from the walls would add to that from the visible and SWIR from the “sun”, making the telescope hotter than it would be in actual conditions.

          Do you think they are wasting their money doing this?

          • DougCotton says:

            Yes they are wasting their money, and so too are the billions of dollars spent on the hoax that carbon dioxide warms also being wasted. To conclude I quote a review of my book …

            “DougCotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.”

            John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)

          • Ed Bo says:

            So you think you know better than the engineers who have been doing this testing for decades, with easily verifiable results (unlike climate science itself)!

            I have done thermal testing of electronics for 30 years now, and I have NEVER seen an operating electronic device that wasn’t hotter than ambient. The sensors and electronics of the JWST are supposed to operate at about 30K, and they need to be tested as such. Do you really think they could operate at 30K while dissipating power in a 300K ambient?

          • DougCotton says:

            On second thoughts, if they are honest and admit to the world that their results (showing radiation does not compound) prove the greenhouse conjecture wrong, then they will save the world far more than the cost of the experiment. But if you read the book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” you might not be surprised if the results get little publicity.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Doug, you have an ego bigger than Donald Trump’s! To think you know better than the people who have actually been running these tests and getting results for decades. Unbelievable!

            I repeat that no one has ever seen power-dissipating devices colder than ambient steady state. And in a vacuum (yes, I have done tests in a vacuum), the ambient of the surroundings matters for radiative transfer. This is completely understood, except by you.

          • DougCotton says:

            As in my 2012 paper I refer to the equations they use involving the difference in S-B values, that being represented by the area between the Planck functions wouldn’t you agree? That is what does not resonate and thus gets thermalized – just as they quantify in total agreement with myself.

          • DougCotton says:

            Go to this comment Ed Bo.

      • DougCotton says:

        PS

        There’s a page on my website criticizing PSI and it has been visited by over 1,300 in 13 months.

      • DougCotton says:

        And Ed Bo you haven’t actually done any computations for experiments like these have you? If, for example, the PSI experiment was done in Space (maybe outside a space station when it is in the shadow of Earth) then the temperature with two lamps would not exceed that attained by the stronger lamp on its own, because the additional radiation from the weaker lamp is all pseudo scattered and never thermalized in the tape, as explained in my paper published on several websites in March 2012.

        Thus, the only way in which the tape in the home experiment could warm about 10 degrees more must be due to non-radiative processes. The heating by conduction of the air around each lamp does compound because there is additional molecular kinetic energy being added to the air which will then spread out by natural convective heat transfer which, in physics, also includes thermal diffusion – that is, all by molecular collision.

        • Ed Bo says:

          Now you’re back to the air heating the tape. Just before you had the tape heating the air. Last night you had the air heating the tape.

          Which is it? Make up your mind!

          • DougCotton says:

            The air does not heat the tape, but as the temperature gap narrows the non-radiative heat loss reduces so that more of the energy from the radiation is retained in the tape and it starts to get hotter, you clot!

        • Ed Bo says:

          Doug:

          I have done detailed experiments and computations, which you obviously have not.

          I have varied the power into a lamp in small increments with a Variac and watched the steady-state temperature of the target increase. How is that different from adding a second lamp?

          And you don’t have the most basic intuition about real-world heat transfer. The direct conductive heating of the room air by the lamp will instantly lead to upward convection. The direct thermal conduction of air is so tiny it can be ignored in this type of experiment.

          • DougCotton says:

            Dear me. Try placing an oil filled heater on top of a bookcase in the middle of a wall in a well insulated room and tell me if (eventually) there is no thermal diffusion in any direction other than upwards. You’d better put such convection heaters all over your floor if you want to warm your room (/sarc).

            Molecules move randomly in all directions, you clot!

          • DougCotton says:

            Be careful you don’t get sunburned by the bank of incandescent lights on your Christmas tree. /sarc

          • DougCotton says:

            “How is that different from adding a second lamp?”

            Well where’s your experiment adding a second, third, fourth such lamp? I’ve done mine with four radiators.

            My response is in my 2012 paper.

          • DougCotton says:

            If one radiator makes an object 40C outside that space station in the shadow of Earth, then (very approximately) if you compound the radiation you could deduce that four radiators would make it about 170C. I suggest, from my experiment that only got 45C (and which you could repeat yourself) that there is such a significant difference that this implies you cannot add radiative fluxes and use the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations. Even if you do add solar radiation and back radiation (which is overestimated in the energy diagrams because emissivity of the atmosphere is quite low) you still cannot explain the surface temperature of Earth.

          • Ed Bo says:

            You really believe that the laws of physics are different for two separate lamps than for one lamp of increased power?

            You poor deluded old man!

          • DougCotton says:

            My response is in my 2012 paper and the cited work of Prof Johnson also found in the paper Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation that I linked in another comment. Radiation that resonates is re-emitted within a time period of the order of 10^-18 second and its energy is never converted to kinetic energy in a warmer target.

          • DougCotton says:

            It is you who wants to violate the laws of physics, supposedly making a target hotter than any of the sources of radiation it receives, thus postulating a process which would decrease entropy because the separate sources are independent and each beam of radiation is a separate independent process that cannot transfer thermal energy to a target hotter than the effective temperature of the source. Where is your experiment?

            The Second Law of Thermodynamics states ” In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases” and so, as stated, it applies to every single (one-way) radiation process and only to interacting systems, not independent ones.

          • Ed Bo says:

            But only if it’s from a separate lamp, according to Doug’s 4th Law of Thermodynamics…

          • DougCotton says:

            It’s not the laws of physics that are different, it is the sum of the Planck functions of the two spot lights that is different from that of a single much hotter light which has a different modal frequency which, by Wien’s Displacement Law, is proportional to the temperature. Thus a different range of frequencies undergo resonant (pseudo) scattering. The rest is in my 2012 paper and the cited work of Prof Johnson with whom you are welcome to continue your debate on his blog.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Doug, you claim of me:

            “It is you who wants to violate the laws of physics, supposedly making a target hotter than any of the sources of radiation it receives”.

            Hogwash! I never claimed anything of the sort! We’re talking about two incandescent bulbs, with filament temperatures of about 3000K, and their individual and mutual effects on a target of about 300K.

            You just keep showing how little you understand!!!

          • DougCotton says:

            What is relevant is the effective radiation at the target. Do the 4 radiator experiment by positioning the first so that it achieves a temperature of about 40 to 60 degrees. The others at the same distance deliver the same effective flux. So multiply the flux by 4 and get the new S-B temperature and compare with observations. Come back with your data. That will impress Norman.

      • Ed Bo says:

        Yet another spectacular flip-flop from Doug!

        Yesterday he asserted with regard to the PSI experiment:

        The reason there was some small warming is because the thermometer is not a blackbody and so it receives some extra thermal energy by convection and conduction from surrounding air molecules that have initially been heated to higher temperatures when they were closer to the lamps than the thermometer was.

        Today he asserts:

        “[The lower temperature than expected from radiative balance alone] is because the rate of non-radiative heat loss increases with the temperature gap between the tape and the ambient air.”

        He can’t even figure out which way the net heat transfer would be! Yet he has figured out the physics of the universe better than all of the world’s physicists!

        • DougCotton says:

          I wrote the footnote below before reading of your confusion in the above two comments. Assume the brighter lamp was turned on first to keep it simple. I thought you would have had enough understanding to realize the significance of any variation in the temperature gap, be it increased or reduced. It is increasing while the first lamp is reaching equilibrium, it then reduces when the second lamp is turned on, because the surrounding air is warmed a little more via conduction from the second lamp’s frame to the air, and thence by natural convective heat transfer to the air surrounding the tape.

          My point is that the second lot of radiation (if in Space) would have no additional warming effect. Hence the observed additional warming in the home experiment is entirely due to non-radiative processes. The same goes for my four radiator experiment.

          In the case of Earth’s surface, the temperature for well over three quarters of it is supported by the temperature at the base of the troposphere. Only in regions where, on clear days, the Sun is almost directly overhead and more than (very approximately) 500W/m^2 of solar radiation reaches the surface, does that solar radiation increase the surface temperature temporarily that day. When you remember that the mean solar radiation is 168W/m^2 (or double that for the sunlit hemisphere) and that this additional warming is just for a few hours for less than a quarter (very approximately) of the whole surface, the effect of direct solar radiation on the mean is not very much – perhaps 3 to 8 degrees. On Venus it is zero.

          • DougCotton says:

            The reason the direct solar radiation has zero effect on the Venus surface is because it would have to be about a thousand times as much to do so. Stefan Boltzmann calculations show that direct solar radiation could only raise the temperature of regions in the upper troposphere and above where the existing temperature is less than about 400K. That it does do, and the new thermal energy absorbed up there each day then disperses in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as explained in my paper where you will find the only correct explanation anywhere in world literature. Papers by Nikolov and Zeller, as well as that by Dr Hans Jelbring (PhD in climatology) recognize the role of the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient, but do not correctly explain the required thermal energy transfer mechanisms. Nor do they explain temperatures in the crust, mantle and core of planets, as I have.

      • DougCotton says:

        Footnote: The air does not necessarily have to be heated above the temperature of the tape. By just being warmer than the initial temperature with one lamp it will reduce the temperature gap and thus reduce non-radiative heat losses, allowing the radiation to warm the target closer to the temperature that would have been attained outside the space station.

  60. gbaikie says:

    “The normal boiling point (also called the atmospheric boiling point or the atmospheric pressure boiling point ) of a liquid is the special case in which the vapor pressure of the liquid equals the defined atmospheric pressure at sea level, 1 atmosphere . At that temperature, the vapor pressure of the liquid becomes sufficient to overcome atmospheric pressure and allow bubbles of vapor to form inside the bulk of the liquid. ”
    http://www.engineersedge.com/h2o_boil_pressure.htm
    And has table, and according to it, when atmospheric pressure
    is 1.066 psi, water boils at 40 C.

    So if Earth had an atmospheric pressure of 1.066 psi, instead
    of 14.7 psi, the water surfaces would boil at around 40 C.

    Have planet with 1 earth gravity at earth distance from Sun.
    With 24 hour day and axis tilt of 23 degree.
    And has 1 psi of nitrogen gas [80%] and oxygen [20%].
    I would note that humans or land animals can’t breathe in such low pressure, but fish could breathe 5 meters below the water. Or humans need a pressure suit to breathe when outside the water, but could breathe with scuba gear, 5 meter below the surface of water. Or 10 meter under water is
    14.7 + 1 psi, and 5 meters is 7.35 + 1 psi. Some people live
    in environment with 8 psi, and Mt Everest as about 1/3 of 1 atm of pressure [5 psi]. Or human can’t breathe if pressure is less than 2 1/2 psi even with an oxygen mask like on airplanes.
    So above water animals or humans can’t breathe with 1 psi of pressure [without a pressure suit]. And fish or person with scuba gear can’t breathe at or near the surface. Though plants wouldn’t have a problem.

    So have planet have saltwater which completely covers the tropics [23 degrees north and south latitude]. And have water more than 1 meter deep. So average depth of more than one meter and most of water about 1 meters deep.

    So going to have huge solar pond covering the tropics.
    Solar ponds on Earth have temperature of about 80 C 1 meter
    below the surface and about 30 C at the surface.
    So they have constant temperature of about 80 C when in saltwater 1 meter deep at bottom and because of salt gradient which prevents convection and water at the top is 50 K cooler.
    And have the rest of the planet covered with land.
    Now within a year or 10, all the tropical water would evaporate and end up on the land. Though one set it up so a lot of the water which is evaporated returns back to this shallow global “lake”. But I am going to go into this complication and instead be interested in it over a short time period.
    Also with less atmosphere, the planet will receive a couple hundred more watts per square meter of sunlight when sun at zenith as compared to earth, so this could increase the temperature from 80 C to higher than 100 C.
    Also 1 meter below surface only has 1.47 + 1 psi [2.47 psi], and water boils at 60 C at 2.888 psi [per above link]. And the boiling water below the surface would wreck the temperature gradient of the salt.
    A simple solution would be to have this planet further from the Sun than Earth is.
    Another solution is to build a tall wall at 23 degree latitude north and south- and let the tropics boil.
    Or another thing to do is make the lake deeper. If shallowest water was 10 meter deep, then on Earth the water temperature might be around 50 to 60 C instead of 80 C. One is preventing less sunlight to reach bottom surface and so bottom surface is not warmed as much which in turn doesn’t heat the water to such a high temperature.
    Or you get something like the Dead Sea [borders Jordan and Israel]:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea
    Though it’s average depth is about 200 meters.
    So many problems.

    • gbaikie says:

      Each 15 degrees longitude is 1/24th the circumference of Earth and is 1 hour of time.
      At equator when the Sun is at zenith, 3 hours away east or west or 45 degrees of longitude east or west, the sun is 45 degree above the horizon.
      3 hours before and after noon is the time of day when the most amount sunlight intersect the surface. Here is graph power from sunlight during 24 hrs at Los Vegas and Buffalo:
      “Figure 2: Hourly energy output from a 4-kW installation for a typical June 20 day, comparing Buffalo and Las Vegas.”
      http://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2011/aug/variables-to-consider-when-designing-solar-power-applications
      Las Vegas:
      At 1 hour after dawn it’s less than 500 kWh, 2 hours it’s about 1200 kWh, 3 hours about 1900 kWh, at 4 hours it’s about 2400 kWh, 5 hours: 2700 kWh, 6 hours 2800 kWh, 7 hours 2700 kWh, 8 hours: 2500 kWh, 9 hours: less 2100 kWh, 10 hours less than 1500 kWh, 11 hours less 750 kWh, 12 hours, sunset 0 kWh.
      So roughly climbs roughly by 500 watts per hour. zero to 500, then 1000, then 1500, then 2000+ for 6 hour and drops by about 500 per hour until 0. or per hour, 300 to 400 + 800 + 1200. morning totals 2400. then 6 hours at about 2500 on average, total 15,000, then 3 hours of afternoon to sunset totals about another 2400. So 15,000 vs 4800. Or about 75% of power is within the period of about 3 hours of noon.
      So this is lateral track of progress of sun going across the sky, BUT the same thing occurs on the vertical axis.
      Vertical meaning latitude, so one can 3 hour east, west, north, and south of point where sun is at zenith on Earth.

      Or each degree of latitude is about 111 km so radius distance from zenith is 111 km time 45 which is 4995 km.

      So you have disk which about 10,000 km in diameter or 5000 km in radius which has 75% of all the sunlight reaching earth, and as the Earth rotate this makes a band across the circumference [equatorial band] of earth.
      The tropics is with 23 degree latitude north and south of equator, so total is 46 degrees of latitude, or totals about 3 hours latitude.
      So during equinox when the sun is directly above equator, in terms north and south there is 1 1/2 hour latitude above and below the tropical zone. So 15 + 7 1/2 degree is 1 1/2 hours and it’s 22 1/2 degrees latitude. And Tropic of Cancer is 23 degree. So 23 + 22 1/2 is latitude of 45 1/2 north. So the 10,000 diameter disk during equinox reaches 45 1/2 degree latitude North and South.
      One could say during fall and spring at around 45 degree latitude one at the border of two zone, towards the equator one has 75% of sunlight reach, and towards the pole gets about 1/4 of the sunlight.
      One could also say the difference between summer and winter is about 3 hours of latitude.
      One can also say that at all times all of tropics is close to being within the 5000 km radius of the disk.

      So at equinox and at 45 degree latitude- and that also means
      day is 12 hours daylight and night [as it is everywhere at that time of year]. And at noon the sun will be 45 degree above the horizon [or 45 degree away from zenith].
      And at the equator at noon the sun will be at zenith. And it was at or above 45 degree 3 hours before noon and 3 hours after noon.
      So at 45 latitude the sun peaks 45 degrees above and it does NOT rise at 15 degree per hour. It’s arc is flatter- or it takes 6 hour to rise to 45 degree and 6 hours to fall the 45 degree. Whereas at equator it take 6 hour to rise 90 degrees and 6 hours to fall 90 degrees. Or at the equator it seems like it goes quicker from day to night.
      Or over simplify, at 45 latitude it’s 45 divided by 6 which is 7.5 degree per hour or two hours before or after noon the sun will be about 30 degree above the horizon.

      There is big difference between sun at 45 degree above horizon and 30 degree or less above the horizon.

      In above numbers with Las Vegas, it was June 20 and Las Vegas is at 36.12 degree north latitude.
      The sun is at zenith at tropic of Cancer at noon. 36.12 minus 23 degree means at noon at Las Vegas is 77 degree above horizon, it’s daylight is longer than 12 hours at summer, or it’s going to have 6 hours where the sun is at or above 45 degree above the horizon and the power of sunlight drops off when sun gets near 30 degree or less above horizon. Or at 30 degree the sunlight goes through twice as much atmosphere as compared to when sun is higher than 45 degree above horizon.
      And another factor with 30 degree is with level ground the sunlight is smeared over twice the area. And the solar panel at Las Vegas would be tilted so causes it to have less effect compare the flat ground.
      So Las Vegas at summer solstice is getting lots of solar energy, but during winter solstice, it’s 46 degrees lower-
      77 degrees is 31 degrees above horizon and the day is less than 12 hours. Or why it can snow in Las Vegas at Christmas [though elevation and distance from coast are other reasons related to how cold it can get].

      So as said at equinox at 45 latitude it’s sort of at a border between region getting 75% or sunlight and region that get 25% of the sunlight, and as gets closer to summer, it increase it’s distance from region getting less sunlight, and as it goes towards winter it enter region which gets 25% of the sunlight.
      Now this bring me to a question, does the tilt of earth cause earth average temperature to increase or decrease?
      So if earth to have say 10% tilt, would it be warmer or cooler than 23 degree tilt. And/or if Earth had say 35 degree tilt, would it be warmer or cooler.
      To state the obvious if Earth were an ideal blackbody- it makes no difference. Nor would it matter if the ideal blackbody rotated or not.
      I don’t have an answer, but I think it does make difference- no tilt either makes it warmer or colder, and larger tilt also does one or the other.
      Generally speaking my guess is a tilt or larger tilt causes warming, for two reasons- one because in long term I believe more mixing causing warming. And two because we have clouds, I think clouds cause more warming in cooler regions. But don’t have firm opinion about it, just something I wonder about. One could also make case that could tend to cause more snowfall and resulting in a build up snow [year long snow], and that would cause cooling.

      • gbaikie says:

        More regarding “Now this bring me to a question, does the tilt of earth cause earth average temperature to increase or decrease?”
        So without planetary tilt the most of amount sunlight falls
        within 45 degrees latitude north and south.

        With the 23 degree tilt the winter region between 23 to 45 degree latitude gets much less sunlight, and question could be, is does what it lost during winter will be gained back during it’s summer?

        One could look at this in terms of temperature or amount of sunlight reaching the surface.
        Plus one could look at ocean or land. So let’s pick some land.
        Sheridon Wyoming. Weather right now is 40 F or 4 C. Daytime high of 11 C and last nite low of 1 C. Partly cloudy, humidity 63%. And weather forecast for next week is about the same- gets some rain and gets clear skies with higher daytime temperature, but night gets low as 0 and high as 2, so generally remain about the same.

        And spring equinox is March 20. And it’s 8th of Feb or about 40 days from now. And it’s latitude is:
        “Sheridan is located at 4447′48″N 10657′32″W ”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheridan,_Wyoming
        And elevation: “3,743 ft (1,141 m)”

        If didn’t have 23 tilt, it seems it would be warmer than it is at moment. More with wiki:
        Feb Record high F (C) : 76 (24)
        Average: 39.0 (3.9)
        Mar Record high F (C) : 80 (27)
        Average: 48.4 (9.1)
        So in a month’s time average temperature going rise significantly – and in summer it’s average is 25 to 30 C.

        Hmm here is “solar map” for Sheridon Wyoming [in real time]:
        http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/sheridan-wyoming.html

  61. Pangolina says:

    To the attention of Dr. Spencer

    I suppose that if I want to merge in a single chart all temperature data provided in anomaly form by several institutions, I’ll of course need to know not only the baseline period they use, but the absolute mean value they computed for that period, in order to obtain some unified offsetting.

    Whilst the baseline period mostly is published (e.g. 1981-2010 for UAH), the absolute baseline mean is never (even googling gives no apparent result). There is well an offsetting published within Wood for Trees, but only for a few providers.

    I would be grateful if Roy Spencer could answer this post with UAH’s value. I then would ask all the others (RSS, GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT, BEST, JMA) for their respective values.

    Thanks in advance for an answer.

    Pangolina

  62. DougCotton says:

    What happens in all planets is explained in my book, but you don’t need to buy it from Amazon as it is based on the paper I wrote in 2013 “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” that you can read (free) in an hour or so. The 43 minute video presentation made in August last year is more up-to-date and has been viewed by over 1,000 already. With tens of thousands visiting my websites and blog, I have a wider audience to focus on now than just Norman and Ed Bo who appear to be unteachable anyway.

  63. Ed Bo says:

    Doug, you still haven’t come to grips with one of your many self-contradictions, and explained how you can square your assertion:

    ” the redistribution of PE and KE which leads to a state of maximum entropy”

    with your admisson that my assertion that conversion of gravitational PE to kinetic energy is completely reversible” and therefore not entropy-increasing” is Correct”.

    You can’t have it both ways! Which is it?

    • DougCotton says:

      Suppose Ed Bo that you start with a horizontal sealed and perfectly insulated cylinder which has warmer argon at one end and cooler argon at the other end. Whenever a molecule has vertical motion in its mean free path motion there will be an equal interchange of PE and KE. But the initial state is not maximum entropy. Entropy will increase by a redistribution of KE until temperature and density are homogeneous in each horizontal plane, and the sum of mean molecular (PE+KE) will be homogeneous.

      Now rotate the cylinder to a vertical orientation. Are you going to deny that this is now not a state of maximum entropy? Are you going to deny that a stable density gradient will form as PE and KE are redistributed and entropy increases to a maximum wherein the density gradient becomes stable? That stable density gradient is the state of maximum entropy and is thus a direct corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A temperature gradient has also formed simultaneously as explained in my paper and that’s why the radiative forcing conjecture is false.

      • Ed Bo says:

        Doug, you display the typical confusions of a mediocre first year student. Your argument is equivalent to saying that because compressing air in a bicycle pump will heat that air, maintaining the force on the pump will keep the air indefinitely hotter than ambient.

        In other words, you confuse a one-time effect (dynamic compression) with a steady-state effect. Typical rookie error!

        So as you tilt your column to vertical, the dynamic compression will increase the temperature of the gas at the bottom. But once in the vertical orientation, the warmer air at the bottom will conduct heat toward the top until isothermal conditions are reached.

        The only way your “heat creep” mechanism could work is for the conversion of gravitational PE to KE to be entropy increasing. Which as you (finally) admit, is not correct!

        • DougCotton says:

          My argument says no such thing. I have many times said that high pressure does not maintain high temperatures. Gravity forms a density gradient and a temperature gradient. The pressure gradient is a mere corollary because pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature.

          Ed Bo writes the warmer air at the bottom will conduct heat toward the top until isothermal conditions are reached”

          No it doesn’t. The gradient forms because entropy increases to a maximum as explained in my 2013 paper linked here and so how could entropy then retreat from a maximum and reduce? This was the mistake that Maxwell made because he, like you, did not think at the molecular level.

          You, Ed Bo have made a major error in claiming that temperature is affected by density. Until you admit your mistake you won’t understand that (PE+KE)=constant implies there is a temperature gradient. I have linked you to standard Kinetic Theory which confirms what I say, namely that temperature is proportional only to mean molecular kinetic energy and is not a function of density or anything else. So you were WRONG, Ed Bo.

        • DougCotton says:

          You, Ed Bo are not in a position to discuss the “heat creep” process because you have not yet admitted your mistake and acknowledged that temperature is a function of mean molecular kinetic energy only.

          You have no idea whatsoever as to how that heat creep process works. You could not, for example, draw the explanatory diagrams from memory, correctly labeling the axes, and that is because you have not read the explanation in the paper, you have not put in the necessary thought processes and, in short, you haven’t a clue what it is or how it works. Everything you assume about the process is wrong.

          Entropy increases because kinetic energy is redistributed, just as happens with the Clausius “hot to cold” corollary of the Second Law which only always applies in a horizontal plane.

        • DougCotton says:

          When new rain water falls only in the middle of a lake that was initially in thermodynamic (and mechanical) equilibrium, gravity spreads that new water in all directions as entropy increases towards a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

          When new thermal energy is absorbed (from solar radiation) in the middle of the troposphere that was initially in thermodynamic equilibrium, gravity spreads that new energy in all directions as entropy increases towards a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

          For the lake the state of maximum entropy was a level surface, formed by gravity.

          For the troposphere the state of maximum entropy had a stable temperature gradient formed by gravity.

          • DougCotton says:

            Footnote: As the energy budget diagrams show, about 20% of incident solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. In fact the absorption only results in new thermal (kinetic) energy where the temperature is cool enough to be raised by the attenuated solar radiation. For Venus this is in the upper troposphere and above. For Earth it is similar, but with some solar radiation being strong enough to raise the surface temperature for less than a quarter of Earth’s surface where not blocked by clouds. But even where that is the case, there will also be more warming in the stratosphere, upper troposphere and especially the tops of clouds where they do exist.

          • gbaikie says:

            — DougCotton says:
            February 8, 2016 at 1:29 AM

            Footnote: As the energy budget diagrams show, about 20% of incident solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. In fact the absorption only results in new thermal (kinetic) energy where the temperature is cool enough to be raised by the attenuated solar radiation. —

            I would say that 20% solar radiation does not directly increase the kinetic energy of gases- it does not increase the average velocity of gases.

            When the sun is at zenith and it’s clear of visible clouds,
            one has about 1360 watts of direct sunlight at TOA, and
            on one surface after passing thru the atmosphere, one has about 1050 watts of direct sunlight, and 1120 watts of direct and indirect sunlight. So, 1360 minus 1120 is left with 240 watts which is blocked somehow- including possibility it’s absorbed.
            To be clear, 20% of 1360 is 272 watts and when sun is at zenith the atmosphere can not have absorbed 20%.
            Now, there is possibility that when the sunlight is not near zenith the atmosphere is absorbing more sunlight.
            But one can’t be sane and say that when cloudy when sun is at zenith that the atmosphere is absorbing- as obviously it’s the clouds which are blocking the sunlight [reflecting and/or scattering the sunlight. Or adsorbing the sunlight.]

            So one ask question when sun is not near zenith does a clear sky absorb more of the sunlight and does it absorb enough to make up the obvious deficit of when sun is at zenith.

            Another thing one look at is how much of the sunlight is reflected when at zenith. So one has 240 watts per square meters prevented from reaching surface and how much of 240 watts is being reflected or scattered- or deflected in any ways so it does not reach the 1 square meter area being measured. Or if scattered so it misses the one square by say 10 meters, it’s not counted or is blocked from reaching the square meter.
            So say it’s amounts to something like 100 watts per square meter, and so that means one even a greater deficit to make up for when sunlight passes thru atmosphere when not near zenith.

            Another aspect is there is stuff in the atmosphere even when there is no visible clouds- or a clear day.
            One has dust/aerosols, salt particles, ice particle, and water droplets- which can absorb or scatter sunlight.

            In terms of spectrum of sunlight, one has water, Co2, O3 which are largely associated with losses of in the spectrum they can absorb sunlight. And large part being absorbed is probably from H2O- whether droplets/ice particles or H20 gas.

          • DougCotton says:

            The energy budget diagram on this page shows 342W/m^2 mean effective solar radiation at TOA of which it shows 67W/m^2 absorbed by atmosphere, which is 19.6%. Go and tell NASA their measurements are wrong.

          • gbaikie says:

            –The energy budget diagram on this page shows 342W/m^2 mean effective solar radiation at TOA of which it shows 67W/m^2 absorbed by atmosphere, which is 19.6%. Go and tell NASA their measurements are wrong.–

            NASA’s displayed cartoon doesn’t indicate how much of the 342W/m^2 is absorbed by the clouds.
            It does indicate how much clouds and atmosphere is imagined to be reflected.
            Perhaps the cartoonist made an error it was suppose to be 67W/m^2 is amount imagined that absorbed by everything in the atmosphere.

            Or do you imagine that clouds only reflect sunlight?

            And if you think this is possible but is a small amount, how much would this small amount be.
            And do imagine there is anything else in the atmosphere other than CO2 and h20 gas which can absorb sunlight?

          • gbaikie says:

            I will add that sizable portion of sunlight is near infrared,
            and with infrared photography, clouds appear to be black.

          • DougCotton says:

            Go to this comment Ed Bo.

        • DougCotton says:

          “Your argument is equivalent to saying that because compressing air in a bicycle pump will heat that air, maintaining the force on the pump will keep the air indefinitely hotter than ambient.”

          It is nothing of the kind.

  64. DougCotton says:

    My response is in my 2013 paper.

    Prof Johnson told me personally when he reviewed my 2012 paper that I was one of the first to correctly understand his work on resonant (pseudo) scattering, in much the same way that Prof Hamilton was among the first to correctly understand my 2013 paper when it appeared in book form and he reviewed such as follows:

    “The fallacies in the greenhouse conjecture are exposed rigorously and backed up by a comprehensive study (in the Appendix) which compares rainfall and temperature data for locations on three continents. The study concludes convincingly that the wetter regions do indeed have lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than dry regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. This supports the hypothesis in the book which shows that so-called “greenhouse gases” (mostly water vapor and a little carbon dioxide) do in fact reduce the lapse rate and thus lower the “supported” temperature at the surface. In other words, water vapor cools and so does carbon dioxide, the latter by only a minuscule amount.

    “The book discusses how and why surface cooling slows down almost to a halt in the early pre-dawn hours as the supported temperature is approached. This slowing down process is well known, but the concept of the supporting temperature (due to a temperature gradient autonomously induced by gravity) was not understood, even though this “gravito-thermal” effect was originally proposed in the nineteenth century. Modern day physics can now be used to prove the Loschmidt effect is indeed a reality, as this book shows.

    “As a physicist, I can honestly say that the physics is indeed mainstream and valid in all respects. It discusses the maximum entropy conditions that evolve as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium is approached, and then goes on to develop a real break-through hypothesis of “heat creep” which, when we consider what happens on Earth and other planets with atmospheres, we see must be the process which explains how the necessary energy gets into the surface of Venus to raise its temperature during its sunlit period. Indeed all planetary temperature data, even that below any surface, can be explained by the hypothesis in this book, which is indeed a totally new paradigm that completely demolishes the old greenhouse conjecture that was based on mistaken understanding of the laws of physics.”

  65. Ed Bo says:

    Dodging and weaving as usual when pressed. Why can’t you directly answer a simple question?

    By the way, the horribly confused Chapter 5 of your linked paper totally ignores the key issue of density gradient in a gravitational field. If you brought that into play, all your conclusions would go up in smoke!

    • DougCotton says:

      Nonsense, go back to this comment which I wrote before reading yours of 8:18pm.

    • DougCotton says:

      In the state of maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) in a column of the troposphere the density gradient is stable. Hence pressure from above and below any horizontal plane is equal. Because pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density, and because there can be no transfer of energy or matter across any internal boundary when there is thermodynamic equilibrium, we can deduce that, for any horizontal plane, there must be equal numbers of molecules crossing upwards as there are crossing downwards, and the mean kinetic energy of each group while crossing the plane must be equal.

      Now, for the numbers to be equal we note that the effect of gravity creates a slightly greater than 50% chance that net downward motion will occur between molecular collisions. This means that there must be a higher density below the plane and a lower one above.

      And, for the temperatures to be equal, this means that (because molecules gain KE with downward motion) there must have been lower mean molecular KE (temperature) above the plane and warmer temperature below.

      QED

      • Ed Bo says:

        No Doug, you are too dense (pun intended) to understand the implications of the pressure gradient that you acknowledge (and mysteriously think we don’t acknowledge).

        This pressure gradient means there is a density gradient, which means there are fewer molecules above any horizontal plane than below it. (This means that your 4 + 4 molecule example is completely bogus!) This mass density gradient means that the volumetric energy density above and below this plane, with the combination of PE+KE, is the same only if the temperature is the same above and below.

        Good bye, heat creep hypothesis!

        • DougCotton says:

          Gravity acts on mass – that is, molecules. Gravity forms the density gradient and the temperature gradient. The pressure gradient is a result, not a cause, since pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature.

          We are NOT interested in the “volumetric energy density” because the temperature is proportional to the mean molecular kinetic energy as per standard Kinetic Theory. It is NOT a function of density as you incorrectly imply. You are WRONG yet again.

          As I have said all along, the sum of mean molecular (gravitational potential energy + kinetic energy) is homogeneous, and thus there is a temperature gradient.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Doug, as soon as you introduced your “horizontal plane” to the analysis, you brought in area of the plane, and then with heights above and below this plane, whether finite or infinitesimal, you introduced volumes. And it is these equal volumes of gas that are interacting

            The fact is that in equilibrium conditions, these two equivalent volumes have equal energies if and only if the temperatures are equivalent. The molecules above have greater gravitational potential energy, but there are fewer of them.

            The energy transfers across the horizontal plane sum to zero ONLY if the temperatures are the same in the volumes above and below, because of the density difference. And that is what you simply cannot grasp.

          • DougCotton says:

            No, Ed Bo. What happens is as I explained. The mean KE of molecules from each group (that is, one group crossing the plane downwards and the other crossing upwards) only has to be the same as they actually cross the plane and likewise the numbers crossing the plane have to be the same at that plane. That is the only way that the pressure from above and below can be equal, whilst at the same time there is no net transfer of either energy or mass across the plane, this being a requirement of maximum entropy.

            You are mistaken if you think thermodynamic equilibrium implies uniform temperature throughout a vertical column of the troposphere. You are begging the question, anyway.

            It is the state of maximum entropy – nothing more and nothing less. Because it is maximum entropy there are no unbalanced energy potentials on opposite sides of any internal plane. That is all that you can assume. It does not rule out a steady change in density or temperature as you move up or down away from that plane.

            What I said in the previous comment is correct, and molecules moving upwards must have come from a more dense region because the probability of net upward movement is slightly less than 0.5. Likewise molecules moving up must have come from a warmer region because KE decreases with increased height. It’s not hard to understand.

          • DougCotton says:

            “The molecules above have greater gravitational potential energy, but there are fewer of them.”

            This implies that the density is strictly inversely proportional to the mean molecular gravitational potential energy. That is a HUGE MISTAKE Ed Bo.

          • DougCotton says:

            Ed Bo – The implication is that, as a molecule in free flight between collisions happens to move upwards and thus gain gravitational potential energy, it still keeps going at the same speed so that it does not lose any kinetic energy, but the density of all such molecules becomes less (in strict inverse proportion to the potential energy mind you) so that some just – well – vanish. That’s hilarious as I’m sure geran would agree.

          • DougCotton says:

            We require stricter (more limiting) requirements than just “The energy transfers across the horizontal plane sum to zero ONLY” Ed Bo. What we need is in my comment above which you have largely ignored, leaving several points unanswered. I have explained why the requirements necessitate lower mean molecular KE (that is, lower temperature) above, and higher below.

            Volumetric energy density is irrelevant. Temperature is not a function of such and has nothing to do with the density of molecules, only their mean KE.

        • DougCotton says:

          FOR THOSE WHO DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY ED BO IS WRONG

          Below are standard assumptions of the Kinetic Theory of Gases [source] where you will note that temperature is proportional to mean molecular kinetic energy and it has nothing to do with density.

          “The theory for ideal gases makes the following assumptions:

          The gas consists of very small particles known as molecules. This smallness of their size is such that the total volume of the individual gas molecules added up is negligible compared to the volume of the smallest open ball containing all the molecules. This is equivalent to stating that the average distance separating the gas particles is large compared to their size.
          These particles have the same mass.
          The number of molecules is so large that statistical treatment can be applied.
          These molecules are in constant, random, and rapid motion.
          The rapidly moving particles constantly collide among themselves and with the walls of the container. All these collisions are perfectly elastic. This means, the molecules are considered to be perfectly spherical in shape, and elastic in nature.
          Except during collisions, the interactions among molecules are negligible. (That is, they exert no forces on one another.)
          This implies:
          1. Relativistic effects are negligible.
          2. Quantum-mechanical effects are negligible. This means that the inter-particle distance is much larger than the thermal de Broglie wavelength and the molecules are treated as classical objects.
          3. Because of the above two, their dynamics can be treated classically. This means, the equations of motion of the molecules are time-reversible.
          The average kinetic energy of the gas particles depends only on the absolute temperature of the system. The kinetic theory has its own definition of temperature, not identical with the thermodynamic definition.
          The time during collision of molecule with the container’s wall is negligible as compared to the time between successive collisions.
          Because they have mass, the gas molecules will be affected by gravity.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Nothing in that contradicts anything I said.

          • DougCotton says:

            At no point in any comment have you specifically stated that temperature is proportional to mean kinetic energy. You continually talk about energy density, which is irrelevant. However, if you now agree that temperature does in fact depend ONLY upon mean molecular kinetic energy, then density is irrelevant and my comment regarding equal pressure on either side of a horizontal plane requiring equal numbers with equal KE as they cross the plane clearly leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is a temperature gradient because those that came down had less KE when they were higher and vice versa.

            So we agree that there must be a temperature gradient in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium in an ideal column of a planet’s troposphere. To quantify the gradient we equate KE gain with PE loss and thus get:

            m.g.dH = – m.cp.dT

            dT/dH = – g/cp

            So do you now wish to move onto discussing how heat creep happens? If so, read the explanation in my paper because it’s after midnight here.

          • DougCotton says:

            Go back to this comment Ed Bo.

        • DougCotton says:

          To say that the eight (4 + 4) molecule experiment is invalidated because of the density gradient is absurd. The two rows of molecules are one mean free path apart, that is, about 90 nanometers. How much change would there be in the density gradient in that distance? To reflect the density gradient, we just build in a “spreading factor” just larger than 1 by a minute fraction, so that the top row is just a little more spread out than the bottom row. Then we apply mathematical induction to extend it to the whole troposphere.

          • Ed Bo says:

            Part of the fun of this exchange for me is that I keep getting Doug to display his ignorance in one area after another. The gift that keeps on giving!

            If Doug cannot understand that a continuous density gradient exists even for tiny (infinitesimal) intervals, then he doesn’t understand the most basic theorems of calculus. Given all his other whoppers, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised…

          • DougCotton says:

            What’s wrong with your comprehension? Doug proved there is a steady density gradient in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium in the discussion about equal numbers of molecules crossing that horizontal plane. To reiterate – gravity causes there to be a slightly higher than 0.5 probability of net downward motion of molecules between collisions. This means that, for equal numbers crossing the plane, there must have been a lower density above and a higher density below the plane. Equal numbers with equal temperature (KE) as they cross the plane implies pressure is equal from above and from below.

            Go back to this comment.

          • Ed Bo says:

            You don’t even understand the issues in play, Doug. Nobody’s disputing that there is a density gradient. The pressure at any height is simply determined by the weight of the atmosphere above.

            But it is you who cannot understand the implications of this pressure and density gradient. Your analysis keeps ignoring this gradient!

            And you insist there is a natural temperature gradient as well in an isolated vertical column, which leads to ridiculous 2nd Law violations.

            You should take a good close look at Feynman’s lecture on the subject, where he shows very simply why such a column is isothermal:

            http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html

            You have already claimed that Maxwell was “not too bright”. Do you make the same claim about Feynman?

          • DougCotton says:

            There is no violation of the Second Law for the reasons explained in my paper. An isothermal state is not stable because there are unbalanced energy potentials (more PE at the top) and so entropy is not a maximum. My comment above explained using Kinetic Theory of Gases, why the density and temperature gradients represent the one and only state of maximum entropy, and it is clearly seen to be such when considering the molecules crossing the plane. You just need to think at the molecular level Ed Bo.

          • DougCotton says:

            How can you deduce it “leads to ridiculous 2nd Law violations” when all that is happening is that entropy is increasing to a maximum, just as the Second Law says will happen in an ideal troposphere?

            You need to prove the physics you claim with your assertive hand waving. Otherwise I’m not at all impressed.

        • DougCotton says:

          We don’t require “volumetric energy density above and below this plane” to be “the same”. Whatever gave you that strange and irrelevant idea? We require no unbalanced energy potentials, that’s all.

  66. Ed Bo says:

    Oh, and Claes rejects all of 20th Century quantum physics just because he thinks it [wave-particle duality] is “too big a price to pay”. Not an appropriate scientific rationale.

    The quantization of electromagnetic radiation (the photon) is as firmly established through a century of repeatable experimental evidence as is the quantization of electrical charge (the electron). The whole field of opto-electronics — which I have worked in — could not exist without understanding this quantization.

    • DougCotton says:

      So too is wave motion, and it doesn’t matter anyway regarding photon re-emission and what Prof Johnson explains.

      Photons raise electrons through certain energy states if and only if they exactly match what the target itself could emit. This is considered a resonance process. Their energy is not converted to KE. Within about 10^-18 second they take the place of what the target could emit, and so the target uses less of its own KE for its Planck “quota” and so cools more slowly by radiation, though it may cool faster by non-radiative processes to compensate. The emitted photons are identical to the ones that were incident, and so the process looks like scattering.

      As is well know in engineering and physics, the heat transfer between two close parallel plates at different temperatures is represented by the area between the Planck functions because S-B is based on the integral. That is the additional radiation which does not resonate (because it is not common to both source and target, as is the radiation under the lower Planck curve) and it is what is thermalized (converted to KE) in the target.

      • DougCotton says:

        When there is an excess of low frequency radiation from multiple sources cooler than the target and the Planck “quota” of the target is filled, then the excess of all such radiation is basically ignored and passes through the target as there is no capacity to re-emit it (within the limits of the Planck function) and yet it is not “hot” enough to be thermalized.

        This is why those plastic microwave bowls do not get warmed in your microwave oven and microwaves do actually pass through them. You can test this with water half filling one bowl and another identical bowl placed upside down over the first so that the water is not exposed to direct radiation, only to that which passes through one or other of the bowls. This demonstrates why compounding radiation (which is what happens in a microwave oven as the radiation is reflected around) does not make something hotter than the temperature represented by the modal frequency.

        • DougCotton says:

          And before anyone says that microwaves do heat targets that contain water molecules, the process is totally different. It is not absorption in the usual sense at the atomic level. The frequency is designed specifically to resonate with natural frequencies of water molecules. These molecules flip around with each passing wave of radiation, and so the radiated energy is converted directly to physical kinetic energy.

          • Ed Bo says:

            More pathetic ignorance from Doug!

            Greenhouse gases absorb LWIR radiation (whereas N2 and O2 do not) because they have polar covalent bonds that respond well to EM radiation, with molecular bending and stretching modes of the frequencies of LWIR radiation.

            Water absorbs microwave radiation (where as CO2 and CH4 do not) because it is a polar molecule with a much lower-frequency mode because the whole molecule must rotate.

            In both cases, the fundamental absorption phenomenon is the same electromagnetic interaction. Basic spectroscopy, but Doug doesn’t even begin to understand it!

          • DougCotton says:

            There is a lot of debate as to the precise mechanism whereby radiation is thermalized in a cooler target. It is a complex mechanism, sometimes involving conversion of electron energy due to absorption of a photon that raised an electron through one or more energy states. I suggest that such conversion is not the same as resonant rotation of water molecules by microwaves. Yes there can be other resonating processes, though probably not much in solids.

            Carbon dioxide (with its limited spectral lines) is like a picket fence with most of its pickets missing standing up against a tidal wave of full spectrum radiation from the surface.

        • Ed Bo says:

          More imaginary physics from Doug! The bowls can be as transparent to visible light emitted by a 3000K filament or a 5700K solar surface as they are to microwaves emitted by a Klystron tube (non-thermally). There is no “Planck quota”!

          By the way, the 2.4 GHz radiation of a microwave oven is equivalent to the peak frequency of thermal emission of a body at 0.025K. Yet it is used to boil water at 373K!

          • DougCotton says:

            More “last resort” comments from Ed Bo. My microwave bowls are opaque to sunlight, but get warmed by such. They don’t get warmed in my microwave oven by the microwave radiation. The one on top stays cold because there is no conduction from the water.

            The very fact that it boils water PROVES that it is not doing so as a result of spontaneous blackbody radiation and has nothing to do with its frequency distribution which is more like a spike than a Planck function. Stefan Boltzmann calculations are thus irrelevant for microwaves heating water.

            If the frequency is increased a little so as not to resonate there is less if any heating – “equivalent” to blackbody radiation? Hardly, my friend.

          • Ed Bo says:

            No Doug, substances are opaque or transparent to different wavelengths for lots of reasons. Why are some plastic bowls opaque to visible light and some transparent?

            The 2.4GHz radiation of a typical microwave oven is readily absorbed by polar liquid water molecules and less so by other materials. If you were to change the frequency substantially, water would not have such preferential absorption, the radiation would reflect repeatedly and eventaully (for example) your top bowl would be directly heated by the radiation.

          • DougCotton says:

            If you increase the frequency a little (perhaps above 3GHz) nothing would be heated, not even the top bowl, but you would be advised to have an escape hole for the microwaves. That’s why you don’t run a microwave oven with nothing in it.

            If pseudo scattering did not exist then you would not receive radio broadcasts if the tower were not in direct view, because the low frequency radiation is pseudo scattered by clouds and the surface. Some say it is reflection, but it’s not mostly reflection as physicists define such.

            You have made a major mistake regarding temperature and kinetic energy, and until you acknowledge such, I cannot proceed with teaching you about how temperatures from the core to the tropopause are determined in all planets and satellite moons.

          • DougCotton says:

            All you have to do is connect your microwave oven to a long extension cord so you can place it in a wide open space. Then place, say, three plastic bowls specifically designed for microwaves in the oven (with no water or any food etc) and set it going for ten minutes or so. Tell me what happened, as my MW oven is a fixture and a rather expensive German one. Maybe a video would be a hit on youtube.

          • Ed Bo says:

            No Doug, the microwave oven would be ruined because the radiation would eventually be absorbed and thermalized until it overheated.

            These concepts are not difficult, but you manage to get every single one of them wrong!!!

          • DougCotton says:

            And you can still pick up radio broadcasts because the radiation (being low frequency compared with surface IR) is pseudo scattered by clouds and the surface. (If it were reflected there would be very significant attenuation, but pseudo scattering is not attenuated.)

            And still those opaque microwave bowls that solar radiation does not pass through, but does warm, are not warmed by microwave ovens, and nor is anything else unless it has water molecules. And even the water molecules are not warmed if you design an oven with a slightly higher frequency that does not resonate.

            And, even if you do add backradiation to solar radiation you still cannot explain the Earth’s mean surface temperature and you get temperatures over 90C for some tropical regions where the Sun is nearly directly overhead.

            It’s all garbage what you write Ed Bo.

            The surface temperatures are determined by the gravitationally induced temperature gradient which I have proven to exist.

    • DougCotton says:

      Go back to this comment Ed Bo.

  67. DougCotton says:

    To Roy and Silent Readers

    Ed Bo really put his foot in it, as I explained in this comment.

    He totally incorrectly assumed that temperature is a function of energy density because he raved on about “volumetric energy density” being homogeneous, which it is NOT in a force field.

    Does anyone seriously think there would be as much total energy in a cubic meter up in the mesosphere as there would be in a cubic meter in the surface layer with orders of magnitude more molecules?

    What is homogeneous is mean energy per molecule.

    Likewise temperature is proportional to mean molecular kinetic energy, as is known in standard Kinetic Theory.

    SO, ROY, THIS PINPOINTS WHERE ED BO AND THE IPCC GET IT WRONG WHEN THEY REJECT THE HYPOTHESIS OF THE BRILLIANT 19TH CENTURY PHYSICIST JOSEF LOSCHMIDT REGARDING THE STABLE EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE GRADIENT FORMED BY GRAVITY, AND ALSO BY CENTRIFUGAL FORCE, AS EXPERIMENTS NOW SHOW. IT IS NOT MAXIMUM ENTROPY WHEN ENERGY DENSITY IS HOMOGENEOUS, ONLY WHEN MEAN MOLECULAR ENERGY IS HOMOGENEOUS. AS A RESULT THE RADIATIVE FORCING GH CONJECTURE IS FALSE.

    • Ed Bo says:

      And James Clerk Maxwell, one of the small handful of the most brilliant physicists ever (everyone remembers Maxwell; no one remembers Loschmidt), dispensed of Loschmidt’s arguments in a single paragraph of basic thermodynamic analysis (as Doug is well aware) by showing it would lead to blatant 2nd LoT violations.

      By Doug’s theories, high-speed flywheels operating in a vacuum should display ferocious temeprature gradients. None has ever been observed in these thermodynamically isolated systems.

      • DougCotton says:

        Loschmidt was Maxwell’s teacher. Maxwell presented no correct physics whatsoever in his hand waving gesture – no reference to entropy maximization. In no way did he discuss the actual description of the process presented by Loschmidt.

        In fact the temperature gradient is a direct corollary of the Second Law. The temperature gradient is observed in experiments with centrifugal force, as discussed in my website. Every vortex tube displays a radial temperature gradient in relation to a reference frame moving down the tube with the air.

        “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)

        • Ed Bo says:

          Echoing your own question to people about Loschmidt, who the heck are you to think you know better than James Clerk Maxwell???

          In a previous thread, I noted with astonishment your claim that Maxwell “was not too bright”!

          Just another piece of evidence for your total “reality disconnect”!

          • DougCotton says:

            It is easy to prove Maxwell wrong on the issue of the gravitationally induced temperature gradient. I have done so.

            Now with the benefit of 21st century science, we have centrifuge machines which demonstrate the temperature gradient and vortex tubes which also develop a very significant gradient due to centrifugal force. The gradient appears in all planetary troposphere and thus the chance of Maxwell being correct can be shown to be millions to one against. Besides, where is his physics explaining maximizing of entropy? Nowhere.

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Ed Bo,

            Who are you to think you know more than James Clerk Maxwell? He did not believe in wave particle duality and believed that normal matter would not decay, later proved incorrect by Madame Currie.

            Have a great day!

  68. DougCotton says:

    People who “take me on” regarding radiation or the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient will eventually be embarrassed when I am obliged to pinpoint errors in their understanding of physics.

    Norman, for example, thought that when we use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to determine the temperature achieved by incident radiation that we should first deduct the outward radiation. Even James Hansen knows we don’t do that. But, in any event, the Earth’s surface is not a black or grey body and so all we can really learn is what is the maximum that any flux could achieve, because nothing gets hotter than a blackbody. Such information is sufficient to disprove the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture because the solar radiation is insufficient.

    Most climatologists think that we can add solar radiation and back radiation to get the equivalent of a single hotter source. We can’t because the modal frequency for the hotter source is not the same, or even the average of those for the two colder sources. But the main reason we can’t add them is because the extra radiation is pseudo scattered (or ignored) such as we see demonstrated when low frequency microwave radiation passes through opaque plastic bowls (or is partly scattered) without warming them. If the microwaves were of a slightly higher frequency (that did not resonate with water molecules) they would not heat water or anything.

    The latest to be embarrassed is Ed Bo who displayed a lack of knowledge of the Kinetic Theory of Gases as was used successfully by Einstein and to develop the Ideal Gas Laws used by climatologists. He did not know that temperature is a function only of molecular kinetic energy. Although he realized that molecules at greater altitude have more molecular gravitational potential energy, and he agreed (KE+PE)=constant, he still did not realize that, because PE has a gradient, KE has an equal gradient of opposite sign. So there is a temperature gradient.

  69. Ed Bo says:

    Doug, I answered your question about what would happen when an isolated isothermal column of gas was tipped from horizontal to vertical in a gravitational field. So it is time for you to answer a similar question of mine.

    This same isolated column of gas starts out vertically in an isothermal state, constant temperature from top to bottom. What happens to it over time?

    If you answer that a temperature gradient will spontaneously evolve, increasing the temperature of the bottom and decreasing the temperataure of the top, with this change maximizing the entropy of the system, you will need to square this with your admission that the conversion of gravitational PE to KE does not increase entropy.

    • DougCotton says:

      Conversion of PE to KE is not the same as a redistribution of KE and/or PE. The “hot to cold” Clausius corollary of the Second Law (which applies only in a horizontal plane where PE is constant) is a clear-cut example of redistribution of KE.

      Go back to this comment.

      You, Ed Bo have made a major mistake about temperature and KE, and so, until you acknowledge your error, we can get nowhere in the discussion of the temperature gradient. In any event, you could always read my paper one of these days and save my time repeating it. I will have to refer you to the heat creep diagrams therein anyway.

      • DougCotton says:

        And to be a little more precise regarding the Clausius statement, it is still correct to say that, as entropy increases unbalanced energy potentials dissipate and have vanished when maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) is attained. So, in the horizontal cylinder that starts out with hotter argon at one end, there are unbalanced energy potentials because mean molecular (PE+KE) is greater at the hot end due to the extra KE. You could have a partition that is removed and you could start with lower density at the hot end. It makes no difference – density and temperature will become homogeneous when the partition is removed and temperature will always end up in between the initial values regardless of density.

        Only kinetic energy affects temperature, not density – an error you still have to admit making, Ed Bo.

        • Ed Bo says:

          I never claimed that density affects temperature — you don’t even have the intellectual capability to understand the argument!

          • DougCotton says:

            Yes, Ed Bo, you did imply such because you claimed there would be homogeneous energy density at different altitudes, and then went on to say the temperature would be isothermal. Hence you implied that, with (PE+KE) homogeneous and PE obviously greater at the top that, even though the mean KE per molecule would thus be lower at the top, the temperature would be the same top and bottom because of an implied compensation due to the homogeneous energy density that you thought was maximum entropy, but isn’t.

            If that is not what you “explained” then explain again at the molecular level exactly how you get to assume temperature would be isothermal in a force field, even though no planetary troposphere is isothermal and force fields like centrifugal force have been shown empirically to produce radial temperature gradients as I have discussed on my latest website written over a year ago.

          • DougCotton says:

            To put it bluntly, Ed Bo, there are only no unbalanced energy potentials if mean molecular (PE+KE) is homogeneous, assuming no phase change or chemical reactions. That I suggest is blatantly obvious.

            So, in that we know mean molecular gravitational potential energy is obviously greater at higher altitudes than at lower altitudes, how could mean molecular kinetic energy not be less at the higher altitudes than at the lower ones?

            And if you now confirm that density plays no part in temperature determination, and if you now accept the standard assumption of Kinetic Theory that temperature is proportional to mean molecular kinetic energy, how could temperature not be cooler at the top in this state of maximum entropy which physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium?

          • DougCotton says:

            And Ed Bo: When I said that the interchange of molecular PE and KE does not increase entropy I meant that as a generalization. It does not increase entropy when there is already a state of maximum entropy, that is, thermodynamic equilibrium. In such a state molecules continually interchange PE and KE between collisions but entropy (which is a macro state) does not increase or decrease. A maximum is a maximum – and stable.

            However, when there is an initial state that is not maximum entropy, such as just after a rubber ball has been dropped towards a level marble floor, then the increase in entropy is certainly accompanied by alternate conversion of PE to KE, then KE to PE as the ball rises and so on as it bounces. In all stages (moving down or up) entropy is continually increasing until it reaches a maximum as the ball comes to rest on the level floor. We know that because the unbalanced energy potentials are dissipating (reducing) at each stage, whether up or down. For example, the height reached with each bounce is reducing, so the difference in PE is reducing at each successive top. If you don’t understand why then it is because you don’t understand entropy.

            As far as entropy is concerned, there is a similar continual increase in entropy from an initial unbalanced state with the heat creep process.

          • DougCotton says:

            And Ed Bo, it was in this comment you wrote …

            “This mass density gradient means that the volumetric energy density above and below this plane, with the combination of PE+KE, is the same only if the temperature is the same above and below.

            The volumetric energy density is not “the same” “above and below this plane” for how could it not be less near the top of the troposphere than it is at the base of the troposphere? There are more molecules in the lower denser regions, so of course the total energy is greater per cubic meter in the lower regions because (PE+KE) is homogeneous. The energy density is irrelevant to what we are discussing, and is not homogeneous in a planet’s troposphere anyway.

            This is a BIG MISTAKE on your part Ed Bo, and so your comment containing that mistake does not refute what I have explained about the temperature gradient. Go back to “Go.”

          • DougCotton says:

            And your statement implies that (if KE were held constant) then density is strictly inversely proportional to mean molecular gravitational potential energy. I’d be interested to see your proof of that contention. Sooner or later you’l realize that you won’t succeed in pulling wool over Cotton’s eyes.

          • DougCotton says:

            Your main problem Ed Bo seems to be that you don’t know how to use the Kinetic Theory of Gases and you perhaps don’t understand how that theory explains pressure and temperature. I have been using it in my discussion of molecules crossing a plane, but you shy away from considering such and start talking about irrelevant energy density etc.

            You won’t understand the temperature gradient and the heat creep process until you think at the molecular level so that you can follow the development which is using Kinetic Theory and the Second Law.

          • DougCotton says:

            Go back to this comment Ed Bo.

      • DougCotton says:

        When the cylinder of argon is turned to vertical entropy will be able to increase more because we have introduced unbalanced energy potentials due to there now being more PE at the top. So entropy will again increase by redistributing KE and PE (and some mass) until a new state of maximum entropy is attained, and then mean molecular (PE+KE) will again be homogeneous so that there are no unbalanced energy potentials left.

        This is irreversible: entropy cannot decrease again. Yes there will have been some conversion of PE to KE and vice versa. That goes on all the time whenever a molecule moves partly vertically between collisions, which is basically every molecular movement between collisions. That’s not an issue here. The main point is that the final state has homogeneous mean molecular (PE+KE) and, when you admit your mistake and learn from it Ed Bo it is trivial to see that, because there is a gradient in PE there must be an equal and opposite gradient in KE, in other words, a temperature gradient cooler at the top where PE is greater.

        • gbaikie says:

          “When the cylinder of argon is turned to vertical entropy will be able to increase more because we have introduced unbalanced energy potentials due to there now being more PE at the top. ”

          Well, cylinder would need to be tall [or long] to have much effect. And pressure at the top has to low to have much effect.
          Another factor is cylinder would have to have large diameter or air would be strongly effected by wall of cylinder.

          If all the above, the effect would be warmer air at bottom and lower temperature of air at the top.
          One will have more gas molecules at the bottom and less gas molecule at the top. As compared to horizontal, the gas at the top is higher above the surface, so yeah more PE at the top.
          Now if this was in a vacuum, one is essentially making a battery- something that store energy. So vertical cylinder could store more energy than compared to a horizontal cylinder- or perhaps just, more easy to store and extract the energy.

          • DougCotton says:

            Over 850 experiments have been done this century with cylinders about a meter high where temperature differences were detected and were consistently cooler at the top.

            In any event, we are discussing a thought experiment in an ideal troposphere.

            If the cylinder is rotated about its center there is no net gain in energy. But any object raised to a higher level “stores more (potential) energy” so what’s your point in mentioning such? Did you ever own a cuckoo clock with a weight on a chain instead of a spring?

          • gbaikie says:

            “Over 850 experiments have been done this century with cylinders about a meter high where temperature differences were detected and were consistently cooler at the top.”

            One should expect it, as it’s being done on Earth and Earth has gravity.

            “In any event, we are discussing a thought experiment in an ideal troposphere.”

            Ok. I can’t say I was following this whole discussion.

            “If the cylinder is rotated about its center there is no net gain in energy. But any object raised to a higher level stores more (potential) energy so whats your point in mentioning such? Did you ever own a cuckoo clock with a weight on a chain instead of a spring?”

            It would require energy to rotate it- but if you account for all energy used, it would not a have a net gain. Though of course that goes without saying, that is true of anything.
            I did not have a point- obviously things higher in a gravity well, will have a higher PE. Or because our atmosphere has trillions of tons higher in the gravity well, it has a lot of PE.
            And if lift trillion of tons higher and then it falls, it will increase the temperature of the gas of atmosphere.
            Or increasing PE is storing energy, and decreasing PE means the energy become kinetic energy. The temperature of atmosphere is kinetic energy.

            I guess I am curious what the argument is actually about? Or what thought experiment is intended to prove or demonstrate.

          • DougCotton says:

            Well you could always read my 2013 paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures to find out what it’s all about, gbaikie.

            Can you estimate what the temperature should be 9Km below the surface in a borehole in Germany, or at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus, and explain the necessary heat needed to support such temperatures?

          • gbaikie says:

            –Can you estimate what the temperature should be 9Km below the surface in a borehole in Germany, or at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus, and explain the necessary heat needed to support such temperatures?–

            I think I will skip Uranus, as little is known and all there is is models and other guesstimates. It there no plans of going to Uranus, so it could be decades before any actual measurements are made which could provide actual evidence.

            As for on Earth, the temperatures would vary depending upon the heat conductivity of the underlying rock.
            But roughly the rock should be somewhere around 100 C.
            wiki:
            “The hole reached 12,262 m (40,230 ft) in 1989. In that year, the hole depth was expected to reach 13,500 m (44,300 ft) by the end of 1990 and 15,000 m (49,000 ft) by 1993. However, because of higher-than-expected temperatures at this depth and location, 180 C (356 F) instead of expected 100 C (212 F), drilling deeper was deemed infeasible and the drilling was stopped in 1992. With the projected further increase in temperature with increasing depth, drilling to 15,000 m (49,000 ft) would have meant working at a temperature of 300 C (570 F), where the drill bit would no longer work.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole

            One of course can get higher temperatures at shallower depth- or one certainly don’t need to drill 12 km deep to get to 180 C. Or to practically use geothermal energy, one needs spots where hot rock is closer to surface.

            This of course is not the same as lapse rate temperature as one goes lower/deeper in the atmosphere. So if had very large diameter hole 9 Km deep, the temperature of rocks would cool and so air temperature might be about 50 C warmer
            than the air at the top of the hole.

          • DougCotton says:

            Measurements were made as Voyager II passed close by Uranus. No excuses about lack of information will be entered into.

            The greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture cannot explain temperatures and heat transfers for Uranus, Neptune, Venus or Earth, just for starters. It is false science and needs to be exposed as such. Lukes in particular are making a big mistake in implicitly agreeing it is correct to any extent. It’s not smart to sit on the fence.

  70. Pangolina says:

    And I thought till now that only Germans would be able to discuss so ideologically, so severely and so fruitless about details getting smaller and smaller.

    I see, a bit surprised, that this form of ‘undiscussion’ is by no means restricted to the land I’m living in…

  71. Bil Danielson says:

    Dr Spencer,

    I noticed a really great article by Judith Curry today. A bit off topic, but nonetheless insightful.

    “Overall, climate scientists object to publishing a result in the media significantly more when it indicates that climate change proceeds more slowly rather than faster than expected.”

    https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/07/mis-communicating-science-in-public-controversies/

  72. Toneb says:

    “It is easy to prove Maxwell wrong on the issue of the gravitationally induced temperature gradient. I have done so.”

    With this comment, Cotton says to others who might be unaware of his psychosis – EVERYTHING they need to know.

    Now will people please not feed him and let the people with white coats come along.

    FFS: 866 posts – the vast majority form him.

    • DougCotton says:

      Others have proved Maxwell wrong on this issue – Nikolov and Zeller, Dr Hans Jelbring (PhD in climatology) and Roderich Graeff with his 850 experiments.

      Every vortex tube in the world proves Maxwell wrong.

      It was well known in the early 20th century that Loschmidt (Maxwell’s teacher and the first to realistically estimate the size of air molecules) was right.

      Now in the 21st century we have centrifuge machines that get temperatures down to 1K in the center because MAXWELL WAS WRONG

      So Toneb, your call to authority is just typical of the “last resort” comments we hear from lukes and warmists without a word of physics to support their screaming. I’ll be watching what you write if you’re to be the next to take me on.

      I quote from my paper (Section 16) ….

      When Maxwell and Boltzmann dismissed Loschmidt’s postulate of a gravity gradient they did the world a great disservice, and they contributed to a belief in a non-existent warming by an imaginary radiative greenhouse effect. The subsequent calls to authority should be a lesson for all in the scientific world, for this has resulted in an absolute travesty of physics. The greenhouse conjecture will inevitably take its brief place in history as the biggest and most costly mistake ever in the field of human scientific endeavour. Hopefully that will be soon.

      Scientists, be they climatologists, physicists or whatever, need to step outside the square and to adopt a paradigm shift based on, and supported by 21st century science. Dr Hans Jelbring and Roderich Graeff have each made significant contributions which must now be heeded before the mistake is perpetuated by those who now have personal vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

      The Loschmidt gravity-induced thermal gradient is more than enough to explain the proverbial 33 degrees of warming and in fact the dry adiabatic lapse rate would lead to a mean surface temperature of about 25C were it not for water vapour and, yes, to a much smaller extent, carbon dioxide reducing the gradient and causing lower base surface temperatures.

      • Ball4 says:

        Cotton: “Others have proved Maxwell wrong on this issue..”

        More accurate to say that others improved on Maxwell writings Doug. Science progresses. More accuracy was obtained post-Maxwell.

        For a tall m^2 column of totally isolated earth STP air e.g. up to say 200mb, Maxwell indeed argued c. 1888, p. 320 ‘Theory of Heat’ that equilibrium would be isothermal i.e. same temperature ground to top. This was based on Gibbs rigorous proof in 1876 based on molecular diffusion (aka Cottons “heat creep”) & Maxwell’s thought experiment but no actual testing. Maxwell then hedged a little, writing if convective atm. motions are accounted for, then the profile would be isentropic and not isothermal.

        Boltzmann by 1896 had used Poisson’s 1821 IGL relations to find the ideal lapse -g/Cp could be improved upon and derived a closer to reality ideal dry lapse rate approx. T(p)=To*(P/Po)^R/Cp (another writer called this formula the “potential temperature” ((Boltzmann liked the term)) which has stuck to this day). Atm. thermo. textbooks by 1926 recount this history.

        This was all summarized by Ball (1956), who argued that the integrated potential temperature will be constant (isentropic) when the Count of Rumsfords convective mixing dominates Ficks molecular diffusion. By Bohren 1998, Boltzmanns potential temperature T( p) was finally proven to be the ideal temperature profile with the highest entropy possible for the column so that Maxwell’s isentropic conjecture was formally vindicated.

        At equilibrium, both profiles T( p) = constant (isothermal) and g/Cp have lower entropy calculated for the STP dry column than Boltzmanns T( p) profile.

    • DEC says:

      Agreed.
      Please don’t feed the monkeys: DC, geran and painter.
      They are seriously in need of help.

      • DougCotton says:

        It is yourself and people like you DEC who are gullible enough to believe the false claim that radiation from the cold atmosphere transfers heat to the warmer surface, which surface is claimed to act like a blackbody, but isn’t. Then you are supposed to believe that the Earth’s surface is not only a blackbody, but a flat one received steady sunshine day and night so as to be raised to 15C by the steady back radiation and the steady 24 hour Solar radiation somehow working together in defiance of the laws of physics and anything ever confirmed in experiments.

        Then of course the big thing you can’t understand is entropy maximization because the thermodynamics is way over your head.

        None-the-less you worship your hero James Hansen who bluffed the world into believing the fictitious fiddled fissics of climatology that is riddled with errors and defies and ignores the laws of physics. So good luck. The world won’t warm in this or the next decade.

        • Pangolina says:

          Well mr Cotton I think we all got the message 6 to 5…
          In french one writes in such cases: ‘Change de disque, Doug!’

          • DougCotton says:

            Good – and what do you think explains the temperatures at the base of the tropospheres of Earth, Venus and Uranus, and in the outer 10Km of Earth’s crust? Looking forward to your computations based on physics.

  73. DougCotton says:

    There’s a question you can’t answer in support of the carbon dioxide hoax here smart anonymous Toneb.

  74. AndyG55 says:

    Roy, the full UAH has some weird values for NoPol, (land and sea).

    You need to check them.