With the rapid cooling now occurring in the global average tropospheric temperature, my previous prediction of a record warm year in the satellite data for 2016 looks…well…premature.
Here’s an update of what the average temperature trend would have to be in the next 6 months for 2016 to tie 1998 as record warmest year in the 38 year satellite record:
Basically, as long as the anomalies stay below the June value of 0.34 deg. C, 2016 won’t be a record warm year.
If only I had kept my mouth shut nine days ago….
“If only I had kept my mouth shut nine days ago…”
You were just getting your retaliation in first, against the trolls.
Now, temperature anomalies will probably jump up again! Murphy’s Law.
It’s too soon to tell.
But likely NOT the ‘Warmest June Evah’. Will be very interesting to see how this progresses.
Physically impossible for the present La Nina to reverse itself. It will continue to cool. If you can find an AGW zealot who is dumb enough to offer a wager, grab it.
mpainter, you were offered a wager, and you did not take it.
Wrong, Inquirer, I stipulated conditions that were refused. Go back and read the thread carefully.
The stake mpainter suggested was “accept the other person’s view.” No terms were stipulated by mpainter (he offered nothing to bet on). Several of my terms were refused or ignored. My suggested stake was also refused.
mpainter says:
June 24, 2016 at 1:08 AM
This is science, Im not interested in any money aspect. Dont care to collect if I win.
So lets keep it science. The loser of the wager will acknowledge the truth of the others position. Thats as it should be.
###
You refused these conditions, and started talking about me “putting your money where your mouth is”. I got disgusted, and I still am, especially at having to to rehash this. Your last comment was to propose a new wager with new terms. I invite anyone with an interest in this banal affair to go read the thread.
As I predicted – and I risked $10.
The irony is that he missed out on a wager concerning 2016 as a record warm year.
If he had the courage of his convictions he would now be in an apparently winning position.
He being mpainter.
No interest in money. I claim vindication. The gta is dropping like a rock. I predict that the UAH December anomaly will be at the baseline, or below. We will see a negative trend established within a year. I predict that governments worldwide will forget about their commitments under COP21. In fact, this has already begun. Germany is the latest. Ma Nature has turned the spike into a coffin nail, AGW RIP.
That is, during 2017.
Now this is like stepping into something foul and not being able to get it off your shoe.
###
No sooner said than look who shows up: exhibit A
mpainter. I did reread. I did not see any stipulations from you. And the parameters offered to you were certainly fair — coming from an AGW activist. While betting on temperature may be attractive to some people, I usually hesitate on such bets because of the multitude of adjustments done to temperatures; and I especially hesitate on adjusted temperature series that do not match known climatic phenomenon such as ice extent, record temperatures and heat waves. However, you were offered the UAH temperature series which does not exhibit internally inconsistent adjusted data.
My offered bets — none of which have been taken — typically center on predicted catastrophic consequences. And AGW activists are wise not to take them because climate-induced catastrophes are not increasing.
Cannot believe you re-read. See above. Barry grasped the stipulations without problem, so what’s yours, Inquirer?
Okay. I did not see that as stipulation or condition, but now with a little more discussion, I see it as substitute “stake” rather than the $50 “stake.”
Your proposed stake is a harsh one — and probably only a confident person would propose it!
“I predict that… we will see a negative trend established within a year.”
Say by June 30 next year?
What is the start date for this prediction? January 1998?
Sorry if I seem a little bit testy. I made the decision to have no further wager discussion with Barry for personal reasons. Now this is like stepping into something foul and not being able to get it off your shoe.
Your point about the reliability of UAH, and it’s aptitude as the basis for such a wager, is well taken. Certainly the the adjustments to surface datasets make these a most dubious basis for such a wager. Unless one is betting on the amount of adjustment over a certain time. Or how much they dare to adjust.☺
Can you also extrapolate a line for the coldest year of the satellite record? It seems a more likely scenario right now 😉
I could…but it would have to get unrealistically cold. The year started off too warm to have any chance of that happening.
Hmmm, I’ll stick with what I said 8 days age 🙂
June 23, 2016
AMO peaked wicked high at the end of the last two big el Ninos, 1998 & 2010 That is not happening this year. My bet is temps will dip a bit quicker than they did in 2010 and 1998
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1996.6/to:2015.3/plot/esrl-amo/from:2015.2/plot/esrl-amo/from:1997.29/to:1998.4/plot/esrl-amo/from:2009.58/to:2010.33
Well played, sir! I personally was predicting 0.42C for June, obviously I overshot it. But, there are still 6 months to go, consider this a temporary victory! Whether 2016 sets a new record or not for warmest year does not matter to me. Nature does what nature does.
This el nino is higher amplitude but shorter duration than 97 98… i bet it ends up with half the total heat above the 0.3 deg C line as 97 98 had. Each el nino reshapes my understanding of the phenomenon… this one is shaped like a pensil and will really be reduced in a running average to smooth noise. I dont think it will be close to being the warmest year in a 5 month or even 3month running average.
For me, an 11 or 13 month running average is meaningful to answer the question is the earth warming annually.
What index are you using for duration? Using ONI (SSTs Nino3.4), this el Nino has lasted longer (earlier start).
Ahh true.. i was talking in UAH satellite. But agreed the response (global temperature peak) doesnt match the nino 3.4 signal (tropical pacific). Any thoughts why?
UAH global temperatures warmed up earlier in 2015 than they did in 1997.
UAH tropical SSTs warmed up earlier in 2015 than they did in 1997.
Here’s global UAH. Top frame is 18 months from Jan 1997, bottom frame is 18 months from Jan 2015.
http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af185/barryschwarz/UAH%206.5%20evolution%201997%20-%20June%201998%20and%202015%20-%20June%202016_zpsudgiewty.png
Temps were already warm in early 2015 comparatively, correlating with already warm tropical SSTs. ONI monthly puts May 1997 as the first month of sustained Nino values. In 2015 it was a month earlier, in April.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
Here’s the 17 month tropical SSTs evolution for the 17 months from Jan 1997 (top) and 2015 (bottom).
http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af185/barryschwarz/UAH%206.5%20tropical%20ssts%201997%202015%2017%20months%20evolution_zpszjsm99tk.png
2015 had warmer tropical SSTs than 2017 except for July and December, and got warmer sooner in the year.
The earlier start to the Nino phase in 2015 is consistent with the earlier and more elevated warm tropical SST temps in 2015.
Weather variability plays a part. Tiny chunks of data say little about climate.
Doubtful whether 2016 el Nino had a higher amplitude than 1998. SSTs were warmer. El Nino indices (which are detrended against global temperature change) are about equal for both events over the 4 months centred on peak el Nino.
It’s difficult to compare month to month the ONI ENSO index (Nino3.4 SSTs) and the lower troposphere temperature, owing to a time lag of a few months.
Peak temperature one month
1998 0.743C (April)
2016 0.832C (February)
But…
ONI peak 4-month temps
1997/8
Oct 2.24
Nov 2.32
Dec 2.23
Jan 2.21
2015/6
Oct 2.03
Nov 2.36
Dec 2.31
Jan 2.23
Averages:
1997/8 = 2.25
2015/6 = 2.23
The warmest month between those (ONI) was Nov 2015.
El Nino is defined as a 5-month period of sustained temps beyond a certain threshhold (0.5C in ONI index, averaged tri-monthly), so it seemed proper to base peak Nino on 4-month average.
If you centre a 3-month average on the warmest month (ONI) you get:
1997/8 = 2.26
2015/6 = 2.23
At temp differences of hundredths of a degree per month, it’s too hard to pick out ENSO-driven variation from weather variation. The resulting temperature peak difference a few months later in the UAH record was 0.1C (Feb 2016 warmer than April 1997).
I’d call the ONI amplitude ‘comparable.’
This doesn’t seem correct.
This El Nino was 4 months in neutral territory and 6 months in quasi-El Nino territory before the El Nino started.
For all intents and purposes it was a two year El Nino.
The 1998 El Nino was a 13 month El Nino that came straight out of a La Nina.
The North Atlantic trend (at least to me) indicates that the lack of overturn in the Pacific led to extensive deep ocean cooling in the Atlantic.
Now that normal upwelling is occurring things could get cold fast.
The Blob is the big difference between 1998 and 2016.
The blob. I almost forgot about that one but good point (s).
I’m really curious what is going to happen.
You have to go back to 1957 to find an El Nino that lasted as long. And that was a weaker El Nino.
1982 came out of a La Nina.
1951 was the start of a three year period above neutral.
The trend seems to be: long El Nino – temperature is going down, short strong El Nino temperature is going up.
We’ll see. Whatever happens by 2020 is going to be enlightening one way or the other.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Now for some SCIENCE.
I have just decided to plot the UAH data like Roy does.
.
With one difference.
.
I plot the full set of values from 1979 to June 2016 (I recommend you try it, it is not difficult to do)
.
The graph is extraordinary given the obsessive focus by some on the short-term period 1998 onwards.
.
It shows a VERY CLEAR upward trend in the values. You would have to be blind not to see it.
.
The trend line corresponds to a an increase of +1.2 degrees per century.
The correlation coefficient [r] is +0.58.
The number of points is 450.
Taking into account auto-correlation, the degrees of freedom is estimated to be 38.
The associated probability [p] is 0.00013533
.
In other words, the UAH data shows a CLEAR and STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT increase over time.
.
People here who dispute this incontovertible FACT need to do some work and demonstrate otherwise.
Is that any different that whet the climate has been doing since the seventeen hundreds. I think not, we been warming since the little ice age, the only real question is when will it stop. I personal think we a due for a downturn soon and that is not good, after all the French Revolution was launched over the cooling climate and crop failure and we have far more people now than we did then. Remember warm is good cold is bad and if you don’t believe that good help you and you offspring and their offspring or hopefully several more generation can enjoy a warming world, if the world is not warming it cooling and the future generation that live in that world will end up paying the awful price when the climate cools, the question on cooling is not if it going to happen the only question is when going to happen. Warming not the only question there is when it stops.
— Mark Luhman says:
July 1, 2016 at 9:19 PM
Is that any different that whet the climate has been doing since the seventeen hundreds. I think not, we been warming since the little ice age, the only real question is when will it stop–
Yes and the nature of our current Solar Min, makes that rather uncertain. I would general guess that it will not cool
to level of 1970’s within 2 decades. On upside, I don’t we get a peak temperature higher than peak temperature during Medieval Warm Period or highest average temperature of decade being higher.
So it can be said that we are at highest temperatures in last 400 year, but can’t be said we are highest temperature in last 1000 years. But due to inaccurate measurements within the next few decades we might at around the same temperature and warmest periods of 1000 years. Though there is no reason to assume we will become as warm as warmest period within last 7000 years- or in such long term trend it is a very gradual cooling- within the next couple centuries.
“I personal think we a due for a downturn soon and that is not good, after all the French Revolution was launched over the cooling climate and crop failure and we have far more people now than we did then. ”
I don’t expect such dramatic cooling as possible within the next 2 centuries, though it would be quite bad if were to drop more than .5 C within couple centuries or within 1 century, which is possible- depending on the sun activity [[and volcanic activity [though huge volcanic activity would change to that outlook- but huge volcanic activity has more severe problems other than air temperature]]].
Well…
Solar flux is down to 1900 levels. That should lead to early 20th century temperatures.
But the 30s and 40s weren’t a lot colder than today so while it may get cool it will do it slowly.
— PA says:
July 4, 2016 at 8:18 PM
Well
Solar flux is down to 1900 levels. That should lead to early 20th century temperatures.–
Sea levels have risen by about 8″ since 1900 levels which indicates that entire ocean has warmed. If you get a trend
of 2 mm decline in sea levels over decades or sudden drop of 2″, then it’s indication that we could return to 1900 levels.
Or in 1900 AD earth was recovering from Little Ice Age, during the LIA, sea levels dropped and glacier advanced.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/maximum_density.gif
The bottom half of the ocean could be cooling and it would have little effect on sea level.
The top half we have data on.
The ocean warming started before the CO2 and there seems to be little interest in teasing the CO2 induced and natural warming apart.
Reducing CO2 will have zero effect on the natural warming.
Treating all the sea level rise induced by warming as CO2 caused will result in a 2X or greater overestimation of the CO2 effect on sea level.
I’m interested in the 0-2000 heat content (which is a silly figure because the probes measure temperature not heat content).
If that goes negative and there are still claims of rising sea level, the satellite measured sea level methodology needs to be examined to find out what they are doing wrong.
— PA says:
July 12, 2016 at 6:15 AM
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/maximum_density.gif
The bottom half of the ocean could be cooling and it would have little effect on sea level.–
That graph is for water, the ocean is saltwater.
A step-up is not a trend. See UAH June update for the satellite era global anomaly chart.
Saying it over and over does not make it true.
Show me your analysis of the data.
I wager you can’t.
I have shown you, several times. Put down your straight edge and go search previous threads.
As a general principle, a step-up is not a trend. But you can’t grasp that. Thank you for this illustration of the obtuseness of global warmers. Please stick around. You have more contributions to make, I’m sure.
The ONLY rise comes from a STEP change around the 1998 El Nino.
The El Nino was NOT caused by CO2
That means that there is ZERO signature of CO2 warming in the whole of the UAH (or RSS) satellite data.
That’s just how it is.
Sorry. You are both WRONG.
The data reveals a warming trend of +1.6 degrees per century up to the end of 1998, followed by a warming trend of +1.1 degree per century from 1999 to the present.
These are FACTS.
Any “step” changes are figments of your imaginations.
And what exactly does that prove in terms of CO2 causation? Or even worse climate sensitivity?
We are not discussing causation here.
Just admit the UAH data reveals a warming trend of +1.2 degrees per century.
That is all I ask.
A step-up is not a trend, straight edger.
Dr No-nothing with his monkey-brained straight edge.
There are two distinct near zero trend sections, with a step change around the 1998 El Nino.
The 1998 El Nino step is the ONLY warming in the whole satellite data, and as you keep showing us all, you have to use it to create your trend.
It is this monkey-do, non-thinking, bullcrap that we come to expect of the average brain-dead climate alarmist.
“These are facts”.
No they aren’t facts. In fact the various temperature measures that combine atmospheric and surface measurements are a synthetic index that doesn’t have a physics based justification.
Claiming these synthetic indices are temperature data or facts is like claiming you can combine apples and oranges to get grapefruit.
Further the sparse surface measurement means these indices are less accurate than the S&P compared to a total market index. It is probably comparable to a 50 or 100 stock index in accuracy. All the dancing about this special adjustment or that special adjustment make it match the “real” temperature is just dancing.
A measure like GISS Global Index (Land/Ocean) indicates whether it is more likely to be getting colder or warmer. The claim that a 1 point increase in the index puts us in a danger zone is just a howler.
UAH is the closest thing to an actual temperature index since it measures a single temperature proxy (atmospheric emission) globally.
Until the Southern Oscillation spills warm water over the surface of the Pacific, it is just potential warming so the stepwise claim is also valid.
Using a straight edge to connect the endpoints of a time series is the preoccupation of the simple minded. These types ignore what is in between: no observations for them, makes their head swim.
Actually, using a straight edge, cherry picking my points, gives interesting results. So from March of 1998 to June of 2016 gives a 1.2 +/- deg decline over 100 years.
What is more amusing is the amount of discussion and rhetoric involved in these minute changes. Only modern science has given us the ability to measure so precisely, knowledge we could not possibly have naturally.
What is not amusing are the True Believers. They, like all religious zealots, intend the destruction of the sacrilegious. Their religion, being one of self hate, more exactly, hatred of mankind, is bent on destruction of everything we have accomplished.
They, the true believers, are to be feared. Much more than the climate.
mpainter,
Awwww. I joined the end points of the time series over the period between the average temperature of the surface of the Earth, from its creation as a molten blob, to a moment ago.
The surface has cooled, according to my graph. I’m a simple minded sort of fellow, but at least nobody can accuse me of cherry picking. Except Warmists, that is!
Cheers.
Come on guys!
Do you understand linear regression?
Am I preaching to monkeys here?
Yer molten globe glowed cherry-red when yer picked it, cherry picker.
doctor no,
“In statistics, linear regression is an approach for modeling the relationship between a scalar dependent variable y and one or more explanatory variables (or independent variables) denoted X. The case of one explanatory variable is called simple linear regression.”
Some foolish Warmists associate increases in temperature with increases in CO2 concentration. Foolish Warmists!
Measure the temperature of the atmosphere within a sealed room. Replace all the nitrogen and oxygen with CO2. Do your linear regression. You might need to add a lot of sciency but meaningless terms such as “back radiation”, “forcings” or “equilibrium climate sensitivity” to explain why the increased CO2 levels didn’t raise the temperature of a damned thing!
Blundering bumblers like Schmidt, Mann, Hansen, and the like, live in a world of delusion and fantasy. They have definitely regressed. Maybe even linearly! And you?
Cheers.
“You might need to add a lot of sciency but meaningless terms..”
There, you have it !
All summed up in a few words !!
IGNORANT and PROUD OF IT !!!
“IGNORANT and PROUD OF IT !!!”
Dr No-nothing has found his new sign-off.
You should use that at the end of all your posts, Dr No-nothing.
The regulars know it already, but you should at least warn the rest of your alarmist troll mates.
A best fit extrapolation is hardly science because u are extrapolating off of an El Nino warm peak. You either need to exclude the el nino or wait 2 more years to complete the natural ENSO couplet (comprised of el nino warm nearly equilized by la nina cool phase). The ENSO signal is to strong and ruins your method because as you can see in 97 98 there is at least a 0.7 degrees C change of global temperature in the 3 to 4 year couplet. This is about 60% of your century scale 1.2 degC warming but in a 3 year window that you are biasing by using only half the couplet. So i am all for science but your method is not really valid. Also, I agree with the above comments about putting such a short data set into the bigger context. Ultimately 120,000 yrs ago sea level was 6m higher (why the limestone reef quarries in Florida keys are 6m above sea level and 120,000 yr old) and CO2 was 290 ppm. So i dont think you can make much of a case this is abnormal warming… even of i were to accept such a flawed extrapolation.
Sigh.
There is no extrapolation involved.
Pay attention !
So God created the Earth and the Heavens in 1979.
How convenient.
God launched satellites in 1979 that allowed man to measure changes in the lower troposphere.
John Silver,
Didn’t you know that God created the Earth and the Heavens 6000 years ago.
That is what skeptics tell me.
Liar.
Doctor No,
the warming rate per decade is well below the published IPCC projected warming rate of at least .30 C to support AGW conjecture.
From 1979 onward in the UAH Satellite data show about a .12C per decade warming rate.
The postulated CO2 effect increase is still invisible in the data.
the published IPCC projected warming rate of at least .30 C…
Is not the “published” warming rate. Where do people get this stuff?
Straight from the 2007 IPCC report:
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1C per decade would be expected.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”
Straight from the 2007 IPCC report. Correct. Prediction period: 2007 to 2026.
We’re almost halfway through the prediction period.
Let’s say “about” 0.2C/decade means 0.15 to 0.25C/decade.
The trend since January 2007 to present:
UAH 0.34C/decade
RSS 0.31C/decade
Had4 0.32C/decade
GISS 0.34C/decade
NOAA 0.37C/decade
Of course, these values are statistically non-significant. The time-period is too short. We’ll have a better idea in 2027 of how that prediction panned out.
So, 0.3 is actually 0.2, and the prediction date is from 2007, not 1979.
Keep using El Nino step changes and spikes to show a positive trend.
Its all you have..
and its very funny !! 🙂
You truly are a shoe-in for class clown, Swarzt !!
Barry, they said almost the same thing in the 2001 report too,you are just like other dishonest warmists out there.
You also left out the 2000 CO2 emission scenario which is currently higher than than they thought it would be.
Barry, they said almost the same thing in the 2001 report
Could you please provide a quote? I don’t remember any 20-year prediction from 2001 IPCC report.
A link would be gratefully appreciated, too.
IPCC 2001:
On timescales of a few decades, the current observed rate of warming can be used to constrain the projected response to a given emissions scenario despite uncertainty in climate sensitivity. This approach suggests that anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2C
Based on the surface record, the mean trend is 0.12 since 2001. The statistical uncertainty in the trend is +/- 0.14.
Of course, we’ll have to wait “a few decades” to see how the prediction panned out.
The quote comes late in the TAR Summary for Policy Makers, which can be accessed here:
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/
Quick question. Did the IPCC report meant surface or lower atmosphere? And the models suggest that the lower atmosphere should warm 2 to 3 times the surface temperature right? That means according to UAH or RSS data set the surface should have only warmed about 0.04 to 0.06 per decade?
Surface. Models don’t suggest lower atmosphere should warm 2-3 times surface. Modeling of heat transport predicts the tropical mid-troposphere should warm more than surface.
Ped, one of the hilarious aspects of the IPCC pseudoscience is that they keep “moving the goalposts”. AR5 “cooled” their projections for surface temps, as they acknowledged the “pause”. That report also apparently dropped using the term “back radiation”. But, they held to their claim that CO2 was “warming the planet”. Their only evidence is from “science” papers that use the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation.
They have successfully fooled many. Even some that claim to be skeptic have stated that “CO2 produces warming”!
Dagnabbit! All the garbaged text should be quotation marks!
Let’s get the facts straight from the IPCC. Here is their quote from the Summary for Policy Makers [SPM].
Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (19982012; 0.05 [0.05 to 0.15] C per decade), which begins with a strong El Nio, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (19512012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade)
Short time periods do not necessarily reflect long-term trends. As IPCC says, to 95% confidence limits, the trend since 1998 (to Dec 2012) could be anywhere between -0.05 to 0.15C/decade.
From AR5 Ch 2:
In general, trend estimates are more reliable for longer time intervals [30 yrs], and trends computed on short intervals have a large uncertainty. Trends for short intervals are very sensitive to the start and end years.
Trend estimates that ignore the uncertainty interval are snake-oil.
Barry, a step-up is not a trend. The IPCC errs when it speaks of trends during the satellite era. You propagate that error by citing them. Tsk, Tsk.
Straight edgers galore in climate science.
“Lets get the facts straight from the IPCC.”
Good luck with that.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
As you know, I think your ‘step-up’ mantra is baloney. No matter how many times I’ve asked you, you always justify it by cherry-picking your dates and subjecting your ‘hypothesis’ to absolutely no testing. You never reply to the substance of my rebuttals. Dunno if there is a remedy for your confirmation bias, but I do know by now that you will respond with re-assertion and scolding your opponents. Meh.
Lets get the facts straight from the IPCC.
Good luck with that.
You can find the SPM and verify the quote by clicking on the link you provided and using your eyes.
No luck required, just a tiny amount of diligence.
Barry, your straight edge technique is a Simpson’s delight.
Simpleton’s
“No luck required, just a tiny amount of diligence.”
Okay then, let us know when you have found their proof for the Arrhenius CO2 equation, which is the basis for their pseudoscience.
The step-up is there, Barry, and you acknowledged it on a previous thread. Thank you for this fine illustration of the mindset of a global warmer. Your type is always duly appreciated here.
“All the garbaged text should be quotation marks!”
I think that should read:
“All the text should be garbaged!”
The step-up is there, Barry, and you acknowledged it on a previous thread.
I refuted it.
Nope, you denied it. In the regular fashion of the global warmers, who deny all observations contrary to their meme. And it doesn’t bother you that any intelligent person can see the step-up at circa 2000-2002 in the UAH plot above.
You simply deny it. Thanks for this illustration of how the global warmers do science.
“And it doesnt bother you that any intelligent person can see the step-up at circa 2000-2002 in the UAH plot above.”
There there.
Calm down.
There is no step up.
You are having a bad dream.
And the second example of warmer-think. Thanks. But Barry has already acknowledged it. See below.
No, he hasn’t. See below.
Once again, Andy, I didn’t choose the time-period. Sunsettomy provided the prediction (quoting IPCC), then made a claim about it. I checked. Sunsettomy is wrong.
Read and think before you post. It will help to understand what’s happening in the discussion.
Barry,I set the trap and you fell for it since they said similar in the 2001 report.
They have been saying similar from day one,but the UAH data show only a .12C per decade trend since 1979 which is well below the continually projected .20C per decade projected rate since the 1995 report.
ALL NORTHERN Hemisphere warming since 1979 have been caused by EL-NINO events,while there has been about ZERO warming trend in the Southern Hemisphere.
When we are in Neutral or La-Nina state there is flat to cooling trend clearly vivid in the data. There is no clear AGW signal in it since CO2 never prevents those cooling trends that comes along when El-Nino fades away.
Then you like all warmists ignore the fact that energy leaves the planet a greater rate when there is warming,far more than CO2 theoretically can create during warming phases.
From John Kehr’s site:
“If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.
The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.”
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/05/the-science-of-why-the-theory-of-global-warming-is-incorrect/
What is really happening is that you are promoting deception by omission.
To point out little CO2 adds to warming the planet is this report:
“My approach was to determine the total net energy that is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. I used Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 and 2008 and others. While slight differences existed the overall result is that there is 120 W/m^2 of energy transferred to the atmosphere by the Earths surface. This is 71% of the total energy that is absorbed by the surface from the Sun.
I then broke down each transfer mechanism. Here is the end result as shown in my book.
Evaporation: 80.0 W/m^2
Water vapor (GHG): 18.1 W/m^2
Convection: 17.0 W/m^2
CO2 (GHG): 3.3 W/m^2
Ozone (GHG): 1.0 W/m^2
Other (GHG): 0.7 W/m^2
he then show that CO2 adds only 1.0 C out of the 287 K total.It is indeed a very small player in the energy budget.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/08/what-would-the-temperature-of-the-earth-be-without-co2-in-the-atmosphere/
Barry,I set the trap and you fell for it since they said similar in the 2001 report.
IPCC 2001:
On timescales of a few decades, the current observed rate of warming can be used to constrain the projected response to a given emissions scenario despite uncertainty in climate sensitivity. This approach suggests that anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2C
Based on the surface record, the mean trend is 0.12 since 2001. The statistical uncertainty in the trend is +/- 0.14.
Of course, we’ll have to wait “a few decades” to see how the prediction panned out.
Al ‘Gore Effect’ Nino, 2016
Here is a real estate tip. It is definitely not too late to get in on global warming. I am talking beachfront property in Nunavut, Canada! 40,000 people in an area of 2,000,000 square kilometers.
Bing has, today, an interesting picture from space of coastal waters off Bylot Island. These waters are, admittedly, choked with ice at the moment, but we know the Arctic is warming fast. Refreshing dips will soon be possible.
The recent drop in global temperatures is due to the ending of EL NINO. The recent spike in global temperatures was due to EL NINO.
CONCULSION Natural climatic oscillations are in complete control of the global temperatures and CO2 has nothing to do with it.
Really? What is this telling us then?
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf
Simon,
Anything that has a confidence interval is a guess. Not worth a brass razoo. Seriously, would you get on an aircraft with a 95% chance of not crashing? Or go across a bridge that only had a 5% chance of collapsing?
I prefer a little more confidence. It seems likely to me that the Berkely Earth mob are a ragtag assortment of climatological wannabes – although I’m sure they wouldn’t agree with my opinion. You are free to make your own assessment, of course.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Anything that has a confidence interval is a guess.”
Everything ever measured or calculated has a confidence interval. Everything.
Tsk tsk.
A rag-tag mob that depends on donations for its subsistence. We all know what that means: hype the spike. Now that they can’t hype 2016 as the warmest yeah evah, they are in a tough spot. Let’s see what they come up with.
Check out BEST funding:
http://berkeleyearth.org/funders/
“Anonymous” is the biggest funder.
That would be Putin.
That would be Putin the (commie) Trump supporter
Simon,
showing facts to these guys is like waving a crucifix in front of dracula.
The conclusion is that CO2 rise has nothing to do with el Nino timing. Climate is not measured over a couple of years.
El Nino doesn’t add energy to the climate system, it just shifts it around. El Nino is not responsible for the warming over the last century, just contributes to the brief ups and downs.
Barry, Simon, how much of the late El Nino spike was due to CO2?
Oh, you can’t say?
You just know that it was?
“El Nino is not responsible for the warming over the last century.. ”
###
Neither was CO2. The IPCC concedes that prior to 1950, CO2 levels were too low to cause warming. And we know that the only warming of the satellite era was at the step-up, of which you know.
Bottom line, no warming from CO2.
There is a solid reason why. Care to know?
Barry, Simon, how much of the late El Nino spike was due to CO2?
Oh, you cant say?
You just know that it was?
Can you even read? From my previous post.
“The conclusion is that CO2 rise has nothing to do with el Nino timing.”
Or amplitude, for that matter. ENSO indices are detrended against global surface temperature change.
Well, then you agree?
It would make things much clearer if you let me say what I think than try to do it for me. You’re often wrong. Of course CO2 does not influence the timing or amplitude of ENSO events. Where did you get this nutty notion? Not from me.
CO2 increase, does, over the long term, influence global temperature. That’s a different discussion to relative El Nino strength. Nino values are detrended from global temp change.
“CO2 increase, does, over the long term, influence global temperature.”
I notice you did not indicate whether the “influence” was up, or down, or other. Nor did you indicate an amount.
Nice pseudoscience—vague and unsupported, yet authoritative and assertive.
Hilarious!
how much of the late El Nino spike was due to CO2?
You mean the spike in surface/lower trop temperatures? Dunno. I don’t estimate climate change based on a few months or less than multi-decadal data. 25-30 years is a sound minimum.
The idea that el Nino is the main cause of global temperature change 1950 to present is nutty.
Yeah, but CO2 did not cause the warming of the satellite era. We know what caused the step-up.
You think you do. Your opinion is unjustified when subjected to skeptical analysis. You should try it.
Give yours.
Barry,
poor mpainter is having one of his episodes.
All he can say is “step up step up.step up..”
At least it is not “the pausethe pause the pause”
So you can ignore it again?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/05/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-april-2016-0-71-deg-c/#comment-213442
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/05/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-april-2016-0-71-deg-c/#comment-213460
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/06/2016-will-likely-see-record-global-warmth-in-satellite-data/#comment-215500
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/06/2016-will-likely-see-record-global-warmth-in-satellite-data/#comment-215650
The main point is that the so-called ‘pause’ periods you’ve nominated are statistically non-significant. To 95% confidence intervals, it could be cooling, flat, or warming at the same rate as the full record.
EG:
Mean warming trend 1979 – present UAH6.5:
0.12C/decade
Trend + uncertainty 1979 – Dec 1997
0.08C/decade (+/- 0.14)
The ’79 – ’97 trend is anywhere between -0.06 and +0.22C/decade.
Trend + uncertainty 1998 – present
0.038C/decade (+/- 0.18)
The ’98 – ’16 trend is anywhere between -0.14 and +0.22C/decade.
Both trends are not statistically significant. Both have uncertainties that overlap with the long-term trend.
Can’t claim pauses for those time periods. Statistical uncertainty precludes.
This is the main point that you consistently ignore. You have for months. Maybe you’ll make some substantive comments on that today. But I expect you’ll ignore it again. In 3, 2….
Thanks, Barry. Quite clearly you acknowledge the step-up in your first words:
“The step-up is an artefact”
Then you proceed to give reasons for ignoring it,
Thank you for this confirmation of my claim that “The step-up is there, Barry, and you acknowledged it on a previous thread.”
Now, is a step-up a trend?
Barry, it is not a question of statistical significance. It’s a matter of describing the data. The 37 year UAH data chart is two flat trends connected by a step-up of about 0.3C. You will never be able to set down your straight edge and give it any thought. This rigid mindset is another fine illustration of warmer-think. Thanks.
“it is not a question of statistical significance. Its a matter of describing the data.” !!
IGNORANT and PROUD OF IT
“The 37 year UAH data chart is two flat trends connected by a step-up of about 0.3C”
No it isn’t.
It is one STATISTCALLY SIGNIFICANT trend of +0.12 degree per decade.
Thanks, Barry. Quite clearly you acknowledge the step-up in your first words:
The step-up is an artefact
Artefact definition:
“something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure.”
“the curvature of the surface is an artefact of the wide-angle view”
The so-called ‘step-up’ is an artefact of the data selection, not a real phenomenon. If you’d bothered to rigorously test your hypothesis, you would already know that. But you have your mantra and you’re sticking to it.
You are trammeled by your limitations. Shouting won’t help you. I advise counseling on anger control.
Barry, it is not a question of statistical significance. Its a matter of describing the data.
Statistical significance testing is fundamental to “describing” the data. Don’t know if you avoid it out of ignorance or convenience, but your hypothesis is empty without this requirement.
The trend since 2008 is 0.4C/decade (4C per century).
If we ignore the pesky statistical significance testing, I can announce that global warming has accelerated enormously since 2008. The pause is over and then some!
And you can’t rebut that because you think statistical significance is inapplicable.
There are myriad ways to ‘describe’ data. We winnow the useful from the useless by using the data to test the description. You should try it. Any half-decent skeptic tests their own theory. You simply assert yours over and over. You’re no skeptic.
Ah, but you again acknowledge the step-up, and proceed to abnegate its significance by labeling it an artefact. We agree it is there.
It is no artefact. It’s significance is that it is the only warming of the satellite era.
You see, when it comes to describing the data, you lack the necessary observational skills. Tsk Tsk. Straitedges for you.
Ah, but you again acknowledge the step-up, and proceed to abnegate its significance by labeling it an artefact.
Now you know that the word artefact means, basically, ‘not real,’ you citing me using that word has worked against your misconceived opinion.
So now you’re asserting that I agree with you based on… nothing.
This is tiresome. I do not, nor I have I ever agreed with your baloney about pauses and step-changes. Let’s just accept that and move on, eh?
3, 2…
Barry, it is not a question of statistical significance.
1. We have lift off. The point was waved away. Ignored.
Should have bet on that prediction…
From your definition of artefact:
something observed in a scientific investigation..”
Something observed. Do you understand yet?
So we dispute whether it’s an artefact. You are in the position of having to argue that the step-up is not real, having acknowledged it in order to deny its presence. Thus global warmers. Thanks.
Barry, with no powers of observation, you will never make a good scientist. You have the quality of a rigid mind that precludes science.
Bears repeating.
“Something observed..”
And Barry imagines that he can observe it and then un-observe it.
It’s no artefact, it is data. You have acknowledged the step-up, you have acknowledged the flat trends. Now you deny everything. Thanks for the illustration of the mindset of the global warmers.
Artefact definition.
something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure.
Your elision of the full quote is patently dishonest.
As is your characterization of what I’ve said.
Please continue with what you’re doing here. It really showcases the quality of your contribution.
(You may wish to quote the last 2 sentences. The sarcasm will be lost and you can make another BS claim about what I’ve said 🙂 )
Bears repeating:
Artefact
“something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present”
IE, doesn’t exist.
Definitions from other sources:
“a spurious observation or result arising from preparatory or investigative procedures.”
Spurious. Geddit?
“a product of artificial character due to extraneous (as human) agency; specifically : a product or formation in a microscopic preparation of a fixed tissue or cell that is caused by manipulation or reagents and is not indicative of actual structural relationships”
Artifical. Not indicative of actual structural relationships.
“a substance or structure not naturally present in the matter being observed but formed by artificial means, as during preparation of a microscope slide.”
The procedure produces the result, which is not naturally present.
Let’s apply your elision technique…
“…observation or result…”
“…actual structural relationships…”
“…naturally present in the matter being observed…”
Inverting the meaning by editing out the negative is intellectually… creative.
“Something observed..” and here we agree. The rest we dispute.
But one thing is for sure: a step-up is not a trend.
You are no scientist, but a rigid and doctrinaire mathematician incapable of observation. Also a name caller. Thanks for these illustrations.
And here is a definition on statistical artefacts:
“artefacts, statistical and methodological A statistical artefact is an inference that results from bias in the collection or manipulation of data. The implication is that the findings do not reflect the real world but are, rather, an unintended consequence of measurement error. When the findings from a particular study are deemed to beat least in parta result of the particular research technique employed, rather than an accurate representation of the world, they are sometimes said to be a methodological artefact.”
Something observed.. and here we agree. The rest we dispute.
No, you dispute the dictionary. As you’re now rejecting the dictionary definition of a word, you’re in full denial mode. I’ll bid you good day and good luck.
“The step is an artefact.
What I see is a general warming trend for the whole record that can be sliced any number of ways. One way is yours, but I dont know why you favour it.”
Your own words betray you Barry. Here you acknowledge that my step-up is “one way” that the data can be “sliced”.
Repeat: “One way is yours”.
Your definition again ” An artefact is an observation..”
Who is the dishonest one?
Here is the quote with the header:
barry says:
May 6, 2016 at 3:37 AM
The step is an artefact.
What I see is a general warming trend for the whole record that can be sliced any number of ways. One way is yours, but I dont know why you favour it.
###
So now incontrovertible proof that you acknowledged the step-up before you went into catatonic denial. Thanks for the illustration.
Those who followed this thread might wonder at Barry’s behavior. He is fighting for his beliefs because the step-up is the only warming of the satellite era and it cannot be explained by increased CO2. In fact, it is explained by change in global cloudiness in the late 20th Century. Decreased cloudiness = increased insolation. This is from cloud data at NASA’s Earth Observatory.
Thus the step-up refutes the whole of the AGW hypothesis and Barry has come to realize that. And Barry is a global warmer of the “control knob” type. So one can perhaps understand his derangement.
One mustn’t laugh at Barry,
Here you acknowledge that my step-up is one way that the data can be sliced.
It can be sliced to show a warming trend of 0.4C/decade, twice the rate of the IPCC 2007 prediction.
It can be sliced to show a warming trend of 0.9C/decade (9C/century).
It can be sliced to show a series of warming trends, with brief intervals.
It can be sliced to show two flattish trends with a step-up.
It can be sliced to show a series of short cooling trends.
They are all spurious analyses. Including yours. Artefacts of data selection. Statistically meaningless.
Can’t be an artefact. Does not fit the definition.
1. It is genuine data, nothing spurious.
2. you cannot show fault with UAH procedures or technique.
What it comes down to Barry is that you have acknowledged the step-up and now you wish that you hadn’t. So you throw a bunch of definitions of the word “artefact” about, but none fit because the data is real. So now you reveal another aspect of your faulty judgment, and there is no end to that. The step-up is genuine, not an artefact.
None of your definitions say “artefacts of data selection” which is a nonsense phrase which you’ve just made up. Once again you provide an illustration of warmer think, thanks.
mpainter, I had taken you to be someone at least moderately conversant with the general topic and with science. It seems I was grossly mistaken. ‘Artefact’ has a specific meaning in science (medical, statistical, economic, natural sciences), and all it means is that the result is derived from the method, not indicative of a real phenomenon. They are found to be artefacts when further testing is done. One test is statistical. Another could be physical. The so-called ‘pauses’ fail statistical testing. They are a product of the noise in the data, not the signal.
A warmist could use your ‘method’ to make this claim.
The trend since 2012, UAH6.5, is about 1C/decade (+/- 1.14C).
That is derived from UAH6.5 data, using a simple linear regression. If you do not understand why that is statistically spurious, even after my explanations here and there, then naturally you cannot understand why your ‘pauses’ are spurious.
I can find multiple ‘pauses’ in the long-term data sets. The only ones that are statistically meaningful are those long-term mid-century trends that are statistically distinct form the warming trends either side. That is, the uncertainty bounds do not overlap when comparing trends +uncertainty.
This is not the case for any other period. So-called pauses elsewhere in the record are artefacts of data selection. The uncertainties overlap. No statistical confidence can be attached to them.
You may say “the uncertainty intervals are irrelevant.” This pure assertion does not demonstrate that your opinion is correct, only that you are ignorant of statistics.
Unless you are happy to agree with me that the current warming trend is 10C per century. That is a trend derived from UAH6.5 data. According to you, it does not mater how I slice it, it is ‘correct.’ I will describe the trend thus: “most recent.”
Looking forward to you accepting the new, extremely high trend, based on your own rubric – that uncertainties in the trend don’t matter.
Nonsense. You are inventing phrases.
“artefact of data selection” is your coined nonsense. The step-up joins two flat trends which you likewise acknowledged.
To sum up, Barry acknowledged on a previous thread that the step-up was in the data. He made it clear that he regarded the step-up as one way of looking at the data: “One way is yours”. He also made it clear that he did not share my conclusion, but he definitely acknowledged the step-up. He has now turned full catatonic denial from disagreement with my conclusions to desperately denying that he ever saw the step-up.
In his desperation he has turned to coining nonsense phrases such as “an artefact of data selection”. By Barry’s post modern methods, the El Nino spike now becomes “an artefact of data selection”! We now can ignore any data presented to us and dismiss it as “an artefact of data selection”.
We need the Barrys. They continually furnish examples of global warmer think that we can present to those who inquire into the issues. Thank you, Barry.
http://m.imgur.com/YwZ111q?r
Barry, here’s a graph of the carbon dioxide growth rate going back to 1979. It’s no secret that the growth rate tracks the uah temperature data set. You can see the step rise in the carbon growth rate circa the year 2000, a strong indicator that the step rise feature in the uah data set is real as well…
Once again:
A statistical artefact is an inference that results from bias in the collection or manipulation of data. The implication is that the findings do not reflect the real world but are, rather, an unintended consequence of measurement error. When the findings from a particular study are deemed to be at least in part a result of the particular research technique employed (see research design), rather than an accurate representation of the world, they are sometimes said to be a methodological artefact.
There is even a paper describing a similar technique to yours, mpainter – selectively removing or selecting data.
Selective blanking of the data between beats has been used to increase spectral signal-to-noise ratio. However, blanking also eliminates signal components and, thus, can potentially distort…
The pauses are artefacts of data selection.
Specifically, you pick a period of data in a time series that looks flat. A bit of experimentation will give you a start and end date that conform to what you want to see.
This doesn’t prove that the ‘pause’ is real, only that you have successfully selected the right data to give that impression.
So, what do you do next? Subject the data to analysis to see if the result is real or an artefact. This is the due diligence missing from your hypothesis.
How to test? First, is the result statistically significant? In your selection, no, not by a long shot.
Second, is the result statistically distinct from previous and following trends? In your selection, no. The trends are not statistically distinct (all trends have distinct ‘mean’ trends, but the testing is done WRT the 2 sigma level, or uncertainty envelope. The null hypothesis has to be disproved. If the uncertainty in the compared trends overlap, the null hypothesis is not disproved.
Note: proving or disproving a null does not give a final answer. It is a test to see if a hypothesis is plausible.
Third, is there a physical basis to corroborate results? Is the correlation sound?
WRT your hypothesis, you rely on the Mclean paper on cloud cover. I read it and don’t think it is sound.
1. The data set used is imperfect. As a result, the data collection instruments have been replaced since the paper.
2. Even if the date set used in the paper is sound, then the paper neglects the influence of different heights in clouds. Low-level clouds reflect more sunlight than absorb infrared. Less low level cloud means cooler srface. High level clouds absorb more infrared than reflect sunlight. More high level clouds mean warmer surface. The data used in the study show a decrease in low-level clouds and an increase in high level clouds.
To sum up, the temperature data for the periods you select is statistically non-significant, and is not statistically distinct from the general warming trend. The physical basis is uncertain at best, and the analysis in the Mclean paper doesn’t consider the effects of high level clouds.
Now, you have indicated that the break for the step change is around 2001/2. The lower troposphere trend from 1979 to 2001 is 0.11C/decade (+/- 0.14), and to 2002 is 0.13 (+/- 0.12). these are warming trends, not ‘pauses’.
Will you require me to “selectively blank” some of this data to fit the result you’re touting?
A child can see the step-up.
Fact: no warming in the UAH prior to the 1998 El Nino, meaning the data gives a flat trend.
Fact: no warming in the UAH after 2002, meaning that the data gives a flat trend.
These two flat trends are joined by a step-up of about 0.3C, this step-up somewhat obscured by the ENSO cycle.
This can all be perceived with a brief examination of the UAH plot: the data points prior to the El Nino fall mostly below the baseline, the data post El Nino plot above. All quite conspicuously.
Your reaction is to pronounce these conspicuous facts as “artefacts of data selection”, a phrase that you coined on the spot to justify your rejection of these observations. You only fool yourself, and you are well fooled.
“A child can see the step-up.”
As I suspected. Mpainter is still at school !
Only a child with a vivid imagination can see a step-up in the data.
Leave science to the big boys.
What years do you allege the step-up occurs, mpainter?
Cant be an artefact. Does not fit the definition.
1. It is genuine data, nothing spurious.
2. you cannot show fault with UAH procedures or technique.
It’s your method that I’m talking about. The one that refuses to be subjected to any kind of challenge or analysis to test it.
The ‘pauses’ are entirely a product of the method, not indicative of anything in the real world. They are statistical artefacts.
BTW, what year/s does the alleged step-up occur? Is it 2001-2?
You invented the term “artefact of data selection”. You coined this on the spot. By this sort of drivel, one can justify ignoring any data presented. One can call an El Nino spike and “artefact of data selection”. It’s twaddle.
It’s trend analysis, Barry. Two flat trends joined by a step-up. What’s your problem?
When does the alleged step up occur? What year/s? I’d like to test the hypothesis.
It’s an observation, not an hypothesis. Please don’t play games. See your links above from previous thread wherein I covered this thoroughly.
You can do trends, right? Two flat trends connected by a step-up.
All you had to do was say which years. Why make talking to you so difficult?
From memory, you’ve said 2001/2002 was the step-up point.
UAH6.5 trend Jan 1979 to Dec 2001 is 0.13C/decade
UAH6.5 trend Jan 1979 to Dec 2002 is 0.14C/decade
Don’t see a pause before the step-uo.
If it should be done differently, could you please explain exactly why. I’d like to audit according to the correct rubric. For example, if strong el Ninos should be excluded from trend analysis, let me know that. If I have the step-up point wrong, let me know.
Barry has problems seeing the step-up. A child can see it, but Barry can’t. What does that tell you?
It tells you that if the earth cooled 0.3C over the next 4 years, Barry would refuse to acknowledge it.
I notice you did not indicate whether the influence was up, or down, or other. Nor did you indicate an amount.
It wasn’t required of me. If CO2 goes up or down, so does global temperature. There are other influences. Are you familiar with climate sensitivity values?
Immediate response of global temperature to a doubling of CO2 is about 2C. (TCR – transient climate response)
Mean equilibrium response (about 30 years after system has equilibrated with forcing) is 3C (1.5C – 4C).
Time factor and amplitude depend on rate of CO2 increase.
As there are other interannual influences, as well as decadal, you need multidecadal analysis to determine CO2 contribution. Also need to account for changes in other long-term forcings (like industrial aerosols, solar, volcanic).
The temperature change from the beginning of the 20th century to present is consistent with the immediate climate response (TCR). Temperature increase is nearly 1C. We’re nearly half way to doubling CO2 from 1900.
Short time-periods are useless for this assessment. Climate change is multidecadal.
Barry,
Climate sensitivity is more Warmist sciency nonsense words.
Climate is the average of weather. An average is a number. It is insensitive to CO2.
Transient climate response is more Warmist climatological non-science. Fill a room with CO2. Its temperature changeth not. Wait till the sun goes down. The temperature drops. Does this cause the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to drop also?
Foolish Warmists are gullible enough to believe pretty well anything. Look at Michael Mann – he believed he was a Nobel a Laureate! Even more bizarrely, no Warmists pointed out the truth!
What a bunch of foolish fatheads Warmists are, in general.
Thermometers respond to heat, not CO2.
Cheers.
Ah, so now we have the truth: CO2 = control knob. This explains everything.
Barry, prove that CO2 has anything effect on temperature, please and thank you.
“Climate sensitivity is more Warmist sciency nonsense words.”
I love that word SCIENCY.
It usually describes something with a scientific flavour.
Here it is being used in a pejorative sense.
“Thermometers respond to heat, not CO2.”
Well, well.
I would never have guessed it.
What a brilliant insight.
Give that man a nobel prize.
doctor no,
I’m glad you agree that CO2 heats nothing. Someone like Michael Mann might claim a Nobel Prize for work claiming that CO2 increases thermometer readings, but of course, he didn’t actually get one. So sad, too bad.
I gather the very sciency sounding “climate sensitivity” alludes to some sort of heating effect due to CO2. I agree with you that it’s totally nonsensical, but many gullible Warmist fools believe that such is the case.
Not you or me, obviously.
Cheers.
Climate is the average of weather. An average is a number. It is insensitive to CO2.
When the stove is switched on the temperature of the water in a pot rises. It always has an average temperature at any point in time. According to your logic, the pot of water stays at the same temperature, because a number is insensitive to the heating element.
Fill a volume with CO2 that has radiative energy pasing through it and the volume temperature will increase. this is demonstrated by math (physics) and by physical experimentation. Tyndall published on it in the 1860s. You can prove it in a high school science room. There are examples all over you tube. But read Tyndall’s paper first to get the background.
Warming from CO2 increase has a physics and empirically tested basis. Being ignorant of that is not the same thing as it not being true.
Satellites have measured the darkening of atmospheric radiance over time in the spectra where CO2 absorbs *and re-emits) infrared. The evidence is overwhelming. One of the reasons, presumably, why Dr Roy Spencer accepts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming at the surface when atmospheric concentrations increase.
There are genuine disputes in the general debate. This is not one of them. Either one is a crank, or one is a skeptic that questions, doubts and investigates within the bounds of reality.
barry,
Unfortunately, the fact that CO2 can be warmed, has nothing to do with any greenhouse effect. If you read Tyndall, you will discover that his thermopile showed a reduction in temperature when CO2 was placed between the heat source and the thermopile.
Tyndall calculated the amount of heat prevented from reaching the thermopile compared with dry, CO2 free air, for a number of gases. Maximum energy transfer occurs in free space – a vacuum.
The silly Warmists never think to substitute a gas that has no claimed greenhouse effects (for example argon) in their amateurish so called experiments. What is causing the temperature of the argon to rise?
Before you claim that oxygen or nitrogen cannot be heated, feel the air in the room you are in. It’s not absolute zero. It has been heated.
CO2 provides no heat. Like any matter, it can be heated. Also, as Tyndall showed, remove the heat source, CO2 cools rapidly to equilibrium with the environment.
Apparently the greenhouse effect doesn’t work indoors, or at night, or in the shade. Only in sunlight, outdoors!
Pointless and irrelevant analogies involving pots, stoves, water, or tobacco, are a typical Warmist attempt to deny, divert, and confuse the fact that CO2 warms nothing at all.
Climatology? Cargo Cult Science at best. Self serving delusional psychosis at worst.
Just one repeatable scientific experiment would help, but of course that’s impossible. Probably why there aren’t any, just lots of hand waving!
Cheers.
Awaiting Barry’s proof of CO2 control knob fantasy. None yet. He must be busy on the “selection of data” that he wants to present.☺
Apparently the greenhouse effect doesnt work indoors, or at night, or in the shade
You’re kidding, I hope.
If the greenhouse effect didn’t work at night the surface of the Earth at midnight would be roughly the same temperature as the dark side of the moon.
The reason the near-surface atmosphere at night is > 100C warmer than the dark side of the moon is because of the greenhouse effect.
I’m going to assume you’re not that stupid and are baiting me. Ciao.
barry,
I presume you are confusing the greenhouse effect with the relatively small, but life sustaining insulating and temperature integrating effects of the atmosphere.
CO2 heats nothing. The atmosphere prevents more than 20% of the insolation from reaching the Earths surface, and slows the rate at which the days absorbed radiation leaves the surface at night.
No greenhouse effect, just radiative physics.
As you point out, the Moon provides an example of temperatures without an atmosphere. Over 100C in the Sun, around -150 C at night. Earth, maybe 70 C to -90 C.
The Earth is colder during the day, warmer at night. A’lls well.
Cheers.
“im going to assume youre not that stupid”
LOL!
.
I think you assume wrongly.
Mike Flynn says: “No greenhouse effect, just radiative physics.”
Just six words!
Brevity is the soul of wit.
So far only blather about CO2. IR astronomers report that atmospheric IR flux consists only of 3% in the 15 micron band. And guess what? Most of that is from water. AGW RIP. The spike is a coffin nail.
The atmosphere prevents more than 20% of the insolation from reaching the Earths surface, and slows the rate at which the days absorbed radiation leaves the surface at night.
No greenhouse effect, just radiative physics.
Congratulations. You’ve just described the ‘greenhouse’ effect and then said it’s not the greenhouse effect. Just to add, the atmosphere also slows down escape of radiation to space during the day. This happens whether or not the surface is receiving sunlight.
Looks like the quibble has been over terminology. Yawn.
Barry, prove that CO2 has anything effect on temperature, please and thank you.
Rather than pepper my comment with corroborating links (which you’ll hand-wave anyway), I’ll quote from an expert in atmospheric analysis who is firmly in the ‘skeptic’ camp. Dr Roy Spencer.
“It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement it is well understood by climate scientists.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
Note: the title of that article is ‘Global Warming 101.’
From Dr Spencer’s post: 10 Skeptical Arguments That Don’t Hold Water
“Please stop the no greenhouse effect stuff. Its making us skeptics look bad. Ive blogged on this numerous times… maybe start here.”
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics… “is not violated by the greenhouse effect… a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer still… as evidenced by putting your clothes on.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
It’s a question of the contribution of CO2 to the GHE. It is about 85% redundant to atmospheric water vapor and clouds in regard to the 15 micron IR band. The big secret is out: the GHE is strictly water with CO2 making only an insignificant contribution.
So more CO2 does contribute to warming (but only by a little amount according to you).
We’ve settled that.
Water vapour varies from 0 – 4% of the atmosphere at different locations. Where there is little water vapour (deserts, Arctic/Antarctic etc), the CO2 effect is more pronounced.
CO2 is present in the atmosphere at higher levels than water vapour. Upwelling (ground-based or re-emitted) radiation is still absorbed by CO2 once it passes through water vapour altitudes.
Just some of the details that you’ve overlooked here.
Dr Spencer’s view is in line with all qualified experts on the topic, skeptics and others: a doubling of CO2 produces about 1C warming at the surface. The question then turns to feedbacks.
CO2 bands are 12-18 micron, 10 micron range, 4 micron and others. Strongest is the 12-18 micron band, but the others play a part.
Redundant. Look it up. Study absorbency spectra.
I have. The 15 micron range is 12-18 microns. CO2 is also opaque to the 10 micron band, and, much less saturated, the 4 micron range.
Water vapour is opaque (at average humidity) at other wavelengths, and overlaps part of the 15 micron range and at longer wavelengths. Water vapour is opaque to more of the spectrum but doesn’t occlude all the specrtum that is taken up by CO2 opacity.
In low humidity, CO2 intake of the 15 micron range spectra is much stronger than water vapour. At high humidity, water vapour and CO2 overlap, but CO2 still accounts for half that range alone. At high altitudes, CO2 effect is stronger than water vapour.
Water vapour concentration is a function of temperature and pressure. If the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapour (obvious in the tropics).
CO2 is long-lived in the atmosphere. While a single molecule has a residence time of 5-12 years, any excess above background levels can take decades to centuries. The sources and sinks are about equal. Excess CO2 is removed by rock weathering, a slow process.
Water vapour residence is a matter of days, responding quickly to changes in temperature and pressure.
CO2 and other long-lived gases (greenhouse and non-greenhouse) provide the structure of the atmosphere, water vapour responds to changes in that structure (heat, pressure). This is the basis for the water vapour feedback effect to a warming (or cooling) atmosphere.
I’ve been reading up on this for a long time (over the last 8 years). Far as I can tell you joined the conversation here just over a year ago, right after the UAH Beta 6 revision that lowered temp trends from 1998. Were you active on climate boards prior to that? Where, if I may ask?
You forgot about clouds, Mr. Learned AGW person. CO2 is 100% redundant to clouds. 50% to water vapor. The GHE is water. CO2 is of no account.
Clouds are part of the mix. 0-4% water vapour in the atmos, as I said. Clouds hold the higher percentages.
Nothing to say about the spectrum? That water vapour does and does not overlap with CO2 opacity? That WV only partly covers the 15 micron range? That CO2 absorbs at other frequencies where WV doesn’t? That CO2 effect is strongest when there is little to no water vapour? That CO2 absorbs high in the atmos where there is little to no water vapour? That WV and CO2 act together, rather than one obscuring the other?
Speaking of forgetting…
Barry crows about his qualifications as a climate scientist, from above: “Ive been reading up on this for a long time (over the last 8 years). Far as I can tell you joined the conversation here just over a year ago, right after the UAH Beta 6 revision that lowered temp trends from 1998. Were you active on climate boards prior to that? Where, if I may ask?”
But watch Barry claim that clouds are water vapor:
barry says:
July 4, 2016 at 6:00 PM
Clouds are part of the mix. 0-4% water vapour in the atmos, as I said. Clouds hold the higher percentages.
###
Thank you, Barry.
No warming of the upper troposphere, no cooling of the lower stratosphere, no tropical hotspot, Tsk,Tsk. AGW RIP.
barry says, July 3, 2016 at 5:05 AM:
“Fill a volume with CO2 that has radiative energy pasing through it and the volume temperature will increase. this is demonstrated by math (physics) and by physical experimentation. Tyndall published on it in the 1860s. You can prove it in a high school science room. There are examples all over you tube. But read Tyndalls paper first to get the background.
Warming from CO2 increase has a physics and empirically tested basis. Being ignorant of that is not the same thing as it not being true.”
Yes, this can occur given particularly controlled laboratory settings where any convective effects are precluded. You do this by 1) heating the volume from above, and/or 2) making the space containing the volume very narrow indeed. Even then, however, it is not at all for certain that pure CO2 will produce a temperature effect over that of regular air.
These things have been tested extensively. Here’s a paper published in 1990 detailing an experimental study performed by researchers Reilly, Arasteh and Rubin of the Windows and Daylighting Group at the Applied Science Division of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in 1989, called “The Effects of Infrared Absorbing Gasses on Window Heat Transfer: A Comparison of Theory and Experiment”:
http://gaia.lbl.gov/btech/papers/29389.pdf
You should read it.
The study is about the relative insulating properties of IR absorbing gases and low transfer coatings on glass for double-glazed insulation. Simple experiments like this are done at the high school level in all sorts of ways, confirming that CO2 absorbs radiation, heating the volume. For an experiment that more accurately reflects the amplitude of this effect in the atmosphere you need a deeper experimental column of atmosphere than a few millimeters.
But watch Barry claim that clouds are water vapor:
barry says:
July 4, 2016 at 6:00 PM
Clouds are part of the mix. 0-4% water vapour in the atmos, as I said. Clouds hold the higher percentages.
Thanks for quoting me. Shows what a liar you are.
I’m pretty much done with your muck.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#FORMANDTRAVEL
barry says, July 8, 2016 at 11:13 AM:
“The study is about the relative insulating properties of IR absorbing gases and low transfer coatings on glass for double-glazed insulation. Simple experiments like this are done at the high school level in all sorts of ways, confirming that CO2 absorbs radiation, heating the volume. For an experiment that more accurately reflects the amplitude of this effect in the atmosphere you need a deeper experimental column of atmosphere than a few millimeters.”
IOW, you didn’t read the paper. Barry, you’re clearly the one who’s in denial. The radiative properties of pure CO2 gas isn’t able to reduce the heat transfer through a medium any more than pure air does. That’s even without convection included (horizontal window heated from above). With convection included, this is what the paper finds:
So exactly the opposite of what you assert, that you need a deeper column of air to appreciate the full strength of the radiative effect. No, the deeper the column of air, the more convection takes over the transport of heat through the medium, and so any potential radiative effects on that transport are effectively annulled …
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“The recent spike in global temperatures was due to EL NINO.”
But why were surface and LT temperatures for this first El Nino year (2015) about 0.3-0.4 C above 1997’s, and why were its temperatures about 0.3-0.4 C warmer than 1982’s El Nino?
Oh dear, Mr mpainter.
I thought you were doing better with your new hobby. What happened? I forget which hobby it was, but you were down to only spending 4-6 obsessive hours a day posting on Roy’s website. Now you are back to 16 hours non-stop. Given the copious scientific research that goes into your posts, I can only assume that the short pauses are because you are reading the latest literature. It seems you never sleep at all! Please, for the sake of science, try to take better care of yourself and find a new hobby. Otherwise, your voice will be silenced soon by the inevitable grim hand.
May I suggest competitive planking as a new hobby? Not sure of the rules, but I think you could squeak in a nap during competitions as well. Might suit you.
Best,
Max
mpainter says:
July 1, 2016 at 7:01 AM
July 1, 2016 at 7:19 AM
July 1, 2016 at 8:11 AM
July 1, 2016 at 8:42 AM
July 1, 2016 at 9:45 AM
July 1, 2016 at 11:10 AM
July 1, 2016 at 11:48 AM
July 1, 2016 at 1:02 PM
July 1, 2016 at 1:40 PM
July 1, 2016 at 2:07 PM
July 1, 2016 at 2:56 PM
July 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM
July 1, 2016 at 6:21 PM
July 1, 2016 at 6:25 PM
July 2, 2016 at 6:36 PM
July 2, 2016 at 6:43 PM
July 1, 2016 at 6:57 PM
July 1, 2016 at 7:18 PM
July 2, 2016 at 7:25 PM
July 2, 2016 at 7:21 PM
July 1, 2016 at 7:39 PM
July 1, 2016 at 7:50 PM
July 1, 2016 at 9:09 PM
July 1, 2016 at 9:27 PM
July 1, 2016 at 10:33 PM
July 1, 2016 at 11:17 PM
July 1, 2016 at 11:21 PM
My hobby is making fools of the global warmers which is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. It’s entertaining, delightful fun. Restorative too. So don’t you worry about me, I’m doing fine. I always know that I’ve scored big when you pop up. So thanks for coming. ☺
Poor Max, obviously an mpainter STALKER.
Is that really all your life is about, max..
seems pretty min, to me.
Yes, it seems that I have attracted a certain type. Note “the inevitable grim hand”. Wishful thinking on his part.
Yeah, painter, bauer’s obsession here with death is earily similar to that of mr. elliot… (i mean, what are the chances of having two different commentors so similarly disposed?)
Bauer first showed up at the thread on which Bignell was calling various and sundry a liar (he even called Massimo a liar!).Curious coincidence. It seemed to me Bignell and Bauer were the same, at the time.
Mr mpainter,
For at least the fifth time, I am not Bignell!
I don’t understand what put that thought in your head. Actually, I don’t understand anything about your head except that you are an old, angry, scientifically unsophisticated boor whose only joy in life seems to be posting crap on Roy Spencer’s blog and making snarky insults to those who disagree with you.
If you think about it for 10 seconds you will realize that Bignell has the same psychological problem as you, but seems to control it a bit better. He might have a hobby. I think you need one too. Have you considered growing Psilocybin Mushrooms as a hobby? They thrive in bovine excrement, which you are awash in. Ingestion opens the mind in profound ways, and they are even the current rage in treatment of age related dementia. A triple benefit for you.
Let us know how it progresses.
MB
mpainter,
By the way, I also offered to send you my email address to prove to you that I am not Bignell, but you never responded.
I just reacted to another post suggesting that you need a hobby. I can’t agree more. I come here to learn, and you sir detract from the sum of human knowledge.
MB
Dear M. Bauer,
You can learn here sir, but when the boys go at it, you must accept the learning becomes less but the entertainment more.
Further, I suggest you remind yourself this is Dr. Spencer’s blog to police, not yours.
MPainter goes on a bit, but not so much you can’t skip past if you don’t care for his writing. Not so with others, like (shoveled wool) who find themselves banned. There are others who go on as well. Barry comes to mind today, but his going back and forth with Painter and Flynn is rather entertaining, as was your complaint.
Happy forth, shoot something.
You came to spew poison.
“Given the copious scientific research that goes into your posts, I can only assume that the short pauses are because you are reading the latest literature.”
The short pauses (no pun intended?) are when he studies his latest comic titled “The Return of the Pause”
Even then, it takes him some time.
or, was it called: the dummies guide to step ups ?
no, i think he has been reading “Super skeptic man versus Al Gore and the world wide conspiracy”
How clueless some are when it comes to the climate.The climate has reacted pretty much as expected over the past few years due to all the natural climatic factors favoring warmth from moderate to high solar activity due to the weak but still maximum of solar cycle 24 , to a lack of any major volcanic activity , to a warm PDO/AMO, to the recent very strong El Nino and warm ocean temperatures in general which are due to high to very high solar activity all of last century especially 1940 -2005.
Global cloud cover and snow cover also have been in general below average which allow for the climate to warm.
Yes solar activity has been less then normal post 2005 but the maximum starting just 5 years later although weak still dampened solar effects. The solar criteria being much above my solar criteria through out the recent maximum of solar cycle 24 which I feel is needed for the sun to impact the climate.
Now surprisingly sooner then I thought many of the solar parameters have come down or are very close to the solar criteria I have called for which should result global cooling. It is only July 2016 and this down trend is forecasted to bottom out around year 2019 or even later. How low will the solar parameters go as we head forward? The data will show and needs to be closely watched. All of the solar data presented in this article will have to be monitored.
CURRENT SOLAR PARAMETERS WHAT I CALLED FOR TO CREATE COOLING
COSMIC RAY COUNTS AROUND 6450 UNITS CALLLED FOR +6500 UNITS
EUV LIGHT AROUND 90 UNITS CALLED FOR SUB 100 UNITS
SOLAR FLUX LATELY WELL UNDER 80 CALLED FOR 90 OR LOWER
SOLAR WIND STILL ABOVE 350 K/SEC CALLED FOR SUB 350KM/SEC
AP INDEX STILL + 10 LAST FEW MONTHS CALLED FOR 5 OR LOWER
These conditions once all met which I think will happen and if sustained in duration should effect the natural climatic factors which will bring the climate toward cooler conditions moving forward.
“How clueless some are when it comes to the climate.The climate has reacted pretty much as expected over the past few years due to all the natural climatic factors favoring warmth ”
LOL
When did you ever predict a record warm spike? Answer: Never
And, while we are at it:
“Global cloud cover and snow cover also have been in general below average which allow for the climate to warm.”
LOLx2
That is like saying: the reason why burglary rates are up is because more houses are being robbed.
Or like saying: the reason why hospitals are full is because people get sick
Or like saying: the reason why the temperature increased is because it got hotter
[if you miss my point, why not think about asking why cloud and snow cover is less?]
ANSWER IS BECAUSE SOLAR ACTIIVTY HAS BEEN HIGH.
The only prediction I have made and care about is the global cooling going forward.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/30/the-sun-is-as-blank-as-a-billiard-ball-solar-activity-dwindling-to-lows-not-seen-in-200-years/
The article I was referring to in my above post.
Salvatore:
I would be curious to see what you think is behind the changing northern hemisphere snow cover.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=namgnld&ui_season=1
Fall and winter graphs show increasing cover since 1967 while spring graphs show quickly decreasing.
My guess is that increased temperatures lead to the quicker melting in spring, but what is leading to the increased amounts in fall and winter?
Anyway, as always, I hope you are wrong and it stays warm. Who wants more snow and ice? (besides the usual True Believer Alarmists)
Garan wrote: “I notice you did not indicate whether the influence was up, or down, or other. Nor did you indicate an amount.”
Yeah, what about that?
I think the reason there is no reply, is because those things are not known.
Garan was referring to CO2 when he said: I notice you did not indicate whether the influence was up, or down, or other. Nor did you indicate an amount.
And I replied:
Yeah, what about that?
I think the reason there is no reply, is because those things are not known.
I reposted this because I thought it would appear as a reply to Garan but it did not, and was not self-explanatory in itself.
I didn’t read any replies from those promoting AGW/CAGW about Garan’s statement.
Will 2016 set a new record for RSS? (UAH was done earlier.)
There are many similarities between 1998 and 2016. There was an extremely strong El Nino which caused records to be set in the beginning of each year. Then there was a drop in 1998 and so far, there is a similar drop in 2016.
However there are important difference between 1998 and 2016. In 1998, the highest anomaly was in April of 1998 and therefore not surprisingly, the second quarter of 1998 was the quarter with the highest anomaly. In contrast, the highest anomaly in 2016 was in February making the first quarter of 2016 the one with the highest anomaly.
The difference between quarters 2 and 3 for 1998 for RSS was 0.140. The difference between quarters 1 and 2 in 2016 was 0.245. While this is not as close as for UAH6.0beta5, I will make similar calculations.
There are several different approaches one can use to arrive at the best guess as to whether or not 2016 will set a record. I have decided to give the averages for each of the four quarters in 1998 and the first quarter of 1999 as well as the four quarters of 2016. The first quarter of 1998 will be called 98(1), and so on.
Here are the numbers we know:
98(1): 0.624
98(2): 0.697
98(3): 0.557
98(4): 0.322
99(1): 0.162
16(1): 0.828
16(2): 0.583
And here are my estimates for what we do not know.
16(3): (0.348)
16(4): (0.188)
This gives an average of 0.487 for 2016 putting it into second place between the 0.550 of 1998 and 0.467 from 2010.
Obviously, I could only give the first two quarters of 2016 and I had to estimate the last two. Feel free to comment on whether you think my methods are reasonably good enough or whether you think they are totally out to lunch. I took the difference between the following quarters: 4 and 3 of 1998, and 1 of 1999 versus 4 of 1998. Then I applied those differences to quarters 3 and 4 of 2016 and put those numbers in ( ) above for 16(3) and 16(4).
Then I calculated the average for 2016 based on those numbers and compared that to the 1998 and 2010 averages.
Weather variability, even at global scale, is superimposed on ENSO changes. With this in mind, it’s difficult to predict with any certainty that 2016 will be cooler or warmer than 1998. A coming la Nina could bottom out as drastically or more so than that of 1999/2000, but other natural variability could dampen that cooling. Obversley, a coming la Nina could be mild and short, but other variability could deepen the cooling for a while and make 2016 cooler than 1998.
Side note: UAH6.5 dropped 0.2C May to June, but the drop was less than 0.1C in RSS.
Very True. But keep in mind that we have at least 3 months of declining ENSO numbers in the pipeline that will affect things over at least 3 more months. And if temperature anomalies drop at least 3 more months, there is no way 2016 will set a record.
In reality, the pause never ended as the El Nino spike is only of transient effect, an effect of no significance. I predict a cooling trend by the end of 2017.
Are you willing to bet the stake you offered on this? That the winner accepts the other’s point of view?
Meanwhile, if I calculated correctly, RSS LT just set a record for the warmest 12-month period.
So did last month; this month has an even higher 12-month moving average. Beats the prior record period Jan 1998 – Dec 1998.
I agree! However UAH is still higher for 1998 by a greater margin. But this could change next month if neither RSS nor UAH show any change over June if I calculated correctly.
Yes. Plus it could change when RSS LT goes from v3.3 to v4 in, I heard it will be, a few months.
I see David is still supporting AGW theory which will be obsolete before this decade ends as the global temperatures drop.
Crunch time David ,now that my solar parameters are starting to be reached.
It took a while for me to finally figure out what svalgaards problem is over at wuwt… It seems he’s oblivious to the concept of there being a threshold level of solar activity. Hundreds of years ago solar activity was even weaker than it is now. Anything above that activity (of centuries past) should give us some warming. (perhaps that depends on a new, evolving equilibrium state as well) What svalgaard seems to fail to recognize is that sc24 brought no warming over sc23 levels, however sc23, being stronger, did bring higher temps than sc22. Should be interesting to see just what sc25 brings temp wise, especially if sc25 is similar to sc24. All in all there is quite a bit of “solar denial” going on over there at watts. Bob Weber and his graphs are for what ever reason just not sinking in over there. How on earth can they be denying that a correlation even exists?! Call it spurious or whatever, but stop denying the obvious (especially when bob holds it in front of their faces every other day)…
What svalgaard seems to fail to recognize
He has 40 years as a solar scientist and one of the leaders in the field. Takes some unbelievable self-regard to contradict that kind of expertise, especially since he is an avowed IPCC skeptic.
No, it doesn’t barry… When the “experts” are failing us left and right, it only takes a little common sense. What i’m suggesting is very similar to trenberth’s deep ocean warming. Sea surface temps need not increase (in fact could even decrease) to produce ocean warming. What is needed is not a warming surface, rather a surface that’s warmer than the equilibrium state set centuries ago. Trenberth’s is a relatively recent addition to climate science and they are just figuring ocean warming out now?(!) This is something that should have been well established from the get go, but here we are, this late in the game. The exact same sort of problem exists when it comes to solar activity. How many times have we heard that it can’t be solar because solar peaked half a century ago? Solar activity is STILL high in comparison with centuries ago and this basic fact is getting lost on many even apparently on svalgaard.
Salvatore, you have been wrong all along. How do you explain that?
“here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
Temperatures in response to this will decline in the near future, in contrast to the steady state of temperature we presently have,or have been having for the past 15 years or so.
– Salvatore Del Prete, 11/6/2012
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comment-64939
“I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of the solar cycle maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 7/13/2013
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/07/uah-v5-6-global-temperature-update-for-june-2013-0-30-deg-c/#comment-84963
“I think this blip ends before NOV. is through and if solar conditions continue to be sub par cooling in a more pronounced way will start in year 2014.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/15/13
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/4#comment-1047
Feynman: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
“Feynman: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
That seems to be the quotation of last resort, when someone has no arguments left.
Feynman would certainly understand manmade climate change, and he’d probably be prominent in pointing out the foolishness of the “skeptic” community, in that brash, reverent tone he had.
David, among too many others, is a True Believer. Tell us David, how many virgins for you in the next life?
barry was holding svalgaard up as though he was some sort of demigod. And i was just giving barry a reminder a la feynman (if that’s o. f***ing k. with you)…
Yes, the latest 12-month average for UAH6.5 is about 2 hundredths of a degree cooler than the 1998 average – the current front-runner in 12 month averages.
Jan – Dec 1998
Av anom 0.484C
Jul – Jun 2015/16
Av anom 0.460
(Yes. Plus it could change when RSS LT goes from v3.3 to v4 in, I heard it will be, a few months.)
With the pause already gone, and with RSS being very close to UAH now, and having the warmest 12 months already, exactly what do they hope to accomplish? Do they want to be compared to Karl? I think the PR would be negative if this were done.
Presumably they are simply trying to improve their methods. UAH has just done a revision and waiting on peer review to critique the changes. Why shouldn’t RSS do the same?
No, Werner, they have an organization in place ready to propagate any AGW meme. RSS revs up their model to crank out higher temperature, and the Mosher types ballyhoo this abroad. It’s a power play dressed up like science.
And UAH are doing everything they can to lower temps with their latest revision?
Come on, these conspiracy theories are wacko.
Werner wrote:
“I think the PR would be negative if this were done.”
Are you kidding? That’s what science is and what scientists do — improve their methodologies.
All datasets go through many versions. UAH is on, what, it’s 30th? (6 versions plus subversions.)
The bad PR would be if scientists DIDN’T keep trying to improve their calculations.
Then the attorneys general and the AGW crowd will hold a press conference and announce that they are indicting Roy Spencer for disseminating false satellite temperature data and lying to the public about the risks of climate change. Watch.
(The bad PR would be if scientists DIDNT keep trying to improve their calculations.)
Improving calculations is one thing, but warming the present or cooling the past about 90% of the time looks very suspicious. Think pause busters.
Werner, the exact same could be said about John Christy and Roy Spencer – deliberately cooling their temperature record because they are opponents of the IPCC and mitigation policy.
It’s all turbid speculation.
Skeptics that have done their own work on the temp data – comprehensive work like Roman M and Jeff Id – have corroborated the institutes. Roman M found a warmer trend then Phil Climategate Jones with his method. So did the BEST team.
Furthermore, the surface temp records are corroborated by various institutes, including the Japanese Meteorological Institute. Eventually one has to perceive that the conspiracy theory must include researchers from many countries, and most national science institutes of the world. A reasonable mind turns skepticism to the idea that thousands of climate researchers from different countries are in on it together, and that the skeptics that have done comprehensive work to construct their own temp records must also be in on it!
Read this article. Two skeptics worked for months to create their own temp record with raw data.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
(Werner, the exact same could be said about John Christy and Roy Spencer deliberately cooling their temperature record because they are opponents of the IPCC and mitigation policy.)
The problem with this interpretation is that they in effect agreed that RSS was better. If both had the same pause originally and then if UAH changed things to have a much longer pause, that would have looked suspicious.
The problem with this interpretation is that they in effect agreed that RSS was better. If both had the same pause originally and then if UAH changed things to have a much longer pause, that would have looked suspicious.
UAH had a higher trend than RSS, in line with the surface temp records. The latest revision lengthened the pause, giving UAH, at the time, a sudden negative trend.
Linear trend (OLS) from 1998 to Dec 2014
UAH 5.6 = +0.07C/decade
UAH 6.5 = -0.03C/decade
I think Spencer and Christy are doing their best to provide a best estimate.
So are other compilers of the temp records.
The latest UAH revision did not make it ‘better’ simply because it was closer to RSS. It only brought better agreement between the 2 records. They could both be ‘wronger’ than the surface records (or better).
If RSS next revision revises temps upwards (as it looks like it will), UAH would be the outlier. For many skeptics, the better agreement betwen 4 temp records would make them suspicious, and the outlier more ‘true.’ This is not well-considered. All it would reveal is that those skeptics like the coolest temperature series.
Werner, did you read this (conclusions near the end)?
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
That work, and BEST, is why I think there’s no fudging going on. Everyone is doing their best to make a best estimate.
That work, and BEST, is why I think theres no fudging going on. Everyone is doing their best to make a best estimate.
You could be right. It is beyond my comfort level. I am prepared to trust others here who know more than me.
An important aspect of the El Niño phenomenon which deserves more attention is the effect on surface layer mixing in the ocean. Normally wave driven mixing results in a similar temperature throughout the mixed surface layer down to a depth of about 100m. However, El Niño conditions bring extended periods of calm and the doldrums expand greatly in latitude. During periods of extended calm wave driven mixing ceases and after a week of no wind the top meter or two at the surface can become as much as 4-5 C or more warmer than the remainder of the normal oceanic surface layer beneath.
When the wind comes up again this extra warm layer can disappear in a few hours as wave induced mixing resumes.This effect probably accounts for most or all of the recently observed rapid cooling.
This relatively thin skin of surface warmth does not appear in the temperature record from the cooling water intakes of ships which make up the vast bulk of the historical sea surface temperature record. However, this extra warm interface with the atmosphere over large areas of tropical ocean must surely have a significant effect on weather and which currently is poorly understood.
Walter, diurnal overturning circulation involves the upper ten meters or so. I don’t see how this would stop because of wind conditions.
Is this a study that you cite from?
“An important aspect of the El Niño phenomenon which deserves more attention is the effect on surface layer mixing in the ocean. Normally wave driven mixing results in a similar temperature throughout the mixed surface layer down to a depth of about 100m.”
I doubt it’s similar temperature [in range of surface to 100 meters]. Though if mean not a lot difference- less than 5 to 10 C difference, that could seem plausible.
Though when warm water are being piled up hundreds of meters of depth towards eastern side of pacific, one could see similar temperatures in surface to 100 meter depth.
Also when windy and during the night the temperature difference between surface and 100 meter depth would seem to have a less difference in temperature.
“However, El Niño conditions bring extended periods of calm and the doldrums expand greatly in latitude. During periods of extended calm wave driven mixing ceases and after a week of no wind the top meter or two at the surface can become as much as 4-5 C or more warmer than the remainder of the normal oceanic surface layer beneath. ”
It seems to me to be likely though it seems one could warmed layer which is much more than 1 to 2 meters deep. Two things, lack of deep water mixing will allow warmer water to rise and the more closer to uniform the temperature in column of water the slower this occurs.
The other process is sunlight warmed ocean in calm conditions can over week long periods make the top 1 to 2 meters significantly warmer than ocean with same amount of sunlight which has wind and waves mixing the water in top 100 meters.
barry,
Insulators provide no heat at all. They warm nothing. Put as many overcoats on a corpse as you wish. It stubbornly refuses to heat up.
If you believe the greenhouse effect is just insulation, other Warmists will disagree violently with you.
Dr Spencer’s example of an overcoat “warming” a person is misleading. An overcoat merely slows the rate at which heat leaves the body. If the person dies, the body will cool to ambient, albeit more slowly than without the insulating layer.
On the other hand, the dark robes worn by the desert Tuareg keep the body cool in the blazing sun. Old Tuareg saying- “If I’d known it was going to be this hot, I would have worn a thicker robe.” I think it was Bristol University researchers who actually measured the effect.
So still no CO2 heating effect. None at all. The proof is under your feet. No molten surface, as it once was. The surface managed to cool, in spite of all your reasons why it shouldn’t have.
Wriggle, Wriggle, Warmist Worm!
Cheers.
Greenhouse gases slow the rate at which infrared radiation from the surface escapes to space. This is the greenhouse effect.
A sweater slows the rate at which heat escapes the air adjacent to your skin.
It seems we agree on this.
I’m not sure what we disagree on. Your posts don’t make much sense other than these facts. Are you disagreeing for the sake of it, or what opinion do you think I have that earns your replies?
barry,
Warmists seem to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the surface.
The atmosphere no more increases the temperature of he surface than an overcoat increases the temperature of a corpse – fresh or otherwise.
Why anyone would want to claim that the greenhouse effect increases the temperature of anything is beyond me, and presumably beyond you as well. The surface warms during the day, and cools at night, summer is warmer than winter. And so on.
Cheers.
The theory goes that adding more CO2 is like adding another garment layer. The near-surface warms as a result.
I can’t see anything wrong with this theory. If the rate at which IR escapes to space is slowed down by more GHGs in the atmos, then the surface will get warmer.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to do with the corpse analogy. Do you think the surface of the Earth emits no radiation?
barry,
Of course the Earth’s surface emits radiation. Everything above absolute zero does, continuously. So does a corpse. Insulation provides no heat.
That’s why the Earth cools at night, and in the afternoon. Adding extra insulation doesn’t heat the surface. It still cools. Boil some water, put it in a Thermos flask (the best readily available insulators I can think of). Let it stand overnight. It cools. It doesn’t get any hotter.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you have a long think about the greenhouse effect, and come to the same conclusion I did.
No CO2 warming. Any warming is due to heat increases. That’s what thermometers respond to.
I’ll leave it to you.
Cheers.
“The atmosphere prevents more than 20% of the insolation from reaching the Earths surface, and slows the rate at which the days absorbed radiation leaves the surface at night.”
Mike, what do you think causes this “slowing”?
Is it Oxygen, Nitrogen, Co2, H2o. or some other mysterious gas?
Tell us please, after all it is simply radiative physics which you claim to understand.
I emit thermal radiation. When I put a colder object on, like a sweater, that makes the air between my skin and the sweater warmer. (I’m not a corpse).
You seem to be going through all sorts of contortions. You agree that ‘greenhouse’ gases keep the surface warmer than it would be without them, owing to slowing down the rate of thermal emission to space. But your thinking seems to break down when the notion that more GHGs slows down the rate even more warming the surface is presented. Then you start talking about corpses.
I’ve thought about this for 8 years, read papers, delved into contrarian blog posts etc. Denying the enhanced greenhouse effect is nutty. You’d agree that the surface of the Earth would be colder without GHGs, but seem to believe that the level of warmth is somehow fixed regardless of whether the atmospheric concentration of GHGs changes. It seems like magical thinking to me.
You also seem to be instructing me that GHG molecules are not by themselves heat engines. Well, duh.
I’ll take the expertise of Roy Spencer and every skeptic with qualifications in atmospheric physics, as well as atmospheric physicists who are not part of the skeptic camp – who all agree that more CO2 = more warming at the surface – over the noodlings of random bloggers on the net.
Your mileage may vary.
Barry, it’s a matter of the contribution of CO2 to the GHE. CO2 is mostly redundant to atmospheric water vapor and clouds in its absorbency of IR. This redundancy means, of course, that doubling CO2 has no effect on temperature.
You are at odds with every skeptic astrophysicist here, as well as the mainstream. We’ve done some details. Eventually I have to give up and let you believe what you want to believe.
Skeptic astrophysicists? Hunh?
None of the AGW crowd address the redundancy, it’s true, but what does that tell you?
The IR absorbency of CO2 is 100% redundant to clouds. Now, who says that’s false?
Will you ignore this incontrovertible fact, as have ..all.. the other AGW advocates.
The point is that atmospheric thermalization of the CO2 IR bands takes place without CO2. As a radiative gas, CO2 is redundant to water.
Are you saying that water vapour molecules somehow get in front of CO2 molecules and absorbs before CO2 can?
CO2 and water vapourbothj absorb. A mmolecule absorbs IR, colides with another, re-emits. The process continues throughout the atmosphere.
Did you know that water vapour is scarce beyond the tropopause, but CO2 is still present in the atmos at 300ppm+ up to 50 km altitude?
Redundant. CO2 thermalization of IR within the atmosphere is not additive to water’s GHE, in the main.
CO2 is 100% redundant to the IR absorbency of clouds, meaning it adds nothing to the GHE of clouds (thermalization of IR).
It is about 50% redundant to the GHE of water vapor, meaning that it shares with water the same absorbency. This last is somewhat inexact due to variability in the atmosphere.
The bottom line is that the “shoulders” of CO2 are already thermalized; hence increased CO2 has no effect.
Water vapor present at all levels in the troposphere. See the contrails at 10 km. Water vapor is the dominant ghg at all levels of the troposphere. TOA 15 micron spectrum due mostly to high cirrus and water vapor; CO2 role greatly exaggerated.
Mike, what do you think causes this slowing?
Is it Oxygen, Nitrogen, Co2, H2o. or some other mysterious gas?
Indeed, which gases slow the rate of escape of infrared radiation from the surface, Mike? Leaving halocarbons/CFCs aside (the list is long) can you name the other gases that have this function?
Mike Flynn says:
“Insulators provide no heat at all. They warm nothing. Put as many overcoats on a corpse as you wish. It stubbornly refuses to heat up.”
But they do slow the rate at which the corpse loses heat.
“Greenhouse gases slow the rate at which infrared radiation from the surface escapes to space. This is the greenhouse effect”
I thought all radiation travels at the speed of light. Please explain where the “slowing” occurs.
Barry spouts the usual AGW twaddle.
LOLx2
Both ignorant and seemingly proud of it.
And poodle laps it up.
I thought all radiation travels at the speed of light. Please explain where the slowing occurs.
Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases then re-emitted. This process slows down the escape of net IR to space.
Mack says:
“I thought all radiation travels at the speed of light. Please explain where the slowing occurs.”
GHGs change the direction of some of the infrared radiation — less travels upward in the atmosphere, and more travels downward. It still travels at the speed of light (in air).
Hi David Appell,
you wrote “GHGs change the direction of some of the infrared radiation less travels upward in the atmosphere, and more travels downward.”
Why?
I thought that since the atmospheric density is lower for upper layers, it was vice-versa.
That is, a photon released downward has more probability to be catched by an another underneath CO2 molecule (there are more CO2 molecules below), than one photon released upward (there are less CO2 molecules above).
Under a radiative point of view, this should make the whole GHGs atmosphere a cooling system not a heating one.
Haved a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO says:
“Why?”
Because when a molecule of CO2 absorbs an upwelling infrared photon, it emits it a short time later in a random direction, which includes back down.
This is basic science. You really ought to read up on it.
If you can do some math, this is an excellent 12-part introduction. There’s hardly any math in the first several parts:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
I understand it, but I don’t agree with the “less travels upward” and “more travels downward”.
This is could be valid only for the very first layers above the ground at the beginning of the emission when all the CO2 molecules above hadn’t already absorbed any photon.
But as the photon goes up (also because some Co2 molecules have already absorbed a photon and haven’t still re-emitted it), once absorbed and re-emitted it has more probability to be re-absorbed by a underlying CO2 molecule than an overlying one, because the CO2 molecules below are more than above, which should make the whole system better radiating upward not downward.
I know that the downward narrow FOV spectra show an apparent missing outgoing energy at the 666cm-1 bite, but the whole outgoing energy at the TOA shouldn’t be only that.
There is all the energy outgoing with other angles including the limb views, which have peaks of emissions at 666cm-1 instead.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Eventually IR escapes to space, but GHGs slow the process down. Increased GHGs mean there are more molecules in the atmos, so there is more re-emisson in all directions. If (roughly) half of re-emissions are towards the surface, doubling the amount of GHGs in the atmos roughly doubles the amount of IR radiated back to the surface, warming it. The surface temperature has to increase to radiate with the new equilibrium set by the atmosphere.
Massimo, I don’t understand your writing and handwaving.
See what barry wrote in response.
Hi Barry,
I agree with you, I know the theory, I’m contesting David in his assumption that less travels upward and more travels downward.
But reading more in deep his assertion maybe I misunderstood him.
Maybe he was arguing that increasing the GHGs concentration, less photons travel upward and more travel downward. I believed he was writing about the probability of the emitted photon of run upward or downward for the whole atmospheric path, while he is right for the small paths that photons take exiting the single molecule.
Anyways, if he was writing about the photonic vertical flux only then he was right too, but as far as we analyze photons escaping with different angles than zenith the LWIR flux spectrum changes and looking at the TOA (which is the layer that matters for the energy balance), the limb fluxes are complementary to the Nadir one, that is more CO2 equates to more escaping energy.
My point instead is that for each photon absorbed the probability of being emitted downward and reach again the ground is lesser than being emitted upward and escaping in the outer space. That because the density of any gases (included GHGs), reduces as function of altitude.
About the ability of warming up the surface by back-radiation, I would agree only if someone tell me why we don’t take account also of the whole energy needed to keep up in the sky all that bunch of molecules which the atmosphere is made of. The gaseous molecules stay there against gravity, not because of a kind of magic, but because the heating ground fires them upward losing energy that it receives back delayed later, exactly as per the photonic LWIR energy emitted and received back per the GHGs theory. With a little difference, the photons based exchange is quantized by the number of GHGs molecules in the sky (so it is independent by ground temperature), while the work done to keep the atmosphere up there is a function of the ground temperature, that is the higher the temp the higher the energy delayed.
If it was a really positive feedback, I suspect we already experienced a runaway.
Thank’s God we have a bunch of water on this planet, with evaporation and condensation stabilize our climate, but of course there is someone out of here who is ready to support that that is positive feedback too.
About David,
I’m not handwaving, I’m just proposing hypotheses, tell me that they are wrong by scientific explanations and I agree with you.
Have both a great day.
Massimo
I agree with you, I know the theory, Im contesting David in his assumption that less travels upward and more travels downward.
That’s the case with the current net flux. The energy budget is out of equilibrium at the top of the atmosphere. Incoming solar energy is slightly more than outgoing infrared energy. Ultimately the amount is the same (when net equilibrium becomes equal), but if the TOA equilibrium is out of balance, the atmosphere has to change temperature to re-equilibrate. The sun is not going to do that. 🙂
Technically the TOA is always disequilibriated, but the net equilibrium over time has been out of balance in one direction. I think that’s what David means by more down less up. Net energy budget is perennially catching up.
Civility is refreshing. You have a great day, too.
Hi barry,
“Thats the case with the current net flux. The energy budget is out of equilibrium at the top of the atmosphere. ”
If you still haven’t did it, I suggest you to read my reply to David here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-216512
IMHO we don’t know the effective outgoing LWIR radiation, we just suppose it.
Of course is just a conjecture of mine, but I never find any trace of documentation which invalidate it.
Have a great day.
Massimo
IMHO we dont know the effective outgoing LWIR radiation, we just suppose it.
Satellites measure the amount of outgoing IR to space and incoming solar radiation. One of the many pieces of evidence is spectral darkening of IR radiance in the bands associated with CO2 over time.
Ground instruments also measure the amount of IR heading Earthward from the atmosphere. We have monitored an increase over time.
Of course is just a conjecture of mine, but I never find any trace of documentation which invalidate it.
List of peer-reviewed studies on observations of outgoing IR measured by satellites:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
List of peer-reviewed studies on observations on downwelling IR to the surface measured by ground-based instruments:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/
Paper list of radiation budget, some are observational, some theoretical:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/papers-on-earths-radiation-budget/
These are what you’re looking for.
Hi Barry,
“Satellites measure the amount of outgoing IR to space and incoming solar radiation. One of the many pieces of evidence is spectral darkening of IR radiance in the bands associated with CO2 over time.”
I still suggest you to read my reply to David, especially my reply to his: The chart shows the flux integrated over all outgoing angles.”
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo, the studies listed are of different satellite and ground-based instruments and measurements over time. They all corroborate.
They verify what’s expected from physics.
Have a look at the lists. Read some of the papers. Most of them have full versions.
You said you knew of nothing that contradicted your opinion. Dozens of observational studies are now available to you.
Hi Barry,
“the studies listed are of different satellite and ground-based instruments and measurements over time. They all corroborate.”
No doubt about that, they all measures the very same parameter.
The problem is whether or not that parameter represent the whole outgoing radiation at the TOA.
“You said you knew of nothing that contradicted your opinion. Dozens of observational studies are now available to you.”
Really?
Since all the studies I read till today never taken in account that fact because the climatologists believe that it suffices take the radiation pointing the mass barycenter, I’ll be very grateful with you if you highlight me at least one of those “dozens of of observational studies” you linked, which stated that they considered the whole hemispheric radiation spectrum outgoing at the TOA.
Sorry, I’m only an electronic engineer, and I’m Italian. So I’ve 2 issues wasting my time reading those papers, the first is that I’ve to spend very long time reading them because of my bad English knowledge, the second is that this is not my field, and sincerely being almost sure that those papers say nothing about it, I don’t really want to get bored myself with them. It could really be a very waste of time for me.
I don’t need 10, 100, 1000 proof that I’m wrong it suffices 1.
So, as I already wrote above, if you know that there is at least one paper which deals with the issue of the angular non homogeneous spectrum at the TOA, I’ll be very grateful with you if you link that paper.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“Because when a molecule of CO2 absorbs an upwelling infrared photon, it emits it a short time later in a random direction, which includes back down.”…David Appell
###
Nope. No re-emission. The energy is thermalized. Read up.
Your welcome.
☺
Hi mpainter.
Yes and no.
It depends on extinction time and the time between consecutive multiple bumps between molecules.
Anyways, in low troposphere you may be right.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi, Massimo
The way it was explained to me is that a gas molecule has billions of collisions/second and that CO2 re-emission was timed in millionths of a second, presumably in the lower troposphere, not at the fringes of space. It is through the collisions that a radiative gas warms the atmosphere, transferring the energy absorbed from IR to nitrogen and oxygen molecules.
Yet I’m told that the dry lapse rate is adiabatic. This fact hardly squares with the concept of energizing the first several meters of the troposphere through surface radiation. AGE has many inconsistencies.
Hi mpainter,
I partially agree with you, because in my opinion there is still space for re-emission, because it’s not the time between single bumping that must be used to establish the probability that the photon’s energy is thermalized, but the time between the event of two contemporary bumpings of the CO2 molecule with two other molecules. Only in that case the other two molecules involved in the event gain KE, and the CO2 molecule loses the photon’s molecular bending energy.
So, I think there should be time for some photons re-emission indeed even at lower troposphere. Not so much I guess, but it’s just a guess.
Have a great day.
Massimo
David the solar parameters from 2010 -recently were way above the solar criteria I have called for which will result in the sun having a cooling effect on the climate.
The climate not cooling in the past 6 years does nothing to weaken my theory.
Now that solar is reaching my criteria only now will we know if my thinking is correct.
David, if solar as it appears to be doing reaches my criteria and global cooling does not come about then you can say I was wrong but until then your words are meaningless.
It will take several years. Boo to the fast food and eating on the run mentality.
Salvatore wrote:
“The climate not cooling in the past 6 years does nothing to weaken my theory.”
When you make prediction after prediction and none of them come true, your theory is clearly a very poor one.
You lose credibility.
Wrong David.
I have stated in my theory that in order to have global cooling due to solar activity the sun would have to reach certain criteria.
The sun from 2010 until very recently did not reach the criteria therefore it should have not had a cooling effect on the climate which is what happened.
Now the sun is starting to reach my criteria and now we will see if the climate responds.
The prediction I made wrong back then was solar ,in that I did not think the maximum of solar cycle 24 (although weak) would send the solar criteria I called for for cooling, so far above the values I had called for and for such a long period of time.
David if my solar criteria is met which seems is now finally starting to happen and the global temperatures do not respond by going down then you will be able to say I was wrong and I will agree.
Crunch time is coming and we will see.
Crazy Davy would do well to worry about his own lack of credibility instead of running around worrying about the credibility of others…
“Crunch time is coming and we will see.”
And you’ve been saying that for years and years. But it never happens and you just move the timeline ahead, pretending no one knows your history of terrible predictions.
Dave I do not think you know how to read because if you did you would have a different reply.
Your comment above is the same old thing, Salvatore — you throw out a bunch of numbers, and then predict imminent cooling.
You were wrong in 2010, 2012, and 2013 (twice). I detect a trend….
Remote Sensing System’s June LTT has been posted and it is down again. UAH and RSS do not always track identically, month-to-month (after all RSS has a smaller “cover” than UAH), but the net change over a few months is generally very close. Thus:
Change in UAH anomaly, from February 2016 is – 0.49 C.
Change in RSS anomaly, in same time is – 0.51 C.
– 0.49 C
That is ‘ minus 0.49 C ‘, not ‘ “dash” 0.49 C. ‘
ONI ENSO index (Nino3.4 SSTs) is updated.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Compared to 1998, the current el Nino has lasted longer (started earlier) and is a little warmer for the last few months than ’98.
It’s fun to watch “Team Pseudoscience”, composed of “barry”, “doctor no”, and of course Davie. What a great comedy team!
They wallow in the GHE theory that has absolutely NO validation. The “theory” is based on a bogus mathematical equation that has NO mathematical proof. The equation creates energy out of “thin air” (400 ppmv)!
Folks, you don’t get great comedy like this everywhere.
Ignorant, proud, and now hysterical.
(leave science to the big boys)
Show the mathematical proof of the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation, bucko.
It’s put up of shut up time.
Show that current radiation math is the same as his. Cite IPCC, and not as a historical note.
Arrhenius’ equations were outmoded years ago, after the US air force in WWII examined the atmosphere to help with radio signalling.
A seminal paper on heat transfer through the layers of the atmospheric gases and clouds is this one from 1978. Plenty of math for you to audit.
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr15.pdf
You keep avoiding the issue, barry. I wonder why.
You can’t throw the Arrhenius CO2 equation overboard, thinking that will save your sinking ship. The IPCC pseudoscience is based on the equation.
Arrhenius’ ‘equation’ gave him a 5.4K temp rise to doubling CO2. that’s nearly twice as much as the mean estimate currently.
see me smile
☺
geran, most of my views are consonant with Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Snr and so on. Qualified skeptics of the IPCC etc.
It’s a pity that there are skeptics who deny the greenhouse effect and other basic concepts that Dr Spencer listed in his article ‘Skeptical Arguments That Don’t Hold Water.’ As he said in that post, these people make the skeptics look bad. I also have some sympathy with him that his blog is peppered such in nearly every comments section.
You and others would do well to acquaint yourselves with this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
The absolute certitude of many in the debate, the ones who seem to have zero curiosity about science, is a bit sad. All this access to information and fora to enquire of experts in near real-time, and for many it seems the deluge of data has closed their minds, as if it’s too much info to take in, so they take a position instead and hold to it with minds permanently shut.
barry, Dr. Roy has a great sense of humor. He has also stated that measuring sky temps with a handheld IR thermometer is proof of the GHE.
Was he confused, or was he just kidding?
I’m sure the points he made in the Skeptical Arguments That Don’t Hold Water were quite serious. He banned D**g C*t*on, serial denier of the greenhouse effect, from posting here. Dr Spencer and Anthony Watts have no patience for time-wasters of that ilk.
He bought a more powerful instrument to demonstrate increased back radiation nearer the surface.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/imaging-the-greenhouse-effect-with-a-flir-i7-thermal-imager/
I doubt people who disagree with him have ever performed a comparable experiment. Much easier to read blogs – and then pick the ones you just happen to like.
Dr Spencer has posted more on the greenhouse effect.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/faq-271-if-greenhouse-gases-are-such-a-small-part-of-the-atmosphere-how-do-they-change-its-temperature/
All the qualified skeptics – Lindzen, Pielke Snr and Jr, John Christy, Anthony Watts (somewhat qualified) agree on these fundamentals. That leaves random bloggers on the net who disagree with IPCC skeptics and the rest. Must be a good reason why the skeptic experts are considered less knowledgeable than random bloggers…
It’s a question of the contribution of CO2 to the GHE. It’s redundant to atmospheric water vapor and clouds and it’s GHE contribution is vastly exaggerated. Measured IR in the CO2 band is about 3% of the atmospheric flux.
Nice obfuscation, barry.
So, does a handheld IR thermometer prove GHE?
Obfuscation? Dr Spencer has written more and used more powerful instruments. Did you not read the links? Are you obfuscating those by repeating yourself?
Seriously, you can wave off every atmospheric physicist if you like, but you’re also saying that Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy and Roger Pielke Senior – prominent skeptics researchers who are qualified in the relevant topic – are also wrong.
When every skeptic expert agrees with mainstream experts on the fundamental greenhouse effect, rejecting that view in favour of random bloggers is crazy.
To Warmists of the Insulation subcult –
The atmosphere supports a vast amount of particulate matter. Brownian motion keeps particles above certain sizes permanently suspended. There are also things like clouds. As well, EMR which is sufficiently energetic is absorbed by oxygen, resulting in the formation of ozone. The rate of transmission of energy through a medium is effectively retarded as a result – in both directions. The atmosphere is not completely transparent to any wavelength of light at all. Even Tyndall realised this, and assigned a nominal opacity to dry air, free of CO2. Free space – a vacuum – is totally transparent, nothing else.
However, notwithstanding Warmist misunderstandings about physics, consider what happens to a molecule of say, CO2, if it absorbs a photon. Simply put, the molecule’s speed increases. This is why pressure increases when gas is heated in an enclosed space.
However, the molecule collides with others, and as a result, transfers momentum to them, whether they be oxygen, nitrogen, or whatever. This can be noticed when taking an atmospheric temperature. Regardless of the concentration of CO2, a sample of air at 20 C is at that temperature. A sample of pure oxygen can also be heated to 20 C if you so desire. Interestingly, without continued external energy being supplied, all the gases in a mixture will continuously emit energy at longer and longer wavelengths, eventually ceasing to radiate energy when absolute zero is reached.
No magical CO2 properties, unfortunately.
As to the insulating properties of GHGs, temperatures drop at night, as energy from the Earth’s radiates away. In arid areas, say tropical deserts, the temperature drops sufficiently quickly that the Romans made ice in the Libyan desert using this principle. The same principle has been used in other deserts – in Rajasthan, for example.
If CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere (as claimed by Warmists), the insulating effect from CO2 seems to be conspicuously absent in arid tropical deserts. Extremely hot during the day, bitterly cold at night.
However, H2O is supposedly the most effective GHG, and it is obviously lacking in the atmosphere over arid regions. The less insulation, the more variation between daytime and nighttime temperatures, as I said.
Sorry chaps – as Fourier pointed out, at night the surface loses all the heat it absorbed during the day, plus a little bit of the Earth’s internal heat.
Hence the Earth’s surface has cooled from its initial molten state to its present conditions – roughly -90 C to +55C. No greenhouse effect needed, or observed.
Cheers.
The reason temperature drops in the deserts is because water vapour, the strongest GHG, is hardly present. If CO2 was not an ‘insulator’ these regions would drop to much colder temps at night, approaching that of the dark side of the moon. CO2 (and, to a much lesser extent CH4 and O3) keep deserts 100C warmer at night than they would be with no GHGs.
Earth’s internal heat has essentially zero part to play re temps on the surface. The moon has an internal temp of about 1000C, but this makes little difference to surface temps on the dark side (-150C).
Wrong, Barry, water vapor is still the dominant ghg of the dry desert atmosphere. In the driest of all, over Antarctica, it is twice the concentration of CO2. The reason overnight lows are not lower in the Sahara is due to wv, not CO2.
barry, you are of course aware of the fact that the surface of the Moon has about 29 times as much time to cool between sunset and sunrise as the surface of the Sahara desert.
The average cooling rate of the latter is actually much higher than that of the former …
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JE003987/pdf
Fastest rate of temp drop at moon equator is 100K over 12
(Earth) hours, or 8.3K/hour. This is less than half the diurnal range of the equatorial moon.
How does this rate compare with deserts cooling after sundown?
Lunar equator bottoms out at about -150C 10 terrestrial days after dark.
Arctic bottoms out to about -34C a couple of months after dark (Winter period).
The reason the equatorial Lunar surface is 100K colder after 10 days without sunlight than the Earth’s North Pole after a couple of months without sunlight is because the Earth has an atmosphere with greenhouse gases that slow the rate at which the Earth’s surface cools.
“Fastest rate of temp drop at moon equator is 100K over 12
(Earth) hours, or 8.3K/hour. This is less than half the diurnal range of the equatorial moon.”
Sure. Which is equivalent to the actual solid surface somewhere in the Sahara desert cooling by ~3.4 degrees during the steepest 25 minutes of temperature drop from the peak to the trough of the diurnal cycle.
But the overall drop in surface temperature at basically any site in the Sahara desert is much larger over a 12h period of cooling than it is at any place on the Moon over a 14-15d period of cooling … per hour. And so the average cooling rate is much higher in the Sahara than on the Moon. So if we let our Saharan site cool for another two weeks without any hint of sunshine, and without any warm air advected in from other places (like in the Arctic during winter), and without any water vapour condensating anywhere, why shouldn’t it be able to cool as much in the end as the lunar surface (200-300 K), when it cooled by say 30-40 K only during the first half day?
And also, why shouldn’t it heat much more during the day if that day lasted for two weeks rather than 12 hours?
So if we let our Saharan site cool for another two weeks without any hint of sunshine, and without any warm air advected in from other places (like in the Arctic during winter), and without any water vapour condensating anywhere, why shouldnt it be able to cool as much in the end as the lunar surface (200-300 K), when it cooled by say 30-40 K only during the first half day?
We have our answer right here on Earth, as I pointed out above.
Lunar equator bottoms out at about -150C 10 terrestrial days after dark.
Arctic bottoms out to about -34C a couple of months after dark (Winter period).
The reason the equatorial Lunar surface is 100K colder after 10 days without sunlight than the Earths North Pole after a couple of months without sunlight is because the Earth has an atmosphere with greenhouse gases that slow the rate at which the Earths surface cools.
After 2 months of darkness on Earth, the Arctic Winter is still 100k warmer than the equatorial lunar surface at the deepest part of night.
But the overall drop in surface temperature at basically any site in the Sahara desert is much larger over a 12h period of cooling than it is at any place on the Moon over a 14-15d period of cooling
The moon rotates slowly – 29 Earth days in relation to the sun. The slow rotation stretches the length of declining incidence over days instead of hours. When the sun is completely out of sight, temps drop precipitously. Also, the lunar surface has had 14 days of continuous sunlight and temps above 350K. Despite this long build up of thermal inertia at the surface at much higher temps than Earth, temps drop precipitously when full darkness arrives and bottoms out at 100K colder than the depths of Arctic Winter (or night-time deserts) Reason: no atmos to slow the process after complete darkness falls.
Arctic Winter answers your question. After 2 months of darkness, the temp drop is nowhere near the amount that occurs in 10 days of lunar darkness.
The reason this is so is because Earth has an atmosphere with GHGs. Heat travels latitudinally as well as to altitude. If GHG effect makes little difference, the Northern Arctic would not receive that transported heat and retain it. It would escape to space long before it reached 80 degrees N in arctic Winter.
Hi barry,
“The reason the equatorial Lunar surface is 100K colder after 10 days without sunlight than the Earths North Pole after a couple of months without sunlight is because the Earth has an atmosphere with greenhouse gases that slow the rate at which the Earths surface cools.”
So, is it just radiative warming?
No matter the effects of Hadley cells in your world?
Uhmmm…
I left Kristian play with you, he is much more educated in this field than me, who I’m just an ignorant outsider.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Polar Hadley cell is relatively thermally isolated in Winter when the polar vortex is strongest. Hadley cells operate over deserts, too. Doesn’t stop quick cooling there. Wouldn’t stop quick cooling at the pole, where there is 5 months of night. Average temp of the North pole is -40C in Winter, where darkness last 5 months. Temp equatorial moon is -170C at night where darkness lasts 13 days.
Polar Hadley cell takes warm air to the tropopause at the 60th latitude where the air is thin. If minimal GHG effect, that layer would quickly bleed radiation to space as the air heads poleward, especially in Winter.
Barry,
please, do you really believe that the mass of air above the pole in winter is insulated from the other at lower latitude?
I cited Hadley cells just to highlight you that the atmosphere is dynamic. Air moves following thermodynamic laws.
If you really believe that CO2 is the only warming factor at the pole in winter, you lose any credibility for me
.
As always said I am electronic engineer, so an ignorant in this matter, but I can’t get your statement as true.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Barry,
please, do you really believe that the mass of air above the pole in winter is insulated from the other at lower latitude?
Not completely, but in Winter the polar vortex is strongest. The temperature gradient between pole and mid-latitude increases in Winter, which means stronger circulation for polar cell and more outward push of polar cold temps. Lower latitude cells are weaker because the temp gradient isn’t as steep.
In summer there is more warmth permeating the pole from lower latitudes, as the jet stream relaxes and meanders more.
The Antarctic has an even stronger circumpolar vortex (both atmospheric and ocean). The Antarctic is the most thermally iinsulated place on Earth, except for the peninsula, which protrudes beyond the vortices, and has warmed at a rapid pace compared to the global average.
CO2 concentration is 300ppm+ at 50 km altitude, Water vapour is barely present at the tropopause (8 km). The warmer air at this level would quickly dissipate if not for GHGs above.
Let’s do a though experiment and give as much power to the notion that heat transport through the atmosphere is responsible for Arctic surface temps in Winter.
With no atmosphere, baseline surface temps at the pole after 50 days of darkness should be at least as cold as the lunar equatorial surface after 10 days. -170C.
Let’s imagine that equatorial heat flows poleward without pause, without cooling, and without rising from the surface. Let’s give it a value of 50C.
-170C + 50C = -120C
That’s 80K cooler than actual Wintertime temps at the pole after 50 days of night.
Let’s allow an extra 25K added from ocean heat transport, constantly replenished.
Let’s allow thermal inertia at the surface to retain an extra 25K above baseline after 50 days of night.
We’re left with to 70C surface temps allowing for these factors.
Still 30C warmer at the terrestrial polar surface after 50 days of night than it is at the equatorial moon after 10 days of night.
These values are unrealistically large, but allowing for them, what is giving us the extra 30C warmth?
Amending (it’s late):
Still 30K cooler at the terrestrial polar surface halfway through the polar night than the observed Winter average.
What’s giving us the extra 30K warmth?
mpainter says:
July 4, 2016 at 7:47 PM
Wrong, Barry, water vapor is still the dominant ghg of the dry desert atmosphere. In the driest of all, over Antarctica, it is twice the concentration of CO2. The reason overnight lows are not lower in the Sahara is due to wv, not CO2.
###
Since you missed my comment, seemingly, I copy it here so that you can respond,
Barry.
Hi Barry,
I’m not sure where you get those values of temperature, and what you are arguing with that.
If you are arguing that those missing 30K are due to GHGs, I think that you are doing a very simplistic case of circular argument.
Do you really think that keeping the molecules of air up in the sky doesn’t anything to the ground temperature?
I suggest that if the GHGs conjecture worked then also the heating by keeping gases “on air” must work the same, or even better because in this second case all the energy involved in the process is returned back to the ground.
Have a great day.
Massimo
mpainter, Kristian is saying that the greenhouse effect is entirely minimal. He rejects water vapour (as well as CO2) as of being of much consequence in keeping the surface warm.
Minimum concentration of water vapour in the lower troposphere goes down to 0.01%. CO2 is 0.04%. In dry air, CO2 is 4 times the concentration of water vapour.
Massimo, by coincidence 30K is roughly the calculated extra surface warmth due to GHGs.
Dr Spencer (and the other qualified skeptics) all agree on the greenhouse effect, and that GHGs keep the surface 33K (diurnal average) warmer than it would be without GHGs.
I consider rejection of the greenhouse effect well outside the bounds of reality. So do prominent skeptics. Anthony Watts has banned proponents of this idea (Skydragon Slayers) from his website. Dr Spencer has banned one here who kept posting this idea, and bemoans that skeptics take on this position (says it makes skeptics look bad).
We have empirical evidence of the effect from radiance measurements over time of outgoing IR in the bands associated with CO2. We have empirical evidence of the effect from radiance measurements of downwelling radiation from ground-based instruments. The results confirm what Dr Spencer, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Anthony Watts, Roger Pielke Snr – prominent researchers qualified in atmospheric research – all agree on, along with the mainstream experts.
If you’re interested, here are lists of papers observing changes in infrared radiation upwelling and downwelling from the atmosphere over time.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/
Best wishes,
Barry.
Yeah, but Barry said that CO2 is the dominant ghg of the Sahara, and Barry has not acknowledged his error.
Hi Barry,
I’m not contending the satellite’s spectrum measurements and their changes as function of the CO2 concentration. The issue is related whether to consider those measurements the effective outgoing radiation for a single point of the TOA or not.
Those spectra perfectly fit the theoretical transmittance of the atmosphere at Nadir, but IMHO they can’t be used for estimate the effective total outgoing radiation, because they don’t account for other angles outgoing radiation which surely reduce the effect of GHGs. That because (for example), the limb radiation is complementary to the radiation at Nadir, so it increases as the GHGs concentration increases.
About the 33K issue: I don’t believe that they are all attributable to GHGs, because I still think to the whole energy needed to keep all the gases in the atmosphere up there. The process is the same as per the GHGs; the ground transfers energy to the air molecules and fires them up (transferring it as heat), but all of them return back by gravity. This returning back to the ground of the molecules returns all the energy back to the ground too (still transferring it as heat).
My question is: where is the difference between the GHGs effect where only half the energy at a particular wavelength return back to the ground and this effect which surely exists, where all the energy is returned back to the ground?
This process exists because at 0K in case the molecules are not affected by the gravity of a bigger mass, all gases collapse into a single point becoming a solid; while in case they are affected by a big-mass gravity force (such as for the Earth case) the gases collapse down to the big mass (the ground).
So it’s evident that the whole atmosphere exist because of the energy flow through it. Thus if the GHGs effect matters for those 33K, also this effect must be accounted.
How much is an another issue.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Gaseous water represents a small but environmentally significant constituent of the atmosphere. The percentage water vapor in surface air varies from 0.01% at -42 C (-44 F)[16] to 4.24% when the dew point is 30 C (86 F)
CO2 concentration is 0.04%.
The atmosphere over inland Antarctica has the lowest water vapour concentration on the planet. (I don’t remember saying anything about the Sahara)
Water vapour concentration beyond the tropopause (10km altitude) is virtually non-existent. CO2 has a much greater relative concentration up to 50 km (300ppm+).
barry says:
July 4, 2016 at 6:55 PM
The reason temperature drops in the deserts is because water vapour, the strongest GHG, is hardly present. If CO2 was not an insulator these regions would drop to much colder temps at night, approaching that of the dark side of the moon. CO2 (and, to a much lesser extent CH4 and O3) keep deserts 100C warmer at night than they would be with no GHGs.
##
Barry, here is your error. Now you have chance to correct your error. Let’s see if you even confess your error.
Present average temp of the Earth is 15-18C, not 55C.
Not sure you want to compare the early atmosphere (no oxygen) with today. The high surface temp of the earth coincided with much higher CO2 levels 4 billion or so years ago….
But it’s a daft comparison to begin with. Completely different terrestrial structure, atmospheric structure, solar luminosity (much lower) etc.
barry, do you realize your pathetic desperation? High temp in my area today was 96 F. But for you Warmists, if was 960 F.
When science means nothing to you, why complain about a decimal place?
Rank propaganda with the cherry-picking at January 2008. So much for Barry.
barry,
What part of what I wrote do you disagree with?
You’re doing the Warmist Wiggle, by the look of things.
If I’m wrong, I’m wrong.
If you’d care to correct me by quoting something I said, and providing facts to show I was wrong, I’d be grateful.
To keep claiming that insulators create a rise in temperature to a mainly externally heated body like the Earth, is just delusional. A Warmist fantasy.
I’ll just point out that the Earth has cooled over its lifetime. Nothing was able to stop it. No energy balance there, at all. It cooled. It’s still cooling.
Try and stop a white hot ball of rock from cooling if you wish. Use the finest insulator you can find. Nope, it still cools. Try and heat water using the 300 W/m2 emitted by an iceberg. Nope, doesn’t work. Climatological Warmist physics only apply in the Warmist fantasy world of toy computer programs.
Cheers.
The Earth has not cooled steadily; there have been significant periods of warming:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
How do you explain those, if you think the Earth is just a big ball cooling off?
DAVID post the Holocene optimum the earth has been in a cooling trend overall with periods of warmth within the cooling trend.
The warming trend from 2008, UAH6.5, is 0.36/decade (3.6C/century).
Apparently warming has accelerated since Jan 2008.
If we exclude 2016 data (el Nino), the trend is:
Jan 2008 – Dec 2015 = 0.23C/decade.
Looks like warming is back, and stronger, since 2008 even if we exclude the 2016 el Nino year.
I’d appreciate it if skeptics explained carefully why this is wrong.
(Ad hom will be ignored. Only substance will be attended to)
barry,
Thermometers respond to heat, not CO2. This should tell you all you need to know.
Maybe you can show otherwise.
Cheers.
Again, you prove you don’t understand anything.
The El Nino effectively started at the beginning of 2015
There was NO WARMING between the end of the previous El Nino effect and the start of the next on.
https://s19.postimg.org/nmwvbguyb/UAH_after_El_nino.png
And from the graph anyone can see your utter deceit in cherry-picking 2008 as your starting point
Andy, please explain what is different about picking 2008 as a start-date and picking any other year.
IOW, what’s a mathematically sound way of rejecting cherry-picks?
Barry, your cherry-picking is too obvious.
I’d appreciate someone laying out the reasoning here. How is picking this period any less valid than picking any other?
I’m hoping someone will go into a little detail. I have a reason for asking for that, which you may enjoy if anyone can make a cogent reply.
Understanding the climate system.
You should try it some day… beyond you for certain.
(Trend Jan 2008-Dec 2014 is 0.17C/decade, by the way. Warming has resumed at higher pace?)
No warming in the satellite era except for the step-up due to increased insolation, Barry. Otherwise, two flat trends joined by the step-up.
Why is my selection less valid than any other? Surely there is a well-reasoned explanation beyond “it’s a cherry-pick.” How does one determine what is and isn’t a cherry-pick in a neutral way?
There is a warming trend since 2008. I’m curious to know how skeptics reject that time period in a way that could be applied to any other. IE, a formula or some such that determines what is and isn’t a cherry-pick.
There was a steeper cooling period from 2002-2008.
How do you reconcile that with CO2 warming.
GHGs creates long-term warming, but there are other, shorter-term influences too.
AGW doesn’t mean the temperature increases monotonically year after year.
Ghg created long term cooling: the ice age. Right? CO2, water vapor, ozone,..right?
There was a steeper cooling period from 2002-2008.
Do you think these trend periods are meaningful? If so, what is your criteria? If not, why not?
What I’m looking for is not to prove warming or cooling, but to get an idea from people how they establish that a trend is meaningful or a cherry-pick, or statistically unsound.
IOW, is there a standard that skeptics hold to when analysing trends?
Until Mike Flynn (below) I’ve never seen a skeptic describe any kind of formula or test or parameter that determines whether a trend is sound or not.
Mike, by the way, espoused that 30 years was a minimum requirement for establishing a climate trend. He cited WMO, so I already know the rationale behind it, being familiar with the WMO formula.
But other skpetics here use shorter time periods. I’m wondering if they have any kind of standard at all (beacause of not, then the temperature change between one month and the next could be described as a meaningful trend WRT climate change.
So, Andy, do you have a standard method for assessing the validity of a trend?
And just to play your moronically childish cherry-picking games.
The COOLING TREND from 2002 to 2008 was -0.26C/decade.
(Looks like warming is back, and stronger, since 2008 even if we exclude the 2016 el Nino year.
Id appreciate it if skeptics explained carefully why this is wrong.)
Two things wrong here. You start in a strong La Nina year and end in a neutral year. So of course you have a high slope. Secondly, anything under 15 years is not very meaningful so short periods really accentuate cherry picked starts or ends.
1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino
2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.
3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.
4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.
5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002
6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. zero trend
7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.
8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 1997, the no warming from 2001 2015
9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower
10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 2005, then cooling
11. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.
That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.
There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect.
The ONLY warming has come from ElNino and ocean circulation effects.
“1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino”
This is wrong, as is easy to show by doing a basic calculation.
Linear regression over that time period (up to Dec 1997) gives a trend of 0.093 C/decade — a warming of 0.18 C.
Yawn!
https://s19.postimg.org/f3dhdpmlv/UAH_before_El_nino.png
That chart leaves out the first 13 months of UAH LT data, which were among the coldest in the record.
Why is that?
I said no warming from 1980 – beginning of El Nino.
You obviously have great reading difficulties.
No wonder you are stuck writing low-end sci-fi in a backwater rag.
And if you knew anything about El Ninos, you would get it.
Not expecting anything.
Fetch bot, fetch. !!
You’re trying to pass off deceptive charts and hoping no one notices. But people notice.
You’re doing numerology, not science.
You’re cherry picking — choosing beginning and end points purely to get the result that you want, without regard to their scientific significance.
That’s all you got here.
Tsk tsk.
I said no warming from 1980 beginning of El Nino.
1982/3 was a super el Nino. This would interfere with the trend analysis.
Shouldn’t 1982/3 be excluded too?
Just looking for a consistent standard.
“I said no warming from 1980 beginning of El Nino.”
So there is no warming from 1/1989-12/1996, but there is +0.09 C/decade of warming from 12/1978-12/1996.
You just fiddling with the interval boundaries to get a result you want, while paying no attention to the physical significance of those boundaries or what the trend says about climatology.
Yes, that how it looks to me.
I get a 30-year warming pause from about 1940 to 1970 using surface data sets. And, it’s statistically distinct from previous warming trend. However, warming resumed after 1970.
Suggesting to me that the longer-term signal can be temporarily suspended due to other changes (in the mid-century case, by global dimming resulting from increased industrial aerosols).
With a strong La Nina forecast, it will be HILARIOUS to watch as barry and his brain-washed mates as temperatures drop back down to the trough of 2008 or 2011.
And then with the sleepy sun, DON’T COME BACK UP AGAIN 🙂
The squirming and scurrying back into their crevasses with be a joy to behold. 🙂
“Thermometers respond to heat, not CO2.”
Yes, and there is more of it in the lower troposphere when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.
But not much more — almost all the trapped heat goes into the ocean. Lower troposphere heating since 1978 has been less than 0.01 W/m2 since 1978, I estimate from a calculation like this:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/05/heat-changes-due-to-uahs-new-dataset.html
whereas the top half of the ocean has gained 0.61 W/m2 just since 2005, according to a recent paper in Nature Climate Change:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3043.html
The lower troposphere has warmed and will warm more, but it’s a pretty lousy place to track global warming, especially on a decadal scale.
David Appell,
Foolish person. Try and trap some heat. Now store it for a bit, in an environment which is hotter or colder than the heat which you trapped.
How did that work out for you?
After four and a half billion years of heat trapping, the Earth’s surface has cooled. Amazing, wot?
The seas even stopped boiling. Did they stop trapping heat? Where did it all go?
Silly. Silly. Silly. Heat affects thermometers, and CO2 provides none. Left to itself, it will rid itself of heat continuously, until it reaches absolute zero!
Foolish Warmists – they believe anything.
Cheers.
“Heat affects thermometers, and CO2 provides none.”
CO2 slows the rate of cooling.
Imagine a gas in a box, which has a constant internal heat source.
Now reduce the box’s rate of heat loss.
What happens to the temperature inside the box?
Or, imagine the Earth, which has an external heat source . . . Actually, I prefer reality to your imaginings.
Foolish Warmist. Irrelevant and pointless analogies. What’s wrong with facts? Don’t suit your agenda? So sad – too bad!
The Earth’s internal source is not constant. After four and a half billion years, most of the initial radioactive elements have decayed. You may have noticed that the surface is no longer molten. It has cooled.
Warmist silliness that you can increase the temperature of the surface by adding CO2 to the atmosphere would be laughable, if it wasn’t for the fact that so much money has been wasted pursuing this particular piece of nonsense.
Oh well, that’s life amongst the fools!
Cheers.
Answer the question — it’s a simple one, and illustrates the basic point without getting into complexities.
Go ahead.
David Appell,
I hope you don’t mind if I disobey your order.
I’ve better things to do than playing stupid Warmist games. What has your question to do with reality? Have you stopped eating too much? Answer the question, I demand it!
Don’t be stupid. The Earth has cooled. Deny, divert, confuse all you wish.
You still can’t heat anything using the magical powers of CO2 (or H2O, for that matter).
Keep trying. I’ll be watching.
Cheers.
“CO2 slows the rate of cooling.”
BULLSHIT !!!!
“Imagine a gas in a box, which has a constant internal heat source.
Now reduce the boxs rate of heat loss.
What happens to the temperature inside the box?”
That is probably the most MORONIC analogy to the Earth’s atmosphere that anyone could give..
Even a low-end Sci-fi writer should know better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrWoG8IckyE
David, you seem confused. The earth’s atmosphere is not a box. Really, David, is this what you learned from your quark soup?
It warms Dave. But now do your experiment and change the gas in the box from 0.03% to 0.04% of weak CO2 mixed with about 10% water vapor in an inert Nitrogen blend. Seriously, what happens? Virtually nothing. The box analogy has very limited representation.
Don’t forget to add some convective cooling to your box, and also, the transfer of latent energy aloft from where it’s radiated to space.
Mike, you know exactly why my question is relevant, and you know what the answer to it is, and you’re running away from it.
Aaron S says:
“But now do your experiment and change the gas in the box from 0.03% to 0.04% of weak CO2 mixed with about 10% water vapor in an inert Nitrogen blend. Seriously, what happens? Virtually nothing.”
The answer is a matter of calculating, not opining.
What number does your calculation give?
David, your grossly over simplified box does not serve as an analogy for the earth’s atmosphere.
It wasn’t meant to. It’s meant to demonstrate a principle.
But Mike won’t answer a simple question. Because he knows the inconvenient answer.
@David Appell…”CO2 slows the rate of cooling”.
Considering that every atom on the earths surface, including land and oceans, is radiating part of an immense flux of electromagnetic energy in the IR band, how could CO2, making up only 0.04% of the atmosphere slow anything?
Physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, who has written a book on atmospheric radiation, refers to your theory as a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly.
Explain with numbers how that would work. You can’t, and no alarmist scientist has ever calculated it or explained it. Nor has any scientist explained how GHGs, which form 1% of the atmosphere, being 96% water vapour, can act like a greenhouse.
Based on that 1%, a greenhouse with 100 panes of glass would require the removal of 99 panes to reach some sort of equivalence.
You are forgetting about the 99% of the atmosphere made up of nitrogen and oxygen. Do you think that 99% plays no part in heat transport via convection?
“Id appreciate it if skeptics explained carefully why this is wrong.”
Your cherry-picked data are not wrong, barry, it’s your interpretation of the data.
But, we continue to enjoy you climate-comedy.
Trend was derived from ordinary least squares regression. Please explain how the interpretation is incorrect.
Barry, you are running out of credibility.
Until someone comes up with a cogent explanation, I’m not worried about my credibility. So far, zip.
barry, until you have a mathematical proof for a mathematical equation, you are only a zealous believer devoid of scientific principles.
No warming in the satellite record except at the step-up.
“No warming in the satellite record except at the step-up.”
UAH LT trend, v6beta6:
Dec1978-Dec1997: +0.09 C/decade
Jan2000-present: +0.11 C/decade
overall trend: +0.12 C/decade
Love how you continue to use El Ninos warming to prove OUR point. 🙂
Strong el Nino events in 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16.
Just to clarify, Andy. You are saying that el Ninos should not be used if they are on or near the end-points of a trend line. Is that correct?
barry,
Just take the longest period possible. Nobody can possibly accuse you of cherry picking then.
That would presumably be from the creation of the Earth to just now. My assumption is that he Earth’s surface was molten when it was created. Of course, I might be wrong.
Anyway, use whatever statistical methods you like, and prepare your trend. Of course, the trend might reverse, just as your cup of coffee might decide to get hotter, if you breathe some extra CO2 onto it.
Let me know the results, if you wish.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn, thanks for the reply.
Longest period possible.
Much of the discussion here is focused on the UAH6.5 data set.
Is that data set too short to say anything about climate? change?
barry,
Absolutely. Climate is the average of weather, according to the IPCC and WMO, over a nominal 30 years.
Warmists haven’t got much of a clue, really. The weather has always changed, and I’m assuming always will. Hence the climate will, also. Trying to stop the climate from changing is an exercise in futility.
Data relates to the past. It shows what has been, and not necessarily what is to come.
Are rising temperatures good or bad? Arrhenius thought an increase in temperature was to be greatly desired. Forecasts of doom from temperature increases seem to be a little premature.
CO2 is wonderful stuff. The planet seems to be greening. CO2 has no heating properties, of course.
It doesn’t matter whose data set you use, the Earth has still cooled. Good luck with the alarmism. Not many people seem to be paying a lot of attention.
Cheers.
Yes, I always thought the 30-yr average was a good benchmark. It’s long enough, at least with global surface temperature data, to get statistically distinct trends. EG, mid-century 30 year flattish period is statistically distinct from the 30+ year warming period that followed. Shorter periods and the uncertainties overlap.
But other ‘skeptics’ have different ideas. Let’s see what they say.
Have you pointed out to mpainter that his use of 18-year trends too short WRT your opinion?
Mike Flynn says:
“Warmists havent got much of a clue, really.”
Mike, I’m not really interested in your science, which is all wrong. I’m more fascinated by how you believe you’re right and every scientist on the planet for the last 100 years has been or is wrong.
Can you elaborate on that?
barry,
You mentioned an 18 year period. If climate is a 30 year average of weather, then 18 years is more than enough to change the 30 year average.
But it doesn’t really matter. Warmist love projecting trends, in the blind hope that a trend will continue. Nonsense. Financial fools do the same thing. I don’t often use analogies, but trend projection is about as silly as driving your car by looking in the rear view mirror. Because the road has been straight for the last few kilometres just means a corner is getting closer!
Physics is better, in my view. Nobody has yet demonstrated that wrapping CO2 around an object, or filling an enclosed space with CO2 will cause the temperature to rise. Blunderers like Bill Nye demonstrate you can heat CO2. Turn on a hair dryer, and you’ll discover you can heat oxygen and nitrogen too!
The somewhat dim doctor no, and the odd David Appell, have difficulty with facts, and try the usual Warmist deny, divert, and confuse, stratagem.
The foolish Appell, for example, claims that I disagree with every scientist over the last 100 years. He’s obviously getting his information from his well worn copy of the Warmist Book of Fantasy. I only disagree with scientists who are wrong.
As to anyone who claims miraculous insulating powers for CO2, I suggest looking up the R value of 100% CO2. You’ll quickly discover why no one employs CO2 as an insulator, not even in double glazed gas filled windows. Or just go into an arid tropical desert, and try to survive the night being insulated by CO2, or warmed by back radiation.
All the CO2 nonsense is a result in of James Hansen’s desire to ban coal for some bizarre reason.
It’s plant food, for goodness’ sake! The planet is greening!
Oh well, keep playing with your historical data, and pretending that it enables you to peer into the future. It’s a cheap hobby, at any rate.
Cheers.
You mentioned an 18 year period. If climate is a 30 year average of weather, then 18 years is more than enough to change the 30 year average.
Are you now saying that an 18 year period (only) is sufficient to determine a climate trend?
That’s nearly half the period you originally stated.
Could you clarify?
“Youll quickly discover why no one employs CO2 as an insulator….”
Venus, Earth and Mars do — all have surface temperatures higher than can be explained by the sunlight they receive.
“…not even in double glazed gas filled windows.”
Not enough CO2. That shouldn’t be hard to understand.
“Its plant food, for goodness sake! The planet is greening!”
Why is a greener planet a good thing?
Why is a greener planet desirable? By David A. This is a prime example of a rhetorical question.
Not enough CO2 to fill windows? Yet I can buy 20 lb bottles of it at the gas supply house for $40, just to play paintball with.
Lewis: Why is a greener planet desirable?
barry = a monkey with a straight edge.
He has the rational thought pattern of a chimpanzee..
AndyG55,
I think the chimp feels offended by your comment. I’ll apologise on your behalf. Sorry, chimp. Of course barry’s not nearly as rational as you. No offense to chimpanzees intended.
Cheers.
Typical skeptic’s response.
No knowledge of statistics, the radiative transfer equation or mathematics.
Cannot produce any evidence except wave their paws.
Ignorant, proud to be ignorant and now hysterical.
A bit like watching inmates at the asylum.
Poor Dr No-nothing
Failed junior high maths it seems.
Dr of social science??
And yes, you do seem to be extremely proud of your ignorance.
The insults aren’t hurtful. The best ones are entertaining. But repeated use is a clear indicator of the value one should place on the author’s thoughts in general.
Wrestling with pigs only gets you dirty. I prefer other activities.
Werner, thanks for your reply.
Two things wrong here. You start in a strong La Nina year and end in a neutral year. So of course you have a high slope. Secondly, anything under 15 years is not very meaningful so short periods really accentuate cherry picked starts or ends.
So, is your formula not to include years near the beginning and end of the trend with strong ENSO events?
How do you gauge that 15 years is not enough? By statistical analysis? Or some other way?
(So, is your formula not to include years near the beginning and end of the trend with strong ENSO events?
How do you gauge that 15 years is not enough? By statistical analysis? Or some other way?)
No answer is perfect, but if you end with a certain thing such as a strong ENSO, you should start with one. Also apply this to a neutral situation and La Nina.
As for the 15 years, I was in a discussion years ago with a warmist about Phil Jones comments on 8 years and 15 years. He said 8 years means nothing, but 15 years should be taken more seriously. And that makes sense since it is half of the 30 years that climate scientists like to use.
If I begin with a strong el Nino (1982/3) and end with one (1997/8), I get a warming trend of 0.22C/decade, UAH6.5.
17 years, observing your conditions.
Would you say that the warming trend for this period is valid?
I was in a discussion years ago with a warmist about Phil Jones comments on 8 years and 15 years. He said 8 years means nothing, but 15 years should be taken more seriously.
That’s your standard for periodicity? ‘A warmist told me.’
I was hoping for something a little more technical.
True, the warming was valid then. Then the pause set in and presently, the warming from December 1997 is much smaller and not even statistically significant. Dec 1997 to May 2016
Rate: 0.273C/Century;
CI from -1.101 to 1.648;
As for the statement by a warmist, if I am not mistaken, he was a university professor and the thought that I meant to convey was that even he would not treat a 15 year period too lightly. Furthermore, it is also a reasonable position to take.
Technically, trends of 15 years in the satellite global record are all (but one) statistically non-significant. The period is too short.
I have statistically robust reasons to believe global lower tropospheric temp trends require a minimum 26 (preferably 30) years. I lay that out below.
Firstly,
WMO indicates 30 years is a good minimum for climate change, to even out natural variation (ENSO, large eruptions etc)
The satellite data is more variable than surface, so longer time periods would be necessary for a signal to emerge from the noise
Here is how I approach this issue.
These are all the minimum length trend periods from 1979 in RSS lower trop global, where statistical significance is permanent after the end date:
1979 – 2003 (25 yrs)
1980 – 2003 (24 yrs)
1981 – 2003 (23 yrs)
1982 – 2002 (21 yrs)
1983 – 2003 (21 yrs)
1984 – 2002 (19 yrs)
1985 – 2003 (19 yrs)
1986 – 2004 (19 yrs)
1987 – 2009 (23 yrs)
1988 – 2007 (20 yrs)
1989 – 2004 (15 yrs)
1990 – 2015 (26 yrs)
1991 – 2015 (25 yrs)
1992 – 2015 (24 yrs)
1993 – no statistically significant trend from 1993
Notes:
The trend from 1987 to 2006 is statistically significant, but it loses statistical significance adding more years, and becomes permanently statistically significant from 2009.
1991 – 2004 is statistically significant, but significance fails from 2009, and doesn’t become statistically significant again until 2015.
3 other years (1988, 1990, 1992) have this ‘double dip’ of statistical significance. Significance is an artefact of the noise for the shorter time periods. These shorter time period trends are dubious at best.
You can also get significance for ridiculously short time periods – eg, the trend from 2011 to present is statistically significant: 0.87C/decade +/- 0.82. That, of course, is a nonsense trend.
This is how I formulate a robust minimum period for global lower tropospheric temp data. 26 years is the absolute minimum requirement, but 30 years is a more solid standard.
barry, a nice calculation. Did you include autocorrelation — that a month’s temperature is more likely to be similar to the month before it. Or months before it. Often it’s assumed that a data point is influenced by the point before it, called lag-1 autocorrelation, and it can be incorporated by using a different number Neff for the number of data points.
Its effect is to increase the time interval required for statistical significance.
There’s a very clear presentation here:
“Statistical issues Regarding Trends”
Author: Tom M.L. Wigley, NSF NCAR
http://nimbus.cos.uidaho.edu/abatz/PDF/sap1717draft37appA.pdf
and of the basic statistical techniques in general.
ARMA (1,1) regression applied that accounts fairly well for autocorrelation. AR1 could also be applied, which would give very slightly shorter time periods for significacne (a few months at most). The basic message would be the same.
I also generally use complete 12-months periods, as there is an annual cycle in satellite TLT data which produces artefacts if there is a part-twelvemonth period at the beginning or end of the trend.
Using annual averages is even better.
(This is how I formulate a robust minimum period for global lower tropospheric temp data. 26 years is the absolute minimum requirement, but 30 years is a more solid standard.)
So since both satellite data sets have no statistically significant warming for 23 years now, what should we do about it?
“So since both satellite data sets have no statistically significant warming for 23 years now, what should we do about it?”
Use intervals where statistical significance can be established!
The WMO recommends a minimum of 30 years.
Otherwise you’re just doing numerology — analyzing the noise, not the signal.
Treat any claim about trend or not trend under 26 years as statistically dubious and only use long trends (26+ years) for satellite data.
So since both satellite data sets have no statistically significant warming for 23 years now…
I trust you realize the difference between no statistically significant trend and no trend. Failing statistical significance doesn’t mean there is no longer-term signal, only that for the period selected, we can’t say for certain that there is a warming, flat or cooling trend.
It’s a very common mistake. The significance test doesn’t tell you if there is a trend or not, only that a particular hypothesis has not been falsified. Nothing is proved when the null hypothesis is not rejected. The common error is tnking that something IS proved. The null test has a strictly limited scope.
That doesn’t stop skeptics claiming ‘pauses.’ Eg, the RSS trend from 1998 to Dec 2015 is 0.001C/decade (+/-0.18). That’s not a pause. All the statistical analysis tells you is that within the 95% confidence interval, the trend is anywhere between -0.179C to +0.181C/decade.
You can’t say anything affirmative about any trend (or not) for this period. This is where many skeptics (and some others) get things very wrong.
Amending for clarity:
Failing the significance test doesnt tell you if there is a trend or not, only that a particular hypothesis has not been falsified. Nothing is proved when the null hypothesis is not rejected. The common error is thinking that something IS proved. The null test has a strictly limited scope.
I trust you realize the difference between no statistically significant trend and no trend.
I certainly do! I wrote a post about the difference between the two on December 2014 here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/02/on-the-difference-between-lord-moncktons-18-years-for-rss-and-dr-mckitricks-26-years-now-includes-october-data/
My point was whether or not billions should be spent combating global warming if the period is 23 years but not if it is 26 or 30 years. If a La Nina sets in, that 23 years could easily get to 26 or 30 years in a few years.
Mcitrick made the mistake of using part-years beginning and end making the trend susceptible to residuals from annual cycle, which is definitely present in the RSS trend (Dr Spencer may verify this re satellite data).
To do a regression that reduces this artefact, use complete 12 month periods.
Using RSS data and using complete years, I can get a 25-yr trend with no statistical significance.
But as you “certainly do!” understand the difference between no statistically significant trend and no trend, you must realize that you absolutely cannot conclude that there has been no trend. You should also know that the probability of that 25 year period being of no trend is very small, whereas the 18 year flattish trend had a 50/50 chance of being warming/cooling.
The lesson to be learned here is to use more data to uncover a signal. That’s it.
Ah, I see that the trend was annual periods – Nov 1988 to Oct 2014.
I get 0.129C/decade (+/-0.106)
That’s statistically significant.
Using start and end date of 1988.91 to 2014.91 will give you the correct time period, to run a trend with regression model that accounts strongly for autocorrelation (ARMA (1,1).
Try here:
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
I know that McKitrick and Nick Stokes had slightly different periods. So their methods must have been slightly different. However there is no way that I can express an opinion on who is better.
As for Cowtan, I believe he uses 2 sigma (95.4%) and not 95% that Nick Stokes does.
Cowtan uses ARMA(1,1) regression model, which accounts best for autocorrelation and is more conservative (higher CI level). Nick uses AR1 model, which also accounts for autocorrelation, and gives ever so slightly longer periods of stat sig. Dunno what McKitrick uses. If you have a link to his work, I’ll check it out. If he’s using wodfortrees, that’s an ordinary least squares regression, the least conservative. Doesn’t account for autocorrelation at all.
I HAVE NOT ONLY BEEN OPPOSED AS TO HOW THE SUN MAY EFFECT THE CLMATE BUT IF EVEN MY SOLAR CRITERIA WAS REACHABLE.
Just of note the solar criteria I have called for, for all of the categories is now starting to be realized which is part one of my solar /climate theory. I always thought this criteria was reachable. Still only time will tell as to how sustained this my be.
Part two will be does it have the climatic effect (if the solar criteria is sustained) that I have said it will.
If it does have the climatic effect I have called for then those who oppose will have to prove why this is not the case. The tables will be turned. I explained in detail why/how it would happen. Now people with David’s kind of thinking (if it happens) will have to prove me wrong.
Salvatore, you are becoming incomprehensible.
Calm down. Being wrong all the time is not a crime.
Salvatore, you make declarative statements that usually do not depend on criteria.
“Also, here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling, due to the sun, soi oscillation, volcanic activity, nao,ao oscillations ,pdo/amo ocean circulations all phasing toward a colder mode, prior to 2005 they were al mostly in a warrm mode and that is what accounts for the temp. rise last century.”
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
“Temperatures in response to this will decline in the near future ,in contrast to the steady state of temperature we presently have,or have been having for the past 15 years or so.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comment-64939
Also:
“I intend to make sure everyone will know who forecasted the climate correctly, and who forecasted it wrong.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/revised-uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2015-0-33-deg-c/#comment-194674
It’s you whose forecasts are always wrong.
AGAIN DAVID YOU HAVE NOT PAID ANY ATTENTION TO WHAT I HAVE SAID.
My forecast is based on solar activity reaching certain criteria which will impact the climate. Until/when solar reaches the criteria will decide how accurate my climate prediction is.
Salvatore, those two quotes from you did not include caveats about solar activity. You made declarative statements without qualifying them.
Also, here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling, DUE TO THE SUN, soi oscillation, volcanic activity, nao,ao oscillations ,pdo/amo ocean
DAVID I said due to the sun. Seems clear to me.
Another declarative, unequivocal prediction.
I’ll add it to the list.
The seminar has covered the touch thoroughly and the conclusion is obvious: the temperature record of the satellite era is two flat trends connected by a step-up of about 0.3C, this step-up due to late 20th Century changes in cloudiness globally. CO2 is determined to be mostly redundant to water vapor and clouds in regard to the GHE. Thanks for participating.☺
Keep repeating your mantra if it makes you feel better.
Don’t forget to keep saying it when you get tucked into bed tonight.
“Yip-yap” opines the attack poodle.
Bears repeating:
mpainter says:
July 3, 2016 at 9:27 PM
A child can see the step-up.
Fact: no warming in the UAH prior to the 1998 El Nino, meaning the data gives a flat trend.
Fact: no warming in the UAH after 2002, meaning that the data gives a flat trend.
These two flat trends are joined by a step-up of about 0.3C, this step-up somewhat obscured by the ENSO cycle.
This can all be perceived with a brief examination of the UAH plot: the data points prior to the El Nino fall mostly below the baseline, the data post El Nino plot above. All quite conspicuously.
Your reaction is to pronounce these conspicuous facts as artefacts of data selection, a phrase that you coined on the spot to justify your rejection of these observations. You only fool yourself, and you are well fooled.
###
Any children in your family, Barry?
“Fact: no warming in the UAH prior to the 1998 El Nino, meaning the data gives a flat trend.”
False. Dec1978-Dec1997 trend = +0.09 C/decade
“Fact: no warming in the UAH after 2002, meaning that the data gives a flat trend.”
False. Jan2003-present trend = +0.11 C/decade
It would be HILARIOUS watching you try to catch a high ball.
You would be thinking it was heading upwards as it hit you between the eyes… yet again !!
No wonder you are stuck writing low-end sci-farce for a back-water journal.
Too many bumps on the head from trying to catch baseballs.
What numbers do you calculate for these trends, using linear regression?
Fact: no warming in the UAH prior to the 1998 El Nino, meaning the data gives a flat trend.
Fact warming of 0.08C/decade to 1997 in the satellite record. Statistically non-signifiant.
Fact 1983 was a super el Nino year near the beginning of the trend, so 1984-1997 should be the benchmark to avoid Ninos either end.
Fact: The mean trend is 0.13/decade in the dsatellite record. Statistically non-significant.
Fact: The statistical uncertainty for all trends in the satellite record overlap. There’s no way to tell them apart with any certainty.
Fact: You completely dismiss the uncertainty, rendering your opinion statistically unsound.
Fact: The mean trend is 0.13/decade in the satellite record. Statistically non-significant.
1984-1997 – avoiding strong el Nino contamination at both ends of the trend.
Your reaction is to pronounce these conspicuous facts as artefacts of data selection, a phrase that you coined on the spot…
I’ve been describing the ‘pauses’ as a statistical artefact since at least March on this very site. My view has been consistent, though the way I phrase it has varied.
Any children in your family, Barry?
Show the UAH data to them. They will help you see.
I’ll take on any substantive comments. That was not one.
Trend 1979-1997 in sat record is 0.08C/decade, with large uncertainty.
That’s not a pause.
Trend has 1982/3 strong el Nino near the beginning. You say strong el Ninos should not be included. To be consistent, shouldn’t we excise 1982/3 from the trend analysis?
Your .08C trend is an artefact of data selection. When the data is selected correctly, it yields a flat trend.
Your El Nino spike is also an artefact of data selection. It can be ignored.
How’s about it, Barry? Is turnabout fair play?
If Jan 1979 to Dec 1997 is the wrong data choice, tell me the right one. It’s the selection you’ve consistently referred to as a ‘pause’. Except it’s 0.08C/decade, UAH6.5 data.
If you think strong Ninos should be excluded, the trend 1984 – 1997 is 0.13C/decade.
I’m looking for a consistent standard from you. Do you have one?
“Your .08C trend is an artefact of data selection. When the data is selected correctly, it yields a flat trend.”
Huh??
The data are the data. You don’t get to “select” which you want and discard the rest.
Exactly.
Your idea Barry, which I turned around and pointed back at you: “artefact of data selection” you claimed, and then rejected the step-up. Funny that you don’t remember your comments yesterday.
David’s criticism is a paraphrase of mine. You can’t make arbitrary selections of data and then not test your choice. If you do, you find what looks like a pause isn’t verified.
If you want an actually verified pause, you can find one in the mid-20th century, roughly 3 decades from 1940 to 1970. Verified because the uncertainty in that trend (slightly negative) does not overlap with the uncertainty in the 30-yr trends either side. The mid-century flattish period is statistically distinct from the prior and proceeding long-term trends. That’s a solid test for a real change in temp trend.
The ‘pauses’ you think you see fail this test.
and then rejected the step-up
I’ve been rejecting the validity of your ‘step-ups’ ever since I saw you post about them here in March. I described them in that March post as statistical artefacts. That’s always been my view. What may look like a pause isn’t one until you do some verification testing. I have. They aren’t.
Yes, but they are not artefacts, not by any definition but yours. The step-up is an observation;it is data. I have explained elsewhere your knee-jerk AGE denial of observations counter to the AGW meme.
Well the trend since 2011 is 0.4C/decade, indicating warming has resumed at a blistering pace. As there is no formula for selecting which periods are valid choices (according to you – no such thing as statistical artefacts), how can that view be wrong?
The trend since March is a cooling at the rate of 200C per century. We’re all gonna ______ (you fill in the blank).
The satellite era shows two flat trends connected by a step-up.
B.S. button on the claim that eighteen years of temperature data cannot be analyzed. In fact. I analyze the entire 37 years of data.
Yeah, but Barry, the only warming of the satellite era is the step-up that connects two flat trends, and yes, a child can see it.
False.
Dec1978-Dec1997 trend = +0.09 C/decade
Jan1999-May2016 trend = +0.11 C/decade
choosing the very low point of the El Nino cycle yet again
All you have.
Zip nada , nothing.
1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino… PROVEN
2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015… PROVEN
3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.
4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.
5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002
6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. zero trend
7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.
8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 1997, the no warming from 20012015
9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower
10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 2005, then cooling
11. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.
That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.
There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect.
The ONLY warming has come from ElNino and ocean circulation effects.
David,
Try May 98 to May 16.
You know, start in the same month of the year. Of two el nino years. Better yet, for your purposes, use Jan 99 and Jan 2012.
Tell us what you get.
Telling us the temperature is going up by such an insignificant amount is rather scary David. Tell me another.
You didn’t respond to any of my points.
Trend 1979-1997 in sat record is 0.08C/decade, with large uncertainty.
Thats not a pause.
?
Trend has 1982/3 strong el Nino near the beginning. You say strong el Ninos should not be included. To be consistent, shouldnt we excise 1982/3 from the trend analysis?
?
See above.
You can’t answer the points. That’s ok, except that you may not know it.
No warming in the UAH data except at the step-up, no tropical hotspot, no warming in the lower stratosphere, no warming for 18 years (discounting the transient El Nino spike), with the pause poised to extend into the next decade and until the next super El Nino, some 15-20 years from now.
Don’t see much of a future for the AGW followers.Tsk Tsk.
no warming in the lower stratosphere
GHG warming predicts cooling in the lower stratosphere. One of the finger prints of AGW.
Lower strat has cooled since 1979.
No cooling since 1993. This cooling due to Pinatubo.
Trend lower strat since 1993 is -0.08C/decade. UAH6.5 data.
Show 0.184C cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1993, please and thank you. Produce your data points.
http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af185/barryschwarz/lower%20strat%201993_zpsltfexldu.png
Here’s the data:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls/tlsglhmam_6.0beta5.txt
“Show 0.184C cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1993.”
AGW predicts that the stratosphere will cool.
But the situation up there is complicated by our manmade changes in ozone.
Your plot is phoney.UAH data shows utterly different plot. Sorry, very unconvincing.
I’ve provided you the data. My plot is based on that lower strat data from 1993. You are welcome to use the data provided and do your own plot to check. Please let me know if you got a different result.
here, again, is the data.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls/tlsglhmam_6.0beta5.txt
(TLS in the e web address stands for “temperature lower stratosphere.” The UAH version is clearly shown at the end of the string)
I get -0.10 C/decade, for Jan1999-May2016 for UAH LS v6beta5.
Better to use complete years, David. There’s annual cycle in TLT data, and as it is a structural artefact, I expect it’s present in LS data.
El Chichon produced the step-down cooling of 1983. CO2 had nothing to do with those two stepdowns. No cooling since Pinatubo.
What effect did the super el Nino 1982/3 have on this?
You tell us
I’m trying to get your opinion. So far all I have from you is ‘step-changes: children are able to see it.’ That’s the extent of your ‘analysis.’ I don’t think you have anything more cogent than that.
Willing to be proved wrong.
El Chichon was in 1982. Takes 2-3 years for the dust to settle and cooling influence to abate, so I ran a trend from 1986.
Lower strat trend since 1986 is -0.25C/decade.
You think volcanic eruptions cause step changes? Physically unreal. The effect is temporary.
Show -.75 C cooling of the lower stratosphere since 1986 lest you be suspected of lying, please and thank you. Show your data.
http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af185/barryschwarz/lower%20strat%201986_zpsr1spap4p.png
Here’s the data:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls/tlsglhmam_6.0beta5.txt
Here, Barry, let me do it for you.
Barry: those stepdowns are “artefacts of data selection”.☺
Correction, no cooling in the lower stratosphere.
Only if you ignore the whole record and cherry-pick periods.
Excepting the step-down associated with the V5 events:El Chichon and Pinatubo.
You have the signal wrong. Volcanoes warm the lower stratosphere for the 2-3 years. They cool the troposphere. So step-ups is what you mean to say regarding the lower stratosphere.
Except they are spikes only. Eruptions produce aerosols that take 2-3 years to fall back to Earth. The effect is temporary. The notion of ‘steps’ WRT to eruptions is completely non-physical.
There was a step-down following each temperature peak, relative to pre-peak temperature levels, in the lower stratosphere. Your plots are worthless.
You’re in denial. Here is the UAH6.5 lower strat data to do your own trend analysis.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tls/tlsglhmam_6.0beta5.txt
You’ve tied yourself in knots here.
You’re claiming that every spike in volcanoes results in a ‘step’ downwards in lower stratospheric temps, even though the eruption spike warms the lower stratosphere.
As the effect is opposite in the lower troposphere, are you claiming that major eruptions cause a temporary trough in temps followed by a step-up?
This would interfere with you 18-yr ‘pauses’. The timing is out. Your view is becoming even more incoherent.
No, it’s your perennial confusion. Stay away from the AGW crowd if you wish to improve.
Your contradictory views would confuse anyone.
But thanks for not clarifying. You probably confused yourself there.
Bears repeating:
No warming during the satellite era except for the step-up due to increased insolation. No tropical hotspot. No cooling of the lower stratosphere except for the step-downs of the V5 events.
The evidence is conclusive: CO2 makes no contribution to the GHE. This conclusion is supported by the fact that CO2 is redundant to water vapor and clouds in its IR absorbency.
“Bears repeating:
No warming during the satellite era except for the step-up due to increased insolation.”
False.
Dec1978-Dec1997 trend = +0.09 C/decade
Jan1999-May2016 trend = +0.11 C/decade
“The evidence is conclusive: CO2 makes no contribution to the GHE.”
Yet more false.
All you have to do to see the evidence is look at this chart of Earth’s outgoing longwave radiaton measured at the top of the atmosphere:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
David,
that chart doesn’t show any outgoing radiation indeed, it just shows the vertical one exiting at the nadir of one point of the TOA imaginary surface.
To be precise, I’m not arguing that there is no back-radiation by GHGs, but while that chart could show the effects of back-radiation on the outgoing flux under a qualitative point of view, it surely doesn’t do that under a quantitative one. It surely exaggerates the effects of GHGs.
And I add, that using simulators such as MODTRAN to play the game of doubling the CO2 and adjusting the ground temperature to get the very same outgoing radiation at the TOA for demonstrating the effect of CO2 is a very silly trick, because the “game” doesn’t take account of the CO2 spreaded radiation which exits the TOA with angles different from Nadir one. That exiting radiation, increases with doubling CO2, making the whole retained flux at TOA lesser than the one predicted by that chart.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo, the label on the chart says “Spectral Flux at Top of Atmosphere.”
It’s the energy flux measured across the spectrum up to wavenumbers of 2000/cm.
Back radiation — which is just the downward energy flux radiated by the atmosphere — is not seem at the TOA.
“…because the game doesnt take account of the CO2 spreaded radiation which exits the TOA with angles different from Nadir one.”
The chart shows the flux integrated over all outgoing angles. By symmetry, the that angle won’t matter, and it suffices to measure flux along the line from the center of the Earth.
Hi David:
“The chart shows the flux integrated over all outgoing angles.”
You are just supposing what you wrote.
It’s not true. Since that chart is the result of a spectrometer measurements, if you know how it works (no matter whether it is a moving grating or a Michelson interferometer based one), you should know that the input slit need to get a coherent light to discriminate the wavelengths.
If you read the spectrometer specification of a satellite, then you learn that they have very little FOV (usually less than 1 degree). That so little FOV is also required to make the incoming light sufficiently coherent to make the spectrometer works right.
The only way to source the slit of the spectrometer with wide-angle-not-uniform-light is applying an integrating sphere in front of it.
AFIK no satellites have one installed till today.
The MODTRAN simulator which reports more or less that chart plot, is set to simulate a very narrow FOV, measuring the regular transmittance of the atmosphere, no ways the “flux integrated over all outgoing angles”.
And no, it doesn’t suffice “to measure flux along the line from the center of the Earth” because as I already told you, there is proof that the limb TOA exiting spectrum is exactly complementary to the Nadir one. It has been measured by a spectrometer installed on a balloon at an altitude of 34km that had a bending mirror in front of its slit, suited to target the Nadir the limb and the outer space.
We are far from knowing the effective outgoing LWIR radiation at any TOA point.
You wrote: “Back radiation which is just the downward energy flux radiated by the atmosphere is not seem at the TOA.”
I’m not sure what you argue with it, I’m not the one who suggested that that chart evidence that GHGs works, you did it indeed.
I just highlighted that if you want to use the TOA for demonstrating that some energy is back-radiated, you need to consider all the outgoing energies, not only the one at the Nadir narrow FOV.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Thanks, Massimo. Interesting.
“The evidence is conclusive: CO2 makes no contribution to the GHE. This conclusion is supported by the fact that CO2 is redundant to water vapor and clouds in its IR absorbency.”
This is mostly true in regards to tropics and region close to it- or mostly true in regard to about 1/2 of the world in which most of warming of Earth occurs- tropics being 40% of world and up to say 35 degree latitude north and south being about 1/2 of the planet.
So on average the tropic and near it is where most of energy of sunlight reaches earth and other half of the world would have average of below O C from energy directly from the sun. Or ocean and atmosphere transfer heat poleward and increase the average temperature other half of the world.
If CO2 worked in tropics the heat transport poleward would increase. And/or it would mean that tropical average temperature would increase- which it isn’t.
[Of course things like El Nino do increase heat transport poleward]
Instead average temperature in the tropics remain fairly consistent on average even during wide swings in Earth’s average temperature [glacial periods vs Holocene Thermal Maximum].
I’ve always wondered what the alarmist flailing would look like once the end finally sets in for them. I think this thread has demonstrated it well…
Quite a coincidence. I see contrarians avoiding data analysis like the plague, resorting to ad hom and repeating the same talking points over and over. That looks like flailing to me.
EPIC FAIL = EPIC FLAIL
What end? Did the ‘pause’ return yet?
barry, there’s not a new pause, there’s an utterly catastrophe cooling trend taking place.
It started in Dec2015, and is 0.5 years long.
The UAH LT trend since then is -18.4 C/century.
Humanity might have to move underground, you think?
DAVID , you know full well that I had low average value solar criteria that is needed in order to have solar have a cooling effect upon the climate.
My website has had the criteria on for years.
Then why do you go around making declarative predictions without providing the criteria they are based on?
And I’ve never once seen a link to your Web site.
barry, theres not a new pause, theres an utterly catastrophe cooling trend taking place.
It started in Dec2015, and is 0.5 years long.
The UAH LT trend since then is -18.4 C/century.
A socialist world government is necessary to tax everyone to extinction so we can build massive engines that push the earth closer to the sun, comrade.
It would also be great if we all wore the same drab uniforms as a symbol of our collective effort for the Peoples’ Earth-Push Initiative, brother.
David, More or less the cry of the alarmists – telling us to be very afraid: we might get less snow and ice and more sun and a longer growing season.
I’ve been planting corn earlier these past few years I’m so afraid.
How long an interval between super El Ninos? The latest was eighteen years. Assuming the next is eighteen years hence, the AGW crowd will have no spike to hype for…eighteen years! With the flat trend extending into the next decade, the real question is what is wrong with the AGW hypothesis?
Answer: plenty. But it boils down to the fact that the role of CO2 as a ghg has been greatly exaggerated. AGW RIP
“With the flat trend extending into the next decade….”
There wasn’t a flat trend after the 1997-98 El Nino — the trend from Jan1999 to Dec2014 was +0.04 C/decade.
Though the period is too short to be of climatological significance.
DAVID HERE IS THE CRITERIA WHICH I HAVE POSTED 100’S OF TIMES
SOLAR FLUX SUB 90
SOLAR WIND SUB350KM/SEC
AP INDEX 5 OR LOWER
COSMIC RAY COUNT 6500 OR HIGHER
EUV LIGHT 100 UNITS OR LOWER
SOLAR IRRADIANCE OFF .015% OR MORE
COR SOLAR IRRADIANCE OFF .15%
1983 was a super el Nino. So was 1998. That gap was 15 years.
(Super el Nino is sustained period of 2C+ anomaly NINO3.4)
With only 3 samples, it’s not enough data to make a prediction about periodicity of super el Ninos. For all we know they could be random, but probably not sooner than every 5 years.
EG, I flip a coin 10 times. Heads comes up every 3 flips. Does that tell you about the frequency of heads (3:10)? Nope. Need more data.
(With a binary selection and an unweighted coin, we know the answer from math. Too many variables for ENSO to do a similar calc)
Eighteen years, Tsk, tsk
1983-1998 is 15 years. Can’t do math?
1998-2016 = how many years? 15, you say? Barry? Hello?
That’s 18 years. 1983-97 is 15 years.
There’s no reason to expect a regular beat of 18 years between strong el Ninos. Tisdale has a list of these on his blog, and some of them are many decades apart. There is no consistency of timing.
Mis-key: 1983-98
The flat trend extended to April of 1997, which then began the precipitous El Nino spike of 1998. And there was no warming after 2002. These two flat trends are joined by a step-up of about .3C, and there’s your warming for the satellite era.
Now, does that sound like CO2?☺
“The flat trend extended to April of 1997….”
False.
The trend from Dec1978-Apr1997 was +0.08 C/decade, a warming of +0.15 C.
False,David
Data does not start in December, 1978.
Trend does not rise 0.15C.
UAH6.5 data starts Dec 1978, as have all versions of UAH data set.
Cripes, I keep learning how little you know.
Here’s the complete data set.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0beta5.txt
You know, if only you accepted statistical uncertainty you could make a much better case here. It’s ironic.
But you only accept mean trend estimates, so that’s what we’ll use.
I’ll do the calc myself.
The trend rate Jan 1979 to April 1997 is 0.0743C/decade.
Making the temp rise over the 220 months 0.136C/decade
Rounding it out, decadal trend is 0.07C, and temp rise Jan 1979 to April 1997 is 0.14C
The 1 hundredth degree difference is probably due to regression type. I used OLS for this one.
What regression model did you use for the linear trend, David?
better explain that to Roy, who has stated that there was no rise prior to the 98 El Nino. Personally, i think the two of you are lying in concert. Its too obviously a flat trend. In fact, you agreed so in a comment in a previous thread, Barry. So what happened? Did you decide to lie your way out?
I said you could slice the time series up to see pauses (by eyeball). I’ve consistently said that the so-called pauses aren’t real (including in that post). I subjected them to trend analysis. The data is the data and the trend is the trend.
Here’s the data. Do your own trend analysis. Jan 1979 – April 1997, isn’t it?
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0beta5.txt
If you can’t, man up and say so. I’ll show you how, if you have Excel on your computer.
Your methods prove that there never was a pause? Is that what you mean? All in the math, right?
Not my methods, standard ordinary least squares linear regression. Just plug in the UAH6.5 data, press the right buttons and the numbers come up. Subtract to get the difference between end points, divide by number of months, multiply by 120 (months) to get decadal trend. Not difficult.
You instructed me to run a trend somewhere in this thread. That’s what I’ve done. Didn’t touch the equations. They’re standard. Excel has this feature in an add-on data processing package. It’s a free bundle provided by the makers of Excel.
A couple of apps on the net run a different regression model (ARMA (1,1) ). When UAH Beta6 has been peer-reviewed, accepted and published, these apps will be updated and we can check trends + uncertainty just by plugging in dates.
You can use Nick Stokes’ app, but this one is easier.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Looking forward to UAH Beta6 being accepted after peer-review and added to these apps.
Do you know what “fabrication” means? If not, look it up.
Resorting to snark instead of running a trend analysis of the data yourself to check (because you can’t) is at the level of pond-scum.
A step-up is not a trend.
Personally, i think the two of you are lying in concert.
It’s ok if you are unable to verify it by doing it yourself. It would be dishonest at this point, however, not to admit it. Ask for help. I’ll explain how to do it using Excel. You can also do it using woodfortrees, just by pressing buttons. No calculation is even necessary that way.
Ah, yes, the PDO. If you are looking for the AGW signal, you must mask the natural variations. Only then can the true AGE trend be discerned. The first thing to do is to determine the proper baseline. I’ll get back.
Ah, yes, the PDO
Wow, what a non sequitur.
You pontificate about trends and you can’t even derive your own. That’s no shame, but wriggling away from the fact with specious deflections is.
Come on, ask me how to do it. I like helping people.
If you insist, yes it’s possible that the trend since 1997 is not flat, but negative- cooling…if you insist.
Trend since 1997 is 0.05C/decade (+/- 0.17)
So the possible trend is between -0.12C and +0.22C/decade (95% confidence interval)
Yes, the trend could be flat, or cooling, or warming. The uncertainty is larger than the trend so we can’t make a positive determination either way.
Calculated trend from 1997 shows transient effect of 2016 El Nino, which transient effect can be ignored. This spike hyping appeals to you, does it not? Trend remains flat, and this will obviously extend through the next decade.
Calculated from 1997 shows the transient effect of 1997/98 el Nino. You’re happy to let that el Nino stand to cool the trend but not 2016 el Nino to warm it. Very bad cherry-pick, inconsistent application of standard. It’s better to use a peak-to-peak, Nino, to Nino period than favour either end of the period with a strong el Mino but not the other.
But let’s go with your cherry-pick.
Makes no difference if I do a trend 1997 to Dec 2015 or Dec 2014, the result is the same. The uncertainty is larger than the trend, so could be cooling, flat or warming. We are unable to make a determination either way.
1997 to Dec 2015:
0.01C/decade (+/- 0.16)
Trend is anywhere between -0.15C to +0.17C/decade (95% confidence interval)
Could be cooling flat or warming. We can’t make a determination with this period.
1997 to Dec 2014:
-0.01C/decade (+/- 0.18)
Trend is anywhere between -0.19C and +0.17C/decade (95% confidence interval)
Could be cooling flat or warming. We can’t make a determination with this period.
(note that the uncertainty is greater with a shorter period)
Data used was UAH v6.5, obtained here.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0beta5.txt
Barry shows that the earth may have cooled these last eighteen years.
Based on the satellite data alone, yes, the data suggests that the globe may have cooled. Or no change in temps. Or warming.
Why is it so difficult to admit that the uncertainty also suggests the latter may have occurred? Is it because you are biased?
The lower tropospheric data is not the only data we have. The surface temperature data sets are not the only data we have.
Your opinion rests on discarding half the uncertainty in one or two data sets out of scores of them. Eg, sea level, sea ice, glaciers, ocean heat content etc etc.
Talk about selection bias!
Barry, you do wish to identify AGW, right? Well, that means you must mask the natural variability of climate. You know what I mean,I’m sure. Like changes in cloud albedo. Or reduction in aerosols. I’ll get back to you on this.☺
A number of studies have attempted to subtract ENSO, volcanic (aerosols) and solar variability from the data. If you can find papers that attempt to subtract cloud variability that would make interesting reading, but it’s hard to do owing to problems with cloud cover data, and with the opposition contribution of low and high level clouds. It’s a bit easier with solar, volcanic and ENSO, because those factors are more easily observed.
Those “studies” used massive fabrication of data. Fabrication is the delight of the global warmers. It characterizes their science. None of that for me.
Which ones do you mean? Name them and I’ll show you others.
Don’t know what fabrication is? Look it up.
Painter claims “fabrication” whenever he is backed into a corner and has no better reply.
It’s his desperate cry of last resort.
And even then it looks ridiculous.
David Appell does not know what fabrication is, either, and refuses to look it up, for fear of what he may find.
Yep, verified.
But no one should use truncated twelvemonth period in satellite data. there’s an annual cycle that produces artefacts in trend analysis. However, the trend is the same using complete years (Jan 1979-Dec1997).
If we excise 1997 from the period, to get rid of the start of el Nino warming, the trend Jan 1979 to Dec 1996 is still 0.08C/decade.
Barry,
As I perused this discussion, I saw your post on the trend Jan 1979 to Dec 1996 as 0.08C/decade. I did not read the context of the post, and undoubtedly you were trying to show mpainter that the trend was not a flat line. Nevertheless, I gotta say that .08C/decade or 0.8 per century does not stir my fears catastrophism. Before the record was adjusted in the 21st century, the trend from 1890 to 1940 was 1.7 degrees per century.
The uncertainty in the trend is +/- 0.16. mpainter totally dismisses it, but that’s the fact. I only state the mean estimate because he figures it is statistically meaningful. Of course, the time period is to short to say anything about a trend.
Trend is 0.08C/decade (+/- 0.16), 95% confidence interval. Trend could be between -0.8 to 0.24C/decade. Gave up trying to explain statistical uncertainty to mpainter. He just doesn’t want to hear it.
B.S. button, Barry. “Statistical uncertainty” was your obscuring phrase. And then you came through with it.
Statistical uncertainty, statistical significance, confidence intervals (all the same thing in statistical analysis).
It’s a standard of statistical analysis. “What’s the statistical validity of my trend result? Does it disprove the null hypothesis?” etc.
For evidence of the use of confidence intervals (statistical uncertainty) I direct you to that paragon of skeptical knowledge, What’s Up with that?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/02/on-the-difference-between-lord-moncktons-18-years-for-rss-and-dr-mckitricks-26-years-now-includes-october-data/
“…statistically significant at the 95% level…”
Sound familiar? That’s the language I’ve used throughout the thread. Werner Brozek is here and may be able to explain it to you if you won’t take my word for it.
(Werner’s acronym ‘CI’ in that article stands for confidence interval. That’s the statistical uncertainty in a trend)
Here’s a trend + uncertainty quoted from the WUWT page:
…real warming rate is 0.0123944 C/year +/- 0.0123944 C/year…
“(+/- X)” is the confidence interval, or statistical uncertainty of the trend (at the 95% confidence level).
That’s the notation I’ve used many times in this thread. Eg,
0.08C/decade (+/-0.16)
That’s the trend analysis + uncertainty Jan 1979 – Dec 1996.
You need to get to grips with this if you want to discuss trends. Ask Werner.
Ah, so. Two flat trends connected by a step-up. The step-up is due to changes in cloud albedo. This is part of the natural variability that we need to remove in order to detect the CO2 signal. I’m working on this.
Ok, good on you for trying to remove natural variability. As I mentioned above, there are a number of studies that have estimated temp evolution with ENSO, solar and volcanic aerosols changes removed.
Earlier efforts to obliterate the pause neglected the step-up connecting two flat trends. With the step-up properly adjusted for, there evolves one flat trend.
I am working on the best way to factor the aerosol reduction of the late seventies.
What will the scaremongering do without a spike to hype? Invent one?☺
Fifteen, then eighteen, next…?
Tsk, Tsk, poor warmers
Painter, i think a good nick name for barry would be “emBARRass”… If it can be said that the ipcc is way out in left field, then barry would be way up in the bleechers (or even out in the parking lot). I like his studious attitude and do think that he’s a portrait of politeness (certainly as far as warmists go), but his conclusions are a little bit nutso. It’s as though he’s marching to the beat of his own drum. Is this where the agw debate is heading? Not recognizing an essentially flat trend when it’s staring them in the face? I predicted a while ago that AGWers were going to start claiming that the warming a hundred years ago is anthropogenic and lo and behold i’ve seen an awful lot of that lately (even on this very thread). I really think that there’s nothing that these agw “alinski” types won’t say to further their cause. Even if it means ignoring mainstream climate science! Remember, my friend, we’re not dealing with rational people here. The radical left will say and do ANYTHING to advance their cause…
We’re not dealing with a rational discussion about climate science, no, we’re dealing with alinski radical elements (!)
Exactly, fonz, these hard-core AGW types will never admit that
1. CO2 levels prior to 1950 were too low to have any effect, even though the IPCC itself acknowledges the obvious
2. That there has been no warming since the 1998 El Nino (the late spike being of transient effect)
Who has difficulty recognizing that CO2 rate increase was lower in the early 20th century, and therefore has a smaller impact on temp evolution?
No one I’ve heard of. It’s mentioned in the IPCC. Do you have a link to anything or anyone that says differently?
Many of the AGW crowd have that problem. Surely you have witnessed the multitude of occasions that some hard core AGW zealot has attributed the pre-1950 warming to AGW and CO2. Surely you have. Your pretense that this is not done reveals you.
The warming of 1890-1940 began when there were approximately 283 ppm CO2. It ended at approximately 305ppm CO2. The CO2 data from the Law Dome of Antarctica.
barry july 2, 2016 10:18pm
…Immediate response of global temperature to a doubling of CO2 is about 2C. (TCR- transient climate response)… …The temperature change from the beginning of the 20th century to present is consistent with the immediate climate response (TCR). Temperature increase is nearly 1C. We’re nearly half way to doubling CO2 from 1900…
(☺)
Surely you have witnessed the multitude of occasions that some hard core AGW zealot has attributed the pre-1950 warming to AGW and CO2.
I’ve read the IPCC saying there was a combination of CO2 warming and solar warming, possibly volcanic (aerosol) contribution to the warming. Natural variation and AGW combined causing warmth. I know of no one who maintains pre 50s warming was all CO2. Could you provide a link?
beginning of the 20th century to present
Is a 115 year record, not a 50-year record from 1900. Using the full period is a good idea, as it minimises the effects of natural oscillations/variation (solar, volcano, ENSO, PDO, ANO etc).
The warming over that period is consistent with transient climate sensitivity of 2C per doubling. That’s the calculated sensitivity in immediate response to doubling. ECs (equilibrium climate sensitivity is a calc of surface temps after the system after it has equilibrated with forcing. This includes thermal inertia of oceans, which is 1000 times greater than atmosphere, and which causes equilibrium to take at least 30 years after doubling (why a pot of water doesn’t boil immediately when it comes into contact with a 100C element). TCR is the metric if you want to compare with temps at the time of doubling.
barry july 2, 2016 10:18pm
Immediate response of global temperature to a doubling of CO2 is about 2C. (TCR- transient climate response) The temperature change from the beginning of the 20th century to present is consistent with the immediate climate response (TCR). Temperature increase is nearly 1C. Were nearly half way to doubling CO2 from 1900
###
Your link, sir.
☺
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-6-2-3.html
There is no so-called climate sensitivity associated with the redundant IR absorbency of CO2. This is confirmed by the satellite era temperature record, which reflects only natural variability.
These natural causes have been identified:
1. The late seventies reduction in aerosols due to enforcement of pollution regulations, worldwide; this effect conjoined to the sudden shift in the PDO to a positive mode. These two effects gave an increase in the global temperature anomaly of about 0.2 C.
2. The late 20th Century changes in cloudiness globally, with a corresponding reduction in cloud albedo and increase in insolation (2.5 W/m sq – 5 W/m square. This gave the step-up of about 0.3 C.
And so the warming since the mid-seventies is fully accounted as natural variability with none attributable to increased CO2.
mpainter says:
“There is no so-called climate sensitivity associated with the redundant IR absorbency of CO2. This is confirmed by the satellite era temperature record, which reflects only natural variability.”
False. Anthropogenic CO2’s effect has been observed on the greenhouse effect:
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release for the latter: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Were not dealing with a rational discussion about climate science
Making things up is not exactly rational. I keep getting my ‘opinion’ handed to me and rarely recognize it as mine. What can be said about people who do that?
Direct quote from Barry: “artefact of data selection”. Barry shows the hard core predilection of
1.inventing rules on the spot, aka “climate ball”
2. dismissing observations that tend not to support the AGW meme.
This term, coined on the spot by Barry, is a contradiction in terms. Data is not an artefact unless it is a spurious result of faulty methods of collection or presentation methods. Interpretation of data might include selection and or exclusion of data. Selective presentation of data is at the heart of science. There is no such principle as the above coinage by Barry, who shows the usual lack of science founding to be observed in the AGW crowd.
Statistical artefacts are not my invention. I’ve already pointed to the phenomenon mentioned in peer-reviewed papers and provided the scientific definition.
You can see this sort of thing in commercial economics. A glossy brochure shows you the success rate of a superannuation plan over 10 years. Portfolio value increases by 15% over 10 years. What is not shown is that the portfolio declined over the previous 10 years, because the trend ended a year after a long-term economic downturn, and the 15% rate was an unusual rebound. Doesn’t show you that the 40-yr rate of return is only 10% per decade.
The promoted favourable result is an artefact of data selection to give a false impression. It’s not the whole (true) story. Shysters do it deliberately. Well-intended people can do it by accident if they don’t test their selection properly, such as against a longer-term trend.
Fuzzy fuzzy sez he.
Address the issue. Show in science where “artefact of data selection” is accepted as a meaningful term. It’s not. It is a term you coined on the spot.
In fact, UAH data is no artefact, as you claimed. Or show how UAH data is an artefact. Again, address the issue.
Again, the artefact is not the data but a result of the method applied, in your case, biased selection.
Artefact:
a spurious observation or result arising from preparatory or investigative procedures.
Show “artefact of data selection”, as a term in use, Mr.Wriggle.
Show artefact of data selection, as a term in use, Mr.Wriggle.
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=%22artefact+of+data+selection%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=%22artifact+of+data+selection%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
Satisfied?
Nope, because others can coin the same sort of spurious terminology that you have. You have admitted that the data is reliable. You have read the McLean paper which explains the late 20th Century warming, that is , the step-up.
Yet you deny that the warming and the step-up coincide.
We shall have to agree to disagree.
I am content that others can see what I see in the data. Your “artefact of data selection” is simply a form of name calling. You never supported your name calling except with arcane statistical jargon.
You have documented other cases that duplicate your abuse of the term “artefact”.
Was your purpose to cite a source for your misuse of that term? Or did you mean to show that others likewise abuse the term?None of the definitions of the word artefact or artifact refer to “data selection”.
Another term for what you’ve done is ‘data dredging’. Look it up.
Also look up ‘post-hoc theorizing.’
You see what looks like a pause, you do a trend analysis, hey presto! It is a pause.
What you should do is test the data further to see if the pause is actually present, or a consequence of a biased selection of data, or valid when compared to out-of-sample data. There are various techniques.
What you, mpainter, actually do, is not do further tests, but repeat the same test over and over. A form of circular reasoning. There is zero rigour to your analysis.
I’ve tested the data for statistical significance (there is none). I’ve tested for a statistically significant change in trend from previous trends (there is none). I’ve done out of sample testing to see if the periodicity is a generally valid choice (it isn’t). I’ve looked for general ‘rules’ that come out of the complete data series to apply to the data in question.
Look upthread. All these tests demonstrate that the ‘pauses’ are not verified. And that you are in denial.
I’ve also done a trend analysis for the earlier ‘pause’ (as have others) and found a mean warming trend (as have others). You summarily reject this, accuse me of lying, but do not do your own trend analysis of the period to show that your view is correct.
Do you have any idea how this looks?
Your spurious statistics fail, and you fabricate spurious terms which you refuse to back down on when caught.
The whole 37 year satellite era is two flat trends connected by a step-up. You use sophistry and specious statistics (lies, damned lies, and statistics) against these observations.
The present preoccupations of the AGW crowd is fabrication and sophistry to deny the pause, which is poised to extend for decades. AGW RIP.
And no, it is neither data dredging nor data mining, but the identification of a conspicuous feature: the step-up. And the step-up coincides with late 20th Century changes in cloudiness, globally.
You are not engaged in science, Barry, but name calling, sneering, sophistry, and a spurious statistics that fools none but yourself. And you are well fooled.
And the step-up connects two flat trends spanning 37 years of satellite data and refutes any notion of AGW, finally and completely.
Your spurious statistics fail, and you fabricate spurious terms which you refuse to back down on when caught.
All the terms I’ve mentioned are in use.
Selection bias:
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22selection%20bias%22
Confirmation bias:
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22confirmation%20bias%22
Artifact of data selection:
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22artifact%20of%20data%20selection%22
Artefact of data selection (alternate spelling)
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22artefact%20of%20data%20selection%22
Data dredging:
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22data%20dredging%22
I understand if these are new concepts to you. Some are more commonly used than others.
Barry, the issue concerns your coining the nonsense term “artefact of data selection”.
You provide from the internet one example of the use of that term.
One.
I too searched and found one instance.
One.
That was the same reference you found.
One.
This reference concerned seismic data, earthquakes.
You have not denied coining your nonsense term on the spot. I consider your search result as confirmation that you indeed coined the term. On the spot.
And you double down on your name calling:
“confirmation bias”
“data dredging”
“selection bias”
Your name calling reflects your frustration over the obvious identity of the step-up and it’s conjunction with late 20th Century warming due to reduction in cloud albedo globally.
“The whole 37 year satellite era is two flat trends connected by a step-up.”
A bald-faced lie.
trend from 12/1978 to 12/1997 = +0.09 C/decade
trend from 1/1999 to present = +0.11 C/decade
Painter is a liar.
David Appell calls Barry Shwartz a liar because he claims that the trend is flat, “within the bounds of statistical uncertainty”.Tsk, Tsk.
barry, people here like mpainter are liars. They have no problems whatsoever lying about conclusions of the data, over and over again.
They won’t stop lying. They won’t acknowledge lying.
Lying is now the only recourse they have left.
David, let’s see if Barry agrees with you that he is a liar. Because Barry claims a flat trend, “within the bounds of statistical uncertainty.”
And yet, still no repeatable scientific experiment showing the wondrous heating abilities of CO2. Just like phlogiston, caloric, the ether, or spicy foods causing stomach ulcers.
Fooey! As Feynman said “And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?”
Cheers.
Correctomondo, Mike. And there is still NO mathematical proof of the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation. The Warmists avoid that topic like the plague.
CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. The atmosphere is NOT a “blanket”. You can NOT bake a turkey with ice cubes.
Yet, the comedy continues.
It’s very well recognized by now that Arrhenius wasn’t exactly right.
You don’t seem aware of that.
No davie, you don’t seem aware that I recognized that years ago.
You have so much to learn.
Mike Flynn says:
“And yet, still no repeatable scientific experiment showing the wondrous heating abilities of CO2.”
You should know by now that noone can do “experiments” on climate.
But relevant observations are doable. And revealing:
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release for the latter: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
So, it means the flat trend extending into the next decade with no spike-hype for at least fifteen years, maybe twenty.
No doubt the cognoscenti who advise elected leaders worldwide understand this. Their message? “No warming, no sweat, your road is free and clear.” Thus Denmark has abandoned it windmill scheme, Germany says COP21? What’s that? Spain long gone, GB gone sour on the EU and AGW both. AGW RIP
1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino
2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.
3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.
4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.
5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002
6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. zero trend
7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.
8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 1997, the no warming from 20012015
9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower
10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 2005, then cooling
11. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.
That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.
There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect.
The ONLY places with a warming trend is in those places effected by El Ninos and ocean circulations
….. And of course UHI effects, either neglected or “adjusted” the wrong way by GISS et al.
But those “adjustments” are NOT really warming, they are just a fabricated +ve trend in the MEANINGLESS, farcically calculated, global surface temperature.
Do you know why the adjustments are necessary?
Do you know that adjustments reduce the long-term warming trend?
So you know that the temperature numbers from satellites are the most heavily adjusted of any temperature results?
The UAH data reveals a warming trend of +1.6 degrees per century from the start of the data up to the end of 1998, followed by a warming trend of +1.1 degree per century from 1999 to the present.
These are FACTS.
Why don’t you learn how to do statistics?
Otherwise leave science to the big boys.
Maybe you could consider what causes thermometers to show increased temperatures?
CO2? I think not.
Cheers.
What do you think causes the increased temperatures?
1. The late seventies reduction in aerosols due to enforcement of pollution regulations, worldwide; this effect conjoined to the sudden shift in the PDO to a positive mode. These two effects gave an increase in the global temperature anomaly of about 0.2 C.
2. The late 20th Century changes in cloudiness globally, with a corresponding reduction in cloud albedo and increase in insolation (2.5 W/m sq 5 W/m square. This gave the step-up of about 0.3 C.
And so the warming since the mid-seventies is fully accounted as natural variability with none attributable to increased CO2.
1. Why would the effect of reducing aerosols not be apparent from the 1970’s onwards as a gradual warming?
2.There is no reason why these processes should suddenly start nor suddenly stop. The PDO, for example, refers to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – not to the Pacific Step Up.
3. You also think that Pacific Ocean temperatures and cloudiness have decreased but why would they do so? ..you are kicking the can down the road.
drno, 1.you posit a reduction in aerosols as a basis for warming post seventies. But you have no data to support such a supposition. Typical AGW bald assertion.
2. The PDO is expressed in the data as an abrupt step-up circa 1977-78. This was a warming event, not cooling as you supposed.
This warming is reflected in the global temperature anomaly post 1977
3. You are obtuse and lacking in reading comprehension. Nowhere did I claim that “Pacific Ocean temperatures” have decreased.
Concerning Reduction in global cloudiness, see John McLean, 2014, Late 20th Century Warming and Changes in Cloudiness.
Trend from 1979 for up for lower troposphere, down for PDO.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1979/to:2015/plot/rss-land/from:1979/to:2015/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1979/to:2015/normalise/offset:-0.7/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1979/to:2015/normalise/trend/offset:-0.7
Trends run to Dec 2014 to avoid large el Nino inflection at the end of the time series.
Mike Flynn says:
“Maybe you could consider what causes thermometers to show increased temperatures?…. CO2? I think not.”
Does CO2 absorb infrared radiation?
David Appell,
Indeed it does – just like a thermometer does.
What is your point?
Are you trying to tell me a container of CO2 is hotter than a container of O2, at the same temperature?
How hot is solid CO2? What about CO2 at 100C?
If you surround a thermometer showing 200 C with CO2 at 100 C, are you stupid enough to think the temperature will rise? Even you are not quite that stupid (or maybe you are – I can’t read your mind).
So the tricky Warmist gotcha you posed, is shown to be completely irrelevant, pointless, and yet another Warmist example of delusional behaviour and denial.
What were you really trying say? Don’t be a girly-man, just come right out and say it! If people laugh, they laugh.
That’s life!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Are you trying to tell me a container of CO2 is hotter than a container of O2, at the same temperature?”
Are you ever going to answer the question I posed to you a few days ago?
Or are you going to keep running away from it?
I just answered your stupid question.
What else don’t you know, or are you trying for a “gotcha”.
This is what you get when you try to compare Appells with facts.
How about you respond to my last answer? Of course you can’t, because the facts would result in distortion of the fantasy field with which you surround yoursel!
Is your journalistic ineptitude on a par with your scientific ineptitude? Answer the question! (Laughs).
Cheers.
Mike, are you ever going to answer the question I posed to you a few days ago?
Or are you going to keep running away from it?
So far you have been running.
Mike Flynn:
Does CO2 absorb infrared radiation?
Asked and answered, you foolish Warmist. Can you not read, or do you not like the answer?
Cheers.
Mike, are you ever going to answer the question I posed to you a few days ago?
Or are you going to keep running away from it?
So far you have run.
That was just what I expected. It’s what deniers always do when presented with hard questions.
Keep running, Mike.
Mike Flynn says:
“Maybe you could consider what causes thermometers to show increased temperatures? CO2? I think not.”
That is what thermometers are reading, dumb shit.
David Appell,
If you take a rectal temperature, are you taking the temperature of the CO2 in your lungs?
In your case, maybe you are. I suspect you may be talking through your backside.
Maybe you could wonder why a sample of O2 or N2, Ar or any gas at all at 20C, shows that temperature whether mixed with CO2 or not.
Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
Mike, why are you so proud of being so ignorant?
Concerning the warming step-up of the late seventies, it can attributed to the abrupt switch of the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation) from its cool phase to its warm phase. This step-up coincides with, and was augmented by reduction in aerosols, globally. This aerosol reduction is attributed to pollution control measures enacted and enforced worldwide during earlier years of the seventies. This step-up can be put at about .25-.3 C, and ended in 1980. The satellite temperature record begins in December, 1978 and records about .25 C of this step-up.
So we see the satellite era begins with a step-up. This terminates in 1980. Thus we mask off the effects of the PDO and reduced aerosols by taking the average global temperature anomaly of 1980, or -.5 C, as our working baseline. With this we can scan the ensuing data for warming attributable to CO2. But we find no warming;the trend is flat until the 98 El Nino.
“But we find no warming;the trend is flat until the 98 El Nino.”
False.
Trend in UAH LT v6beta6 from 12/1978 to 12/1997 = +0.03 C/decade.
Trend over the entire UAH LT dataset = +0.12 C/decade.
Poor David and his reading incomprehension problems.
David, I get 0.08C/decade linear trend UAH6.5. Is yours a typo?
1. Same result for Jan 1979 – Dec 1997
2. Same result for Jan 1979 – Apr 1997
2. Same result for May 1979 – Apr 1997
1. Period chosen to avoid annual cycle present in TLT data UAH (and RSS)
2. Period chosen based on mpainter’s opinion that April 1997 is prior to 97/98 Nino warming
3. Period chosen to avoid annual cycle present in TLT data UAH: complete 12-month blocks applied
Yes, barry, I was wrong.
Thanks for catching that.
I find,for the linear trend of UAH LT v6beta6 from 12/1978 to 12/1997, a linear trend of +0.09 C/decade.
Thanks for the help.
“Concerning the warming step-up of the late seventies, it can attributed to the abrupt switch of the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation) from its cool phase to its warm phase.”
In other words, a natural influence.
Then the PDO turned negative around 2001. That was natural cooling factor.
A year or two ago the PDO turned positive again.
And look at how much temperature has increased since 1980, over a full PDO cycle.
Why? Manmade, that’s why.
M PAINTER IS CORRECT.
All of the global warming can be shown to be linked to natural climate oscillations and factors that control the climate.
Those ranging from high solar activity until 2005 and the associated effects which would result in warming, lack of major volcanic activity , a mostly positive AO,NAO Index, PDO /AMO warm mode for most part featuring more EL NINO versus LA NINA activity.
This has started to change post 2005 and now with the maximum of Solar Cycle 24 ending, the recent strong EL NINO gone, cooling not warming going forward will be the rule.
I also suspect Sea Surface Temperatures on a global basis(in response to very weak sustained solar activity moving forward)will be cooling, Global Cloud Coverage will be on the increase along with greater Sea Ice/Snow Coverage, and a more meridional atmospheric circulation.
Increased Volcanic Activity (major)is more likely then not since we have not had any volcanic activity with an explosive index of 5 or higher since 1992 will be another factor in contributing to cooling going forward.
Just a 1% increase in albedo would wipe out all of the global warming that has happened post 1840.
I think if solar remains very low from now – 2020 that at the very least all of the global warming that had taken place post 1840 will be gone.
The wrong predictions of Salvatore del Prete:
“here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
Temperatures in response to this will decline in the near future, in contrast to the steady state of temperature we presently have,or have been having for the past 15 years or so.
– Salvatore Del Prete, 11/6/2012
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comment-64939
“I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of the solar cycle maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 7/13/2013
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/07/uah-v5-6-global-temperature-update-for-june-2013-0-30-deg-c/#comment-84963
“I think this blip ends before NOV. is through and if solar conditions continue to be sub par cooling in a more pronounced way will start in year 2014.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/15/2013
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/4#comment-1047
“I can not wait to see what they will say once the temperature trend is down, and I wonder how accountable they will be for their wrong climate forecast.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 7/8/15
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/revised-uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2015-0-33-deg-c/#comment-194674
Dave why don’t you go on record today and make a climate prediction for the next 5 years.
Stop talking and predict.
I say if solar remains near or at my criteria which is very likely going forward that global temperatures will be back to at least 1970’s readings if not lower by year 2020.
What do you say Dave?
Go on record, then we will see who is correct and who is wrong.
del Prete:
are you now admitting your past predictions were wrong?
Dave again the solar criteria I called for when I made my climate predictions 5 years ago did not materialize therefore it is impossible to know if they were right or wrong.
Presently and this is also addressed to Barry ,it looks like solar conditions going forward will meet the solar criteria I have called for which should result in global cooling if sustained which is also likely.
If the above happens and global temperatures do not respond by cooling off I will admit to being wrong.
Thanks Salvatore. We can record your prediction thus:
I say if solar remains near or at my criteria which is very likely going forward that global temperatures will be back to at least 1970s readings if not lower by year 2020.
Noting that satellite data begins Dec 1978, which temperature record will you accept as the measuring stick for your prediction?
No answer, huh Barry?
I’m not surprised. Salvatore will do anything to wiggle out of his past predictions.
I think if solar remains very low from now 2020 that at the very least all of the global warming that had taken place post 1840 will be gone.
A clear prediction. I don’t think it’s physically possible, even if various influences combine to cool the surface from now – 2020.
If the warmth remains 1840 – 2020, will that cause you to revise your hypothesis, or will you extend the prediction?
Yes Barry if low solar conditions those that meet the criteria I called for prevail and global temperatures go up or stay the same I will be wrong.
What I like about my approach is it states x solar criteria will influence the climate in an x way which will give an x climate result.
There is no spin and it is black and white. It is either going to be correct or not correct.
Fair enough. Which temperature record is acceptable to you to as a measuring stick for your prediction? (Satellite records begin
Dec 1978)
SATELLITE RECORDS WILL BE THE DATA I WILL USE.
Which satellite record?
And why do you consider them more reliable than surface data? Even Carl Mears doesn’t think that, and he runs RSS:
Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)
“A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets.”
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
Barry thanks for being fair with me unlike some others.
Time will tell.
Roy, why does your site suddenly stop accepting comments?
It accepts some for awhile. Then it just stops accepting them.
Why?
Davie, think wavelength.
It’s a little glitchy. Nothing nefarious.
Dr Spencer, if you’re reading this far down:
Does the latest revision UAH Beta6 remove the annual cycle present in TLT data?
Any update on review of your submitted paper? Have you had replies from reviewers, for example?
What annual cycle?
Dr Spencer discusses it here, about a quarter way down the updates page:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.06Oct2014
“It was brought to my attention by Anthony Watts that there has been some discussion about the noticeable annual cycle in the LT and MT trends when done by months. In other words, the trend for Februaries is on the order of 0.12 C/decade warmer than the trend for Mays.
Other data sets don’t have such a large range in trends when calculated by months, RSS for example has a range of 0.05 C/decade. (Note, this issue doesn’t affect the overall trend.)
The feature arises when the AMSU data are adjusted and merged into the MSU data stream beginning with NOAA-15 in Aug 1998, then carries forward with NOAA-16 and AQUA (both of which are AMSUs too). The process involves at one point the removal of a mean annual cycle in the anomaly differences from one satellite to another.
It turns out that all satellites have a residual annual cycle due to each instrument’s peculiarities. In the end, all annual cycles are matched to NOAA-6 and NOAA-7.
Detecting the impact of this peculiarity is difficult. For example, it is not seen when gridded data are directly compared against radiosondes (see Christy and Norris 2006 and 2009.) However, an annual cycle in the difference time series is clear in RSS data when compared with balloons (see Fig. 2 of both papers.)
I’ve tested a number of alternate processing methods (basically versions of not removing the annual cycle in the difference time series from the first AMSU onward) and the range from the highest to lowest is reduced to just under 0.09 C/decade. This in effect establishes a new annual cycle for the AMSUs based on the first AMSU.
I think the magnitude of the annual cycle in the monthly trends is a legitimate problem to address. The range in the current v5.2 LT looks too large (about 0.12 C/decade). However, one should expect differences from month to month, especially when ENSOs and a volcano have different impacts by months so the range shouldn’t be zero. I’ll keep looking into this and if a reasonable result is produced, I’ll rename the dataset v5.3.
The important point in all of this is that the overall global trend of the entire time series ranges insignificantly from +0.123 to +0.125 C/decade even under the different merging methods used to date. This is because the removal of the annual cycle of differences from satellite to satellite does not add any bias to the time series, so the overall trend doesn’t change.”
While the effect is unimportant for the full period, if shorter periods are trended without using complete 12-month period the residual annual cycle may have a stronger influence on the resulting trend.
I don’t know if this has been addressed in previous revisions (from V5.3), and I wondered if this artefact was reduced in version Beta6.
It had been somewhat addressed in V5.3, 2010, but the residual annual cycle was still present in that data set.
Graphic depiction
https://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/global-month-trends1.gif?w=500&h=341
Roy:”The important point in all of this is that the overall global trend of the entire time series ranges insignificantly from +0.123 to +0.125 C/decade even under the different merging methods used to date. This is because the removal of the annual cycle of differences from satellite to satellite does not add any bias to the time series, so the overall trend doesnt change.”
###
I shall be glad to explain this for you, Barry.
I already have, thanks.
Something not many people on the climate blogs know is that the average surface temp is about 15C, whereas for the average lower troposphere temp as measured by satellites (UAH, RSS) is about -9C.
An example of the difference between the two metrics.
Thus, with the satellite data adjusted for step-change due to natural variations, we get -.5 C as our working start point for calculating the satellite era trend to 1997. Thus we see no warming prior to the El Nino of 1998, that is, the step-up.
You’ve masked PDO for the whole period, consistent with masking it for the beginning?
Starting with -0.5C would mean a higher trend than 0.08C to 1997. Current anomalies are between -0.011 and -0.360 for the first two years of the UAH6.5 data set.
Correct, should be .05 C. Thank you for pointing out that mistake.
Rather,-.05 C.
I can work out the trend for you if the first 12 months of the UAH6.5 data set are all set at -0.5C. Or how would you like me to go about it?
Plotting anomalies and trend for RSS (proxy for UAH6.5) and PDO, there is very poor correlation for that period. In fact, they are most often anti-correlated as far as I can see.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1998/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1998/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1979/to:1998/normalise/offset:-0.6/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1979/to:1998/normalise/trend/offset:-0.6
No warming from 1980 to the step-up of the late 20th Century warming. The step-up prior to 1980 is also due to natural variability: reduced aerosols and the shift in the PDO to its warm phase.
Hence, no warming attributable to CO2, but two flat trends connected by a step-up. Thus the satellite era.
Rinse, repeat.
The UAH6.5 TLT trend from Jan 1979 to Dec 1997 is 0.08C/decade
The UAH 6.5 TLTtrend from Jan 1979 to Apr 1997 is 0.08C/decade
Pause?
Rinse, repeat. If you have trouble understanding my comment, you must be specific. What, exactly, eludes you?
You seem to want to subtract PDO (and aerosols?) in some way so as to change the values for the beginning of the satellite record. Yet you don’t want to do that consistently for the whole period.
Be specific about which years/months this adjustment applies to.
Explain why the adjustment for PDO should not be applied for the whole temperature series. When removing an effect, isn’t it cherry-picking to subtract it from one part of the record but not the rest?
Atmospheric aerosol loadings are uncertain indices. They are difficult to monitor. Similarly to PDO, shouldn’t you apply the aerosol ‘masking’ for the whole temperature record to avoid cherry-picking to obtain desired results?
Here is a link to aerosol indices from 1995 to present.
http://www.temis.nl/airpollution/absaai/
I don’t know of any index that starts earlier, unfortunately.
I have described my method above, July 8, 1:48 pm and all your questions are answered there.
The -.05 C is the average for 1980. I have masked the step-up by elmiminating it from the time series, and trends start at December, 1978 through 1980 single value of -.05 C.
This method is simple, but it yields a basis for scanning the data for a CO2 signal.
The find is no warming until the step-up coinciding with the ENSO cycle 1997-2000.
Could you pls provide links to your posts? Saves scrolling through many to find it.
Concerning the warming step-up of the late seventies, it can attributed to the abrupt switch of the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation) from its cool phase to its warm phase. This step-up coincides with, and was augmented by reduction in aerosols, globally. This aerosol reduction is attributed to pollution control measures enacted and enforced worldwide during earlier years of the seventies. This step-up can be put at about .25-.3 C, and ended in 1980. The satellite temperature record begins in December, 1978 and records about .25 C of this step-up.
Data links?
Aerosol control maesures were not adotped “worldwide.” This would refer primarily to the US. China and India had no such legislation and the 70s marked acceleration in industrial output for those countries. The UK Clean Air Act was adopted in 1956.
Changing all values to -0.05C for all months Dec 1978 to Dec 1997 yields a trend of 0.06C/decade.
Pause?
PDO trend for 1979 to 1997 is -0.04C/decade. This component had a cooling trend for the period. Subtracting (or ‘masking’) that effect would warm the temperature record slightly.
Typo:
Changing all values to -0.05C for all months Dec 1978 to Dec 1980 yields a trend of 0.06C/decade.
Could you also describe in some detail how you arrived at the exact value of -0.05C?
I have described my method above, July 8, 1:48 pm and all your questions are answered there.
The -.05 C is the average for 1980. I have masked the step-up by elmiminating it from the time series, and trends start at December, 1978 through 1980 single value of -.05 C.
This method is simple, but it yields a basis for scanning the data for a CO2 signal.
The find is no warming until the step-up coinciding with the ENSO cycle 1997-2000.
Could you pls provide links to your posts? Saves scrolling through many to find it.
Concerning the warming step-up of the late seventies, it can attributed to the abrupt switch of the PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation) from its cool phase to its warm phase. This step-up coincides with, and was augmented by reduction in aerosols, globally. This aerosol reduction is attributed to pollution control measures enacted and enforced worldwide during earlier years of the seventies. This step-up can be put at about .25-.3 C, and ended in 1980. The satellite temperature record begins in December, 1978 and records about .25 C of this step-up.
Data links?
Aerosol control maesures were not adotped worldwide. This would refer primarily to the US. China and India had no such legislation and the 70s marked acceleration in industrial output for those countries. The UK Clean Air Act was adopted in 1956.
Changing the values to -0.05C for all months Dec 1978 to Dec 1980 yields a trend of 0.06C/decade for the alleged ‘pause’ period prior to the ’98 el Nino (Dec 1978 – Dec 1997).
Pause?
PDO trend for 1979 to 1997 is -0.04C/decade. This component had a cooling trend for the period. Subtracting (or masking) that effect would warm the temperature record slightly.
2nd para is your post.
Note: The period is still statistically insignificant. The confidence interval is 0.156 – much larger than the mean trend.
Thus, if all months from Dec 1978 to Dec 1980 are ‘adjusted’ to -0.05C, the trend is anywhere between -0.1C to +0.2C/decade (95% confidence interval).
Statistically indistinguishable from a flat trend. Two flat trends connected by a step-up.
Also statistically indistinguishable from a warming trend of 0.2C/decade and a cooling trend of -0.1C/decade.
Is the cause of all these purported step-ups the same? Or are there different causes for each?
So how do you get the figure of -0.05C for each month Dec 1978 to Dec 1980? The post of your ‘methods’ provides no calculation for it.
We have an average for the satellite data prior to ENSO cycle of approximately -.1 C and a post ENSO average of approximately .14 C which difference yields approximately .24 C as the value of the late 20th Century warming (i.e., stepup) due to decreased cloud albedo, globally.
How do you calculate to arrive at -0.05C per month for Dec 1978 to Dec 1980?
Can you clarify whether you think ENSO phenomena are partly responsible for temp differences, or are merely coincident time markers for the actual causes (clouds/PDO/albedo)?
More clearly: Can you clarify whether you think ENSO phenomena are partly responsible for temp differences between ‘pause’ periods, or are merely coincident time markers for the actual causes (clouds/PDO/albedo)?
Given above: average 1980, approximately.
How is that record La Nina progressing?
Also,
here are the annual average PDO values.
I asked a child but they could not see a step up at 1980.
1975 -1.1
1976 0.0
1977 0.3
1978 0.0
1979 0.2
1980 0.3
1981 -0.1
1982 0.8
1983 0.9
1984 -0.2
1985 -0.4
And the past is connected to the future in what fashion?
If nobody had any PDO values, would the future’s weather (and hence climate) be any different.
Trend followers are deluded fools. Warmists often follow trends.
Cheers.
So do the other mob. Must feel good to above all that.
Still no answer. Just claims of “They do it too!”
I’m not sure what feelings have to do with facts, but I feel content with facts, f that helps.
Whether it’s war, politics, finance, economics or weather, the experts seem to be quite dreadful at peering into the future.
Calculating trends, reading chicken entrails, casting runes, or just using your own judgement, might well be as accurate as each other.
What do you think?
Cheers.
“Calculating trends, reading chicken entrails, casting runes, or just using your own judgement, might well be as accurate as each other.”
So, I gather that :
(a) you agree that there may be a warming trend BUT
(b) you don’t believe it means anything for the future
(c) you are skeptical of predictions in general
(d) you only make decisions on facts
Is that a fair summary?
If so then
(a) you must equally disagree with anybody who claims there is a cooling trend or no trend, or a step up, or a step down or .any other contortion of the data
(b) you equally do not believe that solar variability, or PDOs or ENSOs provides any guide to the future
(c) you pay no attention to weather forecasts, stock market forecasts or economic forecasts
(d) you pay no attention to probabilities.
Would that be a fair inference?
Im not sure what feelings have to do with facts
Me neither. But seeing everyone examines the trends, your singling out ‘warmists’ (not exactly a dictionary word, is it?) doesn’t exactly smack of objectivity.
Political jargon in a discussion about ‘facts’ is always a giveaway.
First, I agree that they may be warming trends somewhere. Or there may be cooling trends somewhere. It will depend on temperature readings over time at a specified location. Alternatively, for example, if a complete Antarctic continent goes from ice free to icebound, it is obvious it cooled. Is it a trend? Does it point to the future?
b) You are correct. Unless you know what causes PDOs, ENSOs, solar variability etc., the mere fact that you may assume they represent any guide to the future is just an example of wishful thinking.
c) I’m not sure why you assume I pay no attention to weather forecasts. In general, howeve you are correct. Observations are in a different class, of course. Anybody who believes stock market forecasts is a fool, well intentioned perhaps, but a fool nevertheless. Economic forecasts are even worse, if that is possible. Surely no rational person (obviously not including politicians) would give these dimwit forecasters the slightest credence!
d) I pay attention to useful probabilities on occasion. Often I ignore them. For example, when travelling on an aircraft, I assume the probability of arriving safely is 1, even though statistically this is not true. On the other hand, the chance of a fair coin coming down heads is close to 0.5. I have met fools who will give me better than even money on another head after a run of heads. The coin doesn’t care, and the probability that next toss will result in a head is still close to 0.5. The coin has no memory. So knowledge of probabilities may give you no advantage, nor knowledge of the future.
In relation to weather, and hence climate, even the IPCC says that future climate states can not be predicted. I agree. I make assumptions about the future, using my own judgement, and act accordingly. So far, so good. I’ve never lost money on the stock market, and my financial decisions have meant that I haven’t suffered financial loss in other areas. Other people may follow the pronouncements of experts if they wish. I wish them well.
Cheers.
A consensus about the utility of trends doesn’t turn a feeling into a fact, as far as I am aware.
The Oxford dictionary provides th following definition of Warmist –
“A person who accepts the proposition that climate change caused by human activity is occurring (used by those who do not accept this proposition):
“the warmists insist the planet is warming, and they want us to attempt to cool it down””
It is “exactly a dictionary word”. Foolish Warmists often make condescending assertions without basis in fact. I don’t know why.
I believe foolish Warmists who believe that they can reliably see into the future are gullible or delusional. Objective? Evidence based subjective assessment, of course. What difference does it make?
The past doesn’t provide a reliable guide to the future. You may believe otherwise if you wish. Just don’t expect to fund your belief, if you don’t mind.
Cheers.
Thanks for pointing out the Oxford dictionary reference.
I have another for you.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/lol
As the Oxford D points out, the word ‘warmist’ is used by those in an opposing camp. It’s political jargon, not neutral, and your use is a giveaway.
Fact-based discussion should be above tribalism, don’t you think?
barry,
You say my use of the word “Warmist” in a derogatory sense is a giveaway. Well, yes, if you’re really thick, you might need a few extra clues to realise I’m not exactly a fan of foolish Warmists.
Sorry if I’ve been too subtle for you.
CO2 still has no heating properties. Blaming me won’t improve the situation.
Cheers.
Im not exactly a fan of foolish Warmists.
You’re a fan of generalized sledging. So facts-oriented.
Skeptics analyse trends all the time. But you don’t seem inclined to sledge them for it.
You’re not concerned enough with ‘facts’ or good reasoning to criticise when a skeptic posts tripe.
You’re a team-player, I’ll give you that.
The past doesnt provide a reliable guide to the future.
Pffft. Assertion free of any constraints. But maybe the sun won’t come up tomorrow, maybe the population of the Earth will start diminishing tomorrow…
I do hope you have nothing invested in stocks. That kind of investment is based entirely on past performance providing a guide to the future.
Do you need to re-jig your superannuation? Don’t know what’s left if you eradicate all assets that rely on trends to presage the future.
In fact, many successful predictions are made from assessing trends (and, often causes). The lazy non-objective make sweeping generalizations.
barry,
Maybe the Sun won’t come up tomorrow, maybe I’ll have a heart attack tonight . . . Who knows?
I assume that the one will happen, but the other won’t.
I have nothing invested in stocks, because the past doesn’t predict the future. Cashed in my super years ago. Good decision, as it turned out. Even Governments require a warning to floggers of financial “products” that past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.
Many foolish Warmists, financial advisers, economists,Governments etc., get caught flat footed because they thought that they knew what the future held.
Do as you wish. You’ll expect me to pay for your gullibility if things go wrong, of course. Pity.
Cheers.
“Warmists”
Ultimately it’s based on physic. Trend analysis is only part of the whole story. You can believe it’s a “warmist” trait, but the truth is everyone does it, and the truth is you didn’t chastise ‘skeptics’ for doing it.
You’re not remotely objective, so don’t pretend to be so lofty.
CO2 still has no heating properties.
GHGs have optical properties that keep the surface warmer than an atmosphere without them.
Deny this and we can safely disregard your opinion on CO2.
Accept it and you’ll need to qualify that remark.
Do as you wish. Youll expect me to pay for your gullibility if things go wrong, of course. Pity.
You keep mentioning money. The fundamentals of science are based on the thickness of your wallet, perhaps?
It’s odd to see you lauding ‘facts’ and decrying ‘feelings’ when almost every post you make has a political reference.
You’d be a tad more convincing if you weighed some criticism on ‘skeptics’, who have posted views opposite to your on this thread quite often.
But they are your ‘tribe’ and you don’t have enough objectivity to to be even-handed in who and what you criticize.
You’re not here to shine a light, just spar with the enemy. So spare us the pretense of being concerned with ‘facts, eh?
barry,
Unfortunately, neither you nor any other foolish Warmist can even propose a falsifiable hypothesis relating the the alleged heating effects of CO2. Heating, as in temperature, increase, not stupid Warmist Weaselwords like “warmer than it otherwise would be”.
Ascribing vague magical properties “. . . CO2 has optical properties . . . ” is just trotting out meaningless sciencey rubbish.
You need some actual science. Just one repeatable experiment demonstrating the ability of CO2 to actually raise the temperature of an object would settle the matter. Unfortunately, foolish Warmists claim that raising the temperature of CO2 proves something or other.
You might have noticed that any gas at all can be heated and cooled. Nothing special about CO2 in that regard. You can heat CO2 with infrared if you wish. You can heat yourself with infrared also. Remove the infrared source, and CO2 cools.
Professor John Tyndall showed this over a century ago, but foolish Warmists don’t bother reading Tyndall’s work for themselves.
So no, I don’t believe in magic, or phlogiston, or the luminiferous ether.
CO2 heats nothing. Never has, never will.
Cheers.
You deny the greenhouse effect. Ok.
Thanks for the chat.
Remove the infrared source, and CO2 cools.
Missed this in the scroll – the best piece of nonsense yet.
Every object emits radiation. Unless we are expecting the Earth to cool to absolute zero in the near future, your point is entirely moot. The ‘greenhouse’ effect will be in play for a few billion years, at least on this planet.
Given above: average 1980, approximately.
Given above…
The satellite temperature record begins in December, 1978 and records about .25 C of this step-up.
Average anomaly of the purported pause period is -0.11C (Jan 1981 – Dec 1997, UAH6.5 data: rejected pre 1981 data as being part of the purported step-up)
Subtract 0.25C for temps prior to purported pause = -0.36
PDO switch happens from August 1976, when PDO abruptly goes from negative values to sustained positive values.
Number of months from Aug 1976 – Dec 1980 = 53
Purported step-up period (0.25C) per month is 0.0047C per month
By Dec 1978, purported step-up has reached -0.22C
By Dec 1980, purported step-up has reached -0.11C
Average anomaly Dec 1978 – Dec 1980 = -0.165
(Actual average UAH6.5 anomaly Dec 1978 – Dec 1980 = -0.13C)
Here is an example of simple calcs to determine what the average temperature anomaly should be for the Dec 1978 – Dec 1980 period, using the values you’ve given.
I get a different result to -0.05C.
I ask again, how did you calculate it? Can you show please with at least the detail I’ve given here?
A different calc, based on what you said.
Change from Dec 1978 to Dec 1980 is +0.25C of a total 0.3C of the purported step-up period.
Based on previous: average anomaly of the purported pause is -0.11C
Subtract 0.25 to get Dec 1978 value = -0.36
(By coincidence (?), that’s exactly the value we see in the UAH6.5 record for Dec 1978)
Average anomaly from Dec 1978 to Dec 1980: -0.235
That’s quite different to your estimate of -0.05C average for the same period.
Please show your calculations.
You are dyslexic, right?
Try again. Average 1980.
Dyslexic?
The satellite temperature record begins in December, 1978 and records about .25 C of this step-up.
But ok, let’s work out the average temp for 1980, based on everything you’ve said.
Average anomaly ‘pause’ period = -0.11C
Purported step-up amplitude = +0.25C from Dec 1978 to Dec 1980.
Satellite period for Dec ’78 for Dec ’80 step-up = 25 months
0.25C / 25 months = 0.01C per month: subtract that amount for each month of 1980 from -0.11C ‘pause’ period average to arrive at -0.23C for Jan 1980.
Average 1980 anomaly under your provisions = -0.17C
Quite different from your -0.05C 1980 average.
Third invitation: please show your detailed calculations.
@Mike Flynn,
“Anybody who believes stock market forecasts is a fool, well intentioned perhaps, but a fool nevertheless. Economic forecasts are even worse, if that is possible. Surely no rational person (obviously not including politicians) would give these dimwit forecasters the slightest credence!”
You are absolutely right!
What it’s worse, it is that doing those silly forecasts (always failing) they finally achieved the right of “print money” to make their previsions right. Now the stock market is no longer driven by the demand and offer of goods produced by the myriad of working people who made the true and healthy economic power of our civilization, but the demand and offer of pieces of paper.
Paper that sometimes can be sold before they have been bought allowing the stock operators to literally make money leading to bankrupt healthy companies.
I don’t know Mike, but it looks like that everywhere statistical analyses have been used without care, produced damages.
Have a great day
Massimo
A ‘skeptic’ anti-capitalist. Don’t see that every day.
Hi Barry,
I don’t know why you should link the two things, anyways I’m not an anti-capitalist.
It depends on what “capitalist” means for you.
In last years that concept changed a lot, if you really believe the capitalism is just making money speculating in the stock market (as many economists believe), then yes, I’m an anti-capitalist.
But I’m absolutely convinced that it has nothing to do with the real capitalism who leaded the western countries to the highest wellness they ever experienced before.
There is no difference between allowing the stock traders to speculate and make money just dealing on the value of some certificates and print false money.
Have a great day.
Massimo
More like a true capitalist. The system we have now has been designed over time to minimize the potential for market crashes. It was all done with good intentions but it has resulted in what used to be the support systems of finance and banking becoming the tail that wags the economic dog instead of the other way around. This change has been manifested in terms like “bubble” and “too big to fail”. We will not be a true capitalist nation ever again until the economy drives the market instead of the other way around. But that isn’t likely to change without a great deal of pain because the practice of “crony capitalism” is much easier to practice with the current system.
Hi RAH,
“We will not be a true capitalist nation ever again until the economy drives the market instead of the other way around.”
Can’t say it better!
Have a great day.
Massimo
Decrying the stock exchange is a pretty socialist view. Capitalists love it, obviously. It’s the tertiary outcome of buying and selling goods for profit.
I’ve always seen it as a bit of roulette wheel.
Interesting perspective.
The commonality between climate science and stock market forecasting is — wait for it — MODELS.
Both are chaotic systems that have too many variables to model accurately. Although this means that we cannot predict finite results, we can understand fundamentals.
The laws governing stocks include Present Value, Return on Equity, Compounding Interest, etc. If a person invests in these fundamentals and diversifies, the market is your friend. It is when charlatans pitch investment paradigms that violate these laws (like Madoff) when trouble ensues.
There are also physical laws of heat transfer, SW vs. LW penetration of water, the lapse rate which expose the CO2 charlatans. Unfortunately, people fell for Madoff and Trenberth in equal fashion.
In climate science, this had led to strange twists of physical laws that are fundamental violations of established physics
Slowed cooling makes objects warmer
Insulation “creates” heat
Ocean temperatures are raised by an atmosphere that garners most of its heat from the very cooling process the ocean uses (evaporation)
How climate science forgot basic physics is a mystery that will one day be unravelled.
Right you are, Massimo, to be skeptical of the stock market hucksters and the climate hucksters, both.
Yes mpainter,
I believe that one shouldn’t be ashamed of being skeptic when something doesn’t sound good.
In late 90s, when the “new economy” had been established, I’ve been called communist from some friends for having said what I wrote above about the stock market.
Now I feel like Cassandra, because it happened exactly what I predicted those days, and they lost a bunch of money that I don’t.
IMHO one big issue of these times is that many people want ear just what they suppose it’s better in their point of view. And often prefer a rhetorical approach to discussions instead of the rational one.
I’m like S.Thomas, if it’s so easy to demonstrate the point of discussion just clearly explain me it, let me thrust my finger in the side of problem.
Have a great day.
Massimo
many people… often prefer a rhetorical approach to discussions instead of the rational one.
+1
I ask for calculations and I get sentences. Where do I sign up to your world?
Right calculations must be provided by who supports a theory not by who is skeptical of it. And they don’t suffice, they results must be observed and verified in reality.
One can’t ask a skeptic to falsify the things he/she is skeptical that they exist, if the ones who support those things don’t demonstrate that they really exist before.
The whole GHGs theory in its magnitude (even if it exists) is far to be demonstrated.
If it wasn’t true, we were not here discussing about it.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Right calculations must be provided by who supports a theory not by who is skeptical of it.
Boy, did I get that the wrong way around. mpainter proposed a claim, then I tried to verify it with some calculation. Asked him to, but he didn’t. I just knew there was something wrong with that picture.
I suppose I should verify what I mean. The latter part of the discussion is just above, starting from here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-216771
Still waiting for some calculations from mpainter…
Guess I should brace for more sentences.
Barry, you will get nothing until you show better comprehension. Everything you ask is given in my previous comments, if only you tried to read comprehendingly. For the forth time, average 1980 data
No calculations needed, that’s given in the data. Might be closer to -.04 C than -.05
I calculated 1980 average.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-216783
I get a different result to you.
4th invitation. Please show your calculations.
“Guess I should brace for more sentences.”
Should have been on that.
50 bucks says mpainter will reply in sentences again, no calc. Anyone care to back mpainter?
I made no calculations. The average is given in the data, as I have stated, how many times? You must some impairment to your comprehensive faculties, Barry Swartz.
Read the data, the UAH data, what’s wrong with you?
I made no calculations.
Finally. As I suspected. Persistence can pay off.
The average is given in the data, as I have stated
The 1980 average with no adjustments for the 0.25C ‘step-up’ is -0.04C
The trend is still 0.08C/decade Jan 1979 to Dec 1997. Nothing’s changed.
One cant ask a skeptic to falsify the things he/she is skeptical that they exist, if the ones who support those things dont demonstrate that they really exist before.
A true skeptic questions first whether they themselves understand the issue. True skepticism means subjecting one’s own opinion to rigorous testing.
No, It’s not enough just to disbelieve and then demand evidence to the contrary. That’s not skepticism. It’s contrarianism. A skeptic studies for themselves, deeply, before coming to a provisional opinion.
It’s decidedly not skepticism to dismiss evidence when presented. That, too, is contrarianism.
Barry imagines to instruct us on the principles of skepticism.
!
Mainly you.
A true skeptic constantly turns the spotlight on her own opinions. Intransigence is pretty much the opposite of skepticism.
Intransigence is the trait of the AGW hard core, with their rigid, doctrinaire theory and their inability to assimilate observations.
And when I insist on observations, then I get called “denier”, or “contrarian”.
“Contrarian” is a term of the investment world which characterized the practices of a certain class of investors. Has no place in science.
So Barry imagines himself as the fount of truth on proper skepticism. I’m amused. ☺
Down with the imperialist stock market.
Down with the communist climate change agenda.
Mercy. Bartering privately owned goods might be the way to go.
The warming of the satellite era is fully explained entirely by natural variations,specifically, the shift in the POD to its warm phase, aerosol reduction, both these in the late seventies, and then the late 20th Century warming due to reduction in cloud albedo, otherwise known as the step-up.
Masking the first of these yields two flat trends connected by the step-up and masking the step-up yields a 76 year trend without any AGW effect.
a linear trend with a low-frequency cycle will cause the step-like behavior…I discussed it here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/
Right, and if a low frequency cycle can be identified, then it starts to come together. But add another factor, such as a general “brightening”, and it’s more complex.
I am much impressed by the 98 ENSO, manifesting as it does the step-up, with its unprecedented spike and a La Nina not so cool as previous low anomalies.
My view is that only increased insolation could account for this.
This for me makes Pinatubo an intriguing phenomenon, with its permanent effect on the temperature of the lower stratosphere, seemingly.
Ah, well, speculation can be interesting.
Where’s barry when we need him… to tell dr spencer that “step-like behavior” is just a figment of his imagination. ☺ (we sure are getting a lot of milage out of these happy faces ain’t we painter?)
“a linear trend with a low-frequency cycle will cause the step-like behavior”
I said from the outset that you can find step-like periods in a linear trend. I demonstrated it by fabricating numerous data that were designed to have a trend and showing step periods of up to 50 years and then hunted for ‘pauses.’ The pauses were artefacts of the selections I made, because the quasi-random data had been deliberately designed only to display a trend.
You don’t even need a low frequency cycle, just careful cherry-picking.
“I demonstrated it by fabricating numerous data that were designed to have a trend and showing step periods of up to 50 years…”
###
Fabrication? You demonstrated _what_ by fabrication? The real world?
Sounds like fun!☺
This is one of the ways you can test a hypothesis based on real world data. Create synthetic data of same variance and trend and see if what you think you see occurs in data with the same statistical properties. That’s what I did. Created data with same trend and variance as lower trop. Did I find pauses? Yes. Were they of similar duration? Yes. Were they at exactly the same timing? No.
Synthetic data with the same trend and variance as lower trop produced what looked like pauses. Therefore the variance can explain pauses. Because the pauses weren’t built in to the synthesis, only trend and variance.
Hi fonz,
What Barry in fact claimed was that the step-up was “an artefact of data selection”.
Interestingly, Roy Spencer seems to be one of those who engage in “data selection”. I trust that Barry will show him the error of his ways and the pitfalls of “data selection”.☺
As Roy explained, a “step up” is a mirage due to the effect of two behaviours.
In your case it is due to a linear trend (global warming) plus an erratic ENSO cycle.
i.e. Your “step up” (which only you can see) does not represent a physical process on its own.
I suggest you take up another hobby and leave science to the big boys.
Hi Barry,
“A true skeptic questions first whether they themselves understand the issue”
For your knowledge, I’m an electronic engineer and in the past I designed a lot of things (I’m not retired so I still design), some professionally and other just for passion.
So it happens that I designed a 0.1nm resolution UV/Vis/IR
spectrometer having solid state and photomultiplier detectors with 90dB of dynamic, doing that I learnt on the field what’s the difference between regular and diffused transmittance, regular transmittance for EM active gaseous samples never give a complete amount of energy that passes through the gaseous sample.
My skepticism arises because some climatologists want to use those regular transmittance spectra to stablish the effect of well know EM active gases.
I wasn’t thinking of you personally when I posted.
So, I little know about what I wrote, but of course I could be wrong when I argue that nobody really knows what’s the real outgoing LWIR at the TOA. I repeat, it suffices one paper which show me that someone has considered the whole non-nadir radiation, and I stop my skepticism about that.
Have a great day.
Massimo
I agree.
You appear to know little about what you comment on.
For example, do you understand “solid angles”?
Why don’t you just say what you want to say, instead of asking witless gotchas?
Or do you really not understand what a solid angle is? If you do, what is the point of your question?
Are you just trying to be gratuitously offensive? A fairly puerile effort, if so.
Do let me know if you really don’t “understand solid angles”. I’ll be glad to instruct you how to search the Wide Workd of the Web.
Foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
Hi Dr.No,
tell me what do you want know about solid angles?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo,
Or even at night, or in the depths of Winter.
The foolish Warmists don’t even realise that light covers all energies, from the indescribably small, to the unimaginably large.
Some Warmists don’t realise that terms such as TOA, ECS, TCS, ERL, and suchlike, are convenient fictions, generally not as useful as a frictionless surface, or infinite plane.
Some Warmists don’t realise that the atmosphere changes in both physical and optical thickness between the poles and the equator, and chaotically and unpredicably in all locations.
CO2 Warmists ascribe physically impossible heating properties to CO2.
Foolish Warmists cannot even state a falsifiable CO2 heating hypothesis, but insist one must exist, otherwise CO2 Warmists must all be foolish, gullible, delusional, or some combination of the three.
Hence, some of them lurch off into discussions of politics, economics, Big Oil, conspiracies, or any thing else which enables them to deny, divert, and confuse.
What a pack of foolish Warmists!
Cheers.
The foolish Warmists dont even realise that light covers all energies, from the indescribably small, to the unimaginably large.
Not ‘light.’ That’s what we call the spectrum visible to humans. You mean ‘electromagnetic radiation.’
If you are not human, I apologize.
Some Warmists dont realise that the atmosphere changes in both physical and optical thickness between the poles and the equator
I certainly realize that. Tropopause is nearer the surface at the poles, for example. Water vapour is in different concentrations all over the atmosphere, for example. To a much lesser degree, same with CO2.
CO2 Warmists ascribe physically impossible heating properties to CO2
I don’t. But you say bizzarre stuff to me as if you believe I do.
Like things about removing IR and CO2 cools. A useless observation regarding the effect we’re discussing. The Earth isn’t going to stop emitting IR any time soon. Atmospheric CO2 will continue to absorb and re-emit it.
Mike, are you imagining that “warmists” believe CO2 molecules create energy?
GHGs don’t create energy. They redirect it.
The external power source is the sun.
IR emitted from the surface of the Earth that would otherwise head straight out to space is scattered by GHGs. The net effect is to slow that escape to space. Back radiation to the surface warms it. No energy is created or destroyed, only the flow is affected.
That part is pretty simple to understand.
Barry spouts: “Back radiation to the surface warms it.”
Barry you are lost in a big ocean with a sinking canoe and no paddle.
Barry, the more astute AGW types have abandoned the “back radiation warms the surface” meme. The Trenberth type energy budget diagrams have been discarded, as it is obvious that they violate fundamental radiative physics: LWIR cannot warm water.
Slowly, inch by inch, the AGW meme is being modified to agree with the principles of physics formerly ignored. This is due to skeptics.
Much more revision is needed, however. This will take place as the pause extends through the next decade.
It starts with “back radiation to the surface warms it”
Then, when LWIR proves incapable of warming water (70% of the earth’s surface), the claim changes to “slows cooling”
Then, when slowing cooling proves incapable of raising ocean temperatures above direct insolation, the argument switches back to LWIR warms the ocean surface and the wind mixes it. Usually with a link to the ridiculous Tangaroa (sp) study on Skeptical Science.
Of course, wind enhances evaporation which definitively cools the ocean surface.
Lastly, It all devolves to a 97% scientists final claim, and then the roosters kick over all the chess pieces and strut across the board claiming victory.
AGW, the religion of post-modern science.
barry,
I was using the term in the physical, rather than the foolish Warmist sense –
“In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.” Or you could read Richard Feynman’s book “The strange interaction between light and matter”, if you want more.
Even so, it appears that some Warmists refer to ultraviolet light, and infrared light. Maybe they don’t know they’re wrong according to you.
I find light easier to use than electromagnetic radiation, but please feel free to substitute electromagnetic radiation when I write light. It makes no difference, as far as I can see. Sorry if I assumed you were more physics literate than you are.
I said “some” Warmists. I am pleased you agree there is no fixed TOA or ERL in physical terms.
Any normal physicist knows that without replacing radiated energy, a body will eventually fall to absolute zero (in theory, of course). CO2 is no different in this regard.
CO2 has no intrinsic heating properties. At absolute zero it can heat precisely nothing, not even itself
CO2 has no intrinsic heating properties. At absolute zero it can heat precisely nothing, not even itself
Perhaps someone out there believes GHGs are sources of energy. Go and repeat this refrain to them. You’re talking to me and this is a straw man argument.
In the real world (Earth system) infrared radiation is a constant. So is the greenhouse effect.
Barry identifies Warmists “Perhaps someone out there believes GHGs are sources of energy.”
Barry the basis of the IPCC scandal is “radiative forcing”! Do you not understand that? It is creating energy out of thin air.
‘Radiative forcing’ includes solar, GHGs, aerosols, black carbon, albedo etc.
The IPCC does not claim that added GHGs cause more energy in the whole atmosphere. GHG ‘forcing’ is about the redistribution of energy. More GHGs cause more warming at the surface, not throughout the atmosphere. That’s the IPCC posit.
Treating the atmosphere as an undifferentiated slab is century old thinking.
You’re wrong Barry. The IPCC uses the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation to arrive at about 2 Watts/sq. meter–energy from “thin air” (400ppm).
You’re attempting to support pseudoscience. Your canoe is rapidly sinking.
No and no.
I’ve asked for a cite from IPCC reports that they use “Arrhenius’ equation” as the working basis. No one ever comes up with the goods.
Arrhenius came up with a climate sensitivity of 5.6K per doubling CO2. That’s a lot more than IPCC.
They hide it in the references they use. Translation: They know it is bogus!
barry,
Sorry. Accidentally sent before. Please excuse any typos.
CO2 can only heat things cooler than itself, or be heated by hotter things. A sample of CO2 and a sample of O2 at the same temperature, are in thermal equilibrium with each other. Each receives as much light (or energy, if you don’t understand light), as it emits. And both will eventually reach equilibrium with their surrounding environment, be it 0 K, or 1000 K.
I am glad you realise that GHGs don’t create energy. They heat nothing. Redirecting energy heats nothing overall, either. No foolish Warmist misdirection about back radiation will magically create additional energy resulting in a rise in temperature.
For example, the foolish Warmist Gavin Schmidt breathlessly proclaims “Hottest year EVAH”, indicating an absolute global temperature increase. As you point out, the Sun’s output remained constant, so redirecting its energy does not change the total heating effect available.
There are a few blindingly obvious reasons for terrestrial thermometers to show increases in temperature over time. I am aware of at least one peer reviewed paper published in a reputable journal recently, based on data supporting conventional, rather than Warmist physics, showing one such reason.
CO2 fixated Warmists cannot tear themselves away from the cultist thinking of James “Death Trains” Hansen, and his odd predictions of boiling seas, apocalyptic storms, Venusian conditions, and all the other cult leader scary stuff.
No heating due to CO2. None. No increase in global temperature due to CO2. Objects heated by the Sun during the day, cool down at night. Fourier noted this, and added that at night, the Earth also loses a part of its own heat. He endeavoured to calculate the Earth by using heat loss measurements, and extrapolating backwards. Like Lord Kelvin, he was wrong, not being aware of heat created by radioactive mass conversion to energy.
Now’s your chance to accuse me of being a communist, capitalist, or some other -ist, if you can’t find any actual facts to support your CO2 heating hypothesis. Best of luck.
Cheers.
Redirecting energy heats nothing overall…
A focussed mirror will heat things locally.
The universe has an average temperature, but elements within get hotter and colder all the time.
Redirecting energy changes nothing “overall”, but it does change temperature locally – as in in the surface of the Earth. That’s why we have seasons. Insolation is redirected by orbital dynamics.
GHGs redirect energy through the atmosphere, causing the surface to be warmer than it would be with no GHGs. The radiative balance between the energy coming from the sun must be in equilibrium, but the temperature of various strata of the atmosphere may change according to how energy is directed.
A pot of water with a lid boils faster than a pot without. The overall energy is the same, just redistributed over time.
I add sweaters to my body and I get warmer. The overall emissivity remains the same, but the thin layer of air near my skin gets warmer.
Energy is redistributed, not created. This is the cause of the greenhouse effect.
barry,
I said overall. If you redistribute energy, to heat something, you cool something else. Or does the miracle of CO2 heating mean that nothing cools down, when you redistribute energy away from it?
Sorry, not possible.
If an object is warming, there is no equilibrium. In an object is cooling, there is no equilibrium. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. No equilibrium.
As to your foolish Warmist pointless and irrelevant analogies, taking refuge in pot lids is just as foolish as claiming that any number of sweaters on a corpse will raise its temperature. Place a pot with a lid in the Sun. The water heats more slowly than without the lid. It eventually reaches the same temperature anyway. More foolish Warmist denial and obfuscation.
CO2 heats nothing. As for concentrating or redistributing energy, foolish Warmists believe that it is possible to concentrate 300 W/m2 in such a way as heat water. A block of ice at below freezing emits more than 300 W/m2. Try concentrating that emission to boil water. Use as many cubic kilometres of ice as you like.
Foolish Warmists don’t understand what they are talking about.
No heating due to CO2 in the atmosphere. Rather the opposite, according to radiative transfer equations.
Cheers.
A focused mirror??? Implying the atmosphere is now a focused mirror?
Nope. It was an example in response to a general comment.
A “focused mirror”??? Implying the atmosphere is now a “focused mirror”?
Seriously?
Barry, you are really getting desperate.
A focused mirror??? Implying the atmosphere is now a focused mirror?
Nope. It was a response to a comment that was not specific to the atmosphere.
See how desperate you are–even submitting the same comment twice!
So, you now admit the “focused mirror” has NOTHING to do with the atmosphere, huh?
Occasionally I hit the wrong ‘reply’ button, and then repost to the correct thread when I’ve noticed it.
So, you now admit the focused mirror has NOTHING to do with the atmosphere, huh?
The remark was in response to this point.
Redirecting energy heats nothing overall
Which is not specifically about the atmosphere but about radiative dynamics in general.
There’s nothing to admit.
I said overall. If you redistribute energy, to heat something, you cool something else. Or does the miracle of CO2 heating mean that nothing cools down, when you redistribute energy away from it?
Yes, things cool down in the atmosphere under GHG warming. The lower strat gets cooler under GHG warming scenario.
Thought exercise: can you tell me what cools down when you put a lid over a pot?
And if I put 4 tight sweaters on at once, what cools down as a result?
The overall ‘system’ in these examples create no energy. But heat is redistributed. So the water gets warmer with a lid on the top of the pot and my skin gets warmer with added layers of tight sweaters.
What cools in these examples?
Time-dependent answers are acceptable. 🙂
Should have been more specific:
Thought exercise: can you tell me what cools down when you put a lid over a pot that is heated underneath by an element at 120C?
Barry, to answer your question, “what cools down?” (while not entirely accurate as a question) is the air above the pot.
barry,
I don’t think your foolish Wsrmist attempts to deny, divert, and obscure are working all that well.
You seem to be obsessed with demanding that I answer questions when you are quite obviously not seeking knowledge. Foolish Warmist tactics. As I said, put as many sweaters as you like on a corpse. It still won’t heat up.
It doesn’t matter how you redistribute non existent heat from the Sun at night. There isn’t any appreciable amount. The surface cools. So does the atmosphere, apparently. Maybe you think it heats up to restore some Warmist balance. I don’t, obviously.
How about sticking to the supposed heating abilities of CO2? There aren’t any of course, but fixated foolish Warmists cannot accept fact.
Cheers.
As I said, put as many sweaters as you like on a corpse.
You keep repeating this irrelevant point.
The earth has a heat source – the sun.
A live body has a heat source – internal chemical processes.
A corpse is not an apt analogy for the Earth. Red herring.
What is cooled when a live body gets covered in sweaters? Overall emissivity stays the same, so why is the air near the skin warmer?
To repeat myself – what cools – again, not an accurate question, is the surrounding air, which no longer receives the heat from the covered body.
How about sticking to the supposed heating abilities of CO2?
What would the average surface temperature of the earth be the same as it is if there were no GHGs?
There’s only one correct answer to this. As your position is unclear, a direct answer would be appreciated. Just be straight with the question, please.
barry,
You wrote –
“What would the average surface temperature of the earth be the same as it is if there were no GHGs?”
Could you please write your question in plain English, rather than Warmese? As written, it doesn’t appear to make any sense.
Cheers.
sweaters on a corpse
You keep referring to an object that has no replensishing heat source. Please stop. It’s irrelevant. The Earth and its atmosphere have a constant heat source.
Like a live body, not a corpse.
(Mind you, a decaying body gives off some small amount of heat for a time, but quite negligible compared to a live one)
barry,
Place the corpse in the Sun if you wish. That might heat it up. As I’ve pointed out, I insulate my house to keep it cool. I live where there are a lot of sunlight hours, in the tropics. It still cools down at night.
The Earths internal heat source is insufficient to maintain its surface temperature.
It has cooled for four and a half billion years as a result.
How about just pasting a falsifiable hypothesis of the Warmist CO2 heating effect? I’m pretty sure you can’t because there isn’t one.
Back to pot lids, sweaters, Big Oil, or anything but the Warmist heating properties of CO2, I guess.
Keep wishing. Miracles or magic might occur.
Cheers.
Back to pot lids, sweaters, Big Oil, or anything but the Warmist heating properties of CO2, I guess.
I don’t know what “warmist heating propertis” are. Something in your mind about GHGs being a source of energy. As I’ve stated that’s not my opinion, I don’t know why you keep inferring that it is.
I’ve explained how GHGs keep the surface warmer. You haven’t dealt with that except to talk about corpses and CO2 as some magical heat source.
Whoever you think you’re talking to, it clearly isn’t me.
I’m interested in your answer to my question below. As you’ve done a lot of rejecting and hardly any propounding (except about “warmists” and corpses), it’s unclear how you formulate the role of IR absorbing gases in the atmos and that effect on the surface. You tell me what you think GHGs cannot do, but very little about what they do do.
barry,
Foolish Warmists claim that the presence of GHGs in the atmosphere raise the temperature of the surface, (not just keep it warmer). As in “Hottest year EVAH!”
It’s clearly nonsensical.
To raise the temperature of the surface requires additional energy. You apparently claim that after four and a half billion years of cooling, CO2 is redistributing heat from the Sun to cause the cooling to stop, and the surface to increase its temperature. As in “Hottest year EVAH!”
CO2 has never been shown to have this property. Even foolish Warmists are unable to put forward a falsifiable hypothesis to support such magical behaviour. Just more attempts to deny, divert, and confuse.
How about a repeatable experiment, showing the Warming heating abilities of CO2? Not the ability of CO2 to be heated – which it shares with all matter. You can’t.
Cheers.
Place the corpse in the Sun if you wish.
But I don’t wish. You have been asked straightforward questions. Seems you want to keep deflecting to corpses and warmists. Your interests have been noted. Hopefully you can move on.
Your choice. I’m trying to discuss the suppose heating properties of CO2. You can’t actually point to any, or even propose a suitable falsifiable hypothesis.
That’s the nature of foolish Warmists.
Cheers.
How about sticking to the supposed heating abilities of CO2?
Would the average surface temperature of the earth be the same as it is if there were no GHGs?
Your position is a little unclear. A direct answer would be appreciated. Just be straight with the question, please.
barry,
The direct answer to your question is no, of course.
Let me know if there are any other questions to which you don’t know the answer.
It’s a foolish Warmist trait to make a statement masquerading as a question. I assume you’re not foolish enough to try that. I might be wrong, of course.
Cheers.
Barry is flailing around mid-ocean trying to save himself. His canoe sank minutes ago.
Then we are agreed that GHGs in Earth’s atmosphere affect the temperature at the surface.
Let me know if there are any other questions to which you dont know the answer.
I’ve been saying that since we started interacting. Took your time to agree with me.
So, GHGs in the atmosphere do have an effect on energy at the surface. Looked like you’d been trying every trick in the book to dismiss that fact.
So, if we add or remove GHGs in the atmspohere, that changes the net energy at the surface, right?
Barry,
Yes, you are correct. According to NASA (not always reliable, I admit), the atmosphere results in around 23% of the Suns radiation not reaching the surface.
GHGs are part of the atmosphere.
Hence the reduction in surface temperature in direct sunlight below that which is possible in the absence of an atmosphere (including GHGs).
Foolish Warmist. Use the radiative transfer equations. At night the temperature drops, but not as much as it would without any atmosphere. Use the radiative transfer equations, if you want to check. Or Newton’s Law of Cooling.
You may think what you like. Foolish Warmist.
How’s your falsiable hypothesis hunt going! Or are of the view that Warmists don’t need no stinkin’ real science – Cargo Cult Science is sufficient for foolish Warmists!
Cheers.
barry,
I don’t need “tricks”. They seem to useful to foolish Warmists – as in “Mike’s Nature trick”. The foolish Warmist version of science. Fools. It’s a travesty, as a noted foolish Warmist said.
Cheers.
Poor Mike.
Would you rather spend a winter’s night, out in the open, under a clear sky or a cloudy sky?
I would prefer a cloudy sky since it will be much warmer.
But, I hear you exclaim, the clouds- like CO2- cannot warm you.
Then, why am I warmer?
AND – You have not explained why, in your own words, the presence of the atmosphere slows down the surface cooling at night.
i.e.you admit and deny a greenhouse effect at the same time !
Poor confused skeptic.
Cheers.
dr doesn’t know queries “Then, why am I warmer?”
You don’t understand heat transfer.
I’ve explained the reasons for the atmosphere slowing down the rate of cooling at night, as the obverse of the mechanism which reduces the rate of heating during the day. The radiative transfer equations give you some idea of the numbers involved.
Foolish Warmists have some weird ideas about the properties of the atmosphere.
There is no greenhouse effect. Even foolish Warmists get tongue tied trying to describe the operation of a greenhouse with no walls, and no roof, which has been steadily cooling for four and a half billion years.
That’s foolish Warmists for you. Cargo Cult Science at its finest.
How’s your “CO2 heating “falsifiable hypothesis going?
Cheers.
I repeat – why am I warmer?
Does it have something to do with the presence of H2O in the clouds – way up in the sky – maybe about 1km up?
Sometimes the clouds could be cirrus – even further away – maybe 10km up in the sky – yet, still, they have a significant effect on overnight surface temperatures.
Strange – isn’t it?
But (I hear you say) – that has nothing to do with CO2.
Why, I ask? Both H2O and CO2 absorb and emit in the relevant wavelength bands.
More H2O would mean higher surface temperatures.
Ditto CO2.
Simple really.
Discuss.
How’s your falsifiable CO2 heating hypothesis going?
Can’t actually find one? What a surprise!
Cheers.
So tell me, foolish Warmist, what has your preference to do with the supposed heating ability of CO2?
Your pathetic attempts at gotchas are both pointless and irrelevant.
I’m sure you would prefer a proper blanket or sleeping bag to all the CO2 heating ability in the world, but I might be wrong.
The ability of CO2 to raise the surface temperature of the Earth, or even a small brick, is precisely zero.
No amount of deny, divert, and confuse will overcome this simple fact. You may whine all you wish about people refusing to obey your commands and demands, but CO2 still heats nothing.
If you don’t know the difference between CO2 (a gas), and a cloud (not a gas), then it would seem you are eminently unsuitable to provide factual information about either.
Clouds, like CO2 provide no heat. Anybody silly enough not to take shelter from the blazing sun when there is shade provided by a cloud, might not realise this. Foolish Warmists, and mad dogs, go out in the midday sun! Rational people stay in the shade.
Provide a falsifiable CO2 heating hypothesis if you choose. Otherwise, I’ll continue to use foolish Warmists as a source of humour, even the butt of an occasional joke.
Cheers.
“If you dont know the difference between CO2 (a gas), and a cloud (not a gas), then it would seem you are eminently unsuitable to provide factual information about either.”
I see, you think it is the difference between gases and liquids that affects the surface temperatures.
You imply that H2O as a gas does not absorb and emit infrared radiation the same way as H2O as liquid droplets. That is an interesting viewpoint.
Barry, you are doing an admirable job trying to educate the ignorant.
I fear it is a lost cause with this mob.
Your fears are well justified. But keep going. Maybe you can threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue in the face!
That’ll fix ’em! Or give them a good laugh! Who knows?
Cheers.
Mike, go and stand in the naughty corner until the bell sounds.
doctor no,
If I don’t, will you throw a tantrum? Please?
Cheers.
I will have to keep you in and subject you to another lecture on the science of greenhouse warming. You would like that (not) !
Mike,
Hence the reduction in surface temperature in direct sunlight below that which is possible in the absence of an atmosphere (including GHGs).
I thought you understood that the hypothetical was only about removing GHGs. Let’s try again so we’re on the same page.
If everything else in the atmposphere was the same (including pressure), but all GHGs removed, do you believe the temperature at the surface would be the same?
Yes or no?
You foolish Warmist.
Can you not understand plain English?
Are you stupid, or just addicted to asking witless gotchas for some bizarre reason?
There is no greenhouse effect.
Fill a room with CO2, the temperature will not increase.
You can’t even produce a falsifiable hypothesis proposing heating due to the presence of CO2 in any concentration at all. Cargo Cult Science, without even the suggestion of a repeatable experiment to support your insistent hand waving. You may choose to follow an incompetent pack of blundering, bumbling, bearded balding buffoons. I wish you contentment.
I prefer fact to fantasy. Foolish Warmists prefer fantasy to fact. If you are asking me whether removing GHGs from the atmosphere results in higher temperatures, it cerainly does in tropical arid deserts. Foolish Warmists don’t believe their own lying eyes, obviously. They foolishly think that reducing GHGs results in lower temperatures for some magical reasons.
No heating due to CO2. Never has been, never will be. Even foolish Warmists such as Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann are arguing with each other. Surprise, surprise. They’re equally foolish.
Cheers.
Barry, Mike answered previously, he said ‘no’.
GHG’s would include methane, CO2, H2O and what else?
It seems many of the arguments here have devolved to… Let me go a different direction.
Their are 3 things going in the kind Dr. Spencer’s blog –
climate and weather discussions, politics and other. Dr. Spencer’s job and, I believe, passion, is weather and climate. He comes to politics kicking and screaming, but not afraid. He maintains this blog to spread information about his passion. It is always interesting to read, and try to understand, the pieces about weather and climate.
But politics has entered the Drs realm. Those who believe mankind to be a bad actor have seized upon carbon, specifically CO2, as representative of the bad acts of humankind. Currently their focus is to browbeat naysayers into submission so those who would curtail the work of industrial man are not interfered with by those who dont agree. Theirs is a religious pogrom. Much of that goes on here.
That Dr. Spencer lets this go on is a tribute to his belief in the right to individual opinion; the right of association and free speech; his belief in freedom, even to be wrong. Of those who come here with differing political opinions than his, I cannot say the same.
Well stated, Lewis!
* The word ‘warmist’ gets 116 hits on this page alone, once every 7 posts on average.
Political identification. It’s the biggest game in town.
barry is a warmist.
117
Lewis,
Mike was answering a different question to the one I asked, as he later revealed. I asked if the temperature of the surface would be the same if there were no GHGs. He said, “no.” I thought he was agreeing that GHGs have an impact. But in the next post he revealed he had answered the question with the qualifier “without an atmosphere” in his mind. So I clarified the question.
He never answered my second question directly. But after a coupe of days posting I finally got him to say outright that he doesn’t believe there is a greenhouse effect.
Dr Spencer disagrees, and has banned people who promote this crankish idea – when they spam the message too often.
I’m with Dr Spencer. Mike isn’t.
I’m not interested in politics. Mike is.
Most of the political inference is from skeptics here. The tribalism is strongest in those. We see words like “warmists,” “alarmists,” constantly*. And comments like;
Currently their focus is to browbeat naysayers into submission so those who would curtail the work of industrial man are not interfered with by those who dont agree. Theirs is a religious pogrom. Much of that goes on here.
That is pure fantasy. That sort of thing might go on in other places – places I don’t visit – but not here.
It seems you yourself want to bring politics into the discussion. Or is it religion? Whatever.
I doubt you are a “warmist,” though, eh?
One of the most common habits of commenters here is to talk about the enemy tribe. That’s basically political. The exceptions for the most part are Massimo and Werner and David. Not many others.
Barry,
It seems you took it personally. Nothing was directed towards you. I was making a general observation as I have been reading this blog for some years.
Have a nice day.
Lewis
* The word warmist gets 116 hits on this page alone, once every 7 posts on average.
Political identification. Its the biggest game in town.
Your answer is no.
And you have finally outright said “There is no greenhouse effect.”
Good.
You misunderstand Tyndall’s experiment. Did you happen to get your misinformation from a blog such as this?
http://planetaryvision.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/why-tyndalls-experiment-does-not-prove.html
(You may find the comments section interesting. The author makes a few critical errors that are familiar to our discussion)
Clearly you dent the optical properties of GHGs. You already poo-pooed the phrase, so that’s clear enough.
barry,
Maybe you should read what Tyndall actually wrote. Tyndall demonstrated, and meticulously recorded, that gases which absorb radiation result in less radiation reaching his thermopile, and lower temperatures resulted.
As he pointed out with a diagram, an example using a solid rather than a gas, to show why this should be.
Foolish Warmists ignore his experimental results.
Even Dr Spencer cannot actually produce a falsifiable hypothesis relating to the planet heating properties of CO2. I make a distinction between foolish Warmists, and Warmists generally. I don’t consider Dr Spencer to be a foolish Warmist, just a Warmist
Foolish Warmists use terms like “climate denier” as a derogatory term for anyone who disagrees with them.
Who denies that weather exists? No one of course. Climate is the average of weather. Who denies the existence of climate? No one.
Foolish Warmists redefine words as they wish, to suit their current foolish purpose.
Foolish Warmists deny that the Earth has cooled. Maybe they are right. Maybe the Earth was created cold – my assumption is that the surface was once molten. If so, I’m right, and the foolish Warmists are wrong, wrong, wrong!
But still, no falsifiable hypothesis relating to the planet heating abilities of CO2. Warmists call this science?
It makes no difference, barry. Regardless of James “Death Trains” Hansen’s predictions of imminent doom, it seems like the rest of the world (the vast majority) will continue to ignore the beatings of a handful of misguided foolish Warmists.
Thank goodness. More CO2 good, less CO2 bad. Try growing plants without water and carbon dioxide, both resulting from hydrocarbon combustion. Even your cells produce CO2 and H2O. It can’t be all bad, can it?
Cheers.
Hi Dr.No,
I repeat the question here, so you don’t miss it
Tell me what do you want know about solid angles?
If you referred to my “less than a degree” I just remember you that the slits of spectrometer are asymmetric to improve the detector sensitivity, so their FOV s monodimensional.
If you don’t believe me go to the web site of most satellites on board instruments and see what is the FOV unit.
Sorry, here you are a Dr. but not better than me.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Sorry, I would write “anisotropic” instead of asymmetric.
Hi Massimo,
Yes, now it makes sense. The gas molecules in the upper atmosphere emit isotropically, the instrument records anisotropic EM.
Hi mpainter,
I don’t believe that the anisotropic detected EM flux it’s a real issue indeed, the problem is that it is only the coherent detected EM flux the one detected.
CERES instruments (which are radiometers with scanning mirrors in front of the input slit) do the measurements better, in fact Lindzen & Choi using their data got a lesser CO2 “forcing” (please excuse me if I put “forcing” between quotation marks, but I’m an EE and for us forcings and feedbacks are little different things).
They found the CERES measurement noisy, and attributed that noise to the clouds pattern below, but I suspect that in part that noise could be due to the different spectra at different FOV angles.
If I’m right (“if” of course), it meant that the CO2 “forcing” could be much lesser than we thought. Because as the FOV approaches the atmospheric limb, the CO2 become a “feedback”.
Have a great day.
Massimo
barry says, July 8, 2016 at 11:13 AM:
“The study is about the relative insulating properties of IR absorbing gases and low transfer coatings on glass for double-glazed insulation. Simple experiments like this are done at the high school level in all sorts of ways, confirming that CO2 absorbs radiation, heating the volume. For an experiment that more accurately reflects the amplitude of this effect in the atmosphere you need a deeper experimental column of atmosphere than a few millimeters.”
IOW, you didn’t read the paper. Barry, you’re clearly the one who’s in denial. The radiative properties of pure CO2 gas isn’t able to reduce the heat transfer through a medium any more than pure air does. That’s even without convection included (horizontal window heated from above). With convection included, this is what the paper finds:
So exactly the opposite of what you assert, that you need a deeper column of air to appreciate the full strength of the radiative effect. No, the deeper the column of air, the more convection takes over the transport of heat through the medium, and so any potential radiative effects on that transport are effectively annulled …
The larger vertical gap widths are measured in the 10s of millimetres. To run an experiment for the free atmosphere you’d need a vacuum chamber tall enough to include the tropospheric lapse rate. The size of the apparatus is cost-ineffective when we have laboratory experiments of the optical properties of CO2.
Yep, convection is also part of the atmosphere – but the paper is talking about convective effects in a narrow space, not an atmospheric column.
There’s a small irony here – the ‘greenhouse’ effect is a misnomer, though people who know anything about it aren’t misled. The apparatus for the experiment you’ve cited reflects a greenhouse much more than the real atmosphere.
The real (cost-effective) experiment is empirically based and the results are in the HITRAN spectroscopy data base. There is no question CO2 absorbs infrared. None. But high school students all over the world set up apparatus to see that adding CO2 to a volume receiving radiant energy causes changes in temperature, to the volume (increase), or to a monitor situated on the other side of the volume (decrease).
Variations of such experiments can be found on you tube. Mythbusters performed one as carefully as they could. Tyndall’s experiment was the first formally published.
There are also empirical studies of observations in the spectra associated with CO2 through the atmos and ground-based instruments, recording a darkening in those spectra from altitude, and a brightening recorded by ground instruments over time.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect is real, corroborated by independent lines of evidence. Even the experiment you cited notes the optical (IR absorbing) properties of CO2.
barry says, July 12, 2016 at 8:55 AM:
“The larger vertical gap widths are measured in the 10s of millimetres. To run an experiment for the free atmosphere youd need a vacuum chamber tall enough to include the tropospheric lapse rate. The size of the apparatus is cost-ineffective when we have laboratory experiments of the optical properties of CO2.”
Yes, no one disputes the optical (radiative) properties of CO2, barry. What we dispute is the THERMAL EFFECT of these properties on the surface of the Earth. Where is the real-world evidence of this? Please remind us …
“Yep, convection is also part of the atmosphere but the paper is talking about convective effects in a narrow space, not an atmospheric column.”
Exactly. Convective effects are even larger in an atmospheric column. You know, evaporation and condensation effects included …
“Theres a small irony here the greenhouse effect is a misnomer, though people who know anything about it arent misled. The apparatus for the experiment youve cited reflects a greenhouse much more than the real atmosphere.”
Does it indeed? Once again, barry, please remind us, where is the real-world evidence of +CO2_atm -> +T_sfc?
“The real (cost-effective) experiment is empirically based and the results are in the HITRAN spectroscopy data base.”
Er, no, because that specifically excludes convection barry. Hence my reference to the paper in question. The Beer-Lambert law only works when the air column is completely static and the heat transfer completely ruled by radiative transfer. In real life it isn’t. Far from it …
“There is no question CO2 absorbs infrared. None.”
Who claims there’s a question …? But what this paper shows is that CO2 aborbing (and emitting) IR is not equal to a *thermal effect* resulting from it, barry. Read the paper …
“But high school students all over the world set up apparatus to see that adding CO2 to a volume receiving radiant energy causes changes in temperature, to the volume (increase), or to a monitor situated on the other side of the volume (decrease).”
Yes, when and if the experiment is set up as to NOT resemble the real atmosphere, it is …
“The atmospheric greenhouse effect is real, corroborated by independent lines of evidence. Even the experiment you cited notes the optical (IR absorbing) properties of CO2.”
The atmospheric TEMPERATURE effect on the solar-heated surface of the Earth is very real. It simply isn’t caused by the Earth’s own thermal radiation. That’s an effect of temperature, not a cause of it …
Meaning, the surface temperature determines air temperature, as over the oceans, where air temperature is always slightly less than SST. The AGW crowd is backing off from their exaggerated back radiation claims. They now confess that LWIR cannot warm the oceans.
Mike Flynn says: “Ascribing vague magical properties . . . CO2 has optical properties . . . is just trotting out meaningless sciencey rubbish.”
Yes, there are people who deny it.
Yes, no one disputes the optical (radiative) properties of CO2
Mike Flynn does.
barry. What we dispute is the THERMAL EFFECT of these properties on the surface of the Earth. Where is the real-world evidence of this? Please remind us
Infrared radiation cannot physically warm anything? Is that what you’re saying? That only energy in the solar spectrum can do this?
Observed evidence:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
What thermal structure of the atmosphere is necessary for convection to occur, Kristian?
That only energy in the solar spectrum can do this?
Should have said ‘visible light’ spectrum. Sunlight includes non-visible spectra, of course.
barry:
“Infrared radiation cannot physically warm anything? Is that what youre saying? That only energy in the solar spectrum can do this?”
*Sigh* No, barry, that’s not what I’m saying. You’re not this stupid.
“What thermal structure of the atmosphere is necessary for convection to occur, Kristian?”
Is CO2 causing convection to occur, barry? Or is the Sun? Is CO2 causing the negative tropospheric temperature gradient necessary for there to be a “radiative greenhouse effect” as defined?
Mike Flynn says: Ascribing vague magical properties . . . CO2 has optical properties . . . is just trotting out meaningless sciencey rubbish.
Yes, there are people who deny it.
Except CO2 adds insignificantly to the GHE, being redundant in its radiative properties to water vapor and clouds.
mpainter, would you kindly tell Mike Flynn, Kristian and geran that there is a greenhouse effect at all? You might get more traction with them than I do.
barry,
I am impressed with your patience with the nonscientists who continue to attack your posts without the ability to understand the content of what you post. I have also tried to explain the physics to them but it is beyond them to understand how the process of GHE works. I have even linked them to actual measurements of daily downwelling IR and it does not seem to open their minds. I would suggest not attempting to change their strongly held beliefs as it is not possible to do.
Roy Spencer has had a number of posts on how the GHE works and why but they do not understand it. They falsely believe you are saying that Carbon Dioxide is a heat source itself (not acting by redirecting the continuous flow of IR radiation) and will not try to understand what you are actually stating.
Norman! I’ve been missing your ridiculous pseudoscience. Do you still believe cabbages emit visible light?
Geran, i think your losing your touch… It’s “NORMIE!” (☺)
They falsely believe you are saying that Carbon Dioxide is a heat source itself (not acting by redirecting the continuous flow of IR radiation) and will not try to understand what you are actually stating.
So it seems.
I’ve linked to observations of upwelling and downwelling IR in the spectra associated with CO2, too. Made by satellites for the former, no less, the platform for the blog-owner’s data. People sure have a knack of selectively dismissing data that doesn’t fit with their view – but accepting data from the same source when it does.
I was never fooled that I had reasonable interlocutors – denying the greenhouse effect is pretty out there – but it’s been entertaining nevertheless.
Downwelling IR is NOT proof of the GHE! Claiming such nonsense is pseudoscience. A fruit tree emits IR. Does a Warmist advocate cutting down all fruit trees?
actually, I believe that downwelling IR *is* proof of the GHE. It is almost always measured with temperature devices, like a bolometer or thermopile, which are designed to be sensitive to IR wavelengths. Since they measure a temperature increase in response to increasing downwelling IR (the self-emission of IR by the device is also taken into account), that — by definition — *IS* the greenhouse effect (the temperature increase in response to downwelling IR).
Well then, get out your chainsaw and start cutting down all those peach trees to “save the planet”!
if we are talking about 2m temperatures or surface skin temperatures, then trees DO increase nighttime temperatures, through their IR emission effect…I see this routinely on cold, calm, clear nights…but they also decrease daytime temperatures because of shade. In contrast to trees, greenhouse gases (1) are nearly transparent to sunlight, and (2) extend through the full depth of the atmosphere, affecting all levels (cooling the upper layers, warming the lower layers).
Dr Roy, what I think has you confused is that a device, such as a bolometer, is DESIGNED to absorb IR. The surface of the Earth does NOT absorb all photons that impact it. Low energy photons, such as 15 micron from CO2, are easily reflected. The downwelling IR that you measure is only “proof” that matter emits IR. QED. But that is NOT proof the surface of the Earth is warmed by atmospheric CO2.
you are just making stuff up, now. The IR emissivity of all kinds of materials hav been measured and are widely available. At window channel frequencies, satellites routinely show brightness temperatures approaching thermometric temperatures, so the ground emissivity (including vegetation) is typically 0.95 or more.
That is why a turkey cannot be baked with ice cubes, even though ice is emitting about 300 Watts/square meter.
geran, if you don’t understand that the temperature of an object represents a balance between all energy gains and energy losses, I can’t help you. No, ice cubes cannot cook a turkey…. but the radiation from a plate of ice at, say, -5 deg. C can keep a turkey heated at a constant rate from within warmer than if that plate is cooled to -190 deg. C with liquid nitrogen. Please tell me you are smart enough to understand this.
A REAL greenhouse does trap heat. In fact, the heat builds so that the temperature inside a greenhouse, if the windows remain closed, can exceed the outside temperature. A car parked in full sun, with the windows up, can easily reach temperatures 20 degrees F above the ambient.
In your thought experiment, even with BOTH the sheet of ice and the sheet cooled by liquid nitrogen, the turkey will NEVER show any increase in temperature. In fact, you can double the size of the two sheets, and still no increase in turkey temperature. Increase the sheets by a factor of 20, still no increase in turkey temperature.
Earth’s atmosphere is NOT a greenhouse.
The IPCC CO2/GHE/AGW/back-radiation is pseudoscience.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says, July 12, 2016 at 11:42 AM:
“actually, I believe that downwelling IR *is* proof of the GHE.”
Are you kidding me!? That simply shows that the atmosphere has a temperature. It doesn’t reveal how it got that temperature …
Dr Spencer,
I don’t believe anyone except a foolish Warmist would believe that a body above absolute zero is not continuously emitting light (EMR, radiation, photons, energy, as you wish).
Radiation from the atmosphere to the surface is unceasing. Radiation at a rate of 300 W/m2 is characteristic of a body with a temperature of less than 0 C. Under these conditions, “back radiation” of this amount will allow the surface below to cool to below 0 C, and of course this is what happens in arid tropical deserts. The “back radiation” never raises the temperature of the cooling surface. 100 gigawatts of radiation at 300 W/m2 will not raise the the temperature above freezing.
What is often overlooked is that the atmosphere is constantly losing energy by emitting radiation. At night, with no energy source from above to provide replacement energy, the atmosphere cools, and the ill named “back radiation” decreases as a result.
The well documented nighttime low level inversions are a result of the interplay between several factors, of which I am sure you aware. They support what I have been saying. The warmer air layers cannot even raise the temperature of the colder surface below them. Tyndall explains the mechanism quite well, but foolish Warmists won’t bother to read Tyndall.
Without a falsifiable hypothesis relating to the planet heating abilities of CO2, it just ain’t science. Assertion, no more no less.
I notice that Warmists generally are faced with ever diminishing estimates of what they mistakenly call ECS etc. The figure will eventually be found to be indistinguishable from zero, at which point everyone can walk away looking satisfied with themselves!
All part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
Of even greater note is the transient climate response which is the warming that we should have seen already… TCR is claimed to be about 2C and we’re almost half way to a doubling of CO2 now. The ipcc tells us that as little as half of recent warming can be attributed to an increase of CO2 and lays no claim on pryor warming. That would be about .2C which is woefully short of the 1C that we should have seen already. Even if we were generous to the ipcc and assigned a .3C warming to their “at least half” mantra, added an extra .1C for prior warming, AND another .1C for good measure, we would still only be seeing just half the warming that we would expect to be seeing already…
fonzarelli – We are at 400ppm over a pre-industrial baseline of 280ppm. That is an increase of 43%. Ignoring the logarithmic definition of “sensitivity” and treating it as linear within this small range, that would yield an increase of 0.85K for a sensitivity of 2K.
The last time I plotted a linear trend line from Roy’s UAH raw data series, from December 1978 to May 2016, it yielded a trend rate of 0.001005K per month, yielding an aggregate increment of 0.452K over just 450 months. (37.5 years.) The Met Office reported in November that the increment over pre-industrial levels was approaching 1K, while most sources place the increment over pre-industrial temperatures at 0.8K and the recent el Nino peak at 1.4K over pre-industrial. Using Roy’s data stream or the other widely-accepted figures, therefore, and applying your own reasoning, 2K sensitivity would appear to be spot on, or based on the el Nino peak a serious underestimate.
This is a common danger when you combine convenient reasoning with convenient data. Apply the same reasoning to real data or real reasoning to inconvenient data and it can shoot you in the foot. I suggest you desist.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/global-average-temperature-2015
Mike Flynn
Mike says: “What is often overlooked is that the atmosphere is constantly losing energy by emitting radiation. At night, with no energy source from above to provide replacement energy, the atmosphere cools, and the ill named back radiation decreases as a result.
The backradiation is not much effected by direct solar radiation of the day.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
On this link click the variable “Downwelling Solar” and also “Upwelling IR” and “Downwelling IR”.
The backradiation is a result of the surface emission not direct solar so at night is still has a source of input. It goes down but not as much as you might think. I would suggest you try plotting some graphs on this link as it will certainly change what you currently are accepting as Truth.
Kristian
The diatomic gases of O2 and N2 emit almost no IR (not measurable by the instruments scientists are using). Even a very warm atmopsphere without GHG (IR emitting) would have no measurable downwelling IR. The fact there is a measurable IR flux from above is the GHE and it is real energy that will lower the rate of cooling when the sun is not shining.
Elliott,
even MODTRAN, which still use the Nadir radiation only predicts a 0.45K warming for changing from 280 to 400ppm (@ tropics, where is the maximum impact of “backradiation”).
Try it here:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Where do you get your get you “increase of 0.85K”?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Salve, Massimo.
“Where do you get your get you increase of 0.85K?”
2K sensitivity as the basis for discussion provided by Fonzie: “TCR is claimed to be about 2C”
400ppm over 280ppm yields a 43% rise; 43% x 2K yields 0.85K. Sorry, I thought this was clear from context. As the reported increase over pre-industrial times appears to be about 0.8K, Fonzie’s own reasoning supports the inclusion that a sensitivity of 2K is pretty-much spot on based only on temperature rise to date. Add in latency, as the atmosphere continues to accumulate heat due to CO2e which is already resident, and 2K actually looks conservative.
I am not advocating one figure or another, of course, only pointing out that consequences of following Fonzie’s reasoning as applied to observed warming.
Norman,
Many foolish Warmists claim that molecules such as O2 and N2 cannot emit IR. As Tyndall showed, they can. If you have access to a hair dryer, you can feel the heat emitted by the O2 and N2 after it has been heated – a remote thermometer will detect the radiation, if you can’t feel it on your skin from a distance.
Actually, when you measure air temperature, you are actually measuring the response of the instrument to radiation from the air, which is mainly N2 and O2.
This usually comes as a shock to foolish Warmists, who seem to think they can determine the CO2 content of a mixed gas sample by taking its temperature. Silly, but true.
Foolish Warmists will also prattle on about the GHE at night in an arid desert, while the temperature plummets, firmly convinced that a reduction in the rate of cooling results in a rise in temperature. No, a fall in temperature is cooling, not heating.
Since its creation, the Earth’s surface seems to have cooled. Not heated, but cooled. Any falsiable hypothesis needs to account for this fact, also that any supposed heating effect of CO2 is not measurable at night, indoors, in the dark, or in the absence of an external heat source.
Knock yourself out. Introduce a bit of science, if you wish. Foolish Warmists can’t, of course, but you may not be a foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
“Actually, when you measure air temperature, you are actually measuring the response of the instrument to radiation from the air, which is mainly N2 and O2.”
The logical error here is so simple it barely needs pointing out: The fact that the radiation is from air and air is mainly N2 and O2 does not, very obviously, permit the inference that the radiation is mainly from N2 and O2.
“If you have access to a hair dryer, you can feel the heat emitted by the O2 and N2 after it has been heated”
If you put your hand in or near the stream so that the air can deliver heat directly to the skin by conduction, yes.
Norman says, July 13, 2016 at 5:07 AM:
Still stuck on this, Norman?
There is no IR flux to the warmer surface from the cooler atmosphere above. There are of course photons flying around everywhere, creating a so-called “photon cloud”, but no thermodynamic (macroscopically detectable) movement of radiative energy from a cold place to a warm.
Look, the atmosphere and the surface CONTAIN energy. That’s their “internal energy” [U], providing them with a measurable temperature. That internal energy accumulated during the build-up phase towards a final steady state, where as much energy (heat) exits as what enters per some unit of time. In the steady state, the energy content and thus the temperature stay pretty much constant.
‘Contained’ or ‘stored energy’ is thermodynamically defined specifically as the antithesis of ‘moving energy’ or ‘energy transfers‘. Thermodynamically relevant movement of energy from one place to another occurs ONLY as a difference in potential (like temperature) between those two places is induced.
The surface has its “photon cloud”, equilibrated with the surface temperature. Likewise, the atmosphere has its “photon cloud”, equilibrated with the atmospheric temperature. These two “photon clouds” are in direct physical contact. But they are both just “clouds” of energy, contained radiative energy occupying the exact same space as the two distinct ‘bodies’ or ‘systems’ creating and maintaining them with their temperatures. Actual movement of energy between and/or through the “photon clouds” only happens as a result of the temperature difference between the systems harbouring them, or rather, because of the energy density gradient from the one (the surface cloud) to the other (the atmospheric cloud). This detectable (macroscopic, “net”) movement of radiative energy goes only one way, from the warm surface cloud UP to and through the cool atmospheric cloud. And beyond …
So, energy, radiative energy included, is THERE all the time, everywhere, as long as there are temperatures. And at a microscopic (quantum) level, there is energy exchange going on all the time and everywhere, in ALL directions, not just two. But energy is TRANSFERRED thermodynamically (macroscopically) only from warmer to cooler temps. As a direct result of the difference in potential (temperature), hence of the energy density gradient, between the regions at different potentials/temperatures.
– – –
You can’t have an atmosphere that isn’t IR active, Norman. Such an atmosphere would not be able to rid itself of all the energy it absorbed (non-radiatively) every day from the surface below. It would heat, inflate and erode away into space …
The radiative properties of our atmosphere enable it to adequately cool, thus keep our Earth system stable. They are not a cause of Earth temperatures.
Hi Kristian,
I usually agree with your posts, but in this case I still on Norman side, probably because I missed something and I would like you explain me what I missed.
IMHO Norman stated something that I believe is true, that is without any LWIR active molecule in the air we shouldn’t see nothing pointing a FLIR camera to the sky.
That doesn’t mean that the atmosphere still doesn’t exchange its heat with the ground and vice-versa as if the GHGs were there (let me call the IR active gases that way, just because it is easier to identify them), the process just happens by conduction, diffusion and convection and keep the ground a little warmer than without any atmosphere, because of the delay in cooling due to the atmospheric mass.
How could a GHGs free atmosphere emit photons in the LWIR band?
IMHO a FLIR camera sees that photons just because being warmer its internal thermopile side exposed to the lens tries to dissipate to the outer space, but finding the GHGs some of those photons return back limiting the dissipation (I’m doing it easy, of course no matter if the returning back photons were coming from the camera detector or from other places on the ground).
This no way means that those photons heat the camera sensor, they just reduce its dissipation on the side exposed to the lens.
In my opinion without any GHGs the FLIR camera should see nothing in the sky, which doesn’t mean that the atmosphere is not at the very same temperature of the GHGs atmosphere.
Just to say, I don’t agree with Dr.Spencer when he states that the FLIR camera measured temperature is the average temperature of the atmosphere in the camera FOV.
Have a great day
Massimo
even MODTRAN, which still use the Nadir radiation only predicts a 0.45K warming for changing from 280 to 400ppm (@ tropics, where is the maximum impact of backradiation).
Try it here:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Where do you get your get you increase of 0.85K?
Positive feedbacks. That’s included in TCR.
Elliott, you are aware that TCR (transient climate response) is not ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity)? TCR is the estimated sensitivity at the time of doubling, not the estimate of the system after near-equilibrating to changes in radiative forcing, which occurs some 30-40 years after the doubling owing mainly to the thermal capacity of the oceans.
Massimo PORZIO says, July 13, 2016 at 3:08 PM:
“IMHO Norman stated something that I believe is true, that is without any LWIR active molecule in the air we shouldnt see nothing pointing a FLIR camera to the sky.”
The problem with this eternal warmist argument is that it describes a reality that could never be, and so the argument is moot. There is no way you could have a massive atmosphere that is not IR active. As I wrote above:
“You cant have an atmosphere that isnt IR active (…). Such an atmosphere would not be able to rid itself of all the energy it absorbed (non-radiatively) every day from the surface below. It would heat, inflate and erode away into space …
The radiative properties of our atmosphere enable it to adequately cool, thus keep our Earth system stable. They are not a cause of Earth temperatures.”
In fact, I could counter Norman’s ‘thought experiment’ with another, ‘showing’ how there is no “radiative greenhouse effect (rGHE)”.
Here’s Raymond T. Pierrehumbert “explaining” the rGHE:
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
But he’s already provided the reason in this very quote why this is not so. Yes, an “atmospheric greenhouse gas” (no, an IR active gas) does enable Earth to radiate at a temperature lower than the ground’s, but only because it 1) enables the atmosphere to cool radiatively to space, and 2) because there is a negative temperature gradient in the troposphere. The IR active gas, however, specifically didn’t cause that negative temperature gradient in the troposphere. So whatever caused the negative tropospheric temp gradient is what causes “the surface temperature in balance with a given amount of absorbed solar radiation to be higher than would be the case” … if that negative temp gradient weren’t there.
IOW, if there were no negative tropospheric temp gradient, then there would be no rGHE, no matter how much “back radiation” the atmosphere sent down to the surface, because then the temperature would be the same at the tropopause as at the surface.
Again, the radiative properties of our atmosphere are a TOOL, enabling the atmosphere to cool to space and thus to keep our Earth system stable. They are not a CAUSE of Earth temperatures …
barry – “Elliott, you are aware that TCR (transient climate response) is not ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity)”
Yes, but the post to which I was responding does not give an equilibrium value. As I am arguing from currently observed responses and using the value of TCR given by the respondee, this simply reinforces my point – a valiue of 2K for TCR appears to be spot on, and the value for ECR must be higher.
barry, bigmouth is wrong and you know that i called you out on this higher up in the post. The ipcc in no ways claims that the entire .8C rise in temps since the LIA is due to CO2. (they only make a claim for “at least half” of recent warming) If you go there again, you are merely establishing yourself here at this blog as a light weight troll…
Fonzie, as usual, is failing to think clearly because it would get in the way of his preferred conclusion. The fact that the IPCC does not attribute all change to GHGs, very obviously, does not imply that any of the change is due to anything else. Firstly, it only establishes what they are confident in attributing. There is no reason to suspect that 100% of the observed change is not due to GHGs but cannot be attributed with confidence. Secondly, of course, the IPCC is bound BY LAW to issue the most conservative statements consistent with all the evidence, so if two-thirds of their papers say it’s all due to GHGs and one-third say it just might be all GHGs, they are REQUIRED to say “it just might be all GHGs”.
And, of course, Fonzie does not actually know what the IPCC really says on the matter. You can find it here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[7] It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}
“During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings. Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller than continental scales. {2.4}”
Reading off the graph further down, the last 50 years covers 0.6K of the observed temperature rise to date. Fonzie, surprise, surprise, is repeating hearsay because it suits what he wants to believe.
Fine… f*** the ipcc then AND their b***s*** models. It’s warmed .8C since the LIA and it’s NOT all from CO2. And BTW, we’re at a 405 ppm average and that would put your TCR at .9C, BUCKO (!)
Roy Spencer has had a number of posts on how the GHE works
Not much you can do when unqualified ‘skeptics’ dismiss a qualified view from another skeptic. Ferdinand Englebeen has the same trouble with historic CO2 levels. Some in the home crowd just wave it off.
Exactly.
Not even the good Dr Roy’s advice has any impact on these last few recalcitrants.
It is as if they have developed some sort of immunity to common sense.
A bit like seeing a few cockroaches surviving the effects of an insecticide.
Still, it is morbidly fascinating to watch them scurry and wail.
So what are engelbeen’s qualifications?
Who or what is englebeen and what has it to do with cockroaches?
An engelbeen is the biggest, ugliest cockroach that was ever immune to a spray…
Engelbeen, a skeptic who believes that the effect of rising CO2 concentrations on Earth’s temperature is minimal, has spent thousands of hours investigating the notion that the rise of CO2 since the industrial revolution is due to something other than industrial emissions. Dr Spencer has posted an email from him on this blog.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/the-origin-of-increasing-atmospheric-co2-a-response-from-ferdinand-engelbeen/
His work is so incredibly comprehensive that he is often cited, even by non-skeptics.
This is a brief example of the work he has done. It’s only a fraction of his research, but a god read for anyone curious about the notion of how (or if) CO2 increased in the atmos since the mid-1700s.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/the-origin-of-increasing-atmospheric-co2-a-response-from-ferdinand-engelbeen/
He is the only one among the skeptical milieu to have researched the issue in such extraordinary depth and breadth. Ernst Beck’s work is a fraction of Engelbeen’s, for example.
There are two components of the debate that have been thoroughly tested by skeptics and corroborated: 1) the CO2 rise for the last 250 years is almost entirely anthropogenic: 2) the surface temperature records are sound within the limitations of data.
Despite this corroboration from skeptics who spend thousands of hours researching and conducting their own experiments and constructing their own methodologies, some in the skeptical milieu wave it away in favour of much less well researched blog blather.
The greenhouse effect is in the same category. Every qualified skeptic agrees on its effect, only people without the qualifications necessary to thoroughly vet the science disagree.
There are components in the debate that are uncertain enough to be worthy of a healthy debate. But opposing mitigation policy does not mean that black could be white or that physics is overturned. There is enough uncertainty on things like climate sensitivity, long-term cycles and particular components of the climate system (eg clouds/aerosols) without having to inject junk science into the mix – except if one’s goal is to muddy the waters rather than seek the truth.
Engelbeen is one who sought the truth. After a very long time digging away, he found it, and it wasn’t what he thought. I brought him up because he is like Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Roger Pielke Snr and other skeptics with actual credentials and their opinion on the greenhouse effect. There is a unanimous opinion from atmospheric physicists who have antipathy towards the IPCC – they all agree the greenhouse effect is real. The only ones left denying this effect are unqualified bloggers and the people who like what they blog.
Engelbeen is the example of this rift in skeptical thought. That’s one of the problems with the skeptical canon. The mainstream theory is consistent. There is no uniform skeptical ‘theory’ on why the planet has warmed, because skeptics disagree with each other, regardless of how much work has gone into examining any particular component. There is no coherence. Rejection is the most consistent theme.
Ferdinand Engelbeen’s qualifications: Bachelor Degree in Industrial Chemistry at the Institute of Technology in Antwerp in 1965.
Apparently qualified enough to get 4-part article on Anthony Watts’ blog, What’s Up With That?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/24/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-4/
Wrong link, should have been:
This is a brief example of the work he has done. Its only a fraction of his research, but a good read for anyone curious about the notion of how (or if) CO2 increased in the atmos since the mid-1700s.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
I suggest that you read part 1 of ferdinand’s four part 2010 series (the one on the mass balance argument), especially the debunking in the comment page there in. You will clearly see what a shamelessly deceptive purveyor of junk science that “engelSPIN” truly is…
The first few comments from skeptics are that the issue has already been accepted and isn’t in question (that the increase in atmos CO2 since the industrial revolution is almost entirely anthropogenic).
Still, there are skeptics who deny it. I’m sure there are quite a few of the 613 comments in that post that push back. (They are specious. The most compelling argument is irrefutable, and it’s based on simple arithmetic)
But thanks for helping to demonstrate the incoherence of the ‘skeptical’ canon on AGW/global warming. There is no uniformly agreed on alternative theory, just a lot of opinions, many of which contradict (such as this component). The only thing in common is rejectionism.
So what are engelbeens qualifications?
I cited them. You ignored that and moved on. Quite typical for nay-sayers.
Or perhaps you’d like to comment…?
Ferdinand Engelbeens qualifications: Bachelor Degree in Industrial Chemistry at the Institute of Technology in Antwerp in 1965.
“(that the increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is almost entirely anthropogenic)”
You missed it… Go back and read the comments again. Where ferdi gets in trouble is not to far from the top. He made the same mistake that you are making with the above quote and got caught with his pants down. The mass balance argument does NOT say that the rise is “almost entirely anthropogenic”. It says that the rise is ENTIRELY anthropogenic. Ferdi got caught, went running to the safety of his beloved ice cores and was called out by other commentors. Go back and read it again; if you can’t find it, let me know and i will go back and find it for you…
Corrections:
“not to far” should read “not too far”
data from ice cores tells us that the natural contribution over the last half century is about 8 ppm while the mass balance argument dictates that the rise over the last half century is ZERO. (the mass balance argument cannot be applied as such all the way back to the beginning of the industrial revolution because human emissions were lower back then than carbon growth…)
BTW, i didn’t stick with the subject of engelbeen’s qualifications because you demonstrated that i didn’t need to. There are plenty of other people with differing points of view over at wuwt who have degrees, too. (some actually have degrees in climate science, unlike f. e.) All those qualified skeptics with differing points of view can’t all be right. As far as ferdinand is concerned, he’s just another egghead in the crowd…
Hello, Dr. Roy. I notice that this version of your graph does not show the 13-month moving average. The monthly update DOES show it, and it hints at a reason as to why you do not show it here: Reading by eye, the latest 13-month average ALREADY ties with the peak for the running average during the 1997-8 el Nio. The calendar year might not set a record, but the coincidence of the timing of the start of the Gregorian calendar year has no significance whatsoever. The year to date, the only figure which we already have in our hands, is already tying for the record – or pretty close, I can’t seem to get into the raw data to check the exact figures.
So I have to wonder why you would be talking about the calendar year at all.
OMG. You caught me, Elliott. I was trying to fool everyone with an elaborate conspiracy that Exxon Mobil paid me an extra $1 million to perpetrate on everyone. Now I fear I won’t get paid! Curse you! (translation: you’ve got to be effing kidding me.)
No, Roy. I am not effing kidding you. So, bluster aside: Why would you be talking about the calendar year at all, when you have a solid datum right in front of you saying that the most recent year ties as the record? I read a lot of science, both lay and published, and while I would be the last to pretend that I am qualified to criticise method, I cannot remember ever seeing a paper published that made claims about a calendar year which is little more than halfway complete, let alone one which ignores the data which IS complete and falsifies the inference thereby drawn.
It is true that a lot of other scientists are seen making claims that the current year will “probably” be a record, but as Dana Nuccitelli has recently pointed out, all the recent 12-month periods for some time now are ALSO records, so we can safely ignore the PR statements and go with the solid data alone without introducing an inconsistency. In your case here, it is precisely the reverse – you introduce an inconsistency by privileging hypothetical future data over that in the hand.
I’d be perfectly happy to hear a reason why the Gregorian calendar year is a privileged framework. I wouldn’t even expect to agree, just so long as you had a reason. But if you have such a reason if would allay suspicion if you set it out together with your graph, and not immediately bluster when it is drawn attention to.
But you can of course stop this line of reasoning immediately simply by saying right here that the last 13-month average does, indeed, tie as the record. That is, after all, a fact, plus or minus a few decimal places, so there can be no reason to be ashamed of your own monthly graph.
Yes, Bignell, you are obviously joking. Confess, you are trolling with stinkbait.
Elliott Bignell June 9, 2016 5:53 am:
“I pop up here every few months to practice on you because I am bored. I’m basically just killing time until I can have you all executed in its stead.”
I fear that Bignell is not kidding, Roy. This is the one who denies that enhanced atmospheric CO2 has increased crop yields.
IOW, Bignell is an AGW case study. Sees skeptic conspiracies right and left, does Elliot Bignell.
Bigmouth’s back… (☺)
I believe in the GHG effect and everything Dr. Spencer says about the GHG theory except for one vital difference which is I say the GHG effect is the result of the climate not the cause.
When the ocean temperatures start to cool the GHG effect will lessen, due to less water vapor and less co2 in the atmosphere overall to make it simple.
This is why co2 concentrations follow the temperatures.
I believe in everything Salvatore Del Prete says except for one vital difference which is I say Salvatore Del Prete is always wrong.
“GHG theory except for one vital difference which is I say the GHG effect is the result of the climate not the cause.”
False dichotomy. Look into the concept of a “feedback loop”, in the sense in which engineers or evolutionary scientists use it.
Elliott Bignell,
A foolish Warmist might issue a stupid dismissive two word non-sentence. Then a foolish Warmist might instruct a commenter to carry out a completely irrelevant task for no particular reason.
A foolish Warmist might wonder why rational people were laughing at the presumptuous foolish Warmist!
What a foolish Warmist! Cannot even provide a falsifiable hypothesis relating to the supposed planet heating ability of CO2, so he tries to give the impression of intellectual superiority, failing miserably in the process.
Maybe it might be inappropriate to bring a fantasy to a fact fight! Better luck next time. CO2 warms nothing. Never has, never will.
Cheers.
“Cannot even provide a falsifiable hypothesis”
Feedback loop. Look it up and you’d have known that it is a falsifiable hypothesis.
Elliott Bignell,
A foolish Warmist would attempt to deny the fact that he can’t provide a falsifiable hypothesis relating to the supposed planet heating ability of CO2 by attempting to divert the conversation onto something else entirely.
Dim witted demands that others leap to the foolish Warmist’s bidding, would be ignored by any rational person. I know more about feedback loops in the engineering and electronics sense than you might imagine, as irrelevant as it may be.
Maybe you could address the non-existence of a falsifiable hypothesis relating to the alleged planet heating ability of CO2? I realise you might fly into a virtual paroxysm of deny, divert and confuse, but your inability to provide said hypothesis would speak volumes, in that case.
Foolish Warmist, complaining and whining because somebody wants to inject a wee bit of real science into a foolish Warmist fantasy. A repeatable experiment demonstrating the wondrous ability of CO2 to raise the temperature of an externally heated object by virtue of surrounding it, would be nice. Thought experiments, computer game output, or demonstrations that a gas can be heated, don’t fit the requirement, obviously.
Feel free to provide more pointless and irrelevant two word comments. With a bit of effort, you might graduate to three words – “Wow, just wow” is a tried and true foolish Warmist comment. Keep trying – with a bit more effort, you might learn how to deliver a reasonable gratuitous insult.
Cheers.
Anyway, why resort to gratuitous insults when I can demolish my interlocutor’s entire case with the two words, “False dichotomy”?
“A repeatable experiment demonstrating the wondrous ability of CO2 to raise the temperature of an externally heated object by virtue of surrounding it, would be nice.”
Nice distraction, and it might even be a relevant demand in the appropriate context, but completely irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. In a feedback loop, establishing that one factor causes a second DOES NOT establish that the second factor does not also cause the first. If you really understood the concept of a feedback loop you could not have made the mistake of missing this, and it is the only matter of any significance to Salvatore’s error in reasoning about causation.
CO2e emissions cause warming; warming causes CO2e emissions. Really very simple, and no contradiction, and Salvatore’s error concerns not the objective fact of either of these assertions but the logical error of maintaining that one is inconsistent with the other.
Try this thought experiment.
Double the thickness of the atmosphere- does the surface temperature increase or decrease?
Or,
Halve the thickness of the atmosphere- does the surface temperature increase or decrease?
Halve it again and again and again. Does the surface temperature increase or decrease?
Remove it entirely, so you are left with an atmosphere like the moon. Still no effect?
Elliott Bignell,
Why would you assume that I do not understand what a falsifiable hypothesis is?
You appear to be implying that a feedback loop is a falsiable hypothesis explaining the planet heating ability of CO2. Your reasoning appears to be a typical foolish Warmist circular argument. You state -“CO2e emissions cause warming; warming causes CO2e emissions.”
Cutting out the excess verbiage, warming causes warming, or alternatively, CO2 emissions cause CO2 emissions.
However, you haven’t advanced a falsifiable hypothesis to explain “CO2e emissions cause warming”. No they don’t, in any scientific sense. This is just baseless Cargo Cult Science assertion.
Foolish Warmist. You can’t propose a falsifiable hypothesis to support your claim that CO2e emissions cause warming, (which is apparently unlikely, given the Earth has cooled since its creation), so you attempt to deny, divert, and confuse.
Maybe you can convince another foolish Warmist that your unsubstantiated assertions represent fact.
Maybe.
Cheers.
“Try this thought experiment.”
Dump a whole bunch of heat energy into the atmosphere. Say, like from some really big El Nino event. Then, when the atmosphere never releases that heat because it is “trapped”, you have proved the GHE!
Good luck with that.
“Why would you assume that I do not understand what a falsifiable hypothesis is? ”
No assumption is required. It follows from context. You saw one and claimed none was there. Doesn’t leave many options open!
“Cutting out the excess verbiage, warming causes warming, or alternatively, CO2 emissions cause CO2 emissions.”
NOW you understand what a feedback loop is! Congratulations! Yes, that is exactly how it works.
Or, more likely, you still don’t understand and think that you have identified some sort of am inconsistency…
As I was pointing out the logical fallacy of “false dichotomy”, the lack of a falsifiable hypothesis both in the claim I was responding to and in my comment is basically irrelevant. However, your failure to understand that a feedback loop represents a falsifiable hypothesis, along with your failure to criticise the absence of a falsifiable hypothesis in the original claim due to the absence of understanding of causality in a feedback loop. is noted. (Along with a large volume of empty verbiage on your part.)
Mike – So we’ve established that your arguments, beside being padded with verbiage, fail to understand the original claims, fail to distinguish empirical from logical claims, fail to understand elementary causal concepts, fail to apply the same standard to contrary claims on the same issue and dishonestly demand an empirical test where a logical argument is required. That ALMOST completes the set. However, since you have dishonestly demanded an empirical test in place of a logical argument it only remains to point out that the empirical test is both easy to do and easy to find. In fact, the English National Curriculum includes exactly such a test which is now conducted by all students taught physics to what is the equivalent of a US high-school level.
http://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2green/home.htm
I’ll leave you to draw the necessary inferences about the standard of your physics education. (That was the gratuitous insult you were angling for, in case you missed it.)
OMG, now that I read that so well designed RSC experiment I surely change my mind.
I’ll spend the rest of my life warning all the other skeptics about how dangerous is CO2 indeed, and I’ll do everything to convince them about how they were blind not having considered that experiment before.
Elliott, seriously: are you jocking? Yes?
What about heat capacity?
http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/eli/cc/resources/handouts/heat_capacity_demo.pdf
Yes it works with gases too and you can use lamps instead oh hot plates, the final result is the same.
At the very beginning of my interests in climate, more than 10 years ago, I computed the incidence of the Co2 heat capacity (greater that the one of the mix of air gases) on doubling the CO2 400ppm concentration.
It is laughable.
One sconsolate consideration: if this is what high schools teach today, we go nowhere.
Have a great day
Massimo
Why are your calculations different to every qualified qualified ‘skeptic’ on the issue. They all agree that without feedbacks, doubling the concentration of CO2 leads to a !f – 1C warming of the surface? I see no reason to pit their qualifications over yours, and they happen to agree with every qualified non-‘skeptic’.
If you were in my position, which way would you tend to give your provisional opinion? Reasonably, I hope, the same as me. If not, how could anyone consider that reasonable?
With respect for your contribution,
Barry.
Hi Barry,
I’m not sure what you meant.
Which calculations do you refer to?
If you are referring to my early computing of the incidence in heat retention in the atmosphere because of the CO2 increased heat capacity (heat capacity is what both those experiments show indeed, not the GHG effect), it’s far lesser than 1K.
Remember that O2 and N2 and all the other gases in atmosphere have their heat capacity too, so when you double the CO2 concentration of 400ppm the added 400ppm accounts for no more than a very tiny entity on the whole temperature.
While Elliott and RSC want you believe that the experiment was about GHGs, I invite you to use your brain and analyze it and see where should be the visible light to LWIR conversion in the plastic bottles?
And more, the plastic bottles shouldn’t retain much (much much much) more LWIR than the inner GHGs?
Note that since the heating happened mostly directly on the probes tip, and the air is convective (while CO2 is just slightly convective), the black plot after an initial warming practically identical to the violet plot, shows that a convective cooling process started and paradoxically instead of highlights an increase in temperature of the CO2 bottle, the differential plot shows a reduction in temperature in the air bottle (what kind of GHG effect should be that?.
No that’s not a smart experiment, it only demonstrated that the one who designed it is very very confused about GHGs.
Use your mind be skeptical on everything the first time you approach a new issue.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Elliott Bignell,
Heating air, or carbon dioxide, or argon, or any gas is easy.
Are you so foolish as to believe that heating CO2 suffices to support your statement that “CO2 causes warming”? This is typical diversionary foolish Warmist thinking.
Try the experiment with a gas such as argon, (acknowledged as IR transparent by comparison with CO2), and the results are identical. Foolish experiment, designed by foolish Warmists.
You still cannot come up with a falsifiable hypothesis to support your foolish Warmist statement that CO2 causes warming. I’d refer you to a peer reviewed paper pointing out the foolishness of your experiment as a demonstration of the nonexistent greenhouse effect. It’s paywyalled, but $30 is a small price to pay to learn some real science.
Cheers.
“Hi Barry,
Im not sure what you meant.
Which calculations do you refer to?”
At the very beginning of my interests in climate, more than 10 years ago, I computed the incidence of the Co2 heat capacity (greater that the one of the mix of air gases) on doubling the CO2 400ppm concentration.
It is laughable.
Less than 1F or 1C?
To repeat my question: Why are your calculations different to every qualified skeptic on the issue. They all agree that without feedbacks, doubling the concentration of CO2 leads to a 1F 1C warming of the surface.
Hi Barry,
“To repeat my question: Why are your calculations different to every qualified skeptic on the issue. They all agree that without feedbacks, doubling the concentration of CO2 leads to a 1F 1C warming of the surface.”
I responded in my former message it is far less than 1K or 1C.
But you still don’t get what I wrote. That experiment despite what Elliot and RSC want you believe, it is about HEAT CAPACITY not GREEN HOUSE GAS effect.
Anybody, who calculated the influence on temperature of doubling a trace gas as CO2 for its HEAT CAPACITY, will tell you that it’s influence is negligible because the temperature of air computed by the whole HEAT CAPACITY of its components is determined for 99,96% by the HEAT CAPACITY of the other gases.
You get it?
Have a great day.
Massimo
P.S.
the upper case words above are not because I’m shouting, but just to highlight them in the context.
I’ve no reason to be angry with you.
Salve, Massimo – “OMG, now that I read that so well designed RSC experiment I surely change my mind.”
Mike sneered as follows, believing it to be a challenge: “A repeatable experiment demonstrating the wondrous ability of CO2 to raise the temperature of an externally heated object by virtue of surrounding it, would be nice.”
That high-school standard physics experiment exactly meets the standard required by Mike’s high-school level question about the properties of CO2: It shows an externally-heated object whose temperature is raised by the CO2 surrounding it, and is repeatable.
What part of the experiment and its capacity to answer Mike’s “challenge” do you fail to understand?
Salve, Massimo – “That experiment despite what Elliot and RSC want you believe, it is about HEAT CAPACITY not GREEN HOUSE GAS effect.”
No, this is simply false. As you can see from the example graph, the temperatures are DIVERGING over time, and starting to equilibriate at different temperatures toward the right. If the difference arose out of a difference in heat capacity the temperatures would CONVERGE at equilibrium to the same value.
Hi Elliott,
what equilibrium are you arguing?
Those two bottles never reach an equilibrium of course, because they are placed in a heat flow with a source on one side (the lamp) and the environment as a sink on the other sides.
Turn off the lamps and the bottles finally gone to equilibrium with the ambient of course.
Again: are you joking when you argue that that experiment shows any GHGs effect?
Have a nice day.
Massimo
BTW
Please don’t try to play the card of not linking that experiment with the GHGe because the RCS title is
“The carbon dioxide greenhouse – is it effective?: a lab ICT test (teachers notes)”
That’s not a smart demonstration of it.
Again, have a nice day.
Massimo
Massimo – “what equilibrium are you arguing? Those two bottles never reach an equilibrium of course”
You can see the temperatures levelling out on the graph. They are quite obviously both diverging and approaching different equilibrium temperatures. But the point of a repeatable experiment, of course, is that you could try it for yourself if you were really interested.
If heat capacity had anything at all to do with the observed difference in outcomes, the temperatures would converge to a common equilibrium.
“Turn off the lamps and the bottles finally gone to equilibrium with the ambient of course.”
Leave them on and two objects with identical radiative properties would equilibriate to the same temperature. This is a requirement of thermodynamics.
“Again: are you joking when you argue that that experiment shows any GHGs effect?”
You know perfectly well what it shows, as I not only posted it in response to a very specific challenge but I have explained how it exactly meets that challenge. Please stop trying to move the goalposts.
Anche lei una buona giornata.
Hi Elliott,
I admit that I went back to my calculations and indeed that time
I used the thermal conductance, not capacitance (I apologize, I’m writing during the coffee breaks here at office and usually I got no time to do such search).
“You can see the temperatures levelling out on the graph. They are quite obviously both diverging and approaching different equilibrium temperatures. But the point of a repeatable experiment, of course, is that you could try it for yourself if you were really interested.”
Really?
This is exactly what Anthony Watts did:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
Do you see it?
It’s practically the very same experiment (only did better), take a little time and read all that to the end, including Anthony’s thoughts about that experiment.
IMHO what is really a shame is that in UK some students are brainwashed by some ideologically corrupted teachers who finish the experiment with propagandist statements such:
“Students may not be impressed with such a small temperature difference in the laboratory. However it should be stressed that scientists are in general agreement that an average increase of just 2C across the planet could have catastrophic effects on crop production and cause sea levels to increase significantly resulting in major flooding.”
While they simply don’t know.
Say whatever you want Elliott, but that’s a real shame for me.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Ruminating on what drives tribalism and thought bubbles I came across an article that explores the notion WRT to online information. Thought some will no doubt deride the source without even looking (an example of the product of tribalism and thought bubbling) it is, nonetheless, well-written and researched and thought-provoking. A very worthwhile read about the dominance of algorithm selctions for the information that comes to us via the net.
I assume that the internet is the portal for many here (and elsewhere). It’s a very worthwhile read.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology-disrupted-the-truth
I agree that measured DLR at the surface is not proof of the existence of the GHE.
Why? Infrared back radiation is the theorized mechanism and we have observed it.
Why would observed increase of downwelling IR in the wavelengths associated with CO2 not be strong evidence of the enhanced GHE?
Oh, I don’t deny or doubt the existence of the GHE. Only that measured downward LW at the surface isn’t proof of its existence.
Why not?
The downwelling LW observed are not in the frequencies associated with solar radiation (SW), so it is the atmosphere that delivering it to the surface, and in the wavelengths associated with GHGs.
That should be clear evidence of the GHE.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/
One of the funniest things in “climate comedy” is when someone attempts to be an expert on downwelling LWIR, yet demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of quantum physics.
Keep it going, barry, you’re doing great.
(barry just found out IR from the atmosphere is different from IR directly from the Sun! Hilarious!)
barry just found out IR from the atmosphere is different from IR directly from the Sun! Hilarious!
These fantasies typify your thinking, I expect. Solar radiation striking the earth is at frequencies across the spectrum, including the infrared. Visible light is the most intense wavelengths emitted by Sol. The brightening over time of the spectra associated with GHGs is observed at ground level. That’s the enhanced GHE at work (unless the sun just happens to be intensifying in only those frequencies – not observed by satellites looking sunward).
Reading some of the following will help you out.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/
barry, just to continue with the humor, do you suppose the temperature of emission has anything to do with the wavelengths?
As in: The atmosphere is a wee bit colder than the Sun!
The atmosphere is colder than the surface, too. The troposphere is colder at the tropopause than it is near the surface. This allows convection to occur. What do you imagine is responsible for this temperature gradient that allows convection to occur?
barry, I know you want to hop all over the place, but let’s stay with your “proof” of the GHE. You stated that the downwelling IR, because it was not originated by the Sun, was “proof” of the GHE.
Are you already chopping down trees? The IR from trees is even “hotter” than that from the atmosphere.
barry,
“The downwelling LW observed are not in the frequencies associated with solar radiation (SW)”
Yes, of course.
“,so it is the atmosphere that delivering it to the surface, and in the wavelengths associated with GHGs.”
Yes, again. Since the N2 and O2 don’t really emit in the IR (have an emissivity near zero), IR flux that passes to the surface — if it’s not originating from clouds — must originate from GHGs.
How does this constitute *proof* that the GHE exists? The GHE is around +32C at the surface or around +150 W/m^2 of net surface gain, right?
Yet, the atmosphere as a whole mass passes around 300 W/m^2 to the surface, right? So much of this IR flux absorbed by the surface is short circuited, i.e. cancelled, by non-radiant flux leaving the surface, but not returning to the surface as non-radiant flux, right?
BTW, this is a disagreement I’ve had with Roy for a long time. I believe he and you are incorrect in that measured DLR at the surface is proof the GHE exits. Mind you, it’s consistent with it existing, but doesn’t really prove or establish it.
Not sure I understand;
So much of this IR flux absorbed by the surface is short circuited, i.e. cancelled, by non-radiant flux leaving the surface, but not returning to the surface as non-radiant flux, right?
You mean convective heat transport?
The measurements of increasing downwelling IR over time are in the the spectrum bands associated with CO2. That’s a pretty good fingerprint of back radiation increase due to increased CO2. (The inverse is seen topside, with those bands darkening over time at various levels of the atmosphere, as monitored by satellites)
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf
Convection leaving the surface and going aloft can only occur with a declining temperature gradient. That gradient is provided by pressure changes and the GHE. (Localised temperature inversions can occur for a few days)
Why does the temperature gradient decline up to the tropopause, but start getting warmer further up the stratosphere?
Because more energy is being passed around at lower layers than higher layers in the troposphere (especially evident at night). This is caused by the infrared emissivity of the Earth and the strong absorbers of water vapour, CO2, and to a lesser extent CH4.
The stratosphere gets most of its energy from the sun, rather than the Earth, so the temperature gradient is inverted, even though pressure declines with altitude.
Oh, I dont deny or doubt the existence of the GHE.
Perhaps you could correct the views of Kristian, Mike Flynn and geran (their posts are just above). Dr Spencer can get no traction with them.
I might try, but they are starting from or using as a justification Roy’s purported *proof*, i.e. measured DLR at the surface, which I believe is incorrect.
By all means enlighten in the way you think is appropriate. I would be curious about that, for one. How would you go about convincing people who don’t believe there is a ‘greenhouse’ effect?
There definitely is an ‘atmospheric insulation – hence an indirect warming – effect’ on the solar-heated surface of the Earth, barry.* It simply isn’t caused by the Earth’s own thermal radiation …
*The mean global surface temp of the Earth is ~90K higher than the mean global surface temp of the Moon. And that’s even as the latter absorbs almost 80% more solar heat on average than the former.
“There definitely is an atmospheric insulation hence an indirect warming effect on the solar-heated surface of the Earth, barry.* It simply isnt caused by the Earths own thermal radiation ”
Earth emits infrared. GHGs absorb and re-emit infrared, some of it back towards the surface.
That is very physically clear. It would require some magical thinking to espouse that the thermal emission of the Earth’s surface is not absorbed by GHGs in the atmos and about half redirected towards the surface.
I don’t see how the GHE can be denied without denying that GHGs absorb and re-emit infrared.
I can’t possibly understand anyone denying that GHGs (water vapour, CO2, methane etc) absorb and re-emit infrared radiation.
I’m not really sure what we disagree on at this point.
barry says, July 14, 2016 at 8:00 AM:
“Earth emits infrared. GHGs absorb and re-emit infrared, some of it back towards the surface.”
I’ve been trying now for a while to direct your attention towards an interesting paper from 1990 describing and comparing the insulating capabilities of various gas-fills in double-pane windows, including pure CO2, SF6, Ar and regular dry air (mostly N2 and O2). You quite evidently choose to ignore it …
barry, a gas simply being able to absorb and emit some IR doesn’t in itself mean that this gas will therefore automatically slow down the heat transfer through a medium relative to a gas that doesn’t absorb and emit IR to any significant degree. It seems you just a priori assume this to be the case. And expect the real world to tacitly obey. Well, it doesn’t. Why? Because radiation isn’t the only way to get the heat through …
Here are a couple of pertinent quotes. But you should really read the whole thing:
http://gaia.lbl.gov/btech/papers/29389.pdf
And there are of course other lines of evidence as well, observational evidence from the real Earth system, showing how the amount of radiation let out through the ToA to space isn’t in any way directly related to the surface temperature way down below. There is no way you can state as a rule that more OLR at the ToA equals less “back radiation” to the surface and hence a lower T_s, while less OLR at the ToA equals more “back radiation” to the surface and hence a higher T_s. A nice case in point: tropical rainforest regions vs. tropical/subtropical desert regions. For instance, the average OLR flux out through the ToA above the humid Congo basin in equatorial Africa is much less intense than above the semi-arid Sahara-Sahel belt further to the north. At the same time, average absorbed solar radiation (ASR) is significantly higher below the ToA over the Congo than over the Sahara-Sahel. So the former region is apparently heated more (absorbs more incoming heat from the Sun) and allowed to cool less effectively (emits less radiant heat to space), one would assume, by all that extra water vapour and all those extra clouds in the tropospheric column, than the latter. And STILL, which of these two regions do you think boasts the highest annual mean surface temperature, by several degrees …? Yes, the Sahara-Sahel. That heats less and cools more.
Where is the “radiative greenhouse EFFECT” to be seen in all this?
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/the-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt-part-2/
Somewhat OT, but are you watching the Saharan dust making its way into the Gulf, Dr. Roy?
What is responsible for the night-time observations of downwelling infrared radiation?
barry,
No magic there. All matter emits EMR commensurate with its temperature. O2, N2, CO2 – if not at absolute zero, emit EMR. Continuously, unstoppably.
You could try telling me that O2 and N2 don’t emit EMR, and are really at absolute zero, but I’ll tell you in advance I won’t believe you. People measure air temperatures all the time.
Foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
So the atmosphere emits infrared downward (and in all directions) when there is no sun. Glad you agree.
That’s the GHE. If no GHE, no downward emittance of infrared at night.
Right?
More simply: O2 and N2 don’t absorb infrared radiation. They are ‘transparent’ to surface-emitted radiation.
barry,
I note you wrote ‘transparent’ rather than transparent. I assume ‘transparent’ has attached to it the foolish Warmist definition of ‘actually not transparent at all’.
O2 and N2 are less opaque to infrared light than gases such as H2O and CO2. However, in a sample of air, there is far, far, more O2 and N2.
From memory, Tyndall calculated that CO2 was some 2000 times more opaque than dry, CO2 free air. However, if a sample of atmosphere contains 400 ppm of CO2, the 999,600 ppm non CO2 gases absorb far more infrared light in total than the piddling amount of CO2, even though the specific opacity is 2000 times as great as the O2/N2 mixture.
If you want to specify light frequencies, and specify comparative absorbtivities, you can do the calculations as precisely as you wish. You will soon discover the myth of IR transparency is just that.
Let me know how you get on. You can fight Nature as hard as you like, but it’s likely Nature will win in the end. Good luck!
Cheers.
O2 and N2 are less opaque to infrared light than gases such as H2O and CO2
They are transparent. I used the quotes not to imply some negligible value, only that the language is somewhat colloquial.
O2 and N2 absorb no infrared.
After the sun goes down, how long does it take these molecules to emit radiation they collected from UV, gamma and X-rays? Milliseconds? Minutes? Hours?
You could try telling me that O2 and N2 dont emit EMR
They do, but virtually nothing in the infrared spectrum. They are opaque in the UV, x-ray and gamma ray spectrum. They act to retard solar emissions in that spectra reaching the surface.
It’s the infrared spectrum we’re talking about, and downwelling in that spectrum is clearly observed at the surface. GHGs absorb and re-emit infrared.
barry,
I obviously need education. Would you mind telling me what main frequencies of radiation are emitted by a parcel of air at say 30 C? Let us say in the dark, for convenience.
Not visible light, obviously. Our enclosed air parcel is black, black, black. How about ultraviolet? Nope – UV fluorescent materials show no reaction.
Maybe X-Rays, or radio waves?
Maybe you need to tell me what peak frequency is emitted by a sample of air at 30 C, and where this frequency falls on the EMR spectrum.
Cheers.
Infrared is the frequency band emitted by a parcel of air at night, various wavelengths.
So, as O2 and N2 are transparent to infrared, after the sun goes down, what gases in the atmosphere are now absorbing and re-emitting infrared?
Not O2 and N2. They don’t absorb infrared.
Even if the air containing those molecules is at 30C.
So which gases in the atmos are responsible for the downwelling infrared radiation say an hour after the sun goes down?
Reckon O2 and N2 molecules retain the radiation they get from the sun for an hour and more, releasing that throughout the night?
barry,
You are a foolish Warmist.
CO2 absorbs infrared light roughly 2000 times better than O2 or N2. However, O2 and N2 comprise something like 9996 parts to 1 of CO2.
So CO2 adsorbs roughly 2000 units per unit volume of atmosphere, while O2 and N2 absorb some 9996 units. Far more in total than the CO2.
Foolish, foolish, Warmist. Deny, divert, confuse – or attempt to.
Cheers.
What wavelengths of infrared, precisely, do N2 and O2 absorb?
A reputable source (link) would be appreciated.
Maybe I could sum things up practically.
CO2 only causes an increase in temperature of a body in the presence of a source of heat sufficient to cause that increase of temperature of the body.
CO2 causes no increase of temperature in an enclosed space, at night, indoors, or under heavy cloud cover, or when it is snowing.
CO2 has been unable to prevent the Earth’s surface from cooling over the last four and a half billion years, let alone increase its temperature.
There is no falsifiable hypothesis extant, which would support the supposed planet heating properties of CO2.
The supposed greenhouse effect is therefore best considered as the effect of no effect, until scientifically shown to be otherwise.
A small quote from Richard Feynman to finish up –
“And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?”
Cheers.
Not repeatable?
barry,
Foolish Warmists characteristically utter two word nonsense statements, and also demonstrate reduced comprehension capacity on occasion.
I’ll repeat what I wrote previously –
“Elliott Bignell,
Heating air, or carbon dioxide, or argon, or any gas is easy.
Are you so foolish as to believe that heating CO2 suffices to support your statement that CO2 causes warming? This is typical diversionary foolish Warmist thinking.
Try the experiment with a gas such as argon, (acknowledged as IR transparent by comparison with CO2), and the results are identical. Foolish experiment, designed by foolish Warmists.
You still cannot come up with a falsifiable hypothesis to support your foolish Warmist statement that CO2 causes warming. Id refer you to a peer reviewed paper pointing out the foolishness of your experiment as a demonstration of the nonexistent greenhouse effect. Its paywyalled, but $30 is a small price to pay to learn some real science.
Cheers.”
Foolish Warmist. Climatology is Scientism, not science. Replete with meaningless sciencey words, and completely useless to humanity.
A prime example of Cargo Cult Science – form without substance. The acolytes of the Warmist Church of Latter Day Scientism believe in an apocalyptic future – Venusian conditions, boiling seas, disease, starvation, and death.
Presumably, those who abstained from burning coal will be Saved! What a load of absolute rubbish!
You can’t warm anything with CO2. Nobody can.
Cheers.
The acolytes of the Warmist Church of Latter Day Scientism believe in an apocalyptic future Venusian conditions, boiling seas, disease, starvation, and death.
Venusian conditions? Could you link to this church where they say that?
Are you so foolish as to believe that heating CO2 suffices to support your statement that CO2 causes warming?
I’ve laid out my view many times. You seem unable to articulate it.
Atmospheric GHGs absorbs infrared and re-emit it in any direction, including downward. This slows the escape of Earth-emitted infrared to space. Back-radiation from re-emitted infrared hits the earth’s surface, warming it. The originating heat source is the sun. Back-radiation from the atmosphere is easily observed at night, with no sunlight.
That’s the GHE.
Sheeeeesh barry! Even the IPCC has dropped the “back-radiation” nonsense.
You’re not only confused about science, you’re confused about pseudoscience!
Great comedy, keep going.
barry,
and
http://gaia.lbl.gov/btech/papers/29389.pdf
Sheeeeesh barry! Even the IPCC has dropped the back-radiation nonsense.
Liar.
barry,
Foolish Warmist. It doesn’t really matter, does it?
IPCC –
“In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Maybe you believe that future climate states are predictable, but the IPCC most certainly doesn’t.
I agree with the IPCC. Maybe you have a reason for believing they’re all foolish, but I doubt it.
Cheers.
Eliding quotes and not providing links. Very poor form. Honest people give you the link so you can read the context for yourself.
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles.
IPCC 2001 – 15 years ago.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
This is news to you? Models cannot predict the weather for a given day 50 years from now. Their resolution is only good enough to give a statistical range of future climate states – that’s what anyone familiar with climate modeling well knows.
Simlarly to the seasons – an orbital model could (and they do) discern the climate change associated with the seasons. These models cannot predict the temperature of a given day, but they successfully replicate the changing range of temperatures for each season.
Surely you can do better than this.
Get onto climate sensitivity instead of this ‘no GHE’ and models can’t predict weather bollox. Climate sensitivity is poorly constrained and a much better target for IPCC critics.
Clouds and aerosols – still very uncertain components. Much more fruit for skeptics on these things than crankinsh rambles on known fundamentals.
barry, AR5 no longer mentions “back-radiation” in the technical write-up. If I’m wrong, please indicate the paragraph/page number. If you have such evidence, then I will gladly apologize. But, if you do not have the evidence, then YOU are the “liar”.
“Back longwave radiation” 1st graphic in the AR5 Introductory Chapter.
http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af185/barryschwarz/ipcc%20intro%20graph%20back%20longwave%20radiation_zpsziex7icm.png
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf
Fig 1.1, page 126.
Sheeeeesh barry! Even the IPCC has dropped the back-radiation nonsense.
Nonsense if they had. Of course the atmosphere emits thermal radiation! As do all objects above absolute zero (ie, every object in the universe)
Well, barry, I can’t say you didn’t try. The wording “back-radiation” is not mentioned in the text, as I stated. You found the wording “back longwave radiation” in one of the cartoons.
So, they didn’t mention it, but, in a way, they did. So, I guess we’re both right.
But, you have to wonder why they have backed away from the original terminology….
P.S. Calling me a “liar” only indicates you have exhausted your pseudoscience and are now desperate. It happens all the time.
So, they didnt mention it, but, in a way, they did. So, I guess were both right.
That’s less inane than I anticipated your answer would be. The terms are, of course, describing exactly the same thing.
CO2 only causes an increase in temperature of a body in the presence of a source of heat sufficient to cause that increase of temperature of the body.
Have you seen that big ball of fire in the sky?
CO2 has been unable to prevent the Earths surface from cooling over the last four and a half billion years, let alone increase its temperature.
Did someone tell you that nothing else affects surface temperatures?
The sun has become hotter over the 4.5 billion years of the earth’s existence. Yet the Earth’s surface has cooled over the same period. Do we then deduce that the sun has no influence on global surface temps?
barry,
I agree. The CO2 heating effect only occurs while there is sufficient sunlight to heat the surface, you claim. On the Moon, the Sun manages to heat the Lunar surface, after the same exposure time, to higher temperatures. The lack of CO2 on the Moon results in higher, not lower, temperature, after the same exposure time.
Thank you for agreeing that the Earth’s surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of a hotter Sun, CO2, meteor impacts, radioactive decay, and all the rest. Cooled, not heated.
Lost more energy than it received. Cooled.reduced its temperature.
I ask once again – what’s your falsifiable hypothesis to explain the supposed ability of CO2 to reverse four and a half billion years of cooling?
You have so far shown no example of CO2s supposed heating ability. Rather, you agree that the Sun heats that which is exposed to its radiation.
Cheers.
The CO2 heating effect only occurs while there is sufficient sunlight to heat the surface, you claim. On the Moon, the Sun manages to heat the Lunar surface, after the same exposure time, to higher temperatures. The lack of CO2 on the Moon results in higher, not lower, temperature, after the same exposure time.
Tsk. Earth’s surface temp is cooler than the moon’s during daylight because of the atmosphere. The atmosphere reflects or absorbs much of the incoming solar radiation.
The reason the moon in darkness is far colder than the Earth at night is because of the atmosphere. There is no back-radiation on the moon. There is on Earth. Earth’s atmos keeps the surface warmer than the moon after the sun has gone down. Even if the sun goes down for a couple of months over the polar regions.
barry,
Exactly. The Earth’s surface is cooler than the Moon’s, due to the atmosphere, which contains GHGs, amongst other things. Cooler. The presence of the atmosphere results in a cooler (as in lower temperature) surface. Not hotter. Cooler.
And vice versa at night. A minor insulating effect.
All is well with the world.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I am not sure that I understand your point “The Earths surface is cooler than the Moons, due to the atmosphere, which contains GHGs, amongst other things. Cooler. The presence of the atmosphere results in a cooler (as in lower temperature) surface. Not hotter. Cooler.”
If you mean peak high temperature you have a point but the average temperature of the Moon’s surface is certainly colder than the average Earth surface by a considerable amount.
Here is a link for you think about.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/Chapter03.pdf
Scroll down to table 3.2. The average temperature of the Moon’s equator is only 256 K or -17 C. Much colder than the Earth’s average 15 C. Sorry but you are wrong based upon the available evidence. Unless you can come up with supporting evidence I suggest you reconsider your current belief system.
Norman says, July 13, 2016 at 10:27 PM:
“The average temperature of the Moons equator is only 256 K or -17 C. Much colder than the Earths average 15 C.”
The lunar surface is much colder on average than this:
http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
Kristian
Thanks for your link. The one I posted was an estimated lunar surface temp and your link is an actual measured one.
Norman,
I meant what I wrote – I’m not sure what part you don’t understand. Please let me know.
You wrote –
“If you mean peak high temperature you have a point”. I don’t just have a point, I’m stating a fact. Minimum temperatures on the Moon are also lower than Earth, for precisely the same physical reasons.
Averages are beloved of foolish Warmists, and some others. An arid tropical desert may have extremes from 50 C to 0 C. The average, 25 C, is completely irrelevant. Extremes of 26 C and 24 C will produce the same average, but the extremes are likely to prove far less fatal, as the UK MOD discovered. The dead SAS troopers discovered extremes can be fatal.
Nobody can state with confidence an average surface temperature for the Earth, for a number of reasons, in any case. A large proportion of the surface is covered by water. A large proportion of the rest is covered by soil, roads, vegetation, and so on. If this was not bad enough, foolish Warmists absolutely refuse to accept ground temperatures, preferring instead to believe that a pointless and misleading average of inaccurate maximum and minimum thermometer readings will somehow enable the future to be predicted.
Foolish Warmists. Even the IPCC states categorically that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
I have facts, physics, and observations to support my statements. You appear to have nothing except faith and unsupported belief on your side. Good luck with that.
CO2 heats nothing. Never has, never will. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, according to all accounts, atmospheric CO2 concentration notwithstanding.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You have really become fond of the term “Foolish Warmists” does writing it several times seem to give your words more credibility?
If you do not like averages then based upon your claim the Earth’s surface is cooler than the Moon’s?, what does that mean? The Moon’s surface is much warmer during the long lunar day but much much colder than at night. Your claim seems very lame, that is why averages are necessary. If you have many points you can’t use one point to determine the reality of a situation. I really do not know what science you studied.
If you were a chemist you would conclude that at the same temperature oxygen gas molecules are moving much faster than hydrogen gas molecules because some oxygen molecules are moving faster than some hydrogen atoms. Even though chemists will use the average speed of the gas molecules and conclude the hydrogen molecules are much faster moving at the same temp.
Averages (if done unbiased and pure science) are very valuable in determining trends. You take a lot of samples and average them out and compare them in time to see what they are doing.
You are so far from scientific thought process that I really do not know how to relate science and logic to your mind.
Norm, since you are spouting again, maybe you could tell us once more how cabbages emit visible light. Or, how Earth’s energy leaves the system, but it doesn’t leave the system.
Entertain us with those first, and there is much more!
Thank you for agreeing that the Earths surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of a hotter Sun, CO2, meteor impacts, radioactive decay, and all the rest. Cooled, not heated.
Do you deduce that the hotter sun over geologic has had no influence on the Earth’s surface temperature, which has cooled?
That is the position you must take according to the logic you’ve laid out. Changes in the sun’s output does not affect changes of earth’s surface temp.
If not, why not?
barry,
No.
Why do you think that changes in the Sun’s output do not affect the temperature of a body warmed by the Sun’s radiation? What has this to do with your claim that CO2 has heated the Earth?
Is this an example of foolish Warmist attempts to deny, divert, and confuse?
CO2 warms nothing. The Earth has cooled.
Cheers.
Why do you think that changes in the Suns output do not affect the temperature of a body warmed by the Suns radiation?
I’m applying your logic here.
Over the 4 billion years or so of the Earth’s existence, the surface has cooled. In the same time, the sun has expanded and become hotter.
According to your logic, the sun cannot be responsible for the surface temperature of the Earth.
You say CO2 con’t be responsible because the Earth has cooled. Why does the logic not follow for the sun, which has become hotter while the Earth cooled?
The explanation should be interesting.
You have so far shown no example of CO2s supposed heating ability.
Plenty of examples on youtube
barry,
Sometimes, foolish Warmists exhibit a strange inability to comprehend English, or maybe their attention span is remarkably short. However, yet again –
“Heating air, or carbon dioxide, or argon, or any gas is easy.
Are you so foolish as to believe that heating CO2 suffices to support your statement that CO2 causes warming? This is typical diversionary foolish Warmist thinking.
Try the experiment with a gas such as argon, (acknowledged as IR transparent by comparison with CO2), and the results are identical. Foolish experiment, designed by foolish Warmists.
You still cannot come up with a falsifiable hypothesis to support your foolish Warmist statement that CO2 causes warming. Id refer you to a peer reviewed paper pointing out the foolishness of your experiment as a demonstration of the nonexistent greenhouse effect. Its paywyalled, but $30 is a small price to pay to learn some real science.
Cheers.
I couldn’t actually see on YouTube any examples of experiments demonstrating the heating ability of CO2. At best a pack of foolish Warmists – Bill Nye, for example – heating a volume of CO2 in an absurdly inefficient manner. Heating a volume of CO2 with a heat source, and then claiming self heating properties for CO2 is simply insane. Turn the heat off, and the CO2 promptly cools down, just like anything else.
CO2 can be heated by a heat source. Remove the heat source, and it cools again. Foolish Warmists appear to be in denial of these simple, easily demonstrable facts.
No CO2 warming. None.
Cheers.
I couldnt actually see on YouTube any examples of experiments demonstrating the heating ability of CO2. At best a pack of foolish Warmists Bill Nye, for example heating a volume of CO2 in an absurdly inefficient manner.
You have been linked to examples, but every single one of them is flawed, according to you, even the ones you did not click on.
This is the picture of denial.
barry,
Are you just being a foolish Warmist, or are you disagreeing with something I wrote?
You could always try providing a link to a repeatable experiment showing the heating properties of CO2, if you could find one, of course!
I guess you’re reduced to the usual worn out foolish Warmist tactics of deny, divert, and confuse!
Heating a volume of gas with a heat source is not terribly difficult. To claim this is novel or revolutionary is completely foolish! Do you still deny the Earth has cooled since its creation? Do you still deny that the surface cools at night? Do you still deny that CO2 has no heating properties whatever?
Who’s in denial?
Cheers.
barry,
http://gaia.lbl.gov/btech/papers/29389.pdf
“Plenty of examples on youtube”
I also notice he is studiously ignoring the National Curriculum experiment!
Elliott Bignell,
Foolish Warmist.
Show me the heating effect of CO2 when the heat source is turned off. Foolish Warmists like Bill Nye or Al Gore heat some gas using a heater, and claim this is the GHE. Other foolish Warmists are foolish enough to believe Ita!
No CO2 planetary heating effect. None. Things heat during the day, due to Sunlight generally. Things cool down at night, in the absence of sunlight, generally.
Foolish Warmists haven’t even a falsifiable hypothesis explaining their amazing planet heating fixation! Nothing – which is not surprising, considering the planet heating properties of CO2 don’t exist!
Foolish Warmists are gullible suckers! Ordinary Warmists are genuinely mistaken, protecting their livelihoods, giving in to peer pressure, or just trying to live a quiet life. Some foolish Warmists may even be suffering from delusional psychosis – Michael Mann may be one such.
Where’s your copy of a falsifiable hypothesis supporting CO2’s heating properties? On YouTube, perhaps? Hidden away with Trenberth’s missing heat?
Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
See reply by barry.
Show me the heating effect of CO2 when the heat source is turned off.
Some of the youtube experiments measure the rate of cooling between the control and CO2 enriched volumes when the heat source is turned off. The CO2 volumes cool more slowly.
Moon at night/Earth at night. Infrared-absorbing gases keep the planet warmer than the moon after the sun goes down – even the polar parts of the planet are warmer than the dark-side moon, where night can last a couple of months.
Hi Kristian,
I reply here because the thread of the post above, became too long.
First of all, thank you for considering my post.
I fully agree with you about all you wrote about the Pierrehumbert explanation about the radiative gases greenhouse effect, but I still don’t get why you stated that without GHGs there should still downwelling LWIR.
Is there any law of physics which states that in case of not IR active gas its molecules start radiate anyway when heated?
I’m thinking to the Sun, it reached that so high temperature because while it was forming by aggregating hydrogen atoms and their KE, at the lower temperatures the energy couldn’t be radiated at all by the hydrogen and after having reached the temperature of fusion, it started to radiate at the helium WL which keep its temperature almost stable now.
Where am I wrong?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO says, July 14, 2016 at 3:49 AM:
“(…) I still dont get why you stated that without GHGs there should still downwelling LWIR.”
I’m pretty sure I didn’t state that. Could you please quote me directly?
Hi Kristian.
I apologize, it seems that my bad English tricked me again, when you wrote here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-217004
I believed that you were contesting Norman his:
“Even a very warm atmopsphere without GHG (IR emitting) would have no measurable downwelling IR. The fact there is a measurable IR flux from above is the GHE and it is real energy that will lower the rate of cooling when the sun is not shining.”
Meaning that there were still photons without GHGs, instead I now realized that you were arguing about the existence of a real flux of energy from clouds to ground due to photons with GHGs.
Sorry again.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
My “clouds to ground” would “atmosphere to ground”
@Massimo…”I fully agree with you about all you wrote about the Pierrehumbert explanation about the radiative gases greenhouse effect…”
Massimo….I could not find a reference to Pierrehumbert anywhere in this article but I do know that he is essentially a geologist who has been affirmed as the resident physics expert at realclimate. IMHO, he has a faulty understanding of real physics and he has subscribed to the AGW distorted version of the same.
Anyone who thinks that radiative heat transfer is a major cause of warming in the atmosphere does not understand real physics and is in denial about the pithy amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Nitrogen and oxygen account for 99% of atmospheric gases and to ignore their effect on heat transfer in the atmosphere is tantamount to ignorance.
Hi Gordon,
we were referring to this post:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-217064
I absolutely agree with you.
Have a great day.
Massimo
barry,
“Ive laid out my view many times. You seem unable to articulate it.
Atmospheric GHGs absorbs infrared and re-emit it in any direction, including downward. This slows the escape of Earth-emitted infrared to space.”
Yes, this is the underlying mechanism.
“Back-radiation from re-emitted infrared hits the earths surface, warming it. The originating heat source is the sun. Back-radiation from the atmosphere is easily observed at night, with no sunlight.
Thats the GHE.”
Well, so says you and Roy Spencer, but I don’t agree.
It seems you and Roy are unable to distinguish between, or have mixed together, absorbed upwelling IR from the Earth’s surface which is absorbed by the atmosphere and some re-radiated back downwards where its re-absorbed at a lower point (and perhaps some passes all the way back to the surface) and the total amount of IR the atmosphere as a whole mass ultimately passes to the surface.
This is largely because there are multiple energy inputs to the atmosphere besides just the upwelling IR flux emitted from the surface (and atmosphere) which is absorbed. Post albedo solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere and re-emitted downward to the surface would not be back radiation, but instead forward radiation from the Sun whose energy has yet to reach the surface. And in addition to the IR flux emitted from the surface which is absorbed there is significant non-radiant flux moved from the surface into the atmosphere, primarily as the latent heat of evaporated water, which condenses to forms clouds whose deposited energy within (in addition to driving weather), also radiates substantial IR downward to the surface. The total amount of IR that is ultimately passed to the surface has contributions from all three input sources, and the contribution from each one cannot be distinguished or quantified in any clear or meaningful way from the other two.
It appears most people, including apparently Roy as well, are unable to separate the manifesting thermodynamic path itself from the underlying driving mechanism of the GHE. The two are largely separate from one another. Hence massive confusion and why so many people have difficulty grasping and accepting the radiative induced GHE theory.
The GHE has hardly anything to do with the amount of IR the atmosphere passes to the surface, and is mostly due to and driven by absorbed upwelling IR which is re-radiated back downward towards (and not necessarily back to) the surface. This is underlying mechanisms that slows down the radiative cooling process from the surface to space, and is ultimately what is acting to elevate the surface temperature above what it would otherwise be. Not the amount of DLR at the surface.
RW,
At the risk of raising your ire, might I suggest you have describeda slight insulating effect, which somewhat reduces the maximum temperature during the day, and somewhat reduces the rate at which the surface cools at night, resulting in a higher minimum temperature.
The net effect is to reduce extremes of both hot and cold on the surface (compared with the Moon, for example), as the atmosphere acts as a damper with respect to peak flux flows.
No offense intended, we may be expressing the same idea differently. I make a distinction between heating and being warmer than it otherwise would be. The surface cools at night. It doesn’t heat up. It is still warmer than it would be in the case that there was no atmosphere. Still no heating due to CO2, of course.
Cheers.
and some re-radiated back downwards where its re-absorbed at a lower point (and perhaps some passes all the way back to the surface)
GHGs absorb and re-emit in the first millimeter of altitude, where air is densest, so yes, a lot of radiation is passed back to the surface. Emissions are randomly directed, so a lot gets back to the surface from directly above it and from higher in the atmos, eventually. Zooming out from the ‘trees’, the whole atmosphere emits in all directions.
That should have said:
“This is the underlying mechanism that slows down the radiative cooling process from the surface to space,…”
It seems you and Roy are unable to distinguish between, or have mixed together, absorbed upwelling IR from the Earths surface which is absorbed by the atmosphere and some re-radiated back downwards where its re-absorbed at a lower point (and perhaps some passes all the way back to the surface) and the total amount of IR the atmosphere as a whole mass ultimately passes to the surface.
No, the bigger picture is undertstood, but most wouldn’t buy it. I started here saying that GHGs slow the escape of radiation to space (slowing the the cooling process). People asked for evidence. So we moved onto observations.
@RW…”Atmospheric GHGs absorbs infrared and re-emit it in any direction, including downward. This slows the escape of Earth-emitted infrared to space.
I realize the quote above is from someone else.
There’s no question that GHGs can absorb a tiny amount of the huge IR flux generated by the Earth’s surface but to claim GHGs slow that huge flux is ridiculous. Physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, claimed in his book on atmospheric radiation that the trapping theory is a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly.
Besides, IR is not heat. Later in your reply you claim (or you are quoting someone else): “Back-radiation from re-emitted infrared hits the Earths surface, warming it”.
There’s no proof of that and the premise is highly unlikely. IR has the capacity to transfer heat from a warmer source to a cooler sink. IR cannot transfer heat in the opposite direction without a compensation that is not found in the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere is cooler, IR cannot transfer heat back to the surface.
Yes, Gordon.
What I notice is the folks that claim “trapping” and “slowing” just do not understand the laws of heat transfer. Heat transfer is NOT instantaneous, but they seem to “believe” it should be. As you indicated, they confuse photons, traveling at the speed of light, with heat. They try to picture what is happening in the atmosphere, but do not understand that quantum physics is NOT intuitive.
RW is quoting me.
Besides, IR is not heat.
That’s right. Electromagnetic radiation isn’t heat. Objects hit by it change state. The interactions causes heat. The temperature of space between the sun and the Earth is very cold. It’s not until an object (eg, mass of molecules/particles) is placed between that warmth is experienced.
IR has the capacity to transfer heat from a warmer source to a cooler sink. IR cannot transfer heat in the opposite direction without a compensation that is not found in the atmosphere.
Overall the flow is from warmer to cooler, but changing the flux can cause a cooler object to warm a hotter one by changing the heat sink. Heat is redistributed – as evidenced by putting on a sweater on a cool day. The sweater is cooler than body temperature, yet warming is experienced in the air nearest the skin (convective process). It’s also why car engines are more likely to overheat on a hot day. The warmer air is a less efficient heat sink than cooler air.
The compensation in a warming atmosphere is higher up in the atmosphere. Putting on a sweater shifts the cooling of the narrow system warming your skin slightly further away from the surface of your skin.
No, a cooler object cannot warm a warmer object. Air temperature of 29C cannot warm SST at 30 C. Your science is a bust, Barry.
Air is a heat sink for the warmer surface waters. If the air becomes warmer, it becomes a less efficient heat sink. No laws are violated.
My old laptop overheats on hot days and shuts down if I overwork it. It takes longer to do this on cold days, if at all. The CPU temp is always greater than ambient air temp, no matter the weather. Why do you think the air temp makes a difference?
No, Barry, SST determines air temperature. Water is opaque to LWIR. Water cools evaporatively. Heat sinking, ha,ha, a new one.
mpainter
You are correct that 29C air cannot warm SST at 30C. But air at 29C will slow the cooling of the 30C Sea Surface compared to air that is at a lower temperature.
If no incoming energy were in the mix, then the Sea Surface would cool in both cases but more quickly under the cooler air but with the real world Sea Surface, it receives incoming solar radiation that will then be able to reach a higher temperature in the case with the warmer air above.
This can take place in a real world situation. You can have just warm air over the ocean keeping it cooling rate suppressed and you can have an ocean surface with a colder blob of air move over it.
When the sun shines which Sea surface do you think will end up warmer by sunset?
Norm says “You are correct”
##
That’s where you needed to stop.
mpainter,
Norman, foolish Warmist, attempts to prove Warmist superiority by snatching Defeat out of the jaws of Victory!
CO2 heats nothing. The Earth has cooled.
Cheers.
Norman says, July 14, 2016 at 8:03 PM:
“(…) air at 29C will slow the cooling of the 30C Sea Surface compared to air that is at a lower temperature.
If no incoming energy were in the mix, then the Sea Surface would cool in both cases but more quickly under the cooler air but with the real world Sea Surface, it receives incoming solar radiation that will then be able to reach a higher temperature in the case with the warmer air above.”
You’re absolutely right, of course. It’s called “insulation”. And insulation works.
But it strikes me as somewhat ironic that you are now basically appealing to the REAL atmospheric insulation effect on the solar-heated surface, in an attempt to somehow justify a hypothetical radiative effect on surface temps.
The atmosphere insulates the solar-heated surface – significantly the ocean surface – simply by being massive.
Being massive means it has the ability to warm. Space doesn’t. The negative temperature tropospheric gradient is a result of this ability. The atmospheric circulation, spreading heat around the globe, is another. Finally, but extremely important to the ocean energy/heat budget, the atmosphere being massive means it has a weight. It weighs down on the surface. Space doesn’t. This weight is expressed by the surface atmospheric pressure. Evaporation rates from a warm water surface is determined by several factors, one of them being absolute air pressure at the surface in question.
Think of it like this: If you have an ocean surface at say 28 degrees Celsius (301K), then if the air above it were cooler (the temp gradient up through the tropospheric column were steeper), and/or if the air above were drier (further from the point of saturation), evaporation rates would be higher, at the same initial surface temp. So it would cool towards a lower final (equilibrium) temp. The exact same thing goes for absolute atmospheric pressure at the surface. If our atmosphere were only half as massive, atmospheric pressure on the ocean surface would be half also, and so evaporation rates at 28 degrees would go significantly up. It would more easily be able to rid itself of excess energy. Conversely, if our atmosphere were twice as massive, atmospheric pressure at the surface would be twice as high, and evaporation rates at 28 degrees would be substantially supressed. This would naturally lead to a lower equilibrium temp in the former case, and a higher equilibrium temp in the latter.
Wind across a water surface is another highly important factor in determining evaporation rates from a water surface at a certain temperature. More wind, higher evaporation rates, lower surface temp. Let the air stagnate and surface temps will go up, because of dropping evaporation rates.
@Barry…”Overall the flow is from warmer to cooler, but changing the flux can cause a cooler object to warm a hotter..”
Aggggrrrrhhhh!!! That was the sound of Clausius rolling over in his grave.
Not overall…according to Clausius, heat is always restricted to a transfer from hot to cold unless a mechanism is in place to transfer heat back to the cold object to compensate it for heat loss. In a refrigerator, external power is required to drive a motor, which drives a compressor, which compresses a refrigerant, etc.
Heat transfer is governed by the valence electrons in an atom. The valence electrons can change energy states, rising to a higher level when they absorb a photon of IR and dropping to a lower level when they emit IR. The overall change in energy state lowers or raises the kinetic energy in the atom which translates to a lowering or raising of heat.
In order for IR to raise the energy state of a valence electron it must have a specific frequency and intensity. Electrons in atoms of a warmer body are at a higher energy state and are not affected by the lower intensity, lower frequency IR from the cooler body.
I suppose it could be claimed that two bodies very close to thermal equilibrium may be able to exchange IR but when they are several degrees apart it is unlikely that IR from the electrons in the cooler body will have the required intensity and frequency to raise the energy level in the electrons of a warmer body.
Gordon Robertson
It may be time to update your knowledge of electromagnetic energy. IR is not generated by valence electrons moving from higher to lower
energy states, IR is the electromagnetic energy that is produced by molecular vibrations. Visible light is the energy that is produced by electrons moving from higher to lower energy states.
The very reason IR is considered “heat energy” is because when it is absorbed by materials it will increase the vibration of the whole object (in solids the molecules are all interlinked so an increased vibration in one part spreads around the entire material)
Next up–Norm will explain why cabbages emit visible light!
(Hilarious.)
Gordon, my sweater is colder than me. Why do I feel warmer when I put it on?
@barry…”my sweater is colder than me. Why do I feel warmer when I put it on?”
The sweater traps a layer of air molecules between it and your shirt and air acts as an insulator. If you put a jacket on top of the sweater you ad another layer of air.
That’s the secret of dressing for cold climates. A sweat-absorbing synthetic shirt goes next to the skin to wick sweat away from the skin so it wont cool as it evapourates from the skin. Then several layers are added on top of the wicking shirt.
A wind proof jacket tops it off but if it doesn’t pass air easily the temperature inside will build up and you’ll sweat. Gortex is designed to block wind and still allow air to escape slowly from inside.
Why is a car engine more likely to overheat on a hot day than a cold one? The engine is certainly warmer than the ambient air, by a great many degrees C.
Sweaters and car engines? Tsk, tsk. Let’s talk about latent energy, evaporative cooling, and convection, shall we?
SST determines air temperature, not the other way around.
barry, your confusion appears linked to your belief that the atmosphere is a “blanket”. What you need to learn is that every second, of every hour, of every day, of every year, the atmosphere moves heat to space. It does not “trap” heat. The atmosphere is a “heat conductor”.
If you can readjust your belief system to appreciate that simple concept, you can move to a higher level of understanding.
It does not trap heat. The atmosphere is a heat conductor.
If you can readjust your belief system to appreciate that simple concept…
Conductor is just another analogy. I’m talking about changes in the ‘conductor’, not arguing that there isn’t one (at least by analogy).
I’ve searched the thread – I’ve never used the word “trap.”
No one answered my questions about cooler body warming a warmer one. Too hard? How about a direct reply rather than deflections?
SST determines air temperature, not the other way around.
They determine each other. The oceans themselves have temperature strata. Change the temp of one stratum and the rest change. The temps remain stratified. Heat energy is not static. There is no invisible, perfect thermal shield between the different temp strata of the oceans.
barry,
Another foolish Warmist attempt at a “gotcha”. Why do foolish Warmists keep asking foolish questions, when they’re obviously not going to accept the answers? Because they are foolish Warmists, of course.
As to blankets, sweaters, overcoats or other irrelevant and pointless analogies, wrap a cooling corpse, or a cooling planet, with as many blankets etc as you like.
It still cools. Maybe four and a half billion years of cooling doesn’t convince a foolish Warmist, but rational people don’t deny observable fact.
As to the foolish Warmist gotcha about a cooler body heating a warmer one – you’re dreaming a Warmist dream., Your sweater provided no heat. Your febrile foolish Warmist overheated imagination seems to provide all the heat you need.
CO2 heats nothing. Not even planets. Foolish Warmist fantasy.
Cheers.
“They determine each other.”
##
Nope. AGW fantasy. A column of water ten centimeters in height (atmosphere) does not determine the temperature of a column of water ten thousand centimeters in height (ocean)
barry ponders: “Conductor is just another analogy. Im talking about changes in the conductor, not arguing that there isnt one (at least by analogy).”
Ok barry, lets “change” the conductor. Let’s go from 400 ppm CO2 to 800 ppm. The bogus Arrhenius equation, the start of the IPCC pseudoscience, tells us that increase would provide a “radiative forcing” of about 3.71 Watts/sq. meter.
But, Earth’s surface is 510 trillion sq. meters. So, the bogus CO2 equation tells us we have just created 1891 trillion Watts! (Are you starting to see why this is pseudoscience?)
Your sweater provided no heat
Explain how we feel warmer with a sweater on than off. It’s a colder object. Put it on – our skin gets warmer. Is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics broken?
It’s hilarious to watch people dodge and deflect – anything to avoid a straight answer.
Come on. Explain it. It won’t kill you.
barry, grasping at straws: “Explain how we feel warmer with a sweater on than off.”
barry, are you an English major by any chance?
A sweater stifles convection. Does the IR flux stifle convection?
Nope.
Does the GHE stifle convection?
Nope.
You’re welcome.
We should start and over/under on the number of comments to this post.
This is potentially exciting:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature18273.html
“Clouds substantially affect Earths energy budget by reflecting solar radiation back to space and by restricting emission of thermal radiation to space1. They are perhaps the largest uncertainty in our understanding of climate change, owing to disagreement among climate models and observational datasets over what cloud changes have occurred during recent decades and will occur in response to global warming2, 3. This is because observational systems originally designed for monitoring weather have lacked sufficient stability to detect cloud changes reliably over decades unless they have been corrected to remove artefacts4, 5. Here we show that several independent, empirically corrected satellite records exhibit large-scale patterns of cloud change between the 1980s and the 2000s that are similar to those produced by model simulations of climate with recent historical external radiative forcing. Observed and simulated cloud change patterns are consistent with poleward retreat of mid-latitude storm tracks, expansion of subtropical dry zones, and increasing height of the highest cloud tops at all latitudes. The primary drivers of these cloud changes appear to be increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and a recovery from volcanic radiative cooling. These results indicate that the cloud changes most consistently predicted by global climate models are currently occurring in nature.”
It basically says that empirical evidence of poleward movements of cloud patterns closely matches GCMs and confirms a higher level of positive feedbacks. It’s going to get warm. Fast.
The new government of GB just abolished its Department of Energy and Climate Change. It’s going to get cool….fast.
And rasmussen has trump up by 7… Life on planet terra may get very interesting soon.
Elliott Bignell. I thought that there might be big news in the new study . . . until I read it. I will just mention four issues that immediately emerged as I read the study:
1. “Models matched Corrected data sets.” I could get Hitler saving Jewish lives if I have the freedom to correct data sets. Somehow in climatology, we need to get away from the notion that researchers get to adjust the data sets.
2. Association is not causation. The causation could be reversed.
3. The trends from 1980 to 2000 may not have continued to 2016.
4. Relative to #3, I do not have impression that subtropical dry zones are currently expanding.
“Association is not causation. The causation could be reversed.”
Everything you say basically comes down to a claim that we do not have to listen to the evidence we have observed because there might be evidence we haven’t observed that says something you prefer to hear. This is about as profoundly anti-science as it is possible to imagine.
Only the quote above differs slightly, in its failure to understand the nature of prediction and falsification in science. The causal mechanisms encoded in models PREDICTED this outcome. This is a strong confirmation, and more importantly a failure to falsify, those mechanisms.
The ONLY mechanism available in science for understanding causality is to predict results and observe whether they emerge.
Elliott Bignell says, July 15, 2016 at 3:47 AM:
“The causal mechanisms encoded in models PREDICTED this outcome.”
No. They predicted AN outcome. And then these people went about to CORRECT the data until it showed the SAME outcome.
The data itself (ISCCP/ISCCP FD, ERBS, HIRS) very clearly points us to the cause of the ToA radiative imbalance and thus, by extension, to the cause of the energy accumulation within the Earth system over the last decades: Icreased ASR, due to a substantial reduction in – importantly and primarily – TROPICAL cloud cover from the 80s to about 2000. We essentially don’t know anything about the evolution in ASR (in effect, the global albedo) before ~1985, but we know very well how it evolved from this point on …
Furthermore, while the ASR increased, OLR at the ToA also increased (ISCCP FD, ERBS, HIRS). In step with the rise in tropospheric temps.
IOW, the increase in ASR is the CAUSE of the warming, and the increase in OLR is the radiative EFFECT of the warming.
No “enhanced rGHE” in sight.
Elliott Bignell: Amazing, you are asking me to forget everything I learned about science in my doctoral degree; and then you are accusing me of being anti-science.
Let us try again to explore a couple of the scientific issues or problems with the paper: You say that the models predicted global warming causing the movements of cloud patterns. But there were other scientists who said that the movements of cloud patterns would cause global warming. If a study produces an association over a 20 year period, you have not shown which side is right. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the 20 year-old period shows a coincidence.
Moreover, there is a scientific problem when data sets can be “corrected.” I do understand the reasons in climatology to want to correct data sets. But that does not mean that every correction is legitimate. And for people with an obvious bias to correct the data set . . . that is problematic. I do not know how to resolve this problem, but I do know that true scientists would allow their corrections to be examined and tested for independent validity. For example if corrections move below-average temperatures for Great Lakes states to near normal during a time when Great Lakes ice was at record highs, then you probably have a problem in the correction process. If corrections turn high temperatures into low temperatures during a time when glacial retreat was at its greatest, then you probably have a problem in the correction process.
Finally — just for the sake of brevity — what continues to happen is just as important as what happens during the study period. If the expansion of subtropical dry zones does not continue after 2000 as “predicted by the models,” then it is unscientific to ignore it.
Elliott Bignell, your post illustrates well why there is such division in climatology. I point out rather obvious scientific issues, but in response you make a preposterous summary of my post and then describe me “as profoundly anti-science as it is possible to imagine.” That is not how to have a productive discussion.
@Eliot Bignall…”Clouds substantially affect Earths energy budget by reflecting solar radiation back to space and by restricting emission of thermal radiation to space1″.
Please don’t get sucked into the argument that radiative heat transfer is the only or major vehicle for tranferring heat. According to Lindzen, clouds like thunder clouds also transport heat convectively from the surface to space. He thinks convective transfer is as important or more important than radiative transfer.
I think radiative transfer got so important because it works better in climate models. The modelers can’t do convection so they ignore it, as if it isn’t there.
The modelers have made serious errors in the application of radiative transfer equations which were designed to measure solar radiation at much higher temperatures. They have confused infrared radiation with thermal energy and subsequently ignored the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If the clouds are at a lower temperature than the surface they will be transferring no heat to the surface.
I think radiative transfer got so important because it works better in climate models. The modelers cant do convection so they ignore it, as if it isnt there.
You know nothing about climate models, John Snow.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014RG000475/full
“they ignore it, as if it isnt there”
Nope.
@Barry “You know nothing about climate models, John Snow”.
I seem to know significantly more about them than you, since you pointed me to a link that tells me nothing.
Climate models are based on differential equation theory. There is a generalized differential equation that represents gases like the atmosphere and modelers have divided the globe into squares and applied the equation to them.
That’s where the term ‘forcing’ came from. There is no such thing as a forcing in real physics. It is a reference to a forcing function, which is a function applied to a differential equation to elicit a response of a certain kind. When you hear people talking about forcings in climate science they are talking about theoretical mathematics, not physics.
A square wave is a forcing function applied to models in electronics. It can be represented mathematically and when applied to a differential equation representing an amplifier it can show how the amplifier responds to a steeply rising function. The difference between electronics and climate science is that you can easily build a circuit to ‘validate’ your model.
No climate model is validated.
Radiative heat transfer can also be easily applied with known differential equations but convection is far too complex for current climate models. It’s one thing to build a virtual column of air in a model and apply radiation equations such as Boltzmann and quite another to follow highly complex convection currents through a virtual environment in a computer.
If you read the paper by Gerlich and Tscheushber on the falsification of the greenhouse theory there is a very good explanation in the paper as to why models currently used are more like toys than useful analogues of the atmosphere.
Gerlich is an expert in thermodynamics and mathematics applied to the field. He teaches the mathematics behind thermodynamics. In another part of the paper, they revealed why the heat trapping theory does not work.
I stand by what I said about climate modelers essentially ignoring convection. There is not a climate model with enough power to cover radiation theory well enough never mind convection.
barry,
A foolish Warmist might provide a link that provides no relevant information, and then add the spectacularly foolish word “Nope.”
It’s fairly apparent that God created climatology to make astrology appear credible.
CO2 heats nothing. Try boiling an egg using the magical planet heating properties of CO2. Or try concentrating the wondrous hundreds of watts of back radiation – use as much as you wish!
Do let me know how you get on!
With all the foolish Warmist sciencey mumbo-jumbo in the world, plus $5, I can probably buy a cup of coffee.
Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
“Nope” is a perfectly adequate reply to an unfounded assertion. Claiming without basis that models “don’t do this” or “don’t do that” costs nothing, and is immediately accepted as gospel by the likes of yourself. Actually understanding models is a bit harder.
I might point out that the GCM used by the Met Office, for instance, is also the model that has been predicting the weather for decades. They just run it at a different resolution. A model that did not model convection could not predict rain or winds. Even the briefest thought on the matter, therefore, would tell you that the assertion cannot be true.
Nope. Weather models need updated data on a regular basis or their products soon become irrelevant.
So nope and again, nope.
Elliott Bignell,
Nope.
Cheers.
Elliott Bignell,
Maybe the Met Office needs a new toy computer game –
“Also odd is that we have almost been here before. Back in 2010 it was widely reported that the Met Office might be about to lose its BBC contract to the New Zealanders, amid speculation that the BBC was unhappy with the accuracy of its forecasting. Even the Met Office admitted that its global temperature predictions had been wrong in nine of the previous 10 years.
But the chief reason why the Met Office has been getting so many forecasts spectacularly wrong, as reported here ad nauseam, is that all its short, medium and long-term forecasts ultimately derive from the same huge computer model, which is programmed to believe in manmade global warming. Hence the fun weve all had with those barbecue summers when rain never stopped, and warmer than average winters, which promptly saw Britain freezing under piles of snow.”
Yes, they’ve been predicting the weather for decades. Doing no better than a 12 year old with a pencil and ruler for decades. The BBC terminated the services of the Met Office. Maybe they got sick of the same old computer game, even when played on a really, really, expensive computer.
Maybe the Met Office and BBC don’t have your level of understanding.
Cheers.
Elliott Bignell, it stretches credibility that you would reference the GCM used by the Met Office. Are you not aware of the horrendous problems that the Met Office has had in its weather forecasts?
Convection and modeling: “they ignore it, as if it isnt there.”
The paper I linked provides a history of modeling convection in climate models, problems and progress.
I had you pegged for an honest person. Is it so hard to say, “I was wrong about them ignoring it, but it seems they don’t do a god job of modeling it”?
If you read the paper by Gerlich and Tscheushber on the falsification of the greenhouse theory there is a very good explanation
Are you kidding?? They spend nearly half the paper explaining why Earth is not like a real greenhouse. It’s laughable.
They also, like you and others, consider only the net flow of energy, seemingly completely ignorant that the atmosphere emits in all directions including towards the surface. Radiative transfer goes from surface to atmosphere and from atmosphere to surface all the time, but the thermal emissivity of the surface is larger than the atmosphere, so the net flow is, as per the second law, from warmer to cooler object.
Others have listed more errors and misconceptions in a few papers and on blogs written by atmospheric physicists.
“Please dont get sucked into the argument that radiative heat transfer is the only or major vehicle for tranferring heat.”
I don’t see the relevance of this comment, as a finding affecting the radiative-heat component does not require or refute that other factors are present and accounted for. This is a finding that demonstrates that a behaviour predicted by THE WHOLE MODEL is actually emerging, and has a quantifiable feedback impact.
However, since you mention it, I should point out that single-dimensional models taking only radiative and conductive heat transfer into account are ALSO productive for understanding and modelling climate.
Elliott Bignell,
Toy computer games called climate models are completely pointless. If 132 models give different results, at least 131 must be wrong. Foolish Warmists might average 131 outputs they know to be wrong, and claim that averaging wrong answers leads to truth. Foolish Warmists.
You can’t even tell anyone what the Californian climate is in any useful way, much less say how it has changed in the last 30 years. As to the future, the IPCC states that future climate states cannot be predicted – whatever the hell a future climate state is supposed to be!
Stick with your toy computer games. Cheap entertainment, as long as you don’t have to pay the foolish Warmists for the wasted time and money spent creating useless games.
Maybe you could warm yourself with a cylinder of CO2 if it gets a bit chilly.
Cheers.
Foolish Warmists keep blathering about evidence for climate change. Climate is defined as the average of weather. Weather changes. Climate therefore changes. It’s a given. An average does not need evidence – it just is.
The misleading title does not bode well.
As An Enquirer mentioned, the paper is flawed. Not only flawed, but an example of Feynman’s “Cargo Cult Science”. To say the paper is quite useless would not be overstating the case.
At a guess, the paper was pal reviewed by foolish Warmists. A fine example of somebody’s tax dollars being completely wasted, achieving nothing at all.
At least Nature’s profits will continue apace. It’s in their commercial interests to continue to promote and publish this sort of nonsense.
Cheers.
Mike – “Foolish Warmists keep blathering about evidence for climate change.”
Bloody science, eh? Just a steaming, great heap of evidence.
“Climate is defined as the average of weather. Weather changes. Climate therefore changes. Its a given.”
Deary, me. What are they teaching in schools these days? (If anything.)
Elliott Bignell,
There is no science whatever in pointing out that an average changes, if the numbers which it is averaging change. Only a foolish Warmist would be so obsessed as to call it a science.
Maybe you have, in the best foolish Warmist tradition, decided to redefine climate change as something which can be stopped.
Climate, of course, can’t be stopped. It changes continuously.
As to predicting future climate states, the IPCC states this is not possible.
You point out, correctly, that alleged climate science is a great steaming heap of evidence that believe who believe in the planet heating abilities are, quite simply, deluded.
No science. No planet heating property of CO2. Only a foolish Warmist would believe such a nonsensical proposition.
Cheers.
No-one is “calling it a science”. Averages are a construct of statistics, one of the disciplines which have to exist in order that science can exist.
The average DOES NOT change just because the individual data points change – not in a consistent direction.
If you possessed any numeracy or statistical skills whatsoever – and this really is elementary, as there is little in statistics that is more basic than a moving average – you would already understand this.
I have already seen you claim that a regression line is “just drawing a line” and that anyone could do it. It’s entirely clear that you have no idea of how trends are evaluated whatsoever. Anything you say about them is therefore perfectly useless.
Elliott Bignell,
Calculating an average can be done by a 12 year old. Any foolish Warmist can follow a trend. So can any other sort of fool. The longer you follow a trend, the closer you get to a change.
No science there. Only a foolish Warmist would willingly write climate and science next to each other in a sentence, without smiling.
As the IPCC states that predicting future climate states is impossible, maybe they don’t understand how to evaluate trends either. You might as well continue to evaluate your trends, while you wait to see what the future holds. At least it will give you something to do, even if it is completely useless.
Cheers.
“Calculating an average can be done by a 12 year old.”
Then a 12-year-old would not make the mistake of thinking that variation in data points must result in a change in the average value. But you did.
“The longer you follow a trend, the closer you get to a change.”
Case in point. The longer the period over which one plots a trend, the greater the confidence that the trend is REAL. If you knew anything whatsoever about statistics, you would not keep making such glaring errors.
My advice is that if you cannot be bothered to learn the concepts of statistics, you should accept the results published by those who have, as you have no means whatsoever of evaluating them yourself.
Elliott Bignell,
The trend might be real, and it might be very long, and it still tells you precisely nothing about a future which is yet to occur. The longest trend, from the creation of the Earth to now, shows cooling, but foolish Warmists refuse to accept it.
Foolish Warmists believe the future is predictable, but not even the IPCC does.
By the way, your minding reading abilities are sadly lacking. Unless you are prepared to quote me directly, you need than one straw when building your straw man. Foolish Warmists keep making stupid demands of others, whilst being totally unwilling to accept any themselves.
Asking you to stick to the complete lack of experimental support for the planet warming properties of CO2 seems to be a waste of time. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Foolish Warmist. You’re as bad as the amazing Gavin Schmidt who breathlessly announced 2015 as “The hottest year EVAH” – with a probability of 38%! What a foolish Warmist!
I hope you don’t place too much faith in the pal reviewed papers published by a ragtag mob of Foolish Warmists. Gavin Schmidt has been taken to task by professional statisticians for his inability to comprehend basic statistical procedures.
Maybe you could use the heating power of CO2 to make a nice cup of tea, and quietly contemplate the shortest book in the world “Great Moments in Climatology”.
Cheers.
Mike, were you an engineer before you retired?
doctor no,
In what sense? I taught software engineering, and worked as what was described as an electronics engineer, and as a maintenance engineer, but I’m not sure what you are trying to establish. What do you consider as retired?
Why do you ask?
Cheers.
I knew it!
I can tell by the way you approach the subject.
Engineers are not scientists – although some think they are.
Others here appear to be science failures – and have not gotten over it. Hence their bitter and acrimonious comments.
You also need to be semi-retired (at least) to spend time on this blog.
Having said that – I admire your doggedness.
doctor no,
The NSW State Government, amongst others, might beg to disagree.
“The role of the NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer . . .”
Same person. “Professor Mary OKane AC is the NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer, . . . ”
I have to admit that pretend scientists like Gavin Schmidt (a mathematician) don’t really generate a lot of respect as far as I am concerned. Nor do pretend Nobel Laureates like Michael Mann. As to astrophysicists such as James Hansen, pathological coal hater, I’m not sure why he should be any more believable than any other foolish Warmist.
As a matter of interest, I also delivered lectures on Systems Analysis and Design, and Software Engineering. The amateurish fiddling of people like Gavin Schmidt is embarrassing to any competent programmer, or computer software engineer, if you wish.
Just foolish Warmism.
Thanks for the compliment.
Cheers.
“The NSW State Government, amongst others, might beg to disagree.”
Just goes to show how stupid the NSW government is. I can find no other examples of job descriptions that refer to a scientist AND an engineer in the same breath.
Also, in my opinion, software engineers are the least qualified to deal with climate science.
Here’s a question for the 2nd Law nuts.
Solar radiation travels from the sun to Earth.
It travels a huge distance through very cold space.
How can it be that this thermal radiation reaches the Earth from the much colder body of space? Shouldn’t the 2nd Law prevent this flow from cold space to warm Earth?
Thanks barry! You’ve just made my case for me. You have no knowledge of radiative heat transfer.
Hilarious!
Hint: Photons must be absorbed by matter to be converted to heat energy.
Photons must be absorbed by matter to be converted to heat energy.
Correct!
Both the sun and the Earth emit photons. Molecules in the air absorb these photons.
I think we agree.
Now, these molecules also emit photons. Do you agree that they emit them in any direction?
“Correct!”
barry, with your poor understanding of science, it concerns me when you agree with me….
geran,
He’s a foolish Warmist. Not seeking knowledge, just trying for a gotcha! Cares not for Tyndall or Feynman, apparently. The world of fantasy physics seems to have a morbid attraction for foolish Warmists.
Cheers.
All of his techniques are those of pseudoscientists. He ran from my example of how farcical the Arrhenius CO2 equation is. His only “evidence” is putting on a sweater!
Hilarious.
Speaking of running away..
Now, these molecules also emit photons. Do you agree that they emit them in any direction?
barry, do you admit that the laws of physics apply throughout the atmosphere?
I’m trying to get you to admit it.
Do you agree or disagree that the atmosphere sends radiation in all directions, including downward?
Straight answer.
barry, photons are emitted in all directions, duh.
So now, does the atmosphere obey the laws of physics?
He ran from my example of how farcical the Arrhenius CO2 equation is.
Example? You said it was a central equation in IPCC calculations. I asked you for a cite on that from the IPCC reports and radio silence ensued.
You gave no examples of any kind. But by all means link to your post where you did this in case I missed it.
And where you cited IPCC report demonstrating that the Arrhenius ‘equation’ is the central component of IPCC calculations of the thermal emissions in the atmos.
If you can keep from deflecting the requests with blather.
“The body of space”?? What are you talking about?
Your argument is pointless because you make this stuff up as you go.
He makes it up and imagines that it is science. As in his comment that makes a “heat sink” of the atmosphere.
It’s a fair analogy. The net flow of heat must flow from a warmer to a cooler body. You agree with that, right?
Here Barry confesses he made up the phrase on the spot. He likes to spice his science with his own imaginings. Note how he ignores the comment by Paul C.
What a loon. Gordon Roberts used the term sink to describe the transfer of heat from surface to atmosphere.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-217137
Geran described the atmsophere as a “conductor.”
It’s a fair analogy. And a heat sink is hardly a made up term.
It’s a term that describes two objects in contact, where the net flow of heat is taken up by the cooler, or more conductive, body.
None of us are writing equations. We’re all using analogistic language. You too.
Gordon:”IR has the capacity to transfer heat from a warmer source to a cooler sink. IR cannot transfer heat in the opposite direction without a compensation that is not found in the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere is cooler, IR cannot transfer heat back to the surface.”
##
Once again Barry provides the opportunity to show the world what the AGW zealot is made of.
Barry is the first ever to call the atmosphere a heat sink. See how he tries to attribute that expression to others.
Barry likes to make things up. When he gets called out, see him wriggle and squirm. Low comedy, but still entertaining.
Barry: “body of space” as per above comment. On whom will Barry shuffle off that goofball phrase?
A sweater stifles convection.
Hallelujah!
A cool object can make a warm object warmer.
At last, someone admits it.
We can discuss convection/radiation differences in a sec, but I think it’s important to note this correction of a meme that has been running the length of the 2nd half of this long thread of comments.
Yes, the cooler sweater makes the air near your skin warmer when you put it on. The 2nd Law is not violated.
And mpainter came up with the goods. Kudos to him.
And here demonstrates his inability to grasp the essential differences between cooling by radiation, or by evaporation, or by conduction, and how convection works to cool the atmosphere. Useful fellow, that Barry Schwartz.
I believe I said:
We can discuss convection/radiation differences in a sec
I just wanted to give you a shout out for finally admitting that it is possible for a cool object to make a warm object warmer without violating the 2nd Law.
Don’t try to be modest and deflect attention away from this wonderful development. Well get onto the different ways heat flow can be ‘stifled’ tomorrow.
While you’re at it, explain how the atmosphere is a “heat sink”, please and thank you.
And, no, a cooler object cannot warm a warmer object. And SST is determined by insolation. And air temperature is determined by SST. And ten centimeters column of water cannot warm ten thousand centimeter column of water. It’s really quite simple.
And, no, a cooler object cannot warm a warmer object.
Ah. Backsliding.
A jumper is cooler than your body heat on a cold day. You’ve explained that putting it on “stifles convection”, thereby warming the air near your skin.
How confusing it must be to contradict yourself.
Barry gets whipped on science, resorts to smoke and fabrication.
In the time-honored warmest tradition.
barry,
Rather than the foolish Warmist “warmer than it would be otherwise” ploy, how about just saying that a cooler object can increase the temperature of a hotter object, which has no internal heat source capable of ensuring its surface temperature will not drop in its present environment, or words to that effect?
CO2 is supposed to increase the temperature of the planet, according to foolish Warmists. Of course, CO2 increases the temperature of an object about as well as using pixie dust.
Foolish Warmist. Heat something with CO2. Show the world the lunatic foolish Warmist assertions are true. Put the doubters in their place! Prove the IPCC wrong!
Good luck.
Cheers.
And here’s my comment that Barry whooped about.☺
mpainter says:
July 15, 2016 at 9:54 AM
A sweater stifles convection. Does the IR flux stifle convection?
Nope.
Does the GHE stifle convection?
Nope.
Youre welcome.
barry,
Foolish Warmist. Your body heats both the air and the sweater. The heat is created by the oxidation of carbohydrates to CO2 and H2O. If it stops, so do you.
Put a sweater on a cold concrete block, and it warms not at all. Your gotchas aren’t working too well.
But back to the main game. Where’s your falsifiable hypothesis explaining the heating property of CO2? There isn’t one, foolish Warmist!
Deny, divert, confuse – that’s all you can try. Talk about anything except the alleged heating properties of CO2. Why do I not find this surprising? Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
The sweater analogy is about convection. There’s another familiar one – putting the lid on a heated pot of water causes the temperature of the water to increase. Anyone who cooks knows this. You can either increase the heat of the element or put a lid on if you want to raise the temperature inside the pot. The lid is cooler than the element and the interior of the pot but putting it on top of the pot being heated is another way of increasing the temp inside.
A cooler object can also make a warm one warmer through conduction. This is one way in which houses are kept warmer – insulation prevents conductive heat loss. Sealing windows prevents convective heat loss. Insulation with foil backing prevents radiative heat loss.
Geran used the heat sink analogy when he described the atmsohpere as a “conductor.”
All objects emit EM radiation. A cooler body will emit radiation that strikes a warmer body, and the warmer body will emit radiation that strikes a cooler body. 2nd Law tells us that the net flow must be from warmer to cooler, but the fact is that radiative transfer happens in both direction. There is no magic heat shield preventing EM emissions from the cooler body flowing to the warmer one, but the amount/intensity of EM emissions from the warmer one is greater, so the net flow of heat is from the warmer to the cooler body.
The atmosphere emits EM radiation in all directions, in the infrared. It emits EM radiation towards the surface, warming air molecules lower (and higher) in the atmosphere. The net flow of heat must always pass from a warmer to a cooler body, and the air is, on average, cooler than the surface.
While the net flow of EM radiation is greater from the warmer surface to the cooler air, both bodies are emitting radiation towards each other. Downwelling radiation must cause warming wherever the radiation strikes matter at a lower altitude, including at the surface itself. If there were no atmosphere, there would be no downwelling radiation and no added warmth to the surface.
It’s this last bit where some people lose the plot. They seem to imagine that there is a magic shield preventing EM radiation moving downwards – that a photon cannot move in the direction of something cooler than the object from which it was emitted. It appears they think that a cooler body cannot emit radiation towards a warmer body, or that some magic heat shield prevents the photons emitted by the cooler body striking the warmer body.
A sweater keeps a body warmer by impeding the flow of convection.
Insulation keeps a house warmer by impeding the flow rate of warmth from the walls/ceiling to the atmosphere outside.
An atmosphere keeps the surface of a planet warmer by impeding the rate at which surface radiation escapes to space.
All these insulatory objects are cooler than the body that is warmed by their presence. The 2nd Law is not violated – because the 2nd Law only deals with net flow, and “does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.”
Test
So cut and paste is not allowed????
Test again
What are the rules for getting something posted?????
Tim S,
You just did, obviously. I suspect a spam filter will prevent posting anything which contains prohibited words. Changing the spelling by the use of asterisks and so on might overcome your problem.
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
How is that great, big, record setting, global-warming-busting, cool La Nina progressing?
Remember – it is going to restore “THE PAUSE”
If the SSTs keep falling at this rate long enough, someone will start monitoring ENSO sea ice!
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
doctor no,
The world has cooled for four and a half billion years. I’m guessing it won’t stop anytime soon. I can’t see into the future, so maybe I’m wrong. Or maybe not, who knows?
Cheers.
The SOI needs to be up around +20 for a La Nina event.
Yesterday the 30-day average SOI value was only +3 but decreasing.
and the weekly NINO34 SST values have nut budged for 3 weeks.
Just thought i should inform you.
Hey, no doc! You probably have no clue what to make of this, but I enjoy your comedy.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur
Thanks for the link.
There certainly looks like a lot of warming going on – especially in the Arctic.
The cool equatorial SSTs look a bit puny at this stage.
Like I said, you have no clue what to make of it.
Reposted to start new thread:
The sweater analogy is about convection. Theres another familiar one putting the lid on a heated pot of water causes the temperature of the water to increase. Anyone who cooks knows this. You can either increase the heat of the element or put a lid on if you want to raise the temperature inside the pot. The lid is cooler than the element and the interior of the pot but putting it on top of the pot being heated is another way of increasing the temp inside.
A cooler object can also make a warm one warmer through conduction. This is one way in which houses are kept warmer insulation prevents conductive heat loss. Sealing windows prevents convective heat loss. Insulation with foil backing prevents radiative heat loss.
Geran used the heat sink analogy when he described the atmsohpere as a conductor.
All objects emit EM radiation. A cooler body will emit radiation that strikes a warmer body, and the warmer body will emit radiation that strikes a cooler body. 2nd Law tells us that the net flow must be from warmer to cooler, but the fact is that radiative transfer happens in both direction. There is no magic heat shield preventing EM emissions from the cooler body flowing to the warmer one, but the amount/intensity of EM emissions from the warmer one is greater, so the net flow of heat is from the warmer to the cooler body.
The atmosphere emits EM radiation in all directions, in the infrared. It emits EM radiation towards the surface, warming air molecules lower (and higher) in the atmosphere. The net flow of heat must always pass from a warmer to a cooler body, and the air is, on average, cooler than the surface.
While the net flow of EM radiation is greater from the warmer surface to the cooler air, both bodies are emitting radiation towards each other. Downwelling radiation must cause warming wherever the radiation strikes matter at a lower altitude, including at the surface itself. If there were no atmosphere, there would be no downwelling radiation and no added warmth to the surface.
Its this last bit where some people lose the plot. They seem to imagine that there is a magic shield preventing EM radiation moving downwards that a photon cannot move in the direction of something cooler than the object from which it was emitted. It appears they think that a cooler body cannot emit radiation towards a warmer body, or that some magic heat shield prevents the photons emitted by the cooler body striking the warmer body.
A sweater keeps a body warmer by impeding the flow of convection.
Insulation keeps a house warmer by impeding the flow rate of warmth from the walls/ceiling to the atmosphere outside.
An atmosphere keeps the surface of a planet warmer by impeding the rate at which surface radiation escapes to space.
All these insulatory objects are cooler than the body that is warmed by their presence. The 2nd Law is not violated because the 2nd Law only deals with net flow, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.
“Geran used the heat sink analogy when he described the atmsohpere as a conductor.”
barry, you are twisting my words.
(I stopped reading your rambling nonsense after that.)
So, are you in denial that the atmosphere obeys the laws of physics?
Geran used the heat sink analogy when he described the atmsohpere as a conductor.
barry, you are twisting my words.
geran said:
“The atmosphere is a heat conductor”
Here’s the link to your post.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-217137
Anyone can check it for context.
Poor barry, he believes a “conductor” is a “heat sink”!
You used the term “conductor” as analogy for the action of the atmosphere cooling the surface, didn’t you? That’s what heat sinks do – conduct heat away from a warm object.
If you meant it some other way then perhaps you should clarify rather than making with the pointless gotchas.
Did you type out that whole thing or cut and paste? How? It will not work for me.
Tim, you must be a “climate scientist”.
No, I am a simple Chemical Engineer who is obviously better educated in thermal heat transfer by radiation that you are. The most significant heat transfer in any furnace is by radiation that is completely dependent on CO2 and water vapor that are the products of combustion. Dry air produces very little heat transfer by radiation. Scientists can speculate and guess, but engineers have to get right!
Tim S: an isotropic radiative flux is not “heat transfer” and the earth’s atmosphere is not a furnace.
You are no authority on the issue. Go study up.
Tim, almost everyone on here is an expert, or believes they are, so you will fit in nicely. Especially when you learn to cut/paste….
Some words get caught by the spam filter, even if they aren’t included in the visible list. ‘A b s o r p t i v e ‘ is one of them. No one knows what the other phantom words are, not even the blog owner. There may be formatting things that are blocked. Some forms of quotation marks disappear when they are copy/pasted.
The site is a little glitchy like this. It’s annoying, but there doesn’t seem to be an answer to the problem.
Good explanation, but the green house gases have a higher emissivity than oxygen and nitrogen, and that is the difference.
Tim S,
Small question. In a well mixed sample of atmosphere containing 4 parts per 10000 (400 ppm) of CO2, given the relevant emissivities of CO2 and the other gases, what contribution to the total measured radiation to the environment does the CO2 make? Assume a positive 20 K difference in temperature between the sample and the environment. In dark conditions, of course.
My rough calculation indicates that the total emissions of the 9996 parts exceeds the contribution of the 4 parts of CO2. You probably have better values of emissivities than I. Mine are a bit old, and I claim no particular special1sed qualifications in the area.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers.
My best answer is that you are seriously lacking in scientific education, and very confused, or doing a very incompetent job of trolling. Bad assumptions do not defeat a competent assertion.
Tim S, you are the troll as Mike Flynn asked a sincere and thoughtful question and you answered with dodgy snark. You seem to be another phoney self-appointed “expert”.
The atmosphere is not a furnace. You and Barry have mis-stated the GHE, in the AGW manner. The GHE moderates temperatures by reducing the diurnal temperature range. A higher tmin, but a lower tmax. Compare the dry Sahara with the humid tropics. AGW is wrong from the start. Barry thinks that the GHE is a sweater. Laughable.
Put another way, from the dry Sahara to the humid tropics the specific humidity increases by a factor of six or more, hence the GHE by the same. No warming. AGW RIP.
Tim S,
If that’s your best answer, you are doing a good impersonation of a foolish Warmist, trying to deny, divert, and confuse.
I believe you can’t answer the question at all. If you choose to be as unhelpful as possible, that is your right. Others might think you are being a petty foolish Warmist, or that you don’t actually understand basic radiative physics.
I assume you are just a fairly clueless foolish Warmist, who doesn’t actually have any real understanding of atmospheric science.
Now is your opportunity to fly off at a tangent, or have a tantrum. You haven’t actually managed to contradict anything I said, so I must be right, and you must be wrong. How’s my logic?
Cheers.
When you ask a question about CO2 to deny the greenhouse effect and ignore water vapor which is the dominant greenhouse gas you are missing the point. The greenhouse effect is real and the contribution from CO2 is also real, but very small. Thus my comment about the relative amounts of CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere.
Tim S says, July 16, 2016 at 9:34 AM:
“When you ask a question about CO2 to deny the greenhouse effect (…)”
You don’t deny something that has never been even remotely shown by empirical observation to be a real ‘thing’, you point out that it has never been even remotely shown by empirical observation to be a real ‘thing’. That it is still no more than a purely hypothetical concept, a loose conjecture, a speculative idea. I’m sorry, but that’s a fact, Tim S. Whether you like it or not …
You dont deny something that has never been even remotely shown by empirical observation to be a real thing
IR absorp tion and emission by GHGs is empirical observation. Lab spectroscopy.
Downwelling IR in the atmosphere is empirically observed by ground-based instruments.
Do you actually deny these empirical observations, or are you unaware of them?
barry says, July 16, 2016 at 6:33 PM:
“IR absorp tion and emission by GHGs is empirical observation. Lab spectroscopy.”
Downwelling IR in the atmosphere is empirically observed by ground-based instruments.
Do you actually deny these empirical observations, or are you unaware of them?”
barry, try answering my direct responses to you about this very subject upthread before lamely dropping drive-by comments like this simply regurgitating your favourite talking points. Makes it seem you don’t actually want to take a proper look at this subject at all, rather just pretend you know something we don’t …
To you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-217120
To Bignell:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-217170
To Norman:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-217155
The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2. At 400 ppmv, water vapor and CO2 are of equal mole fraction at a water dew point of about -20 F (-30 C) in the atmosphere. In the tropics, water vapor can exceed 4% which is 100 times more than 400 ppmv (note that psychometric charts give values in weight percent and must be corrected by a factor of 29/18 to provide mole percent).
barry,
CO2 increases the temperature of nothing.
Surrounding the Earth with CO2 heats it not at all. The surface cools without sunlight. Its temperature does not go up.
Only foolish Warmists – such as Gavin Schmidt and other bumblers – believe that CO2 heats the planet.
It may be worthwhile to stick to the temperature raising properties of CO2, rather than attempting yo deny, divert and confuse by bringing in irrelevancies such as sweaters, blankets, pot lids, overcoats and all the other foolish Warmist nonsense sprouted to avoid demonstrating the supposed heating due to CO2.
The Earth has cooled – four and a half billion years worth.
Cheers.
Barry: a cooler object warms a warmer object.
Armed with this principle and 26 million cubic km of Antarctic ice, Barry will raise the global temperature by a a dozen degrees and call it AGW. Thanks, Barry, keep it coming, please.
mpainter,
Barry apparently can’t figure out a way to boil a kettle for a nice cup by using the heat energy in all the ice in the world. How hard can it be? Just concentrate the radiation a bit, et voil!
Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
I think even davie was so embarrassed by barry, he left the comedy team.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-216272
If the current debate is about the nature of thermal radiation, I may be able to help.
Nope. No help at all. AGW meme is no help to understanding. See my comment above at 3:39 am.
Heat from the earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases there is no competent debate on that point.
Welcome Tim! You can take the place of davie. He left, out of embarrassment.
So, Earth’s heat just gets “trapped” up there and can’t get away, huh?
“No competent debate on that point”.
LMAO
No the rest of my explanation will not cut and paste and i am too lazy.
The effect is that the surface of the earth cools more slowly when the atmosphere is warmer and contains more greenhouse gases. Another effect is, since good absorbers are also good emitters, the upper atmosphere is cooler because it sees more of the very cold thermal background radiation of outer space, and the lower atmosphere is warmer than it would be without the greenhouse gases. The mechanism is not important, but the notion of back-radiation is simply that heat loss from the surface of the earth is of a SLOWER RATE when the atmosphere is warmer and contains more greenhouse gases. As partially described above, greenhouse gases are thermal transfer agents because they emit radiation with the same efficiency (emissivity) as they absorb radiation. The direction of heat transfer depends on the direction of the cooler region. The effect is real. From a thermodynamic point of view heat (enthalpy) is transferred and temperatures change.
The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2. At 400 ppmv, water vapor and CO2 are of equal mole fraction at a water dew point of about -20 F (-30 C) in the atmosphere. In the tropics, water vapor can exceed 4% which is 100 times more than 400 ppmv (note that psychometric charts give values in weight percent and must be corrected by a factor of 29/18 to provide mole percent).
There are at least four mechanisms of heat transfer involved. One is from the surface to the atmosphere, another is from regions of warm air to regions of cooler air, another is from warm air to outer space, and finally, since the atmosphere is not opaque to thermal radiation, the surface of the earth remains influenced by the background temperature of outer space.
mpainter says:
July 16, 2016 at 3:57 AM
Tim S, the surface cools mainly through evaporation. Your four mechanisms of heat transfer misses this. You need to study the topic a little more.
That is most of my cut and paste. I do not understand what the filters are doing. Sometimes I get an error and other times it just will not post.
Finally I got caught by spell checker. I meant psychrometric, not psychometric. Whoops, there is a difference.
Psychometrics is a field of study concerned with the theory and technique of psychological measurement. One part of the field is concerned with the objective measurement of skills and knowledge, abilities, attitudes, personality traits, and educational achievement.
I find that the skeptics here are eminently suitable for psychometric testing !!!
Are you still laughing, or just not very well educated in the science of thermal heat transfer in the gas phase?
Tim S,
I’m still a little confused. What happens to the trapped heat at night? And why hasn’t the Earth heated up after four and a half billion years of trapping heat?
How do you stop things from cooling without a continuous source of heat to replenish the energy being radiated away?
Cheers.
Are you serious or just trolling? During the day, the earth is heated (actually it is more like a continuous rotisserie process, but you know that, right?). At night the hot earth cools depending on a large number of factors such as cloud cover, for example. The net temperature from day to day, month to month, and year to year depends on the relative rates of heating a cooling. Changing the rates changes the temperature. Were you actually confused about that?
Bizarre. It’s as if he’s never heard of the sun.
Tim S,
You have me somewhat confused. CO2 heats the planet, but doesn’t really because the surface cools at night, after heating during the day.
After four and a half billion years of the CO2 heating effect, (which isn’t really, apparently) the surface has cooled.
Nobody can actually demonstrate this heating effect (that is, increasing temperature), but claims it is do, in spite of the lack o even a falsifiable hypothesis proposing a reason for the heating properties of CO2.
Apparently, foolish Warmists claim the CO2 heating effect, after being absent for four and a half billion years, has leapt into existence, but not when the sun isn’t shining, or in the shade, or indoors.
Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
Tim S, the surface cools mainly through evaporation. Your “four mechanisms of heat transfer” misses this. You need to study the topic a little more.
“Thermal heat transfer in the gas phase.” Says Tim S.
###
The dry lapse rate is adiabatic. Your furnace does not apply to the questions considered here. Again, an isotropic radiative flux is not heat transfer.
Sorry for any typos. Hard to type and chortle at the same time, on occasion. The mental gymnastics practised by foolish Warmists should be an Olympic event.
They’re so busy trying to deny, divert, and confuse, they lose sight of the facts, and get tangled up in a perfect Gordian knot of their own making!
Foolish Warmists. CO2 warms nothing! Deny that!
Cheers.
It is true that ghg absorb IR and thermalize it, transferring the energy to other air molecules. But surface radiation is exaggerated in the AGW meme. The surface cools mainly through evaporation. The whole effect of ghg and GHE is mistaken in the AGW meme.
But surface radiation is exaggerated in the AGW meme.
What is the error in surface radiation? What’s the value given, what do you think it acutally is, and how do you calculate it to get your figure?
Surface radiation is assumed by the AGW zealots. The 330 watts/square m “absorbed back radiation” is myth. This does not happen. Nor is it re-radiated to the atmosphere,Perpetual motion wise. Go stick that in your pencil sharpener.
A test for you, Barry Shwartz: how much evaporation results from 330 W/square m of DWLWIR incident on the oceans?
Do that calculation and there is your proof that AGW is buuldung.
What do you think the Wm2 emissivity of the surface is and how do you calculate it?
So long as you folks are being sarcastic and arguing extreme positions, I will point out that the street in front of my house does not cool by evaporation. Sorry!
If you are trying to make the broader point about the tropical oceans, then I will simply point out that the evaporated water does not leave the earth, and therefore does not cool the earth directly, if you accept that the atmosphere is part of the earth. The net loss after various convective processes, such as wind, cloud formation, and rain, is by radiation. The net direction is from warm regions to cooler regions so it is heat transfer despite claims that the radiation is isotropic. The greenhouse gas effect is real, and CO2 does contribute in some small way. The effect from the massive increase in CO2 due to fossil burning has been greatly exaggerated by the IPCC, but it is not zero. The small contribution from CO2 is now just a bit larger. The competent skeptics understand that subtle distinction that the large increase in CO2 still leave CO2 as a minor contributor.
Tim S., you keep dancing around because you know you are beat. You can’t state that “CO2 produces warming”, because you know it doesn’t. So, you phrase it as “The greenhouse gas effect is real, and CO2 does contribute in some small way.’
Hilarious!
Tim S
You are over your head. You responded to none of my comments, directly. You are an uninformed dodge who supposed that expertise in furnaces could transfer to climate. Nope.
The problem with attempting to understand thermal radiation is that you cannot see it, and it requires a certain amount of intuitive understanding and intelligence that goes beyond just reading about it in a book. If you have a fire in your fireplace and the flue is producing a draft that is pulling air in, so that no heated air is entering the room, you are experience thermal radiation from the heat in fireplace. Now consider that some surfaces and gases are more efficient than others (emissivity) and the fact that good emitters are also good at absorbing heat, and you have a chance of understanding. Otherwise, I cannot help you except to say that you are fighting against a very large and establish body of scientific knowledge with practical application in the real world.
“…you are fighting against a very large and establish body of scientific knowledge …”
Tim, is that the same “body” that corrupts the temperature record?
The science is on my side, Tim S. Or show how it is not. You have yet to respond to any of my comments, specifically. I doubt that you can. I doubt that you understood my comments.
It is rather bemusing to skim through the posts, realizing that the same arguments and rebuttals (on both sides) are being presented now (often by the same people) that have been presented over and over (for several years on several blogs). The only sure conclusion that can be drawn is that blog posts are not an effective way to teach or to learn.
I see a couple key reasons for this impasse.
1) Many terms are used differently by different people — “heat” springs instantly to mind. Unless each person can agree on a precise definition (stated verbally and mathematically) for key terms, there is no hope of moving forward. (and of course, that will never happen in a setting like this).
2) There is a lot of interconnected science: thermal IR and evaporation and convection and lapse rate and the quantum mechanics of molecular vibrations and heat capacity and heat and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and …. This leads to the dilemma that it is vital to know each of these these topics, but it is impossible to resolve any one topic separately. Any time someone tries to settle one issue, other people can legitimately call them out for ignoring something else.
3) The Dunning-Kruger effect.
I could address any number of specific points that people have made, but history shows that these discussions are doomed to never-ending tangents ultimately leading in circles.
The only sure conclusion that can be drawn is that blog posts are not an effective way to teach or to learn.
There are some that might disagree with that, Tim. I have noticed many folks now with a much better understanding of the AGW nonsense. Even the people that still dont understand have learned not to say really stupid things, as they did before. (There are exceptions, of course.)
Tim Folkerts, if one goes to school he will be taught that the Trenberth type energy budget diagrams are the sacred word. He’ll be taught a bunch of other AGW singsong, to boot. One has to sort and cull, and blogs are an excellent medium for such an exercise, IMHO.
Thanks for your comments.
Oh, a few arguments get refined and improved; a few attacks get sharper and nastier. But I see very little true change in understanding from anyone on either side. Now I will give a few specific examples.
“As for concentrating or redistributing energy, foolish Warmists believe that it is possible to concentrate 300 W/m2 in such a way as heat water. A block of ice at below freezing emits more than 300 W/m2. Try concentrating that emission to boil water. Use as many cubic kilometres of ice as you like.<"
A few foolish warmists might think this. But mostly it is a case of foolish skeptics thinking that smart warmists thinks this. This argument has been around for years — and has been debunked multiple times. Any competent scientist in the field knows exactly why this argument is wrong, but that doesn’t stop it from popping up again and again in different forms. (Remember the “free energy oven” several years back? http://algorelied.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/un-ipcc-free-energy-oven.png 🙂 )
“A test for you, Barry Shwartz: how much evaporation results from 330 W/square m of DWLWIR incident on the oceans?”
It is fairly clear what point is trying to be made, but the question as presented is seriously ill-posed. The intent seems to be “how much evaporation results from 330 W/square m of DWLWIR [WHEN ALL OTHER HEAT INPUTS AND OUTPUTS SUM TO ZERO] incident on the oceans [THAT ARE MAINTAINING A CONSTANT TEMPERATURE]?” [If someone wants to espouse some other interpretation, you are free to state it more specifically — this goes back to my point above about everyone needing to agree on definitions and conditions.]
Then it would be a straightforward calculation using data like this (and a straightforward experiment to perfrom in the lab): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Heat_of_Vaporization_Water.png
But there is no reason that the other inputs and outputs add to zero. The short answer is that (given typical annual global averages) 330 W/m^2 of DWLWIT (combined with heat flows from UWLWIR, sunlight and conduction) results in 80 W/m^2 of evaporation (which you are free to convert from W to moles/day or kg/year). [And if you want to actaully eliminate UWLWIR from the question, then the answer is “there is no evaporation because the water must be near absolute zero”.]
I doubt that is the answer that was expected. And all because the discussion was NOT clear or well-honed.
And one more: “So, Earths heat just gets trapped up there and cant get away, huh?”
First, I will grant that the whole “acts like a blanket trapping heat” meme is a very poor way to describe the science. It is aimed at a general audience to give a very broad sense of what GHGs do.
However, this response is a classic Strawman. Rather than sharpening the discussion, this took the discussion backwards. The original statement simply said “absorbed”. And it is 100% accurate that GHGs absorb IR. The retort adds “and can’t get away” — which is not stated originally; it is not even remotely implied.
Tim Folkerts, show evaporation results of DWLWIR. Use energy budget diagrams partitioning: 330 W/square m of DWLWIR.
Please and thank you.
Tim Folkerts,
You wrote –
“A few foolish warmists might think this. But mostly it is a case of foolish skeptics thinking that smart warmists thinks this. This argument has been around for years and has been debunked multiple times. Any competent scientist in the field knows exactly why this argument is wrong, but that doesnt stop it from popping up again and again in different forms.”
Are you a foolish Warmist?
Without contradicting a single thing I wrote, you proceed to make an unsupported assumption “But mostly it is a case of foolish skeptics . . . “. And thereby it becomes fact?
This looks like a typical foolish Warmist attempt to deny, divert, and confuse – to me at least.
I merely stated a fact. You decide to twist what I said, which is that fools believe such a thing, and then assert that because I stated a fact, it reflects well on Warmists who are smart enough to agree that a foolish Warmist is a fool.
But setting all that aside, you might like to propose a falsifiable hypothesis explains the supposed planet heating abilities of CO2. I assume neither you nor anybody else can.
The simple fact is that if you accept that the Earth was created with a molten surface, the surface has cooled.
Trying to deny this fact, and instead launch into a plethora of sciencey sounding foolish Warmist pseudo-science, is quite simply unproductive. Faith and fervent belief may provide solace, as you blindly follow the erratic progress of the bearded balding bumblers who proclaim themselves to be climatologists (or Nobel Laureates, in one case), but I prefer fact to fantasy.
If you are a Creationist, you may believe that the Earth was created with a surface colder than it is now. I don’t agree, and the evidence appears to back my assumption that the surface was once molten.
If you want to believe that the atmosphere, or an object on the Earths surface can somehow trap or absorb heat, raising its temperature day by day, ending up with a higher temperature years, decades, or centuries later, believe away. It’s nonsense, but don’t let that deter you.
Nobody has ever managed to heat an object by surrounding it with CO2. Replace the air in a room with CO2, and the temperature changes not at all. Objects in such a room, even though now surrounded by CO2, do not change their temperature.
Foolish Warmists such as Bill Nye heat CO2, and proclaim the miracle of global warming! A thermometer placed behind the CO2 (representing the Earths surface) shows, as it should, a drop in temperature. Tyndall demonstrated both the reason, and calculated the resultant decrease under experimental conditions.
Even NASA agrees that the atmosphere prevents some 23% of the Sun’s radiation from even reaching the surface. Only a foolish Warmist would believe that reducing the amount of energy reaching a surface would result in a rise in temperature. Foolish Warmists!
The bizarre “back radiation” suggestion doesn’t seem to stop the surface temperature falling at night. Foolish Warmists attempt to deny, divert, and confuse by saying “Oh, but it’s warmer than it would otherwise have been!” The temperature is falling. Not rising. No heating. Net energy loss.
The next Foolish Warmist argument is that of the blanket, overcoat, sweater variety. Wrap a corpse, concrete block, hot teapot in as much insulation as you like. Try CO2 if you believe it has heating abilities – the temperature of the concrete, corpse, or teapot will not rise a jot.
And so it goes. Self styled climatologists produce expensive computer games, pointless papers, and bizarre claims about boiling seas and Venusian conditions. No facts, just fantasies of precisely no use to man or beast.
Cargo Cult Science masquerading as real science. Much ado about the average of weather – called climate. It’s easy to change the climate – just change the weather. The climate will follow right along. This is easy enough for even a foolish Warmist to understand, I would think.
Cheers.
“I merely stated a fact. ”
Please show one single instance of this “fact” – that Warmists believe that it is possible to concentrate thermal IR from a cool surface to warm an object to a higher temperature.
Folkerts: First, I will grant that the whole acts like a blanket trapping heat meme is a very poor way to describe the science.
Exactly, Tim. You should have stopped right there.
Folkerts: It is aimed at a general audience to give a very broad sense of what GHGs do.
No Tim, it is called “propaganda”.
Folkerts: However, this response is a classic Strawman.
Nope. Proclaiming as such is the straw man.
Folkerts: Rather than sharpening the discussion, this took the discussion backwards.
Tim, you are taking the discussion backwards.
Folkerts: The retort adds and cant get away which is not stated originally; it is not even remotely implied.
Tim, the concept that the atmosphere “traps heat” is well known pseudoscience. The implication was clear. Your interpretation is your interpretation.
geran
Do you ever tire of being a complete moron?
Norman,
Do you ever . . . ? I thought not!
Cheers.
Norm has ran out of pseudoscience and must resort to insults.
Nothing new with Norm.
Tim Folkerts says, July 16, 2016 at 4:29 PM:
“(…) (combined with heat flows from UWLWIR, sunlight and conduction) (…)”
Is the ‘UWLWIR term’ really a “heat flow”, Tim? Like the solar flux and the conductive flux?
“The original statement simply said absorbed. And it is 100% accurate that GHGs absorb IR. The retort adds and cant get away which is not stated originally; it is not even remotely implied.”
It is more than implied, Tim. 158 of the alleged 398 W/m^2 continuously leaving the global surface of the Earth in the form of a radiant power density flux apparently never get to escape the Earth system to space. One is then naturally led to assume that the ‘lost’ radiative energy going from the surface to the ToA is rather “trapped” inside the Earth system, through the process of atmospheric “GHG” absorp tion and isotropic reemission of the original upwelling surface IR. Resulting in a raising of the temperature of the surface and altitude-specific levels of the troposphere above it.
Which is an utterly ridiculous (and confused) way of describing what actually happens within the Earth system at dynamic equilibrium …
@Tim Folkerts….”Many terms are used differently by different people heat springs instantly to mind”.
Based on a reply in the following link, which I presume comes from you, you reveal a lack of understanding of heat and how it is transferred. You are thoroughly confusing heat transfer in metal blocks with radiative heat transfer.
Atoms do not move around freely in blocks of metal since they are joined by covalent bonds and there is no such thing as Net energy flow. That is an ambiguous theory created by climate alarmists to bypass the requirements of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Heat is transferred in metal by valence electrons. You are thinking of energy transfer in gases where atoms and molecules are free to move.
Heat transfer in metals is governed by the the 2nd law which requires that heat is transferred from warmer regions to cooler regions unless some kind of compensation is applied. Your bogus Net energy is an attempt to apply the 1st law of thermodynamics to a context in which it does not apply.
http://principia-scientific.org/the-scientific-method-as-applied-to-climate-science/
In your reply you state:
“As for the rest consider two blocks of metal (Block A & Block B) at the same temperature that are placed into contact. At a microscopic level, atoms from each block of metal are constantly hitting atoms in the other block of metal. But the energies of the atoms in each block vary (ie the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution). Sometimes a fast atom in BLOCK A will hit a slow atom in the BLOCK B, tranferring energy from A to B. Sometimes the transfer will be the other way. Even though the heat flow is zero (they are the same temperature), energy is constantly flowing back and forth.
EVEN IF Block B is slightly warmer than Block A, there will still be collsions where a fast atom in A will hit a slow atom in B and transfer energy from A to B. Yes energy jsut moved from colder to warmer! but the NET flow of energy (the heat flow) will always be from warmer to cooler because THE MAJORITY of collisions will transfer energy from B to A.
Sinilarly, the MAJORITY of photons are going from warmer to cooler, even when a minority are going from colder to warmer”.
Tim,
You may want to explore the curious case of Theophilus Painter. Scientists are more susceptible to group think than one would expect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
CO2 warming is the 24th chromosome pair. No one can “see” it, but climate scientists believe it is there.
I agree on the confusion regarding the use of the term “heat”, which confusion I ascribe to physicists, themselves, some who say it is a process and others say nay, it is energy.
Leading in circles? Like the great AGW perpetual motion machine?
From my perspective it is correct for skeptics to point out where the IPCC has politicized and exaggerated the effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. On the other hand, it just plays into the hands of the extremests, who claim there is a conspiracy to hide the truth, for deniers to claim there is no effect at all. The witch hunt against corporations and scientists who downplay the alarm from the IPCC is proof that the claims of the skeptics must be clearly stated, and that legitimate skeptics not be improperly grouped-in with genuine deniers.
Then say what you mean. Say: radiative gases thermalize LWIR by absorbing it and transferring the absorbed energy kinetically to other air molecules.
But if you really do your homework, you will research the redundancy of CO2 to clouds and water vapor in this respect.
Now really REALLY do your homework and realize that at the top of the troposphere there are hardly any clouds and hardly any humidity. As such, at this critical part of the atmosphere (in terms of overall energy balance), the redundancy disappears.
(And that should do it for me. I really don’t want to get dragged into endless discussions. I really just wanted to point out that there is almost always more to learn, and the discussions in places like this tend not to resolve toward a consensus.)
ERL 8-10 km; contrails 8-12 km.
You were saying?
Something about homework, right?☺
Yes – go and learn something about the tropopause.and NO, it has nothing to do with
your imaginary PAUSE.
ERL is below the tropopause.
B.e.l.o.w. See, I spelled it for you, drno.
Thanks for your ejaculation.
Tim,
You’re dancing around the fact that nobody has ever even proposed a falsifiable hypothesis for the alleged planet heating properties of CO2.
Attempting to divert this stark fact by launching into arguments based on climatological sciencey wording involving DWLIR, SWIR, UWLWIR, TOA, ERL, ECS, TCS, and all the rest, is the trademark of the foolish Warmist.
You can’t create fact from fantasy. CO2 heats nothing.
How is CO2 supposed to heat things? Or is this a closely held foolish Warmist secret?
Just because a motley collection of delusionalists accept fantasy as fact, doesn’t make it so. Facts do not spring into existence as a result of a vote.
Cheers.
Tim S,
CO2 has no heating effect all. You can deny this all you want. You can’t actually heat anything at all using CO2, but that is not likely to stop you claiming that you can – just not in the presence of unbelievers!
Just like any flim-flam artist. Who needs fact, when blind faith will do?
Where’s the falsifiable hypothesis relating to the planet heating properties of CO2? There doesn’t seem to be one. Cargo Cult Scientism doesn’t need no stinkin’ science, by the look of it.
Cheers.
You can falsify the greenhouse effect by demonstrating that there is no downwelling radiation from the atmosphere.
If you can’t do that, you can falsify CO2’s part in this by demonstrating that CO2 does not absorb and re-emit radiation in the spectrum emitted by the Earth.
If you can’t do that you can falsify the GHE relating to CO2 by demonstrating that photons emitted by CO2 only head skyward.
barry, you can prove CO2 heats the planet by increasing the ppm from 280 to 400, and showing the temperature increase.
What? You have to “adjust” the temperatures to do that?
Welcome to pseudoscience!
barry,
Foolish Warmist.
You still haven’t provided a falsifiable hypothesis to explain the alleged planet heating properties of CO2.
None of the things you mention explain the alleged planet heating properties of CO2.
Your first point merely acknowledges that all matter above absolute zero emits radiation. As does CO2, rather unsurprisingly.
Second, everything in the atmosphere, is eventually heated by EMR emitted by the Earth’s surface, if it is cooler than the emitter. Even N2, O2, Ar – even pure gases have a temperature. Air is no different. It can be heated and cooled. By radiation, even. Even at night, or in an enclosed space. Nothing to be falsified here. Free space – vacuum – is truly transparent to radiation of any frequency. Nothing else, contrary to the bumbling assertions of self proclaimed climatologists. Tyndall quantified the opacity of dry, CO2 free air, relative to gases such as H2O and CO2, amongst others.
Third, why would anyone except a foolish Warmist think that normal physical processes somehow give planet heating properties to CO2? The surface cools at night. Presumably photons emitted by CO2 are still headed Earthwards?
Maybe you could provide a falsifiable hypothesis explaining the alleged planet heating properties of CO2?
Even a demonstration of an object being heated by surrounding it with CO2 would do. Of course you can’t. Neither can anybody else. It’s nonsense. Non-science, if you like.
Foolish Warmist!
I can falsify your claim to even be worthy of listening to, by telling everyone in here you can’t name the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of gas/atmospheric mixes, in gas chemistry; what the formula is, and what each factor stands for.
When you can’t do that you’re a proven posing fake, whose assessments are all those of a dullard
who couldn’t find out the temperature of air if your life depended on it.
Therefore you’re not qualified to discuss atmospheric chemistry with atmospheric chemists, who CAN name what I told everyone here, you can’t.
The law of thermodynamics
for solving temperature
in gas chemistry.
What is it?
Tell us the equation, tell us what each factor means.
We’ll all wait.
A Reader,
To whom are you talking?
Who is the atmospheric chemist to whom you are referring? Have they authorised you to speak on their behalf, or are you just another foolish Warmist making stuff up as you go along?
I apologise if English is not your mother tongue, or if you suffer from a mental disability. I don’t know who you are, and I can’t read your mind.
It seems you’re joining sciencey sounding words together to create a meaningless sentence. Please provide some additional information, if you wish to convince me you’re not disabled.
Your choice, of course.
Cheers.
@Barry…”…you can falsify the GHE relating to CO2 by demonstrating that photons emitted by CO2 only head skyward”.
The entire GHE theory has already been systematically dismantled by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
CO2 has no heating effect all.
CO2 heats nothing.
Wheres the falsifiable hypothesis relating to the planet heating properties of CO2? There doesnt seem to be one.
There is one, a very famous experiment series demonstrating & relating to the planet heating properties of CO2. Mike Flynns repeated hypothesis quoted was falsified by precision (for the time) experiments begun in the summer & fall of 1859, and resumed fall of 1860, paper received 1/10/1861. Mike Flynn should do better research. The easy to find results have since been replicated & further refined.
Ball4,
Foolish Warmists try to keep things secret. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your refusal to specify who carried out these experiments seems to be a pathetic attempt at a “gotcha”.
I assume you have failed to properly read the fine and very detailed experiments of John Tyndall. If you take note of the footnotes in editions up to and including the 1905 edition of his book referring to heat as a form of motion, you may find yourself changing your opinion somewhat.
However, you will note that Tundalls experiments quantified the opacity of many gases at various infrared wavelengths, and showed his thermopile recording reduced temperatures as the amount of CO2, for example, increased in the sample. He illustrated the mechanism involved, by providing a drawing of a common Victorian glass fire screen, suitably annotated.
Maybe you have hidden away, details of another experimenter who disagreed with Tyndall. Melloni was one such, but his hypothesis was shown to be wrong by Tyndall’s experiments. Falsifiable, in other words.
Unlike the complete lack of a falsifiable foolish Warmist hypothesis supporting the alleged heating effects of CO2.
Foolish Warmist. You should have noticed that Tyndall often corrected his initial suppositions based on his experimental results.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn You remain incorrect; the experiments of Tyndall stand against you.
Not to be argued with, Tyndall perforated the tube and screwed in thermometers air tight to directly show the rise in temperature on filling the tube from a vacuum. He found a 5 degree F difference in the case of air.
ball4, you might want to explain to Mike that, in your pseudoscience, cabbages emit visible light. He would enjoy that.
Geran writes with his own silly definition of visible light; spectrometers (and fast film) reveal cabbages (oranges, apples) in very dark closets emit nonzero radiation at 525 nm and nearby wavelengths in the common science definition of visible bands. Even though they are not visible to Geran in there.
ball4 doesn’t realize that anyone can take a cabbage into a dark closet and prove it is not glowing.
Welcome to pseudoscience.
You’ve got to love the terms of pseudoscience–“nonzero radiation”!
Many fools can see that cabbages are green. And so they may be by the light of day interpreted in our brains, which is all any fool can see. But because we cannot see the kind of radiation emitted by the cabbage in the dark closet, does not mean the cabbage does not glow in the dark. Our eyes deceive us. Instrumentation is needed in your closet geran. Invest wisely.
Hilarious!
The poor pseudoscientist, ball4, instructs us we have to have “special” instruments to “see” visible light.
Does it get any funnier?
Oh yeah! geran has been much funnier & sillier at times, like geran asking does the atmosphere obey the laws of physics? Yes geran as do cabbages.
ball4 “responds” without a response.
So typical…
Ball4
You’re back. Welcome and enjoy the non scientists profess their profound ignorance forever!
Norma, did you get all those beakers clean before leaving work?
That’s what a lab tech does….
geran
Yes we do the triple rinse to clean our glassware. Make sure the next test is not contaminated by the previous one. At least you have a slight understanding of how science works. Congrats to you for that little bit of real science. Hope it did not hurt!
Yup, it’s always “real science” with me, Norm. Just like it’s always pseudoscience with you and Ball4.
Ball4,
You haven’t actually managed to contradict anything I’ve written, with something remotely resembling a fact, have you?
Claiming I’m wrong, without facts to support your assertion, is about as silly as claiming that CO2 has planet heating properties!
Maybe if you hold your breath until you turn blue, you might create fact from fantasy. It’ll be OK. You can’t kill yourself by holding your breath.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn sez quote you havent actually managed to contradict anything Ive written. end quote.
True, not me. I pointed out Professor Tyndall contradicted your writing by experiment. In 1859. Detailed paper facts received by the Royal Society 1/10/1861. His carbonic acid (CO2) heated his room more than lab air.
Ball4,
Edition, publisher, year and a direct quote might convince readers you’re not just making stuff up, or using out of date ruminations, unsupported by experiment.
Actually, until you can provide a quote in context, you are just another foolish Warmist fabricating as you go.
CO2 warms nothing. Nobody has even tried to formulate a falsifiable CO2 planet heating hypothesis for very long, because such an act of foolishness makes its impossibility apparent very quickly.
Go on, if you wish. Try it yourself. The hypothesis must explain existing factual observations, of course. It also has to be falsifiable by experiment.
CO2 has no heating properties. Wishing will not make it so. You can’t even provide an instance of such an impossibility. Maybe you could get tips from Uri Heller, or Michael Mann, on what sorts of subterfuges might be employed to convince a gullible public that the impossible was possible.
Tyndall’s carbonic acid was heated blanket Tyndall. As it cooled, it’s emitted radiation warmed other things. CO2 by itself heats nothing. Never has, never will.
Foolish Warmist.
Cheers,
Apologies. Heated by Tyndall of course, rather than heated “blanket” Tyndall. Foolish Warmism is obviously highly infectious. A form of contagious shared delusional psychosis, no doubt!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn, the carbonic acid (CO2) was heated by Tyndall using radiation emitted from boiling water passed thru a vacuum box to eliminate conduction. Carbonic acid heated the Tyndall room above that of the air delta 5F by thermometry, always has, always will. The experiment of Tyndall directly contradicts what you incorrectly wrote in context 7/2 7:25pm and 11:35pm et. al.
My more detailed response 7/15 that hasn’t posted was to correct your post of 7/15 iirc where you asked to be corrected. Tyndall experiment corrected your post.
Ball4,
I assume you are making stuff up, or your memory is defective. If you can provide the publisher, edition, and a direct quote so I can verify your wording (which is obviously not what Tyndall wrote, but a fabrication of your own), it would be appreciated.
I think you’re fabricating nonsense. Quote Tyndall directly, if you wish. Pretending that Tyndall wrote anything remotely resembling your nonsense, may lead others to think you are a foolish Warmist, a subject for mild amusement, and the butt of an occasional light hearted joke.
I’m reasonably sure you’ve realised I was right, and you are wrong. I’ll apologise if you can provide direct quotes (with the appropriate references to ensure you weren’t just making stuff up), which support your bizarre assertion.
Of course CO2 can be heated. A burning candle or log fire provides lots of heated CO2. You can heat a room if you have enough heat. You can even let the CO2 fly away up the chimney, and still heat the room. And of course, when the CO2 is no longer heated, it cools down. Totally amazing to a foolish Warmist, but quite ordinary, to a normal person.
You can’t show anybody heating anything with CO2 which wasn’t externally heated. Tyndall showed any heated gas radiated energy as it cooled. As does everything in the universe.
Foolish Warmist. Deny, divert, confuse.
CO2 warms nothing itself. Not even the planet Earth.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn, your assumption is unwarranted, find if this will post so you can read up on spectroscopy:
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf
Everything in moderation even moderation.
Carbonic acid (CO2) all by itself heated the Tyndall room above that of air which all by itself heated the Tyndall room above a vacuum 5F by thermometry. Experimentally demonstrating Mike Flynn is incorrect.
Mike, Ball4 is a known master of pseudoscience. He will preach endlessly such nonsense as a cabbage emits visible light. He will claim lab tests, “science” papers, etc. support his confusion.
@Ball4…”…the carbonic acid (CO2) was heated by Tyndall using radiation emitted from boiling water passed thru a vacuum box to eliminate conduction. Carbonic acid heated the Tyndall room above that of the air delta 5F by thermometry”
So, why don’t we all run a pot of boiling water in the kitchen and allow it to heat the GHGs in the room and we’ll have a free +5F warming?
Do I have to tell you what’s wrong here? Should I mention perpetual motion, losses, and the ridiculously tiny amount of CO2 in a room. If there was enough CO2 in the room to heat the air you’d die of asphyxiation.
Where in the atmosphere can you get the equivalent of a pot of boiling water? And who said the carbonic acid in the experiment heated the room? What about the water vapour boiling off the water at 220F?
How big was the room? Was it closet size or a normal size?
Gordon, Prof. Tyndall did not demonstrate free +5F warming, no laws were harmed. Yes, tell me what is wrong here by ref. to words written by Tyndall. His experimental description is quite detailed. Read it.
Find the two pots of boiling water were not in the atm. of the Tyndall room. Thermometer used by Tyndall indicated his room started heating to +5F as soon as gas cylinder petcock was opened allowing the air into his 218 cubic inch evacuated room. The carbonic acid alone heated his room much higher.
Ball4,
I think I can see where you became confused. Tyndall heated gases, CO2 among them. He knew he had heated them, because he was able to measure an increase in temperature.
He knew the gas had cooled when the heat source was removed, because the temperature fell.
Foolish Warmists regard this as magic. No, anything can be heated. Remove the heat source, and cooling results. As clear as night and day to most people.
Maybe still magical to foolish Warmists.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn, the heat source of Prof. Tyndall was not removed, it is you who is confused. The experiment details show he added CO2 to the room and his room temperature went up by thermometer: as he removed the CO2 his room temperature went down. No change in other settings.
Aarghh!
Dr Spencer – spam filter ate my Tyndall response!
If you feel inclined, you may wish to post it. I believe my facts to be correct.
Please excuse me for having some fun. I’ve been on the receiving end of worse, from foolish Warmists, in the past.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn as my detailed responses have gone to spam too. I am resorting to sound bytes try to figure it out. They may appear in time.
Ball4,
I find it hard to believe you have prepared a response to something you haven’t seen.
Neat foolish Warmist trick. Is that like Mike’s Nature trick, or your own?
Maybe you can quote something from my response which you haven’t seen? The never ending wonders of foolish Warmism on display.
Cheers.
Mike, Ball4 etc.
Most entertaining.
Ball4 – If CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm, why is that not a good thing?
We realize that rising ocean levels would inundate some cities, NYC for example, (scary story found in recent Rolling Stone) but unless the warmists are able to control the Earth’s temperature, not just influence it, the opposite of warming would be cooling.
From a layman’s perspective, cooling, with the associated snow, ice, freezing temperatures and, more importantly, shorter growing seasons, would be more difficult to deal with than rising oceans. That would seem obvious.
So, knowing this, especially as evidence of glaciation is abundant proving what a small amount of cooling will do, why do ‘foolish warmists’ advocate for less CO2, if they actually believe it to be an instrument of heating the planet?
This is a rhetorical question. Warmists have no concern for humans or the planet or any of the things they pretend concern for, what they are after is control, a command and control economy, political world, in which they are in charge. Arguing about CO2 is a method to get them that control. The result will be, as many have pointed out, continued penury and destitution for the poor of the world, and a decline in the standard of living for most others.
Is this not what you advocate for?
Lewis,
Foolish Warmists deny the continents move, that subduction occurs. that marine fossils are found at over 6000 m, and coal and oil (plant matter) can be found thousands of meters below present sea levels. Sea levels bob up and down with respect to the land, and the land is constantly in motion – up, down, and sideways.
Not only that, but Arthenius said “By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”
His supposition about CO2 didn’t come to pass, but he believed that warmer would lead to better climate.
Poor foolish Warmists, they don’t even know what their poster boy thought.
The whole insane recent charade seems to be a product of James “Death Trains” Hansen, and his pathological fixation on banning coal. What a foolish Warmist! Much faith, no facts!
The Earth has cooled since its original molten state, but foolish Warmists even deny that – even keeping a straight face whilst they say it! No CO2 warming. None.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn,
Not sure where you got this statement from: “The Earth has cooled since its original molten state, but foolish Warmists even deny that even keeping a straight face whilst they say it! No CO2 warming. None”
I do not know of any scientist who denies the Earth surface has cooled from a molten state to a solid crust.
I think you may have a mental block that makes if totally impossible for you to understand the GHE. Carbon Dioxide in the air is not a source of energy. It changes the radiation balance of the surface. The Earth’s surface will warm with the incoming energy (solar) until the energy leaving the system equals the energy entering the system. The Earth’s surface needs to warm so that the incoming and outgoing energy are equal. The Earth’s surface has to radiate more IR to match the incoming Energy at the TOA because the GHG are redirecting the IR flow back to the surface.
Norman,
Norman,
Not at all.
Place an object hotter than the surface – a pot of hot water, or a red piece of iron – on the ground. The incoming energy from the Sun does not prevent the object from cooling. As it does not prevent the hot Earth from cooling.
The nonsense that there is some sort of ridiculous climatological energy balance, is oft repeated, but completely wrong.
The surface heats during the day – no energy balance – more absorbed than emitted.
The surface cools during the night – no energy balance – more emitted than absorbed.
Foolish Warmist. Believing bearded balding bumbling buffoons, and all their weird pseudo science will only expose you to ridicule and laughter in the long run. GHE, TOA, GHG, redirecting – all these are either meaningless or undefinable sciencey climatological Cargo Cult a Scientism terms.
CO2 heats nothing. Your use of “redirecting” is just a foolish Warmist attempt to deny, divert, and confuse. You admit CO2 heats nothing, but claim it does anyway, in the same breath.
Foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
Mike, once Norm stated that energy does NOT leave the system, but it leaves the system!
(He’s one of the funnier pseudoscientists.)
Mike Flynn
I do not admit CO2 heats the surface (as it does not). The CO2 is not heating the surface. The surface is heated by incoming solar energy. Energy balance is not ridiculous or wrong. It is core science. It is the First Law of Thermodynamics. Well tested, well established and to date not yet violated.
You do not grasp averaging and look only at specifics. Then you insult all the scientists who are able to understand this while you can’t (maybe that frustrates you) (Believing bearded balding bumbling buffoons). You could probably understand energy balance in a very simple form. You have a surface in the solar flux in outer space and it reaches an equilibrium temperature. It does not go up or down. Now you will understand, in this case, energy balance that will have a surface reach a certain temperature but you can’t understand it when you have a rotating body that receives energy for a time and then none. Then all of a sudden the energy balance of the whole system is gone.
If you thought a little about it you would understand that in your cases (the surface receives more energy than it emits so it warms) has a simultaneous process going on on the opposite side but the two processes do balance each other.
To show that the GHE is real science you should go to this linked web page and create your own graphs based upon measured values.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
Click on Desert Rock Nevada (desert with little clouds to effect the equation). Now click on Downwelling IR and also Upwelling IR along with air temperature. You can see that the Downwelling IR is less than the Upwelling, the surface is cooling.
What do you think would take place without the Downwelling IR? If you test the case I described you will see the energy loss to the surface (at night) is around 100 Watts/m^2. That is the difference between the Upwelling and the Downwelling. If you removed the Downwelling component from the energy equation your surface would be losing 400 Watts/m^2. The surface would cool much more quickly and would not then warm as much during the day making an overall colder surface. It really is not that difficult and has good scientific supporting evidence. Hopefully you take the time to at least look at the material before launching a “foolish warmist” post and insult all the scientists who can see and understand simple math.
Simple math. More energy leaves the system the surface in this case will be colder. Less energy leaves and the surface warms.
Again the spinning Earth is a complex model and you do not understand it well and in your frustration you lash out at the people who do “get it”.
Norman,
On the other hand the surface cools at night.
You don’t actually address anything I say, preferring to follow the ramblings of a few bearded, balding, bumbling buffoons, at least one whom exhibits most, if not all, of the clinical signs of delusional psychosis.
Your fixation on silly Warmist notions of power, heat, temperature, and energy is illustrated by your contention that the surface warms at night because less energy leaves it.
Complete nonsense. The surface cools because more energy is emitted than absorbed. The temperature drops. No heating to be seen. Foolish Warmist. Over the last four and a half billion years, the Earh has cooled, regardless of your foolish Warmist claims, using odd foolish Warmist terms such as Upwelling, and Downwelling.
Cargo Cult Scientism. Devoid of any useful meaning, and of no use at all. Copy and paste the falsifiable hypothesis supporting the supposed heating properties of CO2, if you can. A bit of a gotcha I know, because there isn’t one.
I noticed you now claim that CO2 doesn’t hear anything (which is true), but by a miracle of Cargo Cult Scientism, raises the average temperature of the surface by redistributing heat, presumably from the night side to the sunlit side. Interesting, but requires the use of magic.
As to insulting scientists who can understand simple math – maybe they’re insulting to people who can understand complex math. A 12 year old child can average temperatures. It’s not really difficult.
There is no conservation of energy, as regards the Earth. It’s cooled off for four and a half billion years. Hardly reason for Gavin Schmidt to breathlessly declare “Hottest year EVAH” – although he later admitted that there was only a 38% probability that his claim was true. 38% probability is obviously certainty to a foolish Warmist mathematician.
So press on. CO2 heats nothing. Redistributing heat does not result in heating, unless additional energy is introduced. Maxwell’s Demon is not real.
Just for fun, with two equal containers of CO2, one at 20 C and one at 40C, what is the mechanism of your magical CO2 heat redistribution which raises the temperature of the hotter gas?
Or maybe you claim that redistributing the heat from the hotter will raise the temperature of the cooler gas, but the 40 C gas won’t drop its temperature?
Actually, in an environment of 15 C, while you’re coming to the conclusion that foolish Warmist assertions don’t actually work, the temperature of both samples will have dropped to 15 C. Sad but true. Foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
Norm, in all your rambling you still didn’t explain how your cabbage emits visible light. Nor, did you explain how “energy leaves the system, but does not leave the system”.
If you want to now admit that these were stupid things to say, then I won’t mention them again. But, otherwise, you will never learn how easily you get taken in by pseudoscience.
Mike Flynn,
I am not sure you actually read posts. I know mine was long but you assert I made claims which were nowhere in the content of my post.
The original molten state of the Earth’s surface has very little to do with its current temperature. That energy is long gone. Without the sun and radioactive decay the surface of the Earth would be close to absolute zero. Consider the surface temperature of Pluto, very cold it may have been in a molten state when first formed. The current surface temperature is maintained by solar energy input and currently by all measurements (including Roy Spencer’s) the surface of the Globe is warming so you need to look at what is actually happening now.
Your comment “Your fixation on silly Warmist notions of power, heat, temperature, and energy is illustrated by your contention that the surface warms at night because less energy leaves it.”
Wow where did you get that from my post? If you would take even a little time to click on the link I posted to you you would see the outgoing radiation is negative and the surface cools at night. The point GHE theory states is the RATE OF COOLING is slowed down with GHG in the atmosphere not that it is warming the surface with magic energy. Why is this point so hard for you to understand?
This statement: “There is no conservation of energy, as regards the Earth.”
Is the most unscientific thing I have read from you, conservation of energy applies to ALL systems Earth included. You need to study some actual science and stay of the blogs for a while. You are not helping your cause with mindless statements like that one!
“Norm, in all your rambling you still didnt explain how your cabbage emits visible light.”
I know this is a waste of time but. try learning about Planck’s Law.
Poor “no dr”! Like a typical pseudoscience, he presents an actual physical law, and then attempts to use it as evidence!
What a climate clown!
“no dr”, if you will do a little research, you will find that Planck’s Law leads to “Planck’s Relationship”. If you will examine that equation, you will find a “T” in it. The “T” stands for “temperature”.
Hilarious!
And, for ALL CO2/GHE pseudoscientists, notice that Planck’s Law not only has a mathematical derivation, but is also verified with empirical evidence.
Try that with the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation!
Norman says, July 17, 2016 at 7:29 PM:
“What do you think would take place without the Downwelling IR?”
And what do you think would take place without a negative tropospheric temperature gradient, Norman? Then there would be no “radiative greenhouse effect” as defined, because Earth’s T_s and T_e would then be equal, meaning that at any time as much radiant energy would leave the ToA for space as what left the surface for the atmosphere (and space). No loss. No “trapping”. No delay.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-217064
“Poor no dr! Like a typical pseudoscience, he presents an actual physical law, and then attempts to use it as evidence!”
.
Poor boy.
I knew it was a waste of time.
Everybody else knows how to use Planck’s Law to solve the “cabbage” issue.
I assume you know what an equation is?
Hint:
choose a temperature for the cabbage
nominate the visible wavelength
calculate the emission (it must be non-zero)
I love “climate comedy”, but this is over the top! These pseudoscience comedians actually believe a person can see a cabbage glowing, in total darkness!
This is such a perfect example of pseudoscience. Anyone can easily prove this is nonsense, but NOT to these clowns. And, notice how they attempt to misuse established science to support their beliefs.
Norm once tried to claim that two objects, one below freezing, and the other at about 33 C, will heat a third object to over 70 C!!!
Hilarious!
What will they come up with next–something silly like CO2 can heat the planet?
Kristian,
I am still thinking about your post. Not sure you are correct and not sure the temperature would ever equalize between an IR active atmosphere and surface as long as new energy were entering the system.
I can’t see how a warmer atmosphere would stop the GHE if it had GHG present in it. The GHG would still emit energy back to the surface and if the atmosphere were warmer it would emit more energy back to the surface and would make an even stronger effect.
On the link:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
Plot some graphs from the Mississippi site. July 10 had clouds. When the Upwelling and downwelling IR are nearly the same (similar tmeperatures…the low clouds are about as warm as the night surface) the temperature does not drop much at all. I would think a similar event would take place in your hypothetical. The surface would stay the same temp at night and be even warmer during the day until some new surface temp equilibrium takes place.
Norman says, July 19, 2016 at 5:05 AM:
“Not sure you are correct (…)”
What is there to be unsure about? The “greenhouse effect” is specifically defined as the difference between a planet’s T_e and its T_s (thus correspondingly, as the difference between the ‘UWLWIR flux’ from the planet’s global surface and its OLR flux to space). If that planet’s T_e and T_s were then equal, there would – by definition – not be a “greenhouse effect” on that planet. Like on Mars, for instance.
This is a thought experiment, Norman, just like your ‘no GHG atmosphere’ (a massive atmosphere CANNOT be radiatively inert! as I’ve tried to point out to you on several occasions).
Its purpose is to show us how it is the process that sets up and maintains the negative tropospheric temperature gradient on a planet that forces (causes) the surface of that planet to be warmer than its tropopause and hence its effective emission temp in space, NOT the radiative properties of its atmosphere. (The radiative properties of the atmosphere is but a necessary tool enabling it to adequately rid itself of its absorbed heat from the surface and thereby stay stable and in place.)
The process setting up and maintaining the tropospheric lapse rate is (differential) solar heating of the surface + resulting turbulent mixing of the tropospheric air masses above – atmospheric circulation, convection-advection (buoyancy and wind).
“(…) and not sure the temperature would ever equalize between an IR active atmosphere and surface as long as new energy were entering the system.”
With only radiative absorp tion/emission and conduction transporting the energy around the troposphere, conditions would indeed most likely move towards the isothermal as the end result. Include convection and there would immediately be a negative temperature gradient set up and maintained. Heard of the adiabatic lapse rate? It relies specifically on air moving up and down an atmospheric column subjected to gravity and heated from below.
“I cant see how a warmer atmosphere would stop the GHE if it had GHG present in it.”
I know you don’t. That’s been evident for some time …
“The GHG would still emit energy back to the surface and if the atmosphere were warmer it would emit more energy back to the surface and would make an even stronger effect.”
Please, Norman. We’re back to square one. Radiation inside our atmosphere is only an EFFECT of air temperatures, it is NOT a cause of those same temperatures. The temps were caused by something else … The fact that we can detect thermal radiation doesn’t mean that radiation is a CAUSE of temperature. The temperature difference between the surface and the air above is NOT determined by the radiative properties of the atmosphere!
“Plot some graphs from the Mississippi site. July 10 had clouds. When the Upwelling and downwelling IR are nearly the same (similar tmeperaturesthe low clouds are about as warm as the night surface) the temperature does not drop much at all. I would think a similar event would take place in your hypothetical. The surface would stay the same temp at night and be even warmer during the day until some new surface temp equilibrium takes place.”
Please read my comment to barry upthread about this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-217120
and also the one to Bignell, about the cause of the modern warming (it’s NOT an “enhanced rGHE”):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-217170
Norman,
“The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.”
You might have not understood this law. Who is claiming the contrary? Certainly not me.
Foolish Warmist deny the Earth’s surface has cooled, then deny that they said it, then admit it, but deny this shows a net loss of energy from the Earth. Have I got this right?
You still cannot show that CO2 heats anything, nor that it causes anything to be heated. Trying to deny, divert, and confuse by talking about Pluto (or Donald Duck, for all I know) is pointless.
Maybe if you stick to the planet heating abilities of CO2, you might convince people that CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Of course you can’t.
You agree that the surface cools at night, in the absence of sunlight. No heating. Insulation does not stop an object from cooling. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, no matter how much you deny the fact.
No CO2 heating. None. Deny all you want.
Foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Since you do not read the actual content of what I post it is pointless to respond to your posts.
“Anyone can easily prove this is nonsense”
Go on – I dare you.
Calculate the visible emission from cabbages at room temperature.
It is not going to be large, certainly not enough to register on the retina – but it will not be zero.
Just tell me the answer before you babble any further nonsense.
Dr No,
I understand the statement referred to a person seeing a visible emission from a cabbage in the dark. In a typical foolish Warmist fashion of deny, divert and confuse, you demand a calculation be performed which has nothing to do with the original statement.
Of course any object above absolute zero emits light (in the sense used by Feynman).
Foolish Warmistd claim that light is only used in the sense of radiation visible to the eyes, but then go on to blather about infrared light, and ultraviolet light, neither of which can be seen by humans – by definition.
So twiddle and twist away. Wiggle and Wriggle, Warmist Worm.
Visible emission is visible. Invisible emission is not visible.
Calculate all the equations you like. You cannot perceive that which is below the threshold of visibility.
It’s about as silly as claiming that CO2 has magical planet heating abilities. Complete tosh.
Foolish Warmists.
Cheers.
Good,
you agree that (theoretically speaking) the cabbage emits light.
That wasn’t hard, was it?
Dr No,
Foolish Warmist attempt at the lateral arabesque – otherwise known as the diversion of desperation.
If you must build a strawman, you actually need some straw.
Trying to deny, divert, and confuse by the magic Warmist transmutation of visible light into invisible light is fairly pathetic. You said to calculate the visible emission, then admitted you didn’t actually mean what you said (in the finest foolish Warmist tradition), by not bothering about the extremely important word “visible”, in your subsequent attempt to tell me what I thought.
As a foolish Warmist, you pretend visible light and invisible light are visible, unless somebody points out the foolishness of your pretence.
Foolish Warmist. Neither cabbages nor CO2 at room temperature are visible in the dark. If they were, they could be seen. They remain invisible to the normal human eye.
Next thing I suppose you’ll assert is the non existent planet heating properties of CO2. Foolish Warmism, no more, no less.
Cheers.
I’m not sure what the original point was about cabbages.
But we do agree that they emit radiation in the visible part of the spectrum but that it is too low to be “visible”.
“Next thing I suppose youll assert is the non existent planet heating properties of CO2”
I will assert that, if you removed CO2 from the atmosphere, the earth would eventually be cooler. And vice-versa if you doubled its concentration.
It obviously has no heat-generating properties.
Why do you keep denying its heat-trapping properties? Most skeptics accept this fact but argue that its effect is minimal – fair enough. But hy do you take such an outright denialist position on this? – it makes you look stupid.
Lewis, Socrates is credited with being the first to state about 2500 years ago: Everything in moderation. Nothing in excess.
Another more modern sage in this field wrote 78 years ago:
…it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905). In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed…
Moderation:
It seems to me the ability to measure temperature changes of 10ths of a degree, over the surface of the earth, is an extreme measurement of a moderate occurrence.
In any case, delay the deadly glaciers: in which case more burning of fossil fuels, according to some, would be the prescription. Not so the zealots: their hatred of mankind and his accomplishments will be the ruination of many.
Obama and his minions have signed on. The EPA wields the guillotine.
Hi Norman,
thank you for having posted the ESRL-NOAA link above.
I read you post and I fundamentally agree, but there is a consideration about it that I would know your opinion.
PLot this:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=dra&date=2016-07-06&p8=rns&p9=rnir&p10=rn&p16=at
July 7 It was surely a sunny day in the desert so no clouds at all and very clear plot for net radiations.
The temperature dropped by night from 33*C to 23*C in 10 hours between 3:00 to 13:00 UTC, and rose by day from 23*C to 34*C from 13:00 to 24:00 UTC that is 11 hours.
The gradient for that values are almost the same 1*C/hour.
If you plot an imaginary horizontal line at 0 W/m2 you can practically divide the daily entered and exited energy per square meter by looking at the areas above and below that line and the green plot.
IMHO it’s evident that the total entered energy per square meter area is far greater than the outgoing one.
My question which I’ve no answer is:
Why despite that day the energy released to the outer space was clearly less than the one absorbed, don’t we see practically any changes in the temperature trend?
Being a desert area I expect to see an almost immediate temperature response after retaining so much energy, don’t you?
BTW in summer the other days the balance is not so much different.
During winter days instead the two daily energy areas look more similar, but in that case the temperature falls slower during the night and rises almost with the same gradient during the day.
If you look at December 27 2015 which was a clear night, you can see a more or less -0.5C/hour, while looking to the day after which was evidently a cloudy night the temperature trend seems to be just more perturbed but the it finally shows the same -0.5C/hour.
Do you have any explanation about?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Massimo
The link only shows radiant energy and its effects. The real world situation of a location is more complex. You have advection which can move in air from other locations that have different temperatures but I think in you example the primary determining factor is convection. As temperature rises the air warms, heats up and rises removing heat from the surface at a certain rate so that the surface does not warm as quickly. I think convection sets the warming rate even though the incoming energy is greater.
Along with looking at the radiation data plots I also like to look at the local weather for the location.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KDRA/2016/7/7/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Desert+Rock&req_state=NV&req_statename=Nevada&reqdb.zip=89023&reqdb.magic=3&reqdb.wmo=99999
In the Nevada case there were strong winds in the afternoon which would help remove surface heating.
Hi Norman,
thank you for your reply and the new link.
Honestly, I also thought about an external (intended as non radiative) source of heat exchange as wind, but I didn’t thought that convection could have delayed the temperature rise. Effectively a convective loop, it’s a sort of heat pump that should remove more heat from the below as the temperature rise at ground.
IMHO, from those plots, it looks like a very powerful feedback during the daytime.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Norman,
I found very interesting the ESRL link you gave us.
If you remember, I’m the one who is boring people here about the possibility that we are not measuring the whole outgoing LWIR at the TOA.
If you look at ESRL parameter there are 4 different solar radiation measured: downwelling, upwelling, direct-normal and diffused.
The diffused solar radiation is that radiation that reaches the ground despite it has been spreaded by the atmospheric gases and/or particles.
Look at this clearsky plot:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=dra&date=2016-07-07&p1=dpsp&p4=diff
And then look at this cloudy day plot instead:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=dra&date=2016-07-09&p1=dpsp&p4=diff
Do you see the big figure?
My point is that using the downwelling radiation could be a discrete tool for estimating an energy balance only in those days without or with very low contents of SWIR active gases, but it’s not suitable in those days where those gases are dominant.
That because a narrow FOV instrument looking only at the zenith in cloudy days overestimates the effects of clods as SWIR “blocking” medium.
Instead a wider FOV instrument get also the diffused radiation that still source energy to the ground at the very same point, giving a better estimation of the whole energy received at ground.
I’m almost sure that this very same effect is present at the TOA for LWIR. Of course at the TOA isn’t the cloud negative feedback overestimated, but the CO2 forcing.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO
Thanks for the links and interesting points. Couldn’t the mathematicians in the climate group determine the overestimation of the CO2 forcing at the TOA by calculating a probability distribution? If you have a small FOV on the satellite and it shows a large loss of IR in the Carbon Dioxide band, you can then take the missing energy from the measurement and spread it equally among the remaining volume not measured and get a good idea of how much of this energy is returning to the Earth’s surface.
I like the direct measurement of the instrument in the link we are talking about. That seems more direct than the TOA measurements.
Hi Norman,
yes the link seems report direct measurements (except for the diffused solar radiation that should be the result of subtraction of a narrow FOV zenith down-welling detector from an hemispheric FOV down-welling detecttor, I guess).
But I don’t believe that we can do a reliable balance of energy at ground for demonstrate any GHGe, because as you already pointed out there are other thermodynamics non radiative effects at the ground pressure that are not negligible.
About calculating the probability of distribution at the TOA for compensate the CO2 radiative “blocking” overestimation, it could be surely an alternative (it will be a model too, an another one), but a real measurement is surely the better way to put a gravestone on the issue.
By the way, replying above to Kristian you wrote this:
“The GHG would still emit energy back to the surface and if the atmosphere were warmer it would emit more energy back to the surface and would make an even stronger effect.”
I’m not sure that that statement is true. I mean, the radiative activity of CO2 at the 666cm-1 WL is due to the resonance of the CO2 molecular dipole to that WL.
For that, any molecule can absorb and re-emit a photon a time.
Do you know if exist any physics law that states that the bending energy changes as function of temperature?
Or alternatively, do you know if exist any physics law that states that the trapped CO2 photon extinction time is a function of temperature?
If none of the two phenomena exist the quantity of energy spread by the CO2 in the atmosphere should be only a function of its concentration, and independent from temperature. IMHO this is true except when the time between two consecutive and contemporary bumping against at least two neighboring molecules is sufficiently low to dissipate the photon energy as KE to the surrounding gases before its re-emission as a photon. Note that the CO2 is a linear molecule at rest, so the probability of bending it by bumping is lesser than the probability of dissipating an absorbed photon. Because when already bended the molecule needs just two contemporary bumps to dissipate the photon energy, while when it is at rest it needs three contemporary bumps to bend the molecule, the two on the oxygen atoms in one direction and the one on the carbon atom in the opposite direction, without those constraints in my opinion there shouldn’t have no conversion to KE.
Of course, as always said, this is not my field and I could have missed some important detail that invalidates al I wrote.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO
I read through your post and I strongly believe that both temperature and number of active molecules determines how much energy a gas will emit.
When all else fails I like to refer to physics textbooks.
I will provide a link:
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahttv131.pdf
In this physics textbook go to section 10.5 that deals with gases.
There is an equation in this section 10.51 that shows that number of molecules, path length and temperature are all factors in determining energy.
The thing is that at higher temperature you don’t have a higher energy bonding. the Carbon Dioxide molecule will only emit IR at a few wavelengths regardless of temperature. What the temperature does is create a lot more collisions which then will excite the CO2 molecule to a higher energy state.
Hi Norman,
Thank you for considering my issues.
maybe I misunderstood something and I writing here a silly thing for that.
But the following formula plotted on Fig. 10.23 (there is an error in referencing the CO2 and WV plots), doesn’t it show a reduction of emittance as function of increasing temperature for T < 1000 K ?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hoops!
The CO2 table is in Rankine degrees, so my:
“doesnt it show a reduction of emittance as function of increasing temperature for T < 1000 K ?"
Should be:
doesnt it show a reduction of emittance as function of increasing temperature for T < 556 K ?
Massimo PORZIO
If you go up this far to see this post you can look at the textbook link again and go to page 573 Example 10.11. The example explains what the chart is for and how it is used. A gas temperature still follows the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The amount of radiant energy is based upon the 4th power of the gas temp. The emissivity factor is based upon gas concentration, path length, pressure. Carbon Dioxide has a maximum emissivity of around 0.2 which you would use in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
It will work the same as any other hot object. The hotter it is the more radiant energy it generates.
Hope that helps.
OT
While waiting for July’s satellite estimate, the number of comments on this thread may approach 2,000. Can anybody indicate :
1.the most prolific skeptic commentator ?
2.the most prolific warmist commentator ?
*** Current Scorecard ***
A Reader: 1
Aaron S: 6
Alec aka Daffy Duck: 1
Alick: 1
An Inquirer: 7
AndyG55: 25
Ayla: 1
Ball4: 15
Brad: 1
DAVE Salvatore Del Prete: 1
David Appell: 74
Dr No: 1
Elliott Bignell: 25
FTOP: 3
Gordon Robertson: 10
Ivan Jankovic: 1
John Silver: 1
Kristian: 25
Lewis: 14
Mack: 1
Marco: 1
Mark Luhman: 1
Massimo PORZIO: 42
Mathius: 1
Max Bauer: 2
Mike Flynn: 125
Norman: 18
PA: 5
Paul C: 1
Ped: 2
RAH: 1
RW: 7
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.: 7
Salvatore Del Prete: 21
Simon: 2
Steven Fraser: 1
Sunsettommy: 5
TA: 2
Tim Folkerts: 3
Tim S: 24
Walter Starck: 1
Werner Brozek: 13
WizGeek: 1
barry: 335
cunningham: 8
dave: 5
doctor no: 65
elliot’sanazi: 1
fonzarelli: 18
gbaikie: 5
geran: 85
jimc: 1
max bauer: 1
mpainter: 215
Impressive now we have one new one
MarkB: 1
Thanks MarkB.
I see that there are over 50 commentators.The top 7, in order:
barry 335 (WARMIST)
mpainter 215 (SKEPTIC)
Mike Flynn 125 (S)
geran 85 (S)
David Appell 74 (W)
doctor no 65 (W)
Massimo PORZIO 42 (??)
Team WARMISTS (474)
Team SKEPTICS (340)
Hi Dr.No,
I suspect I’m a lukewarmer, but I’m really confused.
I don’t know indeed.
You correctly placed me in the unknown team
(BTW why am I alone here? Does no one enjoy the team?).
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo,
I’m not any of the above, I believe.
Just a plain old unbeliever. I also don’t believe in phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, caloric or Creationism (everything created as it is), or Uri Geller’s ability to bend spoons using the power of his mind. I don’t believe Michael Mann received a Nobel Prize, even if it was a Peace Prize.
It’s not easy for me to believe in the unbelievable.
I do believe in chaos, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, quantum electrodynamics, and a few other seemingly unlikely things. As to string theory, it remains a theory. At present it is not possible to experimentally disprove it. I’ll keep an open mind in the meantime.
So far, no one has managed to increase the temperature of anything by virtue of a property unique to GHGs. I believe it to be impossible, and contrary to current physical knowledge.
One repeatable scientific experiment would change my mind. In the meantime –
CO2 heats nothing at all. Not even planets.
Cheers.
For Mike we need a new category:
“Retired, software engineering, recalcitrant, curmudgeons”
Wow twelve hundred comments. Seems that I have to troll a bit more, to get to 2k.
Here in Seattle, we are now having the worse summer in 15 years. Generally, we only get 3 month of beautiful sunshine starting the 4th of July. Now we are 2 weeks in, it’s still wet, cloudy, dank, and cold.
Ped,
All due to the miraculous planet heating properties of CO2.
Finally working after four and a half billion years of failure!
Brought to you by the magic of foolish Warmism!
Cheers.
Mike,
You need to calm down.
Ped is only talking about the weather.
Do you react the same way when somebody you may meet on the street says something similar? e.g. “It sure is a nice day today”
You should be careful, otherwise people will think you are a grouch.
doctor no,
It seems to be a characteristic of foolish Warmists to attempt to dictate how others should behave. It also seems to be a characteristic of foolish Warmists to ask pointless and irrelevant questions, apparently on the quite bizarre assumption that anybody actually cares about what a foolish Warmist may think about the answer.
To be honest, I don’t really care what others think. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, the opinions of others will not pick my pocket, nor break my leg. Your opinion is worth precisely what I paid for it.
You are perfectly free to disagree, or ignore me, as you wish. I could care less.
Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
Well then, I hope I don’t meet you on a nice sunny day walking down the street – I may inadvertently provoke you by an innocent comment.
BTW
“You are perfectly free to disagree, or ignore me, as you wish. I could care less.”
Shouldn’t that be “couldn’t care less”.
Otherwise it sounds like you do care (wouldn’t that be sweet?)
Doctor no,
No. I wrote what I meant to. If you can’t understand, let me know.
You may infer from it what you may.
Cheers.
In that case I infer that you do care.
Don’t be shy.
When can we meet ? (anywhere but on the street)
Or would you rather exchange sweet nothings via this site?
doctor no,
I’m unprovokable. Also unoffendable. As to what you think (or don’t), I could care less, in theory. I supppose I must care enough that you exist, to provide responses to your comments.
My care factor is indistinguishable from zero – I do as I wish, based on my assumptions about the consequences of my actions.
However, if you care to provide any reasons why I should accord you any more consideration than I do at present, I will consider them.
I don’t believe you can or will. I assume you don’t care what I think, Just like myself.
Cheers.
You are so romantic !!
Of course I care about what you think.
I’m here to help you thick correctly.
Till next time.(I can’t wait!)
Hi Mike,
this is no way a sermon against you, just a consideration of me about you (so it applies the Thomas Jefferson’s aphorism of course).
I read your latest posts and I don’t remember you were so much passionate and sometimes aggressive against warmists.
Did they do something in the meantime that changed you from your “live well and prosper”? ☺☺☺
Have a great day.
Massimo
Yeah, the comedic pseudoscientists used to frustrate me also. I tried to help them, but eventually realized their minds were not functioning. They cannot process facts and logic, yet they are certain that they can! It is such a quagmire. That’s why you see them spouting such nonsense as two colder objects can heat a third object to an even higher temp, or that you can bake a turkey with ice, or you can see cabbages in a dark room. The web is full of people that use pseudoscience to support their belief that the Earth is flat.
I just decided to give up on them, and enjoy their humor.
Hi geran,
I understand what you mean, but since this is not my field I can just say that I still don’t know where is the truth about the GHGe.
I suspect that CO2 heats a little the ground, but not because of its radiative behavior but because of its heavier molecular mass.
Of course two cold bodies can’t heat one warmer, but I suspect that none said that indeed, maybe you and them had some communication issues discussing it.
By the way, I always forgive to ask you about your alias,
is geran something related to the planet of Star Wars saga?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo,
Thanks. My response wound up in the wrong place – under Lewis.
Cheers.
Massimo: “Of course two cold bodies cant heat one warmer, but I suspect that none said that indeed, maybe you and them had some communication issues discussing it.”
Unfortunately, Massimo, that is what Norman believes: “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.”
His 300 W/m^2 comes from a source at -3.5C, and he “heats” a surface that is at 33C, to produce a temperature of 71.49C!!!
I should have kept a list of all of his nonsense. Maybe someday I will have time to go back and find his funniest comments–pseudoscience at its best!
(“geran” is just a screen name I made up quickly years ago. It has no meaning or special significance.)
geran,
One foolish Warmist was convinced he could concentrate the heat from 300W/m2 to produce any temperature required. His thinking seemed logical to him. Just use a magnifying glass or similar to concentrate the 300W into say 1cm2. Voil!
That’s an intensity of 10,000 times the original (if my mental arithmetic is correct, of course).
So now we have 3 MW/m2. That’s got to be really, really, hot.
Except it isn’t. It’s about as misleading as adding temperatures, or wattages.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. I’m writing a bit off the cuff, and haven’t bothered to check anything.
Cheers.
geran just has no reading comprehension (even after long explanations). geran is the one and same that believes the Sun’s surface is 120C since that is the equilibrium temperature of the solar flux at Earth (around 1360 Watts/m^2).
Massimo, I think you are an intelligent individual, the post geran is talking about was in a debate with Tim Folkerts. If you have two incoming energy fluxes of 500 Watts/m^2 and 300 Watts/m^2 hitting a surface you would combine the two and the surface would receive 800 Watts/m^2. I told geran several times that a 300 Watt/m^2 flux hitting a surface did in no way indicate the temperature of the surface emitting those fluxes. I explained to him the Inverse Square law but it did not help.
Mike Flynn,
Against my better judgement to send a post your way. I hope you are correct when you wrote Massimo that you like empirical science.
Mike Flynn: “One foolish Warmist was convinced he could concentrate the heat from 300W/m2 to produce any temperature required. His thinking seemed logical to him. Just use a magnifying glass or similar to concentrate the 300W into say 1cm2. Voil!”
Here is an example (empirical) of concentrating 1300 or so Watts/m^2 to generate a temperature of 3500C.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0_nuvPKIi8
Based upon this video I would think the Warmist was not so foolish after all. Maybe reconsider the path you are on and turn a light so you can see where you are walking.
When the light is shown on Norm, his response is “spin” and obfuscation.
Norm’s “spin”: “…geran is the one and same that believes the Suns surface is 120C…”
FALSE–Norm can NOT produce a link to where I said anything like that.
Norm’s obfuscation: “I told geran several times that a 300 Watt/m^2 flux hitting a surface did in no way indicate the temperature of the surface emitting those fluxes.”
FALSE–It doesn’t matter how many times Norm believes he told something. He WROTE that one surface will be raised to a higher temperature by a lower temperature source.
(The guy is in my top 3 of “climate clowns”! You should see what his “formal education” amounts to!)
Mike, magnification by focusing works to increase the intensity of light. There are limits, of course, but you can burn paper with a small magnifying glass in sunlight.
Warmists, of course, confuse this basic science to believe that all EM can be added. That’s probably one of the many things confusing poor Norm.
geran,
As I recollect 300W/m2 is emitted by ice at slightly below 0C. Norman, or any other foolish Warmish can concentrate this until he’s blue in the face. I don’t even care if he concentrates the heat from all the ice in Antarctica with the world’s biggest parabolic reflector. He’ll still the same foolish Warmist, freezing to death, convinced he must be boiling.
Foolish Warmists. Pfui!
Cheers.
geran,
Here is link to the debate with you in February:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-january-2016-0-54-deg-c/#comment-209678
Here is the debate if anyone wants to see how phony geran is.
4) 300 W/m^2 plus 500 W/m^2 equals 800 W/m^2
(Or, an object at -3.45C, and an object at 33.3C, together will heat a third object to 71.5 C!!!)
Repsonse: From my actual post not your made up one: 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.
From this post where do you get the conclusion that the 500 W/m^2 flux is coming from an object at 33.3 C? Your own logic here would say the Sun must be 120C because that is how much flux is reaching us. How do you conclude a 500 W/m^2 flux hitting a target is generated by an object at 33.3 C?
Mike Flynn,
One reason you cannot concentrate the energy from Antarctic ice is it is diffuse. A mirror will not concentrate diffuse energy, the light has to be parallel to concentrate. That is why your point is a strawman argument. Who made the claim of concentrating diffuse energy?
It would be like using a lens to focus an image out of fog.
Note how Norm does not even understand what he wrote:
“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.”
Hilarious!
(For anyone bored enough to be following this, Norm claims to have a BA degree in chemistry from a school that does not offer that degree! Need I say it? Hilarious!)
Hi Norman,
I’m not sure that that video proves that a lower temperature source of photons can warm an higher one, because the Sun WL peaks at 500nm, which corresponds to about 6000K.
So those photons have a “source temperature mark” which could effectively limit to that 6000K the maximum temperature (I’m guessing, it’s just an intuition, I’ve no proof of what I wrote here).
The only case I could remember of a source of photons at lower temperature that heats up at higher temperature a surface is the CO2 laser. Where a 10.6um source (about 0C) can rise the target surface temperature up to (and probably more than) 1000C.
But in that case there is a photon amplification process into a resonating cavity, it’s a complete different issue.
Have a great day.
Massimo
geran
You speak incorrectly. It is not I who lack understanding as you claim: “Note how Norm does not even understand what he wrote:”
I understand it completely. You are unable to understand it but continue on.
Norm doesn’t understand that he doesn’t understand.
Just like he believes “energy leaves the system”, but “energy doesn’t leave the system”.
He’s always lost in his pseudoscience, and unable to process facts and logic.
Hilarious!
Massimo PORZIO
On your post about the lower energy photons: “Im not sure that that video proves that a lower temperature source of photons can warm an higher one”
I am still researching the microwave oven. I think the magnetotron that generates the microwaves stays below the boiling point of water (it does use a cooling fan for the magnet but I think that is because of waste heat, I do not believe that heated magnet causes the energy of the microwave flux). I could not find out for sure but I have been reading that a microwave may shut down if the magnetotron overheats (cooling fan not working).
I think the lower temperature magnetotron will produce enough microwave flux to boil water. This might be a case for you beside the laser example.
Oh good! Norm is “still researching the microwave oven”. He thinks the technology proves a cold source can heat a hotter object! The guy is relentless to prove his pseudoscience.
Next on his list of research is “perpetual motion”. He just knows it works because he read about it on some link…
Norm, just a small hint: EM propagation from a magnetron is based on physical design, material properties and frequencies, not “source heat”, as say the Sun. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law does not apply to a microwave oven! So, get back to us in about 10-15 years when you understand the physics involved. If that every happens….
Hilarious.
Y’all need to get a life. Or at least your own blog. 😉
Why?
And what are you doing here?
WizGeek,
Do you have some lives for sale? I will take two, as long as they’re young.
Thanking you in advance,
Lewis
Massimo,
Just having fun. Unworthy of me, I know.
I mainly try to show lurkers on the blog the intellectual paucity of the foolish Warmist case. I say foolish Warmist, because I accept that thermometers show increase generally around the globe since the industrial revolution. CO2 has nothing to do with it.
A couple of researchers from the UK have written a paper on the subject, and it seems scientific and rigorous fro me. They even mentioned that the result was not what they expected in certain areas, which cheered me up no end. When researchers reluctantly except observation over their own preconceptions, I tend to pay more attention to their conclusions.
Anyway, I now call CO2 Warmists “foolish Warmists”, and if they can’t produce anything better than correlation and warped, misunderstood physics, foolish Warmists they shall remain.
If foolish Warmists get annoyed because I repetitively ask for some experimental confirmation of their assertions, I’m inclined to quote Feynman (from his address on Cargo Cult science) – “And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?”
As to “Cheers” – I just got lazy. So –
Cheers.
At least provide a link to this scientific and rigorous paper.
doctor no,
Demands! Demands! Can’t you find it for yourself?
To paraphrase a foolish Warmist – “Why should I tell you? You’ll only try to find fault with it!”
Only joking. Show me the evidence that you spent as much time looking as I did, ask for help, and I’ll provide a link. I’m more likely to respond to requests for help, rather than what I perceive as demands.
Cheers.
As I suspected.
There is no such paper.
Just the usual babble.
Not so much pseudoscience as zeroscience.
doctor no,
There is such a paper, of course. One amongst many similar. Just because you’re following the foolish Wsrmist credo of deny, divert, and confuse, doesn’t change facts.
Just as continuously claiming magical planet heating properties for CO2 doesn’t make it fact.
Even claiming that foolish Warmists understand thermodynamics, or that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, doesn’t make either one a fact.
Keep believing. Maybe you’ll create a fact from a foolish Warmist fantasy if you really, really, really, believe hard enough.
Cheers.
Show me the link.
You can’t can you – you naughty boy.
It doesn’t exist – you made it up didn’t you?
I will have to speak to your case manager about this.
Hi Mike,
yes I imagined it was as you confirmed.
I just wrote that message because I noted your change, and I was curious if something particular was happened that changed your way of posting here.
I’m just curious.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Lewis,
Sorry. Reply to Massimo in wrong place.
Here’s one for you (sung to the tune of “My God how the money rolls in”) –
“My Pa’s in the Salvation Army,
He’s saving young girlies from Sin,
He’ll save you a blonde for a dollar,
My God, how the money rolls in!”
No offense intended. All part of the rich tapestry of life!
Cheers.
Good to see you have lightened up – even if politically incorrect.
Kristian
I really like your posts. They are very thought provoking and stimulate me to do research and look for answers. I am still thinking about your post above with a TOA and surface at same temp.
I really think you conclude incorrectly that you cannot have a nonradiating massive atmosphere. I do not think it would continue to gain heat and expand away. I think it would reach the equilibrium temperature of the planet surface which would be much colder than with GHG present, it would not just keep accumulating energy. It could only get as hot as the surface got. Why would a planet atmosphere composed of dry nitrogen emit any significant amount of IR regardless of temperature? What would allow the nitrogen to start emitting IR at a significant rate when its molecular structure does not allow it?
Kristian
I am going to try and link you to the Hitran database. I tried before but the link did not post.
http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/n2.htm
If you click the “Images of HITRAN data” it brings up a graph of N2 IR spectrum. Look at the Units of intensity they are at 10^-30 units (which you can then compare with other molecules). The X-axis is in wavenumber. Via conversion the IR active wavelengths of N2 are around 4 microns. (I used online calculators to get that number).
Carbon Dioxide
http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/co2.htm
The intensity on the Y-axis is 10^-18 or about a trillion times more active in the IR spectrum as Nitrogen gas. Basically N2 will not emit IR at a rate that would be measurable at current atmosphere temps.
Hope the links post.
Norman,
Out of 10000 units of air, 4 are CO2 at 400 ppm.
If the atmosphere is at 20 C, and you claim no heat comes from N2 or O2, the the heat comes from CO2.
Unfortunately, this then makes the air temperature directly dependant on the CO2 concentration, which is nonsense. If you more than double the concentration of CO2 – by exhaling, for example, you will note that the exhaled air is not above 37 C or so, and quickly cools, even if you exhale into a balloon or paper bag.
Of course air emits and absorbs infrared, foolish Warmist. That’s what causes a thermometer to show an air temperature. That’s why you blow on your hands to warm them, and blow on your soup to cool it.
Physics, not faith.
As to your misleading YouTube video, 300 W/m2 is emitted by ice. Try warming something with the infrared emitted by a big block of ice. Concentrating light from an object with a surface temperature of 5000 K or so is easy. Concentrating it from an object with a surface temperature of 270 K or so is not the same at all.
You’re confusing temperature with heat with power.
Cheers.
Show me the link.
I hope you don’t get too annoyed if I don’t accede to your commands. Why should obey a lazy fellow, who can’t even find a paper in a field he claims to know much about?
Foolish Warmist demands to provide them with readily available information don’t move me.
Maybe you could have a tantrum. Do you think that would work better than admitting I know more than you, and asking for assistance?
Foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
Show me the link.
Or at least, name an author.
Bet you can’t.
Mike Flynn
You are stating things I do not say. Why do you need to do this?
It is a poor argument and really kind of mindless.
Please don’t be another geran, one is enough, he states people are saying things that they never have said and then months later still makes the claim they said what they never did.
This statement from you: “If the atmosphere is at 20 C, and you claim no heat comes from N2 or O2, the the heat comes from CO2.”
My claim is extremely little (several magnitudes less) IR radiant energy comes from the diatomic gases N2 and O2. As Gordon Robertson has pointed out numerous times…IR is not heat. IR transfers heat but heat is the internal energy of a system that creates a temperature (hope I am correct in that Gordon). Heat will transfer from N2 and O2 via conduction. If they are warmer than the surface (winter inversion) some of the energy the molecules possess will transfer to the surface.
Reaching this conclusion is not based upon anything I wrote: “Unfortunately, this then makes the air temperature directly dependant on the CO2 concentration, which is nonsense.”
Air temperature is directly dependent upon the average kinetic energy of the gases present.
This statement is based upon complete non science and not sure where you got this one. “Of course air emits and absorbs infrared, foolish Warmist. Thats what causes a thermometer to show an air temperature.” Only IR active gases absorb and emit Infrared and that is not what causes the thermometer to show air temperature (an IR instrument would only detect the IR from the active gases, none from N2 and O2). The thermometer shows air temperature because of the average kinetic energy of the air molecules hitting the fluid in the thermometer and if they have more average energy some of this energy is absorbed by the working fluid and the liquid expands reading a higher temperature.
You have no physics only faith and that is what I wish you could change.
Once again you show lack of any physics and all faith. You make these untrue unscientific comments and based upon your conviction everyone is supposed to accept them as facts when they are far from anything but your own personal beliefs. YOU: “Try warming something with the infrared emitted by a big block of ice.”
Okay how about a vat of liquid nitrogen? The Infrared from the block of ice will warm this material so you fail again in your statements. I suggest to you to learn real physics and not blog physics.
Mike, indicators that Norm is lost in his pseudoscience are 1) endless rambling; 2) misrepresentations about what he said, or someone else said; and 3) personal insults.
I usually am able to get him to demonstrate all 3….
Norman says, July 19, 2016 at 10:46 PM:
“The intensity on the Y-axis is 10^-18 or about a trillion times more active in the IR spectrum as Nitrogen gas. Basically N2 will not emit IR at a rate that would be measurable at current atmosphere temps.”
Indeed. I am fully aware of this pretty basic physical circumstance, Norman. But you are just not getting what I am trying to tell you. The radiative properties of the gases making up the atmosphere of a planet do not DETERMINE (as in “cause”) the mean temperature of that planet’s surface nor of the altitude-specific levels of its troposphere. You are interpreting a mere EFFECT of temperatures as somehow the CAUSE of those temperatures, Norman.
Listen, the atmosphere would warm with or without IR-active constituents, simply from being massive, subjected to gravity, and being constantly in direct thermal contact with a heat source (the surface) beneath it. Whenever the Sun heats the surface, a natural conductive/evaporative > convective coupling is thus immediately and automatically established between the surface and the air above it, drawing substantial amounts of energy up into the atmosphere.
The problem is getting this energy back out of the atmosphere once it’s there. If the atmosphere were radiatively inert, neither able to absorb nor emit IR, this could simply not be accomplished at an adequate rate, the only practical means by which the atmosphere could possibly rid itself of its thermal energy being through conduction back to the surface at night from a narrow inversion layer developing right atop the radiatively cooling surface. But this process would not be even remotely fast enough in returning the energy being drawn from the surface into the atmosphere during the previous day (a simple lopsided matter of conduction vs. convection), and so energy would swiftly pile up inside the atmosphere …
This would of course be an unbearable situation for any planet. This would simply not be a functionable atmosphere. It could not survive for long. It would heat, inflate and eventually be blown off into space. A planet holding a massive, yet radiatively inactive atmosphere could never reach a steady state, never find itself in a dynamic equilibrium between its heat in and its heat out, because as soon as you put a massive atmosphere on top of a solar-heated planetary surface you no longer have a purely radiative heat transfer situation. And so, for a final radiative equilibrium to be achieved in this situation, the planet NEEDS for its massive atmosphere to become IR active; it needs to be able to adequately shed its convectively received heat from the surface to space, that is, out of the system as a whole.
Yes, the atmosphere being IR active ENABLES the surface to stabilise at an average temperature higher than it could without an atmosphere in place. But it is not what CAUSES this elevated mean temp.
Watch how Raymond T. Pierrehumbert tries to describe it, and how he thereby manages to precisely miss the point:
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
He basically mixes together the notion of something that ENABLES something to happen, a mere ‘tool’, with the thing that is actually the reason why that something happens at all. It’s like saying that a hammer is the reason why a nail is found embedded in a wall. But the hammer itself could never get the nail into the wall, no matter how hard it tried or how badly it wanted to. The nail can only ever get there through the will and force of the man utilising the hammer. The hammer is the ‘tool’, ENABLING the man to drive the nail into the wall. That, however, does not make it the reason why the nail is in there. Who did it? Who put the nail there? The hammer or the man? The man, of course. With the hammer as his tool. The man is the ultimate CAUSE.
Pierrehumbert is simply not seeing the elephant in the room here. He’s after all already provided the actual reason why the average surface temp will necessarily end up higher than the planet’s emission temp to space; the exact same reason why the average temp at the surface is higher than the average temp at the tropopause.
Yes, an atmospheric greenhouse gas (no, an IR active gas) does enable Earth to radiate at a temperature lower than the grounds, but only because it 1) enables the atmosphere to cool radiatively to space, and 2) because there is a negative temperature gradient in the troposphere. The IR active gas, however, specifically didnt cause that negative tropospheric temperature gradient. So whatever caused the negative tropospheric temp gradient is what causes the surface temperature in balance with a given amount of absorbed solar radiation to be higher than would be the case … if that negative temp gradient werent there.
IOW, if there were no negative tropospheric temp gradient, then there would be no rGHE, no matter how much back radiation the atmosphere is perceived to send down to the surface, because then the temperature would be the same at the tropopause as at the surface.
Again, the radiative properties of our atmosphere are but a TOOL, first and foremost enabling the atmosphere to cool to space and to thus keep our Earth system stable. They are not a CAUSE of Earth temperatures …
Kristian,
I have to humbly disagree with parts of your post.
Your scenario: “But this process would not be even remotely fast enough in returning the energy being drawn from the surface into the atmosphere during the previous day (a simple lopsided matter of conduction vs. convection), and so energy would swiftly pile up inside the atmosphere …
This would of course be an unbearable situation for any planet. This would simply not be a functionable atmosphere. It could not survive for long. It would heat, inflate and eventually be blown off into space.”
The atmosphere would reach an equilibrium temperature with the surface which would be cooler than it is now with GHG present. The air would heat to a certain point but once the air above was all warmed up convection will no longer take place. The air will only get as hot as the surface will reach not continue to pile heat upon heat. The Earth’s surface even with continuous solar energy would only reach 120 C which is as warm as the non IR active atmosphere would get, it would not continue to get hotter and hotter, no more heat from the surface would move into the atmosphere once it reached the equilibrium temperature of the surface under continuous solar flux. With the amount of solar flux the Earth receives now the atmosphere and surface would reach an equilibrium temperature 33 C colder than it is at this time.
Norman says, July 20, 2016 at 12:24 PM:
“The atmosphere would reach an equilibrium temperature with the surface which would be cooler than it is now with GHG present.”
Norman, this is only you regurgitating a central “Climate Science” meme. It is what is said – mindlessly – to try and justify one’s belief that putting IR-active gases into the atmosphere will somehow make the world warmer. But I just explained to you above how this physically could not be. Norman, just upthread, on July 19th, you told Mike Flynn the following:
Yes, that is indeed annoying. But to me now you appear guilty of the exact same crime as the one you’re accusing Flynn of. You are not actually reading what I’m writing. You seem only to go “Lalalalala! I can’t hear you,” before you go on to simply restate your AGW talking points. As if I hadn’t heard them a thousand times before …
No, the atmosphere COULD NOT reach an equilibrium temperature with the surface if it were itself unable to pass its received heat from the surface on to space. It would heat and inflate uncontrollably until the planet could no longer hold on to it.
You continue:
“The air would heat to a certain point but once the air above was all warmed up convection will no longer take place.”
“Heat to a certain point”!? “Once the air above was all warmed up”!? Are you reading your own words, Norman? There is no such ‘point’. When, in your mind, is the air “all warmed up”? It is clear you’re thinking of the atmosphere as contained inside a rigid glass box. The problem with this mental model is that in the real world, there is no such box. There is nothing stopping the atmosphere from expanding outwards. Space is not containing it or holding it back. Only Earth’s gravity is. So when you heat the atmosphere (meaning, putting more and more thermal energy into it) without letting it adequately cool at the same time (meaning, letting it also shed this thermal energy), it will thermally expand, it will inflate. Upwards. It will become higher and higher, lighter and lighter, more and more tenuous, NOT hotter and hotter, Norman. The surface will always remain warmer than the air above, on average. That’s the whole point. Do you seriously not see this …!?
“The air will only get as hot as the surface will reach not continue to pile heat upon heat.”
The air will NEVER be as hot as the surface, Norman. It will just expand and move progressively away from the heat source, the surface. Finally there will be no more air for the atmosphere to heat. The atmosphere is gone. Into space.
Try heating the air inside a balloon. Will the balloon just stop expanding at some point, “reaching an equilibrium”, even as you keep on heating the air inside? Or will it just grow and grow until it bursts?
“The Earths surface even with continuous solar energy would only reach 120 C which is as warm as the non IR active atmosphere would get, it would not continue to get hotter and hotter (…)”
You are clearly not getting what I’m saying, Norman. Nothing will get hotter and hotter. I never said anything to that effect. You need to actually read what I’m writing, not just build your own straw men based on what you ASSUME I’m saying without even reading it.
What happens when you heat a gas? It depends on whether that gas is contained within a rigid space or if it’s allowed to freely expand. If its volume is not allowed to grow, the gas will get hotter and hotter, yes. But if its volume IS allowed to grow freely, then the gas will EXPAND and move UP and AWAY from the heat source.
So which of these two situations applies to the atmosphere, Norman?
Convection would never halt in the real world, because the Sun is ALWAYS heating the surface, and it ALWAYS heats it differentially. And since the atmosphere is free to expand, it will never get as hot as the surface, its heat source. There will always be a temperature gradient. And that gradient will always surpass the threshold for convection once the Sun starts heating the surface. Look at the lunar surface. Only radiation is available to cool it. And there’s no atmosphere above it. So no “back radiation” to limit the radiant heat loss at any point. Still, the surface easily heats to 120 degrees Celsius during the lunar day, once the Sun starts shining down on it. The parallel radiant heat loss is nowhere near able to keep the surface temperature from rising. Same thing would happen on Earth.
– – –
But why are we even discussing this, Norman? My central point is that detecting thermal radiation in the atmosphere doesn’t mean that this thermal radiation somehow CAUSES the temperatures that we experience on Earth … Our atmosphere’s MASS plus the solar input is what determines Earth’s temperatures.
Kristian, since you write atm. mass and solar input determine earth’s temperature, it should be easy to write out an equation showing us Earth annualized global Tmedian = approx. 288K calculated from only:
Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg
Solar radiation received by Earth surface: 340 W/m
Actually you will need to add in Earth measured albedo and measured atm. emissivity to calculate global Tmedian of the atm. near the surface neither ridiculously high nor low. Mass will only be necessary for transients not steady state.
Although N2 and O2 are numerically dominate species, they are not radiatively dominate. The atm. emissivity measured near surface over the Planck spectrum at typical terrestrial temperatures is mostly from comparatively small IR active gas.
Hi Kristian,
I previously thought that you were arguing that in absence of IR active gases it became isothermal and periodically part of it escaped to space.
Now that I read your post with the due diligence, it seems that I fully agree with you insteed.
IMHO it should be the whole atmospheric mass that build up the missing 30K, not the radiative property of some minor gases (it could account for a little, but I still have no proof of that).
Have a great day.
Massimo
Kristian,
It is not that I don’t read what your are posting. It is that I do not agree with your conclusions. I understand them but do not accept them as correct.
If the atmosphere could not radiate away energy (which a dry nitrogen atmosphere would not be able to do).
You fail in your logic that you assume it will continue to have a source of energy (as example by your balloon). The Earth’s surface in a dry nitrogen atmosphere would not continue to heat so that it would add new and more energy to the atmosphere. It would be like with you balloon analogy. If you had a heat source inside the balloon but it could only get to a specific temperature (heater would turn on and off to maintain a constant temperature), the balloon would grow to the size based upon the internal temperature and that is all it would do. The dry nitrogen atmosphere would not continue to expand indefinitely because the surface heating it is at an equilibrium temperature and no more energy than this will enter the atmosphere. In the case of a dry nitrogen atmosphere it would actually contract some since the equilibrium temperature of the surface would be colder than it is now.
Norman says, July 21, 2016 at 10:00 AM:
“You fail in your logic that you assume it will continue to have a source of energy (as example by your balloon). The Earths surface in a dry nitrogen atmosphere would not continue to heat so that it would add new and more energy to the atmosphere. The dry nitrogen atmosphere would not continue to expand indefinitely because the surface heating it is at an equilibrium temperature and no more energy than this will enter the atmosphere.”
Norman, I hope you haven’t left the thread.
Because you’re absolutely right, of course. The atmosphere would not continue to expand indefinetely. I was thinking along the wrong lines. Remember, this is all a completely hypothetical scenario, and there are MANY things to conider, but sticking to commonly accepted physics, the surface could never become hot enough to drive convective transfer of energy to the atmosphere above beyond a certain point, if this atmosphere were of the so-called ‘non-participating’ kind. This point is where the positive temp gradient developing during the night between the surface itself plus the air layer right on top of it and the bulk atmosphere above cannot be broken and turned into a steep enough negative gradient during the day, simply because the surface doesn’t have the time nor the opportunity to become hot enough – due to radiative heat loss. So thanks for forcing me to clear my head, reconsider and straighten my thought process regarding this particular thought experiment 🙂
However (!), this doesn’t really change anything about the central point of all this: It is NOT the radiative properties of an atmosphere themselves that CAUSE the average global surface temperature of a planet to become higher than if this planet didn’t have an atmosphere. They are indeed necessary, yes, but they are still only the tool, the hammer. The fundamental reason why a planetary surface is warmer on average WITH an atmosphere on top than WITHOUT is still specifically and only the MASS of that atmosphere. The mass is the man utilising the hammer. There are several lines of evidence pointing towards this being the case …
There are simply too many points to discuss here, Norman, and I apologise if this post ends up way too long and winding, even though I still feel I’ve only scratched the surface.
About your hypothetical scenario with the radiatively inert atmosphere. I hope you can see that, even though the surface itself could never be as warm on average in this scenario as with a radiatively active atmosphere on top (this is something we’ve agreed on all along), it still doesn’t do anything to prove your point, that it is THEREFORE the radiative properties of a planet’s atmosphere that determine the average surface temp of the planet in question, and that you can therefore, by extension, simply keep adding more IR-absorbing substances to the atmosphere and thus keep making the surface warmer. (Observations from the real world covering the last 30-40 years of general ‘global warming’ and general theoretical rise in atmospheric IR opacity show that this just does not happen. The warming is NOT caused by an enhancement of the rGHE, but rather by an increase in solar input.) This is ONLY the case in a purely radiative situation like this particular scenario. For ONLY then will the surface be able to reach a radiative equilibrium directly with its heat source, the Sun. As you well know, between the global surface of the Earth and the Sun there is no radiative equilibrium. There is definitely a HEAT balance (IN=OUT), but this is NOT accomplished through a purely radiative exchange.
What you have created is a planet where the surface on average is MUCH colder than the bulk atmosphere above it, all heat exchange between the surface and the atmosphere occurring within a narrow layer right at the bottom, the diurnally fluctuating top of which basically constituting a low-level ‘tropopause’, above it an isothermal, pretty hot, pretty thick ‘blanket’ of static air containing it. Is this a type of atmosphere that can be observed to exist anywhere as far as we know? Nope. Is it likely to develop at all? No. Atmospheres NEED to be radiatively active in order to become (and stay) functionable. In fact, nature has its own way of making this happen. The atmosphere of Titan is to 98.4% (on average, it varies according to altitude) made up of nitrogen (N2). The rest is mostly methane (CH4). One would perhaps assume, then, that it is the methane that enables this atmosphere to radiate its heat to space. And you would only be partially correct. Of course the methane contributes. But it is NOT the main contributor. The main radiator of Titan’s atmosphere is … the nitrogen gas. It is simply a matter of density/pressure. The atmosphere of Titan is so cold and so thick that the nitrogen gas has acquired bulk radiative properties. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Anyway, let’s try and square your ‘non-rad atmo’ scenario with the basic definition of the “Greenhouse Effect”. The “greenhouse effect” (rGHE) is defined as the T_s (a planet’s average global surface temperature) being higher than the T_e (the planet’s blackbody emission temperature in space). As Ray Pierrehumbert puts it: “An atmospheric greenhouse gas enables a planet to radiate at a temperature lower than the ground’s, if there is cold air aloft.”
Well, in this case, T_s equals T_e. But also, there is no “cold air aloft”. The coldest part of the system is the surface and the air layer directly above it. So all you would need to do to find mean global temps much higher than on our present Earth is going up the air column a couple of hundred metres, like build a tower or something.
So what you have is nothing like a real, relevant situation. Yes, you don’t have a “greenhouse effect” per se (T_s > T_e), which is the point you want to make, but you also don’t have what is required to create such an effect (colder air aloft) in the first place. Quite the opposite, in fact …
You have basically just flipped the high and low temps around inside the system: the surface is colder than ours, but the atmosphere is hotter. And so it really all comes down to where you choose to focus your attention. Is this planet, with a radiatively inert atmosphere, colder or hotter than a planet with a radiatively active atmosphere? Seen from space, they’re equally cold. Seen from the surface, the former is colder, seen from the atmosphere, the latter is colder.
To put it differently, what you need in order to create a scenario that more closely resembles reality, is a process that will permanently make the atmosphere colder than the surface in order to establish a proper “greenhouse effect” as defined. It is not enough in your original scenario to just raise the planet’s “effective radiating level (ERL)” from the surface and up into the atmosphere. Because the atmosphere is much hotter on average than the surface. And so this would make your T_e much higher than your T_s; an inverted rGHE.
No, you need a negative tropospheric temp gradient to be established and maintained.
Let’s say, now, that the only heat transfers available in the universe were of the radiative and conductive kind. None of the common properties of a heated fluid. No expansion of air upon heating, therefore no buoyancy, no pressure gradient force, no convection or advection, no atmospheric circulation possible.
Would there be any planets or moons holding massive atmospheres in such a universe? No. How could there be? You need something to hold such an atmosphere up. Without any of the fluid properties listed above, gravity would quite simply deny the establishment of anything resembling a proper atmosphere. A so-called ‘exosphere’ would be the most you could ever expect in this situation. Most moons in the solar system, including our own, have exospheres.
OK. But as soon as you were to ‘switch on’ these properties, what would happen?
The substances necessary to form a proper (proto-)atmosphere on a planet/moon will most likely have to derive originally from its bowels, spewed out from below the surface in gaseous form via volcanic eruptions. But as soon as this process is underway, a ‘sea of air’ will start forming on top of the surface, pushing away the void originally abutting it, creating a blanket of air held up by its own internal (thermal) pressure, immediately and parallelly drawing heat convectively from the surface and up into the air column, warming it, expanding it and mixing it around, setting up a negative temperature gradient in the process, a natural result of heating from the bottom, buoyancy and thermal expansion. And at once, the mean surface temp would start to go up. The warming massive blanket of air is “insulating” the solar-heated surface against the vacuum of space …
Because there will be a balance struck between the planet’s gravity and the internal (thermal) pressure of the gas atmosphere (“hydrostatic equilibrium”), there will be an exponential pressure and density fall-off rate from the surface up, and as the heated air at the surface expands and floats up, it cools adiabatically in direct accordance to these fall-off rates. If the atmosphere were radiatively inert, it couldn’t cool to space, and so in the end the scenario described first would result. In other words, the equilibrated negative temperature gradient of a planet’s troposphere, what is commonly called “the environmental (or natural) lapse rate (ELR)”, is the joint product of 1) surface solar heating, 2)
surface heat transfer to the air directly above the surface (via radiation, conduction and evaporation), 3) convective transport of this heat up through the atmospheric column (bear in mind, this column wouldn’t be there in the first place if it weren’t for this convective transport and the fluid processes driving it), and 4) atmospheric radiative cooling to space.
As you can see from this, the only essential (as in ‘indispensable’) contribution from Earth’s own thermal radiation to this cycle is the cooling of the atmosphere to space (4). The atmosphere doesn’t actually need to be able to ABSORB thermal radiation from the surface in order to heat. It does however need to be able to EMIT thermal radiation in order to cool adequately to space from its convectively received heat from the surface. The neat thing, however, is that with the ability to emit IR automatically comes the ability to absorb IR also. These two properties go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other …
So what determines the tropospheric temperature gradient? And what determines the specific average temperature at the different altitude levels between the surface itself and the tropopause (the top of the troposphere)?
These are the two all-important questions …
The hypothesis of the rGHE (and, by extension, the hypothesis of “the enhanced rGHE” or AGW) readily acknowledges that the answer to the first question is the degree of convective mixing of the air column. You could never, by simply making the atmosphere more opaque to surface IR, effectively and permanently perturb (change) this gradient. Convection would easily overrule any such attempt, because convection/advection is what transports heat inside the troposphere, and so it is what determines the distribution of internal energy, and hence of temperatures, inside the troposphere.
This is NOT the bone of contention. This is NOT a controversial issue. Hence, it is NOT the issue to be discussed.
The only issue is the second question. The rGHE & AGW hypotheses hold as their fundamental premise that the particular level of an atmosphere’s IR opacity determines a planet’s “effective radiating level” to space, and hence the atmospheric altitude at which the planet’s T_e is to be found.
But does this premise really hold up to scrutiny? No, it doesn’t.
It isn’t the specific level of “atmospheric IR opacity” that determines the Z_e of a planet. It’s the density/pressure (the thickness, the mass/weight) of the air as a whole. Because it isn’t the level of atmospheric IR opacity that determines where the radiatively transferred energy from the surface to the troposphere ends up. That’s the natural, thermodynamically driven movement of the tropospheric air itself, and, by extension, of the collisions between the air molecules conducting the radiatively transferred energy into the bulk air, where it is thermalised and turned into molecular translational kinetic energy, what gives the air its temperature. As air is thus heated down low and taken up by convection, it is simultaneously cooled up high. On average, in the steady state, as much energy exits the troposphere (and the Earth system as a whole) to space as what enters it from the surface and directly from the Sun at any one time.
Venus has a MUCH more massive atmosphere than ours, but it radiates its flux to space, in balance with its absorbed solar flux, from about the same pressure/density levels as ours (from about 800 to 50mb), even though only about 0.5% of our average atmosphere is ‘radiatively active’, while as much as 96-97% of the Venusian atmosphere is. Exactly the same is the case on Titan. The tropopause (the balance point between convective momentum and radiative loss) on these three celestial bodies is situated at vastly different altitudes, but at the exact same pressure level (200-100mb). Isn’t this something that should give pause for thought?
The atmospheric pressure/density at the surface on Mars, on the other hand, is already way lower than at the tropopause level on Earth, Venus and Titan. And accordingly, there is no “greenhouse effect” as defined (T_e > T_s) on the Red Planet. In fact, T_s is significantly lower than T_e on Mars (by most recent estimates ~9K; I can provide references if you want). And this is even though 95-96% of the Martian atmosphere is made up of CO2 (amounting to about 26 times as many CO2 molecules per cubic metre of air as on Earth). Isn’t this also something that should give pause?
The surface temp on Venus is so much higher than on Earth simply because its atmosphere is so much more massive than ours, and so its atmospheric column is naturally so much deeper, which means you need to go much higher above the surface before you find yourself at levels where the bulk air is thin enough to start enabling effective release of radiant energy to space. But once you get there, those pressure/density levels are the same as on Earth and on Titan. And you reach the tropopause at similar pressures as well.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/heavy-atmospheres.png
* * *
I have also discussed earlier, Norman, how the weight of the atmosphere on the surface of the global ocean (expressed by the absolute surface atmospheric pressure), limits the evaporation rate from the surface for any given surface temperature, so that in order for the ocean global surface to achieve and maintain a dynamic equilibrium between its heat IN (from the Sun) and its heat OUT (mainly through evaporation, but also through radiation and conduction, which however are both much more stable and therefore hardly contribute to CHANGES in the ocean’s heat loss), it needs to reach a certain mean temperature so as to equalise the atmospheric pressure holding the evaporation rate back. If you were to suddenly remove the atmosphere, the ocean would start boiling away into space, no pressure holding it down, and any remnants would freeze solid, until the Sun could get to them, directly sublimating them into vapour also. Gone.
So it should be fairly easy to gather how a higher atmospheric pressure (weight) would force the ocean surface to become hotter on average, assuming the input from the Sun remained the same, and conversely how a lower atmospheric pressure (weight) would let it cool.
About the T_s and T_e of Mars.
The T_e is simply derived from the mean TSI flux at Mars’s distance from the Sun (586.6 W/m^2) plus its average global albedo (~0.235), which gives a value of 210.9K.
The T_s can be estimated from global satellite measurements spanning from the late 90s till today (TES, IRTM, MCS) and is (somewhat furtively) provided in at least two available papers.
First there’s Fenton et al., 2007, comparing IRTM and TES:
http://depts.washington.edu/marsweb/papers/PDFs/Fenton-etal-2007-warming-albedo-changes.pdf
Then there’s Bandfield et al., 2013, comparing TES and MCS:
http://faculty.washington.edu/joshband/publications/bandfield_mcs_tes.pdf
The relevant tables and figures:
# Fenton, Table 1.
# Bandfield, Table 2, Figure 6.
The T_s of Mars appears to be, based on these estimates, to be around 202-204K. If so, then 7-9K lower than the planet’s T_e in space …
So I asked the man in the Kristian parable if he knew what a hammer was for and he told me no, had never used one, his occupation turned out to be computer programmer.
Actually, Kristian, tests show the approx. 288K Tmedian really is made happen by IR active gas unlike your parable.
Your major logic fault is dividing by zero, then any conclusion is possible but unsupported in physics. If an atm. in any thought experiment is neither able to absorb nor emit IR (zero divide), then the ability for the sun radiate the energy for the Earth to rid itself of would be likewise diminished. There would simply be a different (lower) surface Tmedian on Earth and a higher one on the sun until the temperatures of each shifted to allow the radiated energy shift into other wavelength bands to balance long term steady state at different temperatures than today (eliminating the zero divide issue).
@Kristian…”…the atmosphere would warm with or without IR-active constituents, simply from being massive, subjected to gravity, and being constantly in direct thermal contact with a heat source (the surface) beneath it”.
Well said. People need to become more familiar with the ideal gas law, PV = nRT, and how gravity causes a pressure gradient with air near the surface at a higher pressure.
I think the reason radiative heat transfer became so popular recently is the way radiation equations can be incorporated into climate models whereas the complex flow equations of convection cannot. However, ignoring convection to the degree it has been ignored by alarmists is inexcusable.
The radiation model is way, way too simple to explain atmospheric heat transfer.
As the string of record-breaking global temperatures continues unabated, June 2016 marks the 14th consecutive month of record-breaking heat.
According to two US agencies Nasa and Noaa June 2016 was 0.9C hotter than the average for the 20th century, and the hottest June in the record which goes back to 1880. It broke the previous record, set in 2015, by 0.02C.
The 14-month streak of record-breaking temperatures was the longest in the 137-year record. And it has been 40 years since the world saw a June that was below the 20th century average.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/20/june-2016-14th-consecutive-month-of-record-breaking-heat-says-us-agencies
.
.
.
.
note how I provide a link
How silly. After cooling for four and a half billion years, CO2 is raising the temperature of the planet!
Must be foolish Warmist magic in action.
Cargo Cult Scientism, with not a repeatable experiment in sight.
CO2 warms nothing. Heat warms things, and CO2 doesn’t provide any.
Cheers.
“CO2 warms nothing. Heat warms things, and CO2 doesnt provide any.”
Then how do you explain adding building insulation results in warmer indoor temperatures in the winter, given the same energy input?
Temperature change is the result of energy gain versus energy loss. You are only addressing energy gain (source of heat energy), but neglecting mechanisms that affect the rate of energy loss.
Hi Dr. Roy! Excuse me for jumping in, but Mike may not see your comment, since he has “moved” on down the thread.
You asked: “Then how do you explain adding building insulation results in warmer indoor temperatures in the winter, given the same energy input?”
The answer is that building insulation acts as a “blanket”. It helps to hold heat, just as any insulation does. The atmosphere, of course, is not a “blanket”. It is a dynamic, self-adjusting, temperature-controlling, complex, largely misunderstood system.
You stated: “Temperature change is the result of energy gain versus energy loss.”
Actually, that might be confusing to some. Temperature change is the result of HEAT energy gain versus HEAT energy loss. Energy in any other form than HEAT energy may not affect temperature change. For example, photons from the atmosphere may not affect surface temperatures if they are not absorbed and converted to heat energy.
geran, a blanket is also a dynamic, self-adjusting, temperature-controlling, complex, largely misunderstood system.
I’m sure it is to you…
“The atmosphere, of course, is not a blanket. It is a dynamic, self-adjusting, temperature-controlling, complex, largely misunderstood system”
.
The key words here are “largely misunderstood”.
They accurately describe geran’s problem.
.
“Energy in any other form than HEAT energy may not affect temperature change.”
Another school boy error.
Why does it get hot when I burn a log of wood? Answer =chemical energy
Why do brakes get hot? Answer =mechanical energy
Why does the air temperature go down with height? Answer= potential energy
Hilarious “no dr”!
You made up your own 3 questions, then gave the answers, and got all 3 answers wrong!
Your comedy routine just gets funnier and funnier.
geran, try not to live up to all my expectations. Remove all doubt – demonstrate by experiment and physics analysis that you largely understand how your mentioned blanket works.
I have a “mentioned blanket”? Are you referring to the “building insulation” that Dr. Roy mentioned? Do you not understand how building insulation works?
Oh, I forgot, you don’t understand heat transfer.
Yes geran, you mentioned a blanket at 12:33pm, try not to live up to all my expectations and explain what you mentioned, you know how a blanket works. Otherwise there is proof you do not understand what you mention in a post.
And, geran, fill me in on your understanding of heat transfer too. You know, how some heat exists over here and the various means that heat transferred to get over there.
At 12:33, I explained that building insulation acted as a blanket. Is that hard for you to comprehend? You seem so confused and tangled up in your pseudoscience.
Maybe your cabbage is glowing so bright you can’t see. You know, the cabbage that you believe emits visible light.
Yeah, that cabbage.
Hilarious.
Well, well. There is now proof geran mentions stuff but does not understand how that stuff physically works. From time to time posters should remind geran et. al. about that circumstance.
Ball4, in your confused pseudoscience, your “proof” is anything you want it to be. That’s why there are still people that believe the Earth is flat. They have “proof”.
geran, to that society & your eyes the earth looks flat. Thus there is proof Earth must be flat according to eye of geran science. To eyes of geran the cabbage does not emit light of wavelength 550nm in a dark, room temperature closet. So there is proof of that too. Cabbage light society of geran has proof!
geran, I must fill you in that scientists and engineers have built instrumentation revealing both the Earth is not flat and the cabbage glows (emits) at 550 nm wavelength even in the dark closet.
Pretty big accomplishments huh? Now fill us in how heat existed in nature here and got over there. You are free to invoke useful instrumentation.
(Ball4, are you really “Norman”? Seriously, you can tell me.)
Your eyes will tell you geran. No other poster can possibly disprove your eyes.
Yeah, I thought the long-winded rambling was familiar, combined with the hilarious pseudoscience.
I guess you’re too embarrassed to go by “Norman” anymore, huh?
doctor no says, July 20, 2016 at 3:12 PM:
“Why does it get hot when I burn a log of wood? Answer =chemical energy”
No. It gets hot because you combust the wood, turning its chemical energy into thermal energy (that is, internal molecular translational kinetic energy).
“Why do brakes get hot? Answer =mechanical energy”
No. This is friction. Friction is “work” done on the brakes. Mechanical energy turned into thermal (molecular kinetic) energy.
“Why does the air temperature go down with height? Answer= potential energy”
No. Air temps go down as air moves up through an atmospheric column because of “work” (once more) being done by the buoyant air on its surroundings, draining the air of thermal (molecular kinetic) energy. This is the adiabatic process.
Trying to post more than sound bites. Energy always and everywhere conserved during its transformation in any arbitrary control volume.
Why does it get hot when I burn a log of wood? Answer =chemical energy
Yes. It gets hot because wood chemical energy is transformed into constituent KE.
“Why do brakes get hot? Answer =mechanical energy
Yes. This is friction, your friend. Mechanical KE of the car transformed into internal constituent KE of the brake pads/rotors (or drums).
Why does the air temperature go down with height? Answer= potential energy
Yes. Air temps go down as air moves up slowly through an atmospheric column because no work is being done by the buoyant air on its surroundings (P of parcel always = Ps surroundings (hydrostatic), density parcel always = density of surroundings), no work by virtue of a temperature difference (T parcel = Ts surroundings).
The parcel rise increases the parcel PE thus transforms KE into PE, the slow rising air parcel drains of constituent KE to conserve total energy. This is the adiabatic, no work Poisson process resulting in ideal dry (no condensing) lapse rate of -g/Cp for a gas heated from below in a gravity field.
Kristian gets 100%, “no dr” gets ZERO, Ball4 gets ZERO!
” Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
July 20, 2016 at 11:26 AM
CO2 warms nothing. Heat warms things, and CO2 doesnt provide any.
Then how do you explain adding building insulation results in warmer indoor temperatures in the winter, given the same energy input?”
Building insulation, almost insulates as good as the vacuum of space. If could replace 6″ fiberglass insulation with
an 1″ of vacuum that inch of vacuum would insulate better than the fiberglass. Or fiberglass slows convection and conductive heat loss, and vacuum stops conductive and convective heat losses.
Before the use of fiberglass insulation, one could use building material which sealed warmer gases within a house and thick walls of brick or dirt would retain heat of the warmer day time and the warmth of using fire to warm a house.
Fiberglass is wonderful insulation and work well in regards to preventing heat loss thru the ceiling, and being light weight meant one didn’t have to a heavy roof.
Neither fiberglass nor vacuum do much to block radiant heat loss. What blocks or reduces radiant heat loss are reflective material, such as clouds, for example. Co2 gas is not reflective.
“Co2 gas is not reflective.”
It is in the IR.
–Bart says:
July 21, 2016 at 6:36 PM
Co2 gas is not reflective.
It is in the IR.–
No, it isn’t. Though Co2 absorbs some of IR wavelength.
The atmosphere as a whole does reflect light.
So, a possible correction [nitpick] would be the CO2 gas in Earth’s atmosphere is not reflective.
Whereas the more abundant N2 and O2 because it’s transparent [all things which are transparent
will reflects the light they are transparent to] could be
said to be reflective, whereas the CO2 of Venus could be called reflective [because the CO2 is majority of the gases- or even though Venus has 3 times more N2 than Earth, the N2 in Venus atmosphere is minority gas [3.5 %] .
Or one could say the N2 reflects light on Earth but the N2 of Venus doesn’t reflect light- rather it’s the mass of atmosphere which reflects light, rather than any of it’s molecules.
Dr. No: You provide a link because you wish to. That is nice, for those who are interested. In defense of Mike, there is no requirement in this arena to provide links.
So far as your links and the 14th month of record breaking heat: Ain’t it nice?! Heat is much better than cold. More CO2 is better than less. Hopefully it will continue in this manner.
For my part, I will continue cutting trees to burn, and driving 40 miles – each way to work – in my gas guzzler.
Lewis
Lewis:
I am glad for you that you enjoy global warming.
Re. the provision of links –
it is an unwritten rule (actually common sense) that requires you provide a link to a piece of evidence you refer to.
Think of a court room – the defence is granted access to all evidence the prosecution cares to raise.
To stubbornly do otherwise (like MF) simply makes you look like a liar and a fool.
“no dr” spouts: “To stubbornly do otherwise (like MF) simply makes you look like a liar and a fool.”
“no dr”, Warmists are not able to process facts and logic, so providing a link does nothing to cure them. But, your assumption that you can recognize a “liar” and a “fool is hilarious!
doctor no,
I don’t care what I look like. You may believe what you wish. If you are incapable of finding journal publications for yourself, boo hoo!
If you think you can browbeat into doing what you so obviously cannot, try your hardest.
You have just as much chance of success as finding a falsifiable hypothesis to explain the alleged planet heating properties of CO2. Which is to say, precisely none at all.
Cheers.
No link
No author
No title
No journal
.
The only clue is:
“I say foolish Warmist, because I accept that thermometers show increase generally around the globe since the industrial revolution. CO2 has nothing to do with it. A couple of researchers from the UK have written a paper on the subject, and it seems scientific and rigorous fro me. They even mentioned that the result was not what they expected in certain areas, which cheered me up no end. ”
.
.
.
Anybody else here care to hazard a guess as to what MF is on about?
(Please don’t say drugs)
Anybody else? Not from those that are informed. Foolish poster Mike Flynn is not accomplished enough to know there is no such scientific and rigorous paper as it would fail to agree with even the most basic lab testing of Prof. Tyndall ala his post about Prof. Feynman.
Foolish Mike Flynn simply ignores that testing and thus lacks credibility on the subject.
Don’t expect me to do your work for you, foolish Warmist.
Believe me, don’t believe me, it’s all the same to me.
Foolish Warmist – believes in the planet heating properties of CO2!
Woeful Woebegone Wobbly Waffling Warmist!
Oh well!
Cheers.
Ball4,
I’m guessing – only a guess, mind you – that you’re parroting the misunderstandings of some other foolish Warmist.
It doesn’t seem as though you can actually quote anything from Prof Tyndall’s books to back up your strident assertions.
A triumph of faith and fantasy over fact!
Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
I twice submitted posts showing where Prof. Tyndall experimentally demonstrated the foolishness of Mike Flynn but the site did not accept either of them, all I get is sound bites. Mr. Flynn will have to actually read the paper link posted in order to find his hypothesis of no CO2 heating properties (none!) provably falsified 157 years ago.
Dr No:
“Anybody else here care to hazard a guess as to what MF is on about?
(Please dont say drugs)”
.
MF:
“Woeful Woebegone Wobbly Waffling Warmist!
Oh well!
Cheers.”
.
.
The only answer, it seems, is that he is on drugs.
Dr. No,
This is not a courtroom. Yes, perhaps, in a manner of speaking, the blog often goes off into whether or not AGW exists, and then some would like to make it a kangaroo court – no names be listed -.
But often, information, how, why etc., on the climate/weather are offered here. Links are usually provided in those exchanges, and some care to follow them.
I, long before I started frequenting this watering hole, came to the same conclusion MF has come to.
In essence: those who believe in (C)AGW do so by cherry picking their facts or distorting history – in general, misusing science. As theirs is a radical religious belief, their actions become those of typical radicals. As the saying goes, – Those who come to their beliefs through emotions have a difficult time changing their beliefs due to facts. –
MF and others have finally come to this conclusion. Mike has changed his style to reflect those who he disagrees with.
For my part, I find it part of the political war being waged worldwide. Those who would control others, authoritarians, supporters of command and control economies – seek any method or lie that supports them in their quest. AGW is only one. Their goal is the subjugation of others. You sir, are part of that crowd and due no respect from those of us who support rational thought and, much more importantly, liberty.
Those who will vote for HR Clinton must be included in that crowd, whether or not they know what they do.
Lewis,
I understand completely where you are coming from.
But if you seriously care about your country, you must first admit that it is a serious state of decline. And will continue on that path if it forever keeps going down the same path, repeating the same mistakes and failing to change its ways. The problem is obvious to all who observe, and respect the USA. However, changing ways is anathema to conservatives and skeptics.
They hanker for a future akin to the past but are blind to the fact that the past has well and truly gone. Just look at the current republican convention – a debacle from start to finish – yet some people are deluded into thinking it a great success – that, somehow, by the magic of words, they can “Make America great again”. They can’t.
And wishing and hoping that the climate will return to what it was in the past is also a forlorn hope.
I feel sorry for them.
And I also feel sorry for the citizens who desperately want to bring about change but are stymied at every turn.
It is a sorry state of affairs all round.
Lewis
You may point out flaws in those who blindly accept CAGW as a proven truth and most will agree. I read your post and it is what it the problem with climate change in general. It is now a political issue not a scientific one. You have the two rival camps (similar to politics with Republicans and Democrats). Both smear evidence to support their claims.
I look at geran and Mike Flynn (both non scientists with little background in the field…admitted by Mike not so much by geran but very obvious from his posts) more as political than scientific. They use emotional wording not scientific. Roy Spencer is trying to maintain science on his blog. When he complains about models he supports it with available evidence and you can challenge his evidence.
On many posts it one accepts GHE as a legitimate scientific conclusion based upon actual measured values then with the skeptic camp, one is thrown in with the same group as the CAGW political camp and no science is developed or discussed. No scientific material is entered into the posting. Mike Flynn mindlessly posts “Foolish Warmists” as if that changes the reality somehow. That will not change the fact that you can measure downwelling IR and the Earth’s surface will absorb almost all of this energy. You can make up some idea of pseudo-scattering saying the surface will not absorb this IR. Okay to come up with the idea but the unscientific skeptics than accept this as a real fact even though no experiment has been done to prove it or disprove it. It is accepted not based upon rigorous science but because it fits their skeptic agenda which is just the same as the CAGW agenda. Make up stuff and hope real scientists do not challenge them and if challenged degrade the poster (like geran will do and now Mike Flynn)
How are the actions of the skeptics justified on a science blog? If this was a CNN political blog on climate their unscientific political posts would work just fine. Politics does not need verifiable facts, you only need to convince the audience they are correct.
That is why Mike Flynn and geran and even mpainter will never post links to support their points. They are political and not scientific. Sad state of science in my opinion.
Norman is trying to be the new Dxxg Coxxon. Norm uses the same techniques–pseudoscience, rambling monologues, and multiple screen names.
Hey Norm, why not get a patent on your cabbage that emits visible light?
Hilarious!
geran,
Sorry you are totally wrong. I post as “Norman” on this blog and others. It is my first name and since no one else is using it I keep going with it. Ball4 is not me even if you think he might be. Your own delusion or inability to distinguish different posters. You lack of ability is not my problem.
You also use the term “pseudoscience” often but you do not have a clue what that word means. You think by posting it most your responses it makes your words more believable? Or someone else’s bad? I think you should read the definition and you will see how invalid your use of this word is.
Just some quick samples of Norm’s pseudoscience:
1) Energy leaves the system, but it does not leave the system.
2) Cabbages emit visible light.
3) Two object at cold temperatures, say 0F, can “add” their fluxes to heat a third object to a much higher temperature.
4) You can bake a turkey using only ice.
5) Microwave ovens prove that “cold” can heat “hot”.*
* Not officially “published” yet, but “research” is being done. ☺
Hilarious.
geran
It is what I have been saying about you. You are political and not scientific. You may sway some like minded political readers. Scientists will not accept your political rants.
You are like a politician. It does not matter if what you say is true or not only if you can convince someone it is.
I think people can look at a few posts up and verify your dishonest political tactics where truth is not reality only what you can convince someone is true.
Your last three:
“3) Two object at cold temperatures, say 0F, can add their fluxes to heat a third object to a much higher temperature.
4) You can bake a turkey using only ice.
5) Microwave ovens prove that cold can heat hot.”
None of these reflect anything resembling reality and are complete distortions of posts I have made.
Convince the politicians that visit this blog that what you write about me is truth. I will be most content to learn from the scientists. When a scientist tells me why a conclusion I have is incorrect I will listen and learn and update my thoughts. With your political dishonesty I will reject.
Norm, I don’t have to prove how confused you are, your own rambling nonsense and attempted insults do that for me.
I just mention examples of your nonsensical pseudoscience for the comedy it is. When I present you with the exact links to your comments, you deny you meant what they clearly state. That’s where the “energy leaves the system, but energy does not leave the system” came from. You’re so confused you even argue with yourself.
I don’t have to do anything except let you tangle yourself up in your own web of illogical distortions.
So anyway, where can folks buy one of those cabbages that emit visible light?
(Climate comedy at its best.)
geran
YOU: “When I present you with the exact links to your comments, you deny you meant what they clearly state. That’s where the “energy leaves the system, but energy does not leave the system” came from. You’re so confused you even argue with yourself.”
More dishonesty from the politician (not interested in truth and it is not for comedy, you are not a comedian by any standards but you are very political). As any politician would do they will only select choice bits of information from those they wish to discredit. Since you are a dishonest politician you know about all the following posts on that comment. I had realized I had not communicated the idea well enough so I rewrote the content to express more clearly the content of the point.
I really do not see much difference between your dishonesty and the political dishonesty of the CAGW crowd. Both are involved in nonscience, both are political and distort the truth to benefit their position. Same mind set just differ sides of the same coin. No honesty in either camp. You maybe represent like a hard right Republican mind set and the extremists in the CAGW camp represent the Marxist progressive minded. Neither cares for truth or science. Just a political agenda.
Keep the lies and dishonesty coming. The more you show your dishonesty the less credible you become except to the like minded true believers.
Norm, just remember, I didn’t call your pseudoscience “lies”, you did!
Norm invites: “Keep the lies and dishonesty coming.”
OK
1) Energy leaves the system, but it does not leave the system.
2) Cabbages emit visible light.
3) Two object at cold temperatures, say 0F, can add their fluxes to heat a third object to a much higher temperature.
4) You can bake a turkey using only ice.
5) Microwave ovens prove that cold can heat hot.*
geran
You are a true politician in every sense. You have a compulsion to get the last word in but because you have nothing new or novel to say you repeat the same dishonest distortion of reality one more time so your cheering fans can heap praises on you.
So why do you waste your talents on a science blog twisting the words of posters to suit your political agenda? There is more power and money in politics than science blogs.
@Dr. no…”some people are deluded into thinking it a great success that, somehow, by the magic of words, they can Make America great again. They cant”.
Speaking of delusions, America is a continent. You are referring to the United States OF America. There is no country called America even though people use the reference incorrectly. Canada is in America as well.
For another, if you want to make the US great again, you have to begin by talking about doing so. That runs in the face of the politically-correct nonsense being offered by Hillary Clinton, whereby she hides behind the US Constitution and ignores the evils that exist in her own country.
Trump talks like a wild man but I seriously doubt he’s as bad as he sounds. At least he’s addressing issues that have bothered people in the US and elsewhere while with Clinton it’s the same old, same old.
Clinton will also be a disaster for the country when it comes to carbon taxes and carbon credits. She really doesn’t have a clue. I don’t recall the details but apparently she was rude to John Christy or Roy at a US Senate hearing.
Clinton is the queen of political correctness and we can be assured the US will never be great again with her at the helm.
Norm, I so enjoy your comedy, even your pathetic attempts to insult others. You are one of the “poster boys” of AGW pseudoscience.
Whenever I do offer some science, it is over your head. The simplest example is the time I used the acronym “QED”.
You had no clue. You had to “google” it, but your “link” got you the wrong answer! You obviously had never seen the acronym used in a proof, because you have so little formal education. Yet, you always try to claim others lack a science background!
You seem so into politics, maybe you were studying “political science” and now you believe you know “science”!
Hilarious.
But, before I go, you forgot to mention where we can get one of those cabbages that emit visible light.
Need I say it again? Hilarious!
geran, “Whenever I do offer some science”
When exactly WAS that geran? This thread time/date stamp please. I couldnt find any.
geran, “mention where we can get one of those cabbages that emit visible light.”
In the produce section.
ball4, here’s some science for you: You can NOT light a dark room with a cabbage.
See if you can understand that.
Incorrect as usual geran. The cabbage you found in the produce section will light up your dark room temperature (72F) closet just fine in the visible band at 550nm in glowing cabbage green light at about 2.4E-5 W/m^2-sr-nm. Objects stored there will be visible with you wearing somewhat expensive photomultiplier goggles tuned to that wavelength band. Dr. Planck said so theoretically and instrumentally.
“…wearing somewhat expensive photomultiplier goggles tuned to that wavelength band.”
Lost in your pseudoscience, again!
(Nice try, Norm.)
I know geran, you often get lost. Science is not your first language.
Norm, take off those goggles so you can see some REALITY!
@dr.no…”As the string of record-breaking global temperatures continues unabated, June 2016 marks the 14th consecutive month of record-breaking heat”.
According to NOAA, who are being investigated bu a US Senate committee for their rash claims.
Ironically, their satellite data as published on this site disagrees. Why do you think NOAA would ignore their own state of the art sat data and go with surface data they have doctored beyond recognition.
Now I have no idea what I am talking about most of the time with climate stuff. But that article says +.90c and dr Roy Spencer’s article says +.34c warming weeks before the NASA report.
Am I missing something? I am not s scientist just an average joe that panics about the end of the world because of climate haha. I’m curious how these numbers varey so wildly.
@Jimmy…”NOAA is no longer a scientific organization. They do the bidding of their political masters in the Obama Environmental Protection Agency that is stocked by uber-alarmists. They are currently being investigated by a US Senate committee for scientific misconduct.
The garbage NOAA is now projecting is a feeble attempt to re-write the historical temperature record to eradicate a warming hiatus since 1998, admitted to by the IPCC.
In this old NOAA article, now hidden from the public, NOAA admit to slashing reporting surface stations from 6000 globally to under 1500. They apply the data from less than 1500 stations to a climate model where it is interpolated and homogenized to synthesize the missing stations.
Using such chicanery they are able to adjust and erase historical temperatures that do not meet the alarmist views of the Obama administration.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Oh wow that is really interesting and surprising to read that article about NOAA. But does NOAA and Roy Spencer use the same data from the same weather stations or buoys? Where does he get HIS data? What makes him more credible that NOAA? I am genuinely curious about all this!
@Jimmy…”…does NOAA and Roy Spencer use the same data from the same weather stations or buoys? Where does he get HIS data? What makes him more credible that NOAA?”
Roy works for UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) and they get their data from NOAA satellites. NOAA get their data from surface stations throughout the world.
NOAA did not want the sat data and UAH asked for it. NOAA gave it to them and since that happened in 1979, John Christy and Roy of UAH have been awarded medals for excellence by NASA and the American Meteorological Society.
The irony is that the sat data, which is acquired from NOAA sat telemetry that covers 95% of the planet’s surface, and which uses a theoretical infinite number of oxygen data points, has revealed the recent NOAA claims as being absolute nonsense.
Unfortunately, despite their advantage for sampling atmospheric temperatures more uniformly than ground based temperature stations, extracting actual temperatures from the microwave sounding units (MSUs) aboard NOAA satellites is not trivial. It requires careful calibration to deal with issues due to decaying orbits and requirements for adjustment for drifting measurement times etc. Consequently, the satellite datasets (including UAH’s) have been subject to numerous revisions in recent times, which alter the interpretation of the data – as have the various surface temperature datasets that receive so much criticism for that reason! No doubt they will receive further revisions in future, e.g. to take account of newer satellites and new instrumentation. For this reason, as I’m sure Dr Spencer would agree, it is always prudent not to regard any dataset as absolutely definitive.
Comparing the current version of the UAH (version 6.0 beta5) TLT data that Roy Spencer reports here with other available datasets, it most closely resembles the RSS 3.3 TLT dataset: not surprisingly given that these use different methodology to interpret temperatures from the same instruments. However, in their recent paper (see http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1) the authors of the RSS data (Mears and Wentz) note that their 3.3 dataset suffers from issues due to drift in measurement times. While their newer (version 4.0) analysis to account for this (plus new instruments that came online since V3.3) has yet to be released for TLT, on their own web site they advise caution in using the V3.3 data. see http://www.remss.com/node/5166. Given that the RSS TTT V4.0 data actually shows a stronger warming trend in the satellite era that the NOAA surface data, I wouldn;t be too hasty in condemning “recent NOAA claims as being absolute nonsense”.
@Dave…”I wouldn;t be too hasty in condemning recent NOAA claims as being absolute nonsense”.
I can’t condemn them fast enough. Any organization that takes raw data and applies it to a climate model to synthesize temperatures showing records is no longer dealing in the realm of science.
NOAA is now into the social sciences, mainly political science.
Any organization that takes raw data and applies it to a climate model to synthesize temperatures…
You realize that the UAH temp record is highly synthesised? Raw data isn’t even temps, it’s brightness measurements of atmospheric O2. ‘Adjustments’ are made to account for satellite drift and orbit decay, and to homogenise data from different satellites. From multiple channels data has to be winnowed to reflect temps of a particular stratum of the atmosphere. It could easily be argued that the satellite temp records are more synthetic than the surface records. All of which (satellite/surface) have undergone numerous revisions.
Critics of the surface records generally aren’t prone to swinging their critical spotlight onto their favoured sources. If they did and were honest about what they find they wouldn’t make dismissive remarks about synthetic data so casually.
Any organization that takes raw data and applies it to a climate model to synthesize temperatures showing records is no longer dealing in the realm of science.
Models are used with synthetic data to test the methods used to homogenise the actual raw data. NOAA’s temp record is not an output of GCMs.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2007JCLI2100.1
barry, you’re back! I thought you had left the comedy team, out of embarrassment.
So, here’s where your pseudoscience stands:
1) Energy leaves the system, but it does not leave the system.
2) Cabbages emit visible light.
3) Two object at cold temperatures, say 0F, can add their fluxes to heat a third object to a much higher temperature.
4) You can bake a turkey using only ice.
5) Microwave ovens prove that cold can heat hot.
To be true to the cause, you must claim all 5 are TRUE. Where do you stand?
Feel free to look back on any remarks I’ve made and we can talk about them.
(Work has been intense lately. Not much time for webchat)
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Wait until you see it, , , , , ,
“Truth is Singular, the pursuit of truth is the search for an absolution, that remains infinite.”
If it does nothing but consume and reproduce, what is it? A virus, a bacteria, and schizophrenic people, that think they’re intelligent. Let’s review the facts at hand, and then explain them throughout the “TIME”, you’ll spend reading it.
A brief description of TIME, as it pertains to my mind, and this thesis.
Oldest known cave paintings made by man, scientifically radio and carbon dated to approximately 40 000 years ago. The same science concludes, that there were less than half a billion people on the earth at that “TIME”. From the “TIME” of those cave paintings, until the year 1960, is how long it took human population to grow from less than half a billion, to 3 billion, a population growth of just 2.5 billion, over a “TIME”span of “40 000 years”, let me say that again, a population growth of 2.5 billion, over a “TIMEspan of “40 000 years” do you understand this number and “TIME”frame?
However, from the year 1960, to this the year 2016, human population grew by almost double that, a population growth of 4.4 billion, over a “TIME”span of just “56 years”. Most people don’t understand these numbers, and how they apply to them, so. Human population growth in the last 24 hours, 200 000, that means, you the human race birth and build a city the size of Rochester New York, for EVERY 24 hour “TIME”span. Human population growth in the year 2015, “82 million”, that means you the human race birth and build a country the size of Germany, for every ONE year of “TIME”.
7.412 Billion (current human population), if it grows at 1% per year, it doubles in 70 years, if it grows at 2% per year, it doubles in 35 years, if it grows at 3% per year, it doubles in 24 years. Anything that grows exponentially, grows in a predictable amount of TIME. “56 years” a population growth of 4.4 billion, talk about “Economic Growth”. Speaking of Economy, and Economic Growth, how does that all work, you figure? Supply and demand? Your country has what’s known as a GDP statistic, or (Gross Domestic Products) it’s a measure of your “Economic Growth”, and the “Stability” of your “Economy”. So, how do you continuously grow the demand for your country’s Gross Domestic Products? By exponentially increasing the population of other countries, to create the demand for it, that’s how.
Therein lies the reason you birth and build a city the size of Rochester New York, for every 24 hour TIMEspan. If you don’t, your “Economy” will fail. So, it would appear, that you have to grow your populations exponentially, to maintain your quality and standard of life, or your economic stability. According to my math, and your Government, United Nations and IMF (International Monetary Fund), and the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, you the human race, need at least 2.3% economic growth, to sustain your Global Economy.
The Global Economy, isn’t just your jobs, it’s your Education System, your Health Care System, your Social Security System, your Justice System, your Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines, and the two most important things, your 19 trillion dollar debt, (plus interest), and your PENSION. So, if you grow your populations exponentially to sustain all these things, you end up with a war in Syria, that is a masquerade for a very real, very serious quagmire, that quagmire being, Economic Growth, is the leading cause of Global Warming, and Climate Change.
Human population, is now growing faster than any virus or bacteria known to man, to sustain your economy, or, your quality and standard of life, it would be equivalent to you inhaling a single Ebola Virus, and that virus consumes and reproduces so fast, you’re dead in 55 seconds. Do you actually believe, the “Refugee Crisis” in Europe, is a result of a war in Syria? Considering 40% of the Refugees don’t come from Syria,,,, well, you figure it out. 7.412 billion, with a need to sustain 2.3% growth, equals 15 billion people on earth, by the year 2050. Or, human population will exceed the planet’s ability to sustain it, in the next 24-35 years, if you continue Economic Growth. It’s a quagmire, wrapped up in an ironic paradox of Karma, and there is nothing you can do to stop it, as, you’re out of TIME. ANYTHING, that grows EXPONENTIALLY, is UNSUSTAINABLE. Global Economic Failure, is IMMINENT.
All Human Beings, is Relative, to TIME:) The leading cause of Global Warming and Climate Change, is a psychological problem with the human race, that isn’t going to be solved with money, or science fiction, as it was money and science fiction that created it.
Lucifer’s Bubble:)
Derek,
You have gone off in a singular direction. While true that population is growing, it is growing at a declining rate and so will stabilize and then, later, decline.
A growing economy raises all people, some faster than others. It is also conducive to a peaceful people. A stagnant or declining economy leads to strife.
Lewis
Gordon:
“Speaking of delusions, America is a continent. You are referring to the United States OF America. There is no country called America even though people use the reference incorrectly. Canada is in America as well.”
I am quoting from the Trump campaign – obviously he is deluded according to your pedantic view.
“ignores the evils that exist in her own country.”
When has a conservative politician ever acknowledged the real problems other than perceived problems? – let alone articulate a plausible solution. For example,
-the ever increasing rich-poor divide
-the enormous (by world standards) rates of incarceration
– the ever decreasing (by world standards) levels of literacy, numeracy,.
– the enormous (by world standards) numbers of gun-related deaths (including gun attacks on presidents and candidates)
– the dysfunctional congress and senate
– the ever decreasing quality of politicians and their rhetoric
etc
etc.
Trump certainly doesn’t. All he can do is bag Hilary.
@dr no…-“the ever increasing rich-poor divide”
I can’t answer that and apparently the Democrats have no interest in solving it either, probably because most of them are wealthy and don’t care to tamper with the system that gives them that luxury.
To find an answer you’d have to go back to the beginning. Why is it that two countries side by side, the US and Canada, who came from primarily British and European stock ended up with such different systems of government?
-“the enormous (by world standards) rates of incarceration”
Are you denying that the US has a serious problem with criminals? What do you want to do, set them free to prey on people? I think the US needs to build more prisons.
I can’t answer the question as to why that is so but crime has taken over major US cities and the desire to deal with it is not there.
– “the enormous (by world standards) numbers of gun-related deaths (including gun attacks on presidents and candidates)”
I would venture to say that many of the guns are obtained illegally. Here in Canada we have stringent gun laws and people still get illegal guns and shoot people.
Banning forearms will solve nothing and I agree with the US Constitution that citizens should have a right to bear arms. What happens if there is an insurrection and the US or Canada are taken over by evil forces, such as was the case in Germany in the 1930s?
How about the millions who own firearms and never harm anyone? You have to look at the motives of the people who are using the firearms to harm people, and given the idiotic state of society, you don’t have to look far.
The problem is not firearms it’s the society we’ve created.
“the dysfunctional congress and senate”
I don’t see them, looking from afar, as being any different than the Obama administration. They’ve had 8 years to solve problems and have done nothing.
Obama is currently on a witch hunt for climate deniers. Is that not the epitome of dysfunctional?
Gordon,
If you listen to today’s Trump’s acceptance speech and intentions, can you not see that all the things people identify as problems are going to get far worse if he gets his way?
e.g. more tax cuts for the rich, no mention of the minimum wage, belief in the failed “trickle-dowm” theory of economics,” no mention of education reform, more and tougher law and order, less gun control, more spending on defence, no idea about reducing the deficit, etc etc.
These simplistic ideas have all been tried many times in the past and they always fail. Nobody seems to realize that their simplicity belies their stupidity.
“probably because most of them (democrats) are wealthy and dont care to tamper with the system that gives them that luxury.”
—You’ve got to be kidding!
“I think the US needs to build more prisons.”
—The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. In 2008 the United States had around 24.7% of the world’s 9.8 million prisoners. So, you want to set a new world record?
“Here in Canada we have stringent gun laws and people still get illegal guns and shoot people.”
—Gun violence has halved in Australia since gun laws were changed in the wake of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.
“Banning forearms will solve nothing ”
—Nobody is seriously proposing bans. That is plain hysteria.
“How about the millions who own firearms and never harm anyone?”
—-How about the number of terrorists, both white and islamic, who have easy access to weapons of mass destruction?
“The problem is not firearms its the society weve created.”
—You at least acknowledge that there is a problem.
“Theyve had 8 years to solve problems and have done nothing.”
–You are assuming they had the numbers, which they didn’t.
“Obama is currently on a witch hunt for climate deniers. Is that not the epitome of dysfunctional?”
– What ?!. You must be joking! or are seriously deranged.
I am prepared to have a polite argument with you, but not if you are going to be stupid.
@ dr no…read it and weep.
https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/
A quote from Obama’s site:
“Find the deniers near youand call them out today”.
Remind you of McCarthyism?
It’s plainly obvious that the Obama administration are using AGW as a political tool. They have recruited NOAA to spread their propaganda by manipulating data with climate models.
My interest is science and I am a left winger. It’s time to end this AGW charade and give skeptics a voice. Clinton will only perpetuate the charade and it’s time stop the politically correct bs.
I don’t support what Trump stands for politically or economically but I live in a province here in Canada, BC, that is a bit right of Attila the Hun. I am used to having my intelligence insulted and our social values flaunted by extreme right wingers.
There’s nothing Trump can do that will bother me much after the excesses of our own government. I hope he does tear up the Free Trade Agreement. It’s an abomination that should never have been signed and it’s time we in Canada stood on our own two feet rather than taking handouts aimed at making a few people wealthy.
We are far too soft on crime up here. Recently, a psychotic patient decapitated a person on a bus and now he is out. Apparently the ‘poor soul forgot to take his meds. How about the poor soul without the head?
In another case, another psycho stabbed 5 young people to death at a party and now he is promising to faithfully take his meds if they release him. They are talking about it.
I don’t care what the situation may be, society deserves to be protected. You kill someone you go to jail. If there are not enough jails, build more. Numbers don’t matter. If people are going to get into criminal activity they need to go to jail.
“A quote from Obamas site:
Find the deniers near youand call them out today.
Remind you of McCarthyism?”
Gordon – do you really believe that President Obama has anything to do with that site?
Just because it uses his name?
How gullible are you?
“Its plainly obvious that the Obama administration are using AGW as a political tool. They have recruited NOAA to spread their propaganda by manipulating data with climate models.”
Of course it is a conspiracy! – involving hundreds, nay thousands, nay hundreds of thousand, nay millions of conspiratorial scientists, politicians, greenies, hippies, do-gooders, communists, islamists, the pope, Putin, Cubans, journalists, students, teachers, lecturers, kindergarten teachers, TV producers, actors, musicians (especially jazz musicians), poets, artists, doctors, everybody under the age of 60. I think that just about covers it.
They need to be exposed!
We need more prisons to house them all!
God bless those of us who can see the TRUTH!
Somebody is knocking on the front door!
They are coming to get us!
Honey – grab the children!
Don’t forget the laptop!
Where are my guns!
What do you mean- you locked them away and threw away the key!
Then get me the car keys!
Run out the back door – don’t let them see you!
What do you mean – its old Mrs McKillycuddy wanting to borrow some sugar!
@Dr no…”Gordon do you really believe that President Obama has anything to do with that site?
Just because it uses his name?
How gullible are you? ”
The question really is, “How gullible are you”? And “How deeply in denial are you”?
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/242672-obama-climate-deniers-endangering-national-security
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/10/us-attorney-general-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/
http://grist.org/article/obama-slams-climate-deniers-in-state-of-the-union-and-gets-greens-kind-of-excited/
3 of 393,000 result on Google for obama climate denier
Dr No, I like that you keep this crowd on its toes because just as it’s obvious life was purposed, it’s obvious humans can have an effect on the sphere we live in. It happens every day. However, all this said, your political acumen is suspect. I’m not a Trump supporter (Rand Paul, and if he makes the debates, Gary Johnson) so take my opinion in that context if you would.
If the rich/poor divide causes death and real suffering, it’s a human rights issue. Are we seeing this in the US? It appears to me like everyone is richer and healthier than ever before. There will be economic expansions and contractions, widenings and narrowings regardless.
Legalizing pot (I would support growing personal amounts in my State), would probably half incarceration rates, but then you have legal pot and some likely future criminals on the streets. It’s not an end all be all. Also, legal pot means an unknown but very likely increase in driving incidence and healthcare issues, among other things.
Literacy is a choice of parents or individuals, not the system. The system is sufficient to teach, homeschooling, private schools, college grants/loans, etc. We shouldn’t conscript kids, not even to seed a generation.
Accidental gun deaths in the US total around 1,000 a year. For any other gun related death, society considers it a major crime. If you want to close the gun show loophole, ok, but the US isn’t a violent place and the violence here isn’t because it has guns. It’s human nature. There are loads of laws surrounding guns already.
Dysfunctional congresses and senates don’t have much negative effect on anyone or anything. In fact, it has the positive effect of slowing down intrusion on our liberties. Some paychecks delayed? Downgrading of our borrowing status (please.. we and the Chinese fund the world)? Continual political issues affecting debt payment combined with poor economic indicators could be a problem, but you see how resilient the American people have been to the “recent” issues? Shocks to someone’s reality can help them grow.
@argus…”Legalizing pot (I would support growing personal amounts in my State), would probably half incarceration rates…”
I think lawmakers are far too severe on pot users in the US. I have no interest in doing illegal drugs but I find it seriously harsh when a young guy caught with a bit too much MJ gets 30 years hard time.
Unlike the stereotypical idea that pot leads to heroin use, it’s really a harmless substance if people don’t use it and drive. Alcohol is far more likely to lead to heroin use.
Dr. no left his argument far too general wrt prisons. I would agree there are far too many minor offenders doing hard time in US jails. I don’t include home invaders and muggers as minor criminals, lock them away for good.
Gordon
How can you trust a person who:
“has also changed his positions on abortion, Hillary Clinton, trade, immigration, taxation, health care, the Iraq war, a Muslim ban, a border wall, Ted Cruz, Roger Ailes, Mitt Romney, super Pacs, charitable donations, accounts payable and the Republican party.”
The USA will no longer continue going down the wrong path, it will be sprinting if this joker wins.
@dr no…”How can you trust a person who:…”
I did not say I trust Trump, I just trust Clinton less. I am sick of political correctness and the nonsense in science where agendas dictate how science is done.
How can you but the pseudo-science that passes for the anthropogenic theory? How can you trust any of those scientists after the Climategate email scandal?
In the emails, Phil Jones, a coordinating lead author at IPCC reviews, bragged that he and Kevin (presumably his CLA partner at the reviews, Kevin Trenberth) would block a paper by John Christy. How can you condone such scientific misconduct?
Dr. No,
That is hardly true. Look at Obama’s record opposing business and promoting a command and control economy. It still hasn’t happened. Yet, if Hillary gets elected, she will continue that program, and we will continue to get closer. I, unfortunately, am more afraid of the Obama/HRC legacy, than Trump. I believe he will do some very positive things. The most important, sadly, is appoint Supreme Court justices who are more constitutionalist than whatever Ginsburg is.
I say sadly because so much of our government has devolved into depending upon the edicts given there instead of being resolved in the legislative bodies – as should be.
“Look at Obamas record opposing business ”
Lewis,
try dealing with facts rather than perceptions and hysterical propaganda. Since President Barack Obama first took office:
-The economy has added more than 9 million jobs, and the jobless rate has dropped to below the historical median.
-The number of long-term unemployed Americans has dropped by 614,000 under Obama
-Corporate profits are up 166 percent; real weekly wages are up 3.4 percent.
-There are 15 million fewer people who lack health insurance.
-Wind and solar power have nearly tripled, and now account for more than 5 percent of U.S. electricity.
Dr. No,
Ah yes, the Obama legacy, the slowest economic recovery in 60 years. Why, perhaps because he has done much to inhibit it. The fact that it has grown is not because of him, but despite him. You might explain what, economically, he has done for the black male youth of this country. Let me answer for you – nothing.
Real weekly wages up 3.4% over 7 years – how impressive. That is what, .5% per year. Wow, I’m impressed.
The health insurance number is rather curious. No one was without health care, just personal insurance. Having government dictate the rules has made much worse, not better.
But then, government was the problem before Obamacare also.
Wind and solar are hardly something to brag about unless you think subsidies for special interests are the proper way to go. Of course those who benefit from the subsidies always like them, even while those who pay are hurt. A typical transfer payment issue.
Obviously our beliefs in how the economy should work differ, but then I’m a businessman, owning 3 businesses with more than 100 employees – and you?
Personally, I prefer nuclear. Very safe, long term reliability. Doesn’t even kill birds.
From Wikipedia:
“The two major political parties have different approaches to the issue, with Democrats historically emphasizing that economic growth should result in shared prosperity (i.e., a pro-labor argument advocating income redistribution), while Republicans tend to downplay the validity or feasibility of positively influencing the issue (i.e., a pro-capital argument against redistribution.”
You can guess which way I think by my hope that you pay your employees more than the federally mandated minimum wage of $7.25 per hour – since this is currently less than the rate in 1968 of $10 per hour (expressed in 2014 dollars).
@doctor no…”You can guess which way I think by my hope that you pay your employees more than the federally mandated minimum wage of $7.25 per hour…”
We are likely on the same page when it comes to social values. I agree that $7.25/hour is an abysmal wage for anything more than a young kid earning pocket money. As I said, I am a socialist, but that name was stolen by the Bolsheviks in Russia during their revolution. They stole it to give the impression that their totalitarian state was based on workers’ values. The Bolsheviks incarcerated socialists and true communists.
Right-wingers in the US have popularized the notion that socialism and Russian/Chinese communism are one and the same. However, socialism flourished even in the the US and Canada during the earlier part of the 20th century and it was made up of various factions.
Some claimed to get their roots from Karl Marx but he wanted nothing to do with socialism. When his partner Engels offered socialism as a name for their communist theories, Marx dismissed it. People calling themselves Marxists have nothing to do with Marx, it’s just a name.
The so-called Communists in Russia abolished religion but that notion has never arisen under socialism. Religion was never an issue under socialism, which was focused on workers’ rights.
Socialism in it’s truest form was fought for by early unionists in democratic countries including the United States and Canada. The early socialists have had a far greater effect on Canada and it’s policies than on the US.
In Canada, we have pensions, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, and universal health care. In both countries womens’ right have benefited greatly from early socialist values.
What I don’t understand is why you have allowed eco-alarmists and their dogma to influence you. There are a lot of wannabee socialists out there who are in it for image. They live in an illusion that the environment is an extension of themselves and that real humans and their suffering don’t matter.
Gordon,
Thanks for your thoughts.
We may actually be on more than one page together.
However, when you say
“What I dont understand is why you have allowed eco-alarmists and their dogma to influence you. There are a lot of wannabee socialists out there who are in it for image. They live in an illusion that the environment is an extension of themselves and that real humans and their suffering dont matter.”
I can easily say:
“What I dont understand is why you have allowed skeptic-conspiracy theorists and their dogma to influence you. There are a lot of wannabee expert//scientists out there who are in it for image. They live in an illusion that the environment has been supplied by God for the sole purpose of exploitation and profit – irrespective of the suffering it causes.”
I would never vote for someone so hidebound that he never changes his mind. In fact flexibility is a prerequisite as far as I am concerned, the ability to adapt as the facts change or as his understanding changes. Those who insist that one should never change his mind are poor lost soles who have consigned mankind to a stagnant universe where change is impossible. Boring.
@pochas94…”I would never vote for someone so hidebound that he never changes his mind”.
Does that include Hillary Clinton who stuck by Bill Clinton after he thoroughly embarrassed her by having sex with a page in the oval office?
Trump’s propensity for changing his mind may well be one reason why he’s so successful…
..and totally untrustworthy.
So, you’re saying he’s already a typical politician. They tell you whatever you want to hear during the campaign, then do something else when elected.
Clinton, already an expert in the lying field, shows Trump to be a mere piker.
The important thing is that we can trust him to succeed which is a lot more than we can say about our current flip flopper in chief…
Hi Norman,
I reply here because the message is way up in this chaotic thread:
“I am still researching the microwave oven. I think the magnetotron that generates the microwaves stays below the boiling point of water (it does use a cooling fan for the magnet but I think that is because of waste heat, I do not believe that heated magnet causes the energy of the microwave flux). I could not find out for sure but I have been reading that a microwave may shut down if the magnetotron overheats (cooling fan not working).
I think the lower temperature magnetotron will produce enough microwave flux to boil water. This might be a case for you beside the laser example.”
MW ovens use the 2.45GHz (the very same frequency of WiFi) because the polarized molecules of water as a bunch, shake and by friction heat up. A demonstration of that effect is that if you put solid water (e.g. an ice cube) into the oven you practically don’t have any heating effect, except for the outer ice surfaces which melt a little, because even if thin the external layer is already melted because is in contact with the hotter atmosphere and little by little melts the whole ice cube.
Maybe you already have seen this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ssPk_VMvJU
About the two 300W/m^2 and 500W/m^2 sources that sum to 800W/m^2. I reread your statement and I agree, because you were writing about the fluxes at the target surface, not at the sources, anyways they must be simply warmer to get those fluxes at the target.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Norman,
I reply here because the message is way up in this chaotic thread:
“I am still researching the microwave oven…
… I think the lower temperature magnetotron will produce enough microwave flux to boil water. This might be a case for you beside the laser example.”
MW ovens use the 2.45GHz (the very same frequency of WiFi) because the polarized molecules of water as a bunch, shake under that EM field and by friction heat up as an aggregate of molecules free to move. A demonstration of that effect is that if you put solid water (e.g. an ice cube) into the oven you practically don’t have any heating effect, except for the outer ice surfaces which melt a little, because even if thin the external layer is already melted because is in contact with the hotter atmosphere and little by little melts the whole ice cube.
Maybe you already have seen this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ssPk_VMvJU
About the two 300W/m^2 and 500W/m^2 sources that sum to 800W/m^2. I reread your statement and I agree, because you were writing about the fluxes at the target surface, not at the sources, anyways they must be simply warmer to get those fluxes at the target.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO
Thanks for that post. It does give me a “great day”
Hi Norman,
Gasp!
I just realized that my message has been posted 2 times above.
I had many problem to post yesterday indeed.
The very same message was rejected by the server 3 or 4 times before it had been accepted, and one time the server responded that I already posted that very same message, but the message was not there.
Now I hope that the message wasn’t replicated other times somewhere in this thread!!!
I apologize for that, maybe I’ve been to much impatient of posting it, I probably should have wait for a moment before reposting it.
Anyways, I don’t believe geran is an ignorant in matter.
Instead, I believe he is more or less the skeptic version of DR. NO. That is, one with good knowledges in matter who is joking with us.
So, don’t get angry, take it easy!
Have a great day.
Massimo
A small suggestion. I assume the trends given below the data tabulation in your v6 data files gives trends taken over the whole record, from 1979 to present, and are in deg K per decade. Suggest you note this somewhere in the file.
@pochas94 “I assume the trends given below the data tabulation in your v6 data files gives trends taken over the whole record, from 1979 to present, and are in deg K per decade”.
K refers to Kelvin and 1 degree K = 1 degree C. The starting points are different.
On the graph on this site the vertical axis is marked in degrees C therefore I presume the same applies to the v6 data file trends.
It would not make sense to create the graph with anomalies relative to the 1981 – 2010 average and list trends in another scale.
Be wary with the trends, however, since anomalies listed below the baseline refer to cooling wrt the 1981 – 2010 average. There’s a difference between a trend representing global warming and one representing a recovery from cooling.
A trend over the entire record means very little since true warming did not begin till late 1997. There has been no trend since 1998, so stating a trend from 1979 – 2016 doesn’t tell you anything.
“It would not make sense to create the graph with anomalies relative to the 1981 2010 average and list trends in another scale.”
??
It does not matter what baseline you choose, the trend will always be the same.
“There has been no trend since 1998, so stating a trend from 1979 2016 doesnt tell you anything.”
No? It tells you the average rate of warming since 1979.
If you are going to drag up the “pause” corpse again – Do you really believe there will be no average rate of warming since 1998 by the end of the year. Have’nt you been paying attention? 2016 is well on track to be the warmest year on record.
Wow. What a pretentious comment! But knowing its origin I don’t wonder.
So, trends are useless, Grand Teacher Robertson says. Aha.
Here is a plot of several temperature series and their respective trends, all within the satellite era (1979 – today):
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160725/6obxu8d5.pdf
And with that chart you see what trends are for: to inform you about strange discrepancies between these temperature series (the pdf is arbitrary scalable so you can see even smallest details).
UAH6.0beta5 TLT (blue) has a much lower trend than NASA GISS TEMP land+ocean (plum), RSS 4.0 TTT (green), and both RATPAC B radiosonde measurements at pressure levels of respectively 700 (yellow) and 500 hPa (red): all their four trend lines are litterally superposed.
No wonder! here are the trends in C / decade, for 1979-2016:
– RAT 700: 0.166
– RAT 500: 0.167
– GISS l+o: 0.171
– RSS TTT: 0.177
In the chart, the difference between UAH’s trend and those of the other four series looks minimal. But UAH’s differs by not less than 40%:
– UAH TLT: 0.122
P.S. To avoid useless remarks about RATPAC B (‘Homogenized data, hence warmed up! Nothing worth!’) I added in grey RATPAC’s origin, the IGRA dataset.
– IGRA 500 hPa: 0.613 C / decade
so everybody understands what homogenization is intended to.
So, Bin, which data set do you prefer, the most corrupt one?
Geran – you are starting to sound desperate now.
BTW, how’s that La Nina progressing?
Right on schedule.
But, facts matter not in pseudoscience.
The fact is that the atmosphere’s temperature matches the method of calculating it wherein the full compression warming are accounted.
There are multiple websites about this on the internet starting in 1967 in the Sept Astrophysics Journal volume 167, pp 730-731 wherein N.A.S.A. released a paper calculating Venusian temperature based on a radar profile of the planet leading to approximated density of the atmosphere.
Carl Sagan wrote the paper and in it included his calculation of the temperature of Venus with no GHGE based on his guess of that atmospheric density.
Harry Huffman has had a website up for several years detailing how to calculate the temperature of the planet such that it comes out precisely what our instruments on Venus and on Earth show – without resort or reliance on any ‘GHGE’.
In fact the foundation: the basics of all green house gas effect mathematics is the systematic refusal to include proper gas chemistry process wherein the compression of the atmosphere is included.
When atmospheric compression through proper resort and reliance upon hydrostatic equation processing is accounted,
the temperatures of Venus, Earth, etc, match standard gas equations precisely.
@A Reader…”Carl Sagan wrote the paper and in it included his calculation of the temperature of Venus with no GHGE based on his guess of that atmospheric density”.
Sagan was wrong. The surface temperature on Venus, nearly 500 C, is far too hot to be explained by a runaway greenhouse effect.
The NASA connection to Sagan was James Hansen, an astronomer who became a climate modeler. His catastrophic predictions of a climate tipping point came from Sagan’s theory. Thus far, Hansen has been wrong too.
Astronomer Andrew Ingersoll reveals that Venus rotates very slowly on it’s axis, taking 243 Earth days to rotate once. The Sun rises and sets every 117 Earth days. The basic parameters on Venus are very different than they are on Earth. If Earth rotated once every 243 days I imagine it would become insufferably hot.
In this abstract, Ingersoll claims: “If all observations are correct and the probe sites are typical of the planet, the second law of thermodynamics requires that the bulk of the lower atmosphere heating must come from a source other than direct sunlight or a thermally driven atmospheric circulation. Neither the so-called greenhouse models nor the mechanical heating models are consistent with this interpretation of the observations”.
Unfortunately, Ingersoll seems to be under the influence of alarmists and still raves about the greenhouse effect on Venus, even though in this 1980 paper he claims the opposite. Mind you, 1980 was in the sane days before the AGW madness struck.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JA085iA13p08219/abstract
Sagan was right in 1967/8. Later he “went along to get along” and went off the rails as you point out.
He published a correction to his earlier papers which you can find at the link shown below if you click on the Send PDF button:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/149625
” If Earth rotated once every 243 days I imagine it would become insufferably hot.”
Imagine away. But consider this:
Consider speeding up or slowing down the rate of rotation of the Earth – it still intercepts the same amount of solar radiation. Therefore its average temperature will not change.
Think of the moon – it does not rotate wrt the sun yet it is both insufferably hot and cold at the same time.
Hi Dr. No.
I agree, but with a caveat: ignoring the water on Earth.
IMHO, I suspect that oceans could evaporate along time and (if clouds had positive feedback, as some argue), finally Earth should become hotter indeed.
Don’t you agree?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Possibly.
One half is hot, evaporated water vapour is transported to the other half where it is likely always cloudy, raining, but nevertheless not as cold as it should be.
Would make an interesting climate model experiment (if not already done).
Yes,
I agree, the cold side should be far more warmer than the cold side of the moon because of the dynamic of that atmosphere.
Luckily, the Earth magnetic field is more stronger and higher in the sky than the one of Venus. Otherwise much of WV hydrogen would depart to space after the Sun radiation have broken the WV molecules, in that case the atmosphere should be much more extreme.
Have a great day.
Massimo
This is too much pseudoscience at one time!
“no dr” believes the Moon only has one side facing the Sun!
“Think of the moon – it does not rotate wrt the sun yet it is both insufferably hot and cold at the same time.”
Hilarious.
Thanks- I stand corrected. It has only one side facing the Earth – but rotates on its axis once every 27 days.
“no dr”, you need so much correcting, I don’t think there are enough electrons….
And to you I say –
“I don’t think there are enough neurons”
doctor no
I agree.
Gordon whatever point you were making about Sagan, I felt when I mentioned the paper in abbreviated terms there’d be some follow up on it and I’d have to clarify what I am saying through mention of it.
The paper shows that Sagan believed the temperature, at the surface, using standard gas equations, with standard surface compression mechanics.
In other words at that time they had just gotten a good radar profile on the planetary/atmosphere complex and had a good idea of about how deep the atmosphere was.
The surface isn’t visible so they couldn’t tell.
When they had the radar profile they had the depth fairly well established so they calculated the temperature of the surface, if the density was *approximately* what they guessed.
(without going to the paper I think he estimated 89 or 90 atmospheres (our earth sea-level standard, 14.9 or so lbs/sq/in, X 90)
So what it’s evidence of is that one of the early guys, who was always talking about how he thought magic heating, yada yada, could happen – his paper here shows clearly that he knew how to calculate the temperature correctly at that atmospheric density; it’s compression level if you well. Compression has fewer keystrokes than atmospheric density and it accounts for a fact not often realized. Gas that’s compressed doesn’t hold more energy. It gets hot and starts dumping energy sooner, because he can’t expand and accommodate the increased activity, entanglement with more photonic energy, would command.
So what that’s about Gordon – I apologize if it wasn’t very clear before.
Now – for those of the readers who are beginning atmospheric chemists Gordon it is important that it’s clear here.
The atmosphere of Venus is really thick, there’s huge pressures of this gas, covering the planet. You can’t see down into it due to a variety of reasons, including the fact that there’s some sulfuric acid spraying around the upper areas, and they dye the thing a sorta impermeable looking sulfur color. It’s almost all CO2, though.
Down at the surface it’s so dense, it takes on the behavior of liquid; it dissolves metal and deposits like liquid although it’s quite hot. It’s like you have a kiln, and you injected a skaJiLLioN pounds per square inch CO2 in it.
There have been many many probes to Venus but everyone – can you remember the names of any?
The reason you can’t is because even from the days of Titan – the probe that took the radar profile Sagan calculated against, estimating his atmospheric density from readings on how deep the whole thing is –
is all these probes, outright defy the entirety of Green House Effect gibberish.
All these different probes, particularly some early Russian ones that made it all the way to the surface, landing, and sending back meter readings of the atmosphere etc –
they pass from zero lbs pressure of gas in space, to the full atmospheric weight created density at the surface and as they do, of course, they’re beeping back compressed blurbs of data: this high, this hot. THIS high, THIS hot. This high, this sample contains this that and the other.
THIS high, the atmospheric species fractions are THIS.
And as they go down, they naturally take readings at the IDENTICAL sea level pressure we have here on earth.
When you reach X pressure take sample, and you have the temperature of the atmosphere there
just like it would be, if the atmosphere was composition, in that place, but – at Earth atmospheric density conditions.
The atmosphere at that point
read what I say here (anyone who cares)
is COOLER
than earth composition atmosphere
at that identical sea level pressure,
{when you account for being closer to the sun. Venus is a little closer, so you have the sunlight intensity right there as a factor but the math is so easy you can clearly see, that – when you have earth sunlight level – and earth pressure – JUST LIKE the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature in gas says – the high carbon dioxide mix, is COOLER than Earth mix}
I let that turn into a bit of a ramble there but somewhere along the line I was supposed to make the point that, the reason nobody knows the names of these stunning probes, and their incredibly interesting kiln like conditions, and their landings, etc –
is because they directly and finally, refute any claim, there is ANY green house effect of ANY kind – on either earth, OR Venus.
Because remember if you had to you could go get the parameters used by the orbits engineers, who calculate the average density and temperature of the atmosphere at various heights, so they can control these plummeting probes the size of a dune buggy.
This isn’t like getting drunk and driving your tractor to the store for beer, and if you run a wheel up on the curb, screw it.
These probes engaged in some of the most fantastic activity ever – in all space travel.
But the American and other Western countries’ top government scientists, had been peddling that there was magic on Venus so they needed more money for more research, and they cynically, told the entire planet,
that there is something strange going on, on Venus, and that there is a runaway effect to the temperature, that our standard gas equations, simply do not account for.
And yet again – no one here, most likely, can come up with the exact claim, of the temperature difference, because the object was to simply stop people from talking about the probes,
that definitively prove, -not only is there no runaway effect on Venus there’s none at all. None as in zero.
Which is why you can land space craft on Venus not caring about magical green house temperature differential which would then affect parameters for flying through it and landing.
The law of thermodynamics for solving temperature demands that the density of the gas be known, because the more you compress the gas, the smaller it’s individual molecules’ electron orbitals’ geometries, become.
As they impinge upon each other more and more, they begin to have energy conductance conditions resembling liquids, and solids; which are of course comprised of identical atoms simply in dramatically condensed state, such that – for instance on the surface of polished metals you are watching a sea of electrons, and that sea of electrons is so compressed, that many of the electrons no longer orbit a single, lone nucleus: they’re writhing, and many are so disconnected from an individual molecule they transmit the electro-magnetic force very well: hence clean metals’ association with high electrical conductance.
When you have your gas state, the molecules are free or clumped, and they bound around, any combination of directions freely. But when you take that same substance, and you turn it into – typically we refer to a solid or liquid – when you let enough energy leak out or you remove it, that this substance – whatever it is – compacts down and becomes liquid or solid,
you can go check the engineering books – they change in physical size they demand by several HUNDRED times.
And when you have this setup, if it’s solid of course we have the well known crystal configuration so many solids take on at one point or another: some kind of often rectangular/trapezoidal, some kind of geometry where there are repeating, very regular iterations of the nuclei, surrounded by a very thin region where all the electrons are compressed and spend a LOT of any given period of time in.
Matter of fact this is called, the matrix. Remember the matrix movie? Well, the REAL term matrix is HEAVILY used in the concept of lattices and this is like when you build a scaffold around a building like the Capitol. That scaffolding’s metal, shiny legs, can be analogized to the matrix and lattice wherein PART of the matrix IS the lattice, and together, this – this construct – a spidery framework repeating itself again and again, with regular areas within it, that the latticework doesn’t intrude –
this is solids. When you have liquids of course and different kinds of solids than crystals, there’s a lot less organization but the one thing you do retain is this highly, compact physical distribution.
When gases are compressed down smaller and smaller, there is less and less space for them to accommodate the photonic energy they’d otherwise entangle and they therefore shuck it through leaking it out in classical entanglement/photonic energy averaging mechanics.
Electrons brushing nearer and nearer each other, mutually induce equalization of photonic distribution, this goes on throughout a solid very swiftly, through gases LESS swiftly because they DON’T occupy such small space.
That horse being beaten sufficiently although perhaps not well, we now move over (for general audience’s sake) to a compression air conditioner.
When you have some refrigerant, what you do is, you pound it down, denser and denser, with a compressor. A piston and a one way valve. Bang bang bang, denser and denser this substance gets. Till finally you turn it off and you hold it in this radiator you pounded it into and you fan that metal container holding that compressed gas.
That compressed gas gives off all the work of the compressor, becoming hot as you compress it – it gets above room temperature during that portion of time because you’re physically pounding energy into it with he piston, pushing them all closer, and closer, so they conduct between each other easier, and easier, because they simply don’t have the degrees of freedom to stay loaded up individually –
and then you cool that to room temperature.
And when you get it back to room temperature you can leak it back into the vacuum you formed, creating the pressurized zone. You had some sort of equality, you beat the gas over into one corner of the jug, that means all the gas/cats whatever you herded into one region – the region they left, is now devoid of cats/gas, and you have a cat vacuum. Er, whatever.
So you let this gas – it’s just at room temp, you pressurized it and fanned it clean of excess energy put into it when you compressed it – you leak that back into that vacuum area and it gets as cold, as your ex wife’s lawyer’s heart.
Now – we put energy INTO this thing. How can it ever get colder than the room temperature this was all done in?
Compression led to density which constricted capacity of electrons to entangle and keep photonic energy. Since they were contained in metal which also transmits photonic energy pretty well you just fanned off the work you put into it, and got it to room temperature.
When you put it back into a similar equality it got colder than room temperature by a considerable degree, although everything you touched it with was at LEAST room temperature.
The reason is when those molecules of gas could spread out some, they could take on and hold more energy than they could, at room temperature on the OTHER side of that valve, – at room temperature.
This chilling you enforce is the effect of density on temperature, brought forward to your attention. (reader/Gordon/whomever)
It’s proof, that being at one density – brought to some idealized ‘room temp’ I refer to, we’re not in a low energy environment, we’re creating one with this density manipulation –
Matter of fact you fan the energy off your refrigerant out in 105 degree temps, and then you expose it to your 80 degree air through a metal grate, and it’ll form ice on the grate.
So there’s a real big gain and loss in how much energy a substance will hold, when it’s compressed; particularly gases which have as part of their phases’ nature that they ARE free to expand and contract – liquids and solids have somehow left this realm of freedom to react so freely –
and it’s this compression that Venus is subject to, when the CO2 is at the densities it’s at.
And hey- guess what? The standard gas equations? They hit Venus RIGHT on the money, RIGHT at the surface, TOO.
They match the region where the atmosphere’s as dense as earth’s – they match the planet deeper in, down at the surface.
The entire thing, is a gigantic scam. There simply is not any extra temperature anywhere – on Earth OR Venus – when normal, standard gas equations are used to assess the temperatures of the two planets.
The entirety of all Green House Gas claims,
involve the removal,
of the compression section of gas mathematics – density –
and pretending the 30+ degrees that now magically remain unaccounted,
is due to some quack theme about frigid turbulent light blocking fluids – gases – making an object warmer than if it weren’t washed by frigid turbulent gases.
The gravito/thermal effect does give the right answers, if insolation is properly considered. The question is why? Unquestionably, it is radiation that is the mode of heat transfer for heat leaving a planet’s atmosphere. These g/t theory expositions always omit any consideration of radiation. This is a glaring omission. Only when someone considers radiation and g/t effect simultaneously in a comparison of planetary atmospheres will a satisfactory theory be available.
Kristian, I’ve a question for you.
Why does the air temperature go down with height? Answer= potential energy
No. Air temps go down as air moves up through an atmospheric column because of work (once more) being done by the buoyant air on its surroundings, draining the air of thermal (molecular kinetic) energy. This is the adiabatic process.
What makes the (warm) air move up?
Hi Ball4,
some posts above, replying to geran you wrote:
“The cabbage you found in the produce section will light up your dark room temperature (72F) closet just fine in the visible band at 550nm in glowing cabbage green light at about 2.4E-5 W/m^2-sr-nm.”
I’m not sure, are you arguing that the cabbage emits light at 550nm?
If that’s the case, then I’m a little confused by your statement.
I always believed that the color of a passive surface is because the surface absorbs all the other WL except the one it reflects.
So, being green, shouldn’t the cabbage emit that tiny quantity of photons on the visible band everywhere except in the green band?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo 9:23am, very good, perceptive question. Color is fascinating. Color is produced in our brains (not the object observed) with light as the raw material. Wavelength is not a synonym for color nor is radiant power a synonym for brightness (note not intensity, another issue). You can dream in color and, if get hit on the head hard enough, see colors.
So the notion a cabbage leaf looks green because it is absorbing all the colors of the spectrum except cabbage green, which it is reflecting is a common, deeply rooted blooper. You can find many seemingly authoritative sites on the net claiming this as a hard fact. They are fun to read and knowingly grin.
Measure a visible band spectrum of say grass or a cabbage with instrumentation*. Light of ALL wavelengths is in light from green grass as its output shows. We are not spectrometers. The spectrum of grass may peak slightly in the green but it is not anything like the sharp spike you would expect at 550nm from the concept of absorbing all wavelengths and reflecting only 550nm. Think about it then look up those sites writing that is the case. No way. Not nearly as simple as that but sure sounds plausible.
A good, painful example of hearsay that you can find used right in this very thread for many other concepts! Ill make it a great day, you too.
*Photo Research SpectraColorimeter Model PR-650 SpectraScan, which measures radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm.
Nice hilarious ramble, Norm.
You should probably open a produce stand that sells such cabbages.
(What a clown.)
Hi Ball4,
I’m absolutely aware that the green of the grass or of the cabbage isn’t a perfect absorber.
For your information I’m an EE and in my professional career I designed an optical spectrum analyzer in the UV/Vis/NIR rage between 170nm and 1160nm with a resolution of 0.1nm and 1nm of BW, the amplitude dynamic range was of 90dB using a PMT for the UV/Vis band and a solid state silicon detector for the Vis/NIR band.
I wrote my previous post because you stated that the cabbage “will light up” at “dark room temperature (72F) closet just fine in the visible band at 550nm in glowing cabbage green light”
Well, IMHO it doesn’t light green, because (assuming to wear some super photomultiplier goggles), I expect to see the complementary color of green indeed, that is red.
Don’t you agree?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi geran,
BTW I don’t believe Ball4 is Norman.
I guess Ball4 was here long time before Norman.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO
You are most correct. I am not Ball4. It would not be possible to convince geran of that. If he believes something is correct it is regardless of any evidence against his belief. He has a strong will but it gets in the way of better judgment on issues.
Massimo, have you ever seen “Norm” and “Ball4” in the same room at the same time?
(I’m just using their own pseudoscience against them!)
No. Search on estimating cabbage physical parameters 2008 and see fig. 1.
Massimo PORZIO
geran will not accept this (which is science based upon empirical measurements) but I think you might.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2009/07/20/photographing-the-glow-of-the-human-body/
Quote from article: “But virtually all living things emit some degree of light, albeit so weakly that its very hard to detect. Our own biological glimmer is a thousand times less intense than the sensitivity of the human eye so our only hope of detecting it is with sophisticated instruments.”
geran is unable to understand that “visible light” in science is a range of electromagnetic energy. It does not mean you can “see” it with your eyes. There are billions of galaxies emitting visible light that reaches us that we cannot see because the amount of visible light is too weak for us to detect. But with telescopes and film the light becomes detectable (it was still there all the time)
geran is as hopeless and thoughtless as the extreme on the CAGW side. Neither understands science they are political in nature and certain their view is the only right one and all others are wrong. Too bad for him, nothing will alter his beliefs including measured values.
As always Norm, you get yourself so tangled up in your own pseudoscience that it’s hilarious.
All you have to do is go back and see where I clearly defined “visible” as being light humans could easily see. That was the significance of the “closet”, or “dark room”!
Your rambling insults only prove that you have lost the debate.
You’re funny.
geran,
Ok find the post where you stated “All you have to do is go back and see where I clearly defined visible as being light humans could easily see.”
When Ball4 first proposed the concept he indicated that you would need a photomultiplier to see the visible light emitted by a cabbage. I have never stated or implied a cabbage would emit enough visible light to see in a dark room. You always twist what people state or claim.
Do you have a link to your statement? I do not plan on looking for it.
Also you twist content of my posts. My points about your closed mind are not insults but observations. You could change your closed minded nonscientific understanding of the scientific world and start to actually research or provide links to support what you claim.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-january-2016-0-54-deg-c/#comment-210033
geran
The link you supplied does not answer the question and it also demonstrates you are a lazy researcher. Did you go back to 1982 to investigate if Midland Lutheran College offered a Chemistry Degree at that time. I doubt it. You look only on the internet for information.
The basic fact about you is you are not a skeptic but a denier. You have empirical evidence that IR is coming from the atmosphere but you reject the GHE. Roy does not nor do any scientists who understand how heat exchange works. You also do not accept that fluxes add even though text books on heat exchange and thermodynamics clearly show they do (I have linked to a textbook that does this). Also empirical evidence shows energy fluxes add at a surface (linked PSI experiment with two flood lights).
A denier only hurts the reputation of skeptics. Scientists visiting this blog and seeing your denier (denial of empirical science, measured downwelling IR) posts will assume this is a non-science political site with hard right opinions not based upon any valid facts.
Norm, in your hilarious pseudoscience, if the “energy does not leave the system, but the energy leaves the system”, is energy increasing or decreasing?
Norm begs: “Ok find the post where you stated All you have to do is go back and see where I clearly defined visible as being light humans could easily see.”
Okay Norm, here’s where I stated that:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-217698
Norm rambles, in circles: “…this is a non-science political site with hard right opinions…”
Norm, are you sure you didn’t take a high school course in “political science”, and now you think you know “science”?
Hi Ball4,
you missed the very first word of Fig.1 caption:
“Representative reflectance spectra for a healthy cabbage”
REFLECTANCE, that’s the energy REFLECTED not ABSORBED and then REEMITTED.
If you magnify the vertical scale between 75 and 20% (in the range between 400nm and 720nm), you evidently can see how the cabbage reflects more green WL than other.
So I repeat, I expect a reduced green emission respect to the other colors band. Thus, if you expect some emissions from cabbages, they will “enlight” your dark room red, not green.
Have a great day.
Massimo
P.S.
I’m not shouting, I’m just using the upper case to evidence the words.
Massimo, I did not miss the word reflectance.
Hi Ball4,
so, what did I miss?
I don’t get your point.
Nothing. As you write, any dark closet is enlightened (Massimo term) by cabbage with green & red visible band light and every other wavelength measured.
Hi Ball4,
Maybe I misunderstood your previous post.
I supposed that you were imagining the darkroom “enlightened” of green light coming from the cabbage photons.
I put “enlightened” between quotes because those photons are so sporadic that our eyes and most even sensitive detectors can’t see them.
Maybe the Masaki Kobayashi imagery machine linked by Norman gets them, but it doesn’t report any information about the photons WL.
So it’s unreliable for establish the color emission of a cabbage.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“I supposed that you were imagining the darkroom enlightened of green light coming from the cabbage photons.”
And that is correct according to the Planck formula, and the Fig. 1 measurements of an actual cabbage spectrum in the visible WL bands.
Recent ENSO forecasts have returned slightly less chance of a la Nina forming this year, with BoM giving it a 50% chance.
While all models indicate more cooling in the tropical Pacific Ocean is likely, only five of the eight of the international climate models surveyed by the Bureau indicate that NINO3.4 values will pass below the La Nia threshold. However, model outlooks vary in how long this threshold is met, with only two of the eight models maintaining a La Nia outlook throughout the southern hemisphere spring.
If La Nia does form, models suggest it will be weak, and well below the strength of the significant 201012 event.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Outlooks
July 1
mpainter:
“Slim chance of 2016 as the warmest yeah evah, and now we are looking at a La Nina for the next two years,..”
June 25
mpainter:
“And now, La Nina and no more little boy spikes, not for ten years.”
and
“Yep, a cooling globe with no El Nino spike for the AGW crowd to super-hype for the next decade. Bottom line: we will have 50 years of satellite data with no warming except the step-up. The pillow is poised, La Nina has a murderous glint in her eyes.”
June 22
geran:
“f the La Nina is strong, it is just one more BUST for the AGW pseudoscience.”
JUNE 24, DR NO:
“Warning! warning!
La Nina could be a FIZZER !
I can already hear the skeptics here quaking with fear ! “
Good. I hate ice and snow. Ruins the vegetables.
La Nina has always been possible this year, Dr No, but it was never a definite in spite of comments to that effect. We’ll see.
Norman, if you’re still watching this thread, I’ve provided a belated response to a comment of yours way above, one that you most likely haven’t noticed:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/#comment-217694
Kristain,
I took the time to read your long post but there are things within I do not agree with and would need some form of validation for the statements made.
You: “But it is NOT the main contributor. The main radiator of Titans atmosphere is the nitrogen gas. It is simply a matter of density/pressure. The atmosphere of Titan is so cold and so thick that the nitrogen gas has acquired bulk radiative properties. Funny how that works, isnt it?”
I do not understand how cold or thickness would dramatically change Nitrogen’s diatomic molecule that does not emit in the IR band.
I do not think a nonradiative atmosphere would get much warmer than the surface. My understanding is it would reach an equilibrium temperature with the surface and basically stay at that temp. What it would end up I am not sure.
I do not accept mass of an atmosphere determines surface temperature. For Jupiter (at the same pressure as the Earth)
the temp is quite cold.
https://www.reference.com/science/surface-temperature-jupiter-2e519694f20e0293
But Jupiter has a hot core so as you move closer to it the temperature continues to rise.
The only way mass of an atmosphere can heat a planet’s surface is by contracting and the kinetic energy of this process becomes heat for the surface. To maintain a higher surface temperature and atmosphere would have to contract slightly on a continuous basis. It the atmosphere was stable (based upon my understanding of physics and the First Law of Thermodynamics) there would be no energy available from the mass of the atmosphere.
I think we can use the actual measured downwelling and upwelling IR fluxes of Earth to see how they change during temperature inversions on clear nights. Then you could see how a warmer atmosphere with IR active gases effects a surface temperature.
Thanks for you thoughtful post. Lots of material in it to consider.
Norman says, July 28, 2016 at 8:07 AM:
“I took the time to read your long post but there are things within I do not agree with and would need some form of validation for the statements made.”
Thanks for responding. Disagreement is always a good basis for learning.
You say:
“I do not understand how cold or thickness would dramatically change Nitrogens diatomic molecule that does not emit in the IR band.”
It doesn’t. It’s a matter of so-called “collision-induced absorp tion (and emission), CIA (CIE)”:
(Look it up on Wikipedia, I can’t link to it here, because Spencer’s site for some reason won’t allow the word “absorp tion” to go through.)
https://books.google.no/books?id=GnJ0LJFLNbMC&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=titan+atmosphere+albedo+nitrogen+radiation&source=bl&ots=4OUc5MIigG&sig=G1a6x5Iu8fHEzD5bUyNFcHNU83w&hl=no&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXnvWb8JbOAhUJD5oKHftZAugQ6AEIITAA#v=onepage&q&f=true (12.5.2, p.444)
“I do not think a nonradiative atmosphere would get much warmer than the surface. My understanding is it would reach an equilibrium temperature with the surface and basically stay at that temp. What it would end up I am not sure.”
The point here is that the surface only reaches equilibrium with space/the Sun plus the narrow air layer directly above it, not with the bulk atmosphere. It is ultimately thermodynamically disconnected from the bulk atmosphere. The bulk atmosphere cannot – for all intents and purposes – rid itself of its energy, so the only way for it to reach equilibrium with its surroundings is by reducing its heat input to practically zero. This can only be achieved at the point where daily convective transfer from the solar-heated surface can no longer be realised. The daytime surface temp is much higher than its average temp, which is considerably lower than the mere median between T_max and T_min, like on the Moon. (T_max on this planet would also by much higher than on Earth.) This situation forces the bulk atmosphere (which in the end will become isothermal) at equilibrium to end up much warmer on average than the surface. It will most likely not be as warm as surface T_max, but still much warmer than surface T_avg …
Continues …
Continued:
“I do not accept mass of an atmosphere determines surface temperature. For Jupiter (at the same pressure as the Earth)
the temp is quite cold.”
Mass doesn’t determine the surface mean temperature of a planet ALL BY ITSELF, Norman. Solar input is equally important. And so it very much needs to be part of the equation. Solar input is the net result of TSI minus re flected SW (al bedo). TSI at Jupiter’s distance from the Sun is 50.4 W/m^2 (at Earth’s distance it’s ~1362 W/m^2), while Jupiter’s average global al bedo is 0.343 (Earth’s is 0.296). Moreover, the ‘air’ density at the 1atm pressure level in Jupiter’s atmosphere is a meagre 0.16 kg/m^3 (on Earth it’s 1.225 kg/m^2), due to it practically being made up of only hydrogen (89.8%) and helium (10.2%). Based on this I actually find a 1atm gas temp of 165K pretty high (for instance, it’s much, much higher than at the same pressure level on Titan).
“The only way mass of an atmosphere can heat a planets surface is by contracting and the kinetic energy of this process becomes heat for the surface. To maintain a higher surface temperature and atmosphere would have to contract slightly on a continuous basis. It the atmosphere was stable (based upon my understanding of physics and the First Law of Thermodynamics) there would be no energy available from the mass of the atmosphere.”
Norman, this is not my argument at all. This is the mindless “heat ing by pressure” argument. That’s not mine. I am not saying that “pressure heats”. IOW, you are arguing against a straw man here. The mass of the atmosphere isn’t trans ferring energy to the surface. I never said nor implied that it is. Because that’s not how in sulation works. Same with radiation. Radiative in sulation doesn’t work by trans ferring extra energy from a cold place to a warm. Which means that Earth’s own thermal radiation also doesn’t “heat” the surface. It’s a result, an effect, of heat ing, of temperature. Only the Sun heats the surface …
Continues …
I linked to NASA’s Jupiter fact-sheet here, but it absolutely wasn’t allowed to go through. Pretty frustrating …
Continued:
It appears to me you didn’t read this part, Norman:
Nor this:
I also discuss – if you feel like taking the time to read – what the mass of an atmosphere does to insulate a solar-heated surface and thus force its T_s up here:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-5b/
Bottom line, it’s all about restricting the heat loss from the surface at a certain mean surface temp, NOT about ‘extra heating’ (like the “heating by pressure” or “heating by back radiation” explanations argue) …
Hi Norman,
I prefer to limit my opinion about your linked article about the “the glow of the human body” to few superficial consideration about it, because I never read about that before today.
The only curious thing is that Masaki Kobayashi seemed to be aware that a CCD is sensitive also to longer WL photons, in fact he cooled it to -120C to get something from it.
I suppose t was a conventional silicon CCD, but it doesn’t really matter which was the semiconductor involved in the photon collection indeed. Anyways is well known that silicon is sensitive to LWIR too, in fact it is also conveniently used for low cost thermometers probes.
IMHO it is possible that those photons were from LWIR, not from visible band as he stated.
If you look at the true images (not DSP handled):
https://books.google.it/books?id=rV-4XkkGs50C&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=-regista+-film+Masaki+Kobayashi+glowing&source=bl&ots=zt6JeIJiLO&sig=DfnBTD7lN4Wt0ItPQqbaKyqDFTk&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgnoO9mpPOAhViIcAKHe79C8UQ6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=-regista%20-film%20Masaki%20Kobayashi%20glowing&f=false
(Look at the imagery in figure 10 of page 168.)
The images are quite confused in the residual background thermal noise. For that, should I believe that the room around emits such kind of “biophoton” in the visible band?
Sorry, but I’m an innate skeptic!
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO,
I do like to see you are researching the topic to at least see what it is about.
In the book you linked to the range given is definitely in the visible spectrum. The instrumentation used is for visible light only. LWIR would be fairly bright at human body temp and you would not need a super sensitive photon counter to see it (normal IR detector shows human body fairly bright, I have used one).
Visible light is between 400-700 nanometers.
The cooling is because of dark current in the circuit. Electrons in the circuit can trigger the device that are not photons so they cool the instrumentation down to reduce the dark current.
Here is another link. It is hard to find material but it would indicate that there is a non-zero emission of visible light at room temperature but it is very small amount and below the eyes ability to detect it.
This Quote: “Kirchoff’s law is not intuitively obvious to us because any room-temperature (T300 K) object in our environment is much too cold (hkT1) to emit a detectable amount of visible light. Thus a glass of water might absorb 10% of the sunlight passing through it, but we will not see any emitted light because 10% of the light emitted by a room-temperature blackbody is nearly zero. One familiar example of Kirchoff’s law is a charcoal fire with flames and glowing coals. The infrared (heat) radiation from barely glowing black coals in LTE is much more intense than that from the hotter but nearly transparent visible flames, as you can verify by using a shield to cover either the coals or the flames.”
The point is that the light emitted is nearly zero but NOT zero. Some molecules within the surface may reach high enough energy states to emit a visible photon from time to time.
Source of quote:
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/Radxfer.html
Hi Norman,
I agree that some photons into the visible band could be emitted by anything at about 300K, but I’m still a little skeptic about Masaki Kobayashi’s experiment because I don’t know what it was the transmittance of the lenses in the LWIR, and what it was the CCD rejection.
When a CCD is declared for a certain band it is because it is in a certain sensitivity range for that band.
What I see in those images is a very noisy picture which photons are coming from the room itself not only from the body of the subject.
For example I expected that Masaki Kobayashi told us what it was the room temperature for all those measurements (maybe he wrote it somewhere).
If I run that experiment I would check what it was eventually seen in the dark placing an object warmer than the room some tens of C in the middle of the camera FOV.
(Again, maybe he did it indeed, as I already said, I know nothing about that).
Have a great day.
Massimo