The 11-Year Major Hurricane Drought: Much More Unusual than Two Cat 4 Strikes

September 21st, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Weather.com published an article noting that the two Cat 4 hurricane strikes this year (Harvey and Irma) is a new record. Here’s a nice graphic they used showing both storms at landfall.

Left: Hurricane Harvey makes landfall near Rockport, Texas, on Aug. 25, 2017 | Right: Hurricane Irma makes its first landfall at Cudjoe Key, Florida, on Sept. 10, 2017 (graphic: Weather.com).

But the statistics of rare events (like hurricanes) are not very well behaved. Let’s look at this new record, and compared it to the 11+year period of no major hurricane strikes that ended when Harvey struck Texas.

The Probability of Two Cat 4 Strikes in One Year

By my count, we have had 24 Cat 4 or Cat 5 landfalls in the U.S. between 1851 and 2016. This gives a probability (prior to Harvey and Irma) of one Cat4+ strike every 7 years. It also leads to an average return period of two Cat4+ strikes of about 50 years (maybe one of you statiticians out there can correct me if I’m wrong).

So, since the average return period is once every 50 years, we were overdue for two Cat4+ strikes in the same year over the entire 166 period of record. (Again, for rare events, the statistics aren’t very well behaved.)

The Probability of the 11-Year “Drought” in Major Landfalling Hurricane

In 2015, a NASA study was published which calculated how unlikely the (then) 9-year stretch with no major hurricane landfalls was. They came up with a 177 year return period for such an event.

I used that statistic to estimate what eventually happened, which was 11 years with no major hurricane strikes.

I get a return period of 560 years!

Now, which seems more unusual and potentially due to climate change: something that should happen only once every 50 years, or every 560 years?

Maybe global warming causes fewer landfalling major hurricanes.


1,233 Responses to “The 11-Year Major Hurricane Drought: Much More Unusual than Two Cat 4 Strikes”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. RW says:

    Roy,

    “Maybe global warming causes fewer landfalling major hurricanes.”

    Don’t you know? Global warming only causes bad weather events to increase. Any decrease is ‘bad’ weather events is pure coincidence.

    • RW says:

      IN bad weather events is pure coincidence.

    • Bart says:

      Of course it causes fewer hurricanes. Storm activity is driven by temperature differentials. Global warming means more uniform global temperatures.

      It’s pure scaremongering to sell a product.

      • David Appell says:

        But storm intensity is driven by near-surface ocean temperatures. Does it matter if there are fewer storms but of higher size and intensity?

        • Christian says:

          Storms are driven by pressure gradients and the T is just one of many parameters generating strong hurricanes. A 1C warmer surface or atmosphere is able to hold some 6% more water or water vapor, theoretically. This is not the big deal always claimed…

          • David Appell says:

            Sure. But it’s SSTs that are getting noticeably larger. And AGW’s sea level rise definitely increases storm surges.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Dave, do you have any actual evidence of this dramatic SLR you keep peddling?

          • MikeN says:

            SST’s are not getting dramatically larger. They are warming much less than the atmosphere due to high heat capacity.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”But its SSTs that are getting noticeably larger”.

            Only in NOAA fudged data. They had to go back and do it retroactively to create a trend where the IPCC and UAH had found none.

          • David Appell says:

            You’re an engineer, Gordon. You aren’t qualified to comment on climate science.

            PS: NOAA’s adjustments REDUCE the long-term warming trend.

          • Nate says:

            It is well established that hurricanes strengthen significantly when, all else being equal, they pass over warmer water. See here:

            https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/katrina_seaheight.html

          • Nate says:

            MikeN,

            SST warming nearly as much as globe

            http://tinyurl.com/y92wesl5

          • MikeN says:

            NOAA’s adjustments reduce the long term warming trend because they make the late 1800s warmer.

          • Nate says:

            What i showed was not NOaa data…

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”NOAAs adjustments REDUCE the long-term warming trend”.

            Just like global warming produces cooling [sarc /off].

          • richard verney says:

            David Appell appears to be unduly concerned by SSTs which it is claimed are getting higher (although the North Atlantic has seen no increase in SST these past 20 years, and the South Atlantic has seen no increase in SST these past 30 years).

            The surface sea temperature is not the main driver, and it is other factors that determine how much moisture is swept up by a hurricane and how powerful a hurricane is.

            Looking at the basic physics (which slightly oversimplifies matters but is illustrative of the fundamental point), it takes 540 calories to evaporate 1 gram of water. If SSTs are 1 degree higher, this has hardly any impact upon the amount of evaporation since it only reduces the required energy by 1 calorie, or by 1 540 ths, or by ~0.18% however one wishes to express it.

          • barry says:

            DABut its SSTs that are getting noticeably larger.

            Only in NOAA fudged data. They had to go back and do it retroactively to create a trend where the IPCC and UAH had found none.

            The biggest adjustment to the surface data sets was NOAA’s SST adjustment – that lowered the long-term SST (and global) trend considerably.

          • David Appell is even dumber than usual. Now he says Gordon Robertson is not qualified to comment on climate science because he is an engineer.

            By the same logic Al Gore is not qualified to comment on climate science given that he majored in government. Here is what Wikipedia says about his interest in math and science:

            “Although he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories,[18] he did not do well in science classes in college and avoided taking math.[17]”

            Enough with the ad hominem already. Let’s just stick to facts and figures.

        • Bart says:

          “But storm intensity is driven by near-surface ocean temperatures.

          An incomplete statement. It is driven by ocean temperatures relative to atmospheric temperatures. If they both go up, then the potential hasn’t changed.

          • David Appell says:

            Atmospheric temperatures are increasing faster than SSTs.

          • coturnix says:

            +davi appel really? if so, then hurricane activity should be going down

          • MikeN says:

            David Appell, could you at least get your argument straight?
            You just said that SSTs are getting noticeably larger.

            I think the point you are making is that the number of hurricanes might go down, but individual hurricane can get stronger, because the water is a little warmer than before, producing more water vapor.

          • David Appell says:

            Some people do think hurricane frequency will go (slightly) down as a result of AGW.

          • Nate says:

            Right Bart, my car’s hp doubles on a cold day. Not!

          • Nate says:

            The relevant cold temp is in upper troposphere/lower stratosphere at 16 km, where temps can be -70C.

            We know that if SST < 26C, hurricanes can not be sustained, regardless of atm temp.

            But show me any data on hurricane strength vs. upper atm temp?

          • Mike Slay says:

            Actually Nate, cold air induction is a common way to improve car engine performance. In the 1960’s, this was a big deal with muscle cars. That’s also why some cars with turbochargers (e.g. Volvo) have after-coolers.

            Of course, it’s nothing like a doubling, but I assume you weren’t serious about that.

          • aaron says:

            “Atmospheric temperatures are increasing faster than SSTs.”

            Over land.

          • Nate says:

            its nothing like a doubling, but I assume you werent serious about that.

            Yes.

            Correct me if Im wrong, but the effect of the cold air in the car is less about the increased temp differential, and more about increasing oxygen content of air.

            In the hurricane, the effect of the warmer SST is more like the effect of pushing down the gas pedal, because it is increasing the fuel flow (water vapor) to the engine.

        • Kevin Egan says:

          Is it true that you get paid per blog to support man made global warming positions? How much does it pay and how does one land that gig?

          How many professional bloggers are there?

      • What drives a storm depends on what kind of storm it is. In extratropical cyclones and most tornadoes F2 or greater, the main factor or the most essential factor is horizontal temperature gradient, although tornadoes also need a vertical temperature gradient favorable to thunderstorms. Because the Arctic is warming more than the tropics, a warming world is making extratropical cyclones less windy. The main effect I see for tornadoes is their season (and their secondary season) being slightly shifted to cooler times of the year.

        Tropical cyclones work differently, being powered mainly by latent heat in water vapor from large warm bodies of water. Warming of the oceans would make them more favorable to tropical cyclones. This is mitigated by two factors I can think of: 1) Tropical cyclone breeding grounds are warming less than the world as a whole. 2) Warming of tropical areas that convect to the tropical tropopause warms the tropical upper troposphere and raises the tropopause, even though increasing greenhouse gases cools the part (majority) of the lower stratosphere that remains above the tropopause. This means the bar is raised in terms of sea surface temperature necessary to form a tropical cyclone, even though this threshold probably increases less than sea surface temperature does. So, I expect a warming world to produce more and more intense tropical cyclones, but not by much. I expect multidecadal oscillations and the like to affect the number and severity of tropical cyclones more than manmade increase of greenhouse gases, even with an increase of CO2 from 280 to 800 PPMV along with a similar increase of other non-H2O greenhouse gases and water vapor increasing 10-12 percent.

    • Alberto Zaragoza Comendador says:

      Your comment is meant in jest, but really, the entire ‘field’ of weather event attribution rests on that fallacy.

      If something happens, then by definition it must have been affected somehow by global warming. Hell, the very fact that it’s happening in a warmed world may indicate that it’s more likely to happen in a warmed world.

      Nobody makes an attribution study of the events that *don’t* happen. There has been a decline in the number of strong tornadoes in the US, for instance – is it because of warming?

      Besides, using the number or intensity of extreme weather events to judge which kind of climate is preferable is bizarre; climate is mostly defined by temperature and precipitation, not by one-in-a-decade events. There are no hurricanes in Vladivostok – would Floridans rather have that climate?

      • David Appell says:

        Scott Denning of Colorado State University made an interesting tweet, saying something like “Harvey and Irma weren’t caused by climate change, they *are* climate change.”

        • Laura says:

          Denning’s tweet was not caused by climate change.

          His tweet *is* climate change.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Dave, if the climate weren’t changing, THAT would be “climate change”.

        • RAH says:

          Yea, yea, yea. Bad weather events are from climate change. Good weather is just weather. A run of hot temperatures is caused by climate change. A run of average or cooler than average temperatures is just weather. Cold weather is weather. Cold weather with a blizzard is a result of climate change caused by global warming. Milder than usual winters are caused by climate change. Droughts are from climate change and so are any drought busting rains that follow them. Declining Arctic sea ice is due to climate. Growing Arctic sea ice is due to weather. Declining Greenland SMB is due to climate. Growing Greenland SMB is due to weather. Declining ice extent, area, or age of ice is always due to climate. Growing ice extent, area, or age of ice is not. And any time glaciers calve it’s a sign of a warming climate. 11 years and 10 months without a CAT III strike on the lower 48 is luck. Two CAT IV strikes in a season is due to climate change. Etc, etc, etc. ad nauseum.

          • wert says:

            I would believe you had The Guardian not said it is the deniers who attribute weather as cooling climate. /sarc

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Scott Denning of Colorado State University made an interesting tweet, saying something like Harvey and Irma werent caused by climate change, they *are* climate change.”

          Scott sounds like a typical alarmist, shooting off his mouth with no proof.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Scott Denning of Colorado State University made an interesting tweet, saying something like Harvey and Irma werent caused by climate change, they *are* climate change.”

        Scott seems to be implying that local weather that produced Harvey and Irma was created by an unspecified global phenomenon. Why did both storms occur in the Caribbean initially as a severe storm? Could that have been local weather?

        Or maybe Scott is claiming we have a global climate. But wait…how could that be? How can you have a desert climate, a rain forest climate, an Arctic climate, and so on as one global climate?

        Or maybe Scott has proof that anthropogenic CO2 can cause a severe increase in warming. But wait…there has been no warming for close to 20 years. We had a brief spike in Feb 2016 from an El Nino but sense then the trend has been negative.

        Doesn’t climate change require significant warming?

        • David Appell says:

          No, that wasn’t what Scott Denning meant.

          “But waitthere has been no warming for close to 20 years.”

          A complete lie from a repeat offender.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”But waitthere has been no warming for close to 20 years.

            A complete lie from a repeat offender”.

            Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You quote the IPCC to confirm your alarmist propaganda then deny them when the claim a warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012. If the 2016 EN is moderated soon by a La Nina of significance, it will be 20 years with no warming.

    • Bill_W_1984 says:

      No, even those can be spun. Mild winters are now
      called “extreme” weather.

    • ImranCan says:

      Maybe I have my data wrong, but I think that even the claim that this was the first year since records began with 2 Cat 4 landfalls is pure BS ! I looked at the NOAA hurricane date report from 2007.

      There were 2 category 4 storms making landfall in 1915 … one in Louisiana and 1 in Texas. At least according to the NOAA hurricane date report.
      NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TPC-5 (see page 39)
      http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-5.pdf

      The Weather Channel story is Fake news.

    • While Michael Mann said that Harvey stalled because manmade climate change is expanding the subtropical ridge and pushing the jet stream (the northern polar front one) farther north. That seems to be happening slightly on average, but the stalling of Harvey was for close to common-enough American weather causing close to the opposite – a middle/upper trough in the central and eastern US had near-jet-stream mid/upper troposphere winds getting closer to Texas than usual for August and blowing from the northwest, while hurricanes that make landfall onto Texas typically do so from the southeast. Obviously, Michael Mann did not look at a weather map at the relevant time.

      Meanwhile, Maria seems to be going on a slow course mostly northwestward and with some tendency to curve northward until it runs into westerly mid/upper troposphere winds getting somewhat strong. The weather forecast models are showing the jet stream in the eastern US and adjacent Atlantic running somewhat more north than usual for the time of year, but westerly winds in the middle/upper troposphere are projected to be strong enough down to 34-35 N latitude to kick Maria out to sea once it gets to about 35 degrees north. The timing of the next cold front affects this, since middle/upper troposphere winds will be somewhat blowing along it, although a little towards a direction from behind to ahead of the advancing front.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        donald…”While Michael Mann said that Harvey stalled because manmade climate change is expanding the subtropical ridge and pushing the jet stream (the northern polar front one) farther north…”

        Is that the same Michael Mann who claimed unprecedented warming in the 1990s over 1000 years? Seems Mikey got his stats wrong and had to cut declining temps in his tree ring proxies in the 20th century, replacing them with real data.

        Isn’t Mikey a geologist? Why would a geologist be explaining climate phenomena?

        Oh, I forgot, Mikey and his buddy Stieg claimed Antarctica had warmed since 1950. Apparently, they took slight warming temps near the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula and interpolated it to the entire continent.

        Is that the same Michael Mann featured in the Climategate emails trying to pervert peer review through interference?

  2. ren says:

    Is snow in September in Nevada a sign of warming?

    • There are parts of Nevada that always occasionally got snow in September. There are parts of California that somewhat often get snow from September to May. And Flagstaff AZ (population roughly 71K) usually gets more snow than Buffalo NY and all other cities in the US larger than 200,000 population including Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh.

      Those who bring up examples of supposedly extreme American weather as an example or counterexample of manmade global warming generally don’t know what normal American weather really is. Normal American weather (and in much of the adjacent parts of the provinces of Canada and parts of Mexico near the border) is to “act normal” enough to favor an impression that there is such a thing as “normal American weather”. The early April 1974 tornado outbreak set records which mostly still stand and Tropical Storm Agnes set rainfall and flood records some of which still stand, close enough to Philadelphia which was enjoying an unusually prolonged break from snowstorms 12″-plus and temperatures 100-plus or zero-minus. In 1965-1976, Philadelphia had 12 years with temperature confined to 1-99 degrees F and largest snowstorm being 11 inches, along with its least-snowy winter on record, that had snowfall officially having too little accumulation to record a numerical amount of at least .1 inch in each of the two storms where a “trace” of snow accumulation was officially recorded. Although the fall of 1976 brought very chilly conditions to Philadelphia, as well as much of elsewhere in the northeast US and nearby parts of the Midwest, and the coldest December on record in much of this area. In February 1977, warmth, humidity and storminess from the El Nino of that winter came late to Philadelphia, bringing with it a line of severe thunderstorms. Oh I wish that media organizations would hire old farts who remember America’s weather better than the young airheads that they like to hire or have as interns.

      Who on TV knows what the worst hurricane of 1954 was, where it made landfall, what category it had at landfall, and how many miles did its center track over land (including after becoming mostly an extratropical-type storm along a distinct front) with production of hurricane-qualifying sustained winds measured on land by anemometers, many wind records still standing, and rainfall and flood records still standing?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      donald…”Those who bring up examples of supposedly extreme American weather as an example or counterexample of manmade global warming generally dont know what normal American weather really is”.

      Apparently NOAA does. When they slashed 75% of the reporting stations from their global database they seemed to make sure the stations slashed were those like the Sierra Nevadas in California where cooler temps prevail. They left 3 stations along the warmer coast.

      But wait…NOAA made sure the Sierra Nevadas were covered by interpolating surrounding warmer temps like the coast of California with warmer temps from the coast of Texas.

      Let’s try that out. Hypothetical average on coast of California = 25C. Theoretical temps on coast of Texas = 28C. When interpolated, (25C + 28C)/2 = 26.5C.

      OMG…the average on the Sierras used to be +10C. Appears to have warmed there by 16.5C. Proof of man made global warming.

  3. ren says:

    Is the circulation above the polar circle starting in the stratosphere?
    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_nh.gif

  4. Nate says:

    You are right to point out that stats of rare events are not well behaved.

    Therefore using the behavior of rare events to make your point is…rather pointless!

    • Just trying to show that using the same reasoning as anyone who is worried about 2 Cat 4 hurricanes hitting in the same year means hurricanes are getting worse, I can come up with a statistic that goes in the opposite direction…by a factor of 10x.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Roy…”Just trying to show that using the same reasoning as anyone who is worried about 2 Cat 4 hurricanes hitting in the same year means hurricanes are getting worse….”

        Roy, anyone serious about science would get that. Too bad you have to go to all the trouble of pointing it out to alarmists.

    • barry says:

      Just trying to show that using the same reasoning as anyone who is worried about 2 Cat 4 hurricanes hitting in the same year means hurricanes are getting worse…

      Is this a thing? Outside random blogs or a couple of breathless headlines?

      • Steve Case says:

        Barry

        I understand that you don’t like what Dr. Spencer wrote, but I don’t understand your critique. “A thing” “Outside random blogs” and “Breathless headlines”

        Hmmmm,

        “The 11-Year Major Hurricane Drought: Much More Unusual than Two Cat 4 Strikes”

        That’s a headline alright. Breathless? Anyone who pays attention to this stuff knows that the United States has had a hurricane drought for over a decade. Is that due to luck or “Climate Change”? Ignoring Climate Change as a possible cause of the lack of large U.S. hurricanes these past ten years and then implying Climate Change as a cause of increased strength of these two is quite selective and doesn’t follow logically.

        Best regards
        Steve

      • barry says:

        I have seen no chat that “2 Cat 4 hurricanes hitting in the same year means hurricanes are getting worse.”

        Roy has invented the claim.

    • Nate says:

      The point about hurricanes and climate change that people are making is that these large flooding events, which seem unsustainable cost wise, MAY be what the future will look like more and more as a result of climate change.

      Therefore, they say, climate change ought to be a concern in the present.

      I think for the general public, discrete events focus their minds on issues much more than stats, slowly-changing trends or continuous threats. That’s just reality.

  5. gbaikie says:

    I think “global warming” would cause less hurricanes, it also seems if we got a lot more “global warming” we would less tornadoes, but unfortunately we aren’t going to get a lot more “global warming” within a few centuries.

    It seems there better than 50% chance, we going to return to the “pause” and could get some glaciers advancing- we always had a few glaciers advancing, I think will get some more of them advancing.

    It seems pretty close to impossible that we could get any warming that will resemble the warming projected by IPCC, but still possible to get 1 C warming within century- or roughly in decade or two we don’t lose the warming we had over last 40 to 50 years and continue, the .1 to .2 of warming per decade. And if so, should continue the drought of hurricanes. Which would be good news.

  6. David Appell says:

    Two problems:

    1) “The Arbitrary Definition of the Current Atlantic Major Hurricane Landfall Drought: Although nine years have passed since the last U.S. major hurricane landfall, the existence and relative significance of the current drought are largely artifacts of the chosen metric,” Hart et al, BAMS 2016.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00185.1

    2) The Saffir-Simpson category wind speed scale is not a good indicator of potential hurricane damage. Example: Harvey wasn’t even a Cat 1 when it devastated Houston. Example: Katrina was a Cat 3 when it hit Mississippi, yet it did far more damage than 1969’s Camille, a Cat 5.

    Several things are important besides wind speed: the size of a storm, storm surge, speed of the storm’s center, and its duration. Saffir-Simpson captures none of these. Nor does ACE.

  7. While landfall has great human consequences, it’s not particularly significant meteorologically, and there are MANY years in which there were two, three, or four Cat 4s without landfall.

    To be specific, there were, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes,
    –2 Cat-5 Atlantic hurricanes in 1932,
    –2 in 1933,
    –2 in 1961,
    –3 in 2005,
    –2 in 2007, and
    –2 in 2017.

    And according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_4_Atlantic_hurricanes, there were
    –2 Cat-4 hurricanes in 1880,
    –2 in 1915,
    –4 in 1926,
    –2 in 1932,
    –3 in 1933,
    –2 in 1935,
    –2 in 1944,
    –2 in 1948,
    –3 in 1950,
    –2 in 1951,
    –2 in 1955,
    –3 in 1958,
    –2 in 1961,
    –4 in 1964,
    –2 in 1978,
    –2 in 1988,
    –3 in 1995,
    –2 in 1996,
    –3 in 1999,
    –2 in 2000,
    –2 in 2001,
    –3 in 2004,
    –4 in 2008,
    –4 in 2010,
    –2 in 2011, and (so far)
    –2 in 2017.

    In other words, Harvey and Irma aren’t novel.

    • David Appell says:

      Harvey’s rainfall wasn’t “novel?” Irma’s winds?

      “Irma sustained 185-mph winds for 37 hours, the longest any cyclone on the globe has maintained that intensity.”

      http://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-irma-weather-meteorology-records-2017-9

      • Bart says:

        Irma sustained 185-mph winds for 37 hours, the longest any cyclone on the globe has maintained that intensity.

        As measured with modern instrumentation. Selection bias in action.

      • Mike McNichol says:

        David, Harvey’s rainfall was not novel. What was novel was a major landfalling hurricane stalling for that length of time. Turn on a sprinkler that does not move and you get some very wet lawn. The same sprinkler at the same flow that disperses the water over a wide area gives the lawn a gentle soaking. Nothing unusual with Harvey except it stalled. Which component of AGW is responsible for that?

        • David Appell says:

          Harvey’s rainfall set records. THAT’s novel, regardless of the cause.

          • Harvey set a 5-day rainfall record for the state of Texas that is about 21% above that state’s 1-day rainfall record that was set in 1979. Texas is a big state that gets big things, including occasional intense rainstorms. It’s normal for Texas to get around 1% of itself getting a 100-year rainstorm roughly every year. As for a 500-year class rainstorm over a few percent of Texas, that should be expected a few times per century. One thing that Dr. Michael Mann got right is that the hurricane-season-time-of-the-year warming of the Gulf from decades before is enough to increase water vapor concentration that feeds rainstorms by about 3%, even though he said that at a time when he obviously didn’t look at a weather map when he stated his explanation of what made Harvey stall.

          • Rah says:

            Unfortunately though the false claim that the rainfall was due to climate was not novel.

    • Nate says:

      Look at cat5s.
      33 cat5s since 1924

      11 in first 37 y
      11 in next 42 y
      11 in most recent 15 y.

      Would seem to be getting more common.

    • ImranCan says:

      And the 2 in 1915 both made landfall as Cat 4 storms ….. so much for that being a ‘first’ …..

  8. Ghalfrunt says:

    Ok where is the lack of hurricanes. Just because you randomly chose a location on earth for your data does not mean a thing. Very unscientific

    Iris#2001#October 89#145 mph (230 km/h)#948 hPa (27.99 inHg)
    Michelle#2001#November 34 #140 mph (220 km/h)#933 hPa (27.55 inHg)
    Lili#2002#October 23#145 mph (230 km/h)#938 hPa (27.70 inHg)
    Fabian#2003#August 31September 5 #145 mph (230 km/h)#939 hPa (27.73 inHg)
    Isabel#2003 #September 1114,#165 mph (270 km/h)#915 hPa (27.02 inHg)
    Charley#2004#August 13#150 mph (240 km/h)#941 hPa (27.79 inHg)
    Frances#2004#August 28September 2 #145 mph (230 km/h)#935 hPa (27.61 inHg)
    Karl#2004#September 2021 #145 mph (230 km/h)#938 hPa (27.70 inHg)
    Ivan#2004 #September 914#165 mph (270 km/h)#910 hPa (26.87 inHg)
    Dennis#2005#July 810 #150 mph (240 km/h)#930 hPa (27.46 inHg)
    Emily#2005#July 16, #160 mph (260 km/h)#929 hPa (27.43 inHg)
    Katrina#2005#August 2829#175 mph (280 km/h)#902 hPa (26.64 inHg)
    Rita#2005#September 2122,#180 mph (285 km/h)#895 hPa (26.43 inHg)
    Wilma#2005#October 19,#185 mph (295 km/h)#882 hPa (26.05 inHg)
    Dean#2007 #August 1821,#175 mph (280 km/h)#905 hPa (26.72 inHg)
    Felix#2007 #September 34,#175 mph (280 km/h)#929 hPa (27.43 inHg)
    Gustav#2008#August 3031#155 mph (250 km/h)#941 hPa (27.79 inHg)
    Ike#2008#September 48 #145 mph (230 km/h)#935 hPa (27.61 inHg)
    Omar#2008#October 16#130 mph (215 km/h)#958 hPa (28.29 inHg)
    Paloma#2008#November 8#145 mph (230 km/h)#944 hPa (27.88 inHg)
    Bill#2009#August 1920#130 mph (215 km/h)#943 hPa (27.85 inHg)
    Danielle#2010#August 27#130 mph (215 km/h)#942 hPa (27.82 inHg)
    Earl#2010#August 30September 2 #145 mph (230 km/h)#927 hPa (27.37 inHg)
    Igor#2010#September 1217#155 mph (250 km/h)#924 hPa (27.29 inHg)
    Julia#2010#September 15#140 mph (220 km/h)#948 hPa (27.99 inHg)
    Katia#2011#September 6#140 mph (220 km/h)#942 hPa (27.82 inHg)
    Ophelia#2011#October 2#140 mph (220 km/h)#940 hPa (27.76 inHg)
    Gonzalo#2014#October 1517 #145 mph (230 km/h)#940 hPa (27.76 inHg)
    Joaquin#2015#October 13 #155 mph (250 km/h)#931 hPa (27.64 inHg)
    Nicole#2016#October 1213#140 mph (220 km/h)#950 hPa (28.05 inHg)
    Matthew#2016#October 1,#165 mph (270 km/h)#934 hPa (27.58 inHg)
    Harvey#2017#August 2526#130 mph (215 km/h)#938 hPa (27.70 inHg)
    Jose#2017#September 810#155 mph (250 km/h)#938 hPa (27.70 inHg)
    Irma#2017 #September 59,#185 mph (295 km/h)#914 hPa (26.99 inHg)
    Maria#2017 #September 1820,#175 mph (280 km/h)#908 hPa (26.81 inHg)

  9. David Appell says:

    “A hurricane climate shift protecting the U.S. during active years, even while ravaging nearby Caribbean nations, would require creativity to formulate. We conclude instead that the admittedly unusual 9 year U.S. Cat3+ landfall drought is a matter of luck.”

    Hall, T., and K. Hereid, 2015: The frequency and duration of U.S. hurricane droughts. Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 34823485, doi:10.1002/2015GL063652.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063652/abstract

  10. gbaikie says:

    SPACECRAFT BUZZES EARTH EN ROUTE TO ASTEROID: NASA’s OSIRIS-REx spacecraft is going to fly past Earth on Sept. 22nd, sling-shotting itself toward a potentially hazardous asteroid named “Bennu.”

    In 2135, the asteroid may enter a “keyhole” between the Earth and the Moon where the gravitational pull of our own planet will tweak Bennu’s orbit, potentially putting it on course for Earth later that century. Currently, the odds of a collision 150+ years from now are no more than about 1 in 2700–small, but enough to prompt an $800 million space mission.”
    http://www.spaceweather.com/

  11. David Price says:

    What’s everyone’s take on geo-engineering? There is a lot of buzz today on the internet that geo-engineering is manipulating our weather.

  12. ren says:

    We need to pray for people living in Turks and Caicos Islands.

    • TedM says:

      Now that is a positive comment.

    • Ghalfrunt says:

      Assuming there is an all Powerful almighty God then he sent the hurricane and therefore praying to Him will have no effect – He sent the destruction for a purpose.
      Assuming there is no God then praying to non existent entities will have no effect.

      A lot more sensible would be to send aid and assistance. There is no help praying to an entity that kills innocent children

    • wert says:

      According to our local sect, prayer is man’s talk to the God, and according to some rabbis, it’s healthy but if God talks to you, you are mad.

      Furthermore, the God does not need your talk. So you pray for your own reasons. So they tell us. What I’m to judge.

  13. TedM says:

    In a chaotic system with myriads of variables, some of which are probably still unknown, records of all types will continue to be broken. As each record is broken, it it possible but not certain that it will longer before that record will be broken. But broken it will be, until such time as all varaibles have combined at all their own extremes at a given point in time.

    That may be well into

    • TedM says:

      Oops, clicked the wrong button.

      That point may not be reached during the period of existence of planet earth.

  14. Paul Linsay says:

    The statistics of random uncorrelated discrete events is described by the Poisson probability distribution. If the mean rate of occurrence of the events is r then in a time t one expects

    m = r t

    events on average in time t. The probability of observing exactly n events is given by

    P(n ,m) = m^n/n! exp(-m)

    The average rate for Cat 4+ hurricanes is

    r = 1/7 year

    so that in t = one year, the mean number of Cat 4+ hurricanes expected is

    m =1/7

    Using the above formula, the probability in one year of seeing no Cat 4+ hurricanes is

    P(0, 1/7) = 0.867

    and exactly one is

    P(1, 1/7) = 0.124

    This means that the probability of seeing at least two hurricanes in one year is

    1 – 0.867 – 0.124 = 0.009

    about 1%.

    Next, how long do you have to wait so that there is a 50% probability of two or more Cat 4+ hurricanes in one year? This is equivalent to asking what is the probability that in k years there is only 0 or 1 hurricane in every year. It is the solution to

    (0.867 +0.124)^k = 0.5

    or k = 74 years.

    The “droughts” of Cat 4+s are not particularly improbable.

    The probability of 9 years without a Cat4+ is

    P(0, 9/7) = 0.276 = 27.6%

    The probability of 11 years without a Cat 4+ is

    P(0, 11/7) = 0.208 = 20.8%

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David,

        I am not at all surprised that you are impressed with the useless and pointless.

        The probability of a fair coin toss is 0.5.

        What good does it do you?

        Foolish Warmists love irrelevant analogies, and love even more, pointless, but seemingly impressive displays of useless statistical calculations.

        If you think this worthless nonsense is in some way useful, as you might say – Prove it!

        Just more foolish Warmist WOT (Waste Of Time).

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          I suspected you couldn’t understand this. Clearly I was right.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            Prove it!

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Are you able to follow Paul’s math?

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            David,
            Paul’s math is about “The statistics of random uncorrelated discrete events”

            So the Cat4 hurricanes are random and uncorrelated?

            How could they be random and uncorrelated if all they are correlated to global warming?

            I mean: if A is correlated to B and B is correlated to C, A must be correlated to C.

            Got it?

            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David Appell,

            Understanding nonsense doesn’t make it any less nonsensica, does it?l

            If you claim it has any use at all –

            “Prove that, smartass. Or apologize.” – David Appell.

            What’s it to be David – proof or apology?

            Cheers.

          • lewis says:

            I would suggest hurricanes are not random but are, to some extent, predictable.

            Why else would we have a hurricane season? They are predicted to be from June through November. etc.

          • David Appell says:

            Massimo PORZIO says:
            “How could they be random and uncorrelated if all they are correlated to global warming?”

            They aren’t all correlated to global warming. So far the frequency doesn’t appear to be changing. That doesn’t mean other characteristics of hurricanes aren’t changing, like storm surge and intensity. Storm surge increases with sea level rise, which is definitely correlated to AGW.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Exactly David,
            read my reply to Dr No below.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            David,
            “Storm surge increases with sea level rise, which is definitely correlated to AGW.”
            This was surely right if the temperature of the sea and the one of the atmosphere above were unrelated, but if the less massive atmosphere above the oceans heats up together the sea below it’s no longer surely right.
            Let me have doubts about the amplitude of the effect (if it really exists or better if it was measurable).
            Have a great day.

            Massimo

          • David Appell says:

            I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.

            Here is the sea level rise in the Florida Keys since 1913:

            http://tinyurl.com/y78jwcej

            SLR = 25 cm

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi David,
            my point is easy.
            Maybe I’m not been clear, but storms are “thermal machines” which power is sourced from temperature differentials.

            The sea level rise tell us that the sea temperature increased and there is no doubt about that (except that I still have doubts on the quality of the measurements, but I concede you to take those measurements as valid).
            But the temperature of the less denser atmosphere above the sea did the same, it increased too.
            So your claim that storms strength are increasing because of that is not demonstrated.

            In case you use the term “correlated” in the strictly statistician meaning, then I’ve no time to spend on silly statements, because I should be boring repeating that correlation doesn’t imply causation.

            Have a great Sunday.

            Massimo

    • dr No says:

      Such a nice, logical, expert presentation.
      Pity that it will only be appreciated by a small fraction.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        dr No,

        In the words of David Appell – Prove it!

        Cheers.

        • dr No says:

          Easy. Answer me this:
          Did you find any fault in the reasoning?
          Did you appreciate the post?

          • An Inquirer says:

            dr. No, I found substantial fault in his reasoning. And anybody who claims to be an analyst or follows scientific principles should be embarrassed if they did not see it immediately.

          • dr No says:

            Please, don’t be shy.
            Tell us what it is.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            I assume you are using the foolish Warmist definition of proof.

            In your case proofconsists of saying Easy, and asking silly pointless questions.

            Convenient, but doesnt fit the definition of proof in any dictionary Ive seen.

            Maybe you could indicate the reference which supports your apparent definition? Or is it hidden away with Trenberths missing heat, Michael Manns Nobel Prize, and the disprovable GHE hypothesis?

            Maybe, in lieu of proof, it might be easier to show some practical use for the calculations posted? Or maybe not.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Re: Mann’s Nobel Prize
            Fred Singer made the same claim about he and John Christy:

            “John Christy, my fellow skeptic and fellow co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize (by virtue of having our names listed in IPCC reports) in the WSJ [ITEM #4].”
            http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2007/November%203.htm

            Here John Christy discusses his Nobel for his contribution to IPCC report.

            https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119387567378878423

        • yonason says:

          RE – David Appell’s – September 28, 2017 at 5:13 PM, below – Attacking John Christy in defense of Michael Mann’s claim of winning a Nobel…

          Appell quoted a colleague of Christy’s from the link he gives…

          “John Christy, my fellow skeptic and fellow co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize (by virtue of having our names listed in IPCC reports) in the WSJ [ITEM #4]”

          …blissfully unaware that the aside is to indicate that this is sarcasm, a concept David Appell is perpetually unable to grasp. (I’ve had related issues with him on other websites)

          But what’s hillarious is that if Appell had only read a bit further, he would have seen this at the same link…

          “4. MY NOBEL MOMENT
          By JOHN R. CHRISTY, WSJ, Nov 1, 2007;

          I’ve had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don’t think I will add “0.0001 Nobel Laureate” to my resume.

          In addition to having no sense of humor, they also have no shame.

      • Mike McNichol says:

        David, You note the Florida Keys as an example. Did you know that there are at least 3 points in Alaska where MSL has fallen between 4 and 6 feet per 100 years? Elevations are taken from monuments placed by the CGDS in the US. Land rising or subsiding can be generalized by satellite but to my knowledge, they cannot give an elevation focused on one 3 inch circle. The land rises and subsides in unpredictable ways on a global scale. Warmists like to point to far southern Lousiana as an example with MSL rising 3 to 4 feet per hundred years. Land subsidence obviously plays a major role as areas a few miles away feature SLR around 1 to 2 feet per century.

    • Svante says:

      It might be a case of conditional probability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability

      If the conditions are right for one hurricane it might be more likely to be followed by another.

      • Paul Linsay says:

        I once did a study of all landfalling hurricanes in the US using all the data back to the late 1800s. On average there are about 5 per year. The probabilty distribution matched a Poisson distribution with an average of 5 quite well.

        Another property of a Poisson distrubution is that the time between events should be distributed as an exponential. That’s exactly what the data showed. I think that rules out correlation and the resulting conditional probability.

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        Exactly Svante.

        For that reason the Poisson probability distribution shouldn’t never used in this case.
        Hurricanes are not “random uncorrelated discrete events” especially if the analysis is performed to demonstrate a correlation between their occurrence and a supposed (or better probable) cause of their origination.
        I’m really surprised looking some scientists become excited for that bad application of statistic.

        Have a great day.

        Massimo

        • MikeN says:

          I used the same Poisson to make my calculation. However, the study Roy cites did not do so, since they found much lower chances of a 9 year drought.

    • An Inquirer says:

      Paul, if you did that analysis in my Statistic class, you might get some commendations for being able to use Math, but I would have serious qualms about giving you a passing grade.

      The reason is contained in your opening statement: “based on random uncorrelated discrete events.” And then you proceed to do analysis on events that are definitely not random uncorrelated discrete. The meteorological conditions that are favorable for a Category 4 hurricane do not come and go randomly year by year. If the conditions are ripe for a Category 4 event, they tend to be ripe for the whole year.

      Your analysis would be like saying we have 20% chance of experiencing a LIA type year next year because 100 of the past 500 years were LIA type. That is not the case. Meteorological conditions are not random year-by-year.

      • Paul Linsay says:

        As I pointed out above, the entire population of hurricanes Cat 1 and greater have a probability distribution that is in excellent agreement with being Poisson with a mean of 5 storms per year. I therefore asssumed that the Cat 4+ storms would also have the same distribution but with a mean of 1 per 7 years. It’s not possible to make a meaingful test since they are so rare, about 15 in 100 years, but it’s a good working assumption.

        As for the causes of hurricanes, I’m not aware of the various weather services being able to forecast the number and strength of the hurricanes for any given year. I’d certainly like to know since around here we get the occasional hurricane and more commonly, Nor’easters off the North Atlantic in the winter.

        Finally, Poisson probabilities only apply to discrete events such as hurricane counts, radioactive decay, and customer arrivals at a gas station. A LIA year doesn’t fit in that category.

      • dr No says:

        Paul, I think AE (and Massimo and Svante) are upset because you applied Poisson in the first place.
        They argue that hurricane occurrences are correlated.
        Yes they are.
        But only within the hurricane season, not from year to year.
        They do not understand that hurricane totals are not correlated from year to year.
        Secondly, they do not appreciate that, because the Poisson fit did so well, this fact indicates they are uncorrelated.
        As I said, your very good analysis will be appreciated (let alone understood, e.g. Mike Flynn) by very few on this site.
        I even have my doubts about how well Roy Spencer, PhD understands statistics and probabilities.

        • Svante says:

          I’m not upset, I was just wondering.
          Paul has checked so I’ll take his word for it.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          The formulas of statistics are great for predicting the past.

          Paul, Dave, and Drano might like to try Poisson at a roulette table….

        • Massimo PORZIO says:

          Dr. No,
          I’m not upset too, I’m just wondering about people who is excited for a statistical bad application.
          Note that if Paul is right (and for the moment, I think he is right) and Poisson distribution give a good match for the past events, then two scenario are possible:
          1) the long term correlation is null or almost null, that is climate changes have nothing to do with hurricane statistics in the period.

          2) the number of samples in the sampled period are too little to highlight the correlation between the climate changes and the hurricanes occurrence because of other forcing mechanisms (most probable in my point of view)

          In both cases one things holds:
          Dr. Spencer argument is valid.
          Because if that long term correlation one day or another will happen, then long periods of missing hurricanes landfalls will be more significant than a couple of Cat4 hurricanes in one season. It’s the past history that tell that to us. And in that case the Poisson distribution will fail matching the data, its inevitable because the data will be no longer random and uncorrelated.

          Have a great day.

          Massimo

        • MikeN says:

          If hurricanes are correlated within a year, then Poisson is not usable.

  15. jane says:

    Fake news from NOAA, Trump should say to all on them your fired.
    Cat. 1 storms being called cat. 4 storms. The people that work at NOAA are terrorists.

  16. Gerald says:

    My daughter and I were discussing the hurricanes and she asked if warmer temperatures would produce more or less. After thinking for awhile I asked her what do we know about hurricanes on the other planets. Jupiter which is colder than the earth has had a sustained hurricane (the red eye) for hundreds of years. I was not sure if Venus has any. Can some one comment on that (does Jupiter have other hurricanes what about the other gas giants)? Perhaps this shows that warmer temperatures will produce fewer and weaker hurricanes and colder temperatures more and stronger ones.

    • gbaikie says:

      Hurricanes only occur over oceans [they can continue over land- and are weaken by going over land surface]
      A wind vortex is needed to form hurricane over water which is about 26 C or warmer. The depth of warm water is also important.
      Or a hurricane is vast heat engine requiring a lot of energy and deep and warm water has a lot of energy.

      And no land surface can have the amount of energy that tens of meters of warm ocean water can have.

      Hurricanes also generate tornadoes.
      Tornadoes can form over land area, and they can have much higher wind velocities than a hurricane, but hurricane are much bigger size and involve a lot more energy.
      Much the severe wind damage caused by hurricanes is likely related to tornadoes that created by a hurricane.
      Hurricane damage is mostly related to flooding, hurricanes can rise sea level, creating a storm surge, and hurricane can cause a lot rainfall that a short period time and over large area.

      You could roughly call a hurricane an atmospheric vortex and include other vortexs such tornados, dust devils, and waterspouts.
      And both of our polar regions have vortex weather patterns. Venus also has a polar vortex. As far as red spot- it’s a vortex, but I don’t think we know very much about. It lasted for a long time [as long as we had the telescopes to see it and is near the equator of Jupiter.

      Anyways there are no other planets with a warm liquid surface ocean of water.

      • gbaikie says:

        Anyways there are no other planets…
        We have seen, yet.

        In terms of “global warming” the tropics [where hurricanes form] has always been warm. Or the waters have always been warm enough- but simply having warm water is not enough to cause hurricanes. It’s needed for hurricanes but other factors are involved in creating them.
        And tropics isn’t getting warmer- global warmer is about making the rest of the world warm like the tropics. Or making rest of world be closer to being tropical climate.
        Or by increasing tropical conditions outside the tropics and making less of difference between the temperate Zone and the tropical Zone.
        Which I think will lessen severe weather, including hurricanes.

  17. Tony R Elliott says:

    Wrap your mind around this.
    Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster Could be Responsible for Life-Saving Hurricane Drought
    http://eaglerising.com/45104/deepwater-horizon-oil-disaster-could-be-responsible-for-life-saving-gulf-hurricane-drought/

    • David Appell says:

      Sure, let’s have oil disasters every year!

      (Did you actually read that article? A. it isn’t very scientific, and B. it tries to attribute a few years without storms to oil on the surface reducing evaporation. In other words, let’s pollute our way out of dangerous storms. Bah.)

    • gbaikie says:

      It might played a part in the rain drought of Texas.
      One thing about oil spill is life in the ocean ate it- which was “unexpected” and that life could have lasted longer than oil spill itself, and traveled along the currents.

      • David Appell says:

        Animals/plants last longer when they eat oil?? Says what?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Davi Appell,

          Where’s your evidence that they don’t? Prove it!

          Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            You have rapidly devolved into gadfly status, like a few others here, asking boring & lame questions.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David Appell,

            As you said –

            Prove that, smartass. Or apologize.

            Wheres your proof?

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David Appell,

            Cutting and pasting your quote loses the punctuation. Of course, it should read –

            Prove that, smartass. Or apologize.

            I asked again for proof, but of course youre terrified of having to back up your foolish Warmist assertions!

            Cheers.

          • dr No says:

            “youre terrified of having to back up your foolish Warmist assertions!”
            Prove it!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            The approved form, per David Appell, seems to be –

            “Prove that, smartass. Or apologize!

            How stupid. Foolish Warmist demands, backed up by nothing.

            Maybe you could toss in a fact or two – just for a change. Do you think it might achieve more than foolish Warmist attempts at being gratuitously offensive?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            The approved form, per David Appell, seems to be
            Prove that, smartass. Or apologize!”

            I never wrote that.

            Manufacturing quotes is dishonest.

        • gbaikie says:

          Most life on Earth is microbial:
          “Microorganisms live in every part of the biosphere, including soil, hot springs, inside rocks at least 19 km (12 mi) deep underground, the deepest parts of the ocean, and at least 64 km (40 mi) high in the atmosphere. Microorganisms, under certain test conditions, have been observed to thrive in the near-weightlessness of space and to survive in the vacuum of outer space. Microorganisms likely far outweigh all other living things combined.” -wiki

          Or Life = microbial life.
          So didn’t say animals/plants, I said life:
          “The microbes did a spectacular job of eating a lot of the natural gas,” says biogeochemist Chris Reddy of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The relatively small hydrocarbon molecules in natural gas are the easiest for microorganisms to eat. “The rate and capacity is a mind-boggling testament to microbes,” he adds.”
          https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-microbes-helped-clean-bp-s-oil-spill/

          And I would add that microbes are not isolate/separate from other life, but rather an integral part of the network of all life.

  18. Darwin Wyatt says:

    What happens if the hurricanes keep coming all winter? Add a monster cinder cone with no summer and I’m starting to get the origin of the mile thick ice sheet.

    • gbaikie says:

      Wiki:
      “In the Northern Atlantic Ocean, a distinct hurricane season occurs from June 1 to November 30, sharply peaking from late August through September; the season’s climatological peak of activity occurs around September 10 each season. This is the norm, but in 1938, the atlantic hurricane season started as early as January 3.”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane_season

      Well, 1930’s were warm.
      But it seems like we will continue to peak activity in September.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        What if climate change was a contributor to recent African droughts and these droughts worsened dust storms, which in turn interfered with hurricane development? You could then say climate change had increased misery in one part of the world, while helping to prevent it elsewhere.

        From Accuweather:
        “a drought in northwest Africa in recent years probably played a role in the relatively quiet seasons of the recent past. The dust from the drought is picked up by weather systems that roll west over the Atlantic. The dust tends to have a drying effect on developing storms “that leads to weakening,” he said.”

        • gbaikie says:

          –5/10/2016

          (Adds details and background)

          By Aziz El Yaakoubi

          RABAT, May 10 (Reuters) – Morocco is expected to harvest a
          cereal crop of 3.35 million tonnes, down 70 percent from last
          season’s record 11 million tonnes, after the worst drought in 30 years, the agriculture ministry said on Tuesday.

          Rainfall was 43 percent less than an average year and 45.5
          percent less than last season, which makes this the worst season in 30 years, with 98 dry days between November and February.–
          http://www.agriculture.com/content/update-1-morocco-cereal-crop-to-fall-70-pct-after-worst-drought-in-30-years

          So with Morocco there was drought in 2016 [don’t know what it was this year, but there wasn’t drought in 2015 and/or 2016 was worst in 30 years] and dry season not in the hurricane season.
          But anyhow since we had some hurricanes this year, I am to assume their wasn’t a drought in Morocoo?
          Or is there other countries that you talking about?

          • gbaikie says:

            I looked:
            “Favourable prospects for 2017 winter grain harvest

            Harvesting of the 2017 winter grains will start shortly. Unlike in 2016 when only 2.7 million tonnes of wheat and 600 000 tonnes of barley were harvested mainly due to poor and erratic rains, prospects for the 2017 harvest look very promising. While parts of Morocco suffered from autumn drought up to mid-November 2016, which delayed plantings in some areas, good precipitation later in the season replenished soil moisture, improving yield prospects. The total area planted with winter cereals in the current season is 5.11 million hectares, compared to 3.6 million hectares in the previous year.”
            http://www.fao.org/giews/countrybrief/country.jsp?code=MAR

            So, I guess not a drought in 2017.
            And that related to why we got some hurricanes this year?

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            gbaikie

            Thanks for looking that up. I was just going by what the guy at Accuweather said. A lot more to NW Africa than just Morocco but likely similar weather patterns.

            My comment was mostly just something to think about: how a predicted result of global warming (more droughts) could lead to something unexpected (fewer/weaker hurricanes)

          • ren says:

            The Caribbean Sea is very warm this year. This may reinforce hurricanes over North America.
            http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=conus&timespan=24hrs&anim=html5
            http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anoma.9.21.2017.gif
            However, hurricane formation in the Atlantic depends on the range of upper winds from the north.

          • gbaikie says:

            “My comment was mostly just something to think about: how a predicted result of global warming (more droughts) could lead to something unexpected (fewer/weaker hurricanes)”

            Yeah they are a lot factors, and as far as I know the only general specific predictive factors, have to do whether there is a El Nino or not. And that a tendency rather than anything specific.
            But I believe that warming should tend to have less severe weather. Or I would expect more severe weather in glacial period [and not just cold weather being severe].
            And warmer world will generally be more wet.

            Though with significantly warmer world, one will have different weather [different weather patterns] but we aren’t going to get such a “significantly warmer world”, anytime soon- not in century, maybe not in a thousand years.

          • The 2016 droughts in Morocco and other African and Asian areas near the Tropic of Cancer seem to me as being caused by the El Nino, not global warming.

          • Bindidon says:

            Donald L. Klipstein on September 23, 2017 at 8:21 AM

            … being caused by the El Nino, not global warming.

            Are you experienced in the field of regular pattern matching?

            If you are: what about searching for similar statements all around the Internet? I guess you would wonder.

            But…

            – what caused the increase of the collateral El Nino warming since 1950?
            – what did these nice La Ninas meanwhile?

            The ENSO average level from 1950 till today is near zero.

  19. ren says:

    Now Maria is following Irma’s route exactly.

  20. ren says:

    Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic now gets tremendous amounts of rain.

  21. ossqss says:

    It is interesting that I have not viewed any measurements in the keys landfall of sustained Cat 4 winds. Gusts, maybe, sustained, not found. It isnalso interesting that there were many comparisons to Allen, which had 190 mph (892 hPa) sustained winds and Irma 185 mph (921 hPa , or higher, when first designated at that speed I believe), but the pressure difference was almost 30 points? I have also been told we calculate wind speeds differently now days. Is it true in the past they were done at 7 or 10 meters, and now at 100, or is everything simply extrapolated from flight level now days? Where are those sustained 1 minute bouy and land station measurments for Irma anyhow? Just sayin, where?

    Let alone the fact we have planes in these things taking reading and dropping sensors 24×7 vs “never” not long ago.

    How many Patricia’s happened in the past that we never noticed? Yeah, that’s right, probably hundreds over a millenium.

  22. DB says:

    “In 2015, a NASA study was published which calculated how unlikely the (then) 9-year stretch with no major hurricane landfalls was. They came up with a 177 year return period for such an event. I used that statistic to estimate what eventually happened, which was 11 years with no major hurricane strikes. I get a return period of 560 years!”

    Since the return period was just two months short of 12 years, the return period is more like once every 800 years.

    • I think 11 years is more proper for this calculation. The first several months and most of the last several months in the almost 12 years didn’t have any US-landfalling major hurricanes due to not being in hurricane season. We had 11 hurricane seasons with no US-landfalling major hurricanes between the one of 2005 and the one of 2017.

  23. dr No says:

    Mkike Flynn says:
    “Understanding nonsense doesnt make it any less nonsensica, does it?”
    Prove it!

  24. dr No says:

    Mike Flynn says:

    “The probability of a fair coin toss is 0.5.”
    Prove it!

    “Foolish Warmists love irrelevant analogies, and love even more, pointless, but seemingly impressive displays of useless statistical calculations.”
    Prove it!

    “Just more foolish Warmist WOT (Waste Of Time)”
    Prove it!

    Prove it!
    Prove it!
    Prove it!

    • Mike Flynn says:

      dr No,

      I was asking a question. What do you think?

      Cheers.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      dr No,

      If you disagree with something I wrote, it is up to you to show it is incorrect.

      Thanks for quoting me directly. What are you disagreeing with?

      Foolish Warmists do not seem to accept the scientific process. Real scientists do not prove a theory is correct. It is disprovable for a reason – if somebody shows by experiment that your idea is wrong, it doesn’t how clever you are, or how elegant your theory is, it’s wrong.

      Unfortunately, foolish Warmists can’t even propose a disprovable hypothesis, let alone a theory. Stamping your feet, bursting into tears, or running to your Mommy, isn’t nearly as effective as attempting to follow the scientific process.

      You can’t even state the nature of the GHE hypothesis in any way that would enable experimental examination. If you claim that it cannot be subjected to experiment by its very nature, it’s not science. More Cargo Cult Scientism – fact by fantasy or faith.

      Maybe you could have a tantrum, and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, but who would take any notice? Certainly not me!

      Cheers.

      • dr No says:

        Mike,
        Let me remind you. Paul Linsey submitted a post on statistics above which DA and I were very appreciative. I wrote: “Such a nice, logical, expert presentation. Pity that it will only be appreciated by a small fraction”

        I also asked you : “Did you find any fault in the reasoning? Did you appreciate the post?”

        You wrote:
        “I am not at all surprised that you are impressed with the useless and pointless. The probability of a fair coin toss is 0.5. What good does it do you? Foolish Warmists love irrelevant analogies, and love even more, pointless, but seemingly impressive displays of useless statistical calculations. If you think this worthless nonsense is in some way useful, as you might say Prove it! Just more foolish Warmist WOT (Waste Of Time).”

        I think your response indicates:
        (A) did not understand nor appreciate Paul’s post. Thats fine – but it accords with my assertion that very few here did so also.
        (B) You don’t understand science, since Paul’s post was purely scientific.
        (C) You are increasingly confused, as his response was pointedly relevant to the topic of this thread
        (D) Your ignorance must be frustrating, judging by your repetitive and increasingly abusive responses. Please don’t complain if abuse is hurled back. Like they say, “if you can’t stand the heat”
        (E) Your repeated claim of “prove it” is just about as useless as me throwing it back at you all the time (as I did above). I could also simply shout at you “disprove it!”.
        (F) You have no idea how to argue a case. The correct method is not to behave like an argumentative teenager.

        I hope this is useful
        Cheers

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          dr no…”Paul Linsey submitted a post on statistics above which DA and I were very appreciative”.

          That’s because catastrophic climate change comes from statistical analysis in a climate model. In real science, climate has nothing to do with statistics.

      • dr No says:

        “You cant even state the nature of the GHE hypothesis in any way that would enable experimental examination. ”
        Goodness! What a stupid statement.
        I cannot prove that my house will burn down in the future yet I take out building insurance.
        I can’t prove that I will get sick yet I take out health insurance.
        I can’t prove North Korea will start a war, so let’s ignore it!
        etc etc.

        You are also wrong.The GHE hypothesis can effectively be proved/disproved by those observing the global climate in 2100 (if not before). If it is proved, well and good, but why would you refuse to take action now to prevent the worst effects till then? That would be stupid. If it is disproven (unlikely), the downside will probably not be much. There is plenty of evidence that the switch to renewables will, in fact, be an economic and health plus in the future.

        Cheers

        • Mike Flynn says:

          dr No,

          The scientific method, whether you like it or not, includes a step which involves proposing a disprovable hypothesis to explain some phenomena which has not been explained using science as currently known.

          Unfortunately, the GHE cannot be stated in any meaningful, let alone any disprovable way, involving science rather than magic.

          Trying to redefine the scientific method to suit your foolish Warmist purposes is unlikely to succeed, but you are most welcome to try. I wish you well.

          You still can’t even state what the GHE hypothesis actually comprises. It’s a little hard to disprove that which doesn’t exist.

          You cannot even identify what the “worst effects” might be, in any way that is any better than your unsupported assertions of doom, if we do not bend to your will – or the rest of the ragtag gaggle of foolish Warmists.

          Keep trying. Less people appear to be listening. They are probably waiting for the next popular delusion to exercise their imaginations.

          Cheers.

          • dr No says:

            Lets keep it simple for you Mike.
            The statement of the hypothesis is:
            That increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause significant global warming through until the year 2100 and beyond.
            Disprovable? Yes:
            The test involves continued monitoring of global temperatures.
            If there is no significant warming by 2100, the hypothesis fails.
            If there is significant warming by 2100, and there is no other plausible cause, then the hypothesis stands.

            I think that the state of the hypothesis is looking pretty good right now, and can only improve. By as early as 2030 it could be accepted wisdom almost everywhere.
            But I expect you will continue your Black Knight impression to the bitter end.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            You have presented a bizarre, presumably foolish Warmist, unverifiable assertion, as a scientific hypothesis.

            Heres the Wikipedia definition, which seems good enough –

            A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

            Nobody can be sure what observable phenomenon you are trying to explain, nor which available scientific theories cannot satisfactorily explain this phenomenon which you dont describe. Testing, by reproducible scientific experiment, is therefore impossible. So youve made an assertion, claiming that your indefinable global warmingwill be significant until 2100 and beyond.

            You cannot even define your mythical global temperatures, nor do you manage to specify in observable terms, the action of these greenhouse gases. What is the relevance of significant? Does it have a special foolish Warmist meaning? How is it measured – razoos, thingys, Watts per cubic meter when Mars trine Venus?

            You think that the state of the hypothesis . . .. The state of the disprovable GHE hypothesis is that none exists. Inconvenient for foolish Warmists, but true. Maybe you might do better to just accept the NOAA idea, and define the Earth as being to raise its own temperature by absorbing more energy than it emits. A magic self heating ball of rock! Heat trappingexplains all!

            No science needed! Fact by fiat!

            Just more Cargo Cult Scientism, of precisely no demonstrable benefit to man or beast. I suppose next thing youll tell me that Gavin Schmidt is a famous scientist instead of an undistinguished mathematician, or that Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize (even a Nobel Peace Prize!)

            All fantasy, just like the amazing mythical GHE.

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Darn. Sets of quotes and apostrophes not appearing. Oh well.

            Bad luck for me.

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            “Cutting and pasting your quote loses the punctuation.”
            https://tinyurl.com/yawv7w6p

          • Svante says:

            My link was wrong we’re just no good at this.
            https://tinyurl.com/y7lqbgo6

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Svante,

            No help.

            Even when not cutting and pasting.

            Here is example – heres.

            I havent the faintest idea why its happening.

            Suggestions welcome.

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            Perhaps our source/target character sets differ.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          dr no…”If it is proved, well and good, but why would you refuse to take action now to prevent the worst effects till then?”

          As Mike stated you cannot lay out the GHE in such a way that it can be applied to an experiment. If anyone could, they’d have done it by now. So what do they do, they program a computer (model) with bad physics and arrive at catastrophic warming?

          You are proposing we take out insurance based on such pseudo-science??? Fires happen, people have automobile accidents, and also health issues, against which insurance is practical. It’s not practical to base the future on climate models, none of which predicted the warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012.

          There is not a shred of real, objective evidence to support anthropogenic warming.

      • David Appell says:

        Mike Flynn says:
        “You cant even state the nature of the GHE hypothesis in any way that would enable experimental examination.”

        Mike Flynn answers:
        May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
        “I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988

        Observers find:

        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

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          “Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)

          Did this paper even get peer reviewed? The paper states:

          “In the early 19th century Fourier [1827] found the atmosphere to be acting like a glass of a hothouse, letting through light rays of the sun but retaining the dark rays from the ground.

          No. Fourier did not say that. The above is a quote from Arrhenius (1896, p. 237). And Arrhenius was mistaken, since Fourier did not claim this in his 1827 paper.

          I just skipped to the final conclusion:

          The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the theory of greenhouse warming with direct observations.

          Bwahahaha! These clowns do not understand the scientific method. They did not “prove” anything.

          • David Appell says:

            Of course it was peer reviewed, and published in a quality journal.

            You’re the worst kind of denier — won’t even consider science (done by people much more qualified than you). You denial is so high you will simply dismiss anything you don’t like, that disagrees with your prejudices and extreme denialism.

            There’s no reason to take you seriously whatsoever.

          • Bindidon says:

            SkepticGoneWild on September 23, 2017 at 2:44 PM

            As usual, you don’t have half an idea of what you distort and pretend (probably without intention).

            Here is a verifiable extract of what Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier wrote in his

            ‘Memoire sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires’ (1824 / 1827 / last reedition 1890)

            about experiments made by Horace-Benedict de Saussure decades before:

            La theorie de cet instrument est facile a concevoir. Il suffit de remarquer :
            que la chaleur acquise se concentre, parce quelle nest point dissipee immediatement par le renouvellement de
            lair ;
            que la chaleur emanee du Soleil a des proprietes differentes de celles de la chaleur obscure.

            Les rayons de cet astre se transmettent en assez grande partie au-dela des verres dans toutes les capacites et jusquau fond de la boite. Ils echauffent lair et les parois qui le contiennent : alors leur chaleur ainsi communiquee cesse detre lumineuse ; elle ne conserve que les proprietes communes de la chaleur rayonnante obscure.

            Dans cet etat, elle ne peut traverser librement les plans de verre qui couvrent le vase ; elle saccumule de plus en plus dans une capacite enveloppee dune matiere tres peu conductrice, et la temperature seleve jusqua ce que la chaleur affluente soit exactement compensee par celle qui se dissipe.

            {All french spec chars were intentionally dropped before posting the comment.}

            If you don’t understand, copy and paste into Google’s translator (it’s sometimes a bit simple-minded, but helps a lot).

            Mr Appell is indeed right when he writes about you: ‘Theres no reason to take you seriously whatsoever.’

            Il a tout a fait raison!

          • Bindidon says:

            Of course I forgot this time that the site’s parser removes Winword quote chars as well… that’s life.

          • Bindidon says:

            Next little problem: the most important part of the citation got lost when transferred from a pdf to Winword! Here it is:

            <iC'est ainsi que la temperature est augmentee par l’interposition de l’atmosphere, parce que la chaleur trouve moins d’obstacle pour penetrer l’air, etant a l’etat de lumiere, quelle n’en trouve pour repasser dans l’air
            lorsqu’elle est convertie en chaleur obscure.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”Here is a verifiable extract of what Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier…”

            Fourier was a brilliant mathematician but he lived 1768 – 1830, before the German scientist Rudolf Clausius wrote the 2nd law and devised entropy. It was Clausius who clarified heat at the atomic level and described its properties.

            Clausius also defined U = internal energy. Clausius was miles ahead of Fourier and Carnot on heat and Fourier can be forgiven his amateurish claims in the French you quoted. He has confused IR with heat, something Clausius did not do.

            Some modernists are claiming Fourier supported the notion of global warming but he said nothing about that. He was trying to understand why planets had certain atmospheric temperatures.

            Unfortunately, Fourier was not privy to the information Clausius had about atoms. Fourier thought greenhouses warmed by trapping IR, which was proved wrong as far back as 1909 by Woods. Greenhouses warm because molecules of air get trapped by the glass and cannot rise as normal warmed air would rise.

            Therefore, the quote of yours from Fourier is wrong. making DA wrong as well. Then again, DA is wrong about everything else so what’s new?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”Of course I forgot this time that the sites parser removes Winword quote chars as well thats life”.

            Why are you using the poor man’s Microsoft Word? If you are using Windows, try the free Open Office.

            https://www.openoffice.org/

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Here is a link to the Arrhenius paper:

            http://tinyurl.com/8aducs4

            In the first paragraph of the Introduction, Arrhenius specifically states:

            “Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse, because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays from the ground.”

            What more do you want? Arrhenius stated this, not Fourier, as the author of the stupid paper states.

            And DA & Bindidon, you guys have the nerve to call ME a denier when you both got your heads stuck up your @##, and stuck in the sand at the same time.

          • Bindidon says:

            SkepticGoneWild on September 24, 2017 at 4:11 AM

            1. You don’t need to show me any reference to any paper produced by Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius or others.

            I have read them all, and possibly with a bit more concentration than you did.

            Arrhenius stated this, not Fourier, as the author of the stupid paper states.

            You were manifestly unable to read Fourier correctly, or are unexperienced enough to rely on one of these stoopid corners anybody can find on the Web, where important parts of originals are surreptitiously retracted in order to have translations fitting to the sites’ narrative.

            *

            1. I repeat what I wrote yesterday, SkepticGoneWild:

            C’est ainsi que la temperature est augmentee par linterposition de latmosphere, parce que la chaleur trouve moins dobstacle pour penetrer lair, etant a letat de lumiere, quelle nen trouve pour repasser dans lair
            lorsquelle est convertie en chaleur obscure.

            2. In English this means (a rather free but not incorrect translation):

            … and the temperature can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in repassing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat.

            English source:
            http://fourier1827.geologist-1011.mobi/
            Fourier (1827, p. 587)

            3. A translation really near to the original would be:

            Thus the temperature is increased by the interposition of the atmosphere, because the heat finds less obstacle to penetrate the air, being in the state of light, than it does upon returning into the air when converted into obscure heat.

            4. Thus what Arrhenius wrote (after having, unlike you, carefully read the complete memoire of Mr Fourier) is completely correct.

            No wonder that such a guy obtained the chemistry Nobel in 1903! He had all the science you seem to thoroughly lack.

            And if you read his second paper (published 1901 in ‘Annalen der Physik’) you will understand a bit better what bare nonsense has been produced by Knut Angstroem (the mentally somewhat poorish son of a genius) and his assistant Koch. Incredible.

            5. What contemporary authors now deduce out of Fourier’s, Tyndall’s or Arrhenius’ work does not interest me here.

            *

            6. Jesus what are you moreover an incredibly aggressive, vulgar and impolite character! Pfui Deibel.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Bin,
            The author Philipona quoted Arrhenius, not Fourier. I can’t help it if you cannot understand plain English.

            Furthermore Fourier did not say the atmosphere “acted like the glass of a hothouse”. If he did, he would have been wrong anyway, since the alleged GHE has nothing to do with real greenhouses. Fourier discussed the experiment by de Saussure, but stated, “that the acquired heat is concentrated, because it is not dissipated immediately by renewing the air”. Unlike you, Fourier was smart enough to realize the “hothouse” limited convective heat transfer.

            Immediately after Fourier discussed the de Saussure experiment, he stated the following state of the atmosphere would have to be true in order to behave as a hothouse:

            “In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind with that we have just described.”

            You seriously need to take off your blinders and quit being a lemming following the orders of the Climatariat.

            And YOU were the one that started with the insults, you complete and utter ****-for-brains.

          • Bindidon says:

            SkepticGoneWild on September 24, 2017 at 1:48 PM

            As usual, skeptics – gone wild or not – carefully manage to exactly select out of texts what fit to their narrative.

            Moreover, to think I would think Fourier and btw Tyndall and Arrhenius would have confounded the atmosphere with a glass house: that too is too stubborn to be noticed anyway.

            *

            Did David Appell use your digusting words? Did I?
            That is YOUR style, and not mine.

            End of the discussion. Keep off my road, I will keep off yours.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            I don’t take directions from you.

            I’ll point out lies when I see them.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Not only does the author Philipona wrongly attribute a statement of of Arrhenius to Fourier, he mentions the study of Callendar in 1938, “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature”. Poor guy, the Gore effect must have time traveled. So Callendar said earth’s temperature would rise with increasing GHG’s. What happened? LMAO, from 1938 to 1981, global temperatures cooled while CO2 values went up. Over 40 years of cooling.

            http://tinyurl.com/yak8ytnk

          • David Appell says:

            SkW: Just another analogy.

            Give it up. This really is the stupidest argument deniers have ever come up with.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Dear DA ([email protected]**),
            No analogy. Just inconvenient data that left Callendar looking real dumb. You too.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Observers find:

          Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al…”

          In the abstract to the paper they claim the use of a model and relate down-dwelling IR to heat. They clearly are not observing anything, they are projecting and promoting consensus.

          The paper has NOT corroborated the GHE. It is sheer conjecture and bad physics. If that’s the best you can do DA, your in deep doo doo.

  25. AGW would have less severe weather because the pole to equator temperature gradient would lessen.

    AGW as of now does not exist because this period in time in the climate as far as actual temperatures and the temperature rise is not even close to being unique, if one looks back over the entire Holocene Epic, much less going further back in time.

    The temperatures this year according to satellite data which is the ONLY data I use are cooler then last year.

    If AGW is real then it should be able to continue without the aid of ENSO being favorable to an El Nino, or an actual El Nino.

    I expect the current down trend in temperatures to continue as we move forward and will be watching overall sea surface temperatures. Right now +.317c

  26. Stevek says:

    If I was betting man I would not make any bets on the over under for the number of cat 5 hurricanes occurring over next 10 years. Simply not enough historical data to make a confident prediction.

  27. Entropic man says:

    Dr. Spencer

    Nice to see you agreeing with the consensus.

    The modern view among those who study hurricanes is that increasing wind shear will reduce the number of hurricanes, but warmer sea surface temperatures will increase their average intensity.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Mike

      Just wondering, do you think it’s possible for someone to be a warmist but not foolish?

      • dr No says:

        Is it possible for somebody named Sir Isaac Snapelton to not be an inbred, degenerate, member of the aristocracy?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Sir Isaac,

        It’s not only possible, it’s an absolute certainty. It depends on your definition of course. My definition of Warmist (not that anybody has actually asked me) is someone who accepts that thermometers react to heat.

        That’s why I refer to people who appear to believe that there is some sort of greenhouse effect involving greenhouse gases, which causes thermometers to become hotter or colder due to some as yet unexplained physical reasons, not related to an increase in the amount of heat emitted by the Sun, as foolish Warmists.

        The “normal’ definition of Warmist is rather vague, if it refers to the proposition that the climate can change as a result of human activities. Of course it can, as Lorenz pointed out with his “Butterfly” paper. Foolish Warmists go further, making ridiculous and unsupported predictions of doom – based on the ideas of a few self proclaimed “climatologists.”

        I assume you’re attempting a “gotcha”, but it seems to be rather well done, if so.

        Over to you.

        Cheers.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Mike

          Sometimes it’s “warmist”, sometimes it’s “foolish warmist”. You must think warmists are the wiser of the two. Not trying for a gotcha.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Sir Isaac,

            Telling me what I must think is unlikely to work. I havent the faintest idea what you are you talking about.

            You asked me a question. I provided an answer. If you cannot understand what I wrote, please quote the words with which you are having difficulty. Ill try to be clearer. Maybe if I type more slowly? Would that help?

            To ask a question, and then seemingly ignore the answer, could be the actions of a foolish person (Warmist or not), or someone with limited comprehension skills – neglecting other options, of course.

            Do as you must. I might feel sorry for you, but Im totally devoid of sympathy. Keep trying, Im sure youll get somewhere, sometime.

            Cheers.

          • dr No says:

            Sir Isaac, I apologize.
            I took your question to be a gotcha at the warmists’ expense.
            In the sense of, “it seems unlikely that non-foolish warmists do exist”, rather than a probing of Mike’s over-the-top comments.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            dr No

            Understood, no need to apologize. I liked your “aristocracy” comment.

          • dr No says:

            “Telling me what I must think is unlikely to work.”
            You cannot teach an old engineer new tricks.

            ” I havent the faintest idea what you are you talking about.”
            Very true, you have very poor comprehension skills.

            “If you cannot understand what I wrote, please quote the words with which you are having difficulty.”
            We understand your misunderstanding and confusion fully.

            “Ill try to be clearer.”
            Unlikely to be any clearer than mud.

            “To ask a question, and then seemingly ignore the answer, could be the actions of a foolish person (Warmist or not), or someone with limited comprehension skills neglecting other options, of course.”
            Should read:
            To avoid answering simple questions such as posted above (Did you find any fault in the reasoning? Did you appreciate the post?) could be the actions of a foolish person (Warmist or not), or someone with limited comprehension skills neglecting other options, of course.

            “Im totally devoid of sympathy.”
            And a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            Thank you for your interest, I suppose.

            Im not sure what your interest is, however. I note that, amongst other things, you appear to be incapable of accepting what I write, and instead tell me what you think I should have written.

            Unfortunately, your fantasy does not supplant the fact that I actually wrote what I wrote. Just as Sir Isaac telling me what I must think, so your telling me what I should write is doomed to the same outcome. I ignore both demands.

            As to the rest, I leave it to others to make their own judgement.

            In the meantime, if you wish to take offence, take as much as you can handle. I have plenty to spare. You can pass it around to any other foolish Warmists who desire to be offended. It seems a foolish choice to me, but many people obviously enjoy making foolish choices.

            Choosing to believe in a non-existent GHE, for one.

            Cheers.

          • dr No says:

            Mike,
            you would help your case considerably if you answered these two simple questions (posed above):
            Did you find any fault in the reasoning?
            Did you appreciate the post?
            A simple, YES or NO is all that is required.
            It won’t hurt, I promise you.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            You wrote –

            “you would help your case considerably if you answered these two simple questions (posed above):”

            I don’t have a “case” to “help”. In any case I would think it miraculous that you should be volunteering to “help” me.

            So, please feel free to take offence if I refuse to do as you wish.

            Your silly attempts at “gotchas” are both pointless and puerile.

            You apparently cannot find any facts to challenge anything I wrote. It might help your cause if you did. That’s just my opinion. If you prefer fantasy to fact, I wish you well.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            dr No – Mike Flynn is absolutely terrified to address questions. He simply cannot do it.

            He’s just a blowhard with no interest at all in discussing science. He’s the kind of blowhard who needs to feel superior. Very similar to Trump, actually.

            I think you know this by now. But keep pointing out all his contradictions and keep noticing how afraid he of discussing the science. Any science.

        • David Appell says:

          Mike Flynn asks:
          “Thats why I refer to people who appear to believe that there is some sort of greenhouse effect involving greenhouse gases, which causes thermometers to become hotter or colder due to some as yet unexplained physical reasons….”

          Mike Flynn answers:
          September 16, 2017 at 8:57 PM
          “Lack of GHGs allows more radiation through, in either direction.”

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263222

          • Bindidon says:

            Mr Appell, I’m afraid you did not understand Mr Flynn’s position, though formulated unequivocally clear:

            ‘There is no GHE because CO2 doesn’t heat thermometers more than they would do in its absence’.

            Simple, clear, undeniable.

          • David Appell says:

            “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: “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/

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Bindidon,

            I find myself in complete agreement with you.

            I am chuffed (delighted) that at least one person agrees that I have expressed my position in a way that is perceived as simple, clear, and undeniable.

            Consistent, too, I hope.

            I may be wrong, of course, but so far I see no new facts that would cause me to change my opinion.

            Cheers.

          • Bindidon says:

            Mr Flynn

            The word ‘consistent’ unfortunately did not appear in my comment. There is in my honest opinion no reason to do so.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            September 16, 2017 at 8:57 PM
            “Lack of GHGs allows more radiation through, in either direction.”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263222

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Bindidion,

            You wrote –

            “The word consistent unfortunately did not appear in my comment. There is in my honest opinion no reason to do so.”

            I agree with your statement that it is unfortunate that you chose not to include “consistent” along with your support for my other sterling qualities. Unfortunate, but you have the right to your opinion, whether supported by facts or not.

            I am of the opinion that I demonstrate at least a small measure of consistency in consistently expressing the belief that the GHE is non-existent, and that there is not even a disprovable GHE hypothesis.

            I’m not aware of expressing any contrary belief, but I am sure that you will quote me exactly if I have inadvertently stated such a thing.

            There is no GHE. It’s a foolish Warmist fantasy, which even its most devout supporters cannot clearly articulate.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            You’ve admitted several times there is a GHE. Were you lying then?

            Mike Flynn says:
            September 16, 2017 at 8:57 PM
            Lack of GHGs allows more radiation through, in either direction.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-263222

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David Appell,

            You might like to point out what you are talking about. Are you disagreeing with my statement, or just being silly?

            If you disagree, you might like to explain why. I don’t believe you can, but I’m always prepared to change my opinion if you can produce any new facts.

            There is no GHE. Fairly simple concept – the non-existent doesn’t exist.

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            You are cheerful. That is good to keep a positive attitude.

            Here I tried to help Gordon Robertson understand the GHE.

            Maybe you will be able to understand this presentation (though the odds of such an ability from you would be a most welcome dream since it is beyond the laws of probability).

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/cracks-in-the-empires-armor-appear/#comment-264461

            Since you are lazy you will not have the mental energy to click on the link and read the contents.

            The answer to your challenges is there for you to read and understand.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Norman,

            You’re right. I didn’t bother wasting my time clicking on the link. If you can’t expend the energy to say what you want, why should I waste any of mine?

            I don’t have any challenges that you would be able to help me with, as far as I know.

            I am surprised you take such an interest in my thoughts. What difference do my opinions make to you? Are you trying to emulate my obvious intellectual superiority?

            Bad luck for you. You’re born with the IQ you’re saddled with. Not my fault, so don’t blame me.

            If you need advice on coping with your station in life, let me know. I’m always prepared to help those less fortunate than myself.

            Still no GHE, however. Not even an experimentally disprovable GHE hypothesis. That might pose a problem, I suggest.

            Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”,,,warmer sea surface temperatures will increase their average intensity”.

      Hurricane expert Chris Landsea put a number to the increased intensity…about 1 to 2% by 2100 provided the warming from models is correct. The likelihood of the them being right is about 0.00000000000000000001%.

  28. MikeN says:

    Stats people back me up, but I think if you have a 1 in 7 chance, that is <.01 chance of 2, with 86.7% chance of 0, 12.4% chance of 1.

    • ren says:

      Sorry.
      Now Mary’s direction is northwest.

      • Bindidon says:

        Yes ren, Florida seems to have quite a bit more luck with Maria than did e.g. Guadeloupe or Puerto Rico.

        Frenchies would say: ‘Ce sont toujours les petits qui trinquent’.

  29. Erik Aamot says:

    not particularly scientific .. however

    “There are three kinds of lies:
    lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

    and really .. counting only Cat 3+ or Cat 4+ hitting US mainland is rather selective .. if you want a measurement of all cyclones .. or better yet total cyclonic energy in relation to “climate change” (a useless term scientifically)

    well .. you can’t really see any long term trend

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/04/correlation-of-accumulated-cyclone-energy-and-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillations/

  30. ren says:

    Thunderstorms from Puerto Rico will move over the Dominican Republic.
    In Puerto Rico deadly danger due to floods. Threatened dam on the lake.

  31. ren says:

    Sharply rising ice extent in Canada and Baffin Bay.
    http://www.tinypic.pl/ale4toe2cqgj

  32. dr No says:

    Meanwhile:
    “Hume Highway cut by bushfire, temperature records tumble as east coast swelters
    The main highway between Sydney and Canberra was cut by a bushfire and parts of New South Wales reached 40 degrees Celsius in September for the first time on record.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-23/hume-highway-cut-by-out-of-control-bushfire/8978000

    • RAH says:

      Can’t believe a thing that the BOM says about temperatures. They are using noise, 1 second readings, to make their claims about high temperatures. And they have been stonewalling for years when questioned and continually deny access to what are supposed to be public records. Bottom line is no transparency = no credibility:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/poor-bom-dangerous-deniers-amateurs-attacking-australian-bureau-of-meteorology-debilitating-it-by-asking-questions/

      • dr No says:

        Wrong, the records are based on daily min and max temperatures – no different to anywhere else.
        You are exploiting an irrelevant issue about automatic weather stations in the mountains.
        Don’t start me on Joanne Nova. She is not a climate scientist and has been debunked numerous times by others.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          dr No,

          Gavin Schmidt is not a climate scientist, either. Neither is Michael Mann, apparently.

          Maybe James Hansen? Nope.

          Pretenders all – delusional.

          Climate is the average of weather, simply put. Maybe the endless repetition of examining averages in order to discern the future seems more scientific than attempting to peer into the future by reading tea leaves, but is achieves precisely the same result.

          No practical benefit to man or beast, apart from that accruing to the fortune seller.

          Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            Mike,
            tell me about any climate science paper published by Jo.
            Tell me who you think qualifies as a climate scientist. To make it easy,name just three.

            AND, don’t forget your homework task everyone is waiting for:
            Did you find any fault in the reasoning?
            Did you appreciate the post?
            A simple, YES or NO is all that is required.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr No,

            What part of “no” do you not understand?

            Your requirements appear to be surplus to mine. Yours lose.

            Cheers.

        • Bindidon says:

          dr No on September 23, 2017 at 4:03 PM

          Indeed! Everybody has the right to compare
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova
          with
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt

          But what makes me shuckle a bit is this:

          In 2012, she appeared in the ABC Television documentary ‘I Can Change Your Mind About… Climate’ with her partner David Evans, in discussion with Nick Minchin and Anna Rose, in which she stated among other things that:

          carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that adding more to it will warm the planet, yes, absolutely, that’s all well proven solid science known for years, yes. I have no disagreement with any of that.

          Ooops?! Interesting. I did not know until now that Mrs. Codling thought that way.

          But who wonders? Even WUWT’s Watts means the like (inbetween).

          She added:

          Disagreement is with how much warming there is. Is it going to be a catastrophe or is it going to be 0.5 degrees and as far as we can see the evidence the empirical evidence, and there’s lots of it, all seems to point to it being around about half a degree to maybe one degree with CO2 doubling which is not the catastrophic projections that are coming out from the climate models.

          I fully agree, excepted for her meaning about ‘climate models’ she has no clue about.

          Who wouldn’t agree the like?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Bindidon,

            Have you bothered to ask Joanne Nova which climate models she refers to?

            I appreciate your attempt to claim superior mind reading skills, but I dont believe you have any. Maybe youre making an an assertion based on nothing more than wishful thinking?

            Maybe she was referring to –

            Model development is an ongoing task. As new physics is introduced, old bugs found and new applications developed, the code is almost continually undergoing minor, and sometimes major, reworking. Thus any fixed description of the model is liable to be out of date the day it is printed

            New physics?

            The NASA official responsible is one Gavin A Schmidt.

            Maybe you would believe the output from an application which doesnt even have a fixed description. I might not be so trusting.

            I’ll stick with no GHE – bizarre computer games to the notwithstanding.

            Cheers.

      • Bindidon says:

        BOM is perfectly transparent: I can see that when comparing their data to what they communicate to GHCN.

        Recently, a commenter named Crakar24 or the like destillated here a lot of similar rubbish concerning BOM.

        He claimed to have requested information from BOM, obtaining no response. No wonder in the case his request had been formulated like his comments at Roy Spencer’s site.

        Let me tell you, RAH, that if I was a collaborator there and got such requests, I wouldn’t reply as well.

        There are limits we all should manage no to bypass.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Bindidon,

          In Australia, the BOM is required by law to respond to an enquiry, acknowledging receipt of same.

          There are many ways for the BOM to avoid or delay providing taxpayer funded information from being released. Charges for “finding” the information (sometimes markedly reduced after realising that such charges are subject to independent appeal), reliance on the letter of the law to delay providing requested material, claims of exemption for a number of reasons – national security, commerciality, intellectual property, and so on.

          So your statement that you wouldn’t respond either, puts you in the company of scofflaws who are funded by the Government, but do their best to avoid complying with the laws of the Government which employs them!

          This approach doesn’t seem terribly logical to me, but you have indicated that flouting the spirit and letter of the law is acceptable, if you don’t like the style of the person seeking information in accordance with the law of the land.

          Sad. Looks like the inept machinations of a group of foolish Warmists, doesn’t it? Having abolished all temperature records prior to 1910 on the basis of unreliability, what next?

          How about claiming there’s a giant “denialist” conspiracy out to sabotage the Bureau? Then claim that the Bureau should not be subject to Freedom Of Information laws, just because people ask for reasons why the BOM records minimum temperatures higher than maxima, rejects minimum temps because they are “too low” (according to models), and so on.

          The BOM is funded for, and employs, officers specifically designated as FOI and Privacy officers. Why would the BOM want to sack them? Beats me! Just let them do what they are paid to do. Where’s the Harm?

          Cheers.

          • Bindidon says:

            Mr Flynn

            There are limits we all should manage no to bypass.

            Point final.

          • RAH says:

            Bindidon,

            Your obvious limit was even attempting to read a single link at the Jo Nova post I provided. If you had you would have seen that time and again requests from the BOM have been ignored. Despite this time and again the BOM has been caught both destroying historical data and failing to meet it’s own stated standards in collecting new data. It’s preferred mechanism for avoiding a truly valid audit of it’s methods and records is to create it’s own internal teams to “investigate” its self. the BOM is anything but transparent.

          • Bindidon says:

            RAH on September 24, 2017 at 11:47 AM

            Such comments, RAH, I have read at WUWT ad nauseam.

            Not one of these comments, yours here of course included as you can see, came around with even a shadow of a proof of what was claimed.

            And to be clear: under a proof I understand something quite different than a simple JoNova post!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            RAH…”Bindidon,…Your obvious limit was even attempting to read a single link at the Jo Nova post I provided”.

            binny reads without comprehension. The stuff on Jo Nova’s site is way beyond him and I’m sure he gets a migraine even trying to read one article, never mind understanding it.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”BOM is perfectly transparent: I can see that when comparing their data to what they communicate to GHCN”.

          To anyone who has a fetish for authority.

          You defend NOAA as well even though they are blatant cheaters.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dr no…”The main highway between Sydney and Canberra was cut by a bushfire and parts of New South Wales reached 40 degrees Celsius in September for the first time on record.

      Out of the 5 worst bush fires in Oz, three occurred in 1926, 1939 and 1967.

      http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-environment/2011/11/the-worst-bushfires-in-australias-history/

  33. ren says:

    Guajataca Dam Failing In Puerto Rico, Forcing Extremely Dangerous Situation.
    https://youtu.be/uhwUwNKAjvw

  34. David Appell says:

    “We’re dug in the deep, the price is steep
    The auctioneer is such a creep
    The lights went out, the oil ran dry
    We blamed it on the other guy”

    – R.E.M., Bad Day

  35. Mickey Prumt says:

    Focusing only on US landfall reduce the statistic. And you say it yourself :
    “Again, for rare events, the statistics arent very well behaved”

    Is there any relevant reason to focus only on US landfall ?

    • RAH says:

      The relevant reason is that after hurricane Katrina and the 2005 record Atlantic hurricane season Kerry Emanuel of MIT announced that summer that more frequent and stronger hurricanes were the new normal due to global warming. After that we were inundated with claims from multiple sources that such would be become “the new normal” for the US. We heard the same after extra-tropical “super storm” Sandy came ashore. What has happened is the exact opposite of what was claimed and their claims were absolutely false as conclusively demonstrated by the record major hurricane hiatus in which not a single major hurricane struck the lower 48 for the next 11 years and 10 months. Such bombastic dooms day claims were falsified by the fact that incidence of major hurricanes have declined since the 1950s.

      The alarmists set the metric and sane people have been rubbing their noses in it for over a decade now.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        RAh…”Kerry Emanuel of MIT announced that summer that more frequent and stronger hurricanes were the new normal due to global warming”.

        Emanuel is one of the new breed of climatologists who freely employs obfuscation, hearsay, bombast, and pseudo-science to create illusions about climate.

        ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/Climate_Primer.pdf

        In the paper above, he uses the work of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius to build a case for CO2 warming while presenting not a shred of modern evidence that the trace amount of CO2 in our atmosphere can contribute to warming. Emanuel provides no mathematical calculations to prove his point.

        It’s unforgivable for a professor at MIT to offer such malarkey without establishing the basic physics underlying his fables.

        He uses the work of Milankovitch to establish the cause of ice ages and projects one Milankovitch cycle to the Industrial Era, completely ignoring that the era was in the middle of the Little Ice Age. Emanuel makes the serious mistake of attributing the warming following the Industrial Era to anthropogenic gases rather than the obvious, that the LIA ended in 1850.

        Both Emanuel and Richard Lindzen are profs at MIT yet Lindzen uses the theory of atmospheric physics to establish his skeptical views of CAGW while Emanuel creates a sci-fi rendition for his alarmist views.

        Seems that’s all alarmists can offer, sci-fi and conjecture.

    • barry says:

      No, the skeptics set this metric. Some of them like to blame the warmists, but a lot of the guff skeptics moan about has been made up by skeptics.

      No ‘alarmist’ posited that US land-falling hurricanes would become more common. But plenty of skeptics have said they did.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”No alarmist posited that US land-falling hurricanes would become more common. But plenty of skeptics have said they did”.

        barry has outdone himself with his bafflegab. You’d fit right in at IPCC reviews.

      • barry says:

        All you had to do was provide a link. You chose bafflegab.

  36. Mike Flynn says:

    David Appell,

    You wrote –

    “Hes the kind of blowhard who needs to feel superior. Very similar to Trump, actually.”

    I don’t need to feel superior. I am superior, and unless you can provide some facts to the contrary, my statement remains factual.

    Your “opinions” are not facts, I point out.

    I assume you are not enamoured of the current US President. Who cares? It doesn’t matter what you think, he still seems to be the President.

    Maybe you could tell him what to think? He might take as much notice as I do.

    Keep the “gotchas” going. You never know, it’s possible that repeating the same action, hoping for a different outcome, is not insanity, as Einstein opined. What do you think?

    Cheers.

    • Dr No says:

      Your opinions are “facts”, my facts are “opinions”.
      The level of debate has reached a new low.

      Why can’t you bring yourself to answer these two questions I posed above?
      Did you find any fault in the reasoning?
      Did you appreciate the post?
      A simple, YES or NO is all that is required.

      What are you afraid of? The fear of being exposed as ignorant?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Dr No,

        If you are convinced my opinions are facts, why do you not accept them as such?

        I have no intention of indulging in your fantasy game of “gotchas”. It doesn’t matter whether you think that’s fact or opinion. It doesn’t matter whether you like it or not.

        You could always try asking again, if you like. Maybe you could try threatening me with discarding or ignoring my response! Do you think that might have me shaking in my boots?

        I dont think so, but that’s just my opinion. You don’t have to accept it, of course. You can always substitute your own, if it makes you happier.

        Cheers.

        • Dr No says:

          Why is every request to answer a question a “gotcha”?
          I am amazed you cannot answer any of them.
          Name me a published climate science paper by Jo Nova. You can’t.
          Name three climate scientists. You can’t.

          Now for some really stressful questions:
          What did you have for breakfast?
          What is the first letter of the alphabet.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David Appell,

            I’m not interested in responding to questions asked in bad faith.

            I treat yours as such, as you have failed to provide any information to the contrary.

            Take offence, if you wish. Take as much as you like – I can always find more. If my opinions are unimportant to to you, maybe you could conserve your valuable time and effort. Have you tried ignoring me?

            Your power to compel me to do anything at all is non-existent – just like the GHE. I care nothing about your opinion of me. I’m surprised you care so much about mine.

            Keep going – waste your time asking me pointless and irrelevant “gotchas”, if you wish. I predict I won’t answer any of them, unless you’re prepared to make a large wager with me to that effect. I’ll obviously change my opinion, just to take your money. Wanna bet?

            Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            “Have you tried ignoring me?”
            Not saying.
            “Wanna bet?”
            I refuse to answer.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr No,

            Hes got it! By George, I think hes got it!

            Well done.

            Cheers.

  37. Mike Flynn says:

    Bindidon quoted Fourier, in French, without providing a translation. In essence, someone before Fourier’s time noticed that a sealed box placed in the Sun gets hot. It also exhibits a temperature gradient. Not particularly amazing, these days.

    I’ll provide a translation of something else Fourier worked out for himself –

    “That which penetrates in the equatorial regions is exactly balanced by that which escapes at the parts around the poles. Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”

    Maybe Bindidon could verify that this translation is reasonable. Fourier calculated the Earth was cooling, figured out a rate, and deduced the age of the Earth. He was as spectacularly wrong as was Lord Kelvin. Neither had the faintest inkling of the radiogenic heat produced within the Earth.

    Taking the temperature inside a black bottomed box with some arrangement of glass plates shows that objects placed in the direct rays of the Sun get hotter, and objects with low albedo will attain higher temperatures than those which reflect the Sun’s rays more. At night, the whole contraption cools down, and loses all the heat it gained during the day!

    Still no GHE. Fourier commented on an experiment performed by someone else. His speculation was not confirmed by experiment. Providing fantasy in French does not turn it into fact.

    Cheers.

    • Dr No says:

      Two simple answers, as requested, please.

    • Dr No says:

      If you said
      NO and
      YES
      you would considerably enhance your reputation and we could move on.
      I suspect you are so stubborn you cannot bring yourself to do even that.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Dr No,

        You’re a slow learner, I surmise. Or maybe in the grip of some form of obsessive compulsive disorder?

        I have no need to enhance my reputation – in my eyes it’s obviously already reached the pinnacle of enhanceability. You may obviously move along, at your own pace, and at your leisure, any time you wish. I’ll move at my own volition, and if you don’t like it, bad luck for you.

        Your suspicions, just like your opinions, are of no concern whatever to me. My care factor remains stubbornly stuck at zero.

        I note that you appear to have suggested answers to your silly “gotchas”. I hope you are happy with the answers you have given yourself.

        Even a mentally challenged wombat would by now have accepted that I have no intention of providing you with answers of any sort to your foolish Warmist “questions”. You may howl at the moon, dance a jig, or ask yourself questions until you are blue in the face. It won’t change my resolve.

        Still no GHE.

        Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Bindidon,

        If you can’t be bothered saying what you mean (preferably in English), I can’t be bothered following presumably foolish links.

        People who can’t actually communicate their ideas in writing, often attempt to deny, divert, and confuse – posting links is one method employed by foolish Warmists.

        If you don’t understand your subject well enough to explain it in less than a page or so, by all means provide a reference to more inclusive material at the end of your explanation.

        Not interested in following foolish Warmist links.

        Cheers.

      • barry says:

        It’s a link to Bindidon’s post above, in which he translates Fourier into English.

        A ‘warmist’ link to a skeptical website. This one. He’s already “communicated his ideas in writing,” and is linking to it to save repeating himself.

        I can only wonder what kind of fool couldn’t see immediately that the link was to this comment thread, not some ‘warmist’ link. It’s got Dr Spencer’s name in it.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          barry,

          Its a link from a foolish Warmist.

          A foolish Warmist link, in other words.

          My comment stands. His desire to save repeating himself does not provide any good reason for me to waste my time. Ive seen it once. Seeing it again wont introduce new facts, will it?

          Do I care what you think? Not really.

          Cheers.

        • barry says:

          Your deceit here is quite transparent. You didn’t notice the link was to this very comment thread, insisting that Bin explain in his own words, figuring he’d linked to outside material.

          Don’t bother pressing on with the lie. It’s pretty stark.

          And here is further evidence of your hypocrisy.

          You ask me (below) to search the thread and intervene in a net conversation you had with someone else.

          But when provided a link where all you have to do is move your hand few centimetres and push a button, you proclaim that this is insufficient.

          I can only hope that you do not take yourself seriously. If you’re deliberately playing games, then that is mere fecklessness. However, your dedication here recommends a much less salutary conclusion.

  38. Dr no says:

    Just as I predicted!
    Stubbornness personified!
    Can’t answer.
    Won’t answer.
    Too afraid to answer.
    It’s like trying to get a child to eat his/her vegetables!

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Dr No,

      Make up your mind, laddie.

      Which one is it, and why?

      Stand up for yourself – make a decision – dont be a girlyman (as Arnie might say)!

      Courage, laddie, courage! You can do it!

      It still wont make the GHE any less mythical, willit?

      Cheers.

      • Dr No says:

        Can I help you further?
        There are 4 options:
        YES YES
        YES NO
        NO YES
        NO NO

        What could be simpler?
        I can happily answer YES YES.
        I also expect that Dr Roy Spencer would do the same, with no qualms whatsoever.
        But you cannot bring yourself to make a choice except to obfuscate.
        Typical behaviour from a stubborn, ill-informed, old man.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Dr No,

          Do you suffer from a mental defect? Are you dyslexic, perhaps?

          What part of “No”, as in “No”, do you not understand? I can explain the meaning of “No”, if you are unable to find it out for yourself.

          Your mind reading ability is sadly lacking, just in case you wanted some feedback.

          Cheers.

  39. Mike Flynn says:

    There are obviously two David Appells (or possibly a whole barrel of them).

    David Appell (1) took umbrage with me –

    “David Appell says:
    September 23, 2017 at 3:57 PM
    Mike Flynn says:
    The approved form, per David Appell, seems to be
    Prove that, smartass. Or apologize.

    I never wrote that.

    Manufacturing quotes is dishonest.”

    It must have therefore been David Appell(2) who wrote “Prove that, smartass. Or apologize.”

    “David Appell says:
    September 17, 2017 at 7:19 PM
    Gordon Robertson says:
    Why is it the physics of Pierrehumbert disagrees with basic physics in general?

    Prove that, smartass. Or apologize.”

    I don’t know whether there are two David Appells, a case of multiple personalities, an evil twin, a super hero secret identity, or possibly an example of multiple universes, populated with equally foolish David Appells.

    It might even be a case of very short attention span, where David Appell cannot remember what he wrote 6 days or so before.

    Maybe the real David Appell might help to get to the root of this seemingly perplexing dilemma.

    And still no GHE, so I suppose it doesn’t really matter how many David Appells can’t remember what they wrote.

    Cheers.

    • Dr No says:

      And still, no answers.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Dr No,

        Im surprised you care so much about me.

        I care nothing at all about you. Are you certain youre not in the grip of some compulsive fetish centred on my good self?

        Not only will your gotchas go unanswered, but your passion for me will likewise go unrequited.

        Still no GHE. Maybe you can fixate it into existence! You could always demand that politicians pass a law creating a GHE. You could also demand that the Government issue a decree to stop the climate from changing, but I feel that your chances of success are slim.

        Just a couple of helpful suggestions. You are free to ignore them if you wish, of course.

        Cheers.

  40. ren says:

    The more the jet stream will be meridian in the west (currently very low geomagnetic activity), the closer the east coast will be hurricane Maria.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=conus&timespan=24hrs&anim=html5

  41. Bindidon says:

    Roy Spencer (own head post)

    Maybe global warming causes fewer landfalling major hurricanes.

    Well I really hope you are right. And as a climate specialist, you have the bigger experience on your side.

    But what I don’t understand: if this global warming now really becomes actual, would then major hurricanes not increase in power due to the tropical Atlantic ocean surface getting warmer?

    Or do you rather mean that land warming (which is stronger than sea surface warming, that is visible even in UAH’s tropospheric data) will make landfall more difficult for hurricanes?

    • gbaikie says:

      “But what I dont understand: if this global warming now really becomes actual, would then major hurricanes not increase in power due to the tropical Atlantic ocean surface getting warmer?”

      “Now” and “actual”.
      We recovering from cold period called the Little Ice Age, that is “now”.
      We also recovering from glacial period for last +10,000 years, that is “now”.

      But I suspect your “now” and “actual” has to do with your belief that CO2 is at some unusual level. And this warming the atmosphere and you could [maybe] think it’s mostly warming the upper atmosphere. If that occurring, that should reduce hurricanes.

      Now I have different view of it, but my view also including warming the entire world. Or not go into it much, but I think a warming ocean warms the world. Or there isn’t much disagreement about the necessity of the average temperature needs in increase outside of the tropics in order for there to be an increase in global average temperatures.
      And so less hurricanes.

      Now, the tropics has highest average temperature [26 C] because it gets the most sunlight and because it does get cold. Deserts and/or high elevation can get cold in the tropics, but most of tropics is ocean. Or the tropical ocean has constant warm ocean which results in a constant warm air above the ocean- it doesn’t get “hot” but rather always stays warm.

      And some believer of the church of Greenhouse effect theory, believe global warming is related to idea of Earth getting hotter, despite the lack evidence of air temperature getting hotter.
      This is probably the fault of the news talking about hotter days being caused by global warming. But most people know that reporters are idiots- or overly concerned about having an “exciting story”.
      What does cause hotter days is the UHI effect- which is unrelated to the greenhouse effect theory.
      Or the UHI effect is more related to my idea- which is crudely, the the ocean absorbs heat. Or the UHI effect in related to idea that urban surfaces absorb more heat.

      Or in comparison there is inversion layers which cause it to be hotter- and that would be relatable to GHE theory- but that not the factor with UHI effects- or “atmospheric effects” isn’t the issue rather it’s what on the ground which is causing it

      • Bindidon says:

        gbaikie on September 24, 2017 at 1:20 PM

        1. gbaikie, could you please translate the ‘or’ you use back into your native tongue? I don’t understand what exactly you mean with it.

        2. Did you ever compare, for the Globe or a region of it, rural, nonrural and urban GHCN station data?

        • gbaikie says:

          Well as said, I am a lukewarmer.
          But that doesn’t mean that I accept the pseudo science of
          the greenhouse effect theory.
          Some things are correct- that’s true of any pseudo science.

          Choose any pseudo science, and I am pretty sure I could find some things which are correct, regarding it.
          I
          But it doesn’t count for much.
          But for example, a thermally conductive ideal black body will be about 5 C at earth distance.
          What is obviously wrong is that only greenhouse gases can cause warming. It’s so obviously wrong that no believer can defend the idiocy.
          Just as Venezuela’s socialism is not defensible- unless you admit that creating poverty is the correct direction.
          Or you have some conspiracy “theories”.

          • gbaikie says:

            Btw, here is list given by idiot of Pseudoscience:

            http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-pseudoscience.html
            Hardly a full list or anything but does have saving grace to say:
            “As you can see, there are pseudoscience examples in a variety of different fields and in a variety of different areas. ”

            There are bigger fish, but they are useful examples and easier clues for the clueless.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            gbaikie…”here is list given by idiot of Pseudoscience:…”

            -Under Space and Astronomy…”Ancient Astronauts – Proposes that aliens have visited the earth in the past and influenced our civilization”

            Makes far more sense than evolution.

            -Under Psychology…”Hypnosis – A method of deep relaxation where the subject is open to suggestions…”

            Hypnosis is not pseudo-science, it is used in lieu of general anaesthesia for people who cannot tolerate anaesthetics. Under deep hypnosis a person can be directed to eliminate pain, or with self-hypnosis, that same person can induce anaesthersia himself/herself.

            Furthermore, scientists have measured the change of frequency in brain waves while a person is under a hypnotic state.

            Hypnosis is NOT a method of deep relaxation although it can induce deep relaxation. It is a process related to a specific part of the brain and has the opposite effect of an hallucinogen like LSD. Hypnosis is about a finely tuned focus whereas LSD open the brain to all stimulation. That can be quite confusing. Don’t ask me how I know.

          • gbaikie says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            September 25, 2017 at 12:17 AM

            gbaikiehere is list given by idiot of Pseudoscience:

            -Under Space and AstronomyAncient Astronauts Proposes that aliens have visited the earth in the past and influenced our civilization

            Makes far more sense than evolution.

            Which is related to my point- but it’s Pseudoscience.

            –Under PsychologyHypnosis A method of deep relaxation where the subject is open to suggestions

            Hypnosis is not pseudo-science, it is used in lieu of general anaesthesia for people who cannot tolerate anaesthetics. Under deep hypnosis a person can be directed to eliminate pain, or with self-hypnosis, that same person can induce anaesthersia himself/herself. —

            Well Pseudoscience can even work sometime- unlike the Greenhouse Effect theory. Basically the entire field of Psychology is Pseudoscience. This also applies to whole field of Paranormal.
            The better example of Pseudoscience is Marxism.

            Marxism, Materialism, atheism is under to delusion that science supports these stupid ideas.

        • gbaikie says:

          “2. Did you ever compare, for the Globe or a region of it, rural, nonrural and urban GHCN station data?”

          Why would I do this.
          Are denying the UHI effect?

          Are unaware that urban areas are a small portion of land area,
          and very small and nothing to do with global temperature.

          Though UHI effect and/or other rules related to siting requirements for taking air temperature could be related to the measuring global temperatures.

      • gbaikie says:

        Maybe if I correct important typo, it could be useful. I said:
        Now, the tropics has highest average temperature [26 C] because it gets the most sunlight and because it does get cold.
        Meant:
        ..because it gets the most sunlight and because it doesn’t get cold.

        Probably others, but that was an obvious one.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”But what I dont understand: if this global warming now really becomes actual, would then major hurricanes not increase in power due to the tropical Atlantic ocean surface getting warmer?”

      Chris Landsea, NOAA hurricane expert, claimed if the model projected temps come about by 2100, it will increase storm intensity by 1 to 2%.

  42. bilybob says:

    I knew this famous statistician who would fly all over the world to give lectures. He was quite in demand for his in depth knowledge and ability to present ideas informatively and simple. But then after compiling data related to the probability of a bomb being on a plane, he decided to forego airplane travel. He simply believed it was unsafe, the probability was a bit too high for his comfort. Needless to say, the number of lectures he gave dropped off.

    Years later, he was back on the circuit flying all over the world again. When asked what changed his mind, he replied, I revisited the data and discovered that the probability of 2 bombs being on a plane was nearly zero. So now, I just have to be sure I pack my own bomb when flying around.

  43. ren says:

    You can expect strong rainfall throughout the US east. Also in Alabama.

  44. Mike Flynn says:

    Bindidon wrote –

    “Mr Flynn

    There are limits we all should manage no to bypass.

    Point final.”

    Possibly someone could explain what this collection of letters means in English.

    Maybe it’s Bindidion attempting to deny, divert and confuse in some novel foolish Warmist manner. Or maybe it’s written in some obscure Warmese dialect.

    Still no disprovable GHE hypothesis. How hard can it be?

    Cheers.

    • barry says:

      He’s saying some things should not be tolerated.

      You seriously couldn’t make that out? Wow, wait until you read a scientific paper.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        barry,

        I’m rather curious – as to why he didn’t just write “Some things should not be tolerated.”

        As you are so adept at reading Warmese, maybe you could explain what the “things” are, and why they should not be “tolerated”?

        If someone “tolerates” these indefinite “things”, what are the consequences?

        I may have to depend on your superior understanding, as I couldn’t make head or tail of it. You claim that one thing is equivalent to another, but I see no cogent reason why I should believe you. Have you any logical reason for your assertion, or are you just trying the foolish Warmist ploy of fact through unswerving faith?

        You might care to include your translation of “Point final”, as it appears odd. He made no points, just an unsupported apparent opinion about something. Hardly a “final point” – possibly a first one, but obviously it will be simple for you to explain in plain English.

        Thanks for your assistance. It’s appreciated. Maybe Bindidon could approach you for help in future. In the meantime, if you feel like helping me, please do. If you don’t, I understand. Foolish Warmists sometimes pretend to help, but are only looking for “gotchas”.

        I hope you are genuine.

        Cheers.

      • barry says:

        My reply is straight out of the Mike Flynn playbook:

        Show me where I said I was adept at reading ‘warmese’. Until you do so I see no reason to play your silly gotcha games.

        Typical contrarian ploy of quoting without references. Perhaps you can pinpoint the discussion in question and we can establish the particular comprehension deficit from which you suffer. It might be useful for times when no one is there to hold your hand.

        Still the GHS is real. None of your many excursion into the mysterious realm of ‘words’ has made a dent in that.

        I hope you are genuine.

        I return what I’m served.

        Warm Regards.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          barry,

          Youre getting there. Im pleased youre working from the Mike Flynn playbook. Its good, isnt it?

          Yes, I can pinpoint the discussion. Its as I quoted. You can find the rest of the thread if you are sufficiently interested – just cut and paste the quote, and search, if its important to you.

          The GHS (or Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals), to which you refer, certainly appears to be real, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Im not all sure why you would question this, or what the relevance is supposed to be.

          The GHE (or Greenhouse Effect), is not real, of course. In scientific terms, there is not even a disprovable GHE hypothesis to be found. This is quite understandable of course, given that to devise a GHE hypothesis would require specifying reproducible observations of a natural phenomena which cannot be explained by current scientific theories.

          Unfortunately, foolish Warmists cant even delineate the phenomena in question, as a first step.

          Maybe the foolish Warmists are confusing Scientism, or Cargo Cult Science, with real science – which unfortunately for foolish Warmists, requires following the scientific method, and all the rigorous work that is usually entailed.

          Unsupported assertions that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or that Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize, dont mean that the GHE exists.

          That’s clearly a part of the Mike Flynn playbook. If you don’t like it, maybe you could use another playbook, although I’m pleased you’re using mine. I’ve put a lot of work into it.

          You have made a good try to return what you were served. You lost the point, unfortunately for you. I wrote the playbook, and you say your reply is straight out of my playbook. Score is 15-love, to me.

          Maybe if you give up “gotchas” you might do better.

          Cheers.

        • barry says:

          Happily, you have provided a clues as to the nature of your comprehension deficit.

          Where most functioning minds would have instantly recognized a typo and not raised an eyebrow, your attention to it exhibits an overweening pedantry. It also exhibits a combative posture that the false bonhomie and pompous humour fail to disguise.

          In your following remarks you arrange words in what are by now familiar patterns, and as usual with no argument or point being made re the GHE.

          Immediately afterwards is your rather bland, entirely unoriginal blanket criticism of the conveniently monolithic group (‘Warmists’) you appear to be obsessed with. While the conceptual dross is yawn-inducing, it is of some interest, and particularly revealing, that this constellation of word is a near-universal feature of any post you make of more than one paragraph. The substance of your remarks in this regard are inversely proportional to their ubiquity. This is a strong feature of your comments generally. So too is the reference to “gotchas,” which is not attached to any specific comment or line of argumentation, but is something you regurgitate when someone is disagreeing with you. This is reflex defensiveness, a catch-all phrase that captures nothing.

          It is more difficult to determine if you repeat these mantras over and over because you have little else to say, or because you have forgotten that you have already said them scores of times. Either way, it does not bode well. I have set aside the possibility that you actually believe that repeating them ad infinitum is persuasive.

          So, it seems your comprehension deficit arises from multiple factors: obsessiveness, pedanticism, combativeness, superciliousness, insincerity, likely a failing memory, and an inability to distinguish between reason and pure assertion. Remediating the latter may or may not ameliorate the rest, but it will furnish you with a useful tool for these discussions.

          I appreciate your appreciation. I won’t always be able to help, and am in no way interested in searching for and explaining a conversation that was between you and someone else. Especially so because you have not only never supplied the courtesy yourself, but because you have been too lazy to to re-examine or even remember your own comments when I have referred you to them. I could not allow myself to actualise a double standard on your part.

          However, if you wish to gather the relevant comments and put them all in one handy to read post I will consider assisting you. I have decided not to hold my breath while you ruminate on a course of action.

  45. barry says:

    OT:

    Should Scott Pruitt get his Red Team together and they affirm that the greenhouse effect is real, I wonder if some denizens of this blog will write them off as alarmists.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      barry,

      If they could provide a disprovable GHE hypothesis, I’m sure people would actually do a few experiments. If experiment didn’t accord with the hypothesis, just another failed hypothesis, eh?

      There is no GHE. It doesn’t matter how many teams affirm that it exists – if it can’t be tested, it doesn’t exist.

      The laws of gravity seem to work – even though nobody knows why gravity works. The laws can be tested – nobody has managed to show they don’t.

      Nobody knows how the GHE is supposed to work – if you remove the CO2 from the air in a sealed room, should the temperature go down, go up, or remain unchanged?

      A bit odd, I think you’d agree.

      Cheers.

      • Dr No says:

        “if you remove the CO2 from the air in a sealed room, should the temperature go down, go up, or remain unchanged?”
        Don’t bother us with your “gotcha” questions.

        “A bit odd, I think youd agree.”
        We are not interested in what you think.

        What is odd is the fact that you have never posted a link to a climate science publication.
        Now, that is odd.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Dr No,

          I’m pleased you don’t care what I think. You’re following the Mike Flynn playbook. It’s catching on. I’m glad you express an aversion to “gotchas”, as do I.

          The Mike Flynn playbook generally advises against posting links, so you haven’t adopted the procedures fully yet.

          Keep going, you’re trying harder, obviously.

          The next step is to ask for a disprovable GHE hypothesis, and watch the askee attempt to furiously deny, divert, and confuse. Then you know you are facing a faith based foolish Warmist, practicing Scientism (Cargo Cult Science), rather than the real thing.

          Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            I see now.
            The “Mike Flynn” method involves:
            (1) not answering legitimate questions
            (2) not referring to any published material
            (3) demanding that anything that cannot be proved 100% (whatever that means) right now, is not worth considering.
            Thank you for an enlightening demonstration of the scientific method.(not)

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr No,

            You have have a long way to go, Grasshopper.

            With progress and observation, you may come to understand.

            For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

            Go forward, young Grasshopper. Seek, and ye shall find. Inquire, and it shall be revealed unto you.

            Cheers.

    • barry says:

      What will you say when (not if) the proposed Red Team affirm the GHE is real?

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        barry, AGW is about a political agenda and/or personal gain—it is NOT about science. There is no need for a “red team”. that’s why the whole exercise is suspicious. The science is ALREADY settled. The laws of physics are well established. Heat energy can NOT be created by magic. “Cold” can NOT warm “hot”. AGW is a hoax.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Fixing:

          barry, AGW is about a political agenda and/or personal gain–it is NOT about science. There is no need for a “red team”. that’s why the whole exercise is suspicious. The science is ALREADY settled. The laws of physics are well established. Heat energy can NOT be created by magic. “Cold” can NOT warm “hot”. AGW is a hoax.

        • barry says:

          And what will you say when the proposed red Team affirm that the GHE is real?

          • Dr No says:

            The science is already settled. Agreed.
            Its just that a few black knights (aka denialists) keep making a lot of noise.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            ba asks: “And what will you say when the proposed red Team affirm that the GHE is real?”

            I will say they were deceived. Just as many are deceived, currently .

          • barry says:

            So a team of contrarians hand-picked by a skeptic to find fault with the mainstream view will be ‘deceived’ when they affirm the GHE?

            I have stated a number of times what it would take to make me think AGW was not real or an inconsequential issue.

            What would it take to change your mind? It seems that if God himself told you the GHE was real, you would think God had been hoodwinked.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, the laws of physics far supercede the comedy of pseudoscience EVERY time.

          • gbaikie says:

            –barry says:
            September 25, 2017 at 9:14 AM

            So a team of contrarians hand-picked by a skeptic to find fault with the mainstream view will be deceived when they affirm the GHE?

            I have stated a number of times what it would take to make me think AGW was not real or an inconsequential issue.

            What would it take to change your mind? It seems that if God himself told you the GHE was real, you would think God had been hoodwinked.–

            Or herself.
            You are stating that science is based on authority.
            God is perfectly capable of lying.
            But God saying GHE is not pseudo science, proves that the thing claiming to be God is not God.

            Though not really a believer that God talks. And basically why does Good need a spaceship, is a good argument.
            cf: Star Trek
            And btw, God doesn’t suicide bombers murdering people- if God is loser, it’s not God.

          • gbaikie says:

            –does Good need a spaceship, is a good argument–

            sigh: does God need a spaceship, is a good argument

            Anyways the Story of Job illustrates, God could lie.
            [If you believe that stuff.]

          • barry says:

            barry, the laws of physics far supercede the comedy of pseudoscience EVERY time.

            I agree.

  46. lewis says:

    I will have to agree with Mike about ‘gotchas’. Unfortunately the use of them is not limited to AGW alarmists. They are used by those on the left generally.

    Unable to make rational arguments they look for misplaced commas etc., in order to ‘prove’ your position wrong. I ran into this 30+ years ago and continue to see it today.

    • barry says:

      Unable to make rational arguments they look for misplaced commas etc

      Mike focussed on a typo of mine a few posts up, and in this case I’d have to agree with your conclusion about that sort of behaviour.

      As for “gotchas,” they seem mythological – the cry of someone who runs out of answers and like a four year-old squawks, “that’s not fair!”

      Intellectual laziness and cowardice.

  47. As overall oceanic temperatures go so does the global air temperatures.

    What has a major role in determination of oceanic temperatures – the sun not CO2.

  48. Bindidon says:

    What is called ‘the second law of Thermodynamics’, has been stated as a principle (but was never proved) by Rudolf Clausius in an article entitled

    Ueber eine veraenderte Form des zweiten Hauptsatzes der mechanischen Waermetheorie
    i.e.
    On a modified form of the second fundamental theorem of the mechanical theory of heat

    published 1854 in ‘Annalen der Physik und Chemie’ Band XCIII Nr 12, pp. 481-506.

    to be found in e.g.

    http://zfbb.thulb.uni-jena.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/jportal_derivate_00140956/18541691202_ftp.pdf

    The exact text (in p. 488) is:

    Dieser Grundsatz, auf welchem die ganze folgende Entwickelung beruht, lautet: es kann nie Waerme aus einem kaelteren in einen waermeren Koerper uebergehen, wenn nicht gleichzeitig eine andere damit zusammenhaengende Aenderung eintrift.
    i.e.
    This principle on which the whole following development is based is : heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another change associated herewith simultaneously happens.

    It should be clear to anybody that a truncation of Clausius’ statement down to e.g.

    ‘Heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body’

    is nothing else than lack of understanding or will to manipulate.

    *

    Moreover, people always referring to Clausius’ statement mostly ignore his deep knowledge concerning radiation. Here is an example of this knowledge.

    I found a document written by german physicist Jochen Ebel from which in turn I was directed to

    https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau

    and found therein the following ( 1 on p. 315):

    DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
    von R. CLAUSIUS
    DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
    ERSTER BAND.

    Braunschweig, 1887

    ABSCHNITT XII.

    Die Concentration von Waerme- und Lichtstrahlen und die Grenzen ihrer Wirkung.

    1. Gegenstand der Untersuchung.

    Was ferner die in gewoehnlicher Weise stattfindende Waermestrahlung anbetrifft, so ist es freilich
    bekannt, dass nicht nur der warme Koerper dem kalten, sondern auch umgekehrt der kalte Koerper dem warmen Waerme zustrahlt, aber das Gesammtresultat dieses gleichzeitig stattfindenden doppelten Waermeaustausches besteht, wie man als erfahrungsmaessig feststehend ansehen kann, immer darin, dass der kaeltere Koerper auf Kosten des waermeren einen Zuwachs an Waerme erfaehrt.

    i.e.

    THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
    THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
    FIRST VOLUME.

    SECTION XII.

    The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.

    1. Subject of the investigation.

    What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.

    *

    Of course, the one or the other stubborn denialist certainly will have no problem in inventing some pseudo-argument against even Clausius’ knowledge!

    • barry says:

      Clasius is Robertson’s guru, isn’t he? Let’s see that quote again.

      it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well

      I’ve seen that idea rejected on this board.

      • Bindidon says:

        barry on September 25, 2017 at 9:19 AM

        Ive seen that idea rejected on this board.

        Oh it wasn’t only here!

        A look at many negative reactions to Roy Spencer’s contributions I mentioned in the comment below should convince you.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        barry and Bin, what you may be missing is that “emitting” is different from “absorbing”.

        • Bindidon says:

          g*e*r*a*n on September 25, 2017 at 9:50 AM

          Never heard of Kirchhoff’s law stating that materials that are absorbers at a given wavelength are also emitters at that wavelength?

          Exceptionally I’ll paraphrase Mr Flynn:

          Deny, divert, confuse!
          Foolish skeptics!

          Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            I’m not surprised you’ve never heard of Kirchhoffs law.

          • barry says:

            Heh, right on cue, he…

            Deny, divert, confuse!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            It may be due to Bin having to communicate in English.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Bindidon,

            Many thanks.

            Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Please feel free to refer to the Mike Flynn playbook. Obviously, people are capable of realising when you attempt to pervert the Mike Flynn playbook to your own ends.

            Your paraphrasing just doesn’t have the same ring does it?

            Maybe you could better apply your efforts to providing a testable and disprovable GHE hypothesis? Or is it somehow more difficult to express than the following –

            “In 1905, Albert Einstein published a paper advancing the hypothesis that light energy is carried in discrete quantized packets to explain experimental data from the photoelectric effect.”

            Testable, disprovable. Was advanced to a theory, which has not been shown to be false by experiment, so far.

            Or is the mysterious GHE hypothesis so arcane that it simply cannot be expressed in a scientific manner? I don’t believe there is even a testable GHE hypothesis, and so far I haven’t been proven wrong.

            Still no GHE. If you use the Mike Flynn playbook, you will need to understand it first. If you don’t, you may not get the desired result.

            Cheers.

        • Norman says:

          Bindidon

          Excellent contributions to the real world of science. Good job.

          The Clasius statement may quite Gordon. It will not help anti-science g*e*r*a*n and Mike Flynn. They are too far corrupted in their thought process to be of any use to intelligent people who desire to learn.

          I have told g*e*r*a*n about Kirchhoff’s Law many times. I have linked him to textbooks explaining it. He is not able to learn this reality and will continue in his false beliefs and anti-science, he does not desire to learn real science but he does like to belittle people. It is a sign of a low IQ who can’t understand things so rather than appear dumb to his peers he covers his ignorance with ridicule for those able to learn and understand.

          He has been the same for years and I do not see the possibility he might open a textbook on heat transfer, read the contents and make an honest effort to learn what is being stated.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “Norm is not able to learn this reality and will continue in his false beliefs and anti-science, he does not desire to learn real science but he does like to belittle people. It is a sign of a low IQ who cant understand things so rather than appear dumb to his peers he covers his ignorance with ridicule for those able to learn and understand.”

            (Fixed it for you, Con-man.)

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Unfortunately you fixed nothing and want to remain ignorant of actual science. Why do you want to stay ignorant?

            Why do you hate science so much that you have to make up your own untrue version of things?

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            I will attempt to get an answer from you. Hopefully you will try to comply.

            What is the source of your belief that a hot surface will not absorb energy (IR) from a cooler surface?

            All textbooks state a surface will emit and absorb simultaneously. None to date have ever made claims other than that. That is why I am wondering what is your source. You seem convinced it is correct and valid physics, yet nothing in any textbooks make such claims.

            Kirchhoff’s Law in general: A good emitter is also a good absorber.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Con-man, you can NOT bake a turkey with ice cubes, but you “believe” you can.

            I enjoy your hilarious pseudoscience.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            I ask and you are unable to deliver. Why is that? If you are so certain of your correct science it should be easy to provide. Why is it so difficult for you to support you belief?

            Why do you keep bringing up your turkey and ice cube post? It has nothing at all to do with if a hot surface can absorb IR energy from a colder one. Nothing at all.

            Why do you refuse to support your claims?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Con-man, you can try to deny all you want, but the record is clear.

            You even believe the Earth is warming the Sun.

            Hilarious.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            You won’t supply supporting evidence for your made up physics then you have to go and lie again and be dishonest. Why do you need to deliberately lie, does being a liar make you a happy man?

            YOUR LIES: “Con-man, you can try to deny all you want, but the record is clear.

            You even believe the Earth is warming the Sun.”

            NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THE EARTH IS WARMING THE SUN! I have stated it many times on various posts. The presence of the Earth in the Solar system will allow the Sun to reach a slightly higher (very slight) equilibrium temperature. It is not the same thing and you deliberately, with intent to deceive, make false and untrue claims.

            Support you claim that a heated surface cannot absorb IR energy from a colder surface of just quit posting.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            “NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THE EARTH IS WARMING THE SUN!”

            “the Earth .. will allow the Sun to reach a slightly higher …. temperature.”

            Perfectly clear.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Your con-game is to say one thing, and then say the opposite.

            You claim that the Earth is heating the Sun, but then you claim that it is not, but then you claim it is only heating it a little!

            You are only fooling yourself.

          • Norman says:

            SkepticGoneWild

            It is perfectly clear you do not understand the concept. The Sun’s fusion energy is what is what gives it the energy input. The amount of radiation the Sun can emit will then determine its surface temperature. It the fusion rate is the same and the surface has a reduced rate of radiant energy loss, the surface will warm until the energy input from fusion equals the energy lost by the surface. Simple 1st Law Thermodynamics. Any other idea would have to violate the 1st Law since the energy that is generated would have to disappear.

            Your understanding of thermodymanics if limited to one case and that is a case with no energy input.

            I know it won’t help you but I can always attempt.

            Case 1) No input energy. Hot object near a colder one.
            In this case the hot object will cool off and the colder one will warm. This is the only case you are able to understand and refuse to open your mind to other possible conditions.

            Case 2) Continuous energy input to the hot object.
            With no other objects around it, it will reach an equilibrium temperature where the surface temperature is the result of balancing the input energy to the output energy.

            Case 2 is what causes you all the problems. You are unable to think about a thermodynamic system with a continuous heat source.

            Take a 1 m^2 object (make is a black-body to simplify the math).
            Add 600 watts of continuous energy. The object has two equal sides of 1 m^2. Total emitting surface are is 2 m^2.

            Under this condition your surface will be at equilibrium conditions at 269.7 K. Changing nothing else but folding the plate in half so both surfaces touch you have reduced the emitting surface from 2 m^2 to 1 m^2. Your object will heat up until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature of 320.7 K. Just folding the plate in half caused a temperature rise of 51 K.

            If you reduce the amount the Sun is emitting by adding a slight amount back from the Earth that energy is not gone. It will cause a temperature increase until the Sun is emitting the same amount is is producing via fusion.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            You are still posting and not supporting you statement and now leading to some other point.

            Get support for you statement that a hot object cannot absorb IR from a colder one.

            Along with studying physics you should also take some reading comprehension classes. You do have a difficult time understanding concepts created by words.

            YOU: “Your con-game is to say one thing, and then say the opposite.

            You claim that the Earth is heating the Sun, but then you claim that it is not, but then you claim it is only heating it a little!

            You are only fooling yourself.”

            I am not claiming the Earth is heating the Sun. You and your twin SkepticGoneWild make this claim. Read what I posted again and try to comprehend it. I doubt you are able, you are a simpleton.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Con-man, now you are trying to deny your own words, again!

            “The Sun is getting warmer because less energy is able to leave it than when planets are present.”

            Hilarious.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Again even with this quote (not sure where you got it from of the larger context).

            Supposed me: The Sun is getting warmer because less energy is able to leave it than when planets are present.

            That is not the same as saying the Earth or planets are warming the Sun. You are unable or unwilling to understand the difference. You see a few words and connect them in a fashion that suits your belief but you do not understand the concept.

            Again. The Sun is creating a certain amount of energy via fusion (converting some of its mass into energy). If the process is at a constant rate (seems to be for the Sun since if varies very little over time) than anything that limits how much energy can leave the Sun will result in a higher solar surface temperature. Also it is a one time deal from no planets condition to a condition with planets.

            The Sun will not continually warm with planets present. It will reach a new equilibrium condition where the energy it creates via fusion will balance the energy it radiates. Simple physics, simple idea.

            You have yet to find supporting evidence for your assertion that a hot object cannot absorb IR from a cooler object. I think the way you are wired you will not support your claims even five years from now.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm argues with himself, again.

            “The Sun is getting warmer because less energy is able to leave it than when planets are present.”

            “The Sun will not continually warm with planets present.”

            Hilarious.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            “The earth heats the sun!”

            Soitenly! Woo woo woo woo woo woo woo!

            Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck, nyuck, nyuck nyuck!

            Why I aughta……

      • Ghalfrunt says:

        Copied from elsewhere and updated:

        Using whatever version of physics you believe in please explain how a room temperature thermal imaging camera can take thermographs of objects down to -50C
        There are no “cold rays” so how does focusing an object at -40C onto a microbolometer at 25C change its temperature compared to focussing an object at -30C onto microbolometer at 25C?
        https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GT_Ar-9WWfQ/UNkU2Fb2nBI/AAAAAAAAA1M/NLxj8Rt7yRI/s1600/sky+high+low+cloud.jpg
        This shows a thermal image of sky and clouds (in winter). The camera body was approx. 15 to 20C and the sensor was uncooled and therefore at a similar temperature perhaps hotter.
        If you are correct and cold objects cannot cause warmer objects to warm then this picture should effectively be an even black (there is no object above the microbolometer temperature and in your view lower temperatures cannot warm hotter objects and remember there are no such things as cold rays). All objects in the field are less warm than the sensor and in your physics cannot change the temperature of the sensor.
        However you can see temperatures from -2C to -35C. This is because the cold clouds are providing energy to the sensor changing its temperature.
        If the object in the field of view were at abs zero then no heat would be transferred to the sensor and the sensor would be in equilibrium with its camera environment. Above absolute zero heat energy is transferred to the sensor and its temperature increases above the camera background.
        At -50C (approx.) the heat from the object adds sufficient energy to the sensor for detection and the sensor warms until the energy OUT to the camera environment equals the energy IN from the camera environment plus the energy in through the lens.
        This additional energy changes in microbolometer temperature and hence its resistance.
        You should also be aware that the germanium lens used on thermal imaging cameras acts as a bandpass filter. So most radiation from CO2 and water vapour is not passed to the sensor. Hence no back radiation is seen from water vapour or CO2. Clouds of course are not water vapour but a cloud is an aerosol comprising a visible mass of minute liquid droplets (wiki) and hence thermal radiation is more like a black body allowing the camera to see the cloud.
        In general a thermal imaging camera MUST be insensitive to GHG radiation otherwise hot air would fog the image.

        • Bindidon says:

          Ghalfrunt on September 25, 2017 at 11:10 AM

          Sorry, no comment for the moment: I did no want to tell anybody that backradiation occurs.

          What I wanted to show is that people pretending backration from cold to warm materials be impossible due to Clausius’ 2LoT are ‘plain wrong’, as Tamino aka Foster loves to write.

          Not less, not more.

          But what concerns your comment as such: why then do SURFRAD devices record CO2 and H2O specific IR lines?

          https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php

          (I hope you believe that the IR is way above 4 microns, thus excluding solar origin.)

          Any idea?

        • Ghalfrunt says:

          Bindidon 2017 09 25 11:10
          Radiation measured by ir non cooled cameras is limited by the lens in the case of the camera used in the cloud photo the camera had a germanium lens limiting the ir pass through to 1 to 14 micrometers. Using this band enables it to be used to see through air. If it included ir gas emissions it would only show the temp of those gasses. Other devices have different bands of recording according to required purpose.
          There are more interesting stuff on it cameras here http://bitly/2xCYhsC and look for thermal imaging.
          Show boiling water visible but water vapour from boiling water is invisible. Hot air at 450C is invisible.

    • Bindidon says:

      I forgot to add a detail.

      Two years ago I read Roy Spencer’s excellent contribution:

      What Causes the Greenhouse Effect?
      June 13th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

      to be found in

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/

      This was then reedited with:

      The Warm Earth: Greenhouse Effect, or Atmospheric Pressure?
      July 30th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

      to be found in

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/

      These two documents helped me in definitely understanding why backradiation is physically possible even from a cooler troposphere down to a warmer surface, and that radiation budgets resulting from their radiation difference are a meaningful, serious matter (and not some ridiculous warmista blah blah).

      Roy Spencer’s second head post ended with

      Finally, just because the greenhouse effect exists does not mean that global warming in response to increasing carbon dioxide will be a serious problemthat is another issue entirely, and involves things like cloud feedbacks. Im only referring to the existence of the Earths natural greenhouse effect, which to me is largely settled science.

      What is today important to me is that now I realise that what Spencer understands under ‘largely settled science’ in fact goes back to even the end of the 19th century, and, somewhat ironically, was known to just the man whose work is permanently invoked as a contradiction to backradiation: Rudolf Clausius in person.

      *

      Last not least let me end with a jokey moment: the link below points to the definite proof of Earth’s global warming!

      https://ann53.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/klimawandel.jpg

      • Dr No says:

        I can already tell you what our friends will say:
        1. Roy Spencer is a foolish warmist
        2. Clausius was in on the conspiracy back then
        3. There is no such thing as back radiation – dug kottin said so.
        4. German physicist Jochen Ebel was a nincompoop
        5. The size of my underpants has grown enormously over the decades, therefore disproving the GHE

        • Bindidon says:

          Excellent resumee!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Bindidon,

            I thought rsum was a French word. Do you mean something different?

            Maybe you confused “resumee” with “farrago”?

            I presume English is not your mother tongue, so I’m just trying to help.

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Bindidon,

            Many apologies. My e’s with accents didn’t appear. I’ll try using a different character set.

            Rsum. Should be e’s with accents!

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Bad luck for me. One last try –

            rsum

            Cheers.

          • Bindidon says:

            Now I guess ‘No GHE’-SuperBatman Flynn has understood the accent problem.

            Which of course is a subproblem, concerning a small subset of all the special characters accepted but not displayed by this website, like e.g. ‘paragraph’.

            Indeed: English is my ‘third’ language. Poor guy, it suffers so terribly from that daily prosecution by German and French.

            Welch trauriges Schicksal! Quel triste destin!

          • Bindidon says:

            Mike Flynn

            I’m not quite sure, but maybe the problem we all meet here has to do with the so called ‘7-bit-ASCII’ character set some parts of this site still seem to have in use.

            Reminds me these good ol’ IBM card punchers…

      • gbaikie says:

        “to be found in

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/

        Problem with pressure is the claim it adds heat. Which basically saying gravity is heat source.

        I would say it this way, something higher in gravity well has more potential energy as compared to something of same kinetic energy lower in a gravity well

        So have balloon [or greenhouse] at absolute pressure of 15 psi
        have sunlight warm gas to 60 C at sea level. And have another balloon at absolute pressure of 15 psi have sunlight warm it to 60 C at 10,000 feet.
        burst the balloon when at 60 C and balloon at 10,000 ft has more kinetic energy. It explode more violently, but the point is it warms earth more.

        Or if air is heated to same temperature at higher elevation as lower elevation, that air at higher elevation become warmer when goes to lower elevation. It’s called, Anabatic wind:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabatic_wind

        And related to why Death Valley has the highest recorded air temperature.

        • gbaikie says:

          Btw, it doesn’t explain why earth has average temperature of 15 C.
          Or for me it doesn’t explain why Earth has average temperature 15 C. Because I think most warming is done at sea level- because I think the ocean warms Earth’s atmosphere.

          But it does explain why one can have hotter weather. And does explain why Venus is hot, the acid clouds at 50 km elevation warms the air.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            gbaikie…”And does explain why Venus is hot, the acid clouds at 50 km elevation warms the air”.

            To 462C at the surface???

            Presuming those clouds at 50 KM are cooler than the surface, which is likely. How do the clouds transfer heat to the surface?

            Has anyone considered Mike’s hypothesis that internal forces on Venus may be contributing to it’s super-hot surface temp hence creating the atmospheric conditions?

            It’s hard enough here in Earth to measure the core temp of the Earth, there is no way to calculate internal temps on Venus.

            No one considered that the surface of Venus was that hot till a spacecraft (was it Pioneer) measured it sometime in the 1990s.

            Here’s an abstract on the problem:

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JA085iA13p08219/abstract

            “…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…”

          • gbaikie says:

            ” Gordon Robertson says:
            September 25, 2017 at 3:57 PM

            gbaikieAnd does explain why Venus is hot, the acid clouds at 50 km elevation warms the air.

            To 462C at the surface???”

            Yes.
            Or how a cooler “object” warms a hotter “object”.
            Except It’s not a object and it’s not making the gas molecule have higher average velocity.

            Or the CO2 molecules near the surface of Venus, do not have a high average velocity- the gas is hot because the gas is a high density because it’s under a lot of pressure.

            Or hot gas is not due to high average velocity, but the other part of the kinetic energy of gas- more molecules in a given volume.
            Or:
            Kinetic energy = mass 1/2 times velocity square.
            It’s increase of mass which causes higher temperature.

            The gas which warmed must have enough density, and around 1 atm would have enough density.

            Or as said before if have big enough pit- like 4 km deep deep on Earth the air at bottom of pit will warmer. It will follow the lapse rate- 6.5 C per km. So it will be about 26 C warmer. Or if air is 30 C at top of pit, it will be 56 C at bottom of pit.
            Or Earth had such a pit, when the Mediterranean sea didn’t have any water in it. As wiki says:
            “Using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of around 10 C (50 F) per kilometer, a theoretical temperature of an area 4 km (2.5 mi) below sea level would be about 40 C (104 F) warmer than the temperature at sea level. Under this simplistic assumption, theoretical temperature maxima would have been around 80 C (176 F) at the lowest depths of the dry abyssal plain permitting little life other than extremophiles”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis

            Or 80 C is about 40 C hotter than any current place on Earth. And it’s during a glacial period- not that matters much as it’s fairly close to tropics.

            Or the surface of Venus is the cloud tops, and at atm where laspe rate changes, at top of troposphere of earth, it “doesn’t work any more”. So around 50 km elevation on Venus.

          • gbaikie says:

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JA085iA13p08219/abstract

            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

            Well, didn’t pay to see whole thing.
            But obviously I disagree, I think it’s quite possible for the sunlight to heat Venus.

        • gbaikie says:

          Oops wrong link:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind
          “Examples of true katabatic winds include the bora (or bura) in the Adriatic, the Bohemian Wind or Bhmwind in the Ore Mountains, the Santa Ana in southern California,”

          • gbaikie says:

            Btw, my idea of ocean warming earth would be falsified if the average ocean surface is cooler than average global air temperature.

          • gbaikie says:

            Oh, if put Earth at Venus distance, would the average ocean temperature be cooler than average global temperature.

            If put ocean on Mars [at the equator] would the ocean be cooler than average temperature of Mars.

        • gbaikie says:

          “Presuming those clouds at 50 KM are cooler than the surface, which is likely. How do the clouds transfer heat to the surface?”

          A number of ways, there updrafts and downdrafts and rain in Venus atmosphere [rain of acid]. But conduction of gas molecules works [gas if enough density will average it’s all of the molecules velocities].

          “Has anyone considered Mikes hypothesis that internal forces on Venus may be contributing to its super-hot surface temp hence creating the atmospheric conditions?”

          Earth has 10 tons per square meter, Venus is less than 100 times the amount: 1000 tons per square meter.
          Rock is more than 2 tons per cubic meter, so equal to 500 meter of rock. or 1000 meter of water.
          Or talking about insulative atmosphere allows internal heat of Venus not to cool- which one of things I think is possible.
          Also Venus is thought to a young surface and has periodic re-surfacing- entire surface of Venus might been lava- something like + 200 million year ago.

          But simple answer is, not sure what mike’s hypothesis is

      • The problem is the GHG effect is a result of the climate /environment not the cause. This is why CO2 always follows the temperature.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          salvatore…”The problem is the GHG effect is a result of the climate /environment not the cause. This is why CO2 always follows the temperature”.

          I have attacked this problem using very basic science, namely the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures. Either those laws are no longer valid or no one has a come back.

          Granted, we must observe the ‘Ideal’ in the Ideal Gas Equation but even with real gases the law gives a ballpark understanding of how gases behave. The reality is not that far removed from ideal conditions.

          Furthermore, the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s Law generally apply to static conditions in a laboratory container. Once you introduce convective forces the dynamics change but does the overall reality?

          PV = nRT is the Ideal Gas Equation. Given that our atmosphere is of constant volume and constant mass that equation can be simplified to P = T approx, or T = P. In other words, temperatures varies directly with pressure.

          There is a complication in that our atmosphere is stratified into a pressure gradient by gravity. Nevertheless, that pressure gradient complies with the Ideal Gas Equation in that as altitude increases, hence pressure decreases, temperature decreases in step.

          That can be explained easily as gas molecule collisions lessening as the mass thins with altitude and a lowered effect of gravity. For example, the atmospheric content of oxygen thins to 1/3 of its density at sea level at 30,000 feet, the altitude of Mount Everest.

          There are some people today insisting that atmospheric cooling with altitude has nothing to do with gravity. What else explains that phenomenon?

          Therefore, given that our atmosphere obeys the Ideal Gas Equation to a degree and that it is affected by convection currents which operate on top of the pressure/temperature gradient, applying Dalton’s Law should be a no-brainer.

          Dalton claimed that in a mixed gas, the pressure of the entire gas can be calculated by summing the partial pressures of all the gases. Since pressure is directly governed by mass, that means the partial masses of each gas sum to the total mass. Most importantly for our purposes, it means the partial temperature contribution of each gas is directly proportional to it’s partial mass.

          The partial mass of N2 and O2 is around 99% whereas the partial mass of CO2 is around 0.04%. It doesn’t take rocket science to get it that the temperature contribution of CO2 is measured in 100ths of 1%.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”to be found in

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/

        Whereas I have the deepest respect for Roy, I am not about to regard him as an authority on thermodynamics. In fact, I think some of his arguments on the heat transfer are plain wrong.

        Here’s an example from the link above:

        “Analogous to insulation in a heated home, greenhouse gases reduce the net rate of infrared energy transfer from the surface and lower atmosphere to outer space, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to be warmer, and the upper atmosphere to be colder, than if greenhouse gases did not exist”.

        GHGs do not have the ability to reduce the net rate of IR transfer. In fact, the notion of IR transfer in not from physics. Heat transfer comes from physics and IR is not heat.

        The net rate of IR emission from the surface is governed only by the temperature difference between the surface and its immediate surroundings. If the temp difference is reduced to zero, no energy will be emitted. If the difference is in favour of the surroundings, the surface will warm.

        “Again, temperature is the result of energy gain AND energy loss. If you reduce the rate of energy loss, temperature will riseeven if the energy input is the same”.

        Temperature is a measure of the relative intensity of heat. Energy gain and energy loss are related to the gain and loss of thermal energy, not IR.

        “Given the same rate of energy input into the home by its heating system, addition of insulation slows the net rate of heat flow from the warmer interior to the cold exterior, causing higher temperatures inside and lower temperatures outside, compared to if the insulation did not exist”.

        The rate of thermal energy flow from the home is via conduction through the walls and ceiling and insulation does slow that down since it slows the conduction, not the radiative transfer of heat. Insulation is interfering with the actual molecules of air, not with the infrared emissions.

        “…the decrease in temperature with height in the troposphere is ultimately caused by the greenhouse effect itself”.

        Impossible. The reduction in temperature with altitude is due to the thinning of the air molecules due to the lowered gravitational effect. GHGs, at a maximal component of the atmosphere typically of 1% could not do that. The overall percent of water vapour in the atmosphere is around 0.3%.

        “This is where the Sky Dragon Slayers get tripped up. They claim the colder atmosphere cannot emit IR downward toward a warmer surface below, when in fact all the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would require is that the NET flow of energy in all forms be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is still true in my discussion”.

        IMHO, this is where Roy gets tripped up. The 2nd law has nothing whatsoever to do with a NET flow of infrared energy. Such a concept does not exist in physics. The 2nd law is about heat transfer and it is clear that heat cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          Binny has no filter. He just laps up whatever his puppet-masters tell him. Sort of like a UAV. Automated robot.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Again and again I will ask you for any supporting evidence for your opinions.

          YOU: “IMHO, this is where Roy gets tripped up. The 2nd law has nothing whatsoever to do with a NET flow of infrared energy. Such a concept does not exist in physics. The 2nd law is about heat transfer and it is clear that heat cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.”

          All the textbooks make the claim that Heat is the NET flow of radiant energy of a surface being examined. The surface is both emitting IR energy (based upon its temperature and emissivity) and absorbing IR from its surroundings based upon the temperature of the surroundings.

          So where do you get your claim from. You just make it up. You have no source. I have asked you before but you just ignore the request.

          If you want to contribute to a science blog then support you claims with scientific evidence. You just won’t do it though and will probably ignore the request for evidence like you always do.

          Have you looked at your own post from another thread?

          YOU POSTED THIS: “If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as

          q = e s (Th4 Tc4) Ac (3)

          where

          Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)

          Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)

          Ac = area of the object (m2)”

          Gordon do you read the word NET in your description? If you look at a textbook they will make the same claim. It is NET energy (emitted minus absorbed). No matter what textbook you choose on the subject of heat transfer, when they describe radiant heat transfer it is always a NET energy transfer of a surface.

          Please read some physics, please!

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            And still another source pointing out that you really do not know REAL physics but peddle your own made up physics. Over and over, thread after thread never having the slightest desire to correct your faulty thinking. Maybe the arrogant SkepticGoneWild can read this. I doubt it will be of value to either of you as you both defend your phony physics with vigor, too bad you don’t learn real physics and defend it with the same intensity.

            HERE: “When two radiating bodies interact (body 1 & 2), each will radiate energy to and absorb energy from each other. The net radiant heat transfer between the two objects, q12, is calculated by:

            (NOTE equation did not copy/paste)

            where F1-2 is the configuration factor that is a function of the shapes, emissivities, and orientation of the two bodies relative to each other. For the limiting case where body 1 is relatively small and completely enclosed by body 2, F1-2 = e1”

            From source:
            http://tinyurl.com/yao6zctc

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            More proof you just make up stuff and call it good.

            Here: “You will notice that the equation does not include any heat flux term, q.
            Instead we have a term the emissive power. The relationship between these
            terms is as follows. Consider two infinite plane surfaces, both facing one
            another. Both surfaces are ideal surfaces. One surface is found to be at
            temperature, T1, the other at temperature, T2. Since both temperatures are
            at temperatures above absolute zero, both will radiate energy as described
            by the Stefan-Boltzman law. The heat flux will be the net radiant flow as
            given by:
            q” = Eb1 – Eb2 = T1
            4
            – T2
            4

            NOTE: “The heat flux will be the net radiant flow as”

            Always a NET radiant heat flow.

            Source:
            http://nptel.ac.in/courses/Webcourse-contents/IISc-BANG/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/pdf/M9/Student_Slides_M9.pdf

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            My goal is to correct your wrong thinking so that you can become a valuable contributor to a science blog.

            So again: “Net Radiation Loss Rate
            If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as”

            Everywhere it is Net radiation. Only in your own confined reality there exists no net IR transfer.

            The three stooges of Climate Blogs. g*e*r*a*n, SkepticGoneWild, and Gordon Robertson.

            None will read textbooks to correct their flawed thinking. All post the same made up physics and peddle it as if were based upon some real physics. None of the stooges will ever support their made up physics with real physics (because they cannot do so).

            For years they have peddled their made up physics on blogs and for many years to come they will continue to do this. Somehow either they know they are wrong and just trolling or they are so blinded by their arrogance they are unwilling to learn and correct the ideas they got wrong.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”All the textbooks make the claim that Heat is the NET flow of radiant energy of a surface being examined”.

            And they are all wrong. Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. He said nothing about IR.

            You are seriously screwed up because you are using arguments based on textbooks with the wrong information. I hate to say this but engineering books tend to be the worst offenders. Engineers work in a macro world and they have arbitrarily defined heat to fit that macro world. Heat is a property of atoms, in the micro world.

            If you read your engineering heat text more closely they admit freely that the radiative laws do not apply till very high temperatures. We’re talking several thousand degrees C. Those laws featuring Boltzmann, Planck et al are pretty useless at atmospheric temperatures.

            If engineers want to redefine heat that’s their business but it is not the heat defined by Clausius in the field of thermodynamics. If you buy into that re-definition as gospel it will screw you up big time.

            Heat has nothing to do with the net flow of radiant energy. Your understanding of heat at the atomic level is missing therefore you are at the mercy of any textbook that confuses IR with heat. Many of them do it.

            Heat is not a flow unless the flow involves atoms as in convection. With two distinct surfaces the atoms are confined to the surfaces. If the atoms are confined, heat can’t flow between the surfaces. IR can flow through space and it can transfer energy between the bodies but in one direction only.

            You don’t seem to understand that IR is the messenger only. It contains no heat and no heat is transferred through space. I know this concept is tough to visualize but I have explained it several times using a radio signal analogy.

            It’s vital to understand that an electron in an atom, dropping from a higher energy level to a lower energy level, CONVERTS electrical energy to EM as IR. On the receiving end the electron absorbs the EM and converts it back to electrical energy. Since heat is related directly to the energy level of the electron, heat is the property of the electron, not the IR.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…part 2

            IR is NOT HEAT, repeat 10 times.

            IR is EM and EM is trans.mitted from the antenna of a broad.casting station, after being converted from an alter.nating electrical signal, as micro.waves, UHF, VHF, and HF. Those are refer.ences to the wave.length (or frequency) of the EM transmit.ted. When that EM is inter.cepted by a re.ceiving antenna, the EM wave is convert.ed to electrical energy in the antenna. Sound famil.iar?

            In the transmit.ting antenna, the electrical signal, a high frequency alternat.ing signal, can be mod.ulated by an audio signal by varying it’s amp.litude at an audio rate. That audio signal orig.inated in the studio at a microphone. The electric.ally modulat.ed signal is convert.ed by the antenna to a modulat.ed EM wave which travels through space to a receiving antenna.

            The receiving antenna converts the EM back to an electrical signal and circuits down the line can recover the audio signal from the modulated electrical carrier signal. However the audio arrives piggy-backed on a high frequency signal that cannot be heard. It is NOT audio as defined in the frequency range 20 Hz – 20,000 Hz.

            That’s exactly what happens when heat is transferred by EM. In both cases, EM does not take part in the transfer, it is just a messenger. EM has a frequency range and is made up of an electric and magnetic field. Heat has neither.

            In one situation, audio from a micro.phone is transfer.red through space without the audio leaving the studio. In the other case, heat is transfer.red from a warmer body to a cooler body without heat leaving the warmer body.

            YOU NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THIS. If you don’t, you will never understand heat transfer by radiation. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and it CANNOT leave the warmer body because the atoms are bound to that body. It DECREASES in the warmer body and INCREASES in the cooler body, but no heat is transferred physically.

            Energy is transfer.red in one direction but it’s not heat. Heat must obey the 2nd law but IR has nothing to do with the 2nd law. Summing IR exchanges is futile since obviously IR in one direction is not absorbed between a cooler and a warmer body.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”You will notice that the equation does not include any heat flux term, q”.

            There’s no such thing as heat flux. Again, you are confusing heat with IR. the symbol q is used to quantify the heat into or out of a body, or through a body from one end to the other.

            The symbol q is NEVER used with reference to IR.

            You are confusing the radiation from independent radiators at very high temperatures with the relatively very low intensity IR emitted by the surface.

            The equations you have cited do not apply in our atmosphere and certainly not with dependent absorbers/emitters like GHGs.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”YOU POSTED THIS: If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as

            q = e s (Th4 Tc4) Ac (3)”

            Yes. It refers to heat transfer via conduction between the surface and the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is 99%+ nitrogen and oxygen, they are doing the heat transfer. Why do you not consider that when expounding on radiative transfer, which is seriously over-blown.

            Woods pointed out circa 1909 that radiation leaving the surface would be seriously attenuated after a few feet due to the inverse square law. I have pointed to an experiment you can do yourself with the 1500 watt ring on an electric stove.

            Turn on the ring till it’s cherry red. Now bring your finger to within an inch and feel the intense heat. If you carried on closer to the ring, you’d reach a distance where it would cook the flesh on your finger without touching the ring physically.

            Now back off to 1 foot…dramatic drop in intensity. Now do 3 feet…hardly any intensity. Do 5 feet…no detected hotness at all.

            That’s with 1500 watts concentrated in a foot diameter. What do you think would happen with 250 W/m^2 at 5 feet?

            Let’s face it, radiation is not a good means of heat transfer from the surface. Heat transfer is done with nitrogen and oxygen using conduction and convection, then radiation at high altitudes.

      • alphagruis says:

        Chapeau Bendidon !

        Excellent rappel historique sur Fourier et Clausius

        Mais j’espre que vous tes au courant qu’on ne fait pas boire un ne qui n’a pas soif ?

        • Bindidon says:

          Merci alphagruis

          Vous etes manifestement la derniere victime en date de l’outrageuse suppression de nos beaux accents, tremas etc sur ce site.

          Ne vous en faites pas, je n’en avais pas l’intention. Les anes, ca me connait comme l’on dit…

          • alphagruis says:

            Et desole aussi pour avoir ecorche votre pseudo.

            Vous les embetez bien quand meme, les bouffons qui postent ici.

            Il est tres instructif et amusant de voir comment ils tentent de raccrocher aux branches.

            Merci !

  49. Mike Flynn says:

    With regard to interaction of photons with matter –

    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

    If you agree with this quote from Richard Feynman, the matter is easily settled. Just come up with an experiment which shows that shows that an hotter object can have its temperature raised by absorbing photons from a colder object.

    Of course, this precludes silly attempts to specify internal heat sources and insulators.

    All experiments indicate that the temperature of hotter objects cannot be raised by exposing them to the radiation from colder objects.

    Before you leap in with poorly considered “thought experiments”, you might consider that you could be asked to explain what you mean by hotter, colder, etc.

    My opinion is that it can’t be done, but I’ll obviously change my opinion if I observe new facts.

    Computer models, equations, appeals to authority, furious hand waving, and strident assertions are not experiments (except in the pseudo science of climatology).

    Any takers?

    Cheers.

    • Dr No says:

      “Just come up with an experiment which shows that shows that an hotter object can have its temperature raised by absorbing photons from a colder object.”

      I was out looking at the stars last night under a clear sky. It was cold.
      Then the sky became overcast. I felt warmer.
      Yet the clouds were colder than my body temperature.

      • SkepticGoneWild says:

        I’m sure Nature can’t wait to publish this study.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          SkepticsGoneWild

          The cooler object only and always REMOVES heat from the warmer one. It’s only a matter of faster or slower. The fewer photons the warmer object receives, the faster it cools. The more, the slower it cools.

          BTY. Did you ever figure out how clothes can keep us warm without violating the laws of physics?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Sir Isaac,

            You wrote BTY. Did you really mean BTW, as in By The Way? Some foolish Warmists complain when I point out their careless typos, so I thought Id better check first.

            In any case, your bodys internal heat source and its associated heat regulation mechanism keeps you warm, around 37 C.

            Turn off the internal heat source by dying, and clothes wont stop you from reaching ambient temperature. Dont even stop you from cooling (Newtons Law of Cooling allows you to calculate the rate, if youre interested).

            On the other hand, clothes assist the living to keep cool. The heavy wool robes of the desert Berbers, the heavy clothes of the fireman exposed to radiant heat, the exhortations of the Government to cover up to prevent the harmful rays of the Sun reaching the skin – all are examples of the physical principles involved.

            So your gotchaappears to have gotched its author, rather than the intended recipient!

            If you stick with the Mike Flynn playbook, youll likely avoid avoidable embarrassment.

            Maybe you could find a copy of the disprovable GHE hypothesis. Without it, even the US Government may assume the GHE doesnt exist, and reject any grant applications referring to climate change! The Government might even remove references to Climate Changefrom Government websites!

            Theres obviously no time to lose! Find the hypothesis. Allow it to be tested,

            Only joking. Obviously, the GHE doesnt exist, except in the feverish fantasies of the foolish Warmist delusional groupmind.

            You may believe as you wish. As Thomas Jefferson said, if your beliefs neither break my leg nor pick my pocket, its no concern of mine.

            Cheers.

          • barry says:

            Space missing between “gotcha” and “appears.”

            “Youll” lacking apostrophe.

            Space missing between “change and “from.”

            Sentence “Allow it to be tested” ends in comma rather than full stop.

            Your playbook needs editing.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            barry,

            Thank you for pointing out my intentional errors.

            You pass.

            Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Dr No,

        How much did your temperature rise? What did you measure it with? What calibration procedure did you use?

        I’ll point out that your body has an internal heat source (otherwise you’d be dead), and a fairly efficient temperature regulating mechanism – you might not have taken that into account.

        Not a scientific experiment at all. Rather a foolish Warmist fantasy pretence.

        The phenomenon you experienced has been covered at length by John Tyndall, who also conducted detailed and real experiments to see if they backed up his hypothesis. They did.

        There is a good article in a Scientific American of 1869 which covers experiments by several different scientists in quite some detail, and shows that colder objects do not raise the temperature of warmer ones.

        This explains why you cannot harness the enormous heat energy in the Antarctic ice cap to boil a spoonful of water, or even to warm your hands, fancy speculations and equations to the contrary.

        Foolish Warmists don’t seem to accept the concept of the reproducible scientific experiment, in many cases. Some even call the results of computer programs written to ensure predetermined outcomes “experiments”. Of course, and real scientist dismisses such nonsense out of hand.

        Still no GHE. Sad, but true.

        Cheers.

        • barry says:

          “Of course, and real scientist dismisses such nonsense out of hand.”

          What woeful grammar.

          Conjunction and adverb in the wrong order. Either missing an indefinite article before “scientist”, or should use plural noun and verb.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Mike…”…an experiment which shows that shows that an hotter object can have its temperature raised by absorbing photons from a colder object”.

      No need for such an experiment, the 2nd law has it covered. If heat cannot be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object through space that obviously nullifies the notion that IR from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body.

      If it was the case that IR from a colder body could be absorbed by a warmer body it would necessitate the electrons in the atoms of a warmer body absorbing the cooler IR and rising to a higher energy level, making the warmer body warmer. Since that clearly does not happen, it is obvious that the atoms in a warmer body don’t absorb the IR from a cooler body.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        I have seen you have refused to study even a little physics and go right along peddling your made up physics hoping to sell it to other lazy people who do not want to spend time or effort reading actual physics books.

        You still have your ideas of what generates IR wrong and you refuse to correct them. Why? I and others have linked you to the correct physics but you keep peddling your false notions.

        Now the statement that is made: “No need for such an experiment, the 2nd law has it covered. If heat cannot be transferred from a colder object to a warmer object through space that obviously nullifies the notion that IR from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body.”

        Made up unsupported physics.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Norman

          Here is some of the simple math involved in my “velocity/delay” claims. More to come later:

          A group of runners are gathered in one end zone of a football field. One takes off each second and runs the 100 yards in only 10 seconds, so his “velocity” is 10 yards/second.

          After 1 second, there is one player on the field (at the 10 yard line). After 2 seconds – 2 players (the 10 and 20 yard lines. After 10 seconds, there will be 10 players on the field, each spaced 10 yards apart.

          At this point, an equilibrium has been reached. Runners are entering and leaving the field at the same rate. At any moment from here on out, exactly 10 players will always be on the field. No more, no less.

          On the other hand, what happens if it takes each runner 20 seconds to run the 100 yards? Their velocity would now be only 5 yards/second. After the first second, a runner will be on the 5 yard line. After two seconds – the five and 10 yard lines. By the time the first runner has completed the 100 yards, 20 runners will have “accumulated” on the field.

          Conclusion: Given a constant rate (1 runner/second), and a constant distance (100 yards), then the velocity of each runner (yards/second) will determine how many players will be able to accumulate on the field at any given moment.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            More simply:

            Rate: 1 runner/second
            Distance: 100 yards
            Velocity: 10 yards/second
            Max accumulation: 10 runners

            Rate: 1 runner/second
            Distance: 100 yards
            Velocity: 5 yards/second
            Max accumulation: 20 runners

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            DELAY

            If a runner, travelling at 10 meters/second, runs to the 50 yard line and back three times before completing the 100 yards to the opposite end zone, he will now have travelled 400 total yards. A person with a stop watch at the far end of the field would “clock” his effort at 40 seconds. Using this metric, the runner’s “overall velocity” is now just 2.5 yards/second.

            *The three wind sprints are a DELAY getting to the end zone. If every runner followed suit:*

            Rate: 1 “new” runner/second
            3 “previous”runners/second
            4 “total” runners/second Distance. 100 yards
            Overall velocity: 2.5 yards/second
            Max. Accumulation: 40 runners

            Conclusion: A delay caused each runner’s overall velocity to decrease. This in turn caused more runners to accumulate on the field. Notice that new runners are still entering the field at 1 runner/second, same as runners exiting, but “total runners” now leave the starting line at 4 runners/second.

            *This idea corresponds to HIGHER RATE OF ENERGY EMITTED AT THE SURFACE, while rate at TOA is same as before. The starting line is now “absorbing and re-emitting” an additional 3 runners runners/second.*

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            -The runners are a metaphor for IR emitted from Earth’s surface.

            -The field represents the atmosphere

            -the far end zone represents space

            -runners bump into “CO2” at the 50 yard line and get rerouted back to the surface (wind sprints). This delay results in accumulation.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Now, of the 40 runners on the field at any given moment, 35 are always between the 0 and 50 yard line. This represents the LOWER TROPOSPHER.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Basically, IR is “running back and forth” in the lower troposphere before continuing on to space.

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 26, 2017 at 6:41 AM:

            Basically, IR is “running back and forth” in the lower troposphere before continuing on to space.

            *Sigh*

            No, Snape. IR is just THERE. In the merged surface-atmosphere photon cloud. Because the atmosphere is thicker and warmer further down, the photon cloud is also “thicker” and “warmer” further down.

            There’s no “delay” here. There is just a balance (or imbalance) between energy IN and energy OUT corresponding to TEMPERATURE and temperature differences.

            The atmosphere is warmer because it HOLDS more energy (U, “internal energy”), not because more photons are “running back and forth”. More photons are running back and forth because the atmosphere holds more energy, hence is warmer. An atmosphere without a temperature would have no photon cloud, no matter how “IR active” it is.

            The internal energy of the atmosphere, just like its photon cloud, is kept in place by temperature gradients. The energy is not so much “trapped” as it is thermally “kept in place”.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            You: “More photons are running back and forth because the atmosphere holds more energy, hence is warmer.”

            Look at my simple math metaphor. You will see it wouldn’t matter WHY photons are running back and forth, just the fact that they are doing so means they are not as quickly exiting to space. And while these photons are running back and forth, new energy is simultaneously entering the system, creating an overlap – hence accumulation. The degree of OVERLAP is dependent on the “overall velocity” term I described in the metaphor.

            Runners being delayed getting from one end of the field to the other, for any reason, will result in accumulation, given a constant input of “new runners”.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            And again, even after many more runners have accumulated on the field, an equilibrium will be reached where the rate of runners exiting will still match the original rate of “new” runners entering.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            You, David Appell and others wanted to see the math to back up my ideas about delay and velocity. It’s very basic stuff, not the least bit confusing.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Wow! Photons have legs and are able to run back and forth. Will the moronic analogies and thought experiments never cease?

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            SkepticsGoneWild

            The runners analogy is used to explain, in common terms, the relationship between rate, distance, delay, velocity and accumulation I’ve noticed in the GHE theory. Like a complete idiot, you poke fun at it by taking it literally.

            “The boy hates to clean his room. It looks like a disaster zone”.

            Please, Mr. Bonehead, don’t take this analogy literally. FEMA is not needed. The boy’s room didn’t suffer an earthquake or flood or hurricane. It’s just really messy.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            SkepticsGoneWild

            Here’s an easy experiment. The next time your ears are cold, put on some earmuffs. What do you predict will happen? Will the earmuffs violate the laws of thermodynamics?

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            You: Theres no delay here. There is just a balance (or imbalance) between energy IN and energy OUT corresponding to TEMPERATURE and temperature differences.

            From this, I’m wondering if you even understood how “delay” was involved in my “runners” analogy. Could you perhaps explain the idea in your own words to show me you “get it”?

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 26, 2017 at 5:24 PM:

            From this, I’m wondering if you even understood how “delay” was involved in my “runners” analogy. Could you perhaps explain the idea in your own words to show me you “get it”?

            I get it, Snape. The problem is, YOU don’t get it. Your “runners” analogy isn’t an analogy of the Earth system and how it works. That’s the simple point that I’ve been trying to bring home to you through my water tank analogy all this time. But you STILL refuse to understand it.

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 26, 2017 at 12:21 PM:

            (…) it wouldn’t matter WHY photons are running back and forth, just the fact that they are doing so means they are not as quickly exiting to space.

            As WHAT!!? The average content of energy held thermally by the atmosphere ISN’T SUPPOSED TO EXIT TO SPACE! If it were, the atmosphere would cool continually until it reached absolute zero.

            That is why we are always talking about a simple IMBALANCE between incoming and outgoing energy, NEVER a “delay” in the transfer of energy from the surface to space. There’s no delay, Snape. There is only less energy going out per unit time IF THE ATMOSPHERE IS COLDER THAN IT SHOULD BE.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            You: “there’s no delay, Snape”

            One last time:

            – the runners start out running directly towards the other end of the field. No delay. It takes them 10 seconds, and 10 runners accumulate.

            – the runners dilly dally, a delay. It now takes them 40 seconds, and 40 runners accumulate.

            – At this point, there is NO DELAY in runners exiting. Runners are entering the field at the same rate as leaving. Input = output

            – BUT NOTICE: it still takes each runner 40 seconds to get across the field, not 10. Each player still dilly dallys. This amounts to a delay compared to when they had run in a straight line.

            – ALSO NOTICE: the entire mass of runners, macroscopically, as a CURRENT, are now moving across the field at only 2.5 yards/second!!!

            – previously, this velocity was 10 yards/second!!!

            Each runner is consistently DELAYED The CURRENT of runners is permanently SLOWED, and yet

            INPUT = OUTPUT

            NO CHANGE IN RATE OF RUNNERS ENTERING OR LEAVING

            NO DELAY IN RUNNERS EXITING

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            The same basic math applies to energy moving from surface to space

            – Constant rate of input

            – Constant distance to travel (surface to space is around 62 miles)

            – Energy moving at the speed of light, in a straight line toward space, with nothing to slow it down, equals NO DELAY

            – anything causing energy to do otherwise, equals a DELAY

            – I could keep going, but the basic math is same as above

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”You still have your ideas of what generates IR wrong and you refuse to correct them”.

          I don’t see you offering a crit.ique and I presume that’s because you have no idea what you’re talking about or what I’m talking about.

          IR like all EM is gen.erated by atoms when electrons in the atoms drop from a higher energy level to a lower energy level. The quanta emitted is the precise difference in energy between the energy levels through which the electron drops.

          If you have a better explanation, let’s here it.

          My thoughts on the 2nd law come straight from Clausius. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body without compen.sation. The compen.sation required to do that involves external power to drive a compressor, a condenser and an evapour.ator, and a refrig.erant.

          Do you see anything like that in the atmosphere to supply the required compen.sation?

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Do you have a compulsion to make up ideas? You have been pointed out your flaws so many times and yet you will not correct them.

            YOU: “IR like all EM is gen.erated by atoms when electrons in the atoms drop from a higher energy level to a lower energy level. The quanta emitted is the precise difference in energy between the energy levels through which the electron drops.”

            NO this is wrong where do you get this from. State your source or quit posting!

            YOU: “My thoughts on the 2nd law come straight from Clausius. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body without compen.sation. The compen.sation required to do that involves external power to drive a compressor, a condenser and an evapour.ator, and a refrig.erant.”

            Did you look at Bindidon’s post on Clausius own words? No you didn’t. HEAT is NET energy transfer. Energy (IR) can move from a colder object to a warmer one.

            FIND a source that supports you. Find a statement my Clausius that supports your opinion or quit posting!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Keep posting, Gordon.

            The Con-man is losing it. He probably believes his hairdresser is lying.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        Gordon

        You, “…….absorbing the cooler IR ….,”

        “Are some photons cool and others warm?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Sir Isaac,

          Yet another foolish Warmist gotcha?

          Do you really know nothing about quantum mechanics, or are you just pretending?

          In any case, it doesnt really matter, does it? You cant raise the temperature of a hotter thing by getting it to trap or absorb anything from a colder thing..

          Unless you can demonstrate it by experiment, of course. Proper, reproducible, scientific experiment – foolish Warmist hand waving is not recognised as an experiment by real scientists.

          Cheers.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Mike

            Most of us notice that wearing clothes keep us warmer, even though they are generally at room temperature (70 F.) when we put them on. The human body, if you recall, is somewhere around 98.6 F.

            Am I seriously having this debate with a grown man?

          • Dr No says:

            Sir Isaac,
            Yes you are.
            Unfortunately, as people get very old they revert to child-like behaviours.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            isaac…”Most of us notice that wearing clothes keep us warmer…”

            Not because they slow down IR being emitted by the body. The warming is related to conduction and convection and it involves real molecules of air.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Gordon

            Can you figure out how a colder object can increase the temperature of a warmer one – WRT conduction, convection and “real” air molecules”?

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Gordon

            Or do you think the laws of thermodynamics only apply to radiative heat transfer?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Sir Isaac,

            What are you talking about?

            Are you claiming that surrounding a corpse with objects at 70 F will raise its temperature to 98.6 F? I don’t believe you!

            Is this your best example of a colder body racing the temperature of a hotter?

            Even with a living human, with an internal heat source, how high can you get the temperature of the body by surrounding it with bodies at 70 F? Will it burst into flames from absorbing IR from the colder clothes?

            Foolish Warmist misdirection, demonstrating the bizarre ability to deny, divert, and confuse.

            You not having a debate with anyone except yourself! You may have fallen for your own “gotcha”.

            If you feel like it, you could actually address the matter of experimentally verifying that a colder body can be used to raise the temperature of a hotter one, as generally defined. I don’t believe you can, but feel free to try. Telling people how warm or cold you feel is unlikely to be accepted as experimental proof of much at all, except to yourself or another foolish Warmist.

            Cheers.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Mike

            Our ears don’t burst into flames when we put a hat on, Mike, they just get warmer.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No wonder we call you “Simpleton”.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Mike…”Any takers?”

      I have noted from the replies received, prior to mine, that no one thus far has the theory to deal with the problem.

    • Norman says:

      Mike Flynn

      Here is the experiment you yourself can perform in your backyard.

      It is a modification of Roy Spencer experiment here:
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

      You use a similar cooler as he has done but in this case you will be heating the water to prove that IR from a cooler source can lead to higher temperatures.

      You will have to do a series of experiments to verify the results.

      You will have to use a very consistent heat source so that each test is run with the same amount of energy input.

      What you would look for is similar to the warmth Dr No felt when a cloud went over him while stargazing. But rather than a subjective experience you will get data from actual thermometers and you will prove that IR from a cooler source can lead to a higher reading on a thermometer.

      The bulk of the testing would be to get two tests at the same air temperature just one a clear cloudless night (less DWIR in this case) vs a cloudy night. The cloud will be cooler than your heated water.

      What you are observing is that under conditions of the same air temperature (to remove any thermal effects from the air around your water tub) the change in DWIR from the cloud will lead to a warmer reading of your thermometer. It will clearly and easily demonstrate that IR from a cooler body can lead to a warmer temperature of a heated object (in this case a tub of water).

      Since you requested a test please take the time to perform it, you should be able to achieve results after a couple weeks of testing and then report back your results.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Norman,

        I asked –

        “Just come up with an experiment which shows that shows that an hotter object can have its temperature raised by absorbing photons from a colder object.”

        Of course you can’t! In typical foolish Warmist fashion, you expect me to waste my time doing something which is completely pointless.

        Maybe you could try reading what I wrote. Any fool, except maybe a foolish Warmist, realises you can heat water. You can’t heat it with the radiation from a colder body. If your link states this can be done, it is wrong.

        If you can’t be bothered coming up with anything better than referring me to a pointless link, then I can’t be bothered reading it.

        You can’t even find a disprovable GHE hypothesis, let alone an experimental procedure which would enable the hypothesis to be shown to be false, if such was the case.

        It’s part of the scientific method, practiced by real scientists, but usually avoided like the plague by foolish Warmists. Do you think you might find such a hypothesis, and the associated reproducible experiment, in one of those physics texts which you frequently accuse people of refusing to read?

        If you can’t, it’s obvious that reading them, looking for a GHE hypothesis would be a waste of time. You might be seen as just another foolish Warmist, purposely trying to bend others to your foolish will, for no useful purpose.

        Cheers.

        • Dr No says:

          Let me make it even simpler.
          Put a glass of water outside on a cold clear night and measure its temperature.
          Do the same when the sky becomes overcast.
          The temperature will rise.
          We are made mostly of water, the same happened to me the other night as I explained.
          Yet the clouds were cooler than me!
          You have your experiment.
          You can repeat it if you wish.
          The results are unambiguous.
          What more do you need?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dr No,

            Maybe a foolish Warmist “experiment”, but not enough for any rational person.

            You seem to have omitted any record of temperatures – ground, water, air etc.

            Reflection from the underside of clouds is around 90% or more, depending on wavelength. IR is included. Maybe you were unaware of this. What were ground temperatures in the area? What height were the clouds? Total energy reflection index? Composition – water or ice? Temperature? All these things need to be taken into account, for even rough calculations to be made.

            As I pointed out previously, John Tyndall addressed this phenomenon at length (with proper experimental records), and a Scientific American issue of 1869 covers results from other experimenters as well. You’re a bit slow. Still no GHE.

            No colder bodies raising the temperature of hotter ones. Maybe you have discovered something totally new, but just saying something is “warmer” is meaningless.

            You ask what more I “need”. I “need” nothing, and nothing is what you have so generously supplied. Maybe you could supply something of use in future. Judging by past performance, it seems unlikely. I live in hope.

            Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            “Reflection from the underside of clouds is around 90% or more, depending on wavelength. IR is included.”

            Interesting. It seems as if you are referring to the albedo of clouds. They do reflect about 90% of short wave. I don’t think the same applies to IR.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            That is why you do not understand the GHE. The Earth’s surface is not just a static warmer surface than the atmosphere above. It is a surface that is heated by solar flux.

            In order to set up an experiment to demonstrate the GHE you must have a heated object. You need an object that has a continuous input of energy. I know the day/night cycle totally confuses you and you are unable to wrap your head around the concept but despite night/day the Earth’s surface, as a whole, is constantly receiving input energy. You can’t compute averages and there value to science and you do not understand that even at night, half the Earth’s surface is still receiving energy input.

            Your understanding will never be complete until you realize we are all talking about a heated surface. One that is receiving energy.

            If you want you can cycle the heater on and off for periods of time. The water will still get warmer on a cloudy night than a clear one.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            When Norm gets befuddled, he just starts rambling.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            And when you can’t understand simple English (maybe it is not your primary language) you throw out your standard comment which is pointless.

            YOU: “When Norm gets befuddled, he just starts rambling.”

            Does posting that comment make you feel intelligent? Smart?
            Clever?

            You can’t answer simple questions so you launch pointless comments that no one is interested in reading.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            See?

      • Kristian says:

        Norman says, September 25, 2017 at 9:27 PM:

        It will clearly and easily demonstrate that IR from a cooler body can lead to a warmer temperature of a heated object (in this case a tub of water).

        https://tinyurl.com/aymnmr2

        • Norman says:

          Kristian

          Whereas I like your humor, I had lots of hope that you were linking me to an actual physics textbook pointing out the flaws of my ideas. You have yet to prove your one-way flux with a valid scientific document. You have not done so to date and still I see nothing. The skeptics all make the claims but NOT ONE will provide support or evidence of their claims. The foundation of science rests upon supporting evidence.

          FLIR testing proves you are wrong and do not know what you are talking about but you have an arrogant personality that cannot be wrong and so you will persist with your opinions long after I tire of posting to people who are unwilling and unable to support their claims.

          Make up your physics all day Kristian. Instead of wasting your time here convincing people you are a genius, write a textbook on heat transfer and do something with your life.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The Con-man is now in full meltdown. It’s fun to watch.

            In fact, it’s hilarious.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Thanks for your series of posts, I had almost forgotten how really boring you are. It was a good reminder.

            So boring, so vacuous, so devoid of even original posts. Same material you have posted for years.

            At least you win the “most boring unoriginal human” award. Congratulations. You are horrible at science, worse at the branch of science known as physics and not to mention extremely bad at supporting your lame ideas. But at least you are very talented at being boring. Good job!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Yes, you provide the hilarious pseudoscience, and I provide the responsible debunking of such.

            Kind of a reverse synergy, if you will.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            At least you gave some effort not to be so boring.

            Question for you, what debunking have you done? You give your unqualified opinion. So, who cares. What facts do you bring to the table. None so far. Will you ever.

            I would be most amazed if you did! It would certainly not be so boring. Your opinions are very boring as you endlessly repeat them but do not support them.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Just one example, Con-man: “Heat content”.

            I had to teach you what about heat content. You had no clue.

            Someday I might go back and make a list of all of your pseudoscience.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            You are not correct so still continue to be a very boring person.

            YOU: “I had to teach you what about heat content. You had no clue.”

            You are not exactly truthful. It is on the thread for the record.

            You were wrong about heat content and still are. Your brain is unable to understand that when heat is added to an object, the heat content is a dependent amount. I wasted much time explaining it in detail but it flew over your head and you still do not understand it.

            Waste of time with you. If I want to be bored I will read your posts otherwise you are a complete waste of time.

          • Kristian says:

            g*e*r*a*n says, September 26, 2017 at 5:42 PM:

            I had to teach you what about heat content. You had no clue.

            That’s Norman. He mostly doesn’t have a clue about anything. He hears about something he’s never heard of before, or at least doesn’t understand, then seeks out some textbook on the subject, skims through a few pages, finds some words and numbers that he likes, and then suddenly he’s an expert. Just VEEERY recently, he didn’t even understand what “heat” [Q] is in physics. He thought it was simply all the energy perceived to move in the same direction piled into one big heap. In his mind, the solar flux PLUS the atmospheric “back radiation” was the total INCOMING heat flux to the surface of the Earth. I told him how fundamentally wrong that is, but he wouldn’t have it. Then Tim Folkerts had to step in and tell him the same thing. He won’t listen to me, after all. I’m just the guy who “makes up his own physics”. This time around, he reluctantly conceded his mistake. But it didn’t take long. It hadn’t really sunk in. Because shortly thereafter he returned with the same confused idea in his head. For all I know, he might even still believe it to be true …

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            and so it goes….

  50. barry says:

    OT: The Daily Mail has been censured for hyping the John Bates story and getting the details wrong.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4891046/IPSO-adjudication-upheld-against-MoS-climatesciencearticle.html

    • Mike Flynn says:

      barry,

      And still no GHE, is there?

      Anyone who expects the whole truth on a regular basis from journalists probably has a pronounced bump of gullibility (according to the widely published and respected science of phrenology).

      Cheers.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        g*e*r*a*n wrote: “Once when I typed in snape”, auto – spell came up with “snake”. I didn’t notice, and the name seems to have stuck.”

        Trying to blame auto – spell? Lame. The name is Snapelton. Why would you only type in the first five letters?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Sir Isaac,

          You wrote –

          Why would you only type in the first five letters?

          Do you really care? Would you believe the answer?

          Or are you posing another pointless and irrelevant foolish Warmist gotcha?

          I would ask you why you choose to hide under the pseudonym Sir Isaac Snapelton, but the Mike Flynn playbook suggests that asking stupid or foolish Warmist gotchas is unlikely to advance the cause of science.

          You obviously disagree. I understand why.

          Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”The Daily Mail has been censured for hyping the John Bates story and getting the details wrong”.

      More alarmist bs.

      • barry says:

        Alarmists didn’t censure the Daily Mail.

        BS is when you don’t think much about what you’re saying. Gordon.

  51. MikeN says:

    Where can I find count of atlantic hurricane basin named storms per year?

  52. Darwin Wyatt says:

    What will Mt. Aguno’s eruption do to ” the pause”? It looks like a cinder cone.

  53. ren says:

    The dependence of air circulation on magnetic fields is visible.
    https://www.facebook.com/Sunclimate-719393721599910/

  54. Bindidon says:

    Apart from some rather stoopid ‘uncontributions’ from this strange SkepticGoneDumb, the hint on Clausius seems to have generated a lot of interesting stuff.

    Weiter so / Allez-y / Pretty good

  55. Harry Cummings says:

    Barry
    Did Dr Bates make a complaint
    No. So he must have been happy with the article
    HC

    • barry says:

      He contradicted the article. Said there was “no thumb on the scale,” and “no tampering.”

      Doesn’t matter who made the complaint. Errors of fact were found, including an incorrectly baselined graph – but not limited to that. Scientists pointed these things out at the time, but the UK media watchdog made their own determination that parts of the article were fact-free.

  56. Bindidon says:

    For those who did not manage to understand: I did NOT write the Clausius message with as intention to add some stuff to the GHE story.

    For that job there are enough people running.

    ‘Commenter’s who stupidly pretend about me

    ‘He just laps up whatever his puppet-masters tell him.’

    are imho exactly those who in fact give a perfect match to

    His master’s voice / La voix de son maitre / Die Stimme seines Herren

    *

    My intention – and interest – solely was to debunk what some trolls repeatedly pretend concerning Clausius’ 2LoT work, e.g.

    – that heat never moves from a colder to a warmer body;
    – that radiation can’t take place from a colder to a warmer body.

    Never and never did Clausius pretend such nonsense. To write he did is simply lying.

    What he wrote – I repeat – is THIS AND NOTHING ELSE:

    This principle on which the whole following development is based is : heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another change associated herewith simultaneously happens.

    His statement above all was a principle he formulated, without having ever had the possibility to prove it.

    Steps toward a formal proof of 2LoT have been undertaken by Boltzmann and Planck. But a definitive proof still doesn’t exist.

    And to the unteachable trolls I repeat Clausius’ sentence concerning radiation:

    What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.

    No further comment is needed.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Exactly as we Skeptics have been pointing out for years. The GHE violates the 2LoT.

      • Dr No says:

        You are thick if that is your only response.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Dr No,

          And why is that, precisely?

          And why should anybody give a tinkers curse for your opinion?

          You dont need to thank me. My pleasure.

          Cheers.

          • Bindidon says:

            Sorry Mr Flynn: Dr No is here really right.

            Simply while commenter g*e*r*a*n always writes such things a la

            The GHE violates the 2LoT

            without ever giving any valuable reference sustaining what he pretends.

            In comparison, I spent hours to collect valuable information concerning Clausius and the recurrent misinterpretations of his work (the one actually in question adds a little stone to the hill), with links pointing to all what I managed to obtain.

            This is probably what Dr No means – in somewhat crude words, OK.

            But… are you all the time so delicate and tender that it could ever disturb you? Hmmmmh.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Bindidon,

            You make an assertion based on belief, it seems. As to your being sorry, feel free to take offence when I say I dont believe you.

            I am unsure as to your final sentence. The meaning of Hmmmmh is unclear. I assume you are trying to be gratuitously offensive, but as I have said before, I generally decline to take offence. I have no reason to make an exception in your case.

            Amongst my other attributes, I am definitely delicate and tender. It doesnt disturb me at all.

            There is not even a disprovable GHE hypothesis, so your hours spent collecting information are worthless. Facts are facts. The laws of thermodynamics remain laws, unless and until someone shows by reproducible experiments that they are wrong.

            Still no GHE. Maybe you could try Hmmmmging one into existence. Nothing else seems to have worked so far.

            Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Bin boasts:

            “In comparison, I spent hours to collect valuable information concerning Clausius and the recurrent misinterpretations of his work…”

            Yes, and we Skeptics are most grateful for your effort.

      • Bindidon says:

        g*e*r*a*n on September 26, 2017 at 3:59 AM

        You are no ‘skeptic’, especially when written with a capital letter ahead.

        You are simply a believer and follower of people who stay in more or less qualified contradiction to what think other people. Not less, not more.

        The difference between me and you is that I try to provide comments containing references to work I think be correct.

        *

        Be, at least this time, a bit courageous! And bring some useful links to real science sustaining what you pretend.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Yes, and we Skeptics are most grateful for your effort.

          • Bindidon says:

            As you yourself wrote a bit below: put up or shut up.

            Just come up with some useful links to real science sustaining what you pretend…

            But I know you won’t.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Bin, I don’t “pretend” anything, so I have no idea what straws you’re attempting to grasp.

          • Bindidon says:

            g*e*r*a*n on September 26, 2017 at 8:46 AM

            Bin, I dont pretend anything…

            Of course you are:

            Exactly as we Skeptics have been pointing out for years. The GHE violates the 2LoT.

            Bring us science showing that bold typed sentence, g*e*r*a*n.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.”

            ALWAYS!

          • Bindidon says:

            g*e*r*a*n on September 26, 2017 at 12:44 PM

            Sorry: while your copy & paste of what I wrote is correct, you miss the point.

            The point is that many so called ‘skeptics’ deliberately pretend that radiation from cooler objects to warmer ones cannot occur because that would violate the 2LoT.

            And that is plain wrong, g*e*r*a*n.

            The fact that, in the sum (Clausius’ own words: the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange), the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one, is so evident that it is not worth a mention.

            If body A radiates n times more heat than body B, body B will experience n – 1 times more heat radiated by A than it does itself emit.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Bin, you are getting confused.

            Just use your own wording: “If body A radiates n times more heat than body B, body B will experience n 1 times more heat radiated by A than it does itself emit.”

            Body A is the warmer, so it can heat body B. But, body B can not heat body A.

            Does that help?

          • Kristian says:

            Bindidon says, September 26, 2017 at 1:39 PM:

            If body A radiates n times more heat than body B, body B will experience n – 1 times more heat radiated by A than it does itself emit.

            Nothing radiates or emits “heat”, Bindion. “Heat” is the net (macroscopic, thermodynamic) movement of energy between two objects or regions at different temperatures. In such a situation, energy MACROSCOPICALLY transfers ONE way only, from hot to cold.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian says: Heat is the net (macroscopic, thermodynamic) movement of energy between two objects or regions at different temperatures. In such a situation, energy MACROSCOPICALLY transfers ONE way only, from hot to cold.

            Looks like a good description of heat transfer, not heat.

          • Bindidon says:

            g*e*r*a*n on September 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM

            Sorry, but I did not write that body B heats body A.
            I’m not at all confused; you don’t read carefully enough.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Bin prefers confusion over clarity.

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 26, 2017 at 9:13 PM:

            Kristian says: Heat is the net (macroscopic, thermodynamic) movement of energy between two objects or regions at different temperatures. In such a situation, energy MACROSCOPICALLY transfers ONE way only, from hot to cold.

            Looks like a good description of heat transfer, not heat.

            It’s the description of HEAT [Q]. “Heat” is both the energy transferred as a result of a temperature difference/gradient, AND the thermal transfer process itself.

            What is “heat” in you mind, Snape?

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian
            This is how “Cool Science” describes heat:

            “The Universe is made up of matter and energy. Matter is made up of atoms and molecules (groupings of atoms) and energy causes the atoms and molecules to always be in motion – either bumping into each other or vibrating back and forth. The motion of atoms and molecules creates a form of energy called heat or thermal energy which is present in all matter. Even in the coldest voids of space, matter still has a very small but still measurable amount of heat energy.”

            They describe “heat transfer” much like you defined heat itself.

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 27, 2017 at 10:06 AM:

            This is how “Cool Science” describes heat: (…)
            They describe “heat transfer” much like you defined heat itself.

            Yes, that’s because “Cool Science” seems to be just as confused as our own Gordon Robertson on this subject:
            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html

            You should read some proper textbooks on thermodynamics rather than your “cool” source of choice to keep yourself updated, Snape.

            I described HEAT. In thermodynamics, denoted by Q. Look it up.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            My bad. The quote I posted was from “cool cosmos”, not “cool science”

            Cool cosmos is an educational site provided by CalTech and NASA

            “Hyperphysics” is provided by Georgia State University

            Looks like a disagreement over proper semantics

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 27, 2017 at 12:33 PM:

            The quote I posted was from “cool cosmos”, not “cool science”

            Cool cosmos is an educational site provided by CalTech and NASA

            “Hyperphysics” is provided by Georgia State University

            Looks like a disagreement over proper semantics

            It doesn’t matter if it’s “cool science”, “cool cosmos” or “cool new car”, Snape. They’re wrong. “Heat” [Q] isn’t something that’s contained WITHIN objects. That’s “internal energy” [U]. Everyone with only a tiny bit of physics background knows this. It’s Thermodynamics 101. “Heat” is energy in transit between two regions at different temps, by virtue simply of the temperature difference. Larger temperature difference, more heat.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            Cool cosmos is designed for kids, so I’m sure you’re right. To me, the definitions for heat and heat transfer look almost identical – probably why I was confused and took issue with your comment yesterday.

        • Bindidon says:

          Stop your redundant teaching, Okulaer, it’s simply boring.

    • SkepticGoneWild says:

      Clausius also stated:

      “heat can never, through conduction or radiation, accumulate itself in the warmer body at the cost of the colder.”

      And our resident Drone failed to take note of the last sentence of his quote:

      “the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.”

      Of course the Automated Drone did not provide further comment, because he lacks scientific understanding.

      Near the end of his paper, Clausius states:

      “If for all such cases, however complicated the processes
      may be, it is maintained that without some other permanent
      change, which may be looked upon as a compensation, heat
      can never pass from a colder to a hotter body, it would seem
      that this principle ought not to* be treated as one altogether
      self-evident, but rather as a newly-propounded fundamental
      principle, on whose acceptance or non-acceptance the vaidity
      of the proof depends.”

      Now if the Drone could provide a worked out problem from a physics textbook, or from a published experiment which shows a cooler body, say for example, like the earth, transferring heat and raising the temperature of the warmer body (say like the sun) I might listen. The problem would have to indicate initial and final temperatures.

      Otherwise it’s a lot of hot air.

  57. Again as the overall oceanic temperatures fall so does the global temperature.

    What controls oceanic temperatures the sun not CO2.

    The global temperature trend is now down.G

    • barry says:

      What on Earth are you talking about? The last few days? Weeks? Months?

      Here’s HadSST data since 2010.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2010

      • Dr No says:

        Poor old Salvatore reminds me of the gambler who bets his last few dollars on a long shot in the last race in order to get back some of his losses.
        He has stated that he will admit defeat if the warming trend doesn’t disappear by the end of the year.
        He has no choice but to cheer on his horse, even if it is coming last.

      • Bindidon says:

        You simply don’t understand Salvatore, barry!

        He probably means this:

        http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170926/ilbprelf.jpg

        Frenchies would say: ‘C’est clair comme de l’eau de roche!’

      • The problem with you and many others is you do not have the ability to see when a turn in a trend is happening or taking place.

      • months going back 3 or so.

      • barry says:

        The problem, Salvatore, is that your comments lack any specifics.

        1. You don’t clarify if you’re talking about ocean heat content or sea surface temperatures.

        Again as the overall oceanic temperatures fall so does the global temperature.

        What controls oceanic temperatures the sun not CO2.

        The sun mainly effects SSTs on short time frames of a few hours/days. It affects ocean heat content over longer periods. Months and years, if a change in solar intensity is sustained long enough.

        2. You don’t specify which trend is supposedly changing. The most recent 3 year trend? Since 1998? Since 1880?

        months going back 3 or so.

        We can at least test SSTs. I’ll pick the time frame seeing as you have not. Let’s say since 2010.

        http://tinyurl.com/y889jsqd

        SSTs are currently higher than they were in 1998, and the last month (August) was an upwards swing.

        So what on Earth are you talking about?

        OHC data currently only goes up to the 3-month ending in June, so you’re not getting your information from that.

        I ask again, what on Earth are you talking about? Which “allover oceanic temperature” data, whatever that means, are you referring to?

  58. barry says:

    Ocean Heat Content to June this year.

    http://tinyurl.com/kyuef5q

  59. Bindidon says:

    A test: \

    • Bindidon says:

      Didn’t work, the paragraph character is eliminated anyway.
      But at least we saw a backslash! Pretty good.

  60. Bindidon says:

    I have lots of fun when reading all these disputes about the ability ot unability of colder objects to send photons warming warmer objects even a bit more!

    Lots of fun!

    The only matter I can understand is that the atmosphere consists

    – to 99.9 % of gases
    — either scattering Sun’s SW immediately back to space, or
    — being absolutely transparent to both Sun’s SW and Earth’s LW radiation (yes yes yes: O2 shows electronic absorp-tion of UV somewhere in the topmost layers of the stratosphere, forget it);
    – to 0.1 % of gases absorbing Earth’s LW radiation.

    Thus, since reemission of absorbed radiation is performed randomly in all directions, not all LW radiation emitted by Earth reaches outer space.

    Wether or not this little amount of backradiation results in anything getting warmer below: about that I don’t care at all.

    So what!

  61. g*e*r*a*n says:

    Mike Flynn came up wth a nice “put up or shut up” challenge to the cult of pseudoscience.

    “Just come up with an experiment which shows that shows that an hotter object can have its temperature raised by absorbing photons from a colder object.”

    All the responses perfectly matched the predictions from Mike Flynn’s playbook—deny, divert, confuse.

    • barry says:

      Mike has been shown plenty of these over the months. There’s no point continuing after umpteen attempts have been met with Mike’s vacuous rejections. He doesn’t even attempt a discussion, just repeats his mantras or doesn’t reply.

      I tried a few threads ago. He couldn’t even remember what he’d said, and vigorously denied having said stuff until after I quoted and linked to his own posts. After he could deny no more, he diverted with talk of gotchas and warmists.

      There’s just no point. The guy is confused.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        barry, did you just manage all three (deny, divert, confuse) in only one comment?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Theres no point continuing after umpteen attempts have been met with Mikes vacuous rejections”.

        You’ve got a nerve. When I pointed you to the IPCC admission that no warming had occurred over the 15 years from 1998 – 2012, calling it a warming hiatus, you completely obfuscated your reply, trying to divert the discussion to short term trends.

        You were in utter denial of what I had pointed out to you. David Appell went so far as to call me a liar, even though I presented the link to the IPCC admission. Appell claims new studies have revealed warming where the IPCC claim none but thus far he has failed to link to them.

        There are none so blind as they who will not see.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        barry,

        If you can quote my words exactly, I obviously wrote what I wrote. Should you paraphrase me, I might beg to differ with your interpretation.

        Providing links is pointless. You might just as well copy and paste my words. How hard could it be?

        Whether I am confused or not is irrelevant.

        If you cant provide a testable GHE hypothesis, you have a big bag of nothing. Maybe the US Government is of the same view. Maybe you could send a few links to the US President? Or demand answers to some particularly silly gotchas?

        Good luck. Let us know how you get on, if you choose.

        Cheers.

  62. barry says:

    Salvatore, these are the most recent SSTs, from 1990. HadSST data, to avoid the NOAA stuff skeptics hate.

    http://tinyurl.com/y7qr6fuw

    Most recent temps are higher than in 1998, and the last month was an upward swing.

    Current ocean heat content data is only up to June.

    So what “overall oceanic temperatures” are you looking at to claim some kind of change in trend is happening?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”Salvatore, these are the most recent SSTs, from 1990. HadSST data, to avoid the NOAA stuff skeptics hate”.

      NOAA…Had.crut….it’s a toss up which is most corrupt. We know about NOAA, here’s some dirt on Had.crut.

      The record is kept by Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia. He’s the same Phil Jones caught in the Climategate emails threatening to block skeptical papers to IPCC reviews. In the emails, he boasted about using ‘Mike’s trick’ to hide declining temperatures.

      He was asked for the Had.crut record by Steve McIntyre for independent verification. Jones hemmed and hawed about the record not belonging to him and that it was in a mess. Part of the record had been amended and the originals ‘lost’.

      McIntyre applied through an FOI to the UK government to have the data released. The UK government was in the midst of an election call and did not process the FOI. Jones was seen in the Climategate emails urging his cronies not to cooperate with the FOI.

      Let’s face it, the surface record is corrupt. NOAA has made a laughing stock of science by using a climate model to synthesize 75% of the global data which they slashed. They used less than 15% of the real data they had in hand to synthesize the rest of the slashed data.

      How can you, with full knowledge of this chicanery, dare to quote the corrupt Had.crut record, never mind the NOAA record. Let’s not discuss NASA GISS who get fudged data from NOAA and fudge it even further.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson on September 26, 2017 at 12:55 PM

        NOAA has made a laughing stock of science by using a climate model to synthesize 75% of the global data which they slashed. They used less than 15% of the real data they had in hand to synthesize the rest of the slashed data.

        Robertson, you are a liar and you know that.

        Your have been shown months ago in earlier Spencer threads that you intentionally and repeatedly distort the truth.

        You perfectly know since then that generating a time series out of even less stations than NOAA actually uses, shows much higher temperatures than NOAA presents. The same holds for GISS and Had.CRUT.

        You are thoroughly unable to present any real data scientifically confirming what you pretend.

        But you continue to post your lies. Your unfair behavior far below the belt is disgusting.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”Your have been shown months ago in earlier Spencer threads that you intentionally and repeatedly distort the truth”.

          Who was showing me…you???

          Right from the NOAA site that is now hidden:

          “Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”

          NOAA admits to slashing 75% of its stations and you are calling me a liar?

          That’s why I call you an idiot. You have a fetish for authority figures and even when NOAA tells you themselves that they have cheated, you still believe the authority.

          https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

        • barry says:

          The lie that you repeat again and again, Robertson, is that NOAA ‘slashed’ – as in deliberately culled – thousands of weather station data.

          I have pointed out the truth dozens of times to you, citing the paper over and over that explains what happened.

          You mysteriously disappear from the comment thread whenever I have done so, re-emerging to repeat the lie.

          Lying liars lie.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            barry,

            Foolish Warmists cannot even produce a scientifically testable GHE hypothesis. You call this science?

            Sad.

            Cheers.

          • barry says:

            Your response here is in the category of “divert.”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            barry,

            You are correct.

            I divert away from irrelevancies, and back to the fact that is not even a scientifically testable GHE hypothesis, let alone a GHE theory!

            You can try to deny this if you wish. The best of luck to you. You will need it.

            Cheers.

          • barry says:

            Denial and repeating mantras is about as intellectually moribund as it gets. Starker when chipping in to conversations on other topics.

            You’re a broken record.

          • barry says:

            And your witless intrusion does not change the fact that Gordon Robertson is a serial liar.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            barry,

            I’m not sure if you think your opinion matters to me.

            You may think as you wish.

            There is still no testable GHE hypothesis. Ignoring that fact won’t make it any less relevant. I notice you call someone else a “serial liar”, but not myself.

            What a surprise! Maybe you can’t refer to me as a liar, because there is no scientifically testable GHE hypothesis? Maybe I’m telling the truth?

            Inconvenient and sad.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”And your witless intrusion does not change the fact that Gordon Robertson is a serial liar”.

            You’re only feeding my opinion that alarmists have serious problems sorting lies from fact.

          • barry says:

            You serially lie about NOAA “slashing” thousands of weather station data. They did no such thing.

            Here, for the 20th time, is what happened.

            You will, as usual, refuse to answer directly to this. you will disappear or deny, divert, confuse.

            In the 1990s NOAA undertook to transcribe by hand millions of historical, hand-written records from weather stations around the world. This took many years. Meanwhile, NOAA continued to collect data from 1500 stations that sent the data electronically, in the format that permitted automatic updates.

            When the large project finished, NOAA had added several thousand weather stations worth of data. These are stations that do not report to NOAA electronically, and not in the format that allows automation.

            NOAA did not “slash”, as in deliberately cull – thousands of weather stations. They added that data in manually in the large project in the 90s.

            When the project finished, data from 1500 weather stations continued with the automatic updates.

            You have it completely the wrong way around. NOAA slashed no station, they added historical data that was not part of the automated stream.

            Here’s the 1997 paper that describes what happened.

            http://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp

            This has been explained to you more than a score of times.

            You will not mention the facts here. You will blather while sticking your head in the sand.

            And you will continue to lie about this.

            I will continue to call you out. I can stand liars.

      • barry says:

        NOAA… Had.crut… its a toss up which is most corrupt

        Whatever.

        I am asking Salvatore to substantiate his claim on recent oceanic temperatures turning downwards. He has provided no source. I cannot find one that does.

        UAH also has SSTs upswinging last month, so Salvatore is obviously not referring to the skeptics’ gold standard.

        You have nothing of value to add here.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”UAH also has SSTs upswinging last month, so Salvatore is obviously not referring to the skeptics gold standard”.

          You man that ‘number’ applied to all oceans globally? Just like the number applied to all temperatures globally?

          Has it occurred to you that Arctic warming of +5C, in spots, must be offset by nearly that amount of cooling in order for the global average to hover around a degree C or less? Applying an average to global warming or to the SST does not make a lot of sense to me.

        • barry says:

          You man that number applied to all oceans globally? Just like the number applied to all temperatures globally?

          It’s what Salvatore means. Here’s his words:

          Again as the overall oceanic temperatures fall so does the global temperature.

          What controls oceanic temperatures the sun not CO2.

          The global temperature trend is now down.

          Bin and I are trying to figure out which data he is referring to. If you have nothing to add on that, why are you saying anything?

          And if you think these metrics are nonsense, then you are criticising Salvatore, who initiated this discussion with the above quote.

          But you won’t actually do that, because you have no intellectual integrity, just a tribalist mentality.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”But you wont actually do that, because you have no intellectual integrity, just a tribalist mentality”.

            Again…look in the mirror. You are the one butt-kissing to NOAA after they admitted slashing 75% of their surface stations and synthesizing the slashed data in a climate model using less than 25% of the stations data.

            That’s blatant scientific misconduct, for which they are being investigated, but it’s fine with you as long as it supports your catastrophic pseudo-science.

            Then there’s the IPCC. You support their findings for the most part but when they clearly admit global warming stopped for 15 years, between 1998 and 2012, you go into denial, grasping at the scientific misconduct of NOAA as proof there was no warming hiatus.

            The fact you think it’s me who is the tribalist suggests strongly you are lost in your denial. There has never been significant warming from CO2 and global warming as we know it ended in 1998.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”The global temperature trend is now down. Bin and I are trying to figure out which data he is referring to.”

            It right there on the UAH graph on this blog. Global temps have been cooling since February 2016. Salvatore has made reference to that decline in other posts and I would presume he thinks you know that.

            Coupled with the IPCC admission of a flat trend from 1998 – 2012, plus the continuance of the flat trend by UAH till 2015, the negative trend since the peak of the 2016 EN suggests we are headed for 20 years of a flat trend despite 3 major ENs over that range.

            Nowhere in the time series since 1998 is catastrophic CO2 warming apparent. If you think so, show it to us. All we’ve seen is cycles of ENSO that ultimately average to a flat trend. If there had been significant CO2 warming it would have been apparent.

            That’s all Salvatore is claiming. I cannot speak for his opinion on the SST but it makes eminent sense that a flat atmospheric trend would translate to at least a flat SST trend. Where alarmists are finding SST warming is the mystery when there has been no sign of global warming, other than the transient 2016 EN spike which has been declining steadily since Feb. 2016.

            Hence my shot at NOAA who has manufactured a warming trend retroactively by manipulating the surface record and the SST record. Why you two support that chicanery and claim to be students of science is beyond me.

          • David Appell says:

            GR says:
            “Global temps have been cooling since February 2016.”

            It’s the natural cooling associated with the end of any El Nino and the occurrence (2016-2017) of a weak La Nina.

            It’s just noise, aided by your cherry picking. Oceanic weather.

      • barry says:

        NOAA… Had.crut…its a toss up which is most corrupt

        UAH SSTs have the same recent upturn as the other SST data sets.

        Where is Salvatore getting his information that oceanic temps have turned down in the last few months?

  63. https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/

    The most recent data shows overall ocean cooling especially in the tropics.

    This turn has just came about(past few month) but I called for this way before it has happened.

    What good is calling for something after it happens.

    • barry says:

      The most recent SST data from UAH shows the last two consecutive months have been upticks.

      http://tinyurl.com/y85jwzef

      No data set supports what you are saying. None.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”The most recent SST data from UAH shows the last two consecutive months have been upticks.

        http://tinyurl.com/y85jwzef

        All I see at your link is a notice to upgrade your account to allow 3rd party hosting.

        Besides, I am not interested in your personal interpretation of UAH data. Can you not post a link to UAH SST data?

    • barry says:

      overall ocean cooling especially in the tropics

      You finally found some ocean data with a downturn. The NINO3.4 region.

      That is less than 8% of the global ocean. Global SSTs in all data sets show an upswing in the month of August.

      You are wrong about “overall ocean cooling” in the last few months.

  64. http://news.mit.edu/2014/global-warming-increased-solar-radiation-1110

    Here they go changing the rules because they are desperate to keep their stupid theory going.

    Another pillar of this theory not coming to be which was the amounts of out going radiation escaping to space would lessen.

    Has not happened just like the other two pillars this theory was based on, which were a lower tropospheric hotspot and an increasingly more positive AO/NAO.

    All the basic principles this theory is based on are all failing to materialize.

    Now they are saying it is short wave radiation, sure next fallacy.

    • barry says:

      What happened to substantiating your claim that “oceanic temperatures” have turned down in the last 3 months?

      You just wrote those words straight out of your imagination, didn’t you?

        • As recently as three months ago overall oceanic temperatures were +.385 c or so now they are around +.27c

          • Bindidon says:

            Salvatore

            0.27 C ???

            Which temperatures do you mean here?

            – he oceans’ surface temperatures
            or
            – the tropospheric temperatures measured by e.g. UAH 7 km above the oceans?

            I ask you because 0.27 C is ‘come per caso’ the UAH global TLT average anomaly for July 2017 above the oceans…

            The sea temperatures measured at the surface for Jan till Jul 2017 are

            2017 | 1 | 0.31
            2017 | 2 | 0.33
            2017 | 3 | 0.36
            2017 | 4 | 0.36
            2017 | 5 | 0.33
            2017 | 6 | 0.29
            2017 | 7 | 0.32

            The mean is 0.33 C.
            That of UAH for the same period is 0.27 C.

          • barry says:

            What you ‘showed’ me has nothing to do with recent “oceanic temperatures.”

            Nothing.

            Now you’ve given a figure, but not what it represents. SSTs? Ocean heat content? Where did you get it from?

            I want to see what you’re seeing, but you don’t want to show it for some reason.

            I think you’re hunting down some values post-facto to try and substantiate the claim about recent oceanic temperatures that you invented.

            One link will be sufficient – a link to “oceanic temperature” data, not an article about something else.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”The sea temperatures measured at the surface for Jan till Jul 2017 are

            2017 | 1 | 0.31
            2017 | 2 | 0.33
            2017 | 3 | 0.36
            2017 | 4 | 0.36
            2017 | 5 | 0.33
            2017 | 6 | 0.29
            2017 | 7 | 0.32″

            Which part of the surface? North Pole, South Pole, Equator, Tropic of Cancer, etc., mid-ocean?

            What’s the error margin/confidence level if those temperatures are synthesized in a climate model?

          • barry says:

            You’re missing the point, Robertson.

            Salvatore made a claim that “oceanic temperatures” had turned down. I have asked him to point to the data he is referring to, and he refuses to give it. So Bin and I have been looking at various SST data sets to see what he’s talking about.

            If you can help discover what Sal’s source is, great. If not, you have nothing of value to add to this particular discussion. Please don’t divert the conversation.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”Youre missing the point, Robertson”.

            That would be Mr. Robertson to the likes of you.

            “If you can help discover what Sals source is, great. If not, you have nothing of value to add to this particular discussion”.

            When I see two alarmist fools trying to obfuscate Salvatore’s argument, it is my concern and my business. Don’t you have some sheep to shear? Or do you prefer the gumboot technique.

          • Dr No says:

            GR:
            “Whats the error margin/confidence level if those temperatures are synthesized in a climate model?”

            ?? What are you talking about??
            “synthesized in a climate model” ??
            You do understand that we are talking about observations here?
            You must try to focus.

          • barry says:

            When I see two alarmist fools trying to obfuscate Salvatores argument, it is my concern and my business.

            This is Salvatore’s ‘argument’ that I’ve been querying him on (to no avail), Robertson.

            Again as the overall oceanic temperatures fall so does the global temperature.

            What controls oceanic temperatures the sun not CO2.

            The global temperature trend is now down.

            Do you have anything to say about that quote?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dr no…”You do understand that we are talking about observations here?”

            You really believe that, don’t you? Have you not clued into the chicanery of NOAA, who have 6000 surface stations available to them globally but insist on using less than 1500 in a climate model to synthesize the 75% they have slashed?

            If NOAA admits freely to doing that to surface temps, the mind boggles to think what they have done to the SST.

            https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

            You’re eating too much vegemite, mate.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”This is Salvatores argument that Ive been querying him on (to no avail), Robertson”.

            And I queried you on the IPCC admission that the world average had not increased for 15 years, sending you the link, and you obfuscated that rather than admit it was true. Why should Salvatore play your games when you refuse to call a spade a spade?

          • barry says:

            Diversion. Stick to the point.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…” the tropospheric temperatures measured by e.g. UAH 7 km above the oceans?

          I ask you because 0.27 C is come per caso the UAH global TLT average anomaly for July 2017 above the oceans”

          Are you trying to suggest the UAH SST is no good because it’s measured from an altitude of 7 km? You don’t think oxygen microwave radiation can reach that high?

          How about the bazillions of data points represented by O2 molecules and picked up on one stationary position of the scanner. No good for an average compared to a thermometer in a little house, 1200 miles from it’s neighbour????

          Sats can scan the oceans, surface stations give poor coverage and need to be fudged.

          • Dr No says:

            “Are you trying to suggest the UAH SST is no good because its measured from an altitude of 7 km? You dont think oxygen microwave radiation can reach that high?”

            Good grief. This is so bad it is ridiculous. Get yourself a good text book.
            Preferably one titled “The Dummies Guide to Atmospheric Radiative Transfer”.

          • barry says:

            The UAH SST record opposes what Salvatore has claimed.

            He says temps have begun to trend down in the last 3 months.

            UAH SSTs have risen over the last 3 months.

            Jun 0.21
            Jul 0.29
            Aug 0.41

            http://tinyurl.com/jrx6wcn

            Which data is he referring to?

          • barry says:

            Apologies – that was global temperature. here’s SSTs:

            Jun 0.20
            Jul 0.27
            Aug 0.43

          • gbaikie says:

            –barry says:
            September 26, 2017 at 11:18 PM

            Apologies that was global temperature. heres SSTs:

            Jun 0.20
            Jul 0.27
            Aug 0.43

            Very close to global temperature.

            And I guess it should be, since it’s 70% of the planet.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            gbaikie…”Very close to global temperature. And I guess it should be, since its 70% of the planet”.

            Good point. I pointed out in a previous post that the global trend was flat between 1998 and 2012 and currently declining. It’s inconceivable that SSTs would be warming while atmospheric temps were not.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dr no…”Good grief. This is so bad it is ridiculous. Get yourself a good text book”.

            Seriously, doc, you need to do something about your comprehension, it was the rocket scientists binny who suggested UAH sats from 7 kms up could not render an accurate measurement of surface temps.

            When I see you offering science at a depth greater than a junior high schooler I may heed your advice. As the IPCC are fond of saying, it’s not likely.

            I don’t need a text book on atomic physics, I have been applying the theory for decades in electronics. An understanding of heat is mandatory. At no time, in the decades I have been studying and applying atomic theory, did I ever confuse infrared energy with heat.

            You see, I could tell the difference. When you touch a component heated by electrical current (conduction), which is a movement of electrons and charges through a conductor/device, it can burn your finger…sometimes to the point of a blister. I have never had such an experience with IR (radiation) from the same device although I do understand that high intensity EM from a radar sail can cause a human grievous harm.

            If you need a few lessons on understanding electromagnetic energy, as opposed to heat, which is not EM, I’ll be glad to offer assistance.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Salvatore…”Here they go changing the rules because they are desperate to keep their stupid theory going”.

      Salvatore…they are desperate since the SST is their last bastion. Don’t you know the heat is hiding in the oceans, as Trenberth claimed? He can’t find it in the atmosphere so he has thrown a bone to alarmists to prop them up.

      When the alarmists were getting nowhere with global warming, since it wasn’t warming enough, they turned to climate change. No one knows what it means and there’s no way to argue against it. Now they cannot find the heat in the atmosphere due to CO2 so they have moved it to the oceans where no one can measure it.

      NOAA is helping out by fudging the SST as well as the land temps. The IPCC announced no warming between 1998 – 2012, and NOAA agreed. Now they have changed their minds and they are fudging the SST using water intake ports on ships where the water is bound to be warmer.

  65. My summary all of the pillars AGW theory is based on have not happened and the ocean are cooling and so does the global temperatures.

    • Bindidon says:

      Here is the global monthly SST map available at the Japanese Met Agency:

      http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/ocean/sst-ano-global_tcc.html

      Move back to May 2016 and forth again to Aug 2017.

      • barry says:

        The most recent month looks warmer than the previous. This matches the other SST data sets.

        I don’t see any downturn in trend. You’ve invented it.

        Please link to data, Salvatore.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”I dont see any downturn in trend. Youve invented it”.

          Schwartz, the more you post the more myopic you become. No downturn in trend??? Have you looked at Feb 2016 compared to Feb 2017? Even if you are looking at a trend from 1979 – 2017, its positive slope has to have decreased due to the cooling between Feb 2016 and Feb 2017.

        • barry says:

          Slavatore specifically said it was in the last 3 months.

          All the comments you’ve made about this have NOT been about the last 3 months. You’ve added nothing to the discussion (just regurgitated your pet interests).

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”Move back to May 2016 and forth again to Aug 2017″.

        Why don’t you move back and forth from 1999 – 2017? You need to give the ENs in late 1998, 2010, and early 2012 time to settle. So pick month 1 across the board for 2001, 2015,and 2017.

        My first observation is that no constant pink colours, suggesting minimal warming, are apparent across the years. Therefore it’s difficult to assess what one is seeing. The hot spots move around year to year.

        Between month 1 of 2001 and 2015 there is barely a change. Naturally, there will be warming in May 2016 following a major EN. Between Feb 2016 and Feb 2017, there is a major cooling.

  66. Mike Flynn says:

    Bindidon wrote –

    “Not all LW radiation emitted by Earth reaches outer space.”

    The observation that the Earth has cooled since its creation (if, indeed the crust was once molten) shows you are wrong.

    Fourier knew as much. So did Tyndall, so did Lord Kelvin . . .

    Their calculations of the age of the Earth were based on the observed geothermal gradient, and the estimated rate of cooling both by observation and experiment. No heating due to energy being trapped, just cooling.

    Maybe you could find some of this radiation which does not eventually leave the Earth to space. It would be scientific if you could specify the wavelength, and total energy retained within per annum. Where does it hide?

    Maybe this is Trenberth’s missing heat? You are delusional if you still believe in caloric. Heat cannot be contained. Atoms “jiggle”, and emit light (or EMR if you prefer). Left to themselves, they will “jiggle” themselves all the way to absolute zero.

    No magic, just physics.

    No GHE, just physics.

    Cheers.

    • Bindidon says:

      Mike Flynn on September 26, 2017 at 4:39 PM

      If the cooling had any influence compared with other factors, this would be visible through the radiation emitted by Earth’s kernel.

      1. The average geothermal radiation flux is about 0.1 W/m2.

      2. Earths internal heat radiated out at its surface by the kernel therefore represents no more than 0.03 % of the 240 W/m2 of solar flux reaching Earths surface and which must be radiated back to space in order to keep equilibrium.

      3. At the end of the 1990s, Evans (Northwest Research Associates, Ontario, CA) and Puckrin (Defense R&D, Quebec, CA) measured (using two FTIR spectrometers with a resolution of 0.25 and 0.02 cm-1 respectively) among other constituents the following average DLWIR fluxes for CO2 (those for H2O are, depending on the season and on the geographic position, of course higher, as we know).

      For the location Peterborough, Ontario, CA (44N-78W) their measurements give:

      winter: 30 W/m2
      summer: 10 W/m2

      Even the DLWIR fluxes for CH4 and N2O for example are, with about 1.1 W/m2 each, ten times higher than Earths geothermal flux, which is at best comparable with the DLWIR of all the CFCs together.

      *

      What you think about all this, Mr Flynn, does not interest me at all.

      Answer whatever you want or don’t. It doesn’t matter.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Bindidon,

        The Earth managed to cool in spite of all your irrelevancies, did it not?.

        You can’t actually identify the nature of this “missing heat” which is prevented from reaching outer space.

        As you point out, the rate of the Earth’s cooling is quite small. Geophysicists calculate the rate at between one and three millionths of a Kelvin per annum, currently. The precise amount of radiogenic elements within the interior is unknown, of course.

        As Fourier apparently said (you may provide an alternative translation, if you wish), at night the Earth loses all the heat it gained during the day, plus a portion of its own – as evidenced by the existence of the Earth’s geothermal gradient.

        I know you don’t care what I think. Others are free to check what I have presented as fact, and make up their own minds.

        Still no GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. Nothing.

        Cheers.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          And the top few meters of the Earth managed to warm (and cool again) repeatedly in the past million years in spite of all your irrelevancies.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            Complete nonsense. Even the most ardent foolish Warmist cannot show this supposition to be true.

            Rather than arguing about predicting the past, maybe you could come up with something scientific – a testable GHE hypothesis, expressed in scientific terms?

            Of course you can’t, possibly explaining your need to present unsubstantiated assertion (at least in the view of geophysicists) forward as fact.

            As a matter of curiosity, what is your definition of the top few meters of the Earth? Would it include the top few meters of the oceans (about 70% of the Earths “surface” at present)? Or maybe the top few meters of the crust under the oceans.

            Your statement is the usual vague foolish Warmist hand waving, unless you can actually usefully define what it is you are trying to say.

            Still no GHE. Not even a testable hypothesis, unless you can miraculously produce one!

            Cheers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Even the most ardent foolish Warmist cannot show this supposition to be true.”

            Clearly you have never heard of “ice ages”. /sarc

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            Yes I have.

            What’s your point?

            I wrote –

            “As a matter of curiosity, what is your definition of the top few meters of the Earth? Would it include the top few meters of the oceans (about 70% of the Earths surface at present)? Or maybe the top few meters of the crust under the oceans.”

            You decline to respond, as is your right.

            As to your silly assertion that I have never heard of ice ages – you might have bothered to ask, but that might mean that you would have to abandon the usual foolish Warmist mantra of fact through assertion.

            Still no testable GHE hypothesis, is there?

            Just ridiculous foolish Warmist assertions that a big molten blob of rock (the Earth) 150,000,000 km from the Sun, spontaneously heats up and cools down for no particular reason.

            Natural variation, possibly. That’s a good excuse – non-disprovable of course, but shoots your GHE down, I would assume. Not a lot of people around, a million years ago.

            No GHE. No GHE hypothesis, no GHE theory, nothing. Inconvenient but true. Maybe a good dose of sarcasm might create a GHE, but I think not.

            Cheers.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        Bindidon

        Also, I imagine the 0.03% is rather constant from decade to decade. If so, what little effect it has on Earth’s temperature, it probably has even less to do with any temperature CHANGE the earth might experience.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          A small change in something that’s already very, very small? Not exactly a game changer.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Sir Isaac,

          I know you can’t provide a testable GHE hypothesis, but trying to deny that the Earth has cooled (if that is what you are implying), is carrying denial a bit far. As I pointed out, it’s not cooling all that fast. Only a few thousand Kelvins drop over a few billion years, and of course the cooling curve is not linear, due to the varying half lives of the radioaoctice elements involved.

          As to the Earth suddenly deciding to heat up, this seems to be as likely as the chance of any other molten ball of rock and iron about 150,000,000 kms from the Sun, spontaneously getting hotter.

          It’s a matter of observation that a a red hot billet of iron (not even molten) exposed on the Earth’s surface, to the direct rays of the Sun, cools nicely, as expected. Surrounding it with 100% CO2 doesn’t help. As it does not raise the temperature of the larger object we call the Earth.

          Maybe if you could use CO2 to raise the temperature of a thermometer by putting more CO2 between the Sun and the thermometer, the US Government, even the President himself, might be impressed. But you can’t, so all remains well.

          Still no GHE. Sad.

          Cheers.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Mike

            Out of courtesy, I read the first sentence of your reply. And no, that is not what I implied.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Sir Isaac,

            I can understand why you aren’t volunteering to say what you were trying to imply.

            The usual cryptic foolish Warmist statement –

            “A small change in something thats already very, very small? Not exactly a game changer.”

            Appearing to sound sciency and profound, I suppose. Devoid of meaning, of course.

            Best keep your real intent secret – others might discover it.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            isaac…”Out of courtesy, I read the first sentence of your reply”.

            If you insist on being courteous around here you’ll be an outlier. In the case of alarmists you’ll be a plain ‘lier’. That might make you an ‘inlier’ with the alarmists.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”1. The average geothermal radiation flux is about 0.1 W/m2″.

        How do they separate it from the surface flux due to solar warming? The alarmist claim is that ‘something’ is causing the CALCULATED value of surface radiation to be more than it should be given the amount of solar warming. Naturally, the presumption is that it MUST BE due to trace amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere. No proof offered, just consensus.

        How much research has been put into studying heat transfer from core to surface? Naturally, if solar energy is warming a surface already warmed from internal sources the IR emitted from the surface would be higher.

  67. barry says:

    Salvatore,

    Here is the UAH version 6 global sea surface temperature time series from 1990:

    http://tinyurl.com/y85jwzef

    Where is this downturn in trend in ocean temps in the last 3 months?

    The last value (August) is an upswing, same as the other SST data sets.

    Where are you getting your information?

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Barry

      Salvatore looks at tropicaltidbits. I checked it out, and according to their source (CDAS), the current global SST anomaly is 0.261 C. This is considerably lower than it had been in early summer.

      https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Correction. SST’s had been higher throughout most of the summer, and the drop is really only in the past month.

        • barry says:

          Salvatore said there had been a downturn in global SSTs over the past 3 months.

          According to that chart, they’ve remained fairly steady, hovering around 0.3C. There is no indication in a change of trend, as he puts it.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Salvatore wrote:

            “As recently as three months ago overall oceanic temperatures were +.385 c or so now they are around +.27c ”

            This looks about right according to his source.

          • barry says:

            Salvatore also wrote:

            This turn has just came about(past few month)

            The problem with you and many others is you do not have the ability to see when a turn in a trend is happening or taking place.

            …months going back 3 or so.

            And yet less than a month ago temps were also at about 0.38C.

            Salvatore is always vague. So I asked him to be specific. The above is what he came up with. His general contention is still, unfortunately, vague.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Barry

            The chart he looks at is a really small window…only about 4 months. I think the short term changes he sees get exaggerated in his mind, so that every few weeks he thinks a major new trend is starting.

            I just thought I should show where he gets his numbers.

          • barry says:

            Yes, thanks for that. And yes, his claim is ridiculous on its face. As if one could pick a change in global climate trend from a few months data.

  68. Mike Flynn says:

    Bindidon,

    From MIT –

    “In computer modeling of Earths climate under elevating CO2 concentrations, the greenhouse gas effect does indeed lead to global warming. Yet something puzzling happens: While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise.”, and –

    So there are two types of radiation important to climate, and one of them gets affected by CO2, but its the other one thats directly driving global warming thats the surprising thing, says Armour, who is a postdoc in MITs Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.”

    So the radiation supposedly affected by CO2 has no effect, but the other one (sunlight) does.

    Just change the goalposts, and keep pretending that there is global warming due to CO2, except that there isn’t, and don’t point out that “the other one” is just plain old sunlight. However, in typical foolish Warmist fashion, CO2 is now blamed for the Earth absorbing more sunlight – presumably during the day.

    Unfortunately for that scenario, any fool except a foolish Warmist can see that during the night the heat of the day goes away, and the Earth cools more when it is further away from the Sun. That is generally referred to as Winter.

    Still no testable GHE hypothesis. Just more and more layers of contrived explanations for inconvenient facts as they arise.

    All part of the rich tapestry of life.

    Cheers.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Mike

      I’m shocked. That was a very interesting quote. If true, it would certainly throw a monkey wrench into the GHE theory. AGW would have a different explanation, wouldn’t it?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Sir Isaac,

        There is no GHE theory anyway, but if there was, you’d be right.

        As to AGW, maybe you could expand what you mean. Foolish Warmists often use such a term, but of course are unable to usefully define it.

        I think people are supposed to believe that AGW is a result of the GHE.

        If the GHE does not exist, then AGW needs a definition which doesn’t depend on the GHE.

        Maybe you feel like having a stab at the definition – just saying it means Anthropogenic Global Warming is as useful as saying GHE means Green House Effect.

        You might like to refer to my previous comments about the difference between Warmists, and foolish Warmists. Or you might not. The choice is yours, of course.

        If you were perchance aiming for a “gotcha”, your aim was a bit off. If you weren’t, you have no doubt learnt something.

        Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      mike…”From MIT In computer modeling of Earths climate…”

      I’m surprised they allow climate modelers into the hallowed halls of MIT, which is known as an engineering university. Climate modeling would fit better in the prissy, ivy league settings of Yale’s anthropology department.

  69. Norman says:

    Gordon Robertson

    I have to take your message down here. It is all I needed to read.

    YOU: “normanAll the textbooks make the claim that Heat is the NET flow of radiant energy of a surface being examined.

    And they are all wrong. Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. He said nothing about IR.

    You are seriously screwed up because you are using arguments based on textbooks with the wrong information. I hate to say this but engineering books tend to be the worst offenders. Engineers work in a macro world and they have arbitrarily defined heat to fit that macro world. Heat is a property of atoms, in the micro world.”

    Okay now I see it is hopeless in trying to open you mind. Your made up belief system about physics is your religion. You have faith in it and you have your Prophet that gave you the one and only truth, Prophet Clausius divinely inspired to speak the one and only truth.

    I suggested you were a religious preacher on another thread and now it is obvious. The heretics of modern science be damned, only you possess the secret and true knowledge.

    You post here not because of interest to learn and grow, but to preach you ideas. That is why you don’t deviate regardless of criticism because you have the Faith, and the truth and feel most compelled to preach endlessly.

    Now that I know it is your religion and you don’t believe textbooks (even though they are used in all industry and if the information was not correct you would have a lot of malfunctioning heat transfer devices).

    You just make things up. I tell you why they are wrong and give you correct links. Nothing with you changes. Keep the Faith, it seems to give you meaning in life.

    I will stick with the science.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Norman,

      You wrote –

      “I will stick with the science.” Excellent idea.

      The first step with developing a GHE theory would be to propose a testable GHE hypothesis. Of course, you have to identify some reproducibly observable natural phenomena which cannot be explained using current scientific theories. That is part of the scientific method, I believe.

      So the science to this point, in relation to a GHE hypothesis, seems to be zero.

      Scientifically, the GHE is non-existent – a foolish Warmist fantasy.

      You don’t have a testable GHE hypothesis, and neither does anyone else!

      Inconvenient but true. Sad, as well.

      Cheers.

      • Norman says:

        Mike Flynn

        You have a mental glitch that prevents reasonable thought process. You just repeat things without reading. I have given you a simple experiment to do based upon scientific understanding of heat transfer.

        You ask for an experiment to prove GHE. I give you an experiment that will demonstrate the effect. Your response is that no one has a test for GHE.

        What are you wanting? I have linked you to actual measured downwelling IR that would not exist without the GHE. Here I will do it again.

        This is actual energy. I don’t know what you think it is. Gordon Robertson acknowledges it but thinks it can’t be absorbed.

        It is actual evidence of GHE. Your claims are very lame and without merit.

        Science states this energy will be absorbed and added to the total energy of the Earth’s surface (note I am not talking about the underlying molten Earth which only slightly affects the surface energy balance because of the excellent insulating properties of miles of rock).

        Here again for you. Proof of GHE.

        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59cb83286a188.png

        The graph is empirical proof of the GHE if you don’t like evidence than don’t ask for it.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Norman,

        You do not even have a testable GHE hypothesis, let alone a GHE theory.

        You seem to think that sunlight results in something amazing. Sunlight is wonderful stuff, no doubt. After four and a half billion years of sunlight, the Earth managed to cool. This may have escaped your notice, but the surface is generally not molten any more.

        You have not presented a testable GHE hypothesis. Claiming that the presence of sunlight proves the existence of something non-existent might indicate to some that you are suffering from delusional psychosis, or similar.

        I would certainly not ask for evidence to support something which you cannot even produce, but if you believe that I have, I am unlikely to convince you that you are delusional.

        No GHE. You cant even say what it is supposed to be, even hypothetically!

        Must be far too hard.

        Cheers.

        • Norman says:

          Mike Flynn

          I am not sure I can even hope to translate the content of your post.

          You are talking about sunlight and how wonderful it is. What does that have to do with my post?

          I posted a link to downwelling IR. Energy moving from the atmosphere down to a detector pointed upward near the Earth’s surface.

          This energy is what makes up the GHE. Remove it and the Earth is cooler. No duh. That is the proof you need, empirical scientific data. You can refuse to accept it, your choice, your claim that there is no evidence is a false one. I have provided you with all the evidence you need of a real and effective GHE.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Gordon, Norman

      It is my understanding that all objects emit and receive energy. Energy received causes the molecules they are made of to move faster. This movement produces heat. The energy they emit causes their molecules to move slower, a cooling effect.

      Comparing the energy shared between two objects, the one receiving the most energy will warm, the other will cool. You could then say heat is “transferred” from the object emitting the most energy to the other, but this is more a figurative term than literal. Heat is really an internal property of each object. Energy is what is transferred, more or less heat is the result.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        The “motion of molecules” may not have been understood by early physicists. Perhaps the laws they described were based on careful observation and experiment, rather than an understanding of the invisible mechanisms involved.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Here is an experiment (from some folks at CalTech) that is meant to help people understand what heat is:

          “To do this experiment you will need 2 clear bowls and food color. Fill one clear bowl with hot water and another with the same amount of cold water. When the water is still, put a drop of food color into the center of each bowl. As the water molecules bump into the food color molecules, the food color will move around. Since the hot water molecules are moving faster, they will bump into the food color harder and more frequently causing it to spread more quickly than the food color in the cold water.”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Sir Isaac,

            All very interesting, but probably well known.

            Most people are probably aware of the concept of heat, without having to be told.

            What has any of this to do with the non-existence of a testable GHE hypothesis? Just as a matter of interest, molecules do not bump into each other. That is just a convenient fiction – something like the notion that electrons circle the nucleus of an atom.

            By all means keep telling people convenient fictions if it makes you happy.

            Still no testable GHE hypothesis. Still no GHR theory. Nothing at all, actually, apart from deluded foolish Warmists claiming that CO2 is evil.

            Cheers.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Mike

            You: “Most people are probably aware of the concept of heat, without having to be told.”

            Everybody knows first hand what heat, or lack of heat feels like, so I wouldn’t call it a concept. What’s happening at a molecular level? Most people are clueless. My understanding is hardly any better.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Sir Isaac,

            I made a typo. Enjoy.

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Sir Isaac,

            You’re correct. Most people are clueless, including all foolish Warmists. If you want to know what happens, you could search the web. There’s plenty of information available, much of it incorrect, unfortunately.

            As you wouldn’t call heat a concept, I would not attempt to explain what happens at a molecular level. You have made up your mind, so go with that.

            You claim to have hardly any better understanding than a clueless person, but you seem to be telling me I’m wrong. So be it. If you want to boast about your near cluelessness, I would be the last person to interfere.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            isaac…”Comparing the energy shared between two objects, the one receiving the most energy will warm, the other will cool. You could then say heat is transferred from the object emitting the most energy to the other…”

            That explanation belies basic atomic theory. You must specify what kind of energy is being transferred otherwise you’ll fall into a miasma of confusion.

            Heat is thermal energy, a reference to the kinetic energy of atoms. The energy transferred via radiation is electromagnetic energy, which is not thermal energy.

            How then can you talk about summing energies when you have two different types of energy with different parameters?

            Besides, with heat transfer via radiation, thermal energy is not exchanged physically. Heat does not leave the warmer body, travel through space, and increase the heat in the cooler body. Heat is reduced in the warmer body and increased in the cooler body.

            Seems puzzling but exactly the same process takes place when audio energy spoken by a person in a radio station is carried via EM to a distant receiver and is recreated in the receiving environment. Obviously the audio energy spoken at the transmitter is not the same audio energy emitted from speakers at the receiver.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Heat is thermal energy, a reference to the kinetic energy of atoms. The energy transferred via radiation is electromagnetic energy, which is not thermal energy.”

            But they’re both energies, and energy can be transformed from one form to another.

          • David Appell says:

            GR wrote:
            “Heat does not leave the warmer body, travel through space, and increase the heat in the cooler body. Heat is reduced in the warmer body and increased in the cooler body.”

            It’s the same thing.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          isaac…”The motion of molecules may not have been understood by early physicists”.

          Better to use the word atoms rather than molecules, which are two or more atoms bonded together by electrons or charges. Heat is related to the electrons of atoms, not molecules per se. Electrons and the -ve charges related to electrons bond atoms into molecules.

          Clausius had a clear understanding of atoms circa 1850. He talked about the vibration of atoms in solids and compared that motion to work (work = force x distance). Then he gave a clear analogy of the equivalence of heat and work.

          Clausius stated clearly that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. He also postulated the internal energy of a mass due to atomic interactions. Clausius coined the symbol U for internal energy and coined the word entropy in relation to heat.

          It chagrins me to see modernists stealing his concepts and applying meaning to them that makes no sense. Heat is obviously a phenomenon related to atoms and to have modernists claim it is nothing more than an obfuscation related to heat transfer is plain dumb.

          It’s even worse when the arrogant attack Clausius based on abject ignorance of his work. No one criticizes Newton for Newton II, even though certain misguided people insist it has been supplanted by Einstein’s theory of relativity.

          Einstein did not disqualify Newton II he merely enlarged it’s scope. NASA, and science in general, still use the basic principles of Newton. If I am trying to calculate my average speed over a distance I will use Newton rather than convoluted relativity equations.

          Same with Clausius and heat.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Clausius stated clearly that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.”

            Clausius stated that MECHANICAL heat is due to the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules.

            “Heat is obviously a phenomenon related to atoms and to have modernists claim it is nothing more than an obfuscation related to heat transfer is plain dumb.”

            No, it’s not “obvious” — in fact, it’s wrong. EM radiation carries energy, and can thus transfer heat. That’s how the Sun heats the Earth.

            How can you possibly be opposed to that?

            “If I am trying to calculate my average speed over a distance I will use Newton rather than convoluted relativity equations.”

            Depends whether you are traveling at near the speed of light. There are aspects of the solar system that Newtonian physics can’t explain, such as the perihelion processions of Mercury, Venus and Earth.

            Newtonian physics will get you to the moon. But if you apply it to a high energy circulating beam at CERN, you’ll get an explosion. If you apply it to GPS satellites, you get wrong results.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        isaac…”It is my understanding that all objects emit and receive energy. Energy received causes the molecules they are made of to move faster”.

        To be specific, all mass emits and absorbs electromagnetic energy, which is not heat. The criterion for aborbing/emitting is temperature difference, which is actually a difference in the kinetic energy of electrons surrounding an atomic nucleus and the surroundings of the atoms.

        A molecule is a reference to two or more atoms bonded together. Therefore, you need to look at the atom since all the bonds represent shared electrons or charges between the atoms.

        It is not the molecule vibrating per se, it’s the bond involving the electrons that vibrates. According to the Bohr model of the atom, electrons reside at quantum levels of energy (around the nucleus) between which they can rise or fall. When an electron falls to a lower energy state it emits a quanta of ‘electromagnetic’ energy which has been named a photon.

        In other words, the electron converts the electrical energy it has to electromagnetic energy. Electric fields and magnetic fields go hand in hand. An electrical current running through a conductor generates a magnetic field perpendicular to it’s direction of motion. At the same time it produced an electric field. Same in space. When an electrical field is generated by the electrical charge on an electron, it automatically develops a magnetic field perpendicular to it’s direction of motion. It’s called an electromagnetic field.

        Please note, none of this describes heat.

        Heat is related to the change in electrical energy not to the emitted EM. If an electron absorbs a photon of the proper frequency and intensity it will jump to a higher energy level and the atom ‘warms’. I am disputing that EM generated by a cooler mass can affect an electron in a warmer mass. The 2nd law corroborates that.

        In a mass, of atoms/molecules, it is the average increase in kinetic energy that is called heat. In a conductor, certain electrons are responsible for transferring electrical charge atom to atom. The same electrons are responsible for transferring heat atom to atom in a conductor.

        • David Appell says:

          GR wrote:
          “I am disputing that EM generated by a cooler mass can affect an electron in a warmer mass.”

          What property is carried by the EM wave that tells the absorbing body it is warmer than the emitting body?

          For that matter, how does any electron or molecule know the temperature of the object it is part of?

          PS: Bonds don’t vibrate — molecules do.
          PPS: In GHGs, it is rotational and vibrational quantum states that absorb and emit IR photons, not electrons jumping between Bohr model atomic energy levels.
          PPPS: Pauling didn’t “simplify” Schrodinger’s math, he applied Schrodinger’s equation to molecular pairs and other molecular configurations.
          PPPPS: Really you must use the Dirac equation, because the Schrodinger equation doesn’t contain spin.
          PPPPPS: The house Pauling was born in still stands in Portland, Oregon: https://goo.gl/maps/GfTzGjR2QF52

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            PPPPPPS: Davie has zero credibility.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            YOU: “PPPPPPS: Davie has zero credibility.”

            Wow, if he has no credibility even though he will link to supporting evidence, what does that lead to your credibility who will do nothing but bore people to death.

            Logic:

            If Davie has zero credibility (according to you)

            And you have less than zero credibility when compared to him.

            Then your statement about Davie is invalid and itself has no credibility.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Gordon

          I don’t have the “energy” (ha..ha) to figure out what you’re talking about.
          Here is something I read yesterday, a little easier to understand:

          http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/heat.html

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Pauling didnt simplify Schrodingers math, he applied Schrodingers equation to molecular pairs and other molecular configurations”.

          More on Pauling and Oregon.

          https://paulingblog.wordpress.com/

          The article I read on Pauling (which I’ll try to find for you), which was an extensive history of his life, claimed he could not make Schrodinger’s equation work for more complex atoms. It claims he used part of the equation and combined it with what he already knew about atomic structure from chemistry.

          The point is, no one else was equipped to do what he did. Schrodinger, Bohr, and the rest were pure theoretical physicists and lacked Pauling’s insight into crystal structure.

          The problem was in visualizing atomic shapes. For example, ammonia, NH3, has a 3D structure like a pyramid while water H20 has a linear bent angle shape. The more complex organic molecules could never have been found mathematically without a knowledge of what to expect when different atoms interacted to form the molecule.

          Pauling was a genius in chemistry. I went to see him give a talk here in Vancouver, Canada and I was very impressed with him.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ps. I might add that molecular structures are derived from charges in atoms between the -ve charge on the electrons and the positive charge on the nucleus. The attraction and repulsion of the charges determine the shapes of the molecules.

            Having worked in electronics for decades I find it all quite fascinating. Of course, it’s all based on models, like the Bohr model, and I’d love to see the reality. I am far from convinced that electrons are tiny particles orbiting a nucleus at different energy levels.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, you didn’t address this:

            What property is carried by the EM wave that tells the absorbing body it is warmer than the emitting body?

          • David Appell says:

            Also, how does the sun heat the Earth, if not via EM waves?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “The point is, no one else was equipped to do what he did. Schrodinger, Bohr, and the rest were pure theoretical physicists and lacked Paulings insight into crystal structure.”

            There’s a saying among physicists about applications of fundamental laws to complex situations: “That’s just chemistry.”

            Schrodinger, Bohr, etc worked on the fundamental physics of quantum systems. Beyond some relatively simple examples and applications — not much more complicated than the hydrogen atom — they left the details to other scientists, like chemists, to work out for complex systems. They were interested in the fundamentals.

            That’s hardly to say Pauling didn’t do great work. He did. But it wasn’t because theoretical physicists couldn’t do it. They had their eyes on the next fundamental advances.

            No, Schrodinger didn’t do crystallography. But Pauling didn’t discover the Schrodinger equation, either.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      norman…”Prophet Clausius divinely inspired to speak the one and only truth”.

      You are revealing your abject ignorance. Clausius was a highly revered scientist who had an uncanny ability to see what many other scientists missed. He corrected Carnot’s insistence that heat engines had no losses and his 2nd law and theory on entropy stand to this day.

      I am surprised binny is not up on Clausius since binny seems to be German, as was Clausius.

      Another such guru of mine is Linus Pauling. Back in the 1920’s era, quantum theory was in its infancy and Pauling was right on top of it. Brilliant scientists like Schrodinger had proposed mathematical models for simple atoms like hydrogen but could get no further. Enter Pauling, by then an expert on atomic structure based on in-depth studies of crystals using xray crystalography.

      Pauling simplified Schrodinger’s math and applied his extensive understanding of crystal geometry to work out the basics of the covalent bond, which could be applied to all atoms. For his brilliant research he was awarded a Nobel.

      There are idiots today who claim Pauling was a quack for going into his theories on vitamin C. Excuse me??? We have one of the foremost researcher of all time in chemistry claiming a chemical can be beneficial to the human body in megadoses and he is a quack???

      Let’s see, I’ll take the word of some unknown researcher or some opinionated idiot over Pauling’s level of competence in chemistry.

      Same with Clausius, those panning his theories on heat, like you, are raving idiots.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Yes Clausius was a scientist. Someone who would use empirical evidence and try his best to find the underlying science to explain it.

        He would easily understand the reason modern physics limited the definition of heat to just energy in transit between hot and cold object and internal energy as the kinetic energy of molecules in motion. Using heat for both is confusing and could make explaining items more difficult. It is highly unlikely Clausius would object to the modern definition of heat.

        You are not a scientist or do you possess a scientific thought process. You do not seek evidence for you ideas. You are a religious mind and bring your faith to the table of ideas. You hope the conviction of your beliefs will convince others so you continue to post.

  70. barry says:

    Micky,

    barry,

    Im not sure if you think your opinion matters to me.

    I will be sure that it doesn’t when you cease replying to my posts.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      barry,

      I’m not sure what strange and bizarre application of foolish Warmist logic you used to arrive at your conclusion.

      Suffice it to say, your conclusion is wrong. As far as I am aware, you possess no greater ability to read minds than the average foolish Warmist – that is to say, none at all.

      You fail again. Sad.

      Cheers.

  71. barry says:

    Gordon,

    You serially lie about NOAA “slashing” thousands of weather station data. They did no such thing.

    Here, for the 20th time, is what happened.

    You will, as usual, refuse to answer directly to this. you will disappear or deny, divert, confuse.

    In the 1990s NOAA undertook to transcribe by hand millions of historical, hand-written records from weather stations around the world. This took many years. Meanwhile, NOAA continued to collect data from 1500 stations that sent the data electronically, in the format that permitted automatic updates.

    When the large project finished, NOAA had added several thousand weather stations worth of data. These are stations that do not report to NOAA electronically, and not in the format that allows automation.

    NOAA did not “slash” – as in deliberately cull thousands of weather stations. They added that data in manually in the large project in the 90s.

    When the project finished, data from 1500 weather stations continued with the automatic updates.

    You have it completely the wrong way around. NOAA slashed no station, they added historical data that was not part of the automated stream.

    Heres the 1997 paper that describes what happened.

    http://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp

    This has been explained to you more than a score of times. You have been supplied this paper at least a dozen times. Each time, you disappear from the conversation.

    Should you finally reply to this, you will not discuss the point. You will blather about other stuff while sticking your head in the sand.

    And you will continue to lie about this.

    I will continue to call you out. I can’t stand liars.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      barry,

      Maybe you could ask NOAA for a copy of the testable GHE hypothesis?

      It would obviously be a massive waste of public money if they were just making handwritten transcriptions of handwritten records, taking many years, for no good purpose.

      What would be the point?

      Job creation? Sheltered workshop activities for the slow of intellect?

      Very strange.

      Cheers.

    • barry says:

      What would be the point?

      To increase global coverage of weather data, reducing uncertainty on global averages and trends.

    • David Appell says:

      Great reply, barry.

      An important related question is how many stations are needed in order to get a global temperature average within the desired error margin. Stations cost money, and someone has to go read them every day, or note their recording, so there’s no reason to have many thousands if less will suffice. I saw in a tweet by Andrew Dessler several months ago that the number is about 100, but I don’t know where that paper or presentation is. I’ll keep looking for it.

  72. Mike Flynn says:

    barry,

    Copying data doesn’t seem to do much to increasing coverage. You might be able to point out what a “global average” is. If it is just an average of temperature records, it can be done by a twelve year old child – or a computer makes it even easier.

    Trends are pointless. Ask any financial manager, economist, or casino patron.

    What you say makes little sense. Did NOAA visit countries to “transcribe” these records, or ask the countries to send the original records to NOAA?

    In any case, you may or may not be aware that the Australian BOM declared all temperature records for Australia and its territories (area about that of the contiguous US) unreliable prior to 1910. If NOAA transcribed these records, they definitely wasted time and effort.

    Actually, I think you are fantasising. NOAA don’t appear to have done what you describe. I might be wrong, but I think not.

    If you believe I am mistaken, maybe you can produce some evidence to back up your claim that – “In the 1990s NOAA undertook to transcribe by hand millions of historical, hand-written records from weather stations around the world. This took many years. ”

    In any case, the process, limited though it was, included –

    “This required breaking considerable new ground: adjusting the data for inhomogeneities using an approach that did not rely on sparse station history information;”

    Adjusting the data? Why am I not surprised?

    More foolish Warmist wishful thinking.

    No testable GHE hypothesis. Any amount of data is pointless without some use.

    Cheers.

    • barry says:

      The answers to your questions are here.

      http://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp

      This paper that explains the whys and hows of the data gathering project in the mi-90s. Written by one of the compilers.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        barry,

        If you bothered to read, you would have noticed I directly quoted from the paper. The paper doesn’t support your contention.

        The paper is quite meaningless, The authors state they adjusted the data. In some cases, this involved creating (fabricating) data, and rejecting data which appeared to deviate from the results of models.

        The paper merely points out the sparseness and inaccuracy of past temperature records. Worthless for any useful purpose. Not worth the effort to write a pointless paper.

        Cheers.

      • barry says:

        I saw that you had quoted it. I cannot help you with your reading comprehension. Your questions are answered there, including why they undertook the project.

        Regarding my ‘contention’, consider how weather records written down would be converted to machine-readable in the 1990s.

        There are numerous interest groups today that scour old records of various type and manually input data that is not optically scannable even in the 2010s.

        Thank you for at least looking at the paper. That’s more than the liar, Robertson has ever done, despite being shown it numerous times. And if you can read well enough, you’ll agree his claim that NOAA ‘slashed’ thousands of weather station data is not only wrong, but that the truth is completely opposite.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          barry,

          Your original statement was nonsense – maybe unintentional, maybe deliberate.

          I’m not interested in considering any weasel words you use to avoid admitting you wrote a deceptive post.

          I dont care about your calling someone a liar. That’s your affair. Maybe you could be accused of lying for posting a fabricated version of the truth.

          Still no testable GHE hypothesis. Discussion of the merits of non-existent science is unproductive in my view, so I’ll keep pointing it out, just in case someone is tempted to believe you. Their choice, of course.

          Cheers.

        • barry says:

          What was deceptive?

        • barry says:

          That millions of records were transcribed by hand?

          That is completely factual. Even today old weather records that are in handwriting have to be keyed individually. Here are some numbers from a similar project carried out in the 2000s.

          With the mass transition of weather observations to digital formats, repositories across the globe are left with aging paper and microfilmed records. Data rescue efforts aim to make more of this historical data readily available. In the U.S., a hugely successful digitization effort known as the Climate Database Modernization Program (CDMP) converted more than fifty million observational records to digital image formats such as PDF, TIFF and JPEG. The program also supported the keying of hundreds of millions of weather elements into digital datasets.

          https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/rescue-archival-and-stewardship-of-weather-records-and-data-0

          If you’re unfamiliar with the terminology, ‘digitising’ is the conversion of analog records to machine-readable format. ‘Keying’ is basically using a keyboard. Most font-types can be optically scanned and digitised, but a great number of records pre 1980s are hand-written. Here are some examples:

          http://tinyurl.com/y7r63lc3
          http://tinyurl.com/yck7ygsr

          Records from around the world also had to be translated. These ‘data rescue’ projects are laborious in many ways.

          By the end of the 1990s data recovery project there were 300 million individual datum, about 5 times as much as when they began.

          More info:

          https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/the-quest-to-scan-millions-of-weather-records/378962/
          http://nespclimate.com.au/breathing-new-life-into-old-tide-records/
          http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/1/10/TomRoss0709.pdf

          From the last:

          35 coop stations yet to be keyed. Total keying of 13.1 million daily observations (430,000 forms) should be completed by 2012

          Keying = by hand.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            barry,

            “In the 1990s NOAA undertook to transcribe by hand millions of historical, hand-written records from weather stations around the world.”

            From around the world? By NOAA?

            “In the U.S., a hugely successful digitization effort known as the Climate Database Modernization Program (CDMP) converted more than fifty million observational records to digital image formats such as PDF, TIFF and JPEG. ”

            More work creation? Create images from the records, so that you can waste time, instead of digitising the originals (which you must have in order to make them into images)?

            Deceptive. I’ve written programs to convert data from one form to another – usually to enable input to another program which carries out calculations on the data. I have air idea of the terminology and the process.

            NOAA wasted their time and money if they did as you say. Old data is historical curiosity. Recording of such might best be left to people with experience in the subject. Government archivists might be appropriate. Maybe the US Government doesn’t have any? I don’t know.

            Still no GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. Trying to predict the future by digitising old weather records is a pointless waste of effort, suitable for foolish Warmists. At least it keeps them out of the way of real scientists.

            Cheers.

          • barry says:

            The answers are in the original link. How they got the data. Why they got it. Etc.

            Glad you’ve read the paper. I won’t count on you to correct Robertson when he lies again, but I’ll know you know that he is.

    • barry says:

      It also explains why Robertson is wrong.

  73. Bindidon says:

    Mike Flynn on September 26, 2017 at 7:58 PM

    Bindidon,

    ‘So there are two types of radiation important to climate, and one of them gets affected by CO2, but its the other one thats directly driving global warming thats the surprising thing, says Armour, who is a postdoc in MITs Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.’

    This is typical of your way of arguing: picking up one voice in the desert.

    If the ocean brings you just one little bottle containing a message fitting to your narrative, we all can be sure you’ll bring it on the table.

    You behave here perfectly similar to Salvatore del Prete who all the time looks for little swings in ocean temperature fitting to his cooling dream.

    This paper does not interest me until it has been confirmed by at least ten others. Just like many papers containing fuzzy theories wrt warming via CO2’s influence do not interest me as well.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Bindidon,

      If you don’t even have testable GHE hypothesis (and I don’t believe you have), then there is no argument. There is no GHE hypothesis, nor any GHE theory.

      You may be interested in as many papers as you wish, of course. Of course, any paper claiming the existence of a GHE is rubbish, in a scientific sense, regardless of how many delusional pretend second rate self appointed climatologists participate.

      As Einstein said – ‘No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

      Foolish Warmists don’t even have a testable GHE hypothesis. It’s impossible to disprove the existence of something which hasn’t even been stated in testable form!

      Keep believing. The Warmist Church of Latter Day Scientism needs more acolytes. Science it isn’t.

      Cheers.

  74. Trying to see a turn coming before it comes is not an easy call.

    The trend in global temperatures has turned. The question going forward is how much of a turn?

    I am more confident that the down turn will last but not as confident as to what the ultimate decline in global temperatures might be although I think at least down to 30 year means by next summer.

    For my thinking it is the sun and how it behaves and just how strong are the associated secondary effects due to very quiet solar conditions.

    My whole basis for the call of a down turn in global temperatures is quiet sun equates to lower overall sea surface temperatures /higher albedo.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Salvatore

      “As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth’s climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, “..during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Here is a recent quote from Kyle Armour (the researcher Mike Flynn so kindly brought to my attention):

            “Currently we don’t have any evidence that the models are too sensitive compared to the observations,” Armour said. “The models appear to be in line with the observed range of warming.”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Sir Isaac,

            Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

            Not having evidence that the non-existent GHE doesn’t exist is meaningless.

            You have linked to pointless rubbish, based on a premise that the GHE exists. And of course, not even a testable GHE hypothesis exists.

            The models referred to are both pointless and useless. Amateurish hodge-podges, based on non-existent science.

            You might be able to make a start by proposing a scientifically testable GHE hypothesis. It seems to have eluded the best and brightest of the self appointed climatologists. Maybe they are not terribly bright?

            Cheers.

          • There are two schools of thought those who say sun no effect, all AGW.

            Those who say it is the sun, no AGW effect.

            Some half/half.

            I believe it is all due to the sun.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Salvatore Del Prete says:
            September 27, 2017 at 5:39 AM

            There are two schools of thought those who say sun no effect, all AGW.

            Those who say it is the sun, no AGW effect.

            Some half/half.

            I believe it is all due to the sun.–

            Well, there is geothermal heat.
            I would say geothermal heat has been and will have more effect than CO2.
            Then got impactors, impactors related to releasing geothermal heat. The scale of this could boil Earth’s ocean- something the sun can’t do [at Earth distance].

            And in terms of retaining heat- our ocean is biggest player and atmosphere is mostly about transferring the retained heat of the ocean, to outside of the ocean area.
            In terms insulative effect water droplets and ice particles of clouds are quite signicant.
            And then next in importance one the greenhouse gases with water vapor being the most important.

          • David Appell says:

            Solar warming causes stratospheric warming.

            Where is it?

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Dear DA,

            The sun is the ONLY energy source that heats the earth/atmosphere.

            No, the atmosphere is not some magic heater.

      • That is completely false, and according to all of my studies the sun should have ad a warming effect upon the climate until year 2005.

        Which it did.

        Post 2005 the sun has had a cooling effect upon the climate but lag times have to be considered. At least 10+ years of sub solar activity in general. In addition certain low average value solar parameters have to be met.

        Year 2017 is the first year this seems to be finally happening although not all the low average value solar parameters have been met but it is close and the trend is in that direction.

        Going forward the sun is going to continue to have a cooling effect upon the climate although up to 2005 the sun had a warming effect upon the climate.

        • ren says:

          The delay may be due to the fact that during low solar activity a strong La Ninia can not form. This is because the jet stream is meridian.
          The explosion stratovolcano can completely change the trend (significant increase in albedo).

        • ren says:

          Any geomagnetic storm may cause an explosion.
          Mount Agung, Bali, Indonesia (Philippa)
          Agung volcano has not (yet) erupted. However, there was a slight increase in the number of Long Period (LP) earthquakes detected yesterday (579 compared to 547 the day before), which is indicative of volcanic gases resonating in cracks at depths of less than 1 km below the surface, and as Armand reported yesterday, one of the local tectonic earthquakes, which occur as a result of changes in stresses in the bedrock over a larger area, was felt across the whole of the island of Bali.
          http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00935/b27yaqjlpfid.png
          https://earthquake-report.com/2015/04/02/volcano-news-by-volcanologist-janine-krippner/

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Salvatore

          According to all your studies? Have you been measuring solar activity? What instruments do you use?

          • I use these parameters which are available on various websites

            Solar parameters needed for cooling following 10+ of sub solar activity in general

            solar flux sub- 90 on avg attained

            solar wind -sub 350km/sec on avg. not attained yet

            cosmic ray counts -6500 units or more attained more or less

            euv light- less then 100 units attained more or less

            uv light- off over 6%

            ap index 5 -or lower not attained

            imf – 4.2nt not attained

            solar irradiance – off .1% or more not attained

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Salvatore

            And you have records of these parameters going back 50 years or so – to see how they correlate to global temperature?

        • David Appell says:

          Salvatore Del Prete says:
          “That is completely false, and according to all of my studies the sun should have ad a warming effect upon the climate until year 2005.”

          ahem….

          “…the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)….”
          – Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
          http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428

      • Bindidon says:

        Yes Sir Isaac!

        Here is a comparison of the Sun Spot Number record and NOAA’s global sea surface anomalies from 1880 till 2017:

        http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170927/6vnufrsr.jpg

        The SNNs and the SST anomalies of course you can’t compare, as the former vary between 5 and 400 and the latter do between -0.6 and +0.6.

        More interesting is to compare their running means over 10 years.

        • http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html

          This is how you evaluate given solar activity versus global temperatures.

          It is the ocean cooling effect tied into solar activity which gives you a given global temperature. CO2 has nothing to do with it.

          The GHG effect is a by product of the climate/environment.

          We will know much more starting now and going forward but I am confident this correlation will hold up going forward.

          • Bindidon says:

            Salvatore, before you integrate the Sun Spot Numbers because you detected (probably by accident) that it gives a good fit to other records, you first must explain

            – what this SSN integral really means,
            and
            – why it makes sense to compare it to these other records.

            Plenty of people try to explain lots of things with a derivate or an integral of some data, without explaining (sometimes even knowing) what either means.

          • David Appell says:

            Salvatore Del Prete says:
            “It is the ocean cooling effect tied into solar activity which gives you a given global temperature.”

            But the ocean has been warming for decades, with no sign of stopping. The data:

            http://tinyurl.com/dbjrlr

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”Plenty of people try to explain lots of things with a derivate or an integral of some data, without explaining (sometimes even knowing) what either means”.

            Like you??? When you ram a trend line through data via number crunching and infer it’s a sign of anthropogenic warming.

          • Bindidon says:

            Like every comment of the Robertson troll: 0 % wisdom, 100% lie and stupidity.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “binnyPlenty of people try to explain lots of things with a derivate….”

            O.M.G.

            And you say you’re an engineer?

            And you can’t remember the name ‘derivative?’

            OMG, you make some astoundingly stupid mistakes here.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Dear Sal,

            Bindumdum is just a poser. No scientific education. Just cut and paste nonsense.

          • gbaikie says:

            Bindidon says:
            September 27, 2017 at 4:18 PM

            Salvatore, before you integrate the Sun Spot Numbers because you detected (probably by accident) that it gives a good fit to other records, you first must explain

            what this SSN integral really means,
            and
            why it makes sense to compare it to these other records.

            “Analyzing the Sun and its affects on climate, however, is further complicated by the fact that the amount of radiation arriving from the Sun is not constant. It varies from the average value of the TSI1,368 W/m2on a daily basis.”
            https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php

            Plus:
            “Faculae, which appear as bright blotches on the surface of the Sun, put out more radiation than normal and increase the solar irradiance. They too are the result of magnetic storms, and their numbers increase and decrease in concert with sunspots. On the whole, the effects of the faculae tend to beat out those of the sunspots. So that, although solar energy reaching the Earth decreases when the portion of the Suns surface that faces the Earth happens to be rife with spots and faculae, the total energy averaged over a full 30-day solar rotation actually increases.”

            So less black spots, less Faculae, and less solar energy output.
            Also differences of wavelength could be related- it’s not just a matter of watts but the change of watts in different parts of spectrum.
            And difference of solar max and min in terms amount GCR [galactic cosmic rays] which hit Earth [affecting cloud formation].

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Bin

          Where do you find all those cool graphs? Or are they “homemade” using a software tool?

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Bindidon, that was meant as a compliment, but I see how it could be taken the wrong way:

            I’m amazed how you find all those neat graphics and statistics. If you create some of them yourself?…. Even more amazed.

            I’m a moron when it comes to computers.

  75. Major Geological, tied to low solar activity.

    Overall sea surface temperatures last check +.257c trending lower.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      What I’m seeing now is very similar to what I noticed this time last year:

      – weak la nina conditions

      – global surface and lower troposphere well
      above average

      – lots of heat moving into the atmosphere above the Arctic Ocean

  76. If I were an AGW enthusiast I would be praying that it is CO2/GHG effect that determines oceanic temperatures.

    I say however it is the sun.

    • David Appell says:

      If GW was due to the Sun, the stratosphere would be warming.

      Instead it is cooling.

      Explain.

      • That is not how it works David.

        It is the relative temperature changes in the stratosphere which matter and when the sun is weak the mid latitudes will cool faster then the poles in the stratosphere giving rise to a more -AO/NAO.

        In contrast to AGW theory which called for greater stratospheric cooling near the poles in relation to lower latitudes which was suppose to give rise to a more +AO/NAO .

        Which is not happening.

        The trend has been toward a greater negative AO/NAO the opposite of what AGW theory has predicted but that is the case with everything this theory has predicted.

        Going forward the trend in the AO/NAO will suggest which theory is correct.

        • David Appell says:

          No, Salvatore, that *IS* how it works — the Sun would heat the stratosphere just as it would heat the troposphere.

          So where is that warming?

          PS: AGW predicts the stratosphere will cool. This is observed (and, yes, after factoring out ozone loss.) This is probably the major fingerprint of AGW that has appeared.

          • No David ,and the test will be on how the AO/NAO trend.

            AGW called for an increasingly more positive AO/NAO which is not happening.

            Low solar suggest the opposite

          • Also David different altitudes of the stratosphere react opposite to low solar activity.

            I this not as simple as you try to make it.

            The fingerprint of AGW is the more +AO/NAO which is not happening.G.

          • David Appell says:

            Salvatore: if the Sun heats the troposphere, it will as well heat the stratosphere, by exactly the same mechanism.

            Why hasn’t that happened? No excuses….

          • David Appell says:

            Salvatore Del Prete says:
            “No David ,and the test will be on how the AO/NAO trend.”

            Where is the long-term trend due to solar activity, in the stratosphere? Where? Why would it have anything to do with the AO or NAO?

            Why isn’t the stratospheric warming in the Southern Hemisphere?

            “AGW called for an increasingly more positive AO/NAO which is not happening.”

            Where is that written? Citation please.

          • David Appell says:

            Salvatore Del Prete says:
            “Also David different altitudes of the stratosphere react opposite to low solar activity.”

            Why?

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            David

            This might be a huge oversimplification (not unusual for me), but if a house become warmer as a result of insulation, the attic, (if located above the insulation), would receive less heat and cool.

            OTOH, if the house became warmer as a result of higher temperature outdoors, both the home and attic’s temperatures would increase at the same time.

            So a cooling attic would be a fingerprint of warming due to insulation.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Do you think this idea is relevant to the cooling in the stratosphere?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Sir Isaac,

            Or you could just turn the heater off, I suppose. Or wait for nightfall, or Winter, or something.

            The attic would cool. Irrelevant analogies tend to be counter productive.

            The is no GHE hypothesis or theory, so even suggesting that an observation supports the existence of something non-existent, is just silly.

            Foolish Warmism, writ large.

            Cheers.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Mike

            A fingerprint for insulation, in my estimation is: house is warming while attic is cooling.

            No insulation? BOTH will either warm, cool, or stay the same

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Examples with no insulation between house and attic:

            turn on heater – both get warmer

            turn off heater – both get colder

            Nightfall – both get colder

            Warm, sunny day – both get warmer

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 27, 2017 at 9:33 PM:

            A fingerprint for insulation, in my estimation is: house is warming while attic is cooling.

            No insulation? BOTH will either warm, cool, or stay the same

            The fingerprint of ENHANCED insulation (like an “enhanced GHE”), is that the “house” (troposphere) is seen warming over time WITHOUT a corresponding increase in the heat loss from the house (total all-sky OLR at the ToA). THAT is how you would positively see the insulation mechanism in effective operation.

            Forget about the troposphere vs. stratosphere thing. Those two levels of atmosphere are thermally fundamentally different. The temperature distribution (and temperature state, response, evolution) of the former is governed by convection (“atmospheric circulation”), while the temperature of the latter is governed by radiation. If there is more CO2 (and less O3) in the atmosphere, the stratosphere would thus naturally be expected to cool. But you couldn’t likewise – following the same line of reasoning – expect the opposite to occur in the troposphere. Because the two regions could not be expected to respond similarly to a change in IR activity.

          • David Appell says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
            “This might be a huge oversimplification (not unusual for me), but if a house become warmer as a result of insulation, the attic, (if located above the insulation), would receive less heat and cool.”

            Yes, that’s a reasonable analogy.

            GHGs redirect some upwelling IR downward. So less goes upward. So the upper atmosphere cools.

          • Kristian says:

            David Appell says, September 28, 2017 at 3:17 PM:

            GHGs redirect some upwelling IR downward. So less goes upward. So the upper atmosphere cools.

            No, that is NOT why the stratosphere is supposed to cool. It’s supposed to cool as the CO2 concentration rises … IN THE STRATOSPHERE. Because the OLR and the ASR at the ToA are both assumed to remain constant with the increase in CO2_atm.

            You continue to show how you don’t really understand the “AGW hypothesis” and how an “enhanced GHE” is supposed to work, David.

  77. Brent Auvermann says:

    I went to the comment archives of Dr. Spencers blog to calculate the probability of the comment stream descending into puerility immediately after David Appell joins in.

    Surprise: that probability is 100%.

    Sincerely,

    Brent

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

    • Bindidon says:

      Well Mr Auvermann: I confess I’m not DA’s biggest fan.

      But the degree of redundancy of your comment in my opinion is is very, very impressive.

      • Bindidon says:

        And let me add: what about looking for other ‘commenter’s showing a pretty good level of puerility?

        What about a complete scan of just this thread?

      • Kristian says:

        Bindidon says, September 27, 2017 at 5:03 PM:

        Well Mr Auvermann: I confess I’m not DA’s biggest fan.

        But the degree of redundancy of your comment in my opinion is is very, very impressive.

        Funny how you immediately label any person you disagree with, Bindion, as “redundant” (and/or “boring”). Very open-minded, indeed.

  78. OCEAN TID BITS WEB-SITE – this will tell us the story to what the oceans are doing as we move forward.

    They were warming until about three months ago.

    David calling for a trend change before it happens is what counts .

    • David Appell says:

      A quarterly drop in OHC has happened many times before.

      So what’s so special about this one?

      • What makes this one significant is it’s associated with the solar conditions that I have called for unlike the others.

        Still will have to see how it unfolds.

        • David Appell says:

          The 2Q17 ocean cooling was actually quite small. In the last 12 months, the 0-2000 m region of the ocean has warmed by a huge 2.3 W/m2.

          That’s the top half of the ocean.

        • David Appell says:

          Salvatore Del Prete says:
          “Still will have to see how it unfolds.”

          You’ve been saying this forever. And wrong the entire time.

          How do you explain being so often wrong?

          Your study, the CO2 man made global warming hoax, don’t mean anything because in the next few years we will know ,who is right and who is wrong.”
          – Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
          http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428

  79. Norman says:

    Kristian

    If you are going to make claims about what I think on physics at least get it right.

    You: “Thats Norman. He mostly doesnt have a clue about anything. He hears about something hes never heard of before, or at least doesnt understand, then seeks out some textbook on the subject, skims through a few pages, finds some words and numbers that he likes, and then suddenly hes an expert. Just VEEERY recently, he didnt even understand what heat [Q] is in physics. He thought it was simply all the energy perceived to move in the same direction piled into one big heap. In his mind, the solar flux PLUS the atmospheric back radiation was the total INCOMING heat flux to the surface of the Earth. I told him how fundamentally wrong that is, but he wouldnt have it. Then Tim Folkerts had to step in and tell him the same thing. He wont listen to me, after all. Im just the guy who makes up his own physics. This time around, he reluctantly conceded his mistake. But it didnt take long. It hadnt really sunk in. Because shortly thereafter he returned with the same confused idea in his head. For all I know, he might even still believe it to be true ”

    Painful how wrong you are and you still won’t supply any support for you one way radiant energy flow hypothesis. You never support what you state.

    So you make the false and incorrect claim that He thought it was simply all the energy perceived to move in the same direction piled into one big heap. When did I think this?

    I have stated numerous times that Heat is the NET transfer of energy to a surface. How many times do I state it and then you claim I am saying something else?

    HEAT is the (at least radiant heat flow) is the amount of energy a surface emits minus the energy it absorbs. Where do you get the ludicrous ideas you come up with and then claim that is what I believe. I know more physics than you and I do not need to make up what I do not know like you do.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Norm, the Con-man, is in extreme downfall.

      It’s fun to watch.

    • Norman says:

      g*e*r*a*n

      And your boring as ever. Different day, different thread, same post over an over.

    • Kristian says:

      Norman says, September 27, 2017 at 4:50 PM:

      I have stated numerous times that Heat is the NET transfer of energy to a surface.

      Exactly. And it’s NOT, Norman.

      In your mind, then, what is the average heat input (GAIN) to the global surface of the Earth? And what is its average heat output (LOSS)?

    • Kristian says:

      “In [Norman’s] mind, the solar flux PLUS the atmospheric back radiation was the total INCOMING heat flux to the surface of the Earth.”

      Are you telling me, Norman, that you haven’t quite recently thought this to be the case? Do you want me to provide the link?

      • Norman says:

        Kristian

        No I have already clarified this point many times. The two fluxes are not a total incoming heat flux. They make a total radiant energy flux. Because of different uses of the term heat I am careful how I use it.

        The Net energy the surface receives is positive (combined energy of solar and DWIR) it is greater than the energy emitted by the surface. The surface would warm to a higher temperature if other mechanisms did not cool it. Primarily evaporation (large amount) and convection. These two take away the excess energy of the radiant heat and leave the surface at its current equilibrium temperature.

        • Kristian says:

          Norman says, September 28, 2017 at 5:00 AM:

          No I have already clarified this point many times. The two fluxes are not a total incoming heat flux. They make a total radiant energy flux. Because of different uses of the term heat I am careful how I use it.

          Haha, you’re such a poser. This is exactly why you’re on my “do-try-your-utmost-to-ignore” list, Norman.

          It seems I will have to quote you verbatim, then. Here you are, responding to David Appell on April 9th this year:
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2017-0-19-deg-c/#comment-243135

          I can think that you might also be correct in your application since the increase in Carbon Dioxide did increase the downwelling IR some (0.2 W/m^2 increase in a decade which was a measured value, but for valid science it would have to be duplicated by other researchers but I will accept it as valid for now), the downwelling IR flux does become a heat flux. But not exactly because without the solar flux the increased 0.2 W/m^2 would still not warm the surface as the outgoing flux is still going to be 398 W/m^2 and the increase downwelling would make it 345.2 so it would still not be a heat flux to the surface. The combination of the solar AND downwelling IR would now be a heat flux (but only in combination). You would have a NET downward flux of 510.2 W/m^2 in a decade from 2000 to 2010 and it would warm the Earth surface some because its outgoing flux was 510 W/m^2 and something has to change in the outgoing fluxes to balance the incoming to reach an equilibrium state. As long as the surface is shown to be warming or OHC continues to increase there is most definitely a Heat flux into the surface. It can be from increased radiant energy from the two streams or from a change in the outgoing balance (change in evaporation or convection). Hard to pinpoint for sure what the source of the heat flux is but it is certainly a reality. Even Roy Spence’s work shows an increase in global temperature over time.

          My reply:
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2017-0-19-deg-c/#comment-243140

          Folkerts’ reply:
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2017-0-19-deg-c/#comment-243156

          • Norman says:

            Kristian

            I am happy to be on your list. You provide nothing but your opinions. Tim Folkerts offers valuable information. I read textbooks and learn the science. You have your arrogant opinions that you must force down people’s throats and throw a hissy fit when asked to support your opinions with valid science.

            To date you have done nothing but self site to your own blog full of your opinions and very short on actual physics.

            Your opinions are of no value. Link to some real science that supports your claims.

          • Kristian says:

            Norman says, September 28, 2017 at 8:36 PM:

            I am happy to be on your list.

            A happy ignorant. How sweet.

  80. barry says:

    Gordon,

    Above I wrote, “This has been explained to you more than a score of times. You have been supplied this paper at least a dozen times. Each time, you disappear from the conversation.”

    Seems you’ve done it again. But in case you missed it, check out my post to you. It’s the rebuttal to ‘slashing’ stations that you’ve never replied to after about 20 times of me posting it.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-265259

    • David Appell says:

      I’ve found the same thing with Gordon, many times.

      It’s more clear than ever that there are odious trolls here who routinely and serially lie, aren’t interested in a scientific discussion in the least, ignore responses, and whose vapid replies consist of nothing but taunts and misdirection. There is no reply that will make a difference, because they aren’t interested in the science, only in insults. It’s a shame Roy has let his blog devolve into such a swamp, and it’s increasingly a waste of time to try and converse here. What a shame.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        David Appell,

        If you could inject some science into the discussion, it might help.

        For a start, maybe providing a scientifically testable GHE hypothesis could be advantageous.

        Endlessly arguing the future, neither provable or disprovable (it hasnt occured yet), might be mightily entertaining, but has no other apparent benefit.

        You dont appear to be able to state a testable GHE hypothesis, let alone a theory, so you are left with Cargo Cult Scientism – which consists of fact determined by faith or consensus of opinion by self proclaimed foolish Warmist cult leaders.

        Wheres this testable GHE hypothesis? In your febrile imagination?

        It seems to be absent in reality, unless you can produce it. How hard can it be? Even the law of universal gravitation can be expressed in one sentence!

        Cheers.

  81. Norman says:

    Mike Flynn

    You are one very very boring human. I think you have repeated yourself 12,000 times now. The race is on to see who the most boring poster on Roy’s blog will be. Mike Flynn or g*e*r*a*n. If you go back two years of posting and copy and paste their comments you would not know the difference.

    Flynn it is good to be the master of something. Since you do not possess the rational, logical thought process to comprehend science at even elementary levels, it is good to be one of the most boring humans on the planet. Good job, I can read your posts next time I have insomnia.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Norman,

      Thank you for your interest. I do not suffer from insomnia, so I feel sorry for you. I am glad that you are able to cure your condition by relying on something I produced.

      Maybe your insomnia is due to lying awake at night wondering why there is no testable GHE hypothesis? Or possibly worrying about you have accurately counted the 12,000 comments you claim that I have repeated? Maybe you could post them, so others might check.

      I agree it is good to be master of something, as I am obviously your master, not that I boast about it.

      All joking aside, there is no GHE. Not a scientifically testable one, anyway. Just the strident handwaving claims of foolish Warmists – no science involved.

      Have you tried not reading my posts? Do you feel you are subject to an irresistible compulsion? What is this mystical power I have over your thought processes?

      Keep it up, Norman. Maybe trying the same action over and over will produce different results!

      Cheers.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        The only thing that keeps Norm awake is his pseudoscience.

        • Norman says:

          The battle is on between the two on who can be the most boring. At this time it looks very even. I wouldn’t put money on anyone yet.

          g*e*r*a*n made sure to win some points with his favorite term “pseudoscience”.

          But Mike Flynn also made sure to include his pet phrase “foolish Warmists”.

          One thing about the battle between the two most boring people alive, it is interesting and reduces the boredom factor of each.

          I guess we will have to see which one of the two ends up more boring than the other.

          That is one important thing the two of you should consider. One could be President of the US and the other Vice President. With all inflammatory emotion going around two super boring leaders might help mellow things out. Consider the offer. Be the most boring world leaders ever and generate a more peaceful society as all the previous angry mobs are too busy yawning to throw things at each other.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Norman,

            All very interesting to you, I’m sure.

            Could you provide a copy of a testable GHE hypothesis? Maybe you would sleep more easily.

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            Yawn. Thank you for your boring post, I will sleep well tonight.

            Cheers!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Norman,

            Before you go to sleep, do you think you might provide a testable GHE hypothesis?

            Or are you asleep and dreaming that you have one?

            Only you would know.

            Cheers.

  82. Norman says:

    Gordon Robertson

    For you.

    “Heat. Heat, like work, is a measure of the amount of energy transfered from one body to another because of the temperature difference between those bodies. Heat is not energy possessed by a body. We should not speak of the “heat in a body.” The energy a body possesses due to its temperature is a different thing, called internal thermal energy. The misuse of this word probably dates back to the 18th century when it was still thought that bodies undergoing thermal processes exchanged a substance, called caloric or phlogiston, a substance later called heat. We now know that heat is not a substance. Reference: Zemansky, Mark W. The Use and Misuse of the Word “Heat” in Physics Teaching” The Physics Teacher, 8, 6 (Sept 1970) p. 295-300. See: work.”

    From this source:
    https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Norman,

      Might it be more useful to cut and paste a testable GHE hypothesis?

      Cheers.

      • Norman says:

        Mike Flynn

        I already gave you test but you ignore it. Why do you ask?

        I gave you empirical evidence of GHE. You do not accept it. Not sure what you are asking for since you have been provided tons of information and link offering you what you ask. You reject it all and keep asking. Why do you feel the need to do this?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Norman,

          You seem to have comprehension difficulties, so I will repeat myself.

          I wrote –

          “Might it be more useful to cut and paste a testable GHE hypothesis?”

          Deny, divert, and confuse all you wish, but hypothesis, there is none.

          If you actually provided a testable GHE hypothesis, I would stop asking for it wouldn’t I?

          The reason I keep asking is to point out to others, (who might believe that one exists), that there is no such thing. I’ll leave it to you to keep coming up with excuses as to why science is not necessary in relation to the effects of CO2.

          Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            It has been done for you many times by many posters. You ask, you receive and you do not understand and keep posting your nonsense.

            Here is a definition of a testable hypothesis.

            “A testable hypothesis is a form of a hypothesis that can either be supported or else falsified from data or experience. It’s the type of hypothesis you want to state in order to conceive and perform an experiment using the scientific method.”

            I gave you a test to perform to demonstrate the GHE. At night have a tub of heated water. Take nightly measurements and notice if cloudy night leads to a warmer temperature in your heated water bath.

            The hypothesis to test is to see if the increased downwelling IR (you can get a heat gun to get a measurement of the IR coming from the cloud) will make your heated water bath warmer than on nights with less downwelling IR. If the increase in downwelling IR causes the heated water bath to reach a higher temperature than with less downwelling IR, it will prove the GHE. If the water does not get warmer it will falsify the GHE. This experiment makes the GHE a testable hypothesis. I have answered you question. Now will you quit asking?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Norman,

            You haven’t mentioned the GHE, not have you proposed what natural phenomena it is supposed to explain.

            Your nonsensical test of something you can’t define, demonstrates that more heat makes water hotter. I already knew that, and no doubt so do most people who are not brain dead.

            Maybe you could provide a testable GHE hypothesis?

            What is the GHE supposed to do, that cannot be satisfactorily explained with current scientifi theories?

            From your post –

            “Its the type of hypothesis you want to state in order to conceive and perform an experiment using the scientific method.

            Maybe you don’t want to believe what you wrote. You haven’t stated your hypothesis, but I don’t blame you. Trying to state a testable hypothesis for something that doesn’t exist is not easy.

            If you put your water in the Sun, it will get even hotter – more IR! Nothing to do with your invisible GHE.

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            I guess that is the issue. You don’t know how to read and you do not seem to be able to think at all.

            YOU: “Your nonsensical test of something you cant define, demonstrates that more heat makes water hotter. I already knew that, and no doubt so do most people who are not brain dead.”

            The test is comparing two states. One with greater downwelling IR than the other. It is not a matter that heat makes water hotter, the big issue, which you can’t process or understand, it is a matter that greater downwelling IR will make the heated water hotter than less downwelling IR. That is the GHE.

            An atmosphere with downwelling IR will result in a heated surface reaching a higher equilibrium temperature. The experiment will clearly demonstrate this to you if you do it.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Con-man, your proposed “experiment” leaves so many sources of error, you could get almost any result you wanted.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Then be constructive and state what errors you are thinking the test will have and then each can be controlled and corrected for.

            I highly doubt you have the intellect to understand the concept of the test or what it is attempting to demonstrate so you throw out such a general statement to cover your lack of intelligence (I think you are appealing to some invisible posters that might think you have this high level of thought process, most here do not think that is the case, they consider you an annoying troll that makes annoying statements in attempt to get a reaction).

            So what are the sources of error? Please be specific and detailed.

  83. Norman says:

    Gordon Robertson

    YOU: “How do they separate it from the surface flux due to solar warming? The alarmist claim is that something is causing the CALCULATED value of surface radiation to be more than it should be given the amount of solar warming. Naturally, the presumption is that it MUST BE due to trace amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere. No proof offered, just consensus.”

    Here is the proof and it is not consensus. It is measured reality. Science at its finest. Empirical data that can be replicated by anyone at anytime.

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59cc579835250.png

    This one shows most the significant radiant energy of the Earth’s surface. You can see the GHG’s are producing a significant IR Downwelling IR of around 280 (or so) W/m^2 even at night. The solar input exceeds the GHG emission for 8 or 9 hours out of 24.

    Here is one just of the trace amounts of GHG’s

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59cc58fc1f159.png

    Of course since you are not a scientist but a religious preacher, if this information goes outside your faith you will have no other choice than to ignore it and go about your preaching as if nothing was ever said against it.

    I think you should give up Climate Science and go to a Seminary and become a Pastor of your local community. I think you would serve a more valuable purpose as a preacher rather than posting your religion on science blogs.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Norman,

      Measurements of temperature though the proxy of radiated EMR, or measurements of atmospheric composition are meaningless without context.

      In fact your first link shows nothing more or less than the fact that the surface heats up during the day, and cools at night.

      Your second link is completely pointless. As an indication, ice can emit more than 300 W/m2. However, without specifying the emissivity of the total atmospheric column, and the density and temperature at every height, there is no way of establishing the surface temperature.

      In deserts, surface temperatures can drop well below zero, so graphs showing radiation from the atmosphere without context are just stupid. People who provide links to them are just as stupid.

      You might consider adopting the scientific method.

      As a first step, you would need to propose a testable GHE hypothesis. How hard can it be?

      Cheers.

      • Norman says:

        Mike Flynn

        Sorry you are so stupid. Not much I can do to help your condition.

        You do not need to know the emissivity of the total atmospheric column, You have the amount of energy total that is coming from the atmosphere and reaching the Earth’s surface.

        Yes ice can emit 300 W/m^2 if warm enough.

        If you have a heated object in an ice cave that is emitting 300 W/m^2 toward your heated object, it will reach a higher equilibrium temperature than if the identical object is placed in a much colder cave. The energy of the ice will add to the the heated object making it warmer than if the ice was not present. It is basic and established physics, it is used extensively in heat transfer engineering. The science is well established. It does not fail when used. Why you are so stupid that you cannot comprehend this is up to you to figure out. Did you have a bad accident and hit your head? Or maybe too many drugs in your youth?

        The link has all the context and more but you do not have the mental capacity to figure it out. Sorry I can’t help you there.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Norman

      I’ve enjoyed pondering this general debate. The crux, in my opinion, is that skeptics have no clue WHY heat always moves from warm to cold. “It just does”, will be their general response.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Sir Isaac,

        Your opinion is worthless, in my opinion.

        As to skeptics, I must be one, because I doubt the opinion accepted by yourself –

        Skeptic – a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.

        I would be most interested in hearing from you, as you appear to claim you are a generally clueless and gullible person, your explanation of “WHY heat always moves from warm to cold.”

        You might care to offer a scientifically testable GHE hypothesis, while you are in explanation mode.

        Cheers.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Mike

          Norman, Tim and others have explained the “why” many times.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            isaac…”Norman, Tim and others have explained the why many times”.

            They explained nothing, they regurgitated pseudo-science.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Sir Isaac,

            No they haven’t. Maybe you could paste their explanations for all to see, and probably laugh (or groan) at.

            Just like the testable GHE hypothesis, or Rumsfeld’s weapons of mass destruction, you can’t quite find the actual explanations, but you are sure that they are somewhere.

            That is often a problem with a faith based belief system.

            You obviously have no clue yourself, otherwise you could have provided a cogent explanation. If you have no clue, how can you be so sure that “Norman, Tim and others . . .” have any more of a clue than you?

            Possibly because they sound convincing, or possibly because you are gullible enough to believe anything uttered by a member of the faith superior to you.

            I prefer facts to faith. You don’t seem to have many of the former, but a surfeit of the latter.

            Maybe you could provide a testable GHE hypothesis, and set all the sceptics’ mind at rest for the moment?

            Cheers.

      • Kristian says:

        Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 27, 2017 at 8:54 PM:

        (…) skeptics have no clue WHY heat always moves from warm to cold. “It just does”, will be their general response.

        This is just silly. Why does water always flow from a high gravitational potential to a low one? Why does bulk air always flow (in the form of wind) from a high pressure to a low pressure? Why does an electric current always flow from a high voltage to a low voltage? Why does heat always flow from a high temperature to a low temperature?

        Why does heat always flow from hot to cold via convection?
        Why does heat always flow from hot to cold via conduction?
        Why does heat always flow from hot to cold via radiation?

        All of these questions can be answered MACROscopically (differences in potentials), and MICROscopically (statistical mechanics).

        So, Snape, how is the direction of heat explained in the field of statistical mechanics? You’re obviously not a sceptic. Yoy’re a believer. So, according to your logic, you SHOULD know.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Kristian

          Just to be clear, I was talking about the specific IR debate I’ve been seeing here for months/years. The people who don’t believe IR, emitted from a cooler body, can be absorbed and effect the temperature of a warmer body are what I meant by skeptics – their reasoning being it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

          The other side, myself included, don’t have any problem with that idea and think it makes perfect sense.

          I want to make sure I’m not misrepresenting people’s opinions.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            isaac…so isaac is snape…figured.

            “Just to be clear, I was talking about the specific IR debate Ive been seeing here for months/years. The people who dont believe IR, emitted from a cooler body, can be absorbed and effect the temperature of a warmer body are what I meant by skeptics their reasoning being it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics”.

            The problem is not the IR question it is the confusion between IR and heat. Forget about IR, which in radiative heat transfer is nothing more than a messenger.

            Focus on heat transfer, which is governed by the 2nd law, as Kristian claimed for conduction, convection, and radiation. As Kristian also pointed out the direction of heat transfer has already been demonstrated in the macro world. The statistical world is no different, just a way of interpreting phenomena indirectly in the micro world.

            If you are going to sum energies to get a net heat transfer then do it with heat, not IR. You cannot claim that the net IR flow represents net heat transfer. If they were the same the 2nd law would not apply.

            You would also have perpetual motion if net IR transfer applied. The warmer body would warm the cooler body and it in turn would warm the warmer body. A warmer warm body would further heat the cooler body. The cycle would represent a positive feedback leading to perpetual motion.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Gordon

            I need to get to sleep, but one quick comment.

            You: “You would also have perpetual motion if net IR transfer applied.”

            The warmer object would be on the losing end of the energy exchange and would cool. The cooler object would be on the winning end and warm. Eventually, they would both be the same temperature. Net energy transfer between the two would be zero.

          • Kristian says:

            Ok. Because you ARE misrepresenting mine. Just to be clear.

            IR does NOT itself affect (that is, change) the internal energy [U] and thus the temperature [T] of an object. Because IR is just a bunch of photons. Only HEAT [Q] (and work [W]) can and will. Back to Thermodynamics 101. 1st Law.

            Warmists absolutely do not get this simple point. And that is why they believe they can simply observe an increase in “atmospheric back radiation” and conclude that this increase MUST have led to a higher surface T.

            See if you can figure out specifically why you can’t, Snape. I’ve explained it to you perhaps a dozen times in the past.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            If an object is receiving a constant supply of heat, it’s temperature will be determined by how fast that heat is leaving. So if the rate of leaving slows, the objects temperature can increase.

            All sorts of things can change the rate of heat leaving. Put on earmuffs and the rate of heat leaving your ears will slow. The earmuffs don’t add any heat, but your ears will get warmer.

            Therefore, the earmuffs DO increase the internal energy of your ears, even though they are NOT a heat source.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            A cooler body (earmuffs) cause the warmer body (ears) to get warmer. This does not break any “laws”. The earmuffs are actually removing heat, not adding it.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            The way I have visualized it, photons from either object will be emitted and indiscriminately absorbed by molecules in the other body. This will increase the temperature of those molecules.

            So each body will have billions of molecules getting hotter (by energy added) and billions getting colder (by energy being emitted). If the majority are getting warmer, the object is warming, and visa versa. Between two objects, the math dictates that the colder object would receive more photons than it would emit. So heat would naturally, unavoidably, always move from the warmer to the cooler object.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Early physicists would have had no way to know that photons from a colder body were warming molecules in a warmer hotter body. All they would have observed is the macro effect of these microscopic energy exchanges: heat always flows from warmer to colder.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            A body, exposed to space, would have billions of molecules emitting energy, and comparatively few receiving energy. It’s temperature would plummet.

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 28, 2017 at 7:59 AM:

            If an object is receiving a constant supply of heat, it’s temperature will be determined by how fast that heat is leaving. So if the rate of leaving slows, the objects temperature can increase.

            All sorts of things can change the rate of heat leaving. Put on earmuffs and the rate of heat leaving your ears will slow. The earmuffs don’t add any heat, but your ears will get warmer.

            Therefore, the earmuffs DO increase the internal energy of your ears, even though they are NOT a heat source.

            Very good, Snape. This is exactly how the fundamentally thermodynamic phenomenon of “insulation” works.

          • Kristian says:

            But how exactly do your earmuffs reduce the rate of heat loss from your ears, Snape? By ADDING more energy to them? Or by making the escape of energy (that is, the bulk movement of energy away from them) harder? The first process is what is called HEATING in thermodynamics, while the second one is called … insulation.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”If an object is receiving a constant supply of heat, its temperature will be determined by how fast that heat is leaving. So if the rate of leaving slows, the objects temperature can increase”.

            You need to be more precise. Heat can be supplied to an iron bar by a flame that is hotter than the bar. The flame itself is a mass of gas particles in combustion and the heat is tranferred from the gas to the metal by conduction and convection. You would not expect the bar to heat significantly by just holding the flame close to it although it would warm somewhat by radiation.

            To get the proper heating effect from an acetylene torch (or a propane torch), you need to hold the tip of the inner blue blame against the metal. That’s where the gas is hottest. You could never weld using the radiation from the flame.

            You’re right. If you heat one end of the bar, IR will be emitted from the bar but unless you have the bar touching a heat sink, the IR won’t leave it fast enough to cool it significantly. The bar will continue to heat until it’s the same temp as the flame, at least, at one end.

            How do you slow the rate of IR leaving a mass? There’s only one way as far as IR is concerned and that’s to raise the temperature of the air surrounding the bar. IR emission does not care about GHGs in the air, it’s rate of emission is a function of temperature difference and the temperature of the emitting body.

            Roy has used the analogy of insulation in the walls of a home, however, that has nothing to do with radiation. The insulation interferes with CONDUCTION through the walls. If you want to stop radiation, you need to install a reflective barrier in the walls/ceilings.

            It’s a fallacy that GHGs in the atmosphere slow down surface radiation. Physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, referred to that as a model which at best is a metaphor and at worst, plain silly. He also referred to the back-radiation between atmosphere and surface as a model.

            There is no scientific proof that back-radiation warms the surface.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Gordon

            You: ” The bar will continue to heat until its the same temp as the flame, at least, at one end.”

            The bar will continue to heat until it’s shedding energy as fast as the flame is adding it, but the bar has a large surface area, and wouldn’t need to get nearly as hot as the flame to do this.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Gordon

            You: “its rate of emission is a function of temperature difference and the temperature of the emitting body.”

            This is of course true, and was described in detail by early physicists. BUT WHY? They didn’t know what was going on at the quantum level. All they could do was theorize and guess. Science has come a long way since then. Norman explains some of our better understanding, and people say, “what, the laws of thermodynamics don’t mention photons or backradiation, must be Pseudoscience!”

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 28, 2017 at 9:25 AM:

            A cooler body (earmuffs) cause the warmer body (ears) to get warmer. This does not break any “laws”. The earmuffs are actually removing heat, not adding it.

            And I’ve never claimed it to break any “laws”, Snape. It’s not the physical phenomenon of insulation itself that breaks the Laws of Thermodynamics. That should go without saying. Insulation works.

            It is purely the common “back radiation” EXPLANATION of how the atmosphere is supposed to warm the Earth’s surface that violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. It is simply profoundly un-physical.

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 28, 2017 at 12:49 PM:

            The way I have visualized it, photons from either object will be emitted and indiscriminately absorbed by molecules in the other body. This will increase the temperature of those molecules.

            No. Molecules have no temperature. Bulk matter has temperature. That’s ONE important distinction between the micro and macro realms. Quantum vs. thermo. Temperature is a MACROscopic quantity.

            There will be absolutely NO temperature increase (no energy GAIN) in the warmer object resulting specifically from its exchange of energy with the cooler object. Because, on average, statistically, each molecule making up the warmer object would always EMIT more photons per unit time than it would ABSORB, while the opposite would always be true of the molecules making up the cooler object.

            So each body will have billions of molecules getting hotter (by energy added) and billions getting colder (by energy being emitted).

            No. Statistical mechanics always regards averages. Statistical (probabilistic) averages. That’s part of the deal. Part of the trade-off, so to say. Each average molecule absorbs AND emits photons. There is no “some warming here” and “some cooling there” resulting in a “net result”.

            Between two objects, the math dictates that the colder object would receive more photons than it would emit. So heat would naturally, unavoidably, always move from the warmer to the cooler object.

            Yes, photons (micro), not fluxes (macro). There’s only ONE separate macroscopic flux: The radiant HEAT. The radiant heat is simply the net (bulk) movement of photons through the thermal radiation field, the statistical average of ALL individual photon movements (paths and frequencies).

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            You: “Because, on average, statistically, each molecule making up the warmer object would always EMIT more photons per unit time than it would ABSORB, while the opposite would always be true of the molecules making up the cooler object.”

            This is exactly true……when comparing the exchange of energy between the warmer and cooler bodies! Ear muffs are always gaining energy from the person’s ears. The ears are always on the short end of the exchange….losing energy to the earmuffs.

            This is your logic for saying the warmer object’s temperature can’t increase. The problem is, you’ve forgotten the input from the HEAT SOURCE! The ears actually DO get warmer, don’t they?

            This is possible, because even though the ears are always losing heat to the earmuffs, this loss is slower than the energy gained from the person’s head (heat source for ears).

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            So the earmuffs trap heat in tiny air pockets and fabric. This is warmer than the previous surroundings had been. A lesser heat difference, and the ears cool at a slower rate. BUT WHY?

            The early physicists noticed this was always true, but they had no way to explain it.

            There is an invisible, microscopic exchange of energy going on!! Energy from the air and fabric are being absorbed by the ear’s skin.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “There is no scientific proof that back-radiation warms the surface.”

            Radiation carries energy.
            Absorbed energy heats an object.
            QED

            “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

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 28, 2017 at 4:37 PM:

            (…) and the ears cool at a slower rate. BUT WHY?
            The early physicists noticed this was always true, but they had no way to explain it.
            There is an invisible, microscopic exchange of energy going on!!

            Yes, Snape. Why do you keep feeding me with my own words? As if I’ve never told you this exact thing, over and over. This is what I’ve been telling you all along. There’s a continuous microscopic energy exchange. Of course there is. But this MICROscopic energy EXCHANGE always averages out to one MACROscopic energy TRANSFER, one macroscopic flux (bulk movement) of energy, the HEAT, ultimately determined simply by temperature differences/gradients.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            ” But this MICROscopic energy EXCHANGE always averages out to one MACROscopic energy TRANSFER, one macroscopic flux (bulk movement) of energy, the HEAT, ultimately determined simply by temperature differences/gradients.”

            I 100% agree with this, Kristian! It became very clear when I visualized the 40 runners doing wind sprints, before continuing across the field. If you were watching them you would see a cloud of runners, running back and forth, bumping into each other.

            Not so apparent, would be their “one-way macro flux” as you like to call it. Do you remember the scenario I described? This “flux of runners” would be travelling at a velocity of 2.5 yards/second, and at a rate of flow of 1 runner/second.

            The “two way flux” described by Norman is contained WITHIN the one way, macro flux that you always mention.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian,

            If their were 1000 runners on the field, all doing windsprints before moving on, their macro movement might not be visible. But like I said, you could calculate it’s speed and rate of flow (input/output). Which, by the way, would still be 1 runner/second.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            I’m think the one way flux would be completely hidden. Just a stationary blur of runners.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            The same thing happens in a dam. You would measure the rate of inflow and outflow at each end. Their would a be current (one way, macro flux) of water, but it wouldn’t be visible. If you look at dam’s lake, the water looks like it’s not moving.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            The “delay” I was always talking about? Simple. A portion of the sun’s energy runs into Earth and gets absorbed in the atmosphere. This energy will eventually reach the TOA and continue on it’s way through space, but it was definitely delayed a little.

            The enhanced GHE? That equates to a further delay.

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 29, 2017 at 2:10 PM:

            The “two way flux” described by Norman is contained WITHIN the one way, macro flux that you always mention.

            That’s exactly what it is.* But HE doesn’t get that. He still doesn’t get the “contained WITHIN the one way, macro flux” part.

            *In reality, there is of course no “two way flux“. The radiative FLUX is the NET movement of radiant energy (all photons). And so there can’t be TWO net movements inside ONE integrated photon cloud/radiation field. There can only be ONE. Which is something that quite frankly SHOULD go without saying.

            What you CAN do – in your mind and out of mathematical convenience – is to conceptually divide the photon cloud/radiation field into two directional “hemispheres”, sort of split it down the middle by inserting an imaginary two-dimensional plane between the two thermally radiating objects or regions. Or you can imagine the plane to be coincident with either of the two real surfaces (if such exist) on opposite ends of the radiation field. This way, by greatly simplifying the process of energy exchange, geometrically limiting the possible directions in which individual packets of energy can travel through the field to two only, back or forth along one single axis, running perpendicularly through your imaginary two-dimensional plane, either from object/region A in a straight line to object/region B, or from object/region B in a straight line to object/region A, you have made the problem a much easier one to handle mathematically.

            This is the working principle of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. But DO note how real physicists, when applying the S-B equation, are extremely careful to ensure that the two thermal “hemifluxes” on the righthand side are always kept strictly “contained WITHIN the one way, macro flux”, which is the Q, the radiative heat flux.

            It is “Climate Science” that has corrupted the use of the S-B equation and the “two-way model” of radiative transfer, not physics itself. In “Climate Science”, the two thermal “hemifluxes” are specifically NOT kept “contained WITHIN the one way, macro flux”. In “Climate Science”, they are rather deliberately separated, as if they were physically separable, and placed on opposite sides of the surface energy budget, in the process turning the one (the downward “hemiflux”) into a distinct thermodynamic CAUSE of surface temperature.

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 29, 2017 at 4:20 PM:

            The “delay” I was always talking about? Simple. A portion of the sun’s energy runs into Earth and gets absorbed in the atmosphere. This energy will eventually reach the TOA and continue on it’s way through space, but it was definitely delayed a little.

            The enhanced GHE? That equates to a further delay.

            Yes, I see you’re still not getting it. There’s no delay. Energy escapes at the same instant as it enters. Two different processes. The one from the Sun shining down on us, the other from Earth’s own temperature.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            Interesting comments, except for the very last: “Yes, I see youre still not getting it. Theres no delay. Energy escapes at the same instant as it enters.”

            OMG! For every “packet” of solar energy that collides with Earth and joins the atmosphere, another equal packet is leaving at the TOA. Duh. That’s totally obvious. But the packet arriving is about to have his journey through space delayed (slowed down, as in, “delayed in traffic.”).

            The packet that is simultaneously leaving Earth’s atmosphere, had just BEEN delayed, and is now free to continue on its way.

            You could have a 10 mile long traffic jam, where it’s “stop and go” for two hours. One car is leaving for every new car entering. So what? That doesn’t mean they weren’t delayed!

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            From what little I know about atmospheric science, this much is clear:

            There is a steady current of energy leaving Earth’s surface and making its way to space. That’s the macro viewpoint. From a micro perspective, we know this energy is moving up, down and sideways….. while on it’s way out. A portion of that energy returns to the surface (temporarily) as backradiation. It’s a smaller, but distinct movement within the larger one, and can easily be detected with instruments on the ground. The same instruments on the moon would detect very little backradiation coming from space.

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 30, 2017 at 7:48 AM:

            Interesting comments, except for the very last: “Yes, I see youre still not getting it. Theres no delay. Energy escapes at the same instant as it enters.”

            OMG! For every “packet” of solar energy that collides with Earth and joins the atmosphere, another equal packet is leaving at the TOA. Duh. That’s totally obvious. But the packet arriving is about to have his journey through space delayed (slowed down, as in, “delayed in traffic.”).

            The packet that is simultaneously leaving Earth’s atmosphere, had just BEEN delayed, and is now free to continue on its way.

            You could have a 10 mile long traffic jam, where it’s “stop and go” for two hours. One car is leaving for every new car entering. So what? That doesn’t mean they weren’t delayed!

            There’s simply no way of getting through to you on this issue, Snape. You are totally wedded to your conviction that this is a neat way of explaining “greenhouse warming”, so you’re unable to see the central flaw in it, no matter how many times it’s pointed out to you. I’m sorry, but a facepalm is all I’ve got left …

            What about this is it that you don’t get? “Energy escapes at the same instant as it enters. Two different processes. The one from the Sun shining down on us, the other from Earth’s own temperature.”

            Earth’s energy budget is NOT equivalent to a “10 mile long traffic jam”. The IN and OUT are two different</strong processes!

          • Kristian says:

            The IN and OUT are two different processes!

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Yes, Kristian, entering is a different process than leaving. While cars at either end of a traffic jam are entering and leaving, the cars within are moving slower than they had been.

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 30, 2017 at 11:53 AM:

            Yes, Kristian, entering is a different process than leaving. While cars at either end of a traffic jam are entering and leaving, the cars within are moving slower than they had been.

            No. By “different processes” I mean “completely different kinds of processes”:

            Q_in (Earth’s average all-sky ASR at the ToA) is determined by the average solar radiation flux density (TSI) at 1AU and how much of the incoming solar radiation is reflected back out by Earth’s atmosphere and surface on average (albedo). Nothing else.

            Q_out (Earth’s average all-sky OLR at the ToA) is determined (as in caused) simply by the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and surface (primarily its troposphere).

            These are only INdirectly connected. But both occur continuously and simultaneously. There is no “traffic jam”, no interconnected chain of “cars” from entry to exit.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            There is. A constant stream of energy moves from the sun to earth’s surface and then continues back out to space. Between the sun and earth it moves at the speed of light. An individual parcel, carried on this stream, would take about 8 hours, 20 seconds to make the trip. The stream slows down as it travels the 62 miles from the surface back to space. Leaving at the TOA, it again moves at the speed of light.

            Your description is from the point of view of an energy budget, which is the BEST and MOST USEFUL way to study the situation, but not the ONLY way.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Whoops!!! Meant to write, “8 minutes, 20 seconds”

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            I need to have a talk with my editor.

          • Kristian says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton says, September 30, 2017 at 3:42 PM:

            A constant stream of energy moves from the sun to earth’s surface and then continues back out to space.

            No, it doesn’t. It’s NOT THE SAME ENERGY. Some energy enters, some OTHER energy exits. Via an entirely DIFFERENT PROCESS. Simultaneously. Continuously.

            I’m done, Snape. You need to rethink. I get what you’re trying to say. It’s just wrong. It is NOT how the Earth system works.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Kristian

            The cars leaving a traffic jam are not the same as the ones entering………and this is your argument for no slowing? I think I need a different sparring partner.

        • Kristian says:

          You always need to keep your concepts straight.

          Micro vs. macro.
          Quantum vs. thermo.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        isaac…”The crux, in my opinion, is that skeptics have no clue WHY heat always moves from warm to cold. It just does, will be their general response”.

        I have offered my views on it. You did not understand what I was saying, claiming it was over your head.

        A simple assertion is based on an electrical analogy. Electrical current will flow from a region of higher potential energy to a region of lower potential energy. Same with heat. The reverse is not possible under normal conditions.

        In a nutshell, the IR from a cooler body does not meet the requirements to be absorbed by a warmer body. The electrons in a warmer body are at a higher state of energy and the cooler IR lacks the frequency and intensity to be absorbed.

        In order to warm, an atom needs it’s electrons to reside at higher energy states. If the difference in energy states in 10eV, the absorbed photon must have exactly 10 EV in order to be absorbed. All other photons with different energies will be ignored.

        There is an error in the thinking of alarmists on this blog. They think all IR must be absorbed by a mass and that is not true.

        The energy between electron states is E = hf, therefore the energy absorbed to cause an electron to reach a higher energy state is dependent on the frequency/wavelength of the absorbed EM.

        I am theorizing that the energy available in a cooler body does not meet the requirements of an electron in a warmer mass to jump to the next higher energy state. In a cooler mass, it’s electron states will be lower than those in a warmer body therefore the frequencies will be lower.

        Some alarmists have claimed that a mass cannot tell whether a photon came from a warmer source or a cooler source. It can!! All photons have different frequency/wavelengths depending on their energy level.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Gordon

          I was definitely wrong about one thing: your response was a lot more than “it just does”!

          About 90% of the time I have no idea what you’re talking about, so I couldn’t say if I agree or not. The problem is, the 10% I DO understand is complete rubbish (i.e. perpetual motion?), which doesn’t make me too confident about the rest.

        • Ghalfrunt says:

          Gordon
          Please answer to question posed above.
          Using whatever version of physics you believe in please explain how a room temperature thermal imaging camera can take thermographs of objects down to -50C
          There are no cold rays so how does focusing an object at -40C onto a microbolometer at 25C change its temperature compared to focussing an object at -30C onto microbolometer at 25C?
          https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GT_Ar-9WWfQ/UNkU2Fb2nBI/AAAAAAAAA1M/NLxj8Rt7yRI/s1600/sky+high+low+cloud.jpg
          This shows a thermal image of sky and clouds (in winter). The camera body was approx. 15 to 20C and the sensor was uncooled and therefore at a similar temperature perhaps hotter.
          If you are correct and cold objects cannot cause warmer objects to warm then this picture should effectively be an even black (there is no object above the microbolometer temperature and in your view lower temperatures cannot warm hotter objects and remember there are no such things as cold rays). All objects in the field are less warm than the sensor and in your physics cannot change the temperature of the sensor.
          However you can see temperatures from -2C to -35C. This is because the cold clouds are providing energy to the sensor changing its temperature.
          If the object in the field of view were at abs zero then no heat would be transferred to the sensor and the sensor would be in equilibrium with its camera environment. Above absolute zero heat energy is transferred to the sensor and its temperature increases above the camera background.
          At -50C (approx.) the heat from the object adds sufficient energy to the sensor for detection and the sensor warms until the energy OUT to the camera environment equals the energy IN from the camera environment plus the energy in through the lens.
          This additional energy changes in microbolometer temperature and hence its resistance.
          ……….
          In my book that is the energy radiated from a cold object warming a hot object. Remember no cold rays

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “Using whatever version of physics you believe in please explain how a room temperature thermal imaging camera can take thermographs of objects down to -50C”

            Ghalfrunt, turn off the power to your camera and see how well it does. (The camera requires energy, to satisfy the Laws of Thermodynamics.)

          • Ghalfrunt says:

            German
            Turn off the power… You are kidding are you not
            If one pixel of the sensor has -30C and another pixel has -40C objects focussed on them and the pixel array is not cooled i.e it could be at 24C. In your p hysics both pixels woulbe at 24c. However uncooled thermal imaging camera work so -30C pixel will be warmer than the pixel with -40c focussed on it. How can this be so in your world

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Ghalfrunt

            Yes. I love this argument!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ghalfront…”If you are correct and cold objects cannot cause warmer objects to warm then this picture should effectively be an even black…”

            You are confusing thermal energy with electromagnetic energy. I have never implied that EM cannot be detected, my eyes do it all the time. My skin detects IR, absorbs it, and converts it to heat. My skins even detects UV, and if I don’t use a sunscreen, or get out of the sun, it will burn my skin when the UV is converted in my skin to heat.

            The source of solar energy is a boiling cauldron of hydrogen and helium nucleii/electrons at a temperature in excess of a million C in spots. I have no problem with heat transfer between the Sun and the Earth. In fact, the 2nd law supports that heat transfer.

            I have a big problem with gases at -20C heating the surface at an average temperature of +15C. In order for GHGs to add heat to the surface their temps would have to exceed +15C on average.

            That’s basic physics/thermodynamics, so where is the opposition basing their assertions? Mainly on thought experiments from what I have gathered.

            Even at -20C, I have no problem with infrared scanners detecting IR. The egregious error being made by alarmists is that the colour temperature of the IR is heat. It’s NOT heat, it’s electromagnetic energy.

            Craig Bohrem, who wrote a book on atmospheric radiation, cites an example wherein he pointed an infrared scanner at clear blue sky. The temperature detected was -50C. When he moved the scanner to point at a cloud, it measured -3C. Neither of those sources has the capability of transferring heat to the surface at an average of +15C.

          • Ghalfrunt says:

            Gordon Roberston

            Thermal energy is ill defined according to wiki. It is therefore not often used in thermodynamics. Thermal energy is usually considered to be internal or vibrational energy.

            This form of energy obviously cannot cross space since there is nothing to vibrate. It obviously cannot cross the atmosphere in a manner in which it could instantly (a few msec) change the temperature of a single pixel – random air movements and competing vibrational sources would blur (totally) the possible image. The only way the heat of an object could get from a heat source at any temperature other than absolute zero to a pixel on a sensor, in a way that can be focussed bya suitable lens, is by photons.

            At low temp the photons are IR (low energy per photon) and at high temperature they are visible light (higher energy per photon) etc. If it is a blackbody radiator then a spread of frequencies would be generated

            A cool object will emit photons at 10μm (plus many other wavelengths) a hot object will emit more photons of 10μm (plus many other wavelengths)

            The energy of a photon and the rate of reception of photons determine their heating effect. Photons with an equivalent short wavelength will have a greater energy than long wavelength.

            [consider a simple laser cutter. It emits photons centred on 10.6μm. equivalent to a BB temperature of around 300K(?) ie not hot enough to cut wood. But increase the rate of emission of photons and the energy at the focussed point is enough to cut wood and more, but the photons still have the same wavelength and so the same per photon energy. Please explain, for as I see it you would suggest that 10.6μm has an equivalent temperature too low to add to the temperature generated by a single photon]

            Photons from an object at -40C still carry a small amount of energy only 0K objects emit no photons). When these photons are focussed on a pixel at whatever temperature they add this energy to the pixel whatever its temperature. There is no way a 10μm photon can decide to not hit an object because it is hotter than the thing it was emitted from if it were capable it would have memory the temperature where it came from, and, perhaps, the ability to predict the temperature of the object is was about to land on. I do not think photons are that clever.

            A photons energy is fixed by its equivalent wavelength. A photon hitting an object where it is absorbed transfers this energy to the object as heat.

            Please note that there is no thought experiment needed to use a thermal imaging camera you can buy one for a few hundred .

            You cite an experiment of pointing a camera at sky reading -50C (likely limited by the camera not actual temp) and pointing it at a cloud at -3C and claiming without reference that these cannot transfer heat to the surface at +15C. But of course you have yourself just proved this false since the experimenters scanner was at approx. 15C (I assume it was not cooled to below -50C that would be an expensive scanner!!) but temperatures of -50C changed its output compared to -3C. HOW please answer this I would like to know.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “I have no problem with heat transfer between the Sun and the Earth.”

            And how does that heat transfer occur?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      norman…”Here is the proof and it is not consensus. It is measured reality”.

      From NOAA??? The graphic says nothing about how the data was measured. Knowing NOAA, it was contrived in a climate model.

      Again, how do you separate radiation at the surface due to interior warming from the warming due to solar energy?

  84. Norman says:

    Gordon Robertson

    It is part of your religious mentality. Anything that might upset your religion is a conspiracy created to attack your faith.

    The way the data was collected is contained in the webpage. Will you research it?

    It gives detailed information on all the data collected and instrumentation used.

    Sorry textbook physics works, you need to find a new bible of truth.

    Here you go pal. Read up.

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/instruments.html

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Norman ,

      Nope. No testable GHE hypothesis there.

      Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      norman…”It is part of your religious mentality. Anything that might upset your religion is a conspiracy created to attack your faith”.

      You are raving like a religious zealot, usually a sign that a person has no answers.

      I have never claimed there is no such thing as down-dwelling radiation, all I have claimed is that down-dwelling IR does nothing since most of it comes from cooler regions of the atmosphere.

      Quoting NOAA to me after their scientific chicanery is meaningless. I don’t trust them.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        You have a religious mentality and provide no answers.

        You make claims and statements that people who read your posts are just supposed to accept as fact because you stated them.

        You give two examples in your latest post of your religious nonscientific thought process.

        You claim DWIR from a cooler atmosphere does nothing but you have zero evidence to support your claims and this claim goes against accepted and established science so it it pretty big deal to make such claims with zero evidence to support them. That is not the scientific process.

        Your last line really indicates religious intensity. I did not quote NOAA, I linked you to graphs measuring radiant energies at Earth’s surface by various instruments. Who cares if you trust them or not. That is an opinion of yours. Science requires supporting evidence. Do you own one of the instruments you use and are finding data that differs from what they publish? That would be scientific. You just preach your faith and hope people will believe you.

        Have you ever supported any of your statements with some valid source of information. At this point of interacting with you i do not believe you have.

        Your motto: “Read my words and believe!”

  85. Dr No says:

    By the way children- Mike and Gordon in particular – it so happens that:
    “NSW has broken the record for the highest September temperature for the second time in a week.
    The mercury reached 40.8C in Bourke in the state’s northwest on Wednesday, making it the hottest September day on record in NSW.
    It beat the previous record of 40.5C set last Saturday in Wanaaring.
    “We have broken the all-time state record for maximum temperatures in September twice in a week,” Bureau of Meteorology senior meteorologist Andrew Haigh told AAP.
    “That’s something that has not happened before.”
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/09/27/nsw-september-heat-record-broken-again

    Cease your petty arguing and go and play outside. But remember to put on a hat plus sunscreen – otherwise you may get heat stroke and addle your brains.
    Wait. I forgot it is too late for you two.

    • barry says:

      Let’s not forget that a few weeks weather is not a climate conclusion, hot or cold.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Dr No,

      Now you see why the BOM declared all official temperature records prior to 1910 unreliable. The heat wave of 1896 had a death toll in the hundreds.

      Apart from that, the “hottest September day on record in NSW” is pointless. Is it supposed to have something to do with the non-existent GHE?

      What about the world’s coldest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica a couple of years ago? In summer, to boot!

      Maybe you hav found a testable GHE hypothesis, but I doubt it. Just more foolish Warmist deny, divert, and confuse, tactics.

      No GHE.

      Cheers.

      • Dr No says:

        What, then, is your explanation for the ever increasing ratio of hot versus cold temperature records observed across the globe each year?
        I really am interested in your alternative “testable” hypothesis.

        • bilybob says:

          The problem with the high temperature records being set today is that they look at all sites including those that only have a few decades of data. I looked at a sample of max temperature records selecting only rural areas (to remove Heat Island effect) with records going back 100 years and approximately 90% of them still had pre-1960 high temperature maximums. It should be no surprise that sites with only a 50 year history or less will have max records now, given they are starting in a cooler time period. And given they out number the 100+ year sites they will dominate today’s statistic.

          I do not have access to a complete data set on this, it should be something easy for someone to verify with the complete record. My sample was on about 100 random sites in North America/Europe/Australia that was readily available to me. I would appreciate if anyone has a study/data set that is more complete to verify.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Dr No,

          I am unaware of the ever increasing ratio of hot versus cold temperature records observed across the globe each year, but I am sure you can provide details for the last 150 years or so.

          But first, if you provide details of a testable GHE hypothesis, it would be of assistance – if only to verify its existence. If you cant even do that, asking for an alternative to something which doesnt exist is pointless, isnt it?

          If your information is correct, I can think of several different explanations. Please provide the observations for which you are unable to provide any explanation. I am surprised you cannot think of any logical reasons for thermometers recording high temperatures.

          No GHE. Even you cannot supply a testable hypothesis for such a silly idea.

          Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            “I am unaware of the ever increasing ratio of hot versus cold temperature records observed across the globe each year, but I am sure you can provide details for the last 150 years or so.”
            Am I surprised at this admission? No.
            Will I provide details? No. I don’t waste time on lazy students.
            Can you provide an alternative explanation? No.

        • bilybob says:

          Perhaps an example may help explain why the hot/cold temperature records ratio has very little meaning. Set out 10 temperature sensors in June year 0 for a hypothetical region in North America and record maximum daily temperatures for 6 months. In November of year 0, add 90 temperature sensors so you have better coverage (100). The following September year 1 you find that 90 of the temperature sensors set records in year 1 from those set out in November. The original 10 show that year 0 had the extreme heat records.

          If the original 10 are warmer in year 0, then we may conclude it was warmer. Regardless of the max records from the 90 set up in November.

          This is the problem with using temperature records that only go back 50 years. Not many dispute it was a cooler period mid 1900’s. There were some saying we were heading for an ice age back then.

          Please note, I am not implying anything other than the following: Using max records has little meaning unless they are continuous to early 1900’s.

    • tonyM says:

      Dr NO:
      BOM has yet to wake up; perhaps you should . They have tried twice to fix their ACORN system and it is still running like a model T Ford. Last I heard it had Albany as having the highest T in Oz record. For those not familiar with Albany it is at the bottom most tip of West Oz. It melds into the Roaring 40’s with only the ocean, whales and Emperor penguins separating it from Antarctica. Hardly a candidate for Oz max T; go look at Marble Bar as a contrast (49.2C set in 1922) for West Oz or national record at 50.7C, which was set at Oodnadatta in South Australia in January 1960.

      BOM in one swoop has the magic to turn stations from century long cooling to long term warming viz Rutherglen, Alice Springs. Mandrake, eat your heart out!

      No-one quite knows what BOM Max T or Min T mean anymore as a comparison. It measures to the max in any one second with sensitive modern instruments. Try that trick with the old mercury bulbs and compare. It also has limited how low the T can be read in at least two stations.
      http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/poor-bom-dangerous-deniers-amateurs-attacking-australian-bureau-of-meteorology-debilitating-it-by-asking-questions/

      It has a neat list with :
      THE BOM LIST grows Scandal after scandal

      Now in contrast to Dr NO’s Bourke observations, Perth today had a max T of just over 15C for about an hour with the rest of the day below 14C. Unusual for Perth, as normally one can bask in the warm sun by now, but so what? There was also unexpected snow (that’s the news; I would call it hail. We never get snow here).

      Last year Sept, Perth was the coldest in over 120 years. Again, so what but no doubt Dr NO would recommend we buy snow shoes or cross country skis for this Mediterranean climate.

      Dr No can’t seem to reconcile weather events involving blocking phenomena much like what happened with Hurricane Harvey. For Bourke the max dropped to under 25C for the daytime today which was below the T at 4am. But be prepared says Dr NO; wear hats and sunscreen, hint hint, the CO2 is gonna get ya!! If it doesn’t, BOM will!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dr no…”The mercury reached 40.8C in Bourke in the states northwest on Wednesday, making it the hottest September day on record in NSW”.

      Here’s a record of NSW all time daily records, from:

      http://www.eldersweather.com.au/climate.jsp

      Jan 18,2013 45.8
      Feb 08,1926 42.1
      Mar 09,1983 39.8
      Apr 06,2016 34.2
      May 01,1919 30.0
      Jun 11,1931 26.9
      Jul 24,1990 25.9
      Aug 26,1995 31.3
      Sep 26,1965 34.6
      Oct 13,2004 38.3
      Nov 25,1982 41.8
      Dec 02,1957 42.2

      You have quoted record temps for specific cities, how about the average across NSW for a particular day?

      Also, prove the abnormal warming in those cities is due to anthropogenic warming. If AGW was an issue, why are their records in 1919, 1926, 1957 and 1965. In fact half the records are pre 1983.

      • Dr No says:

        Gordon Gordon Gordon, you foolish student.
        The numbers you provide refer to Sydney daily maximum temperatures, not NSW!
        No wonder you are hav’nt a clue.

  86. Mike Flynn says:

    Mike

    A fingerprint for insulation, in my estimation is: house is warming while attic is cooling.

    No insulation? BOTH will either warm, cool, or stay the same

    On the other, with insulation, both will either warm, cool, or stay the same. Or maybe not. Or if you put your heater in your attic, maybe it will heat up, while the outside doesnt. Or maybe not. It depends, doesnt it?

    You are right. You are clueless, or close to it. Fingerprints are for finger print experts, or foolish Warmists.

    Not so much use for real physicists studying insulation qualities.

    Still no GHE theory to be found! Is there?

    Cheers.

    • barry says:

      You keep asking for evidence of the GHE. It’s been supplied numerously in many different ways, not least by the atmospheric expert who hosts this blog. But I (and I suppose others) have given up as you just hand-wave and waffle in reply. Ironic, as you call for science but engage in pure rhetoric.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        barry,

        The reason you can’t quote where I asked for evidence of the GHE, is simple – I have never asked for such a ridiculous thing.

        You just make stuff up, and hope no-one will notice, it seems.

        Until you can at least provide a testable GHE hypothesis, you are just talking about the non-existent. Until you can describe the nature of this supposed GHE – where it may be reproducibly observed, why it cannot be explained by current scientific theories – you are fantasising, pure and simple.

        There is no GHE.

        Pointing out that days are warmer than nights, that Winter is colder than Summer, that surface temperatures are higher in hot places, does not require a GHE. If you believe that, you are deluded.

        If you believe that the climate can be prevented from changing – you are deluded.

        If you believe the Gavin Schmidt is a scientist – you are deluded.

        If you believe Michael Mann was aware a Nobel Prize – you are deluded.

        If you believe that a testable GHE hypothesis exists – you are deluded.

        What do you believe?

        Cheers.

        • Dr No says:

          If you can’t name 3 climate scientists – you are deluded.
          If you can’t point to a published climate science paper by Jo Nova – you are deluded
          If you cannot say if you understood or appreciated a bit of mathematics – you are deluded
          If you will not read the scientific links posted here – you are deluded.
          If you can’t supply any scientific links of your own – you are deluded.
          If you don’t believe the temperature record – you are deluded.
          If your name is Mike Flynn – you are deluded.

          Cheers.

      • barry says:

        Hypothesis:

        If the GHE is real, then regions with high atmospheric water vapour concentrations (ie, lush tropical areas) should have a higher average nighttime air temperatures than regions with low atmospheric water vapour concentrations (ie tropical deserts) at the same latitude and time of year.

        This is testable and falsifiable.

        Assess nighttime air temperatures to remove the effect of the sun, isolating purely atmospheric influence.

        Comparisons should be of the same periods (ie, matching season/calendar year).

        Null hypothesis:

        Nighttime air temps in lush regions are on average warmer than nighttime temps in arid regions at the same latitude.

        Disprove the null and you’ve disproved the GHE.

        We have data available to run this test.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          barry, neither proves anything about the GHE. Both are basically demonstrating the heat capacity of water vapor.

        • barry says:

          Water vapour is a GHG. The comparisons are made at night to remove the influence of solar heating. Measurements are of surface air temperature.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            But you are only demonstrating the heat capacity of water vapor, not the GHE.

          • barry says:

            Then factor the heat capacity of water vapour, and after deducting that see if there is still a temperature difference. If there is a GHE, then WV heat capacity will not alone account for the difference.

        • Kristian says:

          barry,

          Again. The “GHE” is not about elevating average nighttime temps. It’s about elevating average temps, period. The average annual T_s.

          So, no, that’s not the relevant test. Humid land areas removed from ocean influences are consistently cooler than arid land areas with the same average heat input to the surface.

          You are NOT isolating the atmospheric effect by excluding daytime. The atmosphere also affects the warming rate during the day.

          Yes, humid regions cool more slowly during the night, but they ALSO warm more slowly during the day. And the NET effect is a LOWER average T_s. In other words, the daytime effect easily outdoes the nighttime effect …

          • barry says:

            You are NOT isolating the atmospheric effect by excluding daytime. The atmosphere also affects the warming rate during the day.

            So does the sun, and we want to see what the atmosphere does to surface temps, not the sun.

            I know your view hinges on solar influence. So let’s remove that influence and see if your view holds.

          • Kristian says:

            barry says, September 28, 2017 at 4:20 PM:

            You are NOT isolating the atmospheric effect by excluding daytime. The atmosphere also affects the warming rate during the day.

            So does the sun, and we want to see what the atmosphere does to surface temps, not the sun.

            I know your view hinges on solar influence. So let’s remove that influence and see if your view holds.

            But then you’re not getting the point. Daytime warming rates are NOT about solar influence. They’re strictly about atmospheric influence.

            It’s the ATMOSPHERE that reduces the warming rates during the day, not the Sun. The Sun is doing its best to heat the surface. The rate at which it is able to do that, however, is strongly influenced by the atmosphere on top of the solar-heated surface. And so you can’t ignore that effect. Are you telling me this is something you don’t understand, barry?

            Also, once again: The “GHE” isn’t supposed to make T_night higher. It’s supposed to make T_night+day higher. And so, if it can’t make T_night+day higher, then it’s of no use reducing nighttime cooling rates. The daytime effect is stronger.

          • barry says:

            Looks to me like you don’t want to accept a perfectly reasonable proposition. Are you so wedded to promulgating your ASR obsession? Loosen your grip.

            If we want to isolate the GHE as much as possible, we remove what we can. During the daytime we have incoming SWR and albedo effects.

            At nighttime these effects disappear and we have a more focused view of atmospheric-only effects.

            We could go even further and exclude periods with cloud cover – the clear-sky observations. At night.

            Flynn asked for a testable hypothesis for GHE. This is testable. He did not ask for a hypothesis of ASR.

          • Kristian says:

            barry says, September 29, 2017 at 4:11:

            Looks to me like you don’t want to accept a perfectly reasonable proposition.

            It’s not a perfectly reasonable proposition, barry. THAT’S what I’m trying to tell you. You are NOT testing the “GHE”, because the “GHE” isn’t about reducing nighttime cooling, it’s about raising the average annual surface temperature.

            You’re the one obviously wedded to a conviction. You’re so bent on “proving” the existence of a “GHE”, that you willfully ignore its actual definition, in the process throwing away half the data in order to “isolate” only that part which comports with your desired conclusion.

            If we want to isolate the GHE as much as possible, we remove what we can.

            But you’re misrepresenting the “GHE”, barry. You’ve created your own personal definition of what the “GHE” is. It is NOT about reducing nighttime cooling. You have not “found” a “GHE” by simply showing that nighttime cooling rates are reduced in humid climes.

            The “GHE” is rather un-found by showing that the T_s in humid regions is consistently LOWER than the T_s in arid regions with equal heat input to the surface. The nighttime cooling rates in the former will always be much lower than in the latter, but that doesn’t thereby produce a “greenhouse EFFECT”, that is, a permanent elevation of the humid T_s over the arid T_s. Quite the contrary.

            THAT’S a “perfectly reasonable” test, barry. But I’m not so sure you’re ready to accept it …

            Flynn asked for a testable hypothesis for GHE. This is testable.

            Yes. MY test. Not yours. You’re not testing the “GHE”. You need to include the entire picture, not just the half that suits your purpose best.

      • barry says:

        Hypothesis:

        A volume of air receiving LW emissions will become warmer if more CO2 is introduced while the air pressure remains the same.

        Hypothesis:

        Of two volumes of atmosphere at the same pressure, but one with more GHGs than the other, the GHG-enriched atmosphere will warm more quickly than the other when being heated by equal amounts of long wave electromagnetic radiation.

        Hypothesis:

        A planetary body without an Earth atmosphere will cool at a faster rate at night than a planetary body with an Earth atmosphere the same distance from the sun.

        Hypothesis:

        Venus should have comparable or higher average surface temperature than Mercury owing to high GHGs concentration, despite Venus having a higher albedo and being twice the distance of Mercury from the sun.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          The first two violate the 1LoT.

          The second two are not falsifiable.

        • barry says:

          They are testable hypotheses. They have, in fact, been tested.

          The second 2 are falsifiable.

          The planetary bodies with and without atmospheres to measure rate of cooling after sundown are the Earth and the moon.

          If Venus has a cooler average surface temperature than Mercury, then the second hypothesis is falsified.

          • Kristian says:

            barry says, September 28, 2017 at 8:28 AM:

            The planetary bodies with and without atmospheres to measure rate of cooling after sundown are the Earth and the moon.

            Earth’s atmosphere indeed insulates our solar-heated global surface, and is thus the reason why Earth’s T_s is so much higher than the Moon’s. This is NOT to say, however, that what CAUSES its insulation effect is its “GHG” content.

            True, an atmosphere’s IR activity basically sees to it that the “blanket” is put in place and kept there (that is, it makes sure that the bulk atmosphere and the solar-heated surface are thermodynamically (thermally) connected even after a steady state of dynamic equilibrium is reached). However, it is NOT what actually causes the “blanket” – once its there – to insulate the surface, ultimately – in tandem with a relatively constant heat input from the Sun – forcing it to become warmer on average. Its MASS does that …

          • barry says:

            I’m not sure if this hypothetical is for you, Kristian. It seems you are not so foolish to believe there is no GHE.

          • David Appell says:

            Kristian says:
            “However, it is NOT what actually causes the blanket once its there to insulate the surface, ultimately in tandem with a relatively constant heat input from the Sun forcing it to become warmer on average. Its MASS does that ”

            How does mass per se block radiation?

          • Kristian says:

            David Appell says, September 28, 2017 at 4:57 PM:

            How does mass per se block radiation?

            It doesn’t. Read what I write. ALL of it:
            “True, an atmosphere’s IR activity basically sees to it that the “blanket” is put in place and kept there (that is, it makes sure that the bulk atmosphere and the solar-heated surface are thermodynamically (thermally) connected even after a steady state of dynamic equilibrium is reached).”

      • barry says:

        Hypothesis:

        A century of non-negligible CO2 rise should cause the global surface temperature to warm.

        (The seed of this hypothesis was given in the 1890s)

        Anyone who thinks science was not science before Popper came up with the concept of falsifiability should have their brain retooled. Falsification is part of the toolkit, not the end.

        Nevertheless, all the above hypotheses are falsifiable.

      • barry says:

        Hypothesis:

        Increased GHGs will warm the surface while cooling the lower stratosphere over the long term.

        (This ‘hypothesis’ was made before observations of the lower strat were good enough to check)

      • barry says:

        Hypothesis:

        If CO2 is re-emitting infrared radiation back to Earth, we should see an increase over time in LW radiation in the wavelengths specifically CO2 absorbs and re-emits heading to the surface if atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase.

      • barry says:

        Ways to falsify the GHE.

        Demonstrate that GHG molecules behave differently in the lab than they do in the wild.

        Demonstrate major errors in the instruments that discern longwave radiance flux in the wavelength bands associated with CO2, methane and water vapour.

        Ways to falsify the enhanced GHE from increasing atmopheric conc of GHGs.

        A drop in global temperatures to levels of 40 years ago for a sustained period of 30 years, with no obvious cause (such as a series of eruptions of super volcanoes).

        The lower stratosphere warms along with the lower troposphere for 30 years.

        • Kristian says:

          No, barry. All we need to check is whether the evolution in total all-sky OLR at the ToA corresponds with the evolution in tropospheric temps (like TLT) over time. It is very distinctly supposed to stay flat over multi-decades (as Earth’s hypothetical “effective radiating level” is pushed ever higher) while T_tropo at the same time rises fairly steadily and significantly. According to the idea of the “enhanced GHE”.

          We have observed no such thing in the real Earth system over the last 32+ years. What we HAVE observed (and DO observe) is rather how the total all-sky OLR at the ToA has simply tracked T_tropo (TLT) pretty much to a tee over the last few decades. While at the same time, the solar heat input to the Earth (the ASR, net SW, TSI minus albedo, at the ToA) has clearly gone up since the first half of the 80s.

          It should therefore be quite obvious what has actually caused ‘global warming’ … It is NOT some “enhanced GHE”. It’s the Sun.

          It’s in the data.

          • David Appell says:

            Nope. If warming was due to the sun, the upper atmosphere would be warming. Instead it’s cooling (a prediction of AGW theory):

            Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling, By Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D. Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground, Inc.
            https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp

          • Ball4 says:

            “What we HAVE observed (and DO observe) is rather how the total all-sky OLR at the ToA has simply tracked T_tropo (TLT) pretty much to a tee over the last few decades.”

            Pretty much, huh?

            Actually there is no such meaningful observation from the CERES Team Kristian, as I have pointed out to you, repeatedly. The longest available CERES record calibrated with meaningful CI shows earth observed LW TOA flux (OLR) has been decreasing (thru 12/2014 ref. Loeb et. al. 2016 Table 4.)

          • Kristian says:

            Ball4 says, September 28, 2017 at 5:01 PM:

            Actually there is no such meaningful observation from the CERES Team Kristian (…)

            Yes, there is:
            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/gl-olr-vs-gl-tlt.png

          • Kristian says:

            David Appell says, September 28, 2017 at 4:56 PM:

            Nope. If warming was due to the sun, the upper atmosphere would be warming.

            No, it wouldn’t. That is a typical AGW myth.

            1) CO2 doesn’t meaningfully absorb solar radiation, whether incoming or reflected, so an increase in stratospheric carbon dioxide wouldn’t absorb more SW. What’s more, the stratospheric content of the gas that does meaningfully absorb solar radiation, ozone (O3), has been distinctly reduced, so would also not absorb more SW.

            2) The increase in solar heat input to the Earth (+ASR) hasn’t got anything to do with how much SW is coming IN (TSI), but rather everything to do with how much SW is reflected back OUT (albedo). This all happens below the tropopause, below the stratosphere.

            There is no solar increase in the stratosphere. There is a solar increase from the tropopause down. Less SW is simply reflected back OUT, and so more of the incoming (which itself hasn’t increased) ends up being absorbed by the Earth system (below the tropopause, not above).

            The stratosphere cools because its CO2 concentration has gone up (and so radiates IR more effectively to space) AND because its O3 concentration has gone down (and so absorbs less SW).

            The surface and the troposphere warm because the solar heat input has increased.

          • barry says:

            We’re looking for a falsifiable GHE hypothesis – the one the Flynn keeps asking for. You are not providing that.

            Global surface temps are nearly 1C warmer than they were a century ago. GHE theory can account for that, because we have the data. You don’t have enough data to scotch the the hypothesis on centennial scale.

            As an aside, your view would have it that ASR has increased over the last 100 years.

          • Kristian says:

            barry says, September 29, 2017 at 4:17 AM:

            We’re looking for a falsifiable GHE hypothesis – the one the Flynn keeps asking for. You are not providing that.

            That might be true. However, that’s mostly because it isn’t really possible. You can “prove” that an atmosphere insulates a solar-heated planetary surface, thus forcing its T_s to be higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there. But you CAN’T ever “prove” – or fully “disprove” – that it is the atmosphere’s radiative properties specifically that ultimately CAUSES that thermal effect.

            What I have provided, is a simple falsification test of the “enhanced GHE” (the “AGW hypothesis”). Most recently here:
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/#comment-265477

            “The fingerprint of ENHANCED insulation (like an “enhanced GHE”), is that the “house” (troposphere) is seen warming over time WITHOUT a corresponding increase in the heat loss from the house (total all-sky OLR at the ToA). THAT is how you would positively see the insulation mechanism in effective operation.”

          • Ball4 says:

            “Yes, there is:”

            No there there since your self-cite work is not meaningful, Kristian, as no proper CIs are shown or can be shown.

            CERES Team publications using only surface thermometer properly calibratable CERES data w/CIs do not confirm Kristian’s conclusions. Actually, CERES Team Table 4 shows earth system OLR has been meaningfully decreasing in the longest properly calibrated CERES data thru 12/2014.

          • Kristian says:

            barry says, September 29, 2017 at 4:17 AM:

            Global surface temps are nearly 1C warmer than they were a century ago.

            Only on paper. Global temps as officially presented have been systematically adjusted to be “nearly 1C warmer [today] than they were a century ago”. That doesn’t mean they actually are.

            GHE theory can account for that, because we have the data.

            That’s laughable! The “data” has been adjusted specifically to fit with “GHE theory” (i.e., the models). No, we do NOT “have the data”. The global mean is mostly made up prior to about 1970.

            You don’t have enough data to scotch the the hypothesis on centennial scale.

            That’s a bit like when a creationist tries to debunk the theory of evolution by arguing that it can’t explain the origin of life itself.

            I’m not discussing Earth’s climate evolution “on centennial scale”, barry. I’m simply pointing out what’s in the available data. And we have relevant data available for the last 32+ years only.

            However, during that time, most of the overall “greenhouse enhancement” is supposed to have happened, and the Earth has also warmed considerably. So if there is no sign whatsoever in the data of any “strengthened greenhouse mechanism” (atmospheric radiative insulation) as a systematic driver of ‘global warming’ over this most recent period, and if the data instead unambiguously shows that an increase in ASR (solar heat input) is the sole culprit, then WHY would things be any different before this period, when our CO2 emissions were allegedly much LESS impactful. If you don’t mind my asking …

          • Kristian says:

            Ball4 says, September 29, 2017 at 10:10 AM:

            “Yes, there is:”
            No there there since your self-cite work is not meaningful (…)

            There’s no “self-cite”. The data is downloaded straight from the CERES team’s own data page. Latest EBAF Edition 4. Easily available for everyone. Even you’re free to go see. There’s a data quality summary there as well. But I’ve provided you with a link to that one several times before, so I guess you know about it already …

            Bye.

          • Ball4 says:

            Kristian 10:37am, the CERES Team tells you (and everyone) in their publications which of their data is not calibratable to surface thermometers within proper CI.

            You continue to use that data w/o CI thus you draw the wrong conclusions. This is why self citing is useless.

            To get the CERES OLR conclusions, you must post a cite to actual CERES Team publications. Their 2016 Table 4 is also freely available for everyone to see and cite. OLR is shown to be decreasing thru 12/2014.

            If you could replicate that & calculates CIs and then extend their work up to latest available, your comments would then have credibility. You might even find latest meaningful OLR curve approaching equilibrium supporting your conclusions about the eGHE. Or maybe not. CERES Team has not published on the subject again after early 2016 afaik.

        • barry says:

          Its the Sun.

          Can’t be. Solar intensity has declined slightly since the 1960s.

          http://tinyurl.com/y7tpdf3j

          And from the mid-80s.

          http://tinyurl.com/ydd5q958

          • David Appell says:

            It has, barry, but you have to be careful drawing the best straight line though a regularly oscillating curve. Unless the data include an integer number of cycles, you are going to catch the first and last cycles only part way through, and that can significantly impact the trend.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, those graphs are sun spots, not solar “intensity”.

          • barry says:

            They’re highly correlated. Faculae are hot, so the sun gets more intense during high sunspot activity.

            But here is total solar irradiance, if you prefer. Same story.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1985/plot/pmod/from:1985/trend

          • barry says:

            That’s right, David, but the story is the same when you phase-match. Solar intensity can’t account for warming from the 1960s or 1980s.

          • Kristian says:

            barry says, September 28, 2017 at 4:28 PM:

            Its the Sun.

            Can’t be. Solar intensity has declined slightly since the 1960s.

            Did you notice what I wrote? “While at the same time, the solar heat input to the Earth (the ASR, net SW, TSI minus albedo, at the ToA) has clearly gone up since the first half of the 80s.”

            The solar heat input to the Earth isn’t TSI (“solar intensity”), barry. It’s ASR (net SW, TSI minus albedo). TSI hasn’t gone up. ASR has. And ASR is the relevant solar parameter, not TSI.

            How many times has this been explained to you?

          • barry says:

            You’ve explained it many times. But you still insist on signing off with “It’s the Sun.” It isn’t the sun, it’s other components (by your calculation) affecting solar input.

            Better would be to name those components.

          • Kristian says:

            barry says, September 29, 2017 at 3:57 AM:

            You’ve explained it many times. But you still insist on signing off with “It’s the Sun.” It isn’t the sun, it’s other components (by your calculation) affecting solar input.

            Better would be to name those components.

            It’s the Sun, barry. We know it’s the Sun from simply reading the available data. ASR [Q_in] has gone up, OLR [Q_out] hasn’t gone down.

            Yes, a reduction in (mostly cloud) albedo is the reason behind the increase in average solar heat input. But the warming is caused by the Sun, barry, not by clouds. The extra energy accumulating inside the Earth system, making it gradually warmer is coming from the Sun. Not because less goes OUT, but because more comes IN. Stronger HEATING, not stronger insulation.

            In reality, Earth’s own internal variability (the coupled oceanic-tropospheric circulation) is responsible for the changes in cloud cover and wind patterns that allow more solar heat IN and/or less heat to escape back OUT, from year to year, from decade to decade, and even between phases each spanning multiple decades. But the Sun is always the provider of energy/heat. Yes, I can agree that you might argue that the “cause” of the rise in ASR over the last few decades isn’t to be found in the solar output per se, but rather within the climate system itself.

            The point is, whenever I try to point out how global warming since the late 70s is really caused by the ENSO process, then everyone is quick to remind me that the ENSO process can’t produce energy/heat on its own. Therefore “it can’t be ENSO”. Which always forces me to take a deep incredulous breath. Because they clearly cannot be serious. They KNOW that the energy comes from the Sun, that no one’s actually suggesting that energy is spontaneously created out of nothing inside Earth’s oceans or troposphere. And so I have to explain them, each and every time, that, no, the energy comes from the Sun; the ENSO process simply allows more solar heat to come in over decades than what goes back out, by strongly influencing pressure gradients (winds) and cloud cover (and many other important climate parameters) globally, whenever Earth’s climate variability is in a warming phase.

            And so, when I choose to go straight to the source, the Sun, to explain the warming, THAT’S apparently wrong as well! Because now I’m all of a sudden “neglecting” the “other components” causing the solar input to change …

            Let’s call it a grand-scale collaboration, then. The Sun and Earth’s own climate system work together to produce a significant change over decades in Earth’s energy balance.

            Happy?

          • Ball4 says:

            “OLR [Q_out] hasnt gone down…Happy?”

            Not happy with Kristian’s nonmeaningful self-cites.

            Try citing CERES Team, Kristian. Actually, CERES Team 2016 Table 4 shows earth system OLR meaningfully has gone down in the longest available properly calibrated CERES data thru 12/2014. That will meaningfully change when system equilibrium is re-established. Properly calibrated CERES data will demonstrate a clue to that change.

          • barry says:

            Yes, a reduction in (mostly cloud) albedo is the reason behind the increase in average solar heat input.

            That’s the right way to put your opinion.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”You keep asking for evidence of the GHE. Its been supplied numerously in many different ways, not least by the atmospheric expert who hosts this blog”.

        Evidence based on thought experiments and innuendo is not scientific. As Mike claims, there is no scientific evidence to support either the GHE or AGW. That was an opinion expressed by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner.

        Here is their exhaustive study of why the GHE does not exist.

        https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

        It’s simple barry, the GHE theory is based on the assumptions of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. All were under the mistaken assumption that a real greenhouse warms by trapping IR. In 1909, Woods proved that a real greenhouse warms by trapping molecules of heated air and that the heating is due to a lack of convection.

        The atmosphere has scads of convection, there is nothing in it to interfere with the warming of air by the surface DIRECTLY or to interfere with that air rising. As it rises, cooler air rushes in to replace it by convection.

        I have just described what a greenhouse DOES NOT do and why the atmosphere cannot replicate a greenhouse.

        • Dr No says:

          Ah yes, the much maligned paper by G and T.
          Here is a sample comment on it:
          “Gerlich and Tscheuschner have published a polemic, full of error, irrelevancy, fulmination and accusation, in the International Journal of Modern Physics B. Long known from its arXiv versions, and well refuted, it is difficult to understand how their paper could appear, however, recent history has shown that such papers are occasionally published where editors and referees are not familiar with the underlying science, or themselves are outliers with respect to the field in which the paper lies. This is often the case where expertise in one area is generalized to arrogance about another.”

        • barry says:

          That paper is ridiculous. It spends a whole section explaining why the Earth is not an actual greenhouse.

        • David Appell says:

          Gerlich & Tscheuschner has been debunked to the max.

          For example:

          https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/gerlich-tscheuschner/

        • barry says:

          Evidence based on thought experiments and innuendo is not scientific

          You’re kidding, right? There are fields of science that use a little data and much pure math. The theory of relativity is mainly “thought experiments.”

          But I am referring also to observational evidence, which has been supplied numerously and variously.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Mike

      I think that only with/because of insulation is it possible for the house to be warming while the attic is cooling. That’s what would make this particular situation a fingerprint…there would be no other natural explanation.

  87. barry says:

    A couple months ago skeptics were showing Arctic temps North of 80 degrees. Bart was telling us to watch what happens next.

    So here’s the latest.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Was it what you expected, Bart?

    • Steve Case says:

      Looks like a warmer winter and cooler summer to me.

      You could say that 2017 is shaping up to be rather mild.

      • barry says:

        Compared to what? 2016?

      • barry says:

        Looks like a warmer winter and cooler summer to me.

        In that chart? It’s the opposite. Summer temps hover just above 0C that high in the Arctic, because the surface air temp is restrained by the virtually perennial sea ice that far North. Last Summer (the hump) saw temps just a bit under average, while Winter temps were 3-10C warmer than average (Check Winter late 2016).

    • https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/

      This is the latest Barry ,which shows the oceans are cooling everywhere.

      This is what is you are showing what was.

    • Barry look at Antarctica.

      The warmth in the Arctic is not present in summer and is likely due to the below average ice coverage which is temporary.

      Low ice coverage due to polar vortex/oceanic circulations

      • barry says:

        Antarctic sea ice is currently at record lows, Sal, and have been so for the last year.

        • Look at the temperatures in Antarctica of late. It suggest the low ice coverage there can not be due to temperature.

          It is oceanic currents and the Antarctic polar vortex.

        • barry says:

          I tend to agree – Antarctic sea ice appears to be driven more strongly by factors other than temperature.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”Antarctic sea ice is currently at record lows, Sal, and have been so for the last year”.

          Sea ice around Antarctica is highly dependent on ocean and wind currents. Ice floes tend to protect the ice shelves from high seas but every so often the ice moves off and exposes the shelves to the full force of the ocean.

          It’s the same in the Arctic actually. There are established ocean and wind currents that move the ice around regularly but unpredictably.

    • barry says:

      I’m looking at the Arctic North of 80 degrees, Salvatore. It was of some interest to skeptics a few months ago.

  88. There is no global warming due to CO2/GHG effect. So what the models are or not doing amounts to nothing but noise because all the pillars AGW is based on have not come to be.

    They are the lower tropospheric hot spot, a call for the evolution of a more +AO/NAO , and the call for a decrease in OLR.

    It can be shown that it is given solar activity tied into oceanic temperatures which govern the global temperatures. Not to mention the likelihood of an increasing albedo during very low solar periods of time due to an increase in clouds, snow cover and major volcanic activity.

    I have said year 2017 is the year things change, because it is the first year which my two qualifiers have come into play for solar to have a cooling effect upon the climate.

    Those being 10 + years of sub- solar activity in general followed by low average value solar parameters which I have listed many times as to what they are.

    The data and climatic history does not support AGW. I will send a graph which shows what correlates and will continue to correlate to global temperatures.

    If one is following overall global oceanic temperatures the trend over the last few months has been down and without the aid of favorable oceanic temperatures kiss AGW goodbye.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html

    This is how you evaluate given solar activity versus global temperatures.

    It is the ocean cooling effect tied into solar activity which gives you a given global temperature. CO2 has nothing to do with it.

    The GHG effect is a by product of the climate/environment.

    We will know much more starting now and going forward but I am confident this correlation will hold up going forward.

    • Dr No says:

      Salvatore,
      prepare to meet your moment of truth.
      The next few months will decide you and your theory’s fate, once and for all.
      No ifs and buts – agreed?

    • barry says:

      I have said year 2017 is the year things change

      3 months of data is premature.

      What you have said repeatedly is that summertime temps in 2018 will be at or below the 30-year baseline (UAH).

      Let’s see if you’re right. I think it’s just possible, even with ‘greenhouse’ warming, but unlikely.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      “I have said year 2017 is the year things change, because it is the first year which my two qualifiers have come into play for solar to have a cooling effect upon the climate.”

      “Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
      – Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257