UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2017: +0.41 deg. C

September 5th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2017 was +0.41 deg. C, up somewhat from the July, 2017 value of +0.29 deg. C (click for full size version):

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months.

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 20 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.55 +0.72 +0.38 +0.85
2016 02 +0.85 +1.18 +0.53 +1.00
2016 03 +0.76 +0.98 +0.54 +1.10
2016 04 +0.72 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.53 +0.61 +0.44 +0.70
2016 06 +0.33 +0.48 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.37 +0.44 +0.30 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.54 +0.32 +0.49
2016 09 +0.45 +0.51 +0.39 +0.37
2016 10 +0.42 +0.43 +0.42 +0.47
2016 11 +0.46 +0.43 +0.49 +0.38
2016 12 +0.26 +0.26 +0.27 +0.24
2017 01 +0.32 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.19 +0.07
2017 03 +0.22 +0.36 +0.09 +0.05
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.41 +0.46

The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through August 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.

NOTE: In June 2017 we added the Metop-B satellite to the processing stream, with data since mid-2013. The Metop-B satellite has its orbit actively maintained, so the AMSU data from it does not require corrections from orbit decay or diurnal drift. As a result of adding this satellite, most of the monthly anomalies since mid-2013 have changed, by typically a few hundredths of a degree C.

The UAH LT global anomaly image for August, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.

The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt


2,331 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2017: +0.41 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. argus says:

    Interesting consistency to the anomalies this month.

    And here comes Irma to finish the job

    Nice job Trump-bama-bush-ton

  2. Layman says:

    Yes cat. 5 Irma and this bounce in temperatures not looking good…

    • Mickey Prumt says:

      Cyclone activity is so quiet those last days :
      no major hurricane making landfall in the U.S. since few days.

    • Nate says:

      Interesting, even though it has already slammed the Caribbean as a Cat 5, if Irma goes slightly to the East and misses US, then it doesn’t ‘count’ as a valid data point, according to Roy.

  3. RW says:

    Thanks for the report.

  4. Des says:

    Hey Salvatore ….. Where ARE you ….. peek-a-boo

  5. Des says:

    A comparison of anomalies in the 15 months since the 15/16 El Nino, with anomalies in the same period after the 97/98 El Nino. Also with anomalies in the 15 months leading up to the 15/16 El Nino.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B99L08byUAxVZnl3eVpPV1RmTlE/view?usp=sharing

    • Bindidon says:

      Hello Des, do you remember our recent discussion on the July 2017 thread, which started about here:

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-259961

      A few ‘cm’ below, I wrote

      Im a knowledgeless layman, but my guess is that the August TLT anomalies will go a bit higher than 0.32 C, say 0.35 C, in correlation to JMAs July jump.

      I myself did not think I would keep below what Roy Spencer communicates.

      We are completely out of the 2015/16 El Nino (according to JMA: 10% Nino, 60% neutral, 30% Nina); so I guess that this OHC evacuation toward the troposphere now becomes a distinct, El Nino independent phenomenon.

      I’m sure the Warmistas will cry ‘Huuuuuuh! Glooobal Waaarming!’; and the Coolistas conversely will say: ‘The next La Nina is coming soon!’.

      In french this is called ‘dialogue de sourds’.

      • Des says:

        I said it was only an estimate, and that I was only interested in how close I get. It was not a competition.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bindidon…”Im sure the Warmistas will cry Huuuuuuh! Glooobal Waaarming!; and the Coolistas conversely will say: The next La Nina is coming soon!.”

        What you are claiming is that global warming with no apparent cause has suddenly arrived following an extreme El Nino. It was absent from 1998 – 2015 and suddenly it is here without explanation. If you think it is CO2 related then prove it, or are you going to claim what other alarmists claim, “what else could it be”?

        How do you explain the cooling from the peak of the 2016 El Nino of about 0.4C for August and about 0.65C earlier in 2017? And how do you explain the warming from the EN in the first place?

        Has it occurred to you there may be other interactions going on between ENSO, the PDO, the AMO, and so on? The PDO was only observed in 1977 and not identified till the 1990s. The planet warmed 0.2C mysteriously during that PDO event and that warming has never been explained. Neither has the sudden 0.2C warming of 2001.

        The only reasonable conclusion to reach at this time is that no one has a clue what is going on.

        • Des says:

          There certainly are other effects. Are you claiming that all these other effects have magically conspired to give us ONLY warming over the past 40 years?

        • Mike McNichol says:

          I am also a simple layman and get lost in some of the more complex arguments but I have a simple observation. 20,000 years ago, a mere blink of the eye in geologic time sea level was 400 feet lower than today and New York City was under a mile of ice. Can someone explain to me what caused sea levels to rise 400 feet and a mile thick glacier to disappear? I had no idea that Exxon was operating refineries and such that long ago. Why is no one trying to figure out what happened over this time frame and why are we worrying about a couple feet of sea level change every hundred years?

          My Irma forecast: It will change again.

          • Svante says:

            It was orbital forcing with feedback from ice albedo and CO2 out of warming oceans.

          • Svante says:

            We have more residential housing and other assets on the shoreline now.

          • Svante says:

            I’m a layman too, but more knowledgeable people like barry will correct me if I’m wrong.

          • Nate says:

            Mike,

            I know.

            Why should anybody be concerned with arthritis, or dementia or diabetes, when we used to worry about the plague?

            Why should we be concerned about low wages, or losing health insurance, when we used to be serfs, had no sanitation, and barely lived to 30?

          • barry says:

            That’s right, Svante.

          • gallopingcamel says:

            Nice one Mike.

            Mother Nature changed sea levels by over 400 feet in 20,000 years and we are having hissy fits over the tiny changes that are going on today.

            Only a twit like David Appell could fail to see the absurdity!

          • barry says:

            400 feet in 20,000 years.

            Converting to metric cos it’s easier…

            122 meters in 20,000 years.

            Av rate = 0.61 mm/yr

            Av rate of 20th century = 1.8 mm/yr

            3 times faster

            Rate during satellite period from 1993…

            3 mm/yr

            5 times faster

            Not worth raising an eyebrow?

          • Mike McNichol says:

            Nate, Your analogy of dread diseases implies that man can control climate and that had we been around 20,000 years ago we could have prevented this rise. We can cure many diseases now but have no clue about manipulating climate. My question remains, what forces caused this dramatic rise in sea level so abruptly? Until we can answer that question claims of anthropological warming are peeing in the wind.

          • Svante says:

            Mike, Milutin Milankovich worked it out in the twenties.
            Note CO2 curve in the Vostok diagram here: https://tinyurl.com/qhnzt5r

          • Nate says:

            Mike,

            I was picking on your ‘our problems today are nothing compared to what they used to be’ sort of argument.

            IMO severity of problems ought to be put in context of what are considered good living conditions for our time period.

            Neolithic people dealt with a very slowly changing climate, and had none of the massive infrastructure (Houston, Miami) or agriculture that we have to be concerned about today.

            You seem to be saying we dont understand past climate? Plenty of research has been done on the cause of Ice Ages and very much is known about its causes (orbital forcing, Google it).

          • Chris Schoneveld says:

            Barry,

            122 meter in 20000 years is 122000 mm in 20000 years or 6.1 mm not 0.61 mm!

          • barry says:

            You’re absolutely correct, Chris.

  6. Dr. Mark H. Shapiro says:

    Where did that very cool August Dr. Roy was talking about go? Repeat after me “Global Warming is a Chinese hoax, global warming is a Chinese hoax, global warming is a Chinese hoax.”

    • SkepticGoneWild says:

      Funny how one month brings out the fear mongering doomsayers.

      • Joel says:

        Funny how deniers focus on select data points.

        +0.13 degrees per decade, according to deniers favourite data set.

        • AZ1971 says:

          Funny how there is a presumed “normal” global temperature and that it’s also presumed to be “best”, circa 1850.

          Where’s the justification for such rubbish?

          • David Appell says:

            No one says there is a “normal” or ideal temperature. There’ only the climate we and all other species have adapted to. If the climate changes — and it’s now changing extremely fast, geologically speaking — some species go extinct. This has happened in the past and will happen in this warming episode.

          • lewis says:

            Evolve is the best answer.

          • barry says:

            Funny how there is a presumed normal global temperature and that its also presumed to be best, circa 1850.

            Where on Earth do you get this crazy idea?

            Wheres the justification for such rubbish?

            Indeed. Explain yourself!

          • Bart says:

            David Appell @ September 5, 2017 at 4:35 PM

            “…and its now changing extremely fast, geologically speaking…”

            It isn’t.

          • Joel says:

            +0.013 degrees per year
            +13 degrees per 1000 years

            Geologically speaking, that’s crazy fast.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”If the climate changes and its now changing extremely fast…”

            Prove it.

          • Joel says:

            The data set above, in conjunction with all other climate records, has the evidence you’re seeking.

            0.013 degrees per year
            0.13 degrees per decade
            1.3 degrees per century
            13 degrees per millennium

          • Des says:

            Ahhhh …. Joel ….. we are NOT headed for a 13 degree rise.

          • Joel says:

            If you want to judge how fast the temperature is rising on geological scales, you need to extrapolate the data. That is the best measurement for the current rate of warming that we have, and that was the answer people were seeking, so… it’s not wrong

            You’re right though, catastrophic changes to the biosphere because of the warming climate would certainly put an end to large-scale human contributions long before 1000 years were up, so there’s no reason to think we humans can sustain that sort of heating for that long and actually achieve a 13 degree average temperature rise. We’re probably buggered if it goes up by anything greater than 4 degrees.

          • Des says:

            No – I’m saying there is not enough fossil fuel left to get temperatures up to +13.

            +4 will certainly have a devastating effect. But not to the point that we would stop production IF we had fuel left.

            I hope you’re not one of those people who believe this has a chance of making us extinct.

          • Joel says:

            Burning fossil fuels is only one way that humans are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There’s more to it than just fossil fuels.

            I don’t think we’re facing 1000 years of warming. But the current rate suggests that if we did, it would be 13 degrees. How is the multiplication of a single year by 1000 controversial?

            What if i had instead said 500 years for 6.5 degrees warming? Would you be just as critical of the number?

          • coturnix says:

            i guess, in 500,000 years earth temperature will rival that of the sun. My god…

          • James Keil says:

            There may not be a “normal” global temperature – but I keep seeing the baseline time period to measure global temperature anomalies as 1951 – 1980. Seems to be one of the cooler periods of the 20th century.

          • Shoo says:

            Yesterday is was 74 degrees F, but today it is 76 degrees F. 365*2+76 = 806 degrees this time next year!

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            and its now changing extremely fast, geologically speaking
            “It isnt.”

            Can’t prove it. Sad.

    • argus says:

      It shows the value of us predicting the volatile at micro levels.

      Balanced comments are received by a wide audience. Those who rub it in eat talk to the few and eat their words. A bit of free advice.

    • Dr. Mark H. Shapiro says:

      Dr. Roy finally has collected enough data – 38 years worth – to say something meaningful about climate.

      I encourage everyone to carry out the following exercise and determine for yourself that global temperatures have been rising during that period: take all of Dr. Roy’s data and perform a linear least squares fit to it. The slope of that line will tell you what the trend is for global upper atmosphere temperatures.

      Report your results here.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Yep, the data shows that all warming has come from El Nino warming events, with ZERO signal of any CO2 warming.

        Thanks for pointing that out.

        • Joel says:

          “Because El Nino warming!” doesn’t identify the primary cause.

          If that’s how El Ninos work, why aren’t La Ninas providing a similar downward driver on long term global temperatures, and balancing it out?

        • Des says:

          AndyG55
          Actually, if you look at the last 20 years it is the other way around. The recent super El Nino was only slightly warmer than the super El Nino of 97/98. Yet the BULK of the record (ie. excluding El Ninos) shows a much larger increase.

      • barry says:

        El Ninos have been getting warmer have they?

        Why, so have la Ninas.

        I wonder why that is.

      • Paul Aubrin says:

        “take all of Dr. Roy’s data and perform a linear least squares fit to it.”
        The shape of the base data tells that the linear growth is not a good hypothesis. A linear growth with a 60-70 years oscillation would fit more accurately the available data.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        mark shapiro…”I encourage everyone to carry out the following exercise and determine for yourself that global temperatures have been rising during that period: take all of Dr. Roys data and perform a linear least squares fit to it. The slope of that line will tell you what the trend is for global upper atmosphere temperatures”.

        Please explain the following:

        1)how does a trend line go from a region of -ve anomalies to a region of +ve anomalies and qualify as an indicator of anthropogenic warming? NOAA claims -ve anomalies represent cooling and +ve anomalies are warming.

        2)how can such a trend line have a flat trend line imposed on it from 1998 – 2012 as claimed by the IPCC? They called it a warming hiatus.

        All that is claimed by UAH is that the trend of 0.13C/decade represents the data from 1979 – 2017, they have never claimed it represents anthropogenic warming of a significant degree. The words offered by UAH are ‘little or no warming’ over the range.

        3) why is the trend pre 1998 mainly below the baseline and that after 1998 SUDDENLY appears above the baseline following a major EN that raised global temps briefly to 0.75C?

        Put away your least squares and number crunching and figure out how to solve such problems. If you can’t, admit it.

        Any idiot can crunch irrelevant numbers and arrive at stupid conclusions.

  7. I thought it would be +.30 c still no progress to a new high range which AGW THEORY is predicting.

    The over all trend for year 2017 is down and Sep. will not be as warm as Aug.

    • Joel says:

      +0.13 degrees per decade.

      Nuff said.

      • I said year 2017 will be the transitional year due to my solar criteria finally being met.

        • Joel says:

          Transitional? Because it will only be the 4th hottest year on record, following on from the hottest year, according to this dataset? There are many years in the data set which were cooler than the preceding year, why weren’t they transitional years? Why is 2017 suddenly different? Hint: it’s not.

          The long term temperature trend is clear: +0.13 degrees per decade.
          The long term trend of your predictions is also clear: wrong.

          • Joel says:

            Time has told.

          • I have said several times that if solar reaches specific low avg. value parameters following 10+ years of sub solar activity in general the sun would have a global cooling effect.

            Year 2017 is the first time this is happening this is why this year is different.

          • Des says:

            INDEED Salvatore, you have told us COUNTLESS times.
            I don’t understand what you hope to achieve by promoting exactly the same message for at least 7 straight years, without ANY evidence to this point that you might be right.
            Why don’t you give everyone a break and come back to gloat IF/WHEN it happens.

        • David Appell says:

          Salvatore, what’s the trend since this past Thursday?

        • And if we eliminate the cherry-picking and use the entire series: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Elliott…”And if we eliminate the cherry-picking and use the entire series:…”

            Do you see that 0C graticule on the vertical axis of your graph? Please explain the meaning of a trend line crossing that baseline? What does the trend represent when it crosses the baseline?

            When you understand that a trend line representing the transition from a region of cooling to a region of warming means absolutely nothing, get back. That’s especially true after the IPCC declaration that the region from 1998 – 2012 was a flat trend.

            Johannes Herbes is correct, there is virtually no trend from 1998 – 2015 and the IPCC have corroborated the 15 year range from 1998 – 2012.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Do you see that 0C graticule on the vertical axis of your graph? Please explain the meaning of a trend line crossing that baseline? What does the trend represent when it crosses the baseline?”

            Absolutely nothing special. Baselines are arbitrary. All N-year baselines give the same trend for the same N, regardless of the baseline chosen.

            This is basic, high school mathematics.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “…and the IPCC have corroborated the 15 year range from 1998 2012.”

            Again, a willful lie, because you know that isn’t the latest data.

            Tsk Tsk. Rotten liar.

        • Bindidon says:

          And if we take that stoopid cherry-picking ‘right in the hand’ as coolist trolls do all the time, we get this:

          http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/trend

        • barry says:

          It’s a 0.06 incline, Johannes. Click on ‘data’ on the woodfortrees graph and look at the annual trend near the bottom of that page. Then multiply by 10 for decadal.

          Confidence interval for the period is +/-0.16. Too large to say much definite about the trend. As expected with short-term data.

      • SkepticGoneWild says:

        10,000 years of temperature data:

        http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/342/6158/617.full.pdf

        Nuff said.

        • gbaikie says:

          Still recovering from LIA

        • barry says:

          What does that even mean? Is the climate on some piece of elastic and now we’re bouncing back?

          • gbaikie says:

            — barry says:
            September 11, 2017 at 8:45 AM

            What does that even mean? Is the climate on some piece of elastic and now were bouncing back?–

            It means that most of the time of Holocene, it has been warmer than LIA.

            Or we had global warming for +10,000 years, and I would need some evidence, which could indicate a cause of cooling, otherwise the default position, seems quite obvious that we are recovering from LIA.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Joel…”+0.13 degrees per decade. Nuff said”.

        To a clueless alarmist maybe.

        You seem to agree that crunching numbers over a range is a relevant exercise without considering the contexts they represent. That’s one of the first things someone properly trained in statistics is taught, not to rely on averages garnered from straight number crunching.

        Explain what that trend means when half of it is in a region of cooling and the other half is in a region of warming with a flat trend over most of it’s range.

    • Des says:

      Here are the 2017 monthly UAH anomalies so far, including the trendline:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B99L08byUAxVMmlZcGRpZnpEZE0/view?usp=sharing

      Please explain how you see a downward trend in 2017 temperatures.

      And yes, the odds are September will be cooler. When the anomaly is averaging 0.32 for the year, and this month is high, the balance of probabilities suggests that the next month will be lower than this month. We are NOT talking about climate here, just random fluctuations about the (very high) mean.

      • Des says:

        Salvatore
        I guess you couldn’t find that downward trend in my graph.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DES…”Please explain how you see a downward trend in 2017 temperatures”.

        Please explain how you missed it. It’s plain as day if you follow the red running average curve from 2017, near the peak of the El Nino spike till August 2017.

        • Des says:

          Perhaps you missed that part about a downward trend IN 2017.
          That was Salvatore’s claim.
          In case you hadn’t realised, there has not been an El Nino during 2017. After the expected post El Nino drop, and allowing for random monthly variations, the anomalies have more or less stable. There has been NO downward trend OVER THE COURSE OF 2017.

  8. AaronS says:

    The good thing about having a conservative data set in the mix is that it provides a reliable base case. If this trend settles at something like 0.35 and this El Nino ends up being another temperature step up, then there are a few posible explanations. This rate of warming seems most consistent with direct CO2 without strong short term feedbacks. Given the lack of evidence for strong long term feedbacks… I think Earth will survive.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7668/full/nature23316.html

    • David Appell says:

      What is a “conservative data set?”

      • Des says:

        [snip] please don’t mischaracterize my beliefs.

      • AaronS says:

        A conservative method that in this case sticks to original method. Unlike dynamic data sets that change through time. Haha… but yea Roy seems conservative… but I keep his politics out of the story. I know many really good politically conservative scientists and engineers with high integrity and small ego.

        • Joel says:

          This data set has changed through time, it’s Version 6.0. As well as that clue, there’s this:

          “NOTE: In June 2017 we added the Metop-B satellite to the processing stream, with data since mid-2013. The Metop-B satellite has its orbit actively maintained, so the AMSU data from it does not require corrections from orbit decay or diurnal drift. As a result of adding this satellite, most of the monthly anomalies since mid-2013 have changed, by typically a few hundredths of a degree C.”

          According to your definition, it’s not a conservative data set.

        • barry says:

          Huh? This data set has changed as much as, and even more than some of the others.

          There’s nothing wrong with that. None of them are perfect. And they will all continue to be improved. The meta-quarterbacking on these changes is ridiculous, including the silly belief that UAH is different in that regard. Aaron is not the first to come up with this spectacularly specious view.

          Comparing 1998 to 2015 for the current and previous UAH data sets – versions 5.6 and 6.

          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/trend

          • Dave says:

            Barry,

            You have to remember that until UAH 6 came into being, deniers preferred RSS 3.x because it showed less warming that UAH 5.x. Now that both have been adjusted to correct acknowledged errors in the numerous adjustments required to even get continuous data from a series of decaying-orbit satellites and the failed instruments that they have carried over 35+ years (and renamed V 4.0 and 6.0 respectively) the differences seem to have largely traded places (with RSS 4.0 looking more like UAH 5.6 and vice versa). Very conservative indeed!

        • David Appell says:

          AaronS says:
          “A conservative method that in this case sticks to original method.”

          What is the “original method?”

          You seem unaware of the large adjustments UAH has made over the years…. Even recently.

          http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/some-big-adjustments-to-uahs-dataset.html

        • Bindidon says:

          AaronS on September 5, 2017 at 9:27 AM

          Unlike dynamic data sets that change through time.

          http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170906/v7nt4s2y.jpg

          Roy Spencer certainly had major reasons to move in 2015 from UAH5.6 to UAH6.0, as he had for the previous transtion in 2011.

          What exactly do you know about UAH, AaronS?

          • AaronS says:

            Of course you have to update for drift, integrate new data, etc. However they did not add climate models to the method (although this is admitedly minor), nor did they remove a hiatus by manipulation. I have not heard a single complaint about them adding warming, let alone have a whistle blower say:
            “So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karls thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation. I finally decided to document what I had found”. John Bates

            There is something meaningful to me at least. I am interested in long-term trends and have lower confidence in other sources of data for the reasons above. So if the conservative data also shows a warming trend, then it is most likely real and I accept it. By the way I didnt use R-S-S because it was oringinaly the lowest estimate.

            Ironic to say I accept man made global warming on a blog and have someone call me a denier. Given the lack of logic in that paradox I will suggest he means I am not a believer like he is. Im ok with that.

          • AaronS says:

            Bindidon and Dave. I appreciate the data Bindidion provided. I have never seen that. You can observe the change in the arctic and impact on global. Thanks for sharing once I QC myself I will no longer claim UAH is static. I did not realize the UAH had changed that much downward- but i do add downward is still conservative for a Earth Temperature data set used to evaluate global warming. Do you have an equal comparison between HAD C-R-U-T 3 and 4 and G-I-S-S? Would be interesting to compare.

          • barry says:

            Bates also said:

            that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”

            “Its really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “Its not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”

            And,

            “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was”…

          • AaronS says:

            Ive read that source about Bates second comment before. Do you have the reference I can see? Also, I cant imagine why he would possibly change his stance.

          • barry says:

            Aaron: re links.

            It is good practice to provide links. However, the website here ate the various versions of the post, until I had cut both links and some more text for context.

            I recommend copy and pasting the text as quoted. You will find the links before long.

            That’s what I had to do to discover the provenance of your quotes. You should try to provide links, too.

            Sources are AP and Science Insider, interviews with Bates. My guess is that he became less florid when he has to answer questions rather than pen a blog post. His criticisms (data archiving standards) seemed overblown, and looked more like an in-house fight over protocol than a stunning revelation. But google about a bit more broadly and see what you think.

          • barry says:

            The House Committee investigation into “data manipulation” at NOAA appears to have stalled. They had nothing to begin with, and their star witness contradicted himself.

            Hasn’t been any updates since the first quarter of the year. I suspect it will fizzle out if it hasn’t already. Waste of money, anyway.

          • Bindidon says:

            AaronS on September 5, 2017 at 6:37 PM

            Do you have an equal comparison between HAD C-R-U-T 3 and 4 and G-I-S-S? Would be interesting to compare.

            Yes, I have a comparison of subsequent GISS revisions in an Excel file, but… where did it land? Even Google Desktop Search couldn’t help.

            At least I can show you work made by Nick Stokes (a comparison of the differences between UAH5.6 and UAH6.0 on the one hand, and of the differences between GISS revisions on the other hand):

            https://moyhu.blogspot.de/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html

            Nick’s excellent post was the origin of the Excel chart shown in my previous comment above.

            What now concerns the transition from Had-CRUT3 to Had-CRUT4, I could of course retrieve all that from their site, but…

            Let us bring it to the point: there was a (really mad) polemic concerning this transition, which in fact was due to moving from CRUTEM3 to CRUTEM4 (the land data).

            This move was centered about integrating a considerable amount of weather stations, mainly located in Northern Russia, what led to a corresponding uptick of CRUTEM’s average.

            Arctic actually experiences the highest warming (that it did in the 1880’s and in the 1940’s already, what was shown by CRU as well). But as you can imagine, only the recent Arctic warming disturbed “some people”.

          • barry says:

            woodfortrees still has Had3 data, which stopped being updated early 2014. So we can make comparison with Had4 till then.

            From 1950-2014:

            http://tinyurl.com/ybxemvej

            Had4 has a lower trend for that period, because the earlier temps are a bit higher than Had3. Here are the trend rates for the period:

            Had3 0.12
            Had4 0.11

            Let’s compare over the satellite period – 1979-2014

            http://tinyurl.com/y82qwh4m

            Now Had4 has a higher trend. Here are the trend rates

            Had3 0.14
            Had4 0.16

            Let’s put UAH and Had-CRU together in the same plot

            http://tinyurl.com/y92n3e8k

            And compare the change in trend from one version to another

            HAD 0.14 –> 0.16
            UAH 0.14 –> 0.11

            Change was in the opposite direction, with UAH having a slightly bigger difference.

          • AaronS says:

            Barry,
            I appreciate that data. I didnt realize the UA.H revision was that big compared to H.A.D-C.R.U.T. What is most interesting is the Delta between adjustments in U.A.H. 5 and 6 and H.ad C.r.u.t 3 and 4 sum to over 0.2 degrees C difference from 2000 to 2015. WOW. The man made climate change by data manipulation exceeds the natural trend.

          • barry says:

            Skepticalscience posted some details on the differences just after they were implemented.

            http://tinyurl.com/ycnhfb6r

            (I don’t normally like to link to SkS, but this was a technical post, with quite a few useful links to source)

          • barry says:

            The man made climate change by data manipulation exceeds the natural trend.

            How did you determine, “the natural trend?”

            The biggest reason for the change from Had3 to Had4 was greater coverage, particularly in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions, where warming has been pronounced (even in the satellite records). When other data sets were masked to match Had3 coverage, they produced more similar trends. When Had4 got more coverage, similar but not as much as other surface data sets, Had4 trend became more similar.

            Basically, inclusion of more Arctic coverage made Had4 warmer at the end of the record. This is not surprising, as all data sets show the fastest latitudinal warming is in the Arctic. Even the satellite data (and even after UAHv6 lowered Arctic trends by a lot – it is still the fastest warming region on Earth in the UAHv6 record).

            Warming rate for Arctic land temps for the whole UAHv6 record is 0.22 C/decade. No other region has warmed as fast as even 0.2 C/decade.

            For comparison, UAHv5.6 Arctic land has warming at 0.42 C/decade. The latest revision reduced the trend for that region by 48%.

  9. Now that the EL NINO environment is ending let us see how much warmth will be present as we move forward. Answer nada.

    In the meantime the recent burst of solar activity (a surprise solar flux 120) lends credence to the idea that this cycle is going to be not only weak but long.

    Global ocean temperatures last check were +.291 c.

    My solar climate play is very low solar will result in overall lower ocean temperatures and an increase in albedo .

    Thus far this year the global temperatures have been trending down and I expect this trend to continue with global temperatures at 30 year means within a year.

    AGW will be in more trouble to justify this development if it occurs which is looking more likely.

    • Des says:

      “Global ocean temperatures last check were +.291 c.”

      That statement is utterly meaningless unless you state the BASELINE.

    • David Appell says:

      “I think this blip ends before NOV. is through and if solar conditions continue to be sub par cooling in a more pronounced way will start in year 2014.”

      – Salvatore del Prete, 11/15/2013
      http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/4#comment-1047

      • Dave says:

        The return to cooling always seems to be just about to happen with Salvatore.

        • David Appell says:

          Yes, it does. Though he once said cooling started in 2002:

          “Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as 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

        • Laura says:

          It is critical to acknowledge that if Salvatore were an alarmist and he were to claim that the oceans would raise 200 meters by last Tuesday, you lot would not criticize him and, as shown in cases of other alarmists’ bizarre claims, you lot would even go as far as to protect him.

          So your comments regarding Salvatore’s opinions have an exact value of zilch.

          Please prove otherwise by providing links to your exchanges with alarmists (e.g., Prince Charles), exchanges where you bring them to task for disasters that “always seem to be just about to happen” (e.g., disappearing islands) and yet never taking place.

          • Bindidon says:

            Typical Laura-like polemic, based on pure guessing. I’m waiting for your very first comment able to enrich the debate.

          • Laura says:

            You are that sexist fellow from the other thread, aren’t you? What an awesome addition to the inhumanity of alarmists.

            As before, please provide evidence that your motivations are not tribal and that your “facts” are indeed worth considering at all.

            In the meantime, the “enrichment” of the “debate” for the likes of you remains one in which alarmists make one ludicrous claim after another without any consequence.

          • lewis says:

            Laura,
            Be nice. Many here have a bad case of dish it out but can’t take it.

          • barry says:

            Dishing out changes in topic to make fatuous, speculative criticisms isn’t too threatening.

          • Joel says:

            Hi Laura.

            It is critical to acknowledge that you have zero evidence of my responses to bizarre claims that overstate the effects of climate change.

            The key is timescales. Current warming trends indicate that we’re increasing the average global temperature by ~1 degree per century, so the catastrophic effects of 4 degrees of warming won’t be experience for another few hundred years, yet. In personal/economic/political terms, that’s beyond any long range planning envelope. In geological terms, that’s the blink of an eye.

            It’s easy to see how a scientist’s description of imminent catastrophic effects (on a scale of millions of years) being misunderstood by less scientifically literate people as meaning imminent on a personal timescale, rather than geological timescale.

            This leads to two results:
            1. Some people will accept the scientist’s analysis, but misunderstand the timescale and repeat the misunderstanding as fact. These people definitely exist, and I would hope to educate them on how their mistaken understanding and/or fast and loose use of scientific terms feeds the mess of disinformation that is rampant on this topic.

            2. Some people will hear the scientist’s analysis and scoff at it due to the misunderstanding, and/or will hear the mistaken layerperson’s understanding and assume that represents the scientific consensus, and therefore dismiss the scientific facts that they mis-communicated.

            The nature of the carbon cycle suggests that industrial processes and deforestation today will contribute to warming for decades, if not centuries. That is why it is imperative to act soon, even though the worst consequences are still centuries away.

          • alphagruis says:

            That is why it is imperative to act soon, even though the worst consequences are still centuries away.

            This might even be true. The trouble is that it is simply not possible to curb drastically and rapidly the CO2 emission, as required according to the (questionable) numerical models, and still power a civilization of as much as 7+ billion people. At the very least, not right now. Technologies are just either not mature or still don’t even exist. There is no serious alternative to power agriculture or maritime transport, for instance, except ridiculous wishful thinking.

          • Joel says:

            “The trouble is that it is simply not possible to curb drastically and rapidly the CO2 emission, as required according to the (questionable) numerical models, and still power a civilization of as much as 7+ billion people. At the very least, not right now. Technologies are just either not mature or still dont even exist.”

            Technically false. All required technology exists. The only non-existent technology that is frequently mentioned is carbon capture and storage, and it’s not required.

            Commercially false. The costs of implementing solutions are less than the projected costs of continuing as we are.

            It would have been nice to have started transitioning away from the dirtiest fossil fuels 20 or 30 years ago, but that’s no reason to not start now.

            The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The next best option is now.

          • Des says:

            Laura
            I MOST DEFINITELY would criticise him. On YouTube I attack people at both ends of the spectrum – proponents of massive cooling at one extreme, and idiots who propose human extinction in the next decade at the other. Both are deniers of real science.

          • alphagruis says:

            As I told you, just ridiculous wishful thinking and/or plain lies.

            And by the way note that you are merely a “denier” of the reality and fundamental laws of physics. Funny.

            Once more, let me recall a stubborn fact:

            There is by now no serious way to power agriculture with renewable energies and feed 7+ billion people

            None.

            And no agriculture => no food => much less people and for the survivors no democracy, slavery, etc etc.

            Well in summary; just like 5 centuries ago when hardly 10 times less humans were already on 100 % renewable wind, solar and water.

            Some food for thought

          • Joel says:

            alphagruis:

            Yes, the transitional effort to transform the agricultural and transport sectors will take longer than the stationary energy sector. No doubt.

            However, you seem to be assuming we need to get to zero emissions, total. We don’t. The carbon cycle through the atmosphere means we just need to balance the equation. Where we can substitute non-emitting techs and processes, we should, so that industries that have no real alternative (e.g.steel production) can continue to support modern society.

            Yes, transport and agriculture will take longer to reduce their global emissions intensity than the energy sector, and that’s fine – IF we transition the energy sector quickly. If not, then too much warming will be locked in for the next couple of hundred years.

            You want a simple way to drastically reduce agricultural emissions, really quickly? Put an emissions tax on livestock, proceeds to be used to help producers shift their business model to lower emission intense products. Beef becomes an extra expensive delicacy, pork somewhat more expensive, and chicken a little more expensive. Voila, change in consumption patterns and a massive reduction in agricultural emissions.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Laura…”As before, please provide evidence that your motivations are not tribal and that your facts are indeed worth considering at all”.

            What facts, Laura? Bindidon does not deal in fact he deals in alarmist propaganda. As far as being sexist is concerned, alarmists feel that anything goes when dealing in alarmist propaganda.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/08/steyn-on-the-anti-science-labeling-of-dr-judith-curry-by-dr-michael-mann/

          • Des says:

            …. as he provides us with Denier propaganda ….

          • Nate says:

            Laura,

            Why are you mad at tribalists on only one side of the argument? Ive seen much on the other side. Many many commenters have a view that any science that suggests a need for more regulation MUST be wrong!

          • Svante says:

            Let me take this opportunity to chastise fellow alarmist Dr No for his brutal fear mongering, he was really out of line here: https://tinyurl.com/ybekkfm9

          • Bindidon says:

            Laura on September 5, 2017 at 5:26 PM

            You are that sexist fellow from the other thread, arent you? What an awesome addition to the inhumanity of alarmists.

            Wow. You name me a ‘sexist fellow’ just because I claim about you writing all the time comments without even a shadow of what we could view as science?

            Your contributions up to now in various threads rather remind me the same kind of journalism as that produced by alarmist reporters, but at the opposite site.

          • Laura says:

            Summing up, the alarmists claim to have science on their side yet fail to provide any evidence that their “science” has any value other than as a weapon against normal human beings.

            As they cannot provide the requested evidence, simple as it is, they divert and attack, in order to pursue the only goal they truly care about, namely, the tribe.

            The “science” they claim to have on their side be damned. The “facts” they claim to be sound be damned. If you are an alarmist, they will let you say anything you want, they will go as far as to protect you no matter how ludicrous your claims, even if it means that this “science” and these “facts” will be ignored, dismissed, trampled on.

            Prove me wrong. Show everyone the exchanges that I have been asking for. What could be simpler? You have had over TWO decades of opportunities to challenge the alarmist doomsayers. Some of their claims over the years have been so outlandish that it is beyond comprehension that any rational person could possibly go along. So bring it on. I want to see the evidence. Prove that your “facts” have real value as science and not as tribal weapons, which is what they are here, in this blog, and elsewhere.

          • barry says:

            Are you looking for posts where so-called ‘alarmists’ disagree with each other?

            If you consider me an ‘alarmist’, I can provide plenty of examples where I disagree and argue with David Appell. I certainly don’t ‘protect’ views I think are wrong from people who may be in the same ‘tribe’ as me.

            Just let me know if that’s sufficient and I’ll search for the relevant posts.

            For now, here’s a post where I disagree with a paper cited by so-called ‘alarmists’ that recent trends are much higher than historical.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261476

            BTW, I’ve asked the same question as you about skeptics. Though rare, there have been a few times when ‘skeptics’ have disagreed. Notably, Bart and Kristian have argued against members of their ‘tribe’ on a few points. For the rest, not so much.

          • barry says:

            Laura, how would you categorize me if you read this comment:

            There are alarmists and there are pollyannas, who are just as certain that all will be well. Neither view is reasonable. We know from physics that the surface of the planet will warm with increased CO2. We dont know how much or how fast, despite what the pollyannas and alarmists push.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/reprieve-binding-paris-treaty-now-voluntary-mush/#comment-204085

          • Nate says:

            Laura, your faux outrage at ‘alarmists’ is as you call them, is misdirected. Why are you not outraged with those who regularly deny science, who want to end funding research to find the facts, who promote false doubt about the science, all because of a political or corporate agenda?

          • gbaikie says:

            –alphagruis says:
            September 5, 2017 at 9:07 PM

            That is why it is imperative to act soon, even though the worst consequences are still centuries away.

            This might even be true. The trouble is that it is simply not possible to curb drastically and rapidly the CO2 emission, as required according to the (questionable) numerical models, and still power a civilization of as much as 7+ billion people. At the very least, not right now. Technologies are just either not mature or still dont even exist. There is no serious alternative to power agriculture or maritime transport, for instance, except ridiculous wishful thinking.”

            The bright side is we will need electric powered machinery for use on the Moon and Mars.
            On the moon, solar power is quite viable.
            Anywhere on the Moon is far better than Earth, but polar regions have site locations in which more than 80% of the time one can get 1360 watts per square meter of sunlight.
            Whereas on Earth, at best it’s about 25% of the time one can get peak solar hours.
            Mars also isn’t limited to peak hours, so in average 24 hours day one gets 50% of the time at “peak hours”- or 12 hours at 600 watts compared to say 900 watts for 6 hours on average day. In terms of Kw hour per day, Mars with it’s weaker sunlight get on average 7.2 Kw hours of solar flux, and in the better places on Earth per day average one get about 5.4 Kw hours. Whereas worst place like Germany get about 2 Kw hours on average.
            Or there is no question that Moon is far superior as compared to Earth or Mars, but Mars is better location than compared to the Earth surface.
            Mars like Earth has continuous sunlight during summer periods in polar region and during these month of constant solar power it’s 600 watts, whereas with Earth the polar region tend to cloudy one get less solar energy than Germany.
            So anyhow Mars poles get the same amount of sunlight as elsewhere on Mars in terms of yearly average, but starting with Spring Equinox and ending Fall Equinox in this period time one higher average daily amount of solar energy than anywhere else on Mars [and anywhere on Earth]. But of course in winter you have long period of night.

          • alphagruis says:

            Joel

            However, you seem to be assuming we need to get to zero emissions, total.

            No, I’m not. Yet, according to the “consensus”, a drastic reduction is indispensable if one expects to have a sizable effect on climate.

            My point was basically that it is by no means obvious, as usually seems to be believed by the proponents of a (“climate sufficient”) carbon neutral economy that such a thing is indeed ever possible at present population level. One may of course hope so but that’s all and nature doesn’t care.

            Even what you call the energy sector is IMO likely to get into trouble if the transition is forced march.

            As for agriculture you suggest a solution in the form of taxes and constraints. Yet it’s by no means that simple and agriculture in particular here in France is a complex system. It is absurd to tell farmers they should no longer raise grass-fed cattle in all those mountainous regions where this the tradition for very very very good ecological and economic reasons. These farmers cannot and won’t grow wheat or soya beans instead in order to feed vegans.

          • alphagruis says:

            gbaikie

            IMO, electric powered machinery is excellent as long as it can be fed with a grid.
            If batteries are to be relied on it’s highly questionable. Too less power per unit weight (0.25 kWh/ kg).

            So IMO it’s essentially carbon for ever in transport and agriculture. Be it fossil or synthetic.
            Jet or diesel fuel ( 10kWh/liter) 40 times more than batteries.

          • gbaikie says:

            ” alphagruis says:
            September 7, 2017 at 6:47 AM

            gbaikie

            IMO, electric powered machinery is excellent as long as it can be fed with a grid.”

            Well at lunar pole, it would very easy to have a solar power grid.
            In terms at the beginning of lunar development, one could have a 2 or 3 site [which quite near to each other] which provide a constant electrical power supply.
            Later one could solar network which encircles the polar region- so power storage needed for 100% of electrical power from solar energy.
            This is why the Moon would be very viable in terms of solar energy.
            Or it’s step one, for eventually powering Earth with solar energy- from solar satellites [which also can get 100% of the time providing electrical power. And it’s better than that because one deliver electrical power where ever someone wants it on Earth surface- war zone, disaster zone, or middle of the pacific ocean. Or solar power from space can balance a grid, rather than imbalance a grid.

            Mars is similar to Moon- not nearly as good, far better than using Earth surface as site to harvest solar energy.

            It should be remembered that Solar panels were made for use in space- where they current being used as cheapest way of getting power in space.
            Or modern Lingo the hippies appropriated “advanced alien technology” not designed for Earth surface use.

            Or moon is good, because it has small polar region, and to start development has high mountains- or some mountains called “peaks of eternal light”.
            Or some people say, God gave us the Moon, so humans could go to the heavens”.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Or solar power from space can balance a grid, rather than imbalance a grid.”

            Just that ability to balance Earth’s electrical grid- assuming on continued to use conventional power plants, is worth hundreds of billions of dollar.
            Or it’s the inverse of current solar power use, which already has and will continue to cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

            But solar power from space if say it captured half earth’s electrical market is worth trillions of dollars per year AND makes electrical power “too cheap to meter” except the cost to meter will also lower in cost. So maybe 1/5th current prices of eletrical power and have unlimited source of electrical energy- with zero pollution.

          • gbaikie says:

            “electrical power and have unlimited source of electrical energy- with zero pollution.”

            Also it ends global poverty, and essentially one is balancing
            economical inequity.
            Or basically solves every friggin thing lefties have whined about [but a more profound way of solving it]- and basically the global Market can finance- or requires no huge governmental funds [not something that the Lefties like- because people control it, not the power crazed Lefties with centralize power [who constant task is trying to make everyone miserable].

          • Nate says:

            Laura,

            ‘alarmists make one ludicrous claim after another’

            alarmists ‘use facts to bludgeon’ their opponents

            alarmists ‘are tribal’ beasts of some kind

            We really are a bunch of slimy pigs! Because we disagree with Laura!

            People who agree with Laura are of high moral standing!

            You appear to not just want to argue with our facts and our opinions, but more so- you want to malign our character and our motivations, which you assume you know! (remember when you assume…)

            Whereas I assume that most on my side AND your side are just regular people who care about this issue, and believe we have facts to support our views. (though some are nuts!)

            I TRY to look at comments on their own merits. Are they supported by facts, logic?

            ‘provide evidence that your motivations are not tribal and that your facts are indeed worth considering at all.’

            No thanks. Don’t see the point. I dont pay ransom to terrorists.

          • Laura says:

            Again alarmists claim to stand for science.

            Again alarmists fail to demonstrate that such a claim is credible.

          • Nate says:

            My question is why do you require an ethics test for only those who disagree with you?

          • Nate says:

            Suggests you are tribal indeed.

          • Laura says:

            Recent arrival to the alarmist tribe, climate ghoul Jennifer Lawrence proclaims the “scientific truth”…

            …as alarmists do, that is, with no respect for science whatsoever and with the overt and covert support of the alarmist tribe.

          • Nate says:

            yes, celebrities not credible as scientists. Also easy to attack.

            But again no bad characters in your tribe?

          • Nate says:

            Laura,

            In fact, there is some evidence that your side is more tribal. To become a member in good standing of your tribe, one has to deny the science of climate change. The 17 or so repub candidates for President understood this well. Regardless of their previous positions on the issue, they were compelled to deny or diminish climate science, or to say the now famous, ‘I dont know, Im not a scientist’.

            How would they decide policy on any science-related issue is left unclear.

          • Svante says:

            One sensible voice:
            Lets be clear. I wasnt happy with the original agreement, especially in light of the Obama administrations failure to work with Republicans in Congress on terms acceptable to both parties, Kasich wrote. But, I know that climate change is real. It is a global issue and will need a global agreement to address. And we could have negotiated that agreement in ways that would not needlessly destroy jobs.

            http://wdtn.com/2017/06/01/kaisch-speaks-out-about-decision-to-leave-paris-climate-accord/

          • Svante says:

            Apologies David Appell, internet ate my quotes again.

      • Bart says:

        Salvatore is on track, if you take into account the transient El Nino. Basing your entire outlook on a decoupled temporary phenomenon is like playing with fire – sooner or later, you are going to get burned.

  10. Weatherbell avg for AUG was +.335c so far for SEP. +.227c

    Reason why it is lower is because Wx. Bell takes into account the higher latitudes more above 80 N latitude.

    I take the average of the two.

  11. Joel says:

    How long does the trend of +0.13 degrees/decade need to be maintained before it convinces the final deniers?

    • If global temperatures are still as high or higher then they are a year from now and solar is in the tank I will have to admit to being wrong.

      On the other hand if global temperatures trend down what will that say for AGW theory?

      • Des says:

        You said “a year from now” last month.
        I am not going to permit you to keep saying that each month.
        Your clock is at 11 months and counting.

        • David Appell says:

          Salvatore Del Prete says:
          August 3, 2017 at 10:11 AM
          “If however Dr. Spencers data and Weatherbells data still show temperatures this high a year from now I will have to say I am wrong.”

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-257573

          • Svante says:

            No Salvatore, you can be right even if temperatures go up.
            There are about two dozen factors that decide global temperature.
            Most of them have short term impact, but can overwhelm long term changes.
            How strong is your solar variation in w/m^2, and how long will it last?
            CO2 adds very little every year, but lasts for thousands of years. It will come back with a vengeance if your solar influence quits after a hundred years.
            Try a 250 Gton CO2 spike here: https://tinyurl.com/yb65bxkq.

          • Bart says:

            Indeed, he can.

            The long term warming trend of about 0.6 degC/century has been with us since at least 1900, well before CO2 emissions took off with a sharp inflection circa 1950. It will likely be sustained until it isn’t.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            Again you prefer the ‘things just happen’ meme. No reasons needed.

          • Bart says:

            Things do “just happen” without any influence from humans at all. Just because you can hypothesis a cause and effect relationship does not mean such a relationship truly exists.

          • barry says:

            Cause and effect doesn’t exist outside human contribution? That’s a view mistakenly attributed to ‘warmists’.

          • Nate says:

            Prior to Franklin, lightning destroyed houses. It was an ‘act of god’. Understanding it was useful.

            We have physics based causes, some natural and some not, that predicted the global warming and its spatial pattern, that indeed occurred, and is continuing. That is useful.

            As an alternative theory, you offer ‘stuff just happens’. That is not very enlightening or useful.

          • Bart says:

            We have physics based causes, some natural and some not, that predicted the global warming and its spatial pattern, that indeed occurred, and is continuing.”

            Actually, their spatial projections are worse than their bulk temperature projections.

            Everything that happens has a cause and effect. But, just because we see an effect does not mean the cause is the only thing our imaginations allow us to see.

            CO2 as the cause of the warming of the last century is debunked by the simple fact that the warming trend started well before CO2 could have been the driver. Cause must precede effect in this universe.

          • Nate says:

            On the one side we have detailed predictions that are falsifiable, correctable. Your ‘stuff just happens’ is not falsifiable or even testable. That takes it into the realm of belief, not science.

            ‘Warming before co2’ is a strawman. No one is arguing that all temp variation explained by co2.

          • Bart says:

            “On the one side we have detailed predictions that are falsifiable…”

            …and have been duly falsified.

            “Your stuff just happens is not falsifiable or even testable.”

            Nonsense. It’s just not in a high state of development, because all the investigative energy is being wasted pursuing the chimera of CO2 induced warming.

            But, the idea is based on the ubiquity of cyclic behavior observed in systems which store and release energy on timescales proportional to their physical scale. Such systems are typically described by partial differential equations with boundary conditions. It is well established science.

          • Nate says:

            ‘based on the ubiquity of cyclic behavior observed in systems which store and release energy on timescales proportional to their physical scale.’

            Hand-waving that does not explain observed long-term trends.

            ‘Such systems are typically described by partial differential equations with boundary conditions. It is well established science.’

            Indeed calculus and arithmetic can be applied to these problems, as well as all other physical phenomena. Whats your point?

        • Bindidon says:

          Des

          Great!

    • SkepticGoneWild says:

      I’d rather be skeptical than a dumbass brainless lemming.

      • Des says:

        I see you’ve chosen to be both.

      • Joel says:

        Sceptics value facts.

        +0.13 degrees of warming per decade is a fact.

        You may be doing scepticism wrong if you’re not incorporating facts into your world view.

        • Bart says:

          Brought to you by El Nino. Not a sound basis for long term extrapolation.

          • Des says:

            Trend in a number of percentiles:

            98th percentile: +0.15 degrees per decade
            95th percentile: +0.14 degrees per decade
            90th percentile: +0.11 degrees per decade
            80th percentile: +0.11 degrees per decade
            70th percentile: +0.12 degrees per decade
            60th percentile: +0.12 degrees per decade
            50th percentile: +0.12 degrees per decade
            40th percentile: +0.13 degrees per decade
            30th percentile: +0.14 degrees per decade
            20th percentile: +0.13 degrees per decade
            10th percentile: +0.13 degrees per decade
            5th percentile: +0.12 degrees per decade
            2nd percentile: +0.13 degrees per decade

            The lower percentiles are not affected by El Ninos. The trend is there pretty consistently across the ENTIRE distribution.

          • Bart says:

            I do not know what your numbers refer to, nor what point you are trying to make.

    • The temperature rise declines. The last twenty years: 0.035 C per decade.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/last:240/plot/uah6/last:240/trend

      • David Appell says:

        That site is [as it often does] using old data (UAH beta v6.0, not UAH v6.0). With the latest data the 20-yr trend is +0.06 C/decade.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/last:240/plot/rss/last:240/plot/none

        RSS LT v4.0’s 20-yr trend is double that, +0.12 C/decade.

        But both have significant uncertainties; the interval is too short to indicate long-term climate trends.

        It doesn’t say what version of RSS LT they’re using.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/last:240/plot/rss/last:240/plot/none

        • Dave says:

          David,

          “It doesnt say what version of RSS LT theyre using”

          If you click the data link it shows it to be:

          #—————————————————-
          #Data from Remote Sensing Systems
          #http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
          #—————————————————-
          #
          #File: RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

          In other words, that is the deprecated version 3.3, which RSS warn is outdated and erroneous (like UAH 5.6).

          Basically, woodfortrees is too out of date to be useful at present

        • Bart says:

          “With the latest data the 20-yr trend is +0.06 C/decade.”

          That is consistent with the 0.6 degC/century rate of rise since at least 1900, long before increasing CO2 could have initiated it.

          https://tinyurl.com/y7hfgmhh

          • MikeR says:

            Bart,

            At least use the same data set!

            For Had4 the trend from 2000 until present is 1.6 degrees per decade see https://tinyurl.com/y7f3cojv.

          • Bryan says:

            I notice that the warmers use phrases such as ‘one degree’ without specifying temperature scale such as degree Celsius or Fahrenheit.

            This is truly the mark of an ignorant troll without any scientific training.

          • Des says:

            Bryan,

            Only Yanks use Fahrenheit. For the vast majority of the world there is no confusion. Why would we even consider the possibility that a scientist would confuse Celsius with an anachronistic temperature scale?

            Unless ….. you’re not a scientist ……

          • barry says:

            We all know he means degrees C. The data he is citing is in that form, as is the chart.

            Don’t mistake your ignorance for others’ malfeasance.

          • Bryan says:

            Des

            How are we to know that you Joel and Dave A are not ‘Yanks’ (or not) as you put it.

            Writing values without units is the mark of an ignorant troll.
            Alongside other slapdash giveaway signs in your posts I suppose its all we can expect

          • Des says:

            Bryan

            Given that a troll is someone who makes deliberately provocative comments, I’m sure you will understand how I am having difficulty equating the omission of the STANDARD scientific unit with being a troll.

            I guess that means we can ignore a speed limit sign that just says “40”. After all, it is just trolling us.

          • Bryan says:

            Des

            Your speed limit example is pretty poor
            Each country has one form of speed limit so unless you are unsure of which country you are in, you would not have a problem.

            This site is frequented by several nationalities including ‘yanks’

            So both temperature scales are in use.

            The following passage could have been written by a warmist

            ‘A very tall man measuring 3 went for a walk at 2 .
            His temperature rose by 0.5 but his weight stayed the same at 9.’

            Do you not see that putting in scales as well as values is a silly warmist habit.
            If you want to be taken more seriously in future use the correct units.

          • MikeR says:

            I must humbly apologise for totally confusing Bryan by inadvertently missing the letter “C”.

            I would have thought that it would have been obvious to anyone (with the minimum requirement of 0.5 of a brain) that it had to be Celsius as it was just a reply to Bart’s comment preceding my comment.

            However i was also mistaken in my trend figure, as it should have been rounded up to 1.7 C per century for the period 2000 onwards rather than the value I quoted as 1.6 C per century.

            This figure can be found by clicking on “raw data” at the bottom of my above link to the “Wood for the Trees” web site. I can assure Bryan that, despite the data from this web site is missing a temperature unit, that the unit for all the data on that web site is in Celsius not Fahrenheit.

          • Bryan says:

            MikeR

            If I handed in a lab report without without the correct units it would be given an embarrassing fail.

            But in the slapdash world of a warmest it doesn’t matter .

            A hint for you…..

            Use Fahrenheit units instead of Celsius but omit the unit as usual.
            Much more alarming

          • barry says:

            Bryan, we’ve all been here for quite some time, and all knew what unit was meant. You can take it as read that all temperature units are in degrees C unless otherwise stated. Don’t mistake your ignorance for someone else’s problem.

          • Bart says:

            MikeR @ September 6, 2017 at 12:25 AM

            “For Had4 the trend from 2000 until present is 1.6 degrees per decade…”

            Those are degrees C for sure – C is for cherry, as in picked.

          • MikeR says:

            It is not surprising that Bart’s instant Pavlovian response to the mention of the letter “C” is to associate it with cherry picking. He has proved his credentials in this matter on many occasions and his initial comment that I responded to, is yet another magnificent example of his expertise.

            His link to data for the years 1900 to 2000 only ( I will specify A. D. just in case Bryan is reading this post) and his use of an entirely different data set i.e. Had4, when what was being discussed was UAH data, demonstrates that when it comes to cherry picking, Bart has no peer.

            Bart however needs to be reminded that his over consumption of cherries can have dire consequences for his digestive system and all those who may come in direct contact with him.

            I think I am safe at this distance.

          • Nate says:

            long term trend not a good fit to linear. Clearly it is more consistent with an increasing trend over last century +. Consistent with log (co2)

            http://tinyurl.com/y9p5ez8x

    • Bart says:

      Forever, if the conditions of that rise are not commensurate with the AGW hypothesis. They are not. A warming world does not establish that carbon dioxide is warming the world.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Joel…”How long does the trend of +0.13 degrees/decade need to be maintained before it convinces the final deniers?”

      Why not take a course in statistics, Joel, then get back to us? Anyone who can’t see that trend crosses from a region of cooling to a region of warming, then claims the trend represents anthropogenic warming, needs a course in statistics.

      I have never seen UAH claim that trend represents anthropogenic warming, all they have claimed is it represents the data over the range. The trick, Joel. is to LOOK AT THE GRAPH!!

      Do you understand what the data is telling you? When you take the course, scrape the egg off your face and come back.

      • John Finn says:

        ” Anyone who can’t see that trend crosses from a region of cooling to a region of warming, then claims the trend represents anthropogenic warming, needs a course in statistics. ”

        What are you banging on about? You’ve spouted this nonsense a couple of times now. Negative anomalies do not necessarily indicate that it is cooling. They simply indicate that, in the case of UAH, that temperatures were below the mean temperatures for the 1981-2010 period.

        If anomalies -0.2 C and rise to -0.1 C – then it’s warming
        If they then rise to ZERO – it’s still warming and
        if they rise to +0.2 C – it’s STILL warming.

        I’m not someone who thinks that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic warming, but it will cause some warming – and that’s what appears to be happening.

        To be honest, being associated with some on the sceptical side of the AGW argument is becoming embarrassing.

        • Bindidon says:

          John Finn

          Thanks for writing that. I guess Robertson won’t understand what you wrote, let alone would he admit that.

          But I add that being no alarmist nor a fortiori a warmist, I feel similarly embarassed by being associated to them just because I don’t share the views of stubborn skeptics a la Robertson.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bindidon…”Thanks for writing that. I guess Robertson wont understand what you wrote, let alone would he admit that”.

            You certainly don’t.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          john finn…”If anomalies -0.2 C and rise to -0.1 C then its warming
          If they then rise to ZERO its still warming and
          if they rise to +0.2 C its STILL warming”.

          You are going to have to define warming. Alarmists are throwing the trend of 0.13C around as if it indicates an anthropogenic warming of 0.13C/decade over the range of the satellite data.

          I have no argument that a warming is a warming but in the context of anthropogenic warming you have to define what is anthropogenic and what is not. A trend from 1979 – 2017 has to be broken down to what is rewarming from volcanic aerosols and what is contributed by El Nino activity.

          I have no argument that the data from 1979 – 2017 does not describe ‘warming’ per se. However, when you begin at -.3C, cross the baseline then finish at +0.3C, you are NOT describing anthropogenic warming wrt the baseline.

  12. Tim Wells says:

    Worst summer since 1998 in the UK, total washout. Now settling down to Autumn.

  13. SNOWREADY says:

    It looks like a la nia is trying to form take a look at climate reanalizer sea surface temperature anomaly.

  14. Des says:

    Warmest 12 first 8 months of the year in the UAH record.

    1. 1998 (average 0.57) … EL NINO
    1. 2016 (0.57) … EL NINO
    3. 2010 (0.40) … EL NINO
    4. 2017 (0.32)
    5. 2002 (0.25) … EL NINO
    6. 2015 (0.21) … EL NINO
    6. 2007 (0.21) … EL NINO
    8. 2005 (0.20) … EL NINO
    9. 2014 (0.16)
    9. 2003 (0.16) … EL NINO
    11. 1991 (0.13) … EL NINO
    11. 2013 (0.13)

    The years marked EL Nino had at least one El Nino month between January and August.

    So the warmest three NON El Nino years to date:
    1. 2017
    2. 2014
    3. 2013

    ie. the LAST THREE non El Nino years.

  15. Nate says:

    Record 5 y average .267. Old record .166

  16. Jean Meeus says:

    The increase of the mean global temperature began as early as AD 1800, before there was CO2 emissions by humans. The trend just continues (well below the predictions of the alarmists) and there is no reason to believe that the cause is CO2.

    • Joel says:

      You think humans didn’t invent fire until 1800?

      You think humans didn’t do any deforestation until 1800?

      Interesting. Please, tell me more about how humans didn’t affect the carbon cycle until the 1800s.

    • David Appell says:

      Jean Meeus says:
      “The increase of the mean global temperature began as early as AD 1800, before there was CO2 emissions by humans.”

      There were anthropogenic CO2 emissions before 1800, from land use changes.

      CDIAC found that CO2 emissions from land use changes in 1850 was about 500 MtC (equivalent to 1.8 Gt CO2).

      http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/1850-2005.txt

    • Bart says:

      You guys are grasping at straws. Face it: Yes, the Earth is warming. No, it is not because of atmospheric CO2.

      • Slipstick says:

        OK, Bart, if not CO2 slowing the release of heat out of the atmosphere, then what is causing the warming? The rotation rate of the Earth has not changed measurably, the warming does not correlate with solar input, waste heat from biological activity is insufficient to produce the warming, the planet hasn’t started being bathed with some new extraterrestrial energy in the last century, so what is it? I constantly hear this “it’s a natural process”, “the Earth has warmed before”, blah, blah, blah, “so it isn’t CO2” nonsense with no explanation as to what “natural process” is responsible. Any process producing the level of warming we are currently experiencing must have measurable mechanism, so what is it and where can I find the data demonstrating it?

        • Norman says:

          Slipstick,

          Check out cloud cover.

        • Bart says:

          The system is not stationary. In addition to cyclical solar input, there are long term energy storage and release modes involving tidal forces, and the resultant precession and nutation of the Earth’s axis of rotation, creating massive redistributions over time.

          Just because you have a potential cause, and do not think there are others, does not confirm the hypothesis. This is the kind of thinking that made primitives sacrifice virgins to volcanoes to appease the rain gods.

          The warming we have seen is not consistent with rising atmospheric CO2. That’s just all there is to it. Moreover, we are not the primary drivers of atmospheric CO2 in the first place. It’s a total scientific fiasco of the first order.

          • Slipstick says:

            Bart,
            Nothing of what you propose correlates with the temperature rise over the last forty years and, contrary to your claim, we are the only drivers of the additional 30% of CO2 concentration that has been pumped into the atmosphere in the last century and a half.

          • Bart says:

            “Nothing of what you propose correlates with the temperature rise over the last forty years…”

            Sure it does. E.g., the AMO correlates very well with the observed ~65 year periodicity.

            “…we are the only drivers of the additional 30% of CO2 concentration…”

            Nope. The data are very clear. Temperatures are driving CO2, and not the reverse.

          • barry says:

            AMO aliases global temps.

            Or can you demonstrate causation by the AMO?

          • barry says:

            I see global temps leading AMO from about 1960. Here’s the data with 30-yr averages.

            http://tinyurl.com/y87kvoxl

            On monthly scales, global temps usually lead. Here’s 20 years worth for easier comparison.

            http://tinyurl.com/y7kavvue

            Sorry, don’t see AMO leading. It usually lags.

          • Bart says:

            “I see global temps leading AMO from about 1960.”

            Just differences in spatial phase relationships. The AMO is basically calculated as North Atlantic temperature anomaly with a trend removed. Its constituent data are thereby part of the data used in the GAT calculation. Perhaps, if you averaged temperature anomalies in the South Atlantic, it would show GAT lagging, and together the North and South Anomalies would line up with GAT.

          • Bart says:

            Actually, looking at this again, there is no phase discrepancy:

            https://tinyurl.com/y8u34nwb

            That’s a problem with overly smoothing data – temporary features get smoothed over, and you lose the detail that allows you to see what is genuinely happening.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        slipstick…”OK, Bart, if not CO2 slowing the release of heat out of the atmosphere, then what is causing the warming?”

        If you don’t understand heat and why it cannot be trapped by other molecules in the atmosphere why talk about it?

        Heat is the energy of atoms. Unless you trap an atom/molecule as does the glass in a greenhouse, you cannot trap heat. CO2 cannot trap heat, it can only absorb a tiny fraction of the IR flux radiated from the surface. How that translates to trapping heat or returning it to the surface has never been explained by alarmists.

        Molecules that comprise air do not prevent heat from rising as nitrogen or oxygen molecules which make up 99%+ of the atmosphere. That rising hot air represents convective heat flow. You cannot trap it unless you have a surface like the glass in a greenhouse.

        You seem to be suggesting that IR is heat and that the trapped IR somehow slows down the escape of EM energy from the surface. Not possible. IR is emitted naturally by any atom/molecule as the atom/molecule cools.

        Besides, there is not enough CO2 to capture any more than a trivial amount of the IR flux radiating from the surface.

        • Des says:

          Heat is not being trapped. RADIATION is being trapped. It’s not the same thing. Your entire comment is predicated on the greenhouse effect being all about the trapping of heat.

          • Slipstick says:

            Des,
            Yours is a semantic point which in no way answers the question. Read “heat” above as LWIR if it makes you feel better.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Are you a religious preacher? You make claims that have no support and act as if they are established fact.

          Again you state: “Besides, there is not enough CO2 to capture any more than a trivial amount of the IR flux radiating from the surface.”

          Where do you get this nonsense from. You make up facts (fake physics) and just by the power of your belief you think they are true. Satellite evidence of outgoing Longwave IR at the TOA clearly shows you are incorrect but you persist in preaching false facts. You should not do this, especially one who says NOAA is dishonest and lying. When you are clearly posting false information and have been informed many times it is false and keep doing it, you become lower than the very agencies you believe so strongly are dishonest. Maybe the dishonesty you see in these agencies is because of your own dishonest character.

          • Bindidon says:

            Thanks Norman

          • Bart says:

            “Satellite evidence of outgoing Longwave IR at the TOA clearly shows you are incorrect but you persist in preaching false facts.”

            Indeed it does. However, this does not establish that, in the present climate state, an incremental increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration necessarily produces an incremental increase in surface temperature.

            In the present climate state, surface radiation is intercepted by CO2. However, that intercepted energy is quickly thermalized, and carried off by other atmospheric constituents and distributed throughout the atmosphere. Those other atmospheric constituents also thermalize the CO2, which provides an avenue for their heat to be released to space.

            Thus CO2, in the present climate state, both heats and cools the atmosphere. What matters is which process has the upper hand. Based on the abject failure of the climate models to correctly forecast temperatures, and the fact that we do not appreciably influence CO2 concentration in the first place, it is apparent at we are in a climate state in which there is essentially no impact on surface temperatures from additional CO2.

          • Norman says:

            Bart

            You bring up good points.

            When I look at the global Net radiation from the CERES web page covering the time period from 2000 to 2016 it does not show a general upward trend in net radiation reaching the surface.

            https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/srbavg

            It has variations but overall the amount is fairly constant. The surface receives about 115 W/m^2 net positive in February and around 101 W/m^2 in June. Evaporative cooling and convection remove the net positive to keep the Earth’s surface from warming to a temperature that would have to then radiate this excess away.

            Changes in either of these can cause fluctuations in the surface temperature.

            My argument with Gordon Robertson is not about AGW or the model projections on future warming (which I am fairly skeptical of). It is with fundamental physics and heat transfer.

          • Geoff Sherrington says:

            If there were only a few hundred, or a few thousand CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, they could not possibly change the measured temperature of the atmosphere. They would individually have to carry and release tremendously high energy per molecule.
            According to GHG hypotheses, there is a point at which there has to be enough CO2 in the air to physically support this measurable temperature change.
            Trouble is, I can find no literature calculation of this minimum CO2 concentration.
            Analogy – is it like doing laboratory colorimetry with solutions that are too dilute, too colourless, to move the needle?
            Somewhere, there has to be CO2 mass term in the GHG equations. You cannot forever get away with going dimensionless by talking mass ratios like doubling.
            So, what is the minimum mass of atmospheric CO2 that is able to carry the energy enough to move the GHG temperature needle? References? Geoff

  17. Bindidon says:

    Sorry, comment submitted at the wrong place.

    Hello Des, do you remember our recent discussion on the July 2017 thread, which started about here:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-259961

    A few cm below, I wrote

    Im a knowledgeless layman, but my guess is that the August TLT anomalies will go a bit higher than 0.32 C, say 0.35 C, in correlation to JMAs July jump.

    I myself did not think I would keep below what Roy Spencer communicates.

    We are completely out of the 2015/16 El Nino (according to JMA: 10% Nino, 60% neutral, 30% Nina); so I guess that this OHC evacuation toward the troposphere now becomes a distinct, El Nino independent phenomenon.

    Im sure the Warmistas will cry Huuuuuuh! Glooobal Waaarming!; and the Coolistas conversely will say: The next La Nina is coming soon!.

    In french this is called dialogue de sourds.

  18. hloubavy says:

    I personally (being a climaic layman) do not doubt that _certain_ human influence on the global temperature exists. It is quite improbable that the increasing levels of CO2 have only natural causes and it is equally improbable that their rise has no effect on the global temperature. The core of my problem with alarmism is in the following points:
    1. The average rate of the increase of the temperatures does not seem to be overly dangerous – maybe 1.3 deg per century
    2. There is probably also a natural increase superimposed on the AGW which we cannot aspire to influence
    3. It does not seem wise to invest great amounts of money to lower the AGW part of warming when its effect is not so important as it might seem twenty years ago
    4. There is little or no reflection on the validity of their earlier conclusions on the part of the alarmists – which harms their credibility in my eyes
    5. If any of the parameters of computer simulations are adjusted to measured data (taken in a certain period of time) than it is hardly justifiabe to use the results as a long term prediction. It is similar to approximating a sinusoid with a polynomial. It is even more true in a system with an unknown feedback. This thought undermines one of the main arguments of alarmists

    • Bindidon says:

      That’s the reason why some people here, though discredited by other people as alarmists, in fact aren’t.

      Concerning

      3. It does not seem wise to invest great amounts of money to lower the AGW part of warming when its effect is not so important as it might seem twenty years ago

      you must understand that many people (especially in the insurance world) are interested about the long term, and need worst case assumptions for the next 50 years.

      I don’t hink these people beaing alarmists or hearing to alarmists either. They simply do their job.

      With the fatal consequence that collaborators e.g. at Munich Re have a view over Global Warming differing fundamentally from ours.

    • alphagruis says:

      @hloubavy

      And may I add.

      6. Even if AGW could be proven to be definitively catastrophic within a few decades, the stubborn fact is that we actually cannot technically act and curb right now the CO2 emission to the required extent to hope to influence climate without doing much more harm than good.
      It simply means that alarmists with that kind of agenda really believe that our species might be willing to accept the death of a large part of it’s population right now for sure because of a lack of food ( agriculture can’t be powered by renewables right now) rather in a 4 or 5 decades from now because of (hypothetical) climate havoc. Utterly ridiculous from the perspective of biology and behavior of living things.

      • alphagruis says:

        Oups

        …our species might be willing to accept the death of a large part of its population right now for sure because of a lack of food rather than in a 4 or 5 decades from now because of (hypothetical) climate havoc. Utterly ridiculous from the perspective of biology and known behavior of living things.

    • Svante says:

      1) That’s the current UAH lower troposphere rate which is lower than other records. There is risk that feed-backs will add more, polar amplification means greater impact there. Risk, risk, risk…
      2) Probably not (which), and if there is we should be very careful not to aggravate it.
      3) Time is running out so it is more important now.
      4) Forget about media and politicians, …
      5) … science is zooming in on the truth.
      6) The US has cut carbon emissions by 15% while reducing cost at then same time. How difficult was that? Anything that is granted for free will be overused, including the right to dump garbage on your neighbor.

    • Svante says:

      On model tuning to historical data: https://tinyurl.com/y9f5k88e

  19. Mickey Prumt says:

    Roy,

    I miss updates of number of days without major US huricanne landfall.

    UAH data change at every update and differ strongly from RSS,
    so what do we learn with that ?

    • Dave says:

      Followed you link and it suggests that 2016/17 is a weak La Nina period. How do you reconcile that with your statement earlier in this thread that “Now that the EL NINO environment is ending”? Didn’t it already end in May 2016?

  20. Have not had a strong la nina for over 20+years.See above data.

  21. Here is the bottom line we have 3 possible temperature outcomes over the next year.

    go up from here- I am wrong

    stay neutral -verdict is out

    go down from here – I am correct.

    • Dave says:

      “stay neutral -verdict is out”

      I’m sorry, I just don’t get this… For over 4 years you have repeatedly asserted that temperature fall is about to happen. Yet here we are with among the highest temperatures ever recorded in the UAH record, despite El Nino having last been seen in May 2016 and weak La Nina or neutral temperatures ever since. And you are now throwing out a continuation of current temperatures as “verdict is out” and that you will only be wrong if temperatures go up still further in the next year. How much warmer does it have to get than it is already (in a neutral year!) before you accept that your previous predictions are clearly already wrong?

  22. If the avg. global temperature by year 2018 does not fall to 30 year means or lower I will be wrong.

    On the other hand if temperatures do not avg. at least +.40c above normal for year 2018 and beyond AGW theory will have to be questioned at the very least.

    • Dave says:

      “if temperatures do not avg. at least +.40c above normal ”

      how do you define “normal”?

      • .40c above 30 year means I meant to say.

        Why .40c because that would keep with those years 2018 and beyond being in the top 3 warmest years since 1979, and keep the case alive for global warming.

        • Dave says:

          “keep the case alive for global warming.”

          The funny thing about this statement is that even Roy Spencer has stated on this (his) site, quite clearly, that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed to that warming. His doubt and skepticism relates not to this basic observation, but rather to the scale of that contribution and the long term sensitivity of the planet to GHGs, compared with the scale of natural variations in climate over the medium and longer terms. Call me a lukewarmist too for agreeing with him that the latter is the only real question remaining in this debate. i.e. not that humans have contributed to global warming, but how big that contribution is.

          • Bindidon says:

            + 10

          • Kristian says:

            Dave says, September 5, 2017 at 2:32 PM:

            (…) even Roy Spencer has stated on this (his) site, quite clearly, that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed to that warming. His doubt and skepticism relates not to this basic observation (…)

            That the Earth has warmed is a “basic observation”, Dave. That we humans have somehow contributed to this warming (in any other way than simply exaggerating the latter part of it in the officially published data) is however NOT a “basic observation”. It is mere speculation. A loose claim. Based on theory and nothing else.

            In fact, relevant observational data from the real Earth system strongly suggests that we have NOT “contributed to global warming” in any discernible fashion.

            You do not test a scientific hypothesis by simply thinking about it theoretically. Especially not if your theoretical considerations are the ones that underlie the very hypothesis that you want to test in the first place. That would be completely circular.

            You test it against OBSERVATIONS from the real world.

            Call me a lukewarmist too for agreeing with him that the latter is the only real question remaining in this debate. i.e. not that humans have contributed to global warming, but how big that contribution is.

            But that’s just stupid. How do you know that we humans have contributed to global warming? What empirical observations from the real Earth system do you base this “knowledge” on? What and where is the evidence?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Dave…”The funny thing about this statement is that even Roy Spencer has stated on this (his) site, quite clearly, that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed to that warming”.

            Roy has been clear about that. He has claimed the degree of warming is not something we should be concerned about. John Christy, also of UAH has claimed little or no warming over the satellite record of some 38 years. Some parts of the planet (significantly large parts in the Tropics) show no warming at all.

            Lindzen has placed a limiting factor on CO2, based on a doubling of CO2, at a small fraction of a degree C. That’s in line with treating the atmosphere as a constant volume and mass where temperature varies with pressure. Applying the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s law of partial pressures reveals a partial contribution to warming by CO2 of a small fraction of a degree C.

            Clearly the AGW theory has taken liberties with physics that are not justifiable.

    • Dave says:

      And while I’m about it, why 0.40 C? Where did you pull that magic number from? Is it based on standard deviation of the “normal” years? Or does it have some fundamental quantitative significance in your theory?

  23. Harry Cummings says:

    Dave

    How much warmer will it get……..you will have to ask the Chinese and Indian’s they plan to massively plan to increase there out put. You have know control over what happens next

    Get used to it

    Have a nice Day

  24. Dan Pangburn says:

    Relentless increase in water vapor (call WV IR active because calling it a ghg sometimes confuses) of about 1.5% per decade is countering the average global temperature decline which would otherwise be occurring. Switching from coal to natural gas for electrical power generation is adding to the WV uptrend.

  25. Dave, do you agree if temperatures fall to 30 year means or lower AGW may be wrong?

    Do you agree if temperatures are say just .20 c above 30 year means that questioning has to come into the picture?

    If not what kind of a global temperature decline would make you start to doubt AGW?

    • Dave says:

      “do you agree if temperatures fall to 30 year means or lower AGW may be wrong”

      That would depend on which 30 year period you compute the mean over, and what period you consider relevant for assessing your chosen criterion.

      Would a day at the 30 year mean be enough to convince me? Certainly not. A single month? Again no. What about a full year. Still probably no, because there is clear periodicity in the swing from La Nina to El Nino with a period around 3-4 years. But give me a 5 year average that sits right on the corresponding average of the preceding 30 years, and now I will listen. If you are right, that should be just about to start any day now, no?

    • David Appell says:

      “Dave, do you agree if temperatures fall to 30 year means or lower AGW may be wrong?”

      No. Warming from CO2 is already proven. AGW is already proven. It’s conceivable there could be abrupt cooling events in the future, for a host of natural reasons (esp a huge volcano) & just the nonlinearity of the climate system. But those are rare. Absent them, the long-term trend will continue to be upward.

  26. above for year 2018 and beyond.

  27. Notice how Dave avoids the question as if it is 100% certain that AGW is real in spite of the fact that this period of time in climatic history is nowhere close to temperatures during the Holocene Optimum ,Minoan ,Roman warm periods as well as the Medieval warm period.

    Again Dave what would global temperatures

    For my part once global temperatures are within +.20 c I start to think it is not going in the right trend for AGW.

    If global temp. fall to or below 30 year means that will prove AGW theory is wrong.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore, which data shows those past eras were warmer than today?
      Which *specific* data and studies?

      • SkepticGoneWild says:

        David,

        http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

        From the above study:

        “We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 +- 0.4C and 1.5 +- 0.4C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65 warmer than in recent decades.”

        “The inferred similarity in temperature anomalies at both hemispheres is consistent with recent evidence from Antarctica (30), thereby suporting the idea that the HTM (Holocene Thermal Maximum), MWP, and LIA were global events.”

  28. My question was what would global temperatures have to do to make you doubt AGW?

  29. Krakatoa says:

    How do you know those periods were so much warmer than the current warm period? And how much warmer were those periods?

  30. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Aren’t we a super volcano away from a little ice age? Or a couple for the big ice age? Seems like the planet leans towards warmer naturally but for these events. Is there anything we can do to negate these events? I’m airing on the side of more co2.

    Also, is there any connection between where hurricanes form and the Great Red Spot on Jupiter or other planetary phenom. at this latitude? Seems like it.

    • Des says:

      A super volcano is one that is rated VEI 8. The last one of those was 26000 years ago. The second last one was 75000 years ago. That is actually more frequent than normal – they average one every hundred thousand years.

      Yes, it’s certain that we’ll get one eventually. No, it’s extremely unlikely we’ll get one before we run out of fossil fuels.

      If instead you mean VEI 7 volcanoes that occur every 500 years or so on average, then you mean:
      – one volcano away from a few years of cooling
      – a couple away from extended cooling IF other conditions are ripe for cooling as they were at the onset of the Little Ice Age.

      The only way a VEI 7 eruption (eg. Tambora) would trigger a full glacial period is if we are already on the cusp of one and it pushes us over the edge. We are NOT on the cusp of one.

    • Krakatoa says:

      Why are you showing only Greenland data, with graph that puts the little ice age over 1000 years ago and shows 1855 temperatures as present temperature?

      • SkepticGoneWild says:

        Here is a study of Atlantic Ocean temperatures during the Holocene:

        http://faculty.washington.edu/jsachs/lab/www/Sachs-NW_Atlantic_Holocene_Cooling-GRL07.pdf

        It shows 10,000 years of cooling, confirming the general temperature decline throughout the Holocene noted in the GISP2 ice core data.

      • barry says:

        How large is the area as stated in the paper?

        the Northwest Atlantic Ocean between Virginia and Newfoundland

        It’s the oceanic jet stream where coastal waters off Eastern America meet deeper waters. In this paper, a narrow, curved band about 1500 miles long.

        Why do skeptics insist on using such small regions to make claims about global stuff?

        Beware any claim of ‘global’ anything that completely excludes the Southern Hemisphere.

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          See also:

          http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/342/6158/617.full.pdf

          “Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years”

          • Joel says:

            You’ve quoted this three times in this comments section. It’s deep ocean temperatures, which are not immediately analogous to surface or atmospheric temperatures. The deep ocean temperatures could lead or lag global temperature changes.

            It does not prove your claim that any period in the last 10,000 years was objectively warmer on a global scale than the present day.

          • barry says:

            And if deep ocean temps were a good proxy, now we ave 2 cited papers that contradict each other.

            Too much to ask for a decent overview of the situation? Probably. single-study syndrome strikes again.

          • barry says:

            Time-periods compared in that paper are different by hundreds to thousands of years. Older data has poorer resolution than newer. Doubtful a lag could be assessed, but if so, it’s not discussed therein. Proxy data are assessed in 200 year intervals, making a comparison with decadal periods in the near-term rather problematic.

            For the same reasons, their conclusion that recent OCH warming rate is greatly accelerated compared to proxy is a hell of a stretch. I can’t figure out how they have good enough proxy resolution to say that.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            You cultists can’t seem to let go of your religion.

            Be happy in your ignorance.

          • Svante says:

            SkepticGoneWild,
            I must commend you for again citing a proper scientific paper, and I have no reason to doubt what is says.
            Here’s a discussion of it at Judith Currys: https://tinyurl.com/yapafr4k

          • barry says:

            In my post above, I rejected a conclusion of the paper that recent OHC rates are much faster now than in the proxies. Why would I do that if I’m an alarmist religionista? I’ve just committed blasphemy if I’m one of those.

            Whereas you just vomited some ad hom without dealing with one point in the discussion of the paper YOU cited.

            You’re the one spouting dogma, bub.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Svante,
            Thanks for the Judith Curry link.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Poor Barry is pissed off with the results of the study indicating ocean temps were warmer during the MWP than today, and that the MWP was a global event. Bummer, man.

          • barry says:

            Way to avoid the point.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            If our current climate is unprecedented, which it is, poor Barry, Des, and their ilk cannot fear-monger anymore, the AGW balloon gets popped, the money dries up, and the reason to tax us to death goes away. This is why I despise the climate pseudo scientists and their lemming followers so much. All that wasted money that could be used to feed the poor, or for medical research to cure disease, all thrown down the toilet on a non-problem.

          • Nate says:

            skeptic,

            Youre money argument getting swept away in storm surge of just a couple of hurricanes. Many moer to come. Sustainable?

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Correction in above post:

            First line should read:

            “If our current climate is unprecedented, which it is not,..

          • barry says:

            If our current climate is unprecedented…

            The earth has been much warmer than in the distant past. It was 1000C at the surface shortly after formation.

            But it’s only unhinged skeptics that make the straw man argument that surface temps are supposed to be unprecedented – therefore if they aren’t no AGW.

            I guess it seems like an attractive narrative for skeptics. But unfortunately – it’s fake. AGW does not require – not remotely – that the temperatures of the last few decades have to be higher than at any other time in the history of the globe.

            It’s linked to another fake narrative – if temps were higher before from natural causes, then this automatically means that’s what’s causing higher temps now.

            That bad logic dispatched with a simple analogy:

            There were forest fires before humans. Therefore humans cannot cause forest fires.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            blah blah blah blah blah

            Your bs is not worthy of a response

          • Nate says:

            ‘Blah blah blah’ means you have no response to a well reasoned argument.

  31. dr No says:

    Continuing the discussion from the previous head, Mike Flynn wrote (re. the probability of a new record global average temperature by 2020):
    “There will either be a new record, or there wont. The probability, by definition, is 0.5.”
    Again, I say “Bravo”.

    Salvatore estimated zero chance so I have a pretend bet of one dollar with him that, theoretically, should yield me 100 dollars if the event occurs.
    In Mike’s case, I will also bet a dollar on the expectation of winning a dollar in 2020.

    I should point out that Mike may be a bit confused (possibly because of his age). I don’t think he is aware that he is acknowledging a high probability (0.5) that A NEW WARM RECORD WILL BE SET by 2020.

    Think about it, after about 100 events, the chances that a random process will yield a new record maximum or record minimum is about one in a hundred (or 0.01). Therefore, Mike is implying that the temperature record is far from random and is dominated by a warming trend.
    Congratulations, you now qualify as a WARMIST.

    • Dr. No up to year 2017 which I maintain is a transitional year.

      Only time will tell. Both sides have made their points over and over and over again and nobody is gong to change their minds.

      The only thing that will change the minds on both sides is data that goes for or against a given side.

      Time will tell and by that I mean by the summer of year 2018.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      dr No,

      Think about it yourself. After a hundred fair coin tosses, the possibility of a head is still 0.5.

      Foolish Warmists in the past have claimed that after, say, 100 heads in a row, it is a near certainty that a tail will result on the next throw. Apparently due to the foolish Warmist “law of probabilities”!

      Complete nonsense, of course.

      Regardless of what you think I am implying (you could always look at what I write, and ask me if you cannot understand.), it seems a fact that the Earth’s surface is no longer molten. You may think this is indicative of warming. I don’t.

      If thermometers show increases in temperatures, this indicates heating (or warming if you prefer). Call me a Warmist for accepting reality, if you wish. Foolish Warmists, however, seem to believe that there is a GHE which makes thermometers increase in temperature, which is nonsensical.

      CO2 heats nothing. Trends are not generally useful for prediction. The longer a trend continues, the closer it may be to an inflection point.

      So what is your probability calculation of a new record (however measured) by 2020 (whatever that means)? Note that NASA and NOAA couldn’t even agree afte the event, in relation to a supposed “Hottest year EVAH!” proclaimed by Gavin Schmidt! Maybe it’s not a easy as you think?

      Keep at it. A Danish parliamentarian in the 1937-38 parliamentary year, apparently said “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” Versions of this have been attributed to many others – from Nostradamus to Niels Bohr and beyond!

      You still lose. You can’t outguess me. I won’t even use a computer! Still wanna bet?

      Cheers.

      • dr No says:

        “Think about it yourself. After a hundred fair coin tosses, the possibility of a head is still 0.5.
        Correct, but it would not be a record. Think about it.
        If it landed on its side – that would be a record!

        • Mike Flynn says:

          dr No,

          First, I stated a “fair” or statistical, coin. It has no edge, and only two outcomes – precisely one or the other.

          There are only two possibilities in your proposition – either a record, or not a record.

          No “almost”, no “nearly”, no “closer than it would otherwise be”, or similar foolish Warmist weasel words or evasions. You might claim that there could be an occurrence of a tie. This would not create a new record.

          Now you might say that there is an infinity of numbers which will not result in a new record. On the other hand, there may be an equally ranked infinity of numbers which will result in a new record. Still 50/50, or do you claim that the infinity of reals greater than the present number which defines the notional (or actual “average surface temperature”) is greater than the infinity of reals between 0 and said temperature?

          However, you don’t seem to have proposed a probability for a particular non-binary occurrence in any case. You might believe you have a case for guessing the probability of a particular number occurring at a particular time, but if you can’t even predict whether a fair coin will come up heads or tails at some specific time, you are unlikely to purposefully predict anything more complicated.

          Even knowing that the probably of a fair coin showing a head is 0.5, you are no better off. Habitual gamblers “feel” that the next turn is more or less likely to deliver a particular result, depending on past results. Silly, but widely believed.

          Even the proposition that a series of tosses will result in even numbers of heads and tails is demonstrably false half the time. Tossing a coin an odd number of times cannot provide equal numbers of heads and tails.

          You’re dancing around the point, of course. There is no GHE, so if heating is observed, one might be better employed to find the heat source making the thermometer hotter. Sound fair?

          Cheers.

          • dr No says:

            By your (faulty) reasoning, the chances of the stock market being higher than this year by next year are 0.5.
            How about by the year after ? – still 0.5?
            How about by 2020 ? – are they still 0.5?
            How about by 2030? are they still only 0.5 ?
            Clearly you can see the absurdity of your reasoning.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            Good try at the foolish Warmist tactic of deny, divert and confuse.

            Questions, questions. Irrelevant attempts at gotchas.

            But what the heck. You must be aware that poorly performing companies are replaced regularly with better performing companies, to ensure the various indices keep increasing. Even with this manipulation, Nature has her way. The drop in the market in the crash of 1987 demonstrated this.

            I wish you luck with your stock market predictions. You won’t be betting my money, that’s for sure!

            But back to the non-existent GHE . . .

            Cheers.

      • dr No says:

        “So what is your probability calculation of a new record (however measured) by 2020 (whatever that means)?”
        Simple.
        I estimate that a new record is likely to be set after the next El Nino.
        El Nno events occur, roughly, every 5 years.
        I expect another event to have occurred by 2020.
        It may be a strong or weak.
        I would say that the probability of a new record then may be slightly greater than 0.5.
        Lets say, about 0.6.
        i.e. it turns out that you and I do not differ greatly in our estimates!
        Although my value is based on logic and yours on ignorance.
        .
        .
        Note that 0.6 means that you can (pretend) to bet a dollar that a record will occur and you will win 67 cents if it does. I win a dollar if it doesn’t.
        The point being that I am quantifying my level of confidence that global warming will continue – and not that I expect a new record every year.

        • dr No says:

          “You still lose. You cant outguess me. I wont even use a computer!”
          Heaven forbid that my computer would be more reliable than your gut feeling!

        • Mike Flynn says:

          dr No,

          Your guess is as good as anybody else’s, and just as useful. You “estimate”, you “expect “, it “may be” this or that, you “would say” . . .

          You claim your guess is logical, whilst mine is based on ignorance. Really? Or are you just assuming?

          You state you are confident in your guess. I wish you success in finding someone who cares. All the confidence in the world (plus $5 or so) will buy you a cup of coffee in most places.

          Any professional hedge fund manager had confidence they couldn’t possibly lose billions of dollars due to their inability to reliably peer into the future. I’m fairly sure that countries such as the US attack foreign countries confident they will win reasonably quickly. Why else would they do it? So much for confidence!

          I’m not at all confident of my ability to reliably perceive the future. To date, my assumptions (call them “gut feelings” if you wish), seem to have been reasonable. I assume my peaceful life will continue. I have no idea what assumptions I will probably make in the future. Hopefully, they will be as good as those in the past.

          You claim that you can guess better than me. You should wind up more content, healthier, wealthier, etc, than I, I suppose. I wish you all the best.

          Cheers.

      • dr No says:

        “If thermometers show increases in temperatures, this indicates heating (or warming if you prefer). Call me a Warmist for accepting reality, if you wish. Foolish Warmists, however, seem to believe that there is a GHE which makes thermometers increase in temperature, which is nonsensical.”

        Maybe this will help.
        Greenhouse gases do not make the Earth and its atmosphere warmer.
        That is broadly correct. The Earths planetary average temperature depends mainly on its distance from the sun and its reflectivity.
        I think we agree on that fact.
        However, the composition of the atmosphere (including greenhouse gases) does affect the SURFACE temperature and the the STRATOSPHERIC temperature. While the surface gets warmer, the stratosphere gets cooler – and vice versa. The AVERAGE PLANETARY TEMPERATURE remains the same. I think this misunderstood fact is one reason for the confusion amongst denialists such as yourself.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          dr No,

          You wrote –

          “While the surface gets warmer, the stratosphere gets cooler and vice versa.” Another assertion presented as fact? Even Skeptical Science has to keep changing its view, as in –

          “Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming – Revised”

          First, “The IPCC confirms that computer modeling predicts the existence of a tropical, mid-troposphere hot spot about 10km above the surface.” It seems that the “hot spot” refused to cooperate and make itself visible, so the “stratospheric cold spot” was invented as a replacement.

          Unfortunately, the “tropospheric hot spot”, the “stratospheric cold spot”, and Trenberth’s “missing heat” continue to evade efforts to find them reliably in reality. It’s a travesty, obviously. I suppose that the GHE makes the troposphere hotter, but the stratosphere colder during the day when the Sun shines. When temperatures drop to -90 in the Antarctic, the GHE makes the troposphere either hotter or colder, but you claim that the stratosphere heats up. Or does this only occur in sunlight? What about at night?

          You’re wrong about the average planetary temperature, too. The Earth has demonstrably cooled since its creation, I’m told. I may not have been there at the time, but neither were you. I’m happy with my assumption that the Earth was created in a molten condition. How about you?

          Still no GHE. Maybe you need more estimates and guesses. Experimental support would be persuasive, but there doesn’t seem to be any.

          Cheers.

      • Des says:

        Mike Flynn
        Tomorrow the sun will either rise or it won’t.
        So by your logic, the probability that the sun rises tomorrow is 0.5.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Des,

          Not at all. The Sun does not “rise”. Sorry to disappoint you. The Earth orbits the Sun, and rotates on its axis in a reasonably predictable fashion.

          Well enough for me to assume that the movements wii continue into the foreseeable future. So far, so good.

          In your terms, however, I assume the probability of the sun rising tomorrow is 1. Just as I assume the airplane which I board will not fall out of the sky with me in it.

          I’m not sure why you would make such a peculiar assumption as to my thought processes. Did you consider the alternative of asking, if you didn’t understand?

          Still no GHE, no heating due to CO2, and climate remains the average of weather. I’m always ready to change my opinion if you can provide new facts. What about you?

          Cheers.

          • Des says:

            So you felt the need to point-score by stating an obvious fact when you knew full well I was using common everyday language. I guess you have never referred to the rising and setting sun.

            Apparently you believe you can just assume away an airplane crash.
            “I assume it won’t happen, therefore it won’t”.

            Let me give you another dichotomous event. A person will either die by age 95 or they won’t. Does that mean that there is a probability of 0.5 of YOU living to 95? That is – are you equally likely to reach 95 as not?

            And a reminder of your wording for the sake of reference:
            “There will either be a ‘new record’, or there wont. The probability, by definition, is 0.5.”

  32. Phil says:

    Proven? Lol spoken like a true believer ….
    Not only has agw NOT been proven , it cannot be . further it cannot be falsified either, because all the other variables that effect the earths climate cannot be controlled …

    As such it doesnt even qualify as a theory and instead should be considered a hypothesis only ..

    I would add that the failure of predictions made by the IPCC should cast serious doubt on the extent (if any) of warming caused by co2 emissions …

    And that as such, resources earmarked to help prevent ‘AGW’ would be better used dealing with real problems …

    • Krakatoa says:

      Is it me, or is the scale in that graph way of in the 20th century?

    • barry says:

      No one can tell. There’s no Y-axis, no values for temps!

      Junk science = random graph from the internet with no sources, no Y-axis, no peer-review, no expertise from authors.

      It’s a schematic, a cartoon. It aint science in any way shape or form. Thank goodness for the arrows pointing out “sudden cool down”, or we’d have no idea that we are looking at temperatures.

  33. As the chart show the climate of today is in no way unique.

    • barry says:

      Who are these people? As far as I could find out, Chris Harris has a background in insurance, and is not, as advertised, a “climatologist.”

      I note that their medieval warm period and Roman warm period are cooler than recent temps. So they’ve managed to come up with hotter temps in 1100 BC. What is that even based on?

      No references, no formal study, no explanatory text. No publications in any relevant discipline. Just some chart on the internet with data from God-knows-where.

      Please do better than this, Salvatore.

      • lewis says:

        Barry,

        Various geologists show records of climate going back thousands of years, hundreds of thousands. You will notice that the ice sheets covering the northern hemisphere came and went long before mankind was able to mine and burn hydrocarbons. So if you and Mann et al, had lived about 10,000 years ago, when the ice sheets were retreating rapidly, and the waters of the oceans were rising steadily, who, please tell us, would you have blamed for that?

        The fact is, you know no more now, than they knew then, and act just the same.

        The weather isn’t exactly what we would like, LET US SACRIFIC SOMEONE TO THE GODS!

        In today’s world that is industrial man. So, that being true, all you true believers, please make an effort and stop using ANYTHING which is made by or dependent upon coal or oil. Don’t be like Gore and all those who fly to faraway places to each rich foods at the expense of the people and then tell the people how terrible they are for wishing the same for themselves. Live your religion.

        AH… Too much to ask? Of course. It would mean giving up your decadent life.

        Typical leftist hypocrites. Antifa in disguise no doubt.

      • The bottom line is the climate is not unique and AGW is going to have to do better then this.

        I did not even include the Holocene Optimum some 6000 years which was at least 2c warmer then today.

      • barry says:

        Sal, you can’t give a bottom line on global temps with graph from the internet!

        Where does your critical thinking go when you present random stuff from unknown data and announce firm conclusions?

        Holocene summertime temperatures in the Northern hemisphere were almost certainly warmer than summertime temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere today. Holocene Thermal Optimum data has warm periods in different location at different times.

        The Loehle graph you have cited via Roy Spender is of NH temperatures, ends in 1935, and when instrumental data are added recent temps are warmer.

        There are other examples of warmer temps globally in the more distant past. Surface temps were 1000C when the planet was forming, for example.

        No one said temperatures at this time are unique. So you’re arguing a straw man, and based on misunderstood data, and even unknown data (from “iceagenow” website?).

        Sorry, this is a long was from persuasive. Even if the MWP was warmer than today, this doesn’t destroy AGW. Because AGW theory doesn’t rest on all-time uniqueness of present surface temperatures.

  34. dr No says:

    Let me repeat my question from the previous thread:
    Would another hurricane strike on the US so soon after Harvey affect your opinion of climate change?
    “The most powerful Atlantic Ocean hurricane in recorded history bore down on the islands of the north-east Caribbean on Tuesday night local time, following a path predicted to then rake Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Cuba before possibly heading for Florida over the weekend.”

    • SkepticGoneWild says:

      Why is it that chicken little alarmist fear mongering AGW cultists always cry “wolf!”, or “the sky is falling!”, with seemingly every weather event like it has never happened in the history of the planet? This is why no one gives a rats ass anymore.

      • dr No says:

        I’ll take that as a “No”.

        You sound a bit ridiculous though, resorting to “the history of the planet” as a way of dismissing the historical climate record.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          dr No,

          Doesn’t the history of the planet include its climate?

          It certainly includes historical weather, and climate is merely the average of weather!

          Are you dismissing historical weather (and climate) as irrelevant? I know the Australian BOM dismissed all official temperature records prior to 1910 as unreliable and therefore irrelevant.

          Australia and the contiguous US are similar in size, so it might be a reasonable assumption that US records prior to 1910 are also unreliable, being taken using the sand type of instrument, and the same type of personnel.

          The historical record is looking a bit dodgy, according to some Government experts.

          Cheers.

      • SkepticGoneWild says:

        dr No-nothing,
        Why would any sane person with an ounce of intelligence look at two weather events and change one’s opinion regarding climate…… O wait, that’s what you do.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      dr No,

      The climate has been changing since the creation of the atmosphere. Climate is the average of past weather, after all.

      Maybe you meant to say that you think that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have a useful predictive effect in relation to future specific weather events?

      I don’t believe this is so, but maybe the climatologists could save lives and tens of billions of dollars by warning of specific dangers, rather keeping their predictions secret, and crowing “I told you so!” after the event. Or maybe climatologists can’t guess any better than me, so have to take refuge in saying sciency things like “probability distribution functions”. Completely useless, but keeps the grants flowing.

      Oh well.

      Cheers.

      • dr No says:

        “Or maybe climatologists cant guess any better than me, so have to take refuge in saying sciency things like probability distribution functions.

        Mike, climate predictions are about predictions of statistics (mean temperature etc.)
        Weather predictions are about specific events (rainfall, wind etc.). Even then, the forecasts are based on their estimates of the most likely events since they cannot ever be 100% sure about what will happen tomorrow, the day after, or by next week. So accept the fact that there are rarely any 100% confident predictions in this world.

        Anybody who refers to “sciency things” has got to be an engineer !

        • Mike Flynn says:

          dr No,

          Climate predictions are completely useless guesses, the confidence assigned by the guesser notwithstanding.

          Of use to neither man nor beast. Climate is the average of past weather – no more no less. The predictive ability of self proclaimed climatologists is on a par with a reasonably alert 12 year old child, and of as much use.

          Foolish Warmists sometimes claim that their predictions are based on physics, whereas you seem to be claiming that climatologists predict statistics. What part does the GHE play in the prediction of statistics? What use is the prediction if it can’t be depended on?

          This might account for the use of “projections” or “scenarios” in lieu of “predictions”, by the fortune tellers calling themselves climatologists.

          Maybe you could show the physical characteristics of the GHE established by careful, reproducible, scientific experiment, if any such existed in the real world. But alas, the GHE exists only in the fantasy world of the foolish Warmist.

          Cheers.

  35. Mike Flynn says:

    dr No,

    You wrote –

    “Maybe this will help.
    Greenhouse gases do not make the Earth and its atmosphere warmer.
    That is broadly correct.”

    So greenhouse gases do not make the Earth and its atmosphere warmer. Not just “broadly correct”, that’s just foolish Warmist weasel words, unless you are prepared to explain.

    So what’s the problem with the supposed GHE if it doesn’t result in heating of the surface or the atmosphere? Or did you really mean to say something else?

    You’re no help at all! Have you anything useful for me? Preferably something I don’t already know. Guesses about the future are not facts, but if you can supply any useful assumptions better than mine (based on physics rather than guesses, estimates, or maybes), I’ll take them on board.

    Cheers.

    • dr No says:

      Mike, you have trouble listening.
      GHE does not affect the AVERAGE planetary temperature. But the planetary temperature involves both the surface and the atmosphere (including the stratosphere). Enhanced GHGs cause the surface to WARM and the stratosphere to COOL – all the while the planetary temperature (i.e. the average of the SURFACE and the ATMOSPHERE) stays the SAME. Got it? Please don’t make me repeat such a simple principle.
      Or is this too “sciency” for you?

    • dr No says:

      “So greenhouse gases do not make the Earth and its atmosphere warmer. Not just broadly correct, thats just foolish Warmist weasel words, unless you are prepared to explain.”
      I say “broadly”, since enhanced GHGs can potentially affect the amount of cloud cover, snow and ice on the SURFACE. This, in turn, could affect the ALBEDO of the EARTH. If the ALBEDO decreases due to the loss of reflective clouds,snow and ice, the EARTH as a whole will absorb more SOLAR RADIATION which will lead to a higher PLANETARY AVERAGE TEMPERATURE.
      BUT, this is not the key argument. It may or may not happen, that is why I say “broadly”.

  36. Mike Flynn says:

    dr No,

    You wrote –

    “Enhanced GHGs cause the surface to WARM and the stratosphere to COOL all the while the planetary temperature (i.e. the average of the SURFACE and the ATMOSPHERE) stays the SAME. Got it? Please dont make me repeat such a simple principle.”

    Really?

    You also wrote –

    “Greenhouse gases do not make the Earth and its atmosphere warmer.”

    It seems that that you are saying that GHGs cause the surface to warm but do not make the Earth warmer. I assume you are implying that increased heating of the surface is balanced by an equivalent amount of energy leaving the stratosphere, and resulting in a far greater temperature drop (the specific heat capacity of the stratosphere – which consists of rarified gas – being far less than the specific heat capacity of the troposphere, not to say solids or liquids) measured in degrees used on the surface.

    This is just silly in theory, let alone not being observed in practice. Trying to deny, divert and confuse by then claiming other factors may destroy your argument, by finally stating “BUT, this is not the key argument. It may or may not happen, that is why I say broadly.”, is not scientific at all.

    Are you trying to your key argument may or may not apply, or that excess GHGs may result in cooling rather than heating? If the albedo increases, due to an increase of clouds, snow, and ice, doesn’t this mean that lower temperatures are needed to create the snow and ice? Where did the heat go? Into the stratosphere, perhaps? What stops the stratosphere cooling – particularly at night?

    Quite odd, and I can’t understand why surface cooling causes stratospheric warming. Does the heat lost by the surface penetrate the troposphere without effect, but somehow suddenly decide to heat up the stratosphere, rather than hide in the ocean? Does this mean that the stratosphere above the -90 C of the Antarctic is much much hotter than the stratosphere above, say, a solar collector at +90 C? At what height? How many degrees? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Just because something heats up on the surface in sunlight, doesn’t mean that something else cools by losing an identical amount of energy.

    The whole Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, even after being exposed to four and a half billion years of solar radiation. The stratosphere is still much cooler than the surface, you’ll find.

    You say –

    “Got it? Please dont make me repeat such a simple principle.”

    No, there’s nothing to get. You’re making progressively more complicated scenarios, which require ever increasing gullibility. You don’t have to repeat anything, if you choose not to. I don’t care one way or the other. Maybe you could actually state the “simple principle” in terms which can be verified by experiment. If it can’t be supported experimentally, your principle remains a fantasy – or at best an hypothesis.

    Cheers.

    • dr No says:

      Sigh !
      One last time.
      If you measure the outside temperature of your roof in winter, when you have a fire going, with and without insulation, what do you find?
      No insulation means a relatively cool room and a relatively warm roof.
      With insulation means a relatively warm room and a relatively cool roof.
      No spurious violation of the conservation of energy.
      Neither the insulation nor GHGs cause an overall increase in the heat generated. But they do affect the temperatures within the system.
      It really is so simple – why can’t you see it?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        dr No,

        Yet more pointless and irrelevant analogies. I live in the tropics, so I use insulation to keep cool. Is the GHE responsible for the use of insulation to keep things cool?

        Regardless of that, the cooling of the Earth shows that you may be misinterpreting the law of the conservation of energy. Heating something with sunlight does not force something elsewhere on Earth to cool down. That would be amazing, if true, it’s not, of course!

        When the surface cools at night, the stratosphere does not heat up as a consequence. That’s just foolish Warmist fantasy.

        You ask why I can’t see the GHE. Probably for the same reason I can’t see unicorns – non existence.

        Carry on. Make a thermometer hotter with CO2. I believe it’s called the “greenhouse effect”. Nothing to do with real greenhouses, of course. Even deluded foolish Warmists reluctlanty accept the description is incorrect, misleading, and stupid.

    • dr No says:

      “Greenhouse gases do not make the Earth and its atmosphere warmer.
      It seems that that you are saying that GHGs cause the surface to warm but do not make the Earth warmer. ”

      Please don’t be obtuse.
      You know I am referring to the average planetary temperature, which is broadly speaking, unaffected by the presence of GHGs. To be precise, the average planetary temperature can be found roughly 5km ABOVE the surface. While it can remain constant, the SURFACE can warm/cool while the STRATOSPHERE above can cool/warm.

      Am I making any headway?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        dr No,

        I’ll be anything I like. Your demands are not likely to have overmuch influence on me.

        You refer to the average planetary temperature, which is actually above 3000 K. You’re wrong again. The average temperature is found somewhere between the centre of the Earth, and the surface, obviously.

        In any case, at night, as the surface cools, so does the atmosphere – including the troposphere and the stratosphere, at rates commensurate with their specific heats and initial temperatures.. No balancing, no conservation of energy. No heat input, and things cool.

        Sigh away, if you wish. Maybe you can sigh a GHE into existence.

        Cheers.

        • dr No says:

          “You refer to the average planetary temperature, which is actually above 3000 K”
          !!!!!!
          You are joking. No? Then I give up. I have spent too much time trying to help you.
          I get more sense talking to my dog.
          I note you live in the tropics. That may help explain matters since it is a well known fact that intelligence increases with distance from the equator.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            The Earth is apparently a large ball of molten iron and rock. Granted, it is enclosed by a very thin skin of congealed rock, overlain by a little water and gas.

            The interior (more than 99% of the total volume) ranges from about 5500 K to aroundd 1000 K. I’ll let you come up with the average you prefer – somewhere between 5500 K and 1000 K.

            Maybe you should talk to your dog. Your dog might believe your GHE assertions if he or she s a little below average on the dog IQ scale.

            Still no GHE to be found. CO2 heats nothing. Climate is the average of weather.

            Cheers.

  37. SAMURAI says:

    Analyzing the ENSO 3.4 SST Index falling temps (currently -0.16C) and equatorial 0~450 meter ocean temperatures, a new La Nina cycle seems very likely to start sometime early next year.

    This new La Nina cycle will cause global LT UAH temps to exhibit a falling trend for at least the next 6 months.

    It primarily depends how long and cold the coming La Nina cycle becomes.

    A strong La Nina cycle will cause an abnormally cold winter for the Northeast and Central US.

    This will not be good news for the CAGW advocates.

  38. Des says:

    Mr Spencer,

    Could you please tell me why a get a PayPal cookie when I visit this page.

    • Des says:

      Oops – why “I” get a PayPal cookie?

    • Bindidon says:

      Des,

      it seems to me that your browser accepts third party cookies. These may arrive from everywhere to you, with an arbitrary number of sites between Roy Spencer’s site and you.

      If you use e.g. Firefox you easily could manage to forbid them.

      • Des says:

        Chrome tells me what cookies I have picked up on my current visit to this site. PayPal is one of them.

        • Bindidon says:

          Yes Des.

          But does it tell you which site initiates, reads and updates the PayPal cookie?

          Hard for me to imagine Roy Spencer inserting such code in his HTLM & Javascript streams.

    • Bindidon says:

      One of the trickiest climate web zones I have ever seen.

      To trust in Gosselin and btw in Lning and Vahrenholt is an intellectual challenge!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bindidon…”To trust in Gosselin and btw in Lning and Vahrenholt is an intellectual challenge!”

        You’re being idiotic again. Gosselin is an author who is quoting a NOAA expert. What does Lning and Vahernholt have to do with anything?

        Have you no rebuttal to the information supplied in the article?

  39. Geoff Sherrington says:

    All of the global temperature sets are made by combining data from smaller subsets.
    Here is a subset from remote Macquarie Island, in the vastness of the Southern Ocean, an island often unmanned, where the Automatic Weather Station clicks away with no problems from TOBs, no UHI, no site moves – this is about as pristine a site as I have been able to find on the ground.
    The data here are from Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, acknowledged with thanks. They are, so far as I know, completely raw and unadjusted.
    I am trying to find a small-area satellite temperature record that covers this remote island, to compare with ground measurements here. This covers the last 50 years, through El Ninos and La Ninas and Southern Oscillations and almost anything that people claim to cause temperature variability.
    Can anyone help explain please,
    why is there no global warming evident? How many more ?pristine places like this are there around the world? Why do they not seem to influence the satellite data?

    People say, there is noise in these measurements and in this rare case the noise acts to counteract the signal to make a flat line response for 50 years. I understand this line of reasoning, but I do not go for it completely. There is too much evidence of artifacts and tampering at other global sites, that confuse the minds of those who look at the problems in inadequate depth.

    http://www.geoffstuff.com/macquarie_gw.jpg

    • Des says:

      Yes, there are specific locations that haven’t warmed, and even a few locations which have cooled. Why do you think this precludes GLOBAL warming?

      • Geoff Sherrington says:

        See,
        Because when I study official data in depth, I find I can easily attribute at least half of this alleged global warming to man-made adjustments. One adjustment method is to minimise the representation of sites like Macquarie Island that show no warming in the last 50 years.
        Is global warming precluded if a different selection of sub-sets is chosen by some compilers? (I do not mean completely precluded. I also mean greatly reduced.) Geoff

        • Don says:

          Please explain precisely what BOM does to “minimise the representation of sites like Macquarie Island that show no warming”.

    • barry says:

      Here’s the data straight from BoM:

      Annual mean maximum temps:

      http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=300004&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13

      Annual mean minimum temps:

      http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=300004&p_nccObsCode=38&p_month=13

      Looks a bit different to the unsourced graphic you found. And there is data missing for 2006 for this weather station. Why is it plotted in your chart?

      I recommend going to source, not some graphic of unknown origin on the net.

      The Antarctic ocean waters is one of the few places on Earth where there has been little to no warming. Surprising, perhaps, that Macquarie Island, near to it, shows some warming.

      Looks like whoever made that chart did a bit of fiddling and then made a specious connection between a single weather station and global average.

      They could also have used a portion of the North Atlantic for the same ruse. It’s always possible to cherry-pick, but wise thinkers should spot such chicanery immediately.

      • Des says:

        It actually looks like the same data to me.
        It’s 2005 that is missing, not 2006. When you check the BOM data, it is only February 2005 that doesn’t have an average, and that has taken out the whole year. But when you look at the daily data for Fen 2005, there isn’t a day missing, so not sure what is going on there. I have no problem with him using the daily data to calculate the February average himself and hence the 2005 average.

        But as you and I have already said, not all parts of the globe have taken part in the warming. There is a part of the Northern Territory which has actually cooled significantly. These people seem to believe that raising the global average must mean that temperatures everywhere on the globe have risen.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Des,

          This GHE is a wondrous thing. Causes temperature to fall in some areas, but to rise in others, resulting in an average which increases, except when it doesn’t.

          Maybe the magical physics of the heating properties of CO2 vary from place to place, and whether the Sun is shining or not. I wonder if you could provide the conditions under which an increase in CO2 causes the temperature to fall in a particular location?

          Is there any point to this farce? The world wonders!

          Cheers.

          • Krakatoa says:

            What are you talking about? Why would CO2 be the cause of cooling in a particular area? Don’t you believe that natural variation in weather and climate can’t cause cooling or warming on a regional scale?

          • Bindidon says:

            Mike Flynn on September 6, 2017 at 6:50 AM

            I wonder if you could provide the conditions under which an increase in CO2 causes the temperature to fall in a particular location?

            Well it is absolutely evident to me that you won’t believe even half a syllab of what is written in the document accessed by the link

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full

            but it is certainly not less evident to you that I do care just as little about what you believe or don’t.

            Yes, Antarctica is a special corner… don’t mind, Mike Flynn!

            No GHE, no GHG, no AGW (like Roy Spencer, I guess it’s about 50 % of all).

            Cheers? Prost!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Krakatoa,

            I don’t believe in the existence of phlogiston, caloric, the luminiferous ether, the indivisibility of the atom, or the heating properties of CO2, aka the GHE.

            Some foolish Warmists believe in one or more of the above, but seem unable to accept that heat makes thermometers hotter, lack thereof allows them to cool. This occurs even in a vacuum, in the complete absence of any GHG, or any gas at all!

            No need for any GHE. Of course I accept that heat makes thermometers hotter, wherever they are located. I’m guessing you don’t disagree with this fact.

            Nature includes all possible heat sources, including heat created by humans. Exposing a thermometer to a fire built by Man graphically indicates the power of anthropogenic heating. Nothing to do with any greenhouse effect – just Nature at work.

            No GHE necesssary, or existent. CO2 heats nothing.

            Your original query stems from another commenter claiming that CO2 causes warming in some places (a possible implication being that any warming is due solely to the GHE). Any areas that fail to heat are caused to cool by the GHE operating in reverse, or by natural variations which only seem to operate to overcome the assumed heating effects of the mythical GHE.

            You might say that increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere always results in higher temperatures, but the highest surface temperatures on Earth are found in places with the lowest amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere. Reverse GHE, perhaps? Increasing the amount of GHGs causes the temperature to drop. Or don’t you agree?

            No GHE. None.

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Bindidon,

            At least part of that paper is nonsensical, inasmuch as the data presented does not accord with observed fact, or even other foolish Warmist literature.

            For example –

            “CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times.”

            You would be aware that H2O is supposedly the greatest contributor to the non existent GHE.

            Here are figures from Wikipedia – apparently drawn from Warmist literature (you can look up the references yourself if you wish) –

            “water vapor, 3670%
            carbon dioxide, 926%
            methane, 49%
            ozone, 37%”

            In case you want to complain that H2O is “natural” and CO2 isn’t, oxdising a simple hydrocarbon like CH4, results in CO2 and H2O, whether you like it or not. Two molecules of water for every carbon dioxide, if memory serves.

            Climate being the average of past weather, claiming that CO2 somehow alters the climate without specifying how it alters the weather, is just silly.

            The problem is that if you accept that H2O is the most important GHG, the map in the paper shows the most pronounced GHE in places with some of the least H2O on the planet. More reverse GHE, do you think?

            Another pointless and silly pseudoscientific piece of nonsense, based on fantasy.

            Still no GHE. GHGs heat nothing. Heat makes thermometers hot, and removing the heat allows them to cool – all the way to absolute zero, in the absence of any external energy source.

            Have fun trying to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of GHG between the thermometer and the heat source. I don’t believe you can, but I’m always prepared to consider new facts.

            Cheers.

          • Bindidon says:

            Mike Flynn on September 6, 2017 at 9:19 AM

            As expected, you did not read the paper with the necessary concentration: you just performed what I call ‘an ultradiagonal scan’, whose purpose is not to detect anything unusual yet alone to try to understand it, but solely to quickly search for patterns confirming your subjective, or better, egocentric views.

            During my professional work, I had often to do with people who behaved exactly as you do (of course in a completely different context).

            People I e.g. tried to carefully explain how a highly complex, grammar-driven tool generator works, but who answered after a few minutes that ‘every simple macro processor would do the same job’.

            You fatally remind me them.

            *

            I recall only one minuscule detail here:

            CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times.

            How did you manage to bypass that sentence’s key word? No idea.

            Has H2O in your mind suddenly become an anthropogenic forcing agent? You just moved by your own into a completely redundant blind-alley.

            These people evidently are aware that H2O is by far the most powerful IR absorber (but… outside of the atmospheric window, huh huh).

            I told you that more than once: I’m not at all interested in even trying to convince you. Do it yourself!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Bindidon,

            Your mind reading abilities are as poor as any other foolish Warmist. You have no idea how or what I read, unless I tell you.

            You wrote –

            “You fatally remind me them.” I haven’t the faintest idea of why you wrote that, what it means, or what it relates to.

            Maybe your writing skills reflect your comprehension skills relative to the absurdly silly paper to which you provided a link.

            I sympathise if you suffer from some sort of cognitive defect, but that’s not my problem.

            As to “anthropogenic forcing” of climate, climate is the average of weather, and the presence of so-called GHGs has no quantifiable effect on weather, and hence no predictable effect on the numbers which are the averages of weather records.

            In any case, as I pointed out, combustion of hydrocarbons results in carbon dioxide and water, at the minimum. You exhale both. To claim that atmospheric water vapour created by man, both directly by living, and indirectly by burning hydrocarbons, is not anthropogenic, is strange.

            Continue to deny, divert and confuse in the usual foolish Warmist fashion, if you wish. It still won’t create a GHE, because such a thing is impossible. A fantasy, unsupported by experiment. Cargo Cult Scientism, practised by the delusional, and eagerly lapped up by the gullible and easily lead.

            All part of the rich tapestry of life, I guess.

            Cheers.

          • Bindidon says:

            Thanks Mr Flynn for your usual nonsense.

            In any case, as I pointed out, combustion of hydrocarbons results in carbon dioxide and water, at the minimum. You exhale both. To claim that atmospheric water vapour created by man, both directly by living, and indirectly by burning hydrocarbons, is not anthropogenic, is strange.

            Maybe you compute the ratio between the water vapor which existed before apparition of mankind and that due to our exhaling, hydrocarbon burning and all cooling activities using water?

            You are an intelligent troll, no doubt! But an intelligent troll still remains a troll.

            Even if you would be confronted with a definitive proof of the stuff, you would discard it forever.

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Bindidon,

            I have no intention whatever of carrying out any calculations at your behest. You may waste your own time if you wish.

            Are you trying to say that CO2 and H2O present in the atmosphere prior to the advent of human augmentation of both had no effect on global temperature? If you’re trying to say that only the human addition causes temperature increases, I’d probably ask you to explain why the vast amounts of H2O in the atmosphere (and vast amounts there must be, as there is plenty of unvapourised liquid H2O lying about on the surface), have not produced enough “warming” over the past four and a half billion years to prevent the surface cooling? Even in spite of the vast radiogenic heat production within the Earth – orders of magnitude greater then, before the shorter lived radioactive elements were “used up”.

            Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, and all the rest of the deluded foolish Warmists, took quite some time to accept that H2O was a more important and effective “greenhouse gas”, given the supposed physical properties required!

            No GHE. Even you cannot find a reproducible scientific experiment which demonstrates that increasing the amount of GHG between a thermometer and a heat source, causes the thermometer to become hotter. That’s what the GHE is supposed to achieve, and it’s nonsense. That’s why nobody has ever managed to do it.

            Cargo Cult Scientism followers, such as foolish Warmists, still believe in then one-existent. In their view, faith is superior to fact, and facts are only a matter of opinion – experiments are useless!

            Man generates heat. Heat makes thermometers hotter. Even at night, when the GHE can’t even stop hot deserts cooling rapidly! Have you considered any alternative reasons for thermometers to get hotter, apart from the GHE?

            Cheers.

        • barry says:

          Yes, Des, you’re right. 2005 data is missing, not 2006.

          In Geoff’s graph the record begins in 1966.

          BoM temp data for the weather station start in 1949.

          I can see an upward trend in the BoM data, not in Geoff’s graph.

          This is partly to do with scaling: BoM graphs have a 3C range. Geoff’s has 8C range, visually minimizing the trend.

          Excising 17 years of data (29% of the full record gone), also “hides the incline.”

          Geoff’s graph is a ruse. Why would you remove 29% of the ‘pristine’ data?

          To sell (speciously) “no global warming.”

          • Krakatoa says:

            Mike, the point is that if CO2 increase would increase global temperatures it would increase the temperature of the whole system. But this has nothing to do with how heat is distributed around the globe.

            You dont believe in the GHE, fair enough, but small region on Earth that is cooling, is not a strong argument for that.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Krakatoa,

            Given that the Earth has cooled from its initial molten state over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of absorbing continuous sunlight for four and a half billion years, might be considered overall cooling, rather than heating due to the GHE.

            Sure, an object on the surface will heat up in the presence of sunlight, and cool at night. The atmosphere behaves chaotically, and some places will cool, some places will heat without apparent rhyme or reason. Continents will move unpredictably – up down and sideways. Nature in action.

            Marine fossils are found at heights of over 6000 m, and fossilised plant remains are found in fossil fuel deposits 3000 below ground. Foolish Warmists calculate supposed sea levels changes to 0.01 mm, or less – less than one eighth the thickness of a human hair. And we’re supposed believe this is important, or even possible?

            And still the Earth has cooled, and continues to do so, at a rate estimated (sorry about that) at between 1 and 3 millionths of a K per annum. No GHE required or existent, it appears.

            The GHE and unicorns have much in common – non existence being a primary shared attribute.

            Cheers.

          • Geoff Sherrington says:

            Barry,
            In fairness and unknown to you, I chose to last 50 years of data for two reasons –
            1. The data quality is more questionable for the few years before the 50 year start;
            2. Australian conventions changed in 1966 to be all metric, including changes from deg F to deg C. I wanted that rounding error to be out of the data.
            and 3. I first worked up the data because of email correspondence with Dr David Jones of the BOM, in which inter alia he wrote “Macquarie Islands data shows strong warming – about 0.5C in the last 50 years. ”

            What are we to do when the Head of Climate Analysis for Australia makes a comment like that? Do I presume that in the jargon of today he has drunk the Kool-Aid of global warming? Do I presume that he did not even look at the data?

            Earlier, I wrote here about ” … those who look at the problems in inadequate depth”. That is how I have classified Dr David Jones, which is a worry given his position. How I classify you does not matter.

            To those above who provided helpful further info about Macquarie Island, thank you. The comments on GISS are alarming. Geoff.

          • barry says:

            Geoff,

            1. The annual data start in 1949. Pristine conditions ensued since then. Very little change to surrounds and no station move or blending, unlike other parts of Australia. But see below.

            2. The change from Fahrenheit to Celsius came in September 1972, not 1966.

            http://www.waclimate.net/round/australia-acorn.html

            1966 was the year that currency changed from pounds and pence to dollars and cents. Changing to metric systems for other bits and bobs took place over the following years. Miles became kilometers in 1974, for example.

            Does this mean you should start your temp chart in 1973?

            3. I downloaded the max and min temp data and worked out the change in degrees C through linear regression.

            1949-2016

            Max +0.4C
            Min +0.5C

            “Last 50 years” has virtually no change. But you have to ask if your interlocutor was being precise. Did he mean from the beginning of the record, or 1966 exactly?

            As for the ‘pristine’ weather station, there have been instrument changes, and a max thermometer was not introduced until 2003.

            http://tinyurl.com/yd254op6

            I could not discover if the original min thermometer was degrees C or F. It is an alcohol thermometer – not as accurate as mercury.

            Make what you will of this information.

            But why on Earth do you ask “What global warming?” based on a single site? That’s just plain nutty. You could do the same with a small portion of the north Atlantic (and for longer). Or the most Southern ocean.

            But what has this to do with global temps, Geoff?

      • Geoff Sherrington says:

        Barry,
        When I am wrong, I apologise. Geoff

        • barry says:

          Oh, that’s not necessary. We’re all doing our best. I’ll take it for now that you are honest and ameliorate my comments accordingly.

    • Bindidon says:

      Geoff Sherrington on September 6, 2017 at 3:01 AM

      Sorry… but what in the world does your island have to do with the Globe?

      From GHCN metadata:

      50194998000 -54.4800 158.9500 8.0 MACQUARIE ISL 0R -9HIxxCO 1x-9WATER A

      i.e. exactly here:

      https://www.google.de/maps/place/54%C2%B028'48.0%22S+158%C2%B057'00.0%22E/@-54.48,141.0203123,3z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d-54.48!4d158.95?hl=en

      We are full in the Southern Ocean, near to Antarctica, and this should be a representative corner for the rest of the world?

      UAH6.0’s monthly anomaly data reports for the oceanic part of the Southern Extratropics a trend of 0.08 C / decade, compared with 0.13 for the Globe.

      I’ll come back later with
      – GHCN unadjusted data for the island;
      – anomalies of UAH6.0’s 2.5 deg grid cell exactly above the station.

      • Geoff Sherrington says:

        Bindidon,
        One thing Macquarie Island has to do with the globe is this. For several reasons already given, Macquarie Island grid cell seems a rather good candidate for ground truth of satellite data.
        Yes, I am well aware that the island is not in the lower troposphere; however it is useful to know how well UAH data correlates with surface data. It is easier to tease out relationships when like here, the ground shows no T trend for the last 50 years. Geoff

    • Bindidon says:

      Geoff Sherrington on September 6, 2017 at 3:01 AM (ctnd)

      A quick extract of data from GHCN station id ‘50194998000’ out of the GHCN unadjusted record shows this (compared with GISS for the same period):

      http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170906/6649vozm.jpg

      From 1948 to 2016, Macquarie’s data gives a linear trend estimate of 0.08 C / decade, whereas GISS Globe’s gives 0.140 C / decade (I spare us the CIs).

      During the satellite era, the island’s station shows -0.04 C /decade, and the UAH 2.5 deg grid cell above it does exactly the same (i.e. far below UAH’s SH Ext ocean average).

      Is that in your opinion a correct view over the world?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bindidon…”whereas GISS Globes gives 0.140 C / decade (I spare us the CIs).

        During the satellite era, the islands station shows -0.04 C /decade, and the UAH 2.5 deg grid cell above it does exactly the same (i.e. far below UAHs SH Ext ocean average).

        Is that in your opinion a correct view over the world?”

        Yes, it is. GISS is corrupt because they get their data from the fudge artists at NOAA. UAH has the only accurate temperature data over the oceans. Sats cover 95% of the planet.

      • Geoff Sherrington says:

        Bindidon,
        Can you please refer me to the source of your satellite cell data?

        Re GISS, I hope that you considered my comments about little to no need for adjustments, when I noted TOBs, UHI and site change. I would be interested to know what reasons GISS might have given to alter this raw data at all. Do you have access to that type of explanation? Thank you Geoff.

    • barry says:

      Bindidon, what’s the GHCN trend for Maquarie Island over the satellite period?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      geoff sherington…”Can anyone help explain please,
      why is there no global warming evident?”

      There is no such thing as global warming, it’s a number derived from an average. You have to specify ‘average’ global warming. The term global warming is meaningless since there are locations in the world (Tropics) where no average warming has been measured by sats. A very large area of the planet is covered by that Tropical no-warming zone.

      Same thing for the inference of global climate change. Not happening. Climates are local and range from small areas to larger areas that are far from global. Climate itself is an average of weather, another number if you like. Speaking of climate change globally is ludicrous.

      Is this island to which you refer in the Tropical no-warming zone?

      See the UAH global anomaly maps.

      eg. http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/july/JULY_2017_map.png

      The areas in white showed no warming in July 2017. Compare that to the maps over the years and you’ll see an ever changing planet wrt to global averages.

      In particular, look at the Arctic hot spots that move around month to month. Explain that using the anthropogenic theory.

      Click on Map or Graph.

      http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/archives.html

  40. Mickey Prumt says:

    Guys,
    should we meet in Florida this week-end to discuss how great are UAH adjustments ?

  41. Tim Wells says:

    The people believing in man made global warming are akin to the same people who once believed in a flat earth. Fear False evidence appearing real.

    • Bindidon says:

      Manifestly you did not notice that you perfectly could reverse your sentence.

      I guess half of warming is natural, the rest man made.

      • Svante says:

        “If you were to ask how much of the warming that we see recently has been caused by our greenhouse gasses, its a little more than all of it. Dr Richard Alley

  42. If AGW is really real the global temperatures should then not correlate so strongly to ENSO.

    Mark my words if La Nina conditions come about and persist watch the global temperatures go way down.

    AGW can not produce global warming independent of ENSO.

    • Krakatoa says:

      “If AGW is really real the global temperatures should then not correlate so strongly to ENSO.”

      Why not? The warming/cooling effect of an El Nino/La Nina event is way bigger than the warming due to CO2 in a single year.

    • Bindidon says:

      I don’t care wether or not GW is man made. But here is, one more time, the amount of warming shown by RSS3.3 TLT once you have removed ENSO and volcanoes:

      http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170906/3s6xea9x.png

      Mark my words if La Nina conditions come about and persist watch the global temperatures go way down.

      Marked, Salvatore…

      • lewis says:

        Bindidon : “I dont care wether or not GW is man made”
        My sentiments exactly.
        Hopefully Salvatore is wrong, although I suspect he might be right. No matter. Man, and most other creatures, sentient or otherwise, do better with warmer, flowable water, rather than ice.

        Burn more hydrocarbons! Hope the Alarmist crowd is right and the CO2 keeps Salvatore’s prediction at bay!

        • Bindidon says:

          lewis on September 6, 2017 at 1:33 PM

          Burn more hydrocarbons! Hope the Alarmist crowd is right and the CO2 keeps Salvatores prediction at bay!

          lewis, we seem to have a different view of what warming means for the future.

          My layman’s guess (!!!) is that warming as we begin to experience it is the precondition of an incoming cooling, rather than an alternative to it.

          The consequence of warming imho will be an increasing perturbation of the Thermohaline Circulation, mainly in the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean, due to an increasing loss of salinity levels at sea surface there.

          I think this eventuality be by far worse than the consequences of e.g. sea level rise.

          When I contradict Salvatore, I do it because of his supposition that warming is already now in front of a shutdown. This supposition he embraces since at least seven years…

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bindidon…”When I contradict Salvatore, I do it because of his supposition that warming is already now in front of a shutdown”.

            No supposition, it has been corroborated by the IPCC and the graph here on this site. The graph actually shows we have been cooling in 2017.

      • My climate play – it is very low solar /increase albedo /lower overall sea surface temperatures which I believe 2017 is the transitional year. Hence lower temperatures.

        I never said the globe was not warming up to 2017 which in my opinion the underlying cause was high solar activity/lower albedo /lower overall sea surface temperatures.

        ENSO/VOLCANIC ACTIIVTY – removed from the data.

        You say it was AGW responsible for the underlying warming, I say solar with those secondary effects.

        What I thought at one time was solar was going to be much lower then it was from 2010-2016 hence I thought my climate solar play at one time was going to happen before year 2017.

  43. Bindidon says:

    This is certainly not of great importance, but we might notice that the following August anomalies within UAH’s record build the top ten ranking for this month:

    1998 | 0.52
    2016 | 0.44
    2017 | 0.41
    2010 | 0.35
    1995 | 0.28
    2001 | 0.25
    2015 | 0.25
    2007 | 0.20
    2002 | 0.18
    2011 | 0.16

    The interesting fact here is that 2017 isn’t an El Nino year: we experience since months a mix of ENSO neutral and weak La Nina conditions.

  44. https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png

    Notice how warm region 3.4 was earlier this year this is year 2017 has been as warm as it has not to take into account the strong EL NINO previous to this.

    Now watch what happens and watch how quick it will be if true La Nina conditions persist.

  45. As I have said by summer of 2018 global temperatures will be at or below 30 year means.

    • Krakatoa says:

      And when it wont it will be the next year….

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      salvatore…”As I have said by summer of 2018 global temperatures will be at or below 30 year means”.

      Hope you’re right. There is obviously something freakish going on and it has nothing to do with the trace amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.

      Solar activity is the only known factor that could have caused the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, all within 1000 years or so. It would not surprise me in the least if solar activity is found to have been related to the current schizophrenic weather.

      Astronomer Syun Akasofu, who did pioneer work on the solar wind has revealed how it causes issues such as induced electrical currents in our atmosphere, lands, and oceans. It doesn’t take rocket science to conjecture that such solar effects may be driving our weather/climate.

  46. Bindidon says:

    I can’t avoid laughing when people write things like

    What you are claiming is that global warming with no apparent cause has suddenly arrived following an extreme El Nino. It was absent from 1998 2015 and suddenly it is here without explanation.

    Firstly, what such people completely forget is that we are talking about surface warming, what certainly won’t make tropospheric temperatures measured at about 5 km above surface the best candidate to monitor that warming, even if they sometimes pretty good correlate (of course when comparing anomalies removing both temperature differences due to lapse rate, and annual cycles).

    Secondly, these people either silently dissimulate that this absence of warming solely is due to a linear trend calculation including the strongest El Nino year since at least a century, or even worse, they don’t understand the problem.

    Let us have a quick look using WFT, it is so simple to explain it:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1998/to:2015.99/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015.99/trend/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015.99/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2015.99/trend

    You immediately see that by excluding the high El Nino year anomaly from the start of your time series, the trend suddenly becomes quite different: it moves from -0.01 C to 0.06 C / decade (this so tiny difference is more than half the warming trend for 1979-2017, scusi per favore).

    I suppose that when you only read stuff on sites a la Notrickszone, Goddard, Chiefio and other Tallblokes, you inevitably begin to discard the problem – intentionally or not.

    In order to exclude the same problem at the time series’ end, I prefer to concentrate on the period 1999-2012: it reduces the UAH trend from 0.06 down to 0.02 C / decade:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1999/to:2012.99/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2012.99/trend

    For the same period, while NOAA Globe indicates a high 0.12 C / decade, the Japanese JMA gives 0.07 C for the Globes surface as well, and RSS3.3 TLT, which was preferred by the coolistas during Roy Spencers UAH5.6 era, 0.04 C /decade.

    I will take the mean at 0.06 C…

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      bindidon…”You immediately see that by excluding the high El Nino year anomaly from the start of your time series…”

      What authority seeking people like you fail to understand is that the ’98 EN was not a statistic it was a real event that caused immense change throughout the planet. The aftermath of the event seems to have increased the global average close to 0.2 C. Whether that is an artefact of the sudden steep pulse and whether it will eventually resolve is a question to be answered.

      Prior to the ’98 EN, the UAH graph shows global warming mainly below the baseline and following the event the global average was mainly above the baseline. Why are you not talking about that rather than focusing on crunching numbers on WFT? Why are you not trying to understand what the data means rather than blindly crunching numbers that mean nothing outside the context to which they apply?

      The point is, you don’t get what is being revealed to you. I have already explained that the EN spike is offset by the La Nina cooling that followed. There’s no need to go into the statistical inference you alarmists bray about regarding cherry picking the ’98 EN as the starting point of the flat trend series. You alarmists are focused on red herring arguments and missing the forest for the trees.

      In that regard woodfortrees is aptly named. It’s a place where it’s easy to literally miss the forest for the trees.

      Following the ’98 EN, the global average suddenly rose above the baseline and maintained a flat trend till 2015. UAH called that ‘true’ warming, as opposed to the rewarming prior to ’98. Why did the trend rise above the baseline and remain flat after 18 years of remaining relatively below the baseline?

      Part of the explanation pre ’98 is volcanic aerosols cooling the planet. Part of that cooling range in the ’90s was claimed by the hockey stick to involve unprecedented warming over the past 1000 years. Only the surface record showed such warming. The satellite record showed ‘little or no [true] warming’.

      Part of it could be explained by the nature of the anomalies used to plot the data. I don’t agree with anomalies, I think the data should be presented as absolute temperatures. However, we are stuck with them it appears and have to make the best of them.

      Obviously, as the years progress, the baseline will change and the anomalies relative to the baseline will be affected. Therefore a trend line drawn through anomalous -ve and +ve regions will not have the same meaning as a trend line drawn through absolute temperatures.

      If you are really into the WFT experience, try to find the absolute temperatures, if they are available, and see what is going on. Of course, then you have the problem of NOAA fudging. The historical temperature record has been forever ruined by the alarmist zealots at NOAA and Had-crut.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson on September 6, 2017 at 3:01 PM

        Prior to the 98 EN, the UAH graph shows global warming mainly below the baseline and following the event the global average was mainly above the baseline.

        Part of it could be explained by the nature of the anomalies used to plot the data. I dont agree with anomalies, I think the data should be presented as absolute temperatures. However, we are stuck with them it appears and have to make the best of them.

        Obviously, as the years progress, the baseline will change and the anomalies relative to the baseline will be affected. Therefore a trend line drawn through anomalous -ve and +ve regions will not have the same meaning as a trend line drawn through absolute temperatures.

        Robertson

        You have been explained so often, by various commenters including myself, what a baseline means, especially that it is a not a consequence of any data change over time.

        It is a fully arbitrary concept, decided by the people managing their temperature series, and to a certain extent by WHO, in the hope to harmonise the concept by getting all these people using the same baseline and changing it alltogether as the current one becomes obsolete (e.g. from 1961-1990 to 1981-2010 or 2011-2040). Even the 30 years are fully arbitrary.

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2017_v6-550×317.jpg

        http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170907/45th8h3c.jpg

        But you persist in repeating the same nonsense all the time.

        And I moreover tried to explain you why anomalies are used, and why absolute temperature lack sense. You deliberately ignore all that in a terrifying manner.

        Maybe a neurologist might help.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      bindidon…”I suppose that when you only read stuff on sites a la Notrickszone, Goddard, Chiefio and other Tallblokes, you inevitably begin to discard the problem intentionally or not”.

      You need to distinguish between sites who are whistleblowers and reveal the good work of others and using the whistleblowers as the source of the info.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I posted a link yesterday about the US government investigation of NOAA. The first one ran out of steam after Obama interfered and forbade the release of pertinent information from NOAA. The investigation is back on after further information was released about NOAA corrupting the historical record in an attempt to erase the 15 years ‘pause’ claimed by the IPCC in 2013.

        Why are you not questioning such actions from Obama, who effectively had control of NOAA? Why did Obama need to suppress vital information from an investigation? And why did he hide his alarmist climate agenda from the US Congress?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          In a similar manner, when Phil Jones of Had-crut was investigated following the Climategate emails the proceeding s became a kang.aroo court in favour of Jones. The University of East Anglia (where Jones is in charge of CRU) were asked to provide the questions to be asked of him. He was investigated by two men who had strong ties to the AGW movement and naturally they found no evidence against him.

          Wouldn’t it be marvel.ous if in a crim.inal trial we were allowed to limit the pro.secutor to the questions he could ask while being heard by a judge who was on our side?

          There was plenty of evi.dence to indict him but the investig.ation purposely focused on lame charges that had no bearing on the problem. They could have called Steve McIntyre, who had submit.ted an FOI to the British government to get access to Had-crut data. Jones is seen in the Climategate emails advis.ing his cronies not to cooperate with the FOI request.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Sorry for the Liberal usage of – and . to break up words that WordPress does not like. WordPress needs to get their act together and fix their broken system.

            It has nothing to do with Roy. I have complained to them directly and heard nothing back from them.

            When Had-crut cannot pass through a site filter without a hyphen you know you’re dealing with amateurs. I have checked with Roy it’s nothing he is doing.

        • Bindidon says:

          Please Robertson!

          Stop your endless paranoia.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bindidon…”Please Robertson! Stop your endless paranoia”.

            Does it disturb your appeal to authority mind set?

            Paranoia is an unreasonable fear. There is no fear in what I am presenting and it’s not unreasonable. It is based on evidence, part of it NOAA’s evidence against itself.

            As far as Climategate goes, the scientific chicanery is well documented. Alarmists don’t seem to deny it, basically because it’s all there in black and white. What they deny is that the scientists committing the fraud are guilty.

            Do you think the US senate committee investigating NOAA for scientific misconduct is paranoid as well?

            Perhaps, each time I bring it up, it sets off your guilty feelings.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Do you think the US senate committee investigating NOAA for scientific misconduct is paranoid as well?”

            No — Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is paid very well to keep his investigation going….

            https://robertscribbler.com/tag/lamar-smith-fossil-fuel-campaign-contributions/

  47. james ryan says:

    Two events happened here in san Antonio in August. The eclipse and Harvey. It was noticeably cooler during the eclipse for about 4 hours and about 4 days due to Harvey. Yet these are not showing up on the Anamoly map. August was not an overly hot month.

    • Bindidon says:

      How could they do that?

      While you describe spatially and temporally highly local events, the data presented by Roy Spencer show a world-wide anomaly average of 9504 cells in a 2.5 deg grid for one complete month.

      Maybe you could ‘see’ Harvey if its cooling was so heavy that it manage to influe on the August value of the UAH grid cell above it.

      But the eclipse? No chance. It would not be visible even in daily data records due to the velocity of the shadow at the surface.

      Moreover, you certainly will have a time lag between any event at the surface and the troposphere’s reaction to it.

      • james ryan says:

        You had both of them acting together in one month. The temperature drops for a period
        d of 5 hours…20 degrees across a huge swath of the us. It should register. Harvey was about 2 I
        I’d
        f those 2.5 degree grids….there should be something there

        • Don says:

          James Ryan,
          There is absolutely NO WAY that the eclipse went anywhere close to dropping temperatures by 20 degrees for 5 hours.

          But even if it did, 5 hours is only two-thirds of a percent of one month. Remembering that 20 degrees F is 11 degrees C, that would drop the global monthly average by only 0.07 degrees. And THAT is only if the eclipse affected the entire planet, which of course it did not go close to doing.

          Try to get a feel for what is significant and what is not.

    • David Appell says:

      james ryan says:
      “Two events happened here in san Antonio in August. The eclipse and Harvey. It was noticeably cooler during the eclipse for about 4 hours”

      Not due to the (partial, there) eclipse, it wasn’t.

  48. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman…”Again you state: Besides, there is not enough CO2 to capture any more than a trivial amount of the IR flux radiating from the surface.

    Where do you get this nonsense from”.

    Is it not obvious, Norman? Consider each atom/molecule in the Earths surface radiating a photon at a time. After all, that’s what they do. That’s an immense IR flux field.

    Now take the number of atoms/molecules in the Earth’s surface and compare them to the number of CO2 molecules available to absorb them, one at a time.

    What’s the ratio of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere to the total amount of atoms/molecules radiating from the surface? There’s only so much of the surface radiation CO2 can absorb and I am claiming that is a trivial amount based on the trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    With regard to the ability of CO2 to warm the atmosphere, there’s not a chance. Contributions of heat to the atmosphere is based on the mass of each molecule in the gas. That’s Dalton’s Law. At a concentration of 0.04% of the atmospheric gases, CO2 is limited by its mass.

    AGW proponents have resorted to pseudo-science to create a virtual reality. They claim CO2 acts as a blanket that traps heat. Nonsense. Heat cannot be trapped because that involves trapping the atoms that contribute the heat.

    Others claim CO2 back-radiates energy that can warm the surface to a higher temperature than it is warmed by solar radiation. More nonsense. That notion contradicts the 2nd Law and the conditions under which atoms can absorb IR.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      You should do the math before you post. Since you did not want to I will help you out.

      I am not sure of how much depth water will emit IR from or how deep IR will penetrate water (solid matter like dirt would not have much IR penetration before being absorbed).

      I will use this person’s calculations as it may be on the extreme end. He uses the number 240 microns for the depth 95% of IR will be absorbed.

      http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/earth-radiator.html

      Here someone did me the favor to calculate the number of Carbon Dioxide molecules in one cubic meter of air. They came up with 7.3 x 10^21 molecules/m^3.

      https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrBT9slqLBZtrYA5yJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybGY3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg–?qid=20091024134159AA50Fv6&p=number%20of%20molecules%20of%20CO2%20in%20one%20cubic%20meter%20of%20air

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        If you have one square meter of water radiating IR from a maximum depth of 240 microns, the total volume of radiating water molecules that will emit to the atmosphere above would be 1m^2 times 240×10^-6 m = 0.00024 m^3. Water has a density of 1000 kg/m^3.

        1000 kg/m^3 x 0.00024 m^3 = 0.24 kg or 240 grams. Water has a molar mass of 18 grams/mole so 18 grams of water will equal 6.022×10^23 molecules. With 240 grams that would leave you with 13.33 moles.

        240 grams of water would contain 8.027×10^24 molecules of H2O.

        Remember from above post, air contgains 7.3×10^21 CO2 molecules/m^3 of air.

        To find an equivalent amount of CO2 absrobers for the number of H2O emitters in the water below you would take the number of emitters.

        8.027×10^24 divide 7.3×10^21 molecules in one meter above the water to find out how many meters would of air would contain the similar amount of CO2 to radiating H2O.

        So in a column 1100 meters up you would have the same nubmer of absorbing CO2 molecules as you would H2O emitters. There is more than enough CO2 present to absorb the IR emitted from the surface which all empirical evidence already provides that you always ignore.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Here is the empirical evidence that you choose to ignore. You make bold statements with no backing, no support and even the math does not support your wild speculations.

          https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Norman,

            I’m not sure how anyone but a gullible foolish Warmist could be expected to believe the nonsense to which you linked.

            It starts off with “Planets with atmospheres are warmer than they would be without their atmospheres.” which of course is completely nonsensical. A planet at absolute zero, with or without an atmospher,e remains at absolute zero.

            A planet at 100 K has a temperature of 100 K, atmosphere or no, and so on.

            Atmospheres create no heat, ignorant second raters to the contrary. The pretty graphic is likewise stupid. It shows all parts of the Earth’s surface miraculously illuminated by the Sun simultaneously, for a start.

            How’s your opportunity to advance all the usual foolish Warmist denialist arguments – the authors didn’t really mean what they said, but something totally different. They just didn’t say it!

            As an example, when the Earths surface had cooled to say 1000 K, from its presumed 5000 K at creation (and the fact that the Earths deep interior is still more than 5000 K bears this out, unless you believe in post creation differential heating involving a reversal of the laws of thermodynamics), then foolish Warmists claim that the planet would be colder without its atmosphere. No quantum is mentioned, of course!

            The same when the planets surface temperature drops to 500 K, 255 K, 100 K, and 0K. Or maybe foolish Warmists really mean to say that the atmosphere possesses miraculous heating properties between certain unknown temperature limits, for unexplainable and mysterious reasons, creating unknown temperature increases in various undefinable parts of the Earth!

            Anyone prepared to accept this explanation as science truly deserves the appellation of foolish Warmist. As Trenberth said once, in a different context “Its a travesty!”. Indeed it is.

            That’s a start – you might care to attempt to defend the indefensible. I’d suggest you start with a link to an experiment which demonstrates how a the temperature of a thermometer may be raised by increasing the amount of GHG between the thermometer and its source of heat – except that there isn’t one, because the GHE exists only in the fevered imaginations of its foolish Warmist proponents.

            Or you could just provide more links to the delusional maunderings of other foolish Warmists, graphic indications of unverifiable Cargo Cult Scientism! Another option might be to keep denying reality, I suppose.

            In any case, no GHE, Atmospheres heat nothing. Just collections of gases, which can be heated or allowed to cool. No magic to be seen.

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            I haven’t figured out which of the two is more more boring. You or g*e*r*a*n.

            You are not a very intelligent person I take if from the mindless and dull repetition you put people through. It was nice when you had left this blog for a time period. I had hoped you would have opened a physics textbook and started reading. Unfortunately that would require too much effort on your part. Also I do not think you possess the necessary intellect to comprehend physics at any level.

            I guess you must think what you say is important to someone. Not sure who exactly since it is a much of mush.

            Anyway I hope you do not respond to this post. You are not fun to read and you possess no knowledge of physics that is usable in any way. You really say nothing and are far too lazy and unmotivated to learn anything.

            YOU: “Or you could just provide more links to the delusional maunderings of other foolish Warmists, graphic indications of unverifiable Cargo Cult Scientism! Another option might be to keep denying reality, I suppose.”

            The only delusional foolish person is yourself. You are unable to learn physics or to comprehend concepts no matter how many times someone explains it to you. Go under the bridge troll and catch your goats crossing.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Norman,

            Maybe you could quote me exactly, and indicate what it is that you disagree with?

            Or can’t you find anything, and are just venting your spleen, in typical foolish Warmist hand waving fashion?

            Has it occurred to you that you could just choose not to respond? I guess not.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”Here is the empirical evidence that you choose to ignore”.

            Norman, before you post a link you might want to read the article first to see if it stands up to scientific scrutiny.

            Your article begins using smoke and mirrors with a dash of obfuscation. It states that atmospheres make planets warmer than those without them. Then it presents a leap of faith, presenting a diagram of so-called surface emissions dated 1972. That’s followed by the revelation that weather sats monitor the atmosphere for such emissions.

            Problem is, current sats were not launched till 1978 and that diagram does not come from a modern sat image. In fact, there is no indication where the diagram comes from or whether it has any accuracy. For all we know it was drawn based on a theoretical concept.

            But hey, when relating fiction about science who cares if much of it is fictitious.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            I did research for you on the image of TOA emission. They sight the source at the bottom of the graph.

            Here is a link that clearly shows your conspiracy thought process is out of whack and can no longer function in a rational manner.

            https://tinyurl.com/yazn8875

            And this:
            https://tinyurl.com/yd9rlkz3

            The satellite was launched in 1970 and had IRIS spectrometer to measure IR from Earth’s atmosphere.

            You should spend more time reading textbooks and less on conspiracy web pages.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “It starts off with Planets with atmospheres are warmer than they would be without their atmospheres. which of course is completely nonsensical. A planet at absolute zero, with or without an atmospher,e remains at absolute zero.”

            {chuckle, chuckle}

            So you’re unaware of the 3rd law of thermodynamics. Hilarious.

            {snicker}

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “A planet at 100 K has a temperature of 100 K, atmosphere or no, and so on.”

            Where’s your experimental proof of this?

            GOTCHA!!

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      YOU: “Others claim CO2 back-radiates energy that can warm the surface to a higher temperature than it is warmed by solar radiation. More nonsense. That notion contradicts the 2nd Law and the conditions under which atoms can absorb IR.”

      How does this contradict the second law. Where do you get his junk science? Why do you keep peddling it? Why won’t you read textbooks and learn what the textbooks really say about it?

      It in no way contradicts the second law or how atoms absorb IR. You just make things up and will not support any of your wild conjectures.

      Why spend so much time making up physics when you could spend the same amount of time reading textbook material and actually making claims that are true.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”How does this contradict the second law”.

        The basic tenet of the 2nd law is that under normal conditions heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a cooler mass. The CO2 is generally located in a cooler region meaning it is a cooler mass than the surface mass.

        Even grade schooler know that heat flows from hotter regions to cooler regions in a substance. Do I really need to explain that to you?

        There is another issue however. IR can only be absorbed by an atom if it has the required energy to raise the electrons around the hotter atom, especially the valence electrons, to a higher energy level. To be more precise, the IR must have the exact energy difference between an electron residing at one energy level and the energy level to which it needs to be raised.

        In a warmer atom (ie. an atom with it’s electrons residing already at a higher energy level), where does a cooler atom get the required energy to raise it.

        Let’s link these ideas. The 2nd law claims heat can only be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body without external compensation being provided. Absorbed IR needs to have a specific frequency and intensity to be absorbed.

        You have cooler CO2 molecules radiating to a warmer surface.
        Tell me, norman, why won’t the surface warm?

        Yet another point. The CO2 in the atmosphere is warmed by IR radiation from the surface. When the surface radiates it cools, and it will continue to cool if solar energy does not replenish the heat. There is a massive IR flux from the surface, most of which is not touched by CO2 because there is only enough CO2 molecules to absorb a tiny fraction of the surface flux.

        How the heck does CO2 radiate back a fraction of a tiny amount and replace the losses of IR at the surface?

        The people who came up with that lame theory are the ones who need to read some books on physics.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          If you are going to use the term heat in your statement then you must use the term as modern physics uses it or do not use it as it becomes an endless semantic debate.

          YOU: “Even grade schooler know that heat flows from hotter regions to cooler regions in a substance. Do I really need to explain that to you?”

          Heat is defined as NET energy so do you know what NET energy means?
          You always claim that heat is transfer of energy by atoms or molecules. Then how does the Sun heat the Earth? IR is energy and there is a NET energy meaning energy emitted and energy absorbed.

          You are unable to understand core concepts of radiant energy transfer. I have linked you to textbooks in the past. You read a few lines and conclude you understand the whole concept.

          You have this wrong!
          “There is another issue however. IR can only be absorbed by an atom if it has the required energy to raise the electrons around the hotter atom, especially the valence electrons, to a higher energy level. To be more precise, the IR must have the exact energy difference between an electron residing at one energy level and the energy level to which it needs to be raised.”

          Only in the IR bands near visible red light do electrons change levels to emit this wavelength of IR. Most IR is not caused by electrons changing energy levels. It is atoms in a molecule that have a slight charge difference moving within the charge differences and generating IR. Read up on it and quit the nonsense.

          YOU: “You have cooler CO2 molecules radiating to a warmer surface.
          Tell me, norman, why wont the surface warm?”

          You have been told many times and you could easily find the answer in a text book. The surface does not warm (only when solar input is not present, like night time conditions) because at the same time it is absorbing IR from the cooler CO2 it is emitting IR away from itself at a greater rate. Very basic math Gordon. Energy emitted is greater than energy absorbed. Net energy is lost and the surface cools.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Various definitions of heat per thermodynamics texts and university lecture notes:

            “Heat is energy transferred due to temperature differences only.”

            “Heat is energy in transit due to differences in temperature between two systems.”

            “Heat is the amount of energy flowing from one body of matter to another spontaneously due to their temperature difference”

            “Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another caused by a difference in temperature between the objects.”

            I don’t know where you come up with your “heat is defined as net energy”.

          • Norman says:

            SkepticGoneWild

            I was not specific enough, perhaps, in my post to Gordon.

            I should have specified that radiant heat transfer is the Net energy at a surface, the amount of energy it is emitting minus the amount of energy it is receiving via radiant energy.

            You can download this free Heat Transfer textbook.

            http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahtt.html

            Look at page 32 formula 1.32. It describes radiant heat transfer as the Qnet of a surface which would be the energy it is emitting (based upon its temperature) minus the amount it is receiving from another heated surface. If the temperatures are different you have a heat flow, a positive or negative Qnet. If at the same temperature you have no heat flow, only energy exchange.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “There is a massive IR flux from the surface, most of which is not touched by CO2 because there is only enough CO2 molecules to absorb a tiny fraction of the surface flux.”

          False. As usual.

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

    • gallopingcamel says:

      There is some real nonsense in the replies to your comment. It would be pointless to tell Norman that adding an atmosphere to a planet does raise the surface temperature no matter whether you call it the Greenhouse Effect or something else.

      How do I know? I use FEA (Finite Element Analysis) to calculate the average temperature of airless bodies as here:
      https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/

      The temperature of the Moon is about 90 K cooler than planet Earth even though both bodies receive the same TSI of ~1367 W/m^2.

  49. Gordon Robertson says:

    john finn…”What are you banging on about? Youve spouted this nonsense a couple of times now. Negative anomalies do not necessarily indicate that it is cooling”.

    They most certainly do when plotted against an average over a range.

    From NOAA, especially for you misinformed alarmists:

    “The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value”.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      I would agree that the anomaly maps do not give an overall picture of warming/cooling but the trend lines being discussed are pertinent to anomaly graphs. The thing I don’t like in particular about anomaly graphs is the baseline changing with time.

      When you draw a trend line through the data without considering the context the trend line has no meaning wrt anthropogenic warming. You would certainly not refer to rewarming from aerosol cooling as anthropogenic warming. in the same way you would not refer to warming above the baseline caused by El Nino’s in the same way.

      In that sense a trend line covering rewarming and true warming has no meaning.

      In fact, it’s virtually impossible to wean out the anthropogenic warming if it’s there. That’s what frustrated Trenberth in the Climategate emails when he claimed the warming has stopped and it’s a travesty that no one knows why. He later explained they lacked the instrumentation to decipher anthropogenic warming from natural warming.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “In fact, its virtually impossible to wean out the anthropogenic warming if its there. Thats what frustrated Trenberth in the Climategate emails when he claimed the warming has stopped and its a travesty that no one knows why.”

        A huge lie. Trenberth claimed no such thing at all. He lamented the heat budget could not be closed, because the entire climate system was not being monitored.

        Recommendation: Whatever Gordon claims, the opposite is true. Always.

        • gallopingcamel says:

          Nice piece of hyperventilation, David. Only someone with limited reading skills could agree with you instead of Gordon Robertson.

          • David Appell says:

            You only call me names and disparage me — you never – never – produce a counterargument or attempt to disprove me wrong. Or yourself right.

            Why are you so obsessed with me? Still from that Venus stuff?

          • gallopingcamel says:

            David,
            You are like the “Energizer Bunny”. You never stop banging an empty drum. If you could listen to yourself you might understand how much that annoys rational people.

  50. dr No says:

    It is interesting to see how the quality of denialist arguments degenerate over time.
    Many of us have seen the long list, of the desperate fallacious arguments that denialists have used and discarded over the years as more and more data come in.

    Lets face it, the game is over.
    Surface temperatures keep increasing (now clearly independent of El Ninos), UAH values are rising, Arctic ice is steadily reducing, glaciers are melting, sea levels continue rising, and now, extreme events such as Harvey and Irma are becoming more extreme – if not more frequent. Big business everywhere now mandate risk analyses based on climate change. The only people not on board are politicians, but we know that they can and will change their minds when the heat is on.

    Only a few denialist crackpots are left to spout nonsense, particularly because of their advanced years ( I rarely meet any young denialists). Furthermore, it is gratifying to see the number of people on this site prepared to call out these crackpots.
    Team warmist – well done!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dr no…”Lets face it, the game is over.
      Surface temperatures keep increasing (now clearly independent of El Ninos), UAH values are rising”.

      Have you looked at the trend for 2017, it’s decidely heading down the way? All we need to increase the flat trend since 1998 to 20 years is a good La Nina this winter.

      • dr No says:

        “Have you looked at the trend for 2017, its decidely heading down the way? ”
        But I looked at the trend from midnight to midday and it is definitely up!!

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “Have you looked at the trend for 2017, its decidely heading down the way?”

        From UAH LT v6.0, the 2017 trend is POSITIVE: +0.46 +/- 3.34 C/decade. Positive. But the uncertainty is so high it’s ridiculous to even talk about a 7-mth trend.

        Completely useless.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      dr No,

      The following news may help you to celebrate –

      “The official in charge of awarding EPA science grants doesnt want to see the words climate change” – Sept 5.

      I’d be a bit wary about using “greenhouse effect”, or “global warming” as well, if I was a member of team warmist.

      It seems that the EPA has woken up to the crackpot denialists, and started to curb their rapacious unceasing demands for increasing funds to waste on constructing amateurish and pointless computer games with no commercial value.

      Big businesses, of course, are free to perform such risk analysis as they desire. Insurance companies do it all the time, secure in the knowledge that if they’re too big to fail, they’ll get a bail-out. They can always blame poor climatological advice.

      Just as a matter of interest, the scientific journal publisher Elsevier just shuttered. The fact that

    • SAMURAI says:

      Dr. No-san:

      Actually, it’s CAGW advocacy is disintegrating, while the evidence against the CAGW hypothesis gets stronger and stronger.

      The disparity between CAGW’s global warming projections vs. reality already exceeds 2 standard deviations for 21 years, which is sufficient duration and disparity to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis:

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/modsvsobs.png

      CAGW skeptics (not “deniers”) understand CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of SOME warming at higher atmospheric concentrations, but the physics show actual CO2 logarithmic forcing (ECS) is around 0.6C~1.2C per CO2 doubling by 2100, which is far less than the 3.0~4.5C which CAGW advocates projected.

      We’ll likely witness a global cooling trend from around 2020 when both the PDO and AMO are in their 30-year cool cycles and when solar activity continues to collapse…

      Apart from the 2015/16 strong El Nino blip, there hasn’t been an observable global warming trend since June of 1996 and counting… Following the next La Nina cycle, global trends from 1996 will be near 0.0C/decade for the past 22 years.

      BTW, this year’s Arctic Ice Extent Minimum will be around the 5th~6th lowest since 2007 and +1,000,000 KM^2 larger than 2012’s summer minimum.. oops….

      When the AMO switches to its 30-year cool cycle from 2019, Arctic Ice Extents will likely continue to increase over the next 30 years..

      That’s a far cry from the Ice-Free Summer Arctic Ice Extent predicted to occur

  51. Mike Flynn says:

    Sorry. Fat finger syndrome.

    . . . Elsevier just shuttered the journal GeoResJ. The fact that GeoResJ recently published a peer reviewed paper to the effect that computer modelling showed no GHE warming, was not mentioned as a reason for closure. Team Warmist should have devoted their efforts to the EPA, to keep the grants flowing, by the look of it.

    Team Warmist might need to consider joining the French League. The French Government is apparently offering grants to players who cannot obtain them from the EPA or other US Govt. agencies.

    I wish you all “Bon voyage et bon chance”, from the ‘eart of my bottom!

    Cheers.

    • dr No says:

      Mike, both yours and Gordon’s responses bring to mind the expression:
      “red herrings”
      Empty, irrelevant, specious arguments are all you have left.
      Why not admit defeat and retire gracefully.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        dr No,

        I’m not sure what you mean. Arguments are pointless in the face of fact.

        Maybe you could quote me exactly, and produce new facts. I would change my opinion.

        If you wish, of course.

        What “defeat” are you talking about? There is no GHE – that’s just Cargo Cult Scientism – supported only by unsupported assertion and had waving, unless you can provide details of any experiment which demonstrates that increasing the amount of GHG between a thermometer and a source of heat increases the temperature of the thermometer.

        No “defeat”, no “victory”, as these are foolish Warmist concepts proposed in lieu of science and fact.

        The foolish Warmist tactics of deny, divert, and confuse, will not turn the GHE fantasy into reality. That’s my assumption, any way. You’re free to continue to deny reality – that’s your choice, not mine.

        I wish you well.

        Cheers.

        • dr No says:

          Have you seen the black knight scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
          The last few lines are:
          King Arthur: You’re a looney.
          Black Knight: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then. [Hopping on one leg towards King Arthur]
          [King Arthur chops his other leg off, leaving his body upright on the ground.]
          Black Knight: Alright, we’ll call it a draw.
          King Arthur: Come, Patsy!
          Black Knight: Oh, oh I see. Running away, eh?! You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off!!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            Indeed I have and it’s very apt.

            The US Govt. is progressively removing the “climate change” from its websites.

            The US Govt agency the EPA is indicating that researchers might be better off not using the words “climate change” in grant applications.

            India plans to build 370 coal fired power stations in the near future.
            Japan 45.
            China 700, locally and around the world.
            World wide – at least an additional 2000 coal fired power stations are planned to be constructed in the near future.

            If you wish in trying to turn science into a popularity contest or a debate, I’ll play along.

            Popularity – I win.

            Debate (given you can’t seemingly respond to any facts I produce, let alone falsify them), I think the audience might declare me the winner. In all modesty, I claim the win.

            That would make me the noble King Arthur, and you the irrational, armless, legless, impotent, invective hurling, foolish Warmist Black Knight.

            Thank you for pointing it out.

            Cheers.

          • dr No says:

            Dear Black Knight,what the politicians do or how many power plants are built does not alter the fact that the climate is changing due to enhanced GHGs.
            I know you think otherwise, but the warmists have won, the trophy has been awarded, and it is locked in the cabinet. Try as you might, it is not going anywhere.
            BTW, if you live in the tropics, you will no doubt be looking nervously at Irma, Jose and Katia.
            I am not a hurricane expert, but the current situation appears very unusual – do you agree?

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “India plans to build 370 coal fired power stations in the near future.”

            India has so far emitted less than 1/9th the CO2 that the US has (1850-2014).

            It annually emits about 40% of what the US does (2012).

            Per capita it emits about 1/10 less.

            Americans are the energy hogs; certainly not the Indians.

    • David Appell says:

      What “peer reviewed paper” was this?

    • David Appell says:

      Retraction Watch:
      “Its not unusual for publishers to close journals that are not drawing enough submissions, as we understand was the case here.”

      http://retractionwatch.com/2017/09/04/elsevier-shutters-earth-science-journal/

    • Don says:

      Mike Flynn

      You were asked WHAT PEER REVIEWED PAPER WAS THIS.
      Please respond.

  52. SAMURAI says:

    Looking at global temp data over the past 167 years, there is a 100% correlation between 30-year PDO/AMO warm/cool cycles, and 30-year global warming/cooling trends.

    The current PDO cycle is more or less in it’s 30-year cool cycle, however its cooling effects have so far obscured by the North Pacific “The Blob” (which has dissipated), and the very strong 2015~16 El Nino event.

    From around 2019, both the PDO and AMO ocean cycles will be in their respective 30-year cool cycles, so it’s highly likely a falling global temperature trend will soon develop over the next 3~4 years.

    Moreover, from 2019, sunspot activity from current solar cycle #24 will drop to near zero as it enters the tail-end of its 11-yr solar cycle, followed by the next solar cycle #25 starting in 2021, which is projected to be the weakest solar cycle since 1790.

    Solar cycle #26 starting in 2032 is projected to be the start of a 50~75 year Grand Solar Minimum event, which some astrophysicists predict will cause significant global cooling between 2032~2100…

    Global temperature trends should become quite interesting over the next 5 years.

    If a noticeable global cooling trend develops over the next 5 years, it will be impossible for the CAGW hypothesis from being officially disconfirmed, given the gigantic disparity that already exists between CAGW global warming predictions vs. reality.

    • dr No says:

      What a load of rubbish.
      For a start, your claim of a 100% correlation is impossible unless you have inadvertently correlated two identical data sets. Go back and check your calculations.

      • SAMURAI says:

        Dr. No-san:

        For some reason, the comment section won’t let me post the graph, however, if you go to woodfortrees.com, and do a OLS trend analysis for all 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycles since 1850, there is a 100% correlation between PDO warm/cool cycles and global warm/cool trends since 1850.

        It’s not “impossible”…. There is clearly a 100% correlation for each 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycle.

        The current 30-yr PDO cycle started in 2008. Well before 2038, a clear global cooling cycle will develop as has occurred since 1850.

        • dr No says:

          Show me the first 10 pairs of data points you used.
          I repeat, it is impossible to get 100% correlation.

        • barry says:

          It won’t let you post the graph because of the letters H.a.d.c.r.u in the link – this sire rejects the letter sequence D.C with nothing in between.

          You can convert links to tiny URLs and they will post (as long as the tiny url doesn’t have that letter sequence).

          Converting is as simple as copying, pasting and clicking.

          Go here to overcome this site’s gremlims and post links freely.

          https://tinyurl.com/create.php

          I’ve already done so below for global temps, PDO and AMO.

        • Don says:

          Samurai
          You’ve been offered a fix. What is now preventing you from posting your graph?

    • barry says:

      Looking at global temp data over the past 167 years, there is a 100% correlation between 30-year PDO/AMO warm/cool cycles, and 30-year global warming/cooling trends.

      100% correlation pretty much never happens.

      Here global temps and PDO.

      https://tinyurl.com/y75sg4lu

      Correlation between mid 1980s to 2010? Nope, they’re anti-correlated for that period.

      Global temps and AMO.

      https://tinyurl.com/ydf6pe8u

      Mid 20th century correlation? Nope. AMO declined while global temps remained flat.

      And it looks to me like AMO might be aliasing global temps. Checking the data, AMO often lags global temps, so the ups and downs might be caused by global temp fluctuations rather than the other way around.

    • barry says:

      I’ve here detrended global temp data to compare more closely with the AMO. Global temp fluctuations more often lead AMO, which is why I think AMO fluctuations may be aliasing global temps rather than causing them.

      http://tinyurl.com/ycyqasld

      • Bindidon says:

        Correct, I did the same last year but then discovered that there is an ‘undetrended’ AMO dataset at NOAA. So using that guy you don’t need to detrend temps anymore.

    • Bindidon says:

      SAMURAI on September 7, 2017 at 12:46 AM

      Looking at global temp data over the past 167 years, there is a 100% correlation between 30-year PDO/AMO warm/cool cycles, and 30-year global warming/cooling trends.

      Samurai-san,

      I’m always interested in possible correlations between world temperature averages and natural cycles of any kind (especially AMO, PDO, SSN).

      Last year already I read about arguments similar to yours and thus I downloaded all the stuff at that time (sources below)

      Here is for example a comparison of PDO, AMO, SSN and Had-CRUT4.5 updated for the period 1880-2017:

      http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170908/mb7gykzg.jpg

      What layman Bindidon sees here is that, if temperature and AMO were in strong correlation, the former should have drastically fallen by around 1955, to reach its 1925 level (-0.7 C) by around 1985.

      The contrary has happened. Temperature has disconnected from AMO (if it was ever connected to); its running mean espouses by accident the AMO since 1995, what in fact means that the Had-CRUT anomalies are since then about 0.4 C higher than an exact AMO correlation would expect.

      Two remarks concerning PDO:
      – it looks often in contradiction with AMO (especially during the satellite era, where their conjunction seems to vanish);
      – its influence on the temperature isnt perceptible in the data.

      That is perfectly visible when you look at this satellite era, with PDO left unscaled this time:

      http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170908/h72e746u.jpg

      Nothing to say about SSN… and I guess TSI wouldnt tell us much more, so I dont search for any data download.

      I have no idea where you take your assumptions from. Sorry for the 100% contradiction.

    • David Appell says:

      SAMURAI says:
      “Looking at global temp data over the past 167 years, there is a 100% correlation between 30-year PDO/AMO warm/cool cycles, and 30-year global warming/cooling trends.”

      No, there isn’t, and you can’t present the math showing that.

      The Earth’s energy imbalance is about 0.7 W/m2. How are the AMO and PDO producing that, actually adding heat to the Earth’s system?

    • SAMURAI says:

      OK, here is a graph I made (using “tinyurl”) showing perfect correlation between 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycles and global OLS temp trends during EACH PDO event:

      https://tinyurl.com/yb6h52as

      The current 30-yr PDO cool cycle started in 2005 and global temp trends have been skewed by the 2015/16 Suoer El Nio spike. Eventually, a cooling trend during this PDO cycle will be apparent.

    • barry says:

      SAMURAI,

      That website also has PDO data, so you can put that on the same graph as the temps. I’ve done so using your graph as the base, using the exact same time periods for the trends, with PDO added and trended to your selection. (I also cleaned it up to make the visual comparison easier)

      http://tinyurl.com/yd76vwac

      From 1977 to 2005 (your choice), PDO and global temps are going in the opposite direction.

  53. ren says:

    Proton jump after yesterday’s blast on the Sun.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00930/qwxdz9tomtxh.gif

  54. Mat says:

    AndyG55, you told me 4 years ago we were on the tip of a precipice, heading to record lows. We made a bet that we would reconsider our position based on the data. How’s that going for you?

    • Bindidon says:

      He is sure somewhere at WUWT, telling there there is no warming by simply drawing a stright line over some UAH chart.

      Maybe he is a sosy of a knowledgeless troll writing the same nonsense here all the time.

  55. Darwin Wyatt says:

    I read somewhere that interglacials last 10,000 years on average and we’re currently at 11,700? Isn’t that past the cusp?

  56. climate play – very low solar will equate to overall lower sea surface temperatures /higher albedo hence lower global temperatures.

    • barry says:

      Why would lower SSTs equate to lower albedo?

      Clouds? No, lower SSTs means less evaporation.

      • Barry two separate issues.

        Lower sea surface temperatures due to weak UV light

        Higher Albedo due to an increase in global cloud coverage.

        • Bindidon says:

          That’s a contradiction, Salvatore, as barry noticed: lower SST means less clouds thus less albedo…

          • Two separate issues . More clouds due to an increase in galactic cosmic rays and a more meridional atmosheric circulation.

            Lower sea surface temperatures due to less UV light

          • Bindidon says:

            Yes yes yes Salavatore…

            The connection of cosmic rays to clouds
            Some researchers have held the belief that cosmic rays hitting Earth’s atmosphere [could] create aerosols which, in turn, [could] seed clouds and thereby [could] help in the formation of clouds.

            This would make cosmic rays an important player in weather and climate. A study published in the August 2016 issue of Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics supports the idea of an important connection between cosmic rays and clouds.

            If that was something supported by warmistas, it would be immediately discredited as pure nonsense.

          • barry says:

            The paper behind that report is here, Bindidon:

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JA022689/full

            Lead author Svensmark has been pushing a link between GCR and climate for many years, with mixed results. He seems determined to find one.

            Here’s a paper from the same year that finds an opposing conclusion.

            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119

            Note: that comes from the CERN group running experiments trying to get ionization for cloud nucleation from GCR-like bombardment in a special chamber.

            As always, it’s good to get a variety of views from the literature. A single study does not a theory make.

            This is a longer list. Unfortunately, they are selected for ‘disproving’ the link. I wish it was more balanced (it would include all Svensmark’s papers if it was), but it’s the longest paper list I could find ready to hand.

            https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/papers-on-the-non-significant-role-of-cosmic-rays-in-climate/

            My own opinion: possible link, but jury is still out.

          • Bindidon says:

            Thanks barry… though it is far away from the very kernel of my interest.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Possibly apropos of not much, but “cloud chambers” were used to detect invisible energetic particles. Particles would trigger cloud condensation nuclei, forming visible aggregations of molecules.

            Given the role of chaos in Nature, and Lorenz’s work pointing out that the flap of a butterfly’s wing in Brazil could result in a tornado in a Texas – literally – who can say with certainty that one cloud condensation nucleus will not have a completely unforeseen effect at some time in the future?

            Chaos appears everywhere in Nature. Predicting movements within the atmosphere might not be possible with any precision – ever.

            After all, Heisenberg pointed out that the position and velocity of one humble electron cannot even be measured simultaneously, let alone predicted! Pretending that it doesn’t really matter, won’t help.

            Feynman gave up on simple fluid dynamics as insoluble. I’m not within cooee of Feynman’s ability, but maybe you’re smarter than me. I wouldn’t just arbitrarily discard an idea which seems to have backing by theory and experiment. Who knows?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “After all, Heisenberg pointed out that the position and velocity of one humble electron cannot even be measured simultaneously, let alone predicted! Pretending that it doesnt really matter, wont help.”

            An extreme perversion of what Heisenberg actually discovered.

            His U Principle doesn’t apply to the macroscopic world. Your claim is just dumb.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bindidon…”Some researchers have held the belief…”

            You have highlighted words like belief, would, and idea. You are obviously claiming that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation is highly theoretical.

            Let’s look at current AGW theory. The best the authority on AGW, the IPCC, can claim, is that anthropogenic global warming is ‘likely’. They cannot state as a fact that humans have anything to do with global warming.

            AGW theory is based on sheer consensus. It cannot be proved using the scientific method.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”His U Principle doesnt apply to the macroscopic world. Your claim is just dumb”.

            Could have swore that Mike referenced Heisenberg to electrons.

          • David Appell says:

            GR: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies to all quantum systems, not just electrons. Take a class.

  57. barry says:

    In other news Irma has turned out to be the most powerful Atlantic storm ever recorded outside the shallower (warmer) waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. Cause appears to be warmer Atlantic Ocean waters.

    If it fails to make US landfall, of course, it doesn’t count for anything. :-/

    • Bindidon says:

      barry, nation centrism (I refuse to use here ‘nationalism’) is by far not restricted to the USA.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bindidon…”barry, nation centrism (I refuse to use here nationalism) is by far not restricted to the USA”.

        Don’t get your point, binny, especially with regard to nationalism and to what barry was talking about. I don’t agree with nationalism but I don’t get what you have against the word. Maybe it translates differently to you than what it does to someone over here.

        You seem to have a disdain for the US, the other day you took a shot at them with regard to how long it took the US to enter WW II.

        Many people hate the US due to a misguided notion that they are the root of all evil. Whereas I don’t agree with the US claiming the name America, I don’t hate the US and neither do I worship them. I come close to hating certain factions, like the current faction who refuse to get out of the way and allow the US government to operate, and especially to focus on stopping terrorists like ISIS.

        Let’s face it, the US is the centre of the universe with respect to this part of the world. If Irma does not hit Florida, it might just as well not exist. There’s something sinister about a major storm hitting the US, as if it affects all of us in the US and Canada.

        • David Appell says:

          People in Puerto Rico don’t count? Cuba? The Philippines?

          When do they teach Canadians such nonsense?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            I didn’t realise that people in Puerto Rico, Cuba, or Phillipines refuse to count.

            How do they add up? Subtract?

            Ah well, you’re a perfect fountain of knowledge. Thanks for that. Are you aware of any other societies whose members do not count? Are they unable, or just choose not too? Wonders will never cease.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”People in Puerto Rico dont count? Cuba? The Philippines?”

            You’re a Yank, you tell me.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, if you don’t recognize the universality of human suffering, nothing I can write would convince you of it. Shame.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”In other news Irma has turned out to be the most powerful Atlantic storm ever recorded outside the shallower (warmer) waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean”.

      Is their a hidden point you are trying to make, Barry? I mean something you can prove.

    • barry says:

      It’s more a dig at US-centric focus by Dr Spencer than anything else, but let me wind you up anyway.

      Irma’s intensity is consistent with global warming projections stating it is likely that intensity of the stronger storms will increase.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Its more a dig at US-centric focus by Dr Spencer than anything else, but let me wind you up anyway”.

        There are 323 million people in the US and a good proportion of them live in areas affected by the Houston storm and now Irma.

        Why would Roy not be focused on the US since he lives there?

        Having lived adjacent to the US much of my life I don’t perceive them as the threat many people seem to perceive them globally. I don’t agree with US politics in general, or their right-wing philosophy, but I have no issues with them in general. I’d hate to think of the world without them.

        “Irmas intensity is consistent with global warming projections stating it is likely that intensity of the stronger storms will increase”.

        That shows the inaccuracy and unreliability of those projections. In physics, global warming should reduce the difference in heat between the poles and Tropics and reduce the strength of storms.

        Hurricane expert, Chris Landsea, does not see much of a relationship between global warming and storm intensity.

        “The bottom line is that nearly all of the theoretical and computer modeling work suggest that hurricanes may be slightly stronger (by a few percent) by the end of the 21st Century, even presuming that a large global warming will occur…”

        Later he questions the accuracy of the models.

        http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/

        With regard to an increase in storm activity related to global warming, Landsea pointed to the obvious:

        “A natural question should arise in studies that are comparing tropical storms and hurricanes today versus a century ago: Have recent improvements in our ability to detect and monitor these cyclones affected the record and thus the trends obtained?”

      • barry says:

        Why would Roy not be focused on the US since he lives there?

        I think that’s fine.

        The problem arises when US landfall is touted as some kind of indicator of overall (global) cyclone trends. This is exactly what happens when Roy has posted about “US landfalling Cat3+ hurricanes.” Such occurrences are relatively rare and essentially random, making them a useless proxy for global anything.

        You can see the same chicanery in an article posted in this thread:

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261739

      • David Appell says:

        Let’s note what the science actually says, and not what you think it says:

        “Although projections under 21st century greenhouse warming indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rainfall rates, there is low confidence in region-specific projections of frequency and intensity. Still, based on high-resolution modelling studies, the frequency of the most intense storms, which are associated with particularly extensive physical effects, will more likely than not increase substantially in some basins under projected 21st century warming and there is medium confidence that tropical cyclone rainfall rates will increase in every affected region.”

        – IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch14 sec 14.6.3 p.1252

    • Bindidon says:

      That is of an incredible cynism. And as usual, the worldwide ultraskeptic connections work very well.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bindidon…”That is of an incredible cynism”.

        Why is it cynical? Basic physics predicts that storm intensity should decrease as the planet warms. That’s due to a reduction in the differential between temperatures in the polar regions and the Tropics.

        The Little Ice Age ended circa 1850 and during the LIA, global temps were 1C to 2C below normal. The planet has gradually warmed since the LIA with a reduction in glacier size and an increase in ocean level.

        Basic physics. Is it possible your AGW theory is based on cynicism?

        • Exactly the warmer the world the less the polar/equator temperature gradient will be the less stormy/less cloudy the earth will be.

          • David Appell says:

            Salvatore Del Prete says:
            “Exactly the warmer the world the less the polar/equator temperature gradient will be the less stormy/less cloudy the earth will be.”

            The Arctic is warming about twice as fast as the tropics. So the gradient is INCREASING, not decreasing.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            I’ll burst your bubble. If Arctic temperatures a rising faster than the tropics, they are converging. The gradient appears to be flattering, as the temperatures get closer.

            Anybody can look up the Carnot cycle, and find out more about temperature differences with in relation to a thermodynamic cycle. I’m surprised you didn’t learn about entropy and thermodynamics on the way to obtaining your PhD in physics.

            Or maybe I’m wrong?

            Cheers,

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “Anybody can look up the Carnot cycle, and find out more about temperature differences with in relation to a thermodynamic cycle. Im surprised you didnt learn about entropy and thermodynamics on the way to obtaining your PhD in physics.”

            You’re jealous. Did you not have the motivation and temerity to get an advanced degree? What a shame.

          • David Appell says:

            David Appell says:
            “The Arctic is warming about twice as fast as the tropics. So the gradient is INCREASING, not decreasing.”

            Oops, this was wrong, obviously.

            I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong.

        • barry says:

          Basic physics says that a heated system is a more energetic system.

          Zonal temp differentiations have nothing to do with hurricane intensity. The phenomena are too localised to be affected. What might change is storm tracks.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Nope. Basic physics says you cannot extract energy without a “temperature” difference, in essence. The ocean contains enormous “heat” energy. You cannot extract this to power a ship, leaving ice blocks in its wake.

            I have simplified somewhat, but feel free to pick at the details if you must.

            Cheers.

          • Barry please explain why the Pacific is void of tropical activity?

          • barry says:

            Mike, do you disagree that if a whole system gets warmer, it gets more energetic? That’s what I said, so please respond to that.

          • barry says:

            Salvatore,

            Are you trying to say that because there are no cyclones present right now that his says something about global warming?

            Please do not be so dense. Long-term analysis is needed to test for any relationship with long-term global warming.

            (There have been 6 hurricanes in the Pacific this season – near average for this time in the season, which starts June 1 and ends Nov 30 – we’re just over halfway through the season)

          • David Appell says:

            Salvatore,

            Explain, in scientific terms, why there has to be typhoon activity in the Pacific right now.

            Nothing wishy washy, as you usually do.

          • David Appell says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            “Basic physics says you cannot extract energy without a temperature difference, in essence.”

            A falling ball transfers energy to a spring. Where is the temperature difference?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            barry,

            First you must define your system. As I pointed out (correctly), that temperature differential is necessary.

            As an example, the surface of a frozen glacier at -3 C is emitting over 300W/M2 approx. Even an area of one square km will be emitting 300 x 1000000 W. You can’t even boil a cup of tea with all that energy.

            Now warm the glacier so that the surface is -1 C. Much more energy, and you still can’t even boil a cup full of water with it.

            Keep going, and soon you’ll be able to devise “gotchas” just as puerile and pathetic as those posed by David Appell.

            Some physicists have been convinced that using a large lens or parabolic mirror should surely allow concentration of the energy to boil water. I’ve even seen nicely coloured graphics, supported by mathematical calculations to “prove” it can be done. Just like foolish Warmist “energy balance” cartoons and calculations. Delusional fantasies.

            No GHE, and the chances of useful entropy reversal in Nature are exceedingly remote.

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            You wrote –

            “A falling ball transfers energy to a spring. Where is the temperature difference?”

            What has that to do with the matter at hand? Where did the energy to make the ball and the spring come from? What about the energy required to lift the ball?

            Maybe you concentrated energy from a glacier or somesuch, or maybe you’re just attempting another stupid “gotcha”. No temperature difference, no work to be obtained. Maybe CO2 magic will reverse entropy, and magically create some heat. That might work, I suppose.

            Still no GHE. CO2 heats nothing.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Where is the temperature difference?

            You said, “Basic physics says you cannot extract energy without a temperature difference, in essence”

            What is the temperature difference between the ball and the spring that extracts this energy?

          • David Appell says:

            MF wrote:
            “Keep going, and soon youll be able to devise gotchas just as puerile and pathetic as those posed by David Appell.”

            I am glad to see my questions rattle you this much.

            They should.

          • barry says:

            First you must define your system.

            I said “whole system.” That means global.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Barry,

            As I’ve mentioned, it doesn’t matter if there is more energy distributed within the global system. You cannot extract energy from an isothermal ocean to drive a ship, and leave colder water in your wake, having extracted some energy from the water.

            Whether the water is at 0 C, or 90 C, you still can’t do it. Energy is useless unless you can use it to perform work. As Einstein said e=mc2. So if you have 4 grams of water, you have twice as much energy as 2 grams. Completely true, but completely useless, without some means of accessing the energy.

            Ice radiates at least 300 W/m2, but you can’t use it to keep warm, even if you have millions of such Watts available. In any case, I assume you are trying to imply that the Earth is getting hotter due to the mythical GHE. Nonsense, of course. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, even having been exposed to the Sun for the complete period.

            Live in your fantasy world if you wish.

            Cheers.

          • barry says:

            You cannot extract energy

            You keep saying this. The global climate system has gotten warmer over the long term. Warmer systems have more energy. Apparently you don’t want to respond to this, so let’s move on.

            “Extracting” energy.

            Hurricanes – the topic of this sub-thread – extract energy from the oceans when they form and spin up.

            There are some nice images of the ocean surface after Harvey tracked past. The wake is bluer – energy from the waters has fueled the vortex.

            Warmer oceans means more energy to extract.

            When the surface water is warm, the storm sucks up heat energy from the water, just like a straw sucks up a liquid. This creates moisture in the air. If wind conditions are right, the storm becomes a hurricane. This heat energy is the fuel for the storm. And the warmer the water, the more moisture is in the air. And that could mean bigger and stronger hurricanes. Satellite data shows the heat and energy transfer in action.

            http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-videos/where-do-hurricanes-get-their-strength

            Lancey told Live Science that there are several key “ingredients” in the recipe for a powerful hurricane. The first requirement is warm ocean water “the warmer the better,” Lancey said. And it can’t just be a shallow layer at the ocean surface, he added. Warm water provides the energy that fuels a growing tropical storm the higher the water temperature and the more warm water there is, the more energy the storm has to tap into, and the faster its winds can blow.

            https://www.livescience.com/56361-why-hurricane-matthew-strong.html

            I don’t know what you are talking about, but my comments have remained about a warmer system being more energetic, applied to long-term global, and, now, to the fuel for hurricanes.

            Warmer waters tend to cause stronger hurricanes.

            Is this clear? Do you need more references?

        • barry says:

          What’s cynical is the focus on US effects only.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Bindidon,

        You wrote –

        “That is of an incredible cynism. And as usual, the worldwide ultraskeptic connections work very well.”

        As to the first, in your opinion, whatever you are referring to, is cynical. Is it correct, though? Your assertion of cynicism doesn’t help disprove whatever you’re referring to. If someone has presented something untrue, might you not be better pointing this out with facts?

        As to the second, you haven’t defined “the worldwide ultraskeptic connections” at all. Is this part of some alleged conspiracy theory?

        I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories, although, referring to a group including Jones, Trenberth, Mann, Schmidt, and Hansen, –

        ” . . .these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate . . .”

        could almost sound like a conspiracy. Being foolish Warmists, the conspirators seem to have failed, as in everything else they have tried to achieve.

        Maybe the foolish Warmists need to adopt the methods of the “worldwide ultraskeptic connections” that you think are so effective.

        Could you let me know what these methods are? They sound pretty useful to me.

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          Don’t even cite a quote. How convincing.

          When all you have left is to claim a conspiracy, you have admitted you have no counterpoints whatsoever.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            I said I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories. What part of that confuses you?

            As to quotes, if you can’t use a search engine such as Google, it’s not my fault. You may blame your incompetence on me, but it still won’t make you any smarter.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            I didn’t think you had a specific citation in mind. (That wasn’t difficult to infer.) It’s par for your course.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore: Marc Morano is paid $250,000/yr (and that was a few years ago) to deny climate science.

      Raise your standards, or be laughed at.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        I assume the laughter will be of the demented maniacal cackling of the foolish Warmist variety.

        I’m not sure that Salvatore will be terrified by your implied threat. I certainly wouldn’t be.

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          MF: You have enough problems addressing the questions asked of you. You shouldn’t go searching for more.

          Next you will say you don’t care about my or anyone else’s opinion. It’s as predictable as clockwork.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            You wrote –

            “MF: You have enough problems addressing the questions asked of you. You shouldnt go searching for more.”

            Your mind reading skills have not improved, apparently. I choose not to answer foolish Warmist gotchas.

            As to your instruction and advice – I’ll treat them with the vast ignore they deserve.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            You don’t answer questions because they would reveal your scientific lies. You are easy to back into a scientific corner, and then you get all defensive and try to pretend you don’t care about anyone’s opinion. It happens over and over again.

            You’re afraid to answer questions because you can’t. And I know it. Norman knows it. Barry knows it. You’re rather keep pretending to be truculent and a stupid troll than have the courage to engage in a honest intellectual discussion about the science.

            God only knows what motivates you. I doubt you even know that.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            I don’t bother answering your stupid “gotchas” because you’re not seeking knowledge, as far as I can see.

            You’re right – I don’t care what you or any other foolish Warmist think. Why should I?

            Your mind reading ability about my thought processs is sadly deficient. You may believe your opinions are fact, but just like your opinion (or belief) that the GHE exists, your opinion is backed by precisely zip.

            Keep it up. Maybe the power of wish fulfilment will bring the GHE into being. The laws of physics would appear to preclude such an anomaly, but I’m always prepared to change my mind if you can provide some repeatable experimental evidence that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and a heat source causes the thermometer to be hotter, but you haven’t so far.

            Complaints about my approach to science won’t make the GHE become reality. Keep trying, maybe it might work one day. Who knows?

            Cheers.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David,

          What you think (or don’t) is your affair. As is your desire to be spoon fed with citations. I can’t think of a single rational reason why I should do anything, just because you desire it.

          Is the feeling mutual?

          Cheers.

  58. If AGW is responsible for the Atlantic it must also be responsible for the Pacific which is dead quiet.

    SIGH

    • lewis says:

      Salvatore: AGW is responsible only for bad news. Please, pay attention.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Salvatore,

      Just for fun?

      New Zealand, at about 41 degrees South is not noted for being surrounded by warm water. In spite of this, the Shaky Isles manage to be ravaged by quite a few cyclones (which are just hurricanes rotating the correct way, of course). Only joking.

      I believe that NZ has never officially been subject to a “tropical cyclone” because it isn’t in the tropics, and the surrounding ocean is too cold. There used to be “great storms”, such as the one in 1868, which killed at least 40 people in a much less densely populated time, flattened lots of structures, and rained a lot.

      Fairly recently, it became allowable to use the term “ex tropical cyclone”, even after it has increased in intensity along the way. If it looks like a cyclone from satellite pictures, and acts like a cyclone on the ground, it’s a bit of a stretch to say it can’t be a cyclone because the water’s too cold, I suppose. The average seems to be around one per year, but I’m not sure if this is supposed to increase with AGW.

      I live in a place subject to cyclones. I don’t look forward to the next one, I can assure you. Still, the topography is flat, so persistent flooding is no problem.

      Cheers.

    • dr No says:

      If AGW is not responsible for more intense hurricanes, then I suppose you would be perfectly happy buying a piece of real estate near the ocean, in Florida or the Caribbean, about 1 meter above sea level?
      While the ocean views add $s to the value of a property, I would not be surprised to see coastal property prices dip as the risks become higher.
      My advice: sell up now, in 10 years time the value is likely to have fallen.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        dr No,

        I’m sure that all your advice, all your confidence, all your belief in Cargo Cult Scientism, plus $5, will probably buy a cup of coffee.

        People in general might prefer the $5. I certainly would, just in case your guesses turn out to be wrong.

        Disclaimer – I live near the coast in a cyclone area. I have no insurance, as I choose to carry my own risk. At least I don’t contribute to any insurance executive’s salary and bonuses, nor the rapacious demands of shareholders, sitting on their bottoms, expecting to enrich themselves at my expense by doing nothing.

        I seem to do all right. I’m probably just lucky. Good thing there’s no law against being lucky. Feel free to tell me how stupid you think I am, if it makes you feel better. I can take it!

        Cheers.

        • dr No says:

          “Im probably just lucky.”
          I bet you would one of the first asking for a government hand out if you get flooded out, blown away, burnt out etc. by an extreme weather event.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            You lose the bet. Of course, being a foolish Warmist, you only bet when you don’t have to pay out.

            Send a dollar to your local hurricane relief centre, if you wish.

            I’ve lost one house, a few motor vehicles, all the house contents, on one occasion – had looters as well, but that’s another story. I didn’t actively deter the Armed Forced clean up teams – that would be churlish.

            I also accepted some building materials, and the offer of a caravan for a short period. I remember signing some papers for that. So I probably applied in theory. I wasn’t scrambling for a Government handout, but why not accept an offer of charity gracefully?

            I borrowed money to rebuild, but at a higher interest rate.

            I haven’t been flooded out or burnt out, by virtue of living on flattish terrain in an urban area. The only time I’ve been physically blown away is in a foreign country – and I came to earth before I suffered much injury. Just lucky I guess.

            I hope it continues, but who knows? Sorry to disappoint you – but you can’t even seem to guess the past. Better luck next time.

            Cheers.

          • dr No says:

            You lost your house?
            And then rebuilt in the same location?
            You ignored the climate change predictions of worse extreme events?
            I hope you at least built a stronger house.
            Don’t expect any sympathy from me if it gets destroyed by the next extreme event.

      • David Appell says:

        “Although projections under 21st century greenhouse warming indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rainfall rates, there is low confidence in region-specific projections of frequency and intensity. Still, based on high-resolution modelling studies, the frequency of the most intense storms, which are associated with particularly extensive physical effects, will more likely than not increase substantially in some basins under projected 21st century warming and there is medium confidence that tropical cyclone rainfall rates will increase in every affected region.”

        – IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch14 sec 14.6.3 p.1252

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          And your point is?

          Or are you just inserting random assertions called projections, in some sort of perverted appeal to self appointed authority?

          In many cases, rational people would read words like “projections”, ” . . .either decrease or remain substantially unchanged,”, “low confidence”, and all the rest of the “modelled” gobbledygook as providing precisely zero useful information.

          Still no GHE. Climatology may be more useful than astrology, but insufficient information is available to know one way or the other.

          Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            And your point is?

            Uttering pointless commands will neither make a silk purse from a sow’s ear, nor create a GHE.

            I’ll ignore them, as usual.

            You can read it twice, if you like. Once for you, and once for me. Maybe you’ll get twice the benefit. Still no GHE, is there?

            Cheers.

          • dr No says:

            Mike, don’t read it.
            Please don’t.
            Don’t you dare read it.
            In fact, I forbid you to read it.

            It contains disturbing information that only we select few are allowed to see.
            I don’t think it is suitable for small minds.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            David Appell demanded – Read it.

            It. Done.

            Next stupid and pointless foolish Warmist demand?

            What a pack of Wayward Wandering Woeful Witless Warmists!

            Still no GHE. No CO2 heating. Even the US Government now has doubts – don’t apply for grants using “climate change” in your application. Use something like “natural disasters” instead. You can still claim that CO2 causes natural disasters.

            There’s still at least one sucker born every minute, and H L Mencken said “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

            The GHE believers seem to have profited mightily. A sheltered workshop for many who can’t or won’t be bothered to do anything scientifically useful. Producing vastly expensive and amateurish computer games of no use to man or beast doesn’t seem to usefully advance science.

            Foolish Warmists claim that redefining the scientific method to one of establishing scientific fact through consensus, rather than careful thought supported by experiment, will set things right.

            What do you think?

            Cheers.

          • dr No says:

            What do I think?
            I think you should give up and turn to poetry since i really liked this line from you:
            “What a pack of Wayward Wandering Woeful Witless Warmists!”

            Next task is to find a word that rhymes (sort of) with “warmists”.
            For example, reformist, alarmist, conformist and to construct the second line.
            Entries welcome from all. The best entry wins a copy of:
            “An inconvenient truth” by Al Gore
            Second prize: two copies !

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            I have to admit I rather like your implication that two copies of Al Gore’s propaganda piece are worth less than one copy. Or just worthless, if I want to save a space.

            Unfortunately, if you require that all entrants will be forced to accept 100 copies, even if all they have to pay is the postage, then entries a liable to be few.

            I’m not sure about poetry, but I don’t mind a bit of alliteration, when poking fun at foolish Warmists. They certainly have their uses. If I come across a joke lacking a butt, invariably a foolish Warmist volunteers – as the butt of the joke, of course.

            Maybe you could organise a competition for villages temporarily short of a village idiot. They might not be prepared to accept a foolish Warmist in lieu of a proper idiot. I’m pretty sure even rustics have standards.

            I’m happy enough to seek a GHE hypothesis that can be tested against experiment. Haven’t found one yet. Maybe it’s hidden under a pile of Iraqi WMDs.

            Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore: Remember Typhoon Haiyan? 6500 dead. Until Irma, the longest sustained record winds. Don’t insult them.

  59. barry says:

    Salvatore,

    There have been 6 hurricanes in the Pacific this season so far. About average for the time in the season (June 1 to Nov 30).

    Increases in intensity for the stronger categories of Pacific hurricanes has increased over time, consistent with AGW projections. Although, this confluence, while a positive indicator of successful prediction, is not yet statistically robust to be definite.

  60. gallopingcamel says:

    Dr. Roy,
    Congratulations! Your e-book was ranked as #1,201 on Kindle and rising while Al Gore’s book ranked #51,031 according to the Daily Caller.

    Methinks the general public is fed up with Al Gore’s lousy performance as a prophet. Mother Nature is having so much fun at his expense with the “Gore Effect”, 12 years without a major hurricane in the USA etc etc.

    Even though Irma is aimed directly at my house (on the Space Coast) I know it has nothing to do with “Global Warming” and anyone who says otherwise is a snake oil salesman or worse.

    Thank you for debunking so many “Sacred Cows”. Sadly, research related to medicine, behavioral research and education (to name a few) is just as corrupt as “Climate Science”. The real problem is that these sciences do not work to “three sigma” which means that the hypothesis has 0.3% probability of being wrong. Two sigma means a 5% probability of being wrong as explained by one of my ex-colleagues here:
    https://www.carolinajournal.com/video/dukes-staddon-explains-how-flawed-science-skews-public-policy-debates/

    • David Appell says:

      gallopingcamel says:
      “Mother Nature is having so much fun at his expense with the Gore Effect, 12 years without a major hurricane in the USA etc etc.”

      Totally whacked.

      Heard of Harvey?????????

      • gallopingcamel says:

        I can’t help anyone with your inability to understand simple statements.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”gallopingcamel says:
        Mother Nature is having so much fun at his expense with the Gore Effect, 12 years without a major hurricane in the USA etc etc.

        Heard of Harvey?????????”

        Oh, oh…were the books in question written after Harvey???

  61. gallopingcamel says:

    It is amazing how lousy prophets like Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore keep on spouting their nonsense year after year. Have they no shame?

    My guess is that when the cash flow is strongly positive you don’t feel the shame.

    • David Appell says:

      Perhaps you would change your opinion for money, but most of us would not.

      • lewis says:

        David, that is hardly true, hardly worth arguing.
        Most people are for sale, rather cheaply I might add. All that has to happen is to convince them they are right to take the money. Marketing and sales are the exact opposite of this emotional action, but it works the same way.

        Many government contracts and subsidies, grants they are called, require this very thing. In order to get the money you have to, as Mike says, write the way they require, tell them what they want to hear in the style they require, and convince yourself you’re telling the truth, but that only in order to assuage your conscience that what you are doing is honorable.

        See, that wasn’t so difficult was it.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        mile…”Most journalists are required to write as their employers dictate”.

        With DA as your employer, that is definitely the case. If DA’s intelligence/insight tried to intervene it would be summarily quashed by his ego-mind.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      gallopingcamel,

      David is trying for the moral high ground, yet he claims to be a journalist.

      Most journalists are required to write as their employers dictate. The editors and sub-editors tend to point out that if want to keep picking up your salary, you better do what you’re told. Even the fashion in which it is written is dictated, usually by means of a style manual.

      In the case of Al Gore and his ilk, it might be a case of no brain in concert with no shame. Delusional psychotics believe their delusions absolutely. Some people even believe that CO2 can make thermometers hotter – even though they can never manage to demonstrate this miracle to outsiders.

      All part of life’s rich tapestry.

      Cheers.

      • David Appell says:

        I’m a freelancer. Emphasis on the word “free.”

        • Haryy Cummings says:

          freeloader

          Regards

        • Mike Flynn says:

          David,

          I can understand why you work for “free”. Nobody except a foolish Warmist would pay you. Or do you mean “free to starve” if nobody wants to pay you for what you write? You can always fall back on your PhD when you get sick of trying to live on nothing.

          I wouldn’t mention “climate change” in your application, if you want a job with the US Govt. Your application might go through the shredder on its way to the trash receptacle. Free advice – worth what you pay for it.

          An editor once told me the publisher that all news had to be “print to fit”, before presenting me with too many blank column inches too close to deadline. Fun, fun, fun – not.

          Good luck with the freelancing – luckily I don’t have to worry about money too much.

          Cheers.

          • dr No says:

            As I noted above, the quality of the denialist arguments has hit rock bottom. Nothing left but pathetic insults. Go on, admit you have lost and retire gracefully.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            I’m not arguing. The GHE doesn’t exist – unless you can experimtally demonstrate that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the source of heat makes the thermometer hotter.

            Argue all you like. Facts are more convincing.

            Continue to deny, divert and confuse all you like. Still no GHE

            So sad, too bad.

            Cheers.

          • Don says:

            Mike Flynn
            Yet again, you completely misrepresent what the greenhouse effect is all about.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Don,

            Mike seems incapable of learning, no matter how many times better information has been presented. He always presents the GHE in his bizarrely reversed condition. His description can be fixed something like this:
            “… that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the source of sink for heat (given the existence of a heat input) makes the thermometer hotter.

            For the earth, the CO2 also happens to be between the earth’s surface and the sun, but the important factor is that the CO2 is between the earth’s surface and the icy cold expanse of outer space.

          • Svante says:

            Glad you’re back Tim, please stay around!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim Folkerts,

            Your GHE doesn’t result in heating, does it?

            What you have proposed is a description of an insulator, and I agree that an insulator between a hot thermometer, and a colder environment, will result in a slower rate of cooling than if the insulator was not present. As at night, on the Earth.

            However, no heating. You have to invent Folkerts’ demon, who removes the insulation when the thermometer and the heat source when present, allows the thermometer to heat, and then replaces the insulation when the heat source is removed.

            Or possibly you have invented Folkerts patent one way insulation, which allows more energy through in one direction than the other. This particular type of insulation would ensure that the longer an object insulated in this fashion was exposed to a heat source, the hotter it would become, as a certain amount of heat would be retained per unit time.

            The history of the Earth’s surface temperature shows that this has not happened. It has fallen substantially. The observations that temperatures vary widely on Earth, that temperatures change more rapidly, and are more extreme, where GHGs are lowest, and that Winter is generally colder than Summer in a particular location, also give problems.

            Sorry Tim, changing the description of the GHE to imply that cooling results in warmer temperatures, doesn’t help.

            Still no GHE. increasing the amount of CO2 between the Earth and the Sun, reduces the amount of energy reaching the surface. The maximum temperature of the Moon’s surface is far higher that that of the Earth, because the Sun’s radiation reaches the Moon’s surface unimpeded.

            Anybody who looks at radiative transfer equations should rapidly realise that maximum energy transfer occurs in a vacuum. This has been known for more than 100 years, but foolish Warmists insist the usual laws of physics don’t apply to them, which is why they have to invent ridiculous notions such as the GHE.

            No GHE. Climate is the average of weather, not the cause.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim folkerts…”For the earth, the CO2 also happens to be between the earths surface and the sun, but the important factor is that the CO2 is between the earths surface and the icy cold expanse of outer space”.

            So what??? That means it could absorb IR in either direction. It can’t do anything else, not in the trace amounts present in the atmosphere.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Tim,
            You of all people should know that outer space has no temperature.

          • alphagruis says:

            You of all people should know that outer space has no temperature.

            That’s funny.

            Of course outer space has a stone cold temperature, about 2.7 K the temperature of the cosmic background radiation.
            You might catch a very big cold and turn from live gone wild to dead gone tamed when just left “in contact” with it and no star close enough to warm you.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            This is why I try to avoid getting sucked in ….

            “You of all people should know that outer space has no temperature.”
            Scientists have gone to great trouble to measure the temperature of outer space. The radiation from the universe lets us measure this temperature quite precisely. Its 2.7 K, with minor variations in different directions.
            Beside, EVEN IF you want to say space is empty, then its radiation temperature would be 0 K!

            “That means it could absorb IR in either direction. “
            Very true. However there is very little 15 um radiation coming in from the sun, but quite a bit leaving. So CO2 is MUCH better at absorbing outgoing energy from the earth than at blocking incoming energy from the sun.

            “As at night, on the Earth.”
            Insulation doesn’t only work when things are cooling. It works when things are warming too! So on a cold winter day if the furnace is OFF, your house will cool more slowly with more insulation than with less. And on a cold winter day with the furnace ON, your house will warm more quickly with more insulation than with less. With furnaces running intermittently and identically in two houses, the house with more insulation will be warmer than the house without insulation.
            No magic. No one-way insulation. No violation of the 2nd Law. This is really basic stuff.

          • DHMacKenzie says:

            Tim, you are of course technically and scientifically correct. But having pointed out their lack of basic radiative heat transfer knowledge to Mike and Gordon in the past, I realized that their minds are no longer capable of assimilating second year engineering textbook material.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Tim/alpha,

            You are confusing electromagnetic radiation with temperature. They are not the same. CMB is just electromagnetic radiation.

            Outer space at the TOA has about 1370 W/m2 of radiation. Are you going to say outer space at the TOA has a high temperature associated with 1370 W/m2 as well?

            “Scientists have gone to great trouble to measure the temperature of outer space.”

            No Tim, scientists have measured cosmic microwave background radiation, not temperature.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “You are confusing electromagnetic radiation with temperature. They are not the same. CMB is just electromagnetic radiation.”

            They are more alike than you seem to realize. Read up on “photon gas”. Here’s the intro from wikipedia:

            In physics, a photon gas is a gas-like collection of photons, which has many of the same properties of a conventional gas like hydrogen or neon including pressure, temperature, and entropy. The most common example of a photon gas in equilibrium is black body radiation.

            Specifically, the gas of photons has a temperature equal to the blackbody that emitted it.

            The photon gas from the sun (the 1370 W/m^2 at the TOA that you mentioned) has a temperature of 5700 K — same as the surface of the sun. The photon gas from deep space has a temperature of 2.7 K — same as deep space. CMB is not “just EM radiation” — it is blackbody radiation from the early universe, red-shifted by the expansion of the universe over the past ~ 14 billion years until it is a gas of photons with a temperature of 2.7 K.

          • alphagruis says:

            One may add that the concept of temperature is closely related to the concept of (local, at least) thermodynamic equilibrium. With photons (as with molecules and Maxwell Boltzmann) it implies a specific equilibrium distribution of the particles in energy, direction and polarization, the Planck law. That’s essentially the case for the cosmic background radiation and thus outer space.
            Moreover it’s actually a bona fide temperature in the sense of thermodynamics exactly as the temperature of an ordinary solid, liquid or gas. Indeed if you put it in thermal contact with a small probe ( a sample of a solid for instance) at a lower (higher) temperature energy flows from outer space to (to outer space from) the probe as required by the second law of thermodynamics.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        Mike,

        “No brain, no shame”. I like it.

        Reminds me of “No pain, no gain”.

  62. dr No says:

    BTW:
    “Three hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean could all make landfall simultaneously in a weather event scientists say is “unparalleled and totally ridiculous”.

  63. don penman says:

    Regarding the question of the “if summer temperatures in the UK are representative of global warming” I do not think we have ever seen the maximum temperature possible in the UK during the summer not even in summer 1976-1977. Summer temperatures go up and down yearly but not because of changes in solar radiation.

  64. ren says:

    It accelerates the jet stream to the north because of the strong geomagnetic storm. Irma will hit central Florida.

  65. ren says:

    Hurricane Jose moves along the trail of the Irma.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00931/g3fyoc4mzruf.png

  66. Tim Wells says:

    There are signs all around us the world is cooling. Volcanoes and Earth quakes as the crust cools.

    • Bindidon says:

      Any source to present, Tim Wells?

      Volcanoes and earthquakes rather are known in context with a warming, expanding crust.

      But of course I wouldn’t link that phenomenon to ‘global warming’ of whatever origin.

      • Tim Wells says:

        Dark Winter John L Casey.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Bindidon,

        The crust is cooling, according to geophysicists.

        From “The Heat-Flow through Oceanic and Continental-Crust and the Heat-Loss of the Earth”

        “Reflecting the preponderance of Precambrian crust, two of these provinces cover the Archean to the middle Proterozoic, and the third covers the late Proterozoic to the Mesozoic. The mean heat flow decreases from a value of 1.84 cal/cm s (77 mW/m) for the youngest province to a constant value of 1.1 cal/cm s (46 mW/m) after 800 Ma. The nonradiogenic component of the surface heat flow decays to a constant value of between 0.65 and 0.5 cal/cm s (25 and 21 mW/m) within 200400 Ma.”

        I tossed this in just in case you didn’t believe the Wikipedia reference –

        “Estimates of the total heat flow from Earths interior to surface span a range of 43 to 49 terawatt (TW), or 1012 watt.[9] One recent estimate is 47 TW,[1] equivalent to an average heat flux of 91.6 mW/m2, and is based on more than 38,000 measurements. The respective mean heat flows of continental and oceanic crust are 70.9 and 105.4 mW/m2.[1]”

        Measurement supports this figure.

        As the crust cooled from presumably 5000 K or so (certainly molten), it shrank of necessity, as the molten rock is less dense than the solid. It shrinks, which leads to buckling, cracking, scraps, rift valleys and so on. This also causes enormous compression on the underlying fluid interior. A similar method can be used to create diamonds by allowing a red hot iron ball to chill under controlled conditions.

        Any wonder why from time to time the crust shakes, the mid ocean ridges continuously exude magma, and volcanoes can eject large amounts of material with awesome ferocity!

        So no crustal warming due to GHGs – certainly none beyond the influence of the Sun (maybe 10 metres or so), and of course even that varies with the Earths orbit around the Sun. The surface cools at night, as you can establish by placing a pot of boiling water on the surface before sunset, and measuring its temperature just before sunrise.

        Fact, not fantasy. It’s call real science. Verifiable by proper experiment, and supported by useful theory.

        Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”Any source to present, Tim Wells?”

        Two, actually.

        The planet has cooled about 0.5C since February 2016. Source = UAH graph on this site.

        The planet may have cooled 0.05C between 1998 – 2012. Source = IPCC. That is, using the -0.05C indicated in their error bars.

    • Don says:

      So you are saying you don’t trust Roy’s data then?

  67. Trough seems to be lifting over eastern U.S.A. I wonder if the W.N.W course might stay intact longer for IRMA?

  68. The burst in solar activity should be ending.

    Things are looking good for colder global temperatures moving forward.

    With no El NINO maybe La Nina , very low solar conditions likely and overall sea surface temperatures likely to continue to cool.

    Overall sea surface temp. +.286c last check this metric I am watching closely.

    Earthquake solar connection ? I say yes but can not prove it. 8.1 mag earthquake /severe geo magnetic storm/proton storm.

    Always seems to happen more often then not but not all the time.

  69. barry says:

    Here is the concisest prediction you’ve made, Salvatore.

    I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.

    [Similar here]

    We can put a number on that.

    The 30-year mean temperature for 1980-2010 (that’s actually 31 tears, but lets use them all) is…

    -0.001 C

    Let’s call it 0.0 C.

    Now, I think you’re predicting weather, not climate. A 3-month prediction is not about climate. Might as well predict an el Nino or la Nina, which last longer.

    You’ve described predicting ENSO events as “pathetic.”

    Yet you are betting the farm that there will not be an el Nino next summer, which would surely keep temps above the zero line.

    So, you are forecasting the state of ENSO next year. You’re saying definitely no el Nino.

    Not much of a climate prediction.

    But I’ll be taking note of temps out of interest. Far as I’m concerned, we’ll learn nothing about AGW from how hot or cold next summer is, but I’ll be very curious to see what you say should temps be warmer.

    I’ll expect you to say that AGW is likely a real phenomena.

    And I’ll be joining David and others in the merry band that post past failed predictions, should that occur and you fail to adjust your views.

    Good luck.

  70. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Why is CO2 taking so long to get over .400 ppm? If mankind is burning a million years of fossil fuel accumulation per year, (hard to believe) shouldn’t it be rising fast? Or as the “divergence problem” since 1980 suggests, could it be cooling thus offsetting CO2, which follows warming?

    • Bindidon says:

      Darwin Wyatt on September 8, 2017 at 10:41 AM

      Why is CO2 taking so long to get over .400 ppm?

      So long?

      https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

      What in the world do you mean with that?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”Why is CO2 taking so long to get over .400 ppm?”

        “What in the world do you mean with that?”

        binny…do you know what 400 PARTS per MILLION means?

        Do you really think any instrumentation could distinguish between 350 ppmv and 400 ppmv?

        Think of 100,000 people at a soccer game dressed in black with 40 people dressed in white. Now multiply both by 10.

        One of the main CO2 measuring instruments is parked on the edge of an active volcano above warm tropical water. The maximal out-gassing of CO2 is in the warmest water. And what do volcanoes out-gas?

        Why do you believe everything you read? There’s no way to state truthfully whether the atmosphere has 400 ppmv, it would be hard enough to measure that in a lab never mind a dynamic atmosphere with air molecules swirling everywhere.

        Was it Mike who pointed out that Feynman gave up on trying to calculate parameters in a swirling fluid? Planck claimed you can’t do it as well. He ended up averaging and that must be what they do when measuring CO2 density in the atmosphere.

        Besides, CO2 density changes with the seasons.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Gordon,

          You’re right – I did mention Feynman.

          Gavin Schmidt once claimed that CO2 was well mixed within the atmosphere, but then linked to a simulation which showed wide variations in CO2 around the globe. Satellite pictures using sensors sensitive to frequencies strongly absorbed and emitted by CO2 show the same thing. Maybe foolish Warmists wish to have it both ways, so they can’t be proved wrong.

          Many people don’t agree, but more CO2, rather than less, seems to be a good thing to me. All photosynthesis depends on available CO2, and it doesn’t seem rational to purposely try to reduce your food supply because James Hansen doesn’t like coal trains, or as he refers to them “trains of death”.

          Nobody has produced a GHE or a unicorn for scientific enquiry, so I’ll press on as though both are as real as the Tooth Fairy. So far, so good.

          Still no CO2 heating.

          Cheers.

        • dr No says:

          What a stupid analogy.
          I have been at a contest with close to 100,000 spectators packed into stadium.
          I bet I could easily find at least one of the 40 dressed all in white.

          Its now bordering on crazy if you must desperately resort to querying the CO2 record.
          You obviously know zero, zilch, nada about science.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            I’m sure a 7 year old child could do as well you with discerning white from black.

            The 7 year old child might be even better at understanding Gordon’s analogy as presented. Whether you have limited comprehension of English, or you suffer from a cognitive deficit of some sort, I do not know.

            Unlike you and other foolish Warmists, I don’t claim to be able to read people’s minds, nor peer into the future.

            I won’t tell you what you obviously know or don’t know, because I can’t read your mind. I leave claims of mind reading and similar claims of ESP to people such as you.

            You might care to let me know if you suffer from a cognitive defect, if you wish. I’m reduced to guessing otherwise. Oh well.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dr no…”What a stupid analogy.
            I have been at a contest with close to 100,000 spectators packed into stadium.
            I bet I could easily find at least one of the 40 dressed all in white”.

            doc…do you ever try to look at analogy from a perspective other than the first one that pops into your mind?

            I was trying to demonstrate how much CO2 is out-numbered in a density of 400 ppmv. Why should 400 particles of CO2 swamped by 999,600 particles of mainly nitrogen and oxygen have any effect at all?

            I was also trying to demonstrate there is no way to specify a density of 400 ppmv in our dynamic atmosphere to any degree of accuracy. In fact, I’ll go so far as to state that no one knows the density of CO2 in the atmosphere, and to whether it is increasing, to any degree of accuracy.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      darwin…”Why is CO2 taking so long to get over .400 ppm? If mankind is burning a million years of fossil fuel accumulation per year, (hard to believe) shouldnt it be rising fast?”

      It depends on your propaganda quotient. If you want to scare people you spread the word that it’s rising fast. No one states why it is rising fast, they just throw the propaganda out there and hope it sticks.

      Here in Canada, a federal minister claimed it does not matter if AGW theory is correct. She claimed they are doing the right thing by trying to control CO2 via carbon taxes and the likes. It’s for the environment, don’t ya know.

      How positively Big-Brotherish and politically-correct.

      That’s what we’re dealing with: anal, control freaks bent on establishing a world order.

      BTW, that political correctness is not limited to socialists and left-wingers. There are as many capitalist, right-wingers at it in Canada. They are bonded by their need to control and sticking their noses into the business of others.

      The other day, our Prime Minister, an uber-climate alarmist, was lecturing us on Islamophobia. That’s a news buzzword in Canada introduced by a politician who is…wait for it…Muslim. Never mind that extreme Muslims are slaughtering people in the Middle East and setting off bombs randomly, we Canadians are not allowed to mention such terrorist activities any more because it’s hateful.

      Bad Canadians for telling the truth!!

      Get the connection? Political-correctness knows no bounds. The AGW theory is political-correctness of the scientific kind.

      • dr No says:

        “Thats what were dealing with: anal, control freaks bent on establishing a world order.”
        Yes, here we go. The desperate lashing out by somebody who can see their world view collapsing and doesn’t know how to cope.
        Yes, everyone is out to get you! To enslave you! To torture you!To take your money! Everywhere you look you can see them! The scientists, the media, the leftists, the teachers, the young, the Pope!, the Democrats, the scientists!! etc etc.
        Check under your bed tonight!
        Paranoia is fun, isn’t it?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          dr No,

          And still no GHE to be found. Just foolish Warmists attempting to deny, divert, and confuse.

          Good luck with that.

          Cheers.

  71. Mike Flynn says:

    A diversion –

    dr No –

    “You lost your house?
    And then rebuilt in the same location?
    You ignored the climate change predictions of worse extreme events?
    I hope you at least built a stronger house.
    Dont expect any sympathy from me if it gets destroyed by the next extreme event.”

    My answers –

    Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

    I could care less about what dr No thinks, but not much. Foolish Warmists cannot understand why people ignore their admonitions, and go about their lives using their own best judgement.

    As for me, so far so good. Every decision I make seems right at the time. I’d hardly make one I thought to be wrong, would I?

    But I digress, as they say. I make decisions based on the non-existence of the GHE, unicorns, or tigers in the near vicinity.

    I don’t seem to have suffered unduly to date. Others can feel free to panic on my behalf, if they wish.

    Cheers.

    • lewis says:

      Mike,
      I don’t understand your aversion to unicorns. They exist. Be aware, be very aware. Don’t trample their food stock, don’t get in their way.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        lewis,

        Thanks for the warnings. I’ll be afraid, very afraid. I won’t have time to worry too much about the GHE, unfortunately!

        What a pity!

        Cheers.

    • dr No says:

      Nobody’s asking you to panic.
      Democracy allows you to believe whatever you like.
      Even fools.

      I seem to recall a children’s story about 3 little pigs.
      2 were fools, the third survived.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        dr No,

        Foolish Warmists believe in children’s stories and brightly coloured pictures. The sort put about by NASA, Trenberth, Mann, Schmidt and all the rest.

        Reality is different, in my view. Believe your children’s stories, fairy tales, and the GHE. You might even choose to believe that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, rather than an undistinguished mathematician, or that Michael Mann doesn’t fit the clinical picture of a delusional psychotic by most criteria.

        And still you can’t produce the GHE. Maybe it’s like WMD – you know it exists, but it’s always somewhere else! Keep looking – maybe it’s beside Trenberth’s missing Heat, after Caloric, but before Luminiferous Ether. Phlogiston and Unicorns are further along.

        Cheers.

        • dr No says:

          Yada, yada, yada.
          “NASA, Trenberth, Mann, Schmidt and all the rest.”
          Sore loser. These guys will be remembered and revered long after you (and I).
          In fact, as far as team warmist is concerned, they are amongst our best players.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            More mind reading attempts? I hope you’re not wagering on your ability to read minds. You’ve lost again.

            I agree with you about people being remembered.

            Trenberth for “we can’t find the missing heat and it’s a travesty”. You can’t find what isn’t there – a bit like the GHE.

            Mike Mann for his “Nature trick”, or the “Hockey stick” or his touching delusional belief in being able to divine past temperatures from communing with pieces of wood. Obviously obsessed with the idea that the future can be predicted by examining the entrails of the past.

            Gavin Schmidt for his posing as a scientist, in spite of not being one. Also for his breathless proclamation that 2014 was “The hottest year EVAH!”, and subsequent admission that the likelihood of this occurrence (having already become fact), was only 38% (0.38 probability). In Schmidt’s mind, odds of nearly two to one against count as probabilistic certainty!

            If these are your best players, I might as well wish you luck. You’ll need it. There doesn’t seem to be a first class mind amongst them – they resemble nothing more than a bunch of second raters, unable or unwilling to attempt real science, pretending instead that endlessly reanalysing a series of numbers of doubtful provenance is a “science”.

            Press on. Keep the faith. Maybe it’s some sort of cosmic test, do you think, and only the believers will be saved? I’m a GHE non-believer, and I feel fine – not a worry in the world, at present.

            Cheers.

          • dr No says:

            “There doesnt seem to be a first class mind amongst them they resemble nothing more than a bunch of second raters, unable or unwilling to attempt real science, pretending instead that endlessly reanalysing a series of numbers of doubtful provenance is a science.”
            Please tell us who you think, out of all the denialists out there, you could nominate as a “first class mind”.
            Please do not nominate yourself.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            dr No,

            Nobody I know denies that the weather, and hence the climate, changes.

            You have posed a poorly thought out, and quite silly “gotcha” in my opinion, but of course always feel free to convince me otherwise.

            In any case, science is not a popularity contest. I have pointed out that none of the people I mentioned could be considered to be first raters by any reasonable person.

            You are free to proclaim otherwise. Even Mann’s false claim in a court document that he was a Nobel Laureate wouldn’t preclude him having a first class intellect, but alas!, he’s delusional.

            Keep playing the appeals to fake authority. It doesn’t seem as persuasive as in the past.

            Cheers.

          • dr No says:

            Just as I thought!
            Nobody comes to mind except you and your friends.
            Sorry, that is unacceptable.
            Go and take up brain surgery if you think you are exceptional.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Dr. Benjamin Carson “took up” brain surgery. He performed medical operations that were thought to be impossible.

            He’s a skeptic.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            We DO remember these clowns:

            “Mike,
            Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I dont have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.
            Cheers, Phil”

            Climate pseudo-scientists in action.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            D.R. Tucker and Betsy Rosenberg conducted an interview AGW believer Dr. Richard Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley in August of 2012. This is what he had to say about Mann and his ilk, and the hockey stick:

            Interviewer: now that you have validated the information that was in dispute, supposedly, in the Climategate matter, is it fair to say, once and for all, that that is a settled matter, that should be all be [inaudible] and set aside?

            Prof Richard Muller: No, no, no. Just the opposite. Actually, thats not really accurate at all. The data they used in Climategate was proxy data. I wrote a book on the using of that. What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their licence. [at minute 13:00 in the interview]

            Further in the interview at time 14:30:

            Richard Muller: Whats wrong is what they said. The conclusions that Michael Mann drew, that its the warmest its been in a thousand years I was on an international academy review panel that looked at that. Our conclusion was: he could not draw those conclusions.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Dr. No has selective memory, especially in regards to Trenberth.

            On October 21, 2004, Trenberth participated in a news conference at the Center for Health and Global Environment, Harvard Medical School entitled, Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity. Chris Landsea, then at NOAA, was one of the worlds leading expert on hurricanes and had helped write the section on observations of hurricane activity for both the Second and Third IPCC Assessment Reports. He was slated to perform the same function for the then upcoming AR4 report. Landsea warned Trenberth prior to and also the day of the news conference that the current scientific understanding was that there was little to no link between global warming and hurricanes.

            On November 5th, 2004, Landsea sends a scathing email [0890.txt, Climategate email] to a host of people, including R. Pachauri himself, with a CC to Trenberth. He concludes the email as follows:

            I did try to caution both Dr. Trenberth and Dr. Linda Mearns before the media event (email included below) and provided a summary of the consensus within the hurricane research community. Dr. Mearns decided not to participate in the panel perhaps as a result of my email correspondence. I sincerely wish Dr. Trenberth had made the same decision. Dr. Trenberth wrote back to me that he hoped that this press conference would not go out of control. I would suggest that it was out of control the minute that he and his fellow panel members decided to forego the peer review scientific process and abuse science in pursuit of a political agenda.

            Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC AR4 process after the news conference due to Trenberth’s abuse of science, the last portion of his resignation letter stating:

            “Because of Dr. Trenberth’s pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost.
            While no one can “tell” scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation—though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements—would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.”

            “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.”

            Yes. We DO remember Trenberth, and it is not out of reverence.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dr no…”NASA, Trenberth, Mann, Schmidt and all the rest.
            Sore loser. These guys will be remembered and revered long after you (and I)”.

            Or they’ll all be in jail.

          • barry says:

            On October 21, 2004, Trenberth participated in a news conference at the Center for Health and Global Environment, Harvard Medical School entitled, Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity

            I don’t believe you. Link please.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Barry,
            This site is not allowing me to post links at the moment. Just google “Chris Landsea resignation letter”.

            I’ll try post some links later.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Full transcript of press conference:

            http://www.ucar.edu/news/record/transcripts/hurricanes102104.shtml

            This is where Trenberth diverts from the truth:

            Abhi Raghunathan, Naples Daily News: Hi, this is Abhi Raghunathan at the Naples Daily News in Florida. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, has publicly stated that global warming and climate change have had insignificant to no impact on this year’s hurricane season. Were they one of the groups you were referring to earlier when you said that some of the quotes you read in papers came from those with limited perspective?

            McCarthy: This is Jim McCarthy. I presume you’re directing that to me. No, I’m not aware of the NOAA statement. Kevin referred earlier to a publication that has been influential in the kind of discussion we’re having right now which came from NOAA scientists, but I was referring to pieces that had come my way, largely op-ed pieces in newspapers throughout the East Coast, where either from the direct effect or the aftermath of these recent storms these opinions have been voiced. Kevin, you might want to comment on the NOAA piece if you’re familiar with it. I’m not.

            Trenberth: I have not been aware of any official NOAA statement on this position one way or another.

            OMG! Trenberth had been warned numerous times prior to the news conference by Chris Landsea of the NOAA that there was insignificant to no impact regarding the link between global warming and hurricanes. Even the reporter knew.

            Trenberth should have been fired.

          • barry says:

            I read the transcript of the news conference. What do you think of this quote by Trenberth?

            There are several factors that go into making hurricanes. They’re really a collective of thunderstorms and they need a disturbance that hangs together. And we are not able to say what global warming is likely to do to that, and so there could be a trade off between individual thunderstorms versus actual hurricanes. It also requiresthis actually requires a favorable atmospheric circulation. This relates to things like whether the wind will blow it apart or wind shear will cause it to collapse before the hurricane actually forms. And we can’t say anything really about the tracks which make the hurricanes hit the U.S. or miss the U.S.whether they [make] landfall or not. What we can say is that the high sea surface temperatures of water vapor make for more intense storms and so this is consistent with the evidence that we’re seeing.

            I agree with Landsea that at other points in the interview he tied hurricane activity to global warming without proper caveats and uncertainty. For example:

            Let me focus then on the science of climate change and the physical aspects of the climate change that are going on….

            At the same time, water vapor amounts have increased and the empirical evidence suggests that water vapor in the atmosphere goes up about 10% [7% overall] for every degree Celsiusor say about 2 degrees Fahrenheitincrease in sea surface temperature in the atmosphere. And of course this is the fuel for the hurricanes and it also means that the hurricanes end up dropping a lot more precipitation and rainfall as a result. And so the environment in which these hurricanes form is changing and it’s changing in ways that provide more fuel for them through the water vapor and the changes in sea surface temperature.

            And another example aside from the ones over near Japan is that on late March 2004 there was a hurricane in the South Atlantic off the coast of Brazil. This was the first of its kind and it’s clear evidence that things are changing.

            That last comment is definitely out of order.

            But a little later he says the opposite:

            Now as I mentioned before, there is a lot of natural variability and decadal variability in hurricanes, and as Matthias mentioned it’s impossible in fact for researchers to tie an individual hurricane or even four hurricanes to global warming as such.

            SGW,

            Trenberth may not have been aware of a NOAA ‘public statement’ about hurricanes. A phone call from Landsea is not an official NOAA announcement, either.

            I agree he went too far in the conference, but as he contraicted himself. But spoken word interviews are not as well-formalised as written ones. Here, for example is a more formalised version of his views from the same year (2004).

            http://severe.worldweather.wmo.int/TCFW/RAI_Training/Stage-OMM-Oct13_4_ROUX.pdf

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Barry,
            Trenberth should not have conducted the press conference. Here is a link that explains the statement that was distributed at the press conference:

            https://www2.ucar.edu/news/record/hurricanes-natural-variability-and-global-warming

            The last sentence of the statement says:

            “But the evidence strongly suggests more intense storms and risk of greater flooding events, so that the North Atlantic hurricane season of 2004 may well be a harbinger of the future.”

            This was 2004, and the above statement did not agree at all with the consensus of hurricane experts, as explained by Chris Landsea. That is why the reporter asked the question at the news conference.

            So I don’t know why Dr. No should hold Trenberth in “reverence”.

            And as a side note, Trenberth STILL claims he shared the Nobel Peace prize with the IPCC, which is a total lie.

        • MikeR says:

          After reading Mike Flynn’s many contributions, I think he has one unacknowledged virtue. He makes Gordon Robertson seem sane.

          I do however have a more sinister interpretation. Mike Flynn could well be a “false flag” operative, whose real role is to totally discredit the climate change denial movement with his disarmingly stupid comments. Until now I think he has succeeded admirably, but he have may have overdone the nonsense.

          Sorry Mike to blow your cover but you still have Gordon to hold the fort.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            MikeR,

            Thank you for your support.

            Unfortunately, your mind reading ability is on a par with that of the average foolish Warmist. Zero.

            Only foolish Warmists are concerned with interpretations, conspiracies and consensus, to the exclusion of facts and the scientific method.

            I am not aware of anybody at all who is unaware that weather changes. I don’t believe anybody has ever managed to document two days on which the weather was identical. You may have facts to the contrary of course, but choose to keep them secret.

            Climate, being strictly the average of weather, must therefore change as a consequence. Maybe your bizarre claims of some “climate change denial movement” result from some form of conspiracy ideation.

            Can you name just one person not certifiably insane, or brain dead, who believes the weather, and hence the climate, to be constant and unchanging? I don’t believe you can – that’s my assumption anyway.

            Still no GHE. Maybe you could provide a reproducible experiment which supports the theory explaining this so far undefined phenomena, but of course none such exists.

            Carry on hoping – maybe the power of your concentrated mind can heat something through the magical powers of CO2. Or maybe not.

            What do you think?

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            MikeR…”After reading Mike Flynns many contributions, I think he has one unacknowledged virtue. He makes Gordon Robertson seem sane”.

            I note, Mike, that you offer no scientific rebuttal. How then, would you have a clue what I’m talking about?

          • Svante says:

            MikeR, it is intriguing. The endless repetition can not be very fun, but it’s not just blind pasting. Knowledge of journalism were indicated here https://tinyurl.com/ybn2vupl and here https://tinyurl.com/ycnyh2qu. Is this a second job?

          • MikeR says:

            Mike, I think it would be a great idea to collaborate with Gordon, G*e*…. etc and rewrite from scratch thermodynamic physics and radiative physics on both classical and quantum basis. If you guys are correct and can disprove GHE both theoretically and with accompanying replicated experiments then the world will be eternally grateful.

            Business can go on as usual and you can collect your own Nobel Prizes after they repossess those of Einstein, Gibbs, Planck, Nernst etc..

          • PMikeR says:

            Mike Flynn,

            I should also say that I appreciate your kind words, but you need to lift your game. It is still obvious your arguments can only be construed as attempts to discredit those who believe that GHE does not exist. The evidence is clear, firstly with your arguments with straw men regarding changing weather and climate and secondly with your feigned ignorance of the scientific method. In particular your request for experimental replication in such an inappropriate context where a repeat of experiments on a global scale are obviously not possible. The best we can do, without the time and effort of creating a control earth, is by techniques such as computational modelling.

  72. coturnix says:

    it’s a new normal, so for the next decade until the next big x-ninyo that’s where mean temperature would stay

  73. ren says:

    The eye of Irma comes to Cuba.

  74. Darwin Wyatt says:

    I want to know when we top the death valley record? Anyone got any predictions? I say 2210. 🙂 Should have happened already no?

  75. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Regretfully, I think Lewis is right. Aka: beware of the scientific elite. Don’t get in the way of their money train. That’s why I’m surprised some honest purveyors (Barry, Des) refuse to acknowledge the obvious: that co2 is a long term problem, if that. Even Appell with his legendary brain ( just ask him) must know this? My God, co2 is the least of our problems! Tonight, I’m thankful for reagan and his patriots, gps and the Internet. And the few interceptors we got for our $20 trillion. God bless him. My prayers are with Florida. Hopegully some houses built with stone.

    • dr No says:

      “Tonight, Im thankful for reagan and his patriots, gps and the Internet.”
      Really?
      I know he was a bit brain addled at the end, but I didn’t know that he helped develop GPS and the Internet! He must have been a giant of a genius. Maybe thats why he took up acting.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        dr No,

        I’m aware that you appear to suffer from a cognitive defect, but commas often serve the purpose of separating phrases. Gps and the Internet, are separate from Reagan as far as I can see.

        I believe Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s disease in his later years, but obviously foolish Warmists cannot pass up the chance to be discourteous and oafish about someone suffering from a debilitating mental disease.

        I would expect no less of you. Well done.

        I’m not sure what “a giant of a genius” is, but I believe he was elected President. I’m guessing that makes him smarter than Hillary Rodham Clinton, who didn’t manage to be elected President.

        I suppose Al Gore would be annoyed if he thought Reagan was taking credit for Al Gore’s invention.

        Here are Al Gore’s recorded words “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. . . .” I always thought it was Tim Berners-Lee, but I suppose a giant genius like Gore would say “Nah, that was only the World Wide Web.” I believe Gore’s latest propaganda is not attracting as much money from the faithful as before. Pity.

        If you want any help with sarcasm, just let me know. You certainly appear to need some! Remember, I’m here to help. Non discriminatory, that’s me. Always willing to lend a helping hand to those less fortunate than myself.

        Still no GHE, though.

        Cheers,

        • lewis says:

          Mike,

          You have volunteered for yeoman’s work, educating true believers, in your terms “foolish Warmers”. Your attempts will be in vain. Until instructed by their betters, they will continue their pilgrimage.

          They refuse to understand the difference between weather and climate, between the benefits of warm and horrors of cold. They believe by following their religion that all natural catastrophes; hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, floods, ice storms, blizzards, some earth quakes and probably, for the truly true believers, volcanoes, will be controlled under the lash of PC.

          Luckily for all of your ilk, the left, and their acolytes, the Antifa, have not directed their ire at you. There are a few who sputter and spit, and are rather entertaining in their efforts, but not in their writing.

          Keep up the good work, it must be rewarding in itself, the true believers will remain in-repentant – they must.

        • dr No says:

          Darwin may have not meant it. But I take the words:
          “Tonight, Im thankful for reagan and his patriots, gps and the Internet. And the few interceptors we got for our $20 trillion. God bless him.”
          to indicate Ronald was responsible. Forgive me if I am wrong – but that is the implication.

          BTW: Nothing wrong with Alzheimers disease, some of my best friends and foes have it.
          How are you feeling today by the way?

        • dr No says:

          “Im not sure what a giant of a genius is, but I believe he was elected President. Im guessing that makes him smarter than Hillary Rodham Clinton, who didnt manage to be elected President.”
          If being elected president is a sign of “smartness”, what is Donald doing in the White House?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            drano, you would be surprised how many Alarmists believe the recent record earthquake in Mexico was cased by CO2.

            Or, maybe you wouldn’t….

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Hmmm “roughly zero”? Unless you have data that suggests a significant number of people believe such an impossibility.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            AH! I see your misunderstanding! The article is about changes in ICE SHEETS causing changes in PRESSURE on the underlying rock formations, which could help trigger geological effects.

            Areas of rebounding crust could change the stresses acting on earthquake faults and volcanoes in the crust.

            “In places like Iceland, for example, where you have the Eyjafjallajkull ice sheet, which wouldn’t survive [global warming], and you’ve got lots of volcanoes under that, the unloading effect can trigger eruptions,” McGuire said.

            .

            So it is not CO2 per se that impacts geological formations. To the extent that CO2 helps warm the earth, it is an indirect contributor, but clearly not the direct cause.

            In any case, there was no ice to melt in southern Mexico, so this whole article (and your whole point) is not germane here.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Did you read these? or just google something and hope it supports your position???

            “Warming ice sheets and flooding are changing the weight load of the planet and putting stress on seismic faults like the one in the Himalayas, scientists say.”
            “He thinks that the erosion of landslides caused by the torrential rains acts to reduce the weight on any fault below, allowing it to move more easily.”

            Both of these are making basically the same point as the first — changes in weight of the overlying layers affects faults in the underlying areas. Neither supports your specific statement “many Alarmists believe the recent record earthquake in Mexico was cased by CO2”.

            I am not ‘spinning’ — I am just ‘de-spinning’ your inaccurately spun statement.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Well Tim, if you want to deny that the articles try to link earthquakes to CO2, go right ahead.

          • An Inquirer says:

            Tim Folkerts:
            ?? “roughly zero” we have people who blame the close approach of asteroids to the earth on global warming. We have people blaming the tsunami in Japan on global warming. We have people believing that Global Warming caused Harvey and Irma.

            I think the # is a lot bigger than roughly zero.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Well G, if you want to argue that the articles try to link earthquakes to CO2, go right ahead. Find a quote that supports that anyone is claiming that “the recent record earthquake in Mexico was cased by CO2” (which is what you originally claimed).

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      darwin…”Tonight, Im thankful for reagan and his patriots, gps and the Internet. And the few interceptors we got for our $20 trillion”.

      We can thank the Reagan administration for laying on the world the pseudo-science around HIV/AIDS.

      Circa 1983, there were many homosexual males dying mysteriously of an affliction that no one could identify. Those dying were carrying on in the steam baths of New York and San Francisco with multiple partners while doing up to six designer drugs. One of them amyl nitrate, has now been positively associated with the lung infections endured by these generally young men with AIDS.

      There was pressure put on the admin by the homosexual lobbyists to find a solution. Meantime, a cancer researcher, Robert Gallo, had been hypothesizing that cancer was caused by a virus. He was proved wrong but just about then, opportunity knocked.

      The Reagan admin was desperate for a cause of the aforementioned affliction of homosexual men and they jumped at Gallo’s suggestion it was ‘likely’ a virus. Why would no one suspect lifestyle, other than it being politically incorrect? Conveniently, Gallo was set up with a lab full of virus research equipment and Reagan et al adopted his ‘theory’ carte blanche, with no peer review.

      Are you listening DA…no peer review???!!!

      Suddenly, according to the Reagan admin we had the answer. The affliction was caused by a mysterious virus no one had isolated, purified, or seen on an electron microscope, as required by the protocol for identifying a virus. It was just ‘there’ and it behaved like no known virus. It could lay dormant in the human system for 15 years or more then suddenly destroy an immune system for no apparent reason.

      Fast forward 30 years or more. The scientist who actually discovered HIV, Dr, Luc Montagnier, and who was skeptical that HIV could act alone, has recently acknowledged that HIV cannot harm a healthy immune system. He admitted further that he did not isolate HIV, he did not purify it, and he did not see it on an electron microscope. He inferred the virus based on RNA fragments found in a specimen from a male with AIDS.

      Reagan et al could have asked for peer review, or conferred with Montagnier himself. Not good, old Ronny. He had the answer he needed which served him well politically.

      IMHO, Reagan destroyed the financial world with his deregulation nonsense. Deregulation for the financial community is equivalent to asking a fox to watch the chickens.

  76. ren says:

    The hurricane eye is now moving along the north coast of Cuba.

  77. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Dr no,

    Pretty sure the Internet was a tank battlefield communication system “launched” during Reagan. For Eastern Europe. Star Wars (geo positioning satellites) and patriots followed. Endless shuttle missions. Had to be born I guess.

    • Darwin Wyatt says:

      Correction: not that it matters but GPS stands for global positioning satellite. I wrote geo positioning satellite. Oops.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        darwin…”…GPS stands for global positioning satellite”

        Actually, it means global position system. In the system there are land stations which are just as important as the sats.

        “Pretty sure the Internet was a tank battlefield communication system launched during Reagan”.

        The Internet began as intra-cummunications systems between universities. Some kind souls decided to allow the public access then businesses had to get in on the act and there went the neighbourhood.

  78. martinitony says:

    “Natures gone crazy, mused Jeff Masters, meteorology director at the private service Weather Underground. Welcome to the future. Extreme weather like this is going to be occurring simultaneously more often because of global warming.

    Was the 10-12 years without a major hurricane making landfall on US an extreme climate event? I say “climate” Because a decade seems like more than weather.

    How does this guy say stuff like this and maintain his credibility? Did he have to take statistics to get his credentials? Does he remember any of that?

    In my business, I often have to explain to landowners what the 100 year flood plain means, those people having not seen their land flooded in their 50 year lifetime. I’d venture a guess, that on average someplace on the entire Earth is confronted with a 500 year flood in most years, but I’d just be guessing.

    Maybe I should assume that Masters is just guessing , too.

    • dr No says:

      You would be foolish in the extreme if you base your return period calculations on past data.
      Get yourself some good legal advice if you do because the past is well and truly in the past.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        dr No,

        I’ll just point out that the concept of the “return period” is useless in this case. Two occurrences assigned a very long “return period” can happen in quick succession. Take floods in a particular location, for example. After suffering a 1 in 100 year flood, within months (even weeks between recurrences have been documented), a location can suffer another event of similarly unlikely recurrence.

        The problem is that the frequency guesses are useless. What is needed is a useful prediction of timing and intensity – vague nonsense such as “we haven’t had a severe hurricane for 10 years, but the average is one per year, so it’s overdue” is just pointless.

        I am glad you agree that the past is well and truly in the past. With a fair coin, what has happened in the past does not enable you to predict the result of the next toss. You may complain that using physics and mathematics enables you to confidently predict the future.

        Not at all. Even the IPCC admits that prediction of future climate states (the average), is not possible, let alone the events which result in the average.

        To give you a very simple example, you cannot predict the next term of the “logistic equation” which is very simple, in iterative form. I don’t know how to write subscripts here, but it’s easy to look up if you’re interested. The point is, for an infinitely large number of values, every iteration gives an unpredictable value. Unfortunately, there are infinitely large numbers of values which don’t. You cannot even tell, except by experience or running the iteration, whether a particular number will result in chaotic, stable, or repetitive behaviour.

        And that’s for an extremely simple equation – no complex numbers. The equation which generates the Mandelbrot set, z=z^2 + c, generates chaos as well, but involves complex numbers.

        Your admonition to “get some good legal advice” might be useful to yourself, if you intend to claim to be able to predict the future any better than a twelve year old.

        Press on with the advice. It’s presumably worth what you paid for it.

        Cheers.

        • dr No says:

          “The problem is that the frequency guesses are useless. What is needed is a useful prediction of timing and intensity vague nonsense such as we havent had a severe hurricane for 10 years, but the average is one per year, so its overdue is just pointless.”

          So, I take it you pay no attention to the flood record – only the flood forecasts.
          You would be happy to build next to a river if the weather forecast was fine today and ignore the frequency with which it floods?
          What foolishness is that?
          Are you Irish?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      martinitony…”Jeff Masters, meteorology director at the private service Weather Underground. Welcome to the future. Extreme weather like this is going to be occurring simultaneously more often because of global warming”.

      Chris Landsea, a hurricane expert with NOAA, has claimed extreme warming will increase the intensity of hurricanes 1% to 2%.

      Landsea has also pointed out the obvious. We have no records with which to compare hurricane frequency. It has only been very recently that we have been able to record them using satellites, etc. There could have been major storms in the Atlantic or Pacific that did not touch land and no one would have been the wiser till recently.

  79. ren says:

    Irma’s eye is approaching Santa Clara in Cuba.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00931/u0zbytcqurd4.png

  80. lewis says:

    I am told a record cold occurred in the piedmont of North Carolina, USA Thursday.

    Another example, well publicized, for the true believers.

    • Bindidon says:

      What did you want to explain, lewis?

    • barry says:

      Record-breaking hot days currently outnumber cold record-breakers by about 4 to 1.

      http://tinyurl.com/lqs6wcz

      That’s the data for the entire US.

      Similar for the UK:

      http://www.marklynas.org/2014/12/have-we-been-breaking-more-and-more-weather-records/

      Globally, record hot days greatly outnumber cold record-breakers. Here’s the data since 2002:

      http://www.mherrera.org/records.htm
      http://www.mherrera.org/records1.htm

      Global results in numbers:

      2002 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 204
      Minimum 22

      2003 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 394
      Minimum 20

      2004 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 113
      Minimum 13

      2005 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 120
      Minimum 29

      2006 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 145
      Minimum 20

      2007 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 297
      Minimum 17

      2008 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 90
      Minimum 32

      2009 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 138
      Minimum 21

      2010 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 505
      Minimum 44

      2011 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 169
      Minimum 39

      2012 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 296
      Minimum 16

      2013 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 405
      Minimum 16

      2014 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 217
      Minimum 19

      2015 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 328
      Minimum 14

      2016 record-breaking local temps
      Maximum 323
      Minimum 21

      For this period (2002-2016) total record breaking local temps
      Maximum 3745
      Minimum 343

      Hot record-breaking days have outnumbered cold record-breaking days by:

      10 to 1

  81. Bindidon says:

    In order to compensate exponentially increasing troll output, a bit of info (outside of warmista nonsense).

    1. About volcanoes and CO2 concentration measurements

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/

    It is especially interesting to discover the mesurement similarity for different sites (Barrow, Mauna, Samoa, South Pole):

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/files/2010/03/baseline_CO2_stations.png

    2. CO2 concentration measurements viewed by satellite OCO-2

    https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4514

    All data is public, but… it is not as simple as is e.g. the UAH anomaly file:

    http://tinyurl.com/yat6d696

    Be sure I won’t go into that stuff! But maybe one day I discover some useful ASCII text data.

    *

    I just caught a few words from a site somewhere:

    If you’re a climate change denier, you’re a moron. If you think the environment is going to be wrecked forever because of humans, you’re a fool.

    Yes! Coolistas are exactly as dumb as are warmistas.

    Hint: typical troll replies will be silently discarded.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Yes Bin, anecdotes are accepted evidence, in pseudoscience.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Bindidon,

      You wrote –

      “Hint: typical troll replies will be silently discarded”

      I’m not sure why you are unable to say what what you mean. Has someone threatened you? What is the point of your “hint”?

      I presume you’re trying to say you will ignore any response which you don’t like – self censorship which would apparently affect only yourself.

      Or do you have some super-secret foolish Warmist idea that can only be hinted at?

      Very mysterious. If wish to express yourself in plain English, feel free.

      Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”If youre a climate change denier, youre a moron. If you think the environment is going to be wrecked forever because of humans, youre a fool”.

      You not only butt-kiss to authority you are willing to absorb nonsense like that above.

      What is a climate change denier?

  82. Bindidon says:

    By accident I rediscovered Roy Spencer’s paper I had read last year:

    ‘The warm Earth: Greenhous effect, or Atmospheric Pressure?’

    But in a corner where I really wouldn’t have expected it:

    http://co2coalition.org/2016/07/30/the-warm-earth-greenhouse-effect-or-atmospheric-pressure/

    This was, it can’t be repeated often enough, an excellent contribution to the understanding of the problem. Only denialists and clowns (or those being both in one) can have a different meaning about it.

    • I believe in the GHG effect but I think it is a result of the climate/environment not the cause.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Dr. Roy is correct when he implies that gravity is not warming the atmosphere. Many are confused because increasing the pressure of a confined gas DOES raise the temperature of the system. But the atmosphere is already pressurized. So gravity is not supplying any additional pressure.

      But, unfortunately, he gets confused when he states:

      “The atmosphere, even though it is colder than the surface of the Earth, emits IR toward the surface. This does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which only says that the NET flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature.”

      Of course the atmosphere emits IR towards the surface. And that single phenomenon does not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. But, that does not imply that IR then causes any warming.

      As Dr. Roy stated: “…the NET flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature.” So, since the atmosphere is at a temperature lower than the surface, the NET flow of energy must be from the surface (“higher”) to the atmosphere (“lower”). Consequently the atmosphere does NOT warm the surface!

      • but it slows down cooling.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          but it speeds up cooling as much as it slows down cooling, so the net effect is zero.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Nope! There is a definite net effect.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            And, a definite net effect is sometimes zero.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim Folkerts,

            You wrote –

            “Nope! There is a definite net effect.”

            This might appear to be the usual unquantified, pointless hand waving foolish Warmist statement, except that it can be quantified somewhat by observed fact.

            The net effect is that the Earth has cooled. Almost none of the Earth’s surface remains molten.

            Any physicist, space shuttle designer, refrigeration engineer, or fireman, knows that keeping temperatures low often requires extremely good insulation. Without the insulating properties of the atmosphere, water exposed normal to the Sun would boil, temperatures at night would drop to -100 C or so in the same location, and so on.

            Life as we know it would be impossible.

            No heating due to CO2. It’s the stuff of life, and more is preferable to less.

            Cheers,

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            <"Without the insulating properties of the atmosphere, water exposed normal to the Sun would boil, temperatures at night would drop to -100 C or so in the same location, and so on."
            True enough. And if you go on further with these thoughts and calculations, you would find that the average temperature of the earth under these circumstances would would be much LOWER than it is now. Hmmmm … maybe CO2 *does* cause warming!

            CO2 is indeed the stuff of life. That does not stop it from warming the earth, too.

            More is preferable (everything else being constant) if you are growing plants. That doesn’t stop it from impacting the “everything else” (in ways that might not be preferable).

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim says: “Hmmmm maybe CO2 *does* cause warming!”

            Sorry Tim, CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. It can NOT “cause warming”.

            But please keep trying. Your desperation is amusing.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            CO2 “causes warming” in the same way a dam “causes a lake”.

            No, CO2 is not the original source of the terminal energy — just like a dam is not the source of the water molecules. But any reasonable person can understand that the water that was already flowing past was impeded by the dam, causing the water level to rise. Any reasonable person understands what is meant by “a dam causes a lake”.

            Similarly, any reasonable person should be able to understand that the thermal energy that was already flowing past was impeded by the CO2, causing the temperature level to rise. Any reasonable person understands what is meant by “CO2 causes warming”.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, if you believe atmospheric CO2 is analogous to a river dam, you need to ask for a full refund for any physics “education” you have paid for.

          • Michael Flynn says:

            Norman,

            You wrote –

            “Only the IR close to visible light moves electrons to different energy levels. The IR emitted by CO2 does not cause electrons to move to higher energy levels. It is a molecular energy change. The atoms of the molecule have charge differences (polar atoms within the molecule) and the shifting atomic positions within the molecule cause the disturbance that emits IR.”

            I’m not sure what you mean.

            Do you mean that CO2 and ice at the same temperature can be distinguished by the type of IR they emit? What about a shiny silver ball and an oxidised black ball? Could you tell me what would happen if the shiny ball, the black ball, and CO2 bubbles were all frozen in ice at -5 C?

            Would they all be at the same temperature, do you think? If not, which one would would be hotter according to GHE principles?

            Only funning you! Believe it or not, all objects at the same temperature have the same temperature. By definition.

            Just as matter of interest, both CO2 and a monatomic gas – say one of the noble gases, can both emit exactly the same wavelength of IR – particularly if they’re the same temperature. You can even calculate the peak wavelength if you know the temperature.

            Still no GHE. No CO2 heating effect.

            Cheers.

          • Michael Flynn says:

            Tim Folkerts,

            You wrote –

            “And if you go on further with these thoughts and calculations, you would find that the average temperature of the earth under these circumstances would would be much LOWER than it is now. Hmmmm maybe CO2 *does* cause warming!”

            No it doesn’t. Foolish Warmists take refuge in all sorts of bizarre “deny, divert and confuse” tactics.

            First you admit that you can’t find fault with my facts, so you just deny them by making an unverifiable assertion, and confuse the issue by adding another pointless assertion masquerading as a question.

            I said what I said. If I err in fact, I appreciate correction. You assumptions and unquantified statements aren’t as persuasive as fact.

            You present the “average temperature of the earth” as though it is somehow meaningful. You quite possibly meant to say the Earth’s surface, but even that’s not what is endlessly reanalysed by the sorry lot who describe themselves as “climatologists”.

            Or do you mean temperature as per Gavin Schmidt’s proclamation of “Hottest year EVAH!” – of course with a probability of 0.38 – after the event allegedly occurred, which meant that it demonstrated a probability of 1.0. It happened. Even NOAA was a little put off – they increased the probability to 0.48, roughly a coin toss – maybe, maybe not.

            Complete nonsense. Whether it’s anomalies or averages, they indicate nothing to do with CO2. There’s no physical basis, nor any real correlation with CO2 levels. There isn’t even a disprovable hypothesis relating to the alleged heating properties of CO2, however expressed.

            Maybe you could produce the missing hypothesis just like Donald Rumsfeld produced the missing WMDs in Iraq. Maybe someone hid the hypothesis under a hidden WMD!

            There’s a thought. eh?

            Cheers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Do you mean that CO2 and ice at the same temperature can be distinguished by the type of IR they emit? What about a shiny silver ball and an oxidised black ball “

            Of course they can be distinguished. That is why even half-way decent IR thermometers have a setting for emissivity to get an accurate temperature. Different materials emit IR differently, even if they are all at the same temperature.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim Folkerts,

            You may be confused. Infrared “thermometers” are not actually measuring temperature.

            You claim that items with the same temperatures can be distinguished by an IR thermometer individually by the process of adjusting for emissivity. I’m not sure how you would assess the emissivity of an unknown object, or why you would want to. If you have to guess the physical properties of an object, it more or less defeats the object of obtaining its temperature.

            Just for fun, I’ve read the temperatures of three different items with seemingly different emissivities. The IR thermometer gave readings between 5.6 and 5.7 C – just a cheap uncalibrated domestic unit.

            Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that a shiny aluminium soda can, a jar of pickles, and a muffin in a diffuse translucent container all appear to have the same emissivity. I’m even a bit surprised myself!

            Why should I adjust emissivity to make the temperatures appear different? What do I gain?How would that work for a thermal imaging device?

            But anyway. From NPL (National Physical Laboratory) –

            ‘Radiation emitted from an object depends not only on its temperature but also on the surface properties, i.e. on its emissivity.”

            You might notice that temperature is not related to emissivity per se. Just knowing that a body is radiating at say 300 W/m2 is insufficient to tell you its temperature.

            For example a Leslie cube filled with boiling water, is emitting different radiation intensities from its faces – all of which are indisputably at the same temperature. Even from Wikipedia –

            “Leslie’s cube is a device used in the measurement or demonstration of the variations in thermal radiation emitted from different surfaces at the same temperature.”

            Others can decide for themselves whether your dismissive was accurate and appropriate.

            Cheers.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            “Similarly, any reasonable person should be able to understand that the thermal energy that was already flowing past was impeded by the CO2, causing the temperature level to rise. Any reasonable person understands what is meant by CO2 causes warming.

            However, a scientifically literate person would not fall for dumbass analogies but examine the claim with respect to the laws of thermodynamics and radiant heat flow equations, and conclude that CO2 does not cause warming.

          • Kristian says:

            Tim Folkerts says, September 9, 2017 at 5:54 PM:

            CO2 is indeed the stuff of life. That does not stop it from warming the earth, too.

            CO2 doesn’t “warm the earth”, Tim. It helps cool the atmosphere.

          • Kristian says:

            Tim Folkerts says, September 9, 2017 at 8:00 PM:

            CO2 “causes warming” in the same way a dam “causes a lake”.

            No, it doesn’t. CO2 doesn’t “cause warming”.

            Similarly, any reasonable person should be able to understand that the thermal energy that was already flowing past was impeded by the CO2, causing the temperature level to rise. Any reasonable person understands what is meant by “CO2 causes warming”.

            No, CO2 does not impede heat transfer. It enables heat transfer.

          • Snape says:

            Kristian

            This is off topic, but I’ve found a clear way of explaining what I always meant by velocity versus rate of flow. It uses your water tank analogy.

            Water enters the tank from the bottom at a constant rate. It eventually drains out the top at the same rate it enters. When measuring this rate:

            “Volumetric flow rates can be measured in various units such as: liters/sec (lps) cubic feet/sec (cfs) gallons/min (gpm)”

            Now increase the diameter of the tank and do the same experiment. Water will move up the tank and exit at the same rate of flow (volumetric flow rate) as before, but the VELOCITY it moves up the tank will be slower. Therefore, water entering the
            tank will “linger” longer than before and more water will accumulate.

            Please note that although water requires extra space in order to accumulate, this is not true of heat. Things can get hotter in the existing space.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Mike, you keep misunderstanding.
            “You claim that items with the same temperatures can be distinguished by an IR thermometer individually by the process of adjusting for emissivity. “
            No. I claimed that items with the same temperature emit different IR. Like your “Leslie cube”. To compensate, you can change the emissivity setting of an IR thermometer.

            “Just for fun, Ive read the temperatures of three different items with seemingly different emissivities. The IR thermometer gave readings between 5.6 and 5.7 C just a cheap uncalibrated domestic unit.

            Maybe Im wrong, but it seems that a shiny aluminium soda can, a jar of pickles, and a muffin in a diffuse translucent container all appear to have the same emissivity. Im even a bit surprised myself! “
            If you had a little deeper knowledge, you should not be so surprised! The radiation coming from a surface is a combination of the radiation it emits itself and the radiation it reflects. Consider the shiny metal. It will emit radiation poorly, but it will reflect radiation from the surrounding surfaces in the fridge quite well. The reflected radiation is ALSO comes from ~ 5.6 C surfaces.

            Indeed, this is the basis for cavity radiation being the same as blackbody radiation — but that might be a bit much atm.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Kristina says: “No, CO2 does not impede heat transfer. It enables heat transfer.”

            In what sense? With no CO2, a warm surface will emit IR directly to space at a large rate = large heat loss. With CO2, the same surface will emit radiation to the atmosphere at a smaller rate = smaller heat loss.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            SGW says: “However, a scientifically literate person would not fall for dumbass analogies but examine the claim with respect to the laws of thermodynamics and radiant heat flow equations, and conclude that CO2 does not cause warming.”

            Let me fix that for you.

            A scientifically literate person would look for the kernal of truth within analogies. A scientifically literate person would examine the claim with respect to the laws of thermodynamics and radiant heat flow equations, and conclude that CO2 does indeed cause warming (in conjunction with the input of energy from the sun).

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            If you make up your own physics you can conclude anything you want.

            You Posted this made up physics: “Just as matter of interest, both CO2 and a monatomic gas say one of the noble gases, can both emit exactly the same wavelength of IR particularly if theyre the same temperature. You can even calculate the peak wavelength if you know the temperature.”

            No this is not correct at all. You have just made it. I guess in you fantasy world you are god, you make up whatever you want and present it as if it were a fact.

            Site evidence to support you incorrect claim. You will not be able since you just made it up.

            You asked for evidence that you post false and incorrect information and that is definitely one of them.

          • Kristian says:

            Tim Folkerts says, September 10, 2017 at 7:57 AM:

            Kristina says: “No, CO2 does not impede heat transfer. It enables heat transfer.”

            In what sense? With no CO2, a warm surface will emit IR directly to space at a large rate = large heat loss. With CO2, the same surface will emit radiation to the atmosphere at a smaller rate = smaller heat loss.

            The smaller radiative heat loss rate from the surface is a result of:

            1) the atmosphere reducing the heat INPUT from the sun to the surface greatly,
            2) the atmosphere being much warmer than space (much smaller temperature difference), and
            3) other heat loss mechanisms beside the radiative one taking care of a substantial portion of the total heat loss from the surface (in earth’s case, ~68% of it).

            CO2 helps enabling the atmosphere to affect the surface thermally even after a state of dynamic equilibrium has been reached, connecting the two systems thermodynamically, simply allowing heat to flow through the atmosphere.

            It does NOT impede heat transfer. It also doesn’t CAUSE surface warming.

          • Snape says:

            Kristian

            I posted a comment to you that landed in the wrong spot. Upthread about 5 posts.

          • gbaikie says:

            –The smaller radiative heat loss rate from the surface is a result of:

            1) the atmosphere reducing the heat INPUT from the sun to the surface greatly,

            {so, notes: atmosphere reflects and clouds reflect sunlight
            which largely responsible for Earth only absorbing 240 watt or 340 watts [[Averaged]] that it could absorb otherwise. Or it’s all the N2 and O2 plus water droplets/ice particles of clouds}

            2) the atmosphere being much warmer than space (much smaller temperature difference),

            [space has no temperature- and thermosphere is hotter than than lower than it (Earth surface) [not that this should matter at all]]

            and
            3) other heat loss mechanisms beside the radiative one taking care of a substantial portion of the total heat loss from the surface (in earths case, ~68% of it).

            [So you mean evaporation and convection and clouds radiating into space. And heat transported poleward, making this region of world warmer and thereby having more surface area can emit at higher temperature- still looking for the bit about CO2}

            –CO2 helps enabling the atmosphere to affect the surface thermally even after a state of dynamic equilibrium has been reached, connecting the two systems thermodynamically, simply allowing heat to flow through the atmosphere.–

            I would say the condescend H20 molecule does this rather than CO2 moilecule.

            –It does NOT impede heat transfer. It also doesnt CAUSE surface warming.–

            Well I don’t think CO2 does much warming of the actual surface or surface air temperature. And I don’t think CO2 does much in terms of impeding or insulating the heat loss from the surface.
            But one could say I am waiting for this to be quantified- or if Co2 has any effect upon temperature, it seems to me has to be a small effect.
            And idea that CO2 is a control knob would be the obvious part of the pseudo science of the Greenhouse Effect theory- or is as wacky as idea of “the science being settled”.

      • Bindidon says:

        I cite Roy Spencer:

        …that means that the IR radiation from the cool plate to the warm plate affects the net flow of IR energy between the two plates, right? So, the colder object does effect the energy budget (and thus temperature) of the warmer objectbecause energy LOSS is just as important as energy gain when determining temperature.

        If the cooler atmosphere contains any substances able to absorb IR > 4 micron (mainly H2O) and hence to partly reemit it back to surface, the energy loss is smaller than it would be in the absence of the absorbing (and hence reemitting) substances.

        I hope to have understood Roy Spencer right: only the radiation difference between warmer surface and that part of the reemission back to surface by the cooler atmosphere will reach outer space.

        *

        I am all but physicist or chemist either.

        Is it possible that, beginning with a certain level of IR absorbing substances in the lower atmosphere, energy loss due to the increase of collisions might supersede that due to reemission back to surface?

        No idea!

        • Bindidon says:

          Is it possible that, beginning with a certain level of IR absorbing substances in the lower atmosphere, energy loss due to the increase of collisions might supersede that due to reemission back to surface?

          Nonsense. Backtrack!

          But Roy Spencer’s words do not mean that the atmosphere warms the surface: it forces it to radiate less. That is imo completely different.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            One way to cause the surface to radiate less would be to cool it.

          • Snape says:

            Another way would be to warm the atmosphere.

          • Snape says:

            Bin

            You probably understand this, but only an INCREASE in the rate of IR from atmosphere to surface will cause the surface to radiate less. The surface will then warm until it radiates the same as before.

          • Snape says:

            Bin

            I need to backtrack as well. When I said “radiates less”, I should have said “the net flow of IR from surface to atmosphere is less”. In other words, the surface initially cools at a slower rate.

            Given constant heat from the sun, slower cooling means surface temperature will increase. Higher temperature increases rate of cooling until back to where it started.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Thanks for the hilarious pseudoscience, snake.

          • Snape says:

            g*e*r*

            I need to correct my comment to you as well: warming the atmosphere wouldn’t cause the surface to radiate less, it would just cause it to cool more slowly.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Bindidon,

            You might wish to consider two things.

            The first is that in places with little H2O overlaying the surface, such as arid tropical deserts, the surface cools rapidly at night – to below freezing, in the right conditions.

            The second relates to low level temperature inversions, once again, more pronounced in dry cold conditions such as those previously mentioned.

            The following is from Penn State, which I believe is the employer of one Mike (Hockey stick) Mann.

            “The ground routinely starts to cool after the sun sets because it emits more radiation than it gains from the atmosphere. In other words, the temperature of the ground starts to lower because it runs a radiation deficit (more losses than gains). In turn, a thin layer of air next to the ground starts to cool by conduction as a transfer of heat energy takes place from the initially warmer air to the cooler ground. This downward transfer of heat energy serves only to slightly slow down the cooling rate of the ground, which continues to lose more radiation than it receives.”

            The net result may lead to –

            “Given the structure of a nocturnal inversion (cold air in contact with the ground “separates” from warmer air above the ground), it is quite feasible that the air temperature at grass-blade level falls below 32 degrees while the air temperature at Stevensen-Screen level bottoms out at 36 degrees.”

            That is, frost can form when official temperatures are well above freezing. Climatologists love official temperatures – showing that the surface is not frosty in spite of the fact that it is, perhaps?

            Actually temperature inversions (air temperature increasing with height) can be surprisingly large.

            All readily explicable with normal radiative physics.

            No GHE needed. Which is good, because no disprovable hypothesis relating to a GHE which provides an explanation for any observed Natural phenomena unexplainable by current physics, exists.

            Maybe you could try.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”You probably understand this, but only an INCREASE in the rate of IR from atmosphere to surface will cause the surface to radiate less. The surface will then warm until it radiates the same as before”.

            In other words, if you reduce the temperature differential between the atmosphere and the surface, the surface won’t radiate as much.

            What’s wrong with this scenario? Firstly, you cannot increase the “rate of IR” because it’s not a rate. At a highly theoretical atomic level, if an electron in a molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon of energy from the surface, the molecule warms. Then it has to radiate that energy if it is in a region of space that is cooler than the CO2 molecule.

            How do you measure the rate at which CO2 absorbs/radiates EM?

            Absorp.tion/emission in atoms is not about a rate it’s about a temperature differential, which means a difference in thermal energy intensity. The notion of slowing down surface emission is misguided. During the day it’s highly influenced by solar energy.

            Secondly, if the CO2 is at a cooler temperature than the surface, why should the surface absorb it’s IR? That is corroborated by the 2nd law which makes it clear that heat cannot be transferred from a colder mass to a warming mass.

            Thirdly, the only phenomenon that will warm the surface is solar energy. There is nothing else in the atmosphere capable of warming the surface. Remove the Sun and the surface will cool till near absolute zero.

            As Mike has pointed out, the inferno at the core will likely keep the surface warmer. We have detected the ice ages caused by solar variation.

          • Snape says:

            Gordon

            I messed up that comment to bin. Tried to fix it here:
            “I need to backtrack as well. When I said radiates less, I should have said the net flow of IR from surface to atmosphere is less. In other words, the surface initially cools at a slower rate.

            Given constant heat from the sun, slower cooling means surface temperature will increase. Higher temperature increases rate of cooling until back to where it started.”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Snape,

            I know there’s a silly NASA graphic showing a ridiculous “energy balance” fantasy, which shows the Sun shining on all parts of the Earth’s surface at once.

            Of course this is garbage.

            You wrote –

            “Given constant heat from the sun, slower cooling means surface temperature will increase.”

            Except that it hasn’t, obviously, for the last four and a half billion years. Maybe you got something wrong? Maybe slow cooling, or fast cooling, is, by definition, a reduction in temperature. Not an increase – that would be warming, or heating.

            Put a rock outside. It should warm up when the Sun shines, cool when it doesn’t. Probably colder in Winter, too. Wait for one full orbit of the Earth. Take the temperature of the rock. Might be hotter, might be colder. Model the physics with a large computer. How does the model compare with the reality?

            No problem. Just wait for a little bit, and you can probably measure a temperature agreeing with the desired result. It’s called “best climatological practice”, or “data massaging”, practiced throughout the world by the finest Government meteorological agencies.

            A vacuum flask insulates extremely well – just with a vacuum and a couple of reflective surfaces. Total back radiation, you might think, but it doesn’t stop the contents from reaching thermal equilibrium with the environment beyond the insulator. It might not even happen overnight, but it will happen.

            The R value of CO2 is minuscule compared with a well constructed vacuum flask. You might be surprised that the 400 ppm of CO2 in an atmosphere provides less insulation than the other 999,600 ppm of the N2, O2 etc. Don’t forget the vast amount of particulate matter perpetually suspended due to Brownian motion, as well.

            No GHE. None.

            Cheers.

          • Snape says:

            Flynn

            You wrote, “Maybe slow cooling, or fast cooling, is, by definition, a reduction in temperature. Not an increase that would be warming, or heating.”

            I was using the word “cooling” figuratively – as in “slowing the rate of heat loss”. Taken literally, then yes, you just scored a gotcha!

            It’s very simple, Mike. If the Earth’s surface rids itself of heat more slowly than the rate of input from the sun, it will get warmer. As it gets warmer, it will also shed heat faster. Eventually the rate of output (to the atmosphere) will be the same as rate of input (from the sun). Temperature will then be steady.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”that means that the IR radiation from the cool plate to the warm plate affects the net flow of IR energy between the two plates, right?”

          Unfortunately, Roy has bought into this alarmist net flow of IR nonsense. There is no net flow of IR, each body emits IR isotropically and independently of the other.

          The governing factor is the temperature of the bodies. Heat transfer has absolutely nothing to do with the hypothetical net energy flow.

          Bodies have different temperature due to the energy level at which the atom’s electrons reside. The higher the temperature, the higher the energy levels, and the higher the kinetic energy of the atom.

          When an electron drops down one energy level it emits a photon of energy equivalent in intensity to the difference in energy between levels. Same with absorp.tion, the absorbed energy must be the specific difference in energy levels.

          When a mass of atoms emits a flux field of IR, that IR does not care about any bodies in the vicinity, all it cares about is the immediate temperature in it vicinity. If you keep the air around a mass at 25 C and the body is 25C, the mass will not emit anything.

          You could also keep the mass at the same or higher temperature by radiating it with IR from a hotter mass but you cannot place a cooler mass in its vicinity and expect IR from the cooler mass to maintain or warm the temperature of the hotter mass.

          That, in a nutshell, is what the 2nd law is about. It has nothing to do with IR, only temperature differential.

      • Svante says:

        You surprise me in a positive way G*e*r*a*n, I didn’t know you had so many things right!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        g*r…”The atmosphere, even though it is colder than the surface of the Earth, emits IR toward the surface. This does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which only says that the NET flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature.

        Don’t know where this quote came from but it is wrong. The 2nd law does not state anywhere that the NET flow of energy must be from higher to lower temperatures. The notion of net energy flow is pseudo-science that comes generally from alarmists.

        The 2nd law was written by Clausius and he said nothing about IR, net or otherwise. He made it clear he was talking about the properties of atoms and their associated kinetic energy. In fact, Clausius defined the 2nd law, in words, basically as the obvious: that heat cannot be transferred by it’s own means from a colder mass to a warmer mass.

        The rest of it, associating heat transfer with entropy and IR is nothing more than assumptions added by modern science students, many of whom fail to understand the import of the 2nd law.

        Clausius introduced the concept of entropy along with the 2nd law. He explained why he introduced the concept of entropy, as a means to keep tract of the direction of energy transfer in a process. If the process is reversible, the sum of the heat transferred is zero, otherwise it is positive.

        The 2nd law applies to heat only, NOT to EM. The 2nd law defines the possible directions of heat transfer and claiming a net energy flow of IR supports the 2nd law is nonsense.

        Even in a radiative transfer of heat, IR is the messenger only. It can deliver EM energy that causes heating in a cooler mass when EM is converted to thermal energy but the heating takes place in the electrons of the atoms in the absorbing mass. No heat gets transferred through space, the transfer occurs locally as one body cools and the other warms.

        Furthermore, the EM from a cooler body cannot cause the temperature in a warmer body to rise. The only way that could arise is if the temperatures of two bodies are very close and atoms in the warmer body were below the average temperature of the warmer body. After all, temperature is an averaging of thermal kinetic energies.

        • Gordon Robertson says