UAH Global Temperature Update for September, 2017: +0.54 deg. C

October 2nd, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2017 was +0.54 deg. C, up from the August, 2017 value of +0.41 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 21 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
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.53

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

The UAH LT global anomaly image for September, 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


4,012 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for September, 2017: +0.54 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. tim says:

    It’s been a total washout in the UK this summer, September was pretty poor as well. Starting to see Artic ice growing quite dramatically. Big concerns about a cooling world and lower crop production, which we have no plan for.

    • Seamus says:

      No evidence of any cooling so far. It has been quite a long wait!

    • Des says:

      Yes, Artic sea ice is growing as it does every year at this time after it passes the September minimum. Propagandist claims are meaningless unless you provide some DATA and COMPARISONS.

      • tim says:

        It’s quite clear that datasets are being manipulated. Real science shows evidence of this manipulation and shows how to remove this manipulation. Artic sea ice is above 1971 levels before steep artic sea ice gains. Record September Artic sea ice gain for September. Volcanoes going off all over the place, as a result of cosmic rays and cooling sun. Bit of an inconvenient truth for you. No good showing you the truth, because you want to believe Fear. False evidence appearing real.

        • David Appell says:

          tim says:
          “Record September Arctic sea ice gain for September.”

          Not true, according to N.S.I.D.C. data. 1980’s gain was 0.32 Mkm2 (Sept avg – August avg). This year was second, at 0.29 Mkm2.

          But this doesn’t tend to be a good predictor of the next year’s minimum. (For example, 2017 saw a record low maximum Arctic SIE.)

        • Emeritus says:

          Great idea, show us the truth. But so far the only “truth” You are able to show is that;

          “Its quite clear that datasets are being manipulated”

          So in lack off any data that has not have been manipulated, You are clueless regarding global temperature or any other climate data.

        • Des says:

          Please explain WHY it is “quite clear”. Please explain HOW “real science” shows what you claim. And no links to sites without scientific qualifications.

    • John Spencer says:

      Also, there’s a 2 Year Sea Level Pause.

  2. Weather Bell is going to have about +.28c.

    How could it be so different?

    I guess I will average them. I hate when there is such a large difference.

    In addition for the last 7 days going back from today Weather Bell has a plus .15c temperature anomaly.

  3. Antarctica was wicked cold last month how far south latitude does the satellite global coverage go? Maybe that was not incorporated?

  4. Henk says:

    Have they ever established a correlation to increasing troposphere temperatures after increasing hurricane activity? This being a year with a La Nina forming and the large number of storms, some of them reaching major status and remaining major for such long periods of time.
    Could the energy released by these hurricanes be enough to increase troposphere temperatures?

    Thanks.

    • Increased precipitation activity is the main reason for a surge in tropospheric temperatures. Whether it was the hurricanes that did it is uncertain…I doubt it, since the SH also warmed up.

      • Des says:

        Really? So I guess that people who claim that clouds are the unknown factor will now know what sort of a factor it is.

  5. Des says:

    Top 10 Septembers on the record:

    1. 2017 (+0.54)
    2. 2015 (+0.45) … EL NINO
    3. 1998 (+0.44) … EL NINO
    4. 2010 (+0.37) … EL NINO
    5. 2009 (+0.27) … EL NINO
    6. 2005 (+0.25) … EL NINO
    7. 2015 (+0.25) … EL NINO
    8. 1995 (+0.22) … EL NINO
    9. 2012 (+0.22)
    10. 2013 (+0.22)

    2017 0.32 above 2nd highest non-El-Nino-affected September.

    Top 10 first-9-months-of-the-year:

    1. 1998 (+0.558) … EL NINO
    2. 2016 (+0.554) … EL NINO
    3. 2010 (+0.394) … EL NINO
    4. 2017 (+0.342)
    5. 2002 (+0.241) … EL NINO
    6. 2015 (+0.217) … EL NINO
    7. 2005 (+0.204) … EL NINO
    8. 2007 (+0.199)
    9. 2014 (+0.159)
    10. 2003 (0.157)

    Highest non-El-Nino-affected year by 0.143.

    Average for last 5 years (Oct 2012 – Sep 2017): +0.278
    Average for “last 5 years” at same point after 97-98 El Nino
    (Oct 1994 – Sep 1999): +0.106

    Yup … any “pause” is over.

    I understand now why Roy put up the Monty Hall distraction a couple of days before this was released. I guess he’ll now be frantically at work on version 7.

    • Richard M says:

      We had El Nino conditions for much of the first part of the 2017. This is the reason for the bump in temperatures in August and September as satellite temps always lag by about 3 months. Since this is equatorial it tends to affect both hemispheres equally.

      That has now ended. October should see a drop. If La Nina conditions take hold (haven’t yet) then look for another change 3 months later.

      • Des says:

        We have NOT had El Nino conditions since May 2016. You don’t get to make up the facts.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Des, do hurricanes raise troposphere temperatures?

          • Des says:

            According to Dr Spencer’s answer to that question earlier in this thread … “I doubt it”.

            It’s funny how American’s measure the number of GLOBAL tropical storms by counting the number that actually make landfall in their own country. Kind of like the “World” Series.

          • Paul says:

            Maybe they measure landfalls because they were not as smart as the Des people who had satellites back in 1920 to detect hurricanes over the ocean.

          • Des says:

            Paul – In case you haven’t realised – we are discussing the SATELLITE period.

        • richard verney says:

          We did not have a La Nina in 2016, see the BOM reports which confirm that there was not a La Nina in 2016..

          We are not currently in La Nina conditions. Presently less than 50% of models predict La Nina for early 2018.

          If we get a La Nina in early 2018, because of lag, it will not be picked up by the satellite until around May or June 2018.

          The satellite is far less sensitive to La Nina than it is to El Nino. This may be because of convection. With warm El Nino conditions, convection carries the heat up to the height at which the satellite measures the temperature. In la Nina, with cold conditions, obviously there is less convection to height, and hence an attenuated response is seen in the satellite measurements.

          there is no point in predicting the future. all predictions have been wrong to date. let us wait and see what develops for the rest of this year, and early next.

          • Des says:

            BOM is NOT the only source. There was a weak La Nina from August to December. http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

            But since you are citing BOM, their most recent outlook:
            “Five of the eight models suggest SSTs will cool to La Nia thresholds by December 2017, but only four maintain these values for long enough to be classified as a La Nia event.”

            That is not “less than 50% of models”.

            I have done a comparison between UAH anomaly and ONI. Except for the 97-98 and 15-16 “very strong” El Ninos, the response of UAA anomalies to El Ninos and La Ninas is pretty much the same. So you have just made that up. The only difference seems to be the there is little correlation between the value of minimum ONI during a La Nina and the maximum drop in anomalies during the La Nina. Except for two VERY weak La Ninas, the temperature drop has been between 0.15 and 0.45, with the value seemingly unrelated to the minimum ONI.

        • Richard M says:

          I didn’t say we had them since May 2016. Do you always make stuff up? We actually had them starting in April 2017 and going through mid July.

          http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png

          Add in the 3 month lag and they started to affect GAST around July going through mid October.

          Obviously, you really aren’t interested in understanding climate.

          • Des says:

            If I say “We have NOT had El Nino conditions SINCE May 2016”, how on earth is that shifting your claim from 2017 to 2016?? Do you not know the difference between “IN 2016” and “SINCE 2016” ?? Do you always make stuff up?

            You seem to think that a short spurt in equatorial pacific temperatures qualifies as an El Nino. It did not meet the conditions for an El Nino. If you were to count it as one, it would be the weakest El Nino ever. Find me another WEAK El Nino where the anomaly went close to this value … nup – where it EXCEEDS this value, to account for the fact that this wasn’t an El Nino.

          • Richard M says:

            DES, when you say we haven’t had El Nino conditions that means not one single month would have a Nino 3.4 anomaly at .5 or above. That has not been the case. As I pointed out the period from April through mid July 2017 had that exact situation.

            Don’t you know the difference between “conditions” and “events”? It certainly appears that way. You really should educate yourself.

            You don’t need official El Nino or La Nina “events” to affect the global temperature. It won’t be anything like a full ENSO “event”, but it will affect monthly anomalies over a short term period just as I pointed out.

          • Des says:

            I’ve asked you to find another period in the record with similar ENSO conditions that has led to a UAH anomaly anywhere near this high. I wonder why you chose to ignore that request?

          • Richard M says:

            DES, you ask for something that does not exist. Nowhere in the data do we have an aborted summer period of El Nino conditions. I do get a kick out of people who appear to have no clue how to look at the data.

            As I mentioned our current understanding of ENSO is poor. The fact we could have NOAA predicting a full El Nino as the El Nino conditions materialized and then a few months later predicting La Nina should tell you something. This has not happened before in the data we have. Of course, that also means it has not happened during the +AMO since we don’t have much data from the last one.

            There is nothing difficult to understand in what I stated. It is a very simple description of what has been happening over the summer months. It seems those who “believe” in AGW simply cannot look at data logically.

          • Des says:

            ONI for:
            March 1993: +0.5
            April 1993: +0.7
            May 1993: +0.7
            June 1993: +0.6

            But no El Nino. It was one of your “aborted summers of El Nino conditions”. How did the UAH anomalies pan out for the rest of that year?

          • Richard M says:

            Des, I guess you never heard of Pinatubo. Can’t directly compare anything for the 2 years after its eruption. I thought anyone commenting on climate would be aware of this fact.

            However, you can look at the relative change. The anomaly in March 1993 was -.43 which jumped up to -.06 in July. That’s a rise of .37. The rise we just saw was from .21 to .54 or .33. Looks like the effect was almost identical.

            Was that your point?

          • Des says:

            1980 ONI
            March 0.3
            April 0.4
            May 0.5
            June 0.5
            July 0.3
            Another “aborted summer of El Nino conditions”.

          • Richard M says:

            Des is making a habit of demonstrating his lack of knowledge. 1979-1980 was an El Nino year and all you are doing is seeing the taper off the El Nino.

            Anyone with any concept of ENSO should have known this as well.

          • Des says:

            EXACTLY. We have had COUNTLESS El Nino years, countless months DURING El Ninos, countless months in the lag period AFTER El Ninos, and SOMEHOW you believe that a “not quite El Nino” trumps all of these TRUE months.

          • Des says:

            Edit: True EL NINOS

        • ren says:

          2017 2 26.67 26.66 0.01
          2017 3 27.31 27.21 0.11
          2017 4 28.03 27.73 0.29
          2017 5 28.29 27.85 0.44
          2017 6 28.04 27.65 0.39
          2017 7 27.53 27.26 0.27
          2017 8 26.77 26.91 -0.14
          http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt

          • Des says:

            From that data:

            1982 9 … ONI +1.64 …. UAH -0.30
            1982 10 … ONI +2.16 … UAH -0.39
            1982 11 … ONI +2.09 … UAH -0.27
            1982 12 … ONI +2.28 … UAH -0.16
            1983 1 … ONI +2.32 … UAH +0.01
            1983 2 … ONI +1.94 … UAH -0.16
            1983 3 … ONI +1.49 … UAH +0.15
            1983 4 … ONI +1.19 … UAH +0.08
            1983 5 … ONI +1.18 … UAH +0.09
            1983 6 … ONI +0.82 … UAH -0.18

      • David Appell says:

        Oceanographers consider an ENSO season to be July to June. July16-June17 was a weak La Nina, mostly occurring in the latter half of 2016. Presently ENSO is neutral.

        If you group temperatures from July-to-June, 2016-2017 was the warmest La Nina on record, according to UAH LT data. The 2015-2016 ENSO season was the warmest El Nino on record, and 2014-2015 was the warmest ENSO-neutral season.

        These records are the same for NOAA surface data.

        So we’re seeing warmest years no matter what the ENSO state is.

          • Des says:

            The new version of the ONI data is interesting. Based on this, they should be coming up with a new category for the last El Nino … VERY VERY Strong.

        • Richard M says:

          In reality, the definition of ENSO states is a very poor metric. It appears it was created with only a minimal knowledge of the states of the Pacific ocean. This was made more than obvious by the latest El Nino and La Nina.

          The 2016-17 La Nina was a particular joke as the Nino 1-2 region was extremely warm. The anomaly for Feb and Mar 2017, normally the peak of a real La Nina, averaged +1.75. Yes that is a plus sign.

          It is clear the government weather agencies need to go back to the drawing board if they want their ENSO designations to have any meaning.

          People who think their comments are meaningful when referring to this kind of obvious nonsense get caught looking a little foolish.

          • Des says:

            The La Nina did NOT extend into 2017. It lasted from August to December 2016. So you anomalies for Feb/Mar 2017 are irrelevant.

          • Richard M says:

            Des, I just gave those months as an example compared to what would normally be seen during a standard La Nina. In fact, the Nino 1-2 area was never positive during the entire so-called La Nina.

            Keep in mind it is this area’s warmth or coolness that led to the recognition that something was happening in the Pacific. The choice of Nino 3.4 for now declaring an ENSO event is based on a minimal set of data. So, no it is not at all irrelevant. It is indicative of our lack of knowledge into ENSO. A smart person would realize this lack of knowledge extends into all aspects of climate.

          • Des says:

            No – it is a temperature GRADIENT across the Pacific (or lack of one) that determines the nature of an ENSO event, NOT the temperature itself.

          • Richard M says:

            Sorry Des, it is not the gradient that is measured determine El Nino. It is temperature pure and simple. You really need to quit making a fool of yourself.

          • Des says:

            Then you rally have NO idea how El Nino works. I bet you think that the Pacific actually warms up in the leadup to an El Nino, instead of simply shifting the existing heat around.

    • yes, Des, it’s all part of my elaborate conspiracy. Thanks for such valuable insight into my motives.

    • Greg61 says:

      Or because Monty Hall just died was his motive?

    • argus says:

      Where you lose me, Dr Spencer is a global warming proponent yet you treat it like he isn’t. If you’ll eat your own because he’s not a fanatic, can I trust you for any other information?

      • gbaikie says:

        Is it the new reality that lukewarmers are global warming proponents?
        If so, I would say a few months of Trump can cause quite a change.
        Used to be that it was the modelers who were over estimating future global warming effects who were the proponents.

        Now, you didn’t need to do future “projection” but could use
        them to claim polar bears are going to die, or arctic polar sea ice was going disappear very soon.
        And things like more than meter rise in sea level and the children will never see snow.

        • argus says:

          For me, when someone says yes I believe there is some truth in something, it makes them a proponent. He’s been saying the models are half right for a while now.

          • gbaikie says:

            Half wrong is wrong.

            We recovering from the Little ice age.
            And we also recovering from the last glacial period.

            We are in icebox climate and there no evidence we are
            escaping from it.
            Our oceans are cold- which is a characteristic or definition of global icebox climate.
            If the average temperature of the ocean was 10 C rather
            than 3 C, we wouldn’t be in an icebox climate.

            And global temperature would be about 20 C.
            And be closer to a hothouse global climate which about 25 C.

    • Werner Brozek says:

      Thank you very much!

      A minor typo: 2016 was 0.45, not 2015.

    • Oh no may it be the warmest September on record! Well I’ll be!? Wait wasn’t the medival warming period way warmer then now? And also actual temps lag solar driven activity and upward El Nio events. Dumb alarmist sheeple!

  6. Dr. Mark H. Shapiro says:

    It’s becoming more and more difficult to deny AGW Dr. Roy.

    • Des says:

      When the going get’s tough, deniers can display enormous creativity in their responses. Such as someone above claiming we have just pulled out of El Nino.

      • When the going gets tougher stupid dumb retarded alarmists like the one above attack and ridicule people who know the facts because they know that they are in for a huge surprise eventually and want to keep the Willy wanker and the global warming factory up and running because there are true people like me who are spoiling the secret formula and that is the only way they can cover it up.

      • SkepticGoneWild says:

        The alarmist fear mongering lemmings like Des*picable can’t help but resort to the “denier” term with its Holocaust connotations. You are a true lowlife.

        • Des says:

          The holocaust has never entered my mind while talking to deniers. The concept of a denier predates the holocaust – it goes back to Freud. The denier lemmings like Septic Gone Wild can’t help but make false word associations in order to score brownie points. You are a true lowlife.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Total BS. The connotation was clear from the beginning you pile of horse manure:

            “We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I dont think theres a great deal of difference.

            [Bill McGuire, University College London (2006)]

            Climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous.

            [Clive Hamilton, Charles Sturt University (2009)]

            “”Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”

            [Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe (2007)]

            “The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. Theyve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they havent seen does not exist.”

            [Charles Larson, American University (2013)]

            Welcome to the world of slimeballs, DESpcicable. These were just a few samples.

          • Des says:

            Never heard of any of those people. Quoting them doesn’t make your claim true. Please tell me precisely what part of my comments suggests I meant that – try to do that without any more guesswork.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Des believes he came up with “Deniers” on his own. He doesn’t recognize the indoctrination he’s received.

          • Bindidon says:

            If I were you, SkepticGoneSomehow, I would take some time in reviewing all WUWT threads of the last five years, and check for quite the opposite evidence!

            I remember a disgusting person with nickname ‘Gloateus Maximus’ speaking about the ‘Potsdam GESTAPO’, other people I don’t remember talking about Nazi-like warmistas, etc etc.

            Here is a very nice example of how some Americans write about people they have no idea about:

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/25/agus-climate-change-believe-it-or-else-prize/

            http://columbia-phd.org/RealClimatologists/Articles/2017/08/14/Heil_KlimaFuehrer_Rahmstorf/index.html

            My point is: the best is to keep equidistant from all this incredible sh.it!

    • I don’t “deny AGW”. Please pay attention, Dr. Mark.

      • garyH845 says:

        Hi Dr. Spencer. I understood that – neither do I; however, and I expect that I’ve missed this somewhere in these parts; if you would please, what is your view on how just how much of [current/recent] GW is AGW? And, do you agree that prior to the 1950’s – 1970’s period, there would not have been any potential for any meaningful human footprint on GW, AGHG’s were just beginning to really rise significantly?

        • gbaikie says:

          There isn’t any measurable amount warming due to “AGW” in terms global temperature.
          Urban heat islands are “AGW”- human caused warming effects which is easily measurable and affects large regions [if large regions are hundreds of square km- but not large if referring to 510 million square km of the Earth].

          Earth is mostly covered by ocean area, humans have had no measurable effect upon the temperature of the oceans.

          • gbaikie says:

            Imagine if someone could determine how to correctly measure the amount of the effect of AGW, they would be “well rewarded”- fame, fortune, and whatever.

            It would be a very significant accomplishment- but alas, despite the posers, no one has actually done it.

            The same goes for anyone finding evidence of UFOs. Or bigfoot. Though there are quite a few people “making a living” by claiming to have such evidence.

          • Des says:

            Urban heat islands are corrected for in the surface record. It’s funny how deniers always skip over that part.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Des says:
            October 4, 2017 at 8:01 PM

            Urban heat islands are corrected for in the surface record. Its funny how deniers always skip over that part.–

            Global warming is indicated by rising sea level and retreat of glaciers.

            Urban heat island effect is unrelated to these “thermometers”.

            And the surface record seems good enough as far as I am concerned- because it seems to accurately depicts warming caused the oceans.

      • Rob Honeycutt says:

        But it is getting rather difficult to claim low sensitivity, as well.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Earth’s temperature has low senstte to CO2.

          (That wasn’t so difficult to claim.)

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            *sensitivity

          • Des says:

            Of course – deniers have no difficulty in making claims which run counter to the evidence, as you’ve just so proudly proven.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            I’m glad you agree with me, Des.

            Of course we might disagree on what you call “evidence”. Some Warmists believe DWIR is “evidence”, for example. That’s like believing Thor causes lightning by throwing lightning bolts!

            That’s okay, everyone gets to believe what they want.

          • Kristian says:

            g*e*r*a*n says, October 2, 2017 at 3:37 PM:

            Of course we might disagree on what you call “evidence”. Some Warmists believe DWIR is “evidence” (…)

            Or, as both Dr. Mark H. Shapiro, Rob Honeycutt and Des here all stereotypically exemplify, warmists tend to believe that temperature rise alone is “evidence” of its CAUSE …

          • Des says:

            “Everyone gets to believe what they want.”
            Yes, you can “BELIEVE what you want”. I hope you don’t mind if I prefer KNOWLEDGE over belief.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Just keep believing, Des.

          • Des says:

            Kristian
            Would you please point out precisely where I have claimed that “temperature rise alone is evidence of its cause”.

          • Kristian says:

            Des says, October 2, 2017 at 5:08 PM:

            Kristian
            Would you please point out precisely where I have claimed that “temperature rise alone is evidence of its cause”.

            Des
            Would you please point out precisely where I wrote that you CLAIM that “temperature rise alone is evidence of its cause”.

          • Kristian says:

            Des says, October 2, 2017 at 4:00 PM:

            Yes, you can “BELIEVE what you want”. I hope you don’t mind if I prefer KNOWLEDGE over belief.

            So how exactly do you KNOW that we humans are responsible for GW, des? Based on what observations?

          • barry says:

            It will be difficult for Kristian to do that, seeing as he made it up wholesale.

          • barry says:

            Kristian, you said:

            as both Dr. Mark H. Shapiro, Rob Honeycutt and Des here all stereotypically exemplify, warmists tend to believe that temperature rise alone is evidence of its CAUSE

            I too think that that is complete fabrication, and am curious to see if you can produce a quote that verifies this statement.

            What I expect is that you’ll get tricksy.

          • Kristian says:

            Yes, barry, sorry I forgot to include you.

          • barry says:

            Har har. I thought you’d try something cleverer.

            Your best shot is with Shapiro’s quote.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Kristian says:
            October 2, 2017 at 3:56 PM

            g*e*r*a*n says, October 2, 2017 at 3:37 PM:

            Of course we might disagree on what you call evidence. Some Warmists believe DWIR is evidence ()

            Or, as both Dr. Mark H. Shapiro, Rob Honeycutt and Des here all stereotypically exemplify, warmists tend to believe that temperature rise alone is evidence of its CAUSE —

            Well I believe the higher average temperature of the tropics and the higher average temperature of the entire ocean is
            evidence of its CAUSE.

          • Des says:

            Kristian October 3, 2017 at 3:32 AM:
            “Would you please point out precisely where I wrote that you CLAIM that temperature rise alone is evidence of its cause.

            Kristian October 2, 2017 at 3:56 PM:
            “… as both Dr. Mark H. Shapiro, Rob Honeycutt and Des here all stereotypically exemplify, warmists tend to believe that temperature rise alone is evidence of its CAUSE …”

          • Kristian says:

            Des says, October 3, 2017 at 10:39 PM:

            Kristian October 3, 2017 at 3:32 AM:
            “Would you please point out precisely where I wrote that you CLAIM that temperature rise alone is evidence of its cause.

            Kristian October 2, 2017 at 3:56 PM:
            “… as both Dr. Mark H. Shapiro, Rob Honeycutt and Des here all stereotypically exemplify, warmists tend to believe that temperature rise alone is evidence of its CAUSE …”

            So for the record, you hereby admit that I didn’t accuse you of what you claimed I accused you of. Good boy.

          • Des says:

            FOR THE RECORD, we have it in writing that you accused me of “believing that temperature rise alone is evidence of its CAUSE”.

          • Kristian says:

            Des says, October 3, 2017 at 11:37 PM:

            FOR THE RECORD, we have it in writing that you accused me of “believing that temperature rise alone is evidence of its CAUSE”.

            Yes. “Believing” something isn’t the same as “CLAIMING” something out loud or in writing, is it, Des?

          • Kristian says:

            Note that I did not say that warmists tend to believe that temperature rise is necessarily the ONLY evidence of its cause. I said that warmists tend to believe that it’s ENOUGH to just point to a temperature rise in order to draw conclusions about its cause. And by “a temperature rise”, I naturally don’t mean monthly noise or ENSO-induced peaks. I mean of course “a rising temperature trend over time”.

          • Des says:

            You seem to believe that word gymnastics gets you out of your claim.

          • Kristian says:

            Des says, October 4, 2017 at 8:03 PM:

            You seem to believe that word gymnastics gets you out of your claim.

            I don’t need to “get myself out of” my claim at all. You obviously DO believe that pointing to a rising trend in temperature is enough to confirm your belief in CO2 warming as CO2_atm increases. Same with barry. Same with Dr. Mark H. Shapiro. Same with Rob Honeycutt.

            I have, however, never stated that this is something you have OPENLY CLAIMED. Of course you haven’t. That’s what an inherent belief is all about. You show, you don’t tell.

          • Des says:

            Which means your belief that we have this belief *IS* only a belief – nothing more.

          • Kristian says:

            Des says, October 5, 2017 at 6:24 PM:

            Which means your belief that we have this belief *IS* only a belief – nothing more.

            Not at all. It’s based on tons and tons of evidence. It’s all around you.

            You all DO believe this. It’s the most obvious thing. Anyone able to read would understand why it has to be so. It’s a settled fact, and so no point discussing, really. All we need to discuss from here on is “What do we do about it…?”

            Or are you a denier, Des? Do you deny the evidence?

          • Phil says:

            @Kristian

            Lol thanks i gota good laugh outof that…

            I would add tbat 97% of skeptics agree.. It is settled so no more evidence is needed 😜

          • des says:

            I see you’re talking in riddles again.

        • Des says:

          Let’s add comprehension difficulties to your list of issues.

      • Don’t worry doctor spencer. The longer the better because eventually this man made global warming bullshit will be a thing of the past and bite everyone in the ass because of not looking at the real science behind climate change. Hang in there! We are slowly but surely winning the fight!

        • Des says:

          We are slowly but surely going in the opposite direction to that required for deniers to “win the fight”.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Roy…”I dont deny AGW. Please pay attention, Dr. Mark”.

        You’re a better man than me. You have far more tolerance for the possibility.

        In the strictest sense, I am not a denier of AGW either. I think there is a possibility of about 0.01C over decades.

        I think Lindzen pegged it at around 0.4C for a doubling of CO2.

    • argus says:

      It’s been clear for a while if you’re not a warming fanatic/ alarmist, you’re a nothing to the warming trolls/crowd. Makes me think the real disease the world should take action against is lumping crazies in with rational people. Dr Spencer has the most rational and truthful position of any climate proponent I’ve heard of yet. Maybe he shouldn’t try to balance out the fanatics and rather stick more closely to the facts and possibilities, but I’m glad someone in a prominent, non-authoritative position will at least attempt to be objective.

    • Kristian says:

      Dr. Mark H. Shapiro says, October 2, 2017 at 8:41 AM:

      It’s becoming more and more difficult to deny AGW (…)

      Let me fix that for you: It’s becoming more and more difficult to deny GW.

      Where exactly in Spencer’s graph do you see the “A”?

      • Emeritus says:

        You have it from the Master himself;

        “I dont deny AGW. Please pay attention, Dr. Mark.”

        And so should You my friend, Your kognitiv gifts and scientific skills would be far better served if You became a true sceptic.

      • Bart says:

        Was about to point out the same. Since very few people deny GW, it is a non-issue.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      shapiro…”Its becoming more and more difficult to deny AGW Dr. Roy”.

      Only an idiot would interject with such an observation. Show me any scientific evidence of AGW.

      Having ‘Dr.’ before your name does not absolve you of idiocy.

  7. BBould says:

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Tough life.

  8. The data for the month of September is quite a surprise because the overall sea surface temperatures have been falling off, as well as a tendency toward La Nina, conditions.

    Oceanic lag times have to be considered, and as long as the oceans keep cooling eventually so too will global temperatures.

    I will be watching the global oceanic temperatures moving forward, currently +.269c and see how this translates to global temperatures, and to a lesser extent if La Nina develops

    Satellite data is the best even when it goes against what one wanted.

    I am positive going forward global temperatures will be dropping off.

    Again this was a surprise.

    • Oh, with La Nina coming on, I’m pretty confident we are in for a large-ish drop. But a few months of anomalies don’t make a long-term trend. The important news remains the same: global temperatures have been rising at only about 50% the rate the models say they should be.

      • Dr. Spencer I think what is more important then La Nina per say is the overall oceanic temperatures on a global basis.

      • Exactly! Try spelling that out for the clueless dimwitted alarmists!

      • barry says:

        Oh, with La Nina coming on, Im pretty confident we are in for a large-ish drop

        You were saying much the same mid-2016. Wouldn’t you be less confident when the first prediction of a la Nina fizzled out?

      • CoRev says:

        I see the potential for a significant drop *if* we actually see the la Nina, a deepening AMO, and the predicted Bali volcanic eruption is large and extended. 2-3 months after Bali may make for interesting times.

        • David Appell says:

          CoRev: These would all be natural changes, indicating nothing whatsoever about manmade global warming.

          • CoRev says:

            DA, of cou. If they persisted long enough or drove temperatures deep enough to re-institute the “hiatus” they would also disprove the GCMs.

            It’s too bad the obvious is lost on alarmists/true believers.

      • johnd says:

        Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says: ‘The important news remains the same: global temperatures have been rising at only about 50% the rate the models say they should be.’

        OK, if we accept that the model predictions were on the high side, can I ask whether the models included other gases besides CO2? So if one were also to accept the methane clathrate theory then atmospheric methane could continue to increase markedly. And so there’s a mechanism by which GW could, very plausibly, accelerate from its present luke-warming rate? Methane readings do seem to be progressively increasing eg:

        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/

        • David Appell says:

          johnd says:
          October 3, 2017 at 10:13 AM
          Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says: The important news remains the same: global temperatures have been rising at only about 50% the rate the models say they should be.

          That’s only according to un-peer reviewed, unpublished claims. Blog posts are not science. Real science appears in the peer reviewed published literature, in journals that don’t cause the editor-in-chief to resign when the paper is published.

          You know this very well, Roy.

    • Lol. None of this is a surprise. As I said no one of my previous comments and so did dr spencer monthly temp anomolies mean nothing in terms of climate change. Yes, we may continue to experience periods of rapid fluctuations in monthly temps throughout the year but the long term 13 month average trend is expected to plunge downward rapidly over the next few years as we heads towards the bottom of this next solar cycle in the early to mid 2020s. By then global warming alarmism is going to melt like crazy and create a sea level rise of awareness and regret that will drown all in a flood of sorrow, pain, Missorry and will wash all those bastards away who lied to us about global warming. They will be one of the first to drown and choke and the waters of revenge and they know there death is drawing near and they only have very limited time to keep there man made global warming bullshit up and running.

  9. Oh no it’s going up! Global warming has returned from its summer vacation and he is not playing anymore games! This is very serious stuff folks! Wait a minute, didn’t al gore predict the artic ice should be gone a while back in 2007? Record ice growth for September! Hmmmmmmm… After all it is the long term yearly trend that matters and that is still showing a downward trend. Oh well, back to sleep sheeples!

    • I must admit did not expect +.54c for Sep.

      • No one did. Global monthly anomolies can vary so much month to month. It is the long term yearly trend from 2016 (the red line) that matters and that is going down because we ended solar maximum

        • I agree but now we have to hear all the AGW enthusiast for a little longer.

          Despite this month I am confident that the trend is going to be down.

          The oceanic temperatures have to be paid close attention to. +.271 c last report. As long as this trends down so will global temperatures.

          ocean tid bits web-site gives 6 hourly updates on oceanic temperatures plus much more info.

          • I promise you they will go down and with it those damn alarmists and there stupid agenda. All you have to do is look at history if you want to know how climate change is going to change the world. Yes climate change is a big deal. Yes the climate is changing and the weather is getting weirder. Yes the sea level has risen slightly over the past 100 years as well as the temperature Yes climate change is going to kill a overwhelming majority of our population in the next 10-15 years and change the way the human species live and act as a whole. That is one of the reasons why it is called Climate change. It is something that will change the world and there is nothing we can do to make it worse or muffle it specifically over the shorterm. Perhaps we could eventually have released enough ghgs into the atmosphere to then and only if then we can change the climate significantly. I’m talking thousands if not millions of years of hard core fossil fuel nonstop worse casecnario. But it is the short term that they want to mislead you and worry about and that my friend is where history comes in. Look at what happens in the 16 and 1800s with climate change. The sun has caused it and is doing the same thing is always does every 200 years or so it is not admitting as much solar radiance to warm the earth for at least the next 200 years. Start with John l casey. He is a great source of information if you want to know what’s really happening with the climate. Good luck my friend and prepare well. 🙂

          • Dr No says:

            I said it last month:
            “Salvatore,
            prepare to meet your moment of truth.
            The next few months will decide you and your theorys fate, once and for all.
            No ifs and buts agreed?”
            and you agreed.

          • David Appell says:

            Probably the best predictor is to just go with the opposite of whatever Salvatore predicts. Time has told.

          • Sniff sniff….. hmmmmm what’s that awefull smell I’m smelling. It smells look dr nobody and Davie Appleseed arguing over something without even bringing up any arguements to support there babyish foolish claims. I for one am not a baby. Im beginning to think some of the baby’s who chat on this blog are beginning to talk More nonsense and less science. I wonder why that is?

          • Des says:

            So the oceanic temperature is +0.27. That is precisely the UAH trend value. So exactly as expected. It hasn’t “trended down”.

        • Des says:

          Gee – I though it went down BECAUSE EL NINO ENDED.

  10. Werner Brozek says:

    Hello Des

    I find your analysis here very interesting!
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-266116

    I do not know if you are aware of my monthly column at WUWT. However I would be happy to have your permission to post most of that in my next article, with proper attribution of course.
    I would title it:
    Can You Explain UAH6? (Now Includes August and September Data)

    • Des says:

      Perhaps, if you let me know what your suggested explanations for the high August & September anomalies are. I don’t want to be associated with some kind of nonsense rationalisation that is commonly seen on your site.

      Be aware of a typo that needs fixing. In the first list, number 2 should say 2016, not 2016.

      Also, when I wrote “EL NINO”, it was not necessarily an El Nino month. There is a 4-6 month lag between ENSO events and their associated anomalies. The months marked “EL NINO” are either an El Nino month or they fall within that lag period.

  11. ren says:

    Did breeders in Dakotas secure cattle before winter?
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00936/c3b9vcwv2kxp.png

  12. Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

    Very surprising to me. I expected September’s anomaly to be somewhere between the July and August.

  13. David Clancy says:

    In response to the statement by Des: “Its funny how Americans measure the number of GLOBAL tropical storms by counting the number that actually make landfall in their own country. Kind of like the World Series.” I have seen a chart showing no upward trend in global ACE (Ryan Maue circulated it). Are you contending that there is such a trend? If so there is there a chart or other data showing this? I am not challenging you — I’m a non-expert. But if you are saying the chart that I have seen is wrong (i.e., that there is a long term upward trend in global hurricane/cyclone activity), I would be interested in checking that out. Thanks.

    • David Appell says:

      I find the trend in annual global ACE of +18 +/- 34 per decade, since 1970. So positive, but not statistically significant. (Well, it is stat sign at the 70% level.)

      But ACE is a lousy metric, because it doesn’t consider the size of storms. I wrote about some better metrics here:

      We Need a Better Way to Measure Hurricanes, Slate, Sept 21, 2017.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/09/a_better_metric_for_measuring_hurricanes.html

      • Bart says:

        metric shopping

        • David Appell says:

          Do you know that “Accumulated Cyclone Energy” doesn’t even have units of energy?

          That a car being driven at 120 mph for six hours has exactly the same ACE as a 500-mile wide hurricane with max winds of 120 mph spinning for six hours?

          Does either of these make rational sense to you? It certainly doesn’t to a lot of hurricane scientists.

          • Bart says:

            It makes sense from the point of view of instantaneous ferocity. But, more importantly, it is something for which we do not have to make up statistics due to the paucity of historical data for other measures.

          • barry says:

            The ACE index is hardly perfect – the measurement system has changed over the decades for a start.

          • Bart says:

            At least there was a measurement system. Better than making up measurements out of whole cloth.

          • barry says:

            You believe “making things up out of whole cloth” is the alternative to ACE. It looks almost as if you know what you are talking about.

          • Bart says:

            The data just aren’t there, Barry. To the extent that they are, the methodologies and technology have changed so much that it would be about as bad as splicing tree ring proxies to the modern instrumental record. With such tiny differential signals, the assumptions used in patching it all together would be the driving force in any results.

          • barry says:

            Which alternative methodologies are you thinking of?

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “It makes sense from the point of view of instantaneous ferocity.”

            Instantaneous ferocity isn’t what caused widespread damages.

            ACE should at least be an energy, if it’s called an energy. It isn’t.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “At least there was a measurement system. Better than making up measurements out of whole cloth.”

            And you think ACE wasn’t made up out of whole cloth?

            Later metrics have more thought (and more data) in them.

      • David Clancy says:

        Thank you, and I read your interesting Slate article
        Unlike a few commenters to that article, it seems intuitive to me that classifying storms is a worthwhile endeavor. Among other things, doing so allows people to at least roughly compare storms over time, and to better look for and discuss trends. If we step outside the world of ACE, is there an alternate classification system which shows (statistically significant) storm intensification over an appreciable period of time?

        • Bart says:

          The problem is, we cannot go back in time to collect data for other measures for the historical record. That opens the door to the usual “adjustment” scenario in which Climate Change manifests within the gaps of our knowledge, and the probity of the data preparers.

        • Nate says:

          Yes and slide-rules rule, 4evr. Computers suck.

          • Bart says:

            Computers do suck, in a lot of ways. For one thing, they can only tell you the implications of your assumptions. For another, easy computing power makes people lazy. They don’t give as much thought to the specific problem at hand, and rely on the computer to solve it for them through trial and error, often using canned routines that are based on assumptions that do not hold in the given instance.

            Computers do not think. They only calculate. They are only tools. I’ve been fortunate that I never had to use a slide rule, or even a punch card. But, I do recognize the weaknesses of computers, and I do not abdicate my responsibility for independent thought to them.

            What this has to do with the thread, I have no idea, but decided to share my thoughts anyway.

          • Nate says:

            Slide-rules. Well it was picking on the idea that we shouldnt change how we measure things…

            Similar to atguments made here, that we shouldnt or cannot change how we power things. I would disagree with that one just as much.

          • Bart says:

            The problem is, when you change how the measurement is done, you change the outcome. It’s OK when the thing you are trying to measure has high SNR, but the signals being looked for here are relatively tiny.

            I’m all for changing how we power things, if it makes sense. But, solar and wind power don’t. They’re inefficient, and horrific for the environment.

            I like electric cars. I just don’t kid myself that they run on pixie dust and wishes. If anything, they require more energy in the end, due to the need to produce and transport power from remote location, and lug around a ton of batteries everywhere you go. And, the manufacture and disposal of those batteries also is not environmentally friendly.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Theyre inefficient’

            Compared to what? Tell that to states like Texas and North Dakota, re wind. Your ideas are obsolete.

            ‘and horrific for the environment’ Not remotely, compared to coal.

          • Bart says:

            Nonsense. Coal is quite clean these days. Heavy metals for windmills and caustic reagents for solar panels, not so much.

            Solar and wind barely produce more power than used in their manufacture. And, they despoil acres upon acres upon acres of natural habitat, because the power they produce per unit is such a pittance.

          • Nate says:

            How is coal mined, exactly? What happens to the tailings? Where do they end up? What happens to the ash and sludge from power plants? Didnt govt just relax rules on what coal miners can dump in rivers?

          • Nate says:

            ‘they despoil acres upon acres upon acres of natural habitat, because the power they produce per unit is such a pittance’

            Really? So why do ranchers quite happily rent out there pastures for wind turbines (and continue to ranch). This sounds very much like one of those ‘I know you are but what am I’ retorts on the playground. Completely dumb.

            ”Solar and wind barely produce more power than used in their manufacture.”

            Very false, by orders of magnitude.

            Why do you feel it helps your credibility to continually just make sh*t up?

          • Svante says:

            Check out open pit mining Bart:
            https://tinyurl.com/y8kksjsk

          • Nate says:

            Bart, so you’re giving up your headphones, speakers, disk drives, smart phones, cordless drills, etc that use most of these magnets?

        • David Appell says:

          David: I am looking for such time series, but having a hard time finding them. If they exist, they are buried somewhere in published papers. Unfortunately these numbers are not yet widely available.

    • Des says:

      I was not making any such claim. Why didn’t you include the CONTEXT of that quote? Someone had suggested that September was warm SOLELY due to hurricanes. I was pointing out that he is claiming that apparently the global anomaly responds in this way ONLY due to hurricanes that make landfall in the USA and no others.

  14. One odd ball month in temperatures does not make the case for AGW.

    • To people like you and me who think logically it doesn’t but apparently for the dimwitted puny minded alarmists trolling dr Roy spencer it does. While the temp anomaly is up they are scrambling to try to deviceve people and squeeze as much money out of their wallets as they can since it is only temporary for the time being and then they’ll say I’m glad I did what I could do make money and profit off of these innocent minded people while I had the chance. When they see an opportunity they strike just like al gore and the melting of the Arctic sea ice or the 1970s global cooling scare or the dumb scientist that says snow would eventually be a thing of the past. People give them money and they regret it and then they apologize and then they make up more excuses and so on. I call it the pseudoscience cycle for profit demanded by libtards and left wing conspiracy theorists. which consists of first pushing junk science down innocent peoples throats when they still have the chance while the libtards make there profit then the people cry and the libtards throw a party. Evil always wins when it comes to today’s era in pushing junk climate science. Sadly.

    • Des says:

      Nobody is claiming that it does. But it certainly puts a damper on your claims of cooling. Given that September is 0.27 above the trend temperature, I trust that if we get another month of 0.0, you won’t be claiming that it makes a case for cooling.

      • “Given that September is 0.27 above the trend temperature”

        So what? Explain to me how this is such a big deal. Also explain to me that if there is global warming the earth should be warming and we shouldn’t be setting 100 year+ record cold temperature records like the western US did last year and other parts of the world. Nevada ski resorts should haven’t been open all summer in fact it should have been ski free all year. Global warming. More co2. Warmer world. Co2 increasing claimed as a primary driver of climate change but temperatures have been steady for 18 years how come? I thought more co2 was supposed to warm the earth continously just like all 72 of the broken iPCC models claimed. Why? Why are we still using cars? Why is this not top world news? Why is there even existing news and articles about global cooling and a coming ice age if we are trying to prove global warming is real? There is just no way around it. You could try all you want weasel your way through this one pal but the facts are on the table and the truth ain’t gonna change itself but perhaps let the people change it.

    • barry says:

      One odd ball month in temperatures does not make the case for AGW.

      Of course. But you believe that cooling over 2 months heralds a change.

      If only everyone accepted that month-to-month variation is not climate. But you have ‘skeptics’ aplenty crowing about monthly, and even weekly lows, just as you see ‘alarmists’ making hay out of short-term phenomena.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      “One odd ball month in temperatures does not make the case for AGW.”

      That’s why no one makes that.

  15. OleKlemsdal says:

    It is interesting that the troposphere develops so different from surface series the last couple of months, and I think it must be related to the tiny spike in the multivariate enso index – an effect that has already vanished in surface measurements.
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

  16. Notice how many more comments there are on the February 2016 blog when we had a peak in global warming due to the the Godzilla El Nio and a secondary peak in solar cycle 25. This huge El Nio was there big chance they had to make lots of money by lying to people but sadly that is coming to a close and the earth will continue to cool in the coming years. I wouldn’t be surprised to see no alarmists on the comment sections of these monthly temp anomaly blogs 3 years time because they’ll be too busy crying there puny little eyes out in there bed pillows about how wrong, selfish and greedy they were. Sadly this isn’t something that will happen over night and for now until the long term trend is noticable and undeniable in the next few years the warmies will continue to infest dr Spencers site like a virous taking over the human body

    • Des says:

      Feb 2016: 318 comments
      August 2016 (last month): 2331 comments

      What was that you were saying? It’s funny how you try to make a comparison of September comments when this post has been up only a few hours. Kind of like the idiocy of trying to compare ENSO neutral temperatures to the those from the height of the 97-98 El Nino.

      • Bullshit! It’s right here fuckwit:

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-january-2016-0-54-deg-c/

        Buy some glasses before making dumb ignorant comments you moron

        • Des says:

          It seems you don’t know the difference between January and February. Try to get it right next time. Perhaps you would like to suggest why the number of comments fell by 90% from January to the peak temperature month of February. Does that give a positive or negative correlation between temperature and comments?

          BTW – I found it interesting that Dr Spencer allows the F word to be used on his blog by only one side of the debate. Or … perhaps my perception has been skewed because only one side of the debate actually resorts to using that word. Apparently it qualifies as a proxy “argument”.

          • Whatever man. Believe whatever you want. But just remember that global warming is real and is caused by humans as you claim even though there is a shit ton of real evidence that disputes it coming from all these well educated scientists. The real question you have to ask yourself is How did they come to this conclusion? Why even allow this on the internet? Why are so many news articles about long term 100+ record cold being broken across the globe not in the mainstream news. why did These so called educated scientist make these horribly wrong predictions? And if it is so real and terrible then maybe we should get off our lazy asses and start changing things IMMEDIATELY! Yes we have made some progress but we can do way better. Yet the government still allows these cars that produce co2 to go on. This shit should be banned and there should be a law if it was that big of a deal. And finally, why are the government out to kill and jail people who do not believe in man made climate change? It makes no sense therefore the politics don’t make sense therefore the science backing it up makes no sense.

          • Des says:

            If you want to change topics, start another thread. This one is settled.

          • Why not start a new thread if you can continue one desi boy? Now answer my questions. That is….. if you can. Lol

          • Des says:

            You don’t get it, do you. I am not here to prove something that has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Any attempt to do do would be a case of casting pearls before swine. No, I am here simply to laugh at all those people who claim a GLOBAL cooling trend despite the fact there is not a shred of evidence to back up their claim. If I happen to get sidetracked into talking about warming then count yourself blessed, but I don’t respond to DEMANDS for such a conversation.

          • barry says:

            CC4R got the dates wrong. The peak was in February, but the update was early March, as usual. The number of comments was below average.

            Whatever the case, it would be impossible to interpret the numbers without reading and categorizing the posts. Who could bothered doing that? No, better to make claims no one is going to bother verifying, least of all you.

        • Nate says:

          4realz, never mind the caffeine, consider cutting back on the meth…

        • Bindidon says:

          Hmmmmh!

          Ein Kommentar mit Weltklasseniveau, was realz?

      • Bullshit. It’s right here fuck nugget:

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-january-2016-0-54-deg-c/

        Get some glasses and learn to read properly before making such foolish comments you moron

  17. barry says:

    A single month does not a trend make.

  18. barry says:

    Salvatore,

    Global temps are up from last month, and September was the warmest month of this year. As you think the ocean sets the global temp, does that mean global sea surface temps were warm over September, and that the seas were last month warmer than at any other time during this year?

  19. Des says:

    Now that the UAH anomaly is high, let me point out how little I trust this data set. There is absolutely NO WAY September temperatures were 0.25 degrees above July. Similarly there was absolutely NO WAY March temperatures were 0.16 below February.

    Everyone likes to point out (ie over-state) the Urban Heat Island effect as a reason that NOAA anomalies might run hot. Based on daily NOAA data, this month’s anomaly will be around the same as for the past two months. Would anyone care to suggest why NOAA data would run COLD?

    • barry says:

      Why is there NO WAY September would be that much higher than than July?

      • Des says:

        Because the surface data doesn’t indicate it.

        • Surface data? Your joking right?

          • Des says:

            Yeah – the data sat which DOESN’T take temperatures at different times of the day in different parts of the world, and pretends they have a valid algorithm for comparing those temperatures.

          • No one is saying sattelite temperature is perfect but the surface data is FAR worse:

            https://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm

          • Des says:

            Yeah – the way surface adjustments REDUCE the warming trend is just horrendous.

          • Oh I’m sorry do you not like that because it disproves your stupid global warming agenda?

          • Des says:

            Clearly picking up sarcasm is not one of your strong points.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Ya, surface data, like ship engine intake temps, and ocean water in a bucket temps. Wow! Like that REALLY relates to air temps. LMAO. And so high tech.

          • Des says:

            You DO realise that one of the adjustments is for these engine intake measurements, RIGHT? These sea surface adjustments are the main reason adjustments REDUCE the warming trend. It’s funny how you guys challenge adjustments yet never investigate why they are made.

          • Bart says:

            “These sea surface adjustments are the main reason adjustments REDUCE the warming trend.”

            Not really. They reduce it in the earlier data, but increase it since 1998. They had to do that to keep an apparent upward trend. Otherwise, they would have had to acknowledge the “pause” that discredits the CO2 induced warming meme. And, they’re not going to allow that until they have absolutely run out of ways to jigger the data to allow them to claim the world is still warming.

            The reduction of the long term trend was the price they had to pay to keep the charade going.

          • barry says:

            You and Tom Clancy should work together.

          • Bart says:

            Don’t be naive.

          • Nate says:

            The only choices are naive or conspiracy theorist?

          • Bart says:

            It’s not a conspiracy theory when you have emails from the players themselves plotting to conspire.

          • Nate says:

            Ive read the emails you previously posted. I dont see much conspiring. I see a lot of technical discussion about the proper way to analyze the data. Not sure why they need to do that if they’re just making up numbers?

            Some trash talk about deniers, yes. Not too surprising.

            One has to be a conspiracy theorist to see much more to it than that

          • Bart says:

            Reading comprehension can be greatly enhanced by opening one’s eyes.

        • Nate says:

          Theyvare not measuring the same temps, plus troposphere has much larger variance.

          • Bart says:

            But, less bias. In estimation theory, there is always a balance to be struck between bias and variance.

          • Des says:

            But how do you KNOW it has a larger variance other than by simply trusting the satellite data?

          • Nate says:

            ‘how do you KNOW it has a larger variance’ It does, its readily measured.

          • Bart says:

            I’m pretty sure he meant bias. The idea that data points from sparse locations can be extrapolated to produce better measurements than those which densely cover virtually the entire Earth is fantastical. Even if we made a stretch, and assumed the uncertainties were equal, that uncertainty is composed of two components: bias and variance. So, if you observe the one has less variance, you can be assured it has greater bias.

          • Nate says:

            ‘So, if you observe the one has less variance, you can be assured it has greater bias.’

            What rot! Why would you make such a ridiculous assumption?

            It could be that the troposphere has intrinsically more variance than the surface. In fact that is predicted.

          • Bart says:

            “Why would you make such a ridiculous assumption?”

            Because you can’t get something for nothing. The surface data themselves have undergone numerous, substantial revisions. More so than the satellite data. Just look at these two:

            https://tinyurl.com/ijbfdty

            Which one is right?

          • Nate says:

            ‘Because you cant get something for nothing.’

            Diversion into other issues that have nothing to do with your statement about ‘variance vs bias’.

          • Nate says:

            Which one is right?

            You showed me different data sets which have different global coverage. GISS covers more of the arctic. In any case the difference in trends are not much.

          • Bart says:

            “GISS covers more of the arctic.”

            No, it uses an entirely conjectural model to extrapolate measurements over the arctic. Models are not data.

            “In any case the difference in trends are not much.”

            They’re pretty substantial, especially in the era of the “pause”. GISS has been transparently “adjusted” to do away with the “pause”.

          • Nate says:

            Whatever you say, Bart.

            Differences << those between RSS, UAH, and others who have analyzed that data.

          • Bart says:

            Even were what you say true, “differences” is not a valid metric for reliability. The differences in results from homeopathy and magnetic therapy are << mainstream medical approaches – both leave you dead if you have a life threatening illness.

          • Nate says:

            Bizarre analogy….

          • Nate says:

            ‘homeopathy’

            Comparing mainstream climate science to far outside the mainstream medical science makes no sense.

      • barry says:

        Because the surface data doesnt indicate it.

        I see no reason to prefer one data set over another. All have strengths and limitations.

        There are months when even the surface data sets disagree with each other not only on the difference in change on month to another, bet also the sign.

        They’re all best estimates, none demonstrably (at this point) better than another.

        Also remembering the satellites and surface are measuring temps at very different altitudes. They are not directly comparable, though their general agreement over the long-term gives confidence in long-term generalities (ie, the lower atmosphere has warmed over the last 40 years).

        • Des says:

          Satellite data takes one reading of each location each day, with each location read at a different time. UAH pretends they can create an algorithm for comparing temperatures of different locations without using surface data to establish a relationship between temperatures at particular times and max/min temperatures for any day. The actual measurement process is fine (at least, any issues are notionally fixable) – the transformation of the data into a global anomaly is NOT a robust process.

        • barry says:

          16,000 measurements a day, taking 3-4 days to get near-global coverage.

          The geo-spatial coverage is better – much better.

          Very few instruments are used to get these readings, whereas on the surface there are as many instruments as weather stations. Like the satellites, these, instruments change from time to time, as does their environment. But the number of instrument changes for the surface is orders of magnitude greater than for satellites. Weather stations change locations.

          Satellites have their own set of particular problems – orbital drift, decay, contamination from other channels, different satellites stitched together.

          I’m not well-informed enough to figure out which system is better at getting a global average or for discerning long-term trends. Without in-depth knowledge, choosing one over the other would be simple barracking.

          • Des says:

            Right – so each location is being measured only once every 3-4 days. When a surface station is missing 8 days in a month it is not counted in the record for that month as it is not considered representative. So how does 7-10 days of data per month suffice?

          • Nate says:

            ‘Very few instruments are used to get these readings, whereas on the surface there are as many instruments as weather stations.’

            The bonus with surface data, is redundancy. If one instrument has a systematic error, it can be readily found by comparing to its neighbors. Or if not caught, its effect on global average is still rather small.

            Not so for systematic error in the satellite data. Its effect, if not corrected, can be LARGE.

          • Nate says:

            Barry,

            ‘barracking’ had to look this up in Australian slang dictionary-

            ‘to cheer on (football team etc.), support, take sides in an argument or controversy’

          • Bart says:

            “The bonus with surface data, is redundancy. If one instrument has a systematic error, it can be readily found by comparing to its neighbors. Or if not caught, its effect on global average is still rather small.”

            The surface data are not without systematic errors, e.g. encroaching suburban sprawl, that affect all stations in a particular direction.

            And, remember, we are looking at anomalies here. After known systematic, time varying errors have been removed from the satellite data, offset errors have no net impact.

            We know, and can compensate for, systematic satellite influences. The surface data are just a grab bag of poorly quantified and poorly understood phenomena over an extremely sparse global station distribution.

          • Nate says:

            ‘We know, and can compensate for, systematic satellite influences.’

            No I dont think you know at all what you are talking about. Several groups in literature describe attempts to do this, with very different results..

          • barry says:

            Well well, I did not know ‘barracking’ was slang.

          • barry says:

            A review of UAH and RSS versions should leave no doubt that the challenges facing satellite data are not easily compensated for. Some of the revisions are larger than surface adjustments. Nate’s point is quite right, too.

          • Bart says:

            The satellite adjustments are straightforward physics. The surface adjustments, not so much.

            https://tinyurl.com/y9ctrhls

          • Nate says:

            Where from? An agenda driven blog no doubt.

          • Des says:

            Bart
            Not correct. When a satellite reading FOR A PARTICULAR LOCATION is taken at one particular time of the day, and the reading FOR ANOTHER particular location is taken at another time of the day, some method must be found to adjust those figures before averaging so they represent the same time of day. Given that UAH flatly REFUSE to use surface data to assist them, there is no way of knowing how to compare a 9 am temperature in Sydney with a 3 pm temperature in New York. They basically GUESS the conversion, and there is MUCH room for variation in your guesses. This is not Physics. The guesswork allows different statisticians to bias the data to match their own biases.

            Compare trends of UAH to RSS. Then compare trends of NOAA, et al. Which are more consistent? Try to avoid pseudo-political BS claims in arriving at your answer.

          • Bart says:

            Prior to RSS’ cave in, UAH and RSS were very close. GISS and HA**UT are very different.

            “…there is no way of knowing how to compare a 9 am temperature in Sydney with a 3 pm temperature in New York.”

            For that matter, there is no way of knowing how to compare a 9 am temperature in Sydney with a 9 am temperature in New York, but that’s not stopping anyone. But, diurnal variation is not rocket science.

          • Nate says:

            ”. But, diurnal variation is not rocket science.”

            Bart, again you assert things that are obviously dumb. Why?

            If the professionals clearly disagree on how to do it correctly, then it is not trivial.

          • Bart says:

            Either that, or the “professionals” are.

          • Nate says:

            I know, when science disproves your beliefs, its safe to assume the scientists are lying.

    • gbaikie says:

      “Everyone likes to point out (ie over-state) the Urban Heat Island effect as a reason that NOAA anomalies might run hot. Based on daily NOAA data, this months anomaly will be around the same as for the past two months. Would anyone care to suggest why NOAA data would run COLD?”

      UHI effects aren’t always warming- wind can greatly affect the amount of warming of UHI effects. If rains and ground if wet there also little difference between “natural” and urban temps- urban areas could even dry out quicker from all the hard surfaces.
      But generally UHI effect are surfaces which absorb more energy from the sun. Vertical structures which inhibit convectional heat loss, and moisture added to the environment.

      • Des says:

        And what process would switch the UHI effect off simultaneously in every city around the globe, and in fact make it negative?

        • gbaikie says:

          It’s windy here.
          I don’t think I have ever looked to see if wind is measured globally.
          Let’s try:
          “We find a general global trend of increasing values of wind speed and, to a lesser degree, wave height, over this period. The rate of increase is greater for extreme events as compared to the mean condition.”
          http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6028/451

          So it’s out there somewhere, I guess.

          Of course windiness [or shear winds] are connecting to hurricane formation. Of course with hurricanes it could just be regional thing.
          There this but couldn’t open it for some reason:
          http://tinyurl.com/ycs9347g

          Gosh, that’s a hideous link- use tiny

          • Des says:

            But without such data, the possibility that this could occur globally is just guesswork.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Des says:
            October 2, 2017 at 7:32 PM

            But without such data, the possibility that this could occur globally is just guesswork.–

            If you had the data, it would still be guesswork.
            But if want it to less of guess, and you want to get your answer, it appears it will require work.

          • Des says:

            Have YOU done this work?

  20. What is funny is the large difference between weatherbell +.28c and Dr. Spencer’s data +.54c

    It is crazy. This is a very big difference and should not be.

    • barry says:

      Maybe they have different baselines, Sal. You should check that.

      Short of that, compare the difference for each data set between August and September. Maybe Weatherbell also had a jump up.

      • Barry they have always been so close to one another which gave me confidence now I do not know what to think.

        • kingbum says:

          If I’m not mistaken didn’t that just adjust the GISS model temperatures a couple months ago and started tampering with all the other satellite temperature measurements citing biases? I should probably search for it first but I’m being lazy. That could be why you have a big discrepancy it’s a different algorithm being used now.

      • I would have thought that but for the fact that they are always so close month in and month out, until now.

      • barry says:

        Link me to the Weatherbell page you’re getting your numbers from. I might be able to figure out the baseline. From memory (searching reanalysis source at NOAA), it might not be easy.

      • David Appell says:

        Salvatore is indeed wrong.

        UAH uses a baseline of 1981-2010.
        Weatherbell uses NOAA surface data, which has a baseline of 1901-2000.

  21. This is frustrating because of the large difference in data. WX. BELL and satellite data have ALWAYS been close until this month.

    Wx, bell shows global temperatures only +.16 c above normal for the past two weeks.

    It is ridiculous.

  22. http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_globe_t2m_week_anom.png

    Barry it show from sep25- oct 02 global temp +.159c .

    Now I have very little confidence in a report that even favors what I want.

    • barry says:

      That’s not going to represent September temps (UAH). that’s the last few days of Sep and the first few of Oct. There’s no reason that should match September UAH.

      What is the September monthly anomaly for Weatherbell?

  23. I want to believe the satellite data even if it is not in my favor.

  24. I have a funny feeling that revisions are coming.

    I can’t believe +.54c it does not make sense.

    I am not just saying it because I am against AGW, it has nothing to do with it.

    I am lost here.

    Time will tell.

    • Des says:

      So … you believe surface data over satellite data? You are making progress.

    • Dr No says:

      “I am lost here.”
      Salvatore, it is obvious you have been lost for ages.
      Welcome to the world of facts and not fiction.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Salvatore

      What if the oceans had recently released a bunch of heat into the atmosphere? I’m thinking they might be a little cooler now as a result. And the atmosphere, of course, would be a little warmer than usual.

  25. Ozonebust says:

    Dr Spencer
    I appreciate that ocean warm the atmosphere, mainly in the mid latitudes.

    If the wind transports that heat away from the ocean source to other locations, will it heat the surface of the water that it transports across.

    The satelite records the ocean skin temperature. If I see warming in the southern ocean, or any ocean noted as a transport pathway, could it be transported heat that is warming the ocean surface.

    Thank you

  26. Werner Brozek says:

    Testing

  27. Dan Pangburn says:

    Looks like increasing water vapor (1.5% per decade, 8% since the rate increased in about 1960) is prevailing over declining solar activity and declining net of all ocean cycles . . . for now. But increasing clouds will limit that.

    • Des says:

      ALL effects associated with the increasing greenhouse effect will continue to prevail over the MINOR reduction in solar activity.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Des – The perception that the effect of solar activity is minor is consistent with the erroneous belief that the only way solar activity can influence earth temperature is by TSI change. That perception does not even do the math correctly.

        • Des says:

          Where did I say that was the only influence? BTW – did you even realise that it is impossible to predict whether the sun will continue all the way to Maunder-like conditions?

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Put a number on “MINOR”

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Des Sorry about the abrupt request, I was in a bind on time.
            I would really like for you to quantify, if you can, your perception of minor.
            What I have seen, essentially, is TSI variation range is about +/- 0.05%.

            I did not intend to imply that you considered TSI as the only influence.

            As shown in Table 1 of my blog/analysis, a proxy, which is the time-integral of SSN anomalies, accounts for 38% of the average global temperature (AGT) change from 1909 to 2005. That, combined with an approximation of SST oscillation and extrapolated water vapor produces a 98+% match with measured AGT 1895-2015.

          • Des says:

            By minor, I mean that the drop in TSI from the low point of recent 11-year solar cycles to the level of the Maunder minimum is about the same as the difference between the high and low point of each cycle.

            How much of a drop in global temperatures have we noticed from the top to the bottom of a solar cycle? A Maunder-like minimum will give the same drop again

            Personally, I have never noticed an 11-year cycle in temperatures … scientists working in the field (NOT the likes of Donald Easterbrook who doesn’t understand the science behind his claims) state that a Maunder minimum would have about a 0.4 degree effect on global average temperatures. In the 1600s, this drop was superimposed on temperatures that had already fallen significantly due to other reasons, given a total dip of 1 degree plus. Today, the effect of those “other reasons” goes the other way.

            But all this is predicated on us actually getting a Maunder-like minimum. No scientist is actually able to predict that this will happen. We’ve had two major dips in TSI since the Maunder minimum – neither went all the way. It is not predictable with today’s understanding of the sun.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Des Thanks for the clarification. I do not address that issue.

            I have a spreadsheet set up to solve Equation 1 in my blog/analysis (click my name to see the blog/analysis). I treat the time-integral of the SSN anomaly as a proxy (SSN varies in sync with TSI approx. 11 yr fluctuation). With all coefficients (except F which is held at 1.0) calibrated for best fit (max R^2) to reported average global temperatures (AGT), I get an excellent match of 98+% 1895-2015. The effect for which the proxy is accounting amounts to 0.38 or 38% of the AGT change 1909-2005. (AGT is very sensitive to cloud changes. Some (e.g. Svensmark) have found both average cloud altitude and total cloud cover are influenced by SSN).

            When I set the coefficient for the proxy to zero and optimize the other coefficients, the match deteriorates significantly with pronounced growing separation after 2005.

            As to the influence of solar changes on earth temperature, realize that the sun changes are a forcing, i.e. a power thing whereas earth temperature is an energy thing. Would you compare a trace of your Watt hour meter reading (energy) to a trace of your Watt meter reading (power) and declare they are not related because the traces are a different shape? The time-integral of power is energy. The number of people who overlook this is disturbing, e.g. Figure 1 at http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm.

        • David Appell says:

          Dan Pangburn says:
          “Des The perception that the effect of solar activity is minor is consistent with the erroneous belief that the only way solar activity can influence earth temperature is by TSI change.”

          Then what is the climate sensitivity to other solar parameters, in degrees C/(W/m2)?

  28. Werner Brozek says:

    Hello Des

    I will strictly deal with September since that is what you gave.I would write a brief wrap around your numbers and admit I am puzzled and ask for their thoughts.

    • Des says:

      Sure, if it is not associated with a leading question I have no problem. But … it is not my data – you don’t really have to ask my permission.

  29. Dr No says:

    Just in:
    “Great Lakes water temperatures have gone up significantly in the past two weeks, which is usually a time period of quickly falling water temperatures. The six day stretch of record heat around Michigan is the cause of the sharp rise in surface water temperatures. Surface water temperatures on the Great Lakes have been cooler than normal for the second half of summer. Now the rapid warming at a time when lake water is usually cooling has brought water temperatures much above the long term average.’
    http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2017/09/great_lakes_water_temps_soar_a.html

    • SkepticGoneWild says:

      Oh noes! We’re doomed!

    • Bart says:

      “Now the rapid warming at a time when lake water is usually cooling has brought water temperatures much above the long term average.”

      Sloppy. I presume they mean temperature anomaly, which means they are not rapidly warming, just cooling at a reduced rate compared to the tendency of other years. Probably as a result of temporary weather fronts.

    • barry says:

      I presume they mean temperature anomaly

      Yes, you do. But why would you do that?

    • barry says:

      Because you can’t be bothered checking your presumption. Which is wrong.

      Making your “Sloppy” comment perfectly ironic.

      • Bart says:

        So, you’re saying the Great Lakes in the Fall should not be expected to be cooler than in the summer? Mmm… no.

        https://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/statistic/avg-sst.php

      • barry says:

        If you get around to reading the article upon which you made your presumptive critique you will see that they are not talking about anomalies, and that they are talking about an unusual rise in temperatures for the time of year, and not “cooling at a reduced rate.”

        Your comment was wrong. Simple as that.

        • Bart says:

          “…they are not talking about anomalies, and that they are talking about an unusual rise in temperatures for the time of year…”

          Did you realize you had contradicted yourself within the space of a single sentence there?

  30. Des says:

    Sure, if it is not associated with a leading question I have no problem. But … it is not my data – you don’t really have to ask my permission.

  31. Harry Cummings says:

    I note Des is saying all effect but we are being told over and over that CO2 (and all its feed backs etc) is the major cause of the warming of the planet. The temp flat lined from round 2002 to 2015/6 when CO2 went from roughly 370ppm to 400pmm what happened to the overriding. Pretty much the same thing from 1980 to 1997 now all of a sudden with an extra 3 or 4ppm its over ridding, would it not seem logical CO2 has very little to do with the warming

    Maybe just maybe something else odd is going on

    Regards

    • Des says:

      “I note Des is saying all effect”

      What does that even mean?

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Harry

      Maybe during those “flat line” periods the oceans were extra greedy and sucked up most of the atmosphere’s excess heat?

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        When the oceans are less greedy, a warming trend resumes.

        • GC says:

          Sir Isaac,

          Would you like explain with first order principles just how exactly “heat” (I take it that you mean ‘thermalised energy’ when you say “heat” – and just as a side note, exactly how can it be determined what is “excess”?) penetrates into the ocean from above the ocean? I’d be most impressed if you could.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            GC

            I’m no expert, and wouldn’t be able to impress you. It’s not a hard thing to look up, though. Here’s an overview I found:

            http://www.climateprediction.net/climate-science/glossary/atmosphere-ocean-interaction/

          • gbaikie says:

            It mostly doesn’t.
            Sunlight passes thru the ocean surface and largely warms the top few meters.
            Such a warmed layer water is also mixed by ocean waves which create a more uniform and deeper amount of warm water. Also constant winds [ie trade winds] can pile up warmer water so it’s a few hundred meter deep.
            Of course despite water’s poor conduction of heat, some heat can conducted to lower depths, but it’s mostly heated by sunlight passing thru the transparent ocean [and a portion of sunlight reaches depths greater than 100 meters] and various mechanical mixing mechanisms.
            So if you have more mechanical mixing of ocean, more heat is “lost to ocean depths” and less mixing means more is “lost to the atmosphere”

          • Des says:

            Surface heat is not spread evenly over the ocean. During El Nino, the surface heat is spread more evenly, allowing more heat to escape into the atmosphere. During La Nina, surface heat is concentrated even more than usual in the Western Pacific, leaving large areas of cool water to absorb heat.

            Another oceanic “cycle” is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I don’t know the specifics of where the warme water accumulates during each phase of the cycle, but the concept is similar. However the PDO operates on a much longer time scale than does ENSO. The “pause” period from 1998 to about 2014 is precisely when the PDO was in a negative phase. Warm water in the northern Pacific was concentrated into a smaller area, leaving larger areas of cool water exposed to the atmosphere. That acts as a sink of heat from the atmosphere.

            The PDO left its negative phase around 2014. Since then it has hovered around zero, sometimes positive, sometimes negative. I think at the moment it is slightly negative. So this extra heat over the last couple of years is the catch-up from 16 years in a PDO-neutral state. If we go into a PDO-positive state then there is likely more heat to come. But just like the “pause”, it won’t be reflective of the upward trend caused by the increasing greenhouse effect – we still have to return to the trend when it’s over. It’s also possible that this is only a “pause in the pause” and we will go back to a negative PDO. Deniers just don’t understand how long-term this variability is. Take out all the natural variability and what is left is an upwardly marching snail. How far can a snail move in 100 years?

          • Nate says:

            GC,

            How bout less heat escaped from the ocean to space then usual, while input from the sun unchanged.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Despicable lectures us like he knows something. What a crock of horse manure.

          • Bart says:

            “Take out all the natural variability and what is left is an upwardly marching snail.”

            A snail that started moving well before CO2 emissions took off in the mid-20th, and is therefore natural variability as well. Take it out, and you have precious little that could be ascribed to CO2.

          • Svante says:

            CO2 emissions started long before that.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The snail is a perfect mascot for the AGW hoax.

            1) It’s not going anywhere.

            2) It’s easy to squash.

          • Bart says:

            “CO2 emissions started long before that.”

            Not in significant amounts.

            In the era 1910-1945, the change in temperature anomaly was almost precisely the same as in the era 1970-2005:

            https://tinyurl.com/y77fxhwh

            In the earlier era, the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration was less than 30 ppm. Compared to a purported pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, that gives a log factor of less than log(310/280) = 0.1. In the latter era, the change in CO2 was from about 325 ppm to 380 ppm, for a log factor of log(380/325) = 0.16, or 60% greater.

            Clearly, if CO2 is driving things (which, it isn’t), the earlier warming period has to be explained in large part by something else. But, it is foolish to invoke some speculative phenomenon for almost precisely the same rise.

            Occam’s razor clearly suggests the nearly identical warming was caused by the same cause. And thus, apparently, that cause is not CO2.

          • Nate says:

            1. Looking at 50 y trend, which we now have: http://tinyurl.com/y6whc8jh, the earlier rise 0.5, latter 0.85. Not really identical.

            2. Bart thinks AGW theory requires co2 to explain ALL variation. A strawman.

            3. Circa 1910 we had very high volcanic emissions. Circa 1940 we had a strong peak in PDO. Both contributed to rise between these years.

          • Des says:

            Septic Gone Fetid
            Alternatively – I’m lecturing like you DON’T know anything. Read any science books lately? Dropped in on a science lecture or two?

          • Svante says:

            Bart, 1945 was above the trend line, look:
            https://tinyurl.com/yck2o849

          • Bart says:

            Nate –

            “1. Looking at 50 y trend, which we now have: http://tinyurl.com/y6whc8jh, the earlier rise 0.5, latter 0.85. Not really identical.”

            You are comparing apples and tennis balls. You have to look at the same interval of time. But, the earlier interval cannot be reliably extended past 1900. And, you are being biased upward by the monster El Nino towards the end of the later interval.

            “2. Bart thinks AGW theory requires co2 to explain ALL variation. A strawman.”

            AGW alarmists posit that CO2 is the major driving force in the warming since the mid-20th century. If it is not, then there are no current grounds for sounding an alarm.

            “3. Circa 1910 we had very high volcanic emissions. Circa 1940 we had a strong peak in PDO. Both contributed to rise between these years.”

            If the earlier period could have been biased up by such events, then the later one could, too. The SNR of putative CO2 induced warming is then too small to make conclusions.

            Svante –

            “Bart, 1945 was above the trend line…”

            Yes, because that was a peak of the ~65 year cycle superimposed upon the long term trend.

          • Nate says:

            ‘AGW alarmists posit that CO2 is the major driving force in the warming since the mid-20th century.’

            Yes , but doesnt mean all other natural variation is turned off. For example look at the period 1940 -1960, there was significant natural variation on time scales of 2- 10 y. Very similar to what we have had last 20 y (yes inclu pause), except with a large trend superimposed.

            ‘You have to look at the same interval of time.’ It is the same 50 y interval.

            ‘If the earlier period could have been biased up by such events, then the later one could, too.’

            Yes, here is effect of PDO http://tinyurl.com/yaq55j95

          • Svante says:

            Bart says:
            “because that was a peak of the ~65 year cycle superimposed upon the long term trend.”

            Yes, I think you are right, the AMO.

          • Nate says:

            ‘And, you are being biased upward by the monster El Nino towards the end of the later interval.’

            Yes, this applies equally to the monster El Nino of 1940-42. End the series in 1938 and 2014 then. You will see a sig drop in trend in early 20 th century

          • Bart says:

            “Yes, this applies equally to the monster El Nino of 1940-42.”

            There is nothing like the recent El Nino blip in this interval. It is quite clear that the peaks of the ~65 year cycle were in about 1945, and then again in about 2005. That is the appropriate cutoff for comparison.

            The latest El Nino blip is very anomalous. It remains to be seen if there has been a regime shift, or if the series will settle back down to the pre-existing pattern. I expect it will, but it will not change my conviction if it does not. The turnaround clearly came on schedule in about 2005.

          • Nate says:

            “. I expect it will, but it will not change my conviction if it does not. ”

            Clear indication that you are not doing science, your belief doesnt require real world confirmation.

          • Nate says:

            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/influences/timeline/

            The 40-42 is only one labelled ‘a long el nino’ in soi record.

          • Svante says:

            Bart, your 65 year cycle is found in figure ten here:
            https://tinyurl.com/y9v2mlm4

          • Des says:

            It’s interesting how people can see a couple of ups and downs and believe they have discovered a “cycle”.

          • Svante says:

            Read the paper and tell me where you disagree!

          • Des says:

            I disagree that two “cycles” establishes a pattern.

          • Bart says:

            Yet, a 30 year vague coinkydink of upward movement in CO2 and temperature establishes a cause and effect relationship. Would that you fellows applied the same level of caution about your own pet hypotheses that you do to competing ones.

            For the record, two very uniform cycles is highly suggestive. Much more so that a chance movement in the same, singular direction.

          • Nate says:

            Bart, you find that paper satisfying? What does rest of paper conclude? A clearly increasing long term trend. AGW required to account for it.

            .

          • Nate says:

            In 1780 to present record, correlation to GHG forcing 90%.

          • Des says:

            30 year?? You appear confused.

          • Svante says:

            “I disagree that two cycles establishes a pattern.”

            Fair enough Des, but there are five peaks in fig. 10 (although the first two are close and the 2nd is weak).

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Yet, a 30 year vague coinkydink of upward movement in CO2 and temperature establishes a cause and effect relationship.

            Cause and effect:
            * continued decadal global warming
            * stratospheric cooling
            * no other causes in sight except aCO2.
            * direct measurements:

            Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

          • Bart says:

            This is known as rationalization, DA. It is how people of days past convinced themselves that night gases caused disease, or witches controlled the weather.

          • Nate says:

            Indeed science involves rationalizing, i.e. finding reasons for things, as in the Age of Reason, which we seem to be moving away from.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “This is known as rationalization, DA”

            These are AGW predictions that have been observed.

            Naturally, you wish to ignore all of them, with no rational at all. But you don’t get to do that.

            Your dogmatism is the worst on this blog, because it has no reasoning behind it. You simply dismiss any evidence you don’t like, and you seem to think that will somehow be convincing.

            It isn’t in the least.

    • David Appell says:

      Harry Cummings says:
      “The temp flat lined from round 2002 to 2015/6 when CO2 went from roughly 370ppm to 400pmm what happened to the overriding.”

      “Cherry picking” is defined as picking the start and end dates to give you the result you want, whether it’s climatology meaningful or not.

  32. Krakatoa says:

    Wow. Another very warm month. We haven’t had an anomaly below 0.2 since July 2015.

    A 13 month average of 0.2 C seemed to be the max during that warm 2002-2007 period. Now the 13 month average has been over 0.2 for over 2 years and it doesn’t look like it will drop below 0.2 anytime soon.

    • ren says:

      The magnetic field over North America is weakening. Therefore, the jet stream will easily flowed from the Canada.

    • Des says:

      They say there’s a 60% chance of a mild La Nina in the coming months (though Roy speaks of it as though it’s a dead certainty), so that will certainly have some effect on anomalies. Ignore the trash responses from the other guy though – he has no idea.

      • barry says:

        Aye, Roy spoke of a dead certain 2016 la Nina in the middle of last year, too. You’d think he’d be more cautious this time around.

        • Des says:

          What got me was his later defence of his prediction. I’m only paraphrasing so don’t take the quote verbatim but he said something like “this is the first time a super El Nino has not been immediately followed by a strong La Nina”. Apparently the TWO previous cases of a super El Nino were sufficient to establish a pattern in his mind which enabled him to make a 100% prediction.

        • barry says:

          Heh, I made the same point last year for the same reason.

          There is a longer ENSO record back to 1900, and we see a ‘super el Nino’ not followed by a la Nina in the period 1900-1950. Too lazy to look it up, but I mentioned last year.

        • David Appell says:

          barry: there *was* a weak La Nina in the second half of 2016.

          It was the warmest La Nina on record.

        • barry says:

          There was a la Nina only according to the ENSO monitoring system with the easiest threshold. No other. MEI; no. BoM; no. JMA: no. NOAA; yes. One the weakest and shortest-lived la Ninas on record by NOAA data.

      • Bindidon says:

        According to Japan’s Met Agency, the actual ENSO prediction looks (since at least one week) like this:

        period: El Nino% – neutral% – La Nina%

        SEP2017JAN2018: 0 – 40 – 60
        OCT2017FEB2018: 0 – 50 – 50
        NOV2017MAR2018: 0 – 60 – 40

        All is said I guess.

  33. http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_globe_t2m_week_anom.png

    Data does not match one of them is not correct. This source has =.28c for sep

  34. Oceanic temperatures have been dropping that point is not in question.

  35. ren says:

    The jet stream was in September latitudinal.

  36. barry says:

    Sal, I tried to find the baseline for Weatherbell’s anomalies, but it is hard to pin down. Could be 1999-2010, which would make W/Bell anomalies generally lower than UAH. But could also be 1982-2010, which would make the similar. Finding out which version of NCEP CFSv2 data is operational for W/Bell is tough going.

    However, you shouldn’t worry too much. Surface anomalies and satellites don’t track well over every month, though they often are similar.

    I’d wait for the surface sets’ September data to come out and see where that sits with UAH/Weatherbell.

  37. tim says:

    I have big concerns that we have no plan for lower crop production due to a cooling world. Are our governments trying to wipe people out. Agenda 21 and 2030. We had the same issue in the UK when we made the decision to Brexit, no plan B, the government thought we would be stupid enough to buy their lies.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Speaking of anomalies, something weird has been happening over the Arctic Ocean. Several years now. Summers are normal, but the rest of the year – not nearly as cold as usual. Barry thinks it’s “noise”, I’m not so sure.

      Reposted from upthread:
      http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#GFS-025deg.ARC-LEA.T2_anom

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        More specifically:

        Warm anomalies from September – March

        Normal temperatures April – August

      • wert says:

        You are right. More open water, less snow on ice, thinner ice => more laten heat escaping from the seawater, warmer air. Less cold air I mean.

    • barry says:

      Isaac,

      I have no doubt that the arctic has warmed over the long term, that different regions have slightly different warming characteristics.

      I just think you need more time to see if anything more than the usual interannual variation is occurring.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        Barry

        The warming is right over the Arctic Ocean. Consistently. It seems like that could be significant. The Arctic Ocean is where ice has been thinning, and where the Earth’s axis of rotation is located. Of course, could also just be a coincidence.

      • barry says:

        Maybe. The map you provided is a forecast analysis. Move the slider to the right and it’s showing you temps over the next 7 days. It isn’t a map of *actual* anomalies.

  38. This is a good site with very good input from all sides pro/con AGW.

    Who wants everyone to agree. It would be so boring if it were so.

  39. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Crop failure here in south central Alaska. Our carrots are miniature this year. Fraction of their normal size. Anyone who has tasted our carrots knows they are the best in the world. Just like our Copper River reds. The summer that never was… If Mt. Agung blows, next summer will no doubt be even worse. Mind you, this is coming off -33f last winter (the coldest here in 30 years). Anyone still buying the hoax needs to spend a week in that.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Darwin

      Right. If it’s cold in your neck of the woods, it must be cold everywhere.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        Darwin

        If you’re going to claim global warming is a hoax, at least take the time to look at the globe.

        http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#GFS-025deg.WORLD-CED.T2_anom

        • gbaikie says:

          15 C is pretty cold- you should wear a coat.
          Average temperature in Canada is -4 C. Average temperature in US is 13 C.
          Tropics about 27 C. Tropics are where the tropical paradises can be found.
          We in icebox climate. It’s cold.
          No one in history of our planet who has been sane wants it to get colder.
          But somehow [probably due to poor education] people are worried about it getting a bit warmer.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Very well stated, gbaikie.

          • lewis says:

            Which is my point. I hope it does get warmer. Longer growing season etc. The worst thing (so far as AGW is concerned) is for more ice and snow to occur. Shorter growing seasons etc. That would be much worse than flooding Miami, New Orleans and NYC.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            I have a big problem with that line of thinking. Life on earth has adapted to what gbaikie calls an “icebox climate”. If the warming is too fast, which I think is likely, the result could be very bad.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            I do appreciate that the conversation has changed from:

            “there’s no warming, it’s a government conspiracy, scientists are corrupt, fudged data, it’s all a hoax!”

            To: “warmer is better”

          • gbaikie says:

            “Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
            October 3, 2017 at 5:13 PM

            I have a big problem with that line of thinking. Life on earth has adapted to what gbaikie calls an icebox climate. If the warming is too fast, which I think is likely, the result could be very bad.”

            I think very wishful thinking to hope Earth will warm.
            Warming has to have rising sea levels and rise of 1 meter is not much warming.
            The sea levels have risen about 8 inches and about 2″ of the 8 inches has been considered to be due to ocean thermal expansion [the entire ocean or significant part of it [not the surface] warming].
            In last interglacial period ocean warm about 6 meters higher than our current sea level. And probably at least couple of meters of the rise was due to more thermal expansion than we have. Or to get as warm as last interglacial period will require thousands of years.
            In a thousand year some humans could be living in another star system. But within a century we should have people living in towns on Mars. And within century we should have Solar Power Satellite. I would like to see SPS within the next 60 years. It would require a lot of work and a lot of time, but could possible if we would ever explore the lunr polar region and determine if there water which could be profitable to mine. Or to make it simple, lunar water one sell or buy at about 500 per lb. So not water which cost more than $1000 per lb. And other things like electrical power which can bought at $50 per Kw hours.
            And with free market, these prices could be lower over decades of time, so that lunar water is about $10 per lb and electrical power is about $1 per Kw hours. And within fifty years electrical power might close to earth prices- 5 cents a kw hour, and water probably still 10 or 100 times more than cost of water on Earth.
            Somewhere around this point we could get SPS for Earth, and have electrical prices cheaper than now.
            Or roughly the price of electrical in space is expensive, and it needs to lower by large amount before we can get electrical power from orbit. Or NASA study said launch cost have get above $100 per kg. It’s wrong, but launch cost do have lower. But we don’t launch cost from Earth to lower by a lot, rather we need launch cost from the Moon to lower by a lot.
            But in terms of long term trend Earth launch cost has be lowering every decade and should continue. So if sit on butt, in century we might have SPS without exploring the Moon, first. Maybe some country in Africa will explore the Moon. Though China has been doing it [at snail’s pace] probably manage to do before 100 years has past.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
            October 3, 2017 at 5:46 PM

            I do appreciate that the conversation has changed from:

            theres no warming, its a government conspiracy, scientists are corrupt, fudged data, its all a hoax!

            To: warmer is better–

            For government conspiracies, one needs a smarter government- it’s never has happened and will never happen.
            Government and government employees do bad stuff- or humans are “naturally” evil, plus you got: power corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
            This corruption mostly is due and related to enormous stupidity. So basically government conspiracies are an oxymoron. Like, idea that intelligence agencies behave similar to being intelligent [though if lying = intelligence then they are geniuses].

            There is no warming form CO2 which has been measured.
            Scientist are corrupt- just look at climategate.
            It’s a hoax- there is no danger or need to spend trillions of dollars to make wind mills and solar panels [which don’t reduce CO2 emission and don’t make valuable electrical power].

            “Warming is better” was known by the “father” of global warming. He was wrong about Co2 levels causing cooling and warming periods, but not wrong about warming being good for humans and life in general on planet Earth.

          • Bindidon says:

            gbaikie on October 3, 2017 at 4:23 PM

            1. No one in history of our planet who has been sane wants it to get colder.

            2. But somehow [probably due to poor education] people are worried about it getting a bit warmer.

            To (1): you hardly could write something more evident.

            To (2): hopefully your education has been rich enough to let you understand a posteriori how poor this your sentence in fact is.

            Nobody here is ‘worried about it getting a bit warmer‘, gbaikie.

            Many people’s job actually is to avoid ‘it’ getting too warm. And they do that on the base of what other people analysed up to 30 years ago.

            At that time, gbaikie, there were incredibly few skeptic scientists at work to counterbalance the other scientists’ opinion, research and results.

            Why?

            Today, skeptics all are whining about ‘peer-reviewed trash’ and the like.

            If they had done their work in due time, they wouldn’t need to complain about that today, and you wouldn’t need to write your, sorry, somewhat poor comment.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            gbaikie…”Average temperature in Canada is -4 C. Average temperature in US is 13 C”.

            Depends on where you live in Canada. That -4C reveals the problem with averages.

            I live on the west coast of Canada, in Vancouver. a temperature of -4C would be considered very low here and we would be praying for it to pass. Such cold is related to cold air from the Arctic descending on us. We even call it ‘Arctic air’.

            On a monthly basis, the lowest monthly average we experience is +4C in January.

            http://www.holiday-weather.com/vancouver/averages/

            I can buy into the -4C as a national average when you consider the average temp on the Prairies is -20C. It can periodically drop to -50C, which is not all that bad with clear skies and sunshine. Not so much fun at night when the Sun is gone.

            With extremes like -50C on occasion you can see that offsetting warmer temps are required to arrive at an average of -4C. Same in the States where temps in their Prairies can drop to the same -50C. I read a book by David Breshears, the famed mountaineer, who slept outside in a sleeping bag at -40C in Wyoming.

            When we claim a global average of such and such, it means absolutely nothing to the locals.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Bindidon says:
            October 4, 2017 at 5:36 AM

            gbaikie on October 3, 2017 at 4:23 PM

            1. No one in history of our planet who has been sane wants it to get colder.

            2. But somehow [probably due to poor education] people are worried about it getting a bit warmer.

            To (1): you hardly could write something more evident.–

            Yes I like to remind people of the very obvious. Like the tropics warms the world and the tropic high average average increases the global average temperature.
            Or people in Europe shouldn’t imagine they living in place with average temperature as high as 15 C. They are living in refrigerator and worried about warming- nutty- though of course, Germans have even less justification. If I wanted to use pseudoscience: it’s probably due to sense of guilt for their past global colonization projects wrecking people’s lives [not mention their world wars and etc]. But it’s simpler to blame their lousy education- which wastes far too much their time.

            -To (2): hopefully your education has been rich enough to let you understand a posteriori how poor this your sentence in fact is.-
            Oh it hasn’t. Don’t expect good grammar or even a properly edited sentence from me.
            If there was edit function I might manage to correct my spelling and other typos.
            At https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/ there such a thing, and I will spend more time editing a post then the time it took to post it. But with such option, I still not overly interested in proper grammar- just words not spelled correctly and over redundancy and omission of words.

            –Nobody here is worried about it getting a bit warmer, gbaikie.–
            Good news.

            –Many peoples job actually is to avoid it getting too warm. And they do that on the base of what other people analysed up to 30 years ago.–
            Well their job should be eliminated, obviously.

            –At that time, gbaikie, there were incredibly few skeptic scientists at work to counterbalance the other scientists opinion, research and results.

            Why?–
            Because being a believer is government job requirement?

            –Today, skeptics all are whining about peer-reviewed trash and the like.–
            If today, means over last 50 to 100 years

            –If they had done their work in due time, they wouldnt need to complain about that today, and you wouldnt need to write your, sorry, somewhat poor comment.–

            I heard many people were inspired by the junk science of the hockey stick. I wasn’t, it seemed like same old crap to me.
            So today, in regard to that is about 15 years.

          • David Appell says:

            lewis says:
            “Which is my point. I hope it does get warmer. Longer growing season etc”

            Lewis refuses to consider how warming would affect anyone other than him.

            It’s Trumpian-level narcissism.

          • David Appell says:

            lewis says:
            October 3, 2017 at 4:54 PM
            “Which is my point. I hope it does get warmer. Longer growing season etc.”

            Crop yields expected to fall as temperatures rise, Emily Morris, Science
            08 Sep 2017: Vol. 357, Issue 6355, pp. 1012-1013
            DOI: 10.1126/science.357.6355.1012-f
            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6355/1012.6

            (Sorry to bother you, Lewis, with actual science.
            You may now return to your narcissistic, fantasy world.)

        • Bindidon says:

          Sir Isaac

          This is a snaphot describing the actual situation on a given day. What we rather need is information containing trends over 30 years.

          For example something like this:

          http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2016/december/DEC1978_DEC2016_trend_LT.png

          (I don’t have such a picture at hand for surfaces, maybe we could manage to find one at WeatherBell.)

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Bindidon

            A snapshot was the best I could do, but I’m guessing I would be able to show a similar picture (warm anomaly over the Arctic Ocean) every day from now until April. That was definitely the case last fall/winter.

            Not sure exactly when the pattern started, but it’s interesting to keep an eye on.

          • barry says:

            A ‘warm anomaly’ is anything above the 30-year baseline. We know temps have risen fast in the Arctic, so seeing warm anomalies in recent years should be absolutely no surprise.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        snape…”Right. If its cold in your neck of the woods, it must be cold everywhere”.

        The point Darwin is making is well taken by me. It’s supposed to be warming in Alaska. All the ice is gone, don’t ya know?

    • David Appell says:

      Darwin: NO..AA data says Alaska’s summer (June-July-August) was 1.3 deg C above the 1981-2000 baseline.

      http://tinyurl.com/ybhw8bma

  40. Bindidon says:

    Des says on October 2, 2017 at 3:51 PM (and alii)

    Now that the UAH anomaly is high, let me point out how little I trust this data set. There is absolutely NO WAY September temperatures were 0.25 degrees above July.

    What a strange series of comments, replies, counterreplies, one containing more polemic than the next!

    A commenter above addressed the problem accurately:

    OleKlemsdal says:
    October 2, 2017 at 2:10 PM

    It is interesting that the troposphere develops so different from surface series the last couple of months, and I think it must be related to the tiny spike in the multivariate enso index an effect that has already vanished in surface measurements.
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

    Ole Klemsdal is perfectly right.

    We all know that tropospheric temperatures highly react on El Nino bumps, and there has been one, after all.

    And everybody having a look at any comparison of UAH with MEI can see that there is sometimes a 4-5 month lag between El Nino bumps occuring for example in the Nino3+4 region (5S-5N — 170W-120W) and the TLT response registered by UAH and others.

    Here is the MEI for 2016-2017:

    2016 | 2.227 | 2.169 | 1.984 | 2.124 | 1.77 | 1.069 | .354 | .186 | -.101 | -.379 | -.212 | -.121

    2017 | -.055 | -.056 | -.08 | .77 | 1.455 | 1.049 | .461 | .027

    You see that the UAH bump can be pretty good identified with the MEI bump 4 months before.

    RSS4.0 TLT did similar in August with a 0.712 anomaly.

    Surface temperatures sometimes do not react to such little bumps.

    • Des says:

      Given that the MEI data has a time-dependent trend, I don’t regard it as being the most useful for predicting ENSO conditions. And neither do most meteorologists apparently.

      • Bindidon says:

        1. I don’t understand what you mean here with a ‘time-dependent trend’. All data here are after all time series; how could their trends be ‘time-independent’ ?

        Any idea?

        2. Maybe Des should carefully read what is written on MEI’s pages

        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/index.html

        e.g. about the integration of
        – NINO3+4
        – pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti
        – etc etc.

        ENSO is a bit more than a simpl average of SST in 5S-5N–170W-120W.

        3. And neither do most meteorologists apparently.

        Maybe you give us some proof of your assertion?

        • Des says:

          Perhaps I should have said a STRONG time-dependent trend. One that suggests we should be having more and more El Nino months, which is clearly not the case.

    • barry says:

      Satellite temperatures are more sensitive to strong ENSO events, but (from memory) not so much to the ENSO region fluctuations beneath the event thresholds.

      If anyone feels like doing it, a monthly anomaly plot of ENSO index, and surface and satellite monthly anomalies (detrended) would allow at least a visual inspection of any correlation.

      • Des says:

        I’ve already done that in a much more restricted sense. It is not a monthly plot – it is a scatter plot where each dot represents one El Nino or La Nina event:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2v56RP5XU7Gb081dGd4Y051S2c/view?usp=sharing

        Apologies for forgetting to label the axes. The horizontal axis is ONI and the vertical axis is detrended UAH.

        The ONI reading is the average of the THREE highest (or lowest) consecutive monthly ONI readings during any one ENSO event. The UAI reading is the highest (or lowest) monthly value of the detrended UAI during each ENSO event.

        I know this does not show what you were looking for. But with a good chance of a coming La Nina, it gives an idea of the drop in UAI we can expect from a La Nina event, a drop which would have to be exceeded for Salvatore Del FREEZE to have any chance of claiming a cooling climate.

        As I have taken the max (min) values for both ONI and UAH during any ENSO event, not necessarily (and typically not) from the same month, the effect of the lag is implicitly included.

        As you can see, except for very weak La Ninas and very strong El Ninos, there seems to be very little correlation between the strength of an event and its effect on temperature anomalies.

        In the El Nino graph, the lowest dot represents Pinatubo, and the third dot from the right represents El Chichon. So they can be excluded to establish any trend.

  41. Duncanbelem says:

    What I don’t understand is why certain scientist think climate is easier to predict than weather. We all know climate changes, but know one really knows how and why all different climate changes in earths history took place. With the weather we know what changes the weather from day to day and month to month, because we have accurately gathered the data and the causes, from a long period of time as compared to the system. But even then Scientists often can’t even predict the weather for tomorrow within 2 degrees C for a given hour, averaged for the whole hour. And if it’s 1-2 weeks out forget about any accurate weather prediction. We have more knowledge about weather than we do climate. We don’t understand all the cycles, all the causes, all the randomness. When we can start predicting weather a month out, or hurricanes a year out, a volcanoes a month out, or earthquakes at all, when the next solar flair will be, then I might start “knowing” instead of “believing”, in AGW.

    • Des says:

      Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fYbr_dY01Q
      ALL THE WAY TO THE START OF QUESTION TIME.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Duncan

      Are you familiar with football? When Alabama played Vanderbilt a few weeks ago, you couldn’t have predicted what would happen from one play to the next, but you knew for sure Alabama would eventually win.

      I think it’s naive to judge long term predictions based on how well meteorologists do in the short term.

      • Des says:

        Very good analogy. Another one that is likely too scientific for our friend … when a radioactive substance decays, there is no way of predicting which atom will decay next, but you are extremely confident of the ultimate rate of decay.

        • Duncanbelem says:

          You treat me like I am not very scientific. I program Control Systems. If one could program a car that can drive itself I am very familiar with predicting, and statistics.

          • Duncanbelem says:

            lets say our existence started an hour ago, and we started trying to predict weather. From our observation we would predict the day would continue to warm and warm and warm and we would be surprised when it started to cool again. I can average the weather for a whole hour and yet the trend would still be warming. same thing goes with summer and winter. Then El nino and La nina…… What other patterns are we missing? We only have been recording for a very short period of time. And don’t tell me about tree rings and glacier content. That’s like trying to measure temperature of the whole united states with the of snowfall you had in 10 random cities in a given year. Sure there is some correlation, but just because there was more snowfall doesn’t mean it was a colder year, and your sample size is so small it doesn’t mean anything anyway.

          • Nate says:

            Duncan,

            You seem to be in disbelief that science can find causes for what we observe in long term trends. It can, even though shorter periods are more problematic.

            You mention seasons. Again we can predict the warming from spring to summer, while doing poorly on predicting next week.

          • Nate says:

            Also, we have very long climate records -of glatial and interglacial periods, and a decent understanding of the causes.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”You seem to be in disbelief that science can find causes for what we observe in long term trends”.

            ‘Science’ has still not found an adequate explanation for long term trends. The anthropogenic theory does not cut it in several ways. The modern AGW theory came from climate modelers who include among their ranks, mathematicians, astronomers, and those least likely to offer a coherent explanation as to why trace gases in the atmosphere should produce catastrophic warming.

            It’s far more reasonable to presume their theories are wrong and go in search of the real reasons for the warming. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for warming over the past century, cooling from the Little Ice Age. It makes perfect sense yet many are unwilling to let go of an archaic theory related to 0.04% of the gases in the atmosphere causing catastrophic warming.

            The word ‘science’ is a generic term that can apply to anything with a half-baked formalized approach to investigation.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Cooling from LIA’, so naming something makes it science?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            duncan…”You treat me like I am not very scientific. I program Control Systems. If one could program a car that can drive itself I am very familiar with predicting, and statistics”.

            You’ll find around here, and in many blogs, a core of so-called experts who would shame Jehovah’s Witnesses who appear door to door. The MO of a JW is to counter anything you say with a reference in the Bible. They take the written word as the absolute truth.

            The alarmists around here do the same. Their written word is the IPCC dogma, unless the IPCC contradicts their own dogma as they did in 2013. That year, the IPCC admitted there had been no global warming during the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012.

            Alarmists around here even quote skepticalscience, a propaganda machine run by an Australian who admits he is a cartoonist. There are photos of him on the Net dressed as a Nazi and it is claimed he has impersonated physicist Lubos Motl.

            When you point that out, the alarmists attack you with everything from ad homs to convenient fact. They will do everything but admit the truth.

            My interest has been related to why CO2 would suddenly stop warming for 15 years, a period that has been extended to 18 years. Makes no sense but alarmists claim such a periods of inexplicable science occur. They have no proof of that other than a consensus of agreement that such ‘must be’ the case.

          • Nate says:

            Gordons idea of ‘science’ a little different than most. He thinks AIDS not caused by a virus, but by ‘lifestyle’.

            He latches on to notions and never lets go, no matter how thoroughly they are debunked.

          • Des says:

            Duncanbelem
            Have you watched the video yet?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate claims: “Also, we have very long climate records -of glatial and interglacial periods, and a decent understanding of the causes.”

            My best laugh of the day!

            Thanks, Nate.

          • Nate says:

            Ger, again rhetoric, again no evidence.

          • Nate says:

            Gordon,

            ‘photos of him on the Net dressed as a Nazi’

            Do you know what a smear campaign is? You are participating in one.

            I believe you have similarly done so for Hansen, Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl, etc

            All of the most productive and influential climate scientists are the ones that get smeared.

            Makes sense.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “My interest has been related to why CO2 would suddenly stop warming for 15 years, a period that has been extended to 18 years.”

            Of course it didn’t. And you have never offered the slightest proof that it did.

            Ocean heat content shows the continued warming clearly. The data:

            http://tinyurl.com/jbf2xco

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “The modern AGW theory came from climate modelers who include among their ranks, mathematicians, astronomers, and those least likely to offer a coherent explanation as to why trace gases in the atmosphere should produce catastrophic warming.”

            Yet you’ve clearly done this calculation for yourself.

            Do it.

            How much warming should result when Earth’s atmospheric CO2 increases from 280 ppm to 405 ppm?

            Talk is cheap.Do it.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “My interest has been related to why CO2 would suddenly stop warming for 15 years, a period that has been extended to 18 years.”

            Your playing intentionally dumb is getting very very tiresome.

            Or maybe you aren’t playing.

      • bilybob says:

        Yes, but if the IPCC were making the prediction they would adjust the past performance of both teams, and then conclude that Alabama would win by 250 points. /sarc

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        snape…” When Alabama played Vanderbilt a few weeks ago, you couldnt have predicted what would happen from one play to the next, but you knew for sure Alabama would eventually win”.

        The predictions were based on Alabama’s past record and the quality of players and coaching. That’s far different than programming a computer to predict the future based on pseudo-science plugged into the program.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Gordon

          Do you not understanding the point I was trying to make?

          “I think it!s naive to judge long term predictions based on how well meteorologists do in the short term.”

        • Des says:

          EXACTLY!! Predictions of the result are made INDEPENDENTLY of the individual plays. You don’t need to know ANYTHING about the plays to understand the big picture. Similarly, future climate is NOT arrived at by analysing individual waether events. Replace “quality of players and coaching” with “climate forcings” and you have the picture.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      duncan…”What I dont understand is why certain scientist think climate is easier to predict than weather”.

      Not all scientists are created equal. In fact, not many have the ability of an Einstein to divorce their ego-based minds from the objectivity required to do good science.

      Many of the so-called scientists predicting climate are climate modelers who lack the background in applicable physics to understand what they are doing. They have jumped to the conclusion, for example, that C02 has a warming effect in the atmosphere of 9% to 25% yet CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

      That is a blatant contradiction of Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures. Since the atmosphere is essentially a constant volume, constant mass system, atmospheric temperature is directly proportional to atmospheric pressure in an idealized atmosphere with no convective currents. Even with the convection it should still apply even though convection can create local high/low pressure systems.

      Atmospheric pressure as a whole is based on the sum of the pressures contributed by each gas in the mix. The pressure is determined by the mass-percent of each gas in the mix. At a mass of around 0.04%, it is ludicrous to claim CO2 has a warming factor of 9% to 25%. If the mass-percent of CO2 is hundredths of a percent of the total, it should contribute no more than a few hundredths of a degree C to atmospheric warming.

      Clearly, many of the so called scientists predicting catastrophic climate change are out to lunch.

      • Nate says:

        Gordon,

        ‘They have jumped to the conclusion, for example, that C02 has a warming effect in the atmosphere of 9% to 25% yet CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere.’

        Why don’t we use copper as an insulator instead of rubber?

        Different atoms have very different properties. Its not so difficult.

        ‘jumped to a conclusion’

        Not exactly, here is a paper from 1938, well reasoned, thorough, no politics, just good science.

        https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qjcallender38.pdf

        Tell me what you think he did wrong..

    • David Appell says:

      Duncanbelem says:
      October 3, 2017 at 10:39 PM
      “What I dont understand is why certain scientist think climate is easier to predict than weather.”

      Here’s how I think about it. If you’re in a swimming pool of water, you encounter various hot and cold spots. The location of those fluctuations is very hard to predict, as is how long they will last or where they will appear or disappear next.

      But the average temperature of the pool is much easier to predict — it will slowly cool as the day cools and night comes. You can calculate it via very basic thermodynamics.

      The first instance is like weather. The second is like climate.

      • Duncanbelem says:

        I finally watched the video above. There is a lot of mathematical hand waving going on.

        It is very easy to predict the weather 1 second from now. It is even easier to predict the weather 1 foot away from me 1 sec from now. So why is it very easy to predict the weather for a short period of time with no averaging going on. Even I, without a computer could fairly accurately predict the weather 10 minutes from now given only two things time of day and current temperature.

        It is also very easy to predict the climate 1 year from now within 1 degree Celsius. Because climate changes slower than weather, because of averaging over time and space. But averaging doesn’t always make a chaotic system less chaotic. It just makes changes slower. You just have to have more time, to make the climate system more chaotic.

        Food for thought, I don’t know the answer. How do they know, ice during the ice age was a mile high? and the Climate was 8 degrees colder? I have no idea how they determine that.

        Also it is impossible for a computer program to model chaos, or generate a truly random number. Computers always repeat patterns. I guess there could be one way and that is to sample a chaotic system. But each chaotic system is different.

        • David Appell says:

          Duncanbelem says:
          “How do they know, ice during the ice age was a mile high? and the Climate was 8 degrees colder? I have no idea how they determine that.”

          So go learn.
          Read. Study. Learn.

        • Nate says:

          ‘Because climate changes slower than weather, because of averaging over time and space. But averaging doesnt always make a chaotic system less chaotic.’

          Yes indeed.

          Still predicting an average quantity in a chaotic system can be straightforward.

          Put a pan of water on the stove on high. As it heats it will have lots of turbulent convection, causing large spatiotemporal temperature variations.

          Yet its average temperature will increase smoothly, easily predicted.

  42. Des says:

    It is funny how Roy blocks off certain threads in this blog, but only when the final poster is a denier. Apparently it is OK to make people write a long post and not have it come through.

    • gbaikie says:

      — Des says:
      October 3, 2017 at 11:41 PM

      It is funny how Roy blocks off certain threads in this blog, but only when the final poster is a denier.–

      I am under the impression it’s WordPress rather than anything Roy is doing.
      Though Roy did try to block someone who was… more problematic, than all the other crazies which are posting.
      And Roy may have broke it, in his desperate attempts.
      But perhaps not.
      I have not noticed certain [or any] threads being blocked off.

      –Apparently it is OK to make people write a long post and not have it come through.–

      But that happen all the time. Cause I tend to write long posts and with lots of links.
      It will block post if there is some word “it” doesn’t like.
      I usually experiment by cutting a long post in half and narrow it down, to help find the word or symbol.
      Ab*sorp*tion is one word it doesn’t like.
      Which is a pain if talking about climate.

      • Des says:

        Sounds plausible except for one detail … as I said, it seems only to be a problem in threads where the final post is by a denier. As though they should get the final word. Perhaps not a large enough sample though.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gbaikie…”Ab*sorp*tion is one word it doesnt like”.

        Two others are Had.crut and re.frig.eration (required two dots).

        I find one dot in absorp.tion works. It seems to depend on where you place the dot.

        I have found several URL’s it won’t allow unless the word it doesn’t like in the URL name is dotted out. In such a case, it’s necessary to include the dot then advise the reader to cut/paste the URL while removing the dot.

        It was a common practice a while back to replace the http in a URL with hxxp to get the URL posted. I don’t think that works with WordPress, they have spelling issues.

    • barry says:

      If that’s an actual thing, it’s coincidence. I doubt Roy believes many people are reading these meandering comments and snark to the Nth post, and that it will make a whit of difference who has the last word.

      I have 10 old posts open from yesterday. Here are the numbers on the last comments.

      Skeptics: 4
      Realists: 4
      Unknown: 2

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      des…”It is funny how Roy blocks off certain threads in this blog, but only when the final poster is a denier”.

      Roy is not blocking posts, he doesn’t have the time. It is WordPress, the host of the blog. They have a filter that blocks certain words, even in URLs.

      The word Had.crut can’t get past the filter without a dot in it. Same with absorp.tion. Yesterday I found re.frig.eration requires two dots.

      I have asked posters to reveal the words they found blocked by WordPress so the rest of us can avoid them.

      I have complained directly to WordPress with no response.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        des…”Yawn”

        Ren’s contribution to this blog regarding weather and climate science far outweighs your blatant alarmist nonsense. It’s like an alarmist, however, to yawn with boredom when real science is presented.

        • Des says:

          Really? So what is he telling us with this post?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            As Gordon hinted, ren is teaching you “real science”.

            The course is “Climate 101–The Atmosphere is NOT a blanket”.

            Try to stay awake, so you will learn.

          • Des says:

            As requested, please explain precisely what THAT post was “teaching”.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          A big problem is you need to look in a mirror. You do not post real science. You post your own quack version of science and call it good. Many posters have given you links to look at and read to correct your phony science. You never read or look and just go right on posting all your false and made up physics. Strange person your are. One who could accuse others of peddling false science when you seem to be a major contributor to intentionally posting your own created version of physics.

  43. barry says:

    I’ve been reviewing the comments from last year. Wanted to check my memory about things on global temps that were popping up regularly during and just after the big el Nino.

    A very common theme was skeptics saying that a la Nina would surely follow, and that the ‘pause’ would resume. A few said the el Nino was a speedbump in a now-cooling trend.

    The irascible mpainter was totally convinced a la Nina would form shortly after the el Nino, wiping out the warm spike in due course. He sneered at comments that this was not certain, and vouched that people were too stupid to see it was obvious that a la Nina always follows immediately after a super el Nino. When he was linked to expert opinion only giving la Nina 70% chance, he scoffed at the experts and admonished others to use their own brains.

    Pity he disappeared later in 2016.

    Well, not really.

    Perhaps some of the commenters above whistling at this latest warm month and pointing out the post-Nino temps have remained mostly higher the pre-Nino – remember such commentary from last year and are sticking to those who were convinced it would all get suddenly cooler a few months on from the el Nino.

    Of course, a few months here and there, hot and cold, mean nothing in the big picture. But people seem to get energised by them, even our host.

    • Des says:

      Perhaps mpainter is lurking amongst us right now, using a different name. It makes sense that he would have to start over after making that claim.

    • BARRY -Here is what I am looking for if cooling does occur.

      Lower overall sea surface temperatures due to less UV light , and a slightly higher albedo due to an increase in global cloud,snow,ice cover, a more meridional atmospheric circulation, and an increase in major volcanic activity.

      If these things occur while solar is very low my confidence will increase.

      • David Appell says:

        Salvatore – everything you ever talk about falls under the domain of natural variability.

        So it can say absolutely nothing about AGW. Or CO2’s radiative forcing.

        Do you really not understand this??

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”A very common theme was skeptics saying that a la Nina would surely follow, and that the pause would resume”.

      A La Nina surely will follow and the pause will likely not resume. In fact, there’s no evidence it is a pause.

      There is definitely something afoot since Feb 2016 but no one knows what it is about. Blaming it on anthropogenic warming is plain stupid. Even Trenberth admitted as far back as the 2009 Climategate emails that the warming had stopped and it was a travesty that no one knew why.

      Trenberth blamed it at first on the lack of instrumentation with the sensitivity to tease an anthropogenic background signal from the ENSO-based warming. Then he made the absurd claim that the missing warming must be hiding in the oceans. Since then, NOAA has fudged that alleged warming using smoke and mirrors and you alarmists have lined up to be spoon fed that pseudo-science.

      It’s about time you blatant alarmists got off your high horses and began discussing the science rather than regurgitating outright crap from the likes of realclimate and skepticalscience.

      There was a 0.2C bump in global temps in 1977 that was termed ‘The Great Pacific Climate Shift’. It was later identified as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. No one knew that the oceans could play with global temps like that. No one can prove the oceans are not behind the current spate of warming.

      If it is the oceans, we know they have to cool eventually. There is still no objective proof whatsoever that anthropogenic CO2 is behind this. The sheer lack of it makes that abundantly clear.

      Another point that is abundantly clear is what John Christy of UAH has claimed. The climate is far too complex for anyone to understand at this point.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I might add that some scientists were lined up to retroactively erase the 0.2C warming of 1977 as an error. Since then, NOAA, NASA GISS, and Had.crut have been playing that game of examining the historical record and amending it to what makes sense to them.

        That is scientific misconduct and they should all be in jail for it.

      • barry says:

        Eventually you have to sit back and smile at the cavalcade of broken memes.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”Eventually you have to sit back and smile at the cavalcade of broken memes”.

          Is that your normal reaction to leading scientific organizations pulling the wool over your eyes? Speaking of wool, don’t you have some sheep to sheer?

        • barry says:

          It’s my normal reaction to a litany of nonsense after many postings on blogs of such nonsense from the same person.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “There is definitely something afoot since Feb 2016 but no one knows what it is about.”

        A year and a half??

        It’s called natural variation. CO2 is causing atmospheric warming of about 0.02 C/yr.

        So larger fluctuations are due to natural variability.

    • barry says:

      Salvatore,

      You are looking to see summertime temps in 2018 falling below the UAH 30-year mean (1981-2010).

      I have your post on this bookmarked.

      • Des says:

        It COULD happen – if we get a decent La Nina, or if whatever random climatic event that pushed us to 0.27 above the trend acts the opposite way in a particular month. Make sure he understands that we are only stating that any such event will not be sustained.

      • barry says:

        Yeah, it’s possible, and not for the reasons Salvatore states. But I asked him to give a prediction that was temporally bound and that he would hold to to test his theory. This was his best shot.

        I’m interested in seeing his take should his prediction fail. As he keep blaming things for failed predictions, and I’ve pushed him to stick to this no matter what, further excuses would tip the scales on my patience and I’ll join David Appell in reminding him of past failures.

        • Des says:

          A reminder – TEN months remaining to get your SUSTAINED and ENSO NEUTRAL reduction to baseline anomalies. That would be -0.2 to -0.4 in the case of a La Nina, sear the lower end so that it is distinguishable from random noise.

  44. Bindidon says:

    Salvatore Del Prete on October 2, 2017 at 4:06 PM / October 3, 2017 at 4:55 AM

    What is funny is the large difference between weatherbell +.28c and Dr. Spencers data +.54c

    It is crazy. This is a very big difference and should not be.

    Maybe I can manage to calm you down a bit, Salvatore!

    Firstly: where did you obtain their data for Sep 2017? You should use only this page:

    http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_monthly.php

    As you easily can see, the global anomaly for this month isn’t available there until today October 4, 2017.

    Secondly: why do you think such a difference ‘should not be’ ?

    Maybe you only look at the most recent months, and do not know exactly how much the datasets in fact differ all the time.

    The greatest differences between UAH and Weatherbell anomalies since 1979 for example are

    – min: -0.55 C
    – max: +0.41 C

    Look at the graph below:
    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/171004/xb6qexgg.jpg

    and the yellow plot tells you that though having very similar trends (0.13 vs. 0.14 C / decade), UAH6.0 and Weatherbell have as many differences as they have in common.

    Salvatore, I am afraid you are running into big disappointment…

  45. SPQR says:

    I think all the data sets (from the Left and the Right) are lying. Both sides are manipulating the data for political gain. I really could care less if the planet is getting hotter or cooler. One thing that doesn’t lie is the images from snow/ice lines on mountain ranges. They are all basically receding. Compare a picture of a snow capped mountain range from 1940 to now. Nearly all the world’s mountains are losing snow and ice. Look at the Alps, Montana, Canadian Rockies, the Andes…… That doesn’t lie-

    • Bindidon says:

      You are obviously right, SPQR.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
      https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-glaciers
      -etc etc etc

      But what does that have to do with left/right?

      You would wonder upon a look at how many french socialists or communists are climate ultraskeptics. And conversely I guess that many persons engaged in the climate change discussion in the AGW direction are politically very conservative.

    • gbaikie says:

      Yes, we recovering from the Little Ice age, some have predicted that soon [decades] all glacial ice which was created in the temperate zone during LIA will have melted. This was said couple decades ago, and have not seen it revisited [I am not aware of anyone more recently making the claim that it has happened or about to happen].

      Though it seems to me that the sea level lowered during LIA has been recovered.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        gbaikie

        Melting from the LIA should have slowed down or stopped by now. Instead, just the opposite.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          snape…”Melting from the LIA should have slowed down or stopped by now”.

          According to Syun Akasofu, re-warming from the LIA should occur at about 0.5C/century.

          Why do you claim it’s just the opposite? There has been little or no warming since 1979 according to UAH and definitely none from 1998 – 2015. The current warming could be, and is most likely, transient in nature.

          • Des says:

            Syun Akasofu – another NON-climatologist associate of the Heartland Institute. How is that non-correlation between smoking and lung cancer / heart disease coming along?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “According to Syun Akasofu, re-warming from the LIA should occur at about 0.5C/century.”

            Why?
            Caused by what?

        • gbaikie says:

          Well I heard a bit about about some glaciers advancing, but this is to be expected and normal. Why do think the glaciers built up during LIA won’t melt?

          • barry says:

            Why do you assume melting glaciers is occurring because of some supposed ‘rebound’ from the LIA. Does global temperature have some static mean around which it oscillates, like a yo-yo? Is that the idea?

          • David Appell says:

            Why are glacier advances “expected and normal?”

          • gbaikie says:

            –barry says:
            October 5, 2017 at 5:52 PM

            Why do you assume melting glaciers is occurring because of some supposed rebound from the LIA. Does global temperature have some static mean around which it oscillates, like a yo-yo? Is that the idea?–

            There are two different things I would point out- my ideas and other peoples idea’s. The prediction that glacial ice formed during LIA would melt in the future, wasn’t my idea or prediction.
            Though I do tend to agree, that at some point in the future the glaciers formed in a colder world would melt in a warmer world.
            Or at least it seems like the better odds.

            Though one could also get other glaciers forming in this warmer world, but point is it seems the ones from the colder period would tend to disappear [or they wouldn’t have formed in that colder world, but rather would have formed long before this cooler period].

          • gbaikie says:

            –David Appell says:
            October 5, 2017 at 8:23 PM

            Why are glacier advances expected and normal?–

            Because we are living in a icebox climate.

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            “Why are glacier advances expected and normal?
            Because we are living in a icebox climate.”

            Glaciers would advance if the surface was cooling — right?
            But the surface isn’t cooling, right?
            And, the data show, globally glaciers aren’t advancing.
            Which is not surprising.

      • barry says:

        Begging the question – when is the “rebound” out of the LIA supposed to stop?

        I don’t think skeptics would have an answer to that, because they don’t have a mechanism explaining the “rebound.”

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”Begging the question when is the rebound out of the LIA supposed to stop?”

          Akasofu claimed 0.5C/century. The LIA ended circa 1850, which is ironically the year the IPCC now use to base their AGW propaganda. Temps during the LIA were claimed to be 1 to 2C below normal.

          By the end of the LIA in 1850, it was likely already warming so this could turn into a calculus problem. As a ballpark figure, if you have 1 C to recover, a maximal date of ending of the rewarming, according to Akasofu, ‘COULD’ be 2050. If it was up to 2C, who knows?

          I know, I know, it sounds like I’m covering all the bases. I really don’t know, I am just highly skeptical that a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere could produce catastrophic warming.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          barry, the answer is, and youre not going to like it, “natural variation”.

          (See, I said you wouldn’t like it.)

        • barry says:

          Warming to 2050?

          This would put the global temp definitely higher than the MWP, and much higher than temps just prior to the LIA.

          So the “rebound” would be to a new high for the last 2000 years at least. Interesting.

        • barry says:

          g*e*r*a*n,

          You’re right. Nothingburgers have no taste.

        • gbaikie says:

          — barry says:
          October 4, 2017 at 4:40 PM

          Begging the question when is the rebound out of the LIA supposed to stop?

          I dont think skeptics would have an answer to that, because they dont have a mechanism explaining the rebound.–

          I don’t think anyone, understands the mechanism for why LIA cooled.
          There are things to point to.
          During our interglacial period, we have had centuries of warming and cooling.
          There were very large volcanic eruption during LIA.
          And there was a sun which had low sunspots for a long period.
          And there is a constant rise of sea level if the time scale is thousands of years.
          There also a slight cooling over time scale of thousands years, starting something like 6000 years ago. Or I believe around time the Sahara desert became a desert rather than a grassland.

          • Bindidon says:

            There were very large volcanic eruption during LIA.

            gbaikie, I can’t imagine you placing LIA’s start so early.

            It is very probable that the end of MWP was the probably hugest eruption of the last 1500 years: Mt Rinjani in 1257 (VEI 7).

            Following that major event (only VEI 5-6 events are listed):

            Quilotoa: 1280, (VEI) 6
            Kuwae: 1452, 6+
            Bardarbunga: 1477, 6
            Agua de Pau: 1563, 5
            Billy Mitchell: 1580, 6
            Kelut: 1586, 5
            Huaynaputina: 1600, 6

            I read years ago an interesting paper

            Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full

            putting, through their analysis work, this unusually long sequence of very large volcanic eruptions in relation with a decrease of ocean heat content and increase of sea ice due to persistent lack of insolation.

            This decrease of OHC was in their meaning LIA’s real origin: the aerosols produced by these eruptions were a by dimensions more important cooling factor than all solar minima put together.

            And last not least: as you certainly know, the Maunder minimum began in… 1645.

          • barry says:

            I dont think anyone, understands the mechanism for why LIA cooled.

            Which would make it impossible to say whether the so-called ‘rebound’ finished decades ago or is continuing.

            The skeptical ‘analysis’ of post-LIA global temps completely lacks any physical basis.

          • gbaikie says:

            — Bindidon says:
            October 5, 2017 at 4:03 PM

            There were very large volcanic eruption during LIA.

            gbaikie, I cant imagine you placing LIAs start so early.–

            I don’t place it early, though I know that some do place it early.

            –Following that major event (only VEI 5-6 events are listed):

            Quilotoa: 1280, (VEI) 6
            Kuwae: 1452, 6+
            Bardarbunga: 1477, 6
            Agua de Pau: 1563, 5
            Billy Mitchell: 1580, 6
            Kelut: 1586, 5
            Huaynaputina: 1600, 6 —

            I suppose Quilotoa might be a reason some place it earlier, otherwise the ones listed wouldn’t be early.
            But what I would consider important is the amount ejecta and where.
            Because Tropics are the heat engine of the world and more specifically the tropical ocean is heat engine of the world and transparency of tropical ocean is important.

            Now I have to look up these names:
            -1280 Plinian eruption and caldera formation of Quilotoa volcano
            One of the largest known eruptions on earth during the past 1000 years occurred around the year 1280 (radiocarbon dated). It followed a dormancy period of 14,000 years. The eruption emptied ca. 11 cubic km of magma during 4 eruptive phases. The first phase produced one of the northern Andes’ largest air-fall pumice and ash layer. The following phases generated large pyroclastic flows and lahars, which reached the Pacific Ocean.
            The eruption was followed by the formation of the caldera and ended with the emplacement of a small lava dome.-
            http://tinyurl.com/y9jqsk27
            So even if most powerful recently I don’t know how many cubic km of rock to put into the sky. Maybe [wild guess] it put +1 cubic km water into atmosphere. Next, Kuwae:
            http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/kuwae
            Again, right location, but.. Next, Bardarbunga
            Iceland, nope.
            Agua de Pau I see nothing
            Billy Mitchell:
            “1580 plinian eruption and global climate effects
            The explosive eruption of Billy Mitchell volcano around 1580 (uncorrected radiocarbon age, i.e. between 14801640) ranks as one of the largest in the world during the past 1000 years. It erupted about 14 cubic km of tephra (ca. 6 km3 of magma) and produced an ash layer over 300 km2. Ignimbrite from the eruption extends in a broad fan 20 km eastwards towards the Pacific Ocean. The eruption probably caused the formation of the present-day caldera.
            The eruption has very likely caused a world-wide short-term cooling such as other large eruptions (e.g. Tambora in 1815, Krakatau in 1883, Katmai in 1912, Pinatubo in 1991). ”

            I would agree about Tambora, ie: The explosion is estimated to have had a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) of 7.[8] An estimated 41 cubic kilometres (9.8 cu mi) of pyroclastic trachyandesite were ejected, weighing about 10 billion tonnes. This has left a caldera measuring 67 kilometres (3.74.3 mi) across and 600700 metres (2,0002,300 ft) deep.[6] The density of fallen ash in Makassar was 636 kilograms per cubic metre (1,072 lb/cu yd).Before the explosion, Mount Tambora was about 4,300 metres (14,100 ft) high,[6] one of the tallest peaks in the Indonesian archipelago. After the explosion, it measured only 2,851 metres (9,354 ft), about two thirds of its previous height”

            Kelut. Not seeing anything.

            Huaynaputina:
            1600 AD Plinian eruption of Huaynaputina volcano
            The eruption of Huaynaputina volcano in 1600 AD was the largest historically recorded eruption in South America and one of the largest in the world during the past 2000 years. It erupted up to 30 cu km of tephra (or ca. 12 km3 of magma) (VEI 6) and is comparable to the Plinian eruption of Krakatau in 1883. The pumice and ash layer from the eruption covers an area of 360,000 km2.

            Sounds possible and not one I was familiar with.
            I had thinking of Tambora and few others not in your list.

          • Phil says:

            Yes , theres a mechanism..ots tbe sun .. Distance from sun and solar activity are the man drivers of climate

          • barry says:

            Yes , theres a mechanism..ots tbe sun .. Distance from sun and solar activity are the man drivers of climate

            A mechanism. Excellent!

            Now we can get an idea of when the LIA ended.

            Here is a graph of sunspot activity from 1910.

            https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_yearly.jpg

            The Maunder Minimum ended about 1700, and sunspots peaked next about 1780, whereafter they held more or less steady.

            So let’s allow a 40 year lag for global temps to catch up with the solar forcing, and we have the end of the LIA at around 1820.

            There is one main orbital variation that changes Earth’s distance to the sun, but it is bi-polar.

            Orbital eccentricity: the change in shape of the earth’s orbit from a perfect circle to an ellipse. The main cycle is about 100,000 years, so a 1000 year period will see little variation in an orbital eccentricity that itself has little variation. The extreme elipse changes the intensity of insolation falling on the Earth at a given season. So, if NH summer receives more solar radiation than usual when Earth is closer to the sun, winter will receive less. This also effects the length of the seaons by a few days from circle to extreme elipse.

            The earth has been undergoing a change from the elipse to perfect circle for over 10,000 years. The MWP and LIA have both occurred during this change from one orbital extreme to the other, and so it appears that orbital eccentricity has little to no effect on global climate on this time scale.

            I think we can rule out orbital variation causing and recovering LIA at the sub-millenial time scale. So that leaves us with solar intensity.

            The mechanism that may have caused the LIA was back to normal in 1780 at the latest, and so the LIA ended about 1820 if solar variation is the mechanism.

            That long-term solar graph again…

            https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_yearly.jpg

          • Phil says:

            Hi Barry,
            Indeed with orbital variations, we’ re talking about tens of thousands of years where they beome the dominant reason for climate change, being primarily responsible for glacial/interglacial cycles.
            The effects of orbital changes over small time periods ( as your example) 1000 years would be minimal , but still not zero.
            Within those shorter time periods, over say a few hundred years or so it is solar variability which becomes the primary driver of climate.
            Their is high correlation between temps and SSN which is a good indicator of sunspot activity .. With both the intensity and period of high/low activity affecting warming and cooling trends.. Compare Maunder and Dalton mimimums with the level SST numbers in the seccond half of the twentieth centuries.
            We are just now back at levels not seen since the early 20th century. It memains to be seen if we will experience a dalton or maunder type minimum…
            If that should occur … Temps WILL fall and there will once again be skating on the Thames

          • Phil says:

            Couple typos.. Should read SST good indicator of solar activity..

            And to the HIGH levels in the latter half of 20th century

          • barry says:

            “Here is a graph of sunspot activity from 1910.”

            Typo – the graph is from 1610.

          • Bindidon says:

            Well gbaikie…

            The ‘fact’ that you might not be familiar with some thing has few to do with the fact that it well happened.

            https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_gro%C3%9Fer_historischer_Vulkanausbr%C3%BCche

            If you switch from there to the ->english version by clicking it at the left in the language list, you might enjoy a tiny difference.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gbaikie…”I am not aware of anyone more recently making the claim that it has happened or about to happen…”

        Syun Akasofu, an astronomer famed for his work on the solar wind, has talked extensively about the LIA. He claims the IPCC erred by not including re-warming from the LIA in their claims of anthropogenic warming. He has talked about glaciers but I don’t recall him mentioning what you claim about all glaciers disappearing from temperate zones.

        Are the Himalaya in a temperate zone? I don’t see glaciers disappearing there due to the extreme altitude. I have not seen any indication from climbers on Everest that the Khumbu glacier at the southern approach base camp is suffering, at 18,000 feet. Same for the Baltoro glacier at base of K2.

        • gbaikie says:

          Are the Himalaya in a temperate zone? I dont see glaciers disappearing there due to the extreme altitude. I have not seen any indication from climbers on Everest that the Khumbu glacier at the southern approach base camp is suffering, at 18,000 feet. Same for the Baltoro glacier at base of K2.

          The Himalaya are above tropic of Cancer. I don’t think anyone predicted all glaciers in Temperate Zone would disappear, rather build up of them during LIA would “disappear”.
          I think some might have predicted that tropical glaciers might disappear at some point in time.

      • barry says:

        Yes, we recovering from the Little Ice age

        As you have no physical mechanism to support that notion, it is only a notion. The ‘recovery’ could have stopped decades ago. You have no way of knowing.

      • David Appell says:

        gbaikie says:
        “Yes, we recovering from the Little Ice age”

        A recovery caused by what?

        Or do you think climate does not need a cause in order to change?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      spqr…”Compare a picture of a snow capped mountain range from 1940 to now”.

      That’s ridiculous. We have 3500 foot mountains across from us in Vancouver, Canada and during a fresh snowfall the entire mountain is covered in snow. A day or two later it’s mostly gone.

      Subjective analysis doesn’t prove anything.

      This has nothing to do with right and left. There are political ideologies on either side of the argument. It’s mainly about alarmists and skeptics, the difference being that skepticism is a hallmark of science whereas alarmism is plain dumb.

      • SPQR says:

        Rubbish, it is happening to glaciers/snow-pack all around the world. And if you look at Mr. Spencer’s graph from 1979 to now, THERE IS AN UPWARD TREND. Granted, his data does show less warming; just not to the degree that most nuts on the left like Gore and his minions believe.

        I am tired of this debate. Both sides are tampering with the data. Once again, I could care less if we are warming or cooling. I am not going to stop using my A/C or cutting my lawn.

        • SPQR says:

          Also, you missed my point. Examine permanent snow capped ranges from 1940 to now. The line (altitude) where they once had ice and snow is receding. Meaning that you have to ascend to a higher altitude to encounter it. It is happening all around the world. I was not talking about a bare range the occasionally gets snowed on.

          Now just because I take note of that, it doesn’t mean that I am some left wing nut or in Al Gore’s camp (a man whom I cannot stand, and who I did not vote for in 2000). I am just making a point.

          I think the whole hockey stick theory is BS, and I think the whole ‘we have been cooling for 18 years’ statement is BS.

          Once again, if you look at Mr. Spencer’s data set from 1979 until now there is an undeniable upward trend. If you start the graph from 1998 until 2015, sure, it does look like there is a slight downward trend. But that is cherry picking the actual data. And even 2016 turned out to be warmer than 1998. It was in fact the warmest year as far as satellite data is concerned. Sorry, it was-

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            spqr…”It is happening all around the world”.

            I pointed out that it’s not happening in the Himalaya, one of the most extensive mountain ranges in the world.

            Furthermore, our mountains across the water in Vancouver have snow at the same altitudes each year. Our sea levels are not rising nor is global warming noticeable.

            My point was that examining a photo of a mountain range in the 1940s tells us nothing. You’d have to specify the expected snow altitude on a specific date then compare it to today on the same date. Even at that, the inference is unscientific.

          • barry says:

            The way to do it is to assess all glaciers globally. 75% have been in retreat, and the mass balance of total global glaciers is negative.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          spqr…”And if you look at Mr. Spencers graph from 1979 to now, THERE IS AN UPWARD TREND”.

          So what? Can you prove the upward trend is related to anthropogenic warming? Have you noticed that half the trend is located below the baseline? Have you noticed the trend is flat from 1998 – 2015? If you see a trend over that period you are delusional. The IPCC did not see it nor did UAH.

          Hopefully you are not yet another number cruncher who uses Excel without having a clue what the data means.

          • SPQR says:

            Yes, that is because you are starting the Graph from 1998. If you look at Spencer’s ENTIRE data set it is an upward trend.

            I never said it is due ALONE TO ANTHROPOGENIC WARMING, those are your words not mine. I do not care what the cause is. It could be a natural cycle or a combination of other factors. I just stated that the trend is indeed upward. Please, do not make the mistake that I am some GW nut. I am not. Once again, if the earth cools or warms I don’t really care.

          • Des says:

            “Have you noticed that half the trend is located below the baseline?”

            NO!! Really!! Do you understand what the baseline is?

        • David Appell says:

          SPQR says:
          “I think the whole hockey stick theory is BS”

          It doesn’t matter what you think — the laws of physics clearly imply that they require a hockey stick. And the math is trivial:

          http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-thing-is-hockey-stick-isnt.html
          http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-about-generating-hockey-sticks.html
          http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/09/an-even-easier-way-to-get-hockey-stick.html

  46. Bindidon says:

    If you want to have a fine view on Earth’s climate at its surface, you simply go to WeatherBELL.

    OK: it is not direct measurement but integrating reanalysis based on a huge data set. Maybe just this makes it so trustworthy, like Nick Stokes very similar surface temperature mix.

    Here you perfectly see for example with the August 2017 global average, how weak El Nina actually is:

    http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_082017.png

    Perfect fit to JMA’s prediction for nov 17 till mar 18:
    60% neutral, 40% Nina

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Binny…”Maybe just this makes it so trustworthy, like Nick Stokes very similar surface temperature mix”.

      Roy pointed out that it is the same data as ‘modeled’ (synthesized) NOAA data, which makes it unreliable.

      I don’t expect you to get that since you claim your expertise is in computers. To those of us who have made our living based on hard physics, as in the electronics and electrical field, it is unforgivable to throw out 75% of your real data and synthesize the missing data in a climate model.

      My understanding of computers is at least on par with yours, maybe even better. I have worked both sides of the fence, in computer software and hardware. I am aware of the limitations of programming and we used the term GIGO = garbage in, garbage out. Seems to fit climate models well.

      • Bindidon says:

        Just a little hint to a troll behaving even more ridiculous than anyone of the trolls I ever saw posting at WUWT (!!!):

        Roy Spencer regularly publishes graphs made by Ryan Maue. And both persons have all the science you thoroughly lack.

        Any idea about what a compiler compiler might be, Robertson troll?

        Why don’t you move to WUWT with all your nonsense?

        – You would enjoy being there ‘entre bon amis’, e.g. the third viscount of Brenchley, or superb commenters a la ‘Latitude’;
        – We would here get rid of an incredibly boring, stubborn person.

        A dream, alas.

    • barry says:

      GIGO is something skeptics say when they don’t have any concrete ideas.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Did you have any concrete ideas to offer, barry?

      • SkepticGoneWild says:

        Alarmist warmists ideas fall into the category of a ridiculously persistent El Dumbo, followed by an El Bimbo, with a continuously resilient La Nada, not to mention a smattering of El Dodo.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”GIGO is something skeptics say when they dont have any concrete ideas”.

        Still the same meaning: garbage in, garbage out. An apt description of a climate model.

      • Des says:

        The rats descend on this post to take up the offered crumbs.

    • barry says:

      it is unforgivable to throw out 75% of your real data

      This lie again.

      By a serial liar.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        *How to help a skeptic understand the reality of AGW*

        Step 1 (most difficult): prove the earth is warming.

        Step 2: prove the warming is anthropogenic

        Based on recent comments, it appears many skeptics on this blog have finally made it past step 1. Congratulations are in order!

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          SIS, to make the big time in climate comedy, you’re going to have to do a lot better than that. It just looks like you’re coloring with crayons.

          Learn to throw in some pseudoscience. I know, a lot has already been used, but make up something. That’s what climate comedy is all about–originality. You can’t use things like “the Earth is heating the Sun”. That’s already been exploited. Try to find some other Laws of Physics to violate. That’s when it really gets funny.

          Best of luck.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            I never thought I’d say this, but, welcome to the “warmists” club!
            (The anthropogenic part will come eventually.)

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Sorry sis, you’re still not there. Think of something that doesn’t make you sound like a 12-year-old.

            (BTW, there may be one or two out there that do not know your old screen name was “snake”, aka “snape”. I won’t tell anyone.)

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            I went back and read a few of Snape’s comments. A very bright fellow.

          • Kristian says:

            g*e*r*a*n,

            It appears you haven’t yet come across Snape expounding on his grand “traffic jam analogy” of the “anthropogenic part” of global warming?

            A shame. It’s a true apogee of human endeavour, a work of stupefying genius.

            When this person speaks, you should listen. He’s no 12-year-old, I’ll say! He’s at the very least 13 or 14 …

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”it is unforgivable to throw out 75% of your real data …This lie again. …By a serial liar”.

        barry insists on making a fool of himself.

        From Nov 13, 2015…

        https://web.archive.org/web/20151113041214/http://www.noaa.gov:80/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

        direct quotes from NOAA…”Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”

        “The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month”.

        Are you really that stupid, barry? NOAA admits on their own site to using less than 1500 stations from a global surface database of 6000 station and 1500/6000 = 25%. Since they use less than 1500 stations it means NOAA has dropped over 75% of their database. They synthesize the missing 75% in a climate model using less than 1500 of the stations in an statistical algorithm.

        However, barry goes merrily on supporting this chicanery by apologizing for them and trying to obfuscate the obvious by braying about something in the 1990s.

        • Dr No says:

          That same site notes:
          “Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?
          No. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the United States, the impacts of the warming are clear and present. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. Coastal temperatures are rising. A multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in mountainous areas, uphill toward cooler areas.”

        • Dr No says:

          Also, it should be noted that:
          1500 stations are on land.
          70% of the globe is ocean.
          The “25%” reduction only applies to 30% of the globe.
          i.e. a reduction in GLOBAL coverage of only 7.5%

        • barry says:

          However, barry goes merrily on supporting this chicanery by apologizing for them and trying to obfuscate the obvious by braying about something in the 1990s.

          That “something” in the 1990s was the amassing of thousands of weather stations’ data by hand that didn’t report in real time, and that don’t report in real time. The thousands of stations that NOAA are not able to update every month.

          It’s the fact that proves your lie is a lie.

          Don’t plead ignorance. You’ve obviously read the rebuttal to your lie. Thanks for admitting that, finally. And that you keep on lying when you know better.

  47. SkepticGoneWild says:

    AGW Haiku:

    Carbon dioxide
    Blankets the Earth in repose
    Yet only a dream

    • Dr No says:

      Good effort.
      Keep working at it and leave science to the big boys.

      • SkepticGoneWild says:

        Doctor No-Nothing
        Alchemy his frequent spiel
        Science forgotten

      • Des says:

        How true – no science will ever pass this guy’s lips.

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          I was thinking about my university undergrad course in kinematics and dynamics, solving increasingly complex problems, while you were playing video games in your mama’s basement.

          • Dr No says:

            Judging by your comments I assume you failed.
            And then took up Haiku and blogging.
            Not much money in that is there?

          • Des says:

            So you’re a little boy who’s still at Uni doing first year basic kinematics. I hereby symbolically pat you on the head and invite you back after you’ve learned the physics required to understand the science of climate change.

            Try this simple problem to test out your understanding of the basic physics you are learning:

            Assume no gravity and no air resistance. Assume any collisions are perfectly elastic, and occur head-on so that there are no angular deflections.
            There is a train moving towards me at 50 m/s.
            I have a basketball and a table tennis ball.
            Assume mass of train >> mass of basketball >> mass of tt ball
            I throw the basketball at the train at a speed of 30 m/s.
            Some time later I throw the table tennis ball in the same direction at 20 m/s, so that it collides with the basketball AFTER it has rebounded from the train.
            At what speed will the table tennis ball return to me?

          • Des says:

            And please – no answers from anyone else.

  48. ren says:

    The jet stream from north will now attack eastern Canada.
    https://www.facebook.com/Sunclimate-719393721599910/

  49. barry says:

    The lying Gordon Robertson provides a quote and a link to try and corroborate his claim that NOAA deliberately shedded 75% of weather stations.

    Even the link he provides gives a clue – it’s the parts Gordon never quotes. Here’s a fuller version.

    The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.

    However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month.

    NOAA added millions of data from thousands of historical weather station records in the 1990s. Most of these had to be keyed by hand.

    As Gordon’s link syas, they had at the time 1500 stations that reported in near real-time, in the format required by NOAA’s automatic collation network.

    When the project ended in the 1990s amassing historical weather station data, 1500 stations were still reporting on the automated stream.

    Contrary to the liar’s repeated lies, NOAA added weather station data, and did not “slash” thousands of stations.

    Here’s the 1997 paper that describes what happens – a paper Gordon the liar has either never read, or has read but continues his lie even after reading the source.

    http://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp

    I can put up with his usual nonsense in fairly good humour, but this filthy lying, when he has been shown the truth so many times, is intolerable.

    The large number of stations in the mid80s and 90s came from NOAA laboriously hand-keying weather station data over a number of years.

    NOAA did exactly the opposite to what Gordon claims, which makes his disgusting lying all the worse.

  50. barry says:

    [reformatted]

    The lying Gordon Robertson provides a quote and a link to try and corroborate his claim that NOAA deliberately shedded 75% of weather stations.

    Even the link he provides gives a clue its the parts Gordon never quotes. Heres a fuller version.

    The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.

    However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month.

    NOAA added millions of data from thousands of historical weather station records in the 1990s. Most of these had to be keyed by hand.

    As Gordons link says, they had at the time 1500 stations that reported in near real-time, in the format required by NOAAs automatic collation network.

    When the project ended in the 1990s amassing historical weather station data, 1500 stations were still reporting on the automated stream.

    Contrary to the liars repeated lies, NOAA added weather station data, and did not “slash” thousands of stations.

    Heres the 1997 paper that describes what happens a paper Gordon the liar has either never read, or has read but continues his lie even after reading the source.

    http://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp

    I can put up with his usual nonsense in fairly good humour, but this filthy lying, when he has been shown the truth so many times, is intolerable.

    The large number of stations in the mid80s and 90s came from NOAA laboriously hand-keying weather station data over a number of years.

    NOAA did exactly the opposite to what Gordon claims, which makes his disgusting lying all the worse.

    • barry says:

      Here’s the relevant quote from the paper describing the additional data and what they had left once the projects ended.

      Thirty-one different sources contributed temperature data to GHCN. Many of these were acquired through second-hand contacts and some were digitized by special projects that have now ended. Therefore, not all GHCN stations will be able to be updated on a regular basis. Of the 31 sources, we are able to perform regular monthly updates with only three of them.

      Those are the facts that the Robertson has never acknowledged. Despite being shown this a dozen times.

      He will be shown them again, whenever he repeats his lies.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Heres the relevant quote from the paper describing the additional data and what they had left once the projects ended”.

        The relevant quote is the one I posted, that NOAA has slashed 70% of its reporting global stations. Naturally, in his denial, barry has produced the reddest of red-herring arguments.

        Red Herring. … the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

        • barry says:

          NO.

          NOAA had 1500 weather stations that reported weather data in the format that automated the updating each month.

          Then NOAA added historical data manually that was not part of the automated stream. This is how they got 7,000 weather station data.

          When the project ended, they had 1500 weather stations in the automated stream as before that reported monthly.

          NOAA did not deliberately cut thousands of weather stations. They added data retrospectively.

          Stop lying.

    • Bindidon says:

      Exactly barry, well done.

      Is the Robertson troll really a liar, or is he simply dumb, unable to carefully read longer documents?

      Anyway: whichever alternative applies, plays no role; any of the two disqualifies him for scientific contribution.

    • barry says:

      These facts have been posted specifically in reply to his comments many times over the past year and more. Nearly every time, he disappears from the comment stream. The first few times I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

      On a couple of occasions he has replied beneath, only to talk about something else. He’s seen this. He keeps lying.

      I don’t bandy strong words lightly. I’d rather not. It engenders defensiveness and posturing and entrenches opposition.

      But on this specific point I’ve had enough. I draw a line. I don’t have much passion for the future of the globe. I care about scientific integrity. I cannot stand lies.

    • barry says:

      Handily, he quotes above what I posted about later.

      barry goes merrily on supporting this chicanery by apologizing for them and trying to obfuscate the obvious by braying about something in the 1990s.

      He’s read the rebuttal previously. I don’t care if he lies to himself or to us. He lies.

      • Dr No says:

        Barry, of course he, like many others here, lie simply to amuse themselves.
        Don’t try and get them to recant, they never ever do.
        It is not worth getting upset over these people. Better is to simply point out the worst of their deceptions and, if possible, have a bit of sadistic fun skewering them.
        I’ve been doing it for ages whenever I have spare time.
        You can call me sadistic but I am enjoying their ever more frantic thrashings as things get hotter and the rest of the world leaves them behind.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          dr no…”Barry, of course he, like many others here, lie simply to amuse themselves”.

          Another brithering idiot, in deep denial. Can you read and comprehend??? NOAA admitted they had slashed over 70% of their surface stations.

          It’s corroborated here in exacting detail.

          https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

        • barry says:

          Chiefio also said:

          “While the spin put on my position has tended to say there is active intentional removal of thermometers for malicious effect; I have gone out of my way to point out that I can not know any persons intent, only the result.”

          YOU, Robertson, are putting spin on Chiefio’s position.

          Chiefio does not know about the history of adding historical station data. You do. You’ve been told many times. Stop spinning. Stop lying.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        My, my, my! All these accusations, name-calling, and consternation because the data isn’t matching the pseudoscience.

        It’s hilarious.

        How many Warmists have actually looked into the “forcing” of CO2? How many know the origin of this bogus concept?

        None?

        They just blindly and obediently swallow the spew from the cult leaders.

        It’s amazing. (And hilarious.)

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          g*r…”My, my, my! All these accusations, name-calling, and consternation because the data isnt matching the pseudoscience”.

          Far more than that. The alarmists are in deep denial that NOAA actually admitted to slashing over 70% of global surface database.

          Maybe I missed something. Can you see the following at this link?

          https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

          “Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”

          And does the URL not read http://www.noaa.gov???

          • Des says:

            To the person who believe assembling computer hardware makes him a Physics professional:

            “All this name-calling”??

            You mean “blithering idiot”?? Is that the name-calling you are referring to?

        • barry says:

          Nothing in the NOAA article says the weather station data was deliberately removed. That’s your lying spin. The article does say that data was added. THAT’s the truth. You know the true story. You’ve been given the history. You continually lie.

        • barry says:

          My, my, my! All these accusations, name-calling, and consternation because the data isnt matching the pseudoscience.

          I don’t care about any data matching here.

          Robertson is lying that NOAA “deliberately” slashed thousands of weather stations. Period.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Handily, he quotes above what I posted about later”.

        I repeat, only a blithering idiot would deny what NOAA admitted in print. It does not matter how you try to obfuscate the matter, NOAA admitted to slashing over 70% of their global surface stations. I sent you the link and you still deny it.

        You seem to think you can explain that away with some bafflegab about them actually increasing the number of stations in the 1990s. Chiefio has reported that NOAA has slashed nearly 90% of their stations since the 1990’s.

        You have strengthened my case that alarmists are blithering idiots who accept any crap they are told by authority figures.

        • barry says:

          I sent you the link and you still deny it.

          I quoted the article. There is no mention of deliberate removal. This is your lying spin. You have ben told how data was added retrospectively that was not part of the automated stream. Data from old weather station records that was keyed in by hand because it was not in the electronica format that allowed NOAA to get it every month. A project that ended in the late 1990s.

          They started with 1500 stations reporting. They spent a few years collating masses of extra data. When they had keyed that data in to their records, they were left with 1500 automated updates, as before.

          They didn’t slash data, you liar. They added some retrospectively.

          The truth is the opposite of your lying lies.

        • David Appell says:

          Wow. I’ve seen denial from GR, and outright lies, but this takes the cake.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”The lying Gordon Robertson provides a quote and a link to try and corroborate his claim that NOAA deliberately shedded 75% of weather stations”.

      I posted a direct quote from NOAA where they admit to doing that. Only a blithering idiot would be in denial about that.

      • Dr No says:

        NOAA notes:
        “Scientists use that data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly expanding number of buoys and ships 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, after all to determine the global temperature record.”
        Only a blithering idiot would claim that the reduction of land stations equates to a the same reduction in global coverage.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          dr no…”Only a blithering idiot would claim that the reduction of land stations equates to a the same reduction in global coverage”.

          What are you nattering about???

          NOAA cuts land stations by over 75%, synthesizes the slashed data in a climate model using less than 1500 of the stations, as they admitted on the NOAA site, and you claim that does not affect the global average to the same degree?

          Chiefio has given detailed evidence that NOAA slashed the stations so they could delete colder stations and emphasize the warming from the warmer stations. In some cases, they synthesized data for cities high in the Andes using stations in a radius up to 1200 miles apart and at a much lower altitude giving those cities a much warmer temperature due to that kind of averaging.

          It’s blatant cheating to synthesize a temperature for a high altitude, colder city using data from surrounding areas at much lower altitudes and warmer temperatures.

          Why not just use the real data reported for that city? Do you really need to have an answer spelled out for you? They are alarmist cheaters.

      • barry says:

        I posted a direct quote from NOAA where they admit to doing that. Only a blithering idiot would be in denial about that.

        Quote the exact part where it is said that the weather station data was deliberately culled.

        Deliberately. Quote that, you liar.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”Quote the exact part where it is said that the weather station data was deliberately culled”.

          Now you are admitting it was culled and you are indulging in a semantics argument as to whether the culling was deliberate or not.

          Get over yourself for cripes sake.

          Now that you have finally admitted it was culled can we get on with the next part, where NOAA uses the data from less than 1500 stations to synthesize the culled data?

          That’s what NOAA does and that’s why they need to provide a confidence level. You still have not addressed the question as to why they declared 2014 as the hottest year ever based on a 48% confidence level. GISS has used confidence levels in the 30 percentile range.

          • Des says:

            The 48% is NOT a “confidence level”. It is a straight probability.
            There are three runners A, B and C in a race. Runners A and B are each given a 26% chance of winning. Who is the most likely winner?

        • barry says:

          Now you are admitting it was culled

          NO. I am paraphrasing YOUR lie and asking you to corroborate it.

          and you are indulging in a semantics argument as to whether the culling was deliberate or not

          Semantics? You have repeatedly said “slashed” and “cut.” YOU have said the drop out of station numbers was from deliberate deletion.

          This is the lie.

          Are you now qualifying your remarks? Then do so straightforwardly.

        • barry says:

          You still have not addressed the question as to why they declared 2014 as the hottest year ever based on a 48% confidence level.

          Indeed I have.

          But I won’t do that until you clearly admit that NOAA did not deliberately “slash” thousands of weather station data.

          If you can describe what actually happened accurately, then I will link you to my discussion of 2014, 48% likelihood hottest year. Hell, I’ll even discuss that with you here.

          But not till we correct the spin on station drop out.

  51. Chad says:

    I’m curious as to why the 13 month average has not been updated over the past 2 or 3 months. The data shows a slight upturn over the past two months.

    • barry says:

      A 13-month average is centred on the middle month – month 7. Therefore the first 6 and last 6 months of the record can’t be compassed by the red 13-month average line.

      EG, if we start the record in Jan 1979, then you average the 13 months Jan 1979 to Jan 1980, and the average is located at July 1979. Move forward a month, averaging Feb to Feb, and the next point is at August 1979.

      • Chad says:

        I know how it is calculated. I am pointing out that it has not been updated in this month’s plot nor in the plot for last month. You can download the data and plot it out for yourself if you like. There is a slight upturn in the 13-month average over the past two months, i.e. the centered average from 8 and 7 months ago.

        • Des says:

          Including those months would show that we have pulled up after the post-El Nino decline about 0.15 to 0.2 degrees above the pre-El Nino figures. And we couldn’t have people seeing that, now could we? Roy?

          • Kristian says:

            Des says, October 5, 2017 at 8:30 AM:

            Including those months would show that we have pulled up after the post-El Nino decline about 0.15 to 0.2 degrees above the pre-El Nino figures. And we couldn’t have people seeing that, now could we? Roy?

            Because that would indicate what, Des?

          • Des says:

            It would indicate that “we have pulled up after the post-El Nino decline about 0.15 to 0.2 degrees above the pre-El Nino figures”. Duh

          • Kristian says:

            Des says, October 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM:

            It would indicate that “we have pulled up after the post-El Nino decline about 0.15 to 0.2 degrees above the pre-El Nino figures”. Duh

            And “we” couldn’t have people seeing that, because …?

          • Des says:

            You believe you’re a smart person … fill in the blanks yourself.
            And a tip … when there are only two people in a thread, there is no need to keep quoting the other person. I KNOW what I said.

          • Kristian says:

            Des says, October 6, 2017 at 5:09 AM:

            You believe you’re a smart person … fill in the blanks yourself.

            Hehe. No, Des. I want to hear YOUR answer. And “we” couldn’t have people seeing that, because …?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      chad…”Im curious as to why the 13 month average has not been updated over the past 2 or 3 months”.

      Waiting for the cooling which is sure to follow soon. No point wasting good red ink.

      • Chad says:

        Any cooling that may or may not occur in the future, will not change the 13-month centered averages for 7 and 8 months ago. As soon as Roy updates this curve in future months, the uptick will appear.

        • Dr No says:

          Exactly! Poor, foolish GR imagines that the hidden upticks will be flattened by lower values over the coming months.

          • Des says:

            Actually, the averages will indeed probably drop in the next few months. The next three monthly anomalies to drop off the back of the 13-month average are 0.45, 0.42 and 0.46. Despite this month’s anomaly, it is extremely unlikely we will duplicate those figures in the next three months. I would say that the 13-month average still has about another 0.1 degrees to fall over the next year, and that is assuming no La Nina conditions.

      • barry says:

        Waiting for the cooling which is sure to follow soon. No point wasting good red ink.

        While I doubt that Roy is so craven as to “hide the incline,” your defense of such a tactic is pathetic.

  52. Des says:

    A repost (with some editing) of mine that is buried amongst earlier posts:

    Here is a scatter plot where each dot represents one El Nino or La Nina event:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2v56RP5XU7Gb081dGd4Y051S2c/view?usp=sharing

    Apologies for forgetting to label the axes. The horizontal axis is ONI and the vertical axis is the detrended UAH anomaly.

    The ONI reading is the average of the THREE highest (or lowest) consecutive monthly ONI readings during any one ENSO event. The UAI reading is the highest (or lowest) monthly value of the DETRENDED UAI during each ENSO event.

    With a good chance of a coming La Nina, it gives an idea of the drop in UAI we can expect from a La Nina event, a drop which would have to be EXCEEDED for Salvatore Del Freeze to have any chance of claiming a cooling climate.

    As I have taken the max (min) values for both ONI and UAH during any ENSO event, which generally do not come from the same month, the effect of the lag is implicitly included.

    In the El Nino graph, the lowest dot represents Pinatubo, and the third dot from the right represents El Chichon. So they can be excluded to establish any trend.

    This month’s anomaly is not indicative of the trend. The trend anomaly is +0.27, and should be +0.28 by the time any La Nina begins. The scatter graph shows that, for all but the very weakest La Ninas, the drop in global anomalies during La Nina can be anywhere between 0.18 and 0.43, with little correlation between that drop and the strength of the La Nina. So we would expect a minimum TRENDED anomaly of between -0.15 and +0.10. We would need to drop below -0.15 before anyone can claim that we are having any cooling out of the ordinary.

    • Bindidon says:

      Good work Des.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      des…”A repost (with some editing) of mine that is buried amongst earlier posts:”

      Let’s get this straight, you post an amateur graph in which you ‘forgot’ to mark the axes, and you want us to take it seriously, especially when you de-trended the UAH data yourself?

      Move along, folks, nothing of interest here.

      Of course, bindiot applauds you.

      • Dr No says:

        Facts hurt, don’t they?

      • barry says:

        Robertson isn’t capable of plotting a graph, and takes an honest apology for forgetting to label the axes as his cue to spew scorn.

      • Bindidon says:

        Here the same answer as in Roy Spencer’s previous thread:

        Nun halten Sie doch endlich die Klappe, Robertson!

      • Des says:

        Why would you believe that I should have ANY difficulty detrending data? It is a VERY simple process, especially when you have Excel at your disposal. You really should quit showing off your lack of mathematical understanding.

        It is hilarious how you dismiss any analysis without having a clue what it is you’re dismissing.

    • But more important is what caused the decline other then La Nina.

      Is it lower sea surface temperatures overall and a slightly higher albedo?

      Will it be this if the fall comes.

      If so I will have more confidence.

      • Bindidon says:

        Can you tell me which decline period you exactly mean, Salvatore?

        • I am talking about this decline if it comes.

          What I am trying to say is La Nina does not factor into my cooling ,although it will cause cooling.

          Here is what I am looking for to accompany the cooling if it comes that will give me confidence that I may be correct.

          Factors with the cooling if it comes that will make me confident.

          1. Very low solar activity

          2. Overall lower sea surface temperatures on a global basis

          3. A slight increase in albedo

          a. due to an increase in global cloud coverage

          b. due to an increase in global snow coverage, sea ice

          c. due to a N.H more meridional atmospheric circulation

          d. due to an increase in major volcanic activity.

      • Des says:

        If any drop in temperatures falls within this range, how will YOU determine that such a fall might have been caused by something else, other than mere conjecture and assertions?

    • barry says:

      Slavatore may get his predicted drop if Agung has a massive eruption in the next few months. It’s currently threatening to go off.

      • Des says:

        It would have to be VEI5 to have any effect on global temperatures. (Perhaps HIGH VEI4) The 1963 Agung eruption was VEI5, and was 120 years after the previous VEI5 eruption. Hopefully the fact that it is only 54 years this time will mean that not enough pressure has built up for the largest eruption. But who is to know what other difference there are this time.

        One thing is certain – many deniers will claim that Agung has spewed out more CO2 than humans have by burning fossil fuels throughout our history. They won;t have any science to back this up.

        • David Appell says:

          Right, thanks.

          Fossil fuels burned by man emit 100-200 times more CO2 than do volcanoes:

          “Volcanic vs Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide,” T Gerlach, EOS v92 n24, June 14, 2011.
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/full
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/epdf
          https://news.agu.org/press-release/human-activities-emit-way-more-carbon-dioxide-than-do-volcanoes/

          • Des says:

            Apparently the Toba eruption 75000 years ago (the largest eruption of the past 2 million years) emitted about a year’s worth of anthropogenic CO2 (not that it had the opportunity to have any effect, given the vast amount of SO2 also released). Fortunately, we had one Toba, not 75000. Before that we have to back to the end-Permian eruption in the Siberian traps for their claim to be even remotely correct.

        • barry says:

          Skeptics who aren’t completely stupid know that major aerial volcanic eruptions temporary cool the globe.

          • Des says:

            Half right. Only equatorial eruptions tend to have a cooling effect. An eruption at higher latitudes would have to be absolutely massive to have the same effect. Assuming they are equatorial, they have to be powerful enough to send SO2 into the stratosphere – any lower than the stratosphere and it gets rained out. That generally means VEI5 or higher.

            And yes, deniers definitely know this – hence their desire for greater volcanic activity to support their otherwise unsupported cooling hypothesis.

          • barry says:

            I didn’t know that latitude mattered, so I looked it up.

            From what I gather, latitudinal differences are not well-known, but it is theorized that high-latitude volcanic emissions tend to be more localised, based on limited data.

            “Half right,” seems to be over-certain. I’d have said, “probable,” or something the like.

            Anyway, Agung is a tropical volcano.

          • Des says:

            I’ve done a lot of reading about this, and it is definitely a significant effect. There are no volcanoes below VEI7 that have had a measureable effect on GLOBAL climate. Ejected matter from high-latitude volcanoes generally can’t cross the equator.

          • barry says:

            There are no volcanoes below VEI7 that have had a measureable effect on GLOBAL climate

            I understand the idea. How many high latitude major volcano eruptions support it? IOW, do they have much data to make a definitive assessment?

  53. Bindidon says:

    Salvatore Del Prete on October 5, 2017 at 5:32 AM

    Why are they [UAH6.0 and WeatherBELL] so different on a month to month basis ?

    1. As you know, UAH mesures temperatures in a tropospheric region way above surface, while WeatherBELL reanalyses temperatures directly at surface.

    Roy Spencer communicated last year the 12-month absolute climatology vector for UAH, with an average value of about 264 K, i.e. -9 C, while all surface temperatures show a mean absolute value around 15 C.

    According to a lapse rate of 6.5 C/km, that gives us an altitude of about 4 km. (Some people mean that in fact UAH measures way higher, as radiosondes measure at 4 km altitude higher temperatures than does UAH. I don’t share this meaning.)

    Now my question to you, Salvatore: would you think that land temperatures measured at sea level must show identical to those measured at the surface too but 4 km higher, e.g. on a mountain? I guess no.

    2. The other factor making the difference between UAH and WeatherBELL is the response time needed by the troposphere to react to surface events.

    There is often a lag of up to 4-5 months. If the lag was identical everywhere, it would be simple to reduce the differences by offseting one of the two time series. But the lag differs everywhere.

    Thus I’m sorry: it makes few sense to expect them to behave identical.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Bindidon

      You’ve pointed out the lag time between surface and troposphere, but I don’t think Salvatore understands the very simple physics behind this.

      If you put a large pot of cold water on a surface element, and turn it on, the element will quickly get very hot. The water in the pot, on the other hand, may take 10 – 20 minutes to boil. Turn off the heat, and the element quickly cools, but the water will stay warm for a long time.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        During an el nino, a relatively small area of ocean surface gets warmer. The lower troposphere is huge in comparison, so it takes several months for such a small “element” to produce noticeable warming. Opposite for la nina.

    • Bindidon says:

      Sir Isaac

      I apologise, but… your pot explanation is not quite convincing.

      If it was, then there would have been no lag differences between the 1997/98 and 2015/16 editions of Mr Nino…

      Feel free to compare them!

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        Bindidon

        The 1997/98 el nino was followed by a strong la nina, the 2015/16 wasn’t. This explains why the troposphere was warmer following the more recent event. What does that have to do with lag time? Are you sure they were much different?

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          If the Nino 3.4 region was +2.5 C for just one day, would you expect much of a bump in troposphere temperatures? It takes time, like it takes time for a stove to warm a pot of water. Isn’t this the lag we’re talking about?

          • Des says:

            Something to read:
            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3514.1

            I won’t have time to read it myself for a while.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Des.
            Thanks for the article. There’s is a lot to go through but this Is in the introduction:

            “The phase lag and amplitude of tropospheric temperature both increase as a specified ENSO SST forcing period increases……”

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            A takeaway would be that a short forcing period would be accociated with a short lag time and a small temperature increase. So a one day spike in SST would not produce a similar spike in the troposphere 5 months out. The lag time would be short.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            I was dumb and forgot something. Once SST’s start decreasing after an el nino has peaked, the troposphere is still getting warmer. This delay is different than waiting for water to boil.

            I’m thinking an el nino continues to add energy to the troposphere even as it weakens. This would produce the delay we see.

            Hunch: the slower an el nino weakens, the longer the delay will be before the troposphere temperature peaks.

        • Bindidon says:

          Sir Isaac Snapelton on October 5, 2017 at 7:04 PM

          What does that have to do with lag time? Are you sure they were much different?

          Yes. If you compare, peak against peak, NINO3+4 and UAH6.0 for the two periods, you see a lag of five months for 1997/98, and of only two months for 2015/16.

          The comparison with the far more complex MEI engineered by Klaus Wolters is of course less simple. MEI had in 1997/98 a double bump, what you don’t see in the NINO3+4 record.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Bindidon

            You’re right. Somehow I spaced that off. So my original comment about the heating element and pot…………does not hold water.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Bindidon

            I’m still on board with the “rate of cooling” idea. If you’re correct, the 97/98 event continued to warm the atmosphere for five months after SST’s had begun to fall. If SST’s had fallen more rapidly after the peak of the 2015/16 event, the “continued warming” of the atmosphere would have been more short lived in comparison.

    • Your right I don’t know why I was thinking differently.

  54. kingbum says:

    The correlation is pretty simple here….latent heat energy being released by melting ice keeps the summer temperatures in the arctic in check and the temperatures in the high arctic don’t get very much above freezing ever….right now you have a winter problem in the Arctic and that is because of two things….galactic cosmic rays carry star water and it interacts as water vapor in our atmosphere and the jet stream is out of whack and is more meridonal than zonal these days because of the weakening of both the sun and Earth’s magnetospheres. The north/south flow brings in more water vapor from temperate areas keeping the Arctic warmer than normal……It’s all natural and nothing to worry about very little of this is due to man…..just need a basic understanding of one of two things….science or history….history will tell you this is all cyclical as well

    • Des says:

      Melting ice ABSORBS heat. It does NOT release heat.

        • Des says:

          It is sad to see someone who has spent time learning correct terminology thus giving the superficial appearance of someone who knows what they are talking about, but who has no idea about the science behind these words.

          • Dr No says:

            And there are plenty here who fall into that category.
            So sad!

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            You clowns rant on Kingbum but proclaim [email protected]$$ things like:
            1. The atmosphere is twice as powerful as the sun.
            2. The GHE heats the earth and the sun. They are both warmer together!
            3. Standing next to a block of ice will warm you up! How does your skin “know” not to absorb IR from the ice!!

            Hilarious!

          • Des says:

            SGW
            Still waiting for you to answer my physics question.

          • SkepticGoneWild says:

            Despicable,
            So predictable. I knew you would do that. Why would I waste my time taking orders from you? I’m glad you wasted time looking stuff up you don’t understand. It’s what you do.

          • Norman says:

            SkepticGoneWild

            All your points are not validated by things people have posted. You made them up on your own.

            YOU:

            1. The atmosphere is twice as powerful as the sun.

            MY RESPONSE: The atmosphere has temperature when the Sun sets at night. The global energy balance graphs take this into consideration but obviously the thought process is too complex for you to comprehend.

            2. The GHE heats the earth and the sun. They are both warmer together!

            MY RESPONSE: No, the GHE allows a heated surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature than a surface under identical conditions with no GHE. The Earth does not heat the Sun. The presence of the Earth in the Solar System will have two possible effects. A very tiny increase in temperature to give off more energy that is not going out because of the Earth, or a slight expansion that will increase surface area an allow the energy to be realeased.

            3. Standing next to a block of ice will warm you up! How does your skin “know” not to absorb IR from the ice!!

            MY RESPONSE: It will if you were standing to something colder than the ice, otherwise it will not. Your skin will absorb IR from all sources around it regardless of their temperature. You claim you studied physics and you are not aware of this? I linked you to textbooks stating this very thing. Why won’t you read the science?

          • Des says:

            SGW
            Do what?? Given that I don’t make any of those claims, you can’t have been talking about me.

            You’re avoiding my Physics question – I KNEW YOU WOULD DO THAT.
            It’s the kind of problem a REAL physics student would love to do.
            Rote learning gets you only so far in your understanding of science.

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          LMAO. I thought you clowns think IR is “heat”. Right? Ice gives off IR, which is heat according to you buffoons. The pseudoscience of the alarmist freaks is so entertaining. And [email protected]$$ gives this a +1. The guy who thinks the earth heats the sun.

          • Des says:

            IR is indeed not heat. I have not stated that it is nor thought it.
            Do you enjoy your straw man arguments?

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        I have a question about this: if you drop some ice cubes into a bowl of warm water, energy in the water will be used to break the bonds that form the ice. This will cause the water to cool.
        My question is, what happens to the energy used to break the ice bonds?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          snape…”I have a question about this: if you drop some ice cubes into a bowl of warm water, energy in the water will be used to break the bonds that form the ice. This will cause the water to cool.
          My question is, what happens to the energy used to break the ice bonds?”

          First question to ask is how the ice bonds were formed in the first place. Someone removed the thermal energy from the water till it reached 0C when a change of state occurred. That involves subjecting the water to lower temps, as in a refrigerator.

          Second question. How would you break the bonds? You would drop the ice into warmer water, which has it’s atoms/molecules at a higher thermal energy level. The ice would absorb thermal energy from the water, the bonds would break.

          Now for your question, what happens to the energy used to break the bonds?

          That leads to another question. What energy is snape talking about and what is it? The energy is thermal energy and it’s the average kinetic energy of the atoms that make up the water molecules. So you have sets of molecules that have lower kinetic energy and sets of molecules with a higher kinetic energy.

          A basic principle in heat transfer is that molecules of a higher kinetic energy will merge with molecules of a lower kinetic energy until they reach thermal equilibrium.

          What happened to the energy? Again, it is the average kinetic energy of atoms. The energy averages out till the overall kinetic energy of all atoms in the mix is in equilibrium.

          The energy is averaged out among all the atoms/molecules.

          If you want to get more technical, the existing water molecules are made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The atoms are bonded together by electrons and/or their charges. Electrons in the atoms exist at certain energy levels based on the temperature of the water. The electrons in the atoms of ice exist at lower energy levels.

          When you mix the ice and the water, electrons in the water drops to lower energy levels through collision and electrons in the ice rise to higher energy levels due to the same collision. When the ice melts it becomes water with electrons at a lower level than the existing water into which you dropped the ice. Eventually all the electrons reach similar energy levels and the temperature evens out at the equilibrium temperature.

          • Des says:

            Surprisingly all correct … *UNTIL* you indicated that you believed that THERMAL energy of water is concerned with electron states.

          • Dr No says:

            Agreed, another example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            des…”Surprisingly all correct *UNTIL* you indicated that you believed that THERMAL energy of water is concerned with electron states”.

            There are two atomic particles at work in water, electrons and protons. It’s the difference in charge between the two that account for ANY kind of inter-atomic bonds. Temperature change in molecules occurs in the bonds, which are about electrons.

            Where do you think the heat comes from in water? Electrons govern heat by their energy levels. Protons are incapable of changing energy levels, electrons are the variable parameter. Neutrons seem along for the ride.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            You should study some Chemistry as well as physics.

            The electrons do not change energy levels in low temperature collisions. That is the realm of visible light. An object must be quite hot to emit this EMR to any degree.

            The heat in water comes from the normal motion of the entire molecule, moving in one direction, possessing kinetic energy similar to a macroscopic object, it will exchange energy in a collision with other molecules.

            You really need to study some real physics. Your crap you peddle is getting old and not even fun to read for amusement. What is up with you and your obsession to peddle made up physics. Every post with some science in it you post this made up physics you conjured up in your own imagination. Can you stop doing this? Who are you doing it for?

            Are you a paid troll who is getting money to make the Skeptic side of the debate look like morons?

            So far I have not seen any of the Skeptics on this blog link to established science. They post their own made up versions of science and peddle them or link to their own blog.

            I will consider Skeptics views when they are able to support their claims with established physics. I guess it will be a long time for that event to happen.

          • Des says:

            Norman
            You saved me the trouble of a long post. It’s good to see someone here knows some physics. I think Gordon Robertson’s science comes from skimming through Google search results rather than any actual education in the material. He certainly would have failed an exam based on that one.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”You should study some Chemistry as well as physics”.

            I don’t know how you’d arrive at such a conclusion since you have demonstrated no understanding of basic physics other than what you have gleaned from reading and misinterpreting books on physics.

            I have applied atomic level physics over decades in the fields of electronics, electrical, and computers. You can’t work in those fields successfully without understand the properties of atomic particles like electrons and how they work in circuits.

            I have also studied the basics of physics and chemistry in engineering studies at university. I have studied covalent and ionic bonding in molecules both in general chemistry and as applied to semiconductors. I even took a semester course in very basic semiconductor theory that involved measuring electron energy levels as applied in semiconductors.

            Heck, Des even gave me a passing grade in my understanding of atomic level physics even though he balked at my claim about electrons and their importance in heating. I can live with that.

            You claim electrons don’t change energy levels during low temperature collisions. Then how do they warm through such collisions? There has to be variables in atoms to allow them to change. The electron is the variable, it’s the only part of the atom that can change wrt kinetic energy.

            The only way an atom can warm is if it’s electrons absorb more energy. If they absorb more energy they MUST rise to a higher energy level. Ultimately, if they rise to too high an energy level they leave the atom and become free electrons, leaving the atom ionized.

            You claim further: The heat in water comes from the normal motion of the entire molecule, moving in one direction, possessing kinetic energy similar to a macroscopic object, it will exchange energy in a collision with other molecules.”

            What energy, Norman? It is thermal energy. Thermal energy is the kinetic energy of atoms and it is changed by the electrons only.

            What is a molecule, Norman? It is two or more atoms bound together by electrons or charges related to electrons. The electron is vital to the molecule and it is the electron that absorbs energy, not the molecule per se.

            The electron changes the temperature of water. All atoms/molecules are nothing more than an aggregation of electrons/protons. There are neutrons but they don’t participate in electrical activity since they are neutral. The proton is bound to the nucleus leaving the electron as the only means of temperature change.

            The vibrations in molecules are due to the electrons, or their negative charges, that bond the atoms together to form a molecule. Without electrons there would be no molecule and no vibration.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            des…”I think Gordon Robertsons science comes from skimming through Google search results rather than any actual education in the material”.

            Science is not about what YOU think. If you want to go at a one on one debate on atomic physics then let’s do it. If you want to really get your ass kicked let’s talk electronics or electrical theory, even computer hardware theory.

            It is you alarmists on this blog with your pseudo-scientific propaganda that is the problem. Not one of you can offer a coherent and objective reply to what I have claimed. All you offer is ad homs, insults, and obfuscation. I offer insults but I back it with theory which can be corroborated.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dr no…”Agreed, another example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing”.

            Another armchair physicist. I have yet to see you offer any insight whatsoever into climate or physics. All you do is offer inane articles from alarmists in the media with the insinuation they are somehow related to anthropogenic warming.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            des…”You saved me the trouble of a long post”.

            You mean you saved yourself the embarrassment of revealing your abject ignorance of science. With one-liners you can hide behind the illusion that you know what you’re saying. With a detailed reply you would reveal to the world how little you really know.

            Imagine hiding behind a post of norman in which he posted utter rubbish while insinuating he was some kind of authority on physics. Did you really fall for that?

          • Svante says:

            Gordon says:
            “The only way an atom can warm is if its electrons absorb more energy. If they absorb more energy they MUST rise to a higher energy level.”

            When you say “energy level”, do you mean orbital level?
            https://tinyurl.com/y7bhy84v

        • alphagruis says:

          My question is, what happens to the energy used to break the ice bonds?

          The energy is stored in the form of chemical or potential energy, the potential being the total potential energy that describes the interaction between all the molecules.
          Two molecules attract each other at larger distances and may form weak bonds when “coming into contact”. These bonds are called Van der Waals bonds and water molecules can even form stronger so called H bonds.
          In ice this mean potential energy is low because the molecules form a specific pattern of well ordered H and VdW bonds. Each molecule is essentially in his electronic ground state but the latter is fairly perturbed by the presence of the other molecules and the electrons rearrange in a particularly favorable configuration with much lower energy than in isolated water molecules in vapor.
          In liquid water this mean potential energy is fairly higher because the ordered arrangement in space of the molecules in ice is lost, stable bona fide H and VdW bonds can no longer be formed, yet “they can still form and break very rapidly”, the molecules remain close to each other, everyone bound to the whole thing, all are strongly interacting so that the mean energy of whole thing is still well below the one of a collection of isolated molecules far apart .
          The latent heat of fusion (about 6 kJ/mole) is thus a measure of the difference in energy of the bonding pattern between molecules in ice and liquid.
          In the same way the latent heat of vaporization (about 40 kJ/mole) is a measure of the very large difference in bonding between liquid and gas where H and VdW bonds can no longer exist and form at all.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Thanks for the explanations!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            alphagarius…”The energy is stored in the form of chemical or potential energy, the potential being the total potential energy that describes the interaction between all the molecules”.

            Good overall explanation but I think you need to go deeper. The energy stored is thermal energy and it is dependent on the energy levels of electrons. Electrons in covalent bonds, and their subsequent -ve charge in ionic bonds, or the van der Waal focess and hydrogen bonding you mention, rely 50% on the charge of electrons.

            Without electrons for bonding, you have no molecules and no means of producing heat or transferring heat. Although electrons are in the order of about 1/1800th the size of a proton, they have an equal and opposite charge. Without that negative charge, you have no bonding or any other inter-atomic force of consequence.

            Molecules and other inter-atomic bonds in solids vibrate due to the charge difference between electrons and protons. The positive nuclei comprised of +vely charge protons repel each other whereas the negatively charged electrons are attracted to the nuclei. Their alleged momentum keeps them from falling into the nucleii, just as the Moon’s momentum keeps it from spiraling into the Earth. The vibration comes from the equal and opposite polarities working against each other.

            When we talk about IR being absorbed by a CO2 molecule, we are actually talking about the electrons in the C – O bonds rising to a higher energy level as the electrons absorb the IR. The more energetic electrons cause the increased bond vibrations which represents the heating in the CO2 molecule.

          • Ball4 says:

            “When we talk about IR being absorbed by a CO2 molecule, we are actually talking about the electrons in the C O bonds rising to a higher energy level as the electrons absorb the IR.”

            How much absorbed energy does it take for that electronic level jump from base level to 1st electronic level Gordon? A commenter of your self-professed education and experience ought to be able to tell us roughly in, say, decade multiples of order kT (the avg. energy of a molecule).

          • Svante says:

            Gordon,
            Learn about vibrational modes here, or at least look at the pictures:
            https://tinyurl.com/y8t9n8hh

          • Svante says:

            IR a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n occur when the frequency of the a.b.s.o.r.b.e.d radiation matches the vibrational frequency.

      • barry says:

        I’m familiar with the argument kingbum poorly articulated.

        He thinks the sea ice that keeps Arctic waters insulated from releasing their heat will permit it when sea ice concentration reduces.

        Yes, that begs a bunch of questions.

        • Des says:

          Really?? He seems to be claiming a release of heat DUE to ice melting. His first sentence doesn’t suggest that to me at all, especially given his use of the term “LATENT heat”.

        • barry says:

          I hope for his sake I’m right. Melting ice itself releases heat? Oh boy.

          But that would not be the craziest thing he said:

          galactic cosmic rays carry star water and it interacts as water vapor in our atmosphere

          • Des says:

            I didn’t get that far – I stopped after the first sentence. Sounds like the fiction of a flat-earther, or like the believers in the “electric universe”. I wouldn’t be surprised if we had a few of the latter visiting this blog. They believe the earth revolves around the sun due to electromagnetism – apparently there is no such thing as gravity. I think Gordon might be a contender for this group.

    • Bindidon says:

      kingbum on October 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM

      Wow. A new climate megastar is born.

      • Dr No says:

        Just like cockroaches.

        • Harry Cummings says:

          Dr No

          Such a pleasant comment

          Regards
          HC

          • Des says:

            Harry Cummings

            Just to prove that you are consistent in your thinking, would you please post this same reply to one of Gordon Robertson’s, one of SkepticGoneWild’s and one of ClimateChange4realz’s “pleasant” comments. We would hate to think your concept of pleasantness was skewed by your belief in climate change.

          • Des says:

            Edit: Belief CONCERNING climate change.

  55. Dr No says:

    Just in:
    “On Tuesday, 2017 officially became the wettest year in Houston history.
    Due to Hurricane Harvey, this week’s light showers were enough to push the yearly rainfall total past 72.86 inches, the previous record which was set in 1900 when the Great Galveston Hurricane made landfall and killed thousands along the coast.
    The new rainfall record isn’t just impressive because it’s big, it’s also incredibly early.
    Three months remain until the end of the year and 2017 has already beat out other extremely rain-heavy years, many of which also broke records because of tropical storms or hurricanes.”
    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-weather/article/houston-harvey-rainfall-climate-change-2017-12254111.php

  56. ren says:

    Fuego volcano ERUPTS sending ash 5km into the sky after 12 eruptions in ONE HOUR.
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/862368/Volcano-of-fire-volcan-de-fuego-eruption-guatemala-bali-indonesia

  57. ren says:

    The graphics on the right show the mean September sea ice extent on the northern hemisphere. The plotted values correspond approximately to the sea ice area that ‘survived’ the summer melt in the respective years

    The graph illustrates a decreasing trend in sea ice extent since 1978, with annual variations of occationally more than 1 million square kilometres.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_nh_iceextent_monthly-09_en.png

    • barry says:

      Very similar data plotted on a graph that shows the annual variation more clearly.

      http://tinyurl.com/ydyb8jut

      For one year the difference in september sea ice extent was nearly 2 mil sq/km, and in another, 1.5 mil sq/km.

      Here’s the N.S.I.D.C update on this year’s September minimum.

      http://tinyurl.com/ya2hw9x9

      Arctic sea ice extent for September 2017 averaged 4.87 million square kilometers (1.88 million square miles), the seventh lowest in the 1979 to 2017 satellite record. This was 1.67 million square kilometers (645,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average, and 1.24 million square kilometers (479,000 square miles) above the record low September set in 2012.

      The Antarcic sea ice has had a very unusual year.

      Antarctic sea ice may have reached its maximum extent on September 15, at 17.98 million square kilometers (6.94 million square miles), among the earliest maxima on record. If this date and extent hold, it will be the second-lowest daily maximum in the satellite record, 20,000 square kilometers (7,700 square miles) above 1986. Antarctic sea ice extent has been at record or near-record lows since September 2016. A series of recent studies have explored causes of the sudden decline in extent that occurred in austral late winter and spring of 2016. Most studies conclude that an unusual period of strong meridional windsconsistent with a very pronounced negative phase of the Southern Annular Mode index, coupled with a significant wave-3 pattern in the atmospheric circulationwere the cause. A wave-3 pattern refers to a tendency for circulation around the southern continent to resemble a three-leaf clover, rather than the more typical near-zonal (along lines of longitude) pattern.

      More info at link.

  58. ren says:

    October 11 is a predicted magnetic storm. Will it be the ignition for the eruption of Mount Agung in Bali?

  59. Barry/Bindidon I am being made more aware of things thank to your contributions.

    As I said the fact that we disagree is good. That is how we learn.

    Des, David also make good contributions.

  60. I wanted to post this again, and add the solar parameters I think are needed. These parameters are not in full force, but close and coming I believe. My other condition was 10+ years of sub solar activity in general which is in place.

    POTENTIAL COOLING

    What I am trying to say is La Nina does not factor into my cooling ,although it will cause cooling.

    Here is what I am looking for to accompany the potential cooling if my thoughts may be correct.

    Factors with the cooling if it comes that will make me confident.

    1. Very low solar activity

    a. solar wind 350 km/sec or lower

    b. ap index 5 or lower with random very high spikes

    c. cosmic ray counts 6500 units or greater

    d. euv light 100 units or lower, uv light off 5% or more

    e. solar flux sub 90

    f, imf field 4.2 nt or lower

    g. solar irradiance off .05% or more

    2. Overall lower sea surface temperatures on a global basis

    3. A slight increase in albedo

    a. due to an increase in global cloud coverage

    b. due to an increase in global snow coverage, sea ice

    c. due to a N.H more meridional atmospheric circulation

    d. due to an increase in major volcanic activity.

    • Des says:

      How much of an increase in sea ice? Where are you expecting next September’s Arctic sea ice minimum to lie?

      As only equatorial VEI5+ volcanoes lead to cooling, and we have had only two of those in the past 50 years, you’re going to have to do better then wish for an increased eruption rate. You’re going to have to wish for about a fivefold increase just to keep the cooling going.

      And you ARE wishing for this … you desperately WANT there to be massive cooling. Pride ahead of suffering.

      • It is all the above volcanic activity just one small part.

        The two big ones for cooling as far as I am concerned if I am correct would be an increase in global cloud coverage and a drop in overall sea surface temperatures.

      • No I am not wishing for suffering or anything like that.

        I have just come up with a theory that how cooling could come about if solar activity is very low for a long enough duration of time.

        Global warming if it were to get out of hand would also cause suffering.

    • barry says:

      With only one of those components failing to make the grade your prediction is canceled?

      Looks like a lot of ways to back off you prediction. Surely one of those is not going to make the cut.

      • You are right these parameters are very low and hard to al hit at the same time but I think they hit pretty much during the 2008-2010 period.

        Let me say they have to come close to hitting allowing for me to be wrong easier.

        As of now the only parameters I have mentioned that are not near my criteria are solar wind/AP index ,and IMF field.

        Everything else is pretty much there or close enough.

  61. Bindidon says:

    For barry and other interested persons:

    http://m.uploadedit.com/bbtc/1507293557582.txt

    a handmade transcription of

    WeatherBELL NCEP CFSR / CDASv2 monthly
    Surface temperature 2m above ground Jan 1979 – Aug 2017
    by Dr Ryan Maue

    Obtained from public data visible on: http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_monthly.php

    • barry says:

      That’s probably the best thing that’s been done here for months. Thanks. Bookmarked.

    • How do you do it Bindidon! Amazing data. Wow! Thanks!

      • Bindidon says:

        You’re welcome Salvatore.

        As I didn’t find that data within Ryan Maue’s site, I simply moved within the page from year to year and from month to month, and copied the value displayed. Tedious but useful.

        Please don’t forget to mention the origin when you use it.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      Cool!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”For barry and other interested persons: http://m.uploadedit.com/bbtc/1507293557582.txt

      You have directed us to a NOAA climate forecasting system, the output of a climate model.

      In late 1997, when the huge El Nino was under way, it was predicting a global average of 0.071C for December when the actual global average was rocketing to nearly 0.8C.

      Throughout 1998, the highest temp it predicted was around 0.267 C. What use is a climate model that could not predict the 1998 EN extreme?

      It also missed the 2010 extreme and got 3.4 of the way to the 2016 extreme.

      Barry thinks that’s the best thing that has been done here for months.

      Don’t worry, I won’t forget to mention the origin when I quote it.

      • barry says:

        Gordon,

        Bindidon put that together because Salvatore prefers this data (and UAH) above all else.

        I’m not partial to it, and I don’t think anyone else here is apart from Salvatore.

        What Bindidon did was kind and helpful – an aid to the discussion (Sal started it). Giving monthly anomalies that Weatherbell doesn’t provide on a single page in text form, keying in a few hundred monthly anomalies by hand.

        It was a collegial gesture for the benefit of others. That’s why I think it was the best thing done around here in months.

      • barry says:

        You have directed us to a NOAA climate forecasting system, the output of a climate model.

        Salvatore directed us there way upthread. He wanted to understand why the Sept anomaly was so different to UAH. We discussed the difference between sat data and a reanalysis product of surface temps.

    • Des says:

      Here are graphs of UAH minus Weatherbell:

      Monthly:
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2v56RP5XU7GOUQ5ZEd4a2RSWWs/view?usp=sharing

      5-month moving average:
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2v56RP5XU7GR3lmS0RhWjRuWEU/view?usp=sharing

      13-month moving average:
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2v56RP5XU7GelllUV9Xc0J3Y1E/view?usp=sharing

      From 1999 to 2008, either Weatherbell is running hot or UAH is running cold. I wonder which. There certainly can be no physical reason for a sudden datum shift from 2007 to 2009.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        des…”either Weatherbell is running hot or UAH is running cold”.

        Are you serious??? UAH gets there data directly from NOAA satellites and weather bell gets the fudged NOAA data from NOAA. Which one do you think is the more accurate?

  62. ren says:

    Why weather forecasts do not always come true?
    The reason is the variability of solar activity.

    • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

      About this time last year, global sea ice extent started falling to record lows. Looking now at the much warmer than usual air mass above the Arctic Ocean, I think the same thing is about to happen again.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        I’m going to keep pointing this out:

        Here is a peak at the air 2 meters above the Arctic Ocean. It looked like this EVERY DAY from September, 2016 – March 2017

        Starting a few weeks ago, as if right on que, the warm anomaly is back.

        http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#GFS-025deg.ARC-LEA.T2_anom

        • Bindidon says:

          Sir Isaac

          Thanks for the link, it does exactly what I all the time hope Roy Spencer would one day manage to provide us with, showing his monthly UAH 2.5 deg grid anomalies in the same manner over the entire satellite era.

          Un de ses etudiants aimerait certainement se mettre quelque chose de semblable sous la dent, n’est-ce pas?

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Bindidon

            Yes. I wish Roy would show that.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”I all the time hope Roy Spencer would one day manage to provide us with, showing his monthly UAH 2.5 deg grid anomalies in the same manner over the entire satellite era”.

            Do you think satellites scan in 2.5 degree grids? Only used car salesmen like NOAA use such grids because they don’t have the data to show the areas in real time.

            They synthesize most of it!!! When are you going to get that?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          snape…”Here is a peak at the air 2 meters above the Arctic Ocean. It looked like this EVERY DAY from September, 2016 March 2017…”

          It’s a climate model for cripes sake. There’s no one there measuring it.

          Why don’t you read the accounts of people who have been to the North Pole, like Ranulph Fiennes and Pat Farmer? Farmer was there later in the year than Fiennes, around March, and he visited the Russian weather station located near the Pole. They reported ice ten feet thick at the Pole. Do you think 10 feet of ice forms with mild temperatures?

          You alarmists are getting sillier every day.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Gordon

            In winter, If it’s 40 F above average over the Arctic Ocean, it’s still really cold. Duh.

            I can’t use a GFS model to tell what the weather is like in Vancouver, BC.?

          • ren says:

            Satellite Products
            The ice surface temperature strongly affects heat exchange between the surface and the atmosphere and the rate of ice growth. In order to perform proper forecasting of weather and sea-ice conditions, it is essential to obtain accurate surface temperatures.
            http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice_temp/index.uk.php

          • Dr No says:

            LOL.
            Poor Gordon will only believe observations taken by Ranulph Fiennes and Pat Farmer!
            Somebody explain to him what an anomaly is.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            drno…”Poor Gordon will only believe observations taken by Ranulph Fiennes and Pat Farmer!”

            They were there!!! They both walked from the mainland to the NP and the reverse, in the case of Farmer.

            How many of the limp wristed modelers get up there to validate their pseudo-scienctific models?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        snape…”About this time last year, global sea ice extent started falling to record lows”.

        What planet were you on? In January 2017, there was ten feet of ice at the North Pole. It extended from near the Siberian coast to the north of Canada. That’s on turbulent, salty, sea water that takes much lower temps to freeze. You would need sustained temperatures below -40 C to bring that about.

        Enough of the Arctic sea ice melting hoax. It is a record low for the one month of the year that represents the Arctic summer.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Gordon, he is living on earth. Where are you living?

          https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/global-sea-ice

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Young snake is trying out his latest humor, and Tim jumps in to support the pseudoscience.

            This from an article written in 1922:

            The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the easter Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto un-heard-of high temperatures in that part of the earths surface.

            There were few seal in Spitzbergen waters this year, the catch being far under the average. This, however, did not surprise the captain. He pointed out that formerly the waters about Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3C; this year recorded temperatures up to 15C, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen.

            “The Changing Arctic”

            https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Do you think the source I showed, Climatereanalyzer, is fake news, while a report from 1922 must be accurate?

            I am inclined to believe both.

          • barry says:

            Isaac is talking about global sea ice. And he has actual data to back him up.

            The fact is, global sea ice has been at or near record lows for a year. This is mainly due to anomalous weather in the Antarctic.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Barry

            For me, it’s rather inevitable that Arctic sea ice extent will continue to trend downwards. What has me more interested, is why the temperature over the Arctic Ocean has been so consistently abnormal? 7 months straight last fall/winter (I checked almost every day), but everywhere else on the planet seemed to have the normal ups and downs. Now it appears to be happening again.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, check your (very brief) “actual data” for Arctic temps of 15C.

            “Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3C; this year recorded temperatures up to 15C, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen.”

            Don’t you just love pseudoscience?

          • barry says:

            I don’t, but I want to thank you for providing an example.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The funny part is CO2 can NOT heat the planet.

            Warmists can not get that in their head. They grasp at data-set after data-set, graph after graph, hoping for some evidence to prove their “belief system”.

            It’s called pseudoscience, and it’s hilarious to watch.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            C02 heats the earth only in a figurative sense. This has been explained to you over and over, but you’re forever pretending otherwise. It’s like criticizing someone every time they use the word “sunrise”. Pathetic

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            snake expounds: “C02 heats the earth only in a figurative sense.”

            Now that is funny, snake. That’s a new one. Original comedic pseudoscience–I love it.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”C02 heats the earth only in a figurative sense. This has been explained to you over and over, but youre forever pretending otherwise. Its like criticizing someone every time they use the word sunrise”.

            You see, snape, in science we like to be precise. CO2 is either warming the atmosphere or it’s not. Observation is a hallmark of science and a good observer will note that the sun is not rising.

            Some of us scientific types take exception to climate alarmists spreading sheer figurative nonsense to convince the general public we have a problem when in fact we do not. The late Stephen Schneider, a climate modeler, once queried whether a scientist should lie to get what they consider an important point across to the public. He seemed to think that was OK, I don’t.

            There’s a rumour in the hallowed halls of engineering that an engineer was once observing Lady Godiva riding naked through Coventry. He was the only one to apparently observe that she was riding a horse.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Gordon

          According to GFS, Vancouver airport was 12 C at 11:00 am.

          Is this a hoax?

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Gordon

            According to GFS:

            The atmosphere at 2 meters above most of the Arctic Ocean will hover around – 10 C. for the next several days. You think this is incorrect? What does Pat Farmer say?

          • Dr No says:

            I heard that Pat Farmer is packing his long Johns and will be heading to the Arctic to check it out. He has booked his train ticket so we will know the answer in about a month.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”The atmosphere at 2 meters above most of the Arctic Ocean will hover around 10 C. for the next several days”.

            Let’s see where it’s at in December, January, and February and see how thick the ice is at the NP.

            It’s not unusual for temps at the NP to rise to nearly 0C mid-winter, Calgary, in Alberta, Canada, is famous for its chinooks. I was there one day when temperatures on one side of a main N/S highway were -20C and on the other side it was about +5C.

            Weather has a way of quickly moving air around, even in a frozen environment.

            Let’s just say I would not want to try surviving at the NP in an Arctic winter. If the cold don’t snuff you out the polar bears will. We have alarmists whining about polar bears dying off. Let them, for all I care, they are the most treacherous of animals, killing for the sheer joy of it.

          • Dr No says:

            Have you warned Pat Farmer?
            Tell him to pack his blunderbuss.
            (although they may not let him carry that on board the train)

  63. ren says:

    Reports from an Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft
    indicate that maximum sustained winds are near 50 mph (85 km/h)
    with higher gusts. Strengthening is forecast during the next couple
    of days, and Nate is expected to become a hurricane by the time it
    reaches the northern Gulf of Mexico.

    Tropical-storm-force winds extend outward up to 115 miles (185 km)
    mainly to the east of the center. NOAA buoy 42056, located to the
    north of the center, recently reported a 1-minute average wind of
    38 mph (61 km/h) and a wind gust of 49 mph (79 km/h).

    The minimum central pressure recently reported by the Hurricane
    Hunter is 996 mb (29.42 inches).

    • ren says:

      New Orleans must be quickly ready for a hurricane. The tropical storm will be in the north of the Gulf of Mexico tomorrow.

  64. Bindidon says:

    Often enough during the 7-8 last years I read in comments (especially at WUWT) that anomalies are
    useless;
    a manipulation invented by alarmists and other warmunistas;
    much less informative than absolute values.

    Sometimes I tried to convince (with the success everybody can imagine) by publishing comments with two graphs, one with absolute values, one with anomalies what a strange word indeed, but who finds a better shortcut for time series deltas with annual cycle removal ?

    Is it really a matter of taste to decide which of the two graphs below

    http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1507315724836/001.jpg
    or
    http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1507315978779/001.jpg

    is more useful?

    And today I discovered by accident these two SST pictures at WeatherBELL, giving a beautiful comparison of the same vein:

    http://models.weatherbell.com/sst/globe_cdas1.png
    vs.
    http://models.weatherbell.com/sst/globe_cdas1_anom.png

    The former tells you what everybody knows, namely that it is warmer in the Tropics, and cooler at the Poles.

    The latter tells you what not everybody imagines, namely where it is warmer / cooler than the average over a reference period.

    My humble guess: those who prefer absolute values never need to work with them.

    • Bindidon says:

      I had to split the comment (bypassing the link maximum).

      The same as described above applies to a choice between

      http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1507316296917/001.jpg
      and
      http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1507316367589/001.jpg

      Sea ice extent sources used to generate the Excel graphs:

      ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
      ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/

    • Bindidon if the baseline for the satellite data was from 1960- 1990 how much above average would global temperatures be for this year?

      Do you have that info available? Thanks.

      • Des says:

        Given that the satellite data starts in 1979, the only way to figure that out is to use land data. Is that what you’re looking for?

      • Bindidon says:

        Sorry Salvatore, but the question unfortunately makes few sense, as
        – you need the data during that period to calculate the baseline out of it (it is the mean e.g. for each of 12 twelve months);
        but
        – satellite data begins with 1978/1979.

      • barry says:

        Bindidon if the baseline for the satellite data was from 1960- 1990 how much above average would global temperatures be for this year?

        With a lower baseline anomalies would be higher. The global temperature would be exactly the same.

        • Bindidon says:

          I know barry. But I prefer to stay on known, reliable matters.

        • Exactly ,I would like to know how high the anomalies would be now if the baseline from 1960-1990 was used.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            salvatore…”Exactly ,I would like to know how high the anomalies would be now if the baseline from 1960-1990 was used”.

            The question arises as to why the alarmists at NOAA, GISS, and Had.crut are using such a short baseline to cover the entire historical record, which they have modified retroactively? The inclusion of the 1960s and into the 70s, which were considered colder times exaggerates current warming.

            The UAH baseline covers almost its entire record. What happens if we adjust the anomalies to the entire historical record from around 1850 onward?

          • Dr No says:

            Don’t be so lazy. Do it yourself.
            It is not that difficult to download the data and perform the calculations. I could do it in under 5 minutes.
            I bet you can’t.
            You are happy to sit back and throw rocks at all the work others do.
            Now’s your chance to back up your words with actions.

        • How high are the anomalies based on 1960-1990 baseline?

          That would mean more to see where we are at.

          • Bindidon says:

            One more time, Salvatore: to compute anomalies with respect to a baseline, e.g. 1961-1990, you must
            – (1) build, for each of the twelve months, the average of the absolute values measured in each corresponding month of the reference period;
            – (2) subtract, from each absolute month value in the whole record, the average computed in step (1) for the corresponding month.

            But as barry proposed, we could use the JMA surface record, which has the most similarity to UAH, and, in order to make it as simple as possible, compute in it the offset between the 1981-2010 and 1961-1990 baselines, and shift all UAH anonalies up by this offset.

            The offset value is 0.245.

          • Bindidon says:

            Of course, you have to do the job on a day basis for a daily oriented dataset, on a year basis for a yearly oriented one, etc etc.

            That can become quite complex if in addition you have a grid of e.g. 144 x 72 cells with 13 atmospheric pressure levels for each: all must have their own baseline value.

          • barry says:

            Yes, satellite data only begin in Nov/Dec 1978. There is no data to construct a baseline starting earlier than that.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Is it really a matter of taste to decide which of the two graphs below”

      Explain why the Antarctic sea ice is increasing in link two while the Arctic sea ice is decreasing? Does CO2 favour the Arctic or maybe global warming rises to the top???

      Also you might explain that the data applies to one or two months in and around the Arctic summer. The rest of the year, both areas as frozen solid.

  65. ren says:

    Now, the ice grows rapidly in the Laptev Sea. The Arctic Ocean will be divided into two parts.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00938/p46bc9nzq14a.png
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00938/643b0lgtlro2.png

  66. Bindidon says:

    g*e*r*a*n on October 6, 2017 at 2:57 PM

    Thanks for the interesting reference, g*e*r*a*n, but I prefer to rely on nake numbers concerning the actual situation.

    That the Arctic has been warmer then today in the 1930’s and even a bit more warm in the 1880’s, is a known fact.

    *

    Here is a graph containing the daily plots, for the period: Jan 1, 2015 till Oct 5, 2017, of the following data sets

    – Arctic sea ice extent;
    – Antarctic sea ice extent;
    – their sum.

    http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1507324542459/001.jpg

    Linear estimates for that period, im Mkm2 / decade:

    – Arctic: -10.5 +- 1.3 (decrease)
    – Antarctic: +5.35 +- 2.2 (increase)
    – Sum: -5.2 +- 1.1 (decrease)

    Sea ice extent sources:

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/

    Is that in your opinion pseudoscience too, g*e*r*a*n?
    Let me know…

    • Bindidon says:

      Note that these extreme increases / decreases are bound to a very short period.

      The sea ice extent estimates for Jan 1979- Apr 2017 in Mkm2 / decade are

      – Arctic: -0.55 +- 0.02
      – Antarctic: + 0.20 +- 0.02

      That is what we have to look at!

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        Gordon

        Nobody is claiming the North Pole is ice free. Far from it: According to Wikipedia:

        “Earth’s North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 34 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick.”

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      “…but I prefer to rely on nake numbers concerning the actual situation.”

      Is “nake” supposed to be “naked” or “fake”?

      You may well have known that the Arctic has been much warmer than this year. But, you did not point it out, as I did. You might ask yourself “Why”?

      “Is that in your opinion pseudoscience too”

      I’m ALWAYS wary of data from “institutionalized science”, until the “swamps” get drained. But, even if the Arctic readings are exactly correct, it means nothing as far as AGW, as you have now agreed.

      • Bindidon says:

        How can I agree upon things I do not know enough about?

        That would be – in either direction – belief instead of understanding.

        We all here do, in the sum, not at all know enough to state ‘It is AGW’ or ‘It is not AGW’, g*e*r*a*n.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Sorry Bin, my wording was not clear. I just meant to imply that you agreed that low sea ice does not mean anything, if historical records are considered.

          But, some of us DO know enough to state “It is not AGW”.

          • Bindidon says:

            Exactly g*e*r*a*n.

            The problem with you is that you think anybody stating ‘It is AGW’ is automatically incompetent.

            That you should avoid, quite a I on my side carefully avoid to think the inverse.

            I know, you will reply something I don’t need, but you can’t stop by your own.

            ‘Das ist der unbeherrschte Drang, das letzte Wort zu haben’.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Gordon still thinks low sea ice is a hoax. Maybe you could convince him otherwise?

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            He won’t listen to reason, but maybe he would listen to another fool.

  67. Bindidon says:

    Robertson on October 6, 2017 at 12:38 PM

    Robertson troll, you get day after day a bit more dumb.

    All you are able to do is to lie about people or to discredit people. You are unable to discuss even simple matters.

    How long will you need to understand that surface temperatures do not match satellite temperatures and vice-versa, especially during big El Nino events?

    How long?

    Here is a plot comparing WeatherBELL, UAH6.0 and JMA, the ‘coolest’ surface record:

    http://4GP.ME/bbtc/15073318916/001.jpg

    WeatherBELL has his data and algorithms, JMA has his data and algorithms.

    Their time series differ here and there, but their linear estimates are identical. Their differences with UAH are in average quite similar.

    *

    How can such a thoroughly irrelevant, incompetent loudmouth like you doubt about the accuracy of other peoples work?

    Who are you in comparison with a Dr Ryan Maue? What do you represent in comparison with him? A handful of peanuts. Do you think such a person would ever rely on NOAA’s work if he did not consider it trustworthy?

    Think instead of writing, Robertson, it might be an experience for you, with as possible result a bit more respect for the work of others.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Bin, just above, you indicated your “moral code” prevented you from calling people “incompetent”.

      Then, 20 minutes later, you called Gordon “incompetent”.

      In the future, maybe you should wait more than 20 minutes before you violate your own “code of conduct”.

      As always, glad to help.

      • Bindidon says:

        No g*e*r*a*n … you are wrong here.

        ‘Just above’ as you wrote, I said that I would carefully avoid to pretend anybody being incompetent when s/he says: ‘IT’s not AGW’ (and conversely, I carefully avoid to pretend anybody being incompetent when s/he says: ‘IT’s AGW’).

        Because whichever the arguments these persons would present, I am not scientifically qualified to determine which of these are right.

        What concerns your troll naming me an idiot, he has shown often enough his incompetence. The most recent event is the nonsense he wrote about the Arctic warming he considers inexistent just because somewhere ice is x meters thick.

        No 12 years old person would do that today.

        And there are so many other examples, g*e*r*a*n, e.g. his nonsense discussion about Rudolf Clausius, about GHCN stations, etc.

        It’s now 3:00 AM here, and I stop this boring comment.

        Good night.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”What concerns your troll naming me an idiot, he has shown often enough his incompetence. The most recent event is the nonsense he wrote about the Arctic warming he considers inexistent just because somewhere ice is x meters thick”.

          I call myself an idiot when I make egregious errors. That’s when I’m being nice to myself. I think all humans are idiots at one time or another.

          That’s why I call you an idiot. You have ten metres of ice at the North Pole in January and you don’t understand why.

          There is no sun!!! Do you seriously think any amount of CO2 in the Arctic atmosphere will warm it with no or little Sun for several months? The lack of solar energy allows very cold air from the upper atmosphere to descend on the Arctic.

          If there is 5C warming in certain spots of the Arctic, which move around monthly, and there is no sun to warm the place, how can you call that warming? It warms from -50C to -45C due to unknown causes. It’s still a frozen wasteland.

          The idiots who claim Arctic ice is melting are referring to one month that is the Arctic summer. There is no one up there in winter measuring ice extent and no one talks about the Arctic ice cover, which covers the Arctic ocean at times, from Siberia to the Canadian shores with 10 metres of ice.

          It has to be damned cold to cover a turbulent ocean of salt water with 10 metres of ice.

          People have walked across the ice in winter to the North Pole.

          Why do you fall for this alarmist bs. I am sure you are an intelligent guy, why do you talk like an idiot at times? Get over this fetish you have with authority and start asking hard questions.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny….”Because whichever the arguments these persons would present, I am not scientifically qualified to determine which of these are right.

          What concerns your troll naming me an idiot, he has shown often enough his incompetence”.

          How would you know I am scientifically incompetent if you admit you are not scientifically qualified? Logic like that ‘might’ get you a degree in anthropology but not in physics or engineering.

          You need to prove I am wrong using scientific reasoning and proof, not base you opinion on other alarmists on this blog.

          When it comes to Clausius, he stated clearly that heat cannot be transferred of it own from a colder body to a warmer body. He went deeply into that explanation and while explaining compensation he inadvertently claimed that a colder and a warmer body can exchange heat.

          You jumped to a conclusion that Clausius had claimed a colder body can warm a warmer body but he was talking in the context of compensation. In his demonstrations, he used heat reservoirs to ensure that.

          If a colder body is to exchange heat with a warmer body, the colder body must be compensated immediately for it’s heat loss. That cannot take place in our atmosphere.

          A colder body can transfer heat to a warmer body, we all know a refrigerator or air conditioner do that, however, there are certain requirements that must be in place in order for that to happen. With an air conditioner you need a compressor driven by external power, a special gas (re.frig.erant), a condenser, and an evapourator.

          The point is, under normal conditions, as in our atmosphere, heat cannot be transferred from a colder gas to a warmer gas, or a warmer surface. That pretty well rules out the GHE and AGW.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        g*r…”Then, 20 minutes later, you called Gordon incompetent”.

        I would have no argument with binny on that, I generally regard myself as incompetent, even an idiot. ☺

        I find it tough to endure this life without seeing the humourous side of things or engaging in self-deprecation. Me calling binny an idiot is like the stove calling the kettle black.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”How long will you need to understand that surface temperatures do not match satellite temperatures and vice-versa, especially during big El Nino events? ”

      All you need to do is compare ‘actual’ trend lines, not the number crunched trend based on plugging numbers into a calculator. The UAH trend begins in a region of negative anomalies, crosses the baseline, which is the global average from 1980 – 2010, rises a smidgeon, then flattens out till 2015. The IPCC has corroborated the flat trend from 1998 – 2012, calling it a warming hiatus.

      The surface trend is a sheer positive trend from 1980 onward and it is significantly higher than the UAH trend.

  68. The offset value is 0.245.

    Makes sense Bindidon. Helps give more perspective on what has happened to the climate.

    • Svante says:

      Dear Salvatore, if Bindidons message had no ‘Reply’ link, please find the nearest one above it.

      • des says:

        He doesn’t understand this concept. I’ve been trying to teach him this basic etiquette for a few months now.

  69. Meaning if the climate cools by some .24c from here it would still need to cool another .24c or so to get back to 1960-1990 levels.

    Do you agree?

  70. Duncanbelem says:

    How much would you be willing to bet on AGW? 5$, 10$, your house?

    If the answer is your house? I doubt it.

    What about your car? Do you still drive it? I don’t care if it is electric, which is probably isn’t. Do you order things from the internet? Do you have solar panels? What is your MPG? Do you eat meat? Do you use you air conditioning? What about your heater?

    You say you know AGW is happening. Your actions speak otherwise.

    • barry says:

      I’ve offered many bets on AGW. No one has ever taken me up.

      Shall I propose a bet? What would your stake be?

      • Kristian says:

        So what would we need to observe in order to find out if “AGW” is happening or not, barry?

      • Duncanbelem says:

        That’s why I am a skeptic I do not know. I never said I know AGW doesn’t exist, I am skeptical it does exist. That’s why I wont give up my car. Do you drive a car?

      • barry says:

        I don’t own a car, but that is more to do with having little money than some moral choice.

      • barry says:

        So what would we need to observe in order to find out if AGW is happening or not, barry?

        I usually make an offer on a bet when a ‘skeptic’ makes some kind of predictive claim – usually about imminent cooling, or the return of the pause.

        So if you and I were to make a bet, I would be asking you if there was any outcome that would cause you to “believe” in AGW, or some set of conditions that “disprove” your own view of what causes/is causing climate change.

        Salvatore has risked a prediction for next year. I don’t think it’s going to “prove or disprove” AGW, but he’s committed to something based on how he views the climate system.

        The AGW view is pretty straightforward. As long as anthro emissions of CO2 continue unchecked, the global surface will continue to warm over the long term.

        • gbaikie says:

          -So if you and I were to make a bet, I would be asking you if there was any outcome that would cause you to believe in AGW, or some set of conditions that disprove your own view of what causes/is causing climate change.

          Salvatore has risked a prediction for next year. I dont think its going to prove or disprove AGW, but hes committed to something based on how he views the climate system.-

          I can’t think of anything that would make me believe in AGW.
          But there other option of a set of conditions which would disprove my view.

          Well, my view is that Earth was never a snowball:
          “The Snowball Earth hypothesis proposes that Earth’s surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago).” -wiki

          Related to this is that if put a lot water at Mars equator, it would increase the average temperature of Mars.
          But will make it more stark, if put a lot of -60 C snow/ice
          at the Mars equatorial region it will cause Mars become warmer.
          Of course presently the equatorial region is warmer than -60 C. So the immediate effect would be to make Mars have lower average temperature.

          I guess more people might agree that instead if you put enough -60 C snow on lunar equatorial region, that would cause the Moon be warmer.

          Of course both would be examples of AGW effects.
          And visual effect from Earth of snow on the equatorial of the Moon would be surprising.
          Btw would you think that such a thing could cause warming effect upon Earth?
          It’s cold making something warmer, argument, isn’t it?

          I think it’s better than ice cooking a turkey.

        • Kristian says:

          barry says, October 7, 2017 at 3:19 PM:
          So if you and I were to make a bet, I would be asking you if there was any outcome that would cause you to believe in AGW, or some set of conditions that disprove your own view of what causes/is causing climate change.

          Yes, and then I might ask you:

          Is there any outcome that will cause you to no longer believe in AGW, that an increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the climate to warm?

          The AGW view is pretty straightforward. As long as anthro emissions of CO2 continue unchecked, the global surface will continue to warm over the long term.

          Exactly. Which is why, being wedded to this particular conviction, you will end up believing – whether you’re conscious about it or not – that observing global temps increasing over time somehow itself constitutes evidence that your idea of what’s CAUSING that rise is correct.

        • barry says:

          Exactly. Which is why, being wedded to this particular conviction, you will end up believing whether youre conscious about it or not that observing global temps increasing over time somehow itself constitutes evidence that your idea of whats CAUSING that rise is correct.

          Yep, it does constitute….

          EVIDENCE

          …. that increasing conc of CO2 in atmos causes surface to warm.

          But that is not why I hold the opinion that it does.

          What would be the conditions under which you would accept a bet that AGW is real? As in, something observable in the future.

    • Bindidon says:

      I don’t bet on AGW, Duncanbelem.

      No car, using as less CO2 as possible. Why to use it if I can avoid doing??

      And yes, I ‘order things from the internet’, though I know that Amazon, Facebook etc etc have giant server farms partly driven by coal plants!

      I don’t say I ‘know AGW is happening’.

      I only say that not all IR reemitted by Earth in response to solar SW passing thru the atmosphere is evacuated out to space.

      That’s all I know and thus all I say. That’s enough, too.
      The rest I leave to people knowing more than I.

  71. Duncanbelem says:

    More food for thought. Don’t solar panels absorb solar radiation, which is then turned into energy, and eventually turns into heat? So couldn’t solar panels heat the earth if there enough of them? How does that compare to man made CO2?

    • barry says:

      Fossil fuel energy sytems turn cold fossil fuels into energy, too. Can you think of a way of comparing?

    • gbaikie says:

      Solar panels convert about 20% of sunlight into electrical power. Or said to to be about 20% efficient.
      A Solar thermal collector in contrast of about 60%. Or per square meter a solar thermal collector captures about 3 times the amount of energy as solar panels.
      And basically oceans are Nature’s solar thermal collectors.

      Solar panels aren’t a viable way to make electricity and a large amount of solar panels that exist are subsidized.
      If there were viable there would a lot of solar panels being used to make electricity, but solar panels only generate less than 1% of electrical power which needed.
      With say a coal electrical power plant they tend to more 50% efficient, which means of total heat generated more than 1/2 of the heat is converted to electrical power. Or about 1/2 of the heat energy is “wasted” but if purpose is to make heat to warm the world, it’s not “wasted”. Or it’s “100% efficient” in terms of warming the world.

      In terms of CO2 heating the world, no one knows how much CO2 warms the world, because the increased levels of CO2 has not had measurable warming effect. But some people think a doubling of CO2 would cause about 1 to 5 C of warming. Increase the average temperature of Earth by 1 to 5 C.
      Climate models which assumed a doubling of CO2 could cause 1 to 5 C increase in global temperature, have incorrectly predicted future warming. And therefore many assume that CO2 must cause less warming then they thought.
      But were a doubling of Co2 to cause 1 C increase in global average temperature, this would case more warming than all chemical combustion, whether it’s coal, oil, gas, or forest fires.

      • gbaikie says:

        Ah, but there is a thing I forget to mention, making solar panels costs a lot of energy- they require more viable energy to be used to make them. And since China makes most of the solar panels and China burns coal to make over 80% of their electrical power. I would say the heat added by making them is more the the heat from their use.

    • Bindidon says:

      Duncanbelem on October 6, 2017 at 10:52 PM

      Dont solar panels absorb solar radiation, which is then turned into energy, and eventually turns into heat?

      Hmmmh.

      1. Either you look at solar panels built over ordinary soil or upon roofs, and there you see that the panels won’t absorb much more than would have had the stuff below in their absence.

      Or you look at the giant solar farms actually built everywhere in desertic areas, and there indeed you see an increase of absorp-tion and a decrease of albedo because desert sand efficiently reflects sun light.

      2. But… what about considering, as barry slightly suggested, the heat generated by traditional plants?

      For each GWh you produce in a coal/gas driven or a nuclear plant, you have 3.3 GWh thermic energy dissipated into the environment (either into rivers, or into the atmosphere).

      3. Moreover, when comparing such things, you can’t reduce the comparison to the generation point.

      You have to consider, like for cost calculation or CO2 emissions, the heat produced during the entire process
      – from the plant’s construction till its dismantling;
      – during the plant’s existence of course, and, last not least,
      – from the extraction and processing of the resources needed to drive the plant till their disposal after energy production.

      Having that all, you then may compare.

      • Duncanbelem says:

        Good points, How do we know the Warming we are experiencing is CO2 and not power generation?

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Duncanbelem

          The energy produced by combustion and solar is transitory. CO2 accumulates.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”The energy produced by combustion and solar is transitory. CO2 accumulates”.

            Not exactly true. Besides, it’s accumulation over the past couple of hundred years only amounts to 0.04% of the atmosphere. Does that seriously scare you?

          • gbaikie says:

            — Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
            October 7, 2017 at 9:17 AM

            Duncanbelem

            The energy produced by combustion and solar is transitory. CO2 accumulates.–

            The heat from solar is not transitory unless you consider thousands of years transitory. And the presence of CO2 would transitory also in such timescales. One could argue that the heated ocean is far less transitory than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but I rather go on to another topic.

            The whole idea of greenhouse effect is roughly to make heating effects last longer. Or no one argues that greenhouse gas will keep Earth warm if the sun were to disappear.

            So any heating effect “by combustion and solar” would “last longer” due to the entire greenhouse effect rather than just the amount increase in ppm of of CO2.
            But heat from combustion like “heating” Co2 concentration should little effect related to warming the Earth’s ocean and ocean basically is Earth’s average temperature.

            But if look at urban area which has concentration generated heat from combustion or other heat generation and one higher CO2 level in urban area. These effects are dwarfed by Urban Heat Island effect. Or UHI effect are measurable and the other effects are insignificant or difficult to measure or discern.

          • gbaikie says:

            –But if look at urban area which has concentration generated heat from combustion or other heat generation and one higher CO2 level in urban area. These effects are dwarfed by Urban Heat Island effect. Or UHI effect are measurable and the other effects are insignificant or difficult to measure or discern.–

            Though I wouldn’t argue that water vapor isn’t a significant part of the UHI effect, not would say it’s latent heat of water vapor rather than the radiant properties of H20.
            And of course more humidity makes a city feel warmer, and for a human body which controls it’s temperature by evaporation it’s more than just “a feeling” [it causes heat exhaustion and can lead to death or severe medical problems].

          • gbaikie says:

            “…not would say its latent heat of water vapor,,”

            Should be: “…though I would say, its the latent heat of water vapor,”

          • des says:

            GR – why don’t YOU explain why you believe that 0.04% can be significant, WITHOUT using an argument by disbelief.

          • des says:

            Edit: CAN’T

        • Bindidon says:

          Duncanbelem on October 7, 2017 at 8:46 AM

          First I searched in Wiki for ‘World energy consumption’:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Energy_supply.2C_consumption_and_electricity

          As you see, electricity consumption (and therefore production) is a small part of the whole (22%).

          Then I googled for ‘energy needed to warm earth by 1 C’, and found immediately some info in ‘stackexchange’:

          https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwjzjMaC6N7WAhWsD8AKHdBgDwEQFgg6MAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fphysics.stackexchange.com%2Fquestions%2F176683%2Fat-what-energy-consumption-would-we-get-a-1-degree-rise-in-the-earths-temperatu&usg=AOvVaw04NsmI4h8ZVRrl8-UkSDa5

          The last comments by pentane and Floris are interesting.

          Please do the rest, Duncan, I lack the time to do!

          • Duncanbelem says:

            But what about the feedback effect. Alot More Co2 is produced naturally than by humans, and a lot more water vapor. As the earth heats more CO2 comes out of the ground, and more water vapor out of the oceans.

        • Tom Dayton says:

          Waste heat is trivial in comparison to accumulation of energy due to persistent greenhouse gases: https://skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm

          • Bindidon says:

            Thanks for the hint, even if SkS by no means belongs to my favourite sites…

          • Bindidon says:

            The second comment on the SkS page was very interesting however:

            do.ug_bostrom at 17:02 PM on 26 July, 2010
            Somebody’s crunched numbers. Small globally, noticeable regionally:

            Nearly all energy used for human purposes is dissipated as heat within Earth’s landatmosphere system. Thermal energy released from non-renewable sources is therefore a climate forcing term. Averaged globally, this forcing is only +0.028 W m−2, but over the continental United States and western Europe, it is +0.39 and +0.68 W m−2, respectively.

            Flanner, M. G. (2009), Integrating anthropogenic heat flux with global climate models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L02801, doi:10.1029/2008GL036465.

            Incredible but… true.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tom…”Waste heat is trivial in comparison to accumulation of energy due to persistent greenhouse gases:”

            You’re referencing a site, skepticalscience, run by an undergrad who works as a cartoonist. He used to admit that in the early days of his site but has recently omitted such information.

          • Bindidon says:

            For dumb trolls unable to read:

            Flanner, M. G. (2009), Integrating anthropogenic heat flux with global climate models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L02801, doi:10.1029/2008GL036465.

        • des says:

          Edit: CAN’T

  72. ren says:

    If the jet stream in the west of the US will press further south (solar activity is low), the storm could hit in Houston.

  73. barry says:

    I think I’ve just read the most elegant proof that a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer (with input to the system from the sun).

    http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html

    The key is in figure four. In a universe where a cooler body cannot cause a warmer body to become warmer, the resulting numbers don’t reach equilibrium with the input.

    Check it out.

    • Bindidon says:

      Old Bunny is a fine guy when the goal is to put a maximum of contents into a minimum of wording.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      “I think Ive just read the most elegant proof that a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer”

      Sorry barry, it’s more like an “elegant spoof”!

      If you’ve ever studied the concept of “analytical proof”, then see if you can find the flaw.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_proof

      (I’ll return later today to explain, if you get stuck.)

      • Bindidon says:

        Yes g*e*r*a*n!

        Don’t forget to do that… and be sure I’ll send an email to Nick Stokes concerning Eli’s post and your answer to it.

        Nick has a PhD in math and is absolutely incorruptibe, and I’m therefore sure he will be a good examinator.

        I strongly recommend you not to divert and/or confuse, and to come back with unbeatable arguments.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          I didn’t mean to exclude you, Bin. You’re certainly welcome to try to find the flaw also.

          This is a valuable learning opportunity to those that wish to learn.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”Nick has a PhD in math and is absolutely incorruptibe…”

          You think the sheisters at NOAA are incorruptible. What would a pure mathematician know about thermodynamics? Even Ph.Ds in physics often get it wrong.

          One of the great dangers in math is manipulating an equation and claiming it as proof. If you manipulate an equation using time so that time is on the LHS, you can claim all sorts of weird and wonderful things, like time dilation or space-time warping.

          Problem is, time has no physical existence. Humans created time by inventing a machine, a clock, and measuring the interval of one rotation of the Earth. Subdividing that interval produced the second, the basis of the MKS (metres, kilograms, second) system of measurement.

          The first term, metres, is also a human invention. It is defined as a fraction of the distance between the Equator and the North Pole. So here we have an illusion called space-time that can bend, and it’s based on the human imagination.

          So, is catastrophic global warming.

        • Bindidon says:

          You all can stop your ridiculous nonsense.

          1. I’m still waiting for g*e*r*a*n’s confirmation of what he pretends concerning Eli Rabett’s post:

          Ill return later today to explain, if you get stuck.

          After hours of waiting: nothing!

          2. And if any of you deplorable deniers thinks he could impress me with this woeful, laughable Tony Heller aua Goddard, he is plain wrong.

          What this man presents is simple garbage.

          3. Hold on people. You Roberson and g*e*r*a*n: what are you in comparison with a Nick Stokes, a Ryan Maue, a Roy Spencer?

          Less than peanuts.

      • Eli Rabett says:

        Thanks to Barry for pointing Eli here.

        There is an important condition that everybunny misses. If you just have a warm body sitting in space, it will cool by radiation.

        If you have a warm body and a colder one near it, it will cool a little bit slower because of interchange of radiative energy btw the two but the net interchange of heat will be from the warmer to the cooler. But in both case the body(s) will cool down to the background temperature of the universe, like a few C

        However, and here is what folk miss, if you have a heat source, like the sun, heating the warm body at a constant rate while it cools by radiation, the warm body will become hotter if there is a colder body near it because of the interchange of radiative energy between them.

        • gbaikie says:

          On the Moon, the sun roughly takes the same path.
          So you could build a structure with flat roof and slot in the roof that allows sunlight to pass thru it hit the floor.
          So have non insulated roof which heated by the sun. No walls,
          and beam of sunlight passing through the slot in roof and hitting floor/ground. Would the floor in sunlight get hotter
          because it has a hot roof above it.
          Or hotter than without the roof?

        • esalil says:

          I did not know that the moon heats the earth. It is the cooler body near the hotter body.

    • bilybob says:

      Thanks Barry, interesting discussion. I think the key here is, “with input to the system from the sun”. Is there a proof that shows a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer without an outside energy source to the system?

      It is my understanding that if you turn the sun (in this example) off, the cooler object would act as a heat sink and cool off the warmer object (not make it warmer). If there were a cooler object, say hypothetically one side had an atmosphere (the green cooler object) and the other side did not (Space, even cooler), then the side facing Space directly would cool even faster, but there would not be an increase in temperature.

      To repeat, my question: Is there a proof that shows a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer without an outside energy source to the system?
      Thanks again.

      • Tom Dayton says:

        bilybob: Without the “outside” original source of energy, the first object will cool. Adding a cooler object in between the first object and an even colder space will slow down that cooling of the first object. See the Rabbett’s excellent illustration. In that illustration, after the blue plate has reached equilibrium, imagine removing the Sun. Then compare the rate of cooling of the blue plate by itself, to its cooling with the green plate added. http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html

        • bilybob says:

          Thanks Tom, as I thought, a cool object can not raise the temperature of a hotter object unless an outside energy source is provided. It could, however, slow the rate of cooling.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            bilybob

            An outside energy source is not required. If the blue plate had an internal energy source instead, same thing happens. That’s why we wear a coat on a cold day.

          • bilybob says:

            Thanks to both you, I just wanted to be sure that an energy source is needed.

          • Tom Dayton says:

            Suppose the Sun was absent, and the blue plate had its own internal energy source (like our bodies do). Then the green plate would radiate energy back to the blue plate. That green-plate energy is just a regular source of energy as far as the blue plate is concerned; the blue plate does not know or care how the green plate got its energy, and does not even know or care that the green plate exists. The blue plate knows only that it’s now getting energy from outside itself.

            Suppose the blue plate’s internal energy source is constant. Suppose that before the green plate was added, the blue plate had reached equilibrium, which means its energy radiated out equaled its energy from its internal source; its net energy content was stable, so its temperature was constant.

            Adding the green plate in the first moment does nothing, because the green plate has zero energy so radiates nothing back to the blue plate. But energy from the blue plate is absorbed by the green plate, and as soon as the green plate’s energy rises above zero, the green plate starts radiating energy. Half of its radiated energy goes back to the blue plate, which absorbs it.

            In the first moment that the blue plate absorbs that first energy from the green plate, the blue plate gets warmer because still it is radiating energy at its previous rate; its energy input has increased without an corresponding energy output increase. The green plate has increased the temperature of the blue plate, despite the green plate being cooler than the blue plate.

            A moment later, the blue plate starts radiating more energy as a result of its new, higher, energy content (temperature). But its increased radiation is less than its increased energy input. So it reaches a new equilibrium, but at a higher temperature. The blue plate’s equilibrium temperature is higher than it was without the green plate.

      • Tom Dayton says:

        bilybob: The insulating object (the green plate in the Rabbett’s illustration) absorbs energy from the first object (the blue plate). The insulating object radiates some of its newly gotten energy back to the first object. That gives the first object a source of energy it lacked before the insulating object was added. That energy adds to whatever energy the first object is getting from other sources. So the insulating object makes the first object warmer than it would be otherwise. However, whether the first object cools or warms or stays the same depends on the net of its energy input from all sources and its energy output.

        If the first object now has no other sources of energy than the insulating object (the Sun was removed), then the first object will start cooling by an amount proportional to the new absence of energy input from the Sun. But the first object still has an energy input from the insulating object, so it will cool slower than it would without that insulating object’s presence. Because the first object is cooling, it progressively has less energy, so progressively it emits less energy. That sends less energy to the insulating object. Since the insulating object’s energy comes only from the first object, the insulating object progressively will cool, and therefore progressively will radiate less, and therefore progressively will send less energy back to the first object.

        But through that entire process, the presence of the insulating object keeps the first object warmer than it would be otherwise.

        • Bindidon says:

          But through that entire process, the presence of the insulating object keeps the first object warmer than it would be otherwise.

          Yes!

          • bilybob says:

            Great, that’s what I thought, absent of added energy either external as in the sun or in Sir Isaac Snapelton’s example, internal heat generated by a human body, a hotter object will cool in the presence of a cooler object. But an insulator will enable the hot object to cool more slowly.

            Thanks Again All

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            WRT the second law of thermodynamics:

            Through the entire process, the insulating object was always receiving more heat from the warmer body than it was adding.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”WRT the second law of thermodynamics:

            Through the entire process, the insulating object was always receiving more heat from the warmer body than it was adding”.

            You never learn…IR is NOT heat.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bilybob…”a hotter object will cool in the presence of a cooler object. But an insulator will enable the hot object to cool more slowly”.

            A hotter object cools when it’s surroundings are cooler than the body. It has nothing to do with the presence of a cooler body.

            An insulator in contact with a hotter body prevents the atoms on the body from transferring heat to it’s surroundings by conduction. An insulator has no effect on radiation.

            The purpose of insulation, as in a home, is to prevent molecules of air from coming in contact with an outside wall. It has no effect where the studs and joists sit between the inner drywall and the outer walls. Insulation fills an air space and by displacing the air it prevents air molecules from conducting air from the inside to the outside.

            Once again, you are confusing heat, which is the motion of air molecules, with infrared radiation, which is emitted by air molecules when they cool.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”But through that entire process, the presence of the insulating object keeps the first object warmer than it would be otherwise”.

            Spoken like a true computer programmer. You need to get it in your head that back-radiation from a cooler body has no effect whatsoever on a warmer body. If it did, you could throw out the 2nd law.

            The person who started the pseudo-science about net IR flow satisfying the 2nd law should be put in a pseudo-science internment camp.

          • bilybob says:

            Thanks Gordon, I was not so much concerned about the IR versus heat debate. And yes, I agree a hotter object will cool when placed in cooler surroundings, my reference to the cooler object was only in relationship to this thread itself.

            My question was, “is there was proof that a colder object could warm a hotter object, if there were no other energy inputs into the system”. And everyone seems to agree, the answer is no, or at least there was no proof provided. But I will keep an open mind if you disagree.

          • barry says:

            That’s right, bilybob. A cooler body cannot cause a warmer body to get warmer unless energy is being provided to the system.

            If you turn the sun off, though, the warmer body will cool at a slower rate. That’s because the two bodies (the warmer and the cooler) are not themrally isolated, but continue to emit and receive radiation to and from each other. Eventually they both cool to an equal temperature (absolute zero in the hypothetical closed system) and this effect ceases.

            Where people go wrong is in having a one-eyed view of the 2nd Law – they only understand the idea within closed (isolated) systems, never open systems (with an internal/external energy source.

            It is always the case that the net flow of heat is from hotter to cooler, but the cooler body can have an incident impact on the warmer one without violating the 2nd Law. Insulation is but one example.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          tom…”The insulating object radiates some of its newly gotten energy back to the first object. That gives the first object a source of energy it lacked before the insulating object was added. That energy adds to whatever energy the first object is getting from other sources”.

          No, no, no. Please stop talking about generic energy and specify your energy. You have thermal energy and infrared energy, which is electromagnetic energy. As energies go, they have nothing in common other than that mass radiates IR based on it’s temperature.

          Of course, you can relate the amount if IR generated to the heat loss of a radiating object but you cannot proceed on the assumption that IR from any source will be absorbed by a warmer body simply because the IR is incident upon it. That is a fallacy perpetrated by catastrophic global warming alarmists.

          The 2nd law governs all heat transfers between bodies. It states clearly that heat can only be transferred from hot to cold without compensation. Figure that one out and apply your IR flux to it, not the other way around.

        • Eli Rabett says:

          Billy Bob, That is correct. In the absence of a heat source, the whole system cools, however with a third body the rate of cooling is a bit slower because the heat content of the two plates can be a bit higher than the heat content with only one plate.

          This point is often missed in discussions of the greenhouse effect which has to include solar radiation as an external source of energy.

          As to whether IR is heat that depends. The simplest formulation is that if the distribution of energy as a function of wavelength can be described by a temperature yes, it is heat (e.g. the Planck formula). This gets a bit tricky if you have to take the quantum state distribution of the radiators into account.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bilybob…”To repeat, my question: Is there a proof that shows a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer without an outside energy source to the system?”

        No there isn’t. The fallacy exist only is thought experiments that involve incorrect physics. The incorrect physics in the Rabbett thought experiment is that the net flow of radiation satisfies the 2nd law.

        Never has, never will.

      • barry says:

        bilybob,

        To repeat, my question: Is there a proof that shows a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer without an outside energy source to the system?

        You can see in the debates the oft-repeated line that a cooler object can warm a warmer object if there is a heat source supplying the system.

        If you turn off the sun then everything cools. The analogy is about thermodynamic equilibrium with a constant energy source.

        The purpose of it is to correct those who do not believe a cooler body can warm a warmer one under any conditions. These guys and gals believe that it is not possible at all, because it busts the laws of thermodynamics.

        This proof otherwise is very simple and elegant.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          “This proof otherwise is very simple and elegant.”

          barry, your belief system trumps all reality.

        • barry says:

          Maybe so. But I’ve yet to see you point out a specific flaw with the article I linked.

        • bilybob says:

          Where I believe individuals gets tripped up is if you run the numbers with the sun on and then run it again with the sun on for a while (until equilibrium temp) then turn it off the warmer blue plate cools. Then run the experiment both ways again only this time add the cooler green plate. Since we are only comparing 2 variations of the energy source with 2 variations of the plates we can look at the 4 possible variations.

          A) Sun on all the time no green plate – Temperature of Blue plate = Ta
          B) Sun on then turned off with green plate – Blue Plate cools
          C) Sun on all the time with green plate – Tc > Ta
          D) Sun on then turned off with no green plate – Blue Plate cools

          So you have four experiments, mathematically the blue plate only gets warmer if the sun is on. Otherwise the blue plate cools even in the presence of the green plate.

          Many focus on variation C above and conclude the green plate raised the temperature of the blue plate. However, the green plate only raised the equilibrium temperature, the sun did the heating.

          • Eli Rabett says:

            While in experiment 4 the blue plate cools, it does not cool as fast as when there is no green plate because the total heat energy of the system is higher than when the green plate is there and the temperature of the blue plate with the green plate always lags that of the blue plate alone.

            The conclusion that the green plate only raised the equilibrium temperature and the sun did the heating is a distinction w/o a difference. Without the green plate the temperature of the blue plate would have been lower. Without the sun both would have been at the background pressure of the universe eventually

          • bilybob says:

            The conclusion that the green plate only raised the equilibrium temperature and the sun did the heating is a distinction w/o a difference.

            Eli, this discussion has been replayed many times, with the accusation that one is creating a perpetual motion or creating energy from nothing. This conclusion is to show that this is not the case.

            I may have stated it clumsily.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”I think Ive just read the most elegant proof that a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer (with input to the system from the sun)”.

      Most elegant, it’s riddled with inaccuracies.

      First, some history on Eli Rabbett. His real name is Josh Halpern and he’s a physicist who teaches chemistry. Why does he need to hide behind a nym? And why is he such a cynical alarmists who revels in attacking skeptical scientists? His blog is riddled with venom against anyone who is skeptical of AGW.

      Secondly, he rebutted the paper by Gerlich & Tscheuschner which falsified the greenhouse effect and AGW. He made a complete ass of himself. G&T are experts in thermodynamics and in his rebuttal, Halpern claimed that G&T were implying one radiator in a system with two radiators in proximity was not radiating.

      You see, Halpern, like the alarmists in this blog, believes infrared radiation is heat. G&T had to point out the obvious, that IR is not heat and you cannot sum IR and imply it satisfies the 2nd law. G&T rightly pointed out that to sum heat transfer you must sum heat quantities, not IR.

      Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, IR is electromagnetic radiation. In order to warm atoms with IR, the IR has to fit precise criteria based on it’s frequency and intensity. There is a presumption with alarmists that all IR incident on a surface has to be absorbed and that is plainly wrong.

      Halpern believes that a summation of IR satisfies the 2nd law provided the net flow of IR is positive between a warmer and a cooler body. According to G&T that is wrong. They stated that the 2nd law is about heat, and by implication NOT ABOUT IR.

      In this stupid thought experiment, Halpern has applied Botlzmann to a fictitious plate representing the Earth’s surface and gotten it entirely wrong. In the first diagram he states that the plate must radiate to reach a state of thermal equilibrium with a solar input of 400 watts/m^2. He shows the plate radiating 200 W/m^2 in either direction, leaving a deficit of 200 W/m^2.

      Halpern is setting us up for his later claim that the plates must warm up to reach the solar input of 400 W/m^2. What an absolute load of pseudo-science. Plate one, the blue plate, will warm up immediately to balance the 400 W/m^2. Why shouldn’t it, there is nothing shading it from the full input from the sun?

      The rest of the thought experiment is defeated right there. The green plate is superflous.

      Why Halpern would put forward such a stupid thought experiment is beyond me. And the fact barry would fall for it, claiming it to be elegant, reveals him as someone who does not understand even the basics of physics.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I might add that once the blue plate warms so it is radiating 400 W/m^2, Halpern seems to imply the green plate will cause it to warm beyond 400 W/m^2 by back-radiating energy to the blue plate.

        Absolute nonsense. The back-radiated IR will not be absorbed because it fails to meet the criteria required to be absorbed by a warmer body. If Halpern is claiming the green plate (get it…’green’?) is acting like CO2 in the atmosphere he’s even more misinformed than I have regarded him to be in the past.

        The 2nd law stands. The blue plate will warm till it’s radiating 400 W/m^2 and that’s as far as it will warm. There is nothing that can prevent it continuing to radiate at 400 W/m^2. The green plate does absolutely nothing unless it is an independent heat source with its own internal heating plant capable of warming it to more than 400 W/m^2.

        In reality, that independent heat source would have to be another star like the Sun which is close by.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Gordon

          Nobody is trying to disprove the 2nd law of thermodynamics, just your stupid understanding of it.

          • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

            Gordon

            “The rate at which heat transfers from the hotter object to the colder object increases with the temperature difference between the objects.”

            As the blue plate warmed the green plate, the rate of heat transfer between the two decreased. The blue plate was then receiving more energy from the sun than it was able to get rid of. It’s temperature therefore had to increase.

          • Norman says:

            Sir Isaac Snapelton

            You might notice Gordon Robertson makes up his own physics and peddles it like a Preacher. He will never link to actual physics since he does not know what he is talking about. He scrambles physics so intently it is painful to read his torture of reality.

            I have found with him there is nothing you can say to him that will affect his closed mind thoughts.

            He will repeat his nonsense indefinitely at least as long as he has an audience. He is not a boring as g*e*r*a*n or Mike Flynn (one really boring person) but reasoning with him is a wasted effort. You might think he can learn but after a few years you come to realize he is too far gone for anything but his own limited imagination he is like a small child playing with his imaginary ideas and building worlds out of them. That is why I think he is much more interesting than the others. I did forget the mindless SkepticGoneWild. Another poster who makes up their own physics and will not accept established physics and believe all who understand real physics are morons.

      • barry says:

        Gordon,

        They stated that the 2nd law is about heat, and by implication NOT ABOUT IR.

        IR is radiant energy (and the link I provided does not specify IR, just EM in general).

        Do G&T maintain that energy is not included in thermodynamics?

        The 2nd Law relates to isolated systems, does’t it? A system where energy doesn’t enter or leave?

        This does not relate to the earth’s climate system, where energy is constantly being received by the sun. In Rabbett’s example, the system is the 2 plates, the sun is constantly providing energy.

      • barry says:

        He shows the plate radiating 200 W/m^2 in either direction, leaving a deficit of 200 W/m^2.

        Where is the deficit? The lone blue plate must radiate 400 w/m2.

        200 w/m2 + 200 w/m2 = 400 w/m2.

        When we introduce the green plate, it is receiving half the total radiation of the blue plate – 200 w/m2.

        At equilibrium, the green plate is emitting a total of 200 w/m2 – 100 w/m2 either side.

        So now we add the total thermal radiation of the 2-plate system.

        One side is radiating 200 w/m2, the other, 100 w/m2 = total thermal radiation of 300 w/m2.

        That is 100 w/m2 short of the input from the sun. So what must happen for the 2-plate system to achieve equilibrium with the solar input?

      • “In order to warm atoms with IR, the IR has to fit precise criteria based on its frequency and intensity. There is a presumption with alarmists that all IR incident on a surface has to be absorbed and that is plainly wrong.”

        Gordon, you may not be a black body, but if you sit down next to a lava flow you will , without benefit of any precise criteria shortly become one.

      • Bernard J. says:

        Roy Spencer.

        You are supposed to be a climate scientist, and would therefore be expected to have familiarity with basic physics. Why is it then that you allow the nonsense of the likes of Gordon Robertson to remain unchallenged and uncorrected on your blog?

        • Svante says:

          Dr Spencer tried hard but has now given up on Gordon et al.

          This particular issue is no. 2 under his Top 10 list of stupid skeptic arguments, here:
          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Bernard, if you seek censorship of science, consider some of the Warmist/Alarmist sites. Dr. Roy tries to maintain some level of scientific integrity. As long as someone does not try to take over the blog, he allows views that conflict with his own.

          • Svante says:

            That’s right G*e*r*a*n.

            Dr Spencers “stupid skeptic arguments” no 2.:
            “THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

            The second law can be stated in several ways, but one way is that the net flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is not violated by the greenhouse effect. The apparent violation of the 2nd Law seems to be traced to the fact that all bodies emit IR radiationincluding cooler bodies toward warmer bodies. But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body. Even if you dont believe there is 2-way flow, and only 1-way flowthe rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler bodys temperature will change the cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer stillas evidenced by putting your clothes on.”

          • Bernard J. says:

            The trouble is that these comments exist without any direct rebuttal from the host, which then leads to the impression of tacit acceptance.

            This in turn creates the impression that Spencer supports the assertions, and that in turn serves to provide years of fodder on the intertubes for the science deniers who promulgate the notion that carbon dioxide does not warm the planet and that Dr Roy Spencer, Climate Scientist and Valiant Renegade Blogger, agrees.

          • Svante says:

            Yes, you have a point.

            I suppose he can’t keep up with the Gish gallop. He did put in a reminder here though:
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-266136

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Bin and barry, I’m back!

      The “elegant proof” fails for many reasons. If you have never seen the “proof” that 1 = 2, then first examine this”

      https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/first1eq2.html

      You can “prove” a lot if you can fool the audience. Magicians know this well. And, the perpetuators of the AGW hoax also know it.

      Thermodynamics and quantum physics are both advanced fields. Few folks understand the two sciences. They “see” what they want, and run off claiming they understand.

      So, let’s just use some basic logic, related to “analytical proof”.

      In a legitimate proof, there is a “given”. From the “given”, with the correct application of laws of math and physics, each step leads to a “proof”.

      In the example provided by barry, the “given” includes the assumption that “cold” warms “hot”. Then, the “proof” that results is “cold” warms “hot”. The “given” is “proved”!

      It’s called “circular reasoning”. You start with the assumption of what you are trying to prove, and BINGO, you end up with what you set out to prove.

      It’s “pseudoscience”, and it’s hilarious.

      • Bindidon says:

        That’s nothing useful, g*e*r*a*n. And you know it.

        It remembers me your poorish claim about sea level rise ‘explained’ by the Archimedes principle.

        Laughable.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Bin, I never expected phony intellectuals to accept truth.

          Do you know the difference between an “intellectual” and a “phony intellectual”?

          (Jeopardy tune playing, as Bin contemplates.)

          Answer: There is no difference.

      • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

        g*e*r*a*n

        You: In the example provided by barry, the given includes the assumption that cold warms hot

        Not true. Initially, the hot radiated 200 W/m^2 in the direction of the cold. The cold only radiated 100 W/m^2 in the direction of the hot. Throughout the example, the blue plate was always losing heat to the green plate. Never the other way around.

        • Sir Isaac Snapelton says:

          Because it was colder, the green plate always REMOVED heat from the blue plate! Removing heat is called cooling, not heating.

      • barry says:

        g*e*r*a*n*,

        Do you have anything to say about the demonstration I linked?

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          What “demo” is that?

        • barry says:

          The link I provided that started this sub-thread. Perhaps you didn’t read it.

          • barry says:

            So you read it. Can you point out any flaws in the math?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No flaws in the math. Just flaws in the logic.

            As I indicated, and you obviously ignored, “proving” a given is not a “proof”. It is circular reasoning. A technique often used in pseudoscience.

          • barry says:

            The example you provided has a flaw, which the author points out. Anything divided by zero is zero – that’s where the logic breaks down.

            So can you point to the precise flaw/s in the demonstration at the link I gave? There is no dividing by zero in those equations, so where is the error?

          • barry says:

            What is the precise flaw in the logic? You have provided a general contention, but you haven’t identified what is specifically amiss with the article.

          • Norman says:

            barry

            g*e*r*a*n is not a very intelligent person and prefers his own created physics. You are wasting any time trying to reason with him. He does not possess that quality. He is also very boring if you interact with him long enough as he can’t come up with new ideas or thoughts after awhile. He gets very repetitive. He might jump in on your thoughts. You can look at it and see a waste of time. But you will not be able to discuss ideas intelligently with him. One needs the ability first and none of the hard-core skeptics seem to possess rational thought process. Even the insults they pull up are redundant. One classic is that people who actually read physics and try to learn it don’t understand what they are reading.

            You will notice g*e*r*a*n using this constantly even though he does not know any actual physics, he just uses a few terms like quantum and we are supposed to be impressed with his posts.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, in an analytical proof, you start with a “given”. Then, you build from that to what you are trying to prove. Each step must be based on established laws.

            Your example tries to claim “cold” can warm “hot”. But, it uses “cold” warming “hot” to prove that!

            Circular reasoning.

            AKA, “hilarious pseudoscience”.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            I see the con-man has returned to entertain us with his endless rambling.

            Enjoy.

          • barry says:

            g*e*r*a*n,

            When the argument starts (figure 1), there is no presumption about cooler bodies heating warmer bodies. It’s a simple set of diagrams, followed by equations enumerating the energy flows.

            By figure 4, we see that the 2-plate system receiving energy from the sun does not radiate energy equal to that being received.

            Figure 4 is the key figure. The numbers don’t add up to a system in thermal equilibrium with its energy source.

            Thus it is concluded (not presumed) that the system must radiate more energy to achieve equilibrium. The blue plate must radiate at a higher temperature to achieve equilibrium with the input. Thus, the introduction of the second plate causes the blue plate to radiate more energy (it gets warmer) in order to achieve equilibrium with the input form the sun.

            Starting with figure 1, and the math below accompanying, where is the logical flaw?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, the “argument” starts with the very first sentence: “An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter.”

            He sets out to prove “cold” can warm “hot”.

            Figure 4 illustrates his disconnect. He mistakenly assumes the “green” plate can only emit 100 W/m^2. So, he “assumes” that the cold (green) plate must then warm the hot plate.

            Assumptions are not science. That’s the logic flaw.

            The green plate can emit whatever it must, based on the plate temperature.

            I know you do not WANT to understand this. It would destroy you believe that “back-radiation” can heat the planet.

            All mass emits IR. So, my recommendation is for you to heat your abode with a bowl of fruit next winter.

            If it doesn’t work, just add more fruit!

          • barry says:

            Figure 4 illustrates his disconnect. He mistakenly assumes the “green” plate can only emit 100 W/m^2. So, he “assumes” that the cold (green) plate must then warm the hot plate.

            The green plate is emitting 200 w/m2: 100 wm/2 either side.

            The blue plate is emitting 400 w/m2: 200 w/m2 either side.

            The 2-plate system is emitting 300w/m2 in total: that’s 100 w/m2 short of the input from the sun.

            Do you disagree with any of this?

          • Phil says:

            If the blue plate is emitting 200 w/m2 (from either) side …it is emitting 200 w/m2 … Not 400

            Here is the error in the whole thought experiment…

            If the energy source is 400 w/m2 then the blue plate temp will rise until it is also emitting 400 w/m2 in all directions.( not 200) .. Now add the green plate and see what happens..

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Yes, of course, the green plate is emitting 100 W/m^2 from BOTH sides. I was referring to the energy leaving the system to the right.

            Do you want to just tangle this up, or do you want to understand?

            You can settle this in your mind with a cheap handheld IR thermometer. Measure the temperature of an apple. Then, set a mug of cold beer next to the apple. Does the temperature of the apple go up?

          • barry says:

            Yes, of course, the green plate is emitting 100 W/m^2 from BOTH sides. I was referring to the energy leaving the system to the right.

            Yes, you were.

            But the total 2-plate system is emitting 300 w/m2.

            That’s 100 w/m2 short of the input from the sun.

            The laws of thermodynamics require that the 2-plate system must radiate an equivalent amount of energy that it receives from the sun.

            What must happen for the 2-plate system to come into thermal equilibrium with the solar input?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Oh, easy–Both plates are at the same temp.

          • barry says:

            Ok, thanks. Couple of questions.

            1. How does the green plate, which is shielded from the sun by the blue one, achieve the same temperature as the blue plate?

            2. If the blue plate gets cooler, because of energy being drawn by the green, how does the 2-plate system achieve thermal equilibrium with the sun? The 2-plate system would now be emitting even less energy than that received by the sun.

            Feel free to provide some numbers to exemplify, if you want.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Assuming all the “perfect” conditions implied:

            Both plates at 244K. Emission to left and right both 200 W/m^2.

            (Where do I send the bill?)

          • barry says:

            How can the green plate radiate at 400 w/m2 (200 wm/2 either side) if it is only receiving 200 w/m2 from the blue plate?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, now you have reached the quagmire of IR photon a b so r p tion.

            You will have to open your mind.

            So first, tell me that you now understand the “clothing” nonsense has no relevance to the AGW discussion.

          • barry says:

            How can the green plate radiate at 400 w/m2 (200 wm/2 either side) if it is only receiving 200 w/m2 from the blue plate?

          • barry says:

            If the left side of the green plate receives 200w/m2 from the right side of the blue plate, and the green plate radiates 200 w/m2 on its right side, then that means that the left side of the green plate must be radiating at…

            0w/m2.

            That’s physically impossible.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, I see you give up your blankets, coats, and sweaters, then I will know you are ready to learn more.

          • barry says:

            There are no blankets or sweaters in this sub-thread. I’m happy to leave them out of this particular discussion.

            My question still stands.

            How can the green plate radiate at 400 w/m2 (200 wm/2 either side) if it is only receiving 200 w/m2 from the blue plate?

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            YOU: “You can settle this in your mind with a cheap handheld IR thermometer. Measure the temperature of an apple. Then, set a mug of cold beer next to the apple. Does the temperature of the apple go up?”

            A more reflective example would be to take an apple that is heated (insert a heating element) and set the apple next to a mug of liquid nitrogen and measure its equilibrium temperature (since you do not understand what equilibrium means g*e*r*a*n, it is the state when the temperature is no longer changing).

            Now remove the mug of liquid nitrogen and place a mug of cold beer next to the apple. What happens? The equilibrium temperature is higher. The apple warms up next to a cold beer. Imaging that.

            g*e*r*a*n you are hopelessly outclassed by barry. He has considerable knowledge of actual physics over you and you seem lame in your arguments with him.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            (The con-man rambles incoherently, AGAIN.)

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, if you can not give up your baby blanket, you are not ready to learn about how IR photons behave upon impact with a surface.

            Learning often involves admitting you were wrong.

          • barry says:

            I think you’re stumped by my last question, and are mow diverting the conversation to the topic of a different thread.

            It was almost a straightforward conversation there for a few posts. I was enjoying that. I don’t think you can answer my last question, and I don’t think you’re going to try. If that’s the case, thanks for the conversation on the 2-plate system.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry states: “I think you’re stumped by my last question, and are mow [sic] diverting the conversation to the topic of a different thread.”

            No barry, I’m not stumped. But thanks for revealing, again, your confusion.

            I’m not going to explain photons reaction to mass, until you admit your obsession with blankets/coats/sweaters has no relevance to Earth’s energy balance. I can NOT help people that adhere to their false religion.

            But, here’s a hint: 100 + 100 + 200.

            See if that helps.

          • barry says:

            I’m afraid it doesn’t.

            The green plate is emitting thermal energy to the right (leaving the system) at a rate of 100 w/m2. The blue plate is emitting to the left (leaving the system) at 200 w/m2.

            The amount of energy leaving the system is 300 w/m2.

            But the amount entering the system is 400 w/m2.

            The laws of thermodynamics requires that these values should be equal.

            Your final answer that was specific enough was that both plates should be the same temperature, and both emit 200 w/m2 out of the system.

            My query was: how can the green plate emit 200 w/m2 out the right side if it is receiving only 200 w/m2 from the blue plate? That would mean the green plate is emitting more than it is receiving.

            Unless the left side of the green plate is emitting 0w/m2.

            I hope we can agree that is not physically possible.

            The physics and doesn’t work for the answer you gave.

            What must happen with the 2-plate system so that it’s outward flux is equivalent to the 400 w/m2 influx provided by the sun?

          • esalil says:

            Barry: The real world is 3D, not 2D. The plates are emitting heat 360o. So, there is no 200W to the direction of the green plate and no 100W back. If it were, the blue plate would become hotter. Then it would emit more watts to the direction of the green plate which in turn would emit more watts back. Thus you would have invented perpeetum mobile.
            Compare the earth and the moon. Do they heat each other?

          • barry says:

            Barry: The real world is 3D, not 2D. The plates are emitting heat 360o. So, there is no 200W to the direction of the green plate and no 100W back.

            It’s an idealised thought experiment, put together for its simplicity, but it makes the point successfully.

            The problem remains if you have cubes instead of plates. But now conduction is a significant factor (which is why the 2-plate system works better for the purpose). But let’s imagine conduction is not a factor.

            The green cube on the right now only receives 66.6666 w/m2 from one side of the blue cube. The 2-cube system still won’t be in thermal equilibrium with the input without some change.

            Here’s the math for cuboid thermal radiation with no conduction complicating it.

            Blue cube receives 400 w/m2 on one side
            Radiates 66.6666 w/m2 on all sides
            Green cube receives 66.6666 w/m2 on one side
            Radiates 11.1111 w/m2 on all sides

            Total amount of thermal radiation leaving the 2-box system is:
            (5 x 66.6666) + (5 x 11.1111) = 388.88

            Still a deficit.

            If we factor conduction, the deficit is greater. The blue cube will emit less than 66.6666 w/m2 to the green cube. Even less if we take it that the blue cube is radiating 360 degrees (from the corners and edges, too).

            The problem remains with 2 spheres. There is still a deficit. (If you can do the math, by all means lay it out)

            Something has to happen to make the outward thermal flux of the 2-plate (box/sphere) system equal to the solar influx received on the blue surface.

            Let’s stick to the 2-plate system for ease of conceptualizing and of math.

          • esalil says:

            Barry: you did not consider the perpeetum mobile problem at all. And what about the earth and the moon?

          • barry says:

            Everything in the universe gives off thermal radiation at various wavelengths, including the Earth and the Moon.

            “Perpetuum mobile”. You are meaning to say ‘perpetual motion machine’. There is an answer here that does not involve that. You have actually supplied the answer in part, but made an incorrect conclusion.

          • Eli Rabett says:

            esalil

            Eli used infinite thin plates facing each other to reduce the difficulty of the problem to 2D. The idea was to make the discussion as simple as possible while retaining the physical concepts. You can actually find discussions in textbooks where the effects of the edges of the plates are discussed which are shown to go to zero as the plates grow in area.

            Such 2D cases are important learning tools across physics for example 2D capacitors.

          • barry says:

            Eli used infinite thin plates facing each other to reduce the difficulty of the problem to 2D.

            That’s how I saw it.

            We’re locating this in space to remove the effects of convection and isolate radiative transmission.

            We’re using extremely thin plates to remove the effects of conduction and isolate radiative transmission.

            We can also stipulate that the two plates are extremely close.

            The tiny amounts of energy one could quibble over under these conditions in no way effect the basic conclusion: there is a significant deficit in energy outflow from the 2-plate system if the temperature of the blue plate does not increase.

          • esalil says:

            Eli Rabett and Barry: You are telling that the infinite thin green plate heats the infinite thin blue plate which becomes hotter. The hotter blue plate emits more heat to green plate which becomes still hotter. The still hotter green plate emits heat to blue plate which becomes still hotter and so on….
            Maybe you are violating something.

          • barry says:

            The warming stops when the total thermal emission of the 2-plate system matches the input from the sun. This must happen or else the laws of thermodynamics are violated.

            Here are the visuals and the math.

            http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html

            It’s a simple demonstration that the blue plate must get a bit warmer in order for the thermal outflux of the 2-plate system to match the thermal input. According to the laws of thermodynamics and the math.

          • esalil says:

            Barry: if the blue plate gets a bit warmer, so by definition it emits more IR. This, according to you, heats more the green plate which by definition emits more IR……..

          • esalil says:

            Barry: why not try the following explanation: sun heats the blue plate and because it is infinite thick it gets immediately the equilibrium temperature depending on the physicochemical properties of the plate. Now, it emits a constant amount of heat (and IR) to the surroundings. The green plate, initially colder, starts to warm, and because it is as well infinite thick, gets immediately the equilibrium temperature depending on its physicochemical properties. If it is of the same material and size as the blue one the temperature may approach the temperature of the blue one depending on how far the plates are from each other. The blue one has its initial temperature and the green one is more or less colder. Only changes in the intensity of the sun can change the temperatures of the plates.

          • barry says:

            Barry: if the blue plate gets a bit warmer, so by definition it emits more IR. This, according to you, heats more the green plate which by definition emits more IR…

            until thermal loss from the 2-plate system reaches thermal equilibrium with the input. That is the limit at which the 2 plates stop warming, or the 1st law is broken.

            If you believe the mutual heating has no limit, then you are violating the 1st law.

            What stops the 2 plates infinitely warming up? The thermal loss of the 2-plate system coming into balance with the input. How does this happen? Both plates also emit more heat away from the system as they warm up. You’re neglecting increased thermal loss in your view.

            If thermal loss remained the same, then yes, they’d heat up indefinitely. But that’s obviously unphysical. Warmer plates are also going to radiate more away from the 2-plate system.

            And they will radiate more away from the system until they reach equilibrium with the input. No more warming occurs after that equilibrium is reached.

          • esalil says:

            Barry: you broke the first law by increasing the temperature of the blue plate. It was initially in thermal equilibrium with the sole energy source, the sun. To become hotter it needs extra energy. Where does it come from?

          • barry says:

            A 1-plate system became a 2-plate system. That changes the dynamics.

            Look at the diagram again. With 2 plates the system is emitting less thermal energy than it is receiving. That breaks the 1st law. Energy has been destroyed (!).

            The green plate cannot emit more radiation than it receives from the blue plate. So it can’t emit 200 w/m2 away from the system (to make equilibrium with solar input), because that means it would be emitting 0w/m2 towards the blue plate.

            That’s physically impossible.

            The green plate must emit thermally to the blue plate. Therefore the blue plate is now receiving thermal radiation from the sun and the green plate.

            The net flow of heat must always be from hot to cold. So the blue plate must remain warmer than the green. They both heat up until the thermal outflux from the 2-plate system matches the influx from the sun.

            When equilibrium is reached, the warming stops.

            If you’ve ever cooked anything in a saucepan and put a lid on it you’ve seen this dynamic in your own kitchen.

            The temperature at the bottom of the pot increases. So does the lid. Your pot doesn’t heat indefinitely until it melts, because it stops getting hotter when the pot+lid gets hot enough to be in thermal equilibrium with the heat being received.

            I cook a lot. I see exactly this process all the time.

            There are many observable analogies in daily life. All based on a second (cooler) body being introduced to the system, slowing the rate of heat loss from the system, and the warmer object warming up. At all times, the net flow of heat is from hot to cold (the 2nd law cannot be violated), but the total energy in the system increases because it is cooling less quickly.

            It happens when you put on a sweater. The loss of heat from your skin is slowed.
            It happens when your car overheats on a hot day but not a cold one. Hotter ambient air slows the rate at which your engine loses heat. At no time is the ambient air hotter than the engine.

            I think this should be intuitively obvious just from observation of these things in our lives.

            But apparently its not. That’s why I think the demonstration linked is a good one. You can see that the math does’t add up if the blue plate doesn’t warm a bit after the green one is introduced.

            Have a slower look again.

            http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html

          • esalil says:

            Barry: I did see the link. the blue plate is emitting 200W back to the sun and 200 W to green plate. Now, the green plate emits 100W back to blue plate. So, the blue plate receives 400W from the sun and 100W from the green one. Makes 500W. Now, the blue one must emit 250 W back to green one, which in turn emits 125W back. So the blue gets 525 W and emits 262,5 W back… and so on. The temperature of both plates rises.The problem is of course that finally there are a lot more watts on both plates than initially. Where does that extra energy come from manifested as higher temperature in both plates?

            You state:
            “There are many observable analogies in daily life. All based on a second (cooler) body being introduced to the system, slowing the rate of heat loss from the system, and the warmer object warming up. At all times, the net flow of heat is from hot to cold (the 2nd law cannot be violated), but the total energy in the system increases because it is cooling less quickly.
            It happens when you put on a sweater. The loss of heat from your skin is slowed. It happens when your car overheats on a hot day but not a cold one. Hotter ambient air slows the rate at which your engine loses heat. At no time is the ambient air hotter than the engine.”

            The sweater does not warm up your skin. Your skin stays at the temperature determined by the catabolism of your body.The heat loss is of course slowed but not because of IR emitted back to the skin by the sweater but the insulating effect of the static air layer between the skin and the sweater. The catabolism (energy production) slows down as well since your skin must not be heated any more as efficiently.
            Your car example is neither good since lot of energy must have been added to the system to make the ambient air hotter.

            Are there real world applications of the above skenario? I eagerly wait for examples. They would be revolutionary for us people living in cold climate. With less electric power we can achieve higher ambient temperatures.

          • barry says:

            the blue plate is emitting 200W back to the sun and 200 W to green plate. Now, the green plate emits 100W back to blue plate. So, the blue plate receives 400W from the sun and 100W from the green one. Makes 500W.

            Yep. The blue plate is now warmer, and emitting 100 w/m2 more.

            The 1st Law is broken!

            But wait. The green plate is emitting 100 w/m2 out of the system.

            500W – 100W = 400W.

            How about that?

            Let’s sum the thermal emission of the 2-plate system.

            Blue plate emits 400 w/m2 because that is what it receives. 200 to the left, 200 to the right.

            Introduce green plate, which receives 200 w/m2 from the blue plate. It emits at 100 w/m2 towards the blue plate, and 100 w/m2 to the right.

            We’re interested in how much the 2-plate system is emitting outward, in order to see if it = input from the sun.

            2-plate system outflow is the sum of thermal emission to the left of the blue plate, and to the right of the green plate.

            200 w/m2 + 100 w/m2 = 300 w/m2.

            There’s a deficit of 100 w/m2.

            Where does that extra energy come from manifested as higher temperature in both plates?

            There is no extra energy. But there is more heat internal to the system. (Just like putting on a sweater is adding no more energy to your core body process, but the result is warmer air near your skin, and a warmer sweater).

            Blue plate and green plate are transferring some energy between them that is not getting out of the system.

            But it has to get out to match input

            It can only get out if one or both plates warm up enough to radiate it out.

            Green plate cannot warm up to 400 w/m2 total, same as blue plate, because it is only receiving 200 w/m2 from the blue plate. Energy cannot be created.

            So both plates have to warm up until energy outflux is in equilibrium with influx.

            You need to factor outflux in your calculations, not just the transfer between the plates, or you only have one half (figuratively speaking) of the balance sheet. The outflux increases, too, until the 2-plate system is in equilibrium with the solar input.

            Heating is a dynamic process, thermodynamics (despite the name) is not. Output has to equal input. Every time. That’s a constant. If that means temperatures has to change in the system receiving the input to match output, that’s because the laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken.

          • esalil says:

            Barry: OK, even I can calculate that 534 W is needed for the blue plate for the emission of 267w both sides and the green plate get this 267W and emits 133W both sides. Now, both plates emit outside 400W and inside 400W, altogether 800W, double the amount what the sun emits. I cannot understand how one can neglect the inside emission. But if the case is so easy, it must be proved somewhere experimentally. Please, provide the links to the papers where it is shown.

          • barry says:

            Now, both plates emit outside 400W and inside 400W, altogether 800W

            You’re treating energy lost as additional energy.

            The whole system is emitting @ 400W

            Energy inside = energy outgoing. 400 – 400 = 0. We have equilibrium. There’s no deficit.

            You don’t need to read a paper. You need to go and cook.

            Heat your pot until the contents (say water) are simmering. Let that be the equilibrium.

            Now put a cooler lid on the pot.

            Putting on the cooler lid will cause the interior to warm up. The water will eventually boil.

            Obviously we haven’t created energy. The pot must be in thermal equilibrium with the element and the ambient air.

            Why does the water in the pot get hotter?

            And why does it not get infinitely hotter?

            If you doubt that what I’ve just described works, go do the experiment. It’ll take half an hour at most. Get a medium sized pot and half fill it with water. Heat it until it is simmering. Little tiny bubbles. Hold it constant there to make sure it isn’t getting any hotter. Now add the cooler lid. See what happens.

          • esalil says:

            Barry: you cannot be serious. The lid on the water pot has nothing to do with the plate example we are discussing on. The lid prevents the evaporation so that less energy is needed for boiling. I thought that you knew that.
            Try to calculate by yourself. You cannot ignore some (400W inside) of radiation.
            As I anticipated there are no publications on this matter. So it is purely imaginative.

          • barry says:

            Barry: you cannot be serious. The lid on the water pot has nothing to do with the plate example we are discussing on.

            Of course it does.

            Both systems have a constant (unchanging) source of heat.

            Both systems start in thermal equilibrium.

            Both systems have introduced to them a cooler body.

            Both systems warm up after the cooler body is introduced.

            What’s the difference? One is a convective system. One is a radiative system.

            Don’t tell me you’re trying to say the laws of thermodynamics apply to convection but not radiation!

          • esalil says:

            barry: so you are serious. Do you not know that evaporation consumes much energy? Consult elementary chemistry and physics books. In an open pot the vapor carrying lot of energy dissappears into the kitchen ceiling. in the pot with a lid on it vapor stays in the pot so that the boiling starts with less energy, thats all.

          • barry says:

            As I anticipated there are no publications on this matter. So it is purely imaginative.

            Lord, there are a zillion textbooks explaining this.

            But why not take a lesson from the guy who invented the 2nd Law?

            “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

            https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/20044#page/100/mode/1up

            Clausius is referring to the difference between a closed system (he calls it a ‘circular process’), and an open system, whereby the ‘change’ is energy leaving and entering the system.

            In the examples above we have energy entering and leaving the system. An open system. Where there is a source of heat adding energy to the system and the system losing energy to space – this is the “change. The energy is not contained within the set-up(circular process), it flows through.

            Clausius also has something to say about the green plate (cooler body).

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

            Of course, the net flow is always hot to cold, but both bnodies are emitting and receiving heat from each other – whether through conduction, convection or radiation (or some combination).

            The maker of the second law gives that clause to the second Law…

            “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

            Because there are circumstances where a cooler body can cause a warmer one to get warmer.

            Insulation is an example.
            The sweater is an example.
            The lid on a pot is an example.
            The overheating car is an example.
            The 2-plate system is an example.

            They all have this in common – they are not closed systems. They are all receiving heat, which enters and leaves the system being warmed.

            Without a source of heat, introducing a cool body to a system can never cause a warmer body to get warmer.

            No laws were broken in the making of this post.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Without a source of heat, introducing a cool body to a system can never cause a warmer body to get warmer….No laws were broken in the making of this post.”

            barry 7:05am, except one law was broken, namely the 1LOT.

            There are circumstances in the earth system at night (no sun heat source) where Dr. Spencer has shown by experiment you broke 1LOT by your statement. See his experimental results for the Green Plate Effect: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/

            and showed how that can happen at night on the real atm.:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

            Of course the usual suspects tried to disarm his experiments with prose, none showed a counter experiment or where his actual experiments did not actually show correct data.

          • barry says:

            Ball,

            In the night time experiment, one body of water cooled slower than the other. But the IR sheet can’t cause the water to get warmer than it was – at night – it just slowed the cooling.

          • Ball4 says:

            Yes, without a source of heat (night time) the one body got warmer with the added absorbed IR than the one without the added absorbed IR as both cooled all night.

            Check out what you wrote: “Without a source of heat, introducing a cool body to a system can never cause a warmer body to get warmer.” That breaks 1LOT as the absorbed IR in the one body would have had to simply disappear in order for the one body not to get warmer than the other (IR into one, no warmer than the other).

            If this bothers you, think this through using the reality of absorbed IR must increase the KE of the constituent particles over no IR not to break the 1LOT. Thus one body must get warmer than the other but still cool all night.

            There are commenters that this bothers to no end, no kidding, ha. you watch. There are whole websites that have sprung up that can’t understand this simple test. They are so hung up on the “heat” term they will not ever understand this test which was the motivating reason for Dr. Spencer at the time, due all the emails he was getting.

            And, yes, this is called “slow the cooling” but even that will be misconstrued by some. If you train yourself to drop heat term, and think instead of avg. KE of constituent particles as suggested by Clausius, you are better off in understanding these tests of Dr. Spencer and why he did them.

          • barry says:

            The fun and games appear in most threads.

            Check out what you wrote: Without a source of heat, introducing a cool body to a system can never cause a warmer body to get warmer.

            Meaning the temperature of the warmer body cannot increase in that situation. But the temperature of the warmer body can increase with a source of energy and flow out of the system. I think the wording is pretty clear.

            What you are pointing to is an example of a warmer body cooling at night. And cooling more slowly than another body. That is nothing like what I’ve written, though it is also factual.

          • esalil says:

            Barry and Ball4: I am living currently in an environment where the actual outside temperature is +7C. I have electric heater on in my living room so that the inside temperature is +21C. I think all the furnitures have more or less the same 21C temperature. So, I have here an open system which is in thermal equilibrium. The literature says that ice emits 300w/m2 of IR. So, according to you a cubic meter piece of ice (the green plate) will rise the temperature of a piece of a furniture (the blue plate). How nice. Ill wait for the freezing of the sea there outside to pick up ice cubes. Then I can turn the heater lower.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Meaning the temperature of the warmer body cannot increase in that situation.”

            Simply means the added IR increased the KE of the constituent particles over no added IR. Thus 1LOT is not broken, the temperature in both bodies declined all night. One cooled slower, the one with the added IR.

            Note I did not use warming term, did not use heat term, did not use heating term. There is never a need for those unless one’s intent (intentional or unintentional) is to add confusion.

          • Ball4 says:

            “So, according to you a cubic meter piece of ice (the green plate) will rise the temperature of a piece of a furniture (the blue plate).”

            Not according to the example, esalil.

            Consider in the example that the added green plate does not block radiated energy from the right. In your room, when you add the piece of ice you are at very least blocking radiation emitted from the wall behind the ice (and the air, piece of furniture so forth).

            The is classic strawman per the def, you changed the example to try and defeat your opponent. You have not defeated: “Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.”

        • Greenhaus says:

          The blue plate would warm until it reached equilibrium with the flux received from the sun. For that to occur the side facing the sun has to be emitting 400 W/m2. The other side of the plate would also emit 400 W/m2. No, this does not mean the plate is emitting 800 W/m2. It just means the plate has warmed to the temperature whereby it’s surface area (which includes both sides of the plate, and the edges at the top and bottom) is emitting 400 W/m2 from every point. Just the same as if a sphere were there instead of the plate, the sphere would emit 400 W/m2 from every point on its surface once at equilibrium. It wouldn’t be 400 W/m2 divided by an infinite possible number of points around its 3D surface. So why do you think it should be 400 W/m2 divided by 2 in the case of the plate!? So, anyway, you add the green plate. This now warms until it too is emitting 400 W/m2 from both sides and so equilibrium is achieved between it and the blue plate. End of thought experiment.

          The only other thing to consider in this experiment is the sun. That will be radiating out an identical flux in all directions. However you need to consider distance too. The flux these plates will receive from the sun also depends on their distance from the sun. So we know that the blue plate is far enough away from the sun that it receives a flux of 400 W/m2, in this thought experiment. If the green plate is put close to it, that will then reach equilibrium with the blue plate at 400 W/m2. However if you put the green plate far enough away from the blue one then that 400 W/m2 emitted from the side of blue plate facing towards the green will not equal 400 W/m2 from the green plate’s perspective. Let’s say it’s far enough away from the blue plate that it only receives a flux of 200 W/m2. In which case it will warm until it produces 200 W/m2 from each side. The only reason I add this second paragraph is to ensure nobody thinks I’m suggesting the blue plate warms until it reaches the same surface temperature as the sun. It doesn’t, because it’s at a distance from the sun such that it’s receiving only 400 W/m2. The sun itself most likely emits a far greater flux (unless the sun in this thought experiment is meant to be a very cold one, and the plates are supposed to be sitting right next to it).

          • Greenhaus says:

            To add to that first paragraph…

            The assumption I’m making is that the flux being shown as reaching the blue plate from the sun is the flux which reaches both sides of the plate (i.e the entire surface area of the plate). This assumption is made because that’s the way energy budgets of the Earth are typically shown. The Earth in a sense actually receives 1,368 W/m2 from the sun (known as the solar constant). However, the flux shown as the input of a typical Earth energy budget is this number divided by 4, 342 W/m2. This is to attempt to account for the fact that the Earth is a sphere and it is designed to be an average amount of insolation that each point of the Earth would receive (assuming the Earth was rotating fast enough that the illumination of the sun is spread evenly over its entirety).

            If the assumption I referred to does not apply in this thought experiment, and the 400 W/m2 is actually like a “solar constant” figure, then as these plates aren’t rotating, but heat can be conducted through the plate, you could argue to divide by two (so that 200 W/m2 are leaving each side). If there is no conduction through the plate then only one side would warm, the side facing the sun, until it was emitting 400 W/m2. If conduction is occurring then you would indeed have 200 W/m2 leaving each side of the plate, however you would have to divide the “solar constant” figure by 2 also, for the same reasons as the adjustment is made to the real constant on a typical Earth energy budget. So in this scenario the blue plate would be at equilibrium with 200 W/m2 emitted from each side. Adding the green plate would result in the temperature of the green plate warming until it was also emitting 200 W/m2 from each side.

          • barry says:

            The sun in this example emits much more than 400 w/m2 in total. 400 w/m2 is the amount received by the Earth.

            A little thought experiment. Let’s make the sun a household object for ease of conceptualization. A light bulb.

            If a light bulb is emitting at 40 w/m2, only a portion of that reaches your hand (unless you are a giant, and you manage to completely encircle the bulb with your hand).

            If you manipulate reality, and unfold the light bulb so that its surface is emitting in one direction only (towards your hand), then you are receiving 40 w/m2.

            You can do this much more simply in real life. Put a second light bulb right next to the first one, also emitting a total of 40 w/m2. Now you’re getting the front and back of the bulb emitting towards your hand at the same time.

            In your view, adding a second light bulb should make your hand feel no warmer. By extension, adding a wall of 100 light bulbs emitting at 40 w/m2 should make your hand feel no warmer.

            I hope you can see that this is not the case.

            The blue plate can only emit a portion of its total radiation in either direction. It can’t emit its total in one direction, and its total again in another direction.

            Your blue plate is indeed emitting 800 w/m2.

            There is not a second sun on the other side of the blue plate.

            The green plate is shielded from the sun by the blue.

            So in this scenario the blue plate would be at equilibrium with 200 W/m2 emitted from each side. Adding the green plate would result in the temperature of the green plate warming until it was also emitting 200 W/m2 from each side.

            How can the green plate emit 200 w/m2 on both sides (total 400 w/m2) if it is only receiving 200 w/m2 from the blue plate?

          • barry says:

            Amending the first sentence”

            The sun in this example emits much more than 400 w/m2 in total. 400 w/m2 is the amount received by the [blue plate].

          • Greenhaus says:

            Barry, if your reply is directed at me, then yes:

            “The sun in this example emits much more than 400 w/m2 in total. 400 w/m2 is the amount received by the Earth”

            That is what I had assumed as explained in my first comment at 11:51 am:

            “So we know that the blue plate is far enough away from the sun that it receives a flux of 400 W/m2, in this thought experiment.”

            I think for the rest of your comment, I explain myself more fully in the second post at 2:08 pm, so that will hopefully clear that up.

          • barry says:

            Distance and conductivity add complication to the math but the principle remains the same. There is a deficit in outflux of the 2-plate system if the temperature of the blue plate remains the same after the green plate is introduced.

          • Greenhaus says:

            There is no defecit. The blue plate emits as it receives from the sun. The green plate emits as it receives from the blue plate. Everything is at equilibrium. Conductivity is not introduced to add complexity, it is a necessary condition if both sides of the plate are to emit, that’s all. Since the diagrams show both sides are emitting we can assume that it is included. I was just trying to cover all ways of looking at the problem. The consideration of distance was only added for the reasons explained in the second paragraph of my first post. Again, I already assumed that the sun emits more than 400 W/m2 and that the blue plate was at the distance from the sun such that 400 W/m2 was received.

          • barry says:

            There is a deficit in outgoing flux in the 2-plate system (or 2-sphere system) if the temperature of the blue plate doesn’t change.

            Blue plate cannot emit 400 w/m2 either side. That would mean that a body immediately to the left of the blue plate was receiving 400 w/m2, and a body immediately to the right was receiving 400 w/m2, the sum of which is 800 w/m2.

            The blue plate cannot emit twice as much energy as it receives from the sun. Otherwise it has created energy, violating the 1st law.

            But it cam emit more than 400 w/m2 if it is receiving additional energy from somewhere else. This is what happens when the green plate is introduced. Net flow between them is still from hot to cold.

            Both plates heat up until the total thermal emission from the 2-plate system is in equilibrium with solar input. As some of the energy remains in-system, between the 2 plates, the whole system must get warmer to compensate and match influx.

          • Phil says:

            I dont understand why you are summinng the emittance from each side of the plate ..

            If the plate is 1 sq meter in size its total surface are is 2 sq meters ( both sides)

            If one side has a energy source of 800 watts it will be receiving 400w/m2

            And it will warm until it is radiating 400w/m2 in all directions

            Add yourr green plate now and see what happens

          • barry says:

            It just means the plate has warmed to the temperature whereby its surface area (which includes both sides of the plate, and the edges at the top and bottom) is emitting 400 W/m2 from every point.

            That means that if we stick a non-conducting shield in front of the sun with a tiny aperture, the blue plate would still receive 400 w/m2.

          • Phil says:

            Umm no , it would be recieving 400w/m2 x the area of the aperature … I think lol

          • Phil says:

            Then divide that by the area of the plate (2m2) and you would know what the emittance of the plate would be at equlibrium temp .. I think. 😉

          • Greenhaus says:

            I refer to an assumption in my second post, at 2:08 pm, October 9pm. It needs to be known whether or not the assumption applies in this thought experiment. If yes, then the blue plate emits 400 W/m2 “each side” and no it does not add up to a total output of 800 W/m2. Until you can get your head around that, no point going any further!

          • Greenhaus says:

            “October 9”, not “October 9 pm”, sorry.

          • barry says:

            Greenhaus,

            The assumption Im making is that the flux being shown as reaching the blue plate from the sun is the flux which reaches both sides of the plate (i.e the entire surface area of the plate).

            Not sure if you’ve examined the diagrams at the link. Here it is.

            http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html

            The sun is on the left, the blue plate to the right, perpendicular to the sun. The blue plate receives 400 w/m2 from the sun on its left face.

            Does this clarify?

          • Greenhaus says:

            Referring to this comment from Eli Rabett:

            “Eli used infinite thin plates facing each other to reduce the difficulty of the problem to 2D”

            As the plates have no “depth” dimension (infinitely thin), they are (or should be) essentially 1D objects as far as the attempt to depict them on this 2D diagram is concerned. The plates are meant to be “facing” the sun and viewed from the side from the perspective shown in the diagram, which means any width that these plates may or may not possess cannot be shown. On the diagram they’re depicted as though they have height and depth (2 dimensions), but the thought experiment requires that they don’t have depth. Obviously for them to be visible on the diagram a depth of some kind must be drawn in, to some extent, despite the experiment requiring this dimension be non-existent. Lacking depth means that there is no real sense in which these plates have two “sides”.

            So the first trick being used here by Mr Rabett is to set up this conceptualisation in the viewer of his diagrams that there is two sides from which these plates can emit (that the plates possess depth, when actually they don’t). This completely fooled me as can be shown by my consideration of conduction through the plate’s depth. Well, there is no depth, so there is no conduction. But since there is no depth, there also aren’t two sides to the plate. Rendering every conclusion drawn by Mr Rabbett involving fluxes leaving both “sides” of a plate false.

          • barry says:

            Huh? Are you implying that a 2D view is intrinsically impermissible (but 1D and 3D are fine)?

            I don’t think you get to decide that one of the dimensions is verboten.

            But if I’m misunderstanding you here, and 2D is a permissible way of looking at the construct, how would you amend it while keeping the same diagram?

          • Greenhaus says:

            Barry: yes, I had seen the diagrams. You say:

            “The sun is on the left, the blue plate to the right, perpendicular to the sun. The blue plate receives 400 w/m2 from the sun on its left face”

            On a typical Earth energy budget diagram, the Earth is shown as receiving 342 W/m2 on what could be seen as one “face”, to relate it to the situation you depict in your quote. However the Earth itself, as a whole, is receiving 1,368 W/m2 from the sun. Hopefully I don’t need to explain again the reason why this is all so. So in the same way I look at the 342 W/m2 on an energy budget of the Earth, I am looking at the 400 W/m2 from the sun on Rabett’s diagram. As it is on the Earth energy budget diagram, where this 342 W/m2 is impinging on every point around the Earth (due to assumed rapid rotation), so it is with the 400 W/m2. So it is effectively impinging on both sides of the blue plate (because heat can conduct through the plate).

            This was all, however, posted before I read that Rabett intends that the plates have no depth. That being the case, they don’t have two sides. I refer you in that case to the post I made before this one.

          • Greenhaus says:

            “Huh? Are you implying that a 2D view is intrinsically impermissible (but 1D and 3D are fine)?”

            I am not implying that a 2D view is intrinsically impermissible. I am implying that in a 2D view with the perspective as it is (plates seen from the side, facing the sun), a plate that lacks depth would be invisible. I understand that for the purposes of the diagram, a line must be drawn for the plate, which will give the illusion that the plate is not, as Mr Rabett puts it, “infinitely thin” (in other words, that it possesses no depth). I’m not saying that’s impermissible. I’m saying it leads to the false impression that the plate does indeed possess depth, and thus has two sides which it can emit from.

            In reality, if a plate lacks depth, there is no real physical sense in which it can have two “sides”. So it won’t emit from two “sides”.

          • barry says:

            Abstractions like these are common in getting to grips with complex ideas.

            Maths itself is an abstraction, and useful proofs come from generalized or idealized formulae. You can’t get much more abstract than solving in 7, 9 or 13 dimensions.

            This formula/diagram is an elegant demonstration of how the 2nd Law is not violated by a warm body getting warmer when a cooler body is introduced to a system that has energy constantly entering. That’s all.

            If you have the chops, make the same construct in 3D (use spheres, one behind the other), using more complex math, and show your results. You will always find that there is a deficit if you don’t allow the nearest plate/sphere to get warmer.

            Follow your criticisms and do the math. I’d be keen to see your results.

          • Greenhaus says:

            “This formula/diagram is an elegant demonstration of how the 2nd Law is not violated by a warm body getting warmer when a cooler body is introduced to a system that has energy constantly entering. Thats all.”

            It’s completely unphysical nonsense. That’s all.

            My criticisms wouldn’t follow into a real-world way of looking at this situation because the situation itself cannot exist in the real world. If you can’t see the problem with a plate that has no depth somehow emitting from two non-existent “sides” I’m not sure there’s any point continuing this conversation. So I won’t.

          • Svante says:

            Don’t get hung up on that, make it negligible depth, say 1 mm.

          • barry says:

            Yes, what Svante said.

            But if you’re not into a 2D view, take it to the third dimension and do the math. Sun –> sphere –> sphere. Line them up so that the sphere on the right is perfectly shielded from the sun by the sphere in the middle. It will make the math less complex.

            You should discover that the sphere in the middle needs to heat up once the second sphere is introduced to the system, in order for the 2-sphere system to emit thermal radiation equivalent to that being received by the middle sphere from the sun.

          • Greenhaus says:

            OK, so assume the plates are 1mm thick and they can emit from either side (enabled via conduction through the plate). We’re back to where we were before…with what I was trying to explain to you before.

            Basically, I agree with Phil, who just explained it in a much, much, much, much more concise way. Objects radiate a flux from their entire surface area, i.e including both sides. It makes no sense to suggest that an object emitting a flux of 400 W/m2 from one of its sides and 400 W/m2 from the other side is emitting 800 W/m2 in total. The object is emitting 400 W/m2. If it was hexagonal, in the “depth” dimension as it were (looking like a hexagon facing towards us on Eli’s diagrams), and there were six arrows coming out each labelled 400 W/m2, would you claim it was emitting 2400 W/m2!?

            The blue plate will emit 400 W/m2 to the green plate, which will warm until it (the whole surface area of it) is also emitting 400 W/m2 from its surface area, i.e both sides (assuming that it is the same size as the blue plate, as it appears to be).

          • Greenhaus says:

            I’ve also realised that what I wrote in my second post at 2:08pm on October 9 is wrong. I’d overthought things and had complicated the issue by comparing a rotating Earth to a stationary flat plate. A rotating Earth will of course never conduct heat right through from one side to the other but a thin stationary plate will. To compare an assumed fast speed of rotation with the conduction through the plate was a false equivalence which led me to the wrong conclusion that the output flux as well as the “solar constant” input should both be divided by two.

            My first post was OK as it was, and the last one too. So for my comment at 1:21am on October 10, you can ignore that part about the assumption, it makes no difference. The rest is right, the plate warms until it emits 400 W/m2 from its entire surface i.e from both sides; which shouldn’t be summed.

          • barry says:

            Greenhaus (and Phil),

            It makes no sense to suggest that an object emitting a flux of 400 W/m2 from one of its sides and 400 W/m2 from the other side is emitting 800 W/m2 in total. The object is emitting 400 W/m2.

            There is a way of testing this notion in real life.

            Please bear with me. I’ll number the logic train for your ease of reference in reply.

            Let’s substitute the sphere of the sun for a light bulb.

            It’s total received power in all directions is, say, 40w/m2.

            (1) Based on what I’ve quoted of you above, you’re saying it emits 40 w/m2 to a flat plane perpendicular to one side of it, and it emits 40 w/m2 to a flat plane on the other side of it.

            Correct so far?

            Let the flat plane be your hand. Let’s call the position of your hand ‘in front.’

            You’re saying your hand receives 40 w/m2 from the front, and another hand (mine) receives 40 w/m2 from the back of the bulb.

            (2) If we could manipulate reality, we would unfold this light bulb into a plane emitting in one direction only, toward your hand. Your hand should feel no warmer than it did when the light bulb was a globe. You’re still receiving 40 w/m2, and no more.

            Correct so far?

            There is a way to do this without God-like powers. We can easily mimic the effect of having the front and back of the light bulb warming your hand at the same time.

            (3) We simply stick another light bulb emitting at the same power. You’re still receiving 40 w/m2 to your hand and no more.

            Agreed?

            According to you, your hand should feel no warmer.

            You can actually try this out.

            I’m going to bet your hand feels warmer.

            Use a thermometer if you don’t trust your senses.

            Let’s take the logic of this further.

            If we unfolded both light bulbs into a unidirectional thermal plane, our hand should feel no hotter. It’s still only receiving 40 w/m2. So we can add 2 more light bulbs to mimic that effect.

            (3a)Eventually we could have a wall of 100 light bulbs, all emitting at 40 w/m2, but your hand would receive the same amount of heat as if there was one 40 w/m2 light bulb. According to the notion expressed where I’ve quoted you above.

            I say that your hand receives (a bit less than) 20 w/m2, and my hand on the other side receives (a bit less than) 20w/m2.

            I say that you do indeed sum the two sides to get (closer to) 40 w/m2. (It’s radiating in all directions)

            I say that adding a second bulb, mimicking the effect of receiving thermal radiation from the front and back of one bulb, will make your hand feel warmer. Or raise the temperature of a thermometer.

            What do you say?

          • Phil says:

            Ok i think the confusion isjust how much energy iscoming in to the first plate .. If your power source is applying 400w to just one side of the plate (and the plate is 1m2 on each side) then it will emit 200w/m2 … 400 watts in 400 watts out..

            Further your second plate will receive 200 watts thus emitting. 100w/m2 at equlibrium .. As long as yoi continue to provide power the first plate will remain at a. Higher temp than the second …

          • Greenhaus says:

            Actually there’s a far easier way to settle this.

            I asked:

            “If it was hexagonal, in the depth dimension as it were (looking like a hexagon facing towards us on Elis diagrams), and there were six arrows coming out each labelled 400 W/m2, would you claim it was emitting 2400 W/m2!?”

            Answer the question.

          • barry says:

            “If it was hexagonal, in the depth dimension as it were (looking like a hexagon facing towards us on Elis diagrams), and there were six arrows coming out each labelled 400 W/m2, would you claim it was emitting 2400 W/m2!?”

            Answer the question.

            I’m having trouble seeing what you’re saying.

            If it were a six-sided 3D shape (ie – a box), with arrows coming out of each side at 400 w/m2 (as received by 6 surfaces perpendicular to each side of the box), then I would definitely say the box was emitting 2400 w/m2 total.

            I hope this is close enough to what you’re asking.

            Would you mind thinking about and responding to my post? Is there a fault in the train of logic?

          • Greenhaus says:

            OK. Well, to be clear, I was talking about a shape that would be a hexagon in 2D (as I said, facing towards the “camera”, as it were, which has “photographed” the 2D image of Eli’s diagram – yes I know it’s not a photograph and yes I know there’s no camera). In 3D I was envisioning it to extend in the “width” dimension so it would actually be an 8-sided shape. In the same way that a 2D box (a square) becomes a six-sided shape when you consider it as a 3D box. In 2D if you draw on six arrows from the hexagon you imagine that it now emits in total 2400 W/m2. It doesn’t. It is simply emitting 400 W/m2 in all directions. Just as when considering it in 3D, it is not now emitting 3200 W/m2. It is emitting 400 W/m2 in all directions. I hope this is now completely clear.

          • barry says:

            Firstly, I’m not going to quibble over nit-picky stuff. We’re dealing with idealized scenarios and these conversations are much better if conducted in good faith. You’ve already done the same for me.

            I’m picturing a camera looking at the flat side of a hexagon, and the arrows are pointing not at the camera, but radiating perpendicular to the line of sight. From the edges of the hexagon outwards. Is that it?

          • Greenhaus says:

            You’ve got it. That’s the 2D view of the shape. The arrows are drawn pointing out in six directions from all six sides, 400 W/m2 each. Which only means that the object is emitting 400 W/m2 in all directions. Now consider it in 3D. The side facing the camera is a side of the shape. Side 7. That’s emitting 400 W/m2 straight towards the camera. The side you can’t see in the 2D image, side 8, is emitting 400 W/m2 away from the camera. The 3D object is emitting 400 W/m2 in every direction. It’s not emitting 3200 W/m2.

            Consider your box example. Seen in 2D, it’s a square. You’ll have four arrows drawn from each side. Again, as you say, perpendicular to the line of sight. Each arrow shows a flux of 400 W/m2. The box (square in 2D) is not emitting 1600 W/m2. It’s simply emitting 400 W/m2 in every direction. Now consider it in 3D. Side 5 is emitting 400 W/m2 straight towards the camera. Side 6 can’t be seen in 2D, but it’s emitting 400 W/m2 away from the camera. In total, it is not emitting 2400 W/m2. It’s emitting 400 W/m2 in every direction.

            Now consider your plates…

          • barry says:

            The arrows are drawn pointing out in six directions from all six sides, 400 W/m2 each. Which only means that the object is emitting 400 W/m2 in all directions.

            I think this is an assertion of how you want me to see it.

            I would say:

            The object is emitting 400 w/m2 in EACH direction.

            But really, the diagramatic with arrows and what it means depends upon whoever writes it up.

            I have answered many of your questions. If you are not satisfied, I understand. We can get back to your take and how I understand it at a later point.

            I’ve have recently asked you to consider various things which have been unanswered. I would like to return to these now, in fair play, and ask you to respond.

            Could you reflect on this post:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267892

            And tell me if there is any fault in the train of logic. Feel free to ask for clarification.

            I have ONE follow up scenario – an even simpler one – afterwards, to make the point I am trying to make.

            If you will indulge me in this, I promise to come back to your take in due course.

          • barry says:

            (Have to go to bed. I’ll see your post in the morning, or after whenever you post it. I’m enjoying the conversation)

          • Greenhaus says:

            “The object is emitting 400 w/m2 in EACH direction”.

            Yes. I agree. An object at a temperature emits the same flux of energy in each direction. If the blue plate has warmed to the temperature it can due to its distance from the sun and the internal properties of the plate then it will emit the same flux in each direction.

            OK then onto your thought experiment. I disagree at 3. You are adding another energy source. A passive emitter is not the same as an energy source. Remove the energy source and the temperature of (and therefore flux emitted from) a passive emitter will drop. Not so for an energy source.

          • Greenhaus says:

            I guess what I’m trying to get across to you is that all objects above 0 K emit radiation in all directions. In which case it is senseless to claim that a) an object can only emit in 2 directions, or b) that you would divide up or multiply the flux emitted by the object based on the number of directions you perceive it to be emitting in. Think about it. All directions (an infinite number?)

          • barry says:

            Our disagreement is about whether or not you should sum the 2 surfaces of the emitting blue plate to arrive at the total received.

            I don’t think (3) fails because adding another bulb is the same as unfolding the single light bulb. It emits 40 w/m2 from all surfaces (as received by your hand), so all we’re doing by adding another bulb is putting another surface emitting at 40 w/m2 to your hand. You say these surfaces cannot sum, so your hand should still be receiving 40 w/m2.

            So here’s the simpler demonstration.

            You say, the blue plate emits 400 w/m2 from both sides to match the incoming from the sun. So it is emitting 400 w/m2 back to the sun, and 400 w/m2 away from it.

            Now add a second sun to the other side of the plate.

            The plate is receiving 400 w/m2 from the left, and 400 w/m2 from the right.

            If what you’re saying is right, the blue plate should not get one bit warmer with a sun added on the other side.

            If you say the blue plate should now emit 800 w/m2, then you do indeed have to sum the two surfaces (of the suns) emitting at 400 w/m2 received.

            But all we’ve done is slice the first sun in half and brought the back half around to the other side of the blue plate. The sun, after all, emits 400 w/m2 in all directions, so it should not matter how many of its emitting surfaces get received by the blue plate: it still only receives 400 w/m2 because you can’t sum these surfaces to get more power, according to you.

          • Phil says:

            Barry,
            If your plate is 1 square meter its surface arrea is 2m2.. If you arw receiving insolation on just one side at a rate of 400 w/m2. You re recieving 400 w .. If you add another sun on he other side such that side is ALSO receiving 400w/m2 you will be receiving 800 w. Th plate wil warm until it also radiates 800 watts … Divided by its surface area= 400w/m2

            Do we agree on this ?

          • Eli Rabett says:

            Greenhaus continues to try and complicate the issue to confuse everybunny.

            If anybunny noticed, the incoming and outgoing energies were stated as watts per meter squared.

            Making the geometrical shape of the plates thin plates simplifies the problem so no fancy geometry is needed.

            Best
            Eli

          • barry says:

            Yes, Phil, I agree with that.

          • Phil says:

            Ok good .bear with me here … Because i am trying to figure this out…
            So les get rid of the second sun … Or plate is now emitting at 200w/m2..

            If we can slice the plate in half yet keep them touching at all points .. Assuming 100% efficiency in convection of1 plate to the other … We still essentially have 1 plate emitting at 200w/m2 in either direction..
            Agreeed?

          • Phil says:

            Not trying to confuse the problem … Trying to understand it…

            So then if we move the second plate away just far enough that we no longer have conduction … The net radiative transfer between them should be zero (they have the same temp)

            What happens?

          • barry says:

            Eli,

            Greenhaus and Phil are confusing the issue. Phil’s comment above is succinct.

            I dont understand why you are summinng the emittance from each side of the plate

            But their confusion is not tricksy. They genuinely see it that way.

            When I first posted at your blog on this, I was confused by the very same notion for a brief while (first put forward here by Gordon Robertson).

            But then I thought about it, in much the same way as I’ve been trying to argue with Greenhaus, and eventually saw Gordon’s error.

            Total emittance is the sum of surface emittance. Otherwise you could keep introducing (source) surfaces emitting at the same power and the energy received would be no different.

            Two suns (surfaces) emitting at 400 w/m2 should supply no more warmth than one. According to these gentlemen.

            But Phil may have seen the light. He agrees just above that adding another surface emitting at 400 w/m2 (received) does indeed warm the blue plate further. You do sum emitting surfaces to get total power.

          • Greenhaus says:

            No, Barry, adding another lightbulb is adding another energy source. Unfurling the lightbulb is unfurling the lightbulb. People such as Eli Rabett are misleading you.

            Try reading through the later comments under this article::

            https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/

            For a different perspective on Eli’s thought experiment. If you comment there, with the same open-mindedness and decent attitude you can post here, you might find it a worthwhile experience. Entirely up to you…

          • barry says:

            Phil,

            If you add another sun on he other side such that side is ALSO receiving 400w/m2 you will be receiving 800 w. Th plate wil warm until it also radiates 800 watts Divided by its surface area= 400w/m2

            Yes, you divide its surface area by 2. 2 sides.

            Each side is emitting at 400 w/m2 while receiving a total of 800 w/m2.

            This is so in our idealized thought experiment, whether the 800 w/m2 is being received from one side of the blue plate or 400 w/m2 from each side.

            Now remove the second sun, as you say. The blue plate is now receiving 400 w/m2.

            Divide by 2 to get the emittance of each side of the plate.

            200 w/m2

          • barry says:

            Greenhaus,

            As promised, I now return to your hexagonal view.

            Each surface of the hexagon is emitting at 400 w/m2 received.

            You’re saying that the total emittance of the edges cannot be summed to say that the total power of the hexagon is 2400 w/m2 received.

            You’re saying that each edge emits at 400 w/m2 received, and that the entire hexagon is emitting at 400 w/m2 received.

            Correct, according to you?

            If so, hold that thought.

            Now segment the hexagon into six equal parts. Each is now separate, with their edges emitting at 400 w/m2 received.

            Turn all six edges to point at the blue plate.

            The blue plate must still be receiving 400 w/m2 only, because we cannot sum the edges of the hexagons.

            Correct, in your view?

            Now put 3 of the hexagon slices on the other side of the blue plate. They are all emitting at 400 w/m2.

            In your view, the blue plate cannot get any warmer. Even though it is receiving 400 w/m2 from one side, and 400 w/m2 from the other.

            We cannot sum the power of the hexagon edges. You have been clear on this. So there can be no additional energy being received by the blue plate.

            Correct, in your view?

            But this is exactly the same as if we introduced another sun emitting at 400 w/m2 on the other side of the blue plate. It’s the same amount of power exactly as the three hexagon slices. And we cannot sum it, according to you.

            You said introducing another sun is introducing “another source of power”.

            But that new source of power emits exactly the same amount of energy to the blue plate as the 3 hexagon slices. You could swap them as a heat source with no difference to the energy received from that side of the blue plate.

            So if a second sun is a new source of power, then so must be the 3 hexagon edges.

            Are you beginning to see it? Because I think I have no more thought experiments to add.

          • Greenhaus says:

            “Each surface of the hexagon is emitting at 400 w/m2 received.”

            I have to stop you there immediately. Each “surface” of the hexagon? No, each “side” of the hexagon.

            “Is emitting at 400 w/m2 received”? I’m not sure this is English.

            Look I’m not trying to be rude. It really seems like you are even being forced to reinvent the English language inside your head in order to make this work. You seem like an intelligent person and it’s sad to see the extent these people have worked a mind over.

            OK.

            Each side of the hexagon is emitting a flux relative to the temperature the hexagon (as a whole) has reached. You can conceive of it as 6 separate fluxes if you like, be aware that’s just to aid understanding. All objects above 0K radiate in ALL directions. You can consider it in 3D as I said and think of it radiating in 8 basic directions. However, in 3D as well…it radiates in ALL directions.

          • Greenhaus says:

            “I have to stop you there immediately. Each surface of the hexagon? No, each side of the hexagon”

            To be clear: this is not semantics. The words are different for a reason. The *surface* of the hexagonal shape referred to has six *sides* in 2D and eight *sides* in 3D.

          • Greenhaus says:

            As a counter to your thought experiment, consider two apples. An apple is a passive emitter, same as the hexagonal shape, same as the plates. Remove it from an energy source, it will cool. Same as the hexagonal shape, same as the plates. Cut Apple 1 in half and place the two sides either side of Apple 2. Does Apple 2 get warmer? No.

          • barry says:

            All things radiate in all directions. No argument from me there.

            … 400 w/m2 received

            It’s a nod to the fact of reduced power over distance. Not meant to confuse, but to acknowledge that 400 w/m2 square is what the surface receives. If the sun is a few million miles way, it obviously radiates at a higher power at its surface, and that wavefront spreads and disperses over distance.

            But let’s not get hung up on that. Even if you disagree with it. (Please don’t start a new conversation) Let’s just say 400 w/m2 and I’ll drop the phrasing.

            Our argument is not about those things. It is about this.

            You are saying that the total power of a sphere (hexagon/plate) is not divisible by its surfaces. The total power in our example is 400 w/m2, and any slice of the emitting surface is also emitting at 400 w/m2. Not some lesser power.

            Right?

            You have said that if the blue plate receives 400 w/m2 to one surface, it must radiate that amount on both surface, not half each side.

            Obviously, I disagree. I have returned to your hexagon example to demonstrate why. Call it edges or sides or whatever, the point is the relationship between total power emitted, and the relative power of each surface. You say they are all the same.

            Each side of the hexagon is emitting a flux relative to the temperature the hexagon (as a whole) has reached. You can conceive of it as 6 separate fluxes if you like

            Yes, that’s what I did just above.

            I’m going to repeat what I said. I ask you to deal explicitly with that and not other stuff. This is the last shot I’m going to make and it would be good to have it dealt with as a whole.

            Youre saying that the total emittance of the sides cannot be summed to say that the total power of the hexagon is 2400 w/m2 received.

            Youre saying that each side emits at 400 w/m2 received, and that the entire hexagon is emitting at 400 w/m2 received.

            Correct so far, according to you?

            If so, hold that thought.

            Now segment the hexagon into six equal parts. Each is now separate, with their sides emitting at 400 w/m2 received.

            Turn all six sides to point at the blue plate.

            The blue plate must still be receiving 400 w/m2 only, because we cannot sum the sides of the hexagons.

            Correct, in your view?

            Now put 3 of the hexagon slices on the other side of the blue plate. They are all emitting at 400 w/m2.

            In your view, the blue plate cannot get any warmer. Even though it is receiving 400 w/m2 from one side, and 400 w/m2 from the other.

            We cannot sum the power of the hexagon edges. You have been clear on this. So there can be no additional energy being received by the blue plate.

            Correct, in your view?

            But this is exactly the same as if we introduced another sun emitting at 400 w/m2 on the other side of the blue plate. Its the same amount of power exactly as the three hexagon slices. And we cannot sum it, according to you.

            You said introducing another sun is introducing “another source of power”.

            But that new source of power emits exactly the same amount of energy to the blue plate as the 3 hexagon slices. You could swap them as a heat source with no difference to the energy received from that side of the blue plate.

            So if a second sun is a new source of power, then so must be the 3 hexagon edges.

            Those 3 sides of the hexagon are supplying additional energy to the plate, the same amount of additional energy we get by adding a new sun to that side of the plate.

            But according to you, that is not possible, because those 3 sides of the hexagon are indivisible from the total power of the hexagon, and no new energy can be added just by moving them to the other side of the blue plate.

            Do you see it?

          • barry says:

            I see I kept the “receiving” terminology in the copy and paste. Please ignore it. We’ve done well so far refraining from quibbling about terminology. Just ignore the “received” bits, please, and let’s continue in good faith.

          • Eli Rabett says:

            Given a body of any shape the emission from any infinitesmal part of the surface of area dXdY is [dXdY s T^4] where s is the Stefan Boltzman constant and T the temperature. You can integrate this out to fit any surface. The shape of the body does not matter.

            It’s really simple if you have a plate of area A on one side the total area is 2A and the total emission is [2A s T^4] with A s T^4 coming out of each side.

            The issue about infinitely thin is also a distraction. All that is needed is that the thickness t << XY so you can neglect emission from the edges.

          • Greenhaus says:

            “Do you see it?”

            No, Barry. Do you see that if you cut Apple 1 into 1,000 segments, and put 500 segments on either side of Apple 2, then Apple 2 will not get warmer?

            Apple 1 and Apple 2 are of equal temperature. Thus their surfaces radiate a flux relative to that temperature in all directions (including towards each other). When cut into 500 segments, each segment remains at the same temperature. So each segment is now radiating a flux relative to that temperature in all directions. Including towards Apple 2 for the segments on one side, and including towards Apple 2 for the 500 segments on the other side. So in a sense you now have 1000 segments radiating towards Apple 2, and yet it gets no warmer.

          • barry says:

            Greenhaus,

            Could you respond to the post in the terms I put it ? Based on your hexagon? Let’s stick with the thought experiments we have and play them out.

            You are saying introducing a new sun (light bulb) to the other side would make the plate warmer. I quote you:

            No, Barry, adding another lightbulb [sun] is adding another energy source.

            Relocating half the hexagon (3 segments) to the other side of the blue plate does the same job as introducing a new sun. These 3 segments are also radiating at 400 w/m2.

            But in your conception these 3 segments should not add any energy, because they are indivisible from the total energy of the whole hexagon, also radiating at 400 w/m2 “in any direction” (whether in 2D or 3D). I quote you:

            “The arrows are drawn pointing out in six directions from all six sides, 400 W/m2 each. Which only means that the object is emitting 400 W/m2 in all directions. Now consider it in 3D. The side facing the camera is a side of the shape. Side 7. Thats emitting 400 W/m2 straight towards the camera. The side you cant see in the 2D image, side 8, is emitting 400 W/m2 away from the camera. The 3D object is emitting 400 W/m2 in every direction. Its not emitting 3200 W/m2.

            I say there is a discrepancy here.

            Either a new sun adds no more energy and the blue plate can’t get warmer (contrary to what you said), or relocating the 3 segments does radiating at 400 w/m2 towards the right side of the blue plate does add more energy, which is contrary to the notion of each side of the hex radiating the same amount as the whole hex.

            Please tell what you think is fallacious with my critique here, in the terms provided (the hexagon idea is yours).

          • Greenhaus says:

            “Relocating half the hexagon (3 segments) to the other side of the blue plate does the same job as introducing a new sun”

            You are acting like I’m trying to skirt round the issue by introducing my own version of your thought experiment. My version of your thought experiment can be seen to be exactly the same as yours. It is also a real experiment you can actually do. Make yourself a hexagonal shape out of some passively emitting material. Divide the shape into six equally sized segments. Put three on each side of whatever passively emitting object you like. Measure the temperature of the object before and after adding the segments each side. There will be no temperature difference.

            When I introduced the idea of the hexagon the point of it was to explain that an object (the plate) will emit the same flux from however many sides it may have. I was simply trying to introduce to you the idea that dividing the flux that an object emits from all over its surface by the number of sides it has, makes no sense. Because an object radiates energy in all directions, from every point around its surface. Now in your thought experiment you have replaced the hexagon as some external, different thing and you still have the blue plate. The hexagon was meant to *be* the plate, just to show you that it doesn’t matter how many sides it has.

            Regardless of the fact that you are completely missing my point, you appear to be visualising the hexagon as some sort of energy source (equivalent to a second sun). I will try to pinpoint exactly where you go wrong: adding another energy source “adds more energy” (your wording), yes. As in additional energy, energy that wasn’t there to begin with (it’s tied up inside the second sun as potential energy, before the second sun is introduced). Dividing up a passively emitting object does not “add more energy” because you can think of the passive object as merely “recycling” the energy already provided by the energy source (first sun). The energy that a passive object emits ultimately *comes from* the energy source in the first place. Turn off the sun and there is no more energy for passive objects to “recycle”.

            Perhaps that will help. I have really tried. I haven’t seen your friend Eli (whose opinion you seem to trust) helping you in any way to correct what he must surely realise, qualified as he is, are your misconceptions here. I do however have a life to get on with. I have spent a lot of time here and I really should be getting on with other things. Last post!

          • barry says:

            Eli has posted some math just above, solving surface area/power.

            Yes, I have been analogizing the hex with the sun – based on your idea that the sun radiates at the same power in all directions that it does in any single direction. The half of the sphere “seen” by the blue plate emits 400 w/m2 to it, and the unfolded sun is also emitting at 400 w/m2 unidirectionally. According to you.

            Surface area has no meaning WRT to power, according to you. That’s why you say you cannot divide the energy emitted by the blue plate in half to reflect two surface areas emitting a power that sums to the whole.

            You’ve said the same of suns and apples and plates.

            I finally figured out the simplest way to show you are wrong.

            I say, the sun has a surface area. It cannot emit at the same power for one size of its surface area that it does for a smaller or larger surface area. It can’t emit the same power from its ‘front’ than it does if the back and front were facing in the same direction – toward the plate. More area will provide more thermal emission. Less will provide less.

            How do I know this?

            I calculated a change in power (watts) by changing the size of the emitting emitting surface area.

            You can do it yourself just by clicking on this link, and converting w/m2 to w/cm2.

            https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en/heat-flux-density/

            Choose 400 w/m2 and see the result. 0.04W/cm2

            The values are different.

            Because surface area does matter in terms of thermal emission.

            The fact we are using the unit W/m2 (Watts per square meter) should have clued us in from the beginning.

            Thus, the blue plate emits 400 w/m2 –> It has 2 surfaces –> Each surface must emit 200 w/m2.

          • Eli Rabett says:

            Greenhaus is missing the point and misleading others. Although you could work the problem out with varying degrees of difficulty the reason to use perfectly absorbing flat thin plates is that you can eliminate geometrical issues having to do with how much of the radiated energy hits the plates. With thin large plates the answer is ALL OF IT. With other shapes you twist yourself into Euclidean knots although if you do it correctly you get the same answer.

            Calculation of the geometric factor if the surfaces are finite and arbitrary is not trivial and only confuses the issue, which Eli suspects strongly is Greenhaus’ purpose since he or she cannot falsify Eli’s proof. For a discussion of this see
            http://www.mie.uth.gr/labs/ltte/grk/pubs/ahtt.pdf pp 487 and the following 100 pages or so

          • Greenhaus says:

            “Because surface area does matter in terms of thermal emission.”

            Of course.

            “I say, the sun has a surface area.”

            Yes.

            “It cannot emit at the same power for one size of its surface area that it does for a smaller or larger surface area. It cant emit the same power from its front than it does if the back and front were facing in the same direction toward the plate. More area will provide more thermal emission. Less will provide less”

            And there isn’t more surface area, there’s exactly the same amount. Your “unfolded sun”, or lightbulb, from earlier, is just the surface area of the sun, bulb, of whatever, folded out into a flat plane and thus emitting in only one direction. No surface area is added or removed. That’s the only reason I ever agreed to your “unfolded sun” or “unfolded lightbulb” as it was at the time, emitting the same flux as the normal bulb (just in one direction).

            I’m glad that you’ve had the revelation that the m2 in W/m2 refers to surface area. It’s funny because I’ve been repeatedly trying to explain that the *surface* area of an object is what is relevant to its flux and not the *side* area (meaning *total surface area divided by number of sides*, is not relevant). Kind of my whole point for the last several posts. I said the last comment was my last post and I really wanted it to be, but when people put words in my mouth it really irritates me.

            If you want to claim victory, fine, just don’t make up my position in order to do so,

          • Phil says:

            I think i figured out what was confusing me. (Physics courses were so long ago lol)

            I have been picturing the blue plate as a ‘sun’ to the green plate , providing power without regards to radiative transfer and temperature..believing the green plate is at equlibrium radiating 100w/m2. This is also the error in the original thought experiment
            Because the blue plate is actually a passive emitter and we need to look at radiative trransfer…
            As long as the net radiative transfer from blue to green is positive , the temperature of green will increase…
            Thus equlibrium is only reached when green is emitting 200w/m2.. And this the same temp as blue

            Energy is conserved 200w out either side and 400 input

            Net radiative transfer is 0 and the plates temps are the same

            The waem plate has warmed the cold plate and all is as it should be

          • Phil says:

            Thanks to greeenhaus for helping me with that

          • barry says:

            Energy is conserved 200w out either side and 400 input

            Wouldn’t that mean that the green and blue plate are emitting each 0w/m2 to the inside?

            Which would mean that the inside surfaces of blue and green plate are 0K.

            ?

          • Phil says:

            No,
            It means the net transfer between them is 0
            Picture it as a wave of energy moving from the right side of the system and out the left with a total power of 200 w
            And another moving from left to right …

          • barry says:

            You started by wondering if the blue plate should be emitting 400 w/m2 either side.

            Seems now you’ve agreed it should be emitting 200 w/m2 either side.

            Based on:

            Energy is conserved 200w out either side and 400 input

            So if the blue plate emits 200 w/m2 towards the green plate, the green plate only receives 200 w/m2.

            So it emits 100 w/m2 out either side.

            How can it emit more than 100 w/m2 outside the system?

            It must get warmer.

            For it to get warmer, the blue plate has to make it warmer. There is no other way.

            The blue plate has to emit more than 200 w/m2 towards the green plate. The green plate is receiving energy from nowhere else.

            If energy was a wave passing through the 2-plate system, 400 w/m2 would enter from the left, and 400 w/m2 would exit through the right.

            But energy is not flowing unidirectionally. Some is being emitted back towards the left, some to the right. And some between the 2 plates.

            Someone downthread asked me to describe a way in which a mug of cold beer could make an apple warmer than it was. I described this system:

            A box with an apple and a heater, and a hole in the top just a little smaller than the circumference of the mug.

            Let the system settle to equilibrium. Heat flow to the apple and out the hole at the top is now constant. The apple is now at a constant temperature.

            Now place the mug of cold beer over the hole at the top.

            The apple will eventually get warmer because heat loss from the system is being slowed down. The mug will also warm from the bottom, but at no time will the temperature of the whole mug be warmer than the apple. It is losing heat to the cooler outside air along every side. The top of the mug will be cooler than the bottom after equilibrium is reached.

            The introduction of the green plate slows the loss of heat from the blue plate. The green plate is now emitting half the thermal loss of the blue plate back to it. The blue plate must warm. The green plate also must warm in response. Now it can emit more than 100 w/m2 out of the system. Both plates warm until the thermal loss out of each side of the system = input. Then the warming stops.

            The green plate will be less warm than the blue.

            Just like the mug will be less warm than the apple.

            Unless the primary laws of thermodynamics apply differently to radiation than it does to convection and conduction.

          • Greenhaus says:

            You’re welcome, Phil, although I don’t agree with your solution.

            The correct answer is as shown in this comment:

            https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31029

            The reasoning is explained in the comments there.