L.A. Wildfires Creating Spectacular Smoke Plume

December 7th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The warm, dry Santa Ana winds which are fanning the flames of the wildfires in the L.A. area have pushed the smoke hundreds of miles offshore. Yesterday’s NASA MODIS imager on the Terra satellite captured the following image of the smoke being sheared into artistic shapes as it travels downwind. Click on the image for the full-resolution version.

NASA MODIS image of LA wildfire smoke on 6 December 2017. The red dots show locations of satellite-detected hotspots where fires are most intense.

The red dots indicate locations where the satellite sensor is detecting hotspots where the fire is most intense.


562 Responses to “L.A. Wildfires Creating Spectacular Smoke Plume”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. ren says:

    The dry wind from the mountains will continue. Fighting the fire will be extremely difficult.

  2. RW says:

    Yikes! Man, that looks bad.

  3. professorP says:

    “The region has seen one of the hottest and driest starts ever to what should be the wet season.
    Temperatures are about 15 degrees above normal for this time of year, according to Eric Holthaus, a meteorologist who recently reported that Los Angeles had received just 0.11 inches of rain since October 1.
    While numerous factors may have played a role in the specific weather patterns seen over Southern California over the past few months, experts say that climate change has played a role more generally in making the wildfire season longer and more extreme.
    The amount of land burned in the US since 1984 is double what would have been expected without the effects of climate change in that period, according to one study. And the average wildfire season in the west now lasts at least 2 1/2 months longer than it did in the early 1970s, according to WXshift, a project of the climate-change research and reporting organisation Climate Central.
    In California, scientists have reported that climate change exacerbated the multiyear drought that ended with rains last winter. Those rains created an abundance of new growth that then dried out over an exceptionally hot summer. New growth tends to be brushy and flammable and it can be blown a long way, which spreads fires farther and creates new ones. All of that new vegetation plus older trees that never received enough moisture to fully recover from the drought made for a bumper crop of fire fuel.”

    Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com/ventura-county-los-angeles-wildfires-california-2017-12#mSYvPVmFIh728CdX.99

    • wert says:

      Unprecedented! You must say if this is unprecedented! Never before has been so warm so dry exactly here with so lousy fire brigade.

      All caused by CO2. If we only had 270 ppm, this could not happen.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      prof…”The amount of land burned in the US since 1984 is double what would have been expected without the effects of climate change in that period…”

      Go soak your head. California has suffered droughts and fires forever. Take your alarmist propaganda elsewhere.

      • professorP says:

        A bit testy are we?
        I am simply the messenger of news. Don’t like it? – too bad.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          prof…”I am simply the messenger of news”.

          News??? Having experienced your posts in the past I know they are sheer propaganda.

          • professorP says:

            Ahh -yes. I think you are promoting the idea of “fake news”.
            As in “fake temperature records”, “fake NOAA”, “fake NASA”, “fake Hilary”, “fake election results”, “fake moon landing”
            Another symptom of old age I am afraid.

          • jim d says:

            ProfP,

            The problem in California has been the suppression of natural fire.

            “Since 1984…” is a moment ago, in environmental terms. A hundred years of of human fire suppression have distorted the California flora enormously, both in the wild land and in the urban-interface. In some areas, like Ventura, there have not been fires in the last 60 years. The fuel loads in those not-burnt areas are ten times what would have been typical 200 years ago. (Aboriginal Americans understood the importance of regenerating the environment with fire.)

            Before modern fire suppression, there was a short term equilibri
            um; about as much vegetation burnt as grew, on a 5 year time scale. Now, about as much vegetation burns as grows on a 50 year time scale. Infrequent and very severe fires are the consequence.

            You are just a nitwit, or you are disingenuous when you say that the fires have anything to do with ‘climate change’.

          • lewis says:

            Jim,

            Those proposing of climate change to the root of all ills, real or imagined, is NOT unprecedented. Historically, shamans and the like have blamed mankind for the vagaries of nature and ordered human sacrifices to assuage the anger of the gods.

            ProfP, obviously, aspires to be a shaman – according to one study.

          • professorP says:

            You guys are pathetic.
            Read the article a bit more carefully. The first sentence:
            “The region has seen one of the hottest and driest starts ever to what should be the wet season. Temperatures are about 15 degrees above normal for this time of year..”
            Prattle on all you like about natural cycles – but you cannot deny that record warmth and dryness is a major factor.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            professor pseudoscience, how many things are wrong with the quote you provided?

            “The region has seen one of the hottest and driest starts ever to what should be the wet season.”

            1) “ever”– Like there are recorded data “forever”?

            2) “should be the wet season”– A developing La Nina has no effect on California?

            So much pseudoscience, in just one sentence, amazing!

          • David Appell says:

            La Ninas typically dry SoCal.

            The drought/warming doesn’t have to be the worse in the history of the Earth to be a problem. This should be utterly obvious to anyone who thinks about it (and isn’t a troll).

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis never wants to discuss the science, because he doesn’t have the necessary education.

            No one wants to sacrifice anyone — the concern about climate change is about saving people and alleviating suffering.

          • lewis says:

            David,
            I am not a scientist, I am a businessman. I come here to read, sometimes learn and sometimes comment.

            One of the things I have noted is the obtuseness of those who pretend to be believers in science, but only if the science tells them what they wish to believe.

            I, at one time, believe the CO2 story. No longer. Much reading led me to that.

            You, however, are stuck. Your mind is not open, it is closed. This, sir, is not the mark of a scientist or a businessman.

            It is the mark of a apologist.

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis, you are not in any way qualified to judge the science or anyone’s position on science.

            Not about CO2, not about anything climate related. You are uneducated on the subject and don’t (and can’t) understand it.

            Remember that next time you want to pipe up.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, lewis indicated he had done the research to figure out the AGW/CO2 nonsense is not science. That puts him light-years ahead of you.

            Remember that the next time you want to pipe up,

          • David Appell says:

            lewis says:
            “I, at one time, believe the CO2 story. No longer. Much reading led me to that.”

            What science did you read?

            (Blogs don’t count. Especially denialist blogs.)

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, you know no science. You believe that “science” is found in papers at the bottom of bird cages.

          • David Appell says:

            You should be embarrassed about your dimwitted inability to come up with clever responses.

          • Joel says:

            lewis wrote:

            “I, at one time, believe the CO2 story. No longer. Much reading led me to that.”

            Interesting. The host of this blog accepts that increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere would contribute to warming the climate.

            What did you read that took you down a different path to Dr Spencer?

            Disagreement with the magnitude of warming projections in the IPCC reports is a long way from denying key understandings of climate science.

      • David Appell says:

        What does the science say, Gordon?

        I mean actual science, not your fantasy physics….

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          davie, you mean “actual science” like the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K?

          Or do you often just get actual science mixed up with fantasy physics?

          • David Appell says:

            You are a sad man.

            dT = dQ/mc

            dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s (given) => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.
            m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg
            c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume).
            => dT = 760,000 K

            QED

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            You’ve tried that con before, davie.

            Just admit you don’t understand quantum physics, and sit in the corner and be quiet.

          • David Appell says:

            How does quantum physics negate this calculation and conclusion?

            I asked you before, and you had no answer.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            In simple terms, considering the questioner, the Sun radiates at an effective temperature of about 5800K. So, the Sun can NOT radiatively heat another object more than 5800K. And it could not even raise Earth to 5800K, due to the inverse-square law. But, I imagine that is also over your head.

          • David Appell says:

            That has nothing to do with quantum physics.

            But again you are pretending you don’t know the conditions of this Gedankenexperiment. Do you understanding the meaning of the word “if?”

            “In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.2210 17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”

            https://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/pierrehumbert/publications/553575

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No davie, it has a lot to do with quantum physics.

            And there’s nothing wrong with a “thought experiment”. But you don’t get to violate the laws of physics. Otherwise, it just turns into pseudoscience.

            I can only determine that you just love being wrong.

          • David Appell says:

            What does it have to do with quantum physics? You’ve still never said.

            This calculation is completely classical.

            If you think a thought experiment must follow the laws of physics, tell us what you think about Einstein’s youthful thought experiments about riding on a light wave.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No davie, the “calculation” is bogus. It assumes the Earth will absorb solar radiation regardless of Earth’s temperature. That’s just one of you mistakes.

            As for your desperate “appeal to authority”, likely you don’t have a clue about Einstein’s visualization of moving with a light wave.

          • Svante says:

            g*e*r*a*n, that thought experiment is tantamount to a black hole.
            What do you think happens to the energy in a black hole?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Svante now believes the Earth is a “black hole”!

            Can we say “desperate”?

            Hilarious.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”QED”

            Where in that sad set of numbers did you prove that heat is transferred from the Earth to the Sun?

            And you question my understanding of science.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”What do you think happens to the energy in a black hole?”

            First of all, you need to prove that black holes exist. No one has ever seen one other than Stephen Hawking in his dreams.

            The only evidence for a black hole is an absence of light in certain parts of the universe. Some proof. It’s like the Big Bang proof: a 4K temperature in the universe and a Doppler shift in stellar gas spectra. It is believed by certain idiots that the 4K represents heat left over from the Big Bang.

            Does no one think the massive number of stars in our universe can heat inter-stellar hydrogen and dust, which exists in vast amounts? And does anyone know where to find the centre of the universe so we know where it is expanding from?

            How large is the universe anyway? And if a Big Bang explosion happened where it did, why at that location?

            A black hole is theorized to occur when a star runs out of fuel and explodes. It can form a supernova, collapse into a neutron star, or collapse further into a super dense black hole. We have detected neutron stars but no one has ever seen a black hole.

            I can visualize Appell furiously consulting wiki in an attempt to prove me wrong. What he doesn’t understand is that wiki articles are often written by the scientifically-challenged like himself.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon, now I’ve checked Wikipedia:

            1) On 11 February 2016, the LIGO collaboration announced the first observation of gravitational waves; because these waves were generated from a black hole merger it was the first ever direct detection of a binary black hole merger.[8] On 15 June 2016, a second detection of a gravitational wave event from colliding black holes was announced.
            https://tinyurl.com/zlsh3ft

            2) The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is measured at 2.7K.
            I believe that this is a leftover from the Big Bang.
            https://tinyurl.com/yctwauvn

            3) Sure interstellar gas and dust can be heated by stars.

            4) You might think that by backtracking the velocity vectors you can locate the center of the Big Bang (and it is at A) but this is not the case!
            https://tinyurl.com/6mtzyb5

            5) The diameter of the observable universe about 91 billion light-years:
            https://tinyurl.com/yd64jac7

            6) Stars can form a black hole when they collapse.

            All of this was unknown to Clausius.

            I have found Wikipedia to be extremely reliable, including those areas where I have tested it in practice. Have you not found that in electronics? That was not to be expected a priori, but that’s the way it has worked out. Its real strength is in its references, it is based on evidence that you can check, and you can correct it if you have good evidence.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Poor gullible Svante. He “checked Wikipedia” and found:

            2) The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is measured at 2.7K.
            I believe that this is a leftover from the Big Bang.

            Hilarious!

            Poor gullible Svante, did you check the “made in” stickers on each of those CMB photons?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “The only evidence for a black hole is an absence of light in certain parts of the universe.”

            Wrong!

            Why can’t you study the science instead of flatly rejecting all knowledge and consequently looking like an idiot?

            The region around black holes is actually quite bright, both in the visual and the x-ray spectrum:

            http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic

            “It is believed by certain idiots that the 4K represents heat left over from the Big Bang.”

            Why is that idiotic, in your expert opinion?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “And does anyone know where to find the centre of the universe so we know where it is expanding from?”

            HA HA!

            The Big Bang happened right in front of your nose.
            And right in front of mine.

            The Big Bang happened *everywhere*.

            Your mistake is that you think the BB happened somewhere, and matter has been expanding into space ever since.

            But there was no space before the Big Bang.

            Rather, space is constantly being CREATED since the Big Bang, pushing matter ever further apart.

            You’ve clearly never studied science at all, let alone tried to see how it answers your own questions.

            This is why you look so ignorant time and time and time again.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Where in that sad set of numbers did you prove that heat is transferred from the Earth to the Sun?”

            Those numbers have nothing to do with that question, dummy.

            I’ve explained how the Earth’s radiation impacts the Sun many times. But ignorant people like you refuse to think about it, every time.

          • David Appell says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:
            “the calculation is bogus. It assumes the Earth will absorb solar radiation regardless of Earths temperature.on is bogus. It assumes the Earth will absorb solar radiation regardless of Earths temperature.”

            Yes, it assumes the Earth absorbs all energy incident upon it.

            That’s THE condition of RP’s thought experiment. You continually fail to understand that.

            He’s trying to make a point about how planets receive and disperse of radiational heat. Which totally blows over your pointed head every time.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie misplaces his comment, but nevertheless spills: “Yes, it assumes the Earth absorbs all energy incident upon it.”

            davie, then it is invalidated.

            Sorry.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, let’s just cut to the chase. There is NO proof of a “Big Bang”.

            Hope that helps.

          • David Appell says:

            “Yes, it assumes the Earth absorbs all energy incident upon it.

            “…then it is invalidated.”

            It’s the assumption made in RPh’s thought experiment. Hence it’s valid by definition of the assumptions.

            Do you know why gedankenexperiments are conceived?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, I can’t take you away from your pseudoscience.

            If you like your pseudoscience, you can keep your pseudoscience.

          • David Appell says:

            You don’t understand thought experiments or the meaning of the word “if.”

            Dumb cowardly troll.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            You don’t understand “facts, logic, or science”.

            But, you make up for it be calling others “trolls” and “liars”.

            You only fool yourself.

          • David Appell says:

            You are a cowardly troll who is too afraid to even sign his real name to his opinions.

            Hence there’s no reason to respect what you write here.

          • Svante says:

            g*e*r*a*n says: “There is NO proof of a Big Bang.

            Gordon and g*e*r*a*n, please tell me what you think about the creation of the universe.

          • David Appell says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:
            “but nevertheless spills: Yes, it assumes the Earth absorbs all energy incident upon it.”

            It’s the assumption of the thought experiment — hence right by definition of the problem.

          • David Appell says:

            Do you know why gedankenexperiments are conceived?

            (You didn’t answer the first time I asked.)

      • Steve Parker says:

        Just curious. How much snow would have fallen in South Texas this week without the effects of climate change?

    • Laura says:

      And the anti-human climate ghouls try to profit from the tragedy.

        • lewis says:

          See al gore – and all the other purveyors of alternative energy who seek rent from the rate and taxpayers.

          • David Appell says:

            Al Gore isn’t doing anything that you can’t do, Lewis.

            He’s just clearly a much better businessman than you are.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            With heroes like Gore, it’s no wander davie has no trouble peddling pseudoscience.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            lewis…”See al gore and all the other purveyors of alternative energy who seek rent from the rate and taxpayers”.

            Or heap more misery on the poor by raising the cost of fossil fuels and energy costs to pay for their green pseudo-science.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Hes just clearly a much better businessman than you are”.

            That can be translated as a liar. Many business feel that lying is part of business.

            When Gore was VP, while Clinton was having sex in the Oval Office with female employees, and Hillary was in denial, Gore and his wife Tipper were scouring rock songs for Satanic messages. Gore did everything but try to enact legislation for climate change, the phrase not having been invented yet.

            Gore worked privately with James Hansen of NASA GISS, funneling him funds to do his political muck-raking for AGW, but did nothing to get climate issues enacted. He did not appear all that interested till he discovered he could make big money spreading climate propaganda.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon: What funds, specifically, did Gore funnel to Hansen that were not approved by Congress and the executive branch?

            Hmm?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Or heap more misery on the poor by raising the cost of fossil fuels and energy costs to pay for their green pseudo-science.”

            Gordon, you’re not poor.

            Lewis isn’t poor. I’m not poor.

            So why shouldn’t we all pay the true cost of fossil fuels, which includes all their negative externalities?

            Stop using the poor as an excuse.

            A carbon tax that is all refundable on an equal per capita basis would help solve this, and help solve poverty too — 60% of Americans would get back more than they pay, according to Hansen (I asked him for a study, but now I’ve forgotten it and can’t find my notes. It was from some economic group in Chicago that started with an “e.”

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie preaches: “So why shouldnt we all pay the true cost of fossil fuels, which includes all their negative externalities?”

            davie, what are the “negative externalities”?

          • David Appell says:

            The EIAs reported FY2010 renewable energy subsidy of $14.7 B has to be considered in light of the substantial damages to human health and the environment from the use of fossil fuels. The report

            “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”
            National Research Council, 2010
            http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html

            found the cost from damages due to fossil fuel use to be $120B for 2005 (in 2007 dollars), a number that does not include climate change and that the studys authors considered a substantial underestimate. For electricity generation by coal the external cost was 3.2 cents/kWh ($32/MWh), with damages due to climate change adding another 3 cents/kWh (for CO2e priced at $30/tonne). Transportation costs were a minimum of 1.2 cents/vehicle-mile, with at least another 0.5 cents/VM for climate change. Heat produced by natural gas caused damages calculated to be 11 cents/thousand cubic feet, with $2.10/Kcf in damages to the climate. They found essentially no damage costs from renewables.

            This is money were all paying in medical costs (and bad health), and US governments now pay about half of all medical costs.

            Also note that this EIA report found $4.2 B in direct federal subsidies for coal, oil, and natural gas in FY2010 (http://is.gd/ajcsv3).

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie produces GOV nonsense from the obummer administration!

            Hilarious.

          • David Appell says:

            Published by the National Research Council, far far more knowledgable people than you will ever be.

          • David Appell says:

            This is a great example of why you’re a mindless denier and a blind troll.

            You didn’t even look at that document, yet you pretend to claim you you know better than the NRC.

            You certainly know that’s false, yet for some reason you get your hourly jollies here by blankly negating anything any knowledgeable person here writes.

            Who do you think you’re fooling?

            You’re so afraid you can’t even publish using your real name.

            The members of the NRC aren’t afraid to do that.

            That makes you a coward.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, the National Research Council promotes AGW.

            That should tell you something. But, since you cannot think for yourself, you just have to follow their trail.

            Keep sniffing.

          • David Appell says:

            The NRC does science.

            And you’re certainly not qualified to judge them.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The more you “disqualify” others, the more they are qualified.

            Something about your lack of competence, I guess.

          • David Appell says:

            Laughable.

            You of all people aren’t qualified to judge anyone. And too afraid to do so openly.

            Really, what are you afraid of?

        • Laura says:

          Profit how, you ask.

          Just read profesorP’s initial and subsequent comments.

          But you already have.

          You simply see nothing wrong with profiting from tragedy when it serves the anti-human alarmist agenda.

          As I said before, we all know (including you) the anti-human alarmist would love it if there were ten times as many disasters. As it is, anti-human alarmists jump instinctively at any opportunity whatsoever to misconstrue any tragedy to serve their interests, iow, to profit from tragedy.

    • An Inquirer says:

      There is so much wrong with this biased analysis! The analysts started with what they wanted with a conclusion and came up with their paper.

      For starters, we used to have more land burned by forest fires than we do now. So does that mean that climate changed has helped us because acres lost is now half of what it was decades ago?

      • lewis says:

        An Inq –
        NO, NO, NO. Climate change is only responsible for ‘bad’ news.
        Personally I would have thought the burning of human’s habitats would be good news for the climate changer types. But you can never tell.

        • David Appell says:

          Lewis wants a warmer world, yet is too lazy to move to one. Warmth *must* come to him.

          • lewis says:

            I hope for a warmer, not colder world. I like where I live, been here 65 years.

          • David Appell says:

            Right — you’re utterly selfish. You want to warm up the entire world, just to keep your toes a little warming.

            Yet you give absolutely no consideration to anyone else living in the world, or their needs, or how your warming will affect them.

            Where’d you learn to be so self-focused and unempathetic?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie’s self-aggrandisment is amazing. He believes he is saving the planet!

            Hilarious.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA….”You want to warm up the entire world, just to keep your toes a little warming….”

            There’s nothing Lewis can do about the warming, nor can you. He acknowledges that and you are in denial.

            There’s no way CO2 is causing this warming, it’s mass is negligible compared to nitrogen and oxygen. Heat in the atmosphere depends on mass and with N2/O2 at 99% mass with CO2 at 0.04%, it’s a no brainer. CO2 could never heat the atmosphere more than a few hundredths of a degree C.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “Theres no way CO2 is causing this warming, its mass is negligible compared to nitrogen and oxygen.”

            Prove it.

            I’ve asked you many times to prove this repeated assertion of yours — you chicken out every time.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “Theres no way CO2 is causing this warming, its mass is negligible compared to nitrogen and oxygen.”

            Gordon thinks small amounts can’t matter.

            The percentage of ozone in the ozone layer is at most only 2-8 ppm:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer#Sources

            That is, 1-2% of CO2’s level.

            But without this tiny amount, there’d be no life on Earth’s land.

            Explain, Gordon, how such a minuscule trace gas can have such a huge effect.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie keeps demanding, “Prove it”.

            davie, it is YOU that must prove CO2 can warm the planet.

            We’re waiting.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, do you wear a T-shirt that says “Super Hero”, around your apartment? Do you wear a matching cape when you go out?

            Can folks tell you from a clown?

          • David Appell says:

            “it is YOU that must prove CO2 can warm the planet.”

            You mean that in ALL this time, you have yet to try to research and learn the evidence??

            If so, how can you be so sure it’s wrong?

          • Svante says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:

            “davie, it is YOU that must prove CO2 can warm the planet”.

            David has done that, but the burden of proof should be on those that say it is safe.

            It is called the “Precautionary principle”:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

            Companies like Exxon have done their own research and found:
            “The risks of climate change are real and those risks warrant constructive action”.

            https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/signing-paris-accord-step-forward/

            BP:
            “As scientists and engineers, BP recognizes the urgency of the climate challenge”

            https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change/our-climate-change-history.html

            Major fossil fuel companies are part of the conspiracy?
            Are you serious?

      • David Appell says:

        Inquirer — where did the analysts say what you claim? Can you demonstrate that or not?

    • pochas94 says:

      Another example of expert bias confirmation.

    • Steve Kerckhoff says:

      Sorry, current weather conditions are normal for this time of the year. My family has been ranching in Central California since the 1840’s. The big story in about 45 days will be mudslides in the fire area from all the rain. However, that will be blamed on man-made global warming too!

      • Carbon500 says:

        Thank you Steve Kerckhoff for bringing reality into focus. I live in the UK, and have done for all of my 69 years – nothing has changed here either. Wet summers, dry summers, cold winters, mild winters, all business as usual.
        A book I once read regarding the British climate written by meteorologist Robin Stirling points out how statistics can hide information. He points out that in January of 1982, the average over central England was +2.3 degrees Celsius. However, there were several nights with readings below -20 degrees.
        Stirling also points out that in a really cold spell, the air will be freezing from the ground right up to the stratosphere. All this despite a few more molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere!

  4. Gordon Robertson says:

    Here we go again, every year, the same thing.

    Has no one in California thought of fire prevention? It’s not like the areas where the fires happen are dense, inaccessible forests, the areas are more brush and dry grass.

    Why are there no deep fire breaks around homes? It goes on year after year, homes burn down, and no one does anything to prevent it.

    With tornadoes, and severe weather, people are at least getting notice so they can find shelter. Still, when their homes are demolished by a tornado, they rebuild using the same flimsy, wood-frame construction.

    Has no one set up a fire watch in the affected California areas?

    Closer to home, in Northern Alberta, the town of Fort McMurray had much of the infrastructure burned down by a wildfire. The town is surrounded by a type of muskeg, but nothing was done to prevent a fire spreading into the town.

    With muskeg, fires can burn underground for years and that’s what has happened with this one. All the more reason for prevention.

    Having worked in the vicinity, I find that inexcusable. There is a major river running through the extreme west side of the city, dividing it from sub-divisions in a forested area west of the city. The trees of the forest are adjacent to the homes. No one had thought to build fire breaks, no doubt because environmentalists would have had a fit.

    Most of the damage came on the east side of the city, where it was even more inexcusable. Access to Fort Mac from the south comes through an eastern approach as the main highway curves west into the city. There is a sudden transition from muskeg to city. From what I could see, no attempt had been made to create a firebreak between the muskeg and the city. The fire burned home to home and building to building at least a mile westward into the city.

    No one was prepared for a major fire in an area known for summer lightning storms. The Prime Minster of Canada, Justin Trudeau, turned down offers of help from 7 countries including Russia and China. Russia offered water bombers which are in short supply in Canada. Trudeau turned the offers down, like the blithering idiot he is.

    Although the province of Alberta is notoriously cheap when it comes to spending on prevention, it pales with respect to California. It makes me angry each year when Californians have their homes burned down when they know the fires are coming.

    Since California does not suffer the severe lightening of Alberta, it makes me wonder if the cause of their fires is not arson.

    • Laura says:

      In as much as these fires are natural, the environment has grown to expect them.

      So the issue is not so much preventing them as is to carry them out in a controlled manner so that the natural cycle is maintained while minimizing and perhaps eliminating the security risks involved.

      • David Appell says:

        It’s the tinder that’s changing, not the lightening strikes.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Laura…”So the issue is not so much preventing them…”

        wrt California, I meant building fire breaks around the homes in the hills where the fires occur. Some people are opposed to such measures for environmental reasons or because we are ruining the habitats of spotted owls, or whatever. California is full of eco-loonies.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m supportive of sane environmental initiatives. Here in Vancouver, Canada, every time there is a wind storm, we lose power due to trees adjacent to power lines falling on them. We have such stringent environmental rules here that removing a tree can get you a life sentence.

        We need to clear trees around power lines and where they endanger homes. Getting a license to remove trees around here is a major issue due to eco-loonies.

        We have power lines running through trees and a kid could climb up there and get electrocuted. Nobody seems to care as long as the tree isn’t harmed.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “wrt California, I meant building fire breaks around the homes in the hills where the fires occur.”

          There’s been no need, so far.

          It is hardly normal for fires to break out in Bel Air or near the Getty Museum, especially at this time of year.

          Why are fires now entering these regions so late in the year?

        • pochas94 says:

          Firebreaks are a good plan. You’re going to have the fires, arson or not. May as well have plans to contain them. Unfortunately, California is not a good place for effective planning.

    • jim d says:

      Gordon,

      In places in SoCal that have been through this kind of fire environment before, like the Santa Monica Mtns, west of LA, the lessons were learnt 30 and 40 years ago: Many of the houses in Topanga and Malibu are surrounded by huge, clear, fire-breaks.

      Everyone else just whistled past the graveyard… in a few years this will be forgotten, too.

      • jim d says:

        Gordon,

        PS: Pictures of the WW II war production efforts in Southern California, the aircraft companies, show that there were fire breaks cut down the ridges of the mountains to the north of LA and the San Fernando Valley. As a kid, I remember watching the (cable) bulldozers (without roll-over-protection) cutting swaths of dirt down the mountains. Also, crawlers dragged ganged-disk plows around the edges of the developed areas, adjacent to the mountains, to plow down brush.

        I also remember when all of that stopped, back when the word “environmentalism” gained currency…

        • lewis says:

          Yes, environmentalism, that brand of pseudoscience dedicated to putting mankind back in tents and caves.

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, environmentalism — because who would possibly aspire to a cleaner, sustainable environment. Satan himself, that’s who!

          • lewis says:

            David, you wouldn’t like true sustainable. You’d have to work for a living.

          • lewis says:

            Let me be more clear. The only reason that so many people are able to live lives of comfort and ease – like David – is because of the use of carbon based energy. Take it away and many of your comforts will disappear. You’d have to use a shovel and hoe to raise your vegetables because trucks will no longer bring them to the market. It wouldn’t be sustainable.

          • David Appell says:

            Wrong Lewis — it’s because of the use of energy.

            I buy 100% clean electricity from my power company — and I live just fine. Same from my gas company. Both add about an extra 5-7% to my bill — a total of about $3/month.

            Fossil fuels add a great deal of traditional pollution to the environment (costs the US about $200 B/yr) and changes the climate for the next 100,000 years.

            You couldn’t do more damage if you tried.

          • gammacrux says:

            its because of the use of energy

            Sure, but all energy is not made equal..

            Whether naive DA likes it or not, the energy must essentially be fossil or (perhaps) nuclear energy. Renewable energies by themselves just can’t “replace” fossil fuels and power a civilization of 7+ billions people.

            This is definitively impossible (at least by now) for simple physical reasons.

            We were already on 100 % renewables 5 centuries ago.
            It implies 10 to 100 times less population, slavery and no democracy.
            It implies for most people growing or raising their food, a full time job of donkey work, no time left to post idiocies in various blogs nor study science or whatever.
            The latter things were a privilege of a small elite of parasites.

            Wind and solar electricity do not power tractors nor grow or transport the food.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            lewis…”…lives of comfort and ease like David is because of the use of carbon based energy. Take it away and many of your comforts will disappear”.

            In a much bigger way than most people realize. John Christy of UAH has witnessed this first hand while teaching In Africa. He understands the implication of unafforable or unavailable energy. John points out that we are living longer because of fossil fuel energy.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”I buy 100% clean electricity from my power company…”

            You live in the Pacific Northwest where hydro power is readily available. That’s not true for many locations throughout the world who rely on power plants driven by fossil fuels.

            Germany, who leads the way in Europe with climate propaganda has been building coal fired power plants to replace nuclear reactors. It seems easier to talk the talk than walk the walk.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            gamma…”Renewable energies by themselves just cant replace fossil fuels…”

            That’s the entire point. If only we could get eco-alarmists to understand that.

            I am sympathetic to the environmental cause in many ways but not to the extent of forcing humans to freeze in the dark, a phrase coined up here in Canada to describe life without fossil fuels. And certainly not to the extent of forcing the poor into deeper misery because they cannot afford fuel, for transport or heating one’s home.

            Here is BC, like David Appell in the Pacfic Northwest of the US, we have abundant sources of ultra clean electrical power. However, they are driving up the price of electrical power even though it is generated by a public electrical utility. I can’t help wondering if the reason behind that thinking is eco-alarm.

            We in Canada have a treaty with the US called the Columbia River treaty. In the link below is a reference to W. A. C. Bennett (we called him Wacky) who deserves credit for much of the current infrastructure of hydroelectric dams in BC.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_River_Treaty

            Bennett was an enigma in that he was an uber right winger yet he believed in publicly owned power utilities. He nationalized BC Electric and turned it into the publicly owned BC Hydro. As a result, we’ve had very affordable power for decades, till recently.

            Subsequent BC right-wing governments have tried to privatize Hydro with limited success, however, the most recent of them implemented a carbon tax. With the implementation of the tax, the cost of electricity has gone up as well to the point where people have to be careful about the cost of heating their homes.

            We now have a coalition government with a majority left-wing party and the minority Green party. The Greens are run by Andrew Weaver, an uber climate alarmist and climate modeler. With the balance of power, he can force concessions and I fear he will try pushing up the cost of fuel.

            Our left-wingers, the NDP have a counterpart NDP government in the next province over, Alberta. Alberta’s economy is oil based and now the two governments are at loggerheads over pipelines. This should enlighten people who think the AGW fiasco is about left-wingers. Here we have two left wing governments, one defending AGW and the other promoting fossil fuels.

          • Svante says:

            gammacrux,
            The important thing is to get the true cost into the markets:
            https://tinyurl.com/ybklvd34

            We can not afford solutions that are cheap because they ignore costs to third parties.

            Once the true cost is there, markets and technology will find solutions.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            DAI buy 100% clean electricity from my power company
            “You live in the Pacific Northwest where hydro power is readily available. Thats not true for many locations throughout the world who rely on power plants driven by fossil fuels.”

            Not everyone considers hydro as sustainable electricity.

            And my green electricity mostly comes from wind and solar. 3% biomass. Only 1% is from hydro:
            https://www.portlandgeneral.com/residential/power-choices/renewable-power/green-source#

            And in any case my electricity cost averages $0.17/kWh. Hardly cheap.

            I’m buying green power anyway, because it’s the responsible thing to do.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Germany, who leads the way in Europe with climate propaganda has been building coal fired power plants to replace nuclear reactors.”

            Germany panicked and turned tail after Fukishima. Big mistake. Nuclear power is one of the safest electricity sources of all. Look at France.

          • David Appell says:

            gammacrux says:
            “Renewable energies by themselves just cant replace fossil fuels and power a civilization of 7+ billions people.”

            No proof given.

            Mark Jacobson of Stanford has laid out how every state in the US can achieve 100% renewable energy use.

          • gammacrux says:

            Mark Jacobson of Stanford has laid out how every state in the US can achieve 100% renewable energy use.

            So funny.

            Simpleton Mark Jacobson even “laid out how every country in the world can achieve 100 % renewable energy”…

            Just wishful thinking.

            http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full

          • gammacrux says:

            Svante

            Once the true cost is there, markets and technology will find solutions.

            One may hope so in future, but the fact is that there is by now no serious technical solution to the energy storage problem that necessarily goes hand in hand with intermittent wind and solar. Nor is there any viable solution to the problem of transport and agriculture that for trucks, airplane, tractors need carbon based and thus synthetic fuels if they have to be carbon and climate neutral.

            Let me repeat it: No technical solutions at appropriate scale yet.

          • Svante says:

            Yes gammacrux,
            there are no technical solutions at appropriate scale yet.

            That is no excuse to miss the sweet spot here:
            https://tinyurl.com/ybklvd34

            It is not economical to switch overnight. It would be a good start to at least stop building new coal power plants.

          • David Appell says:

            gamma: Jacobson is, in fact, sueing the authors of that paper, claiming they deliberately lied about his work.

            BTW, are you aware that you can disagree with someone without denigrating them? Calling Jacobson — who I saw give an impressive talk, right or wrong — a “simpleton” just makes you look deranged and, therefore, worth ignoring.

          • David Appell says:

            gammacrux says:
            “Let me repeat it: No technical solutions at appropriate scale yet.”

            That’s becauses fossil fuel producers and users are socializing the costs of their pollution. It’s a huge subsidy, worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the US alone.

            From each according to their smokestack, to each according to their lungs.

          • gammacrux says:

            Svante,

            I do not miss (nor dismiss) you point…
            And you just provide grist to the mills of mine:

            It would be a good start to at least stop building new coal power plants.

            This is unfortunately precisely what won’t happen if some “scientists” delude and tell people and politics lies and utter idiocies, namely that it is technically>/i> possible to power a civilization of 7+ billion people with 100 % wind, solar and hydro by 2040-50.
            See the German example where CO2 emissions even increased.
            I doubt that if even rich Germany rather fails in this respect, countries such as India or China will succeed.

            DA

            The fact that Jacobson sues scientists who disagree with his thesis is just one among the many reasons why I feel free to call him a simpleton and even an idiot. That’s not the way to deal with controversy in science. Just a ridiculous practice of green activists not scientists.
            By the way in present instance the liar is clearly Jacobson himself.

            Thats becauses fossil fuel producers and users are socializing the costs of their pollution.

            No that’s just one more laughable excuse and a lie. Even if “true” cost could be and were indeed taken into account you cannot expect implementation of an alternative solution that does not even yet exit, technically !

            Once more, let’s repeat it over and over again:

            We don’t know how to store renewable energy at appropriate scale yet.
            We don’t know how to produce synthetic fuels from renewable wind and solar for transport and agriculture at apprppriate scale yet.

            An inconvenient truth.

          • gammacrux says:

            Formating fixed

            Svante,

            I do not miss (nor dismiss) you point
            And you just provide grist to the mills of mine:

            It would be a good start to at least stop building new coal power plants.

            This is unfortunately precisely what wont happen if some scientists delude and tell people and politics lies and utter idiocies, namely that it is technically>/i> possible to power a civilization of 7+ billion people with 100 % wind, solar and hydro by 2040-50.
            See the German example where CO2 emissions even increased with “Energiewende”.
            I doubt that if even rich Germany rather fails in this respect, countries such as India or China will succeed.

            DA

            The fact that Jacobson sues scientists who disagree with his thesis is just one among the many reasons why I feel free to call him a simpleton and even an idiot. Thats not the way to deal with controversy in science. Just a ridiculous practice of green activists not scientists.
            By the way in present instance the liar is clearly Jacobson himself.

            Thats because fossil fuel producers and users are socializing the costs of their pollution.

            No thats just one more laughable excuse and a lie. Even if true cost could be and were indeed taken into account you cannot expect implementation of an alternative solution that does not even yet exit, technically !

            Once more, lets repeat it over and over again:

            We dont know how to store renewable energy at appropriate scale yet.
            We dont know how to produce synthetic fuels from renewable wind and solar for transport and agriculture at apprppriate scale yet.

            An inconvenient truth.

          • Svante says:

            gammacrux, the good news is we don’t have to worry about solutions.
            If we rectify the price, markets will optimize.

            Anything that is granted for free will be over-consumed.

            Germany is closing their nuclear power, that’s a tall order.

            The US has cut its emissions significantly since 2005, how hard was that?

            Fracking and nuclear power would help.

          • David Appell says:

            gamma – do some research before you write.

            Jacobson isn’t suing because people have critiqued his work, but because, he claims, they told lies about which they knew better.

          • David Appell says:

            gamma wrote:
            “No thats just one more laughable excuse and a lie.”

            Really?

            Read and learn:

            Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use
            National Research Council, 2010
            http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html

            “Even if true cost could be and were indeed taken into account you cannot expect implementation of an alternative solution that does not even yet exit, technically !”

            23% of US energy consumption now comes from renewable sources. How can that be if, according to you, alternative solutions don’t exist??

          • David Appell says:

            gamma wrote:
            “The fact that Jacobson sues scientists who disagree with his thesis is just one among the many reasons why I feel free to call him a simpleton and even an idiot”

            People like you, who call others names while hiding your own, are cowards.

          • gammacrux says:

            DA

            As usual nothing but laughable pontifications, sheer hypocrisy and plain lies !

            How can that be if, according to you, alternative solutions dont exist??

            As I made it very clear above, intermittant wind and and solar renewables cannot be an “alternative solution” to solve the climate problem if one cannot store a huge amount of energy.

            You either perfectly know that and you are a miserable hypocrite and a pain lier or you don’t grasp it and you are an utter idiot.

            Of course you may be a subtle mixture of both.

            Once more, let’s repeat it over and over again for the simpletons:

            We dont know how to store renewable energy at appropriate scale yet.
            We dont know how to produce synthetic fuels from renewable wind and solar for transport and agriculture at apprppriate scale yet.

            An inconvenient truth.

          • Svante says:

            It’s not just about storage.

            The Pacific Intertie evens out seasonal differences between California and Washington, and can stabilize the network with quickly regulated water power from the north.

          • Svante says:

            The longest high-voltage direct current link is 2375 km, and a 3000 km link is on contract.

          • Svante says:

            We know how to produce fuels from biomass, e.g. methanol from wood, but I agree it’s not cheap enough at global scale today.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          jim d…thanks for info…interesting.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        jim d…”Many of the houses in Topanga and Malibu are surrounded by huge, clear, fire-breaks”.

        Glad to see someone is thinking. We have similar issues up here in Canada. We get governments too cheap to invest in fire prevention or the means of quickly extinguishing existing fires.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “We get governments too cheap to invest in fire prevention or the means of quickly extinguishing existing fires.”

          You should share your expertise with California’s firefighters — they would love to extinguish their fires “quickly.”

    • Brian S says:

      Gordon,

      There are fire breaks all over the mountains and hills of Southern California. You don’t seem well versed in Santa Ana wind driven fires here. I’ve lived in So Cal for nearly all of my life (57 years) and was a first responder for 32 years (ret.) The Thomas Fire in Ventura county started during the evening, when the temperatures were pretty cool, but with the lack of humidity and 50-60 MPH winds, there is virtually nothing a fire break or brush clearance can do for you. The FD and everyone is at the complete mercy of the winds. I was listening to the scanner and watching the live feed stream on the internet from the news chopper the night this fire broke out on Dec 4th. The fire was jumping a half mile ahead of itself in numerous locations with the spread of embers which quickly grew into large spot fires. The FD can only try and save a few houses, the rest will burn. Everything in it’s path, once it gets into a neighborhood, is in jeopardy. This scenario has repeated itself countless times during the last 50 plus years, and with the growing population here, it’s likely never to change. Fires are rarely caused by lightning in So Cal, and never during a Santa Ana, because there are no clouds or weather. Most of the time is downed or arching power lines. Others causes included car fires on the road next to brush, illegal fires (homeless camps, careless people) or arsonists. Another thing about Santa Ana winds is that they are usually very localized, and always in the same locations due to the local topography. You can be in downtown LA and there is no wind at all, drive 20 minutes north into the San Fernando Valley and its gusting at 50 MPH. It’s been dry this year, last year we had above average rainfall (22 inches at my house). We get the same old stories every year about fire season, but the truth is So Cal is naturally an arid climate, with very step terrain, and this will always be an issue.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        brian s…”brian s…thanks for info Brian. I was aware of the Santa Anas but not in relation to California fires.

        Sorry if I talked out of turn without understanding the extent of the problems you face down there. I can’t help thinking that the US, with it’s penchant for inventiveness, could not find a solution. Seems to me, and that applies here in Canada, we don’t seem interested in disaster till after it strikes.

        I live near a major airport and the approach to the runways is over dense housing estates for mile after mile. We know that one day there will be a major disaster if an airliner crashes on approach or take off. Everyone knows it but no one cares enough to investigate.

        Even smaller sea planes approaching come over my house at a few hundred feet. I think they are far too low and I have complained about the obvious hazard should one have an engine failure.

  5. Stevek says:

    How much of this is due to man interfering with natural forest fire cycles.

    • AaronS says:

      Exactly. Prevent fire accumulate fuel over time. Wait for optimal conditions to start a much bigger fire.

    • konrad says:

      The natural cycles went out the door with the introduction of European grasses hundreds of years ago. It is now a completely different fuel complex. Fuel conditions aside, the problem is very dry high winds. The canyons become blast furnaces, even with low fuel loads.

  6. ren says:

    When was it snowing on the Gulf of Mexico in December?
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00950/uq09rsm5z4jq.png

  7. Norman says:

    Roy Spencer,

    Did it snow in your region of Alabama. I see that there is a big stretch of 8″ on snow on the ground across the Southern States from Intellicast. Just wondering if you saw some.

    http://www.intellicast.com/Travel/Weather/Snow/Cover.aspx

  8. David Appell says:

    Park Williams‏ @peedublya
    “Soil moisture estimates suggest the So CA areas that are burning are drier than 98-95% of Decembers since 1895. The La Nia-like drift toward drying across the southern US, including So CA, has persisted for 2 months.”

    https://twitter.com/peedublya/status/939261659616563201

  9. professorP says:

    What about the poor bears!

    ‘Soul-crushing’ video of starving polar bear exposes climate crisis, experts say”

    “As climate change boosts Arctic temperatures, sea ice crucial to the bears for hunting, resting and breeding is melting earlier in spring and refreezing later in autumn. The growing number of ice-free days could push the species past a tipping point with widespread reproductive failure and starvation in some areas, the report noted.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/08/starving-polar-bear-arctic-climate-change-video

  10. Darwin Wyatt says:

    It’s snowing in Texas and David A. wants it colder. What more do you need to know?

    • ren says:

      “The most recent time that Houston, Texas, received measurable snow was Dec. 4, 2009, which was also the earliest seasonal snowfall on record in the city, according to NWS Houston.”
      What was the solar activity in 2009?
      http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif

      • lewis says:

        “This is an unusual event – to see snow falling this early in the season all the way from Texas and the Gulf Coast region to Georgia,” said Laura Pagano, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service’s Atlanta/Peachtree City office. “It has happened before, but not often.”

        Must be global warming. David will tell us for sure.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      darwin…”Its snowing in Texas and David A. wants it colder. What more do you need to know?”

      Here in Vancouver, BC, Canada, we are experiencing quite mild weather. I guess the Arctic air bypassed us and went visiting Texas. Last December it dropped in, setting record for cold here.

      • goldminor says:

        Here is the reason for the above average warmth in your area. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-128.04,36.41,672/loc=-138.502,45.171

        Towards the end of October surface winds started moving north in the Pacific as can be seen in the above link. This surface flow has been the dominant pattern ever since then. The base of the surface winds starts around 30N latitude. and then moves north to impact Canada and Alaska. Alaska, for example, had minus temps across much of the state until this warm surface wind worked its way north, which warmed temps by around 30 degrees F.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          gm…”Towards the end of October surface winds started moving north in the Pacific as can be seen in the above link”.

          gbaikie has expounded at length on the obvious fact that the oceans have created the warming on this planet. I am aware that we in Vancouver have been blessed with warm currents and winds off the Pacific that keep our climate mild.

          Were it not for the oceans, freezing winds from the north would descend upon as and leave us miserable.

          Thanks for info.

          • David Appell says:

            How has the ocean created warming. It itself is warming. Where is all this heat coming from?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”How has the ocean created warming. It itself is warming. Where is all this heat coming from?”

            It may be warming on a warming/cooling cycle but I don’t think the process is related to anthropogenic forces.

            The heat is coming from solar energy obviously and the massive number of atoms/molecules in the ocean are able to retain it for a while, long enough to heat the atmosphere.

            Stephen Wilde has likened it to a hot water bottle and I think that model is apt. Difference is, in the vastness of the oceans there are continuous currents running and they are affected by oscillations like the AMO, PDO, ENSO, etc. Since the atmosphere is in direct contact, it is affected, therefore the entire ocean-atmosphere interface is one gigantic cauldron of warming/cooling forces.

            Furthermore, I think that daily system has a long term oscillation. I think the 98 EN may have set off an oscillation in the ocean-atmosphere system that still hasn’t settled down. On top of that, as Aksofu has claimed, we could still be re-warming from the Little Ice Age.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “The heat is coming from solar energy obviously and the massive number of atoms/molecules in the ocean are able to retain it for a while, long enough to heat the atmosphere.”

            Why is the ocean WARMING?? Gaining heat… at a very rapid rate.

            Where is the ADDITIONAL heat coming from.

            And show the evidence.

    • David Appell says:

      Darwin, do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

      It doesn’t seem so.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        davie, do you have anything worthwhile to offer to this blog?

        It doesn’t seem so.

        • professorP says:

          What about our bet on warm versus cool weather records?

        • professorP says:

          On second thoughts – maybe I should not bet with a 12 year old girl.

          • Norman says:

            professorP

            It is likely that most 12 year old girls or boys know more about real physics than the pretender phony g*e*r*a*n who knows how to peddle made up physics from his hero Joe Postma but does not seem to be able to comprehend valid established physics at any level. If it is not made up he can’t understand what you are saying.

            I would think if you wanted to have an actual conversation with g*e*r*a*n all you would need to do is throw away the textbooks and make up your own physics and he would be fine with that. I guess some people need to reject reality in favor of their fantasy world.

          • professorP says:

            Norman, you may be right. I think Ange R. has read too many science fiction comics.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”…but does not seem to be able to comprehend valid established physics at any level”.

            I have studied science at university in engineering and applied a good deal of what I learned for decades in the electronics, electrical, and computer fields. You tell me the same thing. Could it be that you are the one living in a fantasy world of pseudo-science?

            I don’t have a problem with g*r’s understanding of science.

            You list Joe Postma and Claes Johnson among your targets, labeling them as pseudo-scientists, while Postma has a masters degree in astrophysics and Johnson has a Ph.D in mathematics. It seems to me your criterion for rating people, such as Postma, Johnson, g*r, and myself is whether or not we agree with your interpretation of physics.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            You are very incorrect. I do not judge anyone based upon my interpretation of physics. Physics is established science and not subject to one person’s interpretation of what is being said. There are multiple math equations.

            You just make up physics. I link you to real physics you can read but you do not seem willing to do so. You read your fellow crackpots that make up this delusional physics that has no experimentation, goes against decades of established science and you think I am the one with issues?

            I use straight textbook physics. I link to it so you can read it. If you believe my interpretation of the subject is not correct than prove it.

            You are one of the goofy thinkers who need to post their crap on a daily basis. You are constantly proven wrong and you constantly keep repeating it. You are proud of your stupid ideas that have no basis in any real world physics. You made them up and seem to think you know something.

            One recent case, you can’t understand what the
            q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac Tc^4 stands for. You know it is the temperature of the surroundings but you are clueless of what it means. It is the incident energy the hot surface is RECEIVING from the surroundings. It is temperature based because the amount of radiant energy emitted by the surroundings is dependent upon temperature. You really don’t know much and maybe a long long time ago you knew something about electricity and electronics, those days are gone and now you just are content to make up your own ideas and feel that you are this genius that has it all figured out. Screw the world of established science based upon empirical testing, you know better than the entire lot of them and your two buddies (Johnson and Postma that also have it all figured out with their made up physics).

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, if you had understood any of the science you took, you’d easily see that Postma and Johnson are cranks of the first order. Even higher than you.

            The Crackpot Index
            http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

          • David Appell says:

            If the ocean is creating warming, why is the ocean warming too?

            Where is all this heat coming from?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Gordon, if you had understood any of the science you took, youd easily see that Postma and Johnson are cranks of the first order. Even higher than you”.

            I’ll happily live with such good company since both attempt to rigorously attack problems in physics rather than sitting back with ad homs.

            Johnson is light years ahead of me in math but the math I did take at the uni has helped me to follow his reasoning. Seems sound to me.

            The only way we can understand EM is to treat it as a series of harmonic oscillators. That’s the basis of QM theory, with probability theory thrown in. Johnson has done a wonderful job presenting his theories based on that.

            I read my first article by Postma the other night and I have no issues with what he is trying to say. I think he should learn to cut back the detail and hone his understanding of certain facets but overall I think he provides a good message based on physics.

            I can’t stand reading Gavin Schmidt because he throws in presumptions without explanation, like CO2 having a warming effect of 9% to 25%. I also saw him stumble trying to explain positive feedback. He offered a formula that did not work and which was challenged by engineer Jeffrey Glassman.

            I don’t think Schmidt understands that EM is not heat. I don’t even think Pierrehumbert gets that.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”You just make up physics. I link you to real physics you can read but you do not seem willing to do so”.

            I know you try but you don’t even understand the message at the links you supply. You obviously think you understand but you’re not getting it.

            You know, I first learned electrons before studying it formally in electrical engineering. I thought I understood how transistors worked (BJT’s) but I was way off. I could repair circuits with BJT’s in them but certain problems escaped me because I was used to tracing circuits using voltages and became perplexed at times when transistor circuits produced results I could not fathom.

            I did not know about saturation or the effects produced on transistor circuits by high frequencies. In a high frequency transistor oscillator, the base voltages can take on ridiculous values and if you don’t know why you cannot understand. When I finally studied it formally, the light went on.

            Also, transistor are composites of positively and negatively charged bits of silicon. Silicon by itself will conduct electrical current like a resistor, but once the silicon is doped with certain elements (donor and accep.tor elements) to produce an excess or lack of electrons, joining them produces a device in which electrical currents cannot run through them as expected.

            Once you see how that works, you can’t help but smile.

            I have no interest in flaming you or saying anything to discourage you. I hope you persist with your interest in physics no matter what I say to you or anyone else.

            I can’t prove to you that I’m right and you’re wrong, nor do I have the interest. If you believe I am wrong then you have to go with that as long as belief is important to you. In science, there is no room for belief, however, because reality does not care what you believe.

            You are wasting your time taking shots at me. Prove your assertions to yourself without doubt. Sometimes that can take years, even decades. When I was in my 20s I lacked the confidence I have accumulated, almost by osmosis. Can’t explain it, if you work with theories long enough eventually the brain appears to work them out.

            When I first started in electronics it was all Greek. Whatever I had learned in the classroom did not transfer well to real, physical circuits. Someone described it as wearing two hats. You were the theory hat to analyze the circuit drawing (schematic), take it off, and put on your circuit troubleshooting hat. Eventually, the two come together.

            You have made claims about electrons which are wrong, either that, or the profs that taught me EE are wrong. When you challenge me on electrons and their capabilities you are challenging someone who had to learn that theory in order to apply it in the field for decades. If I learned it wrong, how was I able to survive in the field?

            Simply put, electrons and protons are the basic elements in atoms and molecules. There is nothing else in an atom or molecule that can explain electric current or heat. I quoted that directly from a link supplied by Svante and you continued to deny it.

            You cannot always go on textbooks. You supplied a reference written by a mechanical engineer and I felt some of what he was presenting was wrong. Therefore, if it is wrong, and you have accepted it as being right, you’re in trouble.

            Read widely. For thermodynamics, read Clausius from the beginning, where he teaches the theory of work. You’ll get invaluable training in the fundamentals of physics. Fortunately, I had studied a lot of physics by the time I read him. making it a real treat to read the master on thermodynamics.

            Clausius takes you right through his development of the mechanical theory of heat, the mechanical being a reference to work and the movement in atoms (vibration). He shows you how he developed the first law and the second law as well as entropy. He shows you his development of U and internal energy.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…typo….

            You know, I first learned electrons…

            should read:

            You know, I first learned electronics….

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon:

            Clausius died in 1888. Clearly, your learning stopped then too.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “I cant stand reading Gavin Schmidt because he throws in presumptions without explanation, like CO2 having a warming effect of 9% to 25%.”

            He’s simply quoting the science, that others have been doing for decades and that he’s done himself:

            Lacis et al, Science 330, 2010, p 356-359, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html

            You are the perfect target for fools like Postma and Johnson, because you know so little of the science are so are easily fooled and manipulated by poseurs.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “I dont think Schmidt understands that EM is not heat. I dont even think Pierrehumbert gets that.”

            You are such an arrogant simpleton.

            Your ignorance is without bounds, yet, like all arrogant crackpots, you think you know better than all those who devote (and have devoted) their entire lives to understanding and creating this science.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, yet again you’re ignoring relevant questions:

            If the ocean is creating warming, why is the ocean warming too?

            Where is all this heat coming from?

          • David Appell says:

            Guess what, Gordon. The silicon transistors and chips you wrote about are based on… quantum mechanics, which you don’t like.

            Without QM these components could not be designed.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Darwin, do you understand the difference between weather and climate?”

        There is no essential difference, climate IS weather as a long-term average. You alarmists like to talk about climate as a force but how can it be a force when it’s essentially a statistical average?

        • David Appell says:

          By your own definition, climate IS NOT weather.

          No one talks about “climate as a force.” They talk about forcings on climate. Jeez.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”No one talks about climate as a force. They talk about forcings on climate. Jeez”.

            A forcing comes from differential equation theory, that’s where I first encountered the term, long before it became en vogue due to climate modelers applying it to the atmosphere.

            As you know, in DE theory, a forcing function is applied to a DE to force a response. The forcing function may be a unit impulse function, essentially a square wave. In electrical engineering we applied such a function to the DE of an electrical circuit because the sharp rising edge provokes a ringing in the circuit and causes it to have poles, which are spikes in the frequency response.

            I have read articles in which those involved in climate, or those providing articles on it, have suggested the climate has an effect on this or that, suggesting it is a force of some kind.

          • David Appell says:

            GR wrote:
            “I have read articles in which those involved in climate, or those providing articles on it, have suggested the climate has an effect on this or that, suggesting it is a force of some kind.”

            You clearly didn’t understand what you read, and you’re still getting it all backwards.

            Forcing does come from a (pair of partial) differential equations, known as the Schwarzschild equations or the two-stream equations. They express the radiation in the atmosphere, in the up and down directions, as a result of (a) energy flux, and (b) how the atmosphere itself radiates, due to it constitute gases. This latter term gives the “radiative forcings.”

            Climate models integrate these equations, given the convection taking place and given the radiative properties of the gases.

  11. ren says:

    La Nia is strong.
    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/…/ano…/2017/anomw.12.7.2017.gif

  12. sky says:

    The satellite photo shows smoke originating not in the Santa Monica Mountains above L.A., but in the Transverse Ranges of Ventura County. That so-called “Thomas” fire is the biggie among several fires burning in Southern California.

  13. ren says:

    The jet stream is meridional and the polar vortex is broken due to very low solar activity.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.png
    Tonight the temperature in the northern part of Florida falls below 0 C.
    https://scontent-frx5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24909991_747768028762479_1164046924576356654_n.png?oh=7bb3cd1c0c6c7e7f7bcff2513a24c6ac&oe=5ACA88DB

  14. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman goes on about Joe Postma, referring to him as a pseudo-scientist. I am not familiar with Postma but I looked him up and found a PDF he did on the GHE.

    In one phrase, Postma pretty well sums up the issue with the GHE, we build greenhouses, essentially to do what the atmosphere cannot do.

    • David Appell says:

      Wrong. A greenhouse blocks some outgoing heat. That’s exactly what GHGs do.

      • lewis says:

        Blocks or slows down?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          lewis…”Blocks or slows down?”

          Neither.

          CO2 does not block heat because there is no heat for it to block. There is only electromagnetic radiation. Don’t get caught up in that pseudo-science about EM being thermal radiation, there is nothing thermal in EM.

          Thermal refers only to the source being a heat source. However, all EM comes from heat sources. The electrons producing the EM also help to produce heat in the body, by themselves and in through vibration in conjunction with protons.

          The word thermal specifically refers to EM transmitted in the infrared EM band. Those same electrons can transmit light if they are highly agitated. I can tell you from decades in the electronics and electrical fields to stay away from agitated electrons. They can be ornery. They can burn you when they overheat devices and they can burn holes through your skin.

          CO2 slows down nothing. The only thing that can affect the rate of radiation from the surface is the temperature of the atmosphere immediately in contact with the surface.

          That surface atmosphere is 99% nitrogen/oxygen and they produce the temperature at the surface. CO2 is entirely insignificant as a warming agent.

          Don’t take my input as gospel. Physicist/meteorologist Craig Bohren, in his book Atmospheric Radiation, claimed that the notion of GHGs acting as a blanket or heat trapping device is a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly.

          Heat cannot exist without atoms, it is the kinetic energy of atoms in motion. EM has no atoms, how can it transport heat?

          EM comes into heat transfer only as the messenger, akin to magnetic flux in an electrical transformer. Heat is converted to EM in a hotter body, causing the hotter body to cool, and the EM can be intercepted by cooler atoms in a cooler body where it is converted back to heat, warming the cooler body. That process is not reversible, that is, it cannot happen in the opposite direction.

          Heat transfer from a hotter surface to a cooler atmosphere (GHGs) means only that the surface cools through emission of EM and the GHGs warm. There is no heat exchanged physically, the heat exists only in the surface and in the GHGs. If no heat is leaving the surface, how can it be blocked? Or slowed down?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “There is no heat exchanged physically, the heat exists only in the surface and in the GHGs. If no heat is leaving the surface, how can it be blocked? Or slowed down?”

            Of course heat is leaving the surface, as infrared radiation. It’s easily measured:

            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

          • David Appell says:

            GR wrote:
            “I can tell you from decades in the electronics and electrical fields to stay away from agitated electrons. They can be ornery.”

            Plumb stupid.

          • lewis says:

            Blocks: Then how does any EM leave the earth? Even if it blocks, at some point the GHG’s have to re-radiate, which will be in every direction, and the process begins anew. Finally, it all reaches the upper atmosphere and dissipates into space as EM.
            No, it only slows down. The question then becomes only: how much does it slow the process down? Cloud cover on a still night, does an excellent job. A clear night, clear, it gets cold in a hurry. In a low humidity area, deserts etc, even faster.

          • David Appell says:

            Some radiation simply does not escape, permanently. It’s what creates the greenhouse effect, which is very obvious in the graph I linked to.

            AGW is on top of the greenhouse effect, so even less radiation gets to leave. The Earth responds to this energy imbalance by warming up, thus it emits more radiation in an attempt to achieve TOA balance.

            The TOA imbalance is now about 0.7 W/m2, according to a paper last year by Greg Johnson of NOAA et al.

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis wrote:
            “Cloud cover on a still night, does an excellent job. A clear night, clear, it gets cold in a hurry. In a low humidity area, deserts etc, even faster.”

            Yes. Because clouds block some of the infrared radiation the Earth is emitting, so more infrared radiation is radiated down to the surface, warming it.

            On a cloudless night, the IR isn’t blocked (by clouds).

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Wrong. A greenhouse blocks some outgoing heat. Thats exactly what GHGs do”.

        I ran this one past Norman. I know it’s ridiculous to talk on a one to one photon exchange but consider that each atom in the surface is emitting one photon at one instant of time. And consider that one CO2 molecule is absorbing each one of those photons.

        How many emitting atoms/molecules are there in the Earth’s surface/oceans emitting photons and how many CO2 atoms are there in the atmosphere to absorb those surface photons?

        I claim the sheer volume of surface atoms/molecules emitting photons would make the number absorbed by CO2 molecules insignificant.

        It comes down to mass, even though Svante disagrees. In a constant volume, constant mass system like our atmosphere, temperature is proportional to gas pressure. Gas pressure is proportional to mass, and according to Dalton, the total pressure is the sum of the partial gas pressures. That means the total mass is the sum of the partial masses, and the total temperature is the sum of the heat produced by each mass.

        At 0.04%, CO2 should contribute an insignificant amount of heat, even if it is absorbing a significant amount of surface radiation which I don’t think it is.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson wrote:
          “At 0.04%, CO2 should contribute an insignificant amount of heat, even if it is absorbing a significant amount of surface radiation which I dont think it is.”

          Proof?
          Reasoning?
          Evidence?
          Data?
          Rationale?

          ANYTHING????

        • David Appell says:

          GR wrote:
          “In a constant volume, constant mass system like our atmosphere, temperature is proportional to gas pressure. Gas pressure is proportional to mass, and according to Dalton, the total pressure is the sum of the partial gas pressures. That means the total mass is the sum of the partial masses, and the total temperature is the sum of the heat produced by each mass.”

          Why are you ignoring radiation? The Earth’s surface radiations huge amounts of it — where is it going?

          The greenhouse effect is a quantum effect, not a classical effect.

  15. Svante says:

    Gordon Robertson says:

    “It is believed by certain idiots that the 4K represents heat left over from the Big Bang.”

    If you don’t believe in the Big Bang, what are your thoughts on the origin of the universe?

    • David Appell says:

      If you don’t believe the Big Bang, where did the 3 K cosmic microwave background come from? It permeates space.

      • David Appell says:

        Svante, I meant that for Gordon, not you.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”If you dont believe the Big Bang, where did the 3 K cosmic microwave background come from? It permeates space”.

        I already offered my two bits worth. There are an incredible number of stars burning at millions of degree C. There is plenty of free hydrogen and dust floating around the interstellar spaces. Why could the stars not heat the hydrogen and dust to a measly 4K?

        • David Appell says:

          The cosmic microwave background is *everywhere* and isotopic — the same in all directions, to about 1 part in 10^5.

          Hydrogen and dust are/is certainly not isotropic. Nor do stars radiate at 4 K.

          Try again.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      svante…”If you dont believe in the Big Bang, what are your thoughts on the origin of the universe?”

      Three little words: I don’t know (actually four). And neither does anyone else.

      As far as the origins of life are concerned, does it make sense to you that 5 basic elements in primeval muds fluked together to form structures as complex as the mysterious structures in the human eye? How about the mammoth system of human cells where each organ has different cells that combine to operate with a wonderful intelligence?

      There is absolutely nothing in bonding theory to explain how molecules formed from 5 basic elements could or should produce life. As biologist Rupert Sheldrake put it, it’s like dumping building materials at a site and expecting them to form a building by themselves.

      There are a lot of questions that are totally beyond the human mind and offering stupid theories like evolution, the Big Bang and black holes is a testament only to human ego, arrogance, and stupidity.

      What’s wrong with I don’t know. The phrase applies equally to AGW. Why offer up an inane theory like anthropogenic CO2 based on the wonderment of ‘what else could it be’?

      Did you catch that offering from Postma? We build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do?

      • David Appell says:

        The human eye developed via evolution, just like our species did and all species have. Lots of light receptors of varying complexity are seen in the record:

        The evolution of the human eye – Joshua Harvey
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrKZBh8BL_U

      • lewis says:

        Gordon,
        There is a lot of ‘I don’t understand how it happened, so it must be magic’ going around. I’ve run into for years – not so troublesome or as helpful as agitated electrons, but…. (welding!)

      • Svante says:

        Gordon, I dont know how life or the big bang started, but the boundaries have been pushed very close to the beginnings.

        The big bang is consistent with observations and theoretical physics. Evolution is consistent with observations and chemistry.

        You are missing out on many great discoveries by calling everyone an idiot.

        You say these questions are totally beyond the human mind, but this idiot says the opposite, from Ontario no less.

        https://tinyurl.com/y8588nor

        P.S. I did not catch Postma – CO2 and greenhouses are well understood.

        • David Appell says:

          Svante wrote:
          “You are missing out on many great discoveries by calling everyone an idiot.”

          This is a great point.

          Science is a beautiful subject. It has uncovered more truths than any other discipline. Its findings, from physics to chemistry to biology, are fascinating. The fact that we can understand so much in such detail is truly amazing. The discoveries of science, about the world here and about the universe, are incredible, wonderful, and endlessly fascinating. Without it we’d still be in the middle ages.

          In my opinion the mechanism of evolution by natural selection is the most beautiful idea that a human has ever come up with. It just fits so well into what’s observed, it explains plants and animals so simply and so elegantly, it’s really beyond words.

          I cannot understand why anyone would scoff at all this, call scientists “idiots,” disregard their work and even call it false. I don’t understand what drives someone to do this.

          Like Svante put so simply, scoffers and deniers and cranks and crackpots are missing out on so much. Don’t deprive yourself of ideas. If you think they’re wrong, study the subject so you can make rational, mature arguments, but don’t turn your mind off at the front door. There is so very much inside.

          • Fox says:

            Davie.

            What is your point and who are you trying to impress?

          • Svante says:

            Gordon.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”In my opinion the mechanism of evolution by natural selection is the most beautiful idea that a human has ever come up with. It just fits so well into whats observed, it explains plants and animals so simply and so elegantly, its really beyond words”.

            Genetics explains that but for one species at a time. Natural selection is a sci fi explanation that makes little sense at all. There is no physical evidence to support the transformation of one species to another. No fossil has ever been found that shows a transition from one species to another taking place.

            Natural selection cannot explain how life came from the chemical bonding of 5 basic elements therefore it can’t lay claim to mutations in that complex process. It can only speculate, just as AGW theory speculates.

            Where natural selection really falls down is in the area of chemical bonding theory. Bonding does not explain ‘life’ or how it came about. How does natural selection explain the basic sense we have of being alive? Calculations have been done as to the probability of 5 atoms bonding together by chance to produce present day life and the probability is infinitely against such an occurrence.

            It’s a generalized theory that covers minute, extremely complex processes by washing over them and ignoring them.

            Nothing beautiful about it unless you call the delusions of the human mind beautiful.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon, is all modern science done by conspiring idiots with fudged data, or do you see any exceptions?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          svante…”Gordon, I dont know how life or the big bang started, but the boundaries have been pushed very close to the beginnings.

          The big bang is consistent with observations and theoretical physics. Evolution is consistent with observations and chemistry”.

          The boundaries may have been moved closer through delusions in the human mind but not in the reality of the universe. You need to distinguish human illusions from the hard reality.

          I laid out the reality of the universe vis a vis the BB. The BB is based on a 4K average temperature in the universe and Doppler motion indicated in the spectrum of stars.

          That’s it!!! No other evidence whatsoever. From that scant information, the deluded human mind has created sci fi about the BB that has never been witnessed in reality.

          Astronomer Wal Thornhill, in reference to space-time curvature pointed out that it does no apply to any dimension of which we are aware. There is no physical reality to demonstrate it, except the delusional reality in the human mind.

          Same for the BB.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          svante…”You say these questions are totally beyond the human mind, but this idiot says the opposite, from Ontario no less”.

          I don’t care how much status this guy has in the scientific community he deserves to be called an idiot.

          Within the first few minutes of his lecture he has claimed light from distant stars helps us see back in time. Then he provides a model with the Earth-Sun system at its centre, surrounded by a dense concentric rim of stars, surrounded again by what he calls primordial plasma, presumably from the Big Bang.

          Svante…if you want to believe this sci fi, be my guest. If you want to divorce yourself from it by sitting back, relaxing, saying ‘I don’t know’, and allowing your natural awareness and intelligence to intervene, it will point out the gaping holes in the theory this intellectual twit is spoon-feeding the idiots in the audience.

          For one, there is no such thing as time. If you freeze the universe at any one instant, everything, light, stars, gravity, etc. is in the here and now. Reality is always here and now and unless you get that and delude yourself with light traveling through a continuum of time, you will be fooled just as this educated fool has fooled himself.

          You can almost see it in him, the way he told an inane joke then laughed inappropriately for a lengthy period at his own mirth. Then stood there with a ridiculous look on his face, not quite aware of his faux pas.

          You did not ever see that with Feynman or Linus Pauling. They were always completely aware. This guy has been spoon-fed crap and now he is passing it on to others. Recently I saw one of his ilk trying to spoon-feed the Great Unwashed that gravity is not a force but an effect of the space-time continuum.

          Come on man, don’t get sucked in by delusional mental processes, kick your awareness into gear. It was a free gift at birth.

          • Svante says:

            You agree that the speed of light is 300k km/s?
            Does it not follow that you see into the past then?
            The image of the nearest star is not four years old?

          • Svante says:

            “In 1917, Einstein applied the general theory of relativity to the structure of the universe as a whole.[172] He discovered that the general field equations predicted a universe that was dynamic, either contracting or expanding.”

            Albert Einstein had scruffy clothes, didn’t wear socks, and let his hair grow wild.

            Another idiot to ignore.

            https://tinyurl.com/zrd58b9

  16. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Seems obvious at this point that aCO2 is causing Arctic sea ice extent to increase through anthropogenic fed vegetation cementing dust that would otherwise erode becoming airborn and alight on Arctic ice and glaciers changing their albedo, triggering melting. In fact, I bet the little ice age glaciation had something to do with the co2 following the warming of the MWP Roman etc.

    https://realclimatescience.com/2017/09/40-sea-ice-ice-gain-over-the-past-five-years

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      darwin…”Seems obvious at this point that aCO2 is causing Arctic sea ice extent to increase through anthropogenic fed vegetation cementing dust that would otherwise erode…”

      Hogwash!!

      All CO2, by mass, could not warm the atmosphere more than a few hundredths of a degree C and ACO2 is a small fraction of all CO2, as claimed by the IPCC based on 390 ppmv. It’s around 4% of all CO2 based on 390 ppmv.

      If all the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere has a limitation of a few 100ths of a degree C (Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s Law), ACO2 has only 4% of that warming capability. Modelers who claim a 9% to 25% warming effect are seriously out of touch with physics, thermodynamics, and chemistry.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “All CO2, by mass, could not warm the atmosphere more than a few hundredths of a degree C….”

        Hogwash!! You have never proven this, despite being asked many times.

        Clearly you don’t have any proof — so your claim isn’t science, just another of your lies.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson wrote:
        “Modelers who claim a 9% to 25% warming effect are seriously out of touch with physics, thermodynamics, and chemistry.”

        Who are you to make such a judgement?

        No one. You offer no science regarding this whatsoever.

        You don’t have 1% of the scientific knowledge to just the experts. Time for you to just shut up and learn for a change.

      • Snape says:

        Gordon

        If you’re going to reply to someone’s comment, you might want to read it first.

        • Snape says:

          (Referring to Darwin’s post upthread)

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          snape…”Gordon…If youre going to reply to someones comment, you might want to read it first”.

          You’re right. Thanks for pointing it out and my apologies to Darwin.

  17. Gordon Robertson says:

    DA…”Here are the trends, in Kkm2/yr, for each month from Jan-Dec since 1979, according to N.S.I.D.C.s monthly Arctic sea ice extent:”

    That’s interesting, from people who were not on the ice measuring it. Do you realize that ice is driven by winds and ocean currents and that it smashes into itself all over the Arctic producing small mountains called pressure ridges. Some are 40 feet high.

    I have read of three major expeditions from the Canadian north shore to the North Pole. Each expedition complained about pressure ridge after pressure ridge, stacked parallel near shore and thinning out as the Pole was approached. A hundred miles of the trip, at least is one pressure ridge after the other.

    Did your study take into account the surface area loss represented by these vertical mountains formed from horizontal ice?

    https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/essay_wadhams.html

    A lot of the ice flows in circles around the Arctic Ocean, caused by the Beaufort Gyre. Some of it is carried into the North Atlantic by the Transpolar Drift where it melts. There’s no telling how much of the ice surface area is lost to the Atlantic or due to compression along shorelines.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      “Thats interesting, from people who were not on the ice measuring it.”

      What a pathetic excuse.

      You think people are crawling across Arctic sea ice continually measuring it??

      Hilarious.

      It’s measured by satellites, daily.

      And it disproves your claim handily.

      A big sign of a denier is rejecting data when it doesn’t suit what he wants to think.

      • professorP says:

        “A big sign of a denier is rejecting data when it doesnt suit what he wants to think.”
        Exactly. Next he will deny that DJ defeated RM in Allybammy.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”You think people are crawling across Arctic sea ice continually measuring it??
        Hilarious.
        Its measured by satellites, daily”.

        Satellites take snapshot views and they cannot reveal or explain what is driving the ice. They cannot see in the dark. Sats cannot tell you if the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar drift are compressing the ice or dumping it into the Atlantic.

        I doubt if they can measure ice thickness to any degree of accuracy. There is a Russian camp near the North Pole where they measure all that stuff. No one else seems to have the guts to live in such an environment.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”A big sign of a denier is rejecting data when it doesnt suit what he wants to think”.

        How aptly that describes you. You are blogging on this site while rejecting the UAH data which disproves your theory of catastrophic AGW.

        And let’s not forget those who blindly agree with you, like the prof.

        Besides the data to which you prefer has been highly doctored by the likes of NOAA and Had.crut. It’s quite obvious you are in denial of the NOAA sat data while accepting their fudged surface data.

        Fudging can apply equally to ice extent.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson wrote:
      “Did your study take into account the surface area loss represented by these vertical mountains formed from horizontal ice?”

      Of course not, because they’re measuring area and extent. The ice’s footprint.

      But PIOMAS models sea ice volume. Here are its trends for every month, Jan-Dec, since 1979. Units are 1000km3/decade:

      (2.8)
      (2.8)
      (2.7)
      (2.7)
      (2.9)
      (3.5)
      (3.6)
      (3.3)
      (3.2)
      (3.3)
      (3.1)
      (2.9)

      Parentheses indicate a negative number.

  18. David Appell says:

    “Daily record highs are vastly outpacing daily record lows in the U.S.” Climate Central, 12/6/17

    http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/daily-record-highs-are-dramatically-outpacing-daily-record-lows

    • professorP says:

      I think Ange R. owes me some cheap champagne.

    • bilybob says:

      The problem I have with that statistic is that it does not look at temperature records that are complete to the 1900’s. Since many max temperature records occurring today are for stations only in existence 50 years (started during a cold period) it distorts the results. If you look at Table 6.2 and Figures 6.3 and 6.4, you will see that extreme temperatures are down.

      https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

      Has there been a study that just looks at stations that were in existence for a full 100 years and not tainted by the heat island affect? I remember Dr. Spencer doing something related to average, not sure if you also looked at the temperature maximums.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bilybob…”Has there been a study that just looks at stations that were in existence for a full 100 years and not tainted by the heat island affect?”

        Do you mean the original data, that has been amended by the likes of Had.crut and NOAA then discarded?

        • bilybob says:

          I should have clarified, this should be the recorded max temperature and not adjusted, normalized, sanitized, butchered or distorted. 🙂

          I mentioned awhile ago on this site how Alice Springs, Australia seemed wrong in GISS. The old temperature station located at the post office was about 0.5C warmer than the newer site in the years there was overlap. The solution appears to be to lower the average temperature for the post office site about 2.8C in 1880 and reduce the adjustment over the next 100 years. This gives an appearance of a warmer trend as is very deceptive.

          The record temperature for Alice Springs is now listed as happening recently, even though the post office site had a significantly higher max temperature in the first part of last century.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”Daily record highs are vastly outpacing daily record lows in the U.S. Climate Central, 12/6/17″

      More propaganda from NOAA…post fudging.

  19. Darwin Wyatt says:

    I think it’s clear there has been a greening of the world from ACO2, and no significant warming beyond natural climate variability. That all this new vegetation holds down dust that would otherwise become airborne alighting on ice changing its albedo causing it to melt is not a new idea. We’re causing an ice age by our CO2! David A. you must know this?

    • David Appell says:

      Yes, there’s been greening.

      No, we’re not causing an ice age. Just the opposite.

      What is “natural climate variability?” What’s causing the warming — in the troposphere, the surface and the ocean. What’s causing ice to melt?

      What?

    • David Appell says:

      Also, do you realize greening is a positive feedback on global warming?

      (Since it reduces the planet’s albedo.)

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Also, do you realize greening is a positive feedback on global warming?”

        Can’t be a +ve feedback, it requires an amplifier with gain greater than 1. Actually, no such thing as an amp with a gain < 1.

        However, negative feedback has a gain < 1 (attenuation). Please explain how albedo provides a gain greater than 1.

        There is no device in the atmosphere that can provide the required amplification to provide +ve feedback.

  20. ren says:

    The current temperature in North America and the pattern of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere.
    Distribution of ozone in the northern hemisphere.
    https://www.facebook.com/Sunclimate-719393721599910/

  21. Gordon Robertson says:

    So much for water finding it’s onw level, sea levels rises around India and falls around California.

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/12/13/arbitrary-adjustments-exaggerate-sea-level-rise-study-finds.html

    “A new study by Australian researchers says that data on how sea levels are rising, relied upon by the United Nations, was adjusted upward in arbitrary ways”.

    What’s new, NOAA does it all the time, as does Had.crut.

    • David Appell says:

      Let’s see what the sea level scientists say, the ones elbow deep in the data.

      • lewis says:

        David,

        From upstream: David Wrote: “Yes. Because clouds block some of the infrared radiation the Earth is emitting, so more infrared radiation is radiated down to the surface, warming it.
        On a cloudless night, the IR isnt blocked (by clouds).”

        Not blocked, reflected.
        It is also reflected in every direction, not just down. Even clouds will not ‘block’ the IR from leaving the planet, only slow it down.

        Really, the term block is very inaccurate.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          lewis…”Really, the term block is very inaccurate”.

          That’s not the only inaccuracy. The notion that heat can be transferred from clouds at a colder temperature than the surface to a warmer surface, contradicts the 2nd law.

          In his book, Atmospheric Radiation, Craig Bohren, pointed an IR device at clouds and got a reading of around 0C. Clear sky produced a reading of -50C. Are we to accept that heat can be transferred from clouds or an atmosphere in such conditions when the surface has an average temperature of +15C?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            I might add that the GHE theory is based on the notion that GHGs in the atmosphere have warmed the surface by 33C. Based on the 2nd law, that implies the atmosphere must have been a lot warmer that solar radiation alone.

            I don’t feel inclined to work it our but a moment’s reflection tells me the atmosphere must have been a whole lot warmer in order to transfer the heat required to raise the surface temperature by 33C.

            Where did it get that heat?

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            If you give up with the fake physics and just entertain the view of established physics.

            The EMR (downwelling IR) and the solar input flux are both absorbed by the surface. With an atmosphere containing GHG you get a flux of DWIR (which can easily be measured, or derived from calibrated sensors, and is at numerous locations…empirical data). The amount of GHG and the temperature of the atmosphere determine the DWIR.

            If you understand the process you will see that the 2nd Law is not violated at all. You just have to be able to see each flow of energy (solar and DWIR) as separate and independent energy inputs to the Earth’s surface.

            The Earth’s surface emits average of 390 W/m^2. The atmosphere emits around 340 W/m^2 to the surface. The NET energy exchange is from HOT to COLD. The NET IR for the surface is negative, it is losing energy to the atmosphere.

            But with the solar flux also being part of the equation the surface can and does warm more than if there were no atmosphere as an average. The average temperature of the Earth would be much colder without the DWIR adding energy to the surface.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The con-man is out spreading pseudoscience, again:

            “The EMR (downwelling IR) and the solar input flux are both absorbed by the surface.”

            NOPE. DWIR is NOT absorbed by the surface, in general. Solar yes, as in “It’s the Sun, stupid”.

          • Svante says:

            Evidence?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Evidence? That’s funny.

            The con-man believes IR from the sky is all the “evidence” he needs.

          • Norman says:

            l*U*n*a*t*i*c

            Your unscientific pseudoscience is unacceptable. Why do you post?

            I doubt anyone is slightly interested in your childish, made up crap anymore. Your posts are an unwelcome and unfunny waste of.

            I think even SkepticGoneWild is starting to realize you are a true clown. Not an ally to the cause at all but a destructive and unproductive element.

          • Svante says:

            Spot on g*e*r*a*n.

            IR from the sky is all the evidence you need.

            The sky had no GHE it would not send any IR back-radiation down at us.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Lets see what the sea level scientists say, the ones elbow deep in the data”.

        You mean elbow deep in the virtual data of climate models, which they programmed incorrectly using imaginary physics.

    • Svante says:

      The Foxnews article is actually balanced:

      “The PSMSL did not immediately respond for a request for comment, but other scientists were critical of the study for citing too few locations and for being published in a low-tier journal.

      I have some major concerns about the credibility of this study, Kristina Dahl, a scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Fox News.

      It is very unusually written. … This paper also appears to have been published just one month after being received by the journal, which is an astoundingly short time that calls into question the quality of the peer-review process.

      The journal that published it is based in Saudi Arabia and is associated with King Abdulaziz University. It just started operating this year.

      This specific journal is new but well above average, said Albert Parker, one of the co-authors a retired scientist and former automotive engineer who has written many papers on sea levels and also goes by the name Alberto Boretti.

  22. ren says:

    Immense northern storms on Saturn can disturb atmospheric patterns at the planet’s equator, finds the international Cassini mission in a study led by Dr Leigh Fletcher from the University of Leicester.

    This effect is also seen in Earth’s atmosphere, suggesting the two planets are more alike than previously thought.
    Despite their considerable differences, the atmospheres of Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn all display a remarkably similar phenomenon in their equatorial regions: vertical, cyclical, downwards-moving patterns of alternating temperatures and wind systems that repeat over a period of multiple years.
    These patterns—known as the Quasi-Periodic Oscillation (QPO) on Saturn and the Quasi-Quadrennial Oscillation (QQO) on Jupiter, due to their similarities to Earth’s so-called Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO)—appear to be a defining characteristic of the middle layers of a planetary atmosphere.
    Earth’s QBO is regular and predictable, repeating every 28 months on average. However, it can be disrupted by events occurring at great distances from the equator of our planet—and a new study reveals that the same is true of Saturn’s QPO.
    “These oscillations can be thought of as a planet’s heartbeat,” says Leigh Fletcher of the University of Leicester, UK, lead author of the study (published in Nature Astronomy) and co-investigator of Cassini’s Composite Infrared Spectrometer (CIRS). “Cassini spotted them on Saturn about a decade ago, and Earth-based observations have seen them on Jupiter, too. Although the atmospheres of the distant gas giants may appear startlingly different to our own, when we look closely we start to discover these familiar natural patterns.”

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-giant-storms-palpitations-saturn-atmospheric.html#jCp

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…there’s obviously something going on with Earth’s climate system that no one understands. We are far too focused on the pseudo-science of AGW to spend the required effort to understand the climate based on real forces, we have become content with the virtual nonsense in climate models.

      Over here, we have a saying, “you can’t see the forest for the trees”. Don’t know if that translates well in your language but it means you cannot see the forest because there are trees blocking your view. It’s ridiculous because the trees are the forest.

      In climate science, we cannot see the real climate systems because we are looking for a ridiculous cause for warming and climate change.

      I think we should be exploring natural systems such as those presented at your link. Climate scientists should be investigating the Little Ice Age in an attempt to understand why it happened. Instead, they have completely ignored the LIA and latched onto an inane theory in which a negligible quantity of atmospheric CO2 is allegedly causing catastrophic warming.

      We could be hit by another ice age that is not as gentle as the LIA.

      • Snape says:

        Our studies are showing that the Mediterranean diet which is rich in nuts and beans and has a lot of fish, maybe chicken once a week, maybe red meat only once a month if everyone were to move toward it, its the equivalent of taking about a billion or more cars of pollution out of the planet every year, said Houlton.

        To put that in perspective, Houltons models show that global adoption of a Mediterranean diet could help reduce global warming by up to 15 percent by 2050.

        The Mediterranean diet has additional benefits. Previous studies have found that a Mediterranean diet can reduce the incidence of Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and other chronic diseases. Multiple studies have linked the Mediterranean diet to increased overall longevity.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          snape…”To put that in perspective, Houltons models show that global adoption of a Mediterranean diet could help reduce global warming by up to 15 percent by 2050″.

          Models???

          You mean the sci-fi models programmed with CO2 having a 9% to 25% effect on warming? Shall we prove that first? If you go with real science, like with the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s Law the diet will have absolutely no effect on global warming because CO2 has no effect on it.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          snape…”its the equivalent of taking about a billion or more cars of pollution out of the planet every year, said Houlton”.

          Houlton needs to prove that first. There is absolutely no proof that CO2 emissions based on an atmospheric concentration of 0.04% has any effect on global warming. ACO2 is 4% of that value according to the IPCC.

          • Snape says:

            “ACO2 is 4% of that value according to the IPCC.”

            That is not even close to correct, Gordon, as several commentators recently pointed out. Have you already forgotten?

            And your nonsensical response to Darwin (upthread) is even more puzzling.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”ACO2 is 4% of that value according to the IPCC.

            That is not even close to correct, Gordon, as several commentators recently pointed out”.

            The commenters are wrong. This information comes from the IPCC and is based on a CO2 concentration of 390 ppmv. In words, close to the graph to which this comment applies, the IPCC states that ACO2 is a small fraction of natural CO2, which makes up 96% of all CO2 in the atmosphere.

            The argument put forward by commenters is that ACO2 makes up 30% of all CO2, but when the IPCC inferred the 4% value for ACO2 they did so based on a concentration of 390 ppmv, which means all ACO2 in the past is now natural CO2.

            There is no prove that amount of CO2, about 0.04% of atmospheric gases, can warm the atmosphere so how is the current CO2 emissions claimed by Houlton going to warm the atmosphere?

            There is a great deal of speculation involved in claiming ACO2 has increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from the pre Industrial Era till now. The only proof put forward is CO2 gas bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice. Since the Antarctic waters and climate are frigid much of the atmospheric CO2 in that local will have been absorbed by the cold ocean, since CO2 is easily absorbed in cold water.

            On top of that Jaworowski has issued an excellent, scientific article explaining how CO2 is processed into ice and how it is affected by drilling the ice. He claimed the actual CO2 levels pre-Industrial could have been 30 to 50% higher, ranging from 351 ppmv to 405 ppmv.

            When you add up all the conditions available for CO2 absorp.tion, the figure put forward by the IPCC of 270 ppmv for the pre Industrial Era is highly speculative. Look at the mess Mann et al made of the hockey stick by relying on tree ring proxies. In the 20th century, the proxy temps were showing a decline while real temps were rising.

            The claim that CO2 levels could have been 30% – 50% higher seems reasonable since global temperatures in the pre Industrial Era were 1C to 2C lower due to the Little Ice Age. A good deal of atmospheric CO2 would have been absorbed into the colder ocean water.

            In his collation of scientists in the 19th and 20th century, Beck revealed studies in which CO2 levels were in the 350 – 400 ppmv range, Kreutz finding levels over 400 ppmv in the 1930s.

          • Snape says:

            Gordon

            You say:

            “There is absolutely no proof that CO2 emissions based on an atmospheric concentration of 0.04% has any effect on global warming. ACO2 is 4% of that value according to the IPCC.”

            Whether you agree or not, the IPCC believes the pre-industrial CO2 level
            was about 280 ppm. Today it’s about 406 ppm. The difference, 126 ppm, is considered anthropogenic. That’s 31%.

            If you think the IPCC has stated otherwise, you need to provide a link.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”Whether you agree or not, the IPCC believes the pre-industrial CO2 level was about 280 ppm”.

            Belief is not proof.

            Syun Akasofu, the astronomer who was a pioneer in studies of the solar wind, claims the IPCC erred by not considering the conditions under which their claim of anthropogenic warming is based, in the Industrial Era. They failed to inform anyone that global temps were at least 1C below normal due to the Little Ice Age.

            https://file.scirp.org/pdf/NS20101100012_47058306.pdf

            https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6659-the-recovery-from-the-little-ice-age-and-global-warming

            There are serious implications surrounding such an obfuscation. The planet had to re-warm 1C at least to overcome the cooling effect of the natural forces that caused the LIA. The IPCC blamed that re-warming on anthropogenic gases and they needed a CO2 value of 280 ppmv to support their pseudo-science.

            If the IPCC has mislead people as to that reality, after acknowledging in their 1990 review that both the LIA and Medieval Warming Period are genuine, why should we believe them when they claim the pre Industrial CO2 concentration was 280 ppmv?

            Furthermore, after acknowledging the MWP and LIA in the 1990 review, why did they allow the hockey stick graph in 1998 which erased the MWP and LIA to get a straight shaft on their pseudo-science hockey stick? And why did they re-instate the LIA/MWP latter after the hockey stick was debunked?

            They obviously cherry picked that number to suit their pseudo-scientific claims.

          • Snape says:

            Try to focus, Gordon.

            I challenged this blatantly false statement, “ACO2 is 4% of that value according to the IPCC.”

            I don’t give a rip about your conspiracy theories.

          • Svante says:

            “On the other hand, the claim that a two-century linear temperature increase is a recovery from a recent cool period is not supported by the data. Furthermore, this thermal recovery hypothesis is not connected to any physical phenomenon; rather it is a result of a simplistic and incorrect curve-fitting operation. Other errors in the article are: the claim that the heating of the Earth has halted, misunderstanding of the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and the resultant radiative forcing, and a failure to account for forcings other than carbon dioxide (such as other greenhouse gases, atmospheric aerosols, land use changes, etc.). Each of these errors brings serious question to the conclusions drawn in the referenced article. The simultaneous occurrence of all of these errors in a single study guarantees that its conclusions cannot be supported and, in fact, are demonstrably incorrect.”

          • lewis says:

            Gordon, I recommend against the term ‘pseudoscience’ and suggest religion.

          • Svante says:

            The previous quote was from:
            Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming Climate, September 19, 2013.

            http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/2/76

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”I challenged this blatantly false statement, ACO2 is 4% of that value according to the IPCC.

            I dont give a rip about your conspiracy theories”.

            My focus is fine thank, your concentration and comprehension leave much to be desired.

            Since this information comes straight from the IPCC, I presume you are accusing them of creating conspiracy theories. Better look up the meaning of conspiracy.

            400 ppmv means 400 parts CO2 per million particles of air. As a percentage that is 400/1000000 x 100% = 0.04%.

            What did you think 400 ppmv meant, snape?

            See page 17 of 90 or page number 313 as written on the page:

            http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf

            Here it is straight from the IPCC but they have obfuscated the reality of 0.04% by using a convoluted graph. Why?? What are they trying to hide?

            On the page before the graph they state: “Although the anthropogenic fluxes of CO2 between the atmosphere and both the land and ocean are just a few percent of the gross natural fluxes, they have resulted in measurable changes in the carbon content of the reservoirs since pre-industrial times as shown in red”.

            The second part of this statement is sheer speculation based on ice core proxies and generous cherry picking.

            You can calculate the ‘few percent’ by using this graph correctly but it was done by the Department of Energy at one point. Here is a tabular representation of the IPCC graph:

            Note: WordPress, as we know has an anal think about an r and p or a p or t used as in absorp-tion. There is an rp.t series in this URL so I have added a dot as above in rp.t. Remove the dot and paste into your browser.

            https://web.archive.org/web/20170107020212/https://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rp.t/pdf/tbl3.pdf

            Why this table was removed by the Obama admin is not clear but I guess it proved embarrassing to their climate propaganda.

            Note on the table the total CO2 emission is 793,100 million metric tons and that ACO2 is 23,100 mmt. So, 23,100 mmt/793,100 mmt x 100% = 0.0291 x 100% = 2.91%.

            ACO2 is only 2.91% of all CO2 with an atmospheric concentration of 390 ppmv. The fraction of natural CO2 is 23,100 mmt/770,000 mmt x 100% = 0.03 x 100% = 3%.

            As the IPCC claimed, ACO2 is only a small fraction of natural CO2.

            That was for the 1990’s decade based on 390 ppmv.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…in case my instructions were not clear as to how the URL should be fixed before pasting, here it is with more detail.

            https://web.archive.org/web/20170107020212/https://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rp.t/pdf/tbl3.pdf

            This URL has a section gg04rp.t, just before the first pdf. I have added a dot to gg04rp.t to get it past the ridiculous WordPress censor. Copy URL, paste to your browser, remove the dot, and enter.

            Right on the graph it reveals the IPCC source.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…typo alert!!!

            This sentence from my larger reply above reads:

            “See page 17 of 90 or page number 313 as written on the page:”

            It should read ‘…page number 515 as written on the page:”

          • Snape says:

            Gordon

            Thanks for sticking to my comment. I no longer think you’re suffering from dementia………just a little confused. Here, again, is what you wrote:

            “There is absolutely no proof that CO2 emissions based on an atmospheric concentration of 0.04% has any effect on global warming. ACO2 is 4% of that value according to the IPCC.”

            You are correct that CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. You
            are NOT correct that the anthropogenic portion of that percentage is only 4%. As several commentators, including myself have explained, it’s actually around 30%

            What’s confusing you, I think, is the carbon cycle. Each year, the atmosphere takes up a lot of carbon from natural sources. Obviously there is an anthropogenic contribution as well, but as the report explained, it’s only a small percentage of the total. ( A similar amount of CO2 is also removed each year by natural sources, completing the cycle.)

            As I stated above, however, the total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given moment is around .04%, about 30% of which is considered anthropogenic.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”The previous quote was from:
            Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming Climate, September 19, 2013.

            http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/2/76

            Nice try, trying to pass off an article from the skeptical science crowd, which is lead by a cartoonist. The principle author is Dana Nuticelli, a stalwart at SkS.

            A co-author is John P. Abraham, another SkS stalwart. The 4th co-author, Scott A. Mandia, seems to behave as if he is one brick shy of a load:

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/scott-mandia/

            svante, or whomever you were before changing your nym, the SkS crowd have revealed themselves as being several bricks shy of a load. They have impersonated physicist Lubos Motl and dressed up in Nazi uniforms. If you deem such a source worthy of science, I’ll be very careful to consider what you write from here on in.

            Respected climatologist, RogerPielke, Sr., took SkS to task for seriously ad homming John Christy and Roy Spencer of UAH. Here, SkS is at it again:

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/John_Christy_blog.htm

            If you support this kind of trash against John Christy, why are you here on Roy’s log?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            lewis…”Gordon, I recommend against the term pseudoscience and suggest religion”.

            Recommendation noted. I have used the religion inference on occasion. I have accused certain alarmists of sitting in the front row at realclimate or SkS revival meetings, in their schoolboy caps and short pants, absorbing every bit of the propaganda.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”You are correct that CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. You are NOT correct that the anthropogenic portion of that percentage is only 4%. As several commentators, including myself have explained, its actually around 30%…”

            I am aware of the complexities of the carbon cycle and its annual growth but I supplied you evidence from the IPCC that the percent of natural CO2 made up by ACO2 is less than 4% based on 390 ppmv.

            I understand your argument about the theoretical accumulation of CO2 since the pre Industrial era. The IPCC data I quoted is from the 1990s decade only which presumes the accumulated ACO2 till 1990 is now natural CO2.

            Still, this debate began with a quote from Houlton who claimed the gas from cows and livestock could lead to catastrophic warming and climate change. He was obviously referring to current ACO2 emissions which the IPCC revealed are in the neighbourhood of 3% of natural CO2.

            I fail to see how such a minute increase in CO2, with a concentration of 0.04% could lead to any catastrophe. I don’t accept that the 0.04% is significant wrt warming.

            Houlton was not referring to your alleged 30% figure, he was talking about the current level, claimed to be 400 ppmv.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape …just to clarify my statement that is causing the issues with you, let me clarify further.

            I said, “There is absolutely no proof that CO2 emissions based on an atmospheric concentration of 0.04% has any effect on global warming. ACO2 is 4% of that value according to the IPCC”.

            ACO2 to me is the CO2 we are emitting right now, not what has been emitted in the past. Past ACO2 is now well mixed with CO2 from natural sources and I include it as part of the overall natural CO2 cycle. That’s why I am careful to declare the concentration to which I am referring.

            The IPCC used a CO2 concentration of 390 ppmv and they explained that past ACO2 is now included in that figure. In the article to which I linked, they were examining ACO2 emitted in the 1990s and declared it a small percent of natural CO2.

            Natural CO2 from the oceans and vegetation far outweighs ACO2. The figures given were around 770,000 million metric tones to about 23,000 mmt for ACO2. Why has that 770,000 mmt not affected global warming yet ACO2 at 3% of that value has some magical quality that allows it to cause catastrophic warming and climate change?

          • Snape says:

            Gordon

            Only CO2 present in the atmosphere affects global temperature. 31% of which is the result of human activity.

            https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape….”Only CO2 present in the atmosphere affects global temperature. 31% of which is the result of human activity”.

            This where you have to be careful with graphs and statistics. 400 ppmv means 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2. Are you arguing that 30% of that 400 ppmv is from anthropogenic sources? If so, you’ll need to prove that far more effectively than the IPCC and their ice core proxies.

            The 30% level is a theory based on antedated proxies. I don’t trust proxies as far as you can throw them. The truth is, no one knows how much of that 400 ppmv is made up of anthropogenic sources.

            There is another truth. Scientists have been measuring atmospheric CO2 since the 19th century. Beck has collated studies from many of them who claimed CO2 levels of CO2 in the atmosphere exceeding 400 ppmv. Why was the work of those good scientists ignored?

            There is another truth. Satellites launched to measure CO2 have revealed that the natural CO2 from vegetation in Africa and South America dwarf anthropogenic emissions. Those natural emissions have been there for centuries, why did they not cause catastrophic warming and climate change?

            And why is it only your alleged 30%, that is anthropogenic, cause warming? Why did the other 280 ppmv cause none? Please don’t offer the GHE as an example, I regard that hypothesis as nonsense.

            Your argument is inconsistent. Are you claiming the increase from 280 ppmv to 400 ppmv came only from anthropogenic sources? That’s ridiculous, it excludes changes in CO2 out-gassing from the oceans from the warming that dwarf CO2 emissions.

            How about growth in vegetation due to the increased CO2?

            Do you not understand that AGW theorists have changed the environmental parameters, in some cases wildly cherry-picking, to arrive at nonsense like your 30% increase?

            Even if it’s true, the 0.04% caused no catastrophic warming/climate change, why should 30% of that value make a difference?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…another point. It was demonstrated by the IPCC, based on a CO2 concentration of 390 ppmv, that ‘current’ ACO2 levels were only 3% of that value. Once again, why has the 97% of CO2 representing natural CO2 been left out of the equation? If anything was going to warm the atmosphere it would be that vastly larger number.

            Even at that, according to the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton Law, the 0.04% of all CO2 has essentially no effect on atmospheric warming. ACO2 is a totally minor player in warming the atmosphere.

          • Snape says:

            There’s a paranoid, irrational tone to all your comments, Gordon. It’s a waste of time to respond.

            I posted this link on the other thread thinking of g*, but it might be even more appropriate for you:

            http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=416

          • David Appell says:

            Because natural sinks are greater than natural sources.

          • lewis says:

            Snape,
            I detect not this paranoid tone. Perhaps we are perceiving something to suit ourselves.

            But, anyway, Gordon’s point about why the natural CO2 doesn’t cause warming, only the ACO2, is a point worth debating. Whether the number is 4% or 30% is immaterial in this discussion. But it seems the argument is always concerning control of ACO2 and how terrible it is.

            Which returns me to my belief that the entire ACO2 alarm theory is about government control of the economic system, more exactly, the people.

          • Snape says:

            Lewis

            It’s my assumption that 400 ppm “natural” CO2 would have exactly the same forcing on temperature as 400 ppm ACO2. Here is the only physical difference I could find:

            “An important difference between CO2 from natural sources and CO2 from fossil fuels is the age of the carbon it contains. Younger natural sources of CO2 are relatively rich in carbon-14. But since carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,700 years, it cant be found in fossil fuels that are millions of years old.”

          • Snape says:

            “Which returns me to my belief that the entire ACO2 alarm theory is about government control of the economic system, more exactly, the people.”

            Along similar lines, maybe the dairy industry has colluded with NASA. They don’t want people to know the moon is made of cheese. (See my link above)

          • Bindidon says:

            Snape on December 19, 2017 at 3:32 PM
            lewis on December 19, 2017 at 4:58 AM

            May be your discussion can become even more interesting when you compare your opinions about Ferdinand Engelbeens CO2 knowledge:

            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

            It takes some time to get into the stuff!

            At Judith Currys Climate etc, there was a long long discussion concerning the natural / anthro CO2 ratio:

            https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/quantifying-the-anthropogenic-contribution-to-atmospheric-co2

            An amazing comment:

            https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/quantifying-the-anthropogenic-contribution-to-atmospheric-co2/#comment-700890

          • Bindidon says:

            The third link above is wrong and should be

            http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

            instead.

          • Snape says:

            Bindidon

            Thanks for the links. Mr. Englebeen has a talent for debunking lame arguments.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon, SkS has a lot of good information, but I don’t agree with their characterisation of John Christy.

          • Svante says:

            I might add that you really can’t rely on any blogs, newspapers, TV, or politicians.

            As always, you really have to get to the science, the kind of science you find at reputable traditional universities.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”Gordon, SkS has a lot of good information, but I dont agree with their characterisation of John Christy”.

            That’s good to know, I think John has demonstrated his integrity and his humanity. The point is, why would a reputable site print nonsense like that if not to discredit skeptics?

            I have read what Cook has to say and even if I could not agree with it I initially received it as a scientist trying to express his opinion. Then the goofiness began, impersonating Lubos Motl, and wearing a Nazi uniform. To top it off, I learned he has an undergrad degree in physics and worked as a cartoonist.

            There is no need for scientists to fire derogatory shots at other scientists. It’s one thing with us writing on a blog like Roy’s but it’s quite another when scientists begin ostracizing other scientists, causing them their jobs and even their careers.

            Dr. Peter Duesberg claimed in the early days of HIV research that HIV is a harmless virus that could not possibly defeat an immune system, especially after lying dormant for 15 years. He claimed further that the potent drugs offered to kill off HIV, like AZT, were causing AIDS-like symptoms in people, calling it ‘AIDS by prescription’. Today, drug companies offer a disclaimer in which they admit their antiviral drugs can produce IRS, which is essentially drug-induced AIDS.

            He was ostracized, being demoted from a full professor to a prof looking after lab experiments. He lost his credibility. Now, 20 years later he is being vindicated by the scientist who discovered HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier. He has claimed HIV will not harm a healthy immune system.

            Duesberg has claimed that all along, that it’s lifestyle that leads to AIDS, not HIV.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”As always, you really have to get to the science, the kind of science you find at reputable traditional universities”.

            I agree. However, I’ve had a fairly extensive training in undergraduate math, physics, and chemistry, and it has given me the ability to sense whether a scientific claim has merit. Of course, that cannot always be the case since there are specialized disciplines where in-depth knowledge is required to understand them.

            I don’t think that’s the case in general climate science, especially as it applies to AGW theory. That science is based largely on basic physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics.

            Some people think the skill required to analyze complex physics is beyond anyone who has not received a degree from university. There is nothing to stop anyone from following a study of academia and forming expertise. MIT even offers free university level courses that teach calculus, for example, to as deep a level as one can learn it at university.

            It’s a matter of putting in the time and doing the problems.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…re your article from Engelbeen, I have read his drivel before. He makes this statement near the beginning:

            “That, together with the historical measurements of Ernst Beck…”

            Beck did not make historical measurements, he collated studies from authentic scientists. Englebeen has dismissed those scientists as not knowing what they were doing yet he has no expertise in that kind of science.

            One of those scientists, Kreutz, made over 25,000 measurements and took great pains to ensure the measurements were not influenced by external forces. He claim a CO2 concentration of 400 ppmv back in the 1930s.

            Englebeen is a nit-picker who uses red-herring arguments to establish his proficiency.

            He questions Jaworowski’s claim that melt water from drilling during the retrieval of ice cores dilutes the CO2 yet he seems to have completely misunderstood what Jaworoski claimed. He states: “There is not the slightest evidence that liquids in the ice at the extreme cold temperatures in Antarctica play any role in the CO2 values measured”.

            Well, duh-h-h-h!! Whose talking about the temperatures in Antarctica, we’re talking about the meting of ice as the drills dig into it.

            He is also hypocritical. He claims to be a responsible climate skeptic yet he goes after true skeptics like Jaworowski and Beck.

      • ren says:

        Storms in the north Earth, Saturn and Jupiter are due to changes in magnetic activity of the Sun. These three planets have a magnetosphere.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson wrote:
        “Climate scientists should be investigating the Little Ice Age in an attempt to understand why it happened.”

        “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
        DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full

    • gammacrux says:

      CO2 = ice age.

      Wrong as it stands and not at all what the paper proposes.

      The authors propose a mechanism for an earth in interglacial (glacial) with about 280 (180) ppm of CO2 in atmosphere to sooner or later end up in a new glacial (interglacial) period.

      The authors, for very good reasons, do not claim nor provide any evidence that this might still work at 400 ppm or any arbitrary CO2 amount in atmosphere !

      • Fox says:

        Gamma…

        Your reading comprehension skills are a little lacking.

      • gammacrux says:

        What Fox is not only a little but completlely lacking is the slightest even laughable fallacious “argument”.
        Foxhunt season over here.

        • Fox says:

          Sorry for the jab. With your comment i must have mistaken you for someone else… i found the theory quite interesting. Without scientists presenting honest theory we have nothing. None are absolutely 100% correct. There may be pieces in his theory that will eventually contribute to the bigger picture.

  23. ren says:

    Gordon Robertson read what occurred during the solar minimum 2008/2009.
    Abstract. In a case study of a remarkable major sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) during the boreal winter 2008/09, we investigate how transport and mixing triggered by this event affected the composition of the entire stratosphere in the Northern Hemisphere.
    https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/8695/2015/

  24. Layman says:

    Get ready for a big atmospheric temperature plunge for December on this blog!

  25. Gordon Robertson says:

    A word from Neils Bohr who put forward our current model of atomic structure:

    “Thus we must assume that a system consisting of a nucleus and an electron rotating round it under certain circumstances can absorb a radiation of a frequency equal to the frequency of the homogenous radiation emitted during the passing of the system between different stationary states…”

    http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Bohr/Bohr-1913a.html

    That makes it abundantly clear that all atoms can absorb and emit only under specific conditions. It puts to rest the notion that all radiation must be absorbed by an atom. Only EM that matches the energy level difference between electron orbitals can be absorbed.

    Energy exchange between colliding atoms is another matter. All forms of atomic states, translational, vibrational, and rotational are explained by electrons. There is nothing else in an atom beyond the sub-atomic level that produce EM.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      “That makes it abundantly clear that all atoms can absorb and emit only under specific conditions. It puts to rest the notion that all radiation must be absorbed by an atom. Only EM that matches the energy level difference between electron orbitals can be absorbed.”

      Yup!

      And in the case of longer wavelengths (far IR), it also requires “special” molecules. Not any molecule will work. So for IR “acceptance” to occur, it takes the right wavelength AND and the right molecule. IR “acceptance” is NOT automatic, or even guaranteed.

      The failed pseudoscience of AGW/GHE–funny while it lasted.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        g*r….”And in the case of longer wavelengths (far IR), it also requires special molecules. Not any molecule will work. So for IR acceptance to occur, it takes the right wavelength AND and the right molecule”.

        Svante produced an interesting link earlier in this thread (I think) in which the author revealed that it’s the electrons in atoms that are responsible for molecular absorp-tion. The special molecules to which you refer, such as CO2, have a linear bonding arrangement with valence electrons supplying the bonds between a carbon atom in the middle and oxygen atoms at each end.

        It is the electrons in the CO2 molecule that absorb and emit EM. Obviously the arrangement of the electrons around the atoms in their orbitals is such that they respond to the lower frequency EM of IR. Nitrogen and oxygen molecules have similar proton-electron arrangements by which those molecules absorb and emit EM at higher frequencies.

        Some claim CO2 absorbs EM due to vibrations in the molecule but it’s the electrons again that are responsible for the vibration.

        Vibration is due to the interaction of positive and negative charges between proton and electrons, acting like a spring-mass system. Electrons act like the springs while protons in the nucleus supply the mass. However, lesser vibration can be the result of dipoles, where +ve and -ve charges can develop due to an excess or lack of electron charges and either end of a bond.

        I can’t look at a molecule without seeing the electrons and protons. All I see is +vely charged nuclei bonded together by valence electrons. In organic chemistry, if you look at a molecule consisting of a long chain of carbon and hydrogen atoms what you are seeing is carbon and hydrogen nucleii with the lines between them representing electron bonds.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        g*r …there’s a good explanation here of the CO2 molecule dipole action and how it absorbs EM.

        https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Spectroscopy/Infrared_Spectroscopy/Infrared%3A_Theory

        A moment in physics as you know is due to the motion of a body or particle about a centre. A force turning about a centre is referred to as torque.

        A dipole moment in a molecule like CO2 consists of the outer oxygen atoms forming a double bond with the central carbon atom. The bonds can vibrate linearly or the O atoms can try to rotate about the CO2 atom. In the latter case, the dipole represents a dipole moment as it turns.

        The article claims EM can be absorbed or emitted as the dipole moment moves. However, there are two modes of linear motion, one where the O2 molecules are moving apart and one where one moves in while the other moves away. In the former, the dipole charges are the same and no IR can be absorbed, but with the latter, the charges are different and EM can be absorbed. Same with the rotational moments.

        I cannot buy that argument completely for a couple of reasons. For one, the difference in charges in the dipoles is dependent on electron charge and the electrons in either O2 molecule could be struck by EM at any time. It’s either a case of both being struck at the same time, as in a wave action, or individual photons striking one set of electrons and not the other. And what’s wrong with EM striking the C atom electrons?

        The other reason is the article is treating molecules tritely as units with mechanical lever arms and springs which can magically supply electric charges. Those are in fact electrons forming the dipoles and supplying the charges. Based on the article I presented earlier by Bohr, electrons, period, are the focus and it does not matter if they are around carbon atoms or oxygen atoms.

        The electrons are shared between the O and C atoms so how does one tell?

        Wouldn’t it be wild if it was eventually revealed that N2 and O2 absorb and emit IR perfectly at certain temperatures?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Another thought. The electrons forming the bonds in the CO2 molecules theoretically orbit both atoms, holding the positively charged nucleii together. It’s not hard to visualize that the vibrational effect of the electrons on the nucleii could depend on exactly where the electron are located when they absorbs IR.

          If that’s true, the reason for CO2 absorbing IR become seriously complex and cannot be written off simply as dipole action.

          Can you imagine an electron orbiting an oxygen and carbon combo while receiving a shot of IR? It jumps to a higher electron orbital but those orbitals are likely at different levels on either atom.

          My head hurts, I’m going to watch Hogan’s Heroes.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            I like to describe it as a molecule is like a small antenna. Just as antenna elements are cut for a specific wavelength, so certain molecules are “just right” for incoming wavelengths.

          • David Appell says:

            CO2 absorbs IR because if its molecular vibrational and rotational states. It has nought to do with electrons.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”CO2 absorbs IR because if its molecular vibrational and rotational states. It has nought to do with electrons”.

            Tell me what’s vibrating in their Mr. Rocketscientist? Molecules are aggregations of atoms and atoms are formed from the equal and opposite charges on protons in the nucleus and electrons orbiting the nucleus and forming bonds between atoms to form molecules.

            Atoms are basically electrons and protons and atoms joined together to form molecules are electrons and protons. However, the electron is the only particle able to move around freely in its orbit therefore it’s the only one that can absorb and emit EM.

            If you don’t understand that you may as well stop commenting. Better still, if you don’t understand that most basic of atomic theory, don’t study organic chemistry.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            g*r…”I like to describe it as a molecule is like a small antenna. Just as antenna elements are cut for a specific wavelength, so certain molecules are just right for incoming wavelengths”.

            Whatever works for you. Actually the end process is like a little antenna, with the electric charge on the electron forming an EM field. Any moving electron is an electric charge with a magnetic field around it. I presume the leap downward between energy states acts like an emitting antenna.

            When you try to figure out the frequency of the emission, however, it gets dicy. In a radio transmitter, the frequency is determined within the transmitter using oscillators that are sometime stabilized with crystals. The frequency that the electron emits at is built into the energy state of the orbital which also represents its level of heat.

            Pretty nifty arrangement.

          • David Appell says:

            Whats vibrating is the tri atom molecule itself, their locations relative to one another. Easy to visualize.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “However, the electron is the only particle able to move around freely in its orbit therefore its the only one that can absorb and emit EM”

            Wrong. CO2’s atoms can also move, and their quantum state transitions are in the IR:

            http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img4.gif

        • David Appell says:

          The spectra of N2 and O2 has been known for a long time. No IR bands. This will never change.

  26. Gordon Robertson says:

    A word from Max Planck from his book on heat:

    “164. Natural Units.

    All the systems of units which have hitherto been employed, including the so-called absolute C.G.S. system, owe their origin to the coincidence of accidental circumstances, inasmuch as the choice of the units lying at the base of every system has been made, not according to general points of view which would necessarily retain their importance for all places and all times, but essentially with reference to the special needs of our terrestrial civilization.

    Thus the units of length and time were derived from the present dimensions and motion of our planet, and the units of mass and temperature from the density and the most important temperature points of water, as being the liquid which plays the most important part on the surface of the earth, under a pressure which corresponds to the mean properties of the atmosphere surrounding us”.

    For those who believe time exists as a separate dimension, this may come as a shock. As Planck claimed, ‘units of length and time were derived from the present dimensions and motion of our planet’.

    That becomes abundantly clear when examined without bias but why people over a hundred years later are still baffled by that reality is a mystery.

    • David Appell says:

      Theorists now always use units where c = hbar = G = k =1.

      Makes for much prettier, and clearer, equations.

    • David Appell says:

      Time does exist as a separate dimension. Obviously. The choice of units is arbitrary, but that doesnt affect whether its a dimension.

  27. John says:

    Dr. Roy can you please make comment as a seperate post on Henrik Svensmark, from The Technical University of Denmark’s findings.

    Thanks.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      John…I have never seen Roy comment this far into a blog article but Svensmark seems to be onto something. Furthermore, he has made it onto the pages of the uber-alarmist desmogblog site which means he has made them very uncomfortable with their extreme AGW views.

      A quote from Svensmark, posted on desmogblog:

      During the last 100 years cosmic rays became scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them. Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer cloudsand a warmer world”.

      • David Appell says:

        The trend of cosmic rays in the last 50 years implies cooling, if Svensmark is right. Oops.

        • Harry Cummings says:

          Co-authors are senior researcher Martin Bdker Enghoff (DTU Space), Professor Nir Shaviv (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Jacob Svensmark, (University of Copenhagen

          on the other side

          David Appell currently unemployed free lance writer

          opps

          • David Appell says:

            What did they say about the trend in cosmic rays?

          • Snape says:

            From 2009:

            “We’re experiencing the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century,” says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, “so it is no surprise that cosmic rays are at record levels for the Space Age.”

          • Snape says:

            Solar irradiance has been very low in 2017 as well. This was posted just two weeks ago:

            “Solar cycle 24 has turned out to be historically weak with the lowest number of sunspots since cycle 14 peaked more than a century ago in 1906 and by some measures, it is the third weakest since regular observations began around 1755. This historically weak solar cycle continues a weakening trend in solar irradiance output since solar cycle 21 peaked around 1980 and the sun is fast-approaching the next solar minimum. The last solar minimum lasted from 2008 to 2009 and the sun was as quiet during that time as it has been since 1978. The sun is likely to enter the next solar minimum phase within three years or so. The sun has been spotless for 26% of the time in 2017 (90 days) and the blank look should increase in frequency over the next couple of years leading into the next solar minimum.”

          • David Appell says:

            Zeke Hausfather‏ @hausfath Dec 19:
            “One fundamental problem with the hypothesis that cosmic rays influence modern warming via clouds is that its moving in wrong direction. Since 1960, amount of GCRs reaching the Earth has increased. If GCRs were a major influence on climate, would result in cooling, not warming.”

            https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/943169667257921537

            (with figure)

  28. ren says:

    The very high pressure in the west of Canada will bring extremely cold air to the middle states of the US.
    Forecast on 24.12.2017
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/12/24/1800Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-104.81,48.04,786/loc=-109.413,60.588

  29. ren says:

    Bezymianny eruption 2017-12-20 03:55 UTC (local time December 20 15:55). Height of ash plume ~ 15 km ASL extending to the N-E. The webcam is located in seismic station, approximately 7 km (4.3 mi) East of Bezymianny volcano.
    https://youtu.be/xv041QDIOuk

  30. Bindidon says:

    As usual, the troll shows the level of his ignorance.

    1. N2 doesn’t absorb nor emit anything relevant in comparison to trace gases like H2O / CO2:

    http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1513786808955.jpg

    2. Nor does even O2:

    http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1513788075912.jpg

    When you look at this comment

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-275413

    With channels in the oxygen absorp.tion band, AMSU-A is designed to retrieve the atmospheric temperature from about 3 hPa (~45 km) down to the Earths surface.

    We need to get Roy into this, hes the expert.
    Did binny not claim that oxygen is not a good absorber?

    you start to realize how nonsensical the relationship of this troll can be to science.

    Yes, Robertson troll, O2 absorbs! It does!

    But… NOT in the IR. It does that in the microwave region around 60 GHz aka 5,000 micron, i.e. at a frequency 500 times lower than what we are talking about:

    http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1513788367997.jpg

    Hopefully the troll at least manages to look at the difference in intensity… and line numbers.

  31. David Appell says:

    Up above Gordon Robertson wrote:
    Climate scientists should be investigating the Little Ice Age in an attempt to understand why it happened.

    “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
    DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full

    • David Appell says:

      Another sign of a crackpot is their thinking that because they don’t know something, no one else does either.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Another sign of a crackpot is their thinking that because they dont know something, no one else does either”.

        The point is, Mr. Rocketscientist, the LIA did exist and your link corroborates that. The IPCC corroborated both the LIA and the MWP in their 1990 review then stood by in 1998 as Mann et al erased both to make the shaft on the hockey stick straight. Then they had to wipe egg off their faces and re-instate the LIA and MWP after the hockey stick was debunked as bad math and bad science.

        The LIA could not possibly have existed only in Europe as you have claimed. Global temps were 1C to 2C below normal for 400 years and that could not have happened while restricted to a locale like Europe.

        Speaking of crackpots, then the IPCC completely ignored the reduced global temps when they established their lame theory that rewarming from the LIA was actually caused by anthropogenic gases, the main culprit being a gas that has never exceeded 0.04% of the atmosphere.

        Nowhere does the IPCC seriously consider what may have caused such an abrupt cooling simply because there mandate is to find proof of anthropogenic causes. What kind of crackpots would issue such a mandate?

        Today, more crackpots like you and binny insist that theory (AGW) is correct when real evidence stares you in the face to the contrary.

        My reference to modern climate scientists studying the LIA was to see if it’s probable cause could shed light on the enormous natural forces at work that could cool the atmosphere that much over 400 years.

        Sorry guys, I realize I am talking at a level neither of you can comprehend. Sometimes it sucks having intelligence and feeling compelled to use it, as opposed to you and binny foregoing your natural born intelligence in order to fit in to a cause while appealing to authority.

        There’s an upside to acting dumb to fit in: if we all applied for grants, you’d get yours long before I got mine.

    • Bindidon says:

      Correct. And the very origin of the transition from MWP to LIA might be:

      http://www.pnas.org/content/110/42/16742.full
      https://www.nature.com/articles/srep34868

      An eruption with such a high explosivity index and such an amount of ejected material didn’t happen in the last thousands of years.

      That gives us this pretty good sequence:

      Samalas 1257, VEI: 7/8
      Quilotoa 1280, 6
      Kuwae 1452, 6
      Bardarbunga 1477, 6
      Billy Mitchell 1580, 6
      Huaynaputina 1600, 6

      In comparison with the tremendous amount of aerosols released into the atmosphere at that time, even the coincidence of all known solar minima (Wolf, Maunder, Spoerer, Oort, Dalton) seems like a historical detail.

      In 1258, about 33% of London’s population died. This has been recorded in writings of that time.

      For a long time, the plague was believed to be the cause until skeletons were found in mass graves, all pointing to a lack of nutrition.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”An eruption with such a high explosivity index and such an amount of ejected material didnt happen in the last thousands of years”.

      Get real!! Are you suggesting volcanic aerosols could cause a cooling of the magnitude of the LIA over 400 years?

      “In 1258, about 33% of Londons population died. This has been recorded in writings of that time.

      For a long time, the plague was believed to be the cause until skeletons were found in mass graves, all pointing to a lack of nutrition”.

      That’s tantamount to the denial that 12 million people were systematically tortured and killed in Nazi concentration camps. Some of the deniers claim the camps were health camps, where people were instituted because they had diseases like TB.

      There is no doubt nutrition was a factor in people succumbing to the plague just as it was a factor following WW I when a flu epidemic broke out. However, to write off the plague as a simple nutritional deficiency is ridiculous.

      Ridiculous as it may be, it’s helping me gain insight into why you’d accept AGW verbatim while upholding the cheaters at NOAA. You just need to believe something.

      Have you ever thought of discarding belief altogether? It serves no purpose, it’s akin to claiming, “I can’t prove this but I think it’s true”.

      • Bindidon says:

        Robertson troll, read this CAREFULLY:

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

        and then come back again.

        I have read that paper years ago, Robertson troll.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…why should I read an article claiming volcanic activity can explain the LIA in conjunction with mysterious processes in the oceans that are completely ignored by AGW.

          From the article:

          “A transient climate model simulation shows that explosive volcanism produces abrupt summer cooling at these times, and that cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed”.

          What sea-ice/ocean feedbacks could maintain a global cooling for 400 years? And what is a sea-ice/ocean feedback? These people throw the word feedback around like it means something.

          They are obviously raving climate modelers.

          And why just summer cooling? Are they suggesting only the summers cooled, as AGW idiots claim warming for one month of the Arctic summer means something?

          A negative feedback is an attenuation, a positive feedback is a gain above unity. PF is used in servomechanisms as an indicator of sign only, nothing to do with gain. How do these authors justify throwing around a notion like sea-ice/ocean feedbacks to explain a 1C to 2C global cooling over 400 years?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “And what is a sea-ice/ocean feedback?”

            Why doesn’t it embarrass you to be so woefully uninformed?

            Up above you bragged about your advanced knowledge of physics and mathematics and chemistry and science.

            The you ask a question like this that shows you lack knowledge of even the most basic concepts.

            Andy you can’t take 15 seconds to google it and read about it.

            And THEN, even though you admit you don’t understand the concept, you’re SURE it can’t lead to prolonged cooling.

            You’re not just a liar, you’re also a windbag and a Big Phony.

          • David Appell says:

            “How do these authors justify throwing around a notion like sea-ice/ocean feedbacks to explain a 1C to 2C global cooling over 400 years?”

            You don’t know what the feedback is, so how can you judge its magnitude?

            In fact, PAGES 2k found the GMAT declined by about 0.4 C during the LIA:

            https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Ahmed_2013_paleo_fig4.jpg

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA….”Why doesnt it embarrass you to be so woefully uninformed?”

            I don’t see you offering an explanation of sea-ice/ocean feedback. Of course, you’re just a bagman/yes-man for alarmists science and you regurgitate what you’re told.

            There is no such thing as sea-ice/ocean feedback in reality, it’s a reference to nonsense in climate models.

            As far as me not knowing what feedback is, I have explained it several times, AS AN EXPERT. Yes, an expert. I have studied it in depth and I have applied it.

            Gavin Schmidt does not even know what it is. He fumbled a hypothetic mathematical explanation and had to be corrected by engineer Jeffrey Glassman.

            If a leading alarmists running NASA GISS cannot explain positive feedback, AGW is lost.

            Here’s Schmidt on positive feedback:

            http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html

            “The idea is that in many non-linear systems (of which the climate is certainly one), a small push away from one state only has small effects at first but at some ‘tipping point’ the system can flip and go rapidly into another state. This is fundamentally tied to the existence of positive feedbacks . However, [tipping point] is currently being used interchangeably a number of potentially confusing ways and so I thought I’d try and make it a little clearer”.

            Then:

            “A positive feedback occurs when a change in one component of the climate occurs, leading to other changes that eventually ‘feeds back’ on the original change to amplify it”.

            This is not only wrong it’s silly. Feedback does NOT CAUSE AMPLIFICATION, it is part of a system of amplification where an amplifier is employed.

            I’ll repeat that for you APPELL because you tend to be somewhat obtuse about such science. A separate amplifier is required for positive feedback to work. You cannot reach a tipping point without external amplification.

            Then he tried to use math, making an utter fool of himself:

            “A simple example leads to a geometric series for instance; i.e. if an initial change to a parameter is D, and the feedback results in an additional rD then the final change will be the sum of D+rD+r2D…etc.”

            This is simply not true. He has applied rD to the amplifier and not to the input signal where it belongs. Feedback has no effect on the amplifier, only on the input signal. The gain (amplification) of an amplifier must remain constant and with an electronic amplifier you could not add rA to the output. You can only add feedback to the input signal.

            The proper equation for feedback is G = A/(1-bA).

            In this scenario, G is the overall gain, A is the amplifier stage gain, and b is +ve feedback provided it’s sign adds to the input signal. The bA component is the fraction of the amplified signal fed back and added to the input signal, not to the amplified signal.

            How could a top climate modeler not know this stuff???

          • Svante says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “I dont see you offering an explanation of sea-ice/ocean feedback.”

            How about this for a feedback:
            “melting snow exposes more dark ground (of lower albedo), which in turn absorbs heat and causes more snow to melt.”

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “I dont see you offering an explanation of sea-ice/ocean feedback.”

            Can you read?

            If so, is there some reason you can’t go learn about this on Wikipedia?

            It is, literally, the easiest feedback to understand.

            But you have no interest in knowledge, only in preserving the cocoon that protects you from the real world.

            I’m guessing this desire for protection has been a lifelong trait fo you.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “If a leading alarmists running NASA GISS cannot explain positive feedback, AGW is lost.”

            Insulting experts is another major sign of a crackpot.

            The deficiency is yours, not theirs.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “A separate amplifier is required for positive feedback to work. You cannot reach a tipping point without external amplification.”

            The initial force is warming from CO2.

            It’s incredible that you do not understand the most basic concepts of climate change.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “I dont see you offering an explanation of sea-ice/ocean feedback.”

            You’re kidding, right?

            Ice reflects more sunlight than does ocean.

            That’s the sea-ice albedo feedback.

            You should have learned this long ago.

  32. Bindidon says:

    “Daily record highs are vastly outspacing daily record lows in the U.S.”, Climate Central, 12/6/17

    http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/daily-record-highs-are-dramatically-outpacing-daily-record-lows

    *

    bilybob on December 14, 2017 at 4:12 AM

    1. The problem I have with that statistic is that it does not look at temperature records that are complete to the 1900s.

    bilybob’s problem I can understand: I myself thought it would be some kind of bloody alarmista stuff. It looks indeed a bit exxagerated due to this choice “more highs than lows”, but it is in fact correct.

    I had some time to spend to obtain the info as we both wished. I still didn’t manage to process the GHCN ‘V4 daily’ record, but using ‘V3 monthly’ (unadjusted) should be satisfying.

    Here is a chart comparing, for each year during the period 1880-2016, the running percentage of the stations having shown in that year their highest resp. lowest monthly temperature averages during their own recording period:

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/171221/kbza7afo.jpg

    Running percentages were used to compare highs and lows with the number of stations active in the year thy did occur: it makes a difference when looking at 340 lows in a year with 6000 or 2000 active stations a that time.

    But for all these strange skeptics ready to argue against that, I propose to have a look at

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/171221/dxo3ki3i.jpg

    instead. Looks much better for you, doesn’t it? Less red, more blue, all perfect :-))

    2. I should have clarified, this should be the recorded max temperature and not adjusted, normalized, sanitized, butchered or distorted.

    bilybob, I suspect you a bit to believe quite a lot of lies and distor-tions.

    Please look at the following comparison concerning the harsh record low peak in 1977, visible in my graphs above. It was due in that year to the january month only.

    Here are the anomalies (all shown wrt 1981-2010) for january 1977, as published by various institutions:

    GHCN V3 unadjusted: -2.07
    GHCN V3 adjusted: -2.35
    NOAA land: -1.22
    JMA Globe: -0.44
    GISS land: -0.39
    Had.CRUT4.5 Globe: -0.37
    Berkeley Globe: -0.14

    If all these people would dis-tort data, e.g. to ‘make the past cooler and thus the present warmer’: why didn’t they all keep the GHCN stuff showing so pretty cool in the past?

    • David Appell says:

      If you’re not using adjusted data you’re going to end up with gibberish.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”If youre not using adjusted data youre going to end up with gibberish”.

        Unfortunately you regard the truth as gibberish.

        Adjustment is good if it is allowing for variations in the instrumentation provided an error margin is supplied. Science works that way. You can get an overall picture while allowing for the error.

        It’s a different matter altogether when good data collected from thermometers is thrown out then re-created in a climate model by interpolating and homogenizing less than 25% of the collected data to synthesize the discarded data.

        It gets even worse when people like NOAA and Had-crut go back in history and throw out temperature readings they ‘believe’ don’t fit. Interpolating and homogenizing historical temperature data should be made a crime punishable by jail time.

        Then there are those like NOAA and GISS who deliberately present falsehoods regarding record warming years. They do it by adjusting the confidence level till the chosen year becomes the warmest. Presenting 2014 as the warmest year ever based on a confidence level of 48% should be made a crime.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson wrote:
          “Interpolating and homogenizing historical temperature data should be made a crime punishable by jail time.”

          Idiotic hyperbole.

          How would you prefer to deal with the biases that are present throughout the raw data?

        • Bindidon says:

          Interpolating and homogenizing historical temperature data should be made a crime punishable by jail time.

          Here are the results of ‘interpolating and homogenizing historical temperature data’.

          1. GHCN V3 Globe vs. GISS land
          http://4GP.ME/bbtc/151385747378.jpg

          2. GHCN V3 Globe vs. NOAA land
          http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1513856760350.jpg

          Trends 1880-2016 in C / decade

          GHCN V3 unadjusted : 0.22 C
          GHCN V3 adjusted : 0.23 C

          GISS land: 0.10 C
          NOAA land: 0.11 C

          *

          In my honest opinion, incessant discrediting of companies and their employees, through repeated spreading of lies concerning their work, especially behind a fakename, should become a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment.

          The longer the better.

      • bilybob says:

        David,

        My understanding is that max temperature data is not be adjusted. These are simply the record high temperature recorded for that site. Let me know if I am wrong on that. I do not have an issue with the temperature data being adjusted/aggregated for modeling average temperature anomalies. As long as the methodology is sound. However, when discussing max temperatures records, I just don’t see the value in the statistic relating the ratio of new high vs. new low given that the majority come from sites that only have been in existence less than 50 years. In Table 6.2 and Figures 6.3 and 6.4, you will see that extreme temperatures are down.

        https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

        It appears for the US at least, the overall temperature range is less, with coolest temperatures moving up and highest temperature moving down.

        • David Appell says:

          Proof to support your claim?

          • bilybob says:

            David

            Which claim are your referring too that needs proof? That the overall temperature range is going down…

            In Table 6.2 and Figures 6.3 and 6.4, you will see that extreme temperatures are down.This is the resource you had referred up thread.

            https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/

            Or the claim that the majority of sites with new maximum temperature records come from sites that do not have a history of at least 100 years. On this claim, I had asked if a study had been done up thread. I have only gone through a sample of about 100 US cities (I had some free time) outside of urbanized areas with records dating back to at least 1920 and have found that about 90% of the max temperature records are before 1960. I did this out of curiosity and would like to see a formal study to see if in fact the temperature range has been reduce (higher lows but lower highs). I believe this would only reinforce the information provided in Chapter 6 of the link above.

            On the claim that max temperature records are not adjusted, that is just my understanding. If you have information to the contrary I would appreciate it.

            Merry Christmas

          • David Appell says:

            Proof?

            “My understanding is that max temperature data is not be adjusted.”

            I think you’re completely wrong.

          • billybob says:

            David,

            Again if you could show me examples of where the max temperature record has been adjusted, I would greatly appreciate it. I have come across only which is Alice Springs where they do not report the Max temperature for the Post Office site that I believe went out of service in the 60’s rather only from another site that only goes back 50-60 years or so. Not sure of the exact years but the years where they overlap show the postal site was running about a 0.5C warmer. Not sure why GISS throws out the postal data but I am sure they have a legitimate reason.

            However, you may have information the shows adjustments to historical max temperatures more common. I have just not seen it and assumed they are not normally adjusted. Also, not quite sure why this is even an issue for my original point that comparing the ratio of new temp maxs to new temp lows is useless if the locations do not go back to at least 1920 (adjusted or not).

            Perhaps I am missing your point. Please elaborate, I would be interested.

    • bilybob says:

      Thanks for the info Bindidon. Will take a look at this when I can. As far as lies and distortion, I believe in Huff, that there are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. My response to Gordon was more of a clarification and may have been a bit over the top.

      Have a great Christmas/New Year

      • Bindidon says:

        Thank you in turn bilybob for the answer, and especially for your wishes for Xmas & NY (reciprocated of course).

        *

        Anyway, you comment was very inspirating, as until now I didn’t care so very much about this daily high/low discussion.

        My bad: in my reply to your comment, I sent links to charts referring to the Globe data rather than to the USA.

        That should be corrected; and above all, they should have been based on daily tmin/tmax records, and not on monthly averages, though these were a good approximation.

        I’ll do the same on UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data for the satellite era, and compare that with the GHCN results in that period :-))

  33. Bindidon says:

    bilybob on December 14, 2017 at 4:12 AM (continued)

    Has there been a study that just looks at stations that were in existence for a full 100 years and not tainted by the heat island affect?

    The best is to do the following:
    – to extract, out of e.g. the GHCN V3 metadata, those stations having both a rural character and the least nightlight level, and conversely
    – to extract those stations having both an urban character and the highest nightlight level;
    – to extract, out of the GHCN V3 data, all records produced by each station subset respectively, and finally
    – to generate charts showing, like those above, the maxima and minima from 1880 till 2016 for these two data subsets.

    1. Monthly high low record for rural GHCN V3 stations:

    http://fs1.directupload.net/images/171221/bksrd8wr.jpg

    2. Monthly high low record for urban GHCN V3 stations:

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/171221/erspnlia.jpg

    3. Here is a third chart showing the data out of which the two above were obtained:

    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/171221/847pcfll.jpg

    So much about UHI vs. RHI (rural heat islands). Feel free to draw your (hopefully own) conclusions.

    • bilybob says:

      Thank you Bindidon for this information. It may take me a while to review and digest. Very busy at work wrapping up things before Christmas.

  34. ren says:

    During Christmas, it will be very cold in North America.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00952/ybu97hrfk793.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”During Christmas, it will be very cold in North America”.

      Tell me about it. Hope you have a good Christmas over there in Europe. And thanks for your on-going meteorological updates.

  35. Carbon500 says:

    I for one would like to see some good manners in the posts on this page.
    ‘Liar, windbag, troll, phoney’ – why all this?
    You might well disagree strongly with someone – so why not reply with courtesy when stating your point of view?
    The person you are being rude to is, like you, someone who has made their way through life and on the way has for example studied hard, and developed professional skills unique to their job.
    In all likelihood as they’ve become older they’ve also had to deal with loss as loved ones and friends have died. We’re all human, and have to deal with whatever life throws at us as best we can.
    Courtesy and friendliness cost nothing, and make the world a better place.

    • Bindidon says:

      Wenn you and other persons get named ‘an idiot’ by somebody thinking different, you reply by naming him a troll until he stops to do that.

      And when this person lies, you call him a liar until he stops to do that.

      But, to ironically paraphrase Frank Zappa, ‘The torture never stops’…

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”Wenn you and other persons get named an idiot by somebody thinking different, you reply by naming him a troll until he stops to do that.

        And when this person lies, you call him a liar until he stops to do that”.

        So, a guy is a liar if he thinks differently, even if he offers direct proof?

        Reminds me of the childish mantra:

        Liar, liar,
        pants on fire,
        Your nose is longer
        than a telephone wire.

        Does calling someone a liar change the truth?

        I have already tried to point out that you are far too sensitive. When someone calls you an idiot, respond with humour, as in, “that will be Mr. Idiot to you”.

        Calling me a troll has no effect, nor does any other word. The only possible effect you could have on me is to prove me wrong in what I am claiming. You have failed to do that.

        • David Appell says:

          No, Gordon, you’re a LIAR because you don’t respect scientific evidence…

          …and because you just keep on blabbing the same old crap again and again, mindlessly.

          …and because you’re won’t admit when you’re wrong, as you *always* are here.

    • gammacrux says:

      One may of course make one’s way trough life and nevertheless know nothing about a specific tropic and about science, here climate science..

      When one talks, for ideologic reasons, about something one obviously don’t know anything about one is definitely a plainidiot and a troll.

      And this is undoubtedly the case of many laughable morons posting here.

      Good manners or not, an idiot talking about something he obviously don’t know anything about remains nothing else but an idiot.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        gamma…”When one talks, for ideologic reasons, about something one obviously dont know anything about one is definitely a plainidiot and a troll”.

        Would you care to attach a name to your charge with evidence to support your claim? Have no idea whether your referring to me, binny, DA, or maybe even yourself.

        Groucho and Chico Marx threw out insults that left them as the victims.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon, he’s writing about you.

        Deal with it.

      • gammacrux says:

        Of course, I’m talking about all the ignoramuses who day after day so idiotically and pathetically deny clearly established science such as the GHE or the anthropic origin of CO2 increase in atmosphere.

        It’s patently preposterous and the sole real “bad manner” involved here is the relevant relentless insult this constitutes to reason, science and generations of scientists.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      carbon…”I for one would like to see some good manners in the posts on this page. Liar, windbag, troll, phoney why all this?”

      Since I am currently the focus of your question, please allow me to respond. The idiot name calling began when I tried to point out the outright cheating, based on political motives, of NOAA. They are currently under investigation by a US senate committee for that very thing.

      That may have been preceded by me pointing out the IPCC announcement of 2013 that no global warming had occurred over the 15 year period between 1998 and 2012. Barry responded to that by calling me a liar. I posted a direct quote from the IPCC in which they give the numbers and called that period a ‘warming hiatus’. Barry offered no apology, rather he went off on a tangent about long term effects.

      I did not respond by calling Barry an idiot. A bit later, I pointed out the practice of NOAA slashing it’s global data sets by over 75% then reconstructing the data sets in a climate model using real data from less than 25% of reporting stations. Again, Barry called me a liar.

      I posted a direct link to NOAA in which they admitted slashing over 75% of their stations. Again, no apology from Barry, rather a long-winded obfuscation of how NOAA had actually increased the number of stations. He failed to point out that they increased station data using synthesized data, derived from historical data, using old data and a biased algorithm.

      Then Bindidon chimed in with suggestions that I was some kind of idiot for questioning the integrity of NOAA. I responded by calling him an idiot for his naivete and penchant for appealing to authority.

      Sorry, but I have no patience for ‘yes-men’, especially when they are spreading blatant propaganda based on outright cheating by NOAA, Had-crut, and the IPCC itself. A lot of people are going to be hurt by this propaganda which is geared by the UN to promoting it’s agenda for world government. They have tried unsuccessfully since the 1960s to implement a tax on world members, which they plan to hand out to poorer nations.

      I have no issue with that basic premise, I just don’t want it to be done using science as a vehicle. They have no business spreading scientific nonsense to promote a political cause.

      The IPCC itself was formed based on a political idea. Former UK PM Margaret Thatcher had a degree in chemistry and it was suggested by advisors that she use it to her advantage at the UN to get a movement going against pollution from coal. She was struggling with the British coal mining unions.

      When someone falls for that propaganda, I cannot help regarding them as idiots. I ignore the troll comments but it is ironic that Roy has provided a blog based on his views that catastrophic global warming/climate change is unlikely and he has the data to prove it.

      A troll would be someone who comments in this blog with the intention of disrupting debate geared to Roy’s POV. I support Roy’s position 100%, how can I be the troll? People like binny calling me a troll reveals he not only misunderstands the meaning of troll, he misunderstands the entire argument against catastrophic AGW.

      The worst of the lot is David Appell, a major troll. He has taken to calling people a liar if they comment on anything with which he disagrees. He seldom offers proof to support his charge, he offers it as an authority. More idiotic arrogance.

      Recently I have tried to point out that molecules are arrangements of electrons and protons, with electrons providing the bonds to hold atoms together. The electron is the only moving particle with a charge that could possibly emit electromagnetic radiation, but Appell called me a liar for suggesting that.

      I don’t care about name calling, we used to call it ‘flaming’. Goes in one ear and out the other. What I care about is stupidity in science and we have a whole lot of it here coming out of alarmists.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson wrote:
        “I posted a direct quote from the IPCC in which they give the numbers and called that period a warming hiatus.”

        Odd how you were able to accept *those* adjusted data, but not the data adjusted (for good scientific reasons) that came afterward.

        This shows your inconsistency and heavy bias.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson wrote:
        “The worst of the lot is David Appell, a major troll. He has taken to calling people a liar if they comment on anything with which he disagrees.”

        Gordon — that’s because you lie routinely here.

        Everyone knows it. Why are you pretending otherwise?

    • David Appell says:

      Carbon500: Liars should be called out as liars.

      Of which Gordon Robertson is in spades.

      I’m not going to change that just for you.

  36. ren says:

    In International Falls, Minnesota, the lowest daytime temperature on record for Christmas Day is minus 14 degrees set in 1996, Adamson said, adding that this record will be challenged this Christmas.”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”In International Falls, Minnesota, the lowest daytime temperature on record for Christmas Day is minus 14 degrees set in 1996…”

      Was that degrees C or F? Yanks tend to use degrees F. That’s -25C and more like it.

      Not far above there, in Winnipeg, Canada, temps are known to drop occasionally to -35C from the end of November onward through winter. In the same year, 1996, it was -34.6C on Christmas morning in Winnipeg.

      I recall one year when it was -50C in Winnipeg. I know, I was visiting a nearby prairie town and it was cold. Wasn’t too bad during the day, mind you, with the sun shining. There were tiny ice crystals falling from a clear sky and I had never seen that before. Pretty neat.

      BTW…there are suggestions this year could be even colder in Winnipeg on Christmas day.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Just want to post this article that features the same Minnesota city of International Falls. I have a couple of points.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/02/new-record-low-set-in-the-coldest-city-in-the-continental-usa-much-of-the-country-headed-for-a-deep-freeze/

        1)The temperatures from the National Weather Service in Duluth, Minnesota lists its temperatures in ‘degrees’, neither C nor F. It is presumed in the States that temperatures are in Fahrenheit. That goes with the presumption, I guess, that the United States is America and not merely part of it as the full name suggests.

        WUWT has added the F to some of the temperatures. Small point, that could, and likely will be, classified as nit-picking, but come on folks, it’s 2017 and everyone can plainly see that the United States is not America. Perhaps when that anachronism took shape, no one knew America was a continent stretching from the Arctic Ocean to the tip of South America.

        2)The same town mentioned by ren, International Falls, set a new record for cold with 8 days under -30F (-34C) in 2014 with a new record low of -42F. That was the year NOAA declared as the hottest year ever using a confidence level of 48%.

        With all these cold records being set, makes me wonder if this entire AGW propaganda is a major fudge job.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ren…”Gordon Robertson I cited a fragment of the article”.

          I sent them an email asking them to attach a C or an F to their ‘degrees’. It’s pretty short-sighted in this day and age to omit such parameters due to the international nature of the Net.

          • David Appell says:

            if it’s not clear, C or F are close to one another. They agree at -40

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”if its not clear, C or F are close to one another. They agree at -40…”

            It’s pretty apparent much of the time but ren posted an article for a city in Minnesota where a record was claimed for Christmas Day of -14 degrees. I should have guessed right off that -14 must be -14F since -14C is not that cold and not likely to be a record in late December in Minnesota.

            I was brought up on Fahrenheit till Celsius was imposed on us.

            For those who don’t know and/or for those who care:

            F = 9/5C+32

            C = 5/9(F-32)

            If F = C, in equation 1 above use C for F:

            C = 9/5C +32 (note: 9/5 = 1.8)
            C – 1.8C = 32
            C(1 – 1.8) = 32

            -0.8C = 32
            C = 32/-0.8 = -40

          • David Appell says:

            Exactly what I wrote.

  37. Gordon Robertson says:

    DA…”N2 and O2 dont absorb in the IR. Earth sheds its heat in the IR”.

    They don’t need to. N2/O2 make up 99% of the atmosphere. Thye can absorb surface heat in a massive capacity through conduction then transfer it via convection high into the atmosphere where they can radiate it in cooler temperatures.

    Radiative cooling of the surface is a red-herring argument. As Wood pointed out in 1909, radiative cooling is ineffective. The planet’s surface is cooled by convection after the air is heated by conduction. Lindzen has written a good article on that.

    • lewis says:

      Then please explain why cooling is slower on cloudy nights.

      • ren says:

        Because the air is then more humid and the water vapor gives away the latent heat.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        lewis…”Then please explain why cooling is slower on cloudy nights”.

        What do you mean by slower cooling? Do you mean a slower cooling of the actual surface or slower cooling reported by a human standing on the surface whose body is actually mainly in the atmosphere? Or has someone actually stood there night after night with a thermometer and calculated the rate of cooling.

        That is fraught with issues as well. A person standing on a hill nearby might report different findings. There may be an inversion where another person is measuring nearby. How do we determine if your statement is true?

        I have explained in the past that I am presenting a model of the atmosphere that is idealized and static. I am looking at N2/O2 heat transfer as if no other weather processes are taking place on top of it. I don’t think processes involving water vapour would have that much of an effect since WV is only about 0.3% of the atmosphere at large. If you had a very high humidity locally, where the percent of WV in the air was very higher, that may affect matters somewhat.

        Clouds are another matter. My understanding is that clouds are modeled differently than water vapour. Clouds tend to be modeled as small lakes of water since they consist of droplets of water rather than the mist-like, invisible properties of WV.

        I wonder if your question is accurate. There is an assumption that clouds can radiate IR back to the surface and warm it but that contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you pointed an IR measuring device at clouds of sufficient height, the meter would indicated a temperature much cooler than the surface or surface air. I am not claiming the clouds don’t radiate IR, I am only claiming the IR cannot be absorbed by a warmer surface because it comes from a cooler source.

        Does the evidence of slower cooling on a cloudy night come from experimental evidence or is it anecdotal evidence?

        • David Appell says:

          GR says:
          “I dont think processes involving water vapour would have that much of an effect since WV is only about 0.3% of the atmosphere at large.”

          It doesn’t matter what you think, it’s what you can calculate.

          And despite being asked a multitude of times, you have never once quantified your claims for CO2 or (here) water vapor.

          Because you can’t.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      “They dont need to. N2/O2 make up 99% of the atmosphere. Thye can absorb surface heat in a massive capacity through conduction then transfer it via convection high into the atmosphere where they can radiate it in cooler temperatures.”

      Wrong.

      Most of the surface cooling is done by radiation:

      https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg

      Cooling via convection and (esp) conduction are minor players in the how the Earth cools — especially higher in the atmosphere where the air is thinner.

      This is why N2/O2 are very minor players, despite making up 99% of the atmosphere.

  38. ren says:

    Jet stream pushes dramatically cold air into the central US. Minimum temperature records will fall on a specified December day.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=alaska&timespan=24hrs&anim=html5

  39. ren says:

    Very high pressure is forecasted in the west of North America.
    http://www.lightningwizard.com/maps/North_America/gfs_cape_usa48.png

  40. Gordon Robertson says:

    DA…”How would you prefer to deal with the biases that are present throughout the raw data?”

    Read that again, would you? Biases in real data???

    If I take a thermometer reading, hopefully I have the ability to read a thermometer, adjust my eyes for parallax, and give an estimate of the likely error. What needs to be adjusted?

    The biases NOAA and GISS are seeing are temperatures that don’t fit their pre-conceived notion of catastrophic warming. Both Hansen and Schmidt of GISS have talked about tipping points, so their mentalities are geared to catastrophe. They have already tried to change the 1934 record for the US to 1998, and now presumably 2016.

    The bias introduced to real data by a competent observer is very small. Small enough so as not to be significant in a trend analysis.

    The real bias comes when statisticians look at data from the past while looking for proof of a warming trend. They see outliers which don’t fit their preconceived notions and amend the outlier because they think it does not fit.

    I call that cheating.

    It becomes egregious when people like NOAA interpolate and homogenize data from stations up to 1200 miles apart. That’s not only cheating, it scientific misconduct when such nonsense is applied to catastrophic global warming theory.

    We are being had by charlatans posing as scientists.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      “What needs to be adjusted?”

      See, you don’t even understand the issues, but you’re cocksure the ways they’re being handled are all wrong.

      This is a perfect example of why you’re a Poseur and Big Phony.

    • David Appell says:

      These two articles explain adjustments, and why they’re necessary, in easily understood ways. (Naturally, Gordon will completely ignore them.):

      “Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done,” Scott K. Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
      http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

      “Understanding Time of Observation Bias,” Zeke Hausfather, 2/22/15.
      https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      “What needs to be adjusted?”

      From 1910-1965 a certain land-based thermometer is read twice a day, at 6 am and at 6 pm.

      Then the man who was reading the thermometer dies.

      From 1965-1994, the thermometer is read by a new guy, but he can only do it at 9 am and 3 pm.

      In 1994 the thermometer was moved, because it was on land needed for a new building.

      From then to today, it’s read twice a day, 9 am and 9 pm.

      Except on 2/1999 the average read 90.4 F.

      Q: How do you construct a single time series out of all these data reading?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Q: How do you construct a single time series out of all these data reading?”

        You leave the historical record as it is and you start a new system, if that’s what you want.

        That’s not what NOAA did, however. They Went back in history and adjusted the record to show warming where it was agreed by the IPCC and even NOAA itself that none had existed.

        That’s why I call them charlatans. They have deliberately adjusted the record to enable the pseudo-science behind AGW.

  41. David Appell says:

    Gordon Robertson says:
    “I dont care how much status this guy has in the scientific community he deserves to be called an idiot.”

    And Gordon displays another attribute of a science denier.

    “Within the first few minutes of his lecture he has claimed light from distant stars helps us see back in time.”

    Why doesn’t it?

    “Then he provides a model with the Earth-Sun system at its centre, surrounded by a dense concentric rim of stars, surrounded again by what he calls primordial plasma, presumably from the Big Bang.”

    No, he doesn’t.

    Gordon, why is the universe expanding?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”Within the first few minutes of his lecture he has claimed light from distant stars helps us see back in time.

      Why doesnt it?”

      Because there is no dimension of time through which we can look back. The only dimension is an illusion of time we have created in our minds.

      Here’s a quote from Max Planck in his book on heat:

      “164. Natural Units.

      All the systems of units which have hitherto been employed, including the so-called absolute C. G. S. system, owe their origin to the coincidence of accidental circumstances, inasmuch as the choice of the units lying at the base of every system has been made, not according to general points of view which would necessarily retain their importance for all places and all times, but essentially with reference to the special needs of our terrestrial civilization.

      Thus the units of length and time were derived from the present dimensions and motion of our planet, and the units of mass and temperature from the density and the most important temperature points of water, as being the liquid which plays the most important part on the surface of the earth, under a pressure which corresponds to the mean properties of the atmosphere surrounding us”.

      More specifically:

      “Thus the units of length and time were derived from the present dimensions and motion of our planet…”

      That’s it. We derived time by building a machine, the clock, which would keep tract of one rotation of the planet. We subdivided that period down into seconds and our derived second is the basic unit in atomic clocks. Of course we have to amplify the tiny wavelengths of the atomic vibrations to reach a second.

      The metre is based on a fraction of the length from the Equator to the North Pole. Today, that same derived metre is measured using more accurate measurements but it’s basically the same human derived unit of length. Therefore, distance and time came from the human mind and space-time has no existence other than in the human mind.

      Lends new meaning to the term space-time warp. It’s the minds of the scientists that are warped, not a fictitious dimension of space-time.

      As Planck claimed, mass and temperature are derived from the density of water and the boiling and freezing points of water respectively. Pressure is defined based on our atmosphere near the surface.

      The dimension of time by which people claim a past has no reality, it’s an illusion.

      ***********

      Why is the universe expanding? Who said it is? All we have are reports from arrogant, myopic scientists who regard Earth as the centre of the universe. The motion is measured from Earth and we have no idea whatsoever how large the universe might be or where its centre might be.

  42. David Appell says:

    Gordon Robertson says:
    I dont see you offering an explanation of sea-ice/ocean feedback.

    Youre kidding, right?

    Ice reflects more sunlight than does ocean.

    Thats the sea-ice albedo feedback.

    You should have learned this long ago.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”Ice reflects more sunlight than does ocean. Thats the sea-ice albedo feedback. You should have learned this long ago”.

      Explain the feedback. Where does the feedback signal come from?

      We were discussing a positive feedback, which is part of a feedback cycle with gain (amplification). Where is there amplification of solar energy in sea-ice albedo feedback?

      If there is a feedback in such a process it has to be negative. Normally, the surface would absorb the available solar energy but if some is reflected back by ice or snow that cuts down the available solar energy for the surface.

      Even at that, I don’t see that process as a feedback.

      In an electronic amplifier, negative feedback is used to diminish the gain at certain frequencies to flatten the natural mid-frequency response effectively flattening the entire frequency range.

      There is a true feedback signal involved that is fed from the output stage of the amp via a frequency sensitive network to the input stages several stages back. That signal reduces the input signal in the desired frequency range.

      It is obvious to me that the notion of positive feedback has been adapted into climate science incorrectly. I think sea-ice ‘reflection’ covers the situation far more accurately. It’s not feedback.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Furthermore, in physics, feedback means what it says, a signal is fed back from the output of a process to the input of the process, to affect the overall process. Feedback is part of the process, not an amplifying agent.

        There are two types of PF in electronics, one requiring amplification and the other dependent only on the sign of the signal as in positive or negative. The latter does not apply to our discussion, only to servo systems.

        With positive feedback, an amplifier is required, since the gain must be greater than unity. Unity is the minimal gain for any amplifier. In electronics, unity gain, such as in a cathode/emitter follower, is used to buffer stages from each other.

        Positive feedback makes no sense with gains of 1 or less, the gain has to be greater than 1, that is the definition upon which PF is based. You cannot have a gain greater than 1 without an amplifier and in nature, such amplification is rarely available.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS made an egregious error in his claim about positive feedback in the article to which I linked by claiming positive feedback causes amplification. That is simply not true, an amplifier separate from the feedback is required. Even if his reference is to a re-defined form of positive feedback peculiar to climate science, he cannot talk about a tipping point unless he means the amplified version of PF defined in physics.

          The only natural PF in nature I can think of is the kind that destroyed the Tacoma Narrow suspension bridge. Wind blowing through the suspension cables caused them to vibrate like a guitar string and due to the sustained driving force of the wind, the natural resonance in the cable structure system continued to amplify. Natural resonance is the only natural PF of which I am aware, there is none in the atmosphere.

          Another example of natural resonance comes to mind. When you apply a certain sustained audio frequency to a certain kind of drinking glass, natural resonance can cause the glass to shatter.

          There is no way solar energy incident on ice can be considered a feedback. Climate scientists have obviously incorrectly defined their own notions of positive feedback if they are suggestion some kind of amplification of solar energy. The driving signal is obviously solar energy and there is no way to fit a feedback signal into that energy, especially not one that creates PF. Something would have to amplify the solar energy signal.

          Nothing can produce a temperature hotter than the temperature of the heat gained from solar energy. That would require an amplifier. The notion of trapping energy, or slowing it down, is nonsense. Solar energy can be stored as long as that energy is replenished each day, but losses prevent any kind of build up that would exceed the solar energy input.

          If there were no losses, there would be perpetual motion. That’s the only way PF could occur in the atmosphere or to allow the catastrophic heating claimed by AGW.

          • David Appell says:

            GR claimed:
            “Nothing can produce a temperature hotter than the temperature of the heat gained from solar energy”

            T(photosphere)=5700 K

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”GR claimed:
            Nothing can produce a temperature hotter than the temperature of the heat gained from solar energy

            T(photosphere)=5700 K”

            Did I not say ‘heat gained’, as in reference to heat gained in the Earth’s surface from solar radiation? What does that have to do with the photosphere?

            BTW…in case you’re still confused as to how solar energy heats the surface, the surface is a huge conglomeration of electrons and protons. Sub-atomic particles aside, the surface is an aggregation of protons and electrons.

            According to Bohr, and feel free to contradict him, those electrons in every atom of the surface absorb solar energy, rising to a higher energy state. That translates to heat.

            The surface, in turn, converts that heat back to infrared energy because it’s hard to sustain a higher energy state for the electrons. They fall back to a lower state, emitting IR in the process, and cooling.

            If all atoms cannot radiate in the IR band, where does the IR come from? Next you’ll be telling me it comes from only CO2 and water vapour absorbed in the Earth’s crust.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon wrote:
            “If all atoms cannot radiate in the IR band, where does the IR come from?”

            Gordon, please, please, PLEASE PLEASE tell me you are not this stupid.

            Please?

            You are so clueless it’s hard to believe any human being could be so stupid.

            I sincerely mean that.

          • Norman says:

            David Appell

            Gordon Robertson indeed shows no ability to learn. I would agree with you on that one. However if you go to the previous thread you will see that humans can plunge yet lower.

            YOU: “You are so clueless its hard to believe any human being could be so stupid.”

            Check out two posters, g*e*r*a*n an J Halp-less convinced the Moon does not rotate on its axis as it orbits the Earth. Many have explained why their view is incorrect, even SkepticGoneWild presented very rational data and links to demonstrate why they were wrong. They only attacked the truth and went on in their beliefs content to believe everyone but themselves were clueless. Maybe you should avoid reading the interaction. It is very painful to see that there are some that truly cannot reason or think. Gordon seems to be one of them. They do nothing to aid a Skeptic cause and work against Roy Spencer’s view. It is complete science denial in favor of made up opinions.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “Explain the feedback. Where does the feedback signal come from?”

        From CO2’s warming.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Gordon Robertson says:
          Explain the feedback. Where does the feedback signal come from?

          From CO2s warming”.

          You clearly don’t understand feedback as applied in physics. Anyone can redefine feedback to anything they want, but when they apply positive feedback to a runaway greenhouse effect, they are talking about PF as defined in physics.

          A feedback signal cannot come from ‘CO2 warming’. That warming would be a theoretical effect caused by a system of which the feedback signal is a part. If you have such a system you should patent it.

          You seem to be referring to the AGW sci-fi that surface radiation warms CO2 in the atmosphere and the CO2 feeds back IR that causes the surface to warm to a temperature beyond which it is heated by solar energy.

          Some have suggested that IR can be added to solar energy to increase the intensity of solar energy. Physicist Stephan Rahmstorf has suggested that, an idiotic supposition. It describes perpetual motion in that you can add recycled solar energy to get an increase in the intensity.

          Here’s what’s wrong with that sci-fi. Losses!!!!!!!!! Perpetual motion is not possible because every system has losses and cannot be self-sustainable. AGW not only suggests there is a cycle between the atmosphere and surface that is sustainable they are claiming it can increase the heat available.

          Not only that, the molecule in the air claimed to be creating that sustainability of energy constitutes only 0.04% of the atmosphere. If you can’t see something wrong with that theory you need to recheck your understanding of physics.

          • David Appell says:

            You are so fuck!ng stupid, Gordon. You really are.

            After all this time, you still have no clue about the role of infrared radiation.

            Not a single clue.

            You HAVE to be a troll, because no nontroll could be as thoughtless as you are.

            No one.

  43. Gordon Robertson says:

    DA…”Cooling via convection and (esp) conduction are minor players in the how the Earth cools especially higher in the atmosphere where the air is thinner.

    This is why N2/O2 are very minor players, despite making up 99% of the atmosphere”.

    That’s what climate modelers would have you believe. That theory about radiation was dispelled in 1909 when Wood, a scientist highly regarded by Neils Bohr, pointed out:

    “Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions”.

    Wood has introduced a scientific fact that is not generally known these days. When the atmosphere which is 99% N2/O2 warms via conduction, it cannot easily radiate the gas because air is a poor radiator. That explains the GHE perfectly.

    • Svante says:

      What did Mr. Woods satellite spectral measurement show?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…”What did Mr. Woods satellite spectral measurement show?”

        He would have answered that for you personally. He was considered an expert in IR, in particular, IR photography.

        I presume he was speaking as an expert on IR. No lightweight either. Neils Bohr consulted him as an authority in his field.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      Sorry your post is not logical or scientific and goes against valid empirical evidence. You spout out stuff but have zero evidence to support your invalid claims.

      Here is a grab sample of the energy emitted by the atmosphere back to Earth. I could care less what Woods stated, he was just wrong.

      Reality:
      https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5a41c712a2b23.png

      You can see that cold air can still produce a fairly decent amount of Downwelling IR. This dry desert air has an emissivity of around 0.66 to produce this amount of radiant energy for its temperature.

      Also conduction through air is very small and at night convection is no longer a major source of heat loss. Most night-time surface heat loss is from radiant energy losses.

      Here is a conduction calculator. If you put air into the calculator you get a thermal conductivity of 0.025. Use 1 m^2 for your surface area. Go through 1 meter of air. Have the surface at 25 C and the air one meter above at 0 C and your heat transfer is only 0.625 Watts. Much much less than the radiant energy leaving the surface. The only reason radiant energy loss is not the dominant one is because of backradiation. If not for this radiant energy loss from the surface would be hundreds of watts. A hundred times greater than heat loss via conduction.

      https://thermtest.com/thermal-resources/conduction-calculator/

      I think you should do some math to get an idea of the concepts you are bringing up. You would see you are in error and in need of reevaluation.

      I will stick to the science. If you have this overwhelming need to make up your own physics, don’t expect people to line up and consult you for ideas.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”I could care less what Woods stated, he was just wrong”.

        Of course, silly me. Wood was an expert in infrared radiation and had such eminence that Niels Bohr consulted with him while formulating his theory of atomic structure.

        You are right and he is wrong???

        When, if ever, are you going to get over yourself and get it that you don’t know your butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to science? You think you do and that is the hallmark of armchair scientists who have become adept at googling to find inappropriate answers.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          I think your are on the wrong blog. This is a science blog and not a religious one. I have Faith but science is a different branch of thought, it is based upon evidence.

          Your whole point here is just silly. Not reasonable or based upon any type of logic. More an emotional toss.
          YOU: “You are right and he is wrong???

          When, if ever, are you going to get over yourself and get it that you don’t know your butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to science? You think you do and that is the hallmark of armchair scientists who have become adept at googling to find inappropriate answers.”

          I am going by empirical information. If Woods concluded that air does not emit much IR he is clearly wrong. Evidence shows he is wrong with that opinion. You are far worse off then he is. I am sure Woods would correct his opinion if given the information available today. You are so blind in your false belief that you cannot accept anything that goes against your pre-established belief system.

          As I said, I will stick to empirical data over your opinion. Your declarations are really pointless and only show incredible ignorance on your part. If you only worship the words of Authority and are unwilling to examine facts and evidence, you are not any where close to a scientific mind. Your appeal to authority probably would offend these scientists. They would tell you to take a hike and you are ignorant.

          Science history. The Bohr model was the accepted idea at the time (electrons orbit the nucleus similar to planetary orbits). It was drastically changed because of empirical evidence that did not support this model. Wake up! You are living in delusional land of make believe.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”If Woods concluded that air does not emit much IR he is clearly wrong”.

            He said:

            “The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions”.

            He said ‘HEAT’ is stored in the atmosphere due to the low radiating power of a gas. When N2 and O2, making up 99% of the atmosphere, acquire heat from the surface, it’s hard for them to radiate away the heat. That’s all he is saying.

            There is no reason why CO2, making up 0.04% of the atmosphere should have any effect on the heat stored in N2/O2. They will radiate their heat away eventually but while they retain it the atmosphere remains warmer.

            That makes eminently more sense than a minor gas at 0.04% of the atmosphere causing the atmosphere to warm catastrophically.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”The Bohr model was the accepted idea at the time (electrons orbit the nucleus similar to planetary orbits). It was drastically changed because of empirical evidence that did not support this model”.

            The Bohr model has been changed somewhat in minor ways but not far from its initial theory. Even today, in chemistry classes you are taught the basic Bohr model with minor revisions by other scientists. Chemical bonding is based on the Bohr model theory, chemistry students are taught the energy orbital theory of electronic bonding.

            Quantum theory applied in chemistry is based on the proton-electron model. What do you think organic chemistry is about? You probably think nucleii are balls joined by sticks as depicted in many diagrams. Those balls are basically protons and the sticks are electrons in orbit.

            In fact, quantum theory is about electrons. When Bohr envisioned the model first he saw electrons orbiting the nucleus with an angular momentum while restricted to certain energy levels. That theory can be questioned as to its veracity but it helps visualize basic atomic structure.

            Quantum theory draws on the Planck quanta as applied to electrons. Planck even admitted that had he been more aware of electron theory being developed simultaneously at the time he was developing his atomic energy quanta theory that it would have made his task a lot easier.

            The electrons are regarded as having harmonic motion about the nucleus and that can be translated to Newtonian wave mechanics. However, it was not possible to apply wave mechanics directly so Schrodinger revised it to add the probability of finding electrons in a certain part of the nucleii’s space.

            Pauling took that further, using his immense knowledge of atomic structure gained from xray crystallography and successfully predicted the shapes of a large number of atoms and molecules.

            All based on Bohr model theory.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon: The Bohr model is wrong.

            How can you not know that???????????????????

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “In fact, quantum theory is about electrons.”

            Pure stupidity.

            Quantum theory is about quantum systems.

            That encompasses far more than electrons.

            Your education was highly deficient not to teach this.

            You are stupid, Gordon, and when you try not to be stupid, you lie.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            This video may help you. It shows how science works and what it is.

            It is an evidence based approach to Truth.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=NSAgLvKOPLQ

            From this webpage:
            http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-bohr-model-is-the-most-accurate-model-of-an-atom/

            Watch the video and you will see it is empirical evidence and not blind belief that pushes science onward to get closer approximations of how nature works.

            The empirical evidence, that you reject, is that the air emits plenty of IR.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”You can see that cold air can still produce a fairly decent amount of Downwelling IR”.

        No argument. However, that cooler downdwelling IR must obey the 2nd law and the 2nd law cannot be reduced to a fictitious net energy flow.

        Air that is colder than the surface cannot transfer heat to the surface. That’s especially true when the air claimed to transfer the heat is a gas that makes up about 1/1000% of the atmosphere based on 400 ppmv.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Saying stupid declarative statements like “No argument. However, that cooler downdwelling IR must obey the 2nd law and the 2nd law cannot be reduced to a fictitious net energy flow.”

          You ignorantly make a claim with so support, no foundation and you suppose I will praise your ability to make up your own version of science because you don’t like or prefer real science (most likely you are not smart enough to understand it so you make up your own version that makes sense to your fairly limited and small thinking ability, you are not one of the bright posters on this blog, I consider you to be among the dullest. You can’t read and understand physics, you have to make up your own).

          Here is what the REAL 2nd Law states: It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.

          It is completely clear to most posters that your brain is unable to understand actual science. I have pointed out many times you are completely daft and wrong, you are not able to change your false thought process. You just keep pretending your ideas are real and you are putting out useful information. The truth is you put out trash and garbage and are detrimental to scientific advancement and thought. It would be nice if you quit posting for a bit and did some actual reading.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”It is completely clear to most posters that your brain is unable to understand actual science”.

            By ‘most posters’ you mean you and your alarmist cronies. You are posting on a site where the available data points to little or no average warming since 1979 and none between 1998 and 2015. You alarmists are desperately trying to conjure up any old dirt to keep your lame AGW theory alive.

            I am trying to support the data of UAH by looking at real science. My explanations do support the data and yours don’t So who lacks the understanding of actual science?

            I have explained to you how electrons work, based on the theory of Neils Bohr. His theory is still taught in chemistry today at the university level. If you took a course in organic chemistry right now your be subjected to the Bohr model and in-depth electron theory.

            I am not talking out of my hat, I studied this theory in electrical engineering. Electrons carry an electric field and a magnetic field related to their electrical charge. They produce an electromagnetic wave.

            Go figure.

            All wireless communication on this planet is based on the same theory. Electrons traveling up and down an antenna produce an electromagnetic field. In an atom, electrons traveling between energy levels produce EM.

            Luminaries like you and David Appell call me a liar. I wonder if either of you understand how absolutely stupid you must seem to people with a basic understanding of physics.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”Here is what the REAL 2nd Law states: It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy”.

          Give it up Norman. Clausius was talking about heat (thermal energy)when he created the 2nd law, not electromagnetic energy, or generic energy per se. I’ll give you this, in his day, Clausius and a whole lot of scientists, including Max Planck, believed that heat was radiated through space. It was not till much later that the discovery was made that heat was converted to EM, and the EM was radiated.

          In the 1890s, electrons were discovered and as the theory developed it was discovered that electrons converted heat to EM. Planck admitted that had he paid attention to the developing electron theory it would have made his work much easier in the development of the statistical mechanics theory of heat.

          Not once, in any of his papers on heat, did Clausius mention net energy flow. He talked only of heat TRANSFER. The 2nd law applies to heat transfer, not to EM.

          Even the Stefan-Boltsmann equation does not refer to net energy flow, it addresses only the cooling of a body due to the radiation of EM between a body and it’s surrounding atmosphere or two bodies of different temperature nearby. S_B addresses a one-way flow of energy and Boltzmann was trying to corroborate the 2nd law using statistical mechanics.

          Where you and others get the idea a net energy is available is a mystery.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”Have the surface at 25 C and the air one meter above at 0 C and your heat transfer is only 0.625 Watts”.

        With such a discrepancy in temperature difference the 2nd law states clearly that zero heat will be transferred from the surface at 0C to the surface at 25C.

        If you had an iron rod immersed in ice at 0C and you heated the other end to 25C, would you expect heat to travel up the rod from the ice? If you do, you understand nothing about thermodynamics.

        Do you think Watt did not understand the science behind IR? The guy was an authority on it, way ahead of Tyndall, Arrhenius, or any modern alarmist scientist.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon, citing 1909 papers here is comically ludicrous. Dumb. And, clearly, desperate.

      Another way you mislead and lie.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Gordon, citing 1909 papers here is comically ludicrous. Dumb. And, clearly, desperate”.

        Yes…and if I cite Newton on f = ma, it does not apply because it is dated to the 17th century. That means Tyndall does not apply, Arrhenius, or Callandar.

        Give your head a shake. If that’s what constitutes your response to an eminent scientist, without offering any kind of scientific rebuttal, then your offering is pathetic in itself.

        • David Appell says:

          F=ma is wrong, Gordon.

          And You’re so stupid you don’t even recognize that or understand why.

        • David Appell says:

          And, dumb sh!t, Tyndall or Arrhenius or Callendar never cited F=ma, not once, ever.

          Gordon, you are so incredibly stupid.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”And, dumb sh!t, Tyndall or Arrhenius or Callendar never cited F=ma, not once, ever”.

            What’s that got to do with the price of rice? Stick to the topic will you?

        • David Appell says:

          What made Woods “eminent,” Gordon?

          What exactly?

          You have no idea whatsoever.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”What made Woods eminent, Gordon? What exactly?”

            I have already stated that, his expertise in infrared radiation. He specialized in IR photography but his expertise in infrared radiation led Niels Bohr to consult with him. I’d call that eminent when someone of the stature of Bohr consults with you.

  44. Bindidon says:

    1. Wood has introduced a scientific fact that is not generally known these days. When the atmosphere which is 99% N2/O2 warms via conduction

    2. Cooling via convection and (esp) conduction are minor players in the how the Earth cools…

    It is hard to believe that two persons pretending to have a scientific education can write such nonsense.

    A. As commenter Norman correctly mentioned, air is probably the worst and least effective heat conduction medium.

    B. And conversely, convection (and advection as well) are at surface the major heat evacuation modes.

    I recall here Lindzen (‘Some coolness concerning Global Warming’, 1990, p. 294):

    “It is worth noting that, in the absence of convection, pure greenhouse warming would lead to a globally averaged surface temperature of 72 C given current conditions.”

    He cites Syukuro Manabe / Fritz Moeller (‘ON THE RADIATIVE EQUILIBRIUM AND HEAT BALANCE OF THE ATMOSPHERE’, 1961 [!!!]) as the original source of this temperature communication; but I have this genial paper on disk, and it does not contain such info. So he probably obtained it from somewhere else.

    *

    Btw, let me cite Lindzen again to make clear that unlike ridiculous people venerating him, he is perfectly aware not only of the existence of GHE, but also of a downward flux reemitted back to surface by the atmosphere as a reaction to the upward flux leaving surface (see p. 293).

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”2. Cooling via convection and (esp) conduction are minor players in the how the Earth cools

      It is hard to believe that two persons pretending to have a scientific education can write such nonsense”.

      This is why I call you an idiot.

      Obviously you have not read Lindzen. He claims the opposite of what you claim. Whereas he supports the theory of a GHE he does not support the popular theory that the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse or a blanket.

      http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf

      “When it comes to global warming due to the greenhouse effect, it is clear that many approaches are highly oversimplified. This includes the simple blanket picture of the greenhouse effect shown in Figure 1. We will approach the issue more seriously in order to see whether one can reach reasonably rigorous conclusions. It turns out that one can”.

      “Contrary to the iconic statement of the latest IPCC Summary for policymakers, this is only on the order of a third of the observed trend at the surface, and suggests a warming of about 0.4 over a century. It should be added that this is a bound more than an estimate”.

      Lindzen thinks warming based on a doubling of CO2 has an upper bounds of 0.4C.

      You insinuate that I venerate Lindzen. I do not, I think he’s wrong by sticking to the iconic greenhouse notion that only CO2 and water vapour can warm the atmosphere.

      It seems ridiculous to conclude that gases comprising 0.3% of the atmospere are responsible for all warming while gases (N2/02) comprising 99% of the atmosphere contribute nothing.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Lindzen appears to support the notion of radiation from the upper atmosphere but not from the surface. I agree with him on that but I think it is the majority gases radiating, not the rare, minority gases.

      • Svante says:

        Gordon,

        Convection is paramount at low altitudes, but not at the TOA.
        Google “surface budget fallacy”.

        Good on you for citing a real climate scientist, but the UAH trend is already past 0.4 C, so his theory did not match reality.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”As commenter Norman correctly mentioned, air is probably the worst and least effective heat conduction medium”.

      That did not come from Norman, it came from Wood, via me. However, Wood did not say a poor conductor he said a poor radiator.

      Norman has no idea how heat is transferred, he doesn’t even know what it is.