Sydney Heat and “Bomb” Snowstorm: Pimped Out for Climate Change

January 7th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

It’s been an eventful weather week in some portions of the globe. In fact, it is always an eventful weather week – somewhere.

But what really drives the narrative is when weather extremes — which always have, and always will, occur — happen to hit major metropolitan areas. Many people are already aware of the relentless guffawing resulting from Al Gore’s tweet that Michael Mann says the Northeast’s current cold wave is just what global warming predicts. (As I recall, Mann is a mathematician, not a meteorologist. Correction: Mann is a geologist/geophysicist, which is equally uninformed on atmospheric dynamics.)

Yesterday, Kristine Phillips of The Washington Post wrote about the recent “bomb” snowstorm in New England, the ensuing cold wave, and the extreme heat (110+ deg. F) that has just hit Sydney, Australia.

To her credit, she did not explicitly put the blame on climate change for these events, but her legal-background prose came pretty darn close… just close enough so that the casual reader would make the connection. Wink-wink, nod-nod.

The trouble is that neither of these two events are exceptional from a meteorological perspective. That is, they have happened before (Sydney’s 117 deg. F peak was exceeded in 1939), and they will happen again.

It is only when we can demonstrate that such events are increasingly occurring over, say, 50 to 100 years that we can begin to invoke climate change. (And even then we must debate the various causes of climate change.) So far, that evidence is sorely lacking.


The Sydney Heat Wave

Here’s the GFS forecast model analysis of surface temperature departures from average for about the time that peak temperatures were reached in Sydney yesterday. Maybe you can tell me which of these cold and warm patterns are consistent with global warming theory and which aren’t? (Hint: Warming should be occurring basically everywhere):

GFS analysis of surface temperature departures from normal at about the time 110 deg. F temperatures were reached in Sydney, Australia (Weatherbell.com graphic).

See that hotspot in the Sydney Basin? That is a localized effect of downslope winds from the highlands to the west which causes enhanced warming of the air, as well as bushfires. It clearly does not represent what is happening across Australia as a whole. Australia is exceedingly hot this time of year anyway, heat which is made even worse since the sun is closer to the Earth in January than in July (leading to a 7% range in solar radiation reaching the Earth).

The “Bomb” Blizzard

Meteorologist Fred Sanders coined the term “bomb” in 1980 to refer to a non-tropical cyclone whose central pressure drops by at least 24 millibars in 24 hours.

They happen every year.

But what doesn’t happen every year is them influencing major metro areas. So, the recent nor’easter snowstorm to hit the Mid Atlantic and New England was also a “bomb” because the low pressure center intensified so rapidly. These events happen every year in, for example, the North Atlantic and North Pacific.

We meteorologists used to talk about “bombs” fairly regularly in the 1980s, but not so much in recent years. I wonder if maybe climate change is making winter storms weaker? Hmmm…

And to attribute every winter cold wave or heat wave to global warming is just plain silly. These things happen even without global warming (which, by the way, I do believe is occurring, just not very strongly, dangerously, or maybe not even mostly due to human causation). Seasoned New Englanders can tell you that.

Meanwhile, The Weather Channel (aka “The Disaster Channel”) serves up a steady stream of weather porn to titillate the senses.

And before you believe that warmth in January is unusual, “January thaws” are a routine phenomenon, too, which is why the term was coined. According to the Glossary of Meteorology:

“The daily temperature averages at Boston, computed for the years 1873 to 1952, show a well- marked peak on 20-23 January; the same peak occurs in the daily temperatures of Washington, D.C., and New York City. Statistical tests show a high probability that it is a real singularity. The January thaw is associated with the frequent occurrence on the above-mentioned dates of southerly winds on the back side of an anticyclone off the southeastern United States.”

Nevertheless, the weird-weather-is-climate-change narrative will continue until the populace finally agrees with the warmongers that we can control our weather through taxation and regulation.


3,147 Responses to “Sydney Heat and “Bomb” Snowstorm: Pimped Out for Climate Change”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. CO2isLife says:

    Climate Crisis? Al Gore and Michael Mann Fail Science 101

    Ignoring the facts that the current cold is a weather phenomenon, not a change in climate, the problem Michael Mann and the climate alarmists face is that the only mechanism defined by which CO2 can affect climate change is be trapping outgoing IR radiation between 13 and 18. That is the only defined mechanism, and the only result possible is the thermalization of those wavelengths resulting in atmospheric WARMING. There is no way for thermalization to result in coolingnone. How then, does Michael Mann address this issue?

    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/climate-crisis-al-gore-and-michael-mann-fail-science-101/

    • Laura says:

      Indeed.

      And, to boot, not one of the anti-human climate alarmist say a word to Gore and Mann regarding “predictions”, “weather as climate”, etc.

    • Bayou Castine says:

      Surely you’ve seen this article – but I wanted to be SURE you did so here is a real “choker” if you’re having your favorite beverage!

      Alarmists Find New Excuse: Sea Levels Arent Rising Because Melted Glaciers Are Crushing the Sea Floor!

      From a [almost] daily reader of your articles:

      Alvin Palmer

      Monroe LA 71201
      lease excuse me for using “reply” to your post but I can’t get Dr. Roy’s email to work and I wanted to be sure he gets this bit of “news”[?].
      Thanks.
      +++++++++++++++++++++++++
      Doc. Roy;
      Surely you’ve seen this article – but I wanted to be SURE you did so here is a real “choker” if you’re having your favorite beverage!

      Alarmists Find New Excuse: Sea Levels Arent Rising Because Melted Glaciers Are Crushing the Sea Floor!

      From a [almost] daily reader of your articles:

      Alvin Palmer

      Monroe LA 71201

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        The first three sentences of the abstract:

        “Present-day mass redistribution increases the total ocean mass and, on average, causes the ocean bottom to subside elastically. Therefore, barystatic sea level rise is larger than the resulting global mean geocentric sea level rise, observed by satellite altimetry and GPS-corrected tide gauges. We use realistic estimates of mass redistribution from ice mass loss and land water storage to quantify the resulting ocean bottom deformation and its effect on global and regional ocean volume change estimates.”

        I especially enjoyed “We use realistic estimates. ..”

        WOW, “realistic estimates”!

        (It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy.)

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL075419/abstract

      • Geoff Wood says:

        Last time I looked, sea level rise was 75% Paulson Glacial Isostatic ‘adjustment’.
        Sounds pretty similar. The ocean is not rising rapidly due to thermosteric effects, so how do you stop the Earth’s rebound?

        Dunno?

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          As the land surfaces rise, it makes sense that the ocean floor would have to correspondingly drop. I just briefly scanned the actual “paper”, but it is filled with estimates, excuses, qualifications, and admitted uncertainties. There’s really no value in such work.

          • Geoff Wood says:

            Mmmmm.
            Sounds strangely familiar.
            What a tangled web they weave, when they conspire to deceive.

    • Joe Buchta says:

      Dr. Roy Spencer
      On January the 9th 2018 the Sydney Morning Herald published an article by Will Steffen (a member of tte Climate Council of Australia) on climate disruption with the headline: ˋ Why its sweltering in Penrith (Sydney) while Florida is in deep freeze. I could not belive what I was reading and ask myself is Will Steffen ignorant of past climatic events or is he outright lyling. Hope you get a good laugh out of the content. Regards Joe

    • David Appell says:

      Michael Mann is a million times smarter than you are.

      You’re jealous at all the attention he’s getting…..

      • Stephen Richards says:

        1000000 * 000000 is still zero. But i’ll grant you mann is 1000000times more devious

      • Laura says:

        “Michael Mann is a million times smarter than you are.”

        Is he? Really? A million times?

        Time and time again, anti-human climate alarmist hysterically protest about… everything, no matter how trifle or trivial. Of course, when one of their own tribe errs brutally, not a word from them is heard.

        Let’s see. What would an anti-human climate alarmist say if this “million times smarter than you” claim would have been made by a normal person? Perhaps they would have pointed out that even a genius does not have twice the IQ of an average person.

        And what about Mann’s IQ? Of course, the truth of it will never be any more available than the truth about Trump’s IQ.

        So, let’s guesstimate.

        I would advance that Mann’s IQ is shy of a standard deviation above average. After all, who (but Mann) would fancy himself able to get away with falsely claiming to have a Nobel Prize.

    • Darwin Wyatt says:

      This may seem like a novice level question (to some) but has anyone done an experiment where CO2 is injected into a large natural catchment basin on a clear sunny day at various levels and measurements taken? Or in a large stadium? Or a lab with identical spectrum lighting as the sun? Pump some co2 in and see if temps suddenly spike upward as though it’s some crazy insane gas that rebounds IR heat.

  2. CO2isLife says:

    Climate Change Double Standard Double Speak Proves Slimate Clience is a Fraud

    Liberals can take one position, that the recent record cold is normal and natural, when they are taking the position opposite of President Trump. Liberals can then take the exact opposite position when they are defending Al Gore and Michael Mann. The position a liberal will take isnt dependent upon the science, data or facts, the position a liberal will take is dependent upon who is making the claim. If Conservative believe the facts point to climate change being a fraud, liberals will defend it to the death as scientific truth. Liberals are so oblivious to the facts that The Guardian recently published an article about global warming and defended their position by using quotes that disprove the very position they were intended to defend.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/climate-change-double-standard-double-speak-proves-slimate-clience-is-a-fraud/

  3. Nate says:

    Roy,

    You can certainly fault the press for over-hyping every weather event, naming snow storms ‘bombs’ etc.

    However, as a scientist, are you not open-minded to the possibility that the persistently and anomalously warm arctic may alter weather patterns, the jet stream, etc at lower latitudes?

    To me, it would be surprising if it did not.

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      Lots of things are possible in science, leading to many theories. Few of the theories end up being correct. Yes, an anomalously warm Arctic can be expected to be associated with disturbed weather patterns around it. But just where, and how frequently, and in what temperature direction (warm? cold?) is questionable. To blame something that happens anyway (January cold waves, a nor’easter) on a specific long-term cause (a warm Arctic) is pretty unconvincing unless once can at least establish a long term trend in the effect.

      • Nate says:

        Agreed.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Science is an organized process of determining the truth. Observations and data lead to the formation of hypotheses to explain those observations. As more work and observations are undertaken, the various hypotheses are tested to arrive at the best explanation for the phenomena, which becomes a relatively solid theory. Non-scientists tend to confuse “hypothesis” with the Term “theory”, so think that a theory is a rather flexible idea when things are much more solid. Global Warming as a theory has acquired considerable support from many directions over decades though there’s still uncertainty.

        That said, singular extremes of weather neither prove nor dis-prove the theory of AGW. Indeed, as the cold weather impacted the Eastern US, there were rather warm temperatures in the West. What’s important is the average temperature, not local excursions, as well as the relative occurrence of both warm and cold extremes over a season.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          e. swanson…”singular extremes of weather neither prove nor dis-prove the theory of AGW…”

          AGW is not even a decent theory. It draws on propaganda as much as science. It’s also based largely on an age old premise from the likes of Arrhenius that has never been proved.

          With regard to hypothesis versus theory, in English, no one much cares. One has much the same meaning as the other. If you are going to get picky about it then AGW does not meet the criteria of the scientific method. The theory is based largely on consensus.

      • Ross says:

        As a Queenslander who inhabits this continent of Australia, I have never read simplistic, arrogant and ignorant statements about our climate in Australia. Dr. Roy Spencer thinks his agendas are God-given mandates and insights on climate change through his derogative put down of others in this field of research – exposing what? Errors of all the others. This is crazy. His cohort is not too far behind him with plenty of examples from his own mouth of complete disinformation or taken up poorly framed facts and spouting them off as some sort of scientific fact.

        We have average temperatures and heat build up in our deserts that are 10 degrees above averages. In fact, new heat colours had to be charted by BOM for these heat build-up desert events that seem to occur more regularly with our Summers.

        Extra energy (heat) is being generated in our deserts (centralised on the Australian continent and the dryest on earth). This spills outwards and towards our cooler coastlines. We have saved many a time by cooler South East and North Easters here in South East Queensland. It does not take much to get substantial rises Temperatures in these DAILY events by traveling westward past Brisbane city. for the record – it is RECORD breaking all other previous records since the occupation began (IN REFERENCE to the heat build phenomena daily occurring in daylight). This is a foretaste of what is to come to the whole world where the inland continental heat goes off the scale when the suns seasonal equinox* meets the greenhouse phenomena of our atmosphere holding in energy. Try the occasional desert/outback (often daily heat) of 50 degrees Celsius. These patterns of heat and heat wave generation “bubbles” are INCREASING. Afterall this inhabitant of Australia has lived here going on 64 years now. Roy your a youngster compared to me.

        *There are two equinoxes every year in September and March when the sun shines directly on the equator and the length of day and night is nearly equal.

        • Laura says:

          “Roy your a youngster compared to me.”

          Yet, he can spell.

          • Ross says:

            What has this got to do with the tea in China? Luara – it slipped through even a grammar checker. My experience of Roy’s SELECTIVE data is a serious disingenuous way of beating his primeval chest on this blog. He is bigger with better-thought bubble processes than all other primates in his class with their stupid thoughts and theories. He has evolved a permanent switched off to all other facts with his conservative brain. What is more troubling is the claim, his brain is touched by God – therefore it is in every way, superior. He suffers from a persecution complex as does his other primate. Get over it. As I hope you would with the nonscene over a conservative versus a liberal argument concerning climate change. It is a serious threat to humanity in the generations to come. No more tongue in cheek. But do bite very hard if you want to. It is going to hurt you. Deal with the facts – not SELECTIVE cherry picking.

          • Laura says:

            “What has this got to do with the tea in China?”

            You mean “What has this got to do with the tea in China” that you believe Roy your a youngster compared to me?

            It’s a mystery.

            Perhaps another anti-human climate alarmist can lend you a hand with your “grammar checker”.

    • gammacrux says:

      If anything amplified polar zone warming implies an overall reduced meridional temperature gradient and thus in principle less intense weather such as storms, non tropical cyclones and lows at mid latitudes.

      • Stevek says:

        If this happened would it be considered negative feedback ? Though I imagine not a huge negative feedback.

        • Stevek says:

          Sorry positive feedback.

        • Geoff Wood says:

          Of course it is negative feedback. The poles heat more than the tropics. Except its the thermal gradient that transfers the heat. Thats where the whole fiction falls apart.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          stevek…”If this happened would it be considered negative feedback ? Though I imagine not a huge negative feedback”.

          All feedbacks in the atmosphere are negative. Positive feedback by definition requires an amplifier.

          • Svante says:

            Positive feedback:
            “A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A”.

            Example:
            “A warmer atmosphere will melt ice and this changes the albedo which further warms the atmosphere”.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A”.

            Straight out of mathematician Gavin Schmidt’s theory book, and it’s wrong. Positive feedback requires amplification as in G = A/(1 – AB). G is the overall gain and A is the amplifier gain with B as the feedback.

            Sometimes WordPress messes with minus signs so this read G = A/(1 minus AB)

            Your albedo example will not produce positive feedback. For it to be positive feedback the warming due to the albedo effect would have to exceed the solar energy input. That’s not possible.

          • Svante says:

            No Gordon, A is the signal.

            Positive feedback: A=1 and B=+0.5 => G=2.
            Negative feedback: A=1 and B=-0.5 => G=0.66.

            “For it to be positive feedback the warming due to the albedo effect would have to exceed the solar energy input.”

            No, when AB > 1 the system is unstable, so does not have a well-defined gain.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”No Gordon, A is the signal.

            Positive feedback: A=1 and B=+0.5 => G=2.
            Negative feedback: A=1 and B=-0.5 => G=0.66″

            So you’re essentially telling me that if I have a 1 volt peak to peak signal, and I sample some of that signal and feed it back to the signal, I can double it’s amplitude. If you believe that it explains why you are an alarmist.

            How do you feed the signal back with an electronic signal? If the signal is across a resistor and you feed the output back to the input you short out the signal. If you use half the signal via a resistance network all you do is load the signal with your network. That’s why when you used old type analogue voltmeters you had to be careful.

            An amplifier is required between the input and output of the signal. Then, if you feedback a portion of the output signal ‘in phase’ with the input signal, they will add. Next time through the amplifier the signal increases.

            With albedo, the signal is solar energy. You are theoretically trying to increase that signal as you have incorrectly from 1 to 2. How the heck can you do that?

            You can’t, positive feedback leading to a gain is not available in our atmosphere.

            Perpetual motion is essentially getting something for nothing. That’s what you have just described. You have doubled the amplitude of a signal without an amplifier.

            I am not asking you or debating you. This is my field, I have worked in it and studied it formally for decades. You are wrong, but I can see how alarmists come to their stupid ideas about catastrophic warming and tipping points.

            A is the amplifier, the gain stage. Without gain, positive feedback that would produce an amplification in any signal requires an amplifier.

            It’s corroborated here by an engineer:

            http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html

            Under Gavin Schmidt on Positive Feedback, Glassman says:

            “Next under the heading “Positive feedback”, Gavin begins,

            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.

            Leaving room for some climate jargon, this is almost a valid and workable definition. But it omits, among other things, the necessary control system context, and the concepts of gain, ordinary feedback, open loop and closed loop. Regardless, Gavin next attempts to explain what he thinks positive feedback means:

            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 explanation and Schmidt’s understanding of positive feedback, or even feedback, are fatally flawed”.

            He goes on “Climatologists need to rid themselves of this Delicate Blue Planet misapprehension. They need to abandon their pursuit, however attractive, of knife edges over catastrophes. They should reconfigure their models to account for stable states, past and present, of all the parameters in their domain. These include not just global climate, but gas mixtures, the water cycle, the carbon cycle, and the ozone layer. They should be modeling these phenomena in their natural, closed-loop states to discover the controlling parameters and their dynamic ranges”.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Gordon and Svante, if you limit yourselves to only the electronic concept of gain/feedback, you may just be arguing past each other, and end up being frustrated. You need to look at the larger picture of engineering control theory.

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

            And consider that Earth’s average temperature is a “setpoint”, within Earth’s control system.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setpoint_(control_system)

            Which all translates to the fact that minuscule changes in atmospheric CO2 can NOT raise Earth’s average temperature.

            (But, you already knew that, right?)

          • E. Swanson says:

            In reply to your first post above, having worked for a few years as a control systems analyst, I submit that you are missing the point. In a man made control system, the forward gain supplies energy to the output, call it an amplifier if you will. In the Earth’s climate system, the Sun provides the energy and the atmosphere and surface modifies the outgoing flow of short wave and long wave energy which produces our experience of climate. Given some initial climate state, changing the surface albedo may produce a positive or negative change in surface temperature. More snow and ice cools and less warms the surface under clear sky conditions, thus the effect of an overall warming resulting in less snow and ice would be a positive influence, which can be termed a “positive feedback” within the overall system. There are several pathways which modify the overall energy flow, operating within the “system”, each with differing effects.

            The albedo effects involve non-linear process, so the use of a simple linear model does not directly apply. Consider the simple thermostat which runs your heating system. It’s a threshold and deadband system which switches on at a set temperature and off at a higher temperature. The heating system supplies the energy to balance the heat loss thru the walls, windows and roof, with enough power to offset the largest heat loss on very cold days. But, conceptually, is the thermostat acting to stop the energy flow, once the desired temperature is met, thus being a negative feedback, or does it act as a positive feedback in demanding that the heat be turned on at the lower set point, thus increasing the temperature inside the structure? And, due to the discontinuity, it’s not a linear system.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon,

            “I sample some of that signal and feed it back to the signal, I can double its amplitude”

            Of course there is no feedback if B subtracts the same amount as it adds.

            “If the signal is across a resistor and you feed the output back to the input you short out the signal.”

            How do you short out the signal when it is the solar input?
            Back radiation?

            “With albedo, the signal is solar energy. You are theoretically trying to increase that signal as you have incorrectly from 1 to 2.”

            My examples with your formula were not the actual snow/ice albedo feedback, both were just examples.

            “How the heck can you do that?”

            The earths albedo is about 0.7, so maximum input is nearly +50%.
            Snow/ice is a fraction of that, although it would operate under clouds too.

            I don’t know the actual numbers, can you make an estimate?
            How much snow/ice is there in North America, central/north Eurasia, the Arctic/Antarctic, and all southern mountains, and how much does it reflect?

            “D+rD+r2D…”

            This is a fine way of explaining it, although the end result is captured in your formula.
            It is a convergent series if AB < 1.

            Thank you g*e*r*a*n and Swanson for helping out.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            e. swanson…”Given some initial climate state, changing the surface albedo may produce a positive or negative change in surface temperature”.

            WordPress censors have struck again, I have to post in parts. Sorry about that.

            That’s OK provided the entire system is operating without a gain in temperature that does not exceed the solar energy input. AGW claims the opposite, that solar energy can be exceeded by positive feedback.

            I have already conceded your point under control theory as applied to servo-systems. In a servo-system, positive feedback refers to the sign of a feedback voltage and amplification does not enter into the equation. In that case, yes, a signal fedback can affect the final behavior of a system without amplification.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            part 2…However, catastrophic climate change is based on amplifier feedback, where G = A/(1-AB) applies. If the sign of B is such that it adds to the input signal, then the amplified output increases exponentially each cycle. The amplifier becomes unstable, as the climate would with a tipping point.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”D+rD+r2D

            This is a fine way of explaining it, although the end result is captured in your formula.
            It is a convergent series if AB < 1".

            We are not talking of an additive series, that's the mistake Gavin Schmidt made. We are talking about a multiplicative series where an amplifier multiplies the input signal by a gain factor. There is no multiplication in your series other than rD + 2rD, etc.

            Sure, the series will expand exponentially but you have not explained how that can happen in our atmosphere. Tell me what D means and r, and how they interact to increase the surface temperature beyond solar energy. And show me how that could ever run away as in a tipping point.

            If you look at G = A/(1 – AB) in the wiki article they talk about gain.

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

            "If the functions A and B are linear and AB is smaller than unity, then the overall system gain from the input to output is finite, but can be very large as AB approaches unity.[8] In that case, it can be shown that the overall or "closed loop" gain from input to output is:

            G = A/(1 – AB)

            There is a diagram beside that part of the article in which they show the symbol for an amplifier, the triangle) and that is preceded by an adder. They call A and B arbitrary causal functions but that is mathematical nonsense.

            In electrical engineering we were presented amplifiers as functions. Some guys did not get it for a couple of years that the functions were real electronic amplifiers and that the L in Ldi/dt was actually an inductor (a coil).

            When you see that triangular symbol for an amplifier it's because it has to be there. If you have a purely passive circuit, with just resistors, you cannot get the gain from
            G = A/(1 – AB) you talked about when B – 0.5 and G = 2. That 2 came from A, the amplifier.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            g*r…” You need to look at the larger picture of engineering control theory.

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

            I understand what you’re saying, control theory covers a diverse field. For example, if I want to control motor speed, I can attach a tachometer to a motor shaft. The tach puts out a voltage comparable to RPM. If I feed that voltage back to a control centre, it can compare the tach voltage to a reference value it can decide whether the motor RPM needs to be dropped or raised to maintain a constant RPM.

            I have made it clear I am not talking about that kind of control theory. I am talking about a positive feedback in an electronics system that can become unstable. In general servo-system control design situations a runaway signal due to an increasing voltage is of no concern.

            However, Hanson raised the issue of a tipping point, meaning the Earth’s atmospheric temperature would runaway to a tipping point. That’s where the kind of PF I am talking about comes in.

            Hansen, and now Schmidt, at GISS, have maintained that certain feedbacks can cause an amplification of surface temperatures. That is totally wrong, feedbacks cannot cause amplification of temperature. The feedback would have to be positive and an amplifier would be required.

            In the wiki drawing here:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback#/media/File:Ideal_feedback_model.svg

            The situation is seen clearly. Feedback is not an amplifier, it operates in conjunction with amplifier A. This diagram could never operate as a servo-system because the adder is a passive device. That means the input and FB signals will be combined in a resistor network. There is no provision for generator error correction.

            This diagram obviously represents an amplifier with an input and output with a portion of the output fed back to the input. It represents:

            G = A/(1 – AB) and that formula cannot be applied to situations involving albedo. All those systems are negative feedback systems.

          • Svante says:

            So if all ice and snow disappeared, temperatures would go down because total absorbed solar radiation goes up?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…I replied to your earlier thread with a new post.

            As far as this post, “So if all ice and snow disappeared, temperatures would go down because total absorbed solar radiation goes up?”

            Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Obviously with no ice and snow the temperature would rise but that would mean something had happened to the tilt of the planet or its orbit.

            I think climate alarmists are grasping at straws with this Arctic albedo thing. I don’t think it’s significant. The temperatures are largely determined by the lack of solar energy much of the year.

            Getting back to the initial argument, CO2 has no measurable effect on the Arctic, IMHO. You guys defending the alarmist POV seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

          • Svante says:


            Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Obviously with no ice and snow the temperature would rise but that would mean something had happened to the tilt of the planet or its orbit.

            Tilt/orbit was the initial perturbation for the ice ages. They where enhanced by positive feedbacks, for example the snow/ice albedo. Positive feedbacks make a system unstable, that’s why you get these big temperature swings.


            I think climate alarmists are grasping at straws with this Arctic albedo thing. I dont think its significant. The temperatures are largely determined by the lack of solar energy much of the year.

            The lack of sun in the winter is offset by the midnight sun in the summer.

            Swanson’s link says:

            “The albedo loss (1979 to 2008) has been estimated as equivalent to a global forcing of 0.22 W/m2. Together with snow albedo loss, the global forcing is approximately double this figure at 0.45 W/m2 (Flanner, 2011, Radiative forcing and albedo feedback from the Northern Hemisphere cryosphere between 1979 and 2008). If the sea ice is allowed to disappear at the end of summer, and the terrestrial snow cover continues its sharp decline, the forcing could rise to a level of 1-2 W/m2.”


            Getting back to the initial argument, CO2 has no measurable effect on the Arctic, IMHO. You guys defending the alarmist POV seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

            It does not strictly have to start in the arctic, it can be transported by weather.

            The forcing has been measured many times, this is a Canadian result:
            “our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
            “This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
            https://tinyurl.com/9cg8qzc

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…from your link.

            “These measurements have been used to quantify the radiative flux associated with a number of greenhouse gases. It is this radiative flux that provides an additional source of warming for the planets surface, and ultimately is responsible for any change in climate. We have provided the first direct measurements of the greenhouse effect for a number of trace gases in the atmosphere”.

            This is typical alarmist blather. They are presuming the down-dwelling IR is absorbed by the surface and warming it. There is no proof of that and the 2nd law forbids it.

            I have enjoyed this interchange with you but you are refusing to consider evidence I have presented to you. When I offered the formula for positive feedback, G = A/(1 – AB), you immediately interpreted it your own way even though the wiki article from which I retrieved it states there is gain involved.

            I am an expert in electronics, having studied electrical engineering at university, and I have worked directly with circuits employing positive feedback. I know for a fact that the A in the formula mean the gain from an amplifier, otherwise the circuit won’t function as a feedback system of any kind.

            You cannot take a signal in a passive network and feed it back as AB if A is just the signal. All you’ll accomplish is inserting the proposed feedback resistor in parallel with the signal resistor rendering a parallel resistor network.

            Please try to get this: feedback is not possible with such a network. However, if A is an amplifier with gain 100, the amp will provide the required isolation to isolate the input signal from the output signal, then feedback is possible provided the feedback signal is selected correctly wrt amplitude and phase.

            You and e. swanson are missing the point of my electrical analogies. I am trying to demonstrate one requirement of positive feedback and why it cannot exist in the atmosphere. There is nothing in the atmosphere around which you can build a feedback network.

            Back-radiation from CO2 is NOT a feedback. It’s radiation, pure and simple. The fact that the head of NASA GISS thinks it is a feedback shows me he doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to feedback. That applies to most modelers, they have no idea what they are talking about with regard to FB.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…ps. I meant there is a new post for you further down this thread posted around January 12th.

      • Nate says:

        Sounds reasonable, but longer-deeper heat or cold waves are not storms, per se.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…”So if all ice and snow disappeared, temperatures would go down because total absorbed solar radiation goes up?”

        The process you describe above has nothing to do with positive feedback. That’s what started this debate.

        With the snow and ice, it is claimed solar energy is reflected and the atmosphere becomes cooler than what it was with no snow and ice. With the snow and ice gone, the surface and atmosphere returns to normal temperatures for that amount of solar radiation. With the ice and snow there is a loss of surface heat but with no reflection there is not a gain over and above that produced by solar energy.

        Positive feedback as used by Hansen and Schmidt suggests you can exceed that normal state of solar warming by adding back-radiation to the solar energy. Schmidt calls that a positive feedback but he is confused in thinking feedback causes amplification. He has not explained how his version of positive feedback works yet modelers are programming that pseudo-science into models to get catastrophic warming.

        It’s the same with albedo, you can never get more than what is put into the system by solar energy. All you can do is return to a normalized state when the ice and snow melt.

        Don’t forget the Arctic receives no significant solar energy for 5 months of the year. I don’t see how albedo can affect that reality unless something happens to the planet’s orbit and tilt.

        I don’t understand how people claim a feedback situation for albedo unless they redefine the traditional meaning of feedback. It comes down to context. I can give you verbal feedback if you ask me a question. With servo systems, voltage of a certain sign is fed back. However, catastrophic climate change depends on an amplification of heat and no one has proved how that is possible via positive feedback.

        I don’t begin to understand what has been going on since 1998, with 3 major El Ninos. I do know it has nothing to do with alleged positive feedbacks from ACO2. It’s just not possible and the other theory about heat trapping is ridiculous.

        • E. Swanson says:

          GR, I think you are being blinded by your electrical engineering ideas of a control system. Recall that the Brits used to call a vacuum tube a “valve”. An electrical amplifier of the sort to which you reference controls the flow of electrical energy based on some input signal. The device is designed to increase the voltage output to supply some “load”, which is to say, electric power is provided to the output in proportion to the input. Your model includes such a device because that’s what’s inside the box.

          With climate, one must model the physical processes in a different way to capture these processes in a realistic fashion. The power source is the Sun, not a plug in the wall, and there’s no separate box called “albedo” around which one may draw a line. The “system” is the Earth, with solar energy flowing thru the atmosphere and infrared streaming outward in all directions. The atmosphere and surface effects moderate these flows with different effects both geographical and seasonal. As things are now, the system is stabilized by the fundamental process of infrared radiation, which is a function of the fourth power of absolute temperature. Your mental model assumes a neat linear system, which excludes the stabilizing effects of IR emissions at TOA. The energy leaving the Earth is roughly equal to that entering, but the daily and seasonal variation in distribution produces wide variation in local temperatures.

          Here’s another analogy. Consider a dam on a stream forming a lake with a valve at the base of the cam used to regulate the water level. The flow thru the valve is a function of pressure and as the water level rises, the flow thru the valve increases. The valve is adjusted to balance the water flowing into the lake to keep the level at some desired point. This is somewhat similar to what happens in the atmosphere, which retards the flow of energy back to deep space, resulting in a surface temperature than would occur without the atmosphere, as on the Moon. Now add another valve upstream to divert some of the incoming water around the dam. This lowers the water level, similar to the way the snow and ice albedo lowers the temperature by reflecting short wave sunlight before it’s absorbed by the surface.

          But, what if it turns out that the upstream diversion valve is set by the water level, with the rate of diversion reduced as the level rises, as happens to temperature with snow and ice? That’s positive feedback, IMHO?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Yes, but you can’t leave it there, Swanson. Unless you are trying to imply the Earth has positive feedbacks that can lead to a runaway condition.

            In your dam analogy, forget the valve upstream. Just put additional valves in the dam. Each valve responds differently to different control signals. Some valves close, as lake level drops, some valves open as lake level rises. Now, you are getting close to a model of how Earth controls its temperature.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            e. swanson…”Thats positive feedback, IMHO?”

            I have already alluded to the fact that positive feedback can have several meanings. However, when you talk about a thermal energy gain in a system produced by a poorly defined feedback, as in the explanation of climate modeler Gavin Schmidt, who claims feedback causes gain, I disagree entirely.

            Let’s get back to brass tacks. There is no known system on the planet that can increase it’s energy on it’s own. That’s what prompted Clausius to write the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Carnot, who did stellar work on heat engines, maintained that a heat engine had no losses. Clausius perked up his ears and went, eh?

            All systems have losses and no system can produce energy to increase the energy in the system. Even with positive feedback using transistors and ‘valves’, you don’t get something for nothing. The gain, or amplification, comes from external power supplied by a power supply.

            You used the vacuum tube as an example. The basic triode has a heater/cathode to supply electrons to the system by literally boiling them off the tungsten heater. It has a plate, which is a cylinder around the heater/cathode, and it has a positive potential applied of typically 400 volts.

            Between the heater/cathode and the plate there is an intermediate cylinder comprised of a screen through which the electrons can freely move. The entire rig is in a vacuum so gas molecules from air wont interfere.

            With no negative bias on the grid, electrons will flow freely to the +400 volt plate. However, a small negative bias of a few volts will cutoff the plate current completely. Intermediate values of grid bias will allow current to flow.

            If you apply a small AC voltage around the negative grid bias, it will allow a much larger current to flow cathode to anode. That is what we call amplification and the amplification factor depends on how closely the grid is designed to control the cathode-anode current.

            Please note that the amplification does not represent something for nothing, you supply the amplified current from an external power supply.

            It’s the same with any kind of transistor. When that amplifier uses positive feedback, it means that a very small in-phase signal from the output is applied to the small input voltage at the grid. That enhances the grid signal each cycle resulting in an ever increasing voltage at the plate. Eventually, the plate current will exceed the ability of the power supply to sustain it and the system will cut itself off.

            I repeat, there is no known system that can increase its energy by its own means, especially the atmosphere.

            Hansen and Schmidt at NASA GISS are claiming a similar positive feedback due to IR fed back from ACO2 in the atmosphere. They are not talking about the simple positive feedback you have described which applies to linear control in a servo system. They are talking about back-radiation from CO2 causing an amplification of heat in the atmosphere.

            That is not possible. It contradicts the 2nd law and the concept of perpetual motion. There is no such thing as a self-sustaining process that increases its energy content.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            g*r…”Each valve responds differently to different control signals”.

            That’s the whole point of a servo system. It is designed to automate what a human could do. A human could stand there, watch the water level, and open the valves to reduce the level.

            As you point out, AGW is claiming a positive feedback in the atmosphere that increases the heat content of the atmosphere. Not possible under present conditions even with an ever increasing level of CO2. You could increase the present level of CO2 ten fold and it still wouldn’t cause thermal runaway.

            A tenfold increase in CO2 would raise the level to 0.4% (4000 ppmv). Argon would still be higher (9340 ppmv) so I don’t know if that level of CO2 would make us a bit woozy or not.

            No one knows what caused the conditions on Venus. The surface temperature is far too hot to have come from thermal runaway conditions.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            e. swanson…I mentioned transistors then reverted to my vacuum tube example, mentioning a grid. I am aware that transistors don’t have grids, although the field effect transistor work on a similar principle to vacuum tubes.

            The bipolar junction transistor does not. However, it uses a similar principle in that a much smaller current through the emitter base junction controls a much larger current through the emitter collector junction. Again, the larger current is supplied externally and not manufactured by the transistor/tube.

            You mentioned a load resistor. It serves two purposes. It limits the current through the device, so it won’t burn out, and it allows the device to act as a variable impedance. That controls the voltage at the junction between the device and the load resistor and that variation can be used to control a following stage or drive something like a speaker.

            Without the load resistor, with a device connected directly to a power supply, no amplification would take place and the device would burn out and short circuit the power supply.

            Amplification is really smoke and mirrors. Nothing gets amplified in an overall sense without the amplified current being supplied externally. There is nothing in a vacuum tube or a transistor that will produce amplification of electron current and neither is there anything in the atmosphere that will provide an amplification of thermal energy.

            That is, AGW is smoke and mirrors as well.

          • E. Swanson says:

            GR, you seem to be forgetting that there’s a power supply providing the energy for your amplifiers. In the Earth climate system, the energy comes from the Sun as electromagnetic energy equivalent to black body radiation at about 5500K. That energy flows into the atmosphere and drives processes which result in a temperature at the surface that is above that on the Moon, which has no atmosphere. There’s no violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics, energy is conserved.

            What happens is that the atmosphere changes the balance of the flows of energy leaving the Earth’s surface. At TOA, things must still balance, it’s getting the energy to TOA which is changed by changing the composition of the atmosphere. I submit that you need to think outside of your amplifier box.

          • Svante says:

            E. Swanson, I agree.

            Gordon, you are all over the place, let’s focus.

            You said:
            “All feedbacks in the atmosphere are negative. Positive feedback by definition requires an amplifier.”

            Your electronic amplifier uses a power supply.

            The sun is the power supply for the albedo feedback.
            Earth absorbs about 70% of incoming total energy, so the max power increase is 42%.

            Snow/ice albedo is a fraction of that, but can we please agree that this is a positive feedback?

            Forget about the runaway effect, T^4 will prevent that.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Swanson claims: “That energy flows into the atmosphere and drives processes which result in a temperature at the surface that is above that on the Moon, which has no atmosphere.”

            Swanson, where do you get nonsense like that? The Moon’s surface temperature gets to its S/B temp, boiling point of water at 1 atm. No place on Earth anywhere near that hot.

            What planet are you on?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            e. swanson…”GR, you seem to be forgetting that theres a power supply providing the energy for your amplifiers. In the Earth climate system, the energy comes from the Sun as electromagnetic energy equivalent to black body radiation at about 5500K. That energy flows into the atmosphere and drives processes which result in a temperature at the surface that is above that on the Moon, which has no atmosphere. Theres no violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics, energy is conserved”.

            I pointed out in my analysis that my amplifier is powered externally. That’s the whole point, you cannot get amplification from nothing, except perhaps in a system employing natural resonance. The Tacoma Narrows Suspension Bridge collapsed due to wind vibrating it’s suspension cable and the natural resonance caused amplification. An electronic amplifier like a transistor cannot amplify on its own.

            The Sun is the warming signal on Earth, no argument. However, it warms the surface and the surface in turns converts the solar radiation to heat then back again to infrared. How do you get feedback into a system like that? You can’t, it’s not a feedback system.

            Where’s the output? You can’t claim the surface IR as an output since it is less than the solar input. That would be an attenuator, not an amplifier. We are not feeding back energy to the Sun, at least, most of us, excepting David Appell.

            AGW theorists have added a wrinkle, straight out of the annals of pseudo-science. They claim radiation from the surface is collected by water vapour and CO2 then radiated back to the surface, where it warms the surface even further than it is warmed by solar energy.

            They call that a positive feedback. I call it pseudo-science. That system is riddled with losses. Most of the radiation that warmed the GHGs has been lost in the process and has to be made up before the back-radiation could warm the surface at all. Furthermore, the radiation would have to come from an atmosphere warmer than the surface. The 2nd law says so.

            An amplifier would be required to overcome the losses in the system then amplify the warming. In essence, you would need to replicate the Sun using an independent source of heat. You cannot recycle heat and claim it as a warming agent. The back-radiated heat came from the Sun in the first place.

            There’s your external power again. The Sun is external power and to add energy to warm the surface more you’d need another independent, external power source. The implied feedback as back-radiation cannot amplify.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”Your electronic amplifier uses a power supply.

            The sun is the power supply for the albedo feedback.
            Earth absorbs about 70% of incoming total energy, so the max power increase is 42%”.

            Yes, and my amplifier has an input, an output, and a feedback loop with provisions for mixing it with the input signal. That’s a classic feedback system.

            Ok, the sun is the input, where is the output and the feedback loop? What is there that is feeding back to the input of solar energy? For feedback, you’d need a system that could limit the amount of solar energy, or in the case of AGW, add to it.

            You could argue that ice limits solar energy by reflecting it away. However, that is not a feedback system unless something is sensing an upper and lower temperature and acting on the system to control it. There are no sensors, it’s either there is ice or there is no ice.

            Here’s one. You have a greenhouse with shutters on it driven by a motor. You have a thermostat/thermocouple in the greenhouse. When the temperature gets too high, the thermostat sends a signal to a motor control that turn on the motor to close the shutters and cutoff the solar energy reaching into the greenhouse.

            Take away all ice and snow. The sun warms the surface to a certain temperature which is an equilibrium temperature existing after the surface has rid itself of heat via conduction, convection and radiation.

            Now let it snow and allow ice to form. The ice reflects away solar energy to reduce the surface temperature. How is that a feedback back never mind a positive feedback? There is no system with a feedback loop.

            e. swanson’s example of a lake with a valve to drain it is better. You could have a float on the lake with a long arm that rises with the lake water. At a certain level, the float arm contacts a limit switch which turns on a pump to pumps out the water. Or maybe open a sluice gate till the float loses contact with the contact switch, or contacts a low level limit switch.

            BTW…that’s exactly the system used with sump pumps.

            That’s a viable feedback system. The float is feeding back information to a controller about the lake water level. The input is the lake, the output is the river draining the lake. The float is the feedback mechanism.

            Where is such a feedback mechanism in the albedo example? If you are talking about warming due to the melting of ice, there is an upper limit to the warming. When the ice has gone, the Earth’s temperature is limited by solar energy only.

            Most of the planet operates like that, however. We have already established an equilibrium temperature based on non-ice areas.

            I don’t think it is a positive feedback system, if anything, it’s a negative feedback system that has cooled the planet. A positive FB system would have to increase the planet’s temperature beyond the level it is warmed by solar energy.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ps. what I am talking about in my last post is a servo system. In general, a servo system samples an output, like temperature, motor speed, etc., and sends the info back to a controller. A setpoint is the desired output and the feedback tells the controller how far off the output is from the setpoint.

            The controller has a reference voltage or some other kind of reference to indicate where the output should be. The feedback signal is either dead on the reference or leading/lagging it, in which case an error correction is generated to adjust the output.

            These feedback systems are called closed loop systems. Open-loop systems have no feedback. I don’t see how the albedo example fits either.

            The amplifier examples I have used are for a reason. The tipping point theory that lies behind catastrophic global warming theory invokes a positive feedback that is of a different kind than the servo or closed loop systems above. It is a positive feedback with gain. Servo and closed loop systems don’t use gain (amplifier) unless the latter is used for bandwidth control in an amplifier system.

            The hysteria behind catastrophic global warming is based on a mysterious amplification of heat and that has been based on amplification from positive feedback. My amplifier examples are of positive feedback with gain, which is highly unstable. Negative feedback with gain is stable.

            Climate models are programmed with a positive feedback with gain. I am trying to demonstrate that cannot happen without an amplifier. The theorized AGW system is neither a servo system nor a closed-loop system. What they are describing is an amplifier with gain.

            The 2nd law says that cannot exist in the atmosphere, basically because the alleged feedback as back-radiation cannot warm the surface.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon,
            Taking one step at a time does not seem to work, I’ll try a long message.


            Yes, and my amplifier has an input, an output, and a feedback loop with
            provisions for mixing it with the input signal. Thats a classic feedback
            system.

            OK.


            Ok, the sun is the input, where is the output and the feedback loop? What
            is there that is feeding back to the input of solar energy? For feedback,
            youd need a system that could limit the amount of solar energy, or in the
            case of AGW, add to it.

            No, the sun is the power supply.
            The output parameter is the temperature.
            The feedback function is the albedo, i.e. the amount of abs-orbed solar radiation, which affects the temperature.
            Abs-orbing more solar energy is like drawing more energy from your power supply.


            You could argue that ice limits solar energy by reflecting it away.

            Heureka!


            However, that is not a feedback system unless something is sensing an upper
            and lower temperature and acting on the system to control it. There are no
            sensors, its either there is ice or there is no ice.

            This is not a control system, just a simple feedback.
            Correct, no sensors, just variations in the amount of snow/ice.


            Heres one. You have a greenhouse with shutters on it driven by a motor.
            You have a thermostat/thermocouple in the greenhouse. When the temperature
            gets too high, the thermostat sends a signal to a motor control that turn
            on the motor to close the shutters and cutoff the solar energy reaching
            into the greenhouse.

            This is a control system applying a negative feedback (B 0).


            Take away all ice and snow. The sun warms the surface to a certain
            temperature which is an equilibrium temperature existing after the surface
            has rid itself of heat via conduction, convection and radiation.

            Yes, the runaway effect is prevented by increased radiation to space, T^4.
            That is something else, a negative feedback.
            There are many other feedbacks, but let’s do one at a time.


            Now let it snow and allow ice to form. The ice reflects away solar energy
            to reduce the surface temperature. How is that a feedback back never mind a
            positive feedback? There is no system with a feedback loop.

            Heureka! Yes, the ice albedo feedback works in reverse.
            It is still a positive feedback because it amplifies the initial change.
            A negative feedback counteracts the initial perturbation.


            e. swansons example of a lake with a valve to drain it is better. You
            could have a float on the lake with a long arm that rises with the lake
            water. At a certain level, the float arm contacts a limit switch which
            turns on a pump to pumps out the water. Or maybe open a sluice gate till
            the float loses contact with the contact switch, or contacts a low level
            limit switch.

            You are still stuck on a control system with a negative feedback.
            Not applicable to ice albedo.


            BTWthats exactly the system used with sump pumps.
            Thats a viable feedback system. The float is feeding back information to a
            controller about the lake water level. The input is the lake, the output is
            the river draining the lake. The float is the feedback mechanism.

            A control system with a negative feedback, not applicable to ice albedo.


            Where is such a feedback mechanism in the albedo example? If you are
            talking about warming due to the melting of ice, there is an upper limit to
            the warming. When the ice has gone, the Earths temperature is limited by
            solar energy only.

            Positive feedback described above, by yourself in the reversed case:
            More snow => less abs-orp-tion => lower temp => more snow, repeat.

            Yes, there is an upper limit set by other mechanisms (T^4).

            There is a lower limit too – see snowball earth on wikipedia.
            The CO2 thermostat saved us, but please don’t respond to that on this thread.


            Most of the planet operates like that, however. We have already established
            an equilibrium temperature based on non-ice areas.

            Yes.


            I dont think it is a positive feedback system, if anything, its a
            negative feedback system that has cooled the planet. A positive FB system
            would have to increase the planets temperature beyond the level it is
            warmed by solar energy.

            You are confusing a runaway feedback with a positive feedback.
            There are different feedbacks, some negative and some positive.
            A positive feedback can be limited (AB < 1).
            The ice albedo feedback stops when there is no ice, and can not exceed total solar irradiation.


            ps. what I am talking about in my last post is a servo system. In general,
            a servo system samples an output, like temperature, motor speed, etc., and
            sends the info back to a controller. A setpoint is the desired output and
            the feedback tells the controller how far off the output is from the
            setpoint.

            OK, not applicable to ice albedo.


            The controller has a reference voltage or some other kind of reference to
            indicate where the output should be. The feedback signal is either dead on
            the reference or leading/lagging it, in which case an error correction is
            generated to adjust the output.

            OK, not applicable to ice albedo.


            These feedback systems are called closed loop systems. Open-loop systems
            have no feedback. I dont see how the albedo example fits either.

            It’s a closed loop, or better still, the basic definition:

            “A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A”.

            Replace ‘more’ with ‘less’ for a downward spiral.


            The amplifier examples I have used are for a reason. The tipping point
            theory that lies behind catastrophic global warming theory invokes a
            positive feedback that is of a different kind than the servo or closed loop
            systems above. It is a positive feedback with gain. Servo and closed loop
            systems dont use gain (amplifier) unless the latter is used for bandwidth
            control in an amplifier system.

            Servo system not applicable to ice albedo.
            Tipping points are a different topic, not needed for this discussion.
            “Catastrophic” is a normative word, let’s stick to facts for now.


            The hysteria behind catastrophic global warming is based on a mysterious
            amplification of heat and that has been based on amplification from
            positive feedback. My amplifier examples are of positive feedback with
            gain, which is highly unstable. Negative feedback with gain is stable.

            OK, but let’s avoid hysteria, stick to facts.
            The positive feedback is caused by the change in albedo.


            Climate models are programmed with a positive feedback with gain. I am
            trying to demonstrate that cannot happen without an amplifier. The
            theorized AGW system is neither a servo system nor a closed-loop system.
            What they are describing is an amplifier with gain.

            Yes, described above.


            The 2nd law says that cannot exist in the atmosphere, basically because the
            alleged feedback as back-radiation cannot warm the surface.

            Wrong but off topic for this discussion, please don’t reply here.

          • barry says:

            “Climate models are programmed with a positive feedback with gain.”

            Are they? There are numerous ways of climate modeling, and the ones generally referred to are those that do not impose positive feedbacks and gain, but try to model the physics as well as possible and let that play out with perturbations to various components – such as the concentrations of ‘greenhouse’ gases in the atmosphere.

            I should like to see the quoted bit properly referenced. There may be some models that do this, but generally, to my knowledge, they do not.

        • E. Swanson says:

          GR, You continue to be blinded by your continued insistance to use a mental model which defines the system as a box which has an electrical amplifier inside which provides power to operate some electrical device called a “load”. In the climate system, the boundary is the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and the processes within do not operate like your electrical analog. One must understand the physical processes to build a model and the snow/ice albedo process is just one of several which operate continuously. That’s “processes”, which is plural, meaning that there several working together at the same time with both positive and negative aspects.

          For example, you break the albedo into two separate modes, first with then without snow and ice. In reality, the driving force at the high latitude surface is a continuous variation, like a sine wave, which continuously modifies the ice cover and the ice cover lags the forcing solar energy input. How would your amplifier system if the power supplied to it varied with a sine wave input from zero to some max value? I don’t care how good is your amplifier or what it’s gain, the output with zero power input would still be zero.

          Temperature is an instantaneous measure of the energy within a medium at a point. One might model temperature as the voltage between two resistors in series with a constant voltage supply providing current and the other end grounded. The measured voltage is the balance of the two voltage drops across the resistors Use a variable resistor between the two outer resistors and one can vary the output voltage without changing the current thru the combination and a constant power dissipation within the series (power = V x I). Temperature is an instantaneous measure of the balance of all the energy flows converging thru the atmosphere at that point.

          BTW, “catastrophic” climate change does NOT mean “runaway temperature”. Have you actually read Hansen et al. (2016)?

          https://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/C6684/2015/acpd-15-C6684-2015.pdf

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            e. swanson…”GR, You continue to be blinded by your continued insistance to use a mental model which defines the system as a box which has an electrical amplifier inside which provides power to operate some electrical device called a load”.

            Note to svante…I’ll get back to you, I need to sort out what you said and edit the overall response.

            With regard to e. swanson’s reply, I am not using a mental model, I am implying straight out that positive feedback cannot exist in our atmosphere and I am using the electrical circuit reality (not mental model) to show exactly what positive feedback means.

            continued….

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            In physics, positive feedback is associated with gain whereas negative feedback is associated with attenuation. Even in an amplifier, negative feedback serves to attenuate the gain across a frequency bandwidth.

            In the wiki, positive feedback is described as a gain and given the formula G = A/(1 – AB). Although svante argues the meaning, calling A the signal rather than the gain, the wiki makes it clear the A is for amplification. G is the overall gain, which allows for the sign of the feedback to be -ve or +ve. Depending on the sign and intensity of the feedback, the overall gain will vary and that cannot happen unless A means amplifier.

            In a passive system, with no active devices like amplifiers, positive feedback is not possible.

            continued….

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            “Temperature is an instantaneous measure of the energy within a medium at a point”.

            More accurately, temperature is the average kinetic energy of air molecules at a point.

            “In reality, the driving force at the high latitude surface is a continuous variation, like a sine wave, which continuously modifies the ice cover and the ice cover lags the forcing solar energy input. How would your amplifier system if the power supplied to it varied with a sine wave input from zero to some max value?”

            I don’t see the connection vis a vis positive feedback. What you describe is not a positive feedback system. I get it that the temperature can vary sinusoidally over the long term and you can put that down to the interaction between ice/no ice and intermediate conditions thereof.

            My initial point is that such an albedo system does not constitute positive feedback. Nothing is being fed back to the Sun to control its output. I don’t see where anything is being fed back to anywhere.

            All that’s varying is the reflection of solar energy. There is no feedback mechanism. In system vernacular you might call that an open loop system as opposed to a closed loop system. Open loop systems don’t use feedback while closed loop systems do.

          • E. Swanson says:

            GR, An amazing reply which totally ignores the physical reality. Sure, the Sun provides the energy input and the Sun’s output is nearly constant. But, the tilt of the Earth’s axis delivers this energy to high latitudes with a seasonal cycle, which in today’s situation causes freezing conditions with wide spread snow and ice. The area of snow and ice expands over time, it’s not an instant flip, so the Arctic sea-ice coverage grows to maximum in March, long after the minimum inflow of solar energy on 22 Dec. As the snow and ice area increases, the reflection of high energy, low entropy sunlight also increases, reducing the net amount of sunlight absorbed by the surface and atmosphere. The area coverage of snow and ice is a function of temperature, so warming results in less coverage, thus an increase in the energy absorbed. You have already admitted that this process could be called a positive feedback.

            But you wrote: I am not using a mental model, I am implying straight out that positive feedback cannot exist in our atmosphere and I am using the electrical circuit reality (not mental model) to show exactly what positive feedback means.

            Then you claim: In a passive system, with no active devices like amplifiers, positive feedback is not possible.

            And, you continue, stating: My initial point is that such an albedo system does not constitute positive feedback. Nothing is being fed back to the Sun to control its output. I dont see where anything is being fed back to anywhere…All thats varying is the reflection of solar energy. There is no feedback mechanism.

            Are you really so blind as to fail to recognize that you are assuming that your electrical amplifier analog isnt a mental model? Must I remind you that theres no electrical circuit with wires running to and fro, operating within the climate system. The climate system is composed of multiple physical processes, all operating together. The snow/ice albedo process reduces the solar energy input as a function of temperature, cooling results in more reflection and warming causes less. You have not yet presented any evidence that you understand the basic physics of the situation and thus your conclusions are dangerously wrong.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            e. swanson…”You have already admitted that this process could be called a positive feedback”.

            I did not. I made no reference to the albedo effect as feedback at all, in fact I stated clearly that I did not see how it could be regarded as feedback. You even corroborated that in your reply.

            You have failed to establish any feedback whatsoever in that system. I am fully aware that the planet’s tilt causes the cooling in the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere and in other posts I have claimed there is no way for CO2 to have any effect in the Arctic where significant solar energy is absent 5 months of the year.

            ******

            “Are you really so blind as to fail to recognize that you are assuming that your electrical amplifier analog isnt a mental model? Must I remind you that theres no electrical circuit with wires running to and fro, operating within the climate system. The climate system is composed of multiple physical processes, all operating together. The snow/ice albedo process reduces the solar energy input as a function of temperature, cooling results in more reflection and warming causes less. You have not yet presented any evidence that you understand the basic physics of the situation and thus your conclusions are dangerously wrong”.

            ***********

            The snow/ice is NOT a cause of the cooling, it’s a product of the cooling. It’s little wonder you are failing to understand the distinction between positive and negative feedback. The cooling is caused by the tilt of the planet as the Earth moves further from the Sun in its orbit.

            Admittedly, the snow/ice does reflect energy, but how much? And what difference does the reflection make when the Sun is absent or very low in the sky?I fear alarmists are making far too much of the albedo effect just as they grossly overstate the effect of CO2.

            My electrical example is a model while I am talking to you but I have built and repaired the real circuits for decades. Electrical circuits are not models to me, they are very real and comprised of very real parts.

            The difference between an electrical model and a climate model is that electrical models can be easily validated. Just build one and test it. That has never been done with a climate model, which are programmed with egregiously incorrect physics, such as a highly inflated warming effect for CO2 and a positive feedback that has no business in a climate model.

            Modelers are notoriously blind to real physics, such as the 2nd law and feedback systems. They make up their own jargon by taking words and ideas from physics and presenting them is such a manner as to enable their views on global warming/climate change.

            Modelers actually believe that heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed the atmosphere. When the 2nd law is raised, they present blarney about a net energy flow, confusing heat transfer with electromagnetic energy. There is no such thing as a net energy flow with radiation between bodies. Each body radiates isotropically with a small fraction of the radiation from each body intercepted by the other.

            When modelers and alarmists are not engaged in net energy flows they are incorrectly applying the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to represent a two way flow of EM. S-B present only a one-way flow representing the cooling of one body only.

            Correct those errors and the exaggerated warming disappears, along with the hysteria about catastrophic climate change.

            Why are my conclusions dangerously wrong? You have absolutely no scientific facts to back your accusation, you are going misguided consensus and bad science.

            In a recent post I made from engineer Jeffrey Glassman, he berated alarmists for their views on Earth as a fragile planet. You alarmists have some seriously strange ideas about your role in protecting Mother Earth. She will go merrily on orbiting the Sun long after we are gone.

            We will kill ourselves off fighting over the planet based on monstrous egos and arrogance. That’s what spurs me on, being a voice in the dark against mindless climate alarm.

          • E. Swanson says:

            GR, you surely are a stubborn fellow. Decades ago, I took a course called “Radiation Heat Transfer”. You don’t understand radiation heat transfer, as even your incomplete description of the process results in a different conclusion than what you give. Given two bodies, one at higher temperature due to energy input from another source and another at lower temperature, both emitting IR, each absorbs some of the other’s radiation, the net effect is that both are warmer than either would be without the interaction. For the Earth, the higher temperature body is surrounded by a shell, which is the other mass in the equation. Also, you are ignoring the physics of gases, which absorb and emit at discrete wavelengths. Try doing some math, as Eli did with his simple Green Plate model, which shows that your conclusions are wrong:
            http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html

            Climate models are related to weather models and in each instance, the testing is by comparison of model results with real world measurements. For example, how well do the models reproduce the history of the Earth’s average temperature and the seasonal cycle, do they reproduce the declining temperature with altitude (the lapse rate) in the Troposphere and the increasing temperature with altitude in the Stratosphere (due to another greenhouse gas) and is the seasonal precipitation close to reality? Even a one dimensional model provides a reasonable semblance of reality. Your assertion that the models are incorrect ignores many decades of improvements in the models and the continual efforts to test them.

            If you refuse to do the math, you automatically lose the “debate”. Your obstinate display of your ignorance is either a sign of pathological illness or you are just a troll enjoying the fight without ever entering the ring

          • Fox says:

            E. Swanson…
            I would recommend you buy a new pencil and take a few more courses but I am not sure if that will work out well for you. Gordon presented basic scientific principles you are unable to understand.

  4. Deekaman says:

    It would seem to me (and I’m just a layman,so what do I know) that, if severe weather is caused by a clash of air masses and the cold mass is getting warmer faster than the other air mass, generally one should be able to conclude that severe weather would be (statistically, anyway) less common and less severe?

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      Yes, the Arctic is warming much faster than the tropics, so the thermal energy available for extratropical cyclones should have gone down.

      • E. Swanson says:

        It’s well documented by now that the Arctic region is warming faster than the tropics. Even the UAH data shows this, though less so than the RSS and NOAA STAR data. The question is what’s the mechanism of this difference. Is it the snow/sea-ice albedo feedback during the melt season, changes in cloud cover during the year, increased down welling IR, particularly during the freeze season or changes in tropic to pole circulation bringing more warm air and water to high latitudes? The simplistic notion that the albedo feedback will suppress meridonal circulation only applies during the summer months, as there’s no sunlight at the North Pole from the Fall Equinox until the Spring. Then too, the warming during Winter may be due to a different feedback from that during Summer.

        It’s all rather complex, don’t you agree Dr. Roy?

        • The most obvious reason is that the percent coverage of the Earth by land increases as you go northward. The Arctic ocean is relatively small, and cannot escape this influence from the surrounding land masses.

          • E. Swanson says:

            The Arctic Ocean certainly covers less area than the Atlantic or the Pacific, but at 14,056,000 km2 (5,427,000 sq mi), it is considerably larger than the US Lower 48 states which comprise 8,080,464.3 km2 (3,119,884.69 sq mi). And, the Arctic Ocean has exhibited a different seasonal response compared with that of the high latitude land, as is evident in satellite data.

          • Snape says:

            Roy

            Not sure if that idea holds water. The land masses surrounding the Arctic Ocean receive almost no solar heating in winter, but winter is when we see the lion’s share of anomalous warmth (it’s not even close).

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          e.swanson…”Its well documented by now that the Arctic region is warming faster than the tropics”.

          It’s more accurate to say that pockets of warming in the Arctic that move around are more prevalent. The Arctic as a whole is not warming.

          Here’s a UAH global temperature map for December 2017:

          https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/december/DECEMBER%202017.png

          Here’s December 2016:

          https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2016/december/DECEMBER_2016.png

          Entirely different scenario. It appears Arctic warming is more weather related than it is to global warming.

          • E. Swanson says:

            GR, you present UAH LT data for 2 months in different years. Monthly data is still in the realm of weather and does not “prove” anything about the long term changes to climate which are underway.

            Not only that but the use of a calendar month in presenting results ignores the fact that a month is not tied to geophysical reality, it’s just a human defined division of the days of the year, a division which doesn’t even use equal spans of days. As a result, real astronomical variation from the lunar full moon cycle is aliased into the calendar month results. Because of this obvious fact, comparing one month with another likely presents a bogus conclusion. A prime example is this January, when there are 2 full moons.

            The appropriate comparison should be regional averages over years and even these data are confusing because of natural variation, such as that from the ENSO cycle. The trend for the UAH TMT NH polar land is 0.16 K/decade and ocean is 0.20 while RSS TMT results show an overall trend of 0.24 K/decade. The trend for the UAH LT NH polar land is 0.23 K/decade and ocean is 0.20 while RSS TMT results show an much larger overall trend of 0.45 K/decade…

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            e swanson…”GR, you present UAH LT data for 2 months in different years. Monthly data is still in the realm of weather and does not prove anything about the long term changes to climate which are underway”.

            You have entirely missed my point e. I am trying to show that the hot spots in the Arctic move around month to month and year to year. Yes, there is warming in the Arctic but, no, the warming is not an overall, persistent effect.

            It is weather related.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Robertson claims:
            “Yes, there is warming in the Arctic but, no, the warming is not an overall, persistent effect. It is weather related.”

            No, your very point that the Arctic is warming puts the lie to your quote. Climate is the statistics of weather and average temperature is one such statistic. Over many years, various data sets show a warming trend, including the data from 38 years of satellite MSU/AMSU measurements. One can not call this trend “weather”, it’s clear evidence of a change in climate. AGW is the only plausible cause for these changes, as other influences have been shown to be deficient.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Swanson declares: “AGW is the only plausible cause for these changes, as other influences have been shown to be deficient.”

            This statement falls in the category “the science is settled”. This worn out tactic hasn’t worked for 10 years. But, maybe if Swanson keeps doing the same thing, over and over, hoping for different results. ..

          • E. Swanson says:

            So, g*e*r*a*n, what’s your explanation for the warming which appears in the various records? How does your theory match the minimal change in solar output, the fact that warming is greater at night than day and the high latitude loss of sea-ice during the summer melt season? Not to mention all the measurements of up welling infrared spectra in the atmosphere and on orbit. Don’t forget to include the impacts of aerosols, such as the massive increase in pollution from burning coal by developing nations such as China and India. Scientific references required. Go for it!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The “null hypothesis” is natural variation. It is YOUR task to “prove” otherwise.

            Go for it.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “I am trying to show that the hot spots in the Arctic move around month to month and year to year. Yes, there is warming in the Arctic but, no, the warming is not an overall, persistent effect.”

            UAH LT NoPol trend = +0.25 C/dec since 12/1978

          • David Appell says:

            Amazingly, on this blog you can’t even give a link to UAH’s own data.

            The blog rejects it.

          • E. Swanson says:

            g*e*r*a*n, define “natural variation”.

            Do you mean the Little Ice Age, such as it was, for which an explanation could be an increased incidence of large volcanic events. Or, would you accept an average of the “Medieval Warm Period” and the “Little Ice Age”. Perhaps you have a metric covering a longer period, such as the MBH 1000 year reconstruction. Or, is your choice the temperature range during the glacial period from the Eemian to the LGM, which might represent an average since about 3 MA? Please do let us know…

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Swanson requests: “Please do let us know.”

            All to the above. Earth’s “natural variation” would be analogous to the complete set of extremes for which a control system is designed to accommodate.

          • E. Swanson says:

            g*e*r*a*n, Lets see, the Earth has been in a period dominated by Ice Ages beginning roughly 3.3 Ma. Data suggests that the last period of glaciation resulted in global temperatures about 5 C colder than the recent past and the sea level was some 125 meters lower. The temperature range might thus be -2.5 C +/-2.5 C. The warming since 1880 is said to be about 1.25 C above pre-industrial temperatures, thus the recent warming is much beyond the range since the Eemian. Or, one can simply accept that MBH has been proven correct:

            https://tinyurl.com/zdjh5gd

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Let’s see, Swanson started out wanting to know what “natural variation” meant. I gave a concise explanation.

            Then Swanson runs back to his pseudoscience to reconfirm his original bias!

            This is going to be a GREAT year in climate comedy!

          • E. Swanson says:

            g*e*r*a*n wrote: ” Earths natural variation would be analogous to the complete set of extremes for which a control system is designed to accommodate.” and “I gave a concise explanation.”

            There’s no separate “control system”, only physical processes, and you have provided no definition of the “complete set of extremes”. The available very long term data sets do not have the resolution to establish the range of extremes. I offered the past 118,000 years as an example of the range of possible states, which show evidence of two stable situations, one with and tone without large areas covered by glaciers over Canada and NW Europe. There is evidence that other stable states may exist and we should not toy with atmosphere, lest we tip into a new climate regime which turns out to be exceedingly unhealthy for humanity. For example, if the dew point exceeds 35 C (95 F), people will die and that includes you.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Swanson fears: “There is evidence that other stable states may exist and we should not toy with atmosphere, lest we tip into a new climate regime which turns out to be exceedingly unhealthy for humanity. For example, if the dew point exceeds 35 C (95 F), people will die and that includes you.”

            Swanson, the Earth is not going to “tip into a new climate regime”. You’ve been listening to too many Alarmists. Try to live in reality and avoid fiction.

          • E. Swanson says:

            g*e*r*a*n, the climate has already been shown to switch between climate states. They are called “Ice Ages”…

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            1) How many ice ages have there been?

            2) Where did they occur on a time scale?

            Just two simple questions, for the “expert”.

    • Nate says:

      ‘clash of air masses’

      Theres the cold air aloft relative to the warm moist ocean to consider for tropical storms as well

      • actually, no. Tropical cyclones form in a statically stable environment…the vertical temperature contrast actually does not add to the potential energy of the cyclone. Only in a super-adiabatic environment does that happen. The energy is derived from latent heat release by condensing water vapor. For example, tropical cyclones usually form when there is warm, high pressure aloft, not a cold low.

      • Nate says:

        “the vertical temperature contrast actually does not add to the potential energy of the cyclone.”

        Ok, agreed.

        Nor does that polar-tropical temperature contrast add to its energy.

        ” The energy is derived from latent heat release by condensing water vapor.”

        And we established with cites in your October post that the cold-reservoir of the heat engine of a hurricane is high in the troposphere.

  5. Tom Moran says:

    Dr. Spencer,
    You write that neither of these two events were exceptional from a meteorological perspective and go on to cite a previous high temperature in Sydney. Is there data available that puts the bombogenesis rate / location /time of year during Grayson into historical reference?

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      Ryan Maue has a “bomb” cyclone climatology in the following WUWT article… I would think that one of the global reanalysis datasets extending back to the 1950s could also be used, although I’d question anything before the satellite era because only satellites can see these hyper-baroclinic zones that cause rapid cyclogenesis. I would even argue that as we have gotten higher resolution satellite sensors, and increased the resolution of models, there will be an artificial increase in rapid cyclogenesis in the model datasets which are the basis for analyses like Maue’s. In other words, it might not be possible to say whether there has been a long-term increase.
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/06/goremongering-and-mannhandling-the-reality-of-winter-weather-bombs/
      We published a paper years ago showing how satellite-measured temperature quantities can be interpreted in terms of quasi-geostrophic theory to diagnose extratropoical cyclogenesis. I was pretty proud of that work at the time.

  6. Norman says:

    I really like the content of this article. A few years ago I was bringing up the very same points and that process led me to getting banned from Skeptical Science.

    I had asked the very same thing from the group. I need evidence. If storms are getting worse it should be easy to create rational trends and metrics of storms (size, intensity, duration, etc…measurable qualities of weather systems). Each year there are 100,000 thunderstorm and 10,000 supercell storms (approximate numbers). With such a data base all that is required is to put measured values to each storm and one can see if there is a valid trend.

    When I read that the jet stream is weakening causing the polar vortex to chill the US all I can think of is a g*e*r*a*n mentality. Declare something a fact and see if the ignorant public accepts it.

    I have lived in Nebraska long enough to know you have this super cold weather (polar vortex) invading the Central US frequently (check out 1983 December, much colder than this recent cold spell). If US is cold basically Europe is warmer and visa-versa. The Arctic cold air gets to a certain volume and will move southward somewhere. I think it would be rare if the polar vortex stayed locked up all winter and never moved southward to chill some group of people. I think if you study Northern Hemisphere winters you will see the claims have zero merit and are just made up declarative statements based upon no evidence.

    The real evidence (science) makes the claims of a weakening polar vortex from global warming look really stupid and unscientific and meteorologists who make these claims look silly.

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

    • Nate says:

      Norman, Yes all true, but what do you make of Roy’s statement:

      ” an anomalously warm Arctic can be expected to be associated with disturbed weather patterns around it. “

    • Snape says:

      The theory is a weakened polar vortex would more often cause cold air to spill south from the Arctic, and comparatively warmer air to replace it.

      If there is not hard evidence for the former, there definitely IS for the latter:

      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Hey Norm, that’s for the mention. I know you want to ignore me, but I’m irresistible.

      Anyway, keep up the great advertising. T-shirts sales are booming! (I may have to raise prices again.)

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      norman…”I really like the content of this article. A few years ago I was bringing up the very same points and that process led me to getting banned from Skeptical Science”.

      Then you were not banned because you insisted on telling John Cook he knew nothing about science? ☺

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Nope. I only make that claim about you since you have been exposed to real science by many posters but still do not want to understand it. I do not think John Cook would suffer from a need to make up his own brand of physics and reject the established physics that works in the real world in everyday applications. I have linked you to so many real science articles and textbooks but it does no good with you.

        Thanks for the smiley face.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”Thanks for the smiley face”.

          I have nothing personally against, you Norman, even though our exchanges get heated at times.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”Thanks for the smiley face”.

          I have nothing personally against, you Norman, even though our exchanges get heated at times.

          This message was detected as a duplicate. Go figure, If it shows up twice that’s the reason.

  7. David in Ardmore says:

    The media and many car wreck experts cite speed as the #1 cause of car wrecks.

    Curiously, in order for any wreck to occur, at least one vessel must “speed” in order to occupy the same space as another vessel. So all car wrecks involve speed, which should compel the experts to cite “poor judgement”, not speed.

    The hype artists’ relentless blaming of man’s CO2 emissions, as the primary cause of “climate change”, should give pause to question their claims.

    • David Appell says:

      Seems you aren’t aware of the evidence. Have you tried to study it?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Seems you arent aware of the evidence. Have you tried to study it?”

        I keep trying to tell you, there is no evidence. Only virtual evidence provided by deluded climate modelers and cheaters like NOAA.

        • David Appell says:

          Youre another one who doesnt know the evidence, and wont spend 15 minutes reading about. You must be allergic to learning.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, I’ve actually wasted several minutes tracking down your “evidence”, in the past. What I find is mostly devoid of science. But, often rewarding in terms of hilarity.

            Once, you linked to the preposterous pseudoscience that the Sun can warm the Earth to 800,000K! I still smile at that one.

            And, repeatedly, you have linked to DWIR as evidence that the atmosphere can heat the surface. You (hilariously) don’t even understand that your “evidence” relies entirely on an “assumption”. The “assumption” being that ALL infrared is ALWAYS absorbed.

            Obviously, your assumption, as well as your evidence, is pseudoscience.

            Hilarious.

          • David Appell says:

            dT = dQ/mc

            Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s => 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

            Q.E.D.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, once again, demonstrates his lack of understanding of physics.

            (Someone said 2018 was going to be a great year for climate comedy.)

    • lewis says:

      Experts in the field of automobiles are an interesting lot.
      Most ‘accidents’ involve inattention or just plain ordinary stupidity. Deaths, however, can be directly related to speed, but speed is not the cause of the accident.

      CO2, while possibly complicit, is a required gas for life on earth. The efforts by the ‘experts’ to blame CO2 has to do with their agenda, nothing more.

      • David Appell says:

        Yes, plants take up CO2. At the same time, atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

        These can both be true at the same time. And are.

      • bobdroege says:

        Water is also necessary for life, yet you can still drown.

        Oxygen is also necessary for life, but also necessary for fires, which can extinguish life.

        Vitamin A is necessary for health, yet toxic at high doses.

        I could go on and on

  8. FTOP says:

    Should the “Glossary of Meterology” quote read 20-23 and not 2023?

    • Yes, fixed, thanks. WordPress drops some punctuation and special characters in copied text.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        roy…”Yes, fixed, thanks. WordPress drops some punctuation and special characters in copied text”.

        I wrote to them about that and their propensity for refusing words like absorp-tion and Had-crut. No reply….maybe if you suggested it to them.

  9. ren says:

    Why no one pays attention to the La Nina? Please see the wind direction over Australia.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2&timespan=24hrs&anim=html5
    There will be more clouds in northern Australia.

  10. David Appell says:

    Michael Mann’s PhD is in geophysics, obviously specializing in climate.

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php

    • Geology and geophysics. Might was well be biology.

      • David Appell says:

        Roy, that comment is beneath you.

        • lewis says:

          Interesting you should say that David. I have found that very little is beneath you.

        • AaronS says:

          Dave,

          I dont see how a global climate record can be constructed from available proxies. It took many iterations to build a global temperature data set with instruments from this half century and there is still considerable uncertainty- even in satellite adjustments. My problem as someone that does have a PhD and publication history in paleoclimate is that when you add up noise you get destructive interference (low Signal to noise ratio) and erase signals. And such a data set woild absolutely be full of noise. To detect a century or less (higher frequency) signal using paleoclimate methods would require nearly complete coverage through time or great smoothing. So at a minimum you have very high uncertainty in such a data set. How do you stitch that to a global data set that can detect high frequency oscillations and variability? It is apples to oranges to compare. When you observe continuous regional data you see abundant high frequency climate shifts. Like Asian monsoon has century scale climate change.
          http://www.nature.com/articles/srep05159

          And Northern Hemisphere warming has been different than a hockey stick with high freq change. How do we know Southern cancels this pattern rather than just poorly sampled and erases signal?

          https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/58/2/2.17/3074082

          And there are abundant very high frequency global sea level (eustatic) jumps. Like the one last interglacial of plus 6m or more.

          I dont mind Mann’s science I am bothered by his politics and certainty in his own work. It raises a red flag.

        • tonyM says:

          I recall Joe Bastardi writing that Mann needed to go study some Meteorology over some daft statements Mann made.

          I also recall Mann stating to a Senate hearing that he followed the scientific method. Now that is strange given he has said:

          a) proofs are for spirits and geometry
          b) as long as you feel it is right then it is fine to run with that idea.

          In a strict scientific sense a) is correct; no one proves in science.

          But the b) part is as unscientific as one could imagine. The “science” could change from morning to noon to night; just depends on mood. Have a tiff with your partner and watch how the science swings.

          So it confirms Dr Roy’s view ; may as well have been biology or astrology.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        “Mann is a geologist/geophysicist, which is equally uninformed on atmospheric dynamics.”

        By this logic, someone with a bachelors degree in physics and a PhD in applied math would be even less suited to discuss atmospheric dynamics. Try telling that to Richard Lindzen!

        The point is that people continue to learn, and can gain expertise in other areas. The critique against Mann seems particularly misplaced since his PhD work and post-doc work actually focused on climate. Anyone who can write the dissertation “A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system” must know SOMETHING about atmospheric dynamics.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Tim believes: “By this logic, someone with a bachelors degree in physics and a PhD in applied math would be even less suited to discuss atmospheric dynamics.”

          No Tim, a solid background in physics is necessary to understand Earth’s energy balance. Without such a background, you end up with some claiming “cold” can warm “hot”.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          tim…”Try telling that to Richard Lindzen! ”

          Or Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician who heads NASA GISS and who is highly revered by the alarmist crowd. Difference is, Lindzen specialized in the real atmosphere while Schmidt specialized in the virtual world of climate models.

          How about his predecessor James Hansen? He has a degree in physics but his field of study was astronomy.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”Michael Manns PhD is in geophysics, obviously specializing in climate”.

      Doesn’t matter what his avocation may be, he is wrong most of the time. Hockey sticks, Antarctic warming….all he’s done is make a fool of himself while managing to insult female scientists like Judith Curry, seemingly because she is a female and a skeptic.

      I wish I could say what I really feel about him.

      In climategate, this erstwhile, wannabee scientist was seen to be trying to block peer review while his buddy, Phil Jones, of Had-crut, bragged about using Mike’s trick to hide declining temperatures. Over at realclimate, the head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt, who runs rc with Mann, was defending Mike’s trick as just a prank among the guys.

      Jones also revealed in the climategate emails that he and Kevin (you know who) would see to it that certain skeptical papers would not reach the IPCC review. One of those papers featured Roy’s colleague at UAH, John Christy.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon, of course, you have no qualifications whatsoever to judge Mann.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Gordon, of course, you have no qualifications whatsoever to judge Mann”.

          Of course I do, I’m a human being with a brain. I have a certificate to prove it, my birth certificate. Had I been born without a brain I’d also have a death certificate.

          Do you have either?

          • David Appell says:

            You have demonstrated no expertise whatsoever that qualifies you to judge Mann. Which is why you have never done so scientifically.

            Essentially every comment you have ever posted on this blog is wrong.

      • David Appell says:

        The hockey stick is established science. It’s been reproduced using several different mathematical techniques. It’s also required by the laws of physics.

        Jones was just venting, one friend to another. Journal editors have the final say on a paper’s publication.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”The hockey stick is established science. Its been reproduced using several different mathematical techniques”.

          Only by flunkies who work for Mann.

          • David Appell says:

            The PAGES 2k study was done by over 5 dozen scientists around the world?

            All flunkies?

            See the kind of ridiculous positions you back yourself into, all in an attempt to deny the science (by not actually critiquing the science)?

            “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie and his bird-cage liners, again.

            This one “reconstructs” the global temperatures for the last 2000 years! Yup, “reconstructs”!

            At least they are not faking the temperature record. ..

            Hilarious.

  11. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    The trouble is that neither of these two events are exceptional from a meteorological perspective. That is, they have happened before (Sydneys 117 deg. F peak was exceeded in 1939), and they will happen again.

    “Here we show that, worldwide, the number of local record-breaking
    monthly temperature extremes is now on average five times larger than expected in a climatewith no long-term warming.”
    – Coumou, D., A. Robinson and S. Rahmstorf, 2013: Global increase in record-breaking monthly-mean temperatures. Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0668-1.

    • It is easy to demonstrate that with even modest population growth near a thermometer site the spurious temperature increase is at least 1-2 deg. C. This is well documented. Unless studies such as this use pristine sites with no addition of nearby buildings, pavement, mechanized devices, deforestation, over the last century, then they have little use for determining “extremes” statistics, which can be statistically exaggerated because they are out in the tail of the distribution. If you go from 1 event to 3 events, that a 200% increase. The statistics of rare events are dodgy.

      • David Appell says:

        Roy, you know very well the raw data Undergoes quality control to correct for issues like that. You wouldnt like it if people summarily dismissed your papers; its disappointing to see you do it to others, just because you dont like their result.

    • Harry Cummings says:

      Are their expectations reasonable ? probably not they are well known as being in a particular camp

      Regards
      Harry

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…” Coumou, D., A. Robinson and S. Rahmstorf,”

      Rahmstorf…get serious. He challenged Richard Lindzen to a debate and got his butt kicked. When cornered he reverted to relativity theory.

      https://motls.blogspot.ca/2008/03/lindzen-vs-rahmstorf-exchange.html

      “…he [Rahmstorf]argues that the consistency of a model with the historical data shouldn’t affect our confidence in these models”.

      “Rahmstorf also makes a typically layperson’s mistake when he thinks that the climate sensitivity can be measured “directly” without having any theory or model in mind. Incredibly, he seems to be using “fingerprints” as evidence for the greenhouse theory of the climate, even though the theoretical fingerprints clearly disagree with the reality”.

      “Richard Lindzen also doesn’t buy Rahmstorf’s bizarre comparison of climate science with general relativity…”

      Here, Motl takes on another of your favourites, John Cook of skepticalscience.:

      https://motls.blogspot.ca/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

      • David Appell says:

        Youre Attacking personalities because you are utterly incapable of judging the science on its merits.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Youre Attacking personalities because you are utterly incapable of judging the science on its merits”.

          I quoted physicist Lubos Motl who wrote an appraisal of the Lindzen-Rahmstorf debate. You don’t really want to know what I really think of Rahmstorf.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, any opinion you have of Rahmstorf would be a woefully uninformed one. Your opinion of him doesn’t matter.

            Do you have solid critiques of his science?

      • Nate says:

        Gordon,

        Lindzen understands that there is a greenhouse effect and AGW. But you don’t.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          nate…”Lindzen understands that there is a greenhouse effect and AGW. But you dont”.

          Can’t win em all.

          Lindzen does make it clear, however, that the GHE as presented does not work and he feels AGW is limited to about 0.4C/century.

          I like Joe Postma’s view on GHE. He claimed, we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            My favorite Lindzen quote is (talking about AGW alarmism):

            “I think it’s mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.”

          • DavidAppell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Lindzen does make it clear, however, that the GHE as presented does not work and he feels AGW is limited to about 0.4C/century.

            Very few scientists, if any, think Lindzen is right.

            You treat him like a god whose pronouncements are always correct by condition of his godliness.

            Because you don’t have many other arguments.

          • Nate says:

            Lindzen would say that G* and Gordon are idiots if they do not believe GHE is real.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nate, by putting your words in other people’s mouths, do you believe that makes you look clever, or deceptive?

          • Svante says:

            g*e*r*a*n,

            According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[68]

            “Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point ‘nutty.'”

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

  12. David Appell says:

    “According to a new research report published today in a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the 2016 global average temperature and extreme heat wave over Asia occurred due to continued long-term climate change…..

    “Additionally, climate change was found to have influenced other heat events in 2016, including the extreme heat in the Arctic, development of marine heat waves off Alaska and Australia, as well as the severity of the 2015-2016 El Nino, and the duration of coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef.”

    http://www.noaa.gov/news/special-report-2016-extreme-weather-events-and-ties-to-climate-change

    https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/

    • …which is why many of us who helped establish the quality and reputation of the AMS over the last few decades are no longer members. Besides, what does “climate change” mean, exactly, in terms of causation?

      • Laura says:

        “Besides, what does climate change mean, exactly, in terms of causation?”

        Bell tolls…

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        roy…”Besides, what does climate change mean, exactly, in terms of causation?”

        I’d like to know what ‘climate change’ means, period. I relate it to the natural changes in the many micro-climates around the planet, none of which can be related to a number derived statistically from global temperatures.

        • DavidAppell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “Id like to know what climate change means, period”

          It means a change in climate.

          Do you really need a definition of climate?

      • David Appell says:

        Brian, you dont seem to have any scientific critiques about these papers, only snark. Youre threading into Gordons territory.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”According to a new research report published today in a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society….”

      Let’s not forget the AMS awarded medals to Roy and John of UAH for excellence with regard to their data sets. Can’t have it both ways, either you accept the clear message from the UAH sat-based data sets or you live in the aerie-fairie world of catastrophic AGW.

      Apparently, the AMS is comfortable in both worlds which should lead one to suspect they don’t really know what’s going on and that they are more interested in appearing to be politically-correct.

      • David Appell says:

        Your reply again shows you incapable of judging the science on its merits. Medals dont matter when evaluating science, the quality of the science does. Strikeout.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Your reply again shows you incapable of judging the science on its merits. Medals dont matter when evaluating science…”

          They do when they are issued by the AMS then they turn around and contradict the reason for awarding the medals. NASA gave medals for excellence as well to Roy and John and GISS contradicts the reason the medals were issued.

          • Laura says:

            Give it enough time and the anti-human climate alarmists will be talking themselves about medals, honors, etc in order to give their shrieks of apocalyptic catastrophe a veneer of authority.

            And, by enough time, I mean microseconds…

          • Profp says:

            Laura, you continue to disappoint me with your trite comments.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Recalling Dr. Spencer’s comment above regarding “theories” being overthrown by later evidence, perhaps those early awards to Roy and John were premature as their work was later shown to be flawed…

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Obviously Swanson has no clue about the problems and pitfalls in developing a new technology.

          • E. Swanson says:

            g*e*r*a*n, please explain why there are major differences between the current UAH results and those from RSS and NOAA STAR? (see above comment)

          • DavidAppell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            They do when they are issued by the AMS then they turn around and contradict the reason for awarding the medals. NASA gave medals for excellence as well to Roy and John and GISS contradicts the reason the medals were issued.

            No, they don’t. In science, the best science wins, not those with the most medals. Always.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            To which “above comment” do you believe you are referring?

          • E. Swanson says:

            g*e*r*a*n, the comment with UAH and RSS trend data, data which you apparently choose to ignore.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Swanson, without proper reference to your comment, the only choice I have is to ignore it.

            I can’t read your mind.

  13. Snape says:

    Dr. Spencer:

    “Nevertheless, the weird-weather-is-climate-change narrative will continue until the populace finally agrees with the warmongers that we can control our weather through taxation and regulation.”

    Do you believe the only way to reduce our carbon footprint is through taxation and regulation?

    The Weather Channel would strongly disagree.

    • If our carbon footprint can be reduced through free market forces alone, I’d be fine with that. But I do not see that happening until either (1) fossil fuels become scarce, (2) some magical technological advancements occur, or (3) people overcome their phobia of nuclear power.

      • Snape says:

        Dr. Spencer

        I mostly agree with you, and readily admit the Weather Channel is biased.

        I take issue with your inference about their motives. Just as likely they want to see people change their lifestyles: drive more fuel efficient cars, buy local, etc.

        • Snape says:

          If our carbon footprint can be reduced through the free market, maybe the free market is what the “warmongers” are trying to influence.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            snake, you need to be increasing your “carbon footprint”. Studies have shown that the best CO2 level for plants is about 550 ppmv. I don’t think mankind can get the level that high, but we shouldn’t stop trying.

            Go burn some leaves.

          • Snape says:

            “Studies have shown that the best CO2 level for plants is about 550 ppm”

            The side affects might be a problem.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            If you seriously believe that, then go plant a tree.

            Do something besides just fretting and acting “concerned”.

          • Snape says:

            Honestly, I just like to argue.

            Did you miss my grammar error? Effects, not affects.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t care to mention it because I figured you would just try to argue your way out.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          snape…”I take issue with your inference about their motives. Just as likely they want to see people change their lifestyles: drive more fuel efficient cars, buy local, etc.”

          When you have a viable and affordable alternative to fossil fuel, come back and we can talk. What you alarmists are doing, IMHO, far exceeds the dangers of nuclear energy. It gives me the shivers to think of you lot meddling with the planet in an attempt to control CO2 output and solar input.

      • Stevek says:

        I hope fusion will get us there. It perpetually seems to be 20 plus years out but in last few years my optimism has grown due to recent advancements. I hope much more funding goes into it.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          The best way to acquire energy from fusion is to write “FUSION” on a piece of paper and put it in a safe box. Then, build 50 conventional nukes, in the next 30 years.

          After 30 years, you can take the piece of paper out of the safe box, and you will have both “FUSION” and all those years of nuclear energy.

      • David Appell says:

        Roy, does free market include the cost of pollution and the damages it does? If not, youre talking about a form of socialism, not free market capitalism.

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

        • Christopher Hanley says:

          A free market economy needs government to ensure it remains free, for instance to protect it from external invasion, to ensure the protection of individuals from harm and property from theft, to enforce contracts freely entered into by individuals and companies etc.
          Where air pollution due to particulates and chemicals has been shown to damage persons’ health governments in a free market society enforce rules to limit that pollution (air and water) but living in a large city has costs and benefits and all risks cannot be eliminated entirely.
          The increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration in recent years has probably contributed to the greening of the planet but I’ve never heard of any evidence that it has cause lung disease.

        • Christopher Hanley says:

          The most polluting societies have been and are communist.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            christopher…”The most polluting societies have been and are communist”.

            India is not communist. China claims to be communist but they are run by capitalist dogma now. Russia has not been a communism since the 1990s.

          • DavidAppell says:

            Christopher Hanley says:
            “The most polluting societies have been and are communist.”

            Proof?

            This certainly isn’t true for carbon pollution. The US leads in cumulative emissions (1850-present), by a factor of 2. Per capita, the UK leads, or did a few years ago.

            National contributions to observed global warming
            H Damon Matthews, Tanya L Graham, Serge Keverian, Cassandra Lamontagne, Donny Seto and Trevor J Smith

            Published 15 January 2014 2014 IOP Publishing Ltd
            Environmental Research Letters, Volume 9, Number 1

        • Obama says:

          Carbon Dioxide = Plant Food

          Invisible
          Odorless
          Zero harm to lungs
          A gas – Not a micro particle

          Plants love CO2.

      • Stevek says:

        One can argue that a person should be able to sue for damages caused by air pollution. Suing is a free market principle to me because it is an extension of property rights. If science can show say that 1 pct of lung cancer deaths are caused by coal then the coal burners in theory need to bear 1 pct of the cost. If it can be shown that c02 causes oceans to rise and my beachfront mansion gets destroyed then those producing co2 need to pay. I view this as free market. But at same time if I sue and lose then I should pay reasonable legal costs.

      • Nate says:

        Energy markets have never been a fully free market.

        There have been subsidies for fossil fuel exploration, nuclear power, ethanol, hydroelectric, etc

        “some magical technological advancements occur”

        Like PV solar at $1/watt? Already here.

  14. Gunga Din says:

    Meanwhile, The Weather Channel (aka The Disaster Channel) serves up a steady stream of weather porn to titillate the senses.

    Love that. TWC used to be about the weather.
    I could watch it and have a good idea of what the weather was like that day for people I know anywhere in the US. Not the details, but a good idea. Now I only have an (exaggerated) idea of what they are experiencing if they are in the path of “Winter Flurry Ferdinand”.

    They love to forecast “potential record breaking temperatures” yet several years ago stopped including the record high and low for the day on their “Local on the 8’s”.

    Guess they don’t want people to come to realize, “we’ve seen this before”.

    • Gunga Din says:

      PS Speaking of local records, The record high for Jan. 9th for my little spot on the globe listed in 2007 was 65 F set in 1946.
      The list from 2012 says it was 62 set, again, in 1946.
      Currently they say record high was still 62 but now it was set in 1949.
      “Weather Weirding”

  15. g*e*r*a*n says:

    Dr. Roy, thanks for this effort to address the vapid alarmism.

    Folks worried about the “extremes” between Australia and US? The lack of understanding is amazing.

    Southern Hemisphere, Northern Hemisphere, opposite seasons, SH closer to the Sun in their summer, so about 7% more solar than NH. Apples and oranges.

    North Dakota typically experiences almost the same “extremes” just between its summer and winter–140F delta, almost every year.

    And all the fret about the polar vortex! Most of the worriers don’t even realize the role the PV plays in modulating Earth’s temperature. It’s almost like many of them never finished 7th grade!

    Hilarious.

    • ren says:

      Beautiful words!

      • Roy W. Spencer says:

        sometimes g*e*r*a*n doesn’t irk me.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          I must be slipping.

          (For those that do not come here often, I regard Dr. Roy as one of the heroes in fighting back pseudoscience. I agree with him on probably 90% of the AGW issue. He believes that CO2 might have some measurable impact on temperatures, whereas I believe that the effect is several orders of magnitude below anything measurable. But, as testimony to his regard for science, I, along with other “extreme skeptics”, are allowed to comment freely here. That does not happen at sites that wallow in their pseudoscience.)

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi g*e*r*a*n*,
            so you “believe that the effect is several orders of magnitude below anything measurable”.

            Now, my question for you is:
            Why (in the past) do you asked me to change my mind from being a “lukewarmer” to a an extreme skeptics, when I never argued that we ever had been able to measure any “backaradiation” heating at all?

            Maybe I had not been clear that my point was and it is that if the radiation is radiated back, it could reduce the cooling at the surface. How much it does, it depends on how it weights vs the other thermal exchanges between the surface and the atmosphere.
            When I stated that backadiation exists and heats the surface I always intended that it was at a philosophical level, I’m almost sure that our current measurements tools can’t measure that tiny signal.

            Have a great day.

            Happy 2018 to anybody here.

            Massimo

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Massimo: “When I stated that backadiation exists and heats the surface I always intended that it was at a philosophical level, Im almost sure that our current measurements tools can’t measure that tiny signal.”

            Massimo, we agree completely.

          • Nate says:

            G*,

            Roy understands science and its value. You do not.

            “He believes that CO2 might have some measurable impact on temperatures, whereas I believe that the effect is several orders of magnitude below anything”

            Roy understands that ‘belief’ in science is based on evidence and data.

            Whereas your ‘belief’ is nothing but belief.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Thank you for stating your belief.

          • David Appell says:

            Massimo: it can be measured, and has been measured. See Feldman et al Nature 2015 and Philipona et al GRL 2004.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie must have a lot of bird cages.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”Roy understands science and its value. You do not.

            He believes that CO2 might have some measurable impact on temperatures…”

            So do I, about 0.03C for the entire atmosphere.

            I base that on the Ideal Gas Equation for a constant volume, constant mass system, and Dalton’s Law of Partial pressures. The amount of total CO2 in the atmosphere by percent mass is simply not enough to warm the atmosphere more than a few hundredths of a degree C.

          • DavidAppell says:

            Gordon, you completely ignore radiative transfer.

            You pretend that an entire part of Nature simply doesn’t exist.

        • gammacrux says:

          Don’t we need some clowns or buffoons ?
          Otherwise life might be deadly dull.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      g*r…”Southern Hemisphere, Northern Hemisphere, opposite seasons, SH closer to the Sun in their summer, so about 7% more solar than NH. Apples and oranges”.

      Don’t forget the immensity of the Pacific Ocean in the Southern Hemisphere. Also, ren’s great point about the effect of La Nina on Australia, which is it’s western terminus.

  16. CO2isLife says:

    Climate Change and the Iranian Protests

    While liberals are fiddling while North Korea and Iran conspire to develop nuclear weapons, distracting the world from the real threats it faces by manufacturing this
    Global Warming nonsense, President Trump is busy developing a battle plan that will end the Evil Empire once and for all. His solution? The exact one that President Reagan used to defeat the far more formidable USSR President Trump plans to use the free market and the industrial mite of America to flood the world with oil. President Trump wants America to not only be energy independent, President Trump wants America to be energy DOMINANT!!!
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/climate-change-and-the-iranian-protests/

    • Stevek says:

      LNG and oil are now being shipped from the gulf states. Asia is s buyer.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      co2…”The exact one that President Reagan used to defeat the far more formidable USSR…”

      I don’t recall Howdy Doody beating the USSR. I do recall him deregulating financial institutions, which lead to the financial collapse in the US during the 2000 decade. Of course, the culprits behind it largely got off scott-free.

      He also instituted the fake news that HIV is a highly dangerous virus which can defeat an immune system, after lying dormant for 15 years, when no other virus can do that. He accepted the word of Robert Gallo verbatim, without peer review, after Gallo had used the same virus-based cause to claim cancer is caused by a virus. He was wrong in both cases.

      Recently, the scientist who discovered HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, has made it clear that HIV cannot harm a healthy immune system. The proof is in the fact that AIDS has only struck those with depleted immune systems. None of the predicted global AIDS pandemics ever happened.

      That’s the legacy of Reagan. I call him Howdy Doody for obvious reasons. Howdy was a puppet operated by strings.

      We should learn from that in climate science. Rather, we seem bent on following the same dead end path that lead HIV/AIDS researchers on a merry chase the last 30 odd years. Many of them are still raving about the dangers of HIV long after the obvious was pointed out to them by scientists with integrity like Dr, Peter Duesberg, an expert in retroviruses like HIV.

      • Svante says:

        “Two independent studies have concluded that the public health policies of Thabo Mbeki’s government, shaped in part by Duesberg’s writings and advice, were responsible for over 330,000 excess AIDS deaths and many preventable infections, including those of infants.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg#Consequences_of_AIDS_denialism

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          svante…”Two independent studies have concluded that the public health policies of Thabo Mbekis government, shaped in part by Duesbergs writings and advice, were responsible for over 330,000 excess AIDS deaths and many preventable infections, including those of infants.”

          Montagnier, who discovered HIV, claims the issue in Africa is oxidative stress due to malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasites such as mosquitoes and intestinal worms. He has suggested cleaning up those issues and giving the people antioxidants.

          The African problem in the pre HIV/AIDS days used to be attributed to wasting syndrome, or Slim’s Disease. Now it is lumped under the AIDS umbrella as an opportunistic infection caused by a sexually transmitted virus.

          Who would you believe, an expert who discovered HIV or some idiot writing in a wiki?

          You will find a lot of idiots writing about HIV/AIDS just as you find idiots writing about AGW.

          • Svante says:

            “You will find a lot of idiots writing about HIV/AIDS just as you find idiots writing about AGW.”

            I agree.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          svante…go to the Talk tab at the top of the wiki page and read through the comments. Some are claiming Duesberg denies AIDS exists which is nonsense. Others are defending him. He has addressed that in depth, even offering suggestions for male homosexuals to avoid getting AIDS.

          Duesberg believes HIV exists and he is an expert on retroviruses. He cannot accept the idea that HIV can behave like no other virus, lay dormant for up to 15 years, then destroy an immune system. No one has ever proved that it can, they have not even come close.

          Then go to this page and get a perspective on the other side of the story.

          http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/

          You will find a lot of compelling evidence by top rated scientists on HIV and AIDS. Even Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, has held out from the beginning, circa 1983, claiming HIV could not act alone to cause AIDS. Now
          he is claiming HIV will not harm anyone with a healthy immune system.

          Now go to this site and hear the horror stories of what the drugs issued to HIV+ patients can do to your body. Rasnick worked in research for pharmaceutical companies developing these drugs. He also served on the advisory committee to Mbeki.

          http://www.davidrasnick.com/

          • Nate says:

            Gordon,

            Hopefully you or your family members never get infected with HIV, and you are never in the position of deciding whether anti-viral treatment is given.

          • David Appell says:

            Deusberg is a quack who has been denounced by experts throughout the world.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Deusberg is a quack who has been denounced by experts throughout the world”.

            Some quack…California Scientist of the Year and a world renowned expert on retroviruses.

            There’s no pleasing some people.

          • DavidAppell says:

            He won that award in 1981, before his HIV/AIDS quackery began.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, how is the job search going?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”He won that award in 1981, before his HIV/AIDS quackery began”.

            The award means he was a highly regarded scientist at the time and when he claimed HIV could not cause AIDS, the scientific community should have listened. Thirty years later, the scientist who discovered HIV corroborated Duesberg. Now all the rest are quacks.

            HIV has not caused AIDS in the general population since the HIV/AIDS quackery was announced by Reagan in 1983. Here in British Columbia, Canada, a Province of some 4 million, only a small fraction of 1% are claimed to have AIDS.

            They are all from high risk groups whose immune systems get depleted by their lifestyles. The predicted pandemic did not happen, the theory failed.

            HIV is utterly harmless to the average person.

          • David Appell says:

            Deusberg is a good example of how a good scientist can go astray with crackpot theories. Hes been roundly denounced in the scientific community, and lost a lot of respect he had built.

            Why is it you fall for every crackpot theory out there?

            PS: Electrons dont really move around the nucleus, either.

          • Svante says:

            “British Columbia, Canada, a Province of some 4 million, only a small fraction of 1% are claimed to have AIDS”.

            That’s because treatment works.

            “Without treatment, average survival time after infection with HIV is estimated to be 9 to 11 years, depending on the HIV subtype”.

            Treatment “raises the life expectancy for a newly diagnosed young adult to 2050 years”.

            Drugs are verified by rigorous testing. Do you suspect a fudging in the FDA?

          • Svante says:

            20-50 may be more realistic.

  17. Ward H. Oliver says:

    I saw a map the other day, showing the area of North America that has temps below normal, balanced by areas of the world where temps were above normal. Big surprise here – since the earth receives about the same amount of energy each day from the sun, I would expect the average earth temp to remain virtually the same all the time. I’m no weather expert; just an aged chemist.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ward…”Big surprise here since the earth receives about the same amount of energy each day from the sun…”

      g*e*r*a*n just pointed out that the Southern Hemisphere receives 7% more solar energy than the Northern Hemisphere due to the Earth’s tilt.

      • Chris Morris says:

        Gordon
        It isn’t the earths tilt. It is the earths orbit around the sun isn’t circular and the earth is closer to the sun in January than in July.

        • David Appell says:

          Its both the tilt and the nonzero eccentricity.

          • Chris Morris says:

            By non-zero eccentricity, you mean the orbit isn’t circular but you can’t say that can you, David.
            If the orbit around the sun was perfectly circular (or in your terms had zero eccentricity), please explain in your own words how the tilt changes the earth’s solar energy input between January and July.

          • Chris Morris says:

            The texts call the earth’s orbit an ellipse and the eccentricity is just defining how elliptical it is https://phys.org/news/2014-11-earth-orbit-sun.html
            You can have eccentric circles, the opposite of concentric ones, so saying the earth’s orbit as nonzero eccentricity is imprecise.

          • lewis says:

            (See if I get this right)
            Tilt has to do with incidence of radiation on land. The northern Hemisphere, having more land mass, is affected by solar radiation differently than the southern. As the earth moves around the sun, tilt, along with where the earth is in relation to the plane of the orbit -( whether higher or lower in relation to the sun ) affects how much radiation impacts the earth.

            If the earth is below the plane and the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the sun, and is closer in orbit then radiation received is greater. The exact opposite is true at the other side of the orbit.

            See Milankovitch –
            Apologies if I misstated.

          • Chris Morris says:

            I should have been clear that “earth” meant planet, not just land. The tilt doesn’t affect the total solar energy input. That input is just a function of distance from the sun as the cross-sectional area doesn’t change.
            The seasons are a function of the tilt, but whatever happens in the northern hemisphere is opposed by the southern hemisphere changes. The “earths” average temperature is warmer in July than it is in January because the Southern Hemisphere has a lot more water (which has a lot higher thermal inertia than land) and the high polar plateau.

          • DavidAppell says:

            Chris Morris says:
            By non-zero eccentricity, you mean the orbit isnt circular but you cant say that can you, David.

            I assumed everyone knows what “eccentricity” is.

            Or that they can look it up.

          • Chris Morris says:

            Why didn’t you just say the orbit was elliptical then, David? Or is that beneath you? An eccentric orbit could be elliptical or an off-centred circle under your terminology. You pull others to pieces because of a poor choice of words.
            And I am still waiting for you to tell us how tilt alters the total planet’s solar input.

          • David Appell says:

            Chris Morris says:
            Why didnt you just say the orbit was elliptical then, David?

            Because everyone learns this in high school.

          • David Appell says:

            Chris Morris says:
            An eccentric orbit could be elliptical or an off-centred circle under your terminology.

            “Eccentricity” has a particular meaning regarding elliptical orbits. Learned in 11th grade analytic geometry.

          • David Appell says:

            Chris Morris says:
            And I am still waiting for you to tell us how tilt alters the total planets solar input.

            The amount of incident energy from sunlight varies as the cosine of the tilt angle.

          • David Appell says:

            lewis says:
            “If the earth is below the plane and the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the sun….”

            The Earth is never below the plane of its orbit.

          • Chris Morris says:

            I am so pleased that you can do elementary geometry David, but if that is your answer to “how tilt alters the total planets solar input.” you have a poor maths knowledge.
            Sure the sun lower to the horizon in the northern hemisphere will lower the solar input there, but that is exactly counterbalanced by the sun being higher in the southern hemisphere. That is why I used the word total, which you don’t appear to have been able to read.

          • David Appell says:

            Chris: the solar luminosity incident on the Earth varies as the cosine of the tilt angle. This is true regardless of the season.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            lewis…”Tilt has to do with incidence of radiation on land”.

            Something on that subject. I think the cycles of varying tilt explain warming/cooling well.

            http://earthsky.org/earth/can-you-explain-why-earth-has-four-seasons

            Another thought. The Earth’s orbit about the Sun could change for two reasons. One, the angular velocity changes hence the angular momentum. Two, the gravitational pull of the Sun varies.

            There could be a third. If there is in fact an Aether (ie. empty space is not really empty, and varies) that could change the momentum of the Earth. However, that effect would tend to cause the planet to slow down permanently.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”The Earth is never below the plane of its orbit”.

            The NH points toward the Sun half the orbit and away from it the other half.

          • David Appell says:

            In neither of those cases is the Earth below the plane of its orbit.

            If it was, the orbit wouldnt be a plan.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”In neither of those cases is the Earth below the plane of its orbit”.

            I know that, I’m actually agreeing with you. However, in that plane, if the Earth retains it’s tilt, it will go though phases where the Sun strikes it on different parts of the surface facing the Sun.

      • Snape says:

        Ward used the word “about” and still you thought it worth correcting. Works out to about 0.04% change per day. Sound familiar?

        • Chris Morris says:

          Snape – please go back and read what Ward actually wrote. especially the phrase “I would expect the average earth temp to remain virtually the same all the time. ” A 7% difference January to July is a significant difference and definitely not about the same.
          Though there are other factors involved, it is of amusement to people in Australia and New Zealand just how sunburnt tourists from the Northern Hemisphere get in just a short time here – like 15-20 minutes. Easy to spot as they are bright red and walking very carefully. They always tell you they never burn in Florida or at the Mediterranean. Needless to say, melanomas are a major cancer problem.

    • Eric S says:

      I like the way you think Ward. Precision is so important here. Picking a subset of the earth (the surface, the troposphere etc.) cannot represent the total heat content of our planet, and can mislead if using such a proxy for trends. The core of the earth is much warmer than the surface, which in turn is much warmer than the outer reaches of the atmosphere. But all molecules of the total mass of our planet exchange energy with each other directly or indirectly. How valuable would it be to know the average temperature 10 feet below the surface around the globe? That just might be a more reliable indicator of temperature trends than exposed surface temperatures. But even that would be an incomplete picture, just like everything we have today. I am with you. I just don’t see how the actual total heat content of the mass of the earth changes all that much minute-to-minute, day-to-day, year-to-year etc. Everything we are told is an approximation from a proxy, which simply cannot tell the whole story, and as such should be taken in proper context.

  18. Stevek says:

    Off topic but an interesting result is how many years it would take the amazon river to put out a volume of water equal to the volume of water that is stored in the worlds oceans.

  19. Chris Morris says:

    If you go on Jo Nova’s site, you will see that the high temperatures in Sydney were just a function of very short temperature bursts, something electronics registers but not the old mercury in glass. So they were nothing exceptional.

  20. donald penman says:

    If there is a sudden stratospheric warming at the north pole this year will that cause the Arctic temperatures to get warmer or colder. I have been heard that stratospheric warming is a possibility at the end of January.

  21. Entropic man says:

    I am interested to know why a routine cyclone produced the highest sea level on record at the Boston tide guages.

  22. Transport by zeppelin says:

    Jo Nova from Australia has an interesting write up of the deception of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology & the Sydney heat.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/sydney-hottest-ever-mistake-generates-fake-news/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      zepp…”Jo Nova from Australia has an interesting write up of the deception of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology & the Sydney heat”.

      Jo is only repeating what we already know in the Northern Hemisphere: NOAA, NASA GISS, and Had-crut are all cheaters who are politically representing eco-alarmists.

      The UAH data comes from NOAA satellites and I fear NOAA is getting the data before turning it over to UAH and fudging it higher.

      • David Appell says:

        Sure, everyone in the world is cheating because they dont give the results Gordan wants. See how easy denialism is?

        If the world isnt warming, why is all this ice melting and the sea rising? Why are flowers blooming earlier, and species moving poleward?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Sure, everyone in the world is cheating because they dont give the results Gordan wants. See how easy denialism is?”

          I have already explained all this to you. You tend to be seriously obtuse when presented with scientific fact. You are in denial that NOAA is corrupt, even when presented with their own admission that they throw out over 75% of their real data and manufacture the thrown out data in a climate model.

          It’s warming because the planet is forever cooling and re-warming. Right now, it’s recovering from a 400 year mini ice age. It takes time for all that ice to melt, especially when it gets replaced to an extent every winter.

          • David Appell says:

            You have presented no facts about NOAA, and Barry has already shown, several times, that you’re lying about them.

            Right now, its recovering from a 400 year mini ice age.

            Temperatures are about 1 C warmer than at the start of the LIA. What has caused that temperature increase?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie has to ask: “Temperatures are about 1 C warmer than at the start of the LIA. What has caused that temperature increase?”

            Well davie, we know it’s not caused by CO2. Maybe it’s just all natural. Maybe the next 100 years will cycle cooler.

          • barry says:

            You are in denial that NOAA is corrupt, even when presented with their own admission that they throw out over 75% of their real data

            It is irksome to keep saying it – you are lying about this, and have lied about it consistently for a couple of years now.

            There was no 75% of real data to throw out.

            Historical data was added retrospectively during the 90s in a major project that added weather stations by hand. They DID NOT CUT 75% of non-existent data.

            Please, for heaven’s sake, stop with the disinformation.

        • Chris Morris says:

          No David, which shows that yet again you don’t bother to read. In one of Jo’s columns, there are old newspaper articles giving higher temperatures for Sydney during heatwaves that are higher than the new “record” high.

          • David Appell says:

            I dont read Australian newspapers, and I certainly dont read Jo Nova. But I doubt she knows something that the Australian BOM doesnt.

          • Chris Morris says:

            That actually just proves how you have no credibility David. You only push the party line and don’t go away from the approved texts.
            There are actual pictures of old newspaper articles that show hotter temperatures in Sydney in 1939 and 1896. There are photos showing the Stevenson screens and other equipment at those sites so they were well maintained and credible.
            http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/sydney-before-climate-change-over-50c-122f-recorded-at-windsor-observatory-1939/
            Therefore as the head post is about, the heatwave is not unprecedented and all the piling on by alarmists on the back of that is rubbish. The reason why the BoM says the temperature is the hottest is that those old stations aren’t in their database. For some of the stations that are still there, their historic temperatures have been lowered without explanation. And the BoM had to admit that their data was wrong. Among other things, the peak temperatures are sometimes as short as one second – not the five minutes recommended.
            Maybe you should get out in the real world, rather than just spending your life trolling. Or are you stuck in your house by the unprecedented snow?

          • David Appell says:

            Chris: I don’t buy whatever some blog — especially Jo Nova’s blog — spits out. She often publishes crap, like the “Force X” hypothesis.

            I trust the scientists. What are they saying?

            (And, no, I don’t have time to keep up with all the back-and-forth that goes on in Australia.)

          • David Appell says:

            And the BoM had to admit that their data was wrong.

            Where did they do that?
            Link?

          • Chris Morris says:

            The link is on Jo Nova’s site David but you aren’t allowed to read that, so it isn’t any value posting. And you are the last one who should be demanding links as many of your statements in this and other posts are unsupported. Or are you still in the do as I say, not as I do mode?
            But to save you thie risk of potential contamination from impure thoughts, here is a summary. After telling everyone about the record temperature
            http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-07/sydney-hits-its-highest-temperature-recorded-in-79-years/9309552
            and then getting rubbished by sceptics like Jo Nova who used the old newspapers, BoM admitted that yes there had been higher temperatures.
            http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-07/sydney-hits-its-highest-temperature-recorded-in-79-years/9309552
            So Jo Nova using BoM records did know more than the BoM.Their Penrith station has only been there since 1995 so it isn’t a major record to break.
            And Jennifer Marohasy after finally getting documents under the Official Information Act details how despite saying they do, BoM neither follows their own procedures, or international standards, on temperature measurement. They have had a catalogue of errors. In the middle of winter they deleted one record because their QA program said it couldn’t get that cold.

            But you won’t address the actual fact that the temperatures in Sydney aren’t record breaking.

          • An Inquirer says:

            David, Appell,
            The BoM does have some credibility problems, and they have been embarrassed by some of the statistics that they have put out. One is tempted to surmise from your response that you do not really care about facts that do not fit your agenda.

          • barry says:

            there are old newspaper articles giving higher temperatures for Sydney during heatwaves that are higher than the new “record” high.

            I live in Sydney, and the news I read was that it was the hottest day since 1939. Googling for what you’re talking about, I see the BoM said it was the hottest ever, then corrected it a few hours later, which matched the headlines I saw.

            You don’t let a good bit of rhetoric go to waste, eh?

          • barry says:

            After telling everyone about the record temperature and then getting rubbished by sceptics like Jo Nova who used the old newspapers, BoM admitted that yes there had been higher temperatures.

            You have that the wrong way around. Nova piped up after the corrections were made.

            http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/sydney-hottest-ever-mistake-generates-fake-news/

    • Transport by zeppelin says:

      quote “I dont read Australian newspapers, and I certainly dont read Jo Nova.”

      No wonder you’re so ignorant!

  23. professorP says:

    The New York Times reports:
    “Thirteen cows died in a field in Pennington County, S.D., after ingesting anthrax spores from the soil; they had changed their grazing patterns during a drought that lasted much of the year in South Dakota, North Dakota and Montana.”

    The US cow association has demanded action.

  24. professorP says:

    NYT also reports:
    “A fire broke out near the top of Trump Tower on Monday, causing smoke to billow out over the skyscrapers of Midtown Manhattan and Central Park.”

    Police say the President’s hair piece had caught on fire.

  25. professorP says:

    And, finally, Fake news reports:
    “the president supposedly complaining on his first night in the White House that his bedroom television was broken because it didnt have the gorilla channel, which screened only videos about gorillas.”

    Fact:
    The gorillas at the Bronx zoo have demanded a “Donald Trump” video channel.

  26. ren says:

    There is a good chance that the El Nino 3.4 index will fall to -1,5 degree C in January.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png

  27. overall oceanic temp now +.172 c

  28. Obama says:

    Money quote:

    Nevertheless, the weird-weather-is-climate-change narrative will continue until the populace finally agrees with the warmongers that we can control our weather through taxation and regulation.

    Welcome to the state of California controlling the climate via taxation & regulation.

    Sigh.

  29. DavidAppell says:

    Roy wrote:
    (Hint: Warming should be occurring basically everywhere)

    That isn’t true and you know it.

    That map is for, what, a single day?

  30. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Despite a complete lack of increase in sea level rise, couldn’t future excess sea water be pumped onto Antarctica to freeze? Seems like a good place to lock it up. Would it stay frozen through summer?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…from your link:

        Estimates, estimates, estimates!!!

        “Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously monitored against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality”.

    • Stevek says:

      You need find basins that are below sea level to hold the water because it costs too much to pump it up hill. There are such basins and aquifers throughout the world. Also it may be possible to build trench to some of them.

      • David Appell says:

        You want to dump sea water into the world’s major aquifers, making them saline — aquifers needed for agriculture and human use?

        • Stevek says:

          Only if needed, and cost / benefit analysis showed that this was optimal solution. It would not be all of them.

          • David Appell says:

            What benefit could there possibly be to ruining the world’s aquifers??? How would the world grow crops?

            Could the world’s aquifers possibly hold more than a tiny percentage of sea level rise?

          • Stevek says:

            The aquifers surprisingly are pretty big. But I dont think many are close enough to ocean to be viable. I think though it is important to start planning for doomsday scenarios in case the models on the high end tend to be correct. I dont believe there will be a political solution, even if there is an agreement it may not be enough. There needs to be studies done and plans drawn up.

          • David Appell says:

            Putting salt water into fresh water aquifers is a really stupid idea. No one would agree to that, and it would be extremely expensive.

      • Darwin Wyatt says:

        Many of the basins are already saline. Salton sea for example. And I doubt enviros would object to filling Death Valley. Think of the local revenue from recreation. Don’t think there is a water table there either. Not a scientist but would a siphon hose from the Pacific Ocean once started continue to draw water? Think I read somewhere on here siphon is only good for a short rise. Might need solar powered pumps. From what I understand wster pumping very efficient with solar.

        • Stevek says:

          It can be done via digging canals or tunnels. Death Valley is not that far from ocean. It wont make much difference in ocean level. Maybe couple of cm. But the greens would never allow it. Could be some endangered lizard they will freak over.

          • Svante says:

            The qattarra depression can hold 1,213 km^2, so that could buy us three years.

          • Stevek says:

            Svante , yes that is a prime location. Many of these places have really poor people that lead a bleak existence. Some dollars would get them to move. They would be more than happy.. for many it would be more money then they have earned in their whole life.

          • Svante says:

            I don’t think anybody lives in the qattarra depression, except the lizards of course.

            It would make the regional climate more benign.
            Fishing in Sahara!

          • David Appell says:

            You want to destroy the freshwater aquifers of the poor.

            Can you imagine how they might not want this to happen?

            Why can’t you destroy you own aquifers, not theirs?

          • Stevek says:

            They will be offered a relocation package. In Africa Im sure most will accept. Land is taken already in the USA by the government and the people are paid a reasonable amount. This is done for things like highways, railroads. There are likely better geo engineering solutions, but each one has drawbacks. It is a matter of choosing the best one. Seems there will not be any significant agreements on c02. If it gets really bad then choices will need to be made, and at that point it will be too late for reducing co2 to fix the problem. This is all of course assuming model sensitivity is on the high side, I agree co2 warms the planet but I have not much of an idea on the sensitivity.

          • David Appell says:

            Stevek says:
            “They will be offered a relocation package.”

            Even stupider.

            And racist. Ruin your own aquifer instead of expecting Africans to give up their homelands and move somewhere else.

            You sound as racist as Trump.

          • Svante says:

            “I dont think anybody lives in the Qattarra depression”

            I was wrong, there are 300 people living there, plus nomadic Bedouins.

            Royal Dutch Shell and the Texas Apache Corporation extract oil.

            Interesting project though.

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

  31. ren says:

    Such a pressure distribution bodes for snowstorms in the northeast of the US.
    http://www.lightningwizard.com/maps/North_America/gfs_cape_usa72.png

  32. Entropic man says:

    Darwin Wyatt

    Cancelling out sea level rise by pumping water into Antarctica sounds good until you do the numbers.

    It costs about $10 to pump a cubic metre of water uphill by 40 metres. That is $10 billion per cubic kilometre.

    Sea levels are rising by 3.3mm/ year.

    https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_AVISO_GIA_Adjust_SerieReference.png

    Each mm of sea level rise is a volume increase of 360 cubic kilometres. To cancel out 3.3mm/year of sea level rise, you would need to pump 1200 cubic kilometres each year at a cost of $12 trillion.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Em, you might want to check your calculation.

    • Darwin Wyatt says:

      EM,

      Nuclear powered pumps wouldn’t cost as much. Not in the know but I bet there are moth-balled nuclear powered ships/subs that could be repurposed for the task.

    • Bart says:

      You’re off by 3 orders of magnitude. Cost to pump a cubic meter uphill 40 meters is about 1.1 cents. About 4e5 joules with electricity at 10 cents/kWh = 2.8e-8 $/joule.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Congratulations Bart!

        I was waiting to see if any pseudoscience types could catch his mistake. That’s why I only gave a hint.

        So, you’re almost off the “bad boy” list now.

        Keep up the good work.

      • Norman says:

        Bart

        I agree with your math it is the same thing I get.

        If Entropic man was even close a small town could never run a water tower. A typical water tower holds might contain 425,000 gallons.

        https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=tightropetb&p=gallons+of+water+in+typical+watertower&type=37781_062417

        With this volume that calculates to 1608 cubic meters of water. Water towers are often built to 40 meters height.

        If one were to accept Entropic man’s calculations it would take $16,080 to fill a water tower. Water towers are designed to supply at least one day of use. That would be a ridiculously high amount of money to spend on water. Also irrigation would be so expensive no one could possibly farm using it.

        The actual number to pump down the water would be more like $12 billion.

        • Darwin Wyatt says:

          What about rotation of the earth? Would a gargantuan man created glacier on the South Pole throw it off? Yikes. It’d have to be equally distributed around true South I think.

          • Bart says:

            If the mass were large enough, I suppose it could. If off-centered, might cause some wobble. And, should cause the rotation rate to increase a bit. I’d do some calculations to see, but it’s such a silly thing anyway. Almost all of the purported sea level rise is a phantom of isostatic “adjustments”.

        • Bart says:

          There are, of course, pump inefficiencies to consider, so it might be 3X that. But, it’s not 1000X that.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Assuming reasonable efficiencies for the motor and pump, and using a rather expensive electrical cost of $0.15 KWh, the total cost would be about $30 billion, not 12 trillion! So, Em’s estimate is off by a factor of about 400.

      And, davie stated “Nice calculation”! Anything to further the agenda, I guess.

      Hilarious.

      But, the 3.3mm/year SLR is another funny topic. 3.3mm/year would amount to 16.5cm (6.5 inches) after 50 years. People near oceans would notice 6.5 inches in 50 years. Venice, Key West, San Francisco Bay, just to name a few. In the Maldives, they are building airport after airport to plan for increased tourism. The runways are only a few feet above sea level.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/08/maldives-airport-expanded-800m-china-contract

      Finally, the $30 billion cost to “solve” SLR, is close to the amount of money wasted on “climate change”, every year. IOW, if SLR were really a problem, we waste enough money to solve it.

      Doubly hilarious.

  33. Gordon Robertson says:

    A new theory to replace the greenhouse effect theory. You heard it here first on Roy’s blog. You’ll likely hear it last here on Roy’s blog.

    1)Planet Earth is an electromagnetic energy radiation converter. It converts incoming shorter wavelength EM to heat then heat back to outgoing longer wave EM.

    2)The outgoing intensity of the EM is less than the incoming, meaning EM is stored as heat in the surface, causing a delay in the reduction of heat. That explains the +33C theorized difference between a planet with no oceans and atmosphere and a planet like Earth with both.

    3)When the Earth’s surface absorbs solar EM, it warms laterally and in depth. That means heat penetrates the oceans and solid surface, spreading out the heat internally as well as radiating it as LW IR. That explains why outgoing EM is much less than incoming solar EM. Eventually a stasis is reached in conjunction with point 4).

    4)Heat is transferred from the surface via conduction to all air molecules, where it is carried aloft by convective forces. Some is radiated directly. As Wood indicated in 1909, the atmosphere is a poor radiator of EM therefore it tends to retain the heat it has collected from the surface.

    5)The heated air rises, but due to gravity, the air thins as it rises. At a certain altitude, the less dense air molecules don’t collide as much therefore heat transfer between them reduces. As the air thins further with altitude, the heat disperses naturally through a reduction in density.

    6)At the same time, as higher altitudes are reached, the existing air molecules are cooler and the rising air gives up its heat to the cooler molecules, to reach equilibrium.

    7)Molecules closer to the approaching absolute zero temperatures of space will radiate naturally, releasing the rest of their heat content.

    8)There is no need for so-called greenhouse gases to even be considered.

    • David Appell says:

      “That explains why outgoing EM is much less than incoming solar EM.”

      This isn’t true — at present they only differ by about 1 W/m2.

      https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg

    • David Appell says:

      There is no need for so-called greenhouse gases to even be considered.

      So you’re saying the Earth doesn’t emit heat radiation, and greenhouse gases don’t absorb it.

      In other words, you think the Planck Law is wrong, and you think the infrared spectrum of CO2 has been measured wrong (created out of whole cloth?) by chemists and physicists since 1859.

      Do you have any evidence whatsoever for these claims about basic science?

      Your claims are just your usual bullcrap, with no science in them and no evidence for them.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”So youre saying the Earth doesnt emit heat radiation, and greenhouse gases dont absorb it”.

        I acknowledged that the Earth does emit radiation I don’t think the absorp-tion of that radiated energy by GHGs has any more than an approximate 0.01C effect.

        I have no problem with Planck’s law or S-B. They are only stating the obvious, that surfaces cool as they emit EM. I covered that.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ps. there’s no such thing as heat radiation. There is only electromagnetic radiation with reference to radiation from a surface. The heat is lost at the surface with the reduction of atomic energy required to produce the radiation.

          Heat does not travel through space, it’s EM doing the traveling. EM does not have heat as a property so calling it heat radiation, or thermal radiation, is ingenuous.

          It’s misleading as well. Gives the impression that EM captured by GHGs is heat, leading to the erroneous notion of a heat trapping blanket. Certainly, GHGs can convert EM to heat but that’s not the same as trapping heat.

          The heat was already lost at the surface when it emitted the EM. That’s a heat transfer, not trapping. There is no way to trap or slow down heat without using a physical barrier like glass in a real greenhouse. Insulation can slow down heat transfer by slowing the conduction/convection of air, but there is nothing in the atmosphere can do that.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            ps. theres no such thing as heat radiation.

            So how does the Sun heat the Earth?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie reveals his lack of background in physics.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”So how does the Sun heat the Earth?”

            How does the Superbowl or any TV event appear in your living room on a screen? The audio and video appear within seconds of transmission yet neither the sound waves nor the light from the visual portion leaves the area.

            The audio and video are converted to electromagnetic radiation, exactly the same as heat is converted to EM at the Sun. The EM travels through space exactly as the EM travels from the Sun.

            There is no video or audio energy in a TV or radio signal yet the information shows up on your TV/radio.

            Magic, eh? Maybe to some, but no problem to those of us who understand how it’s done.

            You keep asking after I have explained it to you and you still don’t get it. Heat does not have to travel through space, it is converted to EM at the sending end and converted back to heat at the receiving end.

            Simple, huh???

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, sheesh. There certainly IS energy in the electromagnetic waves that carry video and audio signals.

            If there were no energy, how would that EM create a response in an antenna or receiver?

            You are filled with incorrect ideas about essentially everything. Ive really never seen anything like it.

          • David Appell says:

            Heat is energy. EM radiation is energy. Energy is conserved. There is no logical reason not to call infrared radiation heat, because it heats things. You are wrapping yourself into contortions because you want to deny global Warming and the GHE. But there is no logic or science in what you write.

        • David Appell says:

          I acknowledged that the Earth does emit radiation I dont think the absorp-tion of that radiated energy by GHGs has any more than an approximate 0.01C effect.

          What reasoning leads to that result?

          Is it where you ignore radiative transfer in the atmosphere? What’s the physical basis for that? You are essentially saying that heat-seeking missiles should not work….

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”What reasoning leads to that result?”

            I have posted many messages on that. The atmosphere warms due to the mass of constituent gas masses (Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s law of partial pressure). There is simply not enough mass of CO2 to warm the atmosphere more than a few hundredths of 1C.

            Heat seeking missiles are drawn to the high temperature exhaust on aircraft. What does that have to do with CO2 in the atmosphere? If it had any effect the missiles would explode sitting in their launching ramps.

            I am not in denial of surface radiation or any of the basic radiation theories. Like Wood, 1909, I am claiming only that radiation is over-blown as a warming agent. Wood claimed it is ineffective more than a few feet above the surface due to the inverse square law.

            Sounds reasonable to me.

          • David Appell says:

            What calculation says there isnt enough CO2 in the atmosphere to lead to more than a few hundreds of degree warming? You keep saying this but never show your work. Science isnt about what makes sense to you, its about what you can prove. Thats precisely the value of science.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson wrote:
          Heat does not travel through space, its EM doing the traveling. EM does not have heat as a property

          You’re claiming that EM radiation traveling through space does not carry energy.

          Is there anyone in the entire galaxy who agrees with you???

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Youre claiming that EM radiation traveling through space does not carry energy.

            Is there anyone in the entire galaxy who agrees with you???”

            EM is energy…it’s electromagnetic energy. Heat is thermal energy, both have entirely different properties.

            We have already agreed on this. EM is defined as an electric field with a magnetic field perpendicular to it. It is also defines based on it’s frequency. Heat has neither frequency nor an electric/magnetic field.

            Heat is a property of mass, EM has no mass. That’s why it can travel through a vacuum and heat can’t.

            BTW, a vacuum is defined as space with no mass. Heat cannot travel through a vacuum because……????

            That’s right, if there was mass in the space it would not be a vacuum. Heat needs mass, EM does not. At least, not to propagate through space. EM needs mass to emit it and absorb it.

          • E. Swanson says:

            GR wrote: “Heat is a property of mass, EM has no mass. Thats why it can travel through a vacuum and heat cant.”

            Wrong again. Photons, i.e., EM, are known to exhibit both wave and particle properties. Ever heard of “solar pressure”?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure#Solar_radiation_pressure

          • David Appell says:

            Heat can be in the form of infrared EM. It has the same properties as all other EM radiation, its only difference is wavelength.

          • David Appell says:

            He can be a property of mass; it can also be a property of electromagnetic radiation. Ask the people who designed heat seeking missiles.

          • David Appell says:

            *Heat

    • professorP says:

      Classic arm-chair theorist, – and why a little bit of knowledge can be a bad thing.

  34. Ren, what is your outlook for the next 4 weeks for the

    U.S.A as far as temperature/snowfall go?

  35. OVERALL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES NOW +.168C

    • David Appell says:

      Just like cooling started in 2002, right?

      • Darwin Wyatt says:

        DA,

        Actually hasn’t it been cooling since 1934? Or technically since the MWP? Got a long ways to go to melt the glaciers and regrow the forests here in the coal mine where it’s 7 f today and i just plugged in my dmax. It gets 30 mpg highway btw, better than your 28. Had a relative who grew up in Sweden that had a steam powered car. Hopefully someday with limited yield reactors we can all have a steam electric car. Then you can blame water vapor for natural climate variability. No matter that 97% of habitable Earth history has been warmer than now.

        • David Appell says:

          No, it certainly has not been calling since 1934. Dont know where you got that idea . And we are now warmer than the MWP. Also, the NWP wasnt a global phenomenon.

          • Bart says:

            And, the tree stumps revealed by receding glaciers just grew under the ice.

            Your talking points are annoying.

          • David Appell says:

            The world is not warmer than it was during the MWP. (The MWP wasn’t global.)

            https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/mbh98_plot_black-white.png?w=720

          • Bart says:

            Sure, sure. The tree stumps are a figment of our imaginations.

          • David Appell says:

            How many tree stumps?
            Where are their locations?

          • David Appell says:

            How does an uncovered tree stump imply it was warmer then than today?

          • David Appell says:

            Notice how Bart (always) flakes out when he’s asked questions..

          • Carbon500 says:

            Tree stump reference:”Receding glaciers in western Canada and Alaska are revealing ancient tree stumps of approximate 1,000-year age, so clearly there are natural cycles in glaciers receding and advancing, with past warm periods lasting long enough for forests to be established before the glaciers advance again. The accompanying figure shows some of these stumps as the Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska recedes. This is indisputable evidence that glaciers have receded in the distant past. The stumps at Mendenhall Glacier have been dated from 1,200 to over 2,000 years old, consistent with the previous graph I presented that showed the Medieval Warm Period of about 1,000 years ago, and the Roman Warm Period around 2,000 years ago. (These natural climate fluctuations cannot be due to variations in the orbit of the Earth around the sun because those occur on much longer time scales.) Thus, for Gore to claim that the latest changes in ice sheets and glaciers are human caused is speculative, at best. Since the climate system varies naturally anyway, how are we to know with any level of certainty how much of recent warmth is due to our greenhouse gas emissions? Yet, a central tactic in all of Gores movies, books, and presentations is that it all is. So, once again, we see how Mr. Gore uses events that are likely mostly or entirely natural, and then blames them on human activities.”
            Spencer, Roy. An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy (Kindle Locations 463-470). Kindle Edition.

          • Bart says:

            Your “questions” are flails. Not worth my time, or anyone else’s.

  36. Dave the global warming is never going to materialize the way you think.

    Can’t you see that is the case. It is just more of the same and it’s been that way for years.

  37. Massimo PORZIO says:

    I don’t know what you think about models prediction capability, but
    I think that this is a great point on the lukewarmers side:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02369-4

    Have a great day.

    Massimo

  38. Des says:

    Average number of 90F (32C) or higher days in Sydney:
    1860-79 … 6.4
    1880-99 … 6.2
    1900-19 … 8.1
    1920-39 … 9.6
    1940-50 … 8.1
    1960-79 … 8.8
    1980-99 … 7.8
    2000-18 … 11.6

  39. Des says:

    As the thread is about Sydney, here is how Sydney temperatures have progressed over the 160 years of the record:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bhglYOnLYd0jrPY33NWKJowMqV2KzIwW/view?usp=sharing

    Note that the median temperature for the 2010s sits at roughly the 98th percentile in the first 20 years of the record.

    So much for Salvatore’s “It is just more of the same and its been that way for years”.

      • Des says:

        “Real” climate change …. hahahaha

      • Des says:

        I just checked this against the BOM data for Bourke Post office.
        The 1938-39 temperatures were EXACTLY the same as in that newspaper clipping.

        And the Bourke data goes back to 1871, utterly wrecking the claim that “BOM hides all the pre-1910 data”.

        Check it out for yourself:
        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/stations/
        You will have to search for Bourke then select Bourke Post Office.

        Just goes to show – you believe anything you read without checking as long as the claim supports your belief. That’s the denier way.

        • Des says:

          Now you will provide a nonsensical diversion to hide your gaffe.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          des imagines: “Just goes to show you believe anything you read without checking as long as the claim supports your belief. Thats the denier way.”

          No des, i wrote: “Timely post here”. That’s it. I didn’t say whether it was right, wrong, or if I agreed. So, you are the one making claims that “support your belief”, not me.

          The “Alarmist-way”?

          • Des says:

            Hahahaha – I have to give it to you – you are the master of spin.
            So now you don’t even care whether you AGREE with a denial post – as long as it is a denial post.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Well, I’m not an expert on Australia, or the weather there.

            Although, I have had kangaroo tail soup. And, I know about Mt. Kosciuszko. And, I did see “Crocodile Dundee”.

            Does any of that qualify me as an expert on Australia?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            I just went back to Heller’s site and noticed your comment there.

            Did you see the comment from Ian G.?

          • Des says:

            Just saw it. Apparently he is surprised that the data from Bourke POST OFFICE doesn’t match the date from Bourke AIRPORT. Yet another denier who refuses to read the details.

        • professorP says:

          Des, a nice post.
          It reminds me why presenting facts and logic to deniers is like showing a crucifix to Count Dracula

        • Bart says:

          Was it hotter in 1896 or wasn’t it? It seems your goal is obfuscation.

          • Des says:

            “Was it hotter in 1896?”

            Actually – by leaving out EVERY detail in that question, your goal was clearly to obfuscate.

            Does “it” mean GLOBALLY, or specifically at BOURKE POST OFFICE?
            Does 1896 refer to THE ENTIRE YEAR, or specifically to FIVE WEEKS in December/January?
            And … generally when you employ a comparative, you need to indicate WHAT YOU ARE COMPARING TO.

            I’m sure (read “HOPE”) you understand why those details need to be clarified. Clearly you have never involved yourself with the precise diction of science.

          • Bart says:

            And, around and around we go.

          • Des says:

            I’m sure YOU believe that post has some meaning.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            Was it hotter in 1896 or wasnt it? It seems your goal is obfuscation.

            No.

          • David Appell says:

            This site won’t allow me to link to the evidence for my claim.

            How lovely — you can’t link to science on a blog about science.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”This site wont allow me to link to the evidence for my claim.

            How lovely you cant link to science on a blog about science”.

            It’s WordPress. Find which part of the link offends its mindless censors…it’s usually one word. Then post the link with the word amended so it will post, with instructions on how to fix it.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Was it hotter in 1896 or wasnt it? It seems your goal is obfuscation”.

            I seem to recall it being hotter that year.

  40. CO2isLife says:

    As long as those making the nonsensical claims don’t bare the cost of their ideas, they will continue to make nonsensical claims. The best approach is to make these people live up to their standards.

    Oil Companies Should Stop Supplying New York City

    By cutting off Oil to NYC is will provide the needed motivation for either 1) liberals grow up and start living in the real world or 2) they turn to their friends in the Sierra Club and Rockefeller Foundation to provide a viable alternative. In reality, this war on climate change is nothing more than the Tobacco Settlement 2.0. Liberal organization cant survive on their own, they require looting of the productive sectors of our economy. Liberals depend upon taxes, donations, contributions, fundraising and lawsuits. They reject the Free Market, so they dont strive to discover commercially viable solutions to todays problems, they rely on public campaigns to support looting those industries that actually produce something.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/oil-companies-should-stop-supplying-new-york-city/

    • lewis says:

      CO2. I laughed, but not out loud. You’re too funny. Really, expecting alarmists to live the lives they preach. Ain’t happening. They enjoy the perks of hydrocarbon living even when they have no knowledge of what it supplies.
      Let them stop buy fresh produce in the winter and etc.

      They’re a joke, except in their preaching. Then they use the term denier as if they’d said something profound while complaining that the power company rates are too high.

      • David Appell says:

        Lewis, get off your high horse.

        It is not possible to live a safe, (even lower) middle class life in the US, or anywhere, without emitting CO2. The existing infrastructure simply doesn’t allow it.

        The infrastructure is what must change — living in tents is not the answer. This change requires strong government intervention.

        It’s possible to generate the energy we need without emitting carbon. But this requires change, and most of all it requires the end of selfishness, like yours.

        • lewis says:

          David,
          Your imagination runs free.
          In short, no, it’s not. You can’t do it in today’s industrialized world.

          Take, for instance, your constant use of the internet. Hydrocarbons are expended in all parts of such usage. From the power to crank the links, to the power used to produce the computers, to the power used to ship the units to your place of consumption. The towels you use, the dishes you eat on all require the use of hydrocarbons to produce.

          My high horse, neigh, only thing here is your denial of your continued contribution to that you decry.

    • PhilJ says:

      The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money – M. Thatcher

  41. Entropic man says:

    Here,s my working.

    From a website on pumps I got the best efficiency (BEP) performance of a commercial pump of $0.05 per 1000 gallons lifted 130ft. Look at the red mark on the graph Figure 1.

    https://www.pumpsandsystems.com/centrifugal-pumps/february-2014-cost-pumping-power-cost-efficiency

    Converting to metric 1000 gallons is 4540 litres. Call it 5000 lites to make the maths easy.

    That is 5 cubic metres pumped for 5 cents, 1 cent per cubic metre.

    A cubic kilometre is 1 billion cubic metres.

    To pump 1 cubic kilometre costs 1 billion/100 = $10 million.

    I already know from other calculations that 1mm of sea level rise is a volume increase of 360 cubic kilometres. A 3.3mm rise is 360*3.3 = 1188cubic kilometres. For my back of envelope calculation I rounded it to 1200 cubic kilometres.

    Pumping 1200 cubic kilometres would cost 1200* 10 million = $12 billion.

    Yes, I made a rounding error. 😞

    • Entropic man says:

      Mind you, that $12billion is just the cost of the electricity.

      I haven’t mentioned the capital cost of the pumps, the pipelines and the power stations. Nor have I mentioned the logistics of running a major project like this in Antarctica.

  42. argus says:

    Hawking warning humanity of a dire end is noble in a similar way the Iraq War was noble. Hawking may explain his warning more thoroughly in the full article, however, probably due to lack of introspection and objectivity, the Alarmist crowd continually hemorraghes an air of fear and agenda rather than a focus on ingenuity and truth.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/science/stephen-hawking-ill-pay-to-send-climate-change-deniers-to-venus/ar-AAuyQ62?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

    Supposedly runaway greenhouse isn’t possible on Earth. The Alarmist would add “yet”.

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2002/02_60AR.html

    Denying a greenhouse effect is stupid and unhelpful.

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

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      argus: “Denying a greenhouse effect is stupid and unhelpful.”

      argus, you have to be careful to always define “greenhouse effect”. It means different things to different people.

      There is an atmosphere. There is back-radiation. There is a lapse rate. There is weather.

      All of these are real–reality.

      The IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE nonsense is bogus. It claims that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will “heat the planet”. It attempts to make CO2 a thermodynamic heat source, creating heat energy out of thin air. It violates the laws of thermodynamics.

      So, denying reality is indeed “stupid and unhelpful”. But denying the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE is valid science.

      • professorP says:

        Gee, and I thought GR was stupid!
        You should pull up an armchair and join him at the retirement home for electrical engineers.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          profp…”Gee, and I thought GR was stupid!”

          Ironic!!! People who are smarter than you in science appear stupid to you. Must get that from being on your head all the time in Australia.

          • Des says:

            If only you, like most unschooled individuals, actually understood the concept of irony.

          • David Appell says:

            Re: irony.

            See: Alanis Morissette, who got it all wrong and thereby educated a lot of people.

            PS: Well, I guess it was her song writer who got it wrong. Not sure if that was her.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            des…”If only you, like most unschooled individuals, actually understood the concept of irony”.

            I use a soldering irony all the time. In a moment of absent-minded stupidity, I was holding the handle in my right hand and need to free my right hand, so I grabbed the hot end with my left hand.

            Won’t do that again. It reminded me that heat is real.

            When I worked at one company way back we used those old fashioned soldering irons with the broad tips. Handy for dropping a piece of hash onto. You might say the entire crew was happy in their work.

            Is that irony?

          • David Appell says:

            No, that isn’t irony.

            irony: (a) : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning.

            Example: “Wow, doesn’t Gordon Robertson know a lot about science!”

      • Des says:

        “It means different things to different people.”
        By “different people”, of course you mean scientists and deniers (ALMOST a dichotomy). It means only only thing to a scientist.

        When you put on a sweater and you feel warmer, I guess your explanation is that the sweater creates energy.

        Or when you have water entering a bath from the tap at the same rate as it leaves through the plughole, and then you stick your big toe in the plughole and notice the water rising, I guess your infantile explanation is that your big toe is creating water.

        Or when you smoke all your life and then quit and you notice your bank balance rising for the first time, I suppose you would claim that cigarettes create money in your bank account.

        If you have the ability to think of a better explanation for those three scenarios, then you have the ability to properly explain the greenhouse effect. Let me give you a clue:
        10 – 10 = 0
        10 – 9 = 1
        10 – 8 = 2
        10 – 7 = 3
        See the pattern?

    • Bart says:

      Pace our friend G, few deny the greenhouse effect. The ability of CO2 to impede outward LWR is not the issue. The main issue is whether increasing CO2 concentration produces a significant change in temperature at the surface when all heat exchange mechanisms are taken into account, and when all feedbacks are taken into account.

      Other issues include:

      1) Is it bad? Warmth is, in fact, better for life than cold.

      2) Can we power modern industrial society with alternative sources that do not produce CO2 as a byproduct? Yes, but only if we go full nuclear. Wind and solar will never be more than bit players, and are horrible for the environment besides. That cure is worse than the disease, and it is not even a cure.

      There are still others, but these are good to go on. The whole contretemps is a scientific and public policy fiasco.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Bart states: “..few deny the greenhouse effect.”

        Then Bart contradicts himself: “The main issue is whether increasing CO2 concentration produces a significant change in temperature at the surface when all heat exchange mechanisms are taken into account, and when all feedbacks are taken into account.”

        Bart, the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE states emphatically that CO2 DOES produce significant temperature change.

        So, you can’t casually say “few deny” it, and then question its existence. Unless you are trying to straddle both positions at the same time.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bart…”Pace our friend G, few deny the greenhouse effect”.

        Few can explain what it means. Joe Postma pointed out the obvious, that we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do. There is nothing in the atmosphere can replicate a real greenhouse, so how does the GHE warming work?

        Furthermore, if you had a real greenhouse with 100 panes of glass and you removed 99+ panes, how much would it warm? That’s exactly the situation in the atmosphere where GHGs account for about 0.3% of the overall atmosphere. When your so-called blanket features a fraction of a percent of the atmosphere how does it warm or trap anything?

        It’s a sad theory going back to Arrhenius in the 19th century whereupon he scribbled out the details on his lunch bag.

        • David Appell says:

          So you think the greenhouse effect is wrong, and you dont even know how it works. Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, it doesn’t “work”.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”So you think the greenhouse effect is wrong, and you dont even know how it works”.

            Me and anyone who understands physics.

          • Des says:

            “Me and anyone who understands physics.”

            I’m glad you finally gained the insight to create a dichotomy out of those two cases.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Me and anyone who understands physics.

            Not nearly good enough, GR.

            Show your work. Show your science.

            That’s how this works.

            I bet you will fail to reply to this question. You always do.

          • Joe Buchta says:

            David
            the atmosphere is not a greenhouse, it has convection; warmer air is rising and the heat gets radiated into space. In a greenhose hot air is trapped. Dont you agree?

        • Bart says:

          It’s a simple hypothesis of what should happen, all things being equal. However, all things are never equal, because every action spawns a reaction.

        • David Appell says:

          Have you or Postms. considered the scales involved? Doesnt look like it.

          What is your calculation for the warming of atmospheric CO2 in a room the height of a greenhouse, say, 5 meters?

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          bartPace our friend G, few deny the greenhouse effect”.
          “Few can explain what it means.”

          Liar.

          GHE effect = planet’s actual surface temperature – planet’s brightness temperature.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bart…”The main issue is whether increasing CO2 concentration produces a significant change in temperature at the surface when all heat exchange mechanisms are taken into account, and when all feedbacks are taken into account”.

        1)You have a few things going against you. For one, there is no feedback from CO2, there is back-radiation. Back-radiation is not absorbed by the surface. See 2).

        2)CO2 in the atmosphere is at a temperature cooler than the surface. The 2nd law states that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.

        Never heard of thermodynamics?

        • Des says:

          So now you’re arguing against your fellow denier.
          Your problem … radiation is NOT heat.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon wrote:
          The 2nd law states that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.

          Wrong.

          • Joe Buchta says:

            David,
            Gordon wrote: the 2nd law states that heat cannot be transfered from a cooler body to a warmer body. You answerd : wrong
            You can transfer heat from a cooler body to a warmer one but you need energie like a reverse cycle air conditioner. Your cup of coffee always gets colder but never as cold as its surrounding.

          • Svante says:

            Try two cups on top of this:
            https://tinyurl.com/ybe2ttg2

            Put one cup in the freezer and compare temperatures after ten minutes.

            Will the two cups have the same temperature?

          • David Appell says:

            Joe, that was my point. And the energy source for the atmosphere? The Sun, which continually pours energy into the Earth’s climate system.


            “The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system. It exchanges heat with a high-temperature bath by absorbing radiation from the photosphere of its star and with a cold bath by emitting IR into the essentially zero-temperature reservoir of space. It therefore reaches equilibrium at a temperature intermediate between the two.”

            Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
            http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

        • Bart says:

          Gordon:

          1) It can’t get out. That is why you have a divot in the outgoing spectrum:

          https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/gw-petty-6-6.jpg

          Total outgoing energy is the area under that curve. All things being equal, when the divot is taken out, the entire curve needs to rise to reestablish the same area going out, and a rise in the curve is the result of a rise in temperature.

          2) You are talking net transfer between sources and sinks. The atmosphere is not the source. The Sun is the source, and it is very hot. The atmospheric makeup modulates the flow, and plays a hand in determining the steady state temperature distribution.

          All things being equal, the increase in atmospheric impedance would have to result in more energy being retained, and a rise in surface temperature, in order for incoming radiation to balance outgoing radiation.

          Again, though, all things are not equal. Radiation is not the only mechanism of heat transfer between the surface and the atmosphere, and convective transfer is a negative feedback that tends to resist a change in temperature. And, there are other negative feedbacks that tend to resist change, as well.

          Furthermore, it is all nonlinear – sensitivity depends upon the current state of the system, its temperature distribution, its convective overturning, and other variables. There is no guarantee that, in the present state, the sensitivity to increasing CO2 concentration is significant or even positive. The data appear to indicate its aggregate impact on surface temperatures in the present climate state is essentially nil.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart claimed:
            There is no guarantee that, in the present state, the sensitivity to increasing CO2 concentration is significant or even positive.

            There certainly is, with the median ECS estimate around 3 C. I don’t know of a single study that gives ECS < 0. Can you point to just one?

          • Bart says:

            You are confusing “studies” with fact.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “You are confusing studies with fact.”

            What “fact” is that?

          • David Appell says:

            PS: You failed to point to a study or observation or “fact”
            with ECS < 0.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      argus…”Hawking may explain his warning more thoroughly in the full article…”

      I am not about to heed the advice of someone like Hawking after the nonsense he has peddled about black holes, Big Bangs, and space-time. With beliefs like his it surprises me not that he believes the pseudo-science of AGW.

      • David Appell says:

        Hawking Is world renowned for his work on black holes. I suspect you dont like it simply because its way above you.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Hawking Is world renowned for his work on black holes. I suspect you dont like it simply because its way above you”.

          No…it’s because no one has ever seen one and the theory of how they are formed fails to explain the reality. Hawking is probably a nice guy but he’s a mathematician. Enough said.

          He’s also an expert on the Big Bang. That’s a theory where the entire universe disappears then re-appears with a…you guessed it…big bang.

          It happens every day, don’t ya know? And people get criticized for believing in God. God makes far more sense than either a Big Bang or a black hole.

          • Des says:

            In the same way that it makes more sense to a child that their presents were delivered by Santa or their tooth was taken by the tooth fairy. Anything is easily explainable if you attribute it to magic.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, here again you judge a science you clearly do not understand.

            There is a great deal of evidence for black holes, Gordon, including the recent observations of gravitational waves:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence

            …the theory of how they are formed fails to explain the reality.

            What is this supposed to mean?

            Hawking is probably a nice guy but hes a mathematician.

            Wrong, his degrees are in physics.

            Hes also an expert on the Big Bang. Thats a theory where the entire universe disappears then re-appears with ayou guessed itbig bang.

            Wrong — that’s just a conjecture, with no evidence to it. But the Big Bang is accepted by every scientist I’ve ever read — trace back the universe’s Hubble expansion. Go learn the evidence.

          • lewis says:

            What I find curious about big bang theories is they ignore certain things like time, more exactly, forever.

            If, and I believe it does, the universe goes on forever, their are other big bangs we’ll never be aware of. Additionally, what was the prelude to the bang, forever.

            Man, usually, not always, tends to put things in a perspective he is physically familiar with – comfortable with – which may have nothing to do with reality.

            The same becomes true of AGW – some people have certain beliefs to which they ascribe physical actions – because it fits their prior beliefs.

            Me, I was once a believer in CO2 AGW. No longer. Read too much history of the world.

          • David Appell says:

            lewis says:
            What I find curious about big bang theories is they ignore certain things like time, more exactly, forever.

            Why do you think that?

            (It’s wrong.)

          • David Appell says:

            lewis says:
            The same becomes true of AGW some people have certain beliefs to which they ascribe physical actions because it fits their prior beliefs.

            The Earth emits infrared radiation. Atmospheric CO2, CH4, N2O et al absorb it, and then reradiate it in all directions, some of which is downward.

            That’s all AGW is. Basic physics. It’s not a matter of “belief,” it’s a matter of basic science and the evidence.

          • Bart says:

            “Thats all AGW is. Basic physics. Its not a matter of belief, its a matter of basic science and the evidence.”

            Way too basic. Surface temperatures are determined by more than just radiative transfers. And, there is no unambiguous evidence of this simplistic scenario playing out in the here and now.

          • David Appell says:

            Surface temperatures are determined by more than just radiative transfers.

            I never said they weren’t.

            And, there is no unambiguous evidence of this simplistic scenario playing out in the here and now.

            Wrong. Just as a start:

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

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

          • David Appell says:

            And, there is no unambiguous evidence of this simplistic scenario playing out in the here and now.

            See “stratospheric cooling” (above and beyond ozone loss; such as the research of Piers Forster).

          • David Appell says:

            PPS: You have still failed to point to a study or observation or “fact” with ECS < 0.

          • Bart says:

            Sorry. These are not unambiguous, nor convincing.

          • David Appell says:

            What else, besides ozone loss, causes stratospheric cooling while causing surface warming?

            PPPS: You have still failed to point to a study or observation or fact with ECS < 0.

          • David Appell says:

            I wrote:
            “PPPS: You have still failed to point to a study or observation or fact with ECS < 0"

            You flaked out….

            Good god, you deniers are so easy……..

      • Des says:

        “I’m a lowly electrical parts technician who can only follow set routines and have never come up with an original idea in my life. To prop up my self-image I will pretend I know more about science than scientific geniuses, despite the fact relativity has been shown to work exactly as predicted, and despite the fact that GPS would not work without relativistic adjustments. I really should try to do this in a way that disguises how dumb I am … but I can’t be bothered to make the effort – dumb denier it is.”

        GR

        [“Wow … I just read again what I wrote. My English really has improved!”]

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          des…”Im a lowly electrical parts technician who can only follow set routines…”

          I guess you got this bit about impersonating people at skepticalscience. They specialize in that over there. Alarmists tend to have such mentalities.

          Don’t you have something better to do, like shear some sheep? You probably have a fetish about them and can’t keep your mind off other perverted pursuits. I’ve heard some of you Aussies are right into stuff like that.

          What’s that saying about Australia, where men are men and sheep are scared.

          • Des says:

            Nup – that’s New Zealand. I doubt I’ve seen a sheep for 20 years.
            I’m glad you agree that was impersonation and not false representation.

  43. ren says:

    North America will remember this storm.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00955/xaxw238o7hvl.png

  44. ren says:

    The temperature in central Canada reaches -40 C.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/ljzc2wsrk6p0.png

  45. David Appell says:

    “Frigid weather like the two-week cold spell that began around Christmas is 15 times rarer than it was a century ago, according to a team of international scientists who does real-time analyses to see if extreme weather events are natural or more likely to happen because of climate change.”

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-cold-snap-freak-nature-quick-analysis-finds-140502572.html

  46. Sam says:

    It’s funny that people still think climate change isn’t real.

  47. ren says:

    Currently heavy snowfall on the Erie and Ontario lakes.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/z054zqupf4ym.png

  48. Gordon Robertson says:

    svante…”No, the sun is the power supply. The output parameter is the temperature. The feedback function is the albedo, i.e. the amount of abs-orbed solar radiation, which affects the temperature. Abs-orbing more solar energy is like drawing more energy from your power supply”.

    Sorry for delay in reply. I moved the reply down here because it was getting to hard to find it above.

    I addressed this in my reply to e. swanson. The power supply, as you call it, supplies the energy to cause the warming, so we are agreed on that. Unlike the power supply in my amplifier example, this power source varies due to a change in distance from the source and a change in the angle of incidence due to movement of the planet in its orbit.

    Those changes cause the snow and ice. Whereas the snow and ice will reflect a certain amount of solar energy what does that matter when significant solar energy is absent much of the year? The solar energy will melt the ice in a good portion of the Arctic as spring and summer approach.

    How can the albedo be a feedback function? It is related to the snow and ice, not the Sun. To be a feedback mechanism it would have to control solar energy INPUT directly.

    Albedo is a minor player in the Arctic. The major player is the lack of significant solar energy most of the year.

    • David Appell says:

      GR wrote:
      “Those changes cause the snow and ice. Whereas the snow and ice will reflect a certain amount of solar energy what does that matter when significant solar energy is absent much of the year? The solar energy will melt the ice in a good portion of the Arctic as spring and summer approach.”

      Because the sea ice is heated from below by a warmer Arctic ocean surface.

    • David Appell says:

      Also, the ice is heated from above by more downwelling IR.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Also, the ice is heated from above by more downwelling IR”.

        Sorry….2nd law….no heat transfer. Direct radiation, yes, but not downdwelling IR.

        • David Appell says:

          Wrong.

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

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

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon, when are you going to stop lying about the Second Law?

          “The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system. It exchanges heat with a high-temperature bath by absorbing radiation from the photosphere of its star and with a cold bath by emitting IR into the essentially zero-temperature reservoir of space. It therefore reaches equilibrium at a temperature intermediate between the two.”

          Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
          http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system”.

            I can’t express my real feelings about Pierrehumbert on this blog. This explanation is typical of his and reflect his complete lack of understanding of the 2nd law and thermodynamics in general.

            When he wrote the 2nd law, Clausius said nothing about open or closed loop system. He said only something to the effect that heat cannot of itself be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. The atmosphere represents a colder body and the surface a warmer body. In fact, the surface supplied the heat for the atmosphere according to AGW making the concept of the atmosphere warming the surface even more ludicrous.

            Legends in their own mind like Pierrehumbert have changed the meaning of the 2nd law to suit their pseudo-science.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, you haven’t earned an opinion about Pierrehumbert.

            So just shut your mouth about him.

          • David Appell says:

            GR says:
            “He said only something to the effect that heat cannot of itself be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.”

            He wrote no such thing.

            God, you’re stupid.

          • David Appell says:

            GR says:
            “In fact, the surface supplied the heat for the atmosphere according to AGW making the concept of the atmosphere warming the surface even more ludicrous.”

            Does the surface radiate?

            How much, on average?

            Don’t wimp out and ignore the question.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “When he wrote the 2nd law, Clausius said nothing about open or closed loop system.”

            Liar.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            GR: “He [Clausius] said only something to the effect that heat cannot of itself be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.”

            davie: “He wrote no such thing. God, youre stupid.”

            Clausius: “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

            I guess we know who the stupid one is.

            As if there were any doubt. ..

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      svante…”You could argue that ice limits solar energy by reflecting it away. Heureka!”

      I would not be able to use the word albedo if I did not get that. I just don’t think the effect is that important.

      *******

      “Yes, the runaway effect is prevented by increased radiation to space, T^4. That is something else, a negative feedback. There are many other feedbacks, but lets do one at a time”.

      **********

      I don’t call those feedbacks. I think climate science is using the word feedback incorrectly, leading to a misunderstanding.

      *********

      “Heureka! Yes, the ice albedo feedback works in reverse. It is still a positive feedback because it amplifies the initial change. A negative feedback counteracts the initial perturbation”.

      “You are confusing a runaway feedback with a positive feedback. There are different feedbacks, some negative and some positive. A positive feedback can be limited (AB 1.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson wrote:
        I dont call those feedbacks. I think climate science is using the word feedback incorrectly, leading to a misunderstanding.

        It’s very very clear what scientists mean by climate feedbacks.

        Because you can’t shove that into your limited understanding based on circuits — hint: the Earth’s climate isn’t a circuit — you can’t begin to grasp this.

        Doesn’t matter — the feedbacks exist anyway. Such as:

        “Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice,” Kristina Pistone, Ian Eisenman, and V. Ramanathan, PNAS v111 n9 pp 3322-3326 (2014).
        http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3322.abstract

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…read through the abstract, absolute pseudo-science. How did that trash ever get past peer review?

          They are talking about the Arctic essentially becoming ice free which is nothing more than climate alarmist trash. Until the Earth’s orbit changes dramatically, or the tilt, that won’t happen.

          The alarmists in such papers are desperate to peddle such trash to secure their tenure. Or to get funding.

          No amount of CO2 will ever change the overall conditions in the Arctic.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “They are talking about the Arctic essentially becoming ice free which is nothing more than climate alarmist trash.”

            Who? Who are these people? Just a couple of newspaper quotes?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Its very very clear what scientists mean by climate feedbacks”.

          Please explain it then. I am not trying to bait you, I am seriously interested in your explanation. I want to understand what climate scientists mean by feedbacks. From what I have read they don’t meet the definitions in physics.

        • David Appell says:

          Feedback: a climate change that causes more (or less) climate change.

          Example: sea ice melting from increased atmospheric CO2 decreases the Earth’s albedo and so causes the Earth to absorb even more energy, leading to more warming.

          • ren says:

            The plots show maps with sea ice thickness, and seasonal cycles of the calculated total arctic sea ice volume. The mean sea ice volume and standard deviation for the period 2004-2013 are shown with gray. The figures are based on calculations using DMI’s operational ocean and sea ice model HYCOM-CICE.
            http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180111.png

          • David Appell says:

            Off topic, ren. What is wrong with you? Take you comment pollution elsewhere.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Off topic, ren”.

            ren…The plots show maps with sea ice thickness

            What’s off topic about a post about sea ice?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Example: sea ice melting from increased atmospheric CO2 decreases the Earths albedo and so causes the Earth to absorb even more energy, leading to more warming”.

            First you have to prove that CO2 can cause ice to melt. It’s a hypothesis not a fact.

            Your definition of a change in climate causing a change in climate is far too loose and vague. You need to show how some signal in the atmosphere can lead to an amplification of heat, but first you need to show the amplifying agent.

            As it stands, AGW claims back-radiation from CO2 can cause the amplification itself, which is not possible. At least, that’s what Gavin Schmidt seems to think. Engineer Jeffrey Glassman set him straight on the error in his definition of positive feedback.

          • ren says:

            David Appell
            Can you do more than watch nature?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “First you have to prove that CO2 can cause ice to melt. Its a hypothesis not a fact.”

            More CO2 = more downwelling IR = more melting.

            Don’t pretend to be an idiot.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Your definition of a change in climate causing a change in climate is far too loose and vague. You need to show how some signal in the atmosphere can lead to an amplification of heat, but first you need to show the amplifying agent.”

            I did exactly that.

            Your understanding is so poor you don’t even recognize it.

          • David Appell says:

            GR says:
            “As it stands, AGW claims back-radiation from CO2 can cause the amplification itself, which is not possible.”

            Why not?

          • David Appell says:

            ren, butt out and leave the thread to people who understand it. Your random comments are utterly useless and just confuse things. Why can’t you have respect for others?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”More CO2 = more downwelling IR = more melting.

            Dont pretend to be an idiot”.

            I have given you compelling evidence from the likes of Neils Bohr and Clausius that it can’t warm the surface or melt ice. If you think they are idiots, that’s up to you.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”GR says:
            As it stands, AGW claims back-radiation from CO2 can cause the amplification itself, which is not possible.

            Why not?”

            Because amplification requires an amplifier. Would you expect an electronic amplifier to amplify a signal without transistors?

            Luminaries like Gavin Schmidt and your favourite, Pierrehumbert [/sarc off] are preaching heretical nonsense that suggests CO2 back-radiation is an amplifier in itself. I don’t think either of them understand what an amplifier is.

            Heat is the energy of atoms in motion. The only way you can amplify the heat is to increase the number of atoms or add heat externally. CO2 can do neither. Even if it could warm the surface, it can’t even make up for the losses incurred between it and the surface when the IR came from the surface to warm the CO2.

            Did you not study losses and why they prevent what you are describing…perpetual motion?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ren…”The plots show maps with sea ice thickness, and seasonal cycles of the calculated total arctic sea ice volume”.

            I notice the ice thickness at the North Pole is back to 3 metres (about 10 feet). Pretty fantastic for ice that is supposed to be disappearing.

            Of course, we are talking about ice in the Arctic and D. Appell thinks that’s off topic.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Because amplification requires an amplifier. Would you expect an electronic amplifier to amplify a signal without transistors?”

            Climate isn’t an electronic circuit Gordon.

            I realize those are the extent of your knowledge, but they are a very imperfect analogy, and your reasoning here is way off base.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “I notice the ice thickness at the North Pole is back to 3 metres (about 10 feet). Pretty fantastic for ice that is supposed to be disappearing.”

            There’s been a 50% reduction in Arctic sea ice over the satellite era (since 1979):

            http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Heat is the energy of atoms in motion.”

            Wrong. And stupid.

            Heat is also electromagnetic radiation. That’s how the Sun warms you, dummy. Infrared radiation is how a fire warms you.

            You don’t get to lie about this anymore.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, how is it lying doesn’t faze you one bit?

            I’ve never seen anything like it, except now in Trump. You both lie willingly and openly and have no shame whatsoever about doing so.

            Honestly, how did you come to this point?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie must be off his meds, again.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Climate isnt an electronic circuit Gordon”.

            An electronic amplifier with feedback perfectly describes positive feedback when the FB signal is in phase with the input signal. That also fits the formula for PF:

            G = A/(1 – AB)

            There is nothing in the atmosphere fits that equation or the physics definition of PF. Ergo, PF does not exist in the atmosphere.

            Climate scientists, especially alarmists, stole the word ‘forcing’ from forcing functions in differential equation theory. They are mostly climate modelers and that’s all they know, math.

            They also stole the word ‘feedback’ without having a clue what it means. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS proved that with his obfuscated definition of positive feedback. Engineer, Jeffrey Glassman, had to set him straight.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Heat is also electromagnetic radiation. Thats how the Sun warms you, dummy. Infrared radiation is how a fire warms you”.

            You have already agreed that EM is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field and that it is broken into different frequencies. Heat has no frequency, nor Em fields, and it cannot pass through a vacuum.

            Does that not give you a clue? A vacuum is defined as a space devoid of matter. Mo matter, no heat.

            I don’t think you have studied even basic physics.

            Clausius defined heat as the energy of atoms in motion. Heat cannot exist without atoms. Neils Bohr defined atoms as electrons orbiting a nucleus of neutrons and protons. He revealed that electrons emit EM as they drop to a lower energy level. The energy levels are related to the relative heat levels of the atom.

            Of course, to you, two of the most eminent scientists in history are liars. Keep it up, David, conversing with alarmists like you is mighty encouraging when I see your misunderstanding of basic science.

          • Svante says:

            Ren’s graph has 5000 km^3 in the summer, and David’s graph shows a loss of 12000 km^3 since 1980. Not much left now.

          • David Appell says:

            Arctic sea ice is melting at a rate of -3,100 km3/decade:

            http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

            For summers, that gives only about 1.5 decades until it’s gone.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “You have already agreed that EM is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field and that it is broken into different frequencies. Heat has no frequency, nor Em fields, and it cannot pass through a vacuum.”

            Another lie, and not a very smart one.

            Heat can be transferred in three ways: via conduction, convection, or radiation.

            The latter is EM radiation, with energy, with a frequence, which, like all other EM radiation, can pass through a vacuum.

            How do you think heat gets from the Sun to the Earth, with a vacuum in between?

          • Bart says:

            “For summers, that gives only about 1.5 decades until its gone.”

            It was already supposed to be gone, based on linear extrapolation two decades ago. Taking a snapshot of time and linearly extrapolating the trend forward is one of the most basic errors in reasoning they teach freshmen engineering students from the very first day. You are a primitive in a grass skirt raving about the anger of the volcano god.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “Clausius defined heat as the energy of atoms in motion.”

            Clausius was ignorant of radiational energy transfer. So are you. He had an excuse. You do not.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “An electronic amplifier with feedback perfectly describes positive feedback when the FB signal is in phase with the input signal.”

            What does “in phase” mean with respect to climate and its feedbacks?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Climate scientists, especially alarmists, stole the word forcing from forcing functions in differential equation theory. They are mostly climate modelers and thats all they know, math

            The word is clearly defined in climate science. Do you know that definition?

            What word should they have used, in your expert opinion?

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            It was already supposed to be gone, based on linear extrapolation two decades ago.

            Prove it.

            (You never even try to prove anything; you’re just good for spouting off.)

            In any case, you’re wrong.

            In 1997, the linear trend in Sept Arctic sea ice volume pointed to a value of zero by 2089.

            Today it points to 2032.

            Download the PIOMAS data and calculate for yourself. Let me know what you get.

          • Svante says:

            David says:
            “Today it points to 2032.”

            Ren’s graph shows the same thing, although it has a very short history. Can the north pole hold out longer? I shouldn’t think so, when it becomes smaller it should lose proportionally more to its surroundings.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            “Neils Bohr defined atoms as electrons orbiting a nucleus of neutrons and protons. He revealed that electrons emit EM as they drop to a lower energy level. The energy levels are related to the relative heat levels of the atom.”

            Atoms don’t have “heat levels.”

            Bohr’s model was wrong.

            One big reason is that an electron traveling in a circular orbit is accelerating, and accelerating charges emit radiation. There is no such radiation observed from atoms.

            One can estimate the lifetime of the hydrogen ground state if such radiation were to happen. It comes to around 0.1 nanoseconds. That’s clearly nonsense.

          • David Appell says:

            Clausius’s definition of heat was incomplete — important developments came after him.

            Especially after Maxwell found his wave equation from his four “Maxwell equations,” it was known that EM radiation exists and that it carries energy.

            Just like Clausius’s atoms carry kinetic energy, which you consider heat, EM waves carry energy. Photons also carry kinetic energy, E=hf. It’s just as much heat as is atoms in motion. Why you refuse to accept this basic physics is beyond me.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            Heat has no frequency, nor Em fields, and it cannot pass through a vacuum.

            Then how does heat get from the Sun to the Earth.

            Mo matter, no heat.

            Wrong wrong wrong. Why is the surface of Mercury so hot if radiation isn’t carrying heat there?

    • Svante says:

      Gordon,

      Unlike the power supply in my amplifier example, this power source varies due to a change in distance from the source and a change in the angle of incidence due to movement of the planet in its orbit.

      You mean Milankovitch cycles. They operate on a time scale of thousands of years.
      https://tinyurl.com/y7yd26ax

      what does that matter when significant solar energy is absent much of the year?

      Winter darkness is of course offset by summer light. Besides, albedo reflects atmospheric IR space ward.

      How can the albedo be a feedback function? It is related to the snow and ice, not the Sun. To be a feedback mechanism it would have to control solar energy INPUT directly.

      We are talking about temperature feedback, not a solar radiation feedback. Only absorbed radiation affects temperature.

      Albedo is a minor player in the Arctic. The major player is the lack of significant solar energy most of the year.

      You forget the midnight sun.

  49. ren says:

    In a dozen or so hours the entire east of the US will freeze.

  50. Harry Cummings says:

    Davids going completely bonkers

    Keep up the work ren

    Regards
    Harry

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      harry…”Davids going completely bonkers…Keep up the work ren”

      I laugh each time ren makes another post right behind David’s whines.

      His whines remind me of Hillary Clinton glaring at John Christy of UAH as he tried to submit valid temperature data to a US senate committee that contradicted her views. That’s partly why I’m glad Trump won, sticking it to her for her rudeness, arrogance, and stupidity.

  51. David Appell says:

    At least ultra-denier Mike Flynn gave up and left.

    • Svante says:

      Mike Flynn has other things on his mind since he pleaded guilty in the Russia investigation.

      • Svante says:

        On a more serious note:

        Russia “used social media to sow social divisions in America by stoking disagreement and division around a plethora of controversial topics such as immigration and Islamophobia”

        The broader Russian strategy is pretty clearly about destabilizing the country by focusing on and amplifying existing divisions, rather than supporting any one political party.
        https://tinyurl.com/yapm95tb

        “propaganda targeted the alt-right movement, the right wing, and fascist groups.”

        https://tinyurl.com/y9d5rbx6

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Svante,

          Will destabilisation result in a change in voting patterns? Instead of the country being roughly 50-50, might it change to being roughly 60-60, or even 80-80 perhaps?

          All joking aside, have you the faintest idea of what you are talking about, or are you just parroting nonsense from someone else as clueless as you appear to be?

          At least US interference in foreign countries has been based on supporting one dictator or another, under various guises. Do you believe that Russia is being even handed, and simultaneously supporting both major parties in the US, by providing negative information about both to each of them?

          Seems a bit odd to me, I must admit.

          Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            I’m just guessing Russia supported Trump because Putin thinks it’s easier make deals with businessmen (like Berlusconi).

            The west says Russia lacks in democracy, so they say the same about the west.

            Divide and conquer (neighboring territories).

            These Russian ads where pointed out by members of the House intelligence panel:
            https://tinyurl.com/ybuflf56

            Climate change is another of those divisive issues…

          • Bart says:

            You’re guessing… Mmmmm…

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          svante…”Russia used social media to sow social divisions in America by stoking disagreement and division around a plethora of controversial topics such as immigration and Islamophobia”

          If you believe that bs I can see why you believe the AGW bs.

          You likely believe Bill Browder was just defending his friend Serge Magnitsky in Russia. It would not interest you that Browder was involved in serious income tax evasion and that Magnitsky, his accountant, was into it up to his ying yang by finding ways for Browder to evade taxes.

    • tonyM says:

      Ren, this is the middle of summer. These highs are not warm for Oz and doubt if it is warm even for NZ.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”Very warm in New Zealand”.

      Not that hot, ren. This time of year the north island is usually up around 30C.

      When I look at all the moderate temps in NZ and Aussie, it makes me think there is collusion to misrepresent the real temperatures in this world. I really think NOAA has meddled with the satellite temps before handing them over to UAH.

      • David Appell says:

        I really think NOAA has meddled with the satellite temps before handing them over to UAH.

        Yet you have no evidence whatsoever.

        Claiming a conspiracy is much easier than changing your views in light of the evidence. That’s why people like you do it, to avoid the real world.

  52. ren says:

    Temperatures in subtropical Bangladesh hit a 70-year-low on Monday as authorities handed out tens of thousands of blankets to help the poor fight a record cold spell, officials said.
    The mercury plunged to a frigid 2.6 degrees Celsius in some parts of Bangladesh, well below average in the low-lying riverine nation whose 160 million citizens are used to milder winters.
    “It is the lowest temperature since authorities started keeping records in 1948,” Shamsuddin Ahmed, head of the Bangladesh Meteorological Department, told AFP. The previous low of 2.8 degrees was recorded in 1968, he added.
    http://www.gulf-times.com/story/577387/Bangladesh-shivers-in-record-low-temperatures

  53. tonyM says:

    This fella Appell bleets and howls asserting I am using gratuitous insults and doesn’t want to talk any more.

    “Do you understand the meaning of the word gratuitous? It is rather an inappropriate use given my criticisms cover factual errors in science or are directed at your behaviour. You keep on trying to cover your arse by doubling down on nonsense.

    You either dont understand the points being made or you are simply a troll. Either way you try to dominate discussion with your nonsense and yet have the cheek to want to suppress REN who is quite factual.”

    He fosters junk experiments and junk science. Here he is trolling and again telling REN he must go.

    This is certainly a hilarious start to the year.

    Some of the exchange:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279808

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      “This is certainly a hilarious start to the year.”

      tony, we’re agreeing on more and more.

      That’s a good thing.

      • professorP says:

        Dumb and dumber! Together they may make up half a brain.

        • tonyM says:

          By your reckoning that is half a brain more than you can show.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          P,

          Im sure you can do better than that, if you try.

          Something along the lines of –

          If your brains were dynamite, you wouldnt have enough to blow your nose . . ., and so on.

          Let me know if you need any help with acerbic speech.

          On the other hand, Im also sure that if you could show how increasing the amount of CO2 between a steady heat heat source and a thermometer causes the temperature of the thermometer to rise, you would make your point.

          Obviously, the converse would be true, and removing the CO2 from an enclosed space would cause the temperature to drop.

          Free heating and refrigeration simply achieved! Do you know where I might purchase such wondrous technology? Or do you you contend that the technology has been suppressed by some grand conspiracy involving wealthy industrialists?

          I prefer fact to fantasy, but you are free to indulge in as much fantasy as you desire. You seem to be choosing the latter path, so the best of luck to you!

          Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            MF,
            I am afraid I have to decline your invitation.
            If you don’t understand atmospheric radiative heat transfer by now then there is nothing I can do for you.
            I am off now to teach my dog a few tricks – something much more rewarding.
            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            I am glad you decided to post again. I was convinced g*e*r*a*n was the stupidest poster on this blog. After reading your crap and mindless junk g*e*r*a*n seems an actual genius when the two of you are compared. You must be a really solid chuck of lead that somehow learned to post on blogs. I would not be able to come up with any other explanation for your completely idiotic and mindless posts.

          • David Appell says:

            Free heating and refrigeration simply achieved!

            Can you calculate?

            Consider a 1 cubic meter box of atmosphere. Reduce the CO2 content from today’s 405 ppm to the pre-industrial 280 ppm.

            How much cooling will result?

            No whining about gotcha questions. Science is about just such questions. Ones you’re always afraid to try to address.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA….”Consider a 1 cubic meter box of atmosphere. Reduce the CO2 content from todays 405 ppm to the pre-industrial 280 ppm.

            How much cooling will result?”

            None. CO2 has no effect on atmospheric temperatures. All warming is easily explained by natural processes and recovery from the Little Ice Age.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon: Do CO2 and methane and N2O absorb infrared radiation?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”You either dont understand the points being made or you are simply a troll”.

      Appell is both. I think he was sent here by alarmists to disrupt discussion that have a skeptical basis.

      • David Appell says:

        You’re not a “skeptic,” you’re a uneducated liar. Huge difference.

        • tonyM says:

          Appell:
          You are the only person I have found to be a liar.

          i never use the word lightly and do not recall the last person for whom I may have used that descriptor, certainly in written form. It is a heavy word not to be used lightly.

    • David Appell says:

      tony, you refused to answer direct questions about observational sciences, like if astronomy and geology are sciences.

      Crickets. But you always have plenty of insults. In fact, it’s about all that you have….

      • tonyM says:

        David Appell:

        As usual you perform the task of troll eminently and try diversionary tactics to conflate and obfuscate to avoid facing the issues.

        DA says that climate science isnt an experimental science, its an observational science. ” it is applied physics. “

        DA: You cant do an proper experiment without a control. This is a basic part of the scientific method,

        (DA’s justification for not following the scientific method where he said we do not have two earths one to act as a control )

        Somehow DA thinks this obviates the need to follow the scientific method. DA you can do all the observations you like (we all observe every day) but if you don’t close the loop by testing falsifiable ideas there is no science established no matter how much people want to waffle that they have consensus. This does not mean scientists are not in the process of doing science for example methodical data gathering, string theory as applied to universes, Big Bang etc. Light bending was tested in the field, not a lab.

        An idea is not science until tested. Why do you think the 2LOT is held in such high esteem (it is the most tested idea in all of science)? CERN at a cost of some $12 billion is clear testament to the importance of testing.

        Notice DA’s word use of “science.” Science either is used in the sense of scientific method or it is the wishy washy meaning of some knowledge. Ironic that even prior to Galileo the “scientists” of the day had total consensus and even had a geocentric working model. They were more advanced than DA!

        Copernicus had already published his heliocentric work decades before Galileo, dedicated it to the Pope with full approval from the clergy. Yet it was Galileo who has come to be known as the father of modern physics because of his ideas on subjecting hypotheses to empirical testing.

        DA was asked to desist from claiming climastrology to be science if it could not comply with the scientific method as he states. It makes predictions which fail! Further if it was applied physics then he should rebut the Gerlich et al paper which tackles it from the frame of physics.

        Hansen obviously disagrees (Hansen claimed he had the exact physics). Lindzen on the other hand has claimed this has turned into a religion so it is in agreement with DA that it is not science. A neat vague kaleidoscope.

        It is a bit long to summarize the exchange with this troll. He cites authors or experiments. He either knows they are flawed or should once the flaws are pointed out. Yet he doubles down instead of acknowledging the flaw. A person of average intelligence would grasp it. I make no comment on his intelligence but going into denial and still pushing his flawed line means he is a troll.

        In this context I am specifically referring to his citation of Tamino (who pulled a switch on the data for CH4) and my comment on a CO2 experiment where I say::

        You promote pseudoscience experiments as previously stated (by me):
        This is a junk experiment, with junk commentary by a junk scientist to fool the ignorant.
        You swallow and foster junk science!!

        This clown suggests that pressure broadening allows CO2 to absorb ALL infra red. Yeah, right!

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279884

        This braggadocio can’t even keep his word. So he claims I am guilty of gratuitous insults, states that he is “not going to continue” there and yet keeps going back to that thread and expects me to do likewise.

        • David Appell says:

          tony: explain how you would “test falsifiable ideas” regarding AGW.

          • tonyM says:

            DA:

            If you propose an idea it is up to you to determine how to test it to show that it holds. The experiment itself is then open to judgement.

            There are theoretical Physicists who don’t get involved in experimental design. This important task is left to specialist experimental Physicists who clearly excel in doing that.

            This is one reason I have respect for Hansen even though I bag him for many things: he did stick his neck on the line and try to fulfil the experimental part of science by forecasting the future outcome. Now I would not quibble by holding him to account about unpredictable timings of ENSO or PDO or volcanic activity or some other such event.

            You just can’t seem to accept that concepts which are untested or un-testable do not comply with the scientific method. There are plenty of well studied ideas like string theory as applied to the universe(s) or Big Bang; the ideas are not science but just science ‘work in progress.’

            Ask a simple question: what distinguishes true science from ALL other fields or “sciences?” There is your answer.

      • David Appell says:

        tony, your inability to respond to people (not just me) without juvenile insults means this is my last response to you.

        I never said climate science doesn’t follow the “scientific method.” I said you can’t do an experiment to prove AGW, because there is no control Earth.

        Same is true for sciences like astronomy and geology — these are observational sciences, applied physics based on the logical consequences of experimentally proven physical principles.

        Bye.

      • tonyM says:

        David Appell:
        You promised not to interact with me before. No loss for me. But you still kept doing it on another post. I have simply responded to your taunting drivel. More drivel from you here along the same lines.

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279693

        DA said: You cant do an proper experiment without a control. This is a basic part of the scientific method,

        DA says above: I said you cant do an experiment to prove AGW, because there is no control Earth.

        But then also says:
        I never said climate science doesnt follow the “scientific method.”

        Confused guy as he now asserts that climate science does follow the scientific method. Maybe he means it is only for the bits that do not relate to AGW which leaves a mighty big hole in this field given that almost every paper makes some reference to “climate change” or whatever is in vogue.

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-278932

        DA says: Climate models arent statistical models, theyre physics models. They dont project by fitting past data, they project by solving the equations that govern climate.

        Physics models!!? Really? Then why do they not work?
        So now we have equations which govern climate do we? Govern?? Have the full Navier Stokes equations been solved? Who got the $1 million reward from Clay Maths Inst?

        Bit of an insult to physicists. How would they respond to that ? They already did!

        “At best, these computer models may be regarded as a heuristic game.”

        ” The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training. A good example are the radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many.

        Another example are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify an effect which is not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unreproducible ones”

        And on and on it goes from a physics viewpoint.

        There is much more where that came from. Don’t argue with me. Go see Gerlich et al paper. Halpern et al tried to rebut it but got castrated in the process. Halpern (Eli Wabbett) then comes back with the hilarious green plates in the sky which has nothing to do with the arguments put forward by Gerlich et al.

        • David Appell says:

          Gerlich. No one thinks Gerlich is correct, except hard core deniers who are desperate.

          https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/gerlich-tscheuschner/

          • tonyM says:

            Troll.

            One can’t say you are a man of your word; quite the opposite for you keep coming back!

            SOD could not get past 50 pages of the paper and decided he knew. He did not refute any physics arguments. Yet this is the best you can do!

            Halpern et al got scalped in a rebuttal attempt which was published.

            Do something useful; get the best team team together to rebut Gerlich. I guess that means Gore, Mann, Hansen and Schmidt. /sarc. There is nothing better to see than a good resounding science argument. I have no doubt who will win but I like the idea of a good challenge on all aspects of the science issues. Gerlich has raised many.

            BTW to those interested a group of chemists have also come to similar conclusions. Not sure where I saw the reference in case anyone knows and wishes to share. Thanks in advance.

          • David Appell says:

            tonym, see how your only responses are insults?

            Your reply here proves this perfectly.

          • tonyM says:

            Once you have been established to be a troll and keep breaking your word I am comfortable calling you out for what you are.

            As usual evading the issues. I suggested you make yourself useful.

        • David Appell says:

          tonym wrote:
          “Confused guy as he now asserts that climate science does follow the scientific method.”

          Never wrote that.

          Stop lying.

          • tonyM says:

            David let’s establish something clearly:

            The only person in denial of facts is you.
            The only person who may have lied in our interaction is you for you have deliberately denied facts when they are pointed out to you. That is lying!

            DA said: You cant do an proper experiment without a control. This is a basic part of the scientific method,

            DA said: I said you cant do an experiment to prove AGW, because there is no control Earth.

            Your first statement can only logically be interpreted that for you:
            No control means no proper experiment and hence does not fulfil the basic part of the scientific method.

            Your second statement means according to you:
            there is no control earth hence no proper experiment can be done and hence does not fulfil the basic part of scientific method to “prove” AGW.

            Your emphasis and mine is clearly on AGW not some other part of climate science.

            I conclude that as far as AGW is concerned climate science does not comply with the scientific method according to you.

            When I point out that this is what your statements mean you object and say:

            I never said climate science doesnt follow the “scientific method.”

            Really!? ~ Well here is your opportunity. Explain it clearly.

            So does AGW follow the scientific method or does it not??
            If it does then show us the “proper experiments.”
            If it does not then why are you arguing when that is what I have said some of your statements amount to?

            If you do an honest job without conflation and obfuscation I promise not to call you a troll in response.

            If I have misunderstood then call me out on it with explanation; I have no problem with that either.

  54. Joe Buchta says:

    After reading all your comments I just asked you why cant you be nice to each other.
    Here in Australia after a change of goverment well cover the whole continent with solar panels and clutter the landscape with sleek wind turbines so we wont suffer any more climate disruptions.
    No more chivering in Bangladesh and snow shovling in the US. We save the planet! And then I fell out of my bed. I was dreaming.

  55. Entropic man says:

    TonyM

    May I suggest that you research consilience.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Em, may I suggest you research “obdurate”.

    • tonyM says:

      Entropic Man:
      Thank you for that reference.

      What particular point did you wish to make?

      • Entropic man says:

        In any scientific experiment there is an element of uncertainty, When you use 95% confidence limits you say that you are 95% confident that the mean is within those limits. Put another way, if you repeat the experiment 100 times, five of them will produce results outside the limits. This is just by random chance.

        In any science you get an occasional experiment which disagrees with the rest. This does not necessarily mean that everything else is wrong, just that there is an unavoidable variability built into the scientific method.

        Consilience is the way in which a large number of experiments and a number of different lines of evidence converge on a common description of reality.

        One of the best known examples is plate tectonics. Before the 1960s sediment, volcanoes, earthquakes etc were regarded as independant processes and the apparent fits between continents were regarded as coincidence. There was heated debate between the gradualists and the catastrophies.Then evsidence from studies of volcanoes, earthquakes, geology, fossils, magnetism etc came together into a general description of how Earth’s crust and mantle behave.

        Climate science is similar. Diverse sources of information together build a coherent and consilient description of the behaviour of ice, ocean and atmosphere.

        If you want to show that the current view of climate is wrong, you will not do so by pointing out small inconsistencies in single experiments. What you need to do is show that the a different interpretation of the sum of all the evidence works better than the present one.

        • Bart says:

          “Consilience is the way in which a large number of experiments and a number of different lines of evidence converge on a common description of reality.”

          And, confirmation bias is the way in which one psychologically favors lines of evidence that tend to confirm one’s biases, and downplay those which don’t, leading to a false sense of consilience.

          • David Appell says:

            Right back at you:

            …confirmation bias is the way in which one psychologically disfavors lines of evidence so as to confirm ones biases, and downplay those which dont, leading to a false sense of consilience.

            The value of consilience is that the evidence come from many different directions, contributed by many different people.

          • Bart says:

            “The value of consilience is that the evidence come from many different directions, contributed by many different people.”

            As was “100 Authors Against Einstein.”

            Tu quoque is a very weak counter-argument. It essentially admits wrongdoing, while insisting the other side is worse.

          • David Appell says:

            You’re not Einstein.

          • Bart says:

            And, you just changed the subject.

          • David Appell says:

            You didn’t explain why a genius was wrong.

        • Bart says:

          “What you need to do is show that the a different interpretation of the sum of all the evidence works better than the present one.”

          Confirmation bias also tends to proscribe the realm of evidences sought, i.e., one tends to find what one is looking for.

        • Bart says:

          The authors of “100 Authors Against Einstein” thought they had “consilience”.

          This is very bad reasoning.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”In any scientific experiment there is an element of uncertainty, When you use 95% confidence limits you say that you are 95% confident that the mean is within those limits. Put another way, if you repeat the experiment 100 times, five of them will produce results outside the limits. This is just by random chance”.

          You are confused about confidence levels. They apply only to statistical analysis. You don’t need a confidence level if you do real science with real apparatus, real observations and conclusions. In such cases, you offer error margins.

          NOAA and NASA GISS now offer confidence levels when they declare certain years as record warming years. That’s because both have abandoned science based on the scientific method and implemented statistical analysis via climate models in lieu of real data.

          There is little doubt the use of confidence levels as low as 48% for NOAA and in the 30 percentile range for GISS are aimed at the blatant promotion of AGW lies.

          • David Appell says:

            GR wrote:
            “You dont need a confidence level if you do real science with real apparatus, real observations and conclusions. In such cases, you offer error margins.”

            Raw, stupid, dumb fuc!ing ignorance.

            When I was an undergraduate I was close to a professor who did particle physics at a Los Alamos particle collider.

            He told me that 90% of their computer time was taken up by calculating error bars.

            Gordon doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.

  56. CO2isLife says:

    How Do You Know A Climate Alarmist Is Lying? Their Lips Are Moving

    Claim #7: Weve seenspreading famine

    Response to Claim #7: This is the most absurd claim. CO2 is plant food, and higher CO2 levels result in higher crop yields. That BTW is about as settled as science can be and easily demonstrated in a lab. Higher CO2 is the answer to ending famine, not the cause. If there is famine today it is due to a food distribution problem, not a food production issue. Most likely, the cause of famine is a war, tyrannical government or other man-made causes blocking the delivery of food to needy people.

    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/13/how-do-you-know-a-climate-alarmist-is-lying-their-lips-are-moving/

    • An Inquirer says:

      CAGW activists have learned well from Stalin and Hitler: do not hesitate to tell a big lie; people will believe it. The reduction in famines and the increase in food supply is one of the biggest successes of the last 50 years, but CAGW activists proclaim famine increases without opposition in the mainstream media. It was only 40 years ago that hunger and starvation was common in India; now India exports food. To be sure, hybrids and genetic engineering has helped increase production, but a conservative estimate is that at least 20% of current crop production is due to increase CO2 levels.

      • David Appell says:

        You’re another one here — among legions — who fails to understand that more than one factor is involved with plant growth.

        “Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors.”

        “Climate trends and global crop production since 1980,” D.B. Lobell et al, Science (July 29, 2011)
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21551030

    • Entropic man says:

      More to it than just more CO2 = more growth.

      They become limited by other factors. Crops grown under increased CO2 need more water and soil nutrients. They lose a higher proportion of their yield to pests. They are less nutritious and less tolerant of high temperatures.

      When you put all the factors together a world with higher CO2 is a world which produces less food.

      • David Appell says:

        Yes. Read, for example

        “Unfortunately, the simple idea that global warming could provide at least some benefits to humanity by increasing plant production is complicated by a number of factors. It is true that fertilizing plants with CO2 and giving them warmer temperatures increases growth under some conditions, but there are trade-offs. While global warming can increase plant growth in areas that are near the lower limits of temperature (e.g., large swaths of Canada and Russia), it can make it too hot for plant growth in areas that are near their upper limits (e.g., the tropics). In addition, plant productivity is determined by many things (e.g., sunlight, temperature, nutrients, and precipitation), several of which are influenced by climate change and interact with one another.”

        “Does a Warmer World Mean a Greener World? Not Likely!,” Jonathan Chase, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015.
        http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002166

      • Bart says:

        ” They are less nutritious and less tolerant of high temperatures.”

        Pulled out of the propagandists’ collective arse. A real beaut. It sounds spooky, without actually saying anything.

        • David Appell says:

          “We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”

          — “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
          http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/06/1415181112

          =====

          General Mills CEO Ken Powell told the Associated Press:

          “We think that human-caused greenhouse gas causes climate change and climate volatility, and thats going to stress the agricultural supply chain, which is very important to us.”

          8/30/15
          http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-general-mills-greenhouse-gas-cuts-20150830-story.html

          =====

          “For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”

          — “Global scale climatecrop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
          http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002

        • David Appell says:

          Abstract:
          “Dietary deficiencies of zinc and iron are a substantial global public health problem. An estimated two billion people suffer these deficiencies1, causing a loss of 63 million life-years annually, Most of these people depend on C3 grains and legumes as their primary dietary source of zinc and iron. Here we report that C3 grains and legumes have lower concentrations of zinc and iron when grown under field conditions at the elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration predicted for the middle of this century. C3 crops other than legumes also have lower concentrations of protein, whereas C4 crops seem to be less affected. Differences between cultivars of a single crop suggest that breeding for decreased sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration could partly address these new challenges to global health.”

          — “Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition,” Samuel S. Myers et al, Nature 510, 139142 (05 June 2014).
          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/full/nature13179.html

        • Bart says:

          And, the expected Gish Gallop into dubious sources ensues…

      • David Appell says:

        “Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres…. Recently, several meta-analyses have indicated that CO2 inhibition of nitrate assimilation is the explanation most consistent with observations. Here, we present the first direct field test of this explanation.. In leaf tissue, the ratio of nitrate to total nitrogen concentration and the stable isotope ratios of organic nitrogen and free nitrate showed that nitrate assimilation was slower under elevated than ambient CO2. These findings imply that food quality will suffer under the CO2 levels anticipated during this century unless more sophisticated approaches to nitrogen fertilization are employed.”

        — Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat, Arnold J. Bloom et al, Nature Climate Change, April 6 2014.
        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2183.html

        ====
        “Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein. Its going to be fairly universal that well be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and its not just protein its also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”

        – University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
        http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/10/crop-nutrition/2014

    • David Appell says:

      CO2 is plant food, and higher CO2 levels result in higher crop yields.

      Then why are there no plants on Venus, where the atmosphere is 96% CO2?

      Seems it should be a plant’s dream world….

  57. Mike Flynn says:

    David Appell,

    You wrote –

    At least ultra-denier Mike Flynn gave up and left.

    As usual, youre wrong. Im still around, as anyone can plainly see.

    Your continuing use of the pejorative term denier indicates that your apparent delusionally psychotic state has not ameliorated.

    If you wish to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer exposed to the Sun will make the thermometer hotter, then you are in the company of other so-called scientists – the rather undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt being one.

    I wish you well, and I hope that your 16 hours of journalistic trading, combined with your PhD, will allow you to obtain employment commensurate with your abilities. I understand the French President is actively seeking to attract climatologists to relocate to France. Have you received your invitation yet?

    Do let us know how much you have been offered to advance the promotion of the bizarre pseudo-science jokingly referred to as climatology.

    Keep up your efforts! A good laugh is always appreciated.

    Cheers.

  58. Dan Pangburn says:

    Compelling evidence that the EMR absorbed at low altitude by CO2 is redirected to water vapor has been hiding in plain sight. The evidence is the notch in typical top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation. The notch demonstrates that energy is absorbed by CO2. First law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) mandates that the energy cannot just disappear but must show up somewhere else. Thermalization allows the energy to be emitted at other wavenumbers. The only other place it can show up is at lower energy (longer wave length, lower wavenumber, lower frequency) wavelengths of water vapor. http://i66.tinypic.com/30t79dy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D
    Hitran shows gas molecule radiant emission at terrestrial temperatures is essentially all below wavenumber 500.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dan…”Compelling evidence that the EMR absorbed at low altitude by CO2 is redirected to water vapor has been hiding in plain sight”.

      Where did you get that fictitious graph? I know of no instrument with the bandwidth to produce such a graph.

  59. Gordon Robertson says:

    svante…”Positive feedback:
    A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A.

    Example:
    A warmer atmosphere will melt ice and this changes the albedo which further warms the atmosphere”.

    It doesn’t work like that. A more apt definition is that a sample of an output is fed back to an input to affect the input signal. If the signal fed back enhances the input signal you have positive feedback if it attenuates the input signal you have negative feedback.

    One other provision, with positive feedback that will not work unless there is an amplifier between the input and the output. The whole point in PF is to increase the output signal each cycle. You cannot do that without an amplifier.

    I have heard ridiculous assertions by the head of NASA GISS that a feedback can cause amplification. Nonsense. There is no way to feed back part of an output signal, mix it with an input signal, and increase the output signal without an amplifier.

    That’s why AGW is a ludicrous premise based on the notion that back-radiation from the atmosphere will warm the surface more than it is warmed by solar energy. You cannot amplify heat in the surface by this method. There are losses and the 2nd law prevents heat transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, especially when the surface warmed the atmosphere as claimed in AGW.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      GR,,,You talk like a sparky. A separate amplifier is not required. Amplification can be intrinsinc. The feedback involving liquid water is an example. Water has a vapor pressure which depends only on the temperature of the liquid water. Increase in temperature of the liquid water increases its vapor pressure. Higher vapor pressure means more water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor in the atmosphere means slowing of the radiation from the surface. Slower radiation from the surface means the liquid water gets a little warmer which means higher vapor pressure and so on. But the increase remains finite if the feedback factor is less than 1. (Most real devices keep it below 0.8 to provide some margin)

      Hansen hijacked the term ‘feedback’ and apparently did not fully understand it in a 1984 paper he coauthored. As a consequence, the climate science community has been corrupted by this misuse ever since.

      Dr. Roy notes the different interpretation in his book. Blunder…

      Monckton has discovered it and has more on the way.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        dan…”A separate amplifier is not required. Amplification can be intrinsinc”.

        I gave an example of the resonance-based amplification that destroyed the Tacoma-Narrows Bridge in its suspension cables. I am sure there are other examples in nature but I cannot think of any that can amplify forces to that level.

        All gases in the atmosphere supply pressure and the sum of the partial pressures, according to Dalton, is the sum of the partial pressures of all gases. Water vapour in the overall atmosphere supplies no more than about 0.3% of the pressure.

        In locales, it can reach 3%. I don’t know about the actual water in clouds.

        Do you have an example of intrinsic amplification? I can’t begin to imagine how it would work.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          GR,,,The liquid water in the feedback scenario described is the surface water, not in clouds. Read it again. That is how feedback works. If it is warming, positive feedback makes it warm faster than it would if there was no feedback. If it is cooling, positive feedback makes it cool faster than it would if there was no feedback.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Dan…”The liquid water in the feedback scenario described is the surface water, not in clouds. Read it again. That is how feedback works. If it is warming, positive feedback makes it warm faster than it would if there was no feedback. If it is cooling, positive feedback makes it cool faster than it would if there was no feedback”.

            There is no feedback in such a system, especially not positive feedback. If PF was in effect the WV would allow the temperature of the atmosphere to rise above the temperature produced by solar energy. That would require some kind of amplifier supplied by external power.

            If solar energy heats the ocean, and the ocean releases WV, that WV will never exceed the temperature of solar energy.

            Here’s how PF with WV might work in a room. When the furnace hot air is off, the mechanism is turned off. When a thermostat detects the furnace is on, it turns on a device to spray HEATED WV into the room. If the wv is warm enough, the room can heat to a temperature higher than the hot air from the furnace. Like a sauna.

            In fact, you could automate a sauna to work like that to save you pouring water on the heat source. The point of feedback in such systems is to detect the ambient temperature and send a signal back to a device that can affect the temperature. The amplification comes from whatever device heats the WV.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            GR,,, You say “There is no feedback in such a system, especially not positive feedback. If PF was in effect the WV would allow the temperature of the atmosphere to rise above the temperature produced by solar energy. That would require some kind of amplifier supplied by external power.”
            That is wrong on several levels: The feedback happens because vapor pressure of water increases with the temperature of the liquid water. The temperature of the gas (atmosphere) above the water has nothing to do with it. The following describes the feedback (correct definition of feedback, not the bogus definition used by Climate Scientists): “The feedback involving liquid water is an example. Water has a vapor pressure which depends only on the temperature of the liquid water. Increase in temperature of the liquid water [on the surface] increases its vapor pressure. Higher vapor pressure means more water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor in the atmosphere means slowing of the [flow of energy from surface to space due to] radiation from the surface. Slower [energy flow] from the surface [to space] means the liquid water gets a little warmer which means higher vapor pressure and so on.”
            It is unclear why you apparently cannot understand this. Apparently you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how feedback works in the physical world. Do you not know that water vapor is a ghg? Do you not understand how energy moves through the atmosphere (besides mass transport (wind) and conduction)? Energy goes from molecule to molecule by EMR at the speed of light. But the photon energy absorbed by a molecule spends time in the molecule called the relaxation time. Relaxation time is shorter at higher temperature. It is about 5 microseconds at room temperature. More ghg molecules means more time spent in ‘relaxation’ and less time at the speed of light. That is why more water vapor slows the rate of energy flow from the surface to space.

            CO2 has no significant effect on climate because of thermalization. Thermalization means that absorbed energy is immediately (starts in less than 0.0002 microseconds) shared with surrounding molecules by conduction.
            Emission of EMR from a ghg is entirely different from radiation from a liquid or solid body. Hitran, using quantum mechanics, reveals that radiation from ghg in the atmosphere at low altitude is almost entirely at the low energy wave lengths of water vapor.
            Water vapor, mostly because there is so much more of it at below about 10 km, provides approximately 200 times as many absorb opportunities as CO2. Radiation from the ghg at low altitude is nearly all by low energy photons of water vapor. It is approximately 50000 times more likely that photon emission will be from water vapor molecules than CO2 molecules. Above 10 km WV is greatly diminished and CO2 can again participate.
            You say that WV will never exceed the temperature of solar energy. It is unclear what that means but I suspect a misunderstanding of how radiation heat transfer works, especially if part of the radiation is from a ghg. Everything above absolute zero radiates and the net flow of energy is from hot to cool as required by the second law.

            When you say spray HEATED WV it sounds like you are not aware that WV in the atmosphere, for all practical purposes, follows the ideal gas laws.

            As to the rest, of course you can have a separate amplifier device. Do you not grasp that more WV in the atmosphere provides more resistance to energy flow from the surface to space? To get the same energy flow rate, the temperature of the surface must increase.

            WV has been increasing 1.5% per decade since 1960. The increase is twice what it is calculated to be as a result of liquid surface water temperature increase. This extra increase in WV is countering the temperature decline which would otherwise be occurring. Eventually, WV will stop increasing, cloud increase will compensate (it only takes 1.7% increase in cloud cover to cause surface temperature to eventually decline by 0.5 K) and surface temperatures in the long term (century scale and longer) will depend on what the sun does with superimposed 60+ year oscillations of 0.18 K from ocean cycles.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Dan states: “More water vapor in the atmosphere means slowing of the radiation from the surface.”

        No. Infrared emitted by surface water is related to water temperature. Water vapor in the atmosphere has no effect on emission from the surface.

        Dan states: ” Slower radiation from the surface means the liquid water gets a little warmer which means higher vapor pressure and so on.”

        No. There is no “slower radiation”. (See above.)

        And, Dan has neglected latent heat of vaporization. As the surface water warms, the chances for evaporation increase. But, evaporation cools the surface water–negative “feedback”, if you will.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          Someone once said “if anything can be misinterpreted, it will be”.

          Replace ‘slowing of the radiation’ with ‘slowing of the rate of energy flow from the surface to space”.

          I didn’t neglect anything.

          “But, evaporation cools the surface waternegative feedback, if you will.” is an example of the misinterpretation of what is meant by feedback that has contributed to ‘consensus’ mistakes. Cooling of the water left behind is a result of evaporation. It has nothing to do with feedback.

          Temperature related positive feedback means temperature change from a forcing is faster with positive feedback than it would if there was no feedback.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            It’s good that you are accommodative to “replacing” your words. But, you need to keep going. Adding water vapor to the atmosphere just adds more “radiators”. It’s kind of like adding holes in the bottom of a bucket.

            Also,

            “Temperature related positive feedback means temperature change from a forcing is faster with positive feedback than it would if there was no feedback.”

            Anytime you find “temperature change”, “forcing”, and “feedback” in the same sentence, you know it’s pseudoscience.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dan…”Cooling of the water left behind is a result of evaporation. It has nothing to do with feedback”.

            Evapouration is about breaking bonds in water molecules, it required external energy. However, there is a more important process at work. If the atoms in water molecules are at a higher energy level than the air molecules around the water, the electrons in the atoms will tend to drop to a lower energy level while emitting EM. That process cools the water.

            I would think that evaporation would have more of an effect if the surrounding air was much warmer than the water. In that case, the water would be absorbing energy, by conduction as well as radiation from the air.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            g*r…”Anytime you find temperature change, forcing, and feedback in the same sentence, you know its pseudoscience”.

            Especially true when applied to climate science where there is a tendency to pervert definitions from physics. The word forcing comes directly from climate models, which are dependent on differential equations.

            In differential equation theory, an equation (function) is often tested by applying a ‘forcing’ function to the equation. Climate modelers have unfortunately passed that nonsense out there as if a forcing is real. There are already terms in place in physics that describe what is meant by a forcing far more effectively.

            Some climate scientists, modelers in particular, have perverted the meaning of feedback. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS seems to think any signal, such as back-radiation from CO2 is a feedback.

            He’s wrong. Back-radiation could never be a positive feedback till it is part of a lossless system. In electronics, losses are overcome with amplifiers while the input signal is actually amplified. There are no amplifiers in the atmosphere.

            I need to be clear that an amplifier must amplify a signal with a gain of at least unity, or 1. There is no such thing as a fractional amplifier. The only way you can feed a signal into a black box and have it attenuated at the out put is with passive devices inside the black box. The minute you see an output equal to the input or greater, you can guess that an amplifier is involved. Either than or the input signal is wired straight through to the output.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            G*,,, Adding water vapor to the atmosphere just adds more radiators. True if by that you mean WV molecules are ghg and can emit radiation. But it adds the same number of absorbers. Hitran says the emission is nearly all at lower energy (wavenumber <500) photons.

            You should find out what temperature change, forcing, and feedback mean before you reveal your lack of knowledge by declaring them pseudoscience.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          g*r…” Infrared emitted by surface water is related to water temperature. Water vapor in the atmosphere has no effect on emission from the surface”.

          That’s right, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation tells us the rate of heat loss of a surface is proportional to the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings as well as the area of the surface. Nothing else affects the rate of cooling.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            GR,,, S-B only says surfaces radiate according to fourth power of absolute temperature. Rate of heat transfer is proportional to the difference between the fourth power of the absolute temperatures. But you probably ment that . . .

      • Entropic man says:

        The water feedback positive feedback eventually leads to increased low cloud cover. Increased low cloud cover increases albedo which decreases incoming energy. The system reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature, rather than running away.

        In climate any change in conditions tends to trigger negative feedbacks which limit the magnitude of any further change.The negative feedback may be strong enough to return the system to its original state.

        This is second nature to any biologist or control system designer, yet a curious blind spot in the types of engineers who become deniers.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Em believes: “The system reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature, rather than running away.”

          Em, if the albedo increases, it does not result in higher temperatures.

          So much for “second nature”, huh?

          • Entropic man says:

            G*e*r*a*n

            The full sequence is

            1) Some external factor increases temperature.

            2) Increased temperature leads to more water vapour

            3) More water vapour leads to increased greenhouse effect.

            4) Increased greenhouse effect leads to higher temperature.

            5) Even higher temperature leads to even more water vapour.

            If steps 2) to 5) repeated indefinitely you would get a runaway greenhouse effect and end up like Venus.

            Fortunately more is happening.

            5) Increasing water vapour leads to increasing low cloud.

            6) Increasing low cloud leads to increasing albedo (less sunlight reaching the surface).

            7) Increasing albedo opposes increasing temperature.

            8) Temperature stabilises when cooling effect of increased albedo cancels out warming effect of increased water vapour.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Steps 3 and 4 can’t happen.

            Because CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths does not imply that it is then a “heat source”. That would be like saying a bowl of fruit on your kitchen table can heat your house in winter because fruit “traps heat”.

            You very quickly get into pseudoscience.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            entropic…

            1) Some external factor increases temperature.

            2) Increased temperature leads to more water vapour

            3) More water vapour leads to increased greenhouse effect.

            ************

            What are these mysterious external factors? I have never seen that adequately explained, not even closely.

            There is a presumption in your words that WV produces a GHE in the first place. How does it do that?

            WV in the overall atmosphere accounts for only 0.3% of atmospheric gases. Treating the atmosphere as a constant volume/constant mass system, the ideal gas equation and Dalton’s law of partial pressures tells us the temperature of the atmosphere is governed by the mass of each gas. How can a gas with 0.03% of the mass possibly contribute much to heating?

            And how can increased WV raise the temperature of the atmosphere to a higher temperature than the surface is warmed by solar energy. Not possible.

            Granted, in local climates like the Tropics, WV increases to 3% or so and it likely has a significant effect via humidity, but does it raise the temperature in the Tropics, or is that governed by solar energy alone?

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Ent,,, Run away would only occur if gain was greater than 1. Feedback ratio of less than one produces an infinite series the total of which is finite. e.g. a positive feedback ratio of 0.1 produces a gain of 0.11111… a finite number. Repeating “steps 2-5” does not produce thermal runaway for the planet.

            IMO a local thermal runaway and end to it produces the temperature pattern of an el Nino. The typical sharp peak is a result of local high positive feedback causing both rapid temperature rise and rapid decline.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          Ent,,,you are using the word ‘feedback’ the same way as used by warmists. It is wrong and obscures the upper limit for positive feedback to prevent ‘runaway’. If ‘runaway’ warming was possible, life would never have happened.

          • David Appell says:

            No one is predicting “runaway warming” for Earth — at least, not for a billion years or two (at which point it will be inevitable).

          • Entropic man says:

            G*e*r*a*n

            I never mentioned CO2. Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.

            Dan Pangbourn

            I ama biologist, so I think of feedback as part of the control systems which keep conditions inside your body constant.

            These feedback loops have sensors which monitor one variable in your body, connected to effectors designed to change it.

            For example, your body prefers to operate at 37C. Your brain monitors your temperature. You produce heat continuously, but whether you need to shed or conserve it depends on circumstances.

            When you start to cool your hairs stand up to insulate you and divert blood away from your skin. These reduce your rate of heat loss. You also shiver to produce more heat.

            When you start to overheat your hairs lie down, you pump more blood to your skin and you sweat; evaporation carries away the excess heat.

            This is negative feedback, maintaining a constant body temperature despite that we in exercise and outside temperature.

            When you go beyond the limits of your control system positive feedback kicks in. For example, as your body temperature increases you generate more heat. When the outside temperature gets above 35C in 100% humidity you produce more heat than you can shed. Your body temperature and heat production increase until at a body temperature somewhere over 4OC your organs fail and you die.

            In cold conditions you risk the opposite, also due to positive feedback. If you lose heat faster than you can produce it, your body temperature drops and you produce even less heat. Once your temperature drops too low, you die.

            For me, a forcing is an external change which changes your body temperature. Negative feedback is a response which restores the original body temperature. Positive feedback is a response which drives body temperature further from its starting point.

            I think of climate in the same way. Forcings change temperature. Negative feedback reduce the effect

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dan…”If runaway warming was possible, life would never have happened”.

            Agreed. There is enough natural CO2 in the atmosphere to have caused a runaway effect long before ACO2 became an issue.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            entropic…”I ama biologist, so I think of feedback as part of the control systems which keep conditions inside your body constant”.

            That kind of feedback is more like the feedback in a servo system, isn’t it? For example, if I am trying to control the speed of a motor, I basically need to control the current sent to the motor, or the power, through chopping the voltage waveform. So I install a tachometer on the motor knowing the RPM is directly proportional to the motor current.

            Suppose the motor is designed to run at 3000 RPM. The tach feeds RPM data back as a voltage to a controller which has a reference voltage equivalent to 3000 RPM. If the voltage is higher than Vref, the controller cuts the motor current, if it is lower, it increases it.

            That’s a simple servo feedback system but it’s not the kind of feedback to which we are referring. You could call a feedback voltage from the tach a positive feedback if the voltage was positive wrt Vref. That, however, is not true positive feedback.

            The real stuff must meet the requirements of this equation:

            G = A/(1 – AB) where G = overall gain, A = the gain of an amplifier, and B = the feedback signal from the amplifier output to the amplifier input signal.

            It’s vital to get it that true positive feedback requires gain (amplification).

            In climate science, some scientists have perverted the meaning of positive feedback. Roy explained that in one post: in climate science, a positive feedback is a reference to a not-so-negative negative feedback.

            I don’t get it, having worked with true positive feedback, but I’ll go with it. I just wish top climate modelers like Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS would get it.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            entropic…”For me, a forcing is an external change which changes your body temperature. Negative feedback is a response which restores the original body temperature. Positive feedback is a response which drives body temperature further from its starting point”.

            I would not call those feedbacks, I’d call them regulators. Of course, there are feedback mechanisms in the body, something has to signal the brain that something is not right. However, it seems to me the function of the brain’s control system is to regulate. The brain’s response would never be a positive feedback as defined in physics.

        • Bart says:

          “The negative feedback may be strong enough to return the system to its original state.”

          That is the important point. It means that the aggregate sensitivity to increasing CO2 could be negligible or even effectively zero. In fact, due to nonlinearity, it could even be negative.

          CliSci made a hasty assumption that it is positive and significant. They then went looking for evidence that would support that assumption. And, mirabile dictu, they found some.

          It’s meaningless. It’s confirmation bias.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”In climate any change in conditions tends to trigger negative feedbacks which limit the magnitude of any further change”.

          All processes in the atmosphere are negative feedbacks. Positive feedback required an amplifier and there are none in the atmosphere.

    • Svante says:

      Gordon,

      A more apt definition is that a sample of an output is fed back to an input to affect the input signal. If the signal fed back enhances the input signal you have positive feedback if it attenuates the input signal you have negative feedback.

      That’s pretty good, but the word sample is inappropriate when the whole output has an intrinsic effect. You can simplify thus:

      Output is fed back to an input to affect the input signal.

      One other provision, with positive feedback that will not work unless there is an amplifier between the input and the output. The whole point in PF is to increase the output signal each cycle. You cannot do that without an amplifier.

      OK, then albedo is the amplifier and the solar input is the power supply.

      I have heard ridiculous assertions by the head of NASA GISS that a feedback can cause amplification. Nonsense. There is no way to feed back part of an output signal, mix it with an input signal, and increase the output signal without an amplifier.

      That’s OK, the albedo is the amplifier and the solar input is the power supply.

      Thats why AGW is a ludicrous premise based on the notion that back-radiation from the atmosphere will warm the surface more than it is warmed by solar energy. You cannot amplify heat in the surface by this method. There are losses and the 2nd law prevents heat transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, especially when the surface warmed the atmosphere as claimed in AGW.

      No, the atmosphere reduces cooling to space.

      2nd law holds since: Tsun > Tsurface > Tghg > Tspace.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Svante believes: “No, the atmosphere reduces cooling to space.”

        Sorry Svante, the atmosphere doesn’t “reduce” cooling. If you had some way to warm the atmosphere, which you don’t, it would just expand forming a greater radiating surface.

        CO2 can NOT warm the atmosphere, but even if it could, the atmosphere would make adjustments accordingly.

        But, you get to believe in AGW, leprechauns, and flat earth, if you want.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…”Output is fed back to an input to affect the input signal”.

        Yes…but it’s a sample of the output that is fed back. I could have said portion. The overall aim, however, is not just to affect the input signal, it’s to increase the output signals.

        “OK, then albedo is the amplifier and the solar input is the power supply”.

        Reflection is not amplification.

        “No, the atmosphere reduces cooling to space”.

        It may delay the cooling but not via radiation, which happens at the speed of light. Any delay is due to the slow effect of convection of air molecules and their slowness of radiating at higher altitudes.

        That’s what Wood claimed circa 1909, that the atmosphere is a poor radiator. As long as molecules of air are zipping around colliding with each other, especially in denser air at lower altitudes, the collisions will maintain the heat.

        I am theorizing that as the air rises, the density lowers and the collisions become less frequent. Even N2 and O2 will radiate if the temperature differential between them and space is there.

        • David Appell says:

          GR wrote:
          “Even N2 and O2 will radiate if the temperature differential between them and space is there.”

          How will these molecules radiate in the IR if spectroscopy shows they have no IR transitions?

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson wrote:
      “I have heard ridiculous assertions by the head of NASA GISS that a feedback can cause amplification. Nonsense. There is no way to feed back part of an output signal, mix it with an input signal, and increase the output signal without an amplifier.”

      You’re wrong, because the only thing you know about is a little about electronic circuits, which are not a good analogy for the Earth’s climate system.

      Let’s see you deny the Clausius-Claperyon equation and its obvious relationship to the water vapor feedback.

      Let’s see you deny the ice-albedo feedback.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Let’s see you deny that you can’t get a job, davie.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Lets see you deny the Clausius-Claperyon equation and its obvious relationship to the water vapor feedback”.

        Do you even know what C – C is about? It has nothing to do with feedbacks. It describes the phase transition between different phases of matter. More specifically, it describes a change in the volume of matter wrt to pressure and temperature as the matter changes phase.

        “Lets see you deny the ice-albedo feedback”.

        Ok, there’s no such thing as an albedo feedback. It’s a reflection of solar energy, nothing to do with feedback.

        • David Appell says:

          Wrong. The Clausius-Claperyon gives the increase in water vapor saturation pressure as a function of temperature.

        • David Appell says:

          GR says:
          “Ok, theres no such thing as an albedo feedback. Its a reflection of solar energy, nothing to do with feedback.”

          If there is less ice, does the planet’s albedo decrease or increase?

  60. ren says:

    Gulf Shores, Alabama

    Pressure: 1032.85mbar

    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00955/58wewgjga7yy.png

  61. ren says:

    Let’s see ozone. An ozone particle can only arise if it transfers energy directly to another gas molecule. Otherwise, the temperature will not increase.
    “M is any non-reactive species that can take up the energy released in reaction (2) to stabilize O3.
    O3 is not a very stable molecule and (without the presence of M) the O3 formed by the collision of O2 and O would immediately fall apart to give back O and O2. Given that N2 and O2 are the
    major components in the atmosphere, M is either O2 or N2.”
    http://www.columbia.edu/itc/chemistry/chem-c2407/hw/ozone_kinetics.pdf

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”Given that N2 and O2 are the
      major components in the atmosphere, M is either O2 or N2″.

      IMHO, everything in the atmosphere is about N2 and O2. CO2 does nothing of significance.

      Furthermore, N2 absorbs right across the solar spectrum. It absorbs EM at ultraviolet frequencies but the molecule is still being studied. It is of no interest to the IPCC since their mandate is to find evidence that CO2 is warming the atmosphere.

      It would not surprise me at all if both N2 and O2 are heated directly by solar energy. If that is the case, since N2/O2 don’t radiate energy easily, that accounts for the GHE right there.

      • ren says:

        The image above, provided by NASA, highlights how all three heat-transfer methods (conduction, convection, and radiation) work in the same environment.
        http://www.machinedesign.com/sites/machinedesign.com/files/uploads/2015/03/Convetion_Conduction_Radiation_web.gif

      • ren says:

        Sorry.
        Since the clean gas is transparent to infrared radiation, in the troposphere must predominate convection.

      • UK Ian brown says:

        How can you argue with the IPCC when they are quite happy to accept 19 century scientific experiments on CO2 as proof of the GHE.yet do not accept 19 century temperature records as valid.same era same technology.as far as I know any doubling of CO2 would result in lower temps not higher temps.CO2 quickly becomes saturated.plus the initial warming would increase water vapour which would rise and condense into cumulous clouds reflecting sunlight into space and having a cooling effect.plus’s the rainfall would wash the CO2 out of the atmosphere

        • David Appell says:

          What makes you think the IPCC relies on 19th century papers for its understanding of the GHE?

          That’s very false, and a dumb claim to boot. Go study the science.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, before you spout off, you should look into the original reference the IPCC used. They go back to Arrhenius.

            Go study the pseudoscience.

          • UK Ian brown says:

            David as you well know Venus has CO2 concentration of 96% and a surface temp of aprox 450c earth has 4% CO2 and a temp approx 15c Mars has a CO2 level almost exactly the same as Venus at 95% but a surface temp of aprrox -55 c so tell me David where is the GHE caused by CO2.if you ignore the CO2 signature what you have left is atmospheric pressure.as Einstein I think it was said if you take away what it can’t be what you have left must be the truth

          • UK Ian brown says:

            David as I recall it wasn’t that long ago on this very blog you were citing the experiments of and findings of Tyndall and others as proof of the GHE.all I meant was they can’t have it both ways.I think its the IPCC that needs to be told that science moves on .what was thought to be true today might not be true tomorrow

        • David Appell says:

          UK Ian brown says:
          “CO2 quickly becomes saturated.”

          False.

          Your claim looks only at radiation from the surface and the radiation from the atmosphere.

          On Earth, CO2 is far from being saturated. It isn’t even saturated on Venus. See the sidebar in:

          Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
          http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

          and read

          A Saturated Gassy Argument
          June 26, 2007
          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Yes, that first “paper” is the one that claims the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K!

            It’s one of my favorites. Thanks for linking to it again, davie.

            (I wish I had a bird cage.)

          • David Appell says:

            dT = dQ/mc

            Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s => 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

            Q.E.D.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, remember what I explained about doing the same things over, and over, and over, expecting different results?

            Did you take the meds today?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s

            dt is an infinitesimally small slice of time and you have given the value dQ/dt in seconds. You’d need to integrate that differential function.

            I’m waiting.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”dT = dQ/mc”

            Besides, you are claiming dq/dT = mc, which is a constant. That’s like claiming dq/dt = 2, which makes no sense.

            The only way it would make sense is if you took the derivative of a straight line like y = 2t. If you took the derivative, you get a constant = 2 and that would tell you the slope of the tangent line to the point at y = t.

            Even that makes no sense. It seems your equation represents the tangent to a straight line.

            Seems to me you’re looking for the integrated form as the heat transfer equation:

            Q = mc (delta T)

            The differential form is dq/dt = k dT/dx

            This tells you that at any instant of time dt there is a change of heat dq and it depends on k, the conductivity factor, an instantaneous change in temperature dT at an infinitesimal change in length dx along a bar, or whatever.

            To get the actual heat transferred you need to integrate the above to get something in the form of Q = mc (delta T).

            Then again, you’re probably not interested.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”=> dT = 760,000 K Q.E.D”.

            BTW, the heat transfer equation applies only to actual heat flow through a solid. Does not apply through space. Heat does not flow through space.

          • UK Ian brown says:

            David as you well know Venus has CO2 concentration of 96% and a surface temp of aprox 450c earth has 4% CO2 and a temp approx 15c Mars has a CO2 level almost exactly the same as Venus at 95% but a surface temp of aprrox -55 c so tell me David where is the GHE caused by CO2.if you ignore the CO2 signature what you have left is atmospheric pressure.as Einstein I think it was said if you take away what it can’t be what you have left must be the truth

          • barry says:

            Mars’ atmospheric GHG concentration is significantly below that of Earth’s. The atmosphere is much thinner.

            Hint: CO2 is not the only GHG.

          • barry says:

            Should correct that – concentration is ratio based. Mars GHG mass is significantly below that of Earth’s.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “BTW, the heat transfer equation applies only to actual heat flow through a solid. Does not apply through space. Heat does not flow through space.”

            Heat (like from the Sun) flows through space via (mostly) EM radiation.

            My calculation does not put any heat to space. That was one of the problem’s givens.

          • David Appell says:

            UK Ian brown says:
            “David as you well know Venus has CO2 concentration of 96% and a surface temp of aprox 450c earth has 4% CO2 and a temp approx 15c Mars has a CO2 level almost exactly the same as Venus at 95% but a surface temp of aprrox -55 c so tell me David where is the GHE caused by CO2.”

            The GHE effect also depends on the atmosphere’s density.

            For Mars, that’s about 1% of Earth’s.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “Besides, you are claiming dq/dT = mc, which is a constant.”

            Yes.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “IMHO, everything in the atmosphere is about N2 and O2. CO2 does nothing of significance.”

        Then explain this observation:

        https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

        You won’t, because you can’t. You ignore questions like this when you get called out for being a liar.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          davie, you keep putting up that same old link, hoping it will somehow prove the GHE. You keep doing the same thing, over and over, hoping for different results.

          Einstein indicated that was the definition of “insanity”.

          That’s funny enough, but that tired old link is indicating the spectrum of flux leaving the Earth. You are looking at the spectrum leaving and, with a whole bunch of assumptions, hoping that is proof of the GHE (Earth’s temperature is increasing).

          That’s like paying for your donuts and, with a whole bunch of assumptions, hoping the remaining amount of cash in your pockets will increase.

          Hilarious.

        • Bart says:

          It does prove that CO2 impedes LWIR to space. It does not, however, prove that incremental increase in concentration results in incrementally greater impedance. I.e., that the sensitivity in the present state is net positive and significant.

          This is the problem, DA. When it is finally realized that the net sensitivity is effectively zero, the good science is going to be under the same attack as the bad, and the pseudoscientists are going to have a field day.

          • David Appell says:

            It does not, however, prove that incremental increase in concentration results in incrementally greater impedance. I.e., that the sensitivity in the present state is net positive and significant.

            Basic physics: That impeded energy has to go somewhere.

            It can only go into into the ocean, atmosphere, ice or surface, and those warm up as the planet seeks to reestablish energy balance.

            You keep saying ECS <=0, but have never once offered any evidence for such or studies that give this result.

            In fact, you never offer any evidence ever.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie details how Earth sheds excess heat energy:

            “It can only go into into the ocean, atmosphere, ice or surface, and those warm up as the planet seeks to reestablish energy balance.”

            davie does not allow heat energy to be radiated to space!

            The poor clown wallows in pseudoscience.

            Hilarious.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bart…”It does prove that CO2 impedes LWIR to space”.

            1)LWIR is not heat.
            2)Why should CO2 absorb any more than a tiny percent of available LWIR?

            There seems to be a notion that only molecules like CO2, WV, etc., can radiate IR. Not true. All atoms and molecules in the Earth’s surface can radiate it depending on their temperature.

            So, add up all atoms in the Earth’s surface, including water in the oceans and divide the number by the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Rather primitive but I am trying to demonstrate the sheer insanity of thinking the 0.04% of our atmosphere which is CO2 can absorb all surface radiation.

            I am not sold on the claim that nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere cannot absorb IR, especially directly from the Sun. I don’t think this issue has been adequately addressed, mainly because researchers are mainly looking to prove CO2 is a warming agent rather than looking at alternate explanations.

          • Bart says:

            “That impeded energy has to go somewhere.”

            You don’t know that it is impeded. You don’t understand the argument at all. That’s why you’re a science writer and not a practicing scientist.

          • Bart says:

            Gordon:

            “LWIR is not heat.”

            LWIR is energy. Heat is energy. Energy is fungible.

            “There seems to be a notion that only molecules like CO2, WV, etc., can radiate IR. Not true.”

            It is true.

            You are trying to disprove the thesis based on elementary flaws. The flaws are not elementary. If they were, the controversy would have been long over.

            The flaw is that it is a spherical cow argument. It is too simplified to apply to the real, complex system involved.

          • Norman says:

            Bart

            I like reading your posts. I see an intelligent person behind the posts.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bart…”LWIR is energy. Heat is energy. Energy is fungible”.

            Fungible???

            Here’s the distinction between EM and thermal energy. The 2nd law applies to thermal energy only, meaning the energy of motion in atoms, aka kinetic energy. Why?? Because Clausius defined it that way. He explained that heat is atoms in motion and he based the second law on heat only. He developed the law by considering motions in atoms as both heat and work, and that work is equivalent to heat.

            The 2nd law states that thermal energy cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body, without compensation.

            The 2nd law does NOT apply to EM, even though certain humourists try to get around that by claiming that a mysterious positive net EM energy satisfies the 2nd law. It does not.

            It’s obvious from the 2nd law that EM from a cooler body is not absorbed by a warmer body. That can be proved in another way. Valence electrons in atoms convert thermal energy to EM. To do so, the electron must give up energy by dropping to a lower energy state (Bohr). As they drop to a lower energy state, the atom gives up heat. That’s what Stefan-Boltzmann is about, the cooling of a surface as it emits EM.

            That process is not reversible due to a potential energy hill that needs to be overcome in order for EM from a cooler source to raise an electron in a hotter atom to a higher energy level. Water does not run uphill on it’s own, stones don’t raise themselves onto cliffs, and electrons don’t flow against an electric field. Same idea.

            Energy is not energy per se as many like to think. Thermal energy may have its equivalence in EM but it is not EM. EM is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field and is made of a spectrum of frequencies. Heat is always related to atoms, that’s why it cannot travel through a vacuum as can EM.

            Furthermore, heat can only be transferred via radiation from a hotter body to a cooler body yet EM can flow both ways. Heat does not move from one body to the other, it reduces in one and increases in the other.

            Still think they are fungible?

            Sorry Kristian, I need to talk about individual electrons in this case. I am in no way implying anything about the macro state, just trying to illustrate how EM is generated by electrons in an atom, according to Neils Bohr.

            And sorry, David Appell, I have no idea what happens to the energy from cooler atoms that is not absorbed. I have read that EM can dissipate so it may not be entirely true that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Maybe they were talking about energy associated with mass (atoms).

          • Bart says:

            Gordon:

            In an electrical circuit, charge flows from high potential to low potential. For a constant voltage, a capacitor holds charge proportional to the voltage, Q = C*V. If we increase the capacitance with steady voltage, we increase the charge.

            Increasing the capacitance does not reverse the current flow. It does not make it flow from low potential to high. But, it does increase the charge stored in steady state.

            Think of the Earth as a capacitor, and adding the GHG as increasing the capacitance. It does not reverse the direction of energy/charge flow. It simply retains more of the energy/charge.

            The equivalent question before us is not one of whether increasing capacitance increases charge capacity – that is actually rather a trivial tautology.

            The question is equivalently how much is the capacitance affected by a change in a particular physical parameter (because this particular capacitor is composed of more elements than simply CO2 – changing the CO2 level is akin to slightly altering the composition of the dielectric paste separating the plates), and how is the steady state stored charge level impacted given all the other elements in this rather complex circuit?

            Today’s CliSci is effectively predicting the dynamics of a differential op amp based on an RC circuit model. That is the problem with it, not the low level non-question of whether increasing the capacitance increases charge capacity or not.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “You dont know that it is impeded.”

            There are only so many places for the added heat to go. Atmosphere. Land. Ocean. Ice.

            Where else?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Then explain this observation:”

          I have already questioned that graph as to its authenticity. What’s the original source.

          There are many photos on the Net of the HIV virus, all of them fake, or artistic impressions. The scientist who discovered HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, claims he has never seen the virus, isolated it, or purified it. All the photos/diagrams are artistic impressions of what people think it ‘should’ look like or they show the cell mass in which HIV is thought to exist.

          Anyone can put out a photo/diagram representing fiction. The Kiele-Trenberth diagram of the Earth’s energy budget is fiction. K-T admitted that.

  62. ren says:

    The temperature in the east of the USA returns to “norm”.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/c5udund1m7v0.png

  63. Snape says:

    A study is already out that supports Dr. Spencer’s view that the recent cold snap had nothing to do with climate change:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-did-not-cause-the-us-cold-snap/

  64. ren says:

    Current temperature in North America. Please pay attention to the pressure.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00955/4ohd76vzm9uw.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”Extremely cold in Canada”.

      Just in the east. The west begins at the Rocky Mountains, don’t let anyone from the Prairies tell you they are in the west.

      It’s cold west of the Rockies too but not in Vancouver where it’s currently a balmy +8C.

  65. Entropic man says:

    The water feedback positive feedback eventually leads to increased low cloud cover. Increased low cloud cover increases albedo which decreases incoming energy. The system reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature, rather than running away.

    In climate any change in conditions tends to trigger negative feedbacks which limit the magnitude of any further change.The system stabilises at a new equilibrium rather than running away. The negative feedback may be even be strong enough in biological systems to return the system to its original state, which is how your body temperature is controlled.

    This is second nature to any biologist or control system designer, yet a curious blind spot in the types of engineers who become deniers.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      You must have really liked that comment, since you made it TWICE!

      Amazing, you got it wrong both times.

      Hilarious.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”The water feedback positive feedback eventually leads to increased low cloud cover. Increased low cloud cover increases albedo which decreases incoming energy. The system reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature, rather than running away”.

      Runaway can only occur where there is amplification. Positive feedback requires amplification.

      My understanding is that clouds form when rising warmer WV condenses into water droplets. That’s been happening forever, why should it suddenly decide to runaway?

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

      Let’s be thankful that rising N2/O2, which makes up 99% of the atmosphere does not condense into clouds of nitrous oxide. If we survived, we’d all be stoned and laughing ourselves to death.

  66. ren says:

    This is not the end of problems in North America with the polar vortex.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z50_nh_f96.png

  67. ren says:

    The next year, North America will again have a severe winter, because the pattern of the polar vortex does not change, and solar activity will remain low until 2020.

  68. Joe says:

    Only a highly qualified government scientist has the skills necessary to distinguish between weather, and the global cooling polar vortexes, droughts, and floods of the 1970’s, and the global warming polar vortexes, droughts, and floods of this decade. 40 years ago scientists blamed the polar vortex and extreme weather on global cooling: http://www.web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.htm

    • David Appell says:

      There was no consensus on global cooling in the ’60s and ’70s. Unlike today, it was a time before satellites were routinely provide loads of observational data, and scientists were not very sure what was going on. A literature survey of that time found there was no cooling consensus:

      “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 13251337, 2008
      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

      In fact, by 1965 plenty of scientists had already been warning about global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases, and by the late ’60s climate models were calculating the warming expected from CO2.

      List of some papers and reports here:
      http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        No davie, the “cooling consensus” was real. It doesn’t take much research to debunk your bird cage liners, as usual.

      • Joe says:

        My bad – That link doesn’t work. This one does: http://www.tinyurl.com/o6c8rb2
        -sorry guys
        David – but there’s no consensus pinning the present ‘wacky weather’ to Co2 – or a warmer planet – either. That was my point. Only consensus is Co2 has been the cause of the past few decades (or whatever the time period is) of warmth.

        And neither was it predicted by Co2 models. For example the 2001 IPCC report predicted ‘Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms’. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTh_K6fV4AU9MvH.png

        They didn’t predict much colder winter temperatures, and “Bomb-o-Genisis” snowstorms.

  69. David Appell says:

    Edward Teller, at a November 1959 conference on the centennial of the American oil industry at Columbia University in New York City, via The Guardian, 1/1/2018:

    “Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect [….] It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming

  70. barry says:

    Heres the GFS forecast model analysis of surface temperature departures from average for about the time that peak temperatures were reached in Sydney yesterday. Maybe you can tell me which of these cold and warm patterns are consistent with global warming theory and which arent? (Hint: Warming should be occurring basically everywhere):

    Followed by an anomaly map of a daily temperature map of Australia.

    It’s even sillier to expect uniform weather patterns over a single day than it is to ascribe any local, short-term warm event to global warming or any local, short-term cool event as proof against it.

    No, weather fluctuations are not climate change, as other parts of the article points out, but the paragraph referenced above makes exactly that mistake.

  71. barry says:

    Nevertheless, the weird-weather-is-climate-change narrative will continue until the populace finally agrees with the warmongers that we can control our weather through taxation and regulation.

    Another silly comment in an otherwise good post. “Control our weather.” Please.

    I suppose the comment is made with the jaundiced view that every extreme weather event is pushed as climate change. Then it’s snark, at best, but it adds to the confusion rather than sheds light.

    • lewis says:

      Poor Barry,

      Doesn’t like the author of the blog having an opinion on politics with which he disagrees.

      But there are others of us who agree wholeheartedly. We see the whole climate alarmist agenda as one advocating a command economy.

      Would that I were wrong.

    • barry says:

      My criticism is about unlinking rhetoric from reason, politics from science.

      If your political preferences lead your views on the science that may be why you can’t understand what I wrote. It would also make it impossible for you to assess the science objectively.

      Poor Barry

      The snide condescension reflects on you. It makes you look small.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        barry is just a little miffed that his “blue/green plate” problem is such a fail. He believed it was “proof” of the GHE. It turns out it is proof the GHE doesn’t work!

      • barry says:

        The green plate exercise is not about the GHE. You can’t even get the premise right. Errors compound from that first mistake.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Yeah barry, it’s smart to distance yourself from the nonsense as fast as you can.

          But, sometimes there are lingering problems, when running from your past. This is the first paragraph from Eli’s page:

          “An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so according to the Agendaists, the Greenhouse Effect, with greenhouse gases playing the role of the colder object, is rubbish. They neglect the fact that heating and cooling are dynamic processes and thermodynamics is not.”

          Perhaps change your screen name?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            g*r…from Eli Rabbett….”An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter”.

            Rabbett, aka Josh Halpern, has a degree in physics and teaches a chemistry class. Guess he couldn’t get work as a physicist. He has been told by two experts in thermodynamics that his theory about a mysterious net energy does no apply to heat and that the 2nd law applies only to heat. Yet good,old Josh keeps on churning out the propaganda that heat can be transferred from a cold body to a hot body provided a net energy flow of EM is positive.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Obviously “eli” has never had to solve real-world engineering problems.

          • barry says:

            An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter.”

            That’s what the GP exercise is about. In the first sentence.

          • J Halp-less says:

            Oh, Barrys a great wriggler with this one. When you point out that even if their contorted logic was correct (it isnt), then the Green Plate Effect thought experiment would *still* show that the result required by the Green House Effect cannot occur (the blue plate would need to warm to above 290 K, yet it cant possibly even if their way of looking at it *was* right); Barry will switch from saying the GPE does not relate to the GHE, to defending the GPE as though it *does* relate to it. He will wriggle his way switching between these two polar-opposite positions like nobodys business. This is because hes dishonest, either just with himself, or with everybody else.

          • barry says:

            Barry will switch from saying the GPE does not relate to the GHE, to defending the GPE as though it *does* relate to it.

            A little weasel wording positions your BS.

            G’s “proof” that I responded to becomes “relates to,” when you chime in. Either that’s a deliberate move and you’re a troll, or you’re not aware you’ve shifted the goal posts, which is simply sloppy.

            And if you don’t see the difference, you’re stupid. Simple as that.

            The GPE *relates to* the GHE – anyone can read Rabbett’s post to see how.

            It doesn’t *prove* the GHE: it corrects a specific misunderstanding of the 2LoT – that skeptics mistakenly apply to the GHE.

            ‘Proof’ of the GHE requires more information – like the optical properties of ‘greenhouse’ gases for starters.

            Helpful hint: the atmosphere is not an infinitely thin black body.

            The GP exercise is about the 2LoT. That’s it.

            If you’re in any doubt as to the point, read the concluding sentence of Rabbett’s post.

            “Show this to the next fool with an agenda who thinks that the Green Plate Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics”

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Keep wiggling, barry.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • J Halp-less says:

            Yes, exactly! See how he wriggles?

            The point remains:

            The GHE requires a surface receiving approx. 240 W/m2 from the sun, on average (without an atmosphere), to emit 390 W/m2, on average (with a GHG-containing atmosphere). Thats where the whole 288 K less 255 K = 33 K difference is supposed to come in.

            The GPE shows a surface receiving 400 W/m2 (without green *atmosphere* plate), and emitting 267 W/m2 (with green *atmosphere* plate). And thats *even if* you accept the green plate as an insulator!

            The GPE does nothing to support the GHE, if anything it is an argument against it.

            And Eli was doing everything in his power to relate the two, even down to the name itself. The last sentence you quoted only proves that all the more! *Show THIS [meaning, the green plate effect thought experiment] to the next person who thinks that the green plate effect violates the second law of thermodynamics*. Clearly, you are meant to think, *…green HOUSE effect violates the second law of thermodynamics*, otherwise the sentence as written wouldnt even make any sense! He is, after all, *introducing* the green plate effect in that article, whereas it is a well-known, old, established argument that the GHE violates the second law of thermodynamics. So for which are you most likely to come across, *the next person who thinks that…, at the point in time where he is only *introducing* the GPE!?

            He presented it as an ultra-simplified, idealised version of the GHE. But, by all means keep wriggling.

          • barry says:

            Ah, so you don’t see the difference between “relates to the GHE” and “proves the GHE.”

            You are indeed stupid.

            “Proof” of the GHE requires a lot more than correcting misconceptions on the 2LoT.

            Hint: the atmosphere is not an infinitely thin black body.

            Hint: the optical properties of the atmosphere are completely different to a black body.

            Hint: there’s no adibiatic lapse rate between the 2 plates.

            Hint: there’s no vacuum between the atmosphere and Earth’s surface.

            How can the GPE possibly “prove” the GHE?

            The argument put forth at Rabbett’s is entirely about one specific skeptical blunder, which is misapplying the 2LoT.

            What’s fun is watching agenda-driven troglodytes repeatedly fail basic comprehension.

          • J Halp-less says:

            Yes, Barry, I do see the difference between *relates to the GHE* and *proves the GHE*. You apparently didnt notice the condition in the sentence beginning, *When you point out…*

            My *relates to* follows on from that condition being met. At the time g*e*r*a*n said his *proves* comment, that condition hadnt been met. Thats back when you said *the green plate exercise is not about the GHE*. Then, once I had written my comment, self-evidently the condition is met. Thats when you changed your position to *the GPE *relates to* the GHE*. Immediately proving my point.

            Now, you have written a list of *hints* indicating that your position has again switched, back to where it was at the beginning (*the green plate exercise is not about the GHE*). Here are some *hints* for you, Barry.

            Hint: g*e*r*a*n said *proves*. I didnt. G*e*r*a*n and myself are two different people.
            Hint: you said, *it corrects a specific misunderstanding of the 2LoT that skeptics mistakenly apply to the GHE*. For that to be correct, the *misunderstanding of the 2LoT* has to be the same in both the GHE and the GPE.
            Hint: in the GPE, is the input W/m2 to the blue plate exceeded by the output W/m2 from the blue plate? No? Then
            Hint: the *misunderstanding of the 2LoT* is *not* the same in both the GHE and the GPE.

          • Norman says:

            J Halp-less

            What the meaning behind your random insertion of “*” in your posts?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Well, because barry’s “proof” of the GHE has failed miserably, he had two choices: 1) Leave the planet; or 2) Change his screen name.

            He chose to “deny” ever having any involvement with proofs, spoofs, hoaxes, or anything green.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • barry says:

            Sigh. Context matters. My reply to G was in the context of G’s comment on “proof”. I see how it could be misconstrued.

            The GPE is a demonstration of the 2LoT not being broken by the introduction of a cool object making a warm one warmer. That is the extent and limit.

            The same can be done myriad ways – with insulation, with jumpers, blankets, with overheating car engines on hot days rather than cool ones, with overheating laptops on hot days compared to cool.

            Eg, the jumper is not a direct analogy – it’s a convective process – but it makes the same point.

            The introduction of a cooler body to a system heated by an external (or internal) heat source can result in a warmer object becoming warmer.

            And all these examples are to demonstrate on thing and one thing only, that the 2LoT is not violated in any of these situations, even though the presence of a cooler body in these systems result in a warmer object becoming warmer.

            Hint: in the GPE, is the input W/m2 to the blue plate exceeded by the output W/m2 from the blue plate?

            Yes, it is. Without green plate, the blue plate emits 2 X 200 W/m2 = 400 W/m2, at a temperature of 244K.

            In your comment on this, you only counted one side of blue plate emission – 267 W/m2. It’s actually 2 X 267 W/m2 = 534 W/m2 at a temperature of 262K.

            Whether or not you disagree with the calcs or the argument, at least admit that in the example Rabbett gave, blue plate emission is higher than input after green plate is introduced. Or you can explain why the blue plate emission only occurs on one side when the green plate is introduced.

          • J Halp-less says:

            Yes, context matters, as I tried to explain. Oh well.

            Wriggler, you have now wriggled away from another position. First you said:

            W: it corrects a specific misunderstanding of the 2LoT that skeptics mistakenly apply to the GHE.

            J: Now you are saying it supposedly corrects only a very general point about the 2LoT (and no, it doesnt correct on this point either). If you think the GPE is only effectively making the same point as the jumper analogy, its a wonder you have defended it so vigorously all this time! You have also erroneously stated that on addition of the green plate, the blue emits 534 W/m2. You are welcome to check on any online blackbody temperature calculator, that a body at 262 K, will emit 267 W/m2.

            I repeat: for the GHE, the skeptics specific 2LoT-violation argument boils down to the Earths surface emitting more than it receives from the sun, supposedly due to back-radiation. And that is 240 W/m2 vs 390 W/m2. W/m2, not W. E-Lies thought experiment, whatever way you look at it (and I am sure you will wriggle your way over to discussing watts once you realise your error over W/m2), is a straw-man as regards the skeptics specific 2LoT-violation argument over the GHE.

            Skeptics also argue about the GPE; but that is a different argument, because the entire setup is different. Your statement I quoted at the start of this comment, is wrong.

            You will not accept any of what I have said, and will continue to wriggle. It comes down to this:

            1) if all the differences between the GPE and the GHE do indeed matter, as you seem to like to sometimes argue, then the GPE cannot correct any specific 2LoT issue skeptics have with the GHE. GPE is a straw-man for those.
            2) if the differences dont matter, as you seem to like to sometimes argue, then you can try to argue that the GPE corrects specific 2LoT issues skeptics have with the GHE. But, you will still be up against all the arguments that you have currently faced, and not understood.

            But, you cant do both. Being the Wriggler, I expect you will try to have your cake and eat it.

          • barry says:

            You have also erroneously stated that on addition of the green plate, the blue emits 534 W/m2.

            I will accept I made a mistake there. That should be 534 Watts, as you snidely point out. The point is, in Rabbett’sset up, the blue plate is emitting more than it receives from the sun because its rate of heat loss is reduced by the presence of the green plate.

            I can look at many physics texts on the net to corroborate the point that the 2LoT is not violated either in the GHE or the GPE.

            Of 2 surfaces at different temps both absorbing each others radiation:

            http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html

            http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html

            That 2LoT is about NET flow, not discrete exchange.

            “Since the hot body radiates more heat (due to its higher temperature) than the cold body, the NET flow of heat is from hot to cols and the second law is still satisfied.”

            https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/black_body_radiation.htm

            I cannot discover any standard text that corroborates what you and G are saying. When asked for such references, you and G do not provide. G believes the blue plate black body will reflect energy from the green plate because it is at higher temperature. No standard physics text will back him up. You believe that view factors matter in the GPE set up. No standard physics text backs you up.

            You and G make up physics.

          • J Halp-less says:

            Wriggler, you will have to forgive me: but I dont see much point in continuing a conversation with an agenda-driven troglodyte, who repeatedly fails basic comprehension.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”My criticism is about unlinking rhetoric from reason, politics from science”.

        You’d need to get rid of the IPCC, NOAA, and NASA GISS.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”Basics of Infrared Heating”

      Did you notice they use the same diagram as NASA with the only conduction being up the handle of the pot? They are suggesting radiation from the red hot stove ring is heating the pot.

      Nonsense, the pot heats by direct conduction from the stove ring and so do their so-called radiative heaters that have a gas flame shooting down a heat exchanger tube. That tube will heat the air in the building as well by conduction and convection.

      Their system is not really a good system for large spaces as they suggest. If the heaters were at any appreciable height they’d need a forced air system to blow the heat downward. Radiation with a reflector by itself would not get the job done due to the inverse square law.

      Besides, in an aircraft hanger, with highly volatile jet fuel, the safety branch would shut down a heater using an open flame. They won’t even allow electrical circuits in normal conduits and cabinets, they all have to be sealed using threaded steel pipe.

      • ren says:

        Gordon Robertson, when it is frost and snow outside and there is no wind or clouds, you will feel infrared radiation from the sun on your head. The air temperature remains unchanged. However, your head will be warmed up.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ren…”Gordon Robertson, when it is frost and snow outside and there is no wind or clouds, you will feel infrared radiation from the sun on your head. The air temperature remains unchanged. However, your head will be warmed up”.

          True enough, ren. However, the source of that EM is in excess of a million degrees C and thankfully we are receiving it from 93 million miles away. If the Sun was as close as the Moon, life could not be sustained on the planet.

          You can’t feel the IR from a 1500 watt electric stove ring from a few feet away. I am willing to bet that any CO2 in the atmosphere close to the surface has already been warmed by conduction and is of such a temperature that it won’t absorb a lot of radiation.

          I don’t think there is much radiation from the surface at all. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation tells us the cooling of the surface due to radiation is dependent on the temperature of the surface and the temperature of the atmosphere directly above it. If the latter temperature is about the same as the surface, due to conduction, radiation should have very little effect.

          As you know, the spectral diagrams we see from space representing surface emissions represent no more than a very low energy signal. Just as you can see a 12 watt headlight from a car 10 miles away, you can see a scant amount of IR from the planet’s surface from satellites in orbit.

          That’s how EM works.

          • David Appell says:

            You cant feel the IR from a 1500 watt electric stove ring from a few feet away.

            Prove it.

            You can’t.

          • barry says:

            I am willing to bet that any CO2 in the atmosphere close to the surface has already been warmed by conduction and is of such a temperature that it wont absorb a lot of radiation.

            The rate of emission is tied to temperature, not the rate of absorp-tion. It is easy to confuse NET flow heat with mutual exchange of radiative energy. It is a mistake often made here, that because heat always flows from hot to cold, that therefore this applies also to radiation from one body to the other. Two objects at different temperature absorb each others’ radiation, but if one object is warmer than the other, the colder will absorb more radiation than the warmer one. The 2nd law is not violated because it pertains only to heat flow, not discrete radiation exchange. 2LoT is about NET exchange only.

  72. ren says:

    Does the 10-day forecast of the polar vortex foresee a change of circulation over North America?
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00955/6a91kez1qgul.png

  73. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Since we’re betting, I bet there are a Bunch of converts to missile defense in Hawaii tonight. Begging the question why don’t we have 5 interceptors for every possible North Korean missile? Is that what went up recently in the secret mission? Maybe the “this is not a drill” in Hawaii were a battery of patriot interceptors being parked over KJI? Perhaps a test launch to calibrate everything?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      darwin…”Since were betting, I bet there are a Bunch of converts to missile defense in Hawaii tonight”.

      You watch, the US will drop a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead right in fat boy’s back yard.

      I’ll bet they have him lined up right now and are just waiting the right moment.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”Temperature in Australia”.

      Where’s all this heat we are hearing about? If the next UAH data set does not indicate a significant cooling I’m betting NOAA has intercepted the sat data and fudged it.

    • barry says:

      Unless I see what I prefer to see, then there must be a conspiracy.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon creates facts — literally — to fit his prejudices.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Unless I see what I prefer to see, then there must be a conspiracy”.

        Pretty ingenuous, Barry, even for an Aussie alarmist.

        We’ve had record cold temperatures across North America for the better part of a month that reached far into normally warm states in the US. That frigid air apparently came from Siberia. Unless there is proof of unusual warming over the rest of the planet, there should be significant cooling in the UAH data series.

        We are not seeing unusual planetary warming, in fact, in sub-tropical regions like Bangladesh, we are seeing inordinate cooling. Just yesterday, ren posted a thermal map of Australia and it’s obvious the entire continent is experiencing average to below average temperatures.

        If I don’t see that cooling, it confirms my suspicion that NOAA is fudging the satellite record before handing it over to UAH. There is no apparent reason why the early 2016 warming from a super EN is carry on this long.

        CO2 warming cannot explain that.

        • David Appell says:

          “CO2 warming cannot explain that.”

          a) why not?

          b) no one ever said that CO2 is the only factor that determines temperature.

        • barry says:

          Unless there is proof of unusual warming over the rest of the planet, there should be significant cooling in the UAH data series.

          Manyglobal anomaly maps have been posted here recently showing that while the US was cold, other parts of the globe warm, with warm places outnumbering cold.

          But you’re impervious to *proof*. We could post those same global anomaly maps, matching time period for the recent US cold snap, and you would say they were based on fake data.

          So why bother?

  74. ren says:

    The layer of clouds now works on the Great Lakes.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00955/imxinjx4yuip.png
    The current temperature (C) in the US.

  75. ren says:

    The pressure in North Dakota exceeds 1050 mbar.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00955/kt8efr052jli.png

  76. tonyM says:

    Entropic man:

    I was hoping you would be more specific especially re Climastrology. I start by saying there is no onus on me to do anything other than point out flaws and where it does not fit the scientific method.

    That is not trivial; it is everything in science! It is up to the Climastrologists to put forward the case. Failed predictions mean a failed case.

    Can you explain why Bayer could only reproduce about 20% of papers they selected to study yet they all supposedly had met the 95% confidence limit (c.l.) criterion?

    Can you explain why a paper by NOAA had a 90% c.l.? It implies to me as an after the event decision (if so, totally useless).

    With these two points I am addressing confirmation bias. It is pointless carrying out any statistical analysis and determining its suitability once data has been seen. Once data has been accumulated probabilities no longer hold. If a coin turns up heads it is dumb to ask what is the probability of heads. Being creative after the event is straight out statistical bias. The test criteria need to be set when the experiment is designed.

    Can you explain why physicists go to five sigma values? Yet you are comfortable with 95% c.l. It is hardly robust thinking when climastrologists then support multi, multi trillion $ economic changes.

    There is nothing wrong with the concept of concilliance as you have described: multiple, independent experiments coming from different angles and converging on the a similar point.

    That of course assumes we have these different, independent, unrelated actual experiments that you allude to. Now name them and please don’t tell me about model experiments: the models fail!

    But a requisite of conciliance is to define clearly what point is being made i.e. what is the hypothesis that we converge on. Without that clearly stated we converge on whatever the butterfly decides is the right landing spot. The Oracle of Delphi had much wisdom!

    How do you account for flaws? Massimo Porsio referred earlier to a recent paper on clouds. Models miss it to the tune of 1 to 2 watts m-2 or about half of CO2’s purported effect? If this field was unbiased you would find more papers which conflict and less supposed consensus.

    If the hurdles are set so low and are so ardently pursued perhaps you equally would give support to any airline which can show it will land or take off successfully using confidence limits of 95% as you suggest. You would be one of the first to buy a ticket as an act of good faith??

    BTW I have asked previously for all the predictions made in climastrology and let warmists tell us the successful ones. That is an unequivocal test.

    You are quite wrong that there is no case against this climastrology. Hansen’s failed predictions and FAR failed predictions are sufficient. Try and rebut Gerlich and al; they clearly conclude it is garbage.

    • Entropic man says:

      What is climastrology?

      It is not a branch of science I recognise.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Em, “climastrology” is NOT a branch of science.

        It is a branch of pseudoscience.

      • tonyM says:

        My error I should have defined it for you.

        Climastrology defines that body of work which embarks on or professes alarmist predictions about the physical earth in some way or on how it may affect its constituents. The bulk of these predictions are failures.

        In science, if it is to be a physical science, then the predictions are far more robust. Like you, this is why I can’t recognise Climastrology as a branch science: it is but pseudoscience.

    • professorP says:

      The doctor says there is a 90% chance you may have cancer.
      I suppose you will ignore him?

      • tonyM says:

        With your help, we earlier established that you were half a brain short of half a brain. Now you confirm it!

        If the Dr had a failure rate of over 97% with his prognostications of course it would be prudent to ignore him and go seek the advice of Drs with a high success rate for a start.

        The more than 97% failure rate is about the level of failed predictions in climastrology.

        You no doubt are suggesting you would hop onto that airline I mentioned.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        profp…”The doctor says there is a 90% chance you may have cancer.
        I suppose you will ignore him?”

        I’d find another doctor, you don’t want an MD claiming you ‘might’ have cancer. You have it or you don’t.

        If I had it and he told me I had a 90% chance of living I’d be relieved.

        • professorP says:

          Both tonyM and GR fail (again).
          You have no idea how to interpret confidence levels.
          Let me try and help you (again).
          A doctor, whose track record of successful diagnoses is unknown, suggests to you there is a 90% chance you have cancer and you should undergo further tests to confirm this.
          You, being a mere electrical engineer with only a superficial understanding of statistics say
          “90% is insufficient. I will ignore your advice.”

          I can tell you it won’t be brain cancer – I don’t think you have enough cells.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            profp….”A doctor, whose track record of successful diagnoses is unknown, suggests to you there is a 90% chance you have cancer and you should undergo further tests to confirm this”.

            We understand cl’s, it’s you having the difficulty. Since when did doctors render a diagnosis based on statistics? A cl is a measure of statistical confidence, it has nothing to do with a medical diagnosis.

            A cl represents a guess and the higher the cl the more confident you are that the guess is right.

            Then there’s the IPCC. They offer cl’s on opinion, not science. They review peer reviewed papers then form an opinion as what the papers ‘seem’ to be saying. They have no statistics upon which to base their guesses so they have formed their own scale of cl’s.

            Then there’s NOAA and GISS, who fudge temperature data by lowering cl’s till a certain year moves into first place. I put forward 1963 as the warmest year ever based on a 10% cl. That means there is 1 chance in 10 I’ll be right. Does that give you any confidence?

            The question that begs answering is why NOAA needs to use a cl when they have 6000 global reporting stations offering real data. Why do they slash over 75% of that data and submit less than 25% to a climate model to bring forth statistically-derived data?

          • tonyM says:

            Must you continually prove how brain dead you are?

            Why would any sane person heed the advice of any medico who has no success rating to his name as can best be judged. I certainly would not. The best that could do for me is to stimulate me to go seek professional advice from a medico with a proven track record. Even then there would be a lot of questions asked with requisite pathology tests etc etc.

            I note you keep changing the problem: a sure sign you are a complete fool called chasing one’s tail. Is it any wonder you posit such absurdities and swallow alarmist garbage from people with a proven track record of failure? Do I need to spell it out for you?

            Run along now and do go for a joy ride on that plane. Do it often if you like as you have your confidence limits to hold you up in the sky.

          • professorP says:

            “Since when did doctors render a diagnosis based on statistics?”
            Gee, you are now an expert on medicine?
            Haven’t you ever heard the diagnosis:”you have a 50% chance of dying within the next 5 years” (or similar) ?
            Get a brain transplant for goodness sake.

          • professorP says:

            “Why would any sane person heed the advice of any medico who has no success rating to his name as can best be judged.”
            Boy o boy – some people can be obtuse.
            You cannot come to terms with the original question – even after I gave you a second chance.
            Sorry half-a-brain, no more chances.

          • tonyM says:

            You confirm the earlier assessment that you were half a brain short of half a brain.

            Do enjoy that plane trip.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            Then theres NOAA and GISS, who fudge temperature data by lowering cls till a certain year moves into first place.

            As usual, you have no clue about you’re writing about.

            As Barry explained below, those percentages for each year are not confidence levels, they’re probabilities.

            NASA and GISS are doing correct science: each year’s average temperature has an error bar, and usually those error bars overlap some for the years. So there is a certain probability a year that has a lower average temperature, might, because of its error bars, be above a slightly higher temperature.

            Every measurement in science has an associated error bar attached to it. This is inescapable, and when comparing two different measurements these MUST be taken into account.

            Only the people who don’t understand measurements and statistics think there’s something wrong with that.

          • David Appell says:

            *N.O.A.A. and GISS….

          • David Appell says:

            tonyM says:
            “Must you continually prove how brain dead you are?”

            See how tonym can’t reply without insults.

          • tonyM says:

            Appell

            Cmon Appell, is he your brother troll that you wish to defend him or complain?

            This is mild compared to my first reply to him. I had never previously interacted with this dumb twit yet he attacked me with choice descriptors, perhaps in the mistaken attempt to defend you.

            I have no problem replying to such numbskulls in kind. Are you trying to defend him now? Is he part of your clan?

            Perhaps you should look at yourself and some comments you made about some people who have not criticized you like Ren. Not so pretty if you were not so deluded as to be oblivious to your behaviour; cognitive dissonance they call it.

          • tonyM says:

            Appell:

            DA said: “See how tonym cant reply without insults.”

            Such a simplistic statement is proof you are a liar.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      tonym…”Can you explain why a paper by NOAA had a 90% c.l.?”

      Something new from NOAA, after claiming 2014 the warmest year with a 48% cl. Maybe the Trump government has gotten to them and straightened them out.

  77. Clint says:

    “Nevertheless, the weird-weather-is-climate-change narrative will continue until the populace finally agrees with the warmongers that we can control our weather through taxation and regulation.”

    My model predicts with similar 95% UN IPCC SJW virtue signalling confidence that hell will freeze over before such ‘agreement’ happens, though I would concede that coercion remains an outside possibility.

    • professorP says:

      I say, let’s abolish taxation and regulation.
      We don’t need to fund the military – they can ask for donations.
      We don’t need to fund meteorologists, universities, schools, the poor, the homeless..
      We don’t need road rules – it should be survival of the fittest.
      In fact, we don’t even need the constitution – a miserable document that tells me how I should behave in a community. How dare they!

      • Christopher Hanley says:

        Its astonishing to see an alleged academic apparently seriously employing such a puerile logical fallacy of Extension aka Appeal to Extremes.

        • professorP says:

          “Nevertheless, the weird-weather-is-climate-change narrative will continue until the populace finally agrees with the warmongers that we can control our weather through taxation and regulation.
          Its astonishing to see an alleged academic apparently seriously employing such a puerile logical fallacy of Extension aka Appeal to Extremes.

  78. CO2isLife says:

    Progressives are Out Of Touch on a Biblical Scale; NAACP Should Demand Re-Direction of Climate Change Funding to Inner-Cities

    If you go into a black community and poll the residents, I feel confident that none, not a single resident, would rank preventing climate change as one of their top 10 priorities. The social and economic statics of the black community are horrifying, and yet on MLK day 2018, the NAACP claims that MLKs Vision Cant Be Achieved Without Fighting Global Warming. This, out of all examples, highlights the complete and absolute corrupting force that Climate Change has become. No example I have found demonstrates that absurdity of Climate Change more than the NAACP betraying those whom they claim to represent, and putting the needs of the Democratic Party above them.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/15/progressives-are-out-of-touch-on-a-biblical-scale-naacp-should-demand-re-direction-of-climate-change-funding/

  79. Dan Pangburn says:

    DA,,, Up-thread you wrote Basic physics: That impeded energy has to go somewhere. Absolutely correct.

    But then you say It can only go into the ocean, atmosphere, ice or surface, and those warm up as the planet seeks to reestablish energy balance. The surface is where the energy came from so to say it goes there is bogus.

    Thermalization allows the EMR energy from the surface, absorbed by CO2 molecules near the surface, to be redirected to the low energy wavelengths emitted by the much more numerous molecules of water vapor. I show this in my blog/analysis and provide the link to the Hitran web site if you want to check it.

    • barry says:

      But then you say It can only go into the ocean, atmosphere, ice or surface

      Uh… water vapour is in the atmosphere.

    • gammacrux says:

      Nope. False reasoning.

      Whatever is the emitter, be it H2O, O3, CH4 or merely the surface, emitting more “redirected” energy at their specific wavelengths implies a higher temperature of the emitting material because of Planck’s law. No way out of it and this in turn implies higher surface and atmospheric temperatures and is precisely the GHE.

      So if more CO2 absorbs more around 15 micrometers in lower layers this implies that it emits less to outer space preciselybecause the relevant radiation can escape to space only from higher and thus colder layers. Thus on top of the atmosphere relevant radiance notch is deeper and broader because of lower emission temperatures at the relevant wavelengths.

      TOA radiance must thus increase elsewhere in spectrum to compensate and H2O, O3, CH4 and surface (atmospheric window) radiation increase and thus relevant surface and atmospheric temperatures increase too.

      At a specific wavelength for a specific material IR emission is a function of temperature only, nothing else. No change in temperature, no change in emission.

        • gammacrux says:

          You seem to readily confuse temperature and temperature gradient. Perhaps you even “believe” in the idiotic gravito-thermal effect and similar made up pseudophysics ?

          Now, of course, gravity play a major role in atmospheric temperatures and so what ?

          No gravity, no convection..

          Not even an atmosphere at all.

          No climate, no GHE.

          • ren says:

            The temperature gradient results from the decrease in gas pressure with altitude. Only water vapor reduces this gradient because it changes the state of focus and releases latent heat.

          • gammacrux says:

            Nope, Ren.
            The temperature gradient results from the fact that sunlight heats essentially Earth’s surface rather than troposphere itself.

            In fact temperature increases with height once in stratosphere while pressure still decreases !

            Why spout idiocies here and not making better use of you spare time and study some atmospheric physics instead ?

            http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/GoodyWalker/AtmosCh3sm.pdf

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        gummy, for your imaginative scenario to work you must assume the atmosphere is completely passive.

        That, of course, is not the case.

        • gammacrux says:

          Sure, the whole climate system is not passive and is expected to react to the change.

          This is indeed what’s called the various known and unknown feedbacks and is Acchille’s heel of climate science and what makes the models predictions or “projections” so uncertain.

          Yet no reason to idiotically deny the GHE itself and naively believe that additional CO2 has simply a negligible irrelevant effect and feedbacks magically are going to cancel the enhanced GHE.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “Yet no reason to idiotically deny the GHE itself and naively believe that additional CO2 has simply a negligible irrelevant effect and feedbacks magically are going to cancel the enhanced GHE.”

            Do you believe a bowl of fruit can raise the temperature of a room, everything else being the same?

          • Bart says:

            Yet, no reason naively to believe that it will have a significant impact, either, based upon models so simplified that they miss major components of the overall response, and show little to no skill in projecting temperatures over the past two decades.

          • David Appell says:

            Which “major components?”

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Gam,,, Part of the way out of it is: Plancks law applies to liquid or solid surfaces, not gases.

        Do you realize “absorbs more around 15 micrometers in lower layers this implies that it emits less to outer space” says that at wavenumber range 600-740 more energy is emitted at the surface than leaves at TOA. Thermalization allows that to happen and explains why the first law is not violated.

      • David Appell says:

        Yes, water vapor resides in the atmosphere. Barry is right.

    • gammacrux says:

      One should also read carefully the accompanying text in this link:

      https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

      For instance this:

      Another way of quantifying the (GHE) effect is to look at the difference between the infrared radiation emitted at the surface of the Earth, and the amount that is emitted to space at the top of the atmosphere. In the absence of the greenhouse effect, this would be zero (in other words, no difference). In actuality the surface emits about 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2) more than goes out to space.

    • David Appell says:

      Dan Pangburn says:
      “But then you say It can only go into the ocean, atmosphere, ice or surface, and those warm up as the planet seeks to reestablish energy balance. The surface is where the energy came from so to say it goes there is bogus.”

      Nope.

      Look up borehole evidence for warming.

  80. ren says:

    The wave of the Arctic air moves to the southeast US. Visible atmospheric front.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/wi6t0bcf5o0l.png

  81. ren says:

    Snowstorm from Texas to New York State.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00955/o6c78p0ubp5d.png

  82. ren says:

    Very low temperature and high pressure in Texas.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/0ts5gjmuopxq.png

  83. ren says:

    I suggest firing a lot of campfires to raise the troposphere in north.
    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”I suggest firing a lot of campfires to raise the troposphere in north”.

      That’s a better suggestion than a leading banker in Europe, part of the Club of Rome set, who claimed we should import large amounts of dry ice to the Arctic to cool it.

      Other brainstorms from eco-alarmists include dumping barges of iron filings into the oceans to lower the acidity and using giant reflectors to cool the planet by reflecting solar energy.

      Left up to eco-alarmists the human race could be wiped out in a century. In fact, that’s what many of them want.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “Other brainstorms from eco-alarmists include dumping barges of iron filings into the oceans to lower the acidity….”

        No, genius, the iron’s purpose would not be to lower acidity, but to stimulate phytoplankton growth, thereby taking up more carbon from the atmosphere.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”No, genius, the irons purpose would not be to lower acidity, but to stimulate phytoplankton growth, thereby taking up more carbon from the atmosphere”.

          Equally stupid idea.

          • David Appell says:

            Why stupid?

            Your claim was completely wrong. Idiotic. Don’t think you’re gonna just escape that responsibility.

            Why stupid?

          • David Appell says:

            Robertson, everything you write on this blog — EVERYTHING — has been wrong.

            Even the simple stuff.

            Why doesn’t this embarrass you? Because your name is too common for anyone to know who you really are?

            You’re hiding behind anonymity. Not the first one here….

  84. ren says:

    I wonder when recently so much snow has fallen in Louisiana?
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/krhz9uocxbhy.png

  85. Gordon Robertson says:

    gamma…”In actuality the surface emits about 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2) more than goes out to space”.

    Ever heard of the inverse-square law? At what altitude is energy radiated to space? Over that altitude, how much would 150 W/m^2 be expected to diminish at 1/d^2?

    I mean what is the radiation in W/m^2 at TOA? Is it less than at the surface? It should be.

    Furthermore, there is far less density for radiation particles at the TOA than at the surface, which is a densely packed conglomeration of atoms.

    Now put it all together and calculate if the total radiation to space over the increased spherical surface at the altitude of the TOA does not equal radiation from the surface.

    Don’t know, just asking.

    • professorP says:

      “Dont know, just asking.”
      Never has a truer word been spoken.

      FYI:
      The TOA radiation to space equals one quarter of the solar constant.
      The total infrared radiation from the surface is 150 (units) more than this.
      That is the GHE in a nutshell.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        profp…”The TOA radiation to space equals one quarter of the solar constant”.

        Solar constant = 1362 W/m^2 at TOA. Are you saying the emission at TOA is 1362/4 = 340 W /m^2?

        I don’t pay much attention to the Earth’s terrestrial radiation because I think it is largely mathematical bs. However, I’ve heard the value 250 W/m^2 bandied about.

        How do you explain that against a radiation value of 340 W/m^2 at the TOA? It’s larger for a sphere of much larger diameter, which makes no sense. It does not allow for the inverse square law.

        I fear that all the theory related to a fictitious radiation budget and an equally fictitious GHE is based on bad conjecture.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ps. I fear the Kiele-Trenberth radiation budget is bad fiction. It has as much back-radiation from WV and ACO2 as it does from the original radiation that allegedly warmed the atmosphere.

          That implies the atmosphere is absorbing and returning nearly 100% of the radiated surface energy.

          https://scied.ucar.edu/radiation-budget-diagram-earth-atmosphere

          Complete and utter science fiction. Trenberth oversaw John Christy’s (UAH) grad studies. It’s a good thing John had the intelligence and integrity to distance himself from Trenberth once he saw the truth of the satellite data.

          Mind you, Roy and John have been marked men since. Trenberth is a heavyweight at the IPCC reviews and he holds considerable sway with peer review.

          • David Appell says:

            Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

            You can’t even read the diagram correctly — it clearly shows 239 W/m2 of IR leaving the TOA.

            https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png

          • David Appell says:

            Nothing paints you as a bigger boob than thinking you know more than Trenberth.

            The guy really knows his stuff. (Based on what I’ve read, phone interviews, and a lunch talking to him.)

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”The guy [Trenberth] really knows his stuff. (Based on what Ive read, phone interviews, and a lunch talking to him.)

            I have been right about catastrophic warming/climate change, he’s been wrong. And I have not been running around hassling climate journal editors, causing them to resign, or teaming up with Had-crut’s Phil Jones, as Jones claimed in a Climategate email, to block skeptic’s papers to IPCC reviews.

            I am not accusing Trenberth of that, I’m only quoting Jones from Climategate when he inferred that he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that certain skeptic’s papers would not reach the IPCC review. Since Trenberth is partnered with Jones as Coordinating Lead Author at the reviews, I presume Jones meant Trenberth. Not too many Kevins in climate science.

            I don’t have egg on my face for making ridiculous claims about warming then having to back off, admitting I can’t find the warming signal.

            As far as him knowing his stuff, I think Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH are light years ahead of him. The student has become the teacher.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “I have been right about catastrophic warming/climate change, hes been wrong.”

            You are a jackass.

            You know almost nothing. You’re wrong about everything.

            You’re pathetic.

          • David Appell says:

            GR wrote:
            “….or teaming up with Had-cruts Phil Jones, as Jones claimed in a Climategate email, to block skeptics papers to IPCC reviews.”

            Show one instance when that occurred.

            Just one.

            Or shut your hole.

          • David Appell says:

            GR wrote:
            “I dont have egg on my face for making ridiculous claims about warming then having to back off, admitting I cant find the warming signal.”

            As usual — as always — you have no idea what you’re talking about. Which is why you can’t prove any of what your spout.

            Dunning Kruger.

          • David Appell says:

            GR: You cant even read the diagram correctly it clearly shows 239 W/m2 of IR leaving the TOA.

            https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png

            Afraid to reply?

      • Christopher Hanley says:

        “The TOA radiation to space equals one quarter of the solar constant “.
        Lets see, the Solar Constant = 1367 W/m2
        1367/4 = 342 W/m2.
        http://www.climate4you.com/images/OLR Global NOAA.gif
        The approximate radiation from the earths climate system at the top of atmosphere looks ~234 W/m2.
        Over to you professor.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          cristopher…for some reason WordPress seems to have truncated your link. I copy/pasted it as:

          http://www.climate4you.com/images/OLR Global NOAA.gif

          and it worked. Just want to see how it shows up here.

        • professorP says:

          FOR DUMMIES.
          The solar constant is the amount of solar radiation incident on the face of the Earth at the Earth-Sun mean distance.
          This falls upon the area of the disk (pi r squared)
          Yet the Earth is rotating and so this amount of radiation is distributed over the entire area
          (4 pi r squared).
          The average amount received at the TOA at any point is therefore one quarter the solar constant.

          Please, this is elementary for any first year science student.

          • professorP says:

            What goes out at the TOA is (correctly estimated at) about 342 (units).
            The surface must pump out about 492 units in order to maintain equilibrium.
            i.e. it must work harder than would be the case if there were no atmosphere and no GHGs.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            profp…”The surface must pump out about 492 units in order to maintain equilibrium.
            i.e. it must work harder than would be the case if there were no atmosphere and no GHGs”.

            Tell the truth, are you a mechanic, or maybe a sales clerk? Don’t quit your day job.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            profp…”The average amount received at the TOA at any point is therefore one quarter the solar constant”.

            you said earlier: “The TOA radiation to space equals one quarter of the solar constant”.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Tell the truth, are you a mechanic, or maybe a sales clerk? Dont quit your day job

            Professor P is correct. You are not.

            The factor of 4 is not difficult to understand, and is covered in Chapter 1 of any textbook on climate science.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”The factor of 4 is not difficult to understand, and is covered in Chapter 1 of any textbook on climate science”.

            In certain areas of climate science they also misrepresent the meaning of positive feedback, the 2nd law, confuse heat with EM, offer an opinion for the warming effect of CO2 which is wrong, do a lot of work with unvalidated climate models and pass the pseudo-science off as fact, create ridiculous, unverified future climate scenarios based on an extremely rare gas, pass atmospheric gas off as a blanket that traps heat, and pass consensus off a real science.

            And you expect me to accept their theories on radiation at the TOA? I don’t really care what it is, Wood made it abundantly clear that surface radiation is of trivial importance for cooling the surface.

            We all know the planet must dump its acquired heat to remain in equilibrium but presuming a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere retain heat is not only silly, it’s pseudo-science.

        • professorP says:

          “The approximate radiation from the earths climate system at the top of atmosphere looks ~234 W/m2.”
          No.
          It has to be 342 in order to balance the solar in.

          • Bindidon says:

            Sorry professorP…

            1367 W/m2 is what the Sun delivers at TOA.

            From that you first have to subtract all what is reflected due to albedo (about 30 %).

            70 % of 1367 /4 gives you about 239 W/m2 really entering Earth’s thermal system.

            And that is what is expected to be returned to space in order to achieve thermal equilibrium.

            D’accord, monsieur le professeur?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The “professor” gets schooled by Gordon and Bin!

            Hilarious.

          • Christopher Hanley says:

            “It has to be 342 in order to balance the solar in …”.
            The self-styled professor has his theory — measured data is irrelevant.

          • professorP says:

            Bindidon,
            342 in
            342 out
            That refers to TOTAL radiation (sw plus lw).
            Your introduction of albedo is somewhat misleading since the the 342 out includes reflected sw.
            Otherwise we agree.

          • professorP says:

            Gordon,
            The average amount received at the TOA at any point is therefore one quarter the solar constant.
            Is correct.
            The TOA radiation to space equals one quarter of the solar constant.
            Is correct since it refers to sw plus lw.
            see reply to Bindidon above.

          • professorP says:

            Chris,
            you are referring to outgoing LONGWAVE radiation.
            To simplify for you and others
            TOTAL TOA RADIATION
            342 in = 342 out

            SOLAR RADIATION
            342 in 103 reflected
            LONGWAVE RADIATION
            239 absorbed by the system
            TOA LONGWAVE out =239

            Simple eh?

          • David Appell says:

            Bindidon says:
            1367 W/m2 is what the Sun delivers at TOA.

            That’s not the global diurnal average — you must divide by 4 to get that.

            Professor P is correct.

          • Christopher Hanley says:

            Hello professor,
            Your original post said:
            “The TOA radiation to space equals one quarter of the solar constant.
            The total infrared radiation from the surface is 150 (units) more than this.
            That is the GHE in a nutshell …”.
            The reflected SW radiation plays no part in the GHE — hence the misunderstanding.

          • David Appell says:

            Christopher Hanley says:
            Hello professor,
            Your original post said:
            The TOA radiation to space equals one quarter of the solar constant.
            The total infrared radiation from the surface is 150 (units) more than this.

            Professor P is correct. So is your last number.

          • Christopher Hanley says:

            The total LW radiation from the surface is ~150 W/m2 more than the total LW radiation at TOA which is ~234 W/m2, not “150 units” more than 1/4 of the solar constant (342 W/m2).

          • David Appell says:

            What is a “unit?”

            This diagram clarifies everything:

            https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”70 % of 1367 /4 gives you about 239 W/m2 really entering Earths thermal system”.

            On average. The 0.3 albedo must be an average ranging from a low value to a higher value depending on location.

            https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84499

            “Taken across the planet, no significant global trend appears”.

            I’m curious as to how much the absorbed EM heats the oceans and land along the Equator with a very low albedo and how much of that heat is transferred poleward. Lindzen indicates that is typical.

            As you know, I am not much into averages, unless the average represents something that is in plain sight. I think the climate system is extremely complex.

            Although I come across as obstinate at times, I have learned over a lifetime to believe nothing I hear and only half of what I see. I don’t have much interest in statistics via blind number crunching or pat answers to complex questions.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            christopher…”The total LW radiation from the surface is ~150 W/m2 more than the total LW radiation at TOA which is ~234 W/m2, not 150 units more than 1/4 of the solar constant (342 W/m2)”.

            That makes more sense. I’d expect a larger sphere to have a lower radiation per unit area than a small sphere, given the same basic power.

            I presume there are other factors, as indicated by Lindzen. He claimed heat is transported poleward from the Tropics by clouds, etc., and they radiate to space at higher altitudes.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”This diagram clarifies everything:”

            Excuse me??? It shows 333 units of back-radiation, almost as much as the surface radiates.

            Pure science-fiction.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “It shows 333 units of back-radiation, almost as much as the surface radiates. Pure science-fiction”

            Why? Prove it.

            Prove it or you will again be labeled an ignorant liar.

          • Christopher Hanley says:

            David Appell: “what is a unit?”
            Search me, I assumed he meant W/m2 but you will have to ask the professor.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon worships Lindzen like a puppy. But has never looked up the letter written by 18 other faculty members of Lindzens department at MIT. Why not? Just laziness? Or does he prefer to remain ignorant.

          • professorP says:

            “The total LW radiation from the surface is ~150 W/m2 more than the total LW radiation at TOA which is ~234 W/m2, not 150 units more than 1/4 of the solar constant (342 W/m2).”
            Chris, you are right, my hurried mistake.

            The point is that the 234 units corresponds to a black body temperature of about -18 degC
            Yet the observed SURFACE temperature is about +15 degC.
            i.e. 33 degC warmer.

            You don’t need to know anything about CO2 to see that the presence of an atmosphere causes this difference.

  86. barry says:

    I was curious about the dismissiveness of geophysics as not being a discipline that encompasses atmospheric effects. Geophysics means ‘the physics of the earth’. Is there something inherent in the definition that precludes atmospheric dynamics?

    So I looked it up in case I’d misunderstood.

    *

    Geophysics:

    noun
    1.
    (functioning as sing) the study of the earth’s physical properties and of the physical processes acting upon, above, and within the earth. It includes seismology, geomagnetism, meteorology, and oceanography

    Collins English Dictionary

    *

    geophysics in Science

    geophysics

    The scientific study of the physical characteristics of the Earth, including its hydrosphere and atmosphere, and of the Earth’s relationship to the rest of the universe.

    The American Heritage Science Dictionary

    *

    geophysics in Culture

    geophysics definition

    The science devoted to the study of the physical properties and processes of geological phenomena, including fields such as meteorology, oceanography, and seismology.

    The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

    *

    noun, ( used with a singular verb)

    1.
    the branch of geology that deals with the physics of the earth and its atmosphere, including oceanography, seismology, volcanology, and geomagnetism.

    dictionary.com

    *

    Definition of geophysics

    a branch of earth science dealing with the physical processes and phenomena occurring especially in the earth and in its vicinity

    Merriam-Webster

    *

    geophysics

    noun UK​

    the study of the rocks and other substances that make up the earth and the physical processes happening on, in, and above the earth

    Chambers dictionary

    *

    geophysics

    PLURAL NOUN

    (treated as singular) The physics of the earth.

  87. Gordon Robertson says:

    A primer for Norman and David Appell, from Columbia University, on the role of electrons in EM radiation….by a climate scientist!!!

    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/heat_xfer.html

    I don’t know why people, as in this article, insist on getting caught at the molecular level, as if molecules are different than atoms made up of electrons and protons. They speak of the atomic bonds in molecules as if they are not made up of electrons in orbit yet they reveal that it is the electron that radiates the EM.

    This article explains for DA how heat is transferred from the Sun via EM. Of course, you have to dig for it and DA will resort to calling me a liar because he lacks the comprehension to get that.

    I offer a disclaimer now. I don’t agree entirely with the rest of the lecture notes, in case you come back at me with them later. Overall, I think it’s a good presentation, however.

    • ren says:

      “It was the physicist Max Planck who determined the relationship between the radiative energy flux emitted from a blackbody and its absolute temperature. This expression is known as the Planck blackbody radiation law. It is by using this law that the spectra of Sun and Earth emitted radiation were calculated in Figure 1. In that figure we substituted in Planks law values of 5780 K and 288 K for the Sun’s and Earth’s temperatures, respectively.”
      http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/blackbody.gif

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ren…Planck and Boltzmann seem intertwined, Boltzmann coming slightly before him. Planck picked up on the work of Boltzmann and refined it.

        The basic Stefan-Boltzmann equation is q = σ T^4 A where q = radiation from body, σ = Boltzmann’s constant, T = absolute temperature, and A = area of body.

        The net radiation loss from a hot body to a cooler body is:

        q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ac

        That’s what I am referring to and this came out 25 years before Planck. ε = emissivity.

        • David Appell says:

          Planck’s Law gives the SB equation, by integrating over all frequencies.

          Better, it also predicts the value of the proportional constant in the SB law.

          The Planck Law is more fundamental then the SB law.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”The Planck Law is more fundamental then the SB law”.

            Not arguing that. Planck had the benefit of Boltzmann’s expertise in the field and 25 years to develop his equation. I just noted that people tend to quote S-B when making theoretical calculations involving the planet.

            I imagine it’s a lot easier than dealing with ‘e’ raised to some crazy power.

          • David Appell says:

            In fact, Planck did not rely on Boltzmann’s expertise, or Boltzmann would have discovered the Planck Law instead of Planck.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            “I just noted that people tend to quote S-B when making theoretical calculations involving the planet.”

            Not really. Gordon, are you aware of the two-stream equations?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ren…you may find this interesting. It’s a comparison between the approaches of Boltzmann and Planck.

        https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jther/2016/9137926/

        I don’t particularly agree with either since they seem to have perverted what Clausius meant by entropy. Clausius did not define the 2nd law with entropy, he introduced entropy after he’d stated the 2nd law.

        Both Boltzmann and Planck seem to view entropy as the end law and they seem to lose the implication of the 2nd law about heat transfer from hot to cold only. If you read the article at the link above it explains how each developed his strategy via statistical mechanics.

        • ren says:

          Correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that because the emitter temperature is higher, so it produces waves with more energy than the absorber. So how can the absorber raise the energy of the emitter? The emitter is the Earth and the absorber is atmospheric gas.
          The air can only heat the surface as a result of conduction. This happens when the wind directs the warmer air over the cooler surface.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            ren knows about wavelengths.

            I wonder if any Perps will learn. ..

          • David Appell says:

            ren said:
            So how can the absorber raise the energy of the emitter? The emitter is the Earth and the absorber is atmospheric gas.

            Infrared radiation from the surface and atmosphere increases the energy level of the molecules of the greenhouse gases. (But not in the way Gordon thinks; it’s not the atomic electron energy levels, but the molecules energy levels of its rotational and vibrational quantum states.)

            But when in an excited state the GHG molecules quickly emit an IR photon, in a random direction. Some of this radiation goes downward, warming the molecules below it; in particular, near the surface.

            There is “heat source” or no energy “being created,” just energy redirected.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            davie, photons do not increase internal energy if they are not absorbed.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ren…”Correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that because the emitter temperature is higher, so it produces waves with more energy than the absorber. So how can the absorber raise the energy of the emitter? The emitter is the Earth and the absorber is atmospheric gas”.

            That’s the point some of us skeptics are trying to make. I have tried to take it to the atomic level because my background is in electronics and we are given good atomic theory while learning the discipline. After all, electronics is based on the electron, it would be dumb not to explain basic electron theory to us.

            Electrons emit electromagnetic energy and absorb it. There is a whole branch of theory below the basic electron-proton interaction taking place in the nucleus. From the little I know, electrons can be manufactured by the interaction of forces within the nucleus.

            However, the electron has a negative charge and carries a magnetic field with it when it moves. When electrons move in a conductor, there is an electric field and a magnetic field around the conductor. That’s how electric motors and transformers work as well as inductors.

            It appears to be the same in the atom. The main difference appears to be that electrons in an atom make a transition between energy states in a quantum manner. They simply disappear at one energy level and appear at another.

            When they make such transitions, they emit or absorb EM and the intensity and frequency of the EM corresponds to the energy level and the energy in eV between states, as in:

            E = hf

            Of course, the difference in potential energy increases as the electron moves to a level away from the nucleus. To overcome that potential field, the electron requires external energy of a certain intensity and frequency. From what I can gather, EM from a cooler atom cannot provide that energy.

            The higher energy states are associated with heat. As an electron drops to a lower level it converts heat to EM. The atom loses heat to the surroundings as EM. The 2nd law suggests that process is not reversible. I take that to mean EM from a cooler source cannot reverse the process and increase the heat in atoms.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”its not the atomic electron energy levels, but the molecules energy levels of its rotational and vibrational quantum states.)”

            A molecule is two or more atoms bonded by electrons or charges produced by electrons. The vibrations in a molecule involve electron bonds interacting with protons in the nucleus. Molecules that rotate are linear and their shape comes from electron bonds.

            All radiation from molecules comes from electrons. There is no other source of radiation in an atom/molecule other than in special cases where high velocity particles collide with the nucleus.

          • David Appell says:

            False, Gordon. Completely wrong. Ignorant.

            You are the most stupid, ignorant person I have ever encountered in my life. And the worst is that you insist on remaining ignorant. You refuse to learn from those who know more than you. It is truly very pathetic, and very sad too, to observe such a lost individual. And I mean this sincerely.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Some of this radiation goes downward, warming the molecules below it; in particular, near the surface”.

            What molecules? Do you mean WV or CO2 molecules? If so, what are the chances that a randomly fired photon from an upper level CO2 molecule will strike another WV/CO2 molecule below it when CO2 has a density of 0.04% and WV near the surface about 1%?

            Besides, it’s not the atmosphere we are concerned about in AGW. They are actually claiming that the solid surface warms to a temperature higher than it is warmed by solar energy due to the back-radiation you describe.

            It’s radiation from the solid surface that warms the GHGs, not radiation from the atmosphere, which is 99% nitrogen and oxygen. The surface is too warm to absorb EM from cooler atmospheric gases.

            Unless an inversion is in progress, upper altitude CO2 will be cooler than lower altitude CO2. The 2nd law states that a heat transfer from cooler gases to warmer gases is not possible.

            Having said all that. I’m not convinced that the IR portion of incoming solar does not warm the atmospheric gases. Short wavelength EM is absorbed by both nitrogen and oxygen in the stratosphere so why would that not be true in the lower atmosphere?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”You refuse to learn from those who know more than you”.

            If I learned from you I’d be dumb as a sack of hammers.

            You don’t even begin to understand that molecules are made of atoms and that atoms are joined by electrons in orbit. You fail to understand even the most basic aspects of atomic theory.

        • David Appell says:

          GR wrote:
          “Clausius did not define the 2nd law with entropy, he introduced entropy after hed stated the 2nd law.”

          All popular versions of the 2LOT are equivalent, whether they mention entropy or not.

        • David Appell says:

          Entropy is much more fundamental than statements about “work.” And Clausius’s 2LOT version is equivalent.

          • David Appell says:

            This blog’s refusal to send email replies to one’s comments is ridiculous, and shows the blog’s owner (Roy) doesn’t care at all how anyone thinks about his pronoucements.

            Wonder how many copies sold of Roy’s economics treatise.

            Roy?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”This blogs refusal to send email replies to ones comments is ridiculous, and shows the blogs owner (Roy) doesnt care at all how anyone thinks about his pronoucements.

            Wonder how many copies sold of Roys economics treatise”.

            ************

            Now your being a complete ***hole. Do you think Roy has nothing better to do than reply to your pseudo-science and general ranting? Or reply to an insulting comment on his own blog?

            I have never had a problem receiving a reply from Roy or John Christy if the query was polite and to the point. The replies were short because they are too busy to reply at length, but both have replied to me on several occasions.

            Why don’t you comment on the outright refusal of Phil Jones of Had-crut to release data to Steve McIntyre for independent audit, then conspiring in the Climategate emails to prevent McIntyre’s success with an FOI request to the UK government to have the data released?

            Why don’t you comment on posters being banned from realclimate and skepticalscience for going against what they deem to be correct science. You have been granted polite admission to this site although you present nothing but alarmist propaganda.

            I’d have booted your butt out of here long ago.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Entropy is much more fundamental than statements about work. And Clausiuss 2LOT version is equivalent”.

            Clausius defined entropy in words as the sum of infinitesimal change of heat into or out of a system at the temperature T at which the changes took place. Through integration of a reversible process the sum is zero. For a reversible process, the sum is positive.

            What does that tell you about the 2nd law? Nothing. He had already explained the 2nd law before introducing entropy. He stated that heat cannot of itself be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body. I think that states far more than a concept that no one can understand other than the degree of distinction between reversible and irreversible processes.

            Both Boltzmann and Planck focused on entropy as a basis for statistical mechanics with reference to heat. They attached probabilities to atomic cells to average heat transfer at a microscopic scale. For years after formulating his equation, Planck wondered whether it had any real function and I am wondering the same today.

            You can derive mathematical relationships by sheer chance and many observers have debated whether Planck fluked on his equation. Even Planck admitted his work cannot be visualized so how do we know to which degree it applies to the real world?

            Neither Planck nor Boltzmann proved the 2nd law is wrong, their equation still must be applied with the presumption that heat can only be transferred hot to cold, without external compensation. It is a few modern scientists who are making such claims for a two way heat transfer even though neither Planck nor Boltzmann indicate that in their equations.

            We have to remember than neither scientist knew about electron theory a la Bohr and neither would have been privy to Bohr’s theories on electron emission and absorp-tion of EM. The constraints of that alone uphold the 2nd law.

    • David Appell says:

      What in that Columbia link am I supposed to be looking at? I’m not going to guess…?

      This article explains for DA how heat is transferred from the Sun via EM.

      EM is the “kinetic energy” of photons — hence heat. In particular, infrared EM waves are heat — because they carry energy. That’s how the Sun heats the Earth.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”EM is the kinetic energy of photons hence heat. In particular, infrared EM waves are heat because they carry energy. Thats how the Sun heats the Earth”.

        The link from Columbia I posted explains how electrons convert EM to heat and vice-versa.

        EM is converted to heat when it strikes a mass, provided the EM is of sufficient intensity and frequency to be absorbed. Coming from the Sun, whose average temperature is much higher than the surface of the Earth, solar energy is absorbed right across its spectrum.

        If EM does not strike a mass it has no thermal energy associated with it. Thermal energy is NOT a property of EM, just as heat has no electric/magnetic fields or frequency.

        With heat transfer, the 2nd law must be obeyed, and summing the mythical net energy of EM does no satisfy the 2nd law. That means radiation from the Earth has absolutely no effect on the Sun.

  88. Carbon500 says:

    Dan Pangburn: in your post of Jan 15th at 1.52pm, I was interested to note your comment that ‘CO2 has no significant effect on climate because of thermalization. Thermalization means that absorbed energy is immediately (starts in less than 0.0002 microseconds) shared with surrounding molecules by conduction.’
    Can you tell me where the 0.0002 microseconds figure came from please? – I’ve been looking for details as to how long the molecule retains energy, because this is obviously important to the discussion.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      The link to the source is Ref 7 in my blog analysis. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/frecol.html
      Input: Po=101 kpa, T=288 K, dia=4E-10 m, M=29amu gives 0.12 nanosec

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”peer reviewed?”

          Who cares? Peer review is not a requirement of the scientific method and most peer review today is corrupt.

      • Carbon500 says:

        Thanks for the reference, Dan. Not having a background in the physical sciences, I can’t comment on the ‘ins’ and ‘out’ of what appears to me to be a very important and relevant aspect of the CO2 story. Hopefully there will be some insightful comments and discussions couched in general terms for the benefit of all.
        I notice that DA asks ‘peer reviewed’? Gordon Robertson quite rightly points out that peer review is not a requirement of the scientific method itself.
        There’s more that has to be said regarding peer review. If a researcher can’t get something published in one journal, they’re free to try as many others as they wish until they find a sympathetic editor and reviewers. Having worked in a university research laboratory, I know that this is how it works! Peer review isn’t a guarantee of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, nor are all reviewers necessarily fellow experts on the topic covered.

        • barry says:

          Peer review is a filter against junk science. Not perfect, but much better than, say, the internet. Which is to say, if you can’t even clear that hurdle with your references, then you have a serious problem.

  89. gbaikie says:

    The mysterious cycles of ice ages
    Published on: Friday, 12 January, 2018
    Orbital wobbles, carbon dioxide and dust all seem to contribute

    –Burning coal, Arrhenius said, was therefore a good thing: By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates.–

    And near bottom:
    –The argument goes like this. Colder oceans evaporate less moisture and rainfall decreases. At the depth of the last ice age, Africa suffered long mega-droughts; only small pockets of rainforest remained. Crucially, the longer an ice age lasts, the more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the cold oceans. When the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere drops below 200 parts per million (0.02 per cent), plants struggle to grow at all, especially at high altitudes. Deserts expand. Dust storms grow more frequent and larger. In the Antarctic ice cores, dust increased markedly whenever carbon dioxide levels got below 200 ppm. The dust would have begun to accumulate on the ice caps, especially those of Eurasia and North America, which were close to deserts. Next time a Milankovich great summer came along, and the ice caps began to melt, the ice would have grown dirtier and dirtier, years of deposited dust coming together as the ice shrank. The darker ice would have absorbed more heat from the sun and a runaway process of collapsing ice caps would have begun.–
    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/explaining-ice-ages/
    linked from:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/01/14/matt-ridley-the-mysterious-cycles-of-ice-ages/#more-35570

    I guess you could say, saved by dust and dirty ice.

    • ren says:

      “Linearly extrapolating this trend upwards to 180 km altitude would imply a discrepancy by a factor of around two there, in agreement with the discrepancy found by VExADE via Precise Orbit Determination at higher altitudes (176186 km; ref. 10). This suggests scale heights in Venuss polar atmosphere to be systematically lower than predicted by VTS3 above around 100 km. This is consistent with our earlier finding of Venuss polar upper atmosphere being cooler than predicted by VTS3. The broader significance of these differences is that the assumptions of solar zenith angle symmetry underlying VTS3 are too simplistic for high latitudes, where other factors such as winds may lead to polar temperatures in the lower thermosphere being cooler than expected from solar forcing alone.”
      https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3733

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Very interesting links, gbaikie.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gbaikie…good stuff.

      • Svante says:

        Gordon,

        There’s the snow/ice albedo feedback again:
        “The darker ice would have absorbed more heat from the sun and a runaway process of collapsing ice caps would have begun.”

        I’ve seen dark paper being put on snow, it raised the temperature from something like -5 to +10.

        You can try it in your garden next time you have snow and sun.

        I once thought this could explain most of global warming, soot landing on snow, when it starts melting it will expose more particles in a positive feedback loop.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gbaikie…”Crucially, the longer an ice age lasts, the more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the cold oceans”.

      Could that not explain why CO2 concentrations may have been lower during the Little Ice Age, where the IPCC tried to establish a baseline for CO2 levels? I am not convinced that ice gas proxies are all that accurate, especially when used by IPCC-types who are looking to establish AGW.

      • gbaikie says:

        — Gordon Robertson says:
        January 18, 2018 at 1:12 AM

        gbaikieCrucially, the longer an ice age lasts, the more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the cold oceans.

        Could that not explain why CO2 concentrations may have been lower during the Little Ice Age, where the IPCC tried to establish a baseline for CO2 levels?–

        Hmm. Glacier periods have average ocean temperature of about 1 C, and compared to current average ocean of about 3 C.

        I would say that during LIA average ocean was about 3 C.
        And very roughly speaking during our Ice box period [millions of years- so many many glacial and interglacial periods] during interglacial average ocean warms to about 5 C.
        And I am not particularly confident that our present interglacial will warm to average ocean of 5 C, but I will give it 50% chance. Of course, in thousand years, who knows what humans will be doing- changing Earth average temp might become hobby/fetish [this year we will freeze Earth and for change the year after it will be hot house climate- it will be hideously expensive, but why not?].

        Anyhow, why do glacial periods have such low levels of CO2.
        Or what does an ocean with average temperature of 1 C “look like”?
        Is it more ocean will well below O C waters? Is it more uniformly cool?
        As far as I know, 40% of our planet [the tropics] doesn’t change much- the existence of tropical plants indicates it couldn’t have changed much. And I haven’t heard anyone make the case of the tropics changing much.
        Though one expect tropics in terms of weather and weather patterns could get somewhat brief period in various regions which get fairly cold.
        Anyhow, it’s agreed the polar sea extends a lot further, but it seems the polar regions covered in ice [thick ice] would inhibit CO2 being absorbed by the ocean and it seems one less open ocean with cold water. Or, there is less gradient- a sharper boundary between warm surface water and cold surface waters.

        • gbaikie says:

          “Or, there is less gradient- a sharper boundary between warm surface water and cold surface waters.”

          One way to answer my question, is life processes of ocean dominate [which I forgot about]. So with a more ocean covered
          with ice, it greatly inhibits CO2 absorbed by the ocean.
          Or with much larger polar ice, one creating huge ocean “desert”- though a more sterile environment, might be a better term. Though of course there are actually no sterile anywhere in earth’s crust. And in this “sterile” environment other life process “might” inhibt the remaining open ocean from adding CO2 to atmosphere. Or Ocean adds and subtracts vast amounts of CO2 [completely dwarfing Human CO2 emission] So more polar ice may affect both sides [absorbing and emitting].

          And of course the reason Earth has low CO2 for last tens of millions of years is due to weathering. So this weathering may remain at same level [or be even less] but if ocean is not adding as much CO2, the reducting of CO2 from weathering effect is relatively increased.

      • Svante says:

        Gordon, I think you’re right here:

        “Could that not explain why CO2 concentrations may have been lower during the Little Ice Age”

        That’s another positive feedback.

  90. ren says:

    If someone thinks that the current state of the polar vortex results from the warming of the stratosphere over the polar circle, then it is wrong.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2018.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”If someone thinks that the current state of the polar vortex results from the warming of the stratosphere over the polar circle, then it is wrong”.

      My understanding is that colder air from the upper altitudes descend on the Arctic when solar radiation becomes low or absent. That’s the Arctic air we have seen recently over North America.

  91. gammacrux says:

    Dan,from up-thread;

    Plancks law applies to liquid or solid surfaces, not gases.

    No, this is simply wrong.
    Please think of it: if Planck’s law didn’t apply to gases, Roy Spencer could not infer atmospheric temperatures from satellite borne microwave radiance measurements. There would simply be no theoretical basis at all to do that.

    Planck’s law applies of course to any matter, gases included, and has strictly nothing to do with the presence or absence of a “surface”. It’s a property of matter as soon as it exhibits at least local thermodynamic equilibrium i.e. can be described at least locally by a well defined temperature T ( a property that is, by the way, precisely the result of active collisions and resulting thermalization) .
    Planck’s law is a fundamental property inferred from equilibrium statistical mechanics and amply verified experimentally in innumerable instances. Exactly as is at thermodynamic equilibrium the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of the speeds of the molecules in a gas. They are both specific universal functions of temperature T only.
    Briefly, let’s consider at a molecule of CO2 in atmosphere at temperature T. From a mechanical point of view it’s an oscillator with frequency around 700 cm^-1. At high enough temperature a sizable fraction of the collisions in gas manages to transfer enough energy and excite the oscillator in a given molecule, that is make it oscillate and emit radiation (because the oscillator is actually a tiny oscillating electric dipole). The higher the temperature, the larger the excitation and thus the larger the emission. Now the atomic oscillators are actually quantized and taking this into account is all what is necessary to deduce Planck’s law from standard statistical mechanics considerations.

    An elementary introduction in paragraph 41.2 and 3 (and Plank’s law 41.16) in Feynman’s lectures: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_41.html

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      gam,,,measuring atmosphere by satellite has nothing to do with Plancks law.

      Plancks law: Planck’s law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.

      If all gasses emitted full BB spectrum radiation spectroscopy would not work.

      Thermalization is the process of a ghg molecule absorbing the energy of a photon and sharing the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules. It has nothing to do with collision between molecules.

      • David Appell says:

        Then how does this “sharing” work?

      • gammacrux says:

        Dan,

        Why do you continue to spout nonsense ?

        Of course satellite temperature measurement is directly based on Planck’s law which gives the temperature dependence of thermal emission at any specific frequency or wavelength.
        That’s what we’re interested in here.

        In microwave range Planck’s law is well approximation by the Rayleigh-Jeans law with intensity merely proportional to T

        Please learn what above sentences mean mathematically.

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

        Planck’s law does not just describe the familiar full BB emission spectrum or intensity as a function of frequency at a specific temperature and it does not just apply to BB emission !

        It’s a function of both temperature and frequency !

        So it also describes how emission varies with temperature at any specific frequency whatever the emissivity of the emitting material might ever be, that is even if it is not a BB 8 !

        Thermalization is the process of a ghg molecule absorbing the energy of a photon and sharing the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules. It has nothing to do with collision between molecules.

        Again utter ignorance and nonsense.

        An excited molecule (after IR photon absorp-tion) almost always transfers the relevant excess energy to othe rmolecules during collisions !

        Thermalization is all about collisions !

      • gammacrux says:

        And of course nobody claims or assumes that gases emit like a BB spectrum.

        Emission of any material is actually given by e ( f ) times P ( f , T) where e ( f ) is its emissivity versus frequency f and P ( f , T ) is Planck’s function.

        If, as is the case here, we’re interested in temperature dependence of emission at a given frequency ( IR at 700 cm^-1 of CO2, or microwave at 60 Ghz for atmospheric temperature measurements) the Planck function gives all of the temperature dependance since emissivity is temperature independent.

        • Dan Pangburn says:

          gam,, Apparently you have never taken a course in heat transfer analysis.

          Where do you get 60 Ghz from??

          • gammacrux says:

            Just more idiocy.

            For your info, I’m a physicist

            Hilarious !

            You obviously don’t know what you talk about as so many other crackpots posting here or elsewhere and you are just one more of those numerous very nice textbook examples of Dunnig Kruger effect at work.

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

            Where do you get 60 Ghz from??

            So funny (

            Sorry, from now on, google is your friend !

            Do now learn a little bit about satellite temperature measurements in particular and physics in general just by yourself.

            Up to now I kindly provided many references for you to read, make an effort to understand, learn a bit about physics and so become less ignorant. To no avail, you just idiotically ignored them and spout more nonsense instead.

            So funny, indeed !

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dan…”Where do you get 60 Ghz from??”

            It’s a ballpark emission frequency for oxygen molecules in the atmosphere. The range of frequencies over which oxygen emits with different temperatures forms a bandwidth wrt altitude in that vicinity.

            An article by Roy on the AMSU:

            http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page55.htm

            Range of gigahertz frequencies involved per receiver channel on this page.

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

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gamma…”Please think of it: if Plancks law didnt apply to gases, Roy Spencer could not infer atmospheric temperatures from satellite borne microwave radiance measurements. There would simply be no theoretical basis at all to do that”.

      If you look at the history of Planck’s Law he was trying to resolve the ultraviolet catastrophe whereby the EM spectrum of a blackbody ‘should’ rise to infinity beyond the ultraviolet. It did not and he was trying to fit a curve mathematically to explain why.

      He was not dealing with real, physical gases, he was dealing with a form of statistical gas, if you will, where the entropies of theorized atoms constituted a gas of probabilities. I know that sounds crazy, but Planck explained in his book on heat that heat transfer at the atomic level can neither be visualized nor measured, therefore it is necessary to attach probabilities to very theoretical atomic arrays to guess at the way heat is transferred at the atomic level.

      If you make the guess, and it can be corroborated by experiment then you have something. However, that’s why I am suspicious of many of the propositions of quantum theory. It’s based on fudged math. Feynman claimed that QM works but that no one knows why. I don’t think it works to the degree avid proponents of QM claim. A lot of it is sci-fi. Such is life when you live in an entirely mathematical world with no reality to verify it.

      As far as a gas is related to a blackbody, Gerlich and Tsheuschner, both experts in thermodynamics summed that up succinctly. They claimed that a given microscopic volume of CO2 in the atmosphere can in no way be considered a blackbody (cavity resonator). Planck was dealing with a theoretical blackbody, not a gas.

      With regard to AMSU units on sats, AFAIK, they have nothing to do with Planck’s equation. The bandwidth of the channel amplifiers may take the shape of a curve similar to a Planck curve, but they are detecting the gigahertz radiation from oxygen molecules in specific bands, not across the entire available oxygen emission spectrum.

      There is quite a range in Ghz of the full oxygen spectrum representing the entire temperature spectrum. The AMSU units divide it into bands, trying to isolate temperatures to certain altitudes. Planck’s equation does not operate in bands, it describes the entire spectrum at a specific temperature.

      His equation produced the desired spectral response over the EM spectrum of a blackbody and he admitted to fudging the math to achieve that result. That troubled Planck deeply, he was a Newtonian reality type of scientist who resorted to mathematical means out of desperation.

  92. ren says:

    The current temperature in New Orleans.
    http://images.tin