The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2018 was +0.20 deg. C, down a little from the January value of +0.26 deg. C:
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 14 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2017 01 +0.33 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.19 +0.08
2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54
2017 10 +0.63 +0.66 +0.59 +0.47
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.26
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.12
2018 02 +0.20 +0.24 +0.15 +0.03
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through February 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for February, 2018 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Hopefully the temperature wont keep falling. Personally I like warm weather, but its also better for the globe. Fingers crossed, that we wont get a little ice age due to solar minimum in the coming decades 🤞
A hypothetical question for those who want no action on GHG emissions.
What would be the worst implications if:
– Global warming is real.
– Our GHG emissions caused it.
– The worst scenarios become likely.
– Action is required.
About 200 countries decided to handle this at the Paris accord. Certainly, the action part is taken care of.
After many continuous years of science, then the same time technological advancement, expect the US to aid and implement a solution should it be necessary.
“The worst scenarios become likely.”
But the worst scenario is the LEAST likely. LOL.
Only the US reduce CO2 significantly. They need no Pariser.
“Pariser” is a German nickname for a preservative.
No, the Paris agreement is only a first step. It by no means covers all of whats necessary.
Svante, why start pushing your pseudoscience? Isn’t that “trolling”? The subject is February UAH results, not your bogus GHE.
Doesn’t it concern you that the UAH anomalies are DROPPING?
Forget the fact that you do not understand the science, the atmosphere is still cooling from the massive El Niño.
The atmosphere does not retain heat from an El Nino 21 months after the event.
Yes des, “not retaining heat” is the same as “cooling”.
Very good.
Let me make this simple for you … the atmosphere does not retain heat from an El Nino 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, …. months after the event.
Des,
You say :”Let me make this simple for you the atmosphere does not retain heat from an El Nino 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, . months after the event.”
I say: can u share the paper or source? I see exactly that sort of lag in the L trop data compared to nino 3.4, but insufficient el nino enents (let alone major events) to characterize them in a statistically meaningful way. I am curious what others have done.
Des, I’m impressed with your ability to learn.
Indeed the atmosphere “does not retain heat”. Believing otherwise is pseudoscience.
The atmosphere cools the planet. It regulates the amount of cooling, just as a thermostat controls the temperature in a house. Of course, heat transfer is not instantaneous, so the actual process of how the atmosphere handles the excess heat energy gets complicated. Some people call the process “weather”.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Doesnt it concern you that the UAH anomalies are DROPPING?”
Off topic here but what if ENSO, PDO, AMO are just oscillations, without internal combustion?
They can drive temperatures down for thirty years, but CO2 lasts for millennia and we keep adding.
But CO2 can NOT raise temperatures.
G*
Dr. Spencer has explained how CO2 is able to increase surface temperature. So has Eli, Tim Folkerts, Norman, Barry and many others. You disagree because of your bungled understanding of the 2LOT.
For people like you, I have come up with an easy to understand, novice interpretation. No need to look up terms like adiabatic, entropy, or heat engine.
Snape’s law: (just kidding)
If an object is not being heated by a third party, and is not producing its own heat, and is not being “worked upon”, then its temperature can never be increased by something colder.
Otherwise, all bets are off”
snake, with absolutely no knowledge of physics, you have stumbled on the correct interpretation. Your eponymous “law” correctly verifies “CO2 cannot raise temperatures”.
Well done.
(2018 is a great year in climate comedy.)
G*
The surface is being heated be the sun, a third party. Therefore, “all bets are off”, meaning it’s possible for something colder, like a co2 molecule in the atmosphere, to make the surface hotter.
snake continues with his pseudoscience.
“Cold” warms “hot”.
Hilarious.
Snape,
You are just being stupid, but maybe you don’t realise it, because you are stupid.
Physics is not about your stupid proclamation that all bets are off.
It doesn’t matter how much energy you supply from ice, you still can’t make water any hotter.
Just stupid. Even if you try a giant magnifying glass, you still can’t trap, accumulate, or concentrate the heat being continuously emitted from a giant object at a relatively toasty 270K.
Cheers.
Mike
It wasn’t meant to be a proclamation, more just a dumbed down interpretation. Obviously not dumbed down enough for you and g*.
S,
Only a stupid person would propose a dumbed down interpretation of something they stupidly made up.
If you don’t understand physics well enough, your dumbed down interpretation is just going to make you look even more stupid!
Carry on with your stupid assertion that all bets are off! Who would care, apart from a person even more stupid than you?
Learn some physics, then you won’t look quite as stupid as you do.
Cheers.
Mike
Why so grouchy?
BTW, I didn’t make up the 2LOT, just tried to dumb it down to a point where g* could understand it. Wishful thinking, I know.
g*e*r*a*n says
“But CO2 can NOT raise temperatures”.
Another tough choice. Do I trust you or Roy Spencer?
Snape,
Why are you stupid enough to imagine I am grouchy?
Not only did you not make up the 2LOT, you must be too stupid to understand it, judging by your stupid comments. You need to understand what you are talking about. Otherwise, you will appear as stupid you appear to be here.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn, wo criticizes anyone for ad homs, uses many ad homs. Hmmm…
Whoops. Flynn, not Flynno.
Cheers.
Svante,
Why not learn some physics?
Too stupid?
Cheers.
Svante asks: “Do I trust you or Roy Spencer?”
Svante, if you could think for yourself, you wouldn’t have to rely on others.
Mike Flynn says:
“Why not learn some physics? Too stupid?”
Roy Spencer did learn some physics and he proved both of you wrong.
Svante wants to believe: “Roy Spencer did learn some physics and he proved both of you wrong.”
See Svante, you can’t think logically. Your imagination tricks you, and you don’t even know it. Where is this “proof” you have imagined?
One example: https://tinyurl.com/jbdfotu
That’s it? You believe that is “proof”?
This is a great year in climate comedy.
Svante,
Are you really stupid enough to think that because the atmosphere is above 0 K, you have discovered something new?
I guess you are.
Cheers.
No Mike, you misunderstand, it wasn’t me.
Joseph Fourier realized that there was a GHE in the 1820s.
S,
You haven’t read Fourier recently have you? Fourier revised his speculation. After you’ve reread Fourier (not that you have actually read his work yourself, obviously), tell me again about Fouriers speculation.
Stupid – speculation is fantasy, until verified by reproducible experiments.
Cheers.
You mean this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
Next stop ground floor before descent into to basement. The question is “How many levels in this basement?”.
Svante,
the action would be adaptation, which means Venice is even more exotic, and Canada becomes inhabitable. People in developing tropics will need A/C, that is a big deal because it means corrupt governments may fail there.
RCP8.5 is all fantacy, but at multicentennial perspective, people will need in any case to give up and adapt.
Svante, if you are serious about your hypothetical question, then you should expand the questions.
What if every intelligence organization in the world was right – that Saddam Hussein was continuing his quest for WMD? What if the worst scenario became likely? What if we delayed action too long?
What if the Obama administration’s initiative with delinquency in schools (to stop the school-to-prison-express) enabled hostile kids to create great acts of violence rather than being locked up? What if the worst scenario like a Nicholas Cruz became likely?
What if North Korea’s nuclear threat became more real, and the worst scenario became likely? What if the cost of delay increased with every month of inaction?
In every one of those cases, the worst scenario is more likely than the worst scenario of GHG emissions.
Moreover, many actions that we have taken so far in the name of global warming have been more damaging than inaction. Have you seen the destruction of the Amazon subtropics when the U.S. implemented a program to have 30% of transportation fuel be renewable? Have you seen the carcasses of over a million birds and bats due to windmills? Have you seen the environmental wasteland created in China to produce rare earths for our windmills and solar? Do you realize the hundreds of billions spent on global warming would be better spent on much more clear and pressing environmental problems? – e.g., subsidence
of coastal land is more of a problem than sea level rises.
Action taken on global warming is not as likely to benefit the environment as it is likely to benefit those with political power.
It’s the same answer to all your examples.
Define a problem solving method and apply it.
For the DPRK you may use the OODA loop.
If the problem is complicated Divide and Conquer.
Repeat for subproblems, follow up and iterate.
Your last sentence must be addressed by the solution you develop, perhaps as a separate problem.
https://klimaathype.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/rcp8-5-with-temperature-feedback/
The funny thing is that even for Africa there still remains a net positive economic growth relative to 2005, comparable with the unabated world average!
Halved GDP growth over 90 years, that’s a tremendous loss.
Africa has strong population growth. Will this make GDP per capita negative?
(aaayyy!)
With the warm arctic air in recent weeks, it is surprising to see that the NH has dropped to its lowest level in the past year. The cold air from the arctic was re-positioned elsewhere in the NH.
Anytime you hear about the Arctic suddenly surging warm, you can look at a map and see that the cold air is just displaced elsewhere. For the arctic to do that, there has to be a huge influx of warm air moving from south to north, but by mass continuity there has to be an equal amount of cold air moving from the north to the south. It’s global warming “fake news”.
Fake news: “U.S. Average Temperature Plummets to 11 deg. F”
Anytime you hear that the U.S. is suddenly surging cold, you can look at a map and see that the warm air is just displaced elsewhere.
No, mine isn’t global warming fake news because I make no claim about it being related to climate change. Jason Samenow does. Mine is real weather news.
Dr. Spencer
I understood your intent, but I didn’t agree with the generalization:
“Anytime you hear about the Arctic suddenly surging warm……….”
Nor is it fake news when Fox searches hard to find extreme welfare cheats who are illegal immigrants, and gets people riled up.
Nate, people are riled up by the fact that they are ILLEGAL and still reside in the US. Why should I have to show my passport when I enter the US when illegality is condoned (and encouraged) in those sanctuary cities? I am sure that when I make a run for the exit at Kennedy airport bypassing the immigration and customs that I will not be welcome whereas Mexicans are.
Samenow’s WP article links credible research indicating a plausible connection between global warming and the data showing increasing frequency of Arctic warming events. He also discusses the displacement of Arctic air to the temperate regions.
Perhaps I don’t understand the use of “fake news” in this context, but it doesn’t seem appropriate.
Cliff Mass is like Dr. Spencer in that he thinks the media overstates climate change. On the other hand, this is what he says about Arctic warming:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-real-signs-of-human-caused-global.html?m=1
snape…”Cliff Mass is like Dr. Spencer in that he thinks the media overstates climate change. On the other hand, this is what he says about Arctic warming:”
The article at your link is full of generalizations and theory. Not an iota of fact to prove the cause. Roy presents valid opinions based on real data.
mark…”Perhaps I dont understand the use of fake news in this context, but it doesnt seem appropriate”.
I thought Roy explained it well. On the UAH global temperature anomaly maps you can actually see the hot spots moving around from month to month. The fake news as I see it is the insinuation that the entire Arctic is warming as a whole, which is false.
Compare this, January 2018:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/jan2018/JANUARY%202018.png
to this, January 2017:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/january/JANUARY_2017_map.png
and this, May 2017:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/may/MAY_2017_map.png
Doesn’t look much like the entire Arctic is warming at all.
More maps:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/archives.html
There is something going on up there but the variability in the warming and the localization, which relocates month to month, is not consistent with anthropogenic warming. It is more consistent with weather patterns moving in from the south and bring pockets of warming with it.
Perhaps as Tsonis et al claimed, the variation in ocean oscillation and their respective phases controls warming/cooling.
Chris,
You may have missed the point, which was that both Roy, and Fox news, work hard to find and show you things that fit your beliefs (Roy: localized cold snaps, Fox: bad hombres). These items are highlighted, even though they may not be representative of typical behavior or trends.
The facts are not fake, but viewers/readers take them as significant and typical, therefore ‘news’, though in fact they are be outliers.
Gord,
Yes, ‘there is something going on up there’
Look here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
On average this year the temp of polar region has been ~ 10C higher than average of 1958-2002).
Now look back at 2017, 2016, 2015…
Very similar behavior is seen.
snake, you went to all that trouble to try to trap Dr. Roy. But, it exploded in your face.
It’s fun to watch.
Quote of the day (well 2-3 days back):
“Just how hot is the Arctic now?” Peter Gleick, the president-emeritus of the Pacific Institute and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science tweeted, “Hotter than ever measured in the winter. Human-caused climate change is beginning to radically transform our planet.”
The earth has warmed a fraction of one degree in the last 100 years, and this is a “radical transformation”? I don’t think so. What I do know is that the theory of anthropogenic global warming has been used as a basis to further a pre-existing new world order agenda with the global restribution of wealth, alarmism, fraudulent cap ‘n trade, international agreements, etc.
I also think it’s clear that the earth’s average temperature has never been static; it’s always heading up or down. That means that even if humans weren’t on the planet, there would have been a small temperature deviation over the last 100 years.
About 1 C since 1900.
May not seem like much, but it’s about 20% of the global warming from the bottom of the last ice age to the current interglacial, which took 5000 years. If the rate since 1900 continues until we reach 5 C higher than pre-industrial, warming would be at a rate 8 times faster over the long term than the rate from natural processes.
barry,
You are right. It doesn’t seem like much. That’s because it isn’t.
Only a stupid person thinks they can predict the future by examining the past.
You wouldn’t be stupid enough to try to predict the climate by looking at the past, would you?
Cheers.
“Only a stupid person thinks they can predict the future by examining the past”
Do you think Mr Spencer will appreciate you labelling him as ‘stupid’ by making that claim?
Des,
Another stupid attempt to bend Dr Spencer to your will? If you pay attention, you might realise he is entitled to the appellation of *Doctor*.
Maybe you should check with Dr Spencer whether he believes examining the past enables him to predict the future. Particularly climate states. He may not be as stupid as you imagine. Have you considered this possibility?
If you haven’t, you’ve just demonstrated an adequate, but not superlative, level of stupidity.
Cheers.
You left out “forger of documents”.
garyh…”Peter Gleick, the president-emeritus of the Pacific Institute and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science tweeted, Hotter than ever measured in the winter. Human-caused climate change is beginning to radically transform our planet.”
Peter sounds like a typical alarmist. No proof, just innuendo and propaganda.
As Roy stated above, the UAH global maps show highly localized Arctic hot spots moving around each month. Gleick makes it sound like the entire Arctic is setting record temperatures, which is a lie.
Peter is a smart fellow, but not a scientist. He’s a science writer. Big difference.
Roy…”Anytime you hear about the Arctic suddenly surging warm, you can look at a map and see that the cold air is just displaced elsewhere”.
Thanks for that explanation. The hot locales in the Arctic do seem to move around month to month on your UAH maps making them appear to be more weather related than a climate change issue. If not weather, then possibly something to do with the oceans.
I have a picture saved of what that looked like at the height of the wind flow. It appeared to compress the cold air onto the Canadian half of the Arctic. The surface wind crossed pretty close to the Russian side all the way to the Bering Straits. The screenshot ended up showing around a 60 40 split between cold/warmer air over the Arctic.
The region of concentrated cold air dropped in temp, perhaps 10 to 15 degrees F as compared to before being compressed. On the Russian side colder air flows pushed out of the way of the warmer crossing surface wind were the added push which enhanced the cold wave moving through Europe.
When the warm flow died down, then the compresed cold region diffused back across to the Russian side. I love earthnullschool. It is a great tool.
I wish journalists would drop the “fake news” and the need to manipulate a gullible population and just go back to seeking the truth. If they do their best job of reporting the truth, everything else will work out in time.
Arctic Sea Ice is very low extent at this time, lower than in 2012.
The “gullible population” only wants to hear/see things that support their beliefs. About half the U.S. population prefers “fake” over reality. They won’t appreciate reality until their “bread and circuses” are gone.
“Only want to hear/see things that support their beliefs.”
Something we agree on, G!
But I am surprised that you dont recognize this behavior in yourself..
Your imagination surprises you again, nat?
I’m not surprised.
For years now, news, especially TV news has been about playing with your emotions. Watch any news show and see. They don’t give you information, they tell you how you should feel.
It’s about ratings – money.
I stopped watching TV, in large part, 45 years ago. I suggest you all do the same.
lewis…”For years now, news, especially TV news has been about playing with your emotions”.
They are selling a product, and unfortunately in this case it’s supposed to be news. We need to remember that the media is largely controlled by corporations out to make a profit. It’s in their best interest profit-wise to spice it up and fake it.
In my neck of the woods, in Vancouver, Canada, the two prominent media outlets have endorsed extreme right wing parties election after election. Had they been interested in just telling the news, rather than creating it, they would have stayed away from endorsing anyone.
The low Arctic sea ice is precisely the reason the temperature anomaly is as high as it is. Even then a value of .20 is hardly a concern.
Since it appears the La Nina is coming to an end there’s a good chance that by summer we will have an absence of factors that affect the global temperature one way or another. The June-August values could be most informative of where we are since low sea ice has much less of an effect at that time.
As the lag seems to be 5 months, you will need to wait until 6 months after the last La Nina month. That rules out June and July already.
Further, you made the claim that the high UAH readings a couple of months ago were caused solely by NEAR El Nino conditions. As your thinking doesn’t exhibit any bias (ahem), then of course you will agree that near La Nina conditions right after the La Nina will still keep global averages lower than the trend. So that rules out August, and probably September.
I use 3-4 months lag as I’ve seen recommended by others and it seems to work well. It was a weak La Nina in any event.
What are you worried about?
5 months gives the strongest correlation.
And it has been a stronger La Nina than your “El Nino conditions” were at the other end of the scale that you claimed were solely responsible for the high anomalies a few months ago.
richard…”The low Arctic sea ice is precisely the reason the temperature anomaly is as high as it is”.
The ice thickness at the North Pole in mid-January 2018, was 3 metres (~10 feet). It’s that way every year simply because there is no solar energy that time of year.
It’s fake news that sea ice extent is any lower or higher than normal mid-winter. With consistent temperatures in the -40C range, why would anyone expect anything different? Does anyone really think less ice forms elsewhere on an ocean subjected to -40C temps?
Those who do are completely unaware that the Arctic Ocean is an extremely dynamic body of water with two major currents operating: the Beaufort Gyre, and the Transpolar Drift. On top of that there are strong winds blowing. The ice gets moved around in circles and piled against shorelines, resulting in ice packs being piled atop each other up to 40 feet in height.
It is well known that the Transpolar Drift dump ice into the North Atlantic. Is anyone seriously counting how much ice moves out of the Arctic Ocean at any particular time?
Dumb dumb says, “Those who do are completely unaware that the Arctic Ocean is an extremely dynamic body of water……..”
Scientists are very aware that, Gordon. Here again is the article I posted for you just last week. (You seriously should get checked for Alzheimer’s)
“Arctic Sea ice extent is virtually impossible to accurately measure from the Earth’s surface. The edges of the ice are ever changing and the sheer size of the ice mass (averaging two and half times the size of Canada) makes it difficult to measure directly on short time scales. To overcome the shortcomings of in situ observations, polar orbiting satellites began collecting data over the Arctic (as well as the Antarctic) in the 1970s. Scientists use radiometry data and visible imagery collected from the satellites to determine the sea ice extent. Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages, and more information can be found through the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Today a suite of NASA, NOAA, and Department of Defense satellites provide the data which is needed to accurately monitor sea ice extent on a daily, monthly, and annual basis.
The transition from icecovered to icefree ocean can occur over a large distance. When measuring the Arctic Sea ice extent from satellites, a threshold of minimum ice concentration is defined to mark where the ice sheet ends. NOAA uses a threshold of 15 percent ice concentration over an areal extent, because it provides the most consistent agreement between satellite and ground observations. At this low ice concentration, ocean waters are generally navigable by ships, one of the earliest motivations for better understanding changes in Arctic ice.”
“At this low ice concentration, ocean waters are generally navigable by ships”
And wouldn’t that be ABSOLUTELY BENEFICIAL to all those people living up there.
Travel, fishing, commerce… all become possible for a slightly longer period.
rather than being ICED IN like they have been since the EXTREME sea ice levels of the late 1970’s… which were up there with the extents of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years, ie the LIA
https://s19.postimg.org/bkgbf2prn/Icelandic_sea_ice_index_2.png
“Dumb dumb says”
Haha – you now have me imagining the denier clan in terms of the chaos in Night at the Museum. I see them as the little men desperately trying to do damage with their unimpressive weapons, dependent on the cool of night for their collective voice to be reanimated.
des…”you now have me imagining the denier clan in terms of the chaos in Night at the Museum”.
And you still have no scientific rebuttal, only ad homs.
Sorry Gordon but your claim is nonsense. You are saying the formation of ice does not depend on the temperature of the water. Beyond silly.
richard…”You are saying the formation of ice does not depend on the temperature of the water. Beyond silly.”
Talk about silly, do you have any idea why ice forms? It’s the air temperature that is in on average near -40C during winter. Cold air sucks heat directly from the ocean and it freezes….to a depth of 10 feet at the North Pole EVERY WINTER.
Unsalted water in liquid state does not have a temperature below ~0C, beyond that it changes phase to ice. The Arctic is salted water which freezes about 1.9C below zero. Arctic ice in winter forms due to a lack of solar energy or very low solar energy. NOTHING else affects that situation, especially a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere.
The pockets of warming that do exist do not affect the Arctic as a whole. As Roy claimed, it seems pockets of warmth are moving from the south into the Arctic.
As ren tries to point out, the polar vortex has a lot to say about it.
snape…”Dumb dumb says, Those who do are completely unaware that the Arctic Ocean is an extremely dynamic body of water..”
You should consider a sex change, you sound like a frustrated drag queen.
“Today a suite of NASA, NOAA, and Department of Defense satellites provide the data which is needed to accurately monitor sea ice extent on a daily, monthly, and annual basis”.
I am now to rely on fudged ice data from the chief fudgers of atmospheric surface data. If NOAA admits to discarding over 75% of it surface data and reconstructing it in a model what do you suppose they do with Arctic ice data?
You are about as naive as the day is long and you have the nerve to call me dumb. NOAA et al represent politicians and what politicians want to hear. They pull the wool over your eyes and you have the stupidity to accept it out of an appeal to authority.
Gordon,
Your comments are shockingly stupid and paranoid, which makes me suspect some sort of dementia is involved.
When I make the mistake of reading one of your posts (like looking at a train wreck), I’ve come to realize any sort of rebuttal involving reason or logic is pointless.
On the other hand, an ad hominem insult like dumb dumb, blithering idiot, or total moron offers a small degree of solace.
S,
Only a stupid or ignorant person would get solace from intentionally using an hominem insult, in preference to presenting facts to support their position.
Do you consider yourself stupid? Or just ignorant? Or perhaps both?
Cheers.
The extent is growing. It’s winter you know. So hold your horses on the next September.
But I agree, facts are enough and it helped if journalists concentrated on them.
Arctic Sea Ice is lowest in 40 years
i agree with you in that point
but the ice is thick than 10 years ago
so that is mysterious
Not really. It is wind driven. Winds piling up ice in a smaller area leads to lower extent and increased thickness.
This is why low winter maximums don’t lead to low summer minimums.
Arctic sea ice thickness is not record low, like extent, but it’s still well below the baseline:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png
Using a 1981-2010 baseline with standard deviation is itself garbage science and arbitrary. The earth is billions of years old. The entire notion that one can use such a infinitesimal span of time as a baseline for arctic alarmism is ridiculous. Even a 300 year span of time with accurate data wouldn’t mean a whole lot, let alone 30 years.
Mike,
Most people believe history started the day they were born. Many of them are AGW enthusiasts. Please, mind you manners.
Using a 1981-2010 baseline with standard deviation is itself garbage science and arbitrary
It’s not arbitrary. The satellite record only goes as far back as 1979, and the 30-year baseline is reffed to the satellite record.
barry says:
March 1, 2018 at 8:33 PM
…The satellite record only goes as far back as 1979, and the 30-year baseline is reffed to the satellite record.
Here’s a link to Chapter 7 of the IPCC’s first Assessment report
Scroll down to Page 224 to find:
Figure 7.20 (a) Northern Hemisphere, and (b) Southern
Hemisphere sea-ice extent anomalies. Data from NOAA (USA).
Which clearly shows data back to early ’70s, and about 7 lines below that, the text says:
Especially importantly, satellite observations have been used to map sea-ice extent
routinely since the early 1970s.
I really don’t care much about sea-extent, but I do care about our so-called authorities lying to us. Here’s a Link to
NOAA’s Arctic Report Card 2016
Scroll down to 40/106 to find the text that says:
Sea ice extent has been monitored using passive microwave instruments on satellite platforms since 1979
and below that on page 42/106 figure 4.2.
I expect your 1979 figure ultimately came from a source like that. Not your fault, you and I are both being lied to.
You can use your imagination to come up with a reason why NOAA decided to cut off the first few years of that data.
I don’t need to use my imagination. There’s a reason for it. I looked it up years ago.
But you never did, so that you can continue to imply malfeasance. Very imaginative of you.
Rather than do the work for you, how about you check it out and see if you can discover some facts.
Sure here’s what I find:
Four Decades of Sea Ice From Space: The Beginning
The instrument, the Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR), launched into space aboard the Nimbus 5 satellite on December 10, 1972 … The game was changed … scientists could now calculate estimated sea ice concentrations within each 18.6-mile (30-kilometer) pixel of the satellite images … Some of the images ESMR provided were sharp. Others had fuzzy pixels or obviously flawed radiation data … We never found the cause of the intermittent glitch … maybe there was a little piece of solder inside the instrument that would occasionally short out something… The microwave radiometer also had a geolocation problem at times it would stick a segment of data in the wrong place. Scientists found and removed the misplaced and flawed data … After years of meticulous work [they] published the ESMR images in two atlases of sea ice … The Soviets were so impressed that they translated them into Russian…The ESMR atlases got a lot of attention because this was the first collection ever of monthly sea ice images that actually showed not only the ice edge which people had known from ships and aircraft but also the ice interior Ships … would take these books with them, because nobody had ever shown them such detail.
So this ESMR data was so great, 30km pixels once a month, that the Russians copied it and ships took it to sea but NOAA discarded it. So far, I haven’t found out why. But you know the answer. You’re going to tell me it’s because of the “Glitch” mentioned in the narrative above or what?
A good article that mentions some of the major issues:
Some of the images ESMR provided were sharp. Others had “fuzzy” pixels or obviously flawed radiation data, recalled Jay Zwally, a senior scientist at Goddard. In 1974, Zwally, a physicist who had been Program Manager for Glaciology and Remote Sensing at the National Science Foundation, came to NASAs Goddard campus attracted by the potential he saw in ESMR for year-round, global observations of sea ice.
“We never found the cause of the intermittent glitch there was speculation that maybe there was a little piece of solder inside the instrument that would occasionally short out something, which would cause the data to be uncalibrated,” Zwally said.
The microwave radiometer also had a geolocation problem at times it would stick a segment of data in the wrong place. Scientists found and removed the misplaced and flawed data.
Incomplete data from Nimbus 5.
On October 24, 1978, NASAs Nimbus 7 satellite launched carrying the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR). Compared to ESMR, SMMRs 10 channels allowed scientists to distinguish young ice that had recently formed from thicker and older ice that had been around for several years.
Data from late 1978 has better resolution.
Unlike the Nimbus 5 and Nimbus 7 missions, separated by a gap of over two years, SSM/I and SMMR overlapped in space for a few months, allowing researchers to compare and calibrate their datasets and create a nearly uninterrupted sea ice record starting in November 1978.
A 2-year gap between Nimbus 5 and Nimbus 7 – the next sea ice monitoring satellite – made intercalibration impossible, and the record much more uncertain prior to Nimbus 7 (launched Oct 1978).
The latter is the major reason that the satellite record begins late 1978, with 1979 being the first full-year of continuous sea ice data.
barry says:
March 6, 2018 at 2:41 AM
A good article that mentions some of the major issues:
A 2-year gap between Nimbus 5 and Nimbus 7 the next sea ice monitoring satellite made intercalibration impossible, and the record much more uncertain prior to Nimbus 7 (launched Oct 1978).
The latter is the major reason that the satellite record begins late 1978, with 1979 being the first full-year of continuous sea ice data.
Doesn’t really explain why The 1973 start point was good enough for:
The 1990 IPPC FAR report Figure 7.20
The 1995 IPPC SAR report Figure 3.8
The 2000 IPCC TAR report Figure 2.14
But it wasn’t good enough for:
The 2007 IPCC AR4 report Figure 4.8
The 2014 IPCC AR5 report Figure 4.4
And it’s really interesting to see how each subsequent variation 1990 to 2014 smooths out the bumps so that the by the AR5 it’s a steady decline.
You know Barry, I’d never looked much at the sea ice issue because why? Dunno didn’t interest me. But today after looking at this sordid little history that apparently has been played out in broad daylight it’s really astounding.
Here are all five figures from above:
LINK
It’s not just NOAA, different institutes that have access to the data from 1972 to present that choose to start the satellite sea ice record in 1979. They all have independently decided that the Nimbus 5 data is too inaccurate to include.
Cryosphere Today
University of Bremen
Danish Meteorological Institute
Arctic ROOS (European)
Polar Science Centre
I speculate that the Nimbus 5 data was earlier included to try and get a longer record, albeit less certain in the mid 70s. As time went by there was enough continuous data to get a more certain data set, so it was dropped.
I don’t see much difference between the profiles on the various graphs. some are monthly anomalies, some annual, some are smoothed, but the general shape hasn’t changed much.
I don’t see what qualitative or quantitative difference it makes whether the poorer Nimbus 5 data is included or not. As they are unable to intercalibrate Nimbus data with later data, it seems like a more rigorous choice to omit it. I could point out that recent sea ice concentration is much lower than in the mid-70s just by looking at the older charts and extending the record to present: however, knowing that there’s no way of calibrating the mid 70s data, one can’t say much about relative concentrations.
There are sea ice constructions that extend back to 1900 using a variety of data. Do you think we should prefer those to the continuous satellite record?
Do you want the infrared and photographic data from 1960s satellite sensors included?
Or do you think that we should omit those other data and tack the Nimbus 5 data onto the beginning of the 1979 data sets and call that the really real satellite record?
To go back to the original point:
“Using a 1981-2010 baseline with standard deviation is itself garbage science and arbitrary. The earth is billions of years old”
the 1981 – 2010 baseline is used because that falls within the satellite sea ice record.
The excursion to the Nimbus 5 data seems a bit of an arbitrary departure. It doesn’t affect the main point.
Have a look at what Antarctic sea ice data looks like if you include the mid-70s data:
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig2-16s.gif
The mid-70s data shows much higher concentrations than the rest of the period. Omitting the earlier data erases a decline in sea ice for the Antarctic.
These ‘sordid’ climate scientists have shot themselves in the foot. Maybe there are others reasons why they later omitted data that would have helped push an ‘alarmist’ agenda?
barry says … at 7:29 PM
Its not just NOAA, different institutes that have access to the data from 1972 to present that choose to start the satellite sea ice record in 1979. They all have independently decided that the Nimbus 5 data is too inaccurate to include. Blah … Blah … Blah … Blah … Blah … Blah
That’s right, they all look over each other’s shoulders and follow suit. They all did exactly that regarding the recent “Finding” that sea level is accelerating. I think NASA started the ball rolling on that one. For some reason Colorado University’s Dr. R. Steve Nerem seems to be the anointed one who the media listens to and when he released his findings earlier last month, every left-wing media outlet, which is nearly all of them, ran an above the fold story on it. When are you going to recognize how this all works?
Reading enough to understand this stuff is hard. It just seems like you aren’t able to concentrate hard enough to do that. Intercalibration? To you it’s blah blah blah. Poor data quality? Blah blah blah.
So rather than try to understand you hang on to your predilections and invent stories about conspiracies. I know you can knuckle down if you really want to. You’ve done it before.
You’ve stated that you’ve had little interest in the subject, and it’s safe to assume you haven’t done anything to fill the knowledge hole, so you go for the lazy soundbytes.
Hanging out at Heller’s blog will reinforce your ideology, but you won’t learn much there.
I repeat my question to you:
The mid-70s data that was excluded in later sea ice records shows the Antarctic with high concentrations, and provides a declining trend.
If a warmist agenda benefits from keeping the mid-70s satellite data for Antarctic sea ice, why did they get rid of it, and with it the downward trend?
This doesn’t fit your conspiracy thought bubbles at all. So how do you explain it?
What I explained is the data was good enough for ships and the Russians.
The IPCC’s 2007 AR4 report says:
The most complete record of sea ice extent is provided by passive microwave data from satellites that are available since the early 1970s.
And then they proceed to ignore it in their charts.
Most analyses of variability and trend in ice extent using the satellite record have focussed on the period after 1978 when the satellite sensors have been relatively constant.
That’s all they say.
It is a matter of fact that the IPCC’s AR4 ignores the early ’70s data. You know good enough for the Russians, ships at sea and the three previous IPCC assessment reports but not relatively constant. Why they ignore it is a matter of opinion.
Heaven forfend there would be a legitimate reason.
Let’s campaign to bring the mid-70s data back in, so that we can have a declining trend for Antarctic sea ice. I’m surprised the varmint scientists haven’t thought of the benefits.
Snape, of course it is below the baseline. We are at the maximum effect of the warm phase of the AMO. In case you missed it, warm water melts more ice that cold water.
This is a problem of establishing a baseline using half of a known 60 year cycle. You may call that science, intelligent people just laugh.
Richard
When the next AMO cold phase comes around, maybe sea ice volume/extent will return to normal (relative to the baseline)…….or maybe not. Either way, the baseline is useful as a reference for comparison.
I guess it depends on what baseline you choose. Comparisons will skew one way if your baseline ice thickness covers a cold period and the other way if based on a warm period. I don’t think you can make the case that a 30 year period is even representative of normality when variations in ice occur over thousands of years.
The notches in graphics of TOA radiation flux demonstrate that energy absorbed by ghg at low altitude has been redirected for emission to lower energy wavelengths of water vapor molecules. Thermalization allows the redirection. This explains why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com/
Still above average, test is on.
I am watching overall sea surface temperatures now +.26c above means which is a spike up, I do not think it will last.
Indeed it won’t last. As the MJO heads further east, it will cause a brief return to La Nina conditions (I believe starting almost immediately). The La Nina is likely to break up some time during the next MJO cycle (but not definitely), so after a brief drop in SST, the rise will resume.
Unless this La Nina does something unexpected, you will not see a return to zero SST this time around, and I will be mildly surprised (but not shaken to my foundations) if it drops below +0.1.
BTW … you DO realise that the SST data you access is the same as the NOAA data, right? It has simply been reset to the 1981-2010 baseline instead of the 1901-2000 baseline.
yes, and it is warm no question
Name of game is overall sea surface temperature/ slight albedo changes.
This is more important then even ENSO.
But this result of +.20c for Feb. is just more of the same (limbo)
I fall firmly into the Skeptic / non alarmist / warmist camp.
I notice very little discussion, ever, on human activities (AGW) on anything other than actual Co2 emissions and levels.
Each year globally we asphalt probably 100’s of additional square kilometers, concrete more and growing cities, heat island effects etc.. and the wind ( course ) dispersing this heating effect.
I do wonder also about the 100’s of thousands of vehicles that join the global ” car pool” the vast majority gas powered, annually and each one of them generating some 50kw odd in operation, with the relative radiator heat exchangers dumping heat into the atmosphere,
I would like to hear the take on this from Dr Roy or anyone smarter than me for that matter ( shouldn’t be hard 🙂 )
Cheers all
Brad
regarding fuel use, if we assume virtually all energy consumed is converted to heat, the calculation of how many W/m2 it is equivalent to has been done many times before. I just did it for 2016, and it’s about 0.0034 W/m2 averaged over the US. But let’s say that is mostly generated over 1/1000 of the land area, then it’s 3.4 W/m2 locally. That’s still pretty small.
It’s important, but so are all the irrigation systems spraying water on the wheat fields in flyover country.
No, asphalt, concrete, autos, buses, etc. are NOT important, as far as producing too much heat energy. As Dr. Roy pointed out their total heat energy is insignificant. And remember, Earth is a DYNAMIC system. Any extra heat energy just triggers an increased cooling response. Not a problem, for our planet.
But, irrigating crops IS important for supplying food, and keeping prices reasonable.
“But, irrigating crops IS important for supplying food”
As is ENHANCED atmospheric CO2.
VERY IMPORTANT for keeping yields up.
The IPCC reports have albedo change due to land use as being a net negative contribution to global warming. This would include the reflectivity of asphalt and concrete, but is probably dominated by deforestation/agricultural processes.
There’s also an estimated net increase in CO2 emissions due to land use changes.
Cement production is a surprisingly (to me anyway) large contribution to CO2 emissions.
The reports would reference specific studies estimating such things if you wish to follow up.
MarkB says: “Cement production is a surprisingly (to me anyway) large contribution to CO2 emissions.”
MarkB, the first step in cement production is to heat calcium carbonate (think seashells) to high temperatures to drive off CO2. That process leaves calcium oxide.
Shellfish, like clams and oysters, stole CO2 to make their shells. We’re just returning that CO2 to the atmosphere, so we can have more grapes and hops.
You can now understand the importance of cement production.
g*r…”You can now understand the importance of cement production”.
I understand it dropped somewhat following the Capone era.
G,
Did the rise in sea levels reflect the amount of cement boots produced?
Just goes to show, CO2 can kill.
Cheers.
In contrast to the TLT, the February estimate of global mean surface temperature from UM CCI based on preliminary GFS daily estimates was up +0.058C and from WeatherBELL based on CFSV2 was up +0.075C from January. Graphs here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/
Satellite is the ONLY data I use.
Interesting, Bryan. Thanks for sharing.
bryan…”In contrast to the TLT, the February estimate of global mean surface temperature from UM CCI based on preliminary GFS daily estimates was up +0.058C …”
Why would that surprise anyone?…GFS comes from fudged NOAA data. NOAA managed to ignore the recent extreme cold in North America through their current practice of using only stations showing warming.
Since 0.058C should be considered insignificant, they are claiming virtually no global cooling over a month that saw some of the coldest temperature ever recorded in North America.
Salvatore, I’m sure I’ve seen you using other data sets to check sea surface monthly anomalies.
Ah yes, tropical tidbits.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-284396
And Weatherbell.
I think it’s going to eventually settle back down to the +0.1 anomaly by this summer, back to where it was before the last major El Nino.
The average for the 2.5 years between the 2011-12 La Nina and the 2015-16 El Nino (allowing for the 5 month lag) was +0.189.
des…”The average for the 2.5 years between the 2011-12 La Nina and the 2015-16 El Nino (allowing for the 5 month lag) was +0.189″.
des the statistician thinks the weather cares about stats.
You seem to forget – we are here to talk about CLIMATE, not weather.
Des,
Are you stupid? Climate is the average of weather. Didnt you know this?
Maybe you need to read up a bit.
Cheers.
I worked in the High Arctic for Environment Canada in the late 70’s….and yes, during the winter, every once in the temps would rocket up to -20C or something and it was sure nice…and the rest of N.A. would be screaming how cold it was….well….we sent it to them….so nothing new here! its happened before…
самые экономичные экскурсии в паттайе
экскурсии в паттайе остров самет
Mr Spencer, would you please remove this spam.
Des doesn’t like Democrat politics.
☺:
☺
(First cup of coffee!)
☺
You think vacations to Pattaya Thailand are “democrat politics”?? How sad.
the UAH LT global anomaly map for January 2018 has where I live in Lincoln UK within a -.5 anomaly area while the met. office has us 3-4 degrees centigrade above average for January only Scotland and some of the hills in Northern England were slightly below normal according to them. Are you telling us we were cold when we were not cold the polar vortex was strong weather was zonal.
Donald
You’re trying to compare apples and oranges. UAH LT baseline is 1981 – 2010. Met.office baseline is 1961 – 1990.
No the baseline used was not the 1961-1990 one it was more recent one and very similar to the UAH LT baseline. It was not cold generally in the UK in January.
Donald
You’re right in that the met.office shows a 1981-2010 baseline for comparison purposes. OTOH, it shows the U.K. January mean anomaly to be 0.4 C
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/2018/january/regional-values
Yes I was looking at the wrong average but the midlands were still one degree warmer than the 1981-2010 baseline in January 2018
Neither baseline period can be defended as representing a “normal” climate period. They were both arbitrarily selected. Arguing between them is like comparing one apple to another apple picked from the same branch on the same day and ignoring all apple trees on the planet for any other day. 1960-2010 is an arbitrary time period. In fact I would argue that normal climate is what existed 50,000 years ago. That was the middle of a 100,000 year ice age where ice was a mile thick over Chicago. So a few degrees here or there didn’t make the ice fishing any easier.
Will
I don’t disagree, but I thought Donald was trying to compare anomalies from one baseline to another. It turns out that wasn’t the case at all.
donald penman…”the met. office has us 3-4 degrees centigrade above average for January…”
What would you expect from alarmists lead by Phil Jones of Had-crut who have admitted in the Climategate emails to cheating by hiding declining temperatures. What would you expect from an outfit who tried desperately to prevent statistician Steve McIntyre from getting their data for an independent audit.
What would you expect from Phil Jones himself who was caught in the Climategate emails threatening to block papers from skeptics from IPCC reviews using his clout as a Coordinating Lead Author at the reviews?
I don’t trust anything out of the Met office anymore than I trust anything from NOAA or NASA GISS. They are all politically affected and cannot be trusted.
The only honest one of the bunch is UAH.
Bitter cold in the Uk at the moment, with Siberian weather. parts of the country will see 50cm of snow. Central heating just started making funny noises and stopped working. Drainage pipe had frozen and this has never happened before. Now OK and house warming. All the best Tim
tim…”Drainage pipe had frozen and this has never happened before”.
All predicted by the anthropogenic theory, Tim, not to worry.
Couldn’t have been any colder than one summer I spent in a Scottish home with no central heating. ☺
So despite all the pontification, the smearing of characters, the abuse, the stupid arguments the planet still refuses to warm.
I guess the next excuse will be all the heat snuck up to the Arctic where the sats dont measure all that well?
This is groupthink writ large and it will never end will it.
But we need it to get colder, still warm.
Salvatore
Please explain this “need”.
To put to rest AGW theory.
There isn’t a AGW theory, it’s AGW pseudoscience.
It’s a belief, like Marxism.
It’s exactly like expecting to putting to rest the Marxism theory.
The Soviet Union is dead, yet the pseudoscience lives on.
gbaikie…”Its exactly like expecting to putting to rest the Marxism theory.
The Soviet Union is dead, yet the pseudoscience lives on”.
Just to put things in perspective, Marx lived in an era where the ruling class seriously abused the common people, especially the working class. He was courageous to speak out about such abuse.
The Soviet Union of the time were a load of wankers (Bolsheviks) who had not the slightest interest in Marx or his philosophy. They threw socialist and true communists in concentration camps while invoking their terribly warped notions of communism on the Russian people.
In its time, Marxist theory would likely have been welcomed by the downtrodden masses had it been implemented fairly. As it stood, wankers like Stalin used the Russian working class as cheap labour by arresting them for anything imaginable and forcing them to work to their deaths in the gulags.
I have no opinion on Marxist theory as applied to our modern society since it has become a moot point. The working class saw to that, they formed unions and kicked butt till they got the reforms they desired. Ironically, they became fat and lost their interest in fighting for justice.
Least anyone consider this off topic, allow me to point out that said ruling class is behind AGW and they are using it to once again oppress the masses by driving the price of fossil fuel out of reach. Once again, we’ll have to form unions to prevent them destroying the planet with their cooling technology. ☺ ☺ ☺
Presently, the ruling class, abuses common people.
That there is something called a ruling class of the common people is offensive and abusive.
In any reasonable republic, one has a nation ruled by law and citizens vote for leaders which will represents their interests.
Anytime these pols imagine they are ruling rather serving, then lamppost should assigned to them as suitable for their hanging.
Meanwhile, one can’t make the case that the political has seen much improvement from the time of Karl Marx. Any notion that he had any influence towards improvement is utter foolishness.
The reason our world is better is due to property ownership and markets and trade or about the opposite of what Marx prescribed.
But the world’s betterment didn’t include politicians or
“Ruling class” getting any wiser or more attentive to the people they serve.
Salvatore
Thanks for your admission that this entire cooling BS is all about challenging AGW, and of no interest to you in its own right.
Crakar24, I’m beginning to understand their new excuse. The AGW heating is being covered by “natural variation”. IOW, their bogus AGW is saving us from an ice age!
It’s fun to watch.
From the Guardian
Q: Snow in winter. That feels reassuringly normal. Does this mean the climate has fixed itself?
A: Unfortunately not. In fact, many scientists are concerned this is a prelude to more extreme and less predictable weather.
They are desparate to keep the flock in check.
The UK are running out of gas because they shut down their largest storage facility last year.
DA et al will arrive soon telling us weather is not climate dont ya know.
AO is the lowest since October 2017.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif
The temperature at the pole dropped.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png
crakar…”From the Guardian”
At one time a respected newspaper, these days a tabloid akin to the National Enquirer.
So despite all the pontification, the smearing of characters, the abuse, the stupid arguments the planet still refuses to warm.
Meaningless comment. Warm or not since when? Last month? Relative to last century, yesterday, last night, your birthday?
The recent decade is the highest decade in the instrumental record. How is that ‘refusing to warm’?
barry…”The recent decade is the highest decade in the instrumental record”.
Correction…in the fudged NOAA record.
It’s the highest decade in the raw data, the non-NOAA records, and also in the satellite records, even your favourite one.
barry,
Are you stupid enough to believe that you can cook a turkey with a magical ice powered cooker?
Or maybe heat a thermometer with a magical CO2 heater?
How stupid would that sound?
Cheers.
barry says:
March 1, 2018 at 9:23 PM
Its the highest decade in the raw data, the non-NOAA records, and also in the satellite records, even your favourite one.
Yes Barry there’s been a warm-up. It should come as no surprise to anyone that during a warm-up, the recent years will be the warmest. It’s sort of like noting that “When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results.” And how much is that warm-up? My sources say it’s about a degree since 1850.
Seems you’ve lost the thread of the conversation.
barry says:
March 7, 2018 at 2:51 AM
Seems youve lost the thread of the conversation.
That’s right I’m four days late and stating that the last decade in a warm-up period is still a tautological bromide.
That’s great. You can let Crakar know. It’s his comment that started this thread.
So despite all the pontification, the smearing of characters, the abuse, the stupid arguments the planet still refuses to warm.
According to SSTs we haven’t seen any warming this century except for temporary El Nino events.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/offset:-0.3/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2001/to:2014/offset:-0.3/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend/offset:-0.3
Jeepers! Temperatures have plummeted almost half a degree in 6 six months!
As they do when we head into a La Nina. Look at the record – nothing unusual here.
Des, what happened to your 5 month lag? The La Nina did not start until October. According to you the effect shouldn’t have had anything to do with the last 6 months. Your previous claim would only start affecting temperatures next month.
layman…”Temperatures have plummeted almost half a degree in 6 six months!”
It’s been slowly cooling since Feb 2016. The question is, what’s taking it so long? It’s up and down like a yoyo, which is not exactly the sign of anthropogenic warming. Not with a slowly declining trend.
Hahaha … you’ve just complained elsewhere about the length of baseline periods, and here you are using the shortest baseline possible, and one you have cherrypicked.
Des,
Only stupid people would think that they can change facts by criticizing someone else. Are you stupid enough to claim you can make a thermometer hotter by surrounding it with CO2?
Hahahahaha!!!
How stupid would that be?
Cheers.
My guesstimate was +0.21, so I did a lot better than last month.
Of course we will expect the UAH anomaly to fall for a few months yet, probably falling below 0.1, and with an outside chance of going negative before we return to ENSO-neutral conditions.
Des. we AGREE, pretty closely!
Will stars fall from the sky?
Will stars fall from the sky when you kick the bucket?
Try to stick to the facts instead of comparing to ridiculous scenarios. Hyperbole is for people who are short on facts.
Des,
Are you stupid enough to believe that you can heat water by surrounding it with ice? Or can you only heat some things with colder things?
How stupid do you have to be believe such nonsense?
Cheers.
You appear to have responded to the wrong comment.
Des,
If you believe that, you are definitely stupid.
Cheers.
Another month of above normal temps.
What is that now — 390 in a row?
If that is not global warming, I don’t know what is.
D,
What is your point? Are you claiming that CO2 makes thermometers hotter?
I’d like to see someone demonstrate that! Sounds like magic or wishful thinking.
Definitely not science.
Cheers.
I’m wondering about the “390 in a row”?
If that is not a failure in arithmetic, I don’t know what is.
G*
Wrong data set, but the math is close.
Last month with a negative monthly anomaly:
NOAA) February 1985.
NASA) July 1985
1985 was a la nina year
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
I’m still wondering about the “390 in a row”.
“This is the sort of common sense reasoning we should listen to, rather than so-called experts on the climate, whose only qualification is theyve spent their entire life studying the climate.
This is from a news item in the UK Independent newspaper.
The rest of it strikes me as quite amusing, although maybe not so much for AGW enthusiasts.
Cheers.
It’s satirizing the contrarian view, such as Nigel Farrage’s. Quite funny that you’ve taken the humour completely the wrong way.
Plenty in there for ‘AGW enthusiasts’ to enjoy.
barry,
There is no contrarian view. Facts are facts. Anybody that thinks otherwise is stupid.
Facts are not climate computer models or the opinions of self proclaimed climate experts. Anybody that thinks they are is stupid.
Cheers.
There is no contrarian view.
There is no coherent contrarian view. But the varying and often contradictory strands boil down to a rejection of the mainstream view that more GHGs warm the planet with potentially deleterious results.
As for ‘facts’, the contrarian view/s are at best extremely selective with those, and at worst simply ignorant of them.
If you’re in any doubt, just read the link string.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nigel-farage-climate-change-denier-global-warming-ukip-leader-environment-right-wing-a8235006.html
And others can read the article now that a link is provided and enjoy 1) some fairly good satire, and 2) Flynn’s abysmal comprehension of it.
Thanks for the link, a mildly teasing twitter observation by Farage that the climate seemed to be doing what it has always done (he wasn’t trying to prove or disprove anything), is the basis of long feeble attempt at satire — or maybe the humour went over my head.
Farrage has form as contrarian on climate change. If his remark was jocular, then a satirical reply seems fitting.
July 1985 to February 2018 = 391 months of above normal temps.
You’d best name your data set. That’s not true for the data set maintained by the blog owner (look at the chart right at the top).
Of course, the difference is purely down to a baselining choice. Long-term trends are what matter.
barry…”Of course, the difference is purely down to a baselining choice. Long-term trends are what matter”.
Could it have something to do with the extensive coverage of satellites (95%) and the greater accuracy due to a far superior sampling method?
I can’t see what baseline has to do with it since the UAH baseline covers almost the entire range of the data, as opposed to the surface stations where it covers only a small portion of the range.
Really Gordon? So what fraction of NOAA’s 1901-2000 baseline does UAH cover?
Des,
Why would anybody who is not stupid care? Do you care?
Cheers.
I don’t care. I was simply playing along with someone who does. I’m sure he will appreciate your label.
Des,
So you’re not serious? Simply playing along – just being stupid, I suppose.
What happened to your interest in discussing science? Stupid to expect you to be consistent.
Can you think of a better word to describe your stupidity?
Cheers.
Could it have something to do with the extensive coverage of satellites (95%) and the greater accuracy due to a far superior sampling method?
No.
A different baseline merely changes where the zero line sits. UAH zero line is higher than the surface data sets, and that’s entirely the reason why UAH have negative anomalies in more recent times than surface data sets.
barry,
Anybody stupid enough to believe that future states of a deterministic chaotic system are predictable is just stupid.
Even the IPCC has stated this, and the people who make up the IPCC are not generally regarded as having first rate minds. This shows that even not terribly bright people can connect to reality on occasion.
Are you stupid enough to claim that the IPCC is more stupid than you, or vice verse?
Cheers,
barry,
The long term is four and a half billion years or so. Anything shorter is stupid sherry picking. I’m glad you agree.
Cheers.
Sherry picking? No wonder you always appear tipsy.
des,
You are right.
Of course I meant to say that stupid people cherry pick. Mind you, they might not know the difference between sherry and cherry – they dont know the difference between cooling and warming do they?
Ill repeat it, just in case you dont know the difference – stupid people think the Earth has not cooled over the long term.
Even more stupid, some even claim the Earth should be 760 000 K, and are stupefied that it isnt!
Stupid, I know.
Cheers.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions about the drunken nature of your comments.
Des,
You must be stupid.
Pretending to want to discuss science, but then making stupid irrelevant comments.
Keep it up.
Cheers.
No irrelevent science so far this month. Let’s keep it that way.
Des,
That’s just the sort of stupid remark a stupid person who couldn’t produce any science would make.
A stupid person trying to look intelligent, that is.
Cheers.
Why is it ‘stupid’ to request that we don’t talk about irrelevant science that has overtaken the forum such as whether the moon rotates, and stick to RELEVANT science instead?
Des,
I could point out that you didnt spell irrelevant correctly, but I’m far too polite.
But your request, as you put it, didnt actually contain the word request. As to science, only a stupid person would believe that endlessly re examining and re analyzing historic temperature records counts as science.
A stupid person would put the word relevant in upper case, but wouldnt actually specify what this supposed relevant science was. They would just try to appear intelligent.
Stupid.
Cheers.
So you don’t even understand what would be considered relevant science on this website. How sad.
And while we are being polite about spelling mistakes, I’d better not point out that “didn’t” and “wouldn’t” contain apostrophes.
Des,
You are stupid if you think that. You think that studying the average of weather is a science – how stupid would somebody have to be to believe such a ridiculous proposition?
You can point out what you like – I’d prefer it if WordPress showed the apostrophes I provide.
You can’t even provide a testable GHE hypothesis, so you resort to stupid sniping.
Maybe you think that demonstrates superior intelligence. It seems stupid to me.
Do you know what science is? Do you know what the scientific method involves? Or are you one of the stupid people who thinks such things are irrelevant?
Cheers.
“It seems stupid to me.”
Apparently everything appears stupid to you. Except, I’m guessing, belief in the existence of a fictitious god.
Des doesn’t understand why it was important to “talk about irrelevant science that has overtaken the forum such as whether the moon rotates.”
Des, the Moon/axis discussion ended up identifying those folks that cannot think for themselves. Many made fools of themselves by claiming a horse “rotates on its axis” as it runs an oval racetrack. You can say that a certain person is “stupid”, but there’s nothing like letting that person prove it.
It’s fun to watch.
Yes, those people were clearly identified. Now that this is done, I assume those non-thinkers like yourself will allow the rest of us to get on with our discussion.
D,
Oh goody. A stupidity consensus. It doesn’t matter if 97% agree how intelligent they are, they remain stupid
Cheers.
Well des, if you did not want to discuss Moon/axis, why did you bring it up?
That was kinda stupid, wasn’t it?
Here is g* in the process of studying kinematics:
https://tinyurl.com/yca7aqd9
SGW continues to amaze us with his fascination with frivolity.
Doubtless he will ever outgrow it.
It’s fun to watch.
The discussion ended with g* getting a whupping, not able to answer A B or C. and leaving with his tail between his legs.
Hilarious.
SGW, your philistinism, combined with your imagination, make for great comedy.
More please.
Turnip Boy,
We are all still waiting back in the Temp Update For January post.
A, B, or C. Which are rotating on their axis?
Very simple, except for simpleton Turnip Boy.
It’s fun to watch Turnip Boy crash and burn.
SGW,
Is there a point to your comment, or is it just another stupid and pathetic attempt at being gratuitously offensive?
What is the relevance of the Moons apparent rotation to the inability of anyone to even describe the GHE?
Cheers.
MikeR,
I don’t care what the #$%& you think.
SGW,
I assume that you are attempting to respond to me.
Why do you think anybody cares whether you care what I think or not? Are you stupid enough to think you are important, or that your opinion counts for something amongst the non-stupid community?
That would be stupid, wouldn’t it?
Learn some physics. Read where the IPCC states that the prediction of future climate states is impossible. See if you can figure out some way to predict the future.
Cheers.
Then don’t the $#%$ respond to me if you have nothing to say. What a moron.
SGW,
Have you not yet realised that I don’t dance to the tune of the stupid or foolish?
Hurling implied imprecations at me won’t cure your stupidity. It’s not my fault you are stupid.
Cheers.
SGW “lost it” when I presented the example of a toy train. That simple example ruined the “rotators”.
SGW, and others with similar inability to think for themselves, will likely require years of therapy.
It’s fun to watch.
Turnip Boy,
A, B or C?
LMAO. What a loser.
Mike,
You were not even part of the kinematic discussion.
If you want to defend g*’s ignorant kinematic pseudoscience, go back to the January temperature update post and make stupid comments there. Don’t pollute this post with nonsense.
SGW can’t sleep because he’s afraid that train will run over him. And, that’s not to mention his foaming at the mouth.
It’s fun to watch.
SGW,
How stupid would someone have to be to take any notice of your stupid commands?
More stupid than you? Such a person might be hard to find.
Cheers.
Dear Mikey,
So far you have not made one substantive comment. You just butted in on a conversation you are clueless about.
Please by all means keep up the drivel.
“How stupid would someone have to be to take any notice of your stupid commands?
More stupid than you? Such a person might be hard to find.”
Mike, maybe you need to get an SAT study to learn some new descriptive words.
Strong blizzards in France and Belgium. Very strong snowfall in the French Alps.
http://oi68.tinypic.com/35d3n7q.jpg
A snowstorm is developing in the northeast of the US.
http://oi64.tinypic.com/1t1mjs.jpg
Greenland up to 19C above average.
Mumbai – average for last week 7C above average.
Victoria Australia (home of 1000frolly) – earlier this week up to 11C above average.
We can all play the cherry picking game. But I have to admit, you play it so much better than me.
Do you see this strong high above Greenland?
http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/c/b/0/b/b/5a98bda5bb0bc.png
Let me get this right – my cherry picking can be explained away as just weather – yours can’t?
D,
Yours is just stupid. Don’t you know that climate is just the average of weather?
Some stupid people seem to think that weather is controlled by climate.
Cheers.
I’ll wait for you to explain succinctly why that logic doesn’t apply to ren’s cherry picking.
(I’ll wait a bit longer for you to Google ‘succinctly’.)
D,
Only someone stupid would wait wait for an explanation he knows won’t be forthcoming.
That would be you.
Cheers.
Come on mate … you have shown such an ability to spin your way out of anything.
D,
As I said, it’s just stupid for you to waste time in the expectation that fantasy will become fact.
Not scientific at all. Just stupid.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn’s word of the month: “stupid”.
I guess the novelty of his new vocabulary addition will eventually wear off.
This is the temperature in Greenland.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-39.71,70.31,684/loc=-38.047,70.633
When have you seen such a low index AO?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif
ren
“When have you seen such a low index AO?”
When has the index fallen below -4 ?
(Ignoring 1 or 2 day events):
2016 Jan 15-17 (lowest value -4.9)
2013 Mar 18-26 (lowest -5.7)
2010 Dec 17-21 (-5.3)
2010 Feb 5-24 (-5.2) … FEB MONTHLY AVERAGE -4.3
2010 Jan 1-7 (-5.5)
2009 Dec 18-26 (-5.8)
2002 Oct 16-20 (-5.1)
2001 Feb 24-26 (-4.9)
2000 Dec 23-30 (-4.7)
1995 Dec 18-21 (-4.4)
1985 Nov 24-26 (-4.6)
1985 Jan 17-21 (-6.2)
1981 Mar 4-6 (-4.3)
1978 Feb 2-13 (-5.3)
1977 Jan 27 – Feb 1 (-4.5)
1977 Jan 10-18 (-7.4) … RECORD LOW
1976 Dec 27-30 (-5.3)
1970 Mar 3-13 (-6.4)
1969 Feb 12-19 (-5.3)
1969 Jan 9-20 (-4.8)
1968 Dec 26-29 (-4.5)
1966 Jan 11-29 (-5.1)
1963 Feb 1-6 (-4.5)
1963 Jan 19-21 (-5.0)
1959 Nov 13-20 (-5.9)
1957 Feb 19-22 (-4.5)
1956 Feb 13-15 (-4.6)
1950 Dec 23-27 (-4.4)
Perhaps you should have checked before asking that question.
Thanks.
2016 Jan 15-17 (lowest value -4.9)
Des,
Your stupid guess is just that.
Stupid. Or are you claiming you can read my mind?
Cheers.
Current tally for “stupid” by MF: 32
You would think an intelligent person would have a more expansive vocabulary.
Des,
Only a stupid person would waste their time counting words, after complaining about other people not discussing supposed science!
Or is that the mark of extremely intelligent stupid waste of time?
Keep counting.
Cheers.
34
Oops – 39.
Maybe ‘foolish warmist’ was put for one or two days on this site’s ban list.
I would enjoy ‘Idiot’ and ‘pseudoscience’ landing there too – forever.
La P,
Or maybe it wasnt. Have you tried to find out, or are you stupid enough to think people will take your implication as truth?
Maybe you could ask Dr Spencer? Then you wouldnt have to guess, would you?
Stupid is as stupid does. Trying to suppress the truth is stupid. And if you do not know the facts, (and of course you dont), then trying to suppress things purely on the basis that you don’t like them is really stupid.
Even a stupid person should realise that, but of course many stupid people are too stupid to realise just how stupid they are!
Have you considered learning some physics?
Cheers.
Dr. Roy Spencer in seven days arctic air can reach Alabama.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00960/bmujg2mt2w7s.gif
Well during winter without any sun warmer air can only be heated elsewhere. Also note we are still well below freezing.
People were also stuck in their cars overnight due to the ‘apocalyptic’ snow which hit the motorways and railways across the country.
The military was drafted in to rescue people from their vehicles, and some were only able to leave their cars this morning.
The Met Office has warned of treacherous conditions caused by freezing rain which creates invisible sheet ice. This weather is hitting all parts of the UK and can cause deadly conditions on the road.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/02/uk-weather-military-helps-stranded-motorists-storm-emma-collides/
tom0mason says:
March 2, 2018 at 7:10 pm
People here may be interested in this
Sub zero UK-CET means for the last day of the meteorological winter (28th or 29th Feb)
1783: -0.1
1785: -3.8
1786: -0.9
1795: -1.0
1796: -0.3
1800: -0.2
1816: -0.5
1866: -3.2
1875: -0.3
1877: -1.0
1881: -0.1
1886: -0.3
1904: -2.9
1929: -1.7
1946: -0.8
1955: -2.3
2018: -3.6
Does that make Feb 28th, 2018 unprecedented?
Indeed. It is the first time we have ever experienced Feb 28th 2018.
Recently I read in news, that north pole had reached 0 C and it isn’t spring yet. So it’s during the time of the winter night.
Assuming the news is accurate (and as far as I am aware, air temperature is not being recorded at north pole, so there more
than normal, reason to have degree of doubt about any news)
how does the north pole warm?
One could say it’s perfectly normal for the north pole to warm during it’s 6 months of darkness. Or it’s not normal for temperature at north pole to only drop in temperatures once the Sun drops below the horizon for 6 months between the start Fall and Spring. Or one has weather everywhere on Earth.
The news stories may mention polar vortex bringing polar cold air down and warm air replacing the once colder air.
And the only thing vaguely unusual is the amount cold air leaving polar region and being replaced with warmer air.
So how does the north pole warm so much that it’s 0 C (assuming it was or is this warm)?
It is only a matter of circulation in the polar vortex.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png
30 hPa and 10 hPa (approx. 30 km) representing the middle stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/30mb9065.png
5 hPa, 2 hPa (approx. 42 km), and 1 hPa representing the upper stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/05mb9065.png
gbaikie says:
March 2, 2018 at 1:59 PM
So how does the north pole warm so much that its 0 C (assuming it was or is this warm)?
*
gbaikie, the North Pole certainly does NOT warm by itself. Thus, if it is, then certainly because
– warmth was brought there from elsewhere e.g. by advection
and
– for whatever reason, it can’t escape to outer space.
Since warmth can be evacuated to outer space via radiation only, maybe a layer somewhere in the atmosphere captures and reemits this infrared radiation at a higher rate than usual.
Maybe the water vapor and carbon dioxide concentrations above the Arctic region have increased recently. Who knows?
*
This does not at all happen for the first time. Look at:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520032959726.jpg
and you see NOAA Arctic anomalies wrt UAH’s baseline (1981-2010) far above those measured right now.
If we execute a descending sort on these monthly anomalies, we see this:
1981 | 1 | 4.02
1934 | 2 | 3.56
2017 | 3 | 3.12
2016 | 2 | 3.10
2007 | 1 | 3.03
2016 | 1 | 2.99
1930 | 1 | 2.91
1989 | 2 | 2.90
2007 | 4 | 2.86
1990 | 3 | 2.84
1935 | 2 | 2.66
1995 | 2 | 2.62
2010 | 11 | 2.46
2016 | 3 | 2.44
2011 | 3 | 2.34
1937 | 1 | 2.34
2006 | 12 | 2.28
1942 | 1 | 2.26
2016 | 4 | 2.26
1955 | 1 | 2.24
2015 | 2 | 2.24
1903 | 2 | 2.22
2005 | 11 | 2.19
2014 | 3 | 2.17
1939 | 12 | 2.16
As you can see, not one anomaly in this top 25 list belongs to the months may till october.
Thus one might conclude that locks of exceeding warmth in the Arctic are a winter phenomenon.
La P,
So your supposedly brilliant reasoning depends on magic – you said * for whatever reason, it cant escape to outer space*
Just stupid. Just as stupid as the Earths temperature reaching 760 000 , using the same magical reasoning” – (or lack thereof.)
Sort your numbers – as repetitively as you like. Still stupid.
Try real physics – not the physics of stupidity where energy can be held in limbo until required.
Cheers.
gbaikie…”Recently I read in news, that north pole had reached 0 C and it isnt spring yet. So its during the time of the winter night”.
I was reading a book by an adventurer walking to the North Pole to prove a claim of Peary that he’d done it in such and such a time. This explorer was a climate alarmist but he did comment on the NP and it’s propensity for warming suddenly mid-winter. He explained it in relation to ocean currents and or winds.
The author is Tom Avery and the book titled ‘To The End of the Earth: Our Epic Journey To The North Pole’.
The recent warming at the NP mid-winter is put down to a sudden storm bringing in warm air. It lasted a day or so and temperatures returned abruptly to the -30C range.
I didn’t realize that warming lasts such short periods of time. In way that’s more odd.
Does anyone know if Antarctica has similar rapid and large shifts in air temperature? During winter and is warming?
Of course, a sudden warming of the stratosphere occurs above the southern polar circle in winter. However, the southern polar vortex is stronger than the northern one. Northern polar vortex has a tendency to divide into two centers – above northern Canada and above Siberia.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2010.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2012.gif
Thanks again Dr. Spencer, I appreciate the work that you and Dr. Christy do. I have been interested in climate change since 2005 and like most I have my opinions. Here is my idea on where this subject needs to go. 1) The conversation needs to be removed from the political sphere. I know, it’s not going to happen as climate (and other) science has become a politicized nightmare. But in order for the science to progress we need to lay down our political labels and sides and let science work. 2) We need more and better data. I will use the ARGO floats as an example. In time ARGO should provide some good data on what the oceans temps are doing. The same with your satellite data which is relatively new. 3) We need to stop trying to make definitive statements where none exist. Computer modeling is fine but the averaging of hundreds of model runs and then using this to forecast, predict, project, or whatever term the pedants want to use seems like a bunch of nonsense. Lets be honest, nobody really knows what the climate will look like in 100 years. 4) The science needs to move away from the constant statistical re-analysis of the same data sets. I am not against using the statistical tools but when I see the same data being used to defend multiple positions on the same subject it looks more like curve fitting to confirm a held belief than science. I look at it this way. If I can’t use the science to make an airplane fly then it’s not an established truth. That’s my standard. Would anybody strap a seat to a climate model and trust it to make it across the ocean at FL370? Or how about 400 seats? Instead of climate models I could say the same about flying the Iris effect or Stadium Waves or cosmic ray cloud theory. I sure the heck wouldn’t trust the hockey stick to get me to my vacation destination.
Enough blathering, I hope I didn’t offend.
eric h…”The science needs to move away from the constant statistical re-analysis of the same data sets. I am not against using the statistical tools but when I see the same data being used to defend multiple positions on the same subject it looks more like curve fitting to confirm a held belief than science. I look at it this way”.
Agree with your statements in general but this one in particular. It’s particularly true when major data acquisition outfits like NOAA use statistical analysis to go back in the history and amend data to what they think it should have been.
I feel all the major surface data sets are so corrupt as to be useless. Phil Jones, the head of Had-crut has admitted to changing data retroactively and losing the originals. NASA GISS, and now NOAA, have tried to change the warmest year in the US from 1934 to 1998, or 2006, even though 1934 is known to have been 0.5C warmer than 1998 in the US.
2006 makes no sense, it’s shown in the UAH data as being well below 1998, 2016, and even 2010.
The UAH record for the US has these as the 7 highest ranked anomalies:
2015: 0.75
2017: 0.71
2016: 0.63
2012: 0.63
2007: 0.50
1998: 0.46
2006: 0.32
https://tinyurl.com/y9dkt5vc
1934 is known to have been 0.5C warmer than 1998 in the US
How is this “known?”
The WindTy app website is a good tool to watch where the global winds are moving to/from. Just set the parameters to 3D and select wind and play with the altitude setting. You can then follow air moving from
lows to highs.
Last week I was watching air moving north from a huge mid latitude Atlantic low where it circles the Arctic and decended over Siberia in a high flowing westward. Most of the movement seemed to be between 5 &10,000 mtrs ASL.
cloudbase…
Pretty impressive, thanks for tip.
https://www.windy.com/?46.559,-138.604,3
If you didn’t already find it Gordon the 3D feature can be found by clicking on the Menu link (3bars at the top left) and then into the Menu dropdown. I find it way clearer to understand when the Earth is visualised as a globe. Funny that ! 😉
Flynn
The amount of comments containing the word ‘stupid’ you recently posted moves up to a really crank level.
You are abusing Roy Spencer’s tolerance in a definitely disgusting manner.
I tell you again, Flynn: be courageous, and try to pollute e.g. Anthony Watt’s WUWT in the same manner.
Or would you prefer to spot Prof. Curry’s Climate etc with your feces?
Feel free to do! But… I know you won’t. Missing cojones.
La P,
Are you putting on a facade of stupidity, or are you showing your true face?
Your comments are just stupid. You must be exceptionally stupid if you think I am likely to take any notice of what you tell me – even if you tell me again! Oh dear!
Why should should I take any notice of a stupid person who believes in magic?
I suppose you might just be stupid enough to think I allow myself to feel insulted, offended, or upset by remarks from stupid people. Why should I?
If you are trying to be gratuitously offensive, maybe you are stupid enough to think you are being effective. You have a long way to go.
Cheers.
binny…”You are abusing Roy Spencers tolerance in a definitely disgusting manner”.
Thanks for your Teutonic whine, based on a Teutonic appeal to authority. If Roy wants to ban me, I won’t hold it against him. Can we leave it up to him rather than you kissing butt because your nose is out of joint for being called stupid?
I am aware of the flames thrown around here and for me it’s part and parcel of participating in a blog. It comes down to emotions. I don’t regard this repartee as a harmless debate, I see it as a load of narrow-minded bigots creating pseudo-science while creating climate alarm.
I am looking at the overall effect it is having and none of it is based on concrete science. Alarmists are driving up the price of fossil fuels and in my home city, the idiots running the city have a goal of driving people out of their cars to protect the environment.
I use words like idiot and stupid to describe the inane bs emanating from alarmists but I wish I could say what I really think. I think you lot are dangerous SOBs who are imperiling the lives of the poor by forcing them to cut their home heating bills because they can no longer afford fuel.
We have a large electrical network here and one would think that would be cheaper than fossil fuels. Wrong, it’s far cheaper to heat a home with natural gas than electricity and now you idiots want to drive up the price of fossil fuels so we’ll stop using it.
Who asked you? I have never seen a vote on this and I am sure any Canadian government running on jacking the price of fossil fuels would lose badly.
” I have never seen a vote on this and I am sure any Canadian government running on jacking the price of fossil fuels would lose badly”
If only that were true… Our current federal govt did indeed run on this and is forcing carbon taxes on all provinces… Gasoline in mb went up 4 cents per litre when the provincial govt finally caved to the federal pressure..
The response from Ottawa? Mb didnt raise price of carbon enough and is again pressuring us to raise this outrageous tax….
phil j …”The response from Ottawa? Mb didnt raise price of carbon enough and is again pressuring us to raise this outrageous tax.”
As you know, the minister in charge of the carbon taxes, Catherine McKenna, is called a Climate Barbie. She is a naive cheerleader for the eco-alatmists. Calling her a Barbie, as in Barbie Doll, is apt.
I don’t support Trump politically but I was delighted when he beat Clinton to put an end to this catastrophic climate propaganda. I was beginning to support Harper for the same reason. Too bad he is out of the picture, I don’t think the Tories have a candidate who can beat Trudeau, and that’s not saying a lot for their ability to adapt in order to regain power.
I sure hope youre wrong about that… The Liberals will gladly bend over for the UN and give away our sovereignty and freedoms….
Wasnt one of their first moves in office to put billions into a UN slush fund for ‘climate change’ ?
Bin, Pang, Rose, or whatever screen name you prefer, if you want a highly censored blog like WUWT, where you will never see REAL science, then go there.
Dr Roy allows an open debate. If your pseudoscience fails, and it makes you angry, blame your pseudoscience, not the blog.
Glad to help.
binny…”I tell you again, Flynn: be courageous, and try to pollute e.g. Anthony Watts WUWT in the same manner.
Or would you prefer to spot Prof. Currys Climate etc with your feces?”
There would be no need to flame anyone on WUWT since they seem to have intelligent commentary in which people will discuss scientific matters in a genteel manner. I have tried that here and get rebutted with ad homs, appeals to authority, and general pseudo-science.
On many occasions I have been told I am wrong simply because someone thought he/she knew better. When I have presented evidence to the contrary, they moved the goalposts.
When it becomes obvious that scientific discussion is not the goal, that’s when the ‘idiot’ and ‘stupid’ comes into play.
You have a habit of taking an authoritative position and you defend authoritative positions even when evidence is presented to you to the contrary. You have no interest in debating a scientific point, you have a myopic POV and you are not willing to expand your horizons.
Above, snape called me dumb dumb for pointing out that ice will form each year on the Arctic Ocean to depths of 10 feet because there is no solar energy or a lack of it. He rebutted with a comment googled from NOAA which claimed ships can sail through the Arctic in lower ice conditions.
That’s been the case since the 1600s…during the summer. Had they known the direction to take through the NW Passage they could have sailed through in the summer during the 1600s.
One ship sailed down the Lancaster Sound for several hundred miles then turned around because they sighted mountains in the distance, thinking they were hemmed in. The mountains turned out to be an island, leaving them two choices. One path went north, the other south. Had they flipped a coin and gone south, they’d have made it right through to the Pacific.
However, many of them died when the ice socked in and crushed their ships. They stayed too long.
It is completely stupid and idiotic to claim low ice conditions in the Arctic are due to anthropogenic warming. There is not the slightest iota of proof, nor does the evidence support the theory.
I want to discuss what is really going on. Ren provides good information about the polar vortex yet many alarmists try to deter him as a nuisance factor. rRn is way ahead of any of you alarmists.
snape calls me dumb deumb then posts this paragraph taken totally out of context. As is the case with most alarmists I have encountered regarding the Arctic, they extrapolate 1 month of relatively low ice conditions in the Arctic summer to the entire year and hope to sneak it past us.
“At this low ice concentration, ocean waters are generally navigable by ships, one of the earliest motivations for better understanding changes in Arctic ice”
Snape…you need more than a sex change you need a brain transplant. You blithering idiot, they are talking about summer ice levels not the winter ice levels to which I referred.
NO ONE SAILS ANY KIND OF SHIP THROUGH THE ARCTIC OCEAN IN WINTER CONDITIONS.
Give your head a shake and get off this utter stupidity. You can walk from the norther coast of Canada to the North Pole in mid-winter and likely right across to Siberia. Try sailing even an ice breaker through that and the ice will wrap it up and crush its hull.
Dumb dumb says,
“Snape calls me dumb deumb then posts this paragraph taken totally out of context.”
No Gordon, it is you who did not understand the context:
“NOAA uses a threshold of 15 percent ice concentration over an areal extent, because it provides the most consistent agreement between satellite and ground observations. At this low ice concentration, ocean waters are generally navigable by ships, one of the earliest motivations for better understanding changes in Arctic ice.
This is saying the ocean is navigable when there is 15 % or less sea ice concentration.
Flynn & Robertson
I have understood why Roy Spencer felt some years ago the need to ban any appearance of Do-ug Cot-ton out of his site.
I would enjoy him taking a similar decision concerning people like you: for the sake of mental hygiene.
Time will tell, as our dear Salvatore so nicely writes…
Rose J. Koelm
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-290362
But g*e*r*a*n! What’s the matter with you?
I don’t blame this blog, and Roy Spencer the least, who just wrote a couple of splendid lukewarmer threads about his 1D Model of Global Temperature Changes.
That was a highlight (maybe for pseudoskeptics it was not).
La P,
Stupid again. You cant even define what a pseudoskeptic is, can you? You just hope that someone will think you are rational and intelligent, rather than stupid.
It wont work with rational people. They will just think you are stupid (or maybe deluded).
Dr Spencer probably appreciates your flattery. Your good opinion might mean the world to him. Or maybe not.
I do not know.
Cheers.
The problem is with you, pang.
You pretend to be “neutral”, but you are not. You believe in the pseudoscience. You won’t admit to your addiction, but it is evident for all to see.
Try to avoid overdosing.
Hope that helps.
You have those accounts working together like a well oiled machine. It can’t leave you much time for ….. ahhh … what DO you do?
D,
Just more stupidity, I see. No science. Don’t you have any to talk about?
Cheers.
La P,
You really are stupid, aren’t you?
Throwing in a meaningless, yet strangely stupid term like mental hygiene. Do you think it will make you appear more intelligent?
Try throwing a tantrum, and threaten to leave if your demands aren’t met. I don’t care if you don’t like me. Neither does Nature.
Cheers.
Bark bark bark…
Always the same blah bah.
Dogs really do better than you, Flynn.
Gute Nacht.
La P,
Just stupid.
But woof, woof, to you too, if that’s all you understand. Ive owned and trained dogs that were smarter than a stupid person. Only a stupid would try to outrun a trained attack dog. Some tried.
Try saying bark, bark, bark in that situation. That would sort out whos the more stupid – you or the dog!
Cheers.
81
D,
Oooooh! Trying to be cryptic?
At least it shows how stupid you are! No science?
Cheers.
Mike says,
“Ive owned and trained dogs that were smarter than a stupid person”
I suspect the stupid person was their trainer.
Snape,
That’s just a stupid comment, isn’t it?
Trying to imply that your suspicions are meaningful is stupid. Who would take any notice?
In any case, your comment is a master stroke of irrelevancy, isn’t it?
If my dogs do as I ask, what is your point? Just demonstrating ever increasing heights of stupidity?
Keep at it.
Cheers.
binny…”I have understood why Roy Spencer felt some years ago the need to ban any appearance of Do-ug Cot-ton out of his site”.
You are allowing your bitterness to lead you astray.
Do-ug wasn’t a bad guy overall, he just had a propensity for zoning in on his pet theories and going on about them almost incoherently at times. He had his own site and often referred people to articles he had written.
I thought he was on the right track. He recognized the problems with AGW and if he’d been somewhat milder with his rants I’m sure Roy would not have had an issue with him. He was no different than norman, in that respect. However, he would attack Roy, which is never smart since he owns the blog.
The irony is that he actually supported Roy’s views in principle. He could be somewhat overbearing presenting them with long rants and many of them in sequence at times.
I may be guilty of the same thing at times but I am mindful that I am a guest here and I try to be respectful of Roy’s views even though I am diametrically opposed to some of them on the GHE and heat transfer. I would say, in general, that I am over 90% in agreement with Roy on climate science.
Furthermore, I try to steer away from straight opinion and focus on the work of recognized scientists. I am trying to understand what they were saying and how they arrived at their conclusions. I am finding that many scientists today have fallen into the trap of accepting paradigms without understanding the basis of the paradigms.
With regard to institutions like NOAA, I think they have strayed away from mainstream science into some form of virtual science.
So many times, I see modern scientists confusing heat with EM. That is not just my opinion, the definitions of each form of energy are almost diametrically opposed.
barry… try #2…”A different baseline merely changes where the zero line sits. UAH zero line is higher than the surface data sets, and thats entirely the reason why UAH have negative anomalies in more recent times than surface data sets”.
Your somewhat confused Barry re the application of statistics.
If you have a shorter time series and you base the baseline in nearly the entire range it would appear to a thinking man that a longer time series should have an equally long baseline.
That’s not the case. The UAH baseline from 1979 till present features a baseline from 1980 – 2010. The Had-crut surface record features temperatures from 1850 – 2017 using a baseline from 1961 – 1990.
So, tell me Barry, what does it do to a time series when you use such a short baseline with half of it in a known period of cooling? I’d say it shows inordinate and fake warming.
Did you not read the Climategate emails in which Phil Jones of Had-crut admitted to using Mike’s trick to hide declining temperatures? Or the emails in which he tried to thwart an FOI request from Steve McIntyre to the UK government to have Jones release his data. Why do you suppose Phil did not want his data examined by an expert?
The Had-crut cheaters are showing a positive trend from 1990 till present with current temps at least double that of UAH. Also, UAH does not show the fake positive trend from 1990 till now.
jesus H christ, your understanding of basic number work is appalling.
D,
is that just another irrelevant and therefore stupid comment, or did you have something to say?
Cheers.
D,
Do you really think pointless crudity makes you appear intelligent?
Are you that stupid?
Cheers.
Hahaha – clearly a self-referential comment.
D,
A stupid person would say that, wouldnt they?
Particularly if they couldnt come up with anything better. Of course, stupid people think everything they say is smart. This is what makes them stupid.
Cheers.
des…”your understanding of basic number work is appalling…”
One think I have noted from participating in blogs over the years is that those who revert to ad homs in lieu of a scientific rebuttal do so because they have no idea what they are talking about.
I have stated before that I have no interest in basic number work (number crunching). Any idiot can learn to do that. The trick is to understand what the numbers mean, that is, from which context were they taken.
Based on the arguments of you and Barry re trend lines, neither of you have ventured far away from your calculators or your Excel graphs. Neither of you have been able to explain how a 0.12C/decade trend can exist in the same range where a positive trend representing recovery from cooling, followed by a flat trend for 15 years co-exists.
Neither of you can explain that conundrum so you revert to the world of ad homs. I have enough in-depth training in statistics to get it that neither of you have more than a superficial understanding of the field. Both of you can talk a good talk about regressions and other jargon but neither of you really understands what is going on.
When we studied probability and statistics as part of our engineering program, we were taught the theory as an adjunct to applied science. In other words, we had to APPLY it. The profs were mindful of that and made sure we understand how to apply statistics theory without leaping to stupid conclusions about averages. We were taught that statistics is a tool and that numbers in themselves mean nothing out of context.
Neither of you have been able to explain how a 0.12C/decade trend can exist in the same range where a positive trend representing recovery from cooling, followed by a flat trend for 15 years co-exists.
That’s been explained many times here and elsewhere. You’ve chosen not to see it.
For short time periods, if the data is highly variable, you can get all sorts of trends of different slopes with careful selection of start and end points. This only means that the variability of the data is having a stronger influence on the result than any long-term signal.
If I pick 2008 as a start date, the trend to present is hugely positive. If I pick the peak of the last el Nino as a start date, the trend is hugely negative.
Are these meaningful trends? No. They are largely the result of variability strongly influencing the result. Are there ways of testing whether a trend is statistically significant? Yes. These periods fail those tests. So does the period 1998 – 2012/2015.
That’s the explanation. And it concurs with your view – you need more context to figure out if trends are meaningful.
To put it simply, there is a relationship between the amount of variability in the data and the amount of time it takes for a signal (if any) to emerge. A very important piece of the context puzzle is figuring out how long a time period needs to be to make the variability close to inconsequential to the analysis. 30 years tends to be the standard for climate.
There’s no confusion here, Gordon, except what you wrote.
The reason UAH has negative anomalies more recently than the surface series is purely that the baseline for UAH is higher than the surface data.
That’s it. That was the correct response to what was said about negative anomalies and where they appear in the different data sets. Everything else you said is spurious.
It is refreshing to visit this blog and find no comments from the persistent troll “David Appell” (one of Lenin’s “Useful Idiots”) .
David has his own blog called “Quark Soup” but he has managed to alienate almost everyone. My guess is that the failure of his blog left him with nothing better to do than annoy Roy Spencer and his multitude of supporters.
Did you find your missing 150 W/m2 yet?
DA,
Who would be stupid enough to think that W/m2 have any relationship to temperature per se?
More stupid and irrelevant nonsense. Carry on, David. Keep being stupid. It suits you.
Cheers.
Mike, you are right. David Appell is an idiot. He is exhibit ‘A’ for why PHD’s don’t have the prestige they used to have.
G,
Maybe David’s PHD stands for Piled Higher and Deeper. Mind you, he managed to complete 15 hours of a journalism course. Thats pretty good going for a stupid person, although many journalists manage to complete journalism courses, and remain stupid, it seems.
Cheers.
Have you figured out the percentage of additional CO2 to the atmosphere yet? You’ve been blocked on Dr. Berry’s website and rightfully so. You added nothing but insults yet you have the temerity to call someone else out for doing what YOU do. How ironic and hypocritical. Your PHD is meaningless because it must have been obtained from the back of a matchbook. So stay here and troll, loser.
Can you explain Ed Berry’s big boner in basic arithmetic — that atmospheric CO2 has increased “30%” since before the industrial era, not the actual amount, 45%?
Or are you also incapable of doing arithmetic?
DA,
Can you explain why you are so stupid as to think posting irrelevant and pointless comments makes you appear knowledgeable? Do you think anybody except another stupid person really cares?
Cheers.
DA…”Can you explain Ed Berrys big boner in basic arithmetic that atmospheric CO2 has increased 30% since before the industrial era, not the actual amount, 45%? ”
Both are doubtful. We saw the problem with tree ring proxies on the hockey stick when the proxies began showing cooling in the 1960s while temperatures were beginning to warm.
Jaworowski has offered detailed explanations as to why ice cores are unreliable as a measure of historical CO2 densities. In Antarctic ice cores there was a wide variance in CO2 concentrations in the ice over a small area. Of course, the IPCC cherry picked the value they needed to establish their pseudo-science.
Appell, his calculation is correct and you just don’t get it. If you assume that the rise in CO2 from 1750’s 280 mark is all due to human production and today’s total is 410 then the human contribution is 30% of the total. Looking at it as a 45% increase is wrong. But that is YOU, WRONG.
You are just an ass and it shows. BTW, you never did show Dr. Berry’s model as being wrong and when it gets published and blows your bullshit out of the water, I hope you are man enough to admit you were wrong about AGW.
g*e*r*a*n, can you help out here please.
What do you get if you increase 280 by 45%?
George, Ed Berry altered his post after I pointed out his error — and, tellingly, didn’t note the error or the correction.
My blog post contains a screen shot from Ed’s original:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/02/idiocy-from-ed-berry-phd.html
“Since 1750,” the increase is 45%, not 30%.
Gordon, There are many proxies for Holocene CO2, not just Ice cores. For example
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1191/095968399677717287
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2562417/
DA,
You are stupid if you believe that you can predict the future by examining the past.
You are that stupid, aren’t you?
Cheers.
Of course you can predict the future by examining the past.
S,
I know you are just pretending to be more stupid than you actually are.
Therefore you are not entitled to bonus stupidity points.
Cheers.
Throw a ball in the air a hundred times.
Will it help you predict the 101st?
I saw that the sun came up a few thousand mornings in a row. I bet it will tomorrow too. But maybe I’m just stupid.
What temperature was in Berlin in the morning?
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00960/17rh04x8eip1.png
About -7 C at 8h.
Will this year’s snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere (except Greenland) cause an increase in the Earth’s albedo?
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
Please, see the temperature drop (red line) in Svalbard from February 28.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/d4enje4djkmo.png
I noticed some deep temp drops at many spots across Europe, and elsewhere. The games afoot, imo.
For those who seem to still not understand what a baseline really is.
Here is a chart with Had.CRUT4.6 for the period 1850-2017, with the data plotted according to three different baselines:
– (a) 1871 – 2017
– (b) 1961 – 1990
– (c) 1981 – 2010
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520072597869.jpg
As everybody can see
– (1) changing the baseline does not modify the data, as is shown by the running means computed by Excel; it is no more than a shift;
– (2) the difference between (a) and (b) is far smaller than that between (b) and (c).
I have shown (1) here recently using UAH with two different baselines:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520073573982.jpg
(2) is simply due to the fact that the monthly averages for 1981-2010 are way higher than the others: it was a bit warmer during the satellite era than during previous decades.
By the way, the decision to take this or that period for baselining is not a private choice: it is the result of following WHO guidelines at a given time.
The Japanese JMA for example uses 1971-2000 for its internal gridded data sets, but has switched over to 1981-2010 for external representations of that data.
Do no longer use UAH postfixed with the actual revision number! The comment is refused.
La P,
Does the fact that the Australian BOM declared all official temperatures prior to 1910 unreliable affect your view?
Given that the IPCC has stated that prediction of future climate states is not possible, what do you think the point of analysing past temperatures is?
Have you any theory of the action of CO2 on the atmosphere which would result in the Earths surface demonstrably cooling since its creation? If so, where may the theory be found?
Maybe you are just commenting for no good reason at all, so I would be interested in your reasoning if you felt that the above simple questions were irrelevant.
Cheers.
La Pangolina
Thanks for the lesson!
‘Glad to help’ (® g*e*r*a*n)
Snape,
Dumb and dumber? Stupid and stupid mutually admiring each other?
Cheers.
binny…”As everybody can see
(1) changing the baseline does not modify the data, as is shown by the running means computed by Excel; it is no more than a shift;”
This is basically why I call you an idiot. Are you trying to tell me you can take temperatures between 1860 and 2017 using a baseline from 1961 – 1990, then change the baseline from 1980 – 2010 and have no difference?
Tell me something, when you changed from the 1961 – 1990 baseline to the 1980 – 2010 baseline, did you go back and apply the 1980 – 2010 average to the entire series? Or did you allow Excel to do that for you then blindly accept the outcome?
A smart scientist would smell a rat and go looking for it.
It has warmed nearly 1C since 1860. Does Excel know that, did anyone try to program that into the app? No, of course not, it was number crunched without the least thought given to the various contexts along the way.
I mean, what does one baseline have to do with the other? Nothing!!! Apples and oranges.
A baseline is the average temperature over those years. When you are dealing with fractions of a degree, things can look might similar.
It SHOULD be taken from around 1900 – 2010 but that does not suit climate alarmists. They began in 1961, a period of relative cooling, so the rest of the data would appear warmer than it is.
Furthermore, the method of data acquisition between surface stations and satellites is very different, as is the coverage of the planet.
The average warming from 1980 – 2010 SHOULD not apply to the surface record from 1860 – 2017. If it does it’s because the time series has been so incredibly fudged as to make it fit.
The Had-crut time series shows a near 30 degree slope of warming since 1990, which is unmitigated BS. The surface time series had been adjusted out of proportion and for no apparent reason.
There were no proper world records kept till fairly recently. No one was gathering temperature data globally in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
binny…”For those who seem to still not understand what a baseline really is”.
From the same source who claimed NOAA cutting over 75% of surface stations from the global record made no difference. Why don’t we just discard the thermometers and satellite telemetry and start calculating it all statistically?
In fact, I saw a TV show about that the other night. Weather forecasters are starting to do that and offering forecasts with a 70% confidence level. At least the guy admitted they had a long way to go and that they made no offering of complete accuracy.
If you have seen weather situations umpteen times, especially different conditions involving temperature and pressure, you can likely offer a decent guess on how that will pan out when seen again.
They showed a graphic of the jet stream as it occurred, along with the guesses at it before hand. The guesses proved remarkably accurate even though out by several hundred miles.
That’s not the same as what you are trying to do. They are using vast amounts of experience garnered over decades of learning their trade. You are plugging numbers mindlessly into Excel and fluking results without having the slightest idea how they occurred.
That’s how Mann et al messed up with MBB98 (hockey stick). They produced a statistical algorithm for proxy data they thought was accurate. Turns out the algorithm could have produced a hockey stick shape from white noise data.
That’s what happens when a geologist takes on climate science.
Robertson
You give us all here the definitive proof that even though having got so many hints, so many explanations, you still don’t understand what are baselines and anomalies, and how these are constructed out of absolute time series’ data.
*
You should go away for a while out of this web site, and start learning all these basics you do not know anything about.
You could start like did my J.-P. alias Bindidon (actually staying far away from home) with processing the absolute GHCN V3 data, comparing unadjusted and adjusted time series, and then implement a baseline processing.
You could continue with processing UAH’s gridded data, integrate UAH and GHCN objects and methods, and construct a UAH time series out of the grid cells above a subset of the GHCN stations.
But my little finger tells me, Robertson, that you won’t do that.
Because your fun isn’t to learn and contribute. Your fun is to discredit, to pull people in the dirt.
*
By the way: I’m ten times more a woman than you are a man.
No one of the men I met during my life would ever have behaved so primitive like you do, and kept so unteachable as you still are.
*
Feel free to call me an idiot: nobody here will be fooled by your ridiculous behavior.
Rose J. Koelm
La P,
Keep handing out the stupid advice. Why would anybody take much notice of a stupid person – except to avoid taking their unsolicited advice?
All your furious playing with figures still remains irrelevant and pointless, except to demonstrate your lack of knowledge relating to fluid dynamics (is that sciencey enough for you?).
Not one of the men you have met in your life has any relevance to how stupid you might be.
You might have far to climb to attain the status of idiot – I wouldnt know.
Keep playing with the numbers if it keeps you amused. It might make you eleven times the woman – who knows?
Cheers.
If there is no global warming, how do you explain the melting of permafrost, methane release and massive snow mountain melt in Alaska, Russia and elsewhere?
CAO,,Permafrost melts because it IS warmer than it was when it froze. The rate of change of temperature is not relevant. The temperature could be now declining and still be warmer than it was.
If by global warming you mean that the temperature is warmer than it was some time in the past, I dont know of any who disagree. However, if by global warming you mean that CO2 increase is causing the temperature of the planet to significantly increase, there is compelling evidence that is wrong.
The most important factor currently countering temperature decline has been the sustained rise (trend) in water vapor. According to NASA/RSS satellite measurements, WV has been increasing 1.5% per decade for at least as long as it has been measured (since Jan 1988). Rational extrapolation indicates 8% since 1960. Both WV and UAH temperature are now below their trend lines.
Glaciers were retreating well before Henry Ford invented the assembly line to build cars in 1913. This newspaper article from 1910 describes how glaciers from South America to Greenland were in retreat.
From the Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal, Sept. 28, 1910:
“Except over a small area, it is gen-
erally understood, the glaciers of the
world are retreating to the moun-
tains. The glacier on Mount Ser-
miento in South America, which des-
cended to the sea when Darwin
found it in 1836, is now separated
from the shore by a vigorous growth
of timber. The Jacobshaven glac-
ier in Greenland has retreated four
miles since 1850, and the East glac-
ier in Spitzbergen is more than a
mile away from its original terminal
moraine. In Scandinavia the snow-
line is further up the mountains,
and the glaciers have withdrawn
3,000ft. from the lowlands in a cen-
tury. The Araphoe glacier in the
Rocky Mountains, with characteris-
tic American enterprise, has been
melting at a rapid rate for several
years. In the Eastern Alps and one
or two other small districts the glac-
iers are growing. In view of these
facts we should not be too sceptical
when old men assure us that winters
nowadays are not to be compared
with the winters of their boyhood.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/100784966
Meanwhile, in 1978 the New York Times headline read, “International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30‐Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere”
https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html?_r=1
So, a century ago some glaciers had declined by as much as four miles in 60 years. Atmospheric CO2 levels were about 285-300 ppm. But by 1978, after CO2 levels had increased by 10% or so, climate experts said the northern hemisphere had been in a 30 year cooling trend with “no end in sight”.
Scott
Here is a look at the mass balance of several glaciers in Washington State. The gain during the 70’s is evident, and was part of a multi-decadel cycle of advance/retreat.
Also evident is the longer term trend.
http://pnwclimateconference.org/2014presentations/Riedel.pdf
Snape,
Anyone who blindly assumes that trends continue unabated for ever is just stupid.
The presentation you link to is equally nonsensical. You might just as well cast runes, or examine chicken entrails.
Carry on predicting. Even stupid predictions come true sometimes.
Cheers.
Worldwide glaciers since 1945:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/glaciers-figure1-2016.png
Here is a chart showing plots for Had-CRUT4.6 and UAH-6.0:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520101810294.jpg
In white you see the difference between Had-CRUT and UAH. For 251 of the 466 months considered, Had-CRUT has shown an anomaly higher than UAH.
Most differences are due to the presence of an ENSO signal.
For El Ninos, UAH’s anomalies mostly are higher; for La Ninas, it is the inverse.
Since I read comments on climate web sites, I saw that most people ignore, forget or dissimulate the fact that anomalies from different sources first have to be adjusted to a common baseline in order to obtain a meaningful comparison.
binny…”https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_decadesmooth_global.png”
Here’s the real Had-crut time series:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_decadesmooth_global.png
Here’s the real UAH time series:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg
Don’t see the least bit of similarity. Had-crut shows a marked positive trend from pre 1990 onward with the exception of the prominent hiatus from 1998 – past 2010. UAH shows no positive from 1998 till 2015.
You need to put away your Excel graphs and delusions.
ps. the Had-crut data is fudged. Phil Jones admitted as much in the Climategate emails and in email exchanges with Steve McIntyre, who wanted the data for an independent audit.
Gordon
OMG. I made the mistake of reading another one of your posts.
“Dont see the least bit of similarity”
Are you seriously wondering why the Had-crut data in Bin’s graph looks relatively flat, and matches well with UAH, while the “real” Had-crut appears to have a much steeper trend?
Snape,
You must be stupid. How could you accidentally read a post – and then take the time to try for a spot of gratuitous offense, accidentally?
Irrelevant and pointless comment. Putting OMG up front just shows stupidity. Were you trying to indicate astonishment? Stupid people often express astonishment to disguise the fact that they don’t understand, and are too stupid to ask for help.
Are you one of these, or did you have some rational reason for writing OMG? Maybe you were trying for humour?
Stupid, if you were. It didnt work.
Cheers.
snape…”Are you seriously wondering why the Had-crut data in Bins graph looks relatively flat, and matches well with UAH, while the real Had-crut appears to have a much steeper trend?”
I posted both graphs because the doctored graphs in binny’s post looked nothing like either. Of course, as an alarmist butt-kisser you’d side with the doctored version.
Gordon
A child in junior high just learning about graphs could spot your mistake.
Binny’s graph shows 39 years along the x axis. Your Had-crut graph shows 168 years…..squeezed into the same space.
Why would you expect the slope of the two trend lines to be the same?
Get a piece of gridded paper. Make a temperature graph where each square along the x axis equals one year. Pretend temperature increased 5 degrees in 30 years and draw the diagonal trend line. Got it?
Ok, now make an identical graph except each square on the x axis equals 3 years.
Do the two trend lines look the same?
Snape,
Take a piece of paper. Take a handful of brightly coloured crayons. Make a colourful graph. Wave it around proudly.
What good has it done you? Maybe you think it shows how scientific you are. You are wrong.
It demonstrates stupid writ large.
Cheers.
La P,
Another stupid attempt to convince yourself that historical records have other than curiosity value?
What is the point? A 12 year old child could produce such a chart, and only a stupid person would be impressed.
Are you really stupid enough to believe that you or anybody else can predict future climate states?
Cheers.
Poor Robertson, who isn’t even able
– to understand the optical difference between charts for two completely differing periods like 1850-2017 and 1979-2017,
and
– to discover data sources by himself, let alone to simply download and enter them into a couple of Excel tables…
The Excel chart corresponding to your plot
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_decadesmooth_global.png
looks like this:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520129537881.jpg
Did you get it now, Robertson?
*
Here is the original data Bindidon and I use for simple comparisons, Robertson genius.
1. The Had-CRUT4.6 global dataset:
https://tinyurl.com/ycxz3kfb
2. The UAH 6.0 dataset with the 27 zones and regions:
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
Don’t forget, Robertson genius, to shift the Had-CRUT anomalies from 1961-1990 to 1981-2010, it is about 0.29 C :-))
Yes Robertson genius! All data is fudged, with the exception of UAH 6.0.
You are a specialist in exactly one domain: to discredit other people’s work. That’s all you are able to do.
Rose J. Koelm
La P,
And still the stupid continues.
Optical difference? Makes no difference to the future whatsoever. You are stupid if you believe so.
Who cares about your obsessive and mindless divinations? Only the stupid, thats who!
Try physics. Predicting the future from the past just doesnt work. Thats why its stupid.
Cheers
binny…”Poor Robertson, who isnt even able
to understand the optical difference between charts for two completely differing periods like 1850-2017 and 1979-2017,
and”
Why don’t you just post the originals without your amateurish doctoring of the graphs in Excel?
binny…”Yes Robertson genius! All data is fudged, with the exception of UAH 6.0″.
Correct!!! Now you’re beginning to understand.
ps. I might add that John and Roy of UAH are the only two scientists with integrity who produce temperature data sets.
How do you judge that?
I expect that the current decrease in solar wind activity will cause further blocking of circulation over the North Atlantic (negative AO).
Albedo slight increase /cooler oceanic temperatures tied to very low solar will bring about global cooling.
This year it starts.
SLIGHTLY HIGHER ALBEDO
Due to an increase in major volcanic activity , greater cloud /snow coverage, greater meridional atmospheric circulation.
Tied to very low solar conditions.
It can easily take place and when it does so goes the global temperatures.
Goodbye to AGW.
Less UV light will cause oceans to cool.
This is happening.
Please explain this:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520107220414.jpg
You can use HadISST or JMA-COBE SST2 for the comparison; the difference is very small.
The same result you will obtain when comparing (within 1979-2017) the Sun Spot Numbers and UAH ocean anomalies.
The trend difference between NOAA SST and UAH ocean is small as well (0.12 °C / decade vs. 0.11).
La Pangolina
Ouch!! That is not helpful to Salvatore’s theory.
snape…”Ouch!! That is not helpful to Salvatores theory”.
All this fuss about a graph with no source and likely produced by binny???
Snape,
What is the theory to which you refer? Are you sure you are not just making a stupid comment in a pathetic attempt to offer gratuitous offense?
Cheers.
Snape says:
March 3, 2018 at 3:23 PM
Ouch!! That is not helpful to Salvatores theory.
*
Not quite indeed.
A commenter with name ‘Bob Weber’ recently applied some critique to Roy Spencer’s newest temperature model by pretending that solely solar activity is responsible for ENSO activities.
Roy Spencer asked him for data confirming his claim, but he didn’t provide for it (nor did he present any link to peer-reviewed papers he mentioned himself).
*
Thus I downloaded MEI (1950-2017 and 1871-2005)
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
and the Belgian SILSO Sun Spot Number data:
https://tinyurl.com/yc8zhpvg
Their comparison for 1871-2017 looks like this
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520131895479.jpg
where neither the monthly data nor the running means give a trustworthy match.
Maybe Mr Weber gives us data showing a better, more convincing correlation.
P.S. Since SSN and MEI have very different data ranges (0 till over 400 for SSN, and -3 till +3 for MEI) the time series were shifted by their lowest anomalies and scaled to percentiles of their respective highest ones, allowing for a fair comparison.
Rose J. Koelm
La P,
More meaningless, irrelevant and stupid comments. What is the relation of any of this stupidity to the future?
You dont believe the IPCC stating that future climate states are not predictable, obviously – you claim to have the stupid of ten, so physics is meaningless to you.
If a tree fell on a pangolin, would anyone care?
Keep playing with your data. Dont be surprised if nobody seems to care much.
Cheers.
La Pangolina
Bob Weber’s theory was a head scratcher. I wonder if he will see your graph?
Snape,
Did Bob Weber have a theory? If so, that would be one up on stupid people who believe the past predicts the future.
If your theory is any good, your predictions should come to pass. You haven’t even got atheory, but you might well leap to criticise someone who might actually have one.
Who looks to be more stupid?
Cheers.
La P,
Certainly. What is it that you don’t understand? What efforts have you made to understand it yourself?
Or are you just being stupid, and attempting to appear condescending and superior?
Is there any point to your stupid request?
Cheers.
1. The NOAA global ocean dataset:
https://tinyurl.com/y7aktl7p
2. The UAH 6.0 dataset with the 27 zones and regions (here: data column 3):
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
Rose J. Koelm
La P,
Maybe posting stupidity repetitively will convince someone that you are smart.
Only stupid people. The data is meaningless. It represents the past, not the future. Tea leaf reading is more accurate.
Cheers.
Also have the weakening geo magnetic field which compounds given solar effects.
Salvatore
I was just reading about Pacific NW glaciers and the article included several graphs of long term solar cycles. I think you would find it interesting:
Here is the same link I showed Scott, just upthread:
http://pnwclimateconference.org/2014presentations/Riedel.pdf
Scroll to the chart at the very bottom. Looks like long term we are moving towards the next ice age.
In 38,000 years, global warming permitting.
E,
I’ll see your 38,000 and lower you 30,000. Or more, if you like. It’s all rather stupid and irrelevant, isn’t it? Unless you are stupid enough to claim that you can see into the future.
Stupid, just stupid.
Cheers.
Entropic Man
I was trying to help out Salvatore. Given the appropriate time frame, his prediction of global cooling might be correct.
Snape,
Your comment is just stupid. You werent trying to help anybody, were you? Making wild predictions about the future based on intense examination of the past is both pointless and irrelevant.
Stupid, even.
Cheers.
Snape
Salvatore has been predicting imminent cooling for most of a decade now,
38,000 years is only imminent if you are a geologist.
Snape,
Are you really stupid enough to to believe that the future can be predicted from historical weather observations?
Anybody who gives credence to such nonsense, backed up by a colourful presentation containing such absurdities as *tree ring based mass balance* (oh so sciency), repeated at least three times, is certainly no mental giant.
Did you actually read the presentation, or are you one of those stupid people who can’t be bothered looking past the bright colours and impressive photographs?
Cheers.
Mike
Still grouchy, I see. Try going outside and getting some fresh air. Maybe a long walk or bike ride. Does wonders for me.
Snape,
You don’t see anything thats true, obviously. Is it because you are too stupid to see the difference between reality and your imagination?
Go for your long walk or bike ride. It may do wonders for you, but it wont make you any smarter. You will remain stupid, although exercise might enable you to keep being stupid for a longer period.
Irrelevant and pointless. Have you realized that *tree ring based mass balance* is complete nonsense, yet?
Who cares? A chaotic system may change radically and unpredictably without any external influences at all. No *forcings* necessary. Even Gavin Schmidt was forced to acknowledge that fact. He just pretends it doesnt exist. Thats stupidity isnt it?
Cheers.
Time to put poor Mike out of his misery?
N.
No science, so you resort to meaningless, irrelevant and pointless comment?
Looks pretty stupid. Even you arent going to pretend otherwise, are you?
Cheers.
thanks
Today in Berlin a little “warmer”.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00960/00pw1iywccf6.png
My heart gets warmer again when looking at this:
https://www.wetteronline.de/wettertrend/berlin?start=8
If no major change occurs during the next two weeks, we will say here the winter 2017/18 was the weakest and shortest one we ever experienced.
But that’s more weather than climate (i.e. ‘averaged weather’, © Prof. Unsinn Flynn)
This is the circulation in the jet streams in the north.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00960/xm9jb1o9z6y7.png
La P,
*If no major change occurs . . . * Outstanding! Outstanding stupidity, of course!
If I had a large amount of money, I’d be rich. If my bicycle had three wheels, it would be a tricycle . . . And so on.
You have no clue about the future, do you? Nor do I, if it makes you feel better.
It’s not *more weather than climate* of course. Climate is defined as the average of weather over an arbitrary period. Winter is winter – no more, no less.
It’s just stupid to intimate that weather events are the result of climate change, when climate is just the average of historical weather records. Only really stupid people could believe that climate controls weather.
Are you that stupid? Maybe you could try telling me how wonderful you are, instead of actually thinking.
Cheers.
Mike,
Your new MO is weird. Calling people ‘stupid’ over and over, then wishing them well with ‘cheers’. Your left and right brain battling it out?? It’s very confusing.
Nate,
Only to stupid people, obviously.
Cheers.
Is it some sort of performance art project? Nothing else makes much sense.
Nate,
Facts often don’t make sense to stupid people. Are you one?
Cheers.
The cyclone threatens the islands of Mauritius and Runion.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/91vwnr7rbqfn.png
Sorry. Reunion.
Hello / Dzień dobry ren
You probably tried to write 'Réunion', didn't you?
Simply use this pretty tool in future:
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
Dobra niedziela!
RJ
La P,
There might even be a chance that he looked at en.reunion.fr, and noticed quotes like *Reunion Island’s scenery . . . *
Reunion, reunion – obviously you think you know how to communicate with English speakers better than the French Govt.
Or maybe you are just patronising, ignorant, and stupid?
The language of this blog is English. Not German, French, Polish, Swahili or Nepali.
You might be stupid enough to demand that native English speakers adopt the grave, the acute, the umlaut, and so on. Unfortunately for you, English is probably the second most widely spoken language in the world, behind Mandarin, and does not require the use of diacritical marks. Nor does Mandarin.
Your command of English is quite good, but your usage immediately identifies you as a foreigner to the language. Trying to dictate to native English speakers that they should modify their usage to suit you is not only stupid, but also stupid.
What in blue blazes has your comment got to do with climate? Just another stupid attempt to appear superior?
And of course, quite apart from your patronising stupidity, your comment is irrelevant and meaningless, as well as stupid.
Stupid.
Cheers.
Who has the tranquiliser?
n,
Another pointless, irrelevant, yet strangely stupid comment from you, wouldn’t you agree?
Cheers.
Frost is coming back to the Great Lakes.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00960/i1fja9zxbgsy.png
La Nina does not give up.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
I think I can speak here on behalf of nearly all the people participating in this blog, when I wholeheartedly thank
Prof. Dr. rer. stupid. habil. M. Flynn
for his wise, concise, and enlightening contributions (which are also hard to beat in terms of elegance).
Professor, we are so grateful and proud to have you with us.
For heaven’s sake do never be afraid to show us the right way again and again!
Kind regards
R.J. Koelm
A nice eulogy.
He did seem to suffer a bit at the end.
I am sure he is R.I.P.now.
n,
At least you are not stupid enough to assert you are interested in science.
Well done!
Cheers.
La P,
Thank you for your kind words of encouragement.
However, flattery will get you nowhere.
You have posted yet another pointless, irrelevant, and therefore stupid, comment.
Study physics. Learn about Nature. Stop trying to predict the future by relentlessly examining the past. Then, and only then, may the veil of stupidity cease to cloud the clarity of your thought.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson says:
March 3, 2018 at 10:17 PM
‚Why don’t you just post the originals without your amateurish doctoring of the graphs in Excel?‘
*
Well, Robertson… I understand myself as 100 % amateur and laywoman. But in comparison with you, I feel quite a bit professional.
Why do I not post the originals? Think, Robertson, think before writing. That might well be an amazing experience for you.
**
Gordon Robertson says:
March 3, 2018 at 10:18 PM
March 3, 2018 at 10:20 PM
Correct!!! Now you’re beginning to understand.
ps. I might add that John and Roy of UAH are the only two scientists with integrity who produce temperature data sets.
*
What I do understand far better than you ever might imagine is that one day after Roy Spencer would have announced any upward correction to his dataset, like he did in 2011
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
you very probably would in turn start to doubt about his integrity, just like did so many commenters at that time.
For me, Roy Spencer’s integrity is not a function of how ‚cold‘ his dataset behaves.
R. J. Koelm
binny…from your link:
“Anyway, my [Roy Spencer] UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in yearswe use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit”.
John Christy, who Roy reveals as his boss, has an actual degree in climate science. John has also sat on several IPCC reviews as a lead author and a reviewer. He pays his own way and expenses when called to testify as a skeptic and I regard his integrity as second to none.
There are not many scientists these days willing to stand up and be counted. Roy and John are two such scientists and they are humanists as well. They understand the implication of the pseudo-science behind AGW and the devastating effect climate alarm could have on the less fortunate in our society.
I don’t know what you are blabbering about in your statement in your recent post about UAH showing cooling, it was RSS showing the cooling. With regard to RSS, my understanding is that they were formed to prove UAH wrong and were unable to do so. Therefore you have two approaches to satellite data that have essentially agreed the past 38 years.
On a few occasions one has helped correct the other. Circa 2005, RSS pointed out a very minor discrepancy in a UAH orbital sensor and both parties worked together to correct it. While doing so, a similar error was detected in the RSS data. They were both minor errors that in no way impacted the overall accuracy, even though many alarmists jumped on the bandwagon trying to discredit UAH.
If you are implying Roy lacks integrity based on what you revealed above then I think you have a comprehension problem. Or maybe you are far too biased to take in what was being said.
GR wrote:
“With regard to RSS, my understanding is that they were formed to prove UAH wrong and were unable to do so.”
UAH is, among six global datasets, again the outlier.
DA,
Who cares? Are you stupid, or just pretending?
Cheers.
With regard to RSS, my understanding is that they were formed to prove UAH wrong and were unable to do so
Where does this understanding of why RSS was formed come from?your imagination?
RSS did ‘prove’ UAH wrong shortly after they commenced, resulting in UAH changing their analysis, and the resulting UAH data showing a warming trend where there had been virtually none.
It seems that your version of science views criticism as a bad thing.
How the alarmists do science:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/1/kill-climate-deniers-play-launches-theatrical-run/
jimc…”How the alarmists do science:”
The irony is that the idiots putting out this Goebbel’s-type propaganda don’t understand that skeptics do not deny climate. They are so abysmally ignorant they essentially have no idea what they are talking about.
This is an extremist religious movement that behaves like any other authoritarian extremist group. They are driven by a hysteria which is based on a cause which makes sense to them but to no one else.
The extremists used to burn women as witches based on similar mantras. The poor souls were seen as advocates for Satan, and that mentality is not much different than the current climate alarmist POV.
jimc: do you truly not know the difference between the theatre and science?
Come on…..
David, your remarkably strained misinterpretation demonstrates your remarkably phony superiority.
Jimc: You should spend less time reading the Drudge Report — it is conservative propaganda, and has no aspirations to the truth.
“I don’t think anyone is going to take this play literally”
Lee Lewis, artistic director of Griffin Theatre Company.
https://tinyurl.com/y7mqqdru
binny…”1. The NOAA global ocean dataset:
https://tinyurl.com/y7aktl7p
2. The UAH 6.0 dataset with the 27 zones and regions (here: data column 3):
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
Rose J. Koelm”
**********
What’s your point???….that you can plug these numbers into an Excel program and come up with a better graph than those produced by NOAA and UAH? All you are doing is offering us a biased, inaccurate, and layman interpretation.
Any idiotic alarmist can use woodfortrees or Excel to manipulate the data to show any kind of trend he/she desires. Simply changing parameters in woodfortrees or Excel can change a flat or negative trend to a positive trend, using the same data.
That’s what you did with one of your graph comparisons where you distorted the UAH graph to give it a positive trend where it had none.
NOAA does it all the time in a model to produce warming where there is none, and they brag about it. That’s why I call them cheaters and fudgers. They have no interest in doing science, their goal is political, to support the pseudo-science of AGW.
The same applies to NASA GISS. I think NASA has integrity in general but they have allowed their climate division to be run by out and out climate alarmists like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt. When a NASA director tried to get rid of Hansen for his blatant political innuendo, he was overruled from higher up in the US government. My bets are on Al Gore as the higher up.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Any idiotic alarmist can use woodfortrees or Excel to manipulate the data to show any kind of trend he/she desires”
Translation: Gordon doesn’t know how to calculate trends, or interpret trends, and has no interest in learning.
DA,
And if you look up a definition of stupid in a dictionary, you might well see a picture of yourself.
Stupid, just stupid. What are you hoping to gain? Have you no understanding of science?
Cheers.
DA…thought you had left in disgust after having your butt kicked by skeptics. Back for more??? A true masochist.
GR,
And stupid to boot, by the look of it.
Cheers.
Gordon, there are no skeptics here, Just deniers who cant rise above juvenile insults and taunting. Thats the whole problem. Itd be great if there were some skeptics here. Alas.
Relation between geomagnetic field and climate variability. Part 2: Probable mechanism
N. Kilifarska, V. Bakhmutov, G. Melnik
Abstract
In this study we show that correspondence of the main structures of geomagnetic field, near surface air temperature and surface pressure in the mid-latitudes, reported previously in the 1st part of the paper, has its physical foundation. The similar pattern, found in latitude-longitude distribution of the lower stratospheric ozone and specific humidity, allows us to close the chain of causal links, and to offer a mechanism through which geomagnetic field could influence on the Earth’s climate. It starts with a geomagnetic modulation of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and ozone production in the lower stratosphere through ion-molecular reactions initiated by GCR. The alteration of the near tropopause temperature (by O3 variations at these levels) changes the amount of water vapour in the driest part of the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS), influencing in such a way on the radiation balance of the planet. This forcing on the climatic parameters is non-uniformly distributed over the globe, due to the heterogeneous geomagnetic field controlling energetic particles entering the Earth’s atmosphere.
ren…”In this study we show that correspondence of the main structures of geomagnetic field….”
You might be interested in reading material written by Syun Akasofu, an astronomer who pioneered studies in the solar wind.
An example:
http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789027724724#
In one of his books he describes how the low energy plasma interacts with the magnetosphere to induce electrical voltages and currents in the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and solid surface.
The voltages can be several hundred thousand volts and I imagine the currents can be strong. They have to have some kind of effect on the climate.
“They have to have some kind of effect on the climate.”
Such as?
DA,
I’d ask if you understood either classical mechanics or quantum mechanics which provide the answer, but you are obviously too stupid or lazy to try.
Stupid gotcha, posed by a stupid person. No good faith in evidence.
Just stupidity.
Cheers.
DA…”They have to have some kind of effect on the climate.
Such as?”
You wouldn’t understand if I explained. You’d just keep calling for peer reviews, more links, and other general trolling mannerisms.
I posed the question to ren because he’s way ahead of you and your fellow alarmists.
Gordon Robertson
“Note that sectors with highest O3 density correspond to the colder winter time regions in the NorthernHemisphere.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281441974_Geomagnetic_Field_and_Climate_Causal_Relations_with_Some_Atmospheric_Variables
Gordon Robertson says:
DAThey have to have some kind of effect on the climate.
“You wouldnt understand if I explained.”
Go ahead and explain it, if you can.
binny….”You are a specialist in exactly one domain: to discredit other peoples work. Thats all you are able to do.
Rose J. Koelm”
************
And I suppose that you taking UAH data and producing your own graphical version of the data is not discrediting the work of the original author. You are claiming in effect that Roy cannot interpret his own data, as he has on the graph on his site, that he needs you to provide an amateur version of the data when a link to it would suffice.
That’s a form of plagiarism. When you take someone else’s data, run it through your own algorithm, then produce comparisons between it and another series, showing them to be similar, then you are not only plagiarizing, you are lying.
Surely you don’t expect me, as a skeptic, to sit back while you offer such alarmist propaganda, or when you defend NOAA when they freely admit to throwing out valid data and recreating it in a climate model so it is distorted to show warming?
Yes, I am out to discredit pesudo-science. If you were honest and wanted to compare UAH 6 to Had-crut as you did, you’d overlay the exact graphs from each data set provider, as is, so people could see the real difference. Instead, you have fudged the data in an algorithm to make them appear similar. binny..
snape…”A child in junior high just learning about graphs could spot your mistake.
Binnys graph shows 39 years along the x axis. Your Had-crut graph shows 168 years..squeezed into the same space.
Why would you expect the slope of the two trend lines to be the same?”
*********
If you did not have an attention deficit disorder as well as an issue with comprehension you MIGHT be able to understand that I was not posting the Had-crut and UAH graphs as a comparison. I was replying to binny, who had used a personal algorithm to plot both series on the same graph then claiming they are similar.
I asked binny why she did not post the originals, then I got them and posted them.
You are using my argument that graphs with two drastically different baselines cannot be compared. Even at that, it is obvious that Had-crut shows a positive trend from pre-1990 till present whereas UAH does not.
That proves to me that Had-crut is absolutely corrupt. Phil Jones, who runs CRU, has admitted in the Climategate emails to hiding declining temperatures using Mann’s trick. He also admitted to Steve McIntyre that he has altered the historical record and ‘lost’ the originals. When asked for his data for an independent verification he refused outright.
Jones claimed further that he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that a paper from UAH would not reach the IPCC review stage. In my mind, this guy is corrupt and should have been removed immediately. After a 3-series investigation run by people with conflicts of interest that favoured Jones, he was exonerated.
He was not charged with the dishonesty he admitted to and his university, East Anglia, was allowed to submit the questions that could be asked of Jones. Isn’t that convenient? Imagine the situation at Mann’s university, Penn State, where a coach were accused of having sex with kids, had the university been allowed to control which questions could be asked of the coach.
Alarmist scientists stink!!! They are rotten to the core.
The surface record from Had-crut, NOAA, and GISS has been compromised to the point it is no longer valid. It’s a shame these charlatans were put in charge of the data without measures in place to monitor them. No scientist should ever be able to destroy data, in fact, it would be prudent for a scientist altering data to keep a backup just in case.
The fact that Jones destroyed the data he altered proves to me that he has something to hide. He should have been prosecuted.
Dumb dumb says,
“You are using my argument that graphs with two drastically different baselines cannot be compared.”
That was not my argument at all, Gordon. As Bin just showed, changing the baseline can shift the trend line up or down, but does not change It:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520072597869.jpg
Bin simply presented Had-crut data, 1979 to present on the same graph as UAH data, 1979 to present. The trends are very similar:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520101810294.jpg
***************************************
Did you perform the exercise I proposed? I’m guessing not. It explains why your Had-crut graph looks so much different than Bin’s.
Get a piece of gridded paper. Make a temperature graph where each square along the x axis equals one year. Pretend temperature increased 5 degrees in 30 years and draw the diagonal trend line.
Ok, now make an identical graph except each square on the x axis equals 3 years. Again, assume 5 degrees warming in 30 years.
What happens to the slope of the trend line?
My grand-daughter can do this.
But I think it may be above GR’s capability at this stage.
p,
I’ve no doubt she can. You no doubt think that this makes her into a scientist. That would just be stupid, wouldn’t it?
On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if she can predict climate changes as well as Schmidt, Mann, or Trenberth (or all of them together).
Does that make her incredibly smart, or them incredibly stupid?
Cheers.
Snape,
How stupid are you?
Can you think of nothing better to do than telling people how to draw pointless graphs?
The records will not change. The past will not change. No matter how brightly coloured, whether you use linear or exponential scaling, whether you read the graph back to front or upside down (as per M Mann), it still won’t assist in predicting the future.
Your stupid reference to, and apparent obsession with, trend lines, is pointless.
Have you tried understanding physics? If you do, your assumptions about the future might appear more soundly based.
Get more brightly coloured crayons. Bigger sheets of shiny paper. Hold a crayon between your toes if you are contemplating a phase space which requires more than two crayons!
Stupid, I know. Graphs do not predict the future, particularly when the data results from observations of a chaotic system. Try science.
Cheers,
snape…”Bin simply presented Had-crut data, 1979 to present on the same graph as UAH data, 1979 to present. The trends are very similar:”
And that puts you firmly in the idiot category with binny. The trends are not even close. UAH has a flat trend from 1998 – 2015 while Had-crut shows a marked overall positive trend from pre 1990 onward.
You, binny, des, barry and other alarmists fail to understand that a straight line trend lacking context is nothing but crunched numbers. All of you have completely ignored the contexts producing the data because you think plugging raw data into an algorithm tells you something.
The UAH data actually consists of four major trend lines. There is a re-warming trend from 1979 – 1997, followed by a flat trend from 1998 – 2015, followed by a short warming trend till 2016 then a cooling trend from early 2016 till now.
If you lump all that under a number crunched trend from 1979 – 2018, you miss all the action produced by various contexts such as aerosol cooling and ENSO activity. Of course none of that matter to you alarmists since you BELIEVE that a trace gas in the atmosphere, making up 0.04% of the atmosphere is responsible for the 0.12C overall trend produced by number crunching.
Roy uses that trend but he’s not stupid like you alarmists. In the UAH 35 year report, UAH covers the reasons for the warming/cooling along the way. He is required by scientific protocol to issue a number-crunched trend but you lot as alleged intelligent beings are required to look deeper, unless you are total alarmist believers lacking any grey matter.
You have already revealed your stupidity with g*r’s Moon problem, revealing a complete inability to understand the difference between a body orbiting on it’s axis and a body turning under the influence of an orbital moment induced by Earth’s gravity.
Now you are raving about comparing apples to oranges about trend lines to support your alarmist nonsense. I wish you’d go back to ignoring my posts, you don’t even begin to understand them.
It’s unlikely, at this point, that GR will ever learn about the statistical significance of trends and how to calculate them.
DA,
Its unlikely at this point, or indeed any other, that you will become any less stupidly fixated on the idea that you can ascertain the future by peering at historical thermometer records.
I won’t bother asking if you have some faintly logical reason for believing such tripe, because I know you haven’t. Carry on David.
Cheers.
DA…”Its unlikely, at this point, that GR will ever learn about the statistical significance of trends and how to calculate them”.
I could do it on my slide rule. y = mx + b.
With the UAH data, I could eyeball a line through the data and come fairly close to the present 0.12C/decade trend. It wouldn’t mean anything since it does not take into account the transition across the baseline near 1997. It would not explain the recovery from cooling pre 1997 and the flat trend from 1998 – 2015.
I am asking you rocket scientists to explain that but you are all stumped. I don’t even think you understand what I’m getting at.
Gordon, it’s like this:
https://tinyurl.com/y7t5os8z
Gordon, the calculation of a linear trend takes into account all the data.
Did you really never learn Newton’s method of least squares? You’ve taken medications whose efficacy has been determined based on it.
The snowstorm is approaching North Dakota.
Yeah gonna be a doozy expecting 30cm plus here just north of ND
phil j…”Yeah gonna be a doozy expecting 30cm plus here just north of ND”
Been there while visiting Red China (aka Regina). Used to watch TV from Bismark, ND as the storms rolled in.
Gordon Robertson says:
March 4, 2018 at 1:07 PM
‘Any idiotic alarmist can use woodfortrees or Excel to manipulate the data to show any kind of trend he/she desires. Simply changing parameters in woodfortrees or Excel can change a flat or negative trend to a positive trend, using the same data.
Thats what you did with one of your graph comparisons where you distorted the UAH graph to give it a positive trend where it had none.’
*
1. Today evening I’m tired and go silently over your paranoia and over your disgusting claims about my pretended dishonesty, leading me to distort any UAH data.
2. My very first question is this, Robertson: if you obtain from me links to original UAH and Had-CRUT data, why do you not download that data, enter it into Excel tables and compare your results with those I presented?
Is it
– because you aren’t able to use Excel or a similar spreadsheet tool?
or
– because you prefer to discredit people showing that data?
3. You are well right: anybody is able to modify the contents of an Excel table after having entered data into it.
4. You are not right: nobody is able to modify WoodForTrees’ data. Paul Clark reads the datasets, and allows you to modify their appearance using offsets, scaling factors etc, not less, not more.
5. Here are two charts, Robertson:
– one from WoodForTrees
https://tinyurl.com/yb6sy225
– one I created and displayed such that it looks as much as possible like Paul Clark’s output
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520205925912.jpg
Trend estimates in °C per decade for 1998-2012:
– UAH: -0.072 ± 0.031
– Had-CRUT: 0.052 ± 0.021
6. Try – exceptionally – to be honest, Robertson.
(a) Where did I show UAH producing a positive trend where there was none?
(b) Do these two charts represent in your mind the same data
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
or do they not?
7. I don’t feel the need to convince you, Robertson. Simply because even you see I’m right, in two days or two weeks you will repeat your same nonsensical lies.
8. I repeat: you are a coward. Because
– you abuse here the full tolerance of this web site
– you never would write your lies at e.g. WUWT more than once, because you pretty good know that you then soon would get banned there.
La P,
You are fixated on graphs. That’s just stupid.
What relevance do they have to future weather or climate?
As professorP pointed out, his grand daughter can produce graphs. So can you. Brilliant?
You believe you can predict the future from charts. That’s stupid. You can’t.
Cheers.
Hello AlphaGo team!
Your new instance of the Flynn SpencerBlogBot is a bit disappointing.
I found the predecessor with its amazing
Foolish Warmist!
No GHE!
really much better. Could you reinstall that old one?
Thanks in advance.
Rgds
RJK
La P,
Some stupid people demonstrate that their supposed interest in science is a masquerade.
You, for example. You can’t bring yourself to contradict my assertion that you can’t even produce a testable GHE hypothesis, so . . .
Stupid, just stupid.
Use more colours. Use more impressive spreadsheets. Tell more people how womanly you are!
Or use your brain in a less stupid fashion. Learn physics. Learn chaos.
Cheers.
+1
Ooops. That was for La Pangolina of course.
S,
No doubt a Freudian slip. Of course, I accept plaudits from anyone. Even the stupid!
Who wouldn’t?
Cheers.
Oh I forgot a little detail.
Do you see, apart from the fact that Excel’s 13 month running mean is not centered and therefore lags a few months, a real difference between these two charts?
1. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg
2. http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520210188196.jpg
La P,
You also forgot a major detail. You forgot to mention that you cannot come up with any scientific justification at all for your comments.
All trees, but no forest. That seems a stupid way to convince anyone that they should pay any attention (except for the amusement quotient, which is quite high!).
How does CO2 change the climate? Can you quantify your answer, without the use of magic?
Stupid.
Cheers.
La P,
don’t forget that the most common early symptom of Alzheimers is difficulty in remembering recent events (short-term memory loss). Mike thinks that every utterance he makes is new.
n,
Thank you for your stupid attempt at mind reading – it no doubt diverted you from doing something even more stupid, wouldn’t you agree?
Spending your time learning physics might alleviate your stupidity more effectively than time spent attempting to read minds.
Cheers,
Miss or Ms. Binny…”My very first question is this, Robertson: if you obtain from me links to original UAH and Had-CRUT data, why do you not download that data, enter it into Excel tables and compare your results with those I presented?”
I don’t need to, the graph is already displayed on this site for UAH and Roy has done us the favour of drawing in a running average.
The graph was done by a professional. So…you want to verify it…great!!! I have no problem with that, my problem is with you redrawing it and making it appear as if it’s similar to the Had-crut fudging.
I posted both originals and they look nothing like your rendition.
binny…” one I created and displayed such that it looks as much as possible like Paul Clarks output”
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520205925912.jpg
this looks nothing like your original post here:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520101810294.jpg
Gordon Robertson says:
March 4, 2018 at 10:56 PM
(1) http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520205925912.jpg
this looks nothing like your original post here:
(2) http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520101810294.jpg
*
One more time, Robertson, you show the amazing level of your incompetence.
It is exactly the same data, with three differences in the representation:
– graph (2) is my original version using Excel’s maximal graph size instead of the small WFT window (which always seems to enhance warmista feeling);
– the running means in graph (1) are the same as that chosen by Roy Spencer, i.e. 12 or 13 months (I have my reasons to prefer running means over 36 months for the satellite era);
– the graph (1) didn’t show the time series itself because of the overhead in a small window; it wasn’t visible in the WFT original, only the means were visible there.
If you had any experience in that domain, you wouldn’t feel any need to howl your paranoid nonsense all the time.
You would show us your own graphs instead, and we would have some benefit of them.
As I explained you: the only job you master perfectly is to discredit the work of others.
binny….” graph (2) is my original version using Excels maximal graph size instead of the small WFT window (which always seems to enhance warmista feeling);”
I am trying to figure out what point you are trying to make. Are you claiming UAH data is wrong and that you can do better using Excel?
Why are you producing these graphs in the first place? Is it an exercise in confirmation, for which I have no problem, or are you trying to discredit UAH? The graph I looked at initially seemed to suggest there is little difference between the UAH graph on Roy’s site and the Had-crut fudgery.
There is a good deal of difference between the two sets of data.
Gordon Robertson says:
March 5, 2018 at 1:31 PM
‘The graph I looked at initially seemed to suggest there is little difference between the UAH graph on Roys site and the Had-crut fudgery.
There is a good deal of difference between the two sets of data.’
*
For the last time… If you still don’t understand (or, more probably, don’t want to understand), then you don’t, no problem for me.
1. I start with the Excel graph
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520210188196.jpg
wich is (apart from its non centered running mean) exactly similar to
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg
2. In that Excel graph, I now modify, for convenience, the UAH plots representation as follows:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520291711525.jpg
2. I add to that graph two plots of Had-CRUT4.6 and NOAA you consider both to be ‘fudgery’:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520292219782.jpg
As you can see on the left, each dataset was plotted wrt its own baseline:
– 1981-2010 for UAH;
– 1961-1990 for Had-CRUT;
– 1971-2000 for NOAA (this one is according to the WMO recommendation valid till 17.01.2018, it’s now 1981-2010).
3. But this representation is of course wrong.
If you want to correctly represent anomaly based time series, you must adjust their anomalies to a common level:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520294117990.jpg
You think it’s incorrect, or even warmist manipulation? Your problem.
4. You asked me: “Why do you use Excel, instead of looking at the original graphs?”
Here is one of many many answers:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520294336531.jpg
My friend J.-P. and I we like to look at such graphs, to see where plots correlate or don’t etc etc.
You think it’s all rubbish? So what!
For anybody besotted with the idea that textbooks necessarily offer authority, the following quote might show that even eminent authors have to face reality from time to time –
It is amazing that eminent physicists like Landau and Lifschitz have for a while presented turbulence as an almost periodic phenomenon, with invariant tori of dimensions depending on Reynolds number. Only in the 1971 second edition of their famous treatise on fluid mechanics have they realized that almost periodic functions are too nice to describe turbulence.
I might also point out that dependence on textbooks describing the atom as indivisible, or continents as fixed in place, or ascribing heating power to CO2, may lead to being characterised as ignorant, stupid, or both.
Cheers.
Can somebody bring the book trolley over here. Mike is getting bored.
And don’t forget some coloured crayons to practise his graphs.
snake, is that you with another identity?
Or is it just another 12-year-old?
g*r…”snake, is that you with another identity?
Or is it just another 12-year-old?”
*********
Most likely and it would not surprise me if he’s wearing a nurse’s outfit while admiring John Cook dressed as an SS officer.
I’m not as funny as nurseratched. Anyway, I tried being two characters at once (Snape, Artemis Dimwitty) and kept messing it up.
S,
Don’t underrate yourself. You are equally as laughter producing as any other stupid person.
Keep it up.
Cheers.
n,
The stupidity of people pretending to have an interest in science, while demonstrating no such thing, comes as no surprise. They employ any stupid stratagem that takes their fancy. Anything to avoid discussing science. No surprise there, either.
They know no science, apart from the Cargo Cult variety, involving brightly coloured graphics and endless re-analysis of thermometer readings.
As a stupid person, which view do you favour?
Cheers.
nurseratched
Which one is Flynn?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYyFkclW8lXtvCotzHwz1-XfUw8-E8innsJ3MwklAPU86JMcvB
Here’s my best guess:
Flynn’s the guy on the left. Gordon’s the one with the beard, and the little guy in the middle is g*
Is Kristian the tall guy in back?
S,
If you think your level of stupidity is lessened by your inability to guess correctly, you are even more stupid than you have demonstrated so far.
Are you one of those stupidly peculiar people who claim they want to discuss science, but then complain about being asked to justify their bizarre ideas?
Cheers.
“If you think your level of stupidity is lessened by your inability to guess correctly…….”
Damn, did I get it wrong?
Snape,
If you are too stupid to work that out, you are unlikely to believe me, aren’t you?
Think about it. How hard can it be? You do something stupid, then try to blame it on me.
That’s just stupid, isn’t it?
Cheers.
Snape, you are correct!
g* has just had his meds – that is why he is not laughing hysterically.
Lol!!
p.s.
the rest of them look unhappy because I reminded them of the consequences of hogging the facilitys blogging machine
They know what treatment we dished out to d*c*
nurseratched
Maybe a fishing trip would cheer them up?
http://i48.tinypic.com/35k31av.jpg
n,
You didn’t dish out any treatment to anybody, of course!
Just more stupid, irrelevant, and pointless nonsense. I understand that talking intelligently about science is beyond you. Is that due to ignorance, stupidity or laziness?
Cheers,
snape- a fishing trip is a great idea!
Especially at this time of year in the North Atlantic.
pp…”snape- a fishing trip is a great idea!
Especially at this time of year in the North Atlantic”
I’m sure you alarmists would excel at fishing. That’s what you do in science, fish for ridiculous answers to a simple problem.
p,
Are you one of those stupid people who keeps whining about a lack of science discussion?
Cheers.
MF
“Are you one of those stupid people who keeps whining about a lack of science discussion?”
Psychology can be a fruitful source of scientific discussion.
p,
Psychology is as scientific as climatology – which is to say, not at all.
Only psychologists, climatologists and stupid people believe otherwise.
Cheers.
Tell me – when did you first start having these thoughts?
p,
You are a perfect example of why real scientists laugh at the pretensions of psychologists, even more than they laugh at climatologists.
How stupid would you have to be to make such an irrelevant and pointless comment? Very. stupid!
For more humour, you could try to divert the conversation into parapsychology, or neuro linguistic programming. Anything but physics, eh?
Stupid piled on a firm foundation of stupid.
Cheers.
Did you share these thoughts with your parents?
p,
You are attempting to scale new heights of irrelevancy, pointlessness, and stupidity.
Next irrelevant, pointless and stupid question?
Cheers.
Let’s try a different tack.
Who do you think is’nt stupid ?
i.e. who do you admire as a scientist.
p,
I have to inform you that your attempt to set a new standard in irrelevancy, pointlessness and stupidity has not succeeded. Obviously, the competition is fierce, and unless you can demonstrate something really outstanding, others have managed the same standard of stupidity, irrelevancy and pointlessness.
There is no limit on the number of times you can attempt to be even more stupid etc., and I wish you luck.
With a bit of extra effort, you might succeed in your endeavour.
Cheers.
Does apparent “stupidity, irrelevancy and pointlessness” really annoy you?
How long has this been an issue ?
p,
Keep trying. Not a very good attempt. No more stupid, irrelevant and pointless than your previous submissions.
Cheers.
You seem reluctant to answer my questions even though you keep responding.
Can you explain this curious behaviour?
What sort of question would you like me to ask you?
p,
That doesn’t even reach your previous standard of stupidity, irrelevance, and pointlessness.
Have you considered duplicating your response several times in the one comment?
That would be really, really, stupid. As I pointed out, there is no limit on submissions. Are you too stupid to understand just how stupid you need to be?
Cheers.
I detect that you have a low tolerance for stupidity.
Did somebody call you stupid when you were very young?
This is the wait and see year.
All arguments for, against solar ,and for,against co2, I think have been made.
There is nothing left to add or say other then to now wait and see where the climate goes from here if anywhere.
The one thing I want to point out is yes I have been saying global cooling for the past 10 years and it has yet to occur but solar until late 2017 was above my criteria.
Now this is changing and solar did hit my criteria 10 years ago but the duration of overall sub solar activity in general then was just 3 years in contrast to this time which will be 13+ years which should be sufficient if the very low solar conditions we have now continue.
This time the climate should respond through a slight increase in albedo and overall lower sea surface temperatures.
If it does not my confidence will be much less.
I do not want to play the game by saying maybe 5 years ,50 years from now. That is so meaningless. I say now and if it does not happen given very low solar following 10+years of sub solar activity in general I will have to question my thinking.
I have no excuses to come up with if it does not happen this time around. I do not want to say not enough time has elapsed because I think as this year progresses if solar stays in the TANK, the time requirement is in.
We shall see. I have put myself on the line but I can afford to do so unlike many professionals in this business that always have to leave themselves with an out or excuse which is all we ever hear.
They do not have the guts to make a climate prediction and sink or swim with it. Al they do is talk generalities.
salvatore…”I do not want to play the game by saying maybe 5 years ,50 years from now. That is so meaningless. I say now and if it does not happen given very low solar following 10+years of sub solar activity in general I will have to question my thinking”.
Kudos, mate. All great scientists are open to rethinking a problem. Only dumb alarmists get stuck on a paradigm and can’t let go no matter how much evidence opposes them.
The effects of galactic radiation on ozone above the polar circle and changes in humidity in the high troposphere are evident in long periods of time (over 5 years).
“I will be proven correct along with many in my camp that predict this will be the decade of global cooling and a large part of that cooling will be due to LOW solar activity. Mark my words.”
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
– http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
So by the end of year 2018 if we are still this warm given very low solar you guys can call me out and I will not have much to say in my defense.
Okay David.
Salvatore, 8 years ago you said that warming ended in 2002.
Because we are still warm as of today, so the clock is ticking.
But unlike me the other side even if global temperatures do not continue to rise will NEVER say they may be wrong.
That is the difference because I come without an agenda unlike the other side which is phony and all agenda driven.
AGW theory has nothing to stand on until the climate becomes unique in degree of warmth which it is no where near, when looking at the recent and more extensive climatic history of the earth.
They have nothing. So if cooling does not occur I may be wrong but unless it continues to warm gong forward so to may they be wrong.
I’ve stated the kind of global temp evolution that would need to occur that would cause me to change my thinking.
“AGW theory has nothing to stand on until the climate becomes unique in degree of warmth which it is no where near”
“Unique” in terms of what? The planet’s surface was 1000C 4.5 billion years ago, so we will never get ‘unique’ temperatures until the planet is swallowed by the sun in a few billion years.
Do you mean something else when you say ‘unique’?
Dear Dr. Spencer-san:
I’m sure all of us would greatly appreciate it if you could kindly update your graph showing the huge disparity between CMIP5 model projections vs. the UAH dataset.
The latest version of your graph I’ve seen shows UAH data through December 2016, which marked the peak warming spike of the 2015/16 Super El Nino event:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/modsvsobs.png
Because we’ve had 2 weak La Nina events since December 2016, most of 2015/16 Super El Nino warming spike has been negated, with the UAH temp anomalies now almost 0.7C cooler than in December 2016.
If you could kindly update this comparative graph within the next few months, it would be most appreciated and helpful.
Because of lag effect, the weak La Nina global cooling will likely continue on for another 2~3 months, so perhaps May would be great time to revise your graph, as the UAH anomaly for April 2018 should be at or near 0.0C by then.
Thank you.
On the graph: points and questions:
* The obs are 5-year averages, which smooth out larger departures, cold and warm. You’ll notice that 1998, which is the 2nd warmest year in the satellite record, is placed much lower in the 5-year smooth.
* Are the model outputs also 5-year averages or annual?
* Are the uncertainty envelopes for models included? Why/why not?
* Why is 1979 chosen as the baseline? Why would it not be better to chose a longer term baseline? Or a different year?
* In which year do the models shift from hind-cast to forecast?
* Are the model results for surface or lower tropospheric data?
* Which balloon data sets?
* Assuming RSS and UAH are 2 of the satellite data sets, what is the other?
Note: This is how you actually do skepticism.
There’s a problem with that model/obs comparison graph.
I checked AR5 (IPCC) for the model projections. The mean warming from 2000 – 2020 in those charts is about 0.4C. In the Christy graph above it’s about 0.7C. That’s almost twice as much warming.
What gives?
IPCC has warming from 1979 to 2020 at about 0.6C. The Christy graph above has 1C warming for the same period. Again, nearly twice as much as the IPCC models.
My skeptometer is peaking.
Looking at Christy’s chart again I see that the model results are for the mid-troposphere, so can’t be compared with temp evolution of the surface (what I checked in the IPCC).
More specifically, the tropical mid-troposphere. Wonder what the reason was for focusing on this particular zone. Is the model/obs comparison about the ‘hotspot’?
That’s the problem with lack of context.
Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/een0o3isigc5.png
Ozone growth in the lower stratosphere starts with a geomagnetic modulation of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and ozone production in the lower stratosphere through ion-molecular reactions initiated by GCR.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
The GCR increase is modulated by the Earth’s magnetic field.
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
Very low temperatures in Alberta, Canada and Montana in the US,
where there is a large amount of ozone.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00960/wrqyc8ygftzc.png
ren…”Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people”.
Happens every winter when there is no solar energy or limited solar energy during the Arctic winter. No warm air rising, cooler air descends.
It’s likely the ozone killing off the polar bears.
What a grossly stupidity and self-centred view by a couple of crackpots.
Alberta, Canada and Montana do not constitute the world. Consider:
“The northernmost weather station in the world, Cape Morris Jesup in Greenland, saw temperatures stay above freezing for almost 24 hours straight last week, and then climb to 43 degrees Fahrenheit (6.1 degrees Celsius) on Saturday (Feb 24) before dropping again.
But that Saturday (Feb 24) temperature was a whopping 45 degrees Fahrenheit above whats normal this time of year”
pp, obviously you do not understand the wanderings of the polar vortex.
Your confusion is fun to watch.
Gordon says:
“No warm air rising, cooler air descends.”
It’s a radiation deficit surface to space, air aloft is normally warmer.
I’m just not seeing the modelled warming acceleration, no wild accelerated warming, nada nothing, just not happening that acceleration .
Why are the models so badly in error ?
sun spot…”Why are the models so badly in error ?”
At least two factors. One factor is the weighting modelers have arbitrarily given to the warming power of CO2. They have claimed a warming effect of 9% to 25% which is nonsense given the trace mass of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Another factor is the positive feedback arbitrarily claimed by modelers for CO2 in the atmosphere. The theory goes that CO2, at 0.04% of the atmosphere, can feed back enough energy to super-heat the surface that gave it the energy in the first place. Super-heating the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by solar energy would theoretically release more water vapour into the atmosphere, created a positive feedback situation leading to Hansen’s tipping point.
There are several problems with this theory. For one, that kind of runaway feedback requires an amplifier. Modelers seems to think the feedback can create amplification on it’s own, which is nonsense. Another problem is the transfer of heat from a colder region of the atmosphere, or even an atmosphere in thermal equilibrium with the surface, to the surface. That breaches the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It also breaches common sense. It is claiming essentially that heat can be transferred to the atmosphere and back again to increase the heat level in the surface that created the heat after converting it from solar energy.
All in all, modeling theory is based on pseudo-science. That’s why it does not work.
GR says:
“Another problem is the transfer of heat from a colder region of the atmosphere, or even an atmosphere in thermal equilibrium with the surface, to the surface. That breaches the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
Wrong. Again you show you don’t understand the 2LOT.
davie believes he understands 2LoT.
He also believes 5800K can radiatively heat something to 800,000K.
He’s hilarious.
Mr Hysteria, you are suffering from the same disease as MF -boring repetitiveness.
Maybe you’re not actually bored. Maybe you’re just brain-dead.
n,
Maybe you’re too stupid to know the difference between boredom and mindless vacuity.
Which do you think it might be? Or dont you know?
Cheers.
We see that GR still has his blinders on. No, IR back radiation from greenhouse gases doesn’t violate the 2nd Law. And, GR still insists that the world must be wired to an amplifier for natural processes to cause an amplification of some perturbation in climate. GR’s tenacious hold on his incorrect asdsumptions suggests that he has an agenda, thus isn’t interested in real world science. As our Fearless Leader might say, So Sad…
Sun Spot says:
“Im just not seeing the modelled warming acceleration, no wild accelerated warming, nada nothing, just not happening that acceleration .”
What acceleration are the models projecting?
This?
“New NASA Study Finds Dramatic Acceleration in Sea Level Rise,” Tereza Pultarova, Space.com, March 2, 2018
https://www.space.com/39858-dramatic-sea-level-rise-nasa-study.html
davie, did you know that the water was already over your head? See, if you had a job you could move out of that basement apartment.
Glad to help.
Why are the models so badly in error?
That’s a question worth testing without any blinkers.
Here are 2 different results:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/modsvsobs_thumb.png?w=1603&h=1095
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2018-panela.png
As far as I can tell, quite a few people simply latch on to the graph that tells the story they prefer.
What I tend to do is investigate the assumptions, data and baselining for each of the graphs before coming to any (provisional) conclusion.
Why would anyone calling themselves a skeptic avoid such analysis?
Investigation reveals that global temps are not the only metric covered by climate models. So there is a lot more to the notion of their validity than just one parameter.
Simple statements like the one I’ve quoted obscure the *truth*. Getting a handle on it requires lots of reading and thinking, but I rarely see much evidence of that WRT climate models on the less technical climate blogs.
We have a combination of a weakening geo magnetic field and solar magnetic field which should increase galactic cosmic rays further which I believe does have climatic impacts.
There is probably a threshold level.
I think there are threshold levels with al items involved with the climate but they are not so easy to attain but it has happened and will again.
Take the sun the reason why some do not think it effects the climate is because they think the changes are to minor but everyone agrees if the sun were to change by some x amount the climatic impacts would be dramatic.
The question is what is the x amount of change needed by the sun to accomplish this?? How long of a duration period?
I think my criteria is enough which I have posted many times if it is within a period of sub solar activity in general for several years.
We will see.
Tropopause Height
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f00.png
Forecast on March 7.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00960/x61d1t2p7zhq.png
“The question is what is the x amount of change needed by the sun to accomplish this??”
Earth is warmed by the tropical oceans absorbing sunlight.
Different spectrum of sunlight travels different distances thru the ocean before being absorbed.
Portions of blue and UV light travel the furthest thru ocean waters and can about 100 meters below the surface.
Shortwave IR is about 1/2 of all sunlight reaching Earth’s
Oceans. Red light and Shortwave IR only travel a couple meters
below the ocean surface before being absorbed.
Increasing or decreasing Earth average temperature requires
thousands of years.
Earth’s average temperature is related to the average temperature of the entire oceans of Earth. Which is currently
about 3.5 C.
Earth has had it’s entire average temperature of about 15 C or
warmer. When earth has had such warm oceans, Earth has a hothouse climate. And currently we are in a global ice box climate.
–When earth has had such warm oceans, Earth has a hothouse climate. And currently we are in a global ice box climate.–
A definition of ice box climate is cold oceans and polar ice caps.
To have a polar ice cap one needs land in the polar regions.
To have any kind of ice cap, one needs a land surface.
Ocean surfaces have a warming effect as compare to land surface. When you have oceans large land areas have a cooling
effect, though small islands can have a warming effect, waters around island and island itself can have higher average temperatures. And of course one can have lakes and other bodies of water on Land. Though this is insignicant in terms of global temperatures.
In our ice box climate one can have short term effects upon
global temperature. This is largely due to having a warm ocean surface temperature above the cold ocean.
The transportations and mixing of ocean surface can rapidly change regional and global air temperatures.
But it does not take 1000’s of years to have a major change in the climate. Look at the YD some 10,000 years ago coming and especially going in just decades, and more recently the Medieval Warm period ending and the Little Ice Age beginning in less then a century later.
There are many more examples.
Well we are in an ice box c!image.
See above
S,
The Younger Dryas is but one example. Major shift in less than a decade. Chaotic behaviour provides a complete explanation. No CO2 magic needed.
Cheers.
Major shift in Greenland.
Are we not speaking of global temps?
When the sun is 45 degrees away from zenith, the sunlight has
to travel thru about 10% more distance to reach same depth as
compared the sun at zenith. And when sun is 60 degrees away from zenith (or 30 degrees above the horizon) it has travel thru twice as much water. Or about 2 hours after sunrise the light levels at 50 meter depth will be about same as light levels at 100 meter depth at noon.
Only a small portion of Earth at any point in time has the sun less than 45 degrees away from zenith.
When the sun is more than 90 degrees from zenith, it’s night. Half Earth is night, but next larger portion of Earth is when the sun is between 45 and 90 degrees away from zenith- at equator and at equinox, 1/2 area but as go further from equator it’s more than 1/2.
Earth has about 510 million- 255 million night and day. Less than 45 degrees: 78.5 million
255 – 78.5 = 176.5 million sq km
Or about 2/3rds of sunlit area having sunlight further then 45 degrees away from zenith.
Or more UV could be warming shallower waters outside the tropics “more” and during 1/2 of tropical day could warming
“More”, shallower waters.
Salvatore wrote:
“Take the sun the reason why some do not think it effects the climate is because they think the changes are to minor but everyone agrees if the sun were to change by some x amount the climatic impacts would be dramatic.”
OK Salvatore, if the sun were to change by X, what would be the change Y in the climate? What is Y?
DA,
OK DA. Why are you stupid? Why should anyone go to the trouble of treating your gotchas seriously?
You cant even tell anyone what the climate is, let alone how you would know how it has changed! What a stupid question – well, more of a stupid gotcha!
Carry on David.
Cheers.
This is off-topic but I have to post it to illustrate how the human mind at the so-called highest level can become seriously deluded and warped. It’s obvious that kind of thinking at a different level has lead to the theory of AGW.
********placeholder to test link for WordPress filters********
This is from Stephen Hawking, supposedly one of the brilliant thinkers of our time. Hawking has tuned in on climate science as well claiming we are all doomed due to anthropogenic causes. That in itself convinced me this guy is off the deep end. What follows seals the deal.
I might add that 97% of people likely agree with him.
Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But theres another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real as what we call real time.
What he refers to as ordinary time is itself an illusion since time was obviously created by the human mind. The horizontal line to which he refers, with the past on the left and the future on the right is an illusion that exists only in the human mind. It has no physical existence whatsoever. No one can demonstrate it.
Some people claim clocks measure time, which is nonsense. Clocks are synchronized to the rotational period of the Earth, not to some illusionary dimension no one can detect or measure. We have created the concept of spcae-time based on the rotational period of the Earth.
Now the idiots in quantum theory have added an imaginary time to the illusionary time. I am sure that is based on complex number theory where there is a real axis and an imaginary axis. The x-axis would be real and the y-axis imaginary, represented by ‘i’ where i = square root of -1.
Complex number theory is useful in electrical engineering, where, for example, you have an electric motor which has real power and imaginary power. The imaginary power is actually real, but it is reactive and used up creating the magnetic field for an electric motor.
It is plotted at right angles to the real power, producing a power factor angle as a resultant between the real power and the imaginary power. That becomes really important in power grids during peak demand periods when the power factor angle increases due to imaginary power consumption.
Applying such a theory to an illusion like time shows how stupid some parts of theoretical physics has become. Such researchers have essentially lost touch with the real world and live in a world of fantasy. Not much different than alarmist climate science.
I am not poking fun at the physical infirmities experienced by Hawking. I empathize with him spending his life in the physical condition he inherited and I do not doubt his abilities in his field. However, his field is founded on utter nonsense of a mathematical nature.
Math, by itself, and of itself, can lead to utter nonsense. One of the great physicists of our time, David Bohm, alluded to that when he claimed that an equation with no reality to back it is garbage. That’s what Hawking et al have managed to produce.
He claimed the other day that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang. People talk about Creation theory being fictitious but this goes well beyond that. At least the idea of God creating the universe has to have a semblance of sense, even to an atheist.
This makes no sense whatsoever based on anything we have hitherto understood about science and the physical universe. It’s sci-fi of the highest order with nothing to support the theory except mathematical equations.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/03/05/stephen-hawking-says-knows-what-happened-before-dawn-time.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fmost-popular+%28Internal+-+Most+Popular+Content%29
correction….the following was quoted from the article. Quotation marks deleted by WordPress.
“Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But theres another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real as what we call real time”.
No Gordon, there is no “imaginary time” in quantum theory.
Whoever wrote that does not know what they’re talking about. (They’re probably misunderstanding the Minkowski metric.) That you fell for it is not surprising — you have shown here you fall for lots of pseudoscience.
Davie, you’re such a clown.
Go back and read Gordon’s very first sentence.
The fact that you can’t understand is not surprising–you have shown here there is a lot you don’t understand.
It’s fun to watch.
DA,
Youll appreciate a Feynman quote –
“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.
You might think you understand. Maybe you are smarter than Feynman. I assume you are just stupid and trying to appear smart. Can you show otherwise?
Cheers.
Gordon, surely with your background in electrical engineering, you have run across the idea of imaginary numbers used to express phase angles for AC circuits. Are you similarly opposed to this standard approach in EE?
Tim, you probably just missed the paragraphs where Gordon discussed this.
“Complex number theory is useful in electrical engineering. ..”
Better luck with your “gotchas”, next time.
I was legitimately curious — not a ‘gotcha’ as you assumed.
Imaginary numbers have been applied to a wide variety of physical situations. It seems somewhat arbitrary to accept their use in one (familiar) setting but reject it in another (unfamiliar) setting. Many people would similarly scoff at imaginary numbers on AC circuit analysis until they spend a couple years learning about how useful it it. Similarly, unless someone spends a few years learning about the use of ‘imaginary time’ in QM, they are really not in a position to judge.
Sorry Tim, not buying it. If you were “legitimately curious”, you would not have tried to imply Gordon had not “ran across the idea of imaginary numbers”.
Have you noticed your “spin” fails more often than not?
He may simply have missed that bit. Gordon did say that the imaginary power is actually real, so his position is a little unclear. Tim’s question is legitimate either way.
I remember David Bohm. He was a weirdo communist who believed in the paranormal and that Uri Geller could bend keys and spoons.
I had the pleasure of applying electroconvulsive therapy to him in 1991.
n,
People who take pleasure in applying electric shocks to peoples’ brains are stupid, not to say sadistic.
You probably believe that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, which demonstrates the ingrained nature of your stupidity. Have you considered having electroconvulsive therapy yourself? You could ask John Cook from SkS to deliver the shocks, dressed in his Nazi uniform. Seems appropriate.
Stupidity thinking stupidity with more stupidity.
Cheers.
Tell me – do you believe Uri Geller could bend keys and spoons?
pp, do you believe CO2 can warm the planet?
p,
Given a holding device and a large hammer I can bend spoons, keys, and all sorts of other malleable items. Are you stupid enough to believe Uri Geller couldnt?
Maybe you could even learn how to do it yourself. Not much brainpower required.
Cheers.
Nothing doesn’t exist now, and there is no reason it should exist in the future or before time.
+1
g,
I’m probably going to get a caning from all and sundry, but . . .
If time is an artefact of “matter”, then things such as quantum entanglement, photons having to necessarily “travel back in time”, and so on, might become explicable. I don’t how this could be demonstrated by reproducible experiments , so it’s just speculation, of course.
Cheers.
“At least the idea of God creating the universe has to have a semblance of sense, even to an atheist.”
Who created “God?”
DA,
Who cares? Ask yourself on your own blog – at least you know you’ll get a stupid answer to a pointless, irrelevant, and stupid question,
Cheers.
You don’t believe in (a) god, you don’t believe in the data, everybody appears “stupid”, and you spend all your time blogging.
Tell me – what is the point of such an existence?
p,
Mind reading – fail. Logic – fail.
Why should I tell you anything, if you are so stupid as believe you can read minds?
Cheers.
I tried reading your mid but it only comprised one paragraph.
Whom ever created “God” is God.
So if “God” created the universe and God created “God” then I
Would say the true God is God.
It seems reasonable there is one God, knowing God is problematic, as I can not even know my cat, nor can I really believe in my cat.
But the cat is around here somewhere.
According to some religions humans are similar to God – and my cat isn’t.
Gbaikie, “Whom ever created God is God.”
Why would God need to create God? Sounds like He already existed to begin with.
Well I am open to idea that there are many gods, though I think there is only one God.
It’s not clear to me that I could discern the difference between a god and God. Though I not too concerned about this possible inability at the present time. Or I don’t spend time
believing in a god or the God.
The idea that gods are engaged in warfare might be human projection than something close to reality.
Humans and animals are engaged in warfare and there are many kinds of warfare (does not require pools or rivers of blood and etc – or business or sports or art can a war). So one can have a war of ideas (or all war is that) but “war on poverty” is merely dumb idea.
Anyhow think gods or God are not engaged in war of any kind.
But this does not mean they have the ideology of Pacifism – or they are not at war with war. War is human thing and gods are not humans.
I always love it when people try to show they are intelligent by using “whom”, while not realising they are using it where it doesn’t belong thus proving the opposite.
Dr. Roy Spencer, on March 8, the temperature in northern Alabama will fall below 0 C in the night.
How many times has this happened before?
Gordon,
You, binny, des, barry and other alarmists fail to understand that a straight line trend lacking context is nothing but crunched numbers. All of you have completely ignored the contexts producing the data because you think plugging raw data into an algorithm tells you something.
You clearly have no idea what I think about trend lines and contexts. Explaining the limits of trend line results is something that is regularly done when silly skeptics make bald assertions about them.
For example, your consistent refrain about the 1998-2012 trend lines relies on ignoring all sorts of context, such as the wide confidence interval for that period, what the IPCC said about it in total,and more.
On this period you ignore and even deliberately reject all sorts of context so you can keep bleating ‘hiatus’.
You are perfectly happy to accept “crunched numbers” and believe “an algorithm tells you something” whenever a mean trend line suits your predilections. And you go on about it for years without letting any context interfere with your view.
Good comment, barry.
Gordon clearly doesnt understand trend analysis, so instead of learning it, he simply rejects it all.
barry,
If you believe you can predict the future by examining the past you are stupid.
If you believe that establishing a trend tells you anything about the future, you are stupid.
Even Governments in some countries require that financial hucksters advertising informs potential suckers that past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
Play with your charts. Add more colors. Crank up your spreadsheet to dizzying speed.
It wont help, will it?
Cheers.
And yet you are quite happy to focus on a so-called “pause” or absence of trend in the data.
A somewhat illogical approach – no?
p,
Your mind reading skills come up short again. Just what I expect from a stupid person trying to put words in my mouth.
No.
The data is merely historical observations. It does not matter what you or I think about facts. If you believe that you can change historical facts, you are stupid. If you believe you can see into the future, you are stupid.
Nature doesn’t care what anybody thinks. Chaos rules. Stupid people cannot bring themselves to accept reality.
Cheers.
So – you are a nihilist – yes?
p,
Stupid, irrelevant, and pointless question – no? Or should that be stupid, irrelevant, and pointless question – yes?
Cheers.
Do you know what a nihilist is?
p,
You ask the pointless, irrelevant and stupid question.
I refuse to answer. A stupid person would believe that repeating the same action, and expecting a different outcome is rational. Good for you.
Cheers.
barry
I have no problem with the 1998-2012 period being considered as a pause.
But I of course agreee with you when you write: ‘…such as the wide confidence interval for that period.’
Let us tell it in numbers, i.e. in °C/decade (2σ).
1. Linear estimates for 1998-2012:
– UAH 6.0 TLT: -0.072 ± 0.247
– RSS 3.3 TLT: -0.053 ± 0.248
– RSS 4.0 TLT: 0.023 ± 0.258
– Had-CRUT 4.6: 0.052 ± 0.140
– NOAA: 0.085 ± 0.145
– GISS: 0.098 ± 0.143
2. Now the estimates for 1979-2017:
– RSS 3.3 TLT: 0.137 ± 0.059
– RSS 4.0 TLT: 0.192 ± 0.061
– Had-CRUT 4.6: 0.173 ± 0.036
– NOAA: 0.167 ± 0.037
– GISS: 0.174 ± 0.038
Source: Kevin Cowtan’s trend computer.
Oh I forgot UAH in (2):
– UAH 6.0 TLT: 0.128 ± 0.060
La P,
OCD? Obsession with the obviously malleable historical data might seem odd to a rational person. What possible good can it do you? What would you learn?
A chaotic system is not amenable to prediction. It needs no external influences to behave chaotically and unpredictably. Anyone who believes that they can predict the future state of a chaotic system any better than I can, is stupid. Thats why even AGW enthusiasts with access to multi-million dollar computers are not willing to bet one cent of their own money on their stupid predictions being any better than a naive persistence forecast.
They are stupid, but possessed of a larger than average amount of animal cunning.
Cheers.
“A chaotic system is not amenable to prediction. It needs no external influences to behave chaotically and unpredictably. ”
This is a common misleading interpretation of chaos.
A correct interpretation:
“Everything is chaotic IN THE LONG TERM. In the short term most things are predictable.”
—
The trajectory of a billiard ball is predictable for about 5 seconds but not any longer.
Weather is predictable out till about 7-10 days but not any further.
The Earth’s orbit around the sun is predictable for a few million(?) years but not any longer.
Climate statistics may be unpredictable on time scales of tens of thousands of years, but much more predictable on time scales of decades and centuries.
—
Dr N,
Complete nonsense. Your interpretation is stupid, and has little to no relevance to my statement, particularly in the context of the atmosphere.
You are confused, as well as stupid. You are confusing a naive persistence forecast with a physics based prediction. Saying you can predict an average, but not predict the data from which the average is derived, is magical thinking. Your guess will be no better or worse than anyone else’s.
Stupid. You believe you can trajectory of a real billiard ball for about five seconds. Try it. You can’t. All in your imagination.
As to weather, you can’t even predict wind speed and direction with any reasonable precision 30 seconds hence, let alone 7-10 days!
Stupid.
Cheers.
“Anyone who believes that they can predict the future state of a chaotic system any better than I can, is stupid.”
I think you will find that a few people have actually won money betting on the predictions of warmer temperatures. You obviously have not kept up to date.
Let’s try and put some money where your mouth is. Give me your estimate of the chances of UAH global annual average value being higher next year than last.
A warmist might say 60:40
A sane skeptic would simply say 50:50.
A brave skeptic may like to bet on it being cooler and would say 40:60
A coward (which most of you lot are) will say nothing.
Dr N,
You must be really stupid, or you cannot comprehend plain English.
Try actually reading what I said, rather than indulging in stupid, irrelevant and pointless grandstanding. If you truly believe that you can predict the future better than I, go your hardest. State your stake, make your prediction. If I disagree, I say so. That’s the bet.
Give it a try, if you wish. Gavin Schmidt is probably not as stupid as you. After a bit of thought, he declined. I wonder why?
Cheers.
I say the chances are 60:40 in favour of warmer.
Just as I predicted (with 100% accuracy), I get the coward’s response from M.
La P,
“I have no problem with the 1998-2012 period being considered as a pause.
But I of course agreee with you when you write: ‘…such as the wide confidence interval for that period.’ ”
Well yes, as long as you ignore context (like the confidence intervals for the trends), as Gordon says, the ‘pause’ can seem pretty meaningful.
Strangely, the ‘pause’ is meaningful to Gordon precisely because he ignores context.
Pretty selective outlook he has.
Gordon Robertson says:
March 5, 2018 at 1:31 PM
‘The graph I looked at initially seemed to suggest there is little difference between the UAH graph on Roys site and the Had-crut fudgery.
There is a good deal of difference between the two sets of data.’
*
For the last time… If you still don’t understand (or, more probably, don’t want to understand), then you don’t, no problem for me.
1. I start with the Excel graph
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520210188196.jpg
wich is (apart from its non centered running mean) exactly similar to
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg
2. In that Excel graph, I now modify, for convenience, the UAH plots representation as follows:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520291711525.jpg
2. I add to that graph two plots of Had-CRUT4.6 and NOAA you consider both to be ‘fudgery’:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520292219782.jpg
As you can see on the left, each dataset was plotted wrt its own baseline:
– 1981-2010 for UAH;
– 1961-1990 for Had-CRUT;
– 1971-2000 for NOAA (this one is according to the WMO recommendation valid till 17.01.2018, it’s now 1981-2010).
3. But this representation is of course wrong.
If you want to correctly represent anomaly based time series, you must adjust their anomalies to a common level:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520294117990.jpg
You think it’s incorrect, or even warmist manipulation? Your problem.
4. You asked me: “Why do you use Excel, instead of looking at the original graphs?”
Here is one of many many answers:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520294336531.jpg
My friend J.-P. and I we like to look at such graphs, to see where plots correlate or don’t etc etc.
You think it’s all rubbish? So what!
La P,
So you are stupid. Intrinsically, it matters not that you are, but someone gullible might believe your rubbish, and become poorer because of it. Their choice, of course, just as it is yours to believe in fairy tales.
You may wish to criticize me for pointing out that there are alternatives to your nonsense. Go ahead.
Its a free-ish world. Why not let people make up their own minds?
Cheers.
Do you have any friends outside of this blog site?
Or is everybody in your eyes just “stupid” ?
p,
What a pair of stupid (not to leave out irrelevant and pointless) questions – gotchas, really.
Why should I answer? Can you provide some reason?
Of course not. That’s one reason you are stupid. Stupid is as stupid does.
Cheers.
“Why should I answer? Can you provide some reason?”
I suspect that you may need help. I am willing to offer it.
p,
Your suspicions are irrelevant to me, and probably to approximately seven billion other people, I suspect. Maybe you ascribe more importance to your suspicions than any rational person would.
This would make you stupid, in addition to being a slow learner, I suspect.
Keep asking stupid questions. I’ll keep not answering.
Cheers.
Your reluctance to answer questions speaks volumes about a deep-seated insecurity.
Do you think answering questions is a sign of weakness?
p,
As I said before, you can keep asking questions, I will keep not answering them, if I so desire.
Are you just stupid, suffering from uncontrollable urges, or a slow learner? It doesn’t really matter – my care factor remains firmly on zero. Keep at it.
Cheers.
“my care factor remains firmly on zero.”
Interesting, this is a characteristic of psychopaths.
“Are you just stupid, suffering from uncontrollable urges, or a slow learner? It doesnt really matter my care factor remains firmly on zero.”
I suspect this may be a case of projection defined as follows:
Projection is a psychological defense mechanism in which individuals attribute characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves to another person. … In some cases projection can result in false accusations. For example, someone with adulterous feelings might accuse their partner of infidelity.
^^^
I.e. you suffer from uncontrolled urges and are a slow learner.
When we look at this graph comparing within 1871-2017
– AMO in its original, undetrended form
– MEI
– Had-CRUT
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520294336531.jpg
a few details some might be interested in are visible:
– (1) AMO seems to experience a nice increase on each cycle;
– (2) AMO seems to be influenced by volcanoes in the same way as are the temperature series (it is low during ENSO 1982/83 and the Pinatubo eruption, but high during 1877/78, 1997/98 and 2015/16);
– (3) MEI seems to disconnect from AMO and temperatures by around 2000.
The (3) was a bit surprising for me. Because until now I had believed it would be in correlation with surface temperature time series over the whole record.
Maybe Roy Spencer can explain us this MEI behavior – provided, of course, that the graph is correct :-))
Source for AMO undetrended:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.mean.data
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.climo.data
La P,
Here’s what the IPCC wrote –
In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
You may just be ignorant about chaotic systems. Gavin Schmidt certainly was, and didn’t seem to be aware of the IPCC position.
After you have acquainted yourself with chaos theory and its application, you might care to demonstrate why you find the IPCC statement lacking in clarity, or insufficient to provide a satisfactory answer to your query.
Of course, a stupid person would refuse to even consider that the IPCC might be right. You probably don’t consider yourself stupid, do you?
Cheers.
Teacher Flynn:
La Pangolina, you shall now repeat ten times after me the following:
“I am stupid.”
Schoolgirl La Pangolina:
“I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.
I am stupid.”
LP
The thing is how much of that is natural stupidity and how much is man made ?
Regards
HC
Harry Cummings says:
March 5, 2018 at 7:51 PM
‘The thing is how much of that is natural stupidity and how much is man made ?’
*
My guideline here is Roy Spencer’s meaning since years: half man-made, half natural.
Maybe his most recent work on his 1D climate model has modified the percentage, e.g. to 30 % m-m and 70 % nat.
Then that will become my new guideline.
Simply because froom my personal point of view he is a trustworthy person.
That exactly is also the reason why I believe him when he writes since years that ‘GHE is settled science’.
Not one commenter was ever able to scientifically contradict him on this blog, the usual pseudoskeptic barking dogs the least.
‘Regards’
2u2
R. J. Koelm
La P,
Very good. Stupid, but good. You can count to ten, at least. It has had no effect on you has it?
You may think that repeating that you are stupid might make you smart, but alas, it probably wont.
Cheers.
Do you feel good about yourself belittling somebody in this way?
Is that why you are friendless?
p,
Stupid, irrelevant and pointless question. Why do you ask?
Cheers.
You know deep down that the answers are No and Yes.
We can help you.
No reference, no citation, no link. The marks of a hack.
Luckily google provides the context, and the bits missing from the quote:
“Further work is required to improve the ability to detect, attribute, and understand climate change, to reduce uncertainties, and to project future climate changes… Further work is needed in eight broad areas:
[6] …. Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm
Same old ignorance about the difference between predictions and projections. They really don’t know what the differences are. Worse, they’re proud of their ignorance.
I’m referring to the fake a/s ‘skeptics’, of course.
barry,
Short list of synonyms for projection –
estimate, forecast, prediction, calculation, prognosis, prognostication, reckoning, expectation;
Used by normal people. Found in real dictionaries.
My quote was exact, and you have not challenged it. Not my fault if you dont like it, is it?
What part of the quote do you not understand? Or do you think the IPCC is stupid? Overall, the IPCC is probably about as stupid as you. Can’t figure out whether to say projection, prediction, or scenario, so uses them all. Clever?
They all imply the future. The future of a chaotic system is unknowable – at least the IPCC is not stupid enough to be in complete denial. You are, apparently.
Cheers.
You don’t know what projections are WRT to climate models. You also don’t understand the full quote.
oddity, peculiarity, abnormality, irregularity, inconsistency, incongruity
are all synonyms for “anomaly.” And none of them describe what it means in terms of data with respect to baselines.
Scientific usage and popular usage are not always the same. Something else you apparently know nothing about.
A projection is a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the aid of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning, e.g., future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realised, and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm
Projections typically presents the future climate state as being within a range (ie, ‘global temps in the last decade of the 20th century are projected to be between 2.5-4.5 C higher than pre-industrial, assuming a economic and emissions “business as usual” scenario’). Predictions are more definitive (‘3.4 C higher than pre-industrial’) and are generally not used by IPCC for long-term climate forecasts.
As the omitted bits point out, future climate states are better expressed as a range of distributions – it’s not possible to predict to the 10th of a degree a future climate state for various reasons, not the least of which is that emissions and other factors are unknowable in the future, so the IPCC has a range of scenarios, each with a different set of economic and mitigatory (or not) assumptions. While models all predict warming for given scenarios, the end-state is different for each of them, and that range is the projection for a given scenario.
Its funny because not long ago we were talking about imagninary numbers then low and behold we get this:
UAH 6.0 TLT: -0.072 0.247
RSS 3.3 TLT: -0.053 0.248
RSS 4.0 TLT: 0.023 0.258
Had-CRUT 4.6: 0.052 0.140
NOAA: 0.085 0.145
GISS: 0.098 0.143
2. Now the estimates for 1979-2017:
RSS 3.3 TLT: 0.137 0.059
RSS 4.0 TLT: 0.192 0.061
Had-CRUT 4.6: 0.173 0.036
NOAA: 0.167 0.037
GISS: 0.174 0.038
Ok so to start with thermometers dont measure to 3 decimal places so every number you see is manufactured through the number crunching process.
I get that you need such small numbers to bluff your way through by attempting to infer some sort of accuracy to the numbers but in the end they are imaginary.
You see trands of 0.037 or whatever and then claim this holds some sort of significance but in the end the real number we are talking about is 0.0 but if we stated this then we would have nothing to discuss.
And yes, yes i know i know nothing about crunching numbers and you do however what i posses you will never have and that is the ability to think cognitively and apply logic and reason because i do not suffer from a form of religious befuddlement.
As Flynn constantly reminds you stupid people do stupid things
‘As Flynn constantly reminds you stupid people do stupid things’
Typical blah blah by people who always criticise but never propose alternatives.
Simple and easy. But useless.
Do something intelligent!
I just did i highlighted your obsession with non existant very small numbers has no bearing on the trends with which you base your warmist views upon.
Like others here i have proposed alternatives here and at many other sites but alas people like you continue with your obsession with very small non existant numbers. If i was to ask what relationship is there between co2 levels and your very small numbers would you be able to clearly explain what it was?
I dont think you could.
La P,
And your comment is not stupid, irrelevant and pointless because . . .?
Cheers.
Ah and once again we find ourselves being sucked down the convoluted rabbit hole of the warmist mind.
I like Flynn refuse to play in your dog and pony show LP, You made claims of trends from data, i and others refute those claims based on valid reasons, reasons that you cannot defend.
Your immediate response is to avoid confronting this by attempted diversions either through abuse and/or misdirection.
The reason why you behave in such a manner is because your belief system is so fragile it could not possibly withstand any scrutiny.
I refuse to follow you down that rabbit hole, if it makes you feel better and more importantly continue to function as a person albeit at a very low level i will leave you with this.
Wow those numbers look great LP, the accuracy of the thermometers really do show we are indeed headed for boilageddon quick lets destroy our western societies by removing our ability to generate stable, reliable and cheap electricity, lets install smart meters in ever house so we can turn off power to said house at a moments notice…………whats that……..but what about the elderly and infirm i hear you say well FU&*EM we are saving the god damn planet there will always be casualties the trick is to make sure its not us.
Now off you go and get that excell program crunching more numbers when you have proegressed to MATLAB maybe you can make a small but useless contribution
C., do you have anger management issues like MF?
p,
Another stupid, irrelevant and meaningless attempt at a gotcha. Stupid people just refuse to learn, I suspect. Maybe that’s why they remain stupid.
Cheers.
LaP to MF:
“Do something intelligent!”
That is like commanding a fish to ride a bike.
Dr N,
And youd no doubt be stupid enough to try.
Cheers.
C,
Even better, you might even note sea levels supposedly calculated to 0.01 mm. Thats roughly about half to an eighth of the thickness as a human hair. Not nearly as thick as the measurebators who produce such nonsense.
The miracles of climatology! Averages rule!
How stupid.
Cheers.
I once worked on a radar that could measure the height of waves i dont ever recall the number crunchers asking for any of that data perhaps they dont know it exists.
What i find amusing is the arbitary tolerance they apply +- whatever what kind of delusion is this………….
Mike, Cracker,
If a lake rises at a rate of 1 meter per year, then on average how much does it rise in a day?
Snape,
That is a stupid question. What is the relevance, if any? It has already happened, according to you. About as stupid as saying someone with a mass of 70kg, and 35 years old, has had an average increase in mass of so much per year. Completely pointless.
The stuff of stupid people, who delight in their apparent mastery of simple arithmetic, in lieu of actually using their brains.
Cheers.
Hint: You don’t need to look for your tape-measure.
Snape,
Hint: You will still be stupid – tape measure notwithstanding.
Cheers.
Yes, these multi decimal places are simply the results of number crunching.
Where you go wrong is assuming that anyone assigns ‘significance’, qualitative or statistical, to 3 decimal places. But that’s the basis for some snark, so it’ll do fine for you.
Why not just ask before leaping off the rhetorical cliff, m’boy? Because you might get a reasonable answer that interferes with an opportunity for venting?
barry,
I’m not sure whether you want anybody to believe the stupid number crunchers intentionally falsify figures just because they can.
Or do you really think that they are too stupid to realise what they are doing, in an effort to look clever?
If somebody publishes stupidly erroneous figures, why would you expect me to ask if they know they are stupid? Their stupidity is supposed to be my fault?
Sounds like climatological thinking to me. Maybe having a few more competent people might help, don’t you think?
Cheers,
They’re not falsified. I can reproduce them exactly with the same linear regression application. Anyone can.
I don’t think you’ve followed the conversation at all.
go to here and be wise
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/ap-statistics/sampling-distribution-ap/sampling-distribution-mean/v/central-limit-theorem
There’s a valid reason why averages can be more precise than the individual instrument.
I was wondering whether Greenland has anything to do with polar vortex or spikes of warm air in polar region.
But didn’t find much to support this idea.
The premise of the wondering is the higher elevation of Greenland. Higher elevation within a polar region should result in more sunlight. Or earlier sunlight than the equinox.
I probably should look at elevation maps of northern Greenland- I think I seen these before (but I don’t have them handy). I also could try to calculate it somehow.
But if have huge mostly flat plain (and slight slope helps)
And you are at high elevation, that should lower the horizon
Now generally if sun is low on horizon, it’s not warming the surface much, but I could imagine it might warm more than expected.
The bigger question is why has Greenland have kilometer thick glaciers (1600 meters to the mile) when it resides in part at least outside the north pole and yet its so damn hot?
Questions questions but nary an answer beyond a mythical trend line that spells doom and gloom for all prepared to listen.
“Questions questions”
That is why we have qualified scientists who know what they are doing and can provide answers to the public.
Angry retired engineers and certified lunatics are irrelevant.
Dr N,
You might be stupid enough to believe that Gavin Schmidt is a qualified scientist. He isnt, of course.
You might be stupid enough to believe that the scientists at NSF, who refused to accept Archimedes principle, knew what they were doing. I dont.
Maybe you are stupid enough to believe that Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate.
Good for you. You are obviously too stupid to realise how stupid you are. Oh well, you can always blame me for your stupidity.
Cheers.
Calm down.
Michael Mann will be revered long after all the skeptics have all been dispatched.
Just note this:
“Micahel Mann has received a number of honors and awards including NOAA’s outstanding publication award in 2002 and selection by Scientific American as one of the fifty leading visionaries in science and technology in 2002. He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union in 2012 and was awarded the National Conservation Achievement Award for science by the National Wildlife Federation in 2013. He made Bloomberg News’ list of fifty most influential people in 2013. In 2014, he was named Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and received the Friend of the Planet Award from the National Center for Science Education. He received the Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Climate Science Communication from Climate One in 2017 and the Award for Public Engagement with Science from the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2018. He is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is also a co-founder of the award-winning science website RealClimate.org.”
Phew! What an achiever!
As for Gavin Schmidt:
“He was educated at The Corsham School, earned a BA (Hons) in mathematics at Jesus College, Oxford, and a PhD in applied mathematics at University College London.
NASA named Schmidt to head GISS in June 2014.
In October 2011, the American Geophysical Union awarded Schmidt the Inaugural Climate Communications Prize, for his work on communicating climate-change issues to the public. ] He was a contributing author of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the work of the IPCC, including the contributions of many scientists, was recognised by the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Schmidt was named in November 2004 as one of Scientific American’s “Top 50 Research Leaders” of the year.”
Makes you feel stupid, does’nt it?
Dr N,
Michael Mann. Claims to communicate with trees. Renowned for Mikes Nature trick. Claims to be a climate scientist – has no qualifications in the field at all. Claimed to be a Nobel Laureate in court documents. Too stupid to know whether he was or wasn’t. And so it goes.
Gavin Schmidt. Undistinguished mathematician claiming to be a scientist. Self appointed climatologist – claimed that a probability of 38% meant that 2014 was The hottest year EVAH! Even NOAA changed the 38 to 48, endeavouring to look not quite so stupid. Obviously has difficulty with statistics. Claimed that chaos was irrelevant and non-existent, until I pointed out the IPCC wrote otherwise. And so it goes.
Dumb or dumber? Who would you say is the less intelligent of the two? Or the more stupid, if you prefer.
Cheers.
“Claims to be a climate scientist has no qualifications in the field at all”
Tell us what constitutes climate science qualifications and where you can gain them.
“Undistinguished mathematician claiming to be a scientist. Self appointed climatologist”
I see you are claiming that mathematicians are not scientists.
I understand you can hold a soldering iron and believe that this skill somehow makes you qualified to denigrate such luminaries as MM and GS. You must be seriously brain damaged from too many solder fumes.
We don’t expect a rational answer so don’t bother.
Dr No,
Awwww. Now you dont want me to answer? After bagging me because I choose not to dance to your tune? Is that just stupidity, or inconstant stupidity?
Climate science is an oxymoron, of course. Climate is the average of weather – you are probably stupid enough to believe tha endless playing with the averages of historic observations is science. Are you?t
As to the self styled climate scientist, Gavin Schmidt –
Most fundamentally, mathematics as such relies on pure abstraction, not the scientific method.
Schmidt demonstrates precisely no acquaintance with the scientific method, does he?
If you don’t believe this, bully for you. Real scientists do.
Cheers.
The north pole is a point rather than a region. Most of Greenland is within the Arctic Circle and some would say Greenland is in the polar region- and that Iceland is in polar region, though Iceland is just outside the Arctic Circle.
The average yearly temperature of Greenland is about -17 C a large part of this cold temperature is due to increased elevation from glacial ice. Or if Greenland lost 1 km from highest glacial ice, it’s average would increase by a few degree and Greenland would still have a high elevation due to glacial ice.
Where people live is near sea level and near the ocean, which most of time is ice free.
My apologies to the thoughtful people on this site for mentioning the persistent troll (David Appell).
Like a bad smell he popped up again and again.
gallopingcamel,
There was a young lady from Spain,
Who did it again and again,
And again and again,
And again and again,
and again and again and again.
So –
Dave Appell, if hed been in Spain,
Would do it again and again . . .
Cheers.
Quick!
MF is having one of his episodes!
Pass me the electrodes!
n,
And a photo of John Cook, SkS, standing proudly in his Nazi uniform, cranking up the voltage to 11, wearing a sadistic leer.
Keep the hilarity going. You’re not much use for anything else, are you?
Cheers.
Very interesting. Your fascination with Nazi uniforms and John Cook points to some disturbing tendencies. I hope you don’t own a gun.
profP
yes – we notice Mike gets a bit excited now and then. We turn the cold hose on him and he settles down very quickly.
And no, he does’nt have access to firearms. We also remove all sharp objects from his vicinity.
It was John Cook who appeared to be dressed in a Nazi uniform, apparently intending to frighten deniers (whatever a denier is supposed to be). He has a PhD in cognitive psychology, which makes him an expert on climatology, the science of divining the future through the examination of averages of numbers.
I can understand why even a stupid AGW proponent might wish to disassociate themselves from such a clown.
Fire off another salvo of stupid, irrelevant, and pointless comments at your discretion.
Cheers.
“It was John Cook who appeared to be dressed in a Nazi uniform”
Interesting. I am not familiar with the scene you describe. I don’t suppose you kept a copy of that image did you? Do you keep it under your pillow by any chance ? That would be another clue as to your state of mind.
p,
It is not my fault if you are both ignorant and stupid. You may blame it on me, but it wont cure your stupidity. You may rectify your ignorance if you choose.
Your choice.
Cheers.
Dear PP (professor p),
Here’s your photo of John Cook:
https://preview.tinyurl.com/ydggp5ko
You can see more of these sick people from Skeptical Science here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/
These are your warmist friends. They believe in the GHE as well.
The first link did not work. Try this:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1_herrcook.jpg
gallopingcamel says:
March 5, 2018 at 11:02 PM
‘My apologies to the thoughtful people on this site for mentioning the persistent troll (David Appell).’
*
Well gc…
From my point of view, the warmista Appell is absolutely harmless in comparison with all these pseudoskeptic barking dogs trolling here all the time, calling everybody ‘idiot’ or ‘stupid’ whenever s/he has a meaning differing from their egocentric narrative.
Rgds
R. J. Koelm
La P,
You have your point of view, of course. Derived from your fantasy, and not connected to reality. Stupid, really, if you think anybody smarter than you is going to take much notice.
Stick with your brightly coloured graphs of the past. Wave them furiously, listening for the applause. Chant sacred Manntras if you think it will help predict the future.
I know, I know – it sounds stupid. That’s because it is.
Cheers.
camel: instead of following me around, how about telling us where that 150 W/m2 is?
The Earth’s surface radiates, at an average temperature of 15 C, 390 W/m2.
But only 240 W/m2 leaves the top of the atmosphere.
So where is the difference, 150 W/m2?
La Pangolina when will it be warm in Germany?
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/28kckt1pi5d6.png
That depends on what you call ‘warm’.
Dr No, does La Nina work in Australia?
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
“The effect of La Nina events on winter/spring rainfall is limited for coastal areas of Victoria and New South Wales, extending almost to Fraser Island in southern Queensland. The reasons for the lack of a consistent response of winter/spring rainfall to El Nino and La Nina events for the coastal areas of New South Wales and southern Queensland are the subject of current research, but it should be noted that rainfall in these parts often arises from the lifting of on-shore air streams as they flow over the Great Dividing Range. A lot of the month to month and year to year rainfall variability from these airstreams seems to be due to the chaotic nature of the mid-latitude weather systems, which form a major feature of the weather and climate patterns of southern and central Australia.
It should not be expected that winter/spring rainfall in any given La Nina year will follow the pattern of the map, nor should it be expected that ‘below average’ rainfall will not occur in a La Nina year.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/ninacomp.shtml
“And your comment is not stupid, irrelevant and pointless because . . .?”
That quote above was one of MF’s was intended for MF who is seriously deranged.
In answer to your question:
“does La Nina work in Australia?” I say:
You stupid lazy boy. If you don’t know the answer to that you shoul’nt be wasting ours and your own time. Go back to school for God’s sake.
drno…”In answer to your question:
does La Nina work in Australia? I say:
You stupid lazy boy. If you dont know the answer to that you shoulnt be wasting ours and your own time. Go back to school for Gods sake”.
In other words, you don’t know.
Dr N,
barry seemed to have no problem providing an answer to a question which seemed quite relevant, seemed to have a point, and didn’t appear stupid.
The answer highlighted the fact that the Australian BOM indicated that the effect of La Nia Events could not be quantified or relied on. The BOM referred to chaos in relation to observed variability of various weather parameters.
The fact that you consider a reasonable question about a frequently mentioned phenomenon to be stupid, irrelevant, and pointless, might well indicate that you are stupid, irrelevant and pointless.
Oh well. You are what you are.
Cheers.
You stupid man.
Every student knows about the effects of La Nina on Australia.
It is like asking “Is the pope a Catholic?”
As for posting random irrelevant links, that is like shouting out loud in the hope somebody will think you intelligent. What a loser!
Dr N,
Another stupid, irrelevant and pointless analogy.
Carry on.
Cheers.
M, is that the best you can do?
The same, old, tired, worn-out response to any pointed and witty post (i.e. like all my posts) ? Time to give it a rest eh?
Dr No,
You keep asking stupid, irrelevant, pointless, questions.
I keep refusing to answer. Keep it up if you wish. You appear to stupid to do anything else.
Maybe one day Ill answer. Or maybe not.
Cheers.
“You appear to stupid to do anything else.”
That should be “too stupid”.
dr No:”Is that the best you can do?”
M:”I keep refusing to answer.”
You don’t have much ammunition. Pathetic.
Heavy snowstorms in the north-central US.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/tg2kwrmizmwf.png
THE WORSENING COSMIC RAY SITUATION: Cosmic rays are badand they’re getting worse. That’s the conclusion of a new paper just published in the research journal Space Weather. The authors, led by Prof. Nathan Schwadron of the University of New Hampshire, show that radiation from deep space is dangerous and intensifying faster than previously predicted.
The story begins four years ago when Schwadron and colleagues first sounded the alarm about cosmic rays. Analyzing data from the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER) instrument onboard NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), they found that cosmic rays in the Earth-Moon system were peaking at levels never before seen in the Space Age. The worsening radiation environment, they pointed out, was a potential peril to astronauts, curtailing how long they could safely travel through space.
This figure from their original 2014 paper shows the number of days a 30-year old male astronaut flying in a spaceship with 10 g/cm2 of aluminum shielding could go before hitting NASA-mandated radiation limits:
In the 1990s, the astronaut could spend 1000 days in interplanetary space. In 2014 only 700 days. “That’s a huge change,” says Schwadron.
Galactic cosmic rays come from outside the solar system. They are a mixture of high-energy photons and sub-atomic particles accelerated toward Earth by supernova explosions and other violent events in the cosmos. Our first line of defense is the sun: The sun’s magnetic field and solar wind combine to create a porous ‘shield’ that fends off cosmic rays attempting to enter the solar system. The shielding action of the sun is strongest during Solar Maximum and weakest during Solar Minimumhence the 11-year rhythm of the mission duration plot above.
The problem is, as the authors note in their new paper, the shield is weakening: “Over the last decade, the solar wind has exhibited low densities and magnetic field strengths, representing anomalous states that have never been observed during the Space Age. As a result of this remarkably weak solar activity, we have also observed the highest fluxes of cosmic rays.”
Back in 2014, Schwadron et al used a leading model of solar activity to predict how bad cosmic rays would become during the next Solar Minimum, now expected in 2019-2020. “Our previous work suggested a ~ 20% increase of dose rates from one solar minimum to the next,” says Schwadron. “In fact, we now see that actual dose rates observed by CRaTER in the last 4 years exceed the predictions by ~ 10%, showing that the radiation environment is worsening even more rapidly than we expected.” In this plot bright green data points show the recent excess:
“The high energy of GCRs allows these particles to penetrate nearly every material known to man, including shielding on space craft; when the cosmic rays penetrate that shielding, secondary particles are produced that can damage organs and lead to cancer,” said Schwadron.
Our Sun also erupts energetic matter from its surface, going through cyclical bursts of magnetic activity where it is more or less active. When the Sun is active, the frequency of eruptions increase, and the Sun’s magnetic field intensifies. While this increases the likelihood of dangerous SEP events, the upside is that the magnetic field also deflects cosmic radiation away from the solar system, protecting astronauts from even more dangerous GCRs. Right now, the Sun is emerging from what many are calling the “mini-maximum”, anticipated to be the smallest solar maximum that modern scientists have ever directly observed.
What Schwadron and his colleagues have found is that the solar activity has been decreasing over the last few solar cycles, and may likely continue to decrease in the next solar cycle. This means that astronauts may face higher levels of radiation than ever before. However, during Solar maximum, the GCR rate drops, and because the overall cycle-integrated solar activity is down, the overall likelihood of SEPs found during solar maximum is also reduced.
“It is a bit ironic, but the reduced GCRs in solar maximum and possibly fewer SEP events because of the trend of decreasing solar activity suggests that the next solar maximum may be one of the safest times to fly missions to deep space in the last 80 years,”said Schwadron.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-solar-maximum-safest-missions-mars.html#jCp
Well that’s good, because we can start manned Lunar and Mars
around that time. Or we should start with Lunar robotic missions to Moon, and finish Lunar and start Mars manned after
several years of lunar robotic exploration of lunar poles
Robots to Mars and Moon make much more sense. Much less money. No concern about life support.
Put the expendable robots out there and gather massive data.
Same for ocean depths.
Save people for making sic-fi movies.
Robotic missions can have various advantages but crewed missions also have advantages.
With the Moon, the speed of light delay is a couple seconds, so teloperated robotic missions don’t suffer much from this delay as compared to Mars teloperated missions.
On Earth there are teloperated mining operations but such mining operation have humans at the mining site. After Lunar exploration, one could expect a lot of lunar activity (such as lunar water mining) to be dominated by teloperation operations
and automated processes but it doesn’t make sense not to include a human presence on the Moon. A oceanic oil rig may have more than 100 people living on rig whereas with the Moon
one might limit a similar scale task to a few people.
Humans can do some tasks very quickly as compared relying solely on robotic ability.
In terms of exploration, it’s known that robotic landers
are limited in their capability and require a lot of time
and man hours to achieve rather simple objectives.
One could argue that robotic lunar exploration is all one
needs to determine if the Moon has minable water, but I would disagree, but I would agree that a large portion of the lunar exploration program could be robotic.
The lunar Apollo program used a lot of robotic mission before crew were send to the Moon, though it was a small fraction of total cost. I would argue that the polar exploration program
have a much higher fraction of the program cost being spent on
robotic missions. Roughly 1/2 of a 40 billion dollar total cost be for robotic missions and about 20 billion for lunar crew mission and these crewed mission would bring back lunar samples (like the crewed Apollo missions did) and I think
crew mission can do better job of returning the lunar samples-
and generally speaking do a better job at exploration. Due to technological improvement and due to having the sole purpose
being exploration. Or Apollo was test pilots with some training in geology and exploration was of secondary importance.
The American tax payers have spent about 150 billion dollar
on the International Space Station (ISS) over the last couple
decades – first launched in 1998 – and total costs will probably be about 200 billion dollars.
So when I say lunar program could cost about 40 billion dollars (and require less than 10 years) not many people would agree that this is possible or they would claim that the costs would have to be more than this.
I also think that a Mars program could cost less than 200 billion dollars and main reason Mars program costs more is because it requires more time, decades rather than less than a decade.
And it should noted that I am not talking about American taxpayer spending 40 billion dollars “more” then they are already spending, though it could cost a few billion “more”
and I think it’s “worth” spending hundreds billions dollars “more” as compared to other hundreds of billions dollars being spent.
Germany has wasted about 800 billion dollar on wind and solar
energy and will be more than 1 trillion dollars before they could not continue to throw money it this nonsense.
And Germans are small players in the art wasting tax dollars.
Now, for NASA to only spend 40 billion on lunar exploration
requires NASA to change. Mainly they have to become serious about space exploration. And they got to actually want to explore Mars, rather continue to fantasize about it – which they have been doing for quite a few decades.
salavatore…”Cosmic rays are badand theyre getting worse”.
Then there is an upside to wearing tin hats??? May require more like full body armour. Then again, the high energy radiation would likely go straight through steel like a hot knife through butter.
To measure some kinds of high energy radiation they install water tanks well below the surface where other radiation cannot penetrate.
Deep underground it’s neutrinos that are the radiation. They’re harmless to humans and pass right through you — trillions every second.
Salvatore, post a link when you copy-and-paste.
http://spaceweather.com/
The upshot of this is this could impact the climate which most are oblivious to. Like the ostrich with his/her head in the sand.
I’ve read quite a lot on the possibility that galactic cosmic rays have a significant influence on global climate. So far a link is unproven, and while there seems to be correlation through the 20th century, it appears to have fallen off in the 21st, particularly from about 1980.
No one is sticking their head in the sand.
barry…”So far a link is unproven”
That does not stop you and other alarmists from pushing the unproved claim of AGW.
One thing I have noticed about alarmist scientists and their adherents is a desire to recognize theories only they wish to push. If it’s satellite data, they claim the sat telemetry and interpretation is faulty. If it’s the 2nd law of thermodynamics they claim it is validated by a mysterious net balance of energies.
Of course, if it has anything to do with solar activity or galactic radiation, other than normal solar heating, they claim it is unproved.
When the Little Ice Age is claimed to be responsible for current re-warming, they claim the LIA is either unproved or affected only certain parts of the planet. They cannot explain how a mini ice age affects only a certain locale.
GR wrote:
“They cannot explain how a mini ice age affects only a certain locale.”
Come on.
The LIA was probably caused by a quick string of volcanoes in the late 1200s, and continued because of the ice-albedo effect.
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
2/3rds of the globe’s land is in the Northern Hemisphere, so it’s going to be more prone to lower temperatures by reflection by ice. And the land in the NH goes to a higher latitude than in the SH, meaning sea ice matters more to the NH. There are also natural “see saw” oscillations in the climate system that, after some time, affect the hemispheres in opposite ways.
Read the abstract, at least, of the Miller et al paper linked to above.
A nice sequence
Samalas 1257, VEI 7/8
Quilotoa 1280, 6
Kuwae 1452, 6
Bárðarbunga 1477, 6
Billy Mitchell 1580, 6
Huaynaputina 1600, 6
And shoud the stuff above not help:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-290750
Sorry, reply misplaced.
It’s a tough sell and against the evidence but those with the kung fu death grip won’t let go
from here
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/sun-clouds-climate-connection-takes-a-beating-from-cern/
Really, given all the other information that has come in, this should be the end of the line for the idea that cosmic rays are controlling our climate. But many academics have a hard time giving up on ideas they’re fond of. And, in this case, there’s a segment of the public that’s anxious to believe them.
“Like the ostrich with his/her head in the sand.”
More like the skeptic with his/her head up their .
Why does the increase in galactic radiation have a big impact on the climate?
GCR strongly ionizes the lowest stratosphere (from 10 to 20 km) above the polar circle.
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/Dose_Rates.html
This has a direct effect on the level of ozone and the pressure over the polar circle.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00960/igpdzafiim7q.png
The amount and distribution of ozone in the lower stratosphere over North America.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00960/90q34490gavg.png
Snowstorm almost like a hurricane in the north of the US.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/3ye6yuj0stt8.png
To the regular cast of characters: This blog has fallen apart. As a whole, the regular six to eight posters are rude, belligerent and offer little scientific insight. It’s really too bad, this used to be a favorite read of mine. Each of you should be providing your own insight and expertise, and arriving with an open mind. What a troupe of closed minded fools. I only visit on the first of the month these days.
Jake, you have to realize they have NO “scientific insight”. They are desperate. That’s why they are so rude and belligerent.
Most of us just enjoy their comedy. It’s fun to watch.
Hope that helps.
I blame the moderator.
You blame the moderator for other peoples behaviour?
Thats just stupid
Just stupid? Ha!
Not one of these barking dogs trolling here all the time, calling anybody ‘idiot’ or ‘stupid’ in every comment they don’t like, would do that longer than a day at WUWT.
Watts would ban them before sunset.
You do realize you can choose not to engage with whomever is causing you grief
Pang, I have noticed you mentioning WUWT several times. You seem to be impressed with the censorship there. Yes, Skeptics are heavily censored. Is that what you prefer?
Do you need censorship to make your pseudoscience work?
I doubt you will recognize the huge inconsistency in your beliefs.
It’s fun to watch.
Some statistics. The % of posts to date (total~660):
Mike Flynn 22%
Gordon Robertson 11%
barry 7%
{ren,g*e*r*a*n*,snape, Des] about 6% each
La Pangolina 5%
professorP 4%
David Appell 3%
Dr No 2%
etc.
etc.
Tellingly, Roy Spencer has made only 3 comments (0.45%).
What does that tell you?
That you like to count things and play number games…
I guess whatever floats your boat….
Let me help you stupid.
The statistics imply that Roy does’nt care one iota about the trash that litters this blog.
While he might say that it is intended for serious discussion how often does he actually respond to questions or argue the science? I suspect he is happy posting his ideas every couple of weeks and then just collecting the number of hits. Maybe it helps the advertising? The quality does’nt matter, otherwise he would get a moderator to filter it out.
That being said, I tend to agree(!) with g*e*r*a*n* that the blog is mainly for the amusement of those of us with spare time on our hands.
You just cant help yourself can you…
What makes you think i care what those stats mean to you?
I have to agree with G,
Its hilarious to watch
Clown, that is NOT what the statistics imply.
But, your rabid interpretation is hilarious.
More please.
“Clown, that is NOT what the statistics imply.
But, your rabid interpretation is hilarious.”
I’m happy you are amused.
Tell us what you infer from the statistics.
The clown requests: “Tell us what you infer from the statistics.”
As I indicated, I need to be contributing more.
It’s a dark world out there, and many folks need light.
Dang, I need to do better.
(I was too busy with T-shirt sales.)
Let me guess what the T-shirts say:
“I’m a skeptik, kick me”
“Feeling warm ladies? I’m your man!”
“The only good warmist is a dead warmist”
“Global warming -hilarious!”
“Gun control -hilarious!”
“World poverty – hilarious!”
“I’ve got cancer – hilarious!”
If so, let me know how to purchase one.
“Dang, I need to do better.”
You certainly do if you wish to stay amongst the “regular six to eight posters {who} are rude, belligerent and offer little scientific insight”
I hadn’t thought of that one:
“Feeling warm ladies? Im your man!”
Hope you will not expect any royalties.
“Hope you will not expect any royalties.”
Nah thanks. I don’t expect you will make any money.
Dr N,
It tells me that you have no science whatever.
For this reason, you are endeavoring to impose your will on Dr Spencer, to make inconvenient truths go away.
It also tells me that you choose to waste your time counting comments, rather than acquainting yourself with science.
It tells me you are stupid, and quite possibly irrelevant and pointless.
What else would you like to know? Are you still going to accuse of avoiding your questions?
I choose what to answer – if you dont like it – stiff. Have good cry.
Cheers.
I don’t expect you to answer any questions. You seem to have some psychological condition which prevents you from so doing.
Neither do I expect to find any facts or science in your endless repetitive posts.
Dr Clown, swallow this fact: “CO2 is NOT a heat source. It can NOT warm the planet.”
“Dr Clown, swallow this fact: CO2 is NOT a heat source. It can NOT warm the planet.
Ok, go and try living on a planet with no greenhouse gases.
The average temperature will be about -18 degC (about 33 degC colder than at present).
Your T-shirt should read:
“Tell me again for the 100th time about radiative heat transfer. I don’t understand it!”
Stay on this planet. That will help you to understand.
CO2 is NOT a heat source. It can NOT heat the planet.
Glad to help.
CO2 is NOT a heat source.
No one thinks it is.
Is the coat you wear a “heat source?” Of course not. But you still wear one to keep warm. How does that work, if it’s not a heat source?
DA,
More with the stupid overcoat analogy?
Firemen wear heavy clothes to keep cool.
Overcoats don’t heat corpses or thermometers. Neither does CO2. Only a stupid person would keep flogging the overcoat analogy, because its irrelevant, pointless, and most of all, stupid.
Keep going David. Try a heavier coat, why don’t you?
Cheers.
drno…”Tellingly, Roy Spencer has made only 3 comments (0.45%).
What does that tell you?”
Tells me Roy doesn’t have the time to participate. He does when he can.
Don’t blame the moderator, Doctor. Rather blame those permanently abusing his tolerance.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-290920
La P,
Go ahead. Blame me. Maybe you could even find a reason to make me give a darn! Probably not, as I care little for the opinions of stupid and irrelevant people.
Facts, on the other hand . . .
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Maybe you could even find a reason to make me give a darn! Probably not, as I care little for the opinions of stupid and irrelevant people.”
Clearly you “give a darn,” because you spend endless time here replying to every comment, to write only that everyone is “stupid” and you don’t “give a darn.” Your actions belie your claim. Your comments seem to be written by a bot.
DA,
Not about being blamed, David. Just as I said.
Not everyone is stupid – just the stupid ones. Unfortunately some stupid people are delusional – they may even believe they are climate scientists, or that were awarded a Nobel Prize, or any number of other impossible things!
You wouldn’t be quite that stupid, would you?
Cheers.
I agree completely, Jake. After the first few hours when a post is put up, the site invariably devolves into taunts and name calling. Very little science at that point. There’s too much to avoid and less and less reason to come here. A few people post interesting and thoughtful replies, but they’re getting more difficult to fish out.
Please, see the convection over the Indian Ocean.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anome.3.5.2018.gif
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00960/vam6odlrtkv8.png
Is woodfortrees down? Won’t load the page for me.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/
Try this:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/
Yes barry, WFT isn’t active now.
If you see an output like
‘Apache/2.4.18 (Ubuntu) Server at http://www.woodfortrees.org Port 80′
then be sure something is plain wrong there.
Thanks, G. I tried the /plot link earlier but no dice. Works now, but the home page is still gekrankt.
From upthread – why UAH have negative anomalies more recently than other data sets. All to do with the baseline.
UAH baseline (zero line) is average global temps from 1981 – 2010.
GISS baseline is average global temps from 1951 – 1980.
We match UAH baseline to GISS by taking the average GISS temp anomalies for the same baseline period as UAH, 1981 – 2010. This gives a result of 0.42233. We don’t need 4 decimal places, but I wanted to be as accurate as possible.
We now shift all UAH anomalies upward by that amount (which lowers the baseline) to match UAH anomalies to the GISS baseline.
Here is the UAH data with the UAH baseline:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6
We see negative anomalies as recently as 2012 (March, to be exact).
Here is the UAH data with the GISS baseline:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.42233
The most recent negative anomaly is now in 1993. There are 3 negative anomalies in the 1990s.
Further back in time, the next time we see negative anomalies is in 1985.
The baseline is somewhat arbitrary and makes no difference at all to any trend analysis and confidence intervals.
The original comment was that there had been no negative anomalies since the mid-80s (true for the surface records, not for satellite records). It’s an arbitrary statement, because the baseline is arbitrary.
My original point was that the statement is practically meaningless. There are other ways to express the change that are less arbitrary – such as each decade for the last 50 years (40 in the satellite record) is warmer than the previous. This is the case for all global temp records. Baseline makes no difference to this result either.
barry, you may enjoy this recent study of sea ice.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/scientific-integrity-plummets-to-lowest-level-in-the-last-12000-years/
Would you enjoy an information complementing yours?
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Probably not, because you only accept ‘skeptic’ literature, isn’t it?
La P,
And your point is? Still trying to convince people that you can predict the future by intense examination of the entrails of the past? Really?
Sounds pretty stupid to me, but if you can back your fantasy with reproducible scientific experiments, I’ll change my view.
Unfortunately that would be impossible. The future hasnt happened yet, has it?
Oh well, you can always complain.
Cheers.
barry says:
March 6, 2018 at 6:41 PM
Exactly, barry.
We might continue your idea a bit, by displaying the following graphs.
A. Anomalies
1. Salad
https://tinyurl.com/yaosjk2g
2. Less salad
https://tinyurl.com/y9dbvlt5
But the difference between the two representations of the same data you see even better using running means.
B. 36 month running means
1. Salad
https://tinyurl.com/yb5ry4mh
2. Less salad
https://tinyurl.com/ybzbcuv6
Some are so unaware of the problem that they even manage to tell you: ‘Your graph is fudged’.
Simply amazing.
P.S. I guess WFT was down due to monthly time series download.
La P,
And yet more stupid, irrelevant and pointless graphs. Are they even more brightly coloured? Do they only show what happened in the past, or have you seen the future, and written it down?
Stupid. Fortune telling at best – and the climate fortune sellers sell the same vague predictions as any reputable oracle, just with more doom and disaster.
Stupid, just stupid. Keep being gullible – it suits you.
Cheers
LaP, please don’t show MF any more facts.
It is liking thrusting a crucifix in the face of Dracula.
That’s Dracula’s problem I guess :-))
Dr Clown and Pang, a convention of climate clowns.
“Dr Clown and Pang”
Great name for a duo.
Barry wrote:
“Here is the UAH data with the GISS baseline:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:0.42233”
You can’t do that unless you expect surface and LT temperature changes to be the same.
Also, GISS’s baseline is 1951-1980. You can, of course, change that, and maybe that’s where you 0.42 number comes from(?), so it exists over UAH/RSS LT’s interval of existence.
But my original reply still stands.
For the purposes of what’s being discussed baseline matching is necessary.
Method here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-290917
It’s pretty easy to do.
Appell
It seems to me that you still do not quite understand how anomaly shift works within graphs showing multiple time series.
Maybe you should read this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-290937
And shoud the stuff above not help:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-290750
I certainly understand how to do baseline changes.
You can do it is you’re assuming GISS anomalies = UAH LT anomalies, but I don’t see that that’s justified. Do you?
What a strange question!
1. What do you think when you see this graph?
https://tinyurl.com/ybzbcuv6
2. How would you construct it, if not by having all time series to be compared based on the same climatology?
Wether it is that of UAH, RSS, GISS, Had-CRUT or BEST: that of course doesn’t play any role.
You can do it is youre assuming GISS anomalies = UAH LT anomalies, but I dont see that thats justified. Do you?
I don’t assume they’re the same. They are similar, despite being different measurements of temperature at different altitudes.
For the purposes of discussing why UAH have negative anomalies much more recently than GISS or NOAA, the baseline match provides significant illumination.
Jake,
The word stupid gets thrown around here and many other sites a lot and whilst you may lament this i would like to put that word into context for you and hopefully you will understand why that word is used by so many.
I live in the state of South Australia, on a global scale it is a back water however this state is leading the world in economic suicide simply because when it comes to AGW people are stupid.
Our political leaders will tell you half of our power is generated from renewables (based on name plate capacity) of course this is not the case simply because renewables are so poor at generating power (capacity factor).
We have a state election on March 17 and our current vapid premier has pledged if reelected by 2022 renewables will supply 75% of te states peak demand and 25% will be generated by batteries charged by renewables.
Our peak demand is 3000MW during summer but of course the grand plan is to generate this level of power continuosly so we can sell cheap power to other states and make a lot of coin and in the process power prices in SA will be the cheapest in the world, they are currently the highest in the world.
So lets run the numbers on this pledge shall we?
Due to our highly skewed energy market the renewables companies are gifted $90 a MW as a subsidy so if we were to assume we produce 3000MW 24 x 365 the subsidy to these companies per year would be the eye watering sum of 2.365 billion per year in a state of only 1.5 million thats $1,577 per man, woman and child. Once we pay the subsidy we than have to pay for the power.
Recently it was announced a technilogical breakthrough had occurred, someone in SA had developed a way to burn dead grass to boil water to create steam, the steam would then be used to drive a turbine and produce 15MW of power. This breakthrough was recieved with rapture by a vast majority of South Australians. At the same time a company called Alinta discovered you could substitude the dead grass for gas and via the same process produce 300MW, this far superior break through was vehemently opposed.
Yesterday the Federal government announced it would buy the Snowy river hydro scheme from the states Victoria and New South Wales for the princely sum of 6 billion dollars. This 6 billion dollars will not produce any additional power and so is a massive waste of tax payers money. What it does do however is allow the federal government to waste a further 5 to 10 billion on building a pumped hydro system.
In essence the federal government will spend in excess of 10 billion dollars to build a system which uses power to pump water up a hill and then generate power by releasing it.
We here in Australia are on the precipice of peak stupid, the reason why we find ourselves here is because people in Australia just like some people at this site believe CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.
The evidence or lack thereof at this site and many others clearly demonstrates these people have no idea how CO2 can achieve this feat but due to these people we are in the situation we are in.
The USA is very lucky to have Trump as their president as he has not been taken in by this belief and is now trying dispite the vehement opposition to rectify the situation.
These people are stupid so i and others will continue to call them stupid because we have given up on trying to use logic and reason to show just how wrong they are.
I hope this clears things up for you Jake.
“The USA is very lucky to have Trump as their president as he has not been taken in by this belief ”
Hilarious. If Trump is against it, it must be right.
For a counter example check this out:
“Michigans largest utility, Consumers Energy, has announced it will stop burning coal by 2040 in an effort to slash greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change, according to the Associated Press. The company, which services 6.7 million of the states 10 million residents, plans to get 40 percent of its energy from solar and wind power by then, with the rest coming from natural gas and hydropower.
We believe that climate change is real and we can do our part by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and we also believe it doesnt have to cost more to do it, the utilitys president and CEO, Patti Poppe, told the AP. We believe were going to be on the right side of history on this issue.
Consumers Energy has been moving away from coal for several years. It closed seven of its 12 coal-fired power plants in 2016, a move that lowered its greenhouse gas emissions 38 percent below 2008 levels.”
(E360 DIGEST
FEBRUARY 19, 2018)
Dr N,
And your point is?
Name someone who doesnt believe the climate changes – you cant! Climate is the average of weather, which changes. Maybe you don’t believe so, but it does.
So, what happens after you and a multitude of equally stupid people stop the climate from changing? You haven’t thought that far ahead, have you? Quickly now, redefine climate or change or weather – that might help – not!
And you probably think you’re not being stupid!
Cheers.
Mike, you never see the point because you are so thick.
Just for you let me spell it out. Watch my lips carefully!
1. Coal power is expensive, polluting, a health problem, a climate problem and finite.
2. Renewables are cheap, clean, healthy, carbon-neutral and infinite.
3. Big business understands this and is investing accordingly.
Only a few dinosaurs fail to understand the way of the future. Fortunately they will soon be extinct.
Dr No,
A climate problem? And that would be what, precisely?
You can’t define the climate. You can’t define the problem
Do you think people are so stupid they will believe your stupidity?
Cheers.
Mike, try and forget climate problem for the moment. Coal is on the way out anyway.
Dr No,
Twist and wriggle, Warmist worm.
Forget the climate problem? Sage advice indeed, even from one as obviously stupid as you.
There is no climate problem. There, forgotten.
Cheers.
“There is no climate problem. There, forgotten.”
Good. You have taken advice from somebody for once in your life.
Now, getting back to the original point (I know this is difficult for you) it is still a fact (sorry to alarm you) that coal is on the way out.
There. That was’nt too hard ? Or was it?
Dr No,
So you looked into the future again. Good for you!
Only a stupid person would make the completely bizarre implication that coal is somehow involved in a nonexistent GHE, raising temperatures by some magical means.
A rational person would notice that burning coal generates heat. Putting a thermometer near burning coal raises the temperature of the thermometer.
An incredibly stupid person might think that the CO2 generated by burning coal was causing the raised temperature! Surely nobody could be that stupid, could they? Claiming that increased CO2 resulting from burning hydrocarbons was making thermometers hotter?
Oh well, take yourself off to an isolated place, and live with your renewable energy sources. I’d like to see you heat or cool your house without having to burn something along the way. No solar, no wind, no hydro – all these require burning lots of stuff to make them. No hot food without fire.
You’re all stupid mouth and no trousers, biting the hand that feeds you! Try practising what you preach, oh stupid one! Can’t and won’t do it, I warrant.
Stupid, just stupid. Too stupid to realise how stupid you are. Good thing, I suspect.
Cheers.
Obviously it was too much to ask Mike to accept the obvious point I was making.
Let me repeat it sslloowwllyy for him:
“Coal is on the way out anyway.”
All his incoherent ranting and raving is, yet again, another example of how simple facts drive some people mad with frustration.
Dr No,
You might believe you have added magical predictive abilities to your mind reading skills. If you do, you are just stupid.
But what the heck –
Overall, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, said Urgewald, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 per cent.
Who to believe, oh stupid one? For example, the Chinese Government, or you? Hmmmm, let me think . . . not you.
Carry on dreaming, but let me know when you figure out how not burning coal will prevent the climate from changing. If you’re stupid enough to believe that the climate can be prevented from changing, you’d probably be stupid enough to believe that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, or that Michael Mann is a Nobel laureate!
Cheers.
Dr. Clown, did you know that CO2 can NOT warm the planet?
But… g*e*r*a*n ! What’s the matter with you?
Everybody knows that ‘CO2 can NOT warm the planet’.
It can prevent its cooling.
That’s at least 100 % different, isn’t it?
How does CO2 “prevent cooling”?
La P,
Thats the stupid pseudo scientific word twisting isnt it?
Reduction in the rate of cooling is really heating! Totally stupid, of course.
CO2 heats nothing. Never has, never will. No heat accumulation. No GHE. No heating.
Cheers.
“How does CO2 prevent cooling?
Duh!
How does wearing a coat in winter prevent you freezing?
Dr No,
Why do firemen wear really heavy clothing to prevent them getting too hot? Why are refrigerators insulated to keep heat out? Why does an overcoat not heat a corpse?
You are just stupid. Choose a more appropriate analogy if you are too ignorant to address the science involved.
Cheers.
M (Count Dracula), get back in your coffin!
Insulation (the coat) keeps you warm because it inhibits heat loss by:
conduction
evaporation and
radiation
from your skin.
CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep us warmer because they inhibit heat loss via radiation from the surface.
Even my grand-son understands this basic principle.
Dr No,
Unfortunately, the temperature only seems to rise in sunlight. And at night, the temperature drops.
In addition, the places with the least GHGs in the atmosphere are both the hottest and the coldest.
Not only that, you’re still stupid – day or night, with or without insulation.
Cheers.
M,
you are an absolute champion at diversion!
g*e*r*a*n says:
March 6, 2018 at 8:32 PM
How does CO2 prevent cooling?
*
You just need to read Roy Spencer’s meaning concerning that. You’ll find the stuff more than once on this site.
La P,
Would anyone except a stupid person believe that all the CO2 since the Earths creation failed to stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years, but gained this magical power in the last few years?
If you cant propose a change in physics supporting a sudden change in CO2 properties in the last few years, then you are obviously stupid.
No GHE. The laws of physics relating to CO2,havent changed recently. You are obviously stupid. Any questions?
Cheers.
Pang, that just means you do not have any answer. You just “believe” CO2 prevents cooling. You have NO “proof” of you pseudoscience.
It’s fun to watch.
Mike,
Again with the ‘No GHE’? And people who believe in it must be ‘stupid’.
Im pretty sure we already established that GHE is essential to make weather prediction models work. GHE exists and is tested every day.
And you had no serious rebuttal.
According to you, since meterologists believe in and use GHE, they must be stupid. And yet somehow they continue to accurately predict the weather.
Nate,
There is no GHE. If you find a testable GHE hypothesis, you will be showered with honors. Dont hold your breath.
As to meteorologists, Im guessing you want me to say that Dr Spencer is stupid. I wont of course.
Meteorogists predict the weather, generally, no better or worse than a naive persistence forecast, using past history and a straight stick and a piece of charcoal. A 12 year old (or even yourself if youre not too stupid), can do this with about 5 minutes instruction.
Generally about 85% accurate – in my location, naive maximum temperature prediction for the following day within one standard deviation was in excess of 95% over a 365 day year, working backwards from the day I did the calculation.
I live in the tropics by the sea, so your results may more closely approach the 85% figure I mentioned.
Cheers.
Mike,
“Meteorogists predict the weather, generally, no better or worse than a naive persistence forecast, using past history and a straight stick and a piece of charcoal. ”
So Mike, whatever credibility you had as an honest skeptic dealing in the world of facts is reduced to zero.
Whatever future statements you make, Mike, can be immediately categorized as fake news, trash, not based in reality.
Weather prediction improvements for Dummies:
https://www.weather5280.com/blog/2014/09/24/the-abc-of-numerical-weather-prediction/
‘I live in the tropics by the sea’
So weather is utterly repetitive. Except occasionally:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/verify5.shtml
Typical of the warmbots that lurk this site.
Firstly as an Australian i dont give a toss about Trump or US politics i just used him as an example of how stupid we are.
As i said to Jake no one can provide explicit detail to support the follwing from your comment:
We believe that climate change is real and we can do our part by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions
Notice the use of the word “BELIEVE” Dr No?
For you to get 40% of your power from renewables you will need to build something which has a name plate capacity of 120% of your total demand, shen your power bills go through the roof now you know why. Of course renewables dont turn a profit so you will need to provide some sort on incentive to for them so a subsidy will do.
Welcome to the third world and you have your stupidity to thank
Dum-dum,
see my comment above.
It is the difference between a global average temperature of -18degC and +15degC.
C,
That comment was for dum-dum above.
As for your comment:
“Welcome to the third world and you have your stupidity to thank”
Go and say that to big business. They are far from stupid when it comes to money and will laugh in your face.
Dr No,
Complete and absolute nonsense. The core is molten, maybe 5500 K, or more.
Outer space is maybe 4 K.
The surface is somewhere between these. Without the Sun, are you stupid enough to believe the surface would be 4 K?
You have no clue, have you? Just gullibility liberally spiced with stupidity. Learn some real physics, not the nonsense you apparently believe.
Cheers.
“Without the Sun, are you stupid enough to believe the surface would be 4 K?
You have no clue, have you?”
Now, now, don’t expect me to answer your foolish questions for you. You work it out and get back to me when you have an answer.
“The surface is somewhere between these. Without the Sun, are you stupid enough to believe the surface would be 4 K?”
Certainly it will be colder than Antarctica in winter where there is no sun for 6 months ie < -90C.
Versus 40C in tropics.
Id say having sun in the tropics makes the 130 C difference.
Without the Sun the Earth would careen off into space, which has a blackbody temperature of 2.7 K. The Earth would be frozen at the surface…. Ice is a poor absorber of microwaves, but I haven’t found that albedo.
But there’s still the internal heat from the Earth, which has a average flux of 0.086 W/m2. That would lead to a blackbody temperature of 35 K, before albedo effects.
“A Pail of Air” by Fritz Leiber is an interesting short story about a rogue Earth drifting through space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pail_of_Air
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/51461
DA,
That’s about what I get. Add the notional input from the Sun, about 255 K, and and the result is around 290 K.
No need for a GHE. Just bit of physics, and a little common sense. Thank you David.
People don’t seem to realise that you need less energy to raise a body to a temperature of 288 K if you start with one at 35 K or so.
Once again, many thanks. I’ve mentioned this before, but who knows? Maybe the stupid ones will pay more attention to you.
Cheers.
Nope. Temperatures of black bodies dont add linearly.
“35K” “Thats about what I get. Add the notional input from the Sun, about 255 K, and and the result is around 290 K.
No need for a GHE. Just bit of physics, and a little common sense. Thank you David.”
OMG, when Mike actually tries to talk about science, the depth of his ignorance is revealed.
“Worldwide investments in renewable technologies amounted to more than US$286 billion in 2015, with countries like China and the United States heavily investing in wind, hydro, solar and biofuels. Globally, there are an estimated 7.7 million jobs associated with the renewable energy industries, with solar photovoltaics being the largest renewable employer. As of 2015 worldwide, more than half of all new electricity capacity installed was renewable.”
Gee – the whole world must be stupid!
Go and whinge in the corner with Mike.
Dr No,
The whole world isn’t stupid. Just those who believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. Stupidity.
Even more stupid are the people who believe that a reduction in the rate of cooling is heating, that is, an increase in temperature! How stupid is that?
Cheers.
“How stupid is that?”
Nobody is answering your foolish questions.
Dr Clown, surely you realize you’re not making any sense.
(This is going to be a great year in climate comedy!)
g, please don’t tell me I have to explain everything to you like I do with Mike.
I think I will have to put you both into the remedial class.
On second thoughts, why don’t both of you take another class – such as T-shirt making?
Dr No,
Not only are you stupid, you are also suffering from delusions of grandeur.
You have no power over anyone. I know you would like to assist others to administer electric shocks to people who disagree with your stupidity based pseudo science, but alas, you would need to leave your fantasy for the real world.
Keep on. I understand.
Cheers.
g,
The stupid ones have put a great deal of effort into their act.
They have practised the swerve, the avoid, the divert, the deflect, and many other moves, They haven’t quite got the hang of the lateral arabesque, the premier fact avoidance manoeuvre, and maybe they never will.
They have a natural gift for comedy, as you point out. We’ll all be rolling in the aisles as they bumble about communing with dead trees, predicting the future by looking at colourful pictures, all the while chanting the sacred Manntras as they rush around the theatre pretending to look for Trenberth’s missing heat – It’s behind you! It’s over there! It’s hiding in the ocean!
Oh how we laughed!
Tickets are free – nobody has to pay to enjoy the farce.
Cheers.
M., great post! I really enjoyed that.
I think g* will agree.
Dr No,
I accept plaudits from anyone.
By the way, you said *I think*. Are you sure? I haven’t seen much to support your assertion. Can you provide some supporting evidence?
Cheers.
Touche !
Ich wrde sogar sagen: touch!
Better to take the right window’s content:
Ich würde sogar sagen: touché!
Crakar wrote:
“Of course renewables dont turn a profit so you will need to provide some sort on incentive to for them so a subsidy will do.”
The first step is to take away favorable tax treatment given to fossil fuels (esp coal, in the US), and take away the huge subsidies given to fossil fuels. They aren’t charged for the damage (to health and environment) done by their waste product (traditional pollution and CO2). A revenue neutral carbon tax could fix that.
DA,
The first step is to realise that nobody with any real power is likely to take any notice of you, otherwise they would have by now.
Carry on.
Cheers.
The forecast of ozone in the lower stratosphere indicates a large cooling in the east of the US. The coldest will be where there is the most ozone.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/aqtirjq2tzb7.png
“In satellite- and surface-based radiation measurements have
shown that the lower troposphere emits 42-44% more radiation
towards the surface (i.e. 341-346 W m-2) than the net shortwave flux
delivered to the Earth-atmosphere system by the Sun (i.e. 240 W m-2).
In other words, the lower troposphere contains significantly more
kinetic energy than expected from solar heating alone. A similar but more extreme
situation is observed on Venus as well, where the atmospheric downwelling
LW radiation near the surface (>15,000 W m-2) exceeds the
total absorbed solar flux (65150 W m-2) by a factor of 100 or more.
The radiative greenhouse theory cannot explain this apparent paradox
considering the fact that infrared-absorbing gases such as CO2
, water vapor and methane only re-radiate available LW emissions and do not
constitute significant heat storage or a net source of additional energy to
the system. This raises a fundamental question about the origin of the
observed energy surplus in the lower troposphere of terrestrial planets
with respect to the solar input.”
ren,
Can’t be bothered looking up the source, but it is complete nonsense, in any case. Anybody stupid enough to talk about short wave flux and kinetic energy and in the same sentence is just stupid.
Talk of a radiative greenhouse theory is completely meaningless, as no greenhouse theory exists!
Dimwitted stupidity. Whoever the author is, he are demonstrating the triumph of faith over fact – religious fervour dressed up as science.
I can only assume you posted this as an example of the garbage published as serious science.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn this article shows that the assumptions of the AGW are false from the outset.
The SB law is also routinely employed to estimating the mean temperatures of airless bodies. We demonstrate that this formula as applied to spherical objects is mathematically incorrect owing to Hlders inequality between integrals and leads to biased results such as a significant underestimation of Earths ATE. We derive a new expression for the mean physical temperature of airless bodies based on an analytic integration of the SB law over a sphere that accounts for effects of regolith heat storage and cosmic background radiation on nighttime temperatures. Upon verifying our model against Moon surface temperature data provided by the NASA Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment, we propose it as a new analytic standard for evaluating the thermal environment of airless bodies. Physical evidence is presented that Earths ATE should be assessed against the temperature of an equivalent airless body such as the Moon rather than a hypothetical atmosphere devoid of greenhouse gases. Employing the new temperature formula we show that Earths total ATE is ~90 K, not 33 K, and that ATE = GE + TE, where GE is the thermal effect of greenhouse gases, while TE > 15 K is a thermodynamic enhancement independent of the atmospheric infrared back radiation. It is concluded that the contribution of greenhouse gases to Earths ATE defined as GE = ATE TE might be greater than 33 K, but will remain uncertain until the strength of the hereto identified TE is fully quantified by future research.
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
Since years I can’t stop laughing when I see this article:
On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earths atmospheric thermal effect
Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez
In fact, the authors are named Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller.
See under
https://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/13/u-s-govt-researchers-withdraw-climate-paper-after-using-pseudonyms/
The two guys are so brazen that they even published an article under their real name with in it a reference to their nickname publication!
*
Imagine what would happen if Thomas Karl and Gavin Schmidt would produce together a paper signed with such stoopid nicknames like
Mathos Kral and Vigan Dmitsch
The whole climate & weather ‘skeptic’ community would roar as loud as ever, from Goddard over chiefio till Gosselin.
But Nikolov and Zeller are… ‘skeptic’s.
Dann ist des ja net so schlimm, gell?
La P,
I had a good laugh at the the time. One has to wonder at the egregious stupidity. Stupid is stupid. Im non-discriminatory when it comes to stupidity.
Stupid paper, really stupid authors. if they had presented their stupidity here, I might have pointed out one or two things they got wrong.
Facts are facts, fantasy is fantasy.
Cheers.
Aha. Sometimes we manage to agree. Why not?
Maybe you would ‘appreciate’ the following publication in a similar way?
Using Earths Moon as a Testbed for Quantifying the Effect of the Terrestrial Atmosphere
by Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi, Nicole Mölders
https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=78836#ref37%20
A spicy point is that for the three, Moon’s tidal locking spin is an evidence since they publish :-))
La P,
There are many nonsense papers published, even in reputable journals. Even in spite of vigorous efforts by authors and publishers to avoid it, thousands of papers every year year are retracted. Plagiarism, falsification, and just plain boneheaded stupidity, are some of the main reasons.
Peer reviewers are obviously just as stupid as the authors, to say nothing of editorial boards.
However, I cannot make head or tail of your last sentence. What is a *spicy point*? What is *an evidence since they publish*? What is *Moons tidal locking spin*?
No use calling me stupid – you are writing gibberish. Get a competent fluent English speaker to proof read your comment, if you wish it to be understood.
Cheers.
Please send your claims to Google’s translator crew.
And for many Europeans not belonging to the Anglosaxon community, ‘spicy’ means ‘funny’.
La Pangolina unfortunately you can not smash this theory. If you talk about radiation, it’s clear to compare the temperature to the planet without the atmosphere. Then you can see how much energy the atmosphere adds.
La P,
I send nothing anywhere at your demand.
You chose to use what you consider incompetent translation services, so dont blame me. Not my problem. Do better next time, if you can.
Funny doesnt mean spicy, and spicy might mean entertaining, particularly in a slightly indecent fashion, in a particular context.
Your definitions are irrelevant and pointless. Use them for the many Europeans you claim understand them, if you wish. Good luck with that.
Cheers.
It is also obvious that atmospheric gases do not accumulate heat as evidenced by the lowest temperature in the tropopause.
Therefore, the troposphere should be treated as a whole, where the heat exchange takes place in a short time.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2016.png
ren says:
March 7, 2018 at 7:33 AM
‘La Pangolina unfortunately you can not smash this theory. ‘
*
Please, ren: ask Flynn and g*e*r**a*n!
I didn’t smash it.
For that to do, you need a lot of math background to discover where Kramm & al. are wrong.
The paper is saying that the GHE is probably stronger than the 33K usually attributed.
It is concluded that the contribution of greenhouse gases to Earths ATE defined as GE = ATE TE might be greater than 33 K
Paper is saying the opposite of what you think it does, ren.
Pang, this silly “paper” has been debunked before. You can NOT compare the Earth to the Moon. The Moon experiences temperatures MUCH hotter and MUCH colder than Earth. What that proves is how well Earth’s systems (oceans, atmosphere, etc.) can maintain a suitable temperature range.
You just can’t understand. Like many, you are unable to process facts and logic. Learn the definition of “rotating on its axis” and “orbiting”. Then, watch a toy train on a circular track. If you then believe the train is “rotating on its axis”, you can NOT think logically. Your brain does not work.
You need to get your brain working, before trying to understand science. Otherwise, you’re just a clown.
g*e*r*a*n says:
March 7, 2018 at 8:43 AM
‘Pang, this silly “paper” has been debunked before.’
*
You are the one who just cant understand.
1. Didn’t you see the ironic quotes around ‘appreciate’ in my comment to Flynn?
If you had, you certainly wouldn’t have written such a redundant nonsense.
I don’t need you to discover which paper is silly and which isn’t. Because I have, as opposed to you, an own meaning.
Your meaning is that of Goddard & Co.
*
2. And let me tell you above all that I do not care at all if this poor Moon is spinning or not!
I just wanted to put a hint on the fact that manifestly there are two kinds of pseudoskeptics:
– those who believe the moon rotates on its axis;
– those who don’t (like you).
If you were a bit more intelligent, you would have discovered that by your own, and again… you certainly wouldn’t have written such a redundant nonsense.
Poor g*e*r*a*n…
Yes pang, just keep making up your own definitions of who understands and who doesn’t.
It’s fun to watch.
G* says: “Learn the definition of rotating on its axis and orbiting.”
Why don’t you teach us? Give us a simple, clear, unambiguous definition of each of these terms as you understand them.
Tim, the easiest way to understand “orbiting” is to consider a race car on a circular path. The race car is always moving in the direction perpendicular to the center of the track (tangent). It is NOT “rotating on its axis”. If you want to delve deeper, study Kepler’s law of planetary motion. Gravity does NOT cause “rotating on its axis”.
The easiest way to understand “rotating on its axis” is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
An object can either be “orbiting”, or “rotating on its axis”, or both. The Moon, of course, is only “orbiting”.
binny…”I just wanted to put a hint on the fact that manifestly there are two kinds of pseudoskeptics:
those who believe the moon rotates on its axis;
those who dont (like you)”.
*****
A pseudoskeptic would, of necessity, be a false skeptic. An imposter. Someone who believes and pretends to be a skeptic.
You go on to compare apples and oranges, as in those who believe (pseudo-skeptics), with those who do not (skeptics).
What is your point? The paper you linked to is more of the nonsense of trying to calculate the mythical 33C difference between a planet with an atmosphere and one without. This paper proposes a plant with no atmosphere yet having oceans.
I should have stopped reading when they stated: “Since the angular velocity of Moons rotation is 27.4 times slower than that of the Earth…”. Being a glutton for punishment I read on, trying to get at what they were talking about. Even after skimming to the end and reading their conclusions, I still don’t get the point of their paper.
The paper is mathematical horsebleep as are all calculations of the the planet’s so-called heat budget. They managed to included arguments from G&T without making a clear G&T were trying to disprove that inane thought experiment.
The thought experiments are not required, Earth’s gravity field explains the warming adequately.
tim…”Why dont you teach us? Give us a simple, clear, unambiguous definition of each of these terms as you understand them”.
The explanations have been offered several times. Rotating about a local axis means turning about a central point, or centre of gravity, with a definite angular momentum. The Moon lacks that local angular momentum.
Orbiting, as used in astronomy, means a body traveling in a straight line with momentum being forced into an orbital path by the gravitational force of the body around which it is orbiting. The orbit is the resultant path.
Of course, the alarmists here have been offering all forms of illusions peculiar to the human mind such as undefined reference frames and other perspectives in an attempt to remove egg from their faces after challenging g*r and being wrong.
G, I I didn’t ask for the “easiest”. I asked for a definition. Let me give a brief example of where your thinking fails.
First, I hope we can agree that only a net torque can change the angular velocity of an object — just like only a net force can change the liner velocity.
Inside your “race car” imagine a frictionless spindle mounted vertically — like the pivot of a compass for example. On this spindle is a heavy “arrow” that points to the front of the car.
The car is driving due north at a steady speed. The arrow is pointing north as well. The car is approaching a circular track along a tangent — sort of like “ρ”
* The car is not orbiting.
* The car is not rotating.
* The arrow is not orbiting.
* The arrow is not rotating.
(With me so far? If not what do you object to?)
The car reaches the circular path and starts to turn to the the right, continuing to cruise at steady speed.
* The car is ‘orbiting’ clockwise around the center of the track
* The arrow is ‘orbiting’ clockwise around the center of the track in the same path as the car.
* The arrow is not rotating. We know this because 1) there has been no net torque on the arrow and 2) it was not rotating initially. It continues to point north as the car drives in a circle.
* The car IS rotating. We know this because it is turning relative to the non-rotating arrow.
“The Moon lacks that local angular momentum.”
Why would you say this? Go into any physic department and ask any physics professor. Or google “is the moon rotating?” and point me to even one legitimate looking site that says it is not rotating. Or explain to me how the initially non-rotating arrow in my example has angular momentum but would have no angular momentum if I gave it a push to turn to keep pace with the turning of the car.
Tim, you got is mostly right until your very last sentence. The race car is NOT “rotating on its axis”. The motion is “orbiting”.
Next attempted “spin”, please.
“Tim, you got is mostly right until your very last sentence.”
So you agree with the earlier statements when I said the arrow is not rotating (pointing continuously north). But you also say the car is not rotating. Yet clearly the two are rotating relative to each other. How does that work???
Tim, now you’re playing “who said what”. That’s just more “spin”.
You can’t get away from the simple example. You can’t think for yourself. Like many, you claim the race car is “rotating on its axis”, completely trying to avoid the reality that it is orbiting. You still don’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
It’s fun to watch.
“You still dont understand the difference between orbiting and rotating on its axis.”
And you still can’t define what you mean by “rotating” and “orbiting” in any consistent way. As soon as we try, you have to retreat from specific statements and resort to vague appeals to your own intuition. You can’t even answer simple questions.
Is the arrow rotating while pointing due north in a car that is driving due north? YES or NO?
Is the arrow rotating while continuing to point due north in a car that is driving in a circle? YES or NO?
Tim asks: “Is the arrow rotating while pointing due north in a car that is driving due north? YES or NO?”
g answers: YES
Tim asks: “Is the arrow rotating while continuing to point due north in a car that is driving in a circle? YES or NO?”
g answers: The correct answer depends on multiple assumptions. Consequently the question reveals your lack of understanding of simple orbital motions, or your need to confuse the issue, or both.
Now, Tim, a question for you: As you claim a race car is “rotating on its axis”, is it also “orbiting”. That is, are there TWO different, independent motions occurring simultaneously?
YES or NO?
Gordon,
The paper you linked to is more of the nonsense of trying to calculate the mythical 33C difference between a planet with an atmosphere and one without.
ren was the one who linked the paper. La P thinks it is laughable.
“That is, are there TWO different, independent motions occurring simultaneously?”
Yes.
Here — think about this.
There is a small frictionless lazy-susan sitting near the edge of a larger turntable. Both are not rotating relative to some reference frame based on distant galaxies. For convenience, there is an arrow painted on the lazy susan that happens to be pointing north.
* I can give the lazy susan a torque and start it rotating (with the turntable still not rotating)
* I can give the turntable a torque and start it rotating (with the lazy susan still not rotating — the arrow will continue to point north).
These are two different, independent rotations; two different, independent motions.
* I can give BOTH the arrow and the turntable pushes and start them both rotating. If I do it just right, the two independent rotations could have the the same angular velocity, in which case the arrow could always face toward the center of the turntable. But only because the two independent motions happen to be in sync.
Tim, as you now claim that the race car has both motions, suppose it stops on the track. Do both motions stop? Then, they are NOT independent are they?
See how you trap yourself?
The race car only has ONE motion. When it stops, that ONE motion stops. It is NOT rotating on its axis. The Earth has both motions. The Moon only has ONE–orbiting.
Also, your statement: “I can give BOTH the arrow and the turntable pushes and start them both rotating. If I do it just right, the two independent rotations could have the the same angular velocity, in which case the arrow could always face toward the center of the turntable. But only because the two independent motions happen to be in sync.”
is IMPOSSIBLE, unless the “rotating on its axis” angular velocity was ZERO!
See how you trap yourself?
Tim,
As a matter of curiosity, what happens if you point your lazy Susan arrow towards the centre of the larger table?
Or maybe just save the trouble and paint an arrow on the larger table, pitting towards the centre.
Now you would have to say the arrow has rotated on its axis, I suppose. Pointless and irrelevant, but maybe allowing accusations of stupidity in all directions – a version of spin-the-bottle for AGW climate change supporters.
How does this relate to the non-existent GHE?
Cheers.
Its been interesting G, but we are past the point of any productive discussion. Clearly you know that your opinions don’t agree with any standard definitions of “rotation”. You cannot find any source that supports you.
Without being able to sit down together and agree on things one step at a time, there is really no hope. So I will leave you (and the 2 or 3 people who seem to share your views) to savor your views while entire scientific community has come to a different conclusion.
I was thinking about g*s toy train. Most of us agree that it performs an orbiting motion, right?
But what if the train was really long, and you could attach the car at the front to the caboose?
Hook the front to the back…….is the train still be performing an orbit as it circles the track?
Let me fix the grammar:
Hook the front to the back…….is the train still performing an orbit as it circles the track?
Tim’s pseudoscience blows up in his face, AGAIN. He presented, as “proof”, an example that is clearly impossible. When I pointed it out, he chose to cut his losses and flee.
It’s fun to watch.
G*
When Tim used the phrase “independent motions” to describe orbit and rotation, he was trying to say the two motions are DIFFERENT, even when they occur at the same time.
g* you said something Tim said was impossible. Assertion with no proof. It is NOT impossible. Try my bike wheel experiment.
Snape,
Then you’d have something resembling a pearl necklace. If somebody said each pearl was rotating on its axis as they twirled the necklace round their finger, I’d probably say “Yeah, OK”, and find something else to do.
Not all that important in the scheme of things, really.
Cheers.
So the moon actually has a elliptical orbit and thus according to Kepler sweeps out equal areas in equal time.
Thus it orbits faster when closet to the earth and slower when farther away, but it does not rotate on its axis slower or faster, it rotates at a constant rate thus we see more than 50% of the moons surface from earth.
something about conservation of angular momentum, it can’t speed up and slow down with out and energy source to provide the acceleration etc.
Bob, that is also an excellent point. One that will unfortunately go right over the heads of many.
Yeah, they plant their flag and defend ridiculous notions unsupported by every scientist on the planet.
They ridicule guys who have more than 100 peer reviewed publications.
It’s obvious that the choo-choo is rotating if you point a camera at it from the ceiling and focus on the locomotive.
Play the film and you would see it rotating.
Meanwhile
“I’ll shine my light through the cool Colorado rain”
The clowns show up to lamely defend their pseudoscience. Their only defense is “institutionalized science”.
Hilarious.
They cannot understand “orbiting”. They cannot understand “rotating on its axis”. They do not understand Tim’s example is IMPOSSIBLE. But, they maintain a bunker-mentality, preferring their false beliefs over reality.
It’s fun to watch.
G,
I *completely* understand your definition of “orbit”. It is a fairly intuitive definition. From a rotating reference frame turning once per month relative to the stars, the moon is not rotating.
I *also* understand the situation from the perspective of a non-rotating reference frame. When you switch from the rotating frame to the non-rotataing frame, suddenly everything that was not rotating before (like the moon) is now rotating.
Both perspectives can be made to work. Each has some advantages and disadvantages. You are more than welcome to use your preferred system. Just don’t think it is the ONLY system.
*******************************************
Its sort of like debating whether the calculator sitting on my desk is stationary. In the reference frame of the room, the calculator is at rest. But from a reference frame relative to the center of the earth, it is moving ~ 600 mi/hr toward the east as the earth turns. From a reference frame relative to the center of the solar system, the calculator is moving ~ 30 km/s around the sun.
Tim, you poor indoctrinated clown. You STILL cannot force yourself to think/write/admit “rotating on it axis”.
You keep confusing “rotating” with “orbiting”. You just can’t delineate between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
It’s fun to watch.
More, please.
“Tim, you poor indoctrinated clown”
G* you keep talking about being indoctrinated by mainstream science, as if that is a bad thing, as if applying decades of experience and knowledge is silly.
Personally, Im happy that engineers who design bridges, buildings, and airplanes, are ‘indictrinated’ into mainstream science methods. Same goes for doctors. But maybe thats just me.
And your notion of ‘thinking freely’ seems to mean ‘agreeing with G*s way of thinking’ How is that thinking freely? Sounds a lot more like Jim Jones idea of thinking freely.
What I have seen here is a lot of free thinking to show you many thought experiments and real experiments that do not agree with your way of thinking.
And yet you ignore these and continue to think rigidly, unable to process different situations, and key ideas like reference.frames.
Things you dont understand are branded as wrong and conformist. That is not ‘free thinking’. That is choosing ignorance.
Nat, only a stupid person would compare engineering to the pseudoscience that emerges from some institutions.
Your “free thinking” is just your attempt to attack truth and defend falsehoods. Your mention of Jim Jones exemplifies your desperation. You are famous for trying to twist my words. You have no apparent respect for truth or honesty.
G*,
‘only a stupid person would compare engineering to the pseudoscience that emerges from some institutions’
Ha! You’ve been indoctrinated into the everyone is ‘stupid’ club. Good luck with that!
Last I checked engineering is based in science. They learn and understand things like reference frames, inertia, angular momentum. Thankfully they have been ‘indoctrinated’ in these subjects, and unlike you, they understand that ideas that come from ‘mainstream science’ are essential to making things work, like landing spacecraft on the moon.
“It is surprising how much brighter Earth is than the moon,” Adam Szabo, project scientist for NASA’s Deep Space Climate Observatory satellite at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, said in a statement after the satellite captured the moon crossing Earth’s face. “Our planet is a truly brilliant object in dark space compared to the lunar surface.”
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
Look at
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/EPICEarthMoonVideo.mov
and you see Northern America and Australia.
Now imagine there would be no oceans nor clouds aoround them.
Yes, but the radiation from the surface of the moon should be stronger than from Earth?
https://tinyurl.com/y7qsqyr4
Look in table 1, and compare.
The surface of the moon is grey. Earth has white clouds and a brilliant blue sea. It appears brighter.
Absent an atmosphere, the surface of both bodies would radiate at the same power as the energy received by the sun if radiation power is reflection + energy absorbed and reemited by the surface. Total energy leaving a surface must match total energy striking it.
barry,
You are just being stupid – possibly due to ignorance.
The readily observable fact that the earths surface is no longer molten shows that the oft repeated statement that total energy leaving a surface must match total energy striking it, is just stupid.
AGW supporters create their own form of pseudo-science, which should be more properly called stupid pseudo-science.
I know you won’t believe me, being firmly mired in your fantasy, but rational people can accept that objects can be heated, and allowed to cool, thus demonstrating energy imbalance.
Carry on with your stupid delusional belief structure. Don’t be surprised if more people disagree with you, as the AGW climate change mania wanes, and sanity returns.
Cheers.
Don’t mind, barry.
People like Flynn are not afraid to write the last nonsense.
Just because the planet has stopped own energy output to space (the residual actually is around 0.1 W /m2), the one and only energy source is now the Sun.
If Sun’s incoming energy was higher then that leaving Earth, the planet would warm and warm up to a maximal temperature I have never seen any undeniable reference to.
If the contrary happened, the planet would cool and cool until it would reach space’s temperature around 2 or 3 K.
Let Flynn bark, bark and bark his endless ‘stupid’ flow, that shows he himself is exactly what he pretends others to be.
Who cares his rubbish? Only those who benefit from his permanent agressivity.
La P,
Maybe you are too stupid to accept the fact the Earth is indeed cooling. The Sun is only capable of maintaining an isothermal internal temperature of about 255 K or so, making the usual assumptions.
You may be ignorant of the vast radiogenic heat sources which prevented the Earth form cooling as fast as Newtons Law of Cooling might suggest. Lord Kelvin was certainly ignorant of this, which is why he calculated a completely incorrect age for the Earth.
You, on the other hand, have access to the same information as I. You just choose not to believe some facts, which makes you stupid, as well as ignorant.
Look at what even David Appell wrote on this thread a little while ago. My calculation agrees closely with the figure he provided.
Maybe you could provide some facts to contradict what I said, rather than lurching off in another direction entirely. Thats just stupid, isnt it?
Cheers.
No, our calculations dont agree. Temperatures of blockbodies do not add linearly. See the SB Law. The Earths BB temperature is changed only infinitesimally if you include its internal heat flux.
In more detail: consider a blackbody that receives a flux F1 and is at temperature T1.
F1=sigma*T1^4
so T1 = (F1/sigma)^(1/4).
Now add a second flux F2. Then
T2 = ((F1+F2)/sigma)^(1/4)
= T1*(1+F2/F1)^(1/4)
If F2 << F1, as in the case of the Earth where F1=solar flux and F2=internal heat flux, then a very good approximation is, from the Taylor series
T2 = T1*(1+F2/4F)
F2/4F1 is, for Earth, 0.086/(4*240)=9e-5
so the addition to T1 is only 0.02 K.
The internal heat flux does not account for why the Earth's temperature is 33 K above its brightness temperature of 255 K.
DA,
I know you are stupid enough to tell me that it takes just as much energy to raise the temperature of an object 2 K, as it does to raise it 100 K. I dont believe you, if that is the case!
As an example, because you love demonstrating your mathematical skills, you might are to calculate the energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water from 99 C to 100 C, as opposed to the energy required to raise the same mass of water from 0 C to 100 C.
The Earth is not a black body – you are just being silly or stupid if you make such a claim.
You are too stupid to bring yourself to actuallly quote what I wrote, preferring to demolish your own argument. I am surprised you have the intellect to even argue with yourself.
Maybe you could use the bizarre mathematics of Pierrehumbert to prove that a mass of water will magically reach 760 000 K, if exposed to sunlight long enough!
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Cheers.
Water isnt a black body. The Earth is a pretty good block body in the solar and infrared.
You were all prepared to accept the black body calculations when you thought it gave the result you wanted, to account for the additional 33K in temperature.
And for gods sake stop acting like a child. Period
DA,
There there, David. It’s OK. Maybe you’ve realised what you did, maybe you haven’t.
As appeals to authority go, asking me to do something supposedly to help God, is stupid, even for you.
Cheers.
No, its not a B.B. in the solar spectrum. But it is a good one in the IR. These types of simple calculations are just heuristic, anyway.
DA pleads to MF:
“And for gods sake stop acting like a child. ”
That is not possible I am afraid. You see, as some people get older and older, they tend to revert to child-like behaviour. MF is a classic example. My grand-son is much more mature.
Dr no,
You say you are afraid?
What are you afraid of? Do not be afraid – the truth shall set you free!
There is no GHE. There, you are less afraid already.
My pleasure.
Cheers.
Flynn
You sir are challenging a box of hammers
“On the other hand, the molecules in liquid water are held together by relatively strong hydrogen bonds, and its enthalpy of vaporization, 40.65 kJ/mol, is more than five times the energy required to heat the same quantity of water from 0 °C to 100 °C (cp = 75.3 J K−1 mol−1).”
So raising the temperature of water from 99 to 101 C at stp takes more than 5 times the energy necessary to heat it from 0 to 100 C
bob,
Learn to read. Are you stupid enough to believe that erecting a straw man, and demolishing it, would escape my notice? Yes you probably are, I suppose.
Now tell me what your stupid, irrelevant and pointless comment had to do with my statement?
Who mentioned heating water above 100 C? You, perhaps?
Stupid.
Cheers.
Mike,
You did you sofa king stupid idiot
Mike,
Where do you get the idea that energy flowing from inside the Earth is NOT negligible? It is < 0.1 W/m2.
It seems that you:
" have access to the same information as I. You just choose not to believe some facts, which makes you stupid, as well as ignorant."
People in the east of the US will be surprised by the sharp drop in temperature.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/ij68zumgbdkt.png
Please see the geopotential height anomalies above 100 hPa.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.ao.cdas.gif
La Nina is getting stronger again.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
BOM shows 3.4 areas getting warmer.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
oops, that was area 3.
Here’s 3.4
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
You have to go to “view” at the top and toggle to areas 3.4
g*e*r*a*n
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Wow!
ren showed NINO 1.2 area.This is the NINO 3.4 area at the same website:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
At BoM website, NINO1 is just below the zero line. NINO2 is well above it, at about +0.6.
For Salvatore, here is the global SST anomaly from tropical tidbits:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Salvatores SST is increasing!? He hasnt mentioned it. Proof of AGW, huh?
Barry, my response is “wow!”
I predict Salvatore’s response will be:
“Wait until the end of 2019”
I’m not quite sure…
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
I’ve been snowed-in for six days
A woman from Cumbria, who has been snowed in for six days, has told BBC Radio 5 live that she and her partner have to walk through shoulder-high drifts to get anywhere.
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-cumbria-43289767/chinook-flies-in-supplies-to-cut-off-cumbrian-communities
ren…the jet stream on Jupiter is pretty strong.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/nasa-mission-discovers-jupiters-inner-secrets/ar-BBK0fSx?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout
dr no…”The only good warmist is a dead warmist”
Alternately, what do you call a climate alarmist at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.
How many climate skeptics does it take to change a light bulb?
First off, the light bulb is not burned out, and even if it was,
it is not MY fault so why should I change it?
Besides, it is far too expensive for me to change a light blub.
Why are light Nazis always trying to get me to change my bulb?
Also, we are not taking into account all of the wonderful benefits of living in the dark!
Oh, and you don’t see the Chinese changing THEIR light bulbs do you? Well do you?
dr no…”In October 2011, the American Geophysical Union awarded Schmidt the Inaugural Climate Communications Prize, for his work on communicating climate-change issues to the public. ]”
I did not know they offer awards for propaganda.
And how many awards do you happen to have?
I guess zero.
dr no…”And how many awards do you happen to have?
I guess zero”.
I’m just as happy with none but I am also happy for John Christy of UAH who has a Nobel.
Then you will be also be happy for me as one of the thousands of scientists who shared the award.
That puts me at least one ahead of you.
(I am also well known for my modesty)
Dr. Christy received a Nobel as part of the IPCC in 2007. Neither he nor Roy Spencer have Nobels for their satellite data analysis. But, heck, we know the IPCC is mostly correct about AGW, don’t we? There’s no violation of the 2nd law…
The IPCC has it wrong, swannie.
The IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE nonsense is nonsense.
Hope that helps.
barry…”Gordon did say that the imaginary power is actually real, so his position is a little unclear. Tims question is legitimate either way”.
It is real. You must supply current to maintain the magnetic field in an electric motor but it is not considered useful power that can be used to do work turning the rotor if that current is being employed maintaining a magnetic field. Furthermore, the power is returned to the circuit during alternating cycles.
With power factor correction, that returned current is temporarily stored in large banks of capacitors in an attempt to offset the inductors creating a disturbance with the phase difference between current and voltage in an inductive circuit. The capacitors return the current again to the motor windings and everyone lives happily ever after.
For whatever reason they decided to show imaginary, or reactive power, along the y-axis and real power related to pure resistance along the x-axis. In complex number theory, the imaginary component, i, is shown along the y axis and the real component along the x-axis.
With complex number theory, however, there are further stipulations that make no sense on the face of it but which work out just fine in the long run. i is defined as the square root of -1. That comes from i^2 = 1, and taking the square root of either side you get i = sq. rt. -1.
You have to suspend your doubts about that till you learn the rest of the theory. It does make sense when applied in electrical engineering.
My issue with Hawking and his imaginary time was my suspicion that he had applied complex number theory to time. That makes no sense whatsoever, since it’s obvious we have invented time based on the period of one Earth rotation. Time itself is an illusion and Hawking seems to be adding to the illusion by talking of an even more imaginary time.
I am sure this is all related (in his mind) to a 3D space-time dimension, something I regard as mathematical rubbish. They can speculate all they want, till they show me where to find time, I am remaining firmly skeptical.
That makes no sense whatsoever, since its obvious we have invented time based on the period of one Earth rotation. Time itself is an illusion
So time doesn’t exist in space??
Time didn’t exist before the Earth was formed? Before humans existed?
Time didn’t pass between when you wrote this comment and when I replied to it? If not, explain the different time stamps.
Your claim is absurd. What’s the point of making it?
DA,
So you are still as stupid as you were yesterday?
So you understand all about time, space, and everything else?
Explain the difference between you and a rational person!
Your comment is absurd. Prove it isn’t!
Cheers.
davie, what time was it when your brain ceased to work?
DA…”So time doesnt exist in space??
Time didnt exist before the Earth was formed? Before humans existed?
Time didnt pass between when you wrote this comment and when I replied to it? If not, explain the different time stamps”.
************
That is correct, to all of the above. There is never a passage of time, it is an illusion.
Everything takes place in the here-and-now, what we call the present. Because we have memories, we can call on them from the hear-and-now, giving the impression something has passed, or will occur, simply because we have seen it before.
There is a usefulness to that capacity. We can remember dangerous incidents and steer away from them, however, some people take that to a neurotic level where they live in fear of unreasonable expectations of impending disaster.
Just as a landmark, take yourself mentally back to 0 AD, in the times of Jesus Christ. Your mind can create a timeline to that period then visualize changes in time in between. However, there is no dimension of time that can change. Any changes have been physical, like people dying, mountains eroding somewhat, etc.
Jerusalem is chronologically in exactly the same space as it was when Jesus kicked butt in the Temple. People have come and gone, building have fallen and been replaced, and things have eroded physically. Nothing has changed wrt time.
As you write a comment, no time changes, only the advancement of a mechanical or digital contrivance we call a clock. Clocks generate time, they do not measure it. They are synchronized to the rotational period of the Earth, not to some mystical time. If clocks were not synchronized to GMT, they’d all show different times.
Time is changing constantly. You exist at a different point in time with every moment that passes by. That hardly means time doesnt exist. You yourself confirmed that when you wrote in the times of Jesus.
Jerusalem is certainly at the same place it was relative to the Earth, But not with respect to the stars, or the Galactic center. So its insufficient to just specify its spacial location, because that location changes with time.
So only one time Jerusalem is at a location, and anything added to location changes the location, so no time travel is possible, unless there are many Jerusalem’s at one point in time. Multiple universes which can intersect would nullify or
make infinite time lines.
One can think of an universe as a clock that can’t have clock pieces added or removed. But that seem like a fragile thing – so probably wrong. Probably it’s a growing clock, a living clock- Life is needed for the clock to work?
Actually, Clocks can be synchronized to anything. Your pulse, a pendulum, etc. Nowadays the most accurate clocks are synchronized with respect to an atomic oscillation. The rotation of the earth neednt be considered at all
GR,
We can argue about speculations until the cows come home. It doesn’t matter how brilliant the speculator is, the speculation remains just that, until someone figures out a way of disproving it by reproducible experiment.
Hawking may be right or wrong. It doesn’t seem to make any practical difference.
On the other hand, relativistic time dilation and compression are observable, and GPS location services would be impossible without taking relatavity into effect.
I don’t believe Hawking has proposed a testable hypothesis relating to his speculation, so it’s just someone thinking about Nature – nothing of practical use yet.
On the other hand, vast sums of money have been wasted on the mad fantasies of the likes of Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth, and all the rest of the madly capering Climate Clowns. Stupid.
Have fun.
Cheers.
Jeez. Too many typos. Sorry.
Cheers.
mike…”relativistic time dilation and compression are observable, and GPS location services would be impossible without taking relatavity into effect”.
This is not my sole opinion, I had it verified once by a physics prof at my local university.
I do agree that something change is observable, but it’s not time. If you consider Newton’s f = ma, the ‘a’ is nothing more than a human-based unifying factor between f and m, which are both real.
a is based on the rate of change in human defined factors of time and distance. If a mass is accelerated by a force in an ideal situation with no resistance, the mass will accelerate. You can see the acceleration visually as a change in velocity, so acceleration is real, What is not real is the human attempt to quantify acceleration using time.
I don’t want to get into a p*ssing contest with you over this since the focus here is climate and we both agree on that. I enjoy your commentaries to that effect. However, I have worked in the field of communication with devices similar to GPS and I know for a fact there are no devices that can measure time dilation/compression or use it in their electronics.
Time differences between sats are controlled by having a different time base on the sats than what is found on the time base of ground stations. When the sats send to the ground station they include in the transmission information on local time, position, altitude, etc. From that information the ground station is able to calculate based on the time lapse in it’s time base where exactly the sat is located.
The notion of time dilation/compression obviously came from an equation like f = ma. Breaking it down, the time factor can be extracted from a and moved to the LHS side of the equation, making time not only real, but an independent variable. In that sense, time APPARENTLY expands and dilates but it is actually the force and/or mass changing. They are the only real entities in the equation.
Cheers
GR,
I agree. No contests involving the male member, even figuratively. Somewhat relevant, a hoax paper titled “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct was accepted and published by a reputable scientific journal after peer review, and editorial consideration.
The paper was apparently cited before retraction, which would no doubt please David Appell, who believes in the sanctity of peer reviewed papers, citations, and so. on.
So no argument from me about the nature of time. Im happy enough to discuss climate science, if I can ever locate some. Its difficult. No evidence of a scientific method, no testable hypothesis, no theory, just a lot of stupid people trying to browbeat rational people into accepting fantasy as fact.
Cheers.
The basis of time dilation is not F=ma. It comes from two assumptions: That all inertial reference frames are equivalent, that is, the laws of physics are the same in any reference frame moving at a constant velocity with respect to another, and that the speed of light is constant in any such frame.
From these two assumptions, Einstein derived how space and time measurements change from one reference frame to another. Time dilation has been experimental confirmed many times, and is used every day by physicists. High energy Accelerators would not work if time and space dilation was not taken into account.
No, mass is not changing. The equation F=ma is actually F=dp/dt, and Einstein shout how momentum changes from one inertial frame to another.
DA,
Oh so sciency, Davy, but not terribly bright.
However, no matter. I suggest anyone interested in fact might ignore your stupid and ignorant assertions, and establish fact for themselves.
And I was foolish enough to believe that you actually meant what you wrote previously!
Just goes to show that I’m not perfect all the time. Oh well.
Cheers.
Any body notice how time seems to slow down whenever MF or GR put up a post.
It just seems to drag on and on and on …
Dr No,
Think of it this way – I’m increasing your life span. Or at least your perception of it.
You don’t need to thank me, it’s my pleasure.
Cheers.
Luckily we can switch you two off. Otherwise I think some of us would have to consider ending it all – just for some relief from the inanity of it all.
Dr N,
You delude yourself. Much as you might desire to censor those with whom you disagree, you can’t. Bad luck for you.
You might believe you act in concert with the others you refer to as *we*, which no doubt comprises similarly stupid people. Neither you, nor any other member of your ragtag assortment of fumbling bumblers can turn me off. Nor do you wish to, obviously. You enjoy my comments, as much as you pretend not to.
I look forward to your continued support. I fear I might sink into an abyss of depression if your mighty army of the really, really, stupid ignored me. Luckily, it won’t happen, will it?
Keep up the good work.
Cheers.
“zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz”
“You have to suspend your doubts about that till you learn the rest of the theory. It does make sense when applied in electrical engineering.”
… and perhaps you have to suspend your doubts until you lean the rest of the theory of relativity?
“Time itself is an illusion…
Then current and power are illusions!
I = dq/dt
P = dE/dt
They only exist relative to the passage of illusionary time! Why are you talking about such illusions at all?
Wham.
Time or the lack there of
Theoretically if a space ship leaves earth moves close to black hole (if that’s possible) stays there for a few weeks then returns to earth we who have stayed on earth will have aged much more than those on the ship.
Then maybe not it’s its all theoretical
Regards
Harry
Thats true. GPS satellites would not work if gravitys effect on time was not taken into account. Time moves slower in a more intense gravitational field.
DA…”Thats true. GPS satellites would not work if gravitys effect on time was not taken into account. Time moves slower in a more intense gravitational field”.
I just explained above how GPS works and it has nothing to do with time dilation or contraction. There is no electronic equipment that can measure time dilation or work with it. The equipment doesn’t even know what time is, all it can do is interpret voltages sent as pulses, or the phase angle between pulses.
The satellite in a GPS system has a clock operating on an entirely different time base than the ground stations. When the sat transmits a signal to the ground system it sends synchronizing pulses followed by data related to its local time, altitude, speeds, etc. The ground station receives this data and translates it into time and position based on it’s own time base.
Naturally, since this represents relative motion, allowances have to be made for that motion. That has been done for decades without considering time dilation, why would it be a concern now?
There is nothing unique about GPS systems that are that different from comm systems that preceded them. The older Loran C relied on signals sent from different locations on the surface and the receiving station triangulated the signals to get its position. Sometimes the stations were moving, as on a ship or an airplane.
The difference today is that the transmitting stations are moving in satellites therefore allowances have to be made for the motion. There are several different methods can do that like Doppler radar devices, etc. In fact, it all began in WW II.
There is no problem tracking a satellite especially when it’s transmitting it’s position, altitude, etc. And there’s no problem tracking it either, especially with several ground stations tracking it.
Gordon Robertson says:
March 8, 2018 at 12:55 AM
*
How is it possible to be so ignorant but nevertheless to write as a big experienced teacher?
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.
Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion [2].
Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth’s mass is less than it is at the Earth’s surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.
The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time.
*
Your smalltalk about GPS is at the same level as what you tell about baselines and anomalies wrt them: i.e., zero.
And you name people idiots!
Incredible.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I just explained above how GPS works and it has nothing to do with time dilation or contraction. There is no electronic equipment that can measure time dilation or work with it.”
Gordon, how is it you are so sure of things you clearly have not taken the time to understand, and when the entire world says otherwise?
I honestly don’t understand where that comes from….
DA…”Gordon, how is it you are so sure of things you clearly have not taken the time to understand, and when the entire world says otherwise?”
I have worked in the field of communications and studied the theory. Have studied microwave and radar systems.
Apropos of not much at all, but relating to relativistic effects –
There was a young fellow named Fisk
Who fenced exceedingly brisk,
So fast was his action,
Fitzgerald contraction,
Reduced his pe to a disc!
Cheers.
harrt…” stays there for a few weeks then returns to earth we who have stayed on earth will have aged much more than those on the ship.
Then maybe not its its all theoretical ”
It’s the Twin Paradox you are describing. As Chico Marx would say, “Why a para dox, why no a par a chickens or a par a geese?
The flaw in the Twin Paradox is that humans do not age based on a change in time or traveling at speeds close to the speed of light. Humans age based on biochemical changes in their cell structure. Nothing to do with time.
Many of these thought experiments were never subjected to the scientific method. I regard AGW as a thought experiment.
Gordon wrote:
Humans age based on biochemical changes in their cell structure.
Those show down too, if one were to travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light, relative to someone who stayed in your initial reference frame.
Muon decay has been shown to slow down for fast-moving muons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles#Rossi%E2%80%93Hall_experiment
DA…”Those show down too, if one were to travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light, relative to someone who stayed in your initial reference frame”.
You do have proof of that, do you? I have not seen any research on the effect of traveling near the speed of light on human cells.
Gordon wrote:
Many of these thought experiments were never subjected to the scientific method.
Special relativity has been confirmed gazillions of times since it was proposed.
The largest one was in the New Mexico desert in 1945, then two over Japan.
The twin paradox is a simple application of these principles.
DA…”The twin paradox is a simple application of these principles”.
And it’s wrong. Humans don’t age based on the mythical dimension of time. They age due to cellular deterioration. There’s no proof that traveling at the speed of light has any effect on human cells.
It would if you were traveling at that speed and flew into a planet, or a star.
Darn. Accents have vanished!
pe should read epee – or foil, or rapier or . . . I spoilt the punchline, didn’t I?
Cheers.
Such rapier wit (not)
Don’t give up your day job.
(Sorry, don’t give up retirement)
Dr No,
Stupid people tend to be humourless. Are you one of them? I thought it was maybe just a tiny bit funny – luckily I don’t care what you think. Your opinion on humour is worth as much as your opinion on science.
All the opinion in the world (plus a few dollars) will buy you a cup of coffee.
Cheers.
barry, don’t bother asking. The poor boy has meaningless brain farts like a random number generator.
sorry – for barry below.
It is simply obvious to all and sundry that if you spoil the punchline you cannot claim to be a comedian.
As for
“I thought it was maybe just a tiny bit funny”
Yes – very tiny. Quantum scale I would guess.
That is just because you, Flynn, are far more stupid than all the people you name that way.
You still didn’t understand yet what I explained you some days ago.
And now you become the victim of your own arrogance.
Not only does your épée vanish to nonsense, you superteacher!
So do El Niño, La Niña
and all words containing special characters like
ë ï ä ö ü ã õ æ š ð,
or
„“ ‚‘ « » ¡ ± §
etc etc
And they vanish though you see them at browser input time. But… thy aren’t displayed back.
*
Schon vergessen, Flynn?
Reunion, reunion obviously you think you know how to communicate with English speakers better than the French Govt.
Or maybe you are just patronising, ignorant, and stupid?
The language of this blog is English. Not German, French, Polish, Swahili or Nepali.
You might be stupid enough to demand that native English speakers adopt the grave, the acute, the umlaut, and so on.
Ha ha ha ha.
French people love to say
« L'arrogance et l'ignorance vont très souvent de pair. »
La P,
You really are stupid. Maybe you could look at the web site I referred to. It is clearly absent any accents – the French realise that communicating with English speakers is more effective without the accents.
You explained nothing, and you lambasted an English speaker for doing as the French Government does – using the language of the English, to communicate in English.
So your forced laughter is somewhat wasted. Anyone can see for themselves by perusing the site in question, if I was right or not. If you wish to attempt to be patronising, condescending, or gratuitously offensive, you might at least check to see if what I said was factual. Otherwise, you might appear to be really, really stupid. No surprise there!
As to the missing accents and quotes, you are wrong. You might notice that the comma which you claim cannot appear, actually does. On the other hand, some other punctuation marks, diacritics, etc., do not appear in the comments. I admit I don’t know why.
No matter. Others can decide for themselves whether you are just stupid, or stupid and vindictive, or stupid, vindictive and wrong.
Cheers.
Flynn
You are really even a bit more dumb than I thought: you don’t have enough courage to admit that you made a mistake.
Here is one of the many originals (where is the link to that web site you were talking above?):
There was a young fencer named Fisk
Whose play was exceedingly brisk.
So fast was his action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Turned his epee to a disk.
Do you see the ‘epee’ ? No ‘pe’ !
Thus you probably will have tried to edit that ‘epee’ into ‘épée’, what nevertheless resulted in your comment in ‘pe’ (I write here the word with two ‘e acute’ as you certainly typed it in).
Jesus what are you a poor, arrogant person.
La P,
Since you are too stupid or lazy to find the site which originally got you so mad, here it is again –
https://en.reunion.fr/
No accents. The French Government is more sensible than you.
As to your stupid assumptions, I did not just copy and paste my limerick. I wrote it from memory, and tried to find a two syllable word for a fencing sword with a bowl shaped guard, to try to fit the limerick meter to my satisfaction. Epee, a loanword from the French, fit my requirements, but, alas, the accents, apparently useable from my keyboard, did not appear.
So your assumptions are both stupid and wrong.
I wouldn’t expect you to realise the subtleties of the limerick, where the technical syllabic requirements can be overcome vocally by altering stress, or lengthening vowels, but that’s the way it goes. The example you posted does not scan properly, and cannot be made to do so without suppressing at least one syllable in line four.
Not all stupid and ignorant people are humourless, but some certainly are.
Read what I write. Or you can fly off at a tangent, and go into great detail about something else.
Not my fault if you wind up looking stupid, is it?
Cheers.
You are not only dumb: you are also a liar.
You wrote:
Epee, a loanword from the French, fit my requirements, but, alas, the accents, apparently useable from my keyboard, did not appear.
Thus I was right: you indeed tried to write ‘épée’, but not in the same way as I did (I used a tool to get the ‘e acute’s visible at output time).
Instead, you simply wrote in Spencer’s blog input field ‘pe’ with two ‘e acute’, and you obtained ‘pe’ (March 7, 2018 at 11:36 PM):
Apropos of not much at all, but relating to relativistic effects
There was a young fellow named Fisk
Who fenced exceedingly brisk,
So fast was his action,
Fitzgerald contraction,
Reduced his pe to a disc!
*
This is exactly what I wrote above (March 8, 2018 at 7:36 AM):
Thus you probably will have tried to edit that ‘epee’ into ‘épée’, what nevertheless resulted in your comment in ‘pe’ (I write here the word with two ‘e acute’ as you certainly typed it in).
It doesn’t matter here wether you copied and pasted the limerick from anywhere or wrote it from memory.
But you will never and never admit your mistake.
So what.
La P,
I explained what I did, and explained the result. If you choose not to believe me, that is your right. Maybe if your command of English was a little better, you might realise that your use of the word edit is incorrect in the context of your assumption. Maybe you have confused *edit* with *write*, as you used both, seemingly interchangeably.
No editing, just original writing with the results as I stated. Your attempts to imply that your assumptions based on *probably will have tried* are fact, is just stupid.
Give it a rest. You wont win. You are brave but stupid, bringing a knife to a gunfight. I wont even challenge you to battle of wits, as my father told me it was not good form to duel with an unarmed opponent.
Keep trying. Gain English fluency. Learn physics. Throw off the shackles of your stupidity. There is a world of reality awaiting.
Cheers.
Australia this year is not threatened by drought.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00960/fbk9u4z4bgbb.png
Australia is a big place. Here in Melbourne it hasn’t rained for about 6 weeks and not much in prospect.
It is dry as a dead dingo’s donger.
Sorry, you know better.
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/national_radar_sat.loop.shtml
Ren,
They are talking about record rainfall in parts of Queensland while here, down south, it is much drier than usual.
http://www.farmonlineweather.com.au/news/dry-start-to-2018-for-some-southern-australians/527607
As I said Australia is a big place and a land of contrasts.
mike r…”It is dry as a dead dingos donger.”
Is it as hot as a monkey’s bum? Not that I know anything about such matters but you Aussies seem to have certain expertise in such areas.
Gordon,
Don’t know about the temperature of a monkey’s bum. Do you have any inside information regarding this? Otherwise I can’t make a comparison
Also do you have snow monkey’s where you are? I thought they were only found in Japan.
mike r…”Dont know about the temperature of a monkeys bum.”
Got it from Monty Python. As you know, they took the p**s out of every nationality including mine, Scottish. They did a skit on Australia and of course the main character was called Bruce. He noted that it was hotter than a monkey’s bum.
BOM charts are delayed.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
Look at the coast of Peru.
Yes, BoM is 10 days behind tropical tidbits. However, NINO1 and 2 have both been upticking for some weeks now, while for tropicaltidbits they’ve been downticking over the same period.
Why this is I don’t know. No doubt someone will tell us which are the brilliant scientists and which are the hucksters.
Height in the Southeast Pacific is strong.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=samer1×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Sorry, high in the Southeast Pacific is strong.
La Nina raises the sea level in Indonesia. A good topic for alarmists.
A good topic for alarmists: really? Why?
barry, dont bother asking. The poor boy has meaningless brain farts like a random number generator.
Dr N,
Are you one of the stupids who claim they are here to discuss science?
Cheers.
Science ?
Here ?
You’ve got to be joking.
Dr N,
If youre just here to troll, you dont seem to be doing very well. Have you considered taking lessons from David Appell? Hes not much good either, but he pretends to be here for the science.
Troll away, if you keeps you content. Nothing wrong with contentment.
Cheers.
“Troll away, if you keeps you content.”
No, it keeps me amused.
Like watching monkeys at the zoo.
Apologies to the monkeys in the zoo for that analogy.
See the statements of the Indonesian authorities.
Could you be a little more specific?
The turn is happening as global temperatures are not making any progress going upwards.
Have to watch the overall sea surface temperatures which are now +.298c a spike up but should not persist.
Watching the albedo but hard to know since there is really no data but increase cloud cover, snow cover and major volcanic activity will increase it and it only takes the slightest of increases to have a climatic impact.
Meanwhile with the weak sun overall sea surface temperatures are not going up from here.
This is a very interesting time in the climate this year should be telling.
The year 2010 was already much “telling” and “very interesting time”.
Global cooling started by then !
Remember:
Salvatore Del Prete told us in December 31, 2010 at 3:08 PM:
Hilarious !
My reply the solar levels were never attained therefore nothing happened.
That was then, this time it looks to be a different case.
Salvatore, you wrote “All the factors that control the climate are now in.” Are we supposed to believe solar was left out of that claim?
AGW predictions are just as hilarious!
The climate is in no way unique now contrary to what AGW tries to convey a complete falsehood.
“Unique.”
What does that mean? The planet was 1000C at the surface during its formation. So even if the surface by 4C in 2100, you would still say, “no, it can’t be AGW, because temps have been hotter before”??
That would be the same amount of warming in 200 years as occurred during the warm up from the last ice over 5000 years. Probably it would be ‘unique’ in terms of rate, but not in absolute temperatures, so no AGW?
The word “unique” gives you a huge amount of room to deny.
Can you be more specific?
Could you find any dark cores? Answer: No. The last time the sun was blank more than 50% of the time was in 2009, near the end of the deepest Solar Minimum of the Space Age. Now the sun is entering a new Solar Minimum, and it is shaping up to be even deeper than before.
Periods of spotlessness are a normal part of the 11-year solar cycle. However, the current Solar Minimum may be remarkable as the ambient solar wind and its magnetic field are weakening to low levels never before seen in the Space Age. The flagging pressure of the solar wind, in turn, is allowing more cosmic rays to penetrate the solar system. These rays are being detected not only by NASA spacecraft in the Earth-Moon system, but also by space weather balloons in Earth’s atmosphere. Scroll down to the news item “The Worsening Cosmic Ray Situation” to read more about this phenomenon.
So this is a period of time which I think is very interesting and telling.
Again the question is what levels does solar activity have to fall to have a climatic impact?
We all agree there is a level the question is what is it ?
Will it be attained?
https://www.iceagenow.info/a-magnetic-reversal-is-one-of-the-most-serious-issues-facing-us-today/
The other part of the climatic story ignored.
Latest SSTs update, Salvatore.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Barry I posted it +.298c a spike up.
But Barry ,come on there has to be a point where if solar gets weak enough and the geo magnetic field gets weak enough that it has climatic impacts. What are the levels ?HAT
What do you say? What is your thought?
When will the amount of snowfall (without Grenalnadia) fall in the northern hemisphere?
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
Australians are way over represented on this blog. I suspect Flynn, cracker, des, MikeR and Barry are the same person.
Check out European Tour players by country:
https://tinyurl.com/ycfve6qf
Using an alias on the US PGA Tour no doubt.
Svante
Are you an Aussie too?
No, I’m just keeping an eye on them.
They are over represented everywhere.
They are trying to take over the world.
Aussie golfers are a bunch of fudgers. They were caught removing 75% of the strokes from their scorecards.
Someone should alert Gordon.
Snape and Svante,
I didn’t know Flynn was a fellow Ozzie. Any relation to the swashbuckling Erroll?
We antipodeans pull well over our weight when it comes to crackpots so Flynn’s contributions are probably superflous.
Be careful, Salvatore.
The sun has heard you in the recent months and decided to tease you. Forecast for the incoming 12 months (combined method):
https://tinyurl.com/ycrsyb8x
Do you see the curve’s right end watching you, Salvatore?
Comparison of UV solar activity in the three most recent solar cycles (SC) 22-24. The thick curves show the Mg II index timeseries twice smoothed with a 55-day boxcar. Dates of minima of solar cycles (YYYYMMDD) were determined from the smoothed Mg II index.
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
Jesus ren I was joking. Don’t take everything so serious :-))
In many ancient civilizations, the Sun was a god.
La P,
The left side of the graph that you can see tells you nothing about the right hand side yet to come. I am sure you have not become fabulously wealthy, or revered throughout the world, on account of your unsurpassed ability to peer into the future.
Like everyone else, you guess. Sometimes you will be right, sometimes wrong.
The most highly paid prognosticators in the world are usually wrong. For example, the forecasts of say, the IMF, or any central bank, are constantly being revised, even on a weekly basis. In other words, these bodies are saying “*We were wrong every time before, but believe us this time*”. Sure.
Unfortunately, these people have an endless supply of excuses and justifications, which all distill down to saying *” Don’t blame us – the future is unknowable”*.
Stupid is as stupid does. Keep believing you can predict the future. Even the IPCC is not that stupid, and they say some some other really stupid things!
Cheers.
Comparison of the activity of the solar wind.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/onlinequery.cgi?station=OULU&startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1993&starttime=00%3A00&endday=08&endmonth=03&endyear=2018&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Please note that the beginning of the 24 solar cycle is January 2009. If you add 10 years, you will receive January 2019, if 11 years is January 2020 as the end of the cycle.
If 12 years it is jan 2021 a possibility much less jan 2022 if 13 yeears.S.
Sal,
What do you say? What is your thought?
I take my cue on understanding solar influence from the IPCC, occasional updates on the GCR influence in science mags, and from having read Leif Svalgaard’s remarks at WUWT.
To whit: direct solar influence is slight, the connection of GCR flux to climate is not yet determined, and the experiments at CERN indicate that while it is possible GCRs can ionize aerosol particles that from clouds, it is not yet shown that they can do so on a scale large enough to actually have an impact.
Research is ongoing, and the GCR connection may yet yield more positive results.
Biased agenda driven sources Barry.
Also Barry you did not answer my question which is do you believe if conditions on the sun should reach a x level of change that this would impact the climate?
I say there is a threshold level for GCR which will impact the climate and GCR levels also depend on the strength of the geo magnetic field.
It is just not solar.
Part of my argument is it is geo magnetic field and solar
that if weak enough or changed enough will impact the climate through primary and secondary effects.
Salvatore.
You should admit defeat and take up Astrology.
It is painful to watch you squirming.
Salvatore,
Biased agenda driven sources Barry.
I read pretty broadly. Leif Svalgaard, who posts at WUWT, is a warmist? Hardly. CERN is biased? Huh??
Rather than get selective about what to read, I look for a range of opinion and try to assess where the weight of opinion lies, and whether outliers have a strong case.
This leaves dataless rhetoric about agenda and bias out of the equation. I recommend these practises.
Also Barry you did not answer my question which is do you believe if conditions on the sun should reach a x level of change that this would impact the climate?
I’d refer to the IPCC on the level of forcing. This is a summation of a range of views. It also generally accords with AGW skeptic Leif Svalgaard, who is a solar expert.
Svalgaard once made the point that the recent solar moinimum is consistent with the one at the beginning of the 20th century. If direct solar influence is a primary driver of log-term climate, then we should expect to see global temps during or just after this solar minimum similar to what they were in the early 1900s. So far we’re not seeing anything like that, so other things have caused warming that have a stronger influence than solar cycles.
Part of my argument is it is geo magnetic field and solar
that if weak enough or changed enough will impact the climate through primary and secondary effects.
Svensmark has a similar view WRT to GCR. I’ve followed his work. Not too long ago he showed (similar to CERN) that GCRs can ionize aerosols for cloud formation. But, like CERN, the results were of nuclei too small for cloud formation. So the physical basis is there in part, but there’s still some work to go to establish a definite link. Svensmark also authored papers a decade or so ago that saw correlation between GCR and global temps. However, he made a miscalculation that others pointed out, and when he corrected it, the correlation disappeared after about 1980.
If I was of a mind to dwell in the realm of positing agenda and bias, I could argue that Svensmark messed up because he wanted too hard to prove his own theory, and that everything he’s done since then has been to try and bend the facts to his preferred view. For instance, he made a big claim on cloud nucleation, but didn’t make much of the fact that his experiments didn’t quite get that far, per the above.
It’s an easy case with Svensmark for bias – but, as I said, I don’t like to do that with working researchers, so I make no claim about Svensmark in that regard. It’s enough to compare his results and methods with other researchers and come to a provisional conclusion objectively.
Agenda and motivation is a data-free realm. It’s not scientific to discuss such things.
Why are not you really interested in observing? The strongest ionization by GCR occurs in the lower stratosphere, in the ozone zone above the polar circle. Why do you repeat the same thing all the time?
https://www.intechopen.com/books/current-topics-in-ionizing-radiation-research/atmospheric-ionizing-radiation-from-galactic-and-solar-cosmic-rays
That’s a study on GCR and cancer. It doesn’t tell us what effect GCR has on climate.
barry
I’m sorry you are not learning.
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/Dose_Rates.html
If I wan interested in knowing about radiation doses from GCR and its effect on human health I would thank you for these links, ren.
But here I’m interested in the science of climate and change.
So GCR ionizes human cells, but not stratospheric ozone ionizes?
What effect does GCR ionization in the stratosphere have on climate?
barry,
If the atmosphere represents a fully deterministic chaotic system, then any arbitrarily small influence on it may result in arbitrarily large effects at some indeterminate time in the future. Even without outside influence, the future states of a chaotic system are not predictable. The IPCC agrees.
The key word is indeterminate.
If you believe otherwise, you are stupid. If you believe you can predict the future better than I, you are stupid.
Keep praying, you might be better off.
Cheerd.
Would you say that there is a 50/50 chance of winter being warmer than summer?
If your answer is “no,” then how does that fit with all manner of small influences making predictions of future climate states impossible?
If your answer is “yes” then that fits with the view you have espoused, but you can see that there is a big problem with that – not to mention the years of verified data and your own experience telling you that Summers will almost certainly always be warmer than winters.
The answer is that no one can predict the temperature of a given day in summer 6 months out, but one can forecast that the range of temperatures will shift to a higher distribution.
That’s the difference between a prediction and a projection.
barry,
You are too stupid to grasp the point, obviously.
I assume that there will be less rain during the dry season than the rainy season. so would a twelve year old child, or a dragon fly. No science involved.
Your guesses are just that. You assume there will be a tomorrow. You might claim you predicted this, after the event. And so you did – but it was a completely pointless prediction, no better or worse than anybody elses.
I dont usually use analogies, but . . .
When I board an aircraft, I assume it will deliver me to my destination without falling out of the sky along the way. So far, so good. I have travelled extensively. Im still alive. Im not interested in probabilities at all. My predictive record is both 100%, and quite meaningless.
You might even be stupid enough to believe that a coin that has come down heads 19 times in a row, has a greater than 50% change of coming down tails on the next throw. This is climatological thinking. Wishful and wrong.
The probability of a head or a tail remains stubbornly 0.5, (apart from things like the building collapsing killing the thrower, and similar things). Argue all you like, nothing will change.
Carry on, barry. Believe as you wish. I dont care, and neither does Nature.
Cheers.
barry
“Small influences” can last for many years. For example, the magnetic solar cycle lasts 22 years, two cycles are 44 years. Circulation changes may take as long.
If the atmosphere represents a fully deterministic chaotic system, then any arbitrarily small influence on it may result in arbitrarily large effects at some indeterminate time in the future. Even without outside influence, the future states of a chaotic system are not predictable.
If the system is so chaotic, why do we have summer and winter?
The temperature over the North Pole is still falling.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png
Why the power of jet streams is not appreciated is a great mystery to me.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Tim…”Time itself is an illusion
Then current and power are illusions!
I = dq/dt
P = dE/dt
They only exist relative to the passage of illusionary time! Why are you talking about such illusions at all?”
**************
Tell me this, Tim, in any science course you have ever taken, has any teacher, prof, or textbook ever defined time? Not on any course I have taken. So, it’s left to the student to figure it out because even if anyone tried to define time based on a real physical entity, they could not do it.
Why???
This is an exercise in human awareness that transcends science. You simply have to suspend all the bs you have been spoon fed at school, and by others, and “”LOOK”” for yourself.
Looking is not just an act of focusing the eyes, it is a psychological process that takes place after the light has been gathered by the eyes and converted to biochemical energy. Therefore it is possible to look internally with the eyes closed. If you can cut out the other bs in there, the lifelong conditioning, and look with focus, that’s called awareness.
You have the ability, the awareness is there, but it has been clouded over by all the other crap in your mind that all of us carry around as baggage.
What is time based on? It is based on the period of rotation of the Earth. Don’t you find it at least a bit odd that time related to the entire universe is defined by the time it takes the Earth to rotate once?
I asked this question of a physics prof at the local university and he is a no nonsense type. He replied, “Time has no existence, humans invented it to keep tract of change”.
So, did the ancient Egyptians keep tract of time, and if so, how did they do it? All they had were sundials. We know they had calendars but what was the basis of the calendars???
Night and day. Every time the sun appeared it was a new day. It was not till a couple of thousand years later that someone invented a clock with a semblance of precision to GENERATE time, that scientists could begin using time accurately to measure change.
Back to your i = dq/dt. It’s actually small i since the equation defines an instantaneous change in charge over an instantaneous change in time. However, as you know, dt defines an imperceptible change in time and you have to ask yourself what is changing?
It’s the charge that is changing. Current is a change in charge. Time has nothing to do with it, time has value only to humans who need to keep tract of the change in charge. Nature doesn’t give a hoot about time, only we humans have an anal fixation with it.
The change in charge is caused by other forces, like a magnetic field being cut by a conductor, or conversely, a magnetic field interacting with an conductor or an inductance. When you turn on a simple D-C circuit with an applied voltage, there is a momentary change in charge as devices adjust then there is a steady state flow of charge. The change of charge and the charge flow itself is caused by the applied voltage, not time.
“Current is a change in charge”.
I need to elaborate. Current can be a change in charge as in i = dq/dt or it can be a steady state flow of charge.
If you could view charges flowing along a conductor at a certain point, at steady state, current would be the number of charges passing that point. We don’t need to measure the amount, the charges are being passed electron to electron as the electrons physically flow at a much slower rate.
The charges are flowing because an impressed potential difference (voltage) is driving them. Time is in no way required for that process, the charge flow is dependent only on the driving electrical force and the resistance it encounters.
Along comes the human being with his/her curious mind and thinks, “I wonder how I could measure how many of them little critters are passing that point…if only I had a way to ***time*** them.
I used the asterisks to impress the fact that we humans cannot even talk about rate without using the word time. We needed to invent the concept because it made no sense otherwise.
If a caveman/women saw a herd of bisons galloping across a prairie, would he/she wonder what velocity they were running at, or whether they were accelerating or decelerating? In those days they would have had no concept of time other than night and day.
Rate is time inverted, so rate is also an illusion.
Throw away your rev counter and push the pedal to the floor.
Tell the mechanic your pistons were an illusion when he can’t find them.
Agreed. Tell the same to the police officer trying to book you for speeding.
Dr N,
I see you are too stupid and ignorant to discuss science.
This no doubt explains your stupid, irrelevant and pointless comment, agreeing with another just as irrelevant, pointless and stupid as yourself.
Carry on.
Cheers.
“your stupid, irrelevant and pointless comment, agreeing with another just as irrelevant, pointless and stupid as yourself.”
Thanks again. Coming from you I take that as another compliment.
The game is now to collect as many as possible.
I am not sure who is leading at the moment – DA, svante or me.
Dr N.,
If you are stupid enough to believe that I am paying you compliments, good for you.
Keep counting – you might believe that counting and averaging allow you to perceive the future.
Stupid, just stupid – but feel free to spend your time as you see fit.
Cheers
svante…you are missing the forest for the trees. I am not throwing the word illusion around as a means of debating, I am using it in the truest sense of the word as it applies to the human mind.
For example, When you see the Sun first thing in the morning, do you observe it as moving upward from the horizon. If so, that’s an illusion caused by the horizon moving down across the Sun making the Sun appear to move. We humans have become so conditioned to that illusion we call it a sunrise.
Humans are prone to such illusions and time is another one of the illusions. In your criticism of my point about time you you are confusing the reality, the real physical world, with the illusion, and that’s because you have been conditioned to look at the world, from your personal perspective.
Let go of your personal perspective, which is mainly conditioned thought, and answer the question I have posed. If time is not an illusion, why have we humans defined it based on one rotation of the Earth?
If time is a time arrow with its own dimension, why were we not able to tap into that medium to define our time system? Why did we have to invent one based on the time it takes for the Earth to rotate once on its axis. And why is time different in each part of the world?
You have some thinking to do my friend, and some awareness to be in touch with. Till you do, there is no way for us to resolve this question through debate. Your smugness has already gotten in the way and you probably cannot see your ego operating to block out what you don’t want to comprehend.
This is not about me and my opinion, this is as real as it can get. LOOK!!! And prove to yourself that time exists. Find it, and when you do, please let me know.
Physics describes reality, and time is a major factor in both, regardless of us.
The time factor explains why your pistons failed, regardless of your own perseption of time.
S,
This looks like an irrelevant, stupid, and pointless analogy.
Can you not discuss the concept of time in a rational scientific way? If GR is wrong in your opinion, why not provide a counter argument (preferably supported by more than your opinion), and allow others to weigh the merits of both positions?
Too difficult? It would be for a stupid or ignorant person! Which are you?
Cheers.
Another point for svante.
Dr N,
I assume you have an award for the one who accumulates the most points – something like a reverse Fields Prize for outstanding stupidity, pointlessness and irrelevance!
Whos winning at the moment?
Cheers
Gordon Robertson says:
“time is itself an illusion”
Perhaps g*e*r*a*n can help you argue that one.
Svante, thanks for the mention.
T-shirt sales continue to soar.
Time rotates, you can see that on any good old clock.
Modern clocks are fudged by 20th century fake science and hilariously stupid scientist.
Its the charge that is changing. Current is a change in charge.
What do you mean by “change?”
(Seriouly.)
DA…”Its the charge that is changing. Current is a change in charge.
What do you mean by change?”
****
That’s not a trivial question.
It was pointed out that i = dq/dt. That is used primarily with a changing magnetic field or a capacitor where a variable electric charge is being induced in an inductor or stored in a capacitor.
Charge does not normally move into or out of an L or C device in a linear manner, it happens exponentially. That can be viewed as a change in charge.
Although electronics is normally thought of as a model in which electrons move through a conductor, that process happens relatively slowly. Charges move from electron to electron at the speed of light. Current is not measured as electron flow per se but as the flow of charges.
In other words, the electrical energy moves electron to electron at the speed of light while the electrons themselves don’t move that fast.
It should be noted that such changes in charge, or even a steady-state charge flow, is not dependent on time, only on the forces that drive them. Time is required only when humans need to measure and calculate such flows.
It’s not a very clear concept. An electron is considered an atomic particle that carries an electric charge, measured in Coulombs. Apparently the charges can move electron to electron independently of the motion of the electron.
Don’t ask me why, have not researched that yet, even after decades in the field.
What do you mean by move?
move
da….”What do you mean by move?”
Flow.
To current, a capacitor appears initially as a short circuit. There is a large flow for an instant, then as the charge builds up it repels other charges and the charging rate slows down.
It’s the opposite with an inductor. The initial flow through an inductor for AC meets a stiff reactance due to a high back-EMF. The flow is slow at first then builds up exponentially.
None of it involves time even though the equation can be written e(t) = L di/dt for an inductor. The t is for benefit of the human observer, all the action takes place between e, i, and L.
What do you mean by “flow?”
Define it precisely. Or define velocity in a way that someone can measure it.
binny…”The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! ”
Have you noticed all the ***SHOULDS*** in the article? This author does not know his/her butt from a hole in the ground wrt to communications systems like GPS. Neither do you, so why are you commenting on it?
Special relativity as put forth by Einstein has been embellished by idiots who are doing nothing more than speculating. I don’t recall Einstein ever talking about time dilation and/or compression.
Once more, there are no electronic devices that can measure or deal with time dilation. The relative motion between satelite and ground station is taken care of with synchronizing pulses and information transmitted from sat to ground, re local time, altitude, speed, etc.
You have allowed your hatred of me to interfere with your ability to think rationally.
“If a caveman/women saw a herd of bisons galloping across a prairie, would he/she wonder what velocity they were running at, or whether they were accelerating or decelerating? ”
A good summary of your good self and level of scientific understanding.
Dr N,
Your stupid, irrelevant and condescending comment is not completely pointless. It points to your level of stupidity. Others will no doubt decide where to mark that level for themselves. They won’t need any advice from me.
Cheers.
“Your stupid, irrelevant and condescending comment …”
Thank you – I take that as a compliment.
Dr N is clearly not stupid.
You try to be a bully here. It hasn’t worked — you just look juvenile.
DA,
You can only bully someone who is frightened of you. Why are you frightened of me?
Im certainly not frightened of you. Even a stupid person would realise that.
What would I gain by trying to bully a stupid and ignorant person? What would they possess that I could conceivably desire? I leave the desire for more stupidity and ignorance to such as you.
Cheers.
dr no…”If a caveman/women saw a herd of bisons galloping across a prairie, would he/she wonder what velocity they were running at, or whether they were accelerating or decelerating?
A good summary of your good self and level of scientific understanding”.
No need to be so sensitive, doc. I realize that ***some*** Australians are stuck in the caveman era and you seem to be one of them. Nothing personal, I was not trying to make light of your caveman environment.
Gordon: Yet again you ignore experimental evidence.
Honest question: Are you interested in science backed by evidence, or not?
DA,
What a stupid, pointless and irrelevant attempt at a gotcha!
You must be stupid, David. Incapable of learning. What science involving the scientific method, and such niceties as a testable hypothesis would you like to discuss?
Stupid person.
Cheers.
Another point for DA.
Dr N.
Is he now leading the capering pack of climate clowns? I support your endeavour.
Let me know who receives your award for the most stupid, pointless and irrelevant climate clown.
Who is leading?
Cheers.
“Let me know who receives your award for the most stupid, pointless and irrelevant climate clown.”
Let me give you a clue.
Who posts the most on this site?
Gordon or you?
DA…”Honest question: Are you interested in science backed by evidence, or not?”
Of course I am, but obviously you are not based on the way you try to foil scientific debate rather than engage in it honestly.
Gordon, Im not being dishonest by asking you questions or countering your claims. Thats exactly how science debate is done. If you cant defend your ideas they cant be accepted.
DA,
And yet, you can make wild, unsubstantiated and stupid assertions, and expect them to be accepted?
You might be stupid enough to claim that there is a testable GHE hypothesis, or that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter!
Oh, how they laughed!
Maybe you are not the paragon of scientific inquiry that you pretend to be? Just a stupid, gullible follower of pseudo-science.
Cheers.
Gordon wrote:
“Once more, there are no electronic devices that can measure or deal with time dilation.”
Once again, the evidence shows that ALL electronic devices “deal with” time dilation — both because of their motion, and because of their position in a gravitational field.
DA…”Once again, the evidence shows that ALL electronic devices deal with time dilation both because of their motion, and because of their position in a gravitational field”.
Nonsense. Electronic devices deal with electrons and electrons only. Time has nothing to do with electron movement which is due to electric and/or magnetic fields.
You need to take that bs you learned about relativity and chuck it out. There is very little practical need for relativity theory and I have never encountered it in electronics in any capacity, especially as related to communications systems, including GPS.
Time has nothing to do with electron movement which is due to electric and/or magnetic fields.
What do you mean by “movement>”
(Seriously.)
DA,
What do you mean by time?
(Seriously.)
Cheers.
Gordon, it’s a serious question: what do you mean by “movement?”
Define it, in such a way that it can be measured.
Gordon Robertson says:
March 8, 2018 at 4:27 PM
*
Robertson, why are you so boring?
1. Error analysis for the Global Positioning System
Relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity
2. Relativistic Effects in the Global Positioning System
Neil Ashby
Department of Physics, University of Colorado
https://tinyurl.com/y82ucqlk
Try this time to read the stuff till the documents’ end, instead of picking a few ‘should’s here and there.
*
Btw, Robertson: J.-P. and I we share a lot. Decades of common life, a nice little house, lots of wonderful holidays, Internet access, a computer, huge amounts of data, etc.
But we exist in two distinct bodies, each with its own brain.
La P,
Are you sure you have a brain? Alternatively, why have you never learned to use it?
Try to absorb facts, and your stupidity will possibly start to ameliorate.
Cheers.
“But we exist in two distinct bodies, each with its own brain.”
Unlike Mike, who has one body but half a brain.
BTW, a point to LaP.
Dr N,
How do you know I have only one body? Have you been spying on me?
Cheers.
This discussion of time reflects the discussion on climate. If one is not able to think clearly, without prejudice and leaping to conclusion, one tends to form the kind of religious beliefs associated with climate alarm.
My thoughts on time go back to a discussion between the eminent physicist David Bohm, who specialized in quantum theory, and the thinker Juddu Krishnamurti. It’s odd to call someone a thinker but nothing else fits. He did not believe in philosophy or religion. He was into intelligence and awareness.
In a discussion on intelligence, they got onto the topic of time. Bohm had this to say about time:
Bottom page 479 in The Awakening of Intelligence:
“Time is thought–I would like to put it that thought is of the order of time–or perhaps it is the other way around–that time is of the order of thought. In other words, thought has invented time, and in fact, thought IS time.
*********
From Max Planck in his book on heat. He points out that humans invented length, time, mass, temperature, and density:
“164. Natural Units. All the systems of units which have hitherto been employed, including the so-called absolute C. G. S. system, owe their origin to the coincidence of accidental circumstances, inasmuch as the choice of the units lying at the base of every system has been made, not according to general points of view which would necessarily retain their importance for all places and all times, but essentially with reference to the special needs of our terrestrial civilization.
Thus the units of length and time were derived from the present dimensions and motion of our planet, and the units of mass and temperature from the density and the most important temperature points of water, as being the liquid which plays the most important part on the surface of the earth, under a pressure which corresponds to the mean properties of the atmosphere surrounding us”.
It’s important to understand the difference between human definitions and a reality that MAY exist that is the object of those definitions.
Physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, pointed out that a photon is DEFINED as having momentum but no mass. That contradicts the definition of momentum given in physics classes which is momentum = mass x velocity. They do not point out that momentum may be a real property of a mass that is independent of our definition.
Momentum is actually the property of a mass which keeps it moving once set in motion as long as the mass is not opposed by another force. The Moon’s momentum keeps it moving around the Earth even though there is no force propelling it.
With a photon, Bohren is implying it does not require mass since momentum is ‘something’ natural that can keep even massless light moving once set in motion.
Acceleration does not require a time factor, nor does velocity. In physics it does since acceleration is defined as a change in velocity wrt time and velocity as a change in distance wrt time.
That’s just our arrogance talking, we think all motion is relative to the human brain and it’s definitions. Anyone can see acceleration or velocity, no time required. Both are properties of a mass under the influence of a force and neither is dependent on human definition or time.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, pointed out that a photon is DEFINED as having momentum but no mass. That contradicts the definition of momentum given in physics classes which is momentum = mass x velocity.”
You should have studied more.
p=mv is only the definition given out in freshman classes.
If you’d studied further, you’d have learned that momentum p is really
p=sqrt(E^2-m^2)
which holds in all inertial reference frames, and holds for photons too. (I’ve set c=1 here.)
Again and again, Gordon, you get a simplistic view of something and that’s all you ever learn — you refuse to study it any farther. And it bites you in the rear every time.
Gordon Robertson says:
Anyone can see acceleration or velocity, no time required.
So define each without reference to time.
DA,
So keep trying. Maybe you could contribute some science? Or even pseudo-science? Strike that – pseudo-science is all you have.
Stupid.
Cheers.
DA…”Anyone can see acceleration or velocity, no time required.
So define each without reference to time.”
You are being obtuse. You know that any real parameters in an equation require a proportionality factor. If a human wants to keep tract of change the human must supply that factor, in this case, time.
Nature does not care about humans or time. In nature, aka reality, acceleration and/or velocity happen without time, all in place, in the here and now. Only humans need a past and a future, you far more than me.
No Gordon, this has nothing to with proportionally factors.
I’m simply asking you to define “velocity” and “acceleration” without a reference to time. Not as measured by humans, but as can be measured by anyone anywhere in the universe. Measurement is the hallmark of science.
According to nurseratched your pin-up boy David Bohm “was a weirdo communist who believed in the paranormal and that Uri Geller could bend keys and spoons.”
I would be skeptical about anythig he had to say.
Dr N,
According to me, you are really really stupid.
Anybody should be really, really, skeptical about anything you have to say – as its most likely irrelevant, meaningless and stupid.
People are free to accept my opinion, or the opinion of nurseratched.
Free choice.
Cheers.
Another point to me.
Here’s another point for you: +1
dr no…”According to nurseratched your pin-up boy David Bohm was a weirdo communist….”
Everyone was a communist according to McCarthyism, including Linus Pauling. Pauling was checked out by McCarthyists because he claimed nuclear radiation is harmful.
David Bohm was a highly regarded scientist in the field of quantum theory who was highly regarded by Einstein as a scientist and a friend. Next you’ll be invalidating Einstein for hanging around with a communist.
The more you blether, the more I understand why climate alarmists are a special breed of idiot.
Gordon wrote:
Next youll be invalidating Einstein for hanging around with a communist.
But you’ve been invalidating everything Einstein ever said, especially on special relativity.
Bohm’s words are gobbleygook. Planck’s statement is about the UNITS of time, not the existence of time.
Time is no longer defined with respect to Earth, but to atomic oscillations. You ignore facts that don’t support your claims, as you always do.
DA,
And the relevance of your comment to the pseudo-science of the non existent GHE, is what, precisely?
Cheers.
DA…”Bohms words are gobbleygook. Plancks statement is about the UNITS of time, not the existence of time.
Time is no longer defined with respect to Earth, but to atomic oscillations”.
You are a blithering idiot Appell, like your alarmist friends. I doubt if you share half a brain between the lot of you.
Did Planck say anything about the units of time? No, he said length and time were invented based on the dimensions and rotation of the Earth. Bohm is absolutely correct, time exists only as thought ion the human mind.
Gordon, science has progressed since Planck, and unit definitions are now independent of the Earth:
Second: The duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
Meter: The distance traveled by light in vacuum in 1/299792458 second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
Planck points out that humans invented our UNITS length, time, mass, temperature, and density — not that humans created the concepts. “Natural units” are just a way to choose units that are not artifacts of our planet. Like choosing the speed of light to be 1, or like measuring time in “Planck time” units.
Tim…”Planck points out that humans invented our UNITS length, time, mass, temperature, and density not that humans created the concepts”.
You’re saying the second is separate from time, that a degree C is separate from temperature, and by extension heat, and that density is not based on the the weight per unit volume of water at a certain temperature.
Talk about semantics.
Gordon, I am saying you misinterpreted that passage from Planck.
Suppose I say something has a speed of “0.23” but don’t mention the units. I might mean 0.23 mi/hr. I might mean 0.23 m/s. I might mean 0.23 furlongs per fortnight.
All of these involve human decisions and human-chosen dimensions. Planck was musing about finding a set of units that are independent of the time it takes earth to spin or the size of a human foot — independent of any local referent.
For speed, the natural, universal, standard speed would be “c”, the speed of light. So a speed of “0.23” would be interpreted in “natural units” as “0.23 c”.
Describing speed in “m/s” is a human invention.
Describing speed relative to “c” is universal.
That is all Planck was saying, and all I was saying.
Yes. The scale of time that theoretical physicists often use are Tim’s “natural units.” For example
Planck time=sqrt(hbar*G/c^5)
which is about 5.39e-44 second. It has nothing to do with the Earth, and will likely be discovered by every intelligent species in the universe.
Gordon says:
“Anyone can see acceleration or velocity, no time required.”
I say no one can see acceleration or velocity without time.
Leif , does not have a clue when it comes to the climate.
Secondly AGW has nothing to stand on because the climate is not unique at this time.
Barry time will tell as I said this year is key.
Why must Clement be unique at this time for AGW to be true?
*climate
DA,
Are you purposely trying to appear stupid?
Your misleading statement about AGW is nonsensical. Nothing to do with CO2, and not even a testable hypothesis to support a GHE, if that is what you are trying to imply.
A stupid attempt at a gotcha. Try harder, and you might do better.
Cheers.
Point to DA.
Because AGW has made it to be that way by all the false claims they keep conveying.
AGW if it were true would have pushed the temperatures to levels much higher by now then what we have which is well in the range of natural variability.
Anyone can see that by looking at the historical climatic record there is nothing unusual going on that has not occurred in the past and to much greater degrees than the some .8c warming in the last 100 years or so.
And this year and the next few should put an end to this theory once and for all.
David I want to see what you say if temperatures fail to keep going up as we move forward in time.
I want to see if you will admit to defeat.
Why much higher by now, Salvatore?
Salvatore, again, why must climate change be unique now for AGW to be true?
because until climate becomes unique one can say the climate is just in the range of natural variability .
Which is what I say, and can say as long as the climate is NOT unique.
Your theory has put the climate bar very high. It has insisted that this time the climate is undergoing a change that has never ever happened before and it is going to go on and on forever unless CO2 is cut.
RIDICULOUS!
Why is that? What is natural vability right now? Isnt AGW a matter of whats causing climate to change, not whether the change is unique?
DA,
You ask what is natural [variability] right now?
What a stupid question. Attempted gotcha, perhaps ?
It is variable, and it is natural. Jeez. Just how stupid are you?
You claim to have 15 hours of journalism training. Did you cover how to frame questions clearly and unambiguously? Maybe you were asleep at the time.
Cheers.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Your theory has put the climate bar very high. It has insisted that this time the climate is undergoing a change that has never ever happened before….
Salvatore, you have misunderstood the science of AGW — it says no such thing.
Look, for example, at the PETM, 55 Myrs ago — it was caused by volcanic explosions that put huge amounts of CO2 into the air over 20,000 years. The temperature warmed by about 5 C over 200,000 years. (Note that that’s a rate of change far smaller than today’s.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
By the way, humans are putting CO2 into the air at a rate that it about 50 times higher than during the PETM.
I already said I will say I am wrong if the data proves it to be so. Will you?
This year I say it is going to happen because my solar requirements are in unlike the earlier times.
AGW is already a proven fact, Salvatore. You keep threatening that the temperature is going to go down, but yet all the time it keeps coming up. Havent you noticed that?
AGW is not even close to being proven and will not be until the climate becomes unique from any climate in the past.
You have a very long way to go.
The temperatures have gone up but it can all be accounted for due to natural variability. It has happened many times before.
This time is no different thus far.
You need something unique to happen with the climate I do not see it as of yet.
David,
AGW is not a proven fact, it is a hypothesis. Salvatore is correct in that the current climate is within the realm of historical variability. To say that the current variance is due solely to AGW is a large stretch, yet some do. Further, many of those who are monetarily dependent upon this imaginary AGW being true are willing to lie, cheat and steal to keep their religious beliefs in the mainstream so as to keep them in the money.
There is nothing else.
Lewis
Those are just desperate excuses, Lewis. You cant disprove the science, So in order to cling to your prejudices you just claim everyone is cheating and lying, with no proof of those whatsoever. It looks as desperate as it sounds.
DA,
Are you quite mad? You do not even have a hypothesis, much less a theory. Lewis was being far too kind, in my opinion.
It is difficult to prove that something which does not exist does not exist, so stupid people use the non-existence of the GHE as proof that it exists! What a pack of fools!
David, you are becoming even more stupid in your comments. Hard to do, I know, but you have achieved it. Congratulations – you win the award for the most stupid, irrelevant and pointless comment. Now just wait for the howls of outrage from the others. Theyll claim you rigged the contest by only pretending. We know better, dont we?
Cheers.
Lewis, Im guessing *You* would change your opinion for money, so you think everyone else would too. But the truth is that very very few of us are willing to do that, and Ones that are usually sell out to places like the heartland institute or tobacco companies.
DA,
Playing the conspiracy card now? Ooooooo.
Tobacco companies? heartland? Next you will be implying that the Nobel Committee withdrew Michael Manns richly deserved Nobel Prize at the behest of Big Oil!
Scary, eh? Your assumption that everyone else is more stupid and gullible than you is as yet unproven. So sorry – not.
Cheers.
Salvatore: What natural factors account for modern warming?
DA,
After cooling for four and a half billion years, the surface has reversed this rather long trend, and started to heat up – according to you.
What mechanism explains this, and when did it start?
I assume you are going to blather on about a non-existent GHE somewhere, so maybe you can prove me wrong by basing your answer on real science, rather than climatological pseudo- science.
Or might you have to resort to advice from a mathematician such as Gavin Schmidt? He claims to be a leading climate scientist, doesnt he?
Surely he will have scientific answers! How hard can it be? Or maybe hes stupid too. What do you think?
Cheers.
A point to Gavin Schmidt.
Dr N,
Does this now make Gavin Schmidt smarter than Michael Mann?
Tough question, I know.
Cheers.
Why is that? What is natural vability right now? Isnt AGW a matter of whats causing climate to change, not whether the change is unique?
DAVE SAYS
My answer is it has happened zillions of times in the past.
Long before AGW theory came to be.
Just look at the historical climatic record, this period of time does not stand out at all.
Salvatore: what causes climate to change?
When the balance of energy coming into and leaving the earth is changed.
What causes this I say the sun.
If the overall sea surface temperatures decline which they are and the albedo increases just slightly you can say good bye to global warming.
Salvatore, so you’re saying the Sun is the only natural factor that can cause climate to change???
Until it does AGW is not proven.
Isnt AGW a matter of what causes the climate to change, not necessarily how fast its changing? (It is.)
AGW is suppose to reduce OLR , which is suppose to cause the planet to warm.
So if true global temperatures should continue a slow rise as each year passes overall.
I say it is not going to happen from this point on.
No Salvatore. The planet is heating up in order to RESTORE the TOA enjergy balance, which is in imbalance by about 0.7 W/m2. It will continue warming until balance is restored.
Wrong David.
Prove it if you think you are correct.
but the warming is over David. It is ending which you can’t see.
As I said what rules the climate is overall sea surface temperatures and albedo.
DA,
As Salvatore said *Prove it*!
You are the one that stupidly keeps demanding proof from others. How many degrees in 0.7 W/m2? Dont know? How stupid is a comparison like that? Pretty stupid.
Cheers.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
but the warming is over David.
Oh come on. You’ve been saying the warming has ended for two decades. When are you going to admit you were wrong?
DA,
A brilliant gotcha? You pose the gotcha, then give the required answer! Why go through the farce of asking?
Stupid. The climate changes as the average of weather from which climate is derived changes. Once youve worked out why weather changes (it does), and how to usefully predict changes (you cant), then someone might seek your advice.
Until then – so sad, too bad.
Cheers.
At this stage I have DA well in front with the number of MF “stupid” accusations.
I am trying to catch up but must defer to an apparently much smarter commentator.
Thanks to MF for making this competition possible.
Dr N,
You are most welcome. My pleasure.
Cheers.
Dr. No,
You would have to change your demeanor to stand the least chance.
Additionally, you would have to make the effort.
David, usually without fail, maintains the demeanor and the energy to stay in front. But give it your best shot. My guess is you’ll fade quickly before the first turn.
According to forecasts, there is now a frost in the east of the US. In the north east it is still snowing.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/2n60gk6xu44c.png
Salvatore,
Leif does not have a clue when it comes to the climate.
Leif has decades of dedicated experience as a solar physicist.
If direct solar has an influence more than anything else, we should be seeing temps during the latest solar minimum like they were at the beginning of the 20th century. Because the latest solar minimum is the lowest since that time.
But we’re seeing global temps about 1C warmer.
What do you make of that?
Secondly AGW has nothing to stand on because the climate is not unique at this time.
I asked what you meant by ‘unique’. It is a vague word.
4.5 billion years ago the surface temp was 1000C. We won’t see that again for a couple billion years when the sun expands and fries the planet.
When you say ‘unique’, is that in reference to the entire life span of the planet?
Or do you mean something else?
Barry time will tell as I said this year is key.
I remember. For NH summer, global temps will be at or below the UAH baseline – 0C anomaly or less.
That’s your prediction. In 3 months your prediction starts. We’ll have the result by early September.
The decrease in solar activity weakens the jet streams. Look at the high in the South Pacific.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=samer2×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Will this strengthen La Nina?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
The climate always changes in long periods of time. Climate in North America, Europe and South America. The least changes in Australia.
I suggest many of the inputs Salvatore considers in his analysis have great influence. Further, I believe the Milankovitch theory is correct.
If so, we are at the end of the long period of moderate weather and climate and will be returning to colder periods. Lucky for those of us here, we won’t have to deal with the societal stress that will cause.
Mass starvation and the resulting wars are in the offing.
Lewis I think we are on to something.
Milankovich cycles ,land sea arrangements, land mean elevation for the big climate picture with solar, geo magnetic field strength superimposed over this, with finally major volcanic activity and ENSO superimposed upon the previous but influenced by solar conditions to some extent.
Salvatore, why do you exclude greenhouse gases?
Lewis says:
March 9, 2018 at 4:46 AM
… Further, I believe the Milankovitch theory is correct.
*
Until recently, as I discovered
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
I had a meaning quite similar to yours.
This short, sober info helped me
– to better understand the three cycles (eccentricity, axial tilt, precession);
– To better determine our current position in them.
We are now, for all the three, in the best possible situation.
That is why in the next 40 years we will appreciate the importance of changes in solar activity.
ren says:
March 9, 2018 at 7:38 AM
‘That is why in the next 40 years we will appreciate the importance of changes in solar activity’.
*
On the contrary, I think that precisely because we actually live in a kind of “multiple Milankovitch center”, even co-occurring solar minima (Maunder, Spöhr, Wolf etc) will affect humanity less than if we were currently experiencing negative Milankovitch conditions.
Lewis says:
I suggest many of the inputs Salvatore considers in his analysis have great influence. Further, I believe the Milankovitch theory is correct.
Science does too. (Although it thinks the climate’s sensitivity is much lower than Salvatore seems to think — I’ve never been able to pin him down on that.) Milankovitch factors, certainly.
But Lewis, why do you exclude greenhouse gases from the factors that influence climate? And volcanic explosions?
Lag times Barry ,and in addition solar was way above my criteria from 2011-2016.
Secondly the climate is not unique if one just goes back 2000 years in time much less 20000 years in time as far as warmth or rate of warming. Not even close.
Yes this year is the turn year and so far global temperatures according to satellite data are cooler then last year but this has to al play out.
Finally Leif is a close minded fool, who is full of himself.
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/study-charts-2000-years-of-continental-climate-changes/
Barry here is your answer and why I believe this period of time in the climate just is not unique.
Notice they have low solar/volcanic activity on the chart which is presented.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=8xKSEuiR&id=B02FE4C01E092C8F328AE109C125E6674738EA6E&thid=OIP.8xKSEuiRH9JjS1kBu54fpAHaEl&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fthetruthpeddler.files.wordpress.com%2f2010%2f09%2fmedieval-warm-chart.jpg&exph=945&expw=1524&q=graph+of+medieval+warm+period&simid=608047627607867873&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0
Look at the data in the above Barry.
The chart is a doctored version of the original. It states that the ice core records are from Vostok and Taylor Dome. This is not the case. The 2 ice cores were Dronning Maud Land and Dome C.
The doctored chart implies that the most recent date in the ice core is about 2005 (when CO2 was at 288ppm). The most recent date for the ice core is actually 1912.
A figure of 275ppm CO2 is labeled above the warmest part of the chart 140,000 years ago, during the period of the previous interglacial. That figure is actually for the lowest temps of the graph – the bottom of the last ice age.
A second temperature line has been completely removed from the chart. Appalling dishonesty.
If you get your science from blog posts, you are crazy. This chart came from ‘thetruthpeddler’. It’s full of lies.
Here’s the actual study that the graph came from. You can see exactly how much the original was doctored.
http://epic.awi.de/19826/1/Ste2009a.pdf
I will not waste any more time with references to blogs. This was atrocious.
You are no scientist. Not even close. How dare you offer up such chicanery.
As if AGW proponents have not manipulated everything in order to make their theory have merit.
AGW enthusiast never accept data which runs counter to what they want the data to be.
Again when the climate becomes unique which it is no where close to being then maybe you can sell me on AGW theory.
What has been manipulated, Salvatore?
DA…”What has been manipulated, Salvatore?”
NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut surface records.
Gordon, what is your proof they have manipulated? What is your evidence?
(when CO2 was at 288ppm)
Typo – 388ppm
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/study-charts-2000-years-of-continental-climate-changes/
Regional climate change. Again.
The extent of the snow cover in the northern hemisphere is also growing.
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_sce.png
A clear drop in temperature on Svalbard since early March.
https://www.wunderground.com/personal-weather-station/dashboard?ID=ISVALBAR3#history/s20180207/e20180309/mmonth
The frost goes back to northern Florida.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00960/pdi6vsr8bia4.png
Salvatore,
Thank you for giving a reference frame for ‘unique.’ Let’s explore it.
Secondly the climate is not unique if one just goes back 2000 years in time much less 20000 years in time as far as warmth or rate of warming. Not even close.
Let’s take 2000 years as a start.
When in the last 2000 years was the centennial rate of GLOBAL warming faster than the rate from the beginning of the 20th century?
I’ve emphasised global so we don’t mix that up with regional changes.
And can you supply some decent reference for your reply, please?
Many times the rate of warming has been faster even going back just 2000 years.
Without some specific references, I am forced to assume that your claim is empty.
You can change that very simply by citing material about GLOBAL warming over the last 2000 years at a rate faster than the last century.
A couple of peer-reviewed studies would be the least you could supply.
Barry it does not matter because what matters is what is going to happen going forward from here.
I see.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Many times the rate of warming has been faster even going back just 2000 years.
When?
look at my post sent 7:13am
But you will not accept it because it does not support AGW theory.
Only one thing may change your mind David and that would be a long steady global temperature drop, that aside I do not think anything can change your mind.
Salvatore, it’s a simple question: when was the world warming as fast as it is now over the last 2000 years?
Cartoons aren’t accepted. I want real data.
What is fastest it’s been warming now?
I suspect there isn’t agreement.
How is it possible to have more agreement about fastest rate
of warming in past as compared to now?
A good point. Yet Salvatore seems certain.
Finally Leif is a close minded fool, who is full of himself.
Leif has studied the sun for more than 50 years. He is a recognized expert on sunspots and heliomagnetic activity who has published over 200 papers with 4600 cites, including papers on solar effects on the Earth.
His years of his experience do not make him right, but neither does your substanceless maligning make him wrong. I doubt you have a hundredth of his knowledge of the sun.
Yes as long as he sticks to the sun he is not a climate expert in the least.
His knowledge of why /how the climate changes is weak to say the least.
His knowledge about the sun itself is vast but by no way does it make him a climate expert. He is a solar expert.
Salvatore: So what makes you a climate expert?
I never said I was.
How about you Dave are you a climate expert?
Salvatore, you sure act like a climate expert, telling us what the temperatures are going to be, telling us what matters and what doesn’t. Even as you reject real experts….
http://climatechange.donfarmer.me/20000-year-perspective-10c-variation/
Barry when you go back just 20000 years the rate of warming this past century does not even come close to rates of warming in the rather recent past.
Which tell us the climate is not unique and natural variability has caused the earth to warm at rates much faster then what has happened recently.
Based on work about GREENLAND warming, not <GLOBALwarming.
You and your guys trot the same thing out every time. The GIPS2 Greenland ice core. There is no analogue for this warming in the Antarctic cores. It’s not a GLOBAL event.
The article also mentions Don Easterbrook – the person who originated the sudden global warming based on one ice core. He predicted immediate global cooling ever since 2006. And he keeps saying it year after year. Like you.
I asked you to corroborate your claim about the last 2000 years. You said, “it doesn’t matter.” Well, of course you did, because you have nothing to corroborate your claim for that period.
So you trot out – not a peer-reviewed study – but a blog post. which is not about GLOBAL change, but sudden change in GREENLAND temperatures.
I bolded GLOBAL predicting that you would refer to a regional example. I knew it was coming. It’s the usual low-grade effort from ‘skeptics’.
I will look
Actually, Easterbrook’s original prediction was for cooling to begin in 2000. It is hard to keep up with his many revisions. These people depend on people not recalling their earlier predictions.
Current temperature in North America.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/gbtnp4pbh0tg.png
This is the current distribution of ozone in the lower stratosphere. Compare this with the temperature in North America.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/qx6lbq0qw8np.png
NAIRAS shows that galactic radiation is absorbed by ozone.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00960/y82dnj8n83y8.png
barry
GCR is the source of additional energy in the winter in the lower stratosphere over the polar circle (in the absence of ultraviolet radiation). Ionization O2 can increase the amount of ozone and temperature in the lower stratosphere. This blocks the polar vortex.
“GCR of energies <10^11 eV are the only factor of ionization of the air between 5 km and 35 km, and have a contribution to the ionization up to 90 km in the daytime and up to 100 km at night. Their 11-year variations during the solar cycle lead to changes in stratospheric conductivity, so that it is larger during solar minimum than during solar maximum, respectively."
So ionization of O2 in the atmosphere occurs in line with the 11-year solar cycle.
Do you think we see this cycle in the temperature data?
Is it possible “tropical LT anomalies” could be changed ??
What exactly do you mean here?
binny…”What exactly do you mean here?”
The meaning is that little or no warming has occurred in the Tropics over the UAH record. Mostly no warming at all. Most warming has been in the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere with less warming in the Southern Hemisphere.
It’s all in the UAH 33 year report.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The meaning is that little or no warming has occurred in the Tropics over the UAH record.”
This is false.
UAH LT v6.0 Tropics show a trend of +0.12 C/decade.
The global trend is +0.13 C/decade.
The LT tropics are warming almost as fast as the globe it.
Gordon avoids responding when he’s wrong. Not even an “oops.”
Robertson is even not intelligent enough to anticipate how redundant his answer would be.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
Barry how about this?
Looks interesting at a first glance.
Excepted the somewhat disappointing fact that
‘Because of the widespread adoption of the metric system, most countries worldwide including non-metric Liberia and Burma use Celsius as their official temperature scale. Only a few countries use Fahrenheit as their official scale: the United States, Belize, Palau, the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands.’
Salvatore, what is the source of this data? Where was it originally published? Where can I look at it and examine its methodology?
Salvatore, you found a blog cartoon.
Try google scholar for science:
https://scholar.google.se/
I appreciate you making the attempt, Salvatore, but I will not accept blog science.
At the bottom of the page you linked you can see the provenance of the chart:
1. A 1976 book written by a computer programmer and a business consultant
2. A book written by an economist
One of these authors has published a single paper in the scientific literature in 1968 – on computer technology. It has garnered zero cites.
No data at all.
I don’t know where these people come from or why you think they have any credibility, but please, cite from the peer-reviewed literature, where it is at least possible to source actual data.
Practice skepticism. Don’t just google any old stuff from anywhere without looking into it. My ‘research’ on the chart took 5 minutes to learn it was fluff.
David this is one of hundreds of charts that show essentially the same data.
I choose to believe them you may not.
Models agree that during the Great Solar Minimum, the biggest drop in temperature in the northern hemisphere in winter will be in the east of North America.
This is related to the negative AO.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif
Salvatore Derl Prete says:
“David this is one of hundreds of charts that show essentially the same data.
I choose to believe them you may not”
Why would you believe a chart when you can’t analyze its source(s) or review the methodology of those who put forth the data?
It seems like you are fine with any data the conforms your biases, and reject any data that does not.
That’s not science, Salvatore. You’re not interested in science at all.
salvatore…”The turn is happening as global temperatures are not making any progress going upwards”.
Hope you’re not taking that from NOAA data, or GISS, or Had-crut. Anytime they see a decline that counters AGW they ‘hide’ it. Remember, ‘hide the decline’?
Phil Jones admitted in the Climategate email scandal to hiding declining temperatures. We know NOAA fudges temperatures then hands them to GISS where they are fudged more.
No satellite data is the ONLY objective data and only data I use.
Dr. Spencer can be trusted in my opinion. He has no agenda, and is opened to everything to one degree or another even solar to some degree.
You are heavily biased.
davie, you are the most heavily-biased clown on this blog.
Hope that helps.
(Not counting rabid chihuahuas, of course.)
Gordon Robertson says:
“Phil Jones admitted in the Climategate email scandal to hiding declining temperatures.”
That’s a lie, and you know it, because you’ve been corrected many times before.
How can anyone discuss science, or anything, with someone who routinely lies?
DA (aka dumbass)…”Gordon Robertson says:
Phil Jones admitted in the Climategate email scandal to hiding declining temperatures.
Thats a lie, and you know it, because youve been corrected many times before”.
*********
read it and weep, not only did Jones admit to hiding declining temps he also interfered in peer review and deleted emails to prevent Steve McIntyre getting access to his data.
Your buddy Trenberth is also implicated. Maybe you ask him about that next time you butt kiss him in an interview.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html
Gordon Robertson says:
“read it and weep, not only did Jones admit to hiding declining temps”
That’s a lie, Gordon — Jones was not talking about real global temperatures.
I think you know this.
But you are willing to lie about it for the sake of your ideology. You are not after the truth, Gordon.
“Phil Jones wrote the email in 1999, immediately following what still ranks as one of the hottest years on record, and well before the idea of a “slowdown” or “hiatus” or even “decline” in warming gained currency.
So it can’t have had anything to do with hiding a global temperature decline.
If it were a scientific idea, the notion that it did would be consigned to the garbage bin of history alongside perpetual motion machines, the steady-state theory of the cosmos and the idea of HIV/Aids as a gay-only disease.
It’s that wrong.”
https://tinyurl.com/yckpxcnr
svante…”So it cant have had anything to do with hiding a global temperature decline”.
Jones admitted to hiding declining temperatures so of course that’s not what he meant.
Do any of you alarmists have an ability to think objectively?
svante…part 2…”svanteSo it cant have had anything to do with hiding a global temperature decline”.
If you look at the UAH record for the 1990’s it shows relatively below average temperatures. Both Mann and Jones of Had-crut show positive trends. Both admit to hiding declines.
Are you that naive, Svante? I know DA is that naive but I had higher hopes for you.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Both Mann and Jones of Had-crut show positive trends. Both admit to hiding declines.”
More lies.
Gordon, you don’t know what the f you’re talking about. So you lie and impugn good people based on your lies.
That’s very, very low, Gordon.
DA…”More lies.
Gordon, you dont know what the f youre talking about. So you lie and impugn good people based on your lies.
Thats very, very low, Gordon.”
********
And you cannot offer a rebuttal because I supplied the facts from the Climategate emails. Were Mann and Jones lying when they admitted to scientific misconduct in the emails? No, they were telling the truth because they thought no one would ever hear them talking like that.
Even your buddy Trenberth admitted the warming had stopped but he did not share that with the public. Rather he shared it with his peer group off the record thinking no one would ever hear him admit it. What do you call that other than dishonesty?
The dishonesty is with those you are trying to defend, which makes you just as dishonest as them. Furthermore, those are the types you interview for your science (??) articles while ignoring skeptical input. That makes you even more dishonest.
Gordon, you lied about the meaning of “hide the decline.”
You know you lied, because you’ve been corrected many times.
Just like you’re again lying about Trenberth.
Gordon, who do you think is going to believe you on anything when you’re been caught lying several times now?
“Hide the decline” was about this:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf
It was discussed in published papers so they didn’t hide it very well.
Gordon Robertson says:
“If you look at the UAH record for the 1990s it shows relatively below average temperatures. Both Mann and Jones of Had-crut show positive trends.”
UAH shows a positive trend for the 1990’s, and temperatures above earlier averages.
Can someone help replace trends with averages here?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1980/to:1999/plot/uah6/from:1990/to:1999/trend//plot/uah6/from:1980/to:1989/trend
-0.13. AND 0.
The midpoints of each trendline.
Thanks Nate.
Strange that they don’t have a way to put a horizontal average line in. Mean is a rolling mean that loses at beginning/end, so if you specify a large number you get nothing.
Your method is clever, so I think Gordon will see the truth and become an avid alarmist.
The word for today is fractious.
Gordon what needs to happen is a long sustained drop in global temperatures to keep them quite.
That is the ONLY way it will happen.
I think we could get it.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Gordon what needs to happen is a long sustained drop in global temperatures to keep them quite.”
Keep wishing. The world is only going to get warmer — just as its done all the time you said it was going to get colder.
Salvatore, why are you so anti-AGW? I don’t see that your opposition is based on evidence, so what is you real issue with it?
salvatore…”Gordon what needs to happen is a long sustained drop in global temperatures to keep them quite.
That is the ONLY way it will happen.
I think we could get it.”
*******
I’m on your side Salvatore, the word fractious was not aimed at you. I just threw it in for some mindless humour.
Hang in there, what you say makes sense. If it does not happen any time soon, be comforted by the fact that nature has strange ways of doing business.
A reversal in the phase of the PDO a while back was expected to bring cooling and it did not happen. As John Christy of UAh has claimed, climate science is a complex business and it cannot be reduced to pat answers.
Gordon Robertson says:
“A reversal in the phase of the PDO a while back was expected to bring cooling and it did not happen.”
When was that? Says who?
A few years the PDO flipped to a positive phase:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest
Gordon, you do realize, I hope, that the PDO is a natural variation, so by itself it says nothing about anthropogenic warming…?
DA…”Gordon, you do realize, I hope, that the PDO is a natural variation, so by itself it says nothing about anthropogenic warming?”
There is no such thing as anthropogenic warming, it’s a myth. The warming that has occurred is from natural variations like the PDO, AMO, ENSO, etc. And rewarming from the Little Ice Age.
Who needs an AGW theory?
Gordon Robertson says:
“There is no such thing as anthropogenic warming, its a myth.”
Prove that human emissions of GHGs have no changed the climate.
Gordon Robertson says:
The warming that has occurred is from natural variations like the PDO, AMO, ENSO, etc.
How do natural variations add heat to the climate system?
svante…”Gordon says:
Anyone can see acceleration or velocity, no time required.
I say no one can see acceleration or velocity without time.”
***********
Then you have never seen a dragster accelerate from 0 to 100 mph in 3 seconds? Or a jetliner accelerate from a stopped position to well over 100 mph so it can get airborne? You don’t need a clock to see it, the change in velocity is clearly visible.
The jet airliner seems to start very slowly, then it goes faster, and faster. That’s acceleration and it’s totally visible.
As for velocity, you can see it in any moving device. In non-vector form you can call it speed. Never seen speed, svante, without having to refer to a clock?
Ever seen inertia? Have you ever watched someone trying to get a car moving by pushing from the rear? How about momentum, with someone trying to stop a car that is slowly moving forward by pushing against the motion?
Every time you look up at the Moon at night you are witnessing momentum in the Moon’s motion. Momentum is essentially velocity with the degree of momentum being the product of mass and velocity.
David Appell has fallen for the more complex mathematical formula which I’m sure he does not understand.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Then you have never seen a dragster accelerate from 0 to 100 mph in 3 seconds?”
I thought you said time was an illusion? So what do you mean by “3 seconds?”
DA…”I thought you said time was an illusion? So what do you mean by 3 seconds?”
I also pointed out that humans invented time to measure rates of change. Had I not mentioned 3 seconds you’d never have understood how quickly the dragster was accelerating.
Unfortunately we need reference time in order to communicate, however, the time we reference is ingrained in our thoughts, not a separate reality or dimension.
Gordon: Why did humans refer to time, if it’s an illusion?
If time isn’t real, what separates my comment from yours? What separates today from yesterday? From the Big Bang to the present??
There is no change without time.
svante…”There is no change without time”.
Ok, keep repeating your mantra. If there were no humans on Earth, no clocks, nothing would change????
You are suffering the effects of the Cosmic Joke. It’s about us being born with a brain that does not work right and the joke is that we think it works perfectly fine.
If you want to stop being the butt of this joke you need to become aware. Believe it or not, awareness is built into your brain and just begging to be set free. With a monstrous ego shackling awareness it can be tough.
The trick, Svante, is to get your ego out of the way and LOOK. Go on, try it. It might surprise you to find that the Sun does not rise in the morning and travel across the sky as it orbits the Earth. If that makes you happy, then by all means carry on the illusion.
Once you solve that conundrum, if you ever do, perhaps you will be more open to the stupidity in your comment above that change requires time.
Gordon, you taunted Svante here — you did not address his point. You avoided it completely.
Define change without no reference to time. Go ahead.
DA…”Define change without no reference to time. Go ahead.”
Your comprehension and inability to see beyond the end of your noise prevents you understanding.
Change goes on all the time on the planet with no relation to time. Mountains corrode as pieces of them come loose due to weathering and fall due to gravity. Soils erode due to wind and water. Even rocks decompose due to the effect of wind and water.
It’s all change. Did I mention time as having anything to do with the change?
Only the human mind needs to keep tract of change. That’s why it invented time. Nature has no interest in the human mind or its invention. Nature changes due to natural forces, not time.
Even you change day to day as your cells change. The change in cells in not driven by time rather time is simply a measuring device required by humans to keep tract of aging. The process of aging has absolutely nothing to do with time.
Here’s a question to ponder, if there is no time, which there isn’t, would we stop aging? If you think so, you are even more stupid than I thought.
However, if it comforts you to think there is another dimension called time that no one can demonstrate, fill your boots.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Change goes on all the time on the planet with no relation to time.”
GORDON: DEFINE “CHANGE.”
Define it. What do you mean by “change?”
Gordon Robertson says:
Even you change day to day as your cells change. The change in cells in not driven by time rather time is simply a measuring device required by humans to keep tract of aging.
No one claims “time” is driving change.
But you at least admit time exists and is a measuring device.
So no one other than humans can admit there is time? Time is solely depending on humans existing?? There was no time before humans?
Gordon Robertson says:
1) Change goes on all the time.
2) with no relation to time.
Gordon says:
“Did I mention time as having anything to do with the change?”
Yes you did:
1) “Change goes on all the time”.
GR:
‘Its about us being born with a brain that does not work right”
Speak for yourself please.
dr no…”GR:
Its about us being born with a brain that does not work right
Speak for yourself please.”
Nope, I am speaking of you. I have already seen the truth in that and taken steps to correct it. Based on your comments here you are still very much the butt of the Cosmic Joke.
That’s why me, g*r, Mike, and Lewis find you all so hilarious.
Gordon Robertson says:
Thats why me, g*r, Mike, and Lewis find you all so hilarious.
Wrong is wrong, whether it comes from one person, or a million.
In science, only what you can prove matters, not how many people believe you.
Gordon Robertson says:
“David Appell has fallen for the more complex mathematical formula which Im sure he does not understand.”
Gordon, v=dx/dt is neither complex nor difficult to understand. It’s taught in high school in the first few weeks of physics.
DA…”Gordon Robertson says:
David Appell has fallen for the more complex mathematical formula which Im sure he does not understand.
Gordon, v=dx/dt is neither complex nor difficult to understand. Its taught in high school in the first few weeks of physics”.
I was talking about your recent lame offering for momentum rather than my offering of p = mv. Most simplified equations we offer are simplified versions of a more complex formula. There was no need for me to offer more than p = mv since it applied to my description of the definition of a photon.
Even Craig Bohren, a physicist who takes pride in his ability to understand science at a basic level is satisfied with p = mv. The point I was trying to make is that we humans tend to define nature mathematically then presume our definition represents nature. Or more arrogantly, that nature obeys our definitions.
Oh, yes — your definition of momentum is incorrect.
You never learned special relativity.
Why is the relativistic definition so difficult for you to accept?
E^2 = p^2 + m^2
This reduces to your definition when c << 1.
binny…”The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)!”
Again…notice the ‘should’.
You are worried about the effect of gravity on time. For one, gravity has no effect on time since time has no existence. The thought experiment offered in that regard insists that time is lost somehow due to relative motion between receiver and transmitter, and/or altitude.
Allow me to fill you in on how that is taken care of in real electronic communications. GPS systems rely on signals synchronized between the satellite and ground station, not on highly philosophical thought experiments about time dilation.
The local clock on the satellite is a highly accurate atomic clock that will not change it’s oscillation with gravity. All that is required in the sat transmission is a sample of the local clock signal. The receiving station will sync onto that sample and bring the two timebase signals into EXACT alignment. Of course, the ground station has it’s own clock and it’s own time system, that differs from the time system on the sat.
No relativity required!!! Well, maybe a bit, but not involving time dilation. Obviously, the ground station is on a rotating Earth and the sat is moving at a different velocity. However, the signals between them are moving at the speed of light, making relative motion a moot point.
All that’s required is sync signals sent in the sat transmission so the two can be in alignment at the same time. Obviously, the ground station may send sync signals to the sat as well, perhaps to reset its clock.
You cannot reset an atom clock’s vibration but the frequency an atomic clock runs at is super fast. It has to be divided down to form the ‘second’ we derived from sub-dividing the period of the Earth’s rotation. Electronic devices that sub-divide the atomic clock frequency can intercede to change the final time output.
Please note that atomic clocks do not suffer time dilation, they don’t even know about time. An atomic clock operates via precise vibrations in the atomic structure and those vibrations are entirely due to inter-atomic forces.
Gordon, let’s see you cite an expert who says gravity has no effect on GPS positioning systems.
Just one.
DA…”Gordon, lets see you cite an expert who says gravity has no effect on GPS positioning systems”.
I don’t need to, in this case I am the expert. There is no provisions for gravity or its effect in communications systems.
You are making GPS sound like a seriously complex comm system. It is implemented using basic electronics components, none of which can deal with time as an input. All electronic components operate on voltages and currents and the signals presented as voltages need to be conditioned with information the electronics can decode.
The main difference between GPS and the older Loran C is that GPS uses satellites in orbit with stationary ground stations. Communication between the sat and ground station is essentially instantaneous since the comm signals travel at the speed of light.
Loran C depended on two signals from different transmitters and they were triangulated to give accuracy to within 600 feet. GPS triangulates three sat signals to reduce error and to allow the use of cheaper clocks in portable equipment. With signals from 4 sats, position of latitude, longitude, and altitude can be determined accurately.
There is no need to bring time dilation into the equation. It’s an argument for techno-weenies who have gotten themselves tied up in mental confusion regarding special relativity who are trying to sound impressive. The issue with time is in the satellite clocks due to the fact the sats are moving so fast.
The time and other information transmitted by the sats has to be very accurate, especially the time. That’s all, there is no sci-fi going on with regard to special relativity. Algorithms in the receiving equipment calculate position based on look up tables in their ROM. Even the handheld receivers can automatically select which sats are in view.
Gordon Robertson says:
>> DAGordon, lets see you cite an expert who says gravity has no effect on GPS positioning systems. <<
"I dont need to, in this case I am the expert."
So Gordon, what have you published on the subject? What technical specifics have you drawn up? What GPS projects have you been a part of? What GPS companies have you worked for?
Can you recommend someone in the field who can verify you're an expert?
Jeez. Time has just slowed down again while GR posts. I_____must__________stay______________awake__________________
dr no…”Time has just slowed down again while GR posts. I_____must__________stay______________awake__________”
Trust me, it’s a lack of serotonin and old age. A good wallop of Prozak should fix you up.
Or lock yourself in a shed with a kangaroo in heat. Also, stay with from sheep, that kind of perversion has to affect your brain.
GR, thanks for the advice. It may have worked for you but I will stick to coffee.
p.s. how are your lambs ?
Off-topic but this reminds me of a classic cricketing sledge.
Cricketer A to cricketer B:
How is your wife and my children?
Cricketer B:
My wife is fine but the children are retarded.
Low solar equates to overall lower sea surface temperature due to less UV light which can be off up to 10% in extreme solar minimums.
Low solar equates to a slightly higher albedo due to an increase in galactic cosmic rays if the earths magnetic field is weakening which it is. This could result in greater cloud coverage which will cause an increase in albedo. In addition low solar is associated with an increase in MAJOR volcanic activity when the earths magnetic field is weakening, which is another way the albedo of the earth can be increased.
Low solar due to less EUV light can cause a more meridional atmospheric circulation which could increase the albedo due to promoting greater cloud/snow coverage.
Lower sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo is what will govern the climate not CO2.
AGW THEORY IS A FRAUD PUT UPON THE PUBLIC WHICH IS GOING TO FALL FLAT ON ITS FACE.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Low solar equates to overall lower sea surface temperature due to less UV light which can be off up to 10% in extreme solar minimums.”
Salvatore: Solar TSI is near a cyclic low, but SSTs are near a record high.
So where is the correlation?
lag times David which is at least 10+ years which we now have.
They have started down now and will continue to go down. Right now +.279c
Salvatore, why is there a lag time?
Say, less energy goes into the ocean. Why does it take 10 years for the ocean to notice?
DA,
Say, imagine you are smart. See, any fantasy can happen in your imagination!
Cheers.
Also, you keep saying AGW is a fraud, but you’ve avoided a simple question:
* do greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation?
DA,
Ill answer for him.
Indeed they do. As do all gases, unless you believe that there exists a gas which can neither be heated or cooled. Or a mixture – say air in a dark enclosure at 20 C. Work out the wavelength of the radiation emitted by the walls, and tell me its not infrared.
Your question is completely pointless and irrelevant question, of course
In return, heres a quite pointed and relevant question for you – when energy is emitted by the Earths surface, does the surface –
a) Drop in temperature, or
b) Rise in temperature , or
c) Result in no change at all?
Do you wish to continue to the point where everyone else has no choice but to admit that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter?
Or do you just want to have tantrum, and run off and hide?
You claim you want to discuss science. Heres your chance. Keep going and everyone will soon discover why nobody has managed to find a testable GHE hypothesis.
If anybody else wants to participate, feel free. Multiple choice question – the answer is fairly obvious.
You will no doubt try to respond with an ever more desperate series of ever more stupid attempts at gotchas, but I live in hope.
Cheers.
Three points to me.
1. asking a gotcha.
2. using the word “gotcha.”
3. “stupid”
salvatore…”AGW THEORY IS A FRAUD PUT UPON THE PUBLIC WHICH IS GOING TO FALL FLAT ON ITS FACE”.
I agree but I would not hold my breath waiting for it to happen. Once politicians latch onto a goldmine like carbon taxes they won’t let go anytime soon. Same goes for unscrupulous researchers who will milk the AGW scam till it runs dry.
You are correct Gordon but if temperatures decline we will have a field day.
Salvatore, hasn’t 20 years of being wrong change your thinking in any way at all???
DA,
Havent many years of being stupid and ignorant taught you anything?
Cheers.
“Havent many years of being stupid and ignorant taught you anything?”
Tell us all, what has it taught you?
Dr N,
I asked first.
It has been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I appreciate your sincerity.
I also appreciate your flattery, but it will get you nowhere. Maybe you are too stupid to realise this?
Cheers.
“I asked first.”
Now, that is a really biting reply.
I will have to ask my grand-son what he does in such a situation.
“Havent many years of being stupid and ignorant taught you anything?”
Ahh yes. The old researcher conspiracy theory. The one in which nerdy, socially awkward, but very intelligent young men and women banded together to make millions out of the system. They now live in expensive mansions, driving expensive cars and living the high life at the expense of the poor, struggling, oil and coal industries. All acting as one under the direction of Al Gore, who aims to rule the world. Yes, a tragic, reprehensible tale. The only problem is that is a fairy tale.
{grin}
Dr N,
Who is more capable of posting stupid, irrelevant and pointless comments?
You, or David Appell?
Hmmm, let me ponder for a moment – nope, too hard, I cannot decide.
Cheers.
“stupid, irrelevant and pointless comments”
That is 3 points to each of us.
Thanks.
Yes they do but I think without the CO2/WATER VAPOR FEEDBACK nothing is going to happen.
I also think the environment /climate control water vapor and CO2 to a very large extent.
Salvatore — it’s difficult to know what you’re replying to here unless you quote it.
Do you think CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
DA,
Why do you ask? Do you not know?
Study physics.
Cheers.
DA, I think he means “Study soldering”.
Apparently the fumes give you great insights into the working of the universe.
Dr N,
You said you think. Are you sure?
Prove it.
Cheers.
“Prove it?”
Exhibit A your honour: One brain dead solderer and blogger by the name of Mike Flynn.
Dr N,
You cannot even prove that you think? Your so called evidence is even more irrelevant, stupid, and pointless than David Appells evidence that the Sun, at 5800 K, can heat the Earth to 760 000 K!
Even David Appell would demand citations, peer reviewed journal articles, and brightly multi coloured graphics, attesting to your ability to think!
Are you dim, perchance?
Cheers.
“is even more irrelevant, stupid, and pointless than David Appells evidence..”
Great, that means I get bonus points and puts me ahead of DA!
So now I’m behind on bonus points?
I’ll have to try harder….
+1, Dr N.
Apparently being able to solder makes one an expert in everything.
DA,
Yet another pointless, irrelevant and stupid comment.
You wont answer a simple physics question. Do you possess enough rat cunning to perceive a gotcha coming? You would be correct, if you did.
This is a real one unfortunately , not one of your puerile attempts.
I dont blame you for not answering.
Cheers.
“Yet another pointless, irrelevant and stupid comment.”
DA is catching up to me!
I think CO2 levels will decline once the oceans cool down.
“I think CO2 levels will decline once the oceans cool down.”
You mean, like, this year?
Salvatore, the evidence clearly shows that the carbon being added into the atmosphere is old, from fossil fuels:
“How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?” RealClimate, 22 December 2004.
This blog doesn’t allow links to RealClimate.
I guess that’s one way of bolstering your own science —
just block the rest.
http://www.realclimate[dot]org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
DA,
So you can censor fact out of existence – for example by claiming something really stupid, such as *The science is settled*.
Done. Good for you!
Cheers.
One point for “stupid.”
Did I miss any others?
DA,
I really wouldnt know, would I? Only you would know how stupid you really are.
Cheers.
David you need temperatures to increase from here in order for you to have a chance to be correct.
Salvatore, temperatures have been increasing steadily for over 40 years. From GHGs. Why should I think they will stop now?
We will see.
Salvatore, why have temperatures risen for (at least) the last 45 years?
What has caused this?
DA,
Why should you stop being stupid now? Why not continue the trend?
Cheers.
“Why not continue the trend?”
What trend? According to you and GR there are no such things as trends. The past cannot predict the future etc etc .. you know, the usual rubbish.
Even worse — time is an illusion, so the future is the present, as is the past. The future is the past. Everything happens all at once.
Dr N,
Learn to read. It will help to make you look less stupid. It might not cure your stupidity, but should ameliorate your ignorance.
Cheers.
MF:
“Learn to read. It will help to make you look less stupid.”
That must be what they tell you in remedial class. How is it going?
DA,
Although, at the quantum level –
Scientists from the University of Queensland, Australia, have used single particles of light (photons) to simulate quantum particles travelling through time. They showed that one photon can pass through a wormhole and then interact with its older self. Their findings were published in Nature Communications.
Carry on with your irrelevant, pointless and stupid comments.
Cheers.
Three points to me — I’m really racking them up now.
* irrelevant,
* pointless, and
* stupid
mike…”They showed that one photon can pass through a wormhole and then interact with its older self. Their findings were published in Nature Communications”.
Wouldn’t the worm get in the way?
DA…”time is an illusion, so the future is the present, as is the past. The future is the past. Everything happens all at once.”
By gum, I think you’re starting to get it. Everything happens in the same space and we call it now. Past is memories, as you know, stored as old thoughts, and future is the projection of memories from the past into a future.
Change happens in the now state where no time element exists. Funny that, isn’t it?
https://i.imgur.com/tZKS0go.png
No source, no author, no paper, no dataset, not even clear enough to read.
Those charts are not science, Salvatore, they’re just random charts put up by who knows who.
DA,
Heres a quite pointed and relevant question for you when energy is emitted by the Earths surface, does the surface
a) Drop in temperature, or
b) Rise in temperature , or
c) Result in no change at all?
Do you wish to continue to the point where everyone else has no choice but to admit that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter?
Or do you just want to have tantrum, and run off and hide?
You claim you want to discuss science. Heres your chance. Keep going and everyone will soon discover why nobody has managed to find a testable GHE hypothesis.
If anybody else wants to participate, feel free. Multiple choice question the answer is fairly obvious.
You will no doubt try to respond with an ever more desperate series of ever more stupid attempts at gotchas, but I live in hope.
Cheers.
Two points to me.
1) “gotcha”
2) “stupid”
DA,
And yet, no answer. I wish you all the best with awarding yourself points. Are they worth anything to you?
Cheers.
look at what I just sent David.
You put up a cartoon. No sourcing at all.
DA,
Heres a quite pointed and relevant question for you when energy is emitted by the Earths surface, does the surface
a) Drop in temperature, or
b) Rise in temperature , or
c) Result in no change at all?
Do you wish to continue to the point where everyone else has no choice but to admit that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter?
Or do you just want to have tantrum, and run off and hide?
You claim you want to discuss science. Heres your chance. Keep going and everyone will soon discover why nobody has managed to find a testable GHE hypothesis.
If anybody else wants to participate, feel free. Multiple choice question the answer is fairly obvious.
You will no doubt try to respond with an ever more desperate series of ever more stupid attempts at gotchas, but I live in hope.
Cheers.
Much as I would like to, I am afraid that I must invoke your self-imposed rule of never answering “foolish”, “gotcha” questions.
Cheers.
Dr N,
You are afraid to, because you see the implications. No GHE whatever. Good luck. Retreat back into your fantasy.
Cheers.
No no no.
Although I have the perfect answer, you must work it out yourself!
Dr No:
Here is an excellent description of what GHGs do in the atmo, and why there’s a GHE:
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
Dr N,
Ah. The perfect answer – obviously tucked away with the testable GHE hypothesis, the CO2 heating theory, and Trenberths missing heat. No to mention Michael Manns missing Nobel Prize.
Cheers
DA,
You have quoted me correctly, no doubt.
How does this apply to the non-existent testable GHE hypothesis? Not at all?
Thats what I thought. Just another irrelevant, pointless and stupid comment, avoiding discussing real science.
Cheers.
The perfect answer.
DA has just provided you with a clue.
But wait, I have just noticed he is referring to your quote from 12 months ago.
Surely, you must be well on your way to working it out by now.
But then again, I hear that effect of soldering fumes does slow down brain function.
Dr N,
It is highly unlikely that either you or DA have found your missing clues. You remain clueless.
Cheers
One point awarded for “clueless.”
Gordon Robertson says:
The meaning is that little or no warming has occurred in the Tropics over the UAH record.
This is false.
UAH LT v6.0 Tropics show a trend of +0.12 C/decade.
The global trend is +0.13 C/decade.
The LT tropics are warming almost as fast as the globe it.
DA…”The LT tropics are warming almost as fast as the globe it”.
The truth is the Tropics are not warming and you’re an idiot.
Oh dear.
The clueless, ignorant, stupid, and irrelevant appear to have mislaid their testable GHE hypothesis, amongst other things.
Oh well. All part of the rich tapestry of life, I suppose.
Cheers.
I guess there would be no chance at all of getting a response to this –
DA,
Heres a quite pointed and relevant question for you when energy is emitted by the Earths surface, does the surface
a) Drop in temperature, or
b) Rise in temperature , or
c) Result in no change at all?
Do you wish to continue to the point where everyone else has no choice but to admit that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter?
Or do you just want to have tantrum, and run off and hide?
You claim you want to discuss science. Heres your chance. Keep going and everyone will soon discover why nobody has managed to find a testable GHE hypothesis.
If anybody else wants to participate, feel free. Multiple choice question the answer is fairly obvious.
You will no doubt try to respond with an ever more desperate series of ever more stupid attempts at gotchas, but I live in hope.
Cheers.
All right then.
seeing as you have posted this three times I will give you the answer.
It is (d).
Dr N,
Another stupid, irrelevant and pointless attempt at evasion.
Well done!
Cheers.
“when energy is emitted by the Earths surface, does the surface
a) Drop in temperature, or
b) Rise in temperature , or
c) Result in no change at all?”
Some energy is ALWAYS being emitted by the surface — and it can be warming, cooling or staying the same while emitting energy.
I suspect you really mean something like “When MORE energy is being emitted by the surface than is being absorbed by the surface … “. Or equivalently, “when NET energy is emitted … “. If that is not your meaning, then clarify what you intent.
A valiant attempt at clarification Tim.
Don’t expect a coherent answer.
Tim,
So what is your answer?
Or are you just doing your best to avoid actually giving an answer? My meaning is what I said. What part of *when energy is emitted by the Earths surface* did you not understand?
Your suspicions are unfounded, as usual.
Press on.
Cheers.
What part of “energy is always emitted” did you not understand? Your statement is ambiguous at best. I will assume your meaning was as *I* said.
When net (thermal) energy is emitted by any object, it will cool (or potentially change phase). Any physics, engineering or chemistry student learns this.
Q = mcΔT
Tim,
I wasn’t referring to your recasting of my question, and you may assume what you like, of course. As you have done on the past, you endeavour to impose your meanings to what I said, presumably because you don’t like, (or pretend not to understand), what I mean.
In the past, as I recollect, you objected to my saying that CO2 could be heated by compression or friction, by simply refusing to accept that adiabatic heating results in increased temperature, and insisting that I should have used the word warming, rather than heating, In which case you would have understood!
And so it is here.
So let me simplify things for you. If one photon is emitted from the surface, and you accept that an electron cannot simultaneously emit and absorb a photon, is there a net loss of energy from the surface at the time the photon is emitted? I’m probably wasting my time, because your previous love of *theoretical situations* and mindless *thought experiments* will fly out the window.
I have not mentioned other photons being absorbed or emitted, as dearly as you like me to follow you down that particular rabbit hole.
So press on, Tim. Maybe you can bring a testable GHE into existence by refusing to accept such a thing doesn’t actually exist. I’m endeavouring to demonstrate why a testable GHE hypothesis cannot exist, but I have a strange feeling you are prepared to go to extremes, wriggling and twisting, trying to avoid facing reality.
Keep trying to redefine reality to your liking – even if others refer to that action as stupidity or fantasy. Good luck.
Cheers.
“I wasnt referring to your recasting of my question”
I *DID* answer you question as written — any of your answers are possible depending on the circumstances. You need to be less ambiguous.
“So let me simplify things for you.”
OK … I’m happy to let *you* recast your question instead of me. At least now we know a bit better what you want.
“If one photon is emitted from the surface, and you accept that an electron cannot simultaneously emit and absorb a photon, is there a net loss of energy from the surface at the time the photon is emitted?”
Yes, when energy in the form of a photon leaves the surface of an object, the object will have less total thermal energy by an amount E = hf and will be cooler. I already answered that question too.
I suspect you are trying to set up a rather drawn out “gotcha”. I should be fascinating to find out where you think you are going with this. (Also, I reserve the right to address several ambiguities and potential misunderstandings still built into the question as stated, but I am trying to work with (my interpretation of) your intent with the questions.)
Tim,
You are right. It needs to be drawn out by necessity. At the risk of sounding pedantic, for the benefit of others, do you still agree with what you wrote –
Yes, when energy in the form of a photon leaves the surface of an object, the object will have less total thermal energy by an amount E = hf and will be cooler.
I am trying to resolve ambiguity, and I have noticed in the past that some commenters suddenly decide to change their views in midstream, so to speak.
I assume then, that your statement is as clear and unambiguous as you are capable of making it. Am I correct in this assumption? No tricks, Im just making sure I understand your statement correctly.
Cheers.
I think that is pretty clear and unambiguous. The action of a photon leaving an object is to remove energy. This is a cooling effect.
Of course, many OTHER things could be happening. Other photons could be arriving. There could be conduction to/from other adjacent objects. These could cause there own warming and cooling effects. The over all warming/cooling is controlled by the NET heat flow.
Tim,
The spam filter got me, I think.
Pardon the brevity, but do you accept that a photon leaving the surface can proceed to space without interacting with any atmospheric components?
I gave many examples, but all, alas, have vanished! Starlight and IR satellite pics are but a couple.
Cheers.
Certainly SOME photons leave earth’s surface, transverse the entire atmosphere, and escape to space.
Other photons do interact. They interact with dust and CO2 and clouds and N2, etc. They reflect and scatter and get absorbed.
Tim,
Thank you. Now would you agree that a photon which proceeds directly to space leaves the surface cooler? Im assuming you do, but you may have reason to disagree.
Cheers.
tim…”The action of a photon leaving an object is to remove energy. This is a cooling effect”.
The photon is the result of a reduction in kinetic energy, which is heat. It is emitted by an electron as it drops from a higher energy state to a lower energy state.
It should be noted that the process is not reversible when the photon(s) come from a cooler source, like our atmosphere.
************
“When net (thermal) energy is emitted by any object, it will cool (or potentially change phase). Any physics, engineering or chemistry student learns this.
Q = mcΔT”
There is no such thing as the emission of net thermal energy. Heat cannot be emitted via radiation and any of the students you mention would know that if any of them understood heat and it’s properties.
Heat must first be converted to EM for radiation. It is EM being radiated, not heat.
The equation you supplied refers to heat transfer in a solid, not through the atmosphere. The Q is real heat (aka kinetic energy), not the electromagnetic energy found in radiation.
No matter where the photon goes, it leaves the surface cooler. The destination is immaterial.
… just like a photon that gets absorbed — no matter where it comes from — will be a warming influence.
Tim,
Thanks again.
Now if that photon, having left the surface cooler, interacts with a CO2 molecule, and another photon is emitted to be absorbed by the surface, can the surface regain the heat which it lost when it emitted the original photon?
The answer is that even if the CO2 emits a photon exactly as energetic as the one it absorbed, the best that can happen is the surface regains the energy it has lost, it can raise its temperature tp that which applied before the photon was emitted. No matter how many photons are returned by CO2, there can be no increase in temperature.
And as you have agreed, not all photons emitted from the surface are returned to the surface, with many escaping directly to space.
Do you agree, or have you reservations, so far? I will proceed to external energy sources shortly, if you will allow.
Cheers.
That all sounds good. You are basically describing earth at night and describing how CO2 slows the cooling rate.
(Of course, there are many other things happening in the atmosphere that we might need to be considered. And incoming sunlight will matter greatly. I guess you could all these my ‘reservations’ about your description so far.)
See?
I was right again!
Dr N,
Bully for you. Right about what?
Or are you just posting another irrelevant, pointless, and stupid, comment?
Cheers.
“Right about what?”
Ah-ha!
That is for us to know and for you to find out.
Dr N,
Oooooh! Cryptic!
That will work, do you think? Stupidity, irrelevance, and pointlessness, polished to a bright sheen!
Cheers.
Tim…”Some energy is ALWAYS being emitted by the surface and it can be warming, cooling or staying the same while emitting energy”.
There’s that generic ‘energy’ word again, the alarmist catchall phrase to bypass physics and the 2nd law. The only way ‘energy’ can be transmitted and received at the same time is during thermal equilibrium.
Since the Earth’s surface is heating the atmosphere that infers a one way transfer of heat from surface to atmosphere AND not in the reverse direction.
The mythical NET energy does not exist.
Still with us dr no, or is it more fun to butt-kiss to alarmist rhetoric all the time?
look at what I just sent David.
A graph showing recent temps in Greenland higher recently than any other time in the last 2000 years?
https://i.imgur.com/tZKS0go.png
If you want to posit a period when global temps were warmer than today, you can always point to the previous interglacial 125,000 years ago, when temps were a bit higher (though the data is limited to the NH).
Trivia:
After 1300 posts on this thread I get 618 matches for the word “stupid”.
i.e. almost every second post (on average) uses this word.
That is not a nice statistic for a site now, is it?
Whom should we blame?
p,
Some stupid people just cant help trying to find somebody to blame for their own shortcomings. Your obsession with *stupid* might well carry its own explanation.
What do you think?
Cheers.
Well well well.
Look who took the bait.
I would never have guessed it.
Dr N,
You obviously cannot look into the future. You are just being stupid, as usual.
Keep trying to bait me, if that is what you think you are doing (in your fantasy). So sad, too bad.
You have no bait with which you could possibly tempt me. Maybe you could tempt other stupid, irrelevant, and meaningless people of your ilk with your baits.
Keep up the stupid. It’s entertaining, if not much else.
Cheers.
“You have no bait with which you could possibly tempt me.”
Oh yes I have! And so do others.
You’ve been swallowing it for ages.
Compulsive obsessive behaviour is what you demonstrate.
I think professerP will agree with my diagnosis.
Dr N,
Dumb and dumber – maybe if you try really, really hard, you can reach a completely stupid, irrelevant and pointless consensus. That would achieve a lot, wouldnt it? Apart from demonstrating an exquisite level of stupidity, of course!
Give it a try.
Cheers.
After 1300 posts on this thread I get 618 matches for the word “stupid”.
i.e. almost every second post (on average) uses this word.
That is not a nice statistic for a site now, is it?
This quality of commentary on this site has plummeted. 3 years ago it it was ok. Now it’s just awful.
What did D*o*u*g C*o*t*t*o*n do that Mike Flynn does not?
Not sure. Maybe he morphed into MF?
Making this about personalities is exactly the kind of dross that has dragged this site down, Snape.
Personalities? The whole debate is about politics and not really anything else.
Not for me. Any case, I’m talking about ad hom between participants here.
Yes Professor and Barry,
I have just written a small script that counted the number of times the word “stupid” appearwd here until the present time and the commentator responsible.
I have calculated a metric called the stupidity index (S.I) which is the number times it is used per commentator divided by the total number of uses for all commentators.
Mike Flynn takes the award as he has used the word 494 times out of a total of 606 ( not including this comment itself) .
This give him an S.I value of 81.5%. Outstanding work!.
An alternative metric is the number of time it used per comment.
Again he leads the way with 494 uses for just 250 comments giving a ratio of almost 2 uses of the word per comment. Again an outstanding achievement.
Even g* endeavors in using the word “hilarious” only gives an Idiot Index of 67% for the period September to January and is left floundering in Flynn’s wake.
mikeR,
Thank you for your kind words of support.
The usual crew of fumbling, bumbling, buffoons, make my task an easy one.
If they werent so stupid, pointless and irrelevant, it would be much more difficult to call them stupid, pointless and irrelevant, wouldnt it?
They are the sorts of people who claim they want to discuss science, but instead spend their time counting words, for some bizarre and inexplicable reason. Do you think it might be some secret climatological practice?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn,
I am glad you took my comment in good humour. It was more of an exercise in whimsy that was prompted by the Professor and Barry.
Alas. no secret climatogical practices were involved just some open source code and a simple text dump of this web page. Easy peasy, if you have the skills.
Just for the record, your latest is up to your usual standard of two (or too) stupids per comment.
MikeR,
I’m glad you are glad. I take everything with good humour. I cannot see any reason for doing otherwise, but maybe my approach is not universally supported.
I cannot for the life of me see why anyone would be miserable on purpose. Maybe people believe this might make them appear clever or smart. It seems more like stupidity to me, but then again, I have no experience of being anything but content by choice.
I’m a little whimsical myself at times. You may have noticed.
Cheers.
Mein gott! !
Dr No is right.
Obsessivecompulsive disorder (OCD) is a mental disorder where people feel the need to check things repeatedly, perform certain routines repeatedly (called “rituals”), or have certain thoughts repeatedly (called “obsessions”).
Just consider:
(1) the need to check this site 24/7 and respond to every post
(2) the repetitiveness of the replies (mainly juvenile abuse)
(3) the obsession with certain crackpot theories
Now we know the disorder, the question is How do we help?
Mike,
In order to satisfy the whims of those who count words, lacking more interesting things to do on social media, I suggest you and David read the following most closely:
From MWebster online:
Synonyms of stupid
brain-dead, brainless, dense, doltish, dopey (also dopy), dorky [slang], dull, dumb, fatuous, half-witted, mindless, oafish, obtuse, opaque, pinheaded, senseless, simple, slow, thick, thickheaded, unintelligent, vacuous, weak-minded, witless
Words Related to stupid
feebleminded, simpleminded
foolish, idiotic, imbecile (or imbecilic), moronic
ignorant, illiterate, lowbrow, uneducated, uninformed, unintellectual, untaught, unthinking
absurd, asinine, balmy, cockeyed, crackpot, crazy, cuckoo, daffy, daft, half-baked, harebrained, insane, kooky, loony (also looney), lunatic, mad, nonsensical, nutty, wacky, zany
Lewis, that is an impressive list.
I am afraid I can’t use those words to describe some of the cretins here as it would give stupid people a bad name.
Lewis, pass those synonyms onto Mike Flynn, he desperately needs them.
To widen his vocabulary even further there are some colourful Ozzie terms that he might be familiar with, such as dill, drongo, dingbat, dropkick, batshit crazy, dipshit, nong and fruitcake.
There are also combinations such as dipshitidiot and also some from US idiom such as dufus and universal terms such as fu..wit and dickhead. Then there is the quaint old fashioned terms such as nincompoop and ignoramus.
So many possibilities and Flynn has never thought of any of these.
No wonder his contributions are so boringly repetitive.
Like g*’s modus operandi, I suspect they are just designed to antagonise and annoy, which is one thing that he succeeds with admirably.
I could use words from a thesaurus, I suppose. I choose not to, generally.
Some stupid people believe that they may influence my actions in any predictive way, to their advantage. Of course they cant, which is why they are stupid.
If someone believes they have been unjustly maligned, they are free to attempt to prove they are not stupid. It is of note that not one has made the attempt, while still complaining about my characterization.
Some might consider this more mark of stupidity than intelligence.
All part of the rich tapestry of life. Still no testable GHE hypothesis. Is sincere belief in the non existent now smart, or a sign of intellectual brilliance? Only in climatology! The word stupid seems more appropriate. Substitute a synonym from a thesaurus, if you prefer.
Cheers
Look, Lewis can cut-and-paste.
Impressive.
All it takes is that the temperature on the east coast of the US drops so that people start to question the AGW.
It is after sunset here down under and the temperature has dropped from 35C to 31C.
Yep Ren this throws more doubt about AGW and if it drops any further tonight then the next ice age is imminent.
MikeR,
Thats a fairly pointless, irrelevant and stupid comment, isnt it?
What is the relevance to the East Coast of the US? Or do you have an obscure climatological reason for comparing a night time temperature drop with the coming of the next ice age?
Very mysterious. Or just stupid.
Cheers.
MF – try giving up the keyboard for a few hours.
Take a walk. Get some fresh air. I promise you it will do you good.
Flynn, two stupids for the price of one.
My fatuous comment was in response to Ren’s egregiously ridiculous comment. Yes it is very cold in the East Coast of the US and it is very hot where I reside down under.
However there is a rumour put out by a number of nefarious organisations that these conditions may change by next month.
Enough said.
MikeR
I am talking about the temperature drop in the winter for the next 40-50 years.
Sorry Ren,
I misunderstood.
Wow, 40 – 50 years. Have long range weather forecasts improved that much?
All it takes is a lot of wishful thinking and amusing delusion.
Hilarious.
The temperature above the North Pole can reach the average temperature at this time of the year.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png
Strong low over the Azores, it will allow the Scandinavian high to return.
1014 mb on barometer of my sailing boat presently anchored in Horta (Azores).
Please more of this idiotic drivel and pseudo-skeptik climate comedy.
The daily AO index.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.obs.gif
Is this the peak snowfall this year in the northern hemisphere?
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
Stupid boy. Go and look it up.
I don’t know.
Yet your post might well be the peak idiocy posted on March 10, 2018 at 4:53 AM.
ren just presents facts.
But, the pseudoscience clowns hate facts.
It’s fun to watch.
Yes, barry & co…
Do-ug Cot-ton seems to havereached within his communication with Roy Spencer a level unbearable for him.
But in comparison with with these people like Robertson, Flynn and g*e*r*a*n, he was a very interesting person.
It’s a shame that such a nice side is willingly destroyed by these few reckless ego-centrics.
La P,
It is a pity that your *nice side* has not even a testable GHE hypothesis to support its niceness. Maybe you could sit around a campfire being nice, singing Kumbaya, and generally patting each other on the back while reaching a consensus on how nice you are.
On the other hand, competent scientists are often not nice – quite odd sometimes, vindictive, egocentric, nasty, obdurate, licentious and generally antisocial on occasion.
Stick with your niceness. Ill go with facts – no matter how inconvenient they are, or how they cause me to revise views I held before.
Off you go. Be as nice as you like. Play with your brightly coloured bits of paper while being nice. I hope you enjoy it. Be nice to each other.
Cheers.
Croyez-vous qu’il est judicieux de preter une quelconque attention aux vieux blaireaux la retraite qui radotent ici ?
Mein Franzsisch ist nicht sehr gut.
You probably mistake me for Bindidon (because I use his Excel data and charts, I guess).
But your ‘Idiots’ do not disturb me much less than those of these trolls. You are moving down to their mental level.
Pang, was that when you believed you got it right?
La Pangolina
The best thing to do is ignore the posts. Flynn and g*e*r*a*n are both trolls. None has real knowledge of physics or science. They know a few words and maybe look up some ideas to pretend to know something. They want maximum responses to their posts. Flynn is far outdoing g*e*r*a*n at this time by putting “stupid” in each post.
He is not saying anything of value and never has in several years.
Ignore his posts and don’t respond. It is really easy to do. You are not missing out on any great insight. If you want to know what he is saying go back a few years. Nothing he writes has changed. It is the same stuff over an over and over. It seems to work as people continue to respond to the posts.
You might note he may respond to this post directed to you. I will not reply if he chooses this path. Let it go. Neither one of those trolls is worth a reply and it is really easy to ignore. If you take this path the number of posts from them will decrease and we may get back to interesting and useful debates over the actual science.
Norman,
You could talk about science if you had some – but of course you havent.
You are right. Ive been asking for several years for the stupid people who claim they want to talk about science, to actually produce a copy of the testable GHE hypothesis (being a fundamental first step of the scientific method, you could say).
And of course, neither they nor you can produce any shred of anything scientific which is actually capable of being disproved. Some science. Nonsensical cultism, predicting doom, based on rambling speculations. I appreciate your advice to like minded people – just ignore anyone who would like to discuss science (or the total lack of it). Go ahead.
Unfortunately, fanatical cultists cannot help themselves, as you have no doubt noticed. Just like Gavin Schmidt threatening to resign if he didnt get his way, and David Appell threatening to absent himself from this blog, all form, but no substance.
Carry on, Norman. I count it as a blessing if you refuse to respond. It makes it obvious to others that you have no science to discuss, and you dont like being asked to comply with the rigours of the scientific method.
Cheers.
Norm, the hilarious con-man, yelps in frustration. He throws out accusations and falsehoods in his desperate attempt to build himself up by attacking others.
It’s fun to watch.
No one is stupid here. David and Barry know there stuff we just do not agree . SO what.
One of us will be correct maybe we will both be wrong we will see.
They have there reasons I understand why they feel the way they do . I really do. Their arguments are good.
If we all agreed this would be a bore.
I think the diversity of opinions and the back and forth is good as long as it does not get personal.
We have to see how it plays out as I said I THINK 2018 is a turning point.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
March 10, 2018 at 7:05 AM
Salvatore Del Prete says:
March 10, 2018 at 7:07 AM
We have to see how it plays out as I said I THINK 2018 is a turning point.
…
I have put myself on the line sink or swim for me.
*
Salvatore, I THINK you are in front of a little problem:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520692002416.jpg
Something terrible, as e.g. a series of at least five volcano eruptions of explosivity level 6 and above, would have to happen in order what you seem to hope really happens.
The Sun alone was not LIA’s main origin (LIA started around 1450, 200 years before Maunder’s minimum.
But… do you hope it really? Do you want a new LIA to start in ten years?
Btw Slavatore: Bindidon and I we have nothing in mind with AGW.
We both share Roy Spencer’s meaning: half natural, half man-made.
I see where you are coming from.
Again let us see how it plays out.
I think the weakening magnetic fields of the sun and earth need to be given more attention when it comes to the climate.
Bindidon has not posted lately I hope to see him come back .
Thanks for him.
He is on the Canary Islands, 100 % Internet-free, with a prehistoric cell phone.
Back on around march 20.
I have put myself on the line sink or swim for me.
http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
Where is the correlation?
Can’t determine correlation over that time scale because other factors change. The tectonic arrangement of the planet is hugely different (different ocean circulation), the power of the sun is dimmer back in time… If you want to compare apples with apples, the Quaternary period is a time of consistent tectonic formation and little change in solar output. EG, the last 2.5 million years.
The jet stream in the Pacific.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=epac×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/blog-post_23.html
This data shows the true relationship of solar activity versus temperature.
I do not think I a problem.
Why would an *integral* of sunspot number have anything to do with the sun’s irradiance??
What’s the physics??
DA,
Have you considered posing a gotcha, rather than a serious question?
Only joking – it would take too long to attempt explaining sarcasm to you.
Cheers.
Slavatore, what does the “INTERGRAL” of sun spot activity represent?
If you can explain that, can you explain why it is a useful metric?
Or why it would be a better metric than direct sunspot numbers?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
Look at the correlation. This takes into account LAG times. One can not just use raw sunspot numbers and hope to see a climate/solar connection.
As did the previous data. I see a strong correlation.
So I say weakening solar if enough years of sub solar activity in general takes place that being 10+ years combined with very low average value solar parameters will facilitate a global climatic cooling scenario taking into account the geo magnetic field being in phase with solar .
Which is the case currently.
LOW SOLAR EQUATES – to overall lower sea surface temperatures over time due to less UV LIGHT.
LOW SOLAR EQUATES – to a slightly higher albedo due to an increase in major volcanic activity, overall cloud/snow coverage.
This due to less EUV LIGHT, AN INCREASE IN GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS.
In addition less EUV light promoting a more meridional atmospheric circulation which promotes more cloud coverage, snow coverage. This in turn again will increase the albedo.
Lag times and degree of just how extreme the solar parameters have to be along with lag times is yet to be really determined.
I say 10+ years of sub solar activity in general followed by solar parameters equal to or exceeding typical solar minimums associated with the average 11 year sunspot cycle but these very low solar values lasting much longer.
All this against the backdrop of sub solar activity in general and a weakening geo magnetic field.
In the big climatic picture Milankovich Cycles are overall favorable for cooling along with land/ocean arrangements.
Land elevation also favorable.
Lastly according to what I studied solar should have caused the climate to warm from 1840 – year 2005 perhaps a few years later.
According to my studies now, enough time has elapsed where by the rise in global temperatures should end this year if not a drop this year.
The climate may change in jerks and fits rather then in a smooth gradual slow change.
Salvatore
One of your graphs shows the “accumulated departure from the annualized monthly mean (41.2) observed sunspot numbers 1610-2009”
According to your research, what were the values for the years 2009 to present, and what are the predicted values for the next ten years?
The accumulated departure is going to be significantly higher because I do not see any foreseeable months with a sunspot number above 41.
from 2009-2016 sunspot numbers were pretty much above 41.2
I ‘ll send a chart over.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
You can see by the smooth sunspot number that we have been at 40 or below for sometime and it looks to be going lower, but above 40 earlier..
Salvtore
Your most recent chart shows declining solar activity since 1976, in line with Bin’s graph:
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
The chart you posted earlier shows the opposite:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
Why are the two graphs so different?
One graph ends in 2008 while the other one starts in either late year 2008 or Jan 2009.
The one that shows months after latest sunspot cycle starts Jan 2009 I believe.
Salvtore
What?? The graph you just linked shows the solar cycles 21 through 24. Cycle 21 started in March 1976.
We see that solar activity has decreased over that time period. Meanwhile, global temperatures have increased.
There should be a limit on words. If you can’t say it in a paragraph or two you’re just showing off. The simple fact remains it can get a lot warmer or colder w/i natural climate variability. If 97% of climatologists agree on anything it’s that. Considering the next stop is a 100,000 year long ice age literally tomorrow, geologically speaking, we should emit as much of anything we can that precludes it. And seeing as the whole CO2 causing an ice age science is pretty conclusive, what irony. I’d be interested in knowing when Earth was in a snowball state, what ended it if CO2 was already abundant? Must have been volcanic in origin.
And seeing as the whole CO2 causing an ice age science is pretty conclusive….
That’s not true.
DA,
To quote the inimitable David Appell –
“Prove it!”
Cheers.
Apparently you also believe there should be a limit on truth.
Des,
Apparently you are stupid. Why do you claim someone believes there should be a limit on truth? Can you back up your stupid assertion with peer reviewed research in a reputable journal which involves experimental science?
I thought not.
Just stupid, irrelevant, and pointless trolling. Youre welcome.
Cheers.
darwin…”There should be a limit on words. If you cant say it in a paragraph or two youre just showing off”.
There are some serious dimwit alarmists here who cannot comprehend more than a few words, let alone a couple of paragraphs. In that sense, I agree with you. However, there are aspects in science so complex you cannot possibly cover them in a couple of paragraphs, unless you want to be misunderstood.
Snape you have to look at the pink line for solar cycle 24 which started jan 2009.That line you have to follow not the others.
The other lines for sunspot activity starting in 1976 show strong sunspot cycles which should equate to a rise in global temperatures.
See how much stronger those cycles are then sunspot cycle 24.
Salvtore Del Prete says:
The other lines for sunspot activity starting in 1976 show strong sunspot cycles which should equate to a rise in global temperatures.
Why is that?
.
It is not until 2005 that solar went from an active mode to an inactive mode.
True solar was becoming weaker but still strong, in contrast to now and the Dalton solar minimum.
Salvatore, TSI has been in a slow decline since the 1960s. Peak TSI occurred then, and peaks since then have been smaller, and the last peak was smaller still.
TSI cannot account for modern warming.
Salvatore, sunspots have been slowly declining since the mid-70s:
http://sunspotwatch.com/share/201407_wolfmms.jpg
Snape true each cycle was weaker, but still very strong and should have and did keep global temperatures on the rise.
Not until 2005 or a few years later did this change, and now I think enough weakness has accumulated to at the very least stop the trend up in global temperatures if not push them down.
TSI has been on a slow decline since the 1960s:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
Snape the two charts show the same thing which is they both show strong solar activity for the last half of the last century.
That is why the accumulated deficit decreased during strong sunspot cycles 21,22,and 23.
Solar TSI has been slowly declining since the 1960s:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
DA,
Am I wrong, or is your linked graphic titled * . . .reconstruction*. Why the fascination with reconstructions? Or did someone use Mikes Nature trick, and graft some actual observations in to make the whole thing appear factual?
Are you sure there are no modeling assumptions included?
Cheers.
“Reconstruction” just mean extrapolations across the various satellites over the given time period.
Just like UAH does — they’re now extrapolating over something like 11 different satellites.
No instrument lasts forever.
DA, don’t provoke the baboon by showing him facts.
Says the stupid, irrelevant, and pointless commenter who thinks a reconstruction is an example of a *fact*.
Good luck with that.
Cheers.
Dalton like solar activity is needed in order for the sun to have a notable cooling climatic effect. Since 2005 this appears to be the case.
This time the geo magnetic field is much weaker then it was during the Dalton.
Please link to your own peer-reviewed research on this claim.
Des,
As Einstein said –
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
You being so smart and clever and all, would agree. So wheres your experimental proof that Salavatore has been proven wrong?
I presume you have some, and havent just been making unsupported stupid, irrelevant and pointless comments for no particular reason?
Cheers.
“You being so smart and clever and all” – as opposed to MF being ignorant and stupid and (see list of synonyms above)
Dr N,
As David Appell says –
*Prove it!*
Of course, if you cant, others may well think that you are just being stupid, as well as irrelevant and pointless.
Off you go, now.
Cheers.
des…”Please link to your own peer-reviewed research on this claim”.
Where in the scientific method does it say peer-review is required? An appeal to PR is for wankers who lack the ability to debate scientifically.
Salvatore has essentially followed the scientific method. He has stated his aims, described his methodology, kept us abreast of his observations, and even offered conclusions.
I can live with that, f*** peer review.
Besides, peer review in climate science has been stacked with alarmist wankers who routinely reject papers from skeptics. Ask Roy Spencer, John Christy, or Richard Lindzen.
Exactly
“peer review in climate science has been stacked with alarmist wankers who routinely reject papers from skeptics. Ask Roy Spencer, John Christy, or Richard Lindzen”
Where’s your proof?
There is none. Because anybody with half a brain can look up published papers by these gentlemen.
Your wild assertions and crackpot theories give skeptics a bad name. I bet none of these skeptical gentlemen would go near you with a barge pole.
dr no…”Wheres your proof?”
I just gave it to you, is your comprehension that lacking?
Roy has complained several times about his papers being blocked. In the Climategate emails Phil Jones of Had-crut was caught bragging that he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that certain papers would not reach the IPCC review stage. One of those papers was co-authored by John Christy of UAH.
Jones is a Coordinating Lead Author and his partner is another CLA, Kevin Trenberth. Figure it out.
Richard Lindzen had to a call a journal editor and ask why his paper was talking so long to be reviewed. He was advised by the editor that his paper was receiving a deeper scrutiny because of it’s skeptical views.
Lindzen is no lightweight, he is a foremost authority on atmospheric physics, having published several hundred papers in non-modeled atmospheric physics over a 40+ year career. He is a prof at MIT.
I’m getting tired for your big mouth. Get your head out of your butt and figure out why the more intelligent commenters on this blog are skeptics. The information is all out there if you have the intelligence to digest it. Obviously you and your fellow alarmist wankers don’t. You are all content to be spoon-fed absolute propaganda.
I personally regard you as an idiot, based on your inability to converse at even a basic level on physics, yet you don’t hesitate to offer inane comments and observations on related subjects. When you come on this blog and infer it’s a lie that skeptics are blocked in peer review, when the owner of the blog has complained about it, it makes you a raving idiot.
GR, Arrogance is the last resort of the ignorant. Calling people idiots doesn’t address the facts.
swannie, do you have any evidence that you can understand “facts”?
“Ask Roy Spencer, John Christy, or Richard Lindzen.”
Perhaps they would get peer-reviewed if they got their science right.
Hilairious
Des,
Perhaps you would not be regarded as quite so stupid if you werent.
Cheers.
Salvatore
I hope we reach Dalton like numbers in the years to come. Like you say, it would be a good test. In the meantime I will go with Dr. Spencer’s view,
“By the way, TSI variations are included in the above plotthe effect is tiny, of course, since its 1 part in 1,000 of average radiative fluxes for the solar cycle……..”
Yes, we may have the test.
I want to know right or wrong. I just would like to know one way or the other.
Right now nobody really knows although we all think we do including myself but I hope clarity will come.
Salvatore
Pacific Islanders believed that building a runway would cause airplanes full of cargo to appear in the sky. They tested this notion after World War Two ended.
Dalton-like numbers are your runway.
Snape
Maybe this is why Feynman referred to bizarre attempts at recognition, like climatology as Cargo cult science.
No testable GHE hypothesis, no CO2 AGW theory of anything, just more cultist claims of impending doom, which of course, is always worse than we thought!
Who would believe this stupidity? People like you, thats who!
Feynman also said that Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts,.
Trot out your list of climate experts – would they include the likes of Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth? You probably claim some of their more bizarre utterances as coming from on high – they appear more like stupidity to me.
Keep believing. Make a donation. They need the money. Hah!
Cheers.
Flynn
“No testable GHE hypothesis, no CO2 AGW theory of anything…”
Why do you keep repeating such gibberish? Here is one of many such tests:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw
Yet the world keeps warming while CO2 keeps increasing.
I know it is difficult to accept this fact but the warmists have, and continue to be proven correct.
Try and accept defeat gracefully.
“Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth”
– they are all laughing now. And with good reason.
But the DALTON happened and before that the MAUNDER MINIMUM.
What happened when they occurred? Global temperatures went down and they have always gone down when the sun enters these prolonged minimums.
There are so many I just mentioned the most recent two.
Salvatore
Japanese and American soldiers built
runways on remote Pacific islands. What happened when that occurred?
Airplanes full of cargo appeared in the sky.
The natives mistakenly believed that correlation equals causation.
Scientists tell us that sunspot variation is a very small contributor to global temperature change. You ignore their expert opinions and instead follow the logic of the natives.
Dr N,
And being laughed at for their stupidity.
With even more reason, wouldn’t you agree?
Do you really think that these fumbling, bumbling, buffoons can muster one first class mind between them? You are stupid if you do!
Cheers.
Dr N,
You are one of the stupid people who confuse correlation with causation. I suppose if you can’t even find a testable GHE hypothesis, stupidity must suffice in the stead of science.
Carry on being stupid.
Cheers.
A climate-clown presents evidence for CO2 heating the planet:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-291783
Hilarious!
I doubt that any of the other clowns, such as Dr No, Norm, Tim Folkerts, davie, Bin, Barry, Nate, miker, or others that believe in pseudoscience, could find what’s wrong with the “evidence”.
(No help from Skeptics, please. Let’s see if any of the clowns that claim to “know science” can find out what is wrong with the video.)
G*
Flynn’s science IQ is appalling, and the demonstration I linked is probably over his head.
He does, however, have some expertise as a dog trainer. With that in mind, here is a video more to his level:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bfEA1SV8k20
dr no…”Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth
they are all laughing now. And with good reason”.
Laughing at you for your gullibility in following them.
M, g and G,
Of course we are all laughing!
After all, we share a Nobel prize, own expensive mansions and drive luxury cars!
And you lot?:
I think you might be able to rustle up a certificate showing how one of you passed soldering 101.
Maybe one of you passed his driving licence?
Dr N,
I suppose if all you pseudo-science cultists have to fall back on is boasting about how well off you are, that might well indicate the level of your stupidity.
Good luck. Enjoy your life style. Its better to be rich and stupid than poor and stupid, I suppose.
Cheers.
It also might indicate a certain level of cunning fleecing the sheep that buy their chicken little story to maintain such lifestyles
snake and drano, we’re still waiting for you to find the problems with the video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw
tim folkerts…”Yes, when energy in the form of a photon leaves the surface of an object, the object will have less total thermal energy by an amount E = hf and will be cooler. I already answered that question too”.
There is nothing in the equation E = hf that describes heat. E is the energy level in eV between the energy levels through which an electron dropped but in the stated context it is now EM. It is no longer associated with the kinetic energy of the atoms/electrons that emitted it.
Heat MUST be associated with matter. It makes no sense in any other context. Once the EM leaves matter, it no longer represents heat. Therefore talking of a net EM as representing heat transfer is wrong. Heat can only be transferred from hot to cold and that has nothing to do with net EM.
GR,
The energy *contained* in photon does not necessarily relate to a difference in energy levels between electron orbitals.
You mentioned that E = hf, where f can vary between 0 and infinity. An individual photon can possess infinitely many energy states.
Maybe you are referring to the photons emitted when an atom reverts to an unexcited state from an excited one? The light from a neon tube is of this nature.Or a flourescent tube, which actually emits UV wavelengths, converted to visible light by the interaction between more energetic photons and the phosphors, which re-emit them at a much lower frequency.
CO2 AGW proponents dont seem to have the faintest idea about the way photons interact with matter – or many other things, for that matter.
Ill no doubt hear howls of outrage from the usual crew of dunderheads, but Im pretty sure I am right. Scientific American makes the usual mistake, extending the particular to the general. Stupid, one might even say.
Cheers.
mike….”The energy *contained* in photon does not necessarily relate to a difference in energy levels between electron orbitals.
You mentioned that E = hf…”
I’m quoting Niels Bohr. The theory comes from him as does the equation.
A quote from Bohr…”Thus we must assume that a system consisting of a nucleus and an electron rotating round it under certain circumstances can absorb a radiation of a frequency equal to the frequency of the homogenous radiation emitted during the passing of the system between different stationary states….”
I don’t see any other source of photons than through this kind of emission. Where else would EM come from? You could point to nuclear radiation involving beta particles, but is that EM?
As you have pointed out, the equation E = hf predicts frequency will increase to infinity as the energy level increases. That is called the ultraviolet catastrophe. Planck solved it by introducing the probability that it’s less likely to find such high energy EM as the frequency increases. Hence, Planck’s EM distribution falls off in the higher frequency EM regions.
As I understand fluorescence, it’s akin to the Earth’s surface receiving SW solar energy and re-radiating it as LW IR. The fluorescent tube coating absorbs high frequency EM and re-radiates low frequency EM in the visible spectrum.
Electrons fired from a fluorescent tube cathode collide with atoms of gas, and if they have a high enough energy they will drive an outer shell electron to a higher energy level, the excited state you mentioned. The electron won’t remain in the higher state and as it drops back to your unexcited state, the gas atom’s electron radiates an ultraviolet photon which strikes the fluorescent coating on the inner face of the tube causing it to emit lower frequency visible light.
I’ve given this a lot of thought, Mike, and I don’t see any other source of photons than electron transitions. The EM comes from the electric field carried by the electron and the associated magnetic field cause by the electron’s electric field when the electron moves.
Of course, I’m open to input from a fellow skeptic. One normally does not receive a rational rebuttal from an alarmist.
For example dr no has already replied with an ignorant ad hom yet he fails to demonstrate an understanding of what is being discussed. I think it’s clear that he has no idea how to respond because he lacks the scientific understanding.
GR,
Difficult to try to explain in paragraph or two, but Ill try.
When atoms absorb energy from photons they *jiggle* as Richard Feynman put it. The hotter they get, the more they jiggle. Hence iron expands, and water boils. The more the atoms jiggle, the more photons they emit. The wavelength depends on the ferocity of the jiggling.
Photons have no rest mass, just momentum, which, because their *velocity* is constant (speed of light), is proportional to their energy. Hence electron absorbs photon if it increases jiggle, ignores it if not. In a gas, jiggling results in movement – hotter means faster – higher pressure if constrained. Jiggling atoms emit photons continuously, at progressively longer wavelengths. all the way to 0 K, if allowed to do so. The jiggle winds down, so to speak.
I think the Feynman lectures are available on line, and that here are videos on line which express the concepts better than I ever could. My couple of paragraphs are simplification, I know. I havent mentioned resonance, or any of many other things.
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
mike…”When atoms absorb energy from photons they *jiggle* as Richard Feynman put it. The hotter they get, the more they jiggle. Hence iron expands, and water boils. The more the atoms jiggle, the more photons they emit. The wavelength depends on the ferocity of the jiggling”.
************
I have no problem with Feynman’s explanation, it’s exactly what I am talking about.
Why do atoms jiggle (aka vibrate)?
The vibrations is due to the positive nucleii (in solids) repelling each other while the negative electrons bind the atoms together. They do that because certain adjacent atoms share electrons or the negative charges produced by electron sharing and donation between atoms.
The proton is 1800 times larger than the electron but they have equal and opposite charges. Protons repel and electrons are attracted to protons, just as the Moon is attracted to the Earth. However, the Moon has enough momentum to keep it in orbit.
An early hypothesis was that electrons orbited the nucleus based on their momentum but electrodynamics predicted the electron would lose momentum and spiral into the nucleus. I don’t get that because the Moon doesn’t do that, however, it has a precise momentum to offset gravitational attraction.
Bohr solved that conundrum by restricting electrons to quantum energy levels a la Planck. He also predicted that when an electron moves between quantum states it emits or absorbs a photon with energy equivalent to the difference in quantum levels.
Please note: That disqualifies AGW/GHE since EM must have a precise energy and frequency in order to be absorbed. That means EM from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by a warmer body as stated in the 2nd law.
The equal and opposite charges between electrons and protons cause an equilibrium state but there is a slight variation in the equilibrium due to the motion of the electron. That variation is the jiggling of which you speak.
As more energy is added to the system the vibration increases and that is an increase in kinetic energy, which is also the heat in the atoms. Increase the energy enough and bonds get broken as electrons escape the atoms.
Note that the energy added is absorbed by the electrons, not the nucleus.
Photons really have nothing to do with proton/electron interaction, they act on top of it. Protons and electrons interact based on equal and opposite charges. Photons do not affect the charge, they affect the kinetic energy only. Photons are no more electric charge than they are heat.
If photons are absorbed by the electrons, that increases the KE of the electron hence the entire atom. However, it is the KE of the electrons that govern the KE of the atom, not photons per se.
Heat is transferred atom to atom via valence electrons (outer shell electrons) in a solid or liquid.
Iron expansion is caused by the proton-electron bonds increasing in length. Think of the proton-electron interaction as a spring-mass system. The electron valence orbitals do act like a spring between atoms. If you add energy to a linear spring-mass system the movement of the mass increases.
Water boils when the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen atoms are broken. The hydrogen and oxygen atoms share electrons and under normal conditions (STP) they form a cohesive mass. With enough thermal energy added, the bonds get broken and become vapour.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Trust me Mike, this theory is the downfall of both AGW and the GHE. Plus the fact it drives alarmists crazy. As you say, they have no testable hypothesis but what I just described is testable and verified.
It’s been verified since Bohr proposed it circa 1913. Schrodinger used it circa 1925 and applied it to the Newtonian wave equation with an alteration. He built probability into the wave equation which gave the probability of finding an electron in a cloud around a nucleus.
Note that all sane quantum theory is based on the electron and its properties. Schrodinger based it on the properties of the electron, considering its angular momentum and orbits as harmonic motion. The Newtonian wave equation deals with such harmonic motion and Schrodinger applied it to the electron as he invented quantum theory.
GR, you have yet to explain how my demonstration of the Green Plate model produced a warming of the hotter plate. I claim my findings disprove your claims.
swannie still believes he can violate 2LoT.
Poor guy.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Ive given this a lot of thought, Mike, and I dont see any other source of photons than electron transitions. The EM comes from the electric field carried by the electron and the associated magnetic field cause by the electrons electric field when the electron moves.”
You then possess the very weak thinking ability. You have been shown several times that the energy of Mid-IR is too low to be produced by electron transitions. Your lack of effort to try and see your totally flawed thought process is really sad.
You have very little ability to understand the scientific world. You should bow out with a shred of respect. You demonstrate your complete lack of reasoning with your ignorant persistence to state made up physics based upon your very limited thinking ability.
You also can’t understand the concept of time. It is what science uses to determine rate of change. Scientists did not make up change or a rate of change. They observe it. They made up a standard by which to measure this rate but the rate is not made up by the observer only the standard that measures it. The standard is what is made up not the rate. Your ability to understand concepts is very lacking.
You also can’t understand what the term “tidal locking” means. You read it and come up with your own idea that it means the gravity field holds the moon in place like a solid rod. Just things you make up and will not learn the truth. You are no scientist. You may have learned some limited fields of science for your work but you never could understand what was being taught.
Also I am on to your phony method of trying to convince unsuspecting posters of your pretend knowledge. You look up the names of some famous scientists, read up a bit and act like by using their names in your posts it makes you seem intelligent or that you know what you are talking about. You have no clue what the scientists were doing or saying. You do not know that the Bohr model was designed to explain visible light spectrum and it only works for the simplest of atoms. It is not used today. It was a model only and the model has been changed. The basic concept remains but the model is incomplete.
No you are no scientist. You just make up your deluded physics and when challenged you run away and hide. You know you are a pretender and leave when you get exposed.
Norman,
Im sure your opinion is highly valued by the scientific community, and decision makers at the highest levels of Government. Im only kidding you of course. I do not believe that for one minute!
I really believe you are quite stupid. Also irrelevant and pointless, if it comes to that. Press on regardless. Even the stupid have their place – its to serve as a warning to the rest of us what can happen if you get lazy and forget to pay attention when you should.
Ignorance can be alleviated on occasion – persistent or endogenous stupidity, not so much.
Keep it up Norman. All of your firmly held opinions (plus a small amount of money) will probably buy you a cheap cup of coffee.
Cheers.
Con-man, another long rambling rant proving you only want to attack others because you are jealous of their knowledge of science. It’s not their fault that you are poorly educated, and unable to learn. But your rabid yelping is fun to watch.
More please.
There is a lot of ad hominem attack in your reply. Just stick to the facts and kkeep it simple.
norman…”You then possess the very weak thinking ability. You have been shown several times that the energy of Mid-IR is too low to be produced by electron transitions”.
I am still waiting an explanation from you as to where the mid-IR EM comes from. You seem to think atoms have a little unit in each atom/molecule that generates EM.
As g*r likes to say, your explanation should be hilarious.
MF and G*, you guys have really sunk to depths in terms of the quality of your posts. Everything and everyone is stupid, no reasons needed.
Nothing stated about what is wrong with commenter’s science. Just ad-homs. In other words, utterly pointless.
Gordon,
“I am still waiting an explanation from you as to where the mid-IR EM comes from. You seem to think atoms have a little unit in each atom/molecule that generates EM.”
It was thoroughly explained to you before. It is well known that it comes from molecular vibrations and rotations. You can of course also easily look it up.
Nate, you continue to get things wrong.
At least you’re predictable.
Mike Flynn, you are correct:
“The energy *contained* in photon does not necessarily relate to a difference in energy levels between electron orbitals.”
Please explain again to Gordon, I think you might get through.
svante…”The energy *contained* in photon does not necessarily relate to a difference in energy levels between electron orbitals.
Please explain again to Gordon, I think you might get through”.
*********
Then explain where EM comes from.
Does it come from the proton? No. Does it come from a neutron? No.
What is EM? It is an electric field with a perpendicular magnetic field. Which particle has an electric field and a perpendicular magnetic field when in motion? The electron.
Do quarks have these properties? No. Do muons have these properties? No? Does any other sub-atomic particle have such properties? No.
The electron is the only particle that can produce an electric field radiation accompanied by magnetic field radiation as part of a normal atomic structure, including molecules.
Can molecular vibration cause EM? Yes. Why? Because the electron is rotating with the atom. A rotating electron gives off an EM field. Can a vibrating molecule give off EM? Yes. Why? Because the electron is the major part of the vibration….it bonds atoms into molecules and it is the only particle with the ability to move freely.
That brings us back to Bohr’s atomic model and the transition of electrons. Does the transition of electrons from a higher energy level to a lower energy level give off EM? Yes.
There…I have covered every source of EM and they all involve electron motion.
Rebuttal?? Preferably without the ad homs associated with the frustration of not having an adequate rebuttal.
Perhaps it’s just your vocabulary.
Can you differentiate between the three sources of EM:
1) Electronic (orbital).
2) Vibrational.
3) Rotational.
When you say EM comes from electrons everyone thinks you mean 1).
https://tinyurl.com/yblxmoj6
Svante,
EMR does come from electrons. No magic involved. So sad, too bad. You need to understand that the authors of some sites dont have time to provide detail, or just dont know what they are talking about, in detail – for example using Newtons Laws of Motion when trying to describe quantum physics. Seductive, but wrong. Or ignoring chaos – bad mistake.
Or just inventing stupid physics, as the NSF did by pretending that Archimedes principle didnt apply to floating ice!
Try to understand what you are reading. Just providing links to sites you dont understand just makes you look stupid.
All part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
Gordon likes that document.
svante…”Can you differentiate between the three sources of EM:
1) Electronic (orbital).
2) Vibrational.
3) Rotational.”
I just did, in my previous reply to you. The electron is involved in the transmission of EM in all three modes. A moving electron generates an electric and magnetic field.
Get it? electric + magnetic = electromagnetic.
svante…”When you say EM comes from electrons everyone thinks you mean 1).
https://tinyurl.com/yblxmoj6”
Look to the right of Figure 1. Beside the braces that encompass all three modes they are listed under electron energy levels.
The mistake made in this article is referring to the molecular level then including a reference to the atomic level. The author apparently does not understand that molecules are made up of electrons and protons (atoms).
Referencing molecules as entities is wrong when it comes to EM generation or absorp-tion. They are only atoms bonded together by electrons. It’s far more accurate to think in terms of electrons.
The word molecule is just a convenient term to cover two or more atoms joined together by electron orbitals.
It’s too bad that such misdirection proliferates. When you study basic chemistry, especially organic chemistry, the discussion is focused on electron bonding, even though molecules are being referenced. The theory taught focuses on electron orbitals and energy levels.
When you examine a molecule like CO2 with a structure like:
O===C===O
The dashed lines are the bonds and they represent electron orbitals. The oxygen and carbon atoms have spare electrons in their outer shells (valence electrons) which they share with each other. That’s how molecules are formed between mutliple atoms when covalent bonding is in effect.
The electrons can still change energy levels even when part of a bond. Furthermore, when an electron moves, it generates an EM field. That is the basis of electric motors and transformers.
Gordon, you are just about right.
A few details though:
a) “Look to the right of Figure 1. Beside the braces that encompass all three modes they are listed under electron energy levels.”
The braces just show that they all start at zero, and electronic energy levels have greater range.
b) “The dashed lines are the bonds and they represent electron orbitals.”
No, in the Rutherford-Bohr model, these are electron orbitals:
https://tinyurl.com/y7bhy84v
Note the EM emission on orbital change.
c) “The word molecule is just a convenient term to cover two or more atoms joined together by electron orbitals.”
You mean molecular orbitals:
https://tinyurl.com/ybbxewd6
d) Molecular vibration concerns the whole atom, protons and electrons. The charge of the atom depends on its electro negativity.
Such hilarious ignorance.
Not quite Laurel and Hardy though.
“Scientific American makes the usual mistake”
What other tomes of wisdom do you read?
Comics do not count. (Did you know that Superman is science fiction?)
Dr N,
Are you seriously proposing that the Scientific American is a tome of wisdom?
Really? Are you stupid, or just ignorant? Or possibly both?
Cheers.
You mentioned it first – what do you think?
Surely it is not tautological in the sense of “military intelligence” or “Irish sobriety”.
Dr N,
. . . nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people . . .
No doubt you disagree, but you can’t find the reasons just now. Maybe you inadvertently put them with Trenberths missing heat, or the testable GHE hypothesis?
No tautology? Are you sure?
Cheers.
Your mindless repetition of “the testable GHE hypothesis” is also intriguing. The very fact that GHE projections are looking more and more correct day by day, week by week, year by year suggests that the hypothesis is passing every test.
Only an OCD curmudgeon could disagree.
Dr N,
You cannot actually produce a testable GHE hypothesis, can you? Pretending it is not important just demonstrates the pseudo – scientific nature of your fanaticism.
You pretend to have a GHE hypothesis, I know. It just seems to mysteriously vanish when looked for! Maybe it only appears to the devout – possibly on alternate Mondays?
Look into the concept of science. It might help alleviate your ignorance, at least. The stupidity is probably endogenous.
Cheers.
“You cannot actually produce a testable GHE hypothesis, can you?”
You stupid man.
The test is on-going and the hypothesis is passing with flying colours.
Admit you have lost and we warmists have won!
Dr N,
You cant actually produce this testable GHE hypothesis which you so fervently claim exists, can you?
What does it say? Where might it be found? In your imagination, perhaps?
Cheers.
The GHE hypothesis has been proven by the observations.
I rest my case.
That is the real world – not the fevered imaginary world of an OCD tragic.
Dr N,
You confidently proclaim there is a GHE hypothesis. Its a pity it seems to have temporarily gone missing, isnt it.
Maybe you could remember what it looked like, and provide a description so someone could hand it in, if they stumbled across it while looking for Michael Manns missing Nobel Prize.
Or you could just lapse into stupid, irrelevant and pointless psychobabble. That would be much easier for a stupid person who understood nothing about science, wouldnt it?
Cheers.
drano believes: “The GHE hypothesis has been proven by the observations.
I rest my case.”
The GHE hypothesis has NOT been proved by observations. The IPCC model projections have failed. The GHE is pseudoscience.
But drano, I admire your fanatical devotion to a false belief. If only you could apply that same devotion to something useful, huh?
Observational evidence of the greenhouse effect:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
“There is a Greenhouse Effect on Venus,” Michael Hammer, 10/9/11
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/there-is-a-greenhouse-effect-on-venus/
davie, for the eleventy-eleventh time, that is NOT “proof” of the GHE.
It’s just more evidence that you have no respect for the scientific method.
It’s fun to watch.
Dr N,
Again with the unsupported irrelevant, pointless and stupid declarations?
Keep it up.
Cheers.
Again with the OCD responses.
Seriously, you should get help.
“Once the EM leaves matter, it no longer represents heat.”
And yet, I can warm my hands next to a glowing hot coal.
The coal cools and my hands warm. Heat is exchanged. Simple.
Dr N,
Just like the glowing ball of hot rock we call the Earth.
It cools. Simple.
Cheers.
Your fascination with the “he glowing ball of hot rock we call the Earth” concept is intriguing.
It is hardly glowing. In fact, if you dig down a meter or so you will tend to find the temperature is much colder than at the surface. I’m afraid that this simple observation disproves your contention that heat flows from the core have much effect at the surface.
Dr N,
You exhibit the usual amount of stupidity for someone of your ilk.
The crust composes less that 1% of the Earth by volume. This ensures that the geothermal gradient is such that the deepest hole ever drilled into the crust is not very deep n comparative terms – less than 13 km. Gets really, really, hot. Who’d have thought it?
However, the IPCC states that 95% confidence is as good as certainty. I am therefore justified in describing the Earth as a glowing ball, as more than 99% is in that condition!
You might even find you are stupid enough to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! Nobody could possibly believe such a nonsensical proposition, could they?
Cheers.
“I am therefore justified in describing the Earth as a glowing ball”
No you are not.
The Earth is not “glowing” to an observer out in space.
The long-wave radiation it emits corresponds to a black body with a temperature of about 255 degrees K. This has nothing to do with its core temperature and everything to do with the amount of short wave radiation it absorbs.
Please do not make up physics to suit your crackpot ideas.
Dr N,
You are confusing visible light with light in general – as used by real physicists, not pseudo-scientists. The Earth is indeed glowing. It is above 0 K.
The light it emits is light – just light you dont accept as being light. Tough. In the absence of the Sun, it would still be emitting light, although not in the same amount, I agree.
The Earth is more than 99% molten, whether you like it or not. The molten matter is continuously extruded through the mid ocean trenches (which encircle the globe, just in case you were too ignorant to realise, or too stupid to accept).
Additionally, the molten interior breaks through the surface from time to time – as the inhabitants of Pompeii and other places found out to their cost. Demanding that I refuse to accept fact in favor of your absurd pseudo-science is not just laughable, its supremely stupid. A triumph of blind faith over fact.
Find a testable GHE hypothesis, learn a modicum of physics, and you will appear less stupid.
You might even learn something (anything?) which supports your bizarre assertions!
Cheers.
” molten interior breaks through the surface from time to time as the inhabitants of Pompeii and other places found out to their cost”
Jeez you are stupid.
Consider this:
Add up the amount of lava extruded during the eruption.
Multiply this by some average temperature of the lava and estimate the amount of energy released (in Joules). It will seem large.
But then you must divide this number by the time since the eruption occurred:
2000 years by 365 days by 24 hours by 60 minutes by 60 seconds to arrive at the average power (in Watts).
Now divide this by the surface area of the Earth (510 million kilometers squared) to arrive at the average contribution to the surface energy balance in Watts per square meter.
Compare this number to the solar constant (1388 Watts per square meter).
Without doing the sums I can tell you that Pompeii (and other such events) pale into insignificance compared to solar and long wave radiation.
Dr N,
Even so, the inhabitants of Pompeii might have prepared the pleasant sunshine, wouldnt you agree?.
You are stupid enough to believe that 2100 W of power from a few square meters of ice is quite sufficient to boil the kettle, cook some eggs and bacon, and toast a couple of slices of bread to go with it. Yum! But stupid. Watts have little to do with temperature. Anyone who claims otherwise, without many conditions, and stated assumptions, is just stupid.
Your clue must be hidden with Trenberths heat. You are still clueless. You might as well agree that heat accumulates and the Earth has a temperature of 760 000K, in accordance with David Appells calculations. You must have both attended Stupid U. No doubt you topped the class, achieving maximum stupidity.
No GHE. No heat accumulation. No magic CO2 heating. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Mf, typical incoherent rant from an ignoramus.
Try the calculations and prove me wrong.
You can use your old slide rule if you like.
Dr. No,
That depends on the time of year and locale.
Here, the piedmont of North Carolina, sbout a meter down, the earth maintains a temperature of about 55 deg F. year around. I put in a geothermal HVAC system with a ground loop of 2500 ft to heat and cool the house. This type system works as well much farther north.
Lewis
Dr N,
No, I dont think I will waste any time on a calculation which is stupid, irrelevant and pointless. I dont dance to your tune, and am unlikely to do so at any time in the near (or far) future.
Stick to psychobabble and pseudo-science.
You dont even know what you are trying to say. Try saying it, if you dont believe me. See?
Cheers.
drano states: “The long-wave radiation it emits corresponds to a black body with a temperature of about 255 degrees K.”
No drano, that is NOT fact. That is pseudoscience. You believe it because it fits the narrative. But, climate clowns will believe anything that fits the narrative.
The “255 K” is the mathematical result after a number of assumptions. For it to be “science”, the assumptions would all have to be verified.
g,
Cut drano a bit of slack – dont be so hard on the poor chap. At least he can count to 255 (unless he just copied and pasted, as any competent 12 year old could). I wonder.
He could always be trying really hard to rise to the level of being stupid, irrelevant and pointless. Maybe he needs encouragement?
Nah, you are right. A complete and utter waste of time. I apologise for interfering.
Cheers.
MF: “No, I dont think I will waste any time on a calculation which is stupid, irrelevant and pointless.”
In science, ideas live or die on their match to facts, numbers, reality.
Not so for Mike’s assertions, because, as we have already learned, Mike thinks his beliefs don’t require facts or reality to legitimize them.
When annoying facts get in the way, he just denies them.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-291119
dr no…”Once the EM leaves matter, it no longer represents heat.
And yet, I can warm my hands next to a glowing hot coal.
The coal cools and my hands warm. Heat is exchanged. Simple”.
heat -> EM -> heat
Your hands are warming only because the atoms in your skin absorb EM and convert it back to heat. Step back 5 feet and see how much the radiation drops off. Or do you stand back 5 feet to warm your hands?
No problem here, the heat transfer is hot to cold. AGW claims it can happen both ways, from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it. Much like your hands warming the coal.
Is that so hard to understand? Appell has a great deal of difficulty with it.
Appell also thinks your hands will heat the coals. Swannie did a couple of experiments trying to prove that.
No mate – the claim is that the greenhouse effect SLOWS COOLING.
Des,
You cant even describe a testable Greenhouse Effect!
Slow cooling is still cooling – not heating. A slowly cooling thermometers temperature does not increase. Only a stupid person would claim so.
Bad luck. Cooling is cooling. Temperature is dropping. Some stupid people claim that slow cooling is heating, but they are just stupid.
Oh well – next!
Cheers.
A jumper works by slowing the rate of heat loss. I guess by your logic it cools you.
Des,
Are you really stupid? Why do you think firemen wear thick heavily insulated clothing? To keep warm? Why do you think refrigerators and cold rooms have insulation? To heat their contents?
You must live in some physics free alternate reality, where cooling is heating!
Why am I not surprised!
Cheers
To keep the heat in. Glad you understand it now.
Des,
Your stupidity is quite without peer. You claim that clothing increases temperature. Fine, put as many clothes as you like on a corpse. Wait for it to heat it up. Doesnt work, does it?
No hypothesis, no science, no nothing. You claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter? Thats too stupid even for a stupid person like you, so you start about more impossible nonsense.
If you think clothing heats things, ask any mountaineer short all his fingers and toes. He would have loved some of your super imaginary heating clothes to replace his high tech wonderfully designed gloves, mittens, boot liners and inners, outer shells and so on.
Off you go. Wrap some clothing around a bottle of water. Put it in the Sun. Watch it get really, really hot – not! Stand our in the tropical sun around noon for a while. Now, use something to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching you. Gee – less radiation, cooler temperature!
What a surprise! Stupid, irrelevant and pointless describes your bizarre view. Learn some real physics – not the nonsensical fake climatological physics. Cooling is not heating. Gavin Schmidt is not a climate scientist. Michael Mann did not win a Nobel Prize. You are stupid if you believe that climatology is a valid science.
Enjoy.
Cheers.
You seem to have (deliberate) comprehension issues. I said that clothing reduced the rate of heat loss, and hence prevents you from cooling to the level you would otherwise have cooled. Anything more is words you are trying to put in my mouth.
Des,
And the GHE is supposed to result in AGW. In case you havent noticed (you may have been sleeping) we are all supposed be terrified of rising temperatures, not temperatures falling more slowly.
Hence me describing your stupid, irrelevant and pointless comments about clothing as stupid, irrelevant and pointless.
Have you considered starting a campaign alerting people to the dangers of temperatures not falling as fast as they would if they werent? Maybe the IPCC is unaware of the properties of insulation, just like you.
No free heat. Insulators just help to slow down the rate of heating (good if you are trying to keep your beer or liquid nitrogen cold), or the rate of cooling (good if you want to keep your soup warm, or maintain the heat in your kiln). No magic, just physics.
Keep flogging the non-existent GHE. Oh, it might help if you could actually describe it in scientific terms – but of course you cant.
Cheers.
des, like many, you believe the atmosphere is a “blanket”. That causes you to reach invalid conclusions.
The atmosphere is an “active” system, not a “passive” system. The atmosphere is a temperature-regulating system. It controls Earth’s temperature, within a range, by adjusting the amount of heat radiated to space. If Earth’s temperature increases, the atmosphere radiates more heat energy to space. If the temperature decreases, the atmosphere radiates less to space.
des…”No mate the claim is that the greenhouse effect SLOWS COOLING”
*********
Back to the heat trapping/blanket pseudo-science effect. Physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, who has written a book on radiation, put it quite aptly. He claimed the theory is a metaphor at best, and, at worst, plain silly.
I’ll go with the latter, it’s not even a good metaphor. Same applies to the GHE.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation which alarmists like to trot out defeats their own theories.
Q = ebA(T^4 – To^4) describes the cooling to which you refer if you regard Q as representing the cooling at the surface. It makes it clear that the rate of cooling is dependent solely on the surface temperature T and the temperature of the atmosphere immediately above it, To. That’s because the atmosphere is warmest at the surface.
The pitifully small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could not possible have a significant effect. Maybe a few hundredths of a degree C.
des…”I said that clothing reduced the rate of heat loss…”
Only reduces heat loss due to conduction and convection. Clothing has absolutely no effect on radiation, it goes straight through it like a hot knife through butter.
That goes to show how little cooling can be attributed to radiation.
Circa 1909, Wood, an expert on IR radiation, claimed he did not think surface radiation played a significant role in surface cooling. He claimed it’s effect on the atmosphere (GHGs) was limited to a few feet above the surface due to the inverse-square law.
Wood thought the atmosphere warmed due to heat transfer via conduction then convection. He put the GHE down to the poor radiative abilities of the atmosphere. In other words, the atmospheric majority molecules, N2/O2, representing 99% of the atmosphere, absorb heat directly from the surface and retain it for long periods of time.
That warming theory makes far more sense than a trace gas warming the atmosphere.
Of course, alarmists cling to the scribblings of Arrhenius, and later Callendar, who both agreed warming was a good thing. Neither of them was able to prove that CO2 could warm the atmosphere to any degree. That has not stopped modern alarmists from inferring all forms of pseudo-science based on very weak theories.
Gordon says:
“Q = ebA(T^4 To^4) describes the cooling to which you refer if you regard Q as representing the cooling at the surface. It makes it clear that the rate of cooling is dependent solely on the surface temperature T and the temperature of the atmosphere immediately above it”
You seem to have forgotten about the “e” in that equation you just wrote. The emissivities of both the surface and the atmosphere impact the equation.
The presence of greenhouse gases affects the emissivity of the atmosphere. This makes it clear that the rate of cooling is dependent on the surface temperature T and the temperature of the atmosphere immediately above it AND ON THE CONCENTRATION OF GHGs.
Mike keeps bringing up the same refuted, tired, strawmen.
When people point out that a coat in winter, obvioulsy, keeps you warm, he says:
“Fine, put as many clothes as you like on a corpse. Wait for it to heat it up. Doesnt work, does it?”
Dumb, utterly stupid. Corpses dont put on coats to stay warm.
Trying to make an analogy between the Earth, heated by the sun to a corpse, heated by nothing makes no sense.
Foolish man.
What would you rather stand next to? – an open cupboard door at room temperature or an open freezer door.
Both temperatures are less than your skin temperature but one option is preferable.
Dr N,
Still stupid, irrelevant, and pointless. Would you rather be rich or poor? Would you rather be alive or dead?
Have you discovered a testable GHE hypothesis yet? No? No surprise that you want to talk about doors and cupboards! Not even pseudo science – nothing relevant at all.
Learn some physics.
Cheers.
Typical OCD response. You have’nt a clue.
Dr N,
Have you any more psychobabble? Im sure you enjoy it. I certainly do!
More please.
Cheers.
GR, Yes, my demonstration showed that with big hands, the coals would be hotter because of the back radiation. Those of you with small hands would not have much impact, since the area of the green plate must be of similar area to the area of the emitting body. Of course, your analysis ignores this requirement.
swannie, if you really want to demonstrate your scientific incompetence, try baking a turkey with ice. A conventional oven uses less than 3000 Watts to bake a turkey, in about 5 hours. One square meter of ice emits about 300 Watts. 10 square meters would then emit 300 Watts. That’s plenty of “heat” for a climate clown to bake a turkey.
Get back to us when your turkey is cooked.
Typo alert: “10 square meters would then emit 3000 Watts.”
if you really want to demonstrate your scientific incompetence, try baking a turkey with ice.
Basic thermodynamics: You can’t run a heat engine from a cold reservoir to a warmer reservoir.
davie, I’m shocked. You actually got something right!
Or did you just copy/paste?
Still frost and snow over the Great Lakes. This is shown by the height of the tropopause (lowest temperature between the troposphere and the stratosphere).
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00960/4hi4pr6as3ri.png
La Nina causes floods in northern Australia.
‘The event is not over’ for north Queenslanders with towns, highways still cut off
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/the-event-is-not-over-for-north-queenslanders-with-towns-highways-still-cut-off-20180311-p4z3t7.html
And??
Des,
And you are still as stupid and ignorant as usual.
Glad to answer. You dont need to thank me.
Cheers.
And??
Jeez you are stupid.
Go to bed.
Dr N,
Oh dear. Have you run out of pseudo-science to propound?
Why not try some psycho-babble instead? That might make you appear clever or smart – or it might just make you look stupid, irrelevant and pointless.
What do you think?
Cheers.
Mf and ren – the organ grinder and his monkey
Dr N,
Hows that trolling thing working out for you?
Better than the pseudo-science and psycho-babble?
You could try being patronizing or condescending, but that wont work either. Pity.
Cheers.
Don’t forget to feed ren some bananas before bedtime.
dr. no,
I find the insults toward ren childish. He (I would say never but don’t read everything he posts) hardly ever posts comments beyond noting what the link he is posting is about. Many of them are interesting, which is more than I can say about many of yours.
Further, notice that Mike seldom posts except in response to someone responding to him. So, if you don’t like it, don’t feed it.
Same to you and a few others – in fact, you remind me of Dappel.
“Mike seldom posts except in response to someone responding to him”
Absolute BS. A quick count reveals 6 threads started by him, and 246 times where he hijacked someone else’s thread.
Des,
Back into the counting contest, I see. Im sure there are people who do not find your post stupid, irrelevant, and pointless. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, I am not one of them.
Off you go, theres a good boy.
I am sure you can count to 247 if you try really hard. The number, 1, you will find, is elusive. Thats the number of testable GHE hypotheses there should be, but arent. Sad.
So carry on counting – it will help you to forget that there is no science in your neck of the woods. There is no GHE in the real world, either. None. Not even a smidgen. Or an iota.
Take up trolling. No science required – eminently suitable for eminently stupid people.
Cheers.
“Hows that trolling thing working out for you?”
Very well thank you.
It gives me endless amusement, like shooting fish in a barrel.
We need to talk about the climate to much personal silly crazy stuff is going on.
It is silly.
WHY AGW THEROY SO FAR SEEMS TO BE WRONG
1. The climate is still not unique as of today. Well within the bounds of natural variability.
2. The POSITIVE feedback between CO2 and WATER VAPOR which is suppose to result in a lower tropospheric hotspot has not materialized. A BIG ONE.
3. The AO/NAO have not become increasingly positive in other word the atmospheric circulation if anything is less zonal the opposite of what AGW theory called for.
4. I see no evidence of OLR lessening.
5. CO2 has been lower then presently while global temperatures have been higher over the past 10000 years.
6, As CO2 is added it’s effects lessen due to the saturation point being reached and again without the positive feedback from water vapor I do not see how the temperature rises as a result of adding more CO2 into the atmosphere.
7. CO2 and WATER VAPOR are influenced by the environment in other words as the oceans go so do hey despite man’s contribution which is fractional when compared to natural processes.
8. CO2 in the past has ALWAYS followed the temperature never has lead it.
“As predicted by climate scientists, severe weather events becoming more frequent and more severe. Now comes word that the ice at the North Pole is melting at a rate faster than those anticipated by the most pessimistic predictors and, as a result, it’s colder in England than in the extreme Arctic. Things are getting crazy but the even crazier politicians in Washington are either in denial or too incompetent to address what is shaping up to be a crisis. ”
(forbes.com)
So you are in the same camp as the politicians in Washington? That is what I call “silly”.
S, why don’t you exercise some judgement and leave the crazies behind? You know they are doomed to be scorned by future generations.
drano, you forgot to mention that quote is in reference to a cartoon.
But, that’s probably where you get most of your pseudoscience.
Otherwise, I take it you agree with the quote.
I agree that it is typical climate comedy. The reference appears to be to the recent polar vortex event. Such events are the opposite of climate predictions. A polar vortex (PV) weakens and meanders out of the Arctic Circle due to less heat energy. Driven by a lot of excess heat energy a PV remains over the pole, strong and stable, with very high winds.
A weak, wandering PV is more likely a sign of a cooling Earth. But, very few climate clowns will admit it.
It’s fun to watch.
Oh, I see. The world is cooling then?
News to me.
drano, the “news” is in the graph at the very top.
Glad to help.
dr no…”So you are in the same camp as the politicians in Washington? That is what I call silly.”
What’s silly, even stupid, is you responding to Salvatore’s well laid out reasoning with an ignorant ad hom.
dr no…part 2…”So you are in the same camp as the politicians in Washington? That is what I call silly.”
Next, des will be along asking for peer review on Salvatore’s comment.
Dr N,
Its worse than we thought! Doom, doom, thrice doom!
One minor problem of course. Climate is the average of past weather. There are no genuine climate scientists. Even your shrill propaganda piece has to talk about weather, not climate.
What a surprise!
Next thing youll be saying that climatologists can foresee the future by industriously reading the averages! How stupid would that be?
Do you alway uncritically accept what reporters say? Or only the parts with which you agree?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“There are no genuine climate scientists.”
Dr. Roy Spencer is a genuine climate scientist.
My apologies for upsetting you again by reporting some facts.
Salvatore, you’re in no position to be calling anyone wrong — you’ve been the most wrong of everyone. At this point you have zero (O) credibility left.
“here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
DA,
Your opinion of Salvatores credibility is worth exactly the same as mine – zero.
Why would you think Salvatore gives a tinkers curse about your opinion? If you happen to be stupid, why would anybody care what your opinion is?
Maybe you are more important than I think, but you cant prove it. Ill assign you a credibility of zero.
Cheers.
But Salvatore’s hypothesis has been well and truly tested and has failed dismally.
You should focus your irrational rants about “testable hypotheses” on him.
However, ignorance and incoherence go hand in hand with inconsistency.
The current temperature in the US.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00960/5vol0m5840z8.png
Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies, Ice and Snow Cover
https://weather.gc.ca/data/saisons/images/2018031100_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000.png
https://www.iceagenow.info/author-interview-with-ben-davidson/
Very interesting interview connecting weak geo magnetic fields and ice ages which is where I come from in conjunction with very low solar.
Worth a listen.
The Modern Warm Period Delimited
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/10/the-modern-warm-period-delimited/comment-page-1/#comment-2762776
You’ve outdone yourself here, ren.
You’ve linked to a comment of yours on another website that has nothing to do with the thread it sits in, of which the primary article has been disowned by the blog owner, and none of the above have anything to do with the topic introduced by Salvatore to which you replied, or with the headline article.
In terms of non-sequiturs you’ve just won the decathlon.
“Felix is not affiliated with any university, scientific establishment, or corporation, and therein lies his strength. Untainted by institutional bias or conventional wisdom this architect turned author brings fresh insight to the study of the ice ages.”
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robert_W._Felix
That is why his views are important because he is not involved with the money hungry false garbage AGW theory keeps shoving down every ones face.
I listed at least 8 reasons why that theory has no merit, in am earlier post and have shown strong climate correlations with sunspots and oceans, where as the CO2 climate correlation does not exist.
Salvatore, would you change your position if someone paid you?
no
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“no”
Then why do you think others would?
Or are you the only honest person on the planet?
DA,
You expect Salvatores mind reading skills to be better than yours?
Not hard, really. Yours are non existent. You need to go back to Stupid U, and brush up your gotcha skills.
Alternatively, you could buy some common sense, and learn some real physics.
Cheers.
DA,
Would you become more intelligent if someone paid you? I didnt think so.
Cheers.
Pretty weak responses. Maybe you are tired and should go to bed?
I am also not affiliated with any institutions which has nothing to do with nothing.
What matters are what thoughts are correct or at least on the right path and I think like him that climate change is tied up with solar/geo magnetic field strengths and the associated secondary effects.
I have never studied with him. We both came to these conclusions independent of one another.
There are others.
The CO2 correlation does not exist in your short term target for 2018.
It exists in the long term:
http://berkeleyearth.org/volcanoes/
Right a 15% correlation . Wow.
What calculation gives 15%?
Wrong the best reason for the rise in temperatures is because the sun went from very low levels during the Dalton to very high levels post Dalton until year 2005.
The temperature curve does not look like this:
https://tinyurl.com/ydzycra6
http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/04/non-existent-relationship-co2-temperature-correlation-only-15-of-last-165-years/#sthash.mSrD303B.dpbs
The truth NO correlation with co2 versus the climate.
Where as solar /oceans combined have a 96% correlation.
I am gong with that.
Correlation:
https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1900_2008.gif
Your data shows that from 1940 to around 1980 as co2 increased temperatures decreased.
Maybe the oceans had something to do with it?
Salvatore, why do you pretend you do not know that CO2 isn’t the only factor that affects climate?
Playing dumb is not convincing for someone who acts like a climate expert.
But still why is the correlation only 15%?
What correlation factor is 15%?
DA…”Correlation:
https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1900_2008.gif”
Will you kindly refrain from posting pornography on this blog?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Will you kindly refrain from posting pornography on this blog?”
Clearly you have no scientific response, so you go for the insult.
You always do that, Gordon, when you are out of cards. It says a great deal about your character.
DA,
Correlation is not causation. Many stupid people think it is. Of course, they are completely wrong.
It is just about as stupid as observing a fire and noticing that heat is strongly correlated to the amount of CO2 produced when wood is burnt.
A really stupid person might conclude that CO2 creates heat.
Cheers.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Where as solar /oceans combined have a 96% correlation.”
Salvatore, what property of the sun correlates with these ocean heat data?
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/01/ocean-heat-content-reaches-record-levels.html
UV light just below the visible range.
Show the increase in solar UV since the 1960s — enough to explain the large increase in OHC.
DA,
Demands. Demands. Demands.
Questions. Questions. Questions.
Gotchas. Gotchas. Gotchas.
Cheers.
I just sent a chart which shows solar/oceans in sinc and having a 96% correlation to global temperatures.
What link, Salvatore? Please give it again.
Salvatore, what correlation calculation is 15%?
David, Salvatore got 15% from the the link to ‘notrickzone’.
They split the temp record into parts that are so small that temporary fluctuations win over CO2.
Neat trick zone.
Thanks. Ive found NoTricksZone to the most misleading blog Ive ever read.
It is one of the reasons not the only one. Under water volcanic eruptions probably are another cause.
I know it has nothing to do with CO2 that is 100%.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“I know it has nothing to do with CO2 that is 100%.”
Sure. Explain these results, Salvatore:
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
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
DA,
Your opinion is worth the same as mine. Nothing, unless supported by fact.
You are too stupid to accept this proposition, obviously. Either that, or you are stupid enough to believe that anyone rational should take notice of your opinion because you are such an awesome person.
Cheers.
Came across this well-laid out commentary from Roy on the claim of 2014 as the warmest year (at the time) by NOAA and NASA.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/2014-as-the-mildest-year-why-you-are-being-misled-on-global-temperatures/
Roy referenced this article on NASA’s claim that 2014 was the warmest year ever. Turns out Schmidt et al had based that on a 38% confidence level. They get their data from the fudged NOAA data then fudge it further. NOAA had claimed a 48% confidence level.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html
This suggests a politically-based collusion between NASA and NOAA. Why would any scientific organizations want to fudge confidence levels to make 2014 appear the warmest ever? There is no scientific basis for such chicanery, only a political explanation can suffice.
A quick look at the UAH graph on this site reveals that 2014 was not even close to 1998, 2016, or 2010.
Now I can sit back and await the flurry of justifications from alarmists as to why their sources are out and out cheaters.
Nobody fudges any data, Gordon. That’s a filthy rotten lie you’ve concocted because you can’t accept findings that aren’t in agreement with your prejudices. You NEVER admit that NOAA and NASA are in agreement with Hadley, JMA and BEST.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Gordon, insulting many very good scientists who put in a hard day’s work.
DA,
GISSs director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent./em>
This is one of your *very good scientists*?
Hes a mathematician, and obviously either incompetent or deluded at that. Since when is a 38% probability indicative of near certainty? Being assigned after the event, it makes Gavin look stupid, dont you think?
Did he really think no one would notice? Even NOAA fudged his 38% to 48% (still less than a coin toss), so that they might appear not quite as thick.
Go off to SkS, dress yourself in your finest anti-denier Nazi uniform, and torture some data into submission. You will feel a lot better, surrounded by stupid.
Cheers.
Darn. Missed the end thingy. Stupid. If thats the most stupid thing I ever do, ill be very fortunate indeed.
Try again –
DA,
GISSs director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent.
This is one of your *very good scientists*?
Hes a mathematician, and obviously either incompetent or deluded at that. Since when is a 38% probability indicative of near certainty? Being assigned after the event, it makes Gavin look stupid, dont you think?
Did he really think no one would notice? Even NOAA fudged his 38% to 48% (still less than a coin toss), so that they might appear not quite as thick.
Go off to SkS, dress yourself in your finest anti-denier Nazi uniform, and torture some data into submission. You will feel a lot better, surrounded by stupid.
Cheers.
Hey davie, did you hear about all the temperature fudging? It’s been going on for awhile, ever since the IPCC projections started failing.
You should pay attention. It’s fun to watch.
DA…”You NEVER admit that NOAA and NASA are in agreement with Hadley, JMA and BEST”.
Thanks, remind me to include JMA and BEST with the fudgers. We know BEST is fudged, Judith Curry as much as said so. She distanced herself from them after Mueller altered the BEST record from what Judith and other authors had agreed upon.
Judith Curry signed the BEST methods paper.
BEST has a Nobel Laureate on their team.
svante…”Judith Curry signed the BEST methods paper”.
And then Mueller took it upon himself to amend the record, much like NOAA and GISS.
Gordon,
it seems that she distanced herself because of the attribution to CO2, not because of any temperature fudging.
https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/04/the-irresistable-story-of-richard-muller/
Gordon rejects any and all results that don’t meet his biases and prejudices and lies.
Gordon, you clearly aren’t the slightest bit interested in science. So what are you hear for?
Gordon,
it seems that she distanced herself because of the attribution to CO2, not because of any temperature “fudging”.
https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/04/the-irresistable-story-of-richard-muller/
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_200_yrs.html
Why David?
Those graphs show the same correlation between CO2 and temperature.
DA,
Correlation is not causation. Many stupid people think it is. Of course, they are completely wrong.
It is just about as stupid as observing a fire and noticing that heat is strongly correlated to the amount of CO2 produced when wood is burnt.
A really stupid person might conclude that CO2 creates heat.
Cheers.
Salvatore, your link says:
“Independent data from orbiting satelites continuosly measuring global temperatures since the 1970’s indicate that over the last 25 years that they has actually been a slight decrease in overall global temperatures.”
This is false, look at the top of this page.
In their own graph they mix in non-global temperatures.
svante…”In their own graph they mix in non-global temperatures”.
What is a non-global temperature as opposed to a global temperature? Is the global not the average of all non-global temperatures, as in the average of all local temperatures?
As an average, is a global temperature not a fictitious ideal? And is there more than one of them?
Because satellite data only goes back to 1979, and before that the graph is only using Antarctic surface data. That mixes two different data sets, and ignores the Northern Hemisphere before 1979. It’s a graph of non-global temperatures.
Non-global values may diverge from the average.
Depending on the definition there is more than one.
By improving your estimate you can get closer and closer to the theoretically true value. This is what you call fudging.
salvatore…from your link…
“Temperatures have increased, according to the data, by about 0.5 C over the last 100 years. Most of these increases occurred in the first half of this time period.
CO2 has also increased during this same time period– from about 300 ppm to 370 ppm. Interestingly, the majority of these additions have occurred in the last 50 years, when temperature increases have been slowest”.
***********
One would expect a front loaded increase in temperature following an event like the Little Ice Age, slowing down as the planet warmed to normal, whatever normal means.
It’s interesting that most warming came while CO2 was less plentiful, then leveled off completely for 18 years (1998 – 2015) when CO2 was most plentiful.
Proves two things: the warming is re-warming from the LIA and there is no correlation between an increase in CO2 and warming.
exactly
The sudden surge in warming following the LIA suggests whatever caused the LIA to begin and end did so rather quickly. That points to something going on with solar radiation.
Nope.
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
The LIA wasn’t global. Believe the data or make up your fairy tales.
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”
— “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
Caveat: *synchronous*.
DA…”The LIA wasnt global. Believe the data or make up your fairy tales.”
If you’re going to accept ice core proxies as proof of pre Industrial CO2 levels you have to accept the proxy data proving the LIA was global. There’s plenty of proxy evidence.
Are you inferring that a cooling of 1C to 2C could just happen in Europe over a 400 year period?
CO2 is *relatively* uniform around the globe. Temperatures are not. The ice core proxies are pretty good for CO2 – as long as you get NH and SH proxies, and can also be good for global temp proxies for ice ages if you use both hemispheres. However, there’s a lot more region variation at sub millennial scales. Salvatore posted a regional chart for global temps in the thread that covers the last 200 years, and that, at least, displays temporally incoherent temps for different regions at different times.
To the best of my knowledge, the weight of opinion is that the LIA was not a globally uniform phenomenon, but the ratio is not resoundingly heavy on one side. I’d say the jury is not quite settled on that score. Similar with MWP.
Typo:
covers the last 200 years
last 2000 years.
The best evidence we have is Davids PAGES 2k link, right?
Open fig. 2 in a new tab and zoom. South America and Australasia are lagging behind, but by 1450 it’s global, and certainly around 1600.
If that’s not global our own warming isn’t global either.
How nice to be able to agree with Gordon for once!
“The best evidence”
Is it? Is that one study out of tens or hundreds? Is it a literature review?
Salvatore posted this upthread:
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/study-charts-2000-years-of-continental-climate-changes/
It’s just one more in a long list of studies.
I think the jury is still out. David’s PAGES 2K link is one more. Why is it the best?
Because it is the latest and most comprehensive?
Salvatore’s link is about the same study, what else do you have on this scale?
It is sort of a literary review, “a group of 78 experts from 24 countries”. It includes results from Marcott et. al.
Of course the science is still zooming in.
barry, I find all of your posts very sensible.
Do you have anything to add here?
Gordon,
CO2 is long term, 18 years is short term.
svante…”CO2 is long term, 18 years is short term”.
18 years is long enough to establish that CO2 has no effect on warming.
It’s actually 20 years now considering it has been gradually cooling since February 2016.
There was a 30 year pause from the 1940’s, that’s short term for CO2.
Besides, what you say is false:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/plot/uah6/from:1998/trend
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=o7Z8eRA2&id=A3D3DF94A4DB6CAD3EA7AD9A9747181D4B81E379&thid=OIP.o7Z8eRA2o_QT33uwXJ9tyAHaGc&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.seagrant.umn.edu%2fnewsletter%2f2012%2f07%2fimages%2fgraphic_lightpenetration.jpg&exph=392&expw=450&q=uv+light+penetration+of+oceans&simid=608032543670208655&selectedIndex=1&ajaxhist=0
as is shown UV light and visible light just shy of UV light wavelengths penetrate the oceans surface to the greatest depth therefore influencing the ocean temperatures.
So what? This doesn’t prove that UV has caused ocean warming.
Do you have any such evidence?
David what do you think has caused the oceans to warm?
No no, Salvatore, you’re not changing the subject here.
You claimed that solar UV is warming the ocean. I’d like to see that evidence — I honestly would — or see you admit you don’t have any evidence.
First these idyots claim UV will cause the earth to cool, now they want to blame warming on it. Apparently all you need to do is name an alternative without any supporting evidence, and that negates all the real science.
Detective: Mr Del Prete, we have strong evidence to believe you murdered your neighbour.
Salvatore: But I have an 80 year old aunt who lives 1000 miles away. She could be the culprit.
Detective: OK, we’ll look into her.
…
(an hour later) Your aunt was not in town. She didn’t murder your neighbour.
Salvatore: But she has a poodle names UV. Perhaps he hitched a ride and killed my neighbour. In fact – I’m sure I saw a poodle walking down the street yesterday – it must be him.
UV light like visible is solar radiation if it penetrates the ocean surface to depths of 50 meters of course it is going to have a warming effect, and if it drops off in intensity so will it’s warming effect.
Do you think that all the various wave lengths of light from the sun that do penetrate the surface do not transfer energy to the ocean and warm it?
surface of ocean
That’s right … ALL visible wavelengths, and a bit outside the visible.
So tell me – has the TOTAL irradiation of the ocean by these wavelengths increased, decreased, or remained steady. Remember … you are claiming that the sun is going into hibernation.
Salvatore, where is your EVIDENCE that changing solar UV is responsible for the ocean warming of the last several decades?
Mike, I was enjoying our intelligent conversation earlier:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-291641
We had basically agreed that CO2 slows the cooling at night. Some of the energy of photons emitted by the surface is absorbed by CO2 and some of that energy is then returned to the surface. SO the surface is cooling slower than without the CO2. Of course, it is still cooling in your scenario where there it no incoming sunlight.
I am curious to know where you are gong with this, since so far you are perfectly explaining how the greenhouse effect works.
What is the next link in the chain of your argument against the GHE?
Tim,
Sorry. I wasnt sure if you wanted to continue. No problem.
One thing is that you appear to making a distinction between night and day. Im not at his point. Is that OK with you? Just saying that when photons are emitted from the surface, any that interact with CO2 cannot make up for the energy lost from the surface, and many proceed directly to space without atmospheric interaction. Ill cover insolation later, if I may.
So, with or without CO2 in the atmosphere, the surface cools – the rate, fast or slow is not quantified at his time.
Cheers
“So, with or without CO2 in the atmosphere, the surface cools… “
I would be much more comfortable with:
“So, with or without CO2 in the atmosphere, the surface emits photon energy …”
or maybe
“So, with or without CO2 in the atmosphere, there is a cooling effect always operating on the surface …”
That way when you DO consider incoming sunlight, we can still talk about the “cooling effect” even if the temperature is actually increasing. Or said another way, the “cooling effect” you describe is still operating even when the surface is not literally “cooling off”.
So let’s say “cooling effect” and see what else you have to say.
Tim,
I understand what you would be happier with, but you havent told me whether you are prepared to accept me moving at my own pace, in my own way.
So let me say what I want to say, if you dont mind. You can speak for yourself later, and I guarantee I wont tell you what I think you should be saying.
What harm can it do, if we agree on the facts as we go along. Im happy to ask if you agree as I go along, but if you dispute the factual nature of anything I say, the matter is easily settled.
Well, I suppose that arguing about whether a photon acts as a wave, or a particle, might cause disagreement between some people. Im happy enough to believe it acts in whatever fashion you want it to – wave, particle, or both.
Anyway, can I proceed, on my terms?
Cheers.
“but you havent told me whether you are prepared to accept me moving at my own pace, in my own way.”
Watch out Tim! It looks like M is about to lead you down the garden path!
Into a strange alternative universe devoid of logic and physics.
Dr N,
You are too stupid to notice that Tim proceeded on the basis that it was a gotcha. Tim is obviously smarter than you. He said he was enjoying the discussion. Why should I not take him at his word, until evidence to the contrary emerges?
Why are you so opposed to the concept of enjoyment? I’m sure you can dig up some psychobabble to justify your obvious sado-masochistic tendencies. Did you like your mother perhaps a wee bit too much? What did your father think about it?
Carry on – as usual.
Cheers.
Or maybe I am letting him proceed until he has to confront his misunderstandings. Time will tell!
Mike says: “but if you dispute the factual nature of anything I say, the matter is easily settled.”
I am trying to clarify to avoid later confusion. I could agree with:
“So, with or without CO2 in the atmosphere, the surface cools infinitesimally at the moment a photon is emitted”.
That conforms to what you said. During any finite period there could be zillions of events that cool the surface — and zillions of other events that warm the surface.
I could even agree that the NET effect of JUST (emission of photons from the surface ) + (return of photons from the atmosphere) is cooling. Perhaps that is closer to what you intend.
My concern is that “cooling” to most people means an actual drop in temperature. With this definition, then with our without CO2, the surface cools about half of the hours each day and the surface warms about half of the hours each day.
On the other hand, 24 hours a day the surface loses energy via thermal IR (with or without CO2). That is why I want to use the language of energy loss rather than the language of “cooling”.
Tim,
Maybe we are at an impasse.
I define cooling as a decrease in temperature.
I define heating as an increase in temperature.
Would you prefer that I use *a decrease in temperature* rather than *cooling*, and *an increase in temperature* rather than *warming* or heating?
If you are heading in the climatological direction of a slower rate of cooling really being heating (an increase in energy), the I have to bid you adieu.
I cannot see why you object to cooling as a decrease in temperature. What word would you use to designate a fall in measured temperature? I’m happy to use it, if it is generally accepted.
For example Newton’s Law of Cooling deals with decreases in temperature. What would prefer it be called? I’m happy to use whatever term you like – as long as it has an objective definition in genera use.
Obviously, the diurnal cycle results in heating from dawn until solar noon, with cooling for the rest of the 24 hour cycle. Minimum temperature occurs just after dawn in the tropics, maximum temperature slightly after local solar noon. So, about 25% heating, 75% cooling – varying with latitude, all the way to days and nights of 6 months duration at the poles. I therefore disagree with your characterisation of *half the hours of the day* if you were referring to a 24 hour day.
What word do you want to use for cooling (bearing in mind Newton’s Law of Cooling)?
Cheers.
There should not be an impasse. But you are not being consistent. I hope that we can agree that ‘with or without’ = ‘in either of two possible circumstances’ = ‘always’.
Quoting you:
* “So, with or without CO2 in the atmosphere, the surface cools”
* “I define cooling as a decrease in temperature.”
So combining your two statements gives:
* Always the surface decreases in temperature.
This is clearly not true — roughly 1/3 of every day the surface warms.
I was just trying to propose some solutions. “Always (whether the atmosphere has CO2 or not) the surface loses energy overall in the form of thermal IR” seems the simplest. The surface will always emit energy in the form thermal IR. At best, the atmosphere will return only part of that energy.
Tim,
Please note that I am not considering any inputs yet, but you dont seem prepared to allow me to proceed without telling me what I should include, or how I should proceed. This I will not do.
Are you prepared to agree with the definition of cooling that I am using? That is, a decrease in temperature, as in Newtons Law of Cooling?
I have not been inconsistent. So far, there is no mention of external sources of energy, much as you wish to keep inserting them.As I said, I am waiting for you to merely agree with a fairly simple definition.
You complain that I am saying that in the absence of an external energy input, the surface always decreases in temperature. What part of that statement do you disagree with?
I dont need you to propose solutions to non-existent problems, but thank you anyway.
Please let me know whether you agree with my statement that cooling is a word representing a drop in temperature. If the temperature is rising, then there is no cooling, by definition. As I have asked before, if you do not agree that cooling, in all circumstances, represents a drop in temperature, I will accept another word that means precisely the same thing. This word must be capable of being applied to Newtons Law of Cooling, without changing the description or operation of that law.
Once you have done that, would you mind very much if I be allowed to develop my own argument at my own pace?
You can choose to agree or disagree at the end of the process, rather than to continually try to change the path I am following by telling me what, in your opinion, I should be doing.
Have you a particular reason for refusing to allow me to proceed as I propose, or to provide an alternative definition for cooling, if you are not prepared to accept the one I use?
Cheers
Mike, if you are explicitly excluding other inputs at this time, then we are fine. I never heard you say that. In fact, you said “One thing is that you appear to making a distinction between night and day. Im not at his point. ” That would imply to me that you are applying your statement independent of the time of day (ie independent of possible other heat inputs).
So … can we assume you mean the following?
“So when there are no other heat inputs to the surface, then with or without CO2 in the atmosphere, the surface cools.”
Then we are cool (pardon the pun). Proced with your discussion of earth at night and we will deal with sunshine and daytime later when you are ready.
“Mike, I was enjoying our intelligent conversation earlier.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
As he delivered a maniacal cackle, enhanced by wildly rolling eyes, and drool running down his chin.
Cheers.
Yes, plenty of points to Dr No for humor!
I liked the one about “military intelligence” too.
Looking in the mirror eh?
It’s funny how you hear “maniacal” in a mere “ha ha ha”. You clearly have a unique ‘ability’ to see things that aren’t there. I guess you smoked too much weed when you were an adolescent (ie. this morning).
Des,
Did you miss your counting lessons at school? How many *has* did you count?
I counted eight. Learn to count. Learn mind reading. Guess better.
You can possibly cure the ignorance, but the stupid will stay with you always.
You dont need to thank me – my pleasure.
Cheers.
Because of course eight makes all the difference. Tell me … what is the magic “maniacal threshold”?
And you are not on YouTube (although people could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, given the level of your trolling) … placing asterisks around a word doesn’t make it bold on this site. You seem to be a bit slow in figuring that one out.
Tim…”We had basically agreed that CO2 slows the cooling at night. Some of the energy of photons emitted by the surface is absorbed by CO2 and some of that energy is then returned to the surface. SO the surface is cooling slower than without the CO2″.
I have questions about that before you develop your theory further.
1)where is the proof that 0.04% of the atmosphere can absorb enough outgoing IR to make any difference whatsoever? (Dalton’s law of partial pressures)
2)you seem to think that an individual CO2 molecule can radiate directly back to the surface without losing its energy via collision with other molecules. Even if it can, where’s the proof that such energy from a cooler region of the atmosphere can warm the surface?
3)where’s the proof that heat transfer between surface and atmosphere is primarily by radiation?
What’s the point of such a conversation with proving 1), 2) and 3)?
1) https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/gw-petty-6-6.jpg
2) That is what Mike and I are discussing. Follow along if you want to see what we decide.
3) Who says it is?
tim…”1) https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/gw-petty-6-6.jpg”
You did notice the milliwatts along the vertical axis??? Sorry, I find these kinds of spectral absorp-tion graphs questionable. It’s not clear what they are trying to infer.
If heat transfer is primarily via conduction and convection that means a discussion on CO2 is a moot point. It makes far more sense that heat transfer is via the majority gases like N2 and O2. It also better explains the so-called GHE.
Gordon, you did notice the milliwatts PER SQUARE METER PER SR PER CM-1 on the vertical axis??? Or perhaps you have no idea what that even means. It is perfectly clear what this graph implies if you understand how thermal IR works and its importance to earth’s energy balance.
Heat transfer is by all three means to varying degrees and at varying times. But I can tell you that ALL The energy transfer from earth to space is by radiation — not conduction or convection. Hence radiation is always important to earth’s energy balance.
Tim, do you believe that the graph “proves” the GHE?
That would be pretty primitive logic, huh?
It’s like of like a primitive believing a flashlight is a piece of the Sun that fell to Earth.
Not much science there, huh?
G, do you believe I was using that graph to prove the GHE?
That would be even more primitive logic than you accuse me of, huh?
Okay Tim, if you’re now ashamed to be associated with the failed CO2/GHE, welcome to reality.
SIGH …
G, if you were following along, you would know the graph was posted specifically in response to:
“1)where is the proof that 0.04% of the atmosphere can absorb enough outgoing IR to make any difference whatsoever? (Daltons law of partial pressures)”
That graph shows how CO2 has a clear and dramatic impact on outgoing IR — even at concentrations of 0.04%. Do you agree there is evidence that CO2 has impacted the outgoing IR?
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “1)where is the proof that 0.04% of the atmosphere can absorb enough outgoing IR to make any difference whatsoever? (Dalton’s law of partial pressures)”
Gordon I have given you the proof more than once. You ignore the math and move on demanding what is already provided. I could give it again but you will just ignore it again. Your interest is not in seeking the truth or in science. It is in trying to get converts to your deluded church of make believe physics where you are the commanding prophet and your words are the only true ones. Lucifer speaks only to NOAA and NASA. Even though you make up most your physics you seem to think these agencies are the deceitful ones.
YOU: “2)you seem to think that an individual CO2 molecule can radiate directly back to the surface without losing its energy via collision with other molecules. Even if it can, where’s the proof that such energy from a cooler region of the atmosphere can warm the surface?”
The molecules of CO2 are also raised to higher vibrational energies when the kinetic energy of a collision is added to the CO2 molecule, the process is a two-way event. Higher vibrational CO2 will give energy to cooler molecules and other molecules with higher kinetic energy will transfer energy to CO2 raising it to higher vibrational energy states. So far I do not know of people making the claim that the cooler atmosphere is warming the surface. The thing you always get wrong, even with direct proof, is that a cooler surroundings can cause a powered surface to get warmer or cooler depending upon the temperature of the surroundings. It is a concept you will never understand and continue to endlessly argue against and not spend a few seconds trying to understand it. The temperature of the cooler surroundings sets the temperature of the powered object. The temperature of the powered object is directly related to the temperature of the surroundings. It is easy physics to understand. Proven in many real world experiments including those done by Dr. Spencer himself on more than one occasion.
YOU: “3)where’s the proof that heat transfer between surface and atmosphere is primarily by radiation?”
I have also proven this to you with empirical data numerous times. I do not know why you pretend no one has proven it to you. Many times in fact. I think I have answered this same question many times for you but you ignore reality. You like to live in your made up world and will not allow facts to intrude in your fantasy land world.
Here is your proof. Please do not request proof again in a couple of new posts from now.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5aa741dd3a487.png
In this example the IR emitted by the Earth’s surface is between 425 and 675 Watts/m^2 far greater than evaporation (not much in this area) or conduction and convection. Which neither is above 100 Watts/m^2 Evaporation of water if by far the greatest energy transfer mechanism besides radiant energy and it is far smaller than IR rate. Do some research on your own. You will find the information you seek readily available. The IR emitted by the atmosphere back to the Earth’s surface is 325 and 400 Watts/m^2. Radiant transfer far exceeds any other energy transfer process. The loss of heat by radiant energy (which is the NET between the radiant energy flows) is considerably less and makes you think the exchange of energy is small.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5aa743936042e.png
This is the same day and place as the earlier link. It shows that during the day the Net loss from the surface by IR is much greater than at night (which easily proves the GHE). It totally smashes the false notion that the atmosphere is absorbing large amounts of solar energy. If this were the case in reality, the day NET IR would be less than at night. This is a logical thought process.
The daytime NET loss of IR is much greater because the atmosphere does not warm nearly as rapidly as the absorbing surface. The DWIR is based upon the temperature of the atmosphere. The warmer the atmosphere the more IR it is able to radiate back to the surface (and also out to space).
Norm, the longer you ramble, the more you get WRONG!
It’s fun to watch.
The funniest example is: “It shows that during the day the Net loss from the surface by IR is much greater than at night (which easily proves the GHE).”
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
I do not like to respond to your mindless replies but since you claim I am WRONG, prove your assertion. You won’t do it but I request that you do.
Also what do you find incorrect about the NET loss statement proving GHE? Not sure why you find this reality hilarious so please elaborate with valid science. Show some support for your points or don’t make them.
Con-man, you don’t have enough understanding of physics to understand. But your believing that the Sun is “proof” of the GHE, is what’s hilarious.
You can’t even understand that a race horse, on a race track, is NOT “rotating on its axis”.
Your ineptness is fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
You are a useless idiot. I am done. I was hoping to see some change in you but that will never happen. You are s stupid troll. I might attempt to respond to your mindless and empty posts after a while to see if there is any change in your behavior. Until then don’t respond to my posts that are not directed to you. They are unwelcome and you are a complete mindless idiot. I have zero interest in any conversation with you. So leave me the heck alone.
Con-man, as usual, when you get caught with your pseudoscience, you resort to yelping like a rabid chihuahua.
It’s fun to watch.
G* says norman is ‘caught’ saying a falsehood, but is unable to show why it is false. Pointless.
Nate sneaks in 4 days after my comment, hoping I will not see it. I’ve caught him doing this before. It fits his character, much akin to back-stabbing.
Sneaky Nate.
And….hes still pointless
As the solar/geo magnetic fields continue TO weaken many will just go merrily obliviously on their way trying to promote AGW theory.
“trying to promote AGW theory”
You seem to have missed the boat.
We warmists won ages ago. I don’t understand why you lot still keep denying.
(or maybe I do. The answer is sad)
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“As the solar/geo magnetic fields continue TO weaken….”
Salvatore, can you show evidence that these magnetic fields can account for the rapid warming seen since the 1970s?
Why do I deny it. Look at my post earlier today. I laid out 8 reasons.
Sal I think Dr No is a bit behind the times maybe news hasnt reach South Australia yet
Trump is now president ……… we won
Regards
Plain idiocy.
Neither you nor the alarmists on the other side of the fence ever won.
Hilarious.
Bullshit.
http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-View.pdf
W,
I’m not sure what your bullshit comment refers to. Your link refers to an unspecified Greenhouse Effect, which is just assumed to exist, resulting in hotter thermometers. It also mentions a GHG theory, which also seems not to exist.
Isn’t science supposed to follow a procedure known as the scientific method? If climatology doesn’t care for the scientific method, then whatever climatology may be, it sure as heck ain’t science!
Cheers.
when…from your link:
“Various schemes are used to extrapolate (or fill in) the sparse data in order to approximate global coverage. Needless to say, such filling in (making up data) is open to criticism and uncertainty”.
*******
Even Lief admits the surface record is fudged.
“…extrapolate…fill in…sparse data ….approximate …making up data”.
Is there no end to it? Alarmists will go to no length to fudge data in order to promote their pseudo-science.
**********
A bit later….”So, the (misnamed) greenhouse effect arises because the surface now receives energy from two sources, the Sun and the heated atmosphere”.
Lief did not bother to explain how an atmosphere that is generally cooler than the surface can transfer heat to the surface thereby contravening the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Neither did he explain the perpetual motion effect of the surface unducing heat in GHGs and having it recycled by the atmosphere to heat the surface even more.
Lief also skimmed over the inconvenient fact that CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere while all GHGs combined account for about 0.3% of the entire atmosphere. He has not even tried to explain how such rare gases cause such disproportionate warming in contradiction of Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures.
AGW relies on smoke and mirrors as the basis for it’s theory and the slight of hand seems to fool many people completely. Alarmist are far better magicians than scientists.
“to no length” = “to any length”
unduced = induced
https://geosciencebigpicture.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/ceres-lw-toa-flux-adjusted.png
David explain how this could be it goes against your expectations or I should say AGW theory.
Who is “David”?
david appell
Des the problem with AGW theory is all the cornerstones this theory has called for never materialize.
This gives me confidence that all of the warming that has occurred has been due to natural variability, from coming out of the Little Ice Age.
Once more I now think that period of warming is in the process of ending and if it does end AGW will be proven wrong without a doubt.
Never materialize???
* increasing surface temperatures
* increasing lower troposphere temperatures
* cooling stratosphere
* increasing SST
* increasing ocean heat content
* sea ice is melting
* glaciers are melting
* sea level is rising
* ocean acidifying
* plants blooming earlier
* animals moving poleward
What more do you need?
Is it so hard for you to understand what Salvatore means here?
He speaks about AGW, and you answer with a general GW list potentially containing both anthropic and natural parts.
Salvatore has no proof for a 100 % natural GW source since LIA’s end; but where is your incontestable repartition among both origins?
Ideologists like you discredit the entire discussion even more than do dumb pseudoskeptics.
AGW predicts the stratosphere will cool. If the surface & LT warming were solar, the stratosphere would warm.
The stratosphere is cooling, above and beyond that due to ozone loss.
There are no known factors that would cause surface & LT warming except anthropogenic GHGs. Here’s an excellent graphic showing that:
“What’s Really Warming the World,” Bloomberg Business, 6/24/15
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
There are also these studies, which I’ve referred to time and time again:
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
La Pangolina says:
“Ideologists like you discredit the entire discussion even more than do dumb pseudoskeptics.”
How am I an “ideologist?” I’m the one quoting science here. If you don’t like the science, tough.
All of the above are predicted by AGW theory. All are happening. EXPLAIN THAT.
DA…”How am I an ideologist? Im the one quoting science here”.
That’s the extent of your delusions. Whatever comes out of your mind is science and any real science going back hundreds of years is wrong.
You even discredit scientists based on when they formulated the science. According to you, Newtonian theory is null and void because it happened several centuries ago. According to you alarmists, it’s doubly void because Newton believed in God.
binny…”Salvatore has no proof for a 100 % natural GW source since LIAs end; but where is your incontestable repartition among both origins?”
The natural proof is far more convincing than an extremely rare gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere causing catastrophic warming/climate change. It makes good sense that a re-warming from the Little Ice Age, where global temps were 1C to 2C below normal, is what we have been experiencing.
When you consider what may have caused the LIA, the only rational explanation is a variation in solar energy. Some have tried to explain it through vulcanism but volcanic aerosols do not persist for hundreds of years. I doubt if they’d persist more than a year.
David Appell an ideologist??? That’s an upgrade.
DA…”All of the above are predicted by AGW theory. All are happening. EXPLAIN THAT.”
It’s happening only in your delusions. AGW is based on “what else could be causing the warming”? Alarmist don’t want to look for what may be causing it even though there is an answer right before them.
I see no evidence of AGW. Even Trenberth had to admit he could not find it.
Gordon, why do you keep lying about Trenberth?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Its happening only in your delusions. AGW is based on what else could be causing the warming?”
Gordon, what’s causing all these observations?
* increasing surface temperatures
* increasing lower troposphere temperatures
* cooling stratosphere
* increasing SST
* increasing ocean heat content
* sea ice is melting
* glaciers are melting
* sea level is rising
* ocean acidifying
* plants blooming earlier
* plants and animals moving poleward
Gordon Robertson says:
“It makes good sense that a re-warming from the Little Ice Age, where global temps were 1C to 2C below normal, is what we have been experiencing.”
Gordon, what is your evidence for these numbers?
Gordon Robertson says:
“AGW is based on what else could be causing the warming?”
Gordon,dDo you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb it?
davie, do you believe that watermelons are heating the planet?
They both absorb and emit infrared.
Hilarious.
SDP, the CERES results are from a model. First off, the LW results are the difference between the total emitted and the SW emitted from the surface. Given that the CERES instruments are flown on satellites with synchronous orbits, the measurements are always taken at a fixed time of the day along the ground track, so the results can’t be said to represent a 24 hour measure. Also, at the highest latitudes, the scan is cross track and the ground track is more east-west than north-south as is true nearer the Equator, thus the scan is across the path of the incoming and reflected SW. Worse, at high latitudes, the local time for the AQUA with LEC of 13:30 +/- 6hrs or for TERRA is LEC 10:30 +/- 6hrs, thus the scans are mostly in the dark. Then, all the data must be adjusted for scan angles…
The CERES date isn’t worth as much as you seem to think.
of course if it does not agree or support AGW it is wrong.
But it is just not that it is all of the basic premises this theory has been built upon that have not come to be.
If otherwise I might give the theory more serious consideration.
So do you have data showing otherwise?
swannie believes: “First off, the LW results are the difference between the total emitted and the SW emitted from the surface.”
First off, Earth does NOT “emit” SWIR.
Secondly, fluxes are NOT conserved.
There’s much more, but that’s enough to debunk the pseudoscience for now.
g*e*r*a*n_a_moe, we were discussing CERES LW data, right?
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ceres_faq.php#ceres_lwcalc
But, you are so fixated on greenhouse gases that you’ve lost it.
Wrong, swannie. What I’m “fixated on” is your sentence: “First off, the LW results are the difference between the total emitted and the SW emitted from the surface.”
As I indicated, the surface does NOT “emit” SW. Which further indicates you do not know what you’re talking about.
g*e*r*a*n_a_moe, You are such a joker, but you still can’t get it right. The satellites are orbiting above TOA. Ever heard of albedo? Clouds, snow and ice and oceans reflect SW back to space and land surfaces also reflect somewhat as well.
See swannie, you can learn.
Now you are using “reflect” instead of “emit”.
Glad to help.
g*e*r*a*n_a_moe, What are you going to be when you grow up? You aren’t good enough to be a technical editor, so maybe a career as a shyster lawyer would be a better fit.
swannie, why so bitter because I taught something?
Why do you hate facts?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“https://geosciencebigpicture.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/ceres-lw-toa-flux-adjusted.png
“David explain how this could be it goes against your expectations or I should say AGW theory.”
Do you have any REAL science to offer???
That’s just some graph some unnamed person made with a spreadsheet over a weekend.
Real science is not done on spreadsheets over the weekend, Salvatore.
You seriously need to raise you standards.
DA…”Do you have any REAL science to offer???”
You keep talking about real science while referring to climate modelers who murder science in support of their ridiculous theories.
Real science is based on the scientific method, which does not support modeling theory. Real science proved long ago that the temperature contributed by each gas in a mixed gas, with a constant volume, is directly proportional to the partial pressure produced by each gas.
The partial pressure produced by CO2, at 0.04% of the atmosphere, is so miniscule that CO2 could not warm the atmosphere more than about 4/100ths of a degree C.
You want real science???? Then disprove the above. While you’re at it, disprove the 2nd law. Prove that heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, especially after the surface provided the heat to warm it in the first place.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Real science is based on the scientific method, which does not support modeling theory.”
ha ha ha ha ha ha
You love to quote the Bohr model.
Ever hear of physics quark model? Standard Model? I could go on and on.
You like models when you think they give the results you want. Then you hypocritically castigate them when they don’t.
ALL PHYSICS IS MODELS. All science is models. Climate models apply the basic equations of physics that have been extensively confirmed in the laboratory. They’re doing applied physics, just like an engineer designing a bridge or an integrated circuit or designing an airplane.
GR, I already demonstrated the Green Plate effect, clearly showing that adding a second body into the path of IR radiation resulted in an increase in temperature of the first body. You’ve still not come up with a rational rebuttal.
Do you have a link to your green plate experiment? I missed that earlier….
DA, Here’s the link to the PDF file.
https://app.box.com/s/al1duvn2aq3blkyqecivh5y3yyvlno4i
Links to the 2 earlier versions are in the notes.
davie loves pseudoscience.
This is my point that things this theory call for like in the above, like the lower tropospheric hot spot, like a more zonal wind flow do NOT happen.
I think if the fundamental premises a theory is based on do not happen that the theory does not have much to stand on.
The TOA flux changes is not very good news for AGW theory.
Please reply below the comment you’re referring to.
Or else quote what you’re referring to. Thanks.
The “hot spot” is a prediction for ANY type of warming, not just increased greenhouse warming. If you believe otherwise, then you should try to venture away from the security of your denier websites.
Yes, its absence (more likely lack of data) needs to be explained, but it doesn’t disprove AGW.
But one signature solely of increased greenhouse warming is a cooling stratosphere. For other warming causes, the stratosphere would also warm. And we DO have a cooling stratosphere.
des…”The hot spot is a prediction for ANY type of warming, not just increased greenhouse warming. If you believe otherwise, then you should try to venture away from the security of your denier websites”.
*************
Or maybe you should try learning some real science that is based on real physics as opposed to your model-based pseudo-science. I mean, what kind of idiots program a model with CO2 having a warming effect of 9% to 25% when it represents 0.04% of the atmosphere?
Real scientists don’t make egregious errors like that, they know the temperature contributed by each gas in a mixed gas is proportional to the mass of each gas.
Modelers are nothing more than a load of social scientists who have beliefs similar to an anthropologist. If they can’t prove something, they make up science by altering basic physics and chemistry to suit their amateurish theories.
And amateurs like you believe them, lacking the ability to separate the real science from the pseudo-science.
There is no warming spot, case closed. Modelers are wrong.
“they know the temperature contributed by each gas in a mixed gas is proportional to the mass of each gas.”
Congratulations on continuing to display your lack of understanding of the greenhouse effect.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I mean, what kind of idiots program a model with CO2 having a warming effect of 9% to 25% when it represents 0.04% of the atmosphere?”
Another lie, and also a display of ignorance.
Climate models don’t program a “warming effect.” They solve the equations of physics that describes the atmosphere, ocean, and land.
CO2 warming is a result of the calculation.
—
Again you’re with the 0.04%. How much greenhouse warming does the cause, according to your calculation, Gordon?
I say if it were OBVIOUS that OLR was actually conforming to the theory there would be no doubts and it would be touted to no end.
But that is not the case.
There are no doubts, Salvatore, that AGW is happening. Try reading some real science outlets instead of denier blogs.
Then how come none of the basic premises this theory is built upon have come to be?
Salvatore, you’re being ridiculous.
All of the following are happening:
* increasing surface temperatures
* increasing lower troposphere temperatures
* cooling stratosphere
* increasing SST
* increasing ocean heat content
* sea ice is melting
* glaciers are melting
* sea level is rising
* ocean acidifying
* plants blooming earlier
* plants and animals moving poleward
DA…”All of the following are happening:”
The entire list can be explained by natural variation. The Little Ice Age caused a period of cooling in which glaciers grew enormously and living creatures obviously migrated to warmer climates. They are now moving back.
Take off your AGW-tinted glasses and look at reality.
So explain all those observations with natural variability. I’d love to see that.
DA…”There are no doubts, Salvatore, that AGW is happening. Try reading some real science outlets instead of denier blogs.
Reply”
Give us direct proof that AGW is happening. The IPCC cannot make such a claim, they say it is only likely, even though they had to invent a scale of confidence levels to skew their OPINIONS.
In 2013, after admitting no warming had occurred during the 15 years from 1998 – 2012, the IPCC raised their confidence level from 90% to 95% that humans are LIKELY causing the warming. What kind of politically-affected blithering idiots would put out such an illogical statement following an admission that warming had stopped for 15 years?
I’ve given you direct proof many times. You didn’t read them then and there’s no reason to think you will now.
Because, again, you really aren’t interested in data and evidence — only in confirming your own beliefs by whatever means necessary.
Where is the hot spot?
Why has not the atmospheric circulation become more zonal?
Why is there not a marked decrease in OLR?
3 BASIC PREMISES THS THEROY IS BASED ON NONE HAVE COME TO BE.
Evidence for the tropospheric “hot spot”:
“Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2),” Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 054007.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/article
Here’s the relevant figure from that paper:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/05/14/a-global-warming-fingerprint-confirmed-upper-troposphere-warming/
DA…”Evidence for the tropospheric hot spot:”
There is no evidence. UAH have looked for it using REAL data and they could not find it.
ps. you first link is about modeled bs, using much the same method as NOAA uses to fudge temperature data. Your second link is even worse. The amateur who wrote the article claims:
“Satellite measurement of temperature variation in the troposphere are not as useful as one might hope, because those instruments tend to average out temperatures over a much larger area of air than suitable for measuring the expected warming”.
What an utterly ignorant statement. John Christy does not think so but the armchair expert writing the article ‘alleges’ that.
Of course, all you alarmists have been utterly misinformed as to how satellite telemetry works. Barry is so ignorant he thinks the telemetry averages the air temperature up to 4 kilometres. Even though I pointed out the obvious, that the telemetry uses several over-lapping channels that reach right to the surface, in his Aussie stubbornness he clings to his delusion.
How would you detect the tropospheric hot spot without a data model?
I don’t see anything wrong with the 2nd paragraph, but I didn’t quote it because it’s from a blogger. I only referred to it for the figure, which is no longer there. But here is is:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/tropospheric-hot-spot/
In what published paper did Christy find no hot spot, and when? It’s only recently that the hot spot has been visible above the error bars.
BTW, the paper’s title says where the data is from: “iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data.”
“iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature”
Hilarious.
How about this: “computer-generated, modeled, homogenized, adjusted, regurgitated, transformed, digitized, magnetized, modulated, pasteurized, perforated, amplified, circumcised, super-imposed, and hyper-ventilated”?
Don’t you just love pseudoscience?
What do you mean by “zonal?”
Global warming doesn’t work by decreasing OLR. The Earth is warming up to keep OLR in balance.
“In response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2, high end general circulation models (GCMs) simulate an accumulation of energy at the top of the atmosphere not through a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR)as one might expect from greenhouse gas forcingbut through an enhancement of net absorbed solar radiation (ASR).”
— Donohue et al, PNAS 2014
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1412190111
By the way, Salvatore, the tropospheric hot spot isn’t a sign of AGW — it would occur with warming from any cause.
salvatore…”Where is the hot spot?
Why has not the atmospheric circulation become more zonal?
Why is there not a marked decrease in OLR?”
***********
Why is warming in the Arctic restricted to locales that move around month to month?
Why is there 10 feet of ice over the North Pole every year…and year after year?
Where is the catastrophic warming predicted in 1988?
Where are the rising sea levels predicted to reclaim ocean-front property the world over?
Why was there no warming trend for 18 years, from 1998 – 2015?
Why is the atmosphere currently cooling?
Gordon, don’t act like you don’t know the answers to your own questions, and how they accord with AGW. Just stop it.
DA…”Gordon, dont act like you dont know the answers to your own questions, and how they accord with AGW. Just stop it”.
I am not dogmatic and myopic like you, I like evidence. I don’t see any.
Gordon, if you like evidence so much, why do you ever present any?
I do all the time, as you know.
GR, You are repeating a classic denialist claim by cherry picking data. 1998 was a very warm El Nino year and starting a trend calculation with that bump reduces the calculated trend. Similarly, ending with 2015 before the large El Nino in 2016 reduces the trend at the end. If you really want to do the calculation properly, you must include 2017, which is the last full year available. But, you obviously don’t want to do the calculations properly, else you wouldn’t be cherry picking data.
swannie…”You are repeating a classic denialist claim by cherry picking data. 1998 was a very warm El Nino year…”
It was the IPCC who admitted no warming from 1998 – 2012, calling it a warming hiatus. That makes them cherry-pickers according to you.
Whereas I may agree with you the way they cherry-picked CO2 concentrations from ice cores, the 15 year hiatus was supported by UAH and RSS. Had-crut, NOAA and GISS agreed too, before they all began retroactively fudging the temperature record.
Gordon, as you know, but failed to admit, the IPCC 5AR is out-of-date on this, superseded by Karl et al Science 2015.
“Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” Thomas R. Karl et al, Science 26 June 2015: Vol. 348 no. 6242 pp. 1469-1472.
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf
Why didn’t you mention this?
davie, if the climate-clowns keep changing their pseudoscience enough, maybe someday they will get it right.
Maybe.
The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms. However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warmingthe moistening of the atmosphere and the reduction of snow and sea ice cover. Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR.
My commentary it is a bunch of BS! So now CO2 results in more absorbed solar radiation. Still trying to show a CO2/WATER VAPOR connection or positive feedback which does not exist as is evidenced by the lack of the lower tropospheric hot spot.
A desperate grasping at straws to try to justify all the short comings of this theory. They have also done this with the atmospheric circulation forecast which they have had wrong now trying to say AGW will result in a more meridional atmospheric circulation, where as originally they called for the opposite to take place..
All they are doing is trying to justify the theory and try to make it stay relevant, happening rather then sticking by their original premises. Which they can not do because they have all FAILED.
David this is ridiculous.
Salvatore wrote:
“My commentary it is a bunch of BS! So now CO2 results in more absorbed solar radiation.”
Salvatore, did you read the paper?
David will do and say anything or use any research if it fits in with his thoughts on AGW.
Grasping at straws? Yes, because none of the premises this theory has called for have come true and the only way to make them appear to perhaps have a chance of happening is by torturing the data and somehow trying to make it seem so.
Believe me if there was really a tropospheric hot spot there would be no conflicting data it would be a black and white situation.
Everything AGW supports is in a gray area at best. They can not prove anything and when that happens they adjust the theory or go after the slightest thread of data which might lend some support to there soon to be obsolete theory.
Unlike my theory I say wait and see they say it is a done deal. Are they joking?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Grasping at straws? Yes, because none of the premises this theory has called for have come true”
WHY AREN’T YOU READING MY REPLIES???
Instead you’re burying your head.
* increasing surface temperatures
* increasing lower troposphere temperatures
* cooling stratosphere
* increasing SST
* increasing ocean heat content
* sea ice is melting
* glaciers are melting
* sea level is rising
* ocean acidifying
* plants blooming earlier
* plants and animals moving poleward
DA…”WHY ARENT YOU READING MY REPLIES???”
They’re all rubbish, that’s why.
I dismissed the most recent one above easily. It can all be put down to natural variability.
David: I wish to take you up on the ocean acidification story. Firstly, pH varies with temperature. A pH 7.47 buffer at 0 degrees Celsius will give a meter reading of 7.00 at 25C. You can check this for yourself on the internet.
The IPCC themselves state in their 2007 book on the science of climate (p404) that the mean pH of surface waters in the open ocean ranges between 7.9 and 8.3.
As you see, the claim could be dishonestly made that a drop in temperature causes ‘acidification’, or a lowering of the pH value, even though the oceans remain alkaline!
This change in stated pH is what’s behind the abuse of the term ‘acidification’.
Some years ago, I corresponded with an American scientist about this. He would not budge from his claim that a change in pH to a lower figure, however slight and still well within the alkaline range, nevertheless constituted ‘acidification’.
I’ve seen the claim made that ‘ocean acidification has increased by 30%. It sounds very dramatic of course, but is in fact a dishonest twisting of the truth.
This is how it’s been done. I’ll work from first principles. A pH of 7 means that a solution contains 10 to the power of minus 7 (10-7) grams of hydrogen (in the form of hydrogen ions) per litre. Translating this into a more easily recognised number, it means that our pH7 solution contains 0.0000001 (that is, 1/10,000,000) grams of hydrogen per litre.
A solution of pH6 contains 0.000001 (1/1,000,000) grams of hydrogen per litre, and one of pH8 has 0.00000001 (1/100,000,000) grams of hydrogen per litre.
A solution of pH7 contains 10 times as much hydrogen as a solution of pH8. Hence, the pH decreases as hydrogen concentration increases.
So far so good, but as you can see, things get a little awkward when you’re talking about smaller pH changes, for example from 8.3 to 8.2. How to calculate the hydrogen concentration in this case? What you need is the negative antilog function on your pocket calculator.
A value for a pH of 8.3 would be typed in as -8.3. Don’t forget that important minus sign !The antilog value will emerge as 5.0119 X 10-9 (5.0119 times ten to the power of minus 9), and this is the hydrogen ion concentration.
For a pH of 8.2, type in -8.2. The answer will be 6.3095 X 10-9. The difference between 5.0119 and 6.3095 is 25.89%, which is for argument’s sake 26%. In other words, the difference in the 0.1 pH unit change between 8.2 and 8.3 is 26%.
26%? Well, why not round it up to 30%?
Job done – another climate horror story hits the mainstream media!
Well done, C-500!
An error – my apologies!
I said: ‘A pH 7.47 buffer at 0 degrees Celsius will give a meter reading of 7.00 at 25C.’
Further on, what I meant to say was that a dishonest claim could be made that a RISE in temperature causes ‘acidification’ – because the pH figure in the example falls with temperature increase.
Not enough coffee consumed, clearly!
Carbon500 says:
“As you see, the claim could be dishonestly made that a drop in temperature causes acidification,”
What drop in temperature?
(And do you think oceanographers don’t know this?)
Gordon Robertson says:
“Theyre all rubbish, thats why.”
Then they should be easy for you to disprove.
Yet strangely, you never manage to accomplish that.
Carbon500 says:
“Further on, what I meant to say was that a dishonest claim could be made that a RISE in temperature causes acidification”
That’s not why scientists say the ocean is acidifying.
It’s because the ocean is absorbing more CO2.
Carbon500 – you’re writing trivial stuff known by every serious student of science.
Here you go:
MONDAY, JULY 02, 2012
“Yes, Ocean Acidity Has Increased by 30%”
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/07/yes-ocean-acidity-has-increased-by-30.html
When davie has to face facts, he goes berserk.
It’s fun to watch.
David:
Clearly you haven’t read fully what I said.
Look at my amendment which I posted on March 13th at 8.19am, where I state that a dishonest claim could be made that a RISE in temperature causes acidification because the pH figure in the example falls with temperature increase.
You also ask ‘what rise in temperature’?
Read my post again. I’m referring to pH values measured under laboratory conditions at different temperatures.
Do you not see that the whole point of my post was to describe in detail the way in which trivial changes of pH can be manipulated to deliberately mislead people -‘we’ve increased ocean acidity by 30%’ sounds much more dramatic than ‘minor changes in pH’ doesn’t it? – yet another ‘shock horror’ climate story for the newspapers.
You refer to ‘ocean acidification’ in your post, and that’s what led to my response.
The oceans are alkaline, and they are not being turned to acid as implied by such deliberate nonsensical abuse of terminology as I’ve described.
carbon 500…”Ive seen the claim made that ocean acidification has increased by 30%. It sounds very dramatic of course, but is in fact a dishonest twisting of the truth”.
All forms of ridiculous claims are made by climate alarmists and offered as ‘science’. David Appell specializes in offering pseudo-science and outright propaganda as science.
With acidification, if I recall correctly, it depends on the amount of solute wrt the amount of solvent. In this case, CO2 is the solute and the ocean’s massive amount of water is the solvent.
Carbonic acid, H2CO3, forms when CO2 obviously inherits an oxygen atom from water, H20. The question arises as to the strength of the acid.
We know from the IPCC, based on a CO2 concentration of 390 ppmv, for ALL CO2 (natural + ACO2), that anthropogenic gases in the atmosphere are only a fraction of all CO2. If human emissions can only increase atmospheric gases by a trivial amount then the effect they’ll have on the oceans is even more trial.
Can we stop talking nonsense about ocean acidification? We likely acidify it a lot more with the sewage we dump in the water and all the fish poop and p*ss going in there.
Has anyone every seen one whale bowel movement?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qpsRpyzpno
DA…”Yes, Ocean Acidity Has Increased by 30%”
30% of nothing is nothing.
Gordon Robertson says:
DAYes, Ocean Acidity Has Increased by 30%
30% of nothing is nothing.
This is among the dumbest, least informed things you’ve ever written, Gordon.
Gordon Robertson says:
We know from the IPCC, based on a CO2 concentration of 390 ppmv, for ALL CO2 (natural + ACO2), that anthropogenic gases in the atmosphere are only a fraction of all CO2. If human emissions can only increase atmospheric gases by a trivial amount then the effect theyll have on the oceans is even more trial.
{eye roll}
Atmospheric CO2 is now 410 ppmv, not “390 ppmv.”
Source:
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_weekly_mlo.txt
The increase in atmospheric CO2 due to humans is 45% since the pre-industrial era.
Again Salvatore, did you read the paper?
It doesn’t look like you did, or you would have said “yes.”
Again your head is in the sand.
Salvatore, just up above I gave you evidence for the hot spot.
If you’re not going to read my replies, I’ll stop bothering to make them.
Evidence for the tropospheric hot spot:
Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2), Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 054007.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/article
Heres the relevant figure from that paper:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/tropospheric-hot-spot/
DA…”Salvatore, just up above I gave you evidence for the hot spot”.
You’re the only one who can see it. Do you see other things that are not there?
Does Figure 18 show a larger trend up in the tropical atmosphere than it does at the surface?
(Yes.)
DA…”BEST has a Nobel Laureate on their team”
There’s a Nobel Laureate at UAH, John Christy. I think Roy should get one too for maintaining his integrity while enduring all the bs from alarmists like you.
No, he is not — he was a member of a large team that was awarded the prize collectively.
(Remember how you’ve given grief to Mann for making the same claim?)
And, so what? That has nothing to do with BEST’s work.
DA…”No, he is not he was a member of a large team that was awarded the prize collectively”.
So they are all Nobel Laureates.
Hilarious, when you’ve criticized Mann for claiming the exact same think.
The IPCC won half the Prize. In the few days afterward, no one was really sure what that meant for those who have worked with the IPCC. So some said they were Laureates. Some said they weren’t. As time went by, it seemed the general thinking seemed to be that individual members of a large team could not be said to have each received the Nobel Prize.
This was again a problem last year when the Physics Prize went to LIGO.
As more science is done by more large teams, this is something the Committee should try to clarify, in my opinion.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/
The reality David.
Salvatore, it’s interesting that you accept model results when they show what you want but reject them otherwise.
Why do you accept Roy’s blog claims but not those of Sherwood and Nishant? What’s your criteria for acceptance?
Why because we agree that is why.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Why because we agree that is why.”
Aha!
Thank you for finally admitting this.
Your criteria for accepting a result is not based on its science and methodology, but because you like what it says.
Gotcha.
Christy, Spencer and others just very recently published a paper on this topic — I’m surprised Roy didn’t mention it:
“Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures used in climate research,” John R. Christy, Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell & Robert Junod, International Journal of Remote Sensing
Volume 39, 2018 – Issue 11
https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293
Look at the PDF, Figure 18, the green spots and lines from radiosondes.
Is that not showing the upper troposphere tropical hot spot?
DA…”Is that not showing the upper troposphere tropical hot spot?”
No.
Why not?
Also, does the RSS data say the same thing?
David if it were there in black and white this discussion would not be taking place.
When the global (I will say if) temperatures drop AGW is going to probably said they called for it since that is what they are doing with everything else that goes against them.
Salvatore, you avoided my question. Because you don’t have a clue how to answer it.
When /if people that are neutral like Dr. Spencer and others embrace there is a hot spot that is when I might believe it but that has not happened as of today.
Only those who want to promote AGW have said they have found the elusive hot spot because earlier data which opposed it was all wrong.
Just like everything else which opposes this theory ,if it does not support it, it is wrong.
So Dr Spence is neutral but no one else is?
Why do you think that?
—
Did you look at Figure 18 in Christy et al?
“Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures used in climate research,” John R. Christy, Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell & Robert Junod, International Journal of Remote Sensing
Volume 39, 2018 Issue 11
https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293
Look at the PDF, Figure 18, the green spots and lines from radiosondes.
Is that not showing the upper troposphere tropical hot spot?
David,
If you look at the top panel, they put the MT at 0.1C/decade, a bit lower than the surface.
It’s difficult to tell which pressure height they select, or what average range. Where is the MT supposed to be?
barry, I don’t understand what that box at the top of their figure is showing. Do you?
I’ve never really understood what the MT is either.
It’s a little unclear. The main chart is of tropical MT, but the panel is labeled just MT (global?) – the section is in context of the tropical MT, so likely everything on that chart is tropical mid troposphere.
The altitudes are in pressure units. It’s simple enough to find the Mb range for the purported tropical hotspot.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-1.html
It’s rather broad, centred on about 250 Mb.
The spatial location of the MT hotspot seems to be at odds with the top panel in the graph in Christy et al. But maybe that panel really does refer to the global MT. Can’t quite glean from the paper, but I’m skimming as I’m heading out to work.
Spencer …. neutral??? Hahaha
The rate of observed warming since 1979 for the tropical atmospheric TMT layer, which we calculate also as +0.10 0.03C decade−1, is significantly less than the average of that generated by the IPCC AR5 climate model simulations. Because the model trends are on average highly significantly more positive and with a pattern in which their warmest feature appears in the latent-heat release region of the atmosphere, we would hypothesize that a misrepresentation of the basic model physics of the tropical hydrologic cycle (i.e. water vapour, precipitation physics and cloud feedbacks) is a likely candidate
What you sent David last paragraph
So what?
No one thinks models are perfect. They’re constantly being evaluated and revised, just like what you quoted.
Nor do models HAVE to be perfect. No model ever is. But climate models do a good job — certainly good enough.
Salvatore, how would you determine future climate without a model?
David Appell says:
March 12, 2018 at 2:10 PM
Evidence for the tropospheric “hot spot”:
“Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)” Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 054007.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/article
*
What you propose to show your evidence is for me no evidence at all.
What about you reading this instead?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/
Maybe it helps.
And moreover, as the majority of the IGRA radiosondes show by far too much warming everywhere, and therefore such an analysis has to be restricted to homogenised sonde data (RAOBCORE, RICH, RATPAC B, etc), i.e. about 85 stations (only 31 within 30S-30N) you have to perform a kriging imho vastly exceeding its spatial reliability.
So please don’t show us such papers.
Maybe you try to find out wether or not the hotspot is visible in data coming from spatially more accurate sources?
For example:
– RSS4.0 TLT/TMT or
– NOAA STAR TMT (nearly identical to UAH6.0 TLT).
That’s a blog post, not a peer reviewed paper. In any case, see this paper just recently out by Christy & Spencer et al:
Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures used in climate research, John R. Christy, Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell & Robert Junod, International Journal of Remote Sensing
Volume 39, 2018 Issue 11
https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293
Look at the PDF, Figure 18, the green spots and lines from radiosondes.
Is that not showing the upper troposphere tropical hot spot?
DA…”Look at the PDF, Figure 18, the green spots and lines from radiosondes.
Is that not showing the upper troposphere tropical hot spot?”
No.
Gordon Robertson says:
“No.”
Why not?
The tropical midtroposphere ‘hotspot’ is predicted between the 400-150 hPa pressure levels in the atmosphere here, centred around 350 hPa:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-1.html
Looking at the tropical MT chart supplied by Christy et al (fig 18), the warmest trends appear to at about the same level in the atmos as predicted in the IPCC charts – 350 hPa.
Confusingly, the top panel in figure 18 gives the “MT” trend much lower than what would be suggested by the rest of the chart, and as ‘tropical’ does not appear in the description of the panel, I doin’t know if that is the global MT or tropical.
The larger part of the chart is of a piece with the IPCC re the tropical hotspot, at least qualitatively – hotter in tyhe tropical mid troposphere, but not the panel.
I read some supplementary details of Christy et al, but it did not illuminate. They do not define precisely what region the tropical MT covers, so it’s hard to know if their panel in fig 18 is a weird discrepancy or well grounded.
After a quick look at Christy et al. 2018, I found the usual effort to promote the TMT as a valid measure. The newest UAH TMT v6 has some obvious problems. As Christy notes, the TMT is contaminated by stratospheric cooling, thus the trends calculated from the TMT do not represent the real temperature trends in the layer which Christy claims. In order to compare the TMT with the balloon data, the balloon data must be adjusted with a model to simulate the contaminated TMT. This has been a matter of contention for more than a decade and the original TLT from S&C was an attempt to correct for the stratospheric cooling influence. Other approaches, such as the UW TTT series, also try to compensate.
The newest UAH v6 products do not make any effort to adjust for the impact of high elevations, particularly that over the Antarctic. RSS pointedly excludes everything poleward of 70S, as well as the high mountain ranges of the Andes and the Himalayas. UAH also makes no mention of any effort to compensate for hydrometeors, that is, precipitable ice, which appear cooler than the surroundings, whereas the other groups have made such an effort. As usual, it’s what is not said that is important and a casual reader would not be aware of the many problems with the TMT without reading years of work by others.
Thanks for this comment. At least you seem to really know what you are talking about. (The recent GPS digression for example was tremendous.
An interesting detail: the comparison of UAH 6.0 TLT with STAR 4.0 TMT.
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520984848658.jpg
The graph is a bit oldy but that shouldn’t matter that much.
binny…”At least you seem to really know what you are talking about”.
This is the same e. swanson who did a makeshift experiment trying to disprove the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He set up a tin sheet over an electric ring and heated it, noting the steady state temperature. Then he placed a metal cookie sheet on 4 soup cans over the heated tin and measured the temperature. of the plate. When the temperature rose, he concluded the cookie sheet was back-radiating heat to the heated tin, heating it further.
If you believe that, I can see why you think swannie has given a contrary analysis to the Spencer, Christy, Braswell analysis of the hot spot, and why you assess me, g*r, mike, and other skeptics as trolls.
Gordon, do you have a critique of his methodology and conclusions?
If so, explain them here.
Included in that experiment was a test for the role of convection in the set-up, which replaced the coookie tin with a similarly sized baffle made of clear plastic – equally blocking convection, but near transparent to infrared radiation.
Far from giving a contrary analysis on the greenhouse effect and ‘back radiation’, Swanson performs an actual experiment similar to actual experiments performed by Dr Spencer, coming up with the same results.
GR, Yes, this is the same E. Swanson who has published 2 peer reviewed papers about the UAH satellite work. What have you written or published on the subject, besides comments on internet blogs?
It’s fun to watch the comical efforts to “prove” the incorrect solution to the blue/green plates.
As a reminder, here’s the correct solution:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
The correct solution requires no re-definiitons, endless rambling, or mis-interpretation of laws of physics.
It’s a good example of “Occam’s razor”, n’est pas?
There we go. G* ideas are not constrained by experiments, data, or even reality. They are just ‘true’.
Yes g*e*r*a*n,
that proves that weather stations do not need a sun shade.
Yes Svante, in your corrupted and convoluted logic, anything you want is proof of anything your want.
It’s fun to watch.
Look at your image. Being in the shade does not change the temperature.
And that confuses you?
Well it is a bit counter intuitive, but so are your colleagues in modern physics.
It may be “counter-intuitive” to someone that is confused about physics.
The green plate is NOT in the “shade”. It is receiving 200 Watts from the blue plate. That means its temperature is affected. You somehow want to interpret that as “in the shade”.
You are responsible for how your head works, not me.
Dear g*e*r*a*n, let me explain your image.
1) The red arrow is the solar input.
2) The blue plate is between the sun and the green plate.
3) When something is between an object and the sun, that object is in the shade.
Please tell me at which point I have erred.
svante, one of your errors is not seeing the blue arrow, between the two plates, that points to the green plate. The blue arrow is labeled “200 W/m^2”. It’s not hidden. It’s pretty obvious.
Maybe your closed mind just can’t see reality.
That’s why I’m here. Glad to help.
You misunderstand my question, which of my three points is wrong?
I understood the question, svante. I’m just way ahead of you.
You’re trying to use the concept of “shade” to spin the situation. You’re trying to say the green plate cannot be at the same temp as the blue plate due to “shade”.
You likely see my solution is correct, but you are still trying to find some way to challenge it. Your “shade” is the only thing you believe you have.
But, you can’t ignore the 200 Watts arriving the green plate. There’s no “shade” for that!
Maybe I should call you “shady”?
Hilarious.
So we agree on your diagram.
The green plate is shaded by the blue plate, but no difference in temperature.
Shade does not work.
You can’t say “Shade does not work”, unless you’re confused. See if this helps:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
The blue plate absorbs 400 Watts. It emits 200 Watts in both directions. The 200 Watts to the right is absorbed by the green plate. But, when the green plate emits back to the blue plate, it is reflected. The only way heat energy can leave the green plate is to the right. Since it must emit 200 Watts, it must have a surface temperature of 244 K.
If you’re still confused, consider the two plates in full contact. Both plates would then be at 244 K. No one would say the green plate could not be at the same temperature because it was “in the shade” of the blue plate. And no one would say the green plate can warm the blue plate, higher than 244 K.
Hopefully that helps.
So in a verbose way, you say shade does not work.
That leaves two options: mad dog or Englishman?
“Cute” won’t cure “shady”, shady.
David Appell says:
March 12, 2018 at 5:37 PM
Thats a blog post, not a peer reviewed paper.
*
Some posts look more serious than some peer-reviewed papers.
I might very well be more impressed by a long version of their article (yes yes: even an old, undoctored laywoman needs to be impressed by science to trust in it).
My only problem with Spencer’s and Christy’s comparison is that UAH 6.0 TLT looks exactly like NOAA STAR TMT; so it makes no wonder that UAH 6.0 TMT eventually might show no hotspot in the Tropics at 250 +- 100 hPa.
Moreover, this graph below, presenting RATPAC B trends over 10 pressures from surface up to 100 hPa shows that the coolspot at 850 hPa is higher then the hotspot we are talking about :-))
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1520983497295.jpg
Anyway as end word: this paper was for me far more impressing:
Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies
Stephen Po-Chedley, Tyler J. Thorsen, and Qiang Fu (2015)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1
We will see in a few years how the discussion ends. May truth and science win.
No, *NO* blog posts have the imprimatur of a peer reviewed journal paper — unless it’s a fraudulent, predatory journal.
Agreed. As smart as we all are, ;), we are not expert enough to be peer reviewers.
I agree and I think Dr. Spencer would say something about this is anything changed.
Would he?
Salvatore, where is that evidence that solar UV is causing the ocean to warm?
Salvatore, I take it then that you have no evidence. You could at least admit that.
Here Appell you can see the interesting effect of your nonsense…
How is it possible to run into such an evident blind-alley?
The g*e*r*a*n pseudoskeptic groupie and the Flynn blogbot will manage to repeat that during years!
And no, Mr Appell: this time it is not due to any overtolerance by Roy Spencer and team.
It is due to your persistent obsession to come here around as ‘the man who brings us science’, what you in the sum are not a bit more than Robertson.
It is due to your unability to anticipate what can only be intentionally misinterpreted as bare nonsense.
Thany you for your support, Dr Appell.
La P: Do you have any scientific rebuttals in response to what I’ve written?
DA,
Why should she answer you? Who cares? Are you important? Why?
Cheers.
Pang, I’m not sure what language you believe you are using, but it’s obviously not English.
I did notice your mention of me, so I assume you are a fan.
Thanks for your support.
binny…”It is due to your persistent obsession to come here around as the man who brings us science, what you in the sum are not a bit more than Robertson”.
I have to hand it to you, binny, you hate everyone equally. An admirable Teutonic quality, I’m sure.
davie doesn’t believe that the Sun can warm the ocean.
Yet, he believes the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K!
He gets so tangled up in his pseudoscience, it’s fun to watch.
What didn’t you understand about the other 2 dozen times I have explained this problem to you?
davie, you can’t “explain” your pseudoscience. That’s why you remain a clown.
If you expect a reply, you’ll have to stop the insults and name calling.
davie, you live in a fantasy world of your own creation. You reject reality, and adhere to pseudoscience. When someone tries to criticize your beliefs, you lash out.
When I ridiculed you for believing the Sun could radiatively heat the Earth to 800,000K, you had two responses. First, you called me a “liar”. Then, you presented your nonsense math.
I didn’t make you a clown, you did it to yourself. You’re just trying to blame someone else for your failures.
If you expect a reply, youll have to stop the insults and name calling.
I didn’t make you a clown, you did it to yourself. You’re just trying to blame someone else for your failures.
You call people names because you cant discuss the science.
davie, when have you ever chosen “science” over “pseudoscience”?
g,
David doesnt seem to understand that you cant magically accumulate heat to a higher temperature, any more than you accumulate 3000 W from ice, and boil water with it.
Hes stupid, irrelevant and pointless. Too stupid to realise it, by the look of it.
Cheers.
davie obviously believes two glasses of water, both at 40°, when poured together will have a temperature of 80°.
His misunderstanding of physics is fun to watch.
Its hilarious
Yes.
David time will tell we have to see.
Time has already shown.
svante…re BEST study and Judith Curry.
“Gordon,it seems that she [Judith Curry] distanced herself because of the attribution to CO2, not because of any temperature fudging”.
I did not mean to infer that BEST had fudged data, they were using the data of others and analyzing it in a model. The fudging I meant refers to what Judith claims below. Mueller personally reached conclusions based on the study with which Judith did not agree.
In her official critique she found far more than what you claim.
https://judithcurry.com/2012/07/30/observation-based-attribution/
**********
In my published Uncertainty Monster paper, we argued that that AR4 attribution statement was overconfident for the following reasons:
*uncertainties in the models
*failure to account for uncertainties in external forcing (particularly solar and aerosols) and the use of inverse modeling in determining aerosol forcing
*inadequacy of the climate models in simulating natural internal variability on multidecadal (>30 years) timescales
*bootstrapped plausibility and circular reasoning in the detection and attribution arguments
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1
It looks like we agree on the state of affairs.
Her disagreement with BEST was on the attribution to CO2.
She says BEST went further than the IPCC, and then she criticizes AR4.
svante…”Her disagreement with BEST was on the attribution to CO2″.
Where do you the CO2 from?
Judith claimed…uncertainties in the models, failure to account for uncertainties in external forcing, inadequacy of the climate models in simulating natural internal variability on multidecadal (>30 years) timescales, and bootstrapped plausibility and circular reasoning in the detection and attribution arguments.
If I read her correctly, they all signed onto the initial BEST study then Mueller began making claims on his personal interpretation of the data, with which she disagreed.
BEST derived a temperature time series, concluding that a lot of warming has taken place. They published no papers on attribution:
http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/
although in a NYT op-ed Muller did go a step beyond that:
“Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. Im now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
Muller is almost entirely WRONG!
(To put it mildly.)
Why?
Pseudoscience.
I knew you had no explanation.
I knew you would not understand reality.
Why was Mller wrong?
Pseudoscience.
(davie is such a clown. He will amuse me endlessly.)
See. You insult people because the science is above you. Every time youre asked to respond to the science, you flake out and resort to name calling.
You got no game, man.
David,
it’s in the discussion around fig. 5 in the results paper.
Granted they use CO2 as an “anthropogenic term”, a lot of CH4 forcing is hidden in there.
They discard solar etc.
davie, my “game” is to expose your pseudoscience. I’m pretty good at it.
Your avoidance of reality is what makes you a clown, not me. You insult yourself.
That’s right Gordon, that’s how it happened.
These members stay on:
– Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director
– Elizabeth Muller, Founder and Executive Director
– Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist
– Zeke Hausfather, Scientist
– Steven Mosher, Scientist
– Saul Perlmutter, Professor of Physics
– Arthur Rosenfeld, Professor of Physics, Former California Energy Commissioner
– Jonathan Wurtele, Professor of Physics
– Will Glaser, Advisor & Board Member
– Per Peterson, Advisor
– Gina DAdamo, Executive Assistant
Yes Svante.
But for pseudoskeptics they are ‘not on the right side’.
And when you are on the wrong side, you automatically do ‘pseudoscience’.
What this exactly means, is unknown, especially to pseudoskeptics.
But pseudoskeptics never need to prove anythink. Simply writing ‘pseudoscience’ is 100 % sufficient.
Pang, not only do you have difficulties with language, you also have problems with logic.
Maybe the two work together to make your comments humorously incomprehensible.
Yes Pangolena, it’s funny how everything they say applies to themselves, just like projection in psychology.
Tim,
Unless Ive missed something, you have agreed that in the absence of any external energy inputs, cooling means a reduction in temperature over time. Not heating or warming, or anything else implying external energy source.
Next. In the absence of any external energy source, the surface, no matter what its initial temperature, will proceed to absolute aero. You may wish to quibble, but there is no external energy source whatever. The surface is cooling, and there is nothing to stop it. I will move on to the real world when we are agreed on the physics involved, with your permission.
Do you agree that a body will cool to absolute zero in the absence of any external energy source?
I know Im only taking baby steps, but I need to ensure that all my ducks are in a row at all times – so to speak.
Cheers.
mike…”you have agreed that in the absence of any external energy inputs, cooling means a reduction in temperature over time”.
I know your query is aimed at Tim but I want to say something about cooling and temperature. This is nothing either of you don’t know, but it may help clarify the debate.
We humans invented temperature to measure relative levels of heat (kinetic energy of atoms). We based temperature on the interval between the freezing and boilings points of water as measured initially by the expansion of mercury in a vial. In the case of degrees Celsius we divided the interval into 100 equal divisions and with Fahrenheit, into 180 equal divisions (32F – 212F). Therefore a degree Fahrenheit is almost twice a degree C.
Since temperature is a relative measure of heat then it must also be a relative measure of the absence/reduction of heat which is cooling.
You have made reference to absolute zero before where 0 degrees Kelvin = -273.15 C. You might say that the closer you move to 0K, the more it cools and the further from 0K it warms, or heats.
As you point out, the Earth’s surface with no solar input would cool toward 0K.
Colder than a polar bears bum in winter. Not that I’d want to get close enough to test that hypothesis.
Then again, we have to remember your point about the Earth’s core, the outer portion of which approaches the temperature of the Sun’s surface. The heat has to go somewhere and it moves toward the surface. Without solar input, one would think that outward transfer of heat would keep the surface somewhat above 0K.
GR,
Around 30 – 40 K, according to measurements by real scientists such as geophysicists. David Appell actually calculated a similar figure, but subsequently refused to believe what hed done.
Suspiciously close to the temperature difference supposedly due to the non-existent GHE.
I wonder.
Cheers.
You refused to understand that blackbody flux temperatures do not add linearly.
As I demonstrated with a little bit of algebra.
Mike…”Around 30 40 K, according to measurements by real scientists such as geophysicists”.
Interesting. I knew it was significant.
This article puts heat from the core radiated at the surface as 1/3rd of surface radiation, about 42 terawatts. Seems a bit optimistic since the surface area of the earth is about 510 trillion metres square and 43 terawatts is 42 trillion watts.
That should make surface radiation about 42/510 watts/square metre = 0.082 w/m^2.
But wait, it’s not that simple. 71% of that 510 trillion m^2 is under the oceans. That means heat is being transferred into the oceans directly and the heated water must be forced to the top. That has been happening for billions of years, so the heat content of the oceans must be increased and stabilized (at night) by heat from below.
Maybe the 1/3 value is not that far off.
It could also mean that there is more to SSTs than what meets the eye.
sorry forgot the link to heat transferred to Earth’s surface from core.
https://www.livescience.com/7239-earth-temperature-hot.html
DA,
Your algebra is one thing. Facts are quite another.
Have you noticed that the surface is not 760 000 K?
Keep believing your algebra if you must.
Cheers.
I pulled a slab of cheese out of the freezer today where it had been frozen at -16C, according to the thermometer I keep in there.
When I unwrapped the cheese from it’s protective covering, it felt very cold to the touch of my skin. I trying warming my hands in close proximity without touching the cheese but my fingers remained cold from handling the cheese.
According to the experiments of swannie and the opinions of other alarmists, my fingers should have warmed, not chilled. According to swannie, rubbing my hands just above the cheese should have warmed them.
Should I try to have this peer reviewed? Naw!!! I’ll trust in the 2nd law that frozen cheese cannot warm my hands because heat cannot be transferred, on its own, from the cold cheese to my warm hands.
If I’d put a small chunk of that frozen cheese in my mouth, it would quickly have risen in temperature, however.
The 2nd law rules!!!
ps. How do alarmists suppose the freezer cabinet in my fridge got to -16C while just outside the fridge the room temperature is 20C. That’s a temperature difference of 36C.
Is it magic? Is the 2nd law wrong, is there some mystical force in the fridge that cools the freezer cabinet to -16C? Can heat really be transferred from the freezer cabinet out into the room by itself?
If I hold the freezer door open, will the -16C cabinet warm the room? It is radiating EM.
[sarc/off]
GR, if you leave the door open on your frig and keep the power on as well, the room will indeed eventually warm up aftert the contents of the frig warm to room temperature. But, that has nothing to do with AGW or the Green Plate model, which represent different pathways for energy to flow thru the Earth climate.
A refrigerator is different from AGW, GHE, and the “blue/green plate” nonsense.
A refrigerator works.
g,
These stupid people probably believe you can feel the cold radiating from cold surfaces. Probably even believe if you had a lens, you could focus the 300 W/m2 from ice into say 1 cm2. This would result in 300 x 10000 W/m2. Millions of degrees, no doubt!
This why climatologists are so obsessed with wattages. Too stupid to realise that one may have no relationship to the other.
Cheers.
Is the lens in a vacuum?
You’re correct, Mike. They actually believe fluxes add. That’s why I keep taunting them with baking a turkey with ice. They believe it can be done, but yet they know something is wrong.
It’s fun to watch.
Fluxes add, g*. That’s why -40 feels different than +40.
Add the energy flux from ice to the energy flux from room temperature air……..not nearly enough to cook a turkey. Duh.
S,
Add some fluxes. I guarantee you’ll wind up totally flummoxed, or even fluxed!
Only a stupid climate scientist would wave around 240 W/m2. Even ice can give more than 300 W/m2!
Maybe you need to add some fluxes, otherwise we’ll all freeze to death, if the average sum of the Earth’s energy budget fluxes is well below freezing ie 240 W/m2.
Brrrrr! Cold! And I live in the tropics!
Cheers.
Young snake, you never finished your homework:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-291789
Mike F and G thing, In the event you haven’t noticed, all the work of S&C at UAH depends on the same math as that of AGW theory. That you guys don’t accept the basic science implies that you think S&C’s work is trash. Why do you post here, making grand claims that the satellite data shows this or that, when you don’t accept any of the foundational science?
swannie, you have a very creative imagination. I have only said positive things about the satellite-temperature efforts of Drs Christy and Spencer. It is the clowns that do not like the data.
But, I guess you need a huge imagination to believe CO2 can warm the planet.
swannie…I replied to you further down the thread. Trouble with WordPress filters.
Gordon Robertson says:
I trying warming my hands in close proximity without touching the cheese but my fingers remained cold from handling the cheese.
How cold?
What instrument were you using to measure the temperature of your fingers?
Where you measuring the temperature of the surface of your fingers, or in at some specific depth?
DA…”How cold?
What instrument were you using to measure the temperature of your fingers?
Where you measuring the temperature of the surface of your fingers, or in at some specific depth?”
***********
I told you, I just removed the cheese from a freezer compartment measuring -16C. It was frozen rock solid. Since my fingers were not frozen rock solid and I was in a room with ambient temperature of around 20C, I have to presume my fingers were well above 0C.
Do you always ask stupid questions when faced with an incontrovertible proof?
As Linus Pauling once said, why is a double-blind test required when an outcome is so obvious? At least you have not asked for peer review….yet!!!
You are caught, David, with proof of the 2nd law and you are trying to squirm your way out using red-herring arguments.
So you had no measurements, just your emotional reactions.
That’s what I suspected.
DA…”So you had no measurements, just your emotional reactions.
Thats what I suspected”.
***********
You really need to see a professional about your propensity for resisting science that does not meet your jaded idea of what it means. I wonder if all alarmists share your neurosis?
97% likely.
Gordon, you just concocted your little story, based on no evidence whatsoever. You got caught. Admit it.
DA…”Gordon, you just concocted your little story, based on no evidence whatsoever. You got caught. Admit it”.
The outcome was so obvious the average person would not encounter the issues you are having with it.
Gordon Robertson
Must you continue indefinitely with your false understanding of the second law of thermodynamics?
The cheese at -16 C will lead to your fingers being colder than if the same cheese was 25 C.
Do the experiment and then accept you are clueless in your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Take your -16 C cheese and sense how cold your fingers feel.
Now move them to cheese that is 25 C (which is still colder than your fingers) and report to me that the increase in cheese temperature does not lead to warmer fingers.
You can be wrong all day but physics won’t change to suit your false notions. Do the test and report back your results.
You will quickly find that the cold temperature does actually affect the warmer temperature of your fingers (which have a powered heat source of body metabolism).
Wow I just can’t believe the lack of logical thought on this blog. The skeptics have turned off logic and created a fantasy world that just does not exist. Sorry Gordon Robertson. Your thinking is flawed and will forever remain this way until you consciously change it. I don’t think it will happen but there is always hope one can accept they got it wrong and see the truth.
Con-man, your inability to understand 2LoT is outrageously funny.
In your distorted imagination, you believe a cold object can warm a hotter object, if the hotter object is being heated. So, you will use any trick scenario to “prove” that, not knowing that you generally only prove how little you understand.
More please.
g*e*r*a*n
Are you obsessed with needing to reply to posts I make? It is not a distorted imagination. It is quite real and empirical science. Something you know nothing about. The temperature of a cold object is what determines how hot a powered object will get. If the cold surrounding is space, the powered object will reach a certain equilibrium temperature. If your have warmer surroundings, the same powered object will reach a higher temperature. It has been proven to you many times. Your brain is not capable of rational or logical thought process. Sorry you are so stupid. I did not supply your genetics. If I had you would be much more intelligent and able to think logically.
So continue with your idiot physics. It does not matter to me. I am interested in correcting Gordon’s flawed thoughts. Your are not reachable. You think the Moon does not rotate on its axis. When you are that dumb there is no further reason to interact with you. Why don’t you post as J Halp-less anymore, maybe your alter ego will help you while I clearly point out your flaws.
I still do not know why you must post every time I post to someone.
Sorry Norm, but it IS ‘distorted imagination”. As is your entire comment.
Some might even call it “hilarious”.
g*e*r*a*n
While you are wasting my time with your mindless thought numbing posts, do something useful. Take two chucks of cheese. One from the freezer that is quite cold and another that is at room temperature. Put your fingers really close to one for a time, then the other. Let me know if you can’t tell a difference. I doubt you will even do this most simple science since you hate science with an intense hatred. I think you might even hate science as much as liberals hate Trump. I have asked you to walk around a table without rotating your body on its axis. You failed this very easy experiment. Now you will fail to do another very simple science experiment. Is there no limit to your hatred of science? You always seek to attack valid science for some reason and you will not do even simple tests or experiments and you reject empirical information.
Does Mike Flynn hate science as much as you do? Gordon Robertson does not seem to hate science like you do, he just likes to make up his own. You don’t make up your own you just hate it, and with a passion I have not seen before. I have met some that have a strong dislike for math and science, you have an absolute hatred of the subjects.
Cheese at two different temperatures does not disprove 2LoT. It just proves you do not understand 2LoT.
Walking around a table does not prove the Moon rotates on its axis. It just proves you do not understand “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
Once again, you demonstrate your deficits in science and logic.
Now, more disjointed rambling, please.
g*e*r*a*n
I see you still hate science. Why is that?
You are not logical enough to understand my point. I am not trying to disprove the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I know you don’t understand it at all. I have linked you to many sources explaining it to you. You hate science so much you can’t stand to look at rational logical links.
So you won’t test the cheese experiment to prove to yourself you are an idiot? I guess you won’t. But you will waste your life babbling on blogs about things you don’t understand.
You do not understand the concept of orbiting or rotating. You are not logical enough for a rational person to explain it to you. I could try. Waste of effort though.
Hilariously incoherent!
There’s nothing funnier than a yelping chihuahua, exhibiting both rabies and senility.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
I figured you hated science and logic so much you could not follow a logical point.
Babble away g*e*r*a*n. It is all you are capable of.
You can’t even follow a conversation.
Maybe you need to post as J Halp-less again. I am sure this part of you might help you follow my post. Are you drunk?
Norm continues to imagine things. He lives in his confused world of fantasy, hurling out mindless accusations.
It’s fun to watch.
The fictitious tropical hot spot is an exercise in moving the goalposts by incompetent alarmists who make audacious claims about the warming effect of a trace gas in the atmosphere, that accounts for a trivial 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Climate modeling theory is an attempt by theorists to make reality fit their theories. They are all wannabee physicists who lack the ability and background to be real physicists.
The nearly 0.04% of atmospheric CO2 that had been there all along, pre Industrial and beyond, did nothing to pose a catastrophic danger to the environment. Why are we wasting so much time discussing inane theories about a marginal increase of that amount?
Theories based on climate modeling have proved thus far to be blatant propaganda. Not one model predicted the lack of warming over nearly 20 years since 1998. They all continue to show marked positive trends that don’t exist.
Four paragraphs, four lies.
Who do you think you’ve convincing, Gordon?
Reality doesn’t fit into your pseudoscience, huh davie?
DA…”Who do you think youve convincing, Gordon?”
If it was no danger to your lame alarmist theories you’d ignore me. But you can’t, science has a way of floating to the top.
swannie…”GR, if you leave the door open on your frig and keep the power on as well, the room will indeed eventually warm up aftert the contents of the frig warm to room temperature. But, that has nothing to do with AGW or the Green Plate model….”
****multipart—tracking down more WordPress idiocy*******
The freezer compartment cools due to a coil of re.f.rig.er.ant looping through it which receives heat transferred from the air in the compartment. If you keep the power on with the freezer door and the main fridge door open, warmer room air will flow in by convection and warm the colder air in the compartment. However, it will make little difference to the temperature of the cooling coil.
If anything, the room air will tend to cool, not warm. The cooling coil will not try to warm the room, it will try to cool it. However, there is far too much warm air for it to cool.
re.fr.ige.r.ant is WordPress culprit.
part 2
AGW does imply that. The cooler atmosphere would be like the cooling coil. It could never radiate enough EM to warm anything warmer than it.
That’s why the green plate is a moot point. It is doing absolutely no warming of the blue plate. Heat cannot be transferred by its own means from a colder object to a warmer object.
Still a wrong understanding of the second.
Gordon
“It could never radiate enough EM to warm anything warmer than it.”
A colder object can never make a warmer object warmer………without help of some sort. That’s what the second law is all about. That’s the part you and your fellow nitwits can’t seem to figure out.
Snape,
That’s probably why the CO2 AGW crowd have difficulty with the indescribable GHE. It’s claimed only to work when the Sun is shining, but only if it’s not shining too brightly – as in arid tropical deserts.
The GHE doesn’t seem to work at night, when it’s cloudy, or when it’s very cold.
A very odd “effect” indeed. Because nobody can describe in any testable terms, it can’t actually be tested experimentally – just what the capering climate clowns want.
Go ahead – tell me what it is I can’t figure out. Something which doesn’t exist? And you think you are smarter than me?
How stupid!
Cheers.
Mike
The glass of a greenhouse allows sunlight to shine through and warm the surfaces inside. The same glass slows the rate at which energy leaves.
When the greenhouse gets hot enough, energy in versus out will be equal, and the greenhouse will have a steady temperature.
The C02 greenhouse effect obviously involves a different mechanism than glass, (radiation is one mechanism of heat transfer. Conduction/convection is another) but the basic idea is the same.
Mike
How well does a greenhouse work at night?
S,
The problem is that you cant actually say what mechanism the GHE depends on. it’s not terribly clever to say what it doesn’t depend on, is it?
You cant actually describe this greenhouse effect at all, can you? You are firmly convinced it exists, however.
As to real greenhouses, you don’t seem to have a clue. Maybe you have depended on that wonderful fount of disinformation, NASA. Bad mistake. How about the NSF? These people were so clueless that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that Archimedes’ Principle still applied!
Just parroting nonsense, hoping nobody will notice, might not have the same effect as it did.
No GHE. You can’t even provide a testable GHE hypothesis, let alone explain how it it supposed to operate. Stupid, if you are trying to convince anybody to believe that you know what you are talking about.
Cheers.
“You cant actually describe this greenhouse effect at all, can you? ”
Of course I can. The GHE:
“CO2 slows the rate at which long wave radiation is emitted to space. It does little to impede sunlight from reaching earth’s surface.”
S,
You ask me how well a greenhouse “works” at night. What do you mean by “works”?
Are you claiming that the temperature in a greenhouse magically rises in the absence of sunlight? Or does that only occur if it is full of CO2?
Why the question? What has it to do with the CO2 AGW non-existent GHE?
Unless you can provide the slightest evidence to the contrary, I will assume your question is stupid, irrelevant, and meaningless.
Press on.
Cheers.
I meant “works” in the same way you did, Mike. A greenhouse doesn’t work without sunlight. Either does the “greenhouse effect”.
(Sure, both are forms of insulation and slow the rate of heat loss, but that by itself is not the greenhouse effect)
snape…”A colder object can never make a warmer object warmerwithout help of some sort. Thats what the second law is all about. Thats the part you and your fellow nitwits cant seem to figure out”.
Ironic that you, an alarmist, should point that out. That’s exactly what AGW claims, that a colder atmosphere can make a warmer surface warmer. AGW contradicts the 2nd law.
Yes…the helper is the key. In a re.f.rig.era.tor or air conditioners there is external power, a compressor, a re.fri.ger.ant, a condenser, an expansion valve, and an evapourator. Don’t see anything like that in the atmosphere.
Guess what Joe Postma claims is true: we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
Gordon
The atmosphere gets help from an external source – the sun.
Gordon
What if the sun went out and the earth’s only energy source was the colder atmosphere? Earth’s temperature would plummet.
That’s the second law. No help and a colder object can never make a warmer object warmer.
snape…”CO2 slows the rate at which long wave radiation is emitted to space. It does little to impede sunlight from reaching earths surface.”
For one, there’s no good evidence that surface radiation makes it to space. Wood an expert on IR, circa 1909, thought IR from the surface would be ineffective more than a few feet above the surface. He thought the so-called GHE was better explained as a retention of heat by all atmospheric gases after the heat was scavenged from the surface by direct conduction.
For another, if you have a good vacuum thermos, it will keep liquids hot for hours at a time. I used to fill a glass lined vacuum thermos with really hot water at 6 in the morning and it was still quite hot at noon. Therefore, radiation is NOT a good means of transmitting heat. If it was, it would transfer heat from the inner wall of the glass liner to the outer liner, through the vacuum, and liquids would cool in minutes rather than hours.
Heat in the surface is better transferred by direct contact with atmospheric gases. Conduction and subsequent convection will cool the surface far more rapidly than straight radiation.
Gordon
Do you suppose energy from earth’s surface is moved all the way to the TOA by conduction/convection and only there is radiated to space?
Read some modern science.
snape…”The glass of a greenhouse allows sunlight to shine through and warm the surfaces inside. The same glass slows the rate at which energy leaves”.
That was disproved by Watt in 1909, who was an expert on IR radiation. He proved that the glass actually traps molecules of warm air and the warming occurs because the glass also prevents the cooling effect of convection.
That’s how the atmosphere works. Solar energy heats the surface and the surface warms air that is in contact with it. That heated air rises and is replaced by cooler air via convection. The cycle repeats.
Glass in a greenhouse prevent the convection from acting.
“The glass of a greenhouse allows sunlight to shine through and warm the surfaces inside.”
You think Watt disproved this??
Snape,
You say that the CO2 greenhouse effect doesn’t work without the Sun, but you still can’t describe the effect, can you?
It is fairly well known that the Sun heats things – no GHE required. However if you cant even describe the greenhouse effect, you haven’t a prayer of describing the operating principle for something you cannot even show exists, can you?
A real greenhouse does not use “insulation” as you so fondly imagine. Glass is a very poor insulator, and a steel shipping container will also get very hot inside if left in the Sun. Is this somehow similar to your non-existent GHE, or is another principle involved?
Not easy trying to convince someone of the existence of something which doesn’t exist if you cant even describe it? Even unicorns have been described, unlike the GHE.
Cheers.
Young snake believes in the GHE because CO2 absorbs photons.
snake, which absorbs more solar energy, oceans or atmospheric CO2?
Maybe we should dry up all the oceans, huh?
G*
C02 in the atmosphere is situated between the earth’s surface and space. It absorbs much more outgoing (longwave) radiation than incoming shortwave.
That’s basic physics. That’s why I believe in the GHE.
PS: Maybe you, Flynn and Gordon could put your tiny brains together and figure out why – 40 feels so much different than + 40?
Snape,
Unbelievably, you wrote –
“C02 in the atmosphere is situated between the earths surface and space. It absorbs much more outgoing (longwave) radiation than incoming shortwave.”
And precisely how does that raise thermometer temperatures? Are you really stupid enough to believe that less radiation results in higher temperatures?
You might have noticed that temperatures fall at night. Maybe you think that physics works differently at night than during the day. It doesn’t, and only a fat-headed fool would believe otherwise.
Carry on. Being stupid only means you are stupid. You may also be delusional, ignorant and suffering from a range of mental afflictions, but I do not know. I can’t read your mind. You would have to consult another stupid supporter of CO2 AGW for that sort of thing.
Cheers.
snape…”Thats the second law. No help and a colder object can never make a warmer object warmer”.
So why do you keep supporting the incorrect AGW theory that cooler gases in the atmosphere can warm the surface?
We all know the Sun warms the surface but the surface converts that energy into LWR and it’s the LWR that is claimed to be absorbed by AGWs and back-radiated. Therefore, the source is the surface LWR, according to AGW theory. Same for the GHE.
Some AGWers are claiming the GHG back-radiation can be added to solar energy but that’s not possible. The solar spectrum and the terrestrial spectrum do not overlap significantly, therefore the terrestrial spectrum must act alone as must any back-radiation.
Back to the 2nd law which you just confirmed. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. That means both AGW and GHE theories are wrong.
snape…”The glass of a greenhouse allows sunlight to shine through and warm the surfaces inside.
You think Watt disproved this??”
No. He disproved your conclusion that the glass blocked IR trying to escape via the glass. He proved there is virtually no difference in the attenuation of IR by glass or a sheet of rock salt, which passes IR freely.
Those who have claimed to rebut him have allowed excess water vapour to contaminate the experiment.
GR, Wrong again. Think of it this way. Instead of using a frig with the door open, place a window A/C unit in the middle of the room with the doors closed. Power up the A/C and notice that the air flowing from the evaporator coil will still be cold, while the air from the condenser coil will be warm. There’s more warm air than cold air and the room will steadily warm, on balance.
swannie, that’s not really a good example of pseudoscience, unless you believe it is proof of the GHE. For the best humor, you need to find a way to violate the laws of physics. For example, try heating the room with a wall of ice.
swannie…”Instead of using a frig with the door open, place a window A/C unit in the middle of the room with the doors closed”.
I would expect the air around the condenser to be warm since that’s where the heat is expelled to the atmosphere. The heat comes from the re.fri.ger.ant being highly compressed from a low pressure gas to a high pressure liquid. Of course, compressing the gas in a constant volume raised the temperature. As the high pressure high temperature liquid flows through the condenser, it gives off heat.
On the other end, at the evapourator, the opposite occurs. The high pressure liquid, devoid of much of it’s heat, is atomized and allowed to expand in the evapourator. As the liquid expands to a low pressure gas, it absorbs heat from the area to be cooled.
The problem in your scenario is that the condenser is expelling heat into the same room the evapourator is trying to cool. That’s inefficient. An AC unit is placed in the window with the condenser facing outside, with the hot air from the condenser hopefully being warmer than the outside air.
With the evapourator on the inside, heat is transferred into the evap, through the compressor, and out the window at the condenser. Sitting the AC unit in the room won’t accomplish much.
I don’t agree that the room will warm. That’s hard to predict.
*second law
DA…”*second law”
Heat cannot by transferred by its own means from a colder region to a warmer region.
Any other means are not present in the atmosphere.
Green plates. Blue plates. Purple polka dotted plates. Who cares?
Completely stupid, pointless and irrelevant. There is not even a testable GHE hypothesis. Just a ragtag rabble of pseudo scientists bumping their gums, and running round in circles.
Sad but true. Its worse than we thought!
Cheers.
There is a test for the Green Plate model, which I provided some time back and which showed a hot plate being warmed further by a colder cookie sheet. There is an improved test awaiting my attention downstairs as I write.
swannie, I appreciate your contributions to pseudoscience. This is going to be a great year in climate comedy. Your competition is going to be fierce. Already, you have one clown implying that the difference between Earth temperatures (-40° and +40°) is caused by the GHE.
Best of luck.
g*
The noticeable difference between -40 and + 40 implies “fluxes add”, as you put it.
That in turn explains why colder air can raise the temperature of a warmer thermometer, or why a hot plate can be warmed further by a colder cookie sheet.
These facts don’t disprove the second law. They prove morons like you don’t understand it.
snake for someone, with absolutely NO education in physics, to pretend they understand thermodynamics is hilarious.
(Is this a great year in climate-comedy, or what?)
Worse is someone who pretends to have studied thermodynamics and yet doesn’t have a clue.
snake, with NO background in physics, you attempt to assess the thermodynamics acumen of others?
It’s fun to watch.
g*
I understand the very basics. That’s it. (Hat tip to Norman, Dr. Spencer, Tim Folkerts, Eli and many others.)
On the other hand, even the most science illiterate (excepting you and Flynn perhaps ) realizes a pair of sox will make your feet warmer, and in doing so does not violate any laws of physics.
Sorry young one, but you don’t even know the “very basics”. Consequently, you have to distort reality. Where did I ever indicate that clothing would not keep a person warmer? Where did I ever state that clothing violates 2LoT?
You have no science. You have no facts. You have no logic. All you have is your distorted imagination. Your respect for truth is sorely lacking.
g*
Generally speaking, clothes are colder than the skin they cover.
Are you walking back the many times you’ve said, “a colder object cannot make a warmer object warmer”?
snake, you poor lost adolescent, “a colder object cannot make a warmer object warmer” is shorthand for you can NOT violate 2LoT.
More examples of your hilarious incompetence, please.
G* asks, “Where did I ever indicate that clothing would not keep a person warmer? Where did I ever state that clothing violates 2LoT?”
And right on que: “a colder object cannot make a warmer object warmer is shorthand for you can NOT violate 2LoT.”
snape…”That in turn explains why colder air can raise the temperature of a warmer thermometer, or why a hot plate can be warmed further by a colder cookie sheet.
These facts dont disprove the second law”.
Neither of your claims have ever been proved. Swannie’s experiments only proved he lacks the proper controls to eliminate the effect of convection. Have you tried blowing cooler air on a thermometer when it is set for a warmer ambient condition? What happens? Does the mercury not drop?
Why do you blow on hot soup or tea to cool it? Your breath is around 37C (98.6F). When you blow gently on a much hotter teaspoon of hot tea, that might scald your mouth, it cools the tea enough to sip it without burning you.
Your claims are not facts and they contradict the 2nd law.
Snape,
I suggest you could try and convince mountaineers who have lost their toes, and in some cases feet, etc., that you had access to magic socks which would have prevented this, by keeping the affected parts at body temperature. I don’t think they will believe you.
Unfortunately, the stupid and delusional thinking you exhibit can have, and has had, fatal effects. Some members of a SAS patrol Bravo Two Zero died of hypothermia, become some deluded person believed in the climatological claptrap of average.s and clothing making you warm.
Believe as you wish, but I suggest that others might want to distinguish fact from fantasy, when human lives are at stake. Stupid thinking of the Snape variety can kill.
Cheers.
Mike
Thanks for the warning. I never realized clothing could be so dangerous!
S,
Bung your clothing on a corpse. It doesn’t heat it at all does it?
“But the corpse does not have an internal heat source!”, I hear you cry.
Exactly. Placing the corpse in the Sun, heating it up, and then putting clothes on it, still wont make it hotter. It still cools to ambient. In fact, if you clothe the corpse and then put it in the Sun, it won’t even heat as fast as an unclothed corpse.
Are you certain you don’t have the mental equivalence of a corpse ? You don’t seem terribly bright, do you?
Cheers.
I guess Mike, who lives in the tropics, has never had experience with cold, and wearing coats to stay warm. Therefore they do not work.
And Mikes deep fascination with corpses is concerning. Especially since they are so thoroughly irrelevant to anything we are discussing. Has he had much experience with them? How many are in his basement?
Mike F., My new Green Plate Demo is working fine, showing a colder plate warming a hotter one. It’s showed these results in previous runs, but I can’t seem to achieve a vacuum below 2000 microns, given my back woods hand tool efforts, so I’ll keep trying. I may just write up the preliminary results for more fun and games from the usual suspects around here.
A “write-up” is a great idea, swannie. To make it even funnier, start with a “Purpose”, stating what your experiment will show. Then, end with a “Conclusion”. The “Conclusion” should just be a cut/paste of the “Purpose”. Then, you can act surprised at the results!
(I just knew this was going to be a great year for climate-comedy.)
swannie…”My new Green Plate Demo is working fine, showing a colder plate warming a hotter one. Its showed these results in previous runs, but I cant seem to achieve a vacuum below 2000 microns, given my back woods hand tool efforts, so Ill keep trying”.
Ever heard of a vacuum thermos? You have a hot liquid, say around 90C, in the vacuum flask and the room temperature outside the flask and container could be 20C. Over a day, the temperature of the liquid will drop to slightly warm, or maybe cold. It won’t drop below room temperature, however.
In your experiment, you concluded that back-radiation from a cooler cookie sheet had increased the temperature of a heated tin sheet, at several hundred C, by several degrees C. Why won’t air at room temperature raise the temperature of a liquid inside a vacuum thermos by several degrees?
As the liquid cools from very hot to very cool, why won’t the room air keep it a few degrees warmer than the air itself?
I know the answer, I’m just curious as to how you see it.
GR,
Cold objects only raise the temperature of hotter ones if you walk backwards counter-clockwise reciting the sacred Manntra -” 0.38 probability is near certainty – making 2014 the hottest year EVAH!”
Otherwise, the normal Laws of Thermodynamics still apply, and cold objects will not raise the temperature of hotter ones. It doesn’t matter how many Watts you concentrate, accumulate, or magnify from ice, you still can’t use it to create even a teaspoon of water.
As g* says – Hilarious!
Cheers.
GR, At long last, heres a link to my latest results. I await your detailed critique. Mike F. dropped hints that he knows I’m wrong, but he insists on keeping this profound insight to himself. Curious that from a guy who continually insists that he knows everything about physics…
https://app.box.com/s/gjjt0liv74m386wc2cj0qbhlfsmljy2q
E,
Thank you for your most kind commendation, even if I didn’t say so myself.
I presume you are trying to test whether the greenhouse effect exists. Impossible, as nobody has ever described a testable GHE hypothesis – ever. Therefore, the GHE cannot be tested by experiment.
Whatever you find is explicable by ordinary physics, as you will find, with a properly constructed experiment (your vacuum pump may be able to pull the pressure down quite a lot lower, and sealing is not much of a problem). If your bell jar is well designed, it will have a lip with a ground flat on it, which will require almost no extra seal if slid onto an optically flat sheet of appropriately manufactured glass. I would suggest not using window glass! A smear of petroleum jelly may help.
Something like wringing gauge blocks together – they are flat enough to mate without any assistance, which would destroy the block’s accuracy.
Even though you didn’t run your experiment very long, it should point out that when you heat an object with radiant heat from a distance, it gets hotter. Initially, relatively fast, later not so fast, as the heated body’s radiative intensity increases as the fourth power of the absolute temperature, resulting in a reduction in the rate of temperature increase, given a constant input power source
Its a good start. Once you can pull the maximum vacuum of which your pump is capable, you can replicate John Tyndall’s experiments (to a degree – the man was a brilliant experimenter, even by current standards). You will note that a vacuum between a regulated heating element on one side of the bell jar, and a suitably sensitive thermometric device on the opposite side, results in maximum temperature.
Introducing CO2 into the chamber results in less radiation reaching your thermometer, and a consequent lowering of temperature.
Given the small size of your bell jar, and the variability of the surrounding environment and so on, you might care to see how John Tyndall overcame these problems. Exceptionally clever man!
I wish you well – you’ve made an excellent start!
Cheers.
swannie…this will take some time, I have not the slightest idea what you are up to since your description of your method is no vague. However, let me begin with your opening statement.
I find it seriously tedious trying to follow your method in the current experiment but I’ll try. Your reasoning is not scientific as I have explained below. Here’s your opening paragraph:
“There have been many recent claims that there is no Green House Effect in the Earths atmosphere due to CO2. A foundational argument underlying these claims is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not allow energy to be transferred from a body with lower temperature to one at a higher temperature. This is generally true for conduction and convection, absent other energy input, however the effects of radiative energy transfer can result in a situation which gives the appearance that this is occurring, when something else is happening”.
I think you are certifiable for putting forward such an experiment. For one, The second law says nothing about energy per se, it is talking about HEAT TRANSFER. This is where Eli Rabbett, your mentor, has so badly screwed up. He was told by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, two experts in thermodynamics, about the 2nd law being about heat transfer and not electromagnetic radiation, yet he persists with his folly regarding the blue/green plate experiment.
Your statement that the 2nd law is generally true for conduction and convection, but not for radiation, is absolute BS. Clausius, who wrote the 2nd law, stated that it is just as applicable to radiation as to the other forms of heat transfer.
Your closing statement in your opening paragraph is anti-science. You infer that radiative transfer ‘APPEARS’ to obey the 2nd law while ‘SOMETHING ELSE’ is happening. So, explain what this something else is.
I have gone into great detail at the atomic level to explain it and you have no scientific rebuttal. The basic reason your experiment cannot work is because electrons cannot increase their energy levels, i.e. heat up, when they intercept EM from a cooler source.
For cripes sake, why should they? In the hotter body on your initial experiment, the electrons on the plate are already at a high energy level. Why should back EM energy from a much cooler cookie sheet four inches above the plate cause the electrons to jump to a higher energy level in order to increase the temperature of the plate.
I have tried to explain why the tin plate warms. It reaches thermal equilibrium by dissipating heat into the air molecules above it, as well as through radiation. If it could not get rid of the heat it would melt. When you install the cookie sheet above it you cut off it’s ability to dissipate heat in an upward direction and the tin plate’s temperature rises when the air above it heats further.
typo…”your method is no vague” means “your method is so vague”.
swannie….still sorting out your methodology. Here’s a paragraph further down:
“With the previous demonstrations, the effect was shown during operation under normal atmospheric conditions and convection could cool the heated plate. In fact, the convection was increased thru the use of a fan, which was intended to decouple possible convective interference which might have resulted when the Green plate (a cookie sheet) was placed above the high temperature Blue plate, placed on top of an electric stove element. The resulting demonstration was criticized because of the potential for convective interference, even though the third demonstration conclusively showed that such interference, if any, was trivial”.
What do you mean, ‘convection could cool the heated plate’. Most of the cooling is by conduction and convection. The tin plate heats air molecules directly. When they warm, they become more buoyant than adjacent air and the hot air rises. That convection is a major form of heat dissipation.
Climate alarmists have many people convinced that heat can only be transferred from a surface by radiation. Not true. Direct conduction and subsequent convection is a major form of heat transfer/dissipation. Trenberth et al claimed conduction/convection is minor on the Earth’s surface, and they are wrong. Wood (1909) an authority on IR radiation said so. He did not think IR radiation from the surface is a significant cooling agent.
Why do you call convection ‘interference’. You seem to bring a pre-conceived notion to your experiment that only radiation cools the tin plate and that convection is a side show. You in no way proved that the effect of convection is trivial.
As long as you have any kind of covering over the tin plate you can expect the temperature to rise on the heated plate. You are forcing heated air that is trying to rise into a turbulent action as it piles up under the covering while trying to work its way around it.
swannie…re the experiment itself. The description and methodology is vague.
I am not so sure you have eliminated the air in the bell jar. I have never heard the term micron used with a vacuum but apparently 1000 microns = 1 mm mercury. 760 mm mercury is 14.7 PSI and 101.4 kPa. Your 2000 microns represents 2000/760,000 = 0.003 x 14.7 PSI = 0.044 PSI.
After this point you lose me. Where is the 300 watt halogen work light, outside the glass? And how does a 300 watt lamp raise the temperature of the ‘blue’ plate to over 210 F…through glass?
You temperature graph shows both plates rising in temperature while the green plate is below the blue plate. The green plate warms to nearly 110C with no radiation reaching it from the 300 watt lamp, according to you.
That suggests to me there is enough air in the bell jar to warm the green plate through convection, either that or you have failed to isolate the green plate during warming.
I don’t by your argument as follow:
“With little light falling directly on the Green plate, its temperature increased in response to the infrared
energy it received from the surrounding surface of the bell jar”.
Why would the IR be reflected off a clear glass cover?
After you raise the green plate it warms nearly 45 degrees F while the blue plate only warms nearly 20F.
I don’t see the 300 W lamp in your photos. Is it on the far side warming the blue plate and where are the baffles? There is far too much detail left out of the experiment.
All in all, I don’t think this proves anything. The 2nd law has been established for over a century and a half so we have to proceed on the premise that something else is explaining the rise in temperature of both plates.
When the blue plate is heated initially without the green plate in proximity, it can radiate heat from both sides and reach the equilibrium state at 200F. When you raise the green plate, you are cutting off one side of it’s heat dissipation. The close proximity of the green plate to a hotter surface allows it to warm as well but the blue plate is increasing in temperature only because you have blocked one side of it’s dissipation.
For me, the 2nd law still stands. You cannot raise the temperature of the blue plate by radiation from the green plate simply because the green plate is cooler, and significantly cooler. Even at the hottest point for both plates, the green plate is 60F cooler than the blue plate and the 2nd is clear that heat transfer green to blue is not happening.
I would like to verify that radiation from a 300 watt lamp shining through the thick glass of a bell jar can heat metal to 200 F, especially at the distance from the metal it would have to be.
GR, Allow me to reply as G&T might.
Your critique displays a considerable lack of understanding of physics, particularly convection and radiation energy transfer. Convection is energy transfer via a moving fluid, there’s no conduction involved. In the closed bell jar, convection depends on gravitational forcing to cause the fluid to move across the heated plates. As you note, at a 2000 micron pressure (or 2mm mercury), the fluid density is 2/760 or .0026 that of free air, so the gravitational forcing is tiny, especially given the inside height of the bell jar is only 8 inches, thus thermo-syphoning is minimized. Of course, there may still be some convection thru the intervening gas between the plates, thus the future goal to achieve even lower pressures.
You complain that the Green plate temperature increases about 45F while the Blue plate increases only 16F, when the Blue plate is still hotter than the Green plate at the end, as the effect of placing the Green plate next to the Blue plate causes an increase in the Blue plate’s temperature. The Green plate doesn’t “block” the IR energy flow emitted from the hot Blue plate, the Green plate emissions increase the IR energy flow toward the Blue plate. Isn’t that the whole point of the demonstration, which is, the plate with the higher temperature is warmed further by the presence of the cooler plate?
Great experiment Swanson! All commenters should applaud your efforts. Convincing results.
Hopefully you will seal all the leaks.
In the mean time, I think we can extrapolate, as Galileo does with his cannon ball and feather drop experiment, to the situation when all the air is removed.
I believe you have already eliminated most convection heat transfer at the pressures you obtained. Below this pressure, 2000 microns, is the regime of pressure where conduction decreases rapidly with pressure (thats how gauges work in this range!).
What would happen with zero pressure? All conduction between the plates and jar would disappear. And all conduction between the plates disappears.
As I result, we could expect qualitatively the same results, and
1) that the Blue plate’s temp would rise further due to reduced heat loss, and
2) that the separation in temp between the Green and Blue will rise due to reduced thermal linkage.
In no way could we extrapolate that the Blue and Green plate temperatures will get closer together and certainly not equalize.
Do you agree? Hopefully you can test the tendency with reduced pressure.
Silicone grease may help in the seal between jar and plate
Mike –
the sun emits more energy in short wavelengths. co2 and other greenhouse gases are mostly transparent to shortwave radiation. the energy hits the earths surface. the surface then emits some of this energy as ir radiation. co2 and other greenhouse gases absorb ir and then radiate it. some of the radiated ir goes up, some down, some sideways. some ir eventually reaches space, some returns to the earth’s surface, keeping the surface warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases. more co2 means more ir radiated back to earth. this is your GHE. it is very testable, and science classes across the country perform these tests- you could do it in your own home if you were actually interested.
“some returns to the earths surface, keeping the surface warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases.”
Nope! “Back-radiation” can not keep its source “warmer”. That’s just ONE of the flaws in the GHE nonsense.
Snape,
You wrote –
CO2 slows the rate at which long wave radiation is emitted to space. It does little to impede sunlight from reaching earths surface.
This is your description of the GHE? Totally meaningless and irrelevant, stupid even!
Are you really stupid enough to believe that a slower rate of falling temperature results in hotter thermometers? Maybe you need to increase your explanation to include overcoats, insulation, back, front, sideways and curly radiation, and similar nonsensical things.
You can see why even stupid so-called climate scientists would not be quite so stupid as to provide such an irrelevant and pointless attempt to explain the non describable GHE. Totally irrelevant nonsense.
Press on, Snape. All you have to do is provide a testable GHE hypothesis explaining how increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. And of course, it must – otherwise there wouldn’t be any need for panic about temperatures increasing due to CO2 in the atmosphere, would there?
How hard can it be? For the average ignorant and stupid CO2 AGW supporter, it is so hard that none of them have actually managed to do it. They can’t even explain why a steel shipping container gets so hot in the blazing sun. Give it a go, if you like, and compare the temperatures reached in a glass walled and roofed greenhouse, compared with internal temperatures in a steel box of the same dimensions.
Gee, what a surprise!
Off you go, then.
Cheers.
Mike
It would be easy to describe algebra to one of the poodles you train. Impossible to get them to understand any of it.
Same with you and the GHE.
S,
Oh well, if you are convinced you can explain something you can’t even describe, you’re as stupid as the self proclaimed climatologists who can’t find a testable GHE hypothesis either.
Maybe the fantasy is infectious.
Cheers.
Mike…quoted from snape…”CO2 slows the rate at which long wave radiation is emitted to space. It does little to impede sunlight from reaching earths surface”.
Solar radiation is 52% in the IR region. At the IR end of the solar spectrum it is almost in the range of the upper end of the terrestrial radiation spectrum. They intersect around 5 microns.
Why is it, snape, that IR from solar energy does not warm GHGs on the way in? There is an overlap in the solar and terrestrial spectra at 5 microns and due to the much higher intensity of solar energy that should be ample to warm CO2.
On the other hand, the much weaker terrestrial IR should die out quickly after radiation due to the inverse square law. I fear the AGW/GHE theories are built on seriously weak physics while contradicting the 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson
You fail in physics. You get an F for your obvious lack of knowledge on of the inverse square law and how it works. I did explain this to you a while back. I can spend lots of time explaining things to you but your brain rejects physics that you did not make up. You would have to make up the correct understanding of inverse square law to apply it.
I can help you. You can go up 1000 meters from the Earth’s surface.
It will increase the area Earth’s radiant energy passes through. If you use the average 390 W/m^2 value calculate how much energy will pass through a square meter 1000 meters above the Earth’s surface? If you can hope to get the answer you will get a passing grade. Just making ignorant statements is a definite F. Now calculate and earn a real grade. If you actually took engineering then such calculations should be very easy for you.
If you don’t reply (hoping the idiot does not respond) I will provide you with and answer. Not that you will be able to understand the correct application. I will do it anyway. Hoping you answer yourself though.
norman…”You get an F for your obvious lack of knowledge on of the inverse square law and how it works”.
The thought of you trying to teach me science, or anyone else, comes from a delusion in your own mind.
The idea of the inverse square law as applied to terrestrial radiation came from Watt, an expert in IR radiation. He was consulted by Niels Bohr for his expertise.
I think the calculations produced by Trenberth et al regarding terrestrial radiation are all bogus. I think the MIT study I quoted the other day, with radiation from heat produced in the Earth’s core as being 1/3rd of all surface radiation is far more accurate.
Radiation from the surface is essentially insignificant as a means of warming the atmosphere. That too came from Watt. Radiation is also a poor means of cooling. I gave an example of a vacuum flask thermos wherein radiation takes hours to cool a hot liquid. I have poured boiling water straight out of a kettle into a vacuum flask at 6 am and it was still too hot to drink at noon. It was still warm for the afternoon break.
GR, At long last, here’s a link to my latest results. I await your detailed critique.
https://app.box.com/s/gjjt0liv74m386wc2cj0qbhlfsmljy2q
BTW, the thermos bottle works by reflecting the IR radiation back to the source, that being your hot coffee. That’s why the inside of the flask is mirrored…
E,
I hope you are not asking for my critique. You won’t like it. Your graph shows your results. I’m not sure why you are claiming that they are inconsistent with normal physics.
They seem to be, but your write up doesn’t explain what is supposedly inexplicable without invoking something previously unknown.
Not a really well thought out “experiment” in science terms. I congratulate you on your effort so far. You have put quite some work into it. Possibly reading the accounts of Professor John Tyndall’s experimental work might help to explain the need for more detail, experimental protocols and so on, if you want to be taken seriously.
Have you ever wondered why the climatological crew have not been to provide any experimental results to back up their bizarre claims? Why does it need to be left to an enthusiastic amateur?
Good luck with your experiments. You’ll get there.
Cheers.
Flynn
The zombie brain eater that haunts what could be a valuable blog for people who like science but want to be troll free.
The reason Climate Scientists do not need to engage in experiments as
E. Swanson has done is because it is already based upon real valid physics that works so well it is used in industry all the time. You don’t understand this though. You are dumber than g*e*r*a*n who is dumber than Gordon Robertson. You three give skeptics a foul odor. Wish you would stop posting and read some science.
E. Swanson
Thanks for running the experiment and providing a link to it. I read through. It does prove Eli Rabbet’s thought experiment correct.
Ignore the idiots! I tell them to shut up but they don’t listen.
Flynn and g*e*r*a*n are too stupid to even follow your experiment. I am hoping Gordon Robertson at least looks at it and thinks about it.
The two idiots seem to have influence over Gordon Robertson. Maybe some empirical science will help break him away from the science haters. I am not sure which of the two idiots hates science more. g*e*r*a*n or Flynn. Both seem to dislike it! Yours is love of science. All they can offer is absolute hatred of the subject. Science bashers.
Norman,
Wishin’ and hopin’ and prayin’ won’t make you any less stupid, will it?
Keep trying, it might work one day.
Cheers.
swannie…”BTW, the thermos bottle works by reflecting the IR radiation back to the source, that being your hot coffee. Thats why the inside of the flask is mirrored”
**********
Then why do you need a vacuum? Silvered glass should be enough. The vacuum serves as a barrier to heat loss by conduction since heat cannot pass through a vacuum due to the lack of air molecules. That makes radiation the primary heat dissipator.
The silver coating will reflect IR but it won’t prevent conduction of heat to the outer layer of the vacuum flask inner wall. Of course, heat can escape via conduction through the stopper, but slowly. Therefore, the major heat blocker is the vacuum, which allows only dissipation by IR.
Since IR radiation is such a slow dissipator of heat, it takes hours for the liquid temperature to drop from the temperature of boiling water to a tepid temperature. Left to sit in a cup on a counter at room temperature it would cool to tepid in 15 minutes. That’s because conduction and convection are acting as well as radiation.
“BTW, the thermos bottle works by reflecting the IR radiation back to the source, that being your hot coffee”
That is an erroneous and incomplete answer. A thermos works by reducing conductive, convective and radiative heat losses.
The mirrored surface on the inside of the vacuum flask has very low emissivity, greatly reducing radiative heat losses.
See the following worked out example (19.3.1):
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
Now substitute a plain non-mirrored stainless steel surface with an emissivity of about 0.6 in the above problem and see the difference.
This has nothing to do with backradiation.
Swanson,
You got how a thermos bottle works wrong, so I don’t hold much hope for your backyard “experiment”.
I suggest you submit your “experiment” for peer review and have it published in a reputable science journal so real scientists can provide critique. But we know that’s not gonna happen.
GR,
NASA’s original brightly coloured energy budget cartoon la Trenberth is just stupid.
For starters, it shows all continents being lit by the Sun simultaneously, on a flat Earth. Just stupid.
Then, it goes on trying to imply Watts/m2 are somehow related to temperatures. Even more stupid.
Even their claimed “back radiation” gives an assumed black body temperature of around 4 C – not likely to heat anything much above 4 C. Stupidly stupid.
The rest of the cartoon is similarly stupid. The originators are not completely stupid however. They seem to have made a valiant effort to hide their stupidity, by deleting it where they could.
According to NASA, the original diagram has been give a “facelift”), presumably climate-speak for “We realise how stupid we made ourselves look, so we’ll make another pretty picture, hoping nobody will notice we are still as stupid as ever”.
This gem about the “facelifted diagram” from Wikipedia explains all –
“As solar heating and back radiation from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heatequivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy.”
Fantastic – the highly sought after perpetual motion machine! 100 energy units in, 117 energy units out – brought to you by the climatological magic of CO2!
Can these people really be as stupid and deluded as they appear? The answer, sadly, is yes. None of their efforts to hide inconvenient facts will prove successful in the long run. There is no GHE. CO2 heats nothing, and does not magically multiply sunlight.
Cheers.
Mike…”Fantastic the highly sought after perpetual motion machine! 100 energy units in, 117 energy units out brought to you by the climatological magic of CO2!”
I have read the Keihle-Trenberth explanation for their radiation budget. It should never have passed peer review. Trenberth is busy running around interfering with the publishing of skeptics papers but he should have banned his own work.
Their heat budget is based on hypothetical parameters and they have admitted that.
Possibly the most ignorant part of the initial heat budget was claiming nearly as much back-radiation as what is emitted by the surface. You are right, a perpetual motion machine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
Mike, science critiques from someone who thinks temperatures simply add, can be safely ignored.
Wow, you go to some lengths here, even vacuum sealing the experiment. Someone should congratulate you for doing actual experiments. Thus, hat tip.
b,
Yes, he deserves congratulations. Amazing that the tens of billions of dollars spend in the pursuit of stopping the climate from changing haven’t managed to produce one reproducible experiment to test the as yet undescribed GHE, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, E Swansons experiment isn’t showing what he thinks it is. If someone could actually find a testable GHE hypothesis, E would find his experiment meaningless. But as no testable GHE hypothesis exists, so the point is moot, wouldn’t you agree?
Keep the faith, brother. It will provide a mighty shield against inconvenient fact, hopefully.
Cheers.
Mike…Barry…”Yes, he [Swannie] deserves congratulations”.
I agree wholeheartedly. The experiment demonstrates ingenuity and a lot of work.
My friend’s dad was into creating a perpetual motion machine and spent a great deal of time pursuing that goal. I told him one day, in naivete, that he could not create one due to friction. His eyes glazed over and I think I only succeeded in making him more determined.
I feel badly that Swannie is going to all this trouble based on the musings of Eli Rabbett. Rabbet wrote a paper under his real name, rebutting the Gerlich & Tcheuschner paper on the GHE, which they claimed does not exist. They are both from the field of thermodynamics and laid out an in-depth reasoning as to why the GHE does not exist. They examined a good deal of claims about the GHE and dismantled them one by one.
Rabbett rebutted G&T with some associates and G&T replied. They pointed out to Rabbet et al that the 2nd law applies only to heat and that EM energies cannot be summed to satisfy it. I have tried with my own amateurish reasoning involving electron theory to explain that at the atomic level.
One of the Rabbet arguments was that in a classic radiation heat exchange like in his blue plate – green plate thought experiment, that based on the G&T claims based on the 2nd law, one plate would not be radiating. Rabbett et al failed to understand that heat is not EM and that the 2nd law implies that heat can only be transferred from hot to cold. Rabbett, still under the delusion that heat is EM, reasoned that one plate must not be radiating in that case.
Based on his green/blue plate thought experiment he is still under that delusion. Unfortunately he has convinced Swannie that the 2nd law can be bypassed using heat transfer with radiation. Clausius claimed the 2nd law applies equally to radiation.
wouldnt you agree?
No. You are describing an experiment that Swanson did not perform.
Swanson was interested in demonstrating the heating from ‘back radiation’ based on the notion that this violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
That was the purpose of the experiment.
It looks to me like the results mesh with what others have been saying – that back radiation adds energy to the surface being heated, thereby slowing its rate of heat loss, whereby the object becomes warmer than it would without the material providing the back radiation.
What is impressive is the lengths of physical experimentation Swanson has gone to. Only Dr Spencer has gone as far on this website.
Gordon said that Swanson had ignored the suppressed convection in an earlier experiment when the cookie tray was added. But he seems to have missed the addition of a baffle being added of similar size but with transparent surface admitting much IR. If convection was the answer, then the temperatures achieved with 1st cookie tray and then 2nd transparent baffle should ave produced the same temperature, but the result was that the transparent baffle did not cause the object of interest to get as warm as with the cookie tray.
For critics of ‘back radiation’ what are the chances they would also do such a rigorous experiment? I reckon the chances are zero, especially from those who continually talk about ‘real science.’
b,
Unfortunately, E has demonstrated nothing that cannot be explained without involving “back radiation”, a term which was invented by self styled climatologists – existing nowhere else.
You may care to disagree. It won’t change facts – the NASA nonsense that 100 units of energy entering the atmosphere becomes 117 units at the surface, due to the miracle of CO2, cannot be demonstrate experimentally. Perpetual motion machines are impossible – at least until someone produces one.
Dream on.
Cheers.
Mike F. said
It’s interesting that you haven’t bothered to present those so-called “explanations”. Your usual MO is to flood the site with numerous claims of your expertise in physics, yet you now choose to remain quiet on this one. The fact that the radiation balance or back radiation concept has appeared in standard text books since the ’60’s doesn’t bother you at all.
Hey, I’ve found the source of a couple of leaks, so I may do another round at still lower pressures, once they are fixed. Also, I’ll run it after dark, so the work area won’t be heating up during the run. Without gasses, there’s no convection or conduction, so a warming of the hotter body at very low pressure would of necessity be the result of back radiation, which would put the lie to claims by you and GR regarding the 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson
It is obvious you actually do not know how to calculate what I requested and are now trying to pretend to be smart by bringing up more material that you are incapable of understanding.
Most basically it is assumed radiation is isotropic. With this basic assumption you can figure out the inverse square law quite easily.
It is just based upon the Area of a sphere. Area = 4pir^2. As you double the radius the area is quadrupled so the isotropic radiant energy is spread out an area four times larger than the original area of the radiator.
I can make it super simple for you. If you have a sphere one meter in radius it will have a surface area of 12.57 m^2. If this sphere is close to a blackbody emissivity say it is made out of rough iron.
If it has a temperature of 500 C so it is glowing red.
The surface emission would be around 19,600 Watts/m^2
The total emission of such a hot sphere of iron would be 246,372 Watts.
If you stood 1 meter away the energy flux would drop by 1/4 since the area that the 246,372 watts must pass through is no longer 12.57 m^2 (remember isotropic) but 50.27 m^2. The energy flux will drop to 4900 W/m^2.
If you stand back 5 meters the energy flux drops to 544.6 watts/m^2
I don’t think you “get it” the size of the radiating surface is what you need to figure out before you calculate your inverse square law.
You talk about having a burner on. If you have a 10 inch burner then a doubling of distance is 10 inches away. The energy has dropped a 1/4 in 10 inches.
To make it easy for you.
For the original sphere with a one meter radius:
1 m away energy flux drops by 1/4 or for the 10″ burner 10″ away
2 m away energy flux drops by 1/9 20″ away
3 m away energy flux drops by 1/16 30″ away
4 m away energy flux drops by 1/25 40″ away
5 m away energy flux drops by 1/36 50″ away
If you “get this” simple math (basic geometry) you can then learn that for an emitter the size of Earth at 6,378,100 meter radius you have to move away from the Earth this many meters to lower the radiant energy by 1/4. If the Earth is emitting 390 W/m^2 average you would have to be at a point 6378 kilometers above the surface to lower the radiant energy to 97.5 W/m^2.
If you make the Earth a perfect sphere with a radius listed above (to simplify the calculation, nerds would try to make it more precise) 1000 meters above the surface would drop the radiant energy from 390 W/m^2 to 389.88 W/m^2. Not much of a drop at all.
The effective radiating level for our atmosphere is located around 10 km above the surface so what would the surface radiant energy be at that point if none was absorbed by GHG and the surface was at its current surface temperature?
Take the 390 W/m^2 average. 6,378,100 for your Earth radius.
Now find the size of the sphere with an radius of 10 km or 10000 meters added to that value. You have now a new radius of 6,388,100 meters. For your original sphere you have a total of 199,368,765,301,112,516 watts being emitted by Earth’s total surface. Now this same energy will be moving through a larger area at the Effective Radiating Level. The new area is 512,806,210,315,915 m^2.
199,368,765,301,112,516 Watts/ 512,806,210,315,915 m^2 and the drop in flux from the surface becomes: 388.78 W/m^2. (Sorry for all the digits, I was just copy/paste from my calculator). So your flux drops about 11 w/m^2. This alone will tell you that the GHG are absorbing a lot of surface IR since only 240 W/m^2 leaves the TOA.
Con-man, ever heard of GIGO?
If you use pseudoscience, no matter how accurate your calculator is, you end up with pseudoscience.
At least you’re consistent.
g*e*r*a*n
Oh just shut up you stupid idiot! You are just so dumb and pointless posts. What meaning does your posts provide. Just shut the hell up for once!
You are so incredibly stupid you can’t follow the logic. Just SHUT UP and quit posting!
There is not any flaw in the math you moron! You are too stupid to follow it but make an idiotic comment anyway. I think your J Halp-less (though as dumb as you) was a better fit. I guess you do want to compete with Flynn for dumbest poster award.
It will be hard fought battle to the bottom. Both of you are as dumb as humans get.
Norman,
It doesn’t really matter what you or I think. Nature proceeds anyway.
As to the US Govt, it seems that at least some decision makers there agree with my views as opposed to yours. This suits me well – you maybe not so much.
Keep demanding that people with whom you disagree shut up, and stop disagreeing with you. It won’t work, but you may get enjoyment from trying. I wouldn’t waste the effort, but stupid is as stupid does.
Keep doing it.
Cheers.
Norman,
A small question for you – who is more intelligent – Gavin Schmidt, or Michael Mann?
How did you come to your conclusion?
Cheers.
Norm, I see the rabies vaccine is wearing off, again. You need to watch that. It’s even harder to con people if they know you are a rabid chihuahua.
And, your calculator is not the problem. It’s your pseudoscience that is garbage.
Hope that helps.
g*e*r*a*n
The science hating troll.
So what in my post was pseudoscience?
Flynn
Okay I can see you really are competing with g*e*r*a*n to see who is the dumbest poster on this blog. Good for you, at least you are trying to be good at something.
Everything you state is wrong. Amazing.
This one: “Keep demanding that people with whom you disagree shut up, and stop disagreeing with you. It wont work, but you may get enjoyment from trying. I wouldnt waste the effort, but stupid is as stupid does.”
I don’t want to communicate with g*e*r*a*n. My posts are to Gordon Robertson. He jumps in with a mindless post about nothing. What is the disagreement?
Here is a comment by the idiot himself: “Con-man, ever heard of GIGO?
If you use pseudoscience, no matter how accurate your calculator is, you end up with pseudoscience.
At least youre consistent.”
What is there to disagree with? He is not making any valid points. He is just being stupid like you are. A race to the bottom of mental ability. Who will get there first.
The dance of idiots pretending they know science what a laugh.
Norman,
You haven’t answered my question to who is most intelligent – Mann or Schmidt?
I can’t really blame you for refusing to answer – it’s a bit tricky, eh?
Carry on.
Cheers.
norman…”If you get this simple math (basic geometry) you can then learn that for an emitter the size of Earth at 6,378,100 meter radius you have to move away from the Earth this many meters to lower the radiant energy by 1/4″.
It’s late at night and I am not thinking clearly, but….
Are you serious???
You are considering the centre of the Earth as a hot spot subject to the inverse square law. Why don’t you just consider a one metre square on the surface of the Earth as Intensity 1 at 1 metre? Visualize a hot spot within the Earth that has spread out its radiation to the point where it is cutting the surface through a 1 metre square section.
Then consider a section 2 metres from the surface and apply the equation I1/I2 = D2^2/D1^2.
D1 will always be 1 metre and D1^2 always 1. Therefore D2^2 = 2^2 = 4 metres squared. There’s your 1/4 for a doubling of distance. However, you got D^3 for 3 metres wrong, it should be 3^2 = 9 metres squared, representing a dissipation in intensity of 1/9th.
That means your 390 W/m^2 will be 390/4 at 2 metres = 97.5 W/m^2. At 5 metres it’s 390/25 = 15.6 W/m^2, and at 100 metres it’s not even worth talking about at 390/10,000 = 0.039 W/m^2.
That’s what Wood likely meant when he claimed surface radiation was ineffective more than a few feet above the surface.
That also better explains why a 1500 watt stove top ring is not felt at 5 feet. It will heat the air molecules producing a warming effect but the radiation from it drops off dramatically with distance.
The problem with this simplified analogy is obvious. There are adjacent squares radiating 390 W/m^2 and they will all overlap. Still, each square will be essentially zero by 100 metres.
I don’t buy that number 390 W/m^2 anyway. It’s a fictitious number created from playing with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It’s like having 4 x 100 watt light bulbs placed in a 1 m^2 area. Highly unlikely at my latitude where 4 ice cubes would be a better representation.
Norm wants to know what is wrong with his pseudoscience.
“This alone will tell you that the GHG are absorbing a lot of surface IR since only 240 W/m^2 leaves the TOA.”
Norm, you’ve been sucked in. davie uses this same technique. It’s very tricky. 390 W/m^2 leave the surface, but only 240 W/m^2 go into space. Where are the missing 150 W/m^2?
It’s called pseudoscience.
Hint: Ask for the data, for both the “390” and “240”.
Gordon Robertson
I think maybe you were tired when you posted about the inverse square law. If you believe what you posted you might be the dumbest person on this blog. I hope you think it through and work to try and figure out why this post was horrible in all possible ways and it makes you look really really stupid and unthinking. Please reconsider and hopefully you will see your errors, which are many.
Send this to a physics teacher and see what they tell you.
They will put a zero this post, not even worth an F.
Your made up physics is getting worse!! Seek help soon!
I like you Gordon but your science is the worst!
Maybe Norm has an RPN calculator and doesn’t know it?
norman…”I think maybe you were tired when you posted about the inverse square law. If you believe what you posted you might be the dumbest person on this blog”.
You are by far the dumbest person on this blog. I have no fear of becoming the dumbest as long as you are commenting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
Your usage of the Earth as a sphere radiating as from a central core is misleading. So is mine because there is no way to emulate surface radiation per se since it originates from the surface. Therefore, I presumed a point source behind the surface square metre so that the first radiating surface is at the surface. Then, the rest falls into the inverse square law over a form of conic section.
The first diagram at the link above is an example of what I mean. The first section with length r has to be regarded as the square meter of surface area. The rest is self-explanatory.
A square meter of surface area is actually going to radiate in all directions of a hemisphere. As it radiates and the hemisphere radius increases, the inverse square law applies.
I realize this applies to only one section of the surface, however, all similar sections will be affected by the inverse square law. The result can be verified by the fact that a 1500 watt electric stove ring will broil your finger if held close enough without touching the ring, yet a few inches away nothing will happen.
Try it with a marshmallow on a fork. That’s how quickly radiation dissipates.
It is also verified by Watt, an expert in IR who claimed surface radiation would have little effect beyond a few feet elevation.
norman…I was overly tired last night and my choice of r was wrong. However, your usage of r as the radius of the Earth is equally wrong. You cannot presume that the radius emanates from a point source therefore represents radiation from within the Earth.
That could apply to the Sun provided it had uniform heat from its core out, but it doesn’t. Where they get the 1300 W/m^2 at TOA is questionable, especially considering the very broad spectrum of solar radiation.
The radiation originates from the Earth’s surface after it is converted by the surface to LWR from SWR. That’s why I don’t but the 390 W/m^2.
My solution is correct provided there is a point source 1 metre below the surface that can radiate to 1 m^2 at the surface, but that is obviously not the case. Still, something is drastically reducing radiation at a fast rate over a few feet, as claimed by Watt. You cannot argue with that since I have offered a perfect example of radiation from a 1500 watt source dissipating dramatically within a few inches.
The same effect obviously takes place at the surface. If there is 390 W/m^2 at the surface, within a few feet it will have been reduced dramatically.
CO2’s absorp-tion bands in the near IR
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1521076365141.jpg
contribute to about 30 % of the warming in the mesosphere.
La P,
Considering the mass of the mesosphere (or even not considering its mass), what’s your point?
Are you trying to support NASA’s mad conclusion that 117% of the Sun’s radiation appears at the surface? You’d have to join the stupid club for that, but maybe you are already a full member.
If you don’t agree with NASA’s lunatic statement, let me know, and I’ll apologise for assuming you did.
Cheers.
How is it that I can get the sun to burn paper with a magnifying glass?
barry,
You’re kidding me, right? You really don’t know?
I honestly had no idea that somebody could be so ignorant. Look it up on the internet.
If you need assistance, let me know. I’m here to help.
Cheers.
barry, it’s called “focusing”. A small handheld magnifying glass, on a clear day, can easily focus enough solar to reach temperatures of 400C (800F).
Likely you’ve heard the expression “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
Gordon Robertson
You did not provide a link to any MIT article in your post:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-292354
norman…the link again. I’m sure I posted it following the original post after I realized I’d omitted it.
https://www.livescience.com/7239-earth-temperature-hot.html
Gordon Robertson
I know you read the article wrong. You made up physics again.
You site 42 trillion watts as the amount of energy from the core to the surface.
You then make the made up claim that this is 1/3 of the Earth’s surface radiation?
YOU: “This article puts heat from the core radiated at the surface as 1/3rd of surface radiation,” ???
Say what!??
Surface radiation would be around 510 trillion m^2 times 390 W/m^2 or
198,900,000,000,000,000 Watts
42,000,000,000,000 Watts from Core to surface
That is not even remotely close to 1/3 of the surface emission. How you think baffles me! Where does this come from?
1/3 = 0.33….
Core energy to surface/surface energy emission
0.00021
Not even remotely possible. You need to put on your reading glasses and link to the MIT study that you have so horribly misread!
Norman,
I’m not sure what your point is. Are you claiming that the measured heat loss from the core through the surface does not exist?
Or maybe that in the absence of the Sun, the surface temperature of the Earth (consisting of >99% molten rock, would be 0K (or close to it)?
Maybe you are claiming that the -93 C odd surface temperature measured on the Antarctic continent is warmer than the surface below the ice?
All very mysterious. What is it that you are trying to say?
Given that the core temperature is say, 5500 K, and outer space is say, 4 K, the the Earths surface is less than the one, and more than the other, varying between the white heat observed during volcanic eruptions, to the -93 C previously mentioned.
With which part of this do you not agree?
Cheers,
Flynn
What an incredibly stupid reply.
How do you get this: “Im not sure what your point is. Are you claiming that the measured heat loss from the core through the surface does not exist?” From my post?
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget
Average flux at Earth’s surface from its Core is 0.0916 W/m^2 (91.6 milliwatt/m^2)
The Earth’s surface is close to a blackbody in emissivity.
This amount of energy, if the Sun went out, would leave the Earth’s surface at an average temperature (heated by the core) 40 K.
And David Appell is correct that you can’t make the claim that if the Earth were 40 K from geothermal energy that it would add from 255 K to 288 K.
At 255 K the Earth’s surface would emit around 233 W/m^2 (I used an emissivity of 0.97). To raise the surface by just 1 K at this temperature you would have to add about 3 W/m^2 energy. The core supplies 0.0916 W/m^2
At 255 K such an addition of energy would increase the surface temperature by 0.025 K
I am most certain you do not understand Stefan-Boltzmann or what the temperature raised to the fourth power means.
Norman,
So we agree that the temperature of the surface in the absence of external energy is around 40 K.
You will note that David Appell pulled his head in, so to speak, when he he realised that the climatological thinking that you are using would require that the same amount of energy would be required raise a gram of water from 0 C to 100 C, as from 99 C to 100 C.
If you cannot see the relevance, then no further explanation is possible. What you are confused about is that the radiative intensity increases as the fourth power of the absolute temperature. The energy input to achieve this temperature doesn’t.
As I have said before, W/m2 are somewhat irrelevant in the context of temperature. Millions of Watts from ice at 300 W/m2 aren’t enough to melt 1 g of ice.
Still no GHE. No description, no existence.
Keep up the abuse. It’s not all bad – sometimes it’s amusing!
Cheers.
Flynn
I have no clue what you are saying with this: “You will note that David Appell pulled his head in, so to speak, when he he realised that the climatological thinking that you are using would require that the same amount of energy would be required raise a gram of water from 0 C to 100 C, as from 99 C to 100 C.”
Norman,
As I said –
“If you cannot see the relevance, then no further explanation is possible.”
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“You will note that David Appell pulled his head in, so to speak, when he he realised that the climatological thinking that you are using would require that the same amount of energy would be required raise a gram of water from 0 C to 100 C, as from 99 C to 100 C.”
What you wrote wasn’t meaningful, relevant to my point, let alone worth replying to.
Fluxes add linearly; blackbody temperatures don’t. (Obvious from the SB Law.)
Mike Flynn doubles down, again revealing his deep ignorance of actual physics.
Insults*understanding=constant
norman…”You then make the made up claim that this is 1/3 of the Earths surface radiation?”
It states that right in the article and the author is quoting MIT.
That means to me the CALCULATED surface radiation is way off if an MIT group is right and claiming the heat radiated from the core at the surface is 1/3rd of all surface radiation.
Gordon Robertson
So will you post a link to this article?
norman….the link to the MIT study article.
https://www.livescience.com/7239-earth-temperature-hot.html
Gordon Robertson
The article in your link is written by a science writer about another article written by MIT researchers. She obviously made an error.
That is why if you are scientific and logical you don’t read some phrase and believe it is true or real. You can do your own research to validate the statement.
You could do simple math to see that the point was not written correctly and what was really meant was something altogether different.
It is easy to see the point was not correct by even your standards.
Take 43 trillion watts by 3 and you get 129 trillion watts total.
Divide that total number into the number of square meters for the Earth’s surface. You would get an average flux of less than 1 w/m^2. A surface with emissivity over 0.9 that is emitting less than 1 W/m^2 would be incredibly cold. It is just an incorrect statement or improperly worded. You need to use logical thought when reading material. You can do easy tests when you see something like that and not report it as if it was a real correct value.
Flynn
Have you ever woken up in the morning and wondered what happened to you? Maybe as a kid you were fascinated by science and the wonders it presented. Maybe you had big dreams of making a big discovery.
Then you let all the wonder slip away and come on climate blogs exposing this incredible stupid thought process. What happened to you? Where did the intelligence go?
Norman,
Another stupid, irrelevant and pointless comment?
Thank you for your interest, anyway.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I can see it is easy for you to recognize pointless comments. You make them all the time. So far all your posts I have seen are stupid, irrelevant and pointless. You make several of these on a regular basis yet complain if another poster replies in similar fashion. Maybe people do this with your posts in order to try and communicate with you.
Have you ever made a rational, logical scientific post? I can’t recall such.
N,
Thanks for your interest.
What makes you think I have the slightest interest in answering you? Are you really that stupid?
Cheers.
Flynn
You just answered me. Does that make you really that stupid?
N,
I am polite. I was thanking you for your interest. That makes me courteous. Yes, even to the ignorant, stupid, or mentally afflicted.
As to answering, you asked a stupid question, which I refused to answer. I have precisley no interest in answering your stupid and ill posed questions.
You are the stupid one, as I said.
Cheers.
I think greenhouse gases could have some insulative effect.
And seems to me that water vapor on Earth has largest insulative effect and all greenhouse gases don’t add 33 K.
I also think an atmosphere without greenhouse gases has an insulative effect. And I think Earth 1 ATM of atmosphere and
it’s greenhouse gases also don’t add up to 33 K.
Clouds also have an insulative effect and perhaps Clouds can have more insulative effect as compared clear skies and all the greenhouse gases.
And I think Earth’s atmosphere plus greenhouse gases plus clouds add up in total about 15 K (at most). But this warming isn’t all due insulative effects of gradient heat loss.
The atmosphere is warmed by convectional heating- just as an actual greenhouse is warmed.
I think the main reason Earth is warm is because 70% of the surface is covered with Ocean.
And what warms Earth is it’s tropical ocean. And that ocean is transparent to sunlight is an important factor of why the tropical ocean warms Earth.
A transparent ocean is not a blackbody surface and if the ocean was covered with a blackbody surface, then the ocean covered with a blackbody would have a higher daytime surface temperature, absorb less energy and radiate more energy into space – and would not warm the rest of Earth. The average temperature of Earth would lower significantly.
Earth average surface air temperature is related to ocean surface and land surface temperatures.
Ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and land surface is about 10 C and with 70% ocean and 30% land this gives average global temperature of about 15 C.
Earth has been in ice box climate for millions of years – entire ocean is cold and Earth has polar ice caps.
Earth is cold because land surfaces are cooling the oceans, and Earth can warmer if land is different- ie,are arranged so land has less cooling effects of the oceans.
Over the time period of 1/2 billion years, most this time it’s
not been in an ice box climate and it has had periods in which
it’s a hothouse climate with is no polar ice caps and the entire being 15 C or warmer and global air temperature of about 25 C. So in a hothouse climate the oceans are causing more warming than they are currently.
gbaikie…”I think greenhouse gases could have some insulative effect.
And seems to me that water vapor on Earth has largest insulative effect and all greenhouse gases dont add 33 K”.
I like the explanation of Watt, circa 1909, for the GHE. He claimed heat is scavenged from the surface via conduction and convection by the atmospheric gases but since they don’t emit well, being 99% N2/O2, they retain the heat for a lengthy period of time.
I think the 99% N2/O2 doesn’t absorb or emits much radiant energy and gains and loses energy via convection and condensation and evaporation.
And as said, I think land surfaces act as radiators which doing a significant amount the cooling of Earth and land areas don’t absorb as much energy from sunlight.
Ocean add to air temperature, land subtracts from air temperature.
Land doesn’t absorb indirect sunlight, ocean, water, and water droplets do absorb indirect sunlight.
The ‘warmists’ are obsessed with peer-reviewed and published papers, deeming that comments made on blogs which disagree or offer an alternative view do not have validity compared with a published paper.
The ‘warmists’ are usually in total ignorance of the background of the person making a point on a blog, and often there are accompanying condescending disparaging remarks posted as well instead of a polite riposte.
Their faith in peer review is set in stone – but do they honestly believe that a peer-reviewed paper is always correct, and beyond question? Do they ever wonder about who the ‘peers’ who reviewed the paper were, and how much they actually knew about the subject?
Did the peers assessing the paper only know about a part of the techniques used, for example?
Many years ago, I saw a paper in the highly esteemed journal ‘Nature’ in which finger length had been measured by placing the subject’s hand on a photocopier, and measuring from the copy. It doesn’t take much imagination to realise the distortion errors inherent in this. What they should have done was to take an X-ray, measure the relevant bone lengths, and apply various correction factors which have to be made. I knew, because I’d studied such techniques as part of an applied anatomy course – but the peer reviewers obviously had no idea, and simply nodded the paper through.
Totally inadequate, and this in a peer-reviewed paper in a prestigious journal.
Go to any scientific meeting, and the presenters will be asked questions. The audience will all have have a science background, and won’t necessarily be in exactly the same area of work as the speaker – yet there are always some razor-sharp minds among them. My departmental professor from those long-gone days quickly picked up on all manner of things, because he had a broad background in various specialities, and used that knowledge to the full.
Peer review has to be regarded with caution.
carbon500…”but the peer reviewers obviously had no idea, and simply nodded the paper through”.
I have heard that complaint from several scientists, that the reviewers did not seem to understand the paper. How could reviewers understand cutting edge science and why should they have the right to refuse a paper just because they don’t get it?
Recently a journal editor was forced to resign because warmist scientists ganged up on him claiming a skeptical paper was wrong. That was never meant to be the purpose of peer review, it has become corrupt.
Initially, peer review was aimed at preventing layman from making ridiculous claims. As you rightly point out, there is nothing to prevent a layman from understanding science as well as a scientist. It should not be left up to a reviewer to decide the merit of a paper, he/she should only decide whether the science was conducted according to the scientific method.
Gordon: I’d like to expand on my comment that you’ve picked up on regarding a layman gaining an understanding of scientific issues.
All too often, specialists hide behind jargon, and those mathematically inclined simply throw equations at the hapless reader instead of explaining in words the point that is being made using mathematical symbols.
An interested layman can pick up concepts very well indeed, as I found out years ago. A family friend, then in his eighties, came from a military background followed by a career in the management of a large organisation, and then his own business for some years before retirement.
He wanted to know what my Ph.D. research was about. It crossed the realms of molecular biology, immunology, and protein chemistry, with vaccine development at its heart. I’d had to do a lot of broad reading and research to acquire the knowledge I needed, as you can easily imagine.
I pulled out paper and a pencil, and gave him a short talk about the principles behind my project and its aims, taking in the essentials of protein and antibody structure. It was a pleasure to do so, it took about ten minutes, and I could tell he’d understood perfectly from the questions he was asking.
Dr. Spencer’s book, ‘The Great Global Warming Blunder’ is a good example of what’s possible regarding science education. Clearly and logically set out and developed, and aimed at all readers with enquiring minds who wish to know more about what has become a major issue to many. Highly recommended!
c500…”An interested layman can pick up concepts very well indeed, as I found out years ago”.
I dare say that everyone is a layman outside his/her specialty. I have extensive training as an engineer at university yet I consider myself a layman in many areas, including some in my specialty….electronics, electrical, computers.
One thing I learned at university is not to presume anything. Sometimes common sense is appealing, but when examined more closely, there are aspects to science that do not meet the vagaries of common sense. However, the opposite can be true as well, sometimes common sense is required when conclusions in science become literally stupid.
There is no reason that a layman cannot study mathematics and physics…or science in general…on his/her own, to reach a high enough level to understand and even improve upon known science. As I understand it, Einstein was no whiz in math and with more complex problems he sought help from more experienced mathematicians.
With mathematics, unless it’s one’s focus, there are solutions to problems most people could not figure out on their own. I feel strongly that a basic grounding in math, that one could acquire from textbooks, provided one knew how to glean the text for the meaningful aspects rather than the purely hypothetical, could serve a person well when it comes to understanding advanced physics.
My math has gotten very rusty but I can still follow complex explanations like the application of the wave equation to quantum theory. I have a decent understanding of what is going on yet the math I am using constitutes maybe a 1/3rd of what I learned at university over two or three years. There’s no reason an interested layman could not learn that math.
As you say, there is a propensity with academics in physics to throw out equations I don’t think they fully understand themselves. There are equations from the likes of Stefan-Boltzmann and Planck based on a faulty understanding of the relationship between heat and electromagnetic energy. In the days of S-B and Planck it was thought that heat was radiated from a body as heat rays. We now know that is wrong, that heat cannot flow as a ray, or a photon.
The danger here is that modern scientists interpret S-B and Planck incorrectly, thinking heat is flowing through space and becoming confused about the restrictions of the 2nd law, that heat can only be transferred from hot to cold, without compensation. That misunderstanding is well established in engineering thermodynamics, much to my dismay.
I am trying to say that a good amount of physics is based on accepted paradigms and is just plain wrong. In my field, electronics and electrical, it is still taught at university that electrical current flows from positive to negative. That is based on an imaginary ‘positive test charge’ that does not exist, and the theory has persisted for a century.
The only charge carrying current particle in the electronics/electrical field is the electron, which flows negative to positive. That applies to semiconductors as well, where universities give the impression that ‘holes’ are real and carry a positive charge. The inventor of the hole model, Shockley has admitted holes are for visualization and do not exist.
I think a layperson should not be intimidated by the pomp of academia and pursue learning to whatever degree they feel comfortable. Who know where it could lead in the long run.
https://www.iceagenow.info/fraud-man-made-climate-change-co2-video/
This video shows what a fraud AGW theory is.
Why don’t you explain in your own words how it shows that.
Why don’t you tell us which parts of the video you don’t agree with, Des? There’s plenty of detail there – have at it!
Des I gave 8 reasons in an earlier post a few days ago.
A very interesting video Salvatore – and the talk’s given by a meteorologist, not a politician!
How can anyone look at the satellite data presented by the UAH on this site for example and imagine that we’re in peril from dangerous human-generated warming due to CO2? Let’s not forget that atmospheric CO2 levels in the pre-industrial era were 280ppm, and the value’s now 410. That’s just over a 46% increase. Not looking good for CO2, is it?
I always like to read what meteorologists have to say. As an example, the late Robin Stirling in his book on the British climate pointed out an interesting fact. The summer of 1976 was a hot one in England, yet on cloudless nights ground frosts occurred in some parts due to radiative cooling. Clearly there wasn’t enough CO2 to keep the place warm, even after a hot day!
The altering and tampering with records as talked about on the video concerns me. For example, ‘adjusting’ temperatures measured at sea from water contained in buckets in days gone by. Fiddle about with old data if you really must – but the original raw data has to be kept. I hope that the meteorological community is keeping original old records. The thought that they are not is appalling.
Carbon500 says:
March 15, 2018 at 7:32 AM
1. How can anyone look at the satellite data presented by the UAH on this site for example and imagine that we’re in peril from dangerous human-generated warming due to CO2?
*
Apart from a few bloody alarmists, I see nobody looking at UAH data and telling us: ‘Don’t you see? AGW’ !
*
2. The summer of 1976 was a hot one in England, yet on cloudless nights ground frosts occurred in some parts due to radiative cooling. Clearly there wasnt enough CO2 to keep the place warm, even after a hot day!
*
Strange idea!
CO2’s effect is a minor contribution in IR radiation being prevented from escaping to space through the atmospheric window.
It doesn’t prevent warmth to escape, however. That is a job done by clouds.
And no, it doesn’t warm thermometers when put between the Sum and these.
That is nonsense written ad nauseam by pseudoskeptic cheerleaders.
*
3. For example, ‘adjusting’ temperatures measured at sea from water contained in buckets in days gone by.
*
Here you owe me an explanation about how you would solve the problem when nearly all measurements showed the same bias.
And when you want to combine historical and modern records, you have to cope with buckets vs. buoys.
*
4. Fiddle about with old data if you really must but the original raw data has to be kept.
*
But the raw data is kept, Carbon! You can see everywhere files with even the original hand-written sheets.
Rgds from Germany (it was very warm here in summer 1976 too).
R. J. Koelm
binny…”Apart from a few bloody alarmists, I see nobody looking at UAH data and telling us: Dont you see? AGW ! ”
Have you read the interpretation of the data in the UAH 33 year report?
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2011/November/Nov2011GTR.pdf
“While Earths climate has warmed in the last 33 years, the climb has been irregular. There was little or no warming for the first 19 years of satellite data. Clear net warming did not occur until the El Nio Pacific Ocean warming event of the century in late 1997. Since that upward jump, there has been little or no additional warming”.
*******
Part of the upward trend is due to low temperatures early in the satellite record caused by a pair of major volcanic eruptions, Christy said. Because those eruptions pull temperatures down in the first part of the record, they tilt the trend upward later in the record.
“Christy and other UAHuntsville scientists have calculated the cooling effect caused by the eruptions of Mexicos El Chichon volcano in 1982 and the Mt. Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines in 1991. When that cooling is subtracted, the long-term warming effect is reduced to 0.09 C (0.16 F) per decade, well below computer model estimates of how much global warming should have occurred”.
********
“Although volcanoes are a natural force, eruptions powerful enough to affect global climate are rare and their timing is random. Since that timing has a significant impact on the long-term climate trend (almost as much as the cooling itself), it makes sense to take their chaotic effect out of the calculations so the underlying climate trend can be more reliably estimated.
What it doesnt do is tell scientists how much of the remaining warming is due to natural climate cycles (not including volcanoes) versus humanitys carbon dioxide emissions enhancing Earths natural greenhouse effect”.
*******
“That is the Holy Grail of climatology, said Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the ESSC, a former NASA scientist and Christys partner in the satellite thermometer project for more than 20 years. How much of that underlying trend is due to greenhouse gases? While many scientists believe it is almost entirely due to humans, that view cannot be proved scientifically”.
binny…”But the raw data is kept, Carbon! You can see everywhere files with even the original hand-written sheets”.
Phil Jones of Had-crut admitted to Steve McIntyre that he had amended the record and ‘lost’ the originals. Who knows what NOAA and GISS do.
GISS was caught by Steve McIntyre quietly trying to replace 1934 with 1998 as the warmest year in the US, even though 1934 was half a degree warmer. To pull that off, GISS would have had to ‘amend’ the 1934 readings to be lower than 1998.
The dust storms of the 1930s in the US and Canada came from relatively extreme warming that exceeded anything of today. Why are we not looking at that and wondering why, at a time when CO2 was not considered an issue?
La Pangolina:
Regarding your comment: ‘And when you want to combine historical and modern records, you have to cope with buckets vs. buoys.’
The answer is, you don’t combine the records. Leave well alone, and simply note where the change in methodology occurred. There are so many variables inherent in readings from centuries ago – any ‘corrections’ can only be a guess at best. Of course, in ‘climate science’ this dubious practice is deemed to be acceptable.
In my field of medical laboratory science, techniques for quantifying materials in biological fluids change and improve over time – yet no-one would ever consider ‘adjusting’ the results of, for example, a blood immunoglobulin level written in a patient’s notes from even a few years ago because a different methodology is used now!
Carbon500 says:
March 16, 2018 at 4:02 AM
Thanks for the reply on that point.
Where do you have, in your working context, time series containing data similar but collected by several different techniques / evaluations, and HAVING, for statistics purposes, to be integrated into one homogeneous stream?
I guess you don’t. Because if you ever had made such an experience, you won’t have written that way.
There are many historically consecutive methods to measure IR flux. These technology steps induce steps in the data. You don’t see them all when considering the time series alone.
And what do you do when you integrate the time series to have an overview? You use mathematical tools in use everywhere.
La Pangolina: I don’t share your faith in mathematical ‘corrections’ with regard to thermometers in buckets of water.
Here’s an example of the practicalities of trying to correct for samples thus taken – it’s from a paper entitles ‘Correction of Instrumental Biases in Historical Sea Surface Temperature Data’ in Q.J.R Meteorolol Soc.
(1995) 121 pp319-367:
“We have provided a full derivation of a set of geographically and temporally varying corrections to historical SST which we believe also improve on those in Bottomley et al. (1990). The corrections attempt to remove biases in historical SST as foreshadowed by Wright (1986). We have only corrected data prior to 1942, and it is likely that work will be needed on the known smaller biases in postwar ship data (Folland et al. 1993; Kent et al. 1993). The latter authors, for example, find that deeper engine-intake SSTs may be systematically warmer than shallower engine-intake SSTs, though their study was confined to the Atlantic. This is physically unreasonable and is likely to relate to increased heat transfer from the ship along the deeper intakes. The methodology in his paper creates corrections to pre-1942 data relative to the period 1951-80, not absolute corrections. However, we believe the corrections are not far from absolute values. The least satisfactory part of the work concerns the application of the wooden bucket corrections in the nineteenth century. Nevertheless we believe our model of the small biases in wooden bucket sea temperatures is more realistic than the nil biases assumed by Farmer et al. (1989) and its use is correct in principle. The most likely error is to have estimated a greater use of wooden or other types of insulated, or semi-insulated, buckets relative to canvas ones, in the late nineteenth century than actually happened. An improved method may benefit from a more complete set of historic data that is likely to emerge over the next few years. Any new mix of data may lead to modifications to the correction procedure because the instrumental mix may be different. Additionally, changes in data coverage could lead to temporal changes in the mean corrections, even if the procedure remains unchanged.”
binny…”And when you want to combine historical and modern records, you have to cope with buckets vs. buoys”.
The reference is to buckets versus forced water intake at water collectors on the ship. The former does not add artificial warming whereas the latter does. NOAA changed their data to the latter and guess what?…the SST rose, largely eliminating the flat trend from 1998 – 2015.
It’s odd that NOAA manipulations of the temperature record, both now and retroactively, have resulted in a warming trend where none existed, and record warming years the satellites don’t see.
salvatore…”These people pull underhanded dirty tricks in order to lie to the public about what the climate is doing.”
Like NOAA, Had-crut, and NASA GISS. Those organizations are blatantly undermining science and alarmist, including those in this blog, stand with a blindfold on, with hand over ears, shouting, “I don’t want to listen”.
WHY AGW THEROY SO FAR SEEMS TO BE WRONG
1. The climate is still not unique as of today. Well within the bounds of natural variability.
2. The POSITIVE feedback between CO2 and WATER VAPOR which is suppose to result in a lower tropospheric hotspot has not materialized. A BIG ONE.
3. The AO/NAO have not become increasingly positive in other word the atmospheric circulation if anything is less zonal the opposite of what AGW theory called for.
4. I see no evidence of OLR lessening.
5. CO2 has been lower then presently while global temperatures have been higher over the past 10000 years.
6, As CO2 is added its effects lessen due to the saturation point being reached and again without the positive feedback from water vapor I do not see how the temperature rises as a result of adding more CO2 into the atmosphere.
7. CO2 and WATER VAPOR are influenced by the environment in other words as the oceans go so do hey despite mans contribution which is fractional when compared to natural processes.
8. CO2 in the past has ALWAYS followed the temperature never has lead it.
1. That is not an argument against AGW.
2. The “lower tropospheric hotspot” has nothing to do with CO2. It is supposed to happen under any form of warming.
3. The AO index begins in 1950. Average for first 34 years (1950-1983) is -0.24. Average for 2nd 34 years (1984 to 2017) is +0.02.
4. You claiming you have not seen something is not proof of its absence.
5. Global temperatures have not been higher in the past 10000 years, only regional ones.
6. Please educate yourself about BAND SATURATION.
7. Try to make this more comprehensible. What the hell does “as the oceans go so do hey despite mans contribution” mean?
8. Absolutely NOT true. Deniers only ever produce data for the current 2.6 million year ice age to support this claim. Try explaining our exit from snowball earth without CO2.
D,
If you claim there is a testable GHE hypothesis, you will have to produce it, if you want any real scientist to believe it exists. That means you actually have to write it down.
You can’t, because there isn’t one.
There is no GHE. There is no CO2 induced warming. Never has been, never will be.
Even you would not be so stupid as to claim that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would make a thermometer, placed in sunlight, hotter.
So how is your invisible GHE supposed to make the Earth hotter? By magic?
The lunatics at NASA have “facelifted” their previously stupid energy balance cartoon, and now claim that for every 100 units of energy from the Sun, 117 units appear on the surface. Astonishing wouldn’t you agree? Free energy creation, through the magic of CO2!
And you believe this sort of rubbish? Good for you! I wish you well.
Cheers.
Good points (at least for those who do not feel the need to write everything they disagree upon be stupid).
I meant Des here, that’s evident.
Thy Flynn barkman is only able to critique without presenting any counterarguments.
Discredit, confuse, divert, deny.
What a simple-minded blogbot!
La P,
Don’t appear more stupid than you are!
There is no testable GHE hypothesis, is there? There is no counter argument to a fact that something doesn’t exist.
It’s up to you to produce it, if you claim it exists, and even you perceive that to be ridiculous.
No GHE. No problem, is there?
Cheers.
Des you are entitled to your opinion but is will be proven wrong.
No – I am entitled to my facts. Opinion only enters the equation on your side.
Number 8 is ABSOLUTELY true CO2 always follows the temperature.
The more CO2 which is added the LESS effect it has.
Global temperatures were way higher during the Holocene Optimum as well as the Minoan and Roman periods of time.
The lower tropospheric hot spot has EVERYTHING to do with CO2.
DES YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Try to actually read what CLIMATE SCIENTISTS have to say, instead of getting your “facts” from denier sites.
des…”2. The lower tropospheric hotspot has nothing to do with CO2. It is supposed to happen under any form of warming”.
Nonsense. It’s a prediction of climate modelers who base everything on CO2 as a driving agent.
I’m glad you warned me that the sentence which you were about to write would be nonsense.
des…”Im glad you warned me that the sentence which you were about to write would be nonsense”.
The Des-dodge. Can’t come up with a scientific reply therefore replies with an ad hom.
So you believe a claim without evidence qualifies as a “scientific reply”?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
March 11, 2018 at 7:18 AM / March 15, 2018 at 9:07 AM
…
3. The AO/NAO have not become increasingly positive…
*
Hello Salvatore
I don’t know where you got that info from. Sure is anyway that the people who wrote that nonsense do not know much about AMO data.
It exists in two different variants: detrended and undetrended (i.e. in fact ‘unmodified’). Both start in Jan 1856.
See for further explanations in
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/timeseries/AMO/
The AMO variant most in use has become over time the detrended AMO. Probably because it has been very important to detect, measure and quantify AMO’s cyclic behavior, and it is best to look at the cycles when you first drop any trend out of the time series.
And so do the two look like:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1521151321607.jpg
You can see that the undetrended AMO increases by 0.15 / 0.20 by 60 year cycle instance.
That is a sign of moderate warming, and nobody will pretend that this poor CO2 guy is the one and only cause of it.
Best regards
R. J. Koelm
binny…”It exists in two different variants: detrended and undetrended (i.e. in fact unmodified). Both start in Jan 1856…”
In other words, Big Brother NOAA has fudged the AMO to make it better fit their political views on catastrophic warming.
Would you please explain how taking raw data which does show the expected trend, and creating from it a detrended series which doesn’t show this trend, makes the data “better fit their political views on catastrophic warming”.
des…”Would you please explain how taking raw data which does show the expected trend, and creating from it a detrended series which doesnt show this trend, makes the data better fit their political views on catastrophic warming”.
Glad you asked. If NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut had reasoned the data was bad, they could have created a revised series while making it clear that’s what they were doing. Everyone has a right to an opinion. However, they should keep the original data intact for future generations to make up their own minds.
That’s not what is happening. All of them are revising the data and giving the impression their version is the correct version. They have the arrogance to claim those gathering the data in the past had to be wrong.
I find such a practice to be dangerous for science and unacceptable. In 1977, there was a 0.2C jump in the global average. Several scientists wanted to eliminate it but in the 1990s it was connected to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which had hitherto not been identified. In 1977, they called it The Great Pacific Climate Shift, now it’s the PDO.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THE_GREAT_PACIFIC_CLIMATE_SHIFT_II.pdf
The IPCC stated in 2013, following the 2012 review, that no significant warming had occurred over the past 15 years going back till 1998. They called it a warming hiatus. Later, NOAA went back and adjusted the SST to show a warming over that period, claiming there was no flat trend.
That is dishonest and politically motivated. They have tried to erase the flat trend to make it appear as if global warming is business as usual. With the hockey stick, MBB98, one of them was seen in the Climategate emails claiming he wished they could eliminate the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. That’s exactly what they did to get the straight shaft.
The IPCC later distanced themselves from the study by re-instituting the MWP and LIA (as they had acknowledged in the 1990 review) with the new graph having many error bars, becoming known as the spaghetti graph. They also changed the range from a 1000 years to 1850 onward. Many people are under the impression the original hockey stick has been validated. It has not.
NOAA and GISS have gone further. They have played with confidence levels, dropping as low as 48%, to move years that were nowhere near the warmest into first place.
Why would that be anything other than politically-motivated, especially when done in conjunction with the Obama climate action plan which was hidden from the US Congress?
Had-crut has admitted to messing with the temperature series via Phil Jones. He admitted to Steve McIntyre that he had adjusted the original data and lost the originals. He also refused McIntyre permission to view the data because Mac has an ability to retroactively determine what was done to it.
It’s all on climateaudit.com , McIntyre’s site. His partner on the hockey stick debunking, Ross McKitrick, covers a lot of the stuff they have done on his site.
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/
His information on the workings of the IPCC is invaluable.
https://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
We are talking about the Arctic Oscillation here.
I referenced the original data, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
Des,
Talking about the Arctic Oscillation is about as meaningless as talking about anything else, if you think it has any relevance to to CO2 AGW.
But of course you know that, which is why you want to talk about it.
I don’t blame you. If I had unswerving stupid belief in the invisible and impossible,I’d talk about anything else as well.
There are any number of irrelevant, pointless, and stupid things to divert the conversation towards.
I suppose the Arctic Oscillation is as good as any.
Cheers.
The Arctic Oscillation was introduced by your buddy Salvatore. So thanks for confirming the pointlessness of his comment.
Des,
You’re welcome. My pleasure, as usual.
Cheers.
des…”We are talking about the Arctic Oscillation here.
I referenced the original data, so I have no idea what you are talking about”.
******
I referenced the AMO comment from binny’s comment as follows:
“I dont know where you got that info from. Sure is anyway that the people who wrote that nonsense do not know much about AMO data.
It exists in two different variants: detrended and undetrended (i.e. in fact unmodified). Both start in Jan 1856″”.
**********
You need to pay attention Des.
Gordon Robertson says:
March 15, 2018 at 5:55 PM
In other words, Big Brother NOAA has fudged the AMO to make it better fit their political views on catastrophic warming.
*
How is it possible to be both ignorant and paranoid up to such a level? Simply crank.
The undertrended AMO is the original data, you clown.
binny…”The undertrended AMO is the original data, you clown”.
You are wa-a-a-ay behind me binny, do try to keep up. So now the alarmists are calling real data ‘undertrended’. In other words, real data from real thermometers by real people requires correction. What kind of arrogance leads to such a conclusion?
Tell me something, why does anyone need to fiddle with trends retroactively, unless the trends are not reflecting their modern bs theories?
You’re not really that naive are you? An appeal to authority can bring a warm and cozy feeling but it does not lead to good science. You have no problem attacking the methods of UAH, perhaps because Roy supplies a real, friendly human face, yet you butt kiss to the anonymous NOAA surface authorities.
What is it about NOAA and GISS you find so compelling? Gavin Schmidt of GISS, a mathematician, made a fool of himself trying to describe positive feedback. He had no idea what it was and had to be corrected by engineer Jeffrey Glassman, yet Schmidt programs climate models in which PF is prominent. Without it, the catastrophic element of global warming disappears.
I don’t suffer from a conspiracy theory syndrome. I don’t buy theories that the US did not go to the Moon, or that the World Trade Center buildings collapsed due to a government conspiracy. I am driven by direct evidence supplied by NOAA and GISS that they are corrupt.
Why you cannot at least contemplate and discuss that is a mystery to me.
Really?? Because it seems you were talking ONLY about temperatures and the PDO. Perhaps you’d care to point out precisely which part of your response referred to the AMO.
La P,
Do you really think your multicoloured charts tell you anything about the future? The various data torturers cant even seem to agree on the past, let alone the future!
Trended, detrended, adjusted, readjusted, kriged, interpolated, fabricated, estimated – and that’s just the past!
No wonder real scientists laugh with derision – the clueless capering climate clowns are completely out of touch with science, not to say reality.
What a joke.
Cheers.
It is interesting to see that AMO experiences a peak in 1877/78, as do Had-CRUT and BEST (yes yes we know: fudged data, thank you).
It was one of the biggest El Nino events in the last 150 years (the strongest one in that period was 1982/83).
I was talking about the AO not the AMO. I was also using the time frame for the AO from 1980-present.
AGW THEROY ,said the AO would become increasingly positive because in the period from 1984/1994 that is what it is was doing.
However that trend did not continue(post from that period which is what I was referring to) and that is when AGW did not promote that aspect of their theory. Instead they now claim AGW is causing a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern another flip/flop as usual to try to keep their theory valid.
salvatore…”Instead they now claim AGW is causing a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern another flip/flop as usual to try to keep their theory valid”.
It’s called ‘moving the goalposts’.
The warming effect of greenhouse gases do not increase water vapor and increased water vapor, doesn’t cause in increase of water vapor.
Sunlight warming the ocean creates water vapor.
In increased humidity has little effect in suppressing evaporation and doesn’t cause more evaporation. What causes the evaporation of oceans is the amount sunlight energy absorbed by the oceans.
Please source your claim.
des…”Please source your claim”.
“Sunlight warming the ocean creates water vapor”.
Does he have to? Can’t you discuss something without running off to sources or peer review?
How about doing what many of us do, look it up, compare and contrast.
I am asking him to source “The warming effect of greenhouse gases do not increase water vapor”. Were you being deliberately obtuse, or were you seriously not smart enough to understand that?
There is nothing to look up – that is the point.
Des,
I’m glad to hear to say that heating water does not create water vapour. This confirms my view that you’re both ignorant and stupid.
Cheers.
Whoops. I ‘m glad to hear you say . . .
/sarc off
Cheers.
You clearly have serious comprehension issues. Given that I was quoting gbaikie, perhaps you’d care to explain where you believe I made a claim that “heating water does not create water vapour”.
Des,
Not at all. Sometimes i’m wrong.
I misread – mainly because of the reference to “The warming effect of greenhouse gases . . .’, which is such a ridiculous statement that I was momentarily stupefied – your demand that he prove the stupidity of that which is prima facie, stupid, was just breathtakingly stupid, if you see what I mean.
So-called greenhouse gases have nothing to do with real greenhouses, and warm nothing, as even the most stupidly fanatical CO2 AGW followers cannot help but agree.
You’re dreaming, or deeply enmeshed in a bizarre fantasy, totally divorced from reality.
But hey! It’s your life. Live it as you wish. Dream on.
Cheers.
Then it’s settled – you do have serious comprehension issues.
Des,
Just like the science is settled. Not.
But no, I don’t have serious comprehension issues. That’s just a wish in your fantasy.
Tough.
Cheers.
As you say mike, CO2 (or water vapor) do not increase the the temperature of a thermometer in sunlight.
Nor do greenhouse increase water or ground temperature in sunlight. The highest surface ocean temperature is about 35 C and highest land surface temperature is about 70 C. And such high temperatures (and high air temperatures of about 50 C) are not caused by greenhouse gases. They are caused by Sunlight. Nor are such high temperature related to being in a glacial or interglacial period or even related to being in a ice box or hothouse climate.
But the average global temperature is warmer in an interglacial period compared to glacial period.
And Earth is certainly much warmer in hothouse climate as compared to ice box climate.
What will increase the ground temperature is an actual greenhouse and a solar pond (which also inhibits convection
heat loss in regards to water). Also one factor involved with
Urban Heat island effects is inhibiting convectional heat loss
and UHI can increase ground and air temperature.
des…”I am asking him to source The warming effect of greenhouse gases do not increase water vapor. Were you being deliberately obtuse, or were you seriously not smart enough to understand that?
There is nothing to look up that is the point”.
********
If there’s nothing to look up it means the theory is wrong since no one has ever proved a correlation between CO2 and WV from the surface. I thought that’s what Salvatore was claiming.
You’ll find that AGW theory is loaded with such conjecture based on ‘what else could it be’? Real scientists find conclusively what it ‘is’, and don’t dwell on what it ‘might’ be.
UAH scientists have provided data and other evidence to suggest the correlation is not likely. The IPCC has claimed it’s 95% likely, without providing a shred of evidence. In fact they upped their confidence level 5% in 2013 following their admission there had been no warming between 1998 and 2012, calling it a warming hiatus.
Shows how biased is the thinking of the IPCC. Non-political, unbiased scientists would have downgraded their confidence levels based on 15 years of no warming while CO2 apparently increased.
It’s now closer to 20 years with no significant warming despite a major El Nino a couple of years ago. Since the EN event the atmosphere has been gradually cooling.
There’s nothing to look up because he pulled his claim out of his ass.
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsqZJP54shg
TANDEM WEAKENING MAGNETIC FIELDS EQUATE TO COOLING IN MY OPINION.
The video is bringing out all of my points.
The weakening of the magnetic field if it continues will have to be dealt with because it is going to have climatic consequences.
Again being largely ignored despite the evidence from the past which shows magnetic excursions if not out right reversals having an impact with the climate to one degree or another.
When the solar/geo magnetic field are in tandem this is when the climatic impacts will be greatest.
Any uptick in silica rich volcanic major eruptions is going to have a climatic impact.
The DIFFERENCE with this low prolonged solar period of time is the magnetic field unlike during the Little Ice Age is much weaker now then it was then.
Anyone that thinks changes in magnetic fields (solar/geo) are not going to have any impacts is foolish to say the least.
Again threshold levels are in play and have to be reached in order to appreciate the effects it has.
That is the problem everyone thinks all changes no matter how slight have to have some clear cut climatic impact not true. It needs a level of change in degree of magnitude ,duration of time to get that more of a direct climatic impact.
Then you have the issue of solar flairs. As the magnetic field weakens the strength of a solar flair needed to do major damage to the electrical grid will decrease.
And yet … there is still zero evidence for a cooling climate. Unless you take the adapt 2030 cherry picking approach, which could be used to “prove” that the earth was cooling at any point in our history.
Des,
I suppose that taking the longest average we have, from the creation of the Earth to now, is cherry picking?
I can see why you might be unhappy, and pick an interval more to your liking.
Or maybe you looked down at the ground, and noticed it didn’t seem particularly molten.
You got it, dude. The surface has cooled. As the earth continues to do so, according to real scientists.
Darn inconvenient facts.
Cheers.
No response Salvatore?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X10001966
solar/volcanic connection
La P,
You wrote –
“CO2s effect is a minor contribution in IR radiation being prevented from escaping to space through the atmospheric window.
It doesnt prevent warmth to escape, however. That is a job done by clouds.
And no, it doesnt warm thermometers when put between the Sum and these.”
If I understand you correctly, you say that increased CO2 in the atmosphere does not result in thermometers on the surface becoming hotter. This appears a little confusing.
Maybe you could clarify things a bit.
If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased, and there is more between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface measuring the surface temperature, what difference does this make to surface temperatures –
a) increase them,
b) decrease them, or
c) make no difference at all?
If additional CO2 in the atmosphere makes no difference at all to surface temperatures, or results in cooling, what’s all the fuss about?
Are you saying that thermometers don’t measure the surface temperature, or maybe that the surface gets hotter, while a thermometer on the surface doesn’t! How do you you know how hot the surface is without measuring it?
Sounds like a stupid contradiction to me, but I’m sure you’ll do your best to avoid answering, after you think about it.
Cheers.
So far, I’ve presented two demonstrations of the Green Plate Effect, the results of which are clear evidence that the back IR radiation from a colder body can warm a hotter body. Increasing CO2 is said to produce the same result, though testing this in a lab can not be done in a convincing way, so mathematical models are required. Perhaps as a result of my demos, you’ve just changed your presentation a bit, as you (and GR) no longer claim that AGW violates the 2nd Law but are filling the net with old complaints about “Climategate” e-mails.
As for thermometers used to measure temperature for weather and climate studies, the atmospheric thermometers are mounted just above the surface. There is no data available of land surface temperatures, though there is considerable effort to measure temperature in the oceans.
Sorry Eric, but all your effort just convinces you of what you already believed. You didn’t even have to do anything to convince the clowns.
You avoid facts and logic, like you would avoid a plague.
It’s fun to watch.
La P,
H2O is supposed to be the most important “greenhouse gas”, so you might care to answer.
Of course you can’t, for any” greenhouse gas” at all! You’ve made a stupid statement, you realise you’ve made a stupid statement, and now you are trying to disguise the fact you’ve made a stupid statement by pretending you didn’t make it at all.
So, take your pick. CO2 or H2O as you prefer. Stupid climatologists were obsessed with CO2 because James Hansen has a phobia about coal. It was only later, that stupid people like Gavin Schmidt reluctantly accepted that H2O shared many of the same properties as CO2.
However, Schmidt’s coauthored paper, “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature” didn’t include anything relating to H2O in the title. That would have seemed pretty stupid, so H2O was ignored there, even though the paper claims that 75% of the supposed GHE is due to H2O.
So dodge and duck all you like, try to be as clever as you can, avoid science like the plague, and you’ll still look just as stupid as you are.
Go on now, tell me that H2O is not a “greenhouse gas” if you are stupid enough. Tell me that increased amounts of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere arent supposed to make the surface hotter – even the CO2 AGW supporters will howl with outrage if you do.
Isn’t the surface supposed to be getting hotter due to CO2 in the atmosphere? Isn’t the atmosphere between the Sun and the surface?
You’d have to be stupid to deny the simple truth, wouldn’t you? Deny away – you can’t have it both ways, although I’m sure you’ll try. You not only seem to be stupid, you are stupid for refusing to discuss science.
You can’t even find a description of a testable GHE anywhere, so you deny there is a need for one. Thats not science – that’s Cargo Cult Scientism! No wonder Governments are no longer prepared to waste money on such a farce.
Heres your chance to convince the US Government that you’re right, and I’m wrong – how hard can it be?
Cheers.
E,
You can’t show me, or anyone, how you have demonstrated that a cooler body can raise the temperature of a hotter one, any more than you can demonstrate how you can melt ice using the heat from the ice. Or maybe you could try cooking a turkey by concentrating the heat from the side of a glacier.
4000W should do nicely, that’s about the consumption of a domestic oven. If the ice is emitting 300 W/m2, then the heat from 15 m2 of ice should do nicely – just concentrate it a bit and off you go! You arent that stupid, are you? But you’ll believe climate fools who assure you that the principle is sound, if you use CO2!
Climatologist are stupid enough to claim that a reduction in the rate of cooling is warming, which implies raising a temperature. Complete nonsense of course, but good enough for the gullible.
As your own figures show, your heat source provided an energy input which raised temperatures. You are just as confused as the stupid NASA people who claim “heat flowing upward from the surface to the atmosphere (117%) and heat flowing downward from the atmosphere to the ground (100%).”
Just brilliant wouldn’t you say – 100% in, 117% out! NASA stupidity writ large.
You’ve put a lot of work into your experiment, but in scientific terms it is just not very good. If, for example, you were trying to demonstrate the workings of the greenhouse effect, you couldn’t, because there is no testable description of such an effect in existence!
You have shown nothing that cannot be explained using ordinary physics. Take away your heat source, and guess what – the heated objects cool down. Leave them overnight, and just before dawn they will be the same temperature – so will your bell jar, the base, the string – the lot.
If you have had a frost, you might notice something interesting. The ground surface under your stand may be frost free, A small demonstration of radiative physics – not any stupid “greenhouse effect”.
As to the lack of ground temperatures, are you seriously trying to say that CO2 has a heating effect on the air but not the actual surface? Have you not noticed that during the day the surface is almost invariably hotter than the atmosphere above it? Thermometers are placed in screens to shield them form the Sun – otherwise the readings would be far higher! That’s why they are generally referred to as “shade” temperatures!
The climate crazies even claim to be measuring “global surface temperature”. As you rightly point out, their claim is totally false, and you can see why. They have to wriggle and jiggle in an effort to avoid facing the truth. Stupid.
Cheers.
Mike F., Your effort to ignore my results continues. You compare my demonstration with a block of ice, when the obvious difference (which you point to later) is that in my demos, there is a continuous external source of energy to the hotter body. There’s no comparison and I have not made any such claim. The situation is the result of the energy flowing thru the overall system, not a one way flow from a hot body toward colder surroundings.
It’s like you are comparing the temperature within a heated, insulated structure in Winter with what happens after the heating is shut off. As you note, removing the external source of energy leads to the cooling of both bodies to equilibrium with the local environment. All your talk about adding ice to an oven is just another of your denialist red herrings intended to confuse and obscure the actual physics.
Of course, the thermometers used for weather and climate measurements are shielded from sunlight and exposure to the night time sky and precipitation, as the intent is to measure AIR TEMPERATURE, not the temperature of the ground below the enclosure. But, the ground is the location of solar heating after sunlight passes thru the atmosphere and the temperature of the surface is the result of the history of the inward and outward flows of energy. When modeling these energy flows, the temperature of the surface is computed to account for the thermal mass of the surface, but it’s not actually measured for the land, though sea-surface temperatures are taken as a proxy for the temperature of the air just above the water.
Eric, you are lost in the physics.
Look at the “thought experiment”. For the two plates to have different temperatures is nonsense. Let me be clear, NONSENSE.
Here is the correct result, in case you have missed it:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
It’s not that hard to understand, unless you’re too affected by some agenda.
So, G* proves again that results from the real world have no value to him, because they dont match his beliefs. Proof that he belongs to a cult.
anger 12:18pm, the blue plate CANNOT be in equilibrium at 244K in your bogus 6C3 if blue is radiating 200 blue + 200 green arrows = 400W/m^2 towards the green plate. This has been pointed out many times so history shows you are the commenter “too affected by some agenda.” There is only one arrow pointing to the green plate from blue in nature at equilibrium as the experiment shows.
Pay attention to the experimental data should you want to comment according to nature but many here know you prefer to be “affected by some agenda” so anger will always and forever prefer to comment ignorant of proper experimental results.
Flynn writes 10:43am: “You can’t show me, or anyone, how you have demonstrated that a cooler body can raise the temperature of a hotter one..”
The experiment shows me that a cooler body can raise the temperature of a hotter one just as the experiments I’ve done. It is Flynn that chooses also to remain ignorant of experimental results and just like anger “too affected by some agenda.”
“If the ice is emitting 300 W/m2, then the heat from 15 m2 of ice should do nicely just concentrate it a bit and off you go!”
Do this experiment and let us know the results.
Actually the noncollimated radiation from the ice can’t be focused as Flynn writes so will learn this by experimenting. But maybe not as Flynn remains like anger “too affected by some agenda” and ignorant of proper experimental results.
Tricky trick returns to demonstrate both his deficit in physics, and his deficit in addition.
Tricky, the green plate ONLY receives a net 200 W/m^2 (blue arrow).
Study the graphic, again.
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
“the green plate ONLY receives a net 200 W/m^2 (blue arrow).”
This isn’t what I pointed out is wrong about your bogus 6C3 cartoon anger, it’s just your diversionary tactic. Won’t work.
As I wrote: “the blue plate CANNOT be in equilibrium at 244K in your bogus 6C3 if blue is radiating 200 blue + 200 green arrows = 400W/m^2 towards the green plate.”
Deal with that.
anger can’t as the experiment shows anger 6C3 cartoon is bogus at equilibrium, the plates are not the same temperature in the experiment as anger claims in the bogus 6C3 cartoon.
Once again anger prefers to be “affected by some agenda” so will always and forever prefer to comment ignorant of proper experimental results.
Study the graphic, again. It’s fun to watch anger’s demonstrated ignorance of experimental results.
Eric,
E,
Are you saying that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere raises the temperature of the ground, or not?
Of course, you can assert both propositions are true, but you are likely (very likely) to be laughed at , and considered stupid.
As the atmosphere is between the Sun and the surface, it appears that you seem to be claiming that the more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface, the higher the temperature registered by the thermometer is! Plainly ridiculous, but I’m trying to find out what you believe.
If you refuse to take a testable position, I wouldn’t blame you. In that case, you can never be shown to be wrong. This is standard operating procedure for climatologists, who just redefine or invent new words if someone points out the stupidity of what they are saying.
As even I do, from time to time.
Cheers.
Tricky still can not handle addition. He continues to believe the green plate receives more than 200 W/m^2. (Of course, he is the one that believes cabbages glow in the dark, so what would we expect?)
Sorry tricky, aka “cabbage head”, you will need much more education to understand.
Obviously, that’s why you’re here.
“(Ball4) continues to believe the green plate receives more than 200 W/m^2.”
Because the bogus 6C3 cartoon shows the green plate receiving 200 blue arrow plus the 200 green arrow. Green plate shown emitting 200 green plus 200 green in balance. It is anger that can’t do basic arithmetic & prefers diversionary tactics.
anger can’t deal with “the blue plate CANNOT be in equilibrium at 244K in your bogus 6C3 if blue is radiating 200 blue + 200 green arrows = 400W/m^2 towards the green plate” so must divert attention.
Once again anger prefers to be “affected by some agenda” so will always and forever prefer to comment ignorant of proper experimental results.
Study the graphic, again. It’s hilarious! to watch anger’s demonstrated ignorance of experimental results.
Poor cabbage head. You want so much to be part of the discussion, but you know so little.
Let me help.
200 + 200 – 200 = 200
See if that helps. I can reduce to grade-school levels, if necessary.
200 + 200 200 = 200
Yes good arithmetic but just another of anger’s many twisted diversions as no plate in the bogus 6C3 cartoon illustrates that balance.
These diversions are needed because anger can’t deal with “the blue plate CANNOT be in equilibrium at 244K in your bogus 6C3 if blue is radiating 200 blue + 200 green arrows = 400W/m^2 towards the green plate” so anger must continue to somehow divert attention.
Study the graphic, again. It’s hilarious! to watch anger’s demonstrated ignorance of experimental results showing the plates are not the same temperature at equilibrium as is shown in anger’s bogus cartoon.
More twists please anger. It’s fun to watch.
200 + 200 – 200 = 200
WP is as dysfunctional at times as is anger most of the time.
Mike F. says
Mike, the testing is done in the lab where the properties of gasses has been measured to great accuracy. Those test results must be combined with a model of the atmosphere to project what will happen as the result of increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases BECAUSE WE DON”T HAVE ANOTHER EARTH TO ACTUALLY DO THE TEST. Other tests, such as the often repeated measurements for atmospheric transmission as measured from satellites, confirm the models at current levels of greenhouse gases.
You, of course, apparently have chosen to ignore all of those confirming results while offering no other explanation for the findings.
Eric, you have been fooled, AGAIN.
“Those test results must be combined with a model of the atmosphere to project what will happen as the result of increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases ”
Present those “test results” here.
We love climate-comedy.
Okay, cabbage head, we can go to grade-school level.
200, plus 200, take away 200, leaves 200.
See if that helps.
“Present those “test results” here.”
So anger can also ignore them as in the bogus 6C3 Hilarious! cartoon.
“See if that helps.”
Nope, still no plate in your bogus cartoon shows that balance. anger continues to ignore experimental results, hilarious! More please.
Poor Ball4, aka “cabbage head”, aka “trick”, can not understand the simple graphic.
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
He cannot add/subtract. But, I’m here to help.
Plates at equilibrium:
Blue plate: +400 – 200 – 200 + 200 – 200 = 0
Green plate: +200 – 200 – 200 + 200 = 0
(I’m predicting tricky will still not understand. And, that’s hilarious!)
anger writes blue plate: +400 – 200 – 200 + 200 – 200 = 0
anger’s sign convention is positive for blue plate absorbed & negative for blue plate emitted.
So according to the bogus equilibrium cartoon blue plate: +400absorbed – 200emittedLeft – 200emittedRight + 200absorbed – 200emittedRight = 0
Ok, anger admits the bogus cartoon has blue plate left surface emit 200 and the blue plate right surface emit -400 (-200emittedRight -200emittedRight) as shown in the bogus equilibrium cartoon.
This means blue plate is not in equilibrium with green plate as one blue plate surface is emitting 200L and the other very hot emitting 400R. The blue plate CANNOT be at 244K. Blue plate right surface is much hotter to start.
The blue plate right surface in the two plate system in anger’s bogus equilibrium cartoon then decreases in temperature until equilibrium T for both blue plate sides is reached at 262K with both blue plate sides each emitting 267 with the green plate in place. An increase of 67 (18K) for the blue plate from when the green plate was NOT in place just as is verified by experiment.
anger never explains what increased the blue plate right side to emit at 400 (~1452K) which is par for anger’s diversionary tactics.
anger continues to ignore experimental results, hilarious! More please.
I hope for the next funny twist from anger; I have no doubt it will be diversionary from the experimental results. Fun to watch anger twisting.
Did I predict it, or what?
Plates at equilibrium:
Blue plate: +400 200 200 + 200 200 = 0
Green plate: +200 200 200 + 200 = 0
(Im predicting tricky will still not understand. And, thats hilarious!)
It’s EXTREMELY hilarious!
Cabbage-Head still does not understand the simple graphic.
I guess it’s not simple enough.
Hilarious.
CH, the green arrow directed to the blue plate is REFLECTED, as shown.
More examples of your incompetence, please.
Equilibrium with blue plate right side emitting at ~1452K? That’s a twist that takes anger to make up & is not found in the experimental results which anger is forced to ignore.
Keep up the funny stuff anger, you have never failed us, my hope was fulfilled. More please. Especially the bogus cartoons like 6C3 which is hard to beat for extreme hilarity.
“the green arrow directed to the blue plate is REFLECTED”
Extreme hilarity can be topped! Now the blue plate right side is a shiny mirror (not BLUE!) and not a black body as in the original problem. Funny twist. But try to keep to the original problem anger, running off to buy and install a mirror is soooo….you. Great humorous twist, more please. It’s fun to watch.
Is the green plate a mirror too? Maybe anger has found perpetual motion here. Might be on to something. Maybe not, one can only hope.
Sorry cabbage-head, the blue plate temperature at equilibrium is 244K, as shown.
Your “1452K” is not supported by reality.
But, we know you reject reality.
It’s fun to watch.
“the blue plate temperature at equilibrium is 244K, as shown.”
Only as shown in anger’s twisted imaginative bogus cartoon for which anger can write any temperature including 244K & not as shown by experimental results which anger continues to ignore.
BB radiation at 400 is ~1452K from experiment. But installing the mirror was a very funny diversion anger, perhaps anger has more, fun to watch. Keep it up. More hilarious! cartoons please.
Sorry clown, it’s not 1452K, and there are no mirrors.
Your inability to face reality is both amazing and amusing.
anger’s inability to face experimental results is both amazing and amusing. Please perform no experiments anger & just do bogus cartoons. anger actually doing proper replicable experiments would eliminate the hilarious anger antics. Just have mundane science then, not as much fun to watch. More twists please.
At last, the uneducated cabbage head has finally dropped his 1452K. He wrongly believed a plate emitting 400 W/m^2 would be at a temperature of 1452K.
Hilarious.
400 W/m^2 from a black body corresponds to 290 K.
Cabbage head must get his physics from the back of cereal boxes!
It’s fun to watch.
“400 W/m^2 from a black body corresponds to 290 K.”
And yet according to anger’s bogus 6C3 cartoon 400 W/m^2 emitted from the black body blue plate right side corresponds to 244K. anger is caught in a trap. This was not very hard as anger is not very sharp. Even invoking a reflected arrow such as turning the blue plate into a mirror won’t bail out anger.
Keep up the funny comments anger so far you are the king of climate comedy this year. With Flynn doing his best to unseat the king, anger will have to work at funnier comments. Such hilarity! is fun to watch. Please, no experiments anger & continue to completely ignore them to be so entertaining.
The hilarious cabbage head, he STILL can’t understand the simple graphic.
Here it is again:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
There is only ONE blue arrow emitted from the right side of blue plate. 200 W/m^2 is emitted by a black body surface at a temperature of 244 K. Obviously, silly cabbage head can’t see too well. He also “sees” cabbages emitting visible light!
Uneducated, un-thinking, and unable to perform basic math, what other career choice does he have but “climate-comedy”?
anger tries to disappear the green arrow emitted to right from the bogus 6C3 cartoon black body blue plate toward the green plate even though anger included it being emitted in the balance at 8:32pm:
“Plates at equilibrium:
Blue plate: +400 – 200 – 200 + 200 – 200 = 0″
Won’t work anger, the internet never forgets. Hilarious! try though, more please, so much fun to watch.
It’s good that the Internet never forgets. All your desperate tricks, false accusations, inability to reason, and poor math skills are here for all to see.
Your obsession is so great that you must have the last word. Go for it.
Ball4, you are not quite right here:
“Extreme hilarity can be topped! Now the blue plate right side is a shiny mirror (not BLUE!) and not a black body as in the original problem.”
It is a shiny mirror and a perfect black body at the same time.
g*e*r*a*n has invented a perfect freezer.
This material will cool stuff to absolute zero without any power input.
“This material will cool stuff to absolute zero without any power input.”
Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, anger’s blue plate cartoon is simply not in equilibrium as BB blue plate mass simply has a T gradient initially radiating 200 from the left side and 400 from the right side (total the – 200 – 200 arrows as in anger’s 8:32pm inadvertently admitted starting balance above).
The system will radiate away excess energy to the cold sink and come to equilibrium with blue radiating at 262K from both sides (both green and blue arrows to the right reduced in power to an object radiating at 262K) an increase of 18K over the case with no green plate. As is shown by experiment that anger ignores out of necessity.
The red arrow is solar SW and the green, blue arrows are LW terrestrial radiation. anger is simply wrong about the cartoon blue plate being at 244K in equilibrium as I teased out of anger actually admitting BB 400 does radiate at 290K 7:48am and not 244K as shown in the bogus 6C3 cartoon.
Two clowns, tricky and shady, try to refute the correct solution to the plates. They can’t. So they have to try to spin, confuse, misrepresent.
It’s fun to watch.
Hey tricky, tell us about your “experiment” that “proves” you need a temperature of 1452 K to emit 400 W/m^2.
Hey shady, tell us how when the plates are in full contact that makes the green plate “in the shade”, and raises the temperature of the blue plate.
Hilarious clowns!
Ball4 says:
“Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion”.
Look at the *right* side of the blue plate. It reflects all incoming energy, but emits like a black body.
If you wrap this material around your larder, it will emit thermal radiation like a black body, but reflect incoming radiation, thus keep the inside cool.
shady confuses himself, AGAIN: “If you wrap this material around your larder, it will emit thermal radiation like a black body, but reflect incoming radiation, thus keep the inside cool.”
Only if the larder is at a higher temperature, shady. But, thanks for verifying, again, that you have NO understanding of physics.
“..tell us about your “experiment” that “proves” you need a temperature of 1452 K to emit 400 W/m^2.”
Sure, I was assuming anger would not ask being too embarrassed.
My “experiment” worked perfectly, better than I expected actually, as it was designed to trap anger into correcting me to “explain” that the blue plate radiating 400 is not at 244K as shown in the bogus cartoon. Thus anger, the cartoon creator, admits that the cartoon is in fact bogus. Fun to watch unsuspecting anger hilariously! fall into the trap admitting the cartoon is bogus 7:48am in anger’s own words:
“400 W/m^2 from a black body corresponds to 290 K”
and NOT to 244K as shown in the bogus cartoon for the blue plate.
—-
“It reflects all incoming energy, but emits like a black body.”
Not in the original set up as shown by anger’s balance at 8:32pm since the 200 from the incoming green arrow is absorbed and emitted by the other 200 radiation green arrow. As I wrote, this was an inadvertent slip up by the incompetent anger who is “too affected by some agenda”: reflected radiation from a body is not then emitted by the body.
When anger modifies the original set up (aka strawman), goes out buys & installs a mirror on the blue plate right side and writes 10:14pm: “the green arrow directed to the blue plate is REFLECTED” then the lower green arrow is a problem for anger that is simply ignored and only shows the blue plate starts out hotter (than the 244K incorrectly shown) as an initial condition.
Blue plate will merely cool off to 262K steady state both sides. Can’t see how it will cool to your absolute zero.
Tricky gets caught red-handed with his fake “experiment”.
Now he rambles endlessly, like the other clown, making things up as he goes.
Hilarious.
‘
Ahhh…anger has no defense, is not able to deny falling into the trap, fun to watch. More please, that one was so easy to set, try harder to make it a little more fun next time. anger incompetence is so easy to spot and it will continue as anger is “too affected by some agenda”.
Its good that the Internet never forgets. All your desperate tricks, false accusations, inability to reason, poor math skills, and fake “experiments” are here for all to see.
Your obsession is so great that you must have the last word. Go for it.
You did a backyard experiment, Einstein.
As Einstein might note, you’ve done a great job of jumping to the wrong conclusion.
Eric, if you’re “channeling” Einstein, ask him if “cold” can warm “hot”, unassisted.
Eric,
I see you are not going to accept reality easily. Maybe an actual instance of why you might be wrong might help.
You are probably aware that heat dissipation from solid state devices is a problem. A big problem, if the junctions are generating heat faster than it can be dissipated. The device fails – maybe catastophically
To overcome this, a “heat sink” is often used.
Largish solid state device heat sinks consist of blackened aluminium extrusions, generally characterised by closely spaced “plates” from a common surface. Have a look at few if you like. These devices are for dissipating heat as efficiently as possible. Radiation between plates obviously ensures maximum cooling, not heating. Just as obviously, the heat of the solid state device is heating the heat sink, not any so-called back radiation between the plates.
Keep thinking that a colder object can raise the temperature of a hotter one. It can’t. No amount of climatological word play claiming that slow cooling is really heating, can make fantasy become fact. Just stupid being stupid.
Cheers.
Mike F., You again fail to consider that your example(s) don’t represent the situation properly. With the Green Plate model, there are more than 1 plate in a series to the lower “sink” of the surroundings. Your comment about cooling IC’s is only one body connected directly to a cooling body or “heat sink”, that connection being via conduction, not IR radiation.
AS for heat dissipation for semiconductors, I’ve been assembling my own computers for more than 30 years and am well aware of the problem of cooling a CPU in a PC. The devices available these days use heat pipes and fans, as well as the simpler aluminum heat sinks with fins. And they aren’t likely to be painted black.
Eric, you still are not able to understand the simple graphic:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
Eric,
As to heat sinks not being black (I didn’t say painted , did I? – try learning how to read) –
“The 43DN-01500-A-200 is a 150 x 100 x 40mm extruded range-2 Heat Sink made of aluminium with black anodized surface.”
Maybe you areas ignorant of emissivity as many other things.
I’m just pointing out reality. Heat sinks radiate their heat away, and can actually work better in a vacuum. No convection needed, for example. Just radiation to get rid of the heat.
Carry on. Try to refute Clausius, beloved of La P. No mention of a colder body raising the temperature of a hotter one. The complete opposite, in fact.
And still you haven’t even stated the hypothesis your testing! Is it that an object can rise in temperature when exposed to a heat source of higher temperature? That’s already fairly well known, except to ignorant or stupid people.
Get with the program, Eric. No GHE at all. Climate is the average of weather. Michael Mann did not receive a Nobel Prize. Hillary Clinton is not the US president . . .
Cheers.
Mike F., Yeah, I don’t know the IR properties of my aluminum plates, which were made from previously anodized aluminum but I then painted them with a high temperature flat black paint. As for your heat sink, the effect of the fins is to make the surface appear as a black body cavity radiator. That said, in most terrestrial applications, the effect of convection would a large fraction of the total heat transfer. That’s why CPU coolers have used fans for many years, that is, they do not rely on IR heat transfer.
But, your last comment speaks volumes. You write “Get with the program”, as in, “Here’s our agenda, forget reality”. You want me to disprove Clausius, when your claims run directly counter to more recent theories which have been used in engineering text books for many decades. Sorry but that part of me which is a scientist can’t ignore truth.
Mike F., Allow me to add that your referenced 43DN-01500-A-200 heat sink is intended to operate via natural convection.
http://www.newark.com/h-s-marston/43dn-01500-a-200/heat-sink-extruded-range-2-black/dp/08WX9539
http://elcodis.com/parts/2847229/43DN-01000-A-200.html
SkepticGoneWild
Are you able to falsify Swanson’s experiment?
Or are you not?
Everything else is here completely redundant.
pang, the falsification is 2LoT.
Learn it, live it, love it.
La Paigninmyassa,
You can change your name over and over, but you are still the scientifically uneducated pretender.
Why would I waste my time with a “demonstration” that does not even follow the scientific method? Who cares about the green plate idiocy anyway?
La P,
Maybe you are redundant?
Also stupid, pointless and irrelevant?
Can you show otherwise?
Cheers.
g*e*r*a*n says:
March 16, 2018 at 5:56 PM
pang, the falsification is 2LoT.
Learn it, live it, love it.
*
This is no falsification, g*e*r*a*n, and you know that.
*
What is called ‘the second law of Thermodynamics’ has been stated (but never proved) by Rudolf Clausius in an article entitled
Ueber eine veraenderte Form des zweiten Hauptsatzes der mechanischen Waermetheorie
i.e.
On a modified form of the second fundamental theorem of the mechanical theory of heat
published 1854 in ‘Annalen der Physik und Chemie’ Band XCIII Nr 12, pp. 481-506.
to be found in e.g.
http://zfbb.thulb.uni-jena.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/jportal_derivate_00140956/18541691202_ftp.pdf
The exact text ( in p. 488) is:
Dieser Grundsatz, auf welchem die ganze folgende Entwickelung beruht, lautet: es kann nie Waerme aus einem kaelteren in einen waermeren Koerper uebergehen, wenn nicht gleichzeitig eine andere damit zusammenhaengende Aenderung eintrift.
i.e.
This principle, on which the whole following development is based, is : heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another change associated herewith simultaneously happens.
It should be clear to anybody that a truncation of Clausius’ statement down to e.g. Heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body is nothing else than lack of understanding or manipulation.
Moreover, people always referring to Clausius’ statement mostly ignore Clausius’ deep knowledge concerning radiation, especially between bodies of different warmth. Here is an example of this knowledge:
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
…
Braunschweig, 1887
…
ABSCHNITT XII.
Die Concentration von Waerme- und Lichtstrahlen und die Grenzen ihrer Wirkung.
1. Gegenstand der Untersuchung.
…
Was ferner die in gewoehnlicher Weise stattfindende Waermestrahlung anbetrifft, so ist es freilich
bekannt, dass nicht nur der warme Koerper dem kalten, sondern auch umgekehrt der kalte Koerper dem warmen Waerme zustrahlt, aber das Gesammtresultat dieses gleichzeitig stattfindenden doppelten Waermeaustausches besteht, wie man als erfahrungsmaessig feststehend ansehen kann, immer darin, dass der kaeltere Koerper auf Kosten des waermeren einen Zuwachs an Waerme erfaehrt.
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
…
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
…
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
Of course, the one or the other denialist certainly will invent some pseudo-argument against even Clausius knowledge!
Dumb@** heats his living room by throwing large chunks of ice in the fireplace.
pang. you just made top of the list for pseudoscience.
You deny 2LoT.
And, you ramble endlessly.
You’re going to be hard to beat, in competition for “Climate Clown of 2018”.
La P,
And still, you cant even find anything in Clausius to support your stupid belief that CO2 both heats and cools the surface at the same time, can you?
You can’t even find anything in Clausius to support your belief that a colder body can raise the temperature of a hotter one, either.
Maybe you didn’t read –
” . . .the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.”
Even Clausius knew what you apparently don’t. The hotter body cools. It doesn’t increase its temperature – you are dreaming, off with the fairies, a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.
Now you can invent something Clausius never said. Go for it. You’d be stupid enough to try, wouldn’t you?
Cheers.
SkepticGoneWild says:
March 16, 2018 at 6:45 PM
Dumb@** heats his living room by throwing large chunks of ice in the fireplace.
*
Wow!
I had overlooked that! Again, instead of something concrete, scientific: insult, well below the belt.
And SGW is so cowardly that s/he does not even dare to write ‘dumb ass’.
Bah!
swannie…”So far, Ive presented two demonstrations of the Green Plate Effect, the results of which are clear evidence that the back IR radiation from a colder body can warm a hotter body”.
All you demonstrated is that a cover placed over a heat source prevents vertical convective current from dissipating heat. When heat dissipation is reduced, a body warms.
Even in your vacuum experiment, all the green plate does is block radiation from one half the blue plate, interfering with its ability to dissipate heat. So the blue plate warmed.
I am still not convinced you managed to heat the blue plate to 210F using a 300 watt halogen lamp. The 300 watts does not refer to IR radiation, it refers to the electric current running through it. It’s actually a reference to heat dissipation, the effect producing a certain visible light level.
The 300 watt lamp is a reference to the current it draws at 120 volts. The light it produces is measured as 5950 lumens, where a lumen is a measure of the light given off. It has no relation to the wattage of the lamp since different types of lamps give different brightnesses for different wattages.
A lumen is approximately the amount of light put out by a birthday candle at 1 foot. A 100 W incandescent lamp puts out 1600 lumens but an LED lamp will give the equivalent amount of light while drawing 80% less electrical power.
I can’t see how you managed to heat the blue plate to 210F with a 300 watt halogen lamp.
GR,
I don’t have a problem with that per se. I don’t recollect any radiation measurements, lamp specification – beam angle, photometric polar diagrams etc. Amateur experimenters can lead themselves astray by neglecting sound scientific protocols.
If he used a narrow angle luminaire, close to the object, his temperature might be OK. His description is too vague to say one way or the other, from memory.
Cheers.
mike…”If he used a narrow angle luminaire, close to the object, his temperature might be OK”.
I am not arguing pro or con, I am asking if it’s reasonable that the IR from a 300 watt halogen lamp could raise the temperature of metal to 210 F.
From this recent link posted by someone else:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/a-conversation-with-an-infrared-radiation-expert/
“IR light bulbs emitting 300W/m2 is simply impossible, because 300W/m2 corresponds to a very low temperature! Use S-Bs law and try it yourself. Like this: room temp, 20C = 293K. The radiated power from that is 293K raised to the power of 4. Then multiply with sigma, the constant in S-Bs law, which is 5.67*10-8, and you get 419 W/m2 or something like that, it varies with how many decimals you use for absolute zero when you convert to Kelvin. For 300 W/m2 radiation I get -23.4C at 300 W/m2 when I calculate it (yes, minus!). Pretty cool light bulb”.
I have not given this explanation the attention it deserves and I am sure I’ve missed something. However, he seems to claim that 300 W/m^2 ‘AS RADIATION’ corresponds to a temperature of -23.4C.
I plan to look into this further. The T^4 used in Stefan-Boltzmann seems to be offset by the Stefan constant in the equation. It’s not like the EM power measured is that much higher than the temperature of the emitter. The constant is 5.67*10^-8, which is a very small number. They likely had to upgrade the emitting temperature by a factor of 4 to balance the equation.
What I plan to do using S-B is start with a temperature like room temperature, or maybe ice, then use the other temperature parameter at various values to see what EM power is actually radiated. I am guessing it is extremely small in comparison to the emitting temperature.
Gordon, you may be confusing 300 Watts with 300 Watts/m^2. Two different animals. The first is actual power, the second is a “power flux”.
A 300 Watt light bulb could easily be putting out 40,000 Watts/m^2, or higher, depending on the element size. (Just divide the Watts by the filament surface area.) The bulb, in close proximity to an object, could easily cause a temperature of 210 F, or higher. (The filament temperature is likely over 1500F.)
That’s not the problem with Eric’s bogus “experiment”. The problem is he doesn’t understand what he is attempting to do. Consequently, he just built something to fit his beliefs. It’s very similar to all pseudoscience experiments.
As we know, it’s fun to watch.
GR, the first time I ran the device, I did so without a vacuum and used sunlight to heat the plate. Assuming sunlight at roughly 1000 w/m^2, a 4×4 inch (100×100 cm) plate also heated to nearly 200F intercepting 10 watts of sunlight. The light I used for my latest demo is a flood light with a reflector redirecting about 2/3 of the halogen tube’s radiated energy toward the front. Of course, the latest demo used a good vacuum, so there was little convection between the illuminated plate and the ball jar.
Believe what you want, you don’t have any data. Hint, don’t put your hand on the front glass of one of those work lights while it’s running…
Poor Eric believes a hot bulb proves anything he wants.
Pseudoscience-R-Eric!
Hilarious.
G*, This is an excellent experiment. It proves your solution to GPE is wrong. Unless you can point out the specific flaws, or do your own experiment, your snickering from the peanut gallery is, as usual, pointless.
E,
You see now that 10 W of sunlight produces higher temperatures than 1 000 000 W of radiation from ice. Comparing wattages in relation to temperature is a complete waste of time. That’s why stupid climatology believers do it. They are too ignorant to realise how stupid they are.
Illusion and misdirection. Get the audience to accept the impossible by using convincing patter. The basis of all great illusionists.
Cheers.
swannie…”Hint, dont put your hand on the front glass of one of those work lights while its running”
I have already explained that, the heat comes from the electric current running through the light bulb, it is not an indicator of the EM power emitted. The visible light emitted is not related to the wattage of the unit. You can get the same intensity of visible light using an LED array that works off 80% less wattage.
Nate believes: “This is an excellent experiment. It proves your solution to GPE is wrong. Unless you can point out the specific flaws, or do your own experiment, your snickering from the peanut gallery is, as usual, pointless.”
Sorry Nate. The “experiment” is pseudoscience.
You want a counter experiment? Put the palms of your hands together, as if you’ve just completed a clap. You’re palms will warm. Now move your palms slightly apart. Do they get warmer?
G*,
Still no flaws in the experiment, I see. Just a red-herring about hands clapping.
Hands: open the freezer door and place your hand near. You feel the cold, just as the green plate ‘feels’ the cold of space. Now put a piece of paper between your hand and the freezer. Does your hand (blue plate) feel as cold as before? Not likely. The paper is shielding your hand from the cold. Does the paper reach the same temperature of your hand? Not likely. THE essence of the GPE, and as demonstrated in Swanson’s experiment except with air removed.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Put the palms of your hands together, as if youve just completed a clap. You’re palms will warm.”
According to this there is no change:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
Neither the nat or shady can understand anything. Hilarious.
Okay guys, here’s the explanation. Pay close attention.
The flaw in the plate problem is that the green plate can NOT cause an increase in the blue plate temperature. If you don’t understand that sentence, re-read until reality sets in.
So my example of the palms together was to demonstrate one “plate” can not heat the other. By pulling your palms apart, they do NOT warm each other. It was just a simple exercise. But quite often, to the brain-dead, nothing is “simple”.
Hope that helps.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“So my example of the palms together was to demonstrate one plate can not heat the other. By pulling your palms apart, they do NOT warm each other. It was just a simple exercise. But quite often, to the brain-dead, nothing is ‘simple’.”
Yes, your image shows it makes no difference what so ever.
The flaw in the plate problem is that the blue plate can NOT cause a decrease in the green plate temperature. If you dont understand that sentence, re-read until reality sets in.
Hope that helps.
” By pulling your palms apart, they do NOT warm each other. It was just a simple exercise.”
So simple that it …oh never mind.
We’ve been over this many times.
Your ‘solution’ defies common sense.
As you should know, you will be warmer having something warm next to you as opposed to something extremely cold next to you.
On a cold day would you rather get under the covers with your sweetie (or dog in MF case) or a block of ice? Why?
The isolated Blue plate is surrounded by the cold of space, and of course has 400 W input, so it reaches 244K.
Then the Green plate is added, the BLUE plate now has a relatively warm plate on one side INSTEAD OF the cold of space. How does the BLUE plate NOT get warmer as a result?
Poor shady is so confused, he actually got it right! Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn occasionally.
But poor Nate still struggles.
He still believes the green plate is an insulator. He believes if you bring it close to the blue plate, it will raise the temperature of the blue plate. What he can NOT understand is the green plate, before equilibrium, is colder that the blue. So, it absorbs everything from the blue plate.
Once equilibrium is reached both plates are at the same temperature, 244 K.
The incorrect “solution” violates 2LoT. It is thermodynamically IMPOSSIBLE for the un-powered green plate to warm the powered blue plate.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Poor shady is so confused, he actually got it right!”
So you agree it is cooler in the shade than in the sun, or did you not re-read as specified?
“Once equilibrium is reached both plates are at the same temperature, 244 K.”
So the BLUE is looking at a plate at 244 K, rather than the 3 K of space. Yet its temp remains the same. How does that make any sense?
G*, go stand next to the freezer, door closed. Now open the door. Do you feel the same, or colder?
Explain why the GPE is different from the freezer.
shady, quit trying to hide in the shadows. Your logic of “shade” has FAILED.
Nate asks: “So the BLUE is looking at a plate at 244 K, rather than the 3 K of space. Yet its temp remains the same. How does that make any sense?”
Nate, the green plate absorbs all of the 200 Watts, just as space would. The blue plate would “see” no difference, in this ideal situation.
Nate asks: “G*, go stand next to the freezer, door closed. Now open the door. Do you feel the same, or colder? Explain why the GPE is different from the freezer.”
Nate, the bogus GHE is based on radiative heat transfer, NOT convection and conduction.
G*: The blue plate doesnt ‘see any difference’ between the green plate and space. Its like the green plate isnt even there.
And yet my IR sensor could easily see that the green plate is there and is warmer than space. The sensor does that by warming when the green plate is there.
How is it possible that green plate is sensed by and warms my sensor, but not the blue plate?
Nate asks: “How is it possible that green plate is sensed by and warms my sensor, but not the blue plate?”
Your “sensor”, being an IR thermometer, is DESIGNED to interpret IR from colder surfaces.
You appear to still be having trouble with the fact that the green plate can NOT warm the blue plate. A quick analogy might be a marble rolling down a sloped surface. Stop the marble, halfway down the slope. Now, when you release it, do you expect it to roll uphill?
Ok what is it in its design that makes it sense the radiation from the colder object while the blue plate is somehow unable to sense it? AFAIK the sensor is just a thermometer.
In other words, how is my sensor being warmed NOT violating 2LOT, while the blue plate warming IS violating 2LOT?
Nate, start here to learn about IR thermometers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_thermometer
Next step, an advanced physics book.
From your source ‘A modern pyrometer has an optical system and a detector. The optical system focuses the thermal radiation onto the detector. The output signal of the detector (temperature T) is related to the thermal radiation or irradiance j* of the target object through the Stefan–Boltzmann law, the constant of proportionality σ, called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and the emissivity ε of the object.”
Again, it is basically a thermometer detecting radiation from a colder object, by being warmed by that object’s radiation.
According to you that should be violating 2LOT. Just as you say it is for the BLUE plate.
Why is ok for the sensor but not for the plate?
Bold my emphasis.
“A modern pyrometer has an optical system and a detector. The optical system focuses the thermal radiation onto the detector.”
Nate, you need to do more research to learn what “optical system” and “detector” refers to.
G* You are the one claiming that 2LOT is violated whenever there is warming from a cooler object. Yet you cannot explain why it is perfectly OK sometimes. Now you are weasiling your way out of answering because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Sorry Nate, but it is you that does not know what you’re talking about.
An IR thermometer is DESIGNED to interpret temperature from colder objects. I linked you to a simple description of the concept. You could not understand it. That’s YOUR problem, not mine.
An IR thermometer does not violate 2LoT. The detector circuit requires external energy, usually supplied by a battery. The design requires external information, supplied by the engineering. No violations.
Be a clown, or not. Your choice.
“External circuitry” only serves to power the thermometer and display, dufus. Look it up.
The thermometer is simply responding to whatever IR hits it. It can tell the green plate is warmer than space. No different than the blue plate does.
Consider an astronaut space walking around the ISS. First, if hes in sun, his suit gets warm. If hes in sun with Earth behind he is warmer. If hes shaded by a solar panel or the Earth, he is cooler. Just common sense.
Nate, “the climate-clown performing nightly”, expounds: “‘External circuitry’ only serves to power the thermometer and display, dufus. Look it up.”
[Nate, poorly educated, believes he can impress people by using high-tech terms like “dufus”. Hilarious.]
Nate, you poorly educated clown. You have invented “external circuitry”. I never mentioned “external circuitry”. You poor, under-educated clown. Look it up.
Nate continues with his uneducated pseudoscience: “The thermometer is simply responding to whatever IR hits it. It can tell the green plate is warmer than space. No different than the blue plate does.”
Hilarious. The poor clown did not learn ANYTHING about IR thermometers. Clowns just can not learn. How many examples do we need?
G*, if you had any useful knowledge of how IR sensors work, different from what I’ve said, you certainly would say it. But nope.
Nate, you’re a clown.
I explained why an IR thermometer was not violating 2LoT. I gave you the link to a basic discussion. When you “invented” your “external circuitry”, I explained why that was wrong.
You don’t know what you’re talking about but, in your head, it’s all my fault!
You’re a clown.
G*, so far youve said nothing about how you think ir sensors work, how they get around 2lot. Speaks volumes.
Heres a hint. At their heart are passive temperature sensors, pyrometers. They are black bodies.
Correction, a thermopyle is the passive sensor at the heart of pyrometer.
Nate, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
A “detector” is an electronic circuit. It is DESIGNED to “detect” IR frequencies within a specified range. It does NOT “detect” heat. It detects frequency. The detected frequency is transformed to a voltage, which is then converted to a temperature, Take away the external energy supplied to the circuit, and nothing will work!
Here’s a hint: Learn what you are talking about before you start giving “hints”.
” It does NOT detect heat.”
As usual, G*, you are sputtering total nonsense. The most common IR thermometers detect heat.
https://sciencing.com/infrared-thermometers-work-4965130.html
“How Infrared Thermometers Work
Infrared light works like visible light–it can be focused, reflected or absorbed. Infrared thermometers usually use a lens to focus infrared light from one object onto a detector called a thermopile. The thermopile absorbs the infrared radiation and turns it into heat.”
https://www.azosensors.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=356
“. Infrared thermometers employ a lens to focus infrared light from an object onto a detector known as a thermopile. The function of the thermopile is to absorb infrared radiation and convert it to heat. The thermopile gets hotter as it absorbs more and more infrared energy. The excess heat is converted into electricity, which is transmitted to a detector which determines the temperature of the object.”
etc.
Thermopile: Wikipedia:
“A thermopile is an electronic device that converts thermal energy into electrical energy. It is composed of several thermocouples connected usually in series or, less commonly, in parallel.”
Wiki Thermocouple
“A thermocouple is an electrical device consisting of two dissimilar electrical conductors forming electrical junctions at differing temperatures. A thermocouple produces a temperature-dependent voltage as a result of the thermoelectric effect, and this voltage can be interpreted to measure temperature. ”
A thermocouple produces its own voltage. It is a passive device.
Nate, you are one of the funniest clowns here.
You went to all that effort to try to show I was wrong. Hilarious!
I was clearly referring to a “detector” circuit. The “detector” circuit is how a basic IR thermometer can “read” a temperature. You just have no clue. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
More hilarity, please.
G*, “I was clearly referring to a detector circuit, yada yada”
G* of course you won’t admit you were just plain wrong.
Going back to the original point. At the heart of these devices are passive black-body thermometers that rise in temperature when hit by IR from a source that is warmer than ‘space’.
The electronics does not cause that to happen, it just reads it out and interprets it.
Yet 2LOT is not violated for these device that obviously work.
They work because, fundamentally, a black-body absorbs IR from cooler surfaces and its temperature responds accordingly.
Well, I wanted more humor, and you provided it.
Thanks!
Just facts, G*, which most people find useful to know. How about you?
Nate, your pseudoscience thrives on avoidance of facts and logic.
Way upthread I told you: “Your ‘sensor’, being an IR thermometer, is DESIGNED to interpret IR from colder surfaces.
Which you proceeded to ignore.
But, I’ve had enough fun here. You get the last word. Make it hilarious!
“An IR thermometer does not violate 2LoT. The detector circuit requires external energy, usually supplied by a batter”
is what you said up thread. It is clear that this statement does not explain the 2LOT being ok for the sensor warming and not ok for BLUE plate warming when near a cooler object. Both are passive black bodies.
Now when faced with this logical pickle, this contradiction, you will run away. Then you will return later and repeat the same nonsense. You think facts can be evaded.
If the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is increased, and there is more between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface measuring the surface temperature, what difference does this make to surface temperatures
a) increase them,
b) decrease them, or
c) make no difference at all?
If additional H2O in the atmosphere makes no difference at all to surface temperatures, or results in cooling, whats all the fuss about?
La P,
I posted this in the wrong place so I’ll repost it here – that way you can’t claim you didn’t see it.
“La P,
H2O is supposed to be the most important greenhouse gas, so you might care to answer.
Of course you cant, for any greenhouse gas at all! Youve made a stupid statement, you realise youve made a stupid statement, and now you are trying to disguise the fact youve made a stupid statement by pretending you didnt make it at all.
So, take your pick. CO2 or H2O as you prefer. Stupid climatologists were obsessed with CO2 because James Hansen has a phobia about coal. It was only later, that stupid people like Gavin Schmidt reluctantly accepted that H2O shared many of the same properties as CO2.
However, Schmidts coauthored paper, Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature didnt include anything relating to H2O in the title. That would have seemed pretty stupid, so H2O was ignored there, even though the paper claims that 75% of the supposed GHE is due to H2O.
So dodge and duck all you like, try to be as clever as you can, avoid science like the plague, and youll still look just as stupid as you are.
Go on now, tell me that H2O is not a greenhouse gas if you are stupid enough. Tell me that increased amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere arent supposed to make the surface hotter even the CO2 AGW supporters will howl with outrage if you do.
Isnt the surface supposed to be getting hotter due to CO2 in the atmosphere? Isnt the atmosphere between the Sun and the surface?
Youd have to be stupid to deny the simple truth, wouldnt you? Deny away you cant have it both ways, although Im sure youll try. You not only seem to be stupid, you are stupid for refusing to discuss science.
You cant even find a description of a testable GHE anywhere, so you deny there is a need for one. Thats not science thats Cargo Cult Scientism! No wonder Governments are no longer prepared to waste money on such a farce.
Heres your chance to convince the US Government that youre right, and Im wrong how hard can it be?
Cheers.”
Cheers.
Flynn the barking blogbot has gone so perfectly into my trap…
Continue that way with your dumb blathering!
If there is ONE stupid person here, that’s you, and nobody else.
Meanwhile, try to correctly falsify
https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
i.e. not the way Gerhard Kramm took, and hereby utterly failed.
That would be the begin of a proof that you are able to do anything else than barking asnd boasting!
Your turn, Flynn!
La P,
Pretty funny,
You ask me to disprove something that doesn’t exist – the testable GHE hypothesis. If you had such a thing, I am fairly sure you wouldn’t be hiding it, would you?
But quite apart from that, you claim that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases surface temperatures, and at the same time you claim that increased CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT increase surface temperature!
The ultimate stupid climatology thinking – CO2 simultaneously heats and cools the surface! A miracle, indeed.
And you wonder why someone thinks that you are stupid!
Take a position – CO2 and other so-called GHGs either create heat and warm the surface – or they don’t. If they heat it even a tiny bit, then you can’t claim they are simultaneously cooling it as well, can you?
Press on La P, you’ll get it eventually. Or not.
Cheers.
Flynn
I knew before you answered that you are not able to falsify Smith’s paper.
You are no more than a barking and boasting pseudoskeptic.
Sorry pang, I don’t mean to laugh at your insolent naivet.
From your source: “Several specific models of planets with no infrared-absorbing atmospehere are then solved”
Hint: Wishful “modeling” is NOT science.
Hilarious.
La P,
You are a fool, as well as stupid. It is modeling. Fantasy. It doesn’t even state a testable GHE hypothesis. Nonsensical.
How can one falsify something that is a matter of opinion?
In your case, you claim that CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t makes the surface hotter, and also claim that it does! No amount of fake computer games can get around that!
if you make these assertions, you need to back them up – and of course you can’t, because you are too ignorant and stupid to realise you have been gullible, and believed a lot of rot.
I don’t dance to your tune – maybe you haven’t noticed. Try demanding that the US Government obey your commands. Just like myself, they can’t be bothered. You might have noticed, the US “climate change” money supply is being progressively choked off.
Do you think that calling me a dog will help restore the funds? Having you tried calling the US President a dog? He controls far more money than I.
Keep trying, La P. Maybe you can use climatological magic to redefine stupid as smart, and ignorant as knowledgeable. You could even claim that an undistinguished mathematician, Gavin Schmidt, is actually a world renowned climate scientist – you seem to believe it! Maybe others might, as well.
Cheers.
Keep barking your pseudoscientific nonsense, Flynn!
La P,
Can you provide any logical reason why I should do as you tell me?
I thought not. I do as I wish. You might as well accept what you cannot change – unless you are completely stupid.
In the mean time, give thought to your belief that extra CO2 in the atmosphere both cools and heats the surface – at the same time!
That’s a nifty trick if you can pull it off!
Cheers.
binny…some trap. Arthur Smith is a physicist who has never been close to a lab. He works as a librarian.
His theory is hypothetical based purely on a mathematical analysis. He wrote that paper as a rebuttal to Gerlich & Tscheushner, who put out a paper disproving the GHE and AGW. Had Smith been smarter, he might have noted that G&T are both well-grounded in the field of thermodynamics.
Arthur wrote an immediate rebuttal to the G&T paper but he focused entirely on the 33C alleged difference in temperature between a plant with an atmosphere and one without. He did not mention a planet with an ocean.
Here is a well laid out rebuttal to the Smith paper offered earlier by binny.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf
As I stated above, Smith ignored important points raised by G&T such as:
1)The atmosphere does not behave like a real greenhouse. They proved using Wood 1909 that glass does not trap IR, rather it is the atoms of air that are trapped with no convective currents available to ameliorate the heating effect, hence, heat builds up. The GHE is based on the incorrect notion that GHGs absorb IR, serving as a barrier like the glass.
2)Smith ignored the excellent point by G&T that a small volume of CO2 molecules can in no way act as a cavity resonator (blackbody).
3)Smith ignored the points raised in the link above even though G&T touched on them.
4)He either missed or ignored the point of G&T that the constant in Stefan-Boltzmann must be modified for use on the Earth.
In other words, Smith comes across as a hot-head responding to a paradigm he has adopted along the way.
Smith later teamed with Eli Rabbett (Josh Halpern) and others for a second rebuttal. Too bad, they really came across as foolish in the paper, failing to understand the difference between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.
Since they associated heat with EM they arrived at the starling conclusion that one way heat transfer as restricted by the 2nd law suggested one body was not radiating.
Eli is still at it, offering the equally stupid blue plate – green plate experiment which has taken in many alarmists. He still thinks heat can be transferred from the cooler green plate to the heated and warmer blue plate, simply because he believes that an IR incident on a surface must be absorbed.
Mike says: “You ask me to disprove something that doesnt exist the testable GHE hypothesis.”
after you showed him a paper with EXACTLY THAT a testable GHE hypothesis.
Mike will continue to deny things, that are right in front of him, even exist.
Similarly when I showed him that GHE exists and is essential to make weather prediction models work, he denied that weather prediction works!
For Mike, facts are irrelevant.
Nate, you have confused yourself, AGAIN.
Weather systems are NOT “proof” of the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE nonsense.
But, to the brain-dead, even a rotten banana is “proof” of the GHE.
It’s fun to watch.
“Weather systems are NOT proof of the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE nonsense.”
Misquoting me, G*. The success of weather prediction models are proof of a GHE.
Mike “Still no GHE” Flynn must deny that weather models work.
Hilarious!
Everything Nate sees is “proof” of the GHE!
nate…”after you showed him a paper with EXACTLY THAT a testable GHE hypothesis”.
How do you test a hypothesis that ‘estimates’ a temperature of the Earth with no atmosphere then compares that fictitious figure to another estimated average temperature for the planet? Arthur Smith’s conjecture is nothing more than an elaborate thought experiment.
In the first place, how did Smith arrive at a temperature for the planet with no atmosphere and no oceans? He used an equation based on an entire surface area of a sphere and presumed that sphere represented a blackbody.
I got even worse when he tried to estimate the present average for the planet.
Smith’s analysis is amateurish, being based on a whole lot of conjecture.
nate…”Misquoting me, G*. The success of weather prediction models are proof of a GHE”.
Weather prediction models operate in the present, using data from known weather systems. In other words, the data they use is proved to be real.
How is that in any way connected to the mythical GHE?
Weather prediction numerical models take the present conditions in air volumes (parcels) and apply the laws of physics to these, and solve for the future conditions, up to a week in the future with good accuracy.
http://weather.ou.edu/~scavallo/classes/metr_5004/f2013/lectures/NWP_LecturesFall2013.pdf
Among the equations is 1LOT. All heat inputs and outputs to the parcels of air, such as from DWLWR must be summed to solve for parcel temperature in the future. I.e. the GHE is present. Without incorporating the GHE, weather models would quickly lose accuracy.
“In the first place, how did Smith arrive at a temperature for the planet with no atmosphere and no oceans? He used an equation based on an entire surface area of a sphere and presumed that sphere represented a blackbody.”
We have planets without atmosphere to test the model, Moon, Mercury, etc.
La Pangolina:
what do you mean by ‘the amount of H2O in the atmosphere’? A complex subject, whether talking about vapour, clouds of different types, the height of the clouds – for example whether in the tropics or temperate climates. A fascinating subject, and described in detail in meteorology books.
Carbon500 says:
March 17, 2018 at 3:50 AM
what do you mean by the amount of H2O in the atmosphere?
*
Carbon, please apologise, what you refer to was no more than getting the Flynn blog bot to spit his usual, agressive, impolite nonsense.
*
You are right, water vapor certainly is the most complex part of climate and meteorology affairs.
Unfortunately, not so much of it is visible and easy-to-read that I could manage to digest it.
Recently I reread this:
http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/
alias precipitable water, quite interesting, as well as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs
Some people try to deal about anthropogenic WV, i.e. that introduced into the atmosphere ba Mankind (evaporation through irrigation, canals; fuel burning etc):
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/watervapor01.htm
A good paper by trenberth, discredited here ad nauseam by pseudoscience trolls having not half a percent of his knowledge:
https://tinyurl.com/y8glvpvj
An interesting chart in it is this:
4GP.ME/bbtc/152131973561.jpg
where we can see how far TPW and SST are interrelated in the Tropics.
Some papers are too specific for me, e.g.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18087
*
Thanks for your interest.
Thank you La Pangolina, I’ll read your references as the week passes – it’s going to be a busy one with a lot of things happening, so I’ll get to the computer as and when I can.
binny…”A good paper by trenberth, discredited here ad nauseam by pseudoscience trolls having not half a percent of his knowledge:”
Knowledge has no value if it’s wrong. Trenberth’s energy budget is based on bad science. He has obviously out far too much weight on radiation as a cooling agent for the surface and ignored the real cooling agents, conduction and convection.
Anyone capable of writing good papers would have noticed a contradiction in his claim that GHGs can return nearly as much energy to the surface as what is emitted, even though GHGs account for no more than 0.21% of the entire atmosphere. On the other hand, he dismissed the effect of nitrogen and oxygen that account for 99% of the atmosphere.
If Trenberth writes such good papers, as you claim, why does he try to interfere in the publication of papers that do not agree with his views? I would say that a person who is so insecure in his own views that he has to stifle the view of others is incapable of writing a good paper.
After all the so-called good papers he has allegedly published why was he reduced to frustration in the Climategate emails when he lamented the disappearance of global warming and the travesty related to that, according to him? He was seriously frustrated that his theories were not working out.
To this day, none of his theories have been proved.
typo above, out = put
Take Des, take David they make their good arguments but
when data is presented to them which does not lend support to AGW theory. Like I gave with my 8 points the other day, they will not accept it.
I see this with AGW THEORY at every level, which is when something does not fit in with the theory either they incorporated it into the theory or dismiss the data as being wrong.
Actually – that is precisely what YOU guys do.
You dismiss NOAA data as being wrong.
Please point out where I have dismissed properly sourced data.
(ie. not merely a graph that someone has posted on their blog without mention of a source)
Regarding your 8 points:
I pointed out that the AO has indeed increased over the record – you dismissed it.
I asked you to research band saturation – you dismissed it.
I asked you to research our escape from snowball earth – you dismissed it.
And so it goes on …
des, have you noticed that the IPCC climate models have all failed?
Have you noticed the number of Alarmist predictions that have failed?
Do you disregard the laws of physics?
Then, get in line for “Climate Clown of 2018”.
Mike Flynn/g*e*r*a*n,
Yes, I’ve noticed how the IPCC prediction of ice melt was way too low. Other than that, ignoring ocean cycles which even out in the long term, they are pretty much spot on.
So, nothing will sway your belief system?
I admire your staunch faith.
Too bad it is in a false religion.
Des,
You might have noticed that the GHE doesn’t exist. On the other hand, you might be too stupid to notice it.
Maybe you could adopt La P’s position –
CO2 makes the surface hotter. At the same time, it makes the surface cooler.
There. Take one, but keep it secret. If anybody asks, don’t tell them which one you picked.
That’ll confuse ’em, right enough!
Climatology – ain’t it grand?
Cheers
des…”You dismiss NOAA data as being wrong”.
NOAA admits it is wrong. They admitted on their website that they throw out over 75% of the real data and synthesize the missing data using less than 25% of the remaining real data.
Why, why, why, do you have trouble with that chicanery?
NOAA interpolates and homogenizes less than 25% real data in a climate model and now they are busy setting up reference stations in the US which they can use for ‘standard’ temperatures against which they can interpolate other data up to 1200 miles away.
Chiefio has laid out comprehensive proof that NOAA are ignoring colder stations while promoting warmer stations.
NOAA has made claims of 2014 as the warmest year at the time, based on a 48% confidence level. For cripes sake, why would anyone calling themselves scientists use a 48% confidence level? GISS has used a 38% confidence level.
Please Des, tell me you are not this stupid. How can those con artists get this scientific misconduct past you?
Gordon – please link to this NOAA website admission.
It had better be about DATA – and not STATIONS that do not have complete data.
des….”please link to this NOAA website admission”.
Not that it will make any difference, but here you go:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
The Obama admin had the page removed. Wonder why?
I know you’ll get technical and claim NOAA has not declared, “we’re fudging temperatures”. They simply offer a sleight of hand to slip it past gullible alarmists.
I mean, anyone who does not think slashing global surface sates by more than 75% is business as usual is not dealing with a full deck.
As they explained … “some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time”. So their choice was based solely on technology.
GISS and NOAA produce pretty much the same result. Here is the list of GISS stations that contribute to the final product:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/station_list.txt
Get back to me when you’ve finished counting them.
des…”some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time. So their choice was based solely on technology”.
Over 75% of the stations were not available????
**********
If it interst you, which I doubt, here’s an in-depth explanation of station usage by NOAA, GHCN, NC.D.C, and GISS:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/
************
“GISS and NOAA produce pretty much the same result”.
GISS gets its surface data from NOAA, then they fudge it further.
I don’t you debating with me in good faith. In such a context I’d treat you with respect. However, unloading this crap on me as representing GISS data is an act of sheer desperation.
From the link:
Note the bottom sentence.
“P: R/S/U=rural/sm.town/urban (population)
N: 1/2/3=dark/dim/bright (satellite light data 1995, only near cont. US)
B: A/B/C=dark/dim/bright (part of GHCN’s inventory file)
The above categories P/N/B are not used in the GISS standard analysis”
You and Barry are so immersed in your religious ideology you cannot stand to be proved wrong, even when an institution like NOAA admits their scientific misconduct.
Robertson
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/
I never have seen such utter superficial unscientific nonsense.
And you trust a clueless miniblogger a la Chiefio more than NOAA, and speak about ‘scientific misconduct’ ?
*
See you soon, Robertson, it’s a bit late now here. You will see how one demonstrates YOUR ignorance, incompetence and scientific misconduct.
Des,
If you wish real scientists to take nay notice at all, you might have to at least pretend to follow the scientific method. You might be too stupid to realise this, but I assure you it is so.
The first hurdle to overcome is the lack of a testable GHE hypothesis, if you claim such as thing exists.
Without this, anything you say may be regarded as stupid, irrelevant, and pointless. It is certainly not science.
Keep trying to convince people that CO2 is evil, if that is what you believe. That is cultist thinking, and is your right. Don’t be surprised if people aren’t all that interested in your stupid ideas, or even laugh at you. That’s life – they have the right to laugh, and think you are stupid, if they want to.
Cheers.
As I have that right with you … and am exercising it right now.
Des,
See? It’s easy when you try!
But it still wont create any thing faintly scientific such as a testable GHE hypothesis, will it?
Keep laughing. That way, you won’t be the odd man out when some stupid person starts claiming that CO2 makes the surface hotter, while at the same time making it colder!
Off you go now – practice laughing – long and loud. It shouldn’t do you any harm at all.
My pleasure.
Cheers.
Ice radiates at least 300 W/m2. All the ice in the world cannot heat even the teensiest, weeniest, piece of ice above the freezing point of water.
And stupid climatologists claim that one hundredth of the amount of radiation (say 3W/m2), given off by frozen water can heat up a planet! Maybe they are magical CO2 Watts?
Who would be stupid enough to believe that on its face?
A self styled climatologist, or his gullible brain-dead follower, that’s who!
Cheers.
Exactly, Mike Flynn!
CO2 is good. Pseudoscience is bad.
g,
It’s getting more interesting, and funnier by the day.
The fanatics are so rabid, they talk themselves into holding two diametrically opposed positions at once! Then they get annoyed if you ask them to nominate which is correct!
Cheers.
It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy.
We should have an end-of-year event to crown the “king”!
g*e*r*a*n
I am not sure if you or Mike Flynn would win the crown for “Stupidist Troll”. You both seem very close to not knowing anything at all about physics or heat transfer.
Con-man, pounding on that keyboard does not mean you know anything about physics. But, you’re hilarious, so please continue.
Mike Flynn
You must be confused or intentionally acting that way.
If you add 3 W/m^2 to planet above all the other energy inputs, it WILL heat up the planet. You are not thinking it correctly or grossly misunderstanding the situation or just being an intentional troll. I think the troll part is the most correct for you and g*e*r*a*n. You just troll and troll more. Not sure why. I don’t think anyone who is logical and rational is able to understand the motivations of a troll.
Norm, you poor diseased clown, Flynn was comparing atmospheric CO2 to polar ICE! You just don’t have the science background to get it.
But that’s okay. You’re hear for our entertainment.
More please.
“hear” is “davie-speak” for “here”.
No one can say I’m not concerned about the science-invalids!
☺
g*e*r*a*n
The science hating troll attempts to hurl insults at one who is much smarter than him. Funny. You are the one with zero science background. Not only do you not have any knowledge of the topics you speak about, you are a science hater.
If you like science even a little do the cheese experiment I suggested above. You know so little thermodynamics but pretend to be an expert. You would get an F in any actual physics course. You would not know how to solve the problems and your empty rhetoric would not help your grade. Lucky for you this is just a blog.
My complaint with you, Flynn and Gordon Robertson is you are such bad examples of “skeptics” with your made up horrible physics that you give valid skeptics a bad name. They read your horrible science and conclude all skeptics must be idiots. Roy Spencer is a credible skeptic that understands science and has done experiments that demonstrate your stupidity. Too bad no one can reach inside your bubble universe of deluded thought.
Do you feel better now, con-man?
Nothing you said about me was true.
You’re amazingly hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
I speak correctly. You have horrible physics. You have no rational or logical thought. You cannot solve even simple thermodynamics equations. You would fail if you took a college physics course.
Your pretending is running low. So far you have demonstrated a total lack of any knowledge of any science. You just post some meaningless tripe pretending to know something.
Yes indeed you really are a lame brain with a total failure of any actual knowledge.
You did a great job on another thread. Talked endlessly about a toy train as if this is some high physics thought. Only Gordon Robertson was fooled by your idiocy. Great another troll likes your made up physics. Test it out by emailing a University scientist with your Moon rotation idea. See what they think. See if they believe you are astonishingly brilliant. Ask your other identity J Halp-less. Since it was you maybe your own self will think you are a brain. No else will.
Norm, the rabies vaccine is wearing off, AGAIN.
Glad to help.
norman…”If you add 3 W/m^2 to planet above all the other energy inputs, it WILL heat up the planet”.
Provided the extra 3 W/m^2 comes from the Sun, or a nearby star that wandered by. It cannot be recycled using GHG as the AGW theory claims.
Read up on perpetual motion.
Gordon Robertson
That is where you took a wrong turn. You believed the phonies on blogs rather than accept the established physics. Adding energy to the Earth’s surface (all else being the same) will increase its temperature. You believe the false and totally made up physics that this energy cannot be absorbed. That is a fantasy you have, it is not based upon reality. The GHE is not a perpetual motion system. The Earth system is constantly receiving energy. You are stuck in mental rut and can only think of systems that have no input energy. You have been shown by me, E Swanson, Roy Spencer and the entire world of established thermodynamics which is used in everyday applications that for powered objects the temperature has no fixed value, it is dependent upon the surrounding environment. You may never understand it and it really will not matter if you do or don’t. The people who do study it and understand it are the ones that design the items using the established science. Your pseudoscience and fantasy physics has no bearing on reality. You can peddle the garbage here and some might be ignorant of real science and believe you. You would never pass a physics class on thermodynamics. You would fail most problems assigned to you.
Another rabid, rambling rant, with absolutely no substance.
Poor con-man’s pseudoscience is falling apart, and he can only lash out like a yelping chihuahua.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n says:
March 17, 2018 at 1:57 PM
Sorry, but who perfectly reminds me a chihuahua here, is in fact… g*e*r*a*n (I could have chosen a zwergpudel).
You endless “Hilarious! Pseudoscience” are a perfect simulation of their behavior.
Yes, I know: my English is very bad in your opinion.
Feel free to give a hint should your German and French manage to reach my English’s level.
Pang, just for you: HILARIOUS!
Glad to help.
La P,
Another pointless, irrelevant and stupid comment?
Boasting about your less-than-perfect command of English is not the smartest thing you could do, on an English speaking blog, is it?
Maybe you would do better if you commented on a German or French blog. They would no doubt welcome you with open arms, I’m sure.
Or you could try speaking in Pangolin, I suppose. That way, nobody at all would pay you any serious attention. A good idea, do you think?
Cheers.
norman…”That is where you took a wrong turn. You believed the phonies on blogs rather than accept the established physics. Adding energy to the Earths surface (all else being the same) will increase its temperature”.
**********
Actually, I have worked much of it out on my own based on my engineering education coupled with the works of Clausius, Bohr, Schrodinger, Boltzmann, and Planck.
Clausius stated clearly the heat cannot by it’s own means be transferred from cold matter to a warm matter, as you seem to think. Bohr later explained why based on electron theory, and Schrodinger cemented Bohr’s theory by applying the Newtonian wave equation to an electron, as if it represented harmonic motion in its orbit.
Boltzmann and Planck both agree, even though many modern scientists have allowed themselves to misinterpret both by confusing heat with electromagnetic energy.
Heat cannot be converted to EM at the surface and have it recycled as heat to the surface by GHGs existing in a cooler part of the atmosphere.
I suggested you look up perpetual motion. It’s the reason Clausius developed the 2nd law, to fill holes in the 1st law that would allow that.
binny…”Yes, I know: my English is very bad in your opinion”.
I don’t have issues with your English, which I can understand in most cases. On the odd occasion where I can’t understand you fully I can usually infer a meaning. I think the other guys are just yanking your chain (teasing you).
I don’t hold your command of English against you and I applaud you for participating in an English-speaking blog.
My issue is with your propensity for hero worship of institutions like the IPCC, NOAA, GISS, etc.
There is ample evidence they are all corrupt and politically motivated.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Its fun to watch.”
Maybe but your posts are not fun to read. They are really bad. Talk of no substance, you never post any useful or meaningful information.
Talk to me. Why are you so incredibly stupid and lacking of any knowledge of science? Why do you hate science so much?
Such a relentless hatred of all things science. You are given valid science and reject it with venom and hate. What makes you like that.
Why do you post on a science blog when you hate the subject?
con-man, what are you rambling about now? You just start pounding on that keyboard and can’t stop. You never get it right.
Where have I ever “hated” science? Where have I ever got any science wrong?
You just keep pounding, never making any sense.
Indeed, it’s fun to watch.
binny…”What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one”.
********
How many times do I have to explain this cherry-picked statement before someone will try discussing it? In the same article, Clausius stated formally that the 2nd law must be obeyed in a radiative exchange.
In the days of Clausius, Boltzmann, and Planck, they believed heat could be generated into space as rays and travel to another body where it was absorbed. Planck became aware of the falseness in that statement too late. He admitted as much.
Electron theory was developed in the late 1890s, after Clausius and Boltzmann were both dead. Planck later admitted that, had he paid more attention to the emerging electron theory with the ability of the electron to generate and absorb EM, it would have made his quantum theory far easier to write.
It was not till 1913 that Bohr offered his explanation of electron emission and absorp-tion, with restrictions that prevent heat transfer cold to hot. Clausius had been dead for 24 years by then. So had Boltzmann.
Even though Clausius was handicapped at the time he wrote the above, by a misunderstanding of how heat was converted to EM in a hotter then back again into heat in a cooler body, he maintains at the end of the statement “that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one”.
He did not imply there is an exchange of heat, he stated the cold one ALWAYS experiences an increase of heat at the expense of the warm one. He makes no inference that the warmer body rises in temperature and if you read further he states adamantly that radiation must obey the 2nd law.
ps. there is a similar reference in the same book, or another, regarding heat transfer from a colder body to a warmer body. He was talking about the compensation required to bring that about. I have seen that discussion cherry picked to reveal only his discussion about heat being transferred from cold to hot.
If you put insulation around a house, the interior AND the insulation will become warmer, BUT the insulation won’t be warmer than the interior. If you put CO2 in the atmosphere, the ground AND atmosphere will be warmer. This is basic physics, the science has been settled for a century. If you disagree with a experimentally proven theory YOU need to provide an experiment that falsifies the theory. End of discussion. Period.
Could you please provide me a link to the experiment that proves the hypothesis that adding co2 to the atmosphere increases the temp of the atmosphere and the surface.?
Peter, you have been well indoctrinated. You sound like so many others here, that have no knowledge of physics, and cannot think for themselves.
CO2 is NOT an insulator. Claiming it can warm the atmosphere and the ground just indicates you do not understand the science. There is NO valid experiment that “proves” CO2 can warm the planet. That’s why clowns are still trying to do so.
For the brain-dead, there is NO amount of evidence that would convince them AGW is a hoax.
It’s fun to watch.
G* does not think CO2 is insulation. Here is his argument:
“CO2 is NOT an insulator”.
Notice the use of all caps. Very convincing!
snake, when were you ever convinced by facts?
CO2 may have insulative properties but it not very similar to insulation of a home.
The main metaphorical use of saying CO2 is like house insulation is that like house insulation, CO2 isn’t a heat source just house insulation isn’t a heat source.
House insulation works because it blocks convectional heat loss. And an actual greenhouse works because it blocks convectional heat loss.
CO2 doesn’t block convectional heat and no one claims that greenhouse gas work the same way an actual greenhouse works.
Gbaikie
In my opinion, insulation is anything that slows the rate that energy moves away from something. Doesn’t matter if the “moving away” is through conduction, convection or radiation.
A greenhouse is unique in that it allows solar radiation to enter the room but at the same time is an insulator. Hence the analogy to GHG’s.
Also, I’m curious why you think the insulation in a house works by blocking convectional heat loss? (I don’t necessarily disagree)
Snape,
Greenhouses are constructed generally using thin sheets of solid glass as you point out.
When was the last time you saw solid glass being used as an insulator?
Never, that’s when! Even the stupids at NASA say –
“Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping.”
Complete and utter balderdash! These peanuts have obviously never experienced nighttime outside their air conditioned surroundings – particularly in an arid tropical desert!
They are stupid for trying to get away with such nonsense, and you are ignorant and stupid if you believe them. Maybe if they had something appropriate to propose, say a testable GHE hypothesis, they might appear faintly scientific. Until then, they remain a ragtag pack of capering second-raters, too thick to appreciate how thick they are.
Cheers
Mike
Did you read this?
“In my opinion, insulation is anything that slows the rate that energy moves away from something. Doesnt matter if the moving away is through conduction, convection or radiation.”
What part don’t you understand? The glass in a greenhouse effectively prevents heat loss via convection.
Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping.
It would be more accurate to say, “certain gases slow the rate that heat escapes”. Temperature on earth drops at night but not nearly as fast as if there was no atmosphere.
The Sahara radiates energy to space at a much higher rate than a more humid area at a similar latitude (water vapor is a powerful GHG).
House insulation is something that traps air- like fiberglass
which is mostly air. A foamed material also works- again mostly air.
Another factor is sealing gaps winch air can get thru- ie, weather stripping outside doors.
The most effective use of home insulation is to have it in the ceiling, as warm air rises. Also using insulation to keep house cool will depend on keeping hot air in “attic” being in the attic, rather than getting into the living areas.
Insulated heating ducts is good idea as is I insulated hot water heaters, and having insulated hot pipes gives advantage of not needing to wait for the hot water. This is all related to convectional heat losses.
Gbaikie
The roof, ceiling and walls of a house already do a good job of trapping air inside – eliminating/slowing convection to the outdoors. Why is a bunch of extra insulation necessary?
Again, I’m not disagreeing. Just curious what you think.
snape…”In my opinion, insulation is anything that slows the rate that energy moves away from something. Doesnt matter if the moving away is through conduction, convection or radiation”.
Normal R-rated insulation has no effect on radiation. Goes straight through it. You need to install a special radiation reflective barrier if you want to slow radiation. It’s not worth it in most homes since heat loss via radiation is not a factor.
Why would you be worried about radiation? If AGW is right, only GHGs account for heat loss via radiation and room air is about 0.04% CO2 and 1% WV on average.
Contractors building homes are not concerned with radiation heat loss, only loss via conduction through walls and ceilings. The insulation is there to slow down heat loss via conduction only.
Dumb dumb
Where did I say anything about radiation and the insulation in our homes?
Anyhow what is used to insulate radiant heat is reflective material (metals).
Having a white or reflective roof will cause roof to absorb less energy. Though that is not very effective in term’s keeping a building cool, but is practical/effective to lower UHI effects- assuming that is desirable.
I regard to thin glass, anything which was extremely thin can stop air movement and so prevent convection heat loss.
Snape,
You must be reading the climatological definition of insulation. Either that, or you are too stupid, lazy or ignorant to look up scientific or industry definitions for insulation.
You have no trouble saying what NASA should have said, rather than the stupid and incorrect statement they made. Do you also refuse to believe scientific or engineering definitions of insulation?
Are you really stupid enough to assert you know what they “should have said”, rather than what they did? Probably.
As to your statement –
“The Sahara radiates energy to space at a much higher rate than a more humid area at a similar latitude (water vapor is a powerful GHG).”, maybe it doesn’t help you as much as you would like.
The Sahara gets far hotter during the day precisely because it has so little “GHG” in the atmosphere. The more “GHG”, the lower the temperature! Learn some physics, don’t just blindly parrot climatological wishful thinking. Unless you really can’t help, yourself, of course.
Note that the coldest place in the world is also in a very arid place – even below the freezing point of CO2. You see, physics. Wonderful stuff.
Learn some.
Cheers.
Mike
The humid tropics have an excess of thermal energy and share it with the rest of the planet. This contributes to a higher global temperature.
The arid tropics have a deficit of thermal energy. More is radiated to space than is absorbed from the sun.
“Snape says:
March 17, 2018 at 5:39 PM
Gbaikie
The roof, ceiling and walls of a house already do a good job of trapping air inside eliminating/slowing convection to the outdoors. Why is a bunch of extra insulation necessary?”
Some houses don’t have insulation, when was kid living on Vancover Island, Canada my house didn’t have insulation, and generally winter mornings were a bit cool- you don’t need a warm house when sleeping.
But kind of stupid [because it’s cheap] not adding insulation with a new house and I believe it’s part of building codes. So a lots of older houses could not have insulation. And in say, LA it’s not very cold [nor was Canada] and probably quite few older houses without insulation.
Anyhow with new construction it very cheap to add insulation and without add it, you essentially losing money by not adding it.
You cause problems by sealing a house too much- or no one lives in houses completely sealed.
So in terms of billions of people in the world, I would say billions of people don’t have insulation.
So you have insulation to save energy and to have house always at “room temperature”- warming or cooling as needed/wanted.
But houses leak and insulation makes them leak less and you can have a warm house when it’s -50 C outside. And in warmer places, air conditioning requires more energy and keeping house cool on hot day is probably an important reason to have insulation.
Gbaikie
Here is my thinking on this: A wall or roof mostly prevents convection from inside air to the outside, but they still warm up though as the house warms. The energy is then transferred to the outdoors mainly by conduction.
Added insulation slows the rate that warm air is moved (convection) from the homes heating system to the walls…..thereby slowing the rate that energy is conducted to the outside.
Gbaikie
PS: I hope you realize the “dumb dumb” title was for Gordon, not you”.
S,
Your “thinking” is obviously defective.
I suppose you are going to say that you really didn’t mention that insulation is also used to stop the inside getting warm in the tropics, because there is a net heat loss in the tropics, which means houses are cool in the tropics, anyway. Even when ground temperatures reach >70 C, (even air temperatures get up to 58 C or so), you’ll still be worrying about heat escaping through the walls. Oh, horror! We’ll all freeze to death!
Read some physics. Insulation works both ways , you can keep things cooler longer (in a styrofoam beer or wine cooler, for example) or hotter (insulated pizza containers).
Of course a Dewar flask can do both! How amazing! How does it know whether its full of hot soup, or icy cold beverage?
Carry on young Snape. You are living proof that continuous mental connection with reality is unnecessary for life (of a sort).
Cheers.
“Gbaikie
Here is my thinking on this: A wall or roof mostly prevents convection from inside air to the outside, but they still warm up though as the house warms. The energy is then transferred to the outdoors mainly by conduction.”
It depends upon the construction. conduction is heat going thru a solid.
With wood frame, one has 2 by 4 spaced every 16″. The exterior wall attached to 2 by 4 and interior wall attached to 2 by 4, so heat conduction would go thru the 2 by 4. so only small portion of wall can have conduction and has to conduct thru 4″ of wood of the 2 by 4.
If instead you had a solid stone wall, then all of wall would conduct heat.
Ceiling and roof are probably not going to be make of solid stone- though some people have them. But generally you have flat ceiling which wood frame construction and a sloped roof and this has an air space- so not going to have much conduction involved.
You could have roof be same as ceiling- or something like a tin roof, then you have conduction of heat being main factor- a bottom of tin is ceiling and top of tin surface being the top of roof. That might work for a barn.
Peter
If you put insulation around a house, precisely nothing happen in regard to temperature. The The insulation has the same temperature as the bathroom fittings, for example.
A whole warehouse full of insulation is no hotter than a warehouse full of bricks.
I live in the tropics. Insulation is used to keep the house cool, in sunlight. Coolrooms are heavily insulated – both the inner part of the insulation, and the contents, are very cold.
An overcoat will not warm a corpse.
The atmosphere prevents about 30% of the Sun’s Radiation from reaching the surface at all. That is why the surface never reaches the high temperatures experienced on the Moon, after the same exposure time to the Sun.
If you need to know any more facts, rathe than climatological fantasies, just ask.
Cheers.
peter…”If you put insulation around a house, the interior AND the insulation will become warmer, BUT the insulation wont be warmer than the interior. If you put CO2 in the atmosphere, the ground AND atmosphere will be warmer. This is basic physics, the science has been settled for a century. If you disagree with a experimentally proven theory YOU need to provide an experiment that falsifies the theory. End of discussion. Period”.
**********
The purpose of insulation in the walls and ceiling of a home is to slow down heat loss due to conduction. The insulation has no effect on radiation, which goes through it like a hot knife through butter.
Radiation is a poor way of dissipating heat. A power transistor is tightly bolted to a piece of metal (heat sink… using a special heat transfer compound between) with fins to increase the surface area for radiation. Left to cool by itself via radiation, the transistor will burn up. Note that the heat is drawn away by conduction first just as it is dissipated on the Earth’s surface.
The science has in no way been settled. What was settled, by Tyndall, circa 1850, is that CO2 can absorb infrared energy. There is no proof whatsoever that the 0.04% of the atmosphere that is CO2 can in any way warm the atmosphere.
In fact, the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s law of partial pressures suggest that a gas mass equivalent to CO2, should only contribute a few hundreds of a degree C to atmospheric warming.
That has been proved since 1998. There has been little or no warming over that 20 years other than temporary spurious warming from El Nino events. Since the last one in early 2016, the atmosphere has been slowly cooling.
Robertson
Stop your ridiculous trials to misinterpret Rudolf Clausius with your personal narrative.
You behave here as usual like a mix of troll, clown and completely ignorant and incompetent denialist.
La P,
Have you considered increasing your intelligence level to that of your namesake?
I know it will be hard, but you could always try. I’m sure a dumb animal would make less irrelevant, stupid, and pointless comments than yourself.
Study the pangolin. Learn its ways. You will benefit mightily.
Cheers.
binny…”Stop your ridiculous trials to misinterpret Rudolf Clausius with your personal narrative”.
As I said, it’s not your English that bothers me, it’s your obstinate nature. Clausius is specific all through his material that the 2nd law must apply equally to conduction, convection, and radiation. Nowhere does he speak of a two way heat transfer. He can be forgiven his ambiguity about heat flowing through space since no one knew at the time that heat cannot flow through space.
Clausius, Boltzmann, and Planck were wrong about heat and space, all of them referring to heat rays which have no existence. It was not understood till much later that heat is converted to EM, which is radiated to space as an entirely different form of energy than heat.
If you took the time to study his development of the 2nd law via heat engine theory you’d see why. Instead, you skim his book looking for out of context material to cherry pick. You ignore the basic theme throughout his material that heat cannot by it’s own means be transferred from cold to hot.
I have not seen you once offer your own scientific ideas on this matter. All you do is sit back and criticize/ridicule whatever does not resonate with your personal views without as much as delving into the actual theories involved. If you did, with an objective mind, you’d clearly see the propaganda being perpetuated by the IPCC, NOAA, and GISS.
GR, as usual, you are wrong. AS I’ve demonstrated twice now, removing conduction and reducing convection can result in a transfer of energy from a colder body to a warmer one, the result of which being that the temperature of the warmer body increases. You have yet to offer a scientific critique of my experiments, only commenting that the IR emitted by the colder body will “ignored” by the warmer one. But, whee does that energy go, if it’s not absorbed by the warmer one?
E,
Exactly the same place that the 300 W/m2 radiation from ice goes. Or the innumerable photons that are passing through our bodies right now. How you heard of the wonderful invention called radio? Or cellphones?
Their light passes right through you because it’s really, really low on the temperature scale. Lower temperature than even infrared, which you also can’t see.
So you demonstrate your ignorance, if I may be polite.
Learn some standard physics – it will help you to avoid looking stupid when you try to invent your own physics. I don’t think you are an Einstein or Feynman – so your new physics may not be widely accepted.
Be a Schmidt, or a Hansen, or a Mann, and you will never be far away from the sound of laughter! A cheery thought.
Cheers.
Eric, do you really believe that is a scientific experiment? Don’t you understand that you just found a way to “prove” what you believe?
If you understood the physics, you would be able to determine just from the blue/green thought experiment that it doesn’t work. All you have done is find a way to trick yourself.
It’s very similar to a magic trick. That’s very common in pseudoscience.
Upthread, another clown did the same kind of thing. He claimed that a surface had to be at a temperature of 1452 K, to emit 400 W/m^2. When I told him that was incorrect, he claimed it was “from experiment”. He believed so strongly, that he was willing to provide false testimony.
People will do many strange things to defend a false religion.
E. Swanson
“If you understood the physics” is what the idiot likes to say in place of an actual argument. (Often followed by a word with all caps for emphasis).
Here are Dr. Spencer’s thoughts regarding the same (or very similar) experiment:
A Back Radiation Thought Experiment
If you still have an aversion to the idea of back radiation, flowing against the net flow of radiation in the opposite direction, then explain to me what happens in the following example.
Imagine two plates at two different temperatures facing one another. Lets say one plate is at 100 deg. C and the other is at 0 deg. C. It doesnt really matter whether this is in a vacuum, or with air around the plates, the concept still applies.
Its pretty clear that the hotter plate will lose IR energy to the colder plate at a certain rate (which will decrease over time as the plates gradually equilibrate to the same temperature).
But now imagine that the cooler plate is nearly the same temperature (99 deg. C) as the hotter plate (100 deg. C). It will be obvious to most people that the net flow of IR energy from the 100 deg. C plate to the slightly cooler plate will be at a slower rate than it was before.
But why should that be? In both cases the 100 deg. C plate is emitting IR at the same rate, yet the NET flow of IR is reduced if the cooler plate is not as cold.
The reason is that there is also back radiation from the colder plate to the warmer plate, which changes the energy budget (energy gain versus energy loss) of the hotter plate. If you STILL dont like the idea of back radiation (back is admittedly superfluous), then just think in terms of the reduced rate of flow from the warmer plate to the cooler plate when their temperature difference is reduced.
Either way, when you reduce the rate of net energy loss from an object, the object will have a higher temperature than if you didnt reduce the rate of energy loss.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/
Mike Flynn
What science makes the claim that IR will pass right through objects?
You like making up things as well. Radio waves will pass through not metallic materials see how much goes through a Faraday Cage. You certainly are not very intelligent and your physics is quite bad. Just throw out some random things you may have read that do not connect at all. Wow! You are an amazing collection of random unconnected information that you seem to think makes you somehow knowledgeable.
Since you do not like to learn. I doubt you will take the time to look at this linked video. It clearly shows IR does not penetrate proper clothing. The body remains warm in the cold environment because the body is not able to radiate out the IR from its surface.
Enjoy (I know you won’t get it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUD7-T0mXM-KUJuL-PmqJfbA&time_continue=72&v=nugSDOahitM
Norman
Here is a similar video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nugSDOahitM
N,
You are obviously badly in need of reading lessons.
Learn to read what I wrote.
You are right, I won’t waste my time looking at your stupid video. How do I know it’s stupid? Because you linked to it – and you are stupid, as well as ignorant.
Tell somebody that their cell phone doesn’t work inside, or their little indoor radio won’t work inside either. Radio frequencies are like any other light, and obey the same optical rules. Ever heard of a wave guide, or a Yagi, or a parabolic radar antenna? Go on, use your mind reading powers!
You complain that I obtain knowledge by reading in some cases, so you are free to use other methods. Mental telepathy, direct from Gavin Schmidt, perhaps?
Are you intentionally appearing stupid, or is it your natural persona?
The reason I appear knowledgeable is because I am. As you have admitted, I have a wide range of knowledge – much of which I obtained by reading. You think this is somehow cheating?. You would.
I don’t have to be real smart to be smarter than you, do I?
Off you go,now. Learn some reading, writing, and arithmetic. Move on to physics later.
Cheers.
swannie…. You have yet to offer a scientific critique of my experiments, only commenting that the IR emitted by the colder body will ignored by the warmer one. But, whee does that energy go, if its not absorbed by the warmer one?”
*********
Look at the visible light spectrum you can see with your own eyes. Any colour you see is light frequencies reflected from the object, the rest is absorbed. Why are certain EM frequencies absorbed and others reflected? Why does the object not reflect all frequencies or absorb them all?
You seem to presume that all IR must be absorbed by an object. Why should IR be any different than visible light?
I did offer a scientific critique based on what I know, which is admittedly not a great deal as physics goes overall. However, I am looking for sensible explanations that fit with the 2nd law and you seem to be only interested in bypassing it.
For all of your experiments, including the one in the high vacuum conditions, I offered an explanation that makes sense. In the first you are blocking heat dissipation with the covering and in the second you are blocking heat dissipation via radiation from the heated blue plate with the green plate. That explains a heat rise in both.
You keep insisting heat is being back-radiated, which is not possible since heat cannot be radiated, only EM. There is insufficient EM from the colder cookie sheet to the heated plate in the first and that applies in the vacuum experiment as well. According to the 2nd law, a cooler surface cannot warm a warmer surface.
Flynn
You know why you won’t look at the video. It is because you are a troll crackpot. The video is reality, you peddle stupid junk.
No you are not smarter than me maybe a little smarter than g*e*r*a*n
You don’t read much, maybe scan some topics and pretend you understand it.
Your understanding of radiant energy and how it behaves is really minimal.
No you are not knowledgeable. You are just a troll trying to get responses. The dumber your comments the more people (who are actually much more intelligent than you can ever hope to be) respond to them. That is about the limit of your abilities. You understand that the dumber you post is the more likely it is for someone to respond to it. If you posted valid intelligent science you might get a few comments back. Your stupid posts seem to reward you with many comments.
Norman
Did you download the animation from the NASA link? Really interesting.
The Sahara alternates between neutral and deficit.
Whoops
I meant this to show downthread
norman…” Radio waves will pass through not metallic materials see how much goes through a Faraday Cage”.
Don’t get your point. Are you suggesting a Faraday cage is non-metallic? If so, it’s made of grounded metal. It can have holes in it provided the holes are not too large compared to the RF wavelength.
RF induces an electric field in the cage and that field helps repel RFI (rf interference), however, it does not suppress all RFI unless it is solid metal.
snape…”The reason is that there is also back radiation from the colder plate to the warmer plate, which changes the energy budget (energy gain versus energy loss) of the hotter plate”.
**************
Don’t see any energy budget in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation allegedly covering that situation.
Q = sbA(T^4 – T^4)
Q = radiation intensity, supposedly
e = emissivity
b = Boltzmann constant (actually Stefan constant)
A = surface area
T = temperature of each object.
no energy budget, no two way transfer, only a transfer from
T hot to T cold.
Do you suppose S-B missed something?
sorry…typo:
Q = sbA(T^4 To^4)
Should be
Q = ebA(T^4 To^4)
somebody stole my minus signs.
sorry…typo:
Q = sbA(T^4 To^4)
Should be
Q = ebA(T^4 To^4)
again!!!!
somebody stole my minus signs.
sorry…typo:
Q = sbA(T^4 minus To^4)
Should be
Q = ebA(T^4 minus To^4)
Gordon
Yes, I’m pretty sure you missed something. I’m not the one to ask, though. For starters try Dr. Spencer, E. Swanson, MikeR or Eli.
Anybody figured it out? Why do minus signs disappear sometimes and not others?
————————–
Binny???
Norman,
You wrote –
“If you posted valid intelligent science you might get a few comments back. Your stupid posts seem to reward you with many comments.”
I’m confused, obviously. Do you think this is some sort of game, and the one who gets the least responses wins? In that case, you could win by not posting at all, and thereby ensuring you would get no responses at all!
You seem to have changed your mind a bit. You now claim I scan, rather than read, and pretend I understand it. What’s the difference to a stupid person? A fact is a fact, whether I understand it or not. Nobody understands gravity, and whether you pretend to understand it makes no difference. Gravity doesn’t care, and neither do I. So there!
So pretend you can read my mind, and pretend that I care. It doesn’t make any difference whether you understand or not. I still don’t care what you think.
Believe in blankets or greenhouses, blue plates or green ones – neither Nature nor myself care what you believe. You appear to be stupid and ignorant to me, but maybe you can prove otherwise.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Dont see any energy budget in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation”.
Perhaps if I put it in bold for you:
Q = єσA(T^4 – T^4)
T^4 is on the plus side of the budget.
-T^4 is on the negative side.
S,
Energy budget? I think not.
According to stupid IPCC propaganda –
“Earth’s energy budget accounts for the balance between energy Earth receives from the Sun,[2] and energy Earth radiates back into outer space after having been distributed throughout the five components of Earth’s climate system and having thus powered the so-called “Earths heat engine”.”
No Stefan-Boltzmann here. Only in your fantasy.
The Earth doesn’t have a heat engine, just like the Greenhouse Effect doesn’t have anything to do with greenhouses. Just more complete climatological crap – second rate stupids, trying to appear intelligent by creating sciency sounding incomprehensible jargon!
You are just being really, really, stupid now.
Cheers.
Mike F. said
Actually, the Earth does have a heat engine. It’s the forcing of the convective processes which drive both vertical and horizontal motions within the atmosphere. It’s called weather by most people.
svante…”Perhaps if I put it in bold for you:
Q = єσA(T^4 T^4)
T^4 is on the plus side of the budget.
-T^4 is on the negative side”.
****************
Unfortunately, as I think you know, S-B does not represent SW solar in versus LW terrestrial out. Besides, the terrestrial radiation is only a small part of heat dissipation from the surface. Climate modelers, who lack the basics in physics, especially thermodynamics, have mislead everyone into thinking the Earth cools primarily by radiation.
I don’t think S-B intended anything regarding the mythical heat budget in their equation. It was only about blackbody radiation, and/or blackbody’s affecting other blackbody’s, however that takes place in the mythical world of blackbody theory.
As Mike Flynn has claimed, there is something wrong with rating EM radiation using W/m^2. As I see it, the W/m^2 is a reference to the heat dissipation ‘IN’ a body, not the EM radiation that become far field radiation. Boltzmann did not know that heat is not radiated from a body (nor Stefan) and he was unaware of the process by which electrons CONVERT heat to EM.
Attaching a figure of W/m^2 to EM is meaningless and the T and To figures refer to HEAT in the emitting body, not to EM. The Stefan-Bolzmann constant is claimed to convert the units of heat to units of EM but that would only apply if EM was actually heat, and it’s not.
Why has it escaped so many that the EM generated by the blue flame part of an acetylene torch would scorch anyone who came in contact with it if the EM generated by the blue light had the thermal energy of the blue light region of the flame? The blue flame portion of propane and natural gas burn around 2000C with acetylene around 3000C.
You could hold your thumb and forefinger in a circle around an acetylene flame’s blue region, not something I recommend, but if you thrust a finger into the blue flame it would be quickly destroyed by the conducted heat.
W/m^2 is a measure equivalent to horsepower, with 1HP = 746 watts. Horsepower is the rate at which work is done, which is power. That is a perfectly adequate description of heat since the atoms producing the heat are in motion and doing work. That is not true of EM in general. Some mathematician may find a way to attach work power to EM but it will be theoretical and potential in nature.
EM traveling through space has no heat (thermal energy) associated with it. Heat cannot be produced till the EM is absorbed by electrons in matter, where the electrons convert it back to heat. Therefore EM does not have a power related to temperature, it has a POTENTIAL for creating heat IF it is absorbed by electrons in matter.
ERGO, there is no heat budget in S-B.
Continued here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-293249
What the folks caught up in AGW are doing is they think what has happened in the past is going to continue going forward despite the FACT that the real factors which control the climate are changing to drive the climate into a cooler regime.
I am going to sent a study which I subscribe to.
Again I think the tandem weakening of the geo/solar magnetic fields is what governs the climate on short time while Milanovitch Cycles and continental drift work in the long term.
I do not se the correlation of CO2 as the climate driver because the climate changes first followed by CO2 change, the climate changes abruptly at times independent of CO2, and the combination of CO2 equating to an x temperature just say since 1900 does not occur.
The cooling from 1940-1980 or there about being a prime example while CO2 increased during that time.
https://www.scribd.com/document/327612486/Impact-of-the-Geomagnetic-Field-and-Solar-Radiation
Salvatore Del Prete posted this earlier:
https://www.iceagenow.info/fraud-man-made-climate-change-co2-video/
Des avoided commenting on this, asking Salvatore why he believed what the film had to say. No comments were forthcoming from Des – I can guess why.
I think it’s time that the video was viewed again. Plenty of interesting data on it – from a meteorologist, not a politician, film-maker, or journalist.
I’ve just finished reading and recommend Dr. Spencer’s Kindle book which dissects Al Gore’s propaganda. I was suspicious of Gore as soon as I read his book ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ – it immediately struck me as a pretty coloured propaganda book, and the same when I saw his first film. I didn’t bother looking at the later film, which is the subject of scrutiny and comment by Dr. Spencer.
The political manipulations behind the AGW debacle make for interesting reading as well. The truth is thankfully slowly emerging, but until the mainstream media stop publishing silly scary stories, I don’t think much will change.
Above I said the warming effect of greenhouse gases do not increase water vapor.
Or water vapor is regarded as major greenhouse gas. And more water vapor does not cause there be more water vapor.
Or 80% humidity does not cause 100% humidity.
If it did 100 % humidity would be common and 80% humidity would be uncommon – which it is not.
What causes most of the world’s water vapor is warmed ocean water.
The tropics have most of the world’s water vapor. The tropics has about 80% of it’s surface area being ocean and the average surface temperature of tropical ocean is about 26 C. And important aspect is there is little variation of night and day air temperatures. Or in the temperate zones there is much wider swings in night and day temperatures – and cold air can’t have as much water vapor as warmer air.
Or since tropics remains warm it can hold more water vapor – or warm air with 50% humidity can have more water vapor than cold damp air.
Without a tropical ocean, the tropics would be like a desert
and entire world would be drier, but unless there not water anywhere not as dry as say Mars – very thin atmosphere with water ice only at surfaced at the poles (though mars polar caps are mostly CO2 ice with only about trillion tonnes of water ice).
So what creates the high amount of water vapor in tropics is the warm surface waters and not having wide swings in temperature. And the high thermal content of water and depth of warmed water prevents wide swings in air temperature.
It is widely known that tropics receives more sunlight then the rest of the world and that tropics warms the rest of the world. And rains more in the tropics.
The tropic heats rest world by transporting warm ocean waters poleward and by transporting water vapor poleward.
And does this because it has warm water and which is warmed by sunlight.
gbaikie
How much does air temperature contribute to ocean temperature? You make it sound like it’s all solar rays.
Sanpe,
You are trying to learn from the “experts”, I see. Posting irrelevant, pointless, and stupid comments.
Feynman said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” In the case of the” experts” you are trying to emulate, he was right.
Facts are facts, regardless of what you or I think. Asking for someone’s opinion is fine. Accepting it as fact is arrant stupidity. Be a bit discriminating. I assume the designers and the operators of the aircraft I fly in know what they are doing. If the aircraft falls out of the sky, things didn’t go according to plan, somewhere.
That’s a fact. My assumption that the trip will not kill me is a hope. Hope springs eternal, but facts have a way of interfering.
Off you go now, and find me a testable GHE hypothesis if you can. The we can talk about science.
Cheers.
S,
Too much laughter. Snape, of course.
Cheers.
–Snape says:
March 17, 2018 at 5:53 PM
gbaikie
How much does air temperature contribute to ocean temperature? You make it sound like its all solar rays.–
Well I remain a lukewarmer. Defined as a doubling of Co2 would cause about 1 to 3 C increase in global temperature.
I think it’s 1 C or less. And I think 1 C increase in global temperature would a good thing. I think 5 C increase in global temperature would be a good thing. I think a hothouse climate which is higher than 5 C increase is ok.
But I don’t think that by 2100 global temperature will increase by 1 C or more, nor do I think we will reach 600 ppm in CO2 by 2100 AD.
As lukewarmer, it doesn’t me I follow some doctrine, just as I am libertarian, I don’t follow some doctrine- and disagree with many libertarian, nor would vote for the party called libertarian. But either label seems to fit a general description.
Anyhow to your question, I do generally think it’s all solar rays and I think ocean temperature contribute to air temperature and air temperature doesn’t increase ocean temperature. But I think Co2 could add a bit to air temperature also. And in terms of climate, the obsession is on global air temperature.
Now you have ocean surface temperature and you have entire ocean temperature. Ocean surface is about 17 C and entire ocean is about 3.5 C.
If somehow you mixed the entire ocean, while mixed the surface would be 3.5 C and earth average surface air temperature would severely crash. So such mixing greatly alter surface temperature but it doesn’t change entire ocean average temperature.
And atmosphere could mix the ocean [not by that much that it completely mixes, but on lessor scale is mixing the ocean.
So ocean warms the air, air doesn’t warm ocean, ocean is earth’s heat source [due to being warmed the sun].
So there “things” which warm and cool the air, ocean is main factor of warming- though if mixed also has potential of cooling the air.
So I continue to have the question, what exactly causes the cooling. For instance most people think Antarctica causes cooling [and I agree].
Most people don’t think land cools- which I believe is true, but still I want to know what causes the cooling or why exactly are we in an icebox climate.
I will ask a question what land mass causes the most cooling?
And I am going to offer the answer of Africa as a guess or a proposition.
Oh, I should add, that Africa is known as the hottest Continent.
gbaikie…”And more water vapor does not cause there be more water vapor”.
I’m a little vague on evapouration theory so I boned up a bit. It seems that the miniscule heat that could POSSIBLY be added by GHGs to oceans and surface water is not enough to significantly increase WV in the atmosphere. I think that concept comes more from wishful thinking than actuality.
In fact, more water vapour in a closed container should cause less water vapour since the vapour pressure increases above water and tends to cause condensation. As the vapour pressure increases, it tends to condense on the walls of the container.
I have provided a couple of links below on how vapour forms. Again, electrons are heavily involved, both in the formation of a water molecule and in the charges that stick them together to form water.
To break the molecule to form vapour, solar energy is required. Only the electrons can absorb this energy and that causes them to reach a higher energy level, where the weak bonds between water molecules can be broken.
The first link explains the bond breaking well. Water molecules are bound together by weak hydrogen bonds produced by the electrons in the hydrogen atom being covalently bonded to the more electronegative oxygen atom.
When oxygen ‘hogs’ the charges to one side of the H atoms, it allow the +ve nucleus to form a weaker H bond with the negatively charged O atom electrons.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth111/node/838
https://www.lenntech.com/water-chemistry-advanced-faq.htm
Snape pronounces –
“The arid tropics have a deficit of thermal energy. More is radiated to space than is absorbed from the sun.”
A miracle! A net radiation decrease results in the hottest temperatures on Earth! Young Snape overturns conventional physics a a stroke!
Either that, or young Snape is stupid, ignorant, and misguided. Maybe he’s convinced that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the surface makes the surface hotter!
Or maybe, like La Pangolina, he believes that the surface simultaneously becomes both hotter and colder at the same time!
Wonders will never cease. Apparently, arid tropical deserts are so hot because they lack heat. The miracle of CO2 based climatology.
Cheers.
Not a pronouncement, Mike. Not a miracle either.
An observation provided to us by NASA technology:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=CERES_NETFLUX_M
S,
You don’t have to be as stupid as the originators of the graphic, if you don’t want to be.
A miracle! Heat through cooling! Appeals to authority don’t work too well when the authority is as dim, or dimmer, than you.
Go along, young Snape. Try not be as silly as Schmidt, Hansen Mann, and all the rest of the pseudo-scientific capering climate clowns. I thought you might have been smarter than that.
I was obviously wrong.
No GHE. No “energy balance” – things can heat, and then they cool when the energy source is removed. It’s called physics. Learn some. I’d avoid the NASA website – they may have been influenced by that mathematician Gavin Schmidt. He thinks that 38% probability means near certainty. A real joker, eh? No physicist, though.
Cheers.
Go back into your cave, Mike.
S,
Don’t blame me. Its not my fault that you are stupid and ignorant, surely?
Cheers.
S,
According to NASA –
“A layer of greenhouse gases primarily water vapor, and including much smaller amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide acts as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).”
This is apparently produced by the good folks at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who claim on the same page that “We live in a greenhouse”. Maybe it’s a greenhouse made of blankets? That seems like a pretty stupid sort of greenhouse, but you’d have to be pretty stupid to believe thermal blankets actually heat anything. As even the stupids at NASA observe, a blanket just absorbs heat – it doesn’t provide any at all!
I’ve had a bit to do with thermal blankets, and a room containing thermal blankets is no hotter than a room containing ration packs.
Let us sincerely hope that the folks at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory know more about Jet Propulsion than they do about blankets or greenhouses. Do you think that this might be a reason why US astronauts have to buy tickets from the Russians to get to the International Space Station?
Maybe NASA has forgotten about science, and become obsessed with blankets and greenhouses. What do you think explains their lack of science?
Cheers.
Mike
Or maybe the folks at NASA are really smart, and understand physics, whereas the poodle trainer is a total moron?
*****************************
This is from Dr. Spencer:
The Greenhouse Effect Decreases the Rate of Energy Loss by the Earths Surface
The atmospheric gases most responsible for IR absorbshun and emission in the atmosphere (greenhouse gases) act like a radiative blanket, cooling the middle and upper layers, but warming the lowest layers and the surface.
Snape,
Appeal to authority, much?
Dr Spencer would be the first to admit that a testable GHE hypothesis does not exist – I presume so, anyway.
He mentions a “radiative blanket” which is a climatological term implying magic. No such blanket with miraculous heating abilities has ever been shown to exist. Blankets work both ways.
As to relative thermal resistance of the components of the atmosphere, Tyndall found that CO2 interacted with the wavelengths of infrared light he was using, about 1800 times more powerfully than O2 or N2.
Unfortunately, there are more than 1800 molecules of N2 or O2 for every CO2 molecule, so in total, N2 and O2 in th4e atmosphere interact with more infrared light than CO2.
I’m sure that Dr Spencer realises this, so your shot, if such was your intent, may have gone wide of the mark. The correct sequence is load, aim, fire. You appeared to have misfired.
So what’s your point, or are you just firing off volleys of irrelevant, pointless and stupid comments, hoping that blind luck and serendipity might lead to you accidentally stating a relevant fact?
Cheers.
Flynn
I wish you would take your own advice:
YOU: “Its called physics. Learn some.”
If only you would try and learn just a little science it might make communication with you a little easier. When you can’t comprehend the physics and tend to distort anything you might have heard on the topic, it makes communication a real struggle.
N,
Don’t bother trying to communicate then – unless you really enjoy a good pointless struggle, of course. I really don’t give a toss about making communication easier for you. Why should I?
When you find something faintly scientific, such as a testable GHE hypothesis, get back to me. Of course you cant, I’m only playing with you! Not good form I know, but my political correctness and couth have taken a short holiday in your honour Enjoy.
Cheers.
For some reason, the con-man always forgets to reference his academic background.
He’s always quick to tell others to “study physics”, but the poor con-man only has a weak degree (BA) in chemistry, from an institution that no longer offers such a degree! He now works as a “lab-tech”, washing beakers. His dead-end job allows him about 6 hours a day to pound on his keyboard.
g*e*r*a*n
I have a degree, you have nothing. You don’t even know any physics. I could pass a course in thermodynamics whereas you could not. If you submitted your screwy false physics in an actual class you would fail the subject. Sorry you are dumb and no one is able to help you. Your posts are not meaningful. They relate no valuable insight or science. Just a lot of hot air and dunce material that only seems to resonate with other dunces. You are just wrong but too dumb to understand why.
You again know nothing about my job and just make up your foolish nonsense similar to all the foolish nonsense you continuously make up. Sorry you are not even a good guesser. Your thought process and logical thinking abilities come near the bottom.
Norm, a whining, yelping chihuahua is funny. But, throw in some of your hilarious pseudoscience once in awhile.
g*e*r*a*n
I do not need to throw in pseudoscience. That is your specialty. I use the real deal. Sorry I am not able to make up physics like you do so easily and incorrectly.
Still you would flunk out of thermodynamics. I would end with an A or B depending on how motivated I was. I know I am much smarter than you are but there is no way to prove it unless we took the same thermodynamics class together. You fail I pass. You can’t even grasp the simple ideas.
Insulting your professor will not help your grade.
You have enough valid science to learn. You like to provoke people and get your candy response. You and Flynn are both out to see who can get the most emotionally reactionary responses.
When have you ever posted a valid science comment. Can you link to one? I do not recall any.
I think most of your posts contain a derogatory name for some poster followed by “pseudoscience” and “hilarious”. I really can’t recall an intelligent or scientific post from you.
Norm, a whining, yelping chihuahua is funny. But, throw in some of your hilarious pseudoscience once in awhile.
Norman says to g*e*r*a*n:
“I think most of your posts contain a derogatory name for some poster followed by “pseudoscience” and “hilarious”. I really cant recall an intelligent or scientific post from you.”
g*e*r*a*n counters:
“Norm, a whining, yelping chihuahua is funny. But, throw in some of your hilarious pseudoscience once in awhile.”
Who is right here?
shady, in your closed-mind, you are always right.
And, you will even cherry-pick quotes, if necessary.
It’s fun to watch.
I did not cherry pick that one.
It was your entire message in full.
Just to help any discussions of insulators along, maybe.
A properly constructed vacuum flask is about the best “insulator” I know of. It is constructed without “insulating materials”, per se, but it is wonderfully effective as a “thermal resistor”.
As to CO2, infrared light is light, by definition. It can exhibit reflection, diffraction, transmission, attenuation, and all those sorts of things. How do they affect the interaction between light and CO2? Unimportant? Maybe, maybe not. You just don’t know.
CO2 AGW followers don’t believe they need knowledge. Faith keeps them secure in their fantasy. For now, at least.
Cheers.
Here’s the wiki about dewar flasks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask
Notice the equations which show the energy flows between the inner wall and the outer wall, with the temperature to the 4th power. Why use the T^4 for the outer wall? That’s because the energy radiated toward the inner wall will be absorbed by the inner wall and the net energy transfer becomes the result. The post goes further, considering the case of mirrored surfaces.
It’s your “best insulator” you know of and it’s just the Green Plate Effect, all over again. You’ve just agreed with the Green Plate Effect, though you can’t (or won’t) admit it.
Sorry Eric, but you just got caught trying to spin your pseudoscience. You take a REAL situation, vacuum flask, and try to equate it to the unreal “green plate nonsense”.
One wall of the flask does NOT raise the temperature of the other wall!
Now, back to creating more pseddosceicne, huh?
E,
So now the Green Plate Effect (which, just like the GHE, lacks a testable hypothesis) is just the operating principle of a Dewar flask? I’m glad you looked it up and learned something, anyway.
Put something above ambient temperature in Dewar flask, and wait for it to get hotter. When it doesn’t, re examine your faith in the heating power of CO2. Repeat the experiment. Displace the air in the flask with CO2. According to the finest climatological thinking, surely the temperature must rise – all that radiation being reflected internally in all directions!
Alas, no. No heating. No difference to the rate of cooling at all. The Green Plate Effect, just like the Greenhouse Effect, is of no effect whatever.
Stupid people often refuse to accept the evidence of their own lying senses. That’s cultism for you.
Not science, just sciency sounding. Have you considered quitting while you’re behind?
Cheers.
As an “expert” in physics, you surely understand that the equations given in the Wiki article are similar to those for the Green Plate effect. The difference is, instead of calculating energy flow (Q) from the temperature of the warm body and the temperature of it’s surroundings, start with a fixed energy flow (Q) and fixed surrounding temperature, then calculate the warm body’s temperature. With a little modification, you get the Green Plate situation in which a plate (the green one) of half the area of the body replaces half of the surroundings, while the warm body still fronts the other, lower temperature “surroundings” with the other half of it’s face.
I guess you don’t like mathematics or maybe you only accept those calculations which fit your warped world view.
Eric, how’s this for a “warped world view”?
With a little modification, you get the Green Plate situation in which a plate (the green one) of half the area of the body replaces half of the surroundings, while the warm body still fronts the other, lower temperature “surroundings” with the other half of it’s face.
I’m serious, someone actually wrote that!
Hilarious, huh?
Snape wrote –
“Either way, when you reduce the rate of net energy loss from an object, the object will have a higher temperature than if you didn’t reduce the rate of energy loss.”
Indeed.
What stupid people (climatology cultists) gloss over over is the word “than”.
By pretending it doesn’t exist, they confidently proclaim that the hotter object will reach an absolute higher temperature (by implication, of course – fraudsters and con-men get the “mark” to believe what they want), and hope that nobody will expose their stupidity.
You fell right in, didn’t you, young Snape? The hotter object didn’t actually get any hotter. It attained a climatological “higher temperature”, which is to say it cooled. Got colder. Its temperature fell. Not a lot of heating to be seen there!
Just like the Earth.
Cheers.
Mike
“Snape wrote ”
No, I didn’t write it. I was quoting Dr. Spencer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/
S,
Yes you did. The fact that you were repeating someone’s thoughts make no difference. You wrote it, you wear it, so to speak.
You didn’t say you didn’t agree with it, so I assume you were trying to make some sort of attempt along the lines of a perverted form of social blackmail, to avoid actually producing a fact to support you assertions.
I’ll repeat the motto of the Royal Society from memory –
“Nullius in verba.”
Cheers.
Snape says:
March 18, 2018 at 12:22 AM
Snape, I’m always amused when reading the usual pseudoskeptic blah blah:
*
As to relative thermal resistance of the components of the atmosphere, Tyndall found that CO2 interacted with the wavelengths of infrared light he was using, about 1800 times more powerfully than O2 or N2.
Unfortunately, there are more than 1800 molecules of N2 or O2 for every CO2 molecule, so in total, N2 and O2 in the atmosphere interact with more infrared light than CO2.
**
Tyndall was a great physicist. Discovering his Lecture Notes was enlightening, and reading them again and again is a pleasure – especially L XII (Radiation Through Gaseous Matter).
But inbetween, starting with contracts given during and after WW II by the US Air Force, much more precise data about IR absorp-tion by the main atmospheric constituents has been collected, and stored e.g. in HITRAN databases.
Their relative abundance in the atmosphere is (recall) as follows:
– N2: 78 %
– O2: 21 %
– H2O: 0 – 4 % (0.5 % on average)
– CO2: 0.04 %
To determine how much each constituent absorbs, it is best to use SpectralCalc’s Line List browser
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
which accesses the most recent data (HITRAN2012). The browser lets you see at which wavelengths (or wavenumbers) gases have absorp-tion lines, and how strongly they absorb there.
Let us display data for the N2/O2 resp. H2O/CO2 groups (when considering the GHE rather than the so called AGW, CO2 alone is of few interest, as H2O is much more present than CO2 in the troposphere).
We show a broad window of terrestrial IR between 5 and 40 microns in order to avoid allegations of frequency range dissimulation.
Raw intensity is best here, as
– we do not compare inside of the graphs, and
– the atmospheric abundances are well known.
1. N2/O2: http://4gp.me/bbtc/1521378782802.jpg
– absorp-tion lines: 2,358
– maximal intensity: ± 1.5 * 10^-28 cm-1/(molecule/cm-2)
2. H2O/CO2: http://4gp.me/bbtc/1521379124572.jpg
– absorp-tion lines: 155,654
– maximal intensity: ± 3 * 10^-19 cm-1/(molecule/cm-2)
Thus even when leaving CO2 aside and of course taking care of H2O’s abundance wrt N2/O2 (± 5 * 10^-3) and comparing intensities only, we see that H2O’s absorp-tion capacity supersedes that of N2/O2 by a factor of about 10^6.
It is then ± 10^5 for CO2 alone.
Maybe Roy Spencer will rather use this ‘1,000,000’ factor than the ‘1,800’ Master Tyndall found out about 150 years ago? Who knows, Snape!
How this factor is moreover influenced by the line ratio (155,654 / 2,358 = 66 times more absorp-tion lines for H2O/CO2 than for N2/O2): that only a specialist can tell us. I left it out.
La Pee understands cut and paste. But that’s it for this science pretender.
And as usual, SkepticGoneNowhere has NO science to reply.
Only thouroughly superfluous blah blah.
But… when our Moon is told not to turn around its own axis, e.g. by g*e*r*a*n & alii, then everything becomes different!
Nicht wahr, Sie selektives Skepsis-Genie?
À propos: where exactly did I cut and paste from?
You would at least provide me with some meaningful info that way.
La P,
Why should he? You refuse to believe meaningful info anyway.
Another stupid, pointless and irrelevant comment?
Cheers.
Tyndall also subscribed to the mistaken idea of aethereal heat transfer.
Ooops?!
Could you become somewhat less ‘aethereal’ ?
In my native tongue I would say: ‘Sie sprechen in Rtseln’.
Where the hell do I refer to that ‘aethereal heat’ ?
Btw: how does Earth get rid of heat generated by Sun’s SW radiation to achieve thermal equilibrium, if not by LW radiation of equivalent energy?
La P,
What fresh nonsense is this? There is no thermal equilibrium. This is a fable put about by stupid people who do not understand physics – stupid climatologists and their gullible dsiciples.
You love brightly coloured graphs. Look at such a graph produce by a thermograph. Now point out the thermal equilibrium, if you can. Even a stupid person generally realises that the surface starts heating when the Sun comes up (not strictly true, but I don’t want to confuse you further), gets hotter, reaches a peak, and then cools off for the best part of the day/night cycle. Winter is different from summer, the length of the day varies, as does the night.
No equilibrium to be seen – anywhere!
There is not even an overall balance. Just like you, the stupids at NASA have no clue, no matter how brightly coloured their kiddie cartoons are. The more sunlight absorbed by the surface, the hotter it gets – fairly simple. Inclination, distance from the Sun, clouds, atmospheric composition, aerosols, ground cover – and all the rest, ensure that there is no “equilibrium”.
The world has cooled since its creation, even in spite of the initial massive sources of radiogenic heat , now transmuted to their non-radioactive end products.
Just another meaningless climatological redefinition of a word,i ntended to sound sciency, but unfounded in fact.
At least you’re thinking about science, which is a change. Think a lot more, and you may overcome some of your ignorance, even your stupidity – but that might be an assumption too far on my part.
Cheers.
La P,
Have you considered that S might be trying to assist by pointing out that Tyndall believed in some things we find bizarre now?
Keep abusing him, if that is the case. Show him that you don’t need no stinkin’ assistance, wot?
You are quite capable of appearing stupid without help from anybody, aren’t you?
Cheers.
Keep off my comments, you barking blogbot!
I’m interested in communicating with commenter SkepticGoneWild, and not in your arrogant, pretentious blathering.
There is no thermal equilibrium.
That is well the dumbest sentence I managed to read during the last 10 years.
Go away to WUWT, or even better to Jo Postma, Flynn. That is the right corner for barking blogbots of your kind. There, insults belong to communication basics.
But… would Postma allow you to write your ‘stupid’s 50 times a day? Oooooh, not so sure, he is very impolite, but as opposed to you, intelligent.
La Pangolina
I only have a foggy notion of what an absorbtion line is so as usual your post challenges me to learn something new. Nice to have Wikipedia at our fingertips.
Just for fun
***********
Suppose a surface is 50 C and heats a cooler object at the rate of 400 w/m^2. The cooler object is a steady 30 C.
Now if the 50 C surface is replaced by a 40 C surface, the cooler object will get colder. Obvious, right? What has happened, though, is this:
A hotter object made a cooler object even colder.
Sounds impossible, but actually quite simple. Perhaps g* will claim, “hot can NOT cool cold”?
S,
Off with the fairies again, I see. You are employing magical climatological magic thinking again.
The cooler object is a steady temperature. Really? It is being heated, but its temperature isn’t changing at all, remaining steady. The energy it is absorbing is having precisely no effect on its temperature?
Not only does it sound impossible, it is impossible! The only simple thing about your stupid statement is you. That’s because you are stupid and ignorant. Go away. Learn some physics. Return less ignorant.
Cheers.
Poor snake. He’s lost, but believes he’s really “got it”!
Hilarious.
snake, the 50C surface will warm the 40C surface, not cool it.
But, thanks for playing.
G*
Maybe I wasn’t clear. First a 50 C. surface radiates towards the cooler object. This is replaced by 40 C. surface that radiates towards the cooler object. The cooler object will get even colder as a result of the change.
S,
You don’t learn, do you? Ignorant and stupid.
Withdraw all external energy, and the body will theoretically proceed all the way to absolute zero. Can’t get much colder than that, can you?
So how does the hotter body make an object cooler, than no outside body at all? It doesn’t, but you are too stupid to accept it.
Now tell me once again, how a colder body increases the temperature of a hotter one? You can’t, of course. You must be believing the cultist dogma of stupid and ignorant followers of the anti-coal cult.
You know, the one that refers to coal trains as “trains of death”, calls non CO2 AGW believers “deniers” and claims that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the surface make the surface hotter.
Complete nonsense of course. No wonder you believe it. Good luck.
Cheers.
snake, you’re still wrong. The 50C surface will warm the 40C surface, not cool it.
Same for 40C vs 30C surface.
G
You’re not understanding the situation. One more try.
1) A 50 C. heat source radiates towards a cooler object at a rate of 400 w/m^2 . The colder object reaches a steady temperature of 30 C.
2) Now replace the 50 C. heat source with one that’s only 40 C. Perhaps this new heat source radiates towards the colder object at a rate of 350/m^2.
3). The colder object’s temperature will decrease because it no longer receives as much energy as before.
Answer is still “no”, snape.
The 40 °C source will continue to warm the 30 °C object, as long as the photons are being absorbed.
You think receiving 400 w/m^2 compared to 350 w/m^2 makes no difference to the colder object’s temperature? You think it will remain 30 C. either way?
Unbelievable. I feel like I’ve been trying to communicate with a Neanderthal.
No child, you have a Neanderthal’s knowledge of physics.
Like most clowns, you are trying to misrepresent my words. As long as the 30 °C object is absorbing photons from the hotter object, it will continue to warm, until equilibrium.
Absorbing photons does NOT cool an object.
Now back to your cave.
The object had already reached a steady temperature (30 C)
Then it’s energy source was reduced.
You seriously think it will remain at 30 C?
Sort of like heating a pot of water to a steady 80 C. Then turning the stove way down. You think the water will stay at 80 C.?
Maybe you could try that as an experiment.
Snape,
Maybe you should try communicating with someone as stupid and ignorant as yourself. I am sure you will both be able to agree with each other that cooling is heating, that CO2 heats and cools the surface at the same time, and that you are both incredibly intelligent and gifted.
Unfortunately, facts remain facts. You cannot raise the temperature of a hotter object by exposing it to the radiation from a colder one. Surround your cup of warm soup with ice radiating at 300 W/m2. Wait for the soup to get hot again, from all that radiation.
While you are waiting, tell your next of kin what you would like on your gravestone.
Maybe “Here lieth the stupid and ignorant man who died waiting for ice to heat his soup. He was member of the Climatology Cult”.
You don’t have to wait if you don’t want to. Just expose your soup to sufficiently large heat source which is hotter than your soup. Don’t burn yourself.
Cheers.
Mike
There are an endless number of examples where something cold is unable to make a hotter object hotter.
Surrounding soup with ice is one of them. Brilliant.
I had previously stated, to snake: “Like most clowns, you are trying to misrepresent my words. As long as the 30 °C object is absorbing photons from the hotter object, it will continue to warm, until equilibrium.”
But, young snake is unable to understand, he asks: “The object had already reached a steady temperature (30 C). Then its energy source was reduced. You seriously think it will remain at 30 C?”
It’s fun to watch.
(And, the young snake likely believes he is brilliant!)
I had to learn that stuff too.
It is very interesting, one begins to understand why not only gases like argon are inert wrt radiation, but… N2 as well.
Your brain is inert.
SGW,
Thats why she is stupid and ignorant, I guess. She’ll probably call me a dog, now. Can’t think of anything else, it would seem
Maybe the effort of trying to understand how CO2 can simultaneously heat and cool the surface has resulted in mental paralysis and inertia.
Cheers.
Is that all you have on board, SGW?
Where are your arguments?
La P,
just how stupid are you to believe that air cannot be heated? Pretty stupid. And how do you think air scrubbed free of CO2 and H2O, in a dark sealed container held at 20 C heats to 20 C?
The container (assumed black body) is emitting around 11 micron radiation at 290 K or so.
Not convection. The air is all at the same temperature. No conduction.
No magical GHG heating.
According to you, the O2 and N2 cannot absorb IR, and get hotter. Stupid, aren’t you?
Magic, perhaps? You must have slept through the class where this behaviour was explained. It’s just physics. Learn some – it is not so hard.
Cheers.
La P,
Stupid people use models instead of reality, when given a choice.
Tyndall measured. Clueless climatologists guess. At 400 ppm, there is one CO2 molecule for every 9996 other molecules (or atoms). Bring in H2O if you wish – the less of it in the atmosphere, the hotter the surface! Isn’t this the opposite of how you claim the GHE works?
I’m right, based on reality. You’re wrong. Still, it makes no difference. Wave all the brightly coloured graphs and model computer game printouts you like. They are not real – not even a good guess, as it often turns out when compared with reality.
In any case who cares about your calculations? Remove the heat from CO2, and like any other matter , it cools down. The Earth ahs coooled over the last four and a half billion years. Maybe you are too stupid to have noticed!
You haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about, because you haven’t even got a testable GHE hypothesis to check your stupid misleading calculations against.
You have stated that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the surface does not raise the temperature on the surface, for all to see.
You have also stated your belief in the complete opposite.
You have nothing, not even a testable GHE hypothesis. You entertain two diametrically opposed views at once – pretty standard for a stupid person who backs themselves into a corner, and then tries to lash out at someone else.
Carry on. Keep on being stupid and ignorant. It suits you.
Cheers.
Hi Flynn the blog bot
Nice to see you barking like a Schferhund your egocentric nonsense again, continue that way. It’s fun to note you can’t stop doing.
Who cares about your endless blathering? Nobody does, Flynn.
I repeat and will repeat a lot of times again: if you were courageous, you would stop abusing this site’s tolerance and move to WUWT with your nonsense.
Hombre sin cojones…
La P,
I think you meant Schaferhund? You claim fluency in German, so I’ll just put your error down to climatological sloppiness.
Are you obsessed with a man’s testicles, or are you referring to courage? Why not just use English, and make yourself clear? Not clever enough? So sad, too bad.
You cant help yourself from failing to produce a single fact to rebut anything I say, can you?
I decline to take offence, or feel insulted, so you’re at a bit of a disadvantage, aren’t you? All you have is complaints, and pathetic attempts to avoid acknowledging that you and the other GHE stupids can’t even produce a testable hypothesis to hang your faith on!
No science, just endless whinging about people like myself pointing out the blindingly obvious.
Maybe you should comment on another blog, if you feel it is more to your taste. Or this one,or both. It makes precisely no difference to me. Why should it?
Carry on. I’m certain you are capable of that, at least. Stupid people carry on all the time.
Cheers.
I moved this down here because the other thread is really long.
svante…”Perhaps if I put it in bold for you:
Q = єσA(T^4 minus T^4)
T^4 is on the plus side of the budget.
-T^4 is on the negative side”.
****************
Unfortunately, as I think you know, S-B does not represent SW solar in versus LW terrestrial out. Besides, the terrestrial radiation is only a small part of heat dissipation from the surface. Climate modelers, who lack the basics in physics, especially thermodynamics, have mislead everyone into thinking the Earth cools primarily by radiation.
I don’t think S-B intended anything regarding the mythical heat budget in their equation. It was only about blackbody radiation, and/or blackbody’s affecting other blackbody’s, however that takes place in the mythical world of blackbody theory.
As Mike Flynn has claimed, there is something wrong with rating EM radiation using W/m^2. As I see it, the W/m^2 is a reference to the heat dissipation ‘IN’ a body, not the EM radiation that become far field radiation. Boltzmann did not know that heat is not radiated from a body (nor Stefan) and he was unaware of the process by which electrons CONVERT heat to EM.
It should be noted, as claimed in an engineering text supplied by Norman, that EM radiation has little significance till it is emitted by very hot bodies. At Earth temperatures it a bit of a joke referring to the effect of terrestrial radiation.
Attaching a figure of W/m^2 to EM is meaningless and the T and To figures refer to HEAT in the emitting body, not to EM. The Stefan-Bolzmann constant is claimed to convert the units of heat to units of EM but that would only apply if EM was actually heat, and it’s not.
Why has it escaped so many that the EM generated by the blue flame part of an acetylene torch would scorch anyone who came in contact with it if the EM generated by the blue light had the thermal energy of the blue light region of the flame? The blue flame portion of propane and natural gas burn around 2000C with acetylene around 3000C.
You could hold your thumb and forefinger in a circle around an acetylene flame’s blue region, not something I recommend, but if you thrust a finger into the blue flame it would be quickly destroyed by the conducted heat.
W/m^2 is a measure equivalent to horsepower, with 1HP = 746 watts. Horsepower is the rate at which work is done, which is power. That is a perfectly adequate description of heat since the atoms producing the heat are in motion and doing work. That is not true of EM in general. Some mathematician may find a way to attach work power to EM but it will be theoretical and potential in nature.
EM traveling through space has no heat (thermal energy) associated with it. Heat cannot be produced till the EM is absorbed by electrons in matter, where the electrons convert it back to heat. Therefore EM does not have a power related to temperature, it has a POTENTIAL for creating heat IF it is absorbed by electrons in matter.
ERGO, there is no heat budget in S-B.
ps. I sympathize with Boltzmann, who committed suicide over a depression which was apparently related to science. He died in 1906, shortly after the theory of electrons began developing. He was particularly disturbed over the beliefs by certain colleagues that atoms did not exist and I am wondering if the discovery of the electron, circa 1890s, allowed him insight into possible embarrassment related to his theories.
Planck suffered in a similar manner. He fretted over his theory of quanta, questioning his use of statistical methods to arrive at his theory of quanta. Planck was apparently a dyed in the wool Newtonian who believed strongly in observational science. It bothered him deeply that he had essentially fudged a solution to the ultraviolet catastrophe by manipulating the math.
As it turned out, both were vindicated for their methodology. Much of Planck is based on Boltzmann, with Boltzmann’s theories preceding Planck’s theories. Some modernists, lacking the history, have claimed Boltzmann is derived from the Planck equation, which is an impossibility.
In fact, many modernists are still under the impression that heat flows through space as heat rays. They talk about infrared as being thermal radiation, which is very misleading if taken literally. I am sure that has lead to the mythical notion that heat transfer from hot to cold only, vis-a-vis the 2nd law, can be explained by a two way transfer of heat featuring a mythical net balance of ‘energies’.
The concept of a net balance of energies equates two forms of energy that have nothing in common, thermal energy and electromagnetic energy. Some people seem to think it is all energy and that it doesn’t matter due to the conservation of energy theory.
Conservation of energy a la the 1st law of thermodynamics cannot account for all instances of energy transfer, sometimes allowing for perpetual motion. That’s primarily why Clausius developed the 2nd law, to close the loopholes.
Robertson
You can write your nonsense as long as you want.
I repeat: if you would try to write that at WUWT, Anthony Watts would ban you within two days.
Go to WUWT, Robertson, and there you will be named as what you are: a pseudoskeptic clown who endless tries to rewrite science according to his own narrative.
This is crank, Robertson.
La P,
You just can’t help telling people what they should do, can you?
Who cares what Anthony Watts thinks? Maybe you have overlooked the minor fact that neither you nor Anthony operate this blog?
If you don’t like what somebody writes, present some facts to contradict them.
Why are you not prepared to let people make up their own minds? This is how stupid and ignorant people behave – just like William Connelly. Banned from Wikipedia editing, and scorned for continually changing the facts to suit himself. Or the dim-witted climatologist who suggested that the peer review system be changed, to prevent opposing views being aired.
Didn’t work, did it? Try it hear, and the sound you hear may not be the applause of your supporters, but rather the scorn, ridicule and laughter of those who couldn’t careless what you wish.
Have you, for example, a testable GHE hypothesis? No? Thats not very scientific, is it? Try not being so stupid and ignorant. An impossible task, I fear.
Time to talk about your husbands testicles or courage (you didn’t say which) again? How about whining and complaining that people present views different to yours? Maybe you could even have a shot at explaining how CO2 makes the surface hotter and colder at the same time!
That will give you something to do, at least for a while.
Cheers.
mike…”This is how stupid and ignorant people behave just like William Connelly. Banned from Wikipedia editing, and scorned for continually changing the facts to suit himself”.
Good old, Bill, who aligns himself with the likes of Pierrehumbert, Schmidt, and Mann, over at realclimate.
Connolley is a computer programmer and blogger yet he is referred to as a climatologist by fellow alarmists. Like Mike said, he ruled the roost at Wikipedia, editing articles that were favourable to skeptics like Fred Singer, who he seemed to single out as the object of his wrath.
I understand he’s back at wiki.
It is people like Connolley who are responsible for the propaganda spewed by alarmists and a good reason why anyone reading a wiki article should be seriously skeptical of it’s content. Anyone can submit a wiki article, and with people like Connolley editing the articles, it’s highly unlikely the truth will surface.
Pang, I wonder why you are so infatuated with Anthony Watts. His blog is heavily censored. He won’t allow real Skeptics. He favors pseudoscience.
Is that what you like?
g*e*r*a*n
Anthony Watts does let real Skeptics post all the time. He does not allow mindless antiscience people to distrupt his blog. He does not favor your made up physics. You call real valid empirically tested science pseudoscience and your untested crap you think it valid.
You claim that a cold object cannot absorb radiant energy from a hotter one. Both E. Swanson and Roy Spencer proves this is actually verified correct. You can’t accept reality so you deny it and hate science with a passion not seen or heard from any but you and Flynn.
Both of you are the most antiscience people I know. A lot of people cannot understand science but they respect the topic as a search for truth. You both hate it and rebel against what is reality.
Above I sent Flynn a video to demonstrate his ideas of radiant energy were false, not true. He refuses to watch the video. Antiscience. Science haters. I show you empirical evidence of backradiation from the atmosphere to the Earth. You accept the data but then make the false unscientific claim (no evidence at all to support your claim and it goes against all established physics) that the energy can’t be absorbed.
Science hater the two of you. Why you actually hate science I do not know but the evidence is overwhelming that you do.
Con-man, now you’re at the bottom, for sure. Making up total nonsense.
Norm states: “You claim that a cold object cannot absorb radiant energy from a hotter one.”
Where did I ever claim that?
You have to make up such falsehoods in your desperation. And, you got caught!
What a clown.
norman…”He [Anthony Watts] does not allow mindless antiscience people to distrupt his blog”.
Anthony is anal about the 2nd law, then again, so are you. He is one of the breed of skeptics who feel self-conscious with the notion that the 2nd law disqualifies GHE and AGW. He thinks, like Fred Singer, that such claims are ridiculous and he won’t tolerate them on his blog.
Neither of them have provided any proof whatsoever that the GHE does not apply.
Fred Singer of all people should know better, but he has taken the skeptical comments regarding the 2nd law out of context. He thinks the 2nd law is being poorly applied which is false.
If Fred, or Anthony, think that heat can be transferred from cooler GHGs in the atmosphere to a warmer surface that provided the heat, they need to bone up on basic thermodynamics.
The 2nd law is being dismissed, even by some skeptics, on the basis that a net balance of electromagnetic energy can satisfy it. Two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheushner, put it succinctly, the 2nd law is about heat and cannot be satisfied by summing net energy flows in the atmosphere.
The only way to satisfy the 2nd law is by summing heat quantities, which can be done by summing the temperatures of each body.
Where the notion of a net balance of energies comes from, likely from a misinterpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann, I don’t know. It’s just plain wrong, and Fred Singer and Anthony Watts need to get that by looking at the science far more closely than they have.
g*e*r*a*n
Well at least you read the long rambling posts. I did get it backwards.
What I meant to say was that you claim a hotter object cannot absorb radiant energy from a colder one. You claim it is reflected.
This is made up physics. No evidence.
This is your claim:
“The green plate emits in both directions. The emission, to the left, is reflected by the blue plate, as indicated in the graphic. The emission to the left, and the reflection, effectively cancel. So the only way heat energy can leave the green plate is to the right.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-280342
Since we have communicated on this issue numerous times you were aware I had made the mistake. Rather than just pointing out “don’t you mean the other way around” you used this in an attempt to make me look dishonest. Sad that you must maintain your science hatred at all costs.
So, now that the con-man got caught, making up falsehoods about me, he tries to weasel out. He now tries to spin it that it is MY fault!
What a con-man.
Gordon Robertson
No the modern understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not wrong. Only your understanding of it is wrong.
The current understanding and application are not just guesses at how it works. The understanding is used to design and engineer all types of heat transfer equipment.
Again look for the Truth. It will be really hard for you to do this since you have invested emotional energy into your false and incorrect notions of the 2nd Law.
I will give you actual real science. This is the stuff that works. It is no longer an art form but the material taught and used in everyday applications. It is hard for you to accept it, maybe even painful.
Here: “It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
The energy from a cold object will be absorbed by the hotter object. If the hotter object has an external power supply to it, its temperature will go up as the cold temperature goes up. Exactly because the cold object is adding energy to the Hotter object driving its temperature above the temperature a colder less radiating object will drive it to. This is real physics, you can reject it if you must. Don’t expect anyone to ask you to consult in design for heat transfer systems. Your ideas would fail.
Build something based upon your notion of heat transfer and see if it works the way you believe it should. It won’t and it will show you the error in your ways.
Roy Spencer has done more than one experiment showing the reality that cold objects will raise the temperature of powered objects. E. Swanson has done excellent experiments showing this. All current physics understands what I quoted. You, g*e*r*a*n and Flynn cannot accept reality. Sad for you. Your posts don’t change established science, it just holds you back from understanding correctly.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “So, now that the con-man got caught, making up falsehoods about me, he tries to weasel out. He now tries to spin it that it is MY fault!
What a con-man.”
No, I admitted I made a mistake. I acknowledged it.
Anyway, since you are upset with it, I will apologize to you for posting a misleading statement about you. I am glad you corrected me on my error.
Sometimes I post too quickly. I may need to be more rigorous. I usually reread them to try and prevent such errors.
Noramn,
I love the way you sneak in the unspecified and undescribed internal power supply.
This is often found to be the mechanism which inventors of perpetual motion machines keep hidden.
I think you are trying to pretend that insulation has magical planet heating properties.
Maybe you could concentrate on finding a testable GHE hypothesis, relating to reality. What phenomena is the GHE supposed to explain? How may it be reproduced and measured? Why is it impossible to explain it using current physical knowledge?
Don’t be concerned about me – convince the people with the power and the money. Maybe they pulled the recognition and funding because of something I said. Convince them otherwise, and all will be well.
No use trying to convince me – I think you are stupid and ignorant.
Cheers.
Norm believes: “The energy from a cold object will be absorbed by the hotter object. If the hotter object has an external power supply to it, its temperature will go up as the cold temperature goes up. Exactly because the cold object is adding energy to the Hotter object driving its temperature above the temperature a colder less radiating object will drive it to.”
Norm, if that were true, it ought to be easy for anyone to verify. For example, you could bake a turkey with ice cubes. You could use the Sun for the “external power”. Ice is cheap, and solar is free, so do the experiment and get back to us.
Hilarious.
binny…”I repeat: if you would try to write that at WUWT, Anthony Watts would ban you within two days”.
I respect Anthony for what he has contributed re the Urban Heat Island Effect theory. He has exposed surface stations, where with one for example, it was contributing data while the hot exhaust from an air conditioners was blowing onto it.
Unlike Roy, Anthony is not a degreed meteorologist. I find some of his views on science to be somewhat dogmatic and maybe that’s why he is less tolerant of opposing views.
Roy will engage in debate with those who disagree with him. He had lengthy debates with some of the Dragon Slayer crowd with whom I am not aligned. I did observe an exchange between Roy and a chemical engineer, from the Slayers, who had expertise in thermodynamics, and I thought the engineer laid down better scientific views on thermodynamics than Roy. That’s just my opinion, which does not amount to a hill of beans. Roy participated nonetheless, to his credit.
I admire Roy for the work he has done with AMSU units both at NASA and UAH. He has helped make a major contribution to climate science through those efforts and he has hurt the more outrageous claims of climate alarmist. That’s why they come after him.
Roy has a limit to his tolerance as might be expected. He resolved once to close the blog because things were getting out of hand. I am glad he changed his mind and re-opened it but that does not mean he won’t do it again.
Since those days, I think the blog has reached a good balance between good science and not so good science. There have been excellent contributions over the years to Roy’s blog, even from physicist Lubos Motl. Anthony’s blog, on the other hand, is constrained to those who have a ‘don’t rock the boat’ attitude and they tend to be far too canny with their views.
That’s leads to an intolerant context where people are not allowed to expand on theories. I don’t want to be a part of that. If Roy bans me, which he might, or shuts the blog down, I’ll find something else but I have little interest in the climate at WUWT.
I think it’s healthy for climate science to have Roy’s more tolerant format. It may not seem so from within, but every so often someone checks in to reveal they have been reading but not participating. The apparent chaotic views on Roy’s blog helps them make up their own minds.
I feel strongly that the public needs to hear both sides of the debate. They are not going to hear that as well where everyone agrees and no one dares to put forward ideas that are outliers.
Well stated, Gordon.
What are the two sides of the debate?
gbaikie, basically the two sides are:
1) CO2 is going to heat the planet to catastrophic extremes.
2) CO2 heating the planet to catastrophic extremes, is a hoax.
Oh.
The CO2 increase hasn’t had a measurable effect, though some imagine or guess it’s about .2 C
What’s his name back in early 20th thought Co2 inceases would increase by as much as 5 C, and that would be good news.
I also think it would be good news, but it’s not going to happen.
Gordon Robertson
Do you have any links to your claims about Boltzmann and Planck?
Knowing how you like to make up stuff I need more than just your own posted words. If Truth is interesting to you then verify your statements with links that talk of Planck’s distress.
You still do not understand radiant energy or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You make up stuff and post it. You do this often and seems on a continuous basis. Several times your errors have been brought up and shown to you through valid links to actual science (that you get wrong nearly every time you post).
Do you have a problem with Truth? Being wrong is not a crime. We all have incorrect notions. The value of communication is so we can learn, grow, and correct our wrong thinking. Science has a goal of finding the truth about the Natural World (Theology seeks to find the Truth about the Spiritual World). When you are shown the flaws to your ideas why don’t you correct them? Why do you keep making stuff up so many times?
Norman,
You claim you have incorrect notions.
Would you mind providing a list? It will make interesting reading.
Do your incorrect notions include the notion that a testable GHE hypothesis exists? Or maybe that Gavin Schmidt is a a world renowned climate scientist? Or even more incorrect, that Michael Mann has a first rate mind!
Your list of the incorrect notions that you have is likely to be extremely long, so feel free to leave the ones I mentioned, off it. There is no need to thank me, of course. I’m always willing to help those less able than myself, even the stupid and ignorant, if they exhibit the correct humble and grateful behaviour.
Off you go now, Norman. List all your incorrect notions. That should keep you busy for a month or two, shouldn’t it?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I am not sure what your post is about. What notions do you refer to?
Sometimes your posts are difficult to follow. Are you trying to be funny with it? What is your point?
Norman,
You wrote –
“We all have incorrect notions”
You list yours first.
Maybe the notion that you can actually remember what you wrote recently should top the list?
Cheers.
Mike F., Norman’s comment was directed to GR. One of GR’s notions was that in the “Green Plate” model, the warmer body would, to use his words, “ignore” the back radiation from the cooler body. This claim suggests that the energy vanishes, instead of being absorbed, which, as we all know by now, contradicts current engineering and scientific understanding. Such a claim would appear to be a testable effect, one which must exist if GR’s version of physics is correct. GR refuses to provide any supporting material, other than his reading of work by other older research results, such as Clausius as published in 1854. If GR can’t (or refuses to) provide such evidence, he has lost his case.
Eric, clowns don’t look at valid sources. They refuse facts and logic. They abhor reality.
But, you may already be aware of that. ..
E,
Does it really matter who the comment was directed to? Norman claimed he had ‘incorrect notions”. If he didn’t mean it, why write it? Was he just being stupid, or intentionally trying o mislead?
GR happens to be right.
A real world example would be trying to heat liquid water with ice, by using the 300 W/m2 from ice. Can’t be done . The water, being hotter than the ice (by definition, even), refuses to heat up, no matter how much ice you use . It doesn’t even matter if you try and focus, accumulate, or concentrate the radiation.
A “climatological” illusion. That is why nobody is able to come up with a testable GHE hypothesis – if you try, you’ll wind up havingto say something so ridiculous that you’ll feel very foolish – not to say stupid.
If you don’t believe me, give it a try. Look on the internet. Look in the IPCC reports. Ask NASA.
Nope, the best you’ll find is an unsubstantiated assertion along the lines of “The GHE heats the Earth’s surface”. Some invoke blankets, some invoke the miracle of the one way insulator, some use sciency words such as “back radiation”, DWSWIR, TOA, “energy budgets”, and all the other nonsense jargon used to perform the illusion.
There is no GHE. CO2 heats nothing – never has, never will.
Cheers.
Mike F. wrote
Nowhere have I claimed that one can perform such an action. The rest of your comment is equally incorrect. All your claims are refuted by the spectral emission data taken outside the atmosphere. Similar spectral data taken by aircraft produce corroboration. You (and GR) have yet to explain those results, you just keep repeating the same old false claims over and over again. Here’s another chance for you to prove your claims.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
http://pages.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/AtmoEmission_lecture_slides.pdf
Eric, don’t be deceived by spectral graphs. They are mostly done from computer models. That’s why they all look the same. The actual spectrum at any point above Earth would vary with location, time, season.
And even if you had an exact spectrum, it doesn’t prove anything about CO2 heating the planet.
You have to be very careful. There’s a lot of pseudoscience out there.
norman…”Do you have any links to your claims about Boltzmann and Planck?”
I have accumulated information about them through extensive reading that I came across freely on the Net.
I have thrown down the gauntlet, if you think I’m wrong, do your own research and prove it.
Here’s something contrasting the methodology of Boltzmann and Planck.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jther/2016/9137926/
Here’s an excellent article on Planck by the guy you hate, Claes Johnson.
https://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/article/the-desperation-of-planck-yvfu3xg7d7wt-79/
There is a book on heat by Planck on the Net if you look hard enough.
Gordon Robertson
I do not hate Claes Johnson. I think he is a crackpot that makes up his own delusional physics with no empirical data to support his ideas.
You do know that Einstein’s ideas were not accepted until they were experimentally proven.
Claes makes up stuff with no proof. He may be a decent mathematician and he may be able to read some physics book. When you go against established physics you need more than some equations to prove your material correct. Math alone does not make an idea correct, the math can be wrong, the assumptions he is basing the math on may not be right. I would be much more likely to accept a well used textbook on the topic than accepting the crackpot ideas of Claes Johnson.
GR, One should be aware that the work you reference describes the situation regarding gases for which there are emissions at discrete frequencies (i.e., wavelengths). Of course, by now, this is a well known phenomenon, with data measured to a high accuracy for many gases. As I understand it, the distribution for solids appear as a continuous spectrum, aka, a blackbody spectrum. It seems that your deviant physics, applying the physics of gasses to solids, is comparing apples to oranges.
norman…”Claes makes up stuff with no proof”.
He has an in-depth understanding of blackbody theory and he sticks to the 2nd law. He’s not just messing around, the guy understands the physics well.
swannie…”GR, One should be aware that the work you reference describes the situation regarding gases for which there are emissions at discrete frequencies (i.e., wavelengths)”.
In solids, the atoms are bonded together by electrons. There is a mutual attract between the electrons and protons in the nuclues since they have equal and opposite charges. The electrons want to pull the nucleii together but the +vely charged nucleii repel each other.
The result is a vibration which gets stronger when more heat is added. The vibrating atoms represent work, according to Clausius.
In gases, there is no bonding between atoms/molecules and any work done is due to the gases pushing on the walls of the container. If the container is a cylinder with a piston, the gas pressure can cause the piston to move and do work.
The gas emissions to which you refer are due to electrons dropping from higher energy levels to lower energy levels. The emissions are EM with a frequency related to the electrons properties.
Either way, the work is related to heat since compression of a gas increases the pressure and the temperature. Atoms of gas forced closer together collide more and that increases their energy, temperature, and pressure.
GR again waffles past the issue I raised. With his deviant physics, IR radiant energy emitted from a cooler body is not absorbed by a warmer body, it’s “ignored”. Solid bodies emit and absorb with a continuous spectrum of frequency (or wavelength). The warm body Blue plate in the Green Plate Effect demo absorbs energy from the hotter source, such as the sun. The cooler Green plate then absorbs the energy radiated from the Blue plate and them begins to emit in both directions as it warms. There’s no difference in the emission spectra of the two plates, yet, GR claims that the warmer plate will absolutely not absorb the Green plate’s emissions, whereas it absorbs emissions at identical wavelengths from the much higher temperature source.
GR’s deviant physics can’t explain this contradiction and is therefore invalid. Keep on waffling, GR, as you must, else you would be forced to admit your errors.
Eric says: “GR claims that the warmer plate will absolutely not absorb the Green plate’s emissions..”
Eric, you may just be confused about the phraseology. It really doesn’t matter about “absorbing”. The green plate can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate. That’s the important thing to understand.
Gordon Robertson
It is not called a “Heat” budget. The correct term is an energy budget and there is such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
Norman,
Unfortunately, the NASA stupids do not seem to realise the Earth has cooled since its creation, or that measurements of radiative intensity do not represent temperature.
The Earth does not have a “heat engine”. The whole Wiki entry is a collection of misleading nonsense, IPCC and NASA propaganda.
There is no GHE, and creating a sciency sounding “energy budget” won’t create one. An object on the surface will heat up in sunlight, cool in its absence. The more sunlight, the hotter it gets. The more energy it can radiate to space, the colder it gets.
Summer is hotter than winter, and thermometers are placed in the shade to stop them getting too hot (or cold in many cases).
Learn physics – stop being quite so stupid and ignorant if you can.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“thermometers are placed in the shade to stop them getting too hot”.
You need to talk to g*e*r*a*n about that. His research shows that the temperature in the sun is the same as in the shade:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
Svante,
I don’t need to talk to anyone, especially at your behest. Why should I? If you wish to contradict me, go your hardest. Of course you can’t. I have no idea why you pretend you can.
You can be as stupid and ignorant as you wish. Maybe someone will believe you. Maybe not.
Cheers.
“You can be as stupid and ignorant as you wish. Maybe someone will believe you. Maybe not.”
Not me but g*e*r*a*n. Read my post again.
Snape,
You are stupid and ignorant.
You wrote –
“You need to talk to g*e*r*a*n about that.”
No, I don’t. Why should I?
You are stupid and ignorant for thinking I would take any notice of what you think I should do. I do as I wish, not what you wish. Stiff cheese for you, possibly, but that’s life.
You can’t contradict me can you? Without appearing quite mad, that is.
Appeal to all the supposed authority you like – it doesn’t make you look any smarter, does it?
Have fun.
Cheers.
Svante,
I called you Snape.
Oh well, a stupid by any other name . . .
Cheers.
Shady svante has now gone full desperate. His pseudoscience is falling apart, so he is using any trick to save it. He has latched onto the “shade” idea, probably believing it will some how discredit the correct blue/green plate solution.
Of course, shady has to ignore the 200 Watts arriving the green plate. But, in pseudoscience, ignoring reality is one of the first things learned.
It’s fun to watch.
Mike Flynn says:
“thermometers are placed in the shade to stop them getting too hot”
“You cant contradict me can you? Without appearing quite mad, that is.”
No I can’t, but g*e*r*a*n does:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
I can’t get through to him, but perhaps the two of you can resolve this difference, you seem such good friends.
Hey shady, if the two plates are in full contact, what will be the green plate temp. You say it can’t be 244 K, because it is “in the shade”. So what will it be?
Hilarious.
If the two plates are in full contact they are as one,
one temperature and both in the sun. Glad to help.
But shady, the green plate is “in the shade”.
Before you didn’t believe it could have the same temperature as the blue plate.
Getting tangled in your pseudoscience is embarrassing, huh?
It’s fun to watch.
No sunny boy, I said they are as one. In the sun.
That is because the setup assumes negligible thickness and perfect conduction.
Joined plates is then the same as blue plate only. Glad to help.
Sorry shady, but your “logic” fails.
If the green plate is in contact with the blue plate, but NOT “in the shade”, then move the green plate one nanometer away. Is it now magically, all of a sudden, “in the shade”?
Tangled up in your pseudoscience, AGAIN?
It’s fun to watch.
G* you’re saying it matters not whether the plates are linked by conduction or radiation, the result is the same. Weird.
But when it comes to standing next to the freezer or the green plate or space, everything changes because conduction is not the same as radiation. Weirder.
Oh what a convoluted logic web you weave.
Now Nate, you are misquoting me again. Use my EXACT quote, if you have a responsible question. And, if you are taking the quote from another thread, provide a link so I can understand the context. Otherwise, you are just playing clown games.
If you want to play clown games, expect me to do the same.
Nate says:
“G* youre saying it matters not whether the plates are linked by conduction or radiation, the result is the same. Weird.”
Yes, even weirder here where we assume perfect conduction through the plate.
g*e*r*a*n has some sort of perfect radiation, it’s like the blue plate isn’t there at all.
Blue plate gone, or blue plate shading green, no difference.
Weird.
shady is trying to mis-apply Nate’s mis-quotes.
Hilariously shady!
Blue plate gone, or blue plate shading green, no difference to green.
Weird.
No understanding of physics, weird.
shady, you know so little you can’t even state your case correctly.
The blue plate is NOT gone.
Your imaginary “shade” is “gone”.
It’s called reality.
But, living in the shadows as a clown is fun.
Your choice.
G* ask anyone without a dog in this fight whether being in the shade keeps you cooler than being in the sun.
Ask your grandma for crissakes. She likely still has common sense that you seem to have lost.
Nate, why does your “shade” only work when you want it to?
Would that mean you have a closed-mind and only want to “see” what you want to see?
Shade works in easily predictable ways. It blocks radiation.
Clowns are predictable. They avoid facts and logic.
Yes you are.
Yes you do.
But it does, one T for the Sun and the other for the Earth, but give each their own emissivity.
This is the surface budget fallacy. The GHE is at the TOA where there is only radiation.
I put it in bold for you, what do you think the two Ts represent?
It’s not black body when you have є=emissivity.
EM carries energy, sum it up and divide by time to get power. It can be calculated for any plane in space.
Now we know and it makes perfect sense.
The significance is defined by Stefan-Boltzman, but beware of the surface budget fallacy.
Heat is EM out – EM in.
I didn’t know it had escaped so many, they would learn quickly if they tried.
If you like.
You just described it.
Svante,
He said there is no heat budget in Stefan Boltzmann. He’s right. There isn’t.
Pretending it does won’t help.
NASA’s energy budget is a load of crap – or complete nonsense, if you prefer. Like the GHE, it doesn’t actually exist.
Prove away, laddie. You may think you’ve made a silk purse from a sow’s ear, but you’ve just made a horse’s arse of yourself.
Stupid, but you may be too stupid to realise it.
Cheers.
Yes, sorry, energy budget.
Svante,
Nor an energy budget. A climatological fantasy. Radiative intensity has little to nothing to do with temperature. Don’t believe me? Suit yourself. Others may care to look up Leslie’s cube. Been known for a couple of hundred years or so, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes as news to ignorant or stupid people.
Keep making an effort to turn fantasy into fact. Best of luck – you’ll need it.
Cheers.
Flynn
YOU: “Radiative intensity has little to nothing to do with temperature. Dont believe me? Suit yourself. Others may care to look up Leslies cube.”
Now that is a fantasy statement not based upon reality. You can determine the temperature of a object by the radiative intensity if you know what the material emissivity is. It is a direct correlation. Don’t know why you think you have knowledge of physics. You have a collection of some random facts you insert and then you think you know what you are talking about.
Learn some physics. You don’t seem to understand any of it.
Norman,
Indeed you are correct.
However, without specifying the emissivity, you have no clue as to the temperature, and measuring emissivity is not easy.
But just for fun, when stupid climatologists talk about a “net energy balance” of 3 W/m2, what temperature are they pretending to talk about? What temperature increase do you think results?
Throw some more sciency nonsense my way, Norman. I’ll have a good laugh while I’m waiting!
You are not only stupid, but also ignorant, I suspect.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Even you could determine the emissivity of an object. It is not as difficult as you make it out to be.
You need an IR gun and a thermometer.
You manually measure the object in question with a thermometer and then set the emissivity, for that object, with the IR gun until the IR temperature matches the manual temperature of the thermometer. Now the IR gun is able to accurately determine the temperature of the object based upon the IR it gives off.
There are also several emissivity charts available for most common materials people encounter. You set the IR gun for the emissivity of the material and you will get a temperature close to what a thermometer would measure.
I guess you found a new pet word. “Stupid”.
If you use it in every single one of your posts it does lose any effectiveness. You might want to be more selective when you use it. If someone makes a really bad science claim it would be the time to throw that in a post. Just posting it over and over in every post to every person you respond to does not give the word a proper use.
Norman, I too found that emissivity measurement. I installed some plates from old solar collectors in my solar panels last summer. At one point, I pointed my IR thermometer, which had the ability to specify emissivity, at the surface of a plate sitting in sunlight. The plate was quite hot to touch, yet the IR thermometer with emissivity set to a generic value of 0.95 gave a much lower reading, which was obviously incorrect.
Question: Can a clown with an IR gun prove CO2 is heating the planet?
Answer: No, but make sure you don’t give him any bullets.
Norman,
I don’t need you to tell me what I need or don’t need. You may think you need to tell me, and you might even think that I will take notice of you – but I won’t.
That’s because you are stupid and ignorant. Why would I feel the need to have somebody who is stupid and ignorant to tell me what I need?
Now here’s a need for you. You need to tell me the answer to the question I asked about what temperature increase relates to 3 W/m2, because otherwise you’ll just look like another stupid and ignorant cultist trying to appear intelligent, when, in fact, you really have no clue.
Not so easy is it? All your nonsense about how you would do this, and do that is just that – nonsense. Give it a try sometime, and you’ll find that “You set the IR gun for the emissivity of the material and you will get a temperature close to what a thermometer would measure.” would get you laughed at by any reasonably competent experimenter.
You can’t even answer a simple “climatological” question, because you know any answer you give will be laughed at – being based on wishful thinking, rather than physics.
Go on – give it a try. I’m assuming you won’t, because it’s based on a NASA climatological piece of fantasy. Another sciency sounding bit of stupidity!
As to stupid and ignorant, how would you describe someone who claims that a GHE exists, but can’t even describe it in any testable form? Or someone who believes that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the surface, makes the surface hotter?
Such a person is not knowledgeable and intelligent. Rather, ignorant of physics and common-sense, and stupid for proposing such nonsensical ideas to those smarter and more knowledgeable.
As to your comments on emissivity – learn to read and comprehend what I write. if you don’t, then others who do take the time to read and comprehend will also assess you as being stupid and ignorant.
Dream on, Norman. You might be fanatical, but you sure are stupid and ignorant.
Cheers.
Flynn
You want an answer: “Now here’s a need for you. You need to tell me the answer to the question I asked about what temperature increase relates to 3 W/m2, because otherwise you’ll just look like another stupid and ignorant cultist trying to appear intelligent, when, in fact, you really have no clue.”
If I gave some actual number it would demonstrate that I was clueless. With the Earth’s surface there are multiple energy exchange processes. What an increase in energy to the surface would result in would not be a simple calculations. They use complex equations in super computers to try and answer such questions but the output results of the programs tends to have degree of variation.
Logically it should produce some increase in temperature but the actual amount would only be a range of possible numbers.
I do think I am done with you. Your pointless use of stupid to every poster is really old and makes you look very childish and immature. You are not a very bright person. No sense wasting time responding to your endless false assertions and bogus claims. Live well and prosper. You need all the encouragement you can get.
So when the con-man gets trapped by his own pseudoscience, he has to con his way out by blaming his failure to answer on someone else.
It’s ALWAYS fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
I don’t really follow your post. What point are you trying to make and to what?
Maybe be more specific in your attack on what I said.
Con-man, in your last three paragraphs, you are weaseling out of answering Mike’s question.
It’s fun to watch.
svante…”Heat is EM out EM in”
Heat has nothing to do with EM. What you are claiming is that heat = work out – work in. Heat and work have an equivalence but they have entirely different parameters.
Heat and work are equivalent because the vibrations of atoms in a solid are work, since the mass of the nucleus moves relative to an applied force between the nucleus and the electrons binding the atoms together. The vibration also represents heat.
EM can cause an electron to literally heat by causing it to rise to a higher energy level. However, there is no relationship between the EM and the heat since the EM disappears when absorbed.
You are still hung up on the notion that heat is equivalent to EM, which is wrong.
EMR and heat are two forms of energy, so in that respect they are equivalent. Both can be measured in Joules.
Heat flows from warm to cold via conduction, convection, or EMR.
Snape wrote –
“Mike
There are an endless number of examples where something cold is unable to make a hotter object hotter.”
There are precisely no, zero, examples where something cold is able to make a hotter object hotter.
You think I’m brilliant, it seems. Only by comparison to someone as stupid and ignorant as you. I’m glad you perceive how smart I am, compared with you.
Off you go now, try and heat something with something colder – I wish you luck. You’ll need lots of luck, plus a miracle!
Cheers.
Let’s see … suppose I set up a kitchen stove outside on a cold winter day (or simply turn the air conditioning WAY UP). Then turn the stove on low and set a pan on top. Wait for things to reach a steady state. (if you like concrete numbers let’s imagine the heating element is 400C, the pan is 200C and the air is -20 C.)
Now trade out the cold air for some not-so-cold air, keeping the heating element at the same temperature. (Call it 40 C air if you like) The air is COLDER THAN the heating element. The air is COLDER THAN the pan. The pan will get warmer. (Probably something like 230C give or take a bit).
The ‘cold’ air in the room @ 40C (in conjunction with the constant heat input) made the hot pan hotter (than it was when the air was -20C).
Tim, you have added heat energy to the system. What did you expect, the temps to drop?
(When they start assigning clown names, would you prefer “Bozo”, or “Timbo”?)
tim…”The cold air in the room @ 40C (in conjunction with the constant heat input) made the hot pan hotter (than it was when the air was -20C)”.
All of the arguments I have seen contradicting the 2nd law are thought experiments.
The 2nd law clearly states that heat can not by it’s own means be transferred from a cooler object to a hotter object. If you can prove that is incorrect using science other than thought-experiments, I’d be happy to see it.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “The 2nd law clearly states that heat can not by its own means be transferred from a cooler object to a hotter object. If you can prove that is incorrect using science other than thought-experiments, Id be happy to see it.”
Yes this is all valid and established physics.
What part of the 2nd Law do you see that makes any claim on the temperature a powered object will reach? There is none at all.
The 2nd Law only stipulates spontaneous heat flow. I gives a direction for heat flow.
The problem you seem to have is you don’t realize that the amount of heat flow changes considerably based upon the temperature of the cold object (or cold surroundings). The temperature of the cold surroundings directly determine the amount of heat the hot surface will lose. If the situation is dynamic (continuous input of heat or powered object) then you do not have a set value of heat transfer but you have a heat flux. A rate of heat flow that is continuous from the hot object to the cold surroundings. The temperature of the cold surroundings determines this heat flow away from the hot object. As the heat flow decreases (with the same input) because the surrounding temperature increased, the object warms up, reaches a higher temperature.
Please find any version of the 2nd Law from any source that suggests what temperature a powered object will reach. If you can do this with a valid source of science (textbook preferably) then you will have some support of your case. You will not be able to find it. I have read much material on heat transfer (the real stuff not made up blog versions that people read to support their made up physics).
To repeat. Find any version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that determines the temperature of a powered object.
g*e*r*a*n please show some discipline and self control and don’t comment on this post. Can you do this? You won’t say anything of value anyway. Some derogatory name calling (like calling me a Con-man) and then maybe adding pseudoscience and hilarious. You are not knowledgeable enough in the field of physics to give any type of valid science reply. You never have and never will (unless you actually read some physics but that is not possible with your ADD)
Con-man, I will gladly stop calling you a “con-man”, when you stop trying to con everyone.
Glad to help.
And con-man, your request indicates, AGAIN, you don’t understand science: “Please find any version of the 2nd Law from any source that suggests what temperature a powered object will reach.”
A “law” typically “restricts”, it does not “suggest”. So you need to think of 2LoT as “restricting the temperature a powered object will reach”.
For example, there are clowns that believe the Sun, radiating at an effective temperature of 5800 K, can warm the Earth to a temperature of 800,000 K!!!
That’s a violation of 2LoT.
It’s fun to watch.
norman…”The problem you seem to have is you dont realize that the amount of heat flow changes considerably based upon the temperature of the cold object (or cold surroundings)”.
*************
you are confusing heat FLOW through a solid object to heat TRANSFER through space by electromagnetic energy. Don’t worry, it confused Clausius, Boltzmann, and Planck, who thought heat was flowing through space.
Heat transfer through space is a misnomer, it appears to transfer through space but it is actually being reduced in the hotter emitting body as it is converted to EM and absorbed in the cooler absorbing body as EM is converted back to heat, therefore the net result is an APPARENT transfer of heat.
Same thing happens in electronic communications. A transmitting antenna SEEMS to transfer electrical signals through the air to a receiving antenna. The antenna converts high frequency varying electrical signals to EM, which travels through the air, and the receiving antenna converts the EM back to a high frequency, varying electrical signal.
Magic, huh???
The difference between that and heat transfer is that EM is modulated with a signal representing audio, video, digital comm, or whatever. The EM, a high frequency carrier wave, varies in step with the modulating signal and transfers the information to the receiving antenna, where the received signal is demodulated and recovered.
With heat transfer, the EM is sent raw, with a frequency representing the electron properties when emitted. Note…the electrical field and magnet field of EM are properties of the electron as well.
Please note the 2nd law forbids heat transfer in the opposite direction and the reason becomes apparent when you look at how electrons in matter transmit and receive EM. Electrons can only receive energy from bodies with the proper intensity and frequency to bump them up an energy level, or more.
Eout = hf and hf ‘in’ must be equal to or higher than the energy level to which the electron needs to jump.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. The story satisfies the 2nd law and if it’s happy, I’m happy.
It’s not me claiming that it was Niels Bohr. Blame him.
I can hear him rumbling from the Great Beyond, “you b***ard”!!! “That’s not the way I said it at all”.
Sorry Neils, I don’t have the math. Besides, I’m po’d at you for taking quantum theory off on a weird tangent. Should have listened to Schrodinger and Einstein.
Thought I heard Schroddy and Albert chuckling.
g*e*r*a*n
Why is it impossible for you to show a little self control, are you a baby that poops himself. I specifically asked you not to respond with your meaningless, unscientific and insulting posts.
I want Gordon Robertson to reply NOT YOU!
You did poop in your diaper. “A law typically restricts, it does not suggest. So you need to think of 2LoT as restricting the temperature a powered object will reach.
Just crap, flush it down the toilet. A stupid unscientific comment that means nothing.
Let me demonstrate how stupid you really are. Let the pope fill your diaper. Hopefully someone is nice enough to change it for you.
Law of physics is just an established principle that has shown to work in all experimental tests. The Law of Gravity does not restrict anything. It just means that gravity will attract all mass based upon established equation.
Where in the Universe do you come up with the poop idea that the 2nd Law restricts the temperature a powered object will reach? The 2nd Law only determines the direction of heat flow and an increase in entropy. It does not describe temperatures or rates of heat flow. Find such information poop, that is what you represent on this blog. A stinky stain of crap.
The phony con-man now must resort to 5-year-old rhetoric.
It’s fun to watch.
Gordon
Tim’s idea doesn’t have to be a thought experiment. Here’s a version you can do yourself:
1) On a cold Vancouver morning, take an electric griddle outside and use an extension cord to plug it in.
2) Set a thermometer on top (find a way to elevate the thermometer an inch or so above the surface so it won’t get too hot).
3) Turn the griddle on low and wait till the thermometer has reached a steady temperature……let’s say 120 F.
4) Now, while still plugged in, carry the griddle indoors.
(Room temperature is around 70 F. That’s warmer that the outside temperature, but much colder than the thermometer).
5) The thermometer will get hotter.
*********************************
Here’s how to understand the 2LOT:
1) perform the first three steps as instructed above.
2) Take the thermometer off the griddle and carry it inside. Again the thermometer is surrounded by cooler air, but this time it is not being heated by a “third party”.
3) the thermometer will cool in accordance with the law.
Hilarious!
The young, uneducated child “teaches” the con-man and Timbo!
Is this a great year in climate comedy, or what?
“The young, uneducated child
Careful, g*. Nurse Ratched doesn’t like it when those in her care are rude to visitors.
snake, how am I being rude? You have NO background in physics. You’re just a clown. I’m approving of your comedy. How is that “being rude”?
g*e*r*a*n
Then why do you post to comments I make to Gordon Robertson and have asked you specifically not to reply to them?
If you don’t like my responses to you don’t bring me into your baby world of diapers and bottles. I like to talk with adults not babies. You go now and cry and maybe someone will give you a binky. I get tired of your crying and whining after awhile.
The baby can’t keep to himself, he needs to pester adults and make sure they know he is around.
Most people are tired of your childish physics and crybaby posts. You need a glass of milk and to go to bed.
I hope you don’t respond at all to any of may posts, it is too much to hope for. The baby will throw his tantrum and force his way into the adult world.
con-man, I like your new comedy routine. The old pseudoscience is gone. Enter the new 5-year-old.
It’s original, it’s funny, and it fits you.
More please.
snape…”4) Now, while still plugged in, carry the griddle indoors.
(Room temperature is around 70 F. Thats warmer that the outside temperature, but much colder than the thermometer).
5) The thermometer will get hotter”.
**********
snape…you’re confusing warming with a change in heat dissipation. Outside in the cooler air, the heat from the griddle will dissipate faster and the thermometer will record that temperature. Take it inside to a warmer room and the griddle cannot dissipate heat as well, and it will warm.
It’s not the room air warming the griddle, it’s the loss in it’s ability to dissipate heat.
Gordon
Good start!
70 F. air (in conjunction with the constant heat input) made a 120 F. thermometer get hotter.
How? By slowing the rate that heat is dissipated.
****************
Now you can see that Mike Flynn’s declaration is false. He wrote,
“There are precisely no, zero, examples where something cold is able to make a hotter object hotter.”
snake, that is funny, but NOT science.
Warming the thermometer, over a heat source, is NOT an example of “cold” warming “hot”. The cold air is confusing you, because you have no understanding of the physics involved. The cold air is NOT causing the thermometer to increase. It is the heat source.
Again, your confused science, AKA “pseudoscience”, makes for great humor.
More, please.
snape…”There are precisely no, zero, examples where something cold is able to make a hotter object hotter.”
***********
You have missed my point entirely. I did not agree that something cold made something hotter, I talked about heat DISSIPATION.
You are missing the point that in phase one of your experiment, you are moving a heated source from a colder environment to a warmer environment. Presuming the thermometer is being heated only by the heat source in both environments, you are changing the rate of heat dissipation by moving the heated source from a colder region to a warmer region.
Since the heat source cannot dissipate energy as quickly in a warmer environment it heats up. That has nothing to do with the 2nd law, it is better covered by S-B.
In phase 2 of your thought experiment, you remove a thermometer heated by a griddle to 120F, meaning the griddle is 50F hotter than the room, and take it into that room at 70F. What else would you expect it to do but cool to 70F?
Conclusion. Stop the dumb thought-experiments and go by the 2nd law as stated. Heat cannot by it’s own means be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.
The thought experiments trying to get around this law are junk science. Claiming that a net balance of ‘energy’ (meaning EM) satisfies the 2nd law is junk science. The only thing that satisfies the 2nd law is a transfer of heat from a hotter body to a colder body.
Gordon
“Since the heat source cannot dissipate energy as quickly in a warmer environment it heats up. That has nothing to do with the 2nd law, it is better covered by S-B.”
Exactly. When the heated griddle, exposed to cold morning air was moved indoors, it was not able to dissipate heat as effectively as before.
The result? An ambient air temperature of 70 F. was able to make the hotter objects even hotter.
But your right, that has nothing to do with the 2LOT. (Which is what we’ve been trying to say all along.)
Dumb dumb says,
“Conclusion. Stop the dumb thought-experiments and go by the 2nd law as stated”
Not a thought experiment, Gordon! All you need is an electric griddle, a thermometer, and a cold morning.
Gordon,
Do you REALLY need me to do this experiment??? You could do it in a couple minutes. I could do it in a couple minutes. Any competent engineer would know the pan on the stove will be warmer. ChemE’s do this sort of calculation all the time. Go find a ChemE.
Norman,
Of COURSE there is a heat input — that is the point of the analogy!
If heat (from an electric heating element or from the sun) is added relatively steadily (60 Hz variations to the small pan, 1 day oscillations to the earth) to an object (a pan or the earth’s surface), then the final temperature of the object will depend on the temperature of the surroundings (the air around the pan or the air around the surface of the earth).
The colder air provides more convection loss.
Instead colder air, you could use a fan, to blow air on pan which could lower pan temperature cooler than having colder still air.
A bit of the real world.
In the UK, we have the coldest March since 1962, according to this press release:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/925808/Snow-UK-weather-forecast-when-did-it-last-snow-March-UK
I need to check this.
Meanwhile, outside our surburban back door in middle England, it’s 1 degree Celsius.
I gave away my copy of the late Robin Stirling’s book ‘The Weather of Britain’, and I really ought to get another copy. A proper book about weather, with historical data from a professional meteorologist.
It makes for interesting reading.
Some more of the real world?
https://www.wetteronline.de/wetter/ojmjakon
Compared with end of february, it’s ‘warm’ there actually :-))
La Pangolina: The blizzard I was driving through on England’s M1 motorway last Saturday afternoon was real enough, as was the snow settling during the evening. East Midlands Airport was closed on Sunday morning (it’s obligatory that everything grinds to a halt in England when we have snow). The thermometer outside my suburban back door registered minus 1 degree Celsius, so rest assured that it wasn’t warm!
A constant source of irritation to me is the fact that a bunch of clowns such as Cook’s ‘Skeptical Science’ can put their website address right under Dr. Spencer’s, with the proclamation ‘Roy Spencer – Climate Misinformer’.
Here’s Roy Spencer, a professional and highly experienced scientist,
and this bunch can freely put themselves forward as ‘experts’ right next to his name!
When I first got interested in the alleged dangerous man-made global warming years ago (now ‘climate change’!), I was taken aback by the vitriolic rudeness I encountered in response to a reasonable point of view or question. I have a much thicker skin these days.
It didn’t take me long to realise that they’d got a biased point of view, and knew nothing about the point I raised regarding mosquitos spreading northwards as a result of global warming – a claim made by Al Gore. I notice that they don’t get many visitors to the site – I suspect they’ve been rumbled.
Carbon500 states: “I was taken aback by the vitriolic rudeness I encountered in response to a reasonable point of view or question. I have a much thicker skin these days.”
C-500, they don’t have science on their side. All they have is their debate tricks. bluster, and insults. What I’ve noticed, over the last few months, is that they are getting more and more desperate. Several now don’t even try to actually debate, they just comment in long rambling attacks.
It’s quite a show.
FYI, I once saw a study that indicated the optimum CO2 concentration for plants was 550 ppm.
g,
Or, if you’re producing cannabis (for fun and profit, perhaps) –
“That means in order for CO2 enrichment to be the most effective, you want to maintain levels up to 1500 PPM of CO2 in your grow space with very bright light.”
Based on getting the maximal output under controlled conditions indoors. Academic research is excellent, but farmers want results! (Only joking.)
Cheers.
Carbon
I don’t like SkS.
But
– I don’t like lots of pseudoskeptic sites, like Goddard’s, NoTicksZone etc etc ;
– I don’t like AT ALL people who insult Roy Spencer in comments they publish along his own posts, where you can read things like
‘Anyone considering GHE to be settled science is an idiot.’
This is however exactly Spencer’s position.
I have forgotten the insultant’s nickname, but it’s not long time ago.
Pang, in your valuable opinion (waiting for the laughing to stop), what is the difference between a “Lukewarmer”, and a “Pseudoskeptic”?
Lukewarmer: e.g. Spencer, Eschenbach, EIKE web site in Germany, Engelbeen…
Pseudoskeptic: Flynn, Robertson, g*e*r*a*n, SGW…
Ah, so you’re attempting to be stylishly sarcastic?
No.
Well, the default is “un-stylishly sarcastic”.
That’s what I thought, but I wanted to make sure.
binny…”Pseudoskeptic: Flynn, Robertson, g*e*r*a*n, SGW”
You need to brush up on your English, and while you’re at it, try to lighten up with regard to your ego/image. You’ll know you’re on the right path when I call you an idiot and you don’t bite by bristling strongly.
In English, the use of ‘pseudo-‘ as in pseudoscience, means a false science. You have lumped me in as a pseudo-skeptic, which means I am a false skeptic. That might imply I am an alarmist.
I am skeptical about many scientific claims, such as the GHE, AGW, the Big Bang theory, black holes, evolution (as opposed to genetics), the HIV/AIDS theory, space-time theory, and the more outlandish claims regarding quantum theory and relativity.
There’s a reason for my skepticism, not one of those theories offers direct proof to support them. The are all products of human thought and reasoning as opposed to direct observation.
I go to great lengths to support my skepticism by supplying in-depth scientific reasoning, none of which you or the other alarmists on-board can counter with like scientific reasoning. You all rush off to Google articles, presuming the articles are accurate.
Seems to me you are still bristling at being called an idiot. That indicates to me that you are more concerned with your image than a well thought out scientific rebuttal.
La P,
Maybe you are not as clever as you imagine. Have you considered the Dr Spencer reads comments, but, like myself, believes in relative freedom of speech?
You appear to support censorship, and suppression of the ideas of anyone who disagrees with you. Even though Voltaire dd not write I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, he should have. It’s a nice sentiment.
As Thomas Jefferson said “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them . . .”
And the existence of the GHE is one such unintelligible proposition – no distinct idea to be found. Science is never settled. At any time, parts of a general proposition are more or less unclear. That’s what drives some scientists and others to spend their entire looking for answers.
Who cares what people call them? Jefferson also said “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” You might support CO2 AGW. I support your right to do so. You might not support my right to disagree, and I might describe you as ignorant and stupid on the basis that you are indeed ignorant and stupid. I haven’t picked your pocket nor broken your leg, have I?
If you choose to make yourself unhappy because of something I say, that’s not my personal failing, surely.
The best you’ll get from me is “Boo hoo, poor diddums”, or maybe “So sad, too bad.” Grow up. Stop whinging. The world is full of facts. Dig a few out, and have some fun!
Cheers.
As always: endless, useless, complacent blah blah.
La P,
And another irrelevant, pointless and stupid comment from you.
What happened to the barking dog analogy? Embarrassed that you misspelled Schaferhund?
Don’t worry – nobody’s perfect. Even I misspell German words occasionally.
Cheers.
You still did not get it: I hadn’t misspelled Schaferhund.
1. Schferhund
2. Schäferhund
La P,
You are the expert in German. If you you say a Schferhund is a breed of dog, I’ll be silly enough to believe you.
Is it related to the Schferhund, by any chance?
Just curious. It all seems a bit irrelevant, stupid, and pointless to me, but you seem obsessed with our canine friends.
Cheers.
La P,
My mistake – the umlaut vanished, transmuting my Schaferhund in to a Schferhund. Excusable for me, not being an habitual umlaut user.
Inexcusable for you, because you are use German, and you have demonstrated, in the past, that you can make umlauts appear on this blog. I can’t (well not without exerting myself, of course).
I’ll allow you to continue being superior in the German language. In the language of science, however, the tables are turned. You can allow me to be superior there. What do you say?
Cheers.
And it’s not an umlaut, it’s a separate letter, isn’t it?
Svante says:
March 19, 2018 at 11:37 PM
And its not an umlaut, its a separate letter, isnt it?
*
That Svante depends of course on where you live and thus which keyboard you use.
While we Germans have keybords with direct key access for letters like
ä ö ü Ä Ö ß (one is missing, as it contains a ‘D-C’ sequence)
Frenchies in turn do not have these on keyboard but have direct key access for letters like
à â é è î ô û À É etc. For these I need here a modifier key in front.
But for ï ë for which there is neither key nor key modifier I have to select the special character in the browser’s menu, like as for the Portuguese ã and õ.
But that you see them here is only due to the fact that instead of typing all them directly in, I let a tool transform them in UTF-8 HTLM sequences:
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
If you now happened to copy and paste this comment into Roy Spencers input field and would send the comment, you of course wouldnt see any of these UTF-8 characters, just like you would see ” instead of the intended ‘'’.
I tried upthread to explain that to the Flynn barking blogbot, but without success; he didnt understand even such a simple concept.
Maybe he is too busy with confusing, diverting, denying, discrediting, humbling and humiliating, like e.g. in
Ill allow you to continue being superior in the German language. In the language of science, however, the tables are turned. You can allow me to be superior there. What do you say?
Poor guy… he never showed us science here even once! Not one comment containing real scientific matter or at least a link to such matter.
‘No testable GHE hypothesis’.
That’s all he is able to write…
binny…”While we Germans have keybords with direct key access for letters like….”
You still have not replied as to why minus signs sometimes disappear while other times they don’t.
Would it not be easier for the Germans and French to modernize their languages to get rid of the overhead? I don’t pretend that English is any better overall but at least we don’t have to struggle with mile-long words and accents. Nor do we have to worry about gender, we have good old ‘the’.
Everyone is treated equally, even animals, although they get relegated it ‘it’ sometimes. Mind you, my girlfriend calls me ‘it’ when I annoy her. That’s when she’s being nice about, on other occasions I get called an idiot, even though I don’t take it in the same way you seem to take it. I know I’m an idiot, and that makes the difference.
Chinese is far worse, however. Their alphabet consists of ancient symbols that make no sense to the learner. A while back, a Chinese luminary considered introducing a Cyrillic-type alphabet for China but the traditionalists balked and that was the end of that.
Speaking of English, I have often felt we could reduce our vocabulary to around 2500 words and get along fine. I would guess that 75% or more of our English dictionaries are superfluous.
I have worked with people whose vocabulary could be counted in 100s of words, many of them profane.
La Pangolina,
I wasn’t thinking about keyboards. I thought an umlaut was a modifier on a letter in the alphabet. Your German examples are distinct letters in the alphabet. The French examples are not.
c500…”A constant source of irritation to me is the fact that a bunch of clowns such as Cooks Skeptical Science can put their website address right under Dr. Spencers, with the proclamation Roy Spencer Climate Misinformer”.
John Cook at SkS could not make it as a physicist, he is a drop out who works as a cartoonist to make ends meet.
All Cook has to counteract the real data sets from UAH are ad homs, and Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. has already admonished them for that.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/12/pielke-sr-on-skeptical-sciences-attacks-on-spencer-and-christy/
On the positive side, it’s a great source of information, with easily checked references to science.
Just like Wikipedia.
For uneducated, ignorant pseudoskeptics
About the Twin paradox
https://martin-ueding.de/articles/twin-paradox/index.html
https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
This is simply settled science since Einsteins publications in 1905 and 1916.
La P,
Even Einstein unsettled himself on more than one occasion. Convinced he was wrong, he introduced a “cosmological constant” to get himself out of a quandary. Re examining his work later, he decided he was actually right, and discarded the now unnecessary “cosmological constant”. Now,It appears that maybe the “cosmological constant” is necessary after all!
Phew! Good thing the science wasn’t settled along the way, don’t you think/ What about you? Is the “cosmological constant” necessary or not?
Maybe you’re feeling a little unsettled yourself, just now? What a pity.
Cheers.
binny…re twin paradox…
Two articles written by two idiots caught up in a mental distortion.
Both articles are riddled with suppositions, among them an admission that time dilation is a confusing subject then offering a thought-experiment as a solution. No evidence, as in the GHE, just a thought-experiment.
Both infer that clocks measure ‘physical’ time, or biological time. Will someone please explain physical time, where it is and how to find it? Also, where is biological time and where does one find it?
Come on, binny, you must know where to find real, physical time. Are you holding back the secret?
If clocks measure physical time, or biological time, why are they synchronized to the rotation of the Earth? Why are there different time zones around the Earth, 24 of them?
Even if you wanted to synchronize a clock to so-called physical time, how would you do it? Where is the so-called time to which the clock can be synched?
In the twin paradox, why is it presumed human life span is dependent on the velocity one is moving at? Where did that propaganda come from. I’ll tell you.
Humans have installed time as a linear progression in human memory. In my mind, if I close my eyes, I locate the past to my left and the future to my right. Why not have the past from the rear and the future in front?
Here’s a neat trick, though. If you focus, going into a hypnotic-like state, that illusion disappears, and you find yourself in a totally ‘now’ state. It seems when you turn off the part of the brain creating illusions, time disappears.
You don’t need to enter a hypnotic-like state, you can simply allow awareness to turn on and it becomes apparent that time is an invention of the human mind. Awareness implies turning off the conditioned garbage with which we normally run our lives.
Alas…no more sunrises or sunsets, or the Sun orbiting the Earth.
Goddy…
Time is what prevents everything from happening at once.
svante….”Time is what prevents everything from happening at once”.
Only inside the human mind. We are the only species who needs that ability since we reason, often badly, and we need to make reference to our storehouse of thoughts we call memory.
Even at that, try what I suggested. Sit quietly in a comfortable, quite place where you won’t be disturbed, and very slowly relax. Look up ‘progressive relaxation’ on Google if you want a good zonk.
Tip: while relaxing, don’t fight thought trying to make it stop. The more you try the more it will persist. Be passive and allow thought to slowly quieten down. If it persists, thank it for sharing rather than getting testy and trying to force it to be quiet. The more you relax, the more it will slow down.
It will slow down on its own and stop for seconds at a time and in those pauses you can be in touch with a more intelligent thought process that is not conditioned. Hopefully you will see the connection between thought and time, that thoughts are ordered chronologically as is time. The two are inseparable.
That time does not exist outside the human mind.
You will eventually reach a state where thought slows right down and even stops momentarily. You can become clearly aware that you live in an immense physical space that is completely free of time. Using deep hypnosis, you can stop time altogether. Your consciousness moves into another state where time has no existence…the natural state.
In that state, you can examine the past several thousand years and see clearly they don’t exist. Nothing changed chronologically over the past 2000 years, but change has occurred. People have been born and died, land has eroded, rivers have changed direction (like the Mississippi), buildings have come and gone, etc. However, nothing has changed time-wise other than in the human mind.
Everything we know of the past was handed down in books and we learned it. The veracity of what we learned is now under question since it seems the victors write the history.
We can stop our subjective sense of time with the techniques you mention.
It does not stop time in physics and reality.
Stand in one place, then go to another place.
Are you in two places at once? No.
What separates those two states? Time.
Why is only time an illusion?
It would be much easier for you to argue that everything is an illusion.
In 2014, a group of scientists provided for the most accurate measurement of time dilation, by using Li+ ions as clocks moving at c/3 in a particle accelerator:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.7951
Next step
https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.06491
*
A quiz
One of the most ignorant and uneducated clowns appearing here recently wrote:
I dont recall Einstein ever talking about time dilation and/or compression.
Who was that?
La P,
Another irrelevant, pointless and stupid attempt at gutless character assassination? Have you no intestinal fortitude? Name the person – why deny them natural justice and the right of reply?
Oh dear! A quiz! Is there a prize, or is this just a back handed attempt at anonymous backstabbing? Surely not!
Have you settled your own science – the version where extra CO2 in the atmosphere raises surface temperatures whilst at the same time lowering surface temperatures?
Pick one version, and stick with it. Be prepared to defend your decision with facts, or be prepared to admit it’s just an opinion, a speculation, subject to experimental confirmation or disproof once you get around to writing up a testable hypothesis. That’s a good start, don’t you think?
If you just rush about, attempting to be too clever by ‘alf, I might think you are just being ignorant and stupid. Others might too, but I can’t speak for them.
Cheers.
As always: endless, useless, complacent blah blah.
La P,
Try a little variation if you like, unless you are too stupid or ignorant to realise that, while imitating yourself might be the sincerest form of flattery, you might wind up just talking to yourself all the time, seeking compliments.
You’ll still remain stupid and ignorant. I should imagine you’re getting quite used to that by now.
Cheers.
binny…”n 2014, a group of scientists provided for the most accurate measurement of time dilation,…”
In the first article, to which this quote applies, they used lasers and mirrors to measure a difference in ‘something’. I don’t see time appearing anywhere in the experiment. I see light from lasers, mirrors, and Lithium radiation, but no time.
Can you, or the learned researchers, point out to me where to find time in the experiment so it can be measured directly?
Due to your appeal to authority you presume all scientists think clearly. For the most part, maybe they do, but when it comes to matters like time they get stupid very quickly. That’s because there human mind produces a dichotomy between real-time, here-and-now awareness, and thoughts stored in memory.
If a scientist is not aware of that basic error built in to the human thought process, he/she can fall prey to illusions like space-time and time dilation. That can occur when a student falls prey to paradigms without taking the time to confirm them, or fails to study the integrity of his/her basic thought mechanisms.
The experiment is based on relativity but not relativity as Einstein described it. There was a German scientist who took the work of Einstein and made inferences related to time dilation that Einstein had never stated.
In article two, there is no reference to time dilation, they are talking only of synchronizing clocks used on a space craft with clocks in a ground station. There are issues with that due to the time it takes a signal to reach a ground station but it is hardly about time dilation or compression.
Robertson’s world of pseudoscience
We women often have a predilection for so-called experts and other loud-boasters.
Here is a nice sequence about Robertson’s incredibly deep knowledge concerning GPS.
*
A1. Gordon Robertson says:
March 8, 2018 at 12:55 AM
I just explained above how GPS works and it has nothing to do with time dilation or contraction.
…
However, I have worked in the field of communication with devices similar to GPS and I know for a fact there are no devices that can measure time dilation/compression or use it in their electronics.
…
There is nothing unique about GPS systems that are that different from comm systems that preceded them.
*
A2. Gordon Robertson says:
March 8, 2018 at 4:27 PM
This author does not know his/her butt from a hole in the ground wrt to communications systems like GPS.
…
Special relativity as put forth by Einstein has been embellished by idiots who are doing nothing more than speculating. I dont recall Einstein ever talking about time dilation and/or compression.
*
A3. Gordon Robertson says:
March 8, 2018 at 6:25 PM
You need to take that bs you learned about relativity and chuck it out. There is very little practical need for relativity theory and I have never encountered it in electronics in any capacity, especially as related to communications systems, including GPS.
Great!
binny…”Robertsons world of pseudoscience….”
I am still awaiting a coherent scientific rebuttal from you regarding my experience with communication systems like GPS. Sarcasm does not cut it as a scientific response, no matter how entitled you feel.
Let us now leave Robertsons pseudoscience world and switch to real science, a field he seems to lack fairly much of.
*
B1. Relativistic Effects in the Global Positioning System
Neil Ashby
Department of Physics, University of Colorado
https://tinyurl.com/y82ucqlk
and, less mathy but much more interesting (from the US DoD):
B2. Relativistic Effects in the Global Positioning System
AD-A158 720 (May 1985)
D. Eardley & al.
https://tinyurl.com/ydf36tba
Out of this document
3.1 Relativistic Effects In GPS
The relative magnitude of time dilation and gravitational redshift effects for a GPS satellite in its 12 hr, near-circular orbit is ~ 4 * 10^-10, or about 10^4 nsec/day, a very significant amount.
In GPS these relativistic effects axe taken into account by two successive correction procedures:
(1) Each satellite clock signal is offset by a relative amount 4.45 *10^-10 by frequency mixing. This correction approximately, but not exactly, removes the relativisitic effects, i.e., time dilation, Sagnac effect, and gravitational redshift, from the time signals as received by a GPS user.
(2) Residual corrections are then made in software in each GPS user’s receiver, based on correction parameters broad-cast by each satellite. This residual correction accounts for all relativistic effects in GPS, down to the specified system accuracy.
The correction parameters are updated from the ground once a day. In principle this is a completely adequate procedure according to relativity theory. Furthermore, many experiments have confirmed that the theory is correct to a higher degree of accuracy than is required in GPS.
A recent time transfer experiment using GPS satellites was able actually to test the standard Sagnac correction and checked the validity of the corrections to -5 nsec.
***
Robertson, you gave us here yourself the best possible proof of how knowledgeless you are.
Do you remember your words?
You have allowed your hatred of me to interfere with your ability to think rationally.
My answer: ‘Selbst Hass will verdient sein. Sie, Robertson, verdienen keinen Hass, nicht einmal Mitleid. Nur Verachtung.’
Any problem? Google might help a bit:
https://translate.google.com/?hl=en#de/en
Nobody hates you here, Robertson.
La P,
If you write in German, I don’t bother with Google. Why should I? If you use English to demonstrate that you are ignorant and stupid so well, why should I think any differently if you choose German?
Another irrelevant, pointless and stupid post? It turns out you provided the answer to your own “quiz”! you were only trolling, weren’t you? It wasn’t a quiz at all!
You would agree ti’s a bit ignorant and stupid to reply to a statement written in English, using a foreign language, wouldn’t you? What would be the point? I guess that makes you ignorant and stupid, that’s the point!
How’s the testable GHE hypothesis going? It might be more appropriate than discussing relativity, I suppose. At least it might help you to deny, divert and confuse. A bit of humour never hurt anybody, now, did it?
Time for you to call me a dog again – maybe you could use French or Polish or something, just for variety! Off you go, then.
Cheers.
As always: endless, useless, complacent blah blah.
La P,
And you still can’t produce a testable GHE hypothesis, can you?
It’s all just blah blah to you. Why involve science where stupidity and ignorance are so much easier for you? I don’t blame you one bit. I’d do the same if I was as ignorant and stupid as you seem to be.
Time for more dog references or blah blah from you?
Cheers
Mike Flynn
Testable GHE.
Hypothesis. Earth’s average surface is warmer because of GHG present in the atmosphere.
Calculation based upon established thermodynamics. The Earth’s surface would have an average temperature of 255 K based upon the energy it absorbs at its surface.
The measured average surface temperature of the Earth is 288 K. 33 K warmer than what is possible by solar radiant energy alone.
That is the testable GHE. The Earth should be 255 K but it is actually 288 K. The test is taking many measurements of the surface and coming up with an average based upon these measurements. Different techniques have been used which closely match each other so the average surface temperature is close to the stated value.
I have provided the answer to your endless questions. Now stop and think about what I have posted before you respond.
The worms in Norm’s head must be driving him crazy.
Con-man, if Earth had no water, the average surface temperature would be much lower.
Sorry to ruin your infatuation with the GHE.
g*e*r*a*n
Where does your declarations come from? Water is what cools the surface directly via evaporation. If you had an atmosphere with GHG and no surface water the surface temperature would be considerably warmer. Evaporation removes 86 W/m^2 from the surface acting to cool it.
More sorry you are so muddled and messed up on your understanding of physics they nothing can help you.
A start would be if you could understand why the Moon rotates on its axis once around every 28 days.
You can’t understand even this simple basic logic, how can you hope to grasp thermodynamics?
Very good, con-man. Now you’re mixing the 5-year-old routine with the old pseudoscience. Very good!
I think you deserve a new clown-name. How about “whiny con-man”?
Yup, a perfect fit.
g*e*r*a*n
Maybe the light will go off in your dim mind. The main reason I don’t like to communicate with you is because you never say anything go value. Your endless use of the word pseudoscience (when you don’t have a clue what it means) is so childish and ignorant.
Will you ever show signs of intelligence or thought. NO! So leave me alone. I post to other commentators and your baby child comments have to intrude. I posted to Flynn not you. I post to Gordon Robertson, not you. You need to jump in with your baby tantrums. Get over yourself. No one is interested in your posts. They insult you hoping you will go away. You never do. Now you need to jump in other people’s conversations because you can’t tolerate people ignoring you. Let it go. You are a crying baby with no teeth.
Let it go. I am not interested in you at all. I would not like you if I met you in person. You are a childish idiot and a jerk on top of it. You have nothing of value. I would intentionally avoid you if I knew who you were. With that go away and leave me to adult conversation. If I want baby babble I will seek you out.
Norm, you are only conning yourself, and a few other clowns. You have no understanding of science. You can’t understand issues unless someone gives you a “link”. And then you can’t understand the link. You didn’t even know what “pseudoscience” was, you had to look it up. All you can do is pound on your keyboard, fantasizing that you are important.
More, please. It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
I guess you won’t leave me alone. I maybe need to ask nicely. Will you kindly refrain from giving your opinions when I post to other commentators? Thank you. I would appreciate the effort on your part.
If I choose to comment to one of your posts, directly, feel free to offer your opinion to whatever I may post.
Norm, you have demonstrated a character somewhat between a weasel and a rat, if not lower. You need to go back and read some of your nonsense comments. In long comments, you have done nothing but viciously attack people. You probably have serious personal problems, and use this blog to escape reality.
If you don’t want me to respond to your maniacal comments:
1) Don’t claim your pseudoscience is fact. You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions, but they need to be labeled as such. You don’t have a clue about sciences like thermodynamic, heat transfer, and orbital motions, so don’t claim that you do.
2) Don’t mention me, either directly or indirectly.
3) Don’t attack anyone, unless you can maturely handle the counter-attack.
I don’t expect you to be able to obey even one of the above.
But, it will be fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
Norm, you have demonstrated a character somewhat between a weasel and a rat, if not lower. You need to go back and read some of your nonsense comments. In long comments, you have done nothing but viciously attack people. You probably have serious personal problems, and use this blog to escape reality.
You don’t think saying my character is between a weasel and a rat is not a vicious attack on me?
So link me to one you have not initiated with a derogatory comment.
Who do I viciously attack other than you or Flynn?
If you dont want me to respond to your maniacal comments:
1) Dont claim your pseudoscience is fact. You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions, but they need to be labeled as such. You dont have a clue about sciences like thermodynamic, heat transfer, and orbital motions, so dont claim that you do.
I only publish facts. You call valid established science pseudoscience. So if you can’t accept valid science I suggest read a textbook. I have good understanding of heat transfer. I don’t need to make it up like you do, I will just look at what the science claims. You make up your own material (which is pseudoscience) like energy can’t be absorbed by a hot object from a cold one. You say it is reflected. Made up pseudoscience. Goes against the established physics. Has no basis in fact. They are not my opinions or beliefs, they are established science. Your material is your opinion and belief. It is not based upon anything other than your own imagination.
2) Dont mention me, either directly or indirectly.
3) Dont attack anyone, unless you can maturely handle the counter-attack.
Why do you need to attack anyone? Why do you come up derogatory comments about 80% of the posters. You call Snape a 12 year-old with no evidence. You attack David Appell’s job status without a clue what he does, you attack my job status without a clue of what I do. What is the purpose of that. It is not debate you just want to provoke people. That is why I do not want to talk to you at all. You do not debate, you do not support any of your false, misleading, and unscientific declarations. You attack people all the time. I can give you hundreds of examples of just a mindless attack on a poster with zero scientific debate.
I dont expect you to be able to obey even one of the above.
But, it will be fun to watch.
Con-man, thanks for verifying my comment.
I have no illusions that you will change your character. That’s why I ended my comment with: “I dont expect you to be able to obey even one of the above.” Also, you may have noticed that I seldom waste much time with you. My comments are usually short, and right to the point. Typically, you are good for a brief chuckle, then I move on.
So, keep launching your pseudoscience, and I will keep shooting it down. It’s not a problem.
PS As to your claim that I attack people “all the time”, that is just another example of your not being able to see reality.
If your head worked, you would notice that I typically respond to responsible questions. When it is determined that the individual is not interested in learning, then I respond accordingly. When they refuse learning and resort to debate tricks, it is easy to classify them as clowns. I have no problem if people want to behave like clowns. Clowns can be entertaining.
More entertainment, please.
g*e*r*a*n
Once again you ignore your own statements and put it on other posters.
You are the one who posts pseudoscience. My posts are established science. That is one thing you are not seeing.
That is why I have posted the actual definition of pseudoscience to you. It is what you do. You make a declarative statement that you made up or got of a blog that goes against established science, has not basis in empirical science.
I have asked you so many times that it really is not funny. You never answer. What evidence, based upon established science, supports your claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics will not allow the temperature of cold surroundings to directly determine the temperature of a hotter powered object?
Your two plate solution is not based upon any valid physics and actually violates all current physics of heat transfer. Making up stuff and declaring it as fact and ridiculing everyone who posts valid science is not good debate.
Who do you debate with that you do not attack and use derogatory language? I have only seen you make positive comments to fellow pseudoscientists that make up their own versions of reality. Those who present established science you belittle in some manner or fashion, all the time on nearly every post.
Nearly every sentence is inaccurate!
Great job by the whiny con-man!
g*e*r*a*n
All my statements are accurate, based on real science. Your claim they are inaccurate is false and misleading. Fake News. Made up claims with no support. You do that all the time. Make rash declarations that are wrong and attack people who point out your false and misleading claims.
Yes I am right and you are very wrong but not Man enough to admit you haven’t got the slightest clue of science or physics. Your made up version is just not working for you anymore.
Make up stuff, it is what you do. I will learn and post established physics. People can judge for themselves. Any willing to research will soon see you are a complete and bogus phony that makes up stuff all the time. They will also learn you do not know any physics. You read a little on the internet and pretend to be an expert but all your points are flawed and horrible physics.
More of the same, from whiny.
g*e*r*a*n
Does posting the word “whiny” make you feel better? Hope so your fake physics doesn’t help you. Makes you look like a phony fraud. A pretender.
Posting “whiny” does not help your horrible physics or your phony personality. Make stuff it is all you know how to do.
In fact I can see you don’t even know what the work “whiny” means. You post it because you think it helps validate your awful science?
Stating obvious reality, that you make up science, is not whiny at all. It is quite truthful and factual.
whiny, making up false nonsense and then whining about it is hilarious.
The whiny con-man strikes again!
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
You are a little slow today. Too much strong alcohol?
I guess I will repeat. Your use of the word whiny (childish of you) does not make your phony physics more real.
You can say I am whiny all day long but it won’t make your pseudoscience real and it won’t help you understand real science better.
Just a way for you to pretend you knowledge when you do not.
Maybe the way you define “whiny” actually means Norman is speaking the truth. It seems you make up your own definitions of words. Like rotation, pseudoscience etc. You like to be a phony false person. It suits your personality well. Phony, False and dishonest all in one person.
Sorry Norm, I forgot to provide the definition of “whiny”. I forget how little education you have.
adj. whining; tending to whine or complain.
Glad to help.
binny…your first link to GPS and time dilation is trash, as I have explained earlier.
There are no provisions in GPS electronics for mythical time dilation. In fact, your second article in a recent post was about synchronizing the atomic clocks on space craft with the clocks on ground stations.
I have explained how that is done using synchronization signals in a communication signal between a satellite and ground along with actual information of the time on the atomic clock, the altitude of the sat, it’s velocity, etc.
The same process is used between airliners and ground radar. The airliners send a constant signal revealing their altitude, air speed, etc., to a special antenna attached to the primary radar sail. That’s how an airliner is identified on a radar screen. Otherwise it would simply show up as an unidentified blip.
Seriously, if you don’t understand this stuff yourself, why would you trust an article by some degreed geek who doesn’t understand it either?
There is nothing mysterious about atomic clocks. Attaching the world clock to them is a misnomer. The units are not clocks at all, they are atomic structures that vibrate at a very precise frequency. Time has nothing to do with atomic clocks and how they work.
The value of an atomic clock is that of a very precise crystal. If you activate a crystal with a regular electronic pulse it will continue to oscillate at a very precise frequency. It’s called the piezoelectric effect.
Our real time system is based on one rotation of the Earth. That period is broken down into the much smaller unit of the second. That’s the same second which atomic clocks are used to stabilize, not generate.
ATOMIC CLOCKS DO NOT MEASURE TIME!!!
Atomic clocks generate a very precise frequency which can be sub-divided down to represent the second we humans invented. To derive that time, digital electronic devices must be used to count the atomic generator pulses and divide them using digital dividers.
We know how many pulses correspond to a second because we invented the second. To know the frequency at which an atom vibrates, we must first know how many pulses there are in a second. That’s already known for a Cesium clock therefore it’s a matter of detecting the atomic vibration, sub-dividing them, and syncing to them.
Atomic clock vibrations have nothing to do with time. The vibrations are related to internal atomic forces and electrostatic attractions/repulsions.
Anyone out there writing about time dilation in an atomic clock, is a raving idiot.
It is not possible to dilate the frequencies generated by an atomic clock by moving it at higher velocities, especially not at the velocities encountered in GPS systems.
Atomic timebase generators should not be affected by high velocities, even near the speed of light. I have no idea what a sudden dramatic and abrupt acceleration effect may have on them, or an extreme G-force, but a linear velocity should not affect them at all, especially at the speeds of satellites.
binny…”Each satellite clock signal is offset by a relative amount 4.45 *10^-10 by frequency mixing. This correction approximately, but not exactly, removes the relativisitic effects, i.e., time dilation, Sagnac effect, and gravitational redshift, from the time signals as received by a GPS user”.
*********
This is geek philosophy, an engineer designing a communications system for sat to ground communications is not concerned with time dilation only a difference in time between the satellite clock and the ground station clock.
I admitted that minor relativity issues exist related to a Doppler effect since one body is moving relative to the other. A hacker could solve that problem through tinkering with the communications signal. An engineer would likely be more formal, resorting to relativity math, but not to the degree of worrying about a mythical time dilation.
The signal from a sat is traveling at the speed of light. How long does it take the signal to reach the ground station and to what extent would a red shift be significant?
Time dilation is actually an a**-backwards view of science. With GPS, you have real masses orbiting the Earth with a fairly precise momentum. The sats have one force affecting them, gravity, and they have a precise angular momentum, which keeps them in orbit. The sat remains in orbit due to an phenomena, and time has nothing to do with the process whatsoever.
However, to measure such processes, we invented time. In reality, time should always be a dependent variable, with nothing dependent on it. That’s not the case with some scientists who are so hung up in math that they think they can transpose time to the LHS of an equation as a dependent variable. Time dilation is only possible as an illusion in the human mind based on such incorrect science.
All you need is a series of pulses in the communications signal to tell you how out-of-sync you are time-wise. The sat sends it’s local time along with the frequency of its transmitted pulses. A decoder in a ground station could be easily programmed to detect the difference in the pulse frequency sent to that received and you’d immediately know the difference in time and red-shift.
The sats have their own time system with ground stations having a different system. How is it possible for two time systems to co-exist? The problem is in synchronizing the two systems, it has absolutely nothing to do with fictitious time dilation.
type…”….some scientists who are so hung up in math that they think they can transpose time to the LHS of an equation as a dependent variable”.
Should be ‘independent variable’.
— Gordon Robertson says:
March 17, 2018 at 6:49 PM
gbaikieAnd more water vapor does not cause there be more water vapor.
Im a little vague on evaporation theory so I boned up a bit. It seems that the miniscule heat that could POSSIBLY be added by GHGs to oceans and surface water is not enough to significantly increase WV in the atmosphere. I think that concept comes more from wishful thinking than actuality. —
I think concept comes from a warmer Earth should have higher amount of water vapor.
It seems likely to me that holocene optimum [9000 to 5000 year ago} Earth was warmer and had more water vapor than it has currently. And one could find evidence which supported this.
Or globally there should have been more rainfall and should have had less deserts, as is know we didn’t have the Sahara desert [the largest non polar desert in world]. Though of course some deserts are made by topographical features of being behind a mountain range. So roughly speaking place in which you get large or small amount of rainfall due to topographical feature are going to get twice or 3 times more rainfall or increase could be quite small and having more frequent rain rather than a lot more rain per year.
If Earth average temperature was say 18 C, I would expect more water vapor than we have now.
Currently most of Earth water vapor is in the tropics, and in warmer world one would not get a much warmer tropics nor a tropics with much more water vapor. Instead you would get higher average temperatures outside of the tropics and more water vapor and rainfall outside the tropics.
And I think one gets a warmer world by increasing the entire oceans average temperature which now about 3.5 C. Or entire ocean temperature was more than 4 C would this cause a higher global temperature. But increasing entire ocean by .5 C requires about 1000 years.
And if entire ocean was 4 C or more, the surface temperature of ocean would much warmer. So presently about 17 C and might get the average as high as 20 C.
But likewise I wouldn’t expect the tropical surface. temperature to increase by much, rather it’s surface ocean temperature outside tropics- which don’t have warm by much to get 20 C average temperature.
Or tropical ocean surface is about 26 C and is about 40% of all ocean surface, so widening the warmer zone of tropical zone like temperature and increasing remaining 50% to 60% ocean by average of couple of degrees.
And said I don’t think CO2 make ocean warmer, though it might make air a bit warmer.
Though imagine some think one can significantly warm the air and not need to warm ocean to get increase in global temperature. Such thinking would explain why they think a warmer world would have worse droughts, but I think it’s wrong.
Nice to see you thinking!
But references to science confirming what you think would be nice as well.
What specifically do you think needs references.
With internet you can search:
Ocean average surface temperature.
Average ocean temperature.
Surface area of tropics
Average temperature of tropics
Etc.
One site which as all average temperature of all countries is
is available at Berkeley Earth. I find this interesting because for a long time I have wanted such a handy reference.
https://www.iceagenow.info/noaa-manipulating-the-data-video/
What else is new this is why it is satellite data and ONLY satellite data.
salvatore…”What else is new this is why it is satellite data and ONLY satellite data”.
I have known what a load of scumbags are NOAA and GISS but I have no idea NOAA has obliterated the extreme warming in North America during the 1930s. They should be prosecuted for that since they as a US government body. Unfortunately, the UA senator go after them, Lamarr Smith, is retiring soon.
With the recent extreme cold in North America last winter, NOAA has completely ignored it.
In the meantime the overall sea surface temperatures are lower as well as global temperatures. Did any one notice the nose dive in temperatures in the Arctic.
Now below average. This year will be the transitional year.
Got to watch the magnetic field strength and the movement /position of the North Magnetic pole.
The field is fading at a rate of 5% per decade now and seem to be accelerating.
This in tandem with very weak solar is going to have climatic impacts in my opinion.
Watching overall sea surface temperatures ,an increase in silica rich volcanic activity and an overall increase incloud/snow coverage to get clues as to where we are heading along with a more meridional atmospheric circulation.
Galactic cosmic rays now at 6700 units and rising.
If clouds are created at night what effect is caused by having clouds during the night?
Slight variation: If more clouds are caused
to be created at night than would otherwise
be created, what effect does have compared not causing more clouds?
Salvatore says: “The field is fading at a rate of 5% per decade now and seem to be accelerating.”
Salvatore, there is a lot of false information out there about Earth’s magnetic field. Do you have a reliable source for the 5% per decade decline?
swarm data which is the most reliable.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/swarm-data-earths-magnetic-field-is-weakening-10-times-faster.761189/
Interesting, thanks!
When you have solar pond on earth within the region of 30 degree latitude N or S. The saltwater below the less salty surface will reach about 80 C and surface temperature of pond will be about 30 C.
What happens if you put a solar pond on the Moon and/or Mars?
A problem with the Moon or Mars is they lack air pressure.
Water in a vacuum is not liquid. It’s either a solid or a gas, but you don’t need much pressure to have water be a liquid.
Mars has about 1/100th of Earth’s sea level pressure of 14.7 psi. Or about .15 psi and at such pressure water boils at about 10 C. So if had pressurize greenhouse at about .5 psi, then you have solar pond on the Moon or Mars.
And human blow up something inflatable – like a balloon to about 5 psi – 10 times the pressure as .5 psi.
With the Moon one gets more sunlight than earth, therefore same solar pond on Moon would reach 120 C, rather 80 C. But if you make solar pond deeper on earth it has lower temperature than 80 C. So if solar pond was say 10 meters deep rather a couple meters deep, one might get a high temperature of 50 C or more. So with the Moon you can have solar pond deeper and get temperature of around 80 C.
Another factor is that the Moon and Mars has a different gravity than Earth. What a solar pond does is inhibit convectional heat loss. And lower gravity would/should also inhibit convectional heat loss. And no one has ever tried to use a solar pond in lower gravity. So there is that uncertainty.
With Mars one gets an average of about 600 watts per square meter. With Earth at noon (clear skies and sun near zenith) one gets about 1120 watts of direct and indirect sunlight and about 1050 watts of direct sunlight (wiki, sunlight).
With Earth when sun gets further away from zenith, the sunlight must go thru more atmosphere and less sunlight reaches the surface. And with Mars thin atmosphere it doesn’t diminish like it does on Earth. Though there is another factor which is sunlight on a level surface – the sunlight smears over more surface area, for example when sun is 30 degree angle to surface one gets 1/2 as much sunlight per square meter. And this factor applies whether there an atmosphere or not.
Anyhow for most of a day, Mars gets about 600 watts and for most of day, Earth doesn’t get 1000 watts per square meter.
Or Mars thin atmosphere allows it to get more sunlight reaching the surface. And when include Earth’s, Mars gets close to amount sunlight as Earth (though the noon sunlight on Earth is much more intense or similar to Earth’s sunlight after 3 pm.
And with Mars unmagnified isn’t got to a solar pond anywhere near 80 C, but perhaps as warm as 40 C.
gbaikie…”Water in a vacuum is not liquid. Its either a solid or a gas, but you dont need much pressure to have water be a liquid”.
Saw this youtube vid about that which is interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG7nsZkVZc0
I had thought about this wrt to radiation in space. I get it that the temperature in space, which is a vacuum in many ways, is near absolute zero. As you remove it’s constituent molecules, a container of air should cool due to a reduction in pressure. Whereas that makes sense wrt the Ideal Gas Equation, it’s hard to imagine using common sense.
Why should a vacuum drop to absolute zero (-273C)? I suppose if you look at it the other way around, we are used to living in an atmosphere where the air pressure is plentiful. The air molecules have already raised the temperature to an average 15C due to their density. What does not make sense is that removing the air from a container completely would reduce it’s temperature to -273C.
BTW, there is still matter in that vacuum in the link above therefore it could not be a perfect vacuum.
The reason that makes no sense to me is that temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of air molecules, which we call heat. To stop them moving, you must reduce the temperature to -273C. However, in a vacuum as created at the link above, does the temperature actually drop that low?
I mean, if you step out of a spacecraft where there is no molecules or atoms anywhere in sight, and there is no warming from a star-like heat source, how would you measure the temperature? I guess that whatever temperature device you have would simply register at the bottom of the scale, provided it could read that low.
ps I noticed at the 34 second mark of the video in the link I posted, there seems to be a pad under the beaker with wires running to it. Are they heating that beaker inside the vacuum?
Also, note that the beaker seems to have ice in it already as they pour in the water.
Space has no temperature. It is neither cool or warm.
When warm air at high pressure enters a vacuum, that air will cool, but if there isn’t enough air density of this air that enters a vacuum it will not be cold or it has no temperature, or no “air temperature”.
Or one needs thousands or say a million molecules per cubic cm
for air to have temperature and space has around 10 atoms per cubic cm. Though those atoms are traveling at very high speed – and it’s solar wind and it’s around 500 km per second (about 1 million mph or going about 1000 times velocity of molecules of air in Earth’s atmosphere. And kinetic energy of gas is 1/2 mass times velocity square so, if these atoms going this speed had earth air density, it would be very hot – incinerate anything.
The Earth’s thermosphere also lacks enough density to have a temperature, though it is said to be hot, but what meant is the air molecules are traveling at high velocity and collided If they were going 11 km per second – that’s earth escape velocity (and they souls leave Earth)- so they are going a few km per second or about 10 times faster than sea level air molecules.
gbaikie…”Space has no temperature. It is neither cool or warm”.
Interesting, but I would not say it is not cool. An absence of temperature due to an absence of matter means no heat has built up and that means -273C or so. The Big Bang theory is based on a temperature in space of a few degrees above absolute zero.
Mind you, BB theorists are talking about a background RADIATION which they seem to presume represents heat from the BB. I think they are demented.
I would not want to be out there without a space suit that is very well insulated and electrically heated.
The notion that no temperature exists, which means there is no heat, is intriguing, if not somewhat confusing. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation that covers such theory suggests two temperatures are required for a body to dissipate heat. If there is nothing there to create a temperature difference, why should any body radiate?
Electrons radiate EM when they drop to a lower energy level. Other than by collision, that’s pretty well how an atom sheds heat. If you put a metal bar in a furnace where it is surrounded by temps of 500C, it’s not going to radiate anything, it’s going to be busy absorbing as the electrons all rise to higher energy levels.
Alternately, if you place atoms in a cooler environment, they cool. I am referring here to a solid bar of metal, not a gas. Therefore loss of heat via collisions is minimal. I am theorizing they cool because electrons near the outer edge of the metal ‘sense’ the cooler atoms surrounding them and begin dropping to lower energy levels to achieve thermal equilibrium. Although I can’t prove it, I would presume cooling comes from the inside out.
It should be similar with a gas exposed to the coolness of space and I mean ANY gas molecule. I would imagine atmospheric gases at the TOA see space as a vast sink of a much cooler temperature to which they need to be in thermal equilibrium.
If a body is in equilibrium with it’s surroundings it won’t cool on average. As some claim, there are bound to be atoms plus/minus above/below the average temperature at equilibrium and emission/absorp-tion goes both ways. If its surroundings are significantly warmer, it becomes warmer. If it’s surroundings are cooler, it cools too.
There are two version of S-B. The simpler version refers to a theoretical blackbody with Q = b.T^4 with b = S-B constant of 5.67 x 10^-8 W.m^2/K^4.
However, I think we need to back up a bit. Remember, this is a blog and I’m offering an opinion, not submitting a paper. In the days of S-B and Planck, they thought heat was radiated from a body as rays of energy. We now know that is not true, that electrons convert heat to EM and the EM is radiated. The S-B constant seems to be referring to heat, not EM.
I interpret S-B as heat loss at a surface not EM. Just as heat is equivalent to work, EM seems to have an equivalence to heat. However, the units of work are not equivalent to the units of heat and I would presume that applies to EM as well.
If you look at S-B version 2 it becomes Q = ebA(T^4 – To^4)
That’s T^4 minus To^4, in case WordPress gobbles the minus sign.
e = emissivity, b = the constant, A = surface area, and T = temperatures of different bodies/environments.
If you try that equation in a room, it should work, but it likely won’t. If you have an electric, radiant heat source of 1000 watts in a room at 20C, the 1000 watt refers to the electric power drawn not the heat intensity itself. There is a relationship between the electrical power consumption and how much a device should warm (it’s temperature) so that should give us T.
What about T0, the environment temperature? We can presume an average air temp of 20C in theory. If the heat source is at a temperature of 500C (picked from a hat) then S-B should tell us ‘something’ about the radiative emission of the heat source at 20C but it won’t tell us a whole lot about how the room warms.
The room air is going to warm by direct conduction between the heater element and the N2/O2 in the room air. Then convection will spread the heat. That’s where I think Swannie’s initial experiment went astray.
I am using this example to illustrate the inadequacy of rushing to known equations to calculate atmospheric temperatures. I think the GHE and AGW are based on faulty assumptions, as well as an incomplete application of thermodynamics theory.
How about radiation from TOA? How do you apply S-B to that situation if space has no temperature? Do you presume it is -273C? Or do you apply the simpler form of S-B for a theoretical blackbody?
That is fraught with problems as well. Boltzmann ‘calculated’ radiation from the Sun by comparing it to a piece of heated metal, then PRESUMED that 1/3rd of the radiation was absorbed by the atmosphere.
Where is that 1/3rd of solar radiation in today’s climate model calculations??? According to Boltzmann, the atmosphere should be heated by incoming solar, and that includes nitrogen and oxygen.
Solar energy has a very broad spectral bandwidth yet we focus only on the terrestrial heating part of solar radiation. It is more than likely that certain frequencies in the solar spectrum are heating N2/O2 on the way in. Since they account for 99% of the atmosphere, no one is going to notice that other than Boltzmann’s estimation that 1/3 of the solar at TOA is absorbed by the atmosphere.
As ren has pointed out, the stratosphere is warmer than the layer below it because oxygen in the stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet and converts to ozone. How does this colder layer below radiate to space through a warmer region?
Of course, it comes down to the density of O2 in the stratosphere. All I’, trying to say is there are more questions than answers when it comes to the GHE, AGW, and the fictitious energy budget.
error…in the simpler form of S-B it should read:
Q = (sigma).T^4
Sigma, the proportionality constant is the S-B constant. However, it involves the Boltzmann constant, the Planck constant, and the speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
The Boltzmann constant addresses the average kinetic energy in a gas in relation to the temperature of a gas. Clausius developed the concept of entropy to do the same but he defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal change in heat in a process at the temperature T at which the changes take place. Of course, he also defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms.
Boltzmann took the Clausius definition of entropy into the world of statistical analysis and redefined it on a particle basis rather than the macro basis upon which Clausius defined entropy. He was trying to prove the 2nd law using statistical analysis and I think many modernists have interpreted his meaning incorrectly.
In the Ideal Gas Law there is a constant of proportionality, R, which does much the same as Boltzmann’s constant. The Boltzmann constant is R divided by Avogadro’s number, which essentially defines the number of atoms, molecules, etc. in a mole of a substance.
gordon, if you want to read your comments, i suggest getting right tovthe point, and trying to be concise.
arghh, ‘want people to read’
nate…”gordon, if you want to read your comments, i suggest getting right tovthe point, and trying to be concise”.
Thanks for suggestion, Nate…next!!!
You cannot explain complex concepts in a few words. Talking about a vacuum having no temperature because it has no mass is a complex problem, especially as it applies to climate science.
besides…I like talking to myself.
Gordon,
I have to agree, to reach a conclusion you need to narrow it down to the core.
That is impossible when you throw in more and more peripheral or unrelated stuff.
I assume it is not your intention to create a gish gallop.
My guestimate for March UAH: Stasis – +0.20
If you would like to take a great deal from this post then you have to apply these techniques
to your won webpage.