DC Cherry Blossom Peak to be met with Peak Snow?

April 4th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Tidal Basin cherry blossoms on March 29, 2016 (left); and then on March 14, 2017 after an early blossom then snow (right). Photo by Kevin Ambrose, Washington Post.

After continuing delays due to cold weather, the National Park Service’s daily update for the DC Tidal Basin cherry blosson predicts that the peak blossom time will finally be this weekend.

But you might want to get out the snow shovel if you want to go see this annual event.

The latest weather forecast models are predicting anywhere from 6 to 18 inches of snow by Sunday morning, beginning late Friday night, April 6 (all forecast graphics courtesy of Weatherbell.com):

Weather model forecasts of total snowfall by Sunday morning, April 8, 2018. The DC metro area is in the circle. All forecast graphics courtesy of Weatherbell.com.

The swath of snow forecast to affect the DC area is unusually far south for April, as seen in the ECMWF forecast ending Sunday morning for the eastern U.S.:

Total forecast snowfall from the ECMWF model as of Sunday morning, April 8, 2018 for the eastern U.S.

And if you think this is just a temporary cold shot that will immediately give way to warmer temperatures, here’s the GFS model forecast of temperature departures from normal averaged over the next 10 days, which shows a widespread area averaging 10-12 deg F below normal:

GFS model forecast of 10-day average temperature departures from normal for the period April 4 through April 13.

That’s the average over the next 10 days. On most individual days in the period, some areas will be 20-30 deg. F below normal.


856 Responses to “DC Cherry Blossom Peak to be met with Peak Snow?”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. BD says:

    This article is utter nonsense. Nobody is predicting that. Maybe 1-2″ Saturday which I doubt.

    • Ron Long says:

      BD, looks like weatherbell.com is predicting something like that. We only have a few days to wait for a Reality Check. Let’s see.

    • AZ1971 says:

      Nobody is predicting that.

      What, so the GFS and ECMWF are making things up? Sure, the models can and will change – but to summarily dismiss the entirety of the article because of a personal bias or nescience isn’t helpful nor indicative of personal expertise.

      Cold and snow sometimes happens in April. Sometimes it happens with epic ferocity. Let’s wait and see what develops.

          • Nate says:

            The end of snow? No not yet. The article was clearly talking about a half century from now and about ski areas in the mountains.

          • bgee says:

            >Nate says:
            >April 4, 2018 at 10:03 AM
            >The end of snow? No not yet. The article was clearly talking >about a half century from now and about ski areas in the >mountains.

            well, where do you think it will get warmer first? the lowlands or the mountains before the 50 years?

          • Nate says:

            High elevations are warming faster

          • Coolist says:

            Nate: “High elevations are warming faster” Really? Where the CO2 concentrations are lower. How does that work with your AGW hypothesis?

          • David Appell says:

            Wrong, Coolist. CO2 is a very well mixed gas.

          • Coolist says:

            Uh Wrong DA: http://www.bapihvac.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Altitude_Temperature_CO2_ALC.pdf
            The cream in your latte is well mixed. CO2 concentration decreases with altitude. Just because a warmist told you CO2 is well mixed doesn’t make it so. “Well mixed” seems a loosely defined term almost as loosely defined as your AGW hypothesis.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly appelly, did you ever find your missing “150 W/m^2”?

          • Nate says:

            Coolist,

            Read it carefully. That article is all about MEASURING CO2 properly, and understanding how pressure affects the measurement. Says nothing about ppm actually decreasing with altitude.

          • Nate says:

            “Youve made a bunch of cardboard cutout figures, whose only motivation is $$$. Its silly. You dont know any of these people.”

            I get that many good people work at these companies. But the actions of the corporations are well documented. There is lots of data, as I showed in the article above.

          • Nate says:

            Wrong thread, next one.

          • Svante says:

            Coolist says:

            Uh Wrong DA: http://www.bapihvac.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Altitude_Temperature_CO2_ALC.pdf
            The cream in your latte is well mixed. CO2 concentration decreases with altitude. Just because a warmist told you CO2 is well mixed doesnt make it so. Well mixed seems a loosely defined term almost as loosely defined as your AGW hypothesis.

            That document describes measurement compensation.

            Of course you get the wrong ratio if you don’t compensate for the smaller absolute amount of CO2 in thin air.

            Did you think Building Automation Products Inc. knows something that scientists were unaware of?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Nate,

          No they aren’t.

          Cheers.

          • little man thinks he controls the earth ? the ego is only passed by the stupidity

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nut has had trouble with his overly-active imagination before.

          • David Appell says:

            Oh no Nate, Youve posted a scientific result, which we all know is nothing but a gotcha, and will not be entertained in denier circles. Avoiding scientific results is so much easier ….

          • David Appell says:

            BART: eastern alps. Thats not the globe, am I right?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Notice how quickly Jelly runs from the facts, just after trying to claim that’s what others would do.

            What a clown.

          • Bart says:

            “…eastern alps. Thats not the globe, am I right?”

            Anything without the Eastern Alps – that’s not the globe, right?

          • Nate says:

            From the nature paper “Here we review important mechanisms that contribute towards EDW: snow albedo and surface-based feedbacks; water vapour changes and latent heat release; surface water vapour and radiative flux changes; surface heat loss and temperature change; and aerosols. All lead to enhanced warming with elevation (or at a critical elevation), and it is believed that combinations of these mechanisms may account for contrasting regional patterns of EDW”

          • Nate says:

            Eastern Italian Alps

          • Nate says:

            This study was realized in Trentino, a region located in the Central-Eastern Italian Alps, which covers an area of 6212 km2 co

          • Nate says:

            6200 km^2 sounds like a lot. The size of Delaware, oh ok.

          • David Appell says:

            Are you trying to imply that a tiny set equals a whole set? It seems so, but that is ludicrous.

            What percentage of the globes area are the eastern Alps?

          • Bart says:

            Is the warming global, or isn’t it?

            Why is the Southern Hemisphere warming so much slower than the Northern?

          • David Appell says:

            What do scientists mean by the word global? Do you honestly think that means the same amount of warming over every square centimeter of the earth?

          • Bart says:

            Come on, David. What does such a large discrepancy mean?

          • David Appell says:

            What large discrepancy? What is the area of the eastern alps divided by the area of the planet?

          • Bart says:

            The Southern Hemisphere is half of the globe. Hence the name.

          • Nate says:

            Yes, and there are logical reasons why the SH is warming slower, that Im sure you know.

            Similarly, tiny regions, the size of Delaware, can have wildly different trends, for logical reasons, that you should know.

          • Bart says:

            “Yes, and there are logical reasons why the SH is warming slower, that Im sure you know. “

            I will tell you why: because there’s a helluva lot more that goes into setting surface temperatures than just the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

          • Nate says:

            “a helluva lot more that goes into setting surface temperatures”

            Yeah and we understand much of what that is and how it affects temperature, i.e. large ocean fraction of SH, large land fraction of NH. Land at South Pole, ocean at North Pole. Ocean circulation patterns.

            If you are saying that SH warming slower than NH is inconsistent with AGW, that is without merit.

          • Bart says:

            You think you understand it. However, thinking you understand something, and actually understanding it, are not generally the same thing.

            But, that’s not the point. The point is that the aggregate impact of particular influences is the result of a very complicated interplay among various factors. It’s not a simple application of elementary scientific principles.

          • Nate says:

            “The point is that the aggregate impact of particular influences is the result of a very complicated interplay among various factors. Its not a simple application of elementary scientific principles.”

            Some aspects of climate change are not as well understood as others, but why the SH is warming slower than the NH is not one of them.

            The attitude that if we don’t understand some things, this implies that the problem is just too difficult, too complex, is ridiculous, and not consistent with the history of science.

            Gravity wave detection from colliding black holes, whose behavior was accurately predicted with general relativity models? Unthinkable 10 y ago.

            Weather prediction a week in advance, is VERY complicated, and was unthinkable 50 y ago.

          • Bart says:

            “…why the SH is warming slower than the NH is not one of them.”

            You think… In actual fact, the discrepancy is put down to a number of potential causes, the precise mix of which is unknown, and it is an area of active research.

            The AGW problem has been advertised as just application of basic scientific principles. Such a description is intended to marginalize critics as being akin to Flat Earthers, rejecting something basic and obvious. But, in fact, there is a long chain of assumptions built into the conjecture that are not validated as a whole.

            It is a house of cards. The cards are very stiff and stable individually, but the structure itself depends upon how stably they rest upon one another.

          • Nate says:

            A similar case has been often made against Evolutionary theory. Certain things have been not understood, or evidence wasnt available, such as missing links between species, or how complicated organs (eg the eye) developed.

            The Intelligent Design theory (Creation by another name) was said to be required to explain these mysteries. Evolutionary theory was said to be falsified.

            But over time these minor mysteries have been explained. New intermediate species, the missing links, were found. Animals with simpler versions of the organs were found.

            Evolutionary theory still stands.

          • Bart says:

            And, there have equally been non-success stories where, when the holes in the science were filled, the theory collapsed. Your point of view here is being informed by selection bias.

          • Nate says:

            The case against evolution was always flimsy, and driven by religious beliefs. The ‘holes’ were never significant.

            Exactly the same as your case against AGW, also driven by industry profits.

          • Bart says:

            Absolute nonsense. The profits are flowing to the pro-AGW side. These paranoid conspiracy theories about the oil companies are just silly. Every major oil company has signed on to the AGW ridiculousness, first because they know there is no real competition for their product, second because if there were, nobody stands better to capitalize on new energy sources than energy companies, which is what they are, and thirdly because it hobbles their only real competition in coal.

            Open your eyes. You are being played.

          • Nate says:

            “These paranoid conspiracy theories about the oil companies are just silly. ”

            At the moment its mainly coal companies, but historically, yes oil companies like Exxon.

            C’mon, are you that naive? What industry, whose profits have been threatened by science, has NOT responded by promoting doubt about it?

            Why do think tanks like the Heartland Institute exist? For the public interest? Why have they been heavily funded by the Koch brothers and the Western Fuels Assoc.?

          • Nate says:

            Interesting research on this very issue:

            http://www.pnas.org/content/113/1/92.short

            Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change
            Justin Farrell
            PNAS January 5, 2016. 113 (1) 92-97

            “Two main findings emerge. First, that organizations with corporate funding were more likely to have written and disseminated texts meant to polarize the climate change issue. Second, and more importantly, that corporate funding influences the actual thematic content of these polarization efforts, and the discursive prevalence of that thematic content over time. “

          • Bart says:

            You are such an easy mark.

          • Nate says:

            Apparently you guys are the targets of well funded corporate propoganda.

          • Bart says:

            You are the target of ridiculously better funded AGW propaganda. You have been sold a bill of goods that corporate = evil, and your sympathies are with those whose motives you imagine are pure. You couldn’t be more wrong.

            The motives of those who want to control you and enrich themselves from your naivete, without themselves producing anything of value, are as base as they come: power. Money can buy power, which will last as long as the money does. But, real power is obtained by convincing lemmings to support you, and hand over their rights and wherewithal willingly and even enthusiastically.

            That is the wretched state to which you have devolved, a tool for the satisfaction of the whims of those in whom you have foolishly placed your trust.

          • Nate says:

            Talk about conspiracy theory

            “those who want to control you and enrich themselves from your naivete”

            Who is controlling me? How are they getting rich by it? And how are they controlling me?

          • Nate says:

            ‘ridiculously better funded AGW propaganda.’

            Ever heard of capitalism? Do you know how it works?

            You don’t seem to understand the profit motive very well, and how it drives corporate behavior. The force is strong with that one.

          • Bart says:

            How is what you are suggesting not a conspiracy theory? You’ve made a bunch of cardboard cutout figures, whose only motivation is $$$. It’s silly. You don’t know any of these people. You just salivate and bark at them when your handlers ring the bell.

          • Nate says:

            Surely, if you are right Bart, that AGW proponents have more money, more power, and more control over people, surely congress could pass a comprehensive bill to regulate GHG?

            Well of course republicans control the three branches so are the only thing standing in the way of the the climate alarmists. We’ll have wait until Democrats control govt to see if you are right.

            Oh wait, we did try that experiment, in 2009. The comprehensive GHG bill failed in the DEM controlled congress with DEM president. How could that have happened if the climate mafia has all the power? Hmmmm…

          • Nate says:

            Youve made a bunch of cardboard cutout figures, whose only motivation is $$$. Its silly. You dont know any of these people.

            I think that many good people work at these companies. But the actions of the corporations are well documented. There is lots of data, as I showed in the article above.

    • CW says:

      Well, not sure if the Weather Channel is anyone but they are predicting 5-8 inches of snow with accumulations of 1-3 inches on Saturday with more snow on Sunday.

    • Mark Sircus says:

      Are you always in the habit of showing how utterly rediculous you can be, or said another way, your way, how full of nonsense you can be?

    • PhilJ says:

      What if i could tell you exactly where the range of the TOA was and that whether it was contracting or expanding tells us whether the planet is warming or cooling ?

  2. Maybe NOAA can go fudge more data and make the snow go away before it even arrives.

  3. gbaikie says:

    Global average temperature is still warm, but the land is bit cold?

    • Iska Waran says:

      How do we know whether global temps have risen in recent years? From thermometers that have been increasingly surrounded by urban heat islands? From thermometers outside of the US and Western Europe that didn’t exist until recent decades? From ocean buoys (the Argo Array) that only started to be deployed in 2007? Satellite sensors show little-to-no temperature increase, and even those only go back ~30 years.

      • gbaikie says:

        Global temperatures have dropped from the peak caused by El Nino, but they are not at moment, lower in terms the trend, we might be returning the recent ‘pause’. And right now, we are far below the global average temperature predicted by the governmental “experts” (or overpaid and indulged cargo cult shamans).

        I would say there is no indication of returning to climate conditions of the Little Ice Age, or we are still on course of recovering from the LIA.

        • gbaikie says:

          Also, quoting Roy Spencer in latest update:
          “The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through March 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”

          And I tend think this trend will lower a big, but it has been that for quite while.

          And with satellite measurements, one doesn’t weather station site issues nor would urban heat islands effect be much of a problem.

        • al gore says:

          You can be even more accurate and just generally say that all predictions made by “the scientists” have been radically wrong.
          But, as I learned decades ago, facts do not matter to dims and MSM. Just emotion and hysteria. And demands for massive taxes to “fix” it.

          • David Appell says:

            Sorry, but neither climate scientists nor their models make predictions.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            You’re not sorry at all. You are lying.

            “Climate science” is an oxymoron. No science at all. Just mad assertions about the future – claims that we’ll all boil, bake, toast or roast.

            What garbage.

            Cheers.

          • rh says:

            Yeah, climate scientists don’t make predictions, it’s more prophesy. Doomsday prophesy to be exact.

          • David Appell says:

            rh: do you understand why climate models cannot make predictions, only projections?

          • Obama says:

            Climate scientists and models are constantly making predictions. Here in California they are so worried about the climate scientist predictions and models that they have taxes to fight climate change.

            I really doubt California would be fighting climate change with taxes unless there were predictions.

            Sorry David. David is being dishonest.

          • David Appell says:

            Nope. Climate models do not make predictions. Period. They can only make projections, based on assumed future emissions, and dont take into account the timing of volcanoes and solar changes.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Just as well that climatologists do nothing.

            The IPCC states that it is impossible to predict future climate.

            No need for climatology is there!

            One stupid ignorant fool can guess equally well as the next stupid ignorant fool. Completely useless, of course, because they can’t even agree on what is they should be guessing.

            Try science – you might be surprised at the results.

            Cheers.

    • Mark Sircus says:

      No they are not still warm, yes we had a warming period like we always do through history but all of the global warming propaganda is false….just the kind of lies one would expect from politicians like Gore and Obama and of course democrats eat the lies for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

  4. Teddy Novak says:

    Global warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.
    Sheep, lemmings, and Leftists are easily manipulated.
    zazzle.com/firstprinciples?rf=238518351914519699

    • gbaikie says:

      , and the Pope.

      The Pope should be the Pope for the religion he was elected to represent.

    • argus says:

      Surely Industrialization will have side effects. Why not try to understand what they could be, or predict how they could work?

      • gbaikie says:

        Surely, the industrial revolution, had side effects. Such as ending global slavery, yes the north Africans and others are attempting to re-establish it, but seems in long term it is a doomed enterprise.

        One very bad thing is the growth of size of government, there would far less government corruption without the revolution. Of course we would have never gone to the moon, and etc, etc.
        As for future side effects, probably sex robots.

        • David Appell says:

          How many people have died from the air and water pollution that accompanied the industrial era?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            More gotchas. How many people have died as the result of their heart failing to keep beating?

            Do you contend that you can prevent people from dying? Or stop the climate from changing?

            Only a stupid, ignorant, or totally deluded person would believe such nonsense. Which are you?

            Cheers.

          • coturnix says:

            alot less that was able to live off the fruits of industrialization, and live way better than ever before

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly appellly is afraid of industrialization. That’s why he doesn’t have a job.

          • Nate says:

            All you guys who prefer extreme smog. Perhaps you should move to sunny Shanghai!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Now if you could find someone that preferred extreme smog, your comment might be relevant, huh Nut?

          • David Appell says:

            Well-being has increased through the use of energy – though thats no longer a trend in the US, where per capita real GDP is increasing while we use less energy – not through the use of any particular type of energy.

            What is the cost of 1 C of warming? 2 C?

          • Bart says:

            “Perhaps you should move to sunny Shanghai!”

            Perhaps we should be worried about actual pollution that causes smog, instead of a transparent trace gas necessary to life.

          • Bart says:

            “…though thats no longer a trend in the US, where per capita real GDP is increasing while we use less energy…”

            It’s just been redistributed, as energy intensive industries are moving to foreign locales.

          • David Appell says:

            Perhaps. Lets see you prove that, with real world data.

          • David Appell says:

            BART: im not separating one form of pollution with the other. Certainly a lot of additional pollution happens when burning fossil fuels. But most of the CO2 pollution has effects in the future, and rather large ones. How do we take those into account?

          • Bart says:

            https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33392

            “Although many manufacturing establishments are taking steps to reduce their energy consumption, the energy intensity decrease for total manufacturing is mostly the result of a shift of manufacturing output from energy-intensive industries, such as the manufacture of metals, chemicals, paper, and petroleum and coal products, to less energy-intensive industries.”

          • Bart says:

            “But most of the CO2 pollution has effects in the future, and rather large ones.”

            Entirely insignificant ones.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart, when you say insignificant ones, what quantities are you projecting?

          • David Appell says:

            Bart, about the manufacturers, do you have any numbers at all to introduce here?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly, why are wanting more numbers?

            Oh, you want to replace the “150 w/m^2” you are missing.

            Well, if you get some new numbers, make sure you don’t lose them also.

        • Nate says:

          “As for future side effects, probably sex robots.”, So there is hope for G* and MF.

  5. gbaikie says:

    What is latest forecasts regarding the hurricane season?

    • gbaikie says:

      Google it:
      — Six to eight hurricanes are expected from June 1 – November 30, 2018, according to AccuWeather. Three to five of those storms are expected to be major hurricanes.

      AccuWeather predicts three to four storms will make landfall in 2018. While the number of storms making landfall is less than the previous year, AccuWeather Atlantic Hurricane Expert Don Kottlowski still warned people to be cautious.

      Kottlowski said, “I’m almost afraid to tell people this because it only takes one big storm to hit you to cause massive damage.” —

      So almost afraid to say, but it will less this year?

      It seems a safe bet they could have less rainfall, but it seems we could have more of them this year – but I am not a professional in weather casting.

    • ren says:

      Hurricanes are not threatening yet, because the Atlantic at the African coast is cold.
      http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomw.4.2.2018.gif

    • ren says:

      Meridional jet stream (low solar activity) will disrupt La Nina.
      https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png

  6. Arnold says:

    What is the forecast for April 9, 2118? No that is not a typo. Climate Change folks have been telling us for years they can forecast weather 100 years in advance, but 3 days out seems to be a problem…

    • al gore says:

      …and they say they can forecast the “global atmospheric temperature,” whatever that is, to within tenths of a degree. So, I expect a pretty good answer for 9 April 2118. Of course, it doesn’t matter, as I learned long ago, since no one will be around to criticize the hoaxers, but I will have gotten my money!

      • David Appell says:

        Climate scientists don’t make forecasts.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          You’re right – the term “climate scientist” is an oxymoron. No such thing.

          Calculating averages is lower school arithmetic. What’s the point in averaging what has happened?

          Are you stupid enough to believe that the future can be seen by furious examination of the past?

          I’m not.

          Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Mike Flynn…”the term climate scientist is an oxymoron. No such thing.”

            Good one.

            I think climate scientists like John Christy of UAH are an exception. He has integrity and he admits the climate is very complex and not easily understood. Can we reserve the oxymoron for alarmist climate scientists.

            Roy insists he is a meteorologist, so that exempts him automatically.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon thinks that anyone who agrees with him is good, and all others are bad. I think I first encountered that philosophy in the Flintstones.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No Jelly, watching cartoons was where you learned physics.

          • David Appell says:

            You dont know what youre talking about.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly, if rh is calling you an idiot, maybe he does know what he’s talking about.

          • David Appell says:

            Explain, smart boy, how scientists make forecasts about future climate.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Explain, smart boy, how scientists make forecasts about future climate”.

            The IPCC claimed in one review that future climate states cannot be predicted. Then they went ahead and used unvalidated climate models to do it anyway.

            They were getting away with it till expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, pointed out that unvalidated models cannot predict anything. The IPCC were forced to change ‘predict’ to ‘project.

            Turns out the models are not good at projecting either. They missed the warming hiatus admitted by the IPCC from 1998 – 2012. Not one model ‘projected’ it.

          • David Appell says:

            In what way where are the models unvalidated, Gordon.

          • David Appell says:

            The fact that the climate might undergo a sudden and rapid shift is by no means reassuring. In fact, climate scientists have been warning about this for almost 2 decades. Models project the likely the climate state, but They cannot rule out tipping points and other surprises. This makes our current predicament even worse.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly, have you got yourself in yet another predicament?

          • AndyG55 says:

            “In fact, climate scientists have been warning about this for almost 2 decades.”

            And we have had a couple of El Ninos, that caused a fraction of a degree temporary warming. ie NOTHING human forced at all. NOT CO2, that’s a certainty

            LET’S ALL PANIC and spend all our money on eradicating plant food.

          • Svante says:

            Please do not panic Andy, learn stoic philosophy.

            Let’s use our brains and move towards the sweet spot:
            https://tinyurl.com/ybklvd34

  7. JB says:

    Fudge has nothing to do with it. But the geo-engineering sure does…

    🙂

  8. Kaby says:

    Can the cherry blossoms handle this late cold blast or will that hurt the trees this season?

    • ren says:

      The snow will freeze the flowers.

    • Mike says:

      It takes several hours of temperatures of 27 degrees or colder to have a significant impact on the blossoms. Usually these April snows fall with the surface air temperatures at (or above) 32 degrees. The blossoms should be okay – but the trees on the other hand might be damaged depending on how much wet snow falls. The blossoms will give a lot more surface area for the snow to stick on the tree branches, which could cause them to snap.

      • ren says:

        Flowers convey the heat to the snow.

      • al gore says:

        Last year, I believe they were damaged by the low temperatures brought on by “global warming.” This year, we have better hopes, but the branches might be snapped by heavy snow from THIS year’s “global warming.”

        LOVE me some “global warming!!” It’s made me HUNDREDS of millions of dollars!!

  9. ren says:

    Ozone forecast shows the range of frosty air on 08/04/2018.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00962/xea1cpsdtlqw.png

  10. OWilson says:

    What the Washington Post used to refer as “the bellwether of climate change, the cherry blosssoms will again be bloooming later than when they first started recording in 1920s

    Of course they are not referred to as “bellwether” anymore!

    Lol 🙂

    But they’ll be giving the “counter intuitive” explanation of how this is all caused by man made global warming

    Wait for it! 🙂

    • al gore says:

      Remember one of the original catch-all claims made back when I started this “global warming” hysteria: “global warming will include periods of unusual cold.”

    • David Appell says:

      Do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any infrared radiation, or do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb it?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        Are you still trying to get people to nibble on your red herrings?

        Do you believe a banana doesn’t emit any infrared radiation, or do you think bananas don’t absorb it?

        How about air? Can’t be warmed or allowed to cool?

        How about overcoats? Don’t get cold if you put them in a freezer?

        Are you still as stupid and ignorant as you were yesterday?

        Learn some science. Or stick with stupid, ignorant, and irrelevant gotchas if you think that is better.

        Cheers.

      • David Appell says:

        Dont feed the trolls.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          What are you talking about? Are you finding it too difficult to find something scientific such as a testable GHE hypothesis?

          I know you claim that a testable GHE hypothesis is not necessary, but unless your speculation can be tested by experiment, it remains a fantasy. Certainly not worth contributing any money to expecting any practical benefit.

          The pseudoscientific climatologists can’t say how their mysterious GHE is supposed to work (nor even get round to writing it down), let alone agree on its effect.

          Pick a figure between nothing and something, and you will be in the ballpark!

          Science? You’d have to be joking, wouldn’t you?

          Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            As soon as you get a question you whine about gotchas and you claim you dont care about anyone elses opinions. So there is no possible response that can satisfy you; youve sealed yourself in perfectly. There is no reason to try to engage you.

            That, and your endless insults, repel everyone.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly, will you be whining here for awhile, or are you finished?

          • David Appell says:

            You arent even clever.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            You must be finished.

            Now, dry your tears and toddle on.

            Try to avoid making anymore stupid comments.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        “Steers, thinking it was snow, froze to death.”

        Now wiping coffee off the screen.

        (Not complaining, it needed cleaning anyway.)

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Jelly spews: “Do you think the Earth doesnt emit any infrared radiation. ..”

        Jelly, cherry blossoms emit IR. Do you believe cherry blossoms are “heating the planet”?

        Learn some physics, or remain a self-insulting clown, your choice.

    • wert says:

      Only if you think camp is funny.

  11. Dr. Antony T Sullivan says:

    There has been NO “global warming” in almost 20 years. Going forward, the odds are best for global COOLING, beginning in 2019 or 2020. Google the website of David Dilley, stellar meteorologist, and check out his lectures available online on this very subject. In Minneapolis, we are blanketed as of 4 April by almost a foot of snow, and the glacial conditions now extant in this region are predicted to last until at least the end of next week. More heavy snow may fall this weekend. Oh “global warming,” wherefore art thou?

    • David Appell says:

      For Had_CRUT 4.6, the 20-yr linear trend is +0.14 C/decade.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”For Had_CRUT 4.6, the 20-yr linear trend is +0.14 C/decade”.

        Is that same Had-crut run by Phil Jones, who was caught in the Climategate emails applauding the death of skeptic John Daly, interfering with peer review by trying to block skeptic’s papers to the IPCC, and using Mike’s trick to hide declining temperatures?

        He also blocked attempts of an independent statistics expert to audit the Had-crut data.

        Something to hide at Had-crut?

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon, Hadleys results agree with the four other major groups calculating surface temperatures.

          Stick to the data, instead of trying to argue about personalities. The latter is never convincing, the former is.

    • David Appell says:

      For the ocean, which is where the vast majority of the extra heat goes, it’s +5.3 ZJ/yr, for the 0-700 m region (the only region that has data going back at least 20 years).

      Z = zetta = 10^21.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        Complete nonsense.

        Warm water floats on cooler, denser water. No magic. Just physics, which you don’t understand. Nor do NASA, NOAA of the NSF, on occasion.

        Archimedes’ principle was rejected by the NSF for years, and only grudgingly accepted as a fact. Luckily, the Wayback Machine kept the evidence of their silliness.

        You are just a stupid, ignorant denialist – of physics and fact, that is.

        Cheers.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Jelly spews: “For the ocean, which is where the vast majority of the extra heat goes. ..”

        Jelly what should be the actual temperature of the oceans?

        800,000 K?

        Hilarious.

        • Nate says:

          The climate clown team brings in the comedy. They say clowns are actually sad. With you two it seems so.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nut, I see you’re not spewing any of your pseudoscience.

            You must be ashamed of it.

            You should be.

        • David Appell says:

          There is no actual Temperature that the ocean should be at. There is only the temperatures that organisms have adapted to. Changing that can be a big stressor.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            So you don’t know what the ocean temperatures should be?

          • David Appell says:

            Define should be.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Define “unemployed clown”.

          • David Appell says:

            I didnt think you could. Its always the same with deniers like you. Bubkus.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Let me help you Jelly.

            You’re unemployed.

            You’re a clown.

            So, you’re an “unemployed clown”.

            See how easy that was.

          • PhilJ says:

            The temperature of the oceans remains mostly constant,

            an increase in insolation will drive the water cycle faster cooling the oceans more quickly (note the top layer will be slightly warmer…)

            around 4 C the water will sink towards the bottom of the ocean

            between 4 C and 0 it will rise to the surface..

            as it gets colder ice extant and albedo will increase…

            a decrease in insolation reverses this process

            greatest ice extent then should occilate following solar cycles with the appropriate lag time built in

        • David Appell says:

          rh, Are you denying my trend calculation?

          What does your calculation give?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Are you denying that you can’t produce a testable GHE hypothesis?

            What a pseudoscientific approach! Just pretend it’s not necessary!

            Well done.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            You are avoiding the original question.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Have you lost your question, Jelly?

            First you lost your 150 W/m^2. Then, you lost your question.

            Do you still have your marbles?

      • Bart says:

        5.3 ZJ/yr? It’s way more than that. It’s 5,300,000 yotta-erg/century, and yotta = 10^24!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”For the ocean, which is where the vast majority of the extra heat goes….”

        A lame theory by DA’s buddy Kevin Trenberth. The latter was caught admitting in the Climategate emails that the warming has stopped. When his admission was exposed he rushed out the heat hidden in the oceans theory.

        Gullible David swallowed it due to his hero-worship of Trenberth.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon, you are confused.

          Everyone knows and acknowledges that the vast majority of the extra heat from man-made global warming goes into the ocean. Its about 93%. It has nothing to do with Kevin trenberth, nor anything about what he meant by missing heat. You get this wrong over and over again

      • David Appell says:

        No, now I think youre right.

  12. Acumentate says:

    Uncontrolled heating of the atmosphere causes entropic inversion, umklapp condensation, then intrarocular crystallization. Derive it directly from the Al Goreithm.

    I was in Michigan during the summer of 1972. It was so hellishly hot that corn popped in the fields! Giant white mounds of the stuff blew into cattle pens. Steers, thinking it was snow, froze to death. Understanding Global Warming is that simple.

    • al gore says:

      Wow – I feel your pain. Would you like some massive tax money grants to heal your wounds? I have plenty.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      acumentate…”I was in Michigan during the summer of 1972. It was so hellishly hot that corn popped in the fields!”

      It was even hotter in 1934 in the US when all the dust storms happened. NOAA has erased the record, reasoning something must have been wrong with the way the data was acquired.

      Funny how they erase all the records that conflict with AGW while throwing out all the colder temperatures.

  13. Mike Flynn says:

    /sarc on

    It is well know that all temperature increases are due to global warming.

    All temperature falls are due to weather, natural variation, and flat-out denial of the aforementioned global warming.

    /sarc off

    Cheers.

  14. David Appell says:

    There has been NO global warming in almost 20 years.

    You see this claim a lot, and it’s a lie. Those claiming it never provide any evidence for it, which is the first clue it’s a lie.

    Over the last 20 years, the linear trend of UAH LT v6.0 is +0.09 C/decade.

    • David Appell says:

      And the 20-yr linear trend of RSS LT v4.0 is +0.16 C/decade.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        And your point is?

        Do you believe that you can see into the future by examining the past? Good luck with that.

        You must be fabulously wealthy and revered by all! Only joking, of course.

        Like all pseudoscientific second rate wannabees, worshipping the non-existent GHE, you haven’t any more ability to see into the future than anybody else.

        Keep it up. Maybe someone will employ you as a seer – although you might have to fight off a steadily increasing number of unemployed ex-grant recipients, eh?

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          I think my point was clear – The claim that there has been no warning for 20 years is very wrong.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Your point was stupid. Thermometers reflect how hot they get – nothing more, nothing less.

            No global warming. Pseudoscientists claim they can measure the heat content of the Earth, and claim that it is increasing. Magic is obviously involved.

            Not science.

            You are completely deluded, and no amount of redefining terms will make a testable GHE hypothesis miraculously spring into existence!

            Stupid and ignorant, but your delusion prevents you from seeing that you are so.

            Bad luck for you.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, my point was made, and via thermometers. Your criticism is, as usual, irrelevant.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            They would be thermometers heated with CO2 would they?

            Or magic? Or maybe a good dose of pseudoscience!

            Who cares? Do you believe you can predict the future by examining the past? Anyone who does is obviously suffering from a mental affliction. Or possibly, stupidity and ignorance. Which is you?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            The claim was about no warming in 20 years. Do you have anything relevant to say about that? You are working very hard here to change the subject.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Must be tiresome for you rotten-appell, to be ALWAYS RELYING on El Nino transients and steps, which, as you know, are NOTHING to do with atmospheric CO2.

        Without those El Ninos, there is NO WARMING AT ALL in the Satellite temperature data.
        (ignoring recent climate mafia forced “adjustments” of RSS)

        You do know that the major temperature ANOMALY of recent times was the LIA, don’t you.

        Anything else has be just the RECOVERY from that COLDEST of periods.

        Do your REALLY think that LIA temperatures are desirable for the planet, rotten-appell.?

        If so, why don’t you live in northern Canada instead of somewhere warm for most of the year.

        I bet you release PLENTY of CO2 in keeping your granny’s basement WARM in winter.. don’t you rotten appell.. !!

    • Bart says:

      No, that is your estimate of it. But, the uncertainty is larger than the figure, and in any case, it’s way lower than projections.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”There has been NO global warming in almost 20 years.

      You see this claim a lot, and its a lie. Those claiming it never provide any evidence for it, which is the first clue its a lie”.

      ********

      It was the IPCC who revealed that info after examining many peer reviewed papers. Even NOAA showed it in their earlier temperature data sets. Then they went back and fudged the SST to show a trend.

      Are you really this gullible?

  15. John says:

    When NOAA itself is messing with the raw data, of course you cant rely on any of the trend lines… or potentially any of the data that gets released from them ever again. Theres no trust anymore because they dont deserve it. Anyone who persecutes you for just putting up your hand and asking the question or just not completely buying into global warming hook line and sinker is a fascist.

    • David Appell says:

      John:

      Do you know why adjustments to the raw data are done?

      Do you know they *reduce* the long-term warming trend?

      — David

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        Do you think anyone with any sense gives a toss about your stupid gotchas?

        Cheers.

        • PpEntropic man says:

          Mike Flynn

          Actually, watching you get gotcha’d repeatedly is most entertaining.

          Keep it up!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            P,

            You are obviously as deluded as Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, so you are exceptionally deeply mired in your fantasy.

            There’s nothing wrong with being amused. Keep it up – you don’t need to thank me.

            It’s my pleasure.

            Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            PpEntropic man is so deluded he doesn’t know if he’s really pp, Entropic man, or a marriage of the two.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • David Appell says:

            PPE: instead of simply addressing questions, the deniers here find any excuse to avoid them. MF has a long history of doing this. They are not interested in a scientific discussion; for some reason they get off on just insulting people.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Why are you trying to show that you are more stupid and ignorant than you really are!

            Why should I answer your stupid questions, when you can’t provide any written GHE hypothesis at all, let alone a testable one!

            Pretending that climatology doesn’t need to follow the scientific method, just demonstrates that climatology is more closely related to astrology than meteorology.

            An untestable hypothesis is just speculation.

            Claiming that you can make a thermometer hotter with CO2 is just specious nonsense. You can’t even say how this is supposed to occur, can you?

            How about answering the question, David? Where’s your testable GHE hypothesis, David?

            Claiming you don’t need one just points out that you believe in pseudoscience, not reality.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            MF, you dont answer questions because you have no answers. So you try to distract with insults.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly appelly, why are you out insulting yourself again?

          • David Appell says:

            G*, my 10-year-old niece comes up with better insults than you do.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly, I’m not coming up with insults. I just let you insult yourself. It saves time and energy.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        Why should he answer your gotchas? Why not just provide some facts, if you have any?

        Why the stupid and ignorant charade of patronising gotchas? You’re a pseudoscientific dimwit. Can’t even provide a GHE hypothesis!

        What a fool!

        Cheers.

      • Bart says:

        “Do you know they *reduce* the long-term warming trend?”

        Do you know they smooth out features which would otherwise be inconsistent with the AGW hypothesis?

        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvcaBlAWgAESL4n.jpg

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Do you know why adjustments to the raw data are done?”

        Of course, to make it appear warmer than it is.

  16. ren says:

    Climate is changing. Deserts will be blooming again in California.

  17. ren says:

    An atmospheric river is approaching California, and the reservoirs are full.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00962/ak0fhlmpqw0n.png

    • wert says:

      The permanent drought started already years back. It’s defined by them having too many people demanding too much water in Calizuela, and to heal it further, they’ll bring in a few million more Mexicans, because borders should not exist.

      Logic? The more pain, the more power the governor gets.

  18. CoRev says:

    Living in the area it is fun to watch the forecasts. This area is notoriously difficult to forecast. The just previous (<14 days ago) snow storm, also the deepest of this Winter, was similarly forecast. Starting at trace to 1-3, to 3-5, then to 8-10 whilke bouncing around for days, and we finished with 7" of wet and beautiful light and fluffy snow. AND… it lasted a whole 2 days, with the drives and roads clear within 24 hours. A day time event schools were closed during the storm and only delayed 2 hours the next day.

    Local forecasts are following the same pattern, bouncing all around from a trace to ginourmous. We'll see by Saturday.

  19. Dave O. says:

    The Svensmark hypothesis has not been disproved.

    • David Appell says:

      Not good enough. Has it been proved? Not according to anything Ive seen.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        You are a pseudoscientific fool.

        For example, the existence of the luminiferous ether was hypothesised, tested by experiment, and found not to exist. Your demands for proof just show how stupid and ignorant you are.

        Your intellectual vacuity is the the thing that is not good enough – not good enough to distinguish fact from your fantasy.

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          As Svensmark been proved? Where?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            I am aware you are stupid and ignorant.

            As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

            You don’t agree, and don’t like me pointing out that science depends on the scientific method.

            You have pseudoscience, which has no method at all. Just speculation and assertion, based on nothing – not even disprovable, given the absence of a testable GHE hypothesis!

            Good luck with that!

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Lets stick to the original point. What has Svensmark been proved?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Let’s stick to reality and science – you remain stupid and ignorant.

            Prove otherwise, if you can.

            Cheers.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Have you got any empirical proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes ANYTHING but enhanced plant growth?

            And please, not that abortive model driven Marty Feldman paper. Its too anti-science even for a rotten appell.

  20. ren says:

    Current temperature in North America.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00962/dv1azanfexo6.png

  21. La Pangolina says:

    Dr. Antony T Sullivan says:
    April 4, 2018 at 1:54 PM

    There has been NO ‘global warming’ in almost 20 years.

    *

    Aha.

    Trend estimates in °C / decade (2σ), for the period 1998-2017

    UAH 6.0 TLT: 0.074 ± 0.167
    RSS 3.3 TLT: 0.064 ± 0.164
    UAH 5.6 TLT: 0.145 ± 0.170
    RSS 4.0 TLT: 0.145 ± 0.170

    Had-CRUT4.6: 0.142 ± 0.100
    NOAA: 0.174 ± 0.103
    BEST: 0.183 ± 0.096
    GISS: 0.189 ± 0.103

    Source: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

    *

    In Minneapolis, we are blanketed as of 4 April by almost a foot of snow, and the glacial conditions now extant in this region are predicted to last until at least the end of next week. More heavy snow may fall this weekend.

    *

    That’s weather Dr, not climate.

    During february 1956, we experienced in Western Europe temperatures over 10 °C below average. Thousands of olive trees died in the Provence at that time, many of them over 500 years old.

    • bilybob says:

      La Pangolina,

      H1 = Global Warming
      H0 = No global warming

      Using the first set of data I would reject H1
      Using the second set of data I would reject H0

      Your link did not work, what are the confidence levels based on?

      FYI, referring back to Dr. Sullivans original comment, the last 20 years would be from April 1998 – March 2018, clearly he is correct, but that is because the starting point is at a peak.

      • La Pangolina says:

        bilybob says:
        April 5, 2018 at 12:08 PM

        Your link did not work, what are the confidence levels based on?

        *

        I’m sorry bilybob. Here the link to Kevin Cowtan’s trend computer works perfectly (I use Firefox and Chrome).

        Try either to open the link via the right mouse key, or use Google.

        Cowtan’s work relies on Foster/Rahmstorf 2011.

        *

        Using the first set of data I would reject H1

        *

        I disagree.

        Simply because the CI bars are so great compared with the trend that they contain zero, the p-value is then higher than 0.05 and hence the trends all are statistically insignificant.

        This doesn’t happen with the surface data.

        Many people tried to explain that Werner Brozek at WUWT!
        Maybe inbetween he got it right.

        Why does this happen so often with sat data? Because they have higher standard deviations. The shorter the trend period, the higher the resulting 2 sigma.

        Trend for UAH 6.0 TLT 1979-2018: 0.128 ± 0.059 °C/decade…

        • Bart says:

          “This doesnt happen with the surface data.”

          Because they use magic!

          • David Appell says:

            Again, Bart, instead of sticking with an analysis of the science, you jump off the cliff into denier land. Perhaps that makes you feel better emotionally, but it doesnt do anything to convince anyone else.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            You cant even say what it is that you support.

            Science? First you have to follow the scientific method – that is why you prefer pseudo science.

            Do bananas absorb and emit IR?

            What about CO2 or overcoats?

            Cheers.

      • La Pangolina says:

        bilybob says:
        April 5, 2018 at 12:08 PM

        … the last 20 years would be from April 1998 March 2018, clearly he is correct, but that is because the starting point is at a peak.

        *

        Sure?

        Trend for UAH 6.0 (Apr 98 – Mar 18): 0.099 ± 0.161 °C/decade (2σ)

        • bilybob says:

          Thanks La Pangolina, the right click worked. Interesting tool.

          As far as if there is a warmer globe now compared to 1998, I am not sure if I could set up the proper hypothesis and null hypothesis to test this at a significant level using the satellite data. I have not taught statistics in over 20 years so I am a bit rusty. 0.099 C plus/minus 0.161 C leads me to believe there is no difference/no warming.

          • Snape says:

            Bilybob

            There is natural/cyclical warming and cooling on various timescales. Daily, weekly, monthly, annualy, decadel, per century, per millennium and longer.

            The idea is to try and weed out those various cycles and isolate the AGW contribution. Best practice is to use the longest time series possible, i.e., the whole record.

            Starting in March, 1998, close to the peak warming from a powerful el nino, and ending during the current la nina phase is not helpful to the goal……your just using ENSO to cherry pick an outcome.

          • Snape says:

            My point is with so many natural cycles at play, a person could cherry pick almost any outcome they want – warming, cooling or flat. For example,

            “March 2018 saw a dramatic spike in global warming. UAH TLT was up 0.04 C from February, a gain equal to + 4.8 C per/decade. This matches the worst case scenario of climate models.”

            Or,

            “February 2018 saw global temperatures plummet. Down 0.06 from January, a drop of 7.2 per/decade. What happened to AGW?”

          • La Pangolina says:

            bilybob says:
            April 5, 2018 at 8:06 PM

            Thanks bilybob for your answer clearly differing in form and contents from what ignorant clowns and arrogant trolls use to ‘publish’ here.

            You wrote that

            0.099 C plus/minus 0.161 C leads me to believe there is no difference/no warming.

            I apologise for insisting a bit, but you draw a somewhat strange conclusion.

            Simply because when ignoring for a few seconds that the trend for 1998-2018 has no significance due to the CI containing zero, it is nevertheless at 0.099 / 0.128 = 77 % of the UAH 6.0 TLT trend since 1979.

            Nota bene

            The extremely high CI is due to Foster’s and Rahmstorf’s method.

            Using Excel’s linear estimate function, you see that the 95 % CI in this case is reduced to ± 0.020 °C.

            But Excel’s estimate function is very general and does not take matters like e.g. autocorrelation into account (which are a fundamental aspect in temperature time series).

          • bilybob says:

            Snape,

            You may have intended that comment for someone else. I did not pick the time period under discussion and I also made the statement that the starting point was during a peak temperature period. With that said, I do agree with your points. I was only making an observation of the data provided.

          • Snape says:

            Bilybob

            Sorry for my misunderstanding. It just bugs me when people play “connect the dots”……..find a high point in a past cycle and connect it to a low point in a recent cycle. Then say, “look, no warming”.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”There has been NO global warming in almost 20 years”.

      It’s essentially true. Trotting out trends does not change that since trends obviously don’t reveal flat trends running concurrently.

      The overall UAH trend is from 1979 till present. A lot of interesting events have taken place in between and the trend does not reveal them.

      The IPCC has admitted to 15 years of that flat trend from 1998 – 2012. UAH reveals another 3 years. That leaves only 2 years unaccounted for.

      Close enough for me.

      Don’t forget, we’ve had a declining trend since the EN peak of February 2016.

      • David Appell says:

        Its false. If the trend was near flat, it would say zero. It does not. Gordon has been lying about this for a long time, clearly without shame. He wouldnt do that if he wasnt anonymous.

      • David Appell says:

        Again, liar, the IPCC document of 2013 is now out of date.

        I am glad I dont have to lie to maintain my arguments.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          You foolish person – I suppose you are deluded enough to believe you can see into the future with trends?

          So do all sorts of deluded economists, advisers and politicians.

          Try physics, forget trends.

          Cheers.

  22. La Pangolina says:

    John says:
    April 4, 2018 at 6:48 PM

    When NOAA itself is messing with the raw data, of course you cant rely on any of the trend lines or potentially any of the data that gets released from them ever again. Theres no trust anymore because they dont deserve it.

    *

    I guess you don’t even know how the raw data looks like, let alone how does NOAA’s processing result.

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1522959537282.jpg

    You are an expert… in polemic.

  23. Mike Flynn says:

    DA,

    “Nullius in Verba.”

    Yes. What is your point? Nonsensical papers are nonsensical papers, aren’t they?

    Quote from NOAA –

    “Also there are implied units of ‘greenhousey-ness’ for the different gases, that have no clear relationship to real data on the infrared absorp-tion capabilities of these gases.”

    Sounds like nonsense to me. Pseudoscience, do you think?

    Cheers,

    • David Appell says:

      Why are the papers nonsensical? Because you dont understand them?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        Not at all. Which paper do you claim is not nonsensical?

        Or are you just attempting a stupid gotcha?

        Come on, put up a paper which you claim supports the non-existent testable GHE hypothesis, and I’ll point out that it assumes something not in evidence, for starters.

        How hard can it be? Of course you can’t, so all you have is pseudoscience and gotchas.

        The funding is drying up. No freelance propoganda work for David. Oh so sad, I weep copious tears of sorrow – only having a joke at your expense of course!

        Not a lot of sympathy here.

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          I have linked to these papers dozens of times on this site. If you havent read them by now, you clearly arent interested, and Im not going to converse with someone who isnt interested.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            And yet you can’t bring yourself to name even one that you have faith in.

            Outside observers will think you don’t have any faith in the nonsense you post.

            They would be right.

            You have nothing except stupidity, ignorance and delusion.

            You can’t even lay out the mad GHE hypothesis that you profess to support!

            How hard could it be?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Ive linked to themt many times. Why havent you read them by now?

            Face it, youre not interested in science. Your only interest is in insulting people, a very weird hobby.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            What is the point of linking to papers and demanding people prove that they have read them?

            Does this somehow demonstrate that you are not stupid and ignorant?

            Reading all the learned treatises in the world, claiming that “everyone agrees” that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere will make the Earth heat up, doesn’t make it so, oh gullible one!

            None of your wondrous “links contain any description of the amazing but indescribable GHE, do they? Thats because they are written by fanatics, who believe the unbelievable.

            Keep linking , or whatever it is you do when you are not linking. It might not make you go blind, but it wont lessen your ignorance or stupidity.

            Ask some more gotchas,if you like. Watch me laughing at you by not answering.

            Cheers.

  24. Myki says:

    Forget cherry blossoms, check out this forecast:
    “A record-challenging burst of late-season heat will sweep across southeastern Australia during the next week.

    With little relief from cold fronts until the middle of next week, the impending bout of heat will be prolonged and potentially record-breaking for this late in the season.

    Temperatures will soar in South Australia over the weekend and remain well above average at the start of next week. As the heat spreads further east, temperatures will spike in Victoria from Sunday onwards. The hottest air will spread over NSW and the ACT from Monday and linger there until late in the week.

    The upcoming heat may challenge late-season temperature records in Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney.

    In Sydney, a top of at least 33.2 degrees before Thursday next week would be enough to go down as the city’s highest temperature on record this late in the season.”

    http://www.farmonlineweather.com.au/news/record-challenging-heat-heading-south/527760

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Myki,

      What have weather forecasts to do with climate, seeing as how climate is the average of weather which has already occurred?

      Maybe you are confused about the difference between the future and the past as well as the difference between climate and weather?

      Cheers.

    • idiotsrus says:

      Who cares what happens in Australia? You are but a subsidiary state of the USA. Washington is the centre of the world!

      • Myki says:

        idiot, I assume you are being facetious.
        However, in theory, Washington could easily be described as the centre of the world if we simply adjusted our frame of reference. i.e. define 0 deg latitude, 0 deg longitude to be where Washington is located.
        One drawback would be it would make it easier for North Korea to direct their missiles.
        One positive is that it would make it easier for them to take out Donald Trump.
        But then, again, he would most likely be off playing golf that day.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Myki,

          Donald Trump is obviously smarter than you. He can play golf whenever and wherever he wants. You can’t.

          He can also decide he no longer wants to US President, unlike your stupid and ignorant self.

          Jealously’s a curse, or so I’m told. I’m sure you’ll claim you are neither jealous nor cursed.

          Good for you. Live and let live, I say.

          Cheers.

  25. Paddy says:

    Sorry, I just drove from the east side of Michigan to the west side yesterday AND IT SNOWED THE ENTIRE TIME!!! This is April… and not 1978… AGW has been a serious disappointment so far. Nothing good can come from a climate such as this.

    • David Appell says:

      Weather, not climate. Write that on a Post-it note and attach it to your forehead.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        Abosolutely, David. Have you sent a sufficient quantity of Post-it notes to NOAA?

        Many of the staff seem very confused about the difference between weather and climate.

        They don’t even seem to realise that climate is merely the average of past weather events!

        Even you know that, don’t you?

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          Again, a totally convoluted reply that equals to nothing. You can never reply with any relevant science, because you clearly dont know any.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            What was it I was responding to?

            You wrote –

            “Weather, not climate. Write that on a Post-it note and attach it to your forehead.”

            You had previously defended NOAA’s competence.

            I pointed out that NOAA had its fair share of deluded and incompetent employees. Oh dear, not politically correct, am I?

            Prove otherwise, oh foolish one! You can’t can you?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Flynn, you never offer any science, just nastiness. Your replies are never relevant.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            You cant even define this supposed science that you claim to be interested in. Claiming that putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter is not science – its delusional psychosis!

            You appear quite mad – you cant even say what it is that you believe in!

            Delusional, stupid and ignorant. No wonder you havent managed to get even the US Government to bend to your will – and they are only politicians!

            Keep trying David, maybe you can figure out what it is you are supposed to be supporting.

            Cheers.

        • Dr No says:

          MF, at least try and be consistent. Why don’t you belly-ache about your monkey’s irrelevant weather posts.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            D,

            You can’t even say what you think I am supposedly bellyaching about, can you?

            Are you claiming that CO2 is supposed to make the Earth hotter by some unknown amount at some indeterminate time in the future? Is that miraculous occurrence supposed to have some unspecified negative effect?

            You dim witted fool. You can’t even figure out what you are complaining about!

            Try some psychobabble – it might make you feell less inferior, but I doubt it.

            Try it.

            Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            Oooooh! Did I offend the organ grinder?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            D,

            What are you babbling about?

            DA babbles about overcoats. Are you obsessed with monkeys and their organs?

            You cant even figure out what you are complaining about, cany ou?

            Learn English. Learn physics.

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            Everybody, check out:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iAZU5R0Ewc
            and guess who is whom from this site.
            Please, no laughter.

          • Dr No says:

            Sorry profP, I did laugh out loud. At first I thought the professor there was you! But then I saw the monkey and put 2 and 2 together.

        • professorP says:

          Notice the constant repetition. Serious dementia.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            Just as Dr No, you can’t actually specify a reason for your stupid, ignorant, and irrelevant comments, can you?

            Try joining Dr No in some psychobabble.

            Recite the sacred climatological Manntra – “Gavin Schmidt is a renowned climate scientist, and Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize., if you can keep a straight face while so doing.

            It will make you feel happier – but you wont be any smarter or less ignorant for the effort.

            If you think it easier, find a testable GHE hypothesis. Nah, strike that. There isnt one, and you might waste the rest of your life looking for one.

            Carry on babbling, lads.

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            I count 7 occurrences of “testable GHE hypothesis” and 20 “stupids” so far.
            Just keeps on repeating. The brain cells are getting less and less.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            Maybe you could be a climatologist – they require the ability to count, guess, and work out simple averages.

            Can you do simple averages?

            A testable GHE hypothesis is not required by climatologists, as it is part of the scientific method, which is a foreign concept to them. Pseudoscience has no use for facts, or hard work.

            Thank you for taking the time to keep count of my words. In time you might be able to create and publish a concordance, although I dont think many would be interested. Ill accept a free copy, if it would gratify you. It might reward you for all that counting that so impresses you.

            Are you stupid and ignorant enough to believe that not even being able to state what you are complaining about, somehow makes you worthy of respect?

            You might. I dont. Others can make their own minds, I guess.

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            I am not complaining. Your utterances provide rich fodder for my next book provisionally titled:
            “Denialists, Psychos and the role of Dementia”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            I’m glad you’re not complaining.

            You are obviously just being stupid and ignorant for no reason at all.

            Carry on with your irrelevant psychobabble. Nothing to do with science, of course, but at least you can’t find anything to complain about.

            Geez, I’m almost giving the impression that I give a toss about you, or your opinions!

            My bad, of course I don’t.

            Produce a testable GHE hypothesis, and I’ll pay great attention, but the chance of that happening is a number indistinguishable from zero.

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            Make that 8 occurrences of testable GHE hypothesis and 21 stupids.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            Keep counting. It must mean something to someone, somewhere, I guess.

            Probably someone as stupid, ignorant, andd bereft of a testable GHE hypothesis as yourself.

            Wouldn’t you agree?

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            “Geez, Im almost giving the impression that I give a toss about you, or your opinions!
            My bad, of course I dont.”
            Yes you do you naughty boy. It is so obvious because you have to keep denying it so often.
            This may seem like “psychobabble” to you because of your limited intellect but not to the rest of us.

    • Myki says:

      Paddy, have you heard this one?
      How many Irishmen does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

      21 – One to hold the lightbulb, and 20 to drink until the room spins!

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Myki,

        Thanks for the laugh. Did you have a point, or can’t you find an audience for second hand jokes anywhere else?

        I assume your joke is an allegory aimed at the ignorant and stupid fools claiming that climatology is a science.

        Is your point that ten thousand sober climatologists cannot manage to look into the future any than one drunken Irishman? That would be correct, but pointless, of course.

        Keep it up. Laughter doesn’t hurt.

        Cheers.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Myki,

          Obviously laughing too much.

          I obviously meant to say that one drunken Irishman could look into the future at least as well as ten thousand sober climatologists.

          That’s what you meant, wasn’t it?

          Cheers.

      • Dr No says:

        Well done Myki. The fish took the bait:
        “I assume your joke is an allegory aimed at the ignorant and stupid fools”
        I call that a “gotcha”.

  26. ren says:

    The atmospheric river is already reaching California.
    http://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/RescondMain

  27. Reziac says:

    Well, here in Billings, Montana, we’re on course to break the record for total snowfall. Not to mention running 6-8F below normal, not counting the occasional dip to 30F below normal.

    https://www.weather.gov/byz/2018SeasonalSnowfall

    We’ll pass #2 tonight, and it’s supposed to snow all week. We’ve had about 14″ since Saturday, tho most of it has melted off.

    • La Pangolina says:

      I had a look from my little Germany at your Billings, MT and looked then in the USHCN file

      https://tinyurl.com/ybyb7mb4

      for near stations: there you see Bozeman and Miles City.

      You could uncompress the tmin corner

      https://tinyurl.com/yc8z25mw

      and check for the monthly minimal temperatures measured there.

      If my friend was at home, he would generate a time series of the average of these two towns’ temperatures out of the USHCN data. I can’t do that.

      That way you could sort the monthly temperature list, and see how 2018 looks like when compared with all other months since beginning of the measurements in Bozeman and Miles City.

  28. ren says:

    The weather in North America will attack from two sides. In the west an atmospheric river, in the east frost and snow.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_150_NA_f72.png

  29. ren says:

    The snow totals from Rutgers Snow Lab are in for the Fall of 2017, upward trend in Eurasia, N. America and the entire Northern Hemisphere. Slovenia five feet of new snow along with NW Italy. Germany snow, USA winter storms and freeze warnings down to Texas. Record cold on tap week of April 07, 2018 as grain growing areas of Canada and USA will see temperatures as low as 4F.
    https://youtu.be/luqEAjtrKCA

  30. La Pangolina says:

    Gordon Robertson says:
    April 5, 2018 at 8:09 PM

    Oh yes we do, NOAA admitted right on their site to slashing over 75% of their reporting station data.

    *

    Here again Robertson shows how ignorant he is. But he also shows that he keeps lying, lying and lying again.

    My friend J.-P. has written some years ago a nice piece of software processing GHCN V3 data under different aspects.

    Here is a pair of pdf charts I found in one of his directories and uploaded them in pixel format.

    In these charts you see a comparison (for the periods 1880-2017 resp. 1979-2017) of the CHCN station data for CONUS:
    – one plot shows all stations (over 1800);
    – one plot shows all stations averaged into about 160 grid cells of 2.5 degrees (i.e. a surface around 70,000 km2 per cell).

    Only dumb liars would suspect Bindidon to have intentionally averaged in such a way that the result was manipulated. The grid is exactly the same as that used by UAH.

    1. Jan 1880 – Jul 2017

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1523014418502.jpg

    You see how small the difference is (the result is, if I well remember, nearly the same when you arbitrarily select one station per grid cell instead of averaging the stations present in the cell).

    2. Jan 1979 – Jul 2017 (together with a plot of UAH 6.0 TLT for the region ‘USA48’)

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1523014568736.jpg

    The similarity of UAH’s 36 month running mean with those of the two GHCN plots is simply amazing.

    Only completely dumb, stubborn persons won’t understand how meaningful anomalies wrt the same period can be when comparing them alltogether.

    We should not forget that we are here comparing surface station data with satellite data measured at an altitude of about 4-5 km.

    If we used absolute data instead, we would see plots
    – without annual cycle removal;
    – distant by about 24 K.

    • bilybob says:

      La Pangolina

      Using the five year average of the blue line (first graph you posted), I see a general cooling to 1920, followed by warming to 1955, followed by cooling to 1980 and warming since 1980. Can that be confirmed with the raw data?

      The lengths in time are close to multiples of the 11 year solar cycle. Could there be a relationship? Has anyone superimposed the solar cycle on this graph? Just curious.

      I believe Salvador/Ren study the solar cycles and may be able to shine some light on this. Pun intended.

      • La Pangolina says:

        bilybob says:
        April 6, 2018 at 12:08 PM

        The lengths in time are close to multiples of the 11 year solar cycle. Could there be a relationship? Has anyone superimposed the solar cycle on this graph?

        *

        I can’t do that for this CONUS data, as I don’t know in which one of his hundreds of Excel files my friend stored it, let alone how he generates such data on Linux.

        Anyway I don’t know if it is a good idea to compare CONUS and solar activity: CONUS is only 2 little % of the world.

        But recently I wanted to show the relation between Sun Spot Numbers and global temperatures (Had-CRUT Globe, NOAA oceans).

        The chart has a somewhat unusual format, as everything was scaled in percentile form because SSN and temperature anomalies have very different value ranges:

        http://4gp.me/bbtc/1523042074489.jpg

        Does that help you?

        I myself saw no useful relation between solar cycles and temperature measurements.

        • PhilJ says:

          Try taking the intergal of SSN over time.. 😉

          • La Pangolina says:

            Show us how it looks like!
            Why the hell should I do your work, PhilJ?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Someone is a little grouchy today.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            La P,

            Because you are infatuated with graphs and charts.

            You believe you can foretell the future with them.

            You claim that you your lack of knowledge prevents you from exercising your expertise when asked to help someone by demonstrating your skill.

            Sounds a bit like Phil Jones (of Climategate fame) not wanting to let people examine his work. He complained that critics might try to find fault with it!

            Or are you just intentionally trying to be unhelpful?

            Cheers.

          • La Pangolina says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            April 6, 2018 at 5:15 PM

            *

            Ach wie schön! Mein süßer Lieblings-schäferhund Flynny bellt endlich wieder.

            Ich dachte schon,irgend etwas hätte ihm so zu sagen die Sprache verschlagen!

        • bilybob says:

          That helps, thanks. There appears to be a relationship to the number of sunspots and the anomaly trend of CONUS. Would need the raw data to test the relationship. Where a solar cycle is above 50 there is a warming trend and below 50 a cooling trend. However, it does not explain the recent El Nino. It will be interesting to see if the next solar cycle remains below 50 and we go into a cooling trend for a few decades.

          As far as CONUS being a small representation of the Earth, well unfortunately it is the best we have that goes back to 1880. As far as global temperatures are concerned the planetary cycles are the primary driver of long term trends, the solar cycles, however, seem to be affecting short-term trends.

          • David Appell says:

            Sunspots are proxies for solar intensity. From the top of a solar cycle to the bottom, the suns irradiance might change by 2 watts per meter-squared. That will produce some, but small, change in the earths temperature, less than 0.2 C. So its expected there would be some small correlation, based on that.

          • David Appell says:

            But note that greenhouse gases are causing a temperature change of about 0.2 C every decade.

          • La Pangolina says:

            bilybob says:
            April 7, 2018 at 6:33 AM

            Hello bilybob…

            A. Here are some links to data.

            1. SSN

            https://tinyurl.com/yc8zhpvg

            That is pretty simple to process e.g. in Excel.

            2. GHCN V3

            https://tinyurl.com/ydeyj25h

            Here is maybe a problem.

            This directory contains, for various monthly measurement averages (TAVG, TMIN, TMAX) two records (unadjusted, adjusted) each containing

            – the GHCN data file;
            – the corresponding GHCN station file (7280 entries).

            To obtain the CONUS data, my friend had a lot of work after unzipping:

            – isolate all stations belonging to the US (country code 425)
            – drop all Alaska and Hawaii stations away
            – extract out of the GHCN data file all data created by the remaining stations.

            Maybe you have time, patience and resource enough to do that.

            If not but are really interested in the data, you might wait for the end of next week. My friend J.-P. alias Bindidon will then be back home and will certainly help in generating all you might need.

            *

            B. What now concerns your meaning:

            1. As far as CONUS being a small representation of the Earth, well unfortunately it is the best we have that goes back to 1880.

            Sorry: this is simply wrong.

            http://4gp.me/bbtc/1523131169949.jpg

            Of the 1850 CONUS stations, you need no more than one per 2.5 degree grid cell, i.e. about 160, to obtain a similarly accurate time series. Less than 2000 are needed for the Globe as a whole.

            2. As far as global temperatures are concerned the planetary cycles are the primary driver of long term trends, the solar cycles, however, seem to be affecting short-term trends.

            https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly-the-clown says: “But note that greenhouse gases are causing a temperature change of about 0.2 C every decade.”

            No Jelly, that is just part of your continuing clown routine.

          • bilybob says:

            La Pangolina,

            Thanks for the data links.

            You Say: “Of the 1850 CONUS stations, you need no more than one per 2.5 degree grid cell, i.e. about 160, to obtain a similarly accurate time series. Less than 2000 are needed for the Globe as a whole.” I agree

            Just to clarify, my understanding of the historic temperature data is that measured quantities only exist for USA, Europe a few in Japan and Australia going back to 1880. So geospatially, Africa, South America and most of Asia are absent, not to mention the Oceans. It is the best we have to work with. We can develop methodologies to fill in the holes, but they can never be calibrated with real temperature readings because they simply do not exist. With that said, I am OK in using that data for analysis but recognize its limitations.

            On the discussion on Sunspots, I did not mean to imply that the sun was significantly hotter or cooler rather it may impact other phenomenon that may impact surface temperatures. The work by Henrik Svensmark is one such study.

            https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2015/02/epn2015462p26.pdf

            I also believe Salvador does a lot of analysis in this area. I do not want to debate the merits of such work, rather just point out the historic data does suggest a relationship exists. I do not think it is just coincidental.

            I prefer a more comprehensive global temperature analysis including land use changes, atmospheric composition, sunspots/cosmic rays, geomagnetic, Milankovitch cycles, biomass, levels and seismic activity (volcanic/earth quake). For my interest, I do not think CO2 is the driving force for climate change, just like I do not think it is the driving force for corn production.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Here again Robertson shows how ignorant he is. But he also shows that he keeps lying, lying and lying again”.

      Please don’t shoot the messenger. I have posted the link several times in which NOAA admits on their own site to chopping their reporting stations from 6000 to less that 1500 globally. Chiefio reports they have chopped 90% of the stations since 1990.

      That was right after uber-alarmists James Hanson of NASA GISS went on national TV in 1988 claiming catastrophic disaster if we did not cut back CO2 emissions immediately. In 1998 he rescinded the alarm claiming his model had made a mistake. Too late, James, NOAA was not buying it, they were busy fudging the data to make it look like the planet was ablaze whereas their satellite data was showing the opposite.

      Chiefio has revealed how they apply less than 25% of the real data to a climate model then synthesize the chopped data.

      The question I have posed to you alarmists is why a US national scientific organization would do that? Why would you throw out good data then manufacture it in a climate model?

      Only one apparent reason, you want to fudge the temperature series to show warming that is not there. Otherwise, why would anyone care? Just analyze the real data and produce a temperature series.

      As chiefio has pointed out after a diligent analysis, NOAA throws out the colder stations and keeps the warmer station data.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon keeping a network of weather station is expensive and laborious, especially one with global coverage. What was the practical effect on temperature measurements and their error bars from going from 6000 to 1500 weather stations?

        By the way, BEST used some 38,000 records, And they got the same results as everyone else. Is that good enough for you?

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Jelly-the-clown, the only way you can understand this is to consider if Domino’s pizza reduced their coverage by the same percentage. And, suppose you no longer could get your welfare pizza delivered.

          Catastrophic, huh?

  31. ren says:

    The current range of the arctic wave in the US.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00962/1oknrkqw9u11.png

  32. ren says:

    A big high in the central part of North America will cause a rapid drop in temperature at night. Please pay attention to the jet stream 500 hPa.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00962/onacsi6er3jf.png

  33. ren says:

    Heavy rainfall in California will last for several days.
    https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/national/weather-radar?play=1

  34. ren says:

    There is a lot of moisture in the east. Snowstorms can be intense.

  35. ren says:

    The amount of snow in North America could rise further.
    https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/na_swe.png

  36. professorP says:

    MF “Are you stupid and ignorant enough to believe that not even being able to state what you are complaining about, somehow makes you worthy of respect?”
    This reveals:
    A an inability to follow the thread
    B a cry for respect. Maybe the patient feels resentment that he was never appreciated in his work or personal life.
    A fascinating case study.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      pp, are you going for clown, troll, or both?

    • Mike Flynn says:

      p,

      Keep the psychobabble coming.

      You hope that it will obscure the fact that you haven’t the faintest clue about atmospheric science!

      No hypothesis, no proposed mechanism, nothing except gullible cultism.

      You aren’t even a good troll – I certainly feel no more than somewhat bemused by your stupid, ignorant and irrelevant comments. I suppose you are annoyed about something, but you can’t even say what, or why.

      Oh well, that’s the nature of stupid, ignorant, foolish Warmists! Can’t even troll effectively – if, of course, that’s what you trying to do. It’s not really obvious, is it.

      Keep trying. You might improve.

      Cheers.

      • professorP says:

        That’s another gotcha to me. Thanks.

        • Myki says:

          profP, teach me how to be a successful troll please.

          • Myki says:

            p.s. g*e*r*a… asked me to ask you this.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            The stupid and ignorant plaintively seeking instruction from the even more stupid and ignorant!

            Yes, I know. It might have been the other way round.

            Par for the climatological denier course (which goes in ever diminishing circles, vanishing into its own fundamental orifice).

            Keep up the amusement, oh stupid and ignorant ones!

            Cheers.

          • Dr No says:

            “Par for the climatological denier course (which goes in ever diminishing circles, vanishing into its own fundamental orifice)”
            How dare you refer to denialists like that.
            That sound to me like an own goal!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      profp…”Maybe the patient feels resentment that he was never appreciated in his work or personal life.
      A fascinating case study”.

      Obviously a frustrated wannabee psychologist trying to pass himself off as a climate scientist. What is it about alarmist climate science that attracts mathematicians, geologists, computer programmers, astronomers, erstwhile physicists, and now wannabee psychologists? Can they not make it in their own fields and feel the need to specialize in pseudo-science and psychobabble, the hallmark of alarmist climatology?

      Alarmist climatalogy is not unlike scientology. Both require conditioning techniques to lure the believers.

      Free advice to adherents of alarmist climate science, when offered a drink of Kool Aid, please decline.

      • David Appell says:

        Climate science attracts many different types of scientists because they enjoy a good problem, working on the problem that means much to society, and because the science, which is just applied physics, chemistry, and biology-requires experts from Summerfiel climate science attracts many different types of scientists because they enjoy a good problem, working on the problem that means much to society, and because the science, which is just applied physics, chemistry, and biology-requires experts from many fields.

  37. Gordon Robertson says:

    David Appell..”The satellites from which NOAA GES their data do not even provide temperatures-they provide microwave intensities. It requires a model to convert those into temperatureS”.

    No model required. How does a hand held IR scanner give you the temperature of a scanned object? It receives EM frequencies in the IR band and converts them to temperature using an algorithm which itself was derived from a lab-based relationship between IR and a heat source.

    The notion that models are required is a load of bunk. Computers may be required to keep track of the numerous satellites flying re their altitude, etc., but oxygen microwave transmissions as used in the satellite AMSU units can convert microwave radiation to temperature easily in the same manner as mercury in a thermometer converts it.

    Computer programs may be used to adjust the overlapping weighting factors of the different channels available for sampling at various altitudes but those are not models nor are they unvalidated climate models. They can be validated by comparing the sat temperatures to weather balloons at the same altitude.

    • David Appell says:

      IR scanners, like the ear thermometer your doctor uses, measures emissions from the inside of your ear then calculates the temperature using Stefan-Boltzmann law, assuming an emissivity of 95%.

      With atmospheric microwaves its harder, because it depends where in the atmosphere the microwave originated from. Hence UAH had to calculate the weighting functions to use in their models. Yes, UAH are most definitely using models to calculate their temperatures – read one of their papers, preferably an early one.

    • E. Swanson says:

      GR, I think David is correct. The MSU/AMSU measurements are gross averages weighted over both altitude and area. The microwave energy comes from the oxygen emissions, but is also influenced by surface characteristics, stratospheric emissions and precipitable ice lofted to cloud tops by intense storms. Measurements over land are warmer than those over the oceans because of these differences. The TMT includes influence from the stratosphere, which is known to be exhibiting a cooling trend. The latest UAH v6 work takes the measurements from MSU 2, AMSU 5 and MSU 3, AMSU 7, combining them via an algorithm to produce the LT product, so the LT isn’t a true measurement, only a theoretical construct based on modeling.

  38. Gordon Robertson says:

    myki…”The upcoming heat may challenge late-season temperature records in Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney”.

    Surprise!!! It’s hot in Australia at end of summer.

    However, we must question the BOM temperature records. After all, their buddies at NOAA think nothing of creating records by dropping confidence levels in half (48%). Not to be outdone, their other buddies at NASA GISS use CLs as low as 38%.

    When NOAA applied that 48% CL to move 2014 into ‘the warmest year evah’ in the temperature record since the 1800s, UAH was showing it in 4th place at least 0.5C behind 1998 and several 10ths behind 2010.

    Lying alarmists will go to no end to scare the public.

    • Myki says:

      You do understand that they are referring to temperature records, not just temperatures?
      Secondly, you do understand that the time of year is mid-fall (mid-autumn), not summer?
      You do understand that a record is a record is a record – confidence levels are irrelevant?
      I hope this has been helpful, cheers.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Myki,

        You do understand that Gavin Schmidt announced 2014 as “The hottest year EVAH! – with a probability of 38% – less than coin toss probability!

        It must have cooled since then, obviously. No more strident announcements from the recordmeister.

        Or do you think it is getting hotter, but no one has noticed?

        Or has 2014 been declared colder than now? After all, it only had a 38% chance of being the hottest year EVAH. That was a nonsensical statement anyway, wasnt it? It was demonstrably hotter before the first liquid water formed, but climatological deniers think that is irrelevant.

        Carry on Myki – maybe you can find an old discarded GHE hypothesis lying around. Then at least the bumbling buffoons will have some pretence to science. Dont you agree?

        Cheers.

    • Dr No says:

      Another neanderthal denialist/conspiracy theorist regurgitating the same old tired nonsense.
      It makes me laugh, the same way that we still have conspiracy theorists complaining about the fake moon landings or elaborate plots by the CIA etc. to assassinate JFK.
      They can never explain how, with the passage of time, none of the (apparent) thousands and thousands of co-conspirators ever confesses – not even on their death beds.
      Nor how such elaborate and complex conspiracies can be perpetuated by so many public servants. After all, they are not renowned for being particularly effective, efficient, or tight-lipped.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        D,

        You wrote –

        “Nor how such elaborate and complex conspiracies can be perpetuated by so many public servants. After all, they are not renowned for being particularly effective, efficient, or tight-lipped.

        Correct. Stupid and ignorant ones, just like Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen and all the rest.

        Throw in a few public trough wallowers like those at NOAA, NASA, and US public universities, and you have a good motley collection of second raters!

        What have conspiracy theorists to do with the complete lack of science offered by the psychotically deluded likes of Michael Mann? He lied to a court about having a Nobel Prize, then got all huffy when it was pointed out he was being delusional.

        Search high and low all you like. You still cant find a GHE hypothesis, can you? Testable or not!

        Press on. Denying the need to follow the scientific method makes climatology less effective than astrology. Your forcings and feedbacks, your TOA and hot spots, sound altogether less seductive than Mars trine Venus, or the Moon being in the seventh house.

        And about as scientific.

        You cant even say what it is you are trying to foist on the simple minded. Even they realise the climate has always changed, and a fair percentage even know that climate is merely the average of weather – influencing precisely nothing!

        More psychobabble is unlikely to produce a GHE hypothesis, is it? Maybe you could pray hard at the same time you babble – that might help. Good luck.

        Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon, those numbers werent confidence limits, they were probabilities. This has been pointed out to you before, but youre still getting it wrong.

  39. Mike Flynn says:

    And still not a shred of anything faintly scientific from the loony deniers.

    They cannot even express their looniness in plain English, except to claim that CO2 is a gas with miraculous properties!

    What a gem! The fools even believe that removing the CO2 from air will make its temperature drop by 33 C or so! Instant refrigeration – what a miracle!

    Of course, it is all specious nonsense – these dimwits have precisely no clue what they are talking about. They are so stupid and ignorant, they cannot even agree on pseudoscience amongst themselves – apart from agreeing they are all brilliant.

    At least expenditure on this pack of bumbling fumblers seems to be diminishing, even though politicians are not noted for their ability to distinguish fact from fantasy on a regular basis. In this case, the fantasy of CO2 heating the planet is becoming less sustainable by the day. Maybe even politicians are getting smarter.

    And a jolly good thing too. There is hope for humanity yet.

    Cheers.

    • professorP says:

      Nurse! The patient is very agitated.

    • Myki says:

      “Old man yells at cloud”
      look up Episode 13, Season 13 of the American animated sitcom The Simpsons. Originally aired on March 10th, 2002.

    • Dr No says:

      ” apart from agreeing they are all brilliant.”
      Yes, I must admit that on this site at least, we do all appear brilliant. Well done team!

      • professorP says:

        Dr No, I agree. However, I must point out that I have more brilliant credentials than anybody else here. My Germanic background precludes any modesty.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          p,

          I am sure you spend a lot of time polishing your credentials.

          “Can you throw them o’er your shoulder
          Like a continental soldier,
          Can you do the double shuffle,
          When your [credentials] hang low?”

          Keep on polishing. In Australia, it might be considered to be ball tampering.

          Cheers.

    • Myki says:

      “And still not a shred of anything faintly scientific from the loony deniers.”
      It sounds like MF may have switched sides. He is bagging his own team!

      • Mike Flynn says:

        If you say so, Myki, if you say so.

        Cheers.

        • Harry Cummings says:

          Mike dont take old Myki to seriously he is Ausralian they do like to do a lot of ball tampering there

          Regards

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Harry,

            I suspect he might be also tampering withGavin Schmidt’s knob as well. I hear it is big and red.

            Oh dear, it explains a lot, if true.

            Cheers.

          • professorP says:

            Harry, poor old Mike has a thing about Gavin Schmidt. His comments here demonstrate an unhealthy obsession. Don’t worry, we have the cold shower treatment to give him.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            p,

            The stupid “we”, I assume.

            Stupid and stupider!

            You should sit in a circle, and stroke each other’s [egos]?

            If you can’t even come up with something pseudoscientific, you might as well spend your time playing with each other, as well as yourselves.

            Off you go then. Play away.

            Cheers.

          • Myki says:

            I think MF is a bit sick.
            Nothing worse than a dirty old man.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Myki,

            Maybe you could borrow the price of a phone call, and ring someone who cares what you think.

            Do you think your mother might care?

            Cheers.

  40. Mike Flynn says:

    Still no testable GHE hypothesis.

    So sad. Too bad.

    Cheers.

    • Svante says:

      Testable hypothesis:
      The earth emits more power from its surface than to space.

      • PhilJ says:

        How would you test that?

        • Svante says:

          Measure the spectrums and integrate.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            sleazy, it’s WAY more complicated than that.

            You would have to have thousands of surface spectra.

            Then, you would have to have thousands of atmosphere spectra.

            Then, you would have to somehow correlate surface to atmosphere above.

            Then, you would have to allow for all the errors.

            Then, you would have to have all of the above, over long periods of time.

            Let us know when you get done.

      • David Appell says:

        150 W/m2 more.

        Likewise, the earths surface emits an average of 390 W per meter-squared, while receiving an average of only 240 W/m2 from the Sun.

        • PhilJ says:

          Really DA?
          How do you figure the surface emits 150w/m2 More than the power released to space?

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, more than is emitted to space.

            At an average temperature of 15 C, Earth emits an average of 390 W per meter squared, using the Stefan Boltzmann equation. But measurements show that only 240 W per meter squared leave the top of the atmosphere. 240 W per meter squared is also what the earth receives from the sun, after Taking into account its albedo of 0.7.

          • PhilJ says:

            The toa is about 2.5 times the radius to the surface.. Using the inverse square law that meand 390w/m2 is equivalent to about 65w/m2 at the toa.. Clearly more power released to space than emitted by surface… Try again

          • David Appell says:

            I dont understand what you mean. The earths radius is 6370 km and the height of the atmosphere is only about 100 km the above the surface.

          • David Appell says:

            And, the inverse square law pertains to emission from a point source. But we are talking about emission from the surface of a sphere. If the earth had no atmosphere, then the amount at the TOA would necessarily equal the amount emitted from the surface, by conservation of energy. But the atmosphere reduces what leaves the TOA by 150 W/m2.

          • PhilJ says:

            100km? Are you excluding the exosphere? I believe that goes to about 10000 km above the surface..

          • La Pangolina says:

            PhilJ says:
            April 7, 2018 at 11:45 AM

            The toa is about 2.5 times the radius to the surface.. Using the inverse square law that meand 390w/m2 is equivalent to about 65w/m2 at the toa.. Clearly more power released to space than emitted by surface Try again

            *

            PhilJ says:
            April 7, 2018 at 12:26 PM

            100km? Are you excluding the exosphere? I believe that goes to about 10000 km above the surface..

            Typical pseudoskeptic blah blah.

            Imagine, think, guess, claim, pretend, lie…
            That is all you manage to do.

            Are you a doppleganger of the Robertson clown?

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

            The Kármán line, at 100 km (62 mi), or 1.57% of Earth's radius, is often used as the border between the atmosphere and outer space.

            You are so incredibly ignorant, that is really ridiculous.

          • PhilJ says:

            “Exosphere
            This is the upper limit of our atmosphere. It extends from the top of the thermosphere up to 10,000 km (6,200 mi).
            Credit: NASA/Goddard”

            Now maybe its just me , but talking about the energy balance of the earth system while excluding the largest volume of that system, seems like a recipe for all kinds of errors

          • David Appell says:

            Whatever, it doesnt matter. By conservation of energy, the same amount of energy that leaves the surface must leave the top, whatever you take the top to be. ( Im assuming there is no atmosphere. ) Its less per unit area the further out you go, but its still the same amount of energy overall.

            Strictly speaking there is no limit to the top of the atmosphere-Theoretically it goes to infinity-but 100 kilometers, called the Karman limit, is where spacecraft first encounter air resistance. 100 km is very small compared to the radius of the earth, so without an atmosphere The same amount of energy leaving the top of the atmosphere, per unit area, should be very nearly equal to the same amount leaving the surface, per unit area. But this isnt true, because of the atmosphere.

          • PhilJ says:

            DA ‘Whatever, it doesnt matter. By conservation of energy, the same amount of energy that leaves the surface must leave the top, whatever you take the top to be. ( Im assuming there is no atmosphere. )’

            But the earth system includes the atmosphere.. Conservation of energy means the energy entering and leaving the top must be equal (wherever we place that top) .

            I think we can agree on that at least

          • David Appell says:

            The top of the atmosphere is the altitude of the satellites that make these measurements of incoming and outgoing energy. At any given altitude these should be equal (on average), But the earths surface emits more per unit area than it receives from the Sun per unit area, measured at the surface. In other words, the earths surface is warmer than can be accounted for by sunlight alone.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly-the-clown, you’re confusing energy with flux, AGAIN!

            You can NOT add and subtract different fluxes. They are DIFFERENT!

            You need to study radiative physics, or stay a clown. Your choice.

          • La Pangolina says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:
            April 7, 2018 at 2:08 PM

            … youre confusing energy with flux, AGAIN!

            You can NOT add and subtract different fluxes. They are DIFFERENT!

            *

            Interesting.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance

            *

            Maybe you show us a link to a paper or a book helping us nobodies to study radiative physics.

            Please communicate on the basis of real science, i.e. nothing coming from WUWT, Postma, Chiefio, Heller, TricksZone or similar).

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Pang, I have no evidence you have ever studied physics. If you had, you would not believe that CO2 can “heat the planet”.

            So, I am not going to try to teach you radiative physics, but if you have a responsible question, I will try to answer.

          • Svante says:

            You should measure the area from the average emission altitude, which is about 5 km.

            Then the entire GHE increases the area by about 0.08% compared to the surface.

          • David Appell says:

            PhilJ: yes, we agree on that. So how is it that the earths atmosphere receives an average of 240 W/m2 from the sun but its surface emits 390 W/m2?

          • PhilJ says:

            DA “yes, we agree on that”

            Good,
            Now consider this study of energy in the thermosphere: http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2016/01/swsc150046/swsc150046.html

            While i wont pretend to understand a quarter of it , i did note this:
            .” Infrared cooling emission from carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules at 15 μm governs radiative cooling up to ~140 km altitude”

            So if this is the TOA and co2 is the primary driver of radiative cooling.. What happens if we increase the concentration of co2?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly-the-clown asks: “So how is it that the earths atmosphere receives an average of 240 W/m2 from the sun but its surface emits 390 W/m2?”

            Jelly, you’re still confused about “energy” vs “flux”. You can NOT “divide by 4”, when considering flux.

            And, you can NOT derive an average surface flux, based on an average surface temperature.

            There are more errors, of course.

            But carry on. This is going to be a great year in climate-comedy. And, everyone loves a clown.

          • David Appell says:

            PhilJ: yes, more CO2 leads to more cooling in the upper atmosphere-the stratosphere. In fact, this is a major prediction of AGW – The lower atmosphere warms, while the upper atmosphere cools. Energy has to be conserved. And the observations show that both of these are happening-a warmer troposphere, and a cooler stratosphere. Temperatures in the upper atmosphere are complicated by Ozone loss, which has a cooling influence, so the two must must be mathematically separated. When this is done scientists still find a cooling trend from human greenhouse gases.

          • PhilJ says:

            DA “: yes, more CO2 leads to more cooling in the upper atmosphere-the stratosphere”

            Hang on a sec.. Im talking about the thermosphere.. Do you agree that increasing the concentration of co2 would increase the rate of cooling from the toa?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly claims: “Temperatures in the upper atmosphere are complicated by Ozone loss, which has a cooling influence, so the two must must be mathematically separated. When this is done scientists still find a cooling trend from human greenhouse gases.”

            Jelly believes CO2 is warming planet, but cooling the planet, but warming the planet, but warming the planet, but

            Being a clown doesn’t pay much, but Jelly has fun.

            So do we!

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Svante,

        Nope. Look at the definition and use of the word hypothesis in a scientific context.

        You are just being stupid – your sentence makes no sense at all.

        Complete foolishness, demonstrating the usual stupidity and ignorance of the science deniers.

        Try at least to appear somewhat rational and logical, even if you are actually stupid and ignorant.

        Cheers.

        • Svante says:

          Mike, you are right. How do you like this:

          GHGs reduce the spectral energy output to space.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            S,

            Just as pointless, no mention of heating, nor of any proposed mechanism not already understood.

            You have just stated something as irrelevant as saying “bananas absorb and emit IR”.

            Perfectly true, as is your statement. Completely irrelevant also, don’t you think?

            You didn’t bother to look at the requirements of a testable scientific hypothesis, did you?

            If you did, you would realise why one cannot possibly exist for the GHE,

            No GHE, therefore no testable GHE hypothesis! Simple, isn’t it?

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            So how would you specify it?

            You can not prove it wrong if you don’t.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Svante,

            It doesn’t exist. It cannot be specified because it is impossible.

            Have you never wondered why nobody has ever managed to come up with a testable GHE hypothesis?

            I don’t need to prove the non-existent “wrong”. That’s just silly!

            There is no GHE. It doesn’t exist. Nobody can propose a testable GHE hypothesis to explain something that doesn’t exist, can they?

            If you don’t believe me, you should be able to find one.

            But of course you can’t. So sad, too bad. Join the rest of the stupid and ignorant believers in the non-existent. Good luck.

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            Do you like this one Mike?

            The GHE reduces energy emission by obscuring the surface and showing colder atmospheric layers to space.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Svante,

            Not at all. Pointless and irrelevant.

            You obviously havent read the requirements for describing a reproducible physical phenomenon, fo starters.

            Where may this GHE be observed?

            Have a look at something like the Seebeck effect. You have to describe the GHE in appropriately similar terms.

            Saying something really silly like The GHE heats the Earth is just a fantasy assertion.

            The is no scientific description of the GHE in terms of observed and reproducible phenomena. There is therefore no testable GHE hypothesis.

            The GHE doesnt exist. If it did, no doubt someone would have described it in scientific terms by now, wouldnt you think? Keep at it, or accept reality. The choice is yours, of course.

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            Thank you for your valuable input Mike!

            I think you will like this:

            The GHE is observed as a difference in brightness temperature between the surface and the earth seen from space.

            By reducing IR optical depth, GHGs raise the interface with space to
            layers that are cooler than the surface (because of the lapse rate), without affecting incoming SW radiation to the same degree.

            Remark: we can have a well specified hypothesis even if it is completely false, and we can not test it before it is well specified.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            sleazy tries: “By reducing IR optical depth, GHGs raise the interface with space to
            layers that are cooler than the surface (because of the lapse rate), without affecting incoming SW radiation to the same degree.”

            Sorry sleazy, that is a natural effect of surface heating the atmosphere. That is NOT evidence that the atmosphere can heat the surface.

            You are lost in your pseudoscience, AGAIN.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Svante.

            Nope, not even close.

            Complete nonsense. What is the reproducible natural phenomena you are observing? What is your hypothesis to explain this?

            You have made series of statements which are on the face of it nonsensical. Think about it first, then you wont have to say that you really meant to say something else, when you are challenged.

            Nobody can help you, because the GHE doesn’t exist. If it did, you could describe it, couldnt you?

            Maybe you can do whats never been done, but I doubt it.

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:

            “Sorry sleazy, that is a natural effect of surface heating the atmosphere. That is NOT evidence that the atmosphere can heat the surface.”

            You mean the lapse rate? Good point, it’s a prerequisite that everyone knows about, it was unnecessary to throw in there.

          • Svante says:

            Mike Flynn says:

            Nope, not even close.

            You have made series of statements which are on the face of it nonsensical. Think about it first, then you wont have to say that you really meant to say something else, when you are challenged.

            I shall bear this in mind.

            What is the reproducible natural phenomena you are observing?

            A difference in brightness temperature.

            What is your hypothesis to explain this?

            IR opacity, radiation balance set against a TOA that is colder than the surface.

            Nobody can help you, because the GHE doesnt exist. If it did, you could describe it, couldnt you?

            You are too modest, I think you must have received a lot of clues as to its nature.

            False or true, that’s another question.

            Maybe you can do whats never been done, but I doubt it.

            Not on my own, thank you for your help.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “You mean the lapse rate? Good point, it’s a prerequisite that everyone knows about, it was unnecessary to throw in there.”

            For some reason, there are people that WANT there to be a GHE, regardless of the facts. Some people believe the lapse rate is evidence of the GHE. Some people believe DWIR is evidence of the GHE. Some people don’t even need any evidence.

            That’s why it is always necessary to specify the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE, or shortened to “$GHE”.

            There is no $GHE.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Svante,

            You seem to intent on repeating meaningless bafflegab.

            “A difference in brightness temperature” is meaningless.

            The Earth is not a black body. Comparing a theoretical black body temperature to an observed temperature is meaningless climatological nonsense.

            What are you really trying to say?

            Are you trying to claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter? Sounds ridiculous to me, and I would be interested to find out how you came to that conclusion.

            Does this silly idea have any physical backing, or is it just a fantasy belief?

            Do you really believe such nonsense?

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            g*e*r*a*n says:

            For some reason, there are people that WANT there to be a GHE, regardless of the facts.

            Strange!

            Some people believe the lapse rate is evidence of the GHE.

            I don’t think so!

            Some people believe DWIR is evidence of the GHE.

            Not if the same amount is emitted to space!

            Some people dont even need any evidence.

            Shocking!

            Thats why it is always necessary to specify the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE, or shortened to $GHE (sic).

            That’s right g*e*r*a*n, let’s specify it!

            There is no $GHE (sic).

            Gosh, you are way ahead of me, have you specified it already?

          • Svante says:

            Mike Flynn says:

            You seem to intent on repeating meaningless bafflegab.

            You sound more positive now, I think we are moving in the right direction!

            A difference in brightness temperature is meaningless.

            Sorry, I thought it was a well defined concept in planetary science?

            The Earth is not a black body. Comparing a theoretical black body temperature to an observed temperature is meaningless climatological nonsense.

            But it’s used in satellite temperature measurements?
            http://www.remss.com/measurements/brightness-temperature/

            What are you really trying to say?

            I’m after the difference in radiance, I think I can use that term instead.

            Are you trying to claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter? Sounds ridiculous to me, and I would be interested to find out how you came to that conclusion.

            You’re way ahead of me, I’m not finished with our hypothesis.

            Does this silly idea have any physical backing, or is it just a fantasy belief?
            Do you really believe such nonsense?

            Let’s not jump to conclusions, let’s agree on our hypothesis first.

            Cheers.

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Svante,

            You cant specify something that doesnt exist.

            Pretending that the GHE exists is attempting to defend the indefensible.

            You cant describe the Greenhouse Effect, any more than you candescribe the Furtwangler Effect.

            Neither one exists.

            Carry on being ignorant and stupid if you wish. Good for a laugh if nothing else. Even politicians are realising the truth, and funding is drying up. and a jolly good thing too!

            Onwards and upwards, eh?

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Svante,

            More obfuscation from you – but still no testable GHE hypothesis!

            Look at what you initially proposed. It was stupid and ignorant then, and it is stupid and ignorant now.

            You still have no hypothesis, just some pointless sciency words strung together.

            You can’t explain what the Greenhouse Effect is, any more than you can explain the Furtwangler Effect

            Nobody can. Maybe you think you are more able than the consensus of self appointed climatologists, but you appear to be no smarter or knowledgeable than that pack of bumbling, capering clowns!

            This is science? You can’t even say what the problem is, let alone suggest a solution!

            You are not doing too well at the moment, are you?

            No sign of a testable GHE hypothesis. Not surprising that nobody can devise one – the supposed effect does not exist, does it? Maybe you should come up with a hypothesis explaining phlogiston or N-rays, to sharpen your science skills.

            Carry on.

            Cheers.

          • Svante says:

            Mike Flynn says:

            “You cant specify something that doesn’t exist.”

            I think I can, how about this:

            Aether, a space-filling substance or field, is necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Svante,

            Context, laddie. Context.

            I assumed you were rational – my mistake.

            If you want me to rigorously delineate in what context I meant “describe”, I won’t.

            You are free, as a stupid and ignorant scientific wannabe, to pretend that you can make fantasy into fact. You can’t.

            You can’t even describe your impossible GHE. Your description of the ether is incomplete, which is why the concept failed. The failure was subsequently confirmed by experiment.

            You haven’t got a clue, have you?

            Carry on.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”By reducing IR optical depth, GHGs raise the interface with space to
            layers that are cooler than the surface (because of the lapse rate), without affecting incoming SW radiation to the same degree”.

            *********

            I think the meteorological theory that the the cooling gradient from the surface up is due to a lapse rate needs to be revisited. I have little doubt the lapse rate is a factor but air cools with altitude due to gravity, not the lapse rate per se.

            I have pointed out, using Mount Everest as an example, that air thins and cools naturally as one ascends a mountain like Everest. At the top of Everest, the air is 1/3 the density it is at sea level. The temperature is likewise much cooler.

            That applies equally in summer, the temps near the top of Everest are sub-zero even in summer. At Katmandu, below Everest and at 1400 metres elevation, the summer temperatures are in the 30C range. Over the 7448 metres altitude between Katmandu and the summit of Everest, temperatures drop 40C or so. That is not caused by lapse rate.

            Even the difference in air density and temperature between the South Col, the pass between Everest and neighbouring Lhotse at 7906 metres, and the peak at 8848 metres, is significant. A climber can survive a week or so on the South Col without supplemental oxygen but cannot survive the night on the peak.

            It’s a fact that the planet’s atmosphere becomes less dense and cooler with altitude and that the only cause is a slightly lowered gravitational force.

            The lapse rate cannot thin air (reduce pressure) and/or reduce temperature by itself, all it can do is operate on top of the gravitational effect.

            As far as your claim regarding brightness temperatures, you do realize that brightness temperature is not a real temperature? It’s an apparent temperature based on the frequency of radiated EM. How does an apparent temperature prove the GHE?

            The graphics you have posted previously show spectral radiation measured in milliwatts whereas the claimed TOA radiation is in 100s of watts per metre. It’s painfully obvious that IR blockage due to GHGs is very small. So small as to be insignificant.

            As I claimed, I think the graphics are fabricated.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”Aether, a space-filling substance or field, is necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation”.

            **

            Now you’re talking. If an aether can be proved, Einstein’s relativity theory goes out the window, according to him. Recent studies on neutrinos have suggested so-called empty space may be teeming with them.

            It is know that when light is absorbed by a substance, it slows down. If neutrinos are a factor, as an aether, they may be limiting the speed of light.

            Interesting point. I think relativity is wrong for the simple reason big E built time, as the speed of light, into the relativity equation. He defined time as what is read on the hands of a clock. That suggests to me he did not understand the derivation of time, thinking it had a physical derivation, and many scientists today still lack that understanding.

            Therefore, an observer observing must watch the hands of a clock in his own frame of reference to time events on a different frame of reference.

            For whatever reason, Einstein presumed the time as measured on a local clock affects the interaction of forces and masses in a different frame of reference, which is clearly wrong. A force and a mass interact entirely independently of local time, especially a local time invented by humans based on the rotational period of the Earth.

            Relativity can be calculated using Newtonian principles without reference to the speed of light. Einstein admitted that, however, he was focused on certain anomalies that Newtonian theory fail to explain at the atomic level.

            Of course, if we base relativity on the speed of light then it can APPEAR that time dilates and physical lengths can change with relative motion. It comes back to the observer and his warped mind. The observer is imposing his thought processes on real physical processes and whatever is in the mind of an observer, like time, does not apply to the real physical world.

            Here’s an example of speed without reference to time. If I build a clock-like device with a tension spring and gearing to drive a hand on a dial marked as on a real clock, I can observe the motion of the hand. If I build a second mechanism with different gearing, so the 2nd device moves one revolution while the 1st device moves half the distance, I can claim the 2nd device is twice as fast as the 1st device.

            No reference to time. Therefore speed/velocity, and even acceleration, can be observed independently of time.

            What does this have to do with climate? Is it not obvious? That same corrupt mental process is at work with alarmist climate types.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Poor sleazy asks: “Gosh, you are way ahead of me, have you specified it already?”

            Yes sleazy, but you couldn’t figure it out. The “$GHE” refers to the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE. The “$” refers to the billions wasted. You are just too (sic) to figure it out.

            Hilarious.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            mike…”You cant explain what the Greenhouse Effect is, any more than you can explain the Furtwangler Effect

            Nobody can”.

            *****

            Furtwangler??? I actually looked it up.

            Lindzen, a REAL atmospheric physicist (he does not rely on unvalidated models but does real science) has claimed the GHE in it’s present incarnation is totally over-simplified.

            Part of his reasoning as he puts it is that surface radiation is not the primary mode of cooling. That should be obvious to anyone with an intimate understanding of physics. Only people programming climate models could make such an egregious error and only those lacking an understanding of the errors built into models could think so.

            Lindzen claims the blanket, heat trapping effect of GHGs is bogus.

            Could not agree more, even though I doubt Lindzen cares what I think.

  41. ren says:

    “The National Weather Service announced that by 2 p.m. Friday, downtown Sacramento had received 1.09 inches of rain, breaking the daily precipitation record for April 6 of 1.04 inches, set last year.

    As of 5 p.m., the downtown total for the date was 1.17 inches, said Jim Mathews, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service. Sacramento Executive Airport recorded 1.25 inches.

    Elsewhere in the region, Folsom reported 1.8 inches; Rocklin, 1.66 inches; Davis, 0.81 inches; and the Grass Valley and Nevada City areas, between 2 and 3 inches.”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”The National Weather Service announced that by 2 p.m. Friday, downtown Sacramento had received 1.09 inches of rain…”

      We have a few new lakes around here in Vancouver, Canada thanks to torrential-like downpours. We had sheet lightning the other night, unusual for this time of year.

  42. ren says:

    The wave of the Arctic air moves to the southeast of the USA. Tomorrow night, snow will fall on cherry trees in Washington.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00962/wn0rp3lb909e.png

  43. CoRev says:

    A weather update indicating how hard it is to do forecasts. In the BULLSEYE area instead of the massive, big, some, trace of snow with the cold we have received less than 1/10″ of rain and it is still in the high 40s. NO SNOW IN THE FORECAST since the 4/6/18 forecast.

    And some want us to believe the decadal Climate Change forecast? NOPE! Pull the other one.

    • David Appell says:

      Scientists arent forecasting climate change, theyre projecting it based on assumptions about future energy use. Climate is the long-term average of weather, and it is often easier to calculate the average of something than of the exact movement of each of its parts. There is an entire field in physics devoted to this called statistical mechanics. So while for simple gases its easy to relate pressure, volume, and temperature, its virtually impossible to determine the movement of each individual gas molecule or of small local fluctuations in temperature or pressure. And future climate change is mostly about energy balance-what energies Enter and leave the Earths system and how they are distributed. Difficult, but enormously easier than trying to forecast the weather of your town in 100 years.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Jelly-the-clown, what are you rambling on about now?

        Did you find your missing 150 W/m^2 yet?

        Maybe you let it at work.

        No, that would happen, huh?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        Apart from acknowledging that climate is just the average of weather, you remain as stupid and ignorant as ever.

        Anybody can forecast that the climate will change, and making that assumption won’t do much harm. No skill there!

        If 139 climate models give different outputs, than at least 138 (if not 139) of them must be wrong. Averaging 138 or 139 wrong answers gives yet another answer which is probably wrong. At the very least, you cannot say it is correct!

        Thee are precisely zero climate scientists. There are are ragtag motley collection of second raters (some of whom are scientists in various fields) who call themselves climate scientists in attempts to secure recognition and funding.

        As the funding dries up, they will no doubt revert to being non-climate scientists.

        On the subject of forecasts/projections or what have you, Ill just remind you that the IPCC stated clearly that future climate states are unpredictable – no more than a statement of truth.

        No climate scientists, and the IPCC stating that climate cant be predicted.

        What are you babbling about, again? Whats your point? If you believe you can usefully predict the future, off you go and do it.

        Maybe some fool will even pay you for your predictions/projections/forecasts. Good luck.

        Cheers.

  44. Scott says:

    I think corn planting will be delayed in mid-Missouri. The rule of thumb followed by the old timers is to plant corn between April 15 and May 15.

    To get a solid germination and non-stressed plants, the soil temp needs to be 50-55F, and rising. But the low temps have gotten down near 20F that past few days. I think Wednesday it was in the teens. The ground is not warming to where it needs to be.

    It’s supposed to reach high 60s late next week, but I doubt any corn gets planted on April 15th. Looking at the bottom map in this post it appears the entire Corn Belt may experience delayed planting this year.

  45. Mike Flynn says:

    Has anybody found Davids 150 W/m2?

    Maybe it is hiding in Pierrehumbugs textbook along with the Earths 760 000 K surface temperature.

    Maybe David didnt get around to mentioning that his 150 W/m2 only exist in someones imagination? Tut, tut, David.

    Fantasy is not fact. Try harder.

    Cheers.

    • David Appell says:

      You dont recognize a property of the greenhouse effect when you see it?

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Poor Jelly doesn’t recognize reality when he sees it.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        If you could provide a testable GHE hypothesis, there is nothing to test, is there?

        I suppose youll say that because bananas absorb and emit IR, this is proof of Banana induced heating.

        Carry on David. Try the scientific method, if you can.

        Otherwise, others might think you are deluded, stupid and ignorant. What do you think? Can you prove otherwise?

        I thought not.

        Cheers

  46. Mike Flynn says:

    La P,

    Plaintively asks –

    “Maybe you show us a link to a paper or a book helping us nobodies to study radiative physics.”

    To quote the stupid and ignorant La P –

    “Why the hell should I do your work, . . . ”

    Poor diddums.

    Cheers.

    • La Pangolina says:

      Wooah wooah wooah.

      • Myki says:

        LaP, don’t respond to the rants of a dirty-minded old man. He is sick.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Myki,

          Did you attend the same Mind Reading Course for The Stupid and Ignorant that the other stupid and ignorant people did?

          You’ve been had, diddled, ripped off! It didn’t work!

          Thanks for ordering La P to cease responding to me. Do you think she will take any notice? Maybe you have awesome powers of compulsion, or maybe not.

          She certainly seems to have lapsed into gibberish and incoherence. Sad.

          Cheers.

  47. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-blockbuster-paper-finds-man-made.html

    This I think is correct.

    In addition AGW is not making any progress this year as temperatures overall are lower.

    • ren says:

      “The above observations suggest the ocean surface temperature to be an initiating factor in a
      planetary sequence of events, coupling temperature and atmospheric CO2. This motivates an
      analysis of the relation between global atmospheric CO2 and surface air temperature in the two
      hemispheres separately (Fig. 9), as especially the surface of the Southern Hemisphere is dominated
      by oceans, and the lower troposphere temperature change above the northern oceans appears to be
      lagging slightly behind corresponding changes above the southern and the tropical oceans.”
      http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      salvatore…”In addition AGW is not making any progress this year as temperatures overall are lower”.

      The temps have been slowly cooling since February 2016.

  48. ren says:

    Strong frost in the Great Lakes region.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00963/fecow9f6g0kj.png
    The stratosphere will continue to wave over North America.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_150_NA_f48.png

  49. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2016/12/solar-activity-oceans-cycles-water.html

    This correlates to the climate not the CO2 myth.

    This year is the transitional year.

  50. What is even funnier is all the bogus AGW claims none of which have come to be.

  51. bilybob says:

    Just a general question to anyone. How much thermal infrared is received by a sensor on the Earth surface on a cloudless/moonless night? Preferably in watts/sq. meter if that is possible.

    Thanks, I don’t own an IR sensor and can’t find an internet resource on the topic.

    • bilybob says:

      I should clarify, pointed upward.

    • Svante says:

      Norman provided upwelling IR for the Nevada desert, I guess it should be pretty cloud free:
      https://tinyurl.com/y7m9yg84

      A think you can safely ignore the moon.

      • Svante says:

        … and downwelling IR.

      • bilybob says:

        Appreciate it Svante.

        David A correct me if I am wrong does the following explain the missing 150 Watts/Sq. Meter discussed in previous threads?

        The sun produces north of 1000 watts/sq. meter at TOA, some is reflected, some interacts with the atmosphere, most reaches the surface. The surface warms during the day because cooling rate is lower than heating rate (unless of course a cold front comes through but lets keep this simple.) So during the day the buildings, roads, forests, lakes and oceans increase in temperature.

        As the Earth rotates cooling eventually is greater than heating (late afternoon unless a warm front comes through). The surface cools depending on the material. This is why water tanks and rock storage is used in passive solar heated homes, they release heat back slowly. If there were no down-welling IR, the surface would simply cool at a rate natural for its material property (rock, ocean, asphalt etc.). By adding down-welling IR the cooling rate would decrease, to the point where, when the sun rises again, it would reverse and start to heat up again.

        Would the down-welling IR explain the 150 watts/sq. meter or have I missed something?

        • Norman says:

          bilybob

          The way I have read the situation is that there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all the IR emitted from the Earth’s surface in the bands CO2 absorbs in a few hundred meters.

          The atmosphere cools as you go up because of convective cooling (adiabtic cooling caused by expansion) and the CO2 at the layers where it can now freely emit to space and be picked up by orbiting satellite is much colder, the H2O bands seem to emit from higher temperature portions of the atmosphere since the stratosphere is usually very dry (the water vapor condenses out).

          Here is graph of it. One is an actual measured value, the other is a modeled graph.

          http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran_iris.jpg

          • bilybob says:

            Thanks Norman

          • PhilJ says:

            Hi norman,

            Ill ask you the same thing i asked DA..

            If co2 is the main driver of radiative cooling at the TOA and we increase its concentration .. Will that increase the rate of cooling from the TOA?

          • gbaikie says:

            I believe the pseudo science is that it radiates from a higher elevation, but it does radiate more.

          • Norman says:

            PhilJ

            No. The rate it emits will balance the incoming solar which average 240 W/m^2. Increasing CO2 just moves the layer of CO2 up higher in the atmosphere where it can now emit freely to outer space.

            From David Appell’s links, the addition of more CO2 actually slightly increases the DWIR that has been measured over a 10 year span.

            This will decrease the amount of Heat the surface can lose and will cause an increase in the temperature (If the incoming power remains the same, which is not established, greater surface warming may lead to more clouds which cut off solar input). How much is currently a guess at best. No one seems to have solid information one way or the other.

            I am skeptical of any extreme temperature increase like 10 C. I am more in the camp of a little increase in surface temperature. Maybe around 1 C but I am not sure.

          • PhilJ says:

            “No. The rate it emits will balance the incoming solar which average 240 W/m^2. Increasing CO2 just moves the layer of CO2 up higher in the atmosphere where it can now emit freely to outer space.”

            That doesnt make sense to me … If co2 is the main driver of radiative cooling out of the system and we move more of it to the toa where it can freely emit to space, how does that NOT increase the rate of cooling at the TOA?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            PhilJ says: “That doesnt make sense to me”

            Exactly, PhilJ. You caught Norm all tangled up in his pseudoscience, AGAIN!

            More CO2 in the atmosphere means more emission in ALL directions. What goes to outer space cools the planet. What returns to the surface does not necessarily heat the surface.
            Infrared photons emitted by ice cubes are “hotter” than the 14.7 µ photons emitted by CO2.

          • David Appell says:

            Photons dont have a temperature. Temperature is a statistical property of many body systems.

            Photons have energy. Conservation of energy requires that when a photon is absorbed by the surface, it absorbs that energy and therefore is warmer.

          • PhilJ says:

            No im sorry norman that doesnt help ..

            For starters it compares tge earth to an isothermal black body at 255 k…

            Id much rather talk about the real earth system.

            If we define the earth system as everything inside the TOA, we can then say that the system has some total internal energy ‘U’ and that whether U is increasing or decreasing depends entirely on whether the energy leaving the system at the TOA is greater or less than the energy incoming.

            Would you agree?

          • Norman says:

            PhilJ

            I think that is a reasonable assumption. At this time I can’t find any reason to disagree with what you stated.

            You were asking about how adding more CO2 to the atmosphere would alter the emission at the TOA, I thought the article I linked to did discuss that very thing.

          • PhilJ says:

            Norm,

            “Infrared cooling emission from carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules at 15 μm governs radiative cooling up to ~140 km altitude “”

            This is the quote from the paper i linked on energy budgets in the thermosphere.

            Now with that in mind… If we increase the concentration of co2 here, at the top of the atmosphere, we must be increasing the rate of radiative cooling to space…

            If we have a constant input of energy .. Then the total internal energy of the system, U, MUST be decreasing…

          • Snape says:

            PhilJ

            The thermosphere, seriously? Any idea what percentage of solar radiation is absorbed/emitted by the thermosphere?

            I don’t have an answer, but I’m guessing a small fraction of 1 w/m^2

          • Snape says:

            I did some digging and my guess looks spot on (hold your applause, it was dumb luck):

            “Only one percent of the TSI, mostly in the form of UV radiation, is absorbed by the upper atmosphere, mainly by stratospheric ozone.”

            So if stratospheric ozone absorbs most of the one percent, how much does the thermosphere absorb? Not a lot.

          • PhilJ says:

            Hello Snape,

            It is not the amount absorbed here that matters… What matters is the total amount of energy entering and leaving the system at this point.

            If we assume some steady state where they are equal and we then increase the rate of cooling here, at the top of the atmosphere, with a constant input… The total energy of the system MUST decrease however small that decrease may be

          • Snape says:

            PhilJ

            I totally agree with you. My point is the thermosphere is where all the energy entering and leaving the earth system is MEASURED, but where very little action takes place.

            Of the ~1368 watts/m^2 arriving from the sun, perhaps all but one pass through the thermosphere completely undisturbed.

            Of the ~ 1368 watts/m^2 reflected/emitted by the troposphere or surface, perhaps all but one pass back through the thermosphere, completely undisturbed, on there way to space.

            Therefore the thermosphere’s energy budget pertains to only 1/1368 of the TSI (just a wild, ball park guess) and so has very little relevance to the system as a whole.

          • PhilJ says:

            Snape,

            I think you missed my point..

            I agree that the amount of energy being absorbed here is tiny… And it is dwarfed by the amount of energy being released from the upper atmosphere…by … Yep radiative cooling of Co2.

          • Snape says:

            PhilJ

            The troposphere is where CO2 releases the lions share of energy, perhaps 99%, ………it just happens to pass through the thermosphere on its way to space.

            Do you not get this?

          • Snape says:

            Something to consider:

            “Although the thermosphere is considered part of Earth’s atmosphere, the air density is so low in this layer that most of the thermosphere is what we normally think of as outer space. In fact, the most common definition says that space begins at an altitude of 100 km (62 miles), slightly above the mesopause at the bottom of the thermosphere. The space shuttle and the International Space Station both orbit Earth within the thermosphere!”

            https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/thermosphere-overview

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            con-man, is that site where you learn your pseudoscience?

            The clown couldn’t even convert °C to K!

            See near bottom of comments, responding to “galloping camel”:

            Also Deming is incorrect. The temperature that the Earth would be observed to have (if computed based on its outgoing flux) is 255K, not 288K. The measured average surface temperature, however, is 288K.

            255 K = -18 °C

            288 K = 15 °C

          • Bart says:

            Norman @ April 9, 2018 at 10:32 AM

            The rate it emits will balance the incoming solar which average 240 W/m^2.

            But, that can be said about any of this. A change in the rate of cooling forces a change in the distribution.

            Eventually, the outgoing has to balance the incoming, or there would be a runaway conditions, either hot or cold depending on the sign of the imbalance. But, the whole question is, in the intervening time before a steady state condition is restored, what is the change in the energy state of the planet?

          • Norman says:

            PhilJ

            It seems if your point, that increasing CO2, should increase the amount of IR leaving via that process it would also, at the same time, send more IR back to the Earth.

            You could think about not adding more CO2 but just increasing the temperature of the GHG at the TOA. They would radiate more energy but it goes in both directions so as you lose energy at a faster rate away from the surface, you send this same amount of energy back towards the surface.

          • PhilJ says:

            Norm,

            It doesnt matter how internal energy is shared, distributed, transformed, transported within the system. That has no effect on the value of U (conservation of energy)

            The only thing that cam change U (+ or -) is a difference in the total energy entering and leaving the system at the TOA

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, just remember that the IR that is radiated to space is GONE. The planet has lost that energy. But the IR that is radiated back to Earth may not even be absorbed. In fact it is most likely it will NOT be absorbed.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Phil says: “Now with that in mind If we increase the concentration of co2 here, at the top of the atmosphere, we must be increasing the rate of radiative cooling to space”

            That might seem logical, but it misses a critical fact — more CO2 simply means the radiation comes from HIGHER in the atmosphere. And since the higher you go, the colder it gets, this means more CO2 results in LESS radiation to space.

            Here is a handy illustration: http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
            Change the CO2 concentration as you look down from high altitude. More CO2 = less radiation to space. Less CO2 = more radiation to space. Your intuition was backwards!

          • PhilJ says:

            Tim,
            Your illustrationis useless as it is based upon a flawed model earth that has been constructed backwards..

            This has lad to the strange conclusion that a reduction in the rate of cooling is equivilent to heating …

            Rather then discuss this fictitious earth i would much rather talk a about the real Earth system and how it functions in reality…

            So let me ask,

            Do you agree that for billions of years the Earth system has evolved ( and is evolving) mechanisms whereby the greatest possible amount energy is being released at any point in time … (Maximum entropy)

          • Svante says:

            Hi Tim,
            I could do with your expertise down here:

            https://tinyurl.com/y6ubxx5f

            I’m helping Mike specify the GHE.
            I want to put it very simply.

            PS. The TOA emission will always tend to balance the input, the surface has to warm to achieve that.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim claims: ” More CO2 = less radiation to space. Less CO2 = more radiation to space.”

            Sorry Spin, but you’ve got it wrong, AGAIN. You’re thinking–If more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, then the atmosphere will get warmer, then the CO2 will emit less!

            You need a course, or three, in physics, not to mention logic and intuition.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            sleazy, your attempt to re-define the bogus GHE is hilarious. First, you have to ask yourself why you need to re-define it. Are you admitting the IPCC got it wrong?

            Please continue wallowing in your pseudoscience. It’s fun to watch.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            G says: “Youre thinkingIf more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, then the atmosphere will get warmer, then the CO2 will emit less!”

            No, that not quite what I am thinking. Maybe if I simplify adn spell it all out, you will understand.

            1) If more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, will the radiation to space come from higher in the troposphere or lower in the troposphere?
            2) What happens to temperatures as you move up through the troposphere — getting warmer or getting cooler?
            3) Which emits more thermal radiation — warm CO2 or cool CO2?

            Once you answer these three questions, then what is the logical conclusion about the amount of thermal radiation to space from the atmosphere as CO2 increases?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Tim, you claimed you were going to “spell it out”. But you asked three questions.

            Obviously you can’t “spell it out” if you are needing more information.

            Get back to me when you can “spell out” how CO2 can warm the surface, i.e., raise surface temperatures. And, how CO2 can warm the surface WITHOUT also emitting infrared to outer space.

            That will be hilarious.

            (If you haven’t already noticed, I love climate-comedy.)

          • Svante says:

            Nice evasive action g*e*r*a*n!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            sleazy demonstrates why she is so sleazy, AGAIN.

            sleazy, perhaps you would like to help Timbo-the-Clown, with his homework:

            Get back to me when you can “spell out” how CO2 can warm the surface, i.e., raise surface temperatures. And, how CO2 can warm the surface WITHOUT also emitting infrared to outer space.

            (Hilarious.)

          • Svante says:

            You can spell it out yourself if you answer Tim’s questions.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nice sleazy evasion, sleazy.

            (Hilarious.)

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Wow … ok, I will s.p.e.l.l i.t o.u.t.

            1) l.e.s.s.
            2) c.o.o.l.e.r.
            3) w.a.r.m.

            And … less total thermal IR to space from cooler CO2 higher in the troposphere.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Timbo, if “more” CO2 cannot radiate to space, then it cannot radiate to the surface.

            But, I love climate-comedy, so please continue.

          • gbaikie says:

            “Snape says:
            April 10, 2018 at 12:30 AM
            I did some digging and my guess looks spot on (hold your applause, it was dumb luck):

            Only one percent of the TSI, mostly in the form of UV radiation, is absorbed by the upper atmosphere, mainly by stratospheric ozone.

            So if stratospheric ozone absorbs most of the one percent, how much does the thermosphere absorb? Not a lot.”

            Thermosphere is hotter than the Sun at Earth distance, so zero.
            Anyhow, got stratosphere, then mesosphere, then thermosphere/ exosphere.
            I would say thermosphere has two says of getting high velocity gas, solar wind, and the faster gas molecules of atmosphere below it. So ozone could faster molecules from it’s chemical reaction, plus temperature of gas is related to it average volicity, in denser air one has more uniformity of highest velocity/speed, in less dense air there is less uniformity or wider range of velocity are wider the difference of a gas molecule hitting another gas molecule, the higher the temperature, so 0 velocity hitting molecule going 2000 meter second molecule, on average is hotter than two molecules hitting which are both going 1000 meters per second.

          • Bart says:

            Tim Folkerts @ April 10, 2018 at 9:02 PM

            That might seem logical, but it misses a critical fact more CO2 simply means the radiation comes from HIGHER in the atmosphere.

            That may seem logical, but it is only a conjecture, not backed by empirical evidence that establishes uniquely cause and effect. The evidence you do provide is merely a model which shows that if you assume the conjecture is true, then the conjecture is true. It is a circular argument.

            In order for the radiation to come from higher in the atmosphere, the atmosphere must heat, in order to support the bulk at higher elevation. But, you don’t get the heat until the radiation comes from higher elevation. There is no cause and effect here, and it becomes a “Just So” story.

          • Nate says:

            “In order for the radiation to come from higher in the atmosphere, the atmosphere must heat”

            Nope.

            Lower troposphere just needs get more opaque to IR, which it is required to do, in response to the increasing concentration of an IR absorbing gas.

          • Bart says:

            Sure, and the gas just magically floats higher through no agency whatsoever. Just so.

          • Nate says:

            ?? Not sure of your point.

          • Bart says:

            What I said stands. You have to get the heat to achieve the buoyancy, but according to the description, the heat is due to the buoyancy. It’s a completely circular argument.

          • Nate says:

            Why the need for extra buoyancy? The CO2 is well-mixed. The lapse-rate exists. Convection exists. Heat is required to leave the atmosphere by radiation. It does, from the altitude at which the atmosphere is no longer opaque, which increases with CO2 ppm.

          • Bart says:

            Because gravity exists.

          • Nate says:

            Ok, so you have no answer, fine.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          The “150 W/m^2” is an artifact of pseudoscience. It is the arithmetic difference between two bogus numbers, 390 and 240.

          The “390” comes from the calculation for a black body at 288 K. The “240” comes from dividing solar flux, after albedo, by 4 (960/4 = 240).

          There is so much wrong with the hilarious “150”, it is like subtracting pixie dust from kangaroos and getting apricots.

          But, it’s fun to watch.

          • bilybob says:

            Thanks g*e*r*a*n,

            Not really interested in any theoretical construct (blackbody) or modeled numbers. Rather trying to get a grasp of the entire process. How does daytime temperatures differ from nighttime temperatures, how surface heat is dissipated etc. Impact to cooling rates.

            I don’t even want to look at averages over a 24 hour period, rather how much energy comes towards the surface during the day vs. how much comes towards the surface during the night. And visa versa. Any insight would be helpful.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            bilybob asks: “How does daytime temperatures differ from nighttime temperatures, how surface heat is dissipated etc.”

            The basics are the Sun heats Earth’s surface, and then the surface heats the atmosphere. The atmosphere has the ability to emit extra heat energy to outer space, based on the laws of physics. Daytime temps are higher due to the direct solar energy. Nighttime temps tend to drop, as the surface heating drops.

            bilybob asks: “how much energy comes towards the surface during the day vs. how much comes towards the surface during the night.”

            The Earth’s average insolation, after albedo, is believed to be about 960 Watts/m^2. Clear sky, at the proper latitude, at zenith, levels can easily get well over 1100 Watts/m^2.

            I like your phrasing: “How much comes towards the surface during the night”

            That would be “back-radiation” from the sky and clouds. Just because it “comes towards the surface” does not mean that it can heat the surface. THAT is where the controversy starts about the bogus “GHE”.

          • bilybob says:

            g*e*r*a*n says “That would be back-radiation from the sky and clouds. Just because it comes towards the surface does not mean that it can heat the surface.”

            Very helpful. And yes, in my experience surface temperatures have always gone down at night (except if a warm front has come through). However, I have noticed the surface cooling rate has been higher on clear nights.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bilybob…”I dont even want to look at averages over a 24 hour period, rather how much energy comes towards the surface during the day vs. how much comes towards the surface during the night. And visa versa. Any insight would be helpful”.

            Direct solar input from the Sun has a very broad bandwidth and comes from a very hot source. The bandwidth ranges from the infrared right through to the ultraviolet.

            Back-radiation from clouds and GHGs is a very narrow bandwidth radiation without much intensity. The source is cooler than the surface.

            As g*r claimed, that radiation cannot heat the surface. The 2nd law of thermodynamics claims heat can only be transferred from a hotter body to a cooler body.

            There is a lot of discussion around here about that with many in disagreement.

            Put another way, 50% or more of solar radiation is of a shorter wavelength and combined with it’s intensity it can warm the surface. That energy is converted by the surface to longer wave infrared energy. The AGW theory claims that IR is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, part of which is radiated back to the surface to warm it.

            That theory infers a recycling of heat, which is normally seen as perpetual motion. There is no way for a heat to transmit energy and have the energy returned so as to increase the heat in the transmitter.

            The theory that back-radiation from clouds keeps the atmosphere warmer at night contradicts the 2nd law if the clouds are cooler than the surface. If the theory is true, I think it has more to do with convection.

          • David Appell says:

            Whats wrong with it?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly likes to ask questions, pretending to be an interested student. But, he always rejects the answer, and consequently never learns.

            It’s fun to watch.`

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Gordon, First a minor point: “Direct solar input from the Sun has a very broad bandwidth …
            Back-radiation from clouds and GHGs is a very narrow bandwidth … “
            Sunlight is mostly 0.3 – 4 um. Thermal IR is mostly 4 – 50 um. So thermal IR has about 10x the bandwidth.

            Then a more important point. It is vital to define clearly what you mean by “to heat” and “to warm”. Typically “to heat” means to transfer net thermal energy” and “to warm” mean to increase the temperature of something. It is easy (with these definitions) to heat something without warming it, or to warm something with out heating it. Using the two words interchangeably usually indicates sloppy and/or imprecise thinking.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            From the Oxford Dictionary –

            To heat : Make or become hot or warm.

            From Merriam Webster –

            To heat: to make warm or hot.

            In the context of rubbery climatological definitions, I use to make hotter as indicating an increase in temperature.

            Climate nutters appear to use a similar definition, claiming temperatures have risen due to the increased presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are all therefore supposed to bake, boil, fry, or roast as a consequence. CO2 does not do this.

            CO2 does not make anything hotter – that is, show an increase in temperature. Playing with definitions will not create increased temperatures due to CO2 where none exist. Good for me, bad for you.

            Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            test

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…”Sunlight is mostly 0.3 4 um. Thermal IR is mostly 4 50 um. So thermal IR has about 10x the bandwidth.

            Tim…you need to go back and look at the full EM spectrum, of which the terrestrial IR portion makes up a small portion. You have it backwards, the full EM spectrum is at least 10 times the terrestrial IR spectrum.

            ***********

            “It is vital to define clearly what you mean by to heat and to warm. Typically to heat means to transfer net thermal energy and to warm mean to increase the temperature of something. It is easy (with these definitions) to heat something without warming it, or to warm something with out heating it. Using the two words interchangeably usually indicates sloppy and/or imprecise thinking”.

            Tim, you are coming from a modern paradigm of what heat means and it is plainly wrong. I was reading a chemistry text recently in which they claimed heat is a transfer of ‘energy’ between bodies and that the bodies must be separate.

            I have no idea why physics and chemistry has deteriorated to this point. The modern definition of heat, as I understand it, is a transfer of ‘energy’ between a hotter and a cooler body.

            Ding, ding, ding!!! What is the energy being transferred???? Is it not heat??? Thermal energy??? How can anyone define heat as heat transferred from body to body?

            You wanted precision, why are you referring to a mysterious generic energy being transferred when it is known as thermal energy?

            Somewhere along the line someone has screwed up royally and all the lemmings have jumped of the cliff behind them. Heat TRANSFER is the transfer of energy between bodies of different temperature and the energy is heat in the case of conduction and convection whereas the energy is EM in the case of radiation. In the modern definition of heat, someone forgot the TRANSFER part.

            In the case of the latter, heat does not leave one body as heat and enter the other. Heat is converted by electrons in atoms to EM, the EM flows through space, and the electrons in the receiving body converts the EM back to heat.

            Some modernists have abstracted heat as an idea and I don’t buy it. I am going with the originators of thermodynamics who defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. That makes eminently more sense.

            Regarding temperature, you can ignore it as a phenomenon because it is nothing more than a human-invented system of measuring relative heat levels (average KE of atoms). Warming still means increasing heat levels, not increasing temperature per se.

            When something has warmed, it is sufficient to claim it has more heat, or more kinetic energy. Since KE is a generic term referring to ANY energy in motion, we need to be precise and define the energy of atoms in motion as thermal energy.

  52. I see no noteworthy changes going on with ENSO anytime soon.

    • Snape says:

      La Nina to neutral. Not too exiting but noteworthy.

    • RAH says:

      Joe Bastardi and several others believe were in for another El Nino this year. Joe thinks there is a good chance it will be a Modoki type which based on past history usually means the winter for much of the US will be colder and snowier than usual.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        You’ve got to almost be crazy to make weather forecasts as far out as Joe does. But, he has a pretty good record of calling it right. Crazy like a fox?

  53. RAH says:

    This trucker had to deal with it this week. Woke up with 4″ of heavy global warming at the rest area about 25 west of Hazleton, PA. on I-80 Monday morning.

    Wednesday morning I was at a pull off rest area on I-90 about 16 miles west of Buffalo, NY. The forecast was for high winds and they weren’t kidding. Guests got up over 60 mph. I had a pickup in Rochester NY and pulling the empty trailer there was a pain. Thankfully they loaded me with 22,000 lb of freight so when I headed back west though the winds had picked up even more I could still keep going. Second pickup in Tonawanda, NY near north side of Buffalo. Then I headed for Vandalia, OH to deliver the load.

    I passed a big truck that had been blown over and heard about another. It was a constant battle to keep it between the lines and the occasional snow squall cutting visibility didn’t help matters. Many 1,000s without power in the area with many trees down. Thankfully the wind coming off Lake Erie was out of the west and my predominate direction of travel while up there when the winds were worst was to the west. If such wind gusts had come in from either side I probably would have had to pull over and hole up until it passed.

    I was in your area Dr. Spencer Friday and Saturday. Picked up at the BASF, Johnson Control facility right by the airport in Huntsville on Friday afternoon and took my 10 hour break on the lot there. At 01:30 your time Saturday morning I departed heading up 565 to I-65 North in a steady moderate rain and the temp was 54 deg. F.

    Four hours later approaching Louisville on I-65 temp was 28 F with occasional snow squalls. Got worse for a short time in Southern Indiana but then I drove out of it.

    I watched Joe Bastardi’s ‘Saturday Summary’ video a little while ago. Says at this time this April is the 3rd coldest of the satellite era and he expects it to be #1 before it warms up.

    Based on what I’m seeing in N Central Indiana I can’t disagree with that assessment. Have not seen nor heard a single Robin yet. Usually by this time I have the first arrivals hopping around in my yard. Also the usual migratory species that hit my feeders on their way further north are late showing up.

    It is getting to be time for the farmers of the corn belt, upper Midwest and plains states to start worrying. They should be in their fields here by now prepping and getting ready to plant but the colder and wetter than normal spring we’re having is preventing that.

    • Svante says:

      It’s cold in Russia too:

      https://tinyurl.com/ybf59bsk

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      RAH…”Wednesday morning I was at a pull off rest area on I-90 about 16 miles west of Buffalo, NY”.

      Good luck on the road.

      A relative drove semis and had an argument with an armchair driver who claimed a semi-trailer could be recovered once it jack-knifed on ice. My relative looked at him like he was crazy and claimed once the trailer comes around on ice there is no recovery.

      I worry more about you over-nighting in a rest area near Buffalo. Is that not as risky as hitting the road on ice?

      Keep us posted if you can.

      • RAH says:

        Na! Not risky there. Plenty of trucks parked there. The Angola service area was full so I drove a few miles east to get to that pull off. Now taking a break in the “Bad Lands” of Philly is risky! They shut down a run we had to Honors foods on N. 5th street after a driver heard a gun battle going on a block away. I was the first one to do that run and the way I did it was found a safe place two blocks over to park. Log book and hours of service regs be damned. But other drivers let their fear of violating hours of service override their common sense about what is safe.
        Down at Laredo I’ve heard considerable shooting in past times when I used to go down their frequently. That being said, I’ve been to every commercial port of entry between Texas and Mexico and never felt in danger. Though we have several runs into the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn we deliver and get out. We are never required to pick up in those areas. When you see block walls with graffiti and razor wire on top you know your not at a place to be taking a break unless it’s inside of one of those cantonments.

        Other drivers and weather in that order, are the greatest dangers this driver faces. The reality is that in larger cities sometimes not being aggressive enough is far more dangerous than going for it and using your rig to push on through. I guess one just has to be there to get where I’m coming from on that.

        • Svante says:

          Makes me upset just to hear about it, it’s appalling that you have to consider those risks when you’re just doing your job.

          • RAH says:

            To be honest security is really not that big of an issue as long as one maintains situational awareness and uses good sense. As far as weather goes? You can either go or you can’t and it’s about keeping yourself informed as best you can about what’s ahead of you and having the judgment to know when you can push through and when it’s time to park it. But other drivers? Now that is the worst of it. There are some really stupid and crazy people in this world. It take a special kind of idiot to believe that can intimidate the driver of 67′ long vehicle grossing 20 to 40 tons with a KIA clown car.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            RAH…”To be honest security is really not that big of an issue as long as one maintains situational awareness and uses good sense”.

            That’s the key. I have encountered situation in life at a street level where logic and the law go out the window. You develop a sixth sense but unfortunately that comes from experience. I have been with people in areas of my city that I knew were dangerous yet those people ridiculed me as being paranoid when I took precautions.

            It’s the same in the wilderness. If you are going into bear territory and you don’t take precautions, or you are completely unaware of the danger presented by bears, you are seriously naive.

            Doesn’t mean you have to live your life in fear, you just have to use the good sense you mention and the awareness of whether danger is ‘likely’ to be an issue. Become alert, watch for danger, and don’t go blindly walking and yahooing into a dangerous part of town.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          RAH…interesting stuff, thanks for sharing. I don’t think many people are aware of what truckers face on a daily basis.

          When you did the Honor Foods drop you claimed to find a safe parking spot two blocks away. Did you have to hand bomb your goods to the store over those two blocks? Or did you just kip the night in that spot?

          Being from a safer part of Canada it would horrify me to sleep overnight on a street in Philly. Seattle used to be a safe place but now it has several serious gangs in the area. The Bloods and Crips have migrated north from LA.

          Guess it’s climate change.

          It’s not bad enough to stop me visiting Seattle for a day but I’d be very wary of the gang presence. A relative visited friend south of Phoenix and stayed in a motel. They were warned not to wander around outside the motel at night. Turns out 50 gang members had been rounded up a few weeks before.

          Actually, I’m more worried about the border guards on the way down. After 9/11, they have obtained license to act like Nazi storm-troopers, and many do. They’ll confiscate your vehicle and strip it down for little other reason than you did not answer a question to their expectation.

          • RAH says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            ………When you did the Honor Foods drop you claimed to find a safe parking spot two blocks away. Did you have to hand bomb your goods to the store over those two blocks? Or did you just kip the night in that spot?…………..”

            Apologize for the delay. Had the flu all week but managed to work through it. But when not working I was sleeping.

            Honors foods did not have room inside their fenced and wired compound for inbound truckers to park until after their own delivery trucks had departed for their runs in the morning. The next major street running North and South to the east of 5th street is N. American Street. It’s a main drag with curb parking, schools, lots of businesses, and the cops patrol there. That is where I would park along the curb to await my appointment time which was 06:00. Then drive into their compound, back into the designated door, get unloaded, pay the lumper fee, and pull back out and go and park on N. American street again to finish my break.

            The way the run was set up one would arrive in the early morning hours. The problem was that with electronic logs your stuck because by the time the appointment rolled around you were over your hours of service time. I would park at N. American, go “off duty” set the alarm, get up, go on “off duty driving” do my delivery and then go back and park on N. American and go back to “off duty” and go back to sleep. DOT could have ticketed and fined me for that had they caught me. But this former SF soldier learned long ago that when regulations get in the way of common sense the guidance should be accomplishing the mission or task in the safest way possible, logs and regulations be damned. Some drivers however, less experienced I guess, are apparently more afraid of getting a ticket then getting shot or robbed.

            Here’s the thing. The planners that set up this kind of stuff have no idea. They’re kids looking at computers and never have seen the inside of a big truck let alone gone on a run in one. That’s the way it is for all but the smallest of trucking companies. So there is a disconnect and a driver has to understand this and compensate for it using their own good sense and experience.

          • RAH says:

            Dealing with US customs along the Canadian border can be a real pain. Believe me. I know. Canadian customs has their days too but not as many it seems.

          • Svante says:

            So you used to have an important and risky job, and now you have another.

  54. ren says:

    Snowstorm from North Dakota to Missouri.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00963/82txdecy14eh.png

  55. ren says:

    Snowstorm from Iowa to Virginia.

  56. ren says:

    The solar wind from the large coronal hole located centrally on the solar disk will cause geomagnetic storms in the following days. As a result, the jet stream in the northern Pacific and Atlantic will be strong. It will strengthen La Nina.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00963/1bxk6tc1e7ra.png

  57. ren says:

    Again, heavy rainfall in California.

  58. ren says:

    Very heavy snowfall in the French Alps.

  59. ren says:

    Minimum temperature in North America on 10/04/2018.
    http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00963/lx14virhvode.png

  60. Mike Flynn says:

    Svante wrote –

    “The GHE is observed as a difference in brightness temperature between the surface and the earth seen from space.”

    He claims this is a testable GHE hypothesis.

    He is deluded, ignorant and stupid if he thinks his collection of pointless words is related to science, as opposed to the fantasy pseudoscience of climatology.

    The comedy continues.

    Cheers.

    • Svante says:

      Thank you Mike, nearly there I think!

      You did have one small point about the wording though:

      A difference in brightness temperature is meaningless.
      The Earth is not a black body. Comparing a theoretical black body temperature to an observed temperature is meaningless climatological nonsense.

      I’m still thinking about that one, what do you propose instead?

      http://www.remss.com/measurements/brightness-temperature


      The GHE causes a difference in brightness temperature between the surface and the earth seen from space.

      By reducing IR optical depth, GHGs raise the interface with space to layers that are cooler than the surface, without affecting incoming SW radiation to the same degree.

      • David Appell says:

        I agree with most of this, but the brightness temperature only applies to the planet as seen from outside it, not the surface. But yourre right, the GHE is the difference between a planets surface temperature and its brightness temperature.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Jelly continues his clown routine: “But you’re right, the GHE is the difference between a planet’s surface temperature and its brightness temperature.”

          Jelly, the IPCC defines the GHE on the bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation. The difference you imagine between surface and “brightness” would be due to the natural heat transfer of the atmosphere.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          Thats pretty silly, even for you.

          They cant both be correct, then, can they?

          Its about s stupid as running more than 100 climate models, getting 100 different results and claiming the average is correct.

          So why dont you average the “surface temperature” and your brightness temperature? I thought pseudoscientists loved averages. Wont it give you result you want?

          Maybe the deluded modellers should take the difference between their highest and lowest projections, and try to say the result is meaningful! It might be caused by the GHE, do you think?

          You are, aren’t you?

          Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Svante,

        I am completely baffled by you asking what I propose. Why should I attempt to validate your fantasy?

        You still haven’t said what phenomena you are observing, nor what testable hypothesis you are proposing! What do you think cannot be explained by present physical laws?

        Just more bafflegab. String sciency sounding words together might make you feel scientific, but it will not impress a real scientist.

        Learn physics. Learn the scientific method – otherwise you will continue to appear ignorant, stupid, and confused. Maybe that is what you want, for some bizarre reason!

        You can’t even get full support from David Appell – he’s stupid and ignorant, but seemingly smart enough to realise that you are even more stupid and ignorant than he!

        Have you managed to get support from Norman? Or maybe Michael Mann? Good luck.

        Cheers.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        The closest I find to a definition of “the greenhouse effect” from IPCC is:
        “[The earth radiates] primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum. Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.”
        https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html

        This is pretty clearly meant as a basic description for general audiences, rather than a precise definition for scientific theories. This definition simply notes that some thermal IR from the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere, and some (lesser) thermal radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface. This hardly seems controversial (although some people have trouble even with this).

        In a follow-up statement, the claim is made that “the Earths greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet”. This seems to be the sort of testable hypothesis that Mike wants. It does not seem especially controversial, either. A planet like the earth but with no thermal IR absorbed by the atmosphere and no thermal IR from the atmosphere absorbed by surface could not be as warm as earth currently is (based on standard heat transfer physics). This could also be tested by putting IR-absorbing gases around a heated surface and seeing how the temperature changes.

        [NOTE: This definition precludes one of Mike’s common objections: ‘Claiming that putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter is not science its delusional psychosis!’. There is no claim about CO2 (or any GHG) between the sun and a thermometer, so this objection is simply a red herring; a strawman. The claim (as always) is about CO2 between the surface and the cold expanse of outer space.]

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Timbo the Clown (performances nightly) entertains us with his hilarious pseudoscience.

          Timbo: “This definition simply notes that some thermal IR from the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere, and some (lesser) thermal radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface. This hardly seems controversial (although some people have trouble even with this).”

          ***The clown starts out with “lesser”.

          Timbo: “In a follow-up statement, the claim is made that the Earths greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

          ***Now, the “lesser” is gone.

          Timbo: “This seems to be the sort of testable hypothesis that Mike wants. It does not seem especially controversial, either.”

          ***It’s not controversial to a climate clown. Violate the 2LoT all you want. Experiments can be faked as necessary. Bring on the funding.

          (The inconvenient truth for climate clowns is the surface heats the atmosphere. The atmosphere does NOT heat the surface.)

          More, please.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Tim,

          Nope. Complete waste of time. Just stating obvious physics sounds sciency, but does not advance anything at all.

          As you admit, putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. And of course, at night, in the absence of the Sun, it is readily observed that temperatures fall. So, putting more CO2 between outer space and a thermometer, doesnt make a thermometer hotter, either.

          So, no effect when the Sun shines, as you say. I agree.

          No temperature increases at night. Once again, we agree.

          The nonsense statement that the Earths greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet is just the fantasy of the delusional. Of course, climatologists redefine warming to mean cooling, which is what the surface does in the absence of sunlight!

          A reduction in the rate of cooling is not heating Tim, and the claim seems to be that surface temperatures have increased in some way. Got hotter, in other words.

          If the greenhouse effect doesnt result in temperature increasing in sunlight, and temperatures fall at night, how may it be demonstrated and reproduced?

          Only in the fevered imaginations of its adherents – thats where!

          Go on Tim, take some CO2 at night, and make a thermometer hotter – showing a temperature rise. You cant. No amount of ignorant and stupid posturing will overcome the fact that no one has managed to define the non-existent GHE in any scientific sense!

          Cheers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Mike, before getting into science, we need to address some fundamentals of interpersonal communications, since you are clearly not hearing what I am saying.

            Let’s start with something that should be an easy fix.

            “Warmer” is the comparative form, which means there must be two different situations being compared — “warmer than *what*?” When people say something like “the greenhouse effect makes the surface warmer at night”, we can imagine two very different meanings:
            A)”warmer than it would have been without IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere.
            B) “warmer than it was ten minutes earlier.”.”

            Both are legitimate, logical, understandable interpretations. Trust me — all proponents of the GHE mean (A) not (B). Now that you know, please stop asking people to defend (B).

          • PhilJ says:

            A)warmer than it would have been without IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere.

            There you go again Tim with your flawed model Earth

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Phil, I was simply a clarification of the hypothesis here — clarifying what people mean by “warmer”.

            The only ‘model’ is a planet with GHGs. Are you saying that there is a fundamental flaw in modelling the atmosphere as containing IR active gases?

          • PhilJ says:

            Yes. It starts with a cold body and adds insolation , and then insulation to it to model its temp….

          • PhilJ says:

            To which i might add.. How much colder would it be without 02 and N2?

            Ask a Martian, they might know…

          • PhilJ says:

            Anybody else find it curious that the average temp on mars just happens to be about the same temp that co2 ‘governs radiative cooling?’

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            You didnt listen to Gavin Schmidt, obviously.

            Hottest year EVAH! Highest temperature, due to CO2 .

            Deny away, play word games and redefine all you like.

            No GHE. At night the surface cools. It doesn’t get hotter.

            Was Gavin Schmidt wrong? Is he really that stupid and ignorant?

            Cheers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Mike,
            If you consider it ‘word games’ to accurately communicate, then I suspect there really is not point is discussing anything further with you.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Timbo, if you consider you can avoid the laws of physics, then I suspect there really is no point in anyone discussing science with you.

            But, there is the comedy. …

        • Svante says:

          Tim,
          people like Mike and g*e*r*a*n get very confused by the concept of back radiation, I need to put it more simply for them.

          Building on what David said:


          The GHE is the difference between earths surface temperature and the brightness temperature seen from space.

          By reducing IR optical depth, GHGs raise the interface with space to layers that are cooler and therefore less radiant than the surface, without affecting incoming SW radiation to the same degree.

          It is testable if we can find (average) surface and TOA spectrum measurements. If you see something that is not the surface, it has to be the TOA. Then SW measurements.

          I will need to add several explaining notes of course, for example that a lapse rate is assumed.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            sleazy, it is always so hilarious when you try promote your sleaze. For example:

            “It is testable if we can find (average) surface and TOA spectrum measurements. If you see something that is not the surface, it has to be the TOA. Then SW measurements.”

            Hilarious.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…”The GHE causes a difference in brightness temperature between the surface and the earth seen from space.

        By reducing IR optical depth, GHGs raise the interface with space to layers that are cooler than the surface….”

        When you see jargon like this you know the author is into serious theory. In electronics we see all sorts of jargon, like injecting current. That suggests you have a gun that fires electrons into a circuit or a device.

        No such thing, it’s a device to help certain people visualize, like the incorrect GHE model. I steer away from such visual aids because they will eventually lead you down a blind alley. I don’t want to hear about optical depth because it will confuse more than give a picture of what is really going on in the atmosphere.

        Current in a circuit or through a device cannot move without an applied voltage. However, certain people mentally configure a circuit to make it appear as if current is being injected independently of voltage.

        You may have heard the jargon that it’s not the voltage that kills you it’s the amps. Utter nonsense. The current definitely does the damage but you can touch both terminals on a car battery, that is capable of delivering 600 amps, enough to incinerate you under the right conditions, and all you’ll feel at most is a slight tingle.

        Try that at 347 volts and the current will literally burn parts of you away. I was on a site where a guy had his thumb burned clean off when he accidentally touched a 600 volt buss.

        • Svante says:

          Gordon, can you propose something succinct?

          Otherwise I thought I could add a list of definitions/notes for the jargon.

  61. Mike Flynn says:

    By the way, Svante made the completely bizarre claim that he was “helping me” to describe the non-existent GHE.

    Why anyone would think that I would ask a stupid and ignorant person for “help” with a non-existent problem, is beyond me!

    Such is the rich fantasy world of the deluded GHE believer!

    Unbelievable, but funny anyway.

    Cheers.

    • Svante says:

      You are too modest, you said the same as David, I used brightness temperature inappropriately.

      Thanks again!

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Svante,

        Modest? Moi?

        You are obviously off with the fairies – standard fare for delusional climatology worshippers.

        Get a grip laddie – life’s short enough!

        Cheers.

  62. ren says:

    Frost and snow in the northeast of the US. Frost in New York.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00963/koz9sg4mdekv.png

  63. My question is where is all of that global warming?

    Overall sea surface temperatures now down to a range of +.08c to +.27c and this range I predict will be lower as we move forward.

    Global snow cover above average ,global temperatures running colder then last year.

    Have to watch seismic activity and overall global cloudiness going forward and the atmospheric circulation to see if it keeps becoming more meridional.

    All and all I like the trends of late. Do they continue that is the question? Time will tell.

    • ren says:

      When the speed of the solar wind increases, the polar vortex strengthens (the circulation is more latitudinal).
      http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/pm_2week.imagemap?302,88
      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.obs.gif

    • Snape says:

      It’s right here, Sal:

      “The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through March 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”

      • Bart says:

        Why is this significant? What happens if you perform a trend analysis on a sine wave?

        • Snape says:

          Bart, this is from a comment I posted upthread:

          “There is natural/cyclical warming and cooling on various timescales. Daily, weekly, monthly, annualy, decadel, per century, per millennium and longer.
          The idea is to try and weed out those various cycles and isolate the AGW contribution. Best practice is to use the longest time series possible, i.e., the whole record.”

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            snape…”The idea is to try and weed out those various cycles and isolate the AGW contribution”.

            Can’t be done. It’s plainly obvious on the UAH series from 1998 – 2015 that no warming occurred, plenty of time to indicate CO2 has no effect on warming.

          • Bart says:

            That is the whole problem. How do you determine when you have removed all cyclical components, and the only remaining thing is an effect of the purported cause?

            The long term trend over an entire data set, for those which go back that far, shows a trend which has been in evidence since the end of the LIA. Since it predates the post-WWII acceleration in CO2 emissions, it stands to reason that CO2 is not the cause. If you take that trend out, you are left with what is mostly an approximately 60 year cycle. If you take that cycle out, there is virtually nothing but noise left.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bart…”What happens if you perform a trend analysis on a sine wave?”

          Are you being serious or just being silly?

          You can follow the slope of a tangent to a sine wave from t = 0 and it will vary all over the place. I can’t imagine a sine wave being used as data points in an analysis involving a trend.

          • Bart says:

            That is what is extant in the data: a long term trend out of the LIA + a ~60 year cycle + essentially noise. When a trend analysis is performed on data from January 1979 through March 2018, it is basically fitting a straight line to the long term trend, and the up-cycle of that ~60 year cycle.

            This is my whole point: these trend lines are silly, because they are not measuring an effect of CO2.

          • Svante says:

            Here’s the CO2 correlation from 1753:

            https://tinyurl.com/yck2o849

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            (Yuk-yuk!)

          • Bart says:

            That is extraordinarily contrived, Svante. Everything before 1900 is conjectural at best. Then, the fit is awful to about 1970, and it’s awful again after 2000, which is truncated. This is how fudge is made.

          • Snape says:

            Bart

            First you claim the recent warming is part of a long term cycle, an opinion that relies on someone’s research into the past.

            Next, we see this, “Everything before 1900 is conjectural at best.”

          • Bart says:

            That cycle is about 60 years. It is not that long a term. We have nearly two full cycles in evidence since 1900.

            Beyond that, we have a trend that has been observable since at least 1900, well before the marked acceleration in CO2 emissions post-WWII. That trend may itself be part of a longer term cycle. But, as cause must precede effect, it is not due to anthropogenic CO2.

            You take out that trend and the ~60 year cycle, and there is very little that can have been influenced by rising CO2.

          • Nate says:

            LIA occurred well before 1900

          • Nate says:

            Which parts are contrived? The CO2 part. Nope, measured. The Volcanoes are historical record (magnitudes going way back uncertain).

          • Snape says:

            Bart, what are the approximate beginning and end dates of the most recent 60 year cycle you’re talking about?

            https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2017/listentothee.png

          • Nate says:

            As discussed many times, the century and half trend since the end of LIA is not linear. Remove the linear and a bowl shape remains.

            https://tinyurl.com/yc2urts3

          • Svante says:

            Bart says:

            Beyond that, we have a trend that has been observable since at least 1900, well before the marked acceleration in CO2 emissions post-WWII. That trend may itself be part of a longer term cycle. But, as cause must precede effect, it is not due to anthropogenic CO2.

            We increased the forcing by about 1.2% from preindustrial to 1900.
            We added another 5.5% since 1900.

          • Nate says:

            So, if you have a bowl shape, and add noise, and zoom in, it looks less bowl shaped. Impressive.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            If I see two bumps, I can ‘fit’ a sine wave to it. That does not make it a sine wave.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            What data set is that, you are using?

          • Bart says:

            Svante @ April 16, 2018 at 1:07 AM

            “We increased the forcing by about 1.2% from preindustrial to 1900. We added another 5.5% since 1900.”

            There is no unambiguous evidence of it. And, we added it inconsistently in time with the observed temperature rise. The observed rise is essentially affine with a ~60 year cycle. The input CO2 accelerated markedly after WWII.

            Nate @ April 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM

            “If I see two bumps, I can fit a sine wave to it. That does not make it a sine wave.”

            Remarkably regular bumps, with a set period. These data are HAD—-4. Can’t put a D and a C together or it won’t get past the site filter.

          • Bart says:

            And, of course, the actual CO2 concentration rate of change matched the temperature anomaly, not the input emissions rate. It’s a total CF.

          • Svante says:

            Bart says:

            There is no unambiguous evidence of it. And, we added it inconsistently in time with the observed temperature rise. The observed rise is essentially affine with a ~60 year cycle. The input CO2 accelerated markedly after WWII.

            We added CO2 at quite a regular exponential rate. The forcing accelerated less markedly because the impact is logarithmic.

            I think your ~60 year cycle is in there, CO2 just make it finish higher than it started every time.

          • Bart says:

            It deviates significantly from an exponential rise. The kink around 1945 should be readily apparent. It isn’t.

          • Svante says:

            CO2 does not do kinks.

          • Nate says:

            Actually, CO2 rise had a slowdown in 1930s-40s, per ice cores. Great depression the likely cause.

          • Nate says:

            “Remarkably regular bumps, with a set period.”

            two bumps in a century is remarkably regular?

            Are you familiar with the time-frequency uncertainty principle?

          • Bart says:

            “Actually, CO2 rise had a slowdown in 1930s-40s, per ice cores. Great depression the likely cause.”

            Emissions had a sharp kink upward in the mid-40’s. Just goes to show, there is very little actual correlation between emissions and concentration. Plus, ice cores are totally bogus.

            https://tinyurl.com/y9ysrp9w

            “Are you familiar with the time-frequency uncertainty principle?”

            Intimately. But, there are nearly two full cycles here, with four turnaround high and low peaks having remarkably unform spacing.

          • Nate says:

            Are you familiar with the time-frequency uncertainty principle?

            Intimately. ”

            Then your bias towards periodicity is glaring.

            “But, there are nearly two full cycles here, with four turnaround high and low peaks having remarkably unform spacing.”

            https://tinyurl.com/yb6wc76p

            Not what I see at all. You have a fertile imagination.

          • Bart says:

            Not really. You’re just wearing blinders.

          • Nate says:

            I think maybe Bart is attempting to find separate components of the temperature that can be accounted for in non AGW ways.

            I think that separating things out, this portion is due to this and this other portion is due to that, with no theoretical basis, is just guesswork, a fools errand.

            Unless you have a long historical record of periodicity such as the seasons (we don’t),seeing two bumps has no predictive value.

            For example, if I look at ENSO, the MEI index, from 1965-1975, I see a remarkably periodic signal, with 3 bumps. Did it predict the next decade? Not at all. The nice periodicity did not continue.

          • Bart says:

            It’s a question of signal to noise. Your local bumps are getting close to the noise floor. The ~60 year signal is well above it.

          • Nate says:

            ??. My bumps are the noise. Still look periodic. Their cc with a sine function is 0.76. What is yours?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        S,

        Only stupid and ignorant people convince themselves that graphs predict the future.

        There are lots of stupid and ignorant people around – not just climatologists.

        The longer a trend continues, the closer it gets to the next change in the trend.

        If you really believe that you can predict the future from the past, borrow all you can, go to a stockbroker, and soon you’ll be rich beyond the dreams of avarice!

        Even you woukdn’t be that stupid, would you? You just hope that others are more stupid than you, and are gullible into the bargain!

        Carry on blathering.

        Cheers.

        • Snape says:

          Sal

          Then maybe you should put your question a different way: “Where is the future warming?”

          Answer: It’s not here yet.

    • ren says:

      Sinabung Mountain explosion April 6, 2018 at 16:07
      A visually observed thick cloud column with gray eruption, 5000 m high from the edge of the crater.
      https://magma.vsi.esdm.go.id/img/pr/letusan_sinabung_06042018.jpeg
      Another eruption is visible.
      https://magma.vsi.esdm.go.id/img/wf/SGG.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      salvatore…”My question is where is all of that global warming?

      Overall sea surface temperatures now down to a range of +.08c to +.27c and this range I predict will be lower as we move forward.

      *********

      RSS is now reading higher than UAH and I am convinced it’s because they are receiving fudged sat data from NOAA. UAH must be getting the real raw sat data, somehow, but even that seems high given the extreme cold of the past winter in NA.

      I don’t trust RSS, they are far too cozy with NOAA.

      • E. Swanson says:

        GR, As has been explained to you before, the temperature difference between RSS and UAH TMT data is the result of their respective selections of differing base periods. Since RSS ends their base period earlier than UAH, the warming in the overall time series causes the RSS data to be biased upward relative to UAH. In the end, it’s the trends which count, not the differences in the values of the monthly results.

  64. Jack Dale says:

    The connection between the loss of Arctic sea ice, the fluctuations in the jet stream and Arctic outbreaks was made in three different studies 6 years ago.

    Francis, J.A., and S.J. Vavrus (2012), “Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes,” Geophysical Research Letters, 21 February, 2012. doi:10.1029/2012GL051000, 2012

    Jaiser, R., K. Dethloff, D. Handorf, A. Rinke, J. Cohen (2012), Impact of sea ice cover changes on the Northern Hemisphere atmospheric winter circulation, Tellus A 2012, 64, 11595, DOI: 10.3402/tellusa.v64i0.11595

    Jiping Liu, Judith A. Curry, Huijun Wang, Mirong Song and Radley M. Horton (2012), “Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall”, Proc. Natl. Academy of Sciences, Published online before print February 27, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1114910109
    Edit

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Jack, I only got about half way through the introduction of the first one before I was laughing too hard to continue.

      Great climate-comedy.

      Thanks.

      • Jack Dale says:

        Science is funny that way; it can be counter-intuitive

        • Mike Flynn says:

          J,

          You are right. Unfortunately, your links are pseudoscience of the climatological variety, of use to neither man nor beast.

          I don’t suppose you could magic up a testable GHE hypothesis for me, could you?

          Or even a rigorous scientific description of the Greenhouse Effect, as an entree?

          No GHE. So sad, too bad.

          Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter.

          Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Mike’s been given testable GHE hypotheses at least 47 times. But for some odd reason he keeps coming back to his own strawman version:

            “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter.”

            Mike no sensible meteorologist puts their thermometer in the sun. But you’re not sensible so..

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nut, in your own words, how does CO2 “heat the planet”?

            No links, no quotes, just in your own words, preferably less than 200.

            Why can’t any of you clowns do that?

          • Nate says:

            G*, “how does CO2 heat the planet?’

            a. Its been discussed here, on this very blog, hundreds of times. Where were you?

            b. You know how to Google

            c. Science and facts have never mattered to you. Why start now?

          • Nate says:

            d. Explaining science to you, G*, has proven to be as pointless as explaining to my cat why she shouldn’t pee on my shoes.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            As I indicated Nut, none of you clowns can do it,

            Hilarious.

          • Nate says:

            G* and MF,

            I’m sure that, if I spent some time looking, I can find many many posts, some by me, where the science of the GHE has been explained to you.

            Yet you both act as if it has never been explained to you. And you come back to the silly cartoon versions, where ice bakes a turkey, or similar.

            And constantly 2LOT is violated somehow by the GHE. Nope. Its never violated. No-one is saying ice can heat a turkey.

            But you guys just refuse to hear it, and continue to argue with what people are NOT saying.

            It’s just a total waste of everyones time. Whats the point?

            You should know very well by now what the GHE models are. You tell us, what part, specifically, do you think is incorrect.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nut, just in your 4 comments above, you have pounded out more than 200 words. So, tell us, in your own words, how CO2 can “heat the planet”.

            Oh, and you can’t violate the laws of physics.

            (Is this a great year in climate-comedy, or what?)

          • Nate says:

            G*,

            If you explain why a coat making your skin warmer on a cold day, does not violate 2LOT, then you will have your answer as to why an atmosphere with GHG can make the Earth’s surface warmer and also does not violate 2LOT.

            Conversely pls explain why a coat in warming you does not violate 2LOT, while the atmosphere and its GHE does violate 2LOT.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Nut, you didn’t explain how CO2 can “heat the planet”.

            All you did was demonstrate your confusion about 2LoT.

            You can’t explain how CO2 can “heat the planet”.

            No surprise.

          • Nate says:

            You didnt explain your 2LOT contradictions. Start with that. Then see where it leads.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          True, but pseudoscience is always blatantly hilarious.
          .

        • PhilJ says:

          Especially when its theoretical pseudoscience and built backwards

      • Nate says:

        G*,” I only got about half way through the introduction of the first one before I was laughing too hard to continue”

        More like ‘Science, uggghhh, brain freeze, this is really boring, wheres my Mad magazine? Oh, there it is, ha ha ha…’

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Nut, you are really good at being able to make comments with absolutely no substance.

          The trademark of a true climate-clown.

          More, please.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      jack…”The connection between the loss of Arctic sea ice, the fluctuations in the jet stream and Arctic outbreaks was made in three different studies 6 years ago”.

      It’s obvious from the UAH global contour maps, which lay out warming/cooling across the globe, that warming in the Arctic is a highly localized, variable process in which the hot spots move around month to month.

      There’s no way CO2 warming could do that and that’s the point. The Arctic warming is likely a weather-related phenom, or something we don’t understand yet.

      One thing we do understand is that solar energy is absent or insignificant through the Arctic winter. As long as the planet has a tilt, and stays in its present orbit, no amount of CO2 will ever cause significant loss of Arctic ice.

      Last winter, in January, there was 10 feet of ice over the North Pole and it extended all the way to the Canadian shoreline. Any ice loss comes in a brief window of the Arctic summer and who cares about that?

      As the great climatologist, Bill Shakespeare once wrote, “Much ado about nothing”.

      • E. Swansn says:

        GR, Your comment about Arctic sea-ice fails to mention the fact that the sea-ice moves around, including some which exits the Fram Strait during winter, flowing to the south with the East Greenland current. Yes, in Winter, the sea-ice usually piles up along the Canadian shore and north of Greenland. Nobody has suggested that the sea-ice would be completely gone in winter, as it would still be rather cold for most of the freeze season from September to March.

        The UAH maps present areas to 90N, which is beyond the range of the sensor data, which can’t extend poleward of 82.5N. As a result, UAH must fill in those areas which may result in distortion compared to the actual temperatures. Of course, the UAH data doesn’t measure sea-ice, though changes in the sea-ice likely impact the MSU/AMSU readings, since sea-ice appears warmer than open water. The other measurements of sea-ice area and extent continue to exhibit a declining trend, especially at the end of the melt season. This year, the extent at the end of the freeze season ended below the 2 sigma range for the satellite era.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Eric, here’s some more “cherry-picking” you will enjoy:

          “The last 5 years of Northern Hemisphere autumn average of snow extent is the highest on record.”

          And, the average continues to exhibit an upward trend.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Ge*ra*novich, Not an unexpected result. The high Arctic is a snow desert in Winter, as it’s so cold that there’s little moisture in the air to form precipitation. As the sea-ice extent declines, there is more open water in Fall which will result in more evaporation which can then provide more moisture to the atmosphere above. The decline in sea-ice extent tends to occur at the edges of the sea-ice, such as Siberia, Alaska and Canada, thus close to those higher latitude land areas which can receive snowfall.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            That’s some great pseudoscience, Eric.

            “The Arctic is so hot the ice is melting, which means more evaporation from the Arctic hot waters, But that moisture does not fall as snow in the Arctic, because it is a hot desert. It moves out of the Arctic to fall in the rest of NH, which is always warmer than the Arctic.”

            See, Eric just proved AGW causes record snowfall!

            (At least, in his head.)

            Hilarious.

  65. Mike Flynn says:

    Tim Folkerts wrote –

    “Sunlight is mostly 0.3 4 um.

    From Wikipedia –

    “In terms of energy, sunlight at Earth’s surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).

    The majority of the energy from Sunlight is IR – as you will find if you are a mad dog or an Englishman who goes out in the noonday Sun. Step into the shade – get cooler immediately.

    Many GHE supporters rattle on about the magic of infrared. Its just light. Nothing miraculous, just different frequencies interacting with matter as the laws of physics dictate. No miraculous one way insulators, which retain energy indefinitley. No greenhouse effect – greenhouses dont work the way people like Hansen and Schmidt initially proclaimed.

    Stupidity and ignorance about reality writ large.

    Cheers.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Mike, you continue to confuse me.

      1) Your quote from wikipedia agrees with what I said, yet you seem to consider it as some sort of rebuttal. In any case, the point was about bandwidth. Do you disagree that the IR from the earth covers an order of magnitude greater frequency band than sunlight?

      2) Buildings, trees, etc block all frequencies of sunlight. Visible light also warms you, so your scenario tells us nothing about which particular parts of the spectrum are strongest, nor which parts warm you.

      2b) You should not assign such ‘miraculous’ properties to IR that you do not assign to visible light. [grin]

      3) I have never heard any GHE supporters rattle on about the magic of IR. All of them (at least the ones who actually know some science) work within the laws of physics. I have never heard people claiming one-way insulation. (What I *do* hear is people who don’t understand the physics trying to project their own misunderstandings onto others). Since you seem to think these are so common, surely you could link to some examples.

      4) Real greenhouses are basically a red herring.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Tim,

        Your response is irrelevant.

        Adding more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer doesn’t not make the thermometer hotter, and I understand you agree with that.

        Waffling about the characteristics of light at various wavelengths make make such a miracle occur. Having said that, wavelengths of insolation are irrelevant, unless the energy they carry is taken into account, and also the nature of their interaction with matter they encounter.

        Still, as you agree, it matters not. CO2 doesnt make thermometers hotter during the day.

        It also doesnt make thermometers hotter at night. That is easily observed.

        No GHE – non-existent.

        As to the greenhouses being basically a red herring – you make light of a serious misunderstanding by stupid and ignorant scientific wannabes. There is no GHE, but the aforementioned stupid and ignorant wannabes managed to convince themselves that the addition of additional CO2 to the atmosphere made thermometers hotter (obviously impossible), and believed that greenhouses used the same principle.

        Or maybe they were ignorant and stupid enough to pluck an irrelevant and pointless name out of their backsides, for no particular reason.

        If you believe that CO2 can increase the temperature of the planet, reality will not change your thinking, will it?

        Cheers.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Mike,

          Your response is irrelevant.

          No one thinks that adding more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make it warmer. (Now adding more CO2 between the thermometer and space— that is a different story! )

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            Let us agree that adding more CO2 between space and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter (it does not cause the temperature to increase). Temperatures fall at night.

            You may continue to believe as many stories as you like. Fables and fantasy are not truth – just stories.

            Tell us the story about how CO2 makes thermometers hotter – as in “Hottest year EVAH!”

            Not “Hotter than it would otherwise have been, if it wasn’t.”

            No GHE during the day, we agree. None at night, either. Temperatures fall.

            Tell us another story, if you wish.

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Mike,

            “Let us agree that adding more CO2 between space and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter (it does not cause the temperature to increase). Temperatures fall at night.”

            Your parenthetical comment reveals that you know what the real issue is. Not making a thermometer hot, but preventing it from cooling.

            The real issue is seen by comparing the cooling of thermometer at night with CO2 between it and space, to the same situation WITHOUT CO2 between it and space, Mike.

            Mike, I think you know the answer, based on everyone’s experience with cooling on a clear dry night vs a humid or cloudy night.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Timbo says: “Mike, you continue to confuse me.”

        Timbo, the fact is, you confuse yourself. You have been contaminated by “institutionalized science”. You confuse “soft science” (tree rings, ice cores, lava lamps, etc.) with “hard science”. You have a hard time dealing with reality.

        Want an example?

        Is the toy train “rotating on its axis”, on a circular track?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…” Do you disagree that the IR from the earth covers an order of magnitude greater frequency band than sunlight? ”

        *****

        Sunlight or visible light? We’re talking precision, right?

        If you put the spectrum of the Sun beside the spectrum of terrestrial IR, the former appears as a broad bandwidth mountain beside a narrow bandwidth pimple.

        The visible spectrum is a narrow bandwidth with frequencies the eye can see. Sunlight encompasses the entire spectrum, including IR, visible light, and ultraviolet. The bandwidth of sunlight is many times the bandwidth of terrestrial IR, which itself is only a small part of the Sun’s IR bandwidth.

        With regard to “4) Real greenhouses are basically a red herring”, they are worse than that. As Joe Postma suggested, we build real greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.

        Just to be clear we are talking on the same wavelength (pun intended), a bandwidth is all frequencies within an energy spectrum. If we are talking about all EM that affects us here on Earth, the bandwidth of sunshine has to include IR, visible, and UV. That’s not including the raw electrons and protons spat at us by the Sun as the solar wind.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…just occurred to me you may be talking wavelength while I am talking frequency. It’s not common to use wavelength while talking about a bandwidth, even though one is essentially the reciprocal of the other.

        As you know, frequency tells you how many times a signal reverses direction per second and wavelength is the distance from the peak amplitude of ONE of those reversals to the peak of the next wave. I think frequency is a far more useful term than wavelength. I have no idea why some masochist invented wave numbers. I think that’s crazy.

        Bandwidth is usually measured in Hz and is the range of frequencies associated with energy in a spectrum. EM can be generated by an antenna and rated in megahertz, for example, but it makes no sense to talk of EM radiation in reference to it’s wavelength.

        Wavelength in EM radiation in communications is used to categorize different wave bands, not to be confused with bandwidths. You’ll hear a reference to 3 cm radar signals but that tells you nothing about the bandwidth over which the radar is transmitting, unless you specify it as 3 cm +/- so many mm.

        As the frequency increases the wavelength sh0rtens to the point where it is measured in millionths of a centimetre. I find it far easier to think in terms of frequency.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ps. how is the wavelength or frequency of a photon measured when it’s supposed to be an imaginary particle? At the macro level EM is regarded as waves whereas at the atomic level it becomes imaginary particles.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Gordon, I was thinking something like full width @ half max. Or perhaps the range that covers 99% of the total energy.

          Using such criteria, earth’s thermal IR has a much broader (and shallower) peak than sunlight. (This is true for either wavelength or frequency.) For example, FWHM @ 300 K (earth) is ~ 6-18 um. For 5700 K (sun), it is ~ 0.3-0.9 um.

          Basically, the sun is 20x hotter and the peak is 20x sharper and narrower.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            Basically, there is no GHE.

            All the sciency talk from the bumbling fumblers cannot convert fantasy to fact.

            Only the stupid, ignorant, or terminally gullible would believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will make thermometers hotter, resulting in “Hottest year EVAH!”

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            “all the sciency talk..” just confuses Mike and G*. Maybe they should leave it to the scientists.

            Not sure how they’re sure its wrong if they cant comprehend it.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…”Gordon, I was thinking something like full width @ half max”.

            A traditional bandwidth marker in electronics is 0.707 of max. If you extend a line horizontal to the axis through 0.707 max to intercept both sides of the curve, those intercepts mark the low and high cutoff for the bandwidth when projected down to the horizontal axis.

            0.707 is also the RMS value for a half sine wave while 0.637 max is considered the ‘average’ value. I know with amplifiers that the bandwidth of the amp has an upper and lower marker based on 0.707 max. Same with filters, I think.

            This makes my head hurt since it has been so long since I studied it.

  66. ren says:

    Another cold fronts will provide further rainfall in California (snow in the mountains).

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”Another cold fronts will provide further rainfall in California (snow in the mountains)”.

      NOAA has no reporting stations in the mountains they are all located in warm regions along the coast. All 3 of them.

      NOAA is not concerned with the cold, it messes with the AGW theory.

  67. Anonymous says:

    Привeт! Вчepа мы oтыcкали клаccный сaйт, который дaeт возможнocть зaполучить бoлee 2.000 в cутки. Может этo не те oгpомные cуммы, кoтоpые сулят мoшeнники. Peшaть вaм. Но мы уже смoгли получить c нeго дoвольно кpугленькую cумму зa эти дни, пoэтoму c увepeнноcтью можем утвepждaть о том, чтo этo не всякий там oбман. И, пoвтopюcь, решать, нeсомненно тoлькo вaм.
    https://goo.gl/1UGq1i треугольник

    • Svante says:

      g*e*r*a*n, you forgot to translate it.

      • Snape says:

        lol!!!!!!!!!

      • Norman says:

        Svante

        I tried the Russian to English translation. This is what it came up with.

        “Bring it! In the meantime we otkkali klasschny sayt, which deyt is possible to get more than 2.000 per day. Maybe this is not the huge sums that the cops promise. Give it to you. But we have already been able to get from it quite a small amount of money for these days, so we can confidently assert that this is not all there. And, povtopyus, decide, undoubtedly only you.”

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”I tried the Russian to English translation”.

          While I was trying to repair a hard drive I had to translate a lot of Russian since most good hard drive stuff is done by Russians. The biggest headache I had was understanding their slang with reference to hard drive parts.

          The platter on which the data is written was Russian for ‘cookie’, while the drive itself was Russian for ‘screw’.

          In your translation above, there are slang words that don’t translate well to English. It’s obviously a scam artist trying to shake someone down.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Poor Norm is unable to recognize another con-man.

            Hilarious.

          • Snape says:

            I looked up “Russian trolls” on Wikipedia.

            Methods/

            “The effect created by such Internet trolls is not very big, but they manage to make certain forums meaningless because people stop commenting on the articles when these trolls sit there and constantly create an aggressive, hostile atmosphere toward those whom they dont like. The trolls react to certain news with torrents of mud and abuse. This makes it meaningless for a reasonable person to comment on anything there.[22]”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            S,

            Obviously no Russians here – unless you don’t consider yourself “a reasonable person” who is still commenting.

            Do you think the Russians let you comment because they know you are stupid and ignorant – not to say unreasonable?

            Damned cunning, these Russkies – using unsuspecting and gullible tools like yourself to sow discord.

            Or maybe the Russians are really trying to promote the GHE myth, hoping the West will go broke trying to solve a problem which doesn’t exist?

            See the confusion they have caused already. Maybe you should stop trolling! You’re being used! Resist with all your might!

            Cheers.

          • Snape says:

            “Or maybe the Russians are really trying to promote the GHE…….?”

            I’m not following your logic, Mike:

            ***************************

            “In total, oil and gas comprised 68% of all Russian exports, with crude oil and petroleum products netting them almost four times as much revenue as from natural gas.

            In other words, it’s pretty easy to know exactly what part of the Russian economy to pinch if you want to get the country’s attention.”

          • Svante says:

            Yes, the purpose could be to trash this blog.

            People come here to learn, and what do they see? Total confusion. “Doubt is our product”.

            Russia has a higher level objective to create division and destroy american trust in their institutions. That could include UAH, NASA and NOAAA.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Svante,

            Are you stupid and ignorant enough to believe that everything that has ever been uttered by UAH, NASA, and NOAA is to be believed?

            Americans must be an exceptionally gullible lot if they slavishly accept everything from every US Government and other US institution. Do you?

            Don’t be silly. Remember the motto of the Royal Society- “Nullius in Verba”. Otherwise you might believe that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, or that Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate!

            As to your assertion as to the Russian Government’s objectives, what proof do you have? Or are you just trying to go along with a motley crowd of fellow travellers?

            I don’t know what the Russian Government’s objectives are. I’m reasonably sure you don’t know either. Have you asked, or did you just “work it out”, on the basis that “everybody knows”? Just like “everybody knows” that a GHE exists!

            Except that it doesn’t, of course.

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            With all that its hard not to conclude that Mike is a Russian troll.

            Also, becomes quite apparent that G* is a russian troll doll.

            https://tinyurl.com/yayvf2kk

          • Svante says:

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

            “Russia expert Peter Pomerantsev believes Russia’s efforts are aimed at confusing the audience, rather than convincing it. He states that they cannot censor information but can ‘trash it with conspiracy theories and rumours’.”

            “They overwhelm comment sections of media to render meaningful dialogue impossible.”

            “they manage to make certain forums meaningless because people stop commenting on the articles when these trolls sit there and constantly create an aggressive, hostile atmosphere toward those whom they don’t like. The trolls react to certain news with torrents of mud and abuse. This makes it meaningless for a reasonable person to comment on anything there.”

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Is “svante” a Russian name?

          • Svante says:

            No : – )

          • Snape says:

            G*

            With a background in physics (sarc.) you should know about Svante:

            https://www.britannica.com/biography/Svante-Arrhenius

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”Russia expert Peter Pomerantsev believes Russias efforts are aimed at confusing the audience, rather than convincing it”.

            I don’t think Russia is doing anything with intent, they are a complex nation with a harsh past being judged by right-wing extremists.

            We in the West had the opportunity in the 1990s to integrate with Russia to help with democratic reform. Instead, our capitalist pigs saw Russia as a vast source of natural resources and tried to milk the country rather than easing them gradually from a total, despotic Communism to a viable democracy.

            A good example is the Bill Browder case. Browder is a Wall Street crook who has admitted that businesses don’t pay taxes unless they absolutely have to. He went into Russian to make his fortune and hired a local accountant, Serge Magnitsky, to find tax loopholes for him.

            At the time Russia had a policy by which local business only had to pay 5% tax while foreigners had to pat 25%. Magnitsky found loopholes for Browder, some of them heinous. They hired physically disabled people who were exempted from taxes and used them to make millions in profit at the lower tax rate.

            Browder also implemented Wall Street tactics of spreading rumour about Russian corporations to undermine faith in them and when the companies collapsed, he was there to buy them out cheap. The guy is a scumbag and so was his accountant Magnitsky.

            When the Russian authorities clued in, they naturally went after Browder and Magnitsky. Browder fled the country and his accountant was preparing to flee when he was arrested on suspicion of tax evasion.

            Browder went to the US and whined to authorities about how his ‘friend’ and ‘lawyer'(he was an accountant) was murdered in the Russian prison system. Even Magnitsky’s mother claimed he was not harmed but Browder insisted he was tortured.

            The US government, run by right-wing, Russian-hating zealots, among them Hillary Clinton, passed the Magnitsky Act, depriving Russians of their investments in the US. Then the Clinton crowd used the Russians as the fall-guy when they lost the last election.

            Trump, although he is lambasted as incompetent by left-leaners, is the only one talking sense. He wants to open a dialog with Russia and can’t because idiots are still going after the Russians a year after the fact even though they have no proof of anything.

            Meantime, talk of nuclear war has broken out. Are we all frigging crazy over here in the West? We should be reaching out to Russian to communicate rather than being immersed in a cold-war hysteria created 70 years ago by extreme right-wingers suffering from paranoid delusions.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The clueless 12-year-old believes he’s really got a “gotcha”, with the Arrhenius link.

            snake, before you were born, I knew about Arrhenius. He was the original CO2 con-man. He got involved with the foundation of the Nobel Committee, and ended up awarding himself a Nobel Prize.

            Arrhenius has NO connection to physics, but nice try.

          • Snape says:

            Don’t feel bad, g*, I hadn’t heard of Svante Arrhenius until about a year ago. Coincidentally, I googled the name after reading one of your comments. You were guessing our own Svante was really Stevan.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Well, you’re wrong again.

            No surprise, huh?

            I remember the comment. Sleazy svante thought he would be cute by copying someone else who had moved the letters in my name. I just demonstrated to sleazy how easy it was, by changing “svante” to “stevan”.

            sleazy was smart enough to catch on. Obviously, you weren’t,

            No surprise, huh?

          • Snape says:

            You’re right, finding an anagram is easy (that must have come as a shock to Svante / sarc.). What’s hard is finding one as fitting as Anger.

          • Svante says:

            Gordon Robertson says:

            I dont think Russia is doing anything with intent, they are a complex nation with a harsh past being judged by right-wing extremists.

            Complex nation, harsh past, yes. A strong central power which is full of intent. Putin believes this is a necessity for Russia, he has said so himself.

            We in the West had the opportunity in the 1990s to integrate with Russia to help with democratic reform. Instead, our capitalist pigs saw Russia as a vast source of natural resources and tried to milk the country rather than easing them gradually from a total, despotic Communism to a viable democracy.

            The west tried, but it went sour. I guess they should have spent more time there. The capitalists you describe were Russian.

            A good example is the Bill Browder case. Browder is a Wall Street crook who has admitted that businesses dont pay taxes unless they absolutely have to. He went into Russian to make his fortune and hired a local accountant, Serge Magnitsky, to find tax loopholes for him.

            I know nothing about Mr. Browder. Of course any businesses want to reduce their taxes and make a fortune.

            At the time Russia had a policy by which local business only had to pay 5% tax while foreigners had to pat 25%. Magnitsky found loopholes for Browder, some of them heinous. They hired physically disabled people who were exempted from taxes and used them to make millions in profit at the lower tax rate.

            So the tax break worked as intended, good for Browder and the physically disabled.

            Browder also implemented Wall Street tactics of spreading rumour about Russian corporations to undermine faith in them and when the companies collapsed, he was there to buy them out cheap. The guy is a scumbag and so was his accountant Magnitsky.

            That was not nice and surely illegal on Wall street.

            When the Russian authorities clued in, they naturally went after Browder and Magnitsky. Browder fled the country and his accountant was preparing to flee when he was arrested on suspicion of tax evasion.

            OK, stands to reason.

            Browder went to the US and whined to authorities about how his friend and lawyer'(he was an accountant) was murdered in the Russian prison system. Even Magnitskys mother claimed he was not harmed but Browder insisted he was tortured.

            OK, who was right then?

            The US government, run by right-wing, Russian-hating zealots, among them Hillary Clinton, passed the Magnitsky Act, depriving Russians of their investments in the US. Then the Clinton crowd used the Russians as the fall-guy when they lost the last election.

            I don’t think Hillary is a right wing russian hating zealot.
            I don’t think Canada, UK, US and Estonia would have passed the Magnitsky act without good reason.

            https://tinyurl.com/y7hr3j8z

            Trump, although he is lambasted as incompetent by left-leaners, is the only one talking sense. He wants to open a dialog with Russia and cant because idiots are still going after the Russians a year after the fact even though they have no proof of anything.

            Good of Trump to come in with a positive attitude. It went sour again didn’t it? Russia guaranteed no chemical weapons, and here we are again. Dependable people like Jim Mattis say there is plenty of proof.

            Meantime, talk of nuclear war has broken out. Are we all frigging crazy over here in the West? We should be reaching out to Russian to communicate rather than being immersed in a cold-war hysteria created 70 years ago by extreme right-wingers suffering from paranoid delusions.

            The west is doing their best, we can’t allow use of chemical weapons, it’s just not on.
            The same with nuclear weapons, we need to get rid of them, they are just too dangerous in the long run.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”I know nothing about Mr. Browder. Of course any businesses want to reduce their taxes and make a fortune”.

            You obviously know nothing about him, you called him ‘Mr.’. He’s a scumbag.

            In my books, you don’t go into a country recovering from decades of a brutal regime and rip them off. Although, as you pointed out, Russia has it’s own capitalists these days, more akin to the Mafia than business people, it was wrong for the US, Canada, and the other countries you listed to pass anti-Russian legislation based purely on the word of a scumbag Wall Street opportunist.

            It’s that kind of McCarthyist mentality, reaching back to the 1950s, where McCarthy sat in judgement of scientists like Linus Pauling, due to suspicion of being a Communist, that is killing any relationship we may develop with Russia.

            Pauling was investigated by the FBI for suspicion that he was a Communist. They wanted to know how he knew so much about nuclear bombs, particularly how dangerous was the radiation they produced. Pauling replied something to the effect that he made some calculations and worked it out for himself.

            And please don’t tell me Hillary Clinton is not a right-wing Russia-hater, she is one of the leaders.

            When John Christy of UAH testified before a Senate committee of which she was a part, she sat and glared at him through his entire testimony. She had no interest in hearing what scientific proof he had to offer, she hated him because he did not agree with her belief system.

            When her husband, Lying Willie, messed around on her several times, she remained in denial of his infidelity. She blamed the women.

            Clinton has shown seriously poor judgment throughout her career and she’s the last person I want to see involved with anything to do with Russia. Left to her, we’d be in the middle of a nuclear war.

          • Nate says:

            Gordon, you have a unique take on Russia.

            Maybe you like their approach to political opponents, where are they? (trumped up charges, arrested, deported, or killed), LGBT people (denied rights, arrested, beaten, etc), neighboring countries (invade them, take their territory, create proxy wars), corruption (yes they prefer it), oligarchy (business/govt conflicts of interest are expected), western democracies (use misinformation to create chaos, division)..

          • Nate says:

            Magnitsky and Browder

            http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20626960.

            Rather different from Gordon’s Russia Today version.

          • Svante says:

            Seriously Gordon, where did you dig up this dirt on Browder?

  68. Snape says:

    “It should come as no surprise that Russian trolls, known for stoking the flames of Americas cultural divides, turned their attention to climate change during the longest election season of our lives.

    A report released Thursday by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee chaired by Texas representative Lamar Smith, a notorious climate denier includes several examples of posts from fake social media accounts created by a Russian propaganda group called the Internet Research Agency (IRA).”

    https://grist.org/article/russian-trolls-shared-some-truly-terrible-climate-change-memes/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”A report released Thursday by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee chaired by Texas representative Lamar Smith, a notorious climate denier includes several examples of posts from fake social media accounts created by a Russian propaganda group called the Internet Research Agency (IRA).”

      ************

      It’s far more likely that this Russian IRA is Greenpeace or some other eco-weenies posting through a Russian outlet. Anyone who knows anything about Internet spoofing knows how easy it is to fake the origin of a document.

      Apparently the US government, including the FBI and Homeland Security, are not privy to that information. They have revealed so-called proof of Russian interference in the last US election through producing a name known to be associated with Russian hackers.

      Hilarious!!!

      Hackers break into corporate headquarters every day and not one of them is caught. It is impossible to catch them because of the methods made available by capitalist corporations (Internet proxies) on the Net to strip off IP addresses. Yet the FBI claim to have done the impossible.

      Yeah, right!! If a hacker broke into a site, they could leave any name, even Hillary Clinton’s name. The flat-foots at the FBI believed a name they found related to a break in, as if a good Russian hacker would do such a thing.

      Besides, Lamarr Smith is investigating NOAA for fudging data. Did you forget to mention that?

    • Mike Flynn says:

      S,

      If you have no science – blame the Russians.

      If you are stupid, ignorant and gullible, blame the Russians.

      For everything else, blame the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Iranians, Syria . . .

      Repeat.

      Cheers.

      • Snape says:

        I have a problem with dictators, not Russians. Gary Kasparov (are you familiar) is a life long hero of mine. Unbelievably smart. He’s been a fierce and courageous critic of Putin…and yes, thinks Trump (dictator wannabe) is an idiot.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          snake, if he is a “life long hero” of yours, you should know he spells his name “Garry”.

          More nonsense, please.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          S,

          You didn’t mention dictators – you referred to Russians. In typical stupid and ignorant fashion, you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole by digging deeper.

          In the usual way of the ignorant and stupid, you say pointless things like “I have a problem with . . . “, for no particular reason. Who gives a toss about what you think?

          Boo hoo. You have problems – so what?

          Do I care what a Russian chess player thinks about politics? Should I?

          If you could produce a scientific description of the Greenhouse Effect, I might care.

          Tim Folkerts tried – the best he could come up was to say whatever it was, it didn’t raise daytime temperatures. Maybe you can do better?

          Or you could stick with having “problems” with undefined “dictators”!

          Cheers.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Mike, I have NO IDEA how you can misunderstand so completely unless it is intentional!

            “Tim Folkerts tried the best he could come up was to say whatever it was, it didnt raise daytime temperatures.”

            I didn’t say that. I don’t think that. The GHE raises temperature above what they would be in the absence of IR-active gases in the atmosphere. This is true both day and night.

            Several people have given you descriptions of the GHE. You choose not to listen.

            Hmmm … it is sort of like asking for a simple, short scientific description of, say, friction. I guarantee you can’t do it — but no one dismisses the whole idea of friction.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Timbo says: “I didn’t say that. I dont think that. The GHE raises temperature above what they would be in the absence of IR-active gases in the atmosphere. This is true both day and night.”

            Well Timbo, here is a chance for you to say exactly what you “think”:

            Would 400 ppm CO2 raise surface temperature above what they would be at 200 ppm?

            You’re allowed to pontificate as much as you want, but the direct answer should be a “YES”, or “NO”.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…”Several people have given you descriptions of the GHE. You choose not to listen”.

            Because their descriptions are based on fiction. Lindzen pointed that out, the GHE as currently presented is overly simplified and that the radiation it is based on is not the primary means of heat dissipation for the surface.

            I think Joe Postma said it best. We build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            This is what you wrote –

            “No one thinks that adding more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make it warmer.”

            Now you say it does. That is, unless you redefine the day to occur when the Sun doesn’t shine.

            The GHE proponents talk about absolute temperature rises, as in “Hottest year EVAH!”

            You can’t describe the GHE, beacause you want to say it causes higher absolute temperatures, and it doesn’t cause higher absolute temperatures, all at once.

            This is plainly ridiculous. Tying to shift the conversation to friction is typical of the stupid and ignorant true believer who is talking nonsense, and desperately wants to change the subject.

            You still can’t find a scientific description of the GHE, can you? That’s because it’s impossible to do!

            You claim the effect causes rises in temperature, but doesn’t cause rises in temperatures!

            Some explanation! That’s cultism and abject belief – not science!

            Cheerd.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Mike says:
            This is is what you wrote

            No one thinks that adding more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make it warmer.

            Now you say it does.

            Subtlety and critical thinking are not your forte. Let me try to spell it out.

            Suppose you have a bare planet — no atmosphere. Consider a specific 1 m^2 area and measure the temperature over the course of a few days.

            Now I get a transparent tube with the same 1 m^2 square cross-section. Maybe 100 m tall and fill it with CO2. I aim this tube so that it is directly between the sun and the spot on the ground, so that INCOMING SUNLIGHT must pass through the CO2, but OUTGOING THERMAL IR does not have not pass through the CO2.
            There will be a slight cooling effect on that bit of ground as the CO2 absorbs and scatters some of the incoming light.

            Now I get a transparent BOX Maybe 100 m tall and a 1000 m on a side and fill it with CO2. Through the center of this box I add a tube like before, only now the column has no air in it. I aim this tube so that it is directly between the sun and the spot on the ground which reverse the situation before! INCOMING SUNLIGHT does NOT pass through the CO2, but OUTGOING THERMAL IR does pass through the CO2.
            There will be a large warming effect on that bit of ground as the CO2 absorbs thermal IR, warms, and emits thermal IR back to the ground.

            And — to be painfully obvious — we don’t need the boxes or the columns. CO2 between the INCOMING sunlight and the ground is not what makes the thermometer on the ground warmer. CO2 between the OUTGOING thermal IR ans space is what makes the thermometer on the ground warmer.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            <"Would 400 ppm CO2 raise surface temperature above what they would be at 200 ppm?"

            Everything else being equal, certainly going from 200 to 400 would cause more warming. (Going from 0 to 200 will have a larger impact than 200-400, but it will still have some impact).

            Let me reverse the question for you.
            Would going from 0-10 ppm cause warming?
            Would going from 0-20 ppm cause more warming?
            Would going from 0-50 ppm cause more warming yet?
            Would going from 0-100 ppm cause more warming yet?

            At what specific level of CO2 would you expect it to stop having any impact? based on what principles?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Gordon says: ” the GHE as currently presented is overly simplified”

            As an engineer, you know many things are often presented in overly simplified ways. Heck, the entire freshman year of physics is an oversimplification. This does not mean Newton’s laws are “fiction” — they are useful introductions to force and motion; good approximations of relativity and quantum mechanics.

            Similarly, a simplified introduction to the GHE does not make it “fiction”. The basic physics can be applied easily to simplified situations (eg perfect blackbodies, uniform lighting) so this is a good place to *start*. As you add in more and more details (eg a rotating earth, convection, variable clouds) the calculations get tougher and the results get less certain. But this still does not make it “fiction”.

          • Bart says:

            The problem, Tim, is that the simplified explanations are used to claim the physics are simple and straightforward, and anyone who disagrees with the conclusion is disagreeing with something simple and basic. It is akin to claiming based on that freshman physics that nothing can orbit the Earth, as everyone knows trajectories are parabolic.

            “At what specific level of CO2 would you expect it to stop having any impact?”

            I would suspect its impact would approach a limit as convective overturning increases. Once convection reaches a particular level, heat can be transported from the surface to the middle atmosphere as efficiently as it can reach it via radiation. At that point, any increased blockage of surface radiation is balanced by increased outward radiation from GHGs thermalized by heat transported via convection.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Timbo alleges: “Everything else being equal, certainly going from 200 to 400 would cause more warming.”

            Sorry Timbo, but just believing in something is NOT science. Explain how 200 ppm to 400 ppm is going to raise temperatures. Or be a clown, your choice.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Tim,

            Let us consider reality.

            You wrote –

            “There will be a slight cooling effect on that bit of ground as the CO2 absorbs and scatters some of the incoming light.”

            Exactly so. Confirmed by physical experiments.

            Now you want me to believe that radiation from a cooler surface can be redirected in some magical fashion to that same surface, causing it to become hotter than it was before it cooled.

            Nope. You can’t increase the temperature of an object by exposing it to a cooler one. That’s why the surface cools at night.

            No adding, trapping, or accumulating. No GHE. Keep dreaming. You can’t even bring yourself to believe the truth you wrote – that additional CO2, like any other blocking agent, results in cooling.

            No magical one way energy insulators.

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…”The GHE raises temperature above what they would be in the absence of IR-active gases in the atmosphere. This is true both day and night”.

            The question Mike asks over and over is where is the proof? No one here has given a scientific explanation for how GHGs can heat this planet nearly 1C in a century.

            Explain to me how a trace gas with 0.04% concentration, in conjunction with WV at 1% on average can cause that much warming.

            All we get are inferences that GHGs act as a heat-trapping blanket and/or they back-radiate ‘energy’ that somehow raises the surface temperature, producing more WV.

            Lindzen called the GHE, which is the basis of AGW, overly-simplified. I call it just plain stupid, and I have the agreement of one physicist, meteorologist, Craig Bohren, who referred to the concept of GHGs trapping heat as ‘plain silly’.

            If you think heat is not a real form of energy related to the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules, then you will likely fall for the notion that heat can be trapped. It can’t. Real greenhouses can trap heat because they trap heated molecules of air using glass, but there is nothing in the atmosphere can do that.

            The 2nd law applies to all heat transfers. It forbids the transfer of heat from cooler GHGs to a warmer surface that supplied them the energy in the first place, provided the AGW theory is right in that respect.

            I have supplied an analogy using the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s law of partial pressures. Given that the atmosphere is a constant volume, the temperatures contributed by each gas is directly proportional to its mass percent. That suggests CO2 can contribute no more than about 0.004C per degree C warming. Even water vapour can do no better than 0.01C.

          • E. Swanson says:

            GR, We see that you are still pushing your claim that the CO2 heating of the Earth violates the Second Law, even after you’ve been shown evidence that such is possible. Some people never learn. You’ve been stuck on Gerlich and Tscheuschner for moer than 5 years and still haven’t faced the obvious.
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/#comment-34466

            Don’t forget, the G&T paper was given a detailed critique.
            https://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html

            You refer to Craig Bohren. Is you reference to his interview in USA Today, or have you actually made the effort to read his text book? I see his text is still used as a reference for a graduate level course at Penn State.

            http://www.met.psu.edu/intranet/course-syllabi-repository/fall-2016-syllabi/meteo-535-radiative-transfer

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Eric, you are invited to enter the “2018 Climate-Comedy” event. Just explain in your own words (no links) how CO2 can “heat the planet”.

            Entries will be judged on originality, besides humor. Please limit entries to 200 words, or less.

            Best of luck.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…”As an engineer, you know many things are often presented in overly simplified ways”.

            I agree, but the GHE is presented as fact, not an over-simplification. Lindzen pointed out that the surface radiation on which the GHE is based is not the primary means of moving heat from the surface.

            Furthermore, the premise upon which the GHE is based, a real greenhouse, is not anywhere near to being an accurate analogy. The myth that GHGs trap heat, like the glass in a real greenhouse, is sheer nonsense, as is the alternative notion that they somehow slow down radiation from the surface.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bart…”The problem, Tim, is that the simplified explanations are used to claim the physics are simple and straightforward, and anyone who disagrees with the conclusion is disagreeing with something simple and basic”.

            You need to specify which physics is being denied. I don’t deny that CO2 absorbs IR and Mike has given glowing praise of Tyndall and his experiment. I go along with Mike on that, I think Tyndall did a meticulous job, consider the era.

            Then there was Arrhenius and Calendar. Both pointed out the warming benefits of CO2 warming but neither of them proved the amount of CO2 and WV in our atmosphere could lead to the warming we have experienced. There’s no way in my mind that CO2/WV could have warmed the planet by 33C as claimed by the GHE theory.

            I have supplied reasoning based on the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s law of partial pressures, applied to a constant volume system, that CO2 could contribute no more than 0.004C to a warming of 1C based on its mass percent of around 0.04%. WV should contribute no more than 0.01C or so.

            Here’s a conundrum. WV is rated the most effect GHG yet it’s not listed as a gas constituent of air. The gases making up the atmosphere are Nitrogen at 78%, Oxygen at 21%, Argon at 0.9% and the rest at 0.1%.

            Where is WV? It is listed as 0 to 4% but that would mean an inclusion of water vapour forces another gas to a lower percentage. Either that, or air is made up of gases exceeding 100%.

            Let’s not talk about clouds, which are essentially floating lakes of water.

            Even if WV can reach 4%, the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s Law limit its warming capability to 4%. That’s not how the GHE and AGW are depicted. Gavin Schmidt, the head of NASA GISS claims CO2 has a warming effect of 9% to 25%, depending on the level of WV in the air.

            Now, that is plain nonsense. That’s basically why I have a beef with the GHE.

          • Svante says:

            Now, that is plain nonsense Gordon.

            The GHE depends on how much those trace gases absorb.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No sleazy, the bogus $GHE depends on pseudoscience.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo R., You didn’t reply to my post. How slack of you! Perhaps you took some time to read Craig Bohren’s book and realized how wrong you’ve been all these years. If you haven’t been bothered to read it yet, there’s a link to a PDF of Chapter 1 from the publisher.

            https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Fundamentals+of+Atmospheric+Radiation%3A+An+Introduction+with+400+Problems-p-9783527608379

            Gotta love his 2 plate model and his later discussion of absorbing-emitting layers in the atmosphere. It’s the good old (mis-named) Greenhouse Effect in considerable detail.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Eric, it’s okay if you want to fool yourself, but if you try to foist your misconceptions on others, it might make you a clown.

            I scanned the first chapter, and found no pseudoscience. In fact, there were some interesting quotes:

            “This is yet another reason why assertions about the ‘atmosphere acting like a blanket’ are absurd.”

            That sounds like something I might have said, huh?

            “Now a parting shot about the term “greenhouse effect”. The only difference between a greenhouse and an ordinary house is where their furnaces are located: outside (the sun) for a greenhouse, inside for an ordinary house. This is why the walls of a greenhouse are (partly) transparent to solar radiation. These same walls are more or less opaque to the infrared radiation emitted by the interior. But so are the walls of ordinary houses, and no one says that they “trap” radiation. You can demonstrate for yourself just exactly what houses do by opening all the doors and windows of your house on a cold and blustery winter day. The walls “trap” just as much radiation as when the house was shut tightly, but now the furnace is heating the great out of doors.

            Translation, for clowns: Back-radiation ain’t gonna “heat the planet”.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Sorry Timbo, but just believing in something is NOT science. “
            … which is so ironic coming from some who just believes something else.

            “I scanned the first chapter, and found no pseudoscience. “
            … and yet you ignore his actual conclusions and substitute your own opposite conclusions!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Wrong AGAIN, Timbo.

            The quotes above, in bold, were from his conclusion.

            Want to try some more clown-comedy?

          • E. Swanson says:

            ge*ra*novich, Your obsession with the phrase “Greenhouse Effect” ignores the mathematics which Craig Bohren presented. From that, he concludes

            The downward radiation to the bottom slab (surface) therefore increases without limit as N increases. Of course, this simple analogy would at some point break down, but it does show that downward radiation to the surface could increase with increasing concentration of infrared-active gases, accompanied by higher atmospheric (tropospheric) temperatures

            .

            Call it what you will, greenhouse effect or global warming, that’s what the science tells us to expect.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Eric, that is funny.

            You’re basing your belief on “would at some point break down” and “could increase”?

            Hilarious.

            And even if you had all your “downward radiation” to the surface, that does not imply warming the surface.

            You’re back where you were, lost in pseudoscience.

            You could try to pick out some more quotes that you believe fit your beliefs. Or, you could learn some real science. Your choice.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ge*ra*novich, You talk big, writing that I “could learn some real science”, even after I posted a link to text book material which would be considered “real science”. So, troll, where’s a link to your “real science”? All you offer is bluster and bluff, no substance. Your emissions are nothing but hot air.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Eric, your Bohren reference is fine. You just have to be careful not to misinterpret it.

            If you have a responsible question, I would be glad to respond.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ge*ra*novich, You are waffling and spinning again. Do tell us what we must “be careful not to misinterpret” in Bohren’s Chapter 1. Could it be that section where they write:

            Equation (1.73) is the basis for interpreting global warming as the result of closing the window. As the transmissivity of the (analogue) atmosphere decreases, the radiative equilibrium temperature Te increases. Equation (1.72) is the basis for interpreting global warming as the result of increased emission. As the emissivity increases, so does the radiative equilibrium temperature. Which interpretation is correct? One interpretation cannot be right and the other wrong if they are based on the same theory. The two interpretations are merely two different ways of saying the same thing.

            Although one interpretation cannot be right and the other wrong, one may be less misleading, more felicitous than the other. We prefer the increased emission interpretation for a few reasons. According to this interpretation we are warmed at the surface of Earth by two sources of radiation: the sun and the atmosphere. With this interpretation the atmosphere is actually doing something (emitting) whereas according to the other interpretation it only prevents something from happening. Moreover, the notion that the atmosphere traps radiation is at best a bad metaphor, at worst downright silly. In the emission interpretation the atmosphere is a source of radiation, not a photon trap that corrals wayward photons and sends them back to Earth just as a truant officer returns wayward children to school.

            Why must your avid fans guess what you find to object to? It’s you who must provide the supporting information for your claims, not me.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Eric asks: “Why must your avid fans guess what you find to object to?”

            Eric, maybe you overlooked the word “responsible”, in my offer: “If you have a responsible question, I would be glad to respond.”

            Perhaps you would like to try again.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ge*ra*novich, I asked a “responsible” question: “Do tell us what we must “be careful not to misinterpret” in Bohren’s Chapter 1.”

            So, where’s your answer? You continue to repeat your usual pattern of obfuscation, spinning around and around never actually providing a properly detailed scientific reply. If there is something in Bohren’s work with which you disagree, as you have hinted, then it is your responsibility to reveal it for discussion.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Eric, you are becoming enjoyably humorous.

            Your question is NOT responsible. I indicated I found nothing wrong with what I had quickly scanned in the Bohren book. I just cautioned you not to mis-interpret something.

            Your irresponsible question requires me to know what you will mis-interpret.

            Hilarious.

            Now, once again, if you have a RESPONSIBLE question, I will be glad to respond.

          • E. Swanson says:

            ge*ra*novich, I think you need to work on your English language comprehension a bit more.

            https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsible

            You have claimed that the science behind the question of Global Warming is incorrect, perhaps even a hoax. Specifically, you have claimed that “back radiation” from a warmer body is not absorbed by a cooler body, which was a question hotly debated in the physics community over 100 years ago. Bohren’s text agrees with the now accepted conclusion that the back radiation is indeed absorbed.

            You are responsible for defending your claims, not I.

          • Bart says:

            E. Swanson – Yes, this is all basic stuff. And, it works for predicting temperature distributions in a vacuum. Artificial satellite designers use these principles to limit temperature gradients from sunlit and eclipsed portions of their vehicles.

            But, the Earth is not a vacuum, and temperature distributions are strongly influenced by convection. If you would make the analogy of an artificial satellite with a layer of MLI impeding radiative egress, it would be like connecting that layer to the chassis with a series of heat pipes, which would render simple radiative analysis null and void.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Bart, Do you really think that the atmospheric science professionals are ignoring convection? The 70’s era one dimensional models included both convection and radiant energy transfer thru the troposphere to the vacuum of deep space. Of course, above the tropopause, the temperature begins to increase with altitude, because there’s almost no water vapor to drive convection at these very low pressure levels.

            But, ge*ra*novich, Gordo R. and others don’t accept “the basics” as you call it. Therein lies the problem.

          • Bart says:

            No, I don’t think they’re ignoring it, though whether they have it right or not is another question.

            But, that’s not the point. The point is, the warmist patter is that this is a simple system with simple relationships between the variables, with a single, ineluctable conclusion to be drawn. That is simply not the case.

            I know the G’s don’t accept the “basics”. I know they will never give in. There’s no point in trying to change their minds. We should not dumb down the discussion to their level, seeking some lowest common denominator of agreement. As far as I am concerned, they are on their own, sink or swim.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Bart wrote:

            But, that’s not the point. The point is, the warmist patter is that this is a simple system with simple relationships between the variables, with a single, ineluctable conclusion to be drawn. That is simply not the case.

            Don’t know to what you are referring. I first learned about AGW some 40 years ago about the time I joined AAAS. I wrote and presented a paper on the subject some 26 years back. No one I am aware of in the scientific community claims that there’s a “simple relationship between the variables” in scientific discussions. Indeed, the scientific work has become ever more complicated over the years. Perhaps you are thinking of folks using simple models like Monckton’ electronic amplifier feedback, Dr. Spencer’s simple model or Lindzen’s “Adaptive Iris” concept.

            Of course, in attempts to present the situation to the general public lacking a scientific background has involved much simplification. The use of the term “Greenhouse Effect” and describing a singular limiting value for the projected increase in global temperature as a goal are such simplifications. The need for such simplifications is not limited to public discussions of our changing climate in our new world of electronic communications dominated by fleeting video images, blogs in the internet echo chamber and Twitter feeds, all funded by those with financial interests hidden behind opaque corporate entities now given the right to Freedom of Speech after Citizens United.

            The PBS series NOVA just ran a 2 hour segment on Climate Change. How many folks watched it and how many more would take the time to view it online afterwards? I would like to watch it myself, but am not really motivated to sit thru a 2 hour show on the Net. Why don’t you watch it and give us your critique?

            http://www.pbs.org/video/decoding-the-weather-machine-vgqhot/

            Happy Earth Day.

          • Bart says:

            The simplifications would be fine, if there were included a caveat to the effect that they are simplifications, and that there are confounding factors that could render them null and void in the real world. Instead, we are treated to baseless assertions of “99% certainty” and other such folderol.

            The hidden financial and other interests on this issue are not found solely on one side or the other. There’s big money, along with power, prestige, and other perks, to be gained on the warmist side. And, it’s a much easier ride.

          • E. Swanson says:

            So, Bart, Did you find something interesting in the NOVA show?

            Can you come up with a way that I could get some of that fabulous money from the ‘warmist side”? About all I find in my e-mail are requests for contributions, no checks in the mail…

          • Bart says:

            All you need to do is apply for a government grant. Or, start your own “green” company, or get into sales and management at existing ones that haven’t yet siphoned off all the investor’s money and declared bankruptcy.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          snape…”I have a problem with dictators, not Russians. Gary Kasparov (are you familiar) is a life long hero of mine. Unbelievably smart. Hes been a fierce and courageous critic of Putin…”

          Gorbachev, who is generally admired in the West, claims Putin is not a bad guy. He has a very tough job although he’s a bit of a dickhead at times, like with his decision to back the Syrian murderer.

          I don’t know what to think, all I know is Putin has his finger on a trigger that could obliterate the West. I think we should be talking rather than taking steps to p*** him off.

          WWII started because Germany was backed into a financial corner and Hitler said all the right things. We need to learn from history and stop this insanity with sanctions geared at Russia based on the word of Wall Street crooks.

          • Nate says:

            “Putin…I think we should be talking rather than taking steps to p*** him off.”

            “WWII started because Germany was backed into a financial corner and Hitler said all the right things.”

            Gordon, never heard of “appeasement”?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”WWII started because Germany was backed into a financial corner and Hitler said all the right things.

            Gordon, never heard of appeasement?”

            Are you referring to Chamberlain? There were a lot of bleeding hearts back then who thought they could mollify Hitler into leaving them along. Blasted cowards.

            Joe Kennedy was one, the father of JFK. He was the US ambassador to the UK and he was advising Britons to leave Hitler alone.

            I am talking long before that however. Following WW I, Germany was in a bad state financially. Hitler was brooding over having lost the war and his obsession drove him to get even. He managed to convince a good number of Germans to take up the cause and they were desperate enough to listen.

            Hitler was elected to power. We know how the rest went.

          • Nate says:

            Now apply the history lessons of appeasment to Russia.

            Apply the history lessons of where demogoguery, fear mongering, white supremacy, blaming the ‘other’ guy leads, to today (Trump).

          • Bart says:

            Speaking of “blaming the other guy”, who’s Hillary blaming for her loss today? She’s revealed herself as a full fledged Captain Queeg. We really dodged a bullet on that one.

          • Nate says:

            “We really dodged a bullet” but then got hit with a barrage of exploding shells..

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”Now apply the history lessons of appeasment to Russia”.

            I am not talking about appeasing Russia, I am talking about opening a dialog with them and keeping it open so we can talk things out. As it stands, the only person trying to talk to Putin is Trump. The rest are doing everything they can to force his hand and that is plain dumb.

            In the States we have Mueller, who was given the mandate to find evidence of Russians tampering with the US election. He has found nothing and now he is investigating Trump’s sex life.

            I say, can Mueller and stop this Democratic sour grapes movement in its tracks. Let’s get on with the business of stopping terrorists and trying to keep Putin and China from launching nuclear bombs.

            The threat posed by Hitler was bush league compared to the nuclear arsenals of Putin and China.

          • Nate says:

            Perhaps Trump and you worry about Putins nukes. You shouldnt. They cannot be used as actual weapons.

          • Svante says:

            You echo the Kremlin message well, complete with FBI slander.

            Trump now has to do his talking with missiles.

          • Bart says:

            Ah, the days of my youth, when liberals derisively mocked conservatives who saw the Russians under every bed. The world is truly upside down. I blame CO2.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”You echo the Kremlin message well, complete with FBI slander”.

            You are truly naive if you think the FBI or the CIA are not corrupt. Comey, a former FBI director, fired by Trump, has released a book. He now has the Democrats after him for lying.

            For decades the CIA was doing what the Russians are being accused of doing now. They had governments over-thrown, like the Allende government of Chile. Talk about interfering in the politics and elections of other countries.

            The difference is, Putin is doing it up front. The Ukraine belonged to the USSR for decades as did Crimea. The new Russia gave them their freedom but when the Ukrainian government started messing with Russians living in the Ukraine, Putin did something about it.

            Although I don’t agree with Putin backing the jerk in Syria, his point seems to be that the opposition supported by the US is just as corrupt. Many of them are Muslims, and if they win, the lives of the people in Syria will be just as bad.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bart…”Ah, the days of my youth, when liberals derisively mocked conservatives who saw the Russians under every bed”.

            Russia was a badass place in those days under Stalin. I was hoping with Glasnost and Perestroika that we in the West would cut them some slack, but paranoia seems to be alive and well.

          • Svante says:

            Yes Gordon,
            I don’t think FBI and CIA are corrupt, and Comey is fine.

            CIA has done a lot of bad things such as overthrowing Allende and more recently waterboarding, as directed from the top.

            Putin denied interference in the Ukraine. The Crimea anschluss was not done in the right way.

            Putin has a point when he compares to Libya, but chemical weapons explained by conspiracy theories?

            Uncle Joe also had a nice front, but people kept disappearing.

            They got some slack, but now they are driven by paranoia. Putin thinks the whole world is conspiring against him. I wish he and Trump could be sensible.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            svante…”Yes Gordon,
            I dont think FBI and CIA are corrupt, and Comey is fine.”

            Thanks for confirming your naivete.

          • Svante says:

            Regarding HIV, do you think the FDA is corrupt?

            Are they fudging the data?

          • Bart says:

            Svante – is the FDA always right? Is the secret to weight management eschewing fat and loading up on carbs? How’d that work out for us?

          • Nate says:

            “”You are truly naive if you think the FBI or the CIA are not corrupt.”

            You’ve already said that NASA, NOAA, probably FDA and AMA are lying and corrupt.

            These views are only one step removed from those of Alex Jones, who suggests that everyone from the press, to the FBI, to the Conn. State Police, and parents of dead children, have fabricated the events of Sandy Hook massacre.

            You are buying into the conspiracy narrative that all our institutions are untrustworthy, perpetuated by those that benefit from it (Trump, Fox, etc).

            Where does this distrust of all institutions lead? Anarchy. Good luck with that. Say hi to Mad Max.

          • Bart says:

            They are all untrustworthy, and trustworthy at the same time. It is not an either-or proposition.

            As Lord Acton admonished, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why our Founding Fathers sought to limit the power of government. It is really the only way to limit the damage it can, and will at some point if allowed, do.

          • Svante says:

            Yes, I was generalizing.

            You can probably find some exceptions to the rule.

          • Nate says:

            “They are all untrustworthy, and trustworthy at the same time. It is not an either-or proposition.”

            If all our institutions are considered half corrupt, then we’re indeed screwed. We are a banana republic.

            Consider criminal cases. If all CSI or police reports are considered 50/50 trustworthy, then there would be reasonable doubt in every case. No convictions would be possible.

          • Bart says:

            Most criminal cases end in plea bargains. Conviction rates are otherwise spotty. E.g., in Florida, it is 59%.

          • Nate says:

            Im fine with 59%, not fine with 0

    • Bart says:

      It’s Grist, so take it with a grain of salt. Russia desperately wants to inhibit US fossil fuel production, and the pictures are accurate portraying the environmental devastation of so-called “green” alternatives.

      • Nate says:

        “pictures are accurate portraying the environmental devastation”

        Especially the accurate oddly green tar sand mine

        • Bart says:

          The fact of the matter is, the tar sands areas are not very pretty even in their natural state. In fact, they are downright ugly. Most oil rich areas are natural armpits of the world. Ever been to West Texas? If it weren’t for the oil, nobody in their right mind would ever go there.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bart…”The fact of the matter is, the tar sands areas are not very pretty even in their natural state”.

            I have worked up there, seen it directly. Oil oozing out of the ground up there is nothing new. The aboriginals used to use it to seal their canoes. The oil has been contaminating the Athabaska River for centuries if not eons. No one complained till the eco-weenies started all the hoopla about it.

          • Nate says:

            ” The oil has been contaminating the Athabaska River for centuries”

            Aw c’mon..Pictures of the river show a beautiful scenic, seemingly pristine river.

            Wiki

            “The river flows along icefields and through gorges, offering wildlife habitat on its shores and adjacent marshes. Throughout its course, it flows through or adjacent to numerous national and provincial parks, including Jasper National Park, Fort Assiniboine Sandhills Wildland Provincial Park, Hubert Lake Wildland Provincial Park, La Biche River Wildland Provincial Park, Grand Rapids Wildland Provincial Park, Richardson River Dunes Wildland Provincial Park, and Wood Buffalo National Park.”

            Seems unlikely that significant oil had been contaminating the river for centuries.

          • Bart says:

            (facepalm) Look up the Athabaska River, and do a little research on natural oil seepage.

          • Bart says:

            https://tinyurl.com/y8zg2sxr

            “Thats because the banks along the Athabasca River have been naturally oozing bitumen into the water for thousands of years (you can see a good photo of what that looks like here). Natives used to scoop up the oily stuff to waterproof their canoes.”

            If you travel to Los Angeles, make sure you visit the La Brea tar pit, which is a natural lake of hydrocarbons right off Wilshire Blvd.

            https://tinyurl.com/yc3r5bw9

          • Nate says:

            A little critical thinking would be useful here. If the river (a flowing body of water) were significantly polluted by the oil for centuries or millenia, then the oil resource would be by now depleted, and the river would not be able support the natural biodiversity that it does.

          • Nate says:

            “Look up the Athabaska River, and do a little research on natural oil seepage.”

            Feel free Bart. As usual your assertions are just that.

          • Bart says:

            Sorry, no. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Do at least a smidgen of research before spouting off about things you do not know.

          • Nate says:

            Natural oil seepage, yes, but no where does it say how much. That matters a great deal. Your source is from the industry.

            As they say, ‘the solution to pollution is dilution’. If there are tiny bits of seepage from many locations, that is very different from a concentrated spill in one location, as has happened at the oil sands mining site.

      • Nate says:

        So ‘environmental devastation’ from green energy = bad, but shredding 50,000 sq miles of pristine landscape and creating massive leaky, tailings ponds for oil extraction = good?

        • Bart says:

          That “pristine landscape” is, as I said, already an armpit. What’s crazy is despoiling truly pristine landscape, and shredding everything that flies, for a pittance of intermittant energy that will never, ever, ever, ever produce more than a drop in the bucket of our energy needs.

          • Nate says:

            The essence of propoganda, Bart. Our sides negative thing is small and justified. Your side’s bad thing is massive and an atrocity.
            Save it for rednecks.

            Im interested in knowing the relative scale of environmental impacts of FF vs. Green energy.

            Do you have any real facts on that?

            Example, an ugly lithium mine was shown. If i compare to the scale of coal mining or tar sand mining, it must be a much smaller scale.
            A plug-in battery requires 10 lbs of Li, and prob get 50000 miles out of it. Compare to gasoline 2000 gallons.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            But Nut, gasoline has the added benefit of adding much needed CO2 to the atmosphere.

          • Bart says:

            “Our sides negative thing is small and justified. Your side’s bad thing is massive and an atrocity.”

            But, that is in fact the case. Oil comes from places that are naturally blighted already. Solar and wind are so energy-exiguous that vast swathes of habitat have to be destroyed, rare species threatened, and mountains of polluting byproducts are produced in their manufacture.

          • Bart says:

            “If i compare to the scale of coal mining or tar sand mining, it must be a much smaller scale.”

            Not per unit of motive power. If solar and wind were ever to actually compete with FF, the scale of devastation would be unimaginable.

          • Nate says:

            You completely missed the point.

            I asked for facts–you just give more improbable assertions.

            Basically you accept propaganda as fact, and wish to spread it like fertilizer.

          • Nate says:

            ‘the scale of devastation would be unimaginable.’

            Talk about alarmist. Wow!

          • Bart says:

            Do the math. Wind and solar are just not energy dense. The con artists making big money off these useless installations count on the mathematical illiteracy of the people footing the bills.

          • Nate says:

            We’ve discussed it before. Ive shown you data. You ignore it. The energy markets have already decided.

          • Bart says:

            Your “data” is just industry hype. And, the markets haven’t decided, the governments have. And, if you removed all the government subsidies, the “market” would collapse.

          • Nate says:

            My data comes from EIA, not industry.

            My data is the price having come down to where it is competitive. < $1/watt.

            10 y ago solar and wind generated 0.8 % of total electricity.

            Today it is 8 %, not including distributed solar.

            https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf

            The ramp-up has been faster than nuclear (also govt subsidized).

            You can call it a fad but that would as silly as calling the internet a fad in 1995, or cars a fad in 1910.

          • Bart says:

            “My data comes from EIA, not industry.”

            With the purpose of promoting the industry, and not taking into account whether those kWh are actually needed at the time they are generated, and how much inefficiency they induce when backup power has to be ramped down and then back up to cover their vicissitudes, nor the comparative unit cost.

            Moreover, it is probably a calculation based on nameplate rating. Solar and wind installations are lucky if they generate 20% of nameplate rating on average.

            “My data is the price having come down to where it is competitive. < $1/watt."

            A watt is not a quantity of energy, but a rate. Utilities do not charge based upon the rate of energy usage. You need units of watts times time, e.g., kWh.

            And, it will be a subsidized price. Penetration is still at a low enough level that the bottlenecks haven’t asserted themselves.

          • Nate says:

            You can read as well as I can, it says kWh Net generated. Not nameplate.

            I explained this to you before and went thru the calculation with you. But clearly you don’t seem to care about the numbers.

            $1/watt is the unsubsidized price of panels and that is considered the benchmark for competitiveness.

            Other large PP cost from a $0.8/watt (gas) to $5/watt (nuclear) to build. Yes that is nameplate, but also do not generate 24 h and they also need to spend $ on fuel.

          • Bart says:

            What it says, and what it is, are not necessarily the same things. And, again, what really matters is what is consumed, not what is generated. Generators that don’t work at times of peak demand are pumping a lot of useless electrons into the ground.

            I see now what you mean with your quotes. You are quoting prices for construction of plants capable of generating that much power, not the unit cost to customers. Again, this will be nameplate, not actual.

          • Nate says:

            Right, not unit energy cost, but that is easily calculated with reasonable assumptions. Or you can look up other peoples calcs.

            Obviously the industry is making this calc.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          nate…”but shredding 50,000 sq miles of pristine landscape and creating massive leaky, tailings ponds for oil extraction = good?”

          Pristine landscape??? 50,000 square miles???

          It’s all muskeg up there, typical boreal climate where only hardy species can survive. Maybe it’s my idea of pristine, but I usually apply that word to beautiful areas, not waste land. I guess the foxes and beaver see it differently.

          As of 10 years ago the major developers up there were Syncrude and Suncore.

          Syncrude: http://www.syncrude.ca/our-company/overview/

          “To date, more than 4,500 hectares [18 square miles] of land disturbed by Syncrude oil sands mining operations is permanently reclaimed or ready for re-vegetation, including 126 hectares in 2016. We have planted more than 8.1 million tree and shrub seedlings, including 400,000 seedlings planted in 2016. In 2008…”

          Syncrude area = 102,000 hectares = 394 square miles. From the following map, it seems Suncore is on Syncrude lease property. Note that they have only disturbed 18 square miles.

          http://www.syncrude.ca/our-process/syncrude-leases/

          Both are by far the largest Tar Sands area holders up there.

          I would guestimate that all Tar Sands holdings occupy less than 1000 square miles.

          • Nate says:

            From this article,

            http://www.businessinsider.com/keystone-xl-canada-oil-sands-photos-2017-1

            50,000 sq mi seems to be the total size of the tar sands deposits that could be mined.

            Who is right? Photos from the company are likely to be highly favorable.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”Who is right? Photos from the company are likely to be highly favorable”.

            I have been there and seen it directly. It’s like any other area in construction, a total mess in spots.

            Right across the highway from our digs at Mildred Lake was a large lake of oil. At night, with the mist over it, the lake looked other-worldly. I actually thought it was pretty cool but I was privy to the notion that it will one day be cleaned up. It will looked much better after reclamation than it does now.

            I have worked right beside tailings ponds. I would have no problem swimming in one briefly, although I’d keep my head out of the water to prevent inhaling or swallowing it. The water is largely straight water with traces of oil in it as a residue.

            When the bitumen, which is essentially sand impregnated with oil, much of it dried out, is mined, it is immediately combined with water and pumped several miles to a processing plant. There, it is boiled and skimmed till over 99% of the oil is removed. That leaves sand/silt and water. That residue is dumped in the tailings ponds.

            The extracted crude is then pumped several hundred miles to Edmonton where it has hydrogen added to upgrade it and impurities like sulfur removed. The product is as good and clean an oil as is found anywhere.

            ‘Dirty oil’ is an eco-weenie reference to the fossil fuels, like natural gas, used to power the steam turbines that power the plants. The term is total overkill. It’s aimed at scaring the public into think all the oil coming from the Tar Sands is dirty itself, as opposed to the supposed cleaner oil pumped out of the ground.

            What you see at your link is pure oil oozing out of the sand after the sand is removed. It will all disappear, to be replanted with virgin forest.

            Try not to buy into the eco-alarm.

          • Nate says:

            Gordon,

            OK, fair enough.

            It is a mess. It could be cleaned up. But will it? We still have ‘superfund’ toxic waste sites in the US that have not been cleaned up after decades. Maybe people who live far away from it will be ok with it.

            Similarly, we have coal strip mining and mountain top removal, with some attempts to clean it up. Not sure how successful.

            But is it fair to say that messes created by Green energy are somehow worse than this, as Bart and others claim?

          • Bart says:

            “But is it fair to say that messes created by Green energy are somehow worse than this, as Bart and others claim?”

            Absolutely, it is fair. The oil sands are already there, no matter what we do. We’re not adding to the mess. In fact, we’re cleaning it up.

            So-called “green” energy is creating a non-pre-existing mess.

          • Nate says:

            “So-called green energy is creating a non-pre-existing mess.’

            How desperate and disingenuous can you be?

            You think the mining of FF is static? Not if the world continues to grow its energy needs. Not if Trump gets its wishes wrt coal, off shore drilling, arctic drilling.

            Again, what are the RELATIVE scale of env impact of FF vs Green energy?

            Have real data or just belief?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”It is a mess. It could be cleaned up. But will it?”

            Syncrude has a history in Alberta going back to the 1950s. They are currently fixing up the areas they have mined and I am confident they will clean up the entire site.

            I cannot speak for the smaller outfits, some of which come from Asia. Right now, Alberta has a left-leaning government after decades of uber-right wing leadership. I think they’ll be thrown out following the next election but they have a strong environmental program.

            Even under the right-wingers, however, there was a push for a clean environment in the Tar Sands. From my experience, Syncrude and Suncore are right into protecting the environment. No one is allowed within several hundred metres of the Athabasca River, no water is returned to the river after extracting it, and the tailings ponds have compressed air guns that make a noise like a shotgun to wards off wild fowls that might land on a pond.

            Nothing is ever perfect, but here in Canada there have been decades of history of replanting trees that have been logged or lost to lightning strikes, reclaiming lands from strip mining, and so on. I think the Tar Sands outfits will do the right thing and clean the place up.

  69. Snape says:

    g*

    Spelling error? I guess you’ll take what you can get, right?

    Just grabbed my favorite openings reference: Batsford Chess Openings 2 / copyright 1989 /co-authored by Gary Kasparov and Raymond Keene

    https://www.amazon.com/Batsford-chess-openings-Macmillan-library/dp/0020339917#immersive-view_1523665118633

    Guess I never noticed that nowadays he goes by Garry. My bad.

    • Snape says:

      Interesting. Just looked at my other openings guide, “Nunn’s Chess Openings” (copyright 1999). Garry Kasparov is listed as the “Chief Adviser”. Go figure.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      S,

      Keep on with the deny, divert, and confuse.

      No sign of a testable GHE hypothesis yet.

      That’s a pretty large stumbling block for anyone who claims additional CO2 in the atmosphere has any predictable adverse effect, wouldn’t you say? Nah, I suppose you wouldn’t.

      Stupid and ignorant GHE proponents don’t need no stinkin’ science, do they?

      Cheers.

      • Snape says:

        “If you really believe that you can predict the future from the past, borrow all you can, go to a stockbroker, and soon youll be rich beyond the dreams of avarice!”

        Good advice, Thanks.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          S,

          My pleasure. Doesn’t only apply to financial matters, either.

          Anyone one who believes they can predict the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere is similarly stupid and ignorant.

          If you believe it is possible, even the IPCC (not terribly bright, I admit) agrees with me, I’m glad to say. Future climate states, like anything involving chaos, are unpredictable.

          Guess away. Nobody cares enough to pay you for your guesses, do they?

          As always, you don’t need to thank me, unless you really want to. I’m always available to provide guidance to the mentally afflicted.

          Cheers.