Stormy April to give snow job to Midwest

April 12th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Friday the 13th is not shaping up to be very lucky for some people, weather-wise.

A strong springtime (or late winter?) storm currently moving across the northern and central Rockies will move east over the next several days with a wide variety of severe weather, including blizzard conditions to the north and severe thunderstorms to the south.

By Sunday evening, a foot or more of snow accumulation is expected over portions of Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota (including Minneapolis-St. Paul). Up to 2 feet is possible in some areas. Chicago and Detroit could see as much as 6-12 inches.

The latest forecast from NOAA’s NAM model is roughly consistent with previous U.S. and European forecast model runs, but the exact path of the heaviest snowfall has been somewhat uncertain, especially for Wisconsin and Michigan (all graphics courtesy of Weatherbell.com):

Forecast total snowfall by Sunday evening April 15, 2018, from NOAA’s NAM forecast model run on Thursday morning, April 12.

By Tuesday, portions of 30 to 35 states will see some snowfall, with flurries extending as far south as eastern Tennessee and central Missouri. It will snow almost continuously for 3-4 days (Friday through Monday) over portions of northern Wisconsin and northern Michigan. I-90 east of Rapid City will probably have to be closed by Friday night.

The unusually large low pressure area extending from the Canadian border to the Gulf coast will produce an array of weird and wild weather.

For example, by tomorrow (Friday) afternoon, eastern Nebraska will be in the mid-80s, while heavy snow and blizzard conditions will exist over the western part of the state. Only a few tens of miles will separate summer weather from winter weather across the Midwest and the southern Great Lakes:

Surface temperature forecast for early afternoon Friday April 13 from the GFS model run at midnight April 12.

Severe thunderstorms will move across the Southern Plains on Friday and the southeast U.S. on Saturday as the accompanying cold front moves eastward.

Yes, sometimes it snows in April.

And Friday the 13th might not turn out to be very lucky for you if you plan on traveling in the northern Midwest.


631 Responses to “Stormy April to give snow job to Midwest”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. RAH says:

    Though so far to date our tornado count is well down compared to averages it’s looking like that is about start to change. Arkansas, N. Louisiana, and SW Missouri the center for coming activity today/tonight with the system moving east through the rest of the week. Looks like your in for a possibility of nasty weather Doc.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      RAH…”Though so far to date our tornado count is well down…”

      What do you do if you’re driving your rig and you see a funnel cloud forming in front of you. Or worse, still, you see one descending behind you in the rear-view.

      That’s if you can see one. I have driven into storms on the Canadian prairies where it’s been black as Toby’s butt, cloud down to a few feet above the surface, and I know there’s a possibility of funnel cloud forming.

      Bit scary. Drove into a major Canadian city one day under similar conditions, when the entire sky above the south end of the city was turning in a circle.

    • RAH says:

      I would have figured that everyone on this blog would be familiar with the NOAA NWS Storm Prediction Center WCM Page

      http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/

      Don’t know. A few years ago the day Joplin Missouri had an F-5 go right through town I was on I-70 west bound for N. Kansas City. I was listening to the NWS radio. Had tornadoes on the ground miles behind me. Then hail began to come down and I dodged into the rest area, there was a tornado reported ahead. Didn’t go in, just kept my eyes and ears open. Hail never got bigger than dime sized and dissipated.

      The only other time it was close was one night in Dallas. One touched down about a mile from me I figured out later but at the time all I was worrying about was getting the hell out of there heading south towards Laredo.

      It is my fate that the only tornadoes I have seen were the three that went through Kokomo, IN during the Palm Sunday outbreak of 1965 when I was a kid. All the rest I have ever been close to were rain wrapped or I was on the wet side of the thing.

      • barry says:

        I would have figured that everyone on this blog would be familiar with the NOAA NWS Storm Prediction Center WCM Page

        I’m not. How well do they predict storms for New South Wales? And they spell Centre wrong.

  2. Ric says:

    Yet mainstream media continues the narrative, now with a new twist: AGW will lead to colder winters. What else is next, Dr Spencer?

    https://www.ft.com/content/997d057e-3d6b-11e8-b7e0-52972418fec4

    • Nate says:

      Not if you visit this blog. Only cold snaps can be found here.

      • If someone didn’t cover the “cold” events, the media would have everyone believe we are burning up. So, I consider this to be my way of providing some small amount of balance against the overwhelming warmmongering in the MSM.

        • bilybob says:

          Just a quick glance shows you are doing a great job Dr. Spencer.

          Going back to Jan 2017 I see about a few submissions related to cold weather, several on flooding, of course the monthly update, forest fires, hurricanes, Australian warming, California fires, plus many off topic (not global climate related). Not sure of Nate’s reference to only showing cold snaps here. You may have a better breakdown, I was doing my count from memory.

          • Laura says:

            It’s the kind of cognitive dissonance that characterizes anti-human climate alarmists.

          • David Appell says:

            Why is warning about the potential consequences of climate change considered anti human?

          • Lewis says:

            Why is creating CO2 in the course of living and providing a better life for yourself, your family, your community, your country and the world, considered anti-human, and thus to be controlled by, you guessed it: humans.

          • Svante says:

            Because it carries risks to third parties that are not accounted for.

          • Svante says:

            You and your neighbour have a garbage bin each.

            You empty yours over the fence.
            Good for you.

            Then your neighbour does the same to you.
            Now you’re both better off?

            Is there a better way?

        • PhilJ says:

          Hello Dr. Spencer,

          What if i told you that i can say exactly where the range of the TOA is and that above that everything is boosted to space and below it everything remains in system..
          Further that it then follows if this altitude is rising or falling is a direct measure of whether the Earth is cooling or warming ..
          Would you interested in hearing more?

          • PhilJ says:

            Typo… Everything above it is boosted to space

          • PhilJ says:

            Yes boosted… Water is the first booster .. Co2 the next… Im sure venus has more boosters above this but id have to study venus to tell you which ones …

            However… ANY gas that is a good absorber/mass and critical point will be a booster until it precipitates out or flys off to space

      • RAH says:

        Nate says:
        April 12, 2018 at 9:49 AM
        “Not if you visit this blog. Only cold snaps can be found here.”

        LOL, the monthly UAH reports Nate? Comprehend reading much?

        • Nate says:

          RAH,

          The articles that Roy chooses to write, of course excluding monthly UAH report, are often, as HE freely admits, selective. One could say cherry-picked. Intended to counter the MSM narrative of global warming and increased extreme weather.

          It is interesting that the response of many commenters to these articles about unusual COLD events is a kind of knee jerk

          ‘See! Global warming is BS!’

          Rather than to realize that these weather events are not necessarily representative of the big picture. They are one data point among thousands.

      • David Appell says:

        Bart, more record highs are being set then record lows. Thats whats expected, and whats occurring. Hence heat waves will get more attention than cold snaps.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ric…”Yet mainstream media continues the narrative, now with a new twist: AGW will lead to colder winters”.

      In the same edition the idiots are claiming we are teaching Russia a lesson through sanctions. Since the sanctions began, talk of nuclear war has escalated.

      Some lesson!!!

      This rag obviously preaches nonsense.

      • Ric says:

        I unfortunately have to agree – the FT has stopped being an objective news vehicle a VERY long time ago.

  3. Obama says:

    Stormy April gives Snow Job

    Made me laugh! Well played Dr. Spencer. Well played.

    • Norman says:

      I also found the title amusing. I guess with Stormy Daniels in the media a lot these days the title seems relevant to our times.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”I also found the title amusing. I guess with Stormy Daniels in the media a lot these days the title seems relevant to our times”.

        Ironically we don’t have proof of Stormy giving snow jobs, but we do have proof in that regard with Bill Clinton and Monica. Right in the Oval Office yet.

        Time to fire Mueller. He can’t find anything to indict Trump so he’s going after National Enquirer type dirt with Stormy Daniels.

        • David Appell says:

          What proof do you have of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? Only their word. Which is the same we have for Stormy Daniels. And all the other women Trump seems to have cheated with.

          • Obama says:

            Well-known Billionaire playboy and philanderer. Donald Trump’s brand had much to do with his numerous divorces and sexual exploits. The Stormy Daniels story? Yawn. DT is a philanderer? Old news. Nobody cares about Donald’s sex life – it does not move the needle in the polls.

            The Mueller Investigation is a fishing expedition to find dirt on Trump as part of the #resistance movement. The Trump-Russia Collusion was a hoax from the beginning, a fraud perpetrated by the MSM/MSNBC/CNN crowd.

            Stormy Daniels & Trump-Russia collusion is mere click bait. No there, there.

          • David Appell says:

            Stormy Daniels shows that Trump has no character. He cheated on his wife soon after she gave birth to their child. That is about as low as a man can go. What a POS Trump is.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly-the-clown, performs daily as troll-extrodinarie.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Oh well, I’m sure we won’t be deluged with rumours about your involvement with members of the opposite sex!

            Is that a blessing or a curse, do you think?

            Cheers.

          • barry says:

            Pffft. Politics. Lewinsky brought out the moral outrage of rightists in the US, while Trump’s infidelities are written off. And you can invert that for the left with the same result.

            Frickin’ politics. All the intellectual integrity of rooting for your favourite football team.

          • RAH says:

            Give it up Appell. Nobody but the press in their echo chamber and those that believe the crap they’re pumping out has value gives a damn about that stuff. Even the Evangelicals have figured out that the left only expresses moral outrage when they think it can sway them to vote against their own interests. They are not allowing their faith to be used against them. The old play book isn’t working and I find that the press and people like you can’t see that obvious fact is quit indicative how desperate they really are.

    • Laura says:

      I did not know of this very, very interesting site. Thank you for posting a link to it.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”A really interesting forecast”.

      That could whip up tornado activity around the mid-East(???). I don’t like the look of that front almost off the picture at the top NW.

      That’s right over Vancouver, Canada. Any good news? Spring is really late here.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon, what is the long-term trend for the arrival of spring in western BC? Be sure to link to your data.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          What is your reason for asking?

          People might think you trolling, by asking pointless gotchas!

          Be sure to provide a cogent answer, won’t you.

          Cheers.

  4. Obama says:

    By the way Ive noticed improved climate in California since…

    Los Angeles is painting some of its streets white and the reasons why are pretty cool.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/los-angeles-is-painting-some-of-its-streets-white-and-the-reasons-why-are-pretty-cool/

    Climate Taxes on Fuel + Painting Streets White + Cap & Trade have really improved the climate in California. Eventually the California fight against climate change should produce improvement soon in Midwest.

    The fuel tax to fight climate change has really been amazing this Spring. So far our Spring has been fairly cool. I just hope the coolness doesnt get out of hand.

    • ren says:

      April 12, 2018 07:36 AM
      ” A quick burst of rainfall Wednesday night was all Sacramento saw from a cold system that dropped half a foot of snow in the mountains and up to 1-1/2 inches of rain along the North Coast.”

    • Bart says:

      Poe’s Law in action.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      obama…”Los Angeles is painting some of its streets white and the reasons why are pretty cool”.

      On the other hand, their reservoirs are nearly full and they are about to drain them filling the countless number of swimming pools in LA.

      Why are there so many nutjobs in LA?

    • ren says:

      Sorry.
      3HPA: 3-hour Precipitation Accumulation
      amount of precipitation over the next three hours

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…”Dr. Roy Spencer, look at this”.

      Isn’t that right over Tornado Alley?

  5. Dan Pangburn says:

    Atmospheric water vapor has been increasing 1.5% per decade, 8% since 1960, but few recognize the significance of the increase (twice that from any feedback) on climate. How much of recent flooding (with incidences reported world wide) is simply bad luck in the randomness of weather and how much is because of the thumb on the scale of added water vapor?

    • An Inquirer says:

      Have you heard of the Summer of the Shark? Shark attacks had not actually gone up, but because the media was fixated on shark attacks, the common wisdom was that shark attacks had gone up.

      Likewise flooding. Records for worst rainfall ever are NOT being broken. For the most part, we have had worst floods in the past. (Yes, 2017 for the 1st time ever we had a hurricane that did not move once it got over Houston, but if the winds had resulted in that hurricane stalling 100 miles farther east, the rainfall would not have been catastrophic.)

      It is easy to see statistics that droughts are down; yet there has not been a corresponding increase in flooding disasters.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        inquirer…”Shark attacks had not actually gone up, but because the media was fixated on shark attacks, the common wisdom was that shark attacks had gone up”.

        **********

        In my day, it was a known fact that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. Along came an Aussie researcher, Barry Marshall, in the early 1980s, who found a bacteria, H. Pylori, that could survive in stomach acid and cause stomach ulcers.

        Initially, he was laughed out of town. He submitted a paper for peer review and it was rejected, being classified in the worst 10% of papers submitted. To his credit, the guy persevered and ended up drinking H. Pylori, making himself very ill. An endoscopy showed severe stomach inflammation after only a few days.

        In my own life, I have slowly come to the realization that science is filled with paradigms (a word from Kuhn, circa 1963…meaning essentially, accepted or popular dogma) that become so entrenched that the truth is ignored and ridiculed.

        I think I am experiencing that with this nonsense about AGW. It’s amazing how many scientist succumb to paradigms and have alarmists claim most scientists agree on a hypothesis, therefore it must be true.

        Or, they try ridicule, asking if I think so many scientists could be wrong. Yes, I do, there are a lot of idiots doing science these days.

        Those in this blog who revere peer review, please heed the above, where Marshall’s paper was rejected by PR and regarded as one of the worst papers ever submitted to the journal.

        I regard peer reviewers as idiots who help impede science.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Dan, before you get too scared by water vapor, you should look up “condensation”. If you can understand condensation, then move on to the relationship of pressure and temperature on the ability of air to contain water vapor.

      Sleep well, the Laws of Thermodynamics have your back.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        g*, Apparently it is past time for you to review the Laws of Thermodynamics.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Dan, the best way to get over your fears is to consider the worst case scenario. If ALL of the water vapor in the atmosphere suddenly rained out, it would amount to less than an inch of rain.

          Like I said, you can sleep easy.

          Were you ever able to understand the toy train? You don’t still believe it is “rotating on its axis”, do you?

        • David Appell says:

          Especially the Clausius-Claperyon equation.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Oooooh – that sounds really sciency! What can it possibly mean? Must be super secret climatological stuff!

            An equation! Colour me unimpressed. A testable GHE hypothesis, on the other hand . . .

            Cheers..

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly likes to use sciency expressions. It’s part of his clown routine, and definitely adds to his humor, since he has no clue about even the simplest physics.

          • Nate says:

            Wow you guys are quite a climate comedy duo! Don’t quit your day jobs just yet.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        g*, click my name and look at Fig 3 to see the uptrend in average global WV. However, last available WV and UAH T values were both below their linear trend lines. Too soon to tell if warming has ended but stay tuned.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Dan, there has been a 20-25 year period of natural warming. Do you suspect that warming would be linked to slightly more water vapor?

          If temps reverse, do you suspect the atmosphere will not be able to contain as much water vapor?

          • PhilJ says:

            It WILL rain out when the TOA shrinks
            To the altitude of the current tropopause…

            Hello Mars

          • David Appell says:

            Phil, Why would the TOA shrink to the tropause? Is that even possible?

          • PhilJ says:

            Entropy!

            Hello Mars

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Hi PhilJ,

            TOA is loosely defined. Usually, it means 100 km above the surface. But, there are other “definitions”.

            https://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/glossary/top-of-atmosphere-2/

          • PhilJ says:

            Heres my definition, the TOA is centered around the altitude at which co2 reaches its critical pointand sublimates

          • PhilJ says:

            Altitude reached by any gas molecule is proportional to its a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n and inversely proportinal to its critical point and atomic weight.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “Here’s my definition, the TOA is centered around the altitude at which co2 reaches its critical point and sublimates”

            PhilJ, that’s an interesting definition, but I’m not sure CO2 can ever get to its critical point at atmospheric pressures.

            But, if so, can you define my bank account to be one billion times what it is?

            (I’m not greedy.)

          • PhilJ says:

            G
            “PhilJ, thats an interesting definition, but Im not sure CO2 can ever get to its critical point at atmospheric pressures.”

            It does. And if the concentration was high enough it would form clouds just like those observed on mars

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            g*, Water vapor, a ghg, has been increasing about twice as fast as determined by vapor pressure which depends only on the temperature (which has been increasing) of the surface liquid water.

            All of what I have concluded and suspect are documented at my blog/analysis.

            The only thing countering global cooling at present is the rising global average water vapor. I discussed water vapor in the atmosphere here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276683

          • PhilJ says:

            Sorry Dan, increased h2o concentration will COOL the earth faster because it will transport energy to the top of the troposphere more quickly.

            Entropy rules

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            PhilJ, correct me if I’m wrong, but the critical point of CO2 occurs at over 70 atmospheres. As I indicated, that does not happen in Earth’s atmosphere.

          • PhilJ says:

            Not the high point … The low point when the gas sublimates at low temp and low pressure (the edge of space)

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Dan, yes the atmosphere can increase in water vapor as temperatures increase. But, the water vapor cannot stop temperatures from dropping.

            You may be confused that dry air can change temperature faster than moist air. But, remove the heat source, and all temps fall.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “Not the high point … The low point when the gas sublimates at low temp and low pressure (the edge of space)”

            PhilJ, you have me confused. What is the temperature and pressure you are talking about?

          • PhilJ says:

            Pressure around .00001 atm

          • PhilJ says:

            More precisely the temp and pressure at the mesopause

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Okay PhilJ, that helps. So you are defining TOA as somewhere in the mesosphere, maybe even the top. “Top” of mesosphere is considered to be about 100 km.

            I just didn’t understand your tying the definition to the critical point of CO2. I’m not sure I understand the relevance, but at least I understand what you are talking about.

          • PhilJ says:

            The relevance is that everyrhing above that point is being boosted (on average) into interstellar space

          • PhilJ says:

            Check that..into interplanetary space… Some is spiralling down to the sun

          • PhilJ says:

            It follows that the mesopause of the sun is somewhere out around the kuiper belt

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “The relevance is that everyrhing above that point is being boosted (on average) into interstellar space”

            What does that mean? What is “everything”? Mass?

            What does “boosted” mean?

          • PhilJ says:

            Yes by everything , i mean all molecules and atoms (mass) on average..

            At the top of the thermosphere mass in/out determines if the system is heating/cooling…

            If you get enough mass incoming it compacts till fusion begins and you get the birth of a star

            Entropy rules!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Well, I’ve seen estimates of incoming space dust as high as 60,000 tons/year. But, I assumed it mostly ended up helping to raise sea levels. Now, it appears it is also “heating the planet”.

            Move over CO2, you’ve got some competition.

          • PhilJ says:

            If we agree that the earth system has some total internal energy ‘U’ and we then add mass to the system .. U MUST be increasing .. E=mc2

          • PhilJ says:

            Thanks Albert

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            philj …”Altitude reached by any gas molecule is proportional to its a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n and inversely proportinal to its critical point and atomic weight”.

            How about gravitational force? A gas molecule with an amu of 100 should be drawn to the surface with the same acceleration as a 100 lb weight. The lighter gas molecule is no doubt affected by updrafts that would not impede the weight but even the weight has a terminal velocity.

          • PhilJ says:

            GR,
            Gravity is accounted for in the atomic weight

          • PhilJ says:

            Gravity waves may affect the rate at which matter is boosted to space but entropy rules.. They will always fluctuate around a point that MORE mass is ejected

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            phil…”Gravity waves may affect the rate at which matter is boosted to space but entropy rules.. They will always fluctuate around a point that MORE mass is ejected…”

            Phil… not trying to rain on your parade or get an argument going, just throwing in some thoughts.

            I don’t know what entropy has to do with it. Clausius defined entropy in words as the integral (sum) of infinitesimal heat quantities into or out of a system and temperature T. Since he seems to have intended T as a constant by using a thermal bath from which heat is drawn and returned, you can pull it outside the integral sign and entropy becomes essential the sum of dq (I presume that’s with respect to time).

            Anyway, Clausius clarified. He said that if the process is reversible, the entropy is zero, otherwise it is +ve. He mentioned that most processes are irreversible therefore the tendency of the universe is toward coming apart.

            He explained why he developed entropy, meaning it as energy related to heat transfer. Gravity, however, is a real phenomenon that accelerates everything toward a mass, including gas molecules.

            I mentioned AMU = atomic mass units. I am not sure in chemistry that AMU is directly related to weight since it is a relative scale of mass related to carbon-12. I concede that if you have a gram of atoms you have a gram of atoms. However, you guys are discussing single molecules escaping to space and I don’t get that while they are under the influence of gravity.

            Even the Moon can’t escape and it is out there where there are no gas molecules. Thanks to g*r we know it does not rotate on a local axis. ☺

            Of course, protons and electrons escape the gravity of the Sun but they are fired out of there at tremendous speed.

            Single molecules driven by other forces should be able to counter the effect of gravity. But escape???

          • PhilJ says:

            Hi GR,
            I am agreeing with Clausius ?. Entropy rules… Water always finds the best way to get to sea level… despite the dams in its way

          • PhilJ says:

            Lol .. Are you questioning my creds? Im not so proud as to assume i know what you mean?. Please spell ot out for me..

          • David Appell says:

            Boosted to space?

            What does that j an?

            Note that boost has animportant definition in the theory of special relativity. But I dont expect Phil to understand that

          • PhilJ says:

            Sorry was trying to post this here: Lol .. Are you questioning my creds? Im not so proud as to assume i know what you mean?. Please spell ot out for me..

          • David Appelly says:

            PhilJ, what are your credentials, anyway?

          • PhilJ says:

            What do my creds matter if im right?

            Or wrong for that matter… I could have all the degrees in the world and still be wrong… The thongs im saying are testable…

            Hello science…

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        g*r…”If you can understand condensation, then move on to the relationship of pressure and temperature on the ability of air to contain water vapor”.

        All 1% of it, on average. In the atmosphere, overall, the percentage is something like 0.3%.

        Dan…who I regard as a good guy… so I’m only ribbing him… claims an 8% increase since 1960. Based on a 1% average, that’s an increase to 1.08% on average, is it?

        Based on the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s law of partial pressures, a 1C warming should have WV contribute around 0.01C.

        I made a mistake when I claimed earlier that CO2 should contribute 0.04C, it should actually be 0.004C.

        Better check that, my head is in a bad space and my math may be off.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon, what is the change in the saturation pressure of water vapor based on the Clausius-Claperyn equation for 1 deg C of warning?

          Show your work.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Why should anybody bother wasting time answering your stupid gotchas?

            Are you quite mad, or merely endowed with an overwhelming sense of your own importance?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Again, Flynn constantly scans this forum only to tell people that he doesnt care what their comments say.

            That is about as twisted and screwed up as it gets.

          • PhilJ says:

            And yet he hasnt yet challenged anything ive said….because my law is testable….
            That is how real sceince works…
            Prove me wrong ..

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Remind me what your point was again, David?

            Cheers.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Gordon, what is the change in the saturation pressure of water vapor based on the Clausius-Claperyn equation for 1 deg C of warning?”

            What does phase change have to do with WV making up 1% of the atmosphere on average? C-C does not cover what I’m talking about that WV as a GHG cannot warm the overall atmosphere more than a trivial amount.

            I am still waiting for you alarmists to show a relationship between the catastrophic warming you ‘project’ and the GHGs allegedly causing such warming. I have shown you using the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton that the contribution of GHGs in general is no more than 0.01C/1C.

            Where’s your figures? Can’t even find it in IPCC literature.

          • David Appelly says:

            Ha ha, Gordon doesnt understand why the change in water vapor saturation point is relevant in a warming climate. Oh jeez.

            Gordon, Im just tired of your stupid ignorance. I dont see any reason why I should reply to you. Or not, Gordon. Whatever. You arent smart enough to run a bird.

            David

          • PhilJ says:

            DA,

            “Ha ha, Gordon doesnt understand why the change in water vapor saturation point is relevant in a warming climate. Oh jeez”

            Its really not relevant more than this .. Water will transport energy to the top of the tropopause as quickly as possible and then precipitate out… It COOLS the surface

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly appelly, the clown, no longer believes in using apostrophes. Someone probably told him that apostrophes cause global warming. So, he has stopped using them.

            “doesnt”

            “Im”

            “dont”

            “arent”

            Jelly believes almost everything causes global warming.

            It’s fun to watch.

  6. ren says:

    Loop 500 hPa will be cut off south of the Great Lakes. Strong high below Hudson Bay frosty air will provide.
    The wind in the north of the US can be extremely strong due to the large differential pressure.
    http://www.lightningwizard.com/maps/North_America/gfs_cape_usa36.png

  7. Gunga Din says:

    Stormy April to give snow job to Midwest

    Love the headline!!
    Amazing how much “snow” Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming has produced!

    • David Appell says:

      Global warming increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. So why shouldnt it increase the amount of precipitation?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        On the other hand, why should it? What do you think?

        Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          Flynn, you need to spend more time studying science and less time writing dmbcmments like this.

          You want so much to be taken seriously, yet clearly have no idea how to gain.

      • Gunga Din says:

        Gunga Din says:
        April 12, 2018 at 5:10 PM
        Stormy April to give snow job to Midwest

        Love the headline!!
        Amazing how much “snow” Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming has produced!

        Reply
        David Appell says:
        April 14, 2018 at 7:35 PM
        Global warming increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. So why shouldn’t it increase the amount of precipitation?

        Switch “snow” for “precipitation”.
        Increased warmth due to natural causes does contribute to increased precipitation. Whether that precipitation falls as rain or snow depends on the temperature.
        I mentioned “natural causes”. They’ve been going on since the beginning of “nature”.
        You imply this increase in snow in the Midwest is not natural but Man-made.
        Stop implying.
        Mann-made(et al) theories and data may support your theory (and funded by those who would use them as a means to their end) but Mann (et al)-made “hotter” in the Midwest does not equal ACTUAL colder (and snowier) in the Midwest.

  8. AaronS says:

    I wonder if there is a point where late seasonal (as solar insolation increases) regional snow like this has any influence on weather by changing albedo… I imagine it is likely very minimal unless there are permanent glaciers at mid latitudes. But it does seem plausible local cold could influence regional atmospheric circulation and start feedbacks. Ie late snow creates a cold high pressure cell that deflects warm cells south and encourages more late snow. Im not an atmospheric scientist so i could be way off.

    • Snape says:

      Aaron

      Here is an article on some of the mid – latitude glaciers in my part of the world (US/Pacific NW). They are shrinking/disappearing like crazy.

      No worries, time to make lemonade from lemons. Planning a backpack trip this summer where we will camp next to a creek that not long ago was buried by the snout of Anderson Glacier…….recently deceased! (Olympic NP).

      https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/glaciers.htm

      • Snape says:

        Lake (and flat ground for camping) where glacier existed back in the 70’s (below Mt. Anderson):

        http://exploreolympics.com/reports/?attachment_id=7434

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        snape…”mid latitude glaciers in my part of the world (US/Pacific NW). They are shrinking/disappearing like crazy”.

        Go tell that to people climbing in the Himalaya.

        The problem I have with such before and after photos of glaciers is telling the difference between snow and glaciers. Many smaller glaciers recede markedly in summer then re-appear in winter.

        Here’s one glacier in Pakistan not going anywhere:

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

        Here another, hasn’t moved since 1953, when Hillary first climbed Everest.

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

        • Snape says:

          “The problem I have with such before and after photos of glaciers is telling the difference between snow and glaciers.”

          That’s true. You often need to wait until late summer, when all or most of the previous winter’s snow has melted. At that point, either you see a glacier or you don’t.

          Like I said, though, most of the smaller ones in the Cascade and Olympic mountains are shrinking rapidly or have already disappeared.

        • Svante says:

          Gordon,
          About ten percent of all glaciers are growing, mostly due to increased precipitation I dare say, not falling temperature.

          https://tinyurl.com/y7r249rn

          “Overall, glaciers in the Greater Himalayan region that have been studied are retreating an average of between 18 and 20 m (59 and 66 ft) annually.[49] The only region in the Greater Himalaya that has seen glacial advances is in the Karakoram Range and only in the highest elevation glaciers, but this has been attributed possibly increased precipitation as well as to the correlating glacial surges, where the glacier tongue advances due to pressure build up from snow and ice accumulation further up the glacier.”

          Baltoro:
          https://tinyurl.com/y8vbb5gh

      • David Appell says:

        So thats two glaciers, huh Gordon?

        Do you have any global statistics?

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Jelly, what if Gordon had “150”? Would that be enough?

          Hilarious.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          Who gives a toss about your pointless averages? Can you name someone who cares?

          Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Flynn, all we need to know is that you spend a lot of time replying to comments here to say that you dont care what the comment says.

            Man, that is really messed up. Like, really twisted. I cannot honestly engage such a person in conversation or debate.

          • PhilJ says:

            “I cannot honestly engage such a person in conversation or debate”

            And yet you do… Does that make you dishonest?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            I merely asked a question. If you don’t want to answer, that’s your choice.

            If you don’t want to respond at all, fine.

            You have a funny way of showing your supposed disengagement, I must say.

            Don’t blame me for your lack of self control – it won’t help at all!

            I’ll continue to do as I wish. If you don’t like it – stiff cheese, bad luck, and all that.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Flynn, every time anyone else asks a question, you bitch and moan that it is a gotcha.

            And now you expect an answer to your own question? Dont be stupid, buddy.

          • David Appell says:

            Flynn, your questions are completelystupid and embarrassing. Grow up, buddy.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            I expect nothing from you, and I’m rarely disappointed.

            Why would you think that I would believe your answer anyway? Are you completely divorced from reality?

            Carry on, David. I’m sure you can do that, at least.

            Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly, I appreciate your comedy, but you probably need some new material. Just asking dumb questions gets a little old.

            How about explaining how CO2 can “heat the planet”, in your own words.

            Now that would be hilarious.

          • David Appelly says:

            Flynn, You are afraid to answer the questions about the science, and back away at every opportunity. Thats all I need to know about you.

            You

          • David Appelly says:

            Dont reply with so me bitching and whining.

  9. Steve Case says:

    I am reminded of the April 8-9, 1973 blizzard in Milwaukee.

    Is this on track to be a repeat?

    Looks like the local flying club will cancel the quest for the $100 burger on Saturday the 14th, and my grand daughter’s 13th birthday party tomorrow might include a grand snowball fight.

    • David Appell says:

      Weather events are not climate.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        What’s your point David? Don’t you accept that climate is the average of weather, and has always changed?

        Are you really demented enough to believe that you can stop the climate from changing?

        I’d like to see that!

        Cheers.

        • David Appelly says:

          Flynn, I agree, you dont care about anyone elses comment and no one cares about you.

          This is neat and easy to wrap up.

  10. ren says:

    The beginnings of active low are already visible over South Dakota.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00963/u4ccl7s1bvgl.png

    • ren says:

      Low it will be strengthened up to 988 hPa.

      • David Appell says:

        How specifically did you arrive at that number?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          Why do you care? Are you just attempting another stupid and pointless gotcha?

          The world wonders.

          Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Flynn, it is only because you are anonymous that you are willing to look like a juvenile. Im sorry buddy, but there is no reason whatsoever to take you seriously or answer any of your questions. H

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Still failing at your mind reading attempts, I see.

            Do you think I care if anybody takes me seriously or not? Facts are facts – people are free to decide whether I am right or wrong about things.

            I recommend the Royal Society’s motto – Nullius in Verba. Make up your own mind. I change my opinions if I become aware of new information. What do you do? Only joking, fanatics just stay with their fantasy – facts mean nothing to fanatics.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Flynn, you are the kind of numbskull who comments to say that you dont care if anyone takes your comments seriously. Which is why nobody does take you seriously. God, you are as dumb as an ox.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly, which pays more, being a troll, or being a clown?

            Hint: Compare that to minimum wage.

    • ren says:

      Pressure in Kansas fell to 992 hPa.

  11. An Inquirer says:

    None are as blind as they who will not see.

    Many will not see the reality that cold fronts and cold events still exist. Many will not see that we have had hot events in the past. So I believe Dr. Spencer provides us a service by reminding us of the reality of both.

    I just finished an article in Bloomberg, “Climate Change is Messing with Your Dinner.” It claims food disasters because of climate change, but the evidence it gives for disasters are climate models, not current events. The article begrudgingly admits that currently mainline food staples are up in production, but credits hot weather in Russia with giving it the ability to produce more wheat, ignoring the fact that Russian wheat production is up mainly because of hybrids suited for Russian climate. The article completely ignores the increased production in the U.S. farm belt that has been due to fewer heat waves and an increase in the “right type” of rainfall. For an example of production that is currently down, the article resorts to French wine production. I am sorry if my lack of affection for wine dulls my sense of alarm here, but I do not this as impending disaster for the human race. Moreover, for the record, wine is production is down because of late frosts and excessive rainfall in vineyards of Bordeaux. This all is not consistent with doomsday climate models.

    • pochas94 says:

      Nevertheless, US farmers should be planting test plots of the short season hybrids so they can be ready for cooler weather.

      • An Inquirer says:

        As a kid, I remember planting 120-day corn. (Those are the days from germination to maturity.) Today, everything that we are planting is less than 100 days.

        I am a believing in computer modeling, but all the evidence suggests that alarmist somehow bias their GCC models away from reality and into disaster.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          “Knee high by 4th of July” no longer works, it seems.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          inquirer…”I am a believing in computer modeling…”

          There are validated models and invalidated models. In electronics you can build a modeled circuit then validate it by building a circuit to see how it works.

          No climate model is validated, not one of them has accurately predicted a future. That’s basically because unvalidated models cannot predict, they can only project certain guesses based on given scenarios.

          In other words, they are presently useless.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, if you think no climate models are validated, go read the IPCC 5AR, chapter 9, on model validation. Its the longest chapter in the WG1. You should know at least a little something before you spout off.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly, what page do they teach you about the bogus “150 W/m^2”?

            That’s one of the funnier parts.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            GR,

            David remains ignorant and stupid.

            Chapter 9 is a long piece of wishful thinking, and avoidance of fact. As the chapter points out –

            “No model scores high or low in all performance metrics, . . . ”

            In other words, any particular model cannot be relied upon for anything useful. Some are better at forecasting the past than others, which shows how useless they are.

            David is off with the fairies, as usual.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            If you want to cite from the 5AR, you need to cite what youre wearing so that others can confirm it.

          • David Appell says:

            Note that no one who has replied is willing to touch the 150 W per square meter number. Thats all we need to know here.

          • PhilJ says:

            DA
            Youre 150 is an artifact of reasoning built on a false paradigme.

            Entropy rules

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            I don’t need to do anything.

            Neither do you.

            What has what I’m wearing got to do with anything?

            Anyone can read chapter 9 for themselves. Are you saying I got the quote wrong?

            Cheers.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Ice emits 300 W/m2. What’s your point?

            The non existence of a testable GHE hypothesis makes your stupid obsession with pointless numbers look a bit irrational, doesn’t it?

            Oh well, obsess away! Is OCD involved?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Flynn,, there is nothing I care to discuss with you. You are an dumb troll, too stupid to answer. Claiming there is no GHE is just dumb. Good lord, dumbo.

            Go soak in your own pathetic lies.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Still no GHE, is there?

            Neither you nor anyone else can even describe it! Maybe you could read the IPCC AR5.

            Surely you would find mention of the GHE in the glossary, woukdn’t you think? Alas, they must have forgotten to include such an important thing. Maybe it was mislaid, along with the testable GHE hypothesis.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Imagine: Mike Flynn sits on this site, constantly reloading it every minute, trying to find each and every new comment. When he does, his only thought is to say that he doesnt care about the comment just post d. It is really that stupid. Flynn just cant wait to write that he doesnt care about you or I have just wrote. Very very sad. This is how this old man chooses to spend his time. Really, I feel very sorry for him and his loneliness.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Are you really, really, sorry for me? Awww, David, I didn’t know you cared.

            I just thought you were being a stupid and ignorant troll, trying to divert peoples’ attention away from the fact that the GHE is a figment of delusional thinking.

            Actually, I’m right, aren’t I? You aren’t sorry for me at all! Why lie? What do you gain?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Flynn, youre arent meaningful. Your claims are all wrong, and Im sure you know that. Youre just trolling for attention. Theres no reason at all to take you seriously. Stop begging. Jumping off, Flynn

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            youre
            arent
            Im
            Youre
            Theres

            Jelly-the-clown is “saving the planet”, one apostrophe at a time.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Gordon, if you think no climate models are validated, go read the IPCC 5AR, chapter 9, on model validation”.

            I am not interested in fiction from the IPCC. Any outfit that has a Summary written by 50 political appointed lead authors and uses it to re-write the main report written by 2500 reviewers, is in the business of propaganda and outright lying.

            The IPCC cannot be trusted. All we need to know about climate model validation is what we have seen since 1998…not one model predicted the warming hiatus. Not one model has been verified.

            NOAA is into propaganda as well, to support the liars at the IPCC. Now it seems RSS has joined them too.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            mike flynn…”Chapter 9 is a long piece of wishful thinking, and avoidance of fact”.

            When the US government appointed NAS to investigate the hockey stick propaganda, they also appointed a top rated statistician. He concluded that Chapter 9 was ‘nepotic’, they cited only papers written by their peer group.

            They were all buddy-buddy with Michael Mann, and when McIntyre and McKittrick pushed IPCC poobah Susan Sullivan to have Chapter 9 investigate their grievance about the hockey stick, they completely ignored her.

            The IPCC is corruption central. Several of their poobahs were caught in Climategate emails interfering with peer review, fudging data, and admitting in private that the warming had stopped.

            David Appell seems to think this is the way science is done. Not on my watch.

  12. ren says:

    Blizzard expands on Nebraska and Colorado.

    • Keith says:

      I just discovered your blog. I will be back to peruse the good discussion. We are missing the storm this time in ND. Going to be awhile before any crop is planted though. May for sure.

      • ren says:

        Currently, heavy wet snow in of Wisconsin and Michigen.

        • David Appell says:

          So what? What is the relevance of this to climate? Ren seems to need a lot of attention.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Do you really care?

            If so, we are all deeply touched, I’m sure. Please feel free to give Ren all the attention you have time for.

            If you can spare even a little time to find a testable GHE hypothesis,, that might help immensely. What do you think?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Flynn, why would you respond only to say that you dont care about my response?

            Do you honestly not see the great contradiction in that?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            Eh?

            Your comment seems a little pointless, stupid, and irrelevant.

            Actually, it seems a lot pointless, stupid, and irrelevant.

            I underestimated your ability to be pointless, stupid and irrelevant. My bad.

            Cheers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly-the-clown tries to act mature and responsible. “Acting” is a major part of comedy.

            It makes his routines fun to watch.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”What is the relevance of this to climate? Ren seems to need a lot of attention”.

            What is the relevance of weather to climate ??? Are you serious????

            ren is explaining all the current cooling, doing what none of you alarmists can explain with your convoluted AGW theories. One of your alarmist rags in the UK claimed global warming theory predicted this cold.

            They did the same with the HIV/AIDS theory. They predicted massive infection in North America to the point of a pandemic. Never happened, so they moved the goalposts claiming the HIV virus could lay dormant for 15 or more years. Twice that time has past and still no pandemic, the infection rate in NA is a fraction of 1% and related to high risk groups.

            They still had not found the virus so they went looking. Tried some witch-doctoring called the viral load method using the PCR method to amplify DNA. The inventor of the method, Kary Mullis, told them it would not work since PCR amplifies everything and the HIV would still be hidden. They told him he was wrong.

            They still haven’t found the virus but now they are bombarding humans with highly toxic chemicals and claiming they are killing a virus no one has ever seen and who 99.99% of NA has never caught. Montagnier, who discovered the virus claims he has never seen it, purified it, or isolated it. His team INFERRED it based on RNA strands they thought to be HIV.

            The drug manufacturers have a disclaimer on their drug info sheets that the drugs WILL NOT cure HIV.

            Very recently, the scientist who discovered HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, who never claimed HIV causes AIDS, insisting a co-factor was required, has stated that HIV will NOT harm a healthy immune system. With that, he is implying the co-factor is life style. Peter Duesberg was preaching that 30 years ago and they ruined his career over it.

            That’s well over 30 years of a paradigm that has wasted time and likely killed many people with toxic drugs. They have a name for it now, IRS, which is AIDS deaths caused by the treatment. Those number for IRS are not included in the stats for AIDS deaths due to HIV, making it appear as if they are winning the battle.

            Peter Duesberg calls it AIDS by prescription.

            How long must we endure the alarmist equivalent paradigm to HIV/AIDS? It has been nearly 30 years with no proof that CO2 causes catastrophic warming or even warming. In fact, 18 years of a flat trend has shown the theory is bogus.

            Yet here you are ragging on ren who is doing his best to keep us informed about current conditions in the atmosphere.

            Don’t you have an interview with Trenberth, so you can kiss butt and swallow his bs? Ask him what happened to the warming he admitted losing, in the Climategate emails, then had it mysteriously appear in the oceans after he was caught admitting that.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…earlier in this thread I posted about Barry Marshall, the Aussie scientist who discover stomach ulcers are caused by the bacterium Heliobacter Pylori. He was laughed out of town.

            Get this, he submitted a paper to a journal and they rejected him, later claiming his paper fell in the 10 percentile range of the worst papers they had ever reviewed. And you keep pushing this nonsense about peer review.

            PR has likely stifled more good science than not. Marshall persisted, however, drinking a dose of H. Pylori to test it. He became very ill in a couple of days, his breath stunk, and a scope revealed massive inflammation in his stomach. That’s when they started believing him.

            What do Roy and John at UAH have to do in order to combat this atrocious pseudo-science called catastrophic AGW? Even RSS has sold out, UAH now stands alone.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon buddies up with ren just to be obstreperous. He doesnt know why, he only wants to separate himself from the consensus position, somehow, though the GHE he doesnt really knew why. Gordan just want to be different, doesnt matter how. Dont ask, idiot. Even ren doesnt know why he posts the crap that he does. Its only enough that he gets a little bit of attention that he would never get anywhere else. Next ren will post about raccoons. Just watch.

          • Nate says:

            Gordon,

            “HIV–They predicted massive infection in North America to the point of a pandemic. Never happened”

            Yes Gordon, your bizarre HIV ideas have been repeatedly debunked.

            There was a rapid decrease in mortality the 1990s. Why? The antiviral cocktail. How was the possible if AIDS is not caused by a virus?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA..”Gordon buddies up with ren just to be obstreperous”.

            Ren is into science, unlike you trolls who patrol this site trying to trick people into making the statements you coach them to make. The irony is that you alarmists think no one knows what you are doing. Thankfully you are all too stupid to get your trolling to have an effect.

  13. ren says:

    “Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron).”
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f24.png
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_150_NA_f24.png

    • David Appell says:

      Wow, Rn, no one would know this if you didnt diligently post your warning on this site which no one eve reads. Good job, sonny.

      Ren, why arent you posting your crap to your own blog? What is this need for attention you crave?

  14. ren says:

    The storm front separates summer and winter in the US.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00963/illdsnxcjgce.png

  15. In my boyhood in the 1950s my hero was Mickey Mantle. In my geezerhood if I had a poster of Roy Spencer Id pin it on the wall of my room. (Dont know if Madam Su, The Dragon Lady, would want it there though….)

    • David Appell says:

      Jason: Why do you respect UAHs numbera, but not those of RSS? Which finds about 50% more warming?

      Just curious and would really like to know your thinking.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Jelly, why do you ask a nonsense question after almost every comment? You can’t learn. Are you just bored, and seeking attention?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Jason: Why do you respect UAHs numbera, but not those of RSS? Which finds about 50% more warming? ”

        Because RSS is now in bed with NOAA and have become corrupt. Too bad, for the longest time they were doing good work and now they have sold out.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon has no proof of anything like any kind of collusion related to any warming or cooling.

          Gordon is lying he has no evidence to support any of his claims. Gordon is a dumb Useless stupid person with no power at all, when m everyone ignores as less. Gordon doesnt have a single thing to contribute here. Gordan is just like the most feeble person you remember from high school.

      • Remember when Ted Cruz grilled the Sierra head and pushed him on The Pause using The RSS graph? Which was flat-lining. Mears was so shocked to have his work used by the dispicable Cruz that he immediately fudged his graph upward – and was so indiscreet as to write openly that that was what he had done! THATS science…? Dont know about you but I dont trust him further than I can throw an elephant.

    • Des says:

      A Roy Spencer dart board … why didn’t I think of that?

  16. ren says:

    By tomorrow, the pressure above the southern Hudson Bay will increase to 1040 hPa.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00963/fmqnrv12cedn.png

    • David Appell says:

      ren, what is the climatological significance of this observation?

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Jelly, what is the climatological significance of your question?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”ren, what is the climatological significance of this observation?”

        ren has been tracking the effect of La Nina and solar activity to keep us up to speed. He has been showing us how LN and the solar has been creating storms in NA.

        • David Appell says:

          Any monkey can track la Nia, and we dont need ren to do that

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            You are just trolling now, David.

            Maybe you are referring to imaginary climatological monkeys? The same species that believes in the GHE, no doubt!

            You might even be confused between baboons and buffoons. The Greater bumbling bearded balding climatological buffoon is obviously not up to the level of your average monkey – even baboons are not silly enough to believe in the GHE!

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            You know all about trollng, wouldnt you, Flynn.? You are now Too compromised to say anything, early, and expect someone to believe you.

  17. ren says:

    The temperature drop on April 16 in the eastern US may be surprising.
    http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00963/pieqa6j2lngo.png

  18. RAH says:

    The Robins have finally arrived!

  19. Minnie Leroux says:

    Dr Spencer,

    I have only been following your site for a short time, but I wanted to thank you for consistently pointing how global warming is already causing such unprecedented weather in the US. I can’t imagine what the future will bring if your predictions of future warming prove true.

    I pray to Jesus every night that people like you will help educate the millions in our country who have been brainwashed into believing that climate change is a hoax.

    God bless,
    Minnie

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      minnie….”I pray to Jesus every night that people like you will help educate the millions in our country who have been brainwashed into believing that climate change is a hoax”.

      Good satire, Minnie.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Which is more of a hoax, Minnie or AGW?

      • David Appell says:

        Here Gordon shows a fundamental lack of respect. Ironic, considering that he is wrong

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          The poor clown falls for yet another hoax!

          Sad, but fun to watch.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Here Gordon shows a fundamental lack of respect. Ironic, considering that he is wrong….”

          Not so. Minnie was obviously speaking tongue in cheek when she accused Roy of being an alarmist.

          • David Appell says:

            Interesting that now Gordon can read minds and tell us what other people are thinking.

    • PhilJ says:

      Hi Minnie,

      “I pray to Jesus every night that people like you will help educate the millions in our country who have been brainwashed into believing that climate change is a hoax.”

      Truth recognizes Truth… AGW is the hoax that is brainwashing milllions…
      Co2 cools the planet

  20. David Appell says:

    One thing I bet youll never see Roy report on is the ratio of record highs to record lows, for any region.

    It just doesnt support his agenda, and for Rory his agenda is most important.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      DA,

      Who cares what you bet on?

      I’ll bet that you will remain as stupid and ignorant as ever. Do you think there will be many prepared to bet against me? Can you name one?

      You do say the siiliest things, David.

      Cheers.

      • David Appell says:

        Feeble

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          Self praise is no recommendation, David. Boasting that you are feeble might only make you look weak.

          Just a well-meant hint.

          Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            My point was that Roy never reports on the ratio of high temperatures to record low temperatures. Has He ever actually done that? If so, show me the link. Thx.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            And bananas absorb and emit IR.

            Is stating a fact imbued with some mystical significance when David Appell does it?

            Maybe you could report on the things that Dr Spencer doesn’t. How about that for a solution?

            You could provide links and show your workings – it might impress someone other than yourself.

            Who knows?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            MF, It doesnt matter, and its irrelevant what you wrote. I didnt even read it. This is a blog about climate change, not about whatever junk you think will bring you attention.

            You are a big useless.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            I’m surprised you didn’t need to read what I wrote.

            Your awesome ability to read without reading is peerless.

            I wasn’t aware you determined what sort of comments are allowed.

            Others might notice that I felt no need to comment until you started trolling.

            You are too stupid and ignorant to accept reality, I suppose.

            Do you think you might dig up a testable GHE hypothesis, in between uncontrollable bouts of trolling? Some readers might want to discuss science – real science, not climatological pseudo science.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Flynn, why would I read what you wrote? I couldnt care less about your opinion.

            Silly dummy. Gotcha.

          • David Appell The highest understanding when can attain is to stupidly cut and paste Ill run can to says:

            Look at you, still whining about the greenhouse effect. The evidence for the greenhouse effect is overwhelming. You clearly are too dumb to understand that. Shovel out of the way, buddy. Or not. Thats life.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly, by any chance, does your “evidence” for the bogus GHE involve your missing “150 W/m^2”?

            If so, that would be hilarious, wouldn’t it?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      DA…”One thing I bet youll never see Roy report on is the ratio of record highs to record lows, for any region”.

      Roy doesn’t deal in irrelevant stuff.

      • David Appelly says:

        I remember when Roy used to fit a so-called entertaining third order polynomial to his monthly LT data. That was clearly useless, and I showed that it lead to temperature < 0 K in just a few decades. After that Roy stopped providing his entertaining polynomial. This is perhaps one of the greatest achievements of my entire life, And I will forever kneel to the appropriate piece of ground and forever give my fealty to the king.

      • Des says:

        Gordon’s definition of “irrelevant” … anything with runs counter to his beliefs.

  21. ren says:

    “Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods.”
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
    In this study we show that correspondence of the main structures of geomagnetic field, near surface air temperature and surface pressure in the mid-latitudes, reported previously in the 1st part of the paper, has its physical foundation. The similar pattern, found in latitude-longitude distribution of the lower stratospheric ozone and specific humidity, allows us to close the chain of causal links, and to offer a mechanism through which geomagnetic field could influence on the Earths climate. It starts with a geomagnetic modulation of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and ozone production in the lower stratosphere through ion-molecular reactions initiated by GCR. The alteration of the near tropopause temperature (by O3 variations at these levels) changes the amount of water vapour in the driest part of the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS), influencing in such a way on the radiation balance of the planet. This forcing on the climatic parameters is non-uniformly distributed over the globe, due to the heterogeneous geomagnetic field controlling energetic particles entering the Earths atmosphere.
    http://journals.uran.ua/geofizicheskiy/article/view/111146

    • David Appell says:

      REN, alllyou do here is take up space with irrelevant junk. Is that reallt all you aspire to in this life?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        DAVID, alllyou do here is take up space with irrelevant junk. Is that reallt all you aspire to in this life?

        Don’t tell me you didn’t see that one coming!

        Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”REN, alllyou do here is take up space with irrelevant junk. Is that reallt all you aspire to in this life?”

        Wrong. That’s your function. Ren is contributing a lot of useful information.

        • David Appell says:

          No, ren isnt contributing useful information. He just contributes junk about random places over random ties. Lets not pretend otherwise. REN is useless here. Strangely, thats how he likes it.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            And the useful information that you contribute is more than precisely nothing? How do you work that out?

            Keep on trolling. Pose some more gotchas, if you like.

            Good for a laugh, if nothing else!

            Cheers.

          • David Appelly says:

            Of topic, which was ren.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Jelly, you are not completely useless. You provide a great example of what a false religion can do to a person’s head.

            It’s just one big downhill slide, huh?

            More please.

  22. ren says:

    In the long periods of low solar activity, at the end of winter, ozone tends to accumulate in greater amounts above the Canada. Now we have such a situation. A large amount of ozone blocks the circulation.
    After a period of increased solar wind speed, the jet stream will accelerate and cut off the loop south of the Great Lakes.

  23. ren says:

    Correlating TSI with water vapour concentrations
    A so far much neglected key variable that is important in understanding
    oceanlandatmosphere climate systems is the total atmospheric water
    vapour. However, a direct measurement of this metric is not available for
    a period of 100 years, and so the record must be constructed by using
    indirect deduction from the so-called climate reanalyses study (Hersbach
    etal. 2015; Kobayashi etal. 2015; Poli etal. 2016).
    Figure 11.3 shows the correlation between the TSI index of Hoyt
    and Schatten and the total column water vapour content, as deduced
    from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
    model outputs. The relationship is close and meaningful, especially
    for the multidecadal variation and modulation. However, we note that
    the inter-annual changes are more closely related to internal oscillating
    components of the climate system, such as the El NioSouthern Oscillation
    (ENSO) or the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) factors. The
    close correlation, perhaps, reflects a real physical relationship between sea-surface temperatures and the atmospheric water vapour, as convincingly
    emphasised in Hersbach etal. (2015).
    https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/SoonBaliunas17-June8-FINAL-CCTF2017_Ch11_2pp.pdf

    • David Appelly says:

      Copy and paste?

    • ren says:

      Comparison of UV solar activity in the three most recent solar cycles (SC) 22-24. The thick curves show the Mg II index timeseries twice smoothed with a 55-day boxcar. Dates of minima of solar cycles (YYYYMMDD) were determined from the smoothed Mg II index.
      http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png

    • ren says:

      This product is also referred to as Shortwave Absorbed Radiation (SWAR). Absorbed solar radiation is the difference between the incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere and the outgoing reflected flux at the top of the atmosphere.
      http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif

    • Des says:

      Re the author of that paper:

      “In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1 million from petroleum and coal interests since 2001. HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 200506 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute.”

      And … “(this funding) was later replaced by anonymous donors through the Donors Trust, a donor-advised fund that offers anonymity to clients who do not wish to make their donations public.”

      He “failed to disclose conflicts of interest in at least 11 papers since 2008” and “violated ethical guidelines of at least 8 of those journals publishing his work.”

      .
      .
      .

      Re “Climate Research, the journal which published this paper:

      Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal’s parent company, eventually stated that “CR should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication” and that “CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication.”

  24. Des says:

    “Stormy April to give snow job”

    Is this a reference to a president, a porn ‘star’, and $130 000 ?

  25. Des says:

    HEY REN!!

    Just wondering when you planning to announce that the AO has gone positive again?

    • Des says:

      Also REN … just wondering when you were planning to announce that NSW is having its hottest mid-Autumn ever. The average temp for Sydney for the past 30 days would be the 5th warmest January (our warmest month) on record … if it were January.

      Just checking … we ARE allowed to represent isolated weather events as climate … right?

  26. ren says:

    A visible tongue of the arctic air in the Midwest.
    http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00963/epybp9l3xv86.png

    • Des says:

      So you are “with” an economist, and someone who believes that ice ages cause “fiery diamonds to fall from the sky”? Ever thought of listening to a scientist?

  27. Des the so called scientist you listen to are clueless.

    • Des says:

      Hahaha …. the “sal” in your name is clearly “Salvatore”. Only Salvatore is incapable of working out how to reply to a comment without beginning a new thread. Great job at hiding your identity.

      It is telling that you don’t rate someone who believes in fiery diamonds falling from the sky as clueless.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Des,

        What would you think of a pseudo scientist who couldn’t even describe the GHE In scientific terms?

        Would you believe a mathematician pretending to be a climate scientist?

        What about a geologist claiming to be a climate scientist who falsely claimed to be a Nobel Laureate (even if it was only a Nobel Peace Prize)?

        Do you really believe that the climate can be prevented from changing? What then?

        It just goes to show that there are obviously quite a few people who are ignorant, stupid, and very, very, gullible, doesn’t it?

        Cheers.

        • Des says:

          “Would you believe a mathematician pretending to be a climate scientist”

          Definitely … clearly Dyson Freeman.

          “What about a geologist claiming to be a climate scientist”

          Gee – there’s so many to choose from. Let’s start with Donald Easterbrook, Ian Plimer and Bob Carter.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Des,

            I’m guessing you really mean Freeman Dyson, but you coukdn’t be bothered to get his name right.

            You might be able to point out where Freeman Dyson has ever claimed to be a climate scientist, unlike the undistinguished and statistically incompetent mathematician Gavin Schmidt, who has.

            As to geologists falsely claiming to be climate scientists and Nobel Laureates, Michael Mann fits the bill the best. In any case, why would you believe anyone who can’t even define the non-existent GHE, let alone provide a testable GHE hypothesis?

            Facts are fact. Fantasy is fantasy. You are short on the first, but long on the latter.

            That is because you are stupid, ignorant, and gullible. Are you silly enough to believe that climatology is a science? Rhetorical question, of course. Climate is merely the average of weather. Not much science there, eh?

            Press on, Des. Deny, divert and confuse – go your hardest! Still no GHE. Still no climate science – just more pseudoscientific wannabes.

            All part of the rich tapestry of life.

            Cheers.

          • Des says:

            Michael Mann made no such claim. Nancy Lee of UCLA made that incorrect statement about Mann in profile of his credentials. She willingly changed the description when the error was pointed out to her. Mann played no role in this. But feel free to keep rewriting history.

          • Des says:

            Correction: Gavin Schmidt

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Des,

            Michael Mann must have been silly enough to engage incompetent lawyers.

            In his complaint seeking a full jury trial, Michael Mann has allowed himself to be identified as a Noble Laureate in at least three places.

            Maybe the Nobel Committee are mistaken –

            “Geir Lundestad, Dir. Prof. for The Norwegian Nobel Inst.: ‘1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to IPCC (& to Al Gore) & made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma

            The text underneath diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to IPCC as such. No individuals on IPCC side received anything in 2007’

            Nobel Committee: ‘Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.’ ”

            It seems that Michael Mann accidentally awarded himself a Nobel Prize. Do you think he should have amended his complaint to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia?

            Press on. You might get something right, somewhere, sometime. Your grasp on reality seems a little tenuous at present.

            Cheers.

          • Des says:

            You certainly have a wild imagination.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Des,

            Not nearly as wild as those of the undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt (who believes he is a climate scientist), or the geologist who believes he is a climate scientist (and awarded himself a Nobel Prize as well).

            Others may agree.

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Mike,

            Why do you believe someone trained as a mathematician, or a geologist cannot be a climate scientist? Are they incapable of learning anything new after college?

          • Nate says:

            Quick check on degrees of climate scientists-various.

            Often applied math, physics, geophysics

            Lindzen-applied math

            Hansen – physics, astronomy.

          • Nate says:

            Mann – applied math, physics, geophysics

            What could be wrong with that?

    • Des says:

      And only Salvatore keeps repeating the phrase “we will see”.

  28. It was a typo I was not trying to hide my identity.

    Of course we will see one way or the other.

    • Des says:

      When do you think you might learn to reply without starting a new thread? Is it a cognitive issue that is preventing you?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        Des,

        Why are you interested? Do you really care?

        Or are you just trolling, and attempting (somewhat poorly) to be gratuitously offensive?

        Still no testable GHE hypothesis is there? Just a bunch of delusional fanatics, who believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!

        And you no doubt believe that is true.

        Good luck.

        Cheers.

        • Des says:

          The troll complains about trolling while trolling.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Des,

            I just asked a couple of questions, laddie. Not my fault that you cant provide provide any science, is it?

            Away you go then. Complain about trolling because you cant provide anything to back up your bizarre unsupported belief in the GHE.

            Id be happy enough to consider the merits of a testable GHE hypothesis – but you cant find one, can you?

            Thats simply because the concept of making thermometers hotter by putting more CO2 between them and the Sun is a ridiculous fantasy! Anybody believing such a silly thing is obviously deluded, and probably stupid, ignorant, and very, very, gullible into the bargain.

            Keep proclaiming the merits of climatology. Good luck with finding someone to pay you for it.

            Cheers.

  29. barry says:

    Next month begins your prediction period, Salvatore: UAH Global temps should average at zero anomaly or lower for the May-July season if your conceptual model of sun/biosphere relationship is correct.

    Current SSTs according to one of your favoured sources:

    0.26C

    Global anomaly for UAH in March was:

    0.24C

    We’ll see about April in 2 weeks.

    • Des says:

      I think April will indeed see a fall in UAH. Due to the lag, we really should be waiting for the end of the year to judge global temperatures during the NH summer. I still think there is an outside chance of UAH going close to zero, given the lag. If we don’t get a month under +0.10, I will be somewhat surprised. But unless ENSO does something unpredicted, we should see UAH back to normal by year’s end.

      For a more immediate judgement, that SST link should be a good indicator. Even though BOM says we’ve left La Nina, equatorial Pacific SSTs are still close to the La Nina threshhold. As they get closer to neutral, global SSTs should start to hover around the trend value of +0.29. (I use ‘hover’ very loosely. We’ve seen how much variation there can be independent of ENSO.)

  30. Mathius says:

    Hi, Dr. Spencer!

    Here in Oklahoma City we were on the dry side of the dry front. There were raging wildfires in northwestern Oklahoma Friday evening that eventually blew into our direction. We had a smokey skies with a sun that appeared to be dim and glowing red. It was quite a sight!

  31. barry says:

    La Nina conditions have persisted long enough to be classified as a full-blown, if weak la Nina according to the NOAA metrics. This is not the case for the BoM metrics, nor for the multi-parameter MEI index.

    For Nina-lovers who are also NOAA-haters, this may prove discomfiting… Who am I kidding? Intellectual consistency is so passe.

    globally averaged lower tropospheric temps tend to lag ENSO events by 2-5 months. However, this correlation is clearest in response to intense ENSO events, less so for weak events. It would be over-enthusiastic to posit that global tropospheric temps will trend downwards over the next 2-5 months.

    • barry says:

      Des,

      I still think there is an outside chance of UAH going close to zero, given the lag.

      There is not insignificant internal variability beyond what ENSO fluctuations provide. I don’t know if the weak la Nina conditions are going to have much of an impact globally, but to get to zero or lower would probably require both a lagged response to Nina and other internal variables influencing the monthly global average temp (mostly unknown) boosting that response.

      If we dont get a month under +0.10, I will be somewhat surprised.

      I give it 50/50 as a geusstimate.

      But unless ENSO does something unpredicted, we should see UAH back to normal by years end.

      Heh, ‘normal’. That’s can-of-worms verbiage. Sal predicts ‘normal’ global temps over NH summer (ie, UAH zero-line). If climate changes in one direction over the long-term, ‘normal’ keeps getting re-set, if ‘normal’ in this case means, ‘what we are used to’.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        barry,

        The problem with estimates of any sort, is that, unless they are usefully more skilful than those made by an average 12 year old child, they are not worth paying attention to.

        “Climatological” estimates of the future seem to be slightly less useful than guesses.

        Can you point to anything useful provided by the pseudo-science called “climate science”?

        Vague claims of future effects, of unknown amount, in unspecified locations, at indeterminate times, are not terribly persuasive. Likewise, pointless and irrelevant analogies are more the mark of the huckster than the scientist.

        Have you anything at all?

        Cheers.

      • barry says:

        The discussion about ENSO and its influence on the next few months is not “climatological.” You’ve missed the point again.

        It’s a pity that grinding your axe only seems to dull it, while making an unpleasant noise.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        barry,

        Learn to read.

        What are you disagreeing with? Nothing?

        That would make you stupid and ignorant, if it’s true. The fact that you choose not to comprehend what I wrote is not my fault!

        Carry on guesstimating.

        Cheers.

        • Nate says:

          “Its a pity that grinding your axe only seems to dull it, while making an unpleasant noise.”

          Love it.

        • Nate says:

          vs. ‘That would make you stupid and ignorant’

          Shakespeare v. Trump, a rhetorical smackdown.

    • barry says:

      Weve seen how much variation there can be independent of ENSO.

      I overlooked that sentence. Yes, sometimes folks seem to think the correlation with ENSO and monthly global temps is 1 for 1.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        barry,

        Can you name one of those “folks”?

        Or are you serving up wishful thinking as fact?

        Cheers.

      • Des says:

        Barry – have you noticed an annoying mozzie buzzing about? It seems to be trying to say attract our attention, but all I can here is its drone. If only there was an internet version of Aerogard.

        • Des says:

          *hear*

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Des,

            You might look at the rest of your comment as well, if you are serious about corrections.

            Mind you, there is not much point – the comment remains pointless irrelevant and stupid, doesn’t it?

            Keep going – you might succeed in whatever it is you are trying to achieve. Good luck!

            Cheers.

  32. ren says:

    Fall in temperature in the northwest and heavy snowfall in the mountains of California.

  33. ren says:

    Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and Minneapolis are at risk of receiving more snow at midweek.

  34. ren says:

    Snow continues to pile up across the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Wisconsin and into Minnesota.

    This includes in Minneapolis, where Saturday is now the city’s second-snowiest April day on record with 11.1 inches. Snowfall has topped 20 inches at Green Bay, Wisconsin, making this snowstorm the third largest in the city’s history.

  35. ren says:

    Dangerous freezing rain in the northeast of the US. It can damage power lines.

  36. Darwin Wyatt says:

    DA, won’t new high records always be set when every city grows by miles more black top etc every year?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      darwin…”wont new high records always be set when every city grows by miles more black top etc every year?”

      Records are set when NOAA discards cities that show cooling and creates a warmer temperature for them using statistical interpolation and homogenization in a climate model.

      Example…California used to have thermometers in cooler regions like the Sierra Nevada. No problem, NOAA discarded all California reporting stations except THREE along the warmer coast.

      Example 2…Bolivia. High altitude country with cooler temperatures. No problem, NOAA doesn’t use temperatures from Bolivia, they use neighbouring warmer stations, up to 1200 miles away, interpolate them and give Bolivia an average warmer temperature.

      Eaxmple 3. Not satisfied with fudging, NOAA needed to move 2014 into first place as a record. Problem was that 2014 was nowhere near a record, being several TENTHS of a degree behind 1998 and 2010. UAH reported it in 4th place, it wasn’t even next behind 1998 and 2010.

      No problem, NOAA lowered the confidence level to 48% and claimed 2014 was PROBABLY the hottest year of all time, in 2014. Media picks it up as 2014 WAS the hottest year of all time.

      NOAA can use confidence levels rather than error margins. You can’t fudge error margins easily because you are using real data. No problem, NOAA uses statistical methods for reporting temperatures hence the confidence level.

      They have even set up reference temperature sites to aid them with their fudging. If a station somewhere does not align with their reference temperature, NOAA simply ADJUSTS it to suit.

      In my parlance, that’s called scientific misconduct, but heck, alarmists don’t care about that as long as their pseudo-science is agreed to by enough alarmists.

      • Des says:

        You write good fiction. Why don’t you get in contact with the oil companies – I’m sure you could make good money. On second thought …. how have you managed to finance years off work to go back and get a degree? Also Robert Holmes aka 1000frolly? It seems there are a lot of mature age deniers getting degrees these days.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Des,

          Maybe you could actually name one of these imaginary people who deny that the climate changes?

          No?

          You’re just pointlessly blathering, aren’t you?

          Keep it up. Stupid and ignorant, but good to laugh at! Irrelevant buffoonery suits you.

          Cheers.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          des…”You write good fiction. Why dont you get in contact with the oil companies…”

          Hilarious…the old alarmist fall-back, When you cannot respond with scientific fact, try relating the messenger to the oil industry.

          But des does not stop there, he/she/it goes on to have a hissy-fit about my degree, proving conclusively he/she/it does not have one.

          I thought as much after seeing the reasoning of des and barry with statistics. Neither of them give evidence they have ever studied probability and statistics formally, and like norman, have pronounced themselves self-educated from reading textbooks and browsing the Net.

          Not a shred of evidence to rebut my claim that NOAA are cheaters. All barry can offer are mumblings about how GHCN and NOAA have enlarged their virtual database using fudged data from the past. No real stations, they have slashed 90% of those since 1990 and now rely on statistically fudged pseudo-data.

          g*r was right, 2018 is proving a great year for comedy on Roy’s blog.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            YOU: “and like norman, have pronounced themselves self-educated from reading textbooks and browsing the Net.”

            Which is far far superior than you who make up your ideas and declare them as fact.

            I get my information from textbooks or web sites supported by textbook material which is based upon years of experimental data, logic and rational thought process and good math abilities to create useful systems that work in the real world.

            You get your information from nowhere valid. A few fringe thinkers that have zero experimental evidence to support any of their claims.

            Most of what you post you make up and you refuse to support it with valid science.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Poor Norm. Between his lack of training, and the worms in his head, he is always confused. But, he believes it is others that are confused.

            It’s fun to watch.

    • bilybob says:

      Good Point Darwin. Also the majority of the new record highs come from data that is less than 70 years in length. I took a sample of rural sites that had data that went back to 1900 and found 90% show pre 1960 record highs. This is also supported by a paper showing that the United States is experiencing lower highs and less heat waves when compared to the early part of the 20th century. I don’t have the document link handy, I can dig it up if interested. I had posted it here in the past.

      It really should not surprise anyone on the amount of new record highs, given that the 2nd half of the 20th century was cooler than present and also had most new station data started. However, when you remove urban stations and look at sites that go back over 100 years, there is no statistical difference in temperatures from the 1930’s 40’s compared to present conditions.

      • Svante says:

        bilybob, the instrumental temperature records have been independently verified with proxy data.

        The only outliers were around 1904/1905, and the early 1940s.

        • bilybob says:

          Not sure what that has to do with analyzing real measurements.

          Also, proxy data should be verified using actual measurements and not the other way around. In this way you can calibrate your proxy method. If there are no measurements you can use multiple proxy methods to refine your findings. However, they are crude estimates at best. Thus ice core, sediment, tree ring, sea level and others are only best estimates only and should be taken with a grain of salt.

          Nothing beats real measurements as long as you account for biases such as urbanization or improper siting. Which is why I suggest using rural records only.

          I see no reasons to modified actual measured temperature data. I understand for modeling purposes it is useful out of convenience to aggregate data. But that does not change the historic reading.

          • Svante says:

            Proxy data can be calibrated in the lab.
            Once you’ve anchored it you can see if the curves match.

            https://tinyurl.com/y7usxf4f

            See if you can verify your record in this way.

          • bilybob says:

            Savant Says “Proxy data can be calibrated in the lab.
            Once youve anchored it you can see if the curves match.
            https://tinyurl.com/y7usxf4f
            See if you can verify your record in this way.”

            Interesting paper, thanks for the link. It uses temperature readings to verify the usefulness of the proxy. Again, I am not trying to do that. I am saying using strictly actual temperature readings from rural sites that have a record going back 100 years shows 90% of high temperature records occurred prior to 1960. There is no need to verify this data, I am not trying to use it for modeling purposes. You can argue it is corrupted and throw it out, I am fine with that. I am using rural sites to try to avoid the heat island affect, but that does not mean they were not sited correctly either.

            As an example. Alice Springs Australia had a data collection site at the post office that has 100 year plus data. Another was added and there was a 15 year overlap that showed the postal site was running at most 0.5C warmer than the new site. Which site is correct is a matter of opinion. However, the adjusted data using proxies subtracts out 2.0 C. Then reduces the difference up until it reaches the new site. Now from a modeling perspective, I fully understand the need for data aggregation and data smoothing for the purposes of modeling regional and even global temperatures. But that does not change the fact that we have real data suggesting the first half of the 20th century was warmer in Alice Springs Australia that at present. The record temperature of the postal site is higher than the new site, but the new site is reported. I think it goes back to 1960/50 only.

            For the record, I am not trying to discredit the modeling work. I do not have sufficient information to have an opinion in that area. I am simply stating that the number of new high temperature records has very little meaning unless the record goes beyond the cool period of the 2nd half of the 20th century.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bilybob…”I am not trying to do that. I am saying using strictly actual temperature readings from rural sites that have a record going back 100 years shows 90% of high temperature records occurred prior to 1960…”

            You’ll find those temperatures have been removed from the record by NOAA. NOAA has scrapped 90% of the GHCN reporting stations since 1990 alone.

          • barry says:

            bilybob,

            Have you checked BoM for the station history? There was a document I found last year that had a brief on each station in the ACORN network, and usually some notes on what choices were made and why. I managed to discover the history of a station people were concerned about, and the aggregation/adjustments made sense with that information.

            NOAA has scrapped 90% of the GHCN reporting stations since 1990 alone.

            Robertson’s lie. I promised him I would never let it go unremarked.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          svante…”the instrumental temperature records have been independently verified with proxy data”.

          Do you mean proxy data like the tree rings used in the hockey stick study that began showing cooler temperatures in the latter 20th century when real temperatures were rising? The ones Mann fixed with his hide-the-decline ‘trick’ that involved clipping out the offending data and replacing them with real temperatures.

          Or are you referring to the ‘adjusted’ historical data of NOAA, wherein they went back and smoothed out record temperature for the US in the 1930s that were embarrassing to a smooth trend from 1850 onward? They did the opposite from 1998 till present when the record showed a flat trend over 18 years.

          Which proxy data are you referring to and which temperature record, the original or the fudged NOAA record?

          • Svante says:

            Mann/NOAA might have made a wild guess. Now it turns out they guessed right.

            Please read the document, it explains a lot of what we discuss on this forum.

  37. Steve Case says:

    Monday morning here in Milwaukee – snow is still falling.

  38. barry says:

    Re hot cold/records globally:

    2002 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 204
    Minimum 22

    2003 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 394
    Minimum 20

    2004 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 113
    Minimum 13

    2005 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 120
    Minimum 29

    2006 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 145
    Minimum 20

    2007 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 297
    Minimum 17

    2008 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 90
    Minimum 32

    2009 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 138
    Minimum 21

    2010 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 505
    Minimum 44

    2011 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 169
    Minimum 39

    2012 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 296
    Minimum 16

    2013 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 405
    Minimum 16

    2014 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 217
    Minimum 19

    2015 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 328
    Minimum 14

    2016 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 323
    Minimum 21

    2017 record-breaking local temps
    Maximum 186
    Minimum 18

    Source: http://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm

    Of course, regional records can be quite different. But the blog title suggests the global metric might be relevant.

    • bilybob says:

      Barry,

      Checked the site out and sampled about a dozen of the record maximums in detail. Dunedin Airport had the longest temperature record going back to 1972. Most others been only in existence a few decades. Given the 70’s were relatively cool, does not surprise me that it would end up as a new warm record.

      These maximum/minimum new records are useless if they do not go back to 1900. Unless of course you are trying to prove it is warmer now than in 70’s.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”Dunedin Airport had the longest temperature record going back to 1972″.

        Are you referring to Dunedin (aka New Edinburgh) located in the south island of New Zealand? If so, you should know that NZ has shown no global warming at all.

        • bilybob says:

          Gordon, that was my reference. Dunedin Airport was on the list as a new high temperature record from the link Barry provided. Yes it is located in New Zealand. I only sampled a few and got tired of all of them having a short temperature history. I am sure if I continued I would eventually find a new high record that replaces a early 20th century record.

          Thanks for the observation of NZ no showing global warming. I am not really concerned over if NZ shows or not shows global warming for the purposes of my discussion. My observation is strictly the use of new high temperature records to convey it being significantly warmer. My claim is that there are more high temperature records pre 1960 for those sites that have data going back 100 years. I am not using modeled/extrapolated/interpolated data. I am strictly comparing apples to apples and making an observation.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bilybob…”My observation is strictly the use of new high temperature records to convey it being significantly warmer”.

            Sorry for misquote.

            I call them fudged records. The two warmest years by far globally are 1998 and 2016, both due to El Ninos. The 1998 warming was gone within a year but the 2016 warming is taking it’s time to cool, for whatever reason.

            The next warmest is 2010. All the rest are in a flat trend area separated by fractions of a degree, some of them a hundredths of a degree.

            NOAA and GISS are behind the record bs. They claimed 2014, at the time, was the record warmest year in the historical record. An absolute lie. UAH shows 2014 as no warmer than most of the years going back to 1998. They set it as a record by dropping the confidence level to 48%, chicanery openly supported by barry and des.

            NOAA has blatantly fudged the record retroactively and GISS get their data from NOAA, fudging it further.

            Now RSS seems to have joined them. UAH is the only record you can trust these days.

        • barry says:

          bilybob,

          Are you in any doubt that the world is warmer now than at any time since 1900? That would be quite a stretch with the amount of corroborating evidence (global sea level, global glaciers, etc).

          More warmer records are expected in a warmer world. Yes, regional effects don’t necessarily mirror global, but what is it you are querying?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, there is plenty of doubt that the world is warmer than it should be. Some people just want AGW. The bogus concept flunks science, just as the blue/green plate nonsense flunked.

            Why to you suppose so many people want AGW to be true?

          • bilybob says:

            Barry,

            Using the proxy data, my question has been why are we not about 2C warmer. But I was not asking that question as part of this thread, I was only making an observation of the measured data only and criticizing, hopefully constructively, the use of new high temperature records to draw a conclusion. You mention that in a warmer world warmer records are expected. I assume you are referring to high temperature records, correct me if I am wrong. However that was not true for the United States. The analysis I have seen shows that average temperatures are up, low temperatures are up but high temperatures are down as well as heat waves when compared to 1st half of 20th century. But this analysis did not attempt to focus on rural sites that had a complete temperature history. Regional issues aside, warmer average does not necessarily equate to warmer highs.

            Perhaps an example may illustrate this better. Lets say a farmer for what ever reason decides he wants to track cloudy days by placing 10 light monitors in a small area of his farm. After a week he checks his data, is happy with how the devices are working/reporting and immediately purchases 90 more to cover his entire farm. He checks the results after week 2 and low and behold 90 new light intensity records are set in week 2 but the original 10 show higher light intensity in week 1. Can we safely conclude that week 2 was less cloudy than week 1? I don’t think so. Please note, the average intensity for the original 10 could be higher.

            Finally, you ask if I have any doubts if the world is warmer now than anytime since 1900. Of course I do, I think we have a responsibility to question the reasonableness of the proxy data given the variability of each method. Now if you had asked if I think we are in a warming trend for the past 100 years, I would have to answer yes. What really interest me though, is why 10k years ago why did that warming trend abruptly become less positive?

          • barry says:

            bilybob,

            You mention that in a warmer world warmer records are expected. I assume you are referring to high temperature records, correct me if I am wrong.

            No, you are correct.

            However that was not true for the United States.

            My initial post included this:

            “Of course, regional records can be quite different.”

            My reply to you included this:

            “Yes, regional effects dont necessarily mirror global…”

            For example, the US experienced particularly strong summers in the mid-30s, where the maximum temps rivaled and surpassed recent maximum temps. This is still evident in the adjusted NOAA data:

            https://tinyurl.com/yco6qtnb

            In the US record, summertime maximum temps are still highest in 1934 and 1936. Robertson would have you believe this has been ‘fudged’ out of the record. Maybe you would have believed him if I didn’t link the actual NOAA time series for you. I don’t know.

            The globe is warmer than it was 100 years ago. The evidence for that is so clear it takes a particularly blind’skeptic’ to not see it.

            Why is global sea level higher now than 100 years ago? That has to come from a warmer world. There is no other reasonable answer.

            Why have the majority of the worlds glaciers receded over the last 100 years? That has to come from a warming world.

            The global temperature records of the UK, the US, Europe and Japan concur. They do not all use the same data and they use different methods.

            Different global data sets to GHCN confirm a warmer world.

            Unadjusted and adjusted temperature data confirm a warmer world since 1900.

            I don’t see how any can deny this without ignoring the rather impressive evidence for it, or trying to downplay it with broad argument that is ignorant of the range of data and work gone into them that corroborates a very solid picture.

            This meme was popular 10 years ago. Most ‘skeptics’ have moved on. Anyone still ascribing is involved in wishful thinking I’m afraid. The evidence is overwhelming.

            In a warmer world, there will be more hot record-setters than cold. That’s a statistical certainty. There are also regional differences. The US is an example for summertime max temps. Although, the US now has warmer winter maximums than in the first half of the 20th century.

            https://tinyurl.com/y864cwmf

            This blog is about global warming. I was wondering why you were fixated on the US?

          • bilybob says:

            Barry Says “Unadjusted and adjusted temperature data confirm a warmer world since 1900.
            I dont see how any can deny this without ignoring the rather impressive evidence for it, or trying to downplay it with broad argument that is ignorant of the range of data and work gone into them that corroborates a very solid picture.”

            Where exactly did I deny this? Did I not say we have been in a warming trend. However, my comment on this thread was related to the use of high temperature records that only go back a few decades. I provided an example of why it is a waste of time. If you have a useful comment related to that example that would enlighten me. I would consider it.

            As far as focusing on the US, it could have been Africa as far as I am concerned. The use of US data is because it is the only game in town, it has complete records (non proxy) going back 100 years and the country as a whole is fairly covered. Europe had some coverage but not to the extent of the USA going back to 1900. Some in Japan/Australia. But South America, Africa, Asia, the Ocean, nothing decent. So the only way you can talk global temperatures to 1900 is by proxy. However, using real measured data, the US has shown a reduction in heat waves and average high temperatures. This notion that increased average temperatures immediately equates to increase maximum temperatures is an opinion that I do not share. But that is based on real data. I do not have a dog in this fight, if you can show me where I am wrong, I will concede. I am only interested in the truth. Proxy data will not do it, it is smoothed and averaged. Peaks disappear.

            Lastly, your specific question is “Are you in any doubt that the world is warmer now than at any time since 1900?”

            Try looking at

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2018_v6.jpg

            You may want to rephrase your question to a range of time. But the graph clearly shows dozens of months that the satellite recorded “global temperature” above the current month anomaly of +0.24C. And that is only going back to 1970. Unless you are suggesting that in the first half of the 20th century global temperatures was not as variable. Using proxy data, you may come to that conclusion, but you have to accept the limitations of the result. One of those is smoothing. Can’t get around it.

          • barry says:

            Finally, you ask if I have any doubts if the world is warmer now than anytime since 1900. Of course I do

            I see that the way I phrased that permitted the opportunity to point out that there have been warmer months than right now in recent times.

            Must I meticulously write stuff, mistrusting that you will understand what I mean (or opportunistically exploit any ambiguity) if the expression is not letter perfect? That would be tedious.

            But the above quote is why I thought you disagreed that the global average temperature has generally risen since 1900. (Hopefully that is clear enough – though one can pick semantic nits till kingdom come)

            The use of US data is because it is the only game in town, it has complete records (non proxy) going back 100 years and the country as a whole is fairly covered. Europe had some coverage but not to the extent of the USA going back to 1900. Some in Japan/Australia. But South America, Africa, Asia, the Ocean, nothing decent. So the only way you can talk global temperatures to 1900 is by proxy.

            The US does not have many weather stations that have an unbroken chain of a hundred years data. There have either been station moves or there is data missing or the instruments have changed or the time of day of observing has changed or the environment around the station has changed. Any of these can and do interfere with a climate signal and with relative temperatures.

            The US is not a ‘proxy’ for the rest of the world. You are welcome to view it as the only game in town, but you are then only talking about the US. If GISS gets in trouble for extrapolating over the poles, it’s even less reasonable to extrapolate 100% of the Earth’s surface from 3% of it.

            I’m not sure what you mean by ‘proxy’. I understand it to be something that stands in for something else. IE, a reading of radiance brightness from oxygen molecules for temperature, or gas components of ice cores to glean precipitation levels and temperatures of the past.

            There are no ‘proxies’ of this type used in the instrumental records of global temperature. They are all derived from thermometer measurements of temperature.

            The data set I pointed to that began this conversation is derived from weather stations actual. It’s not based on GHCN.

            There is data from the late 1700s. Perhaps a sample of a dozen stations was too unrepresentative?

            Buenos Aires Obser. -5.4* 43.3 – * -6.4C was also recorded in June 1830….

            Innsbruck -30.6* 38.2 – * -31.3C was also recorded in December 1788…

            Grunloch -52.6* – * unofficial, recorded in February 1932 in a frost hollow…

            Nassau 5.2* 36.5 – * a dubious 5.0C was also recorded in January 1945…

            Liege -21* 38.8 – * -24.4C also recorded in December 1783

            Etc.

            No one has investigated the link I’ve offered, but plenty always make wrong assumptions about it.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”Are you in any doubt that the world is warmer now than at any time since 1900? That would be quite a stretch with the amount of corroborating evidence (global sea level, global glaciers, etc)”.

            Have you taken into account the amount glaciers expanded between 1400 and 1850 during the Little Ice Age?

            Here’s a primer o the French Alps.

            https://www.unige.ch/forel/files/1514/1691/5961/Chamonix_Eng0.pdf

            The Chamonix climate in particular during the LIA:

            https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/glacial-advance-during-the-little-ice-age/

            Please don’t claim the LIA was a local phenomenon, unless you think a small part of the planet can cool 1 to 2C while the rest does not.

          • bilybob says:

            Barry Says “But the above quote is why I thought you disagreed that the global average temperature has generally risen since 1900. (Hopefully that is clear enough though one can pick semantic nits till kingdom come)”

            That one is fairly easy, Yes, global average temperatures have generally risen sine 1900. The proxy data shows that.

            Barry Says “The US is not a proxy for the rest of the world.”

            Again agreed, I actually said you would need to use proxy data. The US (no proxy) data is insufficient. But it is useful for looking at both minimum and maximum temperatures using non-proxy data on a regional basis. I believe we have a similar definition of what proxy is. Basically, using other data to estimate the temperature, be it tree rings, sediment cores, ice cores, etc.

            Barry Says “There is data from the late 1700s. Perhaps a sample of a dozen stations was too unrepresentative?”

            You are correct, review 1 dozen extreme heat records would not be sufficient. It is just that I was not cherry picking these, I randomly looked through the link to check the length of the record available. But after 12, with the longest being going back to 1972, it seemed fruitless. When I have more time, I will look in more detail your link, just I have a day job and it will take time. PS I do check links when given in a discussion, it took me a week to review DA’s link to cost externalities.

            I probably wont be checking this thread, the article is getting old and time consuming to continue to check back. Catch you later.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”Re hot cold/records globally:”

      Thanks for the fudged NOAA records, now can you post the originals?

      None of what you post corresponds with anything I have seen in the UAH data.

      • barry says:

        You have no idea where the data were acquired, do you?

        You just saw some numbers and dropped the needle on the broken record.

        Pathetically lazy, Robertson. You couldn’t even be bothered clicking on the link and doing a modicum of reading before commenting. Simply pathetic.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          b,

          If you can’t even produce a testable GHE hypothesis, your comment is simply stupid, ignorant and irrelevant. Science is about the scientific method, not lunatic assertions by GHE proponents who can’t even describe the GHE unambiguously!

          Learn some science. Figure out how to describe a scientific effect. Waste the rest of your life trying to describe the greenhouse effect. Good luck.

          Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Flynn

            Take your own advice and learn some science. What is stopping you?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Some other con-man has stolen con-man’s identity. He never only comments in just two lines!

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            I need to give the baby some attention it seems.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Now only ONE line! But, it’s the con-man. I can tell by his lack of originality.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            I guess I forgot to warm your milk bottle. That is why you keep whining. How much attention does baby need? He has the science mind of an infant and it seems his thinking and logic ability are close to the same infant level.

            Get lost g*e*r*a*n you are a complete fraud and waste of time and you need constant attention. You don’t know even basic physics.

            All I know you have is an insane need for constant attention.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            That’s Norm, the con-man, in action.

            No science, only immature insults and baseless accusations.

            He’s hilarious.

  39. Henk says:

    Funny though that the arctic is always shown as a way warmer than normal anomaly (deep red), while yet the DMI shows that temperatures are actually normal for this time of year.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png

    Even the Weather people can’t even report the facts accurately.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      henk…”Funny though that the arctic is always shown as a way warmer than normal anomaly (deep red)…”

      As Roy pointed out, in a recent post, if I picked him up correctly, the Arctic seems to be affected by weather-like forces emanating from the North Atlantic.

      If you look up the UAH global contour maps it becomes apparent that Arctic hot spots move around from month to month. The myth that the entire Arctic has warmed is just, that, a myth.

      There are a few small locales that are +5 above average then the contours around them drop off fairly sharply.

      Here’s March 2018…note the nice deep blue spot showing about -5C.

      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/march2018/MARCH%202018%20map.png

      Here’s March 2017, almost complete opposite.

      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/march/MARCH_2017_map.png

      If you check each month in the archives you will see different warming/cooling regions in different locales. Hardly something CO2 could cause.

      Archives:

      https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/archives.html#GTR2017

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ps. the thing to note on the maps is the large areas of white around the planet that show no warming at all.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          I have been reading Clausius and you are wrong about what he claims. He actually opposes your distorted view of radiant energy.

          In his own book.

          https://archive.org/stream/mechanicaltheor02claugoog#page/n316/mode/2up

          Read pages 297 to 300 of this book. He clearly states a two-way transfer. He even uses the word heat transfer to describe the process. Energy is mutually exchanged between two radiating surfaces. Even stated in Clausius own writing. You are just wrong and will not admit it.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Norman,

            You don’t understand Clausius, do you?

            Nowhere at all does Clausius make the ridiculous assertion that the radiation from a colder body can raise the temperature of a hotter, does he?

            No GHE. None. You can’t even find a testable GHE hypothesis, can you? CO2 heats nothing.

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            I would have little doubt that Clausius would confirm that different temperatures of colder surroundings will cause different temperatures for a powered object.

            I think it is you who are the one who knows nothing. He did not mention it in this book but the concept of mutual exchange of energy is quite apparent if you read it.

            I will waste my time by responding further to you. You are devoid of logical or rational thought process.

            This is what Clausius states. Two objects at the same temperature mutually exchange heat with each other to the same amount.

            Now if you have a colder object it just means it exchanges less energy with the hot object but it does not exchange zero.

            Clausius was not talking about powered objects but the concepts he developed will stand.

            Surroundings at 100 K will emit much less radiant energy to a powered object than surroundings at 300 K. Based upon Clausius understanding the powered object surrounded by the 300 K will reach a higher temperature than the same powered object with 100 K surroundings.

            You can’t understand this. All heat transfer physics states this reality. Nothing will change your view. So Cheers back to you.

            I know the correct science. I can’t seem to teach it to you.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Mike, a blackbody sphere with a surface area of 1 m^2 has a 1000 W electric heater built in. The sphere is placed within an evacuated room with blackbody walls held at 300K. what is the temperature of the surface of the sphere?

            Repeat when the walls are held @ 350k. what is the temperature of the surface of the sphere now?

            (PS, if you object to a perfect blackbody, choose some value you like better, like and emissivity of 0.95)

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Timbo, there you go, AGAIN! In your second scenario, you’ve added energy to the system. You’re NOT making any sense. Of course you can raise the temperature of the system by raising the temperature of the system!

            Hilarious.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            G, my scenario is EXACTLY what Mike said was impossible!

            “Nowhere at all does Clausius make the ridiculous assertion that the radiation from a colder body can raise the temperature of a hotter, does he?”

            Radiation from a colder body (the wall, as it warmed from 300 K to 350 K) raised the temperature of a hotter body (the sphere initially at 400 K that warmed to 425 K). The wall was always colder than the sphere, and yet the sphere got hotter still.

            Clearly you think this warming is perfectly legitimate in this scenario, so please tell Mike he was wrong!

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Timbo, you are raising the temperature, so the temperature gets raised. Keep proving you do not understand thermodynamics.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            G, just to clarify — you DO agree with me and disagree with Mike? The radiation from the colder walls (always below 350 K) did indeed raise the temperature of the warmer sphere (always above 400 K)?

            [we can deal with your concerns in a moment … ]

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            No Timbo-the-clown, Mike has it right, you have it wrong. You’re trying your usual tricks. And, as usual, you got caught.

            You can’t heat a system and then try to claim “cold is warming hot”. Try this: A room is completely isolated and perfectly insulated. No energy can enter or leave the room. The room is at a temperature of 75F. Now, add a large block of ice, having a surface area of 1 square meter. The ice is emitting 300 W/m^2.

            Get back to us when the ice “raises the temperature” of the room.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            G, get back to me when the earth can be modeled as a room that is perfectly isolated and insulate.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Now Timbo, did you believe your example was a model of Earth?

            I guess that is humorous.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Mike,

            And just to be even MORE clear, you made the unqualified statement that it is ridiculous to think that “radiation from a colder body can raise the temperature of a hotter”.

            Not “it is ridiculous unless the walls have heaters”.
            Not “it is ridiculous unless the the wall are not perfectly insulated.”
            Not “it is ridiculous unless the sphere has a heater built in.”

            You clearly state “radiation from a colder body can raise the temperature of a hotter”. Period. No exceptions.

            As G agrees, it is very easy for radiation from cold objects to make a warmer object even warmer (like when the warm object has a constant power heater built in).

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Timbo, that is some great climate-clown comedy.

            That’s NOT what Mike Flynn said, and that’s NOT what I said.

            You are twisting and spinning words, like a good climate clown.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • Nate says:

            “Thats not what Mike said” G*, he quoted Mike exactly. Then he showed an example that exactly disagreed with the quote. No tricks needed.

            You are now adding qualifications to Mikes statement. That is being tricky.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”Read pages 297 to 300 of this book. He clearly states a two-way transfer”.

            norman…read it more carefully, he is talking about a two way transfer between bodies of the same temperature, as did Kircheoff.

            Also not that he is talking about heat being sent as heat rays and makes no mention of EM. That’s because the EM theory was not developed till 1913 when Bohr proposed it.

            I have read from page 297 through 300 and throughout he is talking about radiation between two bodies of EQUAL temperature.

            As I said to Ian in another post, you need to cut him some slack here. Clausius was obviously not privy to the information we have today regarding EM flow, he thought heat was flowing, as did Boltzmann, Kircheoff, and Planck. There are many people today trying to apply Kircheoff between bodies of different temperatures and all his work with emissivity and absor-p-tion was done at thermal equilibrium.

            In another part of the same book, Clausius talked about two way transfer again but he insisted that the heat transfer must obey the 2nd law. As he described the 2nd law, heat cannot of itself be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body. There is no mention of net energy transfers in his words or in any of his words leading up to the statement.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…”As G agrees, it is very easy for radiation from cold objects to make a warmer object even warmer (like when the warm object has a constant power heater built in)”.

            If this constant power heater, presumably meaning an electrically operated heater of a stated power rating, is driving electrons against atoms in an element like tungsten to raise their temperature, how does EM from a cooler source, raise the tungsten temperature even higher?

            Can you write that out in a formula, so I can steal it and submit it in a paper? I’d likely get a Nobel prize.

            BTW…please not that electrons driven through a resistance produce heat. The heat is not the transfer process from tungsten to the atmosphere, it is the interaction of electrons with atoms of tungsten. Or perhaps with other electrons. May be a quark or two in there, but who cares?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            tim…”Mike, a blackbody sphere with a surface area of 1 m^2 has a 1000 W electric heater built in. The sphere is placed within an evacuated room with blackbody walls held at 300K. what is the temperature of the surface of the sphere?”

            First, note that blackbodies are sheer fiction.

            Second, the equation governing heat transfer in that scenario is S-B:

            q = ebA(Thot^4 – Tcold^4)…(Th^4 minus Tc^4)in case WordPress gobbles the minus sign.

            Nowhere in S-B does it claim heat can be transferred cold to hot, or that cooler walls will make an interior body warmer. In such a case, you are dealing with the rate of heat dissipation which is akin to varying the difference between Thot – Tcold .

            In other words, if you have an internally heated body at 300 watts it’s dissipation rate will depend on the difference between Thot and Tcold. If Th = Tc, the dissipation will stop and the body will warm as you raise Tambient higher.

            It stands to reason that if you cool the walls in your thought experiment, the dissipation will increase and the body will tend to cool. If you increase the T of the walls toward T body, the dissipation will reduce and the body will warm. If the temperature of the walls get even hotter, the heated source should get warmer too and will eventually burn up due to a lack of dissipation.

            You have it exactly backwards.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            He clearly talks about a mutual transfer. You are not reading what he is saying. It does not matter if the object are the same temperature or different.

            Please read barry’s quote from Clausius below. You are wrong and do not represent Clausius at all.

            In barry’s link he describes the mutual transfer between hot and cold objects. You are losing this one but refuse to see the error in your thoughts.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/stormy-april-to-give-snow-job-to-midwest/#comment-298185

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            HERE YOU STATE: “Nowhere in S-B does it claim heat can be transferred cold to hot, or that cooler walls will make an interior body warmer. In such a case, you are dealing with the rate of heat dissipation which is akin to varying the difference between Thot Tcold .

            In other words, if you have an internally heated body at 300 watts its dissipation rate will depend on the difference between Thot and Tcold. If Th = Tc, the dissipation will stop and the body will warm as you raise Tambient higher.”

            First, who is claiming that heat can be transferred from cold to hot? The claim is that energy can be transferred from cold to hot. You may not except it but EMR contains energy. It is measured in joules. When it flows it is in watts (joules/second). When you include area you have a flux (joules/second-m^2). EMR is energy.

            You claim in your second point exactly what I have been claiming. You can call it dissipation decrease, it really does not matter the name you give. The result is exactly the same. Increasing the temperature of the cold body will also raise the temperature of a powered hot body.

            You said it yourself. Weird that you argue against it and then claim it. So you would agree that putting a green plate in front of a powered blue plate will drive the blue plate to a higher temperature because the blue plate cannot dissipate as much energy as it could with no green plate?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”First, who is claiming that heat can be transferred from cold to hot? The claim is that energy can be transferred from cold to hot. You may not except it but EMR contains energy. It is measured in joules”.

            Your understanding of energy is on par with other alarmists who have no idea how heat is transferred and why the 2nd law forbids the transfer from cold to hot.

            There is no transfer of EM from body to body. EM is created at a hotter body when heat is converted to EM, travels through space, and is converted back to heat at a cooler body. That process is not reversible just as it’s not possible for a boulder raising itself onto a cliff or water running uphill on it’s own.

            Electrons cannot flow in a conductor from positive to negative either. There is a potential hill to climb and they cannot do it without outside assistance. Even if you could force electrons toward a negative battery terminal the -ve terminal is full of free electrons that would repel them.

            Same with heat, it cannot flow against a potential hill and that gradient with heat is a temperature difference. A hotter object has a higher thermal energy level than a cooler object, and heat will not flow from a lower energy level to a higher energy level in a solid.

            Heat cannot flow from a cooler temperature to a warmer temperature in a solid and the same is true of radiation. I have even gone to the atomic level to explain why.

            EMR does not ‘contain’ energy, it ‘IS’ energy. It’s an energy that can flow through space or a vacuum. Heat is thermal energy and it cannot flow through space other than by convection, when heated atoms flow as a mass by convection.

            I urge you to get off this alarmists notion of a generic energy that flows. Specify the energy, name it. All energy has names and no energy exists in a generic form.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”You claim in your second point exactly what I have been claiming. You can call it dissipation decrease…”

            In a reply to Mike Flynn you claimed, “I would have little doubt that Clausius would confirm that different temperatures of colder surroundings will cause different temperatures for a powered object”.

            I have no problem agreeing with that statement but you and Tim have it backwards. With an electrically-heated object, cooling the room increases the rate of dissipation and that should lower the temperature of the device, not increase it.

            You have to understand, however, that a heated device like a 300 watt lamp has a natural temperature. Under specified conditions it will run at that temperature. If you increase the temperature of the room beyond the specs, the device may fail. Cooling the room is not as much of a problem unless you tried to run such a lamp in conditions that were too cold.

            In most cases, the cooler the ambient conditions the better, it helps the device run at it’s most efficient and lowest temperature.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…think of an automobile in different temperature conditions.

            In summer, on a hot day, the car may overheat. That is seldom a problem in winter unless you have a clogged radiator. You seem to be implying that a car engine will run hotter in sub-zero temperatures.

    • Svante says:

      The anomaly in that graph is the area between the red and the green line.

      Now a low point has reached the old average.

    • barry says:

      Henk,

      That DMI chart is of temps from 80N to 90N.

      UAH Arctic temps are from 60N to 85N.

      Not the same area.

    • barry says:

      Tsk, temps on the DMI chart have been at normal for a few days. Otherwise they’ve been mostly well above for the past 6 months. And who knows what Henk’s talking about with no anomaly map to compare. Did he get the time frame right, or did he screw that up along with the area?

  40. Mike Flynn says:

    Tim,

    Please quote precisely where Clausius states that ” the radiation from a colder body can raise the temperature of a hotter”.

    You claim he does. I certainly cannot find where he such says such a nonsensical thing.

    You are obviously trying to disagree with something I didn’t say, rather than something I did!

    Typical of stupid and ignorant GHE enthusiasts, who can’t even clearly state the characteristics of their mythical GHE. Can you concentrate on one thing at a time, or are you going to fly all over the shop, blathering about radiators of unspecified size, delivering unknown quantities of heat into your fantasy?

    You like stupid thoughtless so called “experiments”, so here is one –

    Take the infinite amount of heat energy contained in an infinite amount of ice, and create a teaspoon of water from the ice. You have an infinite amount of heat energy available. Just use a tiny bit to melt a teaspoon sized quantity of frozen water. How hard could it be for a brilliant pseudoscientist such as yourself?

    Cheers.

    • Norman says:

      Mike Flynn

      Your incomplete version makes determination not possible.

      HERE YOU STATE: “Please quote precisely where Clausius states that the radiation from a colder body can raise the temperature of a hotter.”

      This can be correct or incorrect depending upon other conditions.

      It would be true to state: The radiation from a colder body can NOT raise the temperature of an unpowered hotter object”

      It is not true to state: The radiation from a colder body can NOT raise the temperature of a powered object.”

      The two are not the same. I read posts by you unscientific, and illogical skeptics and you are not able to understand that there are different situations that do not act the same. If one day you can see the difference you might be able to understand the GHE. Until then (which will probably be a very long, long time) Cheers!

      • Mike Flynn says:

        N,

        I wrote “Please quote precisely where Clausius states that the radiation from a colder body can raise the temperature of a hotter.

        Of course you didnt (and cant) cant, because it is nonsensical!

        Talking about an object with an internal heat source capable of raising the temperature of the body above ambient is irrelevant. The Earth possesses no such internal heat source, as is shown by the fact that the Earth has cooled since creation.

        So try again, and provide the Clausius quote to back up your silly assertion. Of course you cant. Even your nonsense about a body with an internal heat source is equally nonsensical.

        Surround your heated body (above the temperature of liquid nitrogen) with an infinite amount of say, liquid nitrogen, and tell me how much its temperature will increase, if you wish to be loudly derided!

        You cant even describe the GHE in any unambiguous sense. Every time somebody points out a problem, you will try to change your description! Give it your best shot – its called science.

        Cheers.

        • Norman says:

          Mike Flynn

          Are you attempting to be a dunce on purpose? Wow you really lack thinking ability.

          I do waste my time on a dim-bulb like you. Why you post I do not know. You just look really stupid and uniformed. Anyway I guess if you like to look like a silly person you should, by all means post. You don’t know anything about physics and lecture people with your nonsense like they do not understand it. You are the one who fails.

          First idiot point by you (don’t worry most your points are very stupid and at least 90% are dull and boring): “Talking about an object with an internal heat source capable of raising the temperature of the body above ambient is irrelevant. The Earth possesses no such internal heat source, as is shown by the fact that the Earth has cooled since creation.”

          Idiot, the Earth is heated by the Sun, it has a constant supply of incoming energy.

          So you fail big time on that bogus point.

          What other stupid points do you make?
          Here is another one: “Surround your heated body (above the temperature of liquid nitrogen) with an infinite amount of say, liquid nitrogen, and tell me how much its temperature will increase, if you wish to be loudly derided!”

          It clearly shows you are a dim-wit. A better analogy to describe what I am saying would be to first surround your heated body with liquid helium and get a equilibrium temperature. Now having the same energy input to the heated body, surround it with your liquid nitrogen. You don’t think the heated object will be hotter in the second case? Can you logically understand what is being discussed? I don’t think so. You are not a very bright person. You would win awards for boring and dull but I don’t see that you would have to worry that someone might mistake you for an intelligent or thoughtful person.

          Probably your dumbest point: “You cant even describe the GHE in any unambiguous sense. Every time somebody points out a problem, you will try to change your description! Give it your best shot its called science.”

          You pretend to think you know science. That is a true laugh. You are clueless on anything about science. I am not sure you even took high school physics. I think maybe you read part of a Feynman book once in your life but you could never understand what was presented.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”It is not true to state: The radiation from a colder body can NOT raise the temperature of a powered object…”

        What does a powered or unpowered body have to do with it? Raising temperature is raising temperature. EM from a cooler body does not have the capacity to cause heating in a hotter body.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          It is basic and simple math. There is a 1st Law of Thermodynamics that you like to ignore. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but can be converted to different forms of the same thing.

          There is no way for anyone to explain it to you. You have to work to understand it on your own.

          With a non powered object it has so many units of energy. Temperature is a measurement of internal kinetic energy of the particles of the object vibrating. It will lose energy via radiation and cool down.

          If it is powered it has energy constantly added to it. There is not a set amount it. EM from a colder body is still real energy. It will be absorbed by the hotter object and added to the whole amount.

          The warmer the cold body the more EM it radiates and the more IR the hot object will absorb from it. If the hot object is powered it will have two inputs of energy rather than one in unpowered state. Very different situation.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Try it this way.

            Hot object surrounded by colder room but unpowered. The only energy it now receives is from the cold surroundings. It is emitting more than than it is absorbing. Its temperature drops.

            The rate of temperature drop is determined by the temperature of the surroundings. The warmer the surroundings, the more energy the hot object absorbs from them and the less Heat it loses.

            But if it is powered, it has two sources of input energy. The surrounding walls still provide energy but now it has a second source. The temperature will go up.

            It is real easy to see this in reality. Turn on your stove. The burner plate was receiving energy from the surroundings to keep it at room temperature. When you add energy it rises above the energy the room temperature was providing. I don’t think you will understand it. I think I waste my time. It is not up to me to try and teach every Tom, Dick and Harry actual science.

            You believe your fantasy physics. It seems to do something for you.

  41. barry says:

    Clausius revisited his 2nd Law statement in 1854 in his 4th memoir. In this section he describes heat being transmitted from cooler to warmer bodies (“ascending”) as well as vise versa, and qualifies his earlier statements on the 2nd Law:

    On considering the results of such processes more closely, we find that in one and the same process heat may be carried from a colder to warmer body and another quantity of heat transferred from a warmer to a colder body without any other permanent change occurring. In this case we have not a simple transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body, or an ascending transmission of heat, as it may be called, but two connected transmission of opposite characters, one ascending and the other descending, which compensate each other. It may, moreover, happen that instead of a descending transmission of heat accompanying, in the one and the same process, the ascending transmission, another permanent change may occur which has the peculiarity of not being reversible without either becoming replaced by a new permanent change of a similar kind, or producing a descending transmission of heat. In this case the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation for the ascending transmission.

    Now it is to these compensations that our principle refers; and with the aid of this conception the principle may be also expressed thus: an uncompensated transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body can never occur. The term uncompensated here expresses the same idea that was intended to be conveyed by the words “by itself” in the previous enunciation of the principle, and by he expression “without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time” in the original text.

    http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html

    Clusius own words: 4th Memoir 1854

    Simple English: if there is a change in the amount of heat passing from a cooler body to a warmer body (ascending), that must be compensated by a change in the amount of heat passing from the warmer to the cooler body (descending).

    Thus, as Clausius qualifies the 2nd Law: “an uncompensated>/b> transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body can never occur.”

    Which means that heat can pass from cold to hot as long as it is compensated by the transmission of heat from hot to cold. This compensatory transmission is what is meant by (in bold):

    “Heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

    • Norman says:

      barry

      Thanks for the post and link. Very clear to me.

      The cold object does transmit energy to the hotter one. He is very clear in stating this. How Mike Flynn and Gordon Robertson cannot see this means they are so caught up in trying to prove GHE does not exist that they will ignore the easy to read and understand concept.

      A hotter cold item and more energy will be transmitted to the hot one.

      With the atmosphere the complication is that the atmosphere is able to transmit IR through it.

      It would be a situation where you have the blue and green plates close to each other. With our atmosphere and fewer GHG present you get a green plate with many holes in it that the IR can go right through. As you add GHG the holes fill in and you have fewer and fewer until you end up with just the Atmospheric Window that allows about 10% of Earth surface IR to go through without any being absorbed.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Norm, now you are even confusing yourself, AGAIN.

        First the green plate was a black body, then you made it a “heat shield. Now, you are making it into “swiss cheese”!

        You should just make it a “heat source”. Then you could actually heat the blue plate.

        Glad to help.

        • Norman says:

          g*e*r*a*n

          Why do you have an innate need to post things when you can’t follow a conversation. It is a waste of time to explain anything to you. Are you getting your attention fix for the night?

          The green plate is NOT a heat source but it will cause the blue plate to reach a higher temperature. Your point is like a child pretending he knows something. You are a true dork in all ways.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, the ONLY way the green plate can cause the blue plate to rise to a temperature above 244 K, is if it is an insulator of a heat source. But, the green plate is a black body. By`definition, it MUST absorb all IR from a “hotter” source. So, the blue plate can NEVER achieve a temperature above 244 K.

            Here’s the correct solution, again:

            https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/

            You will NEVER understand, and that frustrates you. In your frustration, you must lash out and attempt to insult others.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            “an insulator OR a heat source.”

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            No your solution demonstrates you don’t know anything at all about thermodynamics. It is a made up version.

            I have asked you to support this delusion with some acceptable science and to this day you have provided zilch, nada, nothing.

            If it is the correct solution (NOT) then it should be easy for you to find supporting evidence. If you did the research of barry you would find only that you are completely wrong with your deluded false graphic.

            I will attempt real science with you again. I will hope you take the time to look at the material and understand it.

            http://uspas.fnal.gov/materials/10MIT/Lecture_5.1.pdf

            Page 13 of this lecture goes into the math of a heat shield.

            You should do the math yourself. If you have a black body acting as a heat shield it will reduce the heat exchange by 1/2 (0.5). It is the worst of all heat shields but it still will reduce the heat flow between two surfaces.

            If you have a more reflective material with an emissivity of 0.1 you will reduce the heat flow by (0.026). It will be 20 times better heat shield. But you are not correct in your understanding of a heat shield. Any object placed between a hot and cold surface will act as a heat shield. Sorry real physics does not support you.

    • barry says:

      A hotter cold item and more energy will be transmitted to the hot one.

      Which, according to Clasuius directly above, must be compensated for by the hotter object changing how much ‘heat’ it radiates to the cooler one. “Heat can never pas from a cooler to a warmer body without some other change connected therewith occurring at the same time.”

      It is as has been said all along. The NET flow of heat is always from hot to cold. And there are also discrete exchanges between the two whereby changes in ‘ascending’ heat transfer (cold to hot) must be compensated by changes in ‘descending’ heat transfer (hot to cold).

      And yes, these comments by Clauisus are either ignored or misunderstood by many commenters here. Kristian might quibble over the use of the word ‘heat’, andnot without some justification, but Clausius did not have the language to describe it as Kristian would prefer. And reasonable minds get it without having to overzealously pick semantic nits.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      barry and Norm, what great comedy. It’s almost as funny as “making up” a black body to be a “heat shield”.

      Hilarious.

      (For non-clowns, the mistake barry and Norm make is mis-interpreting “compensation”.)

      • Norman says:

        g*e*r*a*n

        You have yet to explain why you don’t think a blackbody will act like a heat shield. So explain why you think it is wrong or shut-up already! If you have no answers don’t be a dork and act like you do. Either you have valid points or you don’t. So far you have demonstrated nothing except you are a dork that does not have a clue.

        When will you show that you have actual knowledge of physics or will you pretend to be an expert that really knows nothing?

        Your statement: “(For non-clowns, the mistake barry and Norm make is mis-interpreting compensation.)”

        So what is the misinterpretation? I am waiting, with you I will have to wait a long, long time since you don’t know what you are talking about but pretend you do, primarily to get attention.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Norm, a “black body” is different from a “heat shield”. In simple terms, black body absorbs all IR from a hotter source. A heat shield reflects IR from a hotter source.

          Since you have not studied thermo, it is hard for you to understand “compensated”. Maybe it is easier to understand “uncompensated”.

          When Clausius stated: “an uncompensated transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body can never occur”, he is referring to an external source. IOW, “uncompensated” means “without an external energy source”.

          So, to make it easier, Clausius’ statement would be “Without an external energy source, heat can never move from cold to hot.”

          I imagine it can be frustrating, not having studied thermodynamics. Try to understand the actual physics, instead of making up your own versions.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            I am not frustrated at all and what you claim I am saying is not at all what I am saying. You have poor reading skills to match you poor science skills.

            YOU: “So, to make it easier, Clausius statement would be Without an external energy source, heat can never move from cold to hot.

            Valid statement but it has nothing at all to do with the plates example. The blue plate has an external energy source.

            I have told you so many times that I am not claiming HEAT moves from cold to hot. Energy moves from cold to hot and hot to cold. HEAT flow (moving heat) is defined as the NET energy of a surface between what is emitted minus what is absorbed. The emitted energy is a loss of internal energy and the absorbed energy is a gain.

        • Norman says:

          g*e*r*a*n

          Wrong again. I have actually studied much thermodynamics. Not formally in a University class setting but I have read and understood the material from multiple textbooks and other online materials.

          I know more about the subject than you. So what is your point. I know the basics of thermodynamics and can do some simple calculating.

          You don’t know anything at all about the subject and will not read material I link you to. I have not seen even an attempted calculation from you. You call a well established radiant heat transfer equation “silly” and you are unable to use it in any fashion.

      • Norman says:

        g*e*r*a*n

        We have barry who posts a valid point and enhances intelligence. He does good research and finds original ideas of Clausius. Then you have to post your empty childish comments that have zero research and are as dumb as they look.

        HERE IS A SAMPLE OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS BLOG: “Hilarious.

        (For non-clowns, the mistake barry and Norm make is mis-interpreting compensation.)’

        Absolute crap! Pointless, empty and does nothing to enhance knowledge or science. Devoid of a reason to post.

        I like to read barry’s posts as he puts out some effort to gather information. You are not able to do this.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          barry writes well, and is able to communicate his thoughts, unlike you. But, like you, he does not have a solid background in the relevant physics. And, also like you, he is affected by his bias. That makes it hard for either of you to understand the flaws in your beliefs.

          I still have hope for barry.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            You talk about flaws in beliefs of mine (which is not correct, I am going just by the valid established science. It is not a belief nor is my understanding of valid physics flawed).

            You are making judgments about my knowledge of heat transfer. I know considerably more about the topic than you do. You know next to nothing yet judge those with vastly superior knowledge of the subject than yourself. Why do you think that is a wise tactic. You have no knowledge of heat transfer, but you make many declarations as if you were some type of expert. Many of your ideas are in direct opposition to established physics of heat transfer.

            As of this date you still do not support any of your ideas or challenges against mine. You still have to explain why you think a black body will not act as a heat shield. There are others that you refuse to support. I have listed some before. You still support zero of your claims. You just make declarations and hope the readers are too ignorant to realize you have no knowledge of what you speak about. If you did you could support some of it. You support zero. Too bad.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, you just can’t learn. Pounding on your keyboard does not provide any substance. You just make claims that you can’t back up. Like the time you claimed I had no technical training. I offered you a sizable wager, which you quickly ran from.

            The way to turn a black body into a heat shield is exemplified by the blue plate. It has a higher temperature potential, due to the energy flow, so it reflects the IR from the green plate.

            You just remain hilariously trapped by your fascination with pseudoscience, and the worms in your head.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            No you are looking at yourself with our post.

            This is exactly you. “You just make claims that you cant back up.”

            I back up all of my claims with vaild supported tested physics. You make up stuff and can’t back it up. Even in this post you have done so.

            YOU: “The way to turn a black body into a heat shield is exemplified by the blue plate. It has a higher temperature potential, due to the energy flow, so it reflects the IR from the green plate.”

            This is completely made up and unsupported and it actually goes against the established physics completely. It is not even a logical conclusion on any level. Bad pseudoscience coming from you.

            First I told you I am not interested in wagers. And just because you got trained by someone does not mean you have the slightest correct knowledge of heat transfer (which you do not).

            So you speak for yourself with a refection of your poor science. My science is good, my research abilities are good.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Con-man, you wouldn’t even know how to hold a physics book. You have no technical ability. You believe the toy train is rotating on its axis. You can’t even understand basic motions. You probably have to have help to change the batteries in a flashlight.

            But, please continue. It’s fun to watch.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Like I said, no useful content. You make up physics. I challenge you to support it then you divert to some mindless post that is about nothing. I have read more physics textbooks in my life than you. I also have much better reading ability than you. I an read more than 10 words at a time. I can also work to understand the material being presented. You fail on both counts. You do not understand examples in conceptual nature and you demonstrate, on this blog, your inability to read or focus on material for more than a moment. After that it becomes “rambling”.

            You make false and misleading claims of the physics of heat transfer. That a hotter plate will reflect IR from a cooler plate.
            This is make believe physics and unsupported. I support my physics with many links and examples. You support nothing but make up false ideas.

            With you, these empty series of back and forth posts can go on indefinitely with no real point. You will never support your claims but you will go ahead and make them anyway. Then when you are challenged you divert to some unimportant point.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            A lot of rambling, but nothing of substance. Except you did admit that you can not stand by your own words. But, you had to confess only because you got caught. So, that doesn’t count for you being honest. But how many con-men are honest?

            Proceed on, believing that your “Arts” degree means you can understand science.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            If you saw someone else post like you do. Make declarations about something but never support it with any valid science, would you conclude that the person doing this really does not know anything at all about physics. I think you would. That is what you present. You make declarations. When your declarations are challenged you ignore it and divert, call people silly names, and work to get people into long and meaningless exchanges of nonsense.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            When did I admit I could not stand by my own words? Your posts are not just bad science they really don’t make any sense. Can you give an example of me admitting such?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Con-man, you stated numerous times that I did not have any technical-type training. I offered you a wager, to prove to you I did. But, you ran out. You were unwilling to stand behind your own statements.

            You have state numerous times that I “make up” physics. But, you were unable to provide even one example. You can’t stand behind your own statements.

            You may have noticed that I don’t like to use the word “liar”. I NEVER call a person “liar”. No one on a blog could ever get me to lower my standards, to such a level.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            I have clearly shown where you “make up” physics. That you ignore it is your problem not mine. It is a false claim to state I have not pointed it out.

            YOU: “You have state numerous times that I make up physics. But, you were unable to provide even one example. You cant stand behind your own statements.”

            I have said it many times. You ignore it many times. You claim a hotter object will reflect the energy coming from a colder object. That is made up physics. It goes totally against established physics. You are wrong. Prove yourself right. You can’t. It is made up, nothing supports it.

            YOU: “Con-man, you stated numerous times that I did not have any technical-type training. I offered you a wager, to prove to you I did. But, you ran out. You were unwilling to stand behind your own statements.”

            Sorry that is not what I said at all. I said you had no University level heat transfer physics. You don’t have a clue about the topic.

            You could have any type of technical training. I don’t dispute that at all. Find a post where I stated that.

            You could be a retired Oil driller from Oklahoma. That is a technical training but it has nothing at all to do with heat transfer. You may be have been a Air-conditioning repair supervisor, that still does not mean you took University level physics in Heat transfer. So at this time my claim is not incorrect. You show zero level of valid heat transfer knowledge and you are unable to read textbooks.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      barry,

      No mention of how the hotter bodys temperature is raised by virtue of radiation emitted by a cooler one. That would be just stupid, wouldnt it?

      Just as stupid as Gavin Schmidt declaring Hottest year EVAH! due to the magic of CO2 raising the temperature of the Earth!

      Stupid. Ignorant. Gullible. Delusional.

      Keep it up. Maybe you could use lots of heat from lots of ice to boil enough water for a cup of tea in your Warmist fantasy world, but certainly not in the real one.

      Cheers.

      • Norman says:

        Mike Flynn

        YOU: “No mention of how the hotter bodys temperature is raised by virtue of radiation emitted by a cooler one. That would be just stupid, wouldnt it”

        What is just stupid is that you cannot think or understand even simple ideas.

        You do describe your self quite well with this post: “Stupid. Ignorant. Gullible. Delusional.”

        Yes indeed you are all those. You know yourself well.

        You would find it easier to boil water inside an ice cave at 0 C than outside in much colder air of -30 C.

        I walk by an large outdoor IR heating unit. On warmer days it glows dull red. On really cold days you can feel the heat but the heating element is not glowing. Same energy input both days. The energy of the surrounding air interacts with the heating element. When the air is warmer the heating element temperature goes up.

        You have to deny lots of reality to remain in your fantasy bubble. It astounds one to see how delusional people can get when they live in their own created reality. Cheers, you need it! If I had such limited brain power as you I would need all the good cheer I could get.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Norman,

          You still haven’t managed to say how you can raise the temperature of water by surrounding it with ice. Nor have you managed to say how you can make the Earth hotter (as in “Hottest year EVAH!), by surrounding it with CO2 which is colder than the said Earth.

          Blathering about glowing heaters does not explain why the Earth has cooled since its creation, nor why the Earth’s surface cools at night!

          Keep on pretending you can make thermometers hotter with CO2. Let us know if you ever do it anywhere except in your fantasy. Good luck!

          Cheers.

      • barry says:

        No mention of how the hotter bodys temperature is raised by virtue of radiation emitted by a cooler one.

        Clausius says that if the value of the ascending heat transfer (cold to hot) changes, the value of the descending heat transfer (hot to cold) must compensate.

        So, yes, a cooler body effects the rate at which a hotter body loses its heat. If a cooler body gives off more heat to the hotter body, the hotter body must give off more heat to compensate. The only way a hotter body can give off more heat is if it temperature rises.

        I’m glad to see that no one has stuck with the false claim that Clausius says no heat at all passes from a cold to a hot body. He says it quite plainly in the quote above, and elsewhere, too.

        That’s a bit of progress from last time I joined this conversation.

        But let’s really tie off that old misconception by quoting him again:

        On considering the results of such processes more closely, we find that in one and the same process heat may be carried from a colder to warmer body and another quantity of heat transferred from a warmer to a colder body without any other permanent change occurring.

        This is exactly what has been said all along – that there are discrete energy exchanges between hot and cold bodies – something that some here have explicitly rejected.

        In this case we have not a simple transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body, or an ascending transmission of heat, as it may be called, but two connected transmission of opposite characters, one ascending and the other descending, which compensate each other.

        Exactly. Thank you, Clausius.

        Can a change in the amount of heat flowing from the cooler body (ascending) affect the rate of heat flowing from the warmer body (descending)? Turn to Clausius again.

        It may, moreover, happen that instead of a descending transmission of heat accompanying, in the one and the same process, the ascending transmission, another permanent change may occur which has the peculiarity of not being reversible without either becoming replaced by a new permanent change of a similar kind, or producing a descending transmission of heat. In this case the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation for the ascending transmission.

        If the cooler body undergoes a permanent (temp) change, the warmer body must compensate. If more heat is given off by the cooler body, the warmer must give off more heat to compensate.

        Warmer bodies give off more heat if they have a higher temperature.

        If you walk Clausius’ conception here back to the green plate exercise, he obviously would agree that the (warmed) green plate is giving off ‘heat’ to the warmer blue plate, which compensates by giving off heat to the green plate.

        Any change in the heat given from green plate to blue must be compensated by the heat given off from blue plate to green. That’s a direct consequence of Clausius’ own words.

        The point he is qualifying here – the reason he wrote this section – is to reinforce that:

        “Heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time.

        The bolded bit is what people so often overlook.

        Clausius never said heat could pass from a cooler body to a warmer body (he actually says exactly that it can in the quotes above).

        He said that this could not happen without some other change happening at the same time. In the green plate exercise, the associated change is a rise in the temperature of the blue plate, giving off more heat to compensate that received by the green.

        At all times, the NET heat is from the warmer body (blue plate) to the colder one (green plate).

        For those who still think Clausius says no heat at all is transferred from cooler to warmer bodies, there are now numerous direct quotes from him to put that misunderstanding to bed.

        Here’s another for good measure:

        Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.

        https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog

        And another:

        In the first place, the principle [2nd Law of thermodynamics] implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.

        http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html

        There’s no denying that Clausius said these things. There can only be disagreement with him.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          barry, you are very clever. You are a great debater. But in science, you do not just get to spin, twist, and distort reality. That happens in debate, but not in reality.

          In reality, you can NOT raise the temperature of a hot object with a cold object. The green plate can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.

          You get an “A” in debate, but an “F” in physics.

        • barry says:

          Yes, if there is a steady state, whereby the flow between the hotter and cooler body is consistent, a change in temperature of either body must be accompanied by a compensatory change in the other. That is the qualification to the 2nd Law that Calusius expands on in his 4th memoir.

          With this qualification explained – a qualification often overlooked – the green plate exercise works, insulation works, and a whole host of thermal situations where a warmer object gets even warmer when its outgoing heat flow is slowed down by a cooler object, works.

          There’s no more need to dismiss blankets and jumpers as being cooler objects that make warmer objects (live humans) even warmer. Clausius explanation of his qualifying statement in the 2LoT perfectly encapsulates what is happening.

          No more need to deny that ‘heat’ flows from colder to warmer bodies as well as from hotter to cooler. This “simultaneous double heat exchange” is a feature of Clausian physics.

          No more need to deny that the warmth of the (warming) green plate reaches the blue. Clausius is clear on this mutual heat exchange between warmer and cooler bodies. And he says that the blue plate heat flow must change to compensate a change in heat flow from the green.

          I’m not debating a thing. I’m just quoting the father of the 2LoT.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry claims: “I’m not debating a thing. I’m just quoting the father of the 2LoT.”

            Sorry barry, but you are debating. You’re trying to twist physics to fit your mindset.

            You can quote Clausius all you want, but you can NOT misrepresent his works.

            You’re still clinging to your plates. But, the only way you can make your pseudoscience work is to claim that ALL photons are ALWAYS absorbed. That’s what you have to believe to make your incorrect solution to the plates work. Jelly-the-clown believes that. That’s why he believes the Earth is warming the Sun.

            Are you willing proclaim that ALL photons are ALWAYS absorbed? (This is your chance to join the climate-clowns.)

          • barry says:

            Misinterpreted?

            Ok then.

            As you’ve not pinpointed any quotes that have been misinterpreted, let’s take them one at a time and see where you think it goes wrong. See if we can keep the conversation direct and straightforward:

            Do you think that the statements on mutual heat exchange between colder and hotter objects have been misinterpreted?

            we find that in one and the same process heat may be carried from a colder to warmer body and another quantity of heat transferred from a warmer to a colder body…

            …it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well…

            …In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.

            Do you disagree that Clausius is saying heat is exchanged in both directions between hot and cold bodies?

            Let’s clear that up first and then move on.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, you are still playing “debate”. Physics is not up for debate. It’s not about who has time to pound on the keyboard the longest. It’s about the facts.

            I can answer, in one word, to the following. Can you?

            1) Are ALL photons arriving a surface absorbed ALWAYS?

            2) Can a cold object raise the temperature of a hotter object, without external energy?

            See, right to the point–no endless rambling.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Since you jump in on my posts I will reply to yours.

            “1) Are ALL photons arriving a surface absorbed ALWAYS?:” NO

            “2) Can a cold object raise the temperature of a hotter object, without external energy?” NO

          • barry says:

            You said I’ve misrepresented Clausius. I’m holding you to that comment. Let’s start here:

            Do you think that the statements on mutual heat exchange between colder and hotter objects have been misinterpreted?

            we find that in one and the same process heat may be carried from a colder to warmer body and another quantity of heat transferred from a warmer to a colder body…

            …it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well…

            …In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.

            Do you disagree that Clausius is saying heat is exchanged in both directions between hot and cold bodies?

            Or are you going to retract your comment that I misrepresented Clausius?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, here’s one place you mis-represented:

            “So, yes, a cooler body effects the rate at which a hotter body loses its heat. If a cooler body gives off more heat to the hotter body, the hotter body must give off more heat to compensate. The only way a hotter body can give off more heat is if it temperature rises.”

            And, of course your “representation” is FALSE.

            (I noticed you did not answer the two basic questions.)

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”Do you think that the statements on mutual heat exchange between colder and hotter objects have been misinterpreted?”

            Most definitely, taken completely out of the context of which Clausius was speaking, about compensation.

            This cherry pick tells me you had no other reason to read Clausius other than to glean statements that support the pseudo-science behind AGW. Had you read him with intent, it would have become apparent to you that he was taking the time to explain what he meant by ‘by its own means’.

            He was saying essentially that in an uncompensated system like the atmosphere heat can NEVER be transferred from a colder region to a warmer region. The statement from which you cherry picked the mutual heat transfer is in reference to an entirely separate system in which heat is extracted from a cooler body and returned to it immediately.

            That can be done using a compressor, a coolant, a condenser, an atomizing valve, and an evaourator. By allowing a coolant (gas) to compress to a high pressure liquid, give off heat in a condenser to a warmer environment… because as a compressed liquid its temperature is higher than the environment…have the high pressure liquid atomized to a spray…then allowed to expand in an evapourator, where the expansion extracts heat from a cooler region…you can offer such compensation.

            Where do you see such a rig in the sky?

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, since you are anxious to jump in, here’s another question for you.

            Since ALL photons arriving a surface are not ALWAYS absorbed, what determines whether they will be absorbed or not?

            Hint: The correct answer can be as short as one word.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Since ALL photons arriving a surface are not ALWAYS absorbed, what determines whether they will be absorbed or not?

            a*b*s*o*r*p*t*a*n*c*e

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            WRONG.

            (No points for evasion. That’s what people do that don’t know the answer.)

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”Since ALL photons arriving a surface are not ALWAYS absorbed, what determines whether they will be absorbed or not?”

            Bohr explained that in 1913 then Schrodinger applied the math to it in 1925 or so.

            The energy orbitals in the Bohr model were proved by Schrodinger to be solutions to the wave equation. That’s the same old wave equation used with a Newtonian mass/spring system. Schrodinger applied a presumption to the wave equation created by Bohr that the electron had a certain angular velocity based on the orbital distance from the nucleus. They knew the mass of the electron by then and Schroddy treated the orbital in hydrogen as harmonic motion.

            The wave equation has many solutions. The basic solution represents the ground state of the electron. The next solution is the first excited state and so on.

            No one knows if the electron actually orbits the nucleus as in the Bohr model but presuming it does, applying math to it from the wave equation is testable and it works for hydrogen at least. Later on they figured out how to apply the wave equations to atoms with more electrons by making presumptions combined with hit or miss.

            Bohr postulated that an electron can jump to a higher energy level if it absorbs a quantum of energy, E = hf. In order to satisfy that equation the E and the f of the absorbed EM must match the difference in eV between energy levels.

            In a cooler atom (I know…it’s silly to talk about one atom) the energy between orbital levels are lower than between the energy levels in a hotter atom. Also, since frequency, f, is related to the lower energy levels in the cooler atom, neither E nor f emitted from the cooler atom’s electron match the requirements of the hotter atom’s electron to push it up an energy level.

            Your claim that this theory does not apply to the mid-IR region makes no sense. It is known that a larger amount of energy is required to move an electron from ground state to a higher energy level and that required the energy found in the UV frequency range.

            However, the farther the electron gets from ground state the easier it is to jump from outer orbital to outer orbital and the lower energy IR can accomplish that.

            There’s no other explanation for why vibration in CO2 molecules increase with temperature. The vibration is due to the interaction between the electron and the proton in the nucleus. Only the electron can absorb energy to change that.

            That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

          • barry says:

            G,

            As you did not say anything about the statements on mutual heat exchange between hotter and colder objects, I take it you agree that they’ve been interpreted correctly.

            You did not quote anything of Clausius that you thought was misrepresented. Instead, you quoted me. I return to Clausius.

            It may, moreover, happen that instead of a descending transmission of heat accompanying, in the one and the same process, the ascending transmission, another permanent change may occur which has the peculiarity of not being reversible without either becoming replaced by a new permanent change of a similar kind, or producing a descending transmission of heat. In this case the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation for the ascending transmission.

            The ascending transmission is the heat flowing from the cooler to the hotter object. (The descending transmission is the opposite)

            The permanent change which replaces the descending transmission is compensation for the ascending transmission. That’s clear from the second bolded part of the Clausius quote.

            The key part is the last phrase – the transmission from hot to cold compensates for the transmission from cold to hot. That’s exactly what it says. There is no interpretation here.

            The process is not reversible, as Clausius says. Heat cannot flow from cold to hot “without some other change connected therewith occurring at the same time.”

            Clausius is quoted in many places (above) concurring that there is a mutual double heat exchange between hot and cold objects.

            If there is a change in the heat transmission from cold to hot, the flow from hot to cold must compensate.

            This is directly from what Clausius says. No flow from hot to cold without compensation from hot to cold. That’s it as briefly as possible.

            I’ve quoted Clausius in italics above. Tell me what you think he means by his words if not as I’ve put it.

            Deal with what Clausius says. The bit I’ve quoted. Explain it.

          • barry says:

            Amending typo:

            This is directly from what Clausius says. No flow from cold to hot without compensation from hot to cold. Thats it as briefly as possible.

          • barry says:

            Gordon,

            The statement from which you cherry picked the mutual heat transfer is in reference to an entirely separate system in which heat is extracted from a cooler body and returned to it immediately.

            That can be done using a compressor, a coolant, a condenser, an atomizing valve, and an evaourator… Where do you see such a rig in the sky?

            I have read this section several times. You have not.

            This section is not about heat pumps or other mechanics. It is simply a qualification of the 2nd Law. In this section Clauisu clarifies his 2nd Law before proceeding to other matters. The section begins:

            The principle may be more briefly expressed thus: Heat cannot by itself pass from a colder to a warmer body [2LoT]; the words “by itself”, however, here requires explanation. Their meaning will, it is true, be rendered sufficiently clear by the exposition contained in the present memoir, nevertheless it appears desirable to add a few word here in order to leave no doubt as to the signification and comprehensiveness of the principle.

            You are quite right that it is about compensatory heat flows. It simply says that heat cannot flow from hot to cold without a compensatory change in the flow from hot to cold. Further, any change in the transmission in either direction occasions a compensating change from the other direction.

            This section is only about the 2nd Law on first principles, as Clausius says, clarifying it in order to make the rest of the exposition clearer.

            4th Memoir: read it for yourself.

            http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html#anchor_152

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, I know you are a great debater. I know you can write lengthy diatribes, using all kinds of tricks.

            But physics is NOT about debate and tricks.

            I gave you an example of how you were misrepresenting Clausius. Your response was to state that I hadn’t quoted Clausius! No barry, it was YOUR direct quote of how YOU were misrepresenting. Clausius didn’t misrepresent, YOU did.

            Just another debate trick that won’t work with me.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            YOU: “However, the farther the electron gets from ground state the easier it is to jump from outer orbital to outer orbital and the lower energy IR can accomplish that.

            Theres no other explanation for why vibration in CO2 molecules increase with temperature. The vibration is due to the interaction between the electron and the proton in the nucleus. Only the electron can absorb energy to change that.

            Thats my story and Im sticking to it.

            You can stick to it but it is wrong. I have asked you before, find valid science to support your claim. You have not done so to date. Or use math and prove the lower energy jumps are low enough energy to generate Mid-IR. I have gone to a photon energy calculator (I linked you to one) and the energy is about 7 times too low to work.
            You stick to a false narrative but will not support it, that is the definition of dense. Unwilling to change your view even when it is totally wrong.

            The lowest energy for an electron jump generates the near IR which is just below red visible light. Mid-IR is far too low energy to be created by electron jumps. You are wrong!

            The electrons and protons create bond energy. The bond acts similar to a spring tension. The whole atom (all the electrons and the nucleus) moves as one unit. Closer and farther away form the other atoms in the molecule. This is called the stretching motion. In Carbon Dioxide, the Oxygen atom will move closer and farther away from the Carbon atom. This is the vibrational state of the stretching of the bond. The energy is stored in the vibrational motion. A Mid-IR EMR is absorbed and will increase the vibrational energy. The oxygen atom will increase in vibrational energy. The whole oxygen atom moves as one unit (all the electrons and protons). When it gains energy it moves more (either faster or farther away or both). The energy that is absorbed or emitted will increase the vibrational energy or reduce it. That is not a story, that is a fact that is clearly seen in the science. Your story is the fantasy made up version.

            You are wrong but too dense to admit error in your thought process. I try to help but it falls on deaf ears.

        • Norman says:

          barry

          Excellent research. I hope Gordon Robertson stops buy to read everything you have found. It becomes obvious that Gordon did not really read Clausius at all.

          You might have more hope with Gordon Robertson than with g*e*r*a*n

          You will soon find he will never support anything he declares with science of any type. He calls me the Con-man but he should know what one is because he is exactly one. He pretends to be some type of expert. You will find he doesn’t know anything at all about real science.

          Dan Pangburn figured him out. I hope most can realize he is is dud with no real valuable input. He see right through g*e*r*a*n same as I have seen. DAN about g*: “You are wrong presumably because you have never studied heat transfer analysis.”

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Con-man, I have a special edition T-shirt for you. It will help with your obsession.

            Order now.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”Excellent research. I hope Gordon Robertson stops buy to read everything you have found. It becomes obvious that Gordon did not really read Clausius at all”.

            You and barry come across as a couple of twits. I tried to explain to barry in the past that in statistics, context is everything. It’s the same when you misquote a top class scientist and try to change his words to justify the pseudo-science of AGW.

            In barry’s quote, it is a reference to compensation. Clausius is claiming that a heat transfer from cold to hot requires a compensation in which the loss of heat from the cold body is immediately compensated by heat from the hotter body.

            That has absolutely nothing to do with an uncompensated environment like the atmosphere where the GHE and AGW claim a transfer of heat from a colder region of the atmosphere to the warmer surface where the GHGs allegedly got the heat.

            There is no way to compensate the system in the manner to which Clausius refers. It would require a rig like the one used in an air conditioner, and last I noted, there is no motor and extension cord powering a compressor pumping a coolant through the sky.

          • barry says:

            No Gordon,

            Clausius is speaking here only of the 2nd Law, expanding on the meaning of the qualifying phrase

            “…without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

            This is not about heat pumps.

            He makes it crystal clear in the first paragraph in Chapter 7 of his original opus:

            “Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.

            https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog

            “The ordinary radiation of heat” – what about that phrase is confusing? This is not about heat pumps or f.r.i.d.g.e.s.

            Clausius is perfectly comfortable with a mutual exchange of heat between 2 bodies of different temperature as long as the warmer body gives more heat to the cooler body than the cooler body to the warmer.

            Or, as has been said hundreds of times here, heat passes between both bodies, but the NET flow of heat is always hot to cold.

            This is something denied by you and others – that there is discrete energy exchange between both bodies at different temperature. But here Clausius says it, and it is regards “the ordinary radiation of heat,” not heat pumps.

            Sometimes I think you who deny what Clausius says above simply don’t understand what the word ‘NET’ means.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      part 1…..

      barry…”On considering the results of such processes more closely, we find that in one and the same process heat may be carried from a colder to warmer body and another quantity of heat transferred from a warmer to a colder body without any other permanent change occurring”.

      WHY are you guys trying so hard to overturn the 2nd law?

      Once again, you quote Clausius totally out of context after I explained it to you.

      In this statement Clausius is talking about compensation. He stated in his original 2nd law that heat can never, by its own means, be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body. He felt the need to explain ‘by its own means’, which he later explained meant ‘without compensation’.

      You took a statement from his explanation of compensation which obviously meant he was explaining how heat can be transferred cold to hot using methods like we use in modern r.e.fr.i.g.e.r.a.t.ion and air conditioners.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        part 2….

        From your quote…”In this case we have not a simple transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body, or an ascending transmission of heat, as it may be called, but two connected transmission of opposite characters, one ascending and the other descending, which compensate each other”.

        Did you miss the phrase…”which compensate each other”?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          part 3…

          “Which means that heat can pass from cold to hot as long as it is compensated by the transmission of heat from hot to cold. This compensatory transmission is what is meant by (in bold):”

          We all know that, we use the principle in a r.e.f.r.i.g.era.tor or an air conditioner. However, it requires external power, a compressor, a r.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.an.t, a condenser, an expansion valve/atomizer, and an evapourator.

          Where do you see a rig like that in the atmosphere?

          • Norman says:

            barry

            If you return can you site the pages you took your quotes from. Gordon is saying they refer to r.e.f.r.i.g.era.tor. I would like to read the broader material myself.

            I think Gordon is doing what Gordon does. Make stuff up but I would like to confirm he is making it up and presenting it as fact. He like to do that with everything. He makes up ideas and presents them as if they were established fact. I press him to prove his declarations and then he goes off and waits to post the same nonsense again, again with no supporting evidence.

            So if you will let me know the pages so I can read for myself. Thanks.

          • barry says:

            Norman,

            Mo, the references are not about heat pumps or r.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.a.t.i.o.n. That is Gordon’s wishful interpretation.

            THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT

            SECTION XII

            The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.

            1. Subject of the investigation.

            Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.

            https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog

            Page 295

            “Ordinary radiation of heat” – it’s right there in the text. Not heat pumps, not f.r.i.d.g.e.s.

            In the first place, the principle [2LoT] implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.

            http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html

            4th Memoir

            This section of his memoir on Carnot is devoted only to explaining the qualifying phrase in the 2nd Law, which is about the compensatory heat flow that must occur if there is a permanent change in the ascending or descending heat flow.

            In the next paragraph of that section he continues:

            On considering the results of such processes more closely, we find that in one and the same process heat may be carried from a colder to warmer body and another quantity of heat transferred from a warmer to a colder body without any other permanent change occurring.

            “Without any other permanent change occurring” – clearly not about heat pumps and f.r.i.d.g.e.s. Other parts of the memoir apply to the mechanics of reversible processes, but not here. This section explains what is meant by the 2LoT in order to make the following exposition clearer (as Clausius says).

            And if there is any doubt about that, Clausius gives a new iteration of the 2LoT a few sentences later:

            Now it is to these compensations that our principle refers; and with the aid of this conception the principle may be also expressed thus: an uncompensated transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body can never occur. The term “uncompensated” here expresses the same idea that was intended to be conveyed by the words “by itself” in the previous enunciation of the principle, and by he expression “without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time” in the original text.

            The original text being, of course, the definition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:

            “Heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

            The bolded bit is about the compensatory effects he details in the 4th memoir. The bolded bit is what so many people overlook.

            Which is why the mantra repeated ad nauseum by the ill-informed only repeats the first half of the 2nd Law. They just completely don’t see, or acknowledge, or understand the second half of the law.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, that’s another long comment, filled with glamour quotes from Clausius. But, I’m not sure you understand any of it.

            For example, do you understand the bolded part of the quote?

            “without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

            Specifically, what is that “other change”?

          • barry says:

            Ah, good, you’re finally more interested in what Clausius has said.

            Clausius himself answers that question, starting with a re-statement of the 2nd Law, and an explanation of what the qualifying phrase means:

            The principle may be more briefly expressed thus: Heat cannot by itself pass from a colder to a warmer body; the words “by itself”, however, here requires explanation. Their meaning will, it is true, be rendered sufficiently clear by the exposition contained in the present memoir, nevertheless it appears desirable to add a few word here in order to leave no doubt as to the signification and comprehensiveness of the principle.

            In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it. The principle holds, however, not only for process of this kind, but for all others by which a transmission of heat can be brought about between two bodies of different temperature, amongst which process must be particularly noticed those wherein the interchange of heat is produced by means of one or more bodies which, on changing their condition, either receive heat from a body, or impart heat to other bodies.

            Meaning this principle applies equally to colder and warmer bodies. In doubt? Just read the above paragraph again.

            Clausius continues:

            On considering the results of such processes more closely, we find that in one and the same process heat may be carried from a colder to warmer body and another quantity of heat transferred from a warmer to a colder body without any other permanent change occurring. In this case we have not a simple transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body, or an ascending transmission of heat, as it may be called, but two connected transmission of opposite characters, one ascending and the other descending, which compensate each other.

            The transmission of heat both from the hotter to the colder body and vise versa compensate each other.

            It may, moreover, happen that instead of a descending transmission of heat accompanying, in the one and the same process, the ascending transmission, another permanent change may occur which has the peculiarity of not being reversible without either becoming replaced by a new permanent change of a similar kind, or producing a descending transmission of heat. In this case the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation for the ascending transmission.

            The change in the hotter object’s transmission of heat is regarded as compensation for the colder object’s transmission.

            Clausius continues by concluding his explanation of the qualifying phrase (that you’ve just queried) with this paragraph:

            Now it is to these compensations that our principle refers; and with the aid of this conception the principle may be also expressed thus: an uncompensated transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body can never occur. The term “uncompensated” here expresses the same idea that was intended to be conveyed by the words “by itself” in the previous enunciation of the principle, and by he expression “without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time” in the original text.

            If you think I’ve erred in expositing Clausius’ words, please point to Clausius’ words and explain why. Quote his words. Explain his words. Illuminate what he is saying. Make it about him, not me.

          • barry says:

            Here is the short version answer, as you don’t like to read for too long:

            Clausius:

            “In this case the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation for the ascending transmission.”

            The change in the hotter objects transmission of heat is regarded as compensation for the colder objects transmission.

            Basically, any change in the heat transmission of either the hotter or the colder object must be accompanied by a change in the transmission of the other body.

            See the longer post above for more details.

            And quote Clausius to make your points. Go to the source.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            That’s what I thought. You don’t even know what “other change” refers to.

            Hilarious.

            (If you knew, you could put it in 50 words or less. I can.)

          • barry says:

            “…what “other change” refers to.

            If you knew, you could put it in 50 words or less. I can.”

            Great. I’ve been asking for that for several posts now. Do so.

            The “other change” refers to…

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, you don’t know the answer. If you knew the answer, you would have prodigiously promulgated your prose by now.

            So, either provide your answer or admit you do not know.

            Then, I will provide the correct answer.

  42. Mike Flynn says:

    Norman,

    The Sun is not the Earth’s internal heat source. It happens to be external to the Earth.

    This is why it doesn’t heat the surface at night. Possibly in your fantasy, but not in reality.

    You have no comprehension of the difference between an internal and external heat source. Learn the difference, and you will be one up on fumbling bumblers like Schmidt and Mann!

    They are stupid enough, like you, to believe that putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer somehow makes the thermometer hotter!

    What a pack of fools!

    Cheers.

  43. Dan Pangburn says:

    g*.. The blue/green plate problem is a trivially simple problem in heat transfer analysis that any competent Mechanical Engineer can easily solve.

    You are wrong… presumably because you have never studied heat transfer analysis. Or are you merely playing word games between ,,raise the temperature,, vs ,,the presence of the green plate results in the temperature of the blue plate increasing,,. If you were right, the multilayer insulation (mli) widely used on spacecraft to control temperature would not work.

    Even if you have not studied heat transfer analysis, you should have been able to grasp the demonstration here: https://app.box.com/s/wcego4vf3hevzrah43alw83icxgm55xk

    On the plus side, it is (finally) becoming more widely realized that your assessment that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is correct. Humanity has spent trillions in failed attempts using super computers to demonstrate that added atmospheric CO2 is a primary cause of global warming and in failed attempts to do something about it. That monster will not concede easily.

    Less widely noticed is that the comparatively rapid rise in average global temperature since about 1960 correlates with rising water vapor during that period.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      Sorry Dan, but you don’t understand radiative physics.

      Not that I have anything against MEs. I once had 2 of them working for me. One of my best friends, of nearly 30 years, is an ME. So, I have no bias against MEs.

      But, you’re not thinking correctly. By mentioning multilayer insulation, you indicate you have no grasp of the plates issue. MLI is specially designed to REFLECT. MLI is NOT a black body. The blue/green plates are black bodies.

      Eric is even more confused than you.

      Let me know if I can add further clarity.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        g*r…”Not that I have anything against MEs”.

        Neither do I. Every so often, when I get stumped, I call a fellow electrical engineer and ask him a question in an attempt to clarify a related matter. He responds with alarm, asking me why I am asking him such crap. He exclaims, “how the h*** should I know, I forgot it all the moment I graduated”.

        I think it’s safe to claim that much of what we learn at university goes unchallenged. We just accept it as fact because it came from authority figures. It has not been till recently that I have begun challenging ingrained concepts in physics and other sciences. Many of them simply make no sense when closely challenged.

        Norman posted a mechanical engineering textbook recently on heat transfer and I am alarmed at some of the claims. They even touched on global warming, spreading the same old fallacies we have become used to in the modern era. They supplied no proof, just made the claims.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          So I guess you are making the confirmation of what many posters already know. You went OFF the DEEP END. You lost your marbles.

          You started challenging ingrained concepts in physics and science based upon what? Did you do lots of experiments to demonstrate such concepts were not correct? Or did you just conclude it on your own with nothing but your own imagination.

          You said you were alarmed by some claims in a textbook. That is because it does not support your made up reality.

          You demonstrate to all why science is of value and why it must be based upon experiment and empirical data. If not than everyone, a genius in their own mind (like you), comes up with whatever nonsense they think and it becomes a reality based only upon the convictions of their beliefs. You are really lost. I am not sure we can bring you back to reality anymore, especially when you are rejecting established science with no basis at all.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, pounding on your keyboard must be good therapy for you. It probably keeps you from hurting yourself.

            But, it serves no other purpose.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            You are correct, pounding on a keyboard would have little value. Pointing out that a poster is wrong and incorrect in thought process is most useful.

            I guess you think pointing out your flawed science is pounding on a keyboard. Not sure why you think that. You think a lot of wrong things.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Con-man, you keep mentioning “science”, but you’re never able to understand any.

            You couldn’t get the correct answer before, want to try another guess?

            Since ALL photons arriving a surface are not ALWAYS absorbed, what determines whether they will be absorbed or not?

            Hint: The correct answer can be as short as one word.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            How about this one: “Quantum energy of IR photons (0.001-1.7 eV) matches the ranges of energies separating quantum states of molecular vibrations.”

            From this
            https://tinyurl.com/ydate42r

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Con-man, you found a link, but can you understand it?

            For the third time: “Since ALL photons arriving a surface are not ALWAYS absorbed, what determines whether they will be absorbed or not?

            Hint: The correct answer can be as short as one word.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            I do not know what word you are looking for. If you want, what word are you looking for?

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Maybe you are looking for either wavelength or frequency?

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        g*..That explains why you have said some things. You are not competent in heat transfer analysis. You do not even recognize how simple the blue/green plate problem is and are too entrenched in your own ignorance to even grasp the demonstration that shows you are wrong.

        All solids and liquids emit EMR according to the fourth power of their absolute temperature. Because it is shiny, MLI has very low emissivity but it is still emitting EMR according to fourth power. A BB also emits EMR according to the fourth power of its absolute temperature but with an emissivity of one. To get plates blue and green they would be painted and have an emissivity of about 0.9. You are probably calling them black because you are either unaware of the real world or perhaps you thought that would make the problem significantly simpler. It doesn’t. Another thing, the real problem would involve view factors which are ignored. Considering real-world view factors would greatly increase the complexity of a real problem with properties of any enclosure or lack there-of becoming important.

        I have an MSME (in heat/power, including 9 graduate level units in heat transfer), am licensed (retired) and worked my entire career in the aerospace industry which included among many other things, structural and thermal design and analysis of sensors for meteorological satellites (including AMSU). Along the way I wrote and used a successful general purpose 3D static and transient heat transfer analysis program that runs on a desktop computer.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Dan, the blue/green plate involves theoretical black bodies. You don’t even understand the problem.

          But, as you indicated, your lack of experience hinders your ability to understand basic concepts of how photons are absorbed and emitted.

          Likely you will remain confused, but I do enjoy your fear of water vapor.

          More, please.

        • Nate says:

          Dan: “I have an MSME (in heat/power, including 9 graduate level units in heat transfer),am licensed (retired) and worked my entire career in the aerospace industry which included among many other things, structural and thermal design ”

          G: “But, as you indicated, your lack of experience hinders your ability to understand basic concepts of how photons are absorbed and emitted.”

          More evidence that G* is immune to facts and even reality. He seems to not want to be taken seriously.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dan…”If you were right, the multilayer insulation (mli) widely used on spacecraft to control temperature would not work.”

      What does mli have to do with the stupid thought experiment posed by Eli Rabbett featuring the green plate/blue plate? He was told by two experts in thermodynamics that he failed to understand the difference between heat and electromagnetic energy, yet here he is perpetuating the theory that EM and heat are one and the same..

      When Gerlich and Tscheuschner had claimed in a paper related to the 2nd law, that heat can only be transferred from cold to hot, Rabbett (aka Halpern) replied that one radiator in the system was not radiating. He is obviously thoroughly confused as to the difference between heat and EM. He thinks that a one way HEAT transfer must satisfy a two-way EM radiation.

      In a rebuttal, G&T pointed out what should be obvious to any student of science. The 2nd law is about HEAT, not EM. A stupid premise has arisen in the alarmist world that the 2nd law, which is about heat and heat transfer, is satisfied by a mysterious net balance of electromagnetic energy.

      I have recently seen several reference from mechanical engineering textbooks in which they make the same mistake. They talk about heat essentially flowing through the space between objects which is a glaring error.

      Scientists like Clausius, Boltzmann, and Planck can be excused for such an error because the theory by which EM is absorbed and emitted by electrons was not then developed. There is no excuse for such abject ignorance today, especially in a modern mechanical engineering text.

      I have studied electrical engineer and they spread a glaring error of their own, that electrical current flows from positive to negative. Absolute rubbish!!! Electrical current is transported by the electrical charges on electrons and the +ve to -ve flow is purely conventional, based on a mistaken belief in the early 1900s that current was comprised of positive charges.

      In the mechanical engineering texts it is totally apparent that no temperatures have been attached to the bodies. That’s because they are applying the laws of Kircheoff which apply only at thermal equilibrium. They are talking total theory and there is no way to demonstrate their equations using a real experiment. Even the Stefan-Boltzmann equation does not support their theories.

      Rabbett is under the delusion that his green plate can absorb energy from a heated blue plate then re-radiate that energy to raise the temperature of the blue plate. That is the pseudo-science upon which AGW is based.

      The inference is that any EM radiated from any body must be absorbed by any other body. That contradicts Bohr’s theory and the theory of Schrodinger, which is based on the Bohr model for hydrogen. Only EM of a specific frequency and energy can be absorbed by a body and if the energy comes from a cooler body it will not be absorbed.

      The theory as to why comes from atomic theory involving electrons. Put simply, when electrons absorb EM they jump to a higher energy level. In order to push them to a higher level still, thus increasing the heat of the atom, a more energetic EM is required. That EM is not available from a cooler body.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        YOU MAKE this claim: “The theory as to why comes from atomic theory involving electrons. Put simply, when electrons absorb EM they jump to a higher energy level. In order to push them to a higher level still, thus increasing the heat of the atom, a more energetic EM is required. That EM is not available from a cooler body.”

        This is only true for UV, visible and Near-IR. It is false when you think it applies to all forms of EMR.

        You are so clueless of EMR but keep pretending you know what you are talking about.

        What evidence do you have to support your claim that MID-IR (emitted from the blue plate or Earth’s surface) is the result of electron jumping to higher energy levels? You have provided zero evidence for you made up claim. I have linked you to numerous sources stating you claim is incorrect.

        Provide proof! What is your proof that electrons jump orbitals in the emission of Mid-IR? Making declarations based upon your horrible understanding of physics is not proof at all. It is only proof how little you know and how much you think you know.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        GR.. I have no idea where you get some of this stuff from. If engineers get it wrong, things do not work, or break, and sometimes people die. Everything that a working engineer does is an experiment or demonstration of his/her skill.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      dan…”Even if you have not studied heat transfer analysis, you should have been able to grasp the demonstration here:”

      Come off it, Dan, that experiment came from swannie on this blog. I have already pointed out to him that he has a convection problem in one experiment and in the evacuated one his second plate is interfering with heat dissipation from the heated plate.

      There is no proof whatsoever in any of swannie’s experiments that the 2nd law has been compromised. Radiation energy cannot be back-radiated to a heated plate to warm it.

      You mentioned the coating on spacecraft to insulate it from heat loss. All it’s doing is reflecting back EM being radiated off the spacecraft surface. If the spacecraft was not heated from within, all it’s heat would be transferred to the near 0K temperature of space. If you allowed the heated molecules of air in the craft to escape through a hole, you’d not only die of suffocation, you’d freeze to death almost instantly.

      This again is a heat dissipation problem, not proof that a cooler object can radiate energy to a warmer object and heat it further.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        GR.. It has been explained to you many times and you appear to remain incapable of understanding or are just being stubborn.

        First, you must understand that all liquids and solids above absolute zero radiate EMR energy according to the fourth power of their absolute temperature. That happens the same whether there is something warmer (or cooler) around or not. If your mind cannot handle that, there is no hope that you will grasp that putting a cooler object ‘A’ in the path of EMR between a warmer object ‘B’ and an even cooler object ‘C’ will result in the temperature of the warmer object ‘B’ increasing; let alone being able to calculate what the temperature increase would be.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          Dan points out that “cooler” can warm “hotter”!

          He also believes the toy train “rotates on its axis”!

          And, don’t even ask him about water vapor.

          Hilarious.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            g*.. Does not grasp what I said. Claims I said something about toy trains that I have not addressed, and apparently is not aware that water vapor is a ghg. Why are you here? Go away until you have learned something.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Okay Dan. let’s take them one at a time:

            1) Your position was that the Moon “rotates on its axis”. If you have changed your position, please advise. Otherwise, you are incorrect.

            2) You indicate above that two colder objects, A and C, can make the third object, B, warmer. If you have changed your position, please advise. Otherwise, you are incorrect.

            3) If you believe that water vapor, or any radiative gas, can “heat the planet”, you are incorrect.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            g*.. Congratulations you got a perfect score. Three assertions and three things wrong and/or misstated.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Dan, I gave you the opportunity to state you exact position.

            Obviously you want to straddle the fence.

            Hilarious.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          dan…”If your mind cannot handle that, there is no hope that you will grasp that putting a cooler object A in the path of EMR between a warmer object B and an even cooler object C will result in the temperature of the warmer object B increasing;”

          I had hopes for you but you are just as lost as the rest of the alarmists here.

          So I have: B…….A……C

          where B is the hottest object and it was heating C. You claim inserting cooler A in between B and C will cause B to warm.

          Presuming this is in a vacuum with B being independently heated, when it was heating the cooler C initially, before A was inserted, you are claiming back-radiation from C is warming B at the same time radiation from B is warming C. That is essentially Eli Rabbett’s dumb thought-experiment with B the blue plate and C the green plate.

          Now you are inserting a cooler A plate between them, claiming that will warm B.

          Supposing B is heated directly by solar energy. You are claiming we can heat an object to a higher temperature than it is heated by solar energy just by placing an unheated, cooler plate in its vicinity.

          To you and other alarmists, the A plate represent GHGs in the atmosphere while the heated B plate is the surface. That in effect is the AGW pseudo-science. This is Eli Rabbett with his superiority complex trying to play with the minds of those unable to think for themselves.

          You think that the heated B plate will radiate energy to the A or C plate warming them. That is viable, given the plates being in range of the IR from B. However, you guys take it another step. You think radiation back-radiated from A or C can warm the B plate.

          That is absolute nonsense. It’s a contravention of the 2nd law and it represents perpetual motion. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body without compensation.

          Swannie’s last experiment had a blue or B plate in an evacuated bell jar. He measured the heat on the B plate till it stabilized, then he raised another plate close to it. He claimed the B plate warmed due to back-radiation from the raised plate and I disagreed.

          Before the second plate was raised, the heated B plate had formed a thermal equilibrium by radiating EM in a field around it. When the second plate was raised close to the B plate, the plate cut off the B plate’s radiation field. That decreased its ability to radiate energy and it warmed to a temperature it would have reached had that side of the plate been cut off in the first place.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            GR.. So you think I am a warmist. Wrong. My first assessment made public in 2008 still on line at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html .. stated.. The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change. .. That conclusion has since been reinforced and supplemented with discovery of what actually does cause climate change (98.3% match with measured since before 1895).

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            dan…”GR.. So you think I am a warmist. Wrong. ”

            You are actively supporting AGW theory, particularly the part where back-radiated IR from GHGs in a colder region of the atmosphere can be absorbed by the surface and warm it beyond what it is heated by solar energy.

            That’s the basis of Rabbett’s blue/green plate thought experiment.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            GR.. Apparently you know just enough about radiation heat transfer to misunderstand how it works. Perhaps this will help: The energy exchange rate by EMR is directly proportional to the difference between the fourth powers of their absolute temperatures. That is the way it is done in heat transfer analysis. Simple if ‘black’ or ‘gray’ bodies can be assummed. More messy if emissivity vs wavelength must be taken into account.

            2lot is happy because energy flow is from warm to cold.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        dan….”GR.. It has been explained to you many times and you appear to remain incapable of understanding or are just being stubborn”.

        So tell me Dan, what are the qualifications of those advising me?

        My understanding comes from different sources such as a university education in electrical engineering, plus an in-depth reading of Clausius, Boltzmann, Planck, Bohr, and Schrodinger. The people telling me I am wrong are armchair enthusiasts.

        I am eminently qualified to read and understand those authors. I’ve done the math and I have a basic understanding of what they are saying. After reading Clausius very closely, and many times, I find it appalling how he has been misinterpreted over the years.

        One of them, norman, has read through a few engineering texts and associated, cherry-picked Google articles, and has the temerity to tell me I am wrong after I have formally studied advanced physics, advanced math, chemistry (both physical, which is thermodynamics, and general/organic). As part of my electrical engineering education I became deeply immersed in atomic theory, as required to understand the interaction of electrons in semiconductors and conductors. I also covered atomic theory while studying organic chemistry.

        Norman thinks I m making this up. I have gained an intuitive understanding over decades as to how energy operates. Many on this blog use a generic energy as if all energy is of the same kind. Many have not the slightest idea what is meant by kinetic energy.

        Many can’t distinguish between heat and EMR nor do they understand that a molecule is nothing more than two or more atoms bound together by electron bonds. They think molecules have black boxes that emit EMR.

        And here you are trying to tell me the 2nd law does not apply as written and that EMR can warm any body of any temperature upon which it is incident.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          You are making stuff up. I am in complete doubt about your credentials. You can’t even understand the simple inverse square law nor describe it in math terms.

          I have asked you to support your claim, with valid science, that Mid-IR is caused by electron transitions. You have totally failed to do this. All you give are your hair-brained BS that you made up.

          If you studied actual science you would know what it requires. Ideas and theories have to have experimental basis and rigorous math to be considered science. You show zero math ability, little logical thought process and zero empirical evidence.

          You reject established science that is based upon experiment, empirical data, sound math, rational logical thought process.

          Reading your posts you supply zero reason for me to accept your boasts.
          YOU: “I have formally studied advanced physics, advanced math, chemistry (both physical, which is thermodynamics, and general/organic). As part of my electrical engineering education I became deeply immersed in atomic theory, as required to understand the interaction of electrons in semiconductors and conductors. I also covered atomic theory while studying organic chemistry.”

          I see zero evidence that you studied chemistry and you don’t demonstrate even a basic level of math skills.

          • Nate says:

            Gordon, “When the second plate was raised close to the B plate, the plate cut off the B plates radiation field. That decreased its ability to radiate energy and it warmed to a temperature it would have reached had that side of the plate been cut off in the first place.”

            Fine explanation, more or less. Then clearly the Blue plate heating up, as we all agree it does (except G*), does not violate 2LOT.

  44. Svante says:

    Big breakthrough for Gordon up thread:

    “With an electrically-heated object, cooling the room increases the rate of dissipation and that should lower the temperature of the device”

    Revert and the object warms.

    Cold can warm hot, I’ll be darned.

    • g*e*r*a*n says:

      It’s called “refrigeration”, sleazy.

      You’re learning thermodynamics!

      See, it doesn’t hurt, does it?

      • Svante says:

        So if you reduce the refrigeration to space the surface will warm.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          So if you refuse proper understanding of 2LoT you will be a clown.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Yes you are a clown. You lack proper understanding of the 2LoT and refuse to learn what it says. I have linked you to the proper interpretation. You were not able to process the material presented to you.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, just give me one example of what you claim.

            That way, no one can call you a “con-man”.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Since you ask:

            “It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”

            From:
            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

            Okay, it clearly states energy can transfer from a cold object to a hot object. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is for NET energy transfer. This is the same as what Clausius states with his two heat transfers. barry understands, you do not.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            See Norm, you are clearly wrong. I understood that quote long before you ever provided it.

            Your problem is that you and barry want to mis-interpret it. You want to claim that means cold can “raise the temperature” of hot. That’s where you are wrong, AGAIIN.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Again I think you are stuck on one path.

            I might have explained it already 100 times to you, not sure.

            If you have a powered object (which I demonstrated in an actual case with lab equipment) changing the temperature of the cold surroundings changes the temperature of the powered object.

            If you increase the temperature of the colder surroundings, even though still colder than the heated object, the temperature of the powered object goes up.

            It does this because of simultaneous action, described in the quote, of energy exchange. The hot object is exchanging energy with the cold surroundings. The hot object is emitting energy to the cold surroundings and absorbing energy from the cold surroundings. The higher the temperature of the cold surroundings, the more energy the hot object is able to absorb from them. With the same input power, the object will increase in temperature when the temperature of the surroundings increases.

            With GHG you have DWIR, without GHG you have none.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Sorry Norm, but you are just conning yourself, AGAIN. In your silly example, you have a “powered object”, and you also increase the ambient temperature. Then, you claim the increase in temperature “proves” the GHE!

            You’re going in circles. You’ve increased the ambient temperature, so what would you expect?

            Your tangled concept of physics is scary.

            But, fun to watch.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Adding GHG to an atmosphere would be equivalent to increasing the temperature of surroundings. Before GHG are introduced the radiant temperature of the atmosphere would be the same as outer space. When you add GHG the radiant temperature of the atmosphere goes up considerably (note I am stating radiant temperature NOT measured temperature).

            If you have an atmosphere at 270 K with no GHG at all, it will not have much of a radiant temperature. N2 and O2 do emit some IR but it is several times less than GHG. If you add GHG you suddenly have a very strong radiant temperature. The emissivity of the atmosphere is over 90% so at 270 it will emit lots of IR. Big difference.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            That is INCORRECT, Norm.

            Adding CO2 to a system adiabatically would NOT raise the temperature of anything. You are STILL trying to treat CO2 as a heat source. You don’t understand physics, and you can’t learn physics.

            But, it’s fun to watch. Please continue.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            YOU: “Youre going in circles. Youve increased the ambient temperature, so what would you expect?”

            I expect exactly what I said will happen. The hotter object will absorb energy from the ambient temperature. That is why its temperature will rise when you increase the surrounding temperature.

            Not me who is confused here. You have made the claim (unsupported and unproven) that even though a colder object radiates to the hotter item, none of this energy can be absorbed (of course this is not based upon anything but your own belief on how things should work).

            So you are at a loss to explain how increasing the temperature of the surroundings could increase the temperature of the powered object. If none of this energy can be absorbed, it does not matter what temperature it is (as long as it is colder than the hot object).

            In your explanation of heat transfer, increasing the temperature of the surroundings should have zero effect on the hot object, it should only raise the temperature of the surroundings. That is your claim, are you changing it now?

        • barry says:

          Well spotted, Svante. It’s amusing when some of the critics here unwittingly confirm what’s been said but jump back in fright when that’s pointed out.

          “With an electrically-heated object, cooling the room increases the rate of dissipation and that should lower the temperature of the device”

          Well done, Gordon.

          And yes, the inverse will occur, as you said, Svante. A cooler object (the air in the room) can cause the electrically heated device to get warmer if the air becomes warmer.

          Because the temperature of the air affects the rate of heat loss from the electrically heated object.

          So straightforward, and yet so difficult to admit for the wannabe sky-dragon slayers.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, someday maybe you will learn something about thermodynamics. Then, you might be able to answer what “other change” refers to.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”With an electrically-heated object, cooling the room increases the rate of dissipation and that should lower the temperature of the device

            Well done, Gordon.

            And yes, the inverse will occur, as you said, Svante. A cooler object (the air in the room) can cause the electrically heated device to get warmer if the air becomes warmer.”

            ********

            You guys should stick to things you understand. Your last statement makes no sense whatsoever. The cooler air in the room does not cause an electrically heated device to get warmer it’s the warm air that causes warming due to reducing heat dissipation after you raise the room temperature.

            The increase in room air a few degrees cannot warm a transistor junction running at 200C. If the room is cooler, the heat dissipation in the transistor increases and the device cools, due to a cooler room. When you warm the room, the device warms due to it’s rate of dissipation being reduced.

            The device is not warming due to room air, it’s warming because it is harder for it to move heat away from the junction in a warmer room. The room air per se has nothing to do with the electrical current that determines the temperature of the device.

            Under ideal conditions in a room at 25C, a certain current through a power transistor warms the main emitter/collector junction to temperatures of 200C. If you don’t remove the heat, and fast, the junction will burn up. If you cool the room, S-B tells us more heat is dissipated due to a larger temperature gradient.

            The thing to note is that the transistor WARMS ITSELF due to the current it is carrying. Same with any electrically-heated device. The current through the resistance in the device causes the heat and you cannot warm a heater element running at several hundred C by placing a cooler device near to it.

          • barry says:

            Gordon,

            You poor dumb, silly, denying reprobate.

            In response to my post you wrote:

            The cooler air in the room does not cause an electrically heated device to get warmer its the warm air that causes warming due to reducing heat dissipation after you raise the room temperature.

            That’s EXACTLY what I said in the penultimate sentence of the post you responded to.

            Because the temperature of the air affects the rate of heat loss from the electrically heated object.

            So ideologically moribund you don’t even realize we’ve said the same thing.

            You poor, wannabe dragon slayer. Despite your best efforts, you are better informed than those idiots, and keep agreeing with the obvious, even though you want to deny the GHE.

            Funny and sad at the same time. My hunch is that you are ancient and losing it. It’s the only way I can understand these chasms in what is said and how you respond.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            barry, is there an outbreak of rabies in OZ?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…reply below…new post

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      svante…”With an electrically-heated object, cooling the room increases the rate of dissipation and that should lower the temperature of the device

      Revert and the object warms.

      Cold can warm hot, Ill be darned.”

      *******

      Do you find that astounding? If you warm a room, an electrical device warms too. I have worked with that principle for decades. When you have an electronics power device, you need to supply adequate ventilation and keep it in as cool an environment as possible. In serious computer environments they use air conditioning to keep the rooms cool. According to norman and tim, the a/c would cause the computers to warm.

      That’s not what norman was claiming, or tim, they both claimed a colder device can cause a warmer device to warm. When norman came up with that notion initially I explained to him that the device in questioned warmed when you moved the ambient room temperature closer to the device temperature.

      I explained it as stifling the heat dissipation from the warmer device. If you don’t understand that issue you will fool yourself into thinking a colder nearby device is causing the hotter object to warm.

      Power semiconductor devices are rated with an ambient temperature. Internally, they run as hot as 100C to 150C and that heat is due to current in amps running through the devices.

      The 2N3055 is a famous bipolar junction power transistor and it’s max temperature is rated at 200C based on a heat dissipation of 115 W at 25C. The maximum current it can carry is 15 amps. Through an 8 ohm resistive load that comes to 120 watts of audio power.

      Those transistor are not run anywhere near that load capacity, they are run in a push-pull, Class AB1 arrangement where one transistor carries half the output cycle and the other transistor working in conjunction amplifies the other half cycle.

      If you have that transistor running at it’s rated maximum current, at 25C, it will produce 115 watts of heat. The trick is to dissipate that heat as quickly as possible. If you run it without a heat sink…not advisable…and you aim a large fan at it, the device will run cooler since you are dissipating the heat faster. If you drop the room temperature to 0C, it will run much cooler.

      Suppose at 0C the ambient room air is dissipating heat so that the transistor junction cools and the transistor is dissipating heat at 100 watts. The transistor is running cooler. Then you crank the room temperature to 25C, where the transistor is running hotter.

      Sure, the device got warmer but that’s because it was running cooler with a cooler room. It was able to dissipate more heat at 0C than it could dissipate at 25C.

      All of this falls under the 2nd law. No two way heat transfer. The heat is flowing only from the transistor to the environment. Adding a cooler device near by only results in the cooler device getting warmer.

      • barry says:

        Do you find that astounding? If you warm a room, an electrical device warms too.

        Hallelujah!

        There it is right there.

        And watch. Wen i point it out, Gordon will run away from it.

        A warm electrical device will warm if a cooler ambient room temperature gets warmer.

        Gordon knows this.

        It’s not about heat pumps or r.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.a.t.i.o.n. It’s about the ordinary flow of heat between cool and warm objects/environments.

        But now watch as Gordon tries to disown the fact that he just said a cooler object that gets warmer, can warm a warmer object.

        Run, Gordon, run!

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          barry, you keep making the same mistake. You keep trying to add heat to a system, then claim that “cold” is warming “hot”. It doesn’t work that way.

          You’re just tangling yourself up in your own web.

          It’s fun to watch.

      • Svante says:

        I quote you and you say no.

        Then you say the same thing twenty times.

        Temperature of a powered warm object is influenced by its cold surroundings. Up or down.

        If a cold object is introduced it is part of the surroundings, no problem.

        I think your 2N3055 is toast, 15 A through 8 ohms is 1800 W.

        • g*e*r*a*n says:

          sleazy, maybe you would like to help barry. He has been unable to answer a question about one of the quotes he found. Here’s the quote:

          “Heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

          The question is: “What does “other change” refer to?

          Both barry and the con-man are stumped. They could sure use some help.

          • Svante says:

            That would be work.

            heat: The energy transferred from one system to another by thermal interaction.

            work: The transfer of energy by any process other than heat.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Well, svante finally answered.

            Actually energy, in the correct form, is the more correct answer. “Work” fits into that category.

            It’s interesting that barry did not know the correct answer. He tries to mis-represent Clausius, while denying he is mis-representing Clausius!

            It’s fun to watch.

          • Svante says:

            barry knows more than the two of us together, if he disagrees we are most likely wrong.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            sleazy, you don’t know enough to know how little you and barry know.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • Svante says:

            It’s fun to watch you.

  45. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry…”Clausius is speaking here only of the 2nd Law, expanding on the meaning of the qualifying phrase

    without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time.

    This is not about heat pumps”.

    **********

    Your understanding of Clausius is seriously lacking. you claim to have read him yet you fail to get his point about compensation.

    It’s not based on heat pumps, it’s based on the Carnot heat engine, a theoretical interaction between pressure, temperature, and volume. If you had read Clausius as you claim, all his stuff, you’d have been required to wade through a lengthy section on heat engines. He developed that theory before stating the 2nd law in words. Prior to that, he developed an in-depth mathematical theory of work then related work to heat and energy.

    When he made the statement about the 2nd law, that heat cannot ‘by it’s own means’ be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body, he immediately veered off to explain what he meant by the phrase ‘by its own means’. He later called it compensation but the part you cherry-picked was him explaining what he meant by compensation.

    He was claiming essentially, that heat can be transferred both ways if an external system is set up, such as in the modern fridge, to allow that. You have quoted him out of context and you are claiming he agrees with your pseudo-science about a net transfer of heat occurring naturally without compensation..

    You are bending his words to fit them into the pseudo-science behind AGW. You have done it before when I claimed the IPCC announced no significant warming from 1998 – 2012, calling it a warming hiatus. You came back with bs about the length of a flat trend.

    When NOAA went back and fudged the data the IPCC called a warming hiatus, and I pointed you to an admission from them that they had slashed 75% of their reporting stations, you called me a liar.

    Keep it up Barry, there are scientists and interested parties reading Roy’s blog and they’ll get to see the lengths to which you alarmists will go to obfuscate science.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      It is far more likely barry is correct in his understanding of Clausius words. You are the one who makes up stuff.

      In the link I posted it certainly looks as if Clausius believed in a two-way energy transfer going on.

      You are making up your own reality again.

      Empirical evidence shows a two-way energy transfer going on.

      https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5ad96762d09e2.png

      One sensor is pointed to the ground and picks up a signal that is converted to W/m^2. A different sensor is pointed up and gets a different signal.

      You are just wrong and make stuff up. Reality shows you don’t know what you are talking about. You make it up but it is wrong.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        Norm, here’s another example of how little you understand about the relevant physics.

        You keep linking to that graph, believing it “proves” the GHE. You keep linking. And you keep believing. It’s fun to watch.

        But, you don’t even understand that simple graph. You couldn’t even answer some basic questions about it. For example:

        1) Does that graph prove the atmosphere is warming the surface, at that location?

        2) Is all the energy at that location being accounted for?

        3) A quick “eyeball” average of each trace is upwelling = 420 W/m^2, downwelling = 270 W/m^2. Does that mean the surface is emitting 150 W/m^2 more than it is absorbing?

        Hint: If you knew anything about physics, you could answer each question in one word.

        • Norman says:

          g*e*r*a*n

          1) NO
          2) NO
          3) CLOSE TO (Earth does not absorb 100% of the IR reaching its surface, the amount absorbed is in the upper 90%)

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Then that means 10% “bounces” up. That gives 27 up, and 150 up.

            So you’re saying 177 W/m^2 leaves Earth’s surface?

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            After thinking of it more I would say 3) Is YES.

            The sensor pointing to the Earth is measuring both the emitted and the reflected IR (from the atmosphere). It is already taken into the sensor. The amount given you the sensor is the total energy leaving the surface.

            In your case. The sensor reads 420 if you use 10% it would mean the Earth is emitting 393 and reflecting 27.

            The amount of DWIR the Earth would absorb in your case would be 243. so the surface would emit 150 more than it absorbs regardless of its ability to absorb. The sensors take care of that issue.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            The question was: “Does that mean the surface is emitting 150 W/m^2 more than it is absorbing?”

            The CORRECT answer is “No”.

            The surface absorbs a lot of solar, during the day. The shorter wavelengths are not included in the infrared measurements. And, as I’ve already explained, the various fluxes can NOT be added/subtracted arithmetically.

            So, the surface is NOT emitting 150 W/m^2 more than it is absorbing.

            You’re lost in your pseudoscience, AGAIN.

            But, it’s fun to watch.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            You have stated Fluxes cannot add or subtract. I find no convincing evidence for you to support this declaration. A flux is joules/second-m^2. They are in the same units. They can be added or subtracted.

            If you study any Thermodynamic Textbook you will have multiple sample problems at the end of each chapter. In the sections covering radiant energy heat transfer you will see they often use examples with more than one emitting surface. The equations get rather complex. In order to solve the problem you need to have all the view factors calculated in, and all the temperatures of each radiating body. The fluxes are indeed added and subtracted. I am not sure what is your source for this declaration. I would not find it in any valid textbook on heat transfer.

            The correct answer would not be NO or YES for 3). During the night the answer is YES. During the Day the answer is NO.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            You just can’t learn the intricacies of photons by a quick web search. You have been going down that wrong path for years. Had you actually been listening to me all this time, rather than trying to viciously attack me, you would likely know something by now.

            Only fluxes from identical surfaces could be added/subtracted. To add/subtract different fluxes you would indeed need a lot more information. You could not add fluxes if you did not have the necessary information. And, even with the information, the math would go well beyond basic arithmetic.

            A lot of people are confused that quantities with the same units (Watts/m^2) could be incompatible. As you indicated, fluxes have the same units, so why couldn’t they all be treated the same?

            Think of it this way. There is a coke machine that only takes quarters. The price for a coke is 50 cents. But, you don’t have two quarters. You only have 50 pennies. You have the correct amount, arithmetically, but it is not the same as two quarters. You have the exact amount, and it’s all the same units (dollars.), but the coke machine only take quarters. You are out of luck.

            Different fluxes don’t add/subtract. You are out of luck if you believe they do.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Also, the CORRECT answer to #3 is STILL “No”.

            The question specifically mentioned the average. So, you are just trying to find a way you can be right, rather than learning.

            Learning is better, but some just can’t do it.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Since you stipulated average and are including other fluxes I would agree with the NO in context of how you described the question.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            On your point: “Only fluxes from identical surfaces could be added/subtracted. To add/subtract different fluxes you would indeed need a lot more information. You could not add fluxes if you did not have the necessary information. And, even with the information, the math would go well beyond basic arithmetic.”

            Yes it does depend on the fluxes. If the fluxes are in different bands you could have a very different result. For instance, snow is a very good IR emitter but is very poor at absorbing SW. If your energy source was SW you could have a lot of energy striking the snow surface yet it could still cool as it emitted considerable IR.

            But if you deal with the just the IR band of energy the fluxes will add and subtract in basic math fashion.

            If you want to take the time to look, on this link scroll down to Example 10.10. It covers heated stainless steel plates radiating to a cooler copper plate. If you look at the equations they are all basic math. The fluxes are adding and subtracting.

            https://wiki.epfl.ch/me341-hmt/documents/lectures/slides_10_Radiation.pdf

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman….”If you look at the equations they are all basic math. The fluxes are adding and subtracting”.

            And they are all wrong. For one, he is trying to apply Kircheoff and Kircheoff only applies at thermal equilibrium. For another, he is applying Stefan-Boltzmann simultaneously while ignoring the 2nd law.

            If you have S-B one way (hot to cold) as q = ebA(Th^4 – Tc^4) you cannot take the same equation and apply it cold to hot to infer a heat transfer in that direction. In the first case, the hot body is Thot and higher than Tcold, so the 2nd law is confirmed. In the 2nd case, you cannot reverse Thot and Tcold so EM is flowing cold to hot.

            I don’t know where this pseudo-science is coming from but somewhere along the line someone got seriously confused over Stefan-Boltzmann and learned it wrong. The only possible application of such a two way flow is at thermal equilibrium.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            You are an excellent example of why, in the world of science, one should not deviate from the path and make up their own ideas.

            Yours are just wrong on multiple levels and you are clearly demonstrating you do not have a clue about anything dealing with heat transfer. You don’t even understand Clausius but make up stuff about what he states. Time for you to end your wandering in the wilderness and come back to reality.

            HERE YOU DEMONSTRATE YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING: “If you have S-B one way (hot to cold) as q = ebA(Th^4 Tc^4) you cannot take the same equation and apply it cold to hot to infer a heat transfer in that direction. In the first case, the hot body is Thot and higher than Tcold, so the 2nd law is confirmed. In the 2nd case, you cannot reverse Thot and Tcold so EM is flowing cold to hot.”

            You actually can reverse the equation. If the heat flow (q) is positive, it just means the surface is losing heat (cooling). If the heat flow is negative it means the surface is gaining heat (warming). The heat flow of both surfaces can be found with this equation.

            Also EMR does flow from cold to hot. Your declarations that it does not will not change reality. I gave you empirical data demonstrating that EMR moves from cold to hot. Your irrational denial of reality is okay. It shows people how making up your own physics does not work. You are a poster child for young people entering science and clearly showing what happens when you make up and follow your own ideas.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Norm, you’re conning yourself again. You refuse learning. You search the web for something you believe supports your bogus beliefs.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Your post is not exactly correct. You are wrong about me. I do not refuse to learn, I love learning. Always have. I only refuse to learn someone’s made up versions of science.

            If you have an experiment that proves your view, that would be something of value.

            If you link to established physics, I will love to learn the material. If you make unsupported declarations and then state my view is pseudoscience and wrong then prove it. That is what science is all about. Link me to physics sites, I will read the material.

            If you just make declarations based upon nothing (such as a hot object cannot absorb any radiant energy from a colder body) just accepting that your idea is the correct one, and the established physics is wrong, is not learning at all. It is following blindly the words of someone who declares ideas with no supporting evidence. This in opposite of science.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Not right, Norm. You do NOT “love learning”. You avoid learning. That’s why you have not increased in knowledge in years. If it doesn’t fit your beliefs, you run from it. Just as you have done here.

            Even with my clear explanation, you STILL want to believe you can add/subtract fluxes. You can NOT add/subtract fluxes, except in very special situations. Earth is NOT one of those special situations. You don’t want to believe that, because it ruins your belief that CO2 is “heating the atmosphere”.

            I finally got you to admit that ALL photons are not ALWAYS absorbed. But, you avoided answering my question about what determines whether or not photons will be absorbed. Your “answer” was a question! You want to avoid the truth, because it will ruin your beliefs.

            You have tried to turn the green plate into something other than a black body. Because you do not want to know the truth. You have tried to change the definition of “rotating on its axis”, because you can’t admit that the Moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”.

            You use all of your effort to run from the truth. You ask for a link, but if anyone actually provides a link, you only find someway to confuse the issue. There is no evidence that you have ever changed ANY of your pseudoscience. All of the climate-clowns use the same techniques.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • Snape says:

            g*

            “3) A quick eyeball average of each trace is upwelling = 420 W/m^2, downwelling = 270 W/m^2. Does that mean the surface is emitting 150 W/m^2 more than it is absorbing?”

            Looks like like you think the 150 is a response to the day’s solar heating, and the 270 is just reflected?

            ***********************

            So now a thick layer of clouds roll in. Downwelling increases to 300 W/m^2
            Your logic implies the upwelling should increase to 450 W/m^2, correct?

            I’m confident that would not be the case, because the surface would then be cooling at the exact same rate (150 W/m^2) whether the sky is clear or cloudy.

            **************
            Or try this thought experiment:

            remove the atmosphere at night, so that the downwelling is close to zero. In your twisted logic, rate of cooling is would still be 150 W/m^2, exactly the same as WITH an atmosphere.

          • Snape says:

            Another way to demonstrate your flawed reasoning: Find the temperature of the surface in question, then using S-B, calculate the watts/m^2 that should be emitted. If you are correct and the 270 is simply “reflected”, then the calculated emission rate, based on temperature, should be atound 150 W/m^2.

            IOW, the emitted radiation based on surface temperature + reflected energy from the sky (you say this is 270 W/m^2) should ~ equal the observed 420 W/m^2 upwelling.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Do you have to be wrong with so many things? Why?

            First you claim I don’t like to learn. That is false and I have learned quite a bit in the last few years on heat transfer. I get my information from valid science. Textbooks and things. Because I don’t accept your declarations (with no supporting evidence) you conclude that means I don’t like to learn. I like to learn the science, the actual valid material.

            YOUR STATEMENT IS FALSE: “I finally got you to admit that ALL photons are not ALWAYS absorbed.” I have never said all photons are always absorbed. You did not get me to admit anything since I have never made such a statement.

            You have yet to prove you assertion that fluxes do not add or subtract. I have given you a valid problem from textbook material that clearly shows that IR fluxes do indeed add and subtract. You have not provided any supporting evidence for you belief.

            Finally, you do not provide links to valid science because there are none that support you. I provide links to valid science often. I can’t help it if you are unable or willing to learn the real material. You love your pseudoscience too much to let it go. It is not real g*e*r*a*n. It is made up. It has zero support. That is why you can’t link to any real science to support anything you claim. You never will be able to because your ideas are not real. They are made up fake physics. Mimics real physics but has zero empirical or experimental support.

            No planetary scientist will agree with you that the Moon does not rotate on its axis. You have a unsupportable belief and you think any one who does not agree with you fantasy ramblings does not understand science. Sorry that is not how science works.

          • g*e*r*a*n says:

            Con-man, when I teach you physics, you reject it. You reject reality. In your reality, the toy train is “rotating on its axis”.

            You have no clue, as you claim to be “intelligent”.

            It’s fun to watch.

          • Norman says:

            g*e*r*a*n

            Sorry you are NOT teaching physics. You can far better teach physics by linking people to valid physics and then explaining in simpler terms or analogies of what is being stated.

            You declare ideas of yours with zero supporting evidence. You state things as if they are fact. I do not see any of your declarations being expressed in any valid science material. I see the opposite.

            If you would want people to learn physics, support you ideas like any good scientist would. If you ever read an actual research paper, the Author does not just state their own ideas. They support their ideas with numerous links to valid science. Check it out sometime.

            You are not teaching physics. You are declaring made up ideas and expecting everyone to be amazed at your genius, so much so that they don’t read actual physics and realize you just make stuff up and hope no one looks it up.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”Empirical evidence shows a two-way energy transfer going on”.

        Norman…nothing on that graph about absorp-tion, neither up nor down. Prove that any of the down-dwelling IR is absorbed.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Nor does it prove it is not absorbed. We are not talking about being absorbed at this time. You don’t think there is a two-way flow of energy (radiant IR) and this graph proves you wrong in that false belief.

          Now what science (not your opinion) proves that the IR will not be absorbed based upon the Earth’s surface ability to absorb IR.

          I have already told you why your stupid and made up idea is not valid. Your claim is the electrons in the hotter Earth’s surface are all at higher energy levels and cannot receive the energy from a colder atmosphere. Where do you have evidence for this lunatic assertion? You made it up and that is all you can do. Prove your lunacy or quit posting it. Get evidence to support it, I tire of your endless repetition of things you don’t have a clue about.

          This video might explain what is going on.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=FWgQrWwZrqQ

    • barry says:

      No, Gordon,

      Clausius 4th memoir spends some time revisiting the fundamentals of the 2nd Law before delving into Carnot physics. Clausius says:

      This principle, upon which the whole of the following development rests, is as follows:

      Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.

      Everything we know concerning the interchange of heat between two bodies of different temperature confirms this; for heat everywhere manifests a tendency to equalize differences of temperature, and therefore to pass in contrary direction, i.e. from a warmer to colder bodies. Without further explanation, therefore, the truth of this principle will be granted.

      The principle may be more briefly expressed thus: Heat cannot by itself pass from a colder to a warmer body; the words “by itself”, however, here requires explanation. Their meaning will, it is true, be rendered sufficiently clear by the exposition contained in the present memoir, nevertheless it appears desirable to add a few word here in order to leave no doubt as to the signification and comprehensiveness of the principle.

      What follows that introduction is nearly everything I’ve quoted above.

      Contrary to your wished for context of Carnot engines and whatnot, this section is devoted precisely to enunciating the particularities of the 2LoT that Clausius figured needed clarifying in order to address the Carnot physics.

      The bolded bit exposits clearly – Clausius wants to remove doubt as to the general application of the 2nd Law. What follows is what I have quoted numerously above.

      Your reading comprehension is crap. To put it mildly.

      Remove the blinkers. Read again. Improve understanding.

      • g*e*r*a*n says:

        barry, have you figured out what “other change” means, yet?

        If you knew that that refers to, it would help you to understand how silly you look.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”The bolded bit exposits clearly Clausius wants to remove doubt as to the general application of the 2nd Law”.

        *******

        Can it be any more clear???

        He said, according to your quote…”Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”.

        He was not talking about the application of the 2nd law, he was clarifying what he meant initially by ‘by its own means’, a phrase he immediately referred to as compensation.

        If you regard the situation where GHGs in a colder region of the atmosphere are radiating to the warmer surface, Clausius is claiming heat can NEVER be transferred from those cooler GHGs to the surface. He is claiming that in order for that to take place, another related mechanism must be in place to enable it.

        We know what that means. If we want to extract heat from a cooler room in a home to a warmer exterior environment, with an air conditioner, to make it even cooler, we must set up a complex system to enable it. We must compress a gas to a high pressure liquid so it’s temperature rises, run it through a condenser so it can vent the heat to the atmosphere, run the high pressure liquid through an atomizer, then run the spray through an evapourator.

        In the evapurator, in the room, the atomized high pressure liquid loses pressure further, and as it does so it cools and extracts heat from the room.

        You have no such mechanism in the atmosphere. In the atmosphere, the basic part of the 2nd law stands, ‘heat can NEVER be transferred from a colder region to a warmer region’.

        In both the GHE and AGW they have taken license with that statement WHICH APPLIES ONLY TO HEAT TRANSFER. They have equated it to the emission of electromagnetic radiation flowing between bodies of different temperature and presumed the EM must be absorbed both ways. Then they have claimed a positive NET balance of EM energies can satisfy the 2nd law.

        Sorry…it can’t. The 2nd law is about a one way HEAT transfer under conditions in the atmosphere and a two way EM exchange contradicts that law. The only way to satisfy the 2nd law in that case is to have the EM from the cold body NOT absorbed by the warmer body.

        That is supported by Bohr who claimed in 1913 that EM must meet stringent requirements to be absorbed. The energy between electron orbitals in an atom are defined as E, in electron volts. The electron has a frequency, f, according to the wave equation describing that orbital, based on its angular momentum. When an electron falls across a potential difference of E in eV, it emits a quanta of EM with energy E = hf.

        In order for that electron to absorb a quanta of EM, the energy E of the quanta, and it’s frequency, f, must exactly match the energy E the electron requires to jump a level, or levels.

        Since f is also related to temperature, it stands to reason that a quanta of EM emitted by a cooler atoms will have a lower frequency and energy levels. Therefore, Ecool = hfc does not match Ehot = hfh. Ergo, EM from cooler atom cannot be absorbed by hotter atom.

        I concede that closer to thermal equilibrium, there may be possibilities of such absorp-tion, but as the temperature differential increases, it’s not going to happen. Under conditions close to equilibrium, GHGs are not going to warm the surface, especially not catastrophically. Water vapour will not increase significantly.

        Dan has point out that WV has increased 8% since 1960. I replied that means WV is now 1.08% on average, so all the warming since then has created an imperceptible increase in WV.

  46. Dan Pangburn says:

    g*.. I have you listed as a skeptic. I presume by that that you don’t believe CO2 has anything significant to do with climate. Congratulations, you got that right. Must have been a lucky guess. To get to that conclusion requires that you understand thermalization and how to use Hitran to calculate the quantum mechanics. I have seen no evidence that you are aware of either.

  47. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry…”Because the temperature of the air affects the rate of heat loss from the electrically heated object.

    So ideologically moribund you dont even realize weve said the same thing”.

    ********

    Following your lies about Clausius, I don’t really care what you said. You’d better get on the same page as your fellow alarmist Norman, he is applauding your deceit and it is Norman who thinks a cooler room causes warmer equipment to warm. He was backed on that by Tim.

    Anyone like you who uses a great scientists like Clausius to further your AGW pseudo-science is not to be trusted. Either you are truly ignorant as to the context of the quote you supplied from Clausius or you are just plain devious.

    In normal environments like the Earth’s atmosphere, heat can NEVER be transferred ‘by its own means’ from a cooler region of the atmosphere to a warmer surface, especially not a surface that warmed it in the first place, according to AGW.

    In the Clausius article you quoted he was explaining ‘by its own means’ and he explained that heat could be transferred both ways provided a compensatory mechanism was in place to return heat to the cooler source. That compensation would require external power and a complex array of devices as found in a fridge or air conditioner and there are no such mechanisms in the atmosphere.

    You used that statement to justify a general two way heat transfer and that is blatantly incorrect. Heat in the atmosphere can only be transferred one way, hot to cold, and that fact immediately negates both the GHE and AGW.

    • barry says:

      You used that statement to justify a general two way heat transfer and that is blatantly incorrect.

      Try this statement of Clausius’

      “Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot;”

      Clausius’ words from the opening paragraph of Chapter 12 of his major work on thermodynamics, regarding thermal radiation.

      If there something about the phrase “as regards the ordinary radiation of heat” that is difficult to understand?

      This is not about Carnot engines. This is not about heat pumps or r.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.a.t.i.o.n.

      This is a clear statement from Clausius that heat flows both from hot to cold and from cold to hot in the ordinary radiation of heat. No special circumstances here.

      Further answers below.

  48. barry says:

    Gordon,

    Carnot engines are reversible.

    Clausius is not talking about Carnot engines in the sections I’m quoting. He says:

    “It may, moreover, happen that instead of a descending transmission of heat accompanying, in the one and the same process, the ascending transmission, another permanent change may occur which has the peculiarity of not being reversible without either becoming replaced by a new permanent change of a similar kind, or producing a descending transmission of heat. In this case the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation for the ascending transmission.”

    This section is Clausius expanding on the general principle of the 2nd Law before applying it to Carnot engines (eg, heat pumps and r.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.a.t.o.r.s).

    Nothing in that section is about mechanical work.

    You haven’t responded to this:

    “Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot;”

    What is it about “as regards the ordinary radiation of heat” that confuses you?

    Is it not perfectly clear that this is not about Carnot engines?

    • Norman says:

      barry

      I read the page 295 myself and you are completely correct and Gordon Robertson is the one who is wrong. He just makes things up.

      It is quite plain and obvious Clausius understands radiant energy is a two-way exchange with objects at different temperatures.

      Gordon can’t wrap his head around it. He never will but he will continue to make up his own ideas on how IR is generated. He will continue to not understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

      The worst thing about Gordon Robertson is that he is an intentional deceiver. He makes up a false misleading claim that Clausius was referring to r.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.a.t.o.r.s. I did not believe Gordon so I read it myself and sure enough he is intentionally trying to mislead people.

      I can’t see how such a dishonest manipulator like Gordon acts so outraged when he thinks NOAA is manipulating temperature data to produce a warming effect that is not real. He is as dishonest as they come. I do not know why he would act like he is outraged. This is hypocritical behavior.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”It is quite plain and obvious Clausius understands radiant energy is a two-way exchange with objects at different temperatures”.

        Clausius does not mention ‘radiant energy’. He talks of the radiation of heat. It was believed in his day that heat could flow through space as rays. Even Planck believed that as late as the early 1900s, even though electron theory was being developed concurrently.

        Planck later admitted that had he known of the relationship between electrons and EM it would have made his work infinitely easier.

        I imagine Boltzmann may have felt the same way. He had to develop a theory about photon clouds to which he applied probability functions based on their theorized entropy.

        I am immune to flames from the likes of you, Norman. I know they come from the frustration of not being able to prove me wrong. All you can do is wave your arms and protest.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          You might also notice that Clausius is not sure about the medium through which the heat flows. He knows heat is associated with atoms, he defined it on that basis. He must have be confused as to how it could flow through empty space.

          That concept of an aether remained till Mickelsen-Morley supposedly disproved there is an aether. I say supposedly because Dayton Miller maintained there is one and he had Einstein wondering about it. Einstein confessed that if Miller is right, his theory of relativity goes out the window.

          It has recently been discovered that empty space may be teeming with neutrinos.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot;”

      I just responded tonight. Do you not see the problem in the phrase, “radiation of heat”?

      Show me how heat can be radiated? Radiation involves no mass as a medium and heat requires mass.

      I have no problem with hot and cold bodies radiating so that each intercepts flux from the other. Based on the 2nd law, and Bohr, I maintain that the heat radiated by a colder body cannot increase the temperature of the hotter body.

      If you think so, let’s see you do it in an experiment. Swannie thinks he has done it but all he’s done is mess with heat dissipation.

      • Nate says:

        “Show me how heat can be radiated? Radiation involves no mass as a medium and heat requires mass.”

        Gordon, I would refer you to the many textbooks and courses with the title ‘radiative heat transfer’, or similar.

  49. barry says:

    barry… “Because the temperature of the air affects the rate of heat loss from the electrically heated object.

    So ideologically moribund you don’t even realize we’ve said the same thing.”

    ********

    Gordon: “Following your lies about Clausius, I dont really care what you said.”

    Of course you don’t. We’ve both said that if an object’s dissipation of heat is changed it will change temperature. Increasing the air temperature in a cold room slows the dissipation of heat of a warmer electrically heated object. In response to the increased air temperature, the device will warm, even though at all times the air is cooler (but by less and less) than the device.

    We’re saying the same thing, and it amounts to an object getting warmer in response to a cooler object (the air) getting warmer.

    It’s always been about changing the rate of heat loss. The 2nd Law is not broken.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”Were saying the same thing, and it amounts to an object getting warmer in response to a cooler object (the air) getting warmer.

      Its always been about changing the rate of heat loss”.

      *********

      I don’t think you are getting the full picture. With an electrically-heated device, it is the electric current through the device setting the temperature. Unless the room temperature exceeds that temperature, which is in the 100s of degrees C, that device will not warm due to room air.

      The moment the switch is turned on, the device heats toward a temperature set by the device resistance. and the rate at which the device can dissipate heat.. There is a relationship between the 300 watt rating on a lamp and the temperature it SHOULD reach. That will depend on how quickly the device can dissipate the heat. Power transistors are rated as to the heat they will dissipate in watts at a certain current.

      If you place the device in a very hot room, say at 30C, the dissipation will be less than if you put it in a room at 15C. That is covered by Stefan-Boltzman in the temperature differential. Whereas S-B is intended as a measure of radiation density, it can also be regarded has the heat loss in the device due to radiation.

      We must also consider the heat loss due to direct conduction from the hot surface to the room air. A 300 watt device will heat nitrogen and oxygen as well as CO2 and WV. Therefore, the convection around the lamp is as important, if not more important than the radiation.

      If you set up a powerful fan so it is blowing right onto the device, and there is adequate room for air to flow, the device will blow off the hot air and it will be replaced by cool air. The device will cool.

      There is nothing in this description about cooler air playing a part in warming a device as Norman has claimed in the past. In fact, a warming of room air does not cause the device to warm, it reduces dissipation and the device temperature returns to a normal range set by the electrical current. That is a recovery from induced cooling, not a warming per se.

      There is no way you could heat a room to a temperature that would increase the temperature of an electrically-heated device beyond the temperature dictated by the electrical current. At least, short of placing the device in some kind of furnace. We’re talking over a 100C, maybe 200C or more, as the natural operating temperature of such devices.

      I am trying to put to bed the notion that room air at any temperature will increase the temperature of an electrically-heated device beyond its rated operating temperature. All it can do is all the device to cool somewhat below its rated temperature by affecting the rate of dissipation.

      It is claimed in AGW circles that GHGs in the atmosphere can control the rate of dissipation at the planet’s surface. I think that’s bs since the temperature at the surface is controlled by the temperature of nitrogen and oxygen. Dissipation at the surface is controlled by the temperature of all air at the surface, not by GHGs accounting for 1% of the atmosphere on average, and 94% WV.

  50. barry says:

    Oh, and Gordon,

    You still have never cited the exact quote from NOAA where they say that they cut, deleted or ‘slashed’ data 75% (or 90% ??) of the GHCN data.

    I challenge you to provide the statement from NOAA that precisely says station data was “cut” or “deleted” or any verb that verifies the action of deliberately getting rid of station data.

    You won’t be able to because that never happened.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”You still have never cited the exact quote from NOAA where they say that they cut, deleted or slashed data 75% (or 90% ??) of the GHCN data”.

      Is this another Appell gotcha?

      How many times do I have to post the link in which NOAA admits ‘shrinking’ the number of PHYSICAL weather stations.

      https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

      “Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?

      The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time”.

      Then they go on to obfuscate:

      “However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month. Scientists use that data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly expanding number of buoys and ships 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, after all to determine the global temperature record”.

      How do you increase a data record without increasing the number of physical stations. You FUDGE!!!!

      What is it about the 1500 stations they admit to using, down from 6000, that convinces you they have actually increased the record?

      1500/6000 = 25%. That means they have SLASHED the number of physical reporting stations by 75%.

      Do you think it’s good science to use a climate model to synthesize stations using the interpolation and homogenization of 1500 stations to produce fake data for more than 6000 stations? That’s your increase, phantom stations based on fudged data.

  51. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry…troubleshooting WordPress.

    part 1

    “Try this statement of Clausius

    Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot;”

  52. Gordon Robertson says:

    part 2…Barry…if you are really interested in the work of Clausius you need to stop ski.m.m.ing his work looking for che.rry pi.cked ph.r.ases while omit.ting the gist of the context from which the ex.cerp.ts are taken. Furthermore, you need to consider what I have stated several times about this particular ex.cer.p.t from Chapter 12.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      part 3…have no idea what WordPress did not like.

      Here’s the full statement: “Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot;

      ****nevertheless the g.e.neral result of this simultaneous double exchan.g.e of heat always consists, as is established by experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter***.

      I think he has established here that the hotter body gets cooler and the cooler body gets hotter, just as I have described the modern theory based on electron conversion of heat to EM. Based on that, there is no way for electrons to operate so the reverse scenario is true.

      You cannot have heat transferring both ways simultaneously between bodies of different temperatures. Stefan-Boltzmann agrees.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        part 4…

        I have maintained, in the time of Clausius, nothing was known about electrons and how they convert heat back and forth between heat and EM. Clausius thought heat flowed through space to other bodies. He was not alone, all of them did in his era as well as Boltzmann and Planck.

        We now know different. Heat is not transferred through space as heat, it is converted first to EM, a processes that causes heat to decrease in the emitting body. When the EM reaches a COOLER body, it is converted back to heat and the cooler body warms. That apparent transfer of heat is not actual but a local decrease and increase of heat in bodies.

        In the statement above he concludes, “…the g.e.neral result of this simultaneous double exchan.g.e of heat always consists, as is established by experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter…”

        He starts out talking about radiation then jumps to a radiation exchan.g.e as a heat transfer. He clearly does not differentiate between the two as would be expected of someone who knew nothing about the nature of electrons and how they convert heat – EM – heat.

        However, he makes it abundantly clear that the cooler body always warms at the expense of the hotter body. He says nothing about a mutual HEAT exchan.g.e, he is talking about a radiation exchan.g.e, confusing heat with radiation. Whereas he can be excused for such an error, those perpetuating that myth today do so out of sheer ignorance.

        Clausius begin chapter 12 confirming his statement of the 2nd law, that heat cannot of itself be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body, and confirms that radiation falls under that law.

        Even at that, chapter 12 is basically about the work of Kircheoff and is focused on whether EM can be concentrated to explain a colder body passing heat to a warmer body. Clausius explains that the exchan.g.e of heat (his words) between bodies is done at THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM. I don’t see anywhere in the chapter where he talks about heat being transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body WITHOUT COMPENSATION.

        He mentions later on (chapter XIII…worth reading for the history of the period) that thermal energy as heat must be transferred from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. That is the basis of all energy transfer, from a state of higher potential energy to a state of lower potential energy. That alone rules out the transfer of heat from the lower energy state of a cooler body to the higher energy state of a warmer body.

        You can see that using Bohr’s E = hf.

        I don’t understand why you are going to so much trouble to prop up pseudo-science like AGW, which depends on heat being transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. Besides the 2nd law, you should be able to see that heat cannot be recycled from a warmer surface to trace GHGs in the atmosphere, then back again, so as to warm the surface to a higher temperature than it was when it radiated the energy in the first place.

        It’s called perpetual motion.

  53. barry says:

    Yes, Gordon, Calusius speaks of a two way interchange of heat between hot and cold bodies.

    It’s intuitively obvious, too. Two bonfires side by side, one a bit more intense than the other, are radiating heat to the surrounding atmosphere. Stand between them and you will feel the heat from both. There is no magic heat shield preventing the radiation from the slightly colder bonfire reaching the other.

    All the must happen, by the laws of thermodynamics, is that the colder bonfire receives more radiant heat from the hotter bonfire than the hotter bonfire receives from the colder one.

    The NET flow of heat must always be from hot to cold.

    Or as Clausius puts it:

    “in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”

    In your example of an electrical device in a room, if the rate of heat dissipation of the electrical object is affected by the ambient air (the colder object in your example), that will affect the temperature of the electrical object.

    If it’s a freezing cold day the electrical device will cool because it loses heat more quickly to the ambient air.

    If it’s a very hot day the electrical device will also warm, because it dissipates heat less effectively when the surrounding air is a less efficient heat sink. And this is the case even if the ambient air is still colder than the device.

    If the energy supply to the device is constant, the only variable changing is the cooler variable – the air. So changing the temperature of the air affects the temperature of the electrical device.

    A cooler object has made a warm object even warmer by becoming a less efficient heat sink.

    The 2nd Law is not broken. Do you know why?

    Because at all times in this example the NET flow of heat is hot to cold.

    And that is all the Clausius means when he says:

    “in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”

    That’s pretty damned clear.

    This concept is fully satisfied in the above example.

    No Carnot engines were invoked to make this work. We don’t need to because Clausius says:

    “Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot;”

    The only ‘problem’ with Clauius using ‘heat’ to describe the 2-way interchange of energy is pedantics who insist that the term ‘heat’ can only be used one way. Whatever thermo-semantic nits you want to pick with that, it’s still clear what Clausius meant.

    And it is because it is so clear, even to you, that you are now starting to argue that Clausius was wrong.

    So much for your earlier, furious defense of his work.

    • Norman says:

      barry

      I know you will not be able to reach Gordon Robertson with this excellent and “spot on!” post. I just wanted to let you know good job.

      You cover all needed information. Your post is exactly what the science says and by bringing in Clausius you totally show Gordon he is wrong on every front. I would call Gordon Robertson a denier of science. He makes up his own ideas and rejects established science for whatever bizarre reasons running in his head.

      The most obvious reason is he does not have the brain power to actually understand the real science so he makes up his own simplistic version that he can understand. He can’t understand relativity, time dilation, Big Bang, or any of the many other ideas of physics that are not easy to grasp and take a lot of work to understand.

      He can’t even understand the simple inverse square law and how it works. He figures out the inverse square with his hand over a burner plate. He moves it away a bit and it is not so hot so he concludes all the radiant energy (even for a large object like the Earth) can only go a few feet and then it is gone. He is really a crackpot. It is okay to try an educate him but it is highly unlikely you will be able to succeed.

      He seems a nice old guy, just not very bright. Kind of like the simpleton Mike Flynn. Mike does not know or understand even simple physics but he does wish people “Cheers”.

      Keep up the good research. I do like to read your intelligent well researched posts.

      • Svante says:

        Norman, Mike uses the same salutation as Phil Jones did in the climate emails, so I guess he means to be nasty.

        Your posts are great as well by the way.

      • Nate says:

        Norman,

        MF wishes people ‘cheers’ only after calling them ‘stupid and ignorant’. I dont think that qualifies as nice.

        • Norman says:

          Nate

          The thing with Mike Flynn is that his insults are not like the real thing. They are to nothing specific, just random insults. Trying to provoke a response. If you read his posts he does not really listen much to anyone. He seems the most likely of any of us to be a bot.

          I think it is an AI bot and when we use the words, stupid, ignorant and such it also uses them in its posts. I don’t think it used those terms a few years ago.

        • Nate says:

          He is often very bot-like. Other times not. A bot with a human handler?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry….”All the must happen, by the laws of thermodynamics, is that the colder bonfire receives more radiant heat from the hotter bonfire than the hotter bonfire receives from the colder one.

      The NET flow of heat must always be from hot to cold”.

      *******

      Barry…you are still confusing heat with EM. There is no heat flowing by radiation, if any heat is flowing its through the movement of heated air mass as convection. As you stand between two bonfires, you are likely heated more by that convected air than by radiation.

      There is something being lost here about radiation. The directly flames from a bonfire would singe your clothing and burn your skin. Provided the bonfire is not too hot, you could stand 5 or 10 feet away and suffer no ill effects. That’s how quickly the effect of radiation drops off as well as how quickly convected heat drops off.

      At such reduced energies why should either fire affect the other? We seem to presume that objects nearby to each other with different temperatures affect each other. There’s a lot more to it than that. As the author in a text linked to by Norman claimed, radiation is not effective till very high temperatures. He was talking thousands of degrees C.

      Radiation from an acetylene welding torch will not melt or cut steel. It will barely warm it. You need to apply the tip of the short, deep-blue flame of the torch to the metal for welding and to introduce oxygen to get the flame to cut.

      Radiation from a 3000C acetylene torch does nothing of consequence. Why should radiation from the Earth’s surface do anything more, never mind back-radiation?

      There is no net flow of heat. I would agree that with two raging bonfires, one a bit cooler than the other, the problem becomes more complex. However, if each bonfire is heating the other, would you not expect each to get progressively hotter? And if you were standing between them, would you not eventually be disintegrated as temperatures soared exponentially?

      I don’t think radiation is an important parameter in this case. I think the heating agents would be convected air from each fire.

      If you regarded the fires as being equal temperature, you could regard that as a case of thermal equilibrium. Both would likely radiate equal amounts of EM to each other but how is that going to affect the temperatures of each fire?

      Take it to an extreme case. Suppose you are standing close to a very hot bonfire with a candle in your hand. Suppose you can get so close the wax in the candle begins to soften. Are you trying to tell me the radiation from the candle will affect the temperature of the bonfire?

      Even though I don’t value common sense in science circles, there comes a time even in science when you have to exercise common sense. The 2nd law has survived for a reason, no one has ever proved it wrong during experimentation.

      Read chapter 13 in the Clausius book and see how many scientists of the time tried. The only way it has ever been bypassed, that I’ve seen, is in climate science, and that is done by confusing EM with heat.

      When you sum energies, you must sum only the energies of the pertinent energy form. You cannot sum EM energies and claim they satisfy energies related to heat.

      This is a serious issue and I don’t think climate scientists who developed the GHE and AGW gave either enough thought. The GHE is largely based on calculations from S-B and it’s not clear with S-B what is being measured.

      The output of S-B has w/m^2 as part of it but that is surely a reference to the heat loss, not the EM. It seems to have been presumed that the heat lost traveled through the air, and that’s simply not right.

      I have yet to see a well done experiment featuring that equation, that shows how w/m^2 applies to EM. If it did, many people would have received serious burns from EM by standing near a very hot source, and I have read nothing of that.

      I recall stories with radar, where radio frequency output signals in the microwave range are emitted at 10,000 watts. People were affected in their internal organs being radiated by such EM.

      While working on colour TV circuits, the high voltage gets up to 40,000 volts. There is a danger of xray radiation causing burning if skin is exposed to the high voltage section.

      • barry says:

        However, if each bonfire is heating the other, would you not expect each to get progressively hotter?

        There is a limit, which is based on the surrounding environment, not just the interaction between the bonfires – the “mutual double heat exchange” as Clausius puts it.

        Both bonfires are losing heat in all directions. If a bonfire suddenly appeared next to a warmer one, they would both warm a bit until equilibrated with each other and the surrounding environment.

        Imagine a sun at a given T, let’s call it X.

        Now surround that sun to within 100 meters with a near complete sphere of suns with a temperature 90% of X.

        Do you really believe that the sun-in-the-middle will not get any hotter, just because it is surrounded by suns a bit less hot than it?

        That’s the thinking that comes of the 2nd Law mantra that only takes up the first part of the law. As in:

        “Heat can only flow from hot to cold”

        This truncated version of the 2nd Law does not allow for Clausius “mutual double heat exchange” between hot and cold bodies “as regards the ordinary radiation of heat.”

        This truncated version of the 2nd Law has trouble with cooler objects slowing the rate of heat loss by radiating or conducting some energy/heat back to the warmer object.

        This truncated version of the 2nd Law does not get that Clausius is talking about NET flow of heat, even as he positively asserts that there is a mutual exchange of heat affecting both the cooler and the warmer body.

        I’ve not cherry-picked. I’ve also supplied links to all the text so that people can read the full context.

        Clausius is absolutely clear on a mutual exchange of ‘heat’ (we would call it ‘energy’ in modern parlance) between hotter and colder bodies as regards the ordinary flow of heat.

        I think this is the point that some people want to disown. Or call Clausius wrong.

        But there is no magic heat shield preventing the heat/radiation/energy of cooler bodies reaching and being absorbed by warmer bodies.

        There is only the correct interpretation of the 2nd Law, which is that in this mutual exchange of heat/radiation/energy (or whatever you want to call it), the NET result is that heat must flow from hot to cold.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Not only do you get the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which barry correctly and clearly states) you completely do not grasp the First Law of Thermodynamics.

          http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html#engfun

          “One way to state this principle is “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed”. Another approach is to say that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant.”

          YOUR STATEMENT: “When you sum energies, you must sum only the energies of the pertinent energy form. You cannot sum EM energies and claim they satisfy energies related to heat.”

          This demonstrates you do not accept or understand the 1st Law of Thermodynamics at all.

          All the energy must sum in an isolated system. If some energy is in the form of internal energy and some as EMR, all the energy has to sum to a set amount of the isolated system. You seem obsessed with the form energy takes. Energy is energy in whatever form.

          The accounting tool in energy is the joule. If you have money, say $100. It does not matter what form this money takes. It still has exactly the same buying power. If it be 10000 pennies, 100 dollar bills, two 50’s etc or a combination of any of these the total amount remains $100. You need to study some physics. You do not seem to know even the most basic concepts. Your arguments are not as good as you think they are.

          Maybe, just for one moment, consider you are wrong in everything you believe to be true of science. Turn your world upside down. You assume most scientists are wrong and do not know what they are talking about. Don’t you think maybe the opposite is far more likely. The vase majority of scientists do know exactly what they are talking about but you are the one who has it wrong.

          I know you can’t see it, but if you actually read some physics you might see it. Your tactic is to throw out a few ideas of some scientists to make you appear an authority. You are NOT an authority in anything scientific. You actually don’t know what you are talking about at all.

  54. barry says:

    How many times do I have to post the link in which NOAA admits ‘shrinking’ the number of PHYSICAL weather stations.

    Just once would be nice. You make it sound like NOAA actively went out and demolished PHYSICAL weather stations.

    What, with big hammers, wrecking balls, or do you think they went all jihad and used explosives?

    Do tell us all how NOAA set about reducing the number of PHYSICAL weather stations in the world.

    You keep on saying they ‘admit’ to “slashing” 75% of weather station data. Obviously there is no such admission at that page.

    So now you’re on to shrinkage.

    One day you may finally admit the truth. Until then, I will not cease ripping your lies down.

    • barry says:

      I mean, Christ, do I have to teach you English comprehension? Let’s look at that quote:

      “The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved…”

      NOAA does not appear, nor is indicated to appear as a subject to the sentence. NOAA is not indicated to have caused the decline. The cause of the decline is the improvement of modern technology.

      Furthermore, it is LUDICROUS to suppose that NOAA went out and physically removed actual physical weather stations – as in demolished or deactivated them at location.

      NOAA’s status in this history is made perfectly clear in the conclusion of the sentence.

      …”and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.”

      NOAA was unable to access them. This is quite different from your outlandish spin on what’s being said here.

      And it IS spin, because you offer this web page as a ‘clear admission’, but then have to make up stories about how it’s all tricksy and propagandistic.

      You can’t have it both ways. You’ll have to realize one day that you’re just making up a story and twisting things to keep it alive.

      I’ve explained several dozen times how 6000 stations are added yet 1500 remain at the end of the record. The majority of the data is retrospective. The 1500 remaining at the end of the record are from the only 1500 stations that are accessible in real time. They all get updated by the 8th of each month. the other 6000 weather stations do not and never did.

      This data was ADDED to get the 6000 stations, it was never then deleted, because there was no ongoing data to delete. It’s just how the data s compiled. It’s as simple as that.

      I’ve given you the paper, provided numerous links. What I’ve said is the true story, and what you say all the time about this is complete fantasy.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        barry…”NOAA does not appear, nor is indicated to appear as a subject to the sentence. NOAA is not indicated to have caused the decline. The cause of the decline is the improvement of modern technology”.

        **********

        I have seen some out and out denial in my time but you take the cake. The site to which I linked is the NOAA site and they asked why NOAA is using fewer weather stations.

        Then they claim…”The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month”.

        If it’s not NOAA accessing those stations why do they say so?

        GHCN is NOAA. NOAA owns them all, GHCN, NCD-C, and the rest. Claiming GHCN is separate from NOAA, if that’s what you are claiming, is ingenuous.

        Officially, GHCN falls under NCD-C, and NOAA owns NCD-C.

        More proof of NOAA/GHCN cheating from 2011.

        http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/04/more-odd-behavior-from-the-ghcn-temperature-data/

      • barry says:

        Huh?! What’s your beef?

        Yes, NOAA are accessing the 1500 stations that are available to GHCN in real time.

        The other 6000 stations are NOT available to GHCN in real time and never were. There was no ONGOING data to delete. These station data were acquired through data acquisition projects in the 1990s.

        These data were never online or accessible in real time. They still are not.

        They’ve been retrospectively added. Which is why NOAA states, correctly, that a large number of weather station data has been added.

        RETROSPECTIVELY.

        NOAA are able to get the monthly updates from only 1500 stations (it’s a bit more now, I believe).

        Nothing was deleted from GHCN.

        What is hard to understand about this?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”The other 6000 stations are NOT available to GHCN in real time and never were. There was no ONGOING data to delete”.

          Good grief, you have gone beyond denial into utter idiocy.

      • barry says:

        GHCN is NOAA is N.C.D.C. You were trying to argue a distinction in another thread:

        There are loads of stations around the globe acquiring data and only some are accepted by NOAA as reporting stations. It is those stations NOAA has slashed by 90% since 1990.

        The station drop off is IN the GHCN data base.

        Chiefio’s posts about it in 2009/10 were all about GHCN, not some subset used by NOAA.

        “My major point has simply been that much of the available data is not used. It is dropped on the floor. You can call it ‘deleted’ or ‘dropped’ or ‘ignored’ or whatever. It is still NOT in the GHCN data set.”

        That’s why I linked the 1997 paper on how GHCN is compiled.

        The 1500 real-time reporting stations are the GHCN database stations that report by the 8th of the month in the format required by the GHCN database.

        NOAA did not slash any station data. The compilers of GHCN did not slash any station data.

        The compilers of GHCN (which is a NOAA/CDIAC collaboration product) RETROSPECTIVELY add lots of data that is NOT available in real time. The biggest single push to acquire such data was in the mids 1990s.

        That’s why there is an apparent drop off in station data from 1992. Not from deletion, but because this data is added retrospectively, and not from ongoing data streams.

        Why is this so hard to understand?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”NOAA did not slash any station data. The compilers of GHCN did not slash any station data”.

          barry…you can claim that till you are blue in the face, you are doing nothing more than talking in circles.

          GHCN, in 1992, had over 7000 real time stations. NOAA admitted to 6000 real time stations of which they are now using only 1500.

          Their chicanery is obvious in the way they have retroactively fudged the historical record to smooth out records hot spells like the US in the 1930s. They fudged the record to remove the flat trend reported by the IPCC from 1998 – 2013 and which is still apparent on UAH data. They have completely ignored the record breaking cold weather the past winter in NA.

          They have repeatedly dropped confidence levels as low as 48% to make years like 2014 appear as a record when it was not within 0.5C of a record. If you look at the UAH record it is not even warmer than adjacent years.

          NOAA are cheating, political hacks and you are stupid to defend them. In case you receive that as an insult, I call myself stupid when I make such egregious errors in judgement.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            A case in point about my stupidity. When I was young and very stupid, I thought communist Russia was a cool place. I had never been there, knew nothing about it, and I based my feelings on stuff I’d read by Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, which I had been taught were like real communist states. I thought for some idiotic reason that communist Russia was like those idyllic states.

            It was not till much later that I read The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn and I felt aghast at what was really going on there. I have freely admitted since that I was a stupid idiot to believe communist Russia was a cool place.

            It’s time you got it that NOAA are NOT cool. They are cheaters who are methodically and retroactively adjusting the historical record because they are blatant climate alarmists. I don’t expect you to admit you are stupid but I’d like to see you come to your senses and look at the abject record fudging they are perpetrating.

        • barry says:

          GHCN, in 1992, had over 7000 real time stations. NOAA admitted to 6000 real time stations of which they are now using only 1500.

          Gordon,

          The station number tapering off after 1992 is a feature of the GHCN data base, not of anything NOAA did to that data base.

          The NOAA article is from 2010. GHCN had a maximum of 6000 stations in the 1970s-80s period at that time. The number of records has increased since then due to RETROSPECTIVELY adding more data as time has gone by.

          You can see in the GHCN data base the drop off of station number post 1992. It’s in this paper that describes how GHCN data were acquired:

          https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/docs/peterson-vose-1997.pdf [remove the dash in ncd-c]

          Figure 2: See the GHCN station count drop from 1992.

          It’s not NOAA throwing GHCN data that accounts for GHCN station drop-off after 1992.

          It’s the fact that during the 1990s GHCN acquired a large number of data from weather stations that did not and do not report monthly to GHCN.

          This data was added RETROSPECTIVELY, boosting the station count from previous years.

          When that project ended in the mid 1990s, GHCN was left with data from the 1500 stations that report monthly, which is why the station count drops to 1500 after 1992.

          That is the reason for the larger number of weather stations in earlier years – retrospective, one-time addition of data that is not part of the regularly monthly stream.

          Why is this so difficult to understand?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          barry…”The station drop off is IN the GHCN data base.

          Chiefios posts about it in 2009/10 were all about GHCN, not some subset used by NOAA”.

          Give it up for cripes sake, GHCN is NOAA.

          Time after time you use these obfuscations in an attempt to wriggle out of tight corners.

          • barry says:

            Yes, GHCN IS NOAA. So let’s look at what you wrote…

            “GHCN, in 1992, had over 7000 real time stations. NOAA admitted to 6000 real time stations of which they are now using only 1500.”

            No! The 6000 stations they mentioned are NOT the real time stations. These were the added stations that DO NOT update regularly.

            THERE HAS NEVER BEEN 6000 REAL TIME STATIONS IN THE GHCN MONTHLY DATABASE!

            This is what you have wrongly believed for so long.

            The real time network was 1500 stations in 2010, as it had been for just over a decade previous. All the other station data was gathered as one time additions from data acquisition projects.

            Let me quote again from the 1997 paper on the construction of the GHCN database:

            “The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCNs source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago. Only three data sources are available in near-real time.”

            Exactly what I’ve been saying to you over and over. One of those 3 data sources provide the 1500 global real-time station data.

          • barry says:

            “Of the 31 sources, we are able to perform regular monthly updates with only three of them (Fig.5). These are 1) the U.S. HCN, 1221 high quality, long-term, mostly rural stations in the United States; 2) a 371-station subset of the U.S. First Order station network (mostly airport stations in the United States and U.S. territories such as the Marshall and Caroline Islands in the western Pacific); and 3) 1502 Monthly Climatic Data for the World stations (subset of those stations around the world that report CLIMAT monthly code over the Global Telecommunications System and/or mail reports to N.C.D.C).”

  55. barry says:

    Gordon,

    Here’s the simplest way I can think of explaining the station count in the GHCN data base to you.

    You have 1500 stations around the world that have agreed to send you data every month in a format that you can process automatically.

    You make this agreement and for several decades these weather station send you the data. You have a station count of 1500 stations over many decades.

    Then you (and your colleagues) try to see if there is any data available that you are unable to access monthly.

    You contact National Weather Bureaus, you ask for boxes of old ships logs and hand-written weather station data.

    You get all this data and you start adding it by hand to the data base. You get translators to translate the foreign-language meteorological data, you get stenographers to key in data records by hand.

    You spend a couple of years on this big project. By the end you have added data from thousands more weather stations by hand.

    All this data is from sources that do not regularly update with you.

    You finish this project in 1995. You’ve added historical records up until the present time, with the vast majority of old station records being from the last 20 years.

    Your regularly updating stream of 1500 stations keeps reporting monthly.

    10 years later someone notices that the weather station count drops down suddenly from the early 1990s.

    This person does not know what happened, and assumes that the reason there is fewer stations later in the record is because they were deliberately cut.

    This person thinks you had 6000 stations reporting in real time all the way up to the present or some time recently, and that 75% of them were simply deleted.

    This person doesn’t realize that there were never 6000 weather station reporting live to you each month, only 1500.

    This person doesn’t realize that the reason there is a large number of weather station data prior to 1995 is that you ADDED that data by hand over a 2-year data acquisition project.

    And after that data acquisition project, the station count tapers down to the original 1500 weather stations that have continued to update monthly all this time.

    ****************************************************************

    That’s how GHCN was complied, Gordon. It’s as simple as that.

    Nothing nefarious. No deleting, just RETROSPECTIVE addition of data that doesn’t update monthly to GHCN.

    • Snape says:

      Barry

      I had never paid much attention to this discussion. Thanks for making it so clear!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        snape…”Barry

        I had never paid much attention to this discussion. Thanks for making it so clear!”

        That makes you as stupid and gullible as Barry. There are thousands and thousands of weather stations available around the planet, NOAA is simply not using them.

        Here’s a searchable list of Canadian weather stations. You can search by province and look under Yukon, Nunvit, and Northwest Territories.

        http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html

        I counted 23 stations in Nunavit and NOAA is using ONE of them. That is 1, uno, ONE of them. There are another 17 in the Yukon and another 11 in the Northwest Territories.

        Alaska is full of them.

        That’s 51 available stations in the Canadian Arctic and NOAA is using ONE of them at Eureka, which shows up under the Nunavit list.

        There over 1000 stations in Canada alone and the US has 1218 over 48 states. That’s over 2200 US and Canadian government stations alone.

        http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html

        When you consider that NOAA has SLASHED the GLOBAL record to 1500 stations, how many of those 2200+ local stations are they using?

        Remembers, out of 51 available stations in the Canadian Arctic, they are using ONE station.

      • barry says:

        The GHCN database requires data to be sent in a particular format.

        That format is not an international standard – there isn’t one.

        GHCN (NOAA) got 1500 weather stations around the world to agree to format the weather data in the way the database software requires – which includes precipitation, mean and max temperature, wind speed and a host of other data. Not just temps.

        You think like a teenager, Gordon, the world is all hooked up electronically and that information can be dumped from any source into any program.

        That’s not how it was in 1990s, when GHCN added thousands of weather stations’ data by hand.

        That’s not how it is today. The US weather services can’t just order countries and weather stations to reformat their method of reporting to sit NOAA. That is done under agreement.

        You have zero idea about how this data has been collated historically, and how it is today (not much different).

        And it is BECAUSE you have a gaping hole in your knowledge of how GHCN data is acquired that you can make up this fantasy about deleting data.

        All you’re doing is parroting someone else (Chiefio) who walked back from his claim of deliberate deletion when challenged on it. I’ve quoted him several times. I trust you read at least one of those.

        When I provided you with the paper about the construction of GHCN, clearly showing that the apparent station drop-off is a result of retrospectively adding older station data, you ignored that and started blathering about other ‘problems’.

        You’re doing everything to avoid the clear exposition in the paper so that you can keep repeating this lie about station deletions. There have been none.

  56. barry says:

    Gordon, there has never been 6000 real-time stations reporting to GHCN Monthly database. It was only ever about 1500 stations reporting in near real-time, the other 6000 or so were one-time additions from data acquisition projects.

    Quotes from GHCN methods paper above.

  57. La Pangolina says:

    Gordon Robertson says:
    April 23, 2018 at 10:22 PM

    That makes you as stupid and gullible as Barry. There are thousands and thousands of weather stations available around the planet, NOAA is simply not using them.

    Heres a searchable list of Canadian weather stations. You can search by province and look under Yukon, Nunvit, and Northwest Territories.

    http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html

    I counted 23 stations in Nunavit and NOAA is using ONE of them. That is 1, uno, ONE of them.

    *

    For barry, Snape and others

    Here we see one more time what Robertson really is: an ignorant, incompetent and above all persistently lying boaster. He knows nothing about stations of whatever kind. NOTHING!

    Last year my friend promised to start this spring with processing the GHCN V4 daily record, and he kept his promise. It is really a huge record (29 GB unzipped) and contains data produced by over 100,000 stations worldwide.

    Here is a file containing the 145 GHCN stations registered in the V4 daily record for Canadas Nunavut:

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1524674301454.pdf

    And here is the picture showing us how many of these stations contributed each year to the record from 1922 till 2018:

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1524683270190.jpg

    The result is not surprising:

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1524683713676.jpg

    You see once more that in the Arctic, warming was present long time ago, even if the Nunavut trend for 1979-2018 is moving up to about 6 C / century.

    A list of the highest temperature anomalies from 1922 till 2018, wrt 1981-2010:

    1940 | 1 | 9.92
    1947 | 2 | 9.43
    1925 | 12 | 8.25
    1930 | 3 | 8.12
    1924 | 3 | 7.58
    1937 | 3 | 7.46
    2010 | 2 | 7.18
    2010 | 12 | 7.00
    2010 | 11 | 6.98
    1943 | 11 | 6.81

    As usual, the highest anomalies are detected during winter months.

    But if you consider the absolute temperatures instead, you see, a bit surprised, that more recent years were warmer:

    2001 | 7 | 9.83
    1996 | 7 | 9.07
    2000 | 7 | 9.02
    1931 | 7 | 9.01
    1998 | 7 | 8.84
    2010 | 7 | 8.76
    2003 | 7 | 8.70
    2011 | 7 | 8.63
    1984 | 7 | 8.58
    2012 | 7 | 8.58

    • Snape says:

      Really interesting. The arctic is hard to figure out.

    • barry says:

      July is the warmest month in the Arctic, so you’re going to see the warmest absolute temps in July.

      Anomalizing the monthly temps puts them all on the same baseline – zero. So you’ll see warmest anomalies in any month.

      Not sure why many of the warmest anomalies are at and near the beginning of the record, but anomaly variability is always higher as you drill down to more and more local areas, and reduce the temporal resolution (decadal–>annual–>monthly–>daily). The largest fluctuations are over a day and night in one locale. The longer the period, the broader the area, the less the variability. Statistics 101.

      • La Pangolina says:

        barry says:
        April 26, 2018 at 7:00 AM

        So youll see warmest anomalies in any month.

        That, barry, is not the point.

        What is worth to mention is when the anomalies are the warmest during winter months. That is for many people simply counterintuitive.

        Some even doubt of their correctness, simply because they do not understand that baselines are constructed by a selective averaging of the units the time series are composed of (years, months, days, etc).

      • barry says:

        I think we’re saying the same thing.

        “Anomalizing the monthly temps puts them all on the same baseline zero.”

        “baselines are constructed by a selective averaging of the units the time series are composed of (years, months, days, etc).”

  58. Bindidon says:

    barry

    A bit of irony concerning Robertson’s NOAA station slashing syndrome.

    At some processing level, the four atmospheric UAH 6.0 records are stored in a cell grid of 2.5 degree size (i.e. about 70,000 km2 each).

    That would normally give 10,368 cells. But as opposed to 5.6, the 3 northernmost ans southernmost latitude bands do not contain valuable data in 6.0, so only 9,504 cells remain.

    Out of these 9,504 cells you can pick for example 1,024 evenly distributed cells, and generate a time series out of them just like you would do for the whole.

    That means that by the way you ‘slash’ 89.2 % off the grid!

    And here is the result:

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1524694583129.jpg

    Of course, similar OLS trend estimates (0.127 C / decade for the full grid, 0.124 for the 1024 cells) do not mean so very much.

    But a look at the two running means is really amazing.

  59. barry says:

    Bindidon,

    Can I ask a favour?

    Would you be able to make a chart of station count for GHCN like the one from the original paper?

    https://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp

    It’s in figure 2.

    I’d expect to see that there are now more stations (than 7200) in the 70s to early 90s, and the number of stations tapering sown to however many send the monthly updates at this time.

    I think you’ve done this once before, but not sure.

    • La Pangolina says:

      barry

      For data as jpeg on disk or in Excel files we don’t need any Bindidon :-))

      http://4gp.me/bbtc/152473416922.jpg

      Don’t keep such links, rather download the contents, as the links won’t live longer than 30 days.

      Btw: I’m sure that when J.-P. gets a global GHCN V4 average running over all 100,000 stations, he will create a new chart.

    • Bindidon says:

      barry

      You can’t expect the maximal number of GHCN V3 stations going at any time above the maximum of 7,280 shown in the station inventory file.

      The revision I recently downloaded and unzipped out of NOAA’s GHCN V3 site

      https://tinyurl.com/y9clbqyj

      was

      ghcnm.v3.3.0.20180411/ghcnm.tavg.v3.3.0.20180411.qcu.inv

      The contents you may view or download using the link below:

      https://file.io/hWmWxO

    • barry says:

      Thanks guys.

      I don’t have the software needed to open the zipped files, which are typical to Unix systems. I’ve tried opening RAR files on Windows and it’s always been a pain. I’ve given up using them.

      Though the graph shows a maximum of 6000 stations in the 1970s, There are actually 7280 stations. It’s just that few of them are continuous.

      The station count is for the past, but it seems that there are now more monthly updating global stations, up from 1500 in 2010 to 2000+ in 2018.

      A good overview of GHCN and the latest revisions is here:

      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2011JD016187

      • La Pangolina says:

        barry says:
        April 26, 2018 at 5:24 AM

        Thanks guys.

        Sorry: I’m not a guy…

        Though the graph shows a maximum of 6000 stations in the 1970s, There are actually 7280 stations.

        Huh?

        There are actually far less than 7280! The 7280 number is that of all stations having ever been registered by NOAA for GHCN V3.

        There are in each year as many stations as the graph shows.

        Exact numbers (computed in december 2017):

        2010: 2790 stations
        2011: 2765 stations
        2012: 2743 stations
        2013: 2678 stations
        2014: 2686 stations
        2015: 2648 stations
        2016: 2753 stations
        2017: 2700 stations

        If I well do remember, only about 300 GHCN V3 stations cover the entire period from 1880 till 2017.

        My friend has made an Excel chart comparing, for 1880-2017, all GHCN stations with those 2700 active in 2017 but I can’t find it back within his chaos.

      • barry says:

        Sorry: Im not a guy…

        ‘Guys’ is used informally as plural non-gender specific.

        The 7280 number is that of all stations having ever been registered by NOAA for GHCN V3.

        Yes, that’s what I meant.

        If I well do remember, only about 300 GHCN V3 stations cover the entire period from 1880 till 2017.

        That would be more than I’d have anticipated.

        My friend has made an Excel chart comparing, for 1880-2017, all GHCN stations with those 2700 active in 2017 but I cant find it back within his chaos.

        I wonder if any/many of those 2700 include the 300 stations that cover the whole period…

        • La Pangolina says:

          barry says:
          April 26, 2018 at 4:58 PM

          I wonder if any/many of those 2700 include the 300 stations that cover the whole period

          But they DO include them! How could the 2700 not include the 300, as ALL are present in 2017?

        • barry says:

          But they DO include them! How could the 2700 not include the 300, as ALL are present in 2017?

          Theoretically, all 2700 stations in 2017 could have started no earlier than 1950 or even later. There are a total of 7200 station in the GHCN database, so when they all start and stop is unknown until you delve…

          But if you’re saying you have checked, and that the 300 stations that cover the entire span of years from 1880 to 2017 are ALL included in the 2700 in 2017, then I’m happy to believe you.

        • barry says:

          Oh dear – I see how my brain has failed me.

          If only I could delete my stupidity. Yes, of course they’re all included.

          • La Pangolina says:

            Now the ball is round.

            And luckily, in V4 there is not only a file containing the stations’ metadata but also a file containing, for each station, start & end year.

            But… unluckily, the two V3 distinctions (rural / suburb / urban; nightlight level A / B / C) no longer are present.

            No wonder: V4 has over 100,000 stations!

            I’ll search for a nightlight database Bindidon will be able to access from within his software using the stations’ lat/long coordinates.

      • barry says:

        Hmmm… $44 for Winzip and maybe I can use the data effectively in Excel…

        There’d be a learning curve. Do I want to invest? last time I unzipped things there was such a time cost.