The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2018 was +0.21 deg. C, down a little from the March value of +0.24 deg. C:
Some regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 01 +0.33 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10 +0.27 +0.95 +1.22
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.19 +0.08 +2.15 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06 +1.21 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21 +0.89 +0.22 +0.40
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41 +0.10 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39 +0.50 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51 +0.60 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46 -0.55 +0.49 +0.77
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54 +0.29 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.66 +0.59 +0.47 +1.20 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.26 +1.35 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.44 +1.36 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.12 +0.58 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.24 +0.16 +0.03 +0.91 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.24 +0.39 +0.10 +0.06 -0.33 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.10 -0.13 -0.01 +1.02 +0.68
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through April 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for April, 2018 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
For those who still hold to the claim that the Greenhouse Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I present the latest results from of my mechanical model of the Green Plate Effect.
https://app.box.com/s/w6gzam9tbk9oa1h8geio1p4lnufe0yrv
With this sixth version, I have been able to further reduce the vacuum within the bell jar to a level of about 100 microns. Also, I ran the demonstration by first heating the device at atmospheric pressure, then switching on the pump, thereby showing the effect of the vacuum on the temperature of the Blue plate. The vacuum reduces the convective cooling of the Blue plate, which then warms by 21.7 C in order to balance the energy input from the work light. The Green plate is then raised into position, resulting in a further warming of the Blue plate by 10.1 C.
While some convection may remain within the jar, its clear that the lifting the Green plate results in warming of the Blue plate, which can best be explained as the effect of the added thermal radiation from the cooler Green plate. This so-called back radiation is similar to the process which is the basis for the Greenhouse Effect of CO2 and other radiative gases within the atmosphere.
E. Swanson
Excellent work. It clearly shows that Eli was spot on and the so called skeptics (who seem to know nothing at all of any real physics) are wrong. When in doubt, experiment and you have done just this.
I wonder if you could post your results on Joe Postma’s blog. He may not accept it (he is a fanatic cult leader) but it is possible a few of his followers may see this and realize the validity of Eli’s thought experiment.
Eli proposed a thought experiment based upon real valid physics. It was rejected by the unscientific skeptics. You have experimentally verified Eli was the correct one. Thanks again for you efforts.
Thanks E. Swanson for your continuous and convincing work.
Only a few boring, ignorant denialists will refute your demonstration; but none of them will be able to scientifically falsify it.
I ignore name callers on all sides and viewpoints (there are more than 2 by the way). Name calling is one of those things you learn are wrong in kindergarten. This puts you in a group with your least favorite president.
+100
Name calling comes with a lot of nuance. Just a couple examples:
Idiot!! – An expression of anger or frustration with someone.
Miss piggy – cruel and demeaning
Joe Rancourt says:
May 2, 2018 at 10:38 AM
I ignore name callers on all sides and viewpoints (there are more than 2 by the way). Name calling is one of those things you learn are wrong in kindergarten. This puts you in a group with your least favorite president.
*
Are you a newcomer here, Rancourt?
May be you go back on Roy Spencer’s threads, and experience what I mean with ‘boring, ignorant denialists’ before you start criticising me.
I speak here of persons not only calling others ‘dumbass’, ‘idiot’, ‘stupid’, etc, but also denying (among lots of other things)
– that e.g. GPS’s accuracy is based on Einstein’s work concerning time dilation, redshift and Sagnac effect
but also
– Lorentz’ and Einstein’s work as such!
And you, Master Joe Rancourt, pretend to ‘ignore name callers’ ???
Vielen Dank / Many thanks
R. J. K. (Germany)
Once again, very nice Eric.
+ 1!
+2
If anyone still thinks the vacuum is not good enough, just plot a graph with vacuum vs. temperature and extrapolate.
swannie…”While some convection may remain within the jar, its clear that the lifting the Green plate results in warming of the Blue plate…”
Don’t know what this has to do with the current thread on the April temperatures. All you are doing when you raise the green plate is blocking the radiation from the blue plate which blocks its ability to dissipate heat.
This demonstrates a heat dissipation problem not proof that the 2nd law does not apply. Will you give it up? The 2nd law has withstood 150 years of scrutiny far beyond your efforts.
“All you are doing when you raise the green plate is blocking the radiation from the blue plate which blocks its ability to dissipate heat.”
All you are doing when you add greenhouse gases is blocking the radiation from the earth’s surface, which blocks its ability to dissipate heat.
So the earth’s surface warms up, just like the blue plate warms up. Glad we all agree 🙂
Tim,
No it doesnt. Any more than trying to say the Earths surface increases in temperature at night. So-called blocking does not stop the surface from cooling.
Try again.
Cheers.
“Block” doesn’t quite seem right though. If anything it is a tiny block at best.
CO2 blocks up to ~ 20% of the IR spectrum near room temperature. At low concentrations that might take a km of atmosphere, but 20% certainly not “tiny”.
Also, water blocks the IR much better than CO2. And clouds block better yet. With low clouds, basically 100% of upward IR is blocked.
The “block” then emits the energy in all directions. You do not have 20% redirected solely down to the surface.
All this proves is that norman, binny, and nate, have not the slightest clue as to the difference between blocking heat dissipation and back-radiation.
Please add me to the list Gordon!
svante…”All this proves is that svante, norman, svante, binny, svante, and nate, have not the slightest clue as to the difference between blocking heat dissipation and back-radiation”.
Sorry I missed you svante.
Thanks!
Gordon,
“blocking heat dissipation” if thats the way you understand it, fine. Its acting like insulation.
Nate,
Are you trying to say that the atmosphere has insulating properties?
Could you then explain how increasing the amount of insulation between a heat source (the Sun) and the Earths surface results in the surface increasing in temperature? I cant.
Is the reverse also true? Does allowing more radiation to the surface result in in a drop in temperature? This seems impossible to me, but GHE supporters cant even describe this supposed GHE, so it is difficult to figure out what it is actually supposed to do!
Could you describe the GHE – in terms of the insulating powers of insulation, or anything else you like? It would help if you could include CO2 and H2O in your description, plus the words increased temperatures (if you think the GHE description should include such things).
Of course, if the GHE has nothing to do with CO2, H2O, or increased temperatures, then leave those terms out of your explanation. Good luck. i wont hold my breath while I wait for your explanation, as I believe you cant do it. I assume you agree, but fell free to surprise me.
Cheers.
For the Nth time, Mike. As Tim and I have explained. The insulation is between Earth and very cold SPACE. Doubtful that N+1, will be different.
I can explain it – it’s quite simple really. The ‘insulation (co2)’ is transparent to incoming higher energy (uv) radiation from the sun, but it ‘blocks (absorbs)’ lower energy radiation (ir) from the Earth’s surface, just like glass in a greenhouse does – hence the greenhouse gas effect moniker.
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
michael david…”blocks (absorbs) lower energy radiation (ir) from the Earths surface, just like glass in a greenhouse does…”
You need to upgrade your dogma, michael.
How can CO2, at 0.04% of atmospheric gases block anything when each atom on the Earth’s surface is radiating IR? Calculate the number of molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere then the number of atoms comprising the surface and the oceans and I’m sure you’ll find the CO2 is dwarfed by the number of surface/ocean atoms.
I would venture that 99% of the radiation leaving the surface bypasses the CO2.
With regard to the real greenhouse, Wood, circa 1909, an expert on IR posited that IR could not heat the atmosphere as claimed. He did an experiment to prove that greenhouses warm due to a lack of convection, not through trapping IR.
Even if a greenhouse did trap IR, what’s it going to warm, the 0.04% of the greenhouse air represented by CO2? Makes far more sense that a greenhouse warms due to the nitrogen and oxygen warming through direct contact with the heated soil in the greenhouse.
Joe Postma put it really well when he claimed we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
MD,
Your mechanism doesn’t seem to work at night, or in the winter, for that matter.
It obviously hasn’t worked for four and a half billion years, either. The Earth is less of a molten blob than it was.
Greenhouses at night cool down. Even greenhouses don’t exhibit your greenhouse effect.
Learn some physics, then try again.
Cheers.
Greenhouses are not warmer than the air outside, Mike? Why do they bother building them to grow tomatoes??
At home I made a cold frame, which is just a mini greenhouse, to start plants earlier in the season. It worked…until I forgot to crack open the lid on a sunny day and the temp inside went to > 110F when it was 50 ish outside, and the plants baked.
Explain that Mike.
Nate,
Easily explained. Sun shines, inside gets hot. No convection, no wind. Sun goes down, inside gets cold.
What would you disagree with? Nothing? I thought so. My pleasure.
Cheers.
Glad you understand greenhouses actually do produce warming, by placing something between the sun and earth surface. Contradicts your oft-stated meme, doesnt it?
“Could you then explain how increasing the amount of insulation between a heat source (the Sun) and the Earths surface results in the surface increasing in temperature? I cant.”
And by the way, at night, the inside is warmer than the outside. The plants dont freeze.
+1 Nate
Gordon Robertson says:
How can CO2, at 0.04% of atmospheric gases block anything when each atom on the Earths surface is radiating IR?
How does water vapor block anything?
Nate,
Your stupidity is exceeded only by your ignorance. Matter does not react to a decrease in the amount of energy impinging on it by raising its temperature.
You are wrong.
As to greenhouses “retaining” heat at night, they dont, nor during winter.
For example –
“Top ten tips for heating a greenhouse in winter
. . . But heating a greenhouse can be an expensive luxury, and nobody likes the idea of wasting energy or money. So weve put together some top tips to help you keep costs down and make your greenhouse heating more efficient this winter.
– is but one of multitudinous industry pieces of advice based on fact, rather than your wishful thinking.
No wonder rational people might get sick of dimwits such as yourself offering pseudoscience which is both pointless and useless.
Accept reality. Learn physics. If you can bring yourself to do it, of course.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson says:
“How can CO2, at 0.04% of atmospheric gases block anything when each atom on the Earths surface is radiating IR?”
Because it has a huge cross section for ab.sorp.tion, peaking at about 10^4 m2/kg.
Gordon Robertson says:
“How can CO2, at 0.04% of atmospheric gases block anything when each atom on the Earths surface is radiating IR?”
Paint several targets on the side of a barn. Stand back, and throw a ball at them.
What’s the chance of hitting one?
It obviously depends on the number of targets.
BUT IT ALSO DEPENDS ON HOW BIG EACH TARGET IT.
People like Gordon are only thinking about the first number, while ignoring the second. Very unscientific.
“As to greenhouses retaining heat at night, they dont”
OK, Mike. Maybe you never lived in a place that has seasons.
http://homeguides.sfgate.com/protect-year-round-growing-greenhouse-plants-frost-97014.html
“A greenhouse traps heat from the sun during the day, allowing plants inside the greenhouse to stay warm at night.”
Winter-no-not without help.
As to “Matter does not react to a decrease in the amount of energy impinging on it by raising its temperature.”
Thats a rather inadequate description of a greenhouse, Mike, obviously, since they do warm up.
nate…”Gordon,
blocking heat dissipation if thats the way you understand it, fine. Its acting like insulation”.
If CO2 acts as an insulator, at 0.04% of the atmosphere, it would be equivalent to covering yourself with a tattered, thread-bare blanket comprised of a few threads of cloth.
Physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, in his book on Atmospheric Radiation, referred to your theory as a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly.
Maybe, so its a question of strength of the effect for you, not that its a 2LOT violation?
Gordon gets the blanket wrong, because he does not understand the concept of cross sections
Gordon Robertson
So exactly how does the green plate in E. Swanson experiment block heat dissipation from the heated blue plate? The energy is emitted the same if the green plate is there or not. The energy the blue plate emits is a product of its temperature. It will emit this same energy if the green plate is there or not. If you were not a lazy man you could do the test yourself and have IR measuring devices pointed at the blue plate in both cases. You would find the IR flux measured by the instrument is only effected by the temperature of the blue plate. Your physics is still horrible and misleading and you still will not work to correct our bogus ideas.
The effect the green plate has on the blue plate (at least in rational established physics, not so in your made up version of reality that you peddle here) is to radiate energy toward the blue plate, that the blue plate absorbs. This adds to the internal energy of the blue plate and it increases in temperature.
I does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in any way. I only violates your misunderstanding of the real Law. It violates your made up version. Not the real one.
I think Snape did a great job on the other thread to help you about how a poor man can make a rich man richer. He used dimes instead of joules. I think you were not able to process his thought process and probably ignored it as you do with most real science.
norman…”So exactly how does the green plate in E. Swanson experiment block heat dissipation from the heated blue plate? The energy is emitted the same if the green plate is there or not”.
***
I told you, by blocking the radiation.
The energy is not radiated the same with/without the green plate. When the green plate is close to the blue plate, radiation from the blue plate warms the green plate. That reduces the temperature differential and according to S-B:
q = ebA(Thot^4 – Tcold^4)
It’s not clear to me what Tcold would be with the green plate lowered, maybe it’s the temperature of the glass. With the green plate in proximity, Tcold becomes the heated temperature of the green plate.
If Tcold increases till it equals Thot, heat dissipation on that side would stop completely. At temperatures in between the conditions between green plate up and green plate down, the heat dissipation would keep reducing till Tcold = Thot. So, raising the green plate affects the temperature differential in the neighbourhood of the blue plate.
However, there is no radiation absorbed by the blue plate from the green plate in order to satisfy the 2nd law. That also satisfies Bohr’s equation E = hf for EM. Ecold does not have the energy intensity or the frequency to satisfy Ehot. EM from the cooler plate cannot be absorbed by the blue plate.
“However, there is no radiation absorbed by the blue plate from the green plate in order to satisfy the 2nd law.”
This real process Gordon describes does NOT satisfy the 2nd law as universe entropy is not increased in such a process. Gordon needs to add more depth to his study of radiative transfer processes.
Gordon Robertson
Why? Why do you have to make up unreal physics all the time?
YOU: “The energy is not radiated the same with/without the green plate. When the green plate is close to the blue plate, radiation from the blue plate warms the green plate. That reduces the temperature differential and according to S-B:
q = ebA(Thot^4 Tcold^4)”
Gordon you clearly are out of your league here. The vast majority of posters here know real actual physics. Your made up versions are very bad and only work to discredit any potential debate you might attempt.
The ENERGY from the BLUE PLATE IS radiated exactly the same if the green plate is there or NOT. That is why I said instead of posting your trash made up physics experiment! Again you are far too lazy to do any real experiments so you will persist in your phony made up physics and false declarations. If you would take the time and do this experiment yourself you will find that the energy emitted by the Blue plate does not change (IS NOT BLOCKED)!! The only thing that will change the energy emitted by the blue plate is when its temperature changes! This is reality! These are facts you are not willing to accept! You could easily prove these facts if you were not so lazy and unmotivated! Do the experiment as E. Swanson set up and get IR sensors pointing at both the blue plate and the green plate and monitor the changes in the emitted energy. You will find the blue plate will not change its emission until its temperature goes up. You will also measure energy coming from the green plate to the blue plate, this is what is causing the temperature of the blue plate to rise to a new equilibrium temperature. Before the green plate is moved to position, the blue plate is only receiving IR from the cooler glass (which E. Swanson recorded).
Gordon Robertson
This is just total crap you made up, based upon nothing at all. Wish you would stop with the fake physics and learn the real material. I have tried to educate you but you will not learn.
YOU: “However, there is no radiation absorbed by the blue plate from the green plate in order to satisfy the 2nd law. That also satisfies Bohrs equation E = hf for EM. Ecold does not have the energy intensity or the frequency to satisfy Ehot. EM from the cooler plate cannot be absorbed by the blue plate.”
Where do you get this nonsense from? Where please tell me!
I posted on the other thread showing you don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. I will re-post it here, you will ignore it here as well. You just do not want to learn.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/#comment-299949
E,
Wait for night. Turn off your heat source. Wait for a bit.
You will discover there is no temperature difference at all between the two plates. Just like the Earth at night.
Things heat up during the day, cool down at night. As Fourier pointed out, at night the surface loses all the days heat, plus a little bit of its own.
After four and a half billion years, the surface has cooled several thousand K, and continues to do so.
Antarctica is presently covered with ice to kilometer depths in places – previously, it supported a varied range of flora and fauna. Nature doesnt agree with your assertions. Sad.
Youll figure out your incorrect assumption, I hope. Lord Kelvin went to his death bed insisting that the Earth could not possibly be older than 20 million years! are you smarter than Lord Kelvin?
Oh well, if you arent, it’s not my problem, is it?
Cheers.
Flynn
What point are you trying to make? The point is that the green plate put in position caused the powered blue plate to move to a higher equilibrium temperature. Look at the graphs on E. Swanson link.
What evidence do you have to support your made up statement that the surface of the earth continues to cool? It is at a relatively equilibrium temperature which allows liquid water to exist for billions of years. It has been in the range of liquid water at life supporting temperatures for billions of years. Your points are lame. They don’t even make sense on any level. What are you talking about?
N,
Just a quote – you won’t believe real scientists, obviously –
“There are three processes at work: the first is the latent heat in the Earth’s core left over from the formation of our planet out of an accretionary disc of rock and dust approximately 4.57 Ga ago. The Earth cooled from the outside-in and as the core cools, that heat escapes into the mantle. The second process, which produces the majority of the heat, is caused by the decay of radioactive isotopes Potassium 40, Uranium 238, Uranium 235 and Thorium 232. The third is frictional heating caused by denser material sinking towards the core.”
Keep believing that magic stops the 5500 K core from losing heat to the 3 K or so of space.
No GHE. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
MF, The material between the Earth’s core and the surface acts as an insulator. The energy flow from the corer to the surface has been repeatedly measured and shown to be very small, compared to the average of the energy from the Sun. Ever heard of bore hole measurements of temperature vs. depth? Also, if there really was a lot of thermal energy coming up from the core, how could there be any permafrost below the yearly active zone?
S,
I’m glad you agree that the Earth has cooled, and that the cores is still cooling – it has no choice, has it, being 5500 K, and all!
Yes, I have heard of the Earth’s geothermal gradient – that is why nobody has managed to drill deepe into the crust than 14 km. Too hot. No cold waves, if that is where you are heading. Complete nonsense.
The Sun’s influence is not discernible beyond 20 m.
I suppose you know –
“Permafrost extends to a base depth where geothermal heat from the Earth and the mean annual temperature at the surface achieve an equilibrium temperature of 0 C.”
Do you think that your gotcha may have rebounded, and got youinstead? What else are you incapable of finding out for yourself? Are you really so stupid and ignorant that you are reduced to seeking information from me?
I should be surprised, but GHE believers often behave irrationally.
Maybe you could try telling me again how you make thermometers hotter by putting more CO2 between the thermometer and a heat source?
Cheers.
MF, You are the one who threw out the red herring, suggesting that geothermal energy has a significant influence on the surface temperature. Of course that energy is added to that from the Sun which then heats the atmosphere, but the Sun’s energy is by far the dominant quantity in climate.
Yes Mike, what was the point again when we know that:
“Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust.”
S,
Indeed. The fact that the molten core is hotter than the surface – even in bright direct sunshine – indicates that the Earth is cooling. Observations of the amount of heat being lost, and the absence of any perfect insulator which would prevent heat form the core reaching the surface, support this view.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. That causes problems for anybody who attempts to describe the non-existent GHE. Do you really believe that the net result of a global heating effect is to reduce the surface temperature of the Earth? It seems so, but I doubt that is what you are trying to say.
The result is that you cant actually say in clear terms what the GHE is supposed to do.
Give it a try. if you like.
Cheers.
That’s right Mike.
The core adds about 0.1 W to the 161 W solar input.
Why would you present this here ?
Joe Rancourt says:
May 2, 2018 at 10:32 AM
Why would you present this here ?
*
What a naive question indeed!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
You are really a newcomer.
@ E …so make a prediction, if you can about what effect on the system can be expected from your superior physics.
goldminor, If you are asking me for a prediction, you’ve missed the point of the exercise. For more than ten years, some folks have claimed that the CO2 greenhouse effect is impossible because it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Their theoretical interpretation of the 2nd Law also applies to solid bodies and my demonstration supports the opposite world view.
A prediction? Those who deny the science of Global Warming will continue to denigrate and ignore my results without offering any counter evidence, as they have done now for almost 4 months.
I misunderstood your intent, sorry. I see what you are saying now. Certainly CO2 has some ability to warm just as water vapor does. It most certainly is not a main driver of the climate though as it builds in the atmosphere. It will lead to further warming as the concentration rises. Almost all agree on that.
goldminor says:
May 2, 2018 at 1:24 PM
Almost all agree on that.
That’s new to me and a lot of others here.
@ La Pangolina …that should be taken in the context of after another 100 ppm are added that there should be an added warming effect. I think that natural processes can override the tiny effect of increased levels of CO2. To my mind the natural processes are always the main influence in comparison to the warming ability of CO2.
swannie…” Their theoretical interpretation of the 2nd Law also applies to solid bodies and my demonstration supports the opposite world view”.
The 2nd law is not a world view or an opinion, it is a fundamental law of thermodynamics that has withstood over a century and a half of close scrutiny.
It states clearly that heat can NEVER be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body without compensation. Your experiment does not prove in any way that heat can be transferred from the cooler green plate to the warmer blue plate that warmed it. To state such a conclusion is utter nonsense.
I have pointed out to you that your green plate is interfering with the radiation field of the blue plate. Without the green plate, the blue plate is free to radiate from that side and it reaches an equilibrium temperature. When you raise the green plate, you are effectively blocking the ability of the blue plate to dissipate heat via radiation therefore it warms.
The warming has absolutely nothing to do with back-radiation from the green plate. The 2nd law MUST prevail and you should be trying to understand your experiment in that respect. Over-riding a century and half of an established law does not make the law wrong, all it does is make you look inexperienced.
It has been claimed that CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere can interfere with radiation in a similar manner to your solid metal plate. That’s ridiculous. Compared to the amount of radiation from each atom making up the surface and the oceans, the CO2 would look like a metal plate with large holes punched in it. 99% of the radiation would pass right through.
Gordon says: “I have pointed out to you that your green plate is interfering with the radiation field of the blue plate. “
And how would you explain the mechanism by which the Green plate interferes with that radiation field? The most obvious (and correct) answer is that the green plate’s own radiation field interferes with the radiation field of the blue plate. The green plate’s radiation back toward the blue plate limits how much energy the blue plate loses. I don’t know about you, but I would tend to call radiation back from the green plate “back-radiation”.
“It has been claimed that CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere can interfere with radiation in a similar manner to your solid metal plate. Thats ridiculous.”
Prof. Tyndall thought it ridiculous too until he bought the lab equipment and ran the test. Then found out his data showed invisible lab air with CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere did interfere with radiation in a similar manner to a solid metal plate.
Ball4,
You would have to be as dumb as a box of hair, if you believe that putting a solid metal plate between a heat source and a thermometer, makes the thermometer hotter!
Just how stupid are you? Rhetorical question, I know, but feel free to answer if you wish.
Cheers.
No, I disagree with you Mike, the thermometer would not become hotter as you write & Prof. Tyndall proved. Only those that admit they haven’t the faintest idea what we’re talking about and believe in magic such as Mike Flynn would write such a thing.
I do have to admit Mike has written out testable hypotheses for Earth GHE accurately though so he’s not completely clueless on Earth surface climate like some others here.
Mike, anyone who thinks what people are discussing here is “putting a solid metal plate between a heat source and a thermometer”
must be as dumb as a box of hair.
When you say “Without the green plate, the blue plate is free to radiate from that side and it reaches an equilibrium temperature. When you raise the green plate, you are effectively blocking the ability of the blue plate to dissipate heat via radiation therefore it warms.”
I think we all agree with your interpretation, more or less. And we agree that it doesnt violate the 2LOT.
So where do we now disagree? Just the name of the effect?
That was a question for Gordon.
Nate,
Ball4 wrote –
” . . . did interfere with radiation in a similar manner to a solid metal plate.
I agree that Ball4, like yourself is as dumb as a box of hair, to use the vernacular, but you may choose to disagree.
Learn to read.
Cheers.
Mike, good job with the partial quotes missing key info. Yes plate, no not between heat source and thermometer.
Gold:It is impossible to make predictions in climate science, because no one knows the future path of greenhouse gas emissions.
This should be very obvious to you.
@ DA ..here is a successful prediction from 2015 which was initially conceived of in January 2014. It is predicting the heavy rain/flood winter of 2016/17 in Northern California and the PNW. …https://wordpress.com/post/goldminor.wordpress.com/169
“This so-called back radiation is similar to the process which is the basis for the Greenhouse Effect of CO2 and other radiative gases within the atmosphere.”
No, its not !!
Not in any way what so ever.
Andy 4:00pm – The blue plate only situation is Earth surface with no atm. radiating to deep space sink. The green plate adds in another object (as does adding Earth atm. object) between Earth surface and deep space.
So there is a way. Despite your views.
Ball4,
Does not seem to have stopped the Earth from cooling for four and half billion years, does it?
And obviously, if the core is hotter than outer space, it will continue to cool.
Or do you have some hidden magic which prevents hot objects from radiating energy?
And if you did, how would you know the objects temperature? No radiation, no means of knowing temperature, is there?
Stupid and ignorant if you believe you can stop the Laws of Thermodynamics from operating. All part of climatological pseudoscience!
Cheers.
“Does not seem to have stopped the Earth from cooling for four and half billion years, does it?”
Nor the universe. The same four and half billion years of surface cooling would have happened if Earth had no IR active gases (except today’s end point would be globally 33K cooler) and with the IR active gas constituents.
“Or do you have some hidden magic which prevents hot objects from radiating energy?”
Mike, your believing magic exists is not helpful in science discussions. All real objects radiate at all frequencies at all temperatures all the time. Check with Dr. Planck on that.
“And if you did, how would you know the object’s temperature?”
Kinetic temperature is measured with a thermometer and brightness temperature with a radiometer Mike.
“No radiation, no means of knowing temperature, is there?”
No. I recall Mike admitting he hasn’t the faintest idea what we’re talking about here so you could study up on the basics of kinetic thermometer measurement fundamentals if you don’t have a radiometer handy. Or not, your choice.
Please don’t become better informed Mike, it is so much more entertaining Mike not having the faintest idea about fundamentals of climate discussion.
ball4…”All real objects radiate at all frequencies at all temperatures all the time….”
Yes, but they don’t all absorb equally, hence the 2nd law.
ball4…”so you could study up on the basics of kinetic thermometer measurement fundamentals…”
You spelled it wrong bally, it’s Kinetik thermometer, with Kinetik being a trade name. What the heck does such a thermometer measure, kinetiks?
I have heard of mercury thermometers, thermister-based thermometers, and the infrared thermometer you mentioned.
Certainly thermometers mention heat, which is the kinetic energy of atoms in motion. Perhaps you have revised your definition of heat and now recognize it’s proper definition. I notice you refrained from associating thermometers with heat.
“What the heck does such a thermometer measure, kinetiks?”
Measures mean kinetic energy of the object constituent particles the kinetic thermometer touches hence the term, an electronics tech. ought to know that. Of course I refrained, (kinetic or brightness) temperature is not heat Gordon, they even have different units.
“Yes, but they don’t all absorb equally, hence the 2nd law.”
No, Kirchhoff settled that objects do absorb equally by the mid-1800s. Think about the temperature (i.e. explosion) problems if real objects didn’t have emissivity and absorp.tivity equal, an experienced electronics tech. ought to come to the same conclusions as did Kirchhoff.
‘ some hidden magic’ yes its called science. To cavemen, such as yourself, many modern technologies seem like magic.
ball4…”The blue plate only situation is Earth surface with no atm. radiating to deep space sink. The green plate adds in another object (as does adding Earth atm. object) between Earth surface and deep space”.
***********
It’s a poor analogy. If you built a shell of steel right around the planet solar radiation would be blocked and it would absorb the solar radiation. If there was another spherical plate inside, it would get heated by radiation and conduction/convection if there was air in between.
Comparing 0.04% of CO2 to a metal plate is ingenuous, but that’s how desperate you alarmists have become to prop up dumb theories like the GHE and AGW.
CO2 cannot act in any way like an intermediate metal plate that would block radiation. Besides, the premise of the green plate blue plate is that the heated blue plate warms the cooler green plate which back radiates EM to raise the temperature of the blue plate. That idea has to rate as some of the worst physics I have ever encountered.
That’s perpetual motion!!! If the GP warms the BP then it radiates more EM to the green plate. It warms and radiates more EM to the BP which warms further. Let’s stop being so silly.
There is a fundamental error in the assumption which contradicts the 2nd law. Heat can NEVER be transferred from a cooler object to a warmer object without compensation.
The idea that an intermediate plate can slow heat dissipation from a warmer plate is nonsense UNLESS the intermediate plate is in close proximity and/or interferes with convection. CO2 does neither plus it is such a rare gas it could not possible absorb enough radiation to present a continuous surface to radiation.
It’s not the intermediate surface that slows the dissipation it’s the TEMPERATURE of the intermediate plate. Unless CO2 in the atmosphere can raise atmospheric temperatures significantly, and there’s no proof of that, it cannot interfere with surface radiation.
It makes infinitely more sense that the 99% N2/O2 in the atmosphere affects surface radiation.
“It’s a poor analogy.”
No, it is not an analogy, the radiative transfer science eqn.s are the same Gordon.
“Heat can NEVER be transferred from a cooler object to a warmer object without compensation.”
Sure it can. Gordon is consistently wrong on this point as Gordon doesn’t fully understand 2LOT. Maxwell & Boltzmann both showed how heat can be transferred from a cooler object to a warmer object without compensation as long as universe entropy is increased in the process.
“That’s perpetual motion!!! If the GP warms the BP then it radiates more EM to the green plate. It warms and radiates more EM to the BP which warms further.”
No. The 2LOT will stop this process when universe entropy reaches its maximum amount. The 1LOT had to be supplemented with the 2LOT for this reason.
“CO2 cannot act in any way like an intermediate metal plate that would block radiation.”
The world of the Royal Society was stunned as was Prof. Tyndall when he revealed invisible .04% CO2 gas in lab air acted just like a metal plate although with much more transmissivity. Tyndall was expecting opposite results to what he found in the data because his Mark 1 eyeball couldn’t see in the IR. That caused him to repeat the experiment like hundreds of times to be sure of confidence in his results.
Ball4,
Complete fantasy. “A metal plate with much more transmissivity”?
You made that up, didn’t you?
Dream on laddie! You cannot even write decent fiction. Don’t give up your day job (if you have one, of course).
How are you going with finding a testable GHE hypothesis? Not so well?
Keep on making stupid stuff up. Maybe some other gullible nitwit will believe you. Good luck.
Cheers.
“How are you going with finding a testable GHE hypothesis?”
Already have, from Mike Flynn who has repeatedly written out testable GHE hypotheses based on reading Prof. Tyndall’s work.
Yup, another horribly stupid analogy. In case you weren’t aware, the Earth is heated from an external source, not from an internal power source like this blue plate.
The grade-school understanding and comparing of CO2 to insulation around a heated source is laughable. Why do you think the surface of the moon is MUCH hotter than the hottest surface of the Earth in the day? Because the atmosphere is a conductor of thermal energy. Oh look, all of a sudden your “insulator” is playing a huge roll in cooling the planet.
Now I know, you’re going to say, what about at night? Yeah, the atmosphere is retaining heat and keeping the surface warmer than it would be, but not because the 15K back radiation, but because of this thing called heat capacity. That’s why they Sahara Desert loses more heat into space than it receives from the sun, because the dry air has far lower heat capacity, despite there being just as much CO2 in the atmosphere over the Sahara as anywhere else on the planet.
If this is true why are maxtemps not increasing?
Averages are indeed increasing but only because of increasing mintemps ie milder nights and winters.
For a La Nina 0.21C is warm. If ENSO goes neutral and L.- trop global temperatures respond as per previous events the “hiatus” will be over.
The latest La Nina is basically over. Expect the global temps to start rising next month or the one after. Typical lag time is around 4 months, and the Nino 3.4 SST bottomed out in late Feb. and was 0.0 last week.
Global temperatures will not be rising this time.
Global lower trop temps tend to lag ENSO events by several months,so we may yet see a further drop.
OTOH, it has been a pretty mild-to-non-existent la Nina, so other factors may dominate global temps for the next few months.
AaronS
“For a La Nina 0.21C is warm.”
I agree. I was expecting UAH to register in the low 0.1s area, given its past correlation with ENSO, taking the lag into consideration even.
TFN
The oceans take some time for that heat to dissipate,imo. That is the hard part in figuring out projections. It took me a while to understand that, causing me to miss a few of my predictions.
Aaron,
According to many ‘skeptics’, the “hiatus” was over the moment the linear trend since 1997/98 went positive in early 2016.
How are you reckoning it?
2016 2017 was a major El Nino. The ~0.5deg C increase is natural/ short-term and should be removed or ignored from global warming debates. It is a way to detect bias when people ignore ENSO because it supports their position. Notice how much media was occurring in 16 and 17. It was an absurd position bc the data were global warming plus El Nino warming.
Same with La Nina now. Based on analogy global temp are suppressed during 2018 because of a signifocant La Nina. For example- today the global temperature is ~equal to 2001, but I dont think that because we are in La Nina cool phase.
I believe some thermometer data sets have factored in the deeper pacific to remove the wild ENSO swings, but obviously El Nino still lifted global in L. TROP data.
I detect bias as soon as people refer to the ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’. It comes with a start year that has been promoted by skeptics for years.
1) It begins with the strongest el Nino of the 20th century
2) It ignores the uncertainty in the trend
15 or 18 or 20 years just isn’t enough.
Skeptics always banged on about the linear trend and never mentioned uncertainty.They ignored that the result was statistically non-significant.
When the linear trend went positive, a fair number of skeptics remained consistent and said the trend was over.
Other skeptics suddenly became interested in statistical significance and piped that argument to keep the ‘hiatus’ alive.
Other skeptics started saying that a linear trend was not a legitimate way to look at the data.
Yet other skeptics decided that it was unfair to include the 2016 el Nino, but completely fair to keep the 1998 el Nino. When challenged on it, they developed an argument that the 1999/2000 la Nina “canceled out the ’98 el Nino.”
I had a completely different take. The linear trend from 1998 to any time beyond was not statistically distinguishable from any trend before that year. There was never enough statistical information to say that there had been a change in trend in any direction, let alone a ‘pause’.
Looked like a whole lotta people making over-confident summaries about trends in global temps over time periods that were too short to ascribe much meaning. Looked like politics. Still does.
Exactly right barry.
binny…”Exactly right barry”.
Kiss, kiss!!!
barry…”I detect bias as soon as people refer to the pause or hiatus. It comes with a start year that has been promoted by skeptics for years.
1) It begins with the strongest el Nino of the 20th century
2) It ignores the uncertainty in the trend…”
******
So you detected the bias in the 2013 IPCC announcement that the previous 15 years from 1998 – 2012 were a warming hiatus. Please note the IPCC also began the hiatus with 1998.
*********
“I had a completely different take. The linear trend from 1998 to any time beyond was not statistically distinguishable from any trend before that year”.
The IPCC called it a warming hiatus between 1998 and 2012 and you did not detect a difference to trends from bygone years???
Now that’s what I call denial.
BTW…are you referring to the trend after it was retroactively fudged by NOAA to show a trend, or before?
Gordon, I read the whole paragraph on the ‘hiatus’ in the IPCC. Clearly you are blind to all but a portion of a sentence.
I can’t help you with your blinkers.
It is fair to keep the 1998 El Nino after the passage of enough years. Then one can look back and see that the step change was long lasting. That is where you are going wrong in your thoughts, imo. It is unfair to use this last El Nino until we can see what happens after the current negative ENSO is over.Then we may well see another step change. That would be indicative of continued warming. .
I don’t think ‘step’changes’ in the temp record are validated. Possibly a shift in the mid-70s, but not every time there’s a strong el Nino. It only looks that way.
@ barry …my bet is on e step down from here.
Sort of like basing my age on the day I was born is cherry-picking…
There you go, and happy birthday.
ENSO is going down hill from here. The next El NIno will take place some time in 2020, imo.
http://www.eldersweather.com.au/climimage.jsp?i=nino34
Sure? I wouldn’t bet for it.
I would. I have been hanging out at Wunderground for the last week. I was curious to see what I might learn about hurricanes. End result not much from the chat room there. However, one guy kept posting the daily Tropical Tidbits 3.4 graph. It was climbing at the time, and every day he would say here it goes, El Nino not far off. Well, I said right off “No it will fade away in 6 days”. They all laughed at me at the time.
Then more days went by. The 3.4 region continued to gain a bit. The guy posting still saying, here it comes, and me saying 5 days till end, 4 days till end. Then the 3.4 went flat. After several days of a flat 3.4, and me saying almost over, he stopped posting the 3.4 and posted a pic of region 4 yesterday. I had to laugh a bit.
Finally today, the 3.4 region stepped down a notch. I asked them all “How did I know that”. None of them had an answer, of course, as they are fairly mindless in their approach; and they all wear blinders consisting of preconceived notions. I think that I will let them be. There is little to nothing that they will ever have to show me, and they do not want to hear from me.
Here you see the difference between ‘looking day by day’ and having a look at a somewhat longer trend:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
But does it matter that much?
I always have the long trend in my inner picture. I would bet that the La Nina will reinstate itself, and then hold in place for the next 2 years. That is my long term analysis.
Thanks for the link. I have never seen this site before. …https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Maybe this one interests you too:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
JMA is a top institution:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
Thanks again for the extra links.
@ La Pangolina …I am getting good at pointing out the shift points for the 3.4 region as noted above. On the 4th I stated elsewhere that the 3.4 region would start to move up for the next 7 days. It made the first move back up on the 5th, and it will continue to move up for around 7 days, perhaps a bit longer. Let us see how this works out.
Actually, just noted TTs 3.4 update for the 6th. Once again a slight move up. So correct for 2 days so far. …https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
But there has been a change up in the 3.4 region. After a step up, it has since taken a nose dive back below 0.5C. This is very interesting, to me. It now looks like it is going to downtrend into a major La Nina from here. The influence which affects the ENSO regions to warm has weakened.
Silly. That’s like saying the last stock market crash was small for a crash because the down market was twice as large as the down market in the 1980s. Hysteresis!
Thanks Dr. Spencer. It’s good to have real data as opposed to the “looks about right” model data and endlessly adjusted surface data. If I close one eye and squint through the other, it seems even the 0.13 K/decade may be jeopardy.
… in jeopardy.
The decade trend number has not actually been at 0.13K/decade since 2010 (0.131). Since then it has dropped as low as 0.110 in 2014, then rebounded to 0.128 (rounded to 0.13) at the end of 2017.
If 2018’s average temp anomaly is <0.21K, then the trend will be rounded down to 0.12K/decade, but still remain within the range it has been for the last 20 years. In 1997, the trend was 0.09K/decade. Since 1998, the trend has not dropped that low again.
The trend data robustly shows continuing warming. No cooling, no significantly reduced warming, no pause.
Thx. Linear regression of all UAH global data points?
@jimc
To do it quickly and easily, I’ve just used the average anomaly for each year. There will likely be some slight difference if you used the monthly data.
joel…”The trend data robustly shows continuing warming. No cooling, no significantly reduced warming, no pause”.
Presented by Joel Shore,
Uber-alarmist.
Joel even contradicts the IPCC who claimed a 15 year hiatus in 2013.
I’m sorry, I can’t hear you over the sound of an irrefutable trend.
Gordon Robertson says:
Joel even contradicts the IPCC who claimed a 15 year hiatus in 2013.
Gordon keeps lying about this.
He knows new data have come in since then, showing there was no pause. That will be reflected in the new AR now being organized.
Gordon doesn’t care about truth, only about his talking points. He’s as pure as deniers get.
Compared to the globe, it appears we are in a Tropical cooling phase. And in the short-term, it looks like the Arctic has been getting the lion’s share of heat from the Tropics.
?
Who is “we” compared to the globe?
barry…”Who is we compared to the globe?”
Anyone with a lick of sense. It’s plain on the UAH graph that a negative trend has been in effect since February 2016.
Gordon Robertson says:
Its plain on the UAH graph that a negative trend has been in effect since February 2016.
Natural variation – transition from El Nino to La Nina. Your little trend says nothing about climate change.
It’s not even close to being statistically significant, either.
Your comment bears no relation to mine or Rob’s.
Who is “we” compared to the globe? Do you even understand what Rob means by that? I assumed he was referring to US-only temps (compared to the globe), but I asked for clarification.
Barry, you and David are making waayyyyy too much of a big friggin’ issue out of the word, “we.” Thank you Gordon for applying a little common sense to the discussion. To clarify for Barry, the word “we” is a word for humans, you know, folks like you, me and everybody else. I am basically just looking at Dr. Spencer’s data and commenting on what is going on in the short term. I am not trying to prove anything. I am just observing two things going on at the same time. It might be meaningless. But a weatherman like me knows that the earth is constantly transporting heat vertically and horizontally. Is there ever such thing as a “balance?” There is a constant imbalance between the equatorial region and the polar regions of the earth. At the moment, it appears that the Tropical region is shedding some of its heat. That heat has to go somewhere, and according to UAH data, it looks like the Arctic is catching quite a bit of it.
I am not a research meteorologist. I am strictly an operational meteorologist, aka weatherman. But I am interested in the issue of Climate, and I just so happen to think that Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy have a better handle on this subject than most. If that upsets some people, then so be it. They’ll live.
Still warm but going in the correct direction.
Overall sea surface temperatures now only +.187c above means down from around +.34c or so this past summer.
I still say it is weakening solar/geo magnetic fields which determine the climate.
June, July and August is crunch time for your theory.
Good luck!
Let us all hope he is wrong.
Cold is bad
Warm is good
Good for whom?
@ DA…good for my tomatoes for one. Also for my Rangpur lime. This is the latest it has ever bloomed in the last 6 years by 2 months. The earliest was in late January due to the nice warming. The typical bloom was in February. Now here we are at the beginning of May, and it is just starting its bloom.
It isn’t only my fruit tree either. All of the natural growth in the mountains around me had delayed bloom/leafing by around 2 months.
So all that matters is it’s good for you? Nobody or nothing else matters?
DA,
You really need to improve the standard of your gotchas.
Are you certain you can’t appear more stupid if you try really, really, hard?
Cheers.
thanks Barry
The NCEP CFSV2 global surface temperature anomaly was up slightly from +0.321C in March to +0.365C in April referenced to the CFSR averages for 1981-2010.
Monthly trend graphs here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/
Daily trend graphs here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
I noticed this morning that the latest SSTA global plot from the University of Maine Climate Change Institute shows a global anomaly of only +0.1C for 4/30/18 and a 2018 YTD average of only +0.2C referenced to 1971-2000. Not very impressive if you’re looking for global warming.
Not very impressive if youre looking for global warming.
Data for 4+ months is not indicative of climate change or climate anything, bud of weather and natural variations.
David,
We are talking about global average sea surface temperature anomalies here, which do not change near as much as air temperatures and are very slow to change by comparison. So a 4-month average is a bit more meaningful than for surface air temperatures. The global SSTA average has overall been dropping since the last El Nino peak in 2016. It seems to be leveling off for now, but again global SSTA of +0.1C is not very impressive for 18 years since the end of the reference period.
Bryan, Here are sst over last 50 y. The trend continues.
https://tinyurl.com/y86ysohf
Thanks, Roy. Nice.
The correlation over time between the global TLT anomaly data (UAHv6) and the global all-sky ToA OLR flux anomaly data (CERES EBAF Ed4) appears just as tight and impressive as before:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uahv6-gl-tlt-vs-ceres-ebaf-ed4-gl-olr.png
There is still not a hint of any gradual, systematic divergence between the two.
Could you add trend lines to that graph please?
Why?
Because we’re looking for a very small divergence, which would hard to spot by eye-balling.
Natural variations are very large compared to our small annual increase.
Yeah, but you see, statistically generating a linear trend line across these data won’t tell you much. In fact, it would most likely fool you into
thinking you see a divergence that isn’t really there.
Look, comparing linear trends specifically obscures what the data behind is saying. People tend to get way too caught up in statistical trend lines and what they’re supposedly showing, and end up forgetting or ignoring the actual data.
If you start out with a La Nina and end with an El Nino, the linear trend will be higher than if you don’t. IOW, the noise directly affects your trend. You need to look past the noise. LOOK AT THE DATA! And UNDERSTAND what the data is showing you, what variables you are in fact plotting and looking at. Understand the processes behind.
That’s what you need to do, Svante. You don’t need any statistical tools beyond the plotting, if you have all the data, eyes in your head, and an understanding of the physical phenomena being plotted.
If you don’t LIKE what the data shows you in plain sight, THAT’S when you start manipulating it (or its central message). Focusing on ‘linear trends’ is one such method, very popular indeed in “climate circles”.
But go ahead. All the data are freely available. Do whatever you want with it.
“Look, comparing linear trends specifically obscures what the data behind is saying. People tend to get way too caught up in statistical trend lines and what theyre supposedly showing, and end up forgetting or ignoring the actual data.”
Are you sure you’re not Bart?
Eyes not stats. Linear trends, no point.
But the trend IS precisely what you said we need to be testing:
K: “The only way you could ever see an enhanced GHE causing global warming in effective operation in the Earth system is by observing over time that the total All-Sky OLR at the ToA TRENDED systematically DOWN relative to tropospheric temps. Problem is, it doesnt:”
K:
Nate says, May 2, 2018 at 5:16 AM:
Yes. And you ‘test’ it by looking at the data.
Something systematically trending down relative to another thing. No linear trend line required.
‘trend’:
1. To show a general tendency; tend
(…)
3. To extend, incline, or veer in a specified direction
I’m not talking about applying a linear trend line to the data, Nate. That’s specifically a statistical tool. I’m talking about showing a general tendency. I’m talking about veering in a specified direction.
We don’t need a linear trend line to spot such a tendency. We have 32-33 years of data:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uah-tlt-vs-erbsceres-olr-60-602-b.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/tlt-vs-olr-trop-erbsceres2-b.png
People who don’t really get math think it’s some magic crystal ball, instead of merely a means of quantifying what you can see with your own eyes. Statistics are means of data compression, not for divining truth.
Kristian,
“We dont need a linear trend line to spot such a tendency. We have 32-33 years of data:”
Data manipulated to make conform to your belief.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-300166
Trends aren’t going to help here (nor will the difference calculation I suggested below), because the quantities have different units.
What might help is a scatterplot of OLR(T) [as anomalies]. Does that have a trend?
On second thought, Kristian’s (arbitrary) scale factor effectively makes the units the same, so it’d make sense to compare linear trends.
I’ll do that if someone points me to the OLR data file.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data.php
I think
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAF4Selection.jsp
more specfic.
Bart says, May 2, 2018 at 10:12 AM:
Thanks, Bart. I think I’m done with this particular bunch of data deniers. There’s no way to get through …
David Appell says, May 2, 2018 at 1:21 PM:
It’s not arbitrary, David. Heard of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?
Nate says, May 2, 2018 at 11:06 AM:
Nope. Answered here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/#comment-300179
By now you’re only here to troll, it seems.
If by troll, you mean point out the very real concerns with your analysis/conclusions, then yes Im here to troll.
Look if your ideas cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny, then they are not really science are they?
Kristian says:
Its not arbitrary, David. Heard of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?
What does that have to do with your choice of scale factor? (And, yes, it is a choice.)
You graph isn’t well labeled so it’s hard to know what you mean by it.
But I do see you won’t share your data. That’s all it takes to know you aren’t being honest here.
Guys,
the trend for the OLR 3/2000-9/2016 is from this paper
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1
Table 7, All sky, LW, Ed 4.0
is 0.19 +- 0.21 W/m^2/decade.
To compare to a temperature trend, divide OLR by 4.
David Appell says, May 3, 2018 at 12:48 PM:
It’s not a choice, David. The scale factor is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law itself.
Going from 254.9K to 255K (+0.1K) will result in a 0.376 W/m^2 increase in thermal emission flux (the all-sky OLR at the ToA), according to the S-B equation. 1 divided by 3.76 is 0.266. Try it.
You need the 4th root, not division by 4.
HOW TO SELF-DECEIVE BY FOCUSING PURELY ON LINEAR TREND LINES AND THUS IGNORING THE DATA BEHIND …
Just to show the honest people reading this blog how silly, petty and downright disingenuous the ‘request’ (demand, really) by the usual defenders of the idea that “CO2 must be the cause, no matter what the evidence says” that I statistically generate ‘linear trend lines’ from my data and calculate their slopes so as to somehow enable me (and them) to “properly analyse” that very same data, which is already plotted for everyone to see and study for themselves, really is, I will describe, using graphs, how applying linear trend lines to plotted data in fact turns out to be, first and last, little more than a cherry-picking exercise – it can provide you with whatever result you WANT!
And one might very well ask how come these compulsive whiners don’t see this themselves …! How they are all of a sudden apparently oblivious to this pretty well-known fact. Considering how much time and effort has been spent – and is still being spent – on discussing, endlessly back and forth, start and end points on temperature curves with regard to things like “The Pause”.
Again, the bottom line is, you will always be able to get exactly the answer you want. Using STATISTICS.
And these people of course know this very well.
There’s a reason behind the adage: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
OK, so let’s start with the graph I put out originally:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uahv6-gl-tlt-vs-ceres-ebaf-ed4-gl-olr.png
Here’s a more compressed version of the exact same data plotted:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/tlt-vs-olr-2000-2017.png
Try to track with your eyes the red and the blue curves as they move along, from the beginning of 2000 on the left to late 2017 on the right.
Do you see any kind of systematic, gradual divergence between the two? Does the blue curve slowly, but steadily veer upwards and away from the red one over time, from start to finish? Or is there simply something big going on right at the end, around that late spike of the 2015/16 El Nio? Hmmm.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/tlt-vs-olr-2000-2017-b.png
Is there any obvious ‘gradual divergence’ to be discerned before late 2015 (the autumn build-up to that Nino peak)?
Watch, now, as we apply the linear trend lines:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/tlt-vs-olr-2000-2017-c.png
Yup. That’s PRECISELY what they’re after, isn’t it? And they knew the outcome all along. This is the graph all CO2 enthusiasts want to see! “Alternative theory” debunked! CO2 is back to being the climate ‘control knob’. The cause and driver of all medium and long-term warming!
The trend lines diverge gradually. Which must mean the two DATASETS diverge gradually also. Right?
Problem is, the trend lines are LINEAR, by definition and by default. If one goes up more from A to B than the other, it will naturally APPEAR to rise more/faster in a steady, systematic manner (as if from a gradually increasing “radiative forcing”!). EVEN IF THE DATA BEHIND DOESN’T!
So how can we tell these two datasets don’t actually diverge gradually from 2000 to 2017? That it’s nothing but a statistical trick. That the difference in statistical trends is specifically caused by noise and nothing else.
Well, if the divergence between the two datasets in question were indeed systematic (gradual and consistent across all the ENSO-induced peaks and troughs; no general linking back up once detached) over the period as a whole, and not just a random result of ‘endpoint’ noise, then we SHOULD (at least qualitatively) see the same trend-line divergence tendency even when removing the final two years of the series.
But we don’t. Not at all. That’s simply not what’s going on:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/trendlines-2000-2015.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/trendlines-2001-2015.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/trendlines-2001-2013.png
Let’s now extend this analysis back in time. TLT vs. OLR, 60N-60S, 1985-2017:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/60n-60s-tlt-vs-olr.png
What do you see? Endpoint problems once more. We start with a La Nina (LN) and end with an El Nino (EN):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/60n-60s-tlt-vs-olr-b.png
Linear trend lines WITH both the early LN and the late EN included:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/60n-60s-tlt-vs-olr-1985-2017-trend.png
There you have it once again: The TLT trend is steeper than the OLR trend. Systematic, gradual divergence confirmed …? Er, no.
Linear trend lines with the early LN and the late EN REMOVED:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/60n-60s-tlt-vs-olr-1986-2015-trend.png
What a difference a couple of years make!
Folks, we can’t ignore the impact of ENSO (and volcano) noise on the trends! We can’t just pretend it’s not there. Or that it doesn’t matter. IT DOES!
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/60n-60s-tlt-vs-olr-enso-pinatubo.png
Tropics, now:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/20-20-tlt-vs-olr.png
Early La Nina, late El Nino:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/20-20-tlt-vs-olr-b.png
(BTW, if you for some reason were to believe that the final (2017) blue TLT uptick is somehow a ‘systematic’ one, then, no:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/tropical-tlt.png )
Again, linear trend lines WITH both the early LN and the late EN included:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/20-20-tlt-vs-olr-1985-2017-trend.png
Yes. No surprises there. Steeper TLT trend. But, yet again we must ask: Is it ‘real’? Or is it merely circumstantial? ‘Accidental’.
Linear trend lines with the early LN and the late EN REMOVED:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/20-20-tlt-vs-olr-1986-2015-trend.png
* * *
What, then, am I trying to say with all this?
This is all about cherry-picking the start and end dates of our analysis. The individual slopes of our linear trend lines change according to the change our start and end dates. Even from positive to negative!
The data itself, however, NEVER DOES! It consistently tells its story, no matter what …
People: JUST LOOK AT THE DATA!
Good analysis Kristian!
Should the graph use the OLR 4th root to make them comparable (or TLT ^4)?
Svante says, May 5, 2018 at 1:52 AM:
No. What you want is to ‘translate’ the OLR flux (W/m^2) into temps (T) via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
What you do is simply apply the S-B equation to a specific rise in temperature, say, +0.1 K. What do you get? An increase in OLR of +0.376 W/m^2, which is 3.76 times as much as the rise in temp.
You can do this operation yourself, Svante. q/A = σ T^4. Try it.
Kristian,
The S/B ‘T’ is the absolute temperature.
You can not apply that to a delta value.
Your graph has different absolute temperatures.
You have to apply T^4 all along your graph.
Svante says, May 6, 2018 at 1:55 AM:
I am. That’s the whole point.
What absolute temperature range did you use then?
Svante says, May 6, 2018 at 2:51 PM:
It’s in my original response to Appell:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-300463
Look, this is very simple. A temperature of 254.9 K will produce a thermal emission flux of σ 254.9^4 = 239.383 W/m^2. A temperature of 255 K, 0.1 K higher than the first one, will produce a thermal emission flux of σ 255^4 = 239.759 W/m^2. That’s an increase in the thermal emission flux intensity of [239.759 – 239.383 =] 0.376 W/m^2.
So as the temperature value rises by 0.1 K, the thermal emission flux value rises by 0.376 W/m^2, 3.76 times as much, only with a different unit. Which means that, if you want to translate your thermal emission flux values into temperature values, you will have to divide them by 3.76. And THAT’S the scaling I’ve used (for the global plots). And you see how well it fits. There’s nothing coincidental about it …
So you are making a linear approximation of x^4.
Fair enough, the error is about 1.7% between 1986 and 2016.
Svante says, May 7, 2018 at 10:59 PM:
Are you telling me you don’t get this, Svante!?
There is no such “error”. The only uncertainty is the precise value of Earth’s T_e. Is it 255 Kelvin, or is it 0.1, 0.2 or 0.3 Kelvin more or less than this?
Going from 254.7 to 254.95 Kelvin would increase the thermal emission flux by 0.9383 W/m^2, 3.7532 times as much as the absolute rise in temperature (+0.25 K).
Going from 255.3 to 255.55 Kelvin would increase the thermal emission flux by 0.9449 W/m^2, 3.7796 times as much as the absolute rise in temperature (+0.25 K).
The difference between 3.7796 and 3.7532 is 0.7%. So, yes, you could say there’s an “uncertainty” to my ‘approximation’ (it’s not a ^4 approximation, though; it’s a T_e approximation) of about x0.0264, or 0.7%.
That is pretty darn precise.
It’s hard to explain, but if you have:
x = 1,2,3,4 then
x^4 = 1,16,81,256
Because it looks like there is a gradual divergence between the 2 sets of data.
Oh, and what “gradual divergence” is that?
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uahv6-gl-tlt-vs-ceres-ebaf-ed4-gl-olr-1.png
You blindly look at the end point, barry. That will get you confused.
Like I told Svante above: The noise will directly affect your trend. Which means you need to look past the noise. LOOK AT THE DATA! And UNDERSTAND what the data is showing you, what variables you are in fact plotting and looking at. Understand the processes behind.
– end pointS –
+10 ..yep, let the data speak for itself, as it speaks plainly to my ear.
A trend *IS* a way of “looking past the noise.”
Indeed there is a divergence, but Kristian refuses to acknowledge it
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/#comment-299780
“The noise will directly affect your trend. Which means you need to look past the noise. LOOK AT THE DATA! And UNDERSTAND what the data is showing you, ”
Indeed the noise affects trend. What the data should tell you then, is you cannot conclude what Kristian concludes about the trends.
‘Look past the noise’ = apply confirmation bias.
*Sigh*
There’s a divergence in the linear trend lines, Nate. That’s a different thing altogether. There’s no divergence in the actual data.
We are not comparing two different datasets describing one and the SAME parameter. We are correlating two datasets describing two DIFFERENT parameters. We are looking at correspondence. The OLR is basically translated (via the S-B equation) into temperatures (or the other way around, the temps are translated into thermal emission fluxes).
We thus can’t – and we don’t – expect two different parameters like this to respond equivalently in all circumstances, to all processes and events taking place within the Earth system. IOW, we can’t concentrate on the noise. On ENSO events. On volcanic eruptions. We have to concentrate on extended stretches of relatively neutral conditions spread out over the entire time period.
What we’re looking at is MEAN LEVELS, not ENSO amplitudes up and down. We want to see whether the mean levels of the two different datasets in question follow each other over multidecadal timespans or not. And they do. They absolutely do.
There is NO gradual divergence here, Nate:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uahv6-gl-tlt-vs-ceres-ebaf-ed4-gl-olr-1.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uah-tlt-vs-erbsceres-olr-60-602-b.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/tlt-vs-olr-trop-erbsceres2-b.png
If you somehow manage to ‘see’ gradual divergence here, it is only because you WANT to.
You need to stop acting like an obstinate child that can’t have its way. You’re in full denial mode. Cognitive dissonance.
Nate says, May 2, 2018 at 5:28 AM:
No. It’s this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uah-tlt-vs-erbsceres-olr-60-602-b.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/tlt-vs-olr-trop-erbsceres2-b.png
Managing to see a gradual divergence over this 32-33 year period is what would require a serious case of confirmation bias, Nate.
Thiis 33 y global plot that you are so fond of is suspect for several reasons
1. You start with your premise So could we possibly merge our two OLR datasets (ERBS & CERES) by simply letting them track Ttropo (as represented by UAHv6 TLT) all the way from 1985 to 2017?
Lets try it.
Then all adjustments you make after that turn out to make this occur. You mention trying to avoid confirmation bias, which is admirable, but it seems clear that you have not avoided it.
2. I may have missed it, but I dont see in the published literature, the same offset you give to the post 2000 data, in order to try to match it up with pre 2000 data. I havent seen any plots like yours showing global OLR from 1985-2016.
3. In the literature, the emphasis is that the data revisions continue to produce significant offsets from previous versions. Ie these offsets are not well pinned down. That is why the CERES experts are not deriving strong conclusions about long-term climate-related trends in the data as I think you are.
4. The offset you give to the post 2000 data adds ~ 1W/m^2 to OLR for the entire post 2000 period relative to the 1990s. This is extremely unlikely to be correct. This is large enough that it should produce a significant NET loss of OHC for 16 y. While we know that during this period, the there has been a a NET gain of 0.6W/m^2 in OHC.
5. There is no such post 2000 offset shown in Loeb 2016. The OLR anomaly hovers around 0.
“” missing in #1. Try again.
1. You start with your premise K:”So could we possibly merge our two OLR datasets (ERBS & CERES) by simply letting them track Ttropo (as represented by UAHv6 TLT) all the way from 1985 to 2017?
Lets try it.”
Kristian,
“IOW, we cant concentrate on the noise. On ENSO events. On volcanic eruptions.”
Yes that is exactly when you need to use fitting to a linear trend, when there is noise, and your eyechrometer (Ha!) cannot see past the noise.
This whole argument that eyes are better at detecting a long-term trend in noisy data then fitting is quite ridiculous.
If only YOU are able to discern something in the data, and others cannot, then that is the essence of self-deception.
Kristian wrote:
Theres a divergence in the linear trend lines, Nate. Thats a different thing altogether. Theres no divergence in the actual data.
Funny.
Nate says, May 2, 2018 at 10:43 AM:
Stop fooling around, Nate, and start LOOKING AT THE DATA!
Where exactly do you SEE the gradual divergence between these two datasets?
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uahv6-gl-tlt-vs-ceres-ebaf-ed4-gl-olr-1.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/tlt-vs-olr-trop-erbsceres2-b.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uah-tlt-vs-erbsceres-olr-60-602-b.png
You SEE how they’re tightly connected all the way from the mid 80s to the mid 2010s. So the ONLY reason you could possibly have to demand I draw some linear trend lines across the data, even as you SEE how the two curves follow each other to a tee (outside the ENSO and volcano noise) right there in front of you, is a complete unwillingness to ACCEPT what the data itself is in fact telling you.
Kristian won’t share his data or calculate trends because he’s afraid there IS a divergence, and then he would have to throw out his claim.
You asked why linear trends should be applied after Svante requested that.
It is to test for a gradual divergence. It looks like there is one.
So a comparison of linear trends is a fair first step to testing for that.
It’s also a way for a rigorous skeptic like yourself to check if you are self-deceived about there being no gradual divergence.
What tests have you run on the data to come to that conclusion? Surely not just the eyecrometer?
barry says, May 2, 2018 at 7:51 AM:
Again, where and how does it look like there is one, barry? Where do you ‘see’ the gradual divergence?
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uahv6-gl-tlt-vs-ceres-ebaf-ed4-gl-olr-1.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uah-tlt-vs-erbsceres-olr-60-602-b.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/tlt-vs-olr-trop-erbsceres2-b.png
barry says, May 2, 2018 at 7:51 AM:
Again, where and how does it look like there is one, barry? Where exactly do you ‘see’ this gradual divergence of yours?
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uahv6-gl-tlt-vs-ceres-ebaf-ed4-gl-olr-1.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uah-tlt-vs-erbsceres-olr-60-602-b.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/tlt-vs-olr-trop-erbsceres2-b.png
The deception would rather lie in applying a linear trend line to a set of data that is readily observable, that is there right in front of you, having the linear trend line showing divergence when the data itself shows no such thing.
THAT’S when you’re fooling yourself, barry.
You need to know HOW to look at the data. You need to know what to look for. You need to understand the data. The processes behind. And you need to see past the noise. Applying a linear trend line would allow the noise determine the outcome.
Why are you people so stuck on having to use statistical methods to find out what the data right in front of you actually says!?
I know why? Because you can’t accept what the data itself is telling you. So you feel a natural urge to do ‘something’ about it. Manipulate the data. Smooth it. Massage it.
Somehow force it to comply with YOUR preconceived idea of what they SHOULD say.
There just HAS TO be an “enhanced GHE” at work causing all this ‘global warming’, isn’t that right, barry?
The old “eye ball 1.0” argument. Seriously?
Step changes and pauses next?
“I know why? Because you cant accept what the data itself is telling you. So you feel a natural urge to do something about it. Manipulate the data. Smooth it. Massage it.
Somehow force it to comply with YOUR preconceived idea of what they SHOULD say.”
Perfect description of what you appear to have done to get your 32 y graph to tell you what you wanted.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-300166
“Why are you people so stuck on having to use statistical methods to find out what the data right in front of you actually says!?”
This is hilarious.
Your “testing” amounts to circling portions of the data that correlate at various increments.
What Svante, and now I, are asking for is a linear trend….
as a FIRST test of the data to see if there is not a “gradual divergence” as YOU put it.
The lines will, of course, not be parallel, but that doesn’t mean an actual divergence. Next step is to assess the relative uncertainty envelopes.
And that’s just the beginning of testing. David suggested a scatterplot, which seems like another reasonable step to test the correlation.
What’s hilarious is that YOU are the one making all the bold claims using your eyecrometer (the primary way to deceive yourself), and Svante and I (and others) are being purely skeptical.
We’re not saying there definitely is a divergence, we’re questioning it – as well as your methods for making your claims.
And you accuse us – wrongly – of having false conclusions when we have no conclusions, while you are full of absolute surety.
I’m surprised you can’t see this pattern clearly, as you’re obviously not completely stupid.
Of course, scaling one data set is a degree of freedom that allows plenty of wiggle matching. That’s been pointed out above, yet you exhibit no natural skepticism on this yourself. Your absolutism engenders no trust in your approach.
“Why are you people so stuck on having to use statistical methods to find out what the data right in front of you actually says!?”
You people? Ross Perot got in big trouble with that phrase. History repeats.
Also, the answer is because statistics is very useful to show the level of confidence in history repeating. For those that have read Loeb 2018, the paper shows 95% confidence that Kristian’s Mark 1 eyeball is right about global mean TOA OLR flux trend during the period March 2000 to September 2016 all-sky observed by CERES Team.
Statistics also tells us with an equal 95% confidence that Kristian’s Mark 1 eyeball is wrong.
Because “the absolute accuracy requirement necessary to quantify Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) is daunting. The EEI is a small residual of TOA flux terms on the order of 340 (W/m^2). EEI ranges between 0.5 and 1 (W/m^2) (von Schuckmann et al. 2016), roughly 0.15% of the total incoming and outgoing radiation at the TOA. Given that the absolute uncertainty in solar irradiance alone is 0.13 (W/m^2)…”
svante…”The old eye ball 1.0 argument. Seriously?
Step changes and pauses next?”
What is wrong with eyeballing data to see where you are at? The reason you cannot see the step change at 2002 on the UAH graph is that you refuse to look at it. You have CO2 warming on the brain and it blinds you to other possibilities.
Before you plot a trend line through number crunching you should look at your data to see if there is an apparent trend. If there is an apparent trend and your calculations produce something weird, you know there is something wrong. Eyeballing is a great backup.
Had I been asked to plot a trend through plotted UAH data, with the red running average curve intact, the first thing I would have noted is a general trend in the negative anomaly region of the red curve. I would have wondered why 17 years of data was generally below the baseline. That was explained by UAH as due to volcanic aerosol cooling.
Then the obvious flat trend from 2002 – 2015 would have stood out like a sore thumb. Anyone trained in looking at graphs would have seen that immediately and wondered why. With a little more experience you’d have noticed the narrow EN peak of 98 was followed by a broader negatively peaked anomaly and realized it would likely average out pretty low.
The cosine curve from 2008 to 2011 is a dead give away for a flat trend.
Had I been commissioned to apply an overall trend I would have advised my client as to the two contexts that were not covered by the number crunched trend.
I know Gordon, but I really didn’t think Kristian would fall to this level.
I thought he had an interesting science based argument.
Svante says, May 2, 2018 at 12:21 PM:
LOL!
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
We all know why you CO2 warmists prefer “statistics” over “data”.
Because statistics will always provide you with the means of forcing the data into compliance with your own dogma.
Just looking at the data, however, won’t give you that leverage.
The data tells its OWN story. You don’t LIKE that story, so you apply statistics to the data to make it conform to YOUR story. Simples.
This is obviously why you’re SOOO in love with that ‘data smoothing’ and those ‘linear trend lines’. They let you ignore everything that happens along the way, so that you can rather claim a ‘slowly increasing long-term “radiative forcing”‘ as the driver of change.
Pretty basic stuff …
barry says, May 2, 2018 at 4:33 PM:
No. It’s just sad.
A linear trend line won’t tell you whether the datasets diverge or not. A linear trend line will FOOL you into THINKING that the datasets diverge. When you have the DATA itself telling you otherwise. The first (eye-ball) test clearly tells you the datasets DON’T gradually and systematically diverge. There is ENSO and volcano noise, yes. So look beyond it. And focus on the MEAN LEVELS, the relatively neutral stretches in between. The two curves ALWAYS link back up. That’s not ‘gradual divergence’, barry.
Again, for the third time: WHERE DO YOU SEE THE GRADUAL DIVERGENCE THAT YOU SO EAGERLY WANT TO ‘TEST’?
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uahv6-gl-tlt-vs-ceres-ebaf-ed4-gl-olr-1.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/tlt-vs-olr-trop-erbsceres2-b.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uah-tlt-vs-erbsceres-olr-60-602-b.png
You need to point the ‘gradual divergence’ out first, so as to justify an attempt at quantifying it. Thus far, all you’ve done is make an assertion that it SEEMS to gradually diverge. Ok. How? Where exactly does it SEEM to?
Kristian says:
A linear trend line wont tell you whether the datasets diverge or not. A linear trend line will FOOL you into THINKING that the datasets diverge. When you have the DATA itself telling you otherwise. The first (eye-ball) test….
You’re willing to draw trend lines by eye, but not by any rigorous means. Says alot.
How about a link to the OLR data? Then I can calculate the trend lines for myself.
Gordon Robertson says:
What is wrong with eyeballing data to see where you are at?
What’s wrong is it isn’t replicable.
Science is about replication. Given the same data, everyone should come to the same conclusion.
But “eyeballing” is subjective and subject to bias. It’s not science.
Calculating trends is much more objective. That’s why statistics were invented, so remove the subjectivity and bias from scientific conclusions.
Kristian says:
Again, for the third time: WHERE DO YOU SEE THE GRADUAL DIVERGENCE THAT YOU SO EAGERLY WANT TO TEST?
Some people see it by eyeballing.
Kristian, it looks suspicious that you don’t want to test for it,
or make your data available.
Science is about replication.
Kristian says:
“The data tells its OWN story. You dont LIKE that story, so you apply statistics to the data to make it conform to YOUR story.”
You might be the most knowledgeable of all the AGW skeptics here, but how can you be so ignorant about statistics?
Statistics is a branch of mathematics, where everything has a proof, OK?
I don’t even think it’s fair to compare those measurements, they don’t have the same units for a start, TLT should be ^4. But since you did compare them why not follow through and prove it statistically, it might be like you say.
the trend for the OLR 3/2000-9/2016 is from this paper
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1
Table 7, All sky, LW, Ed 4.0
is 0.19 +- 0.21 W/m^2/decade.
To compare to a temperature trend, divide OLR by 4 (from SB law).
So 0.05 +- 0.05 C/decade
Compare to various temperature trends for the same 3/2000-9/2016, use Kevin Cowtan’s site:
UAH6 0.095 +- 0.2
RSS4 0.164 +- 0.21
HAD*crt 0.164+-0.13
Berkeley 0.18 +- 0.13
GI*SS 0.185 +- 0.14
Nate, thanks for that look up. Interesting. Think you mean root 4 for S-B not divide.
Divide OLR change by 4 to estimate temp change, is correct from SB law for a SMALL % change in temperature.
IE suppose temp = 1 and changes by 1% to 1.01
what does OLR ~ T^4 do?
1^4 =1 1.01^4 ~ 1.04
So a 1% change in temp gives a 4% change in OLR.
Now T (trop) is around 250 K OLR is around 240 W/m2
a 1% change in T =2.5K gives a 4% change in OLR = 9.6W/m^2
Kristian,
Re: stitching together different TOA flux data sets. Here is a paper that tries to do that for 1985-2012. They use a different approach than you, and get a different result.
https://tinyurl.com/y8vk795j
It makes clear that drawing conclusions about trends in the long records should be done with caution.
Let’s see a plot of the monthly difference between the two anomalies.
Yes, that would make sense. Both have correlated variations, so those will mostly be removed.
David Appell says, May 2, 2018 at 10:36 AM:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/gl-tlt-minus-gl-olr.png
how bout with rss?
What does the column AUST stand for? Thanks.
Australia.
My guess is Australia.
thanks
This is the transitional year and looking forward I do not see temperatures rising from here at best neutral but likely down.
I still say by the summer of 2018 global temperatures will be near a 0 deviation according to Dr. Spencer’s satellite data ,and in year 2019 at or below 1981-2010 averages.
Which is still on the high side. We need to get to minus .20c or greater below the 1981-2010 averages.
Will you finally give up this argument if the average goes back up in the next few months?
Every transition from La Nina to El Nino in the record is associated with temperature increase (except when there was a major volcanic eruption involved). If we do transition to El Nino (which is not yet certain), your claim will be highly unlikely. Please promise us now that you will admit you are wrong.
On the other hand I think AGW side should admit they are wrong since the temperatures fail to fall unless a full blown El NINO is present.
correction fail to rise
Why don’t you answer him? What would you say if temperatures stay above .2 C during summer 2018?
Sal has previously indicated he would be obliged to strongly reconsider his views if (NH) summertime temps remain above the zero line.
Sal
Temps fall and “fail to fall” on a monthly basis, regardless of ENSO.
As Timmy S pointed out, though, there will likely be a warming trend in the coming months, and an el nino is not expected anytime soon.
I do not agree but then again what I am basing the climate on is different from what and some others are.
You’re not looking at climate, Salvatore, you’re looking at noise and natural variations.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
On the other hand I think AGW side should admit they are wrong since the temperatures fail to fall unless a full blown El NINO is present.
correction fail to rise
That’s not true.
El Nino seasons are getting warmer, La Nina seasons are getting warmer, and neutral seasons are getting warmer.
This La Nina season (July2017-June2018) is, so far, the warmest La Nina in UAH’s records.
The last El Nino (July2015-June2016) was the warmest El Nino system, and the last neutral season (July2014-Jun2015) was the warmest neutral season.
salvatore del prete
“I still say by the summer of 2018 global temperatures will be near a 0 deviation according to Dr. Spencers satellite data…”
I would have guessed that UAH should have bottomed out this month (April), if the best fit ENSO/UAH correlation was anything to go by.
Given this unexpectedly high April value, I would guess that UAH will remain around the mid-0.2s for JJA 2018. Of course, I may be completely wrong.
TFN
I think the down trend has just started.
If temperatures stay say +.20 c or higher over the next several months that would not be good for my prediction at all.
UAH temperatures for the last 4 months have been below the trend line which is now at 0.33.
What do you understand under your trend line, Mr Pangburn?
The linear trend estimate for UAH is 0.13 C / decade.
LaP,, No, 0.13 per decade is the SLOPE of the liner trend line. The trend is the linear regression through the anomaly data. 0.33 is the anomaly of the trend line at present. The values for the last 4 months are provided in the table above.
I get the END of the slope hitting 0.29 on OLS analysis.
If the last few months being beneath the value of the last point on the trend line is in response to Sal’s comment “the down trend has just started,” it’s pretty nonsensical. A few months will tell us nothing at all, and anomalies above and below the trend line will occur even if the globe warms by 5C in the next 10 years.
That would be quite a lot of hot air.
A certain number of points (appx 50%, but depends) are always going to be below the trend line.
That’s what a trend line is.
Why is the selected range for the 30-year average 81-2010? I would expect it to be the most recent 30 years or 88-2017.
I think it’s because you would then have an ever shifting reference.
yes, it’s so other dataset producers and analyzers can make easy comparisons. And 30 years is a tradiation length of time for averaging. But the averaging period won’t matter for trends.
“The 19812010 Climate Normals are NCEI’s latest three-decade averages of climatological variables”.
https://tinyurl.com/m4sldpe
Thank you Roy for all of your excellent work. I do have a question: You state that the “averaging period wont matter for trends”
This I understand, but it will matter for absolute month to month anomaly values, correct?
In other works in my limited understanding if we chose 1925-1955 as the averaging period the monthly anomalies reported on this blog might be flat or even negative?
And then the month to month trend of -0.2 or -0.32 or whatever would still remain as an overall trend?
swampgator,
Yes, wherever you put the baseline, the trend will remain exactly the same. If the trend is positive at 0.1 C/decade, it remains positive at 0.1 C/decade whether the first year anomaly in the trend is 0.5C or -100C. The increments remains the same regardless of the absolute difference.
If you chose 1925-55 as your baseline (difficult, as UAH satellite temps only go back to 1979), anomalies presently would be higher than reported.
It was cooler back then, so the baseline would be lower than the 1981-2010 average. The recent anomalies reported on this blog would be higher with a baseline set further in the past.
Here’s a visual for you:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1920/mean:13/offset:-0.43/plot/gistemp/from:1920/mean:12
This is GISTEMP data set with the baseline at UAH (1980-2010) and also with the baseline as standard for GISTEMP (1951-1980). You can see which is which in the tables. (I’m slightly colour blind so I have trouble telling you which colour to look at).
Because it’s warmer more recently, a baseline set in the last 30 or 40 years will put the baseline higher. Warm anomalies will be cooler in this case compared to what they would be if the baseline was set further in the past.
Hey thanks so much Barry,
Are those temps from your link adjusted or raw data? The link suggests “raw data form the charity tip jar”
I’m unsure if this is a validated data source.
swampgator says:
May 1, 2018 at 5:21 PM
In other works in my limited understanding if we chose 1925-1955 as the averaging period the monthly anomalies reported on this blog might be flat or even negative?
swampgator, you can’t choose as baseline an averaging period outside of the period you have measured. That makes no sense, as there are no absolute values you could construct your averages out of.
To barry’s comment I add a WFT graph containing in addition UAH6.0’s time series:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1920/mean:13/offset:-0.43/plot/gistemp/from:1920/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12
So you can see the effect of adjusting the two anomaly sets to the same baseline: the ‘0.43’ offset in barry’s example is exactly the average of GISTEMP’s data for the period 1981-2010.
P.S. Do not be disturbed by the ignorant and unscientific blah blah of commentator Robertson, who thinks this is a manipulation. He does not understand anything about this topic.
There is a little mistake in barry’s WFT example. 100% correct would be:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1920/mean:12/offset:-0.43/plot/gistemp/from:1920/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12
All time series should have the same running mean, of 12 months here.
swampgator,
“Are those temps from your link adjusted or raw data?”
It’s NASA GISS global surface data, adjusted, interpolated, the whole shebang.
For the point being made – about baselines – that doesn’t matter one little bit.
It’s worth knowing that all the global temp data sets, including the UAH data set run by Dr Spencer here, include ‘adjustments’ of various kinds.
swampgator says:
May 1, 2018 at 6:37 PM
Are those temps from your link adjusted or raw data?
Of course it is not raw data. WFT’s engineer Paul Clark means with ‘raw’ data the source he uses before it is changed by his own users, e.g. by applying an offset, by scaling, etc.
GISTEMP’s raw data for land is among other sources for example what GHCN or SCAR (Antarctica) stations provide.
Here is a chart showing GHCN unadjusted, raw data together with the resulting GISTEMP data:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1525281428115.jpg
Is that showing GISS land temps having a lower trend than GHCN raw, Bin?
Of course it is, barry.
But above all it shows the result of homogenisation: GISS’ standard deviations are way way smaller than GHCN’s and therefore produce a more reliable trend information.
On the web site
https://climate.copernicus.eu/news-and-media/press-room/press-releases/2017-extends-period-exceptionally-warm-years-first-complete
we can read this:
19812010 is the latest 30-year reference period defined by the WMO for calculating climatological averages. It is the first such period for which satellite observations of key variables including sea-surface temperature and sea-ice cover are available to support globally complete meteorological reanalyses such as ERA-Interim.
Global temperatures will not rise. We are in what is called a Grand Solar Minimum. Temperatures should be back at baseline average by 2019. Global warming and cooling are NATURAL
Same old story. Cooling is just around the corner. We have been hearing that for years now.
krakatoa…”Same old story. Cooling is just around the corner. We have been hearing that for years now”.
I was experiencing it here in North America last winter and it’s effects are still lingering.
Indeed,
May is starting out like April… Damn cold…. Coldest spring in 50 years here in the center of the continent…
If the sun stays dormant, next winter will be brutal….
Exactly Ice age 2050. They believe in AGW theory.
With the weakening of solar/geo magnetic fields happening in tandem I do not see global temperatures on the rise.
And an increase in major volcanic activity is one of the by products of weakening magnetic fields that is part of the equation when it comes to my forecast of lower global temperatures as I have said many times before.
So if that happens I will be correct and ne can not say you correct because of a major volcanic eruption. I called for that.
How do weakening magnetic fields cause an increase in major volcanic activity?
https://www.iceagenow.info/author-interview-with-ben-davidson-2/
This video sheds light on where I am coming from.
The connection between an increase in only major explosive volcanic activity (only explosive volcanic activity ) is when galactic cosmic rays increase to a sufficient level the amount of muons a by product of cosmic rays that penetrate the earth’s surface increases to amounts that excite the magma chambers of calderas and causes the increase in explosive volcanic activity.
I will send something else on magnetic fields versus ice ages
“Felix is not affiliated with any university, scientific establishment, or corporation, and therein lies his strength. Untainted by institutional bias or conventional wisdom this architect turned author brings fresh insight to the study of the ice ages.”
https://tinyurl.com/yde6gvpq
svante…”this architect turned author brings fresh insight to the study of the ice ages”
As an architect, he’s be right at home as a climate modeler.
My last sentence should have been: know one can say I am not correct because it was the major volcanic eruption which caused the cooling.
The surface temperature of tropical oceans is low. Therefore, the temperature will not increase and El Nino will not be created.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
This ren
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
is the correct corner for El Niño detection and forecasting.
binny…This ren…is the correct corner for El Nio detection and forecasting.
That odd, all I get on that page is “Error 404: Page not found”. Are you sure that’s the correct corner for El Nino…?
Just copy out the whole link and paste it in the address bar. It got broken somehow, which can be seen just by looking at it.
Jesus what are you a dumb person.
The best way to get convinced of how you really are is to see your thorough unability to accept that I am NOT Bindidon.
One really begins to understand why you are and keep so ignorant: what you think manifestly is far more important to you than is the reality around you.
Commenter g*r has been banned. But it would imho be far better you had been instead.
2018 04 TROPIC -0.13
Oh, look everyone. A negative anomaly.
Dr. Spencer, I wonder if you could comment on this idea?:
Measure the OLR emitted from a white t-shirt a person is wearing. Then have the person put on another layer. OLR should be less. Now wait until he/she has reached a steady (higher) temperature and measure the OLR again. It should, in theory, be at the same rate it was initially, correct?
If so, then as expected a reduction in OLR (I’m ignoring conduction and convection to keep things simple) caused the person to get warmer. Also as expected the reduction in OLR was NEVER OBSERVED.
Similarly, if we look at the atmosphere I would expect an increase in backradiation to cause a decrease in OLR at the TOA. I would not, however, expect that decrease to ever be measurable, as there is no discrete event from which to compare a starting and end value.
yes, I think it’s a valid analogy. It is well known that if the Earth warms due to a reduction in OLR (in the broadband sense) from increasing CO2, then the resulting warming causes OLR to go back up again to restore energy balance. So, one cannot observed a decrease in OLR from increasing greenhouse gases partly because warming raises the OLR again, but also because of the unknown LW feedbacks involved. The only way one would get decreasing OLR as CO2 increases is if virtually ALL of the extra energy was going into the deep ocean, without hardly any warming of the surface and atmosphere.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says, May 1, 2018 at 11:57 AM:
Funny. Because this ‘well-known fact’ is apparently NOT ‘known’ by the models, and thus by “Mainstream Climate Science” (MCS) itself:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/cmip5-mean-olr.png
According to the CMIP5 model mean (RCP4.5), the Earth’s average thermal emission flux to space (the global all-sky OLR at the ToA) is about 0.75 W/m^2 LESS today than it was between 1860 and 1880, even though the world, according to the official global temperature series, is close to 1 K WARMER today than back then.
A quote from Donohoe et al., 2014, explicitly describing the way MCS picture the origin of today’s positive radiative imbalance at the global ToA:
“(…) given a present GHG forcing of about 2.8 W m-2, the increase in global surface temperature of about 0.85 K above preindustrial temperatures, and the observational estimate of λ_LW, Eq. 2 [-OLR= F_LW + λ_LW T_S] suggests an anomalous OLR of ≈ -0.8 W m-2, implying that OLR is still contributing to global energy accumulation. This apparent discrepancy can be attributed to the effects of tropospheric aerosols, which are acting to reduce global warming (and thus, OLR) through a negative SW radiative forcing on the order of 1 W m-2 (although with large uncertainty). Eq. 2 [ASR= F_SW + λ_SW T_S] and our observational estimate of λ_SW then suggest an anomalous ASR of ≈ -0.2 W m-2 in the current climate. Altogether, these estimates imply that the current global energy accumulation is still dominated by decreased OLR. However, they also suggest that a transition to a regime of global energy accumulation dominated by enhanced ASR could occur with only 0.5 K global warming above present – by the middle of the 21st century if warming trends continue as projected.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/47/16700.full.pdf
So MCS thoroughly believe – and consistently go by the story – that today’s positive radiative imbalance at the global ToA of ~ +0.6 W/m^2 is the result (to 133% !) of a reduction in OLR (Earth’s heat LOSS) and only countered somewhat (-33%) by a concomitant reduction in ASR (Earth’s heat GAIN): ASR – OLR = net; -0.2 – (-0.8) = +0.6 W/m^2.
Has anyone actually OBSERVED this reduction? Of course not. Who needs that? It’s all in the models, after all. So it must be true. Right?
Kristian
Perhaps you and the Flynnstones will be proven correct regarding the GHE. For now I’m going with MCS.
So now all of a sudden you DO expect to see a reduction in OLR …?
You need to make up your mind, Snape.
Kristian
With a continuous input of GHG’s I wouldn’t expect the resulting decrease in OLR to be measurable. Maybe the modelers entered a lump sum specifically so they COULD measure the effect? Who knows?
When I said I’ll go with MCS, I was referring to their position on the GHE in general. The “measurability” of the OLR response seems a bit of a side issue.
Sorry I didn’t make myself clear.
Kristian wrote:
Has anyone actually OBSERVED this reduction? Of course not. Who needs that? Its all in the models, after all. So it must be true. Right?
Again, Harries+ observed it for clear sky conditions.
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
The effects of it has been observed. This paper found a global energy imbalance of +0.71 W/m2 from 2005 to 2015:
“Improving estimates of Earths energy imbalance,”
Johnson, G.C., J.M. Lyman, and N.G. Loeb
Nature Clim. Change, 6, 639640, doi: 10.1038/nclimate3043 (2016).
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3043.html
Lots of research papers here:
“Papers on changes in OLR due to GHGs”
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
“…then the resulting warming causes OLR to go back up again to restore energy balance.”
That is a bit of an overstatement. The OLR will go up because the entire emissions curve will go up. But, equilibrium requires only that the entire integrated spectrum goes back up to where it was before. Relative to that entire spectrum, OLR as a percentage of the total should go down.
The integrated spectrum (= SB Law = emissivity*sigma*T^4) will show a higher temperature.
The integrated spectrum will show the same result, as it must for balance. It’s the emissivity that putatively changes, presumably resulting in a higher T.
Imagine a dam where inflow equals outflow and the reservoir’s water level is steady. If you raise the dam a few feet, outflow will be reduced (like OLR as a result of added GHG’s) and water the level will rise as a consequence. Eventually the water will have risen high enough so that inflow again equals outflow…… a new equilibrium is reached. The reduction in outflow would have been EASY TO MEASURE, because the cause (higher dam) was a discrete event.
Now, instead, raise the dam’s height in tiny but continuous increments. The water level would also rise and reach new equalibriums in tiny but continuous increments.
If you now measured rate of outflow from one hour to the next, one day to the next, you would see little or no change…….water level would be continuously rising as a result of reduced outflow, but the reduction has now become VERY DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO MEASURE.
Dr. Spencer
Thanks for your input. (I must have been writing about the dam while you had already posted it.)
The ocean is a very, very large dammed lake.
What happens when 3.5 C ocean warms to 4 C?
Little effect upon tropical ocean, large effect ocean surface temperature towards the poles, particularly the winter ocean surface temperature.
Tropical water surface is about 26 C, the colder water hundreds of meters below surface, getting a hit warmer, will have little effect, but outside of tropics you have a shallower warmer top layer of water, slight warming of the cold water would have greater effect upon winter ocean surface temperature.
And should cause more rain/snow in winter. And less cold land surface air temperatures in seasons other than Summer time.
But here it’s been rather cold lately, due to weather.
snape…”Imagine a dam where inflow equals outflow and the reservoirs water level is steady”.
*******
If you are going to offer thought experiments you should at least ensure they fit the problem. You are presuming inflow of energy from the Sun must be balanced by outflow as IR. In other words, you are stuck in a radiation model.
There are different ways for gases to expand and contract, changing the temperature as they do. For example, suppose the gases in our atmosphere have reached an equilibrium state with solar energy. Suppose during the day, the gases heat and expand then at night the gases contract.
You could compare that to a cylinder with a piston, where the vertical force offered by the piston is compressing the gas. Now heat the gas and it will expand, pushing the cylinder up, acting against gravity. Then remove the heat source and allow the gas to slowly contract.
The same could be said about our atmosphere, that operates against gravity. When the solar energy heats the surface, the heat is transferred directly to all the gases and they expand. At night, under the influence of gravity, the gases will contract. The temperature will change on it’s own, without radiation to space.
Again, I am presuming a long term equilibrium between solar input and atmospheric expansion/contraction.
According to Charles Law, which deals with changing volumes and pressures, under a constant pressure, an increasing volume should cause a decrease in temperature. Therefore as solar energy heats the atmosphere via the surface, the expanding atmospheric gases absorb the heat.
The fly in the ointment here is the pressure, can gravity keep it fairly constant?
http://chemistry.bd.psu.edu/jircitano/gases.html
The expansion and contraction affects the temperature. The solar energy is essentially doing work on the gases, causing them to expand. At night, gravity does work on the gases causing them to contract. Therefore heat is absorbed during the day through expansion and normalized during the night by contraction.
When you deal with gases in a cylinder in a lab you are not all that concerned with heat loss due to radiation. The temperatures will rise and fall without radiative dissipation.
Theoretically, there’s little need for radiation to space since the work within the gas allows for heat intake for half the day and for dissipation WITHIN THE GAS the rest of the day, all of it taking place in the gas.
For you alarmists jumping up and down waving your arms, this is simply a theory. I have no proof that it is going on but it’s just as valid as the sci-fi based energy balance offered by Trenberth-Kiele which required a back-radiation from the atmosphere that nearly equals surface radiation.
I might add with respect to my claim that radiative loss in a lab during a heat engine experiment is not of concern, the same applies to a heat steam engine, or any engine.
Normally, one is concerned with leakage in a cylinder that dramatically affects the pressure, or a misfiring spark plug that affects the temperature required to ignite a gas mix. Radiative heat loss is ignored. It’s not important since it does not sap much energy from a system.
I am wondering if this fetish we have formed with heat transfer to space by radiation is not more of a red herring issue than an actuality.
Don’t know, just asking. I have demonstrated theoretically that heat induced during the day by solar energy can be absorbed due to expansion then released during contraction WITHIN the gas. As the gas contracts it cools naturally.
If you had an insulated cylinder in a lab with a reflective lining to prevent radiation, the gas temperature would still change with expansion/contraction inside the cylinder. That is a well-established law.
pps. there is nothing in the Ideal Gas Law that deals with radiation. I guess that’s partially why it’s called ideal. Then again, it addresses a relationship between pressure, temperature, volume, and mass. If radiation was that much of an issue, I’m sure it would have been addressed.
It seems only certain modern climate scientists are concerned with radiation, to the exclusion of the ideal gas law.
Gordon Robertson says:
there is nothing in the Ideal Gas Law that deals with radiation. I guess thats partially why its called ideal. Then again, it addresses a relationship between pressure, temperature, volume, and mass. If radiation was that much of an issue, Im sure it would have been addressed.
Oh boy.
It’s this simple: in some applications, radiation is important. In others it is not.
If you’re building a steam engine, you don’t need to worry about radiation, just the properties of a gas. So stick with the ideal gas law.
If you’re trying to explain atmospheric processes, you DO need to include radiation, so you need more than the ideal gas law. Much more.
The ideal gas law is strictly classical — the gas particles are treated as billiard balls that don’t interact with one another or anything.
But in the atmosphere gas molecules aren’t billiard balls, they’re quantum mechanical objects. So it’s vital to include their interaction with radiation – or you can reproduce how the atmosphere behaves.
“Ideal” means the gas is simple, made up of classical objects, with no size, no interactions. It’s not a judgement about the physics.
Where do you come up with this stuff??
Obviously the following makes no sense, “According to Charles Law, which deals with changing volumes and pressures, under a constant pressure…”
It should read, “According to Charles’ Law, which deals with changing volumes and temperature, under a constant pressure…”
The Ideal Gas Law is a combo of laws from Charles, Gay-Lussac, Dalton, and Avogadro. Pretty neat stuff if you ask me and relatively ignored by climate modelers and alarmists who presume everything in the atmosphere is due to radiation.
Gordon Robertson says:
The Ideal Gas Law is a combo of laws from Charles, Gay-Lussac, Dalton, and Avogadro. Pretty neat stuff if you ask me and relatively ignored by climate modelers and alarmists who presume everything in the atmosphere is due to radiation.
Completely false.
At least read the abstract:
“Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,” Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, v24 n3 (May 1967) pp 241-259.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf
snape…”…Im ignoring conduction and convection to keep things simple…”
Suppose the conduction/convection you have ignored is the main source of cooling. What then?
Lindzen seems to imply that, in fact, he has stated that radiation is not the principle means of cooling the surface.
Gordon
“Theoretically, theres little need for radiation to space since the work within the gas allows for heat intake for half the day and for dissipation WITHIN THE GAS the rest of the day, all of it taking place in the gas.”
I’ll give you an A for creativity, but with little or no energy radiating to space, you’ve created a situation where the solar flux is entering a closed system.
You need to consider this:
https://amp.livescience.com/50881-first-law-thermodynamics.html
Dr. Roy Spencer, ultimately TSI is driving your temperatures series:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5iziahdthwm5yak/UAH%2C%20SST3%2C%20%26%20SORCE%20TSI%202016-2018.JPG?dl=0
Snape, David Appell, and Kristian: I attempted to respond to you from the other day here and my comments disappeared.
Bob
Did your comments appear on the blog and then disappear or did they fail to post in the first place?
Fail to post, several times, several ways.
the WordPress gods have not been kind to Bob. They are quite fickle about what comments they allow, and never provide an explanation.
Roy and Bob…”the WordPress gods have not been kind to Bob. They are quite fickle about what comments they allow, and never provide an explanation”.
We regular posters have become aware of certain words that WordPress does not like. One of the main culprits is ‘absorp-tion’. It doesn’t seem to like re-frig-er-ation but then there is a g phrase in there as well as the d-c in Had-crut.
Bob…go over your posts, cutting them into mini posts if necessary and test each one. Looks for the words above and any words with d-c or g-e.
I’ve found that solves most issues although a few are still puzzling.
It isn’t really about the word “absorp.tion” itself. It’s the particular consonant cluster “r-p-t” that’s the problem. I found out by happenstance just recently when I wanted to write “excerp.t”, but weren’t allowed to.
Sounds like peer review!
Bob Weber says:
May 1, 2018 at 11:56 AM
Fail to post, several times, several ways.
Did you really care of avoiding to write
– any word containing the consecutive letters ‘d’ and ‘c’, like ‘ncd-c’ or Had-CRUT’, written without the ‘-‘ inside separating them;
– the word ‘absorp-tion’ without the ‘-‘ inside?
These are the two main origins for comments not getting published here.
sorry, binny, I did not see your explanation before posting.
Bob Weber says:
May 1, 2018 at 11:15 AM
Dr. Roy Spencer, ultimately TSI is driving your temperatures series…
*
If you would show us the same graph for the entire satellite era instead of for a couple of years, you would become quite a bit more credible.
https://www.iceagenow.info/magnetic_reversal_chart/
On Earth Day, April 22nd, NASA offered the website called “Worldview” where they promise no image is more than three days old. You can select an Arctic view and observe the polar ice sheet change by the day, month or year. The Arctic temperature used here is +1.02 above the norm. That does not show up as a reduction of the polar ice sheet. In fact, you can see that ice sheet extent is greater on April 30th this year than it has been since 2005.
Additionally, the lower 48 was just -.01 degrees below the norm. Whoever came up with that surely doesn’t live here. Oklahoma is on track to break the record for the latest date for the first tornado. This is due to the cooler than normal weather. There is no need to mention the April blizzard nor the baseball games cancelled because of April snow. Wow!
Here’s the link to the NASA site
https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/
PapaJim says:
May 1, 2018 at 1:54 PM
In fact, you can see that ice sheet extent is greater on April 30th this year than it has been since 2005.
*
Are you serious, PapaJim?
I just downloaded Colorado`s Arctic Sea Ice Extent daily dataset
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/
and here you see how its monthly averaging looks right now.
1. Absolute data
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1525215644807.jpg
Between April 30, 2018 and April 30, 2005 there is an absolute difference of about 0.5 Mkm2.
2. Anomalies wrt mean of 1981-2010
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1525216184986.jpg
Maybe you compared the anomaly for April 2018 (-0.98 Mkm2, after the winter) with that of October 2005 (-0.99 Mkm2, after the summer).
https://www.iceagenow.info/magnetic_reversal_chart/
The above is the evidence or data which shows how magnetic reversals or excursions can be tied into the climate of course takng solar activity into much consideration.
It is not just TSI , but also the speed of the solar wind (ap index), galactic cosmic rays ,and changes in EUV light , combined with what the geo magnetic field is doing that I think changes the climate.
It changes the climate by first lowering the overall sea surface temperatures which is in response to mostly reductions in UV light and Near UV light wavelengths because those wavelengths penetrate the ocean surface to much greater depths then the other wavelengths.
Now it also changes the climate by causing a slight reduction in albedo, by first all increasing cloud coverage and snow coverage due to a more meridional atmospheric circulation tied into changes in EUV light , and I think an increase in galactic cosmic rays.
Here is the catch it is not only the increase in the amounts of galactic cosmic rays but where they are directed (latitude)and that depends on where the geo magnetic poles are located, as well as the strength of the geo magnetic field. Right now it is fading quite rapidly while the N. Magnetic pole is racing toward Siberia.
In addition weakening magnetic fields may also cause a reduction in albedo due to an increase in explosive volcanic activity. This due to an increase in muons a by product of galactic cosmic rays which excites the calderas of these types of volcanos.
So what am I looking for going forward? An increase in major explosive volcanic activity, an increase in global cloud coverage/snow coverage and a reduction in the overall sea surface temperatures. This being concurrent with weakening solar/geo magnetic fields.
This to me is the best explanation against the backdrop in the big climatic picture of Milankovitch Cycles, ocean /land arrangements, the initial state of the climate ( that being how close is the climate to begin with to glacial /inter -glacial conditions when these changes I mentioned take place), consideration of asteroid impacts which throw the whole climatic system into chaos when they randomly occur, the super nova situation in the relative neighborhood of the earth which would greatly influence the amounts of galactic cosmic rays concentration that could enter the earth s atmosphere as magnetic fields weaken.
This is not a simple one cause one effect explanation but rather a myriad of many factors, and this is why it is so hard to see the correlations when changes are minor.
During a geomagnetic storm, solar wind interacts with Earths magnetic field, transferring large amounts of energy into the upper atmosphere in the form of electric currents.
While some of this energy can fuel auroras, most is transferred into heat in a process called Joule heating, which causes the upper atmosphere to expand.
Eelco Doornbos from Delft University of Technology explained, Swarm has given us a novel view of how this heat is dispersed in the upper atmosphere.
The animation shows that when the storm begins, heat enters the auroral zone. In response, the atmospheric gas above the aurora expands and is lifted to higher altitudes. It then falls in waves that cover the entire globe in a matter of hours. This is a truly massive movement of gas in the upper atmosphere.
https://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2018/04/St._Patrick_s_Day_storm
Pole reversals are a natural phenomenon, evidence of which comes from the ocean floor. When new crust is created though volcanic activity, atoms of iron in the molten rock act like compasses, aligning themselves with the magnetic field and retaining their orientation once the rock has solidified.
These magnetic fingerprints in sediments reveal that over the last 200 million years the poles have reversed, on average, about once every 200 000300 000 years. Reversals are a slow process and do not happen with any regularity. Nevertheless, the last time this happened was about 780 000 years ago, so we are now overdue for a reversal.
Magnetic field changes
In June 2014, after just six months collecting data, Swarm confirmed the general trend of the fields weakening, with the most dramatic declines over the Western Hemisphere. But in other areas, such as the southern Indian Ocean, the magnetic field had strengthened since January. The measurements also confirmed the movement of magnetic North towards Siberia. These changes are based on the magnetic signals stemming from Earths core.
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Our_protective_shield
The latest data from ROBERT FELIX indicates the magnetic field is still weakening at a fast rate.
https://tinyurl.com/y9728lz2
For those who think the lower troposphere will soon warm up or cool down: here is a graph to bet:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1525211095376.jpg
The periods after the El Niños in 1997/98 and 2015/16 are compared relative to their respective begin, thus showing how much stronger the 1997/98 event has really been.
Do you know when El Nino will appear again? A strong La Nina is necessary for El Nino to appear.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
ren says:
May 2, 2018 at 12:12 AM
A strong La Nina is necessary for El Nino to appear.
*
When I look at Klaus Wolter’s MEI (he works on it since over 30 years) I have some difficulties to agree:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
None of the two strongest El Niños of the last 150 years (1982/83, 1997/98) was preceeded by a strong La Niña.
Their common denomination ‘ENSO’ indeed refers to a ‘Southern Oscillation’, this is valid for most events, but not for all of them:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/ext.ts.jpg
ENSO 3.4 was not 0 last week….it was still -0.25. ENSO 1&2 was -0.1 and a massive area of the SE Pacific has rapidly cooled over the last month…..so more likely that the ENSO zones with go further negative in the near future.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_relative_global_1.png
Everybody seems to have his own meaning about that:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
I picked up Kristian’s CMIP5 OLR@ToA output:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/cmip5-mean-olr.png
Amazing to see the volcanic influences in the plot
– 1883: Krakatau
– 1902: Mount Pele
– 1912: Novarupta
– 1963: Agung
– 1982: El Chichon
– 1991: Pinatubo
ES,, Good job on the experiment although those of us who understand heat transfer analysis didnt need it and at least one person here stubbornly keeps the blinders on. The NET energy flow is always from warm to cool in compliance with 2lot. The so-called ghe exists but it is caused essentially all by water vapor.
Water vapor is IR active AKA a greenhouse gas. Its presence in the atmosphere has made the planet warm enough and the huge effective thermal capacitance of the oceans has kept it steady enough for life as we know it. The WV trend is increasing at about 1.5% per decade. It has increased about 8% since the more rapid increase began in about 1960. The rising WV coincides with rising irrigation. WV has been rising more than twice as fast as expected from the temperature increase of the ground level liquid water (feedback). The five most recent reported months, thru March, 2018, are all below the linear trend.
Delve deeper into the science with an understanding of thermalization and use of Quantum Mechanics (Hitran does the calculations) and discover that CO2 (or any other noncondensing ghg) does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate. http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com
D,
Until someone can at least provide a useful description of the GHE, good enough to allow someone to propose a testable GHE hypothesis, then claims of being able to predict anything at all relating to the GHE, are based on something which presently cannot even be described.
There dont seem to be any observed natural phenomena which cannot be explained without the need for an affect which is so obscure it cannot even be described.
The present occupants of the Earth are capable of living and reproducing from about -15 C to around 120 C, without shielding from the environment. Humans extend this range significantly. The atmosphere doesnt keep the planet warm. However, it does ameliorate extreme sudden diurnal temperature variations. The airless Moon demonstrates temperature extremes due to the increased radiation from the Sun, combined with the freedom of surface energy to flee to space with no intervening atmosphere.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and continues to do so – slowly but inexorably, as its radiogenic heat sources deplete in accordance with their various half-lives. Its present cooling rate, of somewhere between 1 and 3 millionths of a Kelvin per annum is not something that bothers me.
No heating effect from any gas. Rather, a diminution of the Suns energy which actually reaches the surface. At night, the surface cools more slowly than the Moon, but still manages to get down to around -90 C in places. During the day, slower heating than the Moon. During the night, slower cooling. To compound comparisons, the molten interior of the Earth is surrounded by a thin crust of solidified rock – about 20 Km depth on average, or a bit less.
The Moon’s crust much thicker, and the liquid core much smaller, as the surface/volume ratio of the Moon has resulted in faster energy loss compared with the Earth (everything else being considered equal).
Now, if all these facts can be incorporated into a GHE description, I would be surprised. That there is no description that accords with observed fact, surprises me not,
obviously.
Just a few comments to allow the GHE supporters a chance to produce their amazing GHE from its hiding place, and lay me low! Im not quaking in my boots at the prospect.
Cheers.
–Until someone can at least provide a useful description of the GHE, good enough to allow someone to propose a testable GHE hypothesis, then claims of being able to predict anything at all relating to the GHE, are based on something which presently cannot even be described.–
A planet orbiting a sun, will have a higher average surface temperature if it has an atmosphere, compared to a planet without an atmosphere.
And different types of gases of atmosphere can add or subtract from this higher average temperature which is caused by having an atmosphere.
gbaikie,
Maybe you could describe the GHE, then?
You could start with “The GHE is a phenomenon . . .” and proceed from there.
Talk of average temperatures is, of course, pointless. Merely stating something as a fact does not make it so. The Moon demonstrates both higher and lower temperatures than the Earth, having no appreciable atmosphere at all. What is the relevance of an average?
70% of the Earths surface is covered by water, and most of the rest is covered by soil, sand, vegetation, roads, buildings, and so on. Talk of surface temperatures is nonsensical.
Measured temperatures on Earth due to the unconcentrated rays of the Sun vary between about 90 C to -90 C. Average?
In any case, the climatological pseudo science seem to be based on maximum recorded temperatures – “The hottest year EVAH!”. “Record high temperatures.” – and so on.
Still no adequate GHE description. Assertions that atmosphere makes planets hotter are made fairly pointless in light of the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn:
… which can described like follows: Some trace gas molecules like water vapour and CO2 absorb IR radiation at certain wavelengths and transfer this heat by collision to the surrounding other air molecues, thus warming the atmosphere compared to a state without these GHG.
This is the first step of my explanation. If you agree, we can continue. If not, you have to explain. Or possibly you are using the physics of a different universe.
JH,
The thermalization of terrestrial radiation by so called GHG’s INCREASES the rate of convection, and thus the rate of cooling of the surface…
Phil,
Are you saying that a GHG atmosphere makes the surface cooler than it would be, on average, without any atmosphere at all?
Cooler during the day.. Warmer at night
PhilJ
Do you have support for your statement that GHG increase the rate of convection? I am thinking it may increase the height where convection stops (Tropopause) but I am not sure it will increase the rate.
Also convection is a small player in the surface cooling of the globe. It is massive in some places but globally it is not a large contributor of cooling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
I am not saying you are right or wrong. I would just like to read your source. I see lots of declarations made on this blog without any supporting evidence. I would like to see the source for you statement.
Norm,
“Do you have support for your statement that GHG increase the rate of convection? ”
Yes, its called thermalization.
If you increase the energy input of a volume of air it will expand and rise faster… Cooler (sinking )air will thus
replace it more quickly as well…
“Also convection is a small player in the surface cooling of the globe. It is massive in some places but globally it is not a large contributor of cooling”
How do you figure that? At earth surface temps, convection is much more efficient at cooling a surface than radiation…
If you dont think so then youve probably never used a fan or stood outside on a cold praire day with a 70 km wind blowing in your face
Phil and Barry,
an atmosphere w/out so-called GHG would cause a cooler surface, because every IR radiationwill go out to the space at once.
But having water on our planet and a temperature above 0C, we always will have water some vapour in the atmosphere.
CO2 is always available, wheras vater vapour can be 0% or up to 4%.
JH,
“an atmosphere w/out so-called GHG would cause a cooler surface,”
Is impossible because: chemistry and physics
So why even think about it…. Using a fantasy atmosphere to draw your conclusions will surely lead to all kinds of errors
Second step of the GHG explanation: Nearly all material on the planet is emitting IR radiation.
Even water vapour and CO2 are radiating IR according to the wavelengths of their temperature – in a random direction. Half goes to the space, half towards the surface in various angles.
But this doesn’t mean that it is hitting the surface again, but mostly GHG molecules below or above. Because the air gets thinner with height, having less molecules, more radiation will go towards space without hitting a molucule.
Above 10 km, there is nearly no water vapour. So only CO2 is absorbing and emissing – finally every heat towards space.
Earth surface is a body which radiates as a nearly blackbody. GHGs are radiating only in certain wavelengths with much lower intensity.
The difference between both radiations is the net heat transfer. Simple physics known for 150 years.
An analogy to the heat transfer of the earth is a room with a hot stove, say 300C surface temp. Opposit there is a cold wall with 10C. Outside it is minus 20C. The cold wall radiates towards the stove as well, reducing the heat loss.
Without the cold wall it would be much colder.
Earth radiates with about 15C towards the atmosphere. C02 is radating from TOA towards the surface with let’s say minus 70C. The background radiation of the space is -270C. So the atmosphere is 200 C “hotter” than the space, making it somehow comfortable on our planet.
JH,
You haven’t mentioned why this effect doesnt result in temperature increases at night, when it is raining, overcast, or after the Sun reaches its zenith, or why the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years.
After you have overcome these hurdles, we can move on to other questions.
You arent doing too well so far. are you?
That tends to be a problem with pseudoscience – having to explain why your idea only works sometimes.
Try again. If your explanation is useful, it doesnt matter whether I agree or not, does it?
Cheers.
Mike,, It appears we have the same perception, that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Sorry I have not followed your posts enough to understand your reasoning. My perception is based on multiple compelling evidence (click my name); all based on engineering/science and/or science based findings.
It appears that you reject GHE because you perceive it violates 2lot. It doesnt. The net energy flow is always from warmer to cooler. Unfortunately, several folks who post here apparently lack much engineering/science skill and experience in heat transfer analysis and lots of bogus stuff gets presented.
Possibly the simplest example of what produces GHE is the common observation that cloudless nights cool faster and farther in the desert where absolute water vapor content is lower than they do where it is humid.
Another is that the wet lapse rate is less than the dry lapse rate.
Mike Flynn,
all I wrote was simple, basic physics.
Why has the earth cooled? Because the earth radiates as a blackbody, and the so-called GHGs are radiating only in certain wavelengths, at a lower temperature and therefore with lower intensity than the surface.
GHGs are reducing the heat loss to a certain amount, but they are also cooling the upper atmosphere by radiating all energy in the atmosphere towards space.
The earth is just a small disturbance for sun energy travelling towards space.
Overcast at day: No sunlight is entering.
Overcast at night: the clouds are also a blackbody an radiating towards the surface with much higher intensity.
Therefore cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights. You can measure the downwelling radiation wih a handheld IR thermometer.
PhilJ,
I’d say albedo (clouds) and other gases keep the surface from getting warmer during the day than, say, the surface of the moon in full daylight. Clouds alone reduce incoming solar radiation by a significant fraction.
The question I asked was about averaged temps – the average of temps over the diurnal range. This would give a better idea of how the atmosphere moderates surface temps relative to, say, the energy received directly from the sun.
The surface of the moon is colder over the averaged diurnal range than the surface of the Earth. Much colder. The combined action of various atmospheric components serve to keep the earth’s surface warmer on average than the moon, which receives much more daytime solar radiation per square meter than does the Earth. It’s the nighttime temps on earth that put it ahead of average temps of the moon. It’s the greenhouse effect at work, slowing the escape of radiation to space at night. On the moon, there is no greenhouse effect to impede outgoing radiation from the surface, and the much hotter daytime surface temps soon dissipate to -160C.
Barry,
‘I’d say albedo (clouds) and other gases keep the surface from getting warmer during the day..’
Agreed as to albedo.. Which gasses and how?
All the models are built on a constant solar input… It is the terrestrial output that we need to look at ….
All the radiation is thermalized within a few hundred meters… Increasing convevtion and the rate of energy transfer up to the tropopause.
Entropy rules… The natural system will evolve towards max entropy
–Mike Flynn says:
May 2, 2018 at 1:46 AM
gbaikie,
Maybe you could describe the GHE, then?–
As you might be aware, I think GHE “theory” is pseudo science.
So for description of that, I refer to belief of the Cargo Cult. Or discuss Groupthink, or mention Marxism and other obvious stuff which is pseudo science in our modern world.
But as a lukewarmer, I think greenhouse gases could cause a higher average temperature. And I agree that water vapor should be causing the most amount of warming.
But I don’t think warming effect of the most powerful greenhouse gas (water vapor) nor C02 has been measured.
Or if it was measured then one could say the amount of warming it causes. The range I believe CO2 warms on Earth is 0 to .5 C
per doubling, say from 300 ppm to 600 ppm.
And what is important is such warming effect occurs within two centuries time (The idea of extending it for thousands of years is in my opinion not practical and would make it even less possible to be measurable). I tend to favor idea the effects should be fairly immediate, and should be seen within a decade.
Now, my opinion, is that the ocean causes warming.
Ocean surface average temperature is 17 C, land is 10 C, and the warmer ocean surface warms the land surface (land surface would colder than 10 C if not for the warming effects of the warmer ocean surface)
I should add that most significant part of ocean in terms warming the rest of the world is the tropical ocean, which has average temperature of about 26 C.
And practically everyone with an education regarding climate, has agreed (for centuries) that tropical ocean warms the rest of the world.
gbalkie wrote:
Now, my opinion, is that the ocean causes warming.
And why is the ocean warming?
“David Appell
May 2, 2018
gbalkie wrote:
Now, my opinion, is that the ocean causes warming.
And why is the ocean warming?”
The ocean is warm, the average surface temperature is 17 C. The ocean is cooled by the colder land surface, which has average temperature of 10 C.
And the land has average temperature 10 C, because it is warmed from the higher ocean surface temperature.
The Earth would be warmer if the entire surface was ocean, and would be colder if entire surface was land.
Why ocean is warmer now, is because it is recovering from a cooler period, which is called the Little Ice Age.
gbalkie wrote:
But I dont think warming effect of the most powerful greenhouse gas (water vapor) nor C02 has been measured
Tyndall did it in 1859.
and
“First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
“Tyndall did it in 1859”
If Tyndall it in 1859, one would not have news stories claiming it was done in 2015.
Tyndall did it in the lab. Those news articles are about observations in the real atmosphere.
Which you might know if you at least glanced at them before dashing your reply off.
I did glance at them, and realized I read them and discussed them years ago.
Tyndall did it in a lab.
Feldman+ did it in the field. Lots better instruments now, too.
A simple, demonstration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw&feature=related
gbalkie wrote:
Why ocean is warmer now, is because it is recovering from a cooler period, which is called the Little Ice Age.
But what’s causing the warming?
Where is the heat coming from that’s warming the ocean?
DA,
The oceans are warmed by 2 sources.. Solar energy from above and thermal energy from below….
Oceans could be warmed by geothermal heat, but I can’t read paper and/or there is not enough data to say by how much.
It does seem quite possible that volcanic activity in the past could have something to do with hothouse climates.
but I cant read
Meant:
but I cant say I have read a paper…
But why is the ocean’s heat content increasing?
http://tinyurl.com/dbjrlr
It isnt.. With the sun now dorment the oceans are cooling …
No, they’re not cooling, they’ve been warming strongly for decades. Here’s the graphs and data:
http://tinyurl.com/dbjrlr
Lol… Try reading what i said:
‘With the sun NOW dorment the oceans are cooling ‘
What, since February 6 at 04:14:23 GMT?
The oceans have warmed in period when the solar cycle was in decline. There’s very little tying solar radiation changes to ocean heat content. The correlation just isn’t there.
Maybe you should define what ‘NOW’ means. Are you being clairvoyant, or are you basing this on already observed data?
Now, means right now, at this moment…
With the sun dormant , the oceans must be cooling… (Unless of course there is a large increase in geothermal heating … But i think thats unlikely)
PhilJ:
gbalkie:
But what’s been causing ocean to get WARMER for several decades now?
High levels of solar activity in the secomd half of the 20th century added a lot of energy to the oceans…
Unless we return to those levels the oceans will cool..
gbaikie says:
Oceans could be warmed by geothermal heat, but I cant read paper and/or there is not enough data to say by how much.
So you have no evidence for your claim. That’s what I suspected.
It does seem quite possible that volcanic activity in the past could have something to do with hothouse climates.
Humans now emit 100-200 times more CO2 than do volcanoes.
PhilJ says:
May 2, 2018 at 4:55 PM
With the sun NOW dorment the oceans are cooling
But… isn’t the Sun getting more and more dormant since quite a long time ago?
The last top Sun Spot number was in october 1957. That is 60 years ago, and since then SSN is decreasing all the time.
Should that not have had a cooling influence on the Global Ocean Heat Content, even with some enormous lag?
I don’t see this influence in a comparison of SSN and OHC between 1950 and 2016:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1525384977793.jpg
NB: over the period shown, SSN varies between 4 and 270, but OHC’s anomalies do between -8.5 and +9.5.
I thought a fair way to compare them would be to shift and scale them such that both time series range between 0 and 100.
Sources:
– SSN: https://tinyurl.com/zw235cl (delta charlie syndrome)
– OHC: http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/english/ohc/ohc_global.txt
PS: I’m not interested in warmism, alarmism or the like.
LaP,
“I thought a fair way to compare them would be to shift and scale them such that both time series range between 0 and 100.”
I like that idea , but you havnt gone back far enough… Show the previous 100 years as well…and youll see the grand solar max that your current chart is. Everything above about 20% SSN is heating below is cooling…
–David Appell says:
May 3, 2018 at 11:07 AM
gbaikie says:
Oceans could be warmed by geothermal heat, but I cant say read a paper and/or there is not enough data to say by how much.
So you have no evidence for your claim. Thats what I suspected.–
What is my claim that you are referring to?
There is a lot volcanic activity in the ocean, this obviously, is not my claim. The deep ocean lacks exploration, again obviously, not my claim.
–It does seem quite possible that volcanic activity in the past could have something to do with hothouse climates.
“Humans now emit 100-200 times more CO2 than do volcanoes.,”
—
I meant the past before humans existed, in fact, humans had not existed during the last time Earth had a hothouse climate.
But it is possible humans existed during times in which the ocean may have warmed by ocean volcanic activity more than the oceans currently are. Though again, I don’t recall reading a paper, specifically about this. Nor a paper claiming we are now having the most oceanic volcanic activity in last 2000 or say, 2 million years.
“PhilJ says:
May 3, 2018 at 3:32 PM
High levels of solar activity in the second half of the 20th century added a lot of energy to the oceans
Unless we return to those levels the oceans will cool.. ”
Roughly, I don’t think the ocean can be warmed much within 50 year period. Even if you just referring to the top 200 meters of ocean, rather than entire ocean. The entire ocean can absorb a lot of energy, but for human lifespans one can call it “lost”.
The ocean does not warm quickly, nor cool quickly. Though if talking about tens of meters of surface, one has various mechanism: El Nino, hurricanes, Gulf Stream, etc, which can involve rapid cooling processes. And this average surface has warmed about 1/2 C over last 100 years, and it could cool (or warm) in terms of years or decades.
Dan Pangburn
I like reading your material but I don’t think you are getting it right.
The notches in the graph are because the CO2 is emitting at much colder temperatures. Lower atmospheric levels of CO2 have already absorbed all the surface IR in the bands that CO2 absorbs.
Water Vapor is closer to the Earth’s surface temperature so its emission comes from warmer molecules.
The Hitran data base you use at super low levels distorts the CO2 emission because the number of radiating molecules is so different.
You need to have a much longer path length to get enough CO2 molecular emitters to rival those of H2O.
The back radiant energy is not about the molecules absorbing then emitting right away. It is just about emission. Heated GHG will emit IR from molecular collisions raising the molecules to higher vibrational states. As you extend the path length you see that CO2 contribution goes up.
I think this paper will explain it to you much better than I have.
http://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf
Dan Pangburn
This empirical data also confirms the paper I linked to. At one time I thought the DWIR was a product of CO2 absorbing IR from the surface and then redirecting this same energy downward.
This empirical data shows that this is not the case. The actual DWIR is only a product of the temperature of the gas that is emitting the IR.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5ae93209a5dd6.png
As the surface cools at night (and the air cools at a slower rate) the Net IR gets less negative. During the day the surface (actual ground) warms at a rapid rate and the IR emission reflects this in the graph. The atmosphere does not warm as fast and so the Net IR gets more negative. If the GHE was the result of CO2 just emitting back what it absorbed the Net IR would stay the same.
Nor,, I do not know of anyway to tell from the graph that the DWIR is not essentially all from WV. Hitran is saying that it is essentially all from WV.
If water vapor is a greenhouse gas, why wouldn’t CO2 be one?
DA,, Apparently you missed this http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-300090
The link there describes how CO2 can be IR active, i.e. a ghg, but have no significant effect on climate.
So water vapor has an effect on climate, but CO2 does not.
That’s your claim???
Despite having ab.sorp.tions in nearly the same part of the spectrum?….
Dan Pangburn says:
The NET energy flow is always from warm to cool in compliance with 2lot.
When are you people going to learn about the adiabacity condition clause in the 2LOT???
Dan, you are choosing to be ignore science.
—
“The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system. It exchanges heat with a high-temperature bath by absorbing radiation from the photosphere of its star and with a cold bath by emitting IR into the essentially zero-temperature reservoir of space. It therefore reaches equilibrium at a temperature intermediate between the two.”
– Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
At Dan’s link:
“…the only effect on climate of CO2 increase is the increase to the total effective ab.sorp.tion at low altitude.”
I don’t see anything in that post that distinguishes between water vapor and CO2, except your claim of it.
Anything scientific?
Norm,, No worries. If you thought I was getting it right you would not be a warmer.
I see things quite a bit differently. At all levels above a few meters, all the radiation energy from the surface has been absorbed by ghg molecules and further emission is only from ghg molecules. Because the relaxation time is thousands of times longer than conduction time, the absorbed energy is thermalized. Spectracalcs Hitran output shows essentially all of the emission at low altitude is from WV. This WV emission energy is absorbed only by WV molecules because of mandatory wavelength match and is, of course, thermalized. If you interrogate Hitran at successive altitudes you will see the influence of WV decline at increasing altitude wrt CO2. The greatly reduced-with-altitude number of ghg molecules allows much of the radiation from below to pass right through to space. By about 10 km, more than 99% of the radiation energy will not again be absorbed and will make it all the way to space.
So yes the CO2 is emitting from higher-altitude/lower-temperature but less energy is being emitted (causing the notch) because part of the energy in the CO2 wavelength range had already been redirected to WV at lower altitude and radiated to space. Above about 10 km, radiation from WV is diminished to where CO2 can significantly participate comparatively with WV but there just is not much energy left to radiate.
Your statement in your second paragraph ,,Lower atmospheric levels of CO2 have already absorbed all the surface IR in the bands that CO2 absorbs,, appears to conflict with fifth paragraph ,, need to have a much longer path length to get enough CO2,, (For some reason the blog will only print commas and periods from me so I use double commas for quote marks).
The paper you linked has to do with equivalent emissivity if the gas is treated like a gray body emitter and does not appear to me to be relevant.
Dan Pangburn
I still am not sure how to read the Hitran data. I am reading the HELP information on how they calculate the data. It may take me a bit of time to figure it out.
I think you could get a good determination of CO2 contribution to DWIR by looking at polar air that is much below freezing and is very dry.
Maybe try CERES graphs of poles vs tropical regions for DWIR.
You can use this to make your own graphs.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp
Nor,, Thanks for the link. I will explore it later.
The graphs I use from Hitran show the relative contribution of atmospheric molecule species to absorp.tion/emission including the effect of relative concentration. Each ‘stick’ (vertical line) applies to a specific specie at that particular wavenumber. At ground level, as shown, the contribution from CO2 is barely discernable compared to WV.
CO2 dominates at the poles because there is very little WV for the abs.orbed energy to be redirected to. But then the low temperature means there is a lot less energy to be abs.orbed.
N,
I’m glad to see you wrote –
“As the surface cools at night (and the air cools at a slower rate) the Net IR gets less negative. During the day the surface (actual ground) warms at a rapid rate and the IR emission reflects this . . . ”
Gee. Colder surfaces emit less IR than hotter ones!
Gee. The surface warms rapidly when subjected to more intense radiation from a 5800 K source!
I don’t need a GHE to explain these simple phenomena. If you do, you are obviously more stupid and ignorant than real scientists.
Cheers.
Flynn
No you don’t need GHE to explain the diurnal cycle of night/day.
And yet you are not able to comprehend simple physics so why your farce pretending you can? You can see in the graphs the atmosphere is emitting energy to the surface. This energy makes the surface warmer than it would be without the energy. That is the GHE. It is a relative comparison between states. An atmosphere with GHG and one without. The surface would average much colder temperatures without GHG. It is really that simple. You are not able to comprehend averages so I don’t know why you pretend to want someone to explain what you are not interested in. If you find a new player to put them through your stupid game that is one thing. I have already played your stupid game. If gets old after a couple of years.
N,
The Moon gets a lot hotter. No GHGs at all! You need to try harder.
Cheers.
Flynn
You also know the Moon gets much colder. That is why I stated average temperature. You don’t know what that means so you keep playing your stupid game. Sad really. Wish you were a smarter human.
The Moon’s average temperature is MUCH colder than the Earth’s. Sorry you need to gain a little thinking ability and be able to grasp the concept of average temperature.
I can’t help you with your limited abilities. It is up to you to work on them. Read up on what averages are, why they are used, why they are important in science, why you can use them to establish trends.
N,
The GHE is supposed to increase temperatures, isnt it? As in, more GHGs, higher temperatures. More heat waves, Hottest year EVAH!, and so on.
As I pointed out, the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. From an average temperature above the melting point of rock, to above the boiling point of water, down to where it is now. The average temperature of the Earths surface has fallen – or do you not like this inconvenient fact?
As to the Moon, you havent got the faintest idea of its average surface temperature, have you? If you had, you would no doubt have supplied it. It would not change at all. No atmosphere, no GHGs, and all that.
Averages are the refuge of the pseudo scientist. Generally meaningless, which is why real scientists use actual measurements – length, mass, and so on. The average of a 240 VAC voltage is zero. Applied through your torso via your hands for 100 milliseconds or so, it will probably kill you stone dead. Zero average voltage! Averages as a valid measurement? Pointless.
Off you go, Norman. Keep trying to find a testable GHE hypothesis. Oh, you will have to define the GHE first – and you cannot even do that, can you?
Mike Flynn,
you really live in a parallel universe in your brain. GHGs are not heating the earth, they are reducing heat loss.
A similar way as a cold blanket can warm your body.
But even with a very thick blanket in a cold surrounding you are not boiled to death. Still there is heat loss.
As long as you are not grabbing that fact, every discussion with you is in vain.
Farewell!
JH,
Try raising the temperature of a corpse or a concrete block with a blanket. Try heating your coffee by putting it in a vacuum flask.
Try stopping the Earth from cooling for four and a half billion years by wrapping it with an atmosphere.
As you say, there is still heat loss – it’s called cooling, for a body without sufficient internal energy to overcome the loss. The Earth is such a body.
Learn some basic physics – more practical than pseudo science. No GHE. CO2 hears nothing, and putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer doesn’t make the thermometer hotter, does it?
How does that affect your attempt to define the GHE? Not as easy as you thought? That is why nobody has managed to do it so far. Sad but true.
Cheers.
Mike: Try slowing the cooling of a corpse from its former body temperature to the morgue refrigerator temperature or a concrete block with a blanket. Works!
Mike Flynn really doesn’t have the faintest idea of what we are talking about as he has admitted in comments & his ill formed analogy demonstrates.
Ball4,
Why do you think that your admission that you cannot raise the temperature of a corpse or a concrete block by wrapping it in a blanket, means that you have raised its temperature?
Reduction n the rate of cooling is not a rise in temperature – unless you are a climatologist, I suppose.
Are you really that stupid, or are you just pretending for some weird foolish Warmist reason?
I’ll go for endogenous stupidity, barring evidence to the contrary.
Still no GHE. Not even a useful description. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
“Reduction (i)n the rate of cooling is not a rise in temperature..”
The evidence is in thermometer AND brightness temperature measured did increase due to the blanket v. no blanket though Mike so I see you still haven’t the faintest idea what we’re talking about.
Carry on, make no progress understanding science Mike. Thanks for your various useful descriptions of Earth’s GHE too. No need for me or others to write out better ones.
Ball4,
Unfortunately, it appears the evidence is lacking from temperature readings – thermometers and so on.
What a pity for your delusory imaginings!
Interesting. Now you can heat things without additional heat. Where may I buy such a wondrous device? Can I get one that cools as well?
I live in the tropics, and at the moment I insulate my house to keep a little cooler. Would reducing the amount of CO2 inside lower the temperature?
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years – you don’t need to believe it, of course.
Cheers.
“Where may I buy such a wondrous device? Can I get one that cools as well?”
Mike can find the equipment at the local hardware store as did Prof. Tyndall and possibly a visit to the local HVAC shop.
Removing CO2 from the air inside your house would be an expensive waste of time Mike, only those that admittedly don’t have the faintest idea what we’re talking about and believe in magic such as Mike Flynn would try such a thing. But feel free to proceed if Mike wishes and report the results for our entertainment
Mike Flynn
Your last post to me confirms that only I am the idiot if I try to continue to reason with you. You have never taken a science course have you? Do you know what the term accuracy and precision mean? I think I need to quit wasting time with you. I am not even sure you are an actual human. Even the most stubborn people do not seem to repeat as much as you. I think you escaped from Westworld before they opened the program. You are still stuck in the loop.
You actually don’t have a clue about what averages are, why they are used and why they are very valid whenever you have measured values.
I have also given you links to the Moon’s average surface temperature. I guess you ignored those and now request them again. I don’t feed people who have zero interest in learning. Go back to Westworld they are missing the dumb android.
Access of solar and galactic cosmic rays to the Earth’s magnetosphere is quantified in terms of geomagnetic cutoff rigidity. Numerically computed grids of cutoff rigidities are used to model cosmic ray flux in Earth’s atmosphere and in low Earthorbit. In recent years, the development of more accurate dynamic geomagnetic field models and an increase in computer power have made a real-time data-driven geomagnetic cutoff computation extending over the inner magnetosphere possible. For computational efficiency, numerically computed cutoffs may be scaled to different altitudes and directions of arrival using the known analytic variation of cutoff in a pure dipole magnetic field.
Modeling geomagnetic cutoffs for space weather Applications. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278669632_Modeling_geomagnetic_cutoffs_for_space_weather_Applications?ev=auth_pub [accessed May 02 2018].
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/cutoff.gif
The graphics indicate the high availability of cosmic rays to North America. Please compare it with the circulation over North America during the winter and the temperature in North America.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
SOLAR CYCLE 24 STATUS AND SOLAR CYCLE 25 UPCOMING FORECAST
published: Thursday, April 26, 2018 19:18 UTC
Current solar cycle 24 is declining more quickly than forecast. The smoothed, predicted sunspot number for April to May, 2018 is about 15; however, the actual monthly values have been lower. Will solar minimum be longer than usual or might solar cycle 25 begin earlier? Leading solar and space science experts will convene a meeting in the coming years and attempt to predict solar cycle 25.
The “official” solar cycle forecast includes the month, year, and intensity of that maximum (peak, average sunspot number). The consensus forecast is the result of collaboration by a solar cycle prediction panel of solar and space scientists from around the world. Typically, the panel considers all new, relevant research results, observation trends, and model predictions available when the panel is convened.
Just like hurricane season forecasts, solar cycle predictions have improved; however, there are still notable deviations in prediction versus actual activity. The previous solar cycle prediction panel’s forecast for solar cycle 24 called for a maximum average sunspot number of 90 to occur in May, 2013. After looking at the actual sunspot numbers and solar activity, it was determined the solar cycle 24 maximum was reached in April, 2014 and peaked at an average sunspot number of 82. While the peak value was within the expected range of error, the maximum occurred significantly later than the panel’s prediction.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/solar-cycle-24-status-and-solar-cycle-25-upcoming-forecast
Sea surface temperature (SST) and SST anomaly maps are generated from NOAA Optimum Interpolation SST version 2 (OISST V2). OISST is a 0.25×0.25 blendend dataset derived from satellite, ship, and buoy measurements. The SST anomaly is based on a 1971-2000 NOAA climatology.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00964/vo0e5r07fnqp.png
What is the baseline for sea surface deviations for ocean tid bits?
Ren do you know? Thanks.
I think it is 1981-2010.
The SST anomaly is based on a 1971-2000 NOAA climatology.
Salvatore, you need no more than having a closer look at what you see there.
1. Sea Surface Temperatures
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png
This is absolute data.
2. Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
On this latter chart you see at top: ‘based on CSFR 1981-2010 Climatology’.
‘Climatology’ is another word for ‘reference period’ or ‘baseline’.
It’s 1981-2010 for the global oceans.
Probably not so simple for the NINO regions, which would likely use a sliding window baseline to remove any trends.
I am no scientist or expert, but very much like to follow your conversations here.
I was expecting temps to drop further this last months. It seems it wont go down below 0.2. Considering we are entering a sun activity minimum, and considering neither distinct el Nio or la Nia conditions lay ahead of us, if temperatures remain in the 0.2 or above for the rest of the year, how would that affect the debate – just thinking that it looks there may not be significant warming or cooling for a while but instead temps appear to remain at what seems a new average of +0.2-0.3
If remains at .2 until Dec 2018, we will have returned to the Pause. If goes to .0 or lower, slight cooling, if goes to .4 or higher, leaving pause, slight warming.
But 6 months of temperatures, does not mean much.
I’m not a scientist. But follow the discussion fairly well. My benchmark is the 0.13C/decade trend per UAH. If this trend moves to greater than 0.20C/decade per UAH then I will concede the debate to the alarmists. Until I see this empirical outcome I’m not going to lose any sleep over global warming.
I’m not a statistician either. But if the range remains between +.2-.3 then I would call that a PAUSE or HIATUS of global warming – there just isn’t much sensitivity between human caused CO2 and global warming.
Obama says:
May 2, 2018 at 10:14 AM
If this trend moves to greater than 0.20C/decade per UAH then I will concede the debate to the alarmists.
1. Why to the alarmists? Is it alarmism to think of an increase of 2 C / century since 1850 by 2100? So what.
2. Why ‘per UAH’? UAH measures at about 5 km altitude, what sometimes strongly differs from what is measured at surface.
And surface is where we live, Obama.
I’m not a scientist.
Q1 – Speaking personally, maybe I should have said, “I might be more alarmed” that the warming trend would be greater than 0.20C/decade. Personally, I really think we need more empirical evidence of dangerous AGW. I think this may require more research and TIME. Right now, I’m not losing any sleep over AGW. And I’m skeptical as to the sensitivity between human CO2 and Global Warming. I remain in “watch and see”. And I’m open minded.
Q2 – UAH should be able to measure increases in global warming. UAH measurements are easy to read, the graph is easy to read. UAH is very convenient method of tracking global warming for the LAY PERSON. Love the monthly presentation. And I trust the integrity of Dr. Roy Spencer. The UAH measurement is my preferred base line of following the discussion.
Hope that helps!
Obama says:
May 2, 2018 at 1:26 PM
UAH should be able to measure increases in global warming.
In some sense it does indeed.
There is no reason at all for you to solely trust in UAH’s time series.
I’m a lay person too, Obama.
But the difference between us might be that I don’t trust only in UAH, but in other sources as well, e.g.
https://tinyurl.com/y9rv7pjd
(tiny url because of the had-crut problem here)
And… do you know about the transition from UAH5.6 to UAH6.0 in 2015?
Between July 2011 and May 2015, many people didn’t trust at all in UAH simply because it had shown too much warming…
La Pag,
Thats fine. But doesnt the climate and meteorological conditions exist above the surface to upwards of 1,000s of feet into the atmosphere.
Are you saying that UAH data (up and down temps) does not correlate to other methods? It seems to me that if UAH temps go up over time than other methods would also show temps going up. I guess I assume directionally that UAH and other methods would be in some alignment.
I try to go to other sites and methods but they are not as easy to understand as this site is. This site is very straightforward and easy to follow.
Do you have any recommendations of sites to get monthly updated trends on global warming that would be comparably easy to read?
All the global surface and tropospheric temperature data sets show warming over the long term and very similar swings for annual anomalies.
Obama, what “methods” are you referring to? Not clear if you mean the way the data is worked out for UAH, the way it is presented, or if you just like the forum layout.
From my experience (layman but well read), the methods for gleaning temperature via satellites is harder to grasp than the methods used for the surface records.
Obama – UAH’s weighted measurement is above 13,000 feet, not many folks live that high in the atmosphere. The highest capital city on the planet is below 12,000 feet. So the UAH average of the lower troposphere is equal to halfway up Mt. Everest.
An anomaly of +0.21 C is still in the top 20% of UAH anomalies.
PhilJ says:
May 2, 2018 at 6:20 AM
Indeed,
Coldest spring in 50 years here in the center of the continent
If the sun stays dormant, next winter will be brutal
*
Sure?
http://4gp.me/bbtc/152528814597.jpg
Maybe you manage to explain what exactly you mean, PhilJ…
LAP,
Not sure what that graph has to do with my statement that here, in the centre of NA , we are having the coldest spring in 50 years.
PhilJ says:
May 2, 2018 at 3:41 PM
LAP,
Not sure what that graph has to do with my statement that here, in the centre of NA , we are having the coldest spring in 50 years.
It had to do with
If the sun stays dormant, next winter will be brutal
The center of NA is – viewed from Europe – Rugby, North Dakota.
My friend J.-P. alias Bindidon has shown in Roy Spencer’s previous thread that in Iowa, the December/January/February average for the daily minima collected by over 100 GHCN V4 stations during the winter 2017/18 was far far away from any record cold (position 36 in a list sorted by ascending absolute temperatures).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/#comment-299941
Maybe you should make a similar comparison for March/April in North Dakota?
LaP,
Yes Rugby is the centre of NA. I live a little North of there…
As for it being cold … Check this out:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.1320835
PhilJ says:
May 3, 2018 at 6:48 AM
Yes Rugby is the centre of NA. I live a little North of there As for it being cold
PhilJ, I agree with you as far as April 2018 is concerned.
As I checked the temperature situation in Iowa, I went only till March this year, as the monthly anomalies were pretty warmer than those for January and February.
And with only March included, the 2018 situation in North Dakota didn’t differ very much from Iowa:
– January: 85th position (-17 C)
– February: 19th (-21)
– March: 82nd (-9)
But upon a download of April, we see this:
– April: 4th (-5.5) just behind 2013, 1907 and 1920.
No wonder: on April 6th and 7th, temperatures well below -20 C were measured, e.g. in Max, Crosby, Dickinson, Underwood etc.
So yes, PhilJ: that is really a harsh spring you experience in ND.
binny…”My friend J.-P. alias Bindidon has shown in Roy Spencers previous thread that in Iowa, the December/January/February average for the daily minima collected by over 100 GHCN V4 stations during the winter 2017/18 was far far away from any record cold (position 36 in a list sorted by ascending absolute temperatures)”.
***********
Binny’s statistical assessments are about as schizophrenic as him disappearing from the blog in a huff then re-appearing a few days later as La P. No difference whatsoever in personality or mannerisms, just a change of nym.
Binny thinks it’s smart to use a homebrew statistical setup using Excel, then use his amateur calculations to throw the real data, as provided by Roy, into disrepute. Doesn’t matter that Roy is a professional meteorologist who has been doing this work the past 39 years.
Gordon Robertson says:
Binny thinks its smart to use a homebrew statistical setup using Excel, then use his amateur calculations to throw the real data, as provided by Roy, into disrepute. Doesnt matter that Roy is a professional meteorologist who has been doing this work the past 39 years.
Roy calculates a linear trend every month, using the exact same methods that Excel uses.
So you’re claiming that Roy, too, “throws the real data into dispute.” Nice.
Wish we had some global warming in the UK. 2nd of May and still waiting for spring to start.
3rd of May in Australia, and still waiting for Autumn to start.
Alarmist? Me?
“Pakistani city breaks April record with day of 50C heat”
Citizens consider fleeing Nawabshah in fear of what summer might bring
“Everglades under threat as Florida’s mangroves face death by rising sea level”
The river of grass wilderness and coastal communities are in peril, with the buffer coastal ecosystems on a death march inland
The first three months of 2018 have been between the fourth and sixth warmest first quarter on record since 1880. This is despite a modest La Nia event leading to a relatively cooler start to the year, compared to recent record warmth. Overall, 2018 is on track to be the fourth warmest year on record
https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-warm-start-to-2018-despite-la-nina-conditions
Water vapor is the factor that relieves temperatures. The drop in ocean surface temperature will increase extreme temperatures both in winter and in summer.
@ Myki …you are talking weather.
No. Weather records have climate implications as far as I am concerned.
tim folkerts…problem with duplicate post. You said…
“All you are doing when you add greenhouse gases is blocking the radiation from the earths surface, which blocks its ability to dissipate heat”.
*********
There’s a huge difference between placing an equal sized metal plate a 1/4″ from a radiating surface and having a trace gas at 0.04% allegedly blocking radiation from a surface radiating a flux a bazillion times denser than the 0.04%.
There is also a presumption in what you claim that the Earth’s surface cools only by radiation. A good portion of the 99% of the atmosphere made up of nitrogen and oxygen is in direct contact with the surface and the temperature of that mass will affect heat dissipation from the surface far more than the 0.04% of CO2.
There is nothing in Stefan-Boltzmann that claims CO2 should have an effect on surface heat dissipation. According to S-B, it is a temperature differential that affects it. Fourier’s law of heat transfer in a solid has a similar temperature differential. Any absorp-tion by CO2, which should be minimal, could not equal the effect of the temperature of surface air comprised 99% of N2/O2.
I mention S-B only because alarmists are inclined to apply it for calculating atmospheric temperatures. I don’t think that’s what S-B had in mind when the equation was issued. It’s a highly idealized equation related to blackbodies and not to our surface/atmosphere interface.
All the same, if you are talking CO2 absorp-tion, you need to be talking temperature differential since absorp-tion by a trace gas alone has no effect on surface dissipation. It would be the temperature of CO2 that would offer any effect on heat dissipation and that would be negligible.
Gordo, You are conveniently ignoring the fact that the Earth is surrounded by the vacuum of deep space and is bathed by the cosmic background radiation equivalent to a temperature of 2.7 K. The Earth is constantly radiating IR EM at TOA to balance the incoming solar energy. The atmosphere moderates this process, thru various pathways, leading to what is call climate at the surface. Key ingredients of this process are the greenhouse gases, which absorb and emit IR EM radiation, in conjunction with convection and the water cycle, the result being the declining lapse rate from the surface to the Tropopause. Above the tropopause, there’s almost no water vapor and other greenhouse gases dominate thru the stratosphere, causing the temperature to increase with altitude.
How does your deviant physics explain the well documented fact of an increase in temperature with altitude in the Stratosphere?
E,
Learn the difference between temperature, energy, and heat. The temperature of the gas in an operating neon tube is around 30 000 K, but you can hold it in your hand quite comfortably.
Now tell me the relevance of the temperatures in the thermosphere. 5 000 K? Not nearly as hot as a neon tube, is it?
Your apparatus shows nothing that is unusual – no GHE required. Turn off the heat source (just like the Earths surface at night), and tell me what temperature increase you record. None at all!
You cant even define the GHE, much less propose a testable GHE hypothesis!
Keep on with the pseudoscience.
Cheers.
MF, Surely a fellow with your great knowledge would understand the requirement for a constant energy input in my demonstration of the Green Plate Effect. Tell you what. You turn off the Sun and I’ll try your suggestion. What, you can’t do that? Who would have thought?
E,
The Sun turns off” every night. Maybe you overlooked that? If you need a constant energy input, and still want to pretend you are demonstrating the non existent GHE, you need to keep your energy input stationary, and rotate your whole apparatus in front of it.
You wouldnt be too happy about that, I guess. You would have to sit there raising and lowering your plates as the apparatus rotated! Unfortunately, the Earth just twirls around in relation to the Sun. Sometimes parts get colder (as in Winter), sometimes warmer. Overall, the Earth continues to cool, as any object 150 000 000 from the Sun, with a molten core of 5 500 K, and surrounded by a 4 K environment would do.
Elementary, my dear Swanson.Thank you for appreciating my great knowledge. It is obviously greater than yours, so you should take notice, shouldnt you?
Cheers
“The Sun turns off” every night.”
Ha, sorry no Mike, the sun is always on. No overlooking. No greater knowledge from Mike. Just GREAT entertainment from Mike.
Keeps the threads alive with discussions. Some of the discussions from others are accurate, mostly not from Mike at least so far. Although Mike is accurate the Earth has cooled since inception.
ball4…”The Sun turns off every night.
Ha, sorry no Mike, the sun is always on”.
Mike’s play on words is far better than claiming it sets at night, suggesting it is revolving around us.
swannie…”How does your deviant physics explain the well documented fact of an increase in temperature with altitude in the Stratosphere?”
Ren already explained that. Oxygen in the stratosphere absorbs UV and warms.
As for the rest of your dogma, that’s what it is, a belief system. As Mike keeps telling you re the GHE and AGW…no proof, no testable hypothesis.
BTW…the lapse rate has different definitions depending on where you look on the Net. The one that fits best for me is the effect of gravity on atmospheric gases. Gravity produces a natural temperature gradient and I have used Mt. Everest as an example.
From sea level to the top of Everest, air thins to 1/3rd sea level pressure. The temperature also drops some 40C in summer, especially at night. The definition of lapse rate based on thermals cannot account for such a pressure reduction or temperature reduction.
Gravity rules!!!
Gordo, The solar UV creates ozone in the stratosphere. Ozone is a greenhouse gas. Gravity acting on a compressible gas results in a non-linear decline in pressure with altitude. That does not cause the lapse rate, i.e., the decline in temperature with altitude in the troposphere.
swannie…”Gordo, The solar UV creates ozone in the stratosphere. Ozone is a greenhouse gas”.
Ozone is oxygen, that means oxygen must be a greenhouse gas.
“Gravity acting on a compressible gas results in a non-linear decline in pressure with altitude. That does not cause the lapse rate, i.e., the decline in temperature with altitude in the troposphere”.
Where’s the proof that the effect of gravitational force is non-linear. Has Newton’s laws changed for the atmosphere?
If gravity is not the cause of declining temperatures with declining pressure, then what is causing it? It seems once again that climate scientists have taken the liberty of changing the laws of physics.
Nothing else explains the thinning of air with altitude and the subsequent reduction in temperature as does gravity.
Gordon Robertson says:
Ozone is oxygen, that means oxygen must be a greenhouse gas.
GHGs always consist of molecules of three atoms or more. Know why?
If gravity is not the cause of declining temperatures with declining pressure, then what is causing it? It seems once again that climate scientists have taken the liberty of changing the laws of physics.
Gordon, why do temperatures increase with altitude in the stratosphere and the thermosphere?
They shouldn’t, if your theory is correct.
swannie…”You are conveniently ignoring the fact that the Earth is surrounded by the vacuum of deep space and is bathed by the cosmic background radiation equivalent to a temperature of 2.7 K”.
I have never indicated that I deny any of that, I am simply questioning the way it is presented, as if the surface radiates IR straight to space and that radiation is the prime means of cooling the surface.
I also question the 2.7K background radiation as being heat. That is the basis of the Big Bang theory, that the background radiation is heat left over from the BB. Free floating radiation is not heat and it cannot become heat till it contacts matter. It appears we have a crack in the BB theory.
With the bazillions of stars out there could they not have perhaps considered that the background radiation may come from them?
BTW…the other proof offered for the BB is based on Doppler shifting in stars. Stars moving away from us give off a different frequency of light. Based on that the BBers have concluded they are still moving away from the BB.
After we get past the arrogance and conceit we must realize we have no idea how large the universe is or where the centre may be.
May main interest is in questioning science that does not make a lot of sense, like AGW.
Gordon claims:
Free floating radiation is not heat and it cannot become heat till it contacts matter
Radiation has energy. Heat is energy. Energy is the ability to do work. Both heat and radiation can do work and can be converted into one another. They both must be considered when dealing with energy transfer, as in the atmosphere.
You’re just playing word games.
Any absorp-tion by CO2, which should be minimal, could not equal the effect of the temperature of surface air comprised 99% of N2/O2.
What is “minimal?” You keep saying this, but never provide any numbers. You also ignore radiative transfer, which is absurd.
I mention S-B only because alarmists are inclined to apply it for calculating atmospheric temperatures. I dont think thats what S-B had in mind when the equation was issued. Its a highly idealized equation related to blackbodies and not to our surface/atmosphere interface.
The Earth’s surface is a pretty good blackbody in the infrared.
DA,
You wrote –
“The Earths surface is a pretty good blackbody in the infrared.”
I suppose “pretty good” is about as scientific as climatology gets, is it?
Completely irrelevant and pointless – how would it compare to bananas? Left on the surface, would they be colder or hotter than the surface – just before dawn? Do you think the infrared properties make a difference? Maybe it explains why your bananas remain warmer inside your house, if it is snowing outside.
It is all a bit silly, isnt it?
Learn some science. The cryptic pseudoscientific comments won’t restore funding, I suspect.
Or create respect.
Cheers.
DA…”What is minimal? You keep saying this, but never provide any numbers”.
I have provided estimates several times. Based on a 1C warming, CO2 should contribute no more than 0.04C. I based that on the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures.
DA…”The Earths surface is a pretty good blackbody in the infrared”.
S-B is mainly about the work of Boltzmann. He was trying to verify the 2nd law using statistical means and he visualized EM in a blackbody as a gas cloud of photons. He applied the theoretical entropy of each photon to a statistical analysis to see if he could find a distribution based on probability.
I don’t think his work had anything to do with atmospheric problems and I think applying S-B in that manner leads to misunderstanding. It essentially ignores what happens with real gas particles in the atmosphere.
Gordo, As I understand it, Boltzmann did his work in the 1860’s, long before the notion of “photons” appears in theoretical physics after Einstein. Planck started it in 1900, when he realized that the Planck-Wein did not agree with experimental data for IR EM from cooler bodies, but did not pursue the issue, leaving it for Einstein to develop, beginning in 1905.
swannie…”Gordo, As I understand it, Boltzmann did his work in the 1860s, long before the notion of photons appears in theoretical physics after Einstein”.
Mark this down somewhere…I agree with you. ☺
However, the concept of blackbody radiation was introduced initially in 1860 by Kircheoff, and Boltzmann came between Planck and Kircheoff. Planck drew on the work of Boltzmann while developing his theory on quanta, from which, as you say, Einstein coined the word photon.
Of course, Einstein was working on the problem of photo-emmission, which was a problem where light incident on a metal released electrons from the metal. I could be wrong, but it seems to me Boltzmann equated his equivalent of photons to particles of light and approached those particles as if they were real particles as in gases.
Boltzmann did his work initially with gases from which came the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution. Circe 1877, he did work with blackbodies to develop his equation with Stefan on radiation distribution.
Gordon Robertson says:
S-B is mainly about the work of Boltzmann. He was trying to verify the 2nd law using statistical means and he visualized EM in a blackbody as a gas cloud of photons. He applied the theoretical entropy of each photon to a statistical analysis to see if he could find a distribution based on probability.
What???
You’re inventing physics again….
The SB Law describes radiation from a blackbody. It’s not about a gas of photons, or the entropy of anything, and it isn’t probabilistic.
It has great utility in discussions of the atmosphere and climate and heat-seeking missiles and digital ear thermometers.
Climate calculations use the Planck Law, which integrates to the SB equation.
DA…”Youre inventing physics again.”
No, I’m not.
Boltzmann worked with gases initially and developed an energy distribution that is now the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. Later, he did the same with EM as related to blackbodies but to get it done he treated particles of light as real particles, like a gas.
Youre confusing gases and blackbodies. The SB law is about the latter.
Boltzmann worked before the photon was discovered. What you wrote is gobbledygook.
Gordon, 0.04% black ink in a column of water can have a TREMENDOUS impact on how visible light gets blocked. Why do you assume that 0.04% CO2 can’t similarly block IR quite well? The blocking ability is well-known and well documented and easily observed.
Pretty much all IR flux near 15 um is blocked within a few 10’s of meters by Co2. That means that the upward IR flux near 15 um from the ground is about 1.01 times stronger than the downward flux, not about a ‘bazillion’ times stronger.
As long as you start from some fundamental misconceptions like this, you will have trouble wrapping your head around some better science.
Tim,
And in spite of the misdirection and obfuscation, you still can’t actually describe the wondrous GHE, can you?
Much less show any trace of a testable GHE hypothesis!
The miraculous blocking doesn’t stop the surface cooling at night, during Winter, or for four and a half billion years. What is this GHE supposed to do? It doesn’t even stop the surface cooling, does it?
Do you think it simultaneously heats and cools bjects at the same time? That would be average climatological pseudoscientific thinking, wouldn’t it?
Oh well. Onwards and upwards, eh?
Cheers.
Ok then, over the full length of the sat record CO2 has increased around 72 ppm. Yet we only see a linear trend of 0.5C over the 39 years shown. Now it is certain that CO2 does not cause all of the rise, at the very least. That lowers the sensitivity dramatically, imo.
goldminor…”Ok then, over the full length of the sat record CO2 has increased around 72 ppm. Yet we only see a linear trend of 0.5C over the 39 years shown. Now it is certain that CO2 does not cause all of the rise, at the very least. That lowers the sensitivity dramatically, imo.”
I second that. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say the contribution of CO2 is insignificant.
In the future, when Salvatore is proved right, it will cool and we’ll all wonder what this CO2 things was about.
Salvatore has been always wrong for years. So have you, so its logical you would believe whatever he says.
tim…”0.04% black ink in a column of water can have a TREMENDOUS impact on how visible light gets blocked. Why do you assume that 0.04% CO2 cant similarly block IR quite well?”
******
Tim…I’ve heard all the analogies and I have worked with electrical, electronic, and computer circuits for decades. I have seen many weird things take place.
However, temperature is related to molecules of gas like CO2 according to Dalton’s law of partial pressures. Presuming the atmosphere is close enough to a constant volume for a ballpark relationship, Dalton says that the total pressure of a gas is the sum of the partial pressures of the individual gases.
In a constant volume, temperature is directly proportional to the pressure therefore the partial temperatures contributed by each gas should be proportional to their partial pressures, which amounts to their percent mass.
At 0.04%, that leaves only a few hundreds of a degree C warming from 0.04% CO2.
I have heard the argument that 0.04% of arsenic in a cup of coffee will kill you and I get what you are saying about the same concentration of ink in a cylinder of water. However, ink, arsenic, and CO2 act very differently in their respective mediums and must abide by the related rules.
Gases have been studied thoroughly for centuries and the laws applying to them have been verified over and over. I have no idea why climate modelers have overlooked such widely understood laws as the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s law. Simply put, they have not done their homework.
Roy has proposed that 1 CO2 molecule surrounded by 2500 N2/O2 molecules SHOULD spread it’s thermal energy to all 2500. That sounds reasonable on the face of it but the kinetic theory of gases does not cover that. The Ideal Gas Law and Dalton does, given a constant volume.
Here’s an interesting article that addresses the issue:
http://www2.ucdsb.on.ca/tiss/stretton/CHEM1/gases9.html
“Dalton’s law of partial pressures follows from the KMT [Kinetic-Molecular Theory] of gases. If the gas molecules in a mixture are in constant and random motion and if there are no forces operating between the molecules except collisions, then on the average, the net effect of collisions with other molecules must be zero. For this reason each gas acts as if it were present alone”.
That’s what I have done, treat the gases in air as if they are alone. Given the turkey shoot conditions of colliding molecules it’s not safe to assume that 1 CO2 molecule will spread its thermal energy to 2500 surrounding molecules. After all, the KMT is simply a statistical analysis.
Gordon, I have never heard the term “partial temperature” before, but I assume you mean something like:
If 1 mole of gas @ 400K is mixed with 99 moles of gas @ 300 K, the final temperature will the the weighted average, ie 301 K.
If that’s what you mean, that would be reasonable (and *is* covered quite well by kinetic theory!).
What you seem to be missing in this model is that the CO2 can be continuously re-heated by IR. Rather than thinking of a simple one-time mixing problem, you need to think of a heat exchanger.
1) The tiny amount of CO2 is warmed via IR from the warmer ground.
2) The tiny amount of warm CO2 passes a tiny amount of thermal energy to the surrounding cooler gas molecules.
3) Go back to (1)
Slowly but surely, the tiny amount of CO2 would warm a much larger amount of other gases.
“Slowly but surely, the tiny amount of CO2 would warm a much larger amount of other gases. ”
Perhaps, it too little and too slow to make much of difference.
What happens if other gas is a CO2 or H2O molecule?
Tim, Gordon denies radiative transfer.
DA…”Tim, Gordon denies radiative transfer”.
Now you’re lying. I have described radiative transfer in detail, from heat conversion and emission by an electron to heat conversion and absorp-tion by an electron.
I even went to pains to describe the radiative transfer of EM between communications antennas.
It is you who is hung up on the incorrect notion that heat flows through space.
Energy flows through space. A gass temperature is based on kinetic energy. Etc. Energy is what matters to climate, not just one particular form of it.
Tim, Gordon denies radiative transfer.
You’re trying to convince someone who pretends that entire aspects of nature do not exist.
tim…”Gordon, I have never heard the term partial temperature before, but I assume you mean something like:”
You heard it here first on Roy’s blog.
The article to which I linked claimed that a gas in a mixture can be treated as a separate gas. I have no argument with your averaged temperature for the entire mix, but if the overall temperature is due to the overall gas molecules, then a partial pressure of one gas should relate directly to it’s heat contribution. That is equated to its percent mass.
I did not simply guess at that relationship, I drew it from inferences in the Ideal Gas Law, given Dalton’s Law, provided the atmosphere can be considered a ballpark constant volume.
It’s presumed the CO2 is continually replenished by surface IR. I don’t see any proof of that in the literature. In fact, I am arguing that surface radiation is so weakened by the inverse square law that it won’t be heating much of anything more than a few feet above the surface.
I got that from R.W. Wood, an eminent physicist circa 1909 who was an expert on IR. He worked closely with IR in photography and it was he who mentioned IR would not be effective at more than a few feet.
His explanation for the GHE was the scavenging of heat from the surface by N2/O2 and the inability of those gases to release heat quickly.
“In fact, I am arguing that surface radiation is so weakened by the inverse square law that it wont be heating much of anything more than a few feet above the surface. “
The inverse square law applies to point sources. Or to spherical surface as measured from the center of the sphere. So 1 meter (“a few feet”) above the surface of the earth, the power radiated by the surface in the form of thermal IR will have dropped by a factor of about
(6,371,000/6,371,001)^2
I.e. still 99.99997% as strong as when it left the surface 1 m below.
Wood was wrong.
DA,
And why was that?
Provide detailed reasoning. Show your workings.
Are you sure you have a PhD in physics?
Cheers.
Tim,
You wrote –
“What you seem to be missing in this model is that the CO2 can be continuously re-heated by IR. Rather than thinking of a simple one-time mixing problem, you need to think of a heat exchanger.”
And at night, the net result is cooling. Shortly after the Sun passes the zenith, the net result is cooling.
And after four and a half billion years, the net result is – cooling.
What you are definitely missing in reality, is that you can’t even describe the GHE in any way that would make sense to a real scientist. So much for your stupid models and less than thoughtful pointless analogies.
No GHE. CO2 heats nothing. No raised temperatures through slow cooling – just lower temperatures. Try heating up your soup by putting it in a vacuum flask. Isn’t the soup continuously being reheated by the IR reflected within the flask? It only gets hotter in your fantasy world!
Oh well. That’s climatology for you.
Cheers.
Yep, GHGs cool the earth — LIKE INSULATION COOLS MY HOUSE IN THE WINTER!
Heat leaves my house via the insulation in the walls. Thus insulation only cools the house. It heats nothing! Nothing, I tell you! No warming from insulation, only cooling. I better go rip out all that insulation that only cools my house! Might as well open the windows too, since they only cool the house.
(Of course, this will be lost on Mike, but everyone else should immediately get the point.)
tim…”Yep, GHGs cool the earth LIKE INSULATION COOLS MY HOUSE IN THE WINTER! ”
GHGs are related to radiation whereas home insulation is solely about retarding heat loss via conduction.
Now, if alarmists really understood what heat is, the kinetic energy of atoms, they’d realize CO2 as a molecule cannot trap the atoms required for heat.
As Foghorn Leghorn would put it, y’all built too close to the ground, goes way…ah said….goes way over yer head.
“Now, if alarmists really understood what heat is, the kinetic energy of atoms … “
Not to beat a dead horse, Gordon, but you are the one using the term “heat” in a manner inconsistent with modern science.
The kinetic energy of atoms is (part of) the “internal energy”, denoted “U”. This is also sometimes called “thermal energy”. (Furthermore, internal energy includes not only kinetic energy of the particles, but also rotational energy and vibrational potential energy.]
The word “heat” is reserved for *transfers* of thermal energy, denoted “Q”. Heat could be in the form of convection, or conduction, or radiation.
Informally, many people use “heat” as you do — to mean “U”. But since you are chiding people for not “really” understanding, then you should be using the words in their technical sense.
Basically, your quote says “If only (a) people realized I mean “U” when I say “heat” and (b) I realized they mean “Q” when they say “heat” … “
Tim,
You are correct. Insulation heats nothing. A pile of insulation just sits there. No warming at all. You need a heat source to heat things.
I live in the tropics. My house is well insulated – TO KEEP COOL. You see, the insulation is between me and the Sun. Just like the atmosphere. Just like James Hansen wearing a hat to protect his head from the fierce rays of the Sun.
Now you have apparently become quite deranged, you might like to demand that firefighters really shouldn’t use heavily insulated clothing to keep cool, that refrigerators don’t need insulation, and that desert Berbers shouldn’t wear long woollen robes showing only their eyes, while living in the hottest environment on Earth.
You might as well spread some fear and alarm about the non existent GHE while you’re at it, don’t you think? Do let me know how you get on.
Cheers.
“Insulation heats nothing.”
Glad we can agree on something! Let’s see if I can get you to agree on something else.
I build two *almost* identical houses on adjacent lots. The only difference is that House A has insulation in the walls and House B doesn’t. I turn on two identical furnaces (in the middle of winter on a cold day). Both furnaces have the same steady power (*not* thermostats set to the same temperature).
Which house will get warmer — A or B? (Just “A” or “B” will suffice.)
If you want to say more, please explain your reasoning.
[P.S. Using insulation to keep things cool in hot surroundings is also valuable, but that is not the issue we are focused on atm.]
tim…”Which house will get warmer A or B? (Just A or B will suffice.) ”
A will get warmer but not for the reason you think. It has nothing to do with radiation, house A gets warmer because the insulation prevents molecules of air getting to the outside walls and ceiling, where they’d quickly conduct heat to the outside.
Houses designed to prevent radiation loss have a reflective barrier installed. Obviously no one is overly concerned with radiation loss.
Gordon, House A gets warmer for EXACTLY the reason I think — which is NOT radiation. It is all about insulation in this case.
The point is that we all seem to agree that:
* insulation does not heat the house.
* insulation in fact cools the house (as heat moves from the warm house to the cool surroundings).
And we all agree that House A is warmer!
The insulation makes the transfer of heat from the warm house to the cold surroundings less easy. For a given temperature difference between inside and outside, less energy escapes with insulation in place. With the furnace running, House A with the insulation gets warmer until finally the escape of heat from the warm House A through the insulation is equal to the heat loss from the cool House B (ie equal to the heat input from the furnace). You could turn off the furnace for a few hours and House A would continue to be warmer than House B.
Tim,
You haven’t actually built two houses at all, have you?
You certainly haven’t lived in the tropics, otherwise you wouldn’t be so fixated on getting hotter! Strange that GHE supporters prefer warm to cold!
Unfortunately, the Earth’s furnace is external, being the Sun. Insulation serves to keep us a little cooler – luckily for us.
Maybe you coukd imagine a testable GHE hypothesis into existence, but even your imagination may not be up to the task. Am I right, or am I right?
Cheers.
So Mike — once again — is House A warmer than House B?
Tim,
So once again Tim, is my house cooler with or without insulation?
If you must pose a gotcha, you need to pose a good one. You wrote –
“Using insulation to keep things cool in hot surroundings is also valuable, but that is not the issue we are focused on atm.”
No, Tim, that is the issue you want to focus on, not “we”. I want to be even handed, and look at both sides of the question. Your approach is about as stupid and ignorant as the NASA graphic showing the entire Earth bathed in the Sun’s rays at once, to overcome the major problem that night time causes the GHE believers.
If you have an infinite heat source in your house, you must allow me to have a similar infinite refrigeration system in mine, surely. Then I can demand you tell me which house will be colder! Or are you trying to rig the game with loaded dice, so to speak?
Demand answers to your stupid gotchas – maybe you can demand a testable GHE hypothesis into existence, but I doubt it.
Cheers.
0.001 % of Ga or As impurities in a Si crystal changes its electrical insulating properties drastically by many many orders of magnitude.
(By the way It’s even because of this property that computers exist and a bunch of idiots can relentlessly post their nonsense here)
Similarly so do 0.04 % of CO2 in air change its “thermal insulating” properties in a drastic way.
Idiot…”0.001 % of Ga or As impurities in a Si crystal changes its electrical insulating properties drastically …”
You are a bit turned around here and it’s not your day, you have run into an expert on doping in semiconductors. The doping concentration is 10^13 atoms/cc to 10^18 atoms/cc, hardly trivial.
The doped semiconductor has an impurity introduced as an atom with an excess of electrons OR with a lack of electrons. If the donor impurity has an excess, the silicon slab has an excess of electrons and is an N-type. If the opposite, it is a P-type.
Shall I go on about joining an N type to a P type to form a diode? I could go into potential hills and all that.
I will tell you the donor atoms to which you refer have nothing whatsoever to do with insulation. They affect conduction of electrons through silicon. Some people like to imagine P type silicon as having holes carrying current but they are as confused as you on 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere.
Since you brought it up ….
1 cc of Si = 2.3 g = 0.08 moles = 5 x 10^22 atoms
Doping in the range of 10^13 to 10^18 corresponds to between 0.00000002% and 0.002% of the total atoms. In other words, the original claim that 0.001% can have large impacts was spot on — it is right near the top of the scale for doping that you yourself provided. And while you are claiming now that 0.002% or even 0.00000002% is “hardly trivial”, you dismiss CO2 @ 20x larger concentration as too small to matter.
In fact, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 10^16 molecules/cm^2. So by your own words, CO2 is “hardly trivial”!
+1
One of the idiots readily shows up and blabbers
The doping concentration is 10^13 atoms/cc to 10^18 atoms/cc,…
That’s not even wrong, yet (for the idiots) this is nothing but 10^-7 % to 10^-2 % or 0;0000001 % to 0.01 % (atomic percent). In other words only one out of 10^4 to 10^9 Si atoms is replaced with a Ga or an As atom
If that’s is
hardly trivial
according to the idiots
then 0.04 % of CO2 or 1 molecule of CO2 out of 250 000 air molecules is hardly trivial either.
Hilarious !
gbakie said:
If remains at .2 until Dec 2018, we will have returned to the Pause.
This is nonsense.
gbakie must have a peculiar definition of ‘pause’ here.
The linear trend since 1998 will remain positive even if every month to December is at -0.6C
It would go negative if every month from next month was at -0.7C
Which would be a monthly cold anomaly never before reached in the UAH record – for the next 7 months.
“The linear trend since 1998 will remain positive even if every month to December is at -0.6C”
If that happens, I would say, Salvatore Del Prete is correct.
I would guess he is not predicting this much cooling.
I think I’ve found a photo of Flynn’s home in the outback. Looks very hot. It’s no wonder he’s not familiar with blankets!
http://outpoll.com/australian-outback-landscape-no-water.jpg
S,
I haven’t looked at your link, but I would be fairly sure that it does not show a copy of the still missing testable GHE hypothesis!
I would guess it relates to the usual attempts by the stupid and ignorant to avoid discussing the purported indescribable GHE. Would I be right?
How is the pseudoscientific avoidance strategy working out for you?
Cheers.
Mike
You should look at the picture to see if I’m right. I promise it’s not a cave.
……..or a burrow.
S,
Why should I do anything just because some stupid and ignorant person says I should?
Would you?
Cheers.
Mike
Some people think John Tyndall
discovered the GHE. Others think it may have been Edith Foote. What say you?
http://rabett.blogspot.com/?m=1
S,
Considering nobody at all can actually describe the GHE in any sensible way, it has not yet been “discovered” by anybody.
Read Tyndall’s experiments for yourself. Then figure out why only somebody really stupid and ignorant would claim that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer would raise its temperature! Tyndall reached the conclusion from measurements that around 35% of the Sun’s energy doesn’t even get to the surface. NASA’s figure is very similar. Clever chap, Tyndall.
Any gas can be heated to any temperature – compression is one easy method. Or do you believe that oxygen and nitrogen can neither be heated or cooled? Read Tyndall again. He even measured the proportions – and pointed out that 9996
Still no GHE. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. Don’t believe it if you don’t want to. Nature doesn’t care, and neither do I. Why should we?
Cheers.
Mike
So you think Edith Foote discovered the GHE? That surprises me. I thought you were a big admirer of Tyndall.
S,
Why would I think anyone could discover something which cannot even be described?
Certainly, neither you nor any of your fellow travellers can do other than try and fantasise such a thing into existence, by devout wishful thinking.
Alas, still no GHE, is there? Where may it be observed? Has it been reproduced, perhaps, or measured?
As to Tyndall, you are obviously either incapable or unwilling to actually read and absorb Tyndall’s excellent work. Just like the usual second rate fumbling bumblers, you just parrot what some other stupid and ignorant pseudoscientific wannabe tells you. It wouldn’t occur to you to think for yourself.
Not my problem of course. Nor anyone else’s who takes the trouble to check foolish Warmist assertions. You probably don’t even believe that Fourier decided his early speculations about the atmosphere were wrong, after becoming aware of experimental work which he verified for himself.
Keep believing on the GHE, the ether, unicorns and hobgoblins, if you think it is to your advantage. Many do.
Cheers.
Mike
We need to find some common ground. Both of us agree that when a thermometer is placed between Earth’s surface and the icy depths of space, and add CO2, the thermometer will get hotter.
The question is, who came to this conclusion first, Tyndall or Foote?
Ooops, that was a bumbling fumble for sure. I should have said:
“We both agree that if you add CO2 to the air between a thermometer on Earth’s surface and the icy depths of space, the thermometer will get hotter.”
S,
You can agree with yourself all you like. There is no point in expecting me to participate in your fantasy, you are doing fine by yourself.
If you really believe that reducing the amount of insolation makes thermometers hotter, you are quite mad.
The Moon shows how hot thermometers get without atmosphere. If you can manage to make a thermometer hotter by the magic of CO2, go ahead.
Read Tyndall. The more CO2 between the heat source and the thermometer, the more the temperature drops. Some materials make it drop more, some less. The only truly energy transparent “medium” is a vacuum – in other words, nothing at all to impede transmission.
I know you are too stupid and ignorant to accept real science, but other readers may be gullible enough to believe you, rather than thinking and enquiring for themselves.
As to adding CO2 between the surface and the icy depths of space, I can only assume you think that a reduction in the rate of cooling is heating! Madness – dropping temperatures do not raise temperatures. That is delusional climatological thinking – the sort of nonsense that people like Schmidt, Mann, and all the rest of the madly capering climate clowns, put about.
Sad.
Cheers.
You still haven’t told me which of the two you think discovered the GHE.
S,
You still haven’t managed to say what you believe the GHE to be. Rather difficult to discover something nobody has actually managed to describe, wouldnt you say?
Maybe you could name someone who believes they can describe the GHE, if you can.
How hard could it be? Do you believe it can be done? Do you believe that there is some sort of special effect concerned with greenhouses that needs description? Why would that be?
Are you really stupid enough to believe that greenhouses were not nown in Roman times? Why are you obsessed with greenhouses? Questions, questions. You haven’t got any answers, because you are stupid, ignorant and lazy.
Answer your own questions. Don’t expect me to do your work for you because you are incompetent!
Learn physics – all will become clear, if you have any intelligence at all.
Cheers.
“You still havent managed to say what you believe the GHE to be. Rather difficult to discover something nobody has actually managed to describe, wouldnt you say?”
If you think a proper description is lacking you should put forth your own version.
In the meantime, stop making excuses and answer the question. Tyndall or Foote?
It was Fourier who discovered the GHE.
David
Just messing around with Flynn.
S,
You keep on with the gotchas, dont you? Demanding that I specify which person discovered something that doesn’t exist!
I suppose you could put a more stupid and ignorant pointless demand, but I can’t think of one just now.
You wrote –
“If you think a proper description is lacking you should put forth your own version.
Dont be stupid. Why should I attempt to describe the non-existent? You claim something exists, but you can’t actually describe it, you say. You then demand I answer a particularly inept gotcha.
No. Why should I? You dug yourself into this particular hole – you dig yourself out.
Still no non-existent and non-describable GHE, is there? Be my guest – fire off another stupid gotcha, or have a tantrum – I dont care one way or the other.
Cheers.
Mike
You’re being very wishy washy. It’s either one or the other……shouldn’t be that hard.
If you’re unable to make up your mind then, by default, I’ll put you down for Tyndall.
DA,
And how would you describe this GHE that Fourier discovered? You disbelieve his later writings in which he stated that his earlier speculations were incorrect?
And no, you can look it up for yourself, if you are interested. Why should I do your investigating for you?
Cheers.
S,
You may do as you wish, of course – I have no control over the vagaries of your delusional thinking. You may put yourself down for a Nobel Prize (like Michael Mann) if you wish. You might even put yourself down as a climate scientist (like the mathematician Gavin Schmidt).
Have you considered just putting yourself down?
That might save you future embarrassment.
Cheers.
Mike
A nobel prize would be amazing. How about a Mt. Rushmore for climate science? Trenberth, Mann, Tyndall and Snape.
If that happens, I would say, Salvatore Del Prete is correct.
I would guess he is not predicting this much cooling.
Changing the subject is always an option, gbakie.
There will be no ‘return to the pause’ for the next few years, if ever.
Sal could not predict what he is going to have for dinner tonight.
And just to accentuate my point. Actually have no idea how that changed my name.
barry…”gbakie must have a peculiar definition of pause here”.
You’re the one with the problem here. I’m sure gbaikie is going on the pause declared by the IPCC in 2013 from 1998 – 2012.
He said it would ‘return’ by the end of the year if temps remain at 0.2C for the rest of the year. That won’t even get close to a ‘pause’ from 1998, so his definition must be quite different to that of the IPCC.
But you don’t care about the details of the discussion. You just wanted to mention the IPCC and’pause’ again. You’re such a phony.
Yeah.
If it averages .2 C to end of year, then next year averages -.6 C, that would be very bad.
??
pffft
And if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
Gordon Robertson says:
Youre the one with the problem here. Im sure gbaikie is going on the pause declared by the IPCC in 2013 from 1998 2012.
Look, suddenly the data is good enough for Gordon to cite. I thought NO.AA was fudging the data, Gordon?
Which is it? Whichever suits your needs?
The linear trend though is deceptive, imo. in that CO2 has increased approximately 72 ppm over the length of the trend. So what it is that CO2 is supposed to be doing? One would think that adding half as much again from the original 280 ppm should be pushing the end point higher than what we now see.
Why would one think that?
Taking the entire satellite record and looking at the linear trend as of this month, we can see that the temp change now sits at 0.5C over the 39 years depicted. Only part of that can be inferred to caused by CO2 increases in the atmosphere.
Let us say that half of the warming seen in the last 39 years is from CO2. That then means that an additional 72 ppm of CO2 has caused 0.25C of the warming seen on the UAH temp graph.warming. If that is carried forward in time until our fossil fuels supply diminishes at about 560 ppm total content, as I have heard some state, then there will only be another 0.6C rise in temps by early next century. That would be assuming that the overall Warm Period does not slide back into the next Cool Period by then.
Bad calculation. Ignores CO2’s logarithmic forcing, and it ignores feedbacks.
Bad calculation sez the guy who believes that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the surface makes the surface hotter!
Bad thinking, David. Bad thinking.
Cheers.
@ DA …CO2’s ability to warm diminishes as it increases. Is that the logarithmic function you are thinking about?
Yes.
But it’s then that positive feedbacks kick in.
@ DA …only in your dreams. Can you point to any sign of a positive feedback in today’s world? Of course you can’t, or it would already be visible for all to see. Your logical abilities are not impressive at all.
An obvious one is arctic ice albedo feedback. The effect of more open ocean is seen in more absorbed solar energy, as detected from space.
@ Nate …by what mechanism does CO2 melt arctic sea ice? Even so your reasoning is weak. The ability for the Sun’s rays to warm the Arctic Ocean are minimal due to the angle at which solar energy strikes the arctic region. On top of that it is only for 4 months a year where the slight impact would be of any consequence. After that, it is all heat going out to space, when there is more open waters.
goldm – Except you’re not adding 72 ppm to 280 ppm from 39 years, you’re adding 72 ppm to the 338 ppm of 39 years ago, not the 280 of two centuries ago. So the end point is higher for troposphere warming.
barry says, May 2, 2018 at 3:46 PM:
This isn’t nonsense, barry. It is more or less correct. This pertains directly to the whole ‘actual data vs. linear trend line’ issue.
If the data returns to the same mean level it hovered around between 2001/2002 – 2006/2007 (5 1/2 years) and 2014 – 2015 (1 1/2 year), about +0.2K above the 1981-2010 normal, there has been no overall rise in the mean level of the DATA itself. Of course, it’s still way too soon to tell whether this is in fact going to happen or not … But that’s a different matter.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/uahv6-gl-tlt-nivc3a5.png
A statistically generated linear trend line across the data, however, would naturally show a rather pronounced incline. Mostly simply because of ENSO amplitudes. But such a trend line would ignore the MEAN LEVEL of the data. And by ‘mean level’, I mean those parts of the data series that aren’t clearly affected by major ENSO amplitudes (large-scale noise).
Now, I’ll be the first to admit that the period post 2016 (basically, 2017) very much appears to be elevated above the 2001-2015 mean level, by 0.1+ degrees. But I’d give it a year or three more before concluding on it with anything resembling absolute certainty.
This pertains directly to the whole ‘actual data vs. linear trend line’ issue.
No. It certainly does not.
When people talk about THE pause (note the definite article), they are referring to, as Gordon pointed out, the LINEAR trend since 1998. This is a canonical item.
This is why I said gbakie has a peculiar notion about “THE pause.” The linear trend does not nearly go flat under the conditions he described.
If gbakie meant something else by THE pause, he furnished no alternative ideas.
“barry says:
May 3, 2018 at 5:02 AM
This pertains directly to the whole actual data vs. linear trend line issue.
No. It certainly does not. ”
Kristain is referring to what he discuss above in this thread.
And yes it certainly does.
Roy Spencer said:
“The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through April 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”
And if it is + .2 C to Dec, Roy will say:
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through Dec 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
Or 1/2 year or a year don’t have much affect on 40 years.
But Roy drawn red line, would go down. But Roy has said that red line does not matter very much.
And if temperatures drop as Barry said by -.6 C thru Dec, it still would be
Roy saying:
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through Dec 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.Dec
Though it will crash the red line.
And Roy will think something has gone wrong with his satellite instruments. As it would be unexpected.
But if real, it means something.
gbalkie: do you know a trend line is? and how it’s calculated?
DA,
Do you what a trend line is? Or how it is calculated?
Do you?
Cheers.
There is no trend at global temperature. It changes depending on many factors, eg the ENSO cycle. The temperature is only real time.
What about the fact that during El Nino winter in America is warm, when a year later it can be record cold.
Wrong, ren. Sorry. UAH says their trend is +0.13 C/decade.
binny…”There is no reason at all for you to solely trust in UAHs time series”.
Of course there is. UAH is the only series that is not fudged.
I suspect that NOAA is intercepting the sat data and feeding UAH doctored data. It is NOAA sats UAH use for their data.
Gordo, No the UAH data is interpolated over the poles, as the scans don’t extend that far poleward. Of course, there are the corrections for satellite decay and drift of LECT, which must be made to connect data from some 13 different satellites. There are also other issues, such as the NOAA 9 warm target problem, the heating and cooling of the instruments as they progress from sunlight to dark, etc.
Of course, you can dwell in paranoid fantasies all you want.
swannie…”Of course, you can dwell in paranoid fantasies all you want”.
Do you call it a paranoid fantasies when NOAA proclaimed 2014 the hottest year in the temperature record using a confidence level of 48%? 2014 was not even withing 0.6C of 1998 or within 0.35 of 2010. They got rid of the difference by lowering the confidence level in half.
I call that scientific misconduct. GISS was even worse, using a CL of 38%.
Or when they retroactively fudged the temperatures post 1998 to a show a trend after extensive research by the IPCC showed a warming hiatus?
Do you think it’s paranoia when NOAA erases the US record in 1934, because they thought it must be wrong given the AGW theory? Do you think it is paranoia when NOAA slashes over 75% of their real surface stations and uses less than 25% to SYNTHESIZE the slashed temperatures in a model?
If so, you have a strange way of doing science. Of course, I already knew that the way you overturned the 2nd law.
You should apply for work at NOAA or GISS.
Gordon Robertson says:
Do you call it a paranoid fantasies when NOAA proclaimed 2014 the hottest year in the temperature record using a confidence level of 48%?
For the Nth time, it wasn’t a confidence interval, it was a probability. Probably you don’t know the difference.
ALL such reports will have such probabilities associated with them, because the measured numbers have error bars. ALL numbers in science have error bars, meaning all calculated results have error bars. Not to include the uncertainties and probabilities would be bad science.
DA…”For the Nth time, it wasnt a confidence interval, it was a probability. Probably you dont know the difference”.
I call your POV splitting hairs. Probability, confidence, same thing.
Why would anyone be so deceitful as to push a year into first place by claiming there is a 48% probability it was the warmest year? Especially when that year was half a degree cooler than 1998.
Only an alarmist charlatan would have such an interest. Ditto for anyone supporting that scientific misconduct.
Gordon Robertson says:
I call your POV splitting hairs. Probability, confidence, same thing.
Dumb. No they aren’t.
Go learn something for a change.
Gordon Robertson says:
Why would anyone be so deceitful as to push a year into first place by claiming there is a 48% probability it was the warmest year? Especially when that year was half a degree cooler than 1998.
What data shows it was cooler?
Gordon? What data shows it was cooler?
Gordon Robertson says:
Do you call it a paranoid fantasies when NO.AA proclaimed 2014 the hottest year in the temperature record using a confidence level of 48%? 2014 was not even withing 0.6C of 1998 or within 0.35 of 2010.
That’s a whopper of a lie, Gordon.
NO.AA global average surface temperature anomaly:
1998: +0.63 C
2010: +0.70 C
2014: +0.74 C
Your lie is also absurd on the face of it – no one is going to claim a record year if it’s 0.6 C below another year! Shame on you.
data:
https://tinyurl.com/n2twzcm
DA…”NO.AA global average surface temperature anomaly:
1998: +0.63 C
2010: +0.70 C
2014: +0.74 C”
Like I said, NOAA are stinking liars.
UAH has 1998 peaking at 0.75C with an average at 0.45C. They have 2010 peaking at 0.5C with an average just over 0.3C and 2014 with a peak of 0.2C with an average around 0.15C.
On average, 2014 is 0.3C cooler than 1998….not even close.
Time you opened your eyes and saw the outright cheating of NOAA and GISS. They are climate alarmists and have no business doing science…not that they do any anyway.
Besides, the IPCC declared a warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012. UAH shows an apparent continuance of that flat trend through 2015. 2014 is within a flat trend area. No average warming.
NOAA shows a significant trend and that makes them damned liars. They created that trend by retroactively fudging the record.
UAH and NO.AA aren’t measuring the same thing, Einstein.
Gordon Robertson says:
NOAA shows a significant trend and that makes them damned liars. They created that trend by retroactively fudging the record.
As a sometimes-journalist I would LOVE to have evidence that NO.AA is “fudging the record.”
Please provide your evidence. Or email me directly, via davidappell.com
“I suspect that NOAA is intercepting the sat data and feeding UAH doctored data.”
We should notify Inspector Clouseau!
snape…”I suspect that NOAA is intercepting the sat data and feeding UAH doctored data.
We should notify Inspector Clouseau!”
********
That’s actually brilliant, it explains everything. NOAA is now run by Inspector Clouseau and GISS by Dumb and Dumber.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “I suspect that NOAA is intercepting the sat data and feeding UAH doctored data. It is NOAA sats UAH use for their data.”
Why do you suspect that? Is it because you are such a dishonest person you see everyone around as having the same corrupt dishonest behavior? You make up stuff constantly. You intentionally try to deceive people with long posts that have horrible and false physics in them. Many people have worked to correct your many flawed ideas but you completely ignore them and post the very same garbage on the next available thread pretending that no one challenged your nonsense.
I think you are intentionally dishonest so you see the world through this lens. You accuse everyone but yourself of corruption and dishonest behavior. I see this sort of behavior in you.
norman…”Why do you suspect that?”
Is it not obvious? The UAH record has hung up there despite serious cold the last couple of winter’s in the Northern Hemisphere.
Look how far 2008 dipped below the baseline. I don’t recall 2008 being any colder than last winter. In fact, we set records last winter in the NH.
Right now, we should be at the baseline or below.
Thanks for bringing that up, now I’m convinced NOAA is feeding UAH fudged data.
So you think Roy is happy to use fudged data?
DA,
Why would you think that?
Cheers.
DA…”So you think Roy is happy to use fudged data?”
I have no idea what Roy thinks and even if he suspected NOAA is giving him bad data it would not be in his best interest to say so.
NOAA is currently being investigated for data tampering. Maybe that will come out in the investigation.
Gordon Robertson says:
I have no idea what Roy thinks and even if he suspected NOAA is giving him bad data it would not be in his best interest to say so.
So you think you know more about the data than Roy does.
Gordon Robertson says:
NOAA is currently being investigated for data tampering.
By a climate change denier who answers to fossil fuel interests.
Gordon Robertson says:
I suspect that NOAA is intercepting the sat data and feeding UAH doctored data. It is NOAA sats UAH use for their data.
Pathetic.
You are happy to quote the data when it suits your needs — IPCC’s pause, UAH’s pause, etc.
You accusation has no evidence and no truth to it whatsoever. It’s amazing you can’t see how pathetic it is you keep repeating this.
DA…”You are happy to quote the data when it suits your needs IPCCs pause, UAHs pause, etc.”
The IPCC got its data re the pause from Had-crut. Even NOAA showed the pause at one time.
Why do you alarmists sit around praising that load of charlatans?
False, Gordon, it came from 5 datasets, including NO.AA.
You have zero evidence of anything untoward. Shame on you for repeating this many times. Says.a lot about your morals and ethics.
DA…”You have zero evidence of anything untoward.”
How many times do I have to reveal it to you?
1)NOAA admitted to slashing over 75% of its reporting stations. It has been revealed that NOAA uses less than 25% of the real data in a climate model to manufacture the stations they slashed. In doing so they omit cooler stations and fudge the data statistically to show the cooler stations at a warmer temperature.
2)NOAA reduces confidence levels to make recent years appear as the warmest year when they are not even close.
3)NOAA has eliminated the 1934 record in the US for the warmest year.
NOAA are cheats!!! Data fudgers!!!
Gordon Robertson says:
“1)NOAA admitted to slashing over 75% of its reporting stations.”
So what?
How does that affect their numbers for GMST?
Gordon Robertson says:
2)NOAA reduces confidence levels to make recent years appear as the warmest year when they are not even close.
You still don’t know what a confidence interval is, and don’t understand how to compare warmest years.
And you show no willingness to learn.
Gordon Robertson says:
3)NOAA has eliminated the 1934 record in the US for the warmest year.
Eliminated how? Because recent years have been warmer? That’s science, not “elimination.”
Gordon Robertson says:
I suspect that NO.AA is intercepting the sat data and feeding UAH doctored data. It is NO.AA sats UAH use for their data.
Pathetic.
You are happy to quote the data when it suits your needs — IPCC’s pause, UAH’s pause, etc.
You accusation has no evidence and no truth to it whatsoever. It’s amazing you can’t see how pathetic it is you keep repeating this.
Gordon Robertson says:
May 2, 2018 at 7:04 PM
I suspect that NOAA is intercepting the sat data and feeding UAH doctored data. It is NOAA sats UAH use for their data.
How ignorant, unscientific, dumb and paranoid is one allowed to be in life, Robertson?
You are so dumb and so paranoid that you even don’t think you are insulting Roy Spencer here.
How can you even imagine that this man would accept to use ‘doctored data’, let alone that he wouldn’t have discovered it long time before you greatest genius evah start insinuating it?
binny…”How ignorant, unscientific, dumb and paranoid is one allowed to be in life, Robertson?”
This coming from someone who disappeared in a snit from the blog, saying good-bye, then re-appearing a few days later as La Pagolina. Then claiming they are friends. Anyone who fabricates a scenario like that is a few planks short of a load.
Come on, are we supposed to be that stupid? La Pag has exactly the same personality as binny, argues the same, and has a memory of my insults toward him/her/it.
And you call me paranoid and ignorant???
I see the same name calling from multiple view points on this site and sites that see the situation as dire (eg Skeptical…) Its interesting, actually comical, that each month’s posting of average temperature starts the same rounds of largely the same arguments and definitely the same name calling. Like you wait for this day to repeat.
What is really surprising, Joe Rancourt, is that people like you feel the need to teach us about that.
Sad that someone would attack a request for sanity to prevail. This site has the ugly smell of Youtube.
B,
If you don’t like the smell, would itbe rational to either hold your nose or waft off to some sweeter smelling spot, do you think?
What does Youtube smell like? Can you throw a few more irrelevancies in for the general amusement of all?
Keep it up!
Cheers.
Case in point.
@ Jie …they must spend the rest of the month in a state of depression.
The temperature at the equatorial Pacific falls.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00964/53p5j01cskju.png
No it doesn’t. It has been rising since February.
[IMG]http://i63.tinypic.com/nv1cnm.png[/IMG]
You’re right.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/nv1cnm.jpg
“The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through April 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”
Peculiar thing. Thank you for the update, Dr. Spencer.
La Nina is weak, but may extend for several years.
You got a smile out of me with that “but may”.
Absolute nonsense.
bond…”Absolute nonsense”.
Are you referring to the AGW theory?
Gordon, still afraid to publish his findings that AGW is all wrong. What a shame for the world….
Chrissakes, quit with the trolling. Deliberately mis-interpreting a statement by ignoring the comment I was replying to makes you appear neither clever nor funny.
B,
What makes you think that G was trying to appear either clever or funny? Stupid and ignorant two word assertions are not clever, funny, or useful, are they?
Cheers.
Far cough, troll.
B,
No. Why should I? Your desires are not my concern, as far as I know.
Now, if you could produce a testable GHE hypothesis, I might be impressed. But you can’t, so I’m not.
Cheers.
Yup …
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
This says much especially if it continues.
Short-term change is natural variability, not climate.
@ DA … that is part of the climate. The two are inseparable. The only thing is that one can not say with even a low confidence what inferences may be drawn from what 4 months means on that graph. That does not mean that there is zero value to the graph. It would be better for several years of the graph to be shown. Then some small level of interpretation may be derived.
Four months doesnt say anything about climate.
Climate is the 30-year average of weather, perhaps longer.
Didn’t I just state that myself? Is part of your brain out of order this morning?
goldminor…”Didnt I just state that myself? Is part of your brain out of order this morning?”
That’s the natural state of DA’s mind…out of order.
Climate is the baseline. We are seeing variations about the baseline. That is not climate. In fact, the entire visible graph is a variation on the climate baseline, due to La Nina conditions.
bond…”Climate is the baseline”.
Climate is not a precise number, it is a subjective generalization of average weather over the long term. The baseline on the UAH graph tells you nothing about climate.
Averages aren’t “subjective.”
DA,
Not subjective?
Describe the climate of California in measurable objective terms. Climate is just an average, isn’t it?
Oh, you can’t?
What a pity!
Cheers.
If fact, we’re seeing increases above the baseline.
I am not using “baseline” in the 1981-2010 or “twentieth century average” sense. The earth has a baseline climate right now from which daily weather deviates. In that sense, today’s climate can’t be above the baseline. Only weather can be above or below that baseline. What is that baseline? Going by the UAH trend, around +0.29C globally.
https://www.iceagenow.info/astrophysicist-mini-ice-age-accelerating-new-maunder-minimum-has-started/
Correct.
Come on now.
“The jet stream will be wilder. There will be more wild temperature changes, more hail events, more earthquakes, more extreme volcano events, more snow in winters, lousy summers, late springs, short autumns, and more and more crop failures.”
More earthquakes and extreme volcano eruptions?
Is there really a need for more criminal delusion than the truckload we get daily from the antihuman climate alarmists?
“antihuman?”
DA,
Can’t you read?
Maybe you prefer a space inserted thus – “anti human”.
How are the gotchas working out for you these days?
Cheers.
What indicates a Maunder rather then a something like Dalton minimum?
Maunder lasted about 100 years, why couldn’t the return to modern maximum type cycles within say 30 years.
And if it is the same or worse than Maunder, what evidence indicates there was a sudden climatic reaction to Maunder minimum?
I tend to think we will get evidence of cooling, before we get it. And I applied similar guideline in regards to “global warming”. Didn’t see any evidence of earth becoming like Venus, nor have not seen signs of Earth becoming like Pluto.
This exact question was studied a few years ago by Feulner and Rahmstorf (GRL 2009), Song et al (GRL 2010) and Jones et al (JGR 2012), and it was found that anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming easily swamps any cooling from a Maunder Minimum-like sun. Cooling by 2100 would only be, at most, 0.3 C below IPCC projections. We will not be entering another Little Ice Age.
“On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth,” G. Fuelner and S. Rahmstorf, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L05707 2010.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
“Increased greenhouse gases enhance regional climate response to a
Maunder Minimum,” Song et al, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L01703 (2010)
http://www-cirrus.ucsd.edu/~zhang/PDFs/Song_et_al-2010.pdf
“What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?” Gareth S. Jones, et al, JGR v 117, D05103 (2012) doi:10.1029/2011JD017013, 2012.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf
See also:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/what-would-happen-if-the-sun-fell-to-maunder-minimum-levels.html
DA…”This exact question was studied a few years ago by Feulner and Rahmstorf….”
Rahmstorf seems awfully confused to me. I think you should refrain from quoting him.
Confused about what?
DA,
Probably believes that the GHE exists. Anyone who lives in such a fantasy world is obviously confused. Is he confused about other things as well?
Cheers.
Wow, theyre all gonna have egg on their faces
“…it was found that anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming easily swamps any cooling from a Maunder Minimum-like sun. Cooling by 2100 would only be, at most, 0.3 C below IPCC projections. ”
9 years ago in middle of depth of solar min, we didn’t enter a Maunder Minimum, and as we are entering this solar min, it seems not likely we will.
A main problem with paper is they expected a lot warming which has not made itself apparent and is very unlikely to occur.
And if we to get decades of this lower solar activity, it seems we might get somewhere around .3 C cooling.
But in terms of within a couple years from now, it seems to me more about weather, rather than global temperatures.
If we get a century of this lower solar activity or something like decades of a constant spotless sun (or something like Maunder) seems unlikely we will return to the Little Ice Age conditions, but we might be looking like we are going in that direction.
gbaikie…”nor have not seen signs of Earth becoming like Pluto”.
I want to see Pluto re-instated as a planet. I think it’s discriminatory that Pluto has been excluded. If we become like Pluto we’ll be de-classified as well.
Maybe the answer is to gender change the name. Pluto sounds so masculine. Its unfair.
Lol
Salavatore…”Correct”.
Damning evidence to support your theory, Salvatore. Not looking forward to a mini Ice Age but I’ll suffer it gladly to get rid of this AGW nonsense.
Unfortunately, the alarmists are already gearing up. One in the video was quoted as claiming the Ice Age will give us time to fix up our environment, likely meaning the same old, same old.
Politicians won’t let go of the present cash cow vis-a-vis carbon taxes and they’ll keep at it till they are booted from office by people freezing.
Salvatore hasn’t been right since at least 2010. Why would he start now?
LaPangolina,
but “you cant choose as baseline an averaging period outside of the period you have measured. That makes no sense, as there are no absolute values you could construct your averages out of.”
So if I understand your position, the satellite record we can trust as absolute values, but NOT any of the other previous values per satellite era? I would actually be OK with this notion so long as we only look at that very short time period to compare global temperature anomalies. This is however exactly what is NOT being done.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/CaG_GlobalTempAnom_1.jpg
Nasa graph looks similar to NOAA
You can’t simply pick and choose methods that match your fancy.
S,
I can’t help myself.
You wrote – “You cant simply pick and choose methods that match your fancy.”
/humour on
She can, and she does!
/humour off
Cheers.
Swamp: LaP is right about baselines.
swampgator says:
May 3, 2018 at 4:04 PM
So if I understand your position, the satellite record we can trust as absolute values, but NOT any of the other previous values per satellite era?
Sorry: I never and never told you that.
Please remember your own question to Roy Spencer:
swampgator says:
May 1, 2018 at 5:21 PM
In other works in my limited understanding if we chose 1925-1955 as the averaging period the monthly anomalies reported on this blog might be flat or even negative?
The UAH data is available since december 1978.
Daily, monthly, yearly nomalies are constructed by subtracting their absolute value from an average of absolute (daily, monthly, yearly) values over a given period.
How should Mr Spencer manage to make ‘1925-1955 as the averaging period’ when no data exists for that period?
I don’t understand what you mean here.
Thanks for the answer. My point is that Dr Spencer does not try and extrapolate current numbers compared to his baseline period vs historical data, but that EVERYONE else does this.
If NASA is going to use current surface monitoring temps to compare records which THEY have adjusted from RAW data gathered 100 years ago, using completely different instruments and in many cases plugging in fake numbers when raw data numbers are missing, then I think Dr Spencer should do the same, using unadjusted raw temp surface data measurements from 1925 to 1955.
It would be just as helpful as the data that some here seem to hold sacred.
This is basically the Gavin Schmidt or Micheal Mann method, and most climate researchers LOVE that. Of course, most climate research is activism masked as science. I see this in my (medical) field as well. People get so convinced of the “rightness” of their position that everything else is ignored. That is why low fat diets were (and still are) pushed as the way to prevent heart disease and diabetes when almost every single RCT
conducted over the past 50 years has not supported that hypothesis.
swampgator…”If NASA is going to use current surface monitoring temps to compare records which THEY have adjusted from RAW data gathered 100 years ago, using completely different instruments and in many cases plugging in fake numbers when raw data numbers are missing, then I think Dr Spencer should do the same, using unadjusted raw temp surface data measurements from 1925 to 1955″.
Excellent point, but that’s why we skeptics love Roy and John Christy from UAH. They are honest to a tee.
Reminder: adjustments to the raw data REDUCE the long-term warming trend.
DA,
What is your point? Are you suggesting manipulating data to get the result you want – or more strangely – the result you don’t want?
If you dont believe the raw data, dont use it. Unless you believe in climatology, of course. Then it is fine to torture data, ignore it, substitute it, create it, manufacture it, or generally bend it to your will!
Off you go and re analyse some data. If you dont like it, make some up.
Cheers.
Dave
In 1999 NOAA concluded that there had been no warming in the US over the past 100 years. Today they have changed their minds. How come?
It’s because the re-adjusted the data.
swampgator
Please link to this 1999 claim by NOAA.
swampgator says:
In 1999 NOAA concluded that there had been no warming in the US over the past 100 years.
Can you prove that? Because I very much doubt it, given that there was already an IPCC assessment report (AR1) that reported global warming.
David Appell
Actually, there had been two IPCC reports by 1999.
Even better. Thanks.
Bond and David,
Sorry, it was 1989
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html
swampgator…”Nasa graph looks similar to NOAA”
You that be due to the fact that the head of NOAA is on loan from GISS?
There is no difference between them and now it seems RSS is in bed with both.
Conspiracy arguments are the last refuge of scoundrels.
Ah, but Ad Hominem is just dandy?
I assume you are referring to posts such as these:
Gordon:”NOAA is now run by Inspector Clouseau and GISS by Dumb and Dumber.”
Myki…”Conspiracy arguments are the last refuge of scoundrels.”
Are you admitting you are a scoundrel? I had assumed you are misinformed.
I’m not the one inventing conspiracies.
Gordon is a scoundrel — he invents conspiracies whenever it suits his fancy, such as claiming NO.AA is altering the raw data UAH uses. He has zero proof of this, but is willing to lie anyway.
DA…”Gordon is a scoundrel he invents conspiracies …”
I learned from the great conspiracists: Newton, Clausius, Planck, Bohr, Schrodinger, Pauling, Bohm, Einstein, Feynman….
Oh, I forgot: Lindzen, Spencer, Christy…
WOW, a list of names of scientists.
How CONVINCING, Gordon.
DA…”WOW, a list of names of scientists. How CONVINCING, Gordon”.
It’s basic logic. If I learned from scientists, and what they taught me made me a conspiracist, then they must be conspiracists.
At least that’s the logic of alarmists.
Are you now claiming they are all scientists and that what I am claiming is science?
Fickle lot, you alarmists.
You apparentl learned from scientists who lived 100 years ago, and much of their knowledge is now known to be wrong.
Is there some reason you wont cite the science as its known today?
I think I already know the answer to that question, but give it your best shot.
DA…”You apparentl learned from scientists who lived 100 years ago, and much of their knowledge is now known to be wrong”.
Only to misinformed alarmists like you who rely on pseudo-science for your catastrophic warming conspiracy theories.
All the science of which I know from ‘old’ scientists like Newton, Kepler, Fourier, Faraday, Kircheoff, Clausius, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Bohm, Feynman, and Pauling is still as applicable today as it was in their day.
There are a few modernists who think otherwise but they are deluded and wrong.
Warming? What warming?
“It Was 122.4F This Week in Pakistan, Probably a World Record for April”
Even in Pakistan, no stranger to blistering heat, the temperature on Monday stood out: 122.4 degrees Fahrenheit. The reading came from Nawabshah, a city of 1.1 million people in southern Pakistan, and meteorologists say it is the highest temperature ever reliably recorded, anywhere in the world, in the month of April.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/world/asia/pakistan-heat-record.html?module=WatchingPortal®ion=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&contentPlacement=3&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2018%2F05%2F04%2Fworld%2Fasia%2Fpakistan-heat-record.html&eventName=Watching-article-click
M,
Pathetic. The Lut desert gets much hotter on a regular basis. Solar ponds get over 85 C.
Undersea vents exceed 400 C.
Warming? What warming?
Cheers.
Myki…”Warming? What warming?”
Scoundrel!!!
Yes. I admit it. It took a good deal of effort going to Nawabshah, dodging islamic terrorists, finding the thermometers, and bribing the meteorologists there to alter the readings. I then had to bribe the police who arrested me and then bribe the politicians who would not let me leave. Fortunately Al Gore spoke up on my behalf. All went well since not even the press knew of the plan. Unfortunately I did not reckon on how perceptive you and Mike Flynn are. You two guys are way too smart for me.
M,
I presume you have a point, about something, somewhere.
You are right about one thing – I am way to smart for you. I could challenge you to a battle of wits, but it would be bad form to duel with an unarmed opponent.
Cheers.
“I am way to smart for you.”
Yes, way TOO smart.
Lol
“I could challenge you to a battle of wits, but it would be bad form to duel with an unarmed opponent.”
Latest score
TOO smart: zero
Unarmed opponent: +1
Myki: Like everyone else here, you will learn to ignore Mike Flynn. He is someone who gets his jollies by calling people stupid and ignorant. He does this night after night, for reasons no one can fathom. What a hobby, huh?
Myki…”Yes. I admit it. It took a good deal of effort going to Nawabshah, dodging islamic terrorists, finding the thermometers, and bribing the meteorologists there to alter the readings”.
Why would you have to dodge the terrorists? You climate alarmists have similar dogmas don’t you, not mindlessly violent but narrow-minded and propaganda-based? Some of you have even advocated putting skeptics in jail.
I have put forth an invitation for David Appell to cross over and become a skeptic. The offer is open to you as well. It’s more fun doing real science.
BTW…you don’t have to bribe alarmist meteorologists, they do it willingly, for ‘The Cause’.
An invitation to become a skeptic?
A) You’re not a “skeptic,” Gordon, you’re a “denier.” And a blind & dishonest one at that.
B) I understand the science. You do not. The science proved AGW at least two decades ago.
“I have put forth an invitation for David Appell to cross over and become a skeptic.”
Thanks but no. I do not fancy having half my brain removed.
“you dont have to bribe alarmist meteorologists, they do it willingly, for The Cause.”
My God! You have referred to the holiest of holy crusades. Please do not tell anybody else about it
“Some of you have even advocated putting skeptics in jail.”
Never!
When the time comes we have a much worse punishment awaiting you.
DA…”I understand the science. You do not. The science proved AGW at least two decades ago”.
Me and Mike Flynn are still waiting for proof. Not one testable hypothesis.
Myki….”When the time comes we have a much worse punishment awaiting you”.
Thought police. Just like your terrorist brethern.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Me and Mike Flynn are still waiting for proof. Not one testable hypothesis.”
Give us a hypothesis that would meet your oh-so-exacting standards.
How about, “The GHE reduces that amount of OLR that escapes Earth.”
How about, “The GHE keeps the Earth’s average surface warmer than could be caused by the Sun.”
Antarctica Concordia Station
Now
-69 °C
Snow flurries. Sunny.
Feels Like: -85 °C
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/concordia-station/ext
Antarctica Carlini Station
Now
-2C
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/carlini-base
Temperature anomaly in Antarctica -0.9 C.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00964/45acz4xlob4b.png
bond…”Antarctica Carlini Station
Now
-2C”
*********
More alarmist propaganda. Carlini station is on the Antarctic Peninsula close to South America and surrounded by ocean.
Gordon doesn’t believe any data unless they are useful to his ideology and rotten science.
DA…”Gordon doesnt believe any data unless they are useful to his ideology and rotten science”.
I did not say I did not believe the data at the Carlini station I simply pointed out that it is a notoriously warm part of Antarctica that is closer to the southern tip of South America than the continental centre. Mind you, the southern tip of SA, especially the Southern Ocean near the Cape is no picnic.
Temperatures near Carlini are what alarmist use to infer warming in Antarctica. Mann and Stieg used those warmer temps to infer warming in Antarctica since 1950.
It’s not too late for you to cross over and become a skeptic. You have pretty well exhausted all your pseudo-science. Why not try real science, you might like it?
Gordon Robertson says:
Temperatures near Carlini are what alarmist use to infer warming in Antarctica.
They do — just one station?
I bet you can’t prove that.
GR
So … you are stating that Carlini itself has warmed then?
bond…”GR
So you are stating that Carlini itself has warmed then?”
It’s well known that a small part of the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed, but as I pointed out it is significantly north of the Antarctic mainland closer to the tip of South America.
Whereas the area in question extends beyond the Antarctic Circle, some of the solid mainland touches the Circle. However, the Peninsula is very narrow and surrounded by ocean and it is not known what is causing the warming. It has been theorized warmer ocean currents are responsible but not there is not a shred of evidence the warming is related to CO2 warming.
The fact that the solid part of the mainland is below average in temperature while some parts of the tip of the Peninsula are above average suggests more of a weather/ocean current-related phenomenon causing the warming.
Alarmists are so desperate to prove warming in Antarctica they cling to this tiny area of warming while inferring the entire continent has warmed.
Wow – you’re an aggressive sheet aren’t you.
Average May night time temperature around Concordia: -64
Reported temperature: -69
So who is being ‘alarmist’ by trying to impress with low temperatures without indicating that his temperature is nothing special.
For the record:
Average May night time temperature around Carlini: -5
Reported temperature: -2
So yeah, nothing special there either. But that was my point. If this guy is permitted to impress with unspectacular cold temperatures, then I am permitted to do the same at the other end of the scale.
Are the temperatures there increasing over recent decades?
Not sure. That wasn’t the point of my response.
If youre not sure, then find out and get back to us.
I really don’t know what your issue is. I am here to argue FOR anthropogenic climate change. Nothing I have said should suggest otherwise. Here I am telling Gordon Robertson how aggressive he is, and someone who appears to be arguing against him comes at me with even more aggression.
I dont care what your view is you need to be more careful with your science
Perhaps you could explain to me how saying:
“Not sure. That wasnt the point of my response.”
shows a lack of care with science. If all I am trying to do is show how this person cherry picked an innately cold station and pretend this temperature is exceptional, why would be interested in examining how much its average temperature has warmed or cooled over time? If that interests you so much, why don’t YOU look it up and get back to me instead of being a dick.
bond…”So yeah, nothing special there either. But that was my point. If this guy is permitted to impress with unspectacular cold temperatures, then I am permitted to do the same at the other end of the scale”.
Big difference in contexts. Ren is showing typical cooling in the Antarctic mainland whereas you have cherry-picked a tiny area of warming near the tip of the Peninsula that is prone to warming via ocean currents.
When polar expert Duncan Wingham, who leans to the alarmist side, was asked in an interview whether glaciers were melting on the mainland, he replied that it is far to cold on the mainland for glaciers to melt.
bond…”If all I am trying to do is show how this person cherry picked an innately cold station…”
Ren was not cherry-picking, he was demonstrating typical temperatures for Antarctica. Yours was the cherry-pick. The -0.2C is typical for only a very small section at the tip of the Antarctica Penisula.
With regard to aggressiveness on my part, I was not reacting to you personally, only to the typical cherry-pick used by alarmists regarding Antarctic temperatures. You’ll find that most alarmist scientists are hanging out in the area you indicated making much ado about nothing.
Some companies are offering boat cruises to that area from Argentina. You won’t see similar cruises offered to the mainland.
“he was demonstrating typical temperatures for Antarctica”
No, he was trying to imply that this temperature was unusually cold for Antarctica.
No, nothing special at that spot for reasons to obvious for you to understand.
It looks to me as if Antarctica is going to experience a very cold winter this season. The cold set in early on the continent.
Most of Earth is very hot, and it has thin skin of about 10 km thick which is very cold compared to bulk of the planet. And above the oceans and land there is cold atmosphere which hundreds of km high which then merges with the space environment. The official boundary of space is where something can orbit Earth – which would at velocity of about 7.8 km per second (about 17,000 mph) – and is 100 km elevation, though Earth atmosphere extends much higher than this.
Humans live on land which near sea level to about 5 km of land elevation. Most of land is in northern Hemisphere and most live in northern Hemisphere and it is very thin layer and small portion of the Earth’s surface. Billions of humans have travelled in pressured aircraft which fly at about 10 km elevation but without being pressured the humans couldn’t breathe at such elevation. If you were to define the space environment as air too thin to breathe, then billions of human have travelled into space. They travel at such elevation to fly faster with less air resistance. If or when we get commercial suborbital travel, it also mostly be about travelling much faster, with less air resistance.
The average surface temperature of all land is about 10 C, and most people live in regions which warmer than this average temperature. China has average of less 8 C, but the large city of Shanghai, China is about 16 to 17 C.
The U.S. average temperature is less than 10 C, but that includes Alaska, which is cold, and the beautiful State doesn’t have many people there and will tend to live in warmer
parts of the State. Alaska average is about -3.5 C
In terms continental US, it averages about 12 C and California
(a higher population State) as average of 15 C.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/country-list/
The human as tropical animal would “naturally” live in regions with average temperature of + 20 C and in regions that doesn’t have freezing conditions, but due the human mind and it’s techology, humans can thrive in significantly colder conditions, like California.
Concordia Station
Now
-70 C
gbaikie…”The official boundary of space is where something can orbit Earth which would at velocity of about 7.8 km per second (about 17,000 mph) and is 100 km elevation, though Earth atmosphere extends much higher than this”.
I’ll say. The Moon is at average distance of 384 km and change. It’s amazing the Earth’s gravitational force is able to hold it in orbit at that distance.
*********
“The U.S. average temperature is less than 10 C, but that includes Alaska, which is cold, and the beautiful State doesnt have many people there…”
At least Alaska is in America, Hawaii is not. It’s in the US mind you, just not in America.
Actually the continental US average (USA48) is about 12 C.
384 km? Wow – are you sure about that?
x1000, presumably
Indeed. And suddenly, not so surprising that the earth can hold the moon at that radius.
Gravity extends to infinity
Not sure what your point is.
DA…”x1000, presumably”
Thanks for correcting typo.
384 km is what I don’t want to see,
Why not?
g,
As you point out, escape velocity is about 17,000 mph.
You are also probably aware that individual atoms and molecules exceed this speed at the outer limits of the atmosphere, and escape the gravitational field of the Earth. Not a lot in mass per annum, but how multiply a little bit by four and a half billion years, and you might get a reasonable number.
The point is, that given the atmosphere is a chaotic dynamical system, who can say what the effect of Jeans escape and other mechanisms might be?
The more we know, the less we understand (vice versa, I suppose), it might seem. Have fun.
Cheers.
“g,
As you point out, escape velocity is about 17,000 mph. ”
7.8 km per second or 17,000 mph is the velocity needed to stay in low Earth orbit. Or if spacecraft were to slow to 16,000 mph it will fall into the lower and denser atmosphere (It would start re-entry and land or crash on Earth surface).
If in orbit traveling 7.8 km per sec, one can add velocity to the orbital speed so as to achieve an escape trajectory.
Earth escape velocity is about 11 km per second. So if add more than 3 km per second to 7.8, anything will escape from Earth’s gravity well. Or that would be Hohmann escape trajectory.
But velocity added must be added to same direction of
travel. And with random collisions of gas molecules that is unlikely. So gas molecules at 100 or 200 km elevation could require more than 11 km per second of velocity added to them for the gas molecules to escape Earth’s gravity well.
None of this has anything to do with climate science, or climate change.
I should note, the atmosphere gas molecules aren’t staying in orbit, rather they doing all kinds of orbits, and mostly suborbital trajectories, spending maybe something like 60 mins or say 5 mins going up and down and having range velocities of say, 1 to 5 km per second. And they might collide with the solar wind (very low density (less than 1/100th Earth low density atmosphere at 100 km elevation) and the wind is going about 500 km per second).
Your numbers sound made-up
–You are also probably aware that individual atoms and molecules exceed this speed at the outer limits of the atmosphere, and escape the gravitational field of the Earth. Not a lot in mass per annum, but how multiply a little bit by four and a half billion years, and you might get a reasonable number. —
Solar wind is about 6 atoms per cubic cm, so 6 million per cubic meter, and 6 million billion per cubic km.
And per square km if traveling 500 km per second, it
is 500 times 6 million billion atoms per square km cross section of Earth. Or 3.0 x 10^18 atoms per square km per second.
And amount atoms in 1 cubic cm of sea level air is:
2.7 x 10^19 molecules or about twice as atoms.
And what effect does our magnetosphere have on this:
The controversy stems from recent observations that show Mars and Venus are losing oxygen ions from their atmospheres into space at about the same rate as Earth. This came as something of a surprise, since only Earth has a strong dipolar magnetic fieldthat can prevent solar wind particles from slamming into the upper atmosphere and directly stripping away ions.
“My opinion is that the magnetic shield hypothesis is unproven,” said Robert Strangeway from UCLA. “There’s nothing in the contemporary data to warrant invoking magnetic fields.”
https://www.space.com/11187-earth-magnetic-field-solar-wind.html
And:
“Each of the three planets is losing roughly a ton of atmosphere to space every hour. Some of this lost material was originally in the form of water, so this begs the question: How did the planets end up with vastly different quantities of water if they are all “leaking” to space at similar rates? ”
It seems it’s not as settled as I imagined.
But as recall there is more than a ton of cosmic material falling on Earth per day, but they saying 24 tons per day is leaving. There could be a lot more than a ton entering- estimates vary.
— The point is, that given the atmosphere is a chaotic dynamical system, who can say what the effect of Jeans ((gas? Earth?)) escape and other mechanisms might be?–
Well, solar min and max has large effect upon Earth upper atmosphere- with our current solar min it lowers the atmospheric effects on orbiting objects, but for sake of simple, it is kept at a constant of 100 km elevation.
Again, nothing to do with climate
Only the lightest atoms -He, H, can escape Earth.
Say had a sealed pressure vessel.
And we will make interesting.
Have 10 meter diameter sphere, cut in half giving two 10 meter diameter hemispheres. We take one of these domes and seal bottom. And have wall thickness .5 cm and have made of clear transparent plastic.
Have a greenhouse (which lacks a entrance and one can add that and make it sealable).
Adding normal air plus some h2. Have pressure same as atm pressure outside it, and temperature about 20 C.
The average velocity of N2 and O2 would be about 400 m/s and much less massive H2 molecules will have higher average velocity, because all gas molecules roughly have the same
Kinetic energy. And kinetic energy = 1/2 mass times velocity squared. Or gram of H2 molecules must equal gram of N2 or O2 in terms of kinetic energy. Or since H2 is less massive, it’s average velocity will be faster.
In upper atmosphere a molecule of gas may be hitting another molecule when traveling a distance of about 1 km, whereas in 1 atm the distance traveled in nanometers, so has less equalizing, but lighter gases go faster.
Nate,
Not so. Gas diffusion and chaotic motion ensures that gases are generally well mixed regardless of their relative densities, if not reactive. Even solid particles remain suspended in the atmosphere indefinitely due to Brownian motion.
You demonstrate ignorance and stupidity by making such unsupported foolish statements.
Learn some physics.
Cheers.
no mike, as usual you spout nonsense, and then project your flaws onto others. There is help for your affliction, a physics book and a therapist.
You see thermal energy only gives high velocity (escape velocity) to light atoms.
Gordon needs to address Tim at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-300509
DA…”Gordon needs to address Tim at…”
“And while you are claiming now that 0.002% or even 0.00000002% is hardly trivial, you dismiss CO2 @ 20x larger concentration as too small to matter”.
*******
Tim needs to address Tim and get his thinking straight. He is comparing apples and oranges.
The doping in a semiconductor is to enhance the supply of free electrons or reduce them. If Tim can explain to me what that has to do with CO2 making up 0.04% of the atmosphere, it would be appreciated.
Doped silicon can be used on it’s own as in Hall Effect devices, however, the advantage with lightly doped silicon is found when an N-type and P-type are butted together. The interaction at the joint is the basis for diodes and transistors.
By controlling the doping you control the number of free electrons hence the current carrying capability of the silicon. If the percent of doping is increased too much the silicon starts behaving like a metal conductor rather than a semiconductor.
I don’t see what any of this has to do with CO2s 0.04% concentration and how it can contribute heat to a mix of air. The analogies offered like ink in water or arsenic in a cup of coffee are not remotely related.
You claim 0.04% CO2 can’t affect climate, based only on the smallness of that number (i.e. not based on science.)
Yet you accept the cause-and-effect of numbers much lower in other situations.
That’s inconsistent.
DA…”You claim 0.04% CO2 cant affect climate, based only on the smallness of that number (i.e. not based on science.)”
I have based it on science, I used the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s Law to show that warming is based on the percent-mass of atoms/molecules in a mixed gas. The percent-mass of CO2 is so low it could not contribute more than a few hundreds of a degree C to a 1C warming.
It is climate model theory that is not based on science. They have arbitrarily given CO2 a warming factor of 9% to 25% which is not based on any science of which I am aware. It’s picked out of a hat.
No no no, it depends only on how much energy it can catch.
You can not have two mixed gases at different temperatures, CO2 will share all of its captured energy, so the percentage is irrelevant.
0.04% is one part in 2500. How many air molecules do you think a photon of IR radiation would encounter between the earth’s surface and the top of the atmosphere? More or less than 2500?
Less. Much less. A photon doesn’t “encounter” a molecule unless that molecule has a significant cross section for IR photon ab.sorp.tion.
N2 and O2’s cross sections are essentially zero.
CO2’s peaks at about 10,000 m2/kg.
Much MORE. An imaginary cylinder of diameter 15 microns (the IR wavelength of interest, and about 40000 times the diameter of an O2 molecule) that runs from the earth’s surface to the top of the atmosphere contains about 10^19 air molecules.
It is not the size of the CO2 molecule that determines whether it absorbs IR. It is that fact that diatomic molecules such as O2 and N2 have only one mode of vibration, and that mode doesn’t permit a separation of charge. CO2 is triatomic and has three modes of vibration. Two of those three modes result in a separation of charge, so a vibration can be induced by the oscillating E field of EM radiation.
No one ever said it was the size of the CO2 molecules that matters.
Try again.
You are confusing the size of CO2 molecules with their cross section for ab.sorp.tion of infrared radiation.
They are very different things.
I’ll say it again:
(1) My cylinder has a diameter 40000 times the diameter of an O2 molecule.
(2) The number of air molecules in my cylinder is 10^19.
Now, feel free to quote a value for the radius of your “cross section for ab.sorp.tion” that goes close to negating this ratio of more than 10^14.
I already quoted a value for the cross-section of CO2 at maximum, about 10,000 m per kilogram.
You clearly seem to again misunderstand what a cross section is, confusing it with a molecules size.
It is nothing like that.
*Square meters per kilogram.
I wrote the same originally, but it didnt render.
How on earth can a cross-section be measured in m/kg?
It is either a distance in metres (ie. the diameter) or an area in m^2. Mass plays no role in determining the cross section.
I corrected my comment its square meters per kilogram
Whether you have m or m^2 is not relevant to my point. A cross-section cannot be measured in units that involve mass.
False.
That’s all? Just “false”?
Perhaps you’d care to EXPLAIN how the mass of a molecule is relevant to a statement of its cross-sectional AREA. Assuming for a moment we were discussing spheres, if a sphere has a radius of 1 metre, how does its cross-sectional area depend on whether the sphere is made of lead or whether it is a balloon filled with air?
B,
In climatology, anything can be redefined to mean anything at all, particularly if awkward questions are asked. Hence, a non-existent greenhouse effect which doesnt exist, has nothing to do with greenhouses, and is of no effect. Supposedly defined to make the planet hotter by reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface.
So if a climatological cultist says False”, he has probably just redefined the word True” to mean “not True”.
Tricky little scamps, these pseudoscience believers.
Cheers.
Ecause the cross section for scattering clearly depends on how many molecules there are
(1) I have already accounted for the number of molecules in my calculation. Why would I factor it in a second time?
(2) Where did you get this number from?
I thought I relpied but it got lost. Basically my quick research agrees with David.
This link shows CO2 cross-section.
http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/co2pnnlimagesmicrons.htm
Near 15 um it peaks around 5e-18 cm^2/molecule. This can be rewritten as
5e-18 cm^2/molecule.
5e-22 m^2/molecule.
300 m^2/mole
7 m^2/g
7,000 m^2/kg
Which is right in line with David’s statement (and shows how “m^2/kg” is a perfectly fine way to express cross-section).
Tim Folkerts
My comment wont post, so I am breaking it up into parts so I can see where the issue lies. Ill let you know when it is finished, so please dont reply until then. Part 1:
For starters, I don’t see any description of the graph, nor do I see any units on the vertical scale. How do you know it is is even measuring cross section, and how do you know whether the vertical scale is in units or square units?
…
Conventional definition of a cross section –
1. a surface or shape exposed by making a straight cut through something, especially at right angles to an axis.
Climatological definition of a cross section –
“Anything you like.
Cheers.
Part 2:
But let’s assume it is correct.
Firstly, even is David’s figure is correct, it is a rather odd way of expressing it.
Further, an area of 5e-18 cm^2 corresponds to a diameter of 0.025 nm. That means my calculation is only out by a factor of 15, or slightly more than one order of magnitude.
…
Part 3:
So, restating:
The 15 micron diameter of my imaginary cylinder is 600000 times the diameter of attraction of a CO2 molecule, or (3.6 times 10^11) times the AREA of the zone of attraction of that molecule.
The number of air molecules in that vertical column is still 10^19.
…
Part 4:
Divide 3e16 by 10^19, and each photon sees about 28 million air molecules ahead of it.
Divide that by 2500, and the photon would pass withing the zone of influence of 11000 CO2 molecules between the earth’s surface and the ‘top’ of the atmosphere.
Part 5:
I have assumed all molecules have the same weight. But this is only meant to be an order-of-magnitude calculation, so it is close enough. From what I know about the mean free path before ab.sorp.tion for 15 micron radiation (it is just over 30 cm), I believe I am out by a factor of 2. But that could be just because a CO2 molecule will not necessarily absorb a 15 nm photon just because it comes within its zone of influence.
Finished. Interesting that this site accepted each part of my comment, but would not accept the whole thing. Surely there must be a better option than WordPress.
Bond,
1) The page that linked to the graph gave the description.
http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/co2.htm
“Images of PNNL data in cm2/molecule vs. microns”
2) For a 15 micron cylinder, my calculations give about the same number of molecules: 10^19. If that was pure CO2, that would be encountering ~ 10,000,000 molecules. At current 400 ppm, that would be encountering ~ 4000 CO2 molecules on the way up. (all numbers are meant to be orders of magnitude).
Good. So my original implication was correct – that a 15 micron photon would “encounter” significantly more than 2500 air molecules, and hence encounter significantly more than just one CO2 molecule on its path to the top of the atmosphere. In fact, a 15 micron photon is first absorbed by a CO2 molecule on average only just over 1 foot above the ground.
A random walk calculation shows that the probability of such a photon escaping the atmosphere if it has to get through n CO2 molecules is 1/n. So almost all photons at that wavelength are returned to the earth’s surface, and in fact have been for eternity.
It turns out that the effect of adding more CO2 is not about what happens right at 15 microns because the greenhouse effect is already saturated there. It is about the wavelengths in the neighborhood of 15 microns. The zone of saturation around 15 microns is gradually broadening as we add more CO2.
Those who deny the greenhouse effect don’t understand that even at those concentrations, it is almost impossible to draw a straight line from the ground to the top of the atmosphere without intersecting a CO2 molecule, in fact many CO2 molecules.
Yes Bond, and then the saturation argument is even more bogus because you are adding more layers to the TOA, particularly above water vapor.
You need a FEM like program like this to do the iterations:
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
bond…”Those who deny the greenhouse effect dont understand that even at those concentrations, it is almost impossible to draw a straight line from the ground to the top of the atmosphere without intersecting a CO2 molecule, in fact many CO2 molecules”.
Total theory based on immature logic. As Gerlich and Tsceuschner pointed out, the radiation of IR to the atmosphere is a many body problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-body_problem
G&T on page 12 0f 115:
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
“In particular, from the viewpoint of theoretical physics the radiative approach, which uses physical laws such as Planck’s law and Stefan-Boltzmann’s law that only have a limited range of validity that denitely does not cover the atmospheric problem, must be highly questioned.
For instance in many calculations climatologists perform calculations where idealized black surfaces e.g. representing a CO2 layer and the ground, respectively, radiate against each other. In reality, we must consider a bulk problem, in which at concentrations of 300 ppmv at normal state still
N ~ 3.10^4.V.L
~ 3×10^4 . (10 x 10^-6)^3 . (2.687 x 10^25)
= (3 x 10^4) . 10^-5 . (2.687 x 10^25)
~ 8 x 10^6
CO2 molecules are distributed within a cube V with edge length 10um, a typical wavelength of the relevant infrared radiation. In this context an application of the formulas of cavity radiation [blackbody] is sheer nonsense.
It cannot be overemphasized that a microscopic theory providing the base for a derivation of macroscopic quantities like thermal or electrical transport coeffients must be a highly involved many-body theory. Of course, heat transfer is due to interatomic electromagnetic interactions mediated by the electromagnetic field. But it is misleading to visualize a photon as a simple particle or wave packet travelling from one atom to another for example. Things are pretty much more complex and cannot be understood even in a (one-)particle-wave duality or Feynman graph picture”.
**********
In other words treating CO2 as a blackbody surface and applying laws like Boltzmann and Planck is bogus.
Gordon says:
“N ~ 3.10^4.V.L
~ 310^4 . (10 x 10^-6)^3 . (2.687 x 10^25)
= (3 x 10^4) . 10^-5 . (2.687 x 10^25)
~ 8 x 10^6”
“In other words treating CO2 as a blackbody surface and applying laws like Boltzmann and Planck is bogus.”
Thank you for supporting me, you need MODTRAN:
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
Gordon
And of course you understand every detail of your little cut-paste job?
bond…”How many air molecules do you think a photon of IR radiation would encounter between the earths surface and the top of the atmosphere?”
You can’t do science and talk in terms of what one photon might or might not do. No one knows if IR radiated from the surface reaches TOA and I have yet to see a calculation for the flux field produced by every atom/molecule on the Earth’s surface/ocean.
It stands to reason that the atoms in the Earth’s surface and oceans radiating IR vastly outnumber the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. If as you claim, there is a one to one correlation between an emitted photon and a CO2 molecule, which is unlikely, what percentage of the surface flux can CO2 molecules absorb?
I claim it’s not a lot. Most surface flux should bypass CO2 molecules, even water vapour molecules. If the theory is true, that one CO2 molecule in 2500 can warm all the others then our atmosphere should be a constant temperature all the way out.
It’s not, and obviously the warming due to the absorp-tion of IR by CO2 molecules at -50C is not happening. In other words, this one-to-one AGW theory is pseudo-science.
Further to that fact, if R.W. Wood is right, that surface IR would be too weak to be effective more than a few feet above the surface, then CO2 molecules at altitudes greater than a few feet are not being warmed at all. Same applies for WV.
Lindzen’s theory makes far more sense, that all air heated by the surface rises high into the atmosphere, especially in the Tropics, and is carried upward and poleward by convective currents. Then it is radiated when the air masses reach TOA.
Gordon, with all due respect to what I am sure are considerable skills in electrical engineering, I am not the one who needs to get thinking straight here. Just within this thread, you have significantly misunderstood
* the inverse square law.
* the nature of CMB radiation
* Boltzmann & photons
* the strength of flux from CO2 vs ground
* the modern meaning of the word “heat”
———————————————-
The doping example is interesting, but as you say, it is not directly applicable to CO2. Perhaps I misunderstood your original comment, but it sure sounded like you were trying to correct someone about doping, when you were basically agreeing with them.
However, the ink/water example *is* germane. Fill two clear baggies with water — one with no ink and one with 0.04% black ink added. If you put them in the sun, do you suppose the water with ink will warm faster and end up warmer than the clear water? (Dang — now i want to go do this experiment!)
Tim,
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Put the baggie between the Sun and thermometer – just as the atmosphere is between the Sun and a thermometer. Off you go, and do the experiment. That’s reality, not pseudoscience.
Cheers.
Its my experiment — designed to show a specific result. I’ll put the baggie in the sun if I want. Make your own experiment if you are so inclined.
The dark baggie gets hotter than the clear baggie. This shows that 0.04% impurity can warm the other 99.96% of the materials. This shows the feasibility to Gordon of 0.04% CO2 warming the other 99.96% of the air.
Funny. I did not know that CO2 is black.
Ren, IR is quite black @ 15 um. If you don’t know IR absorbs IR, you have a lot of catching up to do!
^^ If you don’t know CO2 absorbs IR …
Actually, that wouldn’t be true. CO2 both absorbs and emits CO2. What is true is that a blanket of CO2 with the thickness and density of the CO2 in our atmosphere would be a black TRANSMITTER at 15 microns, but a very bright “REFLECTOR” at 15 microns. That is, a beam of 15 micron light shone at the atmosphere would almost all come back at you, though not as a beam but extremely diffuse.
Not that this raises the slightest objection to your experiment.
Bond says:
“CO2 both absorbs and emits CO2. What is true is that a blanket of CO2 with the thickness and density of the CO2 in our atmosphere would be a black TRANSMITTER at 15 microns, but a very bright REFLECTOR at 15 microns. That is, a beam of 15 micron light shone at the atmosphere would almost all come back at you, though not as a beam but extremely diffuse.”
No, it’s not reflection. After ab.sorp.tion of IR by CO2, the molecule then re-emits IR, but in a random direction. So about half goes back downward, but then it must contend with other CO2 molecules below that might ab.sorp it. It’s really integral equations that must be solved, called the Schwarzschild equations or two-stream equations.
“After ab.sorp.tion of IR by CO2, the molecule then re-emits IR, but in a random direction.”
Yes, thanks for the lecture. I am fully aware of the process. Why, after doing your cut-paste of my comment, did you then deliberately remove the quotes that I put around “reflector”? Those quotes would indicate to any knowledgeable reader that I was using only a rough analogy. Honestly, you seem to believe you have something to prove.
Macroscopically, it still looks like a reflection process, and allowing for the looseness of the analogy and the point I was trying to make, my statement was 100% correct.
To a good approximation, the only integral required is to find the ‘effective height’ of the atmosphere. That is, the height that the atmosphere would have if it were all compressed to have the same density as it has at the earth’s surface. From memory, the effective height of earth’s atmosphere is about 7 km, but I could be out by a few km.
Once you know the effective height and the mean VERTICAL free path between ab.sorp.tions at the earth’s surface, it is a simple random walk calculation:
Probability of escape = (Effective height)/(mean free path)
If you are after an order-of-magnitude calculation, that is all there is to it.
And restating my entire point from my initial comment:
IF every molecule in the atmosphere were CO2, a 15 micron photon would have to battle ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE than 2500 molecules of CO2 on its way to the top of the atmosphere. Given that only one in 2500 molecules is CO2, such a photon is almost certain to interact with a CO2 molecule on its upward journey.
Oops – my fraction is upside down:
Probability of escape = (mean free path)/(Effective height)
–Tim Folkerts says:
May 5, 2018 at 7:42 AM
Ren, IR is quite black @ 15 um. If you dont know IR absorbs IR, you have a lot of catching up to do!–
The Moon is quite dark, but the light of the Moon does not appear black.
Mars is covered with mostly 25 trillon tons of CO2, in orbit does Mars appear black (during night or day) if seeing @ 15 um?
Tim,
Or you could find something that doesnt warm up when you put it in the Sun?
Or maybe you could warm something, and show that it wont cool down after you remove the heat source – maybe you could find something that traps heat!
You can do all sorts of experiments to show that things get hotter when allowed to heat up. Other pseudoscientific minds will no doubt be mightily impressed. Can you do an experiment to show the existence of the GHE? No, because you would have to say what the GHE is supposed to do, and you cant!
Off you go now, and demonstrate that you can raise temperatures using a heat source.
Cheers.
tim…”Just within this thread, you have significantly misunderstood
* the inverse square law.
* the nature of CMB radiation
* Boltzmann & photons
* the strength of flux from CO2 vs ground
* the modern meaning of the word heat”
I want to say first that your reply is typical of an alarmist reply. You either lack the ability to expound in scientific terms or you are replying in the manner of an ad hom. Try explaining what you find wrong with what I am saying. I get many terse replies from people acting as authority figures who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.
1)Inverse square law…understand it fine but I did not originate the theory about surface radiation being ineffective a few feet above the surface. That came from R.W. Wood, an eminent authority on IR, so eminent that he was consulted by Neils Bohr on IR theory as related to sodium emissions.
I was demonstrating it practically to Norman. I know it’s tough to separate the warming from directly heated air molecules from the radiation but what I am trying to get through is that radiation from a 1500 watt ring is essentially ineffective, moreso in short distances as you move away from the source. If it had any effect it would burn your skin really close to the surface as the directly heated air might.
We had a similar issue with swannie’s first experiment. He place a tin plate on a stove ring and measured the temp. Then he mounted a cookie sheet on soup cans above the plate, measuring the tin plate temp again. He claimed the tin plate’s temperature rose, claiming that as proof that the cookie sheet was radiating back to the tin sheet and warming it.
I pointed out that all he accomplished was blocking convection from the tin plate. To me, it was a heat dissipation problem.
I advised him to get a fan and blow it across the tin plate to blow away the heated air. He tried but obviously did not use a fan with enough power to eliminate as much convection as possible. You would likely never get rid of all of it but I think you could reach a steady state where the tin plate barely heated at all with the cookie sheet in place.
If we could do the same with a fan on the 1500 watt ring, I’m sure the radiation from the ring alone would still cook the skin if it was close enough. However, a few inches away it could barely warm the skin never mind burn it. That was intended as my demonstration of the inverse square law.
The ISL is about drop off in intensity with distance from the source and that’s what I am talking about.
I have worked with this stuff directly in electronic communications systems. We studied inverse square law several times in electrical and electronics theory.
2)CMB radiation…what is there to know about it? It is radiation measured by radiotelescopes but those who discovered it in 1964 ‘heard’ it as a background hum. They claimed to have eliminated all other causes then leaped to the amazing conclusion the CMB was a sign of the beginnings of the universe.
Are we in grade school here? That’s one of the most absurd conclusions I have ever heard.
Tell me something Tim, do you really believe that bs about our universe beginning in a flash out of nothing for no apparent reason and no evidence anywhere in physics that it could actually happen?
EM cannot be measured till it interacts with matter. There is no way to measure it from a distance. The fact that it produced a hum tells you right away that matter is involved since EM cannot produce a hum.
If you have a radio receiver that can receive atmospheric background EM, you will get all sorts of noises. Jumping to the conclusion that a persistent background hum is caused by EM from the origins of the universe is just bad science.
The point is that the EM causing the hum was picked up at their receiver antenna in the here and now, not 4 billion years ago. To infer the here and now signal was EM floating around for 4 billion years is just stupid. Obviously the hum is coming from something they have not yet identified.
3)Boltzmann and photons…Big B was studying blackbody radiation circa 1877 in the same way he earlier studied gases. How else would he get an equation about radiation density?
4)strength of surface flux versus CO2’s ability to capture it….you alarmists don’t like problems you can’t answer, or that conflict with your theories.
5)the modern meaning of the word heat has been passed off to me in this blog exactly in the manner I have stated. It has been defined as a process of energy transfer and I think ball4 claimed it does not exist.
I have seen the generic form of energy used very loosely to gloss over what it is in relation to moving atoms…heat.
Gordo, You are distorting the results of my first round of Green Plate demonstrations. For the last version, I replaced the cookie sheet with a layer of IR transmitting plastic film. The result was no “back radiation” and no warming of the high temperature plate.
And, I’m the one who first thought to use the fan to move the heated air away from the space between the hot plate and the cookie sheet.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281570
You keep trying to ignore reality, but you just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Gordon: “Try explaining what you find wrong with what I am saying.”
Many have already done so, thread after thread, & are simply ignored by Gordon to Gordon’s great discredit.
“It has been defined as a process of energy transfer and I think ball4 claimed it does not exist.”
Heat does not exist in nature or science since the colorless, odorless caloric fluid theory was thrown out of science by elegant experiments.
U may change with time (dU/dt) because of the interaction of an arbitrary but specified system of molecules with its surrounding molecules. These interactions take two forms:
1) Those interactions for which the net force vanishes on average yet the energy of the system changes because of random collisions with surrounding molecules having a different average energy (Q)
2) Those interactions for which the net force does not vanish on average (W)
The best way to stop getting confused by the term “heat” is simply stop using it.
Gordon writes: “The point is that the EM causing the hum was picked up at their receiver antenna in the here and now.”
Yes good point. The receiver horn antenna temperature was around 62F (289.7K) on Earth surface. The emitter of the hum is around uniform 2.7K much cooler. Yet according to Gordon writing 6:28pm: “Even via radiation, heat can only be transferred from a higher energy potential to a lower energy potential. The reverse transfer IS NOT POSSIBLE…The EM from a cooler object lacks the energy and the frequency to be absorbed by the electrons in the hotter body. The 2nd law is upheld.”
What do you know, Gordon writes both absorbing the EM is possible (detecting the hum) and absorbing the EM is NOT possible (the hum could not have been detected).
Actually, detecting the hum proves Gordon is wrong about “The EM from a cooler object lacks the energy and the frequency to be absorbed by the electrons in the hotter body” as for that process universe entropy is increased thus 2LOT is upheld and hence the hum was detectable.
“I want to say first that your reply is typical of an alarmist reply. You either lack the ability to expound in scientific terms or you are replying in the manner of an ad hom. “
I first want to say that I (and others) already DID expound in scientific terms up-thread. Furthermore, dismissing my points because I am “an alarmist” is itself clearly “ad hom”.
1) “The ISL is about drop off in intensity with distance from the source and thats what I am talking about.”
The drop-off in IR as you get farther from the surface is about ATTENUATION — an exponential drop off, not inverse square.
2) I believe that the big bang theory is the best current scientific theory to explain the history of the universe. Tell me something, Gordon, do you have a BETTER hypothesis that explains CMB, motion of galaxies, the mixture of elements in the universe and the age of the oldest known stars? (PS your hypothesis that CMB might come from stars has huge problems.)
3) “How else…?” is not an argument. It is simply as statement that you don’t know the answer.
4) I did answer, and it doesn’t conflict with my theory.
5) “Heat” is used colloquially to mean lots of things, including internal energy and temperature. That doesn’t make it right. The most important thing is to be clear and consistent. When you say heat, I know you mean U not Q. But that doesn’t mean you can complain about ‘mistakes’ when people properly use “heat” to mean Q.
Demonstration of the effect of black ink at CO2 concentrations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
DA,
Gee. Black ink. A change from overcoats and pot lids, I suppose.
Still no testable GHE hypothesis, is there?
Cheers.
Excellent demonstration.
Obviously wasted on some people.
M,
A demonstration of nothing at all if supposedly relating to a non-existent GHE.
I suppose you and your ilk have to find something to keep you from facing the fact that you can’t actually find a testable GHE hypothesis.
Have you tried denying the Earth’s cooling since its creation?
Cheers.
Cooling? What cooling?
“Two dominant dates for creation exist, about 5500 BC and about 4000 BC. These can be calculated from the genealogies in two versions of the Bible, with most of the difference arising from two versions of Genesis.”
Sorry – I forgot to say that there is no evidence of cooling since creation.
You therefore have an invalidated “cooling” hypothesis (as opposed to a “testable GHE hypothesis”)
M,
You are in good company. Lord Kelvin believed that the Earth couldnt possibly be older than 20 million years.
Are you still denying the Earth has cooled since its creation?
If you believe the Earth was created around 5500 BC, all that supposed climatological research based on proxies from before that date would have to be rubbish, wouldn’t it?
Carry on – I hope the rest of your ilk are as stupid and ignorant as you. At least Governments will have good reason to stop funding such people. I suppose you also believe in alchemy like Sir Issac Newton, or caloric, phlogiston and the ether, like many other famous scientists?
You are free to believe what you like. Others are free to laugh at you as much as they wish, I suppose. Keep the humour coming – it hasn’t any adverse side effects, as far as I know!
Cheers.
“all that supposed climatological research based on proxies from before that date would have to be rubbish, wouldnt it?’
Obviously. You have opened our eyes to the corrupt nature of climate science.
But that still means there is no evidence that the Earth cooled since creation. I don’t think the bible makes any mention of it anyway. If you wish to believe in frauds such as Lord Kelvin – go right ahead: “You are free to believe what you like”.
M,
You used an oxymoron – climate science.
What makes you imagine that endlessly reanalysing historical numbers qualifies as a science? Climate is the average of weather – nothing more, nothing less.
Thank you for agreeing with me about freedom of thought. Gavin Schmidt thinks he is a climate scientist, Michael Mann believed he was a Nobel Laureate, and GHE proponents believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
As long as these bizarre religious thoughts neither break my leg, nor pick my pocket (as Thomas Jefferson said), the mentally deranged are free to think as they wish.
Carry on thinking. Maybe you could think a testable GHE hypothesis into existence? I jest, of course!
Cheers.
Your response sounds suspiciously similar to countless others you have made here.
Could you please try and be, if not humorous, then a at least be a bit more creative.
Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, you may like to consider his observation in relation to your “cooling theory”:
“The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory.”
M,
You are fantasising, like all sufferers from delusional psychosis.
To which “cooling theory” do you refer? Am I supposed to have one in particular, or is this just a figment of your delusion?
Obviously, if you find yourself unable to even define the GHE which exists only in your imagination, you will attempt to deflect any queries, rather than admit you are stupid and ignorant enough to believe in something you cannot even describe to yourself!
Keep up the attempts to deny, divert, and confuse. It worked for years, why not now?
Cheers.
“To which cooling theory do you refer? Am I supposed to have one in particular, or is this just a figment of your delusion?”
HUH? I’m not the one stating:
“Have you tried denying the Earths cooling since its creation?”
Seriously, are you not capable of staying on-topic?
Or do you have selective memory loss like the present POTUS ?
M,
Are you disagreeing with something I said, or just thrashing about because you can’t even properly describe the non-existent GHE?
I know it is awkward to be unable to clearly state what it is you support, let alone being unable to find a testable GHE theory.
Keep on with the demands and general silliness. Do you think people should believe that stupid and ignorant climatologists have the power to stop the climate from changing?
It probably won’t help if you don sackcloth and ashes, wear a funny hat, and start speaking in tongues. Facts tend to more persuasive for rational people.
Others can make up their own minds as to the usefulness or otherwise of climatological pseudoscience. Some might even enjoy being told what to think, by such as yourself. Good luck.
Cheers
Myki…”Your response sounds suspiciously similar to countless others you have made here”.
Myki…the offer is still open, you can come over to the skeptic side. It does not sound like your heart is into catastrophic theories.
Don’t allow the acerbic alarmists to throw you off, they claim I am a denier but they cannot explain what it is I am denying. I don’t deny the warming, or the climate, and I certainly don’t deny the scientific method as most alarmists do.
Mike is actually quite creative. he has the alarmists on this blog lining up to debate him, or sling darts. It requires creativity to lure followers as Mike has done.
Easy: You’re denying radiative transfer.
Myki…”Excellent demonstration”.
Kissy, kissy.
DA…”Demonstration of the effect of black ink at CO2 concentrations:”
What does that have to do with climate? Do you see black ink clouds floating around the sky?
My 0.04% CO2 concentration is related to the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s Law which PROVE that such a low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere could not possibly warm it more than a fraction of a hundredth of a degree C for a 1C rise in temperature.
Standby for Henry’s Law.
More of Gordon’s cartoon physics, which deniers that radiative transfer exists.
What can you do with such a dishonest person?
Notice how Gordon avoids all the replies he gets above. Avoiding questions is what his ideology gets by on.
DA,
The GHE doesn’t exist. Your gotchas are an attempt to avoid this obvious fact. Keep up the avoidance – keep believing in magic!
Press on.
Cheers.
The Hawaii volcano can still be dangerous.
In two days, a quick solar wind will reach the Earth from the coronal hole located on the solar equator. It will cause geomagnetic storms.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00964/b0igw9kq9fol.jpg
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00964/kixog87dit9n.gif
And we’ll all die?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy4lG6YzLI8
Concordia Station
Now
-71 C
Why are you focusing on one station that happens to be having a cold day?
I wonder if the forecasts are wrong.
Concordia Station
Now
-72 C
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/concordia-station/ext
The site is timeanddate for chrissake. They don’t actually employ meteorologists. Do you think anybody actually spends time coming up with forecasts for a population of 13? And where exactly do you think they would get the data from to make such a forecast? That requires instruments in neighboring localities. The temperatures are real, the “forecasts” are lottery numbers.
bond…”The site is timeanddate for chrissake. They dont actually employ meteorologists. Do you think anybody actually spends time coming up with forecasts for a population of 13?”
Uber-alarmists (notice the German, binny) Mann and Stieg were not bothered by a lack of meteorologists or Antarctic population. It did not even bother them that one of their reporting stations was under 4 feet of snow.
No. The intrepid alarmists carried on fudging data to show Antarctica had warmed since 1950. Saner minds intervened and proved Mann and Stieg had extrapolated temperatures from the warmer station you quoted in a recent post in order to raise the overall Antarctic temperature.
Fudge, fudge, fudge.
You would think that Mann, a geologist, would give up his climate aspirations after the number of kickings he has received.
Nice story.
ren
Concordia Station is one of the most important research corner on Earth, climate included (see their huge ice core).
But it is not a weather station.
binny…”But it is not a weather station”.
Does that make it warmer? Maybe it’s really -80C.
Regarding the whole ‘data’ vs. ‘linear trend lines’ discussion, a string of six posts starting here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-300743
Kristian
Good argument. I agree with you that trend lines can be misleading.
Of course they can be.
That is the reason why Bindidon and I learned to concentrate comparisons on running means whose length is adapted to that of the time series they are intended to enlighten.
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1525532428941.jpg
P.S. That is the kind of graph the average pseudoskeptic considers fake (due to the necessary reference period alignment).
I was thinking of a time series like this, where the recent bump is what’s meaningful, and where a linear trend line incorporating all the data would be a distraction:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-640px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg
That is indeed a telling example, Snape.
I like it when you’re reasonable Kristian!
It’s a bad example, Kristian — obviously fitting a linear trend to those data isn’t appropriate.
But it *IS* appropriate in climate data, because temperature should now be rising linearly.
Still won’t share your data, huh?
binny…”That is the kind of graph the average pseudoskeptic considers fake (due to the necessary reference period alignment)”.
It is fake. The red-running average on Roy’s UAH graph looks nothing like yours and it’s not even close to the fudged positive trend shown by NOAA.
There should be no noticeable trend on your blue line between 1998 and about 2015 but there is one.
It’s obvious that you are trying to make it appear as if UAH agrees with the uber-alarmists at NOAA and they don’t.
It appears to me that you have screwed up trying to impose the baseline of NOAA onto the UAH baseline or vice-versa.
Why do you think NOAA shows their time series using cheap bar graphs?
Gordon Robertson says:
May 5, 2018 at 5:19 PM
Why do you think NOAA shows their time series using cheap bar graphs?
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/april2018/042018_tlt_update_bar.png
You are such a poor guy, Robertson.
That’s a perfectly legitimate graph.
Tim Folkerts
The doping example is interesting, but as you say, it is not directly applicable to CO2.
Let’s recall that the “point” was allegedly that such a minor CO2 component or “impurity” in air at a concentration as small as only 1 out of 2500 molecules cannot change seriously its physical properties.
Experimental physics tells us since long that this kind of reasoning is utterly false since it is obviously at odds with the example of doped semiconductors. And there are other most striking examples.
Now, it’s quite true that this is usually not the rule for most physical properties and often, as one might expect intuitively the effect of such tiny amounts of impurities is indeed small or negligible. For instance the heat capacity of air or a semiconductor is hardly modified because of the small CO2 respectively dopant contents.
Yet it nevertheless happens that the origin of the strong effect of dopants in semiconductors is actually really comparable to the strong effect of IR active “impurities” in air from a physical point of view.
In both case there is a big effect on relevant property because the presence of any impurities definitely destroys an emergent generic state of matter namely a perfect electrical insulator (at T= 0K) with the appearance of mobile hole or electron quasi-particles or an IR transparent gas or “perfect IR thermal conductor” with the appearance of IR “scattering centers” in the form of IR active impurities.
In both cases one just strongly modulates conductivity, electrical via the number of charge carriers, holes or electrons, in semiconductors and thermal via the scattering of the heat carriers or IR photons in atmosphere.
Another example is supercooled water. Water can (and does) exist at -10C without freezing if there are no impurities for the ice to crystallize on. But add a couple of grains of impurity to the supercooled water, and it freezes over in a couple of seconds.
In the case of atmospheric CO2, the real reason is that 15 micron radiation just doesn’t “see” O2 and N2. As far as that radiation is concerned, it’s as though those molecules aren’t even there. Out of the gases that IR can “see”, 100% are greenhouse gases.
Why do you compare gas to solid particles and water? Do not be ridiculous.
I am showing that a low concentration is not a barrier to a significant process taking place. The actual process and the actual materials are not relevant to the analogy.
Do not be ridiculous.
There is absolutely nothing ridiculous in what I said.
Another example is ozone. In the ozone layer of Earth’s atmosphere, its concentration is about 1 ppm. But without it we’d all be dead.
A typical “serving” of LSD is only 0.00002 of a gram. Has quite an effect.
snape…”A typical serving of LSD is only 0.00002 of a gram. Has quite an effect”.
The more you guys offer such analogies to justify CO2 heating in the atmosphere the more I get it that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
The effect of LSD on the human brain has no relationship whatsoever to the action of CO2 in the atmosphere at 0.04%.
I have tried to advise you to get off thought-experiments and deeply consider what is really going on.
Kristian has advised people to look at the data to see what it is telling you. Great advice. I am saying essentially the same thing: try to understand how gases work and what laws apply to them. If you do, you’ll be way ahead of climate modelers who apparently have not the slightest idea how they work.
I’ll bet you have not the slightest idea how LSD works in the human brain. I can testify as to the effect it has, and sometimes I think you alarmists are on it.
Here’s a test: Did you bring your lunch or take the bus? If that question makes you pause to ponder, then giggle in confusion, you’re stoned.
What’s faster, a carrot or a fire-hydrant?
San Francisco, 1967:
“Don’t do it, Gordon, that’s way, way too much!”
“Don’t be ridiculous”
**************
Explains a lot.
S,
Or you could have just one virus, with a weight of, say, 1 x 10^-18 gm, which can lead to the death of the largest living animal on Earth.
Or go further, and point out that a photon with zero rest mass, but enough energy to interact with an appropriate electron eventually causing a fatal cancer, means that you can be killed by something weighing nothing at all!
All completely pointless and irrelevant, isnt it?
There is no minimum change in input to a chaotic system which can be shown to make the difference between chaotic and non-chaotic behaviour. That is nature of chaos, which does not even need any external change to produce completely unpredictable outputs.
Averages are useless. Predictions are useless. A chaotic strange attractor appears completely random. The fluid dynamics of the atmosphere appear chaotic in nature. Assumptions that tomorrow will be much the same as today are about as reliable as anything else.
What to do, then? Assume that you will be alive, that the Sun will rise as usual, and that history will repeat itself, more or less. Follow trends if you wish, and maybe you will gain a vast fortune on the stock market. My assumption is that you wont, but maybe you can look into the future better than I.
Still no GHE. Not even a useful description, let alone a testable GHE hypothesis. Just assumptions, which may or may not come to pass. Who knows? Tossing a coin will probably do just as well.
Cheers.
The significance of electromagnetic radiation increases in the stratosphere. However, in dense troposphere, convection definitely dominates. Therefore, the kinetic energy of ozone is highest at the top of the stratosphere and falls with altitude.
Ozone is oxygen and the oxygen and nitrogen is very much in the atmosphere.
GHG’s are not usually thought of as a heat source, but maybe they should be? The sun heats the earth’s surface, the surface heats GHG’s and GHG’s heat the surrounding air (by conduction).
They are NEVER thought of as a heat source. They are a heat RE-DIRECTOR. There is no creation of new heat.
They don’t get a chance to heat the surrounding air because they emit a new photon almost immediately after receiving one.
Bond
“They are NEVER thought of as a heat source. They are a heat RE-DIRECTOR. There is no creation of new heat.”
You could say the same thing about Earth’s surface, but I’ve often seen it described as the atmosphere’s primary heat source.
**********
“They dont get a chance to heat the surrounding air because they emit a new photon almost immediately after receiving one.”
This is something I’m not familiar with and probably misunderstood. Could you explain what happens, on average, when a CO2 molecule collides with an oxygen or nitrogen molecule? Is there a net exchange of energy or is it just a swap?
Bond
I have read conflicting evidence. Do you have a link to support your claim?
YOU: “They dont get a chance to heat the surrounding air because they emit a new photon almost immediately after receiving one.”
I am not sure empirical evidence supports this claim.
I have posted this to others. Let us see how you interpret the data.
Actual empirical material. A snapshot but consistent.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5af117f5cc33b.png
This graph does not support the re-direction hypothesis. It supports that the GHG emit IR based upon their temperature.
If the re-direction hypothesis were a valid one the evidence should have the NET IR and mostly flat-line. As the surface heats up and emits more IR upward, there should be the same increase in DWIR. This is not the case. The DWIR only increases slowly, as the air heats, during the day. It seems more based upon air temperature rather than re-direction of UWIR.
Bond
Here is an example of what I am claiming.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5af1194843bdf.png
You can see how the DWIR follows the air temperature.
Hi Norman
The data you presented is very interesting. Fun to think about.
As a side note, I have seen many, many descriptions of how the GHE works, but almost all exclude the role of non-GHG’s, which make up most of the atmosphere. Was hoping Bond would see my question and give his input.
Snape,
You may think of CO2 in any fashion you wish.
It will make no difference at all. CO2 can be heated, and allowed to cool, llike any other matter in the universe. No magic properties.
As a matter of fact, the less CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer, the higher the temperature. The complete opposite of what some stupid and ignorant people try to claim. Obviously, removing all obstructions between a heat source and a thermometer (a vacuum) results in maximum energy transmission.
Maybe if you think really, really, hard, while furiously clenching your teeth, and squinting as hard as you can, you can overturn the presently accepted laws of physics. On the other, you could ask yourself why you can’t find a testable GHE hypothesis. Think away, young Snape, think away.
Cheers.
snape…”GHGs are not usually thought of as a heat source, but maybe they should be? The sun heats the earths surface, the surface heats GHGs and GHGs heat the surrounding air (by conduction)”.
**********
If that AGW theory is correct, there are a couple of issues you missed.
1)The AGW premise is not that GHGs heat surrounding molecules, it is that GHGs radiate IR to the surface to raise the surface temperature beyond what it is heated by solar energy.
The other premise is that GHGs slow heat dissipation from the surface, which is just plain silly.
2)You have mentioned that GHGs heat other air molecules by conduction but failed to mention all those other molecules are heated directly by the surface. The GHGs do not heat by conduction since they are too far apart, they heat through collision, which is hit or miss.
There is no proof of what happens during collisions. If the air temperature is at -50C, why should absorbed IR by 0.04% of air molecules representing CO2 do much of anything? They certainly won’t raise the air temperature high enough to exceed the surface temperature, a necessity for heat transfer.
“You have mentioned that GHGs heat other air molecules by conduction but failed to mention all those other molecules are heated directly by the surface.”
It was my understanding that O2, N2 are heated by conduction from multiple sources……the surface, airborne particulates, and GHG’s. According to Bond, who seems to know his stuff, I’ve been wrong about the GHG contribution.
Gordon Robertson says:
You have mentioned that GHGs heat other air molecules by conduction but failed to mention all those other molecules are heated directly by the surface. The GHGs do not heat by conduction since they are too far apart, they heat through collision, which is hit or miss.
What exactly do you think conduction is, Gordon?
No, GHGs aren’t a heat source, any more than is the coat you wear to keep warm or the blankets you sleep under.
Why is this so difficult to understand????
In a fit of stupidity, I imagined that N2/O2 recieved the lion’s share of energy in their exchange with GHG’s, reasoning that GHG’s are constantly absorbing LWIR whereas N2 and O2 are left out.
Clearly not the case.
bond…”Another example is supercooled water. Water can (and does) exist at -10C without freezing if there are no impurities for the ice to crystallize on”.
You’ve been adding vodka to your water, haven’t you?
Salty sea water freezes at -1.9C and it’s full of impurities. If impurities are aiding the freezing, why doesn’t salt water freezing at a higher temperature?
Remember, water freezes at 0C at STP.
You COULD do your own investigation. But that would never occur to you, would it. Let me help you out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercooling
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/supercooled_water.html
http://www.popsci.com.au/make/hacks/make-instant-slushies-with-supercooling,463411
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.4737907
Perhaps when you are finished you will be so intrigued by the science you will want to do even more research yourself. Perhaps you will investigate airplane crashes due to supercooled water condensing on the engines. But I won’t hold my breath. Science for you people means only ‘debunking’ something or perhaps earning an income. There is no innate interest, and no desire to delve deeply into a concept.
bond…”You COULD do your own investigation. But that would never occur to you, would it”.
********
You present an outlier whereby a small percentage of water can remain liquid to -10C while inferring that is the case with all water.
If you had studied anything in chemistry related to phase diagrams and eutectic points you would not need to Google for information. All I did was offer you an example where water heavy with impurities actually required a lower temperature to freeze.
Not everything I post is an assault on other posters.
bond…”Perhaps you will investigate airplane crashes due to supercooled water condensing on the engines”.
Yes…it’s known in aviation circles as icing. Here in the frozen wastes of Canada, airports in such regions have de-icing equipment on hand.
Please learn the difference between “imply” and “infer”.
If A says something to B, only A can do the implying, and only B can do the inferring.
You incorrectly inferred a non-existent implication.
idiot…”In both cases one just strongly modulates conductivity, electrical via the number of charge carriers, holes or electrons, in semiconductors and thermal via the scattering of the heat carriers or IR photons in atmosphere”.
***********
Your notion of CO2 as an impurity in the atmosphere is not even close to the purpose of dopants in semiconductors. For another, holes are not charge carriers, they are imaginary entities that, for some, enable better visualization. They are supposed to be the holes vacated by electrons in the valence bands of silicon atoms or the dopant atoms. The only entity carrying charge in a semiconductor is the electron.
I have gone through decades of a career in electronics without once using hole theory. I simply visual electrons as flowing against the arrows in the semiconductor diagrams and have no problem whatsoever. That applies to both P-type and N-type.
Dopants in a semiconductor do not modulate conductivity, either strongly or otherwise. They merely supply an excess of charge carriers (electrons) or create a shortage of them. Modulation in electronics is the addition of a low frequency signal to a high frequency carrier wave. The actual current through a semiconductor is controlled by series resistance and or voltage applied to the gates of FETs or current through the emitter-base circuits of BJT transistors.
“Modulation in electronics is the addition of a low frequency signal to a high frequency carrier wave.
Assuming you are talking about AM, the process is NOT one of addition. The signal becomes the envelope for the carrier. If the waves were being added, the carrier would oscillate about the signal instead of being contained by it.
bond…”Assuming you are talking about AM, the process is NOT one of addition. The signal becomes the envelope for the carrier. If the waves were being added, the carrier would oscillate about the signal instead of being contained by it”.
How do you think a carrier wave running at 3.58 Mhz gets the shape of a lower frequency signal as an envelop?
One way is to run the constant amplitude RF signal through a transistor via its base and use a low frequency modulator in the collector circuit. The low frequency signal adds and and subtracts from the RF signal impressing its shape on the carrier.
What you get is a high frequency signal carrying a low frequency signal. When applied to an antenna, the hf modulated electrical signal is converted to a high frequency modulated EM signal that can be transmitted through space.
Where have I hear that before?
Oh, yeah, electrons convert heat to exactly the same kind of EM and it can be transmitted through space. If the low frequency modulating signal was audio from a microphone one would not expect audio to travel through the air from an antenna. Why should anyone expect heat to travel through space as EM?
I have explained this several times and all I get are ad homs. Norman thinks I am making it up and David Appell refuses to take it in. Not one alarmist has tried discussing this with me.
Gordon Robertson says:
Why should anyone expect heat to travel through space as EM?
Because that’s what’s observed.
Do you know how a heat-seeking missile works, Gordon?
Idiot…There are no HEAT carriers in EM. If you are going to talk science then please get it right. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms in motion and must be CONVERTED to EM by electrons in order to generate EM into air. Once the EM is in the air it becomes far-field EM and has no relation to heat.
I am emphasizing this point for a reason. If the generated EM is from a hotter body it can be absorbed by a cooler body when the electrons in the cooler body’s atoms convert it back to heat. Even via radiation, heat can only be transferred from a higher energy potential to a lower energy potential. The reverse transfer IS NOT POSSIBLE.
That eliminates one side of the AGW theory that claims heat can be transferred from cooler CO2 molecules at 0.04% to a warmer surface that supplied the heat. Especially, the claim that the trace gas can supply enough heat to raise the temperature of the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by solar radiation.
The notion that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can slow down heat dissipation from a source, or act as a heat trapping blanket, is false. Heat dissipation is performed by valence electrons in atoms of the source material, they cannot sense CO2 in the atmosphere. All they can sense is the temperature immediately adjacent to them and that is not even a real sense.
Electrons in a heated object (all objects are heated above 0K) reside in an atom at higher energy orbitals than the electrons in atoms of a cooler object. As long as the ambient temperature surrounding the object is the same as the atoms in the object, the electrons won’t drop en masse to a lower energy orbital and cool below the ambient temperature.
The EM from a cooler object lacks the energy and the frequency to be absorbed by the electrons in the hotter body. The 2nd law is upheld.
I want to transport water to my neighbor’s farm 5 miles away.
To make the transport process easier, I freeze it to create ice blocks, truck the ice blocks to my neighbor’s farm, then dump the ice into his water supply where it melts.
Only a pedant would state that I didn’t transport water.
bond…”I want to transport water to my neighbors farm 5 miles away.
To make the transport process easier, I freeze it to create ice blocks, truck the ice blocks to my neighbors farm, then dump the ice into his water supply where it melts”.
********
I have tried to warn people about using analogies in thought experiments that do not apply.
When you freeze water and transport it by foot you are still carrying molecules of water in the frozen state. No heat is carried by EM since that would require transporting the atoms to which the heat is related.
Heat transfers through space in name only. The transfer refers to a reduction of heat in the hotter body and an increase in the cooler body.
The transfer is possible because the electrons can convert heat to EM. Once the conversion is made, the heat as kinetic energy disappears from the atom and is converted to electromagnetic energy as potential energy. That potential energy can be converted back to kinetic energy (heat) in a cooler body when the electrons in that body absorb it and convert it to kinetic energy.
you can call this a pedantic explanation if you like but there is a very important principle involved here that is the 2nd law. The EM from two bodies can intercept each body but the 2nd law requires that only the EM from the hotter body can be absorbed by the cooler.
That’s why I keep hammering at the obvious. Even though EM can travel both ways heat can only TRANSFER one way. The notion that a net sum of EM can satisfy the 2nd law is wrong. Heat cannot be transferred in both directions simultaneous between bodies of different temperatures.
The notion of a net heat transfer is unscientific given the manner in which electrons are confined to certain restrictions re absorp-tion and emission.
Gordon is an expert on the 2LOT, don’t you know.
Shame he doesn’t have the motivation to write even a single paper on it, and set every straight after all these decades.
I guess there will be no Nobel Prize for GR. Americans usually win them anyway.
“The EM from two bodies can intercept each body but the 2nd law requires that only the EM from the hotter body can be absorbed by the cooler.”
So when EM impinges upon a body:
(1) How does the body know whether the source was a hotter or colder body? Does the photon carry with it a note that says “delivered courtesy of a 5000 degree star”?
(2) Once the body makes this impossible decision, where does the unabsorbed radiation go?
The laws of thermodynamics are MACROSCOPIC laws based on averages and associated with probabilities. Individual photons have probabilities of being absorbed that have nothing to do with where they came from. The laws of thermodynamics are an emergent property when very large numbers of photons are considered.
You need to extend yourself beyond the basic formulations of the laws of thermodynamics that are taught in undergraduate courses, and study post-graduate STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS that considers the emergence of these large-scale properties from microscopic probabilities.
Gordon, pretty much everything you say here is incorrect. Some is archaic; some is simply wrong.
“Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms …”
No, “internal energy”, U is the kinetic (and potential) energy of atoms.
“Electrons in a heated object (all objects are heated above 0K) reside in an atom at higher energy orbitals than the electrons in atoms of a cooler object.”
ON AVERAGE electrons in a WARM object are at higher levels. Some electrons in cool materials are indeed at higher levels than some electrons in warm materials.
[Also, the description of thermal energy residing in electrons in different “orbitals” is problematic.]
“The EM from a cooler object lacks the energy and the frequency to be absorbed by the electrons in the hotter body.”
The EM radiated from any body covers a RANGE of energy/frequency/wavelength. Just like there are fast molecules zipping around the air and slow molecules — all at the same temperature!
Both the hot sun and cool earth can emit 4 um IR photons. How in your hypothesis would an object know whether it should absorb a 4 um photon when the object has no knowledge of where that photon came from???
“That eliminates one side of the AGW theory that claims heat can be transferred from cooler CO2 molecules at 0.04% to a warmer surface that supplied the heat.”
That is not a claim of AGW or GHE theory!
The measurable, macroscopic, net transfer of thermal energy (ie heat) is ALWAYS from warmer to cooler — exactly as classical thermodynamics predicts. Even for IR, the transfer (356W/m^2 – 333W/m^2 using the oft-quoted Trenberth numbers) is 23 W/m^2 from the warm surface to the cooler air/clouds.
*******************
PLEASE — if you disagree, find even a single textbook (written in the last 80 years!) that agrees with you on these issues and disagrees with me. Point us to the source.
tim…”No, internal energy, U is the kinetic (and potential) energy of atoms”.
Tim…I am not interested in one-upping you here, I am trying to learn by discussing the science as I understand it at different levels. You calling me wrong, or me calling you wrong, is not helpful.
Internal energy is not some kind of mysterious free-floating generic energy. Internal energy is kinetic in nature since the internal energy applies to the vibration of atoms in their lattices. When you add heat to a solid, it is absorbed in the vibrating lattices, causing them to vibrate harder. If you add enough, you will break the bonds.
The first law is Q = U + W. Clausius created that term U and he explains it as both the heat and work of atoms. He instructed that heat can be added externally and/or work done on the solid.
I suggest that you have been lead astray with your instructions in thermodynamics and I’d like to see you open up a bit in that regard. Being right serves no purpose in science. Modern theory is not correct unless it makes sense.
**********
“ON AVERAGE electrons in a WARM object are at higher levels. Some electrons in cool materials are indeed at higher levels than some electrons in warm materials.
[Also, the description of thermal energy residing in electrons in different orbitals is problematic.]”
Not enough info, Tim. You need to specify cooler and hotter. I would agree that cooler and hotter wrt to near-thermodynamics equilibrium condition might meet your definition. Under such conditions there would be little or no heat transfer.
The thermal energy related to different orbitals comes from the wave equation which defines the orbitals. It is based on the angular momentum of the electrons hence their kinetic energies.
*********
“The EM radiated from any body covers a RANGE of energy/frequency/wavelength”.
The frequency is the main problem. E = hf. The lower the temperature the lower the frequency. It also depends on which orbitals differences are involved. I regard the frequency aspect wrt tuned, resonant circuits. If the tuning is sharp, frequencies outside the bandwidth are rejected. Norman just posted a link to that effect.
It is my understanding that transitions between the ground state and the next state are not frequent and that it would require energies from the UV range to force a ground state electron to the next energy orbital. I don’t think it’s likely that a cooler object will emit a broad range of EM frequencies. Look at the Earth.
It’s obvious that for a heated object the source of its heat must remain intact. With a cooling object it is a different kettle of fish. If an object is maintained at a higher temperature, and it’s electrons have all relocated to higher energy levels, I see no reason why EM from a significantly cooler object should be able to move them even higher.
That would imply with a heated object that EM from a cooler body could make it even warmer and that has proved not to be the case. If it was true it would create a possible perpetual motion condition.
********
“How in your hypothesis would an object know whether it should absorb a 4 um photon when the object has no knowledge of where that photon came from??? ”
Why does it matter, all an electron cares about is that the photons E = hf matches its E = hf? It’s not yet clear to me what happens if E = hf cool > E = hf hot.
Not only is the frequency important, the E must match the potential difference between energy orbitals. I regard that as a double whammy.
********
“The measurable, macroscopic, net transfer of thermal energy (ie heat) is ALWAYS from warmer to cooler…”
There is no such thing as a net transfer of thermal energy. Due to the quantum nature of electrons and electron orbitals, heat cannot transfer both ways simultaneously, nor can EM.
There are rules and one of the most basic is the 2nd law which says nothing about a net transfer.
**********
“Even for IR, the transfer (356W/m^2 333W/m^2 using the oft-quoted Trenberth numbers)….”
I not only think Trenberth is full of crap, I personally regard him as dishonest. His calculations are based on misinterpretations of Stefan-Boltzmann and I think he is way off base.
In the Climategate emails he admitted the warming had stopped but when the emails were published he back-peddled furiously. He was also involved with interference in peer review.
Gordon Robertson says:
I not only think Trenberth is full of crap, I personally regard him as dishonest. His calculations are based on misinterpretations of Stefan-Boltzmann and I think he is way off base.
In the Climategate emails he admitted the warming had stopped
Gordon lies again.
On purpose.
Kevin Trenberth:
In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/emails/
Gordon says: “Internal energy is kinetic in nature since the internal energy applies to the vibration of atoms in their lattices. “
The “spring” energy (potential energy) must also be included in the internal energy to get the right specific heat.
“Clausius created that term U and he explains it as both the heat and work of atoms.”
I would be surprised if he explained U in such a way (and even if he did, we should look to the improvements that have been made to the theories, not the very first statement of theories). Nothing “contains” work (W) — work is a process that transfers energy. If I push on a car I *do* work (W) but the car *gains* kinetic energy (KE). If I push down on a syringe, I *do* work on the gas in the syringe, but the gas *gains* internal energy, (U).
Similarly, nothing “contains heat” — heat is the process that transfers energy. if I put a pan on a hot stove, heat (Q) is the process that transfers energy, but there is no “heat” in the pan.
“It is my understanding that transitions between the ground state and the next state are not frequent and that it would require energies from the UV range to force a ground state electron to the next energy orbital.”
That is a good understanding for photons FROM INDIVIDUAL ATOMS.
For a molecule like CO2, there are ALSO vibrational and rotational energy levels. These modes are at much lower energy — typically IR levels. These CAN occur frequently at room temperature.
For solids, there are even MORE possible energy levels, allowing many solid to emit photons at pretty much any energy. This allows many solid to emit photons at pretty much any energy and to generate a spectrum of outgoing photons that look much like a blackbody spectrum.
“all an electron cares about is that the photons E = hf matches its E = hf?”
Yes — the absorbing object only cares about the energy of the photon! And so since CO2 can absorb 15 um photons, it absorbs a 15 um photon just a well whether it came from a hotter source or a colder source.
*****************************
That is more than enough for now. Basically, you have some fundamental misunderstandings that lead you to be quite confidently wrong about many things.
To the above relevant comments by Tim Folkerts and a few others one may add this:
GR further claimed:
For another, holes are not charge carriers, they are imaginary entities that, for some, enable better visualization.
This is wrong and archaic too but by the way points to a very interesting fundamental concept in physics.
There is now ample evidence that holes in semiconductors are actually particles exactly as real as are the electrons in that same semiconductor. Both carry charge, mass, momentum and energy. Their measured or “effective” mass depends on the material in which they exist and even electrons have a mass that depends on material and that differs definitely from the mass of a free electron in vacuum.
In super conduction one observes similarly even particles with twice the charge of an electron and in quantum Hall effect one observes particles whose charge is fractional, for instance one third of the electronic charge.
All these things are called quasi particles because they are obviously not elementary particles and show up only in a material at low enough temperatures.
idiot…”For another, holes are not charge carriers, they are imaginary entities that, for some, enable better visualization.
This is wrong and archaic too but by the way points to a very interesting fundamental concept in physics.
There is now ample evidence that holes in semiconductors are actually particles exactly as real as are the electrons in that same semiconductor. Both carry charge, mass, momentum and energy”.
********
Shockley coined the term ‘hole’ and he admitted in the first page of his book that the hole is an abstraction that gives a convenient method of describing the electron. If an electron vacates a space in a valence band of an atom and a nearby electron moves into the vacated hole, if viewed over the entire slab of a semiconductor it appears as if the holes are flowing the other way.
The electron carries a charge but the only way the hole left behind can be regarded as a positive charge is wrt the other electrons left behind. That is not a real charge, it more akin to an atom as an ion, where a missing or excess electron can give the atom an apparent +ve or -ve charge. In the case of ions, it simply means the atom has more or less electrons that it should have.
The only real charge equivalent to the electron is the proton in the nucleus, which has a real positive charge. Of course, positively charged nucleii in solids do not move.
A hole left behind when an electron vacates is no different than a hole dug in the ground or a hole left in a line of parked cars when one car leaves. If you want to claim that space has mass, a charge, momentum, and such, fill your boots.
GR says:
“the only real charge equivalent to the electron is the proton in the nucleus”
actually the best equivalent to an electron is the muon, which is just a heavy electron.
next would be the positron.
All these quasi particles are actually elementary excitations of some reference ground state of a system, for instance a crystalline insulator in the case of electrons and holes and even something more remarkable called excitons and phonons in semiconductors. They describe its low energy excitation spectrum and are generic. They may sometimes have a naive interpretation in terms of “electrons jumping between orbitals” as is the case with electrons, holes and excitons in semiconductors. But generally there is definitely none as is the case with the example of super conduction, fractional quantum Hall effect or ferromagnetism. Nor is there vith phonons, the quasi particles associated with sound in a crystal.
In this respect when the reference system is not a crystal but a single molecule such as CO2 such elementary excitations similarly exist but are no longer quasi particles. The vibration mode at 15 micrometers of CO2 is precisely such an elementary excitation of the molecule on the one hand and has no naive interpretation in terms of “electrons jumping between orbitals” on the other hand, a point that definitively goes over the head of GR.
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/97/1/28.full.pdf
IT, I agree with pretty much everything you say.
The big challenge is that everyone here operates at different levels and has different priorities. They have followed different parts of the conversation.
So an analogy might seem too simplistic to some, but go right over the heads of others. Some might apply it too the wrong situation. Some might ignore it and go off on their own completely different tangent.
So we are doomed to incomplete conversations that are at cross-purposes.
Please see what is happening in Hawaii.
http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
There is this thing you might have heard of – it’s called THE NEWS.
— Insight Has Left Earth
By Keith Cowing on May 5, 2018 9:42 AM.
Insight Is On Its Way To Mars (with video)
“An Atlas V rocket lifted off at 7:05 a.m. EDT (4:05 a.m. PDT) from Space Launch Complex 3 at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, carrying NASA’s InSight spacecraft. … ”
—
From:
http://nasawatch.com
If it lands on Mars safely, it should get interesting results.
Hi Mike Flynn. I follow your logic and I wonder what you have for background? myself i am a simple forensics technician!
What logic ???
The logic that says there is a rule for rational thinking that says to be careful to construct hypotheses that automatically confirm themselves!
Petwap,
My background is extremely broad, it would seem. I dont go into specifics to avoid argument. I present what I believe is fact, based on personal knowledge (often backed up by a quick check, just in case my memory has led me astray).
People tend to argue based on whose expert is more expert than the others. I find facts more persuasive. Unfortunately, facts have way of changing. Continental drift, causes of stomach ulcers being a bacterium, and many others.
I hope people dont change their views just because I say something (although I would fell flattered if they did, of course), but rather because they agree with my view after checking the facts for themselves.
Oh well. Back to asking to see a testable GHE hypothesis, I suppose. At least some of my history shows that a certain amount of tenacity and repetition can be required to overcome obstacles which seemed insurmountable at first.
Thanks. I havent answered your question at all, really. I apologise, but I have good reasons.
Cheers.
Thanks. That answer is just enough.
petswap…”Hi Mike Flynn. I follow your logic and I wonder what you have for background? myself i am a simple forensics technician!”
Simple or not, if you stick to the scientific method, question paradigms that make no sense, and try to get your ego out of observations, you can’t go wrong.
Remember this: the observer is the observed. If you have an active observer, as in a self or ego, it will tend to see in an observation what the self has been conditioned to see.
If you want an example of that, stick around and watch the alarmists here appealing to authority, regurgitating paradigms, offering thought experiments in lieu of the scientific method, and using general ploys to justify their pseudo-science.
True. Well, I do not really know if the examples are so interesting. But a solid GHE hypothesis would have been interesting.
petswap…”But a solid GHE hypothesis would have been interesting”.
Richard Lindzen, an MIT professor in atmospheric physics has called the GHE overly-simplified. I think he was being kind.
It amazes me that no one seems interested in proposing a GHE theory that makes sense. Why stick with an explanation that would embarrass kids in kindergarten (more German for binny)?
Sure, Gordon knows what GHE “makes sense,” but tens of thousands of PhD scientist/researchers in the 20th century do not.
Gordon, where are your paradigm disproving published papers?
It’s a shame you have no motivation to write them.
Petwap,
Mike has been given the GHE hypothesis here many times. Yet he ignores these or has severe memory lapses, and just keeps repeating the question. He also seems unable to use Google to look up answers that he is seeking. Then he blames others for his own lapses.
Has anyone factored contrails? I’ve noticed clear blue sky with warming sun here in Alaska in the morning only to be filled by jet contrails that disperse into high clouds or haze that noticeably obscure the sun and cause cooling by mid afternoon. Haven’t noticed any effects at night but imagine these “high clouds” retain heat as well as block it. I recall the days after the trade center attacks where the flight ban left the US contrail cloud free. When we’re talking about such negligible increases in temps as 0.13 degrees Celsius a decade, might we be looking in the wrong place? Could contrails be any different than global dimming but with heat retention at night? It just seems improbable that with all the Aco2 we would see a more demonstrable signal by now. One that matches CO2 release vs one that is far below natural climate variables.
There were measurements during the flight ban, the diurnal range increased, but I don’t know the average effect.
I think contrails have a big effect in places like California.
In Alaska, the trend over the last 3 decades is +0.51 C/decade (+0.91 F/decade).
Yes, people are looking at contrails.
IPCC 4AR WG1
2.6 Contrails and Aircraft-Induced Cloudiness
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-6.html
DA…”In Alaska, the trend over the last 3 decades is +0.51 C/decade (+0.91 F/decade)”.
That would be from NOAA fudging. They have one station covering the entire Canadian Arctic and their trends come from model-projected temperatures.
BEST has about fifty stations in the North West Territories.
Looks like NOAA’s wild guess is confirmed.
https://tinyurl.com/ycezy55c
svante…”BEST has about fifty stations in the North West Territories”.
They don’t have 50 stations in the NWT, they have access to 50 existing stations that NOAA could use if they wanted to be more accurate and less sleazy. Instead, NOAA uses only the Eureka station to cover the entire Canadian Arctic. They interpolate the temperature at Eureka over a vast area to infer warming in those areas.
Eureka is a known mild spot in the Canadian Arctic.
BEST used 35,000 stations, and got the same results as everyone else.
You really don’t need that many stations to get a good-enough value for the global temperature — only a few hundred.
Fifty random global stations give a good enough estimate.
Do you remember the link I gave you Gordon?
Gordon Robertson says:
That would be from NOAA fudging. They have one station covering the entire Canadian Arctic
Prove this, Gordon. Which station is this?
Where are you getting your information. Please cite it.
swampgator says:
May 4, 2018 at 5:10 AM
In 1999 NOAA concluded that there had been no warming in the US over the past 100 years. Today they have changed their minds. How come?
Its because the[y] re-adjusted the data.
*
What’s that, swampgator?
Do you have any really valuable source confirming that
– they have changed their minds ?
– they re-adjusted the data ?
Or are you, like does the Robertson troll all the time, just pasting some pseudoskeptic stuff coming from Goddard, Hockeyschtick, WUWT, Postma or wherever else?
*
Let us look at the following data, obtained by extracting out of the GHCN V3 unadjusted dataset all data provided by the US CONUS stations:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1525550240693.jpg
Linear trends in °C / decade
1880-1999: 0.02 ± 0.01
1880-2018: 0.03 ± 0.01
NOAAs trends are always lower than those provided by the GHCN stations: e.g. for the Globe, GHCN V3 gives us 0.22 °C / decade, whereas NOAA land gives 0.11 °C.
And you really want to say they have changed their minds?
Let us come back to CONUS, with a comparison of
– GHCN CONUS V3 during the satellite era, 1979-2018;
– the 165 2.5 degree grid cells of UAH6.0 TLT encompassing the CONUS stations (about 1,000).
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1525551356239.jpg
Linear trends for CONUS in °C / decade
– GHCN stations: 0.12 ± 0.05
– UAH grid cells: 0.16 ± 0.02
(The UAH6.0 record gives for CONUS aka USA48 0.18 °C / decade.)
Thus to say that any NOAA data was readjusted is a pure invention.
binny…”Or are you, like does the Robertson troll all the time, just pasting some pseudoskeptic stuff coming from Goddard, Hockeyschtick, WUWT, Postma or wherever else?”
It would be more fun if you were not so Teutonically serious. I have a good laugh at your put downs.
At least Robertson the so-called troll doesn’t put out amateurish plots created in a homebrew Excel app to make NOAA’s fudged time series appear close to that of UAH.
I thought it was a dirty trick for you to come back as a female. Harder to insult you with your feminine persona.
“Teutonically serious”
Not only do you attack an individual, you also feel the need to attack an entire nation.
“Harder to insult you with your feminine persona.”
Why do you have a pathological need to insult people?
Don’t mind about his insults.
J.-P. and I we share a lot: half a life, a house, a splendid garden, a few computers, the Internet access and thus yes, even dynamic IP numbers, etc etc.
Rose
What is pathological with Roberson is rather that he is unable to accept what he does not believe in, let alone would happen to grasp.
And that way, instead of learning how to construct for example simple, correct charts of time series using whichever tool, he will prefer to denigrate what others do, and endless discredit them.
*
My impression concerning his endless hatred to NOAA is that he was working for them in earlier times, then showed some deep misconduct, was fired on the spot and never recovered from that.
binny…”My impression concerning his endless hatred to NOAA…”
I would hate anyone whose lies imperiled the lives of the less fortunate.
I regard the actions of NOAA as little different than those of Josef Goebbels. He was a family man with a wife and children and I don’t think he was inherently evil. He believed that his propaganda was good for Germany, even though he must have known it was abject lies.
By the same token, I think NOAA believes they are doing the right thing by misleading the public with false information to further a political cause. The late Stephen Schneider, a climate modeler, questioned whether it was the duty of a scientist to lie if he thought his lies were good for the public. I think that’s exactly what NOAA is up to. Either that or they are a load of idiots.
Many good Germans were completely taken in by Goebbels and his propaganda, and here we are some 70 years later with people like you failing to look at what NOAA is doing. In fact, you are using their lies to compare fudged NOAA data to the honest data of UAH.
I question your reasoning.
GR says:
“By the same token, I think NOAA believes they are doing the right thing by misleading the public with false information to further a political cause.”
Strange you are willing to disparage the work of hundreds of scientists but don’t have an iota of evidence to support your claim.
All we ever see from you, Gordon, are lies.
binnyMy impression concerning his endless hatred to NOAApart 2″
I was out for a walk and thought about my comment comparing Goebbels’ propaganda to that of NOAA. I am totally aware there is no comparison overall even though some alarmists have likened skeptics to Holocaust deniers.
What I’m trying to get at is what happened to another good German, Dr. Peter Duesberg, a world authority on retrovirus like HIV. Duesberg saw immediately that HIV could not do what it was claimed to do, destroy an immune system. Those who were not nearly as informed as Peter went after him and managed to destroy his career.
I don’t care what a scientist claims in good faith, there was no reason to do that to him for offering an expert scientific opinion. Nearly 30 years after making his claim he was vindicated by the scientist who discovered HIV, Dr. Luc MOntagnier. The latter claimed recently that HIV could not harm a healthy immune system and that’s pretty well what Duesberg claimed 30 years ago.
It’s not only what Montagnier claimed as another expert on HIV, it’s the fact that over the past 30 years no one with a healthy immune system has died of AIDS. The pandemics predicted by the WHO were wrong and today only a small fraction of one percent of the North American population dies from AIDS. Well over 90% of those deaths involved people from high risk groups like IV drug users and homosexual males.
There are parallels between the AGW theory and the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Neither of them are based on good science and the paradigms are based on consensus. With both paradigms, people have lost their careers for disagreeing with them.
I am sick and tired of the lying and bullying being perpetrated by climate alarmists. We saw the extent of it in the CLimategate emails when top IPCC scientists were caught red handed denigrating people, plotting how they could affect peer review, threatening to block the papers of skeptics from the IPCC review system, and devising tricks to hide declining temperatures.
Roy and John of UAH have been hounded by them. They have had papers blocked and disparaging comments made about them for the simple fact they had the integrity to claim their data did not agree with the claims of catastrophic warming.
NOAA and GISS support that mob and I am not going to put up with it. I am going to speak out where I can.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Roy and John of UAH have been hounded by them. They have had papers blocked”
They have? Which papers were those, exactly?
“….and disparaging comments made about them….”
Ha! You want to see “disparaging comments?” Ask Michael Mann or Katherine Hayhoe or Gavin Schmidt. I even have my own collection, in a folder labeled “abuse.”
Gordon Robertson says:
May 6, 2018 at 3:27 PM
To that disgusting comment, J.-P as a French man and I as a German woman we will reply later in more detail.
Robertson, you are really one of the worst persons we ever managed to read.
bond…”Teutonically serious
Not only do you attack an individual, you also feel the need to attack an entire nation”.
Oh, no, another alarmists with no sense of humor. I know Germans who poke fun at their own innate seriousness just as I poke fun at my nation’s alleged Scottish thriftiness.
I don’t hate binny, or Germans, if that’s your inference. We’d likely get along fine in person.
“Harder to insult you with your feminine persona.
Why do you have a pathological need to insult people?”
I explained it. Binny left in a huff, actually saying good-bye. He left as Bindidon. A few days later he re-appeared as La Pangolina, with exactly the same personality, the same POV, and an explicit memory of insults I had made.
Now, maybe binny was a female in the first place and she decided to come clean upon re-appearing. I have received binny’s action as being rather bizarre and I am poking fun at the situation.
You need to lighten up, you should hear me when I feel the need to really insult someone.
Oh I’ve seen your insults. This thread is littered with them. You are second only to the person who feels the need to go by the name of one of Trump’s countless disgraced cabinet members, and equal with someone whose Appellation I will not share with you.
“…one of Trumps countless disgraced cabinet members…”
Ha.
If you thoroughly mix the ocean the average ocean surface temperature becomes about 3.5 C, instead of the average ocean surface which we have now of about 17 C. And if ocean had uniform temperature 3.5 C, it would take years for the sunlight to warm the surface so it returned to having average surface of about 17 C (though it could also take decades or centuries rather than just years.
If same thing (somehow mix the surface and body of land) – if it were all sand, it might easier to do, then there would little effect, and if anything might warm surface a bit. Likewise if mixed the entire atmosphere there is little effect of the surface air temperature. And if there was a change in surface temperature (of mixed land and sky) in less than a day or so, it would return back to the temperature of where it started.
So this change in ocean surface temperature by mixing, is unrelated to inputs or outputs of energy, but it would have huge effect upon global average temperature.
And I would say this type thing which is what we are actually measuring, when it is imagined we are measuring global average temperatures.
Or the “true” global average temperature is the average temperature of ocean, which is 3.5 C and this average temperature changes very slowly, and over a 100,000 year period, can range from 1 to 5 C.
And as long as the ocean average temperature is within 1 to 5 C then Earth climate is a icebox climate.
If the ocean average temperature was 1 C, we would in a glacial period. And if average ocean 5 C, global surface air temperature would be about 20 C, rather then 15 C it is now.
Or you can’t have Earth average air temperature increase by 5 C without increasing the average ocean temperature. And increasing from 3.5 C to 5 C requires thousands of years.
Also in terms of modeling, it interesting to start a model with the ocean mixed so the surface is about 3.5 C, rather than about 17 C.
And it would sort of be like starting the model from a quasi snowball Earth, or Earth should colder than it’s ever been. Or Earth average air surface would be less than 4 C.
I very much doubt that the ocean’s average temperature is now 17 C. Citation?
You are the third person to ask for citation.
The second person:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/lord-monckton-responds/#comment-295963
–La Pangolina says:
April 4, 2018 at 2:15 PM
gbaikie says:
April 3, 2018 at 11:24 AM
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/annual-with-forcing-small.png
Youre right, this graph I had indeed forgotten.
1:0 for you.–
So, La Pangolina liked berkeley earth ref. And didn’t like me simply saying, Google it.
So would start with knowing average land temperature, which berkley earth has paper on.
Then maybe Google average ocean surface temperature.
Or do math of 30% is 10 C, and 100% is 15 C, and what is 70%?
But before you get answer, I am curious what you think the average ocean surface is.
As 3 people did think it was rather unlikely.
It’s also as curious, that only 3 questioned it.
Yet even the UAH record has us increasing by 0.5 degrees in 40 years. That is somewhat faster than 1.5 degrees in thousands of years, don’t you think? It HAS happened despite your assertion that it can’t.
If/when you reply, don’t forget that your statement was independent of the cause of warming.
When did it happen previously?
And why?
I have no idea what you are asking. Why is it that every time I try to debate someone who you are also debating, you feel the need to jump in and challenge me?
Here is gbaikie’s comment I was responding to:
“And increasing from 3.5 C to 5 C requires thousands of years.”
Here is my response to that comment:
“Yet even the UAH record has us increasing by 0.5 degrees in 40 years. That is somewhat faster than 1.5 degrees in thousands of years, dont you think? It HAS happened despite your assertion that it cant.
If/when you reply, dont forget that your statement was independent of the cause of warming.”
Please explain what part of my response to gbaikie you are challenging.
Bond:
The average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C
The average land surface temperature is about 10 C
The average temperature of the entire volume of the
ocean is about 3.5 C
The temperature of the entire volume of the ocean of the
ocean if between 1 to 5 C, make Earth be in a icebox climate.
The definition of icebox climate is a cold ocean which refers the temperature of the entire ocean, and not the surface temperature of the ocean.
So Earth average (the entire volume) ocean temperature is about 3.5 and over last few millions years, the average temperature of ocean has varied from about 1 C to 5 C or we have been in icebox climate for more than million years.
Or in big picture we have been in a Ice Age for over a million
years. This Ice Age has long periods called glacial periods which can average ocean temperature get as cold as 1 C, and it has shorter periods called interglacial periods in which the ocean can warm as much 5 C.
If Ocean was 5 C, we would have much higher sea levels and average global temperature of about 20 C.
Which means average ocean surface temperature of about 20 C and average land temperature less than 20 C.
In last century ocean surface temperature increased by about 1/2 C and average land by more than 1 C and this resulted in raising average land temperature to 10 C.
bond…”Yet even the UAH record has us increasing by 0.5 degrees in 40 years…”
**********
More than half of it a recovery from cooling due to volcanic aerosols and none of it proved to be from anthropogenic sources.
Gordon,
You didn’t READ, did you.
I said “dont forget that your statement was independent of the cause of warming”.
How the earth has warmed is not germane to his claim, and is not of interest here. Save your rehearsed spiels for discussions of AGW.
“recovery” due to what?
Climate isn’t an elastic ball that bounces back. It only changes when it’s forced to change.
DA,
Not true, unfortunately for you.
Chaotic systems can change all by themselves. They are chaotic. Even the IPCC acknowledges this, which is is why the IPCC states categorically that is not possible to predict future climate states.
Chaos rules. Bad luck for you, good luck for me.
Cheers.
Here’s the latest in real science dispelling the AGW myth. It’s called Henry’s Law.
Got it from Piers Corbin in a link posted by Salavatore. Real science always makes sense whereas pseudo-science like AGW does not.
Here’s a short tute on Henry’s Law and it is applicable to the balance of CO2 between the oceans and the atmosphere.
http://www.800mainstreet.com/9/0009-006-henry.html
According to Corbin, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can never exceed what is allowed by the temperature of the oceans, which contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. If the oceans warm, they outgas CO2, if they cool, they absorb it.
Simple. No matter how much CO2 we emit, the oceans will control the atmospheric concentration.
Corbin corroborates gbaikie’s point that the oceans are running the climate, not GHGs.
More from Piers Corbyn.
https://weatheraction.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/piers-corbyn-challenges-top-meteorology-professor-to-provide-observational-evidence-of-so-called-man-made-climate-change/
Any earth carbon cycle, generally will indicate that all of earth “breathes and inhales” about 100 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. But that is rough guess and probably larger amounts CO2 is emitted and absorbed within one year.
If we see short term cooling, this will not have much effect upon rising C02 levels.
Of course it’s known that El Nino affects (increases) the amount of CO2 which added, so since we are following super El Nino one should will see slight decrease in the rise of global CO2 (despite China emitted twice as much CO2 as US).
For starters, the rule describes a steady-state process and not a transient process.
But that is not the objection, so let’s pretend that the climate is in steady-state.
YOU HAVE THE LOGIC COMPLETELY ASS ABOUT.
Henry’s law tells you the maximum volume of CO2 that the water has dissolve based on the partial pressure above.
It DOES NOT tell you the maximum partial pressure in the atmosphere above based on the volume of CO2 dissolved in the water.
When you invert the problem, it tells you the MINIMUM partial pressure in the atmosphere based on the volume of CO2 dissolved in the water.
In case you don’t understand why, see if you can follow this simple example:
Let’s say that a law is passed that states “The maximum amount that a person of age n years is permitted to have in their bank account is 1000n dollars.
If I tell you that I am 50 years old, you can deduce that I have AT MOST $500000 in my account.
But if I tell you that I have $500000 in my account, you will deduce that I am AT LEAST 50 years old.
Inverting the problem changed a MAXIMUM to a MINIMUM.
———————————————-
What Henry’s law does NOT tell you is that there is an absolute ceiling on ocean concentrations based on the temperature of the ocean. For solids, this is a DIRECT relationship – solubility rises with temperature. For gases, it is an INVERSE relationship – solubility falls with temperature.
When you reach that ceiling, the solution is said to be in saturation, and Henry’s law no longer applies. Any added gas will then stay in the atmosphere.
———————————————–
The oceans are not currently at saturation with respect to CO2, so Henry’s law does indeed apply.
If you know the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, you can use Henry’s law to calculate the MAXIMUM concentration of CO2 in the oceans.
But if you know the concentration of CO2 in the oceans, when you use Henry’s law you are calculating the MINIMUM partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Thanks Bond for this excellent explanation.
Apparently Gordon believes that when you release CO2 into the atmosphere, the oceans tell the atmosphere to send it back from whence it came.
It joins the much larger natural flows, slightly shifting the equilibrium level.
The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is affinely related to temperature anomaly:
https://tinyurl.com/yd5syg5j
The match is across the spectrum, in both the short term variation and the trend. As the temperature relationship explains the trend in the rate of change, and emissions also have a trend, there is little to no room for emissions to be a significant driving force.
Here is a toy model explaining how the relationship can come about.
https://tinyurl.com/y7xb8vn7
Bart has interesting ideas. He thinks his math shows how if we add CO2 to the atmosphere it doesnt accumulate. It gets sucked away, but then it is replaced by new CO2 from somewhere else.
The new CO2 accumulates, at just about the same rate that we’re adding it, but its the natural stuff. And this keeps on happening, at least for the last 100 y.
Its a mathematical miracle. No physics or chemistry required.
Why would you think our additions should accumulate when there is dynamic flow between sources and sinks, and at a much larger scale than our additions?
“…at just about the same rate that were adding it…”
False. Atmospheric concentration happens to have been increasing at about half the rate of our additions.
“About half the rate” yes but about the same rate when ocean accumulation included.
“Why would you think our additions should accumulate when there is dynamic flow between sources and sinks, and at a much larger scale than our additions?”
Nature can walk and chew gum at the same time.
There are large annual dynamic flows of MOBILE carbon traded between FAST sources and sinks, surface waters, atmosphere, deciduous forests.
Meanwhile their are ongoing flows between the mobile carbon reservoir and the massive, very long-lived sources and sinks: deep ocean sediments, calcium carbonate formations, fossil fuel formations. These tiny flows are adding to or subtracting from the reservoir of mobile carbon.
The FF carbon stored over millions of y, is now a source released in 100 y, adding to the total supply of mobile carbon.
Pure speculation. You’re just weaving a narrative here. This is scientifically on a level with attributing the rumbling of the Earth to the Volcano god, or attributing the onset of malaria to poisonous night gases.
It sounds plausible to you, and a couple of other guys think so, too, et voila! Easy, peasy, pre-Enlightenment, superstitious mumbo jumbo gains the imprimatur of goodthink.
“It sounds plausible to you, and a couple of other guys think so, too, et voila! Easy, peasy, pre-Enlightenment, superstitious mumbo jumbo gains the imprimatur of goodthink.”
Applies pretty well to your notion, Bart. Very odd that you dont see it.
I could also translate my dumbed-down description into equations, as you have, but mine would be different from yours.
It is easy to write equations, that doesnt prove they are applicable.
The difference is mine are based on the well-understood carbon cycle*, and doesn’t require Occam to rollover in his grave.
*https://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Earth-Science/6/The-Carbon-Cycle/95
No, it doesn’t. My equations match the actual data.
“No, it doesnt. My equations match the actual data.”
Only data that has been given the inexplicable ‘Bart treatment’.
What about Occam? Your model has him rising from the dead, running down the street naked and screaming.
Do your equations use only adjustable parameters or real numbers, real physico-chemical properties of the ocean and atmosphere?
Your model requires discarding our rather good understanding of the carbon cycle, ice core data, solubility laws, ice ages, and much more. Why would we want to do that?
It requires setting aside, as just a coincidence, the quantitative historical matching of cumulative CO2 emissions to CO2 accumulations in the atm-ocean system.
IOW it requires us to believe that Mother Earth is pulling a massive, complex, long-con on us.
“Your model has him rising from the dead, running down the street naked and screaming.”
Quite the contrary, to get the amazing correspondence between the rate of change of CO2 concentration and temperature anomaly, I merely invoke ordinary, ubiquitous, behavior of systems which respond over long time scales.
To get that fit assuming significant human attribution, one has to assume a complicated system of high pass response to temperature forcing, along with an ill defined mechanism for treating natural and anthropogenic emissions on an unequal footing.
Occam is solidly on my side.
“Do your equations use only adjustable parameters or real numbers, real physico-chemical properties of the ocean and atmosphere?”
These properties are not known in any case, merely guessed at. But, you do not need to know that gravity is an inverse square law to be able to divine through observation that projectiles fired upward near the Earth follow a parabolic trajectory. This criticism has no merit.
“Your model requires discarding our rather good understanding of the carbon cycle, ice core data, solubility laws, ice ages, and much more.”
We don’t have “rather good understanding” of all this. We have only well-honed narratives.
“It requires setting aside, as just a coincidence, the quantitative historical matching of cumulative CO2 emissions to CO2 accumulations in the atm-ocean system.”
Again, there is no match. Atmospheric concentration has only happened to rise at about half the rate of input. Assuming the other half goes into the oceans is just a kluge. It has no compelling foundation behind it.
“I merely invoke ordinary, ubiquitous, behavior of systems which respond over long time scales.”
Once again, Bart, you treat the Earth as a generic ‘system’, a black box. IOW you choose to ignore all that we indeed know about how this system operates, the Carbon Cycle, etc, because it doesnt fit your narrative, and likely you don’t have any understanding of the actual physics and chemistry. What you are doing is purely mathturbation.
“assume a complicated system of high pass response to temperature forcing”
Not at all. The physics/chem requires just such a short response time of the Co2 within the ocean mixed layer to a temperature change. Again, you cant be bothered with real science facts. For you this just an adjustable parameter, which is adjusted to totally unphysical value.
“Do your equations use only adjustable parameters or real numbers, real physico-chemical properties of the ocean and atmosphere?
‘These properties are not known in any case”
You mean they are not known by Bart. They are known by the scientific community, whose expertise you casually dismiss.
“Occam is solidly on my side.”
Occams razor has to do with the simplest idea is likely correct.
Your idea, requires that we cast aside lots of known stuff. By known stuff, Im mean lots of empirical knowledge, experiments, tested theory. Your idea that much of this known stuff is wrong is neither plausible nor simple.
Your idea that the gas we know we’ve added to the atmosphere has all been gobbled up. And yet it is replaced by gas from elsewhere, of the same composition and volume, decade after decade, for a hundred years. this is neither plausible nor simple. Never mind the isotopes being wrong! Its just plain dumb.
You think Occam is solidly on your side, then you are not rational.
It requires setting aside, as just a coincidence, the quantitative historical matching of cumulative CO2 emissions to CO2 accumulations in the atm-ocean system.
‘Again, there is no match. Atmospheric concentration has only happened to rise at about half the rate of input. Assuming the other half goes into the oceans is just a kluge. It has no compelling foundation behind it.’
‘Only happened’ yes for decades at a matching rate. I previously showed you a plot of cumulative emissions vs atm concentration. The plot was extremely linear over the last century. The correlation coeff was close to 1.
‘the oceans is just a kluge. It has no compelling foundation behind it.’
Not a kluge, measured, at least in recent decades.
‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his beliefs depend upon his not understanding it!’
“Once again, Bart, you treat the Earth as a generic system, a black box.”
It is a black box. We know very little about it, in truth. You assume all this stuff is “known”, but it isn’t. It’s a narrative. It’s how a few people think it should be. But, it’s not been confirmed.
We know A LOT about how generic systems behave, though. The principles are repeated over and over again in the natural world.
‘Only happened yes for decades at a matching rate.’
(sigh) Again, at roughly half the rate.
“The plot was extremely linear over the last century. The correlation coeff was close to 1.”
Absolutely meaningless. Every affine function is affinely similar to every other affine function. It’s mathematically trivial.
“Not a kluge, measured, at least in recent decades.”
Nonsense. We have nothing close to a comprehensive database of ocean interactions. Not even close.
Your problem, Nate, is you can’t distinguish between what is known, and what is surmised. You need to free your mind from dogma.
“You need to free your mind” of the physics and chemistry I learned? Then and only then will I be able to understand that treating the Earth as a ‘generic system’ will lead to better results?
“The plot was extremely linear over the last century. The correlation coeff was close to 1.
Absolutely meaningless. Every affine function is affinely similar to every other affine function. Its mathematically trivial.”
If so, then show the graph for your model, between CO2 and integrated temp, see how linear it is and calculate the correlation coefficient. Lets see which works better.
http://i66.tinypic.com/jgnl6o.jpg
It’s better, because it matches in the rate domain as well.
What can we agree on?
1. I think we can agree that rate of CO2 rise shows a correlation with ENSO. There is a lot of literature debating the exact mechanism of this, going back 20 y. The mechanisms involve the influence of ENSO weather patterns on the Carbon cycle. You might want to look at these papers, they are plausible, reasonable.
2. I think we agree that on longer (decadal) time scales, both the CO2 rate, the temperature, and emissions show a similar rising tendency, a correlation, but a trivial one. This may have nothing to do with the ENSO correlation.
Does (2) tell us causality? No. With the data alone, no way to tell.
But we do have a rather simple mechanism that can be tested. The emissions are CAUSING the CO2 to rise. We can predict that, quantitatively, the emissions should match to accumulated CO2. By checking the various reservoirs we find that it does match quite well, on decadal scales. On annual time scales mechanism (1) is relevant too. We can predict rise of the isotopes. There is a match. This is, objectively, convincing.
There is no need to invoke a more complicated mechanism. But if you insist, you need to make a similar quantitative prediction, that can be tested. You cannot do that. You only have a rough correlation, and an adjustable scale factor. Objectively, this is not convincing.
What T data is that you are using?
“…they are plausible, reasonable.”
That is what science is all about – winnowing what is plausible and reasonable down to find the truth.
It’s hard, because nature holds all sorts of surprises for the unwary. That is why we must never proclaim something as true just because it seems plausible and reasonable. Because there are endless examples of where what seemed plausible and reasonable turned out not to be the case.
“Does (2) tell us causality? No. With the data alone, no way to tell.”
It strongly implies it. The odds of this level of agreement being mere happenstance are very small.
“By checking the various reservoirs we find that it does match quite well, on decadal scales.”
It really doesn’t. The divergence is not so noticeable in terms of absolute concentrations. That is because absolute concentration is an integrated quantity, and integration acts to strongly attenuate all but low frequency patterns.
Low frequency = low information. All time series start to look linear, or really affine, when viewed on a small enough scale. That is the entire basis of calculus. And, as I said before, all affine functions are affinely similar to one another.
Where the divergence becomes noticeable is in the rate domain. Here, the higher frequency patterns are revealed, and the high frequency patterns do not match between our inputs and the concentration.
But, they do match with the temperature data. Furthermore, the low frequency pattern (the trend) also matches. That’s a one-two KO, in my book. I find it impossible to convince myself that is mere happenstance. The odds are too low.
“We can predict rise of the isotopes. There is a match.”
Again, matching low information signals is not all that hard.
“There is no need to invoke a more complicated mechanism.”
There is, because there is no high information match. Moreover, it is not a complicated mechanism at all.
The CO2 cycle is a river, a continuously flowing stream from sources to sinks. If you dump buckets of water in a stream, it is not going to accumulate. It’s just going to be washed downstream. To make it accumulate, you have to stop the flow. But, if you stop the flow, the incoming waters are going to accumulate much faster than your meager buckets.
It is much less complicated to assume the stream has been throttled by a temperature dependent regulation of flow, than it is to dream up some complicated mechanism that accumulates your buckets, but allows the rest of the stream to flow freely.
I couldn’t tell you what T is being used as I made the plot years ago. Probably Southern hemisphere sea surface, on the hypothesis that oceans dominate the signal.
We only have blunt, bulk temperatures available. The entire globe may or may not participate significantly in this dynamic. It may be just the oceans. Or, it may be the rainforests. Or, it may be some weighted combination of all.
The fact that we get such remarkable correlation even with these blunt measures tells me the SNR is very high.
The best correlation is found with the satellite data, which is reasonable since we do (pace the efforts to denigrate them) expect the satellite measurements to be the most comprehensive and accurate measures. Unfortunately, those only go back to the late 1970’s.
It used to be that the best correlation was with the RSS data set. But, then UAH performed adjustments that brought them more into line with RSS. And then, RSS made the unforgivable choice to cave in to the climate mafia, and made some weird adjustments that caused them to correlate less, and UAH is now the best.
The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is a proxy for temperature anomaly. To me, this provides an independent source that corroborates and confirms UAH as being the best data set available today.
Bart,
The graph you showed of int temp vs co2. I reproduced it using Had*crut*4, from 1958-2017. I subtracted the late 1800s average from the temp data before integrating.
Pretty linear but with a clear change in slope about 1/3 from the start. R^2 = 0.986
I also did integrated emissions vs CO2. Data obtained from here: https://tinyurl.com/ya88bug4
The graph is very linear, with no obvious slope changes, and R^2 =0.9992.
Does this better fit to emissions mean anything to you? It should, considering that you have repeatedly claimed it is not a good fit.
“Where the divergence becomes noticeable is in the rate domain. Here, the higher frequency patterns are revealed, and the high frequency patterns do not match between our inputs and the concentration.’
As I explained, but you ignored, this is the well known correlation to ENSO, and has good explanations in terms of weather patterns and the Carbon cycle, not tied to overall ramp in CO2.
You could read these papers yourself. But I think at this point, you tune-out any counterfactual data that doesnt fit your narrative.
“Does (2) tell us causality? No. With the data alone, no way to tell.
‘It strongly implies it. The odds of this level of agreement being mere happenstance are very small.’
And yet you assign the odds of strong agreement between CO2 rise and CO2 emissions being mere happenstance as high??!! Weird, Bart.
The correlation equals causation argument has gotten many people in trouble over the years. Just talk to people about gun laws/crime stats!
“Does this better fit to emissions mean anything to you?”
No. It is low information.
“As I explained, but you ignored, this is the well known correlation to ENSO, and has good explanations in terms of weather patterns and the Carbon cycle, not tied to overall ramp in CO2.”
Just because you have a storyline to go along with it does not make it true. The ramp in CO2 rate of change matches the ramp in temperature. It fits both the long and the short term.
“And yet you assign the odds of strong agreement between CO2 rise and CO2 emissions being mere happenstance as high??!!”
Pretty much. See the stream analogy above. They should not accumulate proportionately. That is simply not how dissipative systems roll.
“The correlation equals causation argument has gotten many people in trouble over the years.”
And yet, that is the argument you offer above.
Allow me to expand a bit on the above.
When you are dealing with stochastic data, precise matching of things like trend statistics is not particularly edifying. You expect them to vary. In fact, when the agreement is too good to be true, it probably is, i.e., someone likely has their thumb on the scale. In fact, it is well known that “adjustments” to the surface temperature sets have suspiciously tracked CO2 level:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvcaBlAWgAESL4n.jpg
So, your R^2 values are not valid metrics by which to compare models.
Now, if you could show me that CO2 rate of change tracks the yearly emissions in both the high frequency and low frequency portions of the spectrum, then I’d say you had something.
But, they don’t. What does track in both these regimes is the temperature anomaly relationship.
That’s it. Game over. Emissions clearly have little impact on atmospheric concentration. It’s a slam dunk. Wait and see what happens. If temperatures will cooperate, and start heading down, you will see the divergence with emissions grow to the point where it can no longer be denied.
The correlation equals causation argument has gotten many people in trouble over the years.
And yet, that is the argument you offer above.’
Not at all. There is correlation, yes. AND there is a specific and obvious mechanism at work. In this case, it is, if you move stuff from container A to containers B and C, then later you find stuff of the same type in containers B and C, and its darn close to the amount you moved, then its moist likely the very same stuff you moved. Pretty basic logic.
The problem with correlation = causation is when you dont know the mechanism, or have only vague ideas, then you are on shaky ground. Exactly your situation. Deep denial of reality helps.
When living near power lines was found to be associated with increased childhood Leukemia, there was much concern, but no mechanism was proposed, or even made sense. Of course, the correlation did not hold upn after further studies.
“Now, if you could show me that CO2 rate of change tracks the yearly emissions in both the high frequency and low frequency portions of the spectrum, then Id say you had something.”
Why? Why would you think theres only one way to skin a cat? Why can’t there be more than one mechanism driving CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Dumb.
In fact we know there are several mechanisms at work on Earth that can vary CO2 concentration: ocean or land temperature, biosphere growth rates, rainfall, emissions, etc
ENSO-regional weather patterns can have a massive effect on CO2. We know that deciduous trees in the NH are mainly the cause of the large annual CO2 oscillation. Tree ring widths, and thereby CO2 uptake are modulated in certain regions with ENSO.
“In fact, when the agreement is too good to be true, it probably is, i.e., someone likely has their thumb on the scale. In fact, it is well known that adjustments to the surface temperature sets have suspiciously tracked CO2 level:”
Wow. I knew it would come to this. The data doesnt fit your narrative because it is fake. No one can be trusted…
“The data doesnt fit your narrative because it is fake.”
I gave you a plot showing it. Healthy skepticism is one thing, but sticking your head in the sand quite another.
You’re just not getting it, Nate, and I grow weary of talking to a brick wall. There is no doubt about it. Watch and see what happens.
‘The CO2 cycle is a river, a continuously flowing stream from sources to sinks. If you dump buckets of water in a stream, it is not going to accumulate. Its just going to be washed downstream. To make it accumulate, you have to stop the flow. But, if you stop the flow, the incoming waters are going to accumulate much faster than your meager buckets.”
I dont really follow this logic. Pls explain why our Earth system must behave like this. I can think of other analogies where the Co2 cycle involves small and large ponds or reservoirs, that can get higher after floods and take time to drain. The drain rate depends on the height or volume of the pond, so if the input to the pond increases, its height (volume) increases until the output matches.
“Why cant there be more than one mechanism driving CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.”
Because there doesn’t need to be. Occam’s razor. Remember?
“I can think of other analogies where the Co2 cycle involves small and large ponds or reservoirs, that can get higher after floods and take time to drain.”
Then, it’s not a cycle, so no you can’t. At least, not one that bears any relation to reality. There are immense flows involved. It is not a static situation.
“Then, its not a cycle, so no you cant.”
This is not at all obvious. Explain why you think there can be no ponds or reservoirs, clearly their are such reservoirs for CO2.
The Earth system is driven by an external periodic force (the Earths orbit-seasons), and hence it has a cycle.
How does that require the system to be as you describe? Again, I can think of systems, circuits, mechanical, thermal, chemical, that have reservoirs like I described with storage time scales, yet can be driven by an external force to oscillate.
Why cant there be more than one mechanism driving CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
“Because there doesnt need to be. Occams razor. Remember?”
Ocaam would never say make the solution to the problem simpler by changing the problem! The Earth, with its many types of CO2 sources and sinks is the problem we are given.
That there is more than one way for CO2 to vary is an unavoidable fact.
Reminds me of people saying, CO2 went up in last 10 y, but temperature didnt – proof CO2 cant warm the Earth.
Here is a systems perspective on carbon cycle.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1019
What do you think of it?
It looks interesting and potentially useful, but will only be as good as the assumptions that go into it. And, like the experimenters who wouldn’t deviate too far from Millikan’s electron charge, there is pressure to avoid speculating beyond the dogma.
Among other things he says this:
‘The residence time (of atmosphere) is thus:
750 GT/190 GTyr-1 = 3.9 years
This is a pretty short residence time. Now, lets look at the deep ocean (which is the vast majority of the oceans) its residence time is:
38000 GT/10 GTyr-1 = 3,800 years
We use 10 for the inflow/outflow value because we use the net of the water flux into and out of the deep ocean. The result, 3,800 years, is much longer than the atmosphere, and what this means is that the carbon cycle has some parts that respond quickly, but other parts that respond very slowly, and the very slow parts tend to put a damper on how quickly the other parts can change. In other words, if we suddenly inject carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, you might think that the short residence time of the atmosphere means that the excess CO2 can be removed very quickly, but because these reservoirs are linked together, it turns out that the deep oceans must return to its steady state before the atmosphere can get back to its steady state.’
And, that is precisely why a temperature change leads to an integrating response over relatively short timelines, as I discussed here:
https://tinyurl.com/y7xb8vn7
Im confused, because before you were disagreeing with
‘ the Co2 cycle involves small and large ponds or reservoirs, that can get higher after floods and take time to drain. The drain rate depends on the height or volume of the pond,
But now you seemingly agreeing when someone else says it. In fact they use a bathtub model on the next page that showed exactly this behavior.
Im also puzzled that are agreeing with their model, which explains that Anthro Co2, injected into the atmosphere, will NOT quickly be removed, and does lead to long-lived change in concentration.
How does this agree with your statement that:
“The CO2 cycle is a river, a continuously flowing stream from sources to sinks. If you dump buckets of water in a stream, it is not going to accumulate. Its just going to be washed downstream.” ?
It is dynamic. These are not static reservoirs. That is my point.
Anthro CO2 injected into the atmosphere is quickly removed, ending up mostly in the oceans, where it is carried via ocean circulation on a very long trek before reemerging centuries, even millennia, later.
It’s all in the math. Read.
https://tinyurl.com/y7xb8vn7
“It is dynamic. These are not static reservoirs. That is my point.”
Don’t know what that means? You mean fluid fluid dynamics? Yes. But it also has other things going on that sequester CO2 for long periods. It must satisfy solubility laws, conservation of mass, and biology laws. You seem to want to ignore these other things.
The atm and ocean mixed layer are reservoirs that, to a first approx, have fixed size. These create natural time scales.
“Anthro CO2 injected into the atmosphere is quickly removed”
That is an assertion with no good evidence to support it.
Your math is speculative. You make assumptions that are not well founded. The accessible ocean reservoir is the mixed layer. It is comparable in size to the atmospheric reservoir.
These are things that have been extensively studied. You disagree. Whats your evidence?
“The atm and ocean mixed layer are reservoirs that, to a first approx, have fixed size.”
The question was whether they are static. They are not. Moreover, the ratio of uptake between the oceans and the atmosphere is huge – much larger than the 1:1 ratio needed to attribute the observed atmospheric rise to human inputs.
“Whats your evidence?”
https://tinyurl.com/yd5syg5j
“Dont know what that means?”
It means there is a continuous flow. These “reservoirs”, if you please, are not just sitting there undisturbed until humans came along and disrupted them. There is always a flow in, and a flow out, and any modulation of that flow, e.g., due to temperature changes, can cause accumulation or de-accumulation.
It is not unlike the GHE itself. GHGs do not add heat to the system, they merely modulate the flow that is continuously running through it.
The correlation plot does not provide what Im asking for, which is (direct) evidence about the relative sizes of the carbon sinks. You cant find that?
You keep showing the same correlation plot as evidence for all your claims. As you know, many of us have pointed out weaknesses in that plot.
If one were trying to be objective (are we?), one should look at the amount of evidence on both sides of an issue. Is the scale balanced?
There many many disparate pieces of evidence on the scale on the side of CO2 rising due to emissions.
While on the side of CO2 rising due to temperature, we have one piece of evidence, that is of the correlation = causation type.
Just based on the facts we have, the scale is way out of balance.
Whats the reason for weighing that one piece so heavily? An extreme philosophical bias? It seems so.
On the theory motivation. I still don’t understand your argument that emissions cannot accumulate. Its just not convincing to say look at this math, when the assumptions underlying it are flimsy.
There clearly are reservoirs that determine the behavior of the Carbon cycle. A dynamic systems approach must incorporate these reservoirs in any realistic model. The Penn State group does just that.
‘There is always a flow in, and a flow out, and any modulation of that flow, e.g., due to temperature changes, can cause accumulation or de-accumulation.’
Ok, if we begin adding significantly to the flow in, does the flow out immediately respond to cancel the the flow in? Why should it?
The flow out responds to the imbalance in the reservoirs, which is tiny and grows slowly.
“Whats the reason for weighing that one piece so heavily?”
Occam’s razor – it is sufficient, requiring the least amount of speculation. It is clear that temperature is responsible for the variation. Even you agree with that. All that is then required is to extend the temperature response to the lower frequencies. The trend in temperature is already there to provide the rest, and it matches very well. To toss that remarkable match out for no reason strikes me as arbitrary.
“Ok, if we begin adding significantly to the flow in, does the flow out immediately respond to cancel the the flow in?”
It depends upon what I am going to agree to call a reservoir (though a dynamic one). The response between the oceans and atmosphere is relatively fast. The response of the deep oceans to the upper oceans relatively slow. So, it all does depend, in the short term, upon that fast response.
To conclude that human inputs are a significant driver, one has to assume that the ratio of uptake by upper oceans and atmosphere is approximately 1:1. I consider that assumption contrived, as the oceans have almost infinite buffering capacity.
Then, one has to assume that there is basically no temperature dependence of the lower-to-upper ocean response – it just cycles at a constant rate for all time because it just does. That is a “Just So” story.
So, I have one “arbitrary”, one “contrived”, and one “Just So”. For me, that is three strikes, and human attribution is out.
Incidentally, there is a fourth strike I did not go into, which is that under the prevailing paradigm, there is a positive feedback between CO2 and temperature. Temperature increase causes CO2 to rise, and CO2 rise causes temperature to rise.
This positive feedback can be contrived to be stablized by the arbitrary curtailing of the long term response to temperature, but it should at the very least create noticeably erratic performance, which is not in evidence.
One of these days, I will get around to quantifying just how erratic the performance would be, given current assumptions on temperature sensitivity – it may even be unstable for those, as there is a threshold. For now, it is an additional reason for me to doubt the prevailing paradigm.
“Occams razor it is sufficient, requiring the least amount of speculation. It is clear that temperature is responsible for the variation. Even you agree with that. ”
I agree that on short time scales there is correlation with ENSO, which in turn correlates to Global temperature. That is already a known effect of weather.
The longer term ‘apparent correlation’ which is really just a rising trend, could be explained as either cause or effect, or caused by another rising thing.
Again, everything we know says CO2 varies for several reasons. There is no compelling reason to assume there is only one.
“To toss that remarkable match out for no reason strikes me as arbitrary.”
And yet, you are willing to toss out the match, decade by decade, between emissions and accumulations. Here you are neglecting an important issue. Of the two matches, one is a QUANTITATIVE match and the other is QUALITATIVE, with adjustable parameters.
As I mentioned, but you ignored, one should weigh all the evidence.
Imagine you’re on a jury that has to decide on letting someone go free or be imprisoned for life. Are you going to look at the totality of the evidence, or focus on one, rather uncertain, piece?
To push the analogy a bit further (maybe too far), the defense has ‘theory’ about someone else having done the crime. But there is no independent evidence of this. Should that theory be given weight against the actual evidence in hand?
“To conclude that human inputs are a significant driver, one has to assume that the ratio of uptake by upper oceans and atmosphere is approximately 1:1. I consider that assumption contrived, as the oceans have almost infinite buffering capacity.”
This is something that can be measured and quantified. Simple enough to look up or estimate, but it seems you would rather it be a mystery. That is a convenient choice.
“Then, one has to assume that there is basically no temperature dependence of the lower-to-upper ocean response it just cycles at a constant rate for all time because it just does.”
I dont think it is assumed at all. What Ive read is that its being investigated whether the rate is changing. But to assume that the rate decreases linearly with temperature is contrived. What is the mechanism?
“And yet, you are willing to toss out the match, decade by decade, between emissions and accumulations.”
Once again, that is just not true. It only matches vaguely in a total accumulation, low information, low order polynomial sense IF you first scale it by about 50%. That scale factor is an adjustable parameter, so you have no leg to stand on with your qualitative/quantitative angle here.
“This is something that can be measured and quantified.”
Actually, it cannot. We have nothing like the comprehensive, global measuring system in place that could do it, and probably never will. It’s just been assumed, and the assumption used to “prove” itself in a vicious circle.
“But to assume that the rate decreases linearly with temperature is contrived.”
No, it is simply a first order Taylor expansion.
“What is the mechanism?”
Stratification.
“Stratification” How vague. hows that a mechanism the has your required T dependence?
3-4 times youv said ‘low information’ and each time ive explained the reason that is a non-issue, and each time you ignore this point.
No one has suggested that CO2 emissions need to explain the annual oscillations, nor the ENSO variations. That these natural variations exist has no relevance to ongoing growth of CO2 caused by emissions.
Just as the seaonal and ENSO variation in Temp do not need to be explained by CO2 rise.
Stratification is one of the ways in which ocean uptake can be throttled. Here are a couple of links you can review for info:
https://tinyurl.com/yblgu6tz
https://tinyurl.com/ya44l8yj
“…and each time you ignore this point.”
Because it’s not valid. If one can explain both the long term and the short term variation via a plausible mechanism, it is much more compelling than a hand-waving explanation that relies upon kluges between several ill-defined mechanisms. Again, William of Occam comes down firmly on my side.
The low information components of the signal are too generic to finger the culprit. It’s like looking at the size of fingerprints, and not the patterns. Too many suspects have similar sized fingers, but only one has the same print pattern.
“The low information components of the signal are too generic to finger the culprit.”
Good. Agreed! Then don’t rely on them for making your case! Don ‘t let your whole decision on guilt or innocence ride on this thing that has two ~ equally good explanations.
With emssions scenario, we have lots other confirming threads of evidence. We have the isotopes. We have ice core data, which clearly shows < 1/10 of the CO2 rise per degree C that you require. Ig also shows CO2 never having been at near the current level in last 500 ky. We DO have lots of measurements of carbon build-up in the ocean, and more and more in terrestrial sources.
Your gonna say this is just 'weaving a narrative' or some other weasel words. No its data. You'll say The data is wrong or fake or whatever. The defense says that about the police report, the CSI data, the video. But without supporting evidence, it should be ignored by the jury.
We have calculations with known physics and chemistry, modelling the behavior of carbon content and flows. If you are correct, the modelling (not done by the same people!) ought to have revealed some stark disagreement with measurements. That happens in science.
Have they found such a disagreement? If so, then that is a sign that an alternative theory, a paradigm shift, is needed. If not then…what you are talking about is uneeded.
“Then dont rely on them for making your case!”
I’m not. That is the whole point. The high frequency portion of the signal is the high information portion. It is the fingerprint that establishes the culprit. And, it points to temperature as being responsible.
“We have the isotopes. We have ice core data…”
These are just rationalizations, data which are consistent with the human attribution hypothesis, but not uniquely so.
“We have calculations with known physics and chemistry, modelling the behavior of carbon content and flows.”
Also not unique.
“If you are correct, the modelling (not done by the same people!) ought to have revealed some stark disagreement with measurements.”
Not so. This falls under the topic of observability. A given system description must satisfy certain conditions to be considered observable from the measurements. A system description which is unobservable can match a given set of measurements over a given timeframe, but there is an infinite subspace over which the system variables can range which will not affect the outcome, and the description is therefore not unique.
And, when you take no pains to match the higher information content of the measurements, you are artificially limiting your observability.
“Have they found such a disagreement?”
The disagreement is in the ignored high frequency content of the signals. You are sweeping the disagreement under the rug.
When you only look at the low information parts of a signal, you can project all kinds of attributions, from the vaguely plausible to the bizarre.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdAlYbdXUAATVxy.jpg
“We have the isotopes. We have ice core data
‘These are just rationalizations, data which are consistent with the human attribution hypothesis, but not uniquely so.’
The data is just data. No rationalizations required to see that it is not in agreement with a temperature (1C) driven rise of 100 ppm. Thats a slam dunk.
“A system description which is unobservable, yada, yada”
Oh c’mon, for you all data seems expendable, if it doesn’t fit with your narrative.
Not the data per se, but the interpretations that are attached to them. Those interpretations have not been verified, and are necessarily conjectural at this time. There are loose ends that potentially could unravel the entire fabric.
For example, the ice core data cannot be independently verified. We have no means of subjecting samples in the lab to the exact mix of freeze and thaw cycles, the high pressure, and the long term diffusion processes they undergo over extensive timelines.
But, we do know that balance does not just happen in nature. It is always a complex process of opposing forces matching each other one for one, resulting in an equilibrium state. To maintain an equilibrium state within a tight tolerance for thousands of years, those forces perforce must be powerful and fast reacting, and such a system is inherently very insensitive to minor perturbations such as our puny inputs.
Thus, there is a fundamental disconnect within the narrative. It is a contradiction to have both tight regulation, and high sensitivity. Something is missing from the narrative.
“To maintain an equilibrium state within a tight tolerance for thousands of years, those forces perforce must be powerful and fast reacting, and such a system is inherently very insensitive to minor perturbations such as our puny inputs.”
And yet, you want to allow the system to naturally go from 300 to 400 ppm, within 100 y, after having been more stable for 15 ky. Not so tight regulation. Your premise is contradicted.
Again you think generic system behavior applies, but you ignore the unique aspects of this system. Einstein’s ‘as simple as possible, but no simpler’ dictim applies.
Forces must be ‘fast reacting’.
But you have alrready agreed that the deep ocean has a very long time constant. And you seemed to agree with a systems approach that said if the deep ocean is not in equilibrium, the other parts, linked to it, will take hundreds of years, after a carbon input, to equilibrate that input.
A contradiction.
“For example, the ice core data cannot be independently verified.”
There has been decades of effort by various groups to understand and validate the ice core data. For example they now understand some ice cores from Greenland have problems because of periodic melting. The antarctic ones have been validated by comparing to dirext 20th century data.
Proposing a theory that requires large amounts of data and extensive analysis to be invalid, is generally not a winning strategy in science.
“And yet, you want to allow the system to naturally go from 300 to 400 ppm, within 100 y, after having been more stable for 15 ky.”
It would be inconsistent either way. The odd man out is the supposition that it actually has been that stable.
“But you have alrready agreed that the deep ocean has a very long time constant.”
Indeed, these are all reasons to doubt the ice core narrative.
“The antarctic ones have been validated by comparing to dirext 20th century data.”
That does not validate them over long term timescales.
“To maintain an equilibrium state within a tight tolerance for thousands of years, those forces perforce must be powerful and fast reacting, and such a system is inherently very insensitive to minor perturbations such as our puny inputs”
“And yet, you want to allow the system to naturally go from 300 to 400 ppm, within 100 y, after having been more stable for 15 ky.
It would be inconsistent either way. ”
Thing is you seem to want to have it both ways.
You want “inherently be very insensitive to minor perturbations such as our puny inputs” therefore must be “maintain an equilibrium state within a tight tolerance for thousands of years”
AND you “want to allow the system to naturally go from 300 to 400 ppm, within 100 y”
Sorry, you can’t have BOTH. Which is it?
I think you’re getting tired, working overtime to find rationalizations for many improbable things.
The antarctic ones have been validated by comparing to dirext 20th century data.
That does not validate them over long term timescales.”
Here are methods of just one of the many groups
http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/law_dome_methods.html
Your independent evidence that this data cannot be trusted is what?
Same goes for your problem with our understanding of the carbon cycle.
Hearing this from you is no different from the jury hearing the defense attorney claim that the police report, the CSI data, and the video of the perp should not be trusted.
Why not? Whats your evidence, the jury should ask.
Neither ‘Because my client is innocent’, nor ‘because my theory is correct’.
is sufficient.
“Sorry, you cant have BOTH.”
Exactly. That is why there is an inconsistency, and the interpretation of the ice core data must be viewed as suspect.
This issue is similar to someone making a claim to have developed a perpetual motion machine. They may have tons of data which appear consistent with their claim. They may have elegant and arcane mathematics which purport to show that they do, indeed, produce energy from nothing. But, we know that is impossible. We do not need to rebut their Gish Gallop of citations, or their data interpretations, or their reams of experimental data. We simply know it cannot be done.
“Your independent evidence that this data cannot be trusted is what?”
The period of overlap with modern measurements is short. We cannot know for how long the overlap would continue if we had longer term direct measurements. Even for the period of overlap, this is, again, a low information signal, and happenstance cannot be ruled out.
“Neither Because my client is innocent, nor because my theory is correct is sufficient.”
What is sufficient is, “the state has not proven my client’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“What is sufficient is, the state has not proven my clients guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
You clearly missed the point. If the reasonable doubt is based only on a ‘claim’ that data from the experts (CSI etc) is unreliable, but there is nothing at all to support that claim, other than bias, then there can be no rational reasonable-doubt.
Bart, you always seem to make up new ways to doubt the data, when both the real experts, and the scientific community at large has found no good reason to do so.
If you cannot find something published arguing that the ice core data is unreliable in the way you are claiming, then you are arguing purely from hopes and wishes, not science.
Sorry, you cant have BOTH.
Exactly. That is why there is an inconsistency, and the interpretation of the ice core data must be viewed as suspect.”
So you are saying that if your scenario is valid, and CO2 CAN and does vary naturally by 100 ppm. Ok.
But then your whole argument about anthro CO2 not being able to accumulate goes bye bye too.
Then your back to explaining why emissions are all gone away.
Meanwhile I see no contradiction between small variations for thousands of years and accumulation for the last 100. For the prior thousands of years the fossil carbon was not being released to cause the imbalance.
“Meanwhile I see no contradiction between small variations for thousands of years and accumulation for the last 100.”
Because accumulation means no dissipation, and no dissipation means random inputs will produce a random walk whose RMS grows as the square root of time. There is little indication of such behavior within the ice core records. It is an inconsistency.
“…both the real experts, and the scientific community at large …”
You should not defer so easily to “expert” opinion, nor assume the “scientific community at large” is so infallible. The reputation of the “scientific community” rides on the top 10% or so of practitioners who have made spectacular discoveries and innovations. The others are just mediocrities churning out pablum in the literature and collecting a paycheck.
I think this thread has gone on long enough. Until we meet again…
“Because accumulation means no dissipation, and no dissipation means random inputs will produce a random walk whose RMS grows as the square root of time. There is little indication of such behavior within the ice core records. It is an inconsistency.”
Im familiar with this behavior. i think it would grow in time up to the time constant, so ~ 1 kY. But what magnitude? Could be a few ppm.
“You should not defer so easily to expert opinion, nor assume the scientific community at large is so infallible. ”
As someone once said, ‘trust but verify’.
I trust that the scientific method usually works, until proven otherwise. There are reliability checks built in to the system conferences, competing groups, measurers, modelers.
The article you posted, https://tinyurl.com/yblgu6tz, shows a good example of climate scientists working to find new things that may shake up the conventional wisdom.
Now put together a few thousand or so of those weakly interacting groups to get an idea of how climate science works as a ‘dynamic system’.
Anyone, including you, is free to ‘verify’ the results.
bond…”Henrys law tells you the maximum volume of CO2 that the water has dissolve based on the partial pressure above”.
And if the ocean temperature changes, both will adjust. The ocean has 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and if it cools it will suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere. If it warms, as it did till 1998 or so, it will outgas CO2 to the atmosphere.
Here’s a good explanation of Henry’s Law by a top-end physicist.
https://motls.blogspot.ca/2007/11/ocean-carbon-sink-henrys-law.html
More on Henry:
https://weatheraction.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/piers-corbyn-criticizes-prof-stephen-hawking-for-backing-climatehoax/
The moral to the story is trust established science and not modern misinterpretations with natural evidence staring you in the face.
Gordon Robertson says:
“And if the ocean temperature changes, both will adjust. The ocean has 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and if it cools it will suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere. If it warms, as it did till 1998 or so, it will outgas CO2 to the atmosphere.”
Yet another bald-faced lie from Gordon.
The ocean has been warming strongly post-1998. Data here:
http://tinyurl.com/jbf2xco
“World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000), 1955-2010,” S. Levitus et al, GRL (in press)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml
Observed and simulated full-depth ocean heat-content changes for 19702005, Lijing Cheng et al, Ocean Sci., 12, 925-935, 2016
http://www.ocean-sci.net/12/925/2016/
I’m not interested in blog-science. The established science is taught at universities and is put to use by engineers. These bloggers have never tested their BS.
Gordon Robertson says:
Simple. No matter how much CO2 we emit, the oceans will control the atmospheric concentration.
Except that takes 100,000 years or more.
Typical bad physics from GR.
The oceans are not in equilibrium with the atmosphere because we are adding CO2 too fast for them to equilibriate. If we stop burning fossil fuels overnight, atmospheric CO2 concentrations would drop by perhaps 30-40 ppm over perhaps two decades as the oceans strive again for equilibrium. After that, those much slower processes take over.
Those figures are for current atmospheric CO2 concentrations. If CO2 concentrations go higher, the drop would be more, and over a longer time period. What is true is that the “final” CO2 concentration after equilibrium is attained is a monotonically increasing function of our total CO2 emissions.
CO2 levels will be higher than baseline for at least 100,000 years:
The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2,
David Archer and Victor Brovkin,
Climatic Change (2008) 90:283297
DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1
Some of it stays for essentially ever.
Which is basically what I said in the final sentence of my first paragraph. AFTER the initial transient phase, whose strength and duration depends on how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, and on how slowly or abruptly we cut off emissions, we will reach a near steady-state phase that will last a long time.
What says CO2 would drop 30-40 ppm in a couple of decades?
A lecture by the same David Archer who wrote that paper. But there are so many Archer videos on YT, I’m not going to go through them all to find that explanation.
That’s too bad. I’m sure that incorporating the word “climate” in your search would narrow the field considerably.
Or maybe you could cite a paper in which he wrote this(?)
I am pretty sure that “climate” would attract ALL of his videos.
Actually, I believe I’m confusing the names of my climate scientists. What is the name of that ultra-hyperactive scientist who seems to have a nervous disorder?
Not if it’s added *in addition to*, via the plus sign.
It was actually Richard Alley, not David Archer. I am not going to sit through countless hour-long videos just to search for one little tidbit of information.
bond…”The oceans are not in equilibrium with the atmosphere because we are adding CO2 too fast for them to equilibriate”.
That’s an old IPCC fish-wife’s tale based on cherry-picjed ice core data. There is ample proof from good scientists that the atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been in the 400 ppmv range earlier this century.
The 288ppmv pre-Industrial is a wild and bad guess.
Gordon Robertson says:
“There is ample proof from good scientists that the atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been in the 400 ppmv range earlier this century.”
False.
Those were measurements made near industrial centers, which naturally showed higher levels of CO2.
No one in the world thinks those numbers were indicative of the average global concentration of CO2.
But that won’t stop Gordon from lying about them.
Gordon – absolute rubbish. There was ONE German scientist whose name eludes me who supposedly can up with such measurements. There were countless others who did not.
The logic that says there is a rule for rational thinking that says to be careful to construct hypotheses that automatically confirm themselves!
Your comment seems to be lacking context.
Yes Bond. The comment ended up wrong when I answered another comment. Excuse me for that.
bond…”Your comment seems to be lacking context”.
That’s because you’re not a rational thinker.
And yet, Petwap explained that there was a perfectly rational reason why I would not have seen the context. But keep those insults coming …
It seems to me that here still ignores the actual data of CO2.
Most CO2 is in high latitudes in winter and this has no effect on the temperature.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular
CO2 is distributed extremely evenly around the earth. Not sure what you believe that graph shows. It first needs a title, then it needs a legend.
bond…”CO2 is distributed extremely evenly around the earth”.
Have you or anyone else been in every nook and cranny around the atmosphere to test that wild assumption? There tends to be more CO2 outgassed in warmer parts of the ocean and absorbed in colder parts.
Guess where they placed the main CO2 detector, right where most CO2 is being outgassed.
Of course people have tested that. Here are measurements from above Antarctica:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/03/joe-bastardi-idiot-liar-or-both.html
Here’s the paper, in Tellus 1995:
“Concentration variations of atmospheric CO2 observed at Syowa Station, Antarctica from 1984 to 2000,” SHINJI MORIMOTO et al,
First published: 12 May 2003 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0889.2003.01471.x
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1034/j.1600-0889.2003.01471.x
Gordon,
CO2 measurements are taken by satellites. You DO believe in satellite remote sensing, right? I’d hate to tell Dr Spencer you believe his lifetime’s work is based on nonsense.
Actually the most cited measurement takes place at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, every day.
Yes, I realise that. I am simply pointing out that the global measurement that Gordon craves does in fact exist.
I don’t know of any “global measurement.” I know of a lot of local measurements, but no one I know compiles them into a global average.
Most people cite the Mauna Loa number.
I didn’t say anything about a global average.
Perhaps take another look at what is being discussed here – the DISTRIBUTION of CO2 over the globe.
Here is a satellite image from 12 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04
And before ren and Gordon jump back in and claim that this proves they were correct, they should look at the scale at the bottom. The colour scale has been greatly accentuated to amplify a mere 5% variation in atmospheric concentrations.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/05/the-biggest-deception-in-the-human-caused-global-warming-deception/
So correct .
My question is where is all of this AGW? No where is the answer.
“I cant prove it”.
Case closed.
bond…”I cant prove it.
Case closed.”
*******
The MO of the IPCC. Except, having admitted in Tar there is no way to predict climate they have gone ahead and tried it using unvalidated climate models.
The IPCC has never stated that anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming. It’s a guess, and they’ve had the temerity to invent a scale to place a confidence level on their guesses.
Keep that fiction coming.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The MO of the IPCC. Except, having admitted in Tar there is no way to predict climate they have gone ahead and tried it using unvalidated climate models.”
Models are validated. See Ch 9 of WG1 of the 5 AR — though I’m 100% sure you won’t, because you find it useful to be stupid.
“…has never stated that anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming.”
Bonkers. Absolutely bonkers.
And another lie.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
My question is where is all of this AGW? No where is the answer.
Temporarily hidden by a natural variation (La Nina).
Come on, Salvatore, you should understand this by now.
DA…”Temporarily hidden by a natural variation (La Nina)”.
Since Feb 2016 we’ve had an El Nino and the temps are still declining.
Huh? The El Nino ended in May 2016, and we have had two La Nina’s since then.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Since Feb 2016 weve had an El Nino and the temps are still declining.”
My God, Gordon, you can be extremely Stupid.
We have not.
April ’18 was still in a weak La Nina:
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
But the La Nina is probably ending now….
I like this:
–The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has a Water Science School. They say
One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km3). That may sound like a lot, but it is only about 0.001 percent of the total Earths water volume of about 332,500,000 mi3 (1,385,000,000 km3), as shown in the table below. If all of the water in the atmosphere rained down at once, it would only cover the globe to a depth of 2.5 centimeters, about 1 inch.
Notice how they downplay its atmospheric significance by comparing it to the total water volume on the planet. They are talking about water in its liquid phase, but it is as important as a gas and a solid from a weather perspective.
…–
I also like this:
—
So, not only have Sherlock and Watson lost their tent, but they are now exposed to precipitation. Unfortunately, the IPCC and their models will not know what form it will take. Sherlock would know why. It is because they have no data and are theorizing and speculating. —
We have lost more than a tent, I would say the entire Universe, but we probably will find it.
They are just writing an article about water, not a treatise.
It’s lame to complain that someone didn’t write the article you think they should have. They wrote the article they wanted to write.
You can always write your own.
and AGW theory can not prove what they falsely claim, which is becoming more apparent with each passing day.
There isn’t a AGW theory, nor a greenhouse effect theory.
Rather it is belief, and if you can accept that Atheism and/or
Marxism is religious, then AGW and/or GHE “theory” is a religious belief just like the Cargo Cult is a religious belief with the various silly stories and rituals.
The thing a theory could do is predict what wouldn’t happen.
For example, California or say some continent is not going to suddenly sink into the ocean. Or story of Atlantis is not true. Various kinds of flooding is possible, but story as told
didn’t happen (a large island or any island with civilization on it, that sunk).
And AGW nor GHE “theory” can’t predict what will not happen.
Instead it is useful god, that can do everything.
AGW is basic physics.
It’d be far more interesting if warming WASN’T occurring.
It might be more interesting if we were heading towards a glacial period, but apparently we are still in a interglacial period, and should continue for some time (centuries).
The previous interglacial periods became warmer in later parts of the interglacial period as compared to our current ocean temperature is, tends to indicate it will not become more interesting, anytime, soon.
Actually Milankovitch factors do have us starting in a very gradual cooling. So does the Sun’s TSI, which has been slowly decreasing since the ’60s.
This is why climate scientists frequently say that humans are responsible for 110% of modern warming.
gbaikie says:
The previous interglacial periods became warmer in later parts of the interglacial period </i.
I'm genuinely interested in this if it's true. Can you point me to these studies? Thanks.
–David Appell says:
May 6, 2018 at 3:16 PM
gbaikie says:
The previous interglacial periods became warmer in later parts of the interglacial period </i.
I'm genuinely interested in this if it's true. Can you point me to these studies? Thanks.–
"About then I became acquainted with remarkable studies of geologist Paul Hearty. Hearty found strong evidence for sea level rise late in the Eemian to +6-9 m (20-30 feet) relative to today."
http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/07/27/darn-sea-level-disaster-ahead-in-200-900-years-when/
Hearty, and others:
"We show that between 127 and 119 kyr ago, eustatic sea level remained relatively stable at about 34 m above present sea level. However, stratigraphically younger fossil corals with U-series ages of 118.11.4 kyr are observed at elevations of up to 9.5 m above present mean sea level. Accounting for glacial isostatic adjustment and localized tectonics, we conclude that eustatic sea level rose to about 9 m above present at the end of the last interglacial. "
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1890
” relatively stable at about 34 m above present sea level. ”
Should be:
at about 3 to 4 meter above present.
SLR: “…34 m above present sea level”
Why was this?
Does sea level increase with temperature, maybe?
gbalkie wrote:
“…we conclude that eustatic sea level rose to about 9 m above present at the end of the last interglacial.”
Thanks for making my point.
David Appell says:
May 6, 2018 at 8:17 PM
SLR: 3-4 m above present sea level
Why was this?
Does sea level increase with temperature, maybe? —
It proposed that about 1/3 of 7″ sea level over the last 100
years, is due to expansion of a warmer ocean.
Or the average volume temperature of entire ocean is about
3.5 C and that expansion is due to increase of this average temperature by an immeasurable amount. (or has not been precisely, measured, yet).
–David Appell says:
May 6, 2018 at 8:19 PM
gbalkie wrote:
we conclude that eustatic sea level rose to about 9 m above present at the end of the last interglacial.
Thanks for making my point.–
That is good, if, are happy about your point.
I imagine that Hansen was happy, that Paul Hearty seemed
to be making his point.
gbaikie says:
And AGW nor GHE theory cant predict what will not happen.
“Successful predictions of climate science,” Ray Pierrehumbert, 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RICBu_P8JWI
What is important is predicting before something occurs, and glacier were retreating before CO2 was predicted to cause warming.
Or glacial retreat was regarded as warming.
So not prediction, but an explanation.
Also what was known was there was ever increasing use of coal power. The industrial revolution was seen as as miracle, and there was lots of coal to burn (and still is) so of course more coal would be burned (most people aren’t stupid) and one would more CO2 in atmosphere. It less than was thought because about 1/2 or more doesn’t remain in atmosphere (people then and now tend regard human activity as larger causaul effect then is the case).
gbaikie says:
What is important is predicting before something occurs, and glacier were retreating before CO2 was predicted to cause warming.
Arrhenius 1896.
But no, predicting before is not all that matters. Showing that one’s theory predicts what’s been observed is also vital. This is true it all branches of science.
I notice you ignored all the other predictions… Such as stratospheric cooling. (The stratosphere wouldn’t be cooling if the sun were responsible for modern warming, it’d be warming.)
But I’m sure not science is going to change your mind. That’s how deniers are.
DA,
You cant even produce a testable GHE hypothesis, can you?
Talk of a GHE Theory is a valiant, but a completely stupid and ignorant attempt to avoid the scientific method – which requires an hypothesis before a theory is proposed.
But then, climatology is not a science, anyway. Just a form of collective delusion, shared by a ragtag collection of the gullible and easily misled.
You cant even express what the “deniers” are supposedly denying! They certainly dont deny that you cant actually produce a testable GHE hypothesis, do they? Try putting a name to what you claim people are denying – try and make sense, if you can.
Cheers.
gbaikie…”What is important is predicting before something occurs, and glacier were retreating before CO2 was predicted to cause warming”.
There was an eminent Australian geologist on one of Shackleton’s expeditions to Antarctica and that’s what he claimed. He specialized in glaciers and he claimed they have been retreating since the ice age before the LIA.
They grew quite a bit during the LIA then began shrinking again. Has nothing to do with anthropogenic warming.
What have glaciers been doing for the last several decades?
Melting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_mass_balance#/media/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png
“There was an eminent Australian geologist on one of Shackletons expeditions to Antarctica and thats what he claimed. He specialized in glaciers and he claimed they have been retreating since the ice age before the LIA. ”
Yes. And that I why the Little Ice Age is called that,and that was why there was a ice age “scare” before the, we going to become like Venus “scare”.
The growth of glaciers (something you can measure and leaves easily discernable fingerprints from the past) was indicating global cooling, and their retreat was called global warming.
Or interglacial periods were times where glaciers around the world were shrinking. And the entire interglacial period was sometimes referred to as Global Warming.
The Left steals terms like liberal or then progressive, or global warming for their twisted purposes.
As, no one likes oppressive uneducated thugs.
“They grew quite a bit during the LIA then began shrinking again. Has nothing to do with anthropogenic warming.”
My point was experts were looking a glaciers and around the time of 1900 AD, people would have known it was “warming”- rather than we are going to all freeze to death.
DA…”Successful predictions of climate science, Ray Pierrehumbert, 2012″
That was the same year the IPCC had their AR5 review and following it in 2013 they admitted there had been no warming during the 15 years from 1998 – 2012.
Guess Poorhumbert did not hear it.
This is the stupidest excuse ever, Gordon.
You can’t prove Pierrehumbert wrong. You won’t even watch the video.
Wise up. Stop appearing so pathetic.
The very low temperature of the northern tropical Atlantic will delay the hurricane season in the Atlantic.
https://weather.gc.ca/data/saisons/images/2018050600_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000.png
Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00964/ajwk7i5b6q7i.png
Following late snowfalls, some mountain passes may open 15 days late in Savoie and Haute-Savoie. At Cormet de Roselend, in the Beaufortain, snow removal operations have begun. In some places, the road is covered with 15 metres (50 feet) of snow.
The Savoyard passes are buried under the snow. Early May usually marks the beginning of the reopening of mountain passes to bicycles and cars. This year, after exceptional falls, they are still covered with several meters of snow. They will therefore only be able to open with a fortnight’s delay.
At the small Saint-Bernard, we measure up to 6 meters (20 feet) of snow. As for the Iseran and Croix de Fer passes, snow removal will not begin until May 7. At the Galibier Pass, snow removal operations have even been stopped because of the risk of avalanches.
https://www.sott.net/article/384719-Its-May-and-roads-in-Alpine-France-are-buried-under-15-meters-50-feet-of-snow
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
OCEAN TID BITS ALSO SHOWS A SIGNIFICANT COOLING TREND SINCE THIS PAST SUMMER.
I don’t see a cooling trend in those data in that graph.
And anyway, a trend over one year says absolutely nothing about climate.
When are you going to learn this, Salvatore?
When the deviation was north of +.30c
Care to complete your sentence?
The temperature in the North Atlantic and Western Europe will still be low.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/05/10/1200Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-29.36,55.27,903
…interstellar travel constant acceleration (immortals 2)… Cloning?…direct to the Future…3D BIOPRINTING…your recorded Memory to the new body and…Immortality. For us is too soon for hook to the 1st Immortal Generation. Who knows…tucked in liquid nitrogen at 200 C below zero not can feel the pass of Time. When after 500 years make open your eyes again and someone say… Hello!!…you will believe that the Goodbye was just a moment ago… Where am I?…(applause, shouts, laughs…) in Biomedical Recovery Center. What day is today?… July 21 of 7018; was selected, centuries ago, in a Planetary Convention the beginning of Bronze Age like true History start… If I was…oh Goddess…give me a mirror…are you sure?…yes…aarrghghgg… Do not worry, at once we print a new body to your size. Take, choose in your Catalog. Let me see…this to the “athletic” is right… Ok. And your Princess, how old are you?…those things do not ask to a woman. Come on, your new Life awaits you. Wow!…has broken me a leg to put it on the floor… Do not worry, we carry you with open arms to the Mom-Printer, you just have that let to it your genes. Printer will restore and use as a basis this ancient body of yours for make to you again. Will we see us again?…perhaps on vacations because you have been stayed near, in the X planet of the star Vega.
ren on crack
Gordon Robertson says:
May 5, 2018 at 7:06 PM
DA”In Alaska, the trend over the last 3 decades is +0.51 C/decade (+0.91 F/decade)”.
That would be from NOAA fudging. They have one station covering the entire Canadian Arctic and their trends come from model-projected temperatures.
*
Once again Gobertson proves that he no only is a liar but also an incorrigible one.
Look at his comment in a previous thread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/stormy-april-to-give-snow-job-to-midwest/#comment-299043
and at my answer to his comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/stormy-april-to-give-snow-job-to-midwest/#comment-299180
where I wrote that solely for Canada’s Arctic province Nunavut, not one, but rather up to one hundred and fourty five GHCN stations recorded temperatures there. During 2017, 97 stations were active in that region.
*
Sixty years ago, my mother told me: ‘Who starts lying with 7 keeps a liar till 77 the least’.
Gordon can’t even get out of bed without lying.
What I don’t understand is why he isn’t ashamed of all his lies. Normal people are ashamed of their lies, even one.
L & P
Could you please post the actual data, the scientist name and his workings that NOAA used. Not the data you say was available and you think they used.
Can’t a
Regards
H
Why don’t you ask them?
Why should I do your work?
If you make a claim, then prove it by citing data and research.
binny…”….where I wrote that solely for Canadas Arctic province Nunavut, not one, but rather up to one hundred and fourty five GHCN stations recorded temperatures there…”
I don’t care if they have 500 stations there, NOAA is using only the one station at Eureka.
Thought I was the denier.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
“…There are now NO thermometers (as of 2009) in the 65-70, 70-75, and 80-85 bands. 1992 saw the 80-85 band die. 2009, the others. Due to the general slaughter of thermometers, that 75-80 band is ONE thermometer.
Thats right. ONE thermometer for everything north of LAT 65. Who needs Northwest Territories, The Yukon Territories, or Baffin Island anyway “
Eureka what?
“Thats right. ONE thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.”
You really don’t care if you lie, do you, Gordon?
You’re much like Donald Trump. But without the wealth, celebrity, fame and power.
Thats right. ONE thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.
Prove this.
From the scientific agency that cannot be referenced:
https://tinyurl.com/hlueqbc
DA,
From your link –
“The adjusted USHCN CONUS temperatures are well aligned with recent measurements from NOAA’s U.S. Climate Reference Network . . .
Im not entirely surprised that that the adjusted temperatures are fairly well aligned. With a little more adjustment, they would have agreed even more closely with reality!
Read what you link to, before you link. You might look a little less stupid.
Cheers.
DA…”From the scientific agency that cannot be referenced:”
Try NCD-C and tell readers to remove the hyphen before a copy/paste.
From your link:
“The number of land surface weather stations in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) drops off in recent years. This fact is an indication of our success in adding historical data”.
Let’s see if we can make sense of this. NOAA is admitting that it’s own data source, GHCN, has dropped off surface stations in recent years. In a link from NOAA I have posted several times, they admit the drop off is over 75%, from 6000 stations globally to less than 1500. Chiefio shows a 90% drop off since 1990.
But wait, NOAA thinks that is OK because they have added ‘historical’ data. From Dictionary.com, historical is defined as ‘from the past, not from the present’. So NOAA freely admits to slashing real station data by over 75% and replacing it with data from the past.
Are you freaking crazy? Are you willing to accept this double-talk to cover up for cheating?
Do you not understand what that means? They have slashed current data by over 75% while using less than 25% in a climate model to SYNTHESIZE the data they slashed. Through that scientific misconduct, they have managed to weed out cooler stations while ensuring the stations they have retained is data from warmer stations.
The historical part is an admission that they have retroactively fudged the historical record to show a smooth, positive trend from the 1850 onward. They erased the record warming in the US of 1934 and fudged the SST to show a trend from 1998 – 2012 where the IPCC claimed there was none.
Gordon Robertson says:
How can CO2, at 0.04% of atmospheric gases block anything when each atom on the Earths surface is radiating IR?
Paint several targets on the side of a barn. Stand back, and throw a ball at them.
Whats the chance of hitting a target?
Well, it obviously depends on the number of targets.
BUT IT ALSO DEPENDS ON HOW BIG EACH TARGET IS.
People like Gordon are only thinking about the first number, while ignoring the second. Very unscientific.
DA,
Overcoats. Barns. Balls. Targets. What is your point? What is your hypothesis? Are you trying to claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter?
Maybe you could find some of the marbles you seem to have lost. You certainly appear capable of supporting something that does not exist because it would to have to reverse the laws of physics if it did.
Maybe you could produce a testable GHE hypothesis. It is the basis of the scientific method.
Your fanatical pursuit of pseudoscience is pointless and irrelevant, as are your foolish analogies, relating as they do to something which doesn’t exist – the GHE.
Press on, David. Keep insisting that increasing the amount of of CO2 in the atmosphere raises the surface temperature. You might care to explain why this miracle did not work for the first four and half billion years or so of the Earth’s existence.
Or don’t explain. Up to you.
Cheers.
DA…”Paint several targets on the side of a barn. Stand back, and throw a ball at them”.
You’re talking one ball and one barn. I’m talking a bazillion balls, thrown all at once over an area 100,000 times the barn wall area, and one barn.
The number of balls doesn’t matter. Nor does the area of the barn.
You are only considering the number of targets, and not their size.
Correction: THese parameters do matter, but are (obviously) considered fixed.
GR,
See how David entices people to follow him down the rabbit hole of his choosing.
All it leads to is an endless series of gotchas, and proclamations of how wrong you are.
Anything to deny, divert and confuse.
And yet, still no GHE. just more pointless and irrelevant analogies!
Run, David, run! Dodge, David, dodge!
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson says:
May 5, 2018 at 5:19 PM
It is fake. The red-running average on Roys UAH graph looks nothing like yours and its not even close to the fudged positive trend shown by NOAA.
There should be no noticeable trend on your blue line between 1998 and about 2015 but there is one.
*
This is the graph Robertson pretends to be fake:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1525532428941.jpg
1. First of all, let us have a look at the data.
For UAH: column 3 of
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
The linear estimate computed by Excel out of this UAH time series for 1998 – 2015 is
0.01 ± 0.02 °C / decade. Flat trend.
For NOAA: column 3 of
https://tinyurl.com/yakjhzon
The linear estimate computed by Excel out of this NOAA time series for 1998 – 2015 is
0.143 ± 0.02 °C / decade. All but a flat trend.
2. Let us now compare Roy Spencers original graph upthread with my UAH output by Excel, but this time
– without the NOAA plot
– with the anomalies marked with little circles
and
– with a (non centered) red coloured 13 month running mean instead of the 36 month running mean I used:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1525649388481.jpg
As everybody can see, the only difference between the two is that I do not use a centered mean, as my Excel does not provide for it.
Robertson, I told it so often: you are an ignorant boaster and a liar.
La P,
If you cannot produce a testable GHE hypothesis, your obsession with brightly coloured pictures achieves nothing. What are you trying to say?
Are you convinced that CO2 has magical heating properties which took four and a half billion years to become evident? Or maybe that exterminating humanity by removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a beneficial outcome?
What is your point? Calling somebody a liar is a bit silly, if you cannot actually say what you think they are lying about (and why), isn’t it?
Pseudoscientists can often be distinguished by the silly things they say.
Cheers.
Oooooh… the Flynn blogbot!
The guy whose Schäferhund certainly barks more intelligent stuff than he ever would manage to write here :-))
Pseudoscientists can often be distinguished by the silly things they say.
Exactly, blogbot, exactly. Of your own sentence you are the best example evah.
La P,
And generally, the delusional GHE pseudoscientists resort to ad hominem nonsense in lieu of providing facts to back up their mad assertions.
You cannot actually provide anything faintly scientific – such as a testable GHE hypothesis – can you?
Of course not, hence the laughable attempts deflect attention away from your pseudoscientific refusal to acknowledge reality! Tell me again – how does increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer make the thermometer hotter? Or does it achieve this miracle by making it cooler and then applying climatological magical inverted physics?
Something like the climatological belief that a reduced rate of cooling is magically inverted to be a rise in temperature? I am sure you will refuse to justify your delusion in scientific terms involving fact.
I understand.
Back to your brightly coloured pictures. Maybe more colours might help.
Cheers.
binny…here’s the NOAA global temperature set:
NOTE…REMOVE – FROM NCD-C
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/noaa-global-surface-temperature-noaaglobaltemp
Looks nothing like yours or UAH. Note how they fudged 2014 to be the warmest year evah.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Looks nothing like yours or UAH. Note how they fudged 2014 to be the warmest year evah.”
By now Gordon doesn’t care if he lies or not.
He’s anonymous — why would he care?
DA…”By now Gordon doesnt care if he lies or not.
Hes anonymous why would he care?”
****
The thought-police could find me easy enough if they wanted to. I’m not hiding behind multiple proxies.
You call me a liar but you cannot prove what I claim is false. That’s because NOAA admits it themselves, with impunity, as if slashing over 75% of their database then fudging it in a climate model is good science.
That’s not to mention them moving 2014 into the warmest year on record based on a 48% confidence level. or erasing the US 1934 record.
binny…”Let us now compare Roy Spencers original graph
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1525649388481.jpg ”
Pretty, just like Roy’s graph. Are you claiming NOAA’s data looks like that?
Pull the other leg.
NOAA has fudged there series to show a trend from 1998 – 2015, there is no such trend on Roy’s graph. NOAA shows a marked trend from 1990 on, but it’s in the +ve anomaly region.
Notice how carefully GR picks his endpoints — not because they’re relevant to climate change, but because they give him the result he wants.
Grifters and liars never change their ways.
DA,
What would you call delusional GHE believers who absolutely refuse to accept the longest trend there is? From the creation of the Earth, to now? Are they cherry picking, or not?
Even you aren’t silly enough to believe the Earth has heated since then, I am guessing.
If the Earth has cooled since it was molten, then the GHE certainly hasnt made it hotter!
Or maybe the GHE is a recent phenomenon, do you think? New physics, made real by Hansen, Mann, Schmidt and the rest of the loonies?
If you cannot provide a testable GHE hypothesis, how many rational people will even be able to figure out what you are trying to communicate?
Oh well, you can always ask gotchas, and demand to prove that the non-existent does not exist. All about as stupid as Trenberth demanding that the scientific method be tipped on its head. He later complained that it was travesty that Nature did not seem to be obeying his predictions – and that heat had somehow gone missing! Hard to find something that did not exist in the first place. Do you know where it went, or how much is missing, perhaps?
Carry on. Keep making demands. Good luck.
Cheers.
UAH average for 5-year period centered on 1998: +0.09
UAH average for last 5 years: +0.30
It’s not averages that count, it’s trends — even trends of averages.
You don’t give anything to compare your numbers to….
The averages are clearly meant to be compared to EACH OTHER.
But just to keep the prickly man happy:
May 83-Apr 88 ___ -0.16
May 88-Apr 93 ___ -0.11
May 93-Apr 98 ___ 0.02
May 98-Apr 03 ___ 0.13
May 03-Apr 08 ___ 0.12
May 08-Apr 13 ___ 0.10
May 13-Apr 18 ___ 0.30
Trend: +0.0674 degrees per 5-year period.
It’s warmer at Concordia station, only -68 C. Forecast – 58 C. But that’s only 10 degrees difference.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/concordia-station/ext
At the south pole, the stratosphere is near the Earth’s surface.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
Temperature falls with height through the troposphere then rises through the stratosphere. The tropopause is the altitude where the temperature reaches a minimum.
Your graph shows that at the South Pole, that minimum is occurring at a value of about 30 on the vertical axis.
What you don’t seem to understand is that altitude on the vertical scale is represented by AIR PRESSURE. That measure of 30 represents the altitude where the atmospheric pressure is 0.03 standard atmospheres.
You really should try to understand these graphs before posting.
bond…”Your graph shows that at the South Pole, that minimum is occurring at a value of about 30 on the vertical axis.
What you dont seem to understand is that altitude on the vertical scale is represented by AIR PRESSURE. That measure of 30 represents the altitude where the atmospheric pressure is 0.03 standard atmospheres”.
********
You do realize that the stratosphere base has a variable altitude, dropping to as low as 7 km above the poles???
Exactly. 7 km. I find it interesting that you wish to support ren’s claim that 7 km qualifies as “near the Earths surface”.
bond…”Exactly. 7 km. I find it interesting that you wish to support rens claim that 7 km qualifies as near the Earths surface.
*********
Close enough in mid-winter when the Arctic has no solar radiation. I presume that 7 km is above sea level.
When you consider that Mt. Everest is part of the Earth’s surface and is about 9 km above sea level and Mt. McKinley about 7 km, that’s not a lot altitude-wise. As you know, McKinley is located in Alaska.
My understanding is that the blasts of Arctic air we get frequently in Canada mid-winter come from cold air descending from the stratosphere.
It’s an interesting thought that McKinley, at a bit over 20,000 feet, has it’s peak near the base of the stratosphere. Also, that Everest’s peak is near the top of the troposphere.
Mt. Vinson in Antarctica is at nearly 5 km.
Only problem is that the tropopause in ren’s diagram was significantly higher than 7 kn. He was claiming it showed that it was unusually low when in fact it was unusually high. Perhaps you should also understand what the graph is showing before wildly jumping in to support someone just because they happen to be on your side of the debate.
Gordon Robertson,
Regarding your claim that amplitude modulation results from adding the carrier to the signal, please read what I have typed up for you:
https://tinyurl.com/GR-Modulation
Given that this took me well over an hour to prepare, I trust that you will be uncharacteristically polite in response.
bond…”Given that this took me well over an hour to prepare, I trust that you will be uncharacteristically polite in response”.
Seeing tried to be polite, I’ll try to be polite. I explained it, it’s an apparent addition but the electronic process is not mathematical. It can be done mathematically, I’ve seen it done, but it seems to me you are missing certain concepts in your presentation, like the actual electronics involved and how it gets done.
Part of the reason I get ornery at times is that I have spent decades learning this stuff only to have bloggers here call me a liar, or that I’m making it up.
I have nothing against you personally, I’m just fed up with uncorroborated alarmist propaganda and when you come along preaching more of the same, I’m afraid I tend to lump you in with the rest.
I would not mind nearly as much if people would stop preaching down their noses at me and discuss this stuff using tried and true science. What grates me are thought-experiments in lieu of established laws like the 2nd law of thermodynamics and claiming heat is not real, rather it is a mode of energy transfer, without specifying the energy being transferred.
If you run a high frequency (say RF) continuous carrier into the base circuit of a transistor amplifier, in a Class A configuration (no distortion), the carrier would be amplified as is to a larger signal.
In a simple NPN transistor amplifier, the collector circuit is fed from the power supply through a resistor. The idea is to develop a voltage across the resistor due to the collector current, which is controlled by a much smaller current through the emitter-base circuit. With quiescent conditions, with no signal applied, the idea is to have the collector voltage equal half the power supply voltage (Vcc).
If you can vary the collector voltage while the amplification is taking place, the RF carrier will take the shape of the modulating variation. So, it’s a matter of introducing a low frequency modulating signal via a transformer into the collector circuit of the transistor so it varies the Vcc.
The LF signal is not added algebraically, the RF signal is amplified above and below a quiescent voltage which is often set to half the applied voltage. In essence, by raising/ lowering the supplied voltage at the collector, you are shaping the RF carrier to the LF signal.
Therefore the carrier is amplified and at the same time takes the shape of the LF signal. The net result is that the two signals appear as an algebraic sum but there is nothing in such an amplifier to add them algebraically.
If you look at your application using direct addition, only one half of the carrier is affected at a time, If you do it with an amplifier, both sides of the carrier increase/decrease simultaneously.
There is no LF signal on the carrier, it’s a pure RF carrier but its envelope is in the shape of a LF signal. To recover the LF signal at the other end you have to treat the RF carrier as described. You need to remove the RF while retaining the LF signal. It’s called detection, or demodulation.
It’s done in an AM radio using a straight half-wave rectifier. In the front end of the receiver, the modulated carrier is converted to a lower intermediate frequency and the rectifier is applied to it. The rectified pulses are applied to a capacitor, which smooths them back into a LF signal and that is applied to an audio amplifier.
Because the RF is such a high frequency compared to the audio, a small capacitor with smooth the RF enough so it cannot be heard.
Continue to believe that 1+2=2 if you really want to.
Look at the sub-heading in the following link:
http://www.dspguide.com/ch10/5.htm
From the text:
“Amplitude modulation is an example of the reverse situation, multiplication in the time domain corresponds to convolution in the frequency domain.”
Which is exactly what my mathematics showed you.
bond…”Amplitude modulation is an example of the reverse situation, multiplication in the time domain corresponds to convolution in the frequency domain.”
1)Did you read my explanation wrt the actual electronics or is it perhaps too hard to follow? I tried to simplify it but I forget that even simplified explanations in electronics make little sense to the uninitiated.
When I say, ‘tried to simplify’, I meant I was dusting off copious amounts of rust. If you want a detailed explanation I could dig deep and give it to you. A transmitter does not use class A amplifiers, more like class C, where the output signal has only half or less of the waveform remaining.
When I studied electrical engineering (EE251 to be precise) they developed a differential equation for an amplifier then used various forcing functions to see how it responded. The first forcing function was a unit impulse function, a fancy name for a square wave. The equation could be setup to receive both a HF carrier and a LF modulating signal.
Carrier modulation is not simply adding sine waves and/or cosine waves, it is fairly complex since you have to allow for the amplification and it’s anomalies, like poles and such. If it were as simple as addition/multiplication you could do it all with a resistive adder network.
I have tried to use the same argument with alarmists here who claim positive feedback can be done without an amplifier. Some have argued it can be done with a resistive adder network but positive feedback that can lead to a runaway condition (tipping point) requires an amplifier. Obviously there is no amp in the atmosphere and climate models that include such a positive feedback are grievously in error.
2)Fourier transforms are about something else altogether. If you look at the title, it is in reference to digital signals, which are square waves. You can create a square wave using addition and multiplication of sine/cosine waves using a Fourier series.
With Fourier, you are transforming between the time domain and the frequency domain.
I have no idea what your background might be in mathematics, and mind has decayed to rust, so I am not talking down to you in the following, just sharing.
There’s a great example of the Fourier series here under ‘Convergence’. It shows clearly how the first few terms of a series can be used to create a square wave. Note on some drawings a small vector with its tail on the rotating point on the circle is rotating itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series
Note that for the first drawing of the square wave, the point turning by itself is described by (4sin theta)/pi. For the next drawing, it becomes (4sin 3theta)/3pi then
(4sin 5theta)/5pi. The theta angle is increasing in odd integers (1,3,5), and with the addition of each odd integer, which could be called a harmonic, a square wave slowly forms.
I have no doubt that you could use Fourier transforms to add/multiply the two waveforms for modulation and it would likely be a lot easier using Laplace transforms concurrently. The latter has the advantage of simplifying the math into the s-plane, where the terms are a lot easier to deal with than using the sin/cos directly.
I don’t need to look at the electronics. All I need is the result. The modulated signal is NOT the sum of the carrier and raw signal. End of story. The process used in arriving at that result does not turn it into a sum.
Fourier transforms are used to analyse the frequency components of ALL waveforms. Not just square waves. The spectrum for any periodic or impulsive sound can be determined by fourier analysis.
For delusionists such as MF.
Assume the earths surface was molten half a billion years ago.
Let’s say the temperature was about 1000 degreesC warmer than today.
My estimate is that the average rate of cooling would be about -.00002 degrees per year.
Current rate of warming is at least +.01 degrees per year.
That means that the GHE is at least 500 hundred times more powerful.
Probably much more than that that since the present rate of cooling at the moment would be far less than the long-term average.
I would estimate the GHE is probably closer to 5 thousand times more powerful!
Please point out any errors I may have made but you are free to ignore this if you like.
I trust your half billion years was just a convenience for the sake of calculation. Of course it wasn’t molten that recently.
One major objection might be that the climate heats the earth only at the very surface, whereas the cooling from a molten planet was occurring at all depths.
Myki,
I am glad you accept the assumption that the Earths surface was molten.
It is not now.
It has cooled over that time. All the cherry picking in the world won’t get rid of that inconvenient fact. According to real scientists, backed by theory and measurements, the Earth is cooling at about one to three millionths of a Kelvin per annum. Slow, but cooling nevertheless. Cooling is not heating.
This leads to your completely bizarre and unfounded assumption that something that cannot even be described or quantified is responsible for any individual thermometer fluctuations. You may talk about averages and all the rest of the climatological diversions, but you still can’t produce even the slightest trace of a testable GHE hypothesis, can you?
Your errors have been pointed out. Try science – physics is a good place to start.
You will probably receive no reward from the leaders of the Warmist sect of the church of Latter Day Scientism, no matter how fervent your devotion to their religious dogma. They are as stupid and ignorant as yourself.
Keep praying – maybe a testable GHE hypothesis will be revealed unto you, graven on stone tablets limned in gold. If you hold your breath while you are waiting, you will discover the penalty for not exhaling, on a regular and unceasing basis, that CO2 you consider to be so evil.
Cheers.
“the Earth is cooling at about one to three millionths of a Kelvin per annum”
Would you please link me to the source of this figure.
(I am not challenging you, so try to avoid using any more of your sickening vitriol.)
B,
I am glad to see you are not challenging me. If you were, you would produce facts to dispute what I said Thanks.
I write what I write – if you choose to be sickened, maybe you should avoid reading – unless you are a masochist, of course.
You are free to tell me what to write – I am equally free to take precisely no notice of you. You have provided no reason why I should, have you?
Reverse the situation, and consider how much notice you would take of me, if I told you how to behave, and what to write. Not a lot, would you say?
Cheers.
So no link then. You can guess my conclusion.
B,
I am surprised you do not realise that I am not interested in your conclusion. What difference does it make to me?
Posing stupid and ignorant gotchas is no substitute for research, in the view of real scientists.
You say you are not challenging me, but proceed to do exactly that, based on precisely no research whatsoever! What efforts have you made to establish whether my information is correct? None that you are prepared to communicate?
Colour me totally unsurprised!
Do you really believe that the Earth is heating due to the magical yet undefined properties of CO2?
You cannot produce a testable GHE hypothesis, so you are just attempting to be silly, unless you can show some evidence to the contrary. Until then, my care factor remains zero.
Cheers.
Oh I’ve done my research, don’t you worry. Which is why I knew you wouldn’t give me a link. Because such a link would say that it is the earth’s CORE which is cooling at that rate. Which says absolutely nothing about the crust, let alone the surface.
B,
So it was a gotcha all along. Stupid and ignorant, as I thought. Now you claim to have done some research, but you are keeping it secret, just saying “believe me”! Really? Believe you? Why should I? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!
How are you going with finding a testable GHE hypothesis? I suppose that is secret too. Ph well, you can always claim you have one. Im sure someone, somewhere will “believe you.
I’m not one of them, needless to say.
Cheers.
You mean the way YOU were saying “believe me”?
And the way it turned out that believing you would have been a mistake?
B,
I apologise. You actually wrote ” . . . don’t you worry.” I don’t.
I don’t ask anyone to believe me. You apparently did. You wrote “I am not challenging you, . . . ” Not my problem if you can’t decide what you think.
You seem to be claiming that I was in error, but of course you are hiding your evidence, for some strange climatological reason. You may believe that the Earth is not continuously losing heat from its surface, if you wish.
You may believe the crust has not cooled. You may believe that Gavin Schmidt is a renowned climate scientist, or that Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate!
Nobody can stop you believing in anything you wish – even the existence of the strangely non-existent testable GHE hypothesis!
You are not alone. The ragtag mob of delusional GHE believers are equally as stupid and ignorant as you. They can’t even describe that which they espouse so vociferously! That is no doubt why you have to spend your time avoiding science. Concentrate on gotchas. You might achieve mastery given a great amount of time and study.
Keep trying. Let me know if you need help. I don’t blame you for avoiding science – you probably would not amount to anything of consequence.
Cheers.
Thanks for the apology. I didn’t see any point in reading after that.
Cheers
MF, you are devoid of any sensible arguments. Some might say all froth and bubble but no substance. I am quite surprised at how foolish you seem. You have completely failed to refute my numbers.
myki…”That means that the GHE is at least 500 hundred times more powerful”.
*********
We’re still waiting for proof that the so-called GHE can warm anything.
At the following link, Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT, who has published several hundred papers in real atmospheric physics, (non-modeled) says this:
Page 3 of 15 near bottom…
“The general idea proposed in the oversimplified treatments is that adding man made greenhouse gases to those naturally present will cause the temperature to increase further. The doubling of CO2 is used as a benchmark for estimating the sensitivity of climate to such increases. It is generally acknowledged that simply doubling CO2 should lead to a warming of about 1 C. However, in current models, the natural greenhouse substances (water vapor and clouds) act in such a manner as to greatly amplify this warming. This is referred to as positive feedback.
There is something very seriously wrong with this oversimplified picture. Namely, the surface of the earth does not cool primarily by thermal radiation. ….”
He goes on to give his explanation of the GHE which makes far more sense.
*********
The big problem with it all, however, is the bending of current laws of thermodynamics to satisfy both the GHE and AGW theories. Lindzen claims the surface does not cool primarily by radiation and that to me is a generous understatement. He does nail it, however, when he explains that in current [climate] models, GHGs are claimed to act as a positive feedback to greatly amplify warming.
Even Lindzen seems to agree that the 2nd law is not violated by the GHE and AGW and that baffles me. How can it escape him? The positive feedback to which he refers relies on GHGs in the atmosphere back-radiating infrared energy to the surface which is supposed to warm the surface BEYOND the temperature it is warmed by solar energy.
The amplification to which Lindzen refers requires an amplifier and that amplifier is not demonstrated. Rather, certain climate scientists seem to think the back-radiated energy alone is an amplifier and that’s sheer nonsense.
The 2nd law requires that any heat transfer must be from a hotter body to a cooler body, without compensation. That compensation is not available in the atmosphere and the atmosphere becomes progressively cooler from the surface as altitude increases. Therefore all GHGs in the atmosphere MUST have a temperature equal to or cooler than the surface. Ergo, no heat transfer allowed from a cooler atmopshere.
Alarmists think they have gotten around that by claiming a net balance of electromagnetic energy satisfies the 2nd law. Other go so far as to claim a net exchange of heat satisfies it, but there’s no such thing.
Thermodynamics experts Gerlich and Tscheuschner summed it up aptly. The 2nd law is about ‘HEAT’, not EM. Therefore it is not permissible to sum fluxes of EM and claim they satisfy the 2nd law. In several other posts, I have explained why at the atomic level.
Sorry, the GHE and AGW are direct contraventions of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
********
Over to you, let’s see your proof of the GHE.
sorry…brain-dead…forgot the link:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
Hey Gordon, someone using your name just called you “brain-dead”. Give him shit.
We have been given enough of that already.
bond…”Hey Gordon, someone using your name just called you brain-dead. Give him shit”.
********
I am not immune to my own sarcasm/cynicism. I can be just as much and idiot as anyone else, the difference being that I have evolved to the point psychologically where I don’t dwell on it or allow it to become an ego issue. More importantly, I freely admit it.
When I’m an idiot, or brain-dead, I let myself know about it. Problem is, I have yet to figure out who is calling who an idiot, or brain-dead, therefore I can’t really figure who the culprit may be.
Actually, I have figured it out, one of them is an image, as in imaginary. Unfortunately, my conscious mind, the image, tends to believe itself and all the nonsense it produces. At times, an awareness overcomes it, revealing its stupidity.
It amuses me that you and others commenting here have not reached that stage as of yet. You are filled with your own importance, a bad situation when trying to do science.
Lighten up and have some fun.
Interesting. Have you considered seeing a shrink?
For anyone who is interested, I am finding this video series rather interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_onPhFCkVQild3TUGF9-PN5k4soByJnd
It starts off pretty stock standard and not that interesting, but it gets interesting once they start talking about the carbon cycle and Ralph Keeling.
bond…”For anyone who is interested, I am finding this video series rather interesting:”
It’s bs. The moment he said heat is another form of radiation at a longer wavelength I knew he was just blabbering.
Heat has no wavelength, it is NOT electromagnetic energy. If someone is going to do a video on an alleged energy budget he should know what heat is before he begins talking about it.
You obviously have no idea what it is either since you seem to have ignored the ignorance being presented in the video. I will extend that to all alarmists since none of them understand the difference between heat and EM therefore become thoroughly confused about the 2nd law.
That’s OK, Mr Dunning-Krueger. My recommendation wasn’t directed towards you and your ilk. It was for people who actually want to further their own education. Apparently you have convinced yourself that you are more intelligent and more knowledgeable than an experienced Harvard professor. The evidence suggests otherwise.
Bond
You are very correct on Gordon Robertson. He makes up nearly all his physics, cannot understand even the simplest ideas (like Inverse Square Law). Is clueless about what a molecular vibration is. Can’t comprehend the 2nd or 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Will totally reject empirical, experimental science in favor of his deluded made up nonsense. Possess zero ability to reflect on his own illogical and inconsistent ideas and see the errors in them. Believes he is far smarter and more knowledgeable than thousands of scientists working in the field doing actual empirical measurements. He is a big waste of time. Almost as mechanical and redundant as Mike Flynn. I think it would be very difficult for an actual human to become as repetitive as Mike Flynn but Gordon Robertson puts up a good effort.
norman…”You are very correct on Gordon Robertson. He makes up nearly all his physics”
I am still awaiting a reply on the ‘New Lewis and Curry’ thread in which I have summarily destroyed your argument re IR and transitions. My ammunition came from the 1962 film to which you linked.
Truth too hard to take?
norman…”Is clueless about…”
All this from someone who has gained his physics from one or two text books, and who has the audacity to judge someone who has actually studied it formally and applied it in depth.
If science was about ego and arrogance, norman would be the greatest scientist of all time. Come to think of it, ego and arrogance are the basis of AGW.
bond…”My recommendation wasnt directed towards you and your ilk. It was for people who actually want to further their own education”.
*********
I interjected to point out that the furtherance of such education has been assaulted in the early stages by a grievous error. What assurance do we have that the entire article is not more of the same?
That’s the problem with AGW, it is built on a very shaky foundation. I would think that my revelation would give you pause to contemplate but apparently not. You seem to gain a feel-good sensation from learning rubbish.
As you feel the need to be pedantic about my use of “Pacific Decadal Index” instead of “Pacific Decadal Oscillation”, you won’t mind if I am equally pedantic by pointing out that this is a series of VIDEOS, not an article. Your word seems all the more strange as you claimed to have watched one of the videos.
Not that this should have any impact on your (lack of) understanding of the science involved, any more than my choice for a graph title had any bearing on what was presented below.
Gordon Robertson says:
May 6, 2018 at 8:28 PM
Let us now compare Roy Spencers original graph
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1525649388481.jpg
Pretty, just like Roys graph. Are you claiming NOAAs data looks like that?
Nobody, Robertson, did ever pretend that. Nobody!
YOU, Robertson pretended my graph comparison of UAH and NOAA to be fake:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1525532428941.jpg
But here is a graph based on exactly the same data, plotted a la Spencer, with 13 month (non centered) running means:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1525675805758.jpg
And I recall the trends computed by Excel for 1998-2015:
UAH: 0.01 0.02 C / decade. Flat trend.
NOAA: 0.143 0.02 C / decade. NO flat trend.
If you now pretend that this graph is a fake as well, then sorry, but either you are completely dumb, or you are definitely a liar.
La P,
Obviously the most brightly coloured graph should win. What is the prize?
Have you found paying customers for your colourful pictures, or are they only for your enjoyment, and the amusement of the public at large?
They might be more impressive if copied onto vellum or papyrus. Just a thought. Good luck with the enterprise. I wish you every success.
Cheers.
Pathetic. Not even humorous.
M,
Thanks for the recommendation. Pathos was my aim – I obviously succeeded.
Cheers.
Yes, you did invoke in us a sense of pity for you. Well done!
Oh I see… once again I forgot to put
0.01 ± 0.02 °C
0.143 ± 0.02 °C
into
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
before sending the comment :-((
binny…”YOU, Robertson pretended my graph comparison of UAH and NOAA to be fake:”
I posted the real NOAA graph and it has nothing in common with your fudged NOAA graph.
Perfect Robertson!
Thus I repeat: either you are completely dumb, or you are definitely a liar.
Every reasonably intelligent person would check wether or not the NOAA graph is fudged by simply entering the two time series into Excel, Open Office, Libre Office or whatever, and constrct therein a graph superposing the time series.
Any 10 years old child is be able to do that.
But the Robertson clown either is too ignorant to do the job, or… prefers to lie, isn’t it?
binny…”Every reasonably intelligent person would check wether or not the NOAA graph is fudged by simply entering the two time series into Excel, Open Office, Libre Office…”
According to you, then, any person with reasonable intelligence could do that and reproduce the NOAA graph exactly as they have produced it. When, then, have you failed to reproduce the NOAA graph anywhere near to the one they have produced?
It gives me some comfort that alarmists as a whole are not reasonable intelligent.
Gordon Robertson says:
May 8, 2018 at 4:23 PM
How do you know that I failed ‘to reproduce the NOAA graph anywhere near to the one they have produced’?
You weren’t even able to understand that my UAH plot with a 36 month running mean is originated from exactly the same source as Roy Spencer’s plot upthread with a 13 month running mean!
I had to explain you that as if you were at best 5 years old, Robertson.
Send me a link to a NOAA graph for the Globe showing the period 1979-2018, and we will see what you still don’t understand.
A surprise today, the 3.4 region dropped today. I had expected it to start moving up as it had did so the day before, as I also anticipated. Then in looking at my daily material, I think I see why the change took place. If this new influencing aspect is going to be the new rule, then here comes the next major La Nina, now. This will last for the next several years.
Invest in thermal undergarments.
Hi Goldminor
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
See how the stratospheric polar vortex in the south develops.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
You must be joking. Look at all the ups and downs in the record. Would you care to take a bet on it?
Index Nino 3.4 again below -0.5.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Very strong contamination with sulfur oxides in Hawaii.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=so2smass/orthographic=-155.30,19.72,3000/loc=-155.376,19.509
Sulfur Dioxide Surface Mass
amount of sulfur dioxide in the air near the earth’s surface
Only at the surface, not in the stratosphere. No chance of global dimming then.
B,
Only if you are dim enough to live in the stratosphere. If you inhabit the real world, the atmosphere is between the surface and space.
The atmosphere and everything suspended in it reduce the amount of energy which reaches the surface. Lower temperatures result. A total solar eclipse shows what results when you prevent most of the Sun’s energy reaching the surface – the temperature falls rapidly.
Keep believing that decreasing the amount of energy reaching the surface results in higher temperatures. Join the rest of the stupid and ignorant people who believe in the non-existent and undescribable GHE. Such beliefs are supported by pseudoscience – not reality.
Cheers.
Only one problem – aerosols in the troposphere get rained out within two weeks. No chance of global dimming.
Cheers
B,
No problem at all, partcularly in places where it doesn’t rain a lot. What you are saying is about as stupid and ignorant as saying that there cannot be any H2O left in the atmosphere, because it would have all condensed out as rain by now!
Quite apart from that –
“Stratospheric sulfur aerosols are sulfur-rich particles which exist in the stratosphere region of the Earth’s atmosphere. The layer of the atmosphere in which they exist is known as the Junge layer, or simply the stratospheric aerosol layer.”
Were you referring to the climatological stratosphere, or the real meteorological stratosphere? Aerosols of various types are kept aloft indefinitely by Brownian motion. The phenomenon has been recorded in graphics going back thousands of years.
Your statement that “. ..aerosols in the troposphere get rained out within two weeks.” Is an unsupported assertion, typical of stupid and ignorant GHE believers.
If you really meant to say something else, you should have said so.
Cheers.
When H2O hits the ground, it can be evaporated again.
Aerosols can’t. You didn’t know that? Happy to assist in your education.
B,
Aerosols are omnipresent in the atmosphere. Just look at the Sun streaming through the windows of a cathedral or other windowed space. It is quite difficult to remove aerosols from air.
Anyone who feels the need can look up the relevant ISO, FED, and BS standards for clean rooms. If you believe that aerosols are not necessary for cloud formation, good for you.
You are obviously ignorant, and stupid to boot. Your wishful thinking, and pseudoscientific fervour are no substitute for fact.
Make another sweeping silly statement.
Cheers.
Unfortunately the aerosol particles don’t listen to your version science. Until recently, global tropospheric aerosol concentrations had been constant or falling since about 1980. I wonder how that would happen as we continue to add aerosols to the atmosphere when they have no exit strategy.
Cheers
B,
What have aerosol concentrations to do with your assertion that aerosols get washed out of the troposphere within two weeks?
You two weeks seems to be a practically infinite period redefined. Four and a half billion years and counting, eh?
Ah! The miracle of climatology. Make a really stupid and ignorant assertion, then try to deny, divert and confuse when challenged.
Still no GHE, is there? Not even a testable GHE hypothesis! Just more pseudoscience and handwaving.
Cheers.
No volcano: Fossil fuel aerosols get rained out, they get replaced by continuing fossil fuel aerosol emissions, which get rained out, which get replaced, … ad infinitum. Net result zero.
Volcano: Higher localized aerosol concentrations which get quickly rained out, getting replaced by continuing fossil fuel aerosol emissions.
Net result: A short-lived localized surge in aerosol emissions followed by a return to the status quo.
Strong volcano (VEI 5 or higher in the tropics): Same effect in the troposphere, aerosols in the stratosphere don’t get rained out and hang around for a couple of years before settling out under their own weight.
Try to follow simple mathematics.
Cheers
A familiar argument:
“Scientists think that the ocean energy that is being released is causing a weakening of the polar vortex winds over the Arctic, which normally keep cold air centered over the polar region. That weakening is then allowing cold polar air to slip southward more often.”
******
And here is some interesting pushback to that idea:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/05/decreasing-cold-waves-most-potent-sign.html?m=1
Last month was the third warmest April on record in the surface temperature data.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/05/07/while-the-u-s-shivered-the-rest-of-the-world-simmered-in-planets-third-hottest-april/?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=
That data is BS.
Even if true, so what? The Earth has been warming since the end of the LIA. The question before us is attribution.
Mark…”Last month was the third warmest April on record in the surface temperature data”.
You are citing pure bs featuring fudged data from Had-crut and NOAA.
Why don’t you look at the real data here on Roy’s UAH site and quite posting propaganda?
May 1st, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2018 was +0.21 deg. C, down a little from the March value of +0.24 deg. C:
THE CORRECT DATA.
UAH measures the lower troposphere, averaged at 13,000+’, it does not measure the surface temperature specifically So UAH is correct for more than 2 and 1/2 miles above the surface of this planet(lower troposphere), not the surface.
ebbetts…”UAH measures the lower troposphere, averaged at 13,000+, it does not measure the surface temperature specifically….”
You are full of it. The AMSU weightings show coverage right into the surface.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/april2018/APRIL%202018%20map.png
The true global picture of temperatures for Apr.
Thank GOD for satellite data.
Thank SCIENTISTS for satellites.
No. Thank some scientists.
And zero gods.
How do you know?
I’ve never seen satellite construction plans, but I’m quite sure there are no gods listed among their designers. If you can prove me wrong, let me know.
B,
Isn’t that about as stupid as saying you have never seen a testable GHE hypothesis, and then asking someone to disprove it?
If I profess belief in the Celestial Teapot (from which all blessings pour), can you prove that the Celestial Teapot does not exist? Or any gods or deities? Your beliefs are yours, and yours alone. Good luck with trying to bend others to your will – there should be good prospects amongst GHE believers – they are capable of believing anything.
Cheers.
Whether or not satellites were designed by a god has no bearing on the question of a god’s existence. If you want to interrupt like a little boy, you really should pay attention to the conversation first if you want your opinion to count for anything.
Cheers.
B,
My opinion, like yours, is worth precisely nothing. People are free to agree, or disagree, as they see fit.
Learn to read. You wrote “And zero gods”. No proof. Just assertion, in an irrelevant comment relating to a comment using the common expression containing the phrase “Thank GOD . . .”.
You are free to tell me what to do. I am free to refuse.
You can always ban me from your blog if you wish.
Cheers.
“Thank some scientists”
“And zero gods”
It seems you have trouble keeping up with the flow of the discussion and interpreting responses in context.
Cheers
“Ive never seen satellite construction plans, but Im quite sure…”
Beyond this point, you have left the realm of science, and ventured into that of subjective opinion. Science does not speculate beyond the boundaries of that which is germane to the specific problem at hand. It is simply irrelevant.
Then of course you agree that religion itself has “left the realm of science, and ventured into that of subjective opinion” and as such is “simply irrelevant”.
bond….”Then of course you agree that religion itself has left the realm of science, and ventured into that of subjective opinion and as such is simply irrelevant.”
Are you talking about AGW?
I agree that religion is irrelevant to the topic at hand. I assume you introduced it as a red herring to appeal to fellow members of your tribe.
bond…”Thank SCIENTISTS for satellites”.
Like Fred Singer who was heavily involved in the US satellite program.
Did I mention that Fred is a skeptic?
Your point in relation to the issue at stake in this thread?
Warming? What warming?
“The UK is now officially enjoying the hottest May Day bank holiday Monday on record after temperatures soared past 24C in the East Sussex village of Herstmonceux.”
Let’s not get into this day by day cherry picking that the other side employ. Use it only in response to their cherry picking.
Myki,
Thanks – i am glad you enjoyed the pathos.
Cheers.
M,
Sorry, the above appeared the wrong place. It was was supposed to appear in response to some other deranged comment you made.
On to more appropriate things.
You wrote “. . . hottest May Day bank holiday Monday . . . – at a staggering 24 C! Quick, head or the hills! As Christine Lagarde form the IMF said (and she would know, being a woman and all) – “Unless we take action on climate change, future generations will be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled.
The temperature has to get well above 24 C before it is suitable for roasting etc.
Take the long term average (no cherry picking here), and you come to the inescapable conclusion that the Earths surface is no longer molten. If you analyse this fact using the world’s fastest supercomputers, you will find that the result is called cooling.
You may claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the surface makes the surface temperature higher by reducing the amount of energy impinging on it, but you might get laughed at.
You can valiantly proclaim that a GHE exists, and that is 5000 times as powerful as something else you cannot quantify, either. The laughter might become louder.
At this point, someone might ask to see a description of this fabulous GHE, which simultaneously cools and heats the surface. Rather than face more laughter, you will no doubt start talking loudly about Deniers, and the Consensus, and anything in general which allow you to leave the vicinity at a rapid rate.
Carry on Myki. Pseudoscience is good for keeping the gullible from using their brains, but not much use to anyone except its promoters. Your lot have no clue, have they? Do they really believe that wiping out humanity by removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a good thing? Or are they stupid and ignorant enough to believe that they can stop the climate from changing?
Fools and frauds. The stupid and ignorant. Go for it. You’ll have to pay for it yourself, though. I’m not voluntarily contributing. Have fun.
Cheers.
As demonstrated quite clearly above, any long-term cooling must be at least 5 thousand times less important than the GHE. You are clutching at straws.
M Flynn – You keep claiming that the molten core of the earth cooling over 4.5 billion years is comparable to the atmosphere of the planet and this proves the surface temperature is not warming somehow? So if the planet is cooling how did the temperature at the surface rise during the recent Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods by +3*C over todays temperatures for hundreds of millions of years? How did the surface temperature warm up from the millions of years of the Carboniferous and Permian ages when you claim that is not possible b/c the planet is cooling since time immemorial?
El Nino or not El Nino?
The 30-day average value for the SOI has dropped into negative territory for the first time in quite a while.
If I counted correctly, last month was the 7th warmest April in the UAH/TLT record. 33 out of 40 were colder.
correct
That depends on what you understand under ‘quite a while’:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml#tabs=SOI
La P,
It’s OK. It is climatological. “Quite a while” means whatever you want it to.
Cheers.
Since about February 5 since you ask.
That is, about 3 months ago for the slow-witted amongst us.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
neutral
If you’re like me, and “Mike Flynn” is the first thing you think of when you see this photo…………you know you’ve been spending too much time at Roy Spencer’s blog:
https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/PE7-8vx6U30ZvRrqzml8pRtLP1M/fit-in/2048xorig/filters:format_auto-!!-:strip_icc-!!-/2018/05/07/823/n/38761221/ff4c61115af09eef406cf1.68527895_/i/Hawaii-Kilauea-Volcano-Eruption-Photos-2018.jpg
Whoops. Let me try again:
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/970af83b2cab3e3fe5ffe1fd8bae8cab3204c7ad/c=3-0-2014-1512/local/-/media/2018/05/06/USATODAY/USATODAY/636612116221393616-lava-1.jpg?height=480&width=640
Lol. Yes! I can picture an old man in a wheel chair raging at the lava flows.
“How dare you interrupt global cooling!” he shouts.
Myki,
A body losing heat is cooling, by definition. Sir Isaac Newton realised this, when he devised Newton’s Law of Cooling.
I assume the lava to which you refer came from beneath the Earth’s surface, and is above 4 K.
Are you claiming that the Earth’s temperature increases by losing heat? Is this yet more evidence of the miraculous power of the invisible GHE?
Stupidity and ignorance are no substitute for reality. Possibly inconvenient, but true.
More nonsensical and irrelevant comments, please.
Cheers.
GHE dominates cooling by a factor of 5 thousand. Enough said.
M,
You can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
Enough said?
Cheers.
S,
Or maybe you know you have been affected by the mental disorder folie de plus. Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, are just a few of the people similarly affected.
Have you thought of trying to locate a copy of the heretofore missing testable GHE hypothesis?
It might invite respect from the rational majority. You never know!
Cheers.
The SOI is not an accurate indication of ENSO.
ENSO 3.4 is what you need to go by.
Who says so?
I could argue that the MEI is more accurate.
(Multivariate Enso Index).
One could, and they might be right. But all authorities from NOAA to BOM state that SOI is only a very rough indicator of ENSO. And they make it very clear that the daily values are not significant at all – only the 3-month average carries useful information.
Yes. But history tells us that the switch to/from ENSO extremes takes place at around this time of year. Thus, while not statistically significant, the latest dip is well worth watching.
Not sure about “extremes”. Perhaps “phases” or “states”.
I just feel that watching the daily and weekly changes in the SOI and trying to find trends is no different to someone else here who sees a trend every time the global sea surface temperature has a fall, but writes off the equally prevalent rises as noise.
bond…” all authorities from NOAA to BOM state that SOI is only a very rough indicator of ENSO”.
We can rule out BOM and NOAA since both lost their credibility when they entered the domain of climate propaganda.
It is Gordon losing credibility with his own version of climate propaganda. Though Gordon does understand the difference between 1) EMR brightness and 2) thermometer kinetic temperatures better than many.
Gordon,
So your conclusion is that the daily and weekly fluctuation in SOI IS a good indicator of ENSO??
Chaps,
“. . . (ENSO) is an irregularly periodic variation in winds and sea surface temperatures over the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean . . .”
Just measure the temps and winds. You don’t need indicators or indications. Just measurements.
Keep arguing about irrelevancies – it is fun to watch!
Cheers.
You do know that the SOI is based on mslp measurements?
And that the MEI is based on a range of measured variables?
And that the measurements are correct ?
Or do you think the nasty NOAA people corrupt them on a daily basis?
Lol
M,
Why not just use the measurements that define the ENSO? Don’t you believe the data or the definition?
Are you terrified of science and simplicity – Occam’s razor, and all that?
Press on.
Cheers.
Why is everybody so concerned with ENSO?
I thought CO2 was the climate driver.
It is. ENSO variability is not climate. Temperatures vary for reasons other than climate you know. Next thing you’ll be claiming the difference between January and July temperatures is due to climate.
B,
Maybe you can tell me how CO2 drives climate? Where does it drive it to? How does it do it?
Climate is the average of weather, so I assume you are saying that CO2 “drives” weather. Is “drives” another meaningless climatological redefinition?
If you believe you can predict weather, and hence climate, you are in a fairly small group of fellow sufferers, afflicted with delusional thinking,
You can’t even describe the non-existent GHE in any meaningful terms, can you? No hypothesis, no theory, just blind faith, it would seem.
Pseudoscience, of a very low standard. Not even as convincing as phrenology. Much less use than astrology, given the numbers of devout astrology believers.
Accept reality – until you can propose a testable GHE hypothesis, derision is the best you can expect from real scientists. Speculations and fantasies are not facts.
Cheers.
The topic is ENSO. Try to stay focused.
Focused? No way – he is having another one of his episodes.
Another one? Surely it has been just one lifelong episode. People like that don’t have good moments.
B,
Why should I dance to your tune? You apparently claim that CO2 “drives” something or other, in some non-definable way.
I’ll do as I wish – I presume you can do the same. ENSO sounds very sciency, but of course is purely a diversionary phenomena.
Here –
“. . . (ENSO) is an irregularly periodic variation in winds and sea surface temperatures over the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean . . . ”
That more or less says it all, doesn’t it? Records show variability in temperatures and wind speeds. Maybe this is wondrously surprising to you, but surprises me not at all. About what I would expect from a chaotic deterministic system.
And you? A mystical climatological manifestation, perhaps? What do think its significance might be?
Seems like a big nothing burger to me.
Cheers.
Nurse !!
professorP
I suspect he is a patient of Ronny Jackson.
bond…”It is. ENSO variability is not climate. Temperatures vary for reasons other than climate you know”.
Then you are claiming climate is a natural phenomenon that can drive processes, like solar energy drives them?
Silly, me, I thought it was a mathematical averaging of weather.
Sal
I wouldn’t care except the global cooling crowd can be intolerable, don’t you think? (They get emboldened with every La Nina)
S,
If you find people intolerable, why do tolerate them? Do you have strong masochistic tendencies?
You say you wouldn’t care except for the actions of people you don’t care for, or about. Why bother caring at the behest of people you don’t like?
Have you no self control? If you don’t want to care, just stop caring. Pretty simple If you think about it.
Cheers,
Poor man. So many questions.
The world must seem terribly confusing to him.
p,
I wondered when the Lesser Whining Psychobabbler would return.
It seems you scraped through your Stupidity, Ignorance, Pointlessness and Irrelevance studies.
Congratulations!
I wish you well. I hope you continue to set a high standard with yet more pointless, irrelevant, stupid and ignorant comments.
Cheers.
mike…”I wondered when the Lesser Whining Psychobabbler would return”.
I think it has been here all along, using a different nym, or nyms. It’s part of the training alarmists receive at realclimate and SkS meetings, how to change nyms to make it appear as if alarmists are more prevalent than they are.
Look at binny swapping between Bindidon and La Pag. Snape does it regularly and who knows how many alarmists are at it.
We don’t tolerate them. We tell them they are intolerable. Duh!
Cheers
Stupid boy. Another El Nino event is likely to result in another global average temperature record. Surely that is obvious.
Not really. Another super El Nino might. But it is only two years since the last one, so we are trending only 0.026 degrees higher. That is far too small a margin to say anything is ‘likely’.
But it is unlikely we are going to have another super El Nino for some time. A moderate El Nino within the next decade would most likely not break those records.
Flynn
Enough of your crap already!
YOU: “You may claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the surface makes the surface temperature higher by reducing the amount of energy impinging on it, but you might get laughed at.”
Instead of repeating this stupid statement hundreds of times DO some real science dude!
Give a calculation of how much Downwelling Solar energy is absorbed by CO2. What is the actual amount. You keep posting this as some established fact but you provide zero support for it. What is the value?
I know Gordon Robertson is attempting to be a repetitive as you. I guess the two of you believe that if you repeat bogus nonsense enough times it becomes a reality. You two are a complete disgrace to valid scientific skeptics. You both make up claims with zero support. Then you claim actual science is bogus without any valid reason. You make delusional claims of Authority, yet neither of you are very smart, have very little science knowledge, and are both possessed by a spirit of arrogance and delusion that has no limits.
The two of you make Einstein proud.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_100015
Sometimes I wonder if you two could get any less knowledgeable in this age of easy access to libraries of good valid information. Then you post something and I get astounded that, yes you show even less knowledge and logical, rational thinking ability.
norman…”Give a calculation of how much Downwelling Solar energy is absorbed by CO2″.
Unfair Norman. Not one alarmist climatologist has been able to give such a number for the amount of surface radiation absorbed and back-radiated by CO2. How’s Mike supposed to have such information for solar energy?
You see, Norman, each CO2 molecule is hidden by 2500 N2/O2 molecules and its absorp-tion/emission bands are overlain with the water vapour spectrum.
The notion that CO2 is absorbing/emitting anything in the atmosphere is a guess based on what it can do in lab experiments at much higher concentrations.
Look at it this way. Suppose you added the equivalent weight ratio of nitrogen to a constant volume as it has in air. The pressure in the tank would increase therefore the temperature has to increase. So take its temperature.
Now add the equivalent weight ratio of oxygen to the nitrogen and take it’s temperature. You should have 99% or so of the same ratio as you have in air.
Now add 0.8% for Argon and take the temperature. You now have nearly 100% of the equivalent of air in the atmosphere.
But wait, we forgot the CO2. OK add the 0.04% of CO2…that’s 4 one hundredths of 1%. Do you seriously think you could measure the temperature increase with a normal thermometer? Even if you sprayed it with IR at the same intensity it is emitted from the surface, do you think the temperature of gas in the tank would rise noticeably?
Now here’s a neat trick, we forgot the water vapour. So we add 1% to reach the average value of WV in the atmosphere. Now the gas percentage is now in excess of 100% of what it would be in the atmosphere.
Something seems a bit off scientifically, but, hey, when you have a hoax theory like AGW rolling who cares about precision? Do you think the addition of that WV on top of the CO2 could increase the gas temperature noticeably if you radiated the mix with IR at the same intensity it comes off the surface?
“Do you seriously think you could measure the temperature increase with a normal thermometer?”
Seriously, Prof. Tyndall did so, using .04% CO2 in lab air at 1bar, he found several degrees F. Using boiling water as the IR source = much, much less energy than the sun. Look up the experimental details and quote his exact words, no Gordon words.
Gordon thinks a small number means a small impact. But the GHE is based on quantum mechanics, which is notoriously unintuitive and strange.
Some molecules are much better at ab.sorpb.ing IR than others. I dont understand why that reality must be denied.
N,
According to NASA –
“About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earths climate system. About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone, . . .”
NASA doesnt go out of its way to split out CO2, but says that H2O is the most important GHG.
Tyndall estimated about 35% (based on measurements), so allowing for the double counting by NASA, its initial 52% not reaching the ground is actually less. NASA indicates elsewhere an estimate of 35% or so, very close to Tyndalls figure.
Ill repeat –
You may claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the surface makes the surface temperature higher by reducing the amount of energy impinging on it, but you might get laughed at.
NASA certainly seem to be intimating that less energy reaching the surface results in hotter thermometers through the magic of the GHE. I agree this is a ridiculous and contradictory position, but some NASA employees are ridiculous and contradictory.
You can plainly see why neither you, nor NASA, nor anybody else can concoct a testable GHE hypothesis. It would have to contain two mutually exclusive propositions – reducing energy input both lowers and raises temperatures simultaneously!
Try it, if you are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that fantasy can replace fact, without anybody becoming aware!
Off you go, Norman. Toss out some more fact free, ad hominem comments. It wont do any harm, I suppose, and may offer a target for someone’s excess derision.
Cheers.
Increased CO2 doesn’t reduce incoming radiation. Perhaps you should research the spectrum of wavelengths radiated by the sun vs the spectrum of wavelengths radiated by the colder earth, then compare them to the band of wavelengths at which the CO2 greenhouse effect operates.
Cheers
Bond,
You present a grand handwaving display. If you feel like backing up your bizarre assertion, do so.
You claim that CO2 doesn’t reduce incoming radiation. Unfortunately for you, more than 50% of the Sun’s radiation is infrared. I’ll let others decide if the Sun’s spectrum magically omits any frequencies which can interact with electrons being integral to the CO2 molecule. I’ll just point out that CO2 exposed to any frequencies emitted by a surrounding environment will reach a temperature in equilibrium with that environment.
Alternatively, just compressing CO2 can raise its temperature to any required value. When the pressure is released, the CO2 will radiate at progressively longer wavelengths until its temperature drops that of the environment.
You can’t even describe the Greenhouse Effect on which you rely, because it doesn’t exist.
You are probably one of those stupid and ignorant people who claim that CO2 can only be heated by certain frequencies. What breathtaking misunderstanding!
Learn physics. You obviously know little. Time for more nonsensical assertions? Go your hardest.
Cheers.
Indeed, just over half of the sun’s emissions are in the infrared.
But you seem to have no comprehension of how large the infrared band is.
Here is a graph of the solar spectrum:
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.meteo300/files/sun_irradiance_0.png
Note the horizontal scale.
Where does 15 microns appear on that scale?
How low do you think that graph would go if it were extended to 15 microns?
Cheers
Nice graph. But wasted on the old man.
B,
Precisely what are you disagreeing with me about?
What have your silly attempted gotchas to do with anything I wrote? Why should I answer?
You wrote “Increased CO2 doesnt reduce incoming radiation.” Complete nonsense. Would you like to insist you are correct? Maybe you could produce some evidence that CO2 is completely transparent (the same as a vacuum) to all frequencies emitted by the Sun?
I believe you are stupid and ignorant, and convinced that pious belief is superior to physical fact. Now is the time to say you didn’t really mean what you wrote – a standard climatological evasion and avoidance tactic.
How is the search for the inconveniently invisible testable GHE hypothesis going? No wonder you want to avoid talking about science! You don’t know the difference between fact and fantasy.
Cheers.
OK – CO2 reduces almost non-existent incoming radiation at the 15 micron wavelength.
Water enters a tank via an inlet at 1 cm^3 per second.
It leaves via an outlet at 1000 cm^3 per second.
Net result: Water leaves at 999 cm^3 per second.
Both the intake and outtake are now reduced by 10%.
Water now enters at 0.9 cm^3 per second.
It now leaves at 900 cm^3 per second.
Net result: Water leaves at 899.1 cm^3 per second.
Result of reducing the flow to both tanks:
A reduction in the flow of water leaving the tank by 99.9 cm^3 per second, almost 10%.
The effect works in both directions. But it is not close to an even playing field.
I look forward to your attempt to divert the discussion.
Cheers
B – try using a toilet cistern as an analogy. That would appeal to the old man.
B,
You have now decided you really meant to write something else, but were too stupid and ignorant to realise it before you shot your mouth off. Typical
Now you attempt to wriggle out with the usual pointless and irrelevant analogy.
I ask again, what part of my comment do you disagree with? None?
You obviously cannot describe the GHE, and hope to confuse the issue by talking about water, complete with pointless calculations. Are you scared that you can’t actually figure out how increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer could make a thermometer hotter? Be afraid, be very afraid – only joking, of course.
Try balls, barns, overcoats, bank accounts – anything except supposed GHGs, and the invisible GHE!
Nope. Still no GHE – none, nil, zero.
Four and a half billion years of cooling – no cherry picking there. CO2 has no magical heating properties. No magical one way insulating ability. No heat accumulation. So sad, too bad.
Try prayer. It might help. Strident assertions, backed up by delusional thinking won’t create a testable GHE hypothesis. You will definitely need a miracle!
Cheers,
It seems bot technology has become extremely sophisticated these days.
B,
What is bot technology? Whatever it is, it won’t help you find a testable GHE hypothesis, will it?
Carry on searching.
Cheers,
Wow – bots even answer back.
B,
I suppose if you are stupid and ignorant, you might as well be cryptic and incomprehensible as well. With a bit more practice, you could sound like a climatologist. You’re nearly there.
You don’t need to thank me for the encomium, it is my pleasure.
Cheers.
Comprehensibility is a measure of the reader’s ability to understand.
Cheers
B,
One definition of comprehensibilty –
“The extent to which the text as a whole is easy to understand. That is, the extent to which valid information and inferences can be drawn from different parts of the same document.”
You wrote –
“Wow bots even answer back.”
Another unsupported and wild assertion? Your idea of valid and easily understood information?
The sort of thing expected from someone who is stupid and ignorant, and delusional to boot.
Keep it up. It helps you to avoid addressing the inconvenient fact that you can’t even provide a testable GHE hypothesis to base your fantasies on.
Cheers.
Flynn
So you are basically going to reject a scientific approach and continue with your “pretend I know something” approach. It fools very few people.
What is the percentage of Solar IR (the 50% figure) is in the 15 micron IR range. A number in watts/m^2 would be nice. I have not seen you attempt such. I have seen you reject valid graphs for no apparent reason.
N,
I presume know the answer to the gotcha you pose. If you don’t, you can look it up, I’m sure.
Why are you asking me? What is your point?
I think I know, but I cannot read your mind. That is why I am asking, rather than assuming. You might not be courteous enough to answer, but I leave that to you.
Cheers.
Flynn
Are you a complete moron? You are the one who constantly states that CO2 absorbs solar IR and hence will limit how much IR a thermometer receives.
I am asking you because you are the one making the unsupported claim. The point is real easy, you make a claim in science and it is your responsibility to prove it when challenged.
It is not a “gotcha”. That is your excuse not to answer any of your BS. I have looked it up and can find zero evidence to support your claims. Now it is in you court to prove your statement or quit stating it. If you continue, without support, to make your claim…then you are most dishonest.
Is that what you want to be. A dishonest human?
Support this claim: YOU: You may claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the surface makes the surface temperature higher by reducing the amount of energy impinging on it, but you might get laughed at.
Or quit making it. It is that simple.
N,
I merely point out that nobody has managed to provide something which seems essential to the scientific method – a testable GHE hypothesis.
You wrote –
“Support this claim: YOU: You may claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the surface makes the surface temperature higher by reducing the amount of energy impinging on it, but you might get laughed at.
What am I supposed to be claiming? I pointed out that if you claim something ridiculous, you may get laughed at. Obviously, you may not. You would have to be stupid and ignorant to accuse me of claiming something I didnt.
You cannot provide a testable GHE hypothesis. That is just a statement of fact, unless you can provide such a testable GHE hypothesis.
You may not believe that the Earths surface is no longer molten, or that the surface cools at night. You may believe as you wish, but the absence of a testable GHE hypothesis makes belief irrelevant.
You may continue to demand that I stop pointing out the obvious, and I will continue to ignore such demands.
Do you still believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and a heat source will make the thermometer hotter? I do not believe so, but maybe you can demonstrate that it is so, under controlled conditions.
I suggest a sealed temperature controlled environment, containing a constant output heat source distant from a thermometer. If such a container is filled with air, do you think that replacing the air with 100% CO2 will cause the thermometer to get hotter? Having thought such, do you think that replacing the CO2 with air, once again will cause the thermometer to fall in temperature once again?
I have never seen a record of such a thing. Nor have you, I warrant. All in your imagination. Try it if you wish. Don’t blame me if it doesnt go as you expect.
Cheers.
A GHE Hypothesis. The Earth emits IR radiation over a range of wavelengths as a function of temperature. Some of that IR EM is absorbed by CO2, H2O vapor and other GHG’s in the atmosphere above. Those gases radiate IR EM in both the upward and downward directions. The downward IR EM is absorbed by the Earth, aka, the Green Plate Effect. The Earth’s temperature must increase so that the net energy flow is returned to balance.
Fact. The downward IR EM spectrum has been measured thousands of times over the past 25 years or so. The data is available for anyone willing to make the effort to access it.
https://www.arm.gov/publications/tech_reports/handbooks/aeri_handbook.pdf
Now, take the green and blue plates out of the vacuum chamber, and allow free convection between them. How does the temperature differential depend upon the rate of convection?
E,
Nope. You have missed the bit where you say The following phenomenon has been observed . . . or The GHE is a phenomenon which . . .
Cobbling together a collection of sciency words, and referring to unsupported assumptions such as the Green Plate Effect, is an exercise in wishful thinking.
You have not even stated what it is you are trying to explain, have you?
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so. No GHE there. The Surface temperature drops at night – no GHE there. The surface temperature drops rapidly during a total solar eclipse. No GHE there.
What does this supposed GHE explain? The fact that an object exposed to sunlight gets hotter? That same object, in the absence of sunlight, gets cooler?
Try again. Pretty soon, I am pretty sure you will realise why the finest self proclaimed climate scientists in the universe have not managed to produce a testable GHE hypothesis.
Talking of net energy flow and balance is meaningless bafflegab in your context. Sounds impressive, but conveying no useful information whatever.
Cheers.
test for duplicate….
Mike…”About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone, . . .
NASA doesnt go out of its way to split out CO2, but says that H2O is the most important GHG.
Tyndall estimated about 35% (based on measurements), so allowing for the double counting by NASA…”
********
NASA is a big outfit and not all of them are brain-washed like they are at GISS. They put GISS up in a building in New York, likely so they won’t contaminate the serious science being done at NASA proper.
Boltzmann also estimated the absorp-tion of incoming IR as about one-third.
REAL NASA likely omitted CO2 because it is insignificant and it’s absorp-tion band centre point is a bit lower than the solar IR band. Of course, they do overlap but alarmist diagrams tend to ignore that.
Still the warmed WV, etc, should warm the CO2 significantly before surface IR gets to it.
These little facts are inconvenient for alarmist science and they tend to ignore them. Furthermore, anyone looking for IR in a certain band will not be interested in absorp-tion/emission in other bands covered by nitrogen and oxygen. It’s simply presumed those gases have no appreciable affect on absorp-tion/emission of solar or terrestrial energy.
It’s also conveniently ignored that N2/O2 absorb surface heat directly through conduction. Alarmist write off that heat transfer but Lindzen claims it is the major form of heat transfer from the surface.
No one really knows the impact of N2/O2 on atmospheric temperatures because no one has really looked.
GR wrote:
Still the warmed WV, etc, should warm the CO2 significantly before surface IR gets to it.
You’re hilarious, pretending that you know more than the experts.
AGW warms all air molecules, by increasing the temperature. But AGW isn’t caused by the kinetic energy of molecules, it’s caused by their quantum properties and radiative transfer.
I know, you know more about quantum mechanics than the experts too.
Dunning-Kruger in action.
There is a significant drop in the surface temperature of the oceans, in particular the eastern south Pacific.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.5.7.2018.gif
Here is the map from a month ago:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.4.5.2018.gif
Please explain what you see as the difference.
And then tell me what you see around SE Asia.
B,
And why should he?
Do you possess some awesome power to bend people to your will?
Keep demanding answers to your witless gotchas. With any luck, someone might take pity and humour you.
Cheers.
You bend to my will every time you respond.
But keep telling yourself you are in control.
B,
If you say so, Bond. If you say so.
Cheers.
davidbennettlaing
There are three major problems with greenhouse warming that Ive pondered for a while without finding satisfactory answers.
First, Ive been unable to find any study in the peer-reviewed literature that uses hard data to confirm the supposed link between CO2 (or other gases) and warming. Even the frequently-cited landmark paper by Feldman, et al., 2015, uses theoretical arguments to prove the link.
Second, although there appears to have been a clear, 24-year episode of AGW from about 1975 to about 1998 during which there was good correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 and warming, thus appearing to confirm the CO2/warming link, the same cant be said for the period prior to 1975 and following 1998. Why is it that this convincing correlation doesnt exist outside this time frame?
Finally, according to MODTRAN6, CO2 gas absorbs and emits significantly only within the waveband 13 to 17 microns, with a maximum at 14.95 microns. If this line spectrum were to be sufficiently pressure-broadened to approximate a continuous Planck spectrum, its peak wavelength of 14.95 microns would correspond to a Wien temperature of only -79 degrees C, which is well below normal Earth surface temperatures and also below the minimum temperature of the tropopause (-36 degrees C) due to the lapse rate. By common experience and the second law of thermodynamics, cooler objects (here, CO2) cant transfer heat to warmer ones (here, Earths surface), and their feeble radiation would simply be reflected away. The inescapable conclusion is that CO2 cant function as a greenhouse gas in Earths atmosphere.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/03/climate-change-due-to-solar-variability-or-greenhouse-gases-part-b/comment-page-1/#comment-2810501
Here is a graph of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation over the time period of interest:
https://tinyurl.com/PacDecInd
Tell me how much correlation you see between the PDO and the warming/stasis period you just stated.
B,
Why should ren tell you anything? Are you too stupid and ignorant to even know the preferred answer to your own gotchas?
More work needed. You are not very subtle, are you? You’re even worse than David Appell, and he is really, really, hopelessly, incompetent.
Cheers.
Hi MikeBot
B,
Stuck for words? Still cant find a testable GHE hypothesis?
So sad. Too bad. Boo hoo.
Cheers.
It must be depressing knowing that you will never expand upon the limited set of thoughts that occupy your skull.
Cheers
B,
Not at all. Your mind reading abilities are on par with your knowledge of physics, or your ability to locate a testable GHE hypothesis – zero, nothing, nil.
Cheers.
No mind reading is involved. That would require a mind to read.
Bond, nothing upsets MF as much as ignoring him. I highly recommend it.
Yeah, I was having fun toying with him for a while, but I made the mistake of continuing past the moment where the fun ended. You can probably see that moment by looking at the nature of my comments in each of threads. You can get only so much pleasure out of taunting a dog that keeps coming back for more.
bond…”Here is a graph of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation over the time period of interest:”
That’s an interesting graph since it’s titled Pacific Decadal Index, not Oscillation, and the PDO was not discovered till 1977 when a mysterious global warming of 0.2C appeared.
I have not looked to see if NOAA has erased that warming but it’s a decent chunk of the nearly 1C warming claimed since 1850. I see another one around 2002, where the global average on Roy’s UAH graph suddenly jumped a similar amount.
With such unexplained jumps, that’s nearly one half of the claimed warming accounted for. Akasofu has put forward a good argument that re-warming from the Little Ice Age should be 0.5C/century. In that case, we have accounted for all warming since 1850 by natural means only.
Ha. The PDO was negative from about 1945-1980, a cooling effect, which subtracts out your +0.2 C number.
Climate is not a bouncing ball. It changes when it’s forced to change, not just because the so-called LIA ended. The LIA wasn’t global anyway.
They keep claiming the end of the LIA as a cause instead of a symptom. They are basically saying that the climate has warmed because it has warmed.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is measured by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation INDEX. Perhaps you would care to explain how my choice to omit the word oscillation affects the content in any way.
ren wrote
No, all photons at any particular wavelength are the same. A body (or a gas) which emits photons at a particular wavelength will also absorb photons at that wavelength. The EM IR emitted by a cooler body will not be “reflected” by the warmer body if that body would also emit photons at that wavelength. Those photons will be absorbed, adding to the internal energy of the warmer body. The reflection of photons at a surface interface is not a function of the temperature of the source of the photons.
E. Swanson
The error you point out seems to dominate the thoughts of the pseudo-skeptics (those with no actual science qualifications and who never are able to support their flawed thought process). I don’t know what skeptical blog came up with it but so many of these skeptics believe photons from a colder body are just reflected from a hotter surface. They state this with no evidence and will perpetuate this false science even when it is demonstrated to be false. That error seems deeply ingrained in the phony skeptics.
“By common experience and the second law of thermodynamics, cooler objects (here, CO2) cant transfer heat to warmer ones (here, Earths surface), and their feeble radiation would simply be reflected away. “
It would be informative to build a pair of booths. Both would have the same air temperature, but one would have room temp walls (20C) and one would have dry ice walls (-78C). The booth with cold walls will feel MUCH colder, even though
1) the air touching you is the same.
2) both walls are cooler than your skin.
If the radiation from either of the colder walls ( -78C or +20C vs 35C skin) ‘simply reflected away’ from the warmer skin, both rooms would feel the same. Maybe this sort of ‘common experience’ would convince people that the radiation from colder objects has a clear and profound affect on energy balance.
Tim Folkerts says, May 8, 2018 at 11:08 AM:
No, Tim. The TEMPERATURE of colder objects has a clear and profound effect on energy balance. Their thermal radiation is merely an effect, a result, a byproduct, a radiative expression, of their temperature. The radiation itself controls nothing. It is itself controlled. It’s a courier. Of a temperature signal. The temperature is the ‘operator’, the radiation but its (connecting) ‘device’.
How many times do we have to redo this whole discussion?
The net radiation absorbed/emitted by a surface is what matters.
The radiation absorbed/emitted depends on
* the temperature of the emitting object
* the surface material & roughness of the emitting object
* the size of the emitting object
* the distance to the emitting object
* materials between the emitting and absorbing object.
* the surface material & roughness of the absorbing object
The TEMPERATURE of colder objects has a clear and profound effect on energy EMITTED from that object — but that is just one of MANY factors that determine the total radiation exchanged. I would MUCH rather know the details of the radiative balance at as surface than know the details of the temperature all around.
“The TEMPERATURE of colder objects has a clear and profound effect on energy balance.”
Not in a near vacuum, only the object’s radiation counts for energy balance, convection and conduction stand mute as at planet/sun TOA and E. Swanson testing.
Tim Folkerts says, May 8, 2018 at 12:46 PM:
You mean, there’s also emissivity to consider. Sure. That doesn’t change the fact that temperature is the cause of thermal radiation, not the other way around.
Then by all means, feel free to do it. But don’t do it PRETENDING that the thermal radiation itself is somehow what CAUSES an energy budget between two objects, or between an object and its surroundings, to be more or less positive/negative.
The radiation doesn’t itself control anything. It is itself controlled. By temperature. And by emissivity. Both bulk properties of physical matter.
Again, the radiation is only a courier, carrying a temperature (thermal) – and an emissivity – signal between thermodynamic systems. A necessary tool, indeed. But not itself the root cause of the differences driving energy transfers and changing energy contents.
This is all I’m saying. And I will keep pointing it out …
Because you SHOULD know the distinction, Tim. It’s a rather fundamental one.
And what causes the temperature of the colder object to begin with? It’s thermal energy! [grin]
So energy cause temperature which causes energy which causes temperature which causes ….
Tim Folkerts says, May 9, 2018 at 5:58 PM:
You know perfectly well what I mean, Tim.
And how is the U of a thermodynamic system changed? By thermal (“back”) radiation? Or by exchanges of HEAT (and work)?
And how do you change the magnitude or intensity of a heat transfer between two thermodynamic systems? By just changing the thermal radiation fluxes from both systems to the other? Or do you have to change their temperatures (and/or emissivities) first?
And how do you change the temperatures of the objects? Do you just change the temperature, or do you have to change the energy of the objects first?
We could go around like this all day! The point is that temperature is just an expression of the average energy. You can’t talk about temperature without talking about thermal energy (and vice verse). Changing one IS changing the other.
“And how is the U of a thermodynamic system changed? By thermal (“back”) radiation? Or by exchanges of HEAT (and work)?”
Heat does not exist in nature i.e. science so Kristian can claim anything he wants invoking the heat term since no one can develop a test with a non-existent substance to prove Kristian right or wrong. The colorless, odorless caloric fluid substance theory was thrown out of science long ago by elegant experiments.
“How is the U of a thermodynamic system changed?”
Again, thermodynamic U may change with time (dU/dt) because of the interaction of an arbitrary but specified system of molecules with its surrounding molecules. These thermodynamic interactions take two forms:
1) Those interactions for which the net force vanishes on average yet the energy of the system changes because of random collisions with surrounding molecules having a different average energy (Q)
2) Those interactions for which the net force does not vanish on average (W)
The best way for Kristian and others to stop getting so demonstrably confused by the term “heat” is simply stop using the term. Kristian prefers to continue the term’s use thereby demonstrably create intended confusion.
Tim Folkerts says, May 10, 2018 at 5:23 AM:
Hehe, no, Tim. I won’t let you get away that easily. You’re just being childish now, deliberately evading.
Yes, the T of a thermodynamic system is associated with its U. You can even call it an expression of its U (even though that would be imprecise).
But that doesn’t change at all the particular causality that WE’RE discussing, now does it?
Because, how do you ‘fill’ a thermodynamic system with energy?
Again, how do you change the U (and thus the T) of a thermodynamic system? By thermal (“back”) radiation? Or by exchanges of HEAT (and work)?
And how do you change the magnitude or intensity of a heat transfer between two thermodynamic systems? By just changing the thermal radiation fluxes from both systems to the other? Or do you have to change their temperatures (and/or emissivities) first?
You won’t escape this by simply trying to turn the whole thing around, Tim. And I’m pretty sure you see that yourself.
Ball4, certainly “heat” does not exist as a separate, tangible fluid; there is no “caloric”.
However to the extend that the sets of interactions you described in (1) and (2) “exist”, then “heat” and “work” exist. What you describe in (1) is defined as “Q”, which is commonly also called “heat”.
I agree that is is good practice to be precise, since many people colloquially and/or incorrectly use “heat” to mean “U”.
“certainly “heat” does not exist…then “heat”…exist(s)”
Tim, with that you should be able to advance in understanding heat, one can’t have it both ways. Right the 1st time, go with heat doesn’t exist.
See where the confusion enters? Some, for example Kristian, argue that heat does exist but I seem to recall Kristian agreeing heat does not exist in an object. If heat doesn’t exist in an object, then heat can not possibly transfer from that object. Does cold exist – why don’t we discuss cold transfer?
Anytime…ANYTIME anyone invokes the heat term they are everywhere and always returning to the days of the caloric theory. They will be confused at some point. They will not even believe experiments like Dr. Spencer and E. Swanson have done showing how energy transfer works in nature.
Kristian insists Q is heat however Q can be described accurately & non-confusedly without invoking the heat term as in my 1).
Better to just drop the heat term and you will achieve less confusing comments.
“AnytimeANYTIME anyone invokes the heat term they are everywhere and always returning to the days of the caloric theory. “
That is simply false. All modern thermodynamics text use the word “heat” when referring to “Q”; when referring to what you describe as “those interactions for which the net force vanishes … “. None of them, I assure you, are imagining the discredited caloric model.
“one cant have it both ways.”
And I am not having anything both ways. You very conveniently left out a critical part of what I said. It is disingenuous to leave out the 2nd half of “certainly heat does not exist as a separate, tangible fluid“.
* “Love” does not exist as a separate, tangible substance, that that does not mean the concept of “love” does not exist. * “Blue” does not exist as a separate, tangible substance, that that does not mean the concept of “blue” does not exist.
* “Energy” does not exist as a separate, tangible substance, that that does not mean the concept of “energy” does not exist.
* “Heat” does not exist as a separate, tangible substance, that that does not mean the concept of “heat” does not exist.
And I am not having anything both ways…It is disingenuous to leave out the 2nd half”
Leave out 2nd half of what? There is only one hit on that statement about tangible fluid.
Tim, it is demonstrable that it is your statement about “not having anything both ways” that is false. No modern text claims heat exists in an object. I’ve not done an exhaustive search but the 6-10 modern texts I have looked up all state in some form that heat does not exist in an object. Thus, if Q is defined as heat, then texts all teach Q does not exist in an object.
If you want to continue claiming heat exists and heat doesn’t exist at the same time (“certainly “heat” does not exist…then “heat”…exist(s)”) then it is you that remains confused not the modern text books. I’ve become convinced over time this is the root cause of the confusion when commenters try to claim Dr. Spencer’s atm. experiments and E. Swanson’s lab experiments are simply “misinterpretations”, search on that word here to find them.
No matter how you or anyone else play word games with the term heat, they will fail to give heat corporeal existence.
Again, thermodynamic U may change with time (dU/dt) because of the interaction of any molecular system with its molecular surroundings. These thermodynamic interactions take two forms:
1) Those interactions for which the net force vanishes on average yet the energy of the system molecules changes because of random collisions with surrounding molecules having a different average energy
2) Those interactions for which the net force does not vanish on average
Here, 1) adequately explains dU/dt in the experimental results of Dr. Spencer and E. Swanson without possibility of misinterpretation since I didn’t use the heat term.
Ball4, we seem to be talking past each other — particularly about what it means to ‘exist’.
Lets start with your definition — which is pretty good.
“1) Those interactions for which the net force vanishes on average yet the energy of the system molecules changes because of random collisions with surrounding molecules having a different average energy”
All I am trying to say is that if I put a hot object next to a cold object, then such interactions will occur. Such interactions will *exist*.
These interactions can be (and typically are) collectively called “heat” and labeled “Q”.
If
* the interactions existed, and
* the interacts are given the name “heat”
Then
“heat” *existed* while energy was being transferred by such interactions.
“No modern text claims heat exists in an object.”
And I never made such a claim either! “U” exists in object. “Q” only exists temporarily as a process that decreases “U” in one object and increases “U” an identical amount in another object.
I don’t see it as talking past each other Tim, I see it as an exercise to get at nature’s physical truth. Yes, the thermodynamic interactions exist because in nature the random inter-molecular collisions exist. People observe collisions. Work is easier because people observe work f*d.
Defining Q as denoting something that exists only in concept creates unneeded problems as observed in climate-blog land, one person’s definition or concept may or will be different than another’s so “misinterpretations” constantly arise. There is no test to prove a misconception or misinterpretation of heat right or wrong. There are tests to prove molecular collisions.
When Kristian, you, Gordon et. al. get passionate and start screaming in cap.s about heat in one way or another there is a simple test to see if they get it right, just apply this text book wording in their context:
1) Those interactions for which the net force vanishes on average yet the energy of the system molecules changes because of random collisions with surrounding molecules having a different average energy.
Ball4 says, May 10, 2018 at 6:34 AM:
Or, for normal people:
1) HEAT [Q]
2) WORK [W]
– – –
Tim,
Just ignore this troll.
“1) HEAT [Q]”
Thats correct concept Kristian. You will need to go with the text book definition of Q when Q is defined to be the concept of heat to gain nature’s actual workings insight on why your:
“Back radiation from a cooler body warming a hotter one WOULD be a direct violation of the 2nd Law.”
is incorrect. As proven by E. Swanson lab and Dr. Spencer atm. experiments. And many others.
Wherever temperatures are involved there are necessarily averages. So the text book def. of Q in dU/dt:
1) Those interactions for which the net force vanishes on average yet the energy of the system molecules changes because of random collisions with surrounding molecules having a different average energy.
explains how the molecular collisional energy can transfer gross both ways with no violation of 2LOT. Second thermo. Law is for the molecular collisional energy net transfer in the defined process in the time period observed.
Gross molecular collisional energy transfer increases universe entropy in both directions.
ren wrote
“By common experience and the second law of thermodynamics, cooler objects (here, CO2) cant transfer heat to warmer ones (here, Earths surface), and their feeble radiation would simply be reflected away. The inescapable conclusion is that CO2 cant function as a greenhouse gas in Earths atmosphere.”
So tired of this dumb comment.
The Earth is in energy balance with the Sun, not with the atmosphere. The Earth is cooler than the Sun, so no violation of the 2LOT.
Did you learn thermodynamics from the back of a cereal box?
Tim,
You are spuouting more imaginary nonsense.
Step outside. Look up. Directly above you is outer space – around 4 K or so. It doesn’t matter whether it is day or night. I suppose you are going to try to tell me that the reason you feel colder at night is because of cold rays from space.
There are no cold rays – you do not understand what you are talking about. Left to themselves, in the absence of external energy input, all objects will cool to absolute zero. If they don’t, they are absorbing radiation from a warmer body.
Nobody can actually describe the GHE, because it would seem to involve thermometers being made hotter by reducing the amount of energy they receive. Just nonsense.
You cannot produce a testable GHE hypothesis. Fantasy situations cannot explain that which does not exist. No GHE. No increase in temperatures while cooling. A vacuum flask will not heat your soup for you – it is an insulator, not a heater.
Cheers.
“I suppose you are going to try to tell me that the reason you feel colder at night is because of cold rays from space. “
Yes, I am sure you *would* suppose that!
REN
1) What would you consider “hard data”? We only have one earth and we can’t do controlled experiments. All we can do is *observe* temperatures, etc, and then apply “theoretical arguments”, to see if they come close to observations. But very basic theoretical arguments show that the surface could not possibly be above ~255 K without the radiative effects of the atmosphere. That seems like “hard data” to me.
2) Yes it would be nice if the correlation was more obvious. That would make it much easier to rule out other factors and home in on the impact of CO2 itself.
3) You cannot “pressure-broadened to approximate a continuous Planck spectrum”. Pressure broadening will merely make a wider part of the CO2 spectrum have an emissivity near 1. This would make the part of the spectrum near 15 um apporximate the BB spectrum FOR WHATEVER TEMPERATURE the CO2 happens to be, NOT the temperature corresponding to a peak at 15 um.
Tim Folkerts says, May 8, 2018 at 10:53 AM:
BS! This is the standard cop-out argument that you CO2 warmists always hide behind. We can do more than just “observe temperatures”, Tim.
The “hard data” is of course the ‘ToA All-Sky OLR flux’ (T_e) anomalies and the ‘TLT’ (T_tropo) anomalies. We compare the two!
You should know this.
Here’s the “greenhouse” warming mechanism schematically defined, described and explained – yes, it’s the whole “raised effective radiating level (ERL)” idea:
climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
What does it say?
As we put more IR-active gases into the atmosphere, it becomes more and more opaque to outgoing surface IR, which supposedly makes Earth’s ERL, its Z_e, move higher up above the surface, along the negative tropospheric temperature profile, that is, to relatively cooler layers.
The conceptual temperature at Z_e is called T_e, Earth’s effective radiating temperature in space. It’s a “conceptual” temperature, because it isn’t really a temperature at all, it’s rather an average thermal emission flux (the global All-Sky OLR at the ToA) translated into a temperature via the S-B equation. For Earth, that would be the 240 W/m^2 OLR flux converted into the 255K T_e.
So the averaged global ToA All-Sky OLR flux is effectively equal to Earth’s T_e, and its anomaly can, if simply properly scaled, be directly compared to the anomalies of actual temperatures measured at fixed altitude levels or layers within the Earth system. One such fixed altitude layer is the lower troposphere (Z_lt). Another one is the surface itself (Z_s). The altitudes of these levels/layers do not change over time. They’re set. They have to be, in order for us to be able to consistently track the progression of their anomalies over time. Apples to apples.
So, all monitored altitude-specific layers of the Earth system, like the surface (Z_s) or the lower troposphere (Z_lt), naturally stay at their specified altitudes as time passes, while the altitude of Earth’s effective radiating level, its Z_e, does NOT. It moves UP as time passes. As long as the “GHE” is strengthened by the rise in concentration of IR-active gases in the atmosphere.
And so, referring to the schematic above, with everything connected via the fairly stable tropospheric lapse rate, as the Z_e moves along the vertical (altitude) axis only, the Z_s and Z_lt move along the horizontal (temperature) axis only.
Which is to say:
# As Z_e moves upward (increases), T_e (=> the OLR) stays unchanged.
# As T_s and T_lt move to the right (increase), Z_s and Z_lt stay unchanged.
THERE’S your “AGW prediction”. And THERE’S the simple setup telling you what observable signals to look for in the real Earth system.
T_e should go down, gradually and systematically over time, relative to T_lt. And note, this doesn’t mean that the T_e (=> the OLR) itself needs to be observed to go down. The TLT anomaly should simply always be observed to be rising significantly MORE/faster than the OLR anomaly translated into a T_e anomaly. Over decadal and multidecadal timescales.
BUT DOES IT? That is the question. Do we in fact observe this to happen, and to have happened in previous decades …?
The simple answer, when actually going with the DATA brought back from the real Earth system, is: NO!
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-sun-not-man-is-what-caused-and-causes-global-warming/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-supplementary-discussions/
The “greenhouse” schematic from the post above:
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
Kristian, as I’ve noted to you before, that schematic shows an increase of energy into the system as the caption notes “fixed lapse rate”. Added GHG’s cannot do that as they burn no fuel.
For added GHGs the shifted line needs to hold the energy in the system the same. In that case, as Soden and Held go on to explain, the bottom of the curve for 2xCO2 would shift to right as shown BUT the top at the tropopause T would shift to the left of Ts at that height, lower stratosphere isothermal T, keeping total system energy constant with 2xCO2.
“The simple answer, when actually going with the DATA brought back from the real Earth system, is: NO!”
That answer is only given with 100% confidence which is not of this earth. As Kristian full well knows, Loeb 2018 shows OLR with 95% confidence could have increased, decreased or stayed the same in the longest period studied.
In shorter periods studied (Loeb 2016), there is 95% confidence OLR decreased and the reason is given as ENSO variations during the period.
So if Kristian wants to have an agenda, he can simply write NO! with 95% confidence based on longest period in Loeb 2018.
If I want to have another agenda, I can write with 95% confidence YES! for the same period.
Someone else with an agenda could write OLR didn’t change again with 95% confidence And all these 3 agendas are equally correct according to the data in the CERES Team 2018 published paper.
Kristian, there is a lot to digest here, and I think you are on to some important ideas.
I *do* have to point out one thing. Your conclusion is:
“T_e should go down, gradually and systematically over time, relative to T_lt. And note, this doesnt mean that the T_e (=> the OLR) itself needs to be observed to go down. The TLT anomaly should simply always be observed to be rising significantly MORE/faster than the OLR anomaly translated into a T_e anomaly. Over decadal and multidecadal timescales.”
In other words, you are looking at various measured/estimated temperatures (T_e. T_lt, T_s) and seeing if they match your expectations based on models/theories.
How is this different from my so-called “bs” of “observe temperatures, etc, and then apply theoretical arguments to see if they come close to observations.”
Tim Folkerts says, May 8, 2018 at 6:36 PM:
The difference is this: You’re not doing the relevant empirical testing. You see rising temps and simply SURMISE that, based on your specific “theory”, that rise COULD and SHOULD be caused by an “enhanced GHE”.
But then you’re still at the initial “hypothesis” stage. You have yet to reach and start working on the all-important “test of hypothesis” stage.
Kristian says:
The difference is this: Youre not doing the relevant empirical testing. You see rising temps and simply SURMISE that, based on your specific theory, that rise COULD and SHOULD be caused by an enhanced GHE.
He is not. There is lots of evidence all pointing in the same direction.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
You are trying to ignore them all because there isn’t the PERFECT measurement, which is not possible in an observational science like climate science (or astronomy, or geology, or medicine…).
Kristian says:
The hard data is of course the ToA All-Sky OLR flux (T_e) anomalies and the TLT (T_tropo) anomalies. We compare the two!
Wrong, Kristian.
You can’t just compare the two to detect AGW — you have to account for changes in clouds, temperature, humidity, and more. Feldman et al have a very good discussion of the details and how they dealt with these issues.
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
DA…”Feldman et al have a very good discussion of the details and how they dealt with these issues”.
***********
Good discussion maybe but short on fact.
“…despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010….”
Note…little direct observational data. They try to amend that problem using an IR measuring device and radiative transfer equations. For the umpteenth time, EM radiation is not heat.
Slight problem, the 2nd law. They are obviously making the same mistake that has been repeated over and over by alarmists, using radiative transfer equations incorrectly. You cannot point a radiometer at a clear sky, measure its frequency then, apply the spectra to equations.
It should have been apparent to them that heat cannot be transferred from an atmosphere at -50C or so to a surface with an average of 15C.
How many times must this egregious errors be repeated?
“It should have been apparent to them that heat cannot be transferred from an atmosphere at -50C or so to a surface with an average of 15C.”
And it was. This is Gordon making an egregious error writing something that Feldman et. al. do not write.
ball4…”And it was. This is Gordon making an egregious error writing something that Feldman et. al. do not write”.
Feldman is likely related to Marty Feldman of Frankenstain fame. When the good doctor claimed he could fix the hump on his back, he replied, “what hump”?
Feldman et al are lightweights trying to garner Brownie points with their alarmist brethern. I got the -50C from a real scientist, Craig Bohren, who has written a book on atmospheric radiation.
He pointed a hand held IR meter at clear sky and it measured -50C. He pointed at cloud and it measured -3C. Hand held radiometers measure frequency of IR, not temperature. It’s even worse just measuring the frequency then apply Stefan-Boltzmann without considering the context of the situation.
Even if the IR had indicated a temperature equivalent to the environment in which the measurement was made it would represent thermal equilibrium. i.e. no heat transfer. In order to transfer heat to the surface, the atmosphere MUST be warmer than the surface, a highly unlikely situation.
Gordon you can not quote others using your own twisted version. Here is Dr. Bohren’s 2006 passage that you misquote (as per usual) p. 26:
“On a partly cloudy spring day we pointed an infrared thermometer at a patch of clear overhead sky. Although the air temperature measured with an ordinary thermometer was 20degreeC, the temperature recorded by the infrared thermometer was a frigid -50degreeC, not even close to air temperature.
This is because an infrared thermometer measures brightness temperatures, which are lower or at most equal to terrestrial thermodynamic temperatures. When we shifted the thermometer’s field of view from clear sky to an adjacent patch of cloudy sky the brightness temperature shot up to -3degreeC. It is not plausible that two adjacent patches of sky differed in temperature by 47degreeC, so the only possible explanation is that the emissivities of the two patches were different given that the reflectivity of clouds (Fig. 5.15) and air for terrestrial radiation is small.
We have done this simple but dramatic experiment many times, always with the same result: clear sky is always radiatively much colder than adjacent cloudy sky. This difference lies mostly in the markedly different spectral emissivities of water vapor and of liquid water. Later that same day, after sundown, as clouds thickened, the overhead brightness temperature had increased to 2-3degreesC even though air temperatures had dropped.”
Theres Gordon again, telling the experts who used these instruments how they really work and how all these professional scientists are obviously wrong.
I dont know why he didnt write a letter for publication in Nature and set everyone straight.
Note: they meant before their study.
Gordo wrote
Some time back, Roy Spencer commented that those hand held thermometers use a bolometer device which measures the power of the incident radiation. The temperature is then calculated assuming a black body radiance and an average emissivity. They work OK when directed toward solid surfaces, but the emissions from gases are not continuous Planck Law emissions. Thus, when pointed toward the sky, they understate the actual temperature.
I found a similar result when I pointed my thermometer at the plate of a solar collector with a selective surface which was sitting in sunlight. In the infrared, the surface appears as a reflector, thus the low emissivity gave the appearance of a cool surface. The plate was to hot to the touch, even though it was in open air.
“They work OK when directed toward solid surfaces, but the emissions from gases are not continuous Planck Law emissions.”
Sure they are continuous, gases and plasmas are matter thus follow the continuous Planck ideal curve.
“..thus the low emissivity gave the appearance of a cool surface.”
Only because you didn’t adjust your fixed IR thermometer emissivity (probably 0.95) to the known emissivity of the material in its view.
Ball4 wrote
That’s not the way I understand it. The entire argument about AGW is based on the discrete emission absorp_tion lines of CO2 and the lack of such absorp_tion by O2 and N2 in the IR EM range of Earth’s surface emissions. Each line might fit a point along the Planck Law curve, thu there are areas between those lines with no emissions. The emissivity setting would be an average of all those emission lines and empty spaces.
As for the solar collector surface, it’s intentionally structured to exhibit a different emissivity for SW and LW. The emissivity for LW might be around 0.10 or even 0.05 but I don’t know the exact number, since my plates were recycled from 30 year old panels. But, my point was that the instrument isn’t going to give a true temperature measurement without adjusting for emissivity, which only the higher end units allow.
“there are areas between those lines with no emissions.”
There are gas spectral lines where absorp_tion & emission does locally peak in a certain gas while at, and in between the lines, there is continuous emission from the gas at all frequencies at all temperatures all the time. The Planck formula for all normal matter is never identically zero at any frequency or temperature one plugs in. Small, faint, weak (W/m^2/micron of wavelength) emission, yes, but always non-zero for all baryonic matter.
When they call the other kind dark matter, they do mean dark (zero). No emittance nor reflectance for that stuff.
“which only the higher end units allow.”
Yes, when emissivity is adjusted correctly the brightness T read out will ~equal the thermometer T.
Ball4, In the lower atmosphere, the atmosphere is not normally ionized, which would be the case for a plasma, such as a lightning bolt.
The Planck Law applies to black body emissions of ideal gases. The real world results show discrete emission “lines” at specific wavelengths with little emitted between. Averaging over a range of wavelengths produces what’s termed “emissivity”. A prime example is the “atmospheric window” provided by O2 and N2, a wavelength region with almost no absorp_tion which is central to the clear sky emissions from the surface to deep space. Some interesting measurements of downwelling IR are documented in this report.
Ground-based high spectral resolution observations of the entire terrestrial spectrum under extremely dry conditions.
“almost no absorp_tion…with little emitted between.”
Correct, as I wrote non-zero. Check the sun for plasma. And NOAA ESRL for DWIR 24/7/365.
David Appell says, May 8, 2018 at 5:35 PM:
Of course you can. Because at the ToA, all of those things – in fact, everything – IS accounted for. The “GHE” is supposed to encompass everything, not just narrow segments of the full EM spectrum i clear-sky.
You have to subtract out natural forcings and natural variations.
David Appell says, May 9, 2018 at 7:08 PM:
What “natural forcings”? What “natural variations”? According to the IPCC they both average to … ZERO.
And, no, David. As long as you don’t KNOW what is natural and what is anthropogenic, you can’t just “subtract out” factors at will.
I’m not even talking about “natural forcings” and “natural variations”. You claim Harries’ and Feldman’s studies “prove” that the “GHE” is strengthening. I’m, however, pointing out to you that their studies aren’t looking at the “GHE” at all, because the “GHE” is supposed to encompass much more than what they’re looking at, which is the thermal emission in Clear-Sky (clouds left out) within just narrow, isolated segments of the full EM spectrum (WV and temperature effects calculated out), in tiny regions or point locations of the globe, over very short time intervals.
I’m talking about the All-sky OLR at the ToA. It is the end product of ALL processes going on below the ToA. If the “GHE” isn’t observed to systematically affect the T_e*/T_tropo** relation over time, then the “GHE” isn’t going through “enhancement”. It’s as simple as that …
* Global All-Sky OLR at the ToA => Earth’s T_e.
** Global TLT => Earth’s T_tropo.
“According to the IPCC (natural forcings and variations) both average to…ZERO.”
Not according to actual IPCC chart of natural solar irradiance forcing p. 136, Fig. 2:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
Kristian says:
Im talking about the All-sky OLR at the ToA.
Again, to determine how much is due to AGW, you have to subtract out natural changes.
That shouldn’t be difficult to understand??
Because there is no Control Earth to compare measurements against.
David Appell says, May 11, 2018 at 7:32 PM:
Yes. And you do that by simply comparing the ToA All-Sky OLR anomaly translated into a temperature anomaly (T_e) with the actual tropospheric temperature (TLT) anomaly (T_tropo). No gradual, systematic divergence over time, no “AGW”.
This shouldn’t really be difficult to understand, David.
Are you telling me you don’t understand the “AGW hypothesis” and what it predicts !?
“Global Warming Linked To Increase In Tropopause Height,” Jan 10, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-03a.html
Er, yes. They got the causality turned on its head, though. The tropopause naturally lifts when the troposphere warms. Not the other way around. The Hadley Cells expand with warming too, you know. Also, the tropopause is not equal the ERL. If you observe a rise in the tropopause, you are not thereby observing a rise in Earth’s ERL.
They conclude the tropopause is rising because of warming. Read the Santer et al paper posted just below.
David Appell says, May 9, 2018 at 6:54 PM:
Did they? Cool. An honest paper by Santer? I didn’t think that possible.
Kristian says:
An honest paper by Santer? I didnt think that possible.
Here we see a denier rejecting science for no other reason that that he doesn’t like the result.
No scientific critique. Just outright denial.
And that, my friends, is why you cannot reason with a climate change denier. Kristian is an A1 perfect case.
“Behavior of tropopause height and atmospheric temperature in models, reanalyses, and observations: Decadal changes,” B. D. Santer et al, JGR-Atmospheres, 03 January 2003.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD00225
tim…”But very basic theoretical arguments show that the surface could not possibly be above ~255 K without the radiative effects of the atmosphere. That seems like hard data to me”.
No, Tim, hard data is not opinion and consensus. You advised me to quit my interest in texts from the 19th century and focus on modern texts. If that’s the drivel they teach, no thanks.
*****
“Yes it would be nice if the correlation was more obvious. That would make it much easier to rule out other factors and home in on the impact of CO2 itself”.
As ren has inferred from his cited article, there is no hard data to correlate CO2 to warming. If you are going to go on opinion, what’s more reasonable than the opinion of Akasofu that re-warming from the Little Ice Age explains the current warming? How about the conclusions from Tsonis et al that the interactions of oceanic oscillations explain all the warming?
********
“You cannot pressure-broadened to approximate a continuous Planck spectrum. Pressure broadening will merely make a wider part of the CO2 spectrum have an emissivity near…”
Why are you reasoning on trivialities related to an unproved hypothesis? What’s wrong with established laws that have stood the test of time like the Ideal Gas Law, Daltons Law of Partial Pressures, and the 2nd law? They all point to the fact that CO2 at 0.04% could not warm a flea’s bum.
“They all point to the fact that CO2 at 0.04% could not warm a fleas bum.”
If there were a flea in Prof. Tyndall’s polished brass tube, when the thermometer readings increased due lab air concentrations of CO2, this warming would have happened contrary to Gordon’s propaganda.
Ball4,
Unfortunately, you cannot actually backup your mad assertions by actually quoting from Tyndalls experiments.
Fantasy is not fact. Anyone can read Tyndalls books. The foolish and ignorant are easily confused, and believe that Tyndall used CO2 to magically generate heat. Nope. He wasn’t stupid and ignorant about the properties of gases as he measured them.
Learn to read and understand.
Cheers.
1861: “I (Prof. Tyndall) subsequently had the tube perforated and thermometers screwed into it air-tight. On filling the tube the thermometric columns rose, on exhausting it they sank, the range between the maximum and minimum amounting in the case of air to 5 degrees FAHR.”
Fun to read Prof. Tyndall, Mike. Try it sometime. Cheers.
Ball4,
I cannot find your quote in my copy Heat a mode of motion John Tyndall, Sixth edition, Appleton and Co, 1905.
What Tyndall document are you referring to? He revised his early work extensively, and you may be quoting something which he later amended as his knowledge improved.
If you are quoting from an earlier publication, which was later revised, you are in error.
Nothing relating to the non-existent GHE, of course. Your quote has nothing to do with any heating properties of CO2. Tyndall was not that stupid and ignorant.
As I say, anyone can read Tyndalls work. I suggest that examination of the latest publications of books which he continuously revised and amended over 40 years or so is better than depending on out of date information.
You are mistaken, or intending to mislead. I do not know which. I will charitably assume you are merely stupid and ignorant.
Cheers.
“What Tyndall document are you referring to?”
So much hand holding. Google string: bakerian lecture tyndall
Download pdf. Search on thermometer. 2nd hit. Pg. 32. Third paragraph. Cheers.
Ball4,
As I thought, you did not realise that Tyndall revised and amended his initial writings, as he learnt more.
In any case, from your older source, you made sure not to mention –
“In both cases, however, the action is transient . . . ”
In other words, gases can both be heated, and allowed to cool. Nothing new. No GHE. Tyndall explains the initial puzzling transient effect.
However, Tyndall later revised his reasoning and thinking. If you care to read a later versions n of Tyndall’s lectures, you will benefit. Or you can choose not to, of course. Your call.
Cheers.
“As I thought, you did not realise..”
Contrary to Mike’s comments clearly claiming mind reading is possible, in fact mind reading is not possible in this reality.
Tim,
If you cannot do a scientific experiment, you are indulging in speculation.
No testable hypothesis, just idle speculation.
Feynman wrote –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Until you can figure out an appropriate experiment, even your theory remains speculation.
GHE believers do not even have a theory – not even a testable or reproducible hypothesis.
Do you claim you are actually talking about science? Sounds more like pseudoscience, woukdn’t you say?
Cheers.
MF commented
So you agree that experimental results, such as my Green Plate Effect results, which show that “back radiation” from a cooler body can warm a hotter one, disprove the repeated claims on this blog that AGW violates the 2nd Law.
swannie…”So you agree that experimental results, such as my Green Plate Effect results, which show that back radiation from a cooler body can warm a hotter one…”
No…Feynman was not talking about pseudo-scientific conclusions that are glaringly wrong. You lack the experience to determine the difference between illegal back-radiation from a cooler body from heat dissipation interference.
Don’t take that personally, the so-called 95% of scientists who allegedly agree humans are causing global warming are confused by the same issues.
Swannie…the 2nd law has withstood more than 150 years of expert scrutiny, why would you ever presume to overturn it with a backyard experiment?
If you’re that confident in your results, why don’t you submit it for peer review. Who knows, maybe the alarmist-riddled peer review we have today might look upon it favourably. Heck, they may give you a grant to do more of the same.
Gordon, when are you going to go learn what the Second Law actually says?
Why wouldn’t you want to do that?
E. Swanson says, May 9, 2018 at 2:33 PM:
“Back radiation” from a cooler body warming a hotter one WOULD be a direct violation of the 2nd Law. That’s why it’s so easy to see how you misinterpret your results …
Your “experimental results” don’t show at all that “back radiation” from a cooler body can warm a hotter one. This is simply how you INTERPRET your results.
And your INTERPRETATION is in direct violation with the 2nd Law.
“”Back radiation” from a cooler body warming a hotter one WOULD be a direct violation of the 2nd Law.”
No, this process is allowed under 2LOT as long as universe entropy increases.
E. Swanson’s experiment directly shows that can happen in nature which means there is no violation of basic 2LOT since in the process universe entropy increased. Dr. Spencer has shown the same experiment using the actual atmosphere: added radiation from cooler cirrus clouds increasing the temperature of water on the surface over nearby water in the shade of the cirrus radiation.
These experiments ought to convince Kristian (and others) that “back radiation” from a cooler body warming (increasing the temperature of a hotter body over a control body temperature) is not a direct violation of the 2nd Law”.
They don’t only due to a pre-existing agenda held by Kristian and some others playing word games.
Kristian wrote
What’s your (and Gordo’s), explanation of the results of my demonstrations? Simply asserting that my results violate your INTERPRETATION of the 2nd Law isn’t a valid counter argument. Appeal’s to authority, like Gordo’s rant, aren’t acceptable.
E. Swanson
The two who are questioning you (Kristian and Gordon Robertson) like to play word games. I think the way you phrased you post triggered their word games. Gordon Robertson is unable to comprehend the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics so you can ignore his challenge. It is a waste of time to try to reason with him.
Kristian is an intelligent and logical poster but he plays semantic word games.
YOU STATED: “So you agree that experimental results, such as my Green Plate Effect results, which show that back radiation from a cooler body can warm a hotter one,”
Perhaps the correct use of semantics would be, the back radiation from the colder body will result in the equilibrium temperature of a powered hotter body to reach a higher temperature. Without the word “powered” they are both correct. Back radiation will not “warm” a hotter non-powered object. It will only slow the cooling rate.
Kristian says:
Back radiation from a cooler body warming a hotter one WOULD be a direct violation of the 2nd Law.
It’s not. Please study the 2nd law of thermodynamics, particularly its adiabatic clause.
The Earth is in energy balance with the Sun, not with the atmosphere.
ball4…”Back radiation from a cooler body warming a hotter one WOULD be a direct violation of the 2nd Law.
No, this process is allowed under 2LOT as long as universe entropy increases”.
***********
I did not see Clausius make that inference. He stated the 2nd law in words then he added the definition of entropy. Much later he equated entropy to the 2nd law but he did not modify the requirements he has stated for the 2nd law. If the two don’t corroborate each other why would he claim they agree?
Clausius defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat into or out of a system at the temperature T at which the changes take place.
He gave entropy as an equation ds = integral dq/T. If you draw the heat from a constant temperature bath so that T is the same through a process, you can draw it outside the integral sign.
Therefore entropy appears to be the sum of the infinitesimal heat changes, provided T is kept constant.
It has nothing to do with universal entropy, Clausius claimed that if the process is reversible, the entropy is 0. If the entropy is not reversible, which it is not in most cases, the entropy is +ve.
Ergo, heat can never flow from a colder body to a warmer body by it’s own means. Clausius explained ‘by its own means’ as compensation. In order for heat to flow cold to hot, energy has to be supplied. As we know from an air conditioner, it’s not even that simple.
In the atmosphere no such compensation exists. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to the surface.
Here’s an equation relating entropy to bodies of different temperatures:
delta S = Q(1/T2 – 1/T1)
The equation can only work if T2 > T1. If T2 = T1, meaning the process is reversible, S = 0. If T1 > T2, the entropy would be negative and that is not allowed according to Clausius.
DA…”Please study the 2nd law of thermodynamics, particularly its adiabatic clause”.
What does an adiabatic process have to do with the 2nd law? If no heat is transferred the 2nd law does not apply.
Gordon Robertson says:
What does an adiabatic process have to do with the 2nd law?
My God you are stupid.
Worse, you absolutely refuse to learn. You’d rather lie instead.
—
Go learn, Gordon. Don’t come back until you do.
Gordon Robertson says:
Ergo, heat can never flow from a colder body to a warmer body by its own means.
No hyphen.
And why do you think the Earth-atmosphere system is left to “its own means” when enormous amounts of sunlight (energy) are pouring into it all the time???
E. Swanson says, May 10, 2018 at 9:06 AM:
Hahaha! That you should even have to ask that question, Swanson, really tells me you don’t understand at all the relevant physics behind your results. You ASSUME your particular interpretation of what you observe is the correct one even when that is clearly not what you are in fact observing. What you observe is simply that your already heated plate becomes warmer than before when placing another plate right next to it, somewhat shielding it against its surroundings. What you have observed, then, is but the rather well-known physical phenomenon that we call INSULATION.
EVERYTHING after that is just YOU ASSUMING STUFF.
Now, how does insulation work? How is the mechanism physically described?
Well, the phenomenon is distinctly a THERMODYNAMIC one; it is NOT a quantum mechanical one. Everything concerning the temperature and energy content of bulk matter is described and explained by the field of thermodynamics. Macroscopic concepts such as temperature [T] and internal energy [U] have no meaning, they basically do not exist, within the field of quantum mechanics.
Insulation affects the heat transfers [Q] between thermodynamic systems. THAT is the working mechanism. So if you want to explain why the temperature of the already heated plate rises as you put up the second plate, you will have to (macroscopically) discuss the NET exchanges of energy between the different thermodynamic systems involved. This includes the field of ‘statistical mechanics’. There is absolutely no use in trying to explain it by (microscopically) focusing solely on those photons within an integrated thermal radiation field that happen to be moving in one of two hemispherical directions the way you do.
That will just fool you into thinking that those photons somehow have the ability to produce their very own (independent/isolated) thermodynamic effect. They don’t. They would if only all the OTHER photons inside the very same thermal radiation field that you have disregarded for some reason weren’t there. But they are. They’re there.
If you choose to see the photons of YOUR choice in isolation from all the others, from the rest of the universe, basically, you have strictly chosen a quantum (microscopic) perspective, and will therefore never be able to explain any THERMAL effects. Which is what we’re discussing here.
You observed a THERMAL effect, Swanson. You can’t explain a thermal effect in terms of what are fundamentally quantum-mechanical (microscopic) processes and phenomena. You will have to explain it in terms of thermodynamical (macroscopic) processes and phenomena.
Try again.
ren…”davidbennettlaing
There are three major problems with greenhouse warming that Ive pondered for a while without finding satisfactory answers”.
A good argument, ren.
Let’s see you or ren address Tim’s critique at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-301248
DA…”Lets see you or ren address Tims critique at….”
Done. Nothing to rebut.
Cant rebut, is more like it. And refuses to learn physics.
BOM’s ensemble mean indicates a slight dip into more ENSO negative values, followed by a return to zero values later in the year:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive/20180508.poama_nino34.png
I have it on good authority that these predictions contain zero skill.
In fact, no ENSO models have any skill at this time of year – often referred to as the “predictability barrier”. ENSO remains elusive.
I think “skill” is the wrong word. They have high uncertainty, as the different members of the ensemble show.
Nevertheless, the predictions are more successful than random guessing.
B,
You jest, surely. That undistinguished mathematician, Gavin Schmidt, announced that 2014 was “The hottest year EVAH!” – later announcing “with a 38% probability”.
I believe tossing a fair coin results in 50% probability.
Would you like to amend your assertion? Or do you still believe that NASA’s predictions (in the person of the Director of GISS) are more reliable than a random guess?
The IPCC states that the atmosphere is a complex chaotic system, and therefore prediction of future climate states is not possible!
No doubt you will claim that even though climate is merely the average of weather, and the same atmosphere is involved, shorter term events can be usefully predicted – better than a naive persistence forecast prepared by a twelve year old child, of course! Can’t do it? What a pity!
Go for it – even the stupid and ignorant can be lucky sometimes.
Cheers.
Coin: 2 outcomes
Annual global temperature: 138 outcomes
If I undertake a 1000 question multiple choice examination where each question has four options, and I score 40%, have I or have I not done better than random guessing?
B,
138 outcomes, all different. At most, one can be correct. Which one, if any? Are you sure? The IPCC states that prediction of future climate states is not possible,. You disagree – you cannot say why, but nevertheless . .
You have faith. Good for you. You are stupid and ignorant, but incapable of recognising how clueless you are because you are, well, stupid and ignorant.
You just cannot stop yourself from lurching into bizarre fantasy diversions, can you?
Are you disagreeing with something I said, but cannot quite figure out what it is? I do not blame you – you have always found handwaving and mad assertions sufficient in the past.
No testable GHE hypothesis, no chance of convincing any real physicist that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter . . .
Oh dear, what can you do? Ask a gotcha? Insert an irrelevant and pointless analogy? Appeal to the authority of that undistinguished mathematician who thinks that 0.38 probability is more likely than not – near certainty, in fact? Or that of Michael Mann, who didn’t realise he did not actually win a Nobel Prize?
Good luck. You’ll need it.
Cheers.
You sure spend a lot of time writing comments that you know no one will read.
B,
Get a refund on those mind reading classes. They obviously didn’t work. Someone saw you coming. You’ve been had, as they say. Oh well, there’s one born every minute. You obviously used the allocation for the minute you were born!
Here’s a thought – maybe the testable GHE hypothesis is tucked away with Trenberth’s missing heat. Let me know if you find either one – I can never have too much fun!
Cheers.
Did someone worthwhile say something worthwhile?
(“Oh dear, is this one of those ‘gotchas’?”)
Cheers
B,
If I wanted to know, I certainly wouldn’t ask someone as ignorant and stupid as yourself. Would you?
Just for laughs, what is your answer? How would it relate to the non-existent GHE?
You started this off by declaring –
“Nevertheless, the predictions are more successful than random guessing.”
Maybe somebody believes you. Can you name him, her or it, or do you make up random stuff as you go along? The IPCC has stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Do you think the IPCC really meant something else? What do you think it was? Have you given the IPCC the benefit of your insight?
I wish you all the best in your endeavours.
Cheers.
There’s that rambling whisper again. Someone needs to learn to speak up.
bond…”Nevertheless, the predictions are more successful than random guessing”.
Not so far. Not one model predicted/projected the flat trend from 1998 to about 2015. Embarrassed them so much their buddies at NOAA and GISS had to go back and fudge the record to show a semblance of a trend.
When Hansen started this nonsense circa 1988, with Al Gore wearing a cheerleaders costume and cheering for him (an ugly site since it was a female cheerleader’s outfit), he predicted dire straights if we did not immediately amend our polluting ways. By 1998, he was back blabbering about how his model had made a mistake, not him, who programmed the model, but the model itself.
Maybe that’s what’s wrong with AGW, they have models programming models.
Well, it seems none of the models have been able to predict anything. Expert reviewer Vincent Grey pointed out why, that the models are unvalidated and unvalidated models cannot predict. So, the IPCC changed predict to ‘project’, and they are still up to the same bs, predicting catastrophe.
Heck, following the IPCC admission in 2013 that no warming had occurred from 1998 – 2012, calling it a warming hiatus, they raised their confidence level from 90% to 95% that humans are ‘likely’ causing the warming.
For cripes sake, they just admitted there had been no warming for 15 years and that made them more confident humans were the cause…of whatever.
How you alarmists can represent that bs is beyond me. You must be seriously bored or in deep need of the imaginary affection that comes from belonging to a cause, no matter how pathetic.
No SURFACE warming. Not no total warming.
We know that youre lying about the 15 years, as you always do, and that no interest in what actually transpired.
We also know that 15 years isnt indicative of climate change.
Gordo, As DA notes,”We know that you are lying…”, not that your disinformation is anything new. Your reference to the 15 years between 1998 and 2012 is an old denialist talking point that’s been refuted so many times that your repetition can only be another lie. Starting a trend calculation with the strong El Nino “bump” in 1998, then ending it short of the 2016 El Nino gives the wrong result compared to that over the longer time interval necessary to properly define a trend in climate.
bond…”No SURFACE warming. Not no total warming”.
Bit of desperation there Bond. Do you mean there can be no warming over land surfaces yet warming over oceans? Pray tell, how does that work.
That’s something like claiming the Little Ice Age affected only ‘parts’ of Europe. How can a 400 year long ice age affect only parts of Europe? It’s like parts of Europe have local air conditioning.
Nope, the IPCC were talking about global warming, the figures they gave were for the entire planet.
It was NOAA who used the SST to get a trend. They did it by switching data from the trued and tried bucket over the side on ships then inserting a thermometer to the water temperature at the intake of ships. The latter proved warmer therefore NOAA chucked out the cooler data and used the warmer data.
swannie…”Your reference to the 15 years between 1998 and 2012 is an old denialist talking point ….”
***********
page 6
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf
Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 19982012 (0.05C [0.05 to +0.15] per decade)”
Note: “…including the warming hiatus since 1998…”
That was in 2012 and the UAH graph shows an on-going trend till 2015.
And you talk about denialists.
“That was in 2012 and the UAH graph shows an on-going trend till 2015”.
should read……
“That was in 2012 and the UAH graph shows an on-going flat trend till 2015”.
Gordon Robertson says:
How can a 400 year long ice age affect only parts of Europe?
It wasn’t Europe but it wasn’t global — because that’s what the data say.
I doubt that matters to you, just as you clearly don’t care to provide evidence for your claims of fraud and fudging. You make up whatever physics and information you need at the time.
DA…”It wasnt Europe but it wasnt global because thats what the data say”.
How does a 400 year ice age select only parts of the planet? Please rush the answer since I plan to steal it and submit a paper in pursuit of my Nobel.
Gordon Robertson says:
How does a 400 year ice age select only parts of the planet?
a) It wasn’t an “ice age.”
b) why wouldn’t it?
Enough toying with the troll. The amusement goes only so far.
A tip which some of you might be interested in:
If you want to download a video from YouTube, you don’t need to download special software.
Just go to the page of the video you want to download, click in the URL, and add ‘pp’ after ‘youtube’.
That is, http://www.youtube.com/...
becomes http://www.youtubepp.com/...
After hitting enter you will be taken to a downloading page where you choose your format and resolution for download.
Perhaps someone will find this useful.
(Or perhaps you all knew it already.)
B,
I congratulate you. That is definitely up there with previous attempts to deny, divert and confuse!
How to download a video from YouTube! Brilliant!
Nobody will give a thought to the missing testable GHE hypothesis, will they?
Cheers.
Thanks, Bond, for the YouTube advice. Is the site it goes to, y2mate.com, trustworthy? I’m not downloading a virus, am I?
DA,
Of course not David. The site y2mate.com clearly says so.
Of course, Bond didnt mention that the site youtubepp.com belongs to NameCheap Inc. I wonder why they provide such a wondrous service free. Do you think that NameCheap Inc. is just a philanthropic organisation, funded by an eccentric green millionaire, subverting YouTube for the betterment of humanity?
I really do not know. You might believe Bond is a reliable source of knowledge – your choice.
Cheers.
DA…”Im not downloading a virus, am I?”
Check it on https://www.virustotal.com
It tests both URLs and apps by running them through almost every known virus tester on the net.
I tested y2mate.com for you, it tests clean on about 50 testers.
Thanks Gordon, thats useful.
bond…”Perhaps someone will find this useful.
(Or perhaps you all knew it already.)”
They teach it at skeptics’ school but thanks for sharing.
As for me I use Firefox with the free extension, Video Downloadhelper.
I also use the NoScript java blocker for naughty sites that try to nail you with java applet malware or redirect you to malicious sites.
Comodo also offers a nice free Internet security package with a firewall, antivirus, and general malware blocker. With the latter in paranoid mode it won’t let you do anything without a message coming up with ‘Stop! Thief!’.
Good to see your admission that you are all schooled in skepticism. Of course this schooling is sponsored by the fossil fuel industry and involves rote learning mantra for later recital.
bond…”Good to see your admission that you are all schooled in skepticism. Of course this schooling is sponsored by the fossil fuel industry….”
Believe me I have tried to get free fuel out of them and the stingy SOBs won’t give me any. They have even cranked up the price of gas locally to keep in step with you alarmists who want us priced out of our cars and homes.
Gordon, you know far too little science for an oil company to sponsor you in any way.
bond…”Enough toying with the troll. The amusement goes only so far”.
********
Mike has proved you pathetic alarmists lack the data, the science, and the ability to debate him.
Clearly you don’t read the replies here. I’m really not sure you read any of the comments before you write.
B,
Oh dear. More irrelevant pointless nonsense. Do you think it makes you appear any less stupid and ignorant than you are?
Still no progress on that testable GHE hypothesis?
Oh well, more pointless cryptic comments might help, do you think? Some people might agree with me, and prefer facts to pseudoscientific fantasy.
Cheers,
Boring!
Have’nt you written this very same comment umpteen times by now? Come on, come up with something original.
M,
If you choose to be bored, that is your decision. Nothing to do with me, is it?
As to your demand – no.
Why should I do as you direct? if you cannot accept reality, again, that is not my problem.
Find a testable GHE hypothesis, if you feel inclined to do something useful. Or you can continue demonstrating stupidity and ignorance. Your call – nothing to do with me.
Cheers.
M Flynn – how would you explain this? http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Other than something like a large space rock impacting Earth (a rock smaller than 100 meters hits Earth quite often, and can more energy than any nuclear weapon. And such rocks is not what I mean by large space rock, rather rocks larger than 1/2 km in diameter are the size starting to have global effects) or very large volcanic events
are not going to have immediate global effects.
And few think that greenhouse gases have an immediate global effect.
For example, if somehow, CO2 concentration were to quickly double from 400 to 800 pm within period of 1 year, there is no agreement how long it would take for it warming effect to occur.
Perhaps those that believe that doubling CO2 would like to declare how long it would take?
I would guess, the opinion could vary from 1 to 100 years or more.
Though doubling CO2 because effects the atmosphere should have effect quicker than other effects and generally things affect global temperatures rather than weather, require a long time period.
And large volcanic activity and large rocks hitting earth also include long term effects to global climate.
Oh, BTW those I believing in GW religion, have altered their gospel about when CO2 is starting to warm Earth.
And as I have said, in terms global warming, or global temperature (not weather) we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
We’re also now above MWP temperatures so when exactly does your ‘recovery’ from the LIA end? We’re warmer than 1100 years ago yet we’re still recovering from cold 200 years ago. Got it.
gbaikie says:
“…we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age.”
What does this mean, “recovering?”
Climate isn’t like an elastic ball — it doesn’t change unless something causes it to change.
As EB points out, we’re now above the temperature of the beginning of the LIA anyway. Why?
DA,
And clearly well below when the first liquid water appeared.
Why?
Cheers.
–Ebbets Field says:
May 8, 2018 at 2:59 PM
Were also now above MWP temperatures so when exactly does your recovery from the LIA end? Were warmer than 1100 years ago yet were still recovering from cold 200 years ago. Got it.–
The glacial ice added during LIA, has not all melted yet.
One could or might say 80% has. Or you pick a number, and do you think it more than 100%?
Certainly you will agree that glacial ice formed during LIA, still exists. And if picking 100% or more, that glacial ice formed earier, melted, and you including that amount to subtract from total of LIA added glacial ice.
gbaikie says:
The glacial ice added during LIA, has not all melted yet.
Do you have any evidence for this claim?
ebbets…”Were also now above MWP temperatures so when exactly does your recovery from the LIA end?”
The eminent geophysicist, Syun Akasofu, has estimated the planet should rewarm from the LIA at 0.5C/century. Since it is claimed to have ended in 1850, it should have taken till 1950 to warmed 1C.
However, there’s a question as to how cold it got during the LIA, some estimating between 1C and 2C. Therefore it could take as long as 2050 before we normalize fully.
The re-warming may not be linear, it may occur slowly at first then escalate near the end. Maybe the burst of warming from 1970 – 1990+ was such an escalation.
I have pondered why it should take so long to re-warm and I can see that glaciers extended significantly in the European Alps, one extending across a valley and wiped out a village. It would take time for such growth to reverse itself.
Given our seasonal diversity in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and the degree to which the oceans would have cooled, it seems reasonable to me that re-warming from the LIA should take that long.
Personally, I think we have either neared the end of the rewarming or we’re pretty close to it. If Salvatore and Piers Corbyn are right, we could be headed back into another ice age before recovery from the LIA is complete.
gbaikie…”gbaikie says:
The glacial ice added during LIA, has not all melted yet.
Do you have any evidence for this claim?”
********
Why should anyone provide evidence when alarmists present none?
Anyway, Greenland was farmed by the Vikings around 1000 AD and now it is too cold to farm.
Did someone not infer about that it is now warmer than the MWP, the warming that allowed farming on Greenland?
Claims about science require evidence. Much is presented here, including by me.
Do you have any here? It appears not.
Gordon Robertson says:
However, theres a question as to how cold it got during the LIA, some estimating between 1C and 2C
What evidence says that?
The numbers I see in paleoclimatology papers say it’s more like 0.2-0.4 C.
Gordon Robertson says:
Anyway, Greenland was farmed by the Vikings around 1000 AD and now it is too cold to farm.
So? Greenland isn’t a proxy for the whole planet.
Besides, it’s not clear how large these farms were, or that the Vikings in Greenland weren’t exaggerating in order to get more people to come there.
Gordon Robertson says:
The eminent geophysicist, Syun Akasofu….
He’s not a climatologist, so by the same logic you used for Michael Mann, he has no authority to speak about climate.
Gotcha.
He also has some iffy connections:
https://www.desmogblog.com/syun-ichi-akasofu
DA…”Claims about science require evidence”.
My neighbour is a Viking and he told me his ancestors farmed Greenland around 1000 BC. That’s about as close as the evidence you alarmists have that CO2 is warming the atmosphere.
Thanks, Gordon, for admitting you have no evidence.
You rarely do.
We’ve added 130ppm Co2 to the atmosphere since the mid 1800s and the surface temperature has risen by more than +1.*C since then. That is rather immediate geologically. As the graphs show, only Co2 has risen with temperature during that period. And much of that temperature rise has been in the last 40+ years as Co2 has accumulated percentage wise in the atmosphere.
This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.
EF,
And yet the Earth has cooled since its creation. Is that an inconvenient fact? The surface temperature drops at night. Another inconvenient fact? Scrubbing CO2 from a sample of air does not seem to result in a temperature drop. Yet another inconvenient fact?
The most inconvenient fact of all might be that no testable GHE hypothesis exists.
What do you think? Do you still believe that adding more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter? Or do you have a religious conviction that this mysterious but unstated GHE has miraculous heating properties, and therefore no physical explanation is possible or necessary?
Keep praying.
Cheers.
gbaikie says:
For example, if somehow, CO2 concentration were to quickly double from 400 to 800 pm within period of 1 year, there is no agreement how long it would take for it warming effect to occur.
The warming begins immediately. Then it stays warmer for ~10,000 years or so.
“The warming begins immediately. Then it stays warmer for ~10,000 years or so. ”
Stay same temperature, if CO2 level remain the same elevated levels. Right?
Do you agree there is disagreement? And this disagreement is related to variation in projected future warming?
gbaikie says:
Stay same temperature, if CO2 level remain the same elevated levels. Right?
Right. All else being equal.
Do you agree there is disagreement? And this disagreement is related to variation in projected future warming?
Disagreement about the above? Or about climate sensitivity? Of course there’s some disagreement about the latter, but not about CO2’s role and the fact that it causes warming.
DA…”Of course theres some disagreement about the latter, but not about CO2s role and the fact that it causes warming”.
Tyndall proved gases like CO2 could absorb IR but no atmospheric research has been done to prove how much CO2 can warm the atmosphere.
We know it did not warm the atmosphere for 15 years between 1998 and 2012. The IPCC told us that…can they be wrong?
Gordon Robertson says:
We know it did not warm the atmosphere for 15 years between 1998 and 2012. The IPCC told us thatcan they be wrong?
Gordon, why do you keep doing this?
Responding to you is becoming worthless, and others here too are seeing that you should be ignored. Is that really what you want?
–David Appell says:
May 9, 2018 at 5:07 PM
gbaikie says:
Stay same temperature, if CO2 level remain the same elevated levels. Right?
Right. All else being equal.
“Do you agree there is disagreement? And this disagreement is related to variation in projected future warming? ”
Disagreement about the above? Or about climate sensitivity? Of course theres some disagreement about the latter, but not about Co2 role and the fact that it causes warming.–
About the time it takes for rising CO2 levels, to increase the global average temperature.
And I also would say climate sensitivity disagreements are also related to the time required for increasing CO2 to increase global temperature.
Or those thinking there is a large delay in warming from increased CO2 levels, tend to favor idea of Earth becoming more like Venus (and current CO2 levels are already too high and time alone, will kill us, we are already doomed).
gbaikie says:
About the time it takes for rising CO2 levels, to increase the global average temperature.
As soon as a CO2 molecule is put into the atmosphere, it begins ab.sorb.ing and radiating IR. So the warming starts immediately.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Tyndall proved gases like CO2 could absorb IR but no atmospheric research has been done to prove how much CO2 can warm the atmosphere.”
Loco.
DA…”We know it did not warm the atmosphere for 15 years between 1998 and 2012. The IPCC told us thatcan they be wrong?
Gordon, why do you keep doing this? ”
*******
Because the IPCC stated that in 2013 and I have not seen them refute it. Plus the fact that the UAH 33 year report claimed there was little or no warming following the 1998 EN.
NOAA and GISS hopefully don’t run the IPCC. They are the one’s claiming the warming after the retroactively fudged the data to find a trend.
As I have stated, NOAA and GISS are cheaters but I only suspect the IPCC of cheating at this time.
Why are you still an alarmist? We have given you enough evidence to rescind your beliefs and earn an honest living reporting skeptical matters.
Gordon Robertson says:
DAGordon, why do you keep doing this?
Because the IPCC stated that in 2013 and I have not seen them refute it.
You do know the IPCC doesn’t do any science, right?
So you have to pay attention to the science, not just the periodic assessments.
Why don’t you do that?
Gordon Robertson says:
DAGordon, why do you keep doing this?
Because the IPCC stated that in 2013 and I have not seen them refute it.
Such as:
“Climate updates: progress since the fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the IPCC,” (27 Nov 2017).
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2017/climate-updates/
gbaikie…”For example, if somehow, CO2 concentration were to quickly double from 400 to 800 pm within period of 1 year, there is no agreement how long it would take for it warming effect to occur”.
Hmmmm. Where did I put my slide rule?
Let’s see a doubling of CO2 is 0.04% to 0.08%. Applying the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s law of partial pressures would ballpark CO2 warming at 0.08C for a 1C warming.
Still insignificant, I’d venture.
Gordon doesnt understand radiative transfer, so he pretends it doesnt exist. Not a very smart way to go through life.
Gordon, how about an honest answer: why do you ignore radiative transfer in the atmosphere?
-Lets see a doubling of CO2 is 0.04% to 0.08%. Applying the Ideal Gas Equation and Daltons law of partial pressures would ballpark CO2 warming at 0.08C for a 1C warming.
Still insignificant, Id venture.-
So, as said below (and above)
If Ocean average temperature increases from 3.5 to 5 C,
I said average land almost doubled from 10 to less than 20 C and ocean surface temperature increases from 17 C to more than 20 C.
And if Co2 doubles, land is 10 times .O8 C and ocean is
3 times .08 C
Ocean: +.24 C and Land +.8 C from the doubling of CO2, or
400 ppm to 800 ppm.
Or in terms global temperature add to warmer world, the doubling adds about .3 C to Global average temperature.
Now if ocean were to cool from 3.5 to 1 C. The ocean surface temperature of 17 C, would lower signicantly, and get more
“permanent” polar sea ice.
But keeping simple average global temperature would lower by
about 10 C, and are you saying doubling of CO2, would add to cooling?
So add a -.8 C to cooling?
gbalkie: Why do you, too, ignore radiative transfer in the atmosphere?
gbaikie…”Or in terms global temperature add to warmer world, the doubling adds about .3 C to Global average temperature”.
You are right in the neighbourhood of what Lindzen predicted (0.4C for a doubling) and he claimed that is pretty well a maximum.
Good stuff!!!
My less precise estimate based on the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton figures a few hundredths C for a rise of 1C overall. Either way it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
Lindzen was wrong. His ideas failed to be confirmed by other scientists and other research.
Gordon Robertson says:
My less precise estimate based on the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton figures a few hundredths C for a rise of 1C overall.
Why do you ignore radiative transfer?
–Gordon Robertson says:
May 9, 2018 at 6:04 PM
gbaikieOr in terms global temperature add to warmer world, the doubling adds about .3 C to Global average temperature.
You are right in the neighbourhood of what Lindzen predicted (0.4C for a doubling) and he claimed that is pretty well a maximum.–
No, Lindzen predicted .4 C added for doubling of CO2, so .4 C from 300 to 600 ppm. And reaching 600 ppm might occur within a century or two.
What I am talking about, can’t occur within 1000 years.
-David Appell says:
May 9, 2018 at 1:31 PM
gbaikie: Why do you, too, ignore radiative transfer in the atmosphere?-
I am not ignoring radiative transfer.
And in this situation, I am simply trying to clarify what Gordon’s opinion is regarding the effect of doubling CO2.
And btw, I am not making much progress, in this regard.
My bad. Sorry.
DA…”Gordon doesnt understand radiative transfer, so he pretends it doesnt exist”.
So, I spend time explaining radiative transfer between communication antennas and you whine that I don’t think it exists. Do you listen to radio in your car? Radiative transfer.
gbaikie…”What I am talking about, cant occur within 1000 years”.
I agree with you. Sorry if I left the impression I was arguing with you.
DA…”Why do you ignore radiative transfer?”
It’s insignificant at terrestrial temperatures, especially at the intensity the surface radiates.
Gordon Robertson says:
DAWhy do you ignore radiative transfer?
Its insignificant at terrestrial temperatures, especially at the intensity the surface radiates.
Insignificant according to what measured data?
Insignificant with respect to what, Gordon?
Gordon Robertson says:
DAWhy do you ignore radiative transfer?
Its insignificant at terrestrial temperatures, especially at the intensity the surface radiates.
Clearly it’s not insignificant:
https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg
Another Robertson lie.
Gordon Robertson says:
So, I spend time explaining radiative transfer between communication antennas and you whine that I dont think it exists. Do you listen to radio in your car? Radiative transfer
Then why do you ignore its role in climate change?
EF,
If you are referring to the peculiar media piece in Bloomberg, the most likely explanation is that Gavin Schmidt is an undistinguished mathematician who claims to be a climate scientist – with all that implies.
Or maybe its just fake news – there seems to be a bit of it going around.
Or maybe it is because some ignorant and stupid person has assumed that correlation implies causation.
What is your explanation?
There is no scientific explanation for random correlation, is there?
What efforts did you make to find out the answer to the question you posed? I suspect you didnt, and you were trolling. I don’t mind. Its always a pleasure to extend a helping hand to those suffering from a mental affliction if it only costs me time.
You have no science – you cannot even propose a testable GHE hypothesis, can you? Handwaving and poorly posed gotchas are not science.
Cheers.
Mike…”If you are referring to the peculiar media piece in Bloomberg, the most likely explanation is that Gavin Schmidt is an undistinguished mathematician who claims to be a climate scientist….”
How’s things in the Tropics? Notice any global warming yet?
Methinks Herr Schmidt must be a magician as well since he conjured up a warming effect for CO2 of 9% to 25%. Or maybe he consulted with Herr Poorhumbert.
At any rate, I can visualize him sitting in a chemistry class when the prof asks how much 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere would warm it. Herr Schmidt would immediately reply, “9 to 25%”. And the prof would ask, “upon which law of chemistry have you based that Herr Schmidt”? Herr Schmidt replies, “It just seemed right”.
The prof might reply, “I see Herr Schmidt, would you move to the back of the class and wear that pointy hat with ‘Dunce’ written on it”?
Why do we have all these laws related to gas pressure, volume, molar mass, and temperature, and laws like the 2nd law, when modelers completely ignore them and make up their own?
Gordon cant critiique the science, so all he can do is make up stories about people and call them names.
MF – “the earth has cooled since creation” – is that your best correlation implies causation argument? A question, so how did the Earth warm by +3*C from the millions of years of the Carboniferous and Permian eras into the millions of years of the Jurassic and Triassic? How is that possible if the planets interior was cooling?
EF,
Not at all. I’m just stating what appears to be a fact. The surface is no longer molten. Over the longest period available, the average temperature has dropped.
Cherry pick all you like. Ask all the gotchas you like. There is stil no testable GHE hypothesis magically springing into existence, is there?
No GHE. CO2 heats nothing – just like any other plant food. Nor does water. Only the stupid and ignorant would believe so.
Cheers.
“CO2 heats nothing”
Prof. Tyndall showed CO2 heats something. Namely his tube thermometers. Mike Flynn’s often repeated testable GHE hypothesis magically springing into existence.
Unfortunately, Ball4 cannot support his fantasy with an actual quote form Tyndall. Even his talk of tube thermometers is nonsense – Tyndall said no such thing!
Ball4 is stupid and ignorant to think that his delusions will be taken as fact.
Anyone is free to read Tyndall for themselves, and form their own opinion.
Cheers
I currently use Tyndalls “Heat – a mode of motion, Sixth ed. Appleton & co., 1905.
Anything earlier is likely to have been revised and amended – sometimes extensively, and often by means of copious footnotes (presumably to avoid the costs of resetting and reimposition).
This information may be of assistance to someone. Feel free to learn from my mistakes.
Cheers.
1861: “I (Prof. Tyndall) subsequently had the tube perforated and thermometers screwed into it air-tight. On filling the tube the thermometric columns rose, on exhausting it they sank, the range between the maximum and minimum amounting in the case of air to 5 degrees FAHR.”
Fun to read Prof. Tyndall, Mike. Try it sometime. Cheers.
Mike…”I currently use Tyndalls Heat a mode of motion, Sixth ed. Appleton & co., 1905.”
I know how you feel about Tyndall and I enjoy your commentaries so I won’t get into a critique of the book. I did read the first two chapters.
I can away with the feeling that Tyndall was re-inventing the wheel and making it square. Not once in the book does he refer to Clausius, who invented the 2nd law and entropy and added the U term for internal energy to the 1st law.
Tyndall had either never heard of Clausius or he hated him.
I can see from reading 2 chapters of Tyndall where the modernists get the notion that heat is a mode of motion. In a sense it is, it’s the motion of atoms, particularly electrons, but I would not call that a mode.
I was impressed with Tyndall’s experiment in which he proved gases like CO2 could absorb IR. I gathered from reading the details that he was a good scientist. However, I found the first two chapters of his book tedious. He went on and on giving examples of heat, and although he claims to represent the scientific approach to heat, I did not see any proof of what it is. All I saw was him reasoning on what it ‘MUST’ be.
Do yourself a favour and download The Mechanical Theory of Heat by Clausius. If you have trouble finding it let me know and I’ll make arrangements to get you a copy.
I would be interested in your opinion of the difference in clarity between the two book.
Let’s just say that both Boltzmann and Planck took the definitions of entropy and the 2nd law from Clausius and applied them to statistical analysis.
If the Tyndall, in the Sixth Edition, appearing in 1890, knew nothing about the work of Clausius and Boltzmann by then, there is something wrong. Either that or he vehemently disagreed to the point where he was willing to ignore both.
Gordon Robertson says:
Lets just say that both Boltzmann and Planck took the definitions of entropy and the 2nd law from Clausius and applied them to statistical analysis.
That’s what all good scientists do — build on prior work.
By the way, Clausius built on Carnot.
Even an engineer should know that.
LOL. Your sad duplicity is drearily laughable Flynn.
EF,
I’m glad I was able to try to bring a little joy into your life. I am sorry you find laughter dreary, I’m not sure why you do it, if you don’t enjoy it.
Do you suffer from some odd mental defect? Why laugh if it brings you misery?
Maybe you really meant to say something else, but were too stupid and ignorant to figure out how to do so.
If it brings you misery, laugh as much as you like. Nothing to do with me.
Cheers.
MF_ more silly tangents from you? Maybe pick up a dictionary one day and learn what duplicity means.
You asked for a testable GHE hypothesis, I sent you a link graphing all the known ‘forcings’, all are easily testable, all disproving your anti GHE religion, you sloughed it off.
You claimed the molten core of the planet is cooling so its not possible the surface and atmosphere is warming. LOL. Too easy to prove false. You slough it off.
Its your religion, your ideology, that won’t let you think MF.
Go test the ‘forcings’, disprove that its CO2 warming the planet. but we all know you can’t, your religion won’t let you think on it.
Good luck, and Skol.
I wrote this above:
—
May 7, 2018 at 10:20
Bond:
The average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C
The average land surface temperature is about 10 C
The average temperature of the entire volume of the
ocean is about 3.5 C
The temperature of the entire volume of the ocean of the
ocean if between 1 to 5 C, make Earth be in a icebox climate.
The definition of icebox climate is a cold ocean which refers the temperature of the entire ocean, and not the surface temperature of the ocean.
So Earth average (the entire volume) ocean temperature is about 3.5 and over last few millions years, the average temperature of ocean has varied from about 1 C to 5 C or we have been in icebox climate for more than million years.
Or in big picture we have been in a Ice Age for over a million
years. This Ice Age has long periods called glacial periods which can average ocean temperature get as cold as 1 C, and it has shorter periods called interglacial periods in which the ocean can warm as much 5 C.
If Ocean was 5 C, we would have much higher sea levels and average global temperature of about 20 C.
Which means average ocean surface temperature of about 20 C and average land temperature less than 20 C.
In last century ocean surface temperature increased by about 1/2 C and average land by more than 1 C and this resulted in raising average land temperature to 10 C.–
And as said it would require more thousand years for the sun to warm the average ocean temperature from about 3.5 C to about 5 C.
Or it is impossible for sunlight to add that much energy in less than 1000 years.
And quite unlikely within 2000 years.
Though within a few centuries, humans could have ability to warm the ocean to 5 C and at relative low cost, if they wanted to.
So, what would Earth look like it, if the ocean had average temperature 5 C (or warmer)?
So the tropical ocean has average surface temperature of about 26 C.
And to have ocean averaging about 20 C, rather it present temperature of 17 C, there would need to be less difference between ocean surface temperature at tropics up at latitude of say 40 degrees latitude. Or San Francisco would have to surface waters averaging around 20 C.
And that would make California have climate somewhat or mostly tropical, and you could grow orange trees in Oregon.
And tropical mostly means wetter, and California would lose its deserts.
And world in general would lose its deserts. Sahara desert returns to being grassland it was over 6000 years ago.
The biggest changes in terms land area would occur in the two largest countries in the World, Russia and Canada, which currently have an average temperature of about -4 C, and would get average temperature of about 10 C or warmer.
gbaikie
I like those comments and agree with them based on what I know. I think life would eventually thrive at higher temperatures if the warming were very gradual.
The problem is if the change is too sudden. Ecosystems and human beings have adapted to what you call an “icebox climate”.
Here’s a rather extreme analogy: think of a freshwater lake full of trout and bass, and then start to add salt (rapidly).
Most would agree the fish would die.
Some, however, might disagree, arguing that fish thrive in the salty ocean.
The truth, of course, is that the trout and bass have adapted to freshwater, while the ocean fish have adopted to saltwater. Change is the problem.
There is nothing remarkable about the rate of change of our climate today.
Well, I’m just speculating. It would be great if the Sahara and other deserts turned back into grassland.
BTW, what happened to ecosystems during past periods of equivalent warming? Not a rhetorical question, I really don’t know the answer.
Our current rate of climate change is exceptional. For example, the surface is warming 30 times faster than during the warmup after the last glacial maximum 22,000 years ago.
It warmed in the late 20th at almost precisely the rate it warmed in the early 20th. Nobody is claiming the former was induced by CO2.
It was certainly partly caused by CO2. And the warming didnt last as long as now.
DA,
And this from a person who cannot even produce a testable GHE hypothesis!
Just assertion after assertion. CO2 heats nothing. Removing CO2 from the air does not result in cooling. Only a fool or a fraud would claim otherwise. As for yourself, I would assume the former, but maybe you are more devious than I thought.
Cheers.
The rate of warming is 5 thousands greater than the long-term rate of cooling.
I also estimate that it is about 100 times greater than the cooling associated with ice age factors (i.e. Milankovitch cycles).
“It was certainly partly caused by CO2.”
Even your side allows that it was at most negligible.
“And the warming didnt last as long as now.”
Did, too. Almost precisely the same duration.
By 1940, CO2’s radiative forcing was 25% of today’s value, relative to 1850. That’s not negligible. Remember, it’s logarithmic, so it increases fastest in its early years.
data:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt
—
The maximum 30-year trend was +0.15 C/decade in 1945 (NO.AA surface data).
The 30-year trend has been above that since 1992. Today it’s +0.18 C/decade.
data page:
https://tinyurl.com/n2twzcm
You can cherry pick your data all you like, and convince yourself of whatever you please. Doesn’t convince me.
I notice you haven’t refuted my facts, just dismissed it wholesale. That’s always the case with you — no science whatsoever. Just confirmation bias.
I don’t need to. It’s been ably refuted elsewhere. Everyone is aware by now of the symmetry of the temperature rise in the early 20th and late 20th century. I don’t care enough to go looking for it, but I believe it was part of a recent discussion on Dr. Curry’s blog.
Where was it refuted elsewhere?
You make up almost as much science as Gordon.
Me: I believe it was part of a recent discussion on Dr. Currys blog.
DA: Where was it refuted elsewhere?
Me: (sigh)
You provided no link(s).
You never do. You just say things, which are usually shown to be wrong.
Sighing doesn’t count as evidence.
S,
You say (correctly, I suppose) that life has adapted to present conditions – existing from bacteria around 300 C in close to hydrothermal vents, to -90 C – spores, bacteria, humans.
Life adapts. More than 99.9 % of all species that existed on Earth are now extinct, I believe. They obviously didn’t adapt enough, or they would still be here, wouldn’t they?
Good luck with preventing rapid change. Thats the way Nature works. The slowly moving lava engulfs anything in its path. Get out of its way, would seem good advice. If you are a tree – bad luck. Slow moving lava is too rapid for the tree – but too slow for us, hopefully.
Youll need even better luck to stop the climate from changing, if physics and history are any guide. As to rapidity, it is possible the the onset of the Younger Dryas event occurred in less than ten years. No human intervention necessary. Extremely rapid temperature change.
Adapt – or die. Sad but true. I accept that which I cannot change, but feel free to worry twice as much on my behalf if it makes you happier.
Cheers.
Rapid change: another scare tactic of the alarmists.
What is rapid? A relative term, described well by MFlynn’s analogy with lava and the tree. In the past 20,000 years, the oceans have come up 250 feet. That is about a foot every 100 years. Is that rapid? Concurrently, glaciers worldwide have receded. Are they receding too rapidly? Possibly for David.
Let us be clear: if the left is in control we will not be able to adapt because they have become conservative, thinking everything should remain as it is, with no change.
ie A few years back, after Katrina destroyed New Orleans, due to it’s being built in such low lying ground, a high ranking politician recommended not building it back, thus admitting that the city was in a bad location and we should plan for the future.
The left went wild with their typical angst. Dick Cheney was attacked as is typical of the left. But how else to get above the rising sea levels if not by moving? But if the left won’t let us move the cities, how are we supposed to cope? I suppose their is a thermostat on the wall that we can set – keep climate the same.
David would know.
“Obama set out to make all new federal construction at least two feet higher than the 100-year flood line level, a standard first introduced by Jimmy Carter 40 years ago. That was just one precautionary option for new buildings.
Obama issued the executive order in the wake of Hurricane Sandy aftermath, whose preliminary damaged totaled $50 billion, according to a NOAA report.
President Trump, just 10 days before Hurricane Harvey published his own executive order, revoking the two-foot standards announced under Obama.”
9/15/2005
“Bush concluded his speech by saying: “I know that when you sit on the steps of a porch where a home once stood … or sleep on a cot in a crowded shelter, it is hard to imagine a bright future. But that future will come. The streets of Biloxi and Gulfport will again be filled with lovely homes and the sound of children playing. The churches of Alabama will have their broken steeples mended and their congregations whole. And here in New Orleans, the streetcars will once again rumble down St. Charles, and the passionate soul of a great city will return.”
Lewis, here is a headline from the very left leaning Slate.com:
“Don’t Refloat
The case against rebuilding the sunken city of New Orleans.”
9/07/2005
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2005/09/dont_refloat.html
Relocation must be a slow process. You can’t just dump millions of people in another city and expect that city to cope. Plans need to be put in place now for developing infrastructure in inland towns with the aim of turning them into cities and gradually relocating the population over time.
We (humans) aren’t very proactive when it comes to natural disasters. Case in point, people are still building homes along the Oregon and Washington coast, even though scientists warn of a massive quake (~9.0) and tsunami. (Between 15 and 20 percent chance within the next 50 years).
Lewis says:
“What is rapid? A relative term, described well by MFlynns analogy with lava and the tree. In the past 20,000 years, the oceans have come up 250 feet. That is about a foot every 100 years. Is that rapid?”
Yes, that’s rapid — and we’re now looking at about 3 times that.
BTW, sea level rose only 1 meter in the 5000 years before the industrial era. That’s an average of 0.2 mm/yr. The ocean is now rising at over 15 times that. Is that rapid? Is it rapid when many major cities are built on coastlines? Does it matter that a meter of sea level rise will swamp parts of many of them?
Miami Beach is spending $500 M to deal with sea level rise (walls and pumps). Is that rapid?
Svante says:
“Richard Muller claims that:”
I don’t see where in that graph he says that, or it’s implied.
Lewis…”Rapid change: another scare tactic of the alarmists”.
Alarmist refer to a flat trend as a rapid change. You hear it every day on alarmist media.
Gordon Robertson says:
Alarmist refer to a flat trend as a rapid change. You hear it every day on alarmist media.
Cite even one instance. Or admit you’re wrong.
Bart says:
Richard Muller claims that:
http://tinyurl.com/yck2o849
I have less than zero confidence in BE.
Bart says:
May 9, 2018 at 12:23 PM
I have less than zero confidence in BE.
Who are you minuscule Bart to doubt about any confidence of Berkeley Earth?
Where is your work comparable to what they did?
Ad verecundiam.
Bart says:
“I have less than zero confidence in BE.”
Why?
Because I know the deck is stacked. This is Berkeley we’re talking about.
So, yet again, you aren’t looking at the quality of their science, but just winging it based on your own prejudices.
By the way, one of the most significant funders of BEST’s work were the Koch’s.
Berkeley Earth funders:
http://berkeleyearth.org/funders/
As usual, Bart keeps in guessing, claiming, pretending.
No sources, no proofs, solely polemics.
I have less than zero confidence in… Bart.
That is your privilege, but how anyone can pretend to themselves that Berkeley is an objective source, I really have no idea.
It wasn’t “Berkeley” who does the research, it’s a group of scientists. Including a Nobel Laureate. You’re trying to generalize simply to dismiss their results without having to analyze or understand them. Talk about confirmation bias!
A) It is land only
B) Global temperatures confirm what I have stated
https://tinyurl.com/y77fxhwh
The temperature rise of the late 20th century is in no way unusual.
Do you still want to talk about cherry picking?
Notice the earlier trend lasted 35 years (again, cherry picking is picking your start and end dates to get the results you want.) The latter trend has lasted almost 50 years. (Noticed you didn’t contiue the graph beyond 2010.)
Again, the maximum 30-year trend up to 1945 is 0.15 C/decade, according to NO.AA surface data. The 30-year trend has been above that since 1992, and is now 0.18 C/decade.
The latter trend topped out in about 2005. That is why we’ve had a “pause” for the past two decades. A random El Nino does not a pause-buster make.
The end of the latest trend can be seen in this long-term detrended plot in about 2005 as an obvious point of inflection.
https://tinyurl.com/yd6tolsa
The monster El Nino of 2015-present can be seen to have caused an anomalous blip in the later part of the record. The odds are, that blip will fall back to the long term pattern in the next year or two.
Bart says:
The latter trend topped out in about 2005.
Actually it topped out in 12/2003 at 0.184 C/decade. Now (3/2018) it’s declined ALL THE WAY TO…0.179 C/decade.
That is why weve had a pause for the past two decades. A random El Nino does not a pause-buster make.
There was no pause. The 20-yr trend in NO.AA surface temperatures currently stands at 0.176 C/decade.
Bart says:
The monster El Nino of 2015-present can be seen to have caused an anomalous blip in the later part of the record. The odds are, that blip will fall back to the long term pattern in the next year or two.
That’s why climatologists look at long-term trends, so that natural variations mostly cancel out.
The 60-yr trend in NO.AA global surface temperature is +0.15 C/decade (in case you want to bring up the AMO and PDO).
(sigh)
Your most scientific comment yet.
PS: This comment was made two days ago, but apparently deleted.
Bart…”I have less than zero confidence in BE”.
So it seems does Judith Curry, a co-author on the study.
binny…”As usual, Bart keeps in guessing, claiming, pretending.
No sources, no proofs, solely polemics”.
********
As I told Bart, Judith Curry, a co-author on the original BE, thinks the final incarnation is fudged.
“This comment was made two days ago, but apparently deleted.”
Paranoid much?
You’re just looking in the wrong place. You cause me an awful lot of sighs these days.
Gordon Robertson says:
BartI have less than zero confidence in BE.
So it seems does Judith Curry, a co-author on the study
Where is here published rebuttal, I wonder….
The peer reviewed literature is where scientists communicate. Seems Curry’s objections weren’t that serious after all….
Bart says:
You cause me an awful lot of sighs these days.
That’s what I’d expect from a denier like you. I’ve never seen you cite even one piece of science.
David Appell says:
“I dont see where in that graph he says that, or its implied.”
That’s right, the graph just shows the fit.
The results paper shows warming consistent with log(CO2) as an “antropogenc proxy”, with natural variability at 0.17C. That includes CH4.
https://tinyurl.com/y7lb6zpn
From the op-eds:
“The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else weve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts dont prove causality and they shouldnt end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.”
https://tinyurl.com/y8fk8x97
Finally:
“In fact, we can rule out every other scientific theory except the GHG theory”
https://tinyurl.com/yaly5wjb
–Snape says:
May 8, 2018 at 6:09 PM
gbaikie
I like those comments and agree with them based on what I know. I think life would eventually thrive at higher temperatures if the warming were very gradual.–
Higher average temperature.
And tropics has higher average temperatures and life does thrive in tropics. But tropics is not a region of highest daytime temperatures, though it does has higher night time temperatures.
Though it can be quite cool in tropics at higher elevation, but near sea level elevations temperatures never get near freezing- unless you are in the deserts of tropical zones.
And with high humidity, you don’t need high temperatures, to feel hot, or the higher temperatures in dry deserts can feel cooler, because human body mostly cools by evaporation.
–The problem is if the change is too sudden. Ecosystems and human beings have adapted to what you call an icebox climate.–
Modern humans are traveling huge distances in very short time periods, not only do you have jet lag, but you going to radically different climates. And even a Sunday drive can get to quite different environments.
–The truth, of course, is that the trout and bass have adapted to freshwater, while the ocean fish have adopted to saltwater. Change is the problem.–
Fortnately, humans have the hotel environment☺
And humans could make nature environments, on say Mars, so
One could have dinosaurs living on Mars within a century.
gbaikie
Few have the ability to just pack up and move somewhere more comfortable.
Recently it was blistering hot in Nawabshaw, Pakistan. Could those folks decide, “this place sucks, I’m heading to Montana”?
One of the greatest tragedies of AGW is that it will most impact those who contribute least to it. The developing world isn’t going to Mars anytime soon, they don’t take Sunday drives, and they won’t stay in hotels with A/C. They’ll just suffer.
World ends – women and minorities hardest hit.
Nawabshaw is in a desert region, and gets hot in the summer and can get near freezing in other parts of the year.
Global warming does not cause deserts to get hotter, and record of hottest day was about a century ago goes to death valley (a desert) in California (and I live about 300 miles from the blessed spot).
And we, the well informed, know that global temperature in April was not particularly warm.
gbaikie says:
And we, the well informed, know that global temperature in April was not particularly warm.
One month does not make a trend?
Would you like me to quote you the current 30-year trends for the various datasets?
Bart says:
World ends women and minorities hardest hit.
Not surprised you and your arrogance make fun of those less fortunate than yourself.
DA…”One month does not make a trend?”
It does if you select the end points as the beginning and end of the month.
It is a very well known witticism, David. The joke is that, if the world ends, everyone is hit equally, regardless of station. Bringing in oppressed or downtrodden classes is a transparently emotional argument, intended to appeal to the audience’s sense of fairness rather than to science.
Gordon Robertson says:
DAOne month does not make a trend?
It does if you select the end points as the beginning and end of the month.
False, Gordon. I’d ask you to prove your claim, but it’s abundantly clear by now that you don’t have a clue about anything statistical.
Bart says:
The joke is that, if the world ends, everyone is hit equally, regardless of station. Bringing in oppressed or downtrodden classes is a transparently emotional argument, intended to appeal to the audiences sense of fairness rather than to science.
1. The world isn’t ending.
2. Why is it “emotional” to present a well recognized position – that it’s the poor who will suffer most from AGW, while contributing to it least?
Can you disprove that with facts, instead of your usual easy meaningless unscientific dismissals?
For anyone with faith in NASA supposed climate models –
“Model development is an ongoing task. As new physics is introduced, old bugs found and new applications developed, the code is almost continually undergoing minor, and sometimes major, reworking. Thus any fixed description of the model is liable to be out of date the day it is printed.”
Would you believe a model that depends on unstated new physics being introduced on an unstated basis, and continuous reworking making new results different from previous results?
Model run comparisons become ever more meaningless, quite apart from the fact that modelling a chaotic system produces results with no predictive use at all.
GHE enthusiasts are a gullible lot – they are incapable of thinking for themselves, and believe whatever current nonsense is served up.
Ignorant and stupid, as opposed to knowledgeable and smart. Proof positive that neither education nor qualifications ensure that you actually know what you are doing.
Maybe NASA could pay less attention to unstated new physics, and concentrate on the old scientific method. First describe the GHE, and then propose a testable GHE hypothesis, if necessary.
Fat chance, eh? Faith supersedes fact, as far as NASA is concerned.
Cheers.
As I wrote earlier, a tropical storm may come closer to Hawaii.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=epac×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
All those discussing thermodynamic here should read this.
https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/effective-thermodynamics-for-a-marginal-observer/
E,
Why? Do you have a particular reason for promoting the authors views?
Cheers.
entropic…”All those discussing thermodynamic here should read this”.
I did, and it’s mathematical nonsense. David Bohm, an expert in quantum theory once claimed that an equation with no physical reality to back it is garbage. The entire essay at your link is therefore garbage.
Clausius invented both the 2nd law and entropy and he presented both without the mathematical idiocy at your link. At best, he offered simply differentials and integrals that anyone with basic math could understand.
At your link, thermodynamics is presented from the statistical POV, meaning you must disregard all of his thought experiments since they cannot be tested and/or proved.
You don’t need entropy to express the 2nd law. Clausius stated it in words along the lines of ‘heat can NEVER be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body by its own means’.
Gordon, Clausius and John Baez (who by the way is a well-respected mathematician and polymath) are addressing very different aspects of thermodynamics. If you had read Baez, you see that he says
“Here I would like to present some recent ideas Ive been working on together with some collaborators on how to deal with incomplete information about the sources of dissipation of a thermodynamic system.”
See those words “incomplete information?”
Next time try reading something before expertly dismissing it.
DA…”See those words incomplete information?
Next time try reading something before expertly dismissing it”.
You might take your own advice. Statistical mechanics has loads of incomplete information, you can’t even visualize it. He’s talking about statistical mechanics not a real heat transfer.
Gordon Robertson says:
You dont need entropy to express the 2nd law. Clausius stated it in words along the lines of heat can NEVER be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body by its own means.
Do you notice the words “by its own means?” Do you understand that’s NOT what’s happening in the Earth-atmosphere system, because the Sun (outside that system) is constantly pouring energy into that system?
Wikipedia says Clausius’s formulation was (1854):
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Clausius_statement
They’re equivalent, of course, but the second is a little clearer (IMO).
Warming? What warming?
UNITED STATES – Summer is hitting the western United States early this year, as states like California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington experience boiling temperatures atypical for May. And, with temperatures climbing thanks to a northward bulge in the jet stream, the possibility of new wildfires is climbing, too.
Extreme temperatures and a lack of rain will heighten the wildfire threat across the Southwest, threatening lives and property across the region, said Brett Edwards, AccuWeather Meteorologist, according to an AccuWeather report.
The National Weather Service reported temperatures in the lower elevations of Arizona, southern Nevada, and eastern California will rise to 100 degrees or higher this week, with high pressures remaining until a cold front from the Northwest descends into the area. Already, Thermal, California, hit a daily record of 110 degrees last Sundaythe highest temperature in the United States
https://www.andnowuknow.com/buyside-news/western-us-sees-record-temperatures-heat-wave-sets/jessica-donnel/58192
Yeah, now that summer is here, weather = climate again.
That’s a fair criticism, I think — some people do do that. Climate is the long-term trend, not weather.
But when warming is expected, it’s notable when records are broken. And now we have far more record high temperatures being set than record low temperatures, by something like 5-1.
Say you knew of Usain Bolt when he was a boy. He was fast, and won most of his early races. As he got older the competition was stronger, but he still won some races and sometimes set records. Naturally you notice the records, and you think it’s consistent with the trend in his times. The records are a consequence of the trend. So they’re notable, but you realize that just one record by itself doesn’t tell you much. But record after record does.
“But when warming is expected, its notable when records are broken.”
Confirmation bias in action.
It’s the recognition of predictions coming true.
It’s seeing what you hope to see, and ignoring what you don’t. Do we really need to go into how many cold temperature records were broken just this winter?
I don’t hope to see warming, but I expect it.
Do we really need to go into how many cold temperature records were broken just this winter?
Sure, let’s do that. What do ya got?
Records were set over the US and Europe this winter:
https://tinyurl.com/yaxcqjxx
https://tinyurl.com/yavxe7gl
Yes, cold records are set all the time.
But were there more than usual? More than warm records?
Is one season indicative of long-term climate change? (No)
This site, using NASA data, says that in the last 12 months in the US there were 1.62 record highs for every record low:
http://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-record-low-temps
This is not a valid metric. Near the end of a period of warming, it is expected that more high records will be set than low. It’s biased off in the warm direction.
What is remarkable is that so many cold records have been set recently. They had to drop a lot farther than the others had to rise in order to breach the thresholds.
Bart says:
This is not a valid metric. Near the end of a period of warming, it is expected that more high records will be set than low. Its biased off in the warm direction.
End of what warming, global warming? We’re nowhere near the end.
What is remarkable is that so many cold records have been set recently.
Still less than number of warming records, at least in the US.
They had to drop a lot farther than the others had to rise in order to breach the thresholds.
That’s because the long-term trend is warming!!
(sigh)
That’s your most scientific comment yet.
myki…”Warming? What warming?
UNITED STATES Summer is hitting the western United States early this year, as states like California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington….”
Hot weather in California, Arizona, and Nevada near summer…go figure. The only places you’d expect it to be noticed is in Oregon and Washington.
I live right above Washington State and we get much the same weather as them. The heat to which you refer is hit or miss. One day it’s 24C, the next it is 10C.
The 14 day trend in Vancouver calls for an average around 17C, pretty normal for this time of year, even if it took it’s time getting here. The last two winters have been abnormally cold and miserable.
It’s going to get cooler over the next two weeks, not hotter. It drops back to nearly a week of 16C by the end of the two weeks.
ps…myki…nice propaganda. You missed your calling, you could have gotten a job during WW II spelling off Tokyo Rose, trying to demoralize Allied Troops. As it turned out, the troops were highly entertained by her, much as we skeptics are entertained by your alarmist rants.
Gordon Robertson
In response to your comment up above:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-301293
If the link posts to your comment you can reread it.
Again it shows that when you post you are wrong and you make stuff up that is not real.
Of course the temperature of air would go up if you added IR energy the mix.
You have a really poor grasp of reality. Maybe I can help. Probably not, it is a waste of time trying to reason with you. You are a denialist fanatic and are unwilling to consider anything that disturbs your false faith.
I can show you how quack your ideas are but that won’t matter. You do not possess enough logical reasoning ability to see the flaws to your opinions.
It is obvious you read scientific material not to learn but to cherry pick ideas within material that you falsely believe support your delusional beliefs.
norman…”Of course the temperature of air would go up if you added IR energy the mix”.
Why? You have 1% of the gases with WV included. The temperature should not rise more than 1%. Without WV, you would not even notice the rise.
Gordon Robertson says:
You have 1% of the gases with WV included. The temperature should not rise more than 1%.
What physics leads to that conclusion?
“The temperature should not rise more than 1%.”
Lol !!
Is that 1% of the temperature in degrees Kelvin, Centigrade or Farenheit?
Only idiots talk about percentage temperature changes.
myki…”Is that 1% of the temperature in degrees Kelvin, Centigrade or Farenheit?
Only idiots talk about percentage temperature changes”.
Does a percentage of a degree C not make sense to you? Where did you study physics, at the London School of Home Economics?
1 percent of 1C is 0.01C. Make it a bit clearer for your confused mind?
DA…”You have 1% of the gases with WV included. The temperature should not rise more than 1%.
What physics leads to that conclusion?”
*****
Ideal Gas Law, and Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures. Seems modelers did not study basic physics/chemistry most of them picked it up during semester courses as grad students.
Gavin Schmidt of GISS is a mathematician who turned to applied mathematics later in his studies. Shows it, his understanding of physics is lacking.
Gordon Robertson
Here is exactly why you are a crackpot with horrible physics. You keep falsely pointing out that 0.04% CO2 insignificant effect on radiant energy.
But look at this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
The Ozone layer contains far less ozone than the atmosphere contains CO2.
“The ozone layer contains less than 10 parts per million of ozone,”
40 times less than CO2 levels.
Now read this: “The ozone layer absorbs 97 to 99 percent of the Sun’s medium-frequency ultraviolet light (from about 200 nm to 315 nm wavelength), which otherwise would potentially damage exposed life forms near the surface.[3]”
So less than 10 PPM is able to absorb 97-99% UV.
The next one shows how really lame your logical thoughts are. If you would quit being a fanatic and start to reason again it would be beneficial to you. You are even more fanatic than most alarmists. You should examine your own stupidity before you consider other people.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/geophysical/chapter/layers-of-the-atmosphere/
And that UV energy absorbed by the “insignificant” number of ozone molecules raises the air temperature by 40 C.
You are just mostly wrong about everything you post. And you make up most of the material you put out.
Again I am wasting my time just to show other posters you don’t have even the remote clue of science, logical thought, or reasoning ability. You are a lunatic fanatic obsessed with a false belief that you want others to believe. Thankfully most people have better science education and can see you as the phony fraud you are.
Norman, I agree that Gordon is quickly becoming a waste of time. It’s not even clear that he reads replies. Frankly it’s not even clear he’s not a bot, or is purposely wasting people’s time here, his own form of trolling. He just won’t admit when he’s wrong and learn from it.
David Appell
It would be so refreshing to hear Gordon admit he was wrong about something and go actually learn something instead of making stuff up.
I think he is addicted to making up crap. He does it when it is easy to find actual information. He lost all credibility with me when he willing and intentionally lied about a link barry had posted from Clausius own writings. When a person is such a denier fanatic that they have to lie it becomes a problem.
I’m not expecting everyone here to be well read on electronics. But it is clear that he also has very little understanding of many of the concepts in this field where he supposedly works.
norman…”The Ozone layer contains far less ozone than the atmosphere contains CO2″.
Your basic physics is missing. By the altitude of the stratosphere, essentially all air is missing. There are a few oxygen molecules floating around that are tuned to absorbing UV.
“So less than 10 PPM is able to absorb 97-99% UV”.
How much UV is there normie? According to Planck there’s barely any. It’s very intense but there’s not much of it. The terrestrial radiation flux is a bazillion times more dense than solar UV.
“Again I am wasting my time….”
Yes you are. You’re on an ego trip trying to debate someone whose physics background is far stronger than yours and who has decades of experience applying it.
The truth should be apparent, you’re on the wrong side. AGW theory is based on seriously bad science and you lack the background to see that.
Gordon Robertson says:
How much UV is there normie?
Now you too are going to start insulting people by twisting their name, like g*?
There’s enough UV to kill you if the 10 ppm of ozone wasn’t there. Is that a big enough effect for you.
—
Gordon, if there are 3 targets on the side of a barn, what’s the chance of hitting one with a random throw?
DA…”Gordon, if there are 3 targets on the side of a barn, whats the chance of hitting one with a random throw?”
Like I told you, the amount of EM flux radiating from the surface would be like a mile wide swath of of arrows shot at the barn. Some would hit but most would miss it completely.
Gordon Robertson
Yes again you are just making stuff up for no apparent reason. You just post things without even bothering to look up anything or logically think about it. Just make up some information. Why do you need to do this. What drives your fanatic state of delusion? You are wrong and keep showing how little you know. Why do you need to humiliate yourself?
Here:
“At the top of the atmosphere, sunlight is about 30% more intense, having about 8% ultraviolet (UV),[7] with most of the extra UV consisting of biologically damaging short-wave ultraviolet.[8]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
Solar energy at the TOA is 1367 W/m^2 so the UV would equal around 109 W/m^2
It is stupid for you to make up these phony statements. YOU: “How much UV is there normie? According to Planck theres barely any. Its very intense but theres not much of it. The terrestrial radiation flux is a bazillion times more dense than solar UV.”
The terrestrial radiation averages 390 W/m^2 so it is around 4 times as “dense” or intense. Not sure why you made up your phony statement. Was it supposed to impress me?
Gordon, approximately 10% of the incoming solar power is UV. So that would be about 130 W/m^2. That agrees both with measurements and with Planck’s theories.
130 W/m^2 is a pretty hefty amount by most measures that would be applicable here.
tim…”Gordon, approximately 10% of the incoming solar power is UV. So that would be about 130 W/m^2. That agrees both with measurements and with Plancks theories”.
Planck graded the intensities of EM based on an exponential term in his equation. According to Rayleigh-Jeans, the equation for EM which is E = hf would run off to infinity by the time it reached the UV range. So Planck graded them statistically, reasoning that the more powerful energies like UV would not constitute much of the EM spectrum.
This is a far more complex calculation than you are making it out to be. The percentage of gases in the stratosphere, where the ozone layer resides, is still roughly 99% N2 and 21% O2 but the overall pressure has been reduced to 1/5th what it is at sea level. Not a good breathing mixture but the oxygen content is still much higher than the CO2 concentration of 0.04% in the lower end of the troposphere.
Also, the UV band is broken into UVA, UVB, and UVC, with UVC generally being the UV absorbed in the ozone layer. Since UVC is at the high end of the EM spectrum it is the most intense but at the same time the least statistically available, according to Planck.
Seems to me you cannot take a linear percentage of UV and apply it as such. Some of the UV band gets right through to the surface.
Besides, the 1300+ w/m^2 is not a linear distribution, it’s an average. You would have to break it down by wavelength/frequency before applying it.
Gordon Robertson
What you request has already been done.
YOU: “Seems to me you cannot take a linear percentage of UV and apply it as such. Some of the UV band gets right through to the surface. (ME: Very little maybe 3 or 4%)
Besides, the 1300+ w/m^2 is not a linear distribution, its an average. You would have to break it down by wavelength/frequency before applying it.”
HERE:
https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=553e4871d685ccd10e8b4618&assetKey=AS%3A273765705945088%401442282238044
If this link works they have what you request if you scroll starting at page 29 through 31. They get 6.5% UV of total flux of 1367 W/m^2
I did the calculation using their graph and it is around that amount. I got about 93.9 W/m^2 UV
Gordon, I have DONE those calculations of Planck’s from first principles in graduate school! I know about the ultraviolet catastrophe. The 10% number IS the integration of the energy in The UV portion of the spectrum! These calculations are NOT more complicated than I think.
DA…”Norman, I agree that Gordon is quickly becoming a waste of time”.
I just consider the source, a wannabee journalist who is so biased he interviews only alarmist scientists.
Gordon, you don’t understand journalism, either.
When I’m writing about new research findings, I interview the people who did the work, and other people who’ve done similar work that have the expertise to understand the nuances of the new work.
I don’t go around asking any and all climate scientists what they think of this new research, because few of them have the expertise needed to quickly evaluate it. It’s not their speciality.
I have never written an article about “Is AGW True?” No magazine wants such an article — the question was already determined a few decades ago. And if I did, it wouldn’t be proper to quote N scientists who answer yes and N “skeptics” who answer no. It’s not a question that requires a 50-50 balance — that would not represent reality, since it’s more like 99-1.
DA…”I dont go around asking any and all climate scientists what they think of this new research, because few of them have the expertise needed to quickly evaluate it. Its not their speciality”.
So you are claiming that Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH, who have actual data that disproves AGW, are not qualified to comment?
What makes you think Trenberth and Schmidt are qualified to comment when neither of them have been right?
John Christy studied under Trenberth as a grad student and he was immersed in the Trenberth dogma. As a practicing climate scientist studying NOAA satellite data he began to see that the real data was not supporting the models or AGW theory in general.
He had the integrity to say so and Roy has supported that observation, much to his credit. Roy, who had it good at NASA could have said, “I’m out of here”, but he saw the truth in the data and had the integrity to stick by it.
NOAA was not using the sat data and John asked for it. Maybe Roy was part of that, I don’t know. It would be nice if he’d write an article on the history and the way AMSU units work. NOAA gave the data to UAH willingly.
There’s a good story for you there if you are willing to write an unbiased article. Maybe you could get a first hand insight into how the UAH system works.
Sorry – what is this Spencer and Christy data that “disproves AGW”?
bond…”what is this Spencer and Christy data that disproves AGW?”
15 year flat trend from 1998 – 2015.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Unfair Norman. Not one alarmist climatologist has been able to give such a number for the amount of surface radiation absorbed and back-radiated by CO2. Hows Mike supposed to have such information for solar energy?”
Well if you and Mike were not some of the laziest nonscientific skeptics around you might easily be able to find this information as real and valid scientists have actually measured the values at various locations. Here is one example.
Please look at slide 3 of this presentation. It clearly shows you don’t have a clue of what you are talking about.
https://www.slideserve.com/faunus/from-grant-petty-s-book-a-first-course-in-atmospheric-radiation
If you would please read through the entire presentation. You could actually learn some real science and stop having to make up your own version.
norman…”Well if you and Mike were not some of the laziest nonscientific skeptics around you might easily be able to find this information as real and valid scientists have actually measured the values at various locations. Here is one example”.
I have already read an excellent book on atmospheric radiation by Craig Bohren. He is skeptical of AGW but he is not in denial of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. He thinks that both theories offered as the basis for AGW are metaphors, not fact.
I have read widely on other authors, like Lindzen, who has a different take on GHE and AGW. I have read Clausius, Planck, Bohr, and the work of many physicists and chemists.
I have tried to read Pierrehumbert, who is the authority behind realclimate but he leaves me shaking my head. He does not talk like a physicist, rather he preaches a dogma that contradicts what I have learned at university and elsewhere. Too many hypotheticals and inferences that lack fact.
You clearly have an odd idea about how a physicist should talk.
It is what is going to happen to the climatic picture from this point in time moving forward from here that matters.
Gramvio has made it a simple process, follow the step by step guide below to start using Instagram story downloader.
A refined body image and path to a newer you are possible through body contouring with SmartLipo, Laser Lipo, and Vaser liposuction which are all forms of Tumescent Liposuction Body Contouring. Dr. Bassin states “if a surgeon can truly deliver an improved figure, then just imagine the emotional enhancements that go along with it. How you feel about yourself when you wake up in the morning and look in the mirror can greatly affect your overall mood and all the interpersonal relationships with those around you.
It helps to store your favorite videos and photos in your local storage straight from the Instagram app.
The online tool was created after a real need to download videos and photos of Instagram which is the most searched topic on the internet related to Instagram.
Топовое порево от именитых порно-студий и режиссеров к вашим услугам. Заверяем, что все ролики постановочные и участвуют в нем исключительно профессиональные актеры и актрисы, снимающие порно видео с соблюдением всех норм безопасности. Исключением являются домашние и любительские материалы от реальных людей, кто любит показывать в сети интимные страсти в постели. Лицезреть секс полезно как девушкам, так и парням. Наслаждайся порно онлайн на checkporno.pro , изучая новые позиции в любовном искусстве, чтобы в будущем поразить партнера супер трахом.
Привет всем!
Мои статьи самые популярные по этой теме в интернете.
Посети сайт porno-tv.info и убедись в этом самые лично.
Привет всем!
Мои статьи самые популярные по этой теме в интернете.
Посети сайт porno-tv.info и убедись в этом самые лично.
Мы собрали для вас лучшие бесплатные ролики подобной тематики в HD – после просмотра вы тоже захотите такому!
porno365tube.com
Эротика – неотъемлемая часть человеческой жизни и будет ли это, ярким событием – решать только вам…
Сколько тайны и жаркого желания таят в себе глаза томных длинноногих красоток…
Прекрасные и будоражащие ракурсы истинной красоты голого тела на эротических фото, способные вызвать щемящие ощущение неги по всему телу. Голые девушки и женщины, роскошные прелестницы, блондинки и брюнетки, рыжие девушки, молодые, с красивыми попками и грудями увлекут вас в самые глубины чувственных наслаждений и эротики, в долину оргазмов и грез – и как закончится ваше путешествие по бескрайним долинам любви и ныряние в пучину страсти, решать только вам.
sexmobila.com
Уважаемые посетители и любители смотреть порно эротику, Мы рады видеть Вас на сайте seks-pics.ru , где собрана бесплатная фото эротика со всего мира. Здесь пользователям представлены фотографии голых девушек и женщин, начиная с любительских селфи и заканчивая профессиональными фотосессиями известных фотомоделей и порно актрис.
________ __________ ______ ________ __________ !
_____ ______ __ ________ _ _________!
pornosite xxx video baby zoo
youtubesave.net offers the fastest mannerism of Youtube video download in mp3, mp4, SQ,
HD, Full HD quality, gain a wide range of formats for free.
Its the most convenient YouTube downloader youve ever tried!
Download video and audio from Youtube to your pc or mobile and
look it for yourself!
1) Find and paste the URL of the video in the
input field
2) Click the green _Download_ button to save it, or choose the
format you like (MP3, MP4, WEBM, 3GP).
3) Then click on the gray arrow on the right of the Download button in order to choose the preferred format.
4) Now you can enjoy the videos and playlists offline! Works in Chrome, Firefox, or any other browser.
This publication is a compilation of information. Readers are very impressed after reading this wonderful post.
PUBG PC Game Crack
Really useful information, which I’ve seen on the internet, you need something like this more than posting more people. Keep posts like this one.
Auslogics BoostSpeed Premium Crack