Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapses, Nobel Prizes, and the Psychology of Catastrophism

June 17th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

John Christy examines one of the seven bullet holes in our NSSTC building, fired on the weekend of the 2017 March for Science.

Last week I had the privilege of being invited to present a talk at a small conference of world experts in a variety of disciplines. The venue was spectacular, on the French Riviera, and we had an entire late-1800s hotel to ourselves, right on the Mediterranean. For me, it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I had the feeling that the organizers wanted the event to have a low profile, and so I won’t mention names.

I had about 12 minutes to lay out the case for climate skepticism. My talk was generally well-received and led to many follow-up discussions over the following days.

One of the attendees was an elderly particle physicist who was also a Nobel Prize winner. During Q&A, he mentioned how he had been teaching a climate class at his university for several years, and that he thought my skepticism was unwarranted. He was convinced that the Antarctic ice sheet was headed for collapse and we would have to deal with a 30 m rise in sea level as a result.

What was more than a little disturbing was that he openly declared that climate policy would not be able to move forward like it needs to until old skeptics like me die out. Part of my talk was about the fact that credentialed and published skeptical climate researchers are indeed slowly dying out, with an average age of around 70 now, and that governmental bias in climate funding will basically kill off skeptical research if things don’t change.

I approached him afterward and politely said I didn’t think either one of us was going to change our minds, and hoped we could just enjoy the nice dinner that was planned for us. He politely smiled and agreed to that.

I guess what was interesting to me is that the “belief” (his word) in catastrophic climate change, like religion, exists at all education levels. One also can’t help but notice how Nobel Prize winners tend to also be experts in all disciplines after they win their prize. Stephen Hawking comes to mind.

The whole experience was quite fascinating.

UPDATE: It has been pointed out to me that Hawking never received a Nobel Prize. The fact is that I can’t account for the lack of Hawking’s Nobel Prize at the moment, and it is a travesty that I can’t.


2,161 Responses to “Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapses, Nobel Prizes, and the Psychology of Catastrophism”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Curious George says:

    Most Nobel Prize winners have a highly advanced knowledge in a narrow field. Winning the Prize makes them feel like universal experts. Quite a few Nobelists signed a Hitler’s initiative “100 scientists against Einstein”.
    https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090224224804AA2GQL1

    • donb says:

      It is not the credentials of the scientist that is of most importance, but the open-ness of the scientific method employed. If the scientific method is working properly, other scientists will challenge difficult-to-justify scientific claims. My concern is that many younger scientists do not fully appreciate that, and are too willing to be swept up in the excitement, notoriety, and politics of the moment.

    • Laura says:

      True, some Nobel prize winners were “against Einstein”.

      But the truly aberrant historical fact is that some Nobel prize winners and other significant figures actively supported Hitler and his explicitly-stated Nazi policies. Let us not forget that Hitler was the 1938 Time’s magazine man of the year.

      http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19311221,00.html

      It is often said, not without reason, that most people by far would have been Nazis if they had been in Germany at the time.

      Well, there are all types of people among the anti-human climate alarmists. Among the prominent ones, I have noticed, are the type that would have moved to Germany in order to become Nazis so that they could volunteer to work in concentration camps.

      Of course, this applies to many Malthusians.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Laura…”It is often said, not without reason, that most people by far would have been Nazis if they had been in Germany at the time”.

        Beginning in the early 1930s, the Nazis were filling concentration camps with dissidents. If you spoke out against the party you went to a camp. If you were German, you were not likely to survive the experience.

        The camps were run by the famed Waffen SS who were later regarded as an elite fighting force. It’s ironic that they were actually prison guards.

        Had I been in Germany in those days, and I had a family and loved ones, I would have been careful about expressing my true feelings. There were Nazi groupies, to be sure, but it seems difficult to say how many Germans were onside with the Nazi program.

        It would have been much safer for the average German to go along to get along. That does not mean they were all into it heart and soul.

        We know there were army leaders who disliked Hitler and what he stood for and some of them paid a horrible price for a failed putsch. Rommel was forced to commit suicide over his connection to it.

        • Svante says:

          Gordon Robertson says:

          “The camps were run by the famed Waffen SS”

          Not true.

          “they were actually prison guards.”

          The 3rd division was initially formed by concentration camp guards, some would rotate back, but the organisations were separate, both committing atrocities.

        • Laura says:

          Gordon Robertson…

          “Beginning in the early 1930s, the Nazis were filling concentration camps with dissidents. If you spoke out against the party you went to a camp. If you were German, you were not likely to survive the experience.”

          How did the Nazis get to amass the power you credit them with in that paragraph? The answer is well known. Germans supported them freely and massively.

          I will grant you that, while I have zero interest in the Nazis, I do have other interests. You might enjoy listening to this:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2C90l7YlT8

      • Nate says:

        Ah, the time-tested technique of smearing ‘the prominent ones’ of your opponents.

        Goebbels would be quite proud of you.

      • Svante says:

        Laura says:

        “Well, there are all types of people among the anti-human climate alarmists. Among the prominent ones, I have noticed, are the type that would have moved to Germany in order to become Nazis”

        I can see another pattern. Their ideas were divorced from reality, and it led to a disaster. They believed in a conspiracy against them, for economical gain and control of the world. Their ideology said others were inferior so they attacked the USSR and declared war on the US. The facts proved each act fatal on its own.

        So if your ideology can’t handle the facts, what do you fix?

    • Ned Nikolov says:

      I agree, George. The fact that a person won the Nobel Prize in a certain field of science does NOT make that person an expert in all other fields of science. Svante Arrhenius is a classical example of this. He won a Nobel Prize in chemistry for his excellent work in electrolytes, but his 1896 paper about the CO2 impact on climate and the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” (http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf) was a colossal failure! In this publication, Arrhenius shows remarkable inability to distinguish between a-priori assumptions and empirical evidence. He proposed a mathematical model to “predict” the effect of atmospheric CO2 on the global surface temperature (his Eqs. 3 & 4) that violates a basic principle of dimensional analysis, i.e. measurement units on the left-hand side of his equation do NOT math the units on the right-hand side! Specifically, his Eq. 4 claims T^4 = dimensionless number which, of course, is a total physical nonsense. Yet, his 1896 paper (which could not have passed peer review today!) is being quoted by followers of the AGW concept as a great achievement of the 19th-Century climate science. It’s really pathetic … Everyone, who cares about the truth regarding climate change, should read Arrhenius (1896: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf) in order to understand the unphysical roots and ABSURDITY of the climate “greenhouse theory”…

      So, yes, Nobel Laureates can talk nonsense when expressing opinions about fields of science outside of their expertise.

      In regard to the dying “breed” of skeptics that Dr. Spencer refers to, I don’t think the situation is that bad. There is now a new wave of skeptics, who bring forward research results that falsify the very foundation of the “greenhouse” climate concept. Here is one such paper:

      Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model. Environ Pollut Climate Change 1: 112. doi:10.4172/2573-458X.1000112 (https://tinyurl.com/ydxlfwn7)

      • Svante says:

        Here’s a discussion:
        https://tinyurl.com/yag6g3vy

        “First off, the authors used fake names to publish the paper in an open access site. In fact, it is the same two authors of the paper you linked, except that they spelled their names backwards (Nikolov -> Volokin; Zeller -> ReLlez). Ummm…what? Also, they later retracted the paper. Also also, the journal they published in is now defunct.”

        • Ned Nikolov says:

          Svante,

          You are WAY behind the curve on this news. Do some more Google search to find out, why we were forced to use pseudonyms, and that our paper was not retracted but WITHDRAWN for reasons NOT related to its scientific merit. Also that paper was later published in an expanded form (see the reference on my previous reply above).

          You may also update your understanding about the use of pseudonyms in science. It’s an old practice and it’s a valuable approach for various reasons, see this 2013 research paper on this topic: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661313000661

          Good luck!

          • Svante says:

            OK, so the premise is:
            “A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years.”

            And this recent study was yours?

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Svante, please stop trolling.

        • gbaikie says:

          from discussion:
          “And it does not mean that “temperature is only influenced by pressure”. On the contrary: just as much, pressure is influenced by temperature – if you somehow lowered the mean temperature of a given planet, surface pressure would drop as well”

          No it doesn’t.
          on Earth you have 10 tonnes of air above each square meter, increasing temperature or decreasing, does not affect it’s weight.

          Increasing or decrease temperature could affect the mass of atmosphere by subtracting or adding gases. But if amount weigh of remains constant so does it’s pressure.

      • Nate says:

        Nope.

        Doesnt appear to be anything wrong with eqn 3 and 4 in Arrhenius paper, if you read it carefully.

        • Ned Nikolov says:

          Nate, do you understand dimensional analysis? It sounds like you don’t … Arrhenius Eqs 3 and 4 are contrived nonsense from a physics and math standpoint of view …

        • Nate says:

          Yes, of course i do. He defined various constants en route to those equations. The constants appear to have the right units.

          In any case, it is a 120 y old paper.

          Its main ideas were correct and influential. They have been built on since then.

          • Ned Nikolov says:

            Nate,

            This is where the problem is – Arrhenius Eq. 3 & 4 do not have matching (equal) units on both the equal sign. On the left-hand side is temperature T^4 (Kelvin^4), while on the right-hand side is a ratio of dimensionless number. If you read carefully the text, it becomes clear that all variables on the right-hand side have no units including the CO2 amount represented by K, which given in terms of relative optical depth. So, Arrhenius Equation 3 & 4 is totally fabricated with no physical meaning. And this is the FOUNDATION of the “Greenhouse” climate concept. It’s pretty tragic!

          • Nate says:

            Yeah, looking at it again, I find that I can’t figure out what he’s done in eqn 3.

            ‘Equation 3 & 4 is totally fabricated with no physical meaning.

            I think that’s a bit over the top interpretation.

            Up to that point (eqn 3) it mostly makes sense. The terms that are there make sense to me. The physics is correct. In the end he makes calculations that again seem to make sense. Modern papers have repeated the calculations (no-one blindly accepts his results), made some improvements, but in the end find similar results.

            Its written in an old fashioned style that is hard to follow. We probably need to read his earlier and later papers.

            I think more likely

            a. he has not explained very well what he’s doing at eqn 3
            b. We are missing something
            c. He means proportional to, or a its a typo

  2. My argument would be as follows:

    The jig is up this year for AGW, as I have been saying. AGW has hi jacked natural variations within a climatic regime to attribute the recent warming to mankind. That being ENSO,( look at the MEI index over the past 3 or 4 years), lack of explosive major volcanic activity and the sun itself which I say had a warming effect on the climate up until the end of year 2005. Thereafter a cooling effect but lag times have to be taken into consideration.

    Year 2018 is a key year because this is the first year my two solar conditions are present in order for solar to have a significant cooling impact on the climate.

    They are 10+ years of sub solar activity in general (post 2005-present) and following that a period of very low average solar parameters (which commenced in year 2018).

    All solar influence moderated by the geo magnetic field. Sometimes in concert ,sometimes in opposition.

    Overall sea surface temperatures one of the keys and the trend is down. It has been down for a year. Albedo being the other ,which I say are both tied to very low prolonged solar conditions.

    I have talked about this so much but to get to the chase I see year 2018 as a transitional year to a different climatic regime ,one similar to what was present during the Dalton.

    What is prevalent is more often then not when the climate transitions to another regime it usually does it at the top of the previous climatic regime.

    Post 1850-2017 the climate has been in the same climatic regime with variations +/- 1C due to ENSO and volcanic activity, which is in no way unique.

    The test is on and I like what I see but this is the top of the 1st inning(cooling has scored) but we have many innings to go.

    • David Appell says:

      “Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”

      – Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257

      • Nylo says:

        I knew I had read that before…

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        David, please stop trolling.

      • John says:

        Trolling on all other websites now that nobody visits your own blog? Probably for good reason David.

        Made yourself look foolish in your “debate” with Wiese, so now you of course go back to trolling Spencer’s site to make you feel better?

    • ken says:

      There are going to be a lot of people with egg on their face if and when the temperatures go down. I wonder how they will blame that on CO2. (I’ve already had arguments with people absurdly claiming that we will somehow get both warming and cooling)

      Of course being with egg on the face might be a good thing. Cooling will mean famine.

      I’m appalled to find I want evidence of strong cooling. I like warmer weather and I am apprehensive of life during a Maunder or Dalton cooling scenario complete with famine, plague, and war. However, I also don’t like the globalist agenda including economy destroying carbon policies that seem based on the AGW hoax.

      • richard verney says:

        Whilst cooling is not to be welcomed, we are better equipped these days (with the aid of fossil fuels) to adapt and cope with a cooling scenario.

        I do not envisage that times will be as harsh, even if temperatures were to fall to LIA levels.

    • Svante says:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      “Overall sea surface temperatures one of the keys and the trend is down. It has been down for a year.”

      Looks like it was subducted then:
      https://tinyurl.com/ybo3coub

    • bilybob says:

      Salvatore, back in Dec 2010 you said the following.

      “The meridional cir. AO NEG 3 , as we speak, if it should continue, will evenually lead to more snow cover ,if so earth’s albedo could increase which could bring about further cooling. We will have to see how this, among solar,volcanic eruptions, oceanic temp etc etc all play’s out.”

      Is it my understanding that these did not play out as anticipated until now. That you were expecting these in the earlier part of the decade? Or were there subsequent modifications in your theory?

  3. steve case says:

    I had hoped to live to a see a stake driven through the heart of the Global Warming monster, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. I’ll be 74 this year and to read that a Nobel prize winner in physics believes the Antarctic Ice sheet is headed for collapse is disheartening. Does the man not know that Antarctica is well below freezing nearly everywhere nearly all the time?

    Ice mass balance on the continent is a function of snow fall decades or centuries ago and the calving of ice bergs today. Temperature has nothing to do with it. Or does he believe the fairy tale that warm sea water sinks to the bottom and then flows up hill to melt the ice sheet from the bottom?

    • David Appell says:

      So temperature has nothing to do with ice mass. Hmm.

      I can’t see that idea getting much traction.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        On that basis, it seems to have cooled mightily since the last time Antarctica was ice free.

        Just something else you can’t see, and it’s a fact, not just one of your ideas.

        Try harder.

        Cheers.

      • steve case says:

        I can’t see the idea that temperature doesn’t have much to do with the Antarctic Ice Balance gaining any traction either, but then it really doesn’t get above freezing anywhere in Antarctica hardly at all, so how does temperature have anything to do with the ice mass balance?

        More to the point, telling us that the Antarctic ice sheets are melting is B.S.

        • David Appell says:

          More to the point, telling us that the Antarctic ice sheets are melting is B.S.

          Why?

          ——–

          Temperature doesn’t get much above freezing because that’s how phase transitions work.

          Heat up a block of ice that’s at a temperature below freezing, and the temperature will rise. But when the temperature get to 0 C, it stops rising and the ice starts melting. Only when the ice is all melted will the temperature begin to rise again.

          Example: average Arctic temperature north of 80 N:

          http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Steve,

          Average temp at South Pole around -49 C.

          A fair way to go before Antarctica becomes ice free again, I guess.

          David lives in WarmWorld, where the GHE exists, Schmidt is a scientist, and Mann won a Nobel Prize for tree-whispering.

          Meanwhile, back in the real world . . .

          Cheers.

          • Felix says:

            There has been no warming at the South Pole since record keeping began there.

            Yet, according to the greenhouse gas hypothesis, that is precisely where the effect of more CO2 should be felt the most, since the air there is so dry.

          • SteveF says:

            Felix,

            “Yet, according to the greenhouse gas hypothesis, that is precisely where the effect of more CO2 should be felt the most, since the air there is so dry.”

            Actually, that is not correct. The rise in atmospheric GHGs is not expected to cause any average warming at the South pole (or over the rest of the highest altitude regions in Eastern Antarctica), due to a combination of surface attitude and very low surface temperatures. There has actually been a net surface cooling at the highest altitudes in Antarctica due to rising CO2. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_in_Antarctica#/media/File:Antarctic_Temperature_Trend_1981-2007.jpg)

            In any case, putting all arm waves to the contrary aside, Antarctica is not going to melt any time soon.

        • Nate says:

          Steve,

          ‘More to the point, telling us that the Antarctic ice sheets are melting is B.S.’

          So you are basically saying the data on mass balance is BS.

          Because? Just cuz. Cuz it disagrees with my beliefs.

          • John says:

            You mean the melting in the West Antarctic caused by the geological heat caused by the 90 odd known volcanoes scattered down the west side, that melting?

          • John says:

            You mean the melting in the West Antarctic caused by the geological heat created by the 90 odd known volcanoes scattered down the west side, that melting?

            It never ceases to amaze me that Alarmists continue to repeat the same old debunked lines and offer the same old debunked references from their own Alarmist sites.

          • John says:

            You mean the melting in the West Antarctic caused by the geological heat created by the 90 odd known volcanoes scattered down the west side… that melting?

            It never ceases to amaze me that Alarmists continue to repeat the same old debunked lines and offer the same old debunked references from their own Alarmist sites.

          • Nate says:

            There are volcanoes beneath, that have been there for eons. Have they just now become active?

            Evidence?

          • The Other Brad says:

            Could this be Blog Science?

            “Could the volcanoes blow away Antarcticas ice? The scientists were unable to determine volcanic activity in the range, according their recent study in the Geological Society of London. But even inactive or dormant volcanoes can melt ice because of the high temperatures the volcanoes generate underground.”

            https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/scientists-found-91-volcanoes-under-antarctica

          • Nate says:

            Yes volcanoes have been found-but no evidence that they have recently become more active is reported.

          • The Other Brad says:

            From the story “But even inactive or dormant volcanoes can melt ice because of the high temperatures the volcanoes generate underground.”

            So 91 undiscovered active or dormant volcanoes. Both of which can melt ice from below. Newly discovered. Not known before. They are melting ice. Melting ice that was not known to be melting prior to the volcano discovery. Is this blog science?

          • steve case says:

            Nate says: … at 5:24 AM

            So you are basically saying the data on mass balance is BS.
            Because? Just cuz. Cuz it disagrees with my beliefs.

            Considering that the IPCC’s table 10.7
            http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html
            in their AR4 report said Antarctica was a negative contributor to sea level rise in all scenarios and since then Government funded scientists are telling us the opposite. I surmise that the ice mass balance is close to static over time. But I really don’t know. After all, Government funded scientists are going to find what the government wants them to find.

            But if Antarctica is in fact losing ice, it’s not due to temperature and it would follow not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. If you think it is, that is, you think Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers are melting you need to provide the links to data that show temperatures warm enough to melt the ice. Or how warm sea water sinks to the bottom then flows uphill to melt the ice from beneath.

          • Nate says:

            ‘ I surmise that the ice mass balance is close to static over time. But I really don’t know.’

            Indeed you don’t

            ” After all, Government funded scientists are going to find what the government wants them to find.”

            Funny, see Bart comment above, on NASA results finding ice gain, vs other papers showing ice loss, most recently this one:

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y

          • Nate says:

            ‘Newly discovered. Not known before.’

            But clearly they have been there a long long time. As has the ice.

            The accelerated melting is a recent phenomenon. Unless you show evidence that the volcanoes have RECENTLY become active, then they are not the cause of the accelerated melting, as you claimed.

          • Nate says:

            Steve,

            One mechanism of accelerated ice loss is explained here:

            https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/magazine/170622-ngm-antarctica-melting-sea-levels-climate-change

            Warmer ocean contacting grounding line of ice shelves.

            Evidence of destabilized ice shelves is clear, been reported in many papers.

          • Nate says:

            ‘you think Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers are melting you need to provide the links to data that show temperatures warm enough to melt the ice. Or how warm sea water sinks to the bottom then flows uphill to melt the ice from beneath.’

            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6214/1227 ‘Multidecadal warming of Antarctic waters’

          • steve case says:

            Nate says: at 6:07 AM
            One mechanism of accelerated ice loss is explained here:

            Thanks for the link to the video most enlightening:

            Time mark 1:12 to 1:22 National Geographic shows us an animation of warm sea water flowing uphill and downhil along the ocean bottom to melt the glacier at the grounding line. What they don’t show is the sea ice that surrounds Antarctica nearly all of the time.

            Whether National Geographic shows it or not, the sea ice is there and the the warm water has to flow under it. Sea water freezes at -2°C (28.4°F). There isn’t going to be any plume of water, warm enough to melt freshwater ice, flowing for miles under the sea ice.

            There’s a saying, “Beware of carefully worded non-sense.” You have to wonder when National Geographic made this video did someone pipe up and say doesn’t that warm water have to flow under the sea ice? Maybe they like their pay check and just kept their mouths shut.

          • Nate says:

            Steve,

            The fact is that the evidence is clear that the accelerated erosion and melting at the base of ice shelves is observed.

            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/296/5575/2020.full

            ‘ There isn’t going to be any plume of water, warm enough to melt freshwater ice, flowing for miles under the sea ice.’

            I wish skeptics, such as yourself, would be more skeptical of their own ideas.

            IOW, dig deeply into the facts, read the papers, try to understand them, before announcing that you have found a glaring error made by the experts.

          • steve case says:

            Nate says: … 9:51 AM
            …dig deeply into the facts, read the papers,
            try to understand them, before announcing that
            you have found a glaring error made by the experts.

            There’s just too much stuff that doesn’t add up. The polar bears aren’t dying like they’re supposed to, hurricanes are about the same, the multi-meter sea level rise claims are clearly ridiculous, precipitation in the United States is up, extreme tornadoes are down, methane really isn’t 86 times more powerful than CO2. I suppose I could go on.

            The data manipulation is pretty much off the charts. Every month NASA’s GISSTEMP puts out their Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) and the latest for May is out. Here’s the link

            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

            There are 1660 monthly entries and 879 (53%) of them have been changed since April. Averaged up annually all the changes since 1979 have been positive. This goes on every month.

            I don’t much care what all the experts claim. The duck test says that it looks like there’s something fishy going on.

          • The Other Brad says:

            Steve Case, you are indulging in Blog Science. According to Nate, it’s irrelevant. He has already made up his mind any rebuttal or analysis by you is worthless. You are wasting your time.

          • Nate says:

            ‘ He has already made up his mind any rebuttal or analysis by you is worthless. ‘

            I look at the evidence, and don’t reject/accept based on ideological reasons.

          • nate says:

            ‘There are 1660 monthly entries and 879 (53%) of them have been changed since April. Averaged up annually all the changes since 1979 have been positive. This goes on every month.’

            I believe they adopted an updated SST data set. It affects all, but slightly.

            Don’t trust them, look at any of the half dozen surface data sets.

          • Nate says:

            ‘rebuttal or analysis by you is worthless.’

            Apparently there is lot going on with the circulation of deep water around the antarctic, its salinity vs sea ice, density effects etc, that make it warmer than near the surface.

            Without getting informed about these complexities, it is unlikely a blogger can make an intelligent conclusion about it.

            I am no expert on it. Its good to realize that other people are.

          • steve case says:

            The Other Brad says: at 1:22 PM
            … you are indulging in Blog Science. … You are wasting your time.

            There are lurkers. Every now and then I get a private message from some one. Hard to say how many people read blogs and don’t post. I don’t post on every blog or article I read.

          • Nate says:

            ‘I dont much care what all the experts claim.’

            Experts, what do they know? Who needs em?

            Steve, did you become an expert on anything in your career?

            You’d be fine with people dismissing your expertise?

          • The Other Brad says:

            Nate, please enlighten us. Maybe I missed it. You ask Steve about his expertise. For what are you an expert?

          • steve case says:

            Nate … at 5:35 AM
            ‘I dont much care what all the experts claim.’
            Experts, what do they know? Who needs em?
            …did you become an expert on anything in your career?
            You’d be fine with people dismissing your expertise?

            Nate … at 5:35 AM
            ‘I don’t much care what all the experts claim.’
            Experts, what do they know? Who needs em?
            …did you become an expert on anything in your career?
            You’d be fine with people dismissing your expertise?

            I’d accept the expertise of Climate Science
            If climate science wasn’t pushed as an absolute in schools.
            If the predictions from climate science seemed to be true.
            If climate scientists didn’t rig the peer preview process.
            If climate scientists didn’t sabotage scientific careers.
            If IPCC reports weren’t re-written after final approval.
            If climate scientists didn’t try to sue the opposition.
            If climate scientists didn’t appear to fudge the data.
            If climate scientists didn’t resort to name-calling.
            If climate scientists complied with FOI requests.
            If climate scientists agreed to debate the issue.
            If climate scientists didn’t exaggerate findings.
            If climate scientists didn’t rig grant programs.

          • Nate says:

            Stev,

            I would respectfully suggest that many of these items are false, simply accusations, or overgeneraliztion.

            Others are true (lawsuits, refusal of FOI requests) but arguably can be justified, if you know the background.

            If you have real evidence to back up these claims (fudging, rigging) I’d take look.

            Some are just plain conspiracy theories, that are IMO, highly improbable.

            As I said to someone else here, there is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization that applies to many of these claims about climate scientists:

            Wiki:

            “A faulty generalization is a conclusion about all or many instances of a phenomenon that has been reached on the basis of just one or just a few instances of that phenomenon.[1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions. For example, we may generalize about all people, or all members of a group, based on what we know about just one or just a few people.”

            My suggestion, have a beer with a climate scientist. You will find that, in general, they are regular people who do their job with integrity.

          • Nate says:

            Let me just add an example.

            Based on some videos I’ve seen, I might conclude that most cops are racist and want to harm black/brown people.

            Would you agree that’s a proper conclusion?

          • Nate says:

            Brad

            ‘You ask Steve about his expertise. For what are you an expert?’

            My expertise is materials science.

          • steve case says:

            Nate says … at 2:05 PM

            If you have real evidence to back up these claims (fudging, rigging) Id take look.

            Re-writing historical data is done in broad daylight. The best example I know of is GISSTEMP’s Land Ocean Temperature Index see my post June 19, 2018 at 11:08 AM Your comment on the post keyed in on my statement “I dont much care what all the experts claim.” and ignored the GISSTEMP changes I pointed out. Out of 1660 monthly entries, 879 (53%) between April and May of this year were changed. That should raise eyebrows. But when you analyze those changes a pattern develops that should set off alarm bells, but it doesn’t and it goes on every month. Here’s a comparison of what that looked like in 2015 compared to the 2005 data LINK. Maybe you would like to comment why entries after 1980 are consistently bumped up and most of the earlier entries are reduced.

            Nate says:
            June 20, 2018 at 2:11 PM
            Let me just add an example.

            Based on some videos Ive seen, I might conclude that most cops are racist and want to harm black/brown people.

            Would you agree thats a proper conclusion?

            I’ve had good experiences (most) with cops and bad experiences (a few). Considering that I would fit into the regular people to have a beer with category I really shouldn’t have had any bad experiences. Way too many of them are arrogant assholes. Answer the question, “What sort of person wants to become a cop?” and you might figure out why that is. The police academies need to do a better job of weeding out people who shouldn’t be cops. That’s easier said than done of course.

          • Nate says:

            Steve,

            I appreciate your comment on your police interaction. It wasn’t completely clear, but I think you agree that it is not reasonable to pass judgement on all or most police, based on a few instances caught on tape.

            Nor do I think its reasonable to pass judgement on all or most climate scientists for similar few instances of (possible) bad behavior. Do you?

            The GISS data changes. You seem to assume there are nefarious reasons for these, but, this is an unproven suspicion. As you said its done all in the open. Thats means anyone can go through what they’ve and try to figure out if done for legit reasons. Has anyone looked at their reasons?

            Here is their explanation of the most recent significant change

            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst5vs4/

            Notice that the most recent decades are suppressed by this change, counter to your narrative.

            A big change before that produced a significant lump in the 1940s temperature that looks out of place. Its still there. This runs against the narrative that changes are all done to better fit models.

            Maybe a future correction will determine this lump is wrong, maybe not. There were issues with ocean temp during WW2.

            But again, there are a half dozen, at least, other independent surface temp records, from Berkeley, UK, Japan, elsewhere. There are even a group of skeptics who produce their own analysis. All generally find similar trends. They are all imperfect estimates, but the best we have.

            Do you reject them all?

          • Mark B says:

            “steve case says:
            June 19, 2018 at 11:08 AM
            . . . The data manipulation is pretty much off the charts. . . .”
            The best explanation for temperature record adjustments I’ve seen is this article:
            http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/

          • Mark B says:

            Note that the article linked above references two follow on articles going into regional consequences and time of observation bias adjustments that can be found at the links below:

            https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/

            https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/

          • The Other Brad says:

            From Nate:

            “The accelerated melting is a recent phenomenon. Unless you show evidence that the volcanoes have RECENTLY become active, then they are not the cause of the accelerated melting, as you claimed.”

            I don’t claim it. Scientists claim it. From 2014…

            https://phys.org/news/2014-06-major-west-antarctic-glacier-geothermal.html

            From the article:

            “The findings significantly change the understanding of conditions beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet where accurate information has previously been unobtainable.”

            As you can read Nate, not previously known. The information was “unobtainable.”

            This is blog science.

          • nate says:

            Brad,

            Thats good stuff. They are figuring out in detail what is contributing to melting, and some of it is geothermal energy.

            They don’t appear to be claiming this has recently changed, nor are they claiming this explains recent accelerated melting. It is one piece of the puzzle.

            BTW, I don’t call that blog science–it came from an actual research publication.

            I call that science.

          • nate says:

            ‘where accurate information has previously been unobtainable.

            As you can read Nate, not previously known. ‘

            I don’t understand the point this is making?

            Do you think: Not previously known to us = not previously happening?

          • The Other Brad says:

            My last time to feed the troll.

            Nate states: “They don’t appear to be claiming this has recently changed, nor are they claiming this explains recent accelerated melting. It is one piece of the puzzle.”

            From the article:

            “Using radar techniques to map how water flows under ice sheets, UTIG researchers were able to estimate ice melting rates and thus identify significant sources of geothermal heat under Thwaites Glacier. They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed.

            The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet’s stability and its contribution to future sea level rise.”

            “The combination of variable subglacial geothermal heat flow and the interacting subglacial water system could threaten the stability of Thwaites Glacier in ways that we never before imagined,” Schroeder said.

            All the models indicated a presupposed conclusion that it was Man Made Global Warming causing the melt. The ‘scientists’ were not aware of the geothermal activity of 91 newly discovered volcanoes melting the ice from below at the rate they presumed. It was “unknown”. They did not know the extent of the melt via geothermal melt. You’ve claimed they knew all along. The did not know and still don’t because, as laid out in the article, they need more research to determine the affects of the geothermal activity.

            Thank you for contributing to Blog Science Nate.

          • Nate says:

            Brad,

            I understand you think I’m annoying, I probably am, but Im just telling you my straight-up opinion. Take it or leave it.

            I read that passage, too. But you seem to have missed my point completely.

            Again I ask:

            ‘Do you think: Not previously known to us = not previously happening?’

            Upon arriving at the south pole, did the explorers exclaim, “Wow, we discovered the South Pole, it now exits”?

            If geothermal flux has been there for eons, which seems most likely since the ice has been there for eons, and we have just now found it, then it can be a contributor to melting. But something else, is likely causing the INCREASE in melting.

            The paper says “geothermal heat CONTRIBUTED significantly to melting” Natural contribution does not mean NO anthro contribution, and the paper is not saying that, is it?

          • Nate says:

            BTW, adding to the confusion perhaps.

            The heat flux they found is TINY.

            “Thwaites Glacier catchment has a minimum average geothermal flux of ∼114 10 mW/m2 with areas of high flux exceeding 200 mW/m2”

            Nothing like Kilauea.

            200 mW/m^2 could melt 2 cm thick layer of ice in a year.

          • steve case says:

            Nate says:
            June 21, 2018 at 6:18 AM

            The GISS data changes. … As you said its done all in the open.
            To the extent that entries for each month are published on the internet until they are removed and replaced by the next month’s numbers.

            Thats means anyone can go through what theyve [done] and try to figure out if done for legit reasons.
            No, you have to copy and save each month to figure what was changed. Figuring out why the changes are made isn’t really possible. For example the entry for January 1880 was listed as -29 in this past April and when the May numbers were published it was changed to -28. Can you figure out why the January 1880 entry was changed?

            Has anyone looked at their reasons?
            Some time ago I emailed Gavin Schmidt to ask why 100 year old data is routinely changed. I got this response:

            Your main concern seems to be why data from 1880 get affected by the addition of 2018 January data and a few late reports from the end of 2017. To illustrate that, assume that a station moves or gets a new instrument that is placed in a different location than the old one, so that the measured temperatures are now e.g. about half a degree higher than before. To make the temperature series for that station consistent, you will either have to lower all new readings by that amount or to increase the old readings once and for all by half a degree. The second option is preferred, because you can use future readings as they are, rather than having to remember to change them. However, it has the consequence that such a change impacts all the old data back to the beginning of the station record.

            They said the changes impact data back to the beginning of a station record. I know that January 1880 has been changed about as often as every other entry in their Land Ocean Temperature Index, and I doubt that all the stations have records back to 1880. So I’m having difficulty wrapping my mind around exactly what they’re doing let alone why they’re doing it.

            Here is their explanation of the most recent significant change
            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst5vs4/
            Notice that the most recent decades are suppressed by this change, counter to your narrative.

            Overall the ERSST v5 vs. v4 update didn’t change much. This graph:
            http://oi68.tinypic.com/wck4lc.jpg
            using the May 2018 issue of the GISS LOTI didn’t change much:
            https://s15.postimg.cc/u25l1fswb/LOTI_2018_vs_2002.gif

            Can you explain why ALL of the changes since 1980 average out to an increase?

            I can’t explain it, I only know what it looks like.

          • Mark B says:

            “Can you explain why ALL of the changes since 1980 average out to an increase?”

            Per the linked article there is a dominating bias associated with the transition from liquid in glass thermometers to electronic instruments starting around 1980.

            http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/

          • Nate says:

            Steve,

            That is cool that you reached out to find out about the changes and got a response. Keep them on their toes.

            IMO, the response sounds plausible. I have often wondered how they deal with such things-changes in stations and instruments.

            They could just leave everything alone and use the raw data, but that would emphasize the heavily sampled places, big cities, in the past. Then as we added in new stations in the mountains, things would look like they were getting colder, or hotter for deserts. Just some of the issues to deal with. You have to do something.

            Here’s the thing that IMO helps. I know how scientists think. Scientists worst nightmare is to be proven wrong. GISS has competitors, plus skeptics like you, who are holding them accountable.

            If over time, their record keeps deviating from the others, they’re going to look bad. Slight differences are fine, but if these build up to big differences. They will have to explain why and they better have good reasons.

          • nate says:

            Steve,

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

            Here you can quickly compare trends between data sets. Try from e.g. 1975. Those on the left are considered more ‘global’ because they include more of the arctic.

          • steve case says:

            nate says:
            June 22, 2018 at 7:50 AM

            nate says:
            June 22, 2018 at 8:02 AM

            Thanks for the replies. Why GISSTEMP makes hundreds of changes each month to their Land Ocean Temperature Index is a mystery. Not all stations go back to 1880, I expect that most don’t so why is January 1880 changed just as often and as January 1998?

            Mark B said that the bump up in 1980 is due to the fact that liquid and electronic thermometers read differently.

            After a brief search I find that not to be true. Mercury is being phased out because it’s toxic. Liquid filled thermometers don’t require a battery and all the wires & chips and meters that go with them. Going back to 1880 and changing the data because you say your electronic digital read out would have given a different answer back then is a real stretch and insulting to those long gone record keepers.

          • barry says:

            Steve,

            Hi mate.

            Thanks for linking to the IPCC report from 11 years ago on Antarctic ice sheet contributions to sea level.

            It allows us to get some perspective on the state of understanding at that time. Quoting from your link:

            “It must be emphasized that we cannot assess the likelihood of any of these three alternatives, which are presented as illustrative. The state of understanding prevents a best estimate from being made.”

            I think we both know that any changes between AR4 and AR5 that downplayed future warming effects would be greeted by you with something lie, “See? This is the truth, and they were wrong before!”

            And any changes in understanding that emphasised warming effects are greeted just as you have done.

            You respond to how things look to you. Not from a rigorous examination of the underlying science. That’s why your responses are predictable.

            A truly interested and skeptical person would be interested in how understanding evolved, not automatically responding in predictable ways to the results.

          • steve case says:

            barry says:
            June 22, 2018 at 8:33 PM
            Steve,

            Hi mate.

            Thanks for linking to the IPCC report from 11 years ago on Antarctic ice sheet contributions to sea level.

            It allows us to get some perspective on the state of understanding at that time.

            And at the time I told you what they would say in the AR5 when it comes out. Too bad I can’t link to that dead website.

            Quoting from your link:

            “It must be emphasized that we cannot assess the likelihood of any of these three alternatives, which are presented as illustrative. The state of understanding prevents a best estimate from being made.”

            I think we both know that any changes between AR4 and AR5 that downplayed future warming effects would be greeted by you with something li[k]e, “See? This is the truth, and they were wrong before!”

            What I said up thread was, “I have to go back to the IPCC AR4 report’s table 10.7 that says that Antarctica’s contribution to sea level is negative and that AR5 says it’s positive? Essentially static is what I’m thinking.” Turns out I’m wrong here’s what the AR5 says:

            13.4.4 Antarctic Ice Sheet
            13.4.4.1 Surface Mass Balance Change
            Because the ice loss from Antarctica due to surface melt and runoff is about 1% of the total mass gain from snowfall, most ice loss occurs through solid ice discharge into the ocean. In the 21st century, ablation is projected to remain small on the Antarctic ice sheet because low surface temperatures inhibit surface melting, except near the coast and on the Antarctic Peninsula, and meltwater and rain continue to freeze in the snowpack (Ligtenberg et al., 2013). Projections of Antarctic SMB changes over the 21st century thus indicate a negative contribution to sea level because of the projected widespread increase in snowfall associated with warming air temperatures …
            http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

            Quoting from your link:

            “It must be emphasized that we cannot assess the likelihood of any of these three alternatives, which are presented as illustrative. The state of understanding prevents a best estimate from being made.”

            I think we both know that any changes between AR4 and AR5 that downplayed future warming effects would be greeted by you with something lie, “See? This is the truth, and they were wrong before!”

            And any changes in understanding that emphasised warming effects are greeted just as you have done.

            You respond to how things look to you. Not from a rigorous examination of the underlying science. That’s why your responses are predictable.

            A truly interested and skeptical person would be interested in how understanding evolved, not automatically responding in predictable ways to the results.

            As I’ve pointed out to you over the years, you ooze a wonderful tone of high handedness but you’re in there biting and eye gouging with everyone else. Well anyway if you hadn’t shown up I wouldn’t have fired up the search engine through the AR5 to find that snippet about the surface mass balance change. (-:

            (In a few hours I’m off to the north woods of Minnesota for a week to slap mosquitoes and listen to the wolves howl.) IOW Internet access will be spotty or zero.

          • barry says:

            Shorter: You were wrong. I am as bad as everyone else.

            Glad to prompt a bit of revision. Most skeptics wouldn’t have been as honest.

          • Steve case says:

            Barry says at 4:06

            Instead of side tracking into assessing each others predicted behavior, why not address some of the points:

            At least one source, the IPCC says Antarctica is projected to contribute negatively to sea level for the remainder of this century.

            This thread is about Antarctic ice sheet collapse.

            The discussion about warm ocean water melting the ice sheet from below.

            The discussion about surface melting in Antarctica given that there is some liquid water on the surface and temperatures are reported as well below freezing nearly everywhere nearly all the time.

            I Pads in the woods well anywhere are clunky facsimiles of real PCs so if I can continue to access the net I wont be very wordy and no links.

          • The Other Brad says:

            Beating a dead horse. Newly discovered active volcanic activity.

            https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-06/uori-rdv062618.php

          • Nate says:

            Yep, and from the article the researchers noted:

            “However, Loose cautions, this does not imply that volcanism is the major source of mass loss from Pine Island. On the contrary, “there are several decades of research documenting the heat from ocean currents is destabilizing Pine Island Glacier, which in turn appears to be related to a change in the climatological winds around Antarctica,” Loose said. Instead, this evidence of volcanism is a new factor to consider when monitoring the stability of the ice sheet.”

            Professor Karen Heywood, from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, the United Kingdom, and chief scientist for the expedition, said: “The discovery of volcanoes beneath the Antarctic ice sheet means that there is an additional source of heat to melt the ice, lubricate its passage toward the sea, and add to the melting from warm ocean waters. It will be important to include this in our efforts to estimate whether the Antarctic ice sheet might become unstable and further increase sea level rise.”

            Does that mean that global climate change is not a factor in the stability of the Pine Island Glacier?

            No, said Loose. “Climate change is causing the bulk of glacial melt that we observe, and this newly discovered source of heat is having an as-yet undetermined effect, because we do not know how this heat is distributed beneath the ice sheet.”

          • Mark B says:

            re: “steve case says:
            June 22, 2018 at 2:01 PM

            Mark B said that the bump up in 1980 is due to the fact that liquid and electronic thermometers read differently.

            After a brief search I find that not to be true.”

            I missed this earlier, but if you’re still following the thread, I’m curious what you found in your brief search that contradicts the linked article.

      • Scott says:

        I think their point is that the temp of -75 rises to -73 it won’t make much diff to the ice, but precipitation will.

        • Nate says:

          Scott,

          a. What is temp of ocean water?

          b. W. Antarctica air temps in summer reach freezing temp.

          • Steve Fitzpatrick says:

            Nate,
            Ummm.. no, average temperatures in West Antarctica, even in summer, are well below freezing. Most of the peninsula averages below zero in the summer. Whatever net loss of ice there may be, it isn’t from streams of water pouring into the sea due to surface melt in West Antarctica. You would be well served sticking closer to the facts.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Reach’ does not mean ‘average’. It is more related to maximums.

            Heres Wiki

            “The highest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 17.5 C (63.5 F) at Esperanza Base, on the Antarctic Peninsula, on 24 March 2015.[10] The mean annual temperature of the interior is −57 C (−70.6 F). The coast is warmer. Monthly means at McMurdo Station range from −26 C (−14.8 F) in August to −3 C (26.6 F) in January.[11] At the South Pole, the highest temperature ever recorded was −12.3 C (9.9 F) on 25 December 2011.[12] Along the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures as high as 15 C (59 F) have been recorded,[clarification needed] though the summer temperature is below 0 C (32 F) most of the time. ”

            At McMurdo, the mean is -3 C, clearly the maxima will be > 0C.

            I was thinking of near the coast, such as McMurdo, but you are right, the interior matters.

          • Nate says:

            Esparanza Base on Upper end of Antarctic Pennisula:

            Wiki

            “Mean monthly temperatures range from −10.5 C (13.1 F) in June, the coldest month to 1.4 C (34.5 F) in January, the warmest month.[8] “

          • Nate says:

            steve,,

            https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/magazine/170622-ngm-antarctica-melting-sea-levels-climate-change

            ‘Whatever net loss of ice there may be, it isnt from streams of water pouring into the sea due to surface melt in West Antarctica.’

            Video shows exactly that, surface melting, plus melting below the ocean surface.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nate, please stop trolling.

          • steve case says:

            Nate says:
            June 19, 2018 at 10:24 AM
            steve,,

            https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/magazine/170622-ngm-antarctica-melting-sea-levels-climate-change

            Whatever net loss of ice there may be, it isnt from streams of water pouring into the sea due to surface melt in West Antarctica.

            Video shows exactly that, surface melting, plus melting below the ocean surface.

            I saw that and because is was National Geographic I doubted that it was true. But I didn’t say that here. Yes there’s some melt water.

            “National Geographic” and “Scientific American” are no longer reliable in my opinion.

    • Scott says:

      There will still be believers in 50 years, the people making money off it won’t stop and of course those for who it’s a religion will keep the faith.

  4. Eben says:

    I wouldn’t be so skeptical about being skeptic , the Sun is going into a major minimum and earth cooling will follow shortly possibly significantly, Now is the time to put yourself on the record and secure your scientific credibility and future carrier.
    Global warming has only few years in it left.

    • Entropic man says:

      Eben

      The last minimum during the LIA cooled the Earth by 0.3C.

      That is 23 years at the current UAH warming rate.

      Enough to give us a bit more time, but not enough to reverse the warming.

      And what happens after the minimum ends?

      • What happens when the minimum ends?

        Global temperatures rise.

        • Entropic man says:

          Salvatore Del Prete

          Exactly.

          Like a volcano such as Pinatubo a solar minimum would temporarily lower the global temperature.

          A Dalton minimum would drop the global temperature 0.3C below the trend while it lasted, and tempearures would return to the trend line when the minimum passed.

          • No the trend line is not real that is artificial.

            I have said if prolong solar minimum conditions continue the climate will shift back into a Dalton like climate regime. That was more then .3c colder then what is present by the way.

            The climate post Dalton-2017, has been in the same climatic regime ,+/- 1C in response to ENSO,VOLCANIC ACTIIVTY ,and very strong solar activity until the end of year2005.

            That resulted in the climate shifting out of the Dalton regime to what we have now (2017) with up’s and downs of 1C against the backdrop of an overall temperature rise.

            That trend I say has ended, with year 2018 being the transitional year because the solar conditions necessary to stop it are now in place. This is the first time since the Dalton Minimum that they are in place.

            Solar being moderated by the geo magnetic field which this time is acting in concert with solar not in opposition.

            They are 10+years of sub solar activity(post 2005) with a period of very low average value solar parameters (year 2018).

            The result of this being overall lower sea surface temperatures which is happening now and has been for the past year , and a slightly higher albedo which I think is also happening. If true lower global temperatures.

            I say if solar stays in the tank the global warming trend ends(it has thus far for year 2018), followed by a down trend 2019 and beyond.

            With overall oceanic temperatures off by some .25c over the last year that in itself will put a halt to any further global warming even if the lowering oceanic trend were to stop at this level much less continue further down which I think is very likely.

            The test has finally arrived we are in the 1st inning and global cooling in the top of the first is ahead.

          • David Appell says:

            Salvatore Del Prete wrote:
            May 4, 2017 at 5:42 AM

            “I was wrong on the solar activity it was way higher then I thought it was going to be back then. 2011 mid 2016”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245576

          • Felix says:

            Which trend line?

            The trend from the 1940s until 1977 was dramatically down, until the PDO flipped. Then Earth warmed slightly for about 20 years, comparable to the warming of the early 20th century. Since then, it has been flat, except for the 2016 super El Nino. For the past two years, Earth has cooled, reverting to the flatline of the temperature plateau since the 1998 super El Nino.

            The beneficial warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age is nothing about which to worry.

          • David Appell says:

            Felix says:
            Then Earth warmed slightly for about 20 years, comparable to the warming of the early 20th century. Since then, it has been flat, except for the 2016 super El Nino.

            So except for the warming, there hasn’t been any warming. Confirmation bias.

            Want to explain why the annual GMST for the 2015-16 El Nino season was 0.4 C higher than 1997-98, and why it was 0.4 C warmer than 1982-83?

            Why do El Nino years keep getting warmer. And La Nina years? And neutral years?

      • David Appell says:

        This scenario — another solar Maunder Minimum — has been well studied. There is very little cooling, and it’s easily swamped by GHG warming. 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

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          Still afflicted with the delusional belief that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?

          GHG warming? Neither you nor anybody else can actually demonstrate such a thing, let alone propose a disprovable GHE hypothesis!

          Keep trying to whip up fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Hopefully, you’ll become so exhausted that you will have to get a real job. Less effort, and more reward. You don’t need to thank me.

          Ah well, nobody has ever accused fanatical cultists of being too reasonable.

          Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Mike,

            ‘GHG warming? Neither you nor anybody else can actually demonstrate such a thing, let alone propose a disprovable GHE hypothesis!’

            Ok, Mike, one more try. Here is GHE hypothesis explained

            https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

            First page under heading GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Have at it.

            Second page: Test of the hypothesis is described.

            “The greenhouse theory can be tested by examination of several planets, which provide an ensemble of experimentsover a wide range of conditions. The atmospheric composition of Mars,Earth, and Venus lead to mean radiating levels of about 1, 6, and 70 km, and lapse rates of 5, 5.50, and 7C km^-1, respectively. Observed surface temperatures of these planets confirm the existence
            and order of magnitude of the predicted greenhouse effect (Eq. 3).

            So Mike, unless you can clearly demonstrate what they’ve done wrong, your oft repeated meme is proven FALSE.

        • WRONG DAVID 100% WRONG!

        • Svante says:

          Three scientific papers refuted by hand-waving.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            S,

            Facts don’t go away if you flap your hands at them.

            Would you believe a scientific paper because you have blind unswerving faith in “scientists”?

            Good for you! Cult leaders depend upon unthinking belief – just look at people who believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!

            How sad is that?

            Cheers.

          • E. Swanson says:

            MF said: “Facts don’t go away if you flap your hands at them.”

            Written by a guy who apparently can’t provide an alternate scientific explanation for the facts presented in my Green Plate Demonstration.

            Do you ever get tired of “flapping your hands” to no effect?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”Written by a guy who apparently cant provide an alternate scientific explanation for the facts presented in my Green Plate Demonstration”.

            He doesn’t have to, already been done. Your experiment demonstrated interference with heat dissipation, not back-radiation.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            E,

            You demonstrate that a hotter object can raise the temperature of a colder at a distance.

            What alternative explanation is there?

            Flap on, laddie. Maybe you can flap a disprovable GHE hypothesis into existence, but I doubt it.

            Are you disagreeing with anything I wrote? It would seem not.

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            Mike, you are the reality distorter in chief. And teller of lies and half-truths specialist.

            The experiment also showed a cool object causing a warmer object to get warmer.

            You forget that part??

            If facts are on truly your side, why do you need to hide them, cherry pick them, lie about them?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo wrote:

            Your experiment demonstrated interference with heat dissipation, not back-radiation.

            Gordo repeats another example of his deviant physics by assertion. He has offered no physical basis for claiming that “heat dissipation” causes the Blue plate temperature to increase. For starters, I suggest that he define his term “heat dissipation” and then show exactly how my demonstration “interferes” with this process.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Mike “Flapper” Flynn comments without mentioning the main point from the demonstration. Of course, it’s true that the Green plate is warmed as it is placed close to the Blue plate. But, why does the temperature of the Blue plate also increase? Still no science from either Mike Flapper or Gordo.

          • JDhuffman says:

            E.Swanson, you’re problem is you have found a way to prove to yourself what you already believed. That’s NOT the way science is done.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”its true that the Green plate is warmed as it is placed close to the Blue plate. But, why does the temperature of the Blue plate also increase?”

            I have told you that several times. Without your green plate in place the blue is free to radiate based on a different temperature gradient. When you put the green plate right in front of it, the radiation from the blue plate is altered and it cannot dissipate heat so quickly, so it warms.

            You are confusing a warming due to radiation from a colder plate, which contravenes the 2nd law, with the blue plate operating in a cooler mode without the green plate raised.

            The blue plate would have an optimal temperature for the conditions. If you cut off it’s ability to radiate in the vacuum but still exposed it to EM from a hotter source it would reach that optimal temperature. If you remove the radiation insulation from the green plate side, without the green plate in place, it would cool based on the temperature differential between it and the glass on your container.

            If you now raise the green plate so it’s right in front of the blue plate it’s like insulating the blue plate so it cannot radiate as well. The temperature gradient will be reduced due to the blue plate warming the green plate which is nearby therefore the blue plate warms closer to it optimal temperature.

            It’s all explained in S-B: q = ebA(To^4 – T^4)

            If you mess with the To – T gradient you change the amount of radiation it can emit and the temperature of the blue plate changes accordingly.

            Nothing to do with a back-radiation warming that contradicts the 2nd law.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”He has offered no physical basis for claiming that heat dissipation causes the Blue plate temperature to increase”.

            I have offered as evidence the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that governs such an interaction. I have offered as evidence the 2nd law which claims heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.

            You are hung up on the belief that the blue plate MUST warm due to an illegal back-radiation from a cooler body to a warmer body. You refuse to consider any other way the blue plate could warm even though the scientific logic presented to you is sound.

            You don’t get the meaning of heat dissipation. A body warmed from an external or internal source reaches a maximal temperature that is limited by the energy delivered to it. If the body is NOT allowed to dissipate heat through conduction, convection, or radiation, it will remain at that maximal temperature.

            Your blue plate has been allowed to dissipate heat via radiation, especially when the green plate is not interfering with it’s radiation field. Since it is allowed to dissipate heat it stabilizes at a temperature below the maximum temperature.

            In other words, the blue plate is cooling itself based on the temperature difference between it and its surroundings, the glass cover. When you raise the green plate so it’s right in front of blue plate, the BP radiation warms the GP but not to the temperature of the BP. Therefore, the temperature gradient has been decreases and the radiation from the BP decreases.

            It has to warm closer to it’s maximum temperature. That warming does not come from back-radiation from the GP, it is the BP warming itself because its rate of heat dissipation has been decreased.

            Remember, the BP receives energy from an external source and its temperature at any time is represented by the difference of heat gain – heat loss. Your GP is interfering with heat loss by blocking the BP’s EM emission, therefore the BP must warm to maintain the heat gain – heat loss balance.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”The experiment also showed a cool object causing a warmer object to get warmer”.

            It causes the warming by forcing the object to warm itself not by injecting heat into the body. The hotter body was warmed to its temperature as a balance between heat gained from and external source minus heat lost due to radiation (it’s in a vacuum).

            With the colder body in proximity, radiation from the hotter body warms the cooler body but only to a fraction of the hotter body temperature, as indicated on swannie’s diagrams. Any EM emitted by the coder body will not raise the temperature of the hotter body (2nd law).

            The hotter body warms because the colder body is blocking its radiation field, causing the hotter body to warm due to a reduced heat dissipation.

            That is not the case in the atmosphere. The surface sees the entire atmospheric temperature at the surface as the end point of its temperature gradient not the temperature of CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere. Atmospheric temperature is set by the 99% of it represented by N2/O2.

            GHGs cannot affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.

          • Nate says:

            ‘The hotter body warms because the colder body is blocking its radiation field, causing the hotter body to warm due to a reduced heat dissipation.’

            Ok, same principle applies to GHE.

          • Nate says:

            JD,

            ‘E.Swanson, youre problem is you have found a way to prove to yourself what you already believed. Thats NOT the way science is done.’

            So if he got a different result – you would not object to the experiment. THAT is not how science works either.

            His experiment was simply confirming well known, much-tested physics. If he got a different result-that would be quite strange.

          • Nate says:

            BTW the history of science is full of research done to prove what was believed. Darwin spent 20 y doing it.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo wrote:

            It’s all explained in S-B: q = ebA(To^4 – T^4)

            If you mess with the To – T gradient you change the amount of radiation it can emit and the temperature of the blue plate changes accordingly.

            Nothing to do with a back-radiation warming that contradicts the 2nd law.

            ,

            You post the S-B equation, then fail to understand that the second term is the “back radiation” from the second body, such as a plate parallel to the first or the surrounding area, such as the bell jar or even the room. Thermal radiation is photons and they do not interact with photons from other sources. There’s no accepted physics of which I’m aware that makes the interpretation you give. There is no “gradient”, as in conduction thru a body, just two (or more) bodies at different temperatures each emitting thermal EM radiation. The only way in which the Green plate can influence the Blue plate’s temperature is for some of the thermal radiation from the Green plate to be absorbed by the Blue plate, since the vacuum has suppressed almost all of the convection.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            I read your posts.

            There is a variation (if E. Swanson wants to run it) that will blow your elaborate fake physics into small pieces.

            E. Swanson could use a highly polished metal or a good mirror instead of the green plate. Now if he measures the temperature of the green plate it will not rise much at all but the blue plate will increase in temperature even faster than with the green plate. How will you explain that situation with your fantasy physics.

            You could also drill a hole in each plate and have a type of IR sensor that is aimed at each plate. With this you could easily prove you don’t have the slightest clue of what you are talking about and just making stuff up as you go along.

            With such an infrared detector you first get a baseline reading for the blue plate at steady state temperature without the green plate. Then move the green plate in position so the hole allows the IR sensor to view the blue plate. You will see the IR actually shows an increase in the IR from the blue plate not a decrease as the blue plate temperature goes up. This is what actual scientists have known for many years and it is based upon actual experimental results. Increase the temperature of a surface and it radiates more.

            If you get an IR camera you can do simple tests yourself and help you understand the REAL physics. Take the IR camera and point it at your hot burner. Now put a plate a few inches above the burner but leave room for you IR camera to view the burner. As the burner temperature goes up you will see more IR emitted by the burner (that is all your IR camera is able to pick up). The radiant energy loss did not decrease and cause the burner to heat up, the opposite is the case. There are other tests you can do. All of them would show E. Swanson’s understanding in spot on. He knows what he is talking about. You should listen and learn and not waste so much time making up fantasy science.

            Man you really need to study real physics. You are way off!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Svante, Nate, E Swanson and Norman, please stop trolling.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            E. Swanson,

            Gordon is still one photon short of a net energy transfer when writing stuff like this:

            “GHGs cannot affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.”

            However his description of the impact of SB calculation here…

            “If you mess with the To T gradient you change the amount of radiation it can emit and the temperature of the blue plate changes accordingly.”

            …is correct. There is a temperature gradient between two bodies at different temperature regardless of being connected (conduction) or in a vacuum (radiation). If there was no gradient, there would be no net heat flux. Although both plates are warming, the net heat flux from blue to green decreases as the gradient decreases.

            “The only way in which the Green plate can influence the Blue plates temperature is for some of the thermal radiation from the Green plate to be absorbed by the Blue plate, since the vacuum has suppressed almost all of the convection.”

            Some of the radiation from the green plate will always be absorbed by the blue plate unless you have a way of keeping the green plate at 0K. Why not spend your experimental time figuring out why CO2 might not add any extra energy to the planet’s surface? I’ll help you with this attempt disproving the null hypothesis, if I can.

        • Nate says:

          Mike,

          I’m awaiting your review of the long sought testable GHE hypothesis.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        entropic….”The last minimum during the LIA cooled the Earth by 0.3C….”

        The LIA acted in two phases, both reducing the global average 1C to 2C.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          The LIA acted in two phases, both reducing the global average 1C to 2C.

          Where are the data showing that, Gordon? You keep claiming it, but never produce any evidence.

  5. ren says:

    Stratospheric polar vortex will never allow to melt ice in Antarctica. Even with high geothermal activity.
    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif

  6. Mike Flynn says:

    For all those who feel inclined to appeal to authority in the form of NASA –

    “Two years ago, NASA dismissed and mocked an amateurs criticisms of its asteroids database. Now Nathan Myhrvold is back, and his papers have passed peer review.”

    Condescending and patronising mockery doesn’t make facts go away.

    Thinking that NASA, NOAA,, the NSF, are devoted to the pursuit of knowledge using the scientific method may not be the smartest decision.

    Facts are facts. Fantasy (the GHE, for example), is fantasy.

    Cheers.

    • Svante says:

      Wikipedia says:
      In interviews with CNN, […] Myhrvold has discussed ways to reverse some of the effects of global warming/climate change by using geoengineering.[48] Myhrvold and other inventors working with Intellectual Ventures have proposed several approaches, including one that would use hoses, suspended from helium balloons 25 kilometers (16 mi) above the Earth at high latitudes, to emit sulfur dioxide, which is known to scatter light.[49][50] Another approach would stimulate the formation and brightening of marine clouds to reflect more sunlight back into space.[48]

      • Mike Flynn says:

        S,

        I’m not sure if you have a point.

        If you don’t, your comment is not only irrelevant, but also pointless.

        As usual?

        Cheers.

      • Nate says:

        25 km long hoses, of the required large diameter sound quite heavy.

        The scale required sounds extreme. But who knows?

        • John says:

          Who knows indeed!
          With enough taxpayers cash forwarded to the respective Climate Scientists Im sure they will spend many happy years trying to figure it out!

      • Ken says:

        This sort of geo-engineering proposal scares me more than anything else. We don’t know with any certainty what drives climate change … so screwing around with climate to try and alter it sounds completely insane, is at best immoral, and should be illegal with severe punishments.

  7. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Wow, 30 m. We better get pumping sea water onto Antarctica to freeze if we’re going to reverse that…

    • David Appell says:

      In past episodes of climate change, sea level changed by 10-20 meters for each degree C of temperature change.

      Look at the last time we came out of the glacial maximum 23,000 years ago. 120 m of SLR for about a 5 C increase in global mean temperature. That’s 25 m/degC.

      Sure, it takes a few millennia to get there. But once started there’s no stopping it, unless you geoenginner.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        Think, David, think.

        There’s not enough enough free water on Earth to fulfil your fantasies.

        Not to mention things like plate tectonics, orogenics and all the rest of the things that dim witted alarmists remain sublimely ignorant about.

        The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years years. Cherry pick away. Quote your peer reviewed articles, authored by the likes of Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth and the rest of the madly capering climate clowns.

        Maybe you could rend your garments, and rush about proclaiming “Doom! Doom! Repent or die!”

        How would that suit you?

        Cheers.

        • E. Swanson says:

          MF the flapping troll complains about cherry picking as he cherry picks irrelevant factoids which are 4.5 Billion years out of date.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            E,

            Are you disagreeing with something I wrote?

            If you are claiming that the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years is irrelevant, maybe you could provide some support for such a bizarre statement?

            No?

            I thought as much. Carry on heating things with heat sources. Not much point, is there?

            Cheers.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Mike Flapper fails to understand that almost all of the cooling was essentially over billions of years ago. True, there’s still a very small residual heat flow, but that adds almost nothing to the surface temperature. From Wikipedia “Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust”. That heat flow is trivial compared with the energy from the Sun.

            But, Mike Flapper knows this, he just wants to toss out another Red Herring to confuse those who don’t know the facts.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            E,

            “Essentially over”?

            Any continuous outward heat flow shows cooling. That’s what cooling is!

            Slow but sure. You just don’t know what you are talking about do you?

            You admit the Earth cooled (CO2 notwithstanding) for billions of years, then you seem to be claiming it stopped, then miraculously started heating again (in spite of the fact that you say it is is still slowly cooling)!

            You sound ridiculous because you are trying to defend the indefensible.

            No GHE. No disprovable GHE hypothesis. No science – just more irrelevant pseudoscience.

            Cheers.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Mike Flapper, No, I’m claiming that your reference to geothermal energy from radioactive decay is a straw man, since the energy which reaches the surface is tiny and has almost no effect on the temperature of the Earth’s surface. It has nothing to do with the warming due to greenhouse gases.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            E,

            Are you quite mad? I agreed out that you are correct. The Earth is losing energy. It is cooling. If you think that a body heats up by losing energy, you are probably stupid and ignorant enough to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter by blocking part of the Sun’s radiation.

            The Earth has cooled since its creation. Very hot in the middle still. Even close to the surface, the hot stuff leaks out – Hawaii is but one current example.

            Maybe you have a cunning idea to stuff all that heat back inside, but it won’t work. It’s gone. Forever. No amount of CO2 will bring it back!

            What are you disagreeing with? Nothing? I thought so.

            Cheers.

          • Nate says:

            ‘If you are claiming that the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years is irrelevant, maybe you could provide some support for such a bizarre statement?’

            Well, the heat flowing from the Earth doesn’t seem to stop winter from coming to my neck of the woods. It happens every year.

            And the cooling off of the Earth doesn’t seem to stop the warming we get every summer in my area.

            So yes, it would appear to be irrelevant.

          • David Appell says:

            Nate, not to mention the warming and cooling in the Pleistocene ice ages, or the drop into and out of a couple of snowball Earths about 700 Myrs ago.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Mike Flapper, Of course the Earth is cooling, doing so when ever it rotates away from facing the Sun. But, while facing the Sun, the Earth heats up, even as energy continues to exit the TOA. On average, the Earth never cools enough to freeze the global oceans, nor do the ocean’s surface warm above 40C. And, CO2 absorbs some of the incoming solar energy before it reaches the surface, warming the atmosphere, while also blocking some of the IR exiting the the surface. The implication of your posts is just plain silly, yet you call me mad.

            Your straw man comments are just give us yet another example of your Trolling for Fun and (perhaps) Profit.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            E Swanson, please stop trolling.

      • DAVID- I has been stopped in the past every single time. That is why we are still here.

      • swampgator says:

        DA,

        But 23,000 years ago that rise was natural. I guess by that I am referring to not man made (as if man is not natural)
        Would you propose if we could go back in time, to geoengineer that increase away? Oh, and what is your explanation for that rise, and what was the CO2 level prior to that rise?

        • David Appell says:

          Why does it matter if the rise was natural? The planet warms, ice melts, water expands, sea level rises. Why will it be any different time?

          • swampgator says:

            You just don’t get it, do ‘ya Scott?

            So the planet warms (before AGW) and it’s natural, but you are 100% sure that the current rise is because of AGW? Or might the temperature be rising naturally with a small addition from Man?
            The fact that C02 has been higher than now while temps cooler in the past doesn’t give you pause for reflection?
            Maybe the additional CO2 man has added to the temperature has caused some increase in temperature. Could that be helpful to our species (and others) in the event of a significant cooling event coming naturally as part of the normal cycle? These are valid questions don’t you agree?

          • David Appell says:

            swampgator says:
            So the planet warms (before AGW) and its natural, but you are 100% sure that the current rise is because of AGW?

            Because that’s what the science has concluded. There are no known natural factors that should be causing warming now. In fact, a slightly cooling sun and Milankovitch factors should now be causing a COOLING.

            So some people say man is now causing 110% of the observed warming.

            Or might the temperature be rising naturally with a small addition from Man?

            Due to what?

            The fact that C02 has been higher than now while temps cooler in the past doesnt give you pause for reflection?

            When was that?

            CO2 isn’t the only factor that determines climate. How many times must this be shoved in your face until you understand?

  8. Mike Flynn says:

    Tales of 30 m sea level rises due to Antarctic ice melting seem odd.

    Fossilised remains of things like dinosaurs and trees are found at near present sea levels in Antarctica. At the time when Antarctica was ice free, either the present coast was much higher, sea levels were not much higher than now, or the alarmist GHE fanatics haven’t the faintest idea what they are talking about.

    Humans are powerless to alter weather to order, and not much better at predicting the weather any better than a child with a straight edge and pencil. So much for so called climate scientists.

    Antarctica used to be ice free. Good luck with stopping the same thing happening again, if Nature decrees.

    Cheers.

  9. DMA says:

    ” During Q&A, he mentioned how he had been teaching a climate class at his university for several years, and that he thought my skepticism was unwarranted.”

    This is the depressing part of Dr. Roy’s story. What is this professor using for data? None of the temperature records show any long term warming for Antarctica. The recent estimates of ice mass show mass gain or trivial loss amidst overwhelming uncertainty. Are there college students that will accept his “belief” without any data to support it?

  10. David, just does not understand why /how the climate changes.

    CO2/AGW has nothing to do with it. Zero.

    The sun modified by the geo magnetic field has everything to do with it.

    We have the TEST now DAVID.

    Year 2018 and going forward.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore, don’t lecture me on how the climate works. Every single one of your numerous and endless predictions has been wrong. Clearly whatever ‘understanding’ you base them on is wrong. And yet you merrily breeze along and come here repeatedly to tell us what’s going to happen, next week or next month or next year, time periods you for some reason cannot grasp have nothing to do with long-term climate change. You have demonstrated you learn nothing and you know nothing and you reinforce that with every inane comment. I think it’s time for to stop commenting, sit down quietly for a few years and figure out why you’re always wrong and why nearly every one of the world’s scientists thinks CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        You don’t need to appear more stupid and ignorant than you are.

        Name one of those scientists, and quote his “thoughts” – if you can.

        Try and find even one who has written a scientific description of the GHE.

        Thoughts are no substitute for facts. Anybody can think what they like – Nature doesn’t care. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer any hotter at all!

        Maybe you need to think harder, or pray harder, or something.

        Cheers.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          SdP, MF, please stop trolling.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Dang. Posted in wrong place – correction follows –

            Eh?

            Moi? Quelle horreur!

            Cheers.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            DREMT impersonator (neither comment is from the original DREMT), please stop trolling.

          • Norman says:

            DREMT

            Is this a game of process of elimination? Are you a regular poster and we are supposed to figure out who you are by process of elimination?

            Who have you not trolled so far? And who is the impersonator?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Norman, I had no intention of commenting under this article, until I saw yet more comments under my name which I had not made. I consider that to be trolling (plus surely a breach of site commenting policy, to comment using somebody elses name).

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Salvatore, dont lecture me on how the climate works”.

        Somebody has to, you’re hopeless in science without some kind of guidance.

      • David you have no understanding of the climate and this will be coming more apparent as the months go by and no further global warming takes place.

        I can’t wait to see what your reasoning will be.

    • Nylo says:

      What happened to the test that we had in 2010?

      • What happened was the sun going forward from year 2010-2017 never met the two conditions I said it would have to meet in order to exert a more significant climate effect.

        Now in year 2018 it is happening, which are 10+ years of sub solar activity in general followed by a period of time of very low average solar parameters equal to or greater in degree of magnitude change and duration of time that is associated with typical solar minimum between sunspot cycles.

  11. donald penman says:

    I cannot see a problem with sceptical climate science sustaining itself in the United States because it is based on far right ideology and hatred of the left. If you are on the left then you are responsible for the AGW movement even if you are not. You are subject to frequent rants from bloggers about how evil the left are not likely to make any on the left change there views on AGW and yet we are told by them that we must accept some AGW just to appease some. We did not have the political correctness that we have when I was younger and that is wrong because people have to be brainwashed into accepting the truth as believed by a certain group in society, educators and the media, and also being asked to pay for them to do this usually through taxation.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      donald…”I cannot see a problem with sceptical climate science sustaining itself in the United States because it is based on far right ideology and hatred of the left”.

      I’m a socialist and one of the biggest anthropogenic global warming/climate change skeptics you’ll find.

      I don’t think global warming/climate change propaganda has anything to do with right or left, it’s strictly a warm and fuzzy feel-good feeling propagated by the politically-correct who think they know what is best for the world.

      The Club of Rome is an exclusive club of the wealthy and privileged and a front-runner in global warming propaganda. Then you have Maurice Strong, the Father of Kyoto, who is a billionaire capitalist who fancies himself as a socialist. At the Rio Summit, his wife was running around with other hippies celebrating the good they were doing for the world.

      Strong had some strange ideas about population control and a woman’s right to control her own body. He also suggested we’d be better of if our industrialized society collapsed.

  12. Mike Flynn says:

    Eh?

    Moi? Quelle horreur!

    Cheers.

  13. ren says:

    Satellites show that the wind rules the climate. When the jet stream weakens over the oceans follows global cooling. It starts with a drop in sea surface temperature.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mimic-tpw/global/anim/latest72hrs.gif

  14. ren says:

    The geomagnetic storm caused a sudden increase in seismic activity. Another earthquake above 5 Richter in the area of the Kilauea volcano.
    https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00966/lowr8fh089jv.png

  15. Gordon Robertson says:

    Roy…”I guess what was interesting to me is that the belief (his word) in catastrophic climate change….”

    Not like the belief in particle physics about Higgs bosons and the likes. They likely still believe that the universe started with a Big Bang, based on the overwhelming evidence [sarc /off] that the universe seems to have a +3K residual temperature and that Doppler shifts in stellar spectra seem to suggest the universe is expanding.

    Expanding from where? Where is the centre? How big is the universe anyway?

    • Joel O'Bryan says:

      The universe is likely hyper-spatial (more than the 3 extended macro dimensions that we observe).
      In terms of visualization, reduction to 2 dimensions allows our brain to make sense of this.
      The part of the universe we can observe can be conceptualized as the 2D surface of a balloon, a rubber sheet expanding. In every direction we “look,” we see the rubber sheet moving away from us. The furthest points on the rubber balloon are moving away from us the fastest.
      We can’t look thru the balloon sheet to the other side, our sight-line only extends along the rubber sheet surface. Looking thru the balloon sheet would violate GR, causality, and the speed of light in a vacuum.
      So if you are living on the surface on an expanding balloon, where is the center? It is the observer. We live in a relativistic universe.

      And people wonder why physicists things they are Center of the Universe. Sheeesh.

    • David Appell says:

      Expanding from where? Where is the centre? How big is the universe anyway?

      Expanding from everywhere. There is no center. No one knows how big the universe is, but the observable part is now thought to be 91 billion light-years in diameter:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Size_and_regions

      We don’t know what makes up 95% of the universe.

  16. Aaron S says:

    I will guess STEVEN CHU because he has the nobel prize and is vocal about climate change, and has government/ political ties.

    • Felix says:

      Is 70 elderly?

      I wouldn’t call Dr. Chu a particle physicist, but maybe that’s just my take.

      He was Energy Secretary in the Obama Administration, though, hence suspect.

  17. Ed Mihelich says:

    Thanks for the interesting post. It sounds like you enjoyed yourself. I had a similar experience during my scientific career (in Switzerland) and the host even covered the expenses of my wife joining me for the event and touring the country afterwards!

    As far as the NP winner goes I was immediately reminded of the Tolstoy quote: “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

  18. Nate says:

    “climate policy would not be able to move forward like it needs to until old skeptics like me die out.”

    There is a lot of historical precedent to support that comment.

    Plate tectonics, quantum theory, come to mind.

  19. Robert has it right. This is why over the last year overall sea surface temperatures are falling.

    Robert I. Ellison, SAYS

    Power flux imbalances change from negative to positive on an annual basis. The average is 0.8W/m2 consistent with rates of ocean warming. The trend over the period of record is negative. Such large swings in imbalances cannot be due to greenhouse gases.
    The result is a very large annual variation in energy from the Sun the energy in component. Annual variability has significant implications for ocean heat change. Ocean heat does not change slowly as a result of greenhouse gases and thermal inertia but warms and cools rapidly in response to the very large annual signal.

    2W/m2 as I gave said to yet again below assumes no response in the system but the system has of course responded and the energy imbalance from greenhouse gases is not remotely 2W/m2. If there is energy equilibrium on an annual basis and there is the current greenhouse gas energy imbalance is at most 0.03W/m2. This is an order of magnitude less than obtained by assuming that all ocean warming is anthropogenic it is n

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      Robert has it right. This is why over the last year overall sea surface temperatures are falling.

      A natural variation. Not a long-term trend — the long-term trend is very much upward.

      • Yes David it is a natural variation which is all that we have natural variations.

        The long term trend WAS.

        • David Appell says:

          So you don’t think CO2 ab.sorbs infrared radiation.

          That’s an astounding result, Salvatore. Can you prove that? There will surely be (speaking of) a Nobel Prize in that for you.

          Don’t you want a Nobel Prize, Salvatore?

  20. If overall sea surface temperatures keep falling and the albedo ticks up ever so slightly AGW theory will no longer be viable.

    This is happening as I speak. The climate is heading toward a climatic shift again like it did in the late 1970’s, natural nothing to do with wonder gas CO2.

  21. ren says:

    It is rare for rainwater to form lakes in this part of the desert, which is known as the Empty Quarter. Sand composing dunes of all shapes and sizes, interspersed with salt flats, make up the majority of the landscape. According to news reports, this desert received on average 3 centimeters (1.2 inches) of rain per year. It has been about 20 years since rainwater last filled the flats.
    The rainwater is expected to give rise to summertime vegetation. Al Arabiya reported that such vegetation will be a boon for camel owners, who expect to feed the animals on the plants for the next two years.
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=92295

  22. Hkan says:

    Stephen Hawking is not a Nobel price winner.

  23. JohnD says:

    You are right HKan. But he did win the Novel prize, which pays better and provides more status. Makes me wonder if SHs stance on AGW late in life wasnt intended to influence the Nobel committee.

  24. Felix says:

    Hawking never won a Nobel Prize.

  25. just a thought says:

    The volcanic activity along the West Antarctic Ridge under the West Antarctic couldnt possibly have anything to do with the melting thats happening there, now could it!
    http://www.plateclimatology.com/geologic-forces-fueling-west-antarcticas-larsen-ice-shelf-cracks/

    Must be the CO2, then. //sarc//

  26. SteveF says:

    Roy,

    “One also cant help but notice how Nobel Prize winners tend to also be experts in all disciplines after they win their prize. Stephen Hawking comes to mind.” Actually lots of them come to mind.

    Sounds like you encountered Nobel Prize winner David J. Gross. But I suspect he will die well before you do.

  27. Peter Sinclair says:

    I have noticed that renowned experts are generally correct when they discuss their field of expertise. However, they make assumptions about other matters outside of their knowledge and have a 50/50 chance of being correct or downright wrong about these.

    It is then difficult to tell this esteemed scientist that he is talking b*****Ks but I’m afraid that he probably is.

    I sometimes wonder whether the best response is to say that with respect, he is quite wrong. It may prompt these people to actually investigate their beliefs rather than assume them. If these people really are bright, they will realise that they are supporting assumptions without checking them out for themselves.

  28. CA Rancher Clay says:

    Like a broken record (if you’re in your 70s you know what that means), I keep equating current climate hysteria with the cholesterol hysteria that plagued my industry (cattle) for about 50 years. Finally now, the cholesterol scare is pretty much dead as far as the diet-cholesterol link goes – my MD used to promote vegetarian; Now, the same MD promotes meat, milk, eggs, turmeric and sunlight.

    I’d even go so far as to say that the newer climate hysteria has replaced the old cholesterol hysteria, there being only so much room at the top for a current mainstream hysteria. No doubt there will soon be diagnosed a HDD — hysteria deficit disorder for all of us with sound minds and nothing to hate but hate itself.

    Based on the cholesterol experience, expect about 50 years of climate hysteria, which means about 10 or 20 more years of climate hysteria — if we still have something akin to democracy by then and it’s still not against the law to speak one’s thoughts.
    /
    HCD

  29. CO2isLife says:

    Dr. Spencer, send him this list of challenges. I’d love to hear his rebuttals. I can’t believe a particle physicist would believe such garbage. Having a Nobel Prize just shows how meaningless that award has become. The climate alarmist’s science is so bad a child should be able to identify it. None of the work from Michael Mann would pass in the physics departments of the world. There is no hiding the decline in physic models. Anyway, here is a link to the challenges of Michael Mann’s work. In any real science, you only need one unexplainable observation to reject the theory. There are plenty of answers the climate alarmists can’t defend in the below-linked article. My bet is you won’t get a response.

    The Winning Strategy to Defeating Climate Sophist Michael Mann
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/the-winning-strategy-to-defeating-climate-sophist-michael-mann/

    • David Appell says:

      Your blog post, when youre not ranting and calling people names, says this:

      The Progressive CAGW Theory is a giant house of cards, founded upon Michael Manns infamous Hockey Stick graph.

      You have a big misunderstanding. The hockey stick is a reconstruction of PAST temperatures. It doesnt attribute a cause to them, it just deduces what they were. So it has NOTHING to do with AGW, or the future, or whats causing the warming. AGW is *not* founded on the hockey stick.

      Major fail.

      PS: The hockey stick has been replicated many times by now, and by methods using completely different mathematical techniques.

      • CO2isLife says:

        If you honestly believe that something that utilized unique researcher specific statistical techniques like Mike’s Nature Trick to hide the decline is reproducible and the fact that he ignored instrumental data prior to 1902 and the fact that there is nothing about the underlying physics of a CO2 molecule that would justify a dog-leg developing in a temperature chart that BTW doesn’t line up with the dog-legs in NASA’s new Sea Level chart, then there is no way you and I will ever agree. I’m familiar with dataset construction and if I ever did what Michael did, I would know I was doing it for all the wrong reasons. The only way to reproduce the Hockey Stick is to simply do exactly what he did with the data sets he used. That isn’t independent verification anymore than someone simply recopying computer code.

        To Win The Climate Debate The Right Question Must Be Asked; How is CO2 the Cause?
        https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/to-win-the-climate-debate-the-right-questions-must-be-asked/

        • David Appell says:

          CO2isLife says:
          If you honestly believe that something that utilized unique researcher specific statistical techniques like Mikes Nature Trick to hide the decline

          Obviously you don’t know what that phrase was referring to.

          Hint: it wasn’t real temperatures, either globally or locally.

      • Chris Hanley says:

        … The hockey stick is a reconstruction of PAST temperatures. It doesnt attribute a cause to them, it just deduces what they were …
        As everyone knows by now the ‘hockey stick’ graph was a combination of an approximate linear trend line from ~1000 AD to ~1900 AD based on widely disparate temperature proxies with a plot of those, and only those, proxy samples that followed the general trend of the 20th surface temperature record tacked on.
        To say it was the result of a deductive rather than an inductive progress is quite right, the authors started with assumed 20th century anthropogenic warming and deduced the result, the graph, from that premise.

  30. The hockey stick is BS! End of story.

  31. Michael Mann’s opinions when it comes to the climate mean NOTHNG.

    • David Appell says:

      Many disagree — Mann is being invited to speak all over the place. And he keeps winning awards — I saw another one on his Facebook feed just yesterday, I think.

  32. David says:

    Here I made an attempt to understand the climate alarmism, it’s roots.
    http://www.davdata.nl/math/mentalclimate.html

  33. CO2isLife says:

    Dr. Spencer, here is another one to forward to your Physics Friend. BTW, in physics there is no “consensus” there are simply experiments and results. Imagine if all we had from our friends in the physics departments were “consensus,” “Peer Review,” and Computer models that didn’t model what they intend to.

    Forensic Science; Why Michael Mann Chose Only the Past 1000 Years to Reconstruct
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/forensic-science-why-michael-mann-chose-only-the-past-1000-years-to-reconstruct/

    Climate “Science” is Anti-Science; How do you Disprove a Consensus?
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/10/climate-science-is-anti-science-how-do-you-disprove-a-consensus/

  34. gbaikie says:

    In your opinion, what is best proxy temperature indicating global land and/or ocean temperature from period of 1000 AD to 1900 AD?

  35. What I sent is what is the real temperature changes over the past widely recognized.

  36. Gary Pearse says:

    I think the climate debate would be over if an understanding of enthalpy of water in its 3 phases was understood by influential ‘progressive’ proponents of climate disaster, like David Appell. Two things about Antarctica: warming up -50C by 3 or 4C does not water make. Second, the average height above sealevel of the entire continent is 2500m and that folks, need I say it, is above the ‘snowline’.

    I’ll add a freebee: The reason glaciers calve or ice shelves break off over time is not warming, it’s snowfall on top of their sources in the interior of the continent that causes outward flow outwards toward the ocean. Non of this is controversial.Were progressives surprised that Antarctica was recently determined to have been icebound continuously through global temperatures much warmer 8 million years ago when CO2 was about what it is today. If progressives arent mystified that the Sierra Nevada gets 10s of meters of snow each winter and Kilimanjaro, and the Hindu Kush…them it should be easy to accept that Antarctica isnt going to give up its iciness anytime soon. Its just physics as they say.

  37. gbaikie says:

    That is northern hemisphere.
    And I assume land.

    • Entropic man says:

      Gbaiki

      The best modern proxy data for the last 10,000 years is Marcott et al 2013.

      http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.full

      Look particularly at Figure 3.

      • Bart says:

        This is a joke, right? The problems that have been identified with Marcott are legion.

        • gbaikie says:

          –This is a joke, right? The problems that have been identified with Marcott are legion.–

          I think problem is where he spliced historical record with modern measured temperature.
          Or if remove this wrong part, it seems pretty good.

          If you got better one, I like to see it.

          But rather 10,000+ years, I more interested in the time period between 900 AD and 1900.

          I think that time period is particularly important.

          • Bart says:

            Lack of “better” does not imply “good”. Nobody should rely upon any estimate that cannot be independently verified. I consider anything before the modern direct instrument era to be, at best, suggestive. At worst, entirely misleading.

        • David Appell says:

          What problems with Marcott et al, specifically?

  38. If overall sea surface temperatures stay around the levels we have now much less fall there will be no further warming.

  39. gbaikie says:

    What effect does CO2 have on tropical average temperature?

    What effect changes tropical temperature, the most?

    • I do not think co2 has any effect on temperature because it changes in response to temperature.

      If the oceans cool significantly CO2 concentrations will not keep increasing at the rates they have been.

      • David Appell says:

        Do you accept that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation? And that the Earth emits it?

        • Yes ,yes,yes! Plus I accept there is a GHG effect.

          The difference is the whole GHG effect is governed by the environment whereas you say the GHG effect governs the environment.

          That is essentially the difference ,that’s it but it makes all the difference n the world when one accepts or does not accept AGW.

          • David Appell says:

            So if you accept that CO2 is part of the greenhouse effect, why wouldn’t more CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            For the same reason that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer hotter!

            Belief versus reality. Fantasy versus fact.

            Still no GHE (which is why you can’t even describe the GHE, can you?).

            Next stupid gotcha?

            Cheers.

          • Bart says:

            “…why wouldnt more CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect?”

            For the same reason increased alcohol consumption beyond a particular point does not make one more popular at parties: it’s a nonlinear function.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “…why wouldnt more CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect?”

            Also, because feedbacks from any increase in IR active gases may be zero or negative. Richard Lindzen has a recent explanation which I will post below unless someone else already did.

            I beseech you David Appell: Please do not post any of the references impugning Dr. Lindzen’s work. Don’t be a woose. Do your own research.

          • David Appell says:

            “It’s okay to be wrong, and [Lindzen] is a smart person, but most people don’t really understand that one way of using your intelligence is to spin ever more clever ways of deceiving yourself, ever more clever ways of being wrong. And that’s okay because if you are wrong in an interesting way that advances the science, I think it’s great to be wrong, and he has made a career of being wrong in interesting ways about climate science.”

            – Raymond Pierrehumbert, http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/09/established-science.html

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            why wouldnt more CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect?
            For the same reason increased alcohol consumption beyond a particular point does not make one more popular at parties: its a nonlinear function.

            Being nonlinear does not imply an effect stops doing what it does.

            And then there are the feedbacks….

          • Bart says:

            You asked why it wouldn’t. Well, it wouldn’t if the functional dependence is not monotonic, one reason for which could be multivariate dependence upon confounding variables (a.k.a., negative feedbacks).

            It’s not a given. There is no physical imperative that increasing concentration must result in greater warming.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            David Appell,

            I despise resorting to name calling. But you are a low life *ss. What are trying to compensate for? Are you short or just a little short somewhere?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            David, PST.

          • David Appell says:

            CB: What name calling?

            Your claims are almost always wrong. I’m going to continue pointing that out.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            Its not a given. There is no physical imperative that increasing concentration must result in greater warming.

            There is — conservation of energy.

          • Bart says:

            Bzzzt! Wrong.

  40. JohnD says:

    Perhaps, you misread. I sai he won the Novel prize.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      J,

      I say so too. You need to use a sledgehammer here sometimes – not just for walnuts, nuts of any type. Some people just do not appreciate that you can never have too much pun.

      Cheers.

  41. Gary Pearse says:

    Gordon, I was relatively apolitical many years ago and voted on merit and apparent wisdom of the candidates. A number of my family are socialist no matter if candidates are capable or not. In recent years I have argued with family members that the party they think they are voting for no longer exists
    The ‘new left’ came from the centre and have taken the space once held by old left. The old left at least had the economically disadvantaged as constituents. Today the new left gets voted in nationally but their constituency is outsourced to a Eurocentric UN global governance klatch which includes some of the people you mention, which I bet you identify as right wing. It gets weirder! Donald Trump supporters are the disadvantaged that have been disenfranchised an impoverished for years. If yours is the old party in name, you actually dont have a party.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Gary…”The new left came from the centre and have taken the space once held by old left. The old left at least had the economically disadvantaged as constituents”.

      I no longer support any political party, even the politically-correct socialist parties in Canada, the provincial and federal NDP. A while back, they began supporting special interest groups and lost sight of the average Canadian. When they started openly supporting global warming propaganda I washed my hands of them.

      People have to realize that the old left in North America were the true socialists. They came about it naturally, not through political philosophy. They were oppressed in the work place and they did something about it by organizing into unions.

      As my dad pointed out from his life experience, when the UK Labour Party (socialist party), were dealing with people going through tough times, their focus was on helping those people. However, when times got better, their policies became downright stupid, being based largely on dogma and philosophy.

      That’s what we are seeing today with the Left. Most of them have gotten fat and they lack the interest in justice they once had. They have replaced that pursuit with watered-down, politically-correct views.

      That’s why the Democrats lost to Trump and no one was happier than me, even though I do not support Trump with his economic views.

      There is a lot wrong with this world but the average North American no longer cares. Most are totally into themselves, begrudging the unemployed insurance or the poor a decent basic means of surviving.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon says:
        Thats why the Democrats lost to Trump

        In fact, the Democratic candidate received 3 M more votes than Trump.

        Only a flawed and archaic constitutional feature made Trump the winner. With a minority of the votes.

        • gbaikie says:

          The “flawed and archaic constitutional feature” will make America great.

          The politicians crafting constitution were somehow better politicians than we find in modern times.
          I doubt any nation at present could be up to task of making a better kind of government. And none to date, have.

          But I believe if you change things, it is possible to do this, and opening space frontier is what I would call changing things.

  42. gbaikie says:

    –Here I made an attempt to understand the climate alarmism, its roots.
    http://www.davdata.nl/math/mentalclimate.html. —

    Hmm, pretty long.
    I say roots are primitive – as in primitive human.
    All great religions are a step away from primitive human. The abandonment of the great religion is a step back to primitive human.
    Mixing modern technology with primitive worship of nature is not a good thing.

    • David Appell says:

      So do you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think CO2 doesn’t ab.sorb it?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        So do you think bananas don’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think apples don’t ab.sorb it?

        About as relevant, if you can’t even point out what your nonsensical comment is supposed to mean.

        Stringing random sciency words together is fun, but otherwise pointless.

        Cheers.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Mike Flapper wrote:

          Stringing random sciency words together is fun, but otherwise pointless.

          And we know you are an expert by your often repeated posts devoid of content.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Generally, your comments seem well-intended, if not worthwhile. But these juvenile retorts to Mike’s efforts are annoying. If you don’t like Mike’s comments, ignore them.

            You’re not a troll. But you could be worse, an Appellite.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Sorry, E. Swanson.

            That comment came from me.

  43. Bindidon says:

    Gordon Robertson says:
    June 18, 2018 at 3:40 AM

    The data comes from NOAA who have 1 surface station in the Canadian Arctic and none… zero… nada… zilch… in Antarctica. This article is just more in the line of the NOAA fabricated temperature series.

    Robertson, you are a paranoid liar living in a nonsensical hatred of NOAA.

    1. NOAA’s GHCN daily stations in the Canadian Arctic

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529360733166/001.jpg

    Separated into 5 degree latitude bands

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529360856721/001.jpg

    2. NOAA’s GHCN daily stations in the Antarctic

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529360935689/001.jpg

    Sources can be found within
    https://tinyurl.com/y8xyojfw

    Why do you lie all the time, Robertson?

    • David Appell says:

      Thanks for that, Bindidon. Now watch Gordon completely ignore this information, and repeat the same lies again next week.

    • SMS says:

      I took a look at the Antarctic daily stations graph and noted that there are probably 10 sites that have a long enough temperature history to be used for climate studies. But I’m assuming that those sites have been consistently active through the century. I could be wrong. The graph is not very informative.

      • La Pangolina says:

        SMS says:
        June 19, 2018 at 5:01 PM

        The graph is not very informative.

        Well you have seen above where my life companion had his sources from.

        There you see a somewhat bigger file

        ghcnd-inventory.txt

        In that file each station has a starting resp. ending date.
        You might isolate those stations located in Antarctica busy with temperature measurements, and having produced measurements from 1954 till today.

        The graph was intended to show Robertson’s lies, and not to inform you about all the rest.

  44. Mike Flynn says:

    Nate appears to believe that the GHE has been described scientifically, and that a disprovable GHE hypothesis exists. He wrote –

    “Ok, Mike, one more try. Here is GHE hypothesis explained
    https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
    First page under heading GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Have at it.
    Second page: Test of the hypothesis is described.
    The greenhouse theory can be tested by examination of several planets, which provide an ensemble of experimentsover a wide range of conditions. The atmospheric composition of Mars,Earth, and Venus lead to mean radiating levels of about 1, 6, and 70 km, and lapse rates of 5, 5.50, and 7C km^-1, respectively. Observed surface temperatures of these planets confirm the existence
    and order of magnitude of the predicted greenhouse effect (Eq. 3).
    So Mike, unless you can clearly demonstrate what theyve done wrong, your oft repeated meme is proven FALSE.”

    Nope. No description of the GHE – which is probably why you couldn’t actually quote it, reverting to the usual stupid and ignorant tactic of providing a link to a nonsensical piece of pseudoscience.

    No need to demonstrate anything there – it doesn’t exist!

    On to Hansen’s bizarre “explanation’ of the non-existent.

    You might notice that his first “explanatory” statement is demonstrably ridiculous. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. No evidence that absorbed and emitted radiation balance. Jus the usual ratbag assertion from someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.

    Keep trying. Look at other descriptions of scientific effects. Then you will start to appreciate why no such thing exists for the so called Greenhouse Effect.

    Claims that purport to explain the non-existent are delusional.

    By the way, assumptions and modelling are not experiments.

    Cheers.

    • Nate says:

      ‘You might notice that his first explanatory statement is demonstrably ridiculous. ”

      Tell us which statement, then demonstrate away, Mike.

    • Nate says:

      ‘ No evidence that absorbed and emitted radiation balance.’

      Is that supposed to be the demonstration?

      You mean the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to the Earth? Or do you mean its temperature is not stable, within a narrow range?

      Its all very vague, as expected.

    • Nate says:

      Mike,

      Weak response, very weak. That all you got?

      I expected more considering how often you plea for a testable GHE hypothesis.

  45. Gary Pearse says:

    Entropic, you didnt note my mention of the 8 million years+ of stability of the antarctic through warmer periods than now. New studies are already making last years “accelerating” sea level rise stuff obsolete, as it should for enthalpy reasons and because of ultra low temps, high latitude and elevation of the continent. Ice melting in the sea doesnt do much, shelves breakoff and glaciers calve but new snow makes new ice. This is not controversial science. Now if it stops snowing, yeah we have a problem, but healthy births of icebergs is a sign its all working fine. In Alaska, some glaciers have melted back inland for 10s of km because of reduced nourishment from snow over the last 250 years. Dont listen to the 20 to 100Gt crowd, it only seems like a lot and dont even read papers using numbers of olympic swimmingpools or hiroshima bombs worth of energy. This is intended as children’s literature.

    At the end of the last glacial max, 51,000,000 km^3 of ice melted, that’s 51 million Gt, that’s 51 quadrillion tonnes of ice and sea level rise was 125 meters. This and enthalpy should quiet the fears of a thoughtful person. Coral grew to keep pace, as did river deltas which are very much larger today BECAUSE of this sea rise! A bit more isnt alarming. Notwithstanding your favorite politicians pronouncements, or Al Gore’s admittedly high quality productions or even an esteemed scientist disaster proponent, you are allowed to think for yourself and even to speculate that they could be mistaken from time to time.

    • La Pangolina says:

      Gary Pearse says:
      June 18, 2018 at 4:54 PM

      New studies are already making last years “accelerating” sea level rise stuff obsolete…

      Could you provide your readers with a link to a paper?

    • Mike Flynn says:

      Gary,

      I rather like the way the NSF finally accepted that Archimedes’ principle still applies. Sea ice melt does not make sea levels rise.

      Some climate clowns still express amazement when the ice pushed into the ocean by a flowing glacier eventually breaks off!

      They seem unaware that ice is quite rigid, and the continuous flexing of the sheet eventually causes breakage. No miraculous heating rom underneath necessary!

      All part of the rich but silly climatological tapestry – more hole than whole.

      Cheers.

    • Nate says:

      GAry,

      ‘. Ice melting in the sea doesnt do much, shelves breakoff and glaciers calve but new snow makes new ice. This is not controversial science. ‘

      Do you really think scientists are not aware of basics?

      If you read articles, you would see that it is the acceleration of the glacier flow that is being observed.

      It is believed that the loss of massive floating ice shelves is facilitating this acceleration. Uncorking of the bottle.

  46. Gary Pearse says:

    Agreed

  47. Gary Pearse says:

    Last post -I was agreeing with Gordon’s fuller treatment of glacial outflow and adve tures in the sea.

    • La Pangolina says:

      Thanks GP

      People a la Middleton are imho by far too polemic to be taken seriously.

      I’ll therefore await Zwally’s conclusions going far away from his recent results (2015):

      But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

      Wait and see I would say.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        LaP,

        Might, if, and think – mainstays of wishful thinking, unless backed by sound science.

        You can’t even describe the GHE, can you?

        Back to drawing brightly coloured pictures for you!

        Cheers.

  48. just a thought says:

    No, David. The scienciness isnt settled.
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/upcoming-research-will-buck-the-consensus-and-show-antarctica-is-still-gaining-ice/

    Also, as cold as it is in most of Antarctica most of the time, the ice doesnt melt. Ice loss is mostly due to sublimation into the cold DRY air blowing over it.

    • David Appell says:

      Gee, scientists don’t know that ice doesn’t melt when the temperature is far below zero. Right.

      So why do you suppose they are still concerned about melting Antarctic ice?

      Why haven’t you asked yourself that question?

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        Maybe because your “scientists” are stupid and ignorant?

        Some of them are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that melting sea ice raises sea levels. The NSF reluctantly admitted they were talking nonsense – it took several years for them to admit they were in error. I suppose that the National Science Foundation knows something about science, but apparently not a lot.

        Are these the scientists to whom you refer? Or are you specifically excluding scientists from the NSF, NOAA and NASA? Any others?

        Why haven’t you asked yourself that question?

        I understand, David.

        Cheers.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Gee, scientists dont know that ice doesnt melt when the temperature is far below zero. Right”.

        The idiots programming models would not know that. Or some geologists like Michael Mann, who concluded it has warmed in Antarctica since 1950.

        Nor do they seem to get it that solar energy input is missing in the Arctic several months of the year.

    • La Pangolina says:

      just a thought says:
      June 18, 2018 at 5:46 PM

      The best methodology we have is to monitor tide gauges, which continue to show no acceleration in sea level rise, which is increasing at a similar rate to the 1920s to 50s.

      *

      When I read such Homewood blah blah, I have a problem in believing what he wrote above it upthread.

      Did you ever download tide gauge data, jat?

      SLR by tide gauges in mm/yr (CSIRO)

      1880-1920: 1.3
      1920-1950: 1.5
      1950-1980: 1.5
      1980-2013: 2.6

      SLR by sat is actually at 3.2 mm/yr.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”Did you ever download tide gauge data, jat?”

        How many gauges do they have monitoring ocean levels? How do they average over the different tides?

        How do they account for different ocean levels? Yes, the ocean levels can vary a foot between Australia and South America.

        How much of the rise is due to humans dumping garbage in the oceans including several billions worth of poop.

        Yuck!! I’m never swimming in the ocean again. Have you ever seen one whale bowel movement. Reminds me of a whole lot of alarmist propaganda.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          I did answer your question about poop on an earlier thread. I do not think you saw it.

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/sea-level-rise-human-portion-is-small/#comment-305276

        • La Pangolina says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          June 18, 2018 at 7:45 PM

          Robertson

          The Flynn guy calls everybody stupid and/or ignorant he wants to discredit or denigrate, and you call everybody an idiot you want to discredit or denigrate. David Appell you even named a dumb ass!

          This your comment proves again that you are the perfect sum of all Flynn and you think about other people.

          This your comment is of the same vein as your incredibly dumb and pretentious comments about GPS, time dilation, Lorentz, Einstein etc etc.

          It is even worse than your repeated lies about NOAA’s presence in the Arctic or in the Antarctic.

          How is it possible not to shame about writing such ignorant nonsense?

        • Mike Flynn says:

          LaP,

          If I call people stupid and ignorant, it is because they have shown themselves to be stupid and ignorant (as opposed to wise and knowledgeable).

          If you can show me to be wrong, based on facts, I will obviously change my views.

          You cannot, of course, which makes you stupid for misrepresenting me based on your unsubstantiated opinion, and ignorant for not being able to present facts to back up your opinion.

          If people choose to feel offended, denigrated, or discredited, that is their choice. Blame me for your stupidity and ignorance, if it makes you feel better. I won’t mind.

          Oh-so-sad that you believe in mythical concepts like the uindescribable GHE. Why do you care what anyone thinks? I certainly don’t – why should I? Why should you?

          Oh well, feel as upset as you like. You obviously choose to, otherwise you would provide a fact or two to contradict what I write. So sad, too bad.

          Cheers.

          • La Pangolina says:

            Mike Flynn says:
            June 19, 2018 at 3:57 AM

            If people choose to feel offended, denigrated, or discredited, that is their choice. Blame me for your stupidity and ignorance, if it makes you feel better. I wont mind.

            You behave exactly as dumb as does Robertson.

            If there are here two stupid and ignorant persons, then these are Robertson and… Flynn.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            La Pangolina, please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Impersonator, try not to be too upset that someone had the idea to call out the real trolls on this site. And try not to be so desperate that you have to post as another commenter because you realise how effective this idea is.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        LaP,

        Did you ever download the continental vertical displacement data – seeing as how tide gauges are generally attached to continents?

        Maybe you could use lots of brightly coloured markers and make a graph?

        Mt. Everest is going up, parts of US East Coast going down – can you graph the effects on sea level for me?

        Cheers.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Mike Flapper, Scientists who analyze tide gauge data to study changes in SL have included local changes in land elevation in their work for many decades. Peltier’s work on relative SL comes to mind.

          • JDHuffman says:

            E. Swanson, what other factors contribute to SLR? Are the other factors accumulative?

            IOW, isn’t SLR inevitable, even with no AGW?

          • David Appell says:

            JDHuffman says:
            IOW, isnt SLR inevitable, even with no AGW?

            Why? A little bit of land subsidence in some places?

            SLR was 1 meter in 5000 years before the industrial era, an average rate of 0.2 mm/yr. Now it’s it’s 17 times faster — and 20 times faster if you take into account SLR acceleration.

          • JDHuffman says:

            David Appell, land masses erode continually. The eroded material ends up at ocean depths. It adds, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.

            SLR is inevitable.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            YOU: “David Appell, land masses erode continually. The eroded material ends up at ocean depths. It adds, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.”

            A PhD candidate geophysicist has already calculated the contribution and it is quite small and has nothing to do with the current sea level rise rate.

            https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-the-sea-rise-can-be-attributed-to-sediment-from-surface-erosion

          • JDHuffman says:

            Well, anonymous Norman, even if you go with the “estimates” and “assumptions”, you end up with millimeters. Then add in the other contributing “estimates” and “assumptions”.

            And these don’t go away. They add year after year.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            I think you misread the ballpark calculation on the link. The final amount was nanometers not millimeters. A nanometer is one million times smaller than a millimeter.

            You would get a millimeter rise in a million years. The current sea level rise seems much greater so other causes must be responsible.

            I hope you realize scientists are not so foolish that such a thought did not cross their minds already. They did calculations and found the amount caused by sedimentation is far to small to account for the current level of sea level rise. They can calculate that warming of the ocean will create expansion of water comparable to what they are finding so that would be a far more likely candidate. It is a process of elimination to find a likely cause.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Anonymous Norman, I did not misread the “ballpark” calculation. It was you that wasn’t able to figure out my comment.

            Over the industrial era, even if you believe the “ballpark”, the SLR would be affected by millimeters.

            Then, if you add in the other factors, the result is even greater.

            Zealots do not like facts that counter their beliefs, but if all of Earth’s land were leveled, sea levels would be over 1 mile above the land.

          • Nate says:

            JD,

            No one else here seems to care that a poster is anonymous. Why do you? Why the need to make it personal at all?

            It is their choice, isn’t it? They must have their reasons, which are ultimately none of your business.

          • Nate says:

            JD,

            A million years to reach 1 mm, that’s negligible. That means it should be ignored. Right?

        • Entropic man says:

          Mike Flynn

          Tide guages do indeed rise and fall with the land they are attached to.

          The average isostatic movement is a rise of 0.3mm/year.

          As a result, global sea level rise as measured by tide guages is 0.3mm less than as measured by satallite altimetry.

        • Ken says:

          I’d like someone to explain the 10 km difference between the poles and the equator and how the sea level distribution is changing as the earth rotational velocity slows. It seems to me there should be water (and land too) migrating north and south as the equatorial bulge reduces.

      • David Appell says:

        La P, do you have a link to CSIRO’s data? Thanks.

  49. gbaikie says:

    –The best modern proxy data for the last 10,000 years is Marcott et al 2013.–

    So that is global (someone complained 80% proxies were marine).
    There is this to look at:
    http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/were-not-screwed

    • Entropic man says:

      Gbaikie

      “someone complained 80% proxies were marine”

      Earth’s surface is 70% marine.

    • Entropic man says:

      Gbaikie

      Did you notice the author of the Financial post article.

      Outside the clmate change denier community Ross McKittrick is not regarded as a reliable source.

      • JDHuffman says:

        Entropic man, no one outside your cult is regarded as a reliable source.

        That should tell you something.

        • La Pangolina says:

          Huffman, you do not seem to realise that exactly the same holds e.g. for your friend the Robertson genius, who discards, discredits and denigrates evrything outside his cult.

          Indeed, Huffman: That should tell you something.

          • JDHuffman says:

            La Pangolina, yes, it does tell me something.

            It tells me that your obsession with Robertson far supersedes any rational interpretation of relevant facts.

          • David Appell says:

            LaP is right.

            Kierkegaard:

            “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to
            believe what isn’t true, the other is to refuse
            to accept what is true.”

        • Entropic man says:

          JDHuffman

          I do belong to a cult. We are called scientists and we follow a ritual called scientific method.

          My favourite description of Ross Mckittrick is at RationalWiki.

          ” Ross McKitrick is a Canadian economist, best known for undermining global warming denialism by advancing a series of bizarre and implausible objections to mainstream science. ”

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick

          His contributions include:

          No Hockey stick

          No such thing as average temperature

          Global warming does not exist because degrees are the same as radians.

          Major population centres in Antarctica.

          ( I dont understand the last three either. 🙂 )

          • JDHuffman says:

            Entropic man, is attacking someone that doesn’t believe as you, part of your “scientific method”?

          • Entropic man says:

            JDHuffman

            I’m attacking bad science. None of McKitricks stuff makes scientific sense.

            There are sceptics like Richard Lindzen who try to make a proper scientific case for lukewarm, which puts them in a minority but within the tent. They are regarded as mistaken by the consensus, but have earned respect.

            McKitrick is outside the tent, pissing in the dark. He writes bullshit with no valid scientific basis and attracts somewhere between pity and contempt from climate professionals.

            Incidentally, are you related to H D Huffman? He wrote a hypothesis to explain the temperature on Venus without GHGs. Unfortunately it violated the 1st law.

            http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

          • JDHuffman says:

            No relation, but it’s interesting that you are researching me.

            Maybe that’s why you can’t use your real name. Too much to hide?

          • Bart says:

            There is no hockey stick. Average temperature is an ill-defined quantity. The rest are no doubt intentionally garbled to poison the well.

            This is just a red herring argument, specifically, your fallacy is: argumentum ad hominem.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Incidentally, are you related to H D Huffman? He wrote a hypothesis to explain the temperature on Venus without GHGs. Unfortunately it violated the 1st law.

            http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

            Why do you think it violates 1st law?

            I think sunlight warms Venus clouds and the sun heated clouds warm the air. Do you think that violates 1st law, also?

          • Entropic man says:

            JDHumffman, Gbaskie

            Just curious. The name was familiar and AGW denial tends to run in families. Witness the Idsos and the Pielkes.

            It is not unusual for scientists to use a nom-de-plume when commenting on threads like this one. It separates their unofficial comments from their official statements.

            I use a nom-de-plume because my children asked me to. They became embarrassed when a Google search revealed my secret identity as “Speaker to Weirdos”.

            Why does Huffman violate the 1st law?

            Venus receives solar insolation of 2601W/M^2. With an albedo of 0.77 Venus reflects 2002W/M^2 and absorbs 599W/M^2.

            To make his maths work Huffman assumes that all 2601W/M^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere. This is creating energy from nowhere, which is a 1st law violation.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Entropic man, since you’re seeing 1LoT violations, see if you can find same with your “standard forcing equation”.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            “Average temperature is an ill-defined quantity.”

            = (1/A)*[surface integral over the surface]T(r dA

            where A = area and T is temperature.

          • David Appell says:

            Harry D Huffman’s results came from setting planetary albedos to zero. Pure junk.

          • gbaikie says:

            Why does Huffman violate the 1st law?

            Venus receives solar insolation of 2601W/M^2. With an albedo of 0.77 Venus reflects 2002W/M^2 and absorbs 599W/M^2.

            To make his maths work Huffman assumes that all 2601W/M^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere. This is creating energy from nowhere, which is a 1st law violation.

            From what he says, he allows for reflection.

            Things that reflect can get quite hot in space, but stuff that reflects, don’t absorb as much energy.

            Anyway, it is assumed the clouds [of Venus] reflect most of the sunlight.

            What if the clouds didn’t exist, what effect do you think that would have on Venus temperature?

            Or slightly different question, how much would Venus atmosphere reflect without having any clouds?

          • gbaikie says:

            “best known for undermining global warming denialism ”

            What if he was “best known for undermining global warming beliefs?”

          • Bart says:

            David Appell @ June 20, 2018 at 3:43 PM

            What, physically, does it mean? Temperature is an intensive quantity.

          • Nate says:

            Average Temperature of near-surface air. Why is it hard?

          • Bart says:

            Because it’s not particularly physically useful. Temperature is an intensive quantity. It does not tell you how much energy there is unless coupled with heat capacity of the environment in which it is measured. So, when you average temperatures of environments with different heat capacities, you cannot connect it directly to the store of energy.

            It’s like averaging the number of crates of apples you have, regardless of the size of the individual crates. It can’t tell you, on that basis alone, how many apples you have.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Not useful’

            It is useful if you care about temperature where humans live. (air has same heat capacity worldwide…with some variation due to rel humidity).

            Maybe more useful to look at average global enthalpy of near surface air.

            If you care about energy increase, ok, OHC contains by far most of it, and is being measured. It shows a strong upward trend, and can be used to test models.

          • Bart says:

            “It shows a strong upward trend, and can be used to test models.”

            And, even if one entertains the conjecture that it is possible for LW radiation to produce heating of the skin layer that then mixes with deeper waters, it would be far, far, far less powerful a heating force than SW radiation, completely in the noise. It’s ridiculous, really.

            Moreover, the heating is on the order of 100ths of degrees, due to the much greater heat capacity of the oceans, and you can’t heat the air by 10ths, much less ones, of degrees with a body that has only heated by 100ths.

          • Ball4 says:

            Dr. Spencer has shown it is possible experimentally to thermometrically detect an increase in the temperature of a tub of surface temperature equilibrated water at ~6″ depth from increased LW night time radiation from added cirrus over tub of water that is not in the cirrus view.

            As I recall a few tenths of a degreeF in accord with his heat capacity calculations and using the LW IR load measured from a reasonably nearby NOAA ESRL station. Search on: roy spencer experiment

          • Bart says:

            I cannot find your reference. However, I hardly think such a crude experiment, without complete isolation from other sources of heating, is dispositive.

            It simply beggars belief. LW at CO2 wavelengths does not penetrate hardly at all. I mean, we’re talking microns if that, with almost immediate release via evaporation.

            SW, on the other hand, penetrates much farther, and there has been a marked uptick in solar activity within the past half century.

            http://i68.tinypic.com/2z850s4.jpg

          • Ball4 says:

            Dr. Spencer builds a surface night time high cirrus cloud detector:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

            Experiment is better learned from than assertions like:

            “LW at CO2 wavelengths does not penetrate hardly at all. I mean, we’re talking microns if that, with almost immediate release via evaporation.”

            Of course, there are more than just CO2 wavelengths from the added cirrus atm. column incident on the one water tub.

          • Bart says:

            “Experiment is better learned from than assertions…”

            Right, and demonstrations of perpetual motion are better than clinging to some capricious dogma like conservation of energy.

            “Of course, there are more than just CO2 wavelengths from the added cirrus atm. column incident on the one water tub.”

            And, the tub is subject to influences from all sides. As I said, crude, and not at all dispositive.

          • Ball4 says:

            “the tub is subject to influences from all sides.”

            The tubs are double insulated on all sides save the top water in view of the sky. Would you think triple or quadruple insulation would change the result? Not me but only way I’d be convinced is to try it.

          • Bart says:

            A) sytrofoam is a good insulator, but not a great one.

            B)… save the top water… is rather a substantial weakness. Different interface to the air means different heat dissipation characteristics via convection.

            Pro tip: if a result appears too good to be true, it probably is. That is why sanity checks are so important.

            Does it make sense that radiation that can’t even penetrate a micron is going to make a substantial heat difference? No, it does not. The experiment needs better controls.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Does it make sense that radiation that cant even penetrate a micron is going to make a substantial heat difference? No, it does not. The experiment needs better controls.’

            Uggh , this has been debunked here a number of times.

            1. 1st law. Where did the energy absorbed in the first micron go? Disappeared?

            2. Any of you can try the experiment at home, that I did, or the one Roy did. Water can be heated by pointing a ceramic IR heater down at the surface of a bowl of water. One can even block convection with a layer of saran wrap. Either way, it works fine.

            3. In the ocean there is lots of mixing of surface water.

            4. In most cases the NET flow of IR is from the ocean surface to the atmosphere or space. The DWLWR is simply reducing this NET.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Moreover, the heating is on the order of 100ths of degrees, due to the much greater heat capacity of the oceans, and you cant heat the air by 10ths, much less ones, of degrees with a body that has only heated by 100ths.’

            You are cherry picking the temps of the lower ocean depths. Near the surface we are talking ~ 1 C. It naturally decreases going deeper. The measurements are integrating the total energy, and it is increasing, as expected.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Does it make sense that radiation that can’t even penetrate a micron is going to make a substantial heat difference?”

            Yes it does make 1LOT sense. You are such a naysayer, geez.

            The added radiation is absorbed by the water in the tub, doesn’t matter the exact depth, with the water free to evaporate given the surface conditions. Simple calculations show the measured amount of temperature change at depth due the resonably nearby measured incident radiation variation is in accord with basic theory.

            If you think the double styrofoam going to more layers, or different insulation, or something else is important, prove it by test not assertion. Informed, critical readers will not believe you have any kind of point until you do so.

          • Bart says:

            This is such a ridiculous discussion. The things people will believe…

            Uncontrolled experiments with non-representative excitations and many unquantified extraneous inputs on scales many orders of magnitude less than that of the system they are meant to mimic prove precisely diddly squat, guys.

          • Ball4 says:

            Simple inspection shows you are wrong Bart, this is obviously a controlled experiment with not only representative excitations but the very excitation of interest and sufficiently minimized unquantified extraneous inputs on the same exact scale of interest as the system of interest to prove the science & even accompanied by calculations supporting the results.

            Yours is such a ridiculous discussion Bart. The things people will deny…

          • Nate says:

            ‘This is such a ridiculous discussion. The things people will believe’

            Bart, you made the assertion. We and science disagree, and cite theory and experiment.

            You cite neither, and wildly wave hands about.

            We await your evidence or experiments.

          • Nate says:

            Pro tip: if a result appears to disprove his assertions, Bart will find a flimsy excuse to blow it off.

            Usually with this technique: https://giphy.com/explore/wacky-waving-inflatable-arm-flailing-tube-man

            What is your excuse for each of my points 1-4 above, Bart?

            Let me add a #5.

            5. If you point an IR thermometer at the surface of warm water, it will accurately measure its temp. Try it at home, please.

            What does this mean? It means that water is a good black body radiator in IR, emissivity ~ 1, which is well known.

            It means water can effectively exchange heat to another object via radiation.

            It means the rad. heat transfer eqn applies to ocean surface.

            It means radiative heat flow from the ocean DEPENDS on the temperature of the ocean surface and the temperature of the lower atmosphere.

            QED

          • Nate says:

            BTW, you guys are constantly saying stuff like

            ‘LW at CO2 wavelengths does not penetrate hardly at all. I mean, were talking microns if that”

            Let’s put that to bed once and for all:

            The HEAT penetrates via just conduction much more than microns.

            Heat applied to the surface of water will penetrate this far in time t:

            https://thermtest.com/thermal-resources/heat-penetration-calculator#|timeinput_60

            t = 1 minute, 6 millimeters

            t = 1 hour, 45 millimeters

            t = 6 hours, 111 millimeters

          • Bart says:

            “…this is obviously a controlled experiment with not only representative excitations but the very excitation of interest…”

            No, it isn’t. The interface with the convective environment at the top is a major uncontrolled variable. The styrofoam is permeable over the hours-long timeline. The materials are not uniform, the sensors are not calibrated. There are dozens of uncontrolled aspects.

            “The HEAT penetrates via just conduction much more than microns.”

            Conduction is very weak, and evaporation carries much of the heat away before it can penetrate. There is no chance whatsoever that LW radiation on the water has greater impact than the SW radiation that penetrates deeply. And, SW radiation on the oceans has been increasing significantly over the past half century or so.

            http://i68.tinypic.com/2z850s4.jpg

          • Ball4 says:

            The interface with the convective environment at the top is every much the same as any calm night over water.

            The styrofoam is twice the amount which keeps ice frozen over similar nights and beverages cold as any camper knows.

            The materials are as uniform as ever occurs in nature.

            The sensors were well calibrated.

            There are dozens of aspects similar to every natural backyard such as this one.

            Conduction is operating normally, and evaporation causes some enthalpy change at the top and some of the enthalpy change can penetrate several inches deep as shown by the recorded temperature log overnight.

            Sure SW has greater effect than LW on water of this depth as SW has more power per m^2 per sr and that would be shown in the T log if the experiment was allowed to run through dawn to say hi noon.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            ‘Conduction is very weak and evaporation carries much of the heat away before it can penetrate’

            Quadrupling down?

            ‘Weak’ means what? ‘Much of’ means what? 60%? 20%? 5%? How do you know?

            Heat clearly is able to penetrate quickly via conduction to depths of ~ cm. It is a quantitative fact, an experimental fact. Heat having penetrated a cm is no longer causing much evaporation.

            And that is neglecting the mixing effect of wind and waves.

            C’mon Bart, sometimes you just have to let it go, learn, and move on.

          • Bart says:

            “The interface with the convective environment at the top is every much the same as any calm night over water.”

            It is different for different coverings.

            “The styrofoam is twice the amount which keeps ice frozen over similar nights and beverages cold as any camper knows.”

            Most campers know the ice will melt substantially within a few hours.

            “Weak means what?”

            It means it penetrates with diminishing impact with depth. With a material with poor heat conduction like water, it diminishes rapidly.

            It is a flea compared to the SW elephant. It is ridiculous to suggest LW has greater impact. Not even remotely in the realm of the possible.

          • Ball4 says:

            “ice will melt substantially within a few hours.”

            Substantially? Few? And Bart is the commenter with “the sensors are not calibrated.”

            Bart is clutching at straws, has not established his asserted counterpoints with experiment, Dr. Spencer’s experimental results & calculations still stand despite Bart’s “pro” efforts to suggest it is not reality.

          • Nate says:

            ‘It means it penetrates with diminishing impact with depth. With a material with poor heat conduction like water, it diminishes rapidly.’

            You do not seem to understand what a quantitative argument is and why it is important in science. You keep making qualitative, hand-waving, unsupported statements. Unpersuasive.

            “It is a flea compared to the SW elephant. It is ridiculous to suggest LW has greater impact. Not even remotely in the realm of the possible.”

            Again no numbers, just assertion, nothing to support it.

          • Bart says:

            This is like arguing with the fanatics on the other side that R.W. Wood’s crude experiments do not falsify the GHE. You desperately want it to be true, so you cling to any tenuous rationale that it might be true.

            C’mon, guys. LW radiation in the CO2 band is not heating the deep oceans. Deal with it.

          • Nate says:

            ‘C’mon, guys. LW radiation in the CO2 band is not heating the deep oceans. Deal with it.’

            Ahh, the time-tested denier technique. Can’t prove your point, just say it more emphatically!

            Bart, you seem quite determined to wreck your credibility as an intelligent poster.

            ‘ It is ridiculous to suggest LW has greater impact. Not even remotely in the realm of the possible.’

            Look, the point is SW is always a NET input, and LW is most often a NET output.

            With AGW, the LW output (and convective) are simply reduced a tiny bit.

            So I don’t really know what your problem is.

          • Ball4 says:

            “..any tenuous rationale..”

            Experimental data on the actual atm. is not a “tenuous” rationale Bart, the evidence is solid.

            Added icy cirrus LW at night is shown to affect the temperature thus cooling rate of ambient surface water free to evaporate at last on the order several inches deep in accord with calculation. Deal with it.

          • Bart says:

            “Look, the point is SW is always a NET input…”

            By that, I suppose you mean net zero, i.e., constant. It isn’t.

            http://i68.tinypic.com/2z850s4.jpg

      • Bart says:

        Your fallacies are: argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad hominem.

      • gbaikie says:

        Did you notice the author of the Financial post article.

        Nope. but good to know.

        “Outside the climate change denier community Ross McKittrick is not regarded as a reliable source.”

        Ross was involved with a Congressional investigation of “hockey stick” and I read some of his stuff, but I don’t know much about him.
        Do you know what the meaning of reliable source, means?

        I would say he is not someone you want to listen to, if you want to cling to beliefs.

  50. Gordon Robertson says:

    re Antarctica….

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/antarctic-ice-flow-and-arctic-sea-ice/3401828

    From Duncan Wingham…polar expert….

    “Duncan Wingham: It’s extraordinary, this idea that Antarctica is melting. I think it is in the popular press and in the popular mind, and so when you point out something that is true, namely it’s too cold in Antarctica for the ice to melt, everyone is rather surprised, but it is just a fact. The most northerly part of Antarctica, the tip of the peninsula, is unusual in that it is far to the north of most of the continent and the temperatures do actually reach the melting point in summer in the peninsula. For the most part Antarctica is just too cold.

    So what actually happens is it breaks off, literally, into large icebergs which then float around in the Southern Ocean where they do indeed melt. Before 1992 there were no satellite data and as a matter of fact we knew very little about what the Antarctic ice sheet….”

    • David Appell says:

      The ice isn’t melting where it’s too cold to melt, it’s melting where it isn’t.

      “While West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula has been losing ice for a long time, East Antarctica has experienced a mix of ice gain and loss, which some has cited as a reason not to worry about global warming. The latest study emphasizes that the variations in East Antarctica are not nearly enough to make up for the rapid loss throughout the rest of the continent.”

      https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a21577520/antarctica-melting-way-faster-anyone-expected/

        • David Appell says:

          Did you read your own link?

          “It does not appear any of the volcanoes are to blame for the recent melting of ice sheets in Antarctica.”

          but

          “A concern among scientists is the potential impact these volcanoes could have on further melting and destabilizing the Antarctic Ice Sheet.”

          • Bart says:

            Boilerplate disclaimer. You have to issue one, or you don’t get published.

          • Nate says:

            boiler plate?

            You guys are being illogical.

            Discovery of buried-in-ice volcanoes in a remote location.

            Buried deep in ice that has been there for eons, implies old and not very active.

            The act of discovering them does not make them become active.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart thinks that quoting what the researchers is “boilerplate.”

            Bart doesn’t know what “boilerplate” means.

          • Bart says:

            “Buried deep in ice that has been there for eons, implies old and not very active.”

            Non sequitur.

            “Bart doesnt know what boilerplate means.”

            I suggest you look it up.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Buried deep in ice that has been there for eons, implies old and not very active.

            Non sequitur. ”

            If it doesnt follow if you are either plain dumb, or being willfully ignorant. I assume the latter.

          • Bart says:

            It does not follow. It implies nothing of the sort. It simply implies nominal balance has been struck between activity and freeze state.

            You have a habit of leaping beyond the evidence to your preferred interpretation. Science is hard precisely because human intuition has proven so unreliable as a basis for understanding complex phenomena.

          • Nate says:

            ‘ It simply implies nominal balance has been struck between activity and freeze state.’

            Hmmm. Would that be possible with a ‘very active’ volcano?

            What does ‘very active’ mean to you?

            To me, very active is Kilauea, or I’ll give you Iceland with its hot lakes.

            You are being ridiculously nitpicky.

            In another discussion here, a paper reported measurements near a Antarctic volcano heat flux of 200 mW/m^2. Thats milliWatts!

            Not remotely close to a Kilauea or Iceland.

          • nate says:

            ‘You have a habit of leaping beyond the evidence to your preferred interpretation.’

            Possibly.

            But you have a habit of leaping to conspiracies, to explain disagreeable results.

            Case in point ‘Boilerplate’

  51. Mike Flynn says:

    From the study –

    “We find large variations in and among model estimates of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment for East Antarctica, with its average rate of mass gain over the period 19922017 (5 46 billion tonnes per year) being the least certain.”

    Modelled? They don’t fancy the gaining result, so it gets ignored

    Best climatological practice – if you don’t like the result, just discard it!

    Even imaginary model results!

    Cheers.

  52. Aaron S says:

    Anyone want to bet a simple bet for fun.

    What will the Temp be for June 18 from the May 18 value of 0.18C?

    I guess up to 0.23C. My guess is based on La Nina patterns plus a lag, but the amount is really just a guess because data noise is often greater than monthly values.

  53. CO2isLife says:

    Lastly, and possibly most damning, is that the Hockey Stick suffers from extreme heteroscedasticity. The distal variation is much higher than the proximal variation. In the year 1,000 temperature variation ranges from -0.8 to +0.4, in the year 1902 temperature variation ranges from -0.8 to -0.2, and then post 1902 the behavior totally changes with the introduction of instrumental data. Remember, there is nothing about the underlying physics of the CO2 molecule or GHG effect that would explain a temperature dog-leg of accelerating temperatures. (Click Here) Why this is so damning is that the extreme variation identified in the Hockey Stick occurred with extremely stable CO2 levels. CO2 levels between the year 1,000 and 1902 ranged between 275 and 285 ppm. CO2 simply cant explain the extreme variation of the past 1,000 years. CO2 was essentially a constant, yet temperatures variations were much higher than today. Temperature variation around the year 1350 had a range between +0.5 to -1.0. If you substitute data that has been controlled for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O, temperatures post-1920 are stable, even though CO2 has increased over 30%. If Michael Mann understood his own chart he would understand that it does far more to rule out CO2 as the cause of warming, than it implicates CO2.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/the-winning-strategy-to-defeating-climate-sophist-michael-mann/

      • David Appell says:

        If CO2 is life, why isn’t there any life on Venus, where the atmosphere is 96% CO2?

        • Roy Spencer says:

          That’s like telling a person in the desert dying of thirst that it would be too dangerous to give them water because they might drown. As I recall, Venus has 230,000 times as much CO2 as we have on Earth. Yet, we are fretting that we might see 2x what the pre-industrial level was (around 275 ppm). It has been estimated that during the glacials, plant life was very stressed at 200 ppm or below. We are seeing global greening as life is now breathing more freely with more CO2.

          Your use of Venus as an example is disingenuous. On Earth, CO2 is indeed necessary for life, and there is abundant evidence that more has been, on the whole, better.

          • La Pangolina says:

            I agree!

          • David Appell says:

            That was the point, Roy — CO2 also makes the world warmer. The “CO2 is life” people never mention that.

            You can’t just say CO2 is good for plants without also considering that it increases temperatures and changes precipitation patterns. Or without considering that warmer temperatures increase the prevalence of many diseases, weeds and insects. Or that the nutritional content of plants decreases.

            “Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any supposed positives.” Smith et al. PNAS (2009), http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf

            And the 200 ppm argument is a canard. A lack of anthropogenic CO2 would not have atmospheric CO2 now at that level. Even 350.org argues for 350 ppm, not 280 ppm let alone 200 ppm.

          • Idiot tracker says:

            CO2 also makes the world warmer.

            Yes but this is not even necessarily detrimental to life on Earth. It’s all a matter of how much and we don’t know for sure, yet. Science cannot tell.
            And there is also no science that shows that 280 ppm of CO2 might be an optimum in any respect.

            So I find the catastrophist rant on one side of the fence as absurd as the denial of the CO2 GHE on the other side of the fence.

            And, yes, IMO one cannot rule out that warming eventually turns out to be catastrophic but it is actually vain to invoke a precautionary principle. Simply because it is a delusion to believe that we are even remotely in a position to really take action and curb rapidly the CO2 emissions. This is technically not yet possible at appropriate scale anyway.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Roy,

            Or like saying “If drinking as much water as we can is good for us, why not just live under water.”

            David Appell, do you have any of your own research or more than two sentences of your own thoughts that shows an increase in CO2 causes warming?

          • David Appell says:

            Idiot tracker says:
            CO2 also makes the world warmer.
            Yes but this is not even necessarily detrimental to life on Earth.

            There have been extinctions when climate changed too much too fast. Sometimes an entire “extinction event.”

            So I find the catastrophist rant on one side of the fence as absurd as the denial of the CO2 GHE on the other side of the fence.

            I’ve never argued there will be a catastrophe. It’s not a scientific term. Why don’t you define it first?

          • David Appell says:

            Chic Bowdrie says:
            “….do you have any of your own research or more than two sentences of your own thoughts that shows an increase in CO2 causes warming?”

            It’s a scientific fact the CO2 causes warming. Why don’t you go read some papers that established that fact, and a few textbooks, then get back to me when you do.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            D, PLEASE stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, PLEASE stop trolling.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Impersonator, stop being so lazy. Get your own idea.

    • David Appell says:

      Remember, there is nothing about the underlying physics of the CO2 molecule or GHG effect that would explain a temperature dog-leg of accelerating temperatures.

      Actually it’s very easy to derive a hockey stick from very basic physics and some algebra:

      1) temperature change is proportional to change in radiative forcing
      2) RF is proportional to log(CO2)
      3) CO2 was flat before about 1850, has been increasing exponentially since.

      This implies temperatures should have been flat before 1850, and increasing linearly after 1850, viz a hockey stick.

      • Bart says:

        CO2 has not increased exponentially. It has, at most, been quadratic in the modern era. Moreover, concentration has not tracked emissions. The rate of change has, however, tracked temperature anomaly.

        • CO2isLife says:

          “The rate of change has, however, tracked temperature anomaly.”

          Not even close to true. Just look at satellite data, Dr. Chrisy’s Chart, or any data set controlled for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O. Temperatures clearly trace ocean cycles and CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans, visible radiation does.

          • Bart says:

            Oh yes, it is a remarkably good fit:

            https://tinyurl.com/ycvd2k9o

            I think you have misunderstood, though. As it is a rate of change relationship, the arrow of causality is temperature to CO2, not CO2 to temperature.

          • David Appell says:

            It’s not at all clear that temperature is leading C-dot:

            https://tinyurl.com/yblzp4zz

          • La Pangolina says:

            And here we see again how nonsensical these little WFT games can be:

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1958/derivative/plot/gistemp/scale:0.27/offset:0.05/from:1958

            GISS LOTI and CO2 perfectly match on many peaks (around 1973, 1987, 1998, 2016), and that means… NOTHING.

            There can’t be imho any computable match between temperatures and CO2 concentration within short periods, as it mainly depends on how much the oceans accept CO2 intake during these periods.

          • David Appell says:

            And WFT always seems out of date. Its data source for UAH LT points to v5.6, not the latest v6. (There are some big differences.)

            UAH NSSTC Lower troposphere temperature
            Source: UAH National Space Science and Technology Center
            Data URL: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/
            Reference: John Christy, NSSTC, University of Alabama in Huntsville (formal reference unknown)

          • Bart says:

            “There cant be imho any computable match between temperatures and CO2 concentration within short periods…”

            This is CO2 rate of change, and there is a really good match.

            “Its data source for UAH LT points to v5.6, not the latest v6.”

            Both are available. Look farther down the pull tab.

          • La Pangolina says:

            David Appell says:
            June 19, 2018 at 6:14 PM

            And WFT always seems out of date. Its data source for UAH LT points to v5.6, not the latest v6. (There are some big differences.)

            How could anybody trust in what a person says and writes when this person has such a superficial view on things that s/he isn’t even able to detect such trivial matter?

            What a quark soap indeed!

          • Nate says:

            Why don’t you explain how you manufacture the fit, Bart, and see if others agree with your approach to the analysis?

          • Bart says:

            It’s plainly obvious. I use the WFT site to get the data. I numerically differentiate the CO2 data and then average it over 12 months to eliminate the yearly cycle. I add an offset for the arbitrary temperature anomaly baseline, and then I scale the data to account for the different units, and they lay right on top of each other.

            Effectively, since the baseline is arbitrary, it is a single parameter fit using a simple scaling factor.

          • Bart says:

            La Pangolina: To whom is your comment referring? He’s wrong. v6 is available, and that is what I used.

          • Nate says:

            Why not look at the record back to 1959? Thats what most people would do.

            Why not average T over 12 mo as well, to be fair. Thats what most people would do. But it no longer fits.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1958/derivative/plot/gistemp/mean:12/scale:0.6/from:1958

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            Its plainly obvious.

            Petitio principii. It’s obvious — on this graph, there are several points where CO2 peaks before temperature.

            https://tinyurl.com/yblzp4zz

          • Bart says:

            Nate –

            “Why not look at the record back to 1959? Thats what most people would do.”

            Because we do not have good temperature records that far back. However, there are solid indications that the relationship has held at least that long:

            https://tinyurl.com/l4r6ex7

            “Why not average T over 12 mo as well, to be fair.”

            Your neurosis regarding how you think the data should behave in no way negates the fact that there is an excellent match here:

            https://tinyurl.com/ycvd2k9o

            David –

            It’s plainly obvious how I produced the fit, which was the question asked, so no, sorry, no fallacy here.

            As to the other, these are not deterministic data, and your criticism is fatuous.

          • Nate says:

            in this graph you made another adjustment of 12 to 24 mo. average in order to achieve a ‘fit’.

            Why do you need make that adjustment? How do you explain it?

          • Nate says:

            When I make logical choices for parameters (same filter cutoff), I get no fit at all.

            A second parameter is clearly needed to be adjusted, filter cutoff.

            So its clearly not what you you said prior ‘it is a single parameter fit using a simple scaling factor.’

            Its just a house of cards.

          • Bart says:

            “Why do you need make that adjustment? How do you explain it?”

            The data are lower quality compared to the satellite data, and require more smoothing.

            “When I make logical choices for parameters (same filter cutoff)…”

            That’s not a “logical” choice. That is you impressing your own biases upon the data. It is ignoring the fact that one is a spatially fixed point measurement, while the other is an average over the entire globe.

            The relationship is what it is, and it is powerful and compelling. Figuring out why the relationship exists in the form it does is what science is all about.

          • Nate says:

            ‘The data are lower quality compared to the satellite data, and require more smoothing.’

            Obviously you just adjusted the filter until it looked like a fit to you. Now after the fact you make up BS (quality?) to justify it.

            That is nothing more than a second adjustable parameter. You are lying.

            The data, prior to your two year smoothing clearly does not have the frequency-independent relationship you desire.

            What to do? Filter to manufacture a fake frequency-independent relationship.

            It is just bleeding obvious

            “The relationship is what it is, and it is powerful and compelling.”

            Only to willfully ignorant people looking only for confirmation of their beliefs.

          • Bart says:

            You are clutching at straws.

        • David Appell says:

          Bart says:
          “CO2 has not increased exponentially. It has, at most, been quadratic in the modern era.”

          As usual, no analysis to back up your claim.

          CO2 has risen exponentially because the economy rises exponentially.

          Moreover, concentration has not tracked emissions.

          CO2 has certainly risen with emissions. It doesn’t duplicate it because the carbon cycle also responds to natural variations.

          The rate of change has, however, tracked temperature anomaly.

          Define “tracked.”

          This shows C-dot peaks coming both before and after temperature peaks.

          https://tinyurl.com/yblzp4zz

          If dT caused C-dot, annual C-dot wouldn’t peak in May while annual temperatures peak months later.

          • Bart says:

            “It doesnt duplicate it because the carbon cycle also responds to natural variations. “

            No, it doesn’t duplicate it because it isn’t significantly dependent upon it.

            “This shows C-dot peaks coming both before and after temperature peaks.”

            Amazing how many people think we’re dealing with a deterministic system here.

            “If dT caused C-dot, annual C-dot wouldnt peak in May while annual temperatures peak months later.”

            Temperature anomaly has no annual peak.

          • Nate says:

            Bart repeats his logical errors over and over again.

            False dicotomy-

            All variation in CO2 must be explained by emissions, else no variation can be explained by them.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Temperature anomaly has no annual peak.’

            Earths spatially averaged temp oscillates on an annual basis, with a peak in July.

            https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

          • Nate says:

            CO2 der. reaches a minimum in July, clearly anticorrelated with Earth temp.

            Makes sense, the maximum in NH biosphere growth then.

            Throws a monkey-wrench into the all one mechanism theory.

          • Bart says:

            Your fallacies are: straw man, ignoratio elenchi.

          • Nate says:

            BS, every legitimate counterfactual you label a strawman.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            Amazing how many people think were dealing with a deterministic system here.

            Hilarious. You make a claim, and then as soon as it’s challenged you say, oops, I didn’t mean THAT.

            Temperature anomaly has no annual peak.

            For what physical reason would the C-dot be proportional to the temperature anomaly but not the temperature?

          • Bart says:

            “…counterfactual …”

            That word does not mean what you think it means.

            “You make a claim, and then as soon as it’s challenged you say, oops, I didn’t mean THAT.”

            It appears you are not very familiar with stochastic systems.

            “For what physical reason would the C-dot be proportional to the temperature anomaly but not the temperature?”

            Because it would be sensitive to departure from normal conditions which had brought it to its present state. Surely, you have done perturbation analysis at some point in your technical career?

          • Nate says:

            It should be apparent that CO2 varies naturally for at least three reasons, the seasonal cycle, for which it is anticorrelated to temp., to ENSO for which it is correlated to central pacific temp, and to global temp, which it is correlated as seen during ice ages.

            This makes perfect sense for a complex system with several carbon sources and sinks.

            Do you still want to assert that there must be singular mechanism?

          • Bart says:

            I’ve never asserted a singular mechanism, just a dominant one. And no, I do not see any of your reasons as compelling when I can look at the plot, and see the series lying virtually right on top of each other in affine similarity.

  54. Myki says:

    “Americans ‘under siege’ from climate disinformation – former Nasa chief scientist

    Thirty years after a former Nasa scientist sounded the alarm for the general public about climate change and human activity, the expert issued a fresh warning that the world is failing “miserably” to deal with the worsening dangers. While Donald Trump and many conservatives like to argue that climate change is a hoax, James Hansen, the 77-year-old former Nasa climate scientist, said in an interview at his home in New York that the relevant hoax today is perpetrated by those leaders claiming to be addressing the problem. Hansen provided what’s considered the first warning to a mass audience about global warming when, in 1988, he told a US congressional hearing he could declare “with 99% confidence” that a recent sharp rise in temperatures was a result of human activity.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/19/james-hansen-nasa-scientist-climate-change-warning

  55. RoswellJohn says:

    Hawking was a theoretician. The Physics Nobel committee tends NOT to award prizes to theories as theories can be proven wrong a few years later. Experiments, well done with good statistics, are most often awarded the prizes. Einstein didnt get a Nobel for the relativity theories, but only for a theory explaining the photoemission of electrons experiment.

    • David Appell says:

      So your one example is someone getting a Nobel Prize for theory.

      Also Kip Thorne, David Gross, Frank Wilczek, and David Politzer, Gerald ‘t Hooft, Martinus Veltman, Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, Salem, Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga, Thouless, Haldane and Kosterlitz, Eglert and Higgs, Nambu, Glauber, Abrikosov, Ginzburg and Leggett, and more.

      By my count 7.5 of the NPs in Physics since 2000 went to theorists.

      • Bart says:

        Kip Thorne was awarded when gravitational waves were confirmed. Higgs received the award in 2013, after the Higgs boson was detected in 2012.

        Some of the others could be argued to be purely theoretical, but I don’t think your list really negates RJ’s point.

        • David Appell says:

          He wrote, “…as theories can be proven wrong a few years later.”

          That’s not been true for any Nobel Prize winning theorist, who are not as rare as he claimed.

          • Bart says:

            He said “tends”, and he is right. The Nobel committee, at least for the serious prizes, does not like to take chances, as they shouldn’t. Those pure theorists who have won have generally been of the sort who solved various mathematical or physical dilemmas that bedeviled already successful theories, so can essentially be considered already successful on that basis.

          • David Appell says:

            No, it doesn’t “tend” for theorists who won the Nobel Prize. Their work hasn’t gotten corrected later on.

  56. CO2isLife says:

    One More Post for your Nobel Prize Winning Friend

    Michael Manns Hockey Stick Rules out CO2 as Cause of Global Warming
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/19/michael-manns-hockey-stick-rules-out-co2-as-cause-of-global-warming/

    • Idiot tracker says:

      Nobel Prize laureates do not read non peer reviewed blather.

      • David Appell says:

        Actually I’ve read several of his rants/posts, and pointed out their errors. They are basic and copious. Too many and too wrong to ever need to read him again or take anything he says seriously.

      • CO2isLife says:

        I’ve never heard of a Physicist refer to peer review. They refer to experimentation and reproducibility. When you have neither, you argue consensus and peer review. You can’t fake an experiment, you can easily rig Peer Review. Glad to hear you support the anti-science of science by authority. I’m still trying to figure out how to reject a peer review or consensus. They never taught that in science classes I’ve taken.

        • David Appell says:

          Peer review doesn’t mean a paper is right — it means it’s not obviously wrong, it acknowledges relevant previous work, and it adheres to basic scholarly standards.

          I dare you to submit your claims to a good, peer reviewed journal.

          • CO2isLife says:

            That might be interesting. I encourage anyone needing a paper to publish, feel free to borrow any of the arguments detailed on the CO2isLife website. I’d love to see why they reject the criticism of the Hockeystick. Nothing on CO2isLife is original work, I simply connect the dots and review the science.

          • David Appell says:

            I told you twice why I rejected your criticism of the hockey stick: it has nothing to do with climate drivers, it’s simply a reconstruction of past temperatures. It doesn’t find or attribute any cause to the temperature changes.

            Right?

          • Ball4 says:

            “Right?”

            Not right, at least in the original HS paper since possible forcings of the shape were discussed. Less than a minute of research found from MBH98:

            “Attribution of climate forcings”

            “We take an empirical approach to detecting the possible effects of external forcings on the climate. The reconstructed NH series is taken as a diagnostic of the global climate, and we examine its relationship with three candidate external forcings during the period 16101995 including (1) CO2 measurements as a proxy for total greenhouse-gas changes,(2) reconstructed solar irradiance variations and (3) the weighted historical ‘dust veilindex’ (DVI) of explosive volcanism (see Fig. 31.1 in ref. 40) updated with recent data.”

          • David Appell says:

            But that analysis is independent of and in addition to the hockey stick itself. The hockey stick is a reconstruction of temperatures, regardless of the cause.

            Of course, anyone is going to attribute its blade to, mostly, CO2.

          • David Appell says:

            CO2, why wouldn’t you write up your own brilliant arguments and submit them to a journal yourself? No confidence?

        • David Appell says:

          CO2, here’s a good example of where you’re wrong; up above you wrote:

          Forensic Science; Why Michael Mann Chose Only the Past 1000 Years to Reconstruct
          https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/forensic-science-why-michael-mann-chose-only-the-past-1000-years-to-reconstruct/

          but you don’t know the research:

          Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D., Global surface temperature over the past two millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (15), 1820, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003

  57. DAVID questions you will have to answer.

    As overall sea surface temperatures keep falling what do you think the global temperatures are going to be doing going forward?

    As overall sea surface temperatures keep falling what do you think the reason could be?

    Why is not the CO2 effect keeping the sea surface temperatures from falling?

    That is what you and all that support AGW may have to come to terms with.

    Good Luck you will need it.

    • David Appell says:

      Answers:
      SSTs won’t keep falling.
      CO2 doesn’t make natural variations disappear — they still exist. Short-term trends are a combination of both.

      Columbia’s IRI is predicting a 65% chance of a moderate El Nino this (northern hemisphere) winter.

      https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/

      • What does EL NINO have to do AGW?

        I thought ENSO was a natural climatic factor.

        How come AGW has to hi jack naturally occurring climatic factors to prop itself up?

        • David Appell says:

          What does La Nina have to do with AGW. Yet the relatively cold waters of the two back-to-back La Ninas have had you proclaiming AGW is dead every month now.

    • RW says:

      Salvatore,

      The CO2 warming theory is just that the added CO2 should cause some push of the climate in the warming direction. That’s about it. It doesn’t mean the climate must warm. In fact, it doesn’t even mean the net anthropogenic influence is warming.

      • David Appell says:

        So CO2 pushes the climate towards warmer, but doesn’t cause warming. Sure.

        • Ball4 says:

          How’s this David, a little clearer, more specific for ya’?

          So CO2 pushes the climate towards increasing global mean lower atm. thermometer temperatures, but global mean lower atm. brightness temperatures don’t always increase month to month in UAH TLT series as there are many other independent forcings. Sure.

          • David Appell says:

            OK, so CO2 does cause forcings.

            And it’s known that it, and other human GHGs, is the dominant forcing:

            http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigSPM-5.jpg

          • RW says:

            But that doesn’t mean the climate must warm. It may or it may not.

          • David Appell says:

            Yes, it does mean the planet must warmed. Just as CO2 has caused in the past.

          • gbaikie says:

            –David Appell says:
            June 20, 2018 at 3:24 PM
            Yes, it does mean the planet must warmed. Just as CO2 has caused in the past.–

            We live in world which has an icebox climate.
            I like your optimism.

            A icebox climate has a cold ocean.
            Colder oceans hold more CO2.

            We live in a world which has a amazing shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere, this shortage of CO2 in atmosphere is a blinking sign which says, life could be on this world.
            This blinking sign does not tell you a lot, other than a clue that must be reason for this shortage of CO2
            Our extreme shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere, is due to the cold ocean [and other factors].

  58. David Appell says:

    Roy wrote:
    The fact is that I can’t account for the lack of Hawking’s Nobel Prize at the moment, and it is a travesty that I can’t.

    The problem was that Hawking never proposed something new that was then found by experiment or observation. Hawking radiation, what he’s best known for, is too feeble to detect anytime soon — and you’d have to be verrrrrrrry near a black hole’s event horizon and risk getting pulled in!

  59. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Richard Lindzen on feedbacks and the “iris effect”:

    “Im not sure what you mean by spearheading [the iris hypothesis, according to which increased sea surface temperature in the tropics does result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earths atmosphere]. In 2000 I published a study of upper level cirrus behavior in the tropics as a function of surface temperature (together with two colleagues at NASA). As you note, we found that the areal coverage of tropical cirrus (which result from the detrainment from deep cumulus clouds) does decrease with temperature, and that this effect was
    sufficient to more than cancel the commonly assumed water vapor feedback which is essential to predictions of high climate sensitivity.”

    “There immediately followed a series of papers that criticized our work. Each of these criticisms was easy to dismiss, and we did so in published responses. However, subsequent papers inevitably referred to our paper as discredited, and never referred to our responses to the criticism. However, the fact that upper level tropical cirrus shrinks with increasing surface temperature has been confirmed in several subsequent papers. Moreover, since the water vapor feedback is only relevant in the absence of upper level cirrus, one cannot actually separate the iris effect from the water vapor feedback. The combined feedback is more accurately referred to as the long-wave (i.e., infrared) feedback, and direct measurements confirm that this feedback is zero or even negative.”

    “Interestingly, there is a problem called the Early Faint Sun Paradox. This refers to the fact that about 2.5 billion years ago, the solar constant was about 30% less than it is today, but the evidence is that the climate was not greatly different from todays climate. My student, Roberto Rondanelli and I showed that the simplest explanation was the iris effect. In summary, the iris effect still seems eminently viable.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/18/a-conversation-with-prof-richard-lindzen/

    • David Appell says:

      The Iris effect is still very much an unproven hypothesis.

      “Careful analysis of data reveals no shrinkage of tropical cloud anvil area with increasing SST.”

      Hartman, D.L.; M.L. Michelsen (2002). “No evidence for iris”. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 83 (2): 249254.
      https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C0249%3ANEFI%3E2.3.CO%3B2

    • Svante says:

      “feedback is zero or even negative.”

      Looks like the opposite is true:
      https://tinyurl.com/ybo3coub

      • Chris Hanley says:

        What has global ocean heat content got to do with putative atmospheric temperature rise feedback?
        That’s a very detailed plot of non-existent observational data and if valid would represent a temperature anomaly at 700m of about 0.1C – 0.2C.
        Just be grateful it’s not going the other way.

        • Svante says:

          The earth accumulates energy, the iris hypothesis says no.

          • La Pangolina says:

            Exactly, Svante.

          • Chris Hanley says:

            Of course the planet accumulates energy — at times.
            And dissipates energy at other times, it’s never in perfect balance.

          • David Appell says:

            Svante says:
            The earth accumulates energy, the iris hypothesis says no.

            So why has the planet been accumulating energy for decades?

            http://tinyurl.com/dbjrlr

          • gbaikie says:

            –David Appell says:
            June 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM
            Svante says:
            The earth accumulates energy, the iris hypothesis says no.

            So why has the planet been accumulating energy for decades?

            http://tinyurl.com/dbjrlr

            Global temperature has been increasing for more than century and increasing for the shorter period of decades.

            A significant accumulation of energy generally occurs over centuries as does significant loss of energy occurs over centuries.

            Depending on time period you pick, it is either accumulating or losing. And since Little Ice Age, it is accumulating energy.

          • David Appell says:

            And since Little Ice Age, it is accumulating energy.

            Why? Due to what?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”And since Little Ice Age, it is accumulating energy.

            Why? Due to what?

            I’m sure gbaikie means it is accumulating wrt the lower energy level during the LIA. It’s a relative accumulation whereas the LIA represented a relative loss.

          • David Appell says:

            Why is energy accumulating since the LIA?

            And do those hypothetical sources explain what has been observed since then?

          • Chris Hanley says:

            “So why has the planet been accumulating energy for decades? ….”.
            Search me, do have an easier question — why wouldn’t it, why shouldn’t it?
            The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, according to the IPCC more than 50% of the warming since ~1950 (> 0.4C or >0.6C/cent) is most probably due to human CO2 emissions.

          • Svante says:

            gbaikie says:

            “Depending on time period you pick, it is either accumulating or losing. And since Little Ice Age, it is accumulating energy.”

            Quite right, it looks like this:
            https://tinyurl.com/ydynpfy5

          • gbaikie says:

            I found skepticalscience.com only good for humor.

          • Svante says:

            I found a lot of links to science there.

          • Svante says:

            The graph is based on Shakun et al., Marcott et al., and the instrumental record.

            Marcott said we are not yet past the Holocene maximum. That was in 2013, three years later we might have gone past it.
            The Holocene is 11,650 years.

            You can move that hockey stick blade down if you like, or tilt it with the UAH data. The message is the same.

          • phi says:

            Svante,
            This graphic is seriously flawed, it’s illusionism and not science.
            1. Mixture of data of different and inconsistent natures without mention of this inconsistency.
            2. Use of different smoothings according to periods and types of data.
            No validity.

          • Svante says:

            1. So you want to join them with a gap?
            2. You think the current excursion is normal? Evidence?

          • phi says:

            Svante,

            1. It is not a question of gap, the data are anyway floating because they are only anomalies. No, the fundamental problem is that the proxies used are not consistent with the instrumental temperatures. Moreover, in the particular case, the last value of Shakun-Marcott is just a sinister joke. See for example here:https://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-upticks-arise/

            2. It is impossible to say whether the current excursion is singular or not based on this graph. With the smoothings used, comparable past excursions would not appear.

          • Svante says:

            phi,

            1. The Marcott uptick is not robust, the paper says so. There is other evidence for it though.

            2. In 200 years we have seen a change that matches the entire Holocene average variation. Short excursions could have gone unnoticed. I say that is highly unlikely, and the cause would have been different. You can disagree if you like, this is about probabilities.

          • phi says:

            Svante,

            In 200 years we have seen a change that matches the entire Holocene average variation.

            No, nothing like this is observable. The proxies whose dependence on temperature is demonstrated does not indicate any particular behavior for these last 200 years.

          • Svante says:

            phi says:

            No, nothing like this is observable. The proxies whose dependence on temperature is demonstrated does not indicate any particular behavior for these last 200 years.

            There are other papers on that, for example the one we discussed before:
            https://tinyurl.com/y7usxf4f

            I haven’t done the proxy homework you suggested. How do you think the real fig. 3 should look?

          • phi says:

            Svante,
            To give you an idea of the situation, there is, to my knowledge, no quality proxy that reports higher temperatures for the decade 1990-2000 than for 1940-1950. However, I have been looking for almost 10 years! If anyone has anything, I would obviously be very interested.

            On these graphs you can find four examples of good proxies (TLT, 2 MXD, glaciers):
            http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2014/12/atsas.png
            http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2014/12/polar2.png

          • phi says:

            We can add this graph which gives an idea of the general problematic:
            http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2014/12/anom_thn.png

          • Svante says:

            Thanks, that clarifies what you mean.

            I think your MXD graph has a diverge problem:
            https://tinyurl.com/y9b9ddl3

            As for the glaciers, your reference says:

            [12] Dimming and brightening of solar radiation can be explained with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric transmission [Wild et al., 2005; Ohmura, 2009]. Increased aerosol concentration until the 1980s, related to air pollution [Ramanathan et al., 2001], leads to lower transmissivity of the cloud‐free atmosphere [Wild et al., 2005], and also promotes cloud formation [Krüger and Graßl, 2002]. Between 1960 and 1980 high cloudiness, low global radiation and low air temperatures in the European Alps [Auer et al., 2007] are in line with strongly reduced glacier melt rates (Figure 3), resulting in a short period of balanced mass budget of mountain glaciers worldwide [Kaser et al., 2006]. The enhanced greenhouse effect of terrestrial radiation and the brightening of solar radiation since the early 1980s induced higher air temperatures [Wild et al., 2004; Philipona et al., 2009] and increasing snow and ice melt over the last decades approaching the maximum of the 1940s (Figure 3a).

          • phi says:

            Svante,

            If you are looking to determine a parameter and you have 50 measures. 49 are consistent and only one diverges.
            Are you gloing to build 49 different dubious explanations for 49 divergences because it’s the 50th value you like?

            You should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

          • Svante says:

            Phi, I have a lot of faith in Occam’s razor.

            Your graphs have the 50th value which is the MXD with the well known divergence problem.

          • phi says:

            No, Svante.
            These graphs show precisely that instrumental curves are the lamb duck.
            More difficult to restore the sight to the blinded than to the blind!

          • Svante says:

            And no sea level rise?

          • phi says:

            Same thing. Observations of sea levels are consistent with proxies but not with station temperature curves.

            https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/slide061.png

            My proposal is still valid:
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306467

          • Svante says:

            Sea level works like a global thermometer, but your graph shows acceleration, not absolute levels.

            It is never on the negative side though.

          • Svante says:

            Here’s a graph of sea level, how’s that for a proxy?
            https://tinyurl.com/y7kfpjl8

          • phi says:

            Svante,
            Sea level works like a global thermometer
            No, absolutely not in the time scales represented. Here the rate of change is a global thermometer because it depends on the ice melting which is itself a function of temperature.

          • Svante says:

            If temperatures varied around a zero anomaly there would be no sea level rise, right?

          • phi says:

            No why ?
            An anomaly is an arbitrary value. What we do know is that in the nineteenth century we experienced global temperatures corresponding to a stagnation of the sea level. These values were briefly found around the 1970s. This corresponds to a balanced level of continental ice volumes.

          • Svante says:

            For our purposes, let’s put the zero global temperature anomaly where the sea level is steady.

            Now look at the graph again:
            https://tinyurl.com/y7kfpjl8

            Are we above or below the zero anomaly?

          • phi says:

            The slope is indicative of a given temperature. From 1930 to 2000, this slope is fairly regular on average, no general acceleration. So no significant rise in temperature that can be inferred. It’s consistent with all other proxies.

          • Svante says:

            phi says:

            The slope is indicative of a given temperature. From 1930 to 2000, this slope is fairly regular on average, no general acceleration. So no significant rise in temperature that can be inferred.

            So coming up from the last ice age, no significant rise in temperature can be inferred:

            https://tinyurl.com/hc4bpt3

          • phi says:

            We can not compare these two time scales. In the long time scales counted in thousands of years, the ocean level is the thermometer because ice volumes have time to reach equilibrium. For short times scales counted in tens of years, the relation temperature – melt anomaly is almost linear and it is the rate of variation which is the thermometer.

          • Svante says:

            So what would you infer from this:
            https://tinyurl.com/ycskz8zb

          • phi says:

            Ok, seen. you are right.
            My opinion is that this reconstruction suffers from the same defects as those of temperatures. Change of coverage, resolution and method at the point of behavior breakdown.

            But if you have the raw data, I’m interested.

        • phi says:

          From the paper :

          We assess the relationship between temperature and global sea-level (GSL) variability over the Common Era

          Estimates of global mean temperature variability over the Common Era are based on global, statistical metaanalyses of temperature proxies

          In other words, this graph is constructed on the basis of hockey sticks temperatures reconstructions.

          Sorry, no validity.

          • Svante says:

            You misunderstand. First they estimate global sea level, then they compare with temperatures.

            Your first quote continues:

            through a statistical meta analysis of proxy relative sea-level reconstructions and tide gauge data.

            Sea level proxies, not temperature proxies.

            Your second quote is about other studies, not this one.

            we compiled a global database of RSL reconstructions from 24 localities (Dataset S1, a and Fig. S1A), many with decimeter-scale vertical resolution and sub centennial temporal resolution. We augment these geological records with 66 tide-gauge records, the oldest of which (11) begins in 1700 CE, as well as a recent tide gaugebased estimate of global mean sea-level change since 1880 CE.

          • phi says:

            Ok, seen. you are right.
            My opinion is that this reconstruction suffers from the same defects as those of temperatures. Change of coverage, resolution and method at the point of behavior breakdown.

            But if you have the raw data, I’m interested.

          • Svante says:

            I would like to take you up on your offer to look at raw data, but I’m afraid I don’t have the time in the foreseeable future.

    • Entropic man says:

      Chic Bowdrie

      Perhaps CO2 concentrations above 5000ppm had something to do with it?

      https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2013/1-anotherlinkb.jpg

      Using the standard forcing equation ∆f=5.35ln(C/Co), 5000ppm would produce a forcing of 5.35ln(5000/280)= 15.4W.

      Applying the IPCC mid-range sensitivity of 3, the forcing becomes 3*15.4=46.2W.

      Applying the IPCC warming effect, 3.7W/ degree C, the temperature change becomes 46.2/3.7=12.5C.

      30 % less insolation would be 1360*0.7=952W.

      This would produce a temperature reduced as the 4th foot of the relative insolation change, from the present temperature of 287K.

      That is 4th root(952/1360)*287= 280.7K or 7.7C.

      Not that for at least the Last 600 million years temperatures have been around 5C warmer than the present, about 292K or 19C.

      Using these figures, without CO2 a weaker Sun would produce a global temperature of 7.8C. Add 5000ppm of CO2 and the temperature warms by 12.5C to a hothouse Earth temperature of 20.3C, 6.3C warmer than the present. This is comparable to the paleoclimate estimates.

      Bog standard CO2 theory produces figures which match reality.

      For comparison, please show your calculations using the iris hypothesis.

      • David Appell says:

        Entropic man says:
        Applying the IPCC mid-range sensitivity of 3, the forcing becomes 3*15.4=46.2W.”

        Climate sensitivity gives a temperature from a forcing, not another forcing.

        A climate sensitivity of 3 C for a CO2 doubling is equivalent to 0.81 degC/(W/m2). Then 5000 ppm would bring 12.5 C of warming.

        However, this equation for the radiative forcing of CO2 doesn’t extend to 5000 ppm. A paper I wrote about here

        https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/03/what-if-co2-gets-really-high-say-1000.html

        calculates that the forcing goes like the constant*ln(CO2)+constant*ln^2(CO2), which is somewhat higher.

        Plus of course the feedbacks would be huge.

        • Entropic man says:

          David Appell

          3/3.7 is 0.81. Our calculations of the effect of climate sensitivity are equivalent. I just did in two steps rather than one.

          Note also that the climate sensitivity includes feedbacks.

          We seem to be using different definitions of climate sensitivity. Yours is the temperature rise produced by a given forcing. Mine is the forcing +feedbacks/direct forcing

          I find you paper unconvincing. It produces calculated values why are too high when compared with paleo data.

          • David Appell says:

            You wrote:
            Applying the IPCC mid-range sensitivity of 3, the forcing becomes 3*15.4=46.2W.

            You wrote that a forcing becomes a forcing. That’s not correct.

            BTW, the second doubling of CO2 is unlikely to cause the same effect at the first doubling, since most of the ice is melted in the first doubling and there ice-albedo effect is less for the second doubling.

            In other words, climate sensitivity is unlikely to be a constant function of CO2.

    • Norman says:

      Chic Bowdrie

      You were asking if increase in CO2 would raise global temperature. The portion of your post was that the IRIS effect would cancel the Water Vapor Feedback.

      From your link:

      “Grégoire Canlorbe: It is commonly admitted that temperature increases follow the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels—and not the other way around. In this regard, fossil fuels emissions are easily believed to be the most plausible origin of contemporary increasing CO2 levels. Do you question this dogma?

      Richard Lindzen: I’m not sure what you are saying. In point of fact, increasing CO2 should cause some warming, but increasing temperature can also increase CO2 (for example CO2 follows temperature during the cycles of glaciation). That said, it is not unreasonable to claim that the observed increases in CO2 over the past two centuries are mostly due to fossil fuel emissions, cement production, and land use changes (i.e., man’s activities).

      The question is can this increase in CO2 produce much in the way of climate change. Increases in CO2 have produced about a 1% perturbation in the earth’s energy budget. This impact was so much smaller before around 1960, that almost no one (including the IPCC) claims the impact was significant before that date. Even a 1% change is no greater than what is normally produced by relatively small changes in cloud cover or ocean circulations which are always carrying heat to and from the surface.”

      NOTE: “I’m not sure what you are saying. In point of fact, increasing CO2 should cause some warming,”

      • La Pangolina says:

        Norman

        If you would first put info you copy from somewhere into this tool’s upper window

        https://mothereff.in/html-entities

        and pasted the bottom window’s contents into this blog’s comment window, your explanations would be more readable.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          La Pangolina,

          “…explanations would be more readable.”

          Don’t bother reading his explanations. He doesn’t understand the science well enough to even know what the questions are.

          I wasn’t asking if an increase in CO2 would raise global temperature. I’m asking where is the data that shows it? Lindzen says what most people stuck in the oversimplified GHE model hypothesize: “In point of fact, increasing CO2 should cause some warming, ….” Unfortunately there is ample evidence that any slight effect from CO2 is masked by natural factors. Lindzen explains:

          “Even a 1% change is no greater than what is normally produced by relatively small changes in cloud cover or ocean circulations which are always carrying heat to and from the surface.”

          There is more evidence supporting the Iris effect than there is for more CO2 causing global warming. Again from Lindzen:

          “In 2000 I published a study of upper level cirrus behavior in the tropics as a function of surface temperature (together with two colleagues at NASA). As you note, we found that the areal coverage of tropical cirrus (which result from the detrainment from deep cumulus clouds) does decrease with temperature, and that this effect was sufficient to more than cancel the commonly assumed water vapor feedback which is essential to predictions of high climate sensitivity.”

          “The combined [iris effect and water vapor] feedback is more accurately referred to as the long-wave (i.e., infrared) feedback, and direct measurements confirm that this feedback is zero or even negative.”

          The bottom line is that any temperature effect claimed from increasing CO2 will be confounded by natural thermostatic cloud and iris effects designed to keep the planet temperate. The master designer at work.

          • Norman says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            You make the claim that “Don’t bother reading his explanations. He doesn’t understand the science well enough to even know what the questions are.”

            Rather annoying post from you. I quite understand the science. The sad thing is you read the article, post more and still don’t understand the topic. Really a sad fact on your ability to comprehend what you read.

            From your own post form the WUWT interview:

            LINDZEN: “As you note, we found that the areal coverage of tropical cirrus (which result from the detrainment from deep cumulus clouds) does decrease with temperature, and that this effect was sufficient to more than cancel the commonly assumed water vapor feedback which is essential to predictions of high climate sensitivity.”

            You have to increase the temperature of the tropics to create an IRIS effect. It is not saying that CO2 will not cause warming, he states the amplification of feedback is what is questioned.

            You also fail to grasp what he is saying about he 1%. So far it seems all posters accept that there are multiple factors governing global temperature. Lindzen points out cloud cover changes or ocean circulation can compare to this 1%. The difference is those effects are temporary, which you can see in Roy’s graphs on global temperature. The 1% change from CO2 increase would be a constant. It can be swamped by other effects but will always remain in the background.

          • David Appell says:

            Chic Bowdrie says:
            The bottom line is that any temperature effect claimed from increasing CO2 will be confounded by natural thermostatic cloud and iris effects designed to keep the planet temperate.

            So why didn’t that happen during the PETM?

          • La Pangolina says:

            Chic Bowdrie says:
            June 20, 2018 at 5:49 AM

            Dont bother reading his explanations. He doesnt understand the science well enough to even know what the questions are.

            Bowdrie, I don’t need any remarks of that kind, and especially not from an arrogant person like you.

  60. David is trying to use natural climatic events to prop up AGW which he has to do because it does not exist.

  61. oh.

    But I have the data from last summer which shows overall oceanic temperatures back then running around +.35c deviation.

  62. So from last summer- through today we are off by -.25c give or take .That is significant and I do not think it is over not if I am correct on what influences the overall sea surface temperatures.

    Which is weak visible near UV/UV LIGHT.

  63. http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/newsletter/2012/07/images/graphic_lightpenetration.jpg

    It shows to what depth various light waves from the sun penetrate the ocean surface.

    It is known during prolonged solar minimum UV light can decrease by 6% or more and since this penetrates the oceans to significant depths it must have a temperature effect.

    Also Near UV light penetrates the ocean surface even more but it’s percentage change is not as great as UV light.

    Some say visible light in some range of the spectrum actually increase when solar activity is low while all other wavelengths(all in agreement )decrease.

    The take away is UV light/Near UV light decrease at times of solar minimums and penetrate the ocean surface to great depths (several meters) which results in the oceans receiving less energy and thus cooling.

  64. The ocean heat content will follow overall sea surface temperatures down over time.

  65. WM DOWNS says:

    Einstein only won 1 Nobel Prize in 1921 – and strangely it was for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect… Relativity, what’s that?

    • coturnix19 says:

      Some say that the general relativity didn’t really conform to the Nobels will, where he said to award the money “…to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind”. The benefit and even correctness of the GR was not obvious back then (single, albeit correct prediction validated by eddington is not really a foolproof validation), and it was way too bizzare and hard to swallow, some people still have issues with it. In the end, it didn’t benefit anyone till the development of GPS in the 80s so no, it didn’t qualify. As for the special relativity – yeah, weird, some say it was possibly due to antisemitism. Others may speculate that the einstein’s contribution to the special relativity was more of teh conceptual rather than substantial as the theory itself had in mathematical sense already been contained in the maxwellian electrodynamics, and just needed to be extracted and re-thought and applied to the physics as a whole.

      • La Pangolina says:

        Sounds well to me: plain and unpretentious.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        coturnix19…”The benefit and even correctness of the GR was not obvious back then (single, albeit correct prediction validated by eddington is not really a foolproof validation), and it was way too bizzare and hard to swallow….”

        Nothing has changed. Today, we have an advantage over Einstein in that we know definitively that time does not exist. In the days of E., psychology was in its infnacy and no one was challenged the thought processes of humans.

        Early in the 20th century, Jiddu Krishnamurti began an exploration into that domain outside the field of psychology and his conclusions had the likes of Aldous Huxley and George Bernard Shaw, clamouring for more. Even physicist David Bohm joined K. to discuss his observations.

        If time does not exist, then there is no such thing as space-time. I am not in any way claiming that the work of Einstein was all for naught, I am merely pointing out that nothing can change based on time therefore his theories about time dilating and dimensions changing at the speed of light are sheer nonsense.

        No one has ever tested that and the experiment of Eddington during an eclipse sounds pretty Mickey Mouse when you consider that the Sun is a huge ball of electrons and protons with a huge EM field and electric charges. That alone should bend light.

        Einstein admitted there are no good tests of his theory and that Newtonian physics could cover most of it.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “…when you consider that the Sun is a huge ball of electrons and protons with a huge EM field and electric charges. That alone should bend light.”

          Why? Photons have no charge, so how would an electromagnetic field affect them, Gordon?

          • David Appell says:

            And why do you think the Sun has a net charge??

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Photons have no charge, so how would an electromagnetic field affect them, Gordon?”

            Protons have an equal and opposite charge to the electron. It’s the equal and opposite charge that holds atoms together.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA….”And why do you think the Sun has a net charge??”

            Doesn’t need one with all those electrons and protons running around. Protons and electrons making up the solar wind interact with our magnetic field, so why should the EM fields of light passing close to the Sun not interact with the solar wind and/or charges in the Sun?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        coturnix…”it didnt benefit anyone till the development of GPS”

        GPS does not rely on relativity theory. There are certainly no requirements for the bogus notion that time dilation is a factor.

        GPS electronics cannot detect time dilation since time does not exist. The GPS satellites operate on a different time base that the ground stations and that information is transmitted in the signals from the sats, along with altitude, velocity, etc.

        Relative position could be worked out by trial and error if required.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          GPS does not rely on relativity theory.

          Another lie from Gordon.

          Gordon, what do you think you’re gaining by denying reality?

        • La Pangolina says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          June 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM

          GPS does not rely on relativity theory.

          Robertson, you’ve been shown so often how ignorant and unconscious you are about GPS and time dilation.

          You know nothing, arfe an expert in nothing whatsoever and are the scientifically most uneducated commenter this web site has ever experienced.

          Even the Flynn guy tried to explain you in a previous thread how wrong you are, but he was not courageous enough to go to end with that.

          Why are you lying all the time, Robertson? Why don’t you try to learn a bit instead of lying?

          How can you be so dumb to deny science like this?

          https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.7951

          • Norman says:

            La Pangolina

            I posted this video to Gordon Robertson on a previous thread. He ignored it.

            Your paper would be too daunting for Mr. Robertson. That is why I use this nice video. It is basic, not real complex and demonstrates time dilation.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZkTfCHKFJQ&t=2113s

            My strong feelings is that Gordon Robertson is a troll. When you present him with facts he ignores them and pretends you never showed him the facts.

            I am sure this troll will make an strong effort to ignore this video because he won’t be able to make up his own physics to dispute it.

            He only responds when he can make up some garbage science. Even the skeptics realize he is clueless but that does not deter this troll.

            Where is the Dr. Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team when it comes to Gordon Robertson?

          • David Appell says:

            Nice video clip, Norman, but it won’t make a bit of difference. Gordon doesn’t accept real world experiments and measurements — he lives in Gordonland, where he is the smartest person in the world and knows more than Einstein, Planck, Clausius, and any other scientist you’d care to name.

            Gordon is interesting, but for the wrong reasons.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Gordon says “GPS does not rely on relativity theory”.

            Then David Appell, La Pangolina, and Norman (afraid to use his last name) all jump out to insult Gordon.

            So how about you three each write why Gordon is wrong. No links, just in your own words. You like to write, you’ve just proved that. Tell us why Gordon is wrong.

          • David Appell says:

            JDH, we’ve all written about this several times already on other posts. But it goes into one of Gordon’s ears and out the other, because there is not a rational person between.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Is that right? Can you link to such examples?

            Otherwise folks might think it is just in your imagination.

          • David Appell says:

            Of course I can link to such examples.

            But it’s not worth my time.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            I have not done tests no time dilation myself so why should I make up physics like Gordon Robertson does.

            I linked to a video of an actual experiment proving time dilation of mesons.

            What would my words matter? I think the science stands on the evidence. If an issue comes up I will try to find evidence for the topic.

            So I am not sure why you decided, at this time, to request own words proving Gordon Robertson is wrong about time dilation.

            Can you elaborate? What are you seeking?

            You say I insult him. Not at all, if I called him ugly or fat that would be an insult. I point out he is probably a troll (which seems very likely). I point out he makes up physics which he has done numerous times. What exactly is insulting about pointing out the reality of a pretend poster? Why should his behavior be praised? If you can explain why peddling made up physics and pretending to be some type of genius authority is a good thing I will reconsider what I think of this poster. I will await your response.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Nameless Norman, hiding his real name, now tries to back peddle out of it.

            David Appell, who spends hours here, suddenly doesn’t have time to back up his words.

            La Pangolina, so far, is MIA.

            And these three like to call others “troll”!

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            I kind of gave you the benefit of doubt since I had not interacted with you much before (unless you are a previous poster who is using a different posting name).

            Reasoning with you is a waste of time. You are a whiner about last names (if I posted it it would not make any difference as to what I post). I think it is just a stupid tactic on your part in an attempt to discredit a point because you do not have knowledge to refute it, you are not a very bright person (as seen in some of your really stupid posts above and your continuation of stupidity after people spent time explaining it to you).

            You claim I “back peddle”. That is stupid nonsense. What backpeddle? You requested a really stupid thing (use my own words to tell why Gordon is wrong about time dilation) rather than use a valid tested experiment. Since you are so far gone from understanding science (you think any opinion is good) then why should I waste any time with the likes of you? What value to scientific contribution do you offer? You know very little and offer you own opinionated points with zero supporting evidence and think such is better than valid science.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Anonymous Norman, the reason we have not interacted much is because I do not comment often.

            You are hiding so that you can maliciously attack others. This is a perfect example. You have written about 500 words, just in this subthread. You have attacked, insulted, and denied. But, you have not presented the science of why Gordon is wrong, in your own words.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            I do not hide to maliciously attack others. You just use that as a tactic. You are a disrupter. You have zero interest in science and come here to disrupt things. You still wouldn’t know me if I gave you a last name, you could look it up on the internet I guess but you still are not a friend of mine.

            You post as JDHuffman. What does that mean. There could be thousands of JDHuffman’s. I know on more about you than if you posted as Oliver Twist. The posting name is not that important. What matters is the content of the posts.

            I did appeal to your reason but you fail to provide any. The experiment I linked to demonstrates Time Dilation of Mesons. What more is needed? The experiment shows he is wrong. What are you defending?

            Also I know you are a disrupter with zero scientific knowledge with an interaction with you above about view factor. Both I and Tim Folkerts explained it to you and you failed to even try and understand the concept or what was being talked about. You made the foolish assertion that we were avoiding the question about fluxes adding. Nothing of the sort, we were explaining very clearly why adding ice will not increase the energy to a surface. That you are just a disrupter with no interest in learning or science was confirmed by that interaction.

            And now down here you are still a foolish person trying to disrupt by rejecting a actual scientific experiment and pursuing a stupid point about needing to explain a point in one’s own words rather than showing experimental proof.

            I think soon I will quit responding to you. I kind of like dorky Gordon Robertson so I will probably continue with debates with him. You are very unreasonable and intentionally disruptive without real reason to be that way.

            In another exchange above I gave you a calculation about sedimentation and you tried to attack the link with stupid points about “estimation” and “assumption” like these are bad things for a general idea on something.

            You have demonstrated that you are one to avoid. I am really glad you don’t post often here.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Anonymous, and now belligerent, Norman, you continue to sling insults, deny reality, and avoid writing why Gordon is wrong. Your link to the YouTube is just a distraction. You cannot say, in your own words, why Gordon is wrong.

            If you decide to run, you can join David Appell and La Pangolina, who were also unable to support their own words.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            JD…”So how about you three each write why Gordon is wrong…”

            I have explained it several times to them and not one has rebutted with an indication they understand the issue.

            Satellites remain in orbit due to their momentum, which is essentially mass x velocity. They are launched at an altitude at which the force of gravity acting against that momentum, which wants to take the sat on a tangential course, gives a resultant course which is the orbit.

            Time has nothing to do with that momentum, it was created by a force from the rocket engines flying the sat into orbit, strictly a force and mass situation. However, once in orbit, the sat has telemetry to detect its altitude, velocity, etc. It also has an onboard atomic clock which provides a local time source for the sat and its equipment.

            BTW…the atomic clock is actually a very regular frequency generator where the frequencies are a measure of the result of atomic forces. Nothing to do with time. It was we humans who divided down the frequency to synchronize with out invention, the second. People don’t seriously think an atom’s frequency of vibration is generated based on a human clock, do they?

            The sat transmits that data via a communications signal and when it sends the signal, it send reference pulses for the ground station, which is running on a separate time source. No problem, it’s a matter of sorting out the reference pulses to sync the ground station to the sat data. Once that’s established, it’s a matter of communicating via electronic communication.

            Where would time dilation come into that scenario, especially at velocities which are a small fraction of the speed of light? You can throw out the ‘c’ parameter altogether and go with straight Newtonian relativity.

            This is all done using electronic communications and the system behaves like a normal servo system. There are reference values and error correction circuits, no time dilation sci-fi required.

            And yes, time dilation is sci-fi. I have explained in detail how time was derived (invented) from the regular rotation of the Earth hence there is no reality to time. How can something lacking a physical presence dilate?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…” That is why I use this nice video. It is basic, not real complex and demonstrates time dilation”.

            *********

            But far too complex for you to begin understanding the utter nonsense being foisted on you by these relativity wannabees.

            They begin the video by claiming clocks run at different rates as they approach the speed of light. Can you seriously not see the hole in that argument? It’s big enough to drive a semi-trailer through it.

            What drives the average clock? With the older ones, it was a wound up spring driving gears. For digital clocks, it is a crystal oscillator that has it’s frequency of oscillation divided down to usable frequency and the pulses are counted by a counter which has been designed to roll over when it reaches 60 seconds, then 60 minutes. The minutes counter then rolls over every 60 minutes to give an hour.

            An atomic clock, as I have explained several times, has a natural frequency of vibration CONTROLLED BY ATOMIC FORCES. Nothing to do with time. We use it’s frequency because it is very stable and we can use that as a base for out INVENTED second.

            Tell me…please…how any of that can change as the velocity of the clock reaches the speed of light?

            Some idiots think humans would age at different rates if some remained on Earth and others traveled at the speed of light. What utter garbage. Humans age due to issues in cell division and cell division has no clock built into it.

            In your video, where two scientists are dressed like loggers, and think like loggers, they are claiming mu-mesons are clocks. It’s the same argument as the atomic clock scenario. Mu-mesons are driven by forces, not time.

            They don’t even begin to get their inherent stupidity. They tell you that the clocks are related to human observers. The human observer is holding the clock and doing the measurements and if he/she is on a platform moving relatively to motion on another moving platform, he/she will experience SOMETHING changing as the relative velocity increases.

            This is a problem inherent in human observation and is related to distortion in the human mind. Time dilation to the human mind is an illusion based on the relative motion between the human mind and the real world.

            Einstein SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT. He missed it and lead the science world on a sci-fi mystery tour. In his treatise on relativity he DEFINED time as the position of the hands on a clock. Everything he has done with relativity is based on observations from the human mind, not what is actually going on with the observed phenomena.

            In a nutshell, the observed phenomena involves masses driven by forces. The human mind sees changes in position of an object due to that action of the force on the mass, and in order to quantify the motion, he invented a clock, the basis of which he derived from a fraction of the Earth’s period of rotation.

            There is no relationship whatsoever between the force-mass system and the human invention of time. The human mind has imposed its invention on real phenomena and completely misinterpreted what is observed.

            I cannot speak for what Einstein was thinking, I don’t think he was someone who would miss something so obvious. However, those following him have seriously added to the problem to the point where everyone seems to have accepted time dilation as a reality.

            It is not.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            I might add that time dilation comes down to an APPARENT shortening of intervals (measurable distances)due to illusions in the human mind. It’s like passing a moving train while you are in a train going in the other direction. The windows in the other train go by in a blur of motion, with an entire coach seeming narrower never mind each window.

            That’s an illusion of the human mind, not an actual change in the coach/window dimensions.

            If you want to observe true relativity, you need to get the human mind with its foibles out of the equation. Put detectors on what is being observed and feed the data back to a computer so it can track the changes and show them visually as static amounts. In that case, I can assure anyone that no time dilation will occur.

            You could attach a sensor to each body to measure a set distance and another sensor to track the clock speed, and I guarantee you no change in either will be detected. It’s the human observer who creates the changes, in his/her mind.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”How can you be so dumb to deny science like this?”

            How can you be so dumb as to search through Google for an article supporting your position without knowing what the article is about?

            This is not an article about time dilation its an article about people who don’t understand time. They are observing Doppler-shifted spectra and translating the shifts as time dilation.

            Doppler shifting occurs when one body emitting light of a known wavelength shows up as a wavelength shifted in the EM spectrum. What does that have to do with time?

            When a body is traveling away from us, the waves of light reaching us are affected by the velocity of the body. They stretch out producing a longer wavelength which translates to a lower frequency. The wavelength appears shifted toward the red end of the spectrum and is referred to as red-shifted.

            What does time have to do with that? The velocity of the body is the result of an applied force at an earlier time. Time plays no part in the motion of the body and it appears, once again, you are content to appeal to authority rather than think out the problem for yourself.

            Don’t feel badly, the researchers in your article don’t get it either. Not one of them has questioned what they are measuring.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”he lives in Gordonland, where he is the smartest person in the world and knows more than Einstein, Planck, Clausius, and any other scientist youd care to name”.

            You forgot to mention that I’m the most handsome as well.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            I know you try to sound intelligent with a philosophical point about time, and I do like your attempt.

            I do think you are a moron to make claims about scientists that are several IQ points above your level. These are some very bright minds you denigrate out of sheer frustration that you are unable to even grasp the ideas they talk about. You reach out for a few points to attack without having a clue about the content. I realize you never will understand it.

            Here you can do the experiment yourself, they even tell you how. You can see if the brilliant scientists in the video are as dumb as you claim.

            http://www.teachspin.com/muon-physics.html

            Go for it Gordon. It will be good for you to do real science instead of making it up. Maybe you will learn something. Don’t get scared by the fact you will find out you were wrong about everything. It is a painful state that can only be alleviated by learning the truth.

            “The Truth is out there” Don’t be afraid to prove yourself wrong and all your opinions just hot air. You will build upon the ashes a strong scientific background no longer based upon deluded fantasies and internet crackpots.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            We need to talk about this again. You did not understand my point on a previous thread.

            YOU: “In a nutshell, the observed phenomena involves masses driven by forces. The human mind sees changes in position of an object due to that action of the force on the mass, and in order to quantify the motion, he invented a clock, the basis of which he derived from a fraction of the Earths period of rotation.

            There is no relationship whatsoever between the force-mass system and the human invention of time. The human mind has imposed its invention on real phenomena and completely misinterpreted what is observed.”

            Again, a mass changes position driven by a force. Humans observe that there is a rate of change of position. Did they invent this rate of change of position? Even without a clock the human could compare one rate to another, say a running cheetah moving and a person walking. They might use a term like the cheetah moves faster than the person. You confuse an actual rate change to the units used to describe the rate change, to give it a measurement so it can be used in calculation. The actual rate change exists outside the units of measurement. The rate of change was not invented by man. The units for that rate (meters/second…miles/hour) are what man created NOT the rate.

            So this rate of change, a chemical reaction. The concepts are all related, time, mass, energy, space. Man did not invent any, man put units of measure on them. I wish you would understand this point. I don’t think you can.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            This is for you to read.

            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html

          • JDHuffman says:

            Gordon Robertson, anonymous Norman is trying to change the topic. The topic is your statement “GPS does not rely on relativity theory”, which is absolutely correct.

            I challenged anonymous Norman, La Pangolina, and David Appell to state in their own words why they accused you. Of course, I knew they could not.

            (I worked in GPS implementation for about 7 years.)

            Feel free to refer to this comment thread the next time any of the three clowns insults you. Not that you will need to. You seem overly qualified to handle clowns.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”Humans observe that there is a rate of change of position. Did they invent this rate of change of position?”

            Humans have no means of observing a RATE of change. Humans have no in-built clocks, they need an external clock. Furthermore, if time was real, they would only have to tap into the time source and use that to measure rates of change. If you can find one, not invented by humans, that measures in hours, minutes, and seconds, let me know.

            Of course, humans can observe change, even a change in a rate of change, such as the difference between velocity and acceleration. There is even another rate of change called a jerk factor, which is the rate of change of acceleration. You might see it in a good sprinter who slow accelerates out of the block then rapidly accelerates.

            Humans cannot measure the rate of change, therefore we invented time to enable quantifying the rate of change. We invented the second, based on a small fraction of the period measured for one revolution of the Earth in its orbit.

            David Appell will be along to claim that a period is evidence of time, but it does not have to be. I can build a clock-like device with one hand that measures from sunrise to sunrise. I can verify it by running it again, as many times as I like. The measurement of that one-handed clock is the period of the Earth’s rotation and it has not yet been divided into hours, minutes and seconds.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Gordon Robertson, please stop trolling

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Impersonator, stop being so lazy. Get your own idea.

          • Norman says:

            The Real DREMT

            I think your impersonator is only providing balance to the blog. You single out scientific minded people and call their points trolling while never questioning the irrational and unscientific claims of so called skeptics.

            I think it is great that the two of you are active to provide balance to the force.

            If you were to proceed uncontested the DARK SIDE of the force would take over this blog. The unscientific, irrational, illogical and made up science would sink the blog into a realm of fake physics.

            Is that what you really want? Are you a Sith poster?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I call out people who are trolling, when they are trolling. My impersonator is simply lazy.

      • David Appell says:

        coturn: there are no physicists who deny general relativity, which has passed all experimental and observation tests presented to it.

        • coturnix says:

          Strawman detected. I didn’t say physicists deny it, i said some have issue with it. Justgoogle how many there is preprints on arxiv studying possible extensions and modifications to it.

          • David Appell says:

            Who has an issue with it?

            Those preprints you mentioned take GR as a *starting point*, and are looking to add on to it (“extend”) in order to explain dark matter or dark energy or quantum gravity or some such.

            But they don’t doubt GR. In fact, they’re hoping their theories reproduce it in some limit. Because they know GR has never made a bad pre- or postdiction.

        • coturnix says:

          Uhm, it, the general relativity has been validated quite well – now (except for gravity probe, galactic rotations and incompatibility with equally well validated qft), mostly by ruling out its numerous competitions, BUT back then it was indeed beautiful but mostly speculative theory that just started to be explored. R u sure ure not confusing general and special relativity?

          BTW, i think the sheer genius/luck of einstens, who discovered correct and beautiful theory from pure reason served very badly to the 20th century science, where countless scientists have been since taking einstens path, trying to discover new theories usingreasoning and beauty criteria. Theoretical physics nowdays suffer from this immensly, with hundreds of thousands of expensive intellectual effort directed into developing super complicated theories not rooted in reality (string theory for example, wink-wink, nudge-nudge). Climatology btw suffers a bit from this as well, albeit for a good reason.

          • David Appell says:

            That’s because there is a lack of experimental data — particle experiments are now so costly that experimentalists don’t even know where too look but where theorists tell them.

            Read “Lost in Math” by Sabine Hossenfelder. You’ll probably like it. I just finished it and it’s all over this topic.

          • coturnix says:

            But science requires experimental data, and/or multiple independently verifiable observations. Without it, it is not really a science – it is just applied math. Which you may consider science, but it is not a natural science.

            What theoretical particle physicist doing today is a lottery: they guess and hope they would be right some time in the distant future. Einsten bet 10 man-years and won. Modern string theorists probably bet hundreds of thousands of man-years, and they are losing badly. I blame einstein – bad example indeed. no wonder they didn’t award him nobel prize for that one of his theories.

          • idiot tracker says:

            Theoretical physics nowdays suffer from this immensly, with hundreds of thousands of expensive intellectual effort directed into developing super complicated theories not rooted in reality (string theory for example, wink-wink, nudge-nudge). Climatology btw suffers a bit from this as well, albeit for a good reason.

            Climatology has absolutely nothing to do with this. I’s just applied physics and not at all a “theory”. Nor has AGW which is based on ordinary well established and experimentally tested physical principles.

            There is presently really a deep “crisis” in theoretical physics but this has not the slightest impact on climatology. Quantum loop gravity, string theory, etc are various attempts to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics and work out a “theory of everything”. The phenomena at stake are rather out worldly (very high energy physics, black holes, cosmology, etc) and candidate theories difficult to test. String theory is indeed a nightmare.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            coturnix…”the general relativity has been validated quite well”

            I am not debating that truth, I am questioning side issues such as time dilation and dimensions of bodies changing due to them traveling at the speed of light.

            Einstein admitted that Newtonian physics could cover most issues dealing with relativity since the velocities are so low compared to the speed of light that the velocity of light factor can be neglected. In that case, a person could work out relativity problems with a slide rule and a stubby pencil.

            He also mentioned that little in the way of experimental proof had been offered, IMHO, that applies particularly at speeds significant wrt the SOL.

            There’s also an issue with the Lorentz equations, which were forced on relativity issues. One might say they were established based on the theory related to the distorted mind of a human observer, not the reality of the process being observed.

            I regard relativity issues relating to time dilation as something that takes place in the human mind, not the real world. Regarding your comment on string theory, astronomer Wal Thornhill claimed it works in every universe but our own.

            Hope Lubos Motl does not drop by at this time. ☺

          • coturnix says:

            +idiot tracker

            Climatology has a different problem that makes it somewhat similar to the theoretical physics, namely that it is also purely theoretical. This is because the climate is a singular, real-time highly nonlinear system, hence it is not possible to perform any real experiments on it, while it takes as long to observe it as to check the predictions. Predictions? Those cannot be tested and proven, unless you wait for it to happen but such a prediction is useless.

            As a result, there is not way to actually scientifically study the climate here and now, one can only build speculative models of it or try to infer its behavior from paleoclimatology.

            The climate system of course is made from multiple subsystems, each of which can be studied scientifically, and some of them are quite well understood (others – not so much, but they are slowly being studied as well). But you can’t study climate as a whole the same way, except for studying its past by looking through the fossil record. This latter part of the climatology is science, but the predictive modeling is just a speculative applied numerical math (basically, computer games) – and that’s what makes it similar to the string theory as such. In fact string theory is more scientifically accurate since it operates with precise analytical math rather than computer games. And I’m not saying that it is not possible to know, describe or discover the correct theory of climate – it is quite possible I believe, as, apart from the question of the general navier-stokes equation solution existence, the climate is based on known physics, but what I’m saying is that there is no way to scientifically (that is through observation and experiments) know or prove that the solution you have is real and correct one.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      coturnix…”Some say that the general relativity didnt really conform to the Nobels will…”

      My understanding is that Nobels are handed out for new research. Although E’s relativity may seem new, he admitted himself it is covered significantly by Newtonian physics.

      E. did add a new wrinkle but maybe it was not viewed as being sufficiently new to merit a Nobel.

      • coturnix says:

        they used to be handed for current research (as worded in the nobel’s will). Today they don’t do it anymore.

  66. gbaikie says:

    “Lack of better does not imply good. Nobody should rely upon any estimate that cannot be independently verified. ”

    I had question about what one thought was best (for period 1000 to 1900 as) but that could changed to “another which equally adequate” if that is better question. But main thing is recently but not after 1900 AD.
    Because just want what proxies and only proxies indicate in terms of global temperature. And not the splicing which generally, is badly done.

    • David Appell says:

      Why is the splicing “badly done?”

      • gbaikie says:

        Even Mann knows splicing is bad, and claimed he didn’t do it.

        • David Appell says:

          Source? Citation?

          • gbaikie says:

            goggle search: mann hockey stick spliced

            First hit:

            –Apparently holding the same incorrect belief as Steyn (misinformation tends to spread when nobody corrects errors like Steyn’s), Mann responded:

            No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.–
            http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2017/06/splicing-right-or-wrong/

            continuing:
            Mann said this in late 2004 so I can’t fault him for being unaware of what would happen after 2010, but given the response Mann shows to this accusation, I find it strange this practice would be an accepted one a mere ten years later. Plus, I thought it was interesting nobody has pointed out any recent examples of it happening despite at least one being easy to find.
            And:

            Some people, including Steve McIntyre, claim this shows Mann spliced instrumental temperatures onto reconstructed temperatures. The caption for it does say:

            Relationships of Northern Hemisphere mean (NH) temperature with three candidate forcings between 1610 and 1995. Panels, (top to bottom) as follows. ‹“NH, reconstructed NH temperature series from 16101980, updated with instrumental data from 198195.

            Which certainly supports that interpretation. However, the “splice” is clearly identified in the figure’s caption, and if you look closely at the top chart of the figure, you can see the instrumental data is plotted differently than the reconstructed data. It takes a careful eye to see, but it is there. One might be concerned about using spliced data like this for calculations like those used in correlation coefficients in the bottom chart, but at least the splicing is made rather clear. That’s not the case in some examples.
            ….–
            But it was spliced they met at nearly the same spot, so whether you clearly mark it, it is still a splice, though indicating it is different is better, than not indicting this. The story was there was data from proxy for later period, but wasn’t included, and this was called Mike’s trick [not by “deniers” but by his “friends”/”peers”].

            Second:
            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

            and third entry:
            https://climateaudit.org/2009/09/25/spot-the-hockey-stick-n-2/

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          gbaikie…”Even Mann knows splicing is bad, and claimed he didnt do it”.

          He eventually did admit it and wondered what was wrong with splicing modern data onto proxy data. A question that should have concerned him was why the proxy data was declining when real data was rising.

  67. gbaikie says:

    Outside the skeptics, you have the deluded and dishonest.

    • La Pangolina says:

      Thanks gbaikie for your honesty!

      And be happy that I make a strong difference between sound skeptics and those I call the pseudoskeptics.

      • gbaikie says:

        A pseudoskeptic is what?
        Someone pretending to be skeptical but knows the truth.
        Or are wearing tee shirt proclaiming, I am a skeptic, but is clueless of what a skeptic is.

        Definition

        1. a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.

        2.
        PHILOSOPHY
        an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.

        I am a skeptic [def 2} in many ways, but I am particularly skeptical about politicans

        But I agree all political systems are evil, but so far democratic systems are or at least seem, less evil.

        • David Appell says:

          gbaikie says:
          A pseudoskeptic is what?
          Someone pretending to be skeptical but knows the truth.

          I would say someone who claims to be “skeptical,” but without knowing or acknowledging the science.

          In truth there are very few skeptics around — most here are deniers. Which is a shame, because science and climate policy definitely needs skeptics. But much better ones.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Salvatore…”This I think show there is no CO2/TEMPERATURE CONNECTION”.

      The author of the article, expert reviewer Vincent Grey, forced the IPCC to acknowledge that climate models are unvalidated therefore they can predict nothing. The IPCC had since stopped using the word predicted and have begun using the word projected.

      Since the IPCC has no proof that humans are causing the warming, everything spewed by alarmists in that regard is opinionated tommy-rot.

      http://www.klimanotizen.de/2008.07.12_Gray_Spinning_the_Climate.pdf

      • David Appell says:

        Climate models can’t predict, ever.

        All models of the future can’t.

        A model is only as good as its assumptions.

        Gordon, would you please specify the annual CO2 emissions out to 2100? The changes in solar irradiance? Volcano eruptions?

        That’d be a good start. Until then models can only project, based on assumptions about the future.

        Obvious.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Until then models can only project, based on assumptions about the future”.

          Then why has the IPCC tied their wagon to climate models and passed it off in their glossy literature as truth?

  68. John_C says:

    And so Appel demonstrates Lindzen’s observation. In 2018, responding to a comment citing Dr Lindzen’s contemporaneous interview, Mr Appel cites a 2002 paper, but not the rebuttal. Apparently this is like modern big city politics, keep (re-)counting until the right side wins, then stop.

    • La Pangolina says:

      Add Robertson and Flynn, build the inverse of the sum, and you are not that far from… Appell.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”Add Robertson and Flynn…”

        Being singled out by binny is comforting. It means our (Mike Flynn and myself) are trashing his/her propaganda and fudged graphs so well that he/she is rendered speechless and reliant only on ad homs.

    • David Appell says:

      JohnC: the fact is, there just isn’t any support for Lindzen’s hypothetical iris effect in the scientific community. Scientists weren’t convinced. And still aren’t. There are lots of rebuttal papers. But I doubt you’ll pay any attention to them, because your needs require something, anything, no matter what, that denies AGW.

      • swampgator says:

        Ah, yet another Argumentum ad populum. Popper would be so proud.

        • David Appell says:

          I present papers, and that’s not good enough. I make informed judgements, and that’s not good enough. Deniers will reject any and all arguments, or else they would explode.

          • swampgator says:

            And straight to Ad Hominem, true to form.
            Are you paid to do this? Have you disclosed all of your funding sources to the denizens here?
            As for the rebuttals, are these controlled reproducible experiences that find for the null? Or model simulations? Or just opinions? I would be happy to read an example that you trust.

            Here is a paper I wrote to refute your claims:

            http://scigen.csail.mit.edu/scicache/786/scimakelatex.350.swampgator.swampies+friend+Joe.Someone+who+disagrees+with+David+Appelle.pdf

          • David Appell says:

            Clearly you don’t know what “ad hominem” means.

          • swampgator says:

            ad hominem
            ˌad ˈhmənəm/Submit
            adverb & adjective
            1.
            (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
            “vicious ad hominem attacks”

            DA, IMO “denier” labels are attacks against the messenger, no?
            Maybe you have a more nuanced understanding?

            this from WIki:

            Gratuitous verbal abuse or “name-calling” is not on its own an example of the argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy.[2][3][4][5][6] The fallacy occurs only if personal attacks are employed to devalue a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker; personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument are not ad hominem attacks.

          • David Appell says:

            People who deny are “deniers.”

            It was a perfectly good word before the Holocaust, and it still is after the Holocaust.

          • swampgator says:

            Ok, DA, how about the disclosure of your funding sources? You knida skipped over that (simple) part.

            How do you earn a living specifically?

            My disclosures: Pharmacist and SB owner. Own 3 ICE vehicles, 2 are trucks with V8s. Also, longtime Tesla fan and Model 3 reservation holder. Weird, huh?

            I’m hopeful you will be so transparent good sir.

          • David Appell says:

            Since you can’t disprove the science I present here, you opt for a different track and fall to the personal level. Classy.

            I’m a writer. I get paid for what I write.

          • swampgator says:

            “Im a writer. I get paid for what I write.”

            This is hardly an answer. It’s like saying “I’m a scientist, I get paid to do science”

            If that scientist is paid for example by the sugar industry and his research is regarding carbohydrate metabolism, this would be good to know.

            If you are paid to write on blogs like this by interested parties that would be good to know. According to your own website you wrote 5 articles last year. They must pay big bucks for each article!

            I suspect you are paid to go on climate related blogs and refute posts by those not fully on board with CAGW theory.

          • David Appell says:

            Nobody pays me to write on blogs. How ridiculous.

            Does anyone pay you to write to write on blogs?

          • David Appell says:

            Now if you’re done attacking me personally, how about addressing my points, with logic, science and reason.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”JohnC: the fact is, there just isnt any support for Lindzens hypothetical iris effect in the scientific community. Scientists werent convinced. And still arent…”

        By scientific community are you referring to Climategaters like Trenberth, Mann, Jones, Schmidt et al?

        • David Appell says:

          I’m referring to everyone I know, all the scientific journals I track, and to the 22,000 or so people at the twice annual AGU conferences.

          You believe Linden only because you want to believe him, not for any scientific reason. I doubt you’re ever read a single one of his papers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      John…”citing Dr Lindzens contemporaneous interview, Mr Appel cites a 2002 paper, but not the rebuttal”.

      David Appell does no like to confuse matters by getting both sides of a story. He interviews only climate alarmists, the more dogmatic the better.

  69. Gordon Robertson says:

    Salvatore…”AGW theory will no longer be viable”.

    Was it ever viable? Strikes me as a populist notion which is short on science and high on opinion.

    • David Appell says:

      This from the most backward country on AGW:

      “…70 percent of Americans now accept that global warming is occurring, and 58 percent agree that it is mostly caused by human activities….”

      https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/global-warming-now-brought-you-your-local-tv-weathercaster-n884831

      • AND DAID 99% of the population has no idea of what we discuss on this site, and would not understand it.

        Most people know next to nothing about the climate , and I do not mean if you support or don’t support AGW.

        They just do not know.

        • David Appell says:

          People aren’t as stupid as you seem to think, Salvatore.

        • gbaikie says:

          I think public is aware we live in warming world and are happy about it.
          This has always been the case, that people have wanted a warmer world- how else can term tropical paradise, makes sense, and why do they vacation at such places?

          • David Appell says:

            Who and since when has a warmer world been desired?

            Do the 3B people in the tropics want a warmer world?

            What about those cities on seashores?

            Do farmers want a warmer world? Northern people?

            Or do YOU want a warmer world, but refuse to move, and you don’t care what happens to anyone else?

          • gbaikie says:

            “What about those cities on seashores?”

            Because of 7″ per century rising sea level??

            “Do farmers want a warmer world? Northern people?”

            Do we care about farmers or northern people?

            “Or do YOU want a warmer world, but refuse to move, and you dont care what happens to anyone else?”

            I have moved, I believe the tendency is for people to move.
            {I moved to a warmer place, and then moved to high desert [which cooler that I thought it would be, but seems to be warming up in last few days- probably due to summer}.

          • David Appell says:

            gbaikie says:
            What about those cities on seashores?
            Because of 7″ per century rising sea level??

            You’re assuming SL acceleration is zero. It isn’t.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”70 percent of Americans now accept that global warming is occurring,….”

        That’s what it is all based on…opinion.

        • David Appell says:

          Do you expect 70% of Americans to numerically solve the Schwarzschild equations using ab.sorp.tion data from HITRAN?

          They’re wise than you are.

    • No it was never viable, it was a made up scam.

      • David Appell says:

        Salvatore again denies the molecular properties of CO2, whose ab.sorp.tion spectrum was first measured in 1859.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          Unfortunately for such as yourself, CO2 only absorbs around 1800 times as much IR as oxygen and nitrogen, but there is more than 1800 times as much oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere.

          Are you now claiming that reducing the amount of enrrgy reaching a thermometer only makes it hotter if the reduction is due to CO2?

          You are a funny little fellow, aren’t you? Next you’ll be claiming that slow cooling is really heating!

          No GHE. A myth designed to extract money and respect from the gullible. You certainly seem to have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

          Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            You are just wrong and then some. You are basing your knowledge on a very simplistic setup by Tyndall many years ago. Do you not think scientists have come up with better instrumentation to get better data? Do you think the computer you use to post on this blog are the same as the ones 30 years ago?

            I made a graph based upon atmospheric abundance.

            https://tinyurl.com/ya3ldhh2

            You can see the Y-Axis is exponential. You can see that CO2 absorbs at least 1 million times more IR than N2 or O2.

            Based upon what we see about you is that you have no clue what you are talking about and probably post as a troll to illicit some reaction. Too bad you waste your time trying to annoy posters instead of trying to really learn some science and physics. It is hard, I know, posting nonsense is much easier and for a troll like yourself, much more fun. But the rewards of learning far outweigh the pleasures you get from trolling blogs.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            Maybe you could link to something that is freely accessible.Typical foolish Warmist diversion, otherwise.

            Precisely what frequencies are you talking about? Do you think that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it hotter?

            Or do you believe in magic? I suppose the fact that you cannot actually describe the GHE, or propose a disprovable GHE hypothesis, leaves magic as your only option.

            So sad, too bad. Still no GHE.

            Cheers.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            This idea worked on a previous thread. I download the Hitran graph to this sight and link to it.

            I used wavelength rather than frequency. I used 2 to 50 micron range.

            I can try to see if I can make a workable link later.

            Maybe you can make your own graphs and explore some science on your own.

            http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php

            Reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer will not make it warmer. But the solar flux has very little IR at the 15 micron range and this 15 micron range IR is emitted much stronger by CO2 to the thermometer than is absorbed by it from the Sun’s energy.

            You already know I have shown you this numerous times on numerous threads when you ask the same question.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Anonymous Norman, now you are trying to twist around the challenge presented by Mike Flynn.

            Suppose you have a perfect emitter that is emitting peak 15 photons, directed at the thermometer. What is the maximum temperature the thermometer could achieve, with no other energy?

            Answer: About -80 C.

            Next, try to heat Earth with that -80 C thermometer.

            (Also, a physical location is “site”, not “sight”. The first time you used it I thought it was just a typo. But, repeated usage indicates you just do not know. Now you do.)

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            You have given an example of Wein’s Displacement Law.

            Interesting and it does at least demonstrate you have a little scientific background. However you are not being very rational with your point.

            Your point has zero to do with Flynn’s comment about CO2 and a thermometer.

            The amount of energy CO2 will emit is based upon its concentration and its temperature. The concentration of the gas will give you an emissivity, the temperature will give you a rate of emission of IR based upon its temperature using Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

            Here look and see.
            http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf

            Exactly what are you trying to describe?

            I will attempt and explanation with you. If you have a -80 C radiating source it will radiate some energy to the surface which the surface absorbs. With no other energy added the surface will reach a steady state temperature of -80 C (if the atmosphere remains at that temperature). If you add energy to the surface from another source it will reach a higher temperature than -80 C.

            Now if you think it through with logical rational thought process.

            If you had an atmosphere at -150 C the surface would only get to -150 C.

            If you add energy from another source it will go above -150 C but it could still be well below the -80 C atmosphere steady state temperature.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            N,

            A cup of hot coffee is hot.

            Now add some ice, radiating at 300 W/m2. You have assuredly added hea5 energy to the system.

            You are probably silly enough to say the coffee will get hotter!

            Off you go, Norman, tell us all about adding energy making things hotter. Does colder CO2 have magical climatological properties, perhaps?

            Cheers.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Norman hides his identity so he can hide from reality.

          • Norman says:

            Mike Flynn

            You are a Mr. Strawman.

            What I highly dislike about attempting to communicate with you is your total lack of rational logical thought.

            I make a really valid and good point. You are hopelessly devoid of reasoning ability to even attempt to grasp it, then you come up with a stupid stawman and attribute my highly intelligent thought to a stupid absurd creation of yours that I never claimed and would never claim.

            Your stupidity and illogical thought process are legendary on this blog. Why you are like that no one knows. I doubt even you could explain to yourself why you are so illogical and unable to reason.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Hiding his identity, and also hiding from reality, anonymous Norman now launches his personal attacks.

          • David Appell says:

            JD, you’re anonymous too.

            Or did I miss an identifying link you posted?

  70. David Appell says:

    Fox News, on Hansen’s 1988 testimony:

    “Thirty years later, its clear that Hansen and other doomsayers were right.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/06/19/nasas-chilling-30-year-old-warning.html

  71. Mike Flynn says:

    Swampgator,

    In your link refuting David Appell’s claims, you may have overlooked an egregious error in fig. 3.

    It is obvious that David Appell’s claims are worse than we thought.

    We are all doomed! Woe, woe, thrice woe!

    Cheers.

  72. More zonal atmospheric circulation means the global wind patterns are more west /east and less north/south which tends to keep Arctic air locked up in the Arctic.

  73. gbaikie says:

    –Who and since when has a warmer world been desired?–
    Well, Europe and China have a low average temperature, these regions average temperature is about 9 C, and they were a degree or two cooler, so now that they warmer, it is nicer.
    And warmer periods in past generally include adjective of optimal. Cooler periods are associated gloomier adjectives, Little Ice Age, other than including “little” is less nice.

    –Do the 3B people in the tropics want a warmer world?-
    They are in warmer world, and even though they get a fair amount of rainfall, they might want more of it. And if they moved out of tropics, they may not like the cold. Though people spend a lot of time indoors, and that they would need spend more time indoors, is probably what is more of disadvantage, rather than difference of temperature.

    • David Appell says:

      gbaikie says:
      Who and since when has a warmer world been desired?
      Well, Europe and China have a low average temperature, these regions average temperature is about 9 C, and they were a degree or two cooler, so now that they warmer, it is nicer.

      You make value judgements here — “low,” “nicer.” Whose definitions of these terms are you using here? Do you have any evidence that your interpretation of these terms implies all Europeans and Russians and Chinese and Canadians and Americans agree with you?

    • David Appell says:

      Do the 3B people in the tropics want a warmer world?-
      They are in warmer world, and even though they get a fair amount of rainfall, they might want more of it. And if they moved out of tropics, they may not like the cold. Though people spend a lot of time indoors, and that they would need spend more time indoors, is probably what is more of disadvantage, rather than difference of temperature.

      Who elected you to tell us what all these people think?? And how do you know, anyway?

  74. gbaikie says:

    “I would say someone who claims to be skeptical, but without knowing or acknowledging the science.”

    I would say, a requirement for science is willingness to be skeptical. Or skepticism is a requirement for science to exist. And skepticism predates and includes more than being limited to a science or scientific
    matters.

    • David Appell says:

      Scientists are the biggest skeptics in the world. They thrive on skepticism. But intelligent skepticism, of which there is almost zero here.

      • coturnix says:

        I thought they thrive on government grants, given on an implicit but strong condition of studying the dangerous globalimate warmange

        • David Appell says:

          Do you lie and cheat and commit fraud in order to get a higher salary at your job?

          • coturnix says:

            Most people would do it if their boss asked them, which is what the analogy is

          • Mike Flynn says:

            David,

            I haven’t seen any proof that you have not lied, cheated, and committed frauds to get a higher salary.

            Are you a lying, cheating, fraud or not?

            Why would you think anyone would believe you, anyway? Facts are more persuasive than unsubstantial assertions – like the existence of a GHE, or a disprovable GHE hypothesis.

            Carry on with stupid gotchas – it suits you.

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            coturnix says:
            Most people would do it if their boss asked them, which is what the analogy is

            They do??!!

            Maybe you do. What says “most” people would do the same?

            And who says the “bosses” of climate scientists (who are who, exactly?) are asking them to commit fraud?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            DA,

            The self styled “climate scientists”, (no such science, of course – climate is just the average of old numbers), are frauds merely by pretending to be something which they are not. Gavin Schmidt, undistinguished mathematician, for example.

            Cheats. when at least one suggests that the whole bumbling crew should conspire to subvert the scientific peer review process, to prevent being shown up for the hucksters they are.

            Liars by claiming honours they have not earned, or using “tricks” to lie about their inability to honestly present results which don’t support their bizarre claims.

            The “bosses” of this crooked crew don’t need to instruct the recipients of the funding to do anything necessary to keep their snoughts in the bosses’ trough. What possible motive would they have to abandon their rapacious behaviour?

            Keep supporting the unsupportable. Toss a fact or two in, from time to time, if you get sick of “gotchas” and irrelevant ad-homs.

            Cheers.

          • coturnix says:

            Uhmmm…. i believe it is more of a collusion rather than ‘order to tamper with data’, such is the zeitgeist. As for people – yes, people WILL commit crimes if authority tells them to. ever heard of Milgram experiment? i don’t believe that there are people posting on politicized topics who didn’t. Although of course there’s always limits to how much evil a person is ready to do at any point. I don’t think it is a quantifiable information… i mean, in 1933 germans weren’t ready to kill jews – but by 1940 they were.Bu the point is – if somebody either absolves one from responsibility or convinces them that wrong is right, people will commit crimes and other bad things? most of them. They do it all the time on small scale, examples abound.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            coturnix…”i believe it is more of a collusion rather than order to tamper with data…”

            It does seem to be a disillusioned Good Samaritan syndrome, people lying and cheating as a means to an end. They really think they are being helpful for the good of humanity by lying and cheating about science.

            It’s the political correctness that bothers me and the pressure put on other scientists to conform. In the Climategate email scandal, top level IPCC scientists were seen to be colluding with other scientists to influence scientific outcomes.

          • David Appell says:

            coturnix says:
            They do it all the time on small scale, examples aboun

            So all the scientists in the world are in on this fraud, and all the journal editors, and all the national academies of every nation on Earth?

            And they’re all giggling when they get together at the hoax they’ve pulled off?

            If you have evidence of this, please please please call me so I can break the story.

          • coturnix says:

            They’re not giggling, they’re trembling, wfearing of losing their funding. proof? hockey stick.

  75. Gordon Robertson says:

    re Richard Lindzen, a real climate scientist as opposed to the wannabee kinds like the modelers and alarmists.

    A resume of Lindzen’s publications 1965 – 2014:

    https://academictree.org/meteorology/publications.php?pid=287615

  76. gbaikie says:

    Most ancient civilizations were in the tropics, a lot people live in the tropics, despite the tropical land area being small portion of all land area.
    Other than grassland becoming the Sahara desert, in terms of climate, the tropics has remain stable. It is outside of tropics which has greatest changes of temperature and climate.
    You can not have a higher average global temperature without significant warming in polar regions.
    And only way to warm polar regions is by having warmer water get to polar regions.

    A warmer world is a world with a higher ocean surface temperature. Which as said is on average 17 C.
    And to increase this average, requires that water outside tropics become warmer.

    Tropical waters are already warm, and because they are warm, much energy is evaporated by the tropical oceans and this evaporation limits how warm these water can get.

    So a warmer world is not a hotter tropics, rather it is a warmer world outside of the tropics. And it not even a hotter world outside tropics, rather it is more moderate temperature changes with higher average temperature.

    • David Appell says:

      Again, you’re assuming what you think is what everyone else in the world thinks.

      Excuse me if I reject that as patent nonsense. And also as stunningly myopic and selfish.

      • Ken says:

        Cooling would mean a reduction in land available for growing food. Given a choice between eating and not eating I would choose warming. So would most of us.

        • La Pangolina says:

          So I do indeed, Ken.

          But… please manage to keep that nice warming such that the Thermohaline Circulation in the North Atlantic doesn’t get disturbed.

          I wouldn’t appreciate Southern Spain suddenly experiencing siberian winters :-))

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”please manage to keep that nice warming such that the Thermohaline Circulation in the North Atlantic doesnt get disturbed”.

            Nothing to worry about, no significant warming the past 35 years.

          • David Appell says:

            Where’s the data showing that?

    • coturnix says:

      Most ancient civilizations, at least those that went on to contribute a lot to us today, were located in the sub-tropical climate and/or in tropical higland temperate climate – places with either moderate temperatures, or with cool season but without constant winter frosts. But not in hot tropics! the only exception i’m aware of being the mayans; if you know any others, plz name them.

      The tropics do not form small fraction of all land area, the’re actualy quite hefty, taking ~40% of earth surface, and ok, the land are in the tropics is probably smaller as the averaged land is shifted towards the pole, but saying it is a small fraction is simply not correct.

      • gbaikie says:

        “coturnix says:
        June 21, 2018 at 7:01 PM
        Most ancient civilizations, at least those that went on to contribute a lot to us today, were located in the sub-tropical climate and/or in tropical higland temperate climate places with either moderate temperatures, or with cool season but without constant winter frosts. But not in hot tropics! the only exception im aware of being the mayans; if you know any others, plz name them.”

        Not sure what you mean by hot tropics, but you suggested Mayans was hot tropics. So going to first find “mayans” “climate”: wiki:
        “The Maya civilization occupied a wide territory that included southeastern Mexico and northern Central America. This area included the entire Yucatn Peninsula and all of the territory now incorporated into the modern countries of Guatemala and Belize, as well as the western portions of Honduras and El Salvador. Most of the peninsula is formed by a vast plain with few hills or mountains and a generally low coastline”
        So, say Guatemala:
        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/guatemala

        Showing an average temperature of a bit less than 24 C, with mean highs of 29 C and means low of about 18.5

        And Egypt is average of 23.5 C, with mean high of 31 and mean low of 16.5 C:
        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/Egypt
        So has nights a bit cooler
        Looking for hotter I clicked on Yucatn Peninsula:
        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/18.48N-91.27W
        26.5 C average, mean high 32 C and mean low 21.5 C
        Which is roughly, couple degrees hotter.

        How India, Delhi- one oldest most significant:
        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/28.13N-77.27E
        Average: 26 C, mean high 32 and mean low 19 C
        {but that is outside tropics by a bit- and has cooler nights than location I clicked on somewhere in Yucatn Peninsula}
        Babylonian Empire/Mesopotamia
        Or just pick Baghdad, Iraq:
        http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/32.95N-45.00E
        Average 24 C, mean high 31, mean low, 17 C

        • coturnix says:

          Tropics are defined as places where mean monthly temperature never falls below 18C. Neither egypt nor northern india fall into tropics category, they both have cool winters. Arid climates fall in a separate category, as the notion of climate is mostly derived from natural vegetation and deserts have none.

      • gbaikie says:

        The tropics do not form small fraction of all land area, there actualy quite hefty, taking ~40% of earth surface, and ok, the land are in the tropics is probably smaller as the averaged land is shifted towards the pole, but saying it is a small fraction is simply not correct.

        Tropics is 40% and tropics ocean area is about 80% of tropics:
        So 510 million square km divided 40% is 204 million square km of
        Area. And 20% of 204 is 41 million square km of land in tropics.
        Total land area of Earth is about 148, so less than 1/3 and more than 1/4. Canada is 9.985, so tropics is more than 4 Canada and more that twice US and Canada combined total area. But US, Canada, Russia and China is bigger area.
        Probably should said smaller fraction or less than 1/3. US is small fraction and France is a tiny fraction.

  77. gbaikie says:

    Rather than insults, you could provide your view (which probably is generous and all encompassing)

    • David Appell says:

      How large is the insult of assuming what the rest of the world’s people want based no evidence whatever, but only your biases and prejudices?

      • gbaikie says:

        “How large is the insult of assuming what the rest of the world’s people want based no evidence whatever, but only your biases and prejudices?”

        Small?
        If wanted a poll of people living in tropics, you could have asked that:

        “WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although India has emerged as a key player in global climate negotiations, the average Indian remains unaware of climate change. ”
        https://news.gallup.com/poll/125267/indians-largely-unaware-climate-change.aspx

        • Lewis guignard says:

          You might also note that most people move south (in the US) when they can, at retirement. Why, to be warmer? Less taxes? The reasons are many, but relatively few move north – although here in NC we have many half backers – those who moved to Florida, found it too… and moved half back.

          gbaikie: David has little to offer other than pre-adolescent comments, which he hopes are stinging enough to affect those he attacks. (He’s really not that good, lacking the understanding that to insult someone, that someone has to care what the purveyor of insults thinks) He has a very difficult time accepting the fact that there are those who disagree with his conclusions, even seeing the same facts.

          It is the mindset of a true-believer – and no more need be said.
          Which advice I fail to take because I find him entertaining to aggravate.

          • gbaikie says:

            David doesn’t believe that Earth will become like Venus, and such people are the real true believers. But apparently it seems those people are in short supply.

            It seems David think the tropics is going to get really hot, an interesting question is what is the hottest the tropics has ever
            got.
            Hmm what the highest air temperature in tropics.
            “The highest maximum temperature was recorded as 50.7 °C (123.3 °F) at Oodnadatta on 2 January 1960, which is the highest official temperature recorded in Australia. The lowest minimum temperature was −8.0 °C (17.6 °F) at Yongala on 20 July 1976.”
            But that is just outside the tropics: 27.5423° S, 135.4203° E
            And this:
            “Why is the Earth hottest at the tropics, and not at the Equator?
            Short answer: The answer to this question lies in the difference between the heat of dry air and moist air. Sunlight falling on the Equator generates rising air currents that help in the formation of clouds over equatorial regions, which then cause rains and thunderstorms. This is why the areas lying on the Equator experience lower temperatures, and are not the hottest on the planet (contrary to what you might assume about the equatorial regions).”
            https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/why-are-tropical-regions-hotter-than-equatorial-regions.html
            But still, what is hottest in tropics?

            “There are two reasons why tropical weather is different from that at higher latitudes. The sun shines more directly on the tropics than on higher latitudes (at least in the average over a year), which makes the tropics warm (Stevens 2011). And, the vertical direction (up, as one stands on the Earth’s surface) is perpendicular to the Earth’s axis of rotation at the equator, while the axis of rotation and the vertical are the same at the pole; this causes the Earth’s rotation to influence the atmospheric circulation more strongly at high latitudes than low. Because of these two factors, clouds and rain storms in the tropics can occur more spontaneously compared to those at higher latitudes, where they are more tightly controlled by larger-scale forces in the atmosphere. Because of these differences, clouds and rain are more difficult to forecast in the tropics than at higher latitudes. On the other hand, temperature is easily forecast in the tropics, because it doesn’t change much.”
            https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/tropical-weather-84224797

            Hmm, well there there is pretty warm area in India where lots of people live, it is just outside tropics, Delhi. How about what highest temperature recorded in Delhi. Wiki:
            “Summer is certainly not the best time to visit Delhi. It starts in early April and peak in May, with average temperatures near 32 °C although occasional heat waves can result in highs close to 45 °C (114 °F) on some days and therefore higher apparent temperature. The monsoon starts in late June and lasts until mid-September, with about 797.3 mm (31.5 inches)[2] of rain.” and:
            Extreme temperatures have ranged from −2.2 °C to 48.4 °C.

            Over at Berkeley Earth:
            http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/delhi
            The average temperature has increase and yearly is just about 32 C, and since records were keep starting in 1880, the trend has never been below 31 C, with yearly spikes almost getting to 29.5 and as high as almost 33.5 C [looks like around 1988}.

            And if look mean lows, it been a pretty steady rise from 1880, and going from just below 18 C and almost reaching 19.5 [or rise of about 1.5 C} and of course yearly having spikes higher and lower.
            And looking at mean high it’s gone up about .5 C, since 1880, and from 1880 peaked around 1950, fell a bit for 30 year, then rose to highest levels near present time.
            Anyhow 48.4 C in F is 119.12 F which is a pretty warm day.

  78. gbaikie says:

    “And who says the bosses of climate scientists (who are who, exactly?)”

    I remember railroad engineer who was a fairy.
    But good question, I will check to see who is the latest and greatest.

    • David Appell says:

      I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        DA,

        You don’t seem to have much idea about anything, do you?

        Have you thought of asking for answers, or do you prefer to wallow in your swamp of stupidity and ignorance?

        Oink, oink?

        Cheers.

  79. gbaikie says:

    –Hoesung Lee (born December 31, 1945) is a South Korean economist and current chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is professor in the economics of climate change, energy and sustainable development in the Graduate School of Energy, Environment, Policy & Technology at Korea University in the Republic of Korea. Lee received his B.A. in economics from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. in economics from Rutgers University. Lee began his career as an economist working for ExxonMobil.–
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoesung_Lee

    ExxonMobil seems to have a lot of good leadership.

  80. What we have which is great is two competing thoughts on what the direction of the climate will be from now going forward based on completely different theories.

    What makes it even better is nature is cooperating with each of the theories. Low solar for those who believe that one, and increasing CO2 for those who believe AGW theory.

    I say it doesn’t get any better. What the climate does will determine (I would think so DAVID) which side is correct or most correct.

    • Svante says:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:

      “What the climate does will determine which side is correct or most correct.”

      No, you have to work out why.

      You can be quite right about your solar effect even if it is counteracted by something else.

    • RW says:

      Salvatore,

      Dude, you’ve got to stop making predictions already. No one knows what’s going to happen.

      How many times do you have to be wrong to realize you don’t know?

      • RW you like some others have never once listened to what I have said.

        I HAVE NEVER BEEN WRONG.

        Reason being my predictions on global cooling were based on two solar conditions , which have not been present since the DALTON until year 2018. The only wrong was I thought solar activity was going to be much lower then it was from 2010-2017. I was wrong on solar not the climate impacts of low solar.

        LET’S TRY AGAIN.

        I said in order for solar to have a climatic impact sub solar activity has to be present for 10+ years(started in 2005) followed by a period of time with average value solar parameters equal to or greater in degree of magnitude /duration of time which is typically associated with solar minimums between typical sunspot cycles. This has not happened until year 2018.

        The upshot being this is the first time post Dalton that the sun is quiet enough in degree of magnitude /duration of time where it should result in the climate cooling.

        If the climate does not cool from here moving forward then you can say wrong.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore says:
      What the climate does will determine (I would think so DAVID) which side is correct or most correct.

      No, Salvatore, the science is already in — the world will keep warming. But maybe not by next Tuesday.

  81. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html

    MEI INDEX – a very good barometer of what is happening in the tropics is favorable for a slight warming trend or cooling trend within the same climatic regime.

  82. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2018_v6.jpg

    Now when you look at the satellite temperature data versus the MEI INDEX the correlation is quite strong.

    MEI INDEX AVGERAE FROM YEARS 2010-2013 = -.2732 slightly cool trend

    MEI INDEX AVERAGE FROM YEARS 2014-2017 = +.883 warming trend.

    ALL OTHER ITEMS BENG EQUAL WHICH COULD EFFECT THE CLIMATE.

  83. Harry Cummings says:

    Dr Spencer
    I spend 3 or 4 months a year at my holiday home in the south of France and know well the pleasures of spending time there. I wouldnt get to depressed with an elderly physicist having a crack about climate deniers dying out with the baby boomers, baby boomers have no intention of dying out

    Talking to my childrens friends I have also noticed a bit of a back lash against the climate religion in the under 25s starting to apear so we will have to see where it goes

    Regards

    • La Pangolina says:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      June 21, 2018 at 2:14 PM

      Sorry Salvatore, but as so often you are simply wrong.

      Here are graphs comparing the seasonal behavior for Arctic sea ice extent, area and thickness (volume).

      1. Arctic sea ice extent (15+ % ice)
      http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529620061870/001.jpg

      2. Arctic sea ice area (pack ice)
      http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529620180943/001.jpg

      3. Arctic sea ice volume
      http://4gp.me/bbtc/152961895868.jpg

      As you can see, only the volume shows less decrease compared to extent and area. But there is no increase whatsoever.

      Sources

      1,2: SIDADS by Colorado University, Boulder
      ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/

      3: DMI
      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt

      • Your in denial. Fine.

      • Why are you always reflecting in the past?

        You do not even look at the present much less the future.

      • La Pangolina says:

        Salvatore Del Prete says:
        June 21, 2018 at 5:12 PM

        Why are you always reflecting in the past?

        Which past do you mean? Please compare 2018 and 2017, from January till May.

        1. SIDADS, Column 3: extent, 4: area, in MKm2 each

        2017 | 1 | 13.17 | 11.30
        2017 | 2 | 14.11 | 12.25
        2017 | 3 | 14.27 | 12.56
        2017 | 4 | 13.76 | 12.23
        2017 | 5 | 12.62 | 10.95
        2017 | 6 | 10.72 | 8.56
        2017 | 7 | 7.90 | 5.61
        2017 | 8 | 5.47 | 3.61
        2017 | 9 | 4.80 | 3.30
        2017 | 10 | 6.71 | 5.24
        2017 | 11 | 9.46 | 8.02
        2017 | 12 | 11.75 | 10.22

        2018 | 1 | 13.06 | 11.64
        2018 | 2 | 13.95 | 12.22
        2018 | 3 | 14.30 | 12.61
        2018 | 4 | 13.71 | 12.25
        2018 | 5 | 12.21 | 10.77

        No real increase here.

        2. DMI, column 3: volume, im MKm3

        2017 | 1 | 18.21
        2017 | 2 | 20.13
        2017 | 3 | 21.97
        2017 | 4 | 22.80
        2017 | 5 | 21.99
        2017 | 6 | 18.05
        2017 | 7 | 10.00
        2017 | 8 | 6.11
        2017 | 9 | 6.20
        2017 | 10 | 9.42
        2017 | 11 | 13.16
        2017 | 12 | 16.30

        2018 | 1 | 18.90
        2018 | 2 | 20.89
        2018 | 3 | 22.73
        2018 | 4 | 24.12
        2018 | 5 | 23.78

        Here indeed, there is a little increase. All months in 2018 show an increased volume compared with the same months in 2017.

        That was clearly visible in my DMI graph above.

        No, Salvatore: I am not in any denial. Data is data.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”Sorry Salvatore, but as so often you are simply wrong.

        Here are graphs comparing the seasonal behavior for Arctic sea ice extent, area and thickness (volume)”.

        More home made Excel graphs by binny.

    • The data shows this year Arctic Ice is higher then the recent past and the trend is increasing.

  84. Svante says:

    Yes, if that graph you linked is viewed upside down.

  85. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    The use of the word collapse.
    In my opinion it is a building crumpling by an earthquake, something that takes seconds or may be an hour.
    You should not use that word for anything that just melts away over thousinds of years.
    In that use of the word, NYC will also collapse.
    I fact anything might collapse in some time.

  86. La Pangolina says:

    Mike Flynn says:
    June 20, 2018 at 6:14 PM

    Unfortunately for such as yourself, CO2 only absorbs around 1800 times as much IR as oxygen and nitrogen, but there is more than 1800 times as much oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere.

    *

    CO2 indeed is much rarer than O2 and N2, namely by an average factor of about 2,500. But it absorbs in comparison by far more than the two.

    According to

    http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php

    you see here a few plots showing how their respective absorp-tion differ (I included H2O, because this trace gas actually still is, as you know, most relevant).

    All plots were generated with scaling by atmospheric abundance.

    1. H2O

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529614507914.jpg

    2. CO2

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529613085873.jpg

    3. O2

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529613182612.jpg

    4. N2

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/152961327346.jpg

    You clearly see the highly different absorp-tion levels.

    • La Pangolina says:

      As you easily can see, the scaling intensities stored in the HITRAN database are, in the mean, as follows (in cm-1/cm):

      – H2O: 0.005 i.e 5E-3
      – CO2: 0.0005 i.e. 5E-4
      – O2: 5E-10
      – N2: 3E-13

      This means that CO2 absorbs about :

      – 1E6 (one million times) more then O2
      and
      – 1.7E9 (nearly two billion times) more than N2.

      *

      But I wouldnt wonder about you silently discarding this comparison, and endlessly repeating your elder nonsense.

      Feel free to do, Flynn! I’m completely indifferent to that.

      • Norman says:

        La Pangolina

        Thank you for making up and posting the graphs of gas absorb(tion) at atmospheric abundance. I was trying to do just that but was not quite able to make it work. Someday Mike Flynn might start to think. We can only hope. But not this day! Not this day! (Borrowed from Lord of the Rings).

        • La Pangolina says:

          Norman says:
          June 21, 2018 at 4:36 PM

          I was trying to do just that but was not quite able to make it work.

          Oh it is quite simple: you just need to choose scaling by ‘atmospheric abundance’ instead of by ‘raw intensity’.

          Below 5 microns, O2 absorbs quite a lot, but that takes place in the mesosphere, about 80 km above surface.

          N2 is nearly inert.

          A clear hint to alarmists is that within the atmospheric window where Earth’s IR peaks, no trace gas shows any relevant presence.

          If that was not the case, we certainly wouldn’t be here to discuss the point.

    • gbaikie says:

      Most radiation is going at about 30 degree angle or less, is factor somehow included in these calculations?

      • La Pangolina says:

        The problem with people like you, gbaikie, is that if you have a thought, you automatically assume that nobody on earth has ever had it before.

      • David Appell says:

        That radiation at 30 degrees cancels by symmetry. So does any radiation at any angle except the normal. At least in the ideal case. Climate models account for horizontal movement though, I think.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”you see here a few plots showing how their respective absorp-tion differ ”

      More home-made graphs from uber-alarmist Bindidon.

  87. Mike Flynn says:

    LaP,

    Infrared is all light with wavelengths longer than visible light. You are just being silly when you talk about ab.sorp.tion without considering total energy ab.sorp.tion, or, indeed, what happens to the energy after it has been absor.bed!

    Part 1.

  88. Mike Flynn says:

    LaP,

    Your graphs, like most of the irrelevant diversionary nonsense you post, are meaningless in the context of the non-existent GHE. If you think that the GHE exists, you should be able to describe it, but of course describing the non-existent is in the realms of fantasy.

    So, maybe you could address what I said, rather than misrepresenting my statements into something of your own desire.

    Part2

  89. Mike Flynn says:

    LaP,

    So, maybe you could address what I said, rather than misrepresenting my statements into something of your own desire.

    As I point out, reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. If around 30% of the total energy from the Sun does not reach the surface, claiming that the proportions due to a particular component makes a difference is completely pointless.

    Part3

  90. Mike Flynn says:

    LaP,

    Maybe you should figure out a GHE definition – then you might be able to sound less stupid and ignorant than you do at present. I am sure you are indifferent to inconvenient fact – but that is your choice.

    Part4

  91. Mike Flynn says:

    LaP,

    No GHE, no disprovable GHE hypothesis – just endless assertions that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes thermometers hotter – due to some form of climatological magic!

    Don’t bother trying to think – it might give you a headache.

    Cheers.

  92. Mike Flynn says:

    Phew!

    And I still don’t know what the problem was!

    Cheers.

    • La Pangolina says:

      Ask your Schäferhund, Flynn! It might teach you pretty good about useless redundancy.

  93. La Pangolina says:

    JDHuffman says:
    June 21, 2018 at 10:56 AM

    Anonymous Norman, now you are trying to twist around the challenge presented by Mike Flynn.

    Challenge? Which challenge, Huffman?

    Flynn manifestly refers to values observed 150 years ago, and has been contradicted often enough concerning that.

    John Tyndall was a marvellous scientist, I love to read his lectures again and again:

    https://archive.org/download/cu31924012337741/cu31924012337741.pdf

    But the technical support he used for his observations lacked the accuracy of today’s techniques, whose development started in the 1940’s, probably due to USAF’s interest in IR detection.

    *

    By the way let me add that your repeated complain about Norman’s wish to keep anonymous is very interesting, Huffman.

    Simply because you seem to be blind on the ‘right’ eye, as you never complain about other people keeping anonymous as well, e.g. ‘Phil’, ‘Skeptic Gone Wild’, ‘Bart’, ‘gbaikie’, ‘Laura’, ‘John’, etc etc etc.

    Very interesting.

    • JDHuffman says:

      La Pangolina, before you puke all over yourself again, perhaps you should clean up the mess you left here:

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-308580

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”But the technical support h [Tyndall] used for his observations lacked the accuracy of todays techniques, whose development started in the 1940s, probably due to USAFs interest in IR detection”.

      Then there’s the eminent scientist/researcher R. W. Wood, with such expertise in IR theory that Neils Bohr consulted him.

      Wood could not see IR warming the atmosphere as claimed, he thought it far more likely that the atmosphere absorbed heat directly from the surface and retained it over some time because gases like N2/O2 are poor emitters.

      That statement came from him well after Tyndall’s experiments, after quantum theory was established.

  94. Mike Flynn says:

    LaP,

    And you still cannot describe your non-existent GHE, can you?

    As to John Tyndall, he estimated the total attenuation of the Sun’s energy by the atmosphere to be around 35%. Go on, tell me how incorrect his figure was. Use your latest technological miracles – consult your graphs and models as much as you like.

    Still believe that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it hotter?

    Or does CO2 have magical properties?

    No GHE. No disprovable GHE hypothesis.

    Off you go now, buy more brightly coloured markers. Have fun!

    Cheers.

  95. Norman says:

    JDHuffman

    Above you posted this about sea level rise.

    YOU: “Anonymous Norman, I did not misread the ballpark calculation. It was you that wasnt able to figure out my comment.

    Over the industrial era, even if you believe the ballpark, the SLR would be affected by millimeters.

    Then, if you add in the other factors, the result is even greater.

    Zealots do not like facts that counter their beliefs, but if all of Earths land were leveled, sea levels would be over 1 mile above the land.”

    I did some more research on the topic.

    Here is the data based upon better science tools.
    http://re.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Long%20term%20stability%20of%20global%20erosion%20rates.pdf

    Using this source you can look at page 212 graph d. It is the sedimentation rates over long periods.

    The come up with modern sedimentation at around 20 meters/million years.

    If you convert this to millimeters/year

    20 meters x 1000 = 20,000 millimeters.
    20,000 millimeters/1,000,000 years gives a rate = 0.02 millimeters/year.

    The current rate of SLR is 1.8 millimeters/year. So sedimentation would contribute about 1% of SLR. You would still need to look for the cause of the other 99%.

    • JDhuffman says:

      Anonymous Norman, don’t you owe me an answer as to why you believe Gordon is wrong?

      Do I need to supply the link for you?

      Also, it does not help you to deny the many other major contributors to SLR.

      But, deny you must.

      • Norman says:

        JDHuffman

        So what are the many other “major” contributors to SLR that you believe I am denying? Help me out, given me some data. A cryptic post does not supply the information you are claiming I am denying.

        YOU: “Anonymous Norman, dont you owe me an answer as to why you believe Gordon is wrong?”

        Experimental evidence is the answer. Actual tests that have been performed by many people over years. That is an answer in my own words. It should satisfy your request.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          N,

          The continents are bobbing up and down. So are the sea beds. The crust is in constant motion. The shape of the ocean basins is constantly changing, as is their volume.

          You would have to deny this, otherwise you couldn’t claim that sea level measurements had any relevance to ocean volume.

          You would also have to deny that it is not possible for heat to migrate from the surface to the depths.

          Heated water does’t sink, it rises. Go ahead, deny all you want. The water doesn’t care.

          Deny furiously. . Maybe you can deny a GHE into existence, but I doubt it.

          Cheers.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Hiding Norman says: “Experimental evidence is the answer. Actual tests that have been performed by many people over years. That is an answer in my own words.”

          Norman, you hide your answer as well as you hide your identity.

          And, you don’t seem to like cryptic answers.

          Interesting, isn”t it?

        • Norman says:

          Mike Flynn

          What you state is true about tectonics. What you fail to address is how slow of a process this is. Also you fail to point out if one plate is rising is another sinking? If this be the case the net effect on SL is insignificant

          I do know you are wrong about heat getting to the depths. Lakes will overturn based upon surface winds. The whole lake slowly rotates, the warmer surface water is forced down and the colder water near the bottom is forced up. The process also brings nutrients and oxygen to the lower layers.

          It will not occur in really deep water, the really deep ocean is not warming much as far as I have read. The big warming is taking place in a few hundred meters down.

  96. Myki says:

    Meanwhile,
    the NINO3.4 index has gone positive for the first time in about 12 months while the SOI has dropped into negative territory. These facts indicate a tendency towards El Nino conditions.
    Importantly, now is the time of year where such ENSO transitions tend to occur. I would bet on an El Nino by the end of the year.

    • El Nino is a naturally climatic event has nothing to do with AGW, or changing the climate to another regime.

      What is much more important are the overall sea surface temperatures in particularly the North Atlantic which can change the climate into another climatic regime.

      • Myki says:

        “El Nino is a naturally climatic event has nothing to do with AGW, or changing the climate to another regime.”
        Of course. But it does mean another record global mean temperature record is on the cards.

        “What is much more important are the overall sea surface temperatures in particularly the North Atlantic which can change the climate into another climatic regime.”
        I don’t think so. Why would such a relatively small region affect global climate?
        I think you are dreaming.

      • David Appell says:

        Salvatore, why do El Nino years keep getting warmer, La Nina years keep getting warmer, and neutral years keep getting warmer?

        All while the ocean — the entire ocean — gets warmer too.

  97. Crakar24 says:

    I asked a catastrafarian friend of mine to explain the GHE, they replied by saying “the heat from the sun warms the surface but when the heat rises to leave it gets blocked by the blanket of CO2”.

    I replied by asking if CO2 blocks the heat then how does the heat get in to warm the surface in the first instance, surely if we increase CO2 it should get colder?

    They mumbled something about me being a denier as they walked away.

    In short none of the catastrafarians here can answer MF’s repeatedly asked question because they dont know the answer and yet they are prepared to die in a ditch over it. Belief is a very powerful tool used to control the masses even more powerful if the masses dont know they are being controlled.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      crakar…”…when the heat rises to leave it gets blocked by the blanket of CO2…”

      Since heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, and requires atoms to exist, next time you might ask them how atoms can act as a blanket to block atoms.

      If heat rose as atoms via convection, it would simply push the cooler GHGs out of the way.

      Then ask them if they are not talking about electromagnetic energy (IR), which is not heat.

    • Mike Flynn says:

      C,

      You are right, of course. No logical GHE explanation, no disprovable hypothesis. Just a never ending stream of appeals to authority, irrelevant and meaningless analogies, ad hominem attacks, implied ant-Semitism embodied in references to the Holocaust and denial [thereof].

      The basis of the GHE true believers seems to be that CO2 makes thermometers hotter through the miracle of cooling – all according to the gospel of prophets such as Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and a staggeringly incompetent assortment of even lesser lights.

      Luckily, cults tend to wither and die, as potential members look for newer sources of self delusion and self gratification. I look forward with interest to the next popular delusion.

      Cheers.

    • La Pangolina says:

      Crakar24 says:
      June 21, 2018 at 8:55 PM

      I replied by asking if CO2 blocks the heat then how does the heat get in to warm the surface in the first instance, surely if we increase CO2 it should get colder?

      Not quite, Crakar.

      Your catastroficarians speak about outgoing radiation emitted by Earth in the far IR range above 5 microns (Earth’s radiation peaks at around 10 microns).

      But you speak about incoming radiation emitted by the Sun in UV, visible light and near IR below 5 microns.

      And yes: there are really CO2 absorp-tion bands in the near IR below 5 microns, even bypassing in the intensity the traditionally known 15 micron band.

      But this absorp-tion mainly takes place at very high altitudes in the mesosphere (around 80 km, below the thermosphere).

    • Mike Flynn says:

      LaP,

      Not quite, you say.

      Not quite what? You do not have a clue, do you?

      Describe the GHE, and let people decide?

      But of course you can’t, so you just string some pointless and irrelevant sciency words together.

      Something along the lines of –

      Roses are red, violets are blue,
      Hansen’s deluded,
      And so, dear,
      Are you.

      Completely pointless, even if true. Time to dip into your endless supply of irrelevant brightly coloured graphs, do you think?

      Cheers.

      • La Pangolina says:

        As usual: Flynn’s dumb, agresssive nonsensical blah blah.
        His dog probably barks more intelligent than he writes.

    • David Appell says:

      Crakar24 says:
      I replied by asking if CO2 blocks the heat then how does the heat get in to warm the surface in the first instance, surely if we increase CO2 it should get colder?

      In other words, you don’t the first thing about the GHE and can’t even be bothered to read Wikipedia.

      Your comment privileges here are suspended until you go learn something.

  98. Gordon Robertson says:

    Thinking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and what it means. Doesn’t make sense as presented by many modernists.

    The law is actually Stefan’s Law…. q = sigma.T^4

    Boltzmann was Stefan’s first Ph.D student and the latter set out to confirm the law using Maxwell’s theory that EM exerted pressure on a surface.

    Stefan built on work done by Tyndall. The latter heated a platinum wire with an electric current then directed the radiation from the wire through the familiar apparatus he used to discover gases like CO2 could absorb IR.

    The IR passes through a sealed tube with halite windows and is directed onto one side of a thermopile, a device that outputs a voltage when heated. The other face of the thermopile receives EM from a reference heat source and the electrical outputs of the thermopile are run to a galvanometer.

    A galvanometer is a voltmeter with the dial pointer in mid range. If there is a difference between inputs it indicates the difference by pointing to one side or the other. Therefore it compares in a relative manner the reference heat source EM to the platinum wire EM.

    Tyndall heated the platinum wire till it barely glowed red, then he noted the deflection in the meter. He kept raising the current through the wire, hence the temperature, and noted the various colours as the wire changed. He increased the current in steps till the wire glowed white hot, noting the RELATIVE displacements due to each setting.

    Later, Wullnet discovered the work of Tyndall and approximated temperature for the red colour and the white hot colour as 525C and 1200C. Stefan took those figures and converted them to Kelvin as 798K and 1473K. He took the ratio, 1473K/798K = 1.846 and he discovered that raising that to the 4th power gave the value 11.6. That value coincided with a number derived earlier by other researchers who had observed radiation changing with temperature as a body cooled.

    So, Stefan knew that heat dissipation from the platinum wire was related between the temperatures 798K and 1473K by the power of 4.

    https://home.iitm.ac.in/arunn/stefan-and-the-t-to-the-fourth-power-law.html

    I am not questioning the work of Stefan, I fail to get the meaning applied to it by modern alarmists. It is blatantly obvious that the equation applies only to heat being transferred from hot to cold and not to a net energy flow nor net heat transfer. Work that preceded Stefan was actually measuring cooling of a body, which I call heat dissipation.

    Stefan also discovered that atmospheric air conducts heat, an apparent triviality to warming alarmists.

    The point is, the equation measures heat dissipation, not EM. In the days of Stefan, they had no idea what EM was about even though Maxwell had extended the magnetic theories of Faraday et al into generalized equation for electromagnetic energy.

    As brilliant as Maxwell’s work turned out to be, he apparently had no idea what EM was about either. None of them did, Tyndall, Clausius, Faraday, Stefan, Boltzmann, or Planck. They were working in the dark as to the reality of EM. It appears many modern alarmists are stuck in that same darkness.

    It’s time to get out of that dark place and discover what EM is and what it is not. There’s a reason for the 2nd law and entropy and EM cannot contradict those theories while transferring energy. There is no net energy EM flow nor is there a neat heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures.

    Heat can only be transferred from hot to cold without compensation. There is no way around that.

    • Myki says:

      Sigh! What a load of codswallop.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Myki…”Sigh! What a load of codswallop”.

        Why not try some real science and try an intelligent response to what I have revealed? Thus far, all you have offered is inane comments on alleged record temperatures globally.

        If you have a problem with my conclusions on the Stefan equation then lets hear them rather than hiding behind ad homs.

    • David Appell says:

      Planck didn’t know about EM? That’s absolute crap.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Planck didnt know about EM?”

        In his book on heat, Planck used the term heat rays to describe EM. I’m sure he had heard of it in relation to the analysis of Maxwell, but that was mainly about EM related to Faraday’s theories on induction.

        It was not till 1913, when Bohr proposed that electrons in atoms converted heat to EM and back that anyone knew anything about how EM works. Planck later admitted that had he studied electron theory, which he ignored while developing his quanta theory and which was just emerging at the time, it would have been much easier to develop his theory.

        As it stood, Planck was forced to use Boltzmann’s statistical methods based on fictitious photon gases to reach his findings on quanta. Therefore he knew nothing about EM and how it worked. He did know enough to treat his ‘heat rays’ as individual harmonic oscillators, therefore he knew something was afoot regarding frequency bandwidth.

        He could not explain, however, how heat as the kinetic energy of atoms could suddenly have individual frequencies. He thought there was an aether transporting heat through space.

        When Bohr brought out his theory relating EM to electrons, not everyone greeted his findings with glee. He was seriously resisted in places and it seems modernists like you are still resisting his theory. It appears Norman will never come to terms with it and the limitations of EM wrt heat transfer.

        • David Appell says:

          More crap.

          Heat waves are EM.
          Maxwell figured out the classical equations of electrodynamics in the 19th century.
          Planck proposed E=hf in 1900.
          Einstein proved in in a 1905 paper.

          • Ball4 says:

            Gordon again misquotes the masters, here’s what Planck wrote 1912 p.3 up front:

            “The term “heat radiation,” then, will be applied to all physical phenomena of the same nature as light rays. Every light ray is simultaneously a heat ray. We shall also, for the sake of brevity, occasionally speak of the “color” of a heat ray in order to denote its wave length or period.”

  99. Mike Flynn says:

    Myki,

    Sigh! Sigh again!

    Can you prove you are not stupid and ignorant?

    Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Mike…”Myki,

      Sigh! Sigh again!

      Can you prove you are not stupid and ignorant?”

      **********

      What kind of a nym is Myki? Sounds like a nym for Michael, which should make him/her/it a man. However, the spelling of the nym, which is overly cute, suggests Myki is a female.

      Same with Binny, aka La Pangolina. We got to know binny as Bindidon but then he(apparently) got in a snit and announced he was leaving. A few days later La Pangolina emerges, same attitude, same memory of past insults, same MO in general. However, this time La P admits to being Rose, a female and that binny is her friend.

      I have no problem with binny being a female but I have to wonder about the impersonation. Of course, that raises problems for me. I don’t call women idiots and I have called binny an idiot on several occasions.

  100. Crakar24 says:

    Gorden’s problem is he speaks from the perspective of an electrical engineer after completing a 4 year degree and many years of field experience.

    If he had simply completed a 3 year degree in computer modelling over a 6 year period via distant learning he could have created a computer model disproving the abuse of science by alarmists and they would gave begrudgingly accepted his POV or perhaps not but he would have no doubt avoided the troll myki

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      crakar…”If he had simply completed a 3 year degree in computer modelling…”

      Or like Gavin Schmidt, head of GISS, who got a degree in math then took a course in atmospheric physics and got thrust forward by other alarmists as an expert in physics. There are far too many so-called experts these days who have not put in the time to really understand the basics.

      Or Michael Mann, a geologist, who fancies himself as an expert in climate.

      • David Appell says:

        Funny – Gordon has a degree (does he?) in electric circuits, yet consider himself an expert in climate science and physics.

        Yet these two PhDs in the hard scientists aren’t qualified. (Mann’s PhD is in geophysics.)

        Meanwhile Gordon has no problem quoting a geophysicist when it suits his purposes:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        May 9, 2018 at 5:53 PM
        “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.”
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-301509

        Gordon is a hypocrite.

  101. Crakar24 says:

    Anyway moving on most catastrafarians normally only have one pea rattling around in their cavenous skull. Now and again you meet a catastrafarian who asks the question if heat from the sun does not warm the earth then what does. At this point I begin explaining the properties of electro magnetic radiation unfortunately I have never meet one with three peas

  102. Crakar24 says:

    Lap, firstly I was explaining just how dim witted the general public are secondly the thermosphere is very hot and your statement whilst maybe true does not explain the GHE

    • La Pangolina says:

      Crakar24 says:
      June 22, 2018 at 4:40 AM

      … secondly the thermosphere is very hot and your statement whilst maybe true does not explain the GHE.

      But I never tried to explain the GHE with naer IR absorp-tion by CO2!

      I mentioned this only to anticipate reactions like ‘never heard of near IR absorp-tion by CO2?’.

  103. Crakar24 says:

    Lap,

    In an effort to encourage let me make it easy for you. You believe visible light from the sun warms the surface and in response the surface cools by emitting ir radiation. This ir gets absorbed by the ‘blankets of ghg’s” and is re emitted back to the surface to add to the warming that no longer exists thus causing the temp to rise.

    However, when the “blanket” re emits the ir what is stopping say h2o from absorbing the ir not the surface and re emitting it to space?

    Take your time mate I have all night

    • La Pangolina says:

      Crakar24 says:
      June 22, 2018 at 4:58 AM

      However, when the ‘blanket’ re emits the ir what is stopping say h2o from absorbing the ir not the surface and re emitting it to space?

      But Crakar… what you write is exactly what happens countless times.

      H2O and CO2 molecules (together with tiny amounts of CH4 and other trace gases) absorb IR and reemit it in all directions.

      Say half up, half down to make it simple.

      This process is repeated until IR radiation either reaches surface or exits out to space.

      Luckily for the ‘system Earth’, its IR frequency peaks at around 10 microns, and there nearly no absorp-tion takes place, as no gas shows bands around this peak frequency.

      This is the so-called atmospheric window (8-12 microns).

      Suppose there would be no trace gases absorbing and reemitting IR at all: the atmospheric window then would encompass the entire IR range, and nearly 100 % of the IR emitted by Earth would reach outer space directly, as N2, O2 and Ar absorb IR millions of times less than the trace gases.

  104. gbaikie says:

    “Luckily for the ‘system Earth’, its IR frequency peaks at around 10 microns, and there nearly no absorp-tion takes place, as no gas shows bands around this peak frequency.”

    What if not, lucky.
    And is there a unlucky temperature for a planet.
    Or you say no gas, how how about things not gas which can float in the atmosphere- dust, virus, pollen, water droplets, etc.

    “Suppose there would be no trace gases absorbing and reemitting IR at all: the atmospheric window then would encompass the entire IR range, and nearly 100 % of the IR emitted by Earth would reach outer space directly, as N2, O2 and Ar absorb IR millions of times less than the trace gases.”

    But the N2, O2 and Ar would still be warmed by the surface. And if air is warm, then I am kept warm, except if there no water vapor {very, very dry air}, then one cools from evaporation and would get very dry skin.
    We are comprised of 70% water, evolved to live on this water planet, and human body largely controls it’s temperature by the skin evaporating water.

    • La Pangolina says:

      gbaikie says:
      June 22, 2018 at 7:05 AM

      But the N2, O2 and Ar would still be warmed by the surface.

      *

      No. Air is – at Earth’s average surface temperature – a very good insulator. Air does not conduct heat at 15 °C! If it did, nobody could use it for insulation purposes.

      You are so good in googling! Search for a table showing you conduction ability of various materials at room temperature.

      *

      We are comprised of 70% water, evolved to live on this water planet, and human body largely controls it’s temperature by the skin evaporating water.

      gbaikie, you did not understand what I mean: water vapor is the main trace gas on Earth.

      If there is NO water vapor and no CO2 AT ALL, Earth’s radiation exits immediately to space, as N2, O2 and Ar do not react to it.

      What, do you think, will then be the average temperature on Earth in such a situation?

      • gbaikie says:

        “gbaikie, you did not understand what I mean: water vapor is the main trace gas on Earth.

        If there is NO water vapor and no CO2 AT ALL, Earths radiation exits immediately to space, as N2, O2 and Ar do not react to it.

        What, do you think, will then be the average temperature on Earth in such a situation?”

        I sort of answered this with Phil.
        Earth can’t any H20 on surface anywhere without having water vapor.
        Mars has very little H20 at suface and it’s about minus 50 to 60 C and it has 210 parts per million of water vapor in atmosphere. And most of water at surface is in polar regions which are always much colder than Mars average temperature [partly due to CO2 ice and H20 evaporating during summer and whatever temperature either evaporate at creates/affects air temperature.
        Or without any partial pressure of water vapor, H20 evaporates at about 100 K [-171 C], though it is slow, or ice doesn’t remain a solid at temperature of 100 K over period of millions of years, as get warmer than it last for much shorter time periods].

        So you want something drier than Mars [and Mars is extremely dry and cold] so obviously no liquid water or frozen water anywhere on Earth surface, but we have atmosphere, and any atmosphere has a warming effect. Or if add more atmosphere to Mars it will get warmer, but for humans or human use it actually gets colder, because more atmosphere has more convectional heat loss [and Mars with thin atmosphere does not cool much even if -100 C] So if added more atmosphere to Mars to make it have average temp of -40 C, then that would be colder for human purposes- such purposes as, living].

        So super dry earth and no CO2. Is fairly easy, just remove water and any left over CO2 would mostly freeze out at poles. And average temperature will be about 0 C [warmer days and colder nights] and poles could be cold enough to freeze out CO2. Or another problem with adding atmosphere to Mars, is more CO2 would freeze out at the poles and Mars has 25 trillion tonnes of CO2 to freeze. Now one collect the frozen CO2 at Earth poles, and should get rid of it, because if left at poles, during summer it could evaporate and act as warming effect on Earth, as it acts as warming effect on Mars.

        • gbaikie says:

          “And average temperature will be about 0 C” [at or near tropics]

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          gbaikie…”If there is NO water vapor and no CO2 AT ALL, Earths radiation exits immediately to space, as N2, O2 and Ar do not react to it”.

          They can divert it, as in scattering. Gerlich and Tscheuschner pointed out in their paper condemning the GHE and AGW that surface radiation is not a simple surface to TOA matter. It involves a complex process requiring Feynman diagrams.

          Wood, an expert on IR, claimed surface radiation would become ineffective after a few feet due to inverse square law losses. One has to question the field strength of any ‘surface’ radiation reaching TOA. Lindzen seems to think TOA radiation gets there by other means, involving convection.

          • David Appell says:

            Wood, an expert on IR, claimed surface radiation would become ineffective after a few feet due to inverse square law losses.

            Once you correct for solar insolation (S/4), the Earth is essentially a flat surface. There are no inverse square laws involved — all radiation adds up to being vertical.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            It involves a complex process requiring Feynman diagrams.

            Another howler. The QED corrections to electron-photon scattering or ab.sorp.tion, or photon-photon scattering are not needed for climate science.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Since you make up most content of your posts. I am pulling out the BS flag on your latest post.

            Either supply a direct quote or lay off.

            YOU: “Wood, an expert on IR, claimed surface radiation would become ineffective after a few feet due to inverse square law losses.”

            Provide evidence he said such a thing!

          • David Appell says:

            Wood, an expert on IR, claimed surface radiation would become ineffective after a few feet due to inverse square law losses.

            If he did say that — and I’d also like to see where — it shows how inadequate his model was. It’s like the saturation argument by Kurt Angstrom. It’s wrong because it only considers radiation from the surface, not from the atmosphere.

            The atmosphere just a few feet above the surface doesn’t just ab.sorp upwelling IR, it also radiates IR both upward and downward. Wood & Angstrom didn’t take either of these radiations into account.

            This is why Beers’ Law doesn’t work when calculating global warming — it too doesn’t account for the radiating atmosphere. You need to use the Schwarzschild equations (1906), which do take the radiating atmosphere into account. The results are significantly different.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”No. Air is at Earths average surface temperature a very good insulator. Air does not conduct heat at 15 °C! If it did, nobody could use it for insulation purposes”.

        Stefan, of Stefan-Boltzmann fame calculated the conductance factor for air. It is a conductor of heat, even at 15C. Not a great conductor, like copper, but air does conduct heat.

        Conductance refers to a molecule to molecule transfer of heat but the very fact that air molecules contact our skin means it will conduct heat air molecule to skin molecule, and that conduction is very good. In fact, it’s instantaneous.

        This article has a table showing the heat conduction of materials. You can see that gases in general have low heat conductance, which is expected due to the inter-atomic distances. Air is in the 0.02 W/mK region (25C) whereas copper is 401 W/mK.

        https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html

        I think it’s worth keeping in mind that even though air is a poor conductor of heat there is a whole lot of it. It may take time, but it could conduct away a significant quantity of heat from the surface without convection.

    • phi says:

      gbaikie,
      And if air is warm, then I am kept warm

      Not really. The atmosphere would indeed be very hot but with a thin boundary layer at its base in very strong inversion. The surface would inevitably be cold.

  105. Crakar24 says:

    Yes we know all that lap, but there is no heat generated in the absorbing and emitting process which unfortunately leaves you right back at square one without a ghe explanation

    • La Pangolina says:

      Crakar24 says:
      June 22, 2018 at 7:59 AM

      Yes we know all that lap

      WOW!

      Then if you know that all, Crakar, you will certainly be able to calculate the average temperature at Earth’s surface in case of the absence of any water vapor, carbon dioxide or any other absorbing gas in the atmosphere.

      I await your response right here with greatest pleasure.

      • JDHuffman says:

        La Pangolina, you need to learn to pose your thought experiments to fit reality, not your beliefs.

        For example, if you believed you could fly, all you would need to do was just propose a thought experiment without Earth’s gravity.

        That’s NOT science.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          JD…”La Pangolina, you need to learn to pose your thought experiments to fit reality, not your beliefs.

          For example, if you believed you could fly, all you would need to do was just propose a thought experiment without Earths gravity”.

          Aha…but suppose she believed she could fly and everyone around her agreed she could fly? Suppose 97% of scientists believed she could fly? Then there would be little doubt in binny’s mind that she could fly.

          Bingo! The AGW theory.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        binny…”you will certainly be able to calculate the average temperature at Earths surface in case of the absence of any water vapor, carbon dioxide or any other absorbing gas…”

        I’ll take a stab at that. It would be about the same as it is now, maybe a few hundredths C difference.

  106. jimc says:

    “The problem with Mr. Hansen’s models—and the U.N.’s—is that they don’t consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases. Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures. The most recent of these was published in April by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.

    “These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?

    “On the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s galvanizing testimony, it’s time to acknowledge that the rapid warming he predicted isn’t happening. Climate researchers and policy makers should adopt the more modest forecasts that are consistent with observed temperatures.

    “That would be a lukewarm policy, consistent with a lukewarming planet.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442

    • David Appell says:

      Yes, everyone knows that air pollution has a global cooling effect.

      So what happens when there’s not some much air pollution anymore, when China and India’s economy grows to the point that they can, like the US and Europe did in the 1960s-1970s, clean up their air. In fact, China is trying to do that right now.

      Using aerosol cooling as a means to disparage Hansen’s model is disingenuous.

      • JDHuffman says:

        David Appell now fears clean air.

        His type has to fear something.

      • jimc says:

        Ah, I see David. Hanson is right even when he’s wrong. And the article is disingenuous for pointing out one of his errors. And we should go ahead with massive economic dislocations anyway?

        • David Appell says:

          Hansen’s model only included volcanic aerosols, not those from air pollution. Because no one was measuring them so no one knew what they were. If you’re going to judge a model, you have to think about what it was made for. No climate model is made to predict the future — that’s impossible. For the GHGs — the most important part — Hansen’s model was pretty good, certainly good enough to show there was and is a significant GHG problem.

      • gbaikie says:

        “In fact, China is trying to do that right now.”

        Key word is trying.
        That David thinks government can clean up air is amusing.

  107. Crakar24 says:

    Would a calculation prove your ghe theory lap, no it would not. What we can calculate is ghg’s don’t produce any heat through ir. We can calculate how much a body (read surface) cools when it emits ir but we can’t calculate your global warming theory because its fantasy.

    If you think you can calculate it I invite you to demonstrate such a calculation

    • La Pangolina says:

      Crakar24 says:
      June 22, 2018 at 9:13 AM

      Would a calculation prove your ghe theory lap, no it would not.

      Thank you Crakar for this typical pseudoskeptic sentence.

      Can you give any proof that it wouldn’t? Of course you can’t!

      Then “we” (sounds so pretty clanic to me) do not need to provide for any proof of what “we” pretend: “we” are always right!

      Unlike you, I don’t hide myself behind any “we”.

      *

      Manifestly you are not able to calculate the temperature estimate for an Earth without H2O/CO2.

      You are, like all other pseudoskeptics, comfortably waiting for me doing your job, to which you then simply reply: “we” know you are wrong.

      As if I were stupid enough to fall into such a ridiculous trap!

    • David Appell says:

      Crakar24 says:
      What we can calculate is ghgs dont produce any heat through ir. We can calculate how much a body (read surface) cools when it emits ir

      “emits ir” means it produces heat.

      (conservation of energy)

  108. gbaikie says:

    “No. Air is at Earths average surface temperature a very good insulator. Air does not conduct heat at 15 °C! If it did, nobody could use it for insulation purposes.”

    Where/when the the sun is near zenith, land which did not have convective heat (land surface heating air) the surface would be around 80 C.
    Or if inhibit conventional heat loss- insulated boxes or solar ponds you get a surface temperature of about 80 C.
    And parked cars and small greenhouses also inhibit convection heat loss and why parked cars with windows rolled up can get dangerous warm.

    In our world with convection heat loss even when air is warmer than 40 C, the surface only get as warm as about 70 C. And if air is 20 C or cooler the ground is invited from reaching 70 C (because there is too much convection heat loss , if you make air (somehow) not be heated at all, when sun is near zenith, land surface will be 80 C.

  109. gbaikie says:


    “phi
    June 22, 2018
    gbaikie,
    And if air is warm, then I am kept warm

    Not really. The atmosphere would indeed be very hot but with a thin boundary layer at its base in very strong inversion. The surface would inevitably be cold.”

    Without our ocean, the planet average surface air temperature would be quite cold.
    Even tropical land zone would not be very warm.
    With our ocean (and it is warming land surface) the average land surface is only 10 C). So, without the warmer ocean (with average surface temperature of about 17 C)
    the all land surface planet has to have an average global temperature of less than 10 C, probably less than 5 C.
    With an average global temperature less than 5 C one has to have higher average tropical region temperature. Or say average global temperature was 0 C, then tropics average temperature would be about 10 C or warmer.
    Or Canada has average temperature of minus 4 C (and has a ocean warming it) or anything near polar regions will be very cold.
    But average temperature of Earth can not be -18 C. So maybe colder than 0 C and certainly warmer than -18 C, but within this range the tropics which is 40% of planet should be well above 0 C. Above 0 C even without any atmosphere (and even if you covered tropics in tin foil or paint it white).

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gbaikie…”Without our ocean, the planet average surface air temperature would be quite cold”.

      I agree in principle but it gets quite complicated, as one might expect. In out Canadian winter, west coast regions are milder (5C average), especially in the southwest coasts due to warm currents running from the Pacific. Further from the coast, temperatures begin to plunge and on the Prairies, the coldest temperatures are experienced, up to 50C colder at times. 200 miles from the coast, due East, temperatures can be -20C and are generally sub-zero.

      The Prairie extreme cold is due to Arctic air descending on the Prairie region. In the summer months, the Prairies tend to be much hotter than the West Coast, so it seems the ocean tends to cool the region. Even without the Arctic air, they’d be colder than the West Coast.

      50 miles east of Vancouver tends to be 5C+ warmer than the coast in summer and 5C- colder in winter.

      When the Sun disappears in the Arctic for a couple of months, and for a month or so either side of the disappearance, cold air from the stratosphere descends and I’m sure that accounts for the really cold Arctic air.

      • gbaikie says:

        “50 miles east of Vancouver tends to be 5C+ warmer than the coast in summer and 5C- colder in winter.”

        Without looking at temperatures, near coast has warmer nights and less warm days than more interior, but interior is still keeping warmer in nights from ocean, just not as much nearer the ocean. Or ocean doesn’t change much regards of season or day or night.
        Or if fall in ocean even in summer, but a nightime, you might freeze to death even if get out of the water. Though in water you are dead.

  110. Gordon Robertson says:

    binny…”CO2 indeed is much rarer than O2 and N2, namely by an average factor of about 2,500. But it absorbs in comparison by far more than the two”.

    Absorbs what??? Not heat. CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation which the electrons in the molecule convert to heat. A miniscule amount of heat that is immediately lost because it is surrounded by those 2500 other molecules.

    The graph from GISS posted ad nauseam by David Appell shows that CO2 absorbs about 5% of all surface IR and only in the 15 um band. Either way you look at it, the EM it absorbs is insignificant to atmospheric warming.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon says:
      The graph from GISS posted ad nauseam by David Appell shows that CO2 absorbs about 5% of all surface IR and only in the 15 um band.

      5% is a huuuuuuuuge amount of heat, even per m2.

  111. Martin Harteveld says:

    Don’t worry Mister Spencer. The dimming sun will kill the AGW theory likelly within a decade.

  112. Gordon Robertson says:

    JDHuffman…”(I worked in GPS implementation for about 7 years.)”

    My explanations of GPS are primitive, feel free to chime in on GPS any time you like. I have no problem being wrong about the basics.

    I am basing my theory on electronics communications theory in which field I have decent experience. I am used to the older Loran C implementation but from what I have read on GPS it’s not all that different. Much more precise but the basic theory of triangulation still seems to hold.

    There is an issue, of course, with relativity due to the moving satellite platforms and the Earth rotating below them, but at the speeds the sats move at, which is a tiny fraction of the speed of light, general relativity theory is serious overkill. I am sure GPS designers use straight Newtonian physics.

    I understand that the newer GPS units can accommodate altitude as well as x,y coordinates. Impressive stuff, but no time dilation required.

    I know for a fact that no electronic device can measure time dilation.

    • David Appell says:

      The general relativistic effect isn’t a matter of how fast the satellite moves, it’s because the Earth warps spacetime in its vicinity. Roughly, the more warping, the slower time moves. A satellite is in a weaker gravitational field than Earthlings on the surface, so time moves slower here and faster there. That requires a GR correction.

      • JDHuffman says:

        David Appell, “science writer”, is that ALL you’ve got?

        Please provide us, in your own words, how the GPS system “corrects” for GR.

        • David Appell says:

          I just did describe it.

          • JDHuffman says:

            You have a great imagination.

          • David Appell says:

            I’m sorry you can’t understand even that. There’s are two corrections that come from general relativity, a correction from time dilation, and there’s a larger general correction from gravitational redshift.

            Entropic Man wrote a good post with the numbers, below.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Entropic man was doing fine until his last three paragraphs. I could tell he did not understand the GPS system. For example, the GPS satellite clocks are preset prior to launch. Since the satellite speeds are well below relativistic, effects are lost in the other errors. I think there is confusion between relativity and Sagnac, which probably contributes to some of the erroneous things on the Internet.

            It happens.

          • David Appell says:

            The Sagnac effect is a relativistic effect.

          • JDHuffman says:

            As stated, “it happens”.

          • David Appell says:

            Again, the Sagnac effect is a relativistic effect.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Gordon, don’t worry, I’ll chime in, as necessary.

      But, your statement: “GPS does not rely on relativity theory” is exactly correct.

      What makes this especially interesting is that there is an “urban legend” that GPS uses relativity. There are even links that support such nonsense.

      It’s hard to figure out, but, as with AGW, most folks can’t grasp the science. GPS employs science and math that is not taught in lower levels. Possibly they somehow believe GPS must then employ relativity? I don’t know.

      • Norman says:

        JDHuffman

        The only interesting thing in your post is that, yet again, another Skeptic Blogger demonstrates a complete lack on knowledge. Makes up his or her own opinion and pretends to be an expert covering up the glaring reality they are really not very intelligent.

        I think Bart and Roy Spencer may be the only skeptics that show some signs of intelligence. You, Huffman, are a dork! You post to disrupt only and have nothing of value to post. I wish there were better skeptics to help hone ideas and do what good skeptics do. The lot of skeptics on this sight are terrible at anything but making up stuff, being super arrogant about things they can’t possibly understand (your big stupidity was debating about view factor when you don’t even know what it is or how it works, even after it was clearly explained to you).

        This one is not so much for you. Since you are only interested in disruptive troll behavior you will learn nothing at all.

        Maybe Gordon Robertson will read it and learn how wrong he is. Which is just about every post.

        • Norman says:

          JDHuffman

          I am somewhat skeptical of extreme hysteria over climate change. I would like to open up good skeptical debates on this blog. Too many disruptive trolls like you make good skepticism impossible to pursue. You force reasonable people to waste all their time pointing out your infinite flaws and you make people think that you are good scientific minded skeptics to destroy any legitimate attempt at rational skepticim

          I think Idiot Tracker is one of the most balanced of the posters who also has a high degree of real physics knowledge. He is one of the better posters along with rational and knowledgeable Tim Folkerts.

          I think David Appell is smart and provides lots of links but he seems further down the climate change alarmism then I am. But your type is a disaster for rational scientific debates. You can’t understand the points when given to you.

          I try to be reasonable with you but find you are more interested in disruptive troll tactics than honest debate. I showed you how sedimentation at most would be about 1% of sea level rise and requested that you provide what would be the cause of the other 99% if a big chuck were not thermal expansion from warming oceans. You then went on with a stupid point that even now I forget.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

            Please take the time to read this article.

          • David Appell says:

            Norman says:
            I think David Appell is smart and provides lots of links but he seems further down the climate change alarmism then I am.

            Thanks, but I don’t know if AGW’s going to be a disaster. I don’t even know what “disaster” means in this context, let alone “catastrophic.” A disaster for whom? In what way? For everyone? Which RCP are we discussing? These two words are very loaded, but no one ever defines them before they start throwing them around.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Anonymous Norman attacks from behind.

          His bravery matches his grasp of reality–both non-existent.

          • Norman says:

            JDHuffman

            Let me state it clearly. You are a disruptive troll. You serve no scientific purpose.

            A waste of time. Not as bad as another poster who was recently banned. That one was completely useless. You know about as much science as he did, none. You pretend like you know things. You don’t.

            I guess this blog attracts your type of mentality.

          • JDHuffman says:

            Anonymous Norman, you’re not one of those people that believes they can make themselves feel better by insulting others, are you?

        • Carbon500 says:

          Norman:
          How utterly conceited and arrogant of you to make the remark that Roy Spencer may as you put it ‘show some signs of intelligence’.
          He’s made major contributions to knowledge both as a scientist and educator of those outside climate science.
          I’ve read two of his books and found them very interesting, informative and readable.
          What exactly has your contribution been?

      • Bart says:

        “But, your statement: GPS does not rely on relativity theory is exactly correct.”

        No. Accurate GPS depends critically upon both the Special and the General Theories. It is, in fact, the only instance I know of where an everyday item of technology actually employs the General Theory.

        The clocks on the GPS satellites are specifically tuned to run 0.44 nanoseconds per second faster than the clocks on Earth to account for the difference in the rate of time at the GPS satellite orbit, in accordance with the Theory.

        The Sagnac correction can be worked out classically to first order, but the correction for orbit eccentricity requires Relativity, and is readily observable contributing about 10 meters of error that varies over time precisely as the Theory predicts.

        The corrections for Earth oblateness and Shapiro delay are only about 2 cm each, and so are not as readily observable. But, the clock rate is a huge driver, and it together with the readily discerned eccentricity correction are smoking guns that confirm the Theory.

  113. Mike Flynn says:

    LaP,

    You asked –

    “If there is NO water vapor and no CO2 AT ALL, Earths radiation exits immediately to space, as N2, O2 and Ar do not react to it.

    What, do you think, will then be the average temperature on Earth in such a situation?”

    The average temperature is just a pointless diversion, but your question can be answered by both experiment and observation.

    John Tyndall went to a great deal of trouble to prepare air free of both CO2 and H2O, learning much in the process. He used the IR transmission of this air as a reference for the IR blocking properties of gases such as CO2 and H2O. Temperatures dropped as the amount of CO2 was increased, as it prevented energy from reaching the thermometer. No heating, rather quite the opposite.

    The hottest places on Earth are the arid tropical deserts, characterised by low levels of H2O in the atmosphere. Less GHG, higher temperatures.

    Any GHG which reduces the amount of energy reaching a thermometer, obviously causes the thermometer to become colder, not hotter.

    In the absence of sunlight, the absence of GHGs results in rapid cooling, as in arid tropical deserts after sundown.

    You may persist in your religious belief that reducing the amount of available energy causes thermometers to become hotter, but you may be laughed at. Even you would not be so stupid and ignorant as to suggest that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, would you?

    Have you managed to describe the GHE yet, in any logical way? No? I thought not!

    Cheers.

    • La Pangolina says:

      As usual: Flynns dumb, agresssive nonsensical blah blah.
      His dog probably barks more intelligent than he writes.

      • Ball4 says:

        Flynn once again correctly manages to describe the testable GHE hypothesis in a logical way: “(Tyndall) used the IR transmission of this air as a reference for the IR blocking properties of gases such as CO2 and H2O.”

        Tyndall’s needle moved in the same direction as stratosphere temperatures on Earth due the IR blocking properties of gases such as CO2 and H2O in the lower troposphere regions.

        Flynn: “Temperatures dropped as the amount of CO2 was increased, as it prevented energy from reaching the thermometer. No heating, rather quite the opposite.”

        Flynn gets that science wrong for his political agenda purposes; backwards actually as Tyndall 1861 really wrote to the Royal Society: “I 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 5degrees FAHR. The absorp_tive power of the vapour referred to is very great, and its radiative power is equally so.”

        • La Pangolina says:

          The best is, Bart, that this Flynn guy pretends to have read Tyndall in the 1905 6th edition from A to Z.

          • Mike Flynn says:

            LaP,

            I think the best part is that you cannot actually produce any facts to support your mad insistence that CO2 somehow makes a thermometer hotter, when placed between the Sun and that thermometer.

            But carry on with your ad homs, and pathetically inept attempts at being gratuitously offensive.

            Time for more dog barking noises, maybe?

            Or maybe you can devise something to make you appear even more stupid and ignorant – how hard could it be?

            Cheers.

          • Ball4 says:

            “you cannot actually produce any facts to support your mad insistence that CO2 somehow makes a thermometer hotter, when placed between the Sun and that thermometer.”

            Sure there are, plenty of facts to produce, on many gases besides just lab atm. air. Just repeat Tyndall’s experiments described well by Mike Flynn where in Mike’s own words: “(Tyndall) used the IR transmission of this air as a reference for the IR blocking properties of gases such as CO2 and H2O.”

      • David Appell says:

        Ball4, MF long ago described the GHE:

        “…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
        Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988

        “Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
        – Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860

        Mike Flynn wrote:
        “The atmosphere is an insulator….”
        June 18, 2017, 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

        • Mike Flynn says:

          DA,

          Thank you so much for quoting me. It saves me the trouble.

          Are you disagreeing? No?

          Still no GHE, is there? Maybe you could describe this wondrous GHE, or possibly explain how putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer somehow makes the thermometer hotter!

          Only a stupid and ignorant person would claim that, do you think?

          Cheers.

          • Ball4 says:

            “Maybe you could describe this wondrous GHE, or possibly explain how putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer somehow makes the thermometer hotter!”

            No need to do so again, Mike Flynn and Tyndall’s experiments have already done so, repeatedly.

            Cheers!

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Ball4,

            I’m surprised that you don’t possess the ability to actually cut and paste the results of my obvious brilliance.

            I thank you for the high regard in which you hold me, as you are obviously in awe of my intellectual attainments.

            I wonder if you could do me a small favour, as I seem to have mislaid the GHE explanation which you claim I have provided. Could you post a copy, so that others of a more stupid and ignorant persuasion can also appreciate my effulgent omniscience?

            Once again, many thanks for expressing your devotion.

            Cheers.

          • Ball4 says:

            Keep up the good work today, Mike, accurately and logically describing the testable GHE hypothesis once again for us, a real treat, you deserve another copy. Good job. No need to add more.

            Cheers!

            4:51pm: Flynn once again correctly manages to describe the testable GHE hypothesis in a logical way: “(Tyndall) used the IR transmission of this air as a reference for the IR blocking properties of gases such as CO2 and H2O.”

          • Mike Flynn says:

            Ball4,

            I am not sure whether you are suffering from delusional psychosis, or just stupid and ignorant.

            You seem to have quoted me at random, with no reference to a description of the GHE, and no mention of any disprovable GHE hypothesis either!

            Are you trying to say that allowing thermometers to cool by reducing the energy reaching them somehow makes them hotter at the same time? This would be as mad as the bumbling pronouncements of people like Schmidt and Mann!

            Surely you can’t be serious – or maybe, worryingly, you are.

            Carry on laddie. Good for the amusement value, at least.

            Cheers

          • Ball4 says:

            “Are you trying to say that allowing thermometers to cool by reducing the energy reaching them somehow makes them hotter at the same time?”

            No only Mike Flynn says that so foolishly. The tests showed the thermometers increased 5F in temperature making them hotter when air was added then decreased 5F when air was removed. And to answer your question, yes there is a GHE as Mike Flynn has correctly expressed in a logical way, cut and paste again per Mike Flynn:

            “(Tyndall) used the IR transmission of this air as a reference for the IR blocking properties of gases such as CO2 and H2O.”

          • Ball4 says:

            “Others did.”

            Which others? You studiously avoid specifics.

      • Mike Flynn says:

        LaP,

        What are you disagreeing with? Nothing?

        I thought so. No facts, just more religious fervour (or fever).

        Carry on – more brightly coloured graphs might help.

        Cheers.

  114. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/22/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up/

    AGW theory not doing well and the transition is just starting. This theory will be toast by 2020.

    • David Appell says:

      Anyone who believes anything on WUWT is a fool. Go see what the scientists are saying, Salvatore.

      “Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way)…”

      – Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
      http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428

      • Ball4 says:

        Well, there was one “guy” not mentioned in the WUWT article whose global climate anomaly future predictions turned out much closer to eventual reality while starting much earlier than Hansen. A meteorologist “entirely free of the bile and rancor of the Climategate correspondents”:

        https://climateaudit.org/2013/07/26/guy-callendar-vs-the-gcms/

        This “guy” even wrote of the benefits of added CO2 in his conclusions.

        • David Appell says:

          The more the merrier.

          Callendar was English and who among them doesn’t want warmer weather? But he specified (p 236) “the northern edge of civilization….”

          He also mentioned CO2 fertilization, and eliminating the next glacial maximum.

        • La Pangolina says:

          Bart, I add this to your comment:

          https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2178

          Callendar was an amazing person indeed.

          • Ball4 says:

            Yes, thank you.

            I note despite Salvatore’s claims AGW theory will be “toast by 2020”, there have been numerous annual periods when global climatic temperatures declined, even in the satellite era, and the basic theory Callendar used still stands.

            Sure, near term global anomaly could dip below some arbitrary basis line, for several years even, that’s already happened, and the AGW theory Calendar used will still be useful as it is based on first principles, experiment and observation. Not the position chosen for an arbitrary basis line.

          • La Pangolina says:

            Oh sorry! I wrote ‘Bart’ instead of ‘Ball4’…
            My bad.

          • Ball4 says:

            No problem, just don’t call me late for dinner.

          • Bart says:

            In a rising market, one doesn’t have to be a genius to make money. In a period of warming, one doesn’t have to be a genius to predict warming. It’s basically a coin toss.

          • Bart says:

            I.e., your fallacy is: Texas sharpshooter

          • Ball4 says:

            So Bart is trying to claim G. Callendar took a long distance shot at the side of a barn without proper use of trajectory mechanics.

            Then some 75 years later someone else found Callendar actually hit the barn wall, sifted through tons of data on trajectory mechanics of why that shot would not just be lucky, selected certain data that matched the shot result & using THAT select trajectory data then painted a bulls eye around the shot in the barn wall to make Callendar look good.

            I suggest not but Bart is certainly welcome to any silly opinion to join the game in opposition to basic science.

          • Bart says:

            No, I am claiming that a flip of a coin is not enough evidence to prove that the coin has a preferred side to land on. This is very basic. You are simply imbuing the result with more gravity than it deserves because it is what you want to believe.

          • Ball4 says:

            Bart backs off his Texas sharpshooter claim, good for Bart.

            Callendar did not flip a coin either Bart. Fundamental, replicable experiment, observation and 1st principle reasoned science on which he based his work are not coin flips.

          • Bart says:

            I haven’t backed off of anything. Out of all the prognostications made…Hansen was wrong, the IPCC was wrong… they all pretty much covered the entire spread of eventualities. So, when the verdict is in, you go and find one that happened to be in the ballpark.

            It’s a shoo-in. It means nothing.

          • Ball4 says:

            I & many practitioners disagree Bart; fundamental, replicable experiment, observation and 1st principle reasoned science on which Callendar based his work are worth more than coin flips.

            Ships are safe in harbors, but that is not what ships are built for – voyage outcome certainty you desire is not of this world.

            Either the very first B747 flew or it did not. Boeing’s practitioners made sure the 50/50 outcome had a better chance than a coin flip as did Callendar.

          • David Appell says:

            Bart says:
            In a period of warming, one doesnt have to be a genius to predict warming.

            But why are we in a period of warming?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ball4…”fundamental, replicable experiment, observation and 1st principle reasoned science on which Callendar based his work are worth more than coin flips”.

            Callander did not know his butt from a hole in the ground. I have no idea why his name comes up.

          • Ball4 says:

            “I have no idea why his name comes up.”

            That’s all too obvious Gordon.

          • Bart says:

            No, Ball4, they’re really not. That same “fundamental, replicable experiment, observation and 1st principle reasoned science” was used to make other predictions. Those didn’t pan out. But, it is virtually certain that one of them would.

            That makes the outcome of the trial unfalsifiable. It’s heads you win, tails I lose. If Callendar’s estimate hadn’t been so lucky, you would have just picked one that was. It’s self-serving claptrap.

            If the “science” were making any progress, one would reasonably expect the later prognostications to have been better than the original. But, here you are, retreating to the original because the darts he threw happened to hit somewhat near the target. They didn’t fly directly along the same trajectory, but hey, the end number is roughly the same, so let’s just sweep that untidiness under the rug.

            You can fool yourself if you like. You aren’t fooling me.

          • Ball4 says:

            Bart 12:51am: “That same “fundamental, replicable experiment, observation and 1st principle reasoned science” was used to make other predictions. Those didnt pan out.”

            Feel free to point them out. You won’t succeed. At least not in the work of competent practitioners like Callendar.

            Callendar 1938 was not a lucky shot. The first B747, D_C10, Airbus fly and are not lucky shots because proven first principles work out in the hands of competent practitioners.

          • Bart says:

            Your fallacy is: weak analogy. The principles of aircraft design are well established, with over a century of testing and repeatedly and directly verified application in thousands upon thousands of successful flights.

            Callendar’s conjecture has not been verified on the scale of the Earth and all its attendant subsystem responses. You don’t get to borrow against the account of a well-established science to promote your own nascent one. You are a pauper demanding a loan from a bank on the basis that you have two arms and legs, just like Bill Gates.

            I’ve already pointed out sources for failed prognostications. Callendar is just entrant one among many.

          • Ball4 says:

            And Bart’s fallacy is: weak studies in the meteorological field.

            Not having read the governing principles is no excuse for then unknowingly breaking the rules. Ask any traffic cop. I make no claim beyond Callendar’s work and subsequent meteorological generally published principles.

            “Callendar’s conjecture has not been verified on the scale of the Earth and all its attendant subsystem responses.”

            Your fallacy here is: not specific enough.

            In fact Callendar’s specific conjecture Table VI updated for actual CO2 et. al. forcing (+0.6 anomaly by 2013 basis 1921-1940) has been verified on the scale of the Earth and all its attendant subsystem responses. Bart’s not having read the bulk of the work & competently investigated the ref.s is not good justification for claiming a different opinion.

            “I’ve already pointed out sources for failed prognostications. Callendar is just entrant one among many.”

            Except Callendar’s work was competent in the field and his predictions have been reasonably realized to date on the scale of the Earth system 80 years later. You have not pointed out sources for competent author(s) failed prognostications in this field that I see.

            Meteorological principles are well established, and have numerous competent practitioners just like aviation, with over a century of testing and repeatedly and directly verified application in view of thousands upon thousands of successful lab and in situ observations.

            You do have an interesting idea though, excuse me while I go apply for a loan because I have arms and legs.

          • Bart says:

            “…has been verified on the scale of the Earth…”

            No, it hasn’t. A coin toss is not a verification. Drawing a circle around darts thrown at a board is not verification. You are making a very basic logical error, and you are extrapolating controlled experiments beyond the realm of their established applicability.

          • Ball4 says:

            You are making a very basic error here:

            “A coin toss is not a verification. Drawing a circle around darts thrown at a board is not verification.”

            There is NO extrapolation beyond 2013 measured per my discussion and Callendar and other competent meteorologists don’t do the kind of work you suggest: no coin flips, no dart throwing. Many researchers in the meteorological field competently work from 1st principles & experiment – they do not throw dice.

            There are of course charlatans in meteorology just like in aviation where many incompetent practitioners paid with their lives. Aviation and meteorology competently practiced are very useful to society.

          • Bart says:

            OK, fine, go on believing what you very badly want to believe. But, a happenstance is not verification, and you cannot say with any assurance that rough agreement with his prognostication at a particular instant in time is anything beyond happenstance.

          • Ball4 says:

            “a happenstance is not verification”

            There was no happenstance. There is no belief necessary either in this case; just the data speaking for itself verifying the 1st principle competent research. If you don’t want to listen to and learn from data, you do not advance your knowledge in this field.

          • Bart says:

            It’s not saying what you want it to say.

            I’m not going to argue with this any further. It is just foolish.

          • Ball4 says:

            I don’t “want” the data to say anything beyond what the data shows. The data and Callendar’s writing does all…ALL the talking imo. That should be obvious but your comments show it isn’t.

            If Callendar took 50 shots at the future global anomaly in 2013 and hit on say only one shot by “happenstance”, then you would have a good point – Texas sharpshooter applies & a belief could exist in that trajectory mechanic was THE right one.

            That is not what Callendar’s 1938 research work was all about.

          • Bart says:

            “If Callendar took 50 shots at the future global anomaly…”

            Others did. His was just one shot among many.

            If you still don’t understand why this is not a conclusive result, I can’t help you anymore. I’m late for a very important date…

          • Ball4 says:

            Others did.

            Which others? You studiously avoid specifics.

          • Nate says:

            “Out of all the prognostications madeHansen was wrong, the IPCC was wrong they all pretty much covered the entire spread of eventualities.”

            Bart has spoken, and judged the results as poor. We can all go home now.

            Your fallacy, as usual, is argument by assertion.

            What these guys were doing was not prognostication (guessing), it is applying physics to make detailed predictions.

            Hansen’s 1981 predictions have been remarkably accurate.

            This kind ‘its all just lucky guesses’ kind of argument could made about almost any science discovery.

            The colliding black holes and their observed signature in gravity waves. Just a lucky guess.

            The problem with this is when you have 40 y of continuous lucky guesses. And many other confirming facts.

          • Bart says:

            James Hansen had his prognostications, which were wrong. There are dozens of CMIPs that have all run hot. To suggest that Callendar is the only guy who made a prognostication is rank disingenuousness.

          • Ball4 says:

            Bart, you suggested others did take 50 shots each but can not identify any particular one. Hansen sketched 3 scenarios, the models take one shot each used for comparison in the spaghetti graphs while being available for as many shots as wanted for studies.

            Fact is Callendar took one reasoned shot based on theory and experiment and his shot hit the target 75 years later, so far. The things some people will deny…

          • Bart says:

            That’s not enough. Anyone can make a lucky guess. Moreover, it has been with periods of warming and cooling, not relentless warming such as Callendar implied would be the case.

            Focusing on one guy out of hundreds, who happened to be in the right ballpark when the music stopped, is painting the target around the result and proclaiming anyone within the circle must know what he is talking about. But, it is a tautology that someone would have been in that circle.

            This book won notoriety some years ago for its thesis that successful fund managers are simply the guys left over when the dust settles. The example used was, you take 1000 people an put them in a room and ask them to flip a coin. Roughly 500 people will get heads.

            You send the others away, and ask the remainder to flip again. You keep winnowing out the head-flippers. When you’ve just got a few left, you proclaim them expert coin-flippers.

            But, they’re not. They just happened to flip heads more often than the others. The next flip one makes can still go either way with 50/50 probability.

          • Ball4 says:

            Anyone can make a lucky guess but the ones that read the stable boy newsletter win the money.

            Bart writes focusing on one guy out of hundreds yet Bart has never named but one of his hundreds. Who are these other 99 Bart?

            “Random Walk’ was not as good as The Intelligent Investor which explains why there more than just lucky coin flippers investing in good businesses.

          • Bart says:

            Sure I have. Any of the CMIP models. If you are claiming that there was only one prognostication, or that they all agreed with Callendar’s, then you have no idea what you are writing about.

            We’re not talking about the relative worth of investment treatises. We are talking about the nature of your fallacy.

          • Ball4 says:

            CMIP models are not 99 “guys” Bart. Name the “guys”. You can’t. It is your fallacies that are not supported with reason and experiment where Callendar’s are based on 1st principle, reason and experimental observation.

          • Bart says:

            …where Callendar’s are based on 1st principle, reason and experimental observation.”

            So, you’re saying the CMIPs are not?

          • Ball4 says:

            “..CMIPs are not?”

            CMIP climate models are parameterized; their results are not just from 1st principles.

          • Bart says:

            The parameters are part of the allowable physics. Callendar had to chose them for his model, too, even if he did so implicitly. So, again, you have a spread of viable models which encompasses all possible outcomes. Finding one that matches the actual outcome, to some degree, does not confirm it, it just fails to falsify it.

            The difference is between necessary and sufficient conditions. Newbies and mediocrities often conflate the two. Matching the end result is necessary for the model to be viable. But, it is not sufficient to establish the model as truthful.

      • The so called scientist do not know what they are talking about.

        • Bart says:

          They know, but some are on a mission for what they consider a Noble Cause, and others have strong incentive to downplay and obfuscate that which runs counter to the narrative.

      • DAVID if the climate cools we will say increasing CO2 linked to the recent cooling.

        • Ball4 says:

          Only in the upper regions & lower stratosphere for CO2 Salvatore. As seen in history, UAH shows several 0.5c anomaly downtrends lower troposphere. They happen as many forcings on global temperature series are in play not just CO2 ppm.

          • Bart says:

            Doesn’t wash. The claim is that CO2 is dominant. If it isn’t, then there is no empirical basis for attributing any of the modern warming to it. If other forcings could cause the “pause”, then they could cause the “rise” as well.

          • Ball4 says:

            Any? No.

            The “pause” depends on selection of free parameter stop and start dates. With those and a free constant, you can support any opinion or cause you might care to take up: warming, cooling, pause.

          • Bart says:

            If one can get any result one wants from the data, then there is no empirical basis for making a compelling conclusion. Thank you for confirming what I have written.

          • Ball4 says:

            Good point. Thank YOU, any temperature trend discussion is not a good use of limited time imo. It is time well spent though understanding Callendar’s use of meteorological text book 1st principles to make such a good call on future added CO2 ppm anomaly. And understand why Dr. Spencer’s test was set up & worked out.

            Climate models are useful for the 15 day weather predictions, possibly they get better, just send more funds if you need to predict the weather for say a month ahead of James Webb observatory launch or a softball championship game to which you might want to fly.

          • Bart says:

            “…for say a month ahead of James Webb observatory launch…”

            Ouch!

        • David Appell says:

          Salvatore, all you is repeat yourself with every comment on every post, as if we didn’t get it the first time.

  115. Entropic man says:

    Gordon Robertson

    GPS receivers measure their distance from the satellites by calculating travel time. The satellite signal includes a time hack recording the time at which the signal left the satellite.The receiver notes the time of arrival and the difference is travel time.

    The uncertainty for one satellite is 50 nanoseconds, in which time light travels 15 metres. Given a number of satellites, the receiver can calculate a position to better accuracy than that.

    IIRC the first satellite gives you a position somewhere on the surface of a sphere. The second satellite puts you on the surface of another sphere. You can now put yourself somewhere on the circle where the two sufaces intersect. The third satellite gives you a third sphere and a position at one of the two points where all three spheres intersect and the fourth sphere defines one point where all four spheres intersect. Extra satellite signals improve accuracy.

    Given timing signals from four satellites the receiver can calculate an accurate time to compare with the satellite clocks.

    The orbital velocity of the satellites slows their clocks by 7 microseconds per day relative to the time rate on Earth’s surface. The weaker gravity at orbital altitude speeds up the clocks by 45 microseconds.

    The net result is that the satellite clocks gain 38 microseconds per day relative to a surface clock, equivalent to a distance error of 11.4 km.

    The system applies a -38 microsecond per day relativity correction to the satellite clocks, keeping them in synch with the surface clock.

    • La Pangolina says:

      Thanks Entropic Man but your work is hopeless:

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-293335

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-293336

      And by now we have this strange Huffman guy who is at least as stubborn as is Robertson.

      What a pity for this web site driven by a science man like Roy Spencer!

      • Entropic man says:

        La Pangolina

        I’ve given up on the usual suspects. Hopefully there are sensible lurkers out there.

    • JDHuffman says:

      Entropic man, you were doing fine until your last three paragraphs.

      The GPS equations do not use ANY corrections for “relativity”.

      You have been misled because you want to be misled.

      • David Appell says:

        “Relativity in the Global Positioning System,” Neil Ashby, Living Reviews in Relativity, 28 January 2003.

        https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1
        https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.12942%2Flrr-2003-1.pdf

        • JDHuffman says:

          “The size of the Sagnac correction varied from 240 to 350 ns. Enough data were collected to perform 90 independent circumnavigations. The actual mean value of the residual obtained after adding the three pairs of time differences was 5 ns, which was less than 2 percent of the magnitude of the calculated total Sagnac effect.”

          Thanks for the link, David.

          • David Appell says:

            Right, so without the GR corrections you get a net residual that is much too big.

          • JDHuffman says:

            David Appell, any errors caused by relativity are lost in the substantially more noticeable errors due to the atmosphere.

            The GPS calculations do not include any “corrections” for relativity. The processing allowed by the Kalman filter is amazingly sufficient for ground accuracies of 100 meters, or better. Augmentation by ground-based system bring accuracies to centimeters.

          • David Appell says:

            JDHuffman says:
            The GPS calculations do not include any corrections for relativity.

            I showed you the paper where exactly such corrections are calculated!

            No more white-is-black-ism….

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”I showed you the paper where exactly such corrections are calculated!”

            You showed us an incredibly theoretical paper from a physics theoretician. They are allowed to live in dream world because very few of their theories are implemented.

      • Entropic man says:

        JDHuffman

        There is no relativity correction in the GPS equations used by receivers to calculate position.

        This is because the relativity correction is made when the ground stations update the satellite clocks to keep them synchronised to the master atomic clock in Colorado Springs.

        • JDHuffman says:

          Exactly!

          You’re learning.

        • David Appell says:

          That’s still a correction on account of relativity.

          Why so much bias against relativity?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”This is because the relativity correction is made when the ground stations update the satellite clocks to keep them synchronised to the master atomic clock in Colorado Springs”.

          No time dilation corrections there, just good old synchronization and error correction.

          Tell me something, do you think they correct for time dilation at the Greenwich time facilities?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”The uncertainty for one satellite is 50 nanoseconds, in which time light travels 15 metres. Given a number of satellites, the receiver can calculate a position to better accuracy than that”.

      I have no problem with the allowance for the speed of light, that’s not time dilation. Time dilation is based on a theory that clocks speeds up or slow down based on velocities at the SOL. Not only that, dimensions like a metre are claimed to change as well.

      When you talk about time, you are not picturing what is really being measured, which is a rate of change of position, aka velocity. The velocity of a satellite came from the thrust of rockets that delivered the sat to its orbit.

      To visualize this stuff you need to picture the sat in its orbit. See the forces acting on it and the momentum created by the rocket thrust, which translates to a velcoity. The only force is gravity which can be depicted as a vector arrow from the centre of the Earth to the sat.

      The momentum wants to go in a straight line perpendicular to that vector but the force of gravity is dragging it toward the Earth. The orbit is a resultant between the momentum and the gravitational force.

      That’s it, no time acting anywhere. However, to keep tract of the sat’s position we need to time it between positions. And we need to time the signal sent by the sat to the surface station and back. No problem there and no time dilation required.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon, your musings here are well known to every freshman student of physics.

        An orbiting satellite is in free fall.

        Again, time dilation has been observed experimentally. (Go look it up, for once.) The results exactly agree with special relativity.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Again, time dilation has been observed experimentally. (Go look it up, for once.) The results exactly agree with special relativity”.

          Not according to Louis Essen, who invented the first atomic clock. He thinks time dilation is nonsense and time is his business. Essen was the first to accurately calculate the speed of light.

          Essen thinks Einstein goofed up with his relativity theory which Essen claims is not even a theory, it’s a thought experiment. He claimed E’s paper on general relativity is one of the worst he has ever read.

          I feel better now that an expert agrees with me.

        • Nate says:

          Gordon,

          Appeal to authority? Not from you!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      For all you supporters of relativity. Here’s an article by the scientist who invented the atomic clock, an expert on time.

      He thinks relativity theory and time dilation are both wrong. He think relativity does not qualify as a theory and that Einstein was a light-weight when it came to measures.

      https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm

      http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/25/dr-louis-essen-inventor-of-atomic-clock-rejects-einsteins-relativity-theory/

      • David Appell says:

        This scientist is wrong.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”This scientist is wrong”.

          A scientist who spent his life studying time, who invented the first atomic clock, and who calculated the first accurate speed of light is wrong????????????????????????????

          • gbaikie says:

            So if in spaceship traveling at .5 speed of light, and you shine light in direction you traveling, that would make light travel at 1.5 speed light?
            And if shine light opposite way, the light will travel at 1/2 speed of light?

          • Entropic man says:

            Gbaikie

            An observer aboard your ship at 0.5C would see both beams of light receding at 300,000 kilometres/second and at the same wavelength.

            A stationary observer ahead of the ship would measure the light arriving at 300,000km/second but see a shorter wavelength due to the Doppler effect.

            A stationary observer behind the ship would measure the light arriving at 300,000km/second but see a longer wavelength.

            All observers measure the speed of light c as 300,000km/second relative to their own location and velocity.

            That is why it is called relativity.

            It is counterintuitive but it happens.

      • Nate says:

        For one thing, Essen only looks at the very first experiment to test GR (Eddigton), and finds it wanting.

        But for some reason, all the many subsequent confirming experiments, he simply ignores. Very odd.

  116. Will see what the climate does from here on out and this is going to determine which theory is correct.

    AGW enthusiast do not get it ,of course the temperature goes up and down but it was /is in the same climatic regime.

    I am saying the climate is going to TRANSITION into a colder climatic regime or maybe a lesser climatic shift. Of course the climate will still go up and down but in the colder regime/shift.

    The next question is how much colder then what we have now. I would say at a minimum -.5c, if it is a climatic shift if it is a climatic regime change then it will be greater then -1c.

    • JDHuffman says:

      SDP, the AGW “theory” failed long ago.

      • Yes but they still believe.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          SDP,

          All the signs of a true religion – “Believe, and thou shalt be saved!”

          I’ll save myself if I feel like it.

          Cheers.

        • David Appell says:

          Salvatore Del Prete says:
          “Yes but they still believe.”

          No one “believes” AGW. They know the evidence for it. Missing this point says a lot about you, Salvatore.

      • Ball4 says:

        “I would say at a minimum -.5c, if it is a climatic shift..”

        Happened couple times in the 80’s and at least once in the 90’s according to UAH. The theory and experiment Callendar relied upon will still be useful and reasonably predictive over another 75+ years if practiced with reasonable work as he did.

        If “minimum -.5c” happens again by 2020 as before the theory and experiments will still be useful to understand climate and will not be toast despite Salvatore’s opinion.

  117. Myki says:

    Meanwhile, I don’t wan’t to be called alarmist but:
    “Global temperatures for the first five months of the year have been the highest on record for a La Nia year, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. May 2018 was the fourth warmest May on record, the 42nd consecutive May and the 401st consecutive month above the 20th century average. ”

    “Ice losses from Antarctica have tripled since 2012, increasing global sea levels by 0.12 inch (3 millimeters) in that timeframe alone, according to a major new international climate assessment funded by NASA and ESA (European Space Agency). According to the study, ice losses from Antarctica are causing sea levels to rise faster today than at any time in the past 25 years. Results of the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) were published in the journal Nature.”
    https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/above-average-warmth-high-impact-weather-continues

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      myki…”Meanwhile, I dont want to be called alarmist but:
      Global temperatures for the first five months of the year have been the highest on record for a La Nia year, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration”.

      You mean the fudging, cheating, data synthesizers at NOAA?

  118. Gordon Robertson says:

    Drats…posted in the wrong place,

    For all you supporters of relativity. Here’s an article by the scientist who invented the atomic clock, an expert on time.

    He thinks relativity theory and time dilation are both wrong. He think relativity does not qualify as a theory and that Einstein was a light-weight when it came to measures.

    https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm

    http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/25/dr-louis-essen-inventor-of-atomic-clock-rejects-einsteins-relativity-theory/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      more on Louis Essen inventor of the atomic clock and one of the first to accurately determine the speed of light.

      https://www.lindahall.org/louis-essen/

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Reading the following article from Louis Essen, I felt I could insert AGW theory in place of relativity and it would fit.

        http://www.sciforums.com/threads/louis-essen-discusses-einsteins-theories-another-attempt.98765/

        “It is always better to refer to the original papers rather than to second hand accounts and I, therefore, studied Einsteins famous paper, often regarded as one of he most important contributions in the history of science. Imagine my surprise when I found that it was in some respects one of the worse papers I had ever read. The terminology and style were unscientific and ambiguous; one of his assumptions is given on different pages in two contradictory forms, some of his statements were open to different interpretations and the worst fault in my view, was the use of thought-experiments.

        This practice is contrary to the scientific method which is based on conclusions drawn from the results of actual experiments. My first thoughts were, that in spite of its obvious faults of presentation, the theory must be basically sound, and before committing my criticisms to print I read widely round the subject.

        The additional reading only confirmed my belief that the theory was marred by its own internal contradictions. Relativitists often state that the theory is accepted by all scientists of repute but this is quite untrue. It has been strongly criticised by many scientists, including at least one Nobel prize winner.

        Most of the criticisms are of a general nature drawing attention to its many contradictions, so I decided to pin-point the errors which give rise to the contradictions, giving the page and line in Einsteins paper, thus making it difficult for relativitists to dodge them and obscure them in a morass of irrational discussion”.

        Essen talks about contradictions in the article (at link below) by Einsteins relativity paper. One of the first I encountered was the thought experiment presented by Einstein in which a man is floating inside a box in space. Suddenly the man and box come into the gravitational field of a planet and the man’s feet touch the floor.

        Why would both not be attracted at the same rate? Then the box is yanked up by a rope, which would cause the man’s feet to touch the bottom of the box. Einstein sees both as examples of acceleration rather than the forces applied which are quite different and act differently. He then quite illogically begins to associate gravity, a force, to acceleration which has a time factor.

        Einstein’s paper on relativity really is ambiguous. As Essen claimed, no scientific paper should contain thought experiments.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          Einsteins paper on relativity really is ambiguous. As Essen claimed, no scientific paper should contain thought experiments.

          He he.

          Einstein used experimental results to create his theory:

          * Fizeau’s experiment of 1851
          * the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell’s equations, eqations firmly grounded in experiment (to say the least)
          * the TroutonNoble experiment (1903)
          * the experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902, 1904)
          * the Michelson Morley experiment

          Einstein was a genius, and with these results, plus a great deal of hard thinking, he invented special relativity. It was a major triumph of human thought.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Einstein was a genius….”

            I used to think that too and now I wonder what went wrong. I a