UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2018: +0.18 deg. C

June 1st, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2018 was +0.18 deg. C, down a little from the April value of +0.21 deg. C:

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed, and so has the distinction between calendar months.

Some regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 17 months are:

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 01 +0.33 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10 +0.27 +0.95 +1.22
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.20 +0.08 +2.16 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06 +1.21 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.27 +0.29 +0.26 +0.21 +0.89 +0.22 +0.40
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41 +0.10 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.22 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39 +0.50 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51 +0.60 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46 -0.55 +0.49 +0.77
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54 +0.29 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47 +1.21 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.27 +1.35 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.44 +1.37 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.58 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.24 +0.16 +0.03 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.06 -0.32 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.10 -0.13 -0.01 +1.02 +0.68
2018 05 +0.18 +0.40 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.40

The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through May 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.

The UAH LT global anomaly image for May, 2018 should be available in the next few days here.

The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:

Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt


2,304 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for May, 2018: +0.18 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. E. Swanson says:

    After some experimentation, I’ve been able to achieve a lower pressure with my Green Plate Demonstration. As with previous demonstrations, the latest results of this effort can be viewed as a PDF file from my BOX account HERE.

    The results of this run at 50 microns gauge pressure are almost identical to that from the last run, which achieved a pressure of 100 microns. After the vacuum pump was switched on, the Blue Plate temperature increased 23.5 C, at which point the Green Plate was raised into position. At the end of the run, the Blue Plate temperature had gained another 10.0 C. The total temperature increase after the pump was switched on was 31.8 C for the previous run and was 33.5 C for the present run. The gain after lifting the Green Plate was nearly identical for both runs.

    I think the fact that the results are almost identical to the previous run indicates that convection has now been almost completely suppressed, thus the change in temperature of the Blue Plate must be the result of “back radiation” from the Green Plate.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Woops, the link didn’t copy properly. Here is is:

      https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba

    • Svante says:

      Gordon and Flynn will be so grateful for having this new insight.

    • Idiot tracker says:

      Nice job.

      Yet this sentence in your introduction:

      All solids and fluids emit infrared radiation as a function of their temperature and the rate of emission is a function of the fourth power of absolute temperature.

      is not correct.

      The specific T^4 law is only valid for total (integrated) emission of a perfect blackbody.

      Yet for any stuff and in particular for gases what’s true in general is that the rate of emission at a frequency f is proportional to the Planck function B ( f, T ) and this is always a steadily increasing function of T. This is all you need since this implies that total integrated emission of any stuff is an increasing function of T, albeit not in general as a T^4 power low .

      • David Appell says:

        And, there needs to be an epsilon in front of the SB Law. It’s 1 for a blackbody, but not for other materials. And often a function of frequency.

        • Idiot tracker says:

          If epsilon is a function of frequency SB law is in general not valid
          Period.

          • David Appell says:

            Wrong — emissivity *IS* part of the SB-Law.

            And it can be quite a complex function.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            IT,

            Emissivity can and does vary with wavelength/wavenumber/frequency. Here are just a couple trivial examples:
            http://gsp.humboldt.edu/olm_2015/Courses/GSP_216_Online/images/emmisivity-spectrum.jpg

          • Idiot tracker says:

            TF

            Of course epsilon is in general a function of frequency !
            Where did I claim it wasn’t ?

            What I claimed and of course still do claim is that if it is SB T^4 power law cannot be really valid, in general.

            The reason is very simple: Mathematically it is only the integration of Planck’s function B( f, T ) itself (epsilon =1 or blackbody)) over all frequencies that yields the SB T^4 power law.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law#StefanBoltzmann_law

            So unless emissivity of a material is essentially a constant independent of frequency over the relevant frequency range, i.e. the material in question is well approximated by a gray body total integrated emission or radiance of that material cannot really verify SB. Merely because B( f, T) * epsilon ( f ) can in general no monger be integrated analytically and yield the simple T^4 temperature dependance.

            Gray body is often a good approximation for solids around room temperature but not for gases with specific bands. O2 thermal emission in atmosphere ( Spencer’s satellite T measurements) is essentially in the microwaves and varies simply like T as opposed to T^4.

          • Idiot tracker says:

            DA

            Wrong

            Funny pontification.

            Unfortunately you don’t know what you talk about.

          • Idiot tracker says:

            TF, DA

            Note by the way, that realistic climate model codes of course do by no means use simple SB T^4 power law approximation. This would be much too gross in the case of gases with their drastic frequency dependance of emissivity.

            These codes use frequency resolved radiation transfer and resort to Planck’s function again, not its integrated gray body form.

          • Idiot tracker says:

            An introduction to frequency resolved radiation transfer and how Planck’s function is used in realistic calculations as opposed to idealized simplified SB law based models of educational purpose intended to demonstrate the essence of the GHE.

            http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page47.htm

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Sorry, IT, I misread your comment. Now that I re-read the discussion ore carefully, I agree with everything you say.

    • FTOP says:

      First, great job on developing an actual experiment with methodology.

      There is an interesting sequence in your testing. You write:

      “With the application of a vacuum, the temperature of the Blue plate increased 23.5 C, while the Green plate lagged behind.”

      So the presence of an atmosphere (before you turned on the vacuum) kept the temperature of the blue plate lower than without an atmosphere. It appears the presence of a gas, even without convection, around a solid lowers the temperature of the solid.

      • E. Swanson says:

        FTOP, Yes, even though the bell jar is closed, convection loops can develop within and transfer thermal energy from one area to another. The side of the bell jar facing the light receives both visible and IR radiation from the light and thus is warmer than the opposite side. The Blue Plate is also warmed, which would be expected to drive a different loop. That said, the heating is near the top of the jar and some stratification would also be expected, since the bottom is cooler than the top, which would inhibit convection.

        By removing most of the air, the formation of convection loops would be suppressed, though I don’t have a way to quantify that effect. At 50 microns pressure, 99.9934% of the SL atmospheric mass has been removed.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          I’ll have to finish up an experiment that is rather different in geometry, but shows the same effect. The initial results were just as clear at this bell-jar experiment.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      swannie…”I think the fact that the results are almost identical to the previous run indicates that convection has now been almost completely suppressed, thus the change in temperature of the Blue Plate must be the result of “back radiation” from the Green Plate”.

      ***********

      I’ll give you one thing, when you want to see something that isn’t there you see it.

      I would suggest you read up on the 2nd law but you seem to be convinced you have disproved it.

      • coturnix says:

        Lol, relax guy, neither greenhouse effect nor this experiment as described does not disprove the 2nd law. Now, if the temperature of the blue plate increased above that of *the sun*, e.g. > 6000k, then that would be a violation of slt, but it doesn’t happen.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo, As usual, your comment ignores the facts shown by the demo. You resort to a distraction, since you don’t have the ability to present a serious analysis as an alternative explanation for my findings. I’ve never claimed that my results “disprove” the Second Law, which is about entropy.

    • Kristian says:

      E. Swanson says, June 1, 2018 at 9:18 AM:

      I think the fact that the results are almost identical to the previous run indicates that convection has now been almost completely suppressed, thus the change in temperature of the Blue Plate must be the result of “back radiation” from the Green Plate.

      This statement is tantamount to saying: Look, the temps have gone up and so has CO2. THUS the temperature increase must be the result of the rise in CO2. IOW, I’m correct in postulating that more CO2 in the atmosphere will CAUSE surface temps to increase because, believing this, I predicted temps to rise as the atmospheric content of CO2 went up, and they did …!

      What you are effectively saying, Swanson, is that you believe – a priori – that “back radiation” from cool to warm is what causes warm to warm even further, and since you did observe the warm plate to warm even further as you put up the cool plate right next to it, you automatically concluded that your original belief is therefore correct. You simply observed a (predicted) thermal EFFECT and thus immediately assumed YOUR particular theoretical explanation of that effect to be verified.

      Sorry, but that’s not how science works. That’s how PSEUDO-science works.

      I’m amazed you don’t see this yourself.

      • E. Swanson says:

        The K wrote:

        You simply observed a (predicted) thermal EFFECT and thus immediately assumed YOUR particular theoretical explanation of that effect to be verified.

        Sorry, but thats not how science works. Thats how PSEUDO-science works.

        The energy flowing thru the bell jar can only occur via conduction, convection or radiant transfer. The Blue plate is suspended by thin wires, thus almost no conduction. That leaves a combination of convection and radiation in the initial condition. Evacuating the bell jar inhibits convection, thus the temperature of the Blue plate increases as the vacuum is applied. Raising the Green plate changes the radiant transfer between the Blue plate and the surrounding ball jar, the result of which must cause a warming of the Blue plate.

        I have yet to see any alternative logical explanation from you, Gordo, MF or others on this site. Just more hand waving and regurgitated BS with no evidence.

      • Nate says:

        Kristian,

        ‘What you are effectively saying, Swanson, is that you believe a priori that back radiation from cool to warm is what causes warm to warm even further, and since you did observe the warm plate to warm even further ‘

        He is simply confirming long understood radiative heat transfer physics. Many many experiments have been done, and the theory has been thoroughly tested.

        He has excellent reasons to expect ‘a priori’ what indeed he observed.

        Can you think of an experiment that will prove him wrong?

      • wert says:

        What you are effectively saying, Swanson, is that you believe – a priori – that “back radiation” from cool to warm is what causes warm to warm even further[..]

        No, seriously, I can’t take this “warm to warm” red-herring/misunderstanding/crap any further.

        It doesn’t “warm” the warm. It is a measure of how fast warm may cool down. Sunshine is generally what warms the warm.

        • Nate says:

          WERT,

          ‘It is a measure of how fast warm may cool down.’

          What he sees in the experiment are temps reaching steady state with warmer values when the plates are in-line, so I don’t see your point.

          If your point is that the green plate is acting to insulate the blue, then fine, but it is doing so via its radiation.

        • E. Swanson says:

          wert, As Nate points out, there’s a constant input of energy flowing into the bell jar “system” via the intense EM from the work light, that energy eventually leaving the bell jar to add to that of the surround room. The temperature at any point within the system represents the state of the internal thermal energy of the body where the thermocouple is located. There are actually four different “systems”, so to speak, as the demonstration progresses, including the initial state before the light is switched on. After equilibrium is achieved for each one, the temperatures have changed to new values reflecting the internal energy states for each component of that system.

        • wert says:

          In fact it does little difference to have a constant forcing. The back radiation is not what warms the surface, but the Sun.

          The back radiation is just a measure of radiative cooling efficiency.

    • Roger says:

      Dear Roy,

      I have taken the liberty of posting your blog of June 4th, 2013 “EPIC FAIL: 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature” on my blog.

      It has incurred a number of questions, (in other places as well as my blog), and I wonder if you could give me some guidance as to the method from which you produced the marvelous graph at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png

      I have followed your references “Courtesy of John Christy, a comparison between 73 CMIP5 models (archived at the KNMI Climate Explorer website) and observations for the tropical bulk tropospheric temperature (aka “MT”) since 1979 (click for large version):” and am working on the KNMI Climate Explorer website and obtained some raw data there.

      However I cannot find the data for the “4 radiosonde datasets, and 2 satellite datasets (UAH and RSS)”.

      Trust you can find the time to help me here, esp with the latter data set.

      Will be much obliged if you can help.

      Best regards

      Roger

  2. The NOAA CDAS preliminary monthly average global mean surface temperature for May 2018 based on daily CDAS averages was 15.59 C, which is the lowest May average since May 2015 at 15.54 C. The May 2018 global mean surface temperature anomaly referenced to 1981-2010 was 0.23 C compared to 0.36 C for April and was the lowest anomaly since 0.16 C for July 2015.

    Graphs of monthly estimates here:
    https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/

  3. goldminor says:

    Being that temps did not gain in this last Month, then I would say that it is all down slope from here. I had been wondering if there was going to be a temp spike due to the heavy rainy winter of 2016/17 on the West Coast of the US. Such winters typically lead to a temp spike around 20 months after the heavy winter, which should have become apparent by now.

    The conclusion being that the temp spike which can be seen in past records after a heavy West Coast winter is due only to the rise of the sunspot index after coming off of the minimum. In this case the minimum still has around 2 years to run, and so there is no spike in global temps to be seen. That strongly implies that global temps are now going to steadily cool through this year and the next year,if not for the next 3 years. This is going to get very interesting from this point in time.

    • David Appell says:

      Yes, a warming trend over 472 months, followed by 2 months cooler than the previous month, is definitely a sign that it’s all down slope from here. Definitely. {eye roll}

      • Tim Wells says:

        To the best of my knowledge there has not been any warming since 1998, but don’t let your fantasy get in the way.

        • La Pangolina says:

          Tim Wells says:
          June 1, 2018 at 10:22 AM

          To the best of my knowledge there has not been any warming since 1998…

          *

          I guess your knowledge is based on UAH6.0 LT. So let’s go there.

          Linear estimate since Jan 1998: 0.07 ± 0.02 °C / decade.

          This is not much, I agree! But nevertheless it is over 50 % of the trend since 1979.

          Linear estimate since Jan 2008: 0.45 ± 0.05 °C / decade.

          Yes, Tim Wells: don’t let your fantasy get in the way.

          • Bart says:

            You are just measuring a transient, El Nino spike in the latter one. Meh.

          • goldminor says:

            @ Bart …Note that L.P. is using the low point of 2008, and then drawing a line to current time to get that high rate. Take a look at the UAH graph above and note where !/2008 sits on the graph. I would call that an unripened cherry at best.

          • PhilJ says:

            Hmm the linear estimate since the end of the last solar minimum has been positive… Hmm cant think of any reason why…. Must be man!!

        • David Appell says:

          Tim, that’s wrong. You need to redo your calculation.

        • David Appell says:

          Linear trend of UAH LT v6.0 from Jan-1999 to present = +0.14 C/decade, R^2=0.18

      • goldminor says:

        @DA …I am running very strong on my forecasts. So let us see what happens between now and September. I say that temps will not rise by any significant amount over the course of this upcoming summer. They may even fall through the summer due to cooling influences around the globe.

        Also, note that there has only been a slight warming trend over the last 472 months, approx 0.5C since 1979 with an addition of 74ppm of CO2 added into the atmosphere over those 472 months. Some part of that rise is natural. So at best the influence of CO2 can only be small to tiny.

        Care to make a forecast of your own, if you are able? I would think that after all of these years, and all of the time and effort on your part with your obvious superior qualities that this should be easy for you.

        • David Appell says:

          0.5 C since 1979 is “slight?” Compared to what?

          Some part of that rise is natural.

          How much? From what? Be prepared to defend your number, because you know we’ll have hard questions about it.

          • goldminor says:

            @DA …no one knows how much is natural versus whatever part is caused by rising CO2. Do you have an opinion based on anything of substance in that regard?

            As for what drives the warming, the main warming occurs in the oceans as a first step, and that is solar driven, imo. I defend my claims by making accurate forecasts and predictions.

          • David Appell says:

            What natural factors are there?

            How much warming/cooling have they caused since, say, 1970?

          • Erik Aamot says:

            It’s entirely possible .. actually probable that most of the increase in CO2 has been natural and that nature is doing a great job of using the higher level with a significant increase in plant growth observed over the last 30 years directly due to CO2 fertilization

            David, compared to higher temperatures of the past and also to faster 40 year rises in temperature in the last 150 years

          • goldminor says:

            @ DA …playing ignorant does not look well on you. I already gave answer to that question of yours.

    • Bond says:

      So you are claiming to be able to see an 11 year cycle in global temperatures?

      • Bart says:

        The impact of the 11 year solar cycle is modulated by other cycles pertaining to the uptake and release of energy from the oceans. In particular, the wobble of the Earth’s axis with a 9.3 year period induces harmonics at about 5 years and 60 years. These are evident in the temperature data.

        • David Appell says:

          What are the temperature amplitudes for these claimed 5- and 60-year cycles?

        • Bond says:

          Quick research reveals that the amplitude of this wobble (nutation) amounts to 17 seconds of arc in longitude and 9.2 seconds of arc in obliquity.

          SECONDS. Do you understand how small an angle that is? It is less than half a percent of one degree. Do you really believe that could have even the slightest effect on climate?

          • Mike Flynn says:

            B,

            If the atmosphere acts chaotically, there is no minimum perturbation which may result in chaotic behaviour ie unpredictability.

            The IPCC agrees that prediction of future climate states is impossible, as the atmosphere acts chaotically.

            So yes, you are stupid and ignorant. You understand nothing about chaos – even less than the IPCC.

            Are you happy now?

            Cheers.

          • David Appell says:

            Bond: clearly, I meant the amplitude of *temperature*

          • Bond says:

            David
            You seem to have difficulty discerning when I am responding to you.
            I was clearly responding to Bart.

          • Bart says:

            That actually works out to fairly massive motion at the surface, which is where the oceans get stirred up by it. The Earth is about 6.3 million meters in radius, you know.

          • Nate says:

            ‘fairly massive motion at the surface, which is where the oceans get stirred up by it’

            I tried stirring my coffee by tilting the cup at a slight angle (10 degrees) and slowly rotating that tilt about once in 5 sec.

            Shockingly, it did not stir the coffee at all.

          • Bart says:

            But, I guarantee it did change the rate at which it cooled. Remember, we’re talking changes on the order of tenths of a degree here. And, movement of incredibly massive amounts of water.

    • Global temperature usually spiking late in or around the end of a wet winter in the US West Coast is usually due to a usual cause of such wet West Coast winters – El Nino. US West Coast winter precipitation does not always correlate well with ENSO, global temperature in the first half of a year correlates better with ENSO in the winter that ends early in the same year than West Coast precipitation does. So when West Coast precipitation is atypical for the ENSO status of a winter, it is likely to be atypical for global temperature (with respect to the trend of global temperature smoothed over the previous several years) late that winter and that spring.

      This past winter, there was a mild/minimal La Nina, which typically makes late winter and springtime global temperature below the trend line of multiyear-smoothed global temperature over the previous several years – global temperature obeyed last winter’s mild La Lina. California rainfall did not, because it sometimes doesn’t. The recent great El Nino didn’t bring California that the great El Ninos of 1997-1998 and 1982-1983 did. Another exception was the El Nino of 1976-1977, which did not fix a California drought although it did produce a now- expectable spike in global temperature. There was a problematic weather pattern that sometimes happens, a blocking pattern of upper atmospheric ridge on the West Coast, and upper atmospheric trough in the eastern US until that pattern broke spectacularly in early February 1977. December 1976 and January 1977 were spectacularly cold in the eastern US, after a chilly fall and cool summer, but spring 1976 was warm (and irregularly warm) in the eastern US. The highest temperature in Philadelphia in 1976 was a new record high for the month of April (since broken by 1 degree in 2002).

      • David Appell says:

        The recent great El Nino didnt bring California that the great El Ninos of 1997-1998 and 1982-1983 did.

        No, but globally the 2015-16 El Nino was about (GMAT average over the season) 0.4 C above that of the 1997-98 El Nino, which itself was about 0.3 C above that of 1982-83.

        El Ninos are getting warming.
        La Ninas are also getting warmer.
        So are neutral warming.

        => global warming

        • David Appell says:

          should be “…so are neutral years….”

        • Jake says:

          David, serious question here with no snark.
          And I understand that the hard data is limited.
          But, could the same (probably) be said about 1700-1850? Certainly, there was global warming during that period.
          And, if so, is there a way to then quantify a natural component of global warming.

          • Ryan Shaffer says:

            Jake,

            That is a great question, and I would be eager to see David’s response as well, as it is why I have had a hard time buying into the C02 caused global warming movement. Especially, when we know that we already had a medieval warming period that was at least as warm in the northern atlantic region that was at least as warm as we have now and CO2 was not the cause.

            In addition, we have a little ice age that had a cold variance at least as dramatic the other direction as what we see now as well and obviously C02 had nothing to do with that either. So, we know that the earth’s climate can swing at least as much as it is now without C02. So, how are we sure that C02 is now the primary cause of this warming that we are seeing?

            Finally, you might get a kick out of Al Gore’s C02 Emissions Chart…you can look it up on Youtube under that search term. He is trying to make the point of how dramatically C02 is rising, but he essentially shoots himself in the foot from the graph, because he shows that C02 is much, much higher than it has ever been in the last 650,000 years in earth’s history, yet we have had at least 2 periods in the last 650,000 years that were warmer than we have now (per Gore’s Graph).

            So, Gore essentially invalidates his premise that CO2 is a cause of global warming, as C02 is much, much higher than any time in the past 650,000 years, yet earth has had higher temperatures in the past 650,000 years than now…

          • Nate says:

            Jake,

            Here is a paper using instrument record of central European temp back to mid 1700s.

            https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/PalaeoPDFs/GlaserRiemann2009.pdf

            Fig 4.

          • Nate says:

            Many of the ups and downs correlate to volcanic erruptions.

          • Svante says:

            Jake,
            Berkeley Earth estimated the natural variation to be +/- 0.17 C.
            It looks like short term deviations can be much larger than that.

        • richard verney says:

          ENSO is a natural event not caused by CO2.

          If both El Ninos and La Ninas are getting warmer (and I make no comment as to whether that is correct) then it it all but inevitable that neutral years, ie., years between ENSO events will be bound to be warmer. In fact if both El Ninos and La Ninas are warmer, it would be almost impossible for neutral years to be cooler.

          Thus what you are suggesting would appear to be simply the outcome of natural events unless you can explain how CO2 drives ENSO.

          • Bond says:

            The fact that ENSO events are independent of the greenhouse effect is the whole point.

            ENSO events are not getting stronger or weaker. But the change in temperature they cause is being superimposed onto an ever increasing baseline.

  4. I have maintained for years now which many have not paid attention to ,which is in order to have solar exert a climatic impact that is more significant two conditions must be present.

    CONDITION NUMBER 1 – 10+ YEARS OF SUB – SOLAR ACTIVITY IN GENERAL.

    Which is now satisfied since sub solar activity in general has been occurring since late 2005. That proceeded by extremely active solar conditions for several decades, the modern maximum.

    CONDITION NUMBER 2 – Within the sub -solar activity in general low average value solar parameters must be meant and sustained for a period of time. Those solar parameters having values equal to or lower than the solar values that take place in typical solar minimums within the so called 11 year sunspot cycle, and longer in duration.

    It looks like this is now occurring. Year 2018 being the first year where it looks like my 2 conditions for global cooling due to solar activity are taking place. This is why I am confident to say this year is a transitional year in the climate and no further global warming is going to take place starting with this year and moving forward.

    Thus far I would say the climatic trends are looking pretty good(this year) with global temperatures now running lower according to satellite data lower then a year ago thru this time, with overall sea surface temperatures cooling not to mention the North Atlantic in particular which is undergoing extensive cooling and is a very important area in the global climate picture. Also with the atmospheric circulation being less zonal.

    The other area is what is happening with the geo magnetic field in regards to it’s strength and orientation which when in sync with solar activity will compound given solar effects. In this case they are both weakening.

    The upshot of this is overall sea surface temperatures should drop and a slight uptick in albedo is probably going to happen due to an increase in global cloud coverage, snow coverage and an uptick in explosive major volcanic activity. My opinion.

    If one looks at the climatic history objectively it is clear that every prolonged solar minimum results in global cooling without exception. THOSE ARE THE FACTS NOT MY OPINION.

    Finally people are stuck on the false concept that the climate is going to change slowly and gradually which is false . That only being true when the climate is locked in a specific climate regime which had been the case after we came out of the Little Ice Age to present.

    This may now be changing in my opinion.

  5. Bond says:

    I am still waiting for Dr Spencer to explain how UAH got the US temperature for April so wrong.

    It was one of the coldest Aprils on record (at the 10th percentile) yet UAH had it at only 0.01C below average (compared to NOAAs 1.65C below average for the same baseline).

    How can your claim that the satellite record is more accurate than the thermometer record be believed after an obvious blunder like this one?

    • regional differences can be large, due to atmospheric stability (e.g. cold shallow air masses cooling the surface more than the mid-troposphere).

      These effects average out in the global mean, though, so we expect the global anomalies between surface and deep-troposphere to be better coupled, especially if we increase the averaging time from 1 to 3 months (since there is still a time lag for overturning of the atmosphere in response to anomalous surface heating).

      This has been well known, for at least 25 years when the satellite monitoring was started. There is no “blunder”.

      • Bond says:

        So what then is the point of publishing this figure?

        • Bond says:

          And why did this time lag not arise for May in the US? Surely May in the US counts as ‘anomalous surface heating’?

          • The lag only occurs if the deep layer temperature is responsing to the surface, which is more what we expect on very large scales. On the scale of the U.S., the warming surface temperatures might be the result of warm Pacific airmasses dominating over cool Canadian air masses.

            You have many questions… maybe get yourself a college-level book on meteorology.

        • Because it’s an estimate of the average temperature of airmasses over the U.S. during the month, which together with surface temperatures tells us something about atmospheric stability. No one claimed it’s what you measure in your backyard.

          • Lewis says:

            Yes, one always enjoys those who believe the world reflects their locale.

          • Bond says:

            But why the US? Why not Africa? Or India? Or a random location in the middle of the ocean? It seems that the only reason you publish this figure is because people DO associate it with the US. So it is misleading.

          • Bond says:

            Lewis
            I don’t live in the US. One always enjoys those who make incorrect assumptions based on insufficient evidence.

          • David Appell says:

            Bond: Because most of Roy’s readers live in the USA48.

          • Bond says:

            Indeed. Not 7 km above the USA.

      • Eystein Simonsen says:

        So, we can expect an uptick in June globally due to this lag? Northern Europe experienced record high May temperatures this year. Our meteorologists are overwhelmed by the crushing of records in the Northern countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland). As a fact, Norway turned out to be warmer than Spain. Norway ended 4.2 C above normal which is a new record. The cause? Massive blocking of high pressure combined with stable low pressure int the south of Europe. And a contention that jet streams are getting more “lazy” due to warming of Arctic (reduction of contrast in temperatures between the tropics and the pole). And again – a product of global warming…

        • Pietje Mol says:

          True about Northern Europe and Spain.

          In Spain it has been very, very cold. Still is. It’s 21 in Madrid, whereas last year during the first period of June it suffered 43. And forecasts are it will drop next week to 17, way below normal.

          All nothing to do with AGW.

          • goldminor says:

            @ Pietje …exactly, the sole reason for the warmth in areas of Europe, and the cold in Spain is all about shifting surface winds, and nothing more than that.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Roy…”This has been well known, for at least 25 years when the satellite monitoring was started. There is no blunder”.

        You can’t win, Roy. When you guys at UAH report cooler temps than the rest, you get blamed for it, and when you report warmer temps than the rest, you get blamed.

        Thanks for this months data. I expected warming and this is good news.

        It was unseasonally warm here in Vancouver for much of May but June has begun with cooling (currently 13C). Go figure. Seems like we’re back to normal for this time of year since the 14 day trend is forecasting temps generally under 20C.

        • Bond says:

          “You can’t win, NOAA. When you guys report warmer temps than the rest, you get blamed for it, and when you report cooler temps than the rest, you get blamed.”

    • ok , nevertheless the trend of late is down which is good, but not down enough.

      • David Appell says:

        “Temperatures in response to this will decline in the near future, in contrast to the steady state of temperature we presently have,or have been having for the past 15 years or so.”

        – Salvatore Del Prete, 11/6/2012
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/11/uah-v5-5-global-temp-update-for-october-2012-0-33-deg-c/#comment-64939

        • Lewis guignard says:

          David,

          No one really appreciates your trying to prove Salvatore has said something in the past which might differ from what he says today.

          I, for one, enjoy reading what he has to say and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the fact he seldom, if ever, attacks those who disagree with him.

          SO take a hint. He is a much better person than you.

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis: In other words, you don’t care one iota that Salvatore has always been wrong in the past, you’ll entertain whatever inanity he says today.

            Why am I not surprised?

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis, since I can’t recall a single scientific thing you’ve ever written on this blog, I really could not care less what your opinion of me is.

            I’ll keep criticizing Salvatore for all the wrong things he’s said.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Lewis g…”I, for one, enjoy reading what he [Salvatore] has to say and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the fact he seldom, if ever, attacks those who disagree with him.

            SO take a hint. He is a much better person than you”.

            *********

            ditto

          • Idiot tracker says:

            No one really appreciates your trying to prove Salvatore has said something in the past which might differ from what he says today.

            Laughable wishful thinking.
            I’m one (and not the only one) of those who appreciate it tremendously !

            It is so funny !

    • David Appell says:

      Bond says:
      I am still waiting for Dr Spencer to explain how UAH got the US temperature for April so wrong.
      It was one of the coldest Aprils on record (at the 10th percentile) yet UAH had it at only 0.01C below average (compared to NOAAs 1.65C below average for the same baseline).

      Can you please explain your numbers?

      For the 1980-2010 baseline, I get these anomalies:

      NOAA USA48: +1.30 F = +0.72 C
      UAH LT v6.0: -0.01 C

      • Bond says:

        From NOAA’s ‘National Climate Report – April 2018’:

        https://tinyurl.com/ybq88kyp

        “During April, the average contiguous U.S. temperature was 48.9F, 2.2F below the 20th century average, making it the 13th coldest April on record and the coldest since 1997.”

        Their “Climate at a Glance” page confirms this:
        https://tinyurl.com/ClimateAtAGlance

        • David Appell says:

          Those numbers are with respect to a different baseline — 1901-2000, not 1980-2010.

          • Bond says:

            And I have already said that I converted to the UAH baseline.

            NOAA April 2018 compared to 1901-2000 Baseline: -1.20C
            NOAA 1981-2010 average in 1901-2000 Baseline: +0.45C
            Hence, NOAA April 2018 compared to 1981-2010 Baseline: -1.65C

            Converting to the 1981-2010 baseline makes the low anomalies even LOWER.

            To get your claimed anomaly of +0.72C in the 1981-2010 baseline would require NOAA’s 1980-2010 average to be strongly NEGATIVE. -1.92C to be precise.

  6. Snape says:

    Bryan – oz4caster

    I’ve been looking at Climatereanalyzer for a couple of years now, and May, 2018 was by far the coolest month I can remember. It’s surprising that UAH shows almost no change from April.

  7. The trends of late are good but we have a long way to go before I can become more confident.

    They are still high even +.18c against 1981-2010 averages is still high. I want to see at least a 0 deviation from that period of time if not below normal.

    It is wait and see.

    On the other hand this number of +.18c and the last 4 or 5 months argues against AGW which calls for ever increasing global temperatures and as each month goes by without no additional warming it will weigh on AGW.

    In addition overall sea surface temperatures are also in a down trend for close to a year now. Again still on the high side more time needs to pass and see what happens.

    But it is a start perhaps.

    • Svante says:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      “…AGW which calls for ever increasing global temperatures and as each month goes by …”

      Temperatures went down for thirty years and then the GHE won.
      The GHE is long term.
      You are short term.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore del Prete wrote:
      “…and the last 4 or 5 months argues against AGW….”

      Salvatore, when are you ever going to learn about natural fluctuations vs changes in climate.

      Personally, I think there’s a reason why you’re opposed to AGW, and it has nothing at all to do with the science or the data.

      Why don’t you tell us why you’re really opposed to AGW?

      • Richard M says:

        David says: “when are you ever going to learn about natural fluctuations vs changes in climate.”

        LOL. This coming from the guy who ignores the AMO and millennial cycle. Why don’t you tell us why you’re really a supporter of AGW?

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      “…argues against AGW which calls for ever increasing global temperatures and as each month goes…”

      It absolutely does not, Salvatore. Shame on you.

      Natural variations still exist in an AGW world.

      Please go learn something and stop competing with Gordon for the Ignorance Trophy.

      • Mike says:

        DA,
        A whole lot of people think Salvatore is wrong. But they don’t treat him like you do. He has an hypothesis, he puts it out there in plain sight. He is always wrong … at least on his timing. It always seems to be “just around the corner”. But he sticks to his theory and doesn’t bother anyone. Who knows. Maybe someday he’ll be right. If you believe there is some science to prove him wrong, why not just state that. Why can’t you be more polite? Why do you have to be an ass? You have a lot of good stuff to say. Why not be know as someone that provides facts and opinions instead of the rude guy?

    • barry says:

      AGW which calls for ever increasing global temperatures

      That is a complete fabrication, Salvatore.

      Monthly and interannual fluctuations are EXPECTED under global warming from any cause. What you’ve said just here is complete nonsense.

    • Bond says:

      Salvatore
      “which calls for ever increasing global temperatures”

      Would you please cite a climate scientist who claims “every month will be warmer than the last”.

      If you can’t do this, then fall on your sword and admit to fabricating that BS.

  8. Snape says:

    Bond

    “How can your claim that the satellite record is more accurate than the thermometer record be believed after an obvious blunder like this one?”

    Why are you calling it a blunder? Should we expect the surface and lower troposphere to always match up?

    • Bond says:

      If it doesn’t match up, what is the point of publishing a monthly temperature for a small region of the earth such as the USA? It seems to be an utterly meaningless figure.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bond…”If it doesnt match up, what is the point of publishing a monthly temperature for a small region of the earth such as the USA? It seems to be an utterly meaningless figure”.

        You’re an utterly meaningless poster. Who cares what you think?

        You are a guest on Roy’s site, have some respect. If you have a question for him ask it intelligently rather than your ham-handed accusations of blundering.

    • Nate says:

      Don’t see that. It’s just different data, measuring different part of atmosphere. Could be useful to know.

    • David Appell says:

      We can at least expect UAH’s numbers for the atmo to be close to RSS’s.

      But they aren’t — RSS’s trend is about 50% higher than UAH’s for the LT.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”We can at least expect UAHs numbers for the atmo to be close to RSSs.

        But they arent RSSs trend is about 50% higher than UAHs for the LT”.

        DUH!!!!! RSS has joined NOAA in fudging data so UAH should follow suit?

        You’re an idiot.

  9. Another point is people in the climate arena are either unable or not willing to ever forecast a change in the climate in the near future ,if they do it they put it way off into the distant future which is meaningless.

    • Bond says:

      A change in the near future is called weather. Beyond about 10 days, whether is not predictable. It seems you are asking them to guess.

    • Nate says:

      Based on previous La Nina years, I predict we’ve reached or nearly reached the minimum for the year. Anoms will go up beginning this month or next.

      • I do not understand those people that think only one item is going to determine what the climate may or may not do.

        • David Appell says:

          Salvatore Del Prete says:
          “I do not understand those people that think only one item is going to determine what the climate may or may not do.”

          NOBODY THINKS THAT, SALVATORE!!

          For crying out loud, it’s difficult to keep up with some of the profound ignorance displayed in this blog’s comments.

      • goldminor says:

        @ Nate ..I would disagree with you on the direction of the ENSO regions. The ENSO is now going to return to la Nina conditions, although that may take till the end of the summer.

        At best there may be some slight gain in global temps in some of the summer months. After the end of this summer though, then temps are going down slope for the next 3 years approximately, my prediction.

        • Nate says:

          GM,

          Its impressive that you can do 3 years. Can you work on my stock portfolio?

          Seriously, the ENSO experts seem to think that past 6 months or so, they’re just flipping a coin. How do you do it?

          • goldminor says:

            How did I correctly predict in March of 2014 that the winter of 2016/17 would be a well above average rain year for the Pacific Northwest? Along with that, how did I correctly predict that the sunspot numbers would fall close to minimum at the end of 2016 in conjunction with the heavy West Coast winter of 2016/17. How did I also correctly predict in 3/2014 that the ENSO regions would be in a La Nina state in conjunction with a low ssn count, and a heavy winter on the West Coast?

            I haf my vays.

        • Nate says:

          GM,

          Also, ‘The ENSO is now going to return to la Nina conditions, although that may take till the end of the summer.’

          The ENSO modelers find that in the Fall the probability of El Nino or neutral is equal and ~ 45%, while La Nina is ~ 10%.

          http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

          Do you have some insider info that they don’t?

          • goldminor says:

            @ Nate …yes I do have my own special insider views of how the climate system of this planet works. See the above comment for an insight in how far I have come over 10 years of putting my mind to climate related studies.

          • Nate says:

            I guess it will remain mysterious…

            Any predictions turn out wrong? Maybe we just dont hear about those?

          • David Appell says:

            GM, you’re an “insider?”

            Inside of what?

          • Nate says:

            Goldminor,

            There are people who swear by astrology, my mother-in-law does Tarot cards, others read palms. The commonality between these is they claim correlation but have no plausible explanation for causation. And they usually report selectively on their predictive success.

            If thats what you are doing, claiming sunspots and other parameters correlate to ENSO–but if you have no plausible mechanisms for causation, and you report selectively on your record of predictive accuracy, then why should we not lump your predictions in with astrology and the others?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”Based on previous La Nina years, I predict weve reached or nearly reached the minimum for the year”.

        Who said La Nina is the driver? The average for 18 years from 1998 – 2015 was around +0.15. The temps are just approaching that average again.

    • David Appell says:

      “weather” and natural fluctuations.

      • David Appell says:

        Or, ENSOs = weather in the ocean.

      • Nate says:

        ENSO is not all, but pretty dominant over short periods.

        • David Appell says:

          ENSOs can easily cause global average temperature swings of +/- 0.1-0.4 C in ~ six months.

          The real question to be answered is why the ENSOs keep getting warmer, in all its phases — El Nino, La Nina, and neutral.

          • GC says:

            Because more solar short wave radiation has penetrated into the ocean from an unchanged Solar constant at top of atmosphere because of the reduction in low level cumulus cloud from at least 1984. More solar into the ocean, more energy for both El Nino and La Nina to play with.

  10. Snape says:

    I just contradicted myself, didn’t I? Guess I shouldn’t be too surprised that the surface change from April to May was more pronounced than at the LT.

  11. Snape says:

    Sal

    What are you talking about? People in the “climate arena” are predicting a modest, short term warming trend as a result of the la nina fizzling out.

  12. True enough . We have to see what happens I think we find out much in the next year or two.

  13. Snape says:

    Bond

    “If it doesnt match up, what is the point of publishing a monthly temperature for a small region of the earth such as the USA? It seems to be an utterly meaningless figure.”

    If I understand correctly, satellites average the column of lower troposphere rising above an area like the United States. This might not match surface measurements in a particular month, but they correlate well in the long term.

    In my opinion, two areas measured (surface and lower troposphere) are better than one, and the fact that they generally agree gives credence to both records.

    (For some reason, I am only able to post at the bottom of the page)

    • Svante says:

      Snape says:
      “For some reason, I am only able to post at the bottom of the page”

      You just want to be like Sal

    • David Appell says:

      Snape says:
      If I understand correctly, satellites average the column of lower troposphere rising above an area like the United States.

      Not really. There is a vertical weighting function that must be calculated first.

  14. Robert W Turner says:

    The cool water pool just south of the equator looks like it could diminish the warming impact of the equatorial undercurrent warm pool that is making its way east and to the surface — the trade winds are blowing slightly south to north.

    By this time last year the warm pool had already reached the surface and was warming the atmosphere, but if it doesn’t do the same this summer then a similar or sharper cooling trend compared to 2000-2013 could be developing and the pause could return by 2019 or 2020.

  15. Rob Mitchell says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    I still can’t help from noticing how the global mean temperature anomaly of the Tropics have been consistently lower than that of the globe during the past 17 months. Only 3 of the past 17 did the Tropics show a warmer temp anomaly.

    I’ve always suspected that what is going on in the Arctic has a lot to do with what is going on in the Tropics. If you look at the Arctic, it has been considerably higher (not every month) than the globe. This leads me to believe that the Arctic is “pulling” heat from the Tropics during this period of time.

    Do you think that is happening? Or, is it just statistical noise.

      • Rob Mitchell says:

        So, are the tropics always going to show a lesser temp anomaly than the globe? Or, does it oscillate. I would think that Tropics would show a higher temp anomaly than the globe when the Arctic is in a cooling trend. Whatever the mechanism is that transports heat to the Poles will sometimes be weaker in some decades, allowing more heat to stay in the Tropics, thus cooling the polar regions. Probably much more noticeable in the Arctic than the Antarctic.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Rob…”So, are the tropics always going to show a lesser temp anomaly than the globe?”

          The UAH 33 year report from 1979 to about 2011 seems to indicate that. Little or no warming in the Tropics.

          • Rob Mitchell says:

            Gordon, thank you for the UAH link. The point I was making is that before 1979, the globe was in a cooling trend. So, I was entertaining the thought that if we had UAH data BEFORE 1979, it would probably show higher temp anomalies for the Tropics during the global cooling phase of the 1940s through the 1970s than what is indicated now by satellite measurement. Reason being is that more heat was bottled up in the Tropics during the mid-20th Century cooling trend of the mid-lats and polar regions.

            After 1979, the warming phase kicked in at the same time satellite data was used to measure tropospheric temperature as developed by Spencer and Christy. It just seems to me that heat stored up in the Tropics during the so-called “cooling” phase of the 20th Century is being released to the mid-lats and poles, producing a so-called global “warming” phase.

            I know I am probably over-simplifying things, but it looks like to me that multi-decadal warming and cooling phases are basically driven by how much heat transfer is going on from the Tropics to the Extratropics.

        • goldminor says:

          @ R Mitchell … the tropics do not vary much due to the relationship with ocean temps and cloud formation which cools the oceans surface. W Eschenbach did a post at WUWT around 5 years ago which explains the process. Heat transfers from the Equator to the poles mainly due to the spin of the planet.

          Check out the major ocean currents to see how warm waters are transported continuously to the polar regions. Also air currents perform a similar function in transporting heat to the poles, and then to space.

          • Rob Mitchell says:

            Yes, there is the spin of the earth. But there is also heat transport from the equator to the poles just as heat transports along a metal rod when you stick it into a campfire. Have you ever seen the rotating dishpan experiment of the 1950s?

            I would not consider ocean currents and air currents to be a constant any more than I would consider solar radiance a constant. There are going to be some decades when the heat transfer from the Tropics to the Poles will be a little higher than normal, and some decades when it is a little less than normal.

            Due to baroclinic zones of the Extratropics, naturally there will be greater temperature variation there. So, when the Extratropics are in a “cooling phase,” I would think the Tropics would show plus temperature anomaly figures compared to the globe.

      • barry says:

        Av temps in the tropics change less than mid and (Northern) high latitudes in multidecadal response to a general change in climate.

        Eg, during the last few ice age transitions, the polar temps changed by about 10-12C, the global average by 5-6 C, and the tropics by about 2-3C.

        • Rob Mitchell says:

          I was thinking of a much shorter time scale than the glacial-interglacial ones. More on the order of a century. I am curious what Dr. Spencer’s and Dr. Christy’s UAH data would have looked like from the 1940s through the 1970s. I would suspect you would see higher Tropical temp anomalies than the polar regions because less heat was being transported to the poles back then compared to the recent decades. The poles, especially the Arctic was probably colder back then because the Tropics was retaining more heat than it is now. The Arctic has warmed in recent decades probably because the Tropical region is sending more heat there than it did during the middle of the 20th century.

        • Rob Mitchell says:

          Bottom line, so-called “global warming” could very be just a multi-decadal phase where the Tropics is being more efficient at transferring heat to the Poles than normal.

  16. Snape says:

    Robert

    Here is the latest animation of the “equatorial undercurrent warm pool” you mentioned. Looks like it’s starting to make its way to the surface.

    I don’t think anyone can predict what happens after that.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/anim/wkxzteq_anm.gif

  17. Krakatoa says:

    So, for the first time in 3 years UAH is below 0.2.

    • David Appell says:

      Yet still 0.09 C above the 30-yr mean, and 0.09 C above May’s value 30 years ago.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Krak…”So, for the first time in 3 years UAH is below 0.2″.

      Yup…that was a long El Nina from Feb 2016 on.

      Curious to see if the big EN’s have petered out.

  18. Snape says:

    Eystein, from upthread:

    “contention that jet streams are getting more lazy due to warming of Arctic (reduction of contrast in temperatures between the tropics and the pole).”

    There’s evidence that increased freshwater melting off of Greenland could mess up the gulf stream (an example of thermohaline circulation).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

    https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/weather/Climate-Change—Gulf-Stream-Slowing-More-Trouble-484208071.html

    *******

    Hopefully just a coincidence, but right now the North Atlantic is very cold compared to average:

    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png

    ***********

    While the area off US east coast is very warm. “A slow-down in the Gulf Stream leads to a warming of the waters to its west. That means off the U.S. East Coast.”

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wksl_anm.gif

  19. https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/

    I like the trends ocean tid bits is showing.

    Bullish for cooling. The question is does it last?

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore, why do you prefer cooling over warming? What is your philosophical/personal reason for opposing AGW?

      • goldminor says:

        @ DA …none of us prefer cooling over warmer, but if it will finally put an end to the inane ‘CO2 is a main driver’ meme then let the cold reign to put out the lukewarm fire of AGW.

        • David Appell says:

          Why is that inane?

          Why do you care if it’s true?

          • goldminor says:

            @ DA …I care about science among other things in life, always have. I view the AGW story as a false paradigm. Thus, if it takes a moderate cold spell to put a stake through the heart of AGW, then let it be so.

            Besides all of the above, my view from the reading and studying over the last 10 years leads me to agree with nature now heading into a moderate cold trend which will last into the early 2030s, imo. Then there is a possibility that a second 30 year cold trend will follow. I would state the probability of the second round as 50/50. The first segment is already underway, imo.

            I would also bet that this last leg of warming will be seen as the peak of the Modern Warm Period when scientists look back from the view pint of 2200.

          • David Appell says:

            I think you don’t understand the physics of manmade global warming — why it MUST keep getting warmer.

            You didn’t mention anything about greenhouse gas emissions….

          • goldminor says:

            @ DA …I did not mention increasing levels of CO2 as I see that as a bit player in the climate system which is always easily overwhelmed by natural processes.

            I also think that in another century or more that scientists will look back and see the peak of the Modern Warm Period as occurring from 1980 to 2016.

          • David Appell says:

            GM, I’m not interested in your opinions, I’m interested in what you can prove.

            Can you prove even one of your claims above?

          • goldminor says:

            @ DA …from 4 years ago, not clearly stated. Otherwise the comment is saying that the winters of 2014/15 and 2015/16 will see average to slightly above average rains to Northern California, and the pacififc Northwest. At the time which I made this comment the consensus was that the California drought was likely to continue for more years. I was the only one to state differently.

            Then the last part of the comment is stating that the winter of 2016/17 had a strong probability of being a flood winter for NOrthern California and the PNW. All of that came to pass. Not stated, but essential to the predictions was that sunspots would be close to minimum levels, and the ENSO would have yo be in a La Nina state for the flood winter to take place. That is because it is a cyclical process. The next similar winter will most likely be in the winter of 2026/27, with a lesser probability for the winter of 2025/26. …https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cnbc/california_rice_farmer_039probably_sell039_due_to_drought/newest/#comment-1583227008

            All of this first came to me in March of 2014.

          • Nate says:

            ‘There is so far no solar peakLa Nia connection found that is statistically significant.’

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0101.1

          • Nate says:

            GM,

            ” sunspots would be close to minimum levels, and the ENSO would have yo be in a La Nina state for the flood winter to take place.
            Here is article about N calif wetness by year and enso.”

            https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/why-did-it-rain-so-much-california-during-last-year%E2%80%99s-la-ni%C3%B1a

            The wettest years are often strong EL Nino, but correlation is far from perfect.

          • goldminor says:

            @ Nate …thanks for the link. that is interesting to me to see how NOAA looks at this. Take a look though at solar and ENSO conditions in 2 of the largest floods after the Ark Storm of 1862 to ever strike Northern California. Note that in NOAAs page they reference rainfall for 4 cities. I am not talking about the cities, but rather the coastal mountains and Sierras.

            So the Ark Storm is the Big One in 1862. The next biggest was the storm of 1964/65 which impacted from just south of San Francisco all the way into southern British Columbia. After that was a very strong storm in 1955/56 which did not have quite the stretch of 1964/65, but was still very significant for NorCal, Oregon and southern Washington.

            I knew of those from growing up in California, and had heard back in the 1970s that it was thought that there was a cyclical pattern to the coastal mountain floods of the PNW. It isn’t as clear cut though when looking back in time, partly as records get scarce for some of the past data. But that is the basic info which I then built upon to derive the probability of a heavy winter for NorCal, and the PNW for 2016/17. Now I have to wait until 2026/27 to see what happens next. Will there be a La Nina, and ssn count close to minimum then? It is an interesting thought as it could lead to some level of predictability for the ENSO regions and sunspots as well as for large rain/snow years for the West Coast.

          • goldminor says:

            @ Nate …also of interest is that there are a number of examples of a heavy winter impacting Southern California in the following winter after a flood winter in the North. Also another example of flood winters for both north and south. The winter of 1996/97 was semi-biblical in the north. The next year the south was inundated. The same happened in 1965/66 after the great flood of 1964/65. Also in 1956/57 after 1955/56. So there is some pattern within all of this. There are more examples as well.

          • Nate says:

            GM, Looking at the longer view pattern, N Cal wetness for 5 y periods (from NOAA), it is clear that the wetest were in 80s and 90s, and driest were 20s and 30s. Wet again in early 40s.

            The 80s and 90s had a string of strong El Ninos, while the 20s and 30s were an extended period of La Ninas. In 1940-42 was an extended El Nino.

      • My studies right or wrong have led me to this conclusion and now they will be tested.

      • Bond says:

        Oh dear … I thought for a moment Barry was swearing. Time to get my glasses checked.

  20. I say what is going on with the North Atlantic is as much a climate driver as is ENSO. Yet the former seems to be largely ignored.

    • David Appell says:

      “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

    • Svante says:

      That’s right Salvatore, the AMO is about 60 years, so it can run against AGW for 30 years. In the end it’s +/- 0 while CO2 lasts for millenia and we keep adding.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore, ENSO isn’t a climate driver, it’s a natural fluctuation.

      WHen are you ever going to learn the difference between a forcing and a fluctuation??

  21. I would say the North Atlantic is as important a climate driver as ENSO.

    • goldminor says:

      @ S.P no, the ENSO is primary and the Atlantic is secondary. I could explain, but I would not want to give you any more ideas which you can’t comprehend on your own.

    • Gordon Robertsong says:

      Salvatore…”I would say the North Atlantic is as important a climate driver as ENSO”.

      Tsonis et al revealed that a long time ago, that all the ocean oscillations work with each other or against each other to produce the climate.

      The AMO is multidecadal, however, and the PDO is decadal. ENSO is shorter term but the PDO affects La Nina and the strength of EN depends on it too.

  22. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/12/why-the-earths-past-has-scientists-so-worried-about-the-atlantic-oceans-circulation/?utm_term=.959387901d95

    Sure ENSO is more important

    ENSO I sonly important when the climate is in a given regime it has no ability to change the climatic regime the climate is in.

    Contrast that to the North Atlantic and you will see what I have said is correct.

  23. Dave is sincere in his beliefs that is what I like about him. He is real!

    Not some fake.

    • David Appell says:

      Thanks for that, Salvatore! We go head-to-head, with battle axes drawn. I appreciate that you appreciate that.

    • Geoff Sherrington says:

      DA June 1, 2018 at 10:32 PM
      “I think you dont understand the physics of manmade global warming why it MUST keep getting warmer.”

      Any person professing to be a scientist, who makes a statement like that, is absolutely some fake.
      By simple analogy, using a magnifying glass to make a hot spot has a reaction in physics that suggests the atmosphere should be getting warmer as you do this. But that would be ignorant, because we are in an atmospheric system that has the ability to redirect energy so that an overall system warming is NOT inevitable. Without these redirection mechanisms, the atmosphere would keep getting hotter. In real life, it adjusts to anomalous heat sources over times of various lengths depending on the specifics of the mechanism.
      It is so fake to imagine that a CO2 molecule can heat the atmosphere, while the heat from a magnifying glass is different.
      Geoff

      • Bond says:

        I see you are not a scientist.

        • Geoff Sherrington says:

          Bond,
          I see you and raise you $50 billion US. That figure is about the value of metal sales to date from the several new mineral discoveries, now mines, found by Geopeko, a small exploration group that I had the honour to help manage as Chief Geochemist for 15 years or so. These brand new discoveries were made by the application of good, disciplined science.
          Money is one way to quantify success.
          Bond, what has been your monetary measure of success in science?
          Geoff

          • goldminor says:

            @ G.S. …+100

          • GC says:

            @ GS + 50000000

          • Nate says:

            ‘These brand new discoveries were made by the application of good, disciplined science.
            Money is one way to quantify success.’

            And no one should dispute your success and expertise in this area of science. Im sure you have years of experience and education.

            But why do you guys unflinchingly question the expertise of climate scientists? These are people who have way more expertise in their subject than any bloggers.

            They also have a strong track record of success, eg in understanding the atmosphere, predicting weather, hurricane tracks and climate change, and advancing remote sensing technology. 38 y ago, the climate change over that period was accurately forecasted.

      • Nate says:

        ‘It is so fake to imagine that a CO2 molecule can heat the atmosphere, while the heat from a magnifying glass is different.’

        I agree with Bond. This just doesn’t make a lot of sense.

        • Geoff Sherrington says:

          Nate,
          The magnifying glass appears to create heat, but it does this by also creating cool, like some rays are enhanced in energy while others are reduced, like a dimming.

          The CO2 molecule as typically portrayed is said to create heat, but it also creates cool. The energy it absorbs prevents some of that energy from going elsewhere, like a dimming.

          If you argue that the magnifying glass observation is immaterial, then the same applies to the CO2 case, does it not?

          Geoff

          • Nate says:

            ‘but it also creates cool. ‘

            Yes indeed it does, in the stratosphere, as predicted and observed.

            CO2 is not creating heat or cool, it is acting as insulation. Just like adding attic insulation in my house. The house warms and the attic cools, assuming the furnace heat output is kept fixed.

          • David Appell says:

            Geoff Sherrington says:
            The CO2 molecule as typically portrayed is said to create heat, but it also creates cool.

            No, CO2 neither creates heat nor “cool.”

            You need to go back to the basics and relearn and get this right. You won’t understand anything about global warming until you do.

        • goldminor says:

          @ Nate ..in reply to our discussion further up the page. We are not talking about the same phenomenon. I am talking about the largest storm systems which have negatively impacted the West Coast. While you are talking about the wettest periods on the West Coast. Those are different topics of discussion. That is where the confusion stems from.

          • Nate says:

            Ah, OK.

            But how can you or anyone predict when a large storm will come?

            One can only predict when rain is more likely.

      • David Appell says:

        Geoff wrote:
        It is so fake to imagine that a CO2 molecule can heat the atmosphere, while the heat from a magnifying glass is different.

        No one thinks the first.

        And, yes, physics has been requiring that the lower atmosphere get warmer. The surprise would be if this WASN’T happening.

  24. Snape says:

    David Appell
    “Snape says:
    If I understand correctly, satellites average the column of lower troposphere rising above an area like the United States.

    Not really. There is a vertical weighting function that must be calculated first.”

    Isn’t that a weighted average?

  25. gbaikie says:

    –Climate models vs. climate data: A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
    Guest Blogger / 2 hours ago June 1, 2018
    Guest essay by Bob Irvine

    Is it true that energy from either an outside source or an increase in insulation will warm a system according to or in proportion to its residence time in that system?–
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/climate-models-vs-climate-data-a-thought-experiment/

    Snape might like this.

    I thought this was interesting:

    “5. Nearly all sensitivity studies base their feedbacks on the assumption that GHG and solar efficacy are approximately equal. The IPCC states this in their reports. The feedbacks used are then feedbacks to an initial warming while feedbacks related to the intrinsic nature of the forcing and its mechanism are not normally considered. In particular, changes in residence times for energy from the different forcings do not appear to be considered. ”

    If true, it could be due, to idea the only thing which can increase average global temperature are greenhouse gases.
    Which indicates the power of the pseudoscience is a great force.

    • David Appell says:

      Let’s not blindly swallow anything and everything written on a denier site like Watts’, alright?

      Can you find this statement anywhere in the scientific literature?

  26. Snape says:

    Gbaikie

    Thanks for the link. Maybe I’ll join the conversation over there.

  27. Eben says:

    There is no trend in this satellite data other than what people imagine , what you have there is fractal noise, as long as the high peaks and low peaks overlap you don’t even begin to have a trend. The only real trend that will eventually appear will be downward and into the ice age.

    • David Appell says:

      Fractal noise?

      Any set of numbers can be used to calculate a linear trend. And also its Pearson coefficient and statistical significance, as well as the standard error of the trend number, without or with correcting for autocorrelation.

      • Eben says:

        Obviously you do not understand the concept of noise , If the temperature variations are 1,5 degrees within few years as seen in the 40 year chart , then anything under 1.5 degrees on a 140 years scale or 1400 years scale is nothing but noise , not trend , Your claim of calculating trends from any set of numbers is only an artifact of picking a starting and ending points.

        • David Appell says:

          Eben says:
          If the temperature variations are 1,5 degrees within few years as seen in the 40 year chart , then anything under 1.5 degrees on a 140 years scale or 1400 years scale is nothing but noise , not trend

          Sorry, no.

          Noises tend to cancel out over useful trend lengths, leaving the only uncertainty to be statistical.

    • argus says:

      The warming is at least partially a product of the Industrial Revolution. God will allow humanity to nearly annihilate itself should humanity decide to do so. Both sides overvalue their data to score points.

  28. Snape says:

    I tried posting (for the time) on WUWT, but nothing showed up.

    What’s up with that?

  29. Sbape says:

    (for the first time)

    • goldminor says:

      @ Sbape, aka Snape, it has to do with the new migration to a new WordPress platform. Check back and the comment should eventually appear. Not sure how or why, but there it is. I have had a few comments enter immediately, and others appear later.

      • barry says:

        No, the site is moderated. Wait, and check back later to see if its been admitted.

        • goldminor says:

          @ barry ..yes the site is moderated, but my original answer still stands as correct. It had everything to do with the transfer to the new platform. There is a new post today stating that the transfer finally completed as of today.

  30. Snape says:

    Ok, thanks

    • barry says:

      It’s a moderated site. Wait for one of the mods to admit the post.

      • David Appell says:

        Also, they block anyone who knows anything.

        • goldminor says:

          @ DA ..still sore after all of these years because WUWT blocked you? Are you saying that Nick Stokes and Steve Mosher do not know anything, among some of the others who argue for AGW yet comment at WUWT?

    • goldminor says:

      @ Snape, aka Sbape, …WUWT just made another change to their comments section. They now allow for 15 minutes of editing a comment, voting for comments, and easy picture installation within comments. Pretty good once one gets used to the change.

  31. Bond says:

    Where is ren? I need my update on how strongly negative the Arctic Oscillation is. It is still negative, right ren? Because your unbiased reporting would have kept us informed had the AO gone positive?

    … Ren? ….

    … Ren? ….

    I guess there are no reports to make on an influx of Arctic air into the US.

  32. Laura says:

    “The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through May 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”

    It explains the manic posting from the antihuman climate alarmists.

    Thanks for the update, doc.

    • TheFinalNail says:

      The trend in RSS TLT over the same period is +0.19 C/decade. Warmer even that GISS surface temperatures, but in the same ballpark.

      Either UAH or RSS (or possibly both) are interpreting the satellite data incorrectly at the moment.

      • Bond says:

        And that is the whole point, isn’t it. The satellite data is up for interpretation, and is not a precise measurement.

        • TheFinalNail says:

          Seems to be the case. The changes made between updated versions of the satellite data sets seem to be of a greater magnitude than those made between updated versions of the surface sets. The two main satellite data producers also disagree with one another more than the various surface data producers. It’s no doubt a very difficult task for the satellite teams, but it’s pretty clear that something isn’t right somewhere at the moment.

          • Bond says:

            I think you will find that one of the satellite groups will agree with you that it is a difficult task, with a very wide margin of error, while the other will assert that all the glitches have been ironed out and theirs is a near-perfect record.

          • Geoff Serrington says:

            Bond notes margins of error etc with condensed first hand wisdom that permits him to create criteria to favour cv RSS over UAH.
            Bond, what is your take on how important your commentary is?
            Personally, I am grateful for the scientific pioneering by Spencer and Christy and would suggest that their scientific integrity is beyond reproach because inter alia they have paid homage to fundamental scientific philosophy.
            They can proceed without your less informed comments from the sidelines that seem to be spiteful innuendo and little more.

            Geoff

          • Bond says:

            You took from my comment that I favour one data set over the other? It seems your comprehension skills are lacking.

          • Geoff Sherrington says:

            Bond,
            But, do you or do you not favour one group over another?
            Your comment is merely evasion. Geoff

          • David Appell says:

            Bond says:
            I think you will find that one of the satellite groups will agree with you that it is a difficult task, with a very wide margin of error, while the other will assert that all the glitches have been ironed out and theirs is a near-perfect record.

            So which is which?

            And what have they said to lead you to this conclusion?

            THanks.

        • goldminor says:

          @ Bond …yet despite that the sats somehow sense the vast surface of the always moving oceans to within a millimeter of precision, and AGW believers all accept that as gospel.

          • David Appell says:

            Why do you think the satellite designers were so wrong? I mean, what did they botch up in their analysis?

          • goldminor says:

            @ DA …you should ask that question to the ones above who think that there is a problem with the sats.

          • Nate says:

            Not all SATS methods created equal.

            somehow sense the vast surface of the always moving oceans to within a millimeter of precision.’

            I don’t see your problem with that. That’s the beauty of a global average over many many hills and valleys.

  33. R James says:

    What natural effects? The same ones that have caused temperature changes over the past few million years.

  34. ren says:

    Solar activity is still declining.
    https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif

  35. ren says:

    High convection in North America and in Europe.
    http://en.blitzortung.org/live_lightning_maps.php

  36. ren says:

    In Australia, drop from April over 1 degree.
    YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
    2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.10 -0.13 -0.01 +1.02 +0.68
    2018 05 +0.18 +0.40 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.40

    • Bond says:

      In USA, rise from April almost 2 degrees.
      Up for a cherry picking competition?

      • ren says:

        Tell me what the trend is.

      • goldminor says:

        @ Bond …ren still has a point. April US temps were record setting cold if I remember right. The same can not be said for Australia temps in April. I think that Australia is going to experience well below average temps this winter, alomg with NZ and the extremities of Africa and SA. The surface wind changes down there guarantee that, imo.

    • TheFinalNail says:

      Ren

      “In Australia, drop from April over 1 degree.”

      What about the far bigger change between April and May in USA48? From -0.01 in April to +1.93 in May.

      • TheFinalNail says:

        A new record warmest May in USA48 I think.

      • ren says:

        I wrote that the temperatures will be extreme in summer and in winter, due to the decrease in solar activity.

      • ren says:

        Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.
        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png
        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180601.png

        • TheFinalNail says:

          Looks like the Arctic was pretty warm this winter, doesn’t it?

          • ren says:

            Thanks to heavy rainfall, the forest will grow on the Great Prairies.

          • ren says:

            The Arctic was almost as warm in the winter as North America.

          • Only in winter is it above average and look at it now. Below normal.

            In addition summers have all been below average in the Arctic.

          • Bond says:

            Salvatore
            “In addition summers have all been below average in the Arctic.”

            According to the UAH data, in the 2010s, only 4 of 24 summer months (June, July, August) have a negative anomaly in the Arctic.

            Why do you continue to make ridiculous claims without research?

          • La Pangolina says:

            TheFinalNail says:
            June 2, 2018 at 2:09 AM

            Looks like the Arctic was pretty warm this winter, doesn’t it?

            *

            The Arctic region (60N-82.5N) was in 2017-2018 by far not so warm as during previous winters, as shown by the GHCN V4 daily record since 1881 (no offical data, it was processed by my friend).

            A sort of the anomalies (wrt the mean of 1981-2010) is as follows:

            1881 | 11 | 6.35
            1881 | 12 | 5.49
            1882 | 1 | 5.38
            2016 | 2 | 4.51
            1883 | 11 | 4.39
            2017 | 12 | 4.33
            1885 | 7 | 4.09
            1882 | 8 | 4.08
            2006 | 12 | 4.04
            1882 | 2 | 3.81

            In this sorted list, 2018 appears at position 64 (of 1648).

            Even if you consider only the satellite era, 2018 is absent from the top 10:

            2016 | 2 | 4.51
            2017 | 12 | 4.33
            2006 | 12 | 4.04
            2015 | 2 | 3.81
            2011 | 12 | 3.56
            2014 | 12 | 3.42
            2015 | 3 | 3.27
            2014 | 2 | 3.22
            1981 | 1 | 3.19
            2015 | 12 | 3.17

            And the same is shown by UAH Arctic 60N-82.5N land-only:

            1981 | 1 | 2.62
            2016 | 1 | 2.53
            2016 | 4 | 2.05
            1980 | 2 | 1.88
            2012 | 6 | 1.74
            2017 | 12 | 1.60
            2016 | 2 | 1.53
            2016 | 3 | 1.46
            2017 | 3 | 1.46
            2007 | 4 | 1.43

            But this absence of 2018 at ranking top is not due to the anomalies.

            A sort of absolute GHCN V4 daily Arctic data in the ‘colder’ months November-April during 1979-2018 gives this:

            2016 | 4 | -0.60
            2007 | 4 | -0.93
            2010 | 4 | -1.35
            2011 | 4 | -1.55
            2015 | 4 | -1.60
            1990 | 4 | -1.64
            2014 | 4 | -1.81
            1994 | 4 | -1.83
            1995 | 4 | -1.97
            2005 | 4 | -2.18

            April 2018 appears here with -4.14 C at position 32 (of 238).

            Thus in the sum I wouldn’t say that winter 2017/18 was ‘pretty warm’ in the Arctic.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”The Arctic region (60N-82.5N) was in 2017-2018 by far not so warm as during previous winters…”

            No kidding, where do you think the freezing air came from that set records for cold in much of the United States?

          • David Appell says:

            Sorry Gordon, there was no cold record set for the US.

            In fact, this meteorological winter (DJF) for USA48 surface temperatures was 24th highest out of 123 DJFs. Top 20%.

          • Svante says:

            ren says:

            The thickness of ice in the Arctic is growing.
            http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png

            You mean it was growing in April, that’s where your graph stops.

            And it’s half the thickness of 1980.

        • La Pangolina says:

          Salvatore Del Prete says:
          June 2, 2018 at 5:40 AM

          In addition summers have all been below average in the Arctic.

          *

          Mamma mia, Salvatore! Why do you pretend things without having ever had a look at them?

          Bond is absolutely right: anomalies below average for summer months since 2010 are in UAH’s Arctic record an exception.

          1. Here is the top 20 of the ascending sort of all negative UAH Arctic anomalies since 1979:

          1989 | 1 | -1.98
          1979 | 2 | -1.71
          1985 | 4 | -1.55
          1990 | 11 | -1.34
          1985 | 3 | -1.32
          1982 | 5 | -1.31
          2002 | 2 | -1.30
          1992 | 5 | -1.28
          1992 | 4 | -1.25
          1990 | 2 | -1.23
          1988 | 4 | -1.21
          1998 | 2 | -1.17
          1984 | 4 | -1.07
          2004 | 12 | -1.07
          1992 | 8 | -1.06
          1993 | 12 | -1.06
          1992 | 7 | -1.03
          1980 | 11 | -0.99
          1993 | 1 | -0.96
          1986 | 3 | -0.96

          2. Conversely, here is the top 20 of a descending sort of all summer month anomalies in UAH’s Arctic record (I even included September to Bond’s list):

          2012 | 6 | 1.44
          2016 | 9 | 1.24
          2006 | 9 | 1.23
          2017 | 9 | 1.06
          1998 | 7 | 0.97
          2016 | 6 | 0.87
          2016 | 8 | 0.82
          1998 | 6 | 0.75
          2007 | 6 | 0.75
          2010 | 8 | 0.74
          2003 | 8 | 0.73
          2013 | 6 | 0.68
          2001 | 8 | 0.67
          1991 | 7 | 0.63
          2007 | 7 | 0.61
          1995 | 9 | 0.61
          1997 | 9 | 0.59
          1995 | 8 | 0.58
          2010 | 7 | 0.56
          1998 | 8 | 0.55

          The first negative summer month anomaly appears at position 89 of 156.

          Why don’t you download the data, Salvatore?

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

    This data show what I say to be true.

    You tell me.

    • Bond says:

      So you compare ONLY 2017 temperatures to the mean, and assert that this result holds for ALL summers.

      Will your cherry picking ever end?

      • Bond says:

        OK, I just noticed that you can also look at other years.
        I also clicked on the link at the bottom of the page where it says “More information can be found here.”

        It says “since the model is gridded in a regular 0.5 degree grid, the mean temperature values are strongly biased towards the temperature in the most northern part of the Arctic! Therefore, do NOT use this measure as an actual physical mean temperature of the arctic.”

        The area covered by these graphs is only 18% of the area of the Arctic.

    • Bindidon says:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      June 2, 2018 at 6:52 AM

      Sorry, Salvatore: wrong again.

      Simply because you look at the northernmost part of the Arctic (80N-90N) instead of considering the whole Arctic (60N-90N).

      And I thought you trust only in Roy Spencer’s satellite data!

      As Mr Spencer publishes 2.5 degree grid data for the whole Globe, you may exploit that data, e.g. for the latitude band 80N-82.5N, compute a time series out of it, extract all summer anomalies, sort them, and display their top 20:

      2012 | 6 | 1.63
      2016 | 9 | 1.62
      1995 | 9 | 1.57
      2007 | 6 | 1.48
      1999 | 7 | 1.41
      2015 | 7 | 1.41
      2010 | 6 | 1.36
      2011 | 6 | 1.32
      1990 | 8 | 1.29
      2011 | 8 | 1.26
      2005 | 6 | 1.24
      2008 | 8 | 1.24
      2011 | 7 | 1.22
      2017 | 9 | 1.22
      1999 | 8 | 1.19
      1998 | 8 | 1.17
      2012 | 9 | 1.16
      2008 | 9 | 1.15
      1990 | 9 | 1.14
      1991 | 9 | 1.11

      As you can see, the summer anmomalies are here even higher than for the whole Arctic (60N-90N). And here as well, the first summer anomaly below average is far far away.

      A little hint: the northernmost Arctic is that region of the Globe where the lower troposphere warms the most since 1979.

      The trend there is not 0.25 C / decade like in the Arctic, it is 0.44 C / decade.

  38. Is it correct? What do you think?

    • barry says:

      DMI Arctic analysis is of the Arctic 80N and up, nothing below. It covers less then 20% of the Arctic.

      It is not a good proxy for the whole Arctic from 60 or 66 North.

      One reason for this is that most of the sea ice above 80N is perennial – even during Summer minimum there is a lot of ice there.

      Whereas the sea ice between 60 and 80N is highly volatile (seasonal).

      A consequence is that at 80N Northwards, the near-surface air temps during summer hover very close to 0C – which is the temperature of the surface of the ice.

  39. 80 n or better and this is important because it shows how warm this area is in winter , and yet it does not continue into the warm or summer season.

    I think it is valuable information which debunks global warming to some extent.

  40. I was considering only 80 to 90 degrees north latitude when I made my statement.

    • Got to like it Ren ,that is if you are against AGW theory.

      Will it continue ? I say yes.

    • Bond says:

      Thanks ren for proving with that graph that your claim about La Nina continuing is nonsense. It shows the tropical Pacific neutral or higher, with the cold water that was previously there now dispersing to the south, in much the same way the warm water dispersed after the last El Nino.

  41. Snape says:

    Idiot tracker

    My comments are so far not appearing at WUWT, so I am replying to one of your post’s here:

    “The black box warms merely because it absorbs more incident energy than the white box. So its temperature must eventually get warmer in a steady state so that its heat loss to surroundings equals the greater amount of heat it absorbs. As simple as that.

    And Hansens climate response time has nothing to do with a claimed energy residence time. Utter confusion here. The latter concept is quite meaningless, you cannot label and track heat, just count how many goes in or out of system per unit time. Good old Thermodynamics.”

    Rate of input and residence time (I’ve called it “length of stay”) are the two variables that determine how much of something will have accumulated when a steady state is reached.

    Hard or impossible to measure, so yeah, meaningless WRT calculations, but not actual meaningless since it’s a real and important variable.

    • Idiot tracker says:

      Rate of input and residence time (I’ve called it “length of stay”) are the two variables that determine how much of something will have accumulated when a steady state is reached.

      “Something” such as people walking in and out of a room, certainly, but not heat or energy exchange of a system.

      What would be, according to you, the time of residence t of energy in a system ?

      There is no pertinent physical meaning of t, nor is this a description of what happens to a quantum of energy that enters the system. Such a quantum cannot be tracked anyway and certainly cannot be said to stay there for a time t and then leave again. This picture is not appropriate at all. What happens at microscopic scale and relevant physics is that energy is exchanged very rapidly is both ways across any interface between the system and surroundings. For instance molecules of air bounce off the ground and so either lose or gain energy at the 10^-10 s scale. And the global net exchange is only determined by differences in temperature, and this is all we need to know to find out how much energy accumulates into a system in a steady state.

  42. Gordon Robertson says:

    Des disappears and Bond appears. Same ignorance, same bs.

    • Bond says:

      I would have thought it was 100% obvious that I am Des. After all, I linked to videos from my own channel from both accounts. I changed only because my comments were not posting so I tried something different. But don’t let me stop you coming up with your little conspiracy theories concerning my name change.

        • Bob says:

          Tell you what … how about you call me by my original name – my real name. I used Bob before Des and changed for the same reason. I trust this comment will post a year after last using that name.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            Interestingly, when I posted this comment I had references to two other users, but the comment was blocked. When I removed those references, it posted. I am going to test out below which user’s name was blocked.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            Mike Flynn

          • Bobdesbond says:

            It seems that g.e.r.a.n has had his name blocked.
            Mikey won’t be happy about losing his other identity.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bond|des…nothing personal, just keeping track of nyms. Also, trading slags.

        I’m sure I could enjoy a Foster’s lager with you while carrying on a slagging contest.

  43. barry says:

    Salvatore,

    80 n or better and this is important because it shows how warm this area is in winter , and yet it does not continue into the warm or summer season.

    “DMI Arctic analysis is of the Arctic 80N and up, nothing below. It covers less than 20% of the Arctic.

    It is not a good proxy for the whole Arctic from 60 or 66 North.

    One reason for this is that most of the sea ice above 80N is perennial even during Summer minimum there is a lot of ice there.

    Whereas the sea ice between 60 and 80N is highly volatile (seasonal).

    A consequence is that at 80N Northwards, the near-surface air temps during summer hover very close to 0C which is the temperature of the surface of the ice.”

    I got much of this from an email DMI sent in reply to my queries about summertime temps staying around zero C each year in their charts.

  44. barry says:

    Dunno why my name and email is no longer retained, but clicking in the box once or twice gives me an autofill option, and I can still reply to sub threads. I’ve noticed others having trouble. So something is up.

    [edit – Ironically, I went to post this without filling in the fields….]

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”Dunno why my name and email is no longer retained….”

      Join the club. We’re all experiencing it.

      Have you tried clearing your cookies? Have not tried it yet since it wipes out all my saved user name data.

  45. Dolores Umbridge says:

    LP, Barry

    Thanks for the information about the arctic.

  46. The data from 80 n to 90 n is important. The data everywhere is important.

    As far as what I think will determine the end of AGW ,it is not so much the number of years the global temperatures do not rise or even fall but rather the magnitude of the fall and quickness if it should occur.

    In other words if global temperatures were to take a sudden turn to the down say .5c or more in less then 2 years that would be more telling then if global temperatures even did not rise or had a gradual drop for several years.

    If global temperatures should take a sudden down turn AGW is over regardless of the duration of time associated with the sudden down turn.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Data from only 0.75% of the globe does not outweigh the other 99.25%. Especially when the effect you have notice only applies for one third of a year, so you are effectively saying 0.25% outweighs 99.75%.

    • David Appell says:

      Fortunately for Salvatore, global warming ended 16 years ago.

      “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

  47. CO2isLife says:

    Dr. Spencer, I wrote a post demonstrating how if you use the Satellite data to isolate the impact of CO2, CO2 has no impact at all on temperatures.

    Climate Data Doesnt Support CO2 Driving Climate Change and Global Temperatures
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/03/climate-data-doesnt-support-co2-driving-climate-change-and-global-temperatures/

    • David Appell says:

      When will you be submitting this to a major scientific journal? (Prepare for a press onslaught.)

      There’s a Nobel Prize in this for you — you ARE aware of that, right?

      • CO2isLife says:

        Sadly, nothing I write would ever pass the corrupt peer review process. Care to refute a single claim I make?

        • Norman says:

          CO2isLife

          A lot of what you post on your blog can be refuted.

          YOUR MAIN POINTS:

          1) The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect/cause climate change is through the GHG Effect and thermalization of 13 to 18 LWIR.

          Not exactly. It is more the energy it is able to emit back to the surface that will cause global warming.

          In the graph you use to show GHG cooling, you should not that in the lower atmosphere H2O and CO2 are close to zero effect for cooling or heating the atmosphere.

          http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/SPARC/News17/ReportTropopWorkshopApril2001/17Haynes_Shepherd.html

          They both absorb energy (heating effect) and radiate energy (cooling effect) and the sum is about no net heating or cooling of the atmosphere. Yet that has little to do with GHE or global warming. Not even sure what your point is with this graph.

          Here is a more important graph.
          https://www.patarnott.com/atms749/images/MeasuredRadianceReno.jpg

          This energy that is emitted by CO2 is what will allow the surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature with the same solar input.

          • Norman says:

            CO2isLife

            YOU also state this:
            5) 13 to 18 LWIR does not penetrate or warm water.

            Nor does it penetrate any solid material. Yet is can warm a object but it can’t warm water? Why do you make this claim. Water absorbs IR very well. What do you think happens to the energy absorbed by water?

            It can warm a wall but can’t warm water? Why?

          • Norman says:

            CO2isLife

            YOU:
            7) H2O/Water Vapor is by far the most abundant and potent GHG, and it also absorbs 13 to 18 LWIR, making the contribution of CO2 immeasurable in the atmosphere until the altitude of 3 km is reached and H2O starts to precipitate out of the atmosphere.

            You really think you have your science right with this one?

            http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif

            Actual science shows your understanding is not correct. CO2 absorbs about 100% of the IR at the 15 micron range while water vapor absorbs around 50% even with its high concentration. If no CO2 were present you would have considerable IR leaving the Earth’s surface through space at this wavelength.

          • Norman says:

            CO2isLife

            You may have a case that politicians and other vested interests are manipulating climate science for some agenda (like Al Gore who got very wealthy from his Green agenda).

            I do not believe the science is faulty as you do. If you take the time to read the actual science material and not the politician or media version they sound like good scientists.

            I do not think any of your ideas contained here are at all valid.

            YOU: “The problem with Climate Science is that it isnt science. Climate Scientists are all out there trying to PROVE CO2 is the cause, their livelihoods depend upon it. Real science is the unbiased search for the truth. Real science seeks to understand and explain, not prove one theory over the other. Real science never proves anything. Real science rejects the null/consensus, it doesnt PROVE the cause, it PROVES the currently accepted cause is wrong. Real science shatters the consensus, it doesnt seek to defend it. Climate Scientists are practicing Anti-Science, Climate Sophistry, and Propaganda, and the above graphics and analysis prove it.”

            Climate science is a science. It goes out in the field and takes many measurements and attempts to related the findings. I can’t see why you would suggest that is not science, it is in my book.

            I think this is an unfounded rant. More trying to appeal to an emotional state than a rational logical one.

          • CO2isLife says:

            Norman Says:

            “1) The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect/cause climate change is through the GHG Effect and thermalization of 13 to 18 LWIR.

            Not exactly. It is more the energy it is able to emit back to the surface that will cause global warming.”

            CO2isLife: I think that goes without saying. That is the GHG effect, however, energy is radiated and diffused in a 360 degree sphere, so only a fraction goes back to earth.

            Norman Says:

            “In the graph you use to show GHG cooling, you should note that in the lower atmosphere H2O and CO2 are close to zero effect for cooling or heating the atmosphere.”

            MODTRAN clearly shows H2O dominates the lower atmosphere as a GHG, and CO2 only becomes a factor up around 3km and higher when H2O precipitates out of the atmosphere.

            Norman Says:
            “YOU also state this:
            5) 13 to 18 LWIR does not penetrate or warm water.

            Nor does it penetrate any solid material. Yet is can warm a object but it cant warm water? Why do you make this claim. Water absorbs IR very well. What do you think happens to the energy absorbed by water?

            It can warm a wall but cant warm water? Why?”

            CO2isLife says:
            The basic physics of the molecule and LWIR. Just as visible light won’t warm glass, but will warm a black car. You can test this yourself. Simply shine an LWIR lamp with a 13 to 18 micron filter at water. Those wavelenghts don’t penetrate water, and will cause cooling surface evaporation. Solids will warm, but solids don’t evaporate.

            You can read more here:
            https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/03/climate-data-doesnt-support-co2-driving-climate-change-and-global-temperatures/

            https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/03/the-most-powerful-evidence-climate-scientists-have-of-global-warming-rules-out-co2-as-the-cause/

          • Nate says:

            CO2,

            “Just as visible light wont warm glass, but will warm a black car. You can test this yourself.

            Visible light won’t warm glass because glass is transparent to these wavelengths. Liquid water is NOT transparent to mid IR, is it?

            When IR encounters water it has 3 choices

            1. reflect – not much at normal incidence

            2. Pass thru -No, not transparent

            3. Absorb – Yes, by process of elimination

            Once absorbed it heats. Water, especially if mixed like ocean, conducts surface heat below.

            ‘Simply shine an LWIR lamp with a 13 to 18 micron filter at water. Those wavelenghts dont penetrate water, and will cause cooling surface evaporation. Solids will warm, but solids dont evaporate.”

            I have tried this with a ceramic heat lamp pointed down at cup of water. It heats the water quite well. Try it!

            In the real ocean, most of the time it is NET cooling by emitting LWIR-but much less than otherwise because of DWLW from atm GHG.

          • Norman says:

            CO2isLife

            YOU: “CO2isLife: I think that goes without saying. That is the GHG effect, however, energy is radiated and diffused in a 360 degree sphere, so only a fraction goes back to earth”

            Not sure where you pulled this nonfact from. Scientists measure, on a daily basis, DWIR in many locations. It is not a fraction, it is almost equal to what the Earth surface emits.

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b15e4da5ea46.png

            Wet area in summer

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b15e5025cb2f.png

            Dry area in summer

            You can see the DWIR is significant not some the fraction would be quite large.

          • Norman says:

            CO2isLife

            YOU: “CO2isLife says:
            The basic physics of the molecule and LWIR. Just as visible light wont warm glass, but will warm a black car. You can test this yourself. Simply shine an LWIR lamp with a 13 to 18 micron filter at water. Those wavelenghts dont penetrate water, and will cause cooling surface evaporation. Solids will warm, but solids dont evaporate.”

            Did you just make that up? First water is opaque to nearly all IR.
            https://tinyurl.com/y8d5hxx8

            Also you are just wrong.

            https://tinyurl.com/y8y75hlo

            IR water heaters are commercially available.

            Why not do some actual research and support your conclusions with actual factual information. It seems you just made up that point without even trying to find evidence to support your statements.

          • CO2isLife says:

            Normal Says: Actual science shows your understanding is not correct. CO2 absorbs about 100% of the IR at the 15 micron range while water vapor absorbs around 50% even with its high concentration. If no CO2 were present you would have considerable IR leaving the Earths surface through space at this wavelength.

            You can verify my claims multiple ways:
            1) Go to MODTRAN and set the view to looking down from 0.1km and alter CO2 up to 800 ppm and measure the difference in W/M^2. Then alter the H20.

            2) Go to Spectralcal and go to the gas cell and change the length to 1m. You will see H2O absorbs all the IR. What I imagine your graphic is showing is the result of a 10cm gas cell.

        • David Appell says:

          CO2isLife: I think you’re afraid to submit your work to a peer reviewed journal.

        • Idiot tracker says:

          Sadly, nothing I write would ever pass the corrupt peer review process.

          Actually, what you write would not even be handed over to the reviewers by the editorial staff of any serious scientific journal.
          No need to waste their time, the piece of junk is quite apparent.

    • David Appell says:

      But sadly, your physics is wrong. BADLY wrong.

      This is the worst:

      The blackbody temperature of 13 to 18 LWIR is -80C.

      Radiation does not have a temperature.

      • CO2isLife says:

        Do you understand the basics of the GHG effect? CO2 thermalizes 13 to 18 micron LWIR. When it thermalizes those wavelengths its signature is that of a blackbody of temperature -80 degree C. You can check that yourself at SpectralCalc. CO2 however doesn’t absorb the entire spectrum so it isn’t a true blackbody, so the energy is even less than calculated.

        If I am wrong, and MODTRAN and Spectral Calc are wrong, please provide a correction. If thermalizing 13 to 18 micron LWIR doesn’t have a temperature, how then are we tying CO2 to increasing temperatures? Why does the outgoing spectrum show 13 to 18 micron having a temperature of -80 degree C? Check out MODTRAN, that is why they overlay the black body graphs.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      You really need to examine the science behind those assumptions.

      (Let’s see whether a certain someone can figure out this time who I am responding to.)

      • David Appell says:

        Why are people supposed to guess?

        • Bobdesbond says:

          When there is a reply button below your comment that I clearly did not use, no guessing is required.

          In this case I used that reply button, so in this case I am clearly responding to you.

  48. rtremblay says:

    co2islife:

    CO2 is important for photosynthesis but CO2 is a greenhouse gas also.

    i have problem with man who have answer before question !

    • CO2isLife says:

      “co2islife:

      CO2 is important for photosynthesis but CO2 is a greenhouse gas also.”

      Did I ever disagree with that point? If I did, I was wrong.

  49. Bobdesbond says:

    Hey ren,

    Just wondering when you were planning to mention that the Arctic Oscillation is in the middle of its longest run of positive days in over a decade?

    Alas, I suspect you will rate its ultimate switch into the negatives as more newsworthy, a switch that happens on average about 20 times each year.

  50. I am going to say thus far the trends of late are down (ocean and land)which is significant for me, because I said late 2017 and 2018 would be transitional.

    Does it mean I am correct no ,because temperatures are still high and the trend has just started.

    That said , I think the magnitude of the drop (if it happens) is more important then the duration. I think for instance a drop of .5c in a year or so would be more meaningful then say 10 years of steady temperatures or a .5c drop over that time period.

    I think the test is on and it is the whole globe that matters. That said certain areas of the globe have a big impact on the overall climate. One of those areas being the North Atlantic.

    Time will tell and an increase in major volcanic activity is part of my scenario. So if cooling comes because of a major volcanic eruption if that should happen,I have said that contributes to cooling associated with prolonged periods of solar activity.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore, it’s been cooling since 2002. Why is anyone still arguing about it?

      “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

      • David, the test is on and we will know much more in the next year or two.

        Maybe you will be correct ,maybe I will we will see.

        • David Appell says:

          Salvatore, you’ve been saying for years that ‘the test is on.’

          Then, when proven wrong, you learn nothing and say it again.

          You have zero credibility left.

          • The difference is this time the two solar qualifiers are in.

            I can’t say like before I was wrong because my solar forecast was wrong.

            That is the difference.,

          • David Appell says:

            You’ve said that before, too Salvatore.
            And were wrong.
            You never learn.

            “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

          • Well I am encouraged with year 2018 thus far. I will leave it at that.

          • David Appell says:

            Still the same problem as always, Salvatore — you look at just a few months of data, which is all due to natural variations, and ignore the big picture of the long-term trends.

            You’re never going to learn.

          • David I am very interested.

            What natural variations do you believe are so strong to cause these short term temperatures reversals?

            What your saying is CO2 (AGW) drives the climate and yet at times it does not.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            Salvatore,

            Yet again you falsely claim that we claim that “CO2 is the only driver of the climate”. The rise in CO2 is very slowly raising the baseline. All the variation from other effects swamp this rise over any short time interval. One such short term effect is due to changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation, and that is basically what drives the ENSO variation.

            Why do you keep insisting that we claim CO2 is the only driver, despite having been corrected countless times?

            Answer: Because without that fictitious stance to argue against you argument dies.

          • The rise in co2 is slowly raising the baseline you say.

            Fair enough.

            Let’s see if it continues.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            Salvatore,

            And of course we would measure that using at least decadal averages, not by creaming ourselves over the daily ups and downs of sea surface temperatures.

  51. Snape says:

    IT

    “What would be, according to you, the time of residence t of energy in a system ?”

    Eli’s blue plate started at 0 K. Let’s say it received sunlight for only 10 minutes. A person could calculate how much total energy, in joules, had been absorbed during that time period.

    After the 10 minutes is up and the sun is removed, you could then measure how long It takes before the plate is again at 0 K.

    Couldn’t you use those two figures and come up with an average residence time for each joule?

    ******

    What happens on a microscopic scale inside the plate doesn’t matter because we know, regardless of what form it takes, energy is conserved.

    *******

    If you did a similar “10 minute test”. using plates of varying widths and materials, you would find they had different residence times. For example, a 2 meter thick ceramic plate would take longer to cool to 0 C. than a 1 meter thick plate.

    The two plates would have absorbed the same amount of energy, but residence time of energy entering the thicker plate would be greater.

  52. Eben says:

    No need for sorry, If you want to discredit yourself as scientist you can keep arguing that every set of numbers is a trend and every uptick and downtick of the noise in a system is a trend, and the numbers you picked is a trend, and blah blah blah forever.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      eben…”If you want to discredit yourself as scientist you can keep arguing that every set of numbers is a trend…”

      Or you can use inference. You can number-crunch a trend totally out of context then infer it represents anthropogenic warming, when in fact it’s due to natural forces like ENSO and/or volcanic aerosols.

      • Bobdesbond says:

        Please explain how ENSO cycles with a period of a few years can cause a rising trend of 0.13C per decade over almost 40 years.

      • Bobdesbond says:

        To assist you in answering that question:

        20 years from June 1978 to May 1998:
        72 El Nino months
        37 La Nina months

        20 years from June 1998 to May 2018:
        52 El Nino months (a fall of 20)
        86 La Nina months (a rise of 49)

      • Bobdesbond says:

        Whenever you are ready Gordon.

  53. Gordon Robertson says:

    bond…”And that is the whole point, isnt it. The satellite data is up for interpretation, and is not a precise measurement”.

    A humourist.

    NOAA strips over 75% of the available data then applies less than 25% to a climate model where it is interpolated and homogenized to produce SYNTHESIZED data.

    Then they reduce confidence levels to as low as required to move certain years into a ‘probable’ hottest year ever.

    You call that precise?? I call it a sledgehammer approach featuring scientific misconduct.

    There are signs they may be moving back to the science mainstream after the Trump admin intervened.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Repeating the same BS doesn’t make it more correct.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob…”Repeating the same BS doesnt make it more correct”.

        If it was bs you might have a point. However, when NOAA confirms it on their own site I’d venture a guess it is true.

      • barry says:

        NOAA doesn’t confirm that they deleted any station data on their website.

        That’s a wrong-headed interpretation you make based on something you read on a blog.

        You continue to lie. People continue to point that out.

      • Bindidon says:

        It is not only BS, it is a lie, and Robertson perfectly knows that.

        He refers to an old NOAA web page dated 2011 where they explain
        – that a great number of stations (4,500) were removed from the inventory because of their lack of accessibility
        but also
        – that at the same time, a greater number of stations came new into the inventory.

        ***

        I am actually busy with the GHCN V4 daily record, the successor of GHCN V3:

        https://tinyurl.com/y8xyojfw

        While V3 has only roughly 7,000 stations for average measurements (and even less for minima and maxima), V4 daily sums up to over 100,000 stations, of which nearly 35,000 were / are busy with temperature measurements between 1880 and 2018.

        By around 1955, over 10,000 of them were active in each year:

        http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528226652596.jpg

        His disgusting lies about the absence of stations in the Arctic

        http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528227030906.jpg

        and especially in the Canadian Grand North

        http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528227248839/001.jpg

        are even worse.

        ***

        My lady Rose pointed it out often enough: Robertson is an ignorant, pretentious boaster, and is an expert of nothing.

  54. CO2isLife says:

    BTW, global temperatures clearly follow ocean cycles. Anyone want to take a stab at how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns can cause El Ninos and La Ninas? How can CO2 cause such variability in temperatures? How can CO2 cause such temperature differentials between land, ocean, N and S Hemispheres? All share 407 ppm CO2, yet they all show wildly different warming trends.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      As we keep saying (and as you keep ignoring), these large spatial and temporal variations are superimposed on a slowly rising baseline temperature. Why is that so difficult to understand?

      • Norman says:

        Bobdesbond

        The idea is not hare to understand. They just don’t want to. They are on a sacred mission.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          Perhaps ‘sacred’ should be interpreted as ‘oil-funded’.

          • Norman says:

            Bobdesbond

            It is a possibility but I cannot imagine any oil company paying out money to Gordon Robertson for his posts.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            Nevertheless, you have to wonder how so many mature-age deniers such as Gordon and Robert Holmes (1000frolly) are suddenly able to exist without income by returning to university and earning a degree. And most of these degree seem to have a connection to the use of fossil fuels. (Coal use in the case of Robert Holmes).

    • ren says:

      It is not CO2 that raises the global temperature. The butterfly chart shows the cause and gradual change.
      https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif

  55. ren says:

    If you did not notice, the volume of sea ice in Arctic is the highest in five years.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180602.png

    • Bobdesbond says:

      And the EXTENT is the 2nd lowest in 5 years.

      Seriously – these year by year comparisons are meaningless.

      • ren says:

        The state of the sea ice is determined by its extent, thickness and volume

        The ice cover in the Arctic grows throughout the winter, before peaking in March. Melting picks up pace during the spring as the sun gets stronger, and in September the extent of the ice cover is typically only around one third of its winter maximum.

        Differences may occur in terms of the position of the edge of the ice in the two maps, Extent of the sea ice and Thickness and volume of the sea ice, as the model calculations do not always correspond exactly to the satellite sensors registration of the extent of the ice.

        Ice concentrations are based on satellite data and are from the Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility project (OSISAF).

        The thickness of the ice shown is calculated by means of the HYCOM-CICE model of sea ice at DMI. The model calculates various oceanographic values, including sea ice, in a grid with cells of 10 x 10 square km. The model is driven by meteorological data from ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts). In each grid cell the ice is classified into 5 thickness categories, with thickness, concentration, movement and heat balance of the ice being calculated for each category. The map of the ice thickness shows the mean thickness of ice in each grid cell.

        The graph on the right shows the annual variation of the volume of the sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, excluding the Baltic Sea and the Pacific. The volume of the ice is calculated on the basis of the ice thicknesses from the HYCOM-CICE model. In each grid cell the volume is calculated as thickness multiplied with concentration and with area, with contributions from all grid cells to the total volume. The grey band around the climatologic mean value corresponds to plus/minus one standard deviation based on the 10-year average 2004-2013.
        http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/

      • ren says:

        The trend in the volume of sea ice in the Arctic has been reversed since 2012.
        http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

        • Bobdesbond says:

          There is no such thing as a 5 year trend. Any attempt to find such a trend is hidden by random variation.

        • Bindidon says:

          Don’t you see that what you write perfectly contradicts what you show?

          • ren says:

            I see that the volume of sea ice has never dropped more than in 2012.

          • ren says:

            I am sorry, probably in 1981 the volume dropped more.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            “I see that the volume of sea ice has never dropped more than in 2012.”

            Really? That’s what you believe your graph shows? When I look at your graph, I see a very slight drop from 2011 to 2012 in September ice, and and equally slight rise in April ice. I see much bigger drops in September ice in 1981, 1993, 1995, 1998, 2002, 2007, 2010, 2015 and 2016, and comparable drops in 1980, 1984, 1987, 1990, 1997, 1999, 2003 and 2005. Not that this is in any way significant, but it illustrates your inability to read a simple graph. Either that, or you are pretty poor at describing what you actually mean.

            And yes, that’s right, few a few years Arctic sea ice had an anomalous run and fell below the trend line. It is only to be expected that in ensuing years it would return to the trend.

            You guys really enjoy cherry picking your start points of a time series don’t you.

            Ren back in 1986: “We’ve had 5 years of growing ice, so the earth must be heading into an ice age.”

          • Bobdesbond says:

            … “FOR” a few years …

  56. ren says:

    At the moment there is a clear drop in the temperature of the Atlantic. The temperature of the oceans soothes temperatures in the winter. As everyone knows, dry air does not keep the temperature in winter.
    http://cr.acg.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_sstanom_1-day.png

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Still wondering when you intend to mention the Arctic oscillation again??

      • ren says:

        The temperature of the entire Atlantic has fallen, not only in the North Atlantic.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          You didn’t answer my question.

          • ren says:

            The periods dominated by any single form of atmospheric circulation have alternated with a roughly 30-year period for the last 100 years. These periods were named “Circulation epochs”. These may be pooled into two principal groups: meridional (C) and combined “latitudinal” epochs (W + E): (W + E) = – (C)

            Meridional (C) circulation dominated in 1890-1920 and 1950-1980. The combined, “zonal” (W+E) circulation epochs dominated in 1920-1950 and 1980-1990. Current “latitudinal”(WE) epoch of 1970-1990s is not completed yet, but it is coming into its final stage, and so the “meridional” epoch (C-circulation) is now in its initial stage. (It will be useful for the reader to note here the relation that shows that the “transition” from C to W-E is continuous, and the equation balances to 100%, in the form of a simple graphic without any other variables included).
            http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e03.htm

          • ren says:

            The recurrence of each circulation form (W, E, or C) during the year is expressed in days. Total annual duration of the three circulation forms sums therefore to 365 (or 366 in a leap year). The index is defined by the number of days with the dominant form of atmospheric circulation. It is more conveniently expressed as an anomaly (actual data minus the long-term average). The sum of anomalies can be displayed in a chart of the so-called integral curve of the atmospheric circulation. The annual sum of the occurrence of all circulation anomalies is equal to zero: (C) +(W) + (E) = 0.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            “Current latitudinal(WE) epoch of 1970-1990s is not completed yet”

            HUH??

          • David Appell says:

            Good question. ren knows how to cut-and-paste, but that’s about it.

    • David Appell says:

      ren says:
      At the moment there is a clear drop in the temperature of the Atlantic.
      http://cr.acg.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_sstanom_1-day.png

      YET AGAIN, ren tries to claim a temperature change based on just one day’s worth of data.

      The closer you look into ren’s links, the less believable they always are.

  57. ren says:

    A strong eruptive phase (paroxysm) occurred at the volcano yesterday (Sun 3 June). Lasting for about 16-17 hours until the evening, it generated ash clouds reaching up to 10 km, which drifted into westerly directions for more than 40 km, lava flows descending on the flanks, heavy ash fall in nearby areas and secondary mud flows triggered by strong rainfall.
    https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/fuego/news.html

  58. Hkan says:

    How is “Arctic” defined geographically in the measurement?

  59. If the global temperature trend up ends so does AGW theory.

    Not much more to say.

  60. I might add it is NOT how long the down turn in the temperature trend may be if it happens but rather the magnitude of the down turn.

    • barry says:

      So a 3 degree drop for a month, followed by an immediate return to the upward trend would demolish AGW theory, eh?

      It’s the magnitude that maters?!

  61. https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/03/the-most-powerful-evidence-climate-scientists-have-of-global-warming-rules-out-co2-as-the-cause/

    So true. Another basic premise debunked.

    ANOTHER FALLACY OF AGW THEORY.

    Then we must not forget the basic premises this theory has been made up on all have not come to be such as the lower tropospheric hot spot ,among so many others.

    Any other theory that had this much trouble with it’s basic premises would have been rejected by now.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      So you believe journalists over scientists. Interesting.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore, do you think that gaseous CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any?

    • RW says:

      David,

      “Salvatore, do you think that gaseous CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any?”

      There is very good evidence that it does, but this doesn’t tell us how much warming, or if the net anthropogenic influence is actually even warming. We don’t know.

  62. La Pangolina says:

    ren says:
    June 4, 2018 at 2:53 AM

    The trend in the volume of sea ice in the Arctic has been reversed since 2012.

    This, ren, is certainly wrong. I don’t have the ice volume data at hand, but I can tell you that ice volume behavior has been all the time similar to that of the pack ice area.

    Here you see a chart showing, from 1979 till 2018, both extent and area in anomalies wrt 1981-2010:

    http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1528120008724/001.jpg

    The chart shows data originating from

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/

    I can now directly download that data into Excel, instead of asking my friend to run his software :-))

    Linear trends in Mkm2 / decade:

    1. 1979-2018
    – extent: -0.055
    – area: -0.022

    2. 2012-2018
    – extent: -0.073
    – area: -0.068

    Since 2012, the pack ice declines even quicker than the extent.

    Nothing dramatic but it is as it is.

    • esalil says:

      From the data http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt I picked up the highest and the lowest ice volume of each year and from the highest value I subtracted the lowest value to get the total amount of melted ice of each year. The result is following:
      2003 2.24e+13
      2004 1.90
      2005 1.99
      2006 1.86
      2007 2.01
      2008 2.00
      2009 1.84
      2010 1.98
      2011 1.91
      2012 1.90
      2013 1,79
      2014 1.78
      2015 1.95
      2016 1.82
      2017 1.75

      There is a clear trend of diminishing the amount of melted ice i.e. diminishing of the amount of heat available in the arctic region. Someone can maybe find whether this is due to the air temperature during the melting period or due to the SST of the arctic sea.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”This, ren, is certainly wrong. I dont have the ice volume data at hand, but I can tell you that ice volume behavior has been all the time similar to that of the pack ice area”.

      Oh, great, you don’t have the evidence but ren is wrong. Just like the fudged Excel graphs you put out showing UAH and NOAA very close.

      Get a life!!!

      • La Pangolina says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        June 7, 2018 at 1:05 AM

        Just like the fudged Excel graphs you put out showing UAH and NOAA very close.

        As usual: Roberson’s nonsense.

        Either he is unable to do the same job using Excel, and then he is really dumb, or he does not want to see that there is no fudging in my Excel charts, and then he is definitely a liar.

  63. Ren you are correct.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      They certainly named that blog appropriately – it certainly is deplorable.

      • An Inquirer says:

        Ad hominin attack. Not addressing the issue, but rather attacking the messenger. Often occurs when the attacker is in a weak position on content.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          Really? Well perhaps you’d like to start by explaining how their graph shows that “The coverage of thick ice has nearly doubled over the past ten years,”

          • David Appell says:

            Heller is, as ever, trying to confuse. An increase in SIE compared to 12 months ago is not an indication of sea ice recovery.

            When are you people ever going to learn???

          • Bobdesbond says:

            David, are you deliberately replying to the wrong person to trigger a response?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          inquirer…”Ad hominin attack. Not addressing the issue, but rather attacking the messenger. Often occurs when the attacker is in a weak position on content”.

          Familiar position for bob/des and the rest of the alrmists here.

    • La Pangolina says:

      Salvatore: didn’t you see that Heller alias Goddard did not publish anything else than the DMI chart proposed by ren?

    • ren says:

      The volume of sea ice in the Arctic is more dependent on the temperature than the ice extent.
      http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_curve_thick_LA_EN_20180603.png

      • La Pangolina says:

        Slowly but surely you write more and more like the Robertson boaster, who pretends all the time things he can’t prove, and above all allows himself to criticize greatest scientists like Einstein, though in comparison to him he is an absolute zero.

        Is he inbetween your secret teacher, ren?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”Slowly but surely you write more and more like the Robertson boaster, who pretends all the time things he cant prove, and above all allows himself to criticize greatest scientists like Einstein, though in comparison to him he is an absolute zero”.

          Unfortunately you are not the position to judge me since you know little about real science. You’re an alarmist groupie.

      • David Appell says:

        ren, exactly how does that graph prove what you’re claiming?

      • La Pangolina says:

        ren, I made two charts for you out of Colorado’s sea ice data.

        – One for the extent (15 % ice)
        http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528153782152/001.jpg

        – and one for the area (100 % ice)
        http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528153880362/001.jpg

        Unfortunately, Piomas volume data does not seem to be available in txt or csv format.

  64. Bobdesbond says:

    Hey ren – your Arctic Oscillation just went negative after an 11 year high of 52 days in the positive. Are you planning to shout it out for all the world to hear?

  65. La Pangolina says:

    I was looking at the May edition of Roy Spencer’s monthly anmomaly map; it isn’t there yet.

    But again I looked at

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/april2018/042018_tlt_update_bar.png

    and see in my Excel data that indeed the last negative UAH anomaly for the Globe is dated by March 2012.

    Salvatore please! Do something to cool the planet!

    • Bobdesbond says:

      And the last negative UAH anomaly outside a La Nina (or the 5 month lag period after a La Nina) was in 2004.

    • My question is where is all the warming?

      • La Pangolina says:

        Aren’t you an unconditional fan of UAH?

        Warming trend in the UAH6.0 record since May 2009 (ten years):
        0.319 ± 0.059 °C / decade.

        Is a trend of over 3 degrees per century enough for you?

        • You are foolishly thinking what has happened in the past is going to continue into the future (easy to go with trends) and are dismissing all other factors which can cause this not to continue.

          My studies indicate that year 2018 is the first year where solar conditions (duration of time ,degree of magnitude change) are sufficient enough to put an end to the upward bias in global temperatures and will at a minimum put an end to the rise but more then likely promote cooling.

          My same studies led me to believe solar through the end of year 2005 should have caused warming, and there after a halt but with lag times of 10+ years.

          It takes very low solar conditions in regards to duration of time and degree of magnitude change to impact the climate in a significant way. That is why the solar signal is so obscure.

          In addition the weakening Geo Magnetic Field weakening is going to enhance given solar effects.

          That aside we are going to find out starting with this year and moving forward from here.

          Prolonged Very Low Solar should result in overall surface oceanic cooling and a slightly higher albedo and if true will equate to cooler global temperatures.

          Nature has now created the perfect test which is increasing levels of CO2 versus very low prolonged solar activity.

          All of the above my sincere opinions right or wrong.

          • David Appell says:

            Salvatore Del Prete says:
            Nature has now created the perfect test which is increasing levels of CO2 versus very low prolonged solar activity.

            But La Nina! But the AMO! But the Sun! But the albedo!

            Salvatore never learns.

          • La Pangolina says:

            Salvatore Del Prete says:
            June 4, 2018 at 2:28 PM

            My same studies led me to believe solar through the end of year 2005 should have caused warming, and there after a halt but with lag times of 10+ years.

            Here are two charts comparing SSN with temperatures.

            One for 1979-2018 with a 10 year lag on SSN:
            http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528152716127/001.jpg

            and one for 1880-2018 with a 15 year lag on SSN:
            http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528153004382/001.jpg

            So you see exactly the effect of SSN (x – 10) or (x – 15) on the temperatures in year x.

            If this satisfies your theory, then all is best for you!

        • Lewis guignard says:

          Over how many centuries?
          Let us presume 20 centuries. More you say?
          The 3 degrees per century would have the temperature 2000 years ago 60degrees cooler than today.

          Or are you going to change the parameters to suit yourself?

          • David Appell says:

            Lewis, you should know better. Much better.

            When did man’s influence on the climate come to full fruition?

            What factors are dominant today.

          • La Pangolina says:

            Jesus what a nonsense.

            UAH’s trend for 1979-2018 is 0.13 C / decade.

            Thus according to your superintelligent comparison, ‘the 1.3 degrees per century would have the temperature 2000 years ago 26 degrees cooler than today’.

            Simply genial, Sir!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA….”When did mans influence on the climate come to full fruition?”

            No proof that man has ever influenced the climate.

  66. name says:

    David Appell
    June 1, 2018

    Bond: clearly, I meant the amplitude of *temperature*

    David, its funny, I recall you trying to jump all over Ed Berry for a similar silly mistake.

    But that was ALL you had there!

  67. La Panglina, there are two solar requirements and the two requirements have not been present since the ending of the Dalton solar minimum around 1850 ad.

    It looks like this year is the first time since then that the two solar requirements needed to cause global cooling are now coming into play.

    According to my studies the solar period from 1850-2005 should have resulted in warming.

    Only since 2005 did that start to turn and now if the low average value solar parameters within the sub solar activity in general can persist( which is happening in year 2018) will the solar requirement be present to result in a global cooling scenario.

    This is what is taken with solar activity now , and with the expectations of the very low average solar parameters within the sub solar activity in general continuing , the result should be global cooling.

    Note there are still two solar parameters that have yet to reached the low average value solar parameters I would like to see.

    Those being the solar wind(350 km/sec or lower)/AP index(5 or lower), but they are coming down and could reach my criteria very soon but overall I say despite that the solar activity requirements are pretty much in for cooling.

    At best global temperatures are going to stay steady, if not out right fall, which I think has already started.

    This is not some long drawn out forecast. We will know from now thru the next few years.

    If global temperatures should continue to rise I will be wrong if they fall I will be correct.

    Only my opinions. Some agree, some do not.

  68. Gordon Robertson says:

    test

  69. Gordon Robertson says:

    Just testing to see if cleaning up cookies and history would repair the issue with disappearing user name.

    Did not help.

    • barry says:

      If everyone is having the same problem then it’s a website issue, but thanks for doing the test.

  70. barry says:

    Want to know why foolish skeptics are swallowing the 2012 sea ice volume bull from more devious skeptics?

    Look at this cherry-pick.

    http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

    That’s the daily volume anomaly calculated against the the 1979 to 2017 daily average.

    See the magnitude of the variation? It goes up and down a lot, so that even with a clear downward trend you can have peaks and troughs that are unbeaten for a few years.

    The devious skeptics take advantage of ordinary random variation and make claims about changes in trend.

    The foolish skeptics regurgitate that nonsense here.

    More info from here:

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

    Why go there? Because it is the source for everything on sea ice volume and thickness above – before idiots get their hands on it.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Of course, this is also how they make their claim of no warming since 1998.

      Anyway, it’s up to us to take them to task when the data returns to the trend line. Even though we know they will conveniently pretend not to have made the claim. Or like Salvatore, pretend his claim was a conditional one instead on absolute.

    • Svante says:

      And the same for the instrumental temperature record. How can anyone think warming has stopped as soon as there is a wiggle in the data, when it has been going on for two hundred years?

      • Bart says:

        How can you think warming that has been going on for 200 years is due to CO2 production?

        • Svante says:

          Because it looks like this:
          https://tinyurl.com/yck2o849

          • Bart says:

            Bogus, and not global in any case.

          • Nate says:

            Bogus how? Not global how?

            More data that is unreliable because….just cuz.

          • Bart says:

            “Bogus how?”

            Unreliable proxies with huge error bars early on. Misleading bold line that doesn’t even track the modern record very well.

            “Not global how?”

            Read the Y-axis label.

          • Nate says:

            Global land is quite global.

            ‘bold line that doesn’t even track the modern record very well’

            Considering that it doesnt incorporate any anthro aerosols, or ENSO variability, it is not expected to track perfectly, and yet, objectively, it does very well.

            ‘Unreliable proxies with huge error bars early on.’

            As with any fit to data, as long as error bars are shown, we can judge the quality of the fit.

            What proxies?

          • Svante says:

            It was without proxies Bart, this one has proxies:

            https://tinyurl.com/y95cmx6t

          • Bart says:

            “Considering that it doesnt incorporate any anthro aerosols…”

            Ah yes, the all-purpose fudge factor.

            ‘…this one has proxies:”

            Guys, these are setups. The temperatures have been “adjusted” to improve the apparent fit to the CO2 data, as in USHCN data here:

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

            It’s nonsense. It is fooling themselves. They’ve already decided on the cause. Now, it’s just a game of nudging things until they vaguely fit the narrative to convince others.

            It is really not hard at all to nudge things to produce a vague, seeming fit when you have such low frequency signals that happen to be more or less going in the same direction. What’s hard is matching both the low and the high frequency content. That’s been done. But, it isn’t the temperature to CO2 relationship that matches. It is the CO2 rate of change to temperature relationship that matches.

            That relationship precludes significant sensitivity in the other direction, because it would create an unstabilizable, positive feedback loop. I am quite certain of it. It will come out eventually.

          • Bart says:

            I see now, these aren’t even CO2 lines, but generic “GHG forcing” ones. So, you’ve got another layer of adjustable parameters to get a vague fit.

            This is just awful. It’s pure confirmation bias.

          • Nate says:

            Anthro aerosols

            ‘Ah yes, the all-purpose fudge factor.’

            There is good evidence for global dimming and resultant forcing due to pollution.

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2008JD011470

            But you will consider it unreliable.

            ‘It is really not hard at all to nudge things to produce a vague, seeming fit when you have such low frequency signals that happen to be more or less going in the same direction. Whats hard is matching both the low and the high frequency content.’

            Not at alljust vaguely going in the same direction. Its a very good fit. You are simply in deep denial.

            ‘matching the high frequency content.’

            What rot. Either the theory explains all variation or its wrong. You are pushing a false dichotomy.

            There was no attempt to fit the high frequency content with slowly rising CO2, because known climate variability is not even considered here. You are looking at the trees and ignoring the forest (where have I heard that before?).

          • Svante says:

            One note, CH4 does 50% of the CO2 forcing.
            BEST used ln(CO2) as an “anthropogenic proxy” because a separate CH4 term did not improve the fit.

          • Nate says:

            ‘I am quite certain of it. It will come out eventually.’

            Sounding a lot like Salvatore…

          • Bart says:

            “There was no attempt to fit the high frequency content with slowly rising CO2, because known climate variability is not even considered here.”

            That is why it is all the more remarkable when you find such an amazingly good fit. It’s the innocuous yet incontrovertible fingerprint that nails the culprit.

            “BEST used ln(CO2) as an anthropogenic proxy because a separate CH4 term did not improve the fit.”

            And, adjusted the temps until they had a vague resemblance.

            You might as well cut off the temps at about 1910 – everything before that is just increasingly dodgy speculation. Ditto CO2 before 1958. These are simply data that have been coaxed into reflecting a pre-conceived paradigm.

          • Bart says:

            “Sounding a lot like Salvatore”

            He who laughs last, laughs the loudest. Salvatore is just getting impatient, and allowing himself to be boxed into a corner. The turning point will come when it comes.

          • Svante says:

            And, adjusted the temps until they had a vague resemblance.

            BEST has a great method that can handle stations of varying quality. These results will be repeated again and again.
            Ditto for CO2 before 1958.

            I realize denial of all these results is a necessary part of your toolbox.

            How many people do you think take part in this “fudging”?

          • Nate says:

            ‘You might as well cut off the temps at about 1910’

            Ordinarily there is no justification for arbitrarily cutting off data.

            Just take account of the larger errors going back.

          • Nate says:

            ‘And, adjusted the temps until they had a vague resemblance.’

            Where does this notion come from?

            All climate scientists are dodgy?

          • Nate says:

            You seem to have changed your stance on how good the fit?

            ‘That is why it is all the more remarkable when you find such an amazingly good fit’

            ‘Its the innocuous yet incontrovertible fingerprint that nails the culprit.’

            Again, some climate scientists may have behaved poorly.

            This is work done by climate scientists (well.. mostly not).

            Hence this work is dodgy?

            Hasty generalization, I believe its called.

          • Bart says:

            Nate:

            “You seem to have changed your stance on how good the fit?”

            I’m talking there about the fit between the temperature anomaly and the CO2 rate of change. It’s not just a vague resemblance in low frequency, low information, components, requiring innumerable “adjustments” to get there. It’s spot on across the entire spectrum.

            “All climate scientists are dodgy?”

            Some are. Some are extremely so. Others are so convinced they already know the answer that they believe cutting corners is OK. Others brave enough to go against the tide are hounded and disparaged into silence.

            I think you guys just don’t realize how easy it is to fool yourself. I’ve seen it time and time again in my career – people get a computer result that I tell them looks dodgy, and they come up with reasons why no, that’s really how the system works. You wouldn’t believe some of the elaborate theories I’ve seen them come up with.

            Then, they find the bug in the computer code that was causing the problem, and it’s “never mind.”

            There really is nothing here that cannot be explained by happenstance, and a little nip and tuck here and there to present the data in the best possible light.

            The problem is, scientists are supposed to challenge themselves by looking at things in the worst possible light.

            Svante –

            You can’t “handle” information that simply does not exist. At some point, your SNR is so low, it becomes rank speculation.

            How many people take part in this “fudging”? Have you heard of the “Replication Crisis”? It is estimated that something on the order of 70% of research cannot be replicated. It’s not a joke. It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s human nature. And, it’s especially rampant when people think they already know the answer they are looking for.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Some are. Some are extremely so. Others are so convinced they already know the answer that they believe cutting corners is OK. Others brave enough to go against the tide are hounded and disparaged into silence. I think you guys just dont realize how easy it is to fool yourself.”

            Ok, you know that climate scientists, as a group, behave this way how?

            Logical fallacies, such as your slothful induction applied here, are only meant for others, not you Mr. Spock?

            The data is no good, its dodgy, its unreliable. The scientists lack all integrity, are sheepish and inept. No evidence needed.

            It is an extremely desperate and lame-ass way to argue.

          • Nate says:

            ‘the fit between the temperature anomaly and the CO2 rate of change. It’s not just a vague resemblance in low frequency, low information, components, requiring innumerable “adjustments” to get there. It’s spot on across the entire spectrum.”

            Bart, ask any of your stats savvy colleagues if this makes sense:

            You have two sets of data x and y. You suspect they have a relationship y = Kx, with a constant K, for variations on all frequencies. Should you low-pass filter x so as remove a lot of its high frequency variation, but not similarly filter y? Does that make sense at all?

            Would this perhaps be a good way to fool oneself?

          • Nate says:

            ” The temperatures have been “adjusted” to improve the apparent fit to the CO2 data, as in USHCN data here:”

            What reputable source did this result come from?

            You pay way too much attention to denialist blog alternative facts.

          • Nate says:

            “Have you heard of the Replication Crisis? It is estimated that something on the order of 70% of research cannot be replicated. ”

            As usual, Bart, your assertions cannot be replicated.

            “According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported in the journal Nature, 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist’s experiment”, WP

            Far different from ‘70% of research cannot be replicated’

            The problem is real, but field-dependent. It is most prevalent in fields with living subjects: psychology, medicine.

            Apparently the subset of papers with the worst record of replication is high-profile climate contrarian papers:

            https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

          • Bart says:

            “Ok, you know that climate scientists, as a group, behave this way how?”

            Because people behave this way, and I’ve had many years of observation.

            “The scientists lack all integrity, are sheepish and inept.”

            This has been demonstrated to my satisfaction. Inept – I have seen analyses pertaining to this that just make me SMH. Sheepish – demonstrated by the ability of a small group at the top to get away with it. Integrity? We have the ClimateGate emails, which are incontrovertible to anyone with an objective perspective.

            “Should you low-pass filter x so as remove a lot of its high frequency variation, but not similarly filter y?”

            When y has already been filtered, it would make no sense to filter it again.

            “What reputable source did this result come from?”

            Prove it wrong.

            “Apparently the subset of papers with the worst record of replication is high-profile climate contrarian papers:”

            When a paper starts out with the 97% canard, you know it’s a total joke.

          • Nate says:

            Should you low-pass filter x so as remove a lot of its high frequency variation, but not similarly filter y?

            ‘When y has already been filtered, it would make no sense to filter it again.’

            Im assuming y is global temperature, x is co2 derivative, filtered at 24 months.

            Temp has NOT already been filtered. Patently FALSE.

            I remind you of your observation:

            “people get a result that I tell them looks dodgy, and they come up with reasons why no, thats really how the system works. You wouldnt believe some of the elaborate theories Ive seen them come up with.”

          • Bart says:

            Wrong.

            There’s a match. A really, really good one. You should not spend your time trying to find excuses to ignore the match, but the reasons for it.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Theres a match. A really, really good one. ‘

            Not how scientists talk when dealing with issues.

            I can show you analysis in the freq domain that illustrates the issue very well.

            Do you care to see, or are you all good?

          • Bart says:

            Wrong again. Scientists do not sweep issues under the rug. When one sees something that cannot be explained, one seeks to explain it.

            Show my your silly frequency domain argument if you like, and I will shoot it down. But, here’s a token for the clue bus: the frequency domain and the time domain are equivalent information. If you have a match in one, you have a match in the other. No rationalization you can come up with will change that.

          • Nate says:

            ‘The scientists lack all integrity, are sheepish and inept.

            ‘This has been demonstrated to my satisfaction. ‘

            Some climate scientists (may have) behaved unethically (climatgate).

            You have some experience with other humans.

            Therefore climate scientists are unethical, and have various other failings?

            You will happily make hasty generalizations such as this, when convenient.

            Also, false dichotomies like AGW must explain all temp variation, even the natural stuff, or its wrong, are fine too.

            Yet I thought you were our resident logician? Weird.

            As my son used to say when he was upset with our rules: ‘you’re racist against teenagers!”

            But it seems apropos here, you’re kind of racist against climate scientists. No other explanation makes sense.

            Ok, note to self: there is no point in showing Bart data or results from climate scientists. He has decided, a-priori, its dodgy.

          • Nate says:

            ‘frequency domain and the time domain are equivalent information. If you have a match in one, you have a match in the other.

            Of course they are they same. But what f-domain shows clearly is there is no pre-filtering of temp data.

            The two data sets match well for high frequencies from 1/5 y^-1 to 1 y^-1, when a 12 mo filter is applied to both, and a scale factor of 1.8 is applied to CO2 deriv. There is matching peak at 1/4 y^-1

            But the two sets then part ways for lower frequencies.

            When a 24 mo. filter is applied only to co2 derivative, there is no longer a good match across the hf, nor at 1/4 y^-1 peak.

          • Bart says:

            Spatial averages are the same as temporal averages when you have a traveling wave type of phenomenon. It’s like looking at widgets on a conveyor belt and counting them (spatial count) versus going on the other side of the factory wall and counting them as they emerge (temporal count). You’ll get the same count regardless over the same belt expanse.

            The proof that this is such a phenomenon is the fact that the resolution matches. When you artificially introduce yet more filtering, you have different resolutions.

            You’re chasing a parked car here, desperately searching for excuses to ignore what your eyes can see plainly. Just stop it.

            There’s a match. If you don’t like my explanation, then find one for yourself. But, don’t use your lack of understanding as an excuse to turn a blind eye.

            There is a match.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Looking for excuses’ You keep say this, but it couldnt be more inaccurate.

            Ive been very consistent in raising this filtering objection from the getgo.

            What you are doing to bend the data to your will is simply not justifiable nor kosher.

            ‘Spatial averages are the same as temporal averages when you have a traveling wave type of phenomenon.’

            No, does not apply to temperature anomalies on Earth, which simply have seasonal average subtracted. Anomalies do not behave as a regular, periodic, traveling wave.

            This is definitely in the category of ‘You wouldnt believe some of the elaborate theories Ive seen them come up with.’

            If, by some fluke, you could publish this analysis, it would immediately become part of the replication crisis.

            IOW, it could not be replicated with conventional science.

            There are other papers that have looked at correlations between these two quantities, and none have applied this asymmetric filtering.

            Let me pose this to you. If you were writing a Methods section of the paper, you would need to explain, in logical terms the steps you did in your analysis, and why you did them.

            What would you write that could be understood and accepted by a peer reviewer? It can’t be just hand-waving. It would need agree with known physics and standard signal processing methods.

          • Nate says:

            Spectra of Temp and CO2 derivative. x-axis frequency-, 60 corresponds to 1 y^-1 and 12 corresponds to 5 y^-1.

            high freq 1-5 y symmetric filter https://tinyurl.com/ya4n5y35

            1-5 y asymmetric filter https://tinyurl.com/ybpcl653

            Clearly the symmetric filter produces a decent fit across the 1-5 y time scales, while the asymmetric filter just cannot fit-there is too much hf in the unfiltered temp data–because it is not filtered.

            60 y to 1.5 y asymmetric filter https://tinyurl.com/ybjz3l38

            60 y to 1.5 y symmetric filter https://tinyurl.com/y8757y2l

            Same scale factors-divergence in low freq is clear.

          • Bart says:

            This is just stupid, Nate. I don’t know what more I can tell you, or what good it will do. You’ve clenched your jaws on this red herring, and just will not let go.

            Whatever. You’re wrong. Painfully and obviously so. But, you do you. Hasta la vista.

          • Bart says:

            I mean, this statement is true, no matter your quibbles:

            “The running average of the rate of change of CO2 at Mauna Loa on an annual basis is proportional to globally averaged temperature anomaly.”

            That’s the relationship. If you want to say “well, there isn’t a direct proportionality with unaveraged CO2 rate of change”, well, so what? The relationship is still there.

            You are just looking for excuses to keep your head in the sand. Just stop it. It’s just annoying.

          • Nate says:

            “You’re wrong. Painfully and obviously so.”

            If its so obvious, then you should be able explain it in simple terms without relying on other speculative notions about about how the Earth operates.

            If you can’t refute what I’ve shown, point by point, and just call it stupid and annoying, that’s not very reassuring.

            Facts and reality are annoying sometimes. I am just the purveyor of these.

            If my critiques are so intolerable, then stop coming here and repeating the same bogus theory, again and again, as if it is a fact that cannot be questioned.

          • Nate says:

            ‘“The running average of the rate of change of CO2 at Mauna Loa on an annual basis is proportional to globally averaged temperature anomaly.”

            That’s the relationship. If you want to say “well, there isn’t a direct proportionality with unaveraged CO2 rate of change”, well, so what? The relationship is still there.”

            Well, I would agree to ‘the running average of the rate of change of CO2 at Mauna Loa on an annual basis is proportional to globally averaged running average of the temperature anomaly on an annual basis”

            Look, if I knew nothing and I were looking to study the relationship between these two quantities, I would average CO2 over 12 mo because the annual cycle needs to be suppressed, then take the derivative.

            Then naturally I would average the temperature over 12 mo. Then I would plot them together. We could scale one to match the other, and we would see this:

            https://tinyurl.com/y7ndx3od

            What you see is a strong correlation for high frequencies, as is well known. But thats it. There is no correlation for long term trends.

            Now is where you come in looking for a certain relationship. So, by doing some manipulations, filter one series, but not the other purpose other than to artificially produce a relationship that you want, and surprise, you get what you want.

            No. Not ok. Just not ok.

          • Bart says:

            You are tossing out a relationship that explains everything with a minimum of rationalization based upon an arbitrary paradigm of how you think things should be.

            It’s the same impulse that led church leaders to insist upon epicycles. Sure, the orbits looked like ellipses, but they should have been circles, therefore, they were. And, all those monks had labored so hard to fit the motion of the planets to those epicycles. Who was this upstart Galileo to come in and suggest he knew more than the experts?

          • Nate says:

            “You are tossing out a relationship that explains everything with a minimum of rationalization”

            How can you say such that? You have to introduce unproven speculations in order to rationalize your manipulations needed to achieve the desired ‘relationship’.

            This is something you are constantly accusing the cheating climate scientists of doing!

            Then you have toss out lots of legitimate data, and understanding of the carbon cycle, in order to rationalize your theory.

            I’m just astounded that you don’t see why these things are problematic, and rationalizations themselves.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Who was this upstart Galileo to come in and suggest he knew more than the experts?’

            Pulleez.

            < 0.001% of revolutionaries who said standard science is wrong, turned out to be correct.

            I am saying standard science is wrong, therefore I must be correct.

            Do you see the flaw in this logic?

            The other 99.999% are promoting perpetual motion machines, a flat Earth, free energy from water, N rays, cold fusion, and relativity is all wrong.

          • Bart says:

            “You have to introduce unproven speculations in order to rationalize your manipulations needed to achieve the desired relationship. “

            No, the relationship exists all on its own. I have a hypothesis about how the relationship comes about, but the relationship stands on its own. The running average of the rate of change of CO2 at Mauna Loa on an annual basis is proportional to globally averaged temperature anomaly.

            “Then you have toss out … understanding of the carbon cycle… “

            Yes, those monks worked so hard on the epicycles, and you just tossed out all their work based on a mere observation.

            “Do you see the flaw in this logic?”

            Yes. Your fallacy here is: straw man.

          • Nate says:

            Bart,

            Your understanding of what epicycles were is off the mark.

            Again, paradigm shifts are rare events.

            Arguing that since you are proposing a paradigm shift, it is more likely, is quite illogical.

            Back to the issue at hand.

            Your argument is that low frequency and high frequencies in signals x and y have the same proportionality constant, and that is the only adjustable parameter needed.

            But by introducing an asymmetric filter on x, you can SUPPRESS the high frequency variations in x, without suppressing those in y.

            It is quite obvious that the filter changes the scale factor, and BTW, the width of peaks in a telling way:

            https://tinyurl.com/y7fesb44

            Therefore you have added a second adjustable parameter, that allows you adjust the high frequency proportionality constant until it matches the low frequency one.

            Thus you get a manufactured relationship.

          • Nate says:

            “Yes, those monks worked so hard on the epicycles, and you just tossed out all their work based on a mere observation.”

            Monks and epicycles opposed Galileo = climate scientists and their data oppose Bart??

            Logic fails,

            Bad analogy? Guilt by association? General stupidity?

          • Bart says:

            “But by introducing an asymmetric filter on x, you can SUPPRESS the high frequency variations in x, without suppressing those in y.”

            Then, it is no longer the same signal.

          • Nate says:

            Dont follow? Same signal with reduced hf variation.

          • Bart says:

            You seem to be arguing that if you change something, it no longer is the same, and therefore it never was what it was in the first place.

            I don’t know why you seem to think this is a profound insight, or really a point of any kind.

          • Nate says:

            I have no idea what you are trying to say. The main issue is clear.

          • Bart says:

            You are deluding yourself.

          • Nate says:

            ‘You seem to be arguing that if you change something, it no longer is the same, and therefore it never was what it was in the first place.’

            No did not say anything like that, or mean that, weird.

            How bout telling me which, of the things I did say, you disagree with, and why.

          • Bart says:

            What’s the point? We’ll just go round and round again saying the same things, and you will keep denying the relationship you can see right in front of your eyes exists because you can change the signals, and suddenly, inexplicably, they’ve changed.

            Oo-kay. Whatever. Life’s too short.

          • Nate says:

            I agree we’re going round and round.

            But look, its absolutely normal in science to expect that someone can rationally explain their methods, particularly when the main result depends entirely on those methods.

            If you cannot do that, then your ideas can never be taken seriously.

          • Bart says:

            “I can explain it to you, but I can’t comprehend it for you.”
            – Edward I. Koch

            I’ve explained until my fingers are numb. You still insist on going off on tangents. It’s hopeless.

          • Nate says:

            Ive explained the problem until my fingers are numb. You still insist on ignoring it.

            I requested a proper Methods description from you. Did you ever give it? Nope. Your choice.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        svante…”How can anyone think warming has stopped as soon as there is a wiggle in the data, when it has been going on for two hundred years?”

        It’s being going on a lot longer than that, since the last major ice age and more recently since the Little Ice Age.

        • Svante says:

          Temperatures where in decline through the latter half of the Holocene.
          Good thing we stopped it, pity we overdid it:
          https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/regemcrufull.jpg?w=500&h=322

          • Bart says:

            Marcott has been soundly debunked. Nobody cites it anymore.

          • Svante says:

            Not really, notrickzone was on about the ‘uptick’, which was not robust.

            Same as the instrumental record, this result will be replicated again and again, albeit with increasing accuracy.

          • Svante says:

            Replicated by pages2k:
            https://tinyurl.com/yatmc85t

          • Bart says:

            A splice of direct data from modern instruments with dodgy proxies is never more than speculation.

          • Svante says:

            Bart says:

            A splice of direct data from modern instruments with dodgy proxies is never more than speculation.

            Seventy-three different proxy records, and plenty of research to splice them just fine.

            Look at the overlap agreement, the only outliers are in 1904/1905 and the early 40’s.
            https://tinyurl.com/y95cmx6t

          • Bart says:

            Overlap proves nothing, nothing at all.

          • phi says:

            Svante,
            I do not know where you found that but this graphic is just a joke. Anyone who knows a little about the proxies used can only burst out laughing at this post-modern graphic work.

          • Svante says:

            Hi Phi!

            I found it here:
            https://tinyurl.com/y7usxf4f

            Please read it, it clarifies a lot of what we discuss here.

          • phi says:

            Svante,
            Thank you.
            I have a proposition. You choose the proxy you want in those used and you provide the raw measurements. Then we examine together how this proxy behaves in relation to the corresponding instrumental temperature data.

          • Svante says:

            Life is difficult when everyone is conspiring against you. Let me get back to you when I’ve caught up with all those PhDs.

          • Bart says:

            Your fallacy is: argument from incredulity.

            The argument seeks to categorize coordinated action by like-minded people as an rare phenomenon, when it is not rare at all.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Your fallacy is: argument from incredulity.

            “The argument seeks to categorize coordinated action by like-minded people as an rare phenomenon, when it is not rare at all.”

            Bart is saying, I think, that science conspiracy theories are often true?

            Proof?

  71. Nate says:

    ‘Massive motion’

    .5 % of degree ~ 5km, diameter 10 km.

    Is that a lot? Hard to say. Its over 10 y.

    So max velocity is tiny, 30 microns/ s

    Very tiny velocity gradient N-S.

    Seems like tidal effects and coriolis forces must be must be much much larger.

    • Bart says:

      It’s more like 74 meters differential motion. It’s massive, though, because the waters have to move, and it’s a whole lot of water.

      Tides are different. They are largely longitudinal. This would be latitudinal, and the thermal gradients are much greater in that direction.

      I wouldn’t bet a ton of cash on it, not enough to cause devastating financial pain if I were wrong at any rate. But, enough to cause some discomfort. I do think it is a distinct possibility.

      The important point was that failing to see the 11 year cycle in temperature data is not dispositive as to the impact of solar variation on terrestrial temperatures. It could be the time constants are so long that an 11 year cycle gets sharply attenuated. Or, it could be that it modulates other cyclical phenomena and the impact appears at a different frequency, as I am suggesting here. Or, both.

      We will just have to wait and see with more data and more study.

  72. Nate says:

    Arrrgh, got put in wrong place.

  73. jimc says:

    “Climate Change Has Run Its Course”

    “Scientists who are genuinely worried about the potential for catastrophic climate change ought to be the most outraged at how the left politicized the issue and how the international policy community narrowed the range of acceptable responses. Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme transformed the issue into a political creed for committed believers. Causes that live by politics, die by politics.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-has-run-its-course-1528152876

    • gbaikie says:

      I don’t think there were any scientists who were/are genuinely worried about the potential for catastrophic climate change.

      I think there were millions of brainwashed children who were/are worried about the potential for catastrophic climate change. And there were too many adults, who worried endlessly and uselessly about it.

      Any adult vaguely concerned, should have looked into the matter, instead merely been zombies.

      • Svante says:

        Keywords: “I think”.

        • gbaikie says:

          If worried (and you are sane) you do something.
          Take for example, nuclear war, people built bomb shelters.

          And climatic activists, fly the world in jets.

          • Svante says:

            Private bomb shelters are not the optimal solution to the nuclear threat. Nuclear weapons have to be eliminated, or at least not proliferated, they are just too dangerous in the long run.

            It’s a lot like the CO2 problem.

          • Bart says:

            Nuclear weapons have kept relative peace for all the years since they were invented. They make the cost too high for would-be conquerors and put they, themselves, at risk.

            Eliminating nuclear weapons would again make war acceptable as a means to an end. It would be horrific.

          • Svante says:

            Assuming stable countries with rational leaders, and no mistakes. For hundreds of years?

            Are you from North Korea?

          • Bond says:

            Only one country has detonated a nuclear weapon in anger. And it is indeed an unstable one.

          • Bart says:

            50 MILLION people died in WWII directly from war related causes. About 0.5% of those were from nuclear weapons. Industrial killing is no picnic, either.

            It’s better when the only way one wins is by not playing the game.

          • Nate says:

            Sane? ‘Take for example, nuclear war, people built bomb shelters.’

            People building bomb shelters are failing to understand how nuclear war works.

    • Nate says:

      ‘Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme’

      How else could we solve any global problem such as this?

      Primarily only in the US is there a significant political polarization on this topic. The place where vested interests inject the most $ into politics.

      • Bart says:

        The US is one of the few places on Earth where the plebes actually still have a substantial voice. The elites of the world are united. They want control, because control means $$$. AGW is just a means to an end.

      • Nate says:

        Bart,

        I understand that people have different philosophies on government. One can have a POV that is values based, not fact-based.

        Why should that correlate with judgement of fact-based science at all? It does for climate science.

        Why do you and others seem to judge climate science, only after passing it through an ideological filter?

        • Bart says:

          We don’t. We evaluate it on the basis of the evidence. And, the evidence is lacking.

          Politicization has occurred on the other side. The proffered “cures” for the supposed disease are all focused on limiting individual freedom, and supporting political goals.

          Some of the leading lights of the AGW movement were focused on global cooling back in the day (e.g., Dr. Stephen Schneider, R.I.P.) and turned on a dime when the meme went to catastrophic warming. The goal is always the same – to stampede the population into giving up its rights and privileges in the name of some phantom menace.

          H.L. Mencken perhaps said it best:

          “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

          • Nate says:

            ‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

            I think he would explain Trumpism exactly this way, with its fear mongering about immigrants, brown people, disrespecting the flag, the evil press, the deep state, etc. He would be disgusted.

            ‘We dont. We evaluate it on the basis of the evidence. And, the evidence is lacking.’

            Wow. You have never once considered evidence that I have shown you or described to you as credible, published or not. For you, it all has some inexplicable problem if it doesnt fit your narrative.

            Your biases are quite clear. To do science you cannot operate that way.

          • Nate says:

            ‘The goal is always the same – to stampede the population into giving up its rights and privileges in the name of some phantom menace’

            This POV is always hard to swallow. We can certainly debate the severity of the CO2 caused problems.

            But fundamentally what ‘rights and privileges’ would you be losing if emissions are regulated?

            Do you have a fundamental ‘right’ to dump sh*t in my yard? I’m sorry to tell you that you don’t.

            Do you have a ‘privilege’ to send your sh*t downstream or downwind to the next town or state? Thankfully, more or less, society has decided NO on that one.

            Do you have a ‘right’ to not have to pay the fees for your sewage treatment and disposal?

            You do have the right to move somewhere that doesnt provide these services.

            As I say to my teenagers, if you are living with other people, you don’t have the ‘right or privilege’ to create a mess in the space we all share and not clean it up.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      jimc…”Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme transformed the issue into a political creed for committed believers”.

      The nonsense began with a political game created by UK PM Margaret Thatcher. She could not deal with striking coal miners and she was advised to use her chemistry degree to baffle UN delegates into believing coal emissions could warm the planet. It was her way of getting rid of the coal miners by banning coal.

      Due to her propaganda, the IPCC was formed by the UN in conjunction with the World Meteorological Association to investigate only the role humans have played in the warming. Even if the planet freezes over, the IPCC lacks the mandate to investigate.

      Thatcher played a role in having John Houghton appointed the first UN co-chair and he, being a climate modeler, lead the IPCC into the sci-fi world of climate modeling.

      This played right into the hands of the UN who had been seeking a mandate since the 1960s to form a world government with the power to tax member nations.

      • Carbon500 says:

        Gordon: Where did you get all this from regarding the miner’s strike and Margaret Thatcher?
        As an example, you comment that ‘She could not deal with striking coal miners and she was advised to use her chemistry degree to baffle UN delegates into believing coal emissions could warm the planet. It was her way of getting rid of the coal miners by banning coal.’
        This account brings back my recollections from that era – although I’m no historian and can’t vouch for all of the points made:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984%E2%80%9385)
        The whole issue of fossil fuels potentially raising the temperature of the planet wasn’t even a blip on the horizon in the reports of English newspapers that time.
        I find it hard to believe that ‘Due to her propaganda, the IPCC was formed by the UN in conjunction with the World Meteorological Association to investigate only the role humans have played in the warming’ – where is the historical evidence for this?

      • Nate says:

        Carbon,

        ‘where is the historical evidence for this?’

        In my experience, Gordon will not respond to your quite reasonable request.

        Then in a few weeks, he will repeat the same BS, as if no one ever debunked it.

        It works for him.

  74. Transport by Zeppelin says:

    I see that both UAH and RSS data show a slower rate of warming in the mid troposphere as opposed to the lower troposphere, both globally as well as at the tropics. This is the opposite of what is expected with positive water vapour feedback.

    When is this clearly debunked hypothesis, that climate alarmism so heavily depends on, officially going into the dust bin?

    • Bobdesbond says:

      UAH and RSS data show cooling in the stratosphere, which is precisely what is predicted due to an increased greenhouse warming, and is not predicted by ANY other scenario.

      The effect you are speaking of is supposed to happen as a result of warming from ANY cause. As there has definitely been warming, yes it’s absence needs to be explained, but it speaks nothing about the cause of the warming.

      I look forward to your attempts to further revise the predictions of climate change.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          This coming from someone who claimed that the stratosphere at the poles was at ground level.

      • Kristian says:

        Bobdesbond says, June 4, 2018 at 11:44 PM:

        UAH and RSS data show cooling in the stratosphere, which is precisely what is predicted due to an increased greenhouse warming (…)

        Uhm, no. It is “precisely what is predicted due to an increased greenhouse” cooling. Put more CO2 into the stratosphere and you get cooling. And that’s about it. What’s going on above the tropopause hasn’t got anything to do with what’s going on below the tropopause, where things are convectively governed rather than radiatively governed.

        This “some mechanism is causing stratospheric cooling, therefore tropospheric warming is caused by the very same mechanism” argument is just so inanely stupid!

        (…) and is not predicted by ANY other scenario.

        Yes, it is. Decreasing stratospheric ozone. Both mechanisms (-O3 and +CO2) are and have been contributing to the cooling.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          Stratospheric ozone concentrations bottomed out in the early 90s, and have slightly risen since then. Bad luck with that one.

          What’s going on above the tropopause hasn’t got anything to do with what’s going on below the tropopause, where things are convectively governed rather than radiatively governed.

          You guys love your false dichotomies don’t you. It is not a case of “either/or” with regard to radiation and convection.

          • Kristian says:

            Bobdesbond says, June 5, 2018 at 4:07 AM:

            Stratospheric ozone concentrations bottomed out in the early 90s, and have slightly risen since then. Bad luck with that one.

            You must suffer from a serious case of reading impairment. What did I write? “Both mechanisms (-O3 and +CO2) are and have been contributing to the cooling.” I also wrote, just a little bit higher up: “Put more CO2 into the stratosphere and you get cooling.”

            So what is it? Are you being straight-out dishonest? Or just stupid?

            It is not a case of “either/or” with regard to radiation and convection.

            But YOU’RE implicitly claiming it’s a matter of “both/and”! And so the onus is on YOU to SHOW that this is in fact the case, not just assert and assume it and expect everyone to immediately bow their heads in compliance.

            Exactly WHY and HOW is evidence of some (whatever) mechanism causing stratospheric cooling somehow proof that this very same mechanism is therefore ALSO automatically causing tropospheric warming!? When you KNOW that 1) ‘cooling’ is not equal to ‘warming’, and that 2) the stratosphere does NOT operate in the same way as the troposphere, that their thermal structures are generated and maintained based on completely different principles …

          • Bart says:

            “Stratospheric ozone concentrations bottomed out in the early 90s, and have slightly risen since then.”

            Incorrect. This has only been true of the “ozone hole” at the South Pole. Elsewhere, there has been a steady decrease in stratospheric ozone.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            Kristian
            Both mechanisms (-O3 and +CO2) are and have been contributing to the cooling.

            If that doesn’t claim that O3 concentrations have been falling, then yet again your English is very poor.

            It seems deniers believe they are in a privileged position. Apparently they can make any BS claim they wish without evidence, then we have to provide all the evidence to prove you wrong. Is that how you believe science works?

          • Nate says:

            My cite had actual data.

            Don’t see any data in yours..except reference to this article “Trends in erythemal doses at the Polish Polar Station, Hornsund, Svalbard based on the homogenized measurements (19962016) and reconstructed data (19831995)”

            Weird.

          • Bart says:

            Your cite looked at total column.

            You haven’t a leg to stand on. It’s easy to confirm. Just google “stratospheric ozone decline”. Here’s a cut-and-paste of the first page that comes up at ask.com:

            Evidence for a continuous decline in lower stratospheric ozone …
            http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/1379/2018/acp-18-1379-2018.pdf
            Feb 6, 2018 … Continuous stratospheric ozone decline ing, the continuing downward trend in the lower stratosphere prevails, resulting in a downward trend in …

            Ozone still declining in the lower stratosphere | Research | Chemistry …
            http://www.chemistryworld.com/news/ozone-still-declining-in-the-lower-stratosphere-/3008628.article
            Feb 8, 2018 … An unexplained decrease in stratospheric ozone revealed by satellite measurements appears to have been offsetting the ozone layer’s …

            Wait–the Ozone Layer Is Still Declining? – Scientific American
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wait-the-ozone-layer-is-still-declining1
            Feb 6, 2018 … The lower stratosphere’s ozone continues to decrease, despite the world’s success in phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals. By Annie Sneed …

            Stratospheric Ozone at Lower Latitudes Is Not Recovering, Despite …
            http://www.simonsfoundation.org/2018/02/06/stratospheric-ozone-not-recovering
            Feb 6, 2018 … Stratospheric Ozone at Lower Latitudes Is Not Recovering, Despite Antarctic … Global ozone has been declining since the 1970s because of …

            Ozone at lower latitudes is not recovering, despite Antarctic ozone …
            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180206090709.htm
            Feb 6, 2018 … Evidence for a continuous decline in lower stratospheric ozone offsetting ozone layer recovery. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2018; …

            Stratospheric ozone depletion – CITEPA
            http://www.citepa.org/en/air-and-climate/main-phenomena/ozone-layer
            Dec 1, 2016 … Reasons for stratospheric ozone layer depletion and situation in 2016. … the sun reappears (September-October), ozone concentrations drop …

            New scare: decline of lower stratospheric ozone | meteoLCD Weblog
            meteolcd.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/new-scare-decline-of-lower-stratospheric-ozone
            Feb 9, 2018 … titled “Evidence for a continuous decline in lower stratospheric ozone offsetting ozone layer recovery” published in Atmospheric Chemistry and …

          • Nate says:

            ‘Your site looked at total column ozone’

            Also vs height. Fig 3-2. There is a leg to stand on.

            Seems to be a difference of opinion on the lower strat, but not upper strat.

          • Nate says:

            All the same primary source.

          • Nate says:

            Ie. you cite 6 sources, impressive, but they all refer to the same research paper.

          • Bart says:

            You are flailing.

      • La Pangolina says:

        ren says:
        June 5, 2018 at 12:52 AM

        You know nothing about ozone and temperature in the stratosphere.

        *

        Aha!

        http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528193767761/001.jpg

        Yeah ren. Des evidently is 100 % right.

        Look at the complementary behavior of LT and LS during volcanic events!

        Sources:

        https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
        https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/

      • Transport by Zeppelin says:

        quote “UAH and RSS data show cooling in the stratosphere”

        No they don’t!

        This site http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

        Click on channel TLS (temp lower stratosphere) No cooling since 1994!

        • Nate says:

          RSS shows a continuum of trends, from strong warming in the troposphere, to strong cooling in upper stratosphere. In the lower stratosphere you find flat.

          This is exactly what is expected, given that each layer has contributions from those above and below it.

    • barry says:

      I don’t think your premise is true. Why should increased WV response to surface warming specifically show up in the mid-troposphere?

      I think you are alluding to the ‘hot spot” argument. If so, that is an issue with lapse rate feedback, not a WV feedback.

      • Kristian says:

        The ‘hot spot’ is specifically supposed to be caused by an increase in tropospheric WV, isn’t it? Warmer surface => more vigorous evaporation => strengthened water cycle => more latent heat released in the tropospheric column => reduced lapse rate; the mid and upper levels of the troposphere warmer RELATIVE TO the surface.

        • exactly correct and there is no hot spot.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          NO – never warmer than the surface directly below. Not in the troposphere.

          • Kristian says:

            Bobdesbond says, June 5, 2018 at 5:52 AM:

            NO – never warmer than the surface directly below. Not in the troposphere.

            Say what!?

            No one’s saying the mid to upper troposphere is supposed to be actually warmer than the surface. Do you understand at all what that red spot is meant to signify? It warms more over time THAN the surface. Because the lapse rate becomes ‘moister’, hence reduced. That’s not the same as saying the troposphere becomes warmER than the surface.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            “the mid and upper levels of the troposphere warmer RELATIVE TO the surface.”

            YOU said it.

          • barry says:

            Pretty sure Kristian meant more warmING relative to the surface.

            K, here’s realclimate on the hotspot from 7 years ago.

            “If the pictures are very similar despite the different forcings that implies that the pattern really has nothing to do with greenhouse gas changes, but is a more fundamental response to warming (however caused). Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist-adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft).”

            As I understand it from reading elsewhere, the WVcontent of the whole troposphere is expected to increase, not a specific enhancement in the tropical mid-troposphere that by itself would cause warming. Indeed, the tropics themselves warm slower than the rest of the globe, owing to the more saturated air – logarithmic GHG effect means less warming where there is already a stronger GH effect.

            Observations looking for the hot spot do not generally look for WV content as a marker. They are based on radiosonde temps (and even on wind shear).

            A decreasing lapse-rate is the immediate cause of the purported hot spot. I’m not sure that this arises because of extra WV in the region. But I’d need to read up on it again to be sure.

      • Idiot tracker says:

        And the hot spot is not an issue of AGW. It’s just an issue of GW whatever the cause, be it the sun, the CO2 or whatever, is irrelevant.

        So all those morons fond of claiming eagerly both that “it’s the sun” and “there is no hot spot” are particularly hilarious.

        • Kristian says:

          Idiot tracker says, June 5, 2018 at 6:23 AM:

          So all those morons fond of claiming eagerly (…) that “it’s the sun” (…) are (…) hilarious.

          Idiot,

          It’s not a claim. It’s an observational fact. The “CO2 did it” argument is the claim here.

          But I guess to you this is, once again, just a bunch of “philosophical drivel”.

          • Idiot tracker says:

            Well, here for once your drivel is rather wishful thinking..
            Amusing too.

          • barry says:

            Kristian, the hotspot is a theorized result of enhanced warming in the tropical mid troposphere regardless of the source of warming. It’s not a unique signature of greenhouse warming.

          • Bart says:

            And, it’s not there. Which should tell you what?

            Hint: Do “they” really have any idea what they are talking about?

          • Idiot tracker says:

            Hint: Do “they” really have any idea what they are talking about?

            One cannot rule out that “they” don’t, but for sure one can rule out that you do.

          • Idiot tracker says:

            Hint: Do “they” really have any idea what they are talking about?

            One cannot rule out that they dont, but for sure one can rule out that you do.

          • Bart says:

            Empty trash talk.

          • barry says:

            Which should tell you what?

            It would tell me that this modeled property of heat transport in the atmosphere is wrong.

            The fact that people are saying ‘the hot spot isn’t there’ also tells me that they are ignorant of the matter or have a biased view.

            The fact is that the jury is out on whether there is a hot spot or not, and shills pick the data or study they prefer to make the case they like.

            Uncertainty gets shoved aside when the shills rush in.

          • Bart says:

            If the uncertainty is that great, then dare I suggest that the science isn’t settled?

          • Idiot tracker says:

            If the uncertainty is that great, then dare I suggest that the science isnt settled?

            The hot spot thing is a detail, a small lapse rate related feedback effect, not at all a serious “uncertainty” about AGW. By no means does this “uncertainty” question the GHE and the warming potential of additional anthropic CO2.

            The situation is quite similar to the rotundity of Earth. By no means does a lack of knowledge about the precise form of the geoid question this rotundity.

            The fact is that science in general is of course never settled, yet a lot of specific scientific questions are quite settled for sure.

            “Great uncertainty” about AGW is only in the amplitude of the expected effect because of complexity, in technical sense, so our inability to estimate seriously major more important feedback effects.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “By no means does this uncertainty question the GHE and the warming potential of additional anthropic CO2.”

            What it does question is the absence of any conclusive evidence that additional CO2 from any source is warming the planet.

            ‘Great uncertainty’ about AGW is only in the amplitude of the expected effect…”

            Which could be zero.

            “…because of complexity, in technical sense, so our inability to estimate seriously major more important feedback effects.”

            Effects which could be negative.

          • Bart says:

            A seasoned professional knows from experience that one must resolve all loose threads, because that one nagging loose end can unravel the entire fabric.

        • Bart says:

          “And the hot spot is not an issue of AGW.”

          It is, because it is part of the understanding of how the system works. That it has not been observed suggests the understanding is lacking. “We don’t understand that, but trust us on this” is not a very convincing sales pitch.

          • Idiot tracker says:

            There is nothing on sale, science doesn’t care whether laymen “buy” it or not.
            Now I’m not sure much understanding is lacking in this respect but, yes, understanding is
            certainly lacking in general and not only in climatology but in physics and
            science in general and particularly in medical science and even in… aerodynamics. If it were not, scientists and engineers would not be at work anymore.
            I find it highly amusing that deniers most likely readily “buy” medication or flight tickets and not AGW while on the other side of the fence green activists do rather the reverse. Though I not sure about the flight tickets.

          • Bart says:

            We buy things that have been proven. The others do it based on feelz.

          • Idiiot tracker says:

            We buy things that have been proven. The others do it based on feels.

            Same claim on the other side of the fence .
            Hilarious.

          • Bart says:

            There’s an objective difference. E.g., not accepting AGW as established fact is rational, given the paucity of confirmatory evidence. Not accepting GMO foods is ridiculous, in light of copious, unequivocal data demonstrating the advantages.

          • Idiot tracker says:

            Nope.

            Not accepting AGW is not more rational than rejecting (or accepting) GMO foods and biology, by the way, is at least as much complexity and uncertainty as is the climate system.

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

            Not accepting AGW is just a matter of physics and science illiteracy and ideological bias.

            The only thing that remains to be questioned is CAGW

          • Bart says:

            Nope. We are not driving CO2 concentration, so the “A” in “AGW alone is wrong. Then, there is no proof that the aggregate response of the climate system to increasing CO2 concentration is significant or even positive in the present climate state. The dependence is assuredly nonlinear, and we do not know the present tangent slope a.k.a. the sensitivity.

          • Idiot tracker says:

            We are not driving CO2 concentration, so the “A” in “AGW alone is wrong.

            This is as hilarious as denial of pregnancy…

            It’s fun to watch.

          • Idiot tracker says:

            We are not driving CO2 concentration, so the “A” in “AGW alone is wrong.

            This is as hilarious as denial of pregnancy.
            Its fun to watch.

          • Bart says:

            I do deny that I am pregnant. The evidence is quite clear to any thinking people. Unfortunately, those are in short supply.

    • E. Swanson says:

      Zep Trans wrote:

      I see that both UAH and RSS data show a slower rate of warming in the mid troposphere as opposed to the lower troposphere, both globally as well as at the tropics. This is the opposite of what is expected with positive water vapour feedback.

      Looking at the RSS data for TLT and TMT, your comparison is correct. However, the TMT data is contaminated by what is happening in the stratosphere (see TLS), which is a strong cooling trend. The TLT was originally intended to remove this cooling trend from the TMT to provide a correct measure of changing temperatures. Claiming that the TMT shows the opposite of the trend expected from theory ignores the problem of stratospheric contamination.

      There’s another approach to removing that contamination, which is the TTT. You will notice from the RSS site that the TTT has a greater trend than the TLT. Thus, these data do not “debunk the hypothesis”, as you claim.

  75. Ren, what matters are what the global temperatures will be doing as we move forward.

  76. Ren good info. So since 1970 the world oceans have warmed .1c.

    Global warming.

  77. That is what that data that Ren sent shows. It shows the deviation in ocean temp form 1971-2000 is +.1c

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Let me get this right. You believe that when an anomaly is given as +0.1 above the AVERAGE of 1971 to 2000 temperatures that this temperature is 0.1 degrees above the 1970 temperature??

      Is your mathematical ability really THAT weak?

      (Not to mention that you are cherry picking a single day.)

      • Bobdesbond says:

        This was supposed to be in response to your previous post.

      • No. I believe the anomaly of +.1 c , is +.1c above the average ocean temperature from the period 1971-2000.

        • ren says:

          This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the worlds oceans has changed since 1880. This graph uses the 1971 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The shaded band shows the range of uncertainty in the data, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.
          https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature

          • ren says:

            The temperature of the ocean has not changed since 1940.

          • They think once a trend is established it can’t change. That is the thinking.

          • La Pangolina says:

            ren’s nonsense continues and continues: on the graph accessible thru the link, the EPA shows an increasde of nearly 1C.

            Even the ‘cool’ Japanese Met Agency shows a clear increase:

            http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/english/long_term_sst_global/global_rngmn_e.png

            http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/shindan/a_1/glb_warm/global.txt

            It is clearly visible both in the chart and in the data that between 1940 and today, JMA’s Global SST has increased by 0.5 C.

            That is a noticeable amount: more than the linear estimate for a whole century.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”the EPA shows an increasde of nearly 1C”.

            The EPA lead the cheaters like NOAA and GISS. Anything coming from the EPA is major bs.

          • barry says:

            Gordon, the JMO (Japanese) use their own ocean data set – which was why it was mentioned. Salvatore’s ‘estimate’ is not only mathematically appalling but debunked by any data set you care to mention – including UAH.

            But the worst of Sal’s comment is that he compares one data point with another and talks as if it’s a trend.

            It’s akin to noticing that one day in Summer and one in Winter happen to have the same temperature and concluding that Winter and Summer have the same average temperature.

            If you were neutral and know anything about mathematical analysis you would join in on pointing out Sal’s error here. But you have to keep grinding the ax instead, eh?

        • Bobdesbond says:

          Salvatore
          Then why did you say it was 0.1C above 1970?

  78. goldminor says:

    Here is a great look at the power of wind. From Bloomberg “…Britain’s gone seven days with almost no wind generation and forecasts show the calm conditions persisting until the middle of the month.

    The wind drought has pushed up day-ahead power prices to the highest levels for the time of year for at least a decade. …”.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-06-05/wind-disappears-in-britain-leaving-turbines-at-a-standstill

    • Entropic man says:

      Now that is interesting.

      Without wind power the price of electricity goes up.

      This means that wind power is cheaper than the alternatives.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        entropic…” Without wind power the price of electricity goes up.

        This means that wind power is cheaper than the alternatives.”

        Typical of the obfuscated reasoning of climate alarmists and an example of why it’s so easy to defeat their propaganda and theories.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          Then why don’t you actually defeat it, instead of merely boasting that you could.

    • bilybob says:

      A shame that consumers have to pay for the wind turbine infrastructure only to have to fall back on other resources and then have to pay for that too. Should have balanced their investment with some coal/oil or gas fired plants. More stable and less expensive.

    • Bond says:

      Very good ren! Is this the first line of your poem?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob…”Very good ren! Is this the first line of your poem?”

        Look and see bob harass ren because ren produces real data that discredits the sci-fi AGW theory.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          Perhaps you’d care to explain how that precise link “disproves AGW”.
          I expect you will need to change the question in order to answer.

        • barry says:

          Hahahaha. Ren posts a satellite map of a weather system and Gordon doesn’t bother clicking on it but sounds off like ren has produced something crucial instead of the same old weird weather map without comment.

          Ren’s posts are the climate blog version of haikus. You can ignore it or have a bit of fun.

          But there’s no substantial argument there, Gordon. You goose.

  79. La Pangolina says:

    Recall on an interesting post written on CarbonBrief by Zeke Hausfather (for sound skeptics only):

    Why troposphere warming differs between models and satellite data

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-why-troposphere-warming-differs-between-models-and-satellite-data

    and from there to this article (Santer & alii, free version of their paper behind paywall):

    Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates

    https://tinyurl.com/yaxsa37p

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      binny…”Why troposphere warming differs between models and satellite data…”

      More bs from an obfuscating alarmist. A gross generalization of satellite data acquisition versus climate models. There is no comparison to begin with since models are programmed with a fabricated warming effect for CO2 and they depend on a non-existent positive feedback to project a sci-fi catastrophic warming.

      The author is an idiot. No mention of the scientific misconduct perpetrated by NOAA and GISS in which the fudge temperatures and declare record warming years by halving the required confidence level.

      • Bobdesbond says:

        Here we have someone who believes averaging data increases the absolute error calling someone else an idiot.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bob…”Here we have someone who believes averaging data increases the absolute error calling someone else an idiot”.

          More like, here we have bob/des accusing GR of something he never said.

      • La Pangolina says:

        Here we have the dumbest, the most ignorant, most uneducated, most pretentious person this web site ever had to experience.

        I hope that one day these incredibly denigrating and discrediting comments will automatically become thrown away before being ‘published’.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”Here we have the dumbest, the most ignorant, most uneducated, most pretentious person this web site ever had to experience”.

          Oh, lord, it’s hard to be humble,
          When you’re perfect in every way.

          Mack Davis wrote this song with genius-calibre, good-long men like me in mind.

          Some folks say I’m egotistical,
          Hell I don’t even know what that means,
          Must be something to do with the way,
          That I fill out my tight new blue jeans.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo, Speaking of idiots, I love it when you disrespect someone who has much more knowledge than you. Did you read the Santer et al. 2017 paper, or are you just pontificating based on Hausfather’s commentary? Have you figured out that the “satellite temperature” data you and the other denialist love to reference are based on models? Please do tell us which one of satellite records you prefer and an exact reason for your choice. There are four groups that have analyzed the tropics, including the U. Washington team.

        For example, the UAH LT tropical trend is 0.12 K/decade while the RSS TLT trend is 0.15 K/decade. Or, do you prefer the TMT and, if so, tell us why.

  80. Spin spin amd more spin to defend a theory whose basic premises have all been false.

  81. I should start spinning mine but I won’t because I want to know the truth and not keep a fantasy alive for political agenda.

    AGW I WILL SAY IT AGAIN IS OVER THIS YEAR!

    • ren says:

      5-min averages neutron counts in Oulu already exceed 6,700.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Salvatore

      You never stop spinning. You must be getting very dizzy.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore Del Prete says:
      AGW I WILL SAY IT AGAIN IS OVER THIS YEAR!

      But you said warming was over 16 years ago!

      “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

  82. gbaikie says:

    Building bomb shelters, is evidence, building secret bomb shelters is better evidence.
    Not only did people build secret bomb shelters, but so did the government.

    I don’t have bomb shelter, I don’t even make sure I know where (exactly) the thousands of public bomb shelters, are. It might be a good trivia thing to know, but I don’t. I think getting useful back up generator which operate for one month, is a more practical emergency measure (but don’t have it).

    So I do not expect all believers in the dumb religion to take practical measures against a possible threat, but none of them do it.

  83. Norman says:

    CO2isLife

    I want to bring you post down here as it is easier for me to see a reply than scroll all the way up.

    YOU: “Normal Says: Actual science shows your understanding is not correct. CO2 absorbs about 100% of the IR at the 15 micron range while water vapor absorbs around 50% even with its high concentration. If no CO2 were present you would have considerable IR leaving the Earths surface through space at this wavelength.

    You can verify my claims multiple ways:
    1) Go to MODTRAN and set the view to looking down from 0.1km and alter CO2 up to 800 ppm and measure the difference in W/M^2. Then alter the H20.

    2) Go to Spectralcal and go to the gas cell and change the length to 1m. You will see H2O absorbs all the IR. What I imagine your graphic is showing is the result of a 10cm gas cell.”

    You are still wrong. I did as you said and you it is just wrong.

    Here I will post the graphs:
    Water Vapor through 1 Meter at surface atmospheric pressure. Band between 14 and 16 microns (displays only in wavenumber).
    http://www.spectralcalc.com/calc/plots/guest851722317.png

    Not even close to absorbing all the available IR in this band. I have no clue what you did to get different results.

    Now 1 meter through Carbon Dioxide same band same conditions.

    Now you see that in this band nearly all the IR is absorbed.
    http://www.spectralcalc.com/calc/plots/guest68396004.png

    So you need to tell me what you are doing to get your results.
    The Spectral Calculator completely supports the graphic I linked to.

    • La Pangolina says:

      Norman says:
      June 5, 2018 at 9:10 PM

      http://www.spectralcalc.com/calc/plots/guest851722317.png

      Norman, these guest links are temporary! They won’t survive your session.

      You must copy SpectralClac’s plots into a file on your computer instead, and then let upload them by some tool giving you a long(er) living link as result.

      • Norman says:

        La Pangolina

        Thanks for the advice. Is it worth the effort? The plots I made show that through 1 meter CO2 absorbs nearly 100% (transmits zero) at the 15 micron wavelength but water vapor transmits considerable amount of energy.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”Thanks for the advice. Is it worth the effort? The plots I made show that through 1 meter CO2 absorbs nearly 100% (transmits zero) at the 15 micron wavelength…”

          Good grief, Norman, the two graphs floating around here show CO2 absorbing about 5% at 15 microns. That’s about 5% of nothing.

  84. Snape says:

    Esalil

    Interesting post:

    “From the data http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt I picked up the highest and the lowest ice volume of each year and from the highest value I subtracted the lowest value to get the total amount of melted ice of each year. The result is following:
    2003 2.24e+13
    2004 1.90
    2005 1.99
    2006 1.86
    2007 2.01
    2008 2.00
    2009 1.84
    2010 1.98
    2011 1.91
    2012 1.90
    2013 1,79
    2014 1.78
    2015 1.95
    2016 1.82
    2017 1.75

    There is a clear trend of diminishing the amount of melted ice i.e. diminishing of the amount of heat available in the arctic region. Someone can maybe find whether this is due to the air temperature during the melting period or due to the SST of the arctic sea.”

    ***********

    The maximum sea ice volume and extent have been declining in recent years, but summer temperatures have been remarkably steady.

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

    Less melting because less ice to start with at the beginning of each melt season?

  85. ren says:

    Today heavy thunderstorms in southern Germany.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      The tropics look pretty damn red to me. Unless you only have eyes for the southern tropical Pacific.

      • Ren, it is looking colder and colder now overall oceanic temperatures down to under +.15c deviation from around +.35c deviation last summer.

        Weatherbell thus far for June shows only a +.12c for global temperature deviation.

        • Bobdesbond says:

          And? Has Weatherbell been lower since you appeared here 8 years ago?

          • as I have said I am using only satellite data from here for official temperature data

          • Bobdesbond says:

            So why mention Weatherbell if you are not prepared to pursue it?

          • David Appell says:

            David Appell says:
            March 12, 2018 at 4:22 PM
            Salvatore, its interesting that you accept model results when they show what you want but reject them otherwise.
            Why do you accept Roys blog claims but not those of Sherwood and Nishant? Whats your criteria for acceptance?

            Reply
            Salvatore Del Prete says:
            March 12, 2018 at 4:30 PM
            Why because we agree that is why.
            Reply

  86. What is amazing is every one is looking to the past instead of trying to look at what the future may hold.

    They think wrongly that the past 20 years or 50 years is going to continue moving forward.

    WRONG!

  87. previous post shows 2nd coldest Atlantic waters since 1982

    where is the global warming?

  88. Bobdesbond says:

    USA follows their 13th coldest April on record with their warmest May on record.

  89. There is no global warming due to AGW and the minor recent global warming that did take place is ending this year, year 2018.

    Thus far year 2018 is cooperating with overall sea surface temperatures now less then +.15c above 1981-2010 means in contrast to +.35c during the past summer.

    In addition according to satellite data the global temperatures this year are lower then a year ago through today.

    One key metric that has to be watched is the North Atlantic which is now in solid negative territory around -.60c from 1981-2010 means.

    Greenland Ice very healthy.

    As the sun continues in a prolonged solar minimum state this is going to equate to lower overall sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo which in turn will equate to a colder climate.

    The weakening geo magnetic field will compound this .

    I have been saying this for years and this year 2018 , is the first year that my two solar conditions have been met in order to have the sun result in a more significant climatic impact. Those being 10+ years of sub solar activity in general(which started in year 2005) and within this sub solar activity in general a period of time of very low average value solar parameters(which started in year 2018) meaning solar reading equal to or lower in magnitude that occurs during typical solar minimums with the duration of time of these very low solar values longer then what is typical.

    It is happening this year and this is the first time since the ending of the Dalton Minimum, that my two solar conditions are occurring.

    In the meantime all the basic premises AGW theory is based on have failed to materialize while the global climate is not even close to being unique.

    The theory should have been trashed 20 years ago but has survived due to political agendas.

  90. Snape says:

    Sal

    This graph shows Greenland’s total mass balance, April 2002 – June 2017

    https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Portals/7/easygalleryimages/8/367/tedesco-fig3.png

    *******

    Reminder: Bastardi’s graph only shows surface mass balance (SMB), which does not include calving or melting from below.

  91. Snape says:

    More info on changes to total mass of Greenland ice sheet:

    http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/mass-and-height-change/#tabs-1

  92. Future is what matters not the past.

    • David Appell says:

      That’s a convenient excuse for someone who has repeatedly been wrong about the past.

      Don’t think we’ve forgotten about you, Salvatore, the boy who cried wolf.

  93. Snape says:

    “Until recently, the mass was roughly in a state of balance. That is, the amount of snow falling on the surface was the same as the mass leaving the ice sheet as melt water runoff or discharge of icebergs. The Greenland Ice Sheet now loses more mass than it receives.

    A model of the mass balance that includes data even before the satellite-era shows that since 1840, precipitation (in the form of snow) has risen by 12-20 %, the amount of melt water runoff has increased by approximately 60 %, and the output from glaciers has risen by approximately 40 %.”

    http://polarportal.dk/en/groenlands-indlandsis/nbsp/viden-om-groenlands-indlandsis/

  94. barry says:

    Here’s a report on the Greenland ice sheet.

    https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2017/ArtMID/7798/ArticleID/697/Greenland-Ice-Sheet

    Last year there was much to do because of a slow melt season, that the Greenland ice sheet might, for the first time in the instrumental record, record a net gain for the year.

    An important satellite failed, so the jury may still be out on the close of the year. Read the report, which covers mostly April 2016- April 2017.

    If anyone has any updated info on whether 2017 was a mass gain or loss, please bring it here.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      barry…”An important satellite failed, so the jury may still be out on the close of the year. Read the report, which covers mostly April 2016- April 2017″.

      What are the chances the fudgers at NOAA will replace it since they discovered their own sat data contradicts their fudged surface data?

    • barry says:

      What are the odds you would show some actual interest in science and find out, rather than pitching the usual knee-jerk snark?

      Unfortunately, the best satellite for making such assessments, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), ceased to operate prior to summer 2017. The replacement satellite, GRACE-Follow-On (GRACE-FO), is scheduled to launch this spring.

      https://tinyurl.com/yavegs79

  95. GC says:

    DA,

    You mean by ‘scientific literature’, can you find this in glossy cover post 20th century comic books dressed as physical science texts published en masse (double entendre intended) and ‘paper’s ‘ published by third rate tax payer funded hacks with a big ‘government approved thought’ stamp on the Abstract.

  96. gbaikie says:

    –barry
    June 5, 2018
    Kristian, the hotspot is a theorized result of enhanced warming in the tropical mid troposphere regardless of the source of warming. Its not a unique signature of greenhouse warming.–

    Tropical ocean is heat engine of world, I imagine alarmist believe the tropics must get warmer due to greenhouse gases, in order to increase global average temperature.

    I would guess this particularly true of those who believe that without any CO2, earth would have average temperature of -18 C, that water vapor is passive and CO2 is a forcing agent.
    Also those that believe in the snowball earth, would also believe that tropics is capable of getting cold. And greenhouse gases are only factor which causes the tropics to have average temperature of about 26 C.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      “… those who believe that without any CO2, earth would have average temperature of -18 C …”

      Without any GREENHOUSE GASES, not just CO2.

    • barry says:

      Whatever you guess, gbakie, the enhanced warming in the tropical mid troposphere in response to surface warming is an emergent feature in the models regardless of the cause of warming. IE, same for solar, volcanic etc, as well as GHG warming. It’s not a ‘signature’ of warming unique to GHGs. It’s simply a result of heat transport in a warming atmosphere and a decrease in the lapse rate gradient in this region.

      Jury is still out on whether this has actually been observed long-term. More solid are observed short-term responses in response to ENSO and volcanic events. It remains an active area of research.

  97. jimc says:

    Moving the goalposts to keep the hysteria going?

    “Large cli­mate un­cer­tainty even with a 1.5-de­gree tem­per­a­ture in­crease”
    June 7, 2018 by Pe­ter Rüegg, ETH Zurich

    https://phys.org/news/2018-06-large-climate-uncertainty-degree-temperature.html#jCp

    • David Appell says:

      Do you have a way to reduce the uncertainties? Every climate scientist on the planet would love to hear about it, if you do.

      If you do.

    • jimc says:

      How about scaring women, children and even a pope with planetary doom? How about demanding skeptics be silenced, punished, or jailed? How about demanding billions be spent or pointless tangential research? How about demanding trillions be transferred out of productive economies?

      How about a cause that has, for decades, adjusted claims, definitions, data, and even its name to disguise its uncertainties?

      Is that your approved method of handling uncertainty, David?

  98. In response the WUWT article trying to say the very weak short lived La Nina is causing this oceanic/global cool off. I do not think so , it may be playing a part but the real reason is the very low solar conditions, in my opinion.

    This is the first inning of the cooling. I say as long as solar stays in the tank the cooling will proceed.

    ENSO , is not the reason why the temperatures of the oceans and the globe as a whole are dropping.

    The REAL reason is due to the very low solar activity we have had for 10+ years now and within this sub solar activity the very low average solar parameters we now have in year 2018. Year 2018 being a transitional year. This is the first time since the Dalton solar minimum ended that solar is sufficiently low to have a major climatic impact.

    I have been saying this for years. Very low solar equates to overall lower sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo which in turn will equate to lower over all global temperatures. A weakening geo magnetic field compounding the solar effects.

    I have been saying this for years and ENSO is not the answer this time. If anything if you want to talk oceanic influence on global temperatures look to the North Atlantic which has cooled considerably.

    As long as solar stays in the tank this cooling trend will be continuing.

    Climate scientist could not see a change in a climatic trend coming if it starred them in the face. They as a whole are useless, all they do is promote AGW.

    Maybe this can finally put an end to AGW theory which is a shame.

  99. The recent EL NINO, was much stronger then this recent La Nina.

    Just of note.

    • It is the surface oceanic temperatures which matter when it come to the global climate.

      In addition the surface oceanic temperature changes are good indicators as to what is happening with the oceans as a whole.

      Again I am looking toward the future not the past which is what is constantly being brought up.

      It is where do we go from here and I say lower oceanic and global temperatures for years as long as solar stays sub par as it is now.

      • Svante says:

        Salvatore Del Prete says:
        “It is the surface oceanic temperatures which matter”.

        But your prediction depends on warming in the deep ocean.
        To keep it away from the surface.

      • David Appell says:

        Salvatore Del Prete says:
        It is the surface oceanic temperatures which matter when it come to the global climate.

        Why does it matter more than ocean heat content?

        • They all matter but I think surface oceanic temperatures cooling will over time translate to less ocean heat content.

          Let me put it this way, if ocean heat content keeps increasing I do not think over the long run it would be possible to have sustained lower overall sea surface temperatures.

          We will have to see if lower overall sea surface temperatures continue.

          Now even +.13c deviation is still on the high side. I want to see if they keep lowering or not.

  100. Snape says:

    From NOAA,

    “The average depth of the ocean is about 12,100 feet. The deepest part of the ocean is called the Challenger Deep and is located beneath the western Pacific Ocean in the southern end of the Mariana Trench, which runs several hundred kilometers southwest of the U.S. territorial island of Guam. Challenger Deep is approximately 36,200 feet deep. It is named after the HMS Challenger, whose crew first sounded the depths of the trench in 1875.”

    So, Sal, why do you think the ocean surface (measured in centimeters?) represents the ocean as a whole?

  101. gbaikie says:

    What has been observed is that colder ocean is a colder global average temperature, and a warmer ocean has higher global average temperature.

    What has been imagined is that heat has been “lost” in the ocean and it is heat “lost” in the ocean which is global warming.

    • David Appell says:

      Not lost. But over 90% of the trapped heat goes into the ocean.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gbaikie…”What has been imagined is that heat has been lost in the ocean and it is heat lost in the ocean which is global warming”.

      I don’t think it is imagination, it’s more desperation. It’s like the dog ate my homework.

      Trenberth was in a pickle following Climategate where he was caught in one email expressing frustration over his inability to find a warming signal. Shortly thereafter he came up with the inane theory about the oceans capturing the missing heat.

      Of course, NOAA then went out and fudged the SST to find Trenberth’s missing warming.

      It’s just moving the goalposts.

      • David Appell says:

        Kevin Trenberth:

        “In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.

        http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/emails/

  102. gbaikie says:

    Centimeters of ocean surface is average global temperature (it is 70% of Earth surface , it is warmer in terms of average temperature as compared land, and it average temperature of 17 C, warms the land surface average temperature which is about 10 C.
    So it is the depth of centimeters which reflects now, or reflects/makes “weather”, though it the deeper waters temperature which determines global climate or long term temperatures on Earth.

  103. Snape says:

    Gbaikie

    “So it is the depth of centimeters which reflects now, or reflects/makes weather, though it the deeper waters temperature which determines global climate or long term temperatures on Earth.”

    I agree with that.

  104. La Pangolina says:

    esalil says:
    June 5, 2018 at 2:31 AM

    There is a clear trend of diminishing the amount of melted ice i.e. diminishing of the amount of heat available in the arctic region.

    Someone can maybe find whether this is due to the air temperature during the melting period or due to the SST of the arctic sea.

    *

    At a first glance I had the impression you’re right.

    But then I went to my Excel Colorado spreadsheets and thought: no, esalil isn’t.

    The first reason is the good match between the inverted Arctic sea ice extent/area series and oceanic / tropospheric temperatutes in the Arctic region:

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528395784542/001.jpg

    The anomalies were converted by scaling to their respective percentiles within the period, as comparing degrees with km2 makes few sense.

    The second reason is that as opposed to your example, time series of yearly maxima minus yearly minima do not show any negative trend, neither for 1979-2017:

    http://4gp.me/bbtc/1528396114955/001.jpg

    nor for the DMI volume time series (2003-2017):

    http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1528396173381/001.jpg

    Maybe the sea ice volume / thickness time series differ from the pack ice area, but certainly not to an extent such that it would show a negative trend.

    • esalil says:

      La Pangolina: Why you do not calculate by yourself? All the figures are in the link provided. The ice extent does not tell anything about the amount of heat needed for melting.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        esalil….”La Pangolina: Why you do not calculate by yourself? All the figures are in the link provided. The ice extent does not tell anything about the amount of heat needed for melting”.

        You’re talking to a poster who posted under the name Bindidon, then left the blog in a snit, bidding everyone farewell. A few days later, the same poster re-appeared as La P. Same demeanor, same memory of past insults directed toward him/her, exactly the same writing style.

        Binny/La P is an uber-climate alarmist who fudges UAH data in Excel spreadsheets to make it appear as if there is little or no difference between UAH sat time series and that of NOAA surface time series.

        The intention is to counter your views using bogus, layman calculations. Binny likes to call me a troll, on a good day, but I am a skeptic who support the UAH time-series and philosophy while binny/La P is only here to counter it.

        • La Pangolina says:

          Robertson

          Binny/La P is an uber-climate alarmist who fudges UAH data in Excel spreadsheets to make it appear as if there is little or no difference between UAH sat time series and that of NOAA surface time series.

          Again you give us a proof of how much and how repeatedly you lie. You are a permanent, crank liar, Robertson.

          You perfectly know that the UAH data Bindidon alias J.-P. and I present here is not fudged at all.

          If you were able to use Excel as does today every 12 year old child, you would create similar charts out of the same data and would not write this ignorant, incompetent and disgusting nonsense.

      • La Pangolina says:

        esalil says:
        June 8, 2018 at 3:55 AM

        La Pangolina: Why you do not calculate by yourself?

        But I did calculate all the stuff, esalil. Didn’t you see that all the figues I published refer not only to the extent but also for the area, i.e. the pack ice?

        Please read my comment again.

        Hopefully Bindidon will have some time to spend for adapting his Colorado sea ice data to the DMI volume data you published. I can’t modify his software.

  105. ren says:

    The surface temperature of the North Atlantic is still falling.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png

  106. Gordon Robertson says:

    Salvatore…”There is no global warming due to AGW and the minor recent global warming that did take place is ending this year, year 2018″.

    There is certainly something odd going on this year. Here’s an article on the snow in Eastern Canada in early June. Here in Vancouver, we went from temperatures of 20+C in May to a very sudden reversal on June 1st of much cooler weather.

    https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/east-snow-falling-like-a-slow-clap-when-does-it-end/ar-AAydz3q?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout

    I get it that weather is not climate but get this from the article:

    “Late last week saw high temperatures treading into record-breaking territory across much of the Maritimes, but it was a short-lived burst as a cold front shortly after sent frosty air back into the region. Miramichi, N.B. for example, went from breaking a 140-year-old record high last Friday, to a 91-year-old record low on Sunday”.

    No matter how alarmists twist the story, there is no way CO2 could cause such extremes, even though modelers have claimed as much.

    Time to throw out the AGW theory so we can study exactly what forces are at work.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Sorry, where have “modellers” claimed that day-to-day variation is “caused by CO2”?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob/des…”Sorry, where have modellers claimed that day-to-day variation is caused by CO2?”

        You have likely been in the Outback too long interfering with sheep. It has become a joke, the way alarmists blame everything on anthropogenic warming. They got it from modelers and their professional enthusiast who have claimed CO2 can explain cooling.

        I thought you’d have been up on that at alarm central, aka realclimate. SkS borrows from them regularly and the resident guru there is Pierrehumbert who uses all forms of nonsense science to equate CO2 to cooling as well as warming.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson wrote:
          They got it from modelers and their professional enthusiast who have claimed CO2 can explain cooling.

          Who, specifically, claimed that?

    • GORDAN, I agree this year I think could be the transitional year.

      More time needs to pass but thus far good.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson wrote:
      No matter how alarmists twist the story, there is no way CO2 could cause such extremes, even though modelers have claimed as much.

      Why not?

      Extreme temperatures rise exponentially when average temperature rises linearly:

      https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-very-warm-events-are-much-more.html

      It’s an easy and straightforward calculation.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Why not?

        Extreme temperatures rise exponentially when average temperature rises linearly:”

        Explain the mechanism. I am not interested in what wannabee physicists program incorrectly into climate models, I want to see the physics that explains how a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere can cause extreme temperatures, both warming and cooling.

        • David Appell says:

          The mechanism is simply the nature of normal distributions. I proved it mathematically here:

          https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-very-warm-events-are-much-more.html

          The math is basic and the conclusion isn’t surprising. But maybe it’s above you.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          Explain the mechanism. I am not interested in what wannabee physicists program incorrectly into climate models, I want to see the physics that explains how a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere can cause extreme temperatures, both warming and cooling.

          I’ve been trying to show you for months, but you never read it or acknowledge it.

          If you paint three targets on the side of a barn, what’s the probability an bullet shot at random will hit one?

  107. Entropic man says:

    Simple enough.

    Arctic warming faster than tropics.

    Temperature gradient decreases.

    Jet stream becomes more unstable.

    Unstable jet stream allows rapid and extreme temperature variations.

  108. Dan Murray says:

    There exists no temperature record of the last 150 years that demonstrates any greater variances than those variances that science tells us have occurred over the last 5000 years.
    The world is so well off to the point that so much expensive intellect can be devoted to a discussion that cannot be resolved by even our most advanced computers.

    So it must be the camaraderie…………….

    • David Appell says:

      Dan Murray says:
      There exists no temperature record of the last 150 years that demonstrates any greater variances than those variances that science tells us have occurred over the last 5000 years.

      Let’s see your evidence.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Dan…”The world is so well off to the point that so much expensive intellect can be devoted to a discussion that cannot be resolved by even our most advanced computers.

      So it must be the camaraderie.”

      More than likely it’s stupidity.

      • David Appell says:

        Because Gordon knows more than the experts in all things, don’t you understand? Climate science, special and general relativity, thermodynamics, and whatever else you’d care to list. Such a shame he keeps all his insights to the comment section here that no one ever reads.

    • barry says:

      Let’s see him specify ‘variance’ before we ask for corroboration.

  109. Snape says:

    LP

    “There is a clear trend of diminishing the amount of melted ice i.e. diminishing of the amount of heat available in the arctic region.”

    That could be true, even if melt season loss is increasing as a percentage. Here’s a simple example:

    If maxima is 1000 Km2, and minima is 900 Km2, that’s a loss of 100 Km2 = 10%

    If maxima is only 800 Km2, a larger percentage loss, say 12%, equals a smaller actual loss (96 Km2).

  110. Entropic man says:

    This site is getting worse.

    First the identification subroutine stops working.

    Then my reply to an earlier post gets dumped at the bottom.

    • David Appell says:

      I agree. But no one cares, sorry.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic….”This site is getting worse.

      First the identification subroutine stops working.

      Then my reply to an earlier post gets dumped at the bottom.”

      **********

      Look on the bright side, 20 years ago, or maybe even 10, there were no blogs let alone scientists like Roy willing to host one. In the mid-80s era I considered myself lucky to have a 9600 BAUD modem, a drastic upgrade from a 300 BAUDer. All we had were Bulletin Board Services.

      Roy is a busy man and he doesn’t have the time to patrol this blog. Let’s be grateful for what we have.

  111. Snape says:

    Barry

    “Less melting because less ice to start with at the beginning of each melt season?

    No, it is almost all ice covered year round. read the link above.”

    *******

    What?? Are you thinking there is almost no difference between maxima and minima arctic sea ice?

    The explanation I posed (borrowed from Neven’s blog) relates to seasonal changes to the entire Arctic Ocean ice pack, not just the area north of 80′.

    • barry says:

      The conversation had been about the ice N of 80N. Of course summertime sea ice extent has diminished over the whole Arctic.

  112. Snape says:

    Salvatore

    Changes in ocean circulation (i.e. ENSO/La nina) can cause more surface heat to be transported downwards. Cooler surface, warmer subsurface.

    On the other hand, why would a decline in solar cause only the surface to cool, but allow the ocean as a whole to continue warming?

    That’s the big hole in your theory.

  113. Snape says:

    Entropic Man

    Same here. I have been reduced to a bottom feeder/poster, and have to re-enter my name and email every time.

    • Svante says:

      “I have been reduced to a bottom feeder/poster”.

      Oh no, soon you may feel an urge to deny the science.

  114. Gordon Robertson says:

    Interesting article on NASA GISS data tampering. Of course, GISS gets their data from NOAA where it has already been fudged. GISS simply fudges it it more.

    https://principia-scientific.org/why-climate-data-tampering-matters/

    • David Appell says:

      Is this the only link you could find? Everyone knows those people are crazy and unscientific. They’ve never published a paper in a real journal about their claims. They’re charlatans.

      Naturally Gordon accepts anything they tell him to accept.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Is this the only link you could find? Everyone knows those people are crazy and unscientific”.

        Yes…one has a degree in chemical engineering and another a degree in math.

        • David Appell says:

          And I and everyone else has lots of degrees too.

          You are biased in whose words you accept, and whose you reject, and your bias has nothing to do with science.

      • Bart says:

        I’m not a fan of the site in question, but your fallacy is: ad hominem.

        Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. You need to address the substance.

    • barry says:

      Let me guess. Their thesis is that the data has changed over time, therefore there must be fudging.

      Estimates of historical global population have changed over time. You reckon this automatically equates to book-cooking?

      • steve case says:

        Barry says: June 8th at 4:21 PM
        Let me guess. Their thesis is that the data has changed over time, therefore there must be fudging.

        Guess all you want, between March and April 2018 fully 953 changes were made to the “Land-Ocean Temperature Index” LOTI
        https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
        that GISS publishes monthly. That’s 55% of the 1740 monthly entries since 1880 where the LOTI data starts. And 160 of those changes were made to data from the 19th century. On average there are only 50 to 100 changes made every month and sometimes there aren’t any – I should look to see that’s in the summer when all the heavy hitters at GISS and NOAA are off on vacation. Whatever the reason for the monthly changes they do add up. Here’s what a chart of that summation looks like:
        http://oi68.tinypic.com/wck4lc.jpg
        That chart is 3 years old now, but I’d be surprised if it’s changed much since then. Each point on that graph indicates the overall average change made to the year. And as you can see, most of the changes prior to 1980 are negative and all of the changes since then are positive. It’s a matter of opinion as to why those changes form a pattern, but it’s a matter of fact that they do.

      • Bart says:

        It certainly does not lend confidence. If it changed so much today, who’s to say what it will be in the future?

        Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

        ― George Orwell, 1984

      • barry says:

        1) GHCN receive data from a few thousand stations by the 8th of each month. These are the ‘near real-time’ updates. There were about 1500 stations 20 years ago, and there are more of these now.

        After that more data from weather services keep coming in for the same month that are not included in the batch that are part of the near real-time stream.

        Information for a certain month keeps accumulating after the data are first posted online, and then the data are updated to reflect any new averages. You can see many changes occur to monthly values, although typically they are not large.

        2) Revisions to methods can change the data. The data compilers do not and never have considered their data perfect. It isn’t.

        3) UAH also make data revisions that are not publicly documented – no one seems to be interested in that. For instance, there was a large-scale change to anomalies from about 2000 onwards a year or so ago. No peer-reviewed study accompanied this change, and no one would have known if it hadn’t been given a sentence in one of Dr Spencer’s updates. I saw it many times with 5.5 and 5.6 versions.

        There are plenty of changes to UAH monthly anomalies between the Dec 2017 update and the current one 6 months later. I just checked.

        The problem with all criticism of the global temp data sets is that critics have zero curiosity about the reasons for the change, and instead take the fact of change as something nefarious – instead of taking the opinion that diligent people run near-constant quality control on imperfect data, and receive constant updates to the actual data that change the averages for the most recent months and years.

        Basically, people snark in willful ignorance. Actually investigating why changes occur is totally eclipsed by their need to cast aspersions and fulfill their political narrative.

        ‘Skeptics’ my arse.

        • steve case says:

          Regarding your “Arse,” back in January this reply to the question of why 100 year old data is being changed was supplied:

          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.

          Hope that answers your concern.

          Best regards,
          Reto A. Ruedy
          Head Research Department
          SciSpace, LLC
          NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
          2880 Broadway, Rm. 201A, New York, NY 10025
          ph: 212-678-5541; email:[email protected]

          If that explains why there’s a pattern of lowering old records and warming up the recent entries, I fail to understand how that works. Maybe you can cut through the mumbo-jumbo to discern why that is.

          Granted, Dr. Ruedy wasn’t asked to explain why since 2005 there are nearly 100,000 changes made to the monthly LOTI publications and why they constitute an obvious pattern.

  115. Gordon Robertson says:

    Another useful article debunking GHE and AGW from a Ph.D in chemical engineering, who has worked for the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

    Chemical engineering at an undergrad level is one of the toughest academic studies at university. To get a Ph.D in the field is something else. He certainly knows how heat and radiative heat transfer works.

    I emphasize ‘works’, not the theory, but how it is applied.

    http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=latourp&date=130708

    “The GHGT does not follow the rate of radiant energy transfer law used commercially by chemical engineers: Q/s = ET4 – at4. Heat transfers in only one direction, not simultaneously in two….

    E = emissivity of radiating surface. Varies with its temperature, roughness and if a metal, degree of oxidation. Large variations are possible in a single material, and,

    a = absorp-tivity of atmosphere. Depends on factors affecting emissivity and in addition on the quality of the incident radiation, measured by its distribution in the spectrum. One may assign two subscripts to a, the first to indicate the temperature of the receiver and the second that of the incident radiation.]

    GHGT invented the back-radiation mechanism unknown to physics, transferring heat from a cold body to a warmer one, warming it further. In Nov 2011 I proved if it did, it would be a perpetual motion machine…”

    • E. Swanson says:

      Gordo, It appears that you are up to your old tricks again. You’ve posted a link to another claim that AGW violates the 2nd Law, even though it doesn’t and after I’ve shown clearly that “back radiation” can warm a solid body. How convenient that your commentator references a 1950 source, which isn’t available on the net, so we can’t easily check what was actually written.
      You just can’t understand that these guys (at slayingtheskydragon) are wrong.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon is well aware that he is misquoting the 2nd law.

        He just doesn’t care about the truth, is all. To him, it means more to satisfy his ideology than to correctly present the science.

        For some reason, some people are like that.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Gordon is well aware that he is misquoting the 2nd law”.

          I have corresponded with Ralf Tscheuschner of Gerlich and Tscheuschner, who works in the field of thermodynamics, and he agrees with my version. The author of the article I just posted agrees with it too and he is a chemical engineer (Ph.D) who works in a thermodynamics-related field.

          Heck, even Clausius, who wrote the law, agrees with me. Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.

          What is it about that definition that bothers you? Is it possible you don’t understand the 2nd law?

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson wrote:
            Heck, even Clausius, who wrote the law, agrees with me. Heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.

            Stop lying, Gordon. Just stop it.

            Please quote for us exactly the Clausius version of the second law.
            Cite your source.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swannie…”Gordo, It appears that you are up to your old tricks again. Youve posted a link to another claim that AGW violates the 2nd Law, even though it doesnt and after Ive shown clearly that back radiation can warm a solid body”.

        The author of the article has a Ph.D in chemical engineering and applies heat equations on a regular basis. He claims heat can only flow one way, hot to cold. I presume he means without compensation because he agrees that refrig.e.rators can be set up to allow a two way flow.

        Why don’t you write to him and offer your theories?

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon wrote:
          He claims heat can only flow one way, hot to cold.

          He’s wrong, unless he has some special, adabatic situation in mind.

          Does he, Gordon?

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo, I see you are still using the old “appeal to authority” game. You might want to look at Latour’s more recent work for a good laugh. He accepts Stefan-Boltzman as the operational model and includes “back radiation” transfer from cool to warm, writing:

          The general law of radiant energy transfer between radiators 1 and 0 is

          Q10 = 5.67 [α0 ε1 T14 – α1 ε0 T04] (3)

          Chemical engineers use the basic law of radiant energy transfer between two radiators from the S-B Law. Since all matter radiates, this law applies to all matter: light bulbs, flames, animals, gases, stars and galaxies.

          The rest of his analysis completely misses the physics at work in the atmosphere, which is that he includes only radiative transfer, leaving out convection, which causes most of the transfer from the surface thru the lower atmosphere. He also misses the fact that layers in the atmosphere radiate in both upward and downward directions (on average), thus the energy flowing out of each layer is split 50/50 into those directions. When multiple layers are analyzed, the result is the lapse rate in temperature. There’s much more to it than simple radiant energy transfer.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      It is true, heat (quantity of energy that transfers from a hot object to a cold object) cannot transfer from a cold object to a hotter one.

      Still no-one is making the claim that it does. Energy, IR, will transfer from cold to hot object. Heat flow is stated as a NET energy flow. It can be negative, positive or zero.

      Once again for you Gordon (this is what barry demonstrated Clausius was saying in his own works that you lied about and I confronted you on lying intentionally).

      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

      “It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”

      E. Swanson shows you that the colder green plate DOES (in the real world not in your make believe fantasy science world) increase the temperature of the powered blue plate. The green plate transfers ENERGY to the Blue plate that it must get rid of by increasing in temperature. It is really easy to understand. It is also verified with real world experimentation.

  116. Snape says:

    Salvatore

    You don’t want to answer my question, do you?

    “On the other hand, why would a decline in solar cause only the surface to cool, but allow the ocean as a whole to continue warming?”

    ********

    “Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.”

  117. If the surface oceanic waters continue to cool it will translate to the entire ocean over time. That is my answer.

  118. Norman says:

    Gordon Robertson

    Taking the advice from La Pangolina I did generate graphs and post them to an internet site hoping they will show up for you to look at.

    I am still of the opinion that this information will have zero impact on you.

    Maybe someone else can use it. I am hoping that CO2isLife will look at it, not sure they will.

    YOU: “normanThanks for the advice. Is it worth the effort? The plots I made show that through 1 meter CO2 absorbs nearly 100% (transmits zero) at the 15 micron wavelength

    Good grief, Norman, the two graphs floating around here show CO2 absorbing about 5% at 15 microns. Thats about 5% of nothing.”

    I do not know what graphs you are talking about. Definitely you are totally wrong. Nothing unusual with that. Most everything you post is wrong. You don’t care, you won’t correct your flaws and bad thought process. No one has been able to reason with you yet, I do not expect to be able to.

    The graphs were created at
    http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php

    I used the Gas-Cell simulator. I set the wavelength to 14-16 microns (it converts it to wavenumber for the graphs). For the VMR
    Volume Mixing Ratio I used 0.03 for Water Vapor (3% of atmosphere).
    I used 0.0004 for Carbon Dioxide graphs (0.04% of atmosphere).
    The graphs reflect the concentration in the atmosphere.

    I made graphs at 1 meter, 10 meter and 100 meter. I set the graph to show how much IR is absorbed through the path lengths at surface atmosphere pressure.

    You are very wrong Gordon Robertson. Your posts are poor and mostly meaningless. You are a negative weight to valid skeptics.

  119. Norman says:

    Gordon Robertson

    The graphs did not post. I will try tiny URL
    https://tinyurl.com/yau92g3d

  120. Norman says:

    Gordon Robertson

    I guess just one graph per post
    https://tinyurl.com/y77m92r9

  121. Norman says:

    last graph is not posting

  122. Norman says:

    test

  123. Snape says:

    Esalil, LP

    The same math idea is relevant to either volume, area or extent. Here it is using sea ice volume:

    If maxima is 1000 Km^3, and minima is 900 Km^3, thats a seasonal loss of 100 Km^3 = 10%

    If maxima is only 800 Km^3, then a larger percentage loss during melt season, say 12%, equals a smaller actual loss (96 Km^3).

    • La Pangolina says:

      That is evident.

    • esalil says:

      La Pangolina, Snape: You did not want to comprehend my message at all. I wanted to tell that there must have been diminishing amount of heat available in the arctic region during the melting season because the ABSOLUTE amount on the melting ice VOLUME has been decreasing. It was 22% less in the year 2017 compared to year 2003. You cannot calculate this from the ice extent if you do not know the ice thickness. Relative ice loss offered by Snape does not tell the the amount of the heat needed for the melting.

  124. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Nate says:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306437

    “Apparently the subset of papers with the worst record of replication is high-profile climate contrarian papers:”

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

    A brief review of that paper reveals a few major flaws.

    The subject papers were admittedly cherry picked.
    There were no warmist papers evaluated as controls.
    The methodology is insufficient to enable replication.

    Essentially, the paper is guilty of the same mistakes it was attempting to expose in other papers.

    • David Appell says:

      Speaking of replication, are you aware that UAH is the outlier here, in disagreement with RSS, NO_AA, GI_SS, Had_CRUT, JMA, and BEST?

      • La Pangolina says:

        Appell, you behave exactly like Robertson: you deliberately ignore contradictions to what you pretend.

        As I wrote in answer to such comments you published, the disagreement between UAH and JMA is negligible.

        • David Appell says:

          30-yr trends:

          UAH_LT v6.0: +0.13 C/dec
          JMA_ global surface: +0.15 C/dec
          NO__AA global surface: +0.18 C/dec
          RS_S LT v4: +0.21 C/dec
          GI_S_S global surface: +0.19 C/dec
          Had_CRUT v4.6 global surface: +0.18 C/dec

          • David Appell says:

            So, OK, J_M_A is the lowest of the others. That still doesn’t lend much support to UAH. Why do they differ so much from R_SS? UAH has always been a low outlier — recall the travails over their sign error in the late ’90s. It took year for them to admit their mistake. Somehow they always manage to come in on the low side.

          • Bobdesbond says:

            Trends over the full span of the satellite data (1979+):

            UAH 0.127
            JMA 0.135

            NOAA 0.166
            GISS 0.173

            RSS 0.193

          • La Pangolina says:

            David Appell says:
            June 8, 2018 at 2:52 PM
            June 8, 2018 at 6:56 PM

            Why do you think you can here decide wether UAH or RSS is the outlier?

            Why don’t you let the real specialists decide who of both is right?

            What the hell are we in comparison with Spencer/Christy and Mears/Wentz?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”Speaking of replication, are you aware that UAH is the outlier here, in disagreement with RSS, NO_AA, GI_SS, Had_CRUT, JMA, and BEST?”

        You forgot to mention that UAH is the only time series offered with integrity. The rest are lying, scumbag alarmist cheaters.

        • David Appell says:

          Why do you say UAH is the only group with “integrity?”

          Based on what?

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo, there are those of us who think that the UAH data misrepresents actual changes in temperature. For example, as I demonstrated in my 2003 GRL paper, the UAH data over the Antarctic may be contaminated by changes in sea-ice. RSS simply deletes data from 70S to the South Pole, since the high elevations over the Antarctic intrude into the MSU/AMSU TLT product. Spencer and Christy used to warn their “customers” about using their data from the Antarctic, but they have let that warning disappear from their later works. I conclude that RSS is likely to be closer to reality than UAH in the Southern Hemisphere. And that’s just one problem area…

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”Gordo, there are those of us who think that the UAH data misrepresents actual changes in temperature”.

            Yes….and you set up an experiment in which you concluded back-radiation from a cooler target could warm a much warmer source.

            It does not surprise me then that you think UAH data is compromised.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, It’s not what I “think”, it’s what I conclude from my analysis of the data. You, however, appear unable to analyze my Green Plate demo, offering only polemic assertions based on your deviant interpretation of early theoretical work in thermodynamics.

        • La Pangolina says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          June 8, 2018 at 4:29 PM

          You forgot to mention that UAH is the only time series offered with integrity. The rest are lying, scumbag alarmist cheaters.

          There is only ONE liar here, Robertson: YOU.

          You are, as I wrote often enough, an ignorant, incompetent boaster who is expert in nothing but in lying behind a faked pseudoreal name.

          I hope one day people working at NOAA, GISS, Had-CRUT, JMA, RSS etc etc will drag you to court.

          • Bart says:

            “I hope one day people working at NOAA, GISS, Had-CRUT, JMA, RSS etc etc will drag you to court.”

            Yeah, because the courtroom is the proper venue for settling scientific questions. No need to have better arguments than the opposition if you can just shut them down by force.

            Your fallacy is: ad baculum

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…”I hope one day people working at NOAA, GISS, Had-CRUT, JMA, RSS etc etc will drag you to court”.

            I would welcome the opportunity so I could expose them as the lying, cheaters they are. The US government is already investigating NOAA and GISS.

            NOAA is refusing to cooperate by withholding data. Why???? They are allegedly a scientific organization financially supported by the US government. Why would they want to withhold honest scientific data?

      • Bart says:

        Your fallacy is: ad populum

        • Bart says:

          Above refers to:

          David Appell says:
          June 8, 2018 at 2:52 PM

          Speaking of replication, are you aware that UAH is the outlier here, in disagreement with RSS, NO_AA, GI_SS, Had_CRUT, JMA, and BEST?

  125. Kristian says:

    No longer possible to post on the “Greenhouse” thread, it seems:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/in-defense-of-the-term-greenouse-effect/#comment-306258

    So I will have to respond to Norman’s obstinate ramblings over here instead. Sorry about that to everyone, because, yes, it’s a tedious exercise …

    Norm’s last post:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/in-defense-of-the-term-greenouse-effect/#comment-306386

    My response:

    Norm,

    Just stop it. For your own sake, stop it. You’re only embarrassing yourself digging your heels in like you do. There is no way you can argue your way to ‘victory’ on this issue. There are heat fluxes in a steady state. The ASR and the OLR are both heat fluxes. You are wrong. Period.

    Stop it.

    Again, all you need to know is that there are temperature differences within the Earth system and between the Earth and its surroundings (the Sun is hotter, space is colder).

    If there are temperature differences, there are heat fluxes, Norm. That is a universal FACT. And you do not get to just simply deny this because it suits your particular world view. It is not a matter of opinion. It’s PHYSICS.

    Steady state:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state

    “In chemistry, thermodynamics, and other chemical engineering, a steady state is a situation in which all state variables are constant in spite of ongoing processes that strive to change them. For an entire system to be at steady state, i.e. for all state variables of a system to be constant, there must be a flow through the system (compare mass balance). One of the simplest examples of such a system is the case of a bathtub with the tap open but without the bottom plug: after a certain time the water flows in and out at the same rate, so the water level (the state variable being Volume) stabilizes and the system is at steady state. Of course the Volume stabilizing inside the tub depends on the size of the tub, the diameter of the exit hole and the flowrate of water in. Since the tub can overflow, eventually a steady state can be reached where the water flowing in equals the overflow plus the water out through the drain.

    A steady state flow process requires conditions at all points in an apparatus [to] remain constant as time changes. There must be no accumulation of mass or energy over the time period of interest. The same mass flow rate will remain constant in the flow path through each element of the system. Thermodynamic properties may vary from point to point, but will remain unchanged at any given point.”

    • Kristian says:

      Norm,

      Here’s a nice little video for you that I found. You should watch it and gain at least some degree of basic-level understanding of the kind of thermodynamic state the Earth is in. As you can tell, your mind is riddled by pretty profound misconceptions about the nature of heat and heat flow. Your clearly expressed idea that there are apparently no heat flux coming into the Earth system in its steady state, no heat flux moving through the Earth system in its steady state, and no heat flux escaping the Earth system in its steady state, perfectly illustrates this point.

      You need to stop being so stubborn and start learning a little.

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

      • Norman says:

        Kristian

        I think you neglected to read my last post on the other thread. I did agree that you would have heat flows but I am not sure how useful each heat flow would be. If you wanted to layer the atmosphere you could have hundreds of heat flows from a warmer portion of the atmosphere to a colder layer above. You could call all these heat flows, not sure of how significant it would be.

        Also, in heat transfer problems, they are not interested in each individual heat flow. They are interested in the net of all the heat flows to see how it will affect a surface you are wanting information about.

        The only heat flow or flux that would be of value for the Earth system would be the NET or total. Then you could determine if the Earth is warming or cooling.

        Case of point. You have that the Surface to Atmosphere heat flux is 53 W/m^2. Of what value is this information. It is not a measured value, it is derived from energy flows. You could not tell by measuring the surface if there was a net heat flow loss nor could you tell by measuring the atmosphere temperature. They are in a steady state and not changing (over the entire globe). What value is this 53 W/m^2? You can’t tell what the surface is doing, you can’t tell what the atmosphere is doing.

        If you have the surface heat up and the DWIR increase at the same rate you would still get 53 W/m^2 which tells you NOTHING of value and you need to calculate it anyway from the measured energy flows.

        So again I really don’t know what your point is or what you are trying to state. If you feel that showing graphs of heat flows are the way to go, do it but you better have hundreds of heat flows for the atmosphere to be accurate.

        Far simpler just to model energy flows in and out and see what the balance is. What is the overall heat flux. The rest is just pointless.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”Also, in heat transfer problems, they are not interested in each individual heat flow. They are interested in the net of all the heat flows to see how it will affect a surface you are wanting information about”.

          There is no net heat flow with radiation, there is only a temperature difference. Heat does not flow through the air unless by convection therefore there is no net thermal energy to sum.

          Also, there is only a one way EM flow from our planet to space, there is no EM flowing in the way from the frigid void of space, only EM from the Sun.

          S-B===> q = ebA(T0^4 – T^4)

          q should represent the electromagnetic energy density but it’s not heat. It does represent the heat loss at the surface but that heat loss takes place within the surface as atoms become less energetic after emitting EM.

          I pointed out before that if you equate W/m^2 to EM it must be as potential thermal energy. There is no acting heat energy (thermally-related kinetic energy) in EM, only the potential to create thermal energy is an absorbing mass.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Heat does not flow through the air unless by convection therefore there is no net thermal energy to sum.

            So explain a sunburn.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”So explain a sunburn”.

            Why not go to university and learn? Actually, you could figure that out taking a minor course about electromagnetic energy, what is is, and how it interacts with molecules in substances like the human skin.

            Instead, you go on and on asking the same dumb old questions.

          • David Appell says:

            EM carries energy, commonly referred to as “heat” for IR, or UV-B for the radiation that causes sunburns.

            Heat is just energy. EM is just energy. One easily translates into the other.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Because you repeat things over and over does not make them correct, it just makes you a crackpot.

            YOU keep making this stupid claim that Kristian even corrects you upon and yet you are far too stupid to correct your errors.

            I did have the concept of equilibrium mixed up with Steady State, I read up on it and corrected my error and learned. You are not intelligent enough to learn anything. I think you might be a human parrot. You just repeat nonsense every chance you get and want a cracker proud of your own stupid thoughts.

            YOUR stupidity on display: “There is no net heat flow with radiation, there is only a temperature difference. Heat does not flow through the air unless by convection therefore there is no net thermal energy to sum.”

            Gordon I found this engineering heat transfer webpage. I think you should read it and quit posting stupid comments.

            https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/heat_transfer_table_content.htm

            That is the general webpage

            Specific to radiant heat transfer.
            https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/thermal_radiation.htm

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”EM carries energy, commonly referred to as heat for IR, or UV-B for the radiation that causes sunburns”.

            So let me get this straight electromagnetic ENERGY carries THERMAL energy as heat.

            So here’s what we have to do…if you are right. We have to go back and change the concepts introduced by Bohr in 1913 and Schrodinger in 1925, which are both the basis of quantum theory. We have to redefine atomic theory to eliminate the electron, which many today think converts heat to EM and EM back to heat.

            What do you think the chances are of that happening?

            Ironically, you have already agreed that EM is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field which is defined primarily by its frequency and partly by its intensity as E = hf. Where do you see any reference to heat in that definition?

            Where do you see the atoms required by heat to exist?

            If you are right, then heat is transferred from a transmitting radio antenna to a receiving antenna by EM.

            In the S-B equation, q = ebA(T0^4 – T^4), where do you see a reference to heat in the radiant energy density, q? All I see is T0 and T which represent the temperatures of the transmitting and receiving bodies, consisting of atoms/molecules.

            Once that EM leaves the transmitting body and become far-field radiation, it has no heat associated with it. It has the potential to be converted back to heat but it lacks the kinetic energy ASSOCIATED with the motion of atoms.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…I was reading through the textbook you posted on Heat Tranfser and I see where you are getting the nonsense about heat being additive, especially in a two-way transfer.

          The book states:

          “Radiant heat exchange.

          Suppose that a heated object (1 in Fig. 1.16) radiates to some other object (2). Then if both objects are thermally black, the net heat transferred from object1 to object2, Qnet, is the difference between Q1-2”.

          That statement is nonsense and they do not back it up with an example of two way radiative transfer. Instead, they give this equation:

          Qnet = A[e1(T) – e2(T)] = fi.A1 (T1^4 – T2^4)

          Clearly, the 2nd part of this equation is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which makes it totally clear that energy is transferred in the direction of the temperature gradient. The first part is nonsense since the emissivity of body 1 minus the emissivity of body 2 clearly does not equal the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

          Then they talk about a ‘view factor’ which involves how much of the EM from body 1 is intercepted by body 2, but they do not talk about how much of body 2 is intercepted by body 1.

          The example they give is equally ambiguous.

          “A black thermocouple measures the temperature in a chamber with black walls. If the air around the thermocouple is at 20C, the walls are at 100C, and the heat transfer coefficient between the thermocouple and the air is 15 W/m2 K, what temperature will the thermocouple read”?

          Solution.

          The heat convected away from the thermocouple by the air must exactly balance that radiated to it by the hot walls if the system is steady. Furthermore, F1-2 is unity since the thermocouple is enclosed:

          ***some bogus math*** then this brilliant solution…

          Trial-and-error solution of this equation yields Ttc = 51C.

          *********

          Nowhere do they address either a two way heat transfer or a two-way EM transfer. Instead, they make an inference about convection and that was not specified in the question.

          This is bs science aimed at newbie students in thermodynamics and nowhere in this book do they give an example of what you are talking about.

          A word to the wise. Read beginner’s text books with a good deal of skepticism. They tend to dumb subjects down and in doing so they can be seriously misleading.

          I would suggest you forget about summing heats, especially in two way flows, and go with the Clausius definition of the 2nd law. Unless of course you are masochistic like swannie and you are trying to disprove the 2nd law throw bogus back-radiation fantasies.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon is still lying about the 2nd law. I don’t think he’ll ever stop.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, If a theory, such as your peculiar interpretation of the Second Law, fails to explain experimental results, it’s most likely the fault of the theory. You have yet to provide a detailed critique of my Green Plate demos. You would rather spend your efforts looking for yet another authority to point to as proof of your denialist world view.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”Gordo, If a theory, such as your peculiar interpretation of the Second Law, fails to explain experimental results, its most likely the fault of the theory”.

            Or the fault of the experimenter. That is, drawing false conclusions.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon, show an experiment that proves your version of the 2nd law.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Which textbook link are you referring to?

          • Bobdesbond says:

            Read the following book:
            https://tinyurl.com/HeatAndMassTransfer
            First paragraph on page 27 of the book (page 48 of the pdf)

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”Which textbook link are you referring to?”

            One you posted a while back called A Heat Transfer Textbook by Lienhard.

            The link posted by Kristian is done by Lienhard. Although the video is relatively sound I think Lienhard himself tends toward bombast and smugness.

            In all the examples he shows of the frying pan on the heater the handle is clearly visible. The last shot taken with an IR camera shows the handle partially hidden and if you capture the scene and clear it up a bit there does not appear to be a handle on it.

            I think Lienhard may have fudged the photo to make a point. In the earlier examples he clearly shows a hot spot on the handle where it connects to the pan body.

            For some reason, Lienhard is suggesting the handle EXCHANGES heat with the room air. I think he is all wet with his radiation theories, as is evident in his book.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bob/des…re the link to the book on heat transfer,

            Thanks for link. However, their chapter on radiation is full of holes.

            Early in the book they admit heat is transferred by electromagnetic energy. Later they claim:

            “By the emission of thermal radiation, internal energy of the emitting body is converted into energy of the electromagnetic waves or, in the language of quantum theory, the energy of photons, which leave the surface of the radiating body. In this emission process the atoms or molecules of the body change from a state of higher energy to one of lower energy. However we do not need to go into these intramolecular processes for the formulation of the important phenomenological laws of heat transfer”.

            I beg to differ, it’s extremely important to go into the atomic theory.

            They admit that internal energy is converted to electromagnetic energy but like most people who are not up on heat transfer at the atomic level they obfuscate the meaning of the energies involved.

            Internal energy is heat. Clausius defined internal energy as U and he stated that U is both heat and work. He explained the work part as the motions of the atoms bound in lattices and the heat as their kinetic energy.

            The authors of the book need to make it clear that it is heat being converted to EM. They also need to get off the bad habit of referring to everything as molecules when in fact they are individual atoms bound by electrons. It is the electrons that carry the KE that is heat and they do the conversion from heat to EM.

            The authors admit that the atom cools as the electrons convert heat to EM and that is because the electrons fall to a lower energy level.

            These authors are all wet about radiative transfer, claiming heat can flow through space and be summed. They have already admitted it is EM flowing through space yet they insists, like Norman, that it is heat flowing.

            That is nonsense. Modern thermodynamics is way off course and it’s time to return to the basics as defined by Clausius.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            DA…”Gordon, show an experiment that proves your version of the 2nd law”.

            I have, numerous times, I quoted Clausius directly, the scientist who wrote the law. He said heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a cooler body to a warmer body.

        • Kristian says:

          Norman says, June 8, 2018 at 1:20 PM:

          I did agree that you would have heat flows but I am not sure how useful each heat flow would be.

          How useful!!!??? In a THERMODYNAMIC steady-state energy budget breakdown!? Hmmmm, let me think … when no work is done on or by the system, they are ALL THAT MATTERS (!), Norm. THEY are the ones we specifically need to keep track of and account for! Everything else is irrelevant.

          This is your most fundamental problem, the one that’s causing all your confusion, the one that prevents you from ever moving forward in your understanding of how the Earth system works. Somehow, somewhere, at some point, the weird, topsy-turvy idea that heat flows are just unnecessary mental constructs that don’t really exist and can thus never be perceived, sensed or detected, and so have no place in a thermodynamic analysis, creeped into your head. And it stuck. Now seemingly cemented into your brain. The worst part is, I suspect ‘The Ball4 Troll’ is at least partly responsible.

          What you sorely need in this regard, Norm, is to undergo a strict regime of systematic reeducation; I would almost go as far as calling it ‘reprogramming’. The sooner, the better …

          If you wanted to layer the atmosphere you could have hundreds of heat flows from a warmer portion of the atmosphere to a colder layer above.

          But you don’t want to layer the atmosphere, Norm. The troposphere is ONE system in such a steady-state analysis. Did you watch the video I linked to? You should. The troposphere is essentially the metal bar on the hot plate. There’s a temperature gradient THROUGH the bar, from hottest near the heating end at the bottom, to coolest near the cooling end at the top. Heat flows INTO the bar (the troposphere) from the plate (the surface), because the plate (the surface) is hotter than the bar (the troposphere). Then, heat flows THROUGH the bar (the troposphere), down the gradient, from hot (down low) to cool (up high). And finally, heat flows OUT OF the bar (the troposphere) to the surrounding room (space), because the bar (the troposphere) is warmer than the room (space). In the steady state, all of these heat flows balance – there is no change over time.

          Also, in heat transfer problems, they are not interested in each individual heat flow.

          Oh, we most certainly are. Make no mistake. If we want to break the steady-state budget down into its constituent parts and see what actually makes and maintains the overall balance (or, in the case of the Earth system in the present state, slight ‘imbalance’), and how we might perturb it, we absolutely need to know (and track over time) the individual magnitude of the different heat fluxes at play.

          Norm, changes in the transfers of energy to/from a thermodynamic system in the form of HEAT [Q] and WORK [W] are the only transfers of energy capable of affecting the content of internal energy [U], and thus the temperature [T], of that system.

          MACROSCOPIC transfers of energy, Norm. THERMODYNAMIC transfers of energy. Heat and work. All there is. If there’s a temperature difference, energy is spontaneously transferred as HEAT. A THERMAL transfer of energy. A heat flux. Heat naturally flows from hot to cold. Only. Invariably.

          They are interested in the net of all the heat flows (…)

          Yes, that too. But not JUST that. The overall balance doesn’t tell us ANYTHING about causes. About WHY and HOW there’s a balance, or imbalance, in the first place. About why an observed overall imbalance happens to be positive or negative, or why it’s getting bigger or smaller as time passes …

          The only heat flow or flux that would be of value for the Earth system would be the NET or total. Then you could determine if the Earth is warming or cooling.

          True. But a NET heat flux is not a real heat flux. Not something you can measure directly. It is but a mathematical construct. Q_in minus Q_out. So in order to understand the net – the (im)balance – between the real heat fluxes, the incoming and the outgoing, you will necessarily have to monitor those contributing real heat fluxes. In the case of the Earth system, that would be (at the top of the atmosphere, ToA) the Net SW/ASR_toa [Q_in(sw)] and the Net LW/OLR_toa [Q_out(lw)]. Down at the surface, it would be the Net SW/ASR_s [Q_in(sw)] and the Net LW/OLR_s [Q_out(lw)], the conductive/sensible heat flux [Q_out(cond)], and the evaporative/latent heat flux [Q_out(evap)]:

          ToA
          Q_in = Q_out
          Q_in(sw) = Q_out(lw)
          240 W/m^2 = 240 W/m^2

          Surface
          Q_in = Q_out
          Q_in(sw) = Q_out(lw) + Q_out(cond) + Q_out(evap)
          165 W/m^2 = 53 W/m^2 + 24 W/m^2 + 88 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2

          You have that the Surface to Atmosphere heat flux is 53 W/m^2.

          No. The ‘surface-to-atmosphere’ heat flux is only ~33 W/m^2. The other ~20 W/m^2 go straight out through the atmospheric window to space; basically, the heat flux between the surface and space.

          Of what value is this information.

          That fully depends on what you want to investigate, Norm. It is highly important if what you want to find out is whether or not the postulated “greenhouse warming mechanism” at the surface is strengthening over time or not. If that 53 W/m^2 value is reduced, then the mechanism can be said to have strengthened.

          It is not a measured value, it is derived from energy flows.

          It’s a global estimate, so you’re right, it’s not a “measured value”. Just like the global average surface temperature of the Earth isn’t a “measured value”. Just like the average input from the Sun to Earth isn’t a “measured value”. Or the average output from the Earth to space.

          That’s not to say that these estimates aren’t BASED ON actual measured values …

          You could not tell by measuring the surface if there was a net heat flow loss (…)

          Huh? “Measuring the surface”? What does that even mean? HOW are you measuring the surface? What property? Its composition? Its texture? Its firmness? Its colour?

          They are in a steady state and not changing (over the entire globe).

          Over time they are changing. You know, ‘climate change’. So you track these variables OVER TIME, Norm. That’s how you find out about what the surface and the atmosphere are “doing”.

          If you have the surface heat up and the DWIR increase at the same rate you would still get 53 W/m^2 (…)

          By “surface heat up” I’m guessing you mean UWIR. Otherwise, this sentence makes no nense.

          (…) which tells you NOTHING of value (…)

          Exactly! If you increase the “back radiation” (DWLWIR) term, but increase the “forward radiation” (UWLWIR) term by the same amount, it means the Net LW hasn’t changed.

          But the Net LW not changing over time DOES INDEED tell you something of value, IF you observe a rise in the surface TEMPERATURE at the same time.

          This IS how the postulated “greenhouse warming mechanism” is supposed to work, after all:
          http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png

          (…) and you need to calculate it anyway from the measured energy flows.

          No. As always you’ve got this exactly backwards. The NET is what is detected. The heat flux. The UWLWIR and the DWLWIR have to be computed; THEY are the calculated quantities:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer#Measurement_of_long_wave_downward_radiation

          You’ve been given this information so many times now, Norm, not just from me, but also from the likes of Tim Folkerts, who has tried – in vain – to explain these things to you. But you simply seem unable (or utterly unwilling) to take it in. Most likely because it directly conflicts with your warped view of the world.

          I mean, how ridiculous is this? When you turn your face to the Sun, when you sit by a bonfire, when you hold your hand above a candle, when you put something hot into your mouth, when you open the door to your freezer, when you take a cold shower, what is that thing that you feel!?

          Those are HEAT TRANSFERS, Norm. Heat fluxes. To or from yourself. That is why and how you can tell that something is hot or cold. Your sensory apparatus detects the heat moving to/from your body from/to something (an object or a region) that is hotter/colder than you. It’s real, Norm. Heat fluxes are real! Believe the hype!

          So again I really don’t know what your point is or what you are trying to state.

          No, that’s because your mind is completely locked down. Which means you INSIST on not getting even the simplest of concepts, if they do not somehow fit into your tight little bubble, to square with your narrow belief system.

          I simply gave you up, Norm. And I see no signs of improvement …

          If you feel that showing graphs of heat flows are the way to go, do it but you better have hundreds of heat flows for the atmosphere to be accurate.

          Er, no. One will do just fine. That is, ONE coming in, ONE moving through, and ONE moving out.

          Far simpler just to model energy flows in and out and see what the balance is.

          Obviously not. Because such an approach is exactly what has you stuck in what seems like perpetual confusion.

          And we’re back to what started this whole affair – phi’s original point on the other thread:
          “Conclusion: The diagrams representing backradiations without distinguishing them from heat fluxes are consistent with the theory of the greenhouse effect. Their inconsistency with thermodynamics signals the inconsistency of the greenhouse theory.”

          On which I followed up:
          “”Back radiation” is not distinguished from real heat fluxes in these diagrams. This is at best confused, at worst willfully deceptive.”

          What is the overall heat flux. The rest is just pointless.

          The UWLWIR and the DWLWIR are pointless quantities, yes. Because they’re just conceptual parts of an actual heat flux, the surface Net LW. All we need are the HEAT FLUXES. This is a THERMAL problem.

          • Norman says:

            Kristian

            If you think writing a novel makes your points correct I don’t agree.

            The flow you can’t measure at all is the HEAT FLUX of 33 W/m^2 that is moving IR from the surface to the atmosphere. There is no instrument you could measure this with. You can’t calculate a heat transfer since no temperatures are changing.

            The only real values you can measure are the DWIR and the UPIR and you subtract the two to get a HEAT FLUX.

            The UWLWIR and DWLWIR ar not conceptual parts of an actual heat flux. The heat flux is derived from these quantities and basically is just an added number that tells one nothing.

            You can get the same using the measured values of 390 UP and 340 Down and they tell you a lot. The 390 Up tells you what the Earth’s surface temperature is. The 33 W/m^2 heat flux gives you no information except that the surface emits more IR than the atmosphere.

            Since you are obstinate, won’t link to actual science, act like I don’t know a thing I will link you to actual science pages.

            You will no doubt ignore them.

            Here:
            http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahttv211.pdf

            Page 538 equation 10.10
            http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html

            Equation 19.3 notice qnet! Radiant HEAT transfer is the NET energy between what is emitted by an surface minus what is absorbed.

            If you cannot provide a shred of proof I am wrong it is best you do quit talking to me. You remind me of an intelligent version of Gordon Robertson. I will stick to the real science. Not your version. Ball4 is correct and you are not. Nothing at all supports your claims. Every source clearly states two energy flows to a surface (even with multiple objects) the energy the surface emits (which is based only upon itself) and the energy it absorbs from its surroundings. That is it. That is what all science books state.

          • Norman says:

            Kristian

            It is very simple. The Earth’s surface will radiate IR based upon its temperature (the other values are mostly constant so they will not change). It will radiate this energy away, it will reach a steady state condition based upon what energy it is receiving from the surrounding and what it is losing. It does not lose all its energy by radiation so the other energy losses have to be taken in.

            The Surface will radiate at the rate set by it temperature regardless of the surroundings. Only if the surroundings alter the temperature will the IR rate change. The IR emission from the surface is an independent variable. It does not change based upon how much energy the atmosphere is sending back.

            If you add GHG to an atmosphere, the temperature of the atmosphere will cause the GHG to emit IR in all directions. Some of this IR will reach the surface and add to the surface internal energy. If the surface has a constant power source, the Sun, the surface temperature will rise until a new steady state temperature is reached.

            Look again at E. Swanson’s excellent experiment with Blue and Green plates. It clearly shows that the addition of the green plate’s IR to the blue plate (more than the surrounding) the temperature of the blue plate increases to match this increase in IR it is absorbing.

            If E Swanson wanted to mimic the GHE he would have the green plate made of a material that is transparent to IR so that moving it in place would have no effect on the temperature of the blue plate. He could then paint some areas with IR absorbing paint and now have some IR emitted back to the blue plate, its temperature will start to go up. He could add more painted regions and mimic what happens when you add more GHG, the holes in the plate are filled.

          • E. Swanson says:

            The K rants again, giving another blast of pure BS with little connection to reality. The K essentially ignores vertical convection in his metal bar example and seems to think that the top of the troposphere, aka, the Tropopause, is the last stop for energy leaving the Earth, thus ignoring the effect of the Stratosphere. Of course, he also spouts the usual denial about AGW violating the 2nd Law, without any analysis. Spam, Spam and more Spam, I sez.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Norman,

            “The IR emission from the surface is an independent variable.”

            This must be a misstatement on your part. Emission from any body is DEPENDENT on its temperature. Naturally if it is absorbing more energy than it is losing, it will warm. If it is losing more than it is receiving, it will cool.

            If you believe that your statement is true, it explains the logic of the rest of your argument, which is invalid.

            “It does not change based upon how much energy the atmosphere is sending back.”

            If by “it” you mean surface temperature, of course it changes. The surface cools much faster on a clear night than a cloudy one.

            “If you add GHG to an atmosphere, the temperature of the atmosphere will cause the GHG to emit IR in all directions. Some of this IR will reach the surface and add to the surface internal energy.”

            The former sentence implies that more IR-active gases made the atmosphere warmer. This is an unverified assumption with present day CO2 concentrations. The latter sentence is false unless the atmosphere at a given point in time was warmer than the surface, which happens sometimes. Usually the surface is warmer and loses energy to the atmosphere, not gains energy.

            “If the surface has a constant power source, the Sun, the surface temperature will rise until a new steady state temperature is reached.”

            But the surface doesn’t have a constant power source and the surface temperature is only an average of extremes. So as Kristian is painstaking trying to explain, the perturbation of the “quasi-steady state” has to be estimated based on average measurements of heat fluxes.

            Swanson’s experiments illustrate wonderfully the theory of the paradigm you are stuck in. But there is no real life evidence that increasing CO2 will modify the atmosphere analogous to how modifying the green plate will make the blue plate warmer.

          • Kristian says:

            E. Swanson says, June 9, 2018 at 8:07 AM:

            The K rants again, giving another blast of pure BS with little connection to reality. The K essentially ignores vertical convection in his metal bar example and seems to think that the top of the troposphere, aka, the Tropopause, is the last stop for energy leaving the Earth, thus ignoring the effect of the Stratosphere. Of course, he also spouts the usual denial about AGW violating the 2nd Law, without any analysis. Spam, Spam and more Spam, I sez.

            Says the man who incessantly pushes his pseudoscience on this very blog. The guy who’s unable to conduct a simple experiment without letting his preconceived ideas about the world leak into and dictate his conclusions already in advance, rendering his actual empirical findings completely useless. The bloke who cannot distinguish between his own purely theoretical musings about certain quantum realm phenomena and the real-world observations of macroscopic (thermodynamic) effects he is in fact making.

            Spam, indeed!

          • Norman says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            I am not sure what your point was to pull a fragment of a thought out an then make a nonsense claim that I made a misstatement.

            YOU took out a fragment: “The IR emission from the surface is an independent variable.”

            From the complete thought: “The Surface will radiate at the rate set by it temperature regardless of the surroundings. Only if the surroundings alter the temperature will the IR rate change. The IR emission from the surface is an independent variable. It does not change based upon how much energy the atmosphere is sending back.”

            YOU: “If by “it” you mean surface temperature, of course it changes. The surface cools much faster on a clear night than a cloudy one.”

            No I mean the rate of emission from the surface. It does not change based upon the amount of energy it receives. It changes only when the temperature changes. I am making a simple point, don’t add things I am not saying or try to understand the point before you attempt an analysis. The rate of emission will decrease when the surface cools, it will not change based upon the DWIR, it is dependent upon the surface temperature only. The DWIR may or may not increase the surface temperature, the rate will not change until the temperature does and that can be slow or fast depending upon the material of the surface. With a high heat capacity of water it will change emission rate slowly as it warms or cools.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swannie…”The K rants again, giving another blast of pure BS with little connection to reality”.

            I thought Kristian was spot-on with his insistence that the only thermodynamic quantities that matter are heat and work. Norman is confusing heat with EM, which is a true flux (lines/unit area).

            Heat cannot flow as a flux, it has to be transferred through space as a mass via convection. EM can be converted back to heat IN A COOLER BODY but it does not represent heat flowing as a flux.

            As Kristian has pointed out, radiation flows from a hotter surface to a cooler space at a temperature of nearly 3K. What he talks about obeys the 2nd law and what you guys talk about does not.

          • Kristian says:

            Norman says, June 9, 2018 at 7:44 AM:

            The flow you can’t measure at all is the HEAT FLUX of 33 W/m^2 that is moving IR from the surface to the atmosphere. There is no instrument you could measure this with.

            Yes there is. It is called a THERMAL RADIOMETRIC DETECTOR. A pyrgeometer uses a thermal radiometric detector (a thermopile). Bolometers and microbolometers are also thermal detectors.

            You can’t calculate a heat transfer since no temperatures are changing.

            You don’t have to calculate the heat transfer. You can MEASURE it.

            The only real values you can measure are the DWIR and the UPIR and you subtract the two to get a HEAT FLUX.

            Why are you just constantly repeating this mantra, even after you’ve been shown a hundred times that it’s incorrect!? It is false. Not the case. The OPPOSITE of what you claim is correct, Norm! Didn’t you read my link?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer#Measurement_of_long_wave_downward_radiation

            “The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect its sensor surface) EXCHANGE long wave IR radiation. This results in a NET RADIATION BALANCE balance according to:

            E_net = E_in – E_out

            Where:
            E_net – net radiation at sensor surface [W/m^2]
            E_in – Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m^2]
            E_out – Long-wave radiation emitted by the sensor surface [W/m^2]

            [Which is to say that this is equal to: Net LW (Q_lw) = DWLWIR – UWLWIR, for the global surface -53 W/m^2 = 345 W/m^2 – 398 W/m^2.]

            The pyrgeometer’s thermopile DETECTS THE NET RADIATION BALANCE between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.

            E_net = U_emf / S

            Where:
            E_net – net radiation at sensor surface [W/m^2]
            U_emf – thermopile output voltage [V]
            S – sensitivity/calibration factor of instrument [V/W/m^2]

            The value for S is determined during calibration of the instrument. The calibration is performed at the production factory with a reference instrument traceable to a regional calibration center.

            To DERIVE the absolute downward long wave flux, the TEMPERATURE OF THE PYRGEOMETER has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:

            E_out = σT^4

            Where:
            E_out – Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m^2]
            σ – Stefan-Boltzmann constant [W/(m^2*K^4)]
            T – Absolute temperature of pyrgeometer detector [kelvins]

            From the calculations above the incoming long wave radiation can be derived. This is usually done by rearranging the equations above to yield the so-called pyrgeometer equation by Albrecht and Cox.

            E_in = (U_emf / S) + σT^4

            Where all the variables have the same meaning as before.

            As a result, the detected voltage and instrument temperature yield the total global long wave downward radiation.”

            From one of the main pyrgeometer manufacturers, Kipp & Zonen:

            http://www.kippzonen.com/Download/36/CGR-Pyrgeometers-Brochure?ShowInfo=true (p.2)

            “A pyrgeometer provides a voltage that is proportional to the RADIATION EXCHANGE [Net LW (Q_lw)] between the instrument and the sky (or ground) in its field of view. The DETECTOR SIGNAL OUTPUT can be positive or negative.

            For example, if the sky is colder than the pyrgeometer, the instrument radiates energy to the sky and the OUTPUT is NEGATIVE.

            In order to CALCULATE the incoming or outgoing FIR it is necessary to know the temperature of the instrument housing close to the detector and the data must be recorded simultaneously with the detector signal.”

            You are wrong, Norman. But you are just too stubborn and stupid to admit it.

            The UWLWIR and DWLWIR ar not conceptual parts of an actual heat flux.

            Yes, they are.

            The heat flux is derived from these quantities (…)

            No, the opposite is true.

            You remind me now of why I stopped interacting with you the first time. This is a hopeless endeavour. It’s like banging one’s head into a brick wall. It will only ever feel good once you stop …

            The 390 Up tells you what the Earth’s surface temperature is.

            Hahahaha! I mean … I simply don’t know what to say. I laughed out loud, but I might as well have cried.

            No, Norm. The Earth’s surface temperature dictates its radiant exitance. Once again you’ve got reality turned on its head. You CALCULATE the surface BB emission flux from its temperature, not the other way around. YOU DO NOT MEASURE THE 390 W/m^2. YOU CALCULATE IT!

            The 33 W/m^2 heat flux gives you no information except that the surface emits more IR than the atmosphere.

            Which is the main point, after all. The radiative heat flows from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere. Like the Kipp & Zonen introductory brochure on pyrgeometers stated above: “(…) if the sky is colder than the pyrgeometer, the instrument radiates energy to the sky and the output is negative.”

            Since you are obstinate (…)

            I’m not obstinate. I’m just tired of your seemingly boundless ignorance. No more.

            (…) won’t link to actual science (…)

            That really is priceless. I do, Norm. All the time. However, you keep ignoring it. Every single time. You did it again just above. I can’t force you to read, force you to understand. I can only lead the horse to the water …

            (…) act like I don’t know a thing (…)

            You DON’T know a thing, Norm!! Not about this topic. Yet you THINK you do. Oh, yes. You think you know it all. From having quickly skimmed through a couple of passages here and there after googling some term of choice. It’s precisely WHY you come off as such a pretender.

            Equation 19.3 notice qnet! Radiant HEAT transfer is the NET energy between what is emitted by an surface minus what is absorbed.

            Yes, Norm. This has never been contested. A heat flux is the net energy moving between two regions at different temps. Whether conductive, convective or radiative.

            Back to the dime analogy. You know, the one you didn’t get.

            MICRO (quantum) => statistical mechanics => MACRO (thermo)

            MICRO: each individual photon
            MACRO: the full exchange

            If you cannot provide a shred of proof I am wrong it is best you do quit talking to me.

            You’re not wrong, Norm. Just utterly misguided and confused. You have absolutely no contextual understanding of what you’re reading. You are unable to distinguish between quantum and thermo phenomena, between simplifying model descriptions of reality and reality itself. You appear incapable of entertaining more than one idea about the world simultaneously, especially if another idea comes along that, on the face of it, seems incompatible with your first one. I’m of course referring to the whole MICRO vs. MACRO situation. And, very much related to this, you most certainly don’t understand the first thing about statistical mechanics and how that pertains to the specific issue under discussion.

            But don’t worry. I am hereby done talking to you. I honestly don’t know why I started addressing you again to begin with. That irrepressible masochistic streak, I guess …

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Norman…”From the complete thought: The Surface will radiate at the rate set by it temperature regardless of the surroundings”.

            That’s not what Stefan-Boltzmann claimed, they required a temperature gradient.

            If the air temperature immediately above the surface was greater than the surface temperature, do you think the surface would continue to radiate to the air, or would it absorb heat from the air and warm?

          • Kristian says:

            Sorry, botched it. Again:

            Norman says, June 9, 2018 at 7:44 AM:

            The flow you can’t measure at all is the HEAT FLUX of 33 W/m^2 that is moving IR from the surface to the atmosphere. There is no instrument you could measure this with.

            Yes there is. It is called a THERMAL RADIOMETRIC DETECTOR. A pyrgeometer uses a thermal radiometric detector (a thermopile). Bolometers and microbolometers are also thermal detectors.

            You can’t calculate a heat transfer since no temperatures are changing.

            You don’t have to calculate the heat transfer. You can MEASURE it.

            The only real values you can measure are the DWIR and the UPIR and you subtract the two to get a HEAT FLUX.

            Why are you just constantly repeating this mantra, even after you’ve been shown a hundred times that it’s incorrect!? It is false. Not the case. The OPPOSITE of what you claim is correct, Norm! Didn’t you read my link?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgeometer#Measurement_of_long_wave_downward_radiation

            “The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect its sensor surface) EXCHANGE long wave IR radiation. This results in a NET RADIATION BALANCE according to:

            E_net = E_in – E_out

            Where:
            E_net – net radiation at sensor surface [W/m^2]
            E_in – Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m^2]
            E_out – Long-wave radiation emitted by the sensor surface [W/m^2]

            [Which is to say that this is equal to: Net LW (Q_lw) = DWLWIR – UWLWIR, for the global surface -53 W/m^2 = 345 W/m^2 – 398 W/m^2.]

            The pyrgeometer’s thermopile DETECTS THE NET RADIATION BALANCE between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.

            E_net = U_emf / S

            Where:
            E_net – net radiation at sensor surface [W/m^2]
            U_emf – thermopile output voltage [V]
            S – sensitivity/calibration factor of instrument [V/W/m^2]

            The value for S is determined during calibration of the instrument. The calibration is performed at the production factory with a reference instrument traceable to a regional calibration center.

            To DERIVE the absolute downward long wave flux, the TEMPERATURE OF THE PYRGEOMETER has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:

            E_out = σT^4

            Where:
            E_out – Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m^2]
            σ – Stefan-Boltzmann constant [W/(m^2*K^4)]
            T – Absolute temperature of pyrgeometer detector [kelvins]

            From the calculations above the incoming long wave radiation can be derived. This is usually done by rearranging the equations above to yield the so-called pyrgeometer equation by Albrecht and Cox.

            E_in = (U_emf / S) + σT^4

            Where all the variables have the same meaning as before.

            As a result, the detected voltage and instrument temperature yield the total global long wave downward radiation.”

            From one of the main pyrgeometer manufacturers, Kipp & Zonen:

            http://www.kippzonen.com/Download/36/CGR-Pyrgeometers-Brochure?ShowInfo=true (p.2)

            “A pyrgeometer provides a voltage that is proportional to the RADIATION EXCHANGE [Net LW (Q_lw)] between the instrument and the sky (or ground) in its field of view. The DETECTOR SIGNAL OUTPUT can be positive or negative.

            For example, if the sky is colder than the pyrgeometer, the instrument radiates energy to the sky and the OUTPUT is NEGATIVE.

            In order to CALCULATE the incoming or outgoing FIR it is necessary to know the temperature of the instrument housing close to the detector and the data must be recorded simultaneously with the detector signal.”

            You are wrong, Norman. But you are just too stubborn and stupid to admit it.

            The UWLWIR and DWLWIR ar not conceptual parts of an actual heat flux.

            Yes, they are.

            The heat flux is derived from these quantities (…)

            No, the opposite is true.

            You remind me now of why I stopped interacting with you the first time. This is a hopeless endeavour. It’s like banging one’s head into a brick wall. It will only ever feel good once you stop …

            The 390 Up tells you what the Earth’s surface temperature is.

            Hahahaha! I mean … I simply don’t know what to say. I laughed out loud, but I might as well have cried.

            No, Norm. The Earth’s surface temperature dictates its radiant exitance. Once again you’ve got reality turned on its head. You CALCULATE the surface BB emission flux from its temperature, not the other way around. YOU DO NOT MEASURE THE 390 W/m^2. YOU CALCULATE IT!

            The 33 W/m^2 heat flux gives you no information except that the surface emits more IR than the atmosphere.

            Which is the main point, after all. The radiative heat flows from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere. Like the Kipp & Zonen introductory brochure on pyrgeometers stated above: “(…) if the sky is colder than the pyrgeometer, the instrument radiates energy to the sky and the output is negative.”

            Since you are obstinate (…)

            I’m not obstinate. I’m just tired of your seemingly boundless ignorance. No more.

            (…) won’t link to actual science (…)

            That really is priceless. I do, Norm. All the time. However, you keep ignoring it. Every single time. You did it again just above. I can’t force you to read, force you to understand. I can only lead the horse to the water …

            (…) act like I don’t know a thing (…)

            You DON’T know a thing, Norm!! Not about this topic. Yet you THINK you do. Oh, yes. You think you know it all. From having quickly skimmed through a couple of passages here and there after googling some term of choice. It’s precisely WHY you come off as such a pretender.

            Equation 19.3 notice qnet! Radiant HEAT transfer is the NET energy between what is emitted by an surface minus what is absorbed.

            Yes, Norm. This has never been contested. A heat flux is the net energy moving between two regions at different temps. Whether conductive, convective or radiative.

            Back to the dime analogy. You know, the one you didn’t get.

            MICRO (quantum) => statistical mechanics => MACRO (thermo)

            MICRO: each individual photon
            MACRO: the full exchange

            If you cannot provide a shred of proof I am wrong it is best you do quit talking to me.

            You’re not wrong, Norm. Just utterly misguided and confused. You have absolutely no contextual understanding of what you’re reading. You are unable to distinguish between quantum and thermo phenomena, between simplifying model descriptions of reality and reality itself. You appear incapable of entertaining more than one idea about the world simultaneously, especially if another idea comes along that, on the face of it, seems incompatible with your first one. I’m of course referring to the whole MICRO vs. MACRO situation. And, very much related to this, you most certainly don’t understand the first thing about statistical mechanics and how that pertains to the specific issue under discussion.

            But don’t worry. I am hereby done talking to you. I honestly don’t know why I started addressing you again to begin with. That irrepressible masochistic streak, I guess …

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Norman,

            “No I mean the rate of emission from the surface. It does not change based upon the amount of energy it receives. It changes only when the temperature changes.”

            Now you are saying the rate of emission is dependent on the temperature. Before you said independent. It seems you have corrected yourself. If so, I am in agreement with your clarifying response.

            Do you agree that your assertion about additional IR-active gases warming the atmosphere is hypothesis and not fact?

            I realize the thread is about your disagreement with Kristian on heat fluxes. But if you want to have constructive discussions with me, you should avoid asserting facts not in evidence. In any case, I am following your argument with Kristian intently.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo wrote some silly half truths

            I thought Kristian was spot-on with his insistence that the only thermodynamic quantities that matter are heat and work.

            Heat cannot flow as a flux, it has to be transferred through space as a mass via convection. EM can be converted back to heat IN A COOLER BODY but it does not represent heat flowing as a flux.

            Gordo and the K confuse work (joules) and power (watts). Temperature is a measure of internal energy, relative to absolute zero, aka, heat capacity per unit mass. Heat transfer is a power function, as in IR EM measured in watts/m^2 or energy released by burning fossil fuel in a furnace measured in BTU/hour. I suppose that means they didn’t do well in physics class either.

          • Norman says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            YOU: “Now you are saying the rate of emission is dependent on the temperature. Before you said independent. It seems you have corrected yourself. If so, I am in agreement with your clarifying response.”

            You have misread what I wrote. I did not change anything. I have not corrected myself.

            I will try to be more clear. I stated that the emission rate is dependent upon temperature earlier. Read the post again if you have to. It is independent of the energy the surface absorbs. Do you understand that point? It is in the original post. I never stated that the surface emission rate was independent of the surface temperature. You read my post wrong and concluded this.

            MY original post you chose to incorrectly respond to.
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306579

          • Norman says:

            Kristian

            Another novel. Do you do this to make it almost impossible to respond to your endless post?

            I can take parts of it.

            YOU: “No, Norm. The Earths surface temperature dictates its radiant exitance. Once again youve got reality turned on its head. You CALCULATE the surface BB emission flux from its temperature, not the other way around. YOU DO NOT MEASURE THE 390 W/m^2. YOU CALCULATE IT!”

            NO you actually measure it, you take a sensor, face the Earth, measure the IR it emits and you can calculate the temperature.

            Are you unable to understand that with an equation you can determine any variable within the equation if you have known values? If you know the radiant energy emitted and the emissivity you can calculate the temperature from that value. You can do it both ways. If you don’t have a measure of the temperature but a measure of the radiant energy it emits, you can determine the temperature.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Norman,

            I’m moving my response to the question on the independence of IR emission to a new thread leaving this one for any further responses from Kristian. Don’t hold your breath.

  126. Researcher says:

    Letter to CSIRO in Australia

    All climate change is natural and follows several natural cycles. The mechanism regulating such cycles is primarily to do with variations in cloud cover which in turn are affected by variations in cosmic ray intensity. As solar activity increases the heliosphere expands and this reduces the influx of cosmic rays entering the inner Solar System. Magnetic fields from the planets also affect cosmic ray intensity reaching Earth because they can alter the paths of such rays.

    I will soon be framing a Freedom of Information question seeking internal documentation relating to any attempts to pay due diligence in checking what was totally false physics originating in the early 1980’s from a small group of overseas climatologists. It all hinges on the false claim that Earth’s mean surface temperature can be explained by adding to the solar flux of about 168W/m^2 a further flux of about 324W/m^2 from the colder atmosphere, that flux including some radiation from carbon dioxide. But radiation from different sources cannot be added like that to determine resulting temperatures.

    The required input of thermal energy needed to warm the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus on their sunlit sides is primarily supplied by non-radiative processes that have nothing to do with carbon dioxide concentrations. Your physicists cannot prove otherwise and they certainly cannot produce any established physics supporting the compounding of radiation, let alone any empirical evidence.

    Nor has anyone at the CSIRO produced empirical evidence of either of the “greenhouse” gases water vapour or carbon dioxide actually warming the Earth. In fact empirical evidence clearly shows that water vapour cools it. My 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and my other two papers support what I am saying and, for the first time in world literature, present the correct physics which does explain the necessary heat transfers and resulting temperatures on Earth, Venus and even at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus where it is hotter than Earth’s surface despite being many times further from the Sun.

    Please forward this email to those involved and refer them again to my papers at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605.

    • La Pangolina says:

      Hello Do-ug Cot-ton!

      How are you?

      • Dr No says:

        Well well well!
        Old sox is back for another round.
        I thought he had retired due to brain injury.

      • Bobdesbond says:

        This is Do.ug Cot.ton?? In that case, there is someone impersonating Do.ug Cot.ton on YouTube. Because I was in conversation with someone on YouTube by the name of Do.ug Cot.ton who was defending the Guy McPherson BS.

  127. David Appell says:

    OMG, the Cot_ton Crackpot is back. What is it about this site that attracts so many of them?

  128. Snape says:

    “The Wikipedia entry for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics includes the following statement from Rudolph Clausius, who formulated one of the necessary consequences of the 2nd Law (emphasis added):

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

    The statement by Clausius uses the concept of passage of heat. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means net transfer of energy as heat, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.”

    – Roy Spencer

    *******

    According to the author above, energy transferred from a colder body to a warmer body is only a “contributory transfer” and is therefore NOT HEAT.

    According to the author, energy transferred from a warmer body to a colder body is only a “contributory transfer” and is therefore NOT HEAT

    The NET transfer of energy, i.e. the difference between those two contributions, is what the author, and Clausius, are referring to as heat.

    And mathematically, the net transfer must always move from the larger emitter (the warm body) to the lesser emitter (the cold body). Which means “heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body…..”

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Actually this is a statistical concept. And as is the case with all statistical ideas like this, it is theoretically possible for heat to travel from a cold body to a warm body momentarily. But the chance of this happening is one in a zillion.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob/des…”Actually this is a statistical concept. And as is the case with all statistical ideas like this, it is theoretically possible for heat to travel from a cold body to a warm body momentarily. But the chance of this happening is one in a zillion”.

        I agree with you on the statistical part but it also depends on what you mean by hot and cold. Can you define an individual atom statistically as being hot or cold? I suggest that in examples using electrons but I know it is grossly simplified.

        At temperatures near thermal equilibrium there is more reason to presume what you are saying. The question arises as to how far you can move from thermal equilibrium before it is insignificant.

        Planck admitted in his book on heat that no way exists to visualize statistical mechanics. I think it’s the same with quantum theory. You are at the mercy of mathematicians and their particular logic and conclusions.

        • Bond says:

          I am not defining a single atom as hot or cold. I am simply stating that, on an individual photon basis, energy can be transferred from a cold body to a hot one.

        • David Appell says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          Planck admitted in his book on heat that no way exists to visualize statistical mechanics.

          I doubt that. Quote him on this.

          I think its the same with quantum theory. You are at the mercy of mathematicians and their particular logic and conclusions.

          Ye, that’s true.

          So what?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

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

      The statement by Clausius uses the concept of passage of heat. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means net transfer of energy as heat….”

      The statement of Clausius is clear, heat can NEVER pass from a colder to a warmer body…

      Nowhere in his statement is there a reference to heat as a concept or to a net transfer of energy.

      If you took the time to read the reasoning of Clausius leading up to his statement of the law, you’d understand why.

      He based it on heat engine theory wherein temperature, volume, and pressure change throughout a process. If you try to reverse the process it cannot work. Therefore, the process wherein heat tries to transfer from cold to hot won’t work.

      It’s the same with radiation.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        The statement of Clausius is clear, heat can NEVER pass from a colder to a warmer body

        See Gordon lie. Again.

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

        Gordon ignored everything after the word “body,” and is afraid to even discuss it. It can’t exist according to his ideology.

  129. Figure 4. Magnitudes of the largest warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. Temperatures on the vertical axis are rise or fall of temperatures in about a century. Event number 1 is about 24,000years ago and event number 15 is about 11,000 years old. At least three warming events were 20 to 24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6 to 9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming which might possibly have been caused by CO2. (1978-1998) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming. (Plotted from data in Cuffy and Clow, 1997 and Alley, 2000)
    Implications of multiple You

    DAVID, this says how the modern warm period compared to past warmings. This is from the post I sent yesterday on this subject.

    • Bobdesbond says:

      Non-glacial periods please. As we are right now.

    • David Appell says:

      Salvatore, what is your point?

      That there is more than one factor that can change climate?

      Scientists discovered this long long ago.

      Notice our current rate of warming is at least 30 times faster than when the Earth left its last deep frozen period.

  130. Snape says:

    Kristian

    The earth’s surface OUTPUT in w/m^2

    emits IR ~ 398.2
    Evaporation: 86.4 conduction/convection: 18.4
    Total: 503

    If the total INPUT is less than that, the surface will cool. If the total input is greater, the surface will warm. Simple!

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/828px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

    • Kristian says:

      Snape says, June 9, 2018 at 1:54 PM:

      Kristian

      The earth’s surface OUTPUT in w/m^2

      emits IR ~ 398.2
      Evaporation: 86.4 conduction/convection: 18.4
      Total: 503

      Nope. You have two heat fluxes there and one temperature-calculated radiance (radiant exitance, really).

      The surface budget in W/m^2 looks like this:

      Heat IN = Heat OUT
      Q_in(sw) = Q_out(lw) + Q_out(cond) + Q_out(evap)
      165 W/m^2 = 53 W/m^2 + 24 W/m^2 + 88 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2

      You’re conflating heat and thermal radiation (IR photons).

      • Norman says:

        Kristian

        And it is just as valid to describe the process as energy in and energy out. Heat is energy anyway. Heat is in joules and heat flux is in watts/m^2.

        You can describe all with energy as the global budget graphs do. They are in no way incorrect and are based upon measured values. The heat fluxes can only be determined by finding the Net of energy flows (as described in all heat transfer textbooks). For radiant energy you need to take the Net energy of the LWIR to find the heat flux.

        You can’t measure the heat flux from surface to atmosphere. If you take a calibrated instrument and point it at the surface it will not give you a 33 W/m^2 value. It does not exist. What actually exists are energy flows. 390 W/m^2 emitted by the surface. 340 W/m^2 emitted by the atmosphere to the surface and most being absorbed by the surface. So you can get a NET energy flow (heat flow) by taking the amount emitted minus the amount received 340 watts/m^2 and get a heat flux from the surface of 50 W/m^2. This is a value you can’t measure, it does not exist as an actual flow of energy.

        The textbook posted by Boddesbond
        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vl02ky5h40xDygiCIvDHFrj5c9hYvcNN/view

        Page 27 of this textbook says exactly what I am saying. All sources to date say exactly what I am saying. Not one states what you state, and yet I am wrong? Hmmm? The thing about me and you is I actually look at the links and read the material. I want to learn and correct my thought process. Refine it. You do not look or post to any valid science source. You still have not and I doubt you ever will. Like I stated you are just an intelligent Gordon Robertson. You can play like you know things and it is harder to find your errors. But at the end of the day, you make up your own ideas and peddle them just like Gordon. Your ideas are just more complex.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Norman…” Heat is in joules and heat flux is in watts/m^2″.

          Why not call heat flux what it is, electromagnetic energy?

          The W/m^2 used in Stefan-Boltzmann tends to be confusing. They seem to be talking about heat loss rather than radiation density.

          In the days of Clausius, Stefan, Boltzmann, and Planck they thought of heat as somehow flowing through space via an aether. Planck actually called them heat rays and that has stuck to this day where EM is referred to as thermal radiation.

          Thermal radiation is fine as long as it’s made clear the radiation came from a heat source and is not heat itself. Heat flux is obscure, however. A flux is a reference to lines per unit area as in a magnetic field. Vector calculus treats fluxes as vectors moving in curved trajectories.

          If you think of an EM flux, you could liken it to the number of photons passing through an area. The more photons per unit area the denser the flux. However, a photon is defined as E = hf where the E came from the energy level difference between electron energy bands in an atom. E is not a reference to heat.

          Heat does not move as a flux through space, it does not leave the heated surface. Even in a solid, heat moves valence electron to valence electron and although it is often taught as a vector flow it is not practically a vector quantity. It’s motion electron to electron would be far too erratic.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”The textbook posted by Boddesbond…Page 27 of this textbook says exactly what I am saying.

          Here’s the opeing of page 27 and it’s dead wrong.

          “In heat transfer, the heat transmitted by radiation between two bodies at different temperatures is very important. It is not only the hotter body that radiates heat to warm the body at the lower temperature, the colder one also emits electromagnetic waves which transfer energy to the body at the higher temperature. It is therefore applicable here to talk of an exchange of radiation. Finally the net heat flow from the body at the higher temperature to that at the lower temperature is of interest”.

          This directly contradicts the 2nd law and Clausius claimed that radiation must obey the 2nd law.

          I don’t know where these authors get this nonsense but they obviously had it spoon fed to them without questioning the theory.

          This pap not only contradicts the 2nd law it also contradicts quantum theory as laid down by Bohr and Schrodinger. According to what they claim, a hotter body radiates to a cooler body, warming it, then the cooler body radiates to the warmer body, raising it’s temperature.

          The cycle continues with each body warming the other and we have perpetual motion.

          Bohr stated specifically that bodies can only absorb energy that fits the electron’s need to have a quanta of energy that is exactly the difference between its available energy levels. Specifically the electron needs a frequency that will resonate with its natural frequency. That frequency is too low from a cooler body.

          What the authors don’t understand is that their theories apply only at thermal equilibrium. When one body radiates to the other it cools slightly and when the other body radiates back it cools as well. There are net losses in each body therefore no perpetual motion.

          The authors ignore atomic theory and presume a mechanism exists to allow for mutual bodies warming each other without heating indefinitely.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ps. It also contradicts Stefan-Boltzmann, which requires a unidirectional temperature gradient.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            The textbook in no way makes your twisted notion:

            YOU: “This pap not only contradicts the 2nd law it also contradicts quantum theory as laid down by Bohr and Schrodinger. According to what they claim, a hotter body radiates to a cooler body, warming it, then the cooler body radiates to the warmer body, raising its temperature.”

            That is NOT what they are saying at all. That is a twisted screwed up notion you made up that in no way reflects anything stated in a valid science textbook.

            How, exactly, does there statement leas to a cooler body raising the temperature of the hotter one? You are not thinking logically at all. Just some emotional reaction with little to no thought on your part. When the hotter body radiates energy to the cooler one (raising its temperature) it cools. The energy it receives from the warmed cooler object is not enough to raise its temperature.

            You are unable to understand the mechanism, why don’t you try?

            If the hot object is not powered the sequence is,
            It loses energy at a greater rate than the cold object returns to it. The hot object cools at a faster rate than the cold object warms. The two will reach equilibrium when the temperature are the same. That is both objects are radiating the same amount of energy to each other.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”How, exactly, does there statement leas to a cooler body raising the temperature of the hotter one?”

            ********

            In the textbook they are always talking about idealized blackbodies that MUST absorb all radiation that reaches them. The idea for a blackbody came from Kircheoff around the same era that Clausius was stating the 2nd law. The BB concept was continued by Boltzmann then Planck, both of whom were heavily into statistical analysis where the BB concept suited their purposes.

            You have to understand that Planck in particular seriously fudged his math to get the results he required. He admitted that and it bothered him deeply. Boltzmann committed suicide over a similar angst. There is no way to arbitrarily assign statistical probabilities to heat transfer in atoms without fudging the math to make it fit.

            I don’t see anything wrong with that provided the results can be verified experimentally. However, as Planck admitted, there is no way to verify the process VISUALLY to explain the physical reality.

            However, in 1913, Bohr stood the scientific world on its ear by suggesting real bodies do not behave like BBs. Real bodies depend on the electrons in atoms and the energy level at which the electron resides. Bohr gave a quantity to the interaction of EM and electrons as E = hf.

            Remember, Kircheoff lived in an era where it was believed heat flowed throw space as heat rays. They could not explain it, presuming their was an aether of some kind to conduct the heat just as it is conducted through a solid. Clausius seemed to believe that himself, hence his words seem to be contradictory in places regarded radiative heat transfer.

            Bohr also made it clear that rules apply to the absorp-tion of EM by electrons and the rules are stringent. The frequency of the EM must match that of the electron, and if not, the EM is not absorbed.

            You posted a video explaining that kind of resonance with EM absorp-tion but the meaning seems to have escaped you.

            Bohr’s theories, expanded by Schrodinger to form quantum mechanics, throws out the concept of two BBs radiating at each other since each body MUST absorb the EM from the other according to definition. The BBs MUST remain at the same temperature since their temperature is defined by the EM rattling around inside.

            Kircheoff did all of his work based on BBs at thermal equilibrium yet modernists seem to feel free to extrapolate his equilibrium work to any temperature difference. The fly in the ointment is that they never give real world examples, only inferences.

            As I tried to explain, the current paradigm on radiative heat transfer is established on ancient paradigms that have been surpassed by quantum theory.

            Have you noticed in your textbook that they completely avoid Clausius and his 2nd law and that they feel free to redefine entropy while ignoring the definition of entropy that he created?

            I am telling you, the authors of your book are grasping at straws in their theories on heat transfer by radiation. They give no concrete examples of how a two way heat transfer works. They are mechanical engineers and not specialists in atomic theory.

            I have conceded in previous posts that there may be grounds for their theories when two very hot independent radiators of similar temperature radiate at each other. I don’t know. Even they concede that radiation at terrestrial temperatures is insignificant, that radiation only applies at very hot temperatures.

            Your point out that the radiating hotter body cools is correct, however, that does not explain the hotter body absorbing EM from the cooler body. If it does absorb EM it has to warm. The electrons in atoms in the hotter body must rise to a higher energy level at the same time they are trying to go to a lower energy level to emit EM.

            This suggests both bodies must warm, on average. Either that or one must warm and one must cool. Presumably, we are talking about independent radiators, to keep things relatively simple.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            You have to understand that Planck in particular seriously fudged his math to get the results he required.

            What a gigantic lie, that Gordon repeats again and again.

            Planck made an ansatz.

            This is, in fact, where almost all fundamental equations come from. The Einstein equations of GR. F=ma. Schrodinger’s equation. Dirac’s equation. Bohr’s model.

            These (and many more) come from guessing, making a model, and then seeing if it makes predictions that agree with experiment.

            Those that do are kept, and tested again. Those that don’t are discarded.

          • David Appell says:

            Gordon Robertson says:
            Bohrs theories, expanded by Schrodinger to form quantum mechanics, throws out the concept of two BBs radiating at each other since each body MUST absorb the EM from the other according to definition.

            Gordon, each and every time you show how utterly ignorant you are.

            Neither Bohr’s model or Schrodinger’s equation said anything about blackbodies, didn’t come from thinking about blackbodies, and didn’t imply anything about blackbodies.

            Let alone two blackbodies.

            I really hope no one is listening to you.

  131. Snape says:

    An IR thermometer uses the same principle. The sensors emit IR at a rate proportional to their temperature. If you point it at a colder object, the rate of IR emitted will be greater than received. This will produce a change in temperature (cooling), which can be detected by the device.

    The opposite is true when pointed at a warmer object.

    • Kristian says:

      Yes, back to the dime analogy. The point of which none of you got.

      MICRO vs. MACRO. Sounds familiar?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”An IR thermometer uses the same principle. The sensors emit IR at a rate proportional to their temperature. If you point it at a colder object, the rate of IR emitted will be greater than received. This will produce a change in temperature (cooling), which can be detected by the device”.

      No way. Hand held IR detectors use a detector only. It does not transmit. The detector reacts to the frequency of the IR and the unit is pre-calibrated in a lab to equate the received frequency to a specific temperature.

      Hand-helds do not measure the temperature of the source, only the frequency. A more sophisticated bolometer, as used in astronomy, has a pre-cooled detector rated to have a temperature cooler than the target.

      Can you imagine the size of a hand-held with a refrigeration unit to cool the detector?

  132. Norman says:

    Kristian

    Your dime analogy does not apply to the world of radiant energy. The two processes (emission and absorb) are not related. They are independent of each other.

    A correct analogy would be to have a bin of dimes. The rate dimes are removed is only dependent on the total number of dimes in the bin. The rate dimes are added has no connection to the amount of dimes removed. You have two macroscopic activities going on.

    All textbooks on heat transfer state this. So if I am wrong then the entire science of heat transfer is wrong and only you know the truth. The rest of the scientists are wrong and have no clue of what they are saying. They need to consult you to find out what is really going on. Even though you don’t know what is going on and demonstrate you don’t with your dime analogy.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Norman…”All textbooks on heat transfer state this. So if I am wrong then the entire science of heat transfer is wrong and only you know the truth”.

      It’s entirely possible that Kristian is right and the few text books YOU HAVE READ…are wrong.

      I studied electrical engineering and they stubbornly taught that electric current flows positive to negative. That was a theory developed in the 1920s and the paradigm monster prevalent in EE won’t allow it to change. It will likely be taught for another century.

      The entire field of electronics is based on a negative to positive flow and all meters used in the field are calibrated on a negative to positive flow. Leads on meters are often marked red and black in accordance with negative to positive flow.

      The irony is that we had labs using those meters with the red positive lead on a meter and the black negative lead.

      The EE department would have us believe that in a vacuum tube, where electrons are boiled off a tungsten heater and attracted to a 400 volt positive plate, it’s not the electrons flowing from negative to positive, it’s mysterious positive charges flowing from the positive plate to holes left in the tungsten by electrons.

      As Kuhn pointed out, established paradigms are resistant to change sometimes taking decades to give way. I am afraid your two way heat/radiation transfer between bodies of different temperatures is one of those stubborn paradigms that refuses to die.

      The paradigm re heat/radiative transfer taught in the text’s to which you refer seems to have its basis in the days of Boltzmann and Planck, some 120 – 135 years ago. Even at that, there is nothing in the S-B equation that indicates heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures.

      I should point out that the theories of Bolzmann/Planck that seem to persist, pre-date quantum theory by 15 to 30 years, and quantum theory disagrees with the paradigm.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        The current flow debate you brought up is not so clear cut and it seems it is just an arbitrary convention.

        Here is a long debate on the issue.

        https://tinyurl.com/ycadk3ur

        Also this one
        https://tinyurl.com/y7rwqqq3

        “Electrons have a negative charge. Current is Coulombs per second. Coulombs are positive, so a coulomb moving one direction is actually caused by electrons moving the other direction in meta.

        When we discuss current we are discussing the flow of positive charge particles. If the flow of current is actually made up of negative particles flowing in the opposite direction it makes no difference, that is two negatives which cancel. It is just a case of math and sign convention.”

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”Electrons have a negative charge. Current is Coulombs per second. Coulombs are positive, so a coulomb moving one direction is actually caused by electrons moving the other direction in meta”.

          Sometimes I wonder if you are dealing with a full deck. You seem to read nonsense and take it verbatim.

          A coulomb is not a particle and it does not have a positive charge, it is a MEASURE OF CHARGE. Electrons are particles with a negative charge. The particles with the positive charge are protons, and in a conductor they are bound in a lattice so they cannot move.

          In a conductor, the electrons carry the charge and the charge is free to move electron to electron. A coulomb is defined as the quantity of charge in an electrical current of 1 amp per second. The amp is measured in electrons/-ve charges.

          Even wiki is politically-correct about the definition, calling current flow ‘elementary charges’. Sheer nonsense. Protons do not flow, otherwise the entire atom would flow and the conductor would be destroyed.

          I defy these idiots to show me one situation in which protons in a conductor flow positive to negative. It could happen with a beam in an accelerator, where protons as hydrogen nucleii minus their electrons are fired through a vacuum. In air, there would be massive collisions between the protons and the air particles. That happens in electron tubes when air leaks in and the electrons collide with air molecules.

          That’s not what the convention states anyway, they are talking about a positive charge related to an electron vacating a valence band position. Obviously, if there was an electron and it moved, it would leave the atom with a net positive charge, as an ion. That is not a real positive charge, it is a relative positive charge, relative to a normal copper atom.

          How long would such an ionic condition exist with a healthy current running through a conductor? If you were anal, and wanted to track the temporary relatively positive positions you might notice they are moving in the opposite direction as the electrons. That is insufficient justification for claiming it as a current flow and the entire field of electronics, except at the engineering level, have turned their back on that absurdity.

          Even the majority of electrons in copper do not flow, only the valence electrons in the outer shell.

      • David Appell says:

        Gordon, what’s called “positive” and what’s called “negative” is completely arbitrary. There is no cosmis rule on way or the other.

        You just have to be sure to be consistent.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          DA…”Gordon, whats called positive and whats called negative is completely arbitrary. There is no cosmis rule on way or the other”.

          Then you are claiming the difference between an electron and a proton is arbitrary.

          What you are referencing is the practice in circuit analysis that it doesn’t matter which way current flows as long as you keep the voltage drops consistent between battery terminals. That’s what saved me in EE. After years of working in the field of electronics before returning to the uni to study EE, I had become adept at circuit analysis based on a -ve to +ve current flow. I simply ignored their convention and worked the analysis in the opposite direction.

          The arrows in a diode and BJT transistor mark conventional flow. I read them as electrons flowing against the arrow and have never had an issue.

          All I was getting at in my reply to Norman is that old paradigms die hard. In EE, that conventional nonsense has persisted for a century in face of an electronics and electrical industry that recognizes current flow as electron flow from negative to positive. I feel sorry for graduating EEs encountering that reality once they graduate.

          I think much of the radiation theory we get today suffers from the same paradigm resistance. I did not encounter it at all in electronics communication theory since we always treated EM as a separate energy from the electrical current that created it.

          We treated EM as induction and in essence that’s still what it is when related to heat conversion. EM is caused by the motion of electrons in a conductor in communications circles and in the atom itself, it’s due to an instantaneous, albeit unexplained, timeless transition between energy orbitals by an electron in an atom.

          In electronics, a radiative field around a conductor is treated as a near-field form of EM whereas in an atom, when the EM leaves the atom, it is regarded as far-field radiation.

          However you look at it, the EM is not heat and it cannot be summed as heat. With heat, the 2nd law must apply, and that means from hot to cold with no summation involved.

  133. Entropic man says:

    Kristian

    “Energy is the capacity for doing work”.

    “Heat is work and work is heat”.

    Heat is not a separate entity, it is just another form of energy.

    As long as you fail to grasp this elementary concept any meaningful conversation with the rest of the scientific community is going to be unproductive.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”Heat is work and work is heat.”

      More correctly, heat is the equivalent of work. They are not the same, they have different units. Heat is thermal energy and work is mechanical energy. One converts to the other and one is used up during the conversion.

      Joule proved that circa 1940+ in a rather brilliant experiment. He immersed a small paddle in water and observed the power used by the paddle and the subsequent increase of water temperature. Based on that he gave a conversion factor between heat and work, or vice-versa.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Heat and Work do not have different units. Both are in joules the basic unit of energy and they produce the same result on the internal energy of a system. When said and done there is no real difference. If the system loses heat or does work it loses energy (joules).

        Again you use Heat incorrectly. You think Heat and Internal Energy are the same. You are wrong.

        Here is the correct form.

        http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/firlaw.html

        Someday, I hope, you will understand. Heat is what is added or subtracted from Internal Energy. It is not the same as internal energy. If Internal Energy does not change the Heat is zero. I am not sure how you got so confused and I am less sure of why you stay in such a confused state. Look again at the equation.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Norman…”Heat and Work do not have different units. Both are in joules the basic unit of energy…”

          bob/des…”How uneducated in physics must one be to believe that heat and work have different units”.

          DA..”Still Gordon fancies himself an expert in science”.

          *********

          I hope you guys get it that you are making complete asses of yourself on a potential international stage.

          I said heat and work do not have units in common I did not say they have no equivalent energy. In fact, I pointed out the equivalence, giving the experiment of Joule as an example.

          Do you not get it? Joule??? He did an experiment proving the EQUIVALENCE of heat and work, and the Joule is a term of equivalence, not a unit of measure for each.

          Here it is from Clausius, because Normie thinks I make this up:

          “While the mechanical principle asserts that the changes in the Vis Viva [kinetic energy] and in the corresponding Work done are actually equal to each other, the principle which expresses the relation between Heat and Work is one of Proportion only. The reason is that heat and work are not measured on the same scale. Work is measured by the mechanical unit of the kilogrammetre, whilst the unit of heat, chosen for convenience of measurement, is That amount of heat which is required to raise one kilogram of water from 0C to 1C ( Centigrade). Hence the relation existing between heat and work can be one of proportion only, and the numerical value must be specially determined”.

          “If this numerical value is so chosen as to give the work corresponding to an unit of heat, it is called the Mechanical Equivalent of Heat; if on the contrary it gives the heat corresponding to an unit of work, it is called the Thermal Equivalent of Work. We shall denote the former by E, and the latter by 1/E”.

          *******

          The Joule is the MECHANICAL EQUIVALENT OR THE THERMAL EQUIVALENT.

          If you continue to read Wikipedia and take it verbatim you will become even more stupid than you are now.

          **********

          “The result, expressed in English measures, is that in order to produce an amount of heat which will raise 1 pound of water through 1 degree Fahrenheit, an amount of work equal to 772.695 foot-pounds must be consumed”.

          ********

          Will one you rocket-scientists tell me where you have seen heat rated in foot-pounds, or work rated in degrees F?

          I warned in an earlier post about taking these stupid honorary units out of context. A Joule equates heat and work through equivalence not through direct units. The direct units in my day were calories for heat and the calorie makes far more sense than a Joule. A calorie is defined as the amount of heat required to raise a cc of water through 1C. In his reference above, Clausius was referring to a kilocalorie.

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, I think you are confused because of the post Clausius advances in the understanding of entropy. Heat may be converted into work, but a process which can accomplish this conversion is never 100% efficient. That’s because the real world we live in has a surrounding temperature much above absolute zero and Carnot cycle devices must use the surrounding environment as a heat sink for their lower temperature. Thus, BTU’s can never be completely converted to the equivalent in pound-feet. The pre-internal combustion engines werre steam powered, which was much less efficient than the ideal Carnot cycle. It’s clear to me that Clausius was writing about mechanical systems and processes, thus his 1854 statement of the Second Law was an early attempt to discuss this limitation.

      • Bobdesbond says:

        How uneducated in physics must one be to believe that heat and work have different units.

  134. barry says:

    Guess what?

    UAH change their data on a regular basis. There are numerous changes to monthly anomalies between the December 2017 update and the latest update. I checked.

    People who criticize changes simply because there ARE changes are not skeptics. They are idiots.

    I challenge those critics (eg, Bart, Gordon) to explain why UAH keep revising monthly anomaly data without publishing papers for each revision.

    It will be interesting to see how this fits with their ‘narrative’.

  135. Gordon Robertson says:

    barry…”People who criticize changes simply because there ARE changes are not skeptics. They are idiots.

    I challenge those critics (eg, Bart, Gordon) to explain why UAH keep revising monthly anomaly data without publishing papers for each revision”.

    UAH does not discard over 75% of it’s data and fudge the missing data in a climate model using statistical interpolation and homogenization.

    UAH does not retroactively fudge data to change the trend from a flat trend to a positive trend.

    Neither do they declare mild years as the hottest on record by reducing the confidence level.

    And that would be Mr. Idiot to you.

    • Bart says:

      When the changes go so overwhelmingly in the direction of producing greater consistency with the prevailing paradigm, you don’t have to be a weather man to know which way the wind is blowing. Barry is being extremely naive.

    • David Appell says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      UAH does not retroactively fudge data to change the trend from a flat trend to a positive trend.

      Wow, you’re completely unaware of the history of the UAH record, and of all the effort in the 1990s to get the UAH group to finally accept that they made a sign error that changed their trend from negative to positive.

      You really should learn about that before making grand pronouncements.

      UAH has a long history of corrections, as all time series do (though UAH’s have generally been larger; for example about 3 times larger than the NO_AA corrections Gordon rails against).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        DA…”UAH has a long history of corrections…”

        Do you ever read these articles before posting them? This one is ridiculous and it has that alarmist odour of William Connolley the resident uber-alarmist from real science.

        Here are the corrections ALLEGEDLY applied:

        0, -0.03, +0.03, +0.1, -0.07, +0.008, -0.004, +0.035, 0, 0, -0.026.

        2 and 3 cancel,

        Throw out 6 and 7 since they measure in thousandths of a degree.

        That leaves us with (+0.1 – 0.07 + 0.035 -0.026)/4 = 0.0098C

        What are you whining about? One one-hundredths of a degree C?

        Besides, the 0.01C for 1998 was in the Tropics only and it was within the declared margin of error. It barely affected the global average. It looks to me like all the errors were within the margin of error.

        That’s not what you see with NOAA and GISS. You see blatant changes in the data retroactively as well as over 75% of real data being thrown out and replaced with data synthesized in a climate model. Not only that, you see confidence levels halved and reduced by two-thirds to make cool years appear as record warmth.

        • E. Swanson says:

          Gordo, There have been other questions raised regarding the UAH products. For example, UAH never published a description of the method used to construct their TLT before V6. The latest V6 is based on models of the absorp-tion and emission of oxygen and these models rely on the same theoretical foundation as that for the effects of CO2 on IR EM radiation, aka, AGW.

          RSS removes regions which include high mountains and also the Antarctic poleward of 70S for the same reason. UAH continues to include these data and even interpolates beyond the available data over the poles, a dubious choice. As I recall, the earlier data was scrubbed of the influence of intense storms, since the effects of hydrometeors appears as cooler brightness temperature measurements. This process appears to have been dropped for the latest V6, thus a trend of increasing storm intensity would bleed into the UAH product, perhaps as a cooling trend.

          Do you really want to bet the farm on one set of data?

          • E. Swanson says:

            Gordo, another point for your closed mind to consider. The original UAH TLT used the MSU channel 2 measurements, which gave 11 data points for each scan across the ground track. The algorithm included only the 8 outermost positions, ignoring the middle three around nadir. Of the 8 positions, only four were actually used to define the core value, the other four were used in a correction of the first four. Thus, one might say that only 4 of the 11 data points were actually included or 36% of the available data.

  136. Snape says:

    Gordon

    “If the target object is warmer than the viewing end of the thermopile, the net IR flow is from the object toward the thermopile, which begins to warm. Circuitry measures how fast those temperature changes occur and extrapolates an estimate of the target objects temperature. (The thermometer has no idea what the infrared emissivity of the object is, so my unit simply assumes an emissivity of 0.95).

    If the target object is colder than the thermocouple, the net flow of IR radiation is from the thermocouple to the object, and the thermocouple cools.”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”If the target object is warmer than the viewing end of the thermopile, the net IR flow is from the object toward the thermopile, which begins to warm”.

      Not possible in a hand-held, there is no sink (detector) in it able to warm/cool due to IR. Hand-helds measure frequency only, not heat due to IR. They have an algorithm or look-up table to convert the detected frequency to the EQUIVALENT IR temperature.

      You are describing an expensive bolometer with a cooled detector. In that case, there would never be an IR flow that could be absorbed from the detector to a warmer target.

      • Nate says:

        Gordon,

        As I showed you before,

        ‘Not possible in a hand-held, there is no sink (detector) in it able to warm/cool due to IR. ‘

        That is absolutely FALSE.

        Two of my handhelds have thermopiles in them. Most on the market do.

  137. Snape says:

    For some reason, I’m not able to show the link. Search: Direct Evidence of Earths Greenhouse Effect/Roy Spencer

  138. Snape says:

    Kristian

    “The earths surface OUTPUT in w/m^2

    emits IR ~ 398.2
    Evaporation: 86.4 conduction/convection: 18.4
    Total: 503”

    *******

    Yes, the 86.4 is a net: Latent heat UP – latent heat DOWN. Since we don’t have an actual figure, let’s look at how the math would work and imagine latent heat UP = 286.4

    The 18.4 is a net as well:
    Imagine conduction/convection UP = 118.4

    Using those numbers, we get the following surface OUTPUT:

    Emits IR: 398.2
    Evaporation: 286.4
    Conduction: 118.4
    Total: 803

    Like I said before, if the total INPUT is less than that, the surface will cool. If the total INPUT is greater, the surface will warm. Simple!
    (The idea is the same regardless of the numbers we plug in)

    ******

    A heat flux diagram using those figures requires an extra calculation (4th grade math):

    SW DOWN: 163.3
    LW UP: 398.2 – 340.3 = 57.9
    Evaporation UP: 286.4 – 200 = 86.4
    Conduction/convection UP: 118.4 – 100 = 18.4

    Total heat down: 163.3
    Total heat up: 162.7

    ********

    Two ways of looking at the same thing. Changes nothing.

    • Kristian says:

      Snape says, June 9, 2018 at 10:48 PM:

      Two ways of looking at the same thing. Changes nothing.

      Duh! What have I been trying to tell you all this time, Snape!?

      The mathematical RESULT will be exactly the same. That’s a no-brainer. THAT’S not the objection.

      The problem is not in the net result. Just like the problem is not in the EFFECT. The effect arises from the net result, after all.

      The problem is only – and as always – in the “back radiation” EXPLANATION of the effect. Which has been pointed out ad nauseam over the last couple of few years. But to no avail. Because you just don’t see it. None of you do.

      It is when you TREAT the two ‘hemifluxes’ (none of which are heats, that is, thermodynamically independent fluxes of energy) as SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT entities in your explanation that you violate the 2nd Law. Not otherwise. Not as long as you keep them safely inside the same bracket, always together, integrated into ONE (net) transfer.

      It is only in treating them as separate thermodynamic fluxes that you violate thermodynamic laws, Snape.

      • barry says:

        The church of thermodynamics admits no heresy, but in the physical world radiation passes to and from hot and cold objects and both are affected by the exchange.

  139. Norman says:

    Kristian

    I do not care one bit if you quit responding to me. I won’t let you discredit my intelligence and leave. I don’t care if you respond or not but I will defend myself against your unfounded attacks.

    YOU: “That really is priceless. I do, Norm. All the time. However, you keep ignoring it. Every single time. You did it again just above. I cant force you to read, force you to understand. I can only lead the horse to the water ”

    NO you do not link to textbooks on heat transfer that support you view. You link to your own blog and act like an expert. Not to valid science.

  140. Norman says:

    Kristian

    ME: “The flow you cant measure at all is the HEAT FLUX of 33 W/m^2 that is moving IR from the surface to the atmosphere. There is no instrument you could measure this with.

    YOU: Yes there is. It is called a THERMAL RADIOMETRIC DETECTOR. A pyrgeometer uses a thermal radiometric detector (a thermopile). Bolometers and microbolometers are also thermal detectors.”

    So where are these measurements? Where is this 33 or 53 W/m^2 measurements you claim are measured? Find a link or source to prove your statement. This confirms what I say about you. You make claims with no supporting evidence. You do it often.

    Here is the actual values:
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b1cba7565ab5.png

    You point a detector up and get a DWIR
    Point another detector down and you get UPIR

    No value gives you a heat flux

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b1cba4c71a9c.png

    This is the Heat Flux from surface into atmosphere. It is a calculated value. This value is the difference between the two measured energy flows. Negative because the heat flux is leaving the surface.

    You spend considerable time trying to explain how these detectors work. They measure a NET between the detector and the IR you want to measure. They do not measure the NET heat flux from the Surface to the atmosphere. I have already told you that you can cool a sensor with liquid helium and there is no real NET, you will get a pure measure of the actual value of DWIR. Scientists found that room temperature sensors gave a close enough value that they could save no the refrigeration. I do not know what you are trying to point out with your long explanation of how the detectors work. They still don’t measure a heat flux between surface and air. You have yet to link to a source that does that. You won’t and you can’t because you don’t understand what you think you do.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      I may have missed your explanation of how the IR detectors work. What are they called? Do you have a link to the details where I could check your explanation vs. Kristian’s?

  141. Norman says:

    Kristian

    ME: “The UWLWIR and DWLWIR ar not conceptual parts of an actual heat flux.”

    YOU: “Yes, they are.”

    ME: “The heat flux is derived from these quantities ()”

    YOU: “No, the opposite is true.”

    No Mr. Backward. The energy flows are the measured value not the Heat flux. That is what is derived from the energy flows.

    All heat transfer problems, that find heat flow, find the individual energy flows and use these to calculate a surface heat flow.

    Find one heat flow problem that has a heat flow and then uses this to find energy flows. Find one that works backward like you think it works.

    I can tell you that you can’t. If you have a heat flow say of 100 Watts/m^2 you can’t find what the energy flows are.

    The equation: q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac

    You can’t determine any of the variable temperatures from that value so you will be unable to determine the energy flows. But if you have the energy flows, you can find the heat flow.

    The first term (Th^4) is the energy emitted by a surface at a certain temperature. The second term is (Tc^4) the energy the surface absorbs from the surroundings. When plugged in you can see how much heat flows from the hot surface. That is the only time you will be able to find the heat flow. You can’t measure this value with a detector. You can measure the radiant energy emitted by the hot object by pointing the detector at it. You can measure the radiant energy moving to the the hot surface by pointed the detector 180 away from the surface. You can’t measure a heat flow from the hot object because the heat flow is a sum of two values. There is no Heat flux moving through space. There are two energy flows moving through each other, one moving away from the surface (emitted) and the other moving toward the surface (absorbed). No measurable heat flux. The heat flux is a variable quantity that depends upon what is around the hot surface. The energy flows are independent and do not depend upon any outside energy. The depend only upon the object’s temperature (and emissivity). You are the backward thinker and you won’t supply any data to support your point.

    You bluster and puff but never provide data.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Norman,

      I can’t speak for Kristian, but I will try to explain why he says UWLWIR and DWLWIR are derived from a heat flux, not the opposite.

      You say “If you have a heat flow say of 100 Watts/m^2 you cant find what the energy flows are.” But how did you come up with a measurement of 100 W/m2 in the first place? By some detector right? If I were to build an IR detector, I would calibrate it using known temperatures. One of the temperatures will always be my device’s temperature, because that is the one reference temperature that I can use to determine all unknown temperatures once my device is calibrated. How do I calibrate my detector? I point my detector at an object with a known temperature. Using your q = e(sigma)(T1^4 – T2^4)Ac equation, I can convert the temperature differences into a heat flux.

      Now that my detector is calibrated, I can measure some unknown heat fluxes. So I point my detector up and measure a heat flux from my detector to cooler air above (DWLWIR). If I turn the detector around 180 degrees, I can measure another heat flux from the surface to my detector (UWLWIR). If I subract (or add?) the two, I think that calculation constitutes a net heat flux.

      I think both you and Kristian are describing the same phenomena, but you are looking at it through a rear view mirror.

      But then I read this:

      “There is no Heat flux moving through space.”

      And I wonder could you possible think that heat doesn’t come in from the sun and go out at the TOA, both of them measurable heat fluxes?????????????

      • Norman says:

        Chic Bowdrie

        There is no Heat flux moving through space.

        It is in the context of what I am talking about. Not a general statement. I am stating you don’t have any energy flux of 33 W/m^2 actually moving from the surface to the atmosphere. You have an energy flux of 390 or so W/m^2 moving through space. I may write confusing post if I type too fast (I do notice a lot of typos in my posts).

        This may help. If you use Kristian’s thinking the solar incoming flux at the TOA can not be 1362 W/m^2 because you have to subtract the 240 emitted by the Earth. So the Solar flux is only a real energy flow of 1,122 W/m^2. There is no two way flows in his world.

        You may believe this, I don’t and have not seen any proof of his assertions.

        I am saying there is not a 33 or 53 Watt flow of energy that is detectable, it does not exist as an actual flow of energy. The actual flows are like this:
        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b1df17f5a715.png

        These are the actual measurable energy flows.
        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b1df1c7da8b8.png

        This is what is calculated by taking the difference between the actual energy flows.

        Where is the instrument that measures a heat flow?

      • Kristian says:

        Chic Bowdrie says, June 10, 2018 at 8:10 PM:

        I can’t speak for Kristian, but I will try to explain why he says UWLWIR and DWLWIR are derived from a heat flux, not the opposite.

        You say “If you have a heat flow say of 100 Watts/m^2 you cant find what the energy flows are.” But how did you come up with a measurement of 100 W/m2 in the first place? By some detector right?

        Indeed. And he has been shown and explained this simple fact a hundred times. But he just reflexively blocks off that part of his brain whenever he perceives something that might conflict with his narrow belief system.

        Norman doesn’t understand this and is utterly unwilling to learn. He will just repeat the same mantra over and over, as if only for comfort and solace, without ever even attempting to think things through, to take in the new information.

        This is what we call “cognitive dissonance” and “dissonance reduction”:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Reduction

        What he will do is just “Ignore or deny information that conflicts with [his] existing beliefs.”

        You will never get through to such a specimen, Chic. You see the way he operates …

        • Norman says:

          Kristian

          I am throwing out the BS flag on your rant. I get tired of your endless crap against me when I link you over an over to actual science. It says exactly the same thing I am saying. You are unable to find any material that disagrees with me so you attack my intelligence. You act like I am this closed minded idiot. This annoys me and is a false tactic.

          I ask you to provide proof and evidence of your claims and you do not.

          On the instrument I have already told you in the past, you can surround the detector with liquid helium and the only input and NET will be the actual value of the DWIR or the UPIR and you will have values very near to the ones used at air temperature. The NET measured is not the HEAT FLOW from the surface to the atmosphere. IT IS THE HEAT FLOW of the instrument temperature and either the DWIR or the UPIR.

          I looked up your Classical Thermodynamics.

          “Classical thermodynamics[edit]

          Classical thermodynamics is the description of the states of thermodynamic systems at near-equilibrium, that uses macroscopic, measurable properties. It is used to model exchanges of energy, work and heat based on the laws of thermodynamics. The qualifier classical reflects the fact that it represents the first level of understanding of the subject as it developed in the 19th century and describes the changes of a system in terms of macroscopic empirical (large scale, and measurable) parameters. A microscopic interpretation of these concepts was later provided by the development of statistical mechanics.”

          You are a Gordon Robertson clone. The energy flows are macroscopic and you dime analogy is garbage and does not apply. You do not understand photon flows and think they act like solid particles colliding with each other and changing direction. No you are the one with issues not me. You are not an authority on the topic and make up stuff rather than attempt to support it with evidence. You exactly ignore evidence that conflicts with your made up version of thermodynamics and dime analogies.

          You are a silly person as you describe yourself and attribute it to me.

          YOU: “Norman doesn’t understand this and is utterly unwilling to learn. He will just repeat the same mantra over and over, as if only for comfort and solace, without ever even attempting to think things through, to take in the new information.”

          I look in textbooks. I link you to several different sources. I copy and paste some of the material.

          You make stupid claims that what they are stating is not what they mean when they say that a surface has two energy flows to it. One is the energy it emits (based upon its temperature) and the other is the energy it absorbs from its surroundings.

          The heat flow is the calculated value of the difference between what is emitted and what is absorbed. It is not my mantra, it is what all valid sources of heat transfer say. NOT one says these energy flows are modeled. All claim they are real macroscopic measureable flows of energy with the heat being the NET calculated sum of the energy flows.

          You attack my character with stupid points but will NEVER seem to find evidence to disprove any of what I state. You have not done so yet and I do not expect you to do so in the future. If you supply a valid source of science to support your opinion I will read it and learn. I am not going to reject valid science because of your stupid dime analogy. Not a good analogy at all!

          • phi says:

            Norman,

            The NET measured is not the HEAT FLOW from the surface to the atmosphere. IT IS THE HEAT FLOW of the instrument temperature and either the DWIR or the UPIR.

            Good. So, you agree that only heat flows are directly detectable, that the two-way model can be correct but that the double flows are inseparable anyway?

          • Norman says:

            phi

            YOU: “Good. So, you agree that only heat flows are directly detectable, that the two-way model can be correct but that the double flows are inseparable anyway?”

            I am not sure what you mean by double flows are inseparable.

            The energy flowing from the atmosphere is an independent energy flow created by the temperature of the atmosphere and moves downward through the upwelling energy flow from the surface without changing the upward flow.

            You will have to explain what you mean and hopefully you will not be like Kristian and state your opinion about it with no supporting evidence or come up with a dime analogy.

            How are there not two energy flows moving in opposite directions if you have two emitting sources? Explain please.

          • phi says:

            Norman

            I am not sure what you mean by double flows are inseparable.

            They are undetectable separately. You can only admit that there are two opposite flows of energy, it’s a model, not more.

            The energy flowing from the atmosphere is an independent energy flow created by the temperature of the atmosphere and moves downward through the upwelling energy flow from the surface without changing the upward flow.

            No. By virtue of the second principle, which has a lot to do with entropy, the energy flow modeled from a cold body to a hot body can not have an independent effect on matter. Never this modeled energy flow can be used to provide work.

            I repeat it again and again. The evocation of backradiations in the framework of the theory of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with the understood physics but has for origin a trick used by the theorists: Ramanathan and Coakley 1978, chapter convective adjustment.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I agree with phi. The two energy flows are inseparable. You can’t split the q = e(sigma)(T1^4 – T2^4) into two halves except conceptually.

            I’m starting another thread to pick up on another disturbing sentence in your latest response to Kristian.

          • Nate says:

            Phi,

            Look, if the cold dark side of the moon emits IR towards Earth, and it takes ~ 1.3 s to make the journey, then of course it exists on the journey, independent of the telescope which intercepts it. Just as the outgoing IR emitted by the telescope exists, independent of the moon.

            The telescope could have been pointed to empty space, next to the moon, and would receive much less IR, in that case.

            If it were a thermopyle, it would indicate a higher temperature when pointed at the moon than when pointed at space.

            I don’t see how this squares with

            ‘No. By virtue of the second principle, which has a lot to do with entropy, the energy flow modeled from a cold body to a hot body can not have an independent effect on matter.’

          • phi says:

            Nate,
            I do not see very well what bothers you. What happens between the moon and the telescope is not determined or at least not directly determinable. What can be detected is only through a material interaction and thus in the form of an unidirectional heat flow. The rest is modeling and calculation.

            The important thing is that there is not the slightest possibility of separating the two supposed opposite flows. Backradiations can be modeled as an energy flow, it is only a modeling of a calculated entity. They have absolutely not the status of a heat flux and have not a direct effect, they are only a measure of a decrease in the cooling capacity.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Backradiations can be modeled as an energy flow, it is only a modeling of a calculated entity.’

            So, the IR emitted by the moon is only a ‘calculated entity’? Its not a real flow of energy? Did it only materialize upon striking the detector?

            You are getting into the philosophical mumbo-jumbo of what is the nature of reality, or some such nonsense.

            Such things that can be said of almost any measurement: temperature, mass, etc. All are quantities calculated from a measurement of something else.

          • phi says:

            Nate,
            No, a mass can be isolated, a temperature measured by its direct effect. Backradiations are just a model, they have no independent existence and no independent effect. You confuse with irradiance which is a valid and measurable notion.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Backradiations are just a model, they have no independent existence’

            I see, argument by assertion.

            ‘No, a mass can be isolated, a temperature measured by its direct effect.’

            If I wanted measure mass and temperature of a moon rock, how would I do that, except through its interaction with my measuring devices?

          • Nate says:

            Phi,

            Got nothin? Ok.

            Let me just add that every course on radiative heat transfer teaches that energy flows from both surfaces, E1, E2.

            And that the net energy (heat) transfer is simply the difference (accounting for view factors, F_12).

            Such as this one from MIT

            http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html

            wherein they say:

            The energy leaving body 1 and arriving (and being absorbed) at body 2 is E_1 A_1 F_1-2 . The energy leaving body 2 and being absorbed at body 1 is E_2 A_2 F_2-1 . The net energy interchange from body 1 to body 2 is

            E_1 A_1 F_1-2 – E_2 A_2 F_2-1 = Qdot_1-2

          • David Appell says:

            phi says:
            Backradiations are just a model

            All objects radiate. So, so does the atmosphere.

            Backradiation is just the radiation from the atmosphere.

            It can be measured, and has.

            Why is this so difficult to accept?

  142. Norman says:

    Kristian

    YOU: “Back to the dime analogy. You know, the one you didnt get.

    MICRO (quantum) => statistical mechanics => MACRO (thermo)”

    Your dime analogy is not a good one. It does not represent what is going on in the real world.

    The energy flows are both macro. They are not statistical. They exist and are measured daily. You push points that are not based upon reality. At a surface you have a macroscopic amount of energy emitted and you have a macroscopic amount of energy absorbed. Heat is the derived dependent value that depends upon both these energies.

  143. Norman says:

    Kristian

    YOU: “MICRO: each individual photon
    MACRO: the full exchange”

    Indeed. The full exchange of energy emitted which are all the photons leaving the surface. A macroscopic energy flow of zillions of photons all moving away from an emitting surface. At the same time a separate and macroscopic energy flow of zillions of photons moving through the emitted photons with no interaction and absorbed by the surface.

    No one is talking about individual photons. You just don’t know that photons are not molecules, they do not collide with each other to produce a gas of photons moving in all directions.

    You can prove yourself wrong with simple tests you can do at home.

    Take an IR camera or sensing device. Point it at your stove and you detect lots of IR entering the device. Now point it 90 away from the stove and you detect nothing from the stove. That is because the photons are moving away from the stove in straight lines. They are not colliding and moving every which way. I think you need to read up on the nature of photons. They do not behave as mass particles. They move through each other. Ball4 has attempted numerous times to tell you this. So far it seems it was wasted effort.

  144. ren says:

    A big drop in temperature in western North America.
    https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00966/8vhm46y3t851.png

  145. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Norman,

    Continued from your comment on an earlier thread: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306651

    “I stated that the emission rate is dependent upon temperature earlier.”

    What you actually wrote earlier was this:

    “It is very simple. The Earths surface will radiate IR based upon its temperature (the other values are mostly constant so they will not change).”

    That does not imply that “IR emission from the surface is an independent variable,” which is what troubled me and why I called foul.

    “[The emission rate] is independent of the energy the surface absorbs. Do you understand that point? It is in the original post.”

    I now understand how wrong your point was and still is. The emission rate is dependent on temperature which is in turn dependent on, not independent of, the energy the surface absorbs. How could the temperature of anything not be dependent on how much energy it absorbs?

    “I never stated that the surface emission rate was independent of the surface temperature.”

    What you wrote was “IR emission from the surface is an independent variable.”

    You can’t have it both ways.

    • Norman says:

      Chic Bowdrie

      You still do not understand the concept I am stating. It was a statement against Kristian’s dime analogy.

      What that statement “IR emission from the surface is an independent variable.”

      It is independent of the energy the surface absorbs. The energy that is absorbed does not determine the emission rate. Only the temperature does. The absorbed rate can cause the temperature to increase which in turn will cause the emission rate to increase but the emission rate does not depend at all on the rate the surface absorbs.

      It is not as difficult as you seem to make it.

      If you have a surface at 100 C and it emits IR at a 1090 W/m^2, then you add a hot IR source that it absorbs that is emitting 2000 W/m^2 to the surface. This 2000 W/m^2 does not change the rate of emission. It will still emit the 1090 W/m^2 until the temperature changes which is dependent upon lots of variables. Heat capacity, mass, conductivity of the material.

      It is a counter to what some claim. It would be like the surface stop emitting 1090 W/m^2 and not only absorbs 910 W/m^2. I find that position ludicrous and not supported by any science.

      If you want you can have the case where the surface is emitting 1090 W/m^2 and receiving 1090 W/m^2. In this case the emission rate won’t change at all. The emission rate can be changed by external IR but only when the surface temperature changes. That is what I mean when I say it is independent of the energy absorbed. The absorbed energy has no DIRECT effect on the amount emitted. The two are separate processes. They both affect the temperature of the surface but they are independent of each other. If that does not clear it up for you I am not sure what will.

      • Idiot tracker says:

        That is what I mean when I say it is independent of the energy absorbed.

        Indeed, Norman.

        And this “independence” is precisely the result of thermalization and the existence of local thermodynamic equilibrium and a well defined local temperature that describes the statistical distribution of the internal energy among the various molecules and their degrees of freedom.

        All concepts, your interlocutor has absolutely no clue what they mean yet readily invokes in his blabber as alleged evidence against CO2 GHE.

        Hilarious.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          You have now earned the distinction of troll #2. That does not mean you are any less vapid or annoying than the other troll.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Norman,

        “If that does not clear it up for you I am not sure what will.”

        What will clear it up is for you to stop making statements that are either wrong or misleading. I think Kristian has sized you up correctly. You are stuck in a paradigm likely caused by the whole “CO2 causes global warming” assumption. Everything you write follows from that. Why not start with the null hypothesis and look for evidence to the contrary?

        Another sidebar, I think you have a misunderstanding concerning energy transfer. Here again I think you are stuck in an energy diagram world where average energy fluxes can be added up as a zero-sum game. In the real world, energy is constantly moving around only constrained by the physical laws, like the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer and heat diffusion equations. These equations are so complicated, there still is no solution for the change in surface temperature with time as a function of all the radiative, evaporative, and conductive processes occurring at the same time.

        Anyway, back to the issue of the independence of IR emission. Your belief seems to be that IR emission from a surface is independent of the energy that the surface absorbs. You say it is not as difficult [to understand] as I seem to make it. Then you provide several examples that are incoherent, contradictory, or just plain wrong. I don’t see how you expect anyone to understand, let alone someone like me who has been following your discussions with Kristian.

        The emission from a surface depends on its temperature. The surface temperature depends on the surface’s energy inputs and outputs. There is no independence there at all unless you specify a condition where the temperature cannot change, i.e. a controlled experiment. Even then, temperature is the independent variable not the IR emission. How would you hold the emission constant while temperature is not? In other words, how can you hold the emission constant without holding every other energy flux at the surface constant?

        • Norman says:

          Chic Bowdrie

          YOU: “The emission from a surface depends on its temperature. The surface temperature depends on the surfaces energy inputs and outputs.”

          Right. That makes emission dependent upon temperature only, not the input energy. I actually think I clearly stated it. The temperature is the variable that determines emission rate. The amount of energy absorbed does not directly affect the emission rate.

          The emission rate does not directly depend upon the rate it absorbs.

          If you vary the energy received by the surface the emission rate does not change with this energy in a direct dependent fashion. You could cycle the energy a surface receives in such a way that the temperature does not change and the emission rate would not change.

          If the emission rate were directly dependent upon the rate of incoming energy it would exactly match. If you increase the incoming energy the emission rate would change right away. The emission rate is only dependent upon the surface temperature. The surface temperature is dependent upon the emission and absorbed rates. I don’t think I can explain it to you any better. If you don’t want to attempt to understand what I am saying then I can’t help you.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Norman,

            “The emission rate [of a surface] does not directly depend upon the rate [that surface] absorbs [energy].”

            If I paraphrased you correctly, then I need to ask a follow up question.

            Let emission rate be E = ae(T^4) and T = V + W – X – Y – Z. Isn’t E dependent on any change in V, W, X, Y, or Z?

            If you can’t see why you aren’t making sense, then I can’t help you.

            Well, maybe one last try. If A depends on B and B depends on C, then logically doesn’t A depend on C?

            OK, this is definitely the last try:

            “The emission rate is only dependent upon the surface temperature. The surface temperature is dependent upon the emission and absorbed rates.”

            The logic of those two sentences is: A is only dependent on B. B is dependent on A and D. So, how can A be an independent variable?

          • Norman says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            You are intelligent and have good arguments.

            But you still are not understanding my point at all. Your point is correct but it is not the same one I am stating.

            I have already said that the energy absorbed can change the temperature. I am not oblivious to this reality and even stated it (I believe more than once).

            The change in temperature is not a given by the amount of energy absorbed. So the rate of emission is not set by the amount of energy absorbed.

            I am making a simple point that the two processes are not directly linked as some skeptics (like Kristian and Gordon Robertson) believe them to be. You can’t directly change the emission rate by varying the energy you send to the surface. The absorbed energy is not changing the process of emission. It has no direct effect. I think the problem is with your and view of the concept of direct effect and indirect effects. You

            You can change the surface temperature by changing the amount of energy absorbed but that absorbed energy does not directly affect the rate of emission. The energy must be absorbed, turned into random kinetic energy, distributed in such a way as it will increase the surface temperature.

            In Steady State conditions the energy being emitted by a surface equals the energy being absorbed. The temperature does not change over the long run.

            It might be hard to debate with you since your understanding of words and meaning is on another level than mine. I will not say yours is wrong and mine is right. I would view the global temperature to be in a near steady state condition with some warming going on. You do not think it is such. We have vastly different understandings here. In your understanding of this concept you do not think a global temperature that has a maximum temperature difference in 39 years of 1.4 C is a Steady State condition. In my view that is really close to a Steady State.

            If I have a pool of water that only varied 1 C in 40 years I would think that the energy in and out are very close to balanced.

            YOUR POINT “Well, maybe one last try. If A depends on B and B depends on C, then logically doesnt A depend on C?”

            The thing is that B (surface temperature) does not directly depend upon C (energy absorbed). Surface temperature depends upon both A and C. It is not an isolated problem and in the most likely case for most heated systems, they achieve a steady state at some point.

            I do not think your logic thought applies in the case of surface temperature and emission.

            Some more, Snape tried to help you with the water example.

            If you had a swimming pool at 30 C. It is emitting radiant energy at a certain rate. If you take a heat lamp that emits 150 Watts of energy and shine it on the pool you will not see any measurable effect on the water temperature you may not even be able to measure a change in emission rate. You take the same heat lamp and shine it on a cup of water and you get a measurable effect very soon on the water temperature. Both water sources are absorbing the same amount of energy. The effect is much different. It would be hard in any real world situation where I would see that energy absorbed had a direct effect on the emission rate. It will have an indirect effect and may show up in time but it will not be a direct one.

          • phi says:

            Norman,

            What characterizes your speech is the total absence of a thermodynamic framework.

            Once again, these delusional words (I do not think only of yours, it is a standard with the greenhouse effect), do not have for origin any ambiguity of the laws of thermodynamics but the practical impossibility to calculate convection. This impossibility led theorists to evacuate thermodynamics from the quantitative theory of the greenhouse effect. See Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 : convective adjustment.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Norman,

            “If you take a heat lamp that emits 150 Watts of energy and shine it on the pool you will not see any measurable effect on the water temperature you may not even be able to measure a change in emission rate.”

            Just because the increase in temperature is too little to measure, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The resulting rise in pool temperature will result no doubt in an equally immeasurable increase in emissions and some additional evaporation, too.

            More on this in the new thread.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Norman….”The change in temperature is not a given by the amount of energy absorbed”.

            Huh??? Since temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of atoms/molecules in a body, and you add energy, why would the temperature not respond in proportion?

            What kind of energy could you add besides thermal energy or mechanical energy from work? You could add thermal energy by doing work on the system or irradiating it with EM from a hotter source, or by transferring heat from a hotter body or putting the body in contact with heated air.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            YOU: “Norman….”The change in temperature is not a given by the amount of energy absorbed”.

            Huh??? Since temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of atoms/molecules in a body, and you add energy, why would the temperature not respond in proportion?”

            This is why you cannot understand the GHE and need to make up a distorted concept of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

            You can add energy and not increase the temperature. None of the skeptics can grasp the easy and real concept. If you would open your mind to the idea that energy can flow in more than one direction.

            You seem like a researcher, why not do some study of the nature of photons. They do not exchange energy with each other. They can move through each other with not exchange. They do not behave like electrons, protons or any other subatomic particle. They are not like electrons responding to an electric potential, they do not act like air molecules that move based upon pressure gradients. They move through each other.

            I have not had a reasonable reply from any of the skeptics. Kristian ignores me, you don’t have an answer. phi certainly will not answer, maybe Chic Bowdrie will.

            Question is, why do you think that two objects with temperature will not both radiate energy. Why do you believe the two energy flows will be connected somehow? Where do these ideas come from. They are not based upon any rational thought process, no logic, not from any understanding of the quantum process that creates photons and what causes them to be absorbed. So far this question is ignored and all I get are declarative statements that are based upon nothing at all. Fake science. A type of science where people just declare things. They no longer have to prove them, you all attack a very valid researcher E. Swanson that actually did a real empirical test and proved you all wrong. All you do is tell him he does not understand physics but not a one of you has done any experiments proving your false delusions.

            I have done lots of tests with IR cameras which clearly show that not one of you know what you are talking about. You just make up stuff over and over and Kristian is one of those as well. Sad state for the skeptics when all they can do is make up ideas and pat each other on the back and attack those doing real empirical science.

            I guess since Dr. Spencer lets you all have an open Mike to peddle your fake science we must all deal with it.

          • phi says:

            Norman,

            You are in a problem of thermodynamics and you stubbornly refuse to introduce thermodynamics into your reasoning. We can do nothing against this obstinacy. But just two details.

            In the case of conduction, the bodies are in direct contact but one can also model a dual energy flow carried by the molecular shocks. In the case of radiation, the contact is optical without this changing anything to the principle. Two opposing energy flows can be modeled, but they are not more independent than two opposite conductive flows.

            Your microscopic model allows to imagine a difference in value for the coefficients of emissivity and absor.ption of a body since the two phenomena are distinguished. In reality, these two phenomena form only one, for if there were any difference between these two modeled phenomena, there might be a decrease in entropy and the laws of the universe would be shaken.

          • phi says:

            And once again:

            Ramanathan and Coakley 1978, Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models. See Convective Adjustment.

            http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr15.pdf

            The parameterization of the thermal gradient leaves the system with only one degree of freedom. Any radiative imbalance can be rebalanced by only one means. It follows that in this arbitrary model, there is a perfect equality between the solar heat flux and backradiations.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Norman,

            “You can add energy and not increase the temperature.”

            This is your problem. You throw out these half truths like you are paraphrasing some law of thermodynamics. What is the context? If you add energy to well-stirred ice water, the temperature will remain constant until the ice is all melted. You can heat a surface just enough to replenish what is being lost. So what else aren’t we skeptics getting?

            “If you would open your mind to the idea that energy can flow in more than one direction.”

            What is that supposed to mean? The sentence Gordon responded with Huh??? was unintelligible. Did you mean the change in temperature is not determined/influenced/caused by the amount of energy absorbed? What else does change temperature other than a loss or gain of energy?

            I think your AGW paradigm prevents you from proper understanding of basic physics. This is what I am interested in discussing with you. Frankly, I would avoid discussions with folk who think EM waves are not a form of energy and stick to the heat/energy flow arguments.

          • Norman says:

            Chic Bowdrie

            Yes you can add energy and the temperature does not rise, this takes place in many steady state conditions. There is an addition of energy but the temperature no longer is changing. It is not so hard to determine what I mean.

            You can think a little on your own. If you see such a statement maybe think about it a bit before claiming I have a problem with understanding science.

            YOU: ““You can add energy and not increase the temperature.”

            This is your problem. You throw out these half truths like you are paraphrasing some law of thermodynamics. What is the context?”

            You provided one. I did not make a claim that in all cases that adding energy would not increase temperature. I clearly used the word “can” which means in some conditions you can add energy and not increase temperature. I am using the words correctly. Your own desire to prove something wrong or that I don’t know what I am stating leads you to false conclusions.

            A burner on the stove does change temperature initially when you add power to it. After a time it no longer changes temperature but you even have to keep adding energy or it will change temperature (cool off).

            When the burner reaches a steady state condition with its surroundings you add energy and the temperature does not change. I did not think this was such a hard thing for an intelligent poster like yourself to figure out. Also I was not responding to you at all. I guess you are someone who does not like to think about what you read and need a very clear and precise wording or you will not be able to come up with your own thoughts of what a person might be saying.

            Also what basic physics do you believe I lack in understanding. I think I know it fairly well and if you can clearly point out where I am stating flaws that would be useful and I will adapt to the correct view. At this time you have not done so.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Norman,

            I started this thread here …

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306669

            …to discuss basic physics with you, so I don’t need your permission to respond to what you post.

            “I guess you are someone who does not like to think about what you read and need a very clear and precise wording or you will not be able to come up with your own thoughts of what a person might be saying.”

            I spend way to much time trying to figure out what you write and even more being careful to write exactly what I mean. Life’s too short and time is money, etc.

            Time to get ready for the Mann-Curry debate. I’ll make a list of the basic physics we may disagree on and post later.

          • barry says:

            Phi – the parametrization of convection in R&C ’78 was very simple. Can you say why you think it is unsatisfactory?

          • phi says:

            barry,

            You ask the question the wrong way and ask the wrong person. You should talk to the authors of the Quantitative Theory (not just Ramanathan and Coakley) and ask them:

            Can you say why you think it is satisfactory?

    • David Appell says:

      Chic, if you think emissions depend on ab.sorp.tion, then give us the equation that describes that.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        David,

        Separate equations are required for liquid/atmosphere interfaces and solid/atmosphere surfaces. On a dry surface you can ignore the evaporation term. In general, you have the basic diffusion equation dT/dt = (K/cp)d2T/dx2 where d represents partial derivatives, T temp, t time, K heat conductivity, c specific heat, p density, and x some distance relative to the surface/air interface.

        You would have to solve that equation with boundary conditions defined at the surface x=0, -K(dT/dx) = S(t) – H(Ts – Ta), where S is the solar input function, H represents a combination of radiation, evaporation, and conduction rate coefficients, and Ts and Ta represent the temperatures of the surface and air. If it could be solved, theoretically you could let time go to infinity and make a few assumptions like no wind, but in the end I think you would still be left with estimates for the relative contributions of radiation, evaporation, and conduction.

  146. Snape says:

    Gordon

    “The statement by Clausius uses the concept of passage of heat. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means net transfer of energy as heat, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.”

    The word heat is used to mean different things. Just like the word “chip” means one thing in the US, and something different in England.

    Some use it as a verb, “to make hotter”, or a noun, “the sensation of warmth”. David Appell calls EMR heat. You and Ball4 and many others call the kinetic energy of vibrating atoms heat.

    Roy Spencer explains that in thermodynamics, heat is often used to describe the net transfer of energy, and believes that was the intent of Clausius when he stated the 2LOT.

    When used in that way, energy can only pass from a cold body to a warmer one, and is NOT heat. Used in that way, heat can ONLY pass from warm to cold. I would not presume to disagree.

    Perhaps you could quote Clausius definition of heat?

    • David Appell says:

      Used in that way, heat can ONLY pass from warm to cold. I would not presume to disagree.

      Only in adiabatic systems.

      The Earth isn’t an adiabatic system.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      snape…”Roy Spencer explains that in thermodynamics, heat is often used to describe the net transfer of energy, and believes that was the intent of Clausius when he stated the 2LOT”.

      I’m not getting into a p***ing contest with Roy. I am a guest here and I respect the work Roy does at UAH. I also agree with him in principle on his views on global warming. However, Clausius said nothing about the net transfer of energy when he formulated the 2nd law.

      You should actually read both the older book and the 1879 edition to see how he arrived at his conclusions.

      As far as his statement of the 2nd law, which he called the 2nd principle, He states on page 79 of the 1879 edition of the Mechanical Theory of Heat:

      “A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation”.

      His explanation of compensation as posted by me was quoted out of context by some posters here as Clausius claiming heat could be transferred both ways. He said:

      “It is true that by such a process (as we have seen by going through the original cycle in the reverse direction) heat may be carried over from a colder into a hotter body: our principle however declares that simultaneously with this passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body there must either take place an opposite passage of heat from a hotter to a colder body…”.

      This compensation does take place in a refrig.e.r.ator or an air conditioner but with normal heat transfer it does not. He made the statement in regarding a heat engine in which T, P, and V are changing. During that process, heat is drawn naturally from a heat bath when T must remain constant. It’s not possible under those conditions to reverse that process unless you change the system so you can simultaneously replace the heat lost by the colder body.

      The following is the quote re radiation which posters on here took as proof of a two way transfer via radiation:

      from Chapter 12 page 295…(actual page not Adobe page)

      “Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by experience, as increase of heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter”.

      I have tried to explain that Clausius, as well as Kircheoff, Boltzmann, and Planck, regarded heat as rays that could be radiated from a body. Here, Clausius is obviously calling the EM radiation heat. He is not implying that heat can be TRANSFERRED both ways and he makes that abundantly clear.

      He states that heat increases in the colder body at the expense of the hotter body. He does not in any way infer a heat transfer from cold to hot.

      Clausius can be forgiven that ambiguity because he was not privy to the relationship between EM and electrons, as suggested by Bohr in 1913. Even at that he does not suggest a net transfer of energy of any kind. He states clearly that the radiation both ways ALWAYS results in the heating of the colder body at the expense of the hotter body.

  147. Snape says:

    Whoops! I meant to write, “used in that way, energy can pass from a cold body to a warmer one, and is NOT heat.”

    The word “only” was a typo.

  148. gbaikie says:

    Years ago, I posted about how much energy would needed to heat an atmosphere without having the energy of sunlight.

    So you have small dwarf planet, and fly towards to stars, and heat an atmosphere with nuclear power.

    One could say it was a thought experiment, and maybe one could even travel to a different star at a relatively slow speed- hundreds of km per second, rather a fraction of speed of light, around hundred thousand km per second.

    Nothing new about taking slow boat to stars, but instead was the question could the pseudo science of “greenhouse effect theory” provide an answer. Or would using the magical powers of greenhouse gases reduce the energy needed.

    • David Appell says:

      There would be a greenhouse effect if there are greenhouses gases in the atmosphere.

      • gbaikie says:

        So use super greenhouse gases?
        “The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) deemed sulfur hexafluoride the world’s most powerful greenhouse gas, with the chemical weighing in at a stout 22,200 times more heat trapping than CO2.”
        https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-4

        And/or:
        “Scientists say they have discovered a man-made greenhouse gas 7,100 times as strong as carbon dioxide. More bad news: It has a lifetime of hundreds of years.

        Researchers at the University of Toronto in Canada say the chemical perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA) is the most radiatively efficient chemical found to date, breaking all other chemical records for its potential to impact climate. ”
        https://www.voanews.com/a/perfluorotrybutylamine-greenhouse-gas/1807593.html

        And:
        “…
        But theoretically, if we were able to pump greenhouse gases into Mars atmosphere, we could warm the surface of the planet enough for liquid water to be stable on the surface, as it was in the distant past (roughly 3.5 billion years ago). The thicker atmosphere would also provide enough pressure to help water remain stable.

        One way this might be possible, McKay says, is to manufacture super-greenhouse gases or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) in automated factories. These compounds would trap the heat from sunlight on Mars, without disrupting the planet’s fragile ozone layer or posing a toxic threat to human settlers. ”
        https://www.popsci.com/climate-change-on-red-planet#page-2

      • David Appell says:

        In fact we can go even further — any planet with an atmosphere has a greenhouse effect.

        (Due to collisional states that temporarily ab.sorb IR.)

    • gbaikie says:

      I was having problems posting, and that was a test.
      Since time, I learned a few things, and now would do it differently.
      One problem of using a dwarf planet is the lack of gravity and if you want pressure, you have to have a very tall atmosphere.

      Since that time, I thought idea of using water to give enough pressure for humans to breathe without a pressure suit. So all need is enough air pressure so as to increase boiling point of water.
      This would lessen the problem of the lack of gravity, but lower gravity is still a problem. Now one can solve lack of gravity by simply creating artificial gravity- you create a large wheel, spin wheel, and live within the rim of wheel.
      As is described in L5 society:
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society
      (space habitat called the Stanford torus)

      But as said main thing, was question how much energy is needed to heat an atmosphere.
      And related to this, is a question, would more atmosphere require more heating or less heating.
      Or since on topic, how about, would the Stanford torus require less heating as compared to dwarf planet?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gbaikie…”Nothing new about taking slow boat to stars, but instead was the question could the pseudo science of greenhouse effect theory provide an answer”.

      If there was no Sun, no weather, just a still atmosphere under the influence of a significant gravitational field, I think the Ideal Gas Law could apply. However, the proximity of a +3K space temperature beyond the atmosphere would make it very difficult to warm the place.

      I don’t think any greenhouse of any kind would help, unless as you, say, you built a nuclear reactor under a real greenhouse.

      • gbaikie says:

        “I dont think any greenhouse of any kind would help, unless as you, say, you built a nuclear reactor under a real greenhouse. ”

        Say have 2 million square km of real greenhouses vs an atmosphere over 2 million square km.
        What is difference in terms energy used?

        Or say had choice of the height of real greenhouse. A greenhouse with ceiling 10 meters high, vs ceiling 50 km high which height of ceiling require least energy to maintain a temperature?
        And let’s say air temperature was -80 C or 200 K at the surface.

        And also say didn’t have atmosphere or real greenhouse and wanted to keep the surface at 200 K. Would/could a surface require less energy to keep at 200 K (2 million square km of surface).

        • gbaikie says:

          How about something smaller.

          100 km diameter dome which was hemisphere.
          Within it, a 80, 60, 40, and 20 km diameter dome.
          The 100 km diameter dome has .5 psi air pressure and air temperature of 200 K. The 80 km diameter dome has 1 psi, and 60 km has 1.5 psi, 40 km has 2 psi, and 20 km diameter dome has 2.5 psi pressure with air temperature of 10 C.
          How energy is needed to maintain 10 C (283 K) air temperature in the 20 km diameter dome?

          Try it on a planet, Mars, have 100 km diameter dome and it is .5 psi pressure at the top dome. So it has 1/2 psi greater pressure than air above it (which near zero psi, being 50 km in elevation) and should significantly more pressure than .5 psi at the Mars surface. And air temperature at surface is 200 K – which colder than average temperature of Mars. So rather than cool it, we could put it in the shade and/polar regions. So say, polar regions in large impact crater.

          Or skip the 200 K, how warm would be if at equator due to sunlight, during the daytime, and then want to heat it during night so as to maintain a constant pressure of 1/2 psi at top of dome.
          To determine night time heat needed, first need to know how much air is heated during day. And it gets about 600 watts per square meter of sunlight.
          And for air to warm, the surface needs to warm. If you reduce the amount the surface warms, the air warms slower.
          So to save the heating needed you could cover surface with water, and you could warm the air by warming the water.
          So got meter depth of water, and in morning is heated to 1 C, and how much does water warm during the day?

          Now, it seems to me, that if had a smaller greenhouse, the water would warm faster. Or seems 100 meter diameter greenhouse should warm faster than 100 km diameter greenhouse (both at .5 psi pressure). Though it seems larger greenhouse takes longer to cool.
          Mars pressure: “The resulting mean surface pressure is only 0.6% of that of Earth (101.3 kPa).” – wiki
          14.7 psi times .6% is .088 psi or .5 psi is about 5.7 times more pressure.

          If tried to make 100 km diameter dome on Earth and had .5 psi at top of dome, that would make pressure quite a bit higher at surface. You could solve that problem by using helium gas, which would rise, which should allow less pressure difference at surface. And with Mars, if air is CO2, water vapor might work somewhat similar to using helium on Earth. Though with Mars the difference at surface should not be a lot even if did not have the added water vapor.

  149. Snape says:

    DA

    “Used in that way, heat can ONLY pass from warm to cold. I would not presume to disagree.

    Only in adiabatic systems.

    The Earth isnt an adiabatic system.”

    ***********

    When used that way, heat can only pass from warm to cold……..even in an adiabatic system. If you disagree, give an example where that is not true.

  150. Snape says:

    David,

    Another whoops! I meant to write:

    “When used that way, heat can only pass from warm to cold..even in an OPEN system. If you disagree, give an example where that is not true.”

    Sorry about that.

  151. Entropic man says:

    Gbaikie

    From the photos, the Stanford torus was designed to have a Biosphere II style managed ecosystem as a life support system, rather than the machinery you might use on a nuclear submarine.

    That limits what you can do with the atmosphere. You could get away with 700 millibars pressure to ease the pressure load on the structure.

    Learn the lesson of Apollo I. You would need a breathable nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere to limit the fire risk.

    CO2 would need to be enough for plant growth, but far enough below 3% to make it breathable for the occupants. The GHE would contain some heat, but you would need a lot more detail to work out sensible numbers.

    Heating the atmosphere would only be part of temperature management for the whole structure. Also too complex to make guesses here.

    Considering the problems with Biosphere II, you might have to build several toruses and be willing to tinker until you got it right.

    • ren says:

      The carbon dioxide in the blood ensures the release of oxygen into the cells. When you breathe quickly, you exhale too much carbon dioxide and the brain is hypoxic.

  152. ren says:

    Carbon dioxide is a great remedy for many diseases if there is enough oxygen in the air.
    “In the course of evolution the human organism and the highest animals have developed a self-governing aerial system in the form of pulmonary alveolar air which contains about 6.5% of CO2 and 7% less oxygen than in the ambient air. This is apparently the minimum level of CO2 that provides normal metabolic activities in cells. For example, reduction of CO2 in the lungs due to hyperventilation offsets рН to the alkaline medium which alters vitamin and ferment activity. When the activity of metabolic regulators changes, normal metabolism shutters and this leads to loss of cells. If CO2 comes down to 3% and рН offsets to 8%, the organism dies.”
    https://www.buteyko.ru/eng/interw.shtml

  153. Snape says:

    David
    Read again: “As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means net transfer of energy as heat, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.”

    The atmosphere absorbs 358.2 w/m^2 from the surface. The surface only absorbs 340.3 from the atmosphere. The net transfer of energy, i.e. “passage of heat” is therefore 17.9 w/m^2 from surface to atmosphere.

    (note: the atmosphere receives an additional net gain (heat) from the surface in the form of evaporation and conduction/convection)

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/640px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

  154. As I have said I think AGW is over with this year being the first of lower temperatures with many to come.

    If my theory is correct then my prediction will be correct. We are finding out now.

  155. Snape says:

    David

    Both sets of numbers show the net energy flows are from surface to atmosphere. Do you not see that?

  156. A PREDICTION I KNOW THAT IS CORRECT.

    No matter how steep and or quick global temperatures fall(IF), David will be the last man standing when it comes to defending AGW, and will still say it is still alive and well.

    Last man standing.